| Answering FaithFreedom.org |
| DEBATE: Suhail Khalid VS Iandonlyi (FFI Member) |
iandonly posted:
Suhail Khalid,
Okay I diddnt know that you needed proof for simple stuff which is obvious, i.e., the fact that the verse is still unfair to Muslims
does not need proof. Just to remind you that we agreed upon this beforehand that things that are obvious do not require proof.
But anyway you said "Bring me any Islamic Scholar who negates the way of interpretation that I actually did". Why do I have to
bring it from Islamic Scholar why cant it be Scholar of Islam? I hope you can see the difference, Or you mean to say that only
Islamic scholar can give right definition and not a non-islamic scholar of Islam? And let's not even count Ali Sina.
By the way what proof did you yourself bring to prove your point about the verse? The 10 or something different translations
of the same verse? And I said the verse is still racist even if we take your definition, is it not? And then you said that the verse
is actually a continuation of the whole chapter. And I said I dont care the issue is verses like that are causing problem. Are
they not?
I am sorry bud I am not going to play that game. Things that are obvious do not require proofs like people dont need to tell me
in broad day light that sun is somewhere upthere and I the same from people.
And my last point is that you said something like or similar to "The non-muslims in those days were the aggressors we were
just responding" or "It was non-muslims who disregarded the revealation". Well in the world of freedom that is awfull logic,
people can disregard whatever they rightfully want. Also, the other difference is whatever the non-muslims were doing in those
days is not written in religion but what Muslims did is and so non-muslims are not acting like the non-muslims in those days but
Muslims are. I understand that it was the age of barbarians but non-muslims grew out of it but scores and scores of your folks
diddnt. And my proof on this is the beheading you see on TV(I hope that is proof enough or do I actually need to show you a
muslim beheading a non-muslim? If yes, sorry I cant and I wont and I dont have heart for it). There are many terrorist
organizations in the world, do you see them beheading on TV like your fellow Muslims are doing in Iraq and Afghanistan?
It seems you are from England and you grew up there, let me ask, did you ever hear IRA beheaded people?
My Response:
Dear brother iandonlyi,
Hoping that you are in the best of your health by the grace of God.
Okay I diddnt know that you needed proof for simple stuff which is obvious, i.e., the fact that the verse is still unfair to Muslims
does not need proof. Just to remind you that we agreed upon this beforehand that things that are obvious do not require proof.
What you are labeling a simple ‘stuff’ as an observable phenomenon is actually going against the rules of literature. No author
is going to concur to your theory if you quote him ‘out of context’. Follow my examples where I have quoted you ‘out of context’
and portrayed the actual perception of your sayings upside down. It also depicts that your statement ‘I will leave and debate is
over’ can very much befall to a justification for me as your endorsement of ‘defeat’. Brother! Can I abscond from this debate
and aver my win over you? Are you going to assent to my departure from this dialogue on the basis of your ‘out of context’
declaration? No, such a practice from my side is actually a devious act that is not going to be swallowed by any sane soul on
the face of the earth. Isn’t it brother?
Similarly, the entire chapter is actually about a glad tiding of a victory from God to his Prophet (Peace be upon him) and if you
draw out a single verse from the chapter then you can have an assortment of inferences to concur with. However, when it is
put back to its respective chapter then it gives you a different perception. Therefore, one has to pursue the rules of literature
in order to have an explicit gist. Again, follow the examples above where I have quoted you ‘out of context’.
But anyway you said "Bring me any Islamic Scholar who negates the way of interpretation that I actually did". Why do I have to
bring it from Islamic Scholar why cant it be Scholar of Islam? I hope you can see the difference, Or you mean to say that only
Islamic scholar can give right definition and not a non-islamic scholar of Islam? And let's not even count Ali Sina.
