Basis of Morality
Respected Ali Sina!
Sir, as you yourself admit, humans sometimes commit such horrible crimes which are unbelievable. Recently the gang rape of a girl in Delhi who later died is one such example. It is understood that mere laws cannot keep a person away from these crimes.
You say that humans have moral consciousness because of evolution and Muslims are diseased humans because of their religion. If Muslims are diseased, what happened to other people who are evolutionary healthy?
Isn’t there a need of strong belief in the life after death because all people will not keep away from evil merely thinking that they are humans and they should not fall to the level of animals or even lower. Isn’t the call of conscience a proof of some creator and life after death?
Dear Nissar,
Laws alone are not enough to deter people from committing crime. They must also have an inner moral compass. This compass is a product of human evolution.
Our morality, like our intelligence, is a function of our brain. How do you make people smarter? You need a good mind and good training. If the brain is physically defective, for example, if a person has Down syndrome or has some other form of learning disability, it is not easy for that person to become an Einstein. He may become a prodigy in music or other arts, but his IQ will be low.
The next factor is training. If Einstein had been born in an Islamic country where instead of science books, which he was given at the age of ten, he was given the Quran, he would have become another idiot mullah and not the genius that he became.
You may compare the brain to a computer: both the hardware and the software must work property for the computer to do its work.
Morality works in much the same way as intelligence does. You need both a healthy mind and a good moral education to develop a high moral quotient. People suffering from certain emotional disorders, such as narcissists and sociopaths don’t have empathy. Empathy is a Greek word. It translates as “in suffering”. It is the ability to feel the pain and suffering of others. Narcissists and sociopaths cannot recognize the feelings and needs of others. “This deficiency renders them emotionally and cognitively crippled. They exploit, manipulate, and abuse other people because they are unable to relate to them otherwise.” [From the book “Malignant Self-love: Narcissism Revisited” by Sam Vaknin – Click on this link to purchase: http://www.narcissistic-abuse.com/thebook.html]
Vaknin compares narcissists to robots or machines. “In many important respects they are forms of alien and artificial intelligence. They lack the ability to empathize, that quintessence that makes us human in the first place. Consequently, they regard others as mere instruments of gratification to be used, abused, and then contemptuously discarded.” That is exactly what those men did to that young girl in New Delhi.
Crimes such as what you mentioned happen everywhere. Sociopaths love torturing and abusing others. They get a high from it. They can’t feel remorse because they can’t relate with the pain that they cause to others. Inflicting pain on others excites them. They need to see the agony of their victims to satisfy their sadistic craving. By destroying others, crushing them, torturing them, raping them and dismembering them they feel empowered. No amount of education and preaching will help. There is no solution except removing them from the society. They are damaged humans, beyond repair.
The question is how these people became damaged in the first place and what we can do to prevent that happening to others. Psychology, not religion, provides the answer.
Abused children are more likely to develop one form or another of mental disorder. Patriarchal societies are abusive towards children and towards women. Misogyny results in lowering women’s self-esteem. These women become mothers and pass that low self-esteem to their children. As the result everyone in patriarchal societies is damaged.
Low self-esteem results in depression, paranoia, borderline, dependent, histrionic, obsessive-compulsive, narcissistic, antisocial, and other forms of personality disorders. It is no secret that these disorders are more prevalent among Muslims than among Europeans. It is far more likely that Muslims resort to aggression to resolve their conflicts than Canadians. Most Muslim women suffer from depression. Most Muslim men suffer from narcissism. These disorders are the result of patriarchy that has afflicted Muslim families and Muslim societies. No patriarchal society can produce emotionally healthy individuals, whether it is Islamic or not. Although sociopaths exist in all societies, there are more of them in male dominated patriarchal societies.
We cannot get rid of crime by imposing more stringent laws. The laws of Islam are draconian and yet there is more rape, more homicide and more crimes of all sorts in Islamic countries than in non-Muslim countries. The punishment against homosexuality in Islam is death, and yet almost all Muslim Arabs are gay. An apostate friend of mine living in a Persian Gulf state said her fiancé’s car broke and a nice Arab man stopped to help. He gave them a ride to the town and first dropped her English fiancé. As soon as he was out of the car, this nice gentleman started talking about sex, saying how Arab men are better at sex than the whites. He said he is married but still likes to have sex with other women and also men. He told her about Filipino male prostitutes acting as masseuse and said everyone does it. There you have it. I want to be conservative, so I say 90% of Arab men are gay. Has the death punishment stopped it?
When Muhammad promises young pearly boys to pious men in paradise, the message is that this is something divine that you get only as reward. If that is such a wonderful think then how can you prohibit it in this world?
Alcohol is prohibited in Islam. Don’t Muslims drink? They don’t eat pork, but had Muhammad promised pork in heaven Muslims would have eaten it secretly. The stupidity of Muhammad is beyond belief and the stupidity of so many educated people who think that narcissist was a prophet is even more astounding.
You can reduce petty theft by introducing a draconian law such as chopping the hand of the thief, but you can’t get rid of white collar theft. Why would otherwise politicians and the ruling mullahs be so rich? If you steal a loaf of bread you lose your hand but if you steal millions and billions, you are okay.
Then again, is the morality be based on fear moral? Can a cat who does not steal your food because he is afraid of you be called a moral cat? The moment you turn your head he’ll steal your food. Moral is one who has an inner control. If you put a gun on someone’s head you can make him do anything. You can ask for his valet and even his shirt and he’ll hand it to you. Can we then conclude that this person is a generous person? Of course not! A person who gives you money under threats cannot be called generous, moral or virtuous. These higher qualities that define our humanity become relevant through freedom. If I don’t steal from you because I fear you I cannot be called an honest man. Only when I don’t steal even when you are not watching and I can get away with it, I can be called an honest person. The morality based on fear is not moral at all.
Religious morality, and here my emphasis is on Islam, is based on fear. Not just fear but also greed. In Islam the concept of doing something right for the sake of it does not exist. The motivation is either reward or punishment. Everything a Muslim does is either for the greed of reward or for the fear of punishment. You can’t call this ethos morality.
In Islam, humans are deemed to be like animals that can only respond to either stick or to carrot. The question is why. To find the answer you have to revisit my theory about Muhammad’s narcissism.
A narcissist projects his own values on others. Since he lacks morality and will do anything when he knows he can get away with it, he believes everyone will do the same. He disdains others because he disdains himself. Deep down inside he knows that he is a wretched person. He is motivated only by greed and deterred by fear. When the narcissist becomes a cult leader, (as all of them try and often succeed forming a mini cult, which may consist of a co-dependent partner) they keep their followers in leash through fear and empty promises of rewards. This is the only value system they are familiar with.
Muhammad’s hell and his heaven are the products of his narcissistic mind. He could not understand why anyone would do anything without the greed for a reward or the fear of a punishment. An emotionally mature person does not need any reward or punishment to do the right thing. They do the right thing because it is the right thing to do.
A child may become motivated to study if he is promised a reward or if he fears failing his grades. Adults don’t need such motivations to learn. They go after learning because they love it. The learning is the reward in itself.
How we judge others boils down to who we are. If you are Muhammad or a follower of him, you see others the way you are. This is called projection. You are not motivated to do anything without reward or punishment. Therefore, when you become the law giver, your laws reflect your own sick personality and will be based on either fear or greed. That is why Muhammad’s laws are the way they are.
This is not how morality is defined. We cannot say any Muslim is a moral person. We can call them moral only if they do the right thing without the fear of a hell and greed of a heaven, in other words, when they are no longer Muslims.
As for the crime in Delhi, the man who injured the girl by pushing an iron rod into her vagina which caused her death was a Muslim. Apart from being a sociopaths he grew up listening to the mullahs telling him how the unbelieving women are sluts and how the prophet allowed Muslims to rape them. Not all Muslims do such thing but all Muslims approve of what Muhammad did and said. All Muslims defend that fiend’s crimes. All Muslims praise that monster. All Muslims promote the sunnah of that evildoer. How then can you call them innocent?
During the current year thousands of Muslims were butchered for a fault of a few though the killers belonged to Buddhism, which you call a good religion. Why did they fall so low although they were not the followers of a bad religion?
If I cared about people’s approval, I would have said I condemn all acts of violence from whichever side it may be. That sounds like a cliché and everyone says it. Even Muslims say it, though disingenuously. But that would make me a hypocrite like them. I rather receive approval from my own conscience than receive it form others.
I don’t condemn the violence of the Buddhist against Muslims. Now this is an outrageous thing to say – something my foes will love to quote to portray me as a war monger. So why do I say such thing?
Yes it is very sad that innocent Muslims are killed by Buddhists. But I don’t condemn it, because if the Buddhists don’t stop the Islamic invasion today they will lose their country and then they will be slaughtered just as we Persians were slaughtered and the Copts are being slaughtered.
There should be no tolerance towards Islam. We know what Islam teaches and what Muslims do. The Quran gives three choices to non-believers, accept Islam, or get out of your land because it now belongs to us, or we will kill you. I cannot force Muslims to denounce this teaching. But I can encourage others to adopt it. Why it is so wrong for Buddhists to do to Muslim invaders in their country what Muslims do to others all over the world? Why when these things are said in the Quran they are deemed to be divine and when I approve of them they become evil? Why it is okay to kill the Copts in Egypt and it is wrong to kill Muslims in Burma. The Muslims in Burma are invaders, while the Copts are the original inhabitants of Egypt. Why so much hypocrisy? I will not condemn the killing of Muslims in Burma until the killing of Copts in Egypt ends, until the killing of Hindus in Kashmir ends, until the abuse of the Hindus in Pakistan and in Bangladesh ends. Until the Muslims in Philippine stop their terrorism against the Christians, until the Muslims in Nigeria stop their violence against the Christians. Enough with hypocrisy! If the Burmese let the Muslims, soon they will be the persecuted ones in their own country. The Muslims in Burma came from Bangladesh, from where they exterminated the Hindus. Let them go back to where they came from. Who said the life of a Muslim is worth more than the life of non-Muslims? Yes Muslims think that way but they are wrong. If we don’t value our lives and don’t defend it while we still can they will butcher us like they do sheep and cattle during their Eid al-Adha.
Anyone who has read my articles knows that I don’t promote violence. I value life, all life, including the life of animals. I don’t believe a stone, or a building or a book to be sacred. They are just things. But I believe life is sacred. So why would I say such thing? Because I want to highlight the hypocrisy of Muslims! I want them to condemn me as a hate monger for echoing what they believe to be the word of God.
If what I say is evil, (and it is) let Muslim condemn the Quran first before they condemn me. Let them denounce these evil teachings and the evil man who said them first. Tolerance is a two way street. You can’t expect everyone to be tolerant to Muslims and ignore the fact that Muslims are intolerant of everyone.
The Buddhists in Burma are giving Muslims a taste of their own medicine. Yes innocent people also get killed. But Muslims are waging a war of conquest and domination. In a war you don’t ask who is innocent and who is not. You ask on whose side you are. We (the free world) nuked Hiroshima and Nagasaki and killed thousand s of innocent people including children, but I don’t condemn it because that bombing ended the war and saved millions of lives. We bombed Berlin and destroyed that city, killing as many as we could, but I don’t condemn it, because it demoralized the belligerent Germans and made them surrender. Had the war continued millions more would have been killed.
The Germans and the Japanese had a fanatical belief that they will never be defeated. This unrealistic belief made them so cut off from reality that they continued the war even when it was clear to everyone else that they will not win. They needed an awakening and only then they accepted defeat and stopped their insane attacks. Remember that they were the aggressors. They started the war.
Muslims have the same fanatical belief. They think they will be victorious. As Muhammad assured them in the Quran, they think they can win armies that are ten times superior to them. That is why they continue this war and push their plan to conquer the world through ghazwa (terrorism) and taqiyyah (deception).
If we don’t stop Muslims now, the whole world will be lost and billions of people may be killed. We have no other choice. We cannot submit to Muslims. And since dialogue for Muslims is out of question the only thing left for us is to fight them.
The attacks on Muslims started when a few Bengali Muslims assaulted and brutally butchered a Buddhist girl. This sparked the violence and led the Buddhists to kill the Muslims. The question is why Muslims think Buddhists girls are legitimate target? The problem is that this kind of barbarity is sanctioned in the Quran. That son of the bitch Muhammad did it so his followers do it. Are you still telling me Muslims are innocent? No there is no such thing as innocent Muslim. Anyone who agrees with Muhammad’s crimes and strives to emulate that criminal is not innocent.
Innocent Muslim makes as much sense as innocent Nazi. Yes of course there were innocent Nazis or just plain Germans who followed the orders. It does not matter whether your enemy is innocent or not. He is the enemy and if you don’t kill him he will kill you. This enmity is not instigated by me. It is instigated by Muhammad who has repeatedly warned his followers not to take as friends the unbelievers, even if they are their brothers and father.
How can a person who believes in the Quran that says slay the unbelievers wherever you find them, cut their throats from above their necks, crucify them and chop their finger tips, be harsh with them, they are filthy, don’t befriend them and other delightful things such as these be called innocent? No Muslim who thinks non-Muslims should be slain can be innocent. Let us call a spade a spake and drop this stupid politically correct nonsense talk. If you are a Muslim it follows you believe in the Quran. Then you approve all that hate and violence against me and everyone who is not a Muslim. So how can you be innocent? You are guilty as sin. There is no such thing as innocent Muslim. There are ignorant Muslims and terrorist Muslims . If you are ignorant here is the truth. Open your eyes and learn what your religion says. If you disagree then leave Islam as most of us have. But if you still want to remain a Muslim don’t pretend to be innocent.
My plan is to awaken Muslim with my writings. If it fails we have no other choice but to stop them with force. We should give them the same three choices they give us. Leave Islam, or leave our countries or face our wrath. We don’t want your religion, take it away and shove it where it belongs. Go back to where you came from. We have no tolerance for a religion that does not have tolerance.
When the masses wake up and see the plot and how their leftist governments have betrayed them and how their treasonous liberal media have lied to them they will rise and Muslims will find no peace in Europe and in America. It would be brutal, it would be bloody and ugly, but it would be far worse if we did nothing. Islam is a cancer. This tumor must be removed before it is late.
My work is like therapy. I hate bloodshed and that is why I am doing everything I can to rescue Muslims from their madness and make them see Muhammad was a mentally sick man. He lied. We are brothers not enemies. But if I fail the bloody alternative will be inevitable. And yes I approve it, because if we wait billions could perish and human civilization could be lost. I am a man of peace, but not a pacifist. I am also pragmatic. There is a time to talk, a time to reason., a time for peace, a time for tolerance and a time for war.
In one article you wrote that even after death ‘I’ remains there. What does that mean?
We survive through our work. We all survive though the impact that we make on others and the changes that we bring to the world. When you throw a stone on a pound, the stone will sink and will disappear but the ripples that it generates survive and keep expanding. Muhammad is living in all the evil, violence and bloodshed that he left behind. Still people are killed because that evil soul lived. Galileo is living through the enlightenment and progress that he brought to the world. Hitler is living through all the pain that he caused to mankind. Mother Teresa is living through all the lives that she enriched and the legacy of love that she left behind. My grandmother, an illiterate unknown woman, lives though the love she had for her children and for me. I too will survive, just as you and everyone else will. How we survive depends on what we leave behind. I hope to leave enlightenment and a world with less violence and less hate. I will survive in the lives of the children and grandchildren of all those whom I helped to leave Islam, who will now go after science and improve their lives instead of wasting in in a religion of hate and obscurantism. I will be living in the lives of millions, even when they don’t know my name.
Whenever a man suffers he calls his God even if he has never been a worshiper. Doesn’t it point that there is some Listener otherwise why is this belief engraved in our psyche. It is said that the greatest atheist also remembered God at the time of death. Please throw light.
Only believers in God say such thing. I have stopped praying a long time ago. I don’t say that God does not exist. I don’t know. But what I am certain of is that no one is listening. You might was well pray to a wall. The chance that the wall may answer your prayer is just the same as God will answer it.
The foundation of this world is based on injustice. If really a conscious being created this universe the way it is, making some sentient creatures to be food to others, that being deserves our scorn not our praise.
We live in the age of science and enlightenment. The more we discover the secrets of the universe the more a creator becomes irrelevant.
New addition Jan 20, 2013
Respected Ali Sina, Sir, Although I am not a scholar to argue with yet I would not hesitate to point towards your extremism. I would request you to just have Google search of ‘comparison between crime rate in KSA and USA’. I think by resorting to exaggeration against Islam and Muslims, you make your arguments weak. Saying that 90% of Muslims are gay is far from reality. You have yourself been a Muslim and many of your relatives will be still Muslims. I myself am living in Muslim dominated society and I acknowledge that many Muslims indulge in criminal activities but your saying that Muslims are at top of crime is only because of your extreme hatred and by resorting to misinformation you would damage your own cause. your saying ‘enemy is enemy whether innocent or not’ is very unfortunate. There is a difference between war and rioting. It is true that in a war innocent people can get killed in spite of great care but that does not make lawful for a majority to go and burn innocent people of minority. There have been riots in India not only against Muslims but against Christians also and in which Christians were burnt alive and nuns raped. The extremist Hindus accuse Christians of converting Hindus to Christianity.What do say there?
Dear Nissar,
Most crimes in Saudi Arabia are not even reported. No woman dares to report the crime of rape. The laws are stacked against her. If she cannot produce four male witnesses, she could be beaten for making false accusation but her claim can be uses as confession which can incriminate her of adultery. What to an American is considered crime to a Saudi is normal. It is very unfair to claim the KSA is better than USA and it has less crime.
I am afraid the 90% is not too exaggerated. Persians have grown out of that to a great extent. But Arabs and Afghans have not. I said 90% but this Arab gentleman said everyone. As for Persians, yes I am afraid this was true one day. We have the poetry of our celebrated poets to prove this was the case. Enlightenment entered Iran at the beginning of the 20th century and my country was changed drastically. Don’t judge Iranians by the Islamic revolution. That is not what people wanted. It was a mistake. However, as I am told homosexuality is still rampant among the clerics in Iran.
Extremism breeds extremism. Take the example of Europe. Since after the war, European countries have strived towards tolerance and have been the most liberal and free countries in the history of mankind. But lo and behold, all that is gradually changing. People are becoming restless and laws are being proposed and implemented to stop the flow of immigrants and ban some of their activities such as wearing hijab and building mosques. This is called backlash. The Europeans are becoming less tolerant as the result of the abuses that take place in their countries. This is inevitable and it would be foolish to condemn it. Anyone has the right to self-defense. Defense of our values and cultures is part of it.
Problems must be solved from where they originate. Band Aid solutions don’t solve the problem. Blaming both side is not smart but very foolish. In every fight one person is guilty. We should not condemn both.
Look at what happened in Yugoslavia. On the surface it seemed that the Serbs were persecuting the helpless innocent Muslims. But when you dig deeper it becomes clear that they were only reacting to centuries of Muslim abuse.
In the 15th century, the Ottoman Turks, without provocation, invaded and conquered Christian Albania, the Romanian kingdoms (Wallachia and Moldova), Bulgaria, Serbia, Bosnia, southern Croatia, what is now Greece, and most of Hungary. Albania fell after a heroic resistance by the Christian Albanians under Gjergj Skanderbeg. Bosnia fell by 1485 with little difficulty. Serbia put a heroic and famous series of revolts against the invading Muslims in the fields of Serbia’s Kosovo in 1389 that left the Ottoman sultan Murat slain, and Belgrade (1456). Despite their heroic resistance to unprovoked conquests of the mighty Ottomans, the Serbs fell and became subjects of the Ottoman realm like their Bosnian brothers for the next 400 years.
Under the Muslims, the Serbs and Bosnians enjoyed no freedom of religion. The ancient lands of the Serbs and Bosnians were taken, their great palaces and treasures becoming the property of a hated and very foreign enemy. The conquest of these free peoples was not provoked. Christians lived as second-class citizens in their own homelands, unable to enjoy political franchise unless they either betrayed their nation and families by converting to Islam and fighting their own countrymen and fellow Christians in the Ottoman armies (the Janissaries). A blood tax called devshirme forced Christian European mothers to give up every few male family members (varies by population census) to be forcibly conscripted into the Janissary elite in Istanbul after forced conversion to Islam, with many returning to their nations to fight against the villages of their birth. The majestic wealth and education the Islamic world had to offer at this time of Muslim conquest was often quite appealing to many families for their sons instead of death or starvation. Their options were to adopt Islam or, in many cases, starve to death. Many families under Islamic rule professed submission to Islam solely to inherit the benefits, but instead practiced the faith of their heritage in private to avoid persecution or death. Apostasy was punished by death. The Christian natives also paid inordinate taxes. Balkan subjects, often prone to famine and underproduction of grain at this time, were barely able to survive, let alone pay large taxes. [Read more here]
The Janissaries. Christian children taken to Istanbul and forcefully converted to Islam.
When in 1805 the Serbians rebelled, the Muslims quashed their rebellion and massacred them ruthlessly. To warn others from doing the same they erected a tower with the Serbian sculls.
This is just one example where on the surface it appeared that the non-Muslims were persecuting the innocent Muslims. Everywhere, where there is a conflict between Muslims and non-Muslims, even when Muslims look as victims and the underdogs, they are the culprits. Muslims are always the guilty party. I hate the word “always”. Logically, there should be exceptions to any rule, and I would love to find that exception. If anyone can help I’d be grateful. Show me one case where Muslims are victimized without provocation.
You mentioned the persecution of the Christians in the hands of Hindus. I could also bring other cases such as the crusades and the inquisition where on the surface Islam had nothing to do with them. But that is only on the surface.
Hinduism is not a religion. It is a spiritual tradition of Indians consisting of many philosophies. Most of these philosophies, if not all, are peaceful and tolerant. However, Hindus have witnessed how their country was destroyed and partitioned by Muslims and this has made them sensitive to foreign influences. They can’t do much about Islam anymore but they want to prevent a similar takeover by the Christian. So it is really because of their bitter experience with Islam that they have become intolerant of any alien ideology.
In my book I have also explained how Islam influenced the Catholic Church and how the crusades and the Inquisition are the Church’s version of jihad and mihnah. It may sound strange, but it is a fact that if the Christians burned witches, it was because the Church had become Islamized.
It may sound extremism and only a few years ago I would have thought the same way as you do. Now, I understand Islam better. Now I know that this religion is the most evil influence in the world and much of the violence and intolerance that we witness among non-Muslims is the backlash or the copycat of Islamic violence.
This sounds so radical and so extremist that I don’t expect you to accept it, but just keep it in your mind and wherever you see Muslims are victimized, dig deeper and try to find what started it. Eventually, you will agree that what seems extremism is the correct view.
Think about it logically. Can an ideology invented by perhaps the most evil human who ever disgraced this planet, that promoted so much hatred, that glorified violence, deception, even rape and murder have no negative influence on its followers? It is inevitable for those who follow Islam to do evil things to others without provocation. And it is inevitable that their victims respond in kind.
If you expect me to tell the victims of Islam to be patient and tolerant, I am not going to do that. Islam grew because of this misplaced tolerance. The bully understands one language alone and that is the language of violence. He speaks that language and respects it.
Humanity has no other choice but to get rid of Islam. This cult is a disease. It must be removed. Muslims must pull their fingers out of their ears and listen. The message is that Muhammad was a con man and they are misguided. They must abandon that evil cult and stop spreading hate in the world. They must denounce the violent verses of the Quran, which consist of most of it, if they want to co-exist with the rest of mankind in peace. You can’t be my friend when you believe that I am filthy and it is your duty to slay me whenever you can. Denounce these evil teachings and I am here ready to embrace you like a brother.
If Muslims ignore this and continue their invasion, their raids and their deceptions, we have no other choice but to stop them. Jihad means war. Personal jihad is a deception. Greater jihad is a charade. Jihad is only one thing and that is fighting with body and wealth, slaying and being slain, to advance Islam. Any other definition of jihad is a lie.
When your enemy is an extremist you need to become an extremist. My objective is to wean Muslims from Islam and help them to come to our side. I want to break the walls of hate and make them see we are one people, that Muhammad was a liar. Like Hitler and Marx he was only a prophet of hate. But if all fails, I want the rest of the world to be ready and stop the advancement of Islam.
We are always ready to embrace you. As soon as you drop your sword and remove your hatred, as soon you denounce that Quran that calls for our murder, we are ready to be your friend. How can we be friends when every day you recite verses that tell you I am the worst of creatures, that you should not take me as your friend even if I am your brother or father, that you have to hate me in your heart even though you smile on my face to deceive me, and other delightful things like these?
Yes it is extreme, but is it unreasonable? Am I asking too much when I say do not teach your children that I am a filthy kafir and that he will be rewarded if he kills me? Can we possibly be good friend when you believe the fastest way for you to go to heaven is to slay me, that my wife is yours to enslave and to rape?
Let us be honest my friends. We cannot accept Islam and we cannot accept you as long as you hold unto its evil teachings. Let us end this hypocrisy. If you want to be my friend, denounce the Quran. We can’t have it both ways. If you still want to hold to that demonic book of hate, then it is clear that you are my enemy and I will deal with you as such.
I am not promoting hate. I am tearing down that veil of deception. I want to truth to be known. Both Muslims and non-Muslims must realize what is at stake. I am sure many Muslims don’t hate the non-Muslims as it is expected from them. I want them to know the truth about their religion and to leave this cult of hate. But those who still want to cling to their faith, are not our friends. We should know them and never turn out back to them or they will stab us the moment we least expect, just as Muhammad Ali al-Ayed stabbed and killed his friend Sellouk.
Al Ayed was a 23-year-old Saudi millionaire’s son living in America, one August evening, in 2003, called Sellouk, his old Jewish Moroccan friend and suggested they get together. The two had drinks at a bar before going to Al-Ayed’s apartment about midnight. There he took a knife, stabbed, and nearly decapitated his friend. Al-Ayed’s roommate told police the two were not arguing before Al-Ayed killed Sellouk. The reason for this cold-blooded murder was “religious differences,” said Ayed’s attorney.
As long as you are a Muslim, we cannot and we must not trust you. Anyone who does so, does it at his own peril.
typo
add "from India"
@Supriya
Don't forget to include the "Hugging saint" from "Mata Amritanandmai Devi ",the embodiment of real divinity.
Namaste
Christine missionaries are fooling poor and underpriviledged indians. They are offering money and reward to get them convert into Chritianity. But in Western world ,Sanatam Dharma is gaining popularity. Yoga , Indian scriptures are admired by science pro westerners. Westerners are visiting Indiain search of inner piece. Institutions like The Art of Livig Foundation, Brahmakumaris are representatives of Indian spirituality(One world One family).
The whole essence of Bhagwad Gita, "When someone hesitates or denies to do his duty as war which can stop an evil and seek refugee under non-violence, the he becomes the only one responsible for that evil. So raise Arjuna and do you duty as a warrior and stop the evil."
Ali Sina offers $50,000 reward to anyone who can prove him wrong.
So funny and coward. …
If he really speaks the truth and ready to maintain the truth, why only offer $50.000? why not $5000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000? If he's true, he will never be wrong.
this means that he's afraid that if he is really right or not. He's still doubt about his simple logic
And this means that his truth can only be valued $50.000.
I offer you $50000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000, if you can prove that 2 x 2 is not 4.
Anyone?
@Shabeer
Yes, prophet taught us many good things. He taught us a 80 years old man can sex with 10 years old girl. Nothing is immoral in it. Prophet taught Allah is praise loving dictator who punishes the people if he fails to get worship from them. Prophet taught us when we raid on non-believers we can do sex with the wives of non-believers.
Good and Evil:
Any jurisprudence that does not relate good and evil to the
life of Prophet is bound to fail. Nationalism, casteism or language
cannot deal with universal good. Neither can rationalism. The
European rationalism does not see anything wrong in extra marital
relationship and homosexuality (Barbara Smoker: Humanism
P. 82-84). Even Mr. Idamaruku who is supposed to be the most
progressive thinker in India is not in a position to approve this.
His son in law the European traveller, Yoran Scarner writes “They
(Idamaruku and his Wife) did not allow Geeta to come out with
me until marriage was legally registered. Indian society does not
allow premarital relationship. Even the most progressive Indian
cannot tolerate dating which is quite common in western countries’’
(Yoran Scaner: Thousand faces of India P. 29). If rationalism
is to distinguish between good and evil, the good in England
will become evil in India.
As far as Islam is concerned the words and deeds of the
prophet always remain as guidelines. We just need look into it to
ascertain what is good in anything. If we wish to distinguish between
good and evil without the help of divine revelations we
will be forced to change their definition from time to time. This is
what happened with regard to the concepts of Ahimsa and rationalism.
A clear and definited understanding of good and evil help us
to stand for good and to free ourselves from evil. This is what
happened in the history of Islam. The fact that Muslims wish to
get reward for their deeds in the world hereafter also makes them
sincere and ready for service and then showmanship or exhibi-
tionism is practically eliminated.
Islam is a religion, a religion in the full sense of the term.
Islam is introduced by God as “Deen’’. Qur’an introduces Islam
as Deen from God. The best translation of the Arabic word `Deen’
is religion. The meaning of the term religion when applied to Is-lam is to be clearly understood as it is different from what secularists
and spokesmen of established religions call religion. The
western secular concept of religion that it should be confined to
the church and the rosary beads is foreign to Islam. The philosophy
of established religions that it is the duty of religions to carry
out orders of the church and the clergy does not agree with the
precepts of Islam. What Islam does is the transformation of every
field of human activity in consonance with the dictates of God.
Religion, in the sense of Islam, is all comprehensive and it covers
every aspects of human life the individual, family, society and
politics. Islam does not give license to do what ever one likes. In
other words it is improper to define Islam as a religion with its
casual meaning.
WHO ARE DECIDED THE MORALITY /TRUTH/ ……………..PEOPLE OR THEIR CREATOR ?
Man, a Special Creation:
Islam teaches that among all the creations of God man has
distinctive and special characteristics. He has an individuality
which is absolutely different from that of any other animate or
inanimate things. There is certainly a great purpose behind the
creation of man. Man is the `Khalifa’ on earth, the only living
being with necessary powers and independent judgement. He
can make use of the universe and influence nature as well. Quite
apart from other living beings whose existence is in accordance
with nature, man is the only creation endowed with the responsibility
of independent power of discrimination. Qur’an (33:72)
introduces man as having undertaken a great responsibility
(Amanath) which the skies, the earth and the mountains refused.
While all others in nature fulfill their obligation and carry
out divine orders man is the only creation who has been given the
freedom to accept or reject such orders. This is what is meant
when man is described as the “Khalifa’’ on earth having been
given charge of certain responsibilities. Man gets the opportunity
to decide his own future through the constructive use of the skills
which will ensure success in life or through destructive use which
will result in failure in life.
Islam views man as one who makes history. It disagrees with
the philosophy of Marx that history makes man. Man cannot be
treated as a two legged animal destined to lead a life merely on
the basis of the laws of nature. In the eyes of Islam man is capable
of bringing about total change of history.
Divine Guidance:
As we have already learnt man who is the only living being
capable of making use of nature needs divine guidance. Utilization
of nature without divine guidance will only lead to the destruction
of mankind. Only someone superior to human stature
can tell him how to lead a human life. He knows that except the
Creator nothing among the creations is superior to himself. We
should then get guidance from the Creator. Islam teaches that all
the prophets were sent to achieve this goal ie to tell him how to
live like a man. All the prophets had come to the world for the
purpose of setting good examples for mankind by living a life on
the basis of divine instructions. `Risalath’, the technical term represents
this idea. The medium of contact between God and man
and between sky and earth is Risalath.
Islam does not teach that prophets were gods and that they
had any divinity in them. The concept of prophethood in Islam
goes against the Hindu theology of incarnation avatar according
to which God comes down to the earth and becomes a model of
what man should be. The argument that God comes down with all
the trivialities of man runs counter to the purity of Almighty God.
It is quite meaningless to suppose that God takes the form of man
and shows him how he should live. God is all powerful. He does
not need food or sexual pleasures. Even if He comes down He
can exist without food and human needs. It is not God who should
be a model to man. A representative from man should show the
practical manner in which man should live in accordance with
divine guidance.
Prophets were ordinary men in the sense that they had hunger
and thirst, sleep and rest, happiness and sorrow, wives and
children. But when hungry they were not the ones to lay their
hands on things belonging to others. They did not go for prostitution
to satisfy sexual needs. They did not revel in joy, nor did they
seek refuge in drug and liquor when sad. They did no injustice to
anyone for the sake of their wives. They did not earn wealth
through crime to bring up their offspring. They were men. Perfect
men
Prophets fulfilled their mission in different societies. With
the development of the intellectual capabilities of man slight
changes were effected in the sphere of law. But basically what all
the prophets said was the same thing. Worship only the Almighty
who created and maintains the universe and obey the prophets
send by him. Society was growing. All the prophets without any
exception through their exhortation, were predicting the advent
of a great prophet who would be model for all the human beings.
Mankind was waiting for the great personality who was destined
to be model for the entire human race.
//It were you who said Wehr's first meaning is "dependent". It is your understanding as copy pasted from, say, dictionary.com."
I got to the meaning of DEPENDENT from dictionary.com – AND you are admitting this//
Forget it. You are beyond reproach. I am here Saying that YOU are saying courtesy dictionary.com, Wehr is saying Accidental(Philo) means Dependent. I am not saying that I agree that it is "dependent". Is it clear now? English and logic isn't your forte for sure.
//You're talking BS again . . . what Zillions of examples? If a property is NOT intrinsic. . . THEN it is extrinsic. //
Whiteness of the football, red-hair-ness of a bachelor, being Pakistani for a person, being wooden for a chair etc. etc. If it is Extrinsic AS IN : "not essential or inherent; not a basic part or quality; extraneous", which you admitted is the meaning for Extrinsic that you are pursueing and which indeed matches with Accidental in Philosophy, then Extrinsic here doesn't mean or imply a dependent property. Here's what dictionary.com, your pet says:
1. not essential or inherent; not a basic part or quality; extraneous: facts that are extrinsic to the matter under discussion.
2. being outside a thing; outward or external; operating or coming from without: extrinsic influences.
See two different meanings. If you are using 1, you can't mean dependent, that is implied by 2.
//DOH! A simple concept
Yet still can't knock inti your head.
//It DOESN'T need to
Actually it wouldn't. Faced with evidence you always smirk. Here's what wiki says: Accident, as used in philosophy, is an attribute which may or may not belong to a subject, without affecting its essence.
See that may or may not part? It also gives a reference to the book, A History of Greek Philosophy.
//And what is this showing? You CONVENIENTLY did NOT point it out.//
It is pointing the attribute may or may not be dependent on something else.
//Being DEPENDENT and EXTRINSIC are related:
As light of Moon is dependent and extrinsic. . . .//
Thats you extension. Accidental properties may or may not be internally or externally sourced. They aren't required to be dependent, see all the examples quoted above. Its you who is pretending to know linguistics, logic or philosophy.
//Wrong . . . as I have shown in great extent. .//
Thats your claim. You said my example posits there is hard and easy in the Lisan. Read back my example about Fed and Nadal it doesn't assume hard and easy in Lisan, but in the example itself.
Rest what you say is rubbish.
//THEN IT IS EXACTLY SAME!
IT IS RECIPROCAL//
Foolish. That is in meaning not in their respective languages as a particular translated meaning.
//Else what point was being proven . . .DO make it clear! //
See again. As soon as I try to put things onto the rails, you would make some condescending remark and derail it. There is no point in proving anything to you since you have put a seal on your faculties.
//Google BACK to you. . . . So how do you know WHAT google means – by RARE?//
For that you have to know what Google means, this has nothing to do with your being a linguist.
//Order in a lexicon generally follows usual order of use. Else . . .evidence?//
Pick up any lexicon and check.
//That is meaning of Extrinsic I have used.
It DOES point to . . .MOON light is of an external source. //
And thats exactly what your extension is. This meaning of Extrinsic doesn't POINT to any external source. See the first line of wiki I have quoted.
The fact that muslims follow and admire a sick man who is written in their own scriptures (Quran, Hadis etc) clear enough that they are idiots. The can not tell the difference between a human from an animal. Mohammad is not human, he is the lowest animal wrapped in a human body. Poor muslims…when you follow someone make sure the person you follow is better than you…why do you follow someone rapist, pedophile, looter, idiot, cruel etc etc…use your brain once in a while…dont just carry them…use it to think…
"No they needn't be equally rare. Aradi can have 10 meanings in English one of which is Extrinsic, while Extrinsic might have 5 corresponding words in Arabic. Translating Aradi to Extrinsic in English isn't same as translating Extrinsic to Aradi in Arabic. "
DOH! DOH! DOH! DOH!
When the MEANING is SPECIFIC – that is Aradi –
THEN IT IS EXACTLY SAME!
IT IS RECIPROCAL.
– – –
"This is your attitude whenever a point is proven against you. "
Wrong . . . as I explain what the "Guff" is . . .
Else what point was being proven . . .DO make it clear!
This simply SHOWS you have NO RESPONSE.
– – –
"Till yesterday I believed that by Extrinsic you mean External"
Despite ME giving you exact quotes . . . hence that is MY DRILLING.
– – –
"because only that meaning gives you Reflected, Sourced From outside, dependent kind of meaning,"
Nope . . . see how good you are at deception.
"not essential or inherent; not a basic part or quality; extraneous"
That is meaning of Extrinsic I have used.
It DOES point to . . .MOON light is of an external source.
– – –
"I explained that kariji won't go well with zaati'un. If the proper word isn't used the other word used for contrast won't fit. "
See what I mean . . .
YOU HAVE 0% skills in Arabic.
Yet look at the deception . .. THE PRETENSE!
Ha ha hah ah ha ha . . .
YOU ARE SHAMELESS
– – –
"If you haven't seen google's explanation then you don't know it. Simple. "
Doh!
Doh!
Google BACK to you. . . . So how do you know WHAT google means – by RARE?
– – –
"Foolish you didn't read the response I had given immediately above this comment against 3 similar comments from me. "
Which HAD nothing to do with anything related.
– – –
"Relevance of usage depends on context. Almaany isn't defining any context. Order in a lexicon generally follows usual order of use. "
DOH! DOH! DOH!
"Order in a lexicon generally follows usual order of use."
If you HAVE not read . . .what almaan says. . . .
YOU do no know.
Ha!
YOU do NOT know this:
"Order in a lexicon generally follows usual order of use."
Else . . .evidence?
"That was mischievousness. "
And look what do you call it!
Even at that . . .HENCE I was NEVER EVER dishonest!
As YOU failed to prove it.
– – –
So those claims of DISHONEST were all lies!
Wrong . . . as I have shown in great extent. . .
I asked YOU to prove .. . . what do you do?
More claim . . .CLAIM does NOT equal prove.
hence you lied. . . .
I have NOT once been dishonest.
– – –
"But you immediately latched onto the words hard and easy and asked where it says hard and easy. . . "
I have rubbished this as nonsense . . . and THIS is an utter lie.
You have habit of repeating your lies . . . and then dropping them suddenly.
– – –
So the 1 example you gave turns out ot be false!
"//Dependent is the meaning obtained from Accidental . EVEN you admit this.//
I haven't. Or show me where I have said that Accidental is philosophy implies Dependency. "
Read this again:
"It were you who said Wehr's first meaning is "dependent". It is your understanding as copy pasted from, say, dictionary.com."
I got to the meaning of DEPENDENT from dictionary.com – AND you are admitting this.
– –
"Hmmm. You have dropped 'necessary' purposefully. Just as you add 'ONLY' in other places. Secondly it doesn't logically follow that the accidental property is sourced from outside. Zillions of example have been given. "
You're talking BS again . . . what Zillions of examples? If a property is NOT intrinsic. . . THEN it is extrinsic.
DOH! A simple concept
– – –
"And correctly doesn't say that it is dependent on outsider influence. "
It DOESN'T need to . . .DOH! It is OBVIOUS. It is EITHER one or the other.
Either Intrinsic or Extrinsic.
– –
"Accident, as used in philosophy, is an attribute which MAY OR MAY NOT belong to a subject, without affecting its essence"
And what is this showing? You CONVENIENTLY did NOT point it out.
THIS in no way – alters the meaning of what Aradi and Dhati are. . . .IN ANY WAY SHAPE OR FORM.
– – –
"Lisan is saying that aradi implies "Reflected Light""
BUT – it is saying . . the DIFFERENCE is . . . ONE is Extrinsic light other Intrinsic light. . . . as REGARDS to their bodies [Sun and Moon]
Usage of the word "reflect" IS NOT from Taj [Lisan]
– – –
"Dependent is not related with extrinsic when the meaning non-essential is taken for Extrinsic. Being Extrinsic says nothing about being dependent.
"
Doh! That is why you are playing meaningless semantic games in English!
And then carry on the pretense . . . that somehow you have the understanding.
Oh why . .. . my dear . . . you DO NOT.
As you do not have the SKILLS
You lied – when you say you have some grip on LOGIC – you don't.
Your grip on PHILOSOPHY is a lie too.
As your EXTENT is just to Wiki!
Being DEPENDENT and EXTRINSIC are related:
As light of Moon is dependent and extrinsic. . . .
"Crap. Taking your own example you can't say " resident born in or belonging to another country " equates to "creature from outer space; extraterrestrial". Thats exactly what you are doing in equating this particular meaning of EXTRINSIC, based on The Lisan, "non-essential" to its other meaning "being outside a thing".
"
HA HA HA HA . . . EVEN you admitted this is wrong.
DOH DOH DOH . .. see WHAT A LIAR you are!
I pointed THIS out to show . . WHY knowledge of the language is NECESSARY.
What did YOU call it?
"Crap"
– – –
Why? Just to lob this at me. .. . ELSE you are talking nonsense. ..
GO BACK and CHECK!
Your prove MY POINT.
ONE needs to understand the language!
– – –
"Thats exactly what you are doing in equating this particular meaning of EXTRINSIC, based on The Lisan, "non-essential" to its other meaning "being outside a thing". "
Absolute LIE. EVEN you admitted it.
Doh! Why did you repeat this?
– – –
"A white ball is white, it being white is an Accidental property but its whiteness is very much its own. "
Doh! In other WORDS . . . Moonlight is very much the light of the moon. But it is NOT its essential property.
Whereas – Sunlight is its essential property.
– – –
" The moon-light is not Moon's own light and Naik wants to posit that based on some understanding of muneer in Q 25:61, which nobody translated as "Moon reflecting light"."
In origin . . . moon-light is NOT its own. But the light IS from the moon – hence its own.
Wrong the difference comes from NOOR – it is the basis for the word Muneer in Arabic.
– – –
//just like LIGHT is INTRINSIC part of moon. See your ABSURDITY?//
Really? Moon isn't the source of its light.
Doh! LIGHT is INTRINSIC part of the moon.
Quote properly SON.
More dishonesty from you . . . such an EASY one.
I showed up your silliness – and this is the response you had!
By posting this. When one describes moon – light is an important feature.
It is ONLY when you talk about its source or IN COMPARISON to the Sun . . .
It's light is OF an external source. Whereas the sun generates it own.
– – –
"No dear, that is your jump from the usual to unusual. From one lexicon to another and from one meaning to another. "
WRONG! As you have NOT given any reasoning . . . JUST claimed it . . .I dismiss it in a SIMILAR way.
Just HOT AIR. Nothing more.
– – –
"How Lisan uses Aradi, and how different scholars interprete or explain a book or verse are two different and somewhat unrelated matters."
1. Lisan [Infact Taj al-Aroos] uses Aradi – FROM other scholars – It gives it sources. Those scholas often TEND to be Quran commentators.
Then later scholars USE Taj and Lisan and etc . . . to define or extend. Source for the difference IS the same Quranic verse.
There is clear relationship there.
THAT Is why knowledge of Arabic is important. DOH!
– – –
"To say the TECHNICAL meaning of Noor is "Reflected Light" is an extension. "
Maybe . . .maybe not.
Technical definition of NOOR is light that is NOT extrinsic to its body. As defined by Taj
However – Quran commentators have added to this. As THIS is ultimately about Quran.
Hence this shows WHERE Naik got his "Reflected Light" from.
HE was NOT the 1st to use this.
– – –
" The lie from Naik is that it wasn't known to mankind when Quran got revealed. "
How do you know it is a lie? Whether it was or wasn't . . .THIS is outside the scope of MY article.
http://exposingsina.wordpress.com/
Which is to show – WHY and WHERE from . . .Naik got the meaning of "Reflected light".
"Crap. Taking your own example you can't say " resident born in or belonging to another country " equates to "creature from outer space; extraterrestrial". Thats exactly what you are doing in equating this particular meaning of EXTRINSIC, based on The Lisan, "non-essential" to its other meaning "being outside a thing".
"
HA HA HA HA . . . EVEN you admitted this is wrong.
DOH DOH DOH . .. see WHAT A LIAR you are!
I pointed THIS out to show . . WHY knowledge of the language is NECESSARY.
What did YOU call it?
"Crap"
– – –
Why? Just to lob this at me. .. . ELSE you are talking nonsense. ..
GO BACK and CHECK!
Your prove MY POINT.
ONE needs to understand the language!
– – –
"Thats exactly what you are doing in equating this particular meaning of EXTRINSIC, based on The Lisan, "non-essential" to its other meaning "being outside a thing". "
Absolute LIE. EVEN you admitted it.
Doh! Why did you repeat this?
– – –
"A white ball is white, it being white is an Accidental property but its whiteness is very much its own. "
Doh! In other WORDS . . . Moonlight is very much the light of the moon. But it is NOT its essential property.
Whereas – Sunlight is its essential property.
– – –
" The moon-light is not Moon's own light and Naik wants to posit that based on some understanding of muneer in Q 25:61, which nobody translated as "Moon reflecting light"."
In origin . . . moon-light is NOT its own. But the light IS from the moon – hence its own.
Wrong the difference comes from NOOR – it is the basis for the word Muneer in Arabic.
– – –
//just like LIGHT is INTRINSIC part of moon. See your ABSURDITY?//
Really? Moon isn't the source of its light.
Doh! LIGHT is INTRINSIC part of the moon.
Quote properly SON.
More dishonesty from you . . . such an EASY one.
I showed up your silliness – and this is the response you had!
By posting this. When one describes moon – light is an important feature.
It is ONLY when you talk about its source or IN COMPARISON to the Sun . . .
It's light is OF an external source. Whereas the sun generates it own.
– – –
"No dear, that is your jump from the usual to unusual. From one lexicon to another and from one meaning to another. "
WRONG! As you have NOT given any reasoning . . . JUST claimed it . . .I dismiss it in a SIMILAR way.
Just HOT AIR. Nothing more.
– – –
"How Lisan uses Aradi, and how different scholars interprete or explain a book or verse are two different and somewhat unrelated matters."
1. Lisan [Infact Taj al-Aroos] uses Aradi – FROM other scholars – It gives it sources. Those scholas often TEND to be Quran commentators.
Then later scholars USE Taj and Lisan and etc . . . to define or extend. Source for the difference IS the same Quranic verse.
There is clear relationship there.
THAT Is why knowledge of Arabic is important. DOH!
– – –
"To say the TECHNICAL meaning of Noor is "Reflected Light" is an extension. "
Maybe . . .maybe not.
Technical definition of NOOR is light that is NOT extrinsic to its body. As defined by Taj
However – Quran commentators have added to this. As THIS is ultimately about Quran.
Hence this shows WHERE Naik got his "Reflected Light" from.
HE was NOT the 1st to use this.
– – –
" The lie from Naik is that it wasn't known to mankind when Quran got revealed. "
How do you know it is a lie? Whether it was or wasn't . . .THIS is outside the scope of MY article.
http://exposingsina.wordpress.com/
Which is to show – WHY and WHERE from . . .Naik got the meaning of "Reflected light".
"All my above argument was based on Extrinsic = EXTERNALLY SOURCED. "
Although – THIS was never my argument. However, THIS is possible meaning too. . .
ESPECIALLY – as Dhati means "self-produced".
AND – meaning of accidental AS according to the dictionary.
– – –
"But then when it comes to 'Accident' you switch over to a meaning from dictionary.com, which I term inaccurate in the light of my personal understanding, wiki, or Brittanica, which says that an object or event contingent upon the existence of another."
Nope – this is SIMPLY your deliberate misunderstanding. As you are looking for ANY WAY to be contrary.
I have SHOWN Wiki, Britannica, Dictionary.com – ARE saying the same thing in a different way.
– –
"It simply doesn't matter to you that the very same lexicon says nothing like that for Accidental!! "
huh? I said you were NOT STUPID. I take that back!
