Justice for Half a Man

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

Urstruly,

There`s so much to say but I will resort to `excellent job`.

Always had my doubts over the two-women versus one-man witness theory. Now it seems clear that the theory is not fallacious at all.

You are a great writer.

Urstruly,

Islam is not a Trade Mark … that your mullah can claim ownership of. Your mullahs also insist that Issa-ibne-Marriam will one day descend from the clouds. If you cannot explain your viewpoint, it remains baseless and idiotic … although you may call it Islam … I wouldn’t mind (wink).

In any case, your mullahs cannot take away the right of others to understand Islam as it makes sense to them. Unless of course … you bow to the hierarchy of mullahs … and continue feeding them haleem and biryani for their divine blessings …

Oh, btw … it was not the gay Catholics, rather the fanatic Catholics … who shed the blood of countless innocents. I hope you see the irony …

Manotlives;

The question whether Quadianism is rational or irrational is irrelevant. It might be a religion that could be far superior than Islam. We as Muslims do not dispute that. We however, dispute that it violates one of the core beleif in Islam, that is, finality of Prophet Mohammad (pbuh); and that makes it a religion different from Islam. In Islam there is no such thing as ``I am a proud gay and a catholic``. We don`t make such compromises. If it makes us lose the congregation then so be it; if it makes us lose the ``chanda`` then so be it; and if it makes us look intolerant then so be it. We have to answer before God, not the congregation. Tolerance, by the way is a two way street. I do not support victimization of Quadianis by state even if it is a one way street. But I have as much right to beleive as much as they have.

Dear Urstruly,

I don`t think the issue should be whether Ahmadis should declare themselves non-muslims or not... why is it such a misery for you if they call themselves Muslims.. from what I know of you, you are generally a tolerant person... while you might say that you don`t agree with them and surely you don`t with good reason, still why infringe on another person`s right to claim whatever they want to claim?

Speaking as the son of a Qadiani Ahmadi, I have found the Ahmadi belief about MGA to be quite irrational. But what is more disturbing for me is the unnecessary victimization of a community which is extremely honest , hardworking and patriotic. This also is a fair assessment.

-Y

Urstruly,

Taking shots at Ahamdis does not validate your arguments. Nice try, but sorry.

If Quran was relevant to you, you’d abide by its commandments on adultery. Clearly that is not the case.

You claim that Prophet Mohammad made grave errors, which were out of line with Quranic pronouncements. Your views … not mine. This fits the profile of a blundering prophet, and shows your lack of respect for him.

Quran fully supports continuation of prophethood. I have Arabic references of “khattam” that prove this. This is also supported by several ahadith that you ignore. Your problem, not mine.

I pledge allegiance to Quran and Prophet Mohammad. You pledge allegiance to translations of conflicting, alleged words of the Prophet, narrated and recorded over centuries, with no divine guarantee of protection, interpreted and presented by stupid, dishonest, anti-Islamic mullah (your words, not mine). The difference is obvious, and it should be.

I’ll believe you and your ullema when your Issa descends from the clouds. Let`s fact it, this will never happen ... so never mind.

Sattar #168

Qura`n is absolutely relavent if you re-read the Ref# 6 of the article. Prophet Mohammad (pbuh) practiced Qura`n to the letter t. Verses 6:83-90 attest that. I would also prefer the interpretation of verses 6:83-90 as it was done by Prophet himself thru his actions than it is done by you.

I never uttered such disparaging remarks about prophet as you have attributed to me. Is this what mirza taught to his adherents - slander & lies? Is this your religion?

I understand the reason for your frustration with Ahadith and Ullema. Qura`n in no uncertain terms proclaims that Prophet Mohammad (pbuh) is the last of Prophets and then Prophet himself elaborated this divine revelation in more than 450+ ahadith from every angle possible. So you must discredit ahadith.

All this misery will go away if you stopped thinking yourself as Muslim and start considering yourself to the adherent of a new religion started by Mirza Ghulam Ahmad Quadiani. If you think you are Muslim then you must pledge your allegiance to Qura`n and the Prophet Mohammad and no one else.

Urstruly,

In other words, Prophet Mohammad (pbuh) openly violated Quranic injunctions! At least, this is in-line with your earlier conclusion that … Mohammad was a blundering prophet.

Quran is meaningless for you, since you only follow recorded books of what the prophet allegedly said. Do review the “disturbing hadith” when you get a chance, and ponder over it.

I’ll stick with Quran, the Al-Furqan, the Discriminator between right and wrong, the Word of the Almighty that He has vowed to protect. I am not aware of any promise by Allah Almighty to protect the actual sayings of the dear Prophet (pbuh), and therefore choose to follow Quran in case of such conflicts. Call me a non-Muslim if that turns you on.

As for the jurists for the various fiqah, they are also united in their belief in two thousand year old prophet residing above clouds and giant, fire breathing donkeys, and what-not. They claim to base all this nonsense on ahadith as well … you know!

sattar # 166

And all I am saying is that the way Holy prophet (pbuh) has interpretted Qura`n in this regard is different from your interpretation. As a Muslim I would give preference to the interpretation of the messenger himself over yours. Same thing was done by the jurists of the five fiqah - they all preferred Holy Prophet`s interpretation over a literal interpretation.

Urstruly,

All I am saying is that … Quran clearly specifies lashes for adultery. Simple!

Sattar # 164

I didn`t quite understand your point. Are you saying that Mullahs have invented Namaz, zakaat, and rakaat also by themselves? Please explain.

Urstruly,

I explained the difference in the next sentence of the post. Read, and you shall discover …

Or do you want me to repost? Although that would be totally unnecessary …

Sattar

Please elaborate on the differnce between prayer and killing for adultery. Please keep in mind that we are talking about the origin of both.

Urstruly,

I earlier responded to ref #6, and explained its correct interpretation. You continue to ignore the fact that Quran specifies lashes for adultery. This proves that your interpretation in ref #6 is incorrect.

There is a critical difference between “prayer” and “killing for adultery”. Quran clearly specifies lashes for adultery … and that should’ve been a clue for you. You and your mullah cannot ignore these clear commandments ... and invent things on your own.

Sorry pal ... your reasoning lacks substance.

Sattar

So instead of going in circles … why don’t you adopt a straightforward approach … and show me … where does Quran prescribe death for adultery. Quran is supposed to be the first gateway … you know.

Here we go again. You already forgot Ref#6 in the article? Wasn`t that what started this whole discussion? I qualified all three gateways plus showed the consensus.

Now I know that you would say that Qura`n does not specifically stipulate rajm for zina; but then please explain to me where does it say anything about how to perform Azan, the rakaat (units) of prayers, the rate of zakat, the wordings in the prayers, and many postures in the prayers, and what to say during each posture in the prayers..... and the list just goes on and on.

Urstruly,

The volume of mullah’s work … does not make up for lack of quality. Volumes have also been written on a two thousand year old prophet residing in the sky … and one-eyed monster riding the giant, fire-breathing donkey … and similar nonsense. You are rambling once again.

Without speculating on their motives … I would merely comment that … the jurists would have done better by consulting Quran. It looks like they did not. Sorry … their fault, not mine.

So instead of going in circles … why don’t you adopt a straightforward approach … and show me … where does Quran prescribe death for adultery. Quran is supposed to be the first gateway … you know.