If a person is so obtuse in such a way that he is not competent enough to merely comprehend the difference between quoting
‘in context’ and ‘out of context’; then it is an obligatory prerequisite to bring an Islamic Scholar for apposite understanding and
afford him as evidence. If you require learning about plants then you refer to botanist. Similarly, if you are eager in studying
animals then you refer to zoologists. In the same way if you want to learn about Quran you refer to Islamic Scholars. You never
confer with physicists if you want to learn something about chemistry. That is the reason we include Ali Sina in the category of
brainless twits as this fraud idiot does not even know Arabic and he is going about doing his own perverted interpretations of
the Holy Quran. What do you label such people who follow the understandings of ‘Ali Sina’? Definitely they can also be termed
as stupid too. You are asking for definition and interpretation of Arabic literature from a person who is not aware of the
language. Such a laughable notion! Isn’t it brother? And in turn, you are denying all the Islamic Scholars who are well versed
in Arabic literature and Quran, over populace like Ali Sina. Is this logical brother? In simple language, you are rebuffing all the
Scientists who say that ‘Earth is round’ over a person who is not even a scientist and cite that ‘Earth is flat’. You will definitely
injure your reputation if you follow such a person.
By the way what proof did you yourself bring to prove your point about the verse? The 10 or something different translations
of the same verse? And I said the verse is still racist even if we take your definition, is it not? And then you said that the verse
is actually a continuation of the whole chapter. And I said I dont care the issue is verses like that are causing problem. Are
they not?
I have brought my proof in an attire of unfussy and acceptable logic. Ask any literate person if I am speaking illogically.
Quoting ‘out of context’ is never pleasing for any soul on this earth. Try it with someone else who is erudite and let’s see how
he responds. No doubt that he is going to label you as a fraud on an allegation of misquoting him. Reminding you, that I still
have not brought my other evidences in support of this precise verse. I have more ammunition in my bunker to bombard you
extraneously. However, what is the use of bringing other evidences when you are not deliberately agreeing to acceptable
logic? Bringing in other evidences is only going to portray myself as a person who is trying to clutch a straw for survival in an
ocean. Though, I am not going to do that. I will just keep you sticking to my first evidence until you agree or I back off. You
have a full right not to agree to my logic; but in order to defy me you have to bring your logic. If you fail to bring one then world
will label you as 'illogical'. Otherwise, we will leave our conversation and let the readers decide for themselves.
I am sorry bud I am not going to play that game. Things that are obvious do not require proofs like people dont need to tell me
in broad day light that sun is somewhere upthere and I the same from people.
You have to play this ‘game’ otherwise there is no other way out. Defy my logic with your logic. Defy what I have proven to you
that you are quoting this precise verse ‘out of context’ with something very logical to defend with.
There are some verses in the Holy Quran whose meanings and interpretations are straight forward and easy to understand.
Such verses do not require any connoisseur for construal rather they can be understood by populace by far. Please find
below some of those verses.
“Say: He is Allah, the One and Only;” (Quran 112:1)
“Allah, the Eternal, Absolute;” (Quran 112:2)
“He begetteth not, nor is He begotten;” (Quran 112:3)
“And there is none like unto Him.” (Quran 112:4)
All of these verses are simple and straightforward in their comprehension and do not require any expert for their exegesis.
You can easily quote them ‘out of context’ as all of these verses do not require pre and post verses for support in order to
understand them easily. Your example of ‘sun in a broad day light’ easily befits such verses.
And my last point is that you said something like or similar to "The non-muslims in those days were the aggressors we were
just responding" or "It was non-muslims who disregarded the revealation". Well in the world of freedom that is awfull logic,
people can disregard whatever they rightfully want. Also, the other difference is whatever the non-muslims were doing in those
days is not written in religion but what Muslims did is and so non-muslims are not acting like the non-muslims in those days but
Muslims are.
You presented yourself as an ideal example of a person who quotes ‘out of context’ and you have proven me truthful. Thank
you very much brother. You uttered, “It was non-muslims who disregarded the revealation”. Now have another look at the
verse:
“They are the ones who denied Revelation and hindered you from the Sacred Mosque and the sacrificial animals, detained
from reaching their place of sacrifice.” (Quran 48:25)
If you intimately look at the translation it is evidently unfolding unbelievers as the ones “who denied Revelation” AND “hindered
you from the Sacred Mosque” AND “the sacrificial animals, detained”. Pay close attention to the word “AND”. In English
grammar it is called coordinating conjunction and its function is to join two or more clauses. In this particular verse it is emitting
different qualities and characteristics of unbelievers at the time of Prophet Muhammad (Peace be upon him). Therefore these
unbelievers were not three distinct groups of people; but they were all same with all these characteristics. If Quran were to use
“OR” as a coordinating conjunction; then brother you would have a chance to nail us down. But by the grace of Allah, you do
not have anything to hit us back. Therefore, Muslims naturally became ‘hard’, ‘strong’ or ‘harsh’ towards unbelievers because
they hindered them from entering the Sacred Mosque and they detained their animals from reaching the place of sacrifice. It
was never because unbelievers reject the revelation; since Quran clearly states, “Unto you your religion, and unto me my
religion” (Quran 109:6). And, you have quoted me 'out of context'. I am sure you have percieved of what actually happen
when you quote 'out of context', by now.
