Postmortem of Israeli-Hezbollah War – What Next?

#236 by Raw_Dust

[By the way, if you ever wanna read Mohammad`s schizophrenia textualized - read last two chapters of the glorious Quran. Check out what ``Jinnaat`` means and then see the historical context behind them. It is one funny story.]

Well, according to tahmed and others who ``believe``, all good things in the Quran came from God through the mouth of the good man Muhammad. All bad things in the Quran are ``distortions`` put in there by bad people. It is always interesting that although they claim that the Quran is the best thing after sliced bread, they are NEVER able to state exactly which suras in the Quran they find so revolutionary and amazing. They ALWAYS ask you to read for yourself, or point you to a website and obfuscate.

It is no point pointing out these things to the ``believers``. These people are able to swallow fairy tales like Gibreel, feathers and all, so it`s a sheer waste of time.

It`s when they try ``logic`` to ``explain`` their faith is when it irritates the heck out of me. Not to mention abject morons like Masadi with his quantum physics of the Quran.

#214 by Raw_Dust

Raw_Dust,

Thank you for that quote.

[ The problem that religious moderation poses for all of us is that it does not permit anything very critical to be said about religious literalism. ]


This is exactly what I have been saying all along. This is why I have been saying that pacifists are so dangerous and insidious in effect, even when they are well-meaning. Osama Bin Laden and his type are a lesser danger because they are easily identifiable and thus, ultimately exterminable. But it is the ``moderates`` who are the ones who are instrumental in perpetuating the ``faith`` intact - their ``liberal`` thinking seduces the commies and the tree-hugger types quite readily, and recruits them in their fight for the perpetuation of Islam.

#234 by tahmed32

[#233 ``Consider the HYPOTHETICAL possibility that your ``Prophet`` was making things up in order to control other people. Ask yourself - would you be willing to live with the implications of that? ``

I already am. What part of ``belief`` dont you understand?? ]


The part that says that ``belief`` may or may not be grounded on logic and facts.

But in any case, I am guessing that by ``belief`` you mean ``faith`` (which is one of the meanings of the word ``belief``). In that case, my respect for you goes up - because then in that case you are not a deluded individual. You are then just like most other people - of any faith.


Thanks for the clarification.

krishna_abcd:
congrats. tahmed`s hi-fi belief system that was going on in an interstellar overdrive somewhere far above the earth vectoring onto some medieval image of a male tyrant who has a penchant for blood sacrifices but wait, that is all not true. It was afterall not that hifi. It turned out to be just about one schizophrenic man of arabia sitting in a very un-hifi cave in 7th century arabia who happened to have cultivated some pretty sick ``weaknesses`` of his own.

By the way, if you ever wanna read Mohammad`s schizophrenia textualized - read last two chapters of the glorious Quran. Check out what ``Jinnaat`` means and then see the historical context behind them. It is one funny story.

#233 and I say ``deaf man`` in #234 only after patiently trying in two or three posts to explain the difference between ``fact`` and ``belief``, only to have you come back repeating the same thing while ignoring what I had written or trying to be cleverer than you are.

This may be a great way to keep an argument going - but it is a miserable way to have a discussion.

Anyway. I have to do some other things now, so I am not going to spend my time reading your other four posts below since I have no reason to believe they are any different than this one.

#233 ``Consider the HYPOTHETICAL possibility that your ``Prophet`` was making things up in order to control other people. Ask yourself - would you be willing to live with the implications of that? ``

I already am. What part of ``belief`` dont you understand??

I dont like to waste my time talking to a deaf man.

Cheers.

#210 by tahmed32

[However, it does not make me weak willed or undisciplined in my thinking if I chose to believe that the prophet was sincere in what he said heard in the cave.]


I`ll tell you what makes you weak willed. Open-minded and intellectually honest people are STRONG ENOUGH to be open in their thinking - THEY WILL FOLLOW A LINE OF REASONING LOGICALLY, AND ACCEPT THE LOGICAL CONCLUSIONS NO MATTER WHERE IT MIGHT LEAD.

Consider the HYPOTHETICAL possibility that your ``Prophet`` was making things up in order to control other people. Ask yourself - would you be willing to live with the implications of that?

I think we both know the answer to that.


[I base my views on what I emphasized in bold in my previous post - namely the direction to which the message of Islam pointed. ]

The ``message`` does not stand on its own merit. It would be considered a ``message`` from ``God`` ONLY if your Prophet was not cooking things up on the fly - borrowing copiously from existing religious texts.

Get it? No?

Oh well.

#224 by tahmed32

[I havent been following the Karr case, but what he says does not carry the weight of centuries of history and millions of adherents. ]

Centuries later, Sai Baba might still be a major religious figure. Centuries later, he might have millions of adherents to his fold. It does not matter. He will not have credibility in many thinking people`s eyes.

Huge mosques and minarets are created by ordinary humans - faith is a commodity handed down through generations - none of this proves a thing.

#224 by tahmed32

[Nor is the prophet`s personality of relevance, given that his role is restricted to that of being a messenger...]

He is a messenger ONLY IF he was telling the truth about talking with God etc.

Was he the type to tell the truth? That`s where his personality becomes relevant.

Everybody sees that, except Muslims.

#224 by tahmed32

This was a man who lived in the 7th century AD. You should know that child marriages are considered the norm in primitive societies even today. In 21st century India for example.]

This piece off obfuscation is used by Muslims on a regular basis.

In child marriages in India, a child marries another child.

If a 53 year-old man marries a child, he would be labeled a pedophile and would be thrown in jail.

If a 53 year-old man lusts* after a 6-year old, he would be considered a monster in India.

ALSO, AND THIS IS IMPORTANT - INDIANS WOULD NOT CONSIDER SUCH A MAN CREDIBLE ENOUGH TO LISTEN TO ANY COCK-AND-BULL STORY HE MIGHT HAVE THAT GOD WAS CHATTING WITH HIM IN A CAVE AND HE IS GOD`S CHOSEN VEHICLE FOR COMMUNICATING HIS ``MESSAGE``.


* Yes, his attraction for Ayesha was not an intellectual love between two mature people - it was lust for a 6-year old little girl`s body.

#216 by tahmed32

[#212 You write: ``I do not say that it (ultimate cause) is unknowable.``

One would need a very simplistic view of the universe to make such a statement. The fact is, that the more we expand our circle of knowledge, the more we realize are the frontiers of our ignorance.]

Not at all.

I also do not say that it (ultimate cause) is knowable.

If you go over my posts you will find that I mentioned that I SIMPLY DO NOT HAVE ENOUGH EVIDENCE ONE WAY OR THE OTHER.

See?


In any case, even if you are able to prove that I am an idiot (which of course you cannot), that still does not to resurrect your prophet.

:-)

tahmed:
sure. I cant handle Facts like a 53 year old marrying 9 year old and shy away from the obivous explaination of such behavior. Not only that when i am called out on this i try to low-tone the sickness of such stuff by implying pedophilia as some sort of human weakness. As if rape, murder and pedophilia are just some weaknesses of human characters and not crimes.

Yep, i get it but since i am completely brainwashed, it doesnt mean that i can handle it. And that is where you got me. I concede. :-)


AlephNull:
Yea, i saw that on Sam Harris` website. Thanks for mentioning Dawkins.

peace.

Raw_Dust #214:

I gather that this board has long since been abandoned by those who wanted to discuss the official topic.

You must know that Sam Harris has a slim little book due to be released later this month: Letter to a Christian Nation. Further, Richard Dawkins has a book coming out next month: The God Delusion. I can’t wait to get my hands on it.

