Shahrukh

I can see I would be wasting everyone's time here if I said anything else.And you would think I am trying to enforce my beliefs on you.And I admit that I am not qualified to argue with you folks. So, you know what, I won't argue.P.S. Bikerman, I really appreciate the fact that you can differentiate between real Islam and the one people call Islam these days. I wish more people could identify those.

So{...}

 

I will turn away from My communications those who are unjustly proud in the earth; and if they see every sign they will not believe in It; and if they see the way of rectitude they do not take It for a way, and if they see the way of error. they take it for a way; this is because they rejected Our communications and were heedless of them.

(Al-A'raaf: 146)

 

Shall give a fuller answer as well on Thursday.

Can we think of our favorite ant from bunch of 10,000 ants ? No,so even with vast amount of memory and intelligence you tend to ignore the base of things. You won't bother about underlying happenings of the BS at bottom. Do you expect creator to know the heart or life of every creation he created ? BS.

Dude, a computer can identify its favourite 'virtual' ant with sufficient processing power. In fact, I think my computer would be able to do that easily if there was such a simulator.
Sure, humans can't do it, but then again we aren't even as powerful as a computer in such matters, let alone Allah.

No creator will waste his time teaching his creation to love him or keep faith in him, cause if one creation fails or denies him or even loves him obsessively then he can always create another.

And He did so. Many communities were destroyed and new societies flourished on their graves.

created a female to give birth without intercourse denying his own natural laws ?

It wasn't the only time He broke nature's law. Miracles happened quite a lot of times.

Allowing people to rape each other in his own name ?

I am not sure to what you are referring to. Could you please quote the instance when that happened?

Wait, i assumed that god exist in this post but the trouble with theists is that they yet to give empirical evidence of creator, so rant on.

Here is one (extract from http://www.islam101.com/tauheed/provingGodExists.htm):

{...}If a new object or a machine, which no one in the world has ever seen or heard of before, is shown to an atheist or any person and then a question is asked, " Who is the first person who will be able to provide details of the mechanism of this unknown object? After little bit of thinking, he will reply, ‘the creator of that object.’ Some may say ‘the producer’ while others may say ‘the manufacturer.’ What ever answer the person gives, keep it in your mind, the answer will always be either the creator, the producer, the manufacturer or some what of the same meaning, i.e. the person who has made it or created it.
{...}
In mathematics there is a theory known as ‘Theory of Probability’. If you have two options, out of which one is right, and one is wrong, the chances that you will chose the right one is half. You have 50% chances of being correct.
Similarly if you toss a coin the chances that your guess will be correct is 1/2. If you toss a coin the second time, the chances that you will be correct in the second toss is again 1/2. But the chances that you will be correct in both the tosses is (1/2 x 1/2) which is equal to 1/4. If you toss a coin the third time, chances that you will be correct all three times is (1/2 x 1/2 x 1/2), that is 1/8.

A dice has got six sides. If you throw a dice and guess any number between 1 to 6, the chances that your guess will be correct is 1/6. If you throw the dice the second time, the chances that your guess will be correct in both the throws is (1/6 x 1/6) which is equal to 1/36. If you throw the dice the third time, the chances that all your three guesses are correct is (1/6 x 1/6 x 1/6) is equal to 1/216 that is less than 0.5 %.

Let us apply this theory of probability to the Qur’an, and assume that a person has guessed all the information that is mentioned in the Qur’an which was unknown at that time. Let us discuss the probability of all the guesses being simultaneously correct.

At the time when the Qur’an was revealed, people thought the world was flat, there are several other options for the shape of the earth. It could be triangular, it could be quadrangular, pentagonal, hexagonal, heptagonal, octagonal, spherical, etc. Lets assume there are about 30 different options for the shape of the earth. The Qur’an rightly says it is spherical, if it was a guess the chances of the guess being correct is 1/30.

The light of the moon can be its own light or a reflected light. The Qur’an rightly says it is a reflected light. If it is a guess, the chances that it will be correct is 1/2 and the probability that both the guesses i.e the earth is spherical and the light of the moon is reflected light is 1/30 x 1/2 = 1/60.

Further, the Qur’an also mentions every living thing is made of water. Every living thing can be made up of either wood, stone, copper, aluminum, steel, silver, gold, oxygen, nitrogen, hydrogen, oil, water, cement, concrete, etc. The options are say about 10,000. The Qur’an rightly says that everything is made up of water. If it is a guess, the chances that it will be correct is 1/10,000 and the probability of all the three guesses i.e. the earth is spherical, light of moon is reflected light and everything is created from water being correct is 1/30 x 1/2 x 1/10,000 = 1/60,000 which is equal to about .0017%.

The Qur’an speaks about hundreds of things that were not known to men at the time of its revelation. Only in three options the result is .0017%. I leave it upto you, to work out the probability if all the hundreds of the unknown facts were guesses, the chances of all of them being correct guesses simultaneously and there being not a single wrong guess. It is beyond human capacity to make all correct guesses without a single mistake, which itself is sufficient to prove to a logical person that the origin of the Qur’an is Divine.

