How did Hindus Become Vegetarians?

Sattar Sahib,
Your good nature and polite behavior is certainly very different from the Mirzaees we encounter on UP. However, sir, it makes me very sad that Ahmedis insist on being called Muslims and yet usually go to extremes in their profanity and insults against the very man who blessed us with Islam. May Allah protect and exalt the name of our Holy Prophet (PBUH), the Seal of ALL Prophets. Ameen.

Re: # 306

Sir ji,

Yes we will go in circles because you choose to ignore vital facts that i presented like:

1) Mulsims consider you non muslims, while consider shias as muslims, so no analogy between both.
2) Ahmadiah founders consider non ahmadis as distinct from non ahmadias.
3) Despite the faith explanation that Islam contain significant material which is like Judo/christian traditions because the original message is the same, even if I agree to you plagiarism accusation, Muhammad (PBHU) never interfered with other religion by declaring them outside of their religion (how funny it would have been), but that is the starting point of ahmadism.

So unless you do not consider above facts with open mind, the, yes sir; we'll go in circles.....

Again as far as material is concerned, I gave you the sources already. Why you are concerned as to how I got it????

So bye, and chill out and peace.....

I used to support Mirzaees' right to call themselves Muslim because I felt that Islam is an open religion that welcomes everyone. Also, I admired their emphasis on education and community awareness.

Having observed Qutubuddin Bukbuk's behavior, I started doing some research and discovered why these heretics piss off normal everyday Muslims - including Sunnys, Shias, Smileys, and even some stray Maharishis and Jehova's Witnesses.

Why would anyone insist on being a part of a religion whose founder they disrespect? Don't tell me that Mirzaees have any respect for our Holy Prophet (PBUH). On numerous occasions I have witnessed the Bukbuk boys use very profane words for him.

Secondly, as a Paki I find it reprehensible that these munaqfiqs used their positions of power to undermine Pakistan and its security. In the '71 war, for some reason (probably nepotism) Mirzaees were in command of the PAF - and we all know its dismal performance during that debacle.

In almost every part of the world, these charlatans have allied themselves against the enemies of Islam. As if this was not bad enough, they spread their phony message of "reform" to confuse the minds of young people in areas of the world where Islam has vulnerable foundations - e.g. Bosnia, sub-Saharan Africa, US, and UK.

We need to discredit these cancerous parasites and ensure that they are never mistaken as Muslims. May God punish them for their perfidy and treason.

#303 Sattar2 {"So shias and sunnis don’t have disputes … but are killing each other anyway. And you have a problem with Ahamdis? Sahib, since you raised the issue of violence, violence is indeed relevant. And you can find nothing against Ahamdis ..."}

Sattar Sahib,
Please don't use one set of misfortunes to justify a worse case of insidious damage to Islam. People fight, people kill, and people die. But it is very rare that a certain group of people start a "movement" to sabotage the very institution that they claim to be a part of.

Bhatti Sahib,

Once again: If you are concerned with violence, you cannot ignore shia-sunni issues. Note that you raised the issue of violence … but can find nothing against Ahamdis.

This stealing business has been going on for ages. If your view is that … “it is OK for Muslims to steal/borrow/copy, since their religion is the true one”, note that Ahmadi-Muslims say the same.

You did not answer my question: Where did you get the material you posted in #230? Give no hints ... but a straight answer ...

Ahmadi-Muslims could publish the records of 1974 hearings, but it will not serve any purpose. While you are at it, ponder over what the government is hiding.

+++

Looks like we are going in circles … so I’ll end this from my side, esp. if you merely repeat the same points.

Re: # 302

Urstruly brother,

I do not have any problem with sattar saab till now. I would say that he has behaved in most gentelmanly manner during whole discussion, though he does not need any certificate from me. Same goes for my other ahmadi friends with whom I lived under the same roof and broke bread with and shared moments happiness and sorrow together. (sattar saab, here is a hint as to my access to ahmadi literature).