WHAT IS A ADJECTIVE?
A WORD THAT DESCRIBES NOUN. In this case – accident and ACCIDENTAL – mean the same thing.
It is ONLY when describing a NOUN you will say – it is ACCIDENTAL.
Accident and Accidental MEAN the same thing for this.
THAT is why some dictionaries like OXFORD do giv the same meanings – OTHERS do not.
AS THERE IS NO REAL NEED!
THIS IS ABSOLUTELY BASIC!
Notice this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accidental_property
– – –
"If even now you don't see your folly, I don't know how and when you will. "
WHAT FOLLY?
The ONLY folly is from YOU.
I have rubbished all your nonsense.
//Extrinsic as Aradi is SAME as Aradi as Extrinsic. //
No they needn't be equally rare. Aradi can have 10 meanings in English one of which is Extrinsic, while Extrinsic might have 5 corresponding words in Arabic. Translating Aradi to Extrinsic in English isn't same as translating Extrinsic to Aradi in Arabic.
//Pure GUFF! BS and NONSENSE.//
This is your attitude whenever a point is proven against you.
//ADMITTANCE!//
Off course. I never deny what is apparent to me. Till yesterday I believed that by Extrinsic you mean External, because only that meaning gives you Reflected, Sourced From outside, dependent kind of meaning,OTOH if you always meant Extrinsic to be non-essential then I stand corrected. However non-essential doesn't imply dependency.
//DOH! DOH! DOH! DOH! DOH!//
Not so much. I explained that kariji won't go well with zaati'un. If the proper word isn't used the other word used for contrast won't fit.
//In that . .. I KNOW what Google means WHEN it says rare//
If you haven't seen google's explanation then you don't know it. Simple.
//WHAT response above . . . ha ha ha ha . . . see YOU Know I am right. //
Foolish you didn't read the response I had given immediately above this comment against 3 similar comments from me.
//WRONG. . . . it is NOT over rare . . . but relevance – to the usage.//
Relevance of usage depends on context. Almaany isn't defining any context. Order in a lexicon generally follows usual order of use.
"Which IF you translate as 'EXTRINSIC' and then it as 'non-essential' CAN NOT and NEED NOT MEAN REFLECTED, OUTWARD, FOREIGN, DEPENDENT, SOURCED FROM OUTSIDE etc without extending the meaning to fit the bill."
"NEED NOT MEAN"
This doesn't mean "ISN'T"
Now if your objection is genuine . . . and lack of your NOT knowing . . . THEN Listen up!
I will explain.
– –
Noor and Dhiyah – their DIFFERENCE is in terms of – one being Aradi and the other being Dhati.
If one means "Extrinsic" the other "Intrinsic".
What do you think these words imply?
– –
I have ALREADY pointed out . . . the next phase is that of Tafsir.
It plays a further part.
For example:
"الضَّوْءُ لِمَا بِالذَّاتِ كَالشَّمْسِ وَالنَّارِ، وَالنُّورُ لِمَا بِالْعَرَضِ وَالِاكْتِسَابِ مِنَ الْغَيْرِ"
Dhiyah is "Intrinsic" like Sun and Fire
Noor is Extrinsic – and acquired from other [source].
– –
I have attributed the quote to Lisan Al Arab. It is, in fact, from Taj al-Aroos.
I re-checked!
This IS at an end. . . .It was NEVER really a good start.
– – –
Dhaati – means Autonomous, Essential, Intrinsic
Hans Wher – for example says . . .own, proper; self-produced, self-created. .
'Aradi – means Accidental, Unessential, Extrinsic.
Both words are opposite.
– – –
Even from THIS one can begin to see . . . the difference between Noor and Dhiyah.
= = =
You do NOT understand Arabic. You really HAD no objections whatsoever. It was simply a desperate attempt to be contrary.
= = =
"It talks about difference in intensity. It uses a contrast against words of exact opposite meaning 'hard' and 'easy'. When shown proof you always try to condescend. "
THIS Is YOU talking about LISAN. . .. Now you are back-tracking.
– – –
"I referred here the Fed and Nadal example and how it corresponds to the text from Lisan, this example contrasts intensity of their games using mutually opposite words. "
Nope. . . If you read your EARLIER comments – YOU completely denied that Aradi and Dhati were opposites.
I SHOWED you . . . . they are. I, I, I . . . . pointed out that EVEN in your TENNIS example. . .
Hard and Soft are opposites!
I did THAT. . . .
Look at your dishonesty!
– – –
Yet – you had the STUPIDITY of calling me DISHONEST!
How dishonest!
– – –
"Yes, all I have got is that it is valid. And being VALID is enough. "
Doh! Over what? Over nothing!
What are you VALID over?
When your ASS is handed read and blue – what do you say?
"Don't get hyper!"
Or you try to take over the meaning. . .imply that it is YOU pointing out the difference. . .
You have done it to this – Hard and Soft. And that Aradi and
You have done it to Aradi = Accidental and Dhati=Essential
You even pretended that you were brought up Britannica. . . !
So what HAVE you been valid over?
It take me several comments – AND you come to my way of thinking.
But pretend that it was in fact what YOU thought all along.
– – –
"Yes, it does and says Sun-light is essential attribute of Sun and moon-light is unessential. "
See what I said earlier!
– – –
" It DOESN'T say Sun-light is internally produced and moon-light is externally produced. Zaati'un and Aradi don't mean that. "
Lisan DOES imply that. . . .what else does essential and unessential property refer to?
Exactly this . . .
THAT is why Quran commentators made the difference.
Doh!
– – –
"Almaany needn't CALL it rare. But gives the meaning "Extrinsic" toward the very end. In a good lexicon order of meaning generally corresponds to how common the meaning is. "
WRONG. . . . it is NOT over rare . . . but relevance – to the usage.
Words are coined for a specific meanings – over time they often acquire SECONDARY meanings.
Which ARE NOT rare . . . as they depend on context.
For example:
"He is a rat" . . . here the meaning is rat=scoundrel.
Rarer? Yes. . . . appropriate? YES.
– – –
This whole DEBATE has been rendered meaningless.
As I have SHOWN – extrinsic . . . is RELATED Meaning of ACCIDENTAL.
And this is THE MEANING of Aradi too. As are others . . . unessential, accidental, extraneous. . .
YOUR lie – that I was using "rare" meaning WAS LYING.
– – –
"Why would I? We are talking about Aradi as Extrinsic not Extrinsic as Aradi!! Another fallacious logic. "
Doh! Why is it fallacious logic? Oh . . .for once DO explain rather than merely ACCUSE!
Extrinsic as Aradi is SAME as Aradi as Extrinsic.
What is the difference here DEAR! 😉
– – –
"You exposed nothing. See my response above. "
WHAT response above . . . ha ha ha ha . . . see YOU Know I am right.
Hence this NON RESPONSE.
DOH! DOH!
– – –
"Exactly. What has your studying linguistics got to do with what Google translator terms as a "rare translation"? "
In that . .. I KNOW what Google means WHEN it says rare. . . SOMETHING – which YOU don't.
THAT is why I have explained it EXACTLY.
What have YOU done?
Nought!
– – –
"The fallacious logic is to assume that to say Extrinsic, Lisan could have used käriji. Off-course this would have destroyed the analogy as you have rightly pointed out."
DOH! DOH! DOH! DOH! DOH!
Read this back to YOURSELF to figure your own stupidity.
Extrinsic IS an independent meaning of Aradi.
It ALSO a meaning of Accidental!
IN BOTH WAYS! It is relevant.
– – –
"This is so because Lisan is using zaati'un and not, say, daka'il. I have explained that bit. And being unessential don't imply reflected or dependent."
Pure GUFF! BS and NONSENSE. Something Sakat would write to imply he is being "knowledgeable"
– – –
"Clearly at the point of making that assertion I was still believing that by Extrinsic you meant External."
ADMITTANCE!
I have proved this few times already. From what you quote from my reply and then what you respond to. In this particular case for example, I explained that the example of difference in intensity of Fed's game with Nadal's could be contrasted with hard and easy , two opposite words and in that sense it is similar to the Lisan's text. But you immediately latched onto the words hard and easy and asked where it says hard and easy. That was mischievousness.
//Dependent is the meaning obtained from Accidental . EVEN you admit this.//
I haven't. Or show me where I have said that Accidental is philosophy implies Dependency.
//If a property has NO connection to the essence of the thing being described . . . THEN it logically follows that it is OF EXTERNAL SOURCE! DOH! //
Hmmm. You have dropped 'necessary' purposefully. Just as you add 'ONLY' in other places. Secondly it doesn't logically follow that the accidental property is sourced from outside. Zillions of example have been given.
//This is how Oxford dict describes it//
And correctly doesn't say that it is dependent on outsider influence. The first line from wiki sets it up succintly "Accident, as used in philosophy, is an attribute which MAY OR MAY NOT belong to a subject, without affecting its essence".
//I pointed out – there is a technical difference between Noor and Dhiyah.
EVEN YOU ACCEPT THIS! //
Yes I did. But I didn't accept that Lisan is saying that aradi implies "Reflected Light".
//AND THAT IS PLAINLY wrong. //
Agreed.
//Aradi means a property that is unessential, extrinsic, dependent. ALL are correct and RELATING terms . . . //
Dependent is not related with extrinsic when the meaning non-essential is taken for Extrinsic. Being Extrinsic says nothing about being dependent.
"More from your stable of dishonest means. "
I have NOT been dishonest ONCE. Neither can you prove it . . . else – try.
This is merely thrown in for good measure. People like YOU do.
I asked you for proof, on one occasion. It wasn't forthcoming.
You merely lob this – just in answer to . . . BECAUSE I provide EVIDENCE Of your lying and dishonesty.
As you feel small – then you think lobbing such accusations . . . somehow you will cover the ground.
It doesn't WORK this way
– – –
"Actually just the opposite. You and Naik are wrong, Yusuf Ali is right when he translates 25:61. Reference of Noor for moon even based on Lisan and Wehr's definition of Aradi DOESN'T imply that moon's light is a reflected light. "
Wrong . . .as per usual. Noor DOES Mean Light. No one questioned this. As I pointed out – there is a technical difference between Noor and Dhiyah.
EVEN YOU ACCEPT THIS!
Where Naik got his meaning of "reflected" from? I have shown this – from Tafsir.
So far – you have simply avoided this.
– – –
"Foolish and dishonest."
You have the habit of tit-for-tat accusations . . .difference? I know EXACTLY why I am accusing you of fiddling. Your motivation is . . . . simply to insult.
– – –
You quote Lisan, which has to do with the nature of light, from here you pick up 'Aradi' and look up in Wehr to arrive at Accidental (philosophy) so thats the philosophical terminology for Aradi"
Right . . . WHICH DEFINES ARADI . . . and that is it. For example:
Here is definition of the word:
Kite – 'a light frame covered with some thin material, to be flown in the wind at the end of a long string.'
Now from this . . . . what if you were defining the word 'String'.
String – 'a slender cord or thick thread used for binding or tying.'
Now what has the SCOPE of defining the word 'string' got to do with 'kite'?
– – –
Your LYING [or misunderstanding] accusation was that becuse Accident is defined from the Philosophy terminology . . .Hence – LIGHT and Moon are spoken in Philosophical terms.
AND THAT IS PLAINLY wrong.
Now did you just misunderstand this – OR DELIBERATELY LIE?
You pick
– – –
"and then contrive the meaning from dictionary.com to come with 'dependent' which you claim Wehr means."
I have shown THIS to be false.
Accident in philosophy means:
"any entity or event contingent upon the existence of something else. "
Hence – In short. . . . .
Aradi means a property that is unessential, extrinsic, dependent. ALL are correct and RELATING terms . . .
– – – –
" I on the other hand define what Accidental in Phylosophy refers to, it is not "dependent". In fact it says nothing about dependency or otherwise."
Where? Where is your definition? No son . . . YOU are simply being contrary . . . THAT IS ALL.
– – –
" I show you that Lisan DOESN'T say Aradi is oposite of Dhaati or dhiya is opposite of noor. "
See how your DISHONESTY starts . . . .
Aradi IS opposite of DHATi – I have shown this to be the case. The TWO are opposites. You have SHOWN nothing.
You are LYING.
As i have EXPLAINED to you . . .SEVERAL times aleady . . .
Just because Dhati and Aradi are opposites – it does NOT mean Noor and Dhiyah are OPPOSITE.
That is/was either your lying or misunderstanding.
But i have EXPLAINED this SEVERAL times . . . as you have the DISHONEST habit of simply disregarding my answers and repeating you ABSURDITIES.
It takes me several times . . . BEFORE you come around.
– – –
"YOU picked up the philosophical meaning of Aradi (by pointing first meaning from Wehr) which then was used to describe Noor on the authority of Lisan."
Which IS the correct meaning. Since then – EVEN you have RELUCTANTLY accepted this.
Definition of the word Aradi – has NOTHING to do with defining Noor in philosophical terms.
– – –
"I just proved that the philosophical meaning of aradi can't evne be applied because Naik is talking about a physical nature. "
You have PROVED nothing. . . . . other than to highlight you misunderstanding or deliberate lying.
If Aradi doesn't mean Accidental. . .then what does it mean?
Ah . . . you do NOT know. . . as you have no understanding of Arabic!
"Dishonest from you. It were you who said Wehr's first meaning is "dependent". It is your understanding as copy pasted from, say, dictionary.com. "
A simple lie – you have told this often. . .
http://exposingsina.wordpress.com/
Dependent is the meaning obtained from Accidental . EVEN you admit this. YET – absurdly try to maintain your lying.
– – –
"It is not the meaning that is actually understood by Accidental in philosophy. Wiki is correct in this regard."
I have COMPREHENSIVELY proven you wrong.
"To put this in technical terms, an accident is a property which has no necessary connection to the essence of the thing being described."
If a property has NO connection to the essence of the thing being described . . . THEN it logically follows that it is OF EXTERNAL SOURCE! DOH!
This is how Oxford dict describes it:
"Philosophy (in Aristotelian thought) a property of a thing which is not essential to its nature"
That is WHY:
"any entity or event contingent upon the existence of something else. "
– – –
What more the you presented the wrong entry in Dictionary.com. You looked up Accident(noun) and not accidental(adjective)"
This is your absurdity and misunderstanding. Adjective in this case DERIVES from the noun.
When you are DESCRIBING a noun then you WOULD use the Adjectival form. Else the word is an independent noun.
This is NOT up for argument. Misunderstanding is on your part. Check and revise.
You are complete NONSENSE – and nothing more.
" But that isn’t a fact. Greek, Indian and Chinese philosophers and scientists had already discovered that moon isn’t the source of its light. "
This is extra – as you point it out. . . WHICH AHS NOTHING to do with this discussion.
Sir, when you consider these things from the perspective of God and his existence ,you have to consider who else has already knew that moon is reflecting the light of sun,and should concede them this discovery on priority basis .For thousands and thousands of years ,many civilizations knew this fact to their heart .Lisan is a recent addition ,this is not the point here on this site.You have to prove ,whether MOHAMMED was an enlightened being or so,instead you want to take us ride to an out of context thoughts.Mr. Sina is not wasting his time on these unnecessary discussions .His statements are specific and quite clear ,and they states ,Islam is not religion it is a cult and its founder is not Savior or Enlightened being ,but was a Charlton,deboucher ,robber etc .He proves his accusations with your own documents and challenges to refute his claims.My request to you, just restrict your self to the given subject and not to hijack all of us elsewhere.
"Excellent" reply ,this is called !!! Hen's hacking !!!. Well done.
//Main meaning of Aradi is – "Accidental". An unessential property. – – What does EXTRINSIC mean? Oh yeah . . . . UNESSENTIAL! //
I am not using any lie against you. I needn't. Crux of the matter is that Lisan uses Aradi. Which IF you translate as 'EXTRINSIC' and then it as 'non-essential' CAN NOT and NEED NOT MEAN REFLECTED, OUTWARD, FOREIGN, DEPENDENT, SOURCED FROM OUTSIDE etc without extending the meaning to fit the bill. They are two different meanings. All my above argument was based on Extrinsic = EXTERNALLY SOURCED. But then when it comes to 'Accident' you switch over to a meaning from dictionary.com, which I term inaccurate in the light of my personal understanding, wiki, or Brittanica, which says that an object or event contingent upon the existence of another. It simply doesn't matter to you that the very same lexicon says nothing like that for Accidental!!
If even now you don't see your folly, I don't know how and when you will.
//Wrong! CONTEXT! Which you DO NOT understand. . . . But those able to understand English know non of these are right. CONTEXT! //
Crap. Taking your own example you can't say " resident born in or belonging to another country " equates to "creature from outer space; extraterrestrial". Thats exactly what you are doing in equating this particular meaning of EXTRINSIC, based on The Lisan, "non-essential" to its other meaning "being outside a thing".
Very simply put, Accidental properties needn't be external to the object of which it is an Accidental property. A white ball is white, it being white is an Accidental property but its whiteness is very much its own. The moon-light is not Moon's own light and Naik wants to posit that based on some understanding of muneer in Q 25:61, which nobody translated as "Moon reflecting light". If this is based on The Lisan as you claimed in your site then the two don't match up.
//YOUR knowledge of philosophy streteches to Googling and looking at Wiki! //
That is for giving you references. You don't know my qualifications and I, your.
//just like LIGHT is INTRINSIC part of moon. See your ABSURDITY?//
Really? Moon isn't the source of its light.
//WHEN the context is of "property" THEN it means . . . . " any entity or event contingent upon the existence of something else. "//
No dear, that is your jump from the usual to unusual. From one lexicon to another and from one meaning to another.
//Yes it does . . . THAT is how Scholar understood it.//
You simply didn't get the point. How Lisan uses Aradi, and how different scholars interprete or explain a book or verse are two different and somewhat unrelated matters. For example I can't quarrel with the fact that Al-manar, as you quoted, indeed uses istika'ab meaning acquisition, but I can point that the author here is using his already worldly knowledge in explaining a particular verse. To say the TECHNICAL meaning of Noor is "Reflected Light" is an extension.
//And as you were keen to point out . . . this was known – that Moonlight is from the sun.//
This might have been known to the interpreters. The lie from Naik is that it wasn't known to mankind when Quran got revealed.
//Where and what words in Lisan are saying this:
"It uses a contrast against words of exact opposite meaning 'hard' and 'easy'."//
More from your stable of dishonest means. When did I say Lisan says anything about "hard" and "easy". I referred here the Fed and Nadal example and how it corresponds to the text from Lisan, this example contrasts intensity of their games using mutually opposite words.
//No it isn't. I have EXPLAINED the error. All you have got is "it is valid". //
Yes, all I have got is that it is valid. And being VALID is enough.
//Lisan talks about the difference between Dhiyah and Noor//
Yes, it does and says Sun-light is essential attribute of Sun and moon-light is unessential. It DOESN'T say Sun-light is internally produced and moon-light is externally produced. Zaati'un and Aradi don't mean that.
//As I have SUCCESSFULLY shown up your error. For which YOU have no credible response. Almaany – DOES NOT call it rare.//
Almaany needn't CALL it rare. But gives the meaning "Extrinsic" toward the very end. In a good lexicon order of meaning generally corresponds to how common the meaning is.
//Google does – BUT when you put the word in English – then it DOES NOT say rare//
Why would I? We are talking about Aradi as Extrinsic not Extrinsic as Aradi!! Another fallacious logic.
//You don't. . . you simply saw a Google tooltip! I even EXPOSED the limit of that!//
You exposed nothing. See my response above.
//Doh! And what DOES this has to do with studying //
Exactly. What has your studying linguistics got to do with what Google translator terms as a "rare translation"?
//What faalacious logic? All you wanted to do was put this lying claim//
The fallacious logic is to assume that to say Extrinsic, Lisan could have used käriji. Off-course this would have destroyed the analogy as you have rightly pointed out. This is so because Lisan is using zaati'un and not, say, daka'il. I have explained that bit. And being unessential don't imply reflected or dependent. Clearly at the point of making that assertion I was still believing that by Extrinsic you meant External.
I am very simplistic in my approach, sir. I consider language as a medium of expression .We are involved here about spirituality and not politics .It is the duty of diplomats to find suitable word to bring "definiteness" to their statement (otherwise, either they loose their cap or will be challenged the very treaty entered by them before the court of law for proper meaning ). Now a days ,it has become very difficult for these diplomats to choose proper word..Spirituality directly connected to religion.Plainly,religion deals with God and belief ,there is no restriction as to use of word ,each word is absolute in itself and gives absolute meaning. Here Mr.Sina is not doing politics, but about absolute(golden rule ) and, he claims that Islam is not spirituality . I use any word to express my meaning of the sentence from spiritual point of view..If the person who is proficient in spirituality will grasp it immediately ,otherwise he is fit to become secretory to the diplomats in preparing their speech but not try to dwell in spiritual conclaves.He waste his time on useless things upon wrong platform.Often he was asked definitions of the words, to ascertain its meaning through the perspective of spirituality ,but he is incapable to provide one.He refers us to Google ,he is here to waste our time as well.Now i realized why Sina is maintaining stoic silence against this person.
//It might help looking the word up! //
Thanks. But I completely understand what the science of logic is. I just wanted to know what YOU meant in that sentence, lest I miscomprehend!!
ALI SINNER SUPPORT THE WESTERN DEMOCRATIC IS BETTER THAN ISLAM:
I LIKE TO DEBATE WITH SINNER ,CAN U PROVE ANY NON ISLAMIC COUNTRIES R BETTER THAN ISLAMIC?
HERE SOME SAMPLES FOR CRIME STATICS:
Total crimes (most recent) by country
RANK COUNTRIES AMOUNT
#1 United States:11,877,218
# 2 United Kingdom:6,523,706
# 3 Germany:6,507,394
#4 France:3,771,850
#5 Russia:2,952,370
#6 Japan:2,853,739
#7 South Africa:2,683,849
#8 Canada:2,516,918
#9 Italy:2,231,550
#10 India:1,764,630
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_tot_cri-cri…
NON ISLAMIC COUNTRIES ARE HIGHEST PERCENTAGE OF CRIME COMPARE TO ISLAMIC COUNTRIES THE FOLLWING LINK GIVES U MORE DETAILS REPORT:
http://www.mapsofworld.com/world-top-ten/countrie… http://rechten.uvt.nl/icvs/images/Graph03.JPG http://rechten.uvt.nl/icvs/images/graph05.jpg http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_metropolitan… http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by…
WORLD MOST LEADING RAPEST COUNTRY:
Rank Countries Amount
#1 Lesotho: 0.844 per 1,000 people
#2 New Zealand: 0.315
#3 Belgium:0.299
#4 Iceland: 0.286
#5 Norway: 0.203
#6 Israel:0.166
#7 Finland: 0.141
#8 Chile: 0.12
#9 Mongolia:0.118
#10 Ireland: 0.102
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_rap_percap-…
UN Rape Statistics:
RANK
1 United States of America93883
2 Australia 18237
3 United Kingdom 13272
4 France 10408
5 Germany8766
6 Russian Federation8185
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_statistics http://www.yellodyno.com/pdf/Rape_Statistics.pdf
Divorce rate (most recent) by country
Rank Countries Amount
#1 United States:4.95 per 1,000 people
#2 Puerto Rico:4.47
#3 Russia:3.36
#4 United Kingdom:3.08
#5 Denmark:2.81
#6 New Zealand:2.63
#7 Australia:2.52
# 8 Canada:2.46
#9 Finland:1.85
#10 Barbados:1.21
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/peo_div_rat-peo…
List of countries by alcohol consumption:
Moldova18.22
Czech Republic16.45
Hungary16.27
Russia15.76
Ukraine15.60
Estonia15.57
Andorra15.4
11.3015.30
Slovenia15.19
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by…
LIKE THAT…………….
Assault victims (most recent) by country http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_ass_vic-cri…
Car thefts (most recent) by country http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_car_the-cri…
Murders with firearms (most recent) by country http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_mur_wit_fir…
Suicide rates in ages 25-34 (most recent) by country http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_sui_rat_in_…
Gun violence : Homicides &homicides with firearms http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_gun_vio_hom…
Suicide rates in ages 15-24 (most recent) by country http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_sui_rat_in_…
Many people read list of fallacies or use it to mean a particular way of reasoning.
Whereas, Logic as a science – involves proper, comprehensive study of the science.
– – –
It might help looking the word up!
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/logic?s=t
"Completely fallacious logic."
Ha ha ha ha . . .see how DISHONEST you are?
What faalacious logic? All you wanted to do was put this lying claim. . . It has NO BASIS
You have done this several times . . . WHEN I ask you to prove . . . . you go to pieces – and ignore such "questions"
– – –
It was YOUR big thing – that meaning Aradi is RARE – based on "tooltip"
I even blew that up.
Now – my logic is fallacious. . . HOW?
– – –
"When the point is Lisan isn't saying or using aradi for extrinsic why would it use käriji which actually means foreign?"
Kharji does mean Foreign – it also means "Extrinsic"
Check your dear Google.
And foreign too means – "coming or introduced from outside"
The point is – When you look up "Extrinsic" – Google does NOT give the meaning Aradi – as rare?
Why?
You build up WHOLE drama – on a tool tip. I have BLOWN it up.
– – –
"It is quite apparent that the author wanted to exactly use Aradi and zaati'un."
Doh!
– – –
"Being a dictionary it is logical to use usual meanings, Essential and Unessential. And being unessential don't imply reflected or dependent. "
Wrong! CONTEXT! Which you DO NOT understand. . . .
Here is stupidity of your logic laid out:
This is one meaning of the word Foreign:
alien in character; irrelevant or inappropriate; remote.
By your logic – "Alien" here should mean:
"1.
a resident born in or belonging to another country who has not acquired citizenship by naturalization ( distinguished from citizen ).
2.
a foreigner.
3.
a person who has been estranged or excluded.
4.
a creature from outer space; extraterrestrial. "
But those able to understand English know non of these are right.
CONTEXT!
– – –
"Being a dictionary it is logical to use usual meanings, Essential and Unessential. And being unessential don't imply reflected or dependent. "
Unessential Property – means a property that is extrinsic to the moon. A light that is NOT essential property of the moon.
This is what Lisan says. . . Next is what the Quran commentators say.
As you've been so keen to point out Lisan is JUST a dictionary.
Quran commentators have mentioned – the light of Moon is from the Sun. USING these words. . . .
– – –
"You are just repeating. I quote the Lisan as translated on your site again: "The word "Dhiya'a" is of more intense meaning than the word "Noor"." "
DOH! See . . . you are SO DISHONEST. .. . a SIMPLE COPY AND PASTE IS BEYOND YOU!
AS YOU KNOW YOU ARE LYING!
"The word "Dhiya'a" is of more intense meaning than the word "Noor". As the Almighty said: He made the sun "Dhiya'a" and the moon "noor". And it is said: The word "Dhiya'a" is 'Essential' and the word "Noor" is 'Accidental'. "
How are Dhiyah and Noor defined?
Where is this HARD and SOFT?
– – –
"Ha ha. Very poor knowledge of Philosophy and English."
Mere claim. YOUR knowledge of philosophy streteches to Googling and looking at Wiki!
Doh! Which virtually EVERYONE is capable of!
– – –
" However, the property that a chair is made of wood is INTRINSIC to that chair. It is not a borrowed attribute of that chair. "
Ha ha ha . . . .just like LIGHT is INTRINSIC part of moon.
See your ABSURDITY?
– – –
"Not basic, extraneous, non-essential DO NOT mean SOURCED FROM OUTSIDE. "
He he . . . WHEN the context is of "property"
THEN it means . . . .
" any entity or event contingent upon the existence of something else. "
DOH DOH DOH!
See – how easy it is dispel the myth of you "PHILOSOPHY"
You are LYING!
– – –
"That's your extension."
NOPE – As I have pointed out . . . their source is tafsir . . .
AND Lisan al Arab.
– – –
"Even being extrinsic doesn't make it borrowed or dependent. "
DOH! Yes it does . . . THAT is how Scholar understood it.
And as you were keen to point out . . . this was known – that Moonlight is from the sun.
"It talks about difference in intensity. It uses a contrast against words of exact opposite meaning 'hard' and 'easy'."
Where?
This merits a separate comment!
Where? What part says – HARD and SOFT . . . WHICH WORDS?
– – –
On one hand – you claim you are simply relying on MY translation here:
exposingsina.wordpress.com
As you do NOT UNDERSTAND Arabic. . .
Then you invent such lie as above.
– – –
!!!
Your pretense is in keeping up – the EXTRINSIC line . . . .
However here is WHY you are dishonest:
http://exposingsina.wordpress.com/
– – –
So which rare usage am I going after?
– – –
Extrinsic IS a meaning of the word Aradi. Despite what a Google tooltip says [when you flip it – it doesn't!]
It isn't rare . . . .AND you have NO WAY of verifying it.
However – that is BESIDE the point.
– – –
Main meaning of Aradi is – "Accidental".
An unessential property.
– – –
What does EXTRINSIC mean?
Oh yeah . . . . UNESSENTIAL!
"it is. It talks about difference in intensity. It uses a contrast against words of exact opposite meaning 'hard' and 'easy'. When shown proof you always try to condescend. "
Huh? YOU are an unbelievable liar. . . wow! This takes the biscuit!
Where and what words in Lisan are saying this:
"It uses a contrast against words of exact opposite meaning 'hard' and 'easy'."
Where?
– – –
" The minor point was, I said Nadal's is essential and you said "Why would Federer's intensity be essential and not Nadal's?". I am not trying to get out of anything. It is a valid example in the context. "
No it isn't. I have EXPLAINED the error. All you have got is "it is valid".
You have told some unbelievable lies. The analogy was COMPLETELY fallacious.
Like I said. . .all you can do is repeat and be contrary – nothing else.
– – –
"The Lisan says nothing about the body neither does it say that the light is reflected or coming from outside."
Lisan talks about the difference between Dhiyah and Noor.
One is essential to its body – other isn't. IT DOES talk about body – when it finally refers back to the verse.
Lisan is lexicon – for this one refers to Tafsir. THEY contain more detail.
AS I HAVE ALREADY SAID.
– – –
"I have seen that. It is a rare usage and I have proved that using Almaany and google translator. "
WRONG! You haven't – As I have SUCCESSFULLY shown up your error. For which YOU have no credible response. Almaany – DOES NOT call it rare.
YOU are lying outright.
Google does – BUT when you put the word in English – then it DOES NOT say rare. . . why don't you try it.
– – –
"You are using a peripheral usage to proof Naik's theory of Scientific Foreknowledge in Quran. "
ABSOLUTE LIE! As I have SHOWN "Extrinsic" = unessential = Accidental.
My article SHOWS this repeated lie against me.
http://exposingsina.wordpress.com/
Your LYING Is unbelievable – deep down EVEN you know you are lying.
You will simply keep repeating such shameless lies.
I will keep on refuting.
– – –
"not essential are not necessarily extrinsic. See the example of chair in wiki. "
Again – You are talking BS. Now you have NOTHING.
In this case . . . Extrinsic = Not Essential.
DOH! See I have HARD evidence – what do you have?
Deliberate lies.
– – –
"But I said, and I repeat may be a poetic use of arad could be 'extrinsic' because it is a 'rare translation'. "
MAYBE! Where did you get "maybe"
Here is why – you are talking BS. . . .as YOU HAVE NO COMMAND OF ARABIC.
HENCE – WHAT ARE YOU ON ABOUT?
YOU CANNOT UNDERSTAND ARABIC!
Aradi = Extrinsic is a SECONDARY translation. . .and NOT rare.
– – –
"And more lies. See above. "
What lie? There is NOT one ther. See above does NOT reveal it.
AS YOU defended your ABSURD claim.
Hence accusing ME of lying here IS A LIE! As it was FALSE!
– – –
"And more. You are desperate or what!! "
He he he . . . NOPE – you BS is running out. YOU no longer have a response.
– – –
"Good joke. Keep it on. A secondary usage doesn't make a meaning rare. It is rare if it is rarely used for that particular meaning. "
So how do you know Aradi is rare?
When you cannot speak the language?
You don't. . . you simply saw a Google tooltip!
I even EXPOSED the limit of that!
Flip it – Put Extrinsic in the dictionary . . . .What do you get?
What happens to your "RARITY"?
– – –
"Ha ha. WITHOUT having found where and how Google uses "rare translation". Great job!! "
Doh! And what DOES this has to do with studying . . . linguistics at college? When I was at college – there was NO Google translation about.
//Logic as a Science that is. I challenged this assertion before! //
What do you mean by logic as a science and is logic not as science?
//Being a Pakistani is NOT essential to being a man. It is an extrinsic property.//
:-). being a pakistani is very much an INTRINSIC property of that particular man who is being referred.
//Hence wood is EXTRINSIC to a chair being a chair. What is EXTRINSIC? "not essential or inherent; not a basic part or quality;"//
Ha ha. Being made of wood is very much intrinsic to a wooden chair, it just doesn't define it being a chair. In this particular meaning Extrinsic= "not essential or inherent; not a basic part or quality", I don't deny that it is a meaning of Extrinsic, but here it doesn't mean that it is sourced from outside. Stop your lies. You can't take a meaning and mean another one. Because you or Naik is using the second meaning given in dictionary.com: 2. being outside a thing; outward or external; operating or coming from without: extrinsic influences. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/extrinsic?…
How many times do I have to catch you using fallacies?
Your initial point was "Accidental (philosophy) – which MEANS dependent."
//You had NOTHING to go in the 1st place. I have stayed the course and beaten you down. //
And failed.
//What meaning do I use? Oh yes . . ."accidental"…. "not essential or inherent; not a basic part or quality;"//
And then jumped from one meaning of the word Extrinsic to another to mean that Accidental properties are generated from outside!!
//THEY ALL SAY THE SAME THING – IN DIFFERENT WORDS//
And when you join them all Accidental properties do not become foreign properties. I am dropping the word Extrinsic if you are using this particular meaning for Extrinsic "not essential or inherent; not a basic part or quality;" , clearly Naik wanted to posit the other meaning Extrinsic = Coming from outside, reflected. I repeat Accidental properties needn't be generated from outside. Having red hair is very much an Intrinsic attribute of a Red-head. However it is an Accidental property of his bachelorhood.
//Your are NOT stupid. You understood this. But you are DISHONEST. Hence you kept the lie up. //
Ad homimem.
//Hence – ONLY when Noor and Dhiyah relate to the moon – they are either Intrinsic or Extrinsic to their bodies[Moor or Sun].
In similar vain . . .both are intrinsically light. I can play semantic – and still show your up. Down boy, Down! //
You could if only you were correct.
1. Extrinsic when used as "not essential or inherent; not a basic part or quality; extraneous" NEEDN'T mean dependent and hence reflected.
2. "to their bodies" is your addition, there is a difference when I say this belongs to Amin and when I say this belongs to Amin's body.
//HA HA HA HA . . . . Here is where YOUR lying stops. Google the word "Extrinsic" – see the bar? …Hence WHY extrinsic means Aradi. //
Completely fallacious logic. When the point is Lisan isn't saying or using aradi for extrinsic why would it use käriji which actually means foreign? By the same logic it doesn't use daka'il or bätin for 'Intrinsic'. It is quite apparent that the author wanted to exactly use Aradi and zaati'un. Being a dictionary it is logical to use usual meanings, Essential and Unessential. And being unessential don't imply reflected or dependent.
//WRONG! I have SHOWN even Tafsir as old as Ibn Kathir make this difference. . . and the modern ones. //
Kathir makes a distinction, but does it say "reflected light"? And the modern one would, won't they? It was already a COMMON knowledge by the 14th century.
//He did NOT come up with this meaning.//
Ok. Fine. Don't get so hyper!!
//He DOES mean Accidental to be an Extrinsic property- after all that is what Accidental property in short is.//
This is what you do whenever evidence is shown. Time after time I have shown you examples that Accidental attributes are not by definition external. They may or may not be. And I have used the principle Wehr himself implies in the intro.
//yet Tafsir make a difference….Or are you denying that fact?//
Where did I deny that?
//And where does it say that in Lisan? Do point it out//
You are just repeating. I quote the Lisan as translated on your site again: "The word "Dhiya'a" is of more intense meaning than the word "Noor"."
// look what is says "accidental" Wood is accidental property of the chair. In other words Extrinsic. //
Ha ha. Very poor knowledge of Philosophy and English. "Being made of wood" is an accidental property for a Chair. It doesn't 'define' a chair. Its use as a sitting implement does. However, the property that a chair is made of wood is INTRINSIC to that chair. It is not a borrowed attribute of that chair.
//not essential or inherent; not a basic part or quality; extraneous//
Not basic, extraneous, non-essential DO NOT mean SOURCED FROM OUTSIDE. So a lot of DOHs to you.
//Again . . . false analogy //
Trust you to misconstrue all examples to the wrong context. The example is to show you how being Pakistani or living in UK isn't basic to your definition of being a man. They still remain INTRINSIC to that particular man who is being referred, you.
//Hence – ONLY when Noor and Dhiyah relate to the moon – they are either Intrinsic or Extrinsic to their bodies[Moor or Sun]. //
That's your extension. Light of moon is non-essential or a chance attribute of moon whatever be its essential qualities. Even being extrinsic doesn't make it borrowed or dependent.
//WRONG. . . . IT IS NOT similar to Lisan.//
it is. It talks about difference in intensity. It uses a contrast against words of exact opposite meaning 'hard' and 'easy'. When shown proof you always try to condescend.
//Doh! Now that you have SEEN your error . . . this is trying to get out of it.//
Which error? The minor point was, I said Nadal's is essential and you said "Why would Federer's intensity be essential and not Nadal's?". I am not trying to get out of anything. It is a valid example in the context.
//It was a FALLACIOUS analogy – as I have shown.//
Where? And what is the fallacy?
//It makes Noor – a light that is NOT intrinsic to its body – unessential component. . . not part of its makeup. UNLIKE Dhiyah – which intrinsic par of the sun. An essential property. //
This is the eisegesis part: "a light that is NOT intrinsic to its body". The Lisan says nothing about the body neither does it say that the light is reflected or coming from outside.
//Aradi DOES mean Extrinsic too. . . I have SHOWN that //
I have seen that. It is a rare usage and I have proved that using Almaany and google translator. You are using a peripheral usage to proof Naik's theory of Scientific Foreknowledge in Quran.
//Accidental – has similar connotations – as it means a property that is not an essential property. //
:-). not essential are not necessarily extrinsic. See the example of chair in wiki.
//YOU invented this guff -about rare words only being in poetry. . . which balderdash.//
I didn't invent it. I didn't even say rare usages are ONLY in poetry. The 'ONLY' is your addition. But I said, and I repeat may be a poetic use of arad could be 'extrinsic' because it is a 'rare translation'.
//And WHY your make-belief – that rare words only occur in poetry was NONSENSE – you invented//
And more lies. See above.
//Especially the guff you made up. About rare words being used in poetry. . . what? //
And more. You are desperate or what!!
//This "rarity" – relates to the word being for non-primary usage.
Good joke. Keep it on. A secondary usage doesn't make a meaning rare. It is rare if it is rarely used for that particular meaning.
//By having studied some linguistics at college! //
Ha ha. WITHOUT having found where and how Google uses "rare translation". Great job!!
People like you post such comments all over the site.
When one says "boo" – you tend to disappear.
"It may sound extremism and only a few years ago I would have thought the same way as you do. Now, I understand Islam better. Now I know that this religion is the most evil influence in the world and much of the violence and intolerance that we witness among non-Muslims is the backlash or the copycat of Islamic violence." Ali Sina
This one is one among many , many Golden Truths from the pen of Ali Sina
"Why he cannot buy oil from non Muslims producing countries and leave us alone ." Says Mr.Zitouni an ardent defender of the indefensible Evil Cult- Islam
Who started this process of poking into other people's affairs. It is Mohammad and his narcissist ideology ( faking GOD) that has the habit of waging perpetual aggressive wars on peaceful communities. Even now Islam is a standing threat to the whole of Humanity.
No doubt the white man has inflicted violence on other people, but he has also uplifted the quality of thinking and comforts through Science and technology. There is promising future for Humanity under the leadership of the white Race. Islam on the other hand inflicted pure violence on the communities it invaded. Why should Muslims prosper? No , Muslims should not prosper until the ideology of Narcissism is completely defeated all over the world. No Mosques, No Azan, No Madarasas, No unholy tombs of the vile wretched followers of MO, Not even the dry bones of the dead Monsters should remain on this sacred planet. This sacred planet belongs all those who accept the GOLDEN RULE. Muslims exclude themselves from the right to live on this planet by their unholy prayers and pledges to the evil designs of the most wicked being ever born.
Islamic plunderers ( there is no true king among the Muslims but only thugs and rapists) all over the world indulged extreme cruelties including Rapes without a single exception. All of them paid obeisance to Allah and Mohammad by performing the bending and hand raising ritual five times a day. How do we account for this exceptional criminal conduct bereft of any exceptions other than tracing it to His lowness / his wretchedness / his evilness – Monster in human form – Mad Monster Mohammad. You are trying to deceive by quoting the Good quotes. Explain the almost universal evil behavior of Muslims which is written all over the 1398 years of your wretched existence
No I cannot take the trouble. . . . . oh you are still nonsensical!
🙂
Abusing is the identity of your cult,what else can be said about.Self aggrandizing is a decease for that matter,i hope you are aware of it.,ha,ha,ha.
/And the evidence suggests – YOU have NO GRIP on philosophy either/.
Wait,wait….can you take trouble to define the term "Philosophy". Lest the grip think later !!!!
"And this is why you Muslims cannot seem to see the light. You are not applying universally agreed-upon rules of logic and common sense."
Which are? Every other person commenting comes out with such like. The proof of the pudding is in the eating. Merely stating this is useless. Let us see you baking this up.
– – –
" You are simply believing something that was hammered into you endlessly from birth. A lie repeated often enough becomes the truth. "
Sure. However, how do you know what is and isn't a lie? This is merely a general statement. It doesn't really mean much.
– – –
"This is how Ali Sina is correct in saying that Muslims are motivated strictly by the primitive emotions of fear and greed"
Son . . . I have BACKED up my claims over Sina. And exposed him as an old fraud.
I mentioned "Logic" – he ran off. As he knows FULLY well. . . . all he has read is list of fallacies. And that is it.
On the other hand . . . I have studied some forms of logic. Esp., Classical and computational logic.
– – –
So . . .you took my statement as a basis. . . .
" You are simply believing something that was hammered into you endlessly from birth"
Just because something is believed from birth – it is NOT the basis for it being incorrect.
A poor point . . . when you consider:
" A lie repeated often enough becomes the truth."
So what exactly are you talking about?
– – –
Such mere generalisations are NOT good enough. Something that you believe from birth and "Islam=lie" is a big intimation. . . . if this is your basis. . .
Then obviously, given you logicality, you would understand why it is fallacious.
As senile as ever. . . . or is it the pretense? As you very well know – ALL you are able to do is "insult"
– – –
And that is it.
It is matter of FACT that I am far, far far, far, far more cleverer.
– – –
All evidence points to it!
Even Sina has to make up lies about me.
When challenged – he couldn't answer WHY he lied.
I'll tell you why . . .HE COULD NOT ANSWER!
– – –
I know its burden to be this good!
"This is why I am far, far, far smarter than you are."
This is what Mohammed used to believe,when challenged he could not answer,so he killed the old (intelligent) poetess, through the headless people/followers he has created.This is a world of net ,so his followers are biting there own hands with utter frustration and, you are one in that,ha,ha,ha….
You claimed to be mystic,mystics are MAD man to the society ,but i do not find any syndrome of mysticism in you. Society considers two kinds of people as MAD, because their behavior do not match with the age old norm set in the society .The one who dwells in past (your cult is very good example for that matter) and the one who's thinking is ahead of the present (where the society do exist) , to say ,Archimedes ,Newton, Einstein and presently Hopkins. Let me go back ,for example ,to the court of Akbar the great and, narrate him about this world , the existence of train,Airplanes,bus ,computers or age old radio etc ,and their functioning ,will he believe my words .He will use your term "MAD" to refer me, you understood what i mean ( your cult is way behind understanding reality) ha,ha,ha……. it is not your fault ultimately.
Where? Why don't you show me one such abuse?
A liar is one who lies.
A dishonest is one who is NOT honest.
– – –
These are ONLY insults if they are used without proof of lies and dishonesty.
Calling someone a liar can be an insult. . . .if you imply it – esp. without showing the lie of the person you are hurling this at.
– – –
This is why I am far, far, far smarter than you are.
"May be Quran's. How do I know? And how does it matter?
"
Doh! What did I say? Dishonest. . . read my full quote. . its SHOWS how it matters.
"You can TWIST anything . .. . there are STILL people who believe the Earth is flat . . . guess whose evidence they use? "
– – –
"No. The Lisan is saying Noor is aradi, YOU are chasing a particular, rare usage of that word to establish Naik's,"
More dishonesty. . . OPEN LIE! See here:
http://exposingsina.wordpress.com/
Aradi means Accidental. . . which means Extrinsic. I have shown that above.
See how you lie? See how you lie so SHAMELESSLY?
So what does Aradi mean?
Also – I have SHOWN that Quran commentators make this difference.
– – –
"If Lisan was saying what you think it is saying, then it would have used some other word meaning EXACTLY Reflection. It is primarily a dictionary not a work of philosophy to yield to distant meanings. "
WRONG! Son. . . WRONG!
See your DISHONESTY! What distant meaning?
See how YOU lie so shamelessly?
Quran calls Sun Dhiyah and the Moon Noor.
Lisan shows the difference of meaning.
Noor is Extrinsic, Unessential, etc property of its body
Dhiyah is Intrinsic, Essential property of its body
This is the difference. Naik choose to use the word "reflect"
"to cast back (light, heat, sound, etc.) from a surface"
I have SUCCESSFULLY shown – WHERE he made the jump.
I have ALSO shown – it NOT he who used he word. Originally it comes from Quran commentators.
– – –
YOU ARE LYING – when you says:
" YOU are chasing a particular, rare usage of that word "
So what does. . Aradi mean? Let us hear YOUR evidence?
– – –
" But that isn’t a fact. Greek, Indian and Chinese philosophers and scientists had already discovered that moon isn’t the source of its light. "
This is extra – as you point it out. . . WHICH AHS NOTHING to do with this discussion.
Scope of my article is about showing that THERE is clear difference between DHIYAH and NOOR.
And where Naik – GOT his meaning from.
And IF Sina had done some research . . . .HE Would not have MADE – ABSURD claims. . . .
THAT is the crux! I am NOT defending Naik as I am – EXPOSING Sina.
– – –
"Lie of the first order. I didn't say aradi meaning Accidental is rare, but Accidental in philosophy meaning Extrinsic is. And as implied by Almaany and google translator, Aradi meaning Extrinsic is. "
Wrong . . THE LIE is of yours. . . when you says that I am chasing rare meanings. . .
Read my article?
http://exposingsina.wordpress.com/
What meaning do I give?
– – –
" but Accidental in philosophy meaning Extrinsic is. And as implied by Almaany and google translator, Aradi meaning Extrinsic is."
But dearest . . . accidental and extrinsic ARE (pretty much) synonymous. See above. I have explained this in detail.
They imply – Extrinsic is Secondary meaning. Almmany DOES NOT call it rare. .. I can show you MULTITUDE of examples in Arabic. . . .Where Aradi means Extrinsic.
Here is HOW unreliable your Goolge is. . . Type the word in English – "Extrinsic"
And see what it throws up.
– – –
"First there is no proof that you know Arabic, other than your claim. "
Doh! Evidence points to otherwise. And I am willin' to go through ANY hoops. Slipper slope.
How do I know you are NOT in fact Sina? Just being deceptive?
– – –
"Second it doesn't matter because you are using English, referring to English and philosophical meanings of certain words,"
WRONG! It does matter.
See – you claim "I am chasing rare meanings" – see here Arabic matters 100% . . . YOU cannot understand the context.
It also matters . . . how do YOU know what Aradi means and doesn't mean?
You are relying on MY MEANINGS! And still disagreeing! Absurd to the extreme!
Ridiculous. . .
It is a bit like going to a scientist and saying – the research he has done means something other than what he is claiming. Without having the knowledge of the particular subject.
You would GET laughed at.
– – –
"referring to books like Wehr's English translations etc and I know English and have a certain amount of grip on literature, philosophy and logic."
You DO NOT have grip on logic. I challenge this.
Logic as a Science that is. I challenged this assertion before!
You ignored it.