The only logical answer to the question as to who could have mentioned all these scientific facts 1400 years ago before they were discovered, is exactly the same answer initially given by the atheist or any person, to the question who will be the first person who will be able to tell the mechanism of the unknown object. It is the ‘CREATOR’, the producer, the Manufacturer of the whole universe and its contents. In the English language He is ‘God’, or more appropriate in the Arabic language, ‘ALLAH’.

P.S. "It is said energy cannot be created, nor destroyed. Yet energy exists. This sounds like God to me!" seems pretty logical too.
P.P.S. Do visit this site: http://allahexists.com/
Lots of scientific, logical proves are mentioned there.

I would like to answer that!

 

Blessed is He in Whose hand is the kingdom, and He has power over all things,

Who created death and life that He may try you-- which of you is best in deeds; and He is the Mighty, the Forgiving,

 

Reasons of suffering:

1. As a test (yours and others):

Allah wants to see what you will do when you are in pain, whether you are going to whine and complain or ask for His Mercy and Protection.

And when He gives you a good thing after a bad thing, whether you thank Him or forget Him till the next time you feel His need.

 

Also, when your neighbour is low on daily provisions, will you help him out or be selfish and keep everything for yourself?

 

2. As a punishment:

When a person does an evil deed, he will be punished by Allah. Sometimes, they are punished in this world, sometimes in the Hereafter.

 

Other things:

You might be thinking now that if Allah wants to 'see' what people do under these conditions then He doesn't know already. However, that is not the case.

In fact, if Allah wanted, He could have rewarded people of their deeds right after creating them. However, then those who had gone to Hell would have said that they weren't given the opportunity. That is why this world is the opportunity by Allah to do good and shun evil, so that you may be rewarded justly in the Hereafter.

Blessed is He in Whose hand is the kingdom, and He has power over all things,

Who created death and life that He may try you-- which of you is best in deeds; and He is the Mighty, the Forgiving,

 

You would note that many of the good people in the Islamic history have been tested more severely. Take the example of prophets. All prophets were tested in quite extreme ways that any ordinary person would not have been able to pass with steadfastness. Each test either brings one closer to Allah or farther away.

If you grow closer, you will tested again to see whether you can achieve the next level of closeness. If you are not nearly good, you will be forgiven by Allah until the Day of Judgement, when the punishment will be hard.

Say: As for him who remains in error, the Beneficent Allah will surely prolong his length of days, until they see what they were threatened with, either the punishment or the hour; then they shall know who is in more evil plight and weaker in forces

And Allah increases in guidance those who go aright; and ever-abiding good works are with your Lord best in recompense and best in yielding fruit.

 

Charming...so...

I did ask you peacefully at first. But YOU said there is no room for compromise.
I even gave you a suggestion to portray your feelings without raising any violence. But YOU said you want violence. So thats what I wished for you.
I guess the Quran is true after all:

And We are not unjust to them, but they themselves were unjust. (Surat 43: Ayah 76)

As of today, I do not support freedom of speech. It leads to more bad than good. Staying silent is better in some cases.
Bear witness on the Day of Judgement that I tried to warn and stop you. If you had stopped, I would have wished good for you.
May Allah judge you justly for what you do:

And for those who disbelieve in their Lord is the punishment of hell, and evil is the resort.When they shall be cast therein, they shall hear a loud moaning of it as it heaves,
Almost bursting for fury. Whenever a group is cast into it, its keeper shall ask them: Did there not come to you a warner?
They shall say: Yea! indeed there came to us a warner, but we rejected (him) and said: Allah has not revealed anything, you are only in a great error.
And they shall say: Had we but listened or pondered, we should not have been among the inmates of the burning fire. (Surat 67: Ayah 6-10)

And I am going to stay silent from now on.

Well, its been pretty long now.I guess I'll stick to my local host.

No it would...thing to do.

Right, then, I'll just say bye bye with these few verses: The Holy Quran: Surat 9, Ayah 29-33:

Fight those who do not believe in Allah, nor in the latter day, nor do they prohibit what Allah and His Apostle have prohibited, nor follow the religion of truth, out of those who have been given the Book, until they pay the tax in acknowledgment of superiority and they are in a state of subjection.And the Jews say: Uzair is the son of Allah; and the Christians say: The Messiah is the son of Allah; these are the words of their mouths; they imitate the saying of those who disbelieved before; may Allah destroy them; how they are turned away!
They have taken their doctors of law and their monks for lords besides Allah, and (also) the Messiah son of Mariam and they were enjoined that they should serve one Allah only, there is no god but He; far from His glory be what they set up (with Him).
They desire to put out the light of Allah with their mouths, and Allah will not consent save to perfect His light, though the unbelievers are averse.
He it is Who sent His Apostle with guidance and the religion of truth, that He might cause it to prevail over all religions, though the polytheists may be averse.