For your kind information, this precise verse is only depicting ‘some qualities’ of unbelievers as there are other verses in
the Holy Quran that describe them more densely as one of the ferocious beasts towards Muslims. However, I am
not going to incorporate such verses in my talk right now as I do not have a sickness likewise Ali Sina to go out of track of what
we are actually discussing right now.
I understand that it was the age of barbarians but non-muslims grew out of it but scores and scores of your folks diddnt. And
my proof on this is the beheading you see on TV(I hope that is proof enough or do I actually need to show you a muslim
beheading a non-muslim? If yes, sorry I cant and I wont and I dont have heart for it). There are many terrorist organizations in
the world, do you see them beheading on TV like your fellow Muslims are doing in Iraq and Afghanistan?
Brother! I am not inscribing anything apropos to your statements, as much of it is already been replied by me in earlier posts
and rest is a different subject.
It seems you are from England and you grew up there, let me ask, did you ever hear IRA beheaded people?
IRA? Or is it ‘Catholic Militants’? Brother! I would really like to label it from Muslim’s perspective. Please do not get into such
subjects, as you are not going to win in this particular topic as well. Stick to what we are discussing right now.
Note: Brother! You may perceive some long delays in my replies to your queries, as I am working on a new layout of my
website and I am replying to some other goons of Ali Sina on the forum, in chorus. Please bear with me.
Take good care of yourself. Hoping to hear from you soon.
Kindest regards.
iandonlyi posted:
Suhail,
Okay you want to discuss a topic logically even when to me or to any person who is not in denial it is clear. Good enough.
Let's go as deep as we can.
I had brought this verse from somewhere.
"Muhammad is God's apostle. Those who follow him are ruthless to the unbelievers but merciful to one another."Victory 48:29
And then you brought in the following.
Pickthall - Muhammad is the messenger of Allah. And those with him are hard against the disbelievers and merciful among
themselves.
Yusuf Ali - Muhammad is the apostle of God; and those who are with him are strong against Unbelievers, (but) compassionate
amongst each other.
Hilali-Khan - Muhammad (SAW) is the Messenger of Allah, and those who are with him are severe against disbelievers, and
merciful among themselves.
Shakir - Muhammad is the Apostle of Allah, and those with him are firm of heart against the unbelievers, compassionate
among themselves
Sher Ali - Muhammad is the Messenger of ALLAH. And those who are with him are hard against the disbelievers but tender
among themselves.
Arberry – Muhammad is the Messenger of God, and those who are with him are hard against the unbelievers, merciful one to
another.
Palmer – Mohammed is the Apostle of God, and those who are with Him are vehement against the misbelievers,-
compassionate amongst themselves;
Rodwell – Muhammad is the Apostle of God; and his comrades are vehement against the infidels, but full of tenderness
among themselves.
Sale - Mohammed [is] the apostle of God: And those who are with him are fierce against the unbelievers, [but] compassionate
towards one another.
Just tell me in one line or elaborate upto a book full on what do you find as a difference between the verse I brought in and
translations you brought in? So let's take very small steps. I thought we were grown up and was expecting higher level but let's
talk primary.
Also, tell me in one line if you think this verse is unfair to non-muslims or not? Obviously you can elaborate a book full but
busy people like us can help each other by talking upto the point. And since we are talking about asking literate person about
things. Make sure you ask a literate person before you respond. But then you will go back to your point that this verse is part
of whole chapter. Find, read on...
Let me tell you about your argument that any literate person would find me silly if you tell him that I dont care about whole
chapter just the verse. The truth is you are right. But do you know why I said that? Because I do not want to bring good verses
in Koran into this when we are talking about a bad verses. Have I not said beforehand? But now you want to bring in whole
chapter or whole Koran it is fine by me. Koran being dragged into this is your fault not mine. So here I go....