– – –
And the evidence suggests – YOU have NO GRIP on philosophy either.
– – –
"So this line of attack is useless. "
Ha ha ha ha . . .. NOPE this line of attack is DEVASTATING!
It shows the ABSURDITY of your whole objection.
Actually YOU have run out. . .hence the tired old accusation.
You had NOTHING to go in the 1st place. I have stayed the course and beaten you down.
What were you arguing about? Nothing. You DO NOT understand the language. . . .not even the basics of it!
– – –
"It is you who is deliberately offering a meaning to Aradi which need not apply and is not a usual meaning for the word as per Almaany. "
Wrong! And a parting lie.
If you notice:
http://exposingsina.wordpress.com/
What meaning do I use? Oh yes . . ."accidental".
What does accidental mean?
It means "Extrinsic"
What does Extrinsic mean?
"not essential or inherent; not a basic part or quality;"
– – –
What does wiki say? [Which was your "big thing"]
"To put this in technical terms, an accident is a property which has no necessary connection to the essence of the thing being described."
Doh!
How does Dictionary.com put it?
"any entity or event contingent upon the existence of something else. "
What does Oxford dictionary say?
"Philosophy (in Aristotelian thought) a property of a thing which is not essential to its nature."
THEY ALL SAY THE SAME THING – IN DIFFERENT WORDS
– – –
Your are NOT stupid. You understood this. But you are DISHONEST.
Hence you kept the lie up.
"So clearly when he says accidental(philo.) he thinks it is non-essential, unessential, but NOT EXTRINSIC. Clearly Extrinsic <> unessential and it is not explicitly written too. So when Wehr uses "accidental (philo.)" he doesn't mean Extrinsic. "
He DOES mean Accidental to be an Extrinsic property- after all that is what Accidental property in short is.
This is why other dictionaries have the word. . . Google, Almaany, Al mawrid, Lanes, Oxford.
Not to mention the Arabic-Arabic dictionaries and all the classical lexicons. . .
What mention what's your complaint?
– – –
"Yet, no translator used "Moon reflecting light". "
Obviously not . . . yet Tafsir make a difference. Hence it is the details. . . .
Like I have already quoted.
Both words mean Light. No one is denying that. As shown . . . Dhiyah and Noor – DO differ.
Or are you denying that fact?
– – –
"They don't 'define' Noor and Dhiyah, they contrast the intensity of the meanings associated with Dhiya and Noor, as per the Lisan. "
Doh! So how do they contrast the intensity? What intensity?
And where does it say that in Lisan? Do point it out.
See – THE PRETENSE! The dishonesty. . . .
– – –
" See the example of chair again. That a chair is made of plastic is its INTRINSIC property, but that doesn't 'define' it being a chair."
Ha ha . . . like I said – shamelessly dishonest!
"For example, a chair can be made of wood, metal, or plastic, but this is accidental relative to its being a chair. It is still a chair regardless of the material from which it is made."
Here . . . look what is says "accidental" Wood is accidental property of the chair. In other words Extrinsic.
"not essential or inherent; not a basic part or quality; extraneous"
DOH! DOH! DOH! DOH! DOH! DOH! DOH! DOH! DOH! DOH! DOH! DOH! DOH! DOH! DOH! DOH! DOH! DOH! DOH!
UNESSENTIAL here is SYNONYMOUS to EXTRINSIC.
DOH! DOH! DOH! DOH! DOH! DOH! DOH! DOH! DOH! DOH! DOH! DOH! DOH! DOH! DOH! DOH! DOH! DOH! DOH! DOH! DOH! DOH! DOH! DOH! DOH! DOH! DOH!
– – –
"as not being the same; not identical; separate "
Distinct – dictionary.com
In the case of Aradi and Dhati – they ARE opposite. Julike Hard Vs Soft.
End of.
– – –
"Suppose you are a man and from Pakistan. Your being a Pakistani has nothing to do in your being a man, though you are certainly INTRINSICALLY Pakistani."
Again . . . false analogy – hoe does it relate back to Aradi and Dhati. Here your use of "Intrinsically" is different. ONLY when considering being man
Hence – ONLY when Noor and Dhiyah relate to the moon – they are either Intrinsic or Extrinsic to their bodies[Moor or Sun].
In similar vain . . .both are intrinsically light.
I can play semantic – and still show your up. Down boy, Down!
– – –
As I have pointed out:
Extrinsic means Unessential.
Read YOUR OWN example. It is saying the same thing. Being a Pakistani is NOT essential to being a man. It is an extrinsic property.
That is it!
– – –
" I would say it represents an inaccurate meaning, contrast it with what wiki "
Same repetition of lie! No accurate reasoning!
WIKI does NOT say anything different.
I have shown this.
– – –
Look:
" For example, a chair can be made of wood, metal, or plastic, but this is accidental relative to its being a chair. It is still a chair regardless of the material from which it is made."
Hence wood is EXTRINSIC to a chair being a chair.
What is EXTRINSIC?
"not essential or inherent; not a basic part or quality;"
– – –
These all are related terms.
Extrinsic can also mean "Extra"
Aradi can mean Extra.
Extrinsic means "Unessential".
Hans Wher mentions that.
Just because IT did NOT use this particular word is NOT of major consequence. Especially when you consider . . . other dictionaries do!
ha ha ha. Trashful of ad homimems. You don't have anything more to offer. It is you who is deliberately offering a meaning to Aradi which need not apply and is not a usual meaning for the word as per Almaany.
You call others abuser ,but your all post recommends spicy abuses ,when unable to tunnel up your great "knowledge", your cursing tournament begin,s.Ha,ha,ha………poor fellow.
//there are STILL people who believe the Earth is flat . . . guess whose evidence they use?//
May be Quran's. How do I know? And how does it matter?
ROFALMAO !!!
"It was an example to show how difference in the intensity can be explained using words with opposite meaning without actually rendering the subject opposites. Similar to Lisan. "
WRONG. . . . IT IS NOT similar to Lisan.
Lisan is talking about Essential and Accidental property.
That is what the Words Dhati and Aradi mean.
It ME who pointed out that JUST because one property is opposite – it DOES NOT mean that Noor and Dhiyah are opposites.
It is YOU who was wrongly banging on about that I imply – Noor and Dhiyah are opposites. Wrong! How can they be. BOTH are lights.
YOU ARE A SHAMELESS LIAR!
– – –
"I said Nadal's is essential. Thats a minor point though. It is just an example, nothing to do with nadal's or Fed's ACTUAL abilities. "
Doh! Now that you have SEEN your error . . . this is trying to get out of it.
It was a FALLACIOUS analogy – as I have shown.
– – –
"That doesn't make Noor a reflected light. More so as Aradi has been translated as Accidental not extrinsic (from where you sourced that text from Lisan). "
It makes Noor – a light that is NOT intrinsic to its body – unessential component. . . not part of its makeup.
UNLIKE Dhiyah – which intrinsic par of the sun. An essential property.
– – – –
You are DELIBERATELY dishonest. . . Aradi DOES mean Extrinsic too. . . I have SHOWN that . . .
Lanes, Google, Al Mawrid, Oxford Arabic [The larger version] . . . Lisan Al Arab. .. and many other Arabic dictionaries.
So on what basis are you denying – that Aradi does NOT mean "Extrinsic"
Accidental – has similar connotations – as it means a property that is not an essential property.
What do you think the word Extrinsic means?
– – –
"It exactly says "rare translation". Don't lie. "
The word Aradi DOES mean Extrinsic. Al Marid – for example
YOU invented this guff -about rare words only being in poetry. . . which balderdash.
It is NOT a rare meaning – BUT a secondary meaning.
In the right context – it is the right word to use. . . .
And to imply "extrinsic" – I give many of examples.
What would be point of that? As you won't be able to READ and UNDERSTAND a single one!
– – –
"Where?"
Previous – see above. For example secondary meanings of the English word "Light".
This "rarity" – relates to the word being for non-primary usage.
Words are coined for specific meanings . . . for example – Mouse. Refers to furry animal. In computing – it means "a pointing device" . . .
Mouse to mean a pointing device is secondary meaning. Compared to Mouse the Animal – it is rarer. . .
Now do you understand what this rare means.
And WHY your make-belief – that rare words only occur in poetry was NONSENSE – you invented.
– – –
"and that means that the documents that google sampled to form its repositories of meanings for Aradi rarely used extrinsic for it. "
Wrong impression. As I have said . . . it is ENTIRELY question of context.
Rat – to mean a scoundrel – is rare . . . but it depend on context.
Sample sentence: "He is a rat"
Here the use of word rat is metaphorical. If some looked it up – and then tried to justify meaning of rat the animal. It wouldn't work.
Hence YOUR impression – of rare is ABSURD.
Especially the guff you made up. About rare words being used in poetry. . . what?
– – –
"I am sorry if you don't get the tool-tips. But then how did you know what THAT RARITY meant? "
By having studied some linguistics at college!
– – –
"The meaning doesn't apply, if it had, the translator of Lisan had written Extrinsic and not Accidental. "
HA HA HA HA . . . . Here is where YOUR lying stops.
YOU don't know Arabic – hence how can you pick up the context?
Google the word "Extrinsic" – see the bar?
Now what does it say?
So what word would "lisan" had used?
Karaji? In Arabic the word خارجي in this case would not and does not make much sense. The word عرضي does!
Hence WHY extrinsic means Aradi.
See HOW you have STILL pretended you understand Arabic?
Shameless Dishonesty!
– – –
"You are contriving to fit something somehow to prove that Naik was accurate in saying that muneer certainly refers to a reflector. "
WRONG! I have SHOWN even Tafsir as old as Ibn Kathir make this difference. . . and the modern ones.
Doh! Naik is NOT known for his Arabic. HE relies on others. Naik is NOT considered as an "Islamic Scholar" in terms of having comprehensively studied Islam.
He is from a Medical background. Hence his "Dr"
He did NOT come up with this meaning.
"So who is descending into pettiness and absurdity? "
What I said IS NOT pettiness – it is accurately pointing YOUR behaviour out.
You do NOT have a leg to stand on. Your whole basis is petty. Needlessly trying to argue – when you cannot even understand the bloody language.
Then the lies. . . the petty insults.
YOU do that. YOU.
– – –
"See how you try to escape."
Escape from what? See how DISHONEST you are . . . pretending this is some kind of argument. . . Doh!
You have habit great pretense and ridiculousness. . . things like rare meanings are only found in poetry . .. and whatnot
It is incredibly simple. YOU cannot understand Arabic.
End of discussion really.
YOU tried to pretend you did KNOW!
Then you pretend – somehow you know the science of logic – YOU don't.
– – –
"Foolish argument. Hard light and Soft light AREN'T opposites. Hard and Soft are. "
Doh! And that QUALITY is opposite. THAT is my argument regarding – Aradi and Dhati. They are opposites. In being light – they are BOTH Lights.
See what a dishonest person you are!
Like I said . . .YOU trip your own self up. Ditto! Once more.
– – –
"More dishonesty. Lisan clearly says: The word "Dhiya'a" is of more intense meaning than the word "Noor". The difference is in the intensity of the meaning of the two words. "
Then it goes on to DEFINE the difference . . . WHICH is in being Aradi and Dhati.
THAT is is the context for what is said earlier.
HENCE you are The dishonest one. . . I have been saying this FROM day one. . . .
See how you CONVENIENTLY left this out . . .to try and PRETEND I was being dishonest.
See . . . . that
See that!
It is the same thing OVER and OVER and OVER. . . . .
I have said the same thing from start. . . DO YOU KNOW WHY?
I have actual command of my material. YOU don't.
– – –
"That quote from my mine was in response to your quote"
No it wasn't.
– – –
"Ad-homimem. When you can't counter logically you resort to it. "
He he . . . . nope son . . . . PEOPLE like you lob this about.
On this site. . . I have repeatedly shown this.
– – –
You are DISHONEST. . . look the examples I have given.
You DO NOT Have an argument at all.
– – – –
Aradi DOES mean Accidental, Unessential, Extra. . . and all these meanings apply. . . . and lead to similar meanings.
Dhati does mean. . . . Essential, Autonomous, etc.
– – –
WTF are you arguing about? This is easily understood by anyone . . . able to read the material.
YOU are deliberately trying to find an argument. Whilst NOT being capable of understanding Arabic.
//there are STILL people who believe the Earth is flat . . . guess whose evidence they use?//
May be Quran's. How do I know? And how does it matter?
//THe book is saying what I am saying. . . and NOT what you are saying.//
No. The Lisan is saying Noor is aradi, YOU are chasing a particular, rare usage of that word to establish Naik's, alleged, untruth that Q.25:61, in saying Moon as muneer, is FIRMLY, WITHOUT ANY DOUBT, EXACTLY saying that Moon is a reflector of light. If Lisan was saying what you think it is saying, then it would have used some other word meaning EXACTLY Reflection. It is primarily a dictionary not a work of philosophy to yield to distant meanings.
In fact Naik’s lie goes further deep. In some of his videos he actually wants us to believe 25:61 is a clear indication of SCIENTIFIC FOREKNOWLEDGE in Quran. By SHOWING that Quran says moon’s light is reflected he posits that mankind discovered it much later. But that isn’t a fact. Greek, Indian and Chinese philosophers and scientists had already discovered that moon isn’t the source of its light. Refer Aryabhatiya for example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aryabhatiya#Signific…
//Aradi meaning ACCIDENTAL is NOT RARE! //
Lie of the first order. I didn't say aradi meaning Accidental is rare, but Accidental in philosophy meaning Extrinsic is. And as implied by Almaany and google translator, Aradi meaning Extrinsic is.
//As I am the one who can understand it. . . and NOT you.//
First there is no proof that you know Arabic, other than your claim. Second it doesn't matter because you are using English, referring to English and philosophical meanings of certain words, referring to books like Wehr's English translations etc and I know English and have a certain amount of grip on literature, philosophy and logic. So this line of attack is useless.
//If this was Sakat – different matter. //
Not needed:-)
//THE MEANING of hte word is "Accidental" . . . that is the one I have used.//
You have referred to Wehr. This is what the intro says when quoting meanings "Essentially synonymous definitions are separated by commas. A semicolon marks the beginning of a definition in a different semantic ränge." Lets again see what he says for Aradi (note the , and ;):
accidental (philo.), non-essential, unessential; incidental, accidental, contingent, fortuitous, casual;
So clearly when he says accidental(philo.) he thinks it is non-essential, unessential, but NOT EXTRINSIC. Clearly Extrinsic <> unessential and it is not explicitly written too. So when Wehr uses "accidental (philo.)" he doesn't mean Extrinsic.
//Not ONE translator is proven wrong. Not one.//
Yet, no translator used "Moon reflecting light".
//Personal and Self – ONLY relate to humans.//
Ok. Fine. Doesn't matter (Actually it need not ONLY relate to humans). The point is that per Almaany, the most obvious meanings are, typical, essential or particular.
//" Once you ..You trip your own self up//
Real trash. See below why it is so:
//it is THESE word that go on to define Noor and Dhiyah. //
They don't 'define' Noor and Dhiyah, they contrast the intensity of the meanings associated with Dhiya and Noor, as per the Lisan.
//Try looking up what distinction means // http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/distinc…
Most usual meaning: 'difference', not opposite.
//Read this:… This is meaning of Accidental. I am NOT saying anything different for Aradi.//
Read it again. Where does it say that the property is extrinsic? See the example of chair again. That a chair is made of plastic is its INTRINSIC property, but that doesn't 'define' it being a chair. It being made of plastic ISN'T EXTRINSIC to the chair, though it is Accidental IN SO FAR AS what we understand of a CHAIR. Suppose you are a man and from Pakistan. Your being a Pakistani has nothing to do in your being a man, though you are certainly INTRINSICALLY Pakistani. Similarly where you are currently located, say UK, is an Accidental property not an Essential property.
//But it DOES say that . . . Accidental property is: "an accident is a property which has no necessary connection to the essence of the thing being described."
Which doesn't counter the fact that Accidental properties aren’t Extrinsic (They may or may not).
//Look how dictionary sums it up//
Yes, it does, the only point going for you. I would say it represents an inaccurate meaning, contrast it with what wiki says for example. Or even the webster: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/acciden… , http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/acciden…
//No one is considering Federer's intensity vs Nadal. This has NOTHING to do with//
It was an example to show how difference in the intensity can be explained using words with opposite meaning without actually rendering the subject opposites. Similar to Lisan.
//Why would Federer's intensity be essential and not Nadal's?//
And now even your reading faculties are going ashtray, I said Nadal's is essential. Thats a minor point though. It is just an example, nothing to do with nadal's or Fed's ACTUAL abilities.
//Dhati and Aradi -are word that have OPPOSITE meanings.//
That doesn't make Noor a reflected light. More so as Aradi has been translated as Accidental not extrinsic (from where you sourced that text from Lisan).
//Google DOES NOT say it is rare meaning.//
It exactly says "rare translation". Don't lie.
//I have SHOWN that is NOT what google is saying//
Where? When google says something is a 'rare translation' it means that all the various usages google has parsed 'this' meaning came up rarely often. The definition of 'rare' would be definitely less than some % of the total sample size.
//I don't GET any tool-tips. And as I have pointed out WHAT this rarity means.//
I am sorry if you don't get the tool-tips. But then how did you know what THAT RARITY meant? Trust me when I say that the tool tip exactly says "Rare Translation" and that means that the documents that google sampled to form its repositories of meanings for Aradi rarely used extrinsic for it. A rare translation implies a rare usage at least within the samples (even though IT NEED NOT DEFINITELY MEAN a rare usage).
//WRONG! A meaning is used which applies. And this is ANOTHER CLEAR LIE.//
Yes, and the lie is from you. The meaning doesn't apply, if it had, the translator of Lisan had written Extrinsic and not Accidental. You are contriving to fit something somehow to prove that Naik was accurate in saying that muneer certainly refers to a reflector.
//Stop descending to pettiness and absurdity – when you cannot answer something. Leave it. //
Don't preach. It is you who made the claim "All you do is simply say this doesn't mean this and that". So who is descending into pettiness and absurdity?
//So what? Who care?//
See how you try to escape. It were you who said that I made up that being so. If you didn't care, then why did you not say it back then? I think, because then you thought it was a good line of attack against me.
//Difference of intensity is NOT being considered //
More dishonesty. Lisan clearly says: The word "Dhiya'a" is of more intense meaning than the word "Noor". The difference is in the intensity of the meaning of the two words.
// Hard light VS Soft . . . ARE OPPOSITES!
Foolish argument. Hard light and Soft light AREN'T opposites. Hard and Soft are. Gleam and blaze aren't opposite, however the intensity associated with their usage eg, gleam of hope and blaze of fury, are DIFFERENT (May even be opposites).
//"Really? Do you think the example DOE. . . " See how DISHONEST you are . . . in answer to a completely un-related matter you post this //
More dishonesty. That quote from my mine was in response to your quote "Doh! See what an HYPOCRITE you are " which was again against my explanation that making a difference doesn't make them antonym, followed by Fed-Nadal example. And now you say it is in answer to completely un-related matter.
//you BRAINWASHED in to hating Islam. Hence – truth doesn't matter. //
Ad-homimem. When you can't counter logically you resort to it.
Aradi meaning ACCIDENTAL is NOT RARE!
"It is plain for anybody to see that. The tool-tip exactly say "Rare translation", if it is not rare but not common it would "Uncommon translation". You are exposed. "
I don't GET any tool-tips. And as I have pointed out WHAT this rarity means.
Same thing happens if you look up the meanings of the word "Light" – the rarity is being non-primary usage. And in the amount.
NOT in being Archaic. I have clearly explained this.
– – –
"Why I can't I use your own translations from your own site against you? "
Ha ha . . . because I AM saying something else .. . and YOU something else. Read above . . . .I can check the meanings IN ARABIC.
I have posted clarifications from Tafsir too. It is NOT me saying it. But others too.
You can TWIST anything . .. . there are STILL people who believe the Earth is flat . . . guess whose evidence they use?
– – –
" Or is the site or book not authoritative from where you might have copy pasted it?"
THe book is saying what I am saying. . . and NOT what you are saying.
As I am the one who can understand it. . . and NOT you.
Hence why you pretend – that you are ABLE to decide what Lisan is saying . . .
on what basis? None. Other than shameless lies.
huh? As mad as ever!
"Thats why nobody translated 25:61 as reflected light from moon"
Ha ha ha . . . I have ALREADY pointed this out . . . Both words mean Light.
The difference is in defining light. Hence why . . .Exegesis make the difference.
Such as Tafsir Kabir, Tabari, Ib Kathir and whatnot.
– – –
"The Muslim world was awaiting the arrival of great Arabic scholars like you and Naik and some new bred Muslim apologists to correct these translations. "
Wrong . . .! . . . son wrong . . . Unlike me. . . . .Naik is NOT an Arabic scholar.
I have studied at SOAS, Qatar and King Saud.
– – –
Naik relies on works of others. . . . he did NOT come up with this. It already available.
– – –
This is from Tafsir called- Al Muneer li Zukhayli:
"وقيل: ما بالذات ضوء، وما بالاكتساب من غيره نور، وقد نبه تعالى بذلك على أنه خلق الشمس نيّرة في ذاتها، والقمر نيرا بالاكتساب من الشمس"
It is said – that which is by itself is Dho' and that which is acquired from other – Noor. Allah Almighty has reminded besides that he created the Sun as light initself and the moon acquiring its light from the sun.
Now Wahbah Zukhayli is current – but before Naik. Is Syrian.
Older Tafsir:
"الضَّوْءُ لِمَا بِالذَّاتِ كَالشَّمْسِ وَالنَّارِ، وَالنُّورُ لِمَا بِالْعَرَضِ وَالِاكْتِسَابِ مِنَ الْغَيْرِ"
Dho' – is by itself like Sun or Fire. Noor – is "Arad" and Iktisaab (acquired) from other.
Tafsir al Manar. [Around King Auranzeb's time]
"Read up Lisan again it says the difference is in the intensity of the meaning of Dhiya and Noor."
Lol! I AM THE ONE able to read the bloody book!
And NOT you. . . .
– – –
Dhati means "Essential" property
Aradi – Non Essential Property.
That is what the word mean. . . End of.
"Foolish guy equating a noun (an entity or event) with an adjective (Accidental). "
Ha ha ha ha ha . . . . "Moonlight is accidental" is PERFECTLY fine.
In fact it is MORE Than fine. . .
Whole purpose of adjectives is to describe nouns!
However Accident – the noun too has similar connotations. It is NOT adjectival form which suddenly has new, distinct meanings.
Doh! How shameless can you get?
– – –
"zahil "
What is this?
Doh! I asked you to prove my lie with quote . . . YOU did not do it.
Where is the lie?
What did I lie about?
I didn't – YOU falsely claimed it.
HENCE when I asked for proof.
You have NOT been able to prove it.
HENCE you are the one who lied!
– – –
To prove my lie . . . you would have had to have shown a changing story. You didn't.
Like I said. . .. YOU ARE SHAMELESS LIAR.
"I pointed wiki and then the Britannica. "
NOPE – you will find . . I referred you to Britannica. My explanation is below. You DELIBERATELY misunderstand. And pretend that Wiki is saying different. It isn't.
As it says:
" an accident is a property which has no necessary connection to the essence of the thing being described."
Wiki.
Hence – Noor is a property of moon that has no necessary connection with its essence.
AS OPPOSED to Dhiyah. Which is an ESSENTIAL property of the Sun.
And both mean Light. Noor means light. Dho means light too.
!!!
– – –
"An Accidental property may or may not be dependent on another source. "
A liar is bound to trip himself up . . . ! Especially when you drag it out.
– – –
I have one DISTINCT advantage over you . . . that is in understanding Arabic.
HENCE I can read what DHATI and ARADI mean in Arabic.
AND know that the two words are Antonyms.
"I already know about it. And I have read wiki. It doesn't say an accidental property would be dependent on an external source. "
Read this:
"Aristotle made a distinction between the essential and accidental properties of a thing. For example, a chair can be made of wood, metal, or plastic, but this is accidental relative to its being a chair. It is still a chair regardless of the material from which it is made. To put this in technical terms, an accident is a property which has no necessary connection to the essence of the thing being described."
Wiki
This is meaning of Accidental. I am NOT saying anything different for Aradi.
– – –
"It doesn't say an accidental property would be dependent on an external source. "
But it DOES say that . . . Accidental property is:
"an accident is a property which has no necessary connection to the essence of the thing being described."
Look how dictionary sums it up:
"any entity or event contingent upon the existence of something else. "
Now do you REALLY need.
Actually I don't think you are THAT stupid . . . .DISHONEST and a DELIBERATE LIAR – yes. Stupid no.
If this was Sakat – different matter.
Do you really need me to explain the logic?
– – –
"If you just go by the sequence extrinsic is one of the rarer meanings, same as google says its a 'rare translation'."
Google DOES NOT say it is rare meaning.
YOU claim that.
I have SHOWN that is NOT what google is saying. . . . did you have an answer . . . NO.
Other than to repeat your fiction.
– – –
"You pick these and spare the more obvious ones. Wehr doesn't even consider this one!! "
WRONG! A meaning is used which applies. And this is ANOTHER CLEAR LIE.
As my article [unfinished] says . . . THE MEANING of hte word is "Accidental" . . . that is the one I have used. Then there are words that have similar meanings. . . Extrinsic, Extraneous, Unessential and etc.
Then when one looks at Dhati – it has meanings that are Opposite to the meanings of Aradi.
– – –
"So you are projecting an aradi meaning of aradi to prove Naik right and proving every other translator of 25:61 wrong or at least inaccurate!! "
100% lie . . . iu have ALREADY said this. Yet you have the habit of repeating your lies.
Not ONE translator is proven wrong. Not one.
– – –
"Here also a meaning like 'personal' or 'self' comes further down the order. The most obvious meaning, typical, essential or particular. "
Personal and Self – ONLY relate to humans. However the same meaning when applied to Objects . . . still mean – "the same object". . . of and relating to that particular object.
– – –
= = =
" Once you say that the philosophical meaning doesn't apply and then say just the opposite. Stop your flip flop. "
No son . .. STOP YOU LYING.
YOU ARE AN UNBELIEVABLE AND SHAMELESS LIAR.
I have said the SAME thing . . .
The philosophical MEANING is confined to defining Aradi. It has NOTHING to do with defining Noor.
This is what I have been saying from the day one . . . from my original posting.
This was a deliberate ploy from you . . .
Else show me by quoting me . . where I have said anything different.
– – –
"You said that the philosophical meaning of Accidental property is to be taken for aradi."
Doh! See you expose this lie of yours:
"f you just go by the sequence extrinsic is one of the rarer meanings, same as google says its a 'rare translation'. You pick these and spare the more obvious ones."
You trip your own self up!
– – –
" If the philosophical meaning is to be taken it has to apply on both dhiya and noor, because it is in this context that they come up in the first place. "
See how you fondly – repeat the same thing OVER and OVER and OVER . . .
And you know you are talking BS and Nonsense. . .
You ignore my replies . .. simply repeat the BS.
I have answered this . . .
No one is defining Dhiyah and Noor by philosophical terms – but the words
"Aradi" and "Dhati"
The two are separate . . . . it is THESE word that go on to define Noor and Dhiyah.
– – –
"That is already understood from Lisan. There is a distinction for sure. I never denied it and it is not the matter of discussion here.
"
Try looking up what distinction means . . .
"Because it simply doesn't mean this and that. "
Stop descending to pettiness and absurdity – when you cannot answer something. Leave it.
– – –
"Which has to do with my initial comment that moon-light is generally associated with softness. "
So what? Who care? What has moon-light being soft got to do with anything?
– – –
"I repeat Lisan doesn't say Dhiya is opposite of Noor and you have agreed. It merely contrast these two with the other two. A contrast doesn't imply that it is exact opposite. Example of Fed and Nadal was in this respect."
I have agreed as NO ONE claimed that Noor was opposite of Dhiyah. As I mentioned right from the start. . . MORE DISHONESTY!
Opposite of light is DARKNESS!
Contrast is being made of one quality of light . . . .Dhati and Aradi ARE opposite.
FACT – backed up by the dictionary.
– – –
"Liar. Did I say difference is not being made? I said making a difference in intensity of meaning doesn't mean that they have to be opposite. "
Again . . . anyone can read that there is NOTHING there to which you can say "Liar" to me. More dishonesty . . . ANOTHER LIE.
Difference of intensity is NOT being considered . . . when Lisan says . . . Dhati and Aradi.
If one takes your example – Hard light VS Soft . . . ARE OPPOSITES!
Here again ONE CHARACTERISTIC is opposite. Two lights by their VERY nature cannot be opposite. Doh!
– – –
"Really? Do you think the example DOE. . . "
See how DISHONEST you are . . . in answer to a completely un-related matter you post this . . .
You do NOT have a leg to stand on. . . how can you?
You do NOT understand Arabic. So what are you quibbling over?
Oh yes. . . . you BRAINWASHED in to hating Islam. Hence – truth doesn't matter.
– – –
"Lets say Nadal's intensity is essential and Fed's is not. It doesn't make Fed an opposite of Nadal. "
No one is considering Federer's intensity vs Nadal. This has NOTHING to do with
Bogus comparison . . .and a logical fallacy. The analogy does NOT make sense.
Why would Federer's intensity be essential and not Nadal's?
– – –
" It only means intensity is a hallmark of Nadal's game while it is not that of Fed. It DOESN’T mean that Fed’s game is opposite of that of Nadal"
Doh! Doh! Doh!
BUT if you are comparing intensity . . . one you call intense other NOT intense . . . then that is OPPOSITES.
Dhati and Aradi -are word that have OPPOSITE meanings.
Just like SOFT vs HARD!
– – –
"Exactly, and that property is not the existence of that light. "
He he he . . . Aradi means Extrinsic and etc.
Dhati means –
– – –
EVEN in Arabic the two words have opposite meanings. . . .
Your arguments are BASELESS.
As you do NOT even understand the language.
is it true or you are just joking ? interesting indeed !!
Forget these people my friend,their history dates back only to 1400 years . We human's are traveling back many millennium ,of course with our reasoning capacity .We have drilled to the level as to,how the oxygen was first begin to form on this earth and ,the two civilizations of plants and animals were developed.Mr.Sina ,want's to bring back these morons from the slumber of that Idiocy of MAD MOHAMMED.He has tremendous reasoning capacity .He intends of, saving these people from total annihilation ,because his own blood relations are still entangled (may be a remote reason)in this MAD CULT.It seems,Mr Sina concentrated on two possibilities,all these years,One , to evade innocent believers (Muslims) from total extinction by war with rest of the world.He felt that 99% percent of Muslims don't know what is ISLAM AND this MAD MOHAMMED,so he is trying hard to prevent their annihilation ,from the unseen third world war.. And second one,preparing this world to, face this imminent danger on humanity from this useless cult and their blind followers.
.There is another possibility ,this is my own reasoning ,the gradual increase in higher knowledge amongst infidels,will increase the gap between these morons and rest of us and,thus will increase our ability to show these people of their conception of 'ALLAH'" and MAD MOHAMMED as according to the projection belated in their mind,through the prism of science and ,make them believe (because these people are blind believers) and easily convert them into our slave,(cyborg) .The Japanese and rest of the world , who are spending huge amount on creation of robots, need not work to spend any more on such project. Infidels can convert these people(readily available source) as future robot..Just imagine ,at this moment ,there are 1.5 billion ready raw material at our disposal .You too can make few of them as your slaves..ha,ha,ha…..
It would appear to me that Muslims are being trained not to listen to their inner voice, or to even acknowledge having one. In order to know how to deal with any of life's numerous problems, they must look for an answer in the Quran or the Hadith. Islam has an answer for everything, from how to pray to which hand to use when wiping your ass. Nothing is left to the imagination! So most Muslims have no imagination.
Would you consider a contradiction to be an error? Here is a list of over 200 contradictions in the Quran.
http://www.answering-islam.org/Quran/Contra/
But one of the most obvious ones in my mind is the oft-quoted Q 2:256 "Let there be no compulsion in religion…" A lot of naive Christians get suckered into Islam by this verse alone. But how can this be be in the same book with Q 8:12 "I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Therefore strike off their heads and strike off every fingertip of them". As well as numerous other passages calling for physical violence against "unbelievers". How are such verses not examples of making the Muslim religion compulsory?
"This is a poor response . . . being "logical" has NOTHING to do with being a Muslim. The supposition in itself is fallacious."
Yes, I would agree with you there. And this is why you Muslims cannot seem to see the light. You are not applying universally agreed-upon rules of logic and common sense. You are simply believing something that was hammered into you endlessly from birth. A lie repeated often enough becomes the truth. You cannot seem to divorce yourselves from these seemingly self-evident "truths" long enough to critically evaluate them, without feeling you will be committing a horrible sin that will guarantee you ever-lasting hell-fire in the Hereafter. This is how Ali Sina is correct in saying that Muslims are motivated strictly by the primitive emotions of fear and greed, and not by the nobler emotions of love and compassion.
This reminds me of how Muhammad wanted to ban practically all forms of music in Islam. Said something about how this stirred up emotions in one that weren't "real", or at least that didn't pertain to what was really happening at the time. Or some such nonsense. But I believe what he really meant was he didn't want anyone getting stirred up by the Holy Spirit, which in my opinion is evoked best by music. Great art, and contemplating nature can do this as well. Music evokes yearnings for FREEDOM in my mind, which I can plainly see Muhammad had a lot of disdain for.
There is simply no "context" that can justify these verses! Can you provide a "context" that would justify them?
The verses are there, plain as day for all to see. Only a blind or mentally sick person could not see them or acknowledge their basic inhumanity. Islam cannot be called a "religion of peace" with verses like this promoting such graphic violence towards non-Muslims.
"Human nature reject bad fruits as you know already…."
You are right he days of Islam are numbered. Soon Humanity will reject this cancerous ( yet self congratulatory, self-righteous psychology) ideology. Better for you to wake up now. No doubt Muslims are accustomed to plead for mercy from the kafirs, escape punishment, again lay in wait for the next ambush. But this time the free world will not be deceived by the deceptive bleating s of Islam , thanks to Ali Sina's comprehensive expose of Mohammad and Islam
The heinous crimes from Mohammad bin Qasim to LeT are never condemned in the Muslim Households. On the other hand they take pride in belonging to that gory lineage. The sooner Non-Muslims come to grips with the Inverted Human values of Islam the better for the future of the world
Perhaps more than 40 billions of Human beings were exposed to the most heinous ideology of Quran (= inverted humanism) during the past 1398 years. The behavior of a single Muslim teaches more than what can be learned by a thousand recitations of the Devil's compendium (=Quran). No need to waste our time over the pious inanities and deceptions of Quran.
If you are , all the time finding fault with the posts here , for want of good English (because you are Punjabi and not the Englishman ,a diluted stuff) and ,not lead to explaining , the glory of ISLAM and MOHAMMED ,seriously i know,you don't have (because nothing like that really exist in that cult,you know this fact to your heart)any thing in storage to deliver,ha,ha,ha…….
/I call Sina silly – and lot more besides with GOOD evidence. . . /
Where is that GOOD evidence ?,i haven't seen a single till.
Oh!! poor man considering your age ,i only suggest ,some pain balm…….ha,ha,ha.
Allah sends shooting missiles to kill shaitan ,but injures thousands of human beings in Russia.Perhaps he is suffering from cataract to his eyes,need operation ,again has to salute the infidels,ha,ha,ha……..
U are a brainwashed moron trying to defame Dr. Ali Sina with all yr ridiculous comments because he did not agree with yr BS religion. It is Best and Superior in reducing the population growth which is outrunning food supplies.
aradi: http://www.almaany.com/home.php?language=english&…
If you just go by the sequence extrinsic is one of the rarer meanings, same as google says its a 'rare translation'. You pick these and spare the more obvious ones. Wehr doesn't even consider this one!!
http://www.almaany.com/home.php?language=english&…
Here also a meaning like 'personal' or 'self' comes further down the order. The most obvious meaning, typical, essential or particular.
So you are projecting an aradi meaning of aradi to prove Naik right and proving every other translator of 25:61 wrong or at least inaccurate!!
//YES – that is EXACTLY what I have done. This is AN UNBELIEVABLE lie! //
From you. Read back your posts. Once you say that the philosophical meaning doesn't apply and then say just the opposite. Stop your flip flop. You said that the philosophical meaning of Accidental property is to be taken for aradi. That meaning, per my understanding and per wiki and per Brittanica is unessential, not forming the essence. IT IS NOT DEPENDENT OR EXTRINSIC. If the philosophical meaning is to be taken it has to apply on both dhiya and noor, because it is in this context that they come up in the first place. And Reflection isn't a philosophical attribute of moon-light.
It is just a chain of one following the other.
//Distinction is being made.
That is already understood from Lisan. There is a distinction for sure. I never denied it and it is not the matter of discussion here.
"This is called sickness of the mind which most kafirs suffer from . Kafirs never read koran in their life and yet they tell you we have the authority to interpret it ,"- Zitouni
Muslims have been teaching kafirs the distilled essence of koran through their Inverse Humanism ( Plunder, rapes, extreme tortures ) for nearly 1390 solar years. we don't need to read it. we already know what it is.
//All you do is simply say this doesn't mean this and that.//
Because it simply doesn't mean this and that.
//Which has NO BEARING here//
Which has to do with my initial comment that moon-light is generally associated with softness.
//No I ma not – you simply claim lying fallacies all over the place. . . look at your reply. //
I did. You forewent it. I repeat Lisan doesn't say Dhiya is opposite of Noor and you have agreed. It merely contrast these two with the other two. A contrast doesn't imply that it is exact opposite. Example of Fed and Nadal was in this respect.
//Difference is being made!//
Liar. Did I say difference is not being made? I said making a difference in intensity of meaning doesn't mean that they have to be opposite.
//See what an HYPOCRITE you are . . . by your own measures the above would be an ad-hom.//
Really? Do you think the example DOESN'T prove that if you contrast the intensity of how they play their game they don't become opposite of each other? Or do you think they do become?
//Which words are being differed?//
Intensity of playing a game is being differed. Lets say Nadal's intensity is essential and Fed's is not. It doesn't make Fed an opposite of Nadal.
Let’s say I contrast this with the hard-work that Nadal puts in playing his points with the ease with which Fed plays his points. It only means intensity is a hallmark of Nadal's game while it is not that of Fed. It DOESN’T mean that Fed’s game is opposite of that of Nadal, neither does it mean that Fed doesn’t or can’t work hard for his points!! This despite the FACT that hard and easy are opposites of each other.
//ONE property of Light is being contrasted//
Exactly, and that property is not the existence of that light.
How many bitches have you sired so far Mr. Zitouni. How many grand bitches, How many great grand bitches will you sire?
"Why he cannot buy oil from non Muslims producing countries and leave us alone ."
Who started this process of poking into other people's affairs. It is Mohammad and his narcissist ideology ( faking GOD) that has the habit of waging perpetual aggressive wars on peaceful communities. Even now Islam is a standing threat to the whole of Humanity.
No doubt the white man has inflicted violence on other people, but he has also uplifted the quality of thinking and comforts through Science and technology. There is promising future for Humanity under the leadership of the white Race. Islam on the other hand inflicted pure violence on the communities it invaded. Why should Muslims prosper? No , Muslims should not prosper until the ideology of Narcissism is completely defeated all over the world. No Mosques, No Azan, No Madarasas, No unholy tombs of the vile wretched followers of MO, Not even the dry bones of the dead Monsters should remain on this sacred planet. This sacred planet belongs all those who accept the GOLDEN RULE. Muslims exclude themselves from the right to live on this planet by their unholy prayers and pledges to the evil designs of the most wicked being ever born.
"This was rule of war back then . It was not invented by Muslims and we have rule in Islam which says that you can inflict the same punishement on the enemy . Plus women were killed or harmed "
Wars are of two types, aggressive wars and defensive wars. Aggressive wars are motivated by lust, greed, covetousness, malice, absence of control over senses, envy, wrath etc,. ( whole set of characteristics symptomatic of an Impure mind). People with such impure minds are called Demons (= Narcissist in modern terminology). Mohammad's wars were aggressive wars and completely unjustified. To justify the unjustified behavior he faked himself as the messenger of GOD.
//Try reading you wiki Article again sonny . . . and Britannica!
This seems to be NEW hiccup for you. . . //
I already know about it. And I have read wiki. It doesn't say an accidental property would be dependent on an external source.
I beg pardon,",of youe own cult,why not gabriel,who introduced Mohammed to "
" This cult ISLAM , or MOHAMMED ,solely dependent on Gabriel for the revelations, how you believe ,these are not the words of Gabriel himself ,rather then of Allah.
//I have exposed your fully
Celebrate!!
//Noor is described as Aradi
That doesn't make Noor = Aradi as you wrote.
//You know PERFECTLY well that you do not know Arabic. . . HENCE the LYING that I don't know it EITHER. //
Ad homimem. I know perfectly well that I am no expert in Arabic. I never claimed that. But your own understanding is not good either and you claim yourself to be an expert!! So that makes you a liar. And what more you make proud statements, that makes you a very bad muslim (read the hadith where Muhammad says that the guy with even a little pride is not going to make it).
//I have exposed other points . . .
Where, which one? Every point you have raised has been succintly answered. Since you couldn't digest them now you are just becoming more and more abusive and rhetorical.
//No you haven't – you are lying – making FALSE CLAIMS – as per usual. //
So are you claiming that what you gave earlier, this link: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/accident?s… would take me to "Accidental"?
//Try reading Hans Wher
Yes, please do. Wehr's first meaning on which you were basing much of your claim is Accidental AS IN Philosophy. Accidental in philosophy is what it is, I pointed wiki and then the Britannica. You are missing the elephant for the tail.
//And in this case – Wiki doesn't any different.
It clearly and precisely defines what an Accidental Property is. It DOESN'T necessiates any dependency in its content or meaning. An Accidental property may or may not be dependent on another source. It is not a POINT OF INTEREST as far as Accidental Properties goes.
How vulnerable you are, in defending , ISLAM and describing MAD MOHAMMED ,you have to take help (if any) or refuge into Google ,for "knowledge" as to Islam and Mohammed.,of youe own cult,why not gabriel,who introduced Mohammed to Allha,ha,ha,ha,……….
//THat is what the two WORD mean.//
Thats why nobody translated 25:61 as reflected light from moon!! The Muslim world was awaiting the arrival of great Arabic scholars like you and Naik and some new bred Muslim apologists to correct these translations.
//And ONE is intrinsic . . . the SUN LIGHT! HENCE DHAATI
OTHER IS EXTRINSIC – HENCE ARADI.
THat is what the two WORD mean.
DOH!
See – you trip your own self up! //
Read up Lisan again it says the difference is in the intensity of the meaning of Dhiya and Noor. Please use your light bulbs.
//Accidental = " any entity or event contingent upon the existence of something else. "
Same – MOONLIGHT is dependent upon something else.//
Foolish guy equating a noun (an entity or event) with an adjective (Accidental).
//called what I said gibberish. //
Thats because my dear zahil Amin, it is gibberish.
//Prove this with my quotes!//
here you go lying again. Proof:
I said wiki says: an accident is a property which has no necessary connection to the essence of the thing being described.
You retorted: //EXACTLY PRECISELY . . . . Quit playing around.
That is EXACTLY what Aradi would lead to . . .
Hence the moon is described as Noor – whose light is NOT an intrinsic part of it. //
So this implies that you think that non-essential properties are not intrinsic. Thats pretty poor logic 8take the case of whiteness of a football)
Thanks ,for enlightening!!!!.
//NO IT DOES NOT! Google says it is SECONDARY meaning.//
It is plain for anybody to see that. The tool-tip exactly say "Rare translation", if it is not rare but not common it would "Uncommon translation". You are exposed.
//I have DONE so here. . . . several times and in several different posts! //
Yes you have, I am referring to that text from Lisan IN YOUR SITE.
//No you haven't – AS I AM the translator! YOU CANNOT DO IT!
As you DO NOT EVEN UNDERSTAND Arabic! //
Why I can't I use your own translations from your own site against you? Are they wrong? Are they incomplete? Or is the site or book not authoritative from where you might have copy pasted it?
"I showed you your dishonesty with regards to dictionary.com."
No you haven't – you are lying – making FALSE CLAIMS – as per usual.
– – –
"You showed Accident and we were talking about Accidental one is noun "
Try reading you wiki Article again sonny . . . and Britannica!
This seems to be NEW hiccup for you. . .
"Aradi isn't an Accident!! "
Try reading Hans Wher. . . Aradi describes Noor – as accidental. "Accidental" in this case would mean the same thing! Of or pertaining to Accident.
Talk about pointing out the obvious . . .
– – –
"Second, Yes, I will always reject a concise meaning when presented with a full article presented with examples. "
Wrong and Pathetic. As concise meaning is of
And in this case – Wiki doesn't any different.
Second – Wiki says NO different. You have DONE your best
Ha ha ha . . . . see you are SHAMELESS LIAR!
I have exposed your fully . . . .
"
Noor = 'Aradi = meaning Extra, Non-Essential, Extrinsic. . .
Dhiyah = Autonomous, Essential. . . "
My meaning is CLEAR!
Noor is described as Aradi – meaning extrinsic – Accidental – Non Essential. . . .
– – –
"Your arabic stands exposed."
How? And who by? On what basis?
See how you lie.
You know PERFECTLY well that you do not know Arabic. . . HENCE the LYING that I don't know it EITHER.
– – –
Shameless lying.
– – –
I have exposed other points . . . WHICH you cannot answer – yet you hold ON TO your lies . . . .
Ha ha!
– – –
" google says its a rare translation,"
NO IT DOES NOT!
Google says it is SECONDARY meaning.
It does NOT say it is RARE!
I have EXPLAINED THIS TO YOU!
– – –
"You didn't translate aradi to be extrinsic"
I have DONE so here. . . . several times and in several different posts!
"And I have shown you your own translation of Lisan from your own site. You didn't translate aradi to be extrinsic"
No you haven't – AS I AM the translator! YOU CANNOT DO IT!
As you DO NOT EVEN UNDERSTAND Arabic!
– – –
See – you lie shamelessly
//Mir Kasim //
You mean Mir Jafer.
"Possibly thats why you thought "an accident is a property which has no necessary connection to the essence of the thing being described. " implies that the accidental property becomes extrinsic. "
He he he . .. lie upon lie . . .shameless lying. OPEN LYING.
Prove this with my quotes!
Aradi means EXRINSIC – as dictionary says . . . .
The implication is the SAME – that Noor in case of MOON is of extrinsic source.
Accidental = " any entity or event contingent upon the existence of something else. "
Same – MOONLIGHT is dependent upon something else.
See how you lie!
– – –
"What you quoted here doesn't make accidental property extrinsic. it just staes the 10 categories as per Aristotle. So what you say is gibberish. "
No it isn't – it PROVES what you said was gibberis. . the EXAMPLE you gave of of ONE entity. . .
I pointed out – WRONG example. . . read the rest.
Rather than countering . . . all you have done is – called what I said gibberish.
Something YOU are very keen to do.
Hence – more and more lies!
– – –
"Foolish remark again. The example was to show how accidental property contrasts with essential properties."
But it DID NOT!
– – –
"It has everything to with the contrast between dhaati and aradi. It is not the properties of Sun or Moon that is under discussion, it is the NATURE of one property namely the emission of light from these 2 bodies. "
And ONE is intrinsic . . . the SUN LIGHT! HENCE DHAATI
OTHER IS EXTRINSIC – HENCE ARADI.
THat is what the two WORD mean.
DOH!
See – you trip your own self up!
//hang on . . . YOU rejected dictionary.com then pushed – wiki article.
I showed you your dishonesty with regards to dictionary.com. You showed Accident and we were talking about Accidental one is noun, the other an adjective. One concerns an entity or event, and the other an attribute or property. Aradi isn't an Accident!!
Second, Yes, I will always reject a concise meaning when presented with a full article presented with examples.
[cont]
– – –
" Does Lisan says that dhaati is opposite of aradi? NO."
YES! It is INDICATED . . . . by the very fact that THIS IS THE DIFFERENCE between the TWO THINGS!
I have ALREADY POINTED THIS OUT! THAT WAS THE WHOLE POINT . . . DIFFERENCE BETWEEN 'NOOR' AND 'DHIYAH' IS . . . . ARADI AND DHAATI.
Hence BOTH ARE DISTINCT!
DOH! This is why – YOU HAVE NO EXPERTISE IN LOGIC!
