In the beginning, God created the Heavens and the Earth Want to add one thing. Another very good explanation or interpretation of Islamic system of Ikhlaq can be found in Wasif Ali Wasif.

Regards!

In the beginning, God created the Heavens and the Earth So discussion turns on to be secterian. This is great misfortune with Muslims that they prefer calling other sects as ``Non-Muslims`` than realizing the real threats imposed on to them. This article where we are interacting is intended against religion as a whole. But we are discussing here that this or that person has no right to call himself a Muslim, even though he argues from Quran and Hadith.

For me, Ahmediah issue is the case of difference in interpretations of Quran and Hadith. No one is real authority on Quran and Hadith and only Allah knows the true meanings of Quran and Hadith. We humans have no right to consider only our interpretation to be perfectly true.

Quranic teachings have many dimensions. No one can understand all the dimensions. Some people will understand some few things like jihad etc. and they shall keep their focus only on these things. Some other people shall understand more tolerant teachings of Islam,, and so they shall emphasize only on those things. Some other people only shall understand the importance of offering prayers and so they shall only keep themselves busy in offering of prayers. Some other people shall understand only the Haqooq-ul-Ibad portion of Quranic teachings and so they shall devote their lives for humaniterian cause.

A balanced society needs all these types of people. For example, if you exclude jihad type people from society, soon the whole society shall become a stupid coward. And similarly if you exclude humaniterian type people, the whole society could become a jungle. If you exclude ibadat guzar people (who may not be good in Haqood-ul-Ibad),,,, soon the survival of religion could be in threats.

Similarly a progressing socioety may need ``Imam Mehdies`` also from time to time. If Islamic history is full of Imam Mehdies, then factor of Divine Will behind it cannot be overlooked. With the passage of time, whole society may fall in confusions and mis-understandings. Islam has provided its solution in the form of ``Mujadads`` and even ``Imam Mehdies``.

I have read Mirza Ghulam Ahmed`s book ``Islami Usool Ki Phoilosophy``... This is an excellent book. I have not seen any better explanation of Islamic system of Ikhlaq anywhere else so far.

I have no right to consider Ahmedies as non-Muslims. They may really be non-Muslims. but I have no concern. Sometimes non-Muslims also can teach Islam,,, better than Muslims.

Muslims should learn to pay some respect to other religious personalities as well.

Regards!

In the beginning, God created the Heavens and the Earth Re: # 366

I have not understood your point. Anyways, name of that ``popular`` Imam Mehdi was Syed Muhammad Junpoori.

In the beginning, God created the Heavens and the Earth Ok I try to tell what I know. Neither Sattar knows anything of his religion and nor mind of zeena is free of confusions.

Ahmediyat (or Qadiyaniat or Mirzaiat) is not any new religion. There is mention in Islamic scriptures that an Imam Mehdi shall come in Muslims. It is also mentioned in Islamic scriptures that Hazrat Issa shall again appear among Muslims.

Throughout Islamic history, many individuals have claimed to be that ``Imam Mehdi``. For example a ``popular`` Imam Mehdi emerged in Muslim India in the 14th century AD. He launched a ``fundamentalist`` type movement which is known as ``Mehdawi Movement``. This movement had started in the period of Lodhy Rulers and finally ended in the hands of Islam Shah Suri i.e. son of Sher Shah Suri.

Similarly Mirza Ghulam Ahmed also came up with the claim of being ``Imam Mehdi``. His claim is complicated because he has the claim of being ``Imam Mehdi`` and ``Issa`` who was to appear in Muslams, as well.

In order to legitimize his claim of being both ``Imam Mehdi`` and ``Issa`` at the same time, Mirza Sahib has interpreted Islamic scriptures in a certain way. For example he has interpreted Quranic description about Hazrat Issa in such way as to show that Hazrat Issa died a normal death and the ``Issa`` to be appeared among Muslims has only symbolic meanings.

And since Mirza Sahib has the claim of being ``Issa`` as well,, so he also faced the problem of popular Muslim belief of ``Khatam-e-Nabuwat``. In this connection, Mirza Sahib has interpreted ``Khatam-e-Nabuwat`` in such such way which is different from its popular meanings. But honestly speaking, that interpretation is not whole unique because some other prominent Muslim scholars also have interpreted it in that way.

Anyways, as I said that many individuals have claimed to be ``Imam Mehdi`` in Muslim history and many of them made many followers as well. Mirza, by far is one such ``Imam Mehdi`` who has made greatest number of followers so far, and throughout the world.

Ahmedies actually consider themselves to be true Muslims because in their minds, they believe in the true Imam Mehdi as per the instructions of Islam.

So these are the facts about Ahmediyat. Sattar seems to be ignorant of these things so I cannot say that you ppl can conform these things from him.