Okay fine so this verse might be part of whole chapter about victory, so what? Does that give Muslims the right to be unfair
with non-muslims? I mean you were the ones following will of God... Is that how the will of your God is? Isnt God suppose to be
mercifull to ALL? I thought we are all God's children so now Muslims are better children of God? What a rip off.
And from my whole post you are probably saying this guy doesnt know what he is talking about and my answer to that is "I do,
you just dont want to understand my point" But since we are talking primary let me say it in simple terms. If Muslims were really
following will of God then as far as I know, defence is right of any animal so God would not say no to that. But these kind of
verses are offensive. Do you know the difference between offence and defence? This is a serious question. Do you know that
offence is bad and defence is good? I hope you do.
Now you will obviously come back and say that Muslims were only defending. Well I got news for you my friend. This verse is
not at all about defence and neighter is the chapter, it is more about revenge. Also this chapter is more like either you agree
to what we say or we will be harsh with you and kick your ***. That is called hegemony my friend not defence.
So now verses like these are not defensive but offensive. Please read up all you can on defence and offence and then read
this verse again. You will see what I am saying.
Another way of proving my contention that this verse and chapter is offensive is that we take ground situation. Are Muslims
offensive or defensive in general? You will obviously not agree but in any situation between Muslims and non-muslims the
offensive side is almost always muslim. If they are not the ones who started first they create enough bloodshed to be given
any credit. So let's take ground result of Islamic bad verses.
Maybe you dont agree with my argument of muslims being offensive but you see humans in general dont like offence. If a
worst person is being a judge between two unknown parties, he/she will take side of the defensive person in their minds. So let
me ask you my friend. Why are there so many sites that are Anti-Islam and you guys have to defend Islam from them? You
see because lots of people are tired of offence they take a stand against offence. Do you see what I am saying? I mean we
are talking Karma here. Do you find anti-buddhist, anti-sikh anti-hindu, anti-christian, anti-jew site started by anyone? Let's
keep truth into our discussion. There are few anti-hinduism sites outthere which is for caste system. Which is correct. Caste
system is obviously wrong. so you see people automatically speak out against what is wrong. So now can we conclude that
something is wrong with Islam also? ( I hope you will atleast agree that religions and its teachings have a big impact on their
followers and so people following different religions act differently. I hope I dont have to find something from science for this or
maybe find a Islamic scholar to prove).
So what is it about act of Muslims which is making the rest of the non-muslims so anti-muslims everyday?
So why is the whole world after Islam? Do you believe in conspiracy theories? I hope not. Do you believe CIA and Mosad has
time and energy to really work against Islam? I hear Muslims crying that Infidels are after Islam???? I hope you dont truely
believe that? You really think non-muslims have free lives that they want to lose fighting terrorists? Do you believe non-
muslims have money they love spending killing and dying? Oh no no, maybe it is media. I mean Hindus and Buddhists also live
in west and media says nothing about them but they hate Islam and Muslims. I think it is media after Islam, right?
Let's see what you can say about all this.
The fact is my friend that Muslims are offensive lot and that is why there are so many anti-muslim sites and that is why there
are so many anti-muslim people in the world.
Sorry I tried to keep it as primary as I could but you will definately have to higher your standards because we are talking
religions and theyeffect lots of people.
IRA? Or is it ‘Catholic Militants’? Brother! I would really like to label it from Muslim’s perspective. Please do not get into such
subjects, as you are not going to win in this particular topic as well. Stick to what we are discussing right now.
I have more ammunition in my bunker to bombard you extraneously.
You have been calling me brother all this time but you see, you are no brother of mine. I tell you why!!! See the bold part in
first quote? Well that tells me that you have already accepted that I have lost this debate. Brothers dont do that. Maybe Muslim
brothers do in non-muslim world that does not happen. You would wait till the end before you can start making conclusions.
And now you see why I have seldom called you my brother? Otherwise reciprocating is a normal human instinct but I knew it
was all fake.
And about second quote, you are forgetting, if I want to start talking about ammo I have FFI and all the million other anti-
muslim sites as my ammo. But obviously we have decided that we wont use that ammunition so on the other side of spectrum I
can also say that if we are not going to use anti-muslim perrspective as our ammo then we cant use muslim perspective either.