– – –
"Does it say Noor is opposite of Dhiya' No"
NO ONE SAID – NOOR IS OPPOSITE OF DHIYAH
I have categorically denied this . . . YET you still lie!
NOOR is NOT OPPOSITE of DHIYAH. . ..
But the TWO are different . . .. ON OF THEIR PROPERTY IS AT OPPOSITE!
BOTH mean LIGHT
One is LIGHT – is intrinsic to its object – in this case SUN. The other light is EXTRINSIC of its object – in this case Moon.
– – –
" Did you claim, and prove, that Yusuf Ali, Picthall et al. were wrong when they didn't translate 25:61 "reflector Of Light", NO. "
He he . . . but no one HAS SAID Ali and Pickthal were wrong. . . . NO ONE!
NOOR and DHIYAH both mean light!
The difference is in the DETAIL! THey DO NOT HAVE to make the distinction. . . THAT IS WHY WE HAVE TAFSIR [EXEGESIS]
For example:
وَأَنَّهُ جَعَلَ الشُّعَاعَ الصَّادِرَ عَنْ جُرْمِ الشَّمْسِ ضِيَاءً وَشُعَاعَ الْقَمَرِ نُورًا، هَذَا فَنٌّ وَهَذَا فَنٌّ آخَرُ
Tafsir Ibn Khatir. Distinction is being made.
– – –
" Did you prove that a philosophical meaning of Accident apply, by your own admission, NO. "
YES – that is EXACTLY what I have done.
This is AN UNBELIEVABLE lie!
Wow! You cannot become more absurd than this!
You have NO SHAME in posting OPEN LIES!
[cont]
– –
"See again, you repeat the same stupid argument. "
Doh! YOU HYPOCRITE!
– – –
" I am also saying that Sun and Moon and their properties were not be taken up in philosophical terms but its YOU who was harping on the philosophical meaning of Acidental. "
Hence I don't repeat my argument . . . LIAR! As evidenced by your comment above. When you say: "I am also saying that Sun and…."
"YOU who was harping on the philosophical meaning of Acidental."
YES – that is in DEFINING the word 'Aradi . . . when it SAYS accidental. Hans Wher says (philo)
Indicating that this words MEANING is from that PARTICULAR SUBSET!
HENCE 'ARADI here means . . . Accidental = " any entity or event contingent upon the existence of something else. "
So in short – Aradi DOES mean Extrinsic. . . . this is OTHER meaning of Aradi. Even more meanings of the word confirm the same thing. Such Un-essential and Extra.
Aradi = Accidental is SIMPLY ONE MEANING!
HENCE no was talking about MOON and SUN in philosophical terms. YOU made the BS LIE up. . .. . NOW I have exposed it.
– – –
" I have said that a philosophical meaning of accident shouldn't even be applied for Noor "
DOH! NO ONE IS DOING THAT!
Accident is defining ARADI. . .
QUIT LYING!
– – –
"It were YOU who were pointing to Wehr saying the FIRST meaning he gives, Accidental(Philo.) means DEPENDENT. Its that easy to catch your lies. "
See how you lie! First you say i am applying it for Noor – here you have switched to Aradi!
Aradi DOES MEAN Dependent. . . .
EVIDENCE?
" any entity or event contingent upon the existence of something else. "
Hence your ACCUSATION of me lying – is in itself a LIE! A false claim.
I have GIVEN my basis for Aradi = Dependent.
– – –
"Add to the list. It is very apparent who is a kid here. "
Yes . . YOU! As I am the one with EXPERTISE in Classical Arabic. YOU cannot even understand the language . . .
DOH!
You have NO SHAME – You are brainwashed . . . . hence this bizarre carry on.
– – –
"The English is plain ad simple, Accidental Properties do not form the essence of the object in question."
DOH! Got in one . . . Light is NOT essence of the moon – in other words its essential component.
Hence it is ARADI – that is what it means. Al-Qamar is described as being – 'Aradi . . . meaning – light that is NOT intrinsic part of it.
Unlike the Sun!
– – –
"A football is a ball to play football with, it being white is an accidental property since you can play with any football IRRESPECTIVE of its colour."
YES!
– – –
" You are DELIBERATELY avoiding it. "
No I AM NOT. I AM THE ONE – WHO MENTIONED THIS MEANING OF ARADI.
ARADI MEANS ACCIDENTAL.
"You didn't and couldn't prove that the argument is stupid. "
I did. You are lying – evidence is above. No point repeating. All you are going to is contrary – NO MATTER WHAT.
– – –
"So still claiming that, makes it an ad homimem. "
No it doesn't – you don't even know what the term means. As it NOT abuse of you – in anyway.
– – –
"For example you haven't conclusively proven that in your quoted text Lisan says Dhaati is opposite of Aradi and then if Dhaati is Intrinsic, aradi must, in that sentence mean, extrinsic."
Wrong – this BS is simply from you. This is NOT my argument.
'Aradi means EXTRINSIC this from dictionaries – I have already given several references.
– – –
"But I have proven that in here the context is Dhiya is of more prominence/intensity than Noor and THEN Lisan relates with one to dhaati and the other with Aradi. In that sense Aradi can't mean dependent on another source. "
Wrong and lying claim. Where as Dhaati means Intrinsic and Aradi means Extrinsic.
Hence here your LYING claims falls down.
As you have NO PROOF other than being argumentative and desperately contrary.
I have mentioned lexicon after lexicon . . . what have you done – nothing.
– – –
"Add another to your list of ad homimems. First I never claimed I am an expert,"
Petty – this is NOT ad-hom – another CLEAR lie! And HYPOCRISY!
Expert? Son . . . YOU CANNOT EVEN SPEAK THE LANGUAGE!
"second it doesn't matter, I am using your site, your translation,"
Of course it bloody matters! YOU ARE NOT USING MY TRANSLATION AT ALL. . . . WHAT AN ABSURD LIE.
You are shameless liar.
Here is the proposition . . . . you have NO KNOWLEDGE of Arabic . . .so on what basis are you disagreeing?
None. . . 'Aradi – in ARABIC means EXTRINSIC.
The only reason I have to explain and reference in English is because you have no expertise in Arabic.
I have SHOWN that 'Aradi means Extrinsic. . . . by dictionaries. Arabic AND English.
– – –
" know enough of English and logic to know what words COULD mean in specific situations. "
LOAD OF OLD BS. . .
What has logic got to do with it?
And you DO NOT KNOW LOGIC!
I am challenging EVEN THIS. You are lying. By Logic I mean the science.
This isn't ABOUT English – But about Arabic. A language which you do NOT understand.
Because we were ruled by Englishman for your "cults"Idiocy. Aurang Jeb killed his own brother for power,Mir Kasim shake hands with Englishman to kill Sirajuddaul for power. Again for power Mohammed Ali of Tricherapalli shake hand with British and dissuade Chanda Saheb,thus made inhabitant of this country the slave of few Hispanics .They occupied this country with less blood shade and loss of property. I appreciate their "knowledge" of understanding of the situation. Again i am commending them for beautiful administration throughout their occupation of the subcontinent .Today this very language has tied all of us as one entity ,that is why ,i love the language .Above all the language is adorable daughter of her mother "Sanskrit". The beautiful language of your ancestors. Finally you have to define your understanding of "English",ha,ha,ha……
I am pouching him, but he sense it and fluctuate.He thought ,you are safe to play his hide and seek game,but don't know entering the trap of giant python (a painful death).
You really !!!,the another diemention of Mr.Sina, You are eating this guy raw and live.If Mr. Sina is sane ,he must take you as his deputy!!! .Well done Sir!
//Noor = 'Aradi = meaning Extra, Non-Essential, Extrinsic.
here comes my master of Arabic. Noor is EQUAL TO Aradi. Foolish. Your arabic stands exposed.
//The word repeat . . . I have dealt with your stupidities //
You didn't and couldn't prove that the argument is stupid. So still claiming that, makes it an ad homimem. For example you haven't conclusively proven that in your quoted text Lisan says Dhaati is opposite of Aradi and then if Dhaati is Intrinsic, aradi must, in that sentence mean, extrinsic. But I have proven that in here the context is Dhiya is of more prominence/intensity than Noor and THEN Lisan relates with one to dhaati and the other with Aradi. In that sense Aradi can't mean dependent on another source.
//Like you PRETEND you know Arabic. //
Add another to your list of ad homimems. First I never claimed I am an expert, second it doesn't matter, I am using your site, your translation, your reference to Wehr and know enough of English and logic to know what words COULD mean in specific situations.
//NO ONE is talking about the MOON and THE SUN is philosophical terms. //
See again, you repeat the same stupid argument. I am also saying that Sun and Moon and their properties were not be taken up in philosophical terms but its YOU who was harping on the philosophical meaning of Acidental.
//other pretending that I was talking about the moon in phil – terms //
I haven't said that. I have said that a philosophical meaning of accident shouldn't even be applied for Noor since my very early posts. It were YOU who were pointing to Wehr saying the FIRST meaning he gives, Accidental(Philo.) means DEPENDENT. Its that easy to catch your lies.
//You have NO EXPERTISE in the field .. . hence all the pretense.//
Add to the list. It is very apparent who is a kid here.
//Anyone can keep disagreeing.//
As you just showed. The English is plain ad simple, Accidental Properties do not form the essence of the object in question. A football is a ball to play football with, it being white is an accidental property since you can play with any football IRRESPECTIVE of its colour. It doesn't make the whiteness of that ball an extrinsic property dependent on something else. You are DELIBERATELY avoiding it.
//As I have shown my source. Lisan Al Arab.
And I have shown you exactly your source. Does Lisan says that dhaati is opposite of aradi? NO. Does it say Noor is opposite of Dhiya' No. And were you able to show me few examples where Munir has been used exactly as an object dependent on a different source. No. Did you claim, and prove, that Yusuf Ali, Picthall et al. were wrong when they didn't translate 25:61 "reflector Of Light", NO. Did you prove that a philosophical meaning of Accident apply, by your own admission, NO.
//Idiotic remark. My English is fine.//
Possibly thats why you thought "an accident is a property which has no necessary connection to the essence of the thing being described. " implies that the accidental property becomes extrinsic.
//Why did you miss this out? //
I didn't. You missed out the example quoted just above DELIBERATELY. What you quoted here doesn't make accidental property extrinsic. it just staes the 10 categories as per Aristotle. So what you say is gibberish.
//The example you give IS very different than the Moon and Sun. The properties under discussion are different.
Foolish remark again. The example was to show how accidental property contrasts with essential properties. It has everything to with the contrast between dhaati and aradi. It is not the properties of Sun or Moon that is under discussion, it is the NATURE of one property namely the emission of light from these 2 bodies.
//Encyclopedia Britannica – Dictionary.com – The oxford dictionary.
And I have shown you your own translation of Lisan from your own site. You didn't translate aradi to be extrinsic, google says its a rare translation, wiki posits a meaning that doesn't make it 'dependent', Wehr doesn't say it translates into 'dependent' and here's what britannica says: http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/1308674…
"Whereas substantial forms correspond to the category of substance, accidental forms correspond to categories other than substance; they are nonsubstantial categories considered as universals. "
THis is what happens . . . when you know you are wrong. But your brainwashing is NOT allowing you to accept what is right.
"Then you don't know. It says rare translation."
No it doesn't.
– – –
"That is, it is not common to translate aradi as extrinsic"
Nope – less usage and rarity ARE NOT synonymous.
In English the word "Light" – its PRIMARY meaning is
"Visible light (commonly referred to simply as light) is electromagnetic radiation that is visible to the human eye, and is responsible for the sense of sight." Wiki.
But It also has OTHER meanings. . . such as
– the aspect in which a thing appears or is regarded: [ Try to look at the situation in a more cheerful light. ]
– the radiance or illumination from a particular source: [the light of a candle.]
Now – both of the above are NOT the primary – but secondary meanings. As the usage is current – and it is easily understood.
Are they rare? As how you imply. No. Most words have MORE than one meaning . .
Are they confined to poetry or literature? No.
Now being Archaic is another aspect:
For example: Archaic usage of Light is, the eyesight.
You are confused in what tried to imply was "rare".
What by? By looking at a little bar in Google! Hardly an authority so to speak.
– – –
" add it to the fact that Wehr didn't do that"
It didn't use the word Extrinsic but incidental, unessential,
But other dictionaries did:
Al-Mawrid
almaany.com
google
Lanes
Then check Arabic-Arabic
Taaj, Lisan, Qamoos. . .and etc.
Hence more did! So one didn't?
– – –
"That it is quite unlikely that Lisan is positing extrinsic for aradi and by reflexivity on Noor."
Based on that . . . Hans doesn't mention it. How absurd! When LISAN itself . . . says the Aradi means Extrinsic!
– – –
"Rare usages are generally done in poems."
Wrong! Where did you get that? More meaningless conjecture.
Lisan Al Arab is OLD – its main focal, the Quran is about 1400 years old . . . !
Meanings CHANGE in that time. Some meanings drop off. . . . doh!
Talk about pointing out the obvious!
"It is already evident what kind of an expert you are in Arabic. "
Meaningless SON – meaningless . . . .
I can read, write and understand Arabic. YOU cannot. I have, in particular, expertise . . . in Classical Arabic. Doh!
As I have shown. . . What have you got? Petty insults!
– – –
"If only you knew what it means to be coherent!!"
Same to you. . . if only you didn't keep lying. Keep pretending you know Arabic all of a sudden. . . you cannot even read the bloody words. What are you one about?
All you have is . . . Soft Light – Intense light. . .
Why? Oh in literature . . . moonlight is associated with Soft light.
What has THAT got to do with anything? Nothing.
Solid evidence?
Noor = 'Aradi = meaning Extra, Non-Essential, Extrinsic. . .
Dhiyah = Autonomous, Essential. . .
– – –
= = =
"Wiki's explanation is in line with the other meanings used by Wehr, casual, non-essential, accidental. I didn't say that wiki's explanation exactly matches meanings of these words. "
False claim and utter BS. YOUR claim . . . YOUR job to provide evidence or reasoning. None give. Hence BS.
And it is false. . . .Wiki says NOTHING contrary. You simply claim it. Meaningless lie.
And you repeat the lie.
"You said "You simply REPEAT your stupidity." It is ad homimem because it doesn't show why my line of argument is 'Stupid'. "
The word repeat . . . I have dealt with your stupidities – many of them and lies. Ad hom – relates to attacking the person rather than the argument – as I have said
This is what happens when folk pretend to know stuff – but don't. Like you PRETEND you know Arabic.
I have dealt many people of your type – pretending to know logic . . . Sina is one of them.
– – –
"You are. Were you not talking about what accident in philosophy is (pointing to dictionary.com) when referring to aradi? Caught lying again. "
See – HERE you lie again. NO ONE is talking about the MOON and THE SUN is philosophical terms.
I have made it VERY clear that definition of Aradi is limited to the word and has no bearing on the word Noor.
Which isn't the same thing.
You have posed 2 lies above. One false accusation at me. . . other pretending that I was talking about the moon in phil – terms when I have already made it clear – the definition of Aradi – one of it meanings come from Philosophy terms.
It has NO BEARINGS on the word Noor and then on to the moon.
– – –
"Yes, that doesn't mean it is dependent on something else. Read the examples again to try to understand what accident in philosophy means. "
Doh! You are LYING even here:
"Philosophy (in Aristotelian thought) a property of a thing which is not essential to its nature"
When you are given hard evidence . . . you start your lies.
You have NO EXPERTISE in the field .. . hence all the pretense.
All you do is simply say this doesn't mean this and that.
Anyone can keep disagreeing.
Evidence?
You have none.
– – –
"Which solid evidence? The one you provided is already in question. "
Doh! Bit obvious you will say this.
NOTHING of what I said is in question. As I have shown my source.
Lisan Al Arab. What have you got in question?
Nothing.
– – –
"To know that in almost all literature moonlight is generally associated with softness, coolness, smoothness etc, you first have to have read some books."
Which has NO BEARING here . . .
– – –
"Thats what literature has to do with me initial claim that "The most common (and possibly only) use of Noor is light, perhaps a "softer", ''kinder" light which would make it being associated with Moon.", something against which you took a stand. "
NO EVIDENCE – THIS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH WHAT IS UNDER DISCUSSION.
One can also point out – on the EXACT same basis – that Moon doesn't have its own light – Sun does. Hence that too is poosible meaning.
BUT wait . . . There is EVIDENCE for it.
LISAN AL-ARAB!
When it says . . . Noor is – Extrinsic Aradi
Sun is Dhiyah is Intrinsic – Zati
– – –
"It is. As soon as you assume Dhiya is being projected as opposite of Noor as per Lisan, the fallacy pops up. It doesn't. You are simply glossing over it. "
No I ma not – you simply claim lying fallacies all over the place. . . look at your reply.
Did you present an explanation . . . Nope! Merely repeated the lie! That is your level.
I, in return answered. . . you could NOT deal with the answer. . .
The difference being made is FROM Lisan Al Arab . . . the word NOOR and DHIYAH are being CONTRASTED . . . that is the WHOLE point!
Difference is being made!
– – –
"Foolish explanation, a difference doesn't an antonym make. If I contrast the intensity of Nadal's game with Fed's, it doesn't make Fed a player of 'opposite' game to that of Nadal. "
Doh! See what an HYPOCRITE you are . . . by your own measures the above would be an ad-hom.
Wrong analogy – logical fallacy.
What has tennis got to do with it? Which words are being differed?
ONE property of Light is being contrasted. . . . Even if one takes YOU explanation.
Soft and Intense light . . . LOOK – two opposites.
Here NOOR and DHIYAH are NOT OPPOSITES >. . . THEIR ONE PROPERTY IS.
The whole point of Lisan extract is . . . difference between Noor and Dhiyah
is being made.
– – – –
You have NOTHING. No expertise whatsoever . . other than to be contrary. That is it.
"That is EXACTLY what Aradi would lead to . . . "
In other words – light that is not from its features but external. hence Aradi means – Accidental, Extrinsic, Dependent. . . etc.
– – –
"Phew!! Learn English first."
Idiotic remark. My English is fine. I can return the favour . . .Learn Arabic – THEN you might have a point in this discussion. In my case . . .I am right!
– –
"The sentence doesn't mean that the accident property doesn't remain intrinsic. In the example of brown-headed bachelor, the brown-headedness is still very much an intrinsic property of that person but only an accidental one for bachelorhood. "
You are DELIBERATELY lying . . . I gave extract from better sources. . .
Encyclopedia Britannica – Dictionary.com – The oxford dictionary.
– – –
Hence I have reduced you to making such petty comments as:
"Phew!! Learn English first."
As for reading:
"The nine kinds of accidents according to Aristotle are quantity, quality, relation, habitus, time, location, situation (or position), action, and passion ("being acted on"). Together with "substance", these nine kinds of accidents constitute the ten fundamental categories of Aristotle's ontology."
Why did you miss this out?
Oh cannot read I suppose. . . .
The example you give IS very different than the Moon and Sun. The properties under discussion are different.
Be with it son.
– – –
THis is what happens . . . when you know you are wrong. But your brainwashing is NOT allowing you to accept what is right.
"Logical fallacy . . . you already suppose that common good and Islam are different – without saying why. Such supposition are fallacious."
The reason is: that person has read the quran and hadidith; its simple.
its not a logcial fallacy.
its a conclusion based on the logical analysis of the precursor i.e quran and hadidth
How you define "English" ,because Scots,English(people of England),Wales and above all Americans have altogether different English to speak and write ,after all you are Punjabi why i have to believe your better English ,since you know many other languages as well .There is proverb a "The jack of all trade ,master of none",ha,ha,ha…..
did you say "conditioning"
weren't Jews transformed into monkeys and pigs as per the word of god.. and Every Quran believing believes in this , is that conditioning..
@All
Which is greatest and easiest way sending the massage. here are options
(1) Through postman/prophet
(2) Through Telephone
(3) Through Internet
(4) Through SMS
(5) Intuitions (Inner voice) where no materialistic component used.
Understand through example. Someone come at your house and try to rape with your sister. How do you feel? Do you get angry and want to punish the culprit? From where you got this thought. Does your relative/preceptor phoned you to punish the culprit. Does someone send you SMS to punish the culprit? Does someone come at your house to make you understand punish culprit. Or without any phone/messenger/postman/SMS you will run to save your sister. What is this? This is intuitions (Inner voice)/Godly inspiration. So, God no need to send any messenger/ phone call etc. to make you understand. He inspires you through inner voice what to do.
//Nope – YOU are de;deliberately trying it on . . . .
You who cannot EVEN read or understand Arabic.
Versus me – who has the actual expertise. //
It is already evident what kind of an expert you are in Arabic.
//Nope – that is YOUR claim . . .Wiki article is JUST about Philosophical term meaning of the word Accidental.//
If only you knew what it means to be coherent!! Yes wiki gives the explanation of the philosophical term, the same one which you claim means "dependent". Wiki's explanation is in line with the other meanings used by Wehr, casual, non-essential, accidental. I didn't say that wiki's explanation exactly matches meanings of these words.
//Your intention was to insult.
So is yours on most posts.
//I am way to smart!
And I am way TOO smart! Thats the difference between you and me.
//Tell me you are SERIOUSLY not basing this on the grey bar next to the words? //
SO now you found it. Yes I am.
//THAT DOES NOT MEAN THAT THE WORD IS RARE – IT MEANS THE QUANTITY OF USAGE.//
Then you don't know. It says rare translation. That is, it is not common to translate aradi as extrinsic, add it to the fact that Wehr didn't do that, add to the fact that your site translated the text from Lisan with the word 'Accidental' and what do you get? That it is quite unlikely that Lisan is positing extrinsic for aradi and by reflexivity on Noor. Rare usages are generally done in poems. And thats why I said that may be thats a poetic usage and Quran, Lisan or Wehr are not poems.
//WRONG – AND DISHONEST – they are NOT my interpretations – but meanings given by lexicons.//
Dishonest from you. It were you who said Wehr's first meaning is "dependent". It is your understanding as copy pasted from, say, dictionary.com. It is not the meaning that is actually understood by Accidental in philosophy. Wiki is correct in this regard. What more the you presented the wrong entry in Dictionary.com. You looked up Accident(noun) and not accidental(adjective): http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/accidental…
//No dear – your basis is DESPERATE attempt to somehow prove me wrong//
Actually just the opposite. You and Naik are wrong, Yusuf Ali is right when he translates 25:61. Reference of Noor for moon even based on Lisan and Wehr's definition of Aradi DOESN'T imply that moon's light is a reflected light.
//Since it contrasts the 'intensity'" No it doesn't.//
You want me to quote the Lisan again?
// In defining the word "Arad" its MEANING is from philosophical terminology – and this describes the word Noor.
It has NOTHING to do with the nature of the light. //
Foolish and dishonest. You quote Lisan, which has to do with the nature of light, from here you pick up 'Aradi' and look up in Wehr to arrive at Accidental (philosophy) so thats the philosophical terminology for Aradi and then contrive the meaning from dictionary.com to come with 'dependent' which you claim Wehr means. I on the other hand define what Accidental in Phylosophy refers to, it is not "dependent". In fact it says nothing about dependency or otherwise. I show you that Lisan DOESN'T say Aradi is oposite of Dhaati or dhiya is opposite of noor.
//You tried to imply that NOOR is being talked about in philosophical terms.
NO IT ISN'T.//
I didn't. YOU picked up the philosophical meaning of Aradi (by pointing first meaning from Wehr) which then was used to describe Noor on the authority of Lisan. I just proved that the philosophical meaning of aradi can't evne be applied because Naik is talking about a physical nature.
//To put this in technical terms, an accident is a property which has no necessary connection to the essence of the thing being described.
EXACTLY PRECISELY . . . . Quit playing around.
That is EXACTLY what Aradi would lead to . . .
Hence the moon is described as Noor – whose light is NOT an intrinsic part of it. //
Phew!! Learn English first. The sentence doesn't mean that the accident property doesn't remain intrinsic. In the example of brown-headed bachelor, the brown-headedness is still very much an intrinsic property of that person but only an accidental one for bachelorhood.
//Is NOT an Ad-hom – I attack your argument – NOT you.//
You said "You simply REPEAT your stupidity." It is ad homimem because it doesn't show why my line of argument is 'Stupid'.
//So for you it is NOT an insult to aim it at me//
I don't hesitate to return in kind.
//Quit lying. Like I said . . . NO ONE. Hence neither is I or Naik. //
You are. Were you not talking about what accident in philosophy is (pointing to dictionary.com) when referring to aradi? Caught lying again.
//And given your position . . . that is OBVIOUS – you will make such claims.
Another ad homimem. And this statement applies equally to you.
//Did you counter that?
I did. I clearly told you what Lisan says. It doesn't say Noor is opposite of Dhiya and in THIS context it sys one is Dhati, the other is aradi. Again IT DOESN'T say that Aradi is opposite of Dhati. The comparison comes in the sense that one is of lesser intensity than other. Your saying that Aradi is exact opposite of zaati is your interpretation or invention.
//That is your level.
Ad homimem again.
//Philosophy (in Aristotelian thought) a property of a thing which is not essential to its nature. //
Yes, that doesn't mean it is dependent on something else. Read the examples again to try to understand what accident in philosophy means.
//what has LITERATURE go to do with it?//
To know that in almost all literature moonlight is generally associated with softness, coolness, smoothness etc, you first have to have read some books. Thats what literature has to do with me initial claim that "The most common (and possibly only) use of Noor is light, perhaps a "softer", ''kinder" light which would make it being associated with Moon.", something against which you took a stand.
//You ignore SOLID EVIDENCE//
Which solid evidence? The one you provided is already in question.
//Not is doesn't . . . your BS about Lit. . . . and that wasn't fallacy?//
It is. As soon as you assume Dhiya is being projected as opposite of Noor as per Lisan, the fallacy pops up. It doesn't. You are simply glossing over it.
//When a difference between the 2 is being made THEN when Zaati = Intrinsic. There 'Aradi = Extrinsic.//
Foolish explanation, a difference doesn't an antonym make. If I contrast the intensity of Nadal's game with Fed's, it doesn't make Fed a player of 'opposite' game to that of Nadal.
Your intention was to insult.
As far as Sakat is concerned his English IS poor compared to mine. Most of his posts ARE nonsensical – let down by his inadequate English.
Comparatively . . . my English IS much better. Despite the occasional mistake.
Which YOU too make.
– – –
Hence you were trying to be a smart-ass. But you just came across as petty.
– – –
"Dream on. And you didn't tell me the rate at which you were getting killed that day. "
I didn't just whup it that day – but this recent spate too. And EVEN now . . .
That day – however – was simply absurd and petty.
Discussion regarding Noor, Dhiyah is at least relevant and meaningful.
– – –
And when being whupped – you are little too keen to be "dishonest".
For example rate of dying started with sarcastic and metaphorical remark.
Pretending it was literal . . . and calling it a lie . . . .
YOU WERE NOT EVEN GOOD AT THAT!!
Even there you got a whupping.
– – –
Let's face it. I am way to smart!
@Abid,
//Why these idiot Muslims don't understand the silliness and evil of Islam//
If they are 'idiot' as you say how can they understand the silliness and evil (of Islam as you say)
//And is this good English? //
Whats wrong with it? Haven't you seen the use of '?' in exclamations?'
//Why what's wrong with it? //
Even wrong here, the '?' or ',' is missing!!
//For you too it seems!//
So you don't disagree that you need to learn the language. As far as I am concerned I won't mind learning further in any subject.
//I whupped your arse earlier . . . . hence you're really smarting. Nothing more.//
Dream on. And you didn't tell me the rate at which you were getting killed that day.
Muslims have been teaching kafirs the distilled essence of koran through their Inverse Humanism ( Plunder, rapes, extreme tortures ) for nearly 1390 solar years. we don't need to read it. we already know what it is.
"I assume this is a honest mistake, like mine one (which you termed lying). Where it shows the meaning, to the left of the texts you would find a small bar, when you hover your mouse on it it would tell you about the usage. "
Tell me you are SERIOUSLY not basing this on the grey bar next to the words?
What!
Is that all? For crying out loud!
THAT DOES NOT MEAN THAT THE WORD IS RARE – IT MEANS THE QUANTITY OF USAGE.
As per your laws of inverse Humanism, Heads you win – Tails I lose.
No sir, Zitouni will not permit it as per the norms of Inverse humanism. He will rape others wives, daughters, sisters and mothers as per laws of Inverse Humanism. If
somebody were to rape his women, he will fight for justice as per the laws of Human civilization. He will have the best of both worlds. That is what Muslims are doing in Dar-ul-harb, claiming more privileges as minorities and denying even basic Human rights to Non muslims in Dar-ul-Islam.
"I assume this is a honest mistake, like mine one (which you termed lying). Where it shows the meaning, to the left of the texts you would find a small bar, when you hover your mouse on it it would tell you about the usage."
I don't know what you mean . . . screenshot. [email protected]
– – –
""May be" because I didn't find Wehr saying aradi is extrinsic and you proved using google translator it is one."
Not just google – check almaany too.
– –
"And No Wehr doesn't give this meaning, all these words reflected, dependent, extrinsic are your interpretation of Accidental in Philosophy which the link from wiki doesn't corroborate. "
WRONG – AND DISHONEST – they are NOT my interpretations – but meanings given by lexicons.
They are NOT all meanings of Aradi in Phil – rest are meanings of 'Aradi the word.
– – –
"Accidental in Philosophy which the link from wiki doesn't corroborate. "
Aradi to be Extrinsic or Dependent IS confirmed by Wiki.
And by what Dicitoanry.com – given that you thin it is AGAINST you . . .
Not a peep out of you.
hence you harp on about Wiki!
– –
"a transposition into atomistic terms—of Aristotle’s theory of accidents (i.e., of properties that are not essential to the substances in which they occur)"
Encyclopedia Britannica
In other words . . . Noor is a good reference for the moon – as it is Aradi . . .
Meaning it has nothing to do with the moon.
As opposed to the sun – it generates its own light!
– – –
Like I said . . . QUIT LYING!!
When it suited you . . .Ad hom . . . against me – even if falsely.
Quit messing about.
– – –
"But the point remains that Wehr doesn't say 'dependent' for aradi. He says Accidental (Philosphy) which doesn't translate into either dependent or reflected. "
It does. it also translates as . . .extrinsic, accidental (non phil), extra. They all point to one thing.
– – –
" If he meant dependent he would have written so."
He did!
– – –
"If you look up wiki it gives a meaning that is completely coherent with the other meanings Wehr has given to the word unessential, accidental, non-essential characteristic."
Nope – that is YOUR claim . . .Wiki article is JUST about Philosophical term meaning of the word Accidental.
It has NOTHING to do with other meanings.
– – –
"And I said that a normal person can see that. If you can't still see it then you can safely claim yourself to be abnormal. "
Nope – YOU are de;deliberately trying it on . . . .
You who cannot EVEN read or understand Arabic.
Versus me – who has the actual expertise.
Now quit – lying . . . .and making things up!
Sir, he is doing a good expose of Islam (=Inverse Humanism). let him complete the confessions on behalf of all the Islamic thugs ever since the beginning of savagery (622 A.D.)
This is what I say:
[[
"Does the Lisan say that Dhiya is the opposite of Noor? "
DOH! No one is saying Dhiyah is opposite of Noor . . . be with it! And quit absurd lies.
What is under discussion is – that Dhiyah is independent form of light as opposed to Noor being dpendent.
]]
This does NOT make Dhiyah as being opposite of Noor. Both are light. Difference is the their form.
– – –
"You don't even know what is a context. The context IS "Dhiya is more intense than Noor"."
No context comes NEXT – being Aradi and Zaati – as this descrbes the difference between the 2.
– – –
"So Aradi here is something less intense than Dhati."
Your BS. Not supported. No evidence. Conjecture on your part. And you cannot even read the original text . . . what are you arguing about?
– – –
"Dhati can mean autonomous, essential, indispensable, unavoidable etc,"
Here it doesn't mean all of them . . .
– – –
" Aradi even if opposite (the Lisan doesn't say that) doesn't mean dependent."
Doh! When the two are being contrasted . . . distinguished . . . then what does imply? Think!
It means dependent – as that is what Aradi means! I have gone through this over and over . . .
It also means Extra – And Extrinsic.
I have GIVEN evidence for all.
– – –
"A particular bachelor may have brown hair, but this would be a property particular to that individual, and from the point of view of bachelorhood it would be an accidental property. This indeed matches what Lisan refers to "lesser intensity" "
Absurd BS. . . . No it doesn't. How does it match!
Simply claiming BS – doesn't make it so.
– – –
"and it matches with the translation you have given in your site and it matches what Wehr defines aradi to be. "
More baseless claims.
It doesn't.
Aradi means dependent. . . .extrinsic, accidental, extraneous.
I have gone through this.
You simply repeat – WITHOUT any evidence.
– – –
"Don't mix up. That was what I think nur means in common usage, not what Lisan describes it to be. "
Doh! "I think"
What YOU think . . . ain't good enough.
Your BS conjecture doesn't work.
No sir, Zitouni will not permit it, because he is an inverted human being just like Mohammad.
Muslims attack innocent people, kill the men folk and capture the women. They pretend to be saviors of these unfortunate women. Saving them from prostitution??? Culprits pretending to be saviors??? What an Islamic logic? Muslim = inverted Human being. Muslims think – " I should have the privilege of Robbing others wealth and women and be rewarded for this crime by GOD" . –" If others do the same they should be given most cruel punishment by the Islamic law here and by God in the other world". Mr.Zitouni. amply confirmed Ali sina's assessment of Islam
//"The translator from google says that its a rare usage for arad to be extrinsic,"
ANOTHER easy lie! where does google say that? //
I assume this is a honest mistake, like mine one (which you termed lying). Where it shows the meaning, to the left of the texts you would find a small bar, when you hover your mouse on it it would tell you about the usage.
//May be a poetic use of arad could be 'extrinsic' but again neither Lisan, nor Quran nor Wehr's lexicon for that matter are poems."
Another pathetic lie. . . ."maybe" ….
Hans Wher – gives this meaning as FIRST! //
"May be" because I didn't find Wehr saying aradi is extrinsic and you proved using google translator it is one. Google also tells me it is a rare usage. And No Wehr doesn't give this meaning, all these words reflected, dependent, extrinsic are your interpretation of Accidental in Philosophy which the link from wiki doesn't corroborate.
"Yet you use his meanings when it comes to Arad (an explanation for Nur) and ignore it for Nur, the actual word in consideration? Double standards!! "
Huh? Your lies are amazing . . . what double standards . . . Read my comment . . . Hans Wher is SIMPLY brief version of Classical Dicitoanries. . . .
IT LACKS THE DEPTH OF LISAN AL ARAB.
I merely pointed out . . . . WHERE NAIK and OTHERS obtain their meanings from. i am 100% right in that.
As I point out – you have NO INTEREST in the truth . . other than er… hold on to this lie.
NO ONE DENIED THAT NOOR DOESN'T MEAN LIGHT – IN MODERN CONNOTATIONS THERE IS NO DIFFERENCE BETWEEN "NOOR" AND "DHIYAH"
But there was/used to be.
– – –
"It won't though still proof that noor is reflected light."
Huh? Here you expose your earlier lie . . . when you referred to literature! How quaint!
– – –
"Specifically, from where Naik quotes (25:61), quote an example where munir specifically and definitely refers to an object illuminated by something else (Yusuf Ali translates it: And a Moon GIVING light) and I guess he knew what he was translating. "
I have ALREADY pointed out – where Naik got his meaning. End of.
The funny thing is . . . YOU cannot understand the Arabic . . . so what are you harping about?
– – –
As I have pointed out – your MOTIVATION is simply to demonise.
//No one is saying Dhiyah is opposite of Noor//
But in the immediate next line
//that Dhiyah is independent form of light as opposed to Noor being dependent.//
And immediately you say "Opposed to".
//Then the book itself gives the context. . . . QUIT LYING!//
You don't even know what is a context. The context IS "Dhiya is more intense than Noor". In this context Dhati and Aradi is used, not the other way around. So Aradi here is something less intense than Dhati. Dhati can mean autonomous, essential, indispensable, unavoidable etc, Aradi even if opposite (the Lisan doesn't say that) doesn't mean dependent. When it says accidental, I would refer back to wiki an example from there says: A particular bachelor may have brown hair, but this would be a property particular to that individual, and from the point of view of bachelorhood it would be an accidental property. This indeed matches what Lisan refers to "lesser intensity" and it matches with the translation you have given in your site and it matches what Wehr defines aradi to be.
//If it was Soft and hard light . . .then it would have given different explanation. //
Don't mix up. That was what I think nur means in common usage, not what Lisan describes it to be.
"Ad homimem. Thats what you seem to be good at. But its YOU who repeats his/her stupidity. "
So for you it is NOT an insult to aim it at me . . . when you have no answer – you descend into absurdity. The example:
"You simply REPEAT your stupidity. "
Is NOT an Ad-hom – I attack your argument – NOT you. The reference is at your argument and NOT you personally.
And why have you suddenly remembered ad-hom – where was this before – when YOU were having a go at me?
Hypocritical.
– – –
"Yes, no-one is but you and Naik are harping on the philosophical usage of arad to come to a specific meaning. See its that easy to show your fallacy. "
Quit lying. Like I said . . . NO ONE. Hence neither is I or Naik.
You ahve NOT shown any fallacy – SIMPLY claimed it. And given your position . . . that is OBVIOUS – you will make such claims.
I have already said . . . . Arad – having meaning from Philosophical terminology has NO BEARING on meaning of noor.
Did you counter that?
No . . . simply made a LYING calim of fallacy.
That is your level.
You CANNOT understand Classical Arabic – so WTF are you actually arguing over?
– – –
"More lies. He doesn't. I gave you the wiki link to get acquainted with Accident in philosophy, it doesn't translate into dependent. "
No Sonny – YOU are the one lying.
Dictionary.com defines Philosophical term meaning of
And your article did the same. . . for example:
3 Philosophy (in Aristotelian thought) a property of a thing which is not essential to its nature.
Oxford online. This too means extrinsic.
This meaning is given by Google, Almaany.com and etc.
– – –
"I hoped that you would understand. No harm in hoping. Clearly then you haven't read much of literature. "
BS – and you know it. . . . what has LITERATURE go to d owith it?
That is MEANINGLESS debate . . . I doubt you can even understand Arabic.
So what are you on about?
This was simply YOUR fiction . . . NOTHING more.
You gave NO REFERENCE . . . . whatsoever . . . so what you on about.
You ignore SOLID EVIDENCE . . . .and start giving your baseless opinions. And then the pretense. . . . "clearly you haven't read. . . "
Not sonny – it isn't clear. . .
– – –
"Lisan doesn't say so. It says Dhiya is more intense than Noor. It does say Dhiya is zaati, it doesn't say Noor is opposite of Dhiya. Thats where the fallacy crop up. "
Not is doesn't . . . your BS about Lit. . . . and that wasn't fallacy?
And this is? How?
When a difference between the 2 is being made THEN when Zaati = Intrinsic. There 'Aradi = Extrinsic.
And IT IS meaning of 'Aradi.
– – –
"Well it has. It was an example to show you what happens if you take a part of a text from a lexicon in one language and look up in another dictionary. It would lead to erroneous or incomplete meanings. "
But NOT in this case . . . you simply took what I HAD SAID and attempted to twist it. I am the one with the correct meanings . . . I am the one who understands the language . . .as opposed to you.
All you have is the PRETENSE . . . nothing else.
– – –
"Accidental (Philosophy) and then look up the link from wiki to know what it refers to."
hang on . . . YOU rejected dictionary.com then pushed – wiki article.
Wiki says the SAME! I have read it. Quit lying.
"To put this in technical terms, an accident is a property which has no necessary connection to the essence of the thing being described. "
DOH!
EXACTLY PRECISELY . . . . Quit playing around.
That is EXACTLY what Aradi would lead to . . .
Hence the moon is described as Noor – whose light is NOT an intrinsic part of it.
– – –
Muslims attack innocent people, kill the men folk and capture the women. They pretend to be saviors of these unfortunate women. Saving them from prostitution??? Culprits pretending to be saviors??? What an Islamic logic? Muslim = inverted Human being. Muslims think – " I should have the privilege of Robbing others wealth and women and be rewarded for this crime by GOD" . –" If others do the same they should be given most cruel punishment by the Islamic law here and by God in the other world". well said Mr.Zitouni. Today you have confirmed Ali sina's assessment of Islam
"And this is GOOD English? "
And is this good English?
– – –
" they made you into such mess. "
Why what's wrong with it?
– –
"May be a class in English will do for you too"
For you too it seems!
– – –
Sakat DOES need English classes. His English IS terrible.
I whupped your arse earlier . . . . hence you're really smarting. Nothing more.
//"You can claim yourself to be abnormal though. "
This is the MAGIC – you people can never NOT insult. Which weakens your argument. //
I see you are hurt. Sorry son. But the point remains that Wehr doesn't say 'dependent' for aradi. He says Accidental (Philosphy) which doesn't translate into either dependent or reflected. If he meant dependent he would have written so. If you look up wiki it gives a meaning that is completely coherent with the other meanings Wehr has given to the word unessential, accidental, non-essential characteristic. And I said that a normal person can see that. If you can't still see it then you can safely claim yourself to be abnormal.
I appreciate your concern for even this wretched follower of Satan. But be assured that he will continue in his demonic ways. If we look at the trend of the past 500 years, Humanity has by and large become rational , in material as well as spiritual matters. Irrational religious ideologies are doomed for certain. Islam is the most irrational and demonic religion ever born on this planet. It is bound to die a violent death.
//But its connotations are found within Classical Arabic lexicons. All Hans Wher does is gives brief modern words. It is BASED upon Old Arabic Lexicons – like Lisan al Arab. //
Yet you use his meanings when it comes to Arad (an explanation for Nur) and ignore it for Nur, the actual word in consideration? Double standards!!
//The word Light in English has several meanings. As does the word "Noor".//
Might be. Why don't you give some of the examples from Urdu or Arabian works citing its various meaning (direct, non-esoteric)? It won't though still proof that noor is reflected light. Specifically, from where Naik quotes (25:61), quote an example where munir specifically and definitely refers to an object illuminated by something else (Yusuf Ali translates it: And a Moon GIVING light) and I guess he knew what he was translating.
//You simply REPEAT your stupidity.
Ad homimem. Thats what you seem to be good at. But its YOU who repeats his/her stupidity.
//No one is talking about "philosophical" aspects of Moon
Yes, no-one is but you and Naik are harping on the philosophical usage of arad to come to a specific meaning. See its that easy to show your fallacy.
//Hans Wher DOES say dependent. It is the very first meaning it gives. //
More lies. He doesn't. I gave you the wiki link to get acquainted with Accident in philosophy, it doesn't translate into dependent.
//See how keen you are to push this
I hoped that you would understand. No harm in hoping. Clearly then you haven't read much of literature.
//You know FULL WELL I am right
You know FULL WELL I am right , and merely making excuses.
//Accidental meaning Dependent . ESPECIALLY – when contrasted with . . . Dhati (Zaati) meaning – Independent – or more correctly – Intrinsic. //
Lisan doesn't say so. It says Dhiya is more intense than Noor. It does say Dhiya is zaati, it doesn't say Noor is opposite of Dhiya. Thats where the fallacy crop up.
//has NOTHING to do with the above discussion.//
Well it has. It was an example to show you what happens if you take a part of a text from a lexicon in one language and look up in another dictionary. It would lead to erroneous or incomplete meanings.
//What is the first thing Hans Wher says? //
Accidental (Philosophy) and then look up the link from wiki to know what it refers to. To quote from there: To put this in technical terms, an accident is a property which has no necessary connection to the essence of the thing being described.
//I am blame your parents. . .
And this is GOOD English?
// they made you into such mess.
And this too? May be a class in English will do for you too (and you were suggesting Sakat to learn the language)
Go an learn English – and stop posting BS. . . .and meaningless comments. You are NOT very educated. . . and really want to pretend to be educated.
Well – you ain't fooling anyone. No go and pleasure yourself.
That is NO EXCUSE. . . .why bother to post in English? Go learn the bloody language. ANd make some sense.
Like I said . . . STOP posting meaningless BS. Go and learn English.
self adulation carry on,ha,ha,ha……….,what else you could deliver.
Pardon i am not an Englishman,sorry ha,ha,ha…….
How a person ,blind by birth can be convinced, about light; Noor ;Dhiya , etc things. And then claiming you have done with this blind, who has to say ,you have properly guided the person ,who is the judge to say , you have properly convinced him/her ,Ha,ha,ha…..
As usual BS and nonsense – nothing more.
Deep down YOU KNOW – you are NOT good enough.
I am blame your parents. . . they made you into such mess.
As nonsensical as always! Go and learn English!
Because, it has nothing to deliver special,if any.ha,ha,ha,………
I call Sina silly – and lot more besides with GOOD evidence. . .
YOU on the other had talk BS. I have had exchanges with you . . . you had problems answering simple questions.
You are a lie boy.
– – –
Posting petty comments like this . . . . they will NOT answer charges against Sina.
In fact such comments make him look worse.
THERE ARE PAID STOOGES,THAT'S ALL….HA,HA,HA…….. Marathon efforts for them, it is impossible to dig MAD MOHAMMED ,out of dirt from their own history,ha,ha,ha……
Ah . . . I am getting clones! Quaint.
"True. It also means essential. "
Either way. . . the end result is STILL the same.
– – –
"You mean "not independent". Thats your and Naik's interpretation."
And of others.
"It is more the case of Naik contriving a meaning that can somehow show that Quran indeed has this 'scientific' fact. "
Yes – but in this instance HE HAS LEGS!
– – –
"It can as well mean non-essential, or uncertain or by chance. "
I have ALREADY pointed out – the end result WOULD be the same.
– – –
"Since it contrasts the 'intensity'"
No it doesn't.
– – –
"I would naturally think that one refers to being essential or powerful, the other unessential or benign."
No dear – your basis is DESPERATE attempt to somehow prove me wrong.
Hence why – you have so many Maybes.
– – –
"That also goes well with what he generally attribute to Sun and Moon. "
No it doesn't – you are JUST making that up. Many things go with Sun and Moon!
Doh!
– – –
"It has. For Naik dwells on this alleged philosophical meaning to suggest a PHYSICAL FACT about the nature of Moon light. "
See you rely on easy lies and construing what I say:
Read what I said:
[[[
"even if it is a meaning, it won't apply since Naik refers to a physical property of Moon not a philosophical attribute. "
Which has NO bearing on definition of the word. . . . you are confusing between the two. In defining the word "Arad" its MEANING is from philosophical terminology – and this describes the word Noor.
It has NOTHING to do with the nature of the light.
]]]
The meaning of the word Aradi – in philosphical terms – has NO BEARINGS on the word Noor. It is ONLY definiton of the word 'Aradi.
That is what I meant.
What has Naik and his dwellings got to do with it?
You tried to imply that NOOR is being talked about in philosophical terms.
NO IT ISN'T.
The definition of the word 'Arad is.
And that has NO BEARINGS on Noor.
Hence naik is NOT dwelling on any philosophical meanings whatsoever.
That is simply your absurd attempts . . . to try and find a way.
– – –
"May be a poetic use of arad could be 'extrinsic' but again neither Lisan, nor Quran nor Wehr's lexicon for that matter are poems."
This is a complete ABSURDITY. . .
You imply from yourself . .. then say – Lisan Al Arab is not a poem!
– – –
You have NOTHING. . . . other than desperation to prove me wrong.
– – –
Hence you descend into easy lies . . . for example not finding the word on dictionary.com. . .
"Foolish argument really."
No – GOOD argument.
– – –
"Does the Lisan say that Dhiya is the opposite of Noor? "
DOH! No one is saying Dhiyah is opposite of Noor . . . be with it! And quit absurd lies.
What is under discussion is – that Dhiyah is independent form of light as opposed to Noor being dpendent.
The contrast is between – Arad and Dhatai – they are the opposites.
Opposite of LIGHT is DARKNESS in this case. Which makes your objection and absurdity. An obvious and idiotic absurdity.
– – –
"The translator from google says that its a rare usage for arad to be extrinsic,"
ANOTHER easy lie! where does google say that?
Screenshots – [email protected]
– – –
"May be a poetic use of arad could be 'extrinsic' but again neither Lisan, nor Quran nor Wehr's lexicon for that matter are poems."
Another pathetic lie. . . ."maybe"
The dictionary gives the meanings . . . then you are on maybe.
Hans Wher – gives this meaning as FIRST!
Versus hard evidence . .. you are conjecturing.