I hope the mob gets you first.

Ok. Now I get the point you are trying to make.But I don't think you'll ever succeed in it. That is because of two things:1. Muslims value Hazrat Muhammad a lot. They will break every rule, including freedom of speech or any state law, to get people to not insult him.2. To actually stop something, 3 things can be done, as is taught by our religion as well:a. stop by tongue (like I am trying to do)b. stop by hand (like they did with the 20th May by hacking one site and overloading the rest)c. stop by sword (and that means war)The fourth thing is to hold it bad in our hearts, and that is the least sincere thing to do.So, where as you think you are right to fight for freedom of speech, you have to understand that we ask of you to only not insult our prophet, his companions and Allah. You can say anything else to anyone else. Is that so hard to do?

Hey Shahrukh, your designs are really good-looking I liked the splatter design a lot. As you said, such designs are becoming common these days, but it's still good to see them anyway! Keep up the good work and hope to see more wonderful designs from you in the coming days. After you're done working on your site, how about designing something for Xisto perhaps?

Thanks.
Yeah. I've been thinking of a new of implementing it though. Lets see how that turns out.
Maybe I will.

So I am genuinely sorry to offend you, but I must publish the cartoon. If you have a suggestion to make it less offensive to you then I will try to accommodate it, but it will be published, and the by-line will say that it was drawn by all of us - we have no intention of identifying one person.

I do have a suggestion. Why don't you do everything the same way, except instead of Hazrat Muhammad, make a normal, modern Muslim be angry at the cartoon?
That won't too insulting, won't create violence and relay your point more accurately, since its the Muslims that reacted this way to the images in the past.

If I asked you in a nice, decent, civilised manner, then will you not publish that strip in it?

We are discussing almost the same thing here: http://forums.xisto.com/topic/72722-limit-to-luxury-morally-good-thing-to-do-or-human-rights-violation/
Although the topic states limiting luxury, the main discussion going on is about giving back to the community.Maybe you should read that as well.

Its Wednesday now...still pending.I think I should submit a ticket...

But Rushdie is not subject to Islamic law - he is British. We do not insist that you obey our laws so what gives you the right to insist that we obey yours?

 

But YOUR laws are for you. If you want to make laws for your own country then fill your boots - help yourself. You do NOT make laws for my country or that cover the citizens of my country. Because I respect, in fact I insists on, freedom of speech then I defend your right to your opinion. Unfortunately you (Islam in general) do not respect freedom of speech so it is asymmetrical - I defend your freedom of speech and you kill people for exercising it.

 

But I reject the notion that Muslims have any right to set laws for me. In fact HOW DARE YOU assume that I, or anyone else, is subject to your laws. Do I insist that you stick to UK law? Of course not - it would be presumptuous and wrong to do so. Yet you seem to think that Islamic law applies to non-muslims all over the world. Sorry, it just doesn't. Rushdie and the Danish cartoonists are not subject to your laws.

 

I totally understand what you are saying here. However, you are not considering one thing.

If I threw a stone at the UK's queen or President from Pakistan (lets suppose that was possible), I would be tried according to UK's laws by a UK lawyer (or however the UK law states). Isn't that right?

Similarly, when someone throws an insult to a Muslim prophet, he would be tried according to Islamic law by a Muslim.

Of course, our laws don't apply to non-Muslims. Like if you had 'relations' with a woman thats not your wife, no Muslim would hit you with lashes.

But when you insult our prophet, you are getting into Islamic territory. So, just like I would be judged by the UK folks according to UK law for my actions in the UK territory, you will be judged by Muslims according to Islamic law in Islamic territory.

 

Which therefore makes Islam as dangerous as people say - it declares war on anyone who doesn't honour its rules. That is commonly known as tyranny.

 

We do not ask you to honour our rules. Just don't insult our prophet.

As for Islam being dangerous, well that is not really the case. During the time of Hazrat Muhammad, many people insulted him by calling him deluded, a magician, etc. etc. He never ordered anyone killed.

Declaring war is actually a Muslim's reaction to an insult of our prophet. There is no written law in Islam to kill a guy who insults a prophet. But, of course, its allowed to kill in a war.

(This still doesn't make Bin Ladin's point valid since he kills innocent people (including Muslims and non-Muslims) who are not attacking anyone, they aren't supposed to be killed even in war according to Islam).

 

Jews, obviously - as was Jesus himself.

 

Wait, I am a bit confused now. Weren't Jews the followers of Hazrat Musa (Moses)?

 

No, you got a scripture which YOU BELIEVE is correct. Others disagree. The Quranic story of the arrest is not supported by any historical documents and it actually makes little sense, because such a massacre would certainly have featured in the writings of contemporary historians such as Philo.