Then we will have to start talkign just logic and rationality. Just because I let you use your ammo and dont use mine does not
mean you can be overconfident. Let's stay real.
And lastly you talking ammo with me is like Iraq talking ammo with US.
My Response:
I had brought this verse from somewhere.
As I had already put in the picture for you that your 'somewhere' is actually a wrong location. You fetch this precise verse from
an anti-Islamic site. And I stanchly believe the fellow who is running the site deliberately alter the translation in order to satisfy
his own cravings. This particular translation is not even done by an authentic person making it a reason for me not to have
faith in it.
And then you brought in the following.
Yes! I brought famous and less famous, Muslim and non-Muslim translators in aiding of my argument that the word 'ruthless'
is erroneously exploited by the person who translated this precise verse. IN ENGLISH 'RUTHLESS' MAY BE ANALOGOUS TO
'HARD', 'HARSH' OR 'STRONG'; HOWEVER, IT IS NOT IN ARABIC LANGUAGE. I have already stated prior please do not
measure Arabic with the scale of English as the measurements are exclusively poles apart.
Just tell me in one line or elaborate upto a book full on what do you find as a difference between the verse I brought in and
translations you brought in? So let's take very small steps. I thought we were grown up and was expecting higher level but let's
talk primary.
Here I go again. I do not be in agreement to the usage of word 'ruthless' as a correct translation of an Arabic word 'ashidda' in
Quranic verse 48:29 that you offered. English word 'ruthless' falls into the category of 'zulm' in Arabic Language (In English
'Cruelty'). Whoever has done the translation has faultily incorporated the word 'ruthless' in the translation. In other words he
has committed a fraud. Why are you finding this simple definition so hard to accept? Give me your evidence and prove me
wrong?
I believe I am speaking very simple English; am I? And why were you expecting a higher level when we are discussing basic
knowledge of Arabic Language?
Also, tell me in one line if you think this verse is unfair to non-muslims or not? Obviously you can elaborate a book full but
busy people like us can help each other by talking upto the point. And since we are talking about asking literate person about
things. Make sure you ask a literate person before you respond. But then you will go back to your point that this verse is part
of whole chapter.
I have never changed my posture and any of my arguments whatsoever. What ever I had uttered before I am reiterating the
same all along. There is not a sole place in my writing where I have altered my statement. The only motive I introduced the
notion of 'out of context' is that you were not in accordance to my foremost elucidation where I said that 'ruthless' is not
accurate translation, and latter is only incorporated to make the opening proof much brawny. I had no other alternative but to
bring in the idea of 'out of context'; and this is just to formulate things comfortable for you to cotton on. If I still undergo the
same hunch that you are still not able to comprehend my explanations then I will bring more proofs. I am taking you step by
step in comprehending this precise Quranic verse in correct context. Be sure! I am not going to perplex you; I am not Ali Sina.
We will go on a very slow pace.
Alright! Here is my one line answer.
"Yes! The Quranic verse 48:29 is ‘unfair’ to non-Muslims, if and only if, you pluck it out from its respective
chapter and quote it 'out of context'."
Mind it brother that the word ‘unfair’ you used in your explanation is again erroneous. Why? I will vindicate down in my reply. I
have fulfilled your request dearly; now you have to fulfill mine.
In turn, now you have to tell me in one line if this verse is unfair to Muslims or not?
"They are the ones who denied Revelation and hindered you from the Sacred Mosque and the sacrificial animals, detained
from reaching their place of sacrifice." (Quran 48:25)
Note! I will substantiate down in my reply that in this specific chapter it is unbelievers who were in reality ‘unfair’ to Muslims and
not vice versa.
Let me tell you about your argument that any literate person would find me silly if you tell him that I dont care about whole
chapter just the verse. The truth is you are right.
Thank you very much for your agreement.
But do you know why I said that? Because I do not want to bring good verses in Koran into this when we are talking about a
bad verses. Have I not said beforehand? But now you want to bring in whole chapter or whole Koran it is fine by me. Koran
being dragged into this is your fault not mine.
Brother! You have already agreed above in your argument that it is very much silly for a person to recount only one verse
WHERE IT GIVES YOU DIVERSE MEANING when pluck out from its respective chapter. The same way your declaration "I will
leave and debate is over" gives diverse perception when pluck out from its respective paragraph. It would be injustice to you
from my side if I use your statement 'out of context' and aver my win over you. You are not going to enjoy that. Isn't it brother?