Regards!

In the beginning, God created the Heavens and the Earth # 348 sattar

But all Muslims are not unanimous on these beliefs. What you are telling,, mostly are the beliefs of uneducated or less educated Muslims. There are enlightened segments in Muslims who take these things in allegorical sense.

Many Muslims even do not believe that Issa is still alive in heavens. I think Sir Syed Ahmed Khan is a prominent example. And I do not think that Mr. Muhammad Gill (author) also believe in it. You can confirm from him.

Whereas many writings of Mirza Ghulam Ahmed Sahib are simply the appeal to superstitional fears of common people. Whether or not he was right in the case of Muhammadi Beghum,,, but he did harrass her and her family by his terrible ``predictions`` about her and her family. Ahmadiya Jamaat often projects many rigth predictions of Mirza Sahib. Do you not think that belief is such minor predictions are also superstitional in nature...???

Many of the Muslims had joined Ahmedia Jamaat at the time when plague broke out in Punjab and Mirza Sahib manipulated the fears of common people by his predictions that who will die of plague and who will not. Was not it appeal to superstitional beliefs of common people...???

Looking forward for explanations.

Regards!

In the beginning, God created the Heavens and the Earth Re: # 327

What is point after all...???

Issa in skies or buried somewhere...??? Wats importance of this issue...???

In the beginning, God created the Heavens and the Earth # 241 by Zeemax

[...] -- What`s your ultimate point? Or do you have conclusions which you would perhaps deem appropriate to share with us? I mean ... with your arsenal you can clobber anyone with solid arguments on BOTH science AND philosophy, but are these just for argument`s sake? Or is there something else? Are you getting at something which you will eventually tell us? -- [...]

hmm. Yes, I have to tell many things. I have a small circle of listeners as well. Yesterday, my one article was discussed with zoologists at Radio ``Open Source``.

Discussion can be listened at following link ... in the second segment, near the middle of hour.

http://www.radioopensource.org/new-zoology/

My following article was discussed:

Some Differences of Human and Animal Mind.

Regards!

In the beginning, God created the Heavens and the Earth Re: # 293

ab iss ka naam pata bhi to batao na!

In the beginning, God created the Heavens and the Earth Re: # 286

Tareef os Khuda ki jis ne inhein banaya -- aur itne roop diye:-)

In the beginning, God created the Heavens and the Earth # 266 by zeemax

yaar, iss sarri wali ka naam kia hai? kahan pe rehti hai...??? !!!!!!!!!!!

Nietzsche – the Overman and the Three Metamorphoses TahirQazi

It is nice to see your deep understanding of Philosophy. According to Will Durant, Nietzsche`s Philosophy starts by first fully accepting the Philosophy of Kant. Obviously Darwin was not the only influence on Nietzsche. Secondly I was also not talking about Nietzsche`s idea of Superman. I was talking about his ethics. And again it is the assessment of Will Durant that he derived his ethics out of so-called survival of fittest principle. My personal opinion was that it was a hasty derivation by Nietzsche.

If, for argumentation sake, we accept this survival of fittest principle, even then I do not accept any valid possibility of derivation of system of ethics out of this principle.

Survival of fittest is a ``unconscious`` phenomenon. Ethics is applicable to only ``conscious`` behaviour. A lion who kills an innocent animal, acts as per its natural biological instincts. Lion`s behaviour is pure instinctive and therefore ``unconscious``. Ethics means to take decisions, or to act as per suitable rational principles that properly differentiate between ``good`` and ``bad`` in various situations and circumstances.

Ethics is a conscious behaviour which is based on suitable rational principles. Any unconscious behaviour should not have become the basis of human ethics. Nietzsche had committed this mistake.

Your words:

Theory of Natural Selection paraphrased as Survival of the Fittest to explain and to provide justification for capitalist mode of social organization, obviously, has nothing to do with Darwin’s biological theory.

The right sequence has been like as below:

Survival of fittest (unconscious behavior) >>> Wrong application of unconscious behaviour to human ethics by Nietzsche >>> Justification for capitalistic (cruel) mode of social organization.

Secondly, I was told by someone that Allama Iqbal`s ``shaheen`` is not different from Nietzsche`s ``superman``. I myself however have not confirmed it.

Anyways, thanks.

Regards!

Nietzsche – the Overman and the Three Metamorphoses correction:

Internal* and external ...

Nietzsche – the Overman and the Three Metamorphoses Nietzche is supporter of ``might is right`` approach. Thanks for presenting his views about Over Man and Metamorphoses. The idea of getting liberation from external and external thresholds is probably the same ``freedom from objective standards``, in the philosophy of Existentialism.

He is having accurate opinion that purpose of organized education system is just to produce workers for the already established social and economical system. Individuals are kept away from superior knowledge of self and reality.