#225 If you call this obvious point to be ``Islamic BS``, then the historical facts that I took the trouble to provide you with are also ``Islamic BS``. And the only ``fact`` that you illustrate - albeit unwittingly - is your inability to deal with facts.

So, I suppose the best strategy left for you is to hide your brainwashed mind behind strong words. Have a nice day. :-)

``So, let us not judge an individual based on our standards today of the right age for marriage. ``

Thanks for spelling out Islamic BS further. I am sure through this exercise you know exactly where we differ.

peace.

#223 Raw Dust,

This was a man who lived in the 7th century AD. You should know that child marriages are considered the norm in primitive societies even today. In 21st century India for example. In 18th century US, 15 or 16 was considered a marriagable age. So, let us not judge an individual based on our standards today of the right age for marriage. With increasing economic progress, there has been a historic tendancy towards delayed marriages. Today in the US many women wont dream of getting married before they are 27 or 28.

Nor is the prophet`s personality of relevance, given that his role is restricted to that of being a messenger, nor is he considered a divine being in Islam who is immune from human weaknesses. (I will of course agree that millions in the muslim world treat the prophet like a divine being - but that is their problem, not the Islam that I follow).

I havent been following the Karr case, but what he says does not carry the weight of centuries of history and millions of adherents.

mr. tahmed:
you consider a pedophile who married a 9 year old kid ``sincere`` on what he heard in a cave. That is what i would call Islamic BS.

Can John Mark Karr`s musings on God or humanity`s well-being be termed sincere given what we know about him? It would be called BS of a perverted, sick individual

in #221 where i write `` Or perhaps you think my saying that the message of Islam was not more enlightened than the 7th century bedouin society to which it was delivered?``

should (for clarity) read:

Or perhaps you think that the message of Islam was not more enlightened than the 7th century bedouin society to which it was delivered?

I come to chowk to relax. You are the one who seems to be getting nervous when asked to put your money where your mouth was when you swept aside what I wrote as ``Islamic BS``. :-)

And I can see why you are nervous - this (what you cut and paste in old in #220 below) is the best you could do!!

I think that what I wrote was quite reasonable. What exactly about it is there in this cut and paste that you think is BS? Do you thnk your belief that he was insincere on any stronger footing than my belief that was was sincere? Anyone who confuses his beliefs for facts has to be quite superficial in his thinking.

Or perhaps you think my saying that the message of Islam was not more enlightened than the 7th century bedouin society to which it was delivered? If you do, then you obviously are totally brainwashed by the propaganda you were raised in - and need to think for yourself. Or read some neutral, popular western scholars on the subject.

Or is there anything else in my statement that you think is ``Islamic BS``. IF so, then lets see you identify it and provide a brief and rational explanation on why you think so.

Otherwise, hold your peace next time you feel the urge to use strong words to hide weak arguments. Like I said.

hey, relax. dont get yourself into a frenzy. lol. here it is.

these are your words right?
``However, it does not make me weak willed or undisciplined in my thinking if I chose to believe that the prophet was sincere in what he said heard in the cave. I base my views on what I emphasized in bold in my previous post - namely the direction to which the message of Islam pointed.``

#217 further to #218, I`ll give you 30 more seconds to respond (and that is a reasonable time interval to come up with a response, if you knew what you were talking about). Otherwise I will come back later and see what you were able to come up with.

#217 So - you failed to cut and paste anything I wrote, and instead made up your own stuff rather than quote what I said. Since I see you are online now - if you know what you are talking about it should be possible to meet my challenge. :-)

tahmed:
there was nothing indirect. You consider it is fine to give a pedophile some leeway on his directions and guidelines on God etc. I consider it islamic BS.

#212 You write: ``I do not say that it (ultimate cause) is unknowable.``

One would need a very simplistic view of the universe to make such a statement. The fact is, that the more we expand our circle of knowledge, the more we realize are the frontiers of our ignorance.

#214 I was going to leave this board, but see that you refer to my my posts (indirectly) as ``Islamic BS``. Care to put your money where your mouth is and cut and paste anything I have written that you consider to be ``BS``? Unless you can do that, your post is merely another example of weak reasoning hiding behind strong words!!

krishna_abcd:
You might wanna catch Sam Harris` End Of Faith. It is not some groundbreaking work but a very well-written summary of the dilemma that we (non-muslims) have to face dealing with Islamic BS. (Like you just did in last 20 or so posts.)

He linked the first chapter on his website.
End Of Faith

---

``Many religious moderates have taken the apparent high road of pluralism, asserting the equal validity of all faiths, but in doing so they neglect to notice the irredeemably sectarian truth claims of each. As long as a Christian believes that only his baptized brethren will be saved on the Day of Judgment, he cannot possibly “respect” the beliefs of others, for he knows that the flames of hell have been stoked by these very ideas and await their adherents even now. Muslims and Jews generally take the same arrogant view of their own enterprises and have spent millennia passionately reiterating the errors of other faiths. It should go without saying that these rival belief systems are all equally uncontaminated by evidence.......

While moderation in religion may seem a reasonable position to stake out, in light of all that we have (and have not) learned about the universe, it offers no bulwark against religious extremism and religious violence. From the perspective of those seeking to live by the letter of the texts, the religious moderate is nothing more than a failed fundamentalist. He is, in all likelihood, going to wind up in hell with the rest of the unbelievers. The problem that religious moderation poses for all of us is that it does not permit anything very critical to be said about religious literalism. We cannot say that fundamentalists are crazy, because they are merely practicing their freedom of belief; we cannot even say that they are mistaken in religious terms, because their knowledge of scripture is generally unrivaled. All we can say, as religious moderates, is that we don’t like the personal and social costs that a full embrace of scripture imposes on us. This is not a new form of faith, or even a new species of scriptural exegesis; it is simply a capitulation to a variety of all-too-human interests that have nothing, in principle, to do with God. Religious moderation is the product of secular knowledge and scriptural ignorance—and it has no bona fides, in religious terms, to put it on a par with fundamentalism. The texts themselves are unequivocal: they are perfect in all their parts. By their light, religious moderation appears to be nothing more than an unwillingness to fully submit to God’s law. By failing to live by the letter of the texts, while tolerating the irrationality of those who do, religious moderates betray faith and reason equally. Unless the core dogmas of faith are called into question—i.e., that we know there is a God, and that we know what he wants from us—religious moderation will do nothing to lead us out of the wilderness. ``

#210 by tahmed32

[#206 I think you are stretching things to support your contention that the prophet did not have the character needed to make him believable when he said he had a religious experience in the cave.]

As I said, my personal belief is that someone who did any ONE of the thousands of things that Muhammad did during his lifetime CANNOT BE called a good person. This is what I would teach my children about ANYONE they come across.

If you believe differently, then I cannot change that. However, this issue about Muhammad will continue to come up increasingly as Muslims continue to aggressively prevent other people from discussing anything negative about him, while at the same time trying to spread his ``message``.



[If you chose not to believe him, that is your business and fine with me. Nor do I think this means you are headed to hell or anything like that. ]

Good, because it is difficult to listen to grown up and educated people talk about stuff like ``heaven`` and ``hell``.


[However, it does not make me weak willed or undisciplined in my thinking if I chose to believe that the prophet was sincere in what he said heard in the cave. I base my views on what I emphasized in bold in my previous post - namely the direction to which the message of Islam pointed. It is a stretch on your part to reject the one reason I gave that convinces me that the prophet was sincere (i.e. your attributing to ``cleverness`` on his part the fact that the Quran limits his role to that of messenger only, denying him the temporal authority needed to become a temporal ruler).]

You think it is a stretch on my part. I think it is a stretch on your part to use that weak reasoning to absolve him of all the hideous things he has done in life.