Similarly, no author on the face of the Earth is going to be pleased with you if you do such a prejudice to him. Therefore, such
is not rare to Quran only, but generic to all the literature on the face of the earth.
Similarly, bringing in the whole chapter of Quran is going to make your own knots tighter. The more you reference the whole
chapter of Quran the more meanings are going to get soothe; likewise, the more you refer to the whole of Quran the more
meanings get bias toward Muslims. Such a practice surely goes against you.
By God! I can show Muslims more merciful, defensive and loving to unbelievers if you dare considering the whole Quran.
Remember in my earlier post where I cited, "this precise verse is only depicting 'some qualities' of unbelievers as there are
other verses in the Holy Quran that describe them more densely as one of the ferocious beasts towards Muslims". I am still
clinging to my statement. You won't find me varying statements as I am not likewise Ali Sina. I know what I am talking about.
If you are bringing in Quran, then please be remain adamant that it is indeed go hostile to your doctrine of what actually you
are striving to impose here. Therefore, my counsel to you is to only glue to chapter since this way the course of your
understanding will remain be unadorned and trouble-free. Also you may have some odds to bring in your 'valid' arguments
against Muslims, if and only if, you remain affix to the chapter only. When we would be done with this chapter then you can
bring in Quran for discussion. OR it is all up to you to settle on? I am here and willing to discuss anything pertaining to Quran.
Okay fine so this verse might be part of whole chapter about victory, so what? Does that give Muslims the right to be unfair
with non-muslims? I mean you were the ones following will of God... Is that how the will of your God is? Isnt God suppose to be
mercifull to ALL? I thought we are all God's children so now Muslims are better children of God? What a rip off.
Over here I will attest that unbelievers were truly ‘unfair’ to Muslims and not vice versa.
Yet again, the word you used 'unfair' is surely unfair to use for the Muslims of that time. The English word 'unfair' means you
are doing some kind of injustice or you are being dishonest to someone. However, the English word 'hard', 'harsh' or 'strong'
are individual stances of those Muslims and also they do not fell under the category of being 'unfair' or 'dishonest'. The
correct understanding is that those Muslims are strong, harsh and hard in their inner selves towards unbelievers in a way that
unbelievers cannot sway them from the belief, cannot scare them with their evil tactics and cannot mold them to their manners.
The evidence is present in the chapter itself, if you read the whole chapter you will not find any proof of their unfairness and
dishonesty towards unbelievers. However on the other hand unbelievers are defined as in verse 48:25:
1. Who hindered Muslims from entering Sacred Mosque
2. Who detained animals from reaching their places
Now this is what you call 'unfairness'. Imagine if I hinder you from entering into your home. Such an act would be 'unfair' to
you. Isn't it?
Now brother, I challenge you to find me a single verse from this whole chapter where Muslims had done anything
'unfair' to unbelievers. You are deliberately filching verse 48:25 which is actually befits fittingly in the category of
'unfairness' for unbelievers and you are blaming Muslims. This is injustice from your side. Isn't it?
Now you will obviously come back and say that Muslims were only defending. Well I got news for you my friend. This verse is
not at all about defence and neighter is the chapter, it is more about revenge. Also this chapter is more like either you agree
to what we say or we will be harsh with you and kick your ***. That is called hegemony my friend not defence.
Again, see Quranic verse 48:25 then read my earlier argument and my challenge.
So now verses like these are not defensive but offensive. Please read up all you can on defence and offence and then read
this verse again. You will see what I am saying.
Again, see Quranic verse 48:25 then read my earlier argument and my challenge.
Another way of proving my contention that this verse and chapter is offensive is that we take ground situation. Are Muslims
offensive or defensive in general? You will obviously not agree but in any situation between Muslims and non-muslims the
offensive side is almost always muslim. If they are not the ones who started first they create enough bloodshed to be given
any credit. So let's take ground result of Islamic bad verses.