Re: # 303

Dear Sattar saab,

Again you came up with shia/sunni issue as an arguement, which is again wrong because you choose to ignore the simple fact that muslims do not consider ahmadias part of muslim community.

Again as far as stealing identity is concerned, you again chose to ignore that islam never at any time in history chose to appropriate christian or jewish identity for itself. Further I am not at all concerned that who copies who. You can plagiarise whatever you want fron Quran and Hadith; do it; no body is going to stop you. But do not say that you are muslim because we muslim say so and say so because you elders expressly proclaimed distinctiveness of both communities...

As far as my access to ahmadi materials is concerned, it is none of your problem, sir........... If you want to find it out that material go to ahmadiah community's elders and ask them for it. Go to rabwah or london and tread your own path.

I do regret non disclosure of 1974 presentations by Government of Pakistan, but most of time we have morons at our helms of affairs. But my question is that why doesn't ahmadiah community itself publishes what they submitted in that hearing. This would help in pressing GOP to come out of the closet.

Bhatti Sahib,

So shias and sunnis don’t have disputes … but are killing each other anyway. And you have a problem with Ahamdis? Sahib, since you raised the issue of violence, violence is indeed relevant. And you can find nothing against Ahamdis ...

Regarding stealing identities: Since you are concerned about who copied who, I have put the issue in proper perspective. Arguably, Islam stole most teachings from earlier religions.

You wrote: ” …As far as plagiarism of their scriptures is concerned, well it is because for us source is the same hence this stunning similarity…”

And similarly, for Ahmadis, the source is the same … and hence they consider themselves Muslims. It is really very simple ...

Furthermore …

Ahamdis presented their views in the 1974 hearings. But the government refused to release the records of these hearings. I’ll let you wonder why …

I know you gave the sources of the quotes. But my question is that … where did you come across this material in the first place?

Re: # 301 Bhatti

Your arguments are irrefutable. When confronted like this Sattar usually presses F6 button on his keyborad, and that automatically generates a post on flying prophets, fire breathing donkeys, and talking wolves for him. Wait and see.

Re: # 300

Sattar Saab,

[Once you mention inter-sectarian violence, shia-sunni issue becomes relevant.]

No it does not become relevant because of fudamental difference in nature of shias vs. sunni issue and ahmadi vs. non ahmadi issue. As I said earlier, whatever claim shias might have they never have any dispute regarding the finality of prophethood, which is the starting point of ahmadiah doctrine. Ahmadis are not a sect of islam.


[Try to estimate how many shias have been killed by sunnis … an vice versa. To keep things simple, stick to Pakistan only and review only the past half-century. Now tell me how many people have Ahmadis killed.]

Again irrelevant because of what I explained above though I condemn the voilance.

[And don’t worry about this “identity theft” issue. Jews complain that Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) plagiarized their scriptures and stole their prophets. Christians are unhappy since Quran stole their Son of God and declared him human. This has been going on for ages … and only now you are realizing it?]

Well you cannot tell me what to worry and what not to worry as it does not concern you, and the simple reason is that WE MUSLIMS DO NOT CONSIDER YOU AS PART OF US. Why we do not consider you part of us is the distinctness of ahmadiah comunity as proclaimed by Ahmadiah founders themselves. We don't even have to go into proving it ourselves as ahmadiah founders themselves has given the answer very early in ahmadiah community's career.

As far as Jews and christians are concerned, we have a claim that our is final form of religion, but we never at any time interfered in their religious space by claiming that jews and christians cease to be jews and christians if they do not beleive in Muhammad's (PBUH) message. As far as plagiarism of their scriptures is concerned, well it is because for us source is the same hence this stunning similarity.

As far as Jesus's status is concerned, we muslims have our own beleif regardinng him but in no case we go into their church and claim it as our own nor we name our temples as church.