[Nor can you explain that if he was insincere, why he did not try to start a dynasty or even appoint a successor. These are not the actions of a power-hungry man. ]

He was only interested in himself. But this is like trying to dance around the issue - trying indirect proofs to counteract direct allegations. You cannot explain any of the bad things he did.


[I wont quote specific verses from the Quran to you, like you asked, to demonstrate that Islam is a religion of peace and harmony and human rights. Not because there is any lack of them, but because I think you should do some reading yourself and reach your own conclusions. Read about the Islam from neutral and popular western writers like Huston Smith, Joe Esposito and Karen Armstrong. Then draw your own conclusions, whatever they may be. ]

I was pretty sure you wouldn`t. :) Because there is NOTHING in there that is of any earth-shattering value. I know. Because I have forced myself to wade through all that verbiage. Endless repetitions of idiotic things. The stuff in there is VERY commonplace, trite, and a lot of it is unconscionable. God knows how you guys read that stuff day in and day out.


[And keep in mind that all this talk about Islam are mere ripples on the surface, the sensational news reported in newspapers. The real undercurrents that will define the world a hundred, or fifty years from now, or even next year - have nothing to do with these subjects that everyone gets so excited about on chowk. ]

I do not see your Islamic world emerge. I think that humanity will eradicate Islam out of a need for self-preservation. But I am being optimistic when I say that. In history, evil has won many times.

#208 by tahmed32

[#207 There is of course a word in the english language to describe what you say you say you mean when you say atheist. The word is agnostic. ]

No. ``Agnostic`` means ``a person who holds that the existence of the ultimate cause, as God, and the essential nature of things are unknown and unknowable, or that human knowledge is limited to experience``.

I do not say that it is unknowable. Rather, I very much belive that it is possible that there are paths that might lead to this knowledge. But I am not sure.

[What is relevant is the substance of what you are writing.]

Exactly. So let me get to that.

krishna: my three posts below are my final ones on this board. Thanks for a pleasant, intelligent discussion. We may not agree on everything, but agreement is not necessary for a productive exchange of views.

#206 I think you are stretching things to support your contention that the prophet did not have the character needed to make him believable when he said he had a religious experience in the cave. If you chose not to believe him, that is your business and fine with me. Nor do I think this means you are headed to hell or anything like that.

However, it does not make me weak willed or undisciplined in my thinking if I chose to believe that the prophet was sincere in what he said heard in the cave. I base my views on what I emphasized in bold in my previous post - namely the direction to which the message of Islam pointed. It is a stretch on your part to reject the one reason I gave that convinces me that the prophet was sincere (i.e. your attributing to ``cleverness`` on his part the fact that the Quran limits his role to that of messenger only, denying him the temporal authority needed to become a temporal ruler). Nor can you explain that if he was insincere, why he did not try to start a dynasty or even appoint a successor. These are not the actions of a power-hungry man.

I wont quote specific verses from the Quran to you, like you asked, to demonstrate that Islam is a religion of peace and harmony and human rights. Not because there is any lack of them, but because I think you should do some reading yourself and reach your own conclusions. Read about the Islam from neutral and popular western writers like Huston Smith, Joe Esposito and Karen Armstrong. Then draw your own conclusions, whatever they may be.

And keep in mind that all this talk about Islam are mere ripples on the surface, the sensational news reported in newspapers. The real undercurrents that will define the world a hundred, or fifty years from now, or even next year - have nothing to do with these subjects that everyone gets so excited about on chowk.

and what I write in #208 about no labelling anyone applies only to serious discussion only. However, I am not above using labels for non-serious discussions (which are the only kind possible with individuals who are here to promote some ideology or agenda).

#207 There is of course a word in the english language to describe what you say you say you mean when you say atheist. The word is agnostic.

In any case - I dont believe in labelling anyone anything. That puts the focus on the individual, rather than on what that individual is saying. So, agnostic/atheist/hindu/muslim/whatever - that is not relevant as far as I am concerned. What is relevant is the substance of what you are writing.

The term ``atheist`` can have many meanings, not all of which mean exactly the same thing. I would like to clarify that when I said I am an ``atheist`` I meant that I am one of those people who simply DO NOT KNOW, OR ARE UNSURE ABOUT MANY FUNDAMENTAL QUESTIONS IN LIFE. In my case, ``atheist`` doesn`t not mean denying the existence of ``God`` - it simply means that I do not have enough information to decide one way or the other.

#205 by tahmed32

[#204 you think your Fact #5 is a fact because you missed the point. The point was that your ``Fact #5`` is a subjective view. This is irrelevant to the question of the prophet`s character one way or another, as you incorrectly assume (So this cannot be used to defend his character. ) ]

Fact# 5 was the following:

``Fact#5: Muhammad`s actions were appalling by ANY standards or ANY age (beheading unarmed men, selling their women and children into slavery and a million other things).``

I guess you could say that a man who beheaded 700 unarmed men and sold their helpless and innocent women and children into slavery could be considered by some as a good man. Just like Hitler was considered a good man by many. So by that definition Fact#5 is indeed subjective, because ``good`` and ``bad`` are truly subjective terms - one would have to establish the benchmark in advance and everybody would have to agree to those benchmarks for it to be viewed as ``objective`` by everybody.

But I think that people who are not sold to any idea, and are willing to think independently, could reach no other conclusion.

But I leave you to your beliefs, without which no doubt you would be lost. I don`t think you are a strong man in your mental discipline.



[You say: I am not sure what you mean by ``the former``. I meant this was the ``error of omission`` in your earlier post. ]

I am still not sure what I am omitting. It is simply the case of deciding if some act is appalling or not. If I think it is appalling, you could say you don`t agree that it is, but that does not mean I am omitting anything.



[Islam, or any other great religion or philosophy or weltenschauung (to put it more accurately), is about concepts, not personalities.]

If a serial killer comes to me and lectures me on certain ``concepts`` of goodness etc., I would choose not to listen, regardless of the contents.

However, when I even cite the ``concepts`` contained in the Quran, you rush to say that all the bad sayings are ``distortions``. Kind of convenient, don`t you think?



[I think the prophet tried to convey what he understood to be the message he heard in the cave as faithfully as he could - I say this because in the message he conveyed (i.e. as recorded in the Quran), his own role is limited. If he was not honest, he would have suppressed verses which limit his role to that of a ``messenger`` only, and do not extend any secular authority to him. ]

``If he was not honest, he would have suppressed verses which limit his role to that of a ``messenger`` only``

- this is not proof one way or the other. He was a clever man - this assertion of his only made him more believable in the eyes of his followers. This really proves NOTHING.


[The answer is not to ``edit`` the Quran - the answer is to take a holistic view of the basic spirit of the Quran.]

I think as long as the hateful stuff remains in the quran, people are going to read them, and use them as justification to kill other people.


[And to understand this spirit - this core message- one should look at thedirection the Quran pointed towards to a 7th century society. And the direction was clearly towards the equality of all individuals regardless of race, religion of gener; towards civilized values of respect for all; towards character building in terms of honesty and integrity. ]

Yes, this line is used by Muslims a lot. (if you notice, we are already debating the concepts in the Quran, ALREADY assuming that Muhammad was not lying about chatting with God).

In any case, racism, as we know it today - meaning looking down on blacks etc. was MUCH LESS PREVALENT in the ancient world. Also, he was living in a fairly homogenized society consisting of mostly Jews, Arabs and Christians. And his hatred for the ``other``, that is those who did not submit to his views, is blatantly visible all over the Quran. But then that is a ``subjective`` view, isn`t it? :) And you could say that the incitement to kill, and rob don`t really mean a thing.