Brother! Do you really desire to switch on this discussion? Shall I conclude our discussion and speak 'followers'? You are
changing stances. First you brought me a verse and ask me to explicate; and when you did not hit upon anything to corner me
you started bringing in 'followers'. You know what you are actually doing by speaking about ‘followers’? You are showing world
the photo of Idi Amin Dada and telling them that this is Africa. Similarly, you are showing the picture of Hitler and notifying the
world that this is Germany. Likewise, you are showing the picture of some 'misunderstood' followers and you are revealing to
the world that this is Islam. This is idiocy and nothing at all. I have already clarified before that I am not going to follow the
'followers'; rather I would follow the scripture. This is logical. In most cases, followers are not true picture of their religion.
Can I label your whole family as 'menace' if only your brother has 'misunderstood'? Brother! You would find me standing alone
with you hand in hand if your whole family has 'misunderstood' except you.
I have already replied all of your sham allegations in my earlier posts regarding followers. Why are you bringing them again
and again? I also afforded you the solution on how to stop it; "don't advertise them". The same ways atrocities of American
forces in Iraq and Afghanistan are not shown on the T.V, they never get unearth. Similarly, if you keep on watching Al-Jazeera
or Al-Arabiya News Channel you will definitely jump into the boats of Muslims. That is the reason westerners living in Middle
East have the same views as Muslims regarding World Politics. They are with us hand in hand. Do the same with these
'misunderstood' so-called followers of Islam. Stop giving them any credence.
If you really want to discuss these issues then please accept my request to conclude our debate and let's start this new topic
in a new thread. And bring in your evidence by giving me the name of Muslims or Muslim who are really keeping you awake at
night.
Maybe you dont agree with my argument of muslims being offensive but you see humans in general dont like offence. If a
worst person is being a judge between two unknown parties, he/she will take side of the defensive person in their minds. So let
me ask you my friend. Why are there so many sites that are Anti-Islam and you guys have to defend Islam from them? You
see because lots of people are tired of offence they take a stand against offence. Do you see what I am saying? I mean we
are talking Karma here. Do you find anti-buddhist, anti-sikh anti-hindu, anti-christian, anti-jew site started by anyone? Let's
keep truth into our discussion. There are few anti-hinduism sites outthere which is for caste system. Which is correct. Caste
system is obviously wrong. so you see people automatically speak out against what is wrong. So now can we conclude that
something is wrong with Islam also? ( I hope you will atleast agree that religions and its teachings have a big impact on their
followers and so people following different religions act differently. I hope I dont have to find something from science for this or
maybe find a Islamic scholar to prove).
This is another subject. Please see my reply above.
You have been calling me brother all this time but you see, you are no brother of mine. I tell you why!!! See the bold part in
first quote? Well that tells me that you have already accepted that I have lost this debate. Brothers dont do that. Maybe Muslim
brothers do in non-muslim world that does not happen. You would wait till the end before you can start making conclusions.
And now you see why I have seldom called you my brother? Otherwise reciprocating is a normal human instinct but I knew it
was all fake.
Brother! I do apologize for my statement. I may be got into a frenzy mood because you were going out of track of what actually
we were discussing. I am a bit aggressive in nature and sometimes it gets reflected in my writings as well. I will be more careful
next time. Do not take it too seriously as I dearly admit that it is my mistake. I shouldn't be talking like this.
And about second quote, you are forgetting, if I want to start talking about ammo I have FFI and all the million other anti-
muslim sites as my ammo. But obviously we have decided that we wont use that ammunition so on the other side of spectrum I
can also say that if we are not going to use anti-muslim perrspective as our ammo then we cant use muslim perspective either.
Then we will have to start talkign just logic and rationality. Just because I let you use your ammo and dont use mine does not
mean you can be overconfident. Let's stay real.
Brother! You have already used your ammo when you brought this verse from anti-Islamic website. Isn't it? I have never
ceased you to use FFI and all the million other anti-Muslim websites in our discussion. However, I said that I am not going to
confer to the interpretations of clowns like Ali Sina since they are not learned in this particular field. Why would I ask a biology
question from a physicist? This is illogical. You are not going to follow a chemistry book written by a biologist. Are you? That is
the motive behind where I had urged you to visit the "Interpretation Section" on this forum to get a glimpse of Ali Sina's world of
interpretations. Now it gives the impression from your replies that you are well-disposed to the interpretations that I am
bringing in; as they are more logical and with evidences. If you think I am wrong then please correct me.