 

But I know the bible pretty well - I was raised catholic and taught by Jesuits and Salesian monks so I would put my knowledge of Christian theology up against anyone with confidence. I also have the Quran, but obviously less knowledge on that theology. More importantly I have also studied the works and writings of historians who were around at the time - Philo, Seneca, Josephus etc. This is what calls the whole story into question - both the Christian AND the muslim version of events are not supported by any historical evidence.

 

That is just assertion with no evidence. You have no evidence what changes were made to the gospels - whereas I know pretty well what changes were made from having studied the subject for some while. So I know that Mark was added to and I know that many of the cannonical works are pretty much as written.

 

But you have no evidence for that. The only support you have is the quran which is just some words written centuries after events and is, when it comes down to it, not what we call evidence, just assertion.

As I said - the argument is exactly the same as used by Christians - that the Gospels cannot be wrong because they are the inspired word of God. It is simply assertion and can never be proven or even evidenced.

 

I must say I am pretty weak in Christian theology. Since we have our own accounts of things stated in the Quran and Hadith, I never felt the need to study the historians since I would not have held them authentic over the Quran anyway.

As for having no evidence, religion is mostly about belief and not evidence. I would like to quote some of the verses of Quran here: The Holy Quran: Surah 2, Ayats 2-7:

This Book, there is no doubt in it, is a guide to those who guard (against evil). (2)

Those who believe in the unseen and keep up prayer and spend out of what We have given them. (3)

And who believe in that which has been revealed to you and that which was revealed before you and they are sure of the Hereafter. (4)

These are on a right course from their Lord and these it is that shall be successful. (5)

Surely those who disbelieve, it being alike to them whether you warn them, or do not warn them, will not believe. (6)

Allah has set a seal upon their hearts and upon their hearing and there is a covering over their eyes, and there is a great punishment for them. (7)

 

Ayats 2 to 5 state that believers (= Muslims in this case) believe in:

the unseen - of which there can be no direct evidence

that which has been revealed to you - that means the Quran, 'you' here means Hazrat Muhammad

that which has been revealed before you - that means the Torah (Book of Hazrat Musa), Zabur (Book of Hazrat Daud (David)), Injil (Book of Hazrat Isa) and Suhuf Ibrahim (Orders to Hazrat Ibrahim (Abraham))

the Hereafter - which means the time when people will be put into Heaven or Hell

What I am trying to say is that our BELIEF is all we need to think of the Quran as true and authentic. If other disagree, I am not, in any way, forcing my beliefs on anyone.

Like you said there is no hard evidence, only our believes are what we have. If there was clear cut evidence, then there would not have been any dispute and the whole purpose of creation, which according to our belief is to test who does what, would have been refused.

 

If a Christian makes the same claim - that Muslims are simply following the works of a misguided person who thought he was a prophet - then muslims tend to go ape and accuse them of heresy.

But you are indeed insulting Jesus, according to Christians. What if I say to you that Mohammed was NOT a prophet at all. He was just misguided and deluded - just some ordinary man? That is what you are saying - that when Jesus claimed to be the son of God, he was deluded or mistaken.

 

No, we would not go mad if anyone said that. That is something you believe in, our believe is different. And everyone can settle with that. Its insulting him personally that makes us angry. By, for example, creating a cartoon.

If a religious Christian felt insulted, said I was wrong and proved that he is true in his belief without my having anything to counter the argument, I would gladly apologise until I could find some other evidence on which to debate on.

What I am saying is that Hazrat Isa never claimed to be a son of God. The people changed the scripture to make it seem that way.

As for having evidence for the change, well, as I said, I am not very good in that part. I'll try to contact an Islamic scholar to answer that and let you know what he says.

 

Yes, it includes a sequence (strip) consisting of 3 cartoons drawn by a member of our group. The first shows Mohammed looking approvingly at pictures of him which feature in Islamic art. The second shows him looking at a recent cartoon of him with steam coming out of his turban. The third shows the cartoonist asking 'is it the hands? I could never get the knack of hands....'. Personally I think it is pretty funny. But this, of course, means that many muslims will regard me as a bad person, and we are aware that once it goes out we may well face threats - in fact we expect it. The point is to show that we will not be intimidated by threats of violence. Either you support free speech - which means the freedom for those you disagree with, as well as those you agree with, or you don't. Muslims don't, I do.

 

Dude, that is not cool.

And I have a few objections:

You don't know what Hazrat Muhammad looked like. So when you draw a cartoon of him, you are lying about him. And its not a good thing to lie about prophets, or any divine thing, for that matter.

Why isn't he frowning at the Islamic art? Its a pretty big sin in Islam to make pictures of people, even ordinary.

Steam coming out of his turban: I know that's just a representation of anger but, since the matter is about a prophet, things would be taken literally by Muslims, so that becomes a lie too.

You/your group drew a cartoon of my prophet! I am very angry with you now. I wish you would not publish it.

Can I know what's the newsletter going to be called and when it will be published?

No they don't. The UK has no death penalty in any case so that is just plain wrong in every way. The US has a Judicial process which in some states carries a death penalty.

 

Right. But they still punish the person; how depends on their laws, Islam has its own.