[You write I personally am an atheist, and really find all this obsession with rituals and divine laws etc. as extraordinarily stupid, but human. For most people, religion is a mental crutch that they need to survive happily in a society

Religion is indeed a mental crutch. But we humans are indeed weaklings and need a crutch - a philosophy of life- to make sense of the powerful forces of nature that we do not understand. The reality of the miracle of birth and the mystery of death. The reality of the vastness of the heavens. For primitive people, this ``philosophy`` begins and ends in the form of offering ``sacrifice`` to a deity. For a slavish people, this crutch begins and ends in the form of following ``personality cults`` (the ``man worshippers`` I referred to). Both of these are widespread in the muslim world, which are ridden by personality cults. But this is not the Islam I see in the Quran.]

Since we are already working under the assumption that Muhammad was truthful about chatting with ``God`` in a cave, why don`t you list for me a few quotations from the Quran that you find so revolutionary.

I failed to find any - all I found was endless repetitions of stuff that is unimpressive, trite and commonplace. So maybe you could help me point out the quotations that have impressed you to such an extent. Please cut and paste a few specific suras that you think are so revolutionary. And then I will then check other pre-existing religious textbooks and see if I can find all of that already mentioned elsewhere.

Thanks. :-)

#204 you think your Fact #5 is a fact because you missed the point. The point was that your ``Fact #5`` is a subjective view. This is irrelevant to the question of the prophet`s character one way or another, as you incorrectly assume (So this cannot be used to defend his character. )



You say: I am not sure what you mean by ``the former``. I meant this was the ``error of omission`` in your earlier post.

Islam, or any other great religion or philosophy or weltenschauung (to put it more accurately), is about concepts, not personalities. I will be the first to agree that ``Islam`` as practiced by ``Islamists`` or even the vast majority of muslims is about personalities - and that is why I call them ``man worshippers``. But that does not take away my right to hold a different view of Islam based on what I see clearly written in the Quran.

You say: The answer to that, as I have indicated, is determined by his credibility as a person.

I think the prophet tried to convey what he understood to be the message he heard in the cave as faithfully as he could - I say this because in the message he conveyed (i.e. as recorded in the Quran), his own role is limited. If he was not honest, he would have suppressed verses which limit his role to that of a ``messenger`` only, and do not extend any secular authority to him.

Again, I will agree that there is a strong wave in the muslim world today to create theocratic states - but again, it is my right as a muslim to hold a different view of Islam based on what I see clearly written in the Quran.

you write As I have said before, for most people, religion and culture are intertwined. In fact, very few people bother about the intricacies of theology, but are happy to exist withing the framework of the society they are born into, with its customs and celebrations and rituals.
Agreed. And that is why the original message is lost, and is replaced by a culture of slaves. Which is muslim culture today - a culture based on outdated concepts of absolute monarchs who claim to speak for God.

You write While no society is perfect, I think there are specific views expressed in the Quran that can be used by those who want to divide societies, to do so.
It is indeed true that selected verses are quoted from the Quran by those seeking to create mischief in this world. The answer is not to ``edit`` the Quran - the answer is to take a holistic view of the basic spirit of the Quran. And to understand this spirit - this core message- one should look at thedirection the Quran pointed towards to a 7th century society. And the direction was clearly towards the equality of all individuals regardless of race, religion of gener; towards civilized values of respect for all; towards character building in terms of honesty and integrity.

You write I personally am an atheist, and really find all this obsession with rituals and divine laws etc. as extraordinarily stupid, but human. For most people, religion is a mental crutch that they need to survive happily in a society

Religion is indeed a mental crutch. But we humans are indeed weaklings and need a crutch - a philosophy of life- to make sense of the powerful forces of nature that we do not understand. The reality of the miracle of birth and the mystery of death. The reality of the vastness of the heavens. For primitive people, this ``philosophy`` begins and ends in the form of offering ``sacrifice`` to a deity. For a slavish people, this crutch begins and ends in the form of following ``personality cults`` (the ``man worshippers`` I referred to). Both of these are widespread in the muslim world, which are ridden by personality cults. But this is not the Islam I see in the Quran.

#203 by tahmed32


[On the latter: Your Fact #5 (Muhammad`s actions were appalling by ANY standards or ANY age ) is in fact a subjective assessment. And indeed a biased assessment that is contradicted by neutral scholars from the west - Muhammed, e.g., is also the individual who negotiated the peace of Hudaiybiah, and said (per common belief among muslims) things like ``the pen is mightier than the sword`` and ``Go even to China to learn``. ]

Okay, let`s look at this objectively then.

You cite the following two facts to prove that my Fact #5 is not an objective fact:

1) Neutral scholars from the West say that his actions were not appalling.

2) Muhammad did good deeds, for example:

a) negotiated the peace of Hudaibah, and

b) said things like ``the pen is mightier than the sword`` and ``Go even to China to learn``.


Now lets` look at these two points:

1. [Neutral scholars from the West say that his actions were not appalling.]

This does not indicate anything either way - there are many other neutral scholars who say VERY bad things about him. So this cannot be used to defend his character.

2. [Muhammad did good deeds, for example:

a) negotiated the peace of Hudaibah, and

b) said things like ``the pen is mightier than the sword`` and ``Go even to China to learn``.]

If you look at my Fact#6, I mentioned the following:

[Fact#6: Just like in Boolean,

1 AND 0 equates to 0,

in the case of judging character,

``good deeds`` AND ``appalling deeds`` equates to ``appalling character`` ]

Hitler did many good things, and said many good things. But he was the architect of the exterminations of millions of human beings. And is rightfully considered a monster. So Muhammad`s ``good deeds`` and ``good sayings`` cannot be used to negate the horrible things he did - for example (and I will cite only ONE example here) - beheading 700 unarmed civilians and selling their innocent and helpless women and children as slaves.

Therefore, my Fact #5 stands.



[On the former, while the prophet Muhammed may hold a central place in religion for many muslims - his role is explicitly limited in the Quran (and integral to the kalima, which all muslims know by heart but whose meaning is lost on most of them) to that of being a messenger only. The message of Islam comes, per muslim belief, from God. And God`s character is reflected in his creation - worlds without end, a universe in a drop of water. ]


I am not sure what you mean by ``the former``. But I am guessing that you are referring to the following contention I made:

No Muhammad -> No Quran -> No Islam.

You are an intelligent person. I would urge you to think about this. You say - ``The message of Islam comes, per muslim belief, from God.``. Yes, but that would be true ONLY IF YOU CAN BELIEVE THAT MUHAMMAD ACTUALLY COMMUNICATED WITH GOD. Without that, there would be no ``muslim belief``.

So the question becomes - CAN YOU BELIEVE MUHAMMAD WHEN HE SAID THAT HE COMMUNICATED WITH GOD?

The answer to that, as I have indicated, is determined by his credibility as a person.

And therein lies the rub.



[I will agree with you that ``muslims`` today are among the biggest jahils on earth. But that does not mean that muslims have no choice but to surrender their faith to these would-be brahmins of muslim society (the maulvis, aalims and so forth).]

As I have said before, for most people, religion and culture are intertwined. In fact, very few people bother about the intricacies of theology, but are happy to exist withing the framework of the society they are born into, with its customs and celebrations and rituals. And Muslims have developed a unique culture, which naturally and rightfully they cherish. India, and the whole world for that matter, is enriched by the different cultures that exist - otherwise things would be too one dimensional. That is indeed a wonderful thing and should be celebrated. But for this to happen, and for a peaceful society, one must get rid of the specific things that cause friction. While no society is perfect, I think there are specific views expressed in the Quran that can be used by those who want to divide societies, to do so. Now you may say that all of that is a distortion of the original message of the Quran. That`s absolutely fine with me - I really don`t care either way - as long as that is edited out of the Quran. Also, if successive generations of muslim historians would try and eliminate the negative accounts of Muhammad`s life from his biography, it would have a very positive impact. Because common people are common - they will often create a cult of personality. Therefore we need to make sure the personality projected is a positive one (Buddha is a good example).