As far as those quotes are concerned, if you read clearly, I have given the sources. I just translated them in english but you are free to go and find out relevant material yourselves. I am sure ahmadiah community does have a collection of all those publications........


In the end would you please explain why identity theft is a minor problem.

Further, when ahmadis were declared non muslims, they were given chance to present themselves. Why not ahmadiah community disclose all the discussions they had during these deliberations.

Bhatti Sahib (#268),

Once you mention inter-sectarian violence, shia-sunni issue becomes relevant.

Try to estimate how many shias have been killed by sunnis … an vice versa. To keep things simple, stick to Pakistan only and review only the past half-century. Now tell me how many people have Ahmadis killed.

And don’t worry about this “identity theft” issue. Jews complain that Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) plagiarized their scriptures and stole their prophets. Christians are unhappy since Quran stole their Son of God and declared him human. This has been going on for ages … and only now you are realizing it?

And finally, if you did not get the quotes from a web-site, I stand corrected. So tell me … from where did you get them?

The "Super-natural" in Islam

So, Islam is all scientific and "rational"? What a BS claim. Islam is all mumbo jumbo about a "formless God" who conjures the world out of nothing.
It is a host of mumbo-jumbo about how one hen pecked husband got hallucinations in a cave and called it as extra-material, telepathic, intuitive signal from that formless god.
Islam is full of mumbo jumbo about heavens that are product of a bedoiun male fantasy of free sex and drinks for ever!!!

Can there be a more mythical and 'superstitious' than this Bedouin fantasy of a sex starved 40 year old maniac who cannot have a normal sexual relations with a dying 65 year old wife!!

So, from a non-believer's point of view, a key issue in any conversation is how far and how deeply a believer has thought about both the bases and the implications of his/her faith before stopping his/her quest for answers. And you will find dramatic, dramatic differences among people...

cheema ji, just a minor point.

You are not dealing here with "belief... without question" but "belief AFTER question(s) stop."

A faithful is encouraged to and does continually question, but then creates a PERSONAL(IZED) understanding that subsumes or transcends those questions.

So some of the faithful may choose to believe in flying billy goats quite literally, others may consider that a figurative message, while yet others may simply choose to 'ignore' that as too minor a point to worry about, and focus on major principles (which naturally will be all very different for different people).

Faith is exclusively 'intra-subjective' understanding, while humanistic doctrines all tend to aim for inter-subjective understanding.

DM # 294

Thanks. I understood fully what I wrote. I do acknowledge the distinction in so much that it exists; but based on whose claim?

One has to ask oneself this perfectly simple question; if someone comes up to me today and claims to have some message from a god based on private revelation, how does one verify that claim? Of course that verification is no longer required if one believes in it without question (Eklavya school of thought); the concept of "flying billy-goats" changes from one of sheer entertainment to that of some spiritual significance that doesn't need rational justification. Besides, my questions were exactly what you pointed out, if a message was good, why not send that same message ALL the time with the same safeguards to keep it un-corrupted?

Why don't you share your take on it?

AlephNull #287:

I didn't mean to upset your senstivities; however, I will not use kid gloves to handle religion. We have had debates about the political parties, personalities etc where people share their views about how they wish to be governed; why should I not ask tough questions about some doctrine that wants to run every aspect of our lives?

To me, all religions are equally open to critique; the reason I talk about Islam is because that is my heritage. I don't feel qualified to take the p... out of someone else's faith. And by the way, no one is "najis" in my eyes be it hindu, muslim, christian, jew or something else; they are all human beings and I resent a fellow human being described as "najis".

Re: # 294

"Any new challenges could be met through the approved process of Ijtihad, of course within the framework of the quran."

What is the "framework of Quran" you talk about?

the first principle is that you cannot question that paedophile.
the second priciple is that you cannot question his words.
the third principle is that no other person can claim his words to be correct over his ( the notion of last prophet).

that is the crux of "Frame work of Quran" - if you think you know more about it then let us know!!