 

Rushdie wasn't given a trial - he had committed no crime. Leaders were calling for all and any Muslim to kill him - that is on a compeletely different planet to a proper trial, evidence, defence and due process. If you really can't see that then I despair.

 

I understand what you are trying to say. But you don't see my point.

What I am saying is that we declare war on him. The literal meaning of it.

There is no trial in war. Its not like a court case with lawyers and a judge.

 

Oh how nice of them. Do you really think this helps your case?

 

It does. Because that tells we will not just murder without any reason. The punishment accords with the deed according to our laws. Your point above of trial, etc. is also answered by this. Because although there is not court case filed, we won't just go blindly kill anyone who says anything against Islam. There are proper laws as to what is answered in what way.

Where as your laws state that a court trial, etc. is necessary, our's doesn't in this matter.

Of course, there will be people who are more vengeful, like that Mufti who thought killing innocent people was right if it killed enemies. But they are transgressing from the laws, then.

 

How could Christians support the killing of Christ? Clue - Christian = one who follows the life of Christ AFTER HE DIED. Jeez..

 

Right. Then who are those who followed his teachings when he was alive?

 

LOL and some guy several centuries later suddenly gets the right version? Not just unbelievable but patronising nonsense. We know what was in the original gospels pretty well. There have been some changes - we even know about them. The notion that the disciples would kill anyone who attacked Jesus is disproven by the fact that when he was arrested nobody died. The closest existing writings to Jesus are the epistles and letters of Paul - that is simply a fact - why would I say otherwise because I dislike ALL religions including Christianity. The notion that the Quran, written centuries later, is more accurate than the more contemporary accounts is just nonsense and wishful thinking - a matter of 'faith' not fact.

 

No one got the right version of the Bible. A new scripture was given: The Holy Quran.

According to my knowledge, the people who arrested Hazrat Isa killed all his followers that were guarding him, who were actually supposed to be on guard and warn the others but they were not.

 

Its true that its a matter of faith. And as you said you don't believe that the Quran or Bible was revealed by Allah to His messengers, I guess there is no point in discussing that.

Because according to my faith, Allah told Hazrat Muhammad the true accounts of those things that the people had wrong accounts of, so that he can correct them.

 

What you are attempting to do is so arrogant that words almost fail me. Not only do you defend the indefensible, but you then try to say that people of other faiths don't really know their own religion and that Christians aren't really christians. The hypocrisy is breathtaking. Anyone who insults your prophet is fair game to kill. But you have no problem at all insulting Christian beliefs - in fact you go further and tell them they aren't even proper Christians....astonishing. Even more astonishing that you actually seem to believe this crap, rather than just trying a wind-up.

Hasrat Isa appears nowhere in the bible. In the New Testament you have Jesus and it is made perfectly clear that he is the son of God many times. The Old Testament doesn't mention him at all for the simple reason that it was written centuries before he was born.

 

Yes, I am saying exactly that. That is because they have changed the laws and beliefs they were given in the Bible.

Which mean they have deviated from their religion. Just like a Muslim who changes any of the beliefs mentioned in the Quran isn't considered a Muslim.

Insulting beliefs is a different thing than insulting a highly respected person. You said a few things that were against my beliefs, I never got angry from you, because everyone has his own beliefs and I have no problem with that. But when someone insults Hazrat Muhammad personally, then, I will get angry.

And by saying that Hazrat Isa was not God's son but His messenger, I am only questioning Christian beliefs, not insulting Hazrat Isa. He is highly respected by every Muslim.

There is no mention of Hazrat Isa in the Old Testament because, as you said it wasn't revealed on Hazrat Isa. That was for the Jews, not Christians.

As for the New Testament proving that Hazrat Isa as a son of God, that is the exactly what the Muslims claim the Christians have changed which makes them deviate from their original religion and not be real Christians.

 

All religions HAVE NOT always taught the same lesson. There are 3 abrahamic religions and 2 of them teach something different to Islam. The Genesis account that Muslims share is a story, an allegory, not history. The only Christians who think it is history are creationists (or as I call them 'lunatics') - they believe literally in the Hebrew Bible account of creation. Most sensible christians accepted hundreds of years ago - even before Mohammad - that it is an alegory, a story to illustrate a point, not history.

 

The Jews were also taught the same beliefs. That's there reason there are common things in the two scriptures in the first place.

Some laws changed with time though.

 

YOUR version of scripture was, in any case, written hundreds of years later. So where there is overlap with the Jewish/Hebrew bible then the Jewish/Hebrew bible is right. Go and find a historian. Ask him which is likely to be most accurate:

book collection 1 : written about 50-110 years after the events described

book 2 : written more than 6 centuries after the events.

Want to guess what he will say?

 

The accuracy of the Quran doesn't come from when it was written. But who wrote it.

Allah revealed it to Hazrat Muhammad and Allah can not be wrong or inaccurate.

Since this is again a matter of belief and you don't believe that, lets leave it at it.