Which is MEANINGLESS
– – –
"It would certainly be a far fetched idea to impose 'extrinsic' as the intent of the Lisan when it clearly states "The word "Dhiya'a" is of more intense meaning than the word "Noor". " "
Doh! Then the book itself gives the context. . . . QUIT LYING!
When it says . . . . Noor is 'Aradi – Dhiyah is Dhati.
Dhati ONLY means one thing. And 'Aradi is in contrast to it.
Lisan al-Arab itself gives the difference.
If it was Soft and hard light . . .then it would have given different explanation.
Hence the idea IS NOT FAR FETCHED.
BUT THE INTENT OF THE LEXICON.
– – –
//Dhiyah means ZATI – which means autonomous. //
True. It also means essential.
//Then Noor is Aradi – the word Accidental means "not dependent" not from itself.//
You mean "not independent". Thats your and Naik's interpretation. It is more the case of Naik contriving a meaning that can somehow show that Quran indeed has this 'scientific' fact.
It can as well mean non-essential, or uncertain or by chance. Since it contrasts the 'intensity' of the 2, I would naturally think that one refers to being essential or powerful, the other unessential or benign. That also goes well with what he generally attribute to Sun and Moon.
//It has NOTHING to do with the nature of the light.
It has. For Naik dwells on this alleged philosophical meaning to suggest a PHYSICAL FACT about the nature of Moon light.
– – –
"Coming back to Nur and Wehr, Wehr clearly doesn't use 'reflected' light in defining 'nur' Page 1009, nur pl. light; ray of Light, light beam; brightness, gleam, glow; Illumination; light, lamp; "
Obviously NOT!
But its connotations are found within Classical Arabic lexicons. All Hans Wher does is gives brief modern words.
It is BASED upon Old Arabic Lexicons – like Lisan al Arab.
– – –
"It might(in fact it does) but thats the esoteric meaning. In translating 24:35 Yusuf Ali, Palmer et. al uses 'Light'. Obviously they are better authorities than Naik, you or me. Surat An-Nur isn't called Chapter of Guidance or Chapter of Reflected Light, just Chapter of Light. "
Again irrelevant discussion.
The word Light in English has several meanings.
As does the word "Noor".
But they have nothing to do with
– – –
My point stands perfectly.
Naik – in this case – did NOT invent the meanings.
Sina – WAS not and is (virtually) never – interested in pursuit of the truth. if he had the skills – he could have looked the word up.
He doesn't. he cannot speak a word of Arabic.
Hence – he wrote – plenty of BS rhetoric.
– – –
As my blog site points out . . . this he does often.
At most his knowledge comes from ant Islam sites.
"My initial point remains intact that Wehr doesn't say 'dependent' (abhängig in German) for ´arad.
And what more Naik is definitely talking about the physical fact that Moon reflects sun-light not any philosophical aspect. "
You simply REPEAT your stupidity.
No one is talking about "philosophical" aspects of Moon. . . . but of the word " 'Arad" – the two are completely separate. The definition of the word
Like I said . . . you are keen to slip in absurd lies.
And your initial point doesn't remain intact. Hans Wher DOES say dependent. It is the very first meaning it gives.
Accidental (philosophy) – which MEANS dependent.
– – –
"I have said 'possibly' and that is because in almost all literary pieces moon and its light is attached with gentle, kind, soft, smooth, cool feelings not fierce, temperamental, hard feelings."
Right – you pooh-pah evidence from dictionary . . . but purvey your own lies. There is NO meaning of Hard and Sof light.
I am talking about what Lisan Al Arab says . . . . not imaginary literary whatnot.
– – –
"Similarly when we say your face is nurani we generally mean that it has a saintly shine not a blazing, hot, burning glow."
Ha! See how keen you are to push this . . .
Actually this ha NOTHING to do with this.
You know FULL WELL I am right . . .but merely making excuses.
Light – EVEN in English refers to spirituality – Noor too has similar connotations.
But that is COMPLETELY separate meaning from the above.
– – –
"This completely agrees with what Lisan al-Arab says that "Dhiya'a" is of more intense meaning than the word "Noor". So it is the intensity which differs. "
No it doesn't. As Lisan al Arabid gives the two adjectives to describe. . .
Dhati (Zati) and Aradi.
Independent and Dependent.
That is the difference – when it is given . . . attaching YOUR meanings is completely false.
And there is NO EVIDENCE for it.
– – –
"Your extension is jumping from a text from a lexicon to another dictionary to relate a word in Arabic to a particular (and somewhat remote) usage in 'modern' English and then claim that it is the 'technical' meaning of the word. That’s dishonesty or foolhardiness, take your pick. "
Ha! But it isn't when you look up the word Arad. . . . What is the first thing Hans Wher says?
Accidental (Philosophy) – and when you LOOK that up . . . . it says what I said it says.
All pretense otherwise is LYING.
The evidence . . .
You are DELIBERATELY avoiding this:
"{النُّور، بالضمّ: الضَّوْءُ أيَّاً كَانَ، أَو شُعاعُه وسُطوعُه، كَذَا فِي المُحكَم، وَقَالَ الزَّمَخْشَرِيّ: الضياءُ أشدّ من النُّور، قَالَ تَعَالَى: جَعَلَ الشمسَ ضِياءً والقمرَ نُوراً} وَقيل: الضِّياءُ ذاتِيٌّ،! والنُّورُ عَرَضِيٌّ، كَمَا حقَّقه"
Even if you looked up the definition of what 'Aradi means in Arabic . . .it still refers to
Accidental meaning Dependent
ESPECIALLY – when contrasted with . . . Dhati (Zaati) meaning – Independent – or more correctly – Intrinsic.
Aradi means Extrinsic. . . especially when contrasted with DHATI.
– – –
"Also read: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accidental_property "
Doh!
– – –
"I gave you the example of tabawur and how Wehr uses penetration and how Dictionary.com gives one meaning of penetration as Millitary Attack. Can you then equate ‘Tabawur’ with Millitary attack? You have to read the complete text to get the correct meaning(s). "
Load BS – has NOTHING to do with the above discussion.
I have ALREADY pointed out – Noor too has many connotations. . . they have nothing to do with this.
– – –
Why these idiot Muslims don't understand the silliness and evil of Islam, I don't know. Above that, they claim Ali Sina to be silly and absurd and denigrate the intellectuals. They try to defend and consecrate an evil religion and evil man(Muhammad).
//Now when you take into account meaning of Dhiya//
Foolish argument really. Does the Lisan say that Dhiya is the opposite of Noor? The translator from google says that its a rare usage for arad to be extrinsic, and no that doesn't relate with accidental. May be a poetic use of arad could be 'extrinsic' but again neither Lisan, nor Quran nor Wehr's lexicon for that matter are poems. It would certainly be a far fetched idea to impose 'extrinsic' as the intent of the Lisan when it clearly states "The word "Dhiya'a" is of more intense meaning than the word "Noor". "
//You lied//
I didn't. Thanks for pointing that I can expand and see the other meanings on Dictionary.com.
My initial point remains intact that Wehr doesn't say 'dependent' (abhängig in German) for ´arad.
And what more Naik is definitely talking about the physical fact that Moon reflects sun-light not any philosophical aspect.
//Nur being softer, kinder light//
I have said 'possibly' and that is because in almost all literary pieces moon and its light is attached with gentle, kind, soft, smooth, cool feelings not fierce, temperamental, hard feelings. Similarly when we say your face is nurani we generally mean that it has a saintly shine not a blazing, hot, burning glow. This completely agrees with what Lisan al-Arab says that "Dhiya'a" is of more intense meaning than the word "Noor". So it is the intensity which differs.
//Your Extensions.. what are they//
Your extension is jumping from a text from a lexicon to another dictionary to relate a word in Arabic to a particular (and somewhat remote) usage in 'modern' English and then claim that it is the 'technical' meaning of the word. That’s dishonesty or foolhardiness, take your pick.
Also read: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accidental_property
Well you quoted the page number, I produce the text: accident(philo.); contingent, nonessential characteristic. nonessential, a contingent, accidental; symptom, manifestation of disease; 'aradan, incidentally, by chance.
Taken together they all relate with uncertainty, luck or chance happenings.
I gave you the example of tabawur and how Wehr uses penetration and how Dictionary.com gives one meaning of penetration as Millitary Attack. Can you then equate ‘Tabawur’ with Millitary attack? You have to read the complete text to get the correct meaning(s).
Coming back to Nur and Wehr, Wehr clearly doesn't use 'reflected' light in defining 'nur' Page 1009, nur pl. light; ray of Light, light beam; brightness, gleam, glow; Illumination; light, lamp;
//Light refers to guidance in Chapter 24//
It might(in fact it does) but thats the esoteric meaning. In translating 24:35 Yusuf Ali, Palmer et. al uses 'Light'. Obviously they are better authorities than Naik, you or me. Surat An-Nur isn't called Chapter of Guidance or Chapter of Reflected Light, just Chapter of Light.
How do you know I am a Pakistani? You don't.
– – –
"I expected this from you."
Hardly surprising . . .
– –
"I knew you would not accept the fact."
What fact?
Stop pretending sonny. . . you ain't got no facts. . . . and whatnot.
– – –
You ain't good enough. And Whatever you say – you know it too.
Hence why you will never come anything "real" as it were. . . . but are forced to paste up BS.
– – –
But what the heck! Knock yourself out.
See the ABSURD comments posted up by your fellows.
Most of these ABSURD comments are the teachings of Quran and Hadiths.
I expected this from you. I knew you would not accept the fact. Muslims are bred in the labs(madarsas), and as a Pakistani you know that better.
"At least no normal person would. You can claim yourself to be abnormal though. "
Many people do this . . . abusing me gives NO CREDENCE to your argument. Rather, it lessens it merit.
– –
"Based on what Wehr defines aaradi to be, we can't extract the meaning "dependent" or "reflected"."
We can . . .
Try the word in Google:
http://translate.google.co.uk/?hl=en&tab=wT#a…
accidental
عرضي, غير مقصود, مصادفة, اتفاقي, غير جوهري
casual
عرضي, طارئ, متقطع, بالصدفة, غير نظامي, عفوي
passing
عابر, مار, عرضي, وقتي, بالصدفة
occasional
عرضي, متباعدة, متقطع, متفرق, حيني, سببي
episodic
عرضي
incidental
عرضي, طارئ, ليس ذو أهمية, تصادفي, حادث عارض
transverse
مستعرض, عرضي
symptomatic
عرضي, أعراضي, دال على
adventitious
عرضي, طارئ, عارض, ناشئ في موضع من النبات لم يعتاد ظهوره فيه
circumstantial
ظرفي, عرضي, مفصل, حالي, غير مباشر
odd
غريب, شاذ, عجيب, مفرد, غريب الأطوار, عرضي
extrinsic
خارجي, عرضي, غير جوهري
extraneous
غريب, خارجي, عرضي, استثنائي, عوزه الترابط, غير جوهري
venial
ممكن إغتفاره, عرضي
noun
incident
– – –
Not all meanings apply . . . but notice ACCIDENTAL, EXTRINSIC, EXTRANEOUS, CASUAL, OCCASIONAL. . . .
Now when you take into account meaning of Dhiya. . . then the difference being alluded to IS:
Of one being Independent, and the other being Dependent.
– – –
The soft and hard light – you made that up.
It is VERY simple
This is what Lisan al Arab says:
{النُّور، بالضمّ: الضَّوْءُ أيَّاً كَانَ، أَو شُعاعُه وسُطوعُه، كَذَا فِي المُحكَم، وَقَالَ الزَّمَخْشَرِيّ: الضياءُ أشدّ من النُّور، قَالَ تَعَالَى: جَعَلَ الشمسَ ضِياءً والقمرَ نُوراً} وَقيل: الضِّياءُ ذاتِيٌّ،! والنُّورُ عَرَضِيٌّ، كَمَا حقَّقه
It makes difference between the two words.
Noor it defines as being Aradi – which means "independent"
Dhiyah means Zati – which means Independent.
– – –
In case of Noor – if you called it "Accidental" – what does that mean?
If you took the non-philosophical meaning of it – and took the primary meaning. . .
What is ACCIDENTAL LIGHT?
= = =
Second my point stands.
Sina did NOT bother to check up on the differnce – do a bit of research . . .
RATHER he was keen on demonising Naik – who to him is guilty – by the very fact he is Muslim.
Hence Sina does this repeatedly.
he DOES NOT CARE to pursue truth.
– – –
If he had looked at this . . . then he would have arrived from where Naik got to his meaning.
Nope – he was interested in portraying Naik as lying – by any means necessary.
– – –
Hence why he repeatedly lies – this is what his book is – one big lie.
Hence I am taking it apart.
And his many other lies.
= = =
Your pretending you cannot finding meanings on Dictionary.com . . . . and deliberate lies – are NOT going to save this train wreck.
"It is supported by your own admission that Noor indeed means light. And I know enough of Urdu and Arabic to say that its common usage is light. "
Doh! Again – you are being openly dishonest and it dosn't work.
My "admission" that Noor DOES mean light and that in common usage has NOTHING to do with its technical meanings and YOUR lying.
Your lie is THIS:
"The most common (and possibly only) use of Noor is light, perhaps a "softer", ''kinder" light which would make it being associated with Moon. "
Now how is that supported by from what I said.
It isn't.
As i said – the fact that Noor measn Light – IS NOT UNDER DISCUSSION.
A word can have specific technical meanings and still have wider common meanings. Also over years meanings of words do change.
Example Car.
– – –
"And thats the fallacy. Wehr's book is a lexicon. If he meant reflected light he would have said so. He doesn't say that for 'Nur'. And if he thought about dependent/reflected stuff he would have wrote it for aradi. "
BS – Wher is based on Classical Arabic Lexicons – This is what Aradi means IN ARABIC too.
Aradi means dependent – this is the FIRST meaning Hans Wher gives.
"And if he thought about dependent/reflected stuff he would have wrote it for aradi. "
He DOES write it! You are lying about obvious facts.
– – –
"Second I did check Dictionary.com I didn't find the meaning you are positing for 'accidental'. You can click on the link you have given and search for the word 'contingent'.Thats the reason I asked for the URL. "
Do it again . . . THIS TIME – YOU WILL NOTICE A BUTTON SAYING "EXPAND"
Click on it. And quit lying. It is pathetic and rather childish.
– – –
"it doesn't mean that you can apply it. "
In this instance it does. . . and you have given no reason that is doesn't.
It applies because that is WHAT LISAN AL ARAB is saying . . . .
The difference is from Lisan Al Arab:
الضِّياءُ ذاتِيٌّ،! والنُّورُ عَرَضِيٌّ،
Dhiyah means ZATI – which means autonomous.
Then Noor is Aradi – the word Accidental means "not dependent" not from itself.
– – –
"even if it is a meaning, it won't apply since Naik refers to a physical property of Moon not a philosophical attribute. "
Which has NO bearing on definition of the word. . . . you are confusing between the two. In defining the word "Arad" its MEANING is from philosophical terminology – and this describes the word Noor.
It has NOTHING to do with the nature of the light.
– – –
"False, based on what you have pasted from Lisan al-Arab. Dhiya'a" indeed is fierce, autonomous, essential but Nur is accidental (arad). "
You are LYING and you know it. Here you confirm what I say is right and then do a a complete U turn:
"The rest is your fallacious extension."
What extension?
– – –
"Based on what Wehr defines aaradi to be, we can't extract the meaning "dependent""
But that is EXACTLY what Hans Wehr is saying. I have even given the page number our.
It is YOU who is lying.
– – –
"we can't extract the meaning "dependent" or "reflected". "
But that is EXACTLY where the meaning comes from.
Noor is "accidental" in other word dependent – this IS from Hans Wehr – which is based on Lisan Al Arab and other
That is what 'Arad means . . . .I gave the meaning out.
– – –
"You can claim yourself to be abnormal though. "
This is the MAGIC – you people can never NOT insult. Which weakens your argument.
– – –
"Possibly he didn't. He too can copy stuff from others . He routinely produces so much garbage that I think it is not humanely do all that by an agency of a single person. "
May be . . . but in THIS INSTANCE – the meaning of reflected light = Noor is NOT from him . . .
But from classical Arab Lexicons.
– – –
Quit petty lies.
//Noor = Light that is dependent
Dhiyah = Independent. //
False, based on what you have pasted from Lisan al-Arab. Dhiya'a" indeed is fierce, autonomous, essential but Nur is accidental (arad). The rest is your fallacious extension. Based on what Wehr defines aaradi to be, we can't extract the meaning "dependent" or "reflected". At least no normal person would. You can claim yourself to be abnormal though.
//Naik didn't invent the meanings. //
Possibly he didn't. He too can copy stuff from others:-). He routinely produces so much garbage that I think it is not humanely do all that by an agency of a single person.
//No it isn't – … which is NOT supported by anything. //
It is supported by your own admission that Noor indeed means light. And I know enough of Urdu and Arabic to say that its common usage is light.
//As my post says:
WRONGLY says. The Arabic lexicon doesn't use 'reflection' (eg AKS, mir'äh or say rudüd)
//I defined – Accidental – as Dictionary.com gives it//
And thats the fallacy. Wehr's book is a lexicon. If he meant reflected light he would have said so. He doesn't say that for 'Nur'. And if he thought about dependent/reflected stuff he would have wrote it for aradi.
Second I did check Dictionary.com I didn't find the meaning you are positing for 'accidental'. You can click on the link you have given and search for the word 'contingent'.Thats the reason I asked for the URL.
The only philosophy related entry I could find "4.logic, philosophy.. a nonessential attribute or characteristic of something (as opposed to substance)". Correct me if I am wrong.
3rd, even if Dictionary.com says so (I COULDN'T find it) it doesn't mean that you can apply it. Words do have different meanings doesn't mean they can be used interchangeably. eg, you said light also means not heavy, would you then say noor means not heavy? Another example. Wehr defines tabawur as 'penetration'. Look it up in a dictionary and one meaning is millitary attack, but if you read the whole entry it would be clear, Wehr says " reflection, consideration; penetration, clear-sightedness"
4th, even if it is a meaning, it won't apply since Naik refers to a physical property of Moon not a philosophical attribute.
When you unable to put logic behind your post,you resort to abusing ( old following of "attacking is the best form of defense" )others nothing more and ,adoring thyself with medals of your own making,you are the comrade and so the clapper ha,ha,ha….
" Only Islam fighting since day one and will continue fighting and killing until they annihilate themselves or by others." …………………………….. Brain Baker of USA.
All these truth have nothing to do with Ali Sina but have a lot to do with Aljareeza Arab news, CNN news and BBC news. Hahahaha ! Still had yr head buried in the sands of Arabia. Or u are a paid deceiver !
Big lies are 1) the earth is flat. 2) the sun set in muddy water. 3) the moon was split into 2. & 4) the water cycle was mentioned in the koran where the many verses said the water was sent down from the sky and none said how the water rose up to the sky——-this is the big lie of Naik, the charlatan.
" God is light " copied from the Bible.
" This slave of the wretched fellow is using false logic. we can not make him understand because he has sold his soul to Satan."
In other words. . . you do not have a clue what is and isn't logic.
– – –
You are lying thorough your back teeth.
Just like Sina . . . he pretended to be logical.
When I put it to him . . . what logic the science has he learned. . . unsurprisingly – he didn't answer.
– – –
Why don't you follow your own implied advice.
Go and do some learning!
See what that adds to you . . . .
I have already said . . . you are not very clever. And you don't have much to say – other than to insult.
– – –
"How can you work for the common good of all, knowing fully well the expansionist ( expansion of spiritual ignorance, slavery, cruelty, injustice) idealogy of Islam. "
Logical fallacy . . . you already suppose that common good and Islam are different – without saying why. Such supposition are fallacious.
OBVIOUSLY others don't agree with your views about Islam.
– – –
These are banal comments – and don't mean much other to convey your views of Islam.
That much – however – I got from your 1st comment. This doesn't add anything at all.
– – –
"kindly get out of islam and save yourself first."
Boohoo!
Kindly I invite you to Islam. The right path.
There are two categories among Muslims- Deceivers and the deceived. Mohammad was the greatest deceiver of them all. The deceivers know what is right (just) and what is wrong (unjust), yet decide to side with Injustice. They are awake to the knowledge of right and wrong but declare right as wrong and wrong as right. This is called pretending to be asleep. This slave of the wretched fellow is using false logic. we can not make him understand because he has sold his soul to Satan. All the deceivers deserve sound whacking to awaken them from their pretensions
you are a stupid defender of the indefensible. How can you work for the common good of all, knowing fully well the expansionist ( expansion of spiritual ignorance, slavery, cruelty, injustice) idealogy of Islam. You can not establish justice by proposing a share to the robber.
The Robber has to be tried and punished. There can be no gooddy gooddy middleway for the upholders of Monsters followers. kindly get out of islam and save yourself first. Then save other muslims by untrapping them from the fears instilled deep by the Demon of Demons the vile wretched Mohammad.
" Ali sina's exposure of Mohammad"
Where? I see lie upon lie everywhere. . . .
I post them up.
No one bothers to counter argue. . . .
Why?
– – –
Because you CANNOT!
– – –
You ain't big enough. Your motivation is HATE. . . . the conditioning.
I eat up people like you for lunch . . . son.
– – –
" he is capable of understanding (no, he has already understood) Ali sina's exposure of Mohammad"
Examples . . . what the hell are you on about. . . .
See this is where YOU are being dishonest.
I have had many exchanges witrh Sina – he lost EVERY SINGLE ONE!
I have exposed him as an old fraud.
Hence why YOU and PEOPLE like you can talk in general terms . . .
Else you know – you are exposed as frauds.
The merit is in specific EXAMPLES. . .
It is a BIT OBVIOUS you will say this. Doh!
– – –
As many people before you . . . you too are not likely to respond.
See the ABSURD comments posted up by your fellows.
– – –
You are capable of understanding Sina's lies . . . .but you are SO brainwashed with HATE . . .
That you are UNABLE to give it up.
– – –
" This guy aminthemystic should be understood as a deceiver. Deception is in his blood."
Mild insults . . . so what?
You would have earned credence by giving into specifics. . . giving examples.
– – –
I win hands down.
– – –
Does it NOT occur to you . . . comments such as yours are COMMON – UNORIGINAL – and plentiful . . . .
They are a bit obvious.
= = =
Another one that bites the dust. Oh well.
There can be no mysticism in Islam. Muslims are capable of being fooled by deceivers like Mohammad. Islam is populated by deceivers in the name of God and Fools ready to be fooled. This guy aminthemystic should be understood as a deceiver. Deception is in his blood. yes you are right, he is capable of understanding (no, he has already understood) Ali sina's exposure of Mohammad , but pretends to be hurt by the rational criticism of Islam. The Free world has a massive task ahead – Whack the deceivers and save the deceived fools
"If you guys think it is the word from God, then why are so many errors in your book? "
Such as NAME them. . .
– – –
These are all baseless claims. . . people like you are GOOD at making them.
And that is it.
I dismiss the lot.
– – –
As there are actual NO EXAMPLES whatsoever . . . hence I cannot talk about them.
– – –
Like I said . . . do you get bred in labs?
Same sort of stuff over and over and over. . .
If you guys think it is the word from God, then why are so many errors in your book?
Why did he not send it earlier than other religions?
Why does he say to slay men of other religion, can't he himself do that?
What about the most immoral, inhuman guy, the self proclaimed prophet, who looted, raped, plundered wealth etc.
Why is your religion propagated through lies?
Why to murder apostates, cannot your god stop him from being an apostate?
Why to blindly follow any teachings, without questioning, don't your god know the proper answers?
How can god say to lie(taqiyyah) to propagate a religion. Why does a god need lies to know him or his religion. If it is the true religion there is no need to lie about it. Because Truth don't need any support of lies as truth is truth, but lies need to be covered by lies, which your so called holy book shows.
There are so many questions and absurdities in your books which you are not able to see. By simply saying that they are often repeated by many sites, doesn't make them wrong unless refuted with logical reasoning. By merely reading you cannot acquire any knowledge you have to understand first what you have read.
It's easy to awake a person who is sleeping, but not the one who is pretending.
"The most common (and possibly only) use of Noor is light, perhaps a "softer", ''kinder" light which would make it being associated with Moon. "
You simply made this up.
– – –
My article [incomplete] – shows the difference between meaning of the two words.
Noor = Light that is dependent
Dhiyah = Independent.
– – –
Hence Sina built up lying rhetoric . . . . from his inability to do some research. He has ALREADY determined Muslims are guilty – hence he doesn't bother. Which leads him to errors.
All he has read is Websites – that are anti Islam.
– – –
Naik didn't invent the meanings. Unlike Sina he is probably familiar with Arabic lexicons.
"Went through your defense of Naik on your site."
My site is more about Sina than defense of Naik.
– – –
"And what is this obvious error?"
Obvious error – that the nature of light as implicated the 2 different words – is NOT from Naik. . . But from Classical Arabic lexicons.
– – –
"The most common (and possibly only) use of Noor is light, perhaps a "softer", ''kinder" light which would make it being associated with Moon."
No it isn't – this is YOU deliberately withdrawing your own conclusion – which is NOT supported by anything.
– – –
As my post says:
Noor – is light that is dependent on some other source.
Dhiyah – is light that is intrinsic.
– – –
" Yusuf Ali translated it thus: "God is the Light of the heavens…". Is Allah reflecting light here, "accidently"? "
Doh!
Sonny . . . it is CLEAR as the word "light" in English has different meanings – So does the Arabic word Noor.
For example:
Light – in English can mean: Not heavy.
Or – an illuminating agent
Or – spiritual illumination
Hence similarly in Arabic – Noor in the above verse = guidance
So this word has different meaning.
This is made clear by – Lisan Al-Arab and other dictionaries.
– – –
"What you are trying to do is finding an excuse to prove Naik right"
Nope – you did NOT understand . . . and that much is kind of obvious. Else – what excuse have I come up with? Don't make LYING FALSE ACCUSATION against me.
– – –
"What more, let me guess why you went for Dictionary.com meaning instead of staying with Hans Wehr. Page 604, Wehr says 'aradi accidental (philos.) incidental, fortuitous, casual, unessential. None of this refer to the object being "contingent upon the existence of something else." "
Here again – you DID NOT Understand. I didn't go for the "Dictionary.com" meaning as you misunderstand. . .
Arad – is an Arabic word . . . HENCE its meaning is looked up in an Arabic dictionary. . .
And that is what Hans Wher says . . . I gave the page number.
I defined – Accidental – as Dictionary.com gives it.
– – –
"None of this refer to the object being "contingent upon the existence of something else." "
Yes it does. . . .
This: "accidental (philos.)" means:
"contingent upon the existence of something else."
– – –
"And could you also kindly paste the URL from Dictionary.com where it says that in philosophy Accidental means "Any entity or event contingent upon the existence of something else."? Although as already said above it carries no weight at all."
REALLY? I thought all you had to do was SEARCH the word!
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/accident?s…
//Which would have shown him his obvious error.
And what is this obvious error? Went through your defense of Naik on your site. The most common (and possibly only) use of Noor is light, perhaps a "softer", ''kinder" light which would make it being associated with Moon. Even there is a chapter called Al-nur (24) and I haven't read it being called the chapter of Reflected Light. In fact 24:35 even starts with "Allahu nooru alssamawati ", Yusuf Ali translated it thus: "God is the Light of the heavens…". Is Allah reflecting light here, "accidently"?
What you are trying to do is finding an excuse to prove Naik right, proving what Sina alleged: "All these Muslims in the hall listening to Dr. Nailk’s charade felt that it is their religious duty to take part in this taqiyah and not object when someone lies for the glory of Islam."
What more, let me guess why you went for Dictionary.com meaning instead of staying with Hans Wehr. Page 604, Wehr says 'aradi accidental (philos.) incidental, fortuitous, casual, unessential. None of this refer to the object being "contingent upon the existence of something else."
And could you also kindly paste the URL from Dictionary.com where it says that in philosophy Accidental means "Any entity or event contingent upon the existence of something else."? Although as already said above it carries no weight at all.
"Again a borrowed knowledge."
Here is why you are so dishonest and a liar . . . you could NOT protect this "borrowed" knowledge BS. Yet you use the term again.
What knowledge isn't borrowed?
– – –
Your questions are ABSURD . . . your thinking is poor.
THAT articles gives a decent overview about Classical Arabic.
– – –
What it really is . . . that I out-smart you.
I'll tell you exactly how:
You have hidden agendas. . . hence you ask such basic and mundane questions.
When I outsmart you – by NOT playing ball.
Then you don't know how to respond!
– – –
"What is that classical Arabic ,and in what way it is different from regular Arabic "
Let me ask you. . .
Are you an idiot? This is a silly questions stream.
– – –
If you are AS CLEVER as you pretend to be . . . there would be no need to ask me.
– – –
Now sling your hook.
Again a borrowed knowledge. What is that classical Arabic ,and in what way it is different from regular Arabic ,how you can differentiate classic from usual Arabic . Which one is dominant and why ?. What is the language of Quaran? ,if it is classic, how an ordinary person understands it .If he understands it to his comfort, how can you say it ,that he had properly understood it ,if he is not ,then where will he find his next asylum after death ,who has to say he is right or wrong ,who is perfect and who is judge to say he is perfect..Ultimately it is ha..ha..ha.
Yes . . . here are some good wiki articles about it:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_Arabic
Sure – if you wanted to know that . . .why not ask straight out like this . . .rather than messing about?
– – –
I speak English, Urdu, Punjabi. . . . Some Arabic [Classical and MSA – NOT Aamiyah] and some Hindi [Learning the alphabet!]
Do you know when arabic originated ,lest classical Arabic.
May i know what is your language after all !!!.
Right . . . and all this has to do with SIna's lies?
– – –
See this is what happens!
This is why I am so bloody good!
– – –
When pressed . . . the brainwashed . . . . divert attention.
He couldn't answer – for Sina's obvious lies and distortions . . . hence posts up random BS.
– – –
" No wonder, u find the never-ending bloodshed all over many Muslim countries."
Muslim countries are far less "blood thirsty" then the West. Far, far and far better.
"excellent work in exposing those big lies"
Such as . . . care to present one?
I mean it is HIS Lies that are being exposed here . . . . or did you miss it?
– – –
Brainwashing of west – obviously working!
"Friend, don't try to fool yourself, just read those books in the language you understand and come to any conclusion. "
This is an absurd statement to make. . . as I am the one able to understand Classical Arabic and NOT you. . . . hence what is it that you have read?
And why do you suppose I have NOT read er. . . these book!
– – –
Are you all so brainwashed. . . .?
"If you are logical enough, then find out the truth yourself by reading Quran and Hadiths."
This is a poor response . . . being "logical" has NOTHING to do with being a Muslim. The supposition in itself is fallacious.
– – –
"If the Quran says the earth is flat, and the sun sets in muddy water, or some Zulqarnain went to the edge of the earth, etc., etc., etc., and if you don't find any insanity in those writings then ….. may God save you. "
Yet, Quran doesn't say . . . the Earth is flat . . .
Else find it.
– – –
These are COMMON Lies. And nothing more.
They are oft repeated – by many sites . . . . same poor arguments copied over and over and over. . . .
no he is under moral depression for finding actual difference between girlfriend and wife.
He had gone to Paradise to meet with the 72 virgins, which were rewarded to him for his excellent work in exposing those big lies ! Hahahahaha !
Does anyone know what happens to my dear Ms Dr Ali Sina? 🙁
If you are logical enough, then find out the truth yourself by reading Quran and Hadiths. Friend, don't try to fool yourself, just read those books in the language you understand and come to any conclusion.
If the Quran says the earth is flat, and the sun sets in muddy water, or some Zulqarnain went to the edge of the earth, etc., etc., etc., and if you don't find any insanity in those writings then ….. may God save you.
U n yr BS ! Any religion that does not teach its followers to account for their misdeeds is not worth to be a religion. No wonder, u find the never-ending bloodshed all over many Muslim countries. The killers were never taught that they have to pay for their sins in this life or in the hereafter. So they keep killing without remorse. The economies of these countries are always in a bad shape where millions are jobless, angry and starving. Being truthful to dire conditions of the Muslims do not matter to you in the least !!!!! Millions of Muslim refugees are crying for yr help for they cold and hungry in their tents.
"Ali Sina, in his many articles, has described narcissists and sociopaths, and how evil they can be! "
Sina has EVEN less command of this subject that of Islam.
His lies are being exposed … . .
Do you have answers . . . NOPE.
Like I exposed you lying . . . . .
Did you give up the lie?
Nope.
– – –
You are full of it. You talk about the truth . . . . yet, when your lies are shown . . .. .
Truth is NO LONGER a virtue!
– – –
Sina's many lies are being destroyed:
http://exposingsina.wordpress.com/
– – –
What is – one can ask – wrong with you. . . .
As Sina's lies about Islam are exposed . . . . YOU people have absolutely NO SHAME.
Do you have responses. . .
NO.
– – –
What do you do?
Bizarre and meaningless comments.
– – –
Even when THEY are challenged – you get even more weirdness.
– – –
So where is Sina cowering?
Look at the lies he has built.
– – –
People who have bested him . . . he strangely doesn't mention them . . . I wonder why!
" you are happy to kill anyone that does not agree with you.. even other muslims.. "
No I am not. Neither have I ever killed anyone . . . an easy lie from you.
– – –
"you are happy to kill apostates or ex muslims because they have rejected islamic lies.. "
No I am not – another lie!
– – –
"you are happy to let men throw acid on women's faces "
No I am not – another lie!
– – –
"you are happy for the taliban to burn down girl schools "
No I am not – another lie.
– – –
"you are happy to watch your brother blow themselves up and kill as many people as posible.. "
Another lie!
– – –
"face it you are full of hate because you want to believe the lies of islam "
What lies?
As i have pointed out. . . . how do you account for your own lies?
At least 5 of them?
– – –
It is VERY apparent – who the lying side is. . . isn't it!
Your master tends to lie about me too . . .
When challenged – he has no answer – either.
face it aminthemmystic..
you are happy to kill anyone that does not agree with you.. even other muslims..
you are happy to kill apostates or ex muslims because they have rejected islamic lies..
you are happy to let men throw acid on women's faces
you are happy for the taliban to burn down girl schools
you are happy to watch your brother blow themselves up and kill as many people as posible..
face it you are full of hate because you want to believe the lies of islam
History speaks for itself.
The facts are that islam has been ruthlessly killing people and making them slaves since Mohammad butchered over 800 men in median in cold blood and made the women and children slaves..
Today.. muslism are most likely to die at the hands of another muslim.. probably like you Fsheikh.. yes like you that would happly kill anyone that does not agree with you.. what is wromg with you?
"I can say , that i too dont agree with this write up by Mr. ALI SINA. "
Good. See I get agreement – EVEN from likes of you!
– – –
"But Mr. ALI SINA has the freedom to express his opinion and his analysis. "
Sure . . . but "lies" easy ones. . . . Irrationality – stupidity – absurdity. . . yeah! Them too.
But he will get laughed at . . .
– – –
"At present Mr.OBAMA has all the things working in his favour. Make no mistake . He is a liar . "
Of what?
Name one of his lies?
ISLAM does not belong in human civilization. ISLAM is for demons, devils and satans. All moslems must leave the conquered lands and go back to SODI BARBARIA and live there . It is a huge country.
Oye Aminthemystic brain washed by ISLAMIC savagery and with most primitive thinking ) . I can say , that i too dont agree with this write up by Mr. ALI SINA. I know that Mr. OBAMA is an astute and savvy politician . I think it is premature to subject MR. OBAMA to this kind of analysis. We have to wait for that analysis. But Mr. ALI SINA has the freedom to express his opinion and his analysis. But time will decide on the outcome. At present Mr.OBAMA has all the things working in his favour. Make no mistake . He is a liar .
Look at the absurdity of this answer . . . .
It does matter to this person . . . . Lies of Sina are being exposed.
He side steps this . . . as pastes meaningless rhetoric.
– – –
Claims that are NOT backed up – by a shred of evidence.
– – –
Hence all those who are similarly – motivated by hate – what do they do?
Not answer!
But have hate of Islam and Muslims
As they are brainwashed!
– – –
Brainwashed people – sell of their rationality . . .
This is why when I expose Sina's many lies . . . .
– – –
NO ANSWER!
Look he is cowering somewhere . . . .
Not DARING!
"you are avoiding all truth and facts"
Which ones?
As I have shown above . . . are Sina's lies . . . what answer do you have – none.
Hence it me – who is the right.
So what do you have?
Hate – and nothing more.
You are BRAINWASHED.
Hence NOT capable of rationality.
– – –
"But we as noble human beings"
You are NOT noble . . . .
Not in the least . . . .
Look at you . . . you are THAT untrutful – when one of your name is shut – by exposing you. . . you change it and come back! THat is LYING . . . .
– – –
"Can you point out one ISLAMIC country where even the semblance of humanity is followed ? "
Yes – in all countries where Muslims exist.
http://www.faithfreedom.org/debates/NaikCampbellp…
Sina has the absurdity of being in error himself – due to ignorance and lack or research – yet he accuses others of lying!
Yet, he clearly does not know, in the above article, what he is talking about.
Over the word Noor.
– – –
One has to wonder at such ignorance, dishonesty and absurdity.
He simply assume the word "Noor" means "Light" – because of its common usage.
Then he builds upon this with rhetoric of lies . . . and accusations.
Yet, he doesn't EVEN bother to look in a dictionary!
Which would have shown him his obvious error.
– – –
Is this person sane and rational?
I think not.
– – –
Like his several disciples, his motivation IS hate.
Honesty and being truthful does not matter to him in the least.
"I have a habit to ignore rude people. I was put off after reading the first paragraph in your so called rebuttal. There not only you insulted me saying I have mental disorder, but also accused me of wanting to nuke Muslims.
First of all only Muslims have mental disorder. This is not an insult but a fact which I have demonstrated with ample evidence in my Book. In Understanding Muhammad, I have shown that your prophet was a mentally sick man and that Muslims, by virtue of trying to emulate an insane man have inherited his insanity. What I said is based on fact and evidence. What you say about me instead is nothing but insult because there is no evidence for that."
This is Sina's response to someone.
So if someone says to him to be of a "mental disorder". . . he takes this a an insult. But is quite happy to call others. . . .
What about his lies and insults?
Ah – no answer!
– – –
As for his book . . . he has no "evidence".
Other than copying Wikipedia and other bits from Islamic websites . ..
See here:
http://exposingsina.wordpress.com/
– – –
The thing is – what response has he got!
Soon it will be revealed.
As for having any credibility . . . . oh he has lost any he had.
– – –
Sure he will continue – unashamedly. . .
But cowering like he is now.
– – –
With comments from people like Sakat. . . .
His one lone champion . . . .who will keep changing names. . . ha ha ha.
You are NOTHING more than nonsense. . . all your comments are nonsense.
They are badly worded and in poor English. They often do not make much sense.
You are the same single Hindu – who keeps changing user names and posting different messages.
Your English gives you away every time.
You are a drowning creature along with your cult ,i am extending a log of wood ,please clinch to it, i love u ,i don't like to see you die for this MAD MOM HAMMED ,
Ha ha ha ha ha ha . . . .
What the hell are you talking about?
Look – your words BARELY make sense.
– – –
Who are YOU to say to others:
"think rationally"
– – –
Why don't you sort yourself out? Rather than attempting to preach at others.
Listen Mr., What do you mean by some "Muslims"? . Puzzle right. Recently a Saudi Preacher ,raped ,mutilated the gentile (i can't put other things here for it's off the mark cruelty) and killed his own daughter of age 5. Citing your sharia law ,the Saudi court released the person, with 50,000 dollar of blood money to the mother of that girl.If she were to be the boy ,she would have received double the amount paid to her mother.Shame on your inhuman attitude's marked by this psycho-sharia law , as well,i say as barbarian law(i don't use animal law,because they have tender care for their siblings) .All of you are mass hysteric about this ugly creature entered in the human history with his psychic- philosophy. The whole infidel world say's, till the Muslims as a whole follow this MAD MOHAMMED , will always grow in your fertile mind heap of insanity. Don't play Taqqiya here it has lost its rhythm with Mr. Sins's entry into foray. Now what it signal's to the follower of the cult., think rationally.
He he . . . .
"Can you be a honest, truthful person ?"
You are that cheating and lying person – formerly known as "Denial Is No Proof"
Now you have changed name again.
Yet your abuse is the same. . . .
And you paste such senseless and repetitive comments.
– –
Take a hike son . . . ha ha ha ha
Can you be a honest, truthful person ? No. Because you are a MUSSALMAN , follower of that monster MO !!! Do you think on the basis of facts ? Do you have conscience ? NO !!
Oye KHAIRUL IZZUAN :: That is the whole point here . Did you read all the details on this web site ? Read. You will learn a lot about ISLAM – basic tenets , values, ideas and the core of ISLAM !! You follow MO , right . Read SIRA ( biography of MO – rassool – by ibn ishaq or tabari ), read HADIS ( the sayings and doings of MO ) ,Read QQUURRAAN , the most stupid and primitive theology of ISLAM. But first , you must decide to live as a GOOD HUMAN being ! who is a GOOD HUMAN being ? Then you must look at things , real information with honesty,integrity,objectivity and with good conscience . Then come and discuss what you have read . ISLAM is not for human civilization. ISLAM is for demons, devils and satans. Why , beacuse ISLAM preaches, teaches , hatred against unbelievers, violent,killing, discrimination, intolerance, ill will and jealousy against unbelievers. ISLAM is sex and slavery . Mo was a pedo, a misogynist, a liar, a lecher, a robber, a rapist, a fascist , ISLAM is a totalitarian theology. There is no way you could be a good human being , if you follow MO and ISLAM , this is 100 % sure. Tell us what is that you like in MO's life and his criminal acts ?
again. you blame Islam because of some muslims wrongdoings. you want me to post a christians or any other religion raping a girl? you dont make any sense here. So if A CHRISTIAN rape a girl i can conclude that christian teach you to rape? No right? Dont judge a religion by the follower, judge by the teaching they bring to you
As a moslem and follower of that Monster MO and darkest and most primitive ideology and brutal/crulest , primitive theology called ISLAM /MO , and only in human form in appearance but in truth , the embodiment of demons/satan and devils, you are avoiding all truth and facts. What aspect of MO do you like ? what tenets of ISLAM do you like ? ofcourse all !!! But we as noble human beings , and want to make this world a better place for all , want to eradicate ISLAM. Can you point out one ISLAMIC country where even the semblance of humanity is followed ?
An error from his book.
There is a section he calls "The Myth of Persecution"
In it he states:
"There is no evidence of any persecution against Muhammad and Muslims in Mecca."
This is based upon William Muir's dismissal of story of Summeya and of her torture.
http://www.answering-islam.org/Books/Muir/Life1/c…
Yet he expands this into
– – –
As I point out – he is no scholar or academic.
He is NOT interested in objectivity.
His whole stance is fallacious and illogical.
Hence – he contradicts himself when he says:
"There are also stories of Muslims being beaten by their family members for converting to Islam. A hadith narrates that Omar, prior to his own conversion, had tied up his sister forcing her to leave Islam. Omar was a violent and strict man, both before and after his conversion. These stories can hardly be classified as religious persecutions. "
huh? Really?
– – –
He knows FULL WELL that hate against Islam and Muslims will lead – a small band ot swallow this whole.
Hence – little lying and dishonesty? Who cares. . .
– – –
So why all the lying?
Why?
http://exposingsina.wordpress.com/
Sina's book is absurd, ridiculous. It is full of many types of errors.
He simply wrote it pinching material from Internet sites.
He does not even have concept of an objective methodology.
His poor research and dishonesty are so obvious it laughable.
– – –
No sane person would read this book
Hence why – NOT A SINGLE PERSON has yet come out in its defense.
That is telling!
So which thousands are reading it? Who has left his/her faith because of it?
– – –
The work continues:
http://exposingsina.wordpress.com/
Will Sina be ever able to put together some sort of defense. Remains to be seen.
"Muslims should respect other people's laws more and not impose their Shariah law on non-Muslims. "
You will find – that it is WEST that seeks to impose its will on others.
What else do you call the American War Machine.
– – –
As my site explores – Sina has "exposed" nothing other than himself.
http://exposingsina.wordpress.com/
– – –
"Once you read ( with an open mind using the logic of right and wrong as a human being)"
So which open mind and logic – leads you to make errors that I expose?
The lies – the inaccuracies?
He copies and pastes from Wikipedia – and claims it as his own work! Which sane and er "logical" person does that?
As for his many lies . . . .
– – –
Where does this "open mind " and "logic of right and wrong as a human being" go . . . when your master is caught red-handed fiddling?
Why are his defenders suddenly all silent upon this? So shameless?
– – –
This is what I term as hate-mongering.
Here – isn't example of being anti-Islam. That has NOTHING much to do with it.
This has to do with HATE of people.
For example – Hitler's hate for the Jews.
small correction. ordinary Human piss is a blessing upon that Bastard of Bastards. May Pig Piss be Upon Him
As per usual – you only get this type of comments – those whose heads are completely in cloud cuckoo land.
– – –
" whether you agree with that is a different matter. "
With errors? There is only one thing you can do.
– – –
Behind you is a one disgusting human being. A hate-monger. Read and weep.
whether you agree with that is a different matter.
But did you see how many times Mr.OBAMA fawned infront of Mohammadens , in cairo, in SODI BARBARIA and in several talks he delivered ? Why is Mr. OBAMA is concerned with ISLAM or for that matter any religion. AS president, Mr. OBAMA must not bring religion into public discourse and particularly defending one religion only !!! It is good that Mr. OBAMA is sending the drones to kill all the ISLAMIC terrorists anywhere in the world . But still we all are concerned with ISLAM/ MO/ ISLAMIC Terrorists and OIC., Because it is simple, ISLAM is based on hatred,bigotry, killing, fascism, discrimination , sex, slavery , intolerance of unbelievers . ISLAM does not belong in the human civilization. A true Moslem (MOHAMMADEN) will never be a good human being .
Strange Lies of Sina.
http://www.faithfreedom.org/obama.html
Read this carefully. It is absurd. It is full of errors. Deliberate Errors.
Sina – has SOLD himself to the American Right.
That is where his HATRED of Obama springs from. Money. Hirsi-Ali did the same.
– – –
Look how long I have been exposing him . . . . any answers? Not really no.
Mr Sina ,i asked u a simple question and expected your response,never mind if you feel ,you needn't . I feel, you are confining your self, to the history and replying Islam,it is laudable indeed.You are seriously involved for the betterment of humanity as a whole.(it should be). However my questions are specifically pertains to your own endevour with Islam,if you fail to grasp, i have to doubt ,whether i am rightly placed in this site.Hope you will shade light.
I support Ali Sina's endeavours!
Oh!!! new world philosopher ,extend this to your inmates in Pakistan and Afghanistan,entire world will be kind to you if they leave MAD MOHAMMED. This is a simple logic all the time floated here by sane people.
Testing 123
You are troll kid – nothing more. You have NOTHING but petty insults.
By the standards of "lifestyle" you sign up to . . .
You must be one hell of a loser! I mean writing this rubbish. . . .
I got an Americanism for you:
"Get A Life"
Oye AMINRIADH or AKA …. You are a true follower mOHAMMADEN of that monster MO and You are doing good job and practicing JIHADIST /TAQIYYA merchant , You must put into use MUBAHILA too for which you are guaranteed to be a MUJAHID and a JANNATH with all the perks and privileges , rewards for your deceit,deception, dishonesty ,lies and wickedness. Now your rewards will be enhanced by including HOORIS of your choice and with permanent embrace and your head in between the thighs as your profit profiteer desired of you.
Your ALLAH/MO and Hooris are awaiting your arrival in jannath.
//""Tell me why the entire Afpak region has become place of useless people after 8th century onwards."
It hasn't. "
This is the original assertion! //
@Slave of Prophet asserted "Pakistan and Afganistan we find these are most violent country" since they didn't ascended from the Arabs. So what @Slave calls violent, @Sakat calls useless. How can you deny one without denying the other? Only if you say that violent Afpak people are useful. See who is running in circles.
//This is the original assertion!
Don't lie. read back your posts. I have quoted what you responded against.
And as far as this particular assertion is considered it has also been replied back with evidence, which you have termed 'non-sense'. Re-read last post.
It is YOU who has run out of any logic. Whatever 2Slave of Prophet asserted has been completely trashed and whatever you tried with your dishonest means have been quashed.
""Tell me why the entire Afpak region has become place of useless people after 8th century onwards."
It hasn't. "
This is the original assertion!
– – –
"rather childish I say. "
More copying!