I personally am an atheist, and really find all this obsession with rituals and divine laws etc. as extraordinarily stupid, but human. For most people, religion is a mental crutch that they need to survive happily in a society (although as the Chinese experience shows, millions of people can live perfectly happily without religion as well). Maybe someday people will be able to think for themselves, and treat religion as philosophy - to be debated, accepted or rejected at will just like any other branch of knowledge.

I bear no ill-will towards anybody. I abhor the predatory, and us-and-them aspects of missionary-style religions. Because that is the one thing that has caused, and still continues to cause, untold sufferings to humanity. I hope we someday wake up, and see everybody as one - because we truly are one species - bound to this tiny speck of a life-raft speeding though limitless space at an inconcievable velocity. There`s much more to think about, and worry about, than all this garbage and nonsense humanity is obsessed about today.

#202: krishna: your post has errors of omission and of commission.

On the latter: Your Fact #5 (Muhammad`s actions were appalling by ANY standards or ANY age ) is in fact a subjective assessment. And indeed a biased assessment that is contradicted by neutral scholars from the west - Muhammed, e.g., is also the individual who negotiated the peace of Hudaiybiah, and said (per common belief among muslims) things like ``the pen is mightier than the sword`` and ``Go even to China to learn``.

On the former, while the prophet Muhammed may hold a central place in religion for many muslims - his role is explicitly limited in the Quran (and integral to the kalima, which all muslims know by heart but whose meaning is lost on most of them) to that of being a messenger only. The message of Islam comes, per muslim belief, from God. And God`s character is reflected in his creation - worlds without end, a universe in a drop of water.

I will agree with you that ``muslims`` today are among the biggest jahils on earth. But that does not mean that muslims have no choice but to surrender their faith to these would-be brahmins of muslim society (the maulvis, aalims and so forth).

#200 by tahmed32

[#199 krishna: You are confusing ``Facts`` with ``Beliefs``. Facts can be verified by one`s senses. Beliefs are what we choose to believe. So, all your ``Fact #s`` should in fact be re-titled ``Belief #s``.

So, kindly revise your your post for this basic error. Then pass remarks about bigger things, like other people`s religious beliefs. :-)]

Okay then. Show me how each fact I listed is not verifiable, but is only my belief.

Show me.

Thanks. :-)

Sattar2: sorry for the delay in getting back.

On #196, you write In my view Quran aims to forge and foster a relationship between humans and their Creator.

This is part of the truth. The Quran certainly emphasizes the majesty of Creation and the concept of a Conscious, All-Powerful, All-Knowing Being.

The other part of the truth is that the Quran also provides guidelines that have to do with the relationships between humans and humans. This is in two basic ways:

1. Intellectual Honesty: You touch upon that when you say Delving further in this central theme leads one to the unmistakable notion of integrity, individual responsibility, and honesty/ This has to do with relationships between humans and humans, not humans and the Creator. That is - since the Quran says that Allah knows what is in one`s heart - one cannot by definition be dishonest with Allah. However, (except perhaps on chowk!!), people`s true character cannot be known by other humans. Same for individual commitments, responsibility, ``giving fair measure`` in business dealings, and even surprisingly practical guidelines like encouragement to have ``written agreements``.

2. Intellectual Responsibility: This means using one`s God-given faculties to see, hear and think in a responsible manner. Not letting these be befogged by physical narcotics or ``intellectual`` narcotics (i.e. ideologies). Not letting these be subordinated to the views of some other individual. And - moving forward - actively using one`s abilities to study God`s Creation (which is the basic reason God created man to begin with, per the Quran. In other words to study science - as at least one prominent writer (Huston Smith, in the best selling ``The World`s Religions``) writes, this is the essential contribution of Islam relative to the great religions of the world that preceded it. Thus - it is all the more ironic that, with some notable bright periods centuries ago - muslims are today the most ignorant among the world`s people.

So, where you and I differ is in I think in the emphasis - I see human to human relationships to be the most prominent aspect of the Quran. You see it as something that follows. Our differences on the need for a ``guide`` (as I think you put it) in the form of a continuing series of prophets - stem from this underlying difference.

I am glad you think I am an OK guy, and I am sure you are a fine individual too in real life. So, let us not allow our differences in viewpoints imply there is any personal animosity. We are all travellers for a brief time on earth, all seeking our own ways to make sense of this gift of life that has been given to us. That is all.

#199 krishna: You are confusing ``Facts`` with ``Beliefs``. Facts can be verified by one`s senses. Beliefs are what we choose to believe. So, all your ``Fact #s`` should in fact be re-titled ``Belief #s``.

So, kindly revise your your post for this basic error. Then pass remarks about bigger things, like other people`s religious beliefs. :-)

Re: various by sattar2 and tahmed32

You guys are fighting around semantics.

Here are some indisputable facts:

Fact #1: In order for Islam to exist, you need to BELIEVE that Muhammad was NOT LYING when he said that God had communicated the Quran to him.

Fact #2: If Muhammad was indeed lying, then you guys are arguing for nothing - the whole thing is one big hoax.

Fact#3: A person should be judged about his truthfulness by his demonstrated character.

Fact#4: The best way to judge someone character is by his/her actions.

Fact#5: Muhammad`s actions were appalling by ANY standards or ANY age (beheading unarmed men, selling their women and children into slavery and a million other things).

Fact#6: Just like in Boolean,

1 AND 0 equates to 0,

in the case of judging character,

``good deeds`` AND ``appalling deeds`` equates to ``appalling character``


Therefore, he was a man of bad character -> therefore he cannot be trusted about truthfulness -> therefore the Quran was made up by him -> therefore the whole Islam thing is a hoax perpetrated on some uneducated Bedouins who then unfortunately spread it around.

It is quite simple, once you have the courage to face it.

tahmed,

You’ve finally admitted an obvious point: accepting prophets is indeed a part of Quranic teachings. But you object if one follows this teaching of Quran. Your reasoning has too many gaps!

Your conflict lies not with Ahmadis, but with Quran itself. This also explains your erroneous conclusion regarding the “last prophet” issue. Once again you are trying to shoe-horn your belief into Quran.

+++

Primary purpose of a lighthouse is to give light. However, when constructing a lighthouse, it is foolish to ignore its foundations, building structure, electrical connections, and making sure that the lighthouse is facing in the correct direction.

Details matter. Calling them “secondary issues” and ignoring them is not a smart thing to do. Condemning others for following these details is foolish.

More on secondary issues

Arguably, Quranic commandments to fast during ramazan, to perform hujj, to shun eating pork are issues “secondary” to the primary teachings of Quran.

Will you now tell me that Ahmadis violate Quran because they fast, perform hujj, and shun eating pork? None of these conflict with primary teachings of Quran, agreed. And neither does accepting prophets. If you think otherwise, your conflict lies with Quran.

If you still disagree, re-think this over a rack of pork chops for dinner. Then we can discuss your issues with “secondary teachings of Quran”.

tahmed, you’re probably an ok guy, although a bit headstrong at times. At times you are blind to obvious flaws in your reasoning … [rolling my eyes as I write this].

Over and out, captain. Hope you’ll come back to planet earth soon.