 

We haven't concluded anything of the sort. I conclude that killing 'insulters of the prophet' is barbaric murder, and those who support it uncivilised criminals. I certainly do not think it is 'allowed'.

As for violence - even 1 less murder would be a start.

 

I meant allowed by Islamic law, as opposed to murdering anyone being allowed.

That 1 murder is not of an innocent, according to Islamic law.

 

PS - I'm sorry if this comes across as insulting. It is not meant to be, but this is something I feel strongly about so I must express that - it is targetted at the beliefs, not the person.

 

Na, don't worry about that. We are having a constructive discussion here. And yes, I know we are talking about beliefs. So, no personal offences taken, although that would rank as less aggressive than offences to the religion. But since you didn't outright offended anything, just stated your opinion and belief, its all good.

 

PPS - I should, for honesty and fairness, also add that I am a member of a group which is dedicated to protecting freedom of speech in the UK and supporting anyone who is targetted for expressing themselves - whether targetted by the government or religious fundamentalists. We are currently compiling a newsletter which also has depictions of the prophet, and some are not flattering (though all have a point which is clearly explained - we are not into gratuitous insult). If that makes a difference then you might wish to either withdraw or indicate to me that you wish to discontinue this and I will withdraw.

 

I won't want to withdraw from a good argument. And since you say you want to insult, its all a discussion, we should continue until we either reach a conclusion or leave it because everything come up to the matter of belief, which we cannot force onto the other.

Does it include a depiction of Hazrat Muhammad?

Many people read the first page of the site to judge whether or not to read more.So, it won't be good to move away the blog completely. Instead, you can have a box with the latest from the blog and a summary of the portfolio on the main page.

Murder is murder, and even... stop condoning it.

That site is censored too.

If you insult my mother, I would just not talk to you.
Insulting Hazrat Muhammad is different. And I can see that you don't understand that.
As I said, you can call me barbaric or whatever you want. But I shall declare war with any person who insults Hazrat Muhammad, or any other prophet for that matter.
Peace-loving countries like USA and UK also murders criminals. Why is it wrong if I murder some criminal?
Its the innocent that are not to be murdered. And a person who insults Hazrat Muhammad is not really innocent.
Also, murder is not always the reaction. It depends on what the person said/did. There was a guy named Thanwee. He was only declared non-Muslim and not murdered.
Where as there was another guy whose name escapes me at the moment, he said that he is Hazrat Muhammad, reborn. He was hanged by the government. But not his followers since they didn't say anything of the sort themselves.

If the Christians of today are really followers of Hazrat Isa, they would not have supported killing him in the first place. Since they do, if someone else attacks him with insults, it shouldn't matter to them as much as it matters to a Muslim when their prophet is insulted.
However, his true followers, who were killed with him, would also murder anyone who attacked him. But you won't find any of them nowadays. That's why the religion of Islam came in the first place. Because people had deviated so much from Christianity that it wasn't really Christianity at all. You can't find that same Bible that existed at the time of Hazrat Isa. People changed it as they preferred.
The Bible mentions Hazrat Isa as a messenger and prophet of Allah, the Only God. Muslims didn't claim that by themselves. It also mentions the coming of Hazrat Muhammad as a prophet after Hazrat Isa.
All religions have always taught the same lesson, from Hazrat Adam, Hazrat Yousaf (Joseph), Hazrat Nooh (Noah), Hazrat Isa and Hazrat Muhammad. Same thing that Islam teaches: to believe in Allah as the only god and not invent partners in him.
But that leads to yet another different topic based mostly on beliefs.
You'll find history that supports both sides.

I used to think that majority Christians thought of Hazrat Isa as God's son and messenger.

Oh, and I never said anything against Rushdie, did I?
I haven't read his book, nor do I intend to.

So far, we have concluded that only killing traitors and insulters of the prophet is allowed. I don't think 99% of the world's violence is due to that two factors.

Exactly my point. I'm not trying to score cheap debating points - this stuff is important because unless people can see and admit that these people exist then there is little chance of things changing....

I wish they change for the better.

I have no interest in calling people names, but there is a difference between responding in a civilised manner to an insult and calling for the person to be murdered and I am surprised you do not see that. Nobody has a right to murder is what you keep telling me, yet if anyone dares to insult Mohammed then they are fair game. You see no contradiction in that?

Murdering innocent people that is. Not one who attacks our prophet.
We love our prophet more than our lives. And we don't tolerate anything against him, not a physical attack (which is of course not possible now) and not an insult.
I see your point here. But insulting Hazrat Muhammad means open war for us. And the insulter has made the first attack.

Oh yes, it is certainly true. I worked in network/systems management for a while with a Pakistani - Aftab ****, good bloke. He helped put in some of the routing used by the Pakistani government to implement their censoring systems..
PS - I have edited my last paragraph and changed Aftab's name - giving his real name might have been silly of me in the circumstances - it could cause him problems and I have no wish to do that.