It is his approach of ``might is right`` which is trying to convert a camel into lion. Nietzche was inspired by Darwin`s Survival of Fittest Principle. This ``principle`` was actually at the peak of its popularity in his time. So there is less surprize to see that he has hastily derived his ethics out of Darwin`s faulty principle.

Regards!

In the beginning, God created the Heavens and the Earth Re: # 238

In order to know for sure, you can stand on a Railway Track,,, till the fast speed train comes and you feel yourself moving with the speed of 150 km/hrs in a single step from the previous static position. Plz don`t be afraid ... just kidding!!!!!

In the beginning, God created the Heavens and the Earth # GT

You need to do a lot more work than convincing idiots like me in chowk. There are excellent journals in philosophy which publish work on logical systems. You may want to send your stuff there, take the comments of the referees seriously and thereby advance your work. Finally, you may end up with a cogent and complete system of analysis. And then, I shall proudly let my grandchildren know that I had once communicated with you!

Hey ... I am very selfish. Here I am only increasing the volume of my work in such a hot and cold environment. Hahaha....!!!!! By the way ... it is also a characteristic of Philosophy that most people really do not understand it. People really had not understood atomic theory of Democritus in his times. Sometimes even science community fails to understand pure experimental works as well. Mendal had discovered laws of hereditary on the basis of fine experimental and mathematical works. But science community of his time had rejected his work. His work could get any recognition only about a century after his death. There is lesson for common audience and general science community. They should listen carefully to those who are doing some original works in their times. Otherwise time will blame them.


``There cannot be infinite discrete numbers between 0 and 1``.

You may well be right. But if I take rationals to be discrete, as I can count them through a one to one and onto mapping with the set of integers, then there are indeed infinite discrete numbers between 0 and 1. So your frame of reference and mine are very different. We cannot discuss much and can only agree to disagree on our frames of references.


I already have dealt with the issue that a smaller and a larger ``line`` have exact one to one correspondendence between their respective number of ``points``. I made diagrams to see if really there was such one to one and onto mapping of points or not.

The actual mistake in official theory lies in the definition of ``point`` in Geometry. Geometry considers ``point`` as a ``space less`` particular location. Since this ``point`` is space less, so it is having no ``length`` at all. The same Geometry considers ``line`` as a linier combination of ``points``. The same Geometry also considers that a line possesses a non-zero length but it doesn’t possess any width. But if the constituents of line i.e. “points” had no length at all then how just the combination of those “points” could result in any non-zero length…???

Anyways, this definition of “point” may be right definition in pure Abstract Mathematics. But this is not right for our physical world because there can be no space less physical entity in our spatial world. A ``physical point`` would be having some ``space``. In fact, all the ``points`` would be having same or uniform non-zero space. Let`s say the length of one point is 1 and the length of a finite line is 100. It means that this line has only and only 100 (discrete) points. Points of this line CANNOT have one to one and onto mapping with the points of that line whose length is 200 or infinite.

What is the mistake of official theory…???

The official theory actually draws one to one and onto mapping not between the individual points of a shorter and a longer (or infinite) line. It actually draws one to one and onto mapping between fractional parts of individual points of shorter line with the complete individual points of longer or infinite line.

Now I give you a task. Consider the “length” of a “point” to be 1. Now take two lines. First line being shorter and second line longer.

Length of first line = 100

Length of second line = 200

In this way, there are 100 “points” in first line and there are 200 “points” in second line. Now try to draw one to one and onto mapping between all the points of first line with all the points of second line. Be careful that do not take fractional or overlapping parts of individual points of shorter line!

Believe me, you will not be able to do it, because it is an impossible task. So come out of the fantasy of old Abstract Mathematics where length of “point” is zero and sum of many zeros (i.e. a “line”) is non-zero positive length. In a physical world, any real “point” will be having non-zero positive length.

This is not the case of just difference of frames of references. It is a matter of clear-cut mistake of 0 + 0 + 0 = 3

Regards!

In the beginning, God created the Heavens and the Earth # 195 by zeemax

khurram/khuram,

I don`t know which one is which because it`s tough to find that double `r`, but one of you had asked I think Dr. Sohail (to which he never replied) whether he thought that the raindrop on his windshield traveled at the same speed as the windshield. Is that correct?

I shall be grateful at what the answer is ... Thanks. :)

I think it should be me ... with single r. But the question was put to Gill Sahib, not Dr. Sohail Sahib.

I am having the opinion that the speed of raindrop suddenly changes, in single discrete step; from lets say zero to 100 km/hrs when it collides with the windscreen of a moving car.

Gill sahib had tried to oppose my opinion but without any solid or to the point reason. So I am still stict to my opinion.

Regards!