Dikhlaa-iyay Laijaa kay tujhhay misr kaa bazaar
KhahaaN haheeN y`aaN koi kisi jins-i garaN kaa``

Watch this.....show

tahmed (#194):

You may consider accepting prophets of Allah a secondary issue, and that’s fine. I think you’d agree that an issue being secondary does not render the issue completely futile.

In other words, a ”secondary” issue deserves ”secondary” consideration; no more and no less. Declaring a secondary issue completely pointless is a mistake.

Central message of Quran

In my view Quran aims to forge and foster a relationship between humans and their Creator. Love for the Creator, and hence love for His creation, stems from this central theme. Delving further in this central theme leads one to the unmistakable notion of integrity, individual responsibility, and honesty.

You agree that prophets are the ”means” to this end. You also agree that in Quran Allah asks believers to accept His prophets.

For one to ignore these teachings from Allah Himself, and to render futile accepting a prophet, is inconsistent with teachings of Quran.

Crux of the discussion

This discussion started when you declared that Ahamdis violate teachings of Quran by accepting a prophet. In the following discussion you have agreed that accepting a prophet is a secondary issue in Quran. Note the contradiction in your views.

Are you suggesting that Ahmadis violate Quran by following its (“secondary”) commandments? [Note that accepting a prophet does not conflict with the central message of Quran].

If you think that by accepting a prophet an individual violates central Quranic teachings, then you should agree that Allah contradicts Himself when He asks that His prophets be accepted.

Your views are self-contradictory. When you declare Ahmadis in violation of Quran on basis of such views, you underscore your own shortcoming at understanding message of Quran.

And that`s the point I am trying to make ...

#165 by qusman1

[Re: # 147
krishna_abcd- We need some kind of a criterion.]

We can talk about ``criterion`` as long as you Muslims agree to the ``right of return`` in principle. Even if they do not get specific property, they should have the right to visit, stay in, and buy property. Also, a fair proportion of the land should be given back to them - maybe we can go by the proportion of Jews/Christians/Muslims existing back then.

The first step, however, is agreeing on principle - that Jews, Christians should be able to live with exactly equal rights in Mecca and Medina.

What do you say? You think your Islamic brethren would be enthusiatic about this ``right of return``?

Sattar2 #186 I think the central point you make in this post is acceptance of the prophets. You underline this point in the text (``Allah Himself asks believers to accept His prophets``) and also repeat in your conclusions (``You are yet to show why in Quran Allah asks people to accept His prophets. This is the crux of the matter that you continue to ignore.``).

I think the central point of the Quran is acceptance of individual responsibility for distinguishing between good and evil and for one`s actions. A prophet is merely the means to this end. And as such, questions related to prophethood are, imho, secondary to the central message of Islam which is that of individual responsibility.

Thus, I am working from a different framework than the one implicit in your post in the first instance. Secondly, on the question of whether the Prophet Muhammed was the final prophet, you and I have discussed this before and we obviously differ in our interpretation of the Quran on this question.

I would therefore most respectfully disagree with your views on this matter, as I always have. Let us therefore move on to other issues where we do have common ground - our love for Pakistan and wish to see it become a leader, not a follower in the family of nations in matters of social and political progress. A part of the solution, not a part of the problem.

echoboom: behram gave you some more advice, and concluded in his post to you that Sure, if only that helps you with your complex ridden self. You have not been contributing anything except hate towards people of Pakistan.

You respond by cutting and pasting some lengthy piece from the internet about Zoroastrianism!!

Dont worry about Zoroastrianism and America and Israel and Lebanon. Deal with your own problems first - after several years on chowk, all you have proved is what behram summarized about you above.

sattar #190 you refer to ``USA foreign policy, Israel, Blair, and the infidel martians conspiring against Muslims``

For a second you had me worried, until I saw the part about ``infidel martians``. ha! ha! And I bet those sneaky plutonians are going to try and regain full planetary status unless mullah nasrullah shoots some missiles at them.

Shall go over your previous post addressed to me and get back later on it.

Nine sects of Zoroastriansm is as bogus as your condition. Just look at your own created stupidity, there was no sect of Zoroastrians starting from the 7th. century all the way up to the 19th century, when the religion is actually dying. Those whom you show as sects are nothing other than some Indian inspired spiritual being, who had no different ideology whatsoever. For example, Meher Baba, was a resident of Poona, India, and his claim to fame was that he stopped talking, and said that he would only talk when peace comes to the world. Well, he died before his wishes were ever fulfilled.

Ilm Kshnoom was started by Meher Master Moose, an intellectual who combined the hindoo reincarnation with the Zoroastrian life after death concept that Islam has so conveniently copied. Crossing of the soul on the Chinvad Bridge, on the fourth day of death is our Zoroastrian concept.

The other arguments between Zoroastrians is basically of their calender and celebration of their New Year. These are hardly issues to be considered as Sect. We continue to pray with each other (as you might very well know that we have no congregational prayers) and allow each other to be integrated within our fold.

One sure thing that this web site is definitely missing, is an 80 year old gentleman by the name of Ali Jafferay, an Iranian Muslim, who studied in Karachi in 1950`s, who was never allowed to be converted in Karachi. Yet in 1980, he came over to California, and converted himself into the Zoroastrian fold, and has since, converted many Iranian muslims into his brand of Zoroastriansm. Most of the old world Zoroastrians can not stop this Muslim-to-Zoroastrain convert. Can you get a fatwa of ``murtad`` issued against this person?

... in addition to #188 ... it is worth mentioning that message of Isalm gained acceptance extremely rapidly when Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) entered the treaty of Hudabiyyah with the enemies. The terms of this treaty were humiliating for the Muslims. However it allowed Muslims respite from on-going hostilities and a chance to focus their resources on spreading the message of Islam.

Armed conflicts are a tremendous waste of resources - they cause immense human suffering, loss of resources, property, and much much more ... for everyone. They scar generations, for centuries to come. Thus such conflicts should be avoided at (almost) all costs. If one violates such teachings of Quran, he perpetuates an endless cycle of pain and suffering.

I would reckon that ignoring these teachings of Quran is perhaps the main cause of ummah`s suffering in the on-going global conflicts. All other factors ... USA foreign policy, Israel, Blair, and the infidel martians conspiring against Muslims come after it.

{They have their own Madressas, fully funded & their own relgious laws (Parsi-sharia applied enforced at the municipal level; same for Jews , Bahais, Christians in their majority areas}

You are once again mistaken by reading too much on these web sites. Muslim Iran under the Qajar dynasty had nothing to offer to the Zoroastrians, except for more of the same draconian Islamic laws, of paying jizya, and considering them as untouchables, and not giving them a decent living conditions.

It was a rich, a very rich, Parsee gentleman from India, by the name of Jamshed Maarkar, who visited Iran, during the last Qajar ruler reign, and asked the king to get all his jizuya tax upfront, and forgive the Zoroastrians of Yazd.

Musalman rulers have never been able to fully fund any minority educational system. And I thought that you were half intellegent, albeit we are working to expand your sunni canal.

Salim dude (#156):

A tit-for-tat approach will only cause more turmoil. Islam teaches us patience and fortitude, which are the ultimate tools to win over the enemies. Quran does allow picking up of arms under certain circumstances. However, such circumstances do not currently exist in this conflict.

I must point out one thing, which attests to the wisdom of Islamic teachings. If Ahmadis had responded to violence with violence, a lot more bloodshed would have taken place on both sides. By avoiding violence Ahamdi-Muslims are able to minimize overall casualties, as well as casualties on their own side. Such patience goes a long way to creating a situation that ultimately leads to a win-win scenario. It does take time, effort, and patience … and the rest is history.