Right, right.

You keep shifting the goalposts. First you say that you doubt any aamin or mufti would condone killing an innocent person.I give you evidence that this is wrong, so you shift it to say - ahh, but the majority disagree...
That is not how I do debate and not how it should be done. You make and defend a point and concede it where refuted.

People do make mistakes, man. And this one is definitely things wrongly.
As for my doubt that any Mufti will allow such killing, I really was surprised by his sayings. But that still doesn't mean that Islam allows it.
Although, his followers will now consider it allowed.

You also completely ignored the other examples ... by people like me.

Yeah, forgot to add the answer to that.
You can call us anything you can, dude, but neither me nor any other Muslim with a little self-esteem will tolerate insult to Hazrat Muhammad.
Not believing in his teachings is a different thing but going out of the way to insult him is not good.
I don't think any of the followers of Hazrat Isa (Jesus) will think any different if someone insulted him.

PS - any guesses why you can't open that other link? It opens fine for me....could it be...censorship...perhaps? :-)(I'm assuming you know that your internet connection is actively censored and filtered by your Government?)

Could be.
Yeah, I can't even open the page 'Muhammad' in wikipedia.

http://forums.xisto.com/no_longer_exists/

But Al-Amin did answer Al-Jozo's wrongful claims. Right till the end.
And when a single or even a few Muftis are supporting one thing where as the majority is supporting another, its the majority that is considered right.
Of course, people have their personal opinions. This Mufti is expressing those. He did not quote any reference, didn't even say the Islam says to kill these people. Where as Al-Amin clearly said that Allah will distinguish between civilians and enemies even if the bombers didn't.
So, basically, you are pointing to a single person who deviated from the general opinion. You can get that kind of behaviour everywhere. 1% Pakistanis supported Ladin in the previous survey as well. He is no different.

https://www.jihadwatch.org/2006/10/new-jerusalem-mufti-endorses-suicide-bombers

Can't seem to open this link.

http://teeth.com.pk/blog/2008/09/11/aalim-online-inciting-murder-against-ahmedis

This guy is not an Aalim. He is a TV host. His comment do not hold any value.
In Islam, a person is allowed to believe whatever they want. We do not judge anyone, Allah will deal with everyone when the time comes.
But if his believes are not what Islam says, he cannot be called a Muslim. Like the case of Ahmedis. The changed their faith and were declared non-Muslims a while back.
The order to kill is only against a traitor, no one else. And that also after giving him opportunity to come back.

Fine, I hope you are very happy. It wouldn't work here - in fact it would probably cause real trouble if you tried to tell English women that this was a good way to behave. I promise you that they would not agree. This is another reason why Islamic law cannot be allowed into our secular society...

I hope so too.
Right. Let them go their way and we'll go ours.

No you still misunderstand. It isn't what I believe, this is what Bin Laden and radical islamists believe and what they quote. Their interpretation is quite different to yours and to the sources you cite, but that does not mean they are wrong even though you think they are, I think they are and the majority of UK muslims think they are....

They might be right in their belief but the truth is still that the are wrong.
If I interpret the law of the country wrong, I will not be exempted because according to me I was right. Same goes for Islamic laws.
For example, if I proved somehow that murder was allowed in Pakistan's law by changing interpretations, I would still be hanged.
Similarly, if Bin Laden proves that murder is allowed in Islamic law by changing interpretation, he would still be beheaded.

Besides, his forces kill more Muslims than non-Muslims. No way he can justify that in his mind.
As many people say, I think there is something fishy with him. But I can't really prove anything there.

Yes correct answer: well worked out.

 

Thank you.

 

Answer 3:

h = total hens

p = total pigs

 

2h + 2p = 60

2h + 4p = 86

 

60 - 2p = 86 - 4p

2p = 26

p = 13

 

2h = 60 - 26

2h = 34

h = 17

That depends whether they are Shi'te or Sunni (or Wahhabi).We have several learned scholars who don't say he is wrong. Travel over to Egypt and you will find that many muslims not only support him but think he is a truly great man. In fact quite a lot of your fellow Pakistanis are very supportive of Bin laden..I'm sure you must know that...
Here's a 2008 survey before the election
http://www.terrorfreetomorrow.org/upimagestft/TFT%20Pakistan%20Poll%20Report.pdf
(PDF file)

The survey says that people are supporting him less now. Only 1% would vote for him.
By learned scholars, I meant the Aalims and Muftis. And I doubt any Aalim or Mufti will allow bloodshed of innocent people in this way because murder and suicide both are major sins.

And I think it is a selfish male nonsense that is both sexist and extremely offensive. Why should your feelings be the thing that decides things? What about her feelings? It doesn't bode well if you are getting jealous thoughts before you even meet the woman...I'm afraid you are going to get quite a shock when women's lib finally penetrates the muslim world...and it will, trust me..Sexist stereotype. Better with children, yes, probably. The rest? Nonsense. What you mean is that you, as a man, are allowed to be less neat and less organised because the wife will do it for you. You are entitled to your beliefs as I am, but there is absolutely no way that I would tolerate any such laws or even proposals in my country and the huge majority would agree. Jeez, I tell you true mate, it is a really good job my missus isn't reading this...she may be small, but she is very feisty and she knows exactly where to punch and kick...