– – –
"Off course you would now say non-sense because you can't swallow the evidence. "
What evidence . . . what are you EVEN on about. In order to be smart-alec . . .
you have ran yourself into circles. . . .
– – –
What a bore!
//it is disagreement with the original assertion
And how is that? The 'original assertion' was "@Amin isn't 'technically' wrong in refuting some of your statements. But thats all that is there from him." And your follow-up challenge "Why – what more are you looking for? " So what is your challenge here embedded in that question of yours? rather childish I say.
//Nonsense.
Off course you would now say non-sense because you can't swallow the evidence. Alternately you can say being violent is always very useful expecially the way the Afpak region is.
"Since the above is a question must be challenge to you. Agreed whole-heartedly. "
Sure . . . !
"Now prove how that question is a challenge. "
Sure – that is a challenge as it is disagreement with the original assertion. Hence – I call it to question. . . .
12.
to take exception to; call in question: to challenge the wisdom of a procedure.
Dictionary.com.
Like I said – UNORIGINAL.
And simply copying me!
– – –
"Only pointing that using 'past tense' was wrong. "
No it wasn't. And you could have phased it like this. I have ALREADY pointed out – not all time span was in question.
– – –
"It does, for I don't think "we find these are most violent country" relates to very useful people. "
Nonsense.
– – –
How are you?
Since the above is a question must be challenge to you. Agreed whole-heartedly.
//Look up the word "Question"
Look up the word challenge instead. Not all questions are challenges.
1: to demand as due or deserved .
2: to order to halt and prove identity
3: to dispute especially as being unjust, invalid, or outmoded.
4: to question formally the legality or legal qualifications of
5a : to confront or defy boldly . b : to call out to duel or combat c : to invite into competition
6: to arouse or stimulate especially by presenting with difficulties
Now prove how that question is a challenge.
//whether they are still running or not.
Only pointing that using 'past tense' was wrong. The point was they are pre-islamic and as such the point hasn't been disputed by you.
//Does not correlate to
It does, for I don't think "we find these are most violent country" relates to very useful people.
As it questions . . . it is therefore is a challenge.
What was the challenge? Let me see you complain "Why – what more are you looking for? " And how was this a challenge?
"Was that even a challenge? "
Yes it was.
– – –
"Actually – YOU started it. Which is rather obvious "
he he . . . .Oh – HOW FANTASTIC AM I!
Ha ha ha ha . . . .
Yep – a bit off it!
Like I said – BS. And hate, and abuse. Nothing more. If this is you "knowledge"
Good luck to you!
It is beyond your desert mind.try to bring the water of Ganges for fertility.
//.statements do get challenged
Was that even a challenge?
//Actually – YOU started it. Which is rather obvious
Actually – YOU started it. Which is rather obvious
It is suffice to say you are perfect reincarnation of MAD MOHAMMED!!!. Where is your Gabriel.
"You seemingly felt so when you asked"
No dear – your interpretation. . . . .statements do get challenged. And complaints too are in form of statements.
– – –
"Agreed. But you started it. "
Actually – YOU started it. Which is rather obvious . . .
Excuses – Excuses . . . . and you cannot really respond. Hence why you come up with such BS.
Read posts of 'J Stillwater'.
He did a similar thing!
//Who said it wasn't a statement?
You seemingly felt so when you asked "what more are you looking for?
"
//Pitiful! Inane exchange of comments.
Agreed. But you started it.
You have to take my post through the prism of Islam ,which is the track of Mr. Amin .He say's ,for example surgery is much older to susruta but fails say surgeon (earlier) was a Muslim.My comments were restrict to Afpak region, but he wants to take us for long ride for which I don't have time.
"piked "
?
– – –
" ignorant cannot be shake hand with knowledge it is a futile exercise. "
Meaningless self congratulating words. . . an attempt to hide the BS.
– – –
And he "piked" exactly what?
You piked what exactly i mean but he failed , ignorant cannot be shake hand with knowledge it is a futile exercise.
"So you are technically wrong. Its a statement. "
Look up the word "Question"
1.
a sentence in an interrogative form, addressed to someone in order to get information in reply.
2.
a problem for discussion or under discussion; a matter for investigation.
3.
a matter of some uncertainty or difficulty; problem (usually followed by of ): It was simply a question of time.
4.
a subject of dispute or controversy.
5.
a proposal to be debated or voted on, as in a meeting or a deliberative assembly.
dictionary.com
The word has MORE meanings besides "interrogation".
– – –
"2. And @Sakat was replying to @Slave of prophet so my 'finding' actually applies. "
No it doesn't.
As this:
"The original post from @Slave of prophet presumed it has."
Does not correlate to:
""Tell me why the entire Afpak region has become place of useless people after 8th century onwards." "
– – –
"1. Again wrong, Not only 'they ran' , they are still running. "
Doh! No one is questioning – whether they are still running or not.
– –
"2. They may not be 'just' pre-islamic, but definitely pre-islamic. How does it falsify my assertion if they are still around?"
Like I said . . .no one is questioning whether they are still running or not.
//However I was questioning Sakat – NOT anyone other than him.
1. "It hasn't", is not a question. So you are technically wrong. Its a statement.
2. And @Sakat was replying to @Slave of prophet so my 'finding' actually applies.
//Also – Hindus are NOT just a pre Islamic Civ – but also ran concurrent to Islam//
1. Again wrong, Not only 'they ran' , they are still running.
2. They may not be 'just' pre-islamic, but definitely pre-islamic. How does it falsify my assertion if they are still around?
Pitiful! Inane exchange of comments.
"Thats a statement, not a complaint, dear. "
Who said it wasn't a statement?
Doh!
In answer to this:
"Tell me why the entire Afpak region has become place of useless people after 8th century onwards."
It hasn't.
– – –
You posted:
The original post from @Slave of prophet presumed it has. To quote him/her "But when we see country like Pakistan and Afganistan we find these are most violent country.". He blames the pre-islamic civilizations for their current state. "
However I was questioning Sakat – NOT anyone other than him.
– – –
Also – Hindus are NOT just a pre Islamic Civ – but also ran concurrent to Islam.
//Ha ha!
Enjoy.
//Why – what more are you looking for?
Thats a statement, not a complaint, dear.
"Let me put it like this, @Amin isn't 'technically' wrong in refuting some of your statements."
Ha ha!
– – –
"But thats all that is there from him."
Why – what more are you looking for?
– –
"Note how he doesn't find it justified to 'correct' @Slave of prophet 's comments "
And thousand of other messages. . . . and same to you.
For example – why do you not feel the need to correct Sina – and his silly, absurd lies?
The ones I have pointed out?
//No he doesn't – He blames Hindus!
1. Which is pre-islamic.
2. He blames " but they are descendant of violent Hindu". Where he is factually worng since 'they' are decendants of all pre-islamic civilizations/religions including Hindus.
Give it another read – dear.
@Sakat,
Let me put it like this, @Amin isn't 'technically' wrong in refuting some of your statements. But thats all that is there from him. Note how he doesn't find it justified to 'correct' @Slave of prophet 's comments
"So? Being common doesn't mean it is wrong. "
No – but but as pointed out – lacking in merit.
– – –
"//It hasn't.
The original post from @Slave of prophet presumed it has. To quote him/her "But when we see country like Pakistan and Afganistan we find these are most violent country.". He blames the pre-islamic civilizations for their current state. "
No he doesn't – He blames Hindus!
Give it another read – dear.
//It hasn't.
The original post from @Slave of prophet presumed it has. To quote him/her "But when we see country like Pakistan and Afganistan we find these are most violent country.". He blames the pre-islamic civilizations for their current state.
//This is a common diatribe – many Indian Hindus post similar versions of it all over the Internet.//
So? Being common doesn't mean it is wrong.
" Look at the subsequent thread of this guy Amin,can you make out any sensible meaning out of his post. "
Doh – says it all.
You cannot answer . . . hence – this cheap line.
– – –
When your BS is challenged – you have packed your bags!
I wish, i could ; but these are headless people ,can't help . Look at the subsequent thread of this guy Amin,can you make out any sensible meaning out of his post. Some people live for sake of living we cant help. Thank you.
HISTORY IS MYSTERY?? EVERY BODY PRESENT NOW WAS NOT PRESENT IN PAST…..
BUT PRESENTLY WE KNOW THAT(THE GLOBAL WAR) in which NON- Muslim powers ARE RUTHLESSLY DESTROYING THE THIRD WORLD Muslims STABLE COUNTRIES into RUINS, AND KILLING REACHES MILLIONS IN JUST LAST DECADES BY nato POWERS CRIMES MORE THAN HOLLUCASTS , DIRECTLY OR THROUGH FUNDED ILLEGAL ARMIES. ALSO USING UNO AS THEIR NOC PROVIDERS.
In Ancient England,
People Could Not Have Sex Without King's Permission.
So To Have A Baby, They Were Supposed To Get King's Consent.
They Were Then Given A Card To Hang On Their Door While Having Sex,
Which Read As: "Fornication Under The Consent of King"(F.U.C.K.)
So The Word'F u c k'Came Into Existence..!
In Ancient England,
People Could Not Have Sex Without King's Permission.
So To Have A Baby, They Were Supposed To Get King's Consent.
They Were Then Given A Card To Hang On Their Door While Having Sex,
Which Read As: "Fornication Under The Consent of King"(F.U.C.K.)
So The Word'Fuck'Came Into Existence..!
"There are well documented records in Buddhist monastery's ,which reveals how the region was peaceful ,intelligent and was thriving with prosperity."
Which ones?
– – –
"You know the first University was established in Taxila,where medicine,mathematics ,astrology,science,economics,etc subjects were taught ."
Says who?
– – –
"Even you can get an easy access to Stanford or M.I.T, but it was hard to get entry into Taxila university."
!
– – –
"Susruta who is your ancestor, is considered as the father of surgery by modern world and Charak as father of medicine."
By you . . . and maybe other Indians. But surgery is far older:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sushruta_Samhita http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surgery
– – –
"When the highest knowledge is being imparted in Taxila the rest of the world including your Saudia was ignorant about these knowledge and were living a primitive life. "
At that time Saudi was simply desert, sparsely populated with nomads. But so what of it?
– – –
"Tell me why the entire Afpak region has become place of useless people after 8th century onwards."
It hasn't.
= = =
This is a common diatribe – many Indian Hindus post similar versions of it all over the Internet.
Read it back to yourself. You can do much better!
@Sakat,
You have hit the nail on its head.
Gentleman ,first of all you are not Bedouin ,on an earlier post you have mentioned that you are a Pakistani, right.To know what was Afghanistan and present day Pakistan ,you must travel back to 7th century.There are well documented records in Buddhist monastery's ,which reveals how the region was peaceful ,intelligent and was thriving with prosperity.You know the first University was established in Taxila,where medicine,mathematics ,astrology,science,economics,etc subjects were taught . Even you can get an easy access to Stanford or M.I.T, but it was hard to get entry into Taxila university.Susruta who is your ancestor, is considered as the father of surgery by modern world and Charak as father of medicine.When the highest knowledge is being imparted in Taxila the rest of the world including your Saudia was ignorant about these knowledge and were living a primitive life. The origin of oil painting was traced to Afghanistan (because of Buddhism)See how grandeur in its existence the Buddha's of Bamiyan , can you give the existence of any such sculpture's in Saudi Arabia.Tell me why the entire Afpak region has become place of useless people after 8th century onwards.Even now ,if the people of this region ,free themselves from the shackles of this dirty Islam and this MAD MOHAMMED,certainly they will progress rapidly along with rest of the world.
Slave of the profit profiteer and the monster MO !! you are truly. Naturally you are psychotic, perverse and with convoluted sick mind !! This is natural state for you. Take all the pakis and afghanis to SODI BARBARIA . First why did ISLAM came to INDIA as murderers, invaders, looters, rapists and pedos ? It is your Mo infested you . Truth need to be told to you. You are blinded and brain washed MUSSALMAN. Light will dispell the darkness of ISLAM. ISLAM survives on fear of the grave and torture of hell fire . ISLAM is a terribel, terribel religion. ISLAM does not belong in the human civilization. Sooner or later humanity will see this fact. First Moslems must see this .This will heppen when you and other hard core ISLAMISTS decides to be good human beings . What are the characters needed to qualify as good human beings ? Honesty, truthfullness,integrity , respect for all living creatures , Kindness, compassion, peace, love, equality, equal justice, tolerance, equality of all people, equality of all religions, freedom, liberty, democracy , equality of women with men , etc. You can immediately see , if you are honest – thay ISLAM will not preach or teach none of the above characters. ISLAM is DAR UL HARB and DARUL ISLAM. separate. ISLAM is supremacism. ISLAM is worst racism . ISLAMis fascism. Look at any ISLAMIC theocracy !!! separate rules for Mussalmans making them superior !!! In reality ISLAM is for demons only , not for humans.
I regard Dr Abdul Kalam ,as the highest humane and, i saw him personally carrying portable Bhagvatam all the time in his little pocket ,he is familiar with its each sloka's and its profound meaning and I had never ever saw him carrying Quaran or quoting any of its sura's any time any where.
yes. but islamic morality contradicts with those of the civilized world. stealing is wrong but stealing from a non mslim is ok!. by doing all what u mentioned they think that they r serving god.
When we look back at the history of the region, before the advent of Islam these were not more violent than some other places of their times. But from around 8th century AD it started producing the infamous invaders like Ghori and Ghaznavi. So the current state can't be blamed on the Hindu, Buddhist, Zorastarian or Manichaeism, but certainly to the presence of Islam. Further proof is that India is a majorly Hindu nation which isn't pre-occupied with violence the way AFPAK is.
//Original Muslim like from Saudi Arabia are peaceful
You mean Zawahiri and Laden, right?
@Amit,
//All i meant to say that almost always their intellect is diverted//
Actually I agree with @Loki when he says "Muslims in general, are much better people than what the Quran tells them to be."
//perhaps thats why it was only 2 names you could remember//
Actually I can count many names, I gave you two most prominent names just as examples considering that you are an Indian and by your somewhat aggressive ways may be a young person; gave you names which you have most likely encountered.
I am myself no fan of Islamic teachings, but human intellect has always shone beyond religions so we had Al-berauni and we had Copernicus (a Catholic cleric)
There are no doubt a tiny minority of good Muslims. But vast majority of Muslims are stupid and threat to Scientific spirit, open inquiry, basic Human values and peace. This threat emanates from their blind following of the Rabid Mullahs. Now that Dr.Ali Sina has conclusively proved the cancerous nature of Islam, all non-Islamic countries should Ban Quran & practicing Muslims from entering their countries. Muslim countries also should be disarmed. This is best way for the Human race to survive as Humans and not be converted to dangerous psychopaths.
@ Chuck : yes i said that but rather than taking my words to the court, i meant that its essence to be understood. Even if you put 2 names forward, one of them don't even subscribe to the "mullah philosophy" (i know kalam sir very well, i had an opportunity to talk to him when he was president of India)… but never mind… this is not a place to show off personal contacts. All i meant to say that almost always their intellect is diverted and/or destroyed to become a photocopy of that psycho Muhammad. Please go through a video of Dr. Bill Warner of about 45 minutes on youtube to further elaborate.
those who escape that intense psychotherapy remains good emotionally, socially & intellectually… those are quite a few and perhaps thats why it was only 2 names you could remember.
Anilkumar is a criminal and must be punished . He is a low life, a scum and a thug like your psyche is ISLAMIC.
Oye ZITO :: You are a true mussalman/jihadist and follower of that monster MO !!! To lie, to cheat, to be dishonest and act as a TAQIYYA merchant is your nature , character. In INDIA Moslems carried out numerous attacks, bombings and killings – did any time Moslems admitted ? In INDIA , there are numerous Jihadist groups /goons/gangs. Did they admit any time? IN INDIA , Hindu boys and girls make friendship with Moslem boys and girls. You have to tell Hindu boys not to make friendhip with Mussalmans !! Hindu dont understand the evil,wicked, cruel psyche of Moslems. This is the problem. Look at yourself . Did the moslems admitted the Bombay blasts ( 3 X , each time 250 people got killed ) Did the Moslems admit the AKSHARDHAM temple attacks and killings of 25 people ? Did the Moslems admit the Godhra , sabarmathi express setting fire and killing of 60 people ? Did the Moslems admit the CARGIL attacks? Did the Moslems admit the Indian airlines hijackings ? I can give numerous examples in various parts of INDIA .
I don't really agree with that. In civilized countries there is religious freedom, and just forbiding them to be Muslims would only make them be seen as victims and "persecuted", and turn moderate Muslims into radicals. You have been a Muslim yourself, would you understand such restrictions back then? What can be done is not give in to political Islam demands: no-go zones, Sharia law courts (there are already many in the UK, what a scandal), halal food in schools and public places, girls wearing hijab in school, time for prayers during work or school (they can well delay their prayers), special holidays, hysteria over some cartoons, etc. But I don't think you can prevent them to go to the mosque and pray to Allah or fast in the Ramadan, they just need to understand that they must abide by the rules of their host country. Judge them by their laws as someone suggested is pathetic! Only information and education can lead them to leave Islam, but that won't happen if they feel ostracized. Oh, and what about stopping buying oil from Saudi Arabia?
You know the INDIAN history. For 1000 yrs INDIA was like a slave country under the influence and subjugation of ISLAM/christianity, during which time all INDIAN /Hindu values were lost/degenrated/trampled. ISLAM brought endless savgery, loot,rape, killings and destruction, sex, slavery. The evil influence of ISLAM is still lingering on INDIA. The greatest calamity INDIA had was the invasions, and conquests by those most cruel, evil, ISLAMISTS . ISLAM is primitive, darkness and extreme cruelty. ISLAM must be eradicated.
imposter kavya ::: You have absorbed all the evil, wickedness and savagery from ISLAM. As i said You be honest truthful, with integrity and pure heartedness. Be answer for your own conscience . Decide to be a good human being . What are the qualities to be a good human being . Find out first . Be open minded and accept all good and nole and reject all bad. You ask others to go and search . Did you read SIRA? DID you read HADIS ? DID you read QQUURRAAN? DID you know the history of ISLAM ? Full of gory deaths,murders, looting, raping,killings, hatred, sex, slavery , supremacy etc ? What do you like about MO , the monster and profit profiteer ?
imposter kavya ::: You have absorbed all the evil, wickedness and savagery from ISLAM. As i said You be honest truthful, with integrity and pure heartedness. Be answer for your own conscience . Decide to be a good human being . What are the qualities to be a good human being . Find out first . Be open minded and accept all good and nole and reject all bad. You ask others to go and search . Did you read SIRA? DID you read HADIS ? DID you read QQUURRAAN? DID you know the history of ISLAM ? Full of gory deaths,murders, looting, raping,killings, hatred, sex, slavery , supremacy etc ? What do you like about MO , the monster and profit profiteer ?
Did you read about other religions ? particularly about the noblest HINDU philosophy and values,principles ? and Buddhism,jainism ? They are infintly noble and filled with compassion and purity. ISLAM is truly darkness and most cruel. No human being need to be choosing ISLAM . Every human must flush ISLAM /Mo in the toilet because ISLAM/MO are toxic and sewage.
NEW DELHI: A 24-year-old woman was critically injured here after a man inserted an iron rod into her mouth during a rape attempt, police said on Tuesday.
Anil Kumar, 26, a cable operator tried to rape the woman finding her alone at her house in south Delhi's Lajpat Nagar around 8.30pm on Monday, said the officer.
"Kumar went to the woman's house to collect monthly rent for the cable TV. Finding the woman alone, he tried to rape her. He inserted an iron rod inside her mouth when she was crying for help," said the officer.
Hearing the woman's voices some neighbours came to help her but Kumar managed to flee from the spot. He was later arrested.
The woman was rushed to All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS) where her condition is critical, said the officer.
Sir , Assumption and presumption are basis for probability .Can any one prove that there are multiple universe, it is again probability.Theory is again probability.The beginning of the universe is also probability.The attheist are also looming in between probability .Hence infinite itself is probability.
I have been trying to stay away from all activities that help improve human condition (including resisting Islam) as it takes up too much time, and [more importantly] because I have realized that majority of people (including my own friends and relatives) simply do not value the good things that they have. I may be wrong and that is why I decided to comment on the discussion that erupted regarding the condition of women in India. This is a long essay, but it will certainly help people (especially those of Indian origin) understand the root causes of what plagues India, and why women are not safe in the country. If you guys believe that things can be changed then I hope my input helps you, and good luck to you.
Thousands of analysts have written articles regarding why women are not secure in India. I only read a few of those but I am afraid I have not been satisfied by any of their claims. I also skimmed through the 400 comments posted here, including plenty coming from people of Indian background, and am not feeling good about the lack of objective understanding regarding the problems that plague India. I firmly believe that my analysis is correct and I hope that my post helps those who want to do something to improve conditions in India.
Whether the man whose attack killed the rape-victim is Muslim or not is irrelevant in that particular case. Yes, his Islamic upbringing [very likely] may have contributed to his actions, but even if he were a non-Muslim, I would not have been least surprised at the cruelty of their actions. Having grown up in India, I have seen how cruel people can be, and this includes all people from any walk of life, including young men and women.
Most people fail to discover the roots to problems in India because their research is not objective, and so they fail to probe many closets with hidden skeletons. Through extensive and objective personal research, brainstorming, and contemplation, I believe I have identified the roots of most evil that occurs in India. In this post however, I will concentrate on the atrocities against female sex. My concentration will also be limited to the north, west, and north-west India. I am not sure if my findings apply to other parts since I am not very familiar with cultures and traditions in those parts of the country.
North-west India is somewhat of a patriarchal society. Rural areas are a lot more patriarchal that the urban areas but unlike suggested by Ali Sina, I believe that patriarchy has little to do with poor treatment of females there. Normal men do care about women, and want to see them living in a safe environment. Normal men are concerned when women are not safe, and they take action. Ali grew up in a patriarchal society, yet it was because he saw a suffering girl, that he resolved to take action against Islam.
There are two kinds of people that commit atrocities against women in India, both in rural and urban areas-
1) Other women, and
2) Men. [Don't worry… I will elaborate further]
The root cause of all these atrocities are the following-
1) Indians' total, and I mean TOTAL devotion to the demonic gods called materialism, consumerism, and the most evil of them all- Social Status.
2) Ignorance of what it means to be a 'Man'
IMO, materialism by itself is not all that bad. If someone wants a HDTV or a fancy phone, and they work hard (or harder) to get one, then what's wrong with that! Sometimes these desires become so great that people agree to do wrong things (like taking bribes, or ignoring family for overtime work, or praying to god and wish for a grandson). But still there is a limit to how much harm materialism can do to a person (and society) by itself.
Consumerism is more sinister. It is the belief that we are born to consume whatever we like. A new TV comes to the market… ok let's trash the old one and buy the new one. People are saying good things about the Nexus… let's get rid of the iPhone (even though it is working just fine) and get the Nexus… and let's not even think about the fact that Earth's resources are being used up at ever faster rates to produce all these newer goodies. After all, the Quran says Allah created things in the world so we can USE them, and the Hindu books say that if Mother Earth is going to suffer then it is her karma. Hell, we shouldn't even be thinking about the suffering Earth. We should have a positive attitute and just concentrate on working hard and fulfilling our desires!
Social Status- the ultimate evil that has always kept India backwards and continues to destroy her. Unfortunately, social-status is also the highest of high God of Indian society, and is the root cause of female-to-female atrocities in the country. Social-status means making effort to get more than what your acquaintances have, not because you need it, but just to maintain status among other people, or to have a higher status than them. In other words, living with, and doing things for the sake of social status. I have a perfectly fine TV but I want to….err… I have to get the newer model because many of my acquaintances already have one and I don't want to be the last one to have it. Or else, I will have to hang my head in shame, and I will never feel equal to them! Even the caste-system was evolved into its evil shape by believers of social-status. Today money, Degrees, job-titles, and of course having sons/grandsons instead of daughters, are fast replacing caste-system as a medium to denigrate others and feel ourselves superior.
Mr Loki, I wonder if you are truly an Atheist? You ought to read all the books written by Mr Clinton Richard Dawkins and understand what Atheism is all about, especially the famous Big Bang Theory and the Theory of Evolution which are most widely accepted by people like you.
Am I arrogant for speaking nothing but the plain truth? What has it got to do with my 'religion'? Why are you so judgemental? Am I passing comments here without any basic scientific knowledge?
Mr Loki, when I have one dozen children with that dear hero of mine(do you know who is my hero? :), I'll definitely enlighten them on all the topics of Science and most importantly, to explain that the purpose of Science is for human beings to know that this marvellous Universe must have an infinite powerful Designer Who has brought space and time into existence, though He is timeless and spaceless. This is one of the evidence to show you that you didn't pop out of that blackhole after the big bang on the universal ass. hahaha
@Loki,
Sorry for barging in but I have some counter points against your points. Not to quibble but,
1. //Big Bang automatically leads to Evolution//
Actually it did. Automatic or not, but the Big Bang ensured some such values of the physical constants that it made evolution of organisms possible./probable.
2. // a Scientific theory is some kind of a belief.//
A Theory whether or not Scientific is always contemplative. Not all Scientific theory are beliefs but at the barest minimum they depend on beliefs that scientists prefer calling Axioms. For example almost all Scientific Theory rely on the Principle of Causation, but nobody can tell you exactly why the principle holds or should hold. In fact the Big Bang is a prime example of an uncaused event. Most Eastern philosophies believe in an uncaused God.
3.//that Evolution is accidental.//
I think Agracean only meant origin of life and not evolution per se. While any or all of the evolutionary mechanisms (Natural Selection, Gene drift etc) might be the reason, the origin of life from bio-chemicals under duress from the early state of the Earth was definitely accidental
However, I agree with your conclusions.
Ms Agracean, from the above comment it's clear as broad daylight that :-
1. There is a difference between Big Bang (a theory to explain the Origins of the Universe) and Evolution(origin of man from simpler organisms). They are used to explain completely different phenomena and are independent of each other. You don't get this difference and seem to suggest that Big Bang automatically leads to Evolution(which I didn't even mention earlier 🙂 ).
2. You have the misconception that a Scientific theory is some kind of a belief.
3. You have the misconception that Evolution is accidental.
From the above three, I'd humbly suggest that you read a few elementary books on Science, before claiming to know 'absolute truths' and insulting others who differ on your point of view and being arrogant to the point of 'spoonfeeding' them.
Such arrogance of ignorance is typical of religion, and you are among a few of those religious people who suffer from this. Unlike you,when I say religion is bull-shit, I say so after reading the books of three major religions(comprising 70%+ of the current world population). You on the other hand pass comments in the absence of Elementary knowledge of Science.
I hope that when you have children(if you don't have any now), and when they start going to school, they'll be able to enlighten you on these topics. At this point a conversation with you on this is useless, as instead of offering evidence for your claims you choose to laugh at established Scientific theories, without even knowing the basics of Science.
fix pseudo seculars.
christian pigs killed a swamiji . we retaliated that's all.
Many gods just to accept other way to god.
you are a mullah in the disguise of hindu. also you must know that this mohammad afroz was the fag who started that crime.
you be aware of the fact that he is the one who used iron rod.
muslims are ruthless criminals.
Did act of other Fives Hindu accused also have their religion behind this ? You banana country is ruled by corrupt people. They use vote bank politics. Bribery is there. You guys bribe deities for good life. Do not worship your God just for the sake of devotion or love. Many Gods of Many castes so lack unity. While if you behold God in all and serve humanity and universe, behold it as worship. You will succeed. Read Swami Vivekananda.
There are Vedantics and Tantrics Hindus, may not feel God bounded to Holy Vedas.
Dear Ali Sina,
You wrote to me when I asked you "" I am oscillating between Atheism and
Buddhist or Hindu philosophy to embrace.":
That is the best place to be. Why do you need to embrace any philosophy? Being in the state of doubt is the greatest achievement, When you know that you don't know all the doors of knowledge are open to you. The moment you become certain you shut all the doors of learning. This certitude is the plague of the religiously minded people. "Doubt everything and find your own light." That is what Buddha said and this is the biggest teaching.
I just loved the line though all you sentence is too good: "When you know that you don't know all the doors of knowledge are open to you. The moment you become certain you shut all the doors of learning."
You write just astounding, you framing of sentence, your command over english language and everything are just inspired words. I salute you, Sir.
Thanks a lot.
With lot of love and respect
Abid
Mr Loki, please note that I don't have a long john+balls and a pot-belly like you, so please address me as Ms Agracean in future. Thanks for quoting the big bang theory which is most accepted by all Atheists, including you. So, according to your meaningless belief, you are evolved from a bacteria or germ accidentally and you became a man and live on this planet earth by accident, after a big bang on the universal ass? hahahaha
While I agree morality should be based on empathy or at the least sympathy for others (golden rule) or selfless nature, if morality is simply based on societal consensus then there is nothing much to it. If the society is full of co-dependents of a narcissist as majority then morality is bound to change. Frankly morality issue is outside the scope of Psychology which merely analyzes state of mind and labels them. In this kind of scenario, I see morality is no different than science of economics. Morality should be based on objective truth.
having sex with a women on the same day of killing her family is not rape?
hope some one does it to your mother.
muslim i will take your daughter as my captive and have sex with her.
I haven't talk about Sharia. Re-read. You brought in what you call a rule of war apparently from Sharia. I commented on that rule
are you drunk . If you commented on that rule which is from sharia then you have touched sharia law
I must congratulate you. You are the first muslim I have talked to who seems to be convinced that some of the methods of Muhamad are best left to the confines of 7th century Arabia. They have no place in the civil world we see by and large today.
Report
As far as conduction war today it should be different than 7 century and why are you suprised, If you read what todays scholars of Islam are saying they are saying the same thing about wars and how to deal with war prisoners . The exchanges of war prisoners that we have today abolished the idea of taking women as captives
//Why are you asking me to show you the book of Sahih bukhari when you have it front of you //
You forget. It were YOU who raised a concern on my suspecting that Bhukhari himself didn't deem it fit to be Shahi.
//LOL …. what stupid lie . You must be the only kafir who is an expert oh hadith //
Ad Homimem.
//so why are reluctant to post it here //
I am not. I have already clarified I was wrong. Because I always though that 157 was also spoken on death bed. And if that was so Abdullah and Ali are mentioning different phrases as Muhammad's last word and so they go against each other. You can't say who is correct. However as I clarified Abdullah is not saying these were last words and I was wrong.
First it doesn't matter. Second a pre-emptive raid establishes who the aggressor was which was the main point.
Not neccessry true . If you do not have an excuse such as imment threat that the enemy is about to launch an attack against you then you are the aggressor . Muslims did have inteligence that Bani Mustaliq were planing to attack them so they cannot be the agressors
As I said in this case Banu Mustaliq hadn't yet attacked!! And I see the same in this comment here:
You cannot wait for them until they do it sometimes if you do that you may lose the war because you may give the enemy the advantage to inflict defeat on you. All this depend on your general staff they can tell you to wait or not and which is the best option
//I did not see the word sex ijn hadith maybe you are delusional LOL .//
Don't do taqiyah. Quoting from the hadith as translated in English: "So we decided to have sexual intercourse with them "
//I just read it online //__I am just pointing it out to you that since you quote this, in its entirety it does mention consensual sex. I can understand then that why Allies might not have had a valid reason to prosecute. However you can't compare this example, even if true, with the hadith because in so much as what it says consent of the women isn't mentioned at all. __//They were not exctaly the same , but they were not free as they were before German invasion //__So you agree that the cases aren't same, their state before and after German invasion is a moot point.__//are you trying to tell me that American army …//__I can't say that, but can you confirm that these instances that you point :1. Involved captive women (possibly with ransom as objective), 2. had an official sanction.__//You do not even understand the meaning ….//__Explain then. Your last example isn't meaningful. He is considered to be the BEST EXAMPLE for his acts and behaviour, not for the tools he used. Fighting is an act, sword is a mere tool. So if Muhammad raided because of a possible threat, a Muslim will validly consider fighting/raiding when he is under a supposed threat.
I haven't seen this is in Sahih Bhukhari. Do you claim its there or not?
Why are you asking me to show you the book of Sahih bukhari when you have it front of you
I must confess I was wrong. Nr 157 doesn't go against 158.
you must confess that you are fuccking liar
I always believed that 157 also talks about the last words on death bed(I re-read it doesn't)
LOL are you trying to tell me that you even memorsie hadiths by heart and by number too LOL . what stupid lie . You must be the only kafir who is an expert oh hadith
and in that case it would have gone against 158.
Why dont you post it here and show me how it gores against it , fuccking liar . You get caught now . You have never read that hadith in your life let alone to know its number . Surprise surprise liar I looked for it and that hadith had nothing to do with 158 you cannot even make comparasion between it and 158 becasue it talks about completly different subject no war captive is mentioned in it
However I don't think on the basis of this you can say I am a liar. I didn't say I didn't read it. I definitely did.
so why are reluctant to post it here
That is from Al-Adab al-Mufrad Al-Bukhari. My concern is that Bukhari didn't consider this in his Shahi Bukhari. At least I didn't find it.
and where did you read it then if you could not find in sahih bukahir, are you that dumb liar , you do not even knwo how to lie dummy . I am not letting you out of the hook now evrybody can see that you get caught lying
So I asked you to find it for me in Shahi Bhukari. So tell me in which Volume/Book of Shahi Bukhari this hadith is present?
man you must be the dumbest liar kafir that I ever met online . You claim you have read that hadith in sahih bukhari then you want me to find it for you
Evidence can be brought in by people and prosecution and volunteers. There is no requirement for only the police to furnish it.
It is collected by police than prosecution can have acces to it . People like you cannot give it directly to court it will not be accepted by judge . You also want to impose conviction verdict on court which i found ludicrous and sick
Ohho! you mean that the sack of Banu Mustaliq was a happy affair for these women?
we do not know anything about these women and we do not know when they had sex if any sex took place with their captive hadith does not tell us all this detail .
First I don't agree Shahi hadiths are mere rumours. They are documented narrations of the most profound Muslim collector of Hadiths.
You are not better than hadith expert . They are saying hadith are not beyond shadow of doubt
Second if you can trash them all it will raise serious objections to Sharia that you were alluding a few comments before.
How Muslims were practising Islam before Bukhari . Bukhari is about 200 yr younger than Islam
Third if you are so convinced that the hadiths are mere rumours/hearsay then why were you referring to Al-Adab al-Mufrad? Isn't that double speak?
It is not me who has problem with Hadith it is western court .
you are trying to to convict those Muslims based on today standard in court of law in western nations and I told you those courts do not accept herasay evidence . did you get it now
Re-read the hadith, muslims are saying that they want sex from their captive women because their wives aren't there, so its not out of love, its pure lust. In so doing their primary consideration is not of morality but about economic impact of this act if it ends in impregnation (they talk about ransom). Their primary objective and dillema are both clear from this hadith.
I did not see the word sex ijn hadith maybe you are delusional LOL
Perhaps. We don't know. What we know from the narrative from you is that these affairs were genuinely consensual.
I am not historian and I just read it online
Surprise, surprise. The French women were not captive the same way as these women were. Doesn't matter how loftily you define 'capture'. Thats mere word play.
They were not exctaly the same , but they were not free as they were before German invasion
Repeatations!! Whenever and wherever America might have done it, it is not considered a benchmark of how you behave with captive women. All these acts are condemned and by the same yardstick
I have laready asked you
are you trying to tell me that American army punished their soldiers for having sex with German , Japense and vietnam women ? and you have not replied
Muhammad must be condemned more so since he claims himself to be the best example.
You do not even understand the meaning of best example . do you mean If Muhamed fought with sword Muslims should today do the same
// it does not have the word sex mentioned on it //
Re-read the hadith, muslims are saying that they want sex from their captive women because their wives aren't there, so its not out of love, its pure lust. In so doing their primary consideration is not of morality but about economic impact of this act if it ends in impregnation (they talk about ransom). Their primary objective and dillema are both clear from this hadith.
//If they had done something wrong the allies would not have let them go away with it //
Perhaps. We don't know. What we know from the narrative from you is that these affairs were genuinely consensual.
//So french women were not free just as women in Banu Mustaliq tribe were//
Surprise, surprise. The French women were not captive the same way as these women were. Doesn't matter how loftily you define 'capture'. Thats mere word play.
//In what way I did which is you think is bad . Having sex with women it was done by Ameriacans too which you worship//
Repeatations!! Whenever and wherever America might have done it, it is not considered a benchmark of how you behave with captive women. All these acts are condemned and by the same yardstick Muhammad must be condemned more so since he claims himself to be the best example.
I would like to add one, ' the act of Germans were not codified in book (like Koran) and made all there acts sanctified as Divine dictum'. There acts were condemned before Nuremberg Tribunal and culprits were severely punished. What about Mohammed and his acts of genocide.
//they do not count !!! , you have shot yourself in foot dummy LOL. what you got as evidence the hadith is anecdote //
Oh dear, no dear. YOU said the hadiths are hearsay only and don't carry any value. It wasn't me. I quoted a Shahi hadith assuming it to be authentic. I don't doubt your anecdotes either. But to use that to invalidate the evidence of a separate hadith amounts to anecdotal evidence. You brush up these legal terms first. My evidence is sound and perfect unless you proof Shahi hadiths aren't authentic.
//What you had is one single hadith badly interpreted and what I presented many hadiths clearly state the good treatment of prisoner of war//
Don't judge my interpretation with yours. Leave that to the reader. What you claim to be clear statements don't anyway hamper my interpretation of another hadith (I can equivalently quote my hadith to invalidate claims in those hadiths you see and in that my evidence against your hadith would be anecdotal).
None of them claimed to be a prophet or claimed to have a prophet among them.
If they had done something wrong the allies would not have let them go away with it .
Second this example serves you right you have to show me if in the hadith it mentions the sex the same way (the French ladies were not captives and your narrative says that the sex was consensual).
When you have the wohle country under ocupation it means the country lost its freedom along with people in it . So french women were not free just as women in Banu Mustaliq tribe were
Third so now you compare your Muhammad and his soldiers with the German despots. Good for you.
In what way I did which is you think is bad . Having sex with women it was done by Ameriacans too which you worship in ocupied Germany, Japan and vietnam
Just think normally that hadith has rape written all over it. If best evidence rule, presumptive evidence and circumstantial evidence don't mean anything to you, I strongly suggest you to relearn morality.
There is ignorance written all over your ignorance mind . That Hadith would not stand one single min in court of law becasue it prove nothing it does not have the word sex mentioned on it
I told you why anecdotal evidence don't count.
they do not count !!! , you have shot yourself in foot dummy LOL. what you got as evidence the hadith is anecdote
Simply because a person has spoken 100 good things doesn't proof that (S)he is incapable to speaking bad things when there is clear evidence to the contrary. It doesn't disprove the validity of this narrative.
What you had is one single hadith badly interpreted and what I presented many hadiths clearly state the good treatment of prisoner of war
I couldn't pick you what exactly the dimension of your thought.Will you help me.
i didnt mean 2 say that athiesm leads 2 crimes. the problem is that people who believes in hellfire dont usually does something wrong and may do something good for punishment and reward. but then again we have muslims killing people in the name of god!
Rigveda mandal 10, sukta 129 states that like potter makes pot from clay, similarly God creates universe from non-alive matter prakriti. Prakriti is unseen matter. From unseen matter, the whole universe is created in the visible form. Science also says that matter is never destroyed but changes its form. Suppose a paper is burnt, paper changes its form into ashes. Then ashes are crushed and thrown in air. At this moment, the paper changed into ashes becomes invisible but was never destroyed. Similarly the whole universe at the time of final destruction is turned into prakriti i.e., into unseen form.
bro, there is one thing called energy/Urga, which can not be created or destroyed. that forms all the matter. Energy perceived by sense of singht is light. As Vedas, that eternal prevades in all be it Prakriti, Purusha manifests self via Prakriti. Adam/Shiv is Purusha. From it does Uma/Havva/Eve emerged as told by made up of ribs.
Judaism has roots in Holy Vedas and are in fact branch of Brahmins(people having faith in Brahm/God). An arya Samaji gentlemen even told me about a Shalok of Holy Veda similar to Surah Al Fateha. Main essence of Sanatan dharma is to accommodate and tolerate all. As swami Ramdev Ji are trying.
Quran is just a book. Man made. Contain many twisted scriptures from Judaism, Christianity (Nestorian, Syrian orthodoxs) and small part of Zoroastrian. Yes, it's piracy edition cause the writer never paid any royalty to the previous religion owner. Instead paying royalties, muslim even want to eliminate the sources. Maybe I am a dumb cause I don't see multidimensional perception either. ha..ha…ha…cheers Lol
I haven't talk about Sharia. Re-read. You brought in what you call a rule of war apparently from Sharia. I commented on that rule
//Of course if I were living in 7 centurt Arabia my mentality is going to be different //
No wonder.
//Yes it should , based on the situation . //
I must congratulate you. You are the first muslim I have talked to who seems to be convinced that some of the methods of Muhamad are best left to the confines of 7th century Arabia. They have no place in the civil world we see by and large today.
//Pre emptive raid is war
First it doesn't matter. Second a pre-emptive raid establishes who the aggressor was which was the main point.
//That rule in Islam holds only if Muslims were attacked. Where did you get this idea //
Thanks for the clarification. You yourself said " inflict the same punishement on the enemy ." The use of 'same' here means that the enemy must also have done it. As I said in this case Banu Mustaliq hadn't yet attacked!! And I see the same in this comment here: "but if the enemy returned back to his old habit then Muslims would be forced to reply in kind "
//I have already gave you hadith number //
I haven't seen this is in Sahih Bhukhari. Do you claim its there or not?
//I asked you to quote this hadith , but you did not . this means that you are lying if not then how did you conclude that hadith Nr 157 goes agianst Nr 158 //
I must confess I was wrong. Nr 157 doesn't go against 158. I always believed that 157 also talks about the last words on death bed(I re-read it doesn't) and in that case it would have gone against 158. However I don't think on the basis of this you can say I am a liar. I didn't say I didn't read it. I definitely did. That is from Al-Adab al-Mufrad Al-Bukhari. My concern is that Bukhari didn't consider this in his Shahi Bukhari. At least I didn't find it. So I asked you to find it for me in Shahi Bhukari. So tell me in which Volume/Book of Shahi Bukhari this hadith is present?
//Evidence to the court is brought by police and not by people and period //
Evidence can be brought in by people and prosecution and volunteers. There is no requirement for only the police to furnish it.
//You cannot established for fact that those women have lost brother or relative in the fight .//
Ohho! you mean that the sack of Banu Mustaliq was a happy affair for these women?
//Hearsay are not accepted in court get your fact //
First I don't agree Shahi hadiths are mere rumours. They are documented narrations of the most profound Muslim collector of Hadiths. Second if you can trash them all it will raise serious objections to Sharia that you were alluding a few comments before. Third if you are so convinced that the hadiths are mere rumours/hearsay then why were you referring to Al-Adab al-Mufrad? Isn't that double speak?
@Serpent
I will not go to Purans. Because Purans are not Veda but Veda (eternal truths) are in Purans, Quran, Bibal etc.
Veda=eternal truth. There is nothing like Hinduism, Budhiesm, Islam, jainism, etc. Maharishi Dayanand called the four books (Rig, Yaju, Sam, Athar,) "Ved Sahita" because according to him in these books contained eternal truths.
If we follows Veda in our life we are dharmic/religious/Arya like Ali Sina, Eienstine, Rama, etc if we do not follow Veda we are Adharmic/non-religious/Anarya like Mohammad, Hitler, Osama etc.
Ali is a religions(Dharmic/Arya) person according to veda because he is following Veda in his life as Veda says
Yajurved 19.77
– All humans at all times should have passion only for adoption of truth and rejection of falsehood. This should be a continuous process and one should keep detaching faith from what one discovers to be false and keep attaching faith to what one discovers to be true based on analysis, logic, facts and evidence.
@ zitouni
So who's the authority who have credentials to judge & give the definition of "science" of tafsir? I've read koran and I didn't see any science needed. And I don't mind whether anyone take me seriously or not. It's not me who write sunset in the mud or hate mongering towards kafirs. Believing scripture like that is called sickness of the mind which most muslim suffer from.
Don't get me wrong,I'm not saying that accepting the Vedas is neccessarily a bad thing.It's just that scriptural reference shows these groups were not considered as part of sanatan dharma.
In Vishnu Purana 3:18 (p340). http://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/vp/vp092.htm
Buddha is accused of causing apostasy and Jainism and Buddhism are called heresies,because they do not observe the Vedas.
@Serpent
Veda are not books. Veda are eternal knowledge. Budhiest, Jains and sikhas rejects books / scripture not Veda. Can you give me single instance where Jains and Budhiest reject Vedic teachings.
So it is really because of their bitter experience with Islam that they have become intolerant of any alien ideology."
I agree.It's because of hindus experience with muslims that they've become extremely paranoid of other foreign religions too.
Mauritius is a very good example where christians are about 30% and hindus 50%,but they live in relative peace.There's the occassional political tension but it does not come even remotely close to the violence in India,because of muslims.
Hinduism is not a religion. It is a spiritual tradition of Indians consisting of many philosophies"
Ali Sina
The apologist who told you this may have had good intentions but many sikhs,buddhists and jains would strongly disagree and view this as an attempt by hindus to appropriate their relgions and ultimately dissolve it into the greater hindu paradigm.
Hindu sects are those whose scriptures praise and uphold the Vedas as the ultimate authority.Buddhists<jains and sihks texts reject the Vedas therefore it's impossible for them to be classified as hindus.
//I am talking about regular Germans soldiers who had sexual relationship with French women for example and there were by thousand . It was never considered rape by allies //
None of them claimed to be a prophet or claimed to have a prophet among them. Second this example serves you right you have to show me if in the hadith it mentions the sex the same way (the French ladies were not captives and your narrative says that the sex was consensual). Third so now you compare your Muhammad and his soldiers with the German despots. Good for you.
//so far you failed to come up with one single evidence which can convince me that women were raped . //
Just think normally that hadith has rape written all over it. If best evidence rule, presumptive evidence and circumstantial evidence don't mean anything to you, I strongly suggest you to relearn morality.
Reincarnate them as "bakr" to be sacrificed on the bakr-id. 🙂
He has no other way. Thats the only way some muslims think they can justify anything.
//Good for ladies because they would have died in desert//
If they hadn't fulfilled this Muslim desire for sex and/or ransom. Wow!! Humanitarian indeed.
//The hadith does not say that they were captured only for ransom purpose .//
I didn't say 'only'. It establishes at least one of the motives for capturing these women.
//I gave you many hadiths in which prophet urged his followers to treat war prisoners kindly for you to say that they had raped them instead is ludicrous if sex took place it must be consetual sex and period//
I told you why anecdotal evidence don't count. Simply because a person has spoken 100 good things doesn't proof that (S)he is incapable to speaking bad things when there is clear evidence to the contrary. It doesn't disprove the validity of this narrative.
Very good!!!, however i would like to give you a small glimpse about real diamond, which may not be in your prized possession.
"The Absolute is beyond all phenomena and existence. Anything we perceive with our senses is an expression of relative existence, that is, existence which is relative to some other existence. We may call it conditional existence. If we examine any event in our life we will find it related to something else that is not absolutely independent, that in its turn is dependent upon other things outside of itself.
For instance, the sense of pleasure is related to the sense of pain. If one has not suffered from pain, how can one enjoy the bliss of pleasure? Suffering is the pre-conditon of pleasant feeling.Enjoyment is mere comparison. So is the case with knowledge. It all depends on comparison. Had there been no darkness, there would have been no light. According to Vedanta, this dual existence is called vyavaharika satta, that is, “one depending upon the other”. Within the realm of duality we caanot find the Absolute that is everlasting and unchangeable.Relative existence is subject to change and it extends as far as there is timeand space; the Absolute, however, is beyond the flux of reality.
What are time and space? Time is the interval that exists between two thoughts. A thought arises in our mind and is followed by others, and that succession between the two thoughts is called time. Space means co-existence. Suppose we are aware of something “A” and at the same time think of some other thing “B” and hold these two thoughts together in our mind.That which separates them is called space.Consequently, time and space both depend upon the existence of mental coditions. Analyzing this way, we find that in this phenomenal world everything is within time and space. One who can go beyond them rises above the mental state. So long as there is time, there is space,but after crossing the realms of time and space, we reach the absolute unconditional Reality, without beginning or end. All the phenomenal bodies __ like the sun, moon and earth, and anything we percieve through our senses __have a beginning and consequently must have an end.