Nine sects of Zoroasters.




from this encyclopaedia:
http://philtar.ucsm.ac.uk/encyclopedia/zorast

Much more interesting stuff..

but you love Pakistan so much, I can afford to not write much here.

So let it sleep.

The gathering at Zardgard is getting bigger every year ever since the Islamic Republic of Iran
awards grants to about 70, ooo Parsis there. I thought all Parsis had fled.

They have their own Madressas, fully funded & their own relgious laws (Parsi-sharia applied enforced at the municipal level; same for Jews , Bahais, Christians in their majority areas)

tahmed (#176):

The model you developed knocks down the idea of state, or any other institution imposing a thought-police on others. As I made clear earlier, imposing his values on others is not the job of a prophet. Let’s keep this straight.

Furthermore, let’s leave out the “religious organizations trying to help others”. That is not the issue being discussed. You are spreading the discussion too thin. Try to remain focused on the topic at hand.

The issue is accepting a person as a prophet of Allah. If this conflicts with individual responsibility in your view, your conflict lies with Quran. You are ignoring the fact that in Quran Allah Himself asks believers to accept His prophets. Tahmed, it disappoints me to no end to have to repeat such basic teaching of Quran.


Your example in #177 is erroneous.

In a legal sphere, both “conviction” and “sentencing” fall under human domain. In religious sphere, neither come under human domain.

If you think accepting of prophets interferes with individual responsibility, then so does divine attribute of Mercy. That is, if a person disobeys Allah, and Allah shows mercy towards him, Allah is in violation of the principle of individual responsibility. That is, in order to uphold “your” notion of individual responsibility, Allah cannot show mercy and must punish the sinner. This is where your rigid notion of personal responsibility inevitably leads. Same applies to humans forgiving each other.

You are yet to show why in Quran Allah asks people to accept His prophets. This is the crux of the matter that you continue to ignore.

Re:#182 by echoboom on August 29, 2006 12:41pm PT

{itnaa gussaa? }

Nahin bhai this is not gussaa, I just wanted to guss na into your sunni canal. This is all those lassis and tak taka tak behind Mama Parsi School. Remember the chapli kebab we Persians created for your ilk, uh!

{Lots & Lots of memories about Ladaks, Marolias, Tengras, Daruwallas. } Good memories, I hope. So.....what went wrong with you? Where did you learn to hate so much, eh!

{Remember someone near Ma Ma Parsi School, Aamil Colony? } Yes, I do remember a lot of folks near my place of birth and growth. But, what about this Colony? Do you mean Parsi Colony?

{Nice people these Parsis who taught me navigation; our secrets would go with me to my grave and theirs to the tower of silence} No, no, no.... you have no secrets, just lot of ``oink oink`` like a pig....and this will be exposed to the world.

We can not pollute the world hereafter with your kind of pollution.

{A lot of maiden voyages were made into those canals.} Yet, you are still worried about the sunni canal being sent to oblivion by the Quadianis, eh!. How about this Persian, who is trying to expand a little bit of your sunni canal, eh!

{P.S: The Yazgard Part is really true. Want me to post the report by the Kaahans & the grand Yazdgard ``hajj`` now possible (Post Shah)?}

Sure, if only that helps you with your complex ridden self. You have not been contributing anything except hate towards people of Pakistan.

What next?


A very Very Powerful interview of Mahathir Mohammed, former PM of Malaysia. His suggestions how to counter US & Israeli criminal behaviour & ``to bring them on their knees.``

on Islam Channel of U.K



Click to watch

Please send this e-mail to all muslims & non-muslims ``who want to bring US & Israel to their knees``.

For starters his suggestions include dumping US Dollars in $1000 batches & see it spiral down.

DO NOT MISS IT!

echosqueek: I think Behram has some good advice for you. Instead of rejecting it like a macaca, you would be well-advised to benefit from that advice. particularly:

1. Taking on a nick of ``boom boom`` shows that in real life you are a ``squeek squeek``.

2. Your anger at the ``cantonment kay kuttay`` reflects a deep resentment that you were raised in raja bazaar.

3. You are obviously awed by ``goras``. A gora converts to Islam, and you proudly announe it like the gora sahib`s bearer.

4. Your veneration of maulvis makes your talk of islam hollow.

Having said this, you are a great illustration of the complexes that lie beneath the mullah mentality. So perhaps you should not listen to behram, and continue to play the role of the macaca mullah.

Behram-Gore:
itnaa gussaa?
Lots & Lots of memories about Ladaks, Marolias, Tengras, Daruwallas. Remember someone near Ma Ma Parsi School, Aamil Colony? Nice people these Parsis who taught me navigation; our secrets would go with me to my grave and theirs to the tower of silence

A lot of maiden voyages were made into those canals.

P.S: The Yazgard Part is really true. Want me to post the report by the Kaahans & the grand
Yazdgard ``hajj`` now possible (Post Shah)?

Re: # 180 by echoboom on August 29, 2006 11:29am PT

Squeakiness aside, let me see how the suuni canal can be widened, given (as you yourself has suggested) it lies between these Quadiani cheeks. Being the few fire worshippers left, just shows to prove that we have survived the cruelty of Islamic demons for so many centuries. Yes, Islamic believers have always used the power of intimidation, because the power of faith and piousness was always lacking, ever since the death of the holy prophet.

{You are the keeper of the fire, not spreader or squanderer of it...} Fire burns all rubbish everywhere. We are here to replace your fire of hate with the fire of love and compassion. Promoters of hate should always be confronted no matter where they reside. They could be squatters on the railroads, or peeing on the streets of Karachi.

{Yezdgard beacons you..new temples with 100% funding by the Islamic Republic for the 30000 population & 100% parsi laws at municipal level enforced. }

Yeah, right!

Islamic Republic of Pakistan with its ``kashkol`` asked our community to support the influx of the panahgeers of India. Your brain cells was probably not even developed when Jinnah came begging the enlightened communities of Parsees and Christians to get the doors of their schools opened for the newly arriving immigrants.

You were probably rejected to enter in one of those schools. Is that why you have an inferiority complex with English speaking communities of Pakistan?

Islamic Republic can only confiscate other communities properties. Maybe that is the price to pay, because after all we have no Qurbani Ki Khalein to provide. Just as MQM started confiscating other people`s Khalein, so that the Salifist Jamaat-i-Islami could not get it.

{Suez canal is very important for world health; even now when air-transport is there.}

Yep, you said it. And those who are squeezing the sunni canal are also taking the glory these days. Just look at the mighty Hizbullahis, who have literally squeezed the sunni canal to oblivion, eh!

{If you try to put a sectarian spin on it } Oooh, what a threat! Your convoluted mind is blaming others for putting a sectarian spin. Is it not you who is constantly calling other pious muslims all kind of names? You who have no intellect to speak of, eh!

{then all the 9 parsi sects in a population of not more than 150000 aroung the world would put the cheeks to blush so much that they will become the Macacas red red chootarRs ( english meiN voh maza naheeN hai naa? HaiN naaN?) }

Of course, that is all that is left for goons like yourself. But, first you must validate where is this 9 sects that you speak of? Or it is just your usual grunt like a pig?

{You may continue your innocuous pranks with the titans like masadi.} Thank you, as if I needed your approval for it, eh!

If you are so bold and courageous why do you have a nic which is more toward squeaking like ``oink oink`` than roaring like a lion, uh?

Did you know why an Iranian symbol was always a lion?

One more thing... I just did a spell check on your post, and you have so many spelling errors. It just shows that you are full of emotions and no intellect. What is your problem? Are you one of those mentally unstable person that Cowasjee has written about in this Sunday`s piece?