The girl I have proposed actually liked this thought of mine.
What I meant was not that man is allowed to be less neat or organised. But that a woman can handle a house's neatness and organisation better than a man would.
I agree with having our own beliefs and opinions.

This is directly contradicted by Sura 2:191 where specific intruction to kill the infidel is given...

Another common objection.
You should read this article.
And also this one.

Yes, you did solve it so QUDOS to you.

 

BEA and CED are smiliar triangles (same angles sides twice as big) that immediately gives you EB - 1/2x

From there it is much easier...

 

Hey, I reached to that too. But I thought I was doing it wrong.

Its been about 4 years since I did any Maths.

 

Answer 2:

 

Total : x

1st: x/2+.5

2nd: x/4+.75

3rd: x/8+.875

Since inventory ended then:

x/2 + x/4 + x/8 + 2.125 = x

.875x +2.125 = x

2.125 = .125x

 

x = 17

But in effect there will be no equalisation...anyway this is getting monotonous, let's drop it and move on. I object to ANY religious law in my secular country. I am an atheist, would you like me to move to pakistan and insist that all the mosques be closed because I think my lack of belief is better than your belief?

 

I wasn't talking about it as a religious thing. But you are right. We are both saying the same things over and over in different words.

 

Missing my point...it isn't what I think, it is what the real=politik is. The country that matters is the one with the most power - either military or commercial or, preferrably, both.

For about 200 years it was the UK. Since WW2 it has been the US. Next it will be China. We call them 'superpowers' - though the USSR never actually should have had that nametag IMHO, since it was a lot weaker than the US led people to believe.

 

Oh, you meant politically. Well, thats a different story then.

 

But again you are missing the point. They will have a reason and justification for everything. Bin Laden is no idiot and I think he genuinely regards himself as a good Muslim. Have you ever noticed that even his worst enemies in Islam are never accused of not being Muslims? The worst thing Bin Laden says about other muslims is 'they are bad muslims'. You could say the same about him, but you can't say he isn't a muslim.

 

To judge who is wrong and right, Muslims appoint their learned scholars as judges. And all of them say that he is wrong in killing innocent people.

One or even many unlearned people's opinion or interpretation cannot be called authentic or right. So, he clearly is wrong.

 

The same applied regarding the treatment of women. I KNOW how women are treated in much of the middle east - a cross between a possession and an ornament. Sharia Law is fundamentally sexist, sorry but it just is. Now you can say that Saudi and other countries are not real muslim countries but that is the same argument again and it won't do.

 

I differ in opinion here.

I think that Shariah has defined roles for both the genders according to what is most suited for them and not as discrimination.

Taking the matter of the veil, I personally would not marry a woman who goes about showing his 'beauty' to everyone else. And that's not due to my religious beliefs. Its due my emotional feelings. Therefore, I think that the order for women to cover themselves is a very good thing.

Men are made responsible for finances where as women look after the home. That makes sense too.

Women are better at handling children, also much neater and organised in most cases. So their staying in homes makes up a better environment for the children and the husband.

Plus their dedication with their husband makes him happier and less worried. And the woman feels safer and much secure.

 

Islam can allow or not allow whatever it likes, but the fact is that the people who brought down the twin towers, the people here who blew themselves up and took a lot of people with them, the people in spain who blew the train up - they are all Muslims. So to say that Islam does not allow killing innocent people really gets on people's nerves. It is like saying that Christians don't tell lies, because the bible says they shouldn't. The simple fact is that they do, just like everyone else.

 

There is a difference between don't and shouldn't. Muslims (and also others) shouldn't kill people. What they actually do does not represent Islam's teachings. Rather, it represents their beliefs. People can have wrong beliefs. And those who kill this way certainly do have wrong beliefs.

 

I know, as I said I have read most of it and I know that the 72 virgins is a corrpution of Surah At-Tur (52):20], Surah Al-Waqi'a (56):34-36 and Surah Ar-Rum(30):21...27. mixed up with Hadith 2562 in Sunan al-Tirmidhi "The least [reward] for the people of Heaven is 80,000 servants and 72 wives, over which stands a dome of pearls, aquamarine and ruby."

 

So they mix them together and get 72 virgin

 

Exactly. Its just for convincing people that there is a lot of benefits of doing what they are saying.

 

EDIT: And I was supposed to study 15 sections of the companies ordinance today...

I did mean to write 8.485. Mistyped by mistake. I did know that the triangles had a relation but couldn't remember the name nor the relation. :PSo, I did what little I remembered. :)I was good at Maths back then. Scored 98% in my O' Levels and 96% in Additional Mathematics.