-The fact is it is YOU who has come to this forum fully knowing that we are, as you say, hate mongers. So who's losing sleep? –
Beauty!!!
//I have not compared multidimensional perception with diamond but show nature of it by taking diamond as example. //
That was irrelevant as already said in previous posts. I asked what are these dimensions. Since you didn't come with an answer, I will assume that you are just making big words to show off. All words no matter. And thats the end of discussion.
//You already know reality how definite angle have no effect on believers.//
We were not talking about believers. I clearly said those who believe needn't understand. Rest of your argument is trash.
//Muslims don't even think about hate mongers in toilet but you can't sleep without thinking Muslims . This is a real fact //
The fact is it is YOU who has come to this forum fully knowing that we are, as you say, hate mongers. So who's losing sleep?
And why need Phd for Tafsir? What the hell "science" are you talking about? Anybody can represent tafsir as they like. Who will be the authority to judge? You? Your Imam? Your Mullah? Are they Phd? On what based? Science and your belief system just can,t mix, lol..
This is called sickness of the mind which most kafirs suffer from . Kafirs never read koran in their life and yet they tell you we have the authority to interpret it , You can say whatever you want , but no one will take you seriously becasue you have no credentiles. Science means fields of studies it does not mean marth , physics you are really dumb kafir LOl. You never heard dummy social science such as history
I know all about islam.
You are delusional lilke Ali Sina . You have never read koran in your life so stop telling that you klnow Islam
I haven't yet said anything about the Sharia. Don't jumble up topics.
Yes you did becasue I told you sharia law says this and you told me it does hold
Remember this wasn't a war, it was a pre-emptive raid.
Pre emptive raid is war .
The Muslims were the aggressor in this instance.
They were not because Bani Mustaliq were first planing to attack Medina so they were the aggressors , but Muslims surprised them
That rule in Islam holds only if Muslims were attacked.
Where did you get this idea
Secondly even if it was a 'rule' of war, I am telling you what would have been humanitarian gesture, do you deny that?
You cannot find humanitarian solution better than what Muslims did .
Ok so you agree you would have felt proud about it had this been 7th century Arabia, Yes, No?
Of course if I were living in 7 centurt Arabia my mentality is going to be different and you also would have been different
Secondly if this isn't proper behaviour today then don't you think at least one portion of that exemplary character should be kept confined to 7th century Arabia only? Yes, No.
Yes it should , based on the situation . The way how you conduct war 1400 years ago or Business and commerce are subject to changes and I am sure if prophet was among us today he would have different policy , but if the enemy returned back to his old habit then Muslims would be forced to reply in kind
Is it there in Shahi Bukhari, if yes show me the book number, hadith number etc, if No, then it proves Bukhari didn't deem it fit to be a Shahi hadith.
I have already gave you hadith number and now you are asking for book number and what are you going to ask me after that to bring you Bukhari himself .This is what I said before kafir will not accept anything .You are fuccking liar . You said this
Second, Nr 157 goes against Nr 158.
I asked you to quote this hadith , but you did not . this means that you are lying if not then how did you conclude that hadith Nr 157 goes agianst Nr 158 ¿ because the only way to come to that conclusion is by reading Bukahri book and if you did then why are you asking me to show it to you . Then you say that Bukhari himself did not think this fit to be a Sahih and I asked where did you get that and again you dodged the question . I am not letting out of the hook fuccking liar until you reply to my questions . Your credibilty now is destroyed fucck liar is this how to try to win your case by lying .
You are just evading the matter. No court considers whether the accuser hates the accused or not. (As a matter of fact most accusers hate the accused).
Evidence to the court is brought by police and not by people and period .
Your proofs for Islamic morality don't carry much value.
You got no proof of anything . You are driven by hate and not intelect
Who are you to disallow me the right to feel compassionate about rape victims?
I am not forbiden you . You can feel or play and act that you are passionate , but you have no right under the law to decide whether that sexual enconter was rape or not
And just an hour before you were begging for testimony!!
Yes we need victim testimony in orderbto establish rape case and this alone is not enough for conviction . You were trying to go on trail without victim testimony which is absurd .
Caught again.
No you are the one who was caught lying about Bukhari LOL
The surprising thing is everybody counts, otherwise you wouldn't have been defending and you wouldn't have been calling Sina SOB.
No we do not count . There is no way for me or anybody else to know if these two couple had consentual sex or not. Only them can know that . If the lady said it was rape then trail will procede and court will decide if it is true or not . I call Ali Sina SOB becasue he called our prophet SOB.
Mr Atheist Loki, I know that you can't wait for me to spoonfeed you and satisfy your hungry stomach. Tell me, Mr hungry Atheist Loki, does the Universe has a cause?
Well a day before they were captured, their husbands, brothers, children killed or taken hostages and all they were thinking was having sex(one night stands) with the same invaders!! May sound logical to you, but I doubt if it is a sane conclusion.
I have read that bulshit before . You cannot established for fact that those women have lost brother or relative in the fight . This is christians apologist argument which you can find in anti Islmaic website
Read above, also try to get a grasp of what presumptive evidences and circumstantial evidences are all about.
Read above
Thats a foolish stand too. A narrative will be considered an evidence in a court of law.
No it is not . Hearsay are not accepted in court get your fact
If you can get a Qazi claim with evidence that all hadiths are untrue only then they will cease to be considered authentic because as such they are established as authentic by the same science of hadith which you appealed to a comment or two before.
Will it be accepted by court outside Muslim world ¿ I do not think so.
And a such a proclamation would mean that the Sunnah will come into serious questioning. I guess you know the implication.
Expert of hadith say that hadiths reported by ones which all of them are suggest doubtness and not certainty in other words they are not 100% true .
Most importantly you have again proved that the morality of the act doesn't bother you are only looking for the legal escape routes.
I am not looking for escape route nor I need one . I have many hadith with me which supprt my stand you got nothing thats why you are resorting to lies which I will prove later
Thank you Sakat for kind information ! When we will get into selling diamonds we will definitely use it !
Dumb-head, egg-head, hate monger, low life are clearly stating your state of mind. I am not calling names these are real facts
Real problem is with you eggheads is method of understanding. You pick up something irrelevant. This is gross stupidity I have not compared multidimensional perception with diamond but show nature of it by taking diamond as example.
You already know reality how definite angle have no effect on believers. Haven't you seen rich, poor , handicapped Muslims praying shoulder to shoulder everyday.Haven't you seen Islam is highest practicing religion on earth ? Haven't you seen Muslims are morally much more better than others?
You hate mongers are small fraternity who think they got some power which decide to accept or reject or decide future of Muslims.This is a joke ! You are indeed living schizophrenics lol
Muslims don't even think about hate mongers in toilet but you can't sleep without thinking Muslims . This is a real fact !
This narrative does include that these women went willingly, the hadith doesn't have any such mention.
It did not say that those women were forced to ahve sex either
Secondly during the Nuremburg trials rape was one of the war crimes and German soldiers were prosecuted based on presumptive evidences.
The trail was for high ranking German officer and gove members only . I am talking about regular Germans soldiers who had sexual relationship with French women for example and there were by thousand . It was never considered rape by allies
Read Rule 96 of ICTY. Anyway the hadith talks about CAPTIVE women not consensual sex with women from an occupied country. You have done it once before too, but don't water down the plight of a captured women with that of a postitute or lover or a one night stand. Though it may befit your Islamic moralities.
so far you failed to come up with one single evidence which can convince me that women were raped . Your assumtion is must be rape and assumption are not considered to be proof plus it goes against prophets teaching therefore I will dismiss you
The artificial diamonds carry the same quality ,experts knew how to choose in between real and false.
@ Chuck
Does this Zitouni try to justified one evil with another?
How did you establish that it was good for all. Per the hadith the women were captives, and were to be exchanged for money as ransom.
Good for ladies because they would have died in desert and good for Muslims there would be prostuites and weed luck children in street
I can cut through this argument in 100 ways, but one is enough. You forgot that these women were captured for ransom. The hadith is clear in that point.
The hadith does not say that they were captured only for ransom purpose .
I gave you presumptive and circumstantial evidences which you haven't denied. Sakat has shown you IPC, I referred Rule 96 of ICTY , I and Joe have asked question none of which you answered. It is you who is dancing around not answering questions which would establish the guilt playing the Moral Relativism card at times, and at times referring to other anecdotal evidences.
I gave you many hadiths in which prophet urged his followers to treat war prisoners kindly for you to say that they had raped them instead is ludicrous if sex took place it must be consetual sex and period
//What being captured unwillfully has to do with having sex .//
Well a day before they were captured, their husbands, brothers, children killed or taken hostages and all they were thinking was having sex(one night stands) with the same invaders!! May sound logical to you, but I doubt if it is a sane conclusion.
//I argue in the same manner the hadith does not say women were forced to have sex //
Read above, also try to get a grasp of what presumptive evidences and circumstantial evidences are all about.
//There is no court in the world which will accept hearsay as all hadith are such //
Thats a foolish stand too. A narrative will be considered an evidence in a court of law. If you can get a Qazi claim with evidence that all hadiths are untrue only then they will cease to be considered authentic because as such they are established as authentic by the same science of hadith which you appealed to a comment or two before. And a such a proclamation would mean that the Sunnah will come into serious questioning. I guess you know the implication.
Most importantly you have again proved that the morality of the act doesn't bother you are only looking for the legal escape routes.
//Germans amy in ocupied europe their soldiers did have sex with women in those countries and they were never persecuted for that because women willingly went to bed with them . //
This narrative does include that these women went willingly, the hadith doesn't have any such mention. Secondly during the Nuremburg trials rape was one of the war crimes and German soldiers were prosecuted based on presumptive evidences.
//Even modern time soldiers can have consentual sex with women in ocupied country . They cannot have sex with captured combattant enemy//
Read Rule 96 of ICTY. Anyway the hadith talks about CAPTIVE women not consensual sex with women from an occupied country. You have done it once before too, but don't water down the plight of a captured women with that of a postitute or lover or a one night stand. Though it may befit your Islamic moralities.
//Why he should say do not have sex with them if it was good for all .//
How did you establish that it was good for all. Per the hadith the women were captives, and were to be exchanged for money as ransom.
// Imagine you bring those women to town then release to the street do you know that danger did you put the whole society. Those women will have nobody to take care of them they will prostitute themeslves and the city will be full of weedluck children . do you think is good idea. It is better to put them in home where they will have man to take care of them and they can also enjoy happy and normal life//
I can cut through this argument in 100 ways, but one is enough. You forgot that these women were captured for ransom. The hadith is clear in that point.
I gave you presumptive and circumstantial evidences which you haven't denied. Sakat has shown you IPC, I referred Rule 96 of ICTY , I and Joe have asked question none of which you answered. It is you who is dancing around not answering questions which would establish the guilt playing the Moral Relativism card at times, and at times referring to other anecdotal evidences.
The hadith clearly states these are captured women. You think they got captured willfully? Yes, no?
What being captured unwillfully has to do with having sex . The purpose of raid was not to capture women to have sex with them
The hadith doesn't say that a consent was available.
I argue in the same manner the hadith does not say women were forced to have sex then we ran into a case the hadith is inconclusive it should be thrown out as evidence
First it is not true. I can point Shahi hadith against this opinion. Second even if it was so, the women were definitely under fear or you mean war captive were roaming around freely with gay abandon?
How do you explain to me that Germans were terrorising Europe and yet we read that they have consentual sex with women in ocupied Europe
You have yourself said you aren't an expert, how can you pass a judgement that I am amateur?
I know that you are Arabic ignorant and thats good enough for me
I have given the hadith in English, Sakat has shown you IPC, I referred Rule 96 of ICTY , I and Joe have asked question none of which you answered, the circumstantial and presumptive evidences are against you and you DIDN'T quash them. Any legal expert can tell you who the judge will dismiss.
There is nothing there in that hadith which can held in court of law . There is no court in the world which will accept hearsay as all hadith are such so do not bother to be able to convict Muslims who lived 1400 yrs ago even by modern standard
But what one would have expected the greatest man that ever was, to say, was don't have sex with captured women, in fact he should have disallowed capturing women.
Why he should say do not have sex with them if it was good for all . Imagine you bring those women to town then release to the street do you know that danger did you put the whole society. Those women will have nobody to take care of them they will prostitute themeslves and the city will be full of weedluck children . do you think is good idea. It is better to put them in home where they will have man to take care of them and they can also enjoy happy and normal life
You didn't answer any of his questions. You are merely trying to defend Muhammad and his companions whichever way its possible. And by doing that you are actually proving that in these days such acts are gross violations nay criminal offences. How can this person serve as guide in the current world!!
You have not proved your case concerning rape allegations . You danced around and you hit wall
So you were unfair to bring in US Army in the first place.
why not if you do not like it here another example . Germans amy in ocupied europe their soldiers did have sex with women in those countries and they were never persecuted for that because women willingly went to bed with them . In France it was women who were punished after liberation they shaved women heads and turned lose in streets
Second even the attrocities from these armies are not considered the benchmark of morality. So at least you are agreeing that what
You mean the USA army punished their soldiers for having sex with women in ocupied Germany , Japan and vietnam
Muhammad and his soldiers was wrong AT LEAST by modern sensibilities.
Even modern time soldiers can have consentual sex with women in ocupied country . They cannot have sex with captured combattant enemy
I haven't yet said anything about the Sharia. Don't jumble up topics.
//This was rule of war back then . It was not invented by Muslims and we have rule in Islam which says that you can inflict the same punishment on the enemy . Plus women were killed or harmed //
Remember this wasn't a war, it was a pre-emptive raid. The Muslims were the aggressor in this instance. That rule in Islam holds only if Muslims were attacked. Secondly even if it was a 'rule' of war, I am telling you what would have been humanitarian gesture, do you deny that?
//I do not know if you have barin or not . I have already told you you cannot use 7 century rule of war with todays rule and Muslims schoalars concur .//
Ok so you agree you would have felt proud about it had this been 7th century Arabia, Yes, No? Secondly if this isn't proper behaviour today then don't you think at least one portion of that exemplary character should be kept confined to 7th century Arabia only? Yes, No.
You answer these 2 questions. You also have to give reasons if any answer is No.
//Who are you to decide the outcome of sexual enconter between to couple whether it was rape or not .//
Who are you to disallow me the right to feel compassionate about rape victims?
//Sometimes court does not even take victim of rape testimony at face value//
And just an hour before you were begging for testimony!! Caught again.
//you and me or anybody else does not count .//
The surprising thing is everybody counts, otherwise you wouldn't have been defending and you wouldn't have been calling Sina SOB.
//where did you get the statment that Bukhari said he did not think this fit to be Sahih hadith //
Is it there in Shahi Bukhari, if yes show me the book number, hadith number etc, if No, then it proves Bukhari didn't deem it fit to be a Shahi hadith.
//Best this thing is brought by police and detectives and not by people who are biased againt the accuser such as you . No court in the world will accept charges made by people who hate the accuser. //
You are just evading the matter. No court considers whether the accuser hates the accused or not. (As a matter of fact most accusers hate the accused).
Your proofs for Islamic morality don't carry much value. We know that Muhammad did say few grand things, there's no denying that. But he also said some pretty ordinary stuff like in the hadith I quoted. From an objective analysis of these hadith we can say Muhammad said both good things and bad things possibly as the situation demanded.
The link you provided says more about slavery than the actual treatment metted out to war captives especially women.
What? Are you saying that the kafir laws are better than the divine and eternal laws of Islam and that you and your fellow Muslim brother are going to give up the teachings of the Quran to adhere to those of the UN?
Muslims did not invent rule of wars back then concerning captives of wars and they were not in business of changing the enemy military policy and even they tried they were not going to accept that. So they have to deal with them the way it was fit in order not to expose their army to defeat and once these kafirs changed their mind about rule of wars we were happy about it
I don't know about your wife and daughters but generally women don't like to jump into bed and have a "consensual sex? with the murderer of their male kin.
It depend what culture you are refering to and what age and era this took place . before you open your ignorant mouth you have first to get your phd degree in culture of Arabia in 7 century then I will take your opinion seriously right now I dismiss you as ignorant dumb fuuck LOL
//First.— Against her will.
The hadith clearly states these are captured women. You think they got captured willfully? Yes, no?
//Without her consent.
The hadith doesn't say that a consent was available.
//It does not describe the situation in Arabia even before Islam Arabs did not harm or killed women captives of wars //
First it is not true. I can point Shahi hadith against this opinion. Second even if it was so, the women were definitely under fear or you mean war captive were roaming around freely with gay abandon?
//What we got is interpretation of hadith by amateurs who has no credentiels of hadith science or Arab culture in 7 century Arabia add to that they are biased toward the subjects because of hate of the defendants . All these would be good enough for the judge to dismiss the rape the case .//
You have yourself said you aren't an expert, how can you pass a judgement that I am amateur? I have given the hadith in English, Sakat has shown you IPC, I referred Rule 96 of ICTY , I and Joe have asked question none of which you answered, the circumstantial and presumptive evidences are against you and you DIDN'T quash them. Any legal expert can tell you who the judge will dismiss.
The fact that you Arabs were a bunch of savages is not disputed.
If you call Arabs savages because they used to have sex with women captured in wars , did you know dummy that you have also insulted your people the Persians because they too were engaged in that kind of practise LOL
Was Allah so ignorant that he did not know there are people in other parts of the world that are more civilized than Arabs?
Who are these so called civilized people that you are talking about in Mohamed time ? you propably mean Romans and Persians well I am really surprised that you are so dumb and ignorant becasue they too were engaged in that kind of practise .
Ali Sina said : Assuming it was normal, is it a good think to rape women captured in war or is it a bad thing?
Here he is my 7 years old kid who has english reading problem as usual LOL . I said dummy it was noraml to have sex and not to it was normal to rape .
You didn't answer any of his questions. You are merely trying to defend Muhammad and his companions whichever way its possible. And by doing that you are actually proving that in these days such acts are gross violations nay criminal offences. How can this person serve as guide in the current world!!
I didn't say it was 'only' lust. Ransom was also involved. Re-read the hadith. And this hadith, if it refers to the raid on Banu Mustaliq (you can clarify if I am wrong), then it was a pre-emptive attack by the muslims. What you say don't even hold. This is the same raid in which Juwayriah was captured as a 'booty' and fell in the hands of Thabit.
What I said or what sharia say does not hold , are drunk ¿ . Let me repeat it for you . It says you cannot rape the enemy women even they had raped Muslim women and you are saying that Muslim men raped enemy women . Sharia does not allow to rape them even in revenge and in the meatime you are saying it allow us to rape them for sexual pleasure It does not make sense to me .
You forget the criminals in this case were the muslims themselves.
What makes you call them criminals
the humanitarian gesture would have been not to capture the women in the first place, and secondly return them with full honour intact not seeking a ransom.
This was rule of war back then . It was not invented by Muslims and we have rule in Islam which says that you can inflict the same punishement on the enemy . Plus women were killed or harmed
If I attack your household, capture your sister, have sex with her (even if consensual) and then return her for money would you consider it humanitarian? Yes or No.
I do not know if you have barin or not . I have already told you you cannot use 7 century rule of war with todays rule and Muslims schoalars concur .
But what one would have expected the greatest man that ever was, to say, was don't have sex with captured women, in fact he should have disallowed capturing women.
Now your explanation only holds 'sometimes' as you say. Azl is and was a pretty successful way of preventing pregnancy. The success rate is 80% or so. He is asking his men not to take any preventive measuring in these cases. That plain to see.
I am sure he does speak English and have few books translated in English. I am sure since you are quoting him you know which book or article you are quoting from.
I am not aware of any books of him written in English and I only read his writing in Arabic or liesten to his lecture in Arabic and his comment about life in Arabia in 7 century I got it from one of his lecture in Youtube
More importantly it only 'proves' that you are playing the Moral Relativism card which I have already used against you (and you haven't come back with any answer
Who are you to decide the outcome of sexual enconter between to couple whether it was rape or not . Sometimes court does not even take victim of rape testimony at face value becuase she could be lying and you want us to take yours who is biased againt the subject. This thing is left to police and forensic detective to bring evidence to the court and let the justice takes its course you and me or anybody else does not count .
It is important to ascertain whether it is Shahi or daif. Whats your opinion?
Sahih Bukhari does not contain daif hadith in it
Second, Nr 157 goes against Nr 158. Imam Bhukhari himself didn't think this fit to be a Shahi hadith.
Can you quote hadith Nr 157 and put the link from where did you get the statment that Bukhari said he did not think this fit to be Sahih hadith
However victim testimony isn't a necessary condition for bringing a charge. There is something called a best evidence rule that I guess you aren't aware of. Also read Rule 96 of ICTY.
Best this thing is brought by police and detectives and not by people who are biased againt the accuser such as you . No court in the world will accept charges made by people who hate the accuser.
Do we need any further proof of the lack of morality on behalf of Muhammad and his men?
Do you really want me to put more evidence that we got in islam , koran , hadith and Sira concerning the treatment of slaves . I have no problem with that . Here they are
Jabir ibn 'Abdullah said, "The Prophet, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, advised that slaves should be well-treated. He said, 'Feed them from what you eat and clothe them from what you wear. Do not punish what Allah has created.' "
Source: Al-Adab al-Mufrad Al-Bukhari , Nr. 188.
Sallam ibn 'Amr reported from one of the Companions of the Prophet, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, said, "Your slaves are your brothers, so treat him well. Ask for their help in what is too much for you and help them in what is too much for them."
Source: Al-Adab al-Mufrad Al-Bukhari , Nr. 190.
Abu Hurayra reported that the Prophet, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, said, "The slave has his food and clothing. Do not burden a slave with work which he is incapable of doing."
Source: Al-Adab al-Mufrad Al-Bukhari , Nr. 192.
Not one of you should [ when introducing someone ] say ‘This is my slave’ , ‘This is my concubine’. He should call them ‘my daughter’ or ‘my son’ or ‘my brother’.
Source: Ibn Hanbal, Musnad, 2 ,4
And your slaves ! see that you feed them such food as you eat yourselves and dress them what you yourself wear. And if they commit a “mistake which you are not inclined to forgive then sell them, for they are the servants of Allah and are not to be tormented! "
Source: Ibn Sa'd, op. cit., vol. II:1, p. 133
"Serve God, and join not any partners with Him ; and do good to parents, kinsfolk, orphans, those in need, neighbours who are near, neighbours “who are strangers, the Companion by your side, the way-farer (ye meet), And what your right hands possess : for God loveth not the arrogant, the“vainglorious" Surah An Nisa, verse 36
The phrase "What your right hands possess" refers to one’s slaves (male and female). Allah swt ordains the kind treatment of slaves in the same verse where He commands man to worship Him and to treat his parents, relations and neighbours generously, and this signifies the importance of this ruling.
Here is link which can clean your brain from garbage that you have collected from anti Islamic website .
http://www.call-to-monotheism.com/does_islam_perm…
So we can conclude from all these evidences that prophet santioned rape is false
And you are skirting the answer to this statement of mine " that person can't serve as a guide
And you are skirting the answer to this statement of mine " that person can't serve as a guide TODAY. "
Read above
First, second and third in normal circumstances.
So lets take a look to one by one
First.— Against her will.
Who told you it was against her will . Testimony of the victim is needed
Secondly.—Without her consent.
Who told you it was without her consent . testimony of the victim is needed
Thirdly.— With her consent, when her consent has been obtained by putting her or any person in whom she is interested in fear of death or of hurt.
It does not describe the situation in Arabia even before Islam Arabs did not harm or killed women captives of wars
suppose the victim can't speak or write or say killed after rape, so there is no question of giving testimony (Which is historically true since not much could possibly have been left of these women who have been ravished and either sold as slaves or kept as war booty and their tribes obliterated from the face of earth in some cases).
If she cannot speak or wrote I am sure she can identify the person who raped her . If she is killed then DNA of the defendant will speak on her behalf . In our case this so called rape happened 1400 years ago and all what we have is narrative which does not tell us anything which suggest rape took place . What we got is interpretation of hadith by amateurs who has no credentiels of hadith science or Arab culture in 7 century Arabia add to that they are biased toward the subjects because of hate of the defendants . All these would be good enough for the judge to dismiss the rape the case .
correction : and yet the lady get pregnant
So if what you say is true, Muhammad didn't even know the basics. It has a 80% success rate.
lets go back to hadith :
It does not matter if you do not do it, for every soul that is to be born up to the Day of Resurrection will be
born.
What he want to say there that azl does not determine or decide for God to create human being or would change anything from the fate of God . It makes sense because couple sometimes want to have child and they do everything to get him , but the women does not get pregnant because God did not want while others want the opposite and take all precaution including piles , condones and azl and yet the lady does not get pregnant becasue God wanted to be that way . I am not an expert in Hadith studies if you want to read better explanation you should check with hadith expert and scholar .
Thinking that in Norway they are about 2% and shariah law is already there.
I knew 2 muslims in my teenage. One, from syria, was pretty good at using taqiyya (he claimed to be opposite to al-qaida, but he didn't wanted to talk a lot about this, and he visited a lot sites in arabic with pictures of long-breaded guys, I think imams or mullahs)
The other was a saudi girl. He was offended when we asked her how to say something bad about Osama Bin Laden)
@Zitouni,
ask yourself honestly.. what would you do if it was your wife, or sister or mother or daughter taken? what would you do? would you care?
First I do not live in 7 century Arabia second rapes get to be stated by the victim and not me and third today warfare laws changed no one is allowed to harm civilians
//you can't sleep without thinking Muslims.//
Surprisingly it is YOU who come to this forums knowing fully well that there will be justifiable/unjustified muslim bashing. Tells me who can't sleep well enough.
//Low life can't even grab what is multidimensional perception with example?//
And then call names like dumb-head, egg-head, hate monger, low life etc. This is the true hate-mongering face of Islam lest we forget. You wouldn't find me using these invective for example.
//Example is not comparing anything with diamond or proving anything as diamond but explaining how narrow headed hate mongers have an definite angle looking at things ! //
Learn English first. You compared multi-dimensional perspective with diamond. I didn't. I merely asked what these dimensions are? Low life like us CAN ASK QUESTIONS. Higher forms like yours can try and answer. So did you answer that? NO. Can you answer that: we are yet to see. Also tell me what is the problem if a religion can't withstand what you call 'a definite angle'?
You know that I agree with you in many things you say?
Peace is important, but sometimes wars can't be avoided.
I hope the west will wake up. Of course, I also hope that many muslims in Islamia will leave mohammedhism (because to me that is a more appropriate name than islam).
Really you see Europeans becoming less tolerant? As european (and not a jerk) I hope so. On my personal experience, my mum once was tolerant toward muslims (as was I) Later, bot of us understood what really islam is. Now we both hate islam. My brother believes in far-left ideology of tolerance etc… yet he hates islam.
And for catholichism, Even if I want to stay christian, I don't want to be not even 1/10 muslim (due to influences that chatolicism still has from islam), so I don't call myself catholic anymore.
You know that I agree with you in many things you say?
Peace is important, but sometimes wars can't be avoided.
I hope the west will wake up. Of course, I also hope that many muslims in Islamia will leave mohammedhism (because to me that is a more appropriate name than islam).
Really you see Europeans becoming less tolerant? As european (and not a jerk) I hope so.
And for catholichism, Even if I want to stay christian, I don't want to be not even 1/10 muslim (due to influences that chatolicism still has from islam), so I don't call myself catholic anymore.
huh?! I do have anything to prove? In plain English it means I just don't give a fish if you can't sleep without thinking Muslims. Low life can't even grab what is multidimensional perception with example? Example is not comparing anything with diamond or proving anything as diamond but explaining how narrow headed hate mongers have an definite angle looking at things !
You made a mess Egghead ! Read my comments again if you don't get them smash your head somewhere else !
There is some one diggy piggy, and tinde -sinde in your nations. fix them, cook them and eat them.
We Indians don't need the savage Arab cult in or land. We will wipe out Islam from our holy land. From Kabul to Kohima and from Kashmir to Kanyakumari the evil forces of savage Islam will be defeated.
Yes you are right sir, I am unable to comprehend this fact in your above thread.May be the meaning is good one but not absolutely bad. I preferred that name for the meaning " an ambitious man/boy, who likes striving towards a goal by themselves". In fact the actual pronunciation is "Saketh" as per the meaning above, but i adjust it to my suiting's .It is true that in Pali it means the carrier of Dhamma wheel.I salute you for your abundant knowledge.
Fully supports Bhuddists
The Vedic God Agni brought The material from Immaterial made the Manifest from the Unmanifest.
The Muslims have been wedged between Ali Sina & Agniveer. They will not escape.
And no anser to this question either:
If I attack your household, capture your sister, have sex with her (even if consensual) and then return her for money would you consider it humanitarian? Yes or No.
I would really love to know what prominence this name has in Buddhism. It might be worth knowing if you have no issues with sharing references. Sakat in sanskrit means vile or bad and shakat means vehicle, wagon, carrier. Since Pali has words from Sanskrit and is the primary language of the Buddhist lores, I would suspect shakat in Sanskrit is sakat in Buddhism. So Sakat I guess could mean a vehicle (for enlightenment for example)
//He does not lecture in English . I can give you his youtuve videos if you want //
He lives in US and runs the Quranic Centre. Is also part of Americans for Peace and Tolerance.
I am sure he does speak English and have few books translated in English. I am sure since you are quoting him you know which book or article you are quoting from. More importantly it only 'proves' that you are playing the Moral Relativism card which I have already used against you (and you haven't come back with any answer)
Then begin your Mubahila tournament ,the Olympic is on! Ha!Ha.
//Source: Al-Adab al-Mufrad Al-Bukhari , Nr. 158.
It is important to ascertain whether it is Shahi or daif. Whats your opinion? Second, Nr 157 goes against Nr 158. Imam Bhukhari himself didn't think this fit to be a Shahi hadith.
//You cant put people who lived …are you nuts or dumb .//
May be I can't put them on trial, you are right there. However victim testimony isn't a necessary condition for bringing a charge. There is something called a best evidence rule that I guess you aren't aware of. Also read Rule 96 of ICTY.
And coming to think of it, the only objection you have against such an allegation is lack of testimony. Do we need any further proof of the lack of morality on behalf of Muhammad and his men?
And you are skirting the answer to this statement of mine " that person can't serve as a guide TODAY. "
//Which of his , do you think it fits with rape in the narartive //
First, second and third in normal circumstances.
//No it does not . In court of law we have first to have testimony … narative this kind of accusation.//
So you are now appealing to lack of testimony. Sorry that argument won't hold in a court of law, suppose the victim can't speak or write or say killed after rape, so there is no question of giving testimony (Which is historically true since not much could possibly have been left of these women who have been ravished and either sold as slaves or kept as war booty and their tribes obliterated from the face of earth in some cases).
//I don't think I have any task which is going to entertain your hate mongering perception ! //
In plain English, you can't prove anything.
//Multidimensional perception you can experience with diamond as well //
Poor example. I asked what are these dimensions not what is the example of multi-dimensional perception.
//If hate monger claim diamond is red sitting on corner then s/he is a dumb head !//
Even an ice crystal glitters. Only a fool (or may be you prefer dumb-head) will see a glitter and claim that it is diamond without proper verification. And a blemish even in diamond is still a blemish and it DIMINISHES the value of the diamond. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diamond_clarity.
//I did not say they were
But it were YOU who brought it in as a comparison.
//If you want to be fair you have to compare Byzantinians ,Romans or the Greek who were the ancestors of todays white people with what Muslims did in 7 century and not comparing US army with Muslims in 7 century . //
So you were unfair to bring in US Army in the first place. Second even the attrocities from these armies are not considered the benchmark of morality. So at least you are agreeing that what Muhammad and his soldiers was wrong AT LEAST by modern sensibilities.
//Yeah such as what happened in Abu Ghrib prision I see. //
Yes off-course. It was criticized by all and sundry. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abu_Ghraib_torture_a…
//You are really dumb and stupid //
Ad Homimem again. We can leave it to the reader to judge who's being dumb and stupid.
See the post from Sakat how the IPC defines rape. It is defined on similar lines in Pakistan, Britain, Australia, USA, Argentina, France, SA and many other countries.
Which of his , do you think it fits with rape in the narartive
That hadith is enough to proof the allegation in a court of law. Second morality is even stricter than a legal definition.
No it does not . In court of law we have first to have testimony of the victim that she was raped and you cannot find it in any narative this kind of accusation.
Book number, hadith number, Shahi or daif, quote the complete hadith.
If I do what will that change anything ? I do not think so ,. I have always be asked by kafirs this same question and I thought it will change his mind about the subject because I thought this is the kind of proof that he is asking for and he will be convinced that he was wrong , but as always I was the one who is wrong they just ignored it and shif back to their stupid idea . Here is the information that yolu asked for
Ali reported that the last words of the Prophet, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, were: "The prayer! The prayer! Fear Allah concerning your slaves ! "
Source: Al-Adab al-Mufrad Al-Bukhari , Nr. 158.
Its a minor point, but I didn't question his credentials. I asked for the book or article where we can read his opinion.
He does not lecture in English . I can give you his youtuve videos if you want
Secondly I have already said that even if it was NORMAL then and not now that person can't serve as a guide today.
You cant put people who lived 1400 years ago on trail of rape using today standard. are you nuts or dumb . Even today the judge will throw your ass out of court if you do not bring him victim testimony that she was raped . He is going to tell you that you got no case and get out from my court room .
1. The US Army doesn't claim to be a prophet or the perfect man.
I did not say they were
2. They aren't capturing women with the intent of ransom or out of a 'desire' for sex.
If you want to be fair you have to compare Byzantinians ,Romans or the Greek who were the ancestors of todays white people with what Muslims did in 7 century and not comparing US army with Muslims in 7 century .
3. The few cases which have come into light have been sternly acted upon.
Yeah such as what happened in Abu Ghrib prision I see. You are really dumb and stupid
I think I have already touched these points above. You haven't been able to cut through this argument.
Read above
fuk the muslim sentiments. pig.
I don't think I have any task which is going to entertain your hate mongering perception !
Multidimensional perception you can experience with diamond as well It glitters in different colors at different angles still its precious ! If hate monger claim diamond is red sitting on corner then s/he is a dumb head !
Life is a diamond and scriptures are revealed through out life.
Ali Sina has lost he right to live by abusing the prophet PBUH). Ali Sina you are hurting sentiments of billions of people. You are terrorist.
Personal attack is an easy and cheap way to divert when you've nothing else on your side.
You don't have to spoonfeed anyone. You just have to make sure that you have some evidence/argument to back up outlandish claims. Hungry stomachs can't feed others.
Mr Loki, stop giving excuses. Don't be lazy like a big fat pig and wait for me to spoon feed you the answer. Go and find out the truth yourself.
Mr Loki, I'm very busy. Go and ask yourself.
//If you have belief its easy to understand and without it you need multidimensional perception to understand it as it is revealed throughout life. Life is not novel so you gotta read it as story is stupidity . Its 360 degree experience with possible situations and solution referring that situation. One who simply believe is with synchronization with methods in understanding so its simple to understand it for him/her. //
If you believe there is NOTHING to understand. And without it it is very easy to see all the holes:-). One who simply believes has no need of any synchronization with methods in understanding. What are the dimensions in this "multi-dimensional perception"?
//If the issue of taking women as captive was about lust only , Islam would have allowed Muslims men to rape captured women in case the enemy had done so to Muslims women , but if the enemy had killed Muslims women Muslim men are allowed to do the same to the enemy women , but not so in case of rape . //
I didn't say it was 'only' lust. Ransom was also involved. Re-read the hadith. And this hadith, if it refers to the raid on Banu Mustaliq (you can clarify if I am wrong), then it was a pre-emptive attack by the muslims. What you say don't even hold. This is the same raid in which Juwayriah was captured as a 'booty' and fell in the hands of Thabit.
@Ali Sina Sir,
_____________They must also have an inner moral compass. This compass is a product of human evolution____________
Are you mentioning which Hinduism and Veda say about rebirth concept that We go to rebirth cycle and when we cross a threshold of evolution we attain Mokhsa/salvation (supreme bliss).
//Ransom in case somebody from her tribe wants to get her back he has to pay to get her back . It was humanitarian gesture because those women would not have made it one day alone in desert . Which is humanitarian to you to leave them in desert exposed to thieves and criminals or to take them with you ? //
You forget the criminals in this case were the muslims themselves. This refers to sacking of Banu Mustaliq I guess, this was a PRE-EMPTIVE attack. 200 families were captured. Not withstanding that, the humanitarian gesture would have been not to capture the women in the first place, and secondly return them with full honour intact not seeking a ransom. If I attack your household, capture your sister, have sex with her (even if consensual) and then return her for money would you consider it humanitarian? Yes or No.
//Hadith proves nothing . All what it said group of men….see how it will work LOL. //
See the post from Sakat how the IPC defines rape. It is defined on similar lines in Pakistan, Britain, Australia, USA, Argentina, France, SA and many other countries. That hadith is enough to proof the allegation in a court of law. Second morality is even stricter than a legal definition.
//but I give you one .//
Book number, hadith number, Shahi or daif, quote the complete hadith.
//He has Phd degree in history of Islam he is man with credentiels on the subject .//
Its a minor point, but I didn't question his credentials. I asked for the book or article where we can read his opinion. Secondly I have already said that even if it was NORMAL then and not now that person can't serve as a guide today.
1. The US Army doesn't claim to be a prophet or the perfect man.
2. They aren't capturing women with the intent of ransom or out of a 'desire' for sex.
3. The few cases which have come into light have been sternly acted upon.
I think I have already touched these points above. You haven't been able to cut through this argument.
//why is shoking ?//
You killed the joke.
//What Muhamed was trying to say this so called Azl would not work thats all . //
Relly. Read up http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coitus_interruptus
So if what you say is true, Muhammad didn't even know the basics. It has a 80% success rate.
Shut up dumb-head !
If you have belief its easy to understand and without it you need multidimensional perception to understand it as it is revealed throughout life. Life is not novel so you gotta read it as story is stupidity . Its 360 degree experience with possible situations and solution referring that situation. One who simply believe is with synchronization with methods in understanding so its simple to understand it for him/her.
Sanatan Dharma= The Dharma (religion) which contains the eternal truth.
The word “Sanatan” means eternal. Rigveda mantra 1/62/8 states (SANAAT) sanatan (DIVAM) light of sun (BHOOMA) is received on the earth. The idea of the mantra is that the sunlight is generated/created from sanatan i.e., eternal matter and then is received on the earth.
There are two sanatan i.e., eternal reasons of creation. One is Almighty God who is alive and second is non-alive matter i.e., Prakriti. The meaning of sanatan is eternal i.e., the matter which is not made from any matter i.e., it has no date of birth or creation.
@
New prophet and Misogynist
I couldnt had said it better than you both. This book which is easy to
understand requires me to have a PHD in tasfir before understanding it.
Muslims are experts in using red herrings. I told him to tell us why the
quran is always taken out of context when it contradicts common sense
and logic and he asks if I have a PHD in tasfir. You are to answer that
question and not ask what I have. Well, i dont have a PHD tasfir if
thats what u want to know. However, i have common sense and i can
interprete verses on my own. I know you dont have that and its normal
for you to rely on tasfirs
No sir ,I am Hindu by birth but by practice I am Buddhist,and this particular name has got some prominence in Buddhism,so to remind me i am Buddhist i have adored myself with this name.Thanks for your query.
You are right ,Hinduism is rock solid.It is based on firm foundation, no debate can defeat its essence and ethos, yes our own rough politicians can do some damage ,but it is negligible . I am fearing, because of education in Hindu society, it is now realized that big families are not economically viable,so every individual families are preferring 1 child policy. Whereas these Muslims are direct decedents of pigs, so their population is multiplying rapidly in India and, ultimately they will sway over this country, what will happen than to our future generation ,and the protection of Hinduism.The day this Santana Dharma vanishes from the psyche of human the extinction of this animal is imminent.
Yes misogynist, after I read all of his post. It seems he's not just stupid & dumb but brainless! Islam has really ruin his brain. Such damage until he's unable to think clearly. What a pity.. I feel sorry for him.
@Zitouni,
ask yourself honestly.. what would you do if it was your wife, or sister or mother or daughter taken? what would you do? would you care?
chances are if you are muslim then one or more of your ancestors have been raped.. you happy with that too?
Dear Zitouni,
so you admit that the verses say "cut their throat abiove the neck" plus all the horrific concepts..!
Tell me under what contaxt exactly would the killing, torture and slavery be ok? the islamic contxt maybe!
Hi misogynist, the problem with human beings is that when something bad happens, we don't like to amit our fault and take responsibility, so we just conveniently push all the blame to God or anyone or anything under the sun, to defend our human pride and human stupidity.
"stop quoting verses out of context"
"yet you keep repeating the same lies abut koran to deceive ignorant people"
The context isn't there in the Quran.If you read Quran alone,you'll never get the context.
So it's you who should stop lying.And before you rant again about context,can you admit the aspect of abrogation of peaceful verses by violent ones in Quran?Quran is a violent and extremely boring and repetitive book.It's a book which steals humanity out of humans.Most muslims are much better people than what Quran teaches them to be.
And please don't use words like you used for Sina.
There are commentators who use such language,but Sina is civil with his words.
If I see you abuse again,you will be reported and may be blocked from this site.
A Muslim does not even have a clue about spirituality. Islam is the most anti spiritual and anti enlightenment creed ever invented.
Dear Danielle, the answer is all found in the Bible. If all the compassionate and kind but imperfect human beings ie. Ms Dr Ali Sina, you and me, are intolerant and find this idea cruel, brutal and unacceptable, how about the Master of the Universe? Do you think that a perfect, holy, righteous, just and loving God is a sicko like one of us, delighting in all these nonsense?
I think that's a great question,and really worth pondering.
However there is a fallacy right in the middle of it.The fallacy is that Atheism leads to crimes as there is no fear of an afterlife.I'd say it depends on how the person is in the first place.If an evil person is also an Atheist,then he/she might turn to crime.An atheist who's also a good person might not even think about crime.So all we can say with certainty is that Muhammad was an evil man,we can only be certain to some extent on his faith etc.
I'd say organized religion offers dangerous relief to criminals.There are conversion rackets in most prisons,where belief in a particular God is offered to cleanse all sins.
In Christianity you can go and confess your crimes.Many missionaries, particularly those working in underdeveloped countries, claim that 'every past sin' will be pardoned if you convert.
In Islam the highest sin is shirk-associating partners with God-not murder,not rape.So a muslim murderer or a rapist 'may be' pardoned by Allah,but a non-muslim will never be.In fact,some Islamic dayiees have taken cue from their Christian counterparts in claiming(wrongly) that conversion to Islam 'guarantees' paradise.
In Hinduism if you commit a crime,you suffer for sometime in hell(the duration depends on the degree of your crime) and then you get another chance to mend your ways.You never get mukti(salvation) until you 1) Know the complete mystery of the Universe or, 2) attain unattached perfection in performing your duties or 3) have unflinching faith in God.
So all these offer 'relief' of some sorts,which can encourage criminals to commit a crime and then 'switch' religions.
Atheism is just a lack of the above beliefs,it isn't an alternative belief.Beyond that,only you are accountable for your actions.
Mr horrible Justin, your above comment shows you are such an ignorant man. Have you read all my dear Ms Dr Ali Sina's posts here in this website? Everybody know that he is an Atheist except you! Please go and parade your big fat ass 5 times a day since you like ass so much.
Hi Justin, do you really understand the meaning of that word? If you do, then, you will realize how foolish you were. 🙂
"So, the more we discover the secrets of the universe the more a creator becomes relevant"
LOL
There are millions of papers on Scientific research.
Can you show me 'just one' that has to borrow from the God hypothesis?
No,everything in this Universe has a natural and physical explanation.God is not an explanation,it's escapism and mental laziness.
"What do you think a righteous, holy and loving Creator God should deal with sinners like us?"
What do you think the invisible,flying,six-legged Orangutan eats to sustain itself?
I know all about islam. I know all that you know, PLUS I know that it is pure, unmitigated evil. PERIOD. You are the "idiot" here, mired in ignorance, superstition and falsehood. I sincerely hope that you can progress spiritually and evolve, emerging from the darkness of islam into the light of Enlightened Modern Western Civilization.
This what Islamic shariah said concerning women during war time
If the issue of taking women as captive was about lust only , Islam would have allowed Muslims men to rape captured women in case the enemy had done so to Muslims women , but if the enemy had killed Muslims women Muslim men are allowed to do the same to the enemy women , but not so in case of rape .
The quoted hadith is a good enough proof.
Hadith proves nothing . All what it said group of men had sex with group of women if you think this `proves rapes I suggest try it in court and see how it will work LOL. I have many hadiths which should support my stand , but I give you one . They said prophet while in his death bed said " I urge you about Salat ( Muslims prayer ) and your Malalak al yamin ( captured women ) " , So he equated the imporance of Salat which the most imporant pillar in Islam with captured women wow this shows how he was so concerned about their well being and you and ignorant people like the dummy Ali Sina are saying mohamed santioned rape
The Quranist. Hmmm, which work do you want me to read as reference?
He has Phd degree in history of Islam he is man with credentiels on the subject .
Why? In all the definitions you have shown ransom always means exchanging the captive for money. Thats why the violation of the captives was so great a concern to the muslims (and you talk of humanitarian grounds!!)
Ransom in case somebody from her tribe wants to get her back he has to pay to get her back . It was humanitarian gesture because those women would not have made it one day alone in desert . Which is humanitarian to you to leave them in desert exposed to thieves and criminals or to take them with you ?
“Today nobody can take women as prisoner of war time has changed . We have UN and refugees camps so those women are no longer burden on victors to take care of them.”
What? Are you saying that the kafir laws are better than the divine and eternal laws of Islam and that you and your fellow Muslim brother are going to give up the teachings of the Quran to adhere to those of the UN?
“you think it is impossible to have consensual sex between victors and the defeaters .”
I don’t know about your wife and daughters but generally women don’t like to jump into bed and have a “consensual sex? with the murderer of their male kin.
“I told you dummy in Arabia culture having sex with capture women was never considred to be rape ”
The fact that you Arabs were a bunch of savages is not disputed. The question is why would someone claiming tot be a messenger of God adopt those despicable behaviors? Was Allah so ignorant that he did not know there are people in other parts of the world that are more civilized than Arabs? Why did he send his “universal” messenger to a bunch of savages and why this so called messenger, instead of telling the people this is an evil practice would emulate them and then say do as I do, I am the best example to follow?
There you are caught red handed. The hadith clearly says captive women, so why were you giving me a misleading example of the US Army?
is not misleading because US army are sometime play role of ocupation and they have the whole population as prisoners and yet we hear about them having sex with women in that country .
“My defense is in Arabian culture according to expert of Arab life of 7 century are saying it was normal for man to have sex with women captured in wars and it was never considered to be rape.”
Assuming it was normal, is it a good think to rape women captured in war or is it a bad thing?
Why would Muhammad who allegedly was the prophet of God and according to himself the best example for mankind to follow would emulate the evil practices of the people whom he called ignorant thus making those practices a sunnah?
This is called Moral Relativism. Anyway isn't it then equally ludicruous to look upto a 7th century 'Normal' Arab as the final guide?
I have already said even today Muslims are not allowed to do it . Our schlars are not urging Muslims to practise this act because time has changed
EVEN ISLAMIC LAW, how shocking for you!!
why is shoking ? You do not know this because your source of information is anti Islamic website lead by people as ognorant about islam as Ali Sina
And by the way Muhammad PROHIBITED it. He clearly says don't bother about these alleged humanitarian thoughts (if indeed I consider them 'humanitarian' as you claimed)
What Muhamed was trying to say this so called Azl would not work thats all .
Muslims in accepting mohd as their leader, knowing or ignorant of his perversions and criminality, can only end up like him. Muslims cannot be accepted as part of common humanity because their beliefs as laid down by their 'prophet' can only to lead to violence and death. Follow jihadwatch and observe the behaviour of these cultists. They should be confined to Muslim countries where they can apply sharia law on themselves. They cannot live harmoniously in any multicultural society. They can't even live peacefully among themselves. To save themselves they have to renounce their association with this criminal organisation which claims their cult is headed by Allah.
God must be now happy and smilling that at least there is someone taking His side. Why you assume that Ali does nt believe in God? If you don't know, don't have the tools to know and can not comprehend that does not mean that something you beleive in exists. It is too big for you to understand ,go and do some Ass-parade (5 time a day)
YES exactly 'immaterial' go lookup meaning of immaterial before you ascribe it your favorite deity.
