Terrorism Accused: Is Legal Aid Justified?

Re: # 393
hari...
the JamIa Milllia arabia islamiya....etc. academic ( I do not know the proper term to use for islamic institutions) head is not asking Govt. to pay the money....it will collect the money from the teachers/mullahs of that govt. funded institution....the problem is these mullahs get paid from our income tax money...the best option should have been to shut these institutions...kick out the students and teachers to arabia (teachers) or pakistan( students)...they can learn and research islam/barbarism better way........

Madani sahib #390: Qibla, I was not using these as examples of religion-in-action when i talked about the christ walking on water, the hindu levitating on land, and the prophet flying to heaven. I was doing the opposite. That is, I was using these as examples of myths and superstitions being promoted as religion.

#383 cheema sahib: OK. thanks for the apology. this is the second time i have had to object to this. Like I said, I am glad to discuss anything with anyone as long as we can "disagree without becoming disagreeable". What is the point of discussing anything if you are going to end up in "mooka baazi" (or the verbal equivalent)over the issue?

Hard though it may seem (given the personal insults as well as insults to other religious/ethnic communities littering chowk), there are many people on chowk with whom one can have a discussion where one can "disagree without becoming disagreeable" - Hamidm, Dost Mittar, Anil, CliftonBridge, Majumdar, and (although still new to chowk) Pinku.

Re: # 395

.... and if you can't even explain your own existence without "another 'preceeding' existence" ... then what came "before" that "other existence"!

Re: # 394; shah ji
[[i dont believe in magic therefore i reason that koi to hai nazame hast chala raha hai]]

now that is a cop out sir and you know it! .... it seems it is not I who believes in magic here ... anyhow, clearly you can't present a more valid argument than just say what you said!!

take care

Re: # 392

i missed what u say in the past post so

'and before that "first creature ever created", was God a Creator? if yes, what had he created, since there was NO creation! ... and if he wasn't, then he WASN'T a Creator then, was he? so the question was, "was His role as 'God' complete?"

U jump to your own conclusion .Do you believe in magic .You suggesting even the precreature elements just was pulled out of hat .

i dont believe in magic therefore i reason that koi to hai nazame hast chala raha hai ......

As usual, the pseudo-secularists frame the discussion in such a way that everybody is arguing whether legal aid is a right for the defendants.

The issue is totally different. The Vice Chancellor is planning to spend the University's money defending the students.

Why? It is not his personal money for him to spend as he pleases. If he wants, let him open up a separate fund and ask his faculty, students and the public to subscribe so that the accused can have proper legal representation. For him to spend money entrusted to him for educational purposes should not be used for non-educational purposes and this is what Rajnath Singh is pointing out and which is what the pro-Islamist thugs like Shridhar Naik are trying to obfuscate.

Re: # 391; shah ji
[[god is metaphor used by' unlike godless ppl. like you'
When there were no humans on the planet god was there .]]

a metaphor indeed sir! on that we both agree ... so when humans weren't "created", God was on his own ... it that right? please read my earlier post carefully (I don't think you did) ... I am NOT referring to humans here ... I am speaking of "the first 'creature' ever created" ... what was there BEFORE that point in "time"?? that was the question sir

.... and before that "first creature ever created", was God a Creator? if yes, what had he created, since there was NO creation! ... and if he wasn't, then he WASN'T a Creator then, was he? so the question was, "was His role as 'God' complete?"

Re: # 388


'So if you believe in god you have reason as bilions of ppl and if you dont there migt be another billion who dont believe there is any god ..God less' i said

you choose to be godless .there are billions in u r company .

God was not CRRATED one fine morning by any one religin Hinduism judeaism ..z ism y ism ...

god is metaphor used by' unlike godless ppl. like you'

When there were no humans on the planet god was there .
you think man preceded god .

Re: # 389
Dr Cheema one should believe in god.
There are many things we can not understand or repeat so I get confused.
Like one said before ( Mr. T) Hindu can float in air,Christ can walk on water and Messenger of god flew to haven on white force without engine without horse power.
These are true things and they can be explained only if you believe in god. Best thing is once you believe then all things are clear and appear logical.

by the way, that is only part of the question .... what comes after depends on the answers I get ... anyone can join in hands should you wish to!

Re: # 387; shah ji and masadi

I have a question for both of you .... what existed before the "very first creation" by God? did God exist then? and if the answer is yes, he obviously hadn't "created" anything by that stage .... so without "creation", was God's role 'complete'? since he wasn't a "creator" at that particular point in time.

This is not directed to any three of you .

Was Ghalib better than he would be b/c he took liberty of
god .

Why one would shy from calling oneself Aethist Agnostic if god seves no purpose

Can you name any thing which does not have alternative of Car can be replaced by bus Alopathic nmedicine can be replaced by herbal hakimi natural therapies People using these will give reasons Actually each one can make a case for himself .

Poet utter things that they themselves dont understand .Ghalib just used words reaarenged it to suite more the 'meter; that has to be in all poet /shayeri

How can Ghalib be expert on god .

So if you believe in god you have reason as bilions of ppl and if you dont there migt be another billion who dont believe there is any god ..God less .

Those who dont want god latch on to Science .

God full people think Science is at best no better than godfullness .

So god has some guides or (instructions )

Science has more laws instruction conditions {that it wil be bilion times more than any ..ammended by aqal... guides of god .Dont be biggot god can be compatible

Proponents of the church of WMW, as tahmed sahib would not know these things discussed in 385, for them detection of whiteness and nearness to that standard is the prima facia evidence of the existence of God....

Have a nice day and take it easy,

TNI Masadi

akcheema writes quoting ghalib "jabke tujh bin nahin koee maujood; phir ye hangaama ai Khuda keya hai"

And the point being? This is one ignorant couplet, the hangama is because of concsious beings who have been given free reign to discover the truth, which is being usurped by their fellow conscious beings by bounding them with a restricting structure. So if lack of hangama means there is one God, then going back in history when there was no hangama of conscious types, a long age passed, as says the Quran, when humankind was not a thing mentioned or discussed, then did God become multiple only when humans originated? You and ghalib (the ignoramus) are just reifying the misguidance of human struggle with their reasoning potentialities to arrived at preformed conclusions that represent your biases alone.

Regarding the other verse, existence is not dependent on an ability to see, or detection through your other sense organs, existence can be deduced indirectly as is the case with scientists arriving at the conclusion of the vast majority of the universe being dark energy and dark matter...

Now, get a life and an education....

TNI Masadi

#375 Posted by tahmed32 on

[[pinku sahib(or sahiba?):]]
beech ke maan le bhai..., sahib sahiba ka kya, when we are talking about God and his messengers.... That is ok, I will rephrase my comments later, but as akcheema says it is not good to repeat it here anymore... because you are in no mood to read what I am writing, not even the "bold" lines:-) I will try to convince you later why a speaking God of Kuran and what he speaks was never needed (and is evil when considered forever).... I will also try to define what "common sense" is... and where it comes from and where it goes???