Enjoy reading my post and hyperventilating.....

Yaar aatishband :179

You are the keeper of the fire, not spreader or squanderer of it...Yezdgard beacons you..new temples with 100% funding by the Islamic Republic for the 30000 population & 100% parsi laws at municipal level enforced.


Suez canal is very important for world health; even now when air-transport is there. If you try to put a sectarian spin on it then all the 9 parsi sects in a population of not more than 150000 aroung the world would put the cheeks to blush so much that they will become the Macacas
red red chootarRs ( english meiN voh maza naheeN hai naa? HaiN naaN?)

You may continue your innocuous pranks with the titans like masadi.

Just couldn`t resist this one:

{Quadiani2 and Quadiani32 both are,
In the memorable words of George Galloway
Two cheeks of the same arse }

which are just squeezing the sunni canal, eh!

Quadiani2 and Quadiani32 both are,
In the memorable words of George Galloway
Two cheeks of the same arse


and another pair also shares the same ``honor``:


Brown`s small change
So, which is it? Is Gordon Brown a radically different politician from Tony Blair - one who, once in charge, will bring higher taxes and favours for the trade unions? Or are the two men, in George Galloway`s annoyingly memorable phrase, ``two cheeks of the same arse``?

Our view inclines towards Mr Galloway`s. Certainly, the old friends are temperamentally different. Where Mr Blair places his faith in charisma, Mr Brown relies instead on intellect. Mr Blair believes in bringing people together by force of personality, Mr Brown believes in convincing them by force of argument. Mr Blair, one might say, represents Romanticism, Mr Brown classicism.

Yet, ideologically, they are remarkably close. Both came early to the dilemma faced by the contemporary Centre-Left, namely how to craft a political doctrine that has mass appeal within a market-based polity. Both hit on the same answer: to stand for ``fairness`` while accepting the essence of the capitalist system. Both glossed over the inconsistencies of what they were saying, confident that, provided they got the tone right, no one would much care about the details.

#176 just to complete - you say that divine mercy reduces individual responsibility. a parallel with the legal process might make clear what i am trying to say. In a criminal procedure, the ``conviction stage`` and the ``sentencing stage`` are two separate stages. Human understanding/actions are relevant to the ``conviction stage`` while divine punishment, and therefore divine mercy, is relevant to the ``sentencing stage``, i.e. on the Judgement Day.

Hope this clarifies why divine mercy does not reduce individual responsibility.

sattar2: Perhaps I can better explain myself by using a ``religious model of individual actions`` as follows:

1. Understanding: All human action starts with developing an understanding of a given situation, and thus determining what is right and wrong. Responsibility for ensuring this understanding is as follows:

Individual before God: Yes
Individual before man-made institutions (community, religious organizations, state): No

2. Action: Take action (or take no action) as appropriate. Responsibility:

Individual before God: Yes
Individual before man-made institutions: Yes

Thus, for both religious people and non-religious people, the state has no business trying to impose a ``thought police``, and religious organizations have no business trying to ``help`` the individual.

You say I am being rigid in emphasizing individual responsibility. That is for good reasons:

1. Individual Liberty vs Slavery: There are too many people who think it is their business to impose their viewpoints on others. Not discuss them, not present them - but to impose them. The maulvi will give his friday sermon to air his views as if he speaks the word of God - when in fact he has not received any such authority from God. Indeed, the Quran says in a number of places that the Holy Prophet himself is a messenger of God, and compliance with the message is not his concern. The message of Islam liberates the individual while placing the responsibility on him to act in a mature manner. Those who seek to make a living out of Islam try to impose their views on society.

2. Character Building: Individual responsbility not only frees the individual from mental slavery, it also makes him a more useful member of society. They way message of Islam has been distorted in Pakistan, the national character has been weakened rather than strengthened. The maulvi has shown the ``easy way out`` - say your prayers, do the hajj, and all your sins are washed away. You know and I know that is the truth in Pakistan for millions of people. This is why Pakistan is a follower, rather than a leader, in all aspects of constructive human endeavor in the world today. A part of the problem, rather than a part of the solution.

zeemax (#166)

When you have nothing intelligent to say, you declare the other person a non-Muslim and bail out. You are pulling a typical mullah on me here.

Similar is the case with your cousin echoboom. I addressed the issue of “jihad” that he raised against Ahmadi-Muslims. He is ignoring the issue and is now merely posting propaganda against Ahmadis.

And such is the travesty of the ummah. It is sad, but true.

tahmed (#164)

Allah raised prophets in the past and asked people to accept these prophets. None of this interfered with the notion of individual responsibility. Your basic premise is negated by Quran itself. I don`t think I can simplify this any further.

Furthermore, Quran calls Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) an excellent model for believers (33:21). It also commands Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) to tell believers: ... Say: “If you love Allah, follow me …” and also ... Say: “Obey Allah and His messenger …” (3:31,32). These are but a few examples that negate your view.

In essence, your conflict is not with Ahmadi-Muslim views, rather with content of Quran itself.

Moving on …

The notion of individual responsibility needs to be viewed carefully, understood in its proper context, and certain allowances should be made to make it workable for human beings.

However, if you stick to your uncompromising interpretation, you must admit that divine attribute of Mercy dilutes individual responsibility of humans; that the very act of forgiveness is at odds with individual responsibility of the sinner (or the criminal); and that sending a kid to school undermines his intelligence and judgment.

Common human experience in all such cases begs that the notion of individual responsibility be viewed and applied in a humane, flexible manner, and not as an isolated, unsympathetic notion trapped in a bubble to rigid ideals. Your views lean more towards latter and not the former. Human existance is far too complicated to be governed by such rigid ideals.

#171

An outstanding prologue, I must say ...

Previous #171 post from HAARETZ, Israel`s MOST respected newspaper....Canine32 please note.




www.haaretz.com

MashaAllah:

Our Mullah; the great Nasrullah

The Israelis want him as their prime-ministers.

as I`ve always maintained: THe curse upon Pakistan is the English-medium school system which divides society into haves & have-nots --as a the STATE`S unstated but glaringly obvious POLICY.
The fear that sends shivers down the spine of the UNiformed, the UNinformed, & the Deformed minds of the SLAVELAND is that somehow their servants son does not end up bossing their own son.

In Pakistan the Cantonement & Colony Canines from the OFFENCE COLONIES have talken the WORST from the Hindus & the BRittoBaboons: Formers CASTE system & Latter`s CLASS system. This has become an incestious monolith through marriages, baradari system, wives/daughters used as life-comforters for bosses, cross-connections of grade 20 & above,
brown-nosing for the manna oozing from the goraa-arses & a keen desire to auction their ammas to the first bidder in sight at the drop of their uniforms.

``We don`t know Urdu; we are english medium--is`nt that a sign that we are educated. It is more important NOT to be able to read & write URDU; even if you fail in english, my son, because THAT is how you will be judged in Slaveland``...a ``pratical`` & ``pragmatic`` slave`s
advice to the next generation of slaves...the Q33+s

---

Last update - 11:31 29/08/2006

Nasrallah for Prime Minister - of Israel

By Bradley Burston

Now it`s official. Israel is a country without a prime minister.

This had been no more than an educated suspicion until Monday night, when Ehud Olmert effectively made the announcement. Not in so many words, of course. Instead, in a long-awaited television address to the nation, Olmert took Israel`s last remaining expectations of him and kicking them in the teeth, by ducking a full-out probe into his handling of the war.

If nature abhors a vacuum, imagine how it feels at this point about Israel`s senior leadership.

The titular head of state, our model for pro