No evil can ever be put beyond a muhammadan. So I believe anything negative about that pseudo-religion, its founder and adherents.
Oh didn't I ask who got morality contract right now ?????
Hate monger at the best lol
"As long as you are a Muslim, we cannot and we must not trust you."
Well done Sakat.
And by the way is this your real name and do you spell it sakat or shakat. The meaning in Sanskrit completely changes with that additional 'h'. Shakat means a carrier or wagon.
Bang on 😀
u are hypocrite there is his religion behind his act.Our Banana Democracy is full of hypocrites as u so we are hepless
The grue some act of rape of that girl took place in India,what penal code has to say about this term Rape in India. Section 375 of Indian Penal Code,defines rape as
[375. Rape.—A man is said to commit "rape" who, except in the case hereinafter excepted, has sexual intercourse with a woman under circumstances falling under any of the six following descriptions:—
First.— Against her will.
Secondly.—Without her consent.
Thirdly.— With her consent, when her consent has been obtained by putting her or any person in whom she is interested in fear of death or of hurt.
Fourthly.—With her consent, when the man knows that he is not her husband, and that her consent is given because she believes that he is another man to whom she is or believes herself to be lawfully married.
Fifthly.— With her consent, when, at the time of giving such consent, by reason of unsoundness of mind or intoxication or the administration by him personally or through another of any stupefying or unwholesome substance, she is unable to understand the nature and consequences of that to which she gives consent.
Sixthly.— With or without her consent, when she is under sixteen years of age.
Explanation
Penetration is sufficient to constitute the sexual intercourse necessary to the offence of rape.
Mr Sina our Indian politician must take cue from you,really.They are not tired appeasing Muslims even they kill thousands of innocent Hindus.Today some ruling politician were addressing with titles of "Sir","Sab" and "shri"to this bastered Hafiz Sayyid the rough ,architect of Mumbai Massacre and lot other terrorist acts in India .This guy all the time delivers hate speech against India and the West and perhaps the next Osma bin laden in making. These are our own Hindu leaders not Muslims.You were right in saying this is a "Banana Democracy". These politicians are not ashamed of boot legging the killers of their own clans for power.
There you are caught red handed. The hadith clearly says captive women, so why were you giving me a misleading example of the US Army?
//You are the one who is making an accusation therefore it is for you to prove to me that it was raped and not otherwise and so far you ahve failed .//
The quoted hadith is a good enough proof.
//Here is somebody with phd degree in Islamic history from the top university in Muslim world el Azhar //
The Quranist. Hmmm, which work do you want me to read as reference?
//I think you do not know the definition of the word ransom //
Why? In all the definitions you have shown ransom always means exchanging the captive for money. Thats why the violation of the captives was so great a concern to the muslims (and you talk of humanitarian grounds!!)
//You are trying to use today standard with 7 century Arabia which is ludicrous //
This is called Moral Relativism. Anyway isn't it then equally ludicruous to look upto a 7th century 'Normal' Arab as the final guide?
//Yes in today standard because international law and even Islamic law does not allow you to do so . //
EVEN ISLAMIC LAW, how shocking for you!!
//It was huminiatarian gesture to take those women with them because they cannot survive in desert on their own //
You are taking a different stance now. The matter of soldiers doing 'azl was humantarian in your last comment. What you tried similar to argumentum ad captandum. And by the way Muhammad PROHIBITED it. He clearly says don't bother about these alleged humanitarian thoughts (if indeed I consider them 'humanitarian' as you claimed)
Ali Sina said that Hindus r afraid of Christians bcos of their experience with Islam. No, v r afraid of Christians bcos they hav the same aim of converting the whole of the Earth into Christians just like Islam wud. Xtianity has watered down itself bcos it probably realised its mistake. Islam will also water itself down as it is only 1500 years old or so. V Hindus on the other hand are the only civilisation which has a recorded history of 6000 years. V r definately older than that. It remains to b seen who is the intellectual heavyweight in this war of the brains. As for physical war, I completely agree with Ali Sina.
So to start with you aren't able to prove that the sex mentioned in the hadith was consensual as you earlier claimed.
You are the one who is making an accusation therefore it is for you to prove to me that it was raped and not otherwise and so far you ahve failed . Dont you guys repeat that bulshit that you are innocent until proven guilty . My defense is Hadith of the prophet in which he urged his followers to treat kindly their captives .
Which experts? Please furnish proofs.
Here is somebody with phd degree in Islamic history from the top university in Muslim world el Azhar his name is Dr Ahmed Subhi Mansor
Having sex with captives(who were possibly going to sold as slaves) is called rape. It doesn't matter whether the practice was cosidered 'rape' or not.
I think you do not know the definition of the word ransom
som [ran-suh m] Show IPA
noun
1.the redemption of a prisoner, slave, or kidnapped person, of captured goods, etc., for a price.
2.the sum or price paid or demanded.
3.a means of deliverance or rescue from punishment for sin, especially the payment of a redemptive fine.
verb (used with object)
4.to redeem from captivity, bondage, detention, etc., by paying a demanded price.
5.to release or restore on receipt of a ransom.
6.to deliver or redeem from punishment for sin.
Secondly show me a sanction from the US Army to capture women to have sex.
I did not say captured women .
//Is that how you … and no word consesual is mentioned //
But we don't say that the lady was my captive and I also had plans to get a ransom for her.
You are trying to use today standard with 7 century Arabia which is ludicrous . Today even Muslims are not allowed to take women as prisoner of war and have sex with them our scholars forgade that .
Yes a lady's 'asmat' is a matter of LOL to you. Thats predicatable. Now coming to this if somebody tells me that he has a desire to have sex with his captive I am definitely going to call the cops.
Yes in today standard because international law and even Islamic law does not allow you to do so .
Even if I take your 'humanitarian' logic, Muhammad is asking them NOT TO consider this great humanitarian thought!!
It was huminiatarian gesture to take those women with them because they cannot survive in desert on their own
//Even today US army allow their soldiers to have sex …and nobody is calling that sanctioning of rapes//
Shouldn't there be a difference between the US Army and the greatest man the world has ever seen? Secondly show me a sanction from the US Army to capture women to have sex. Thirdly, I am calling these acts of US Army 'rape', OK. Fourthly officers ARE getting fired in some cases. Get your facts right.
//I do not think that they were as such.//.
So you think they were just NORMAL and that too only by the alleged 7th century Arab standards.
//Is that how you … and no word consesual is mentioned //
But we don't say that the lady was my captive and I also had plans to get a ransom for her.
//Next time if somebody tells you he has desire to have sex … because thats rape LOL//
Yes a lady's 'asmat' is a matter of LOL to you. Thats predicatable. Now coming to this if somebody tells me that he has a desire to have sex with his captive I am definitely going to call the cops.
//You are not nromal to me you are sick person like Ali Sina .
Ad Homimem.
// To me I would not think to pregnant the lady and …. my decision huminitarian . //
The Hadith clearly says " (but at the same time) we also desired ransom for them. So we decided…"
Even if I take your 'humanitarian' logic, Muhammad is asking them NOT TO consider this great humanitarian thought!!
//You want to play with me . No problem I am ready for that
Grand.
So to start with you aren't able to prove that the sex mentioned in the hadith was consensual as you earlier claimed.
//My defense is in Arabian culture according to expert of Arab life of 7 century are saying it was normal for man to have sex with women captured in wars and it was never considered to be rape //
Which experts? Please furnish proofs. Having sex with captives(who were possibly going to sold as slaves) is called rape. It doesn't matter whether the practice was cosidered 'rape' or not.
I am merely saying that on face value the 'Hindu' link is more convincing than the 'Muslim' link.
Too soon to know the identity of the minor and do not lbe like dummy Ali sina he jumbed at any news about Muslims even before the police finishes their investigation. Couples of years ago he ran an articlle in fiathfreedon about Egyptian coptic family which was found dead in their house in USA and blamed Muslim for that and said a lot shiit about Muslim before even the police finished their invistigation then it turned out that the family was victims of robery and not hate crime
You embarrass yourself in this forum. You look like an ignorant child having a temper tantrum! "Waaaaa, waaaaaa, don't say bad things about islam, you meanies!" What a fool you look!
I call your ignonant teacher Ali sina son of bicth becasue he called our propeht as such . I am well versed in Islam and Arabic so the ignorant is Ali Sina and not me he knows no Arabic I caught him lying and I exposed his ass . You are more ignorant than him if you to learn about Islam read my post idiot
Prove it. Also prove that all acts of sex were consensual. I would consider that the Arabs certainly were better than that.
You want to play with me . No problem I am ready for that . So you are making an acusation of rape you have to prove it to me the Muslim is innocent until proven guilty .
My defense is in Arabian culture according to expert of Arab life of 7 century are saying it was normal for man to have sex with women captured in wars and it was never considered to be rape and add to that prophet forbid his followers to treat war captive harshly so raping them was out of questions becasue this was not kind treatment to prisoners of war and I believe Muslims followed prophet commands. If somebody raped a lady after that what Islam or Muhamed got to do with that because Islam did not allow you to rape your captives .
I didn't get the word 'consesual sex' either.
Is that how you or the rest of the people tell their sex story to their friends you say last night I had consesual sex with nice lady , I do not think so . You just go last nice I had one night stand with lady that I met in bar and no word consesual is mentioned
So there you are, the muslims were desirous to have sex with their captives. Normal people like me would think this is rape.
Next time if somebody tells you he has desire to have sex with lady so and so do not forget to call the police because thats rape LOL. And if defendant in any trail mentioned that he had desire to have sex with lady so and so that defendant should be convicted with rape and put behind bars LOL. I do not why kafirs become dumb when they debate you about islam
They were worried that 'full intercourse' could mean that these women wouldn't serve as ransom. Normal people like me would think that the consideration here are economic not humanitarian.
You are not nromal to me you are sick person like Ali Sina . To me I would not think to pregnant the lady and put her in trouble because she will have to take care of the kid and she may suffer as result and thats make my decision huminitarian .
They then ask Muhamad about his opinion, and he doesn't forbid them to have sex or think of ransom but forbids them to stop the ejaculation mid-way. Again normal people like me would consider this to be an official and/or religious sanction to both rape and blackmail war captives and victims.
Whats wrong with that . Even today US army allow their soldiers to have sex with women in countries where they have military bases and nobody is calling that sanctioning of rapes . You are dumb and stupid your inforamtion about islam is from ignorant man called Ali Sina. Did you read dummy hadiths where prophet ordered his soldiers to treat good their captive . is it raping them dummy is considered to you good treatment
Now off-course you can claim that Muhamad and his associates were abnormal and the normal thought process doesn't apply. And in that case you would completely agree with Ali Sina.
I do not think that they were as such. The abnormal person is ignorant Ali Sina and I have advised him long time ago ro seek psycological evualtion the man needs help.
First Naik must go an bring peace between Wahabis/Salafis/Ahle Hadith people fighting each other in Saudi Arabia, ie Rulers and rebels of Al Qaeda.
No morality in the world can beat this morality: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=shfuWVPCpQg
Thats fine Zitouni. It needn't be convincing to you. I am merely saying that on face value the 'Hindu' link is more convincing than the 'Muslim' link. The 'Muslim' link is somebody's opinion based on false arguments. The 'Hindu' link talks about some other news agencies which had published the name after a leak from the police and then removed it fearing possible legal/political complications. If they were lying they run the risk of getting sued by those news agencies or some NGO or Muslim groups.
// I told you dummy in Arabia culture having sex with capture women was never considred to be rape//
Prove it. Also prove that all acts of sex were consensual. I would consider that the Arabs certainly were better than that.
I didn't get the word 'consesual sex' either. So there you are, the muslims were desirous to have sex with their captives. Normal people like me would think this is rape. They were worried that 'full intercourse' could mean that these women wouldn't serve as ransom. Normal people like me would think that the consideration here are economic not humanitarian. They then ask Muhamad about his opinion, and he doesn't forbid them to have sex or think of ransom but forbids them to stop the ejaculation mid-way. Again normal people like me would consider this to be an official and/or religious sanction to both rape and blackmail war captives and victims. Now off-course you can claim that Muhamad and his associates were abnormal and the normal thought process doesn't apply. And in that case you would completely agree with Ali Sina.
Most of us have heard Zakir Naik, the famous Indian Islamic scholar claiming in front of Thousands of people that Islam is the religion of only Peace. In his site, he gives some points to prove that indeed Islam is the religion of Peace.
IRF 1. Islam means peace
Islam comes from the root word ‘salaam’, which means peace. It also means submitting one’s will to Allah (swt). Thus Islam is a religion of peace, which is acquired by submitting one’s will to the will of the Supreme Creator, Allah (swt).
Answer:- Answer to this question from a blog. As Zakir Naik claims that Islam means Peace, thus Islam is religion of peace. By the very same logic I can state, that a man whose name is Sharafat, who is a terrorist, a mass murderer, and a looter, but still he can not accused of all these crimes, just because of his name, which means Nobility. Will it be acceptable to Zakir Naik and his gangs?
Next he add that Peace in Islam is acquired by submitting one’s will to the will of Allah. Now on this condition we need to see what is the will of Allah, which is revealed to Muslims through Quran, and the Holy Book of Islam states:-
[9.5] So when the sacred months have passed away, then slay the idolaters wherever you find them, and take them captives and besiege them and lie in wait for them in every ambush, then if they repent and keep up prayer and pay the poor-rate, leave their way free to them; surely Allah is Forgiving, Merciful.
Now after going through the above verse, we can say that the will of Allah is not at all peaceful. So the entire claim of Zakir Naik is waste that Islam is peaceful because of his above mentioned reason in point number 1.
No worries, Danielle. 🙂 I am your comrade-in arms against the vile, evil cult of islam!
So clearly zito, you HAVE NOT read your scriptures, have you? So, just go SHUT YOUR MOUTH instead, will you?
dummy do not get excited because that hadith i know it when i was 13 yrs old boy lol . He proved nothing I do not know why you get excited because you are dumn sutpid and ignorant
the hindu link is not convincing to me either . Why Media is silent about it
Sometimes Muslims keep Hindu type of nick name to win the confidence of Hindus or to conceal their identity, often names like Babu, Pappu etc. Sometime i have to work hard to know their real names. Reason is that only after i know that they are Muslim, i could treat them in special way, like providing them Halal food etc. Person like Riyaz is also called |Raju, Raja is a Sanskrit terms. Rajputs, converts to Islam called Khanzadas, do use Raja , name best example is present PM of Pak.
I did not see the word rape in the narrative and desire does not mean rape I do not know where did you get that concept otherwise every sexual act will be considered to be rape because everybody had desire with women during sex . I do not know what the hell is wrong with kafirs they are so dumb
ridiculating me with Ali Sina LOL to me the man is fit to be my student of Islam , arabic he is pussy cat I taught him nany lessons and I also made fun of him and I embarrased him before his admireres by showing to them how he lied and how he changed koran .
in Delhi problem of rape of the girl, main culprit to insert rod into her body and pull out her intestine is below 18 male his name is Mohamad Afroz allies Raju from Badayun district of Uttar Pradesh India. He only allured girl to a bus by winning her confidence by calling her as elder sister. I cant say that his relgion could be the reason behind this dastardly act.
Raiding towns and villages, killing the unarmed men and then having sex with their wives and daughters is not rape? What if someone does this to you?
you cant stop lying son of bitch . Where did Muslims killed un armed men . I told you dummy in Arabia culture having sex with capture women was never considred to be rape . I do not know why you call any sex with Muslims and those women an act of rape . you think it is impossible to have consensual sex between victors and the defeaters . During WWII many French women in ocupied France had sex with Germans soldiers and nobody called that rape those who were punished for that after France was liberated were the women because they were considered traitors
http://antimisandry.com/dating-love-sex/how-frenc…
Today nobody can take women as prisoner of war time has changed . We have UN and refugees camps so those women are no longer burden on victors to take care of them
@ Sakat
Those country and people you've mentioned has never been touched by Islam ideology and they can expand their capabilities. Their religion (Buddhism, Christianity, Confuciusm, Taoism, Shinto, but never heard Zoroastrian & Judaism there, though) has never been a problem to their work or everyday life. Especially Buddhism & Confucius. These religion doesn't even bother about God.
I did see the word rape in the narative so try again
He has gone to Saudi Arabia or Iran to collect his salary .LOL…….
🙂
No, no problem there. Did I just …. again? Oops! I should just go bang my head against the wall a second time 🙁
where this SOB zitouni goes now , thanks all that u have kicking his ass in a nice way 😀 😀
Zitouni can't understand what you are saying, New Prophet. Muslims cannot understand that you can't critique your own writing and be impartial. It's like asking Hitler to do a scholarly exegesis on Mein Kampf. The Tafseer is not worth the paper it is written on. But try telling that to moslems.
Do you have a problem with me ridiculing zitouni?
What Ali Sina is saying is that the creator of the universe could have created humans and animals without the need or desire to eat other animals. Plants, grains, fruits and vegetables would have sufficed for our nourishment, if nourishment was needed at all. I agree. The creator's design lacked compassion.
@Danielle,
I respect your opinion and I am not offended by it. I agree with you that the situation is perpetuated and is in need to be resolved.
I think that we should focus on the new generation of muslims that have more knowledge and commonsense than their generation before. I live in the Netherlands and have a muslim background. I can say that the mosques here are only full on fridays. I dont go anymore as I cannot bare the nonsense that the islam brings with it, let alone the hate that is spreads in the mosque. The majority of the mosque visitors here are older people with sticks in their hand and have grey beards. The younger generations are pushed by their parents to go to the mosque (parents think they are responsible for their childrens religion and think they will be punished in hell for that) and friends (which are also pushed by their parents). The dillema that muslims have here is "who is performing their religion better" while none of them follow the "real" islam prescribed by Mohammed himself as the example. They don't have a clue what to do else than trying to practice islam and this gives the image that islam is united and strong, while it is not. Every muslim is looking at the other muslim to show the other that he/she is more devote, its a big show about who gives a better image of a devote muslim and earn trust and respect from others .
Therefore we should focus on the younger generation in order to change the world. In order to do this we all need a guide to follow. This guide is not a person or religion. It should be a guide that shows us to love each other, good norms and values, and answers questions about life with logic and sense. Instead of looking at each others wrongs, we should share the good things and discuss how to solve the wrongs in a proper way.
Yes they can lie to get the visa but if we get to that point it follows that Islam is regarded as an enemy ideology and its practice will also be banned. This means no mosques, no financing of terrorism through jihad, and open criticism of Islam. It won’t survive. We are not against Muslims. If they come to the west and leave their faith they are most welcome.
Raiding towns and villages, killing the unarmed men and then having sex with their wives and daughters is not rape? What if someone does this to you?
So clearly zito, you HAVE NOT read your scriptures, have you? So, just go SHUT YOUR MOUTH instead, will you?
Well done!
//Who told you what Muhamed men did was rape ? Do you have witness testimony that they were raped ? ……………….what took place between those women and muslim men was consentually sex , period//
Shahi Muslim, Book 008, Number 3371:
Abu Sirma said to Abu Sa'id al Khadri (Allah he pleased with him) "Abu Sa'id, did you hear Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) mentioning al-'azl?"
He said: Yes, and added: We went out with Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) on the expedition to the Bi'l-Mustaliq and took captive some excellent Arab women; and we desired them, for we were suffering from the absence of
our wives, (but at the same time) we also desired ransom for them. So we decided to have sexual intercourse with them but by observing 'azl (Withdrawing the male sexual organ before emission of semen to avoid-conception). But we said: We are doing an act whereas Allah's Messenger is among us; why not ask him? So we asked Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him), and he said: It does not matter if you do not do it, for every soul that is to be born up to the Day of Resurrection will be
born.
So you think this "desire" was consensual?
//It just does not make sense that all were Hindu except one was a Muslim how in the world a Muslim will rape a hindu lady with the help of 5 hindus . either this so called minor who was supposed to be Muslim is not Muslim or those hindus were dumb and stupid to participate with a Muslim of raping one of their own //
When it comes to crime, criminals don't discriminate between hindus and muslims. They are all brothers in crime. Your suspicion actually makes no sense since in multicultural India muslims and hindus mingle on various fronts despite serious underlying tensions. To me it doesn't seem a non-sense.
The link you have given is just somebodies, and amuslim at that, opinion. He doesn't furnish any proof. On the other hand the link posted by CGW does give you some references pictures etc. Whether they are true or not may be debatable, but just going by face value that article is more convincing the one from your side.
Secondly in the link, the primary premise is that Raju can't be a muslim's name. I have spent a significant portion of my life in India. Most Indians have a pet/second name, a name like Raju, Bittu etc used by near relatives and friends. Many muslims, and I personally know a few, have such pet names. It is not at all uncommon for Indian muslims to have a second Hindu sounding name especially in the North and Ester states.
LOLOLOL Sakat!! 😀
Mr truthseeker, my reply was posted as a new thread. Please see below. Oops!
Mr truthseeker, I understand where you are coming from. I, too, agree that to keep them within their countries of origin would condemn them, including their women and children, and seal their fate. For this reason, I had earlier indicated to Dr Sina in this thread, that it is not the way to go. Even the administration of an apartheid system would be almost impossible.
However, the whole situation has perpetuated itself to such a state, so there is clearly an issue to resolve.
I am clueless and do not claim to have any good solutions. I only wanted to share my opinions on some of your points why i think wouldn't work. That's all.
No offense intended.
Mr Sina ,you know why these Chinese,Japanese,and Koreans are master in high tech? .This same question i asked one of my friend and his reply was unique ,"because they are monks",since the beginning of Buddhism in this part some 2000 years ago, it has become custom for them to do regular meditation and their genes carry this quality ,therefore they are wizards of computers, this is not exaggeration .Now my second question is ,suppose this Mohammed would not have born in 7th century and whole middle east either had embraced Parsi religion , Buddhism , Judaism, Christianity etc, in that scenario,whether this world could have been 100 or 200 years ahead of this moment or do you think proceeded still ahead of it? Please your valuable discourse in this regard.
Your koran say's earth is flat ,sun is circumscribing earth and earth is the center of universe etc kinds of fairy tail soups..Even kids of kindergarten can defeat your Alla in this subject ,and you say your koran is a proof,do you have any shame left.You are an irritating insect .What are the suras ,which you want ,to be your defense against Sina. Mere statement is not enough show it here to all of us or don't come as Joker all the time, the disc has broken (better you know what i and you do with broken disc)
How much perks she will pocket annually,if she finish DHP in "psycho science of Tafsir"
@Danielle,
I think that when "we" allow muslims to flee to the western civilisation, the chance to let them taste freedom and confirm their doubts in Islam would make a difference. I see the islamic civilisation as a prison for the poor souls that have no choice but to follow the religion of the community while the islam is benefitting from this isolation of such people. The pressure is very high to look like a unity. We see many people in Mecca, while many HAVE to go in order to be respected by the community as a devote muslim who can afford to go there.
In my opinion, you cannot defeat islam in an islamic civilisation.
If you have a better solution please tell us, I just make suggestions and share my opinion.
By the way I am a male person in case you want to know.
@ zitouni
I agree with Emmy. I see that way too. And yes, Muslims has double standards because of their belief is bipolar. And why need Phd for Tafsir? What the hell "science" are you talking about? Anybody can represent tafsir as they like. Who will be the authority to judge? You? Your Imam? Your Mullah? Are they Phd? On what based? Science and your belief system just can,t mix, lol..
I've never seen anyone as stupid and dumb as muslims. When the quran says you should chop of their heads then it is taken out of context but when it says you should give to the poor, it isnt taken out of context. Isnt that double standards?
I've never seen anyone as stupid and dumb as Kafirs . Do you know what science of Tafsir is ? did you get your phd degree in that field for you to make that stupid and dumb remark .
Here you go: http://asansolnews.wordpress.com/2013/01/10/musli….
"He was arrested from his hometown Badayun in Uttar Pradesh. His real name is Mohammed Afroz. "
I was asking for real proof and not Huindu propaganda. This is what I found in wikepedia
Six men have been arrested in connection with the incident: Ram Singh, the bus driver, and his brother, Mukesh Singh, were both arrested in Rajasthan; Vinay Sharma, an assistant gym instructor, was arrested in Delhi,[41] as was Pawan Gupta, a fruit seller; a juvenile whose name has yet to be confirmed, though he has been referred as Raju,[42][43] a 17 years and 8 month old minor[44] and native of Uttar Pradesh was arrested by the police at Anand Vihar terminal in Delhi; Akshay Thakur, a man who had gone from Bihar to Delhi seeking work, was arrested in Aurangabad in Bihar.[41][45]
It just does not make sense that all were Hindu except one was a Muslim how in the world a Muslim will rape a hindu lady with the help of 5 hindus . either this so called minor who was supposed to be Muslim is not Muslim or those hindus were dumb and stupid to participate with a Muslim of raping one of their own
I got another link which the author has suspiction about this Mohamed Afroz
http://mohammadafrozdelhi.blogspot.com/
*It runs against our very nature …
Mr/Ms truthseeker,
“In my opinion we should accept they are Muslims and judge them by their law. They are not allowed to judge us with their laws in our western civilisation as they are the guest, but we show them respect and judge them with sharia law when they commit a crime.”
– Er, the decision to implement Sharia might be because the particular province/county/whatever has a majority number of muslims , and because the said society practices democracy, majority vote Sharia? So the minority who are non-muslims residing there have to follow the new law system, because it is based on democratic means of electing the legal system?
“For example we chop their hands when they steal and arrange a place they can stone each other when they commit adultery. “
– Good grief!! Are you really a truth seeker? Listen to yourself!
“However we should offer protection to people that are forced to be a muslim by their communities.”
– The power does not lie on anyone, as you keep saying “we”. In a democratic society, the power to decide lies on the majority of a particular territory. The indigenous population can be overruled by over population of foreign immigrants.
Really? You mean you are going to drink your crude oil? What you have other than oil and if it were not for the kafir technology how much would be the value of that oil? How about ZERO. This means you have nothing and that is why you cling to this stupid book of yours to lift your low self esteem. Guss what! that book is the source of all your misery and downfall.
First I was talking about your slave master white kafirs read what I said dummy . Yes we do not need him he need us . Why he cannot buy oil from non Muslims producing countries and leave us alone . I do not consider your slave master white men o be enemy number one of Islam , to me is SA regime is number one enemy of Islam . Muslims would not proper and become world power until that mafia which stole more than 7 Trillions $ is topled
For how long do you want to keep your head in the sand? Did Muhammad allow his men to rape their captives or not? The answer is yes or no.
Yes he did it;
Who told you what Muhamed men did was rape ? Do you have witness testimony that they were raped ? did you read the word rape in any narratives ? . You are so ignorant about Arab history you do not know anything about life in Arabia back then . we got people who have phd degree in that field while you are dumb and stupid. In those days in Arabia women go willingly to be with the men whom they live with it was never considered to be rape . prophet had instructed his followers to treat prisoner of war kindly it just does not make sense he allowed them to rape them becasue this is not considered to be kind behavior so what took place between those women and muslim men was consentually sex , period
Evil people rape but in Islam rape is a divine teaching instructed by your bloody prophet
Read above dummy
What part of this is hard for you to understand? I know Islam destroys the mind but it seems you are left with no mind at all.
I know zionist and white men propaganda destroys people mind and I can see that in you
Constantine, Dr Sina is explaining his point how a creator can come up with this idea of one animal having to devour another to survive. He finds it cruel. So do I.
We shouldnt justify everything according to our belief systems, though it hardly matters which religious point of view you are approaching from. The fact remains that it IS a cruel system. If you cant empathise with the suffering of animals, how then can you empathise with suffering of people? If you can justify the brutality of lower forms of lives, then it is also possible you might rationale the brutality of acts of human beings one day.
It is better to face the facts squarely and say "Yeah, I dont understand too." Isnt it so? That requires honesty and courage to accept the unknown. We cant have all the answers. We must learn to live with questions. Yet, many a times we cant live with the unknown. We run against our very nature to wait for the answers and any future wisdom that we might acquire.
Quotes: But we saw these herbivore sometimes encroaching on farm lands and grazing human plant(food).
I think you are wrong. You're looking it the other way around. It is us, human, who encroaching on their lands & grazing their food. Don't forget how men rob the ocean. According last year report, our population has reach 7 billion while this our only earth has still the same volume.
Can you see it? It is us who grazing them. Yes. Through our meal everyday.
No, it's faulted with too much complications. It's not working now. It will not work in future.
I am just as clueless. But we know in some states (no names mentioned), mainly those with rightist-inclined forms of governance, some fragile form of peace can still be achieved, but very fragile and temporal. This is done at a high cost, at the expense of lots of manpower and other resources – to police the entire system, which itself can be very un-democratic.
Moreover, in democratic societies, people now do not prefer rightist governance. In this age of freedom and choice, people lean towards leftist and will vote you out if you are too conservative. What's more, even in a heavily policed and guarded system, it just take one nutcase to blow up an entire trainload of people. So, nothing is going to work, anyway.
The only possibility as I see it, is for policy-makers in the entire world to outlaw the whole thing. Then, over several generations, yes, over a period of time, It will die out by self-attrition, be reduced to a cult and ceased to be a threat. Only through legislations can there be a glimpse of hope.
But how do you do that? Islam is currently the largest unified religion in the world. Yes, statistics says it is the second largest, Christianity being the first. But Christianity is a huge umbrella of all sorts of factions, some unfortunately are still not able to unify themselves together as yet. So Islam IS the largest unified religion now. And you want to outlaw it? Hahaha there will be bloodshed for sure.
Also, legislations called for political leaders to make some decisions and stick by them in the long haul. Many western forms of governments are elected every few years. You implement something "politically incorrect" and you will be voted out by your own stupid people the next election. So? Where is the continuity? How to have any legislations that will sit you through a long period of time?
However, the world's political landscape is changing. While western economies are failing or flattenig out in growth, there a giant in the east emerging. Engage them and there might be hope.
@Constantine
I agree with your statement. We are in a continuous cycle of life. We eat and we are eaten. When your time comes you will be a product to other plants and creatures in te nature. We must understand that when we are created in the whomb of our mothers, she passes the nutrition which she acquires from living things and minerals to us. If she is not eat enough nutritious food, the embriyo will miss essential vitamines and minerals to develop into a healthy baby. Based on this we can add to Ali Sina's idea of living on after death ,from a biological point of view. Your body will be given back to nature and nature will pass your body, like creatures and plants pass it to us when we eat them.
@Ali Sina
I actually had the same idea about letting muslims sign a treaty to leave Islam when they come to the western civilisation, however as you mentioned earlier Muslims are allowed to lie about their religion if they are in danger or if their lie benefits Islam.
Therefore letting them write or say they are not Muslims is not an efficient way. In my opinion we should accept they are Muslims and judge them by their law. They are not allowed to judge us with their laws in our western civilisation as they are the quest, but we show them respect and judge them with sharia law when they commit a crime. For example we chop their hands when they steal and arrange a place they can stone each other when they commit adultery. However we should offer protection to people that are forced to be a muslim by their communities. I think this is a reasonable act towards our muslim brothers and sisters thar want to live with us in our western civilisation. I wish they do the same when we are the guest in their islamic civilisation and judge us with our western law. But we have to show them the right thing, and that is respect each other with their norms and values.
SHUT UP!! STOP YOUR SNIGGER!! THERE ARE PEOPLE OUT HERE TRYING TO HELP YOU!! THIS IS WHAT YOU RELIGION TEACHES YOU TO DO, ISN'T IT?!
Ha ha zitouni, it looks like Dr. Sina really struck a nerve, eh? Losing your cool a wee bit?
Here you go:
http://asansolnews.wordpress.com/2013/01/10/musli…
"He was arrested from his hometown Badayun in Uttar Pradesh. His real name is Mohammed Afroz. "
I don’t believe a stone, or a building or a book is sacred. They are just things. B)
"The foundation of this world is based on
injustice. If really a conscious being created this
universe the way it is, making some sentient
creatures to be food to others, that being
deserves our scorn not our praise."
I refuse and reject this statement Dr Sina.
Since the beginning of time "living" things rely on food for continual existence and sustenance. Some Animals eat other animals, some animals eat plants, we humans eat plants. Can we compete with plant eating animals for food? What I mean is this due to the very high birth rate and large amount of calories needed by these plant eating animals (herbivore) need for their development could we (humans) have been able to compete with them? Need I remind you that all/every plant bases food that is edible to humans is also edible herbivore. Now let's say since the creation or wait let me use the atheist term since Homo habilis evolved, he never killed and eat any animal and this continued to the homo erectus format of humankind, could we have been able to compete for the plant based food with them?
I was watching a documentary on NatGeo Wild in the seregety in east Africa the number of herbivore zebras, gazelles, wilderbeasts, buffaloes etc each specie range from 1million to 1.5 million. The number of carnivores lions, hyenas, leopards etc each specie are not even in their thousands.
The scientist called it a natural design that the number ratio should be like that so that each individual animal had a to continue its existence.
But we saw these herbivore sometimes encroaching on farm lands and grazing human plant(food).
To cut the long story short I hope my point is clear we Humans are Omnivorous(thank God for That) if you wish to be a veegan its left to you and the ideology you wish to follow, but I see no injustice in we humans getting a meal, the way and manner in which these animals are being killed is another issue ( even I have seen it done in an butcher house and it isn't a pretty thing ).
Dr Sina,
"Muslims who want to immigrate to non- Muslim countries, must be given a form with all the delightful verses of the Quran on it and asked, do you agree with them or not."
You MUST know, with your all brains and science, that this is simply not possible to enforce. THINK! Is this the way to determine if a believer of Islam wish to apostate and live in another country? Your method is laughable. Any one can lie through his teeth. Any one of us. Look at the law systems in many countries. Criminals swear routinely and categorically in court that they will give the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, only to be found guilty as charged the next minute.
So how to determine if an apostate is true? Lie detectors? Those who believe whole heartedly that they are not lying have been able to deceive those detectors. Others have learned how to lie without having their body betraying them. It is actually a very simple art form if you care to master it. What makes you think I am not lying right now? What else have science got? Brain scans? Come on, Human beings are cleverer than the machines we made them.
Look! At the end of the day, NO ONE can tell which apostate is real. The political world is such that then we shall decide HENCEFORTH NO MUSLIMS SHALL BE GRANTED ANY ASYLUM OUT OF THEIR COUNTRIES OF ORIGIN.
It is a sneak peek into the future, my friend, of SION and your proposed apartheid system. If you also read public administration and political science, it is not a very difficult scenario to envisage. It is administratively not enforceable and this is clearly not the way to go, if you really care for your muslim brothers and sisters in your motherland. If you care, that is to say.
"We do not need white kafirs they need us"
Really? You mean you are going to drink your crude oil? What you have other than oil and if it were not for the kafir technology how much would be the value of that oil? How about ZERO. This means you have nothing and that is why you cling to this stupid book of yours to lift your low self esteem. Guss what! that book is the source of all your misery and downfall.
"You make it sound that rape is exculusively Muslim behavior ."
For how long do you want to keep your head in the sand? Did Muhammad allow his men to rape their captives or not? The answer is yes or no.
Yes he did it;
Evil people rape but in Islam rape is a divine teaching instructed by your bloody prophet
What part of this is hard for you to understand? I know Islam destroys the mind but it seems you are left with no mind at all.
I've never seen anyone as stupid and dumb as muslims. When the quran says you should chop of their heads then it is taken out of context but when it says you should give to the poor, it isnt taken out of context. Isnt that double standards?
yusufharto said : Where is the proof that the prophet hadn't lied?
I have read koran and Sira of the prophet and there are so many thing which proves that Prophet was not liar and for SOB Ali Sina I have caught him many times lying and if you want proof of that I can show it to you
4% only and they are already attacking and raping Buddhist girls as they attack and rape European girls in European countries.
You make it sound that rape is exculusively Muslim behavior . Muslims live in Europe or elsewhere becasue white men ocupied their land and stole their natural sources and their money with the help of mafia type regime which he supports .
Even one Muslim is too many. Muslims should not be allowed in any country
We do not need white kafirs they need us thats why they help mafia type regime to stay in power becasue they allow them to steal our money
unless they denounce the evil teachings of the Quran and the evil deeds of their prophet.
There is no evil teaching in koran you cant tell that because you have never read koran in your life
Muslims who want to immigrate to non-Muslim countries, must be given a form with all the delightful verses of the Quran on it and asked, do you agree with them or not.
Muslims should kick white men ass along the mafia regime and stransfer all those trillions of dollars which are in white men banks then they should begin to sell their natural sources in our curency then Eur and dolar would colapse then white men will imigrate to Muslim world to look for job which Muslims want to do
We can't continue with this self deception. Muslims want to kill us and hate us and at the same time they want to come and live with us.
Muslims do not ocupy whte men land , but they do . I do not know what kind of drug do you use . You can see that they ocupy many Arab countries in particular Gulf states and you cry out Muslim want to kiil you
This charade must end. If you want to come and live with us you have to denounce the religion that say we are filthy and our blood and our women are halal to you.
Stupid as hole stop quoting koran which you have not read in your llife
Millions of Iranians were slaughtered when your bloody ancestors attacked my country.
You got proof of that SOB . Persians empire was not only made up of terrotrial Persian land . Long befoer any islam they used to ocupy all Estern part of Arabia and S Iraq plus Yeman so why are you complaining , if you too was involved in attacking other people lands oh you mean you can do that to others , but the others cannot do it to you
We kicked our asses out but now it is time to kick throw your religion also in the toilet and be free at last.
You did not kick Arab ass out they were not interested in your land all what they want from you is to become Muslim and once you did they did not care which rulers to chose to rule you. Persians will always remain Muslims so do not dream that they will leave Islam
Yes the Copts are being persecuted after the Muslim Brotherhood took the power in Egypt. They are escaping their ancestral land.
Bulshit . There is some problem between Christians and muslims in Egypt as it was before revolution like there is problem between Muslims themselves . This reminds me of one German jounalist during mafia god father Mubark time after reading zionist and CIA propanda about presecution of christians in Egypt she left to Egyt to find out when she got there she saw no presecution and she asked christians in Egypt several time about it she was told everytime that she has to go place so and so if she want to see it and any time she goes where they directed her she finds nothing
Oye ZITO — First , be honest, be with good conscience , and also resolve to yourself that you must be, would want to live like a good human being . What are the qualities that will define a good human being ? think about . Did you read SIRA ? DID you read HADIS ? DID you read QQUURRAAN , as it is ? without TAQIYYA and with out your own distortions ? and pervertions ? Also read ISLAMIC history. Study any ISLAMIC country, ISLAMIC rules, ISLAMIC culture !!! what do you find there ?
What is that you like in Mo the monster ? Be truthful and with integrity . You have to be accountable to your self, your good conscience !!! Undoubtedly , Mo was a pedo, a liar, a lecher, a killer, a megalomaniac, a looter, a sex craze and pervert , a taqiyya merchant, a mubahila reader , a slavery perpetrator and slavery promoter , a racist, a supremacist, a fascist and much more !!! which one of the aforementioned qualities of MO , do you like and emulate as his follower Moslem ? Can you live with peace following Mo 's character – a thug, a savage and extreme cruel and also extreme discrimination against unbelievers .
Please respond to the points raised , one by one .
4% only and they are already attacking and raping Buddhist girls as they attack and rape European girls in European countries. Even one Muslim is too many. Muslims should not be allowed in any country unless they denounce the evil teachings of the Quran and the evil deeds of their prophet.
Muslims who want to immigrate to non-Muslim countries, must be given a form with all the delightful verses of the Quran on it and asked, do you agree with them or not. We can't continue with this self deception. Muslims want to kill us and hate us and at the same time they want to come and live with us. This charade must end. If you want to come and live with us you have to denounce the religion that say we are filthy and our blood and our women are halal to you.
Millions of Iranians were slaughtered when your bloody ancestors attacked my country. We kicked our asses out but now it is time to kick throw your religion also in the toilet and be free at last.
Yes the Copts are being persecuted after the Muslim Brotherhood took the power in Egypt. They are escaping their ancestral land.
Kudos to Nissar.
The guy actually respected the 'Dr Sina'.
I wish Nissar studied the Quran to see Mohammad's lack of empathy to non-believers…
I wish Nissar recognize in himself the quality that mohammad the last prophet himself lacked…
Where is the proof that the prophet hadn't lied?
SOB SINA SAID : As for the crime in Delhi, the man who injured the gild in New Delhi, by pushing an iron rod into a woman’s vagina which caused her death was a Muslim.
SON OF BITCH DO YOU HAVE PROOF OF THAT
SOB SINA Said : Yes it is very sad that innocent Muslims are killed by Buddhists. But I don’t condemn it, because if the Buddhists don’t stop the Islamic invasion today they will lose their country
there is no invasion of Burma by Muslims and Muslim only make about 4 % of population
SOB SAID : and then they will be slaughtered just as we Persians were slaughtered
liar son of bitch . Tell me what is perecantage of Arabs in Iran compared to Persians is less than 1% .
SOB SINA SAID : and the Copts are being slaughtered.
there is no genocide of christians going on in Egypt SOB liar. The word coptic is too general even Muslims in egypt can be called coptics they are too indigenous of Egypt .
The liar is you and not the prophet
Ali Sina said : How can a person who believes in the Quran that says slay the unbelievers wherever you find them, cut their throats from above their necks, crucify them and chop their finger tips, be harsh with them, they are filthy, don’t befriend them and other delightful things such as these be called innocent?
You are son of bitch and you are definitely mental sick person . I have told you 1000 times stop quoting verses out of context and I have debunked those verses and yet you keep repeating the same lies abut koran to deceive ignorant people
Muhammad was a narcissist. He was a mentally sick man. He lied and believed in his own lies. The more he repeated them he more convinced he became and the more people believed in him the more he was reconfirmed. You can't just dismiss him as a liar. He had hallucinations that to him were real.At the same time he made up verses when he needed them and had not problem with it since being a narcissist he thought he knows best and that Allah approves of him anyway.
dr sina,
i want 2 ask an important qstn : dont u think dat mohammd was an athiest? if he believed and feared hereafter, then he wouldent hav commited so many crimes.
Please read Purush Sutra , which is there in more then one Holy Vedas, that supports pantheism. So true Vedic guys must not behave in supremacist way. Else there is no difference between a wahabi and Arya Samaji or protestant. http://srivaishnavam.com/stotras/ps_meaning.htm That one God is in all.
So, morality has to be founded upon the hearts of man. Remove the heart part, you get the word 'heartless'. How can the intelligent Man propse to determine what is right or wrong, what is moral or immoral, solely based on science and using only the left side of the brain?
Therefore, I think the basis of morality has to be founded from the hearts of man, as studied in the social sciences – psychology, history, sociology, political sciences, etc.
The logical and rationale part of the brain (the IQ part) can then structure and implement these basis of morality within societies.
Agracean…..You cannot refuse to believe in Vedas. The only books GOD REVELED.Believe now ! http://agniveer.com/vedas-hatred/
website link is below http://www.rakhapura.com/
I have Buddhists buddies in Rakhine Area. Just putting their view also as being neutral. see the article chapter.
There was an allegation of Buddhist girl brutally assaulted by Bengali Muslims, which lead riots. Burmese were alleged as working for Zionists, but this propaganda by Islamist , actually gave birth to an idea of Jew-Buddhist unity with the support of Burmese Hindus, Christians and Sikhs.
At present Rakhpura are member of SION and sent their person to freedom conference of Ms Geller on 9/11/2012. All this news i get as i have good friends among Burmese. Just giving information which i have and no offence to anyone. Forgive me if i hurt any humans.
"We live in the age of science and enlightenment. The more we discover the secrets of the universe the more a creator becomes irrelevant."
Dear Ms Dr Ali Sina, it is Science that helps ignorant human beings like us to discover, know and understand the universal truth that there is a loving Creator and that He is the Creator and Sustainer of the whole Universe and we know that He alone in this world claimed ownership of it. It is through Science that we realized that nothing in this marvellous Universe exist by chance or accident. So, the more we discover the secrets of the universe the more a creator becomes relevant. 🙂
I agree with you, Hassan.
Yeah, I was going to post something like that. In addition, rationality often also overlook what our sensory parts of our body help us comprehend our world:
I mean:
Do you hear music or do you hear just sounds created by little hammers hitting inside a contraception called a piano?
Do you hear friendship or just another living homo sapien making audible sounds at you "Hi, I am so happy to see you again!"
Do you feel the rain? Or do you just feel water hitting your body?
Do you see a piece of art or do you just see colours and paint strokes or pixels on a computer image?
Do you see cruelty and abuse or do you just see the plain mechanical actions when a man is sticking an iron rod into a woman's vagina?
Our sensory perceptors must work with our heart and mind. Not just our minds alone.
The entire history of humanity and all civilisations recognises that the HEART and the mind of an individual must come together, as so to live and contribute as a fully functional human beng.
Devoid of the HEART part, logic and rational alone leaves a human being unable to appreciate life, enjoy people's company, feel compassion or hate, or … Plainly said, cease to be part of the human race. He has been reduced to a machine, a cognitive and brutal mechanical machine, unable and does not wish to embrace all aspects of our humanity.
And yes, Dr Ali Sina, with due respect, I disagree with your position about depending on rationality and science alone, for the betterment of mankind.
"The foundation of this world is based on injustice. If really a conscious being created this universe the way it is, making some sentient creatures to be food to others, that being deserves our scorn not our praise."
Dear Ms Dr Ali Sina, we sin against God, we sin against nature, we sin against one another, we sin against animals and we sin against everything. What do you think a righteous, holy and loving Creator God should deal with sinners like us?
Mr Loki, don't be lazy. May I encourage you to read more books and do your own research. I'm still waiting patiently for my dear Ms Dr Ali Sina's most sincere reply to my above comments. I believe that after he has done his research, he will ultimately come to the final conclusion that I'm right afterall, to say that God exists. 🙂
The man who shoved the rod in the vagina of Delhi girl was a Muslim.I hate islam,I hate every Muslim.
Morality on common issues, like poverty, murder, rape etc. can be easily determined without going to a codified set of rules.
For more complex issues, however, it's not so easy. The kind who think that morality is impossible without a 'God' telling them things, would have their hands full on many of these.
Like stealing is immoral, but what if you steal(without physical harm to anyone) a few thousands from a stingy billionaire and buy warm jackets for some who are dying of cold? These are complex issues and there are no clear yes/no answers. A man has to ask himself and take a decision on this or even more complex situations. The holy books are far too simplistic for such situations, and that's why religious judges differ from each other in their judgement. Same happens for laws which are not directly from a 'holy' source. Hence people should realize that it's ultimately human decisions which define legality/morality, not any God. So human decision-making should be strengthened by imbibing more knowledge, and knowledge from 'more than one' book.
The only part of your comment about Atheists that is right is "they refuse to believe".
Everything else is plain wrong.I'll reword it for you so that you take care in future.
Atheists refuse to believe that they have an immaterial being besides their physical body because no one has given any evidence of it, ever. They don't believe that God exists for a similar reason. They don't believe that there is life after death, because no one ever who is dead has called up someone living and narrated how his life is going on in the other world.
Theism, in the broadest sense, is the belief that at least one deity exists(Wiki). Atheism is precisely lack of that belief. Atheism is the absence of a belief. It's not an alternate set of beliefs. If someone 'believes' that 'there is no life after death', that is another belief, but that belief is not necessitated by Atheism. It's an independent belief.
Islamic moral = fear conditioning
Dear Ms Dr Ali Sina, don't you agree with me that He Who brought time, space, matter and energy into being is beyond time and space and therefore, He must be immaterial? I hope that you get the point and know that you are a spiritual being. 🙂
Dear Ms Dr Ali Sina, you said: "I don’t say that God does not exist. I don’t know. "
The problem with Atheists is that they wilfully refused to believe that they have an immaterial being besides their physical body because they believe that God does not exist and there is no life after death and they will eventually became nothingness after death. They believe that they live and die like all the animals on planet earth and there ain't any special reason or purpose for their existence here on planet earth and they have this convenient belief that they are not accountable for what they have done in life. So, they believe that the end result between a Good Samaritan ie. my dear Ms Dr Ali Sina and a monster ie. Hitler is the same after death – they all became nothingness.
Mr sina, u're right in so many places, especially when it comes to islam. This's because in islam there is no spirit, because Mo happened to be that spirit with his limited if not zero knowledge. so it must be understood mechanically the way u see it. But in christianity, we believe in the holy spirit to understand some mysteries and that spirit dwells within believers which u're not. So, ur rationality which understands mechanically with only five sense organs can't comprehend what is of the holy spirit.