Secondly, besides we are discussing logic and rationality; I am bringing in my evidences as well. Therefore, there is an
immense divergence concerning your ammo and my ammo. You cannot utilize your ammo logically, rationally and evidently
because it is framed by a person (Ali Sina) who is not well-versed in ammunition (Interpretation). Similarly if your ammo does
not work then no one is going to blame you for this blunder. However, you cannot use such ammo in the war (debate) as well
as it is not going to be effective.
However, my ammo is authentic as it is prepared by a person (Islamic Scholar) who is well-versed in ammunition
(Interpretation). Therefore, I can use it anywhere and whenever I desire. And it is very effectual as well. Therefore, if you want
to bring me down then you have to purchase your ammo from my manufacturer (Islamic Scholar). Then only you are going to
destroy me. Isn't it brother?
And lastly you talking ammo with me is like Iraq talking ammo with US.
Hhhhmmmm!!! I would rather write this statement as "U.S talking ammo with Iraq". I think this is more suitable because it was U.
S. who swanked about Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq, at first. Several years have been passed and U.S is still locating
WMDs in Iraq. It is a war based on a fib. Isn’t it?
Secondly; I just used a figure of speech; an allegorical statement. It doesn't insinuate that I am talking real ammo with you. If
you find it offensive then I will not use such figurative speech again; but you have to be careful with your foul language as well.
I could see some *** & 'BS' again in your writings.
MY REQUEST:
Brother! Please keep this discussion between me and yourself. Please do not include comments of third person in our
discussion. If you want to highlight them then please you can do it in "General Comments" forum. I will ask admin to move your
replies to muslim22 some where else. However; I really like to give my comment on where you said,
Suhail, do I need to give more proof of offence and hegemony?
Therefore, it also means I can quote clowns and goons of Ali Sina on this forum and in turn ask you a question about their
offense and hegemony. Illogical again!
Take good care of yourself. Hoping to hear from you soon.
Kindest regards,
Suhail
iandonlyi posted:
Suhail Wrote:
As I had already put in the picture for you that your 'somewhere' is actually a wrong location. You fetch this precise verse from
an anti-Islamic site. And I stanchly believe the fellow who is running the site deliberately alter the translation in order to satisfy
his own cravings. This particular translation is not even done by an authentic person making it a reason for me not to have
faith in it.
Yes! I brought famous and less famous, Muslim and non-Muslim translators in aiding of my argument that the word 'ruthless' is
erroneously exploited by the person who translated this precise verse. IN ENGLISH 'RUTHLESS' MAY BE ANALOGOUS TO
'HARD', 'HARSH' OR 'STRONG'; HOWEVER, IT IS NOT IN ARABIC LANGUAGE. I have already stated prior please do not
measure Arabic with the scale of English as the measurements are exclusively poles apart.
Here I go again. I do not be in agreement to the usage of word 'ruthless' as a correct translation of an Arabic word 'ashidda' in
Quranic verse 48:29 that you offered. English word 'ruthless' falls into the category of 'zulm' in Arabic Language (In English
'Cruelty'). Whoever has done the translation has faultily incorporated the word 'ruthless' in the translation. In other words he
has committed a fraud. Why are you finding this simple definition so hard to accept? Give me your evidence and prove me
wrong?
I believe I am speaking very simple English; am I? And why were you expecting a higher level when we are discussing basic
knowledge of Arabic Language?
First of all, what you say is oxymoron. First you say that in English ruthless might be a analogous but in Arabic they are
different but then the verse is in ENGLISH!!!! I mean hello?
By my question was not even about that. My question was, what in your words is different about the verse I brought in and the
verses you brought in? Is it ruthless and hard? Okay fine let's take it the Arabic way. Let's take the word hard against ruthless.
But why dont you please explain breifly what is the difference between the two translations? Dont worry about arabic part. Just
explain to me in english. However, if you tell me that you cant explain in english then I beg your forgiveness but I am not going
to learn arabic to debate you about Islam. I doubt however, that in Arabic this verse sounds any wiser, better, fairer. I think it is
just a bad verse and that is all there is. But is it possible for you to explain in English or not? If not, why diddnt you tell me
beforehand that I need knowledge of Arabic before we start debate? So I would not waste my time.
And you keep asking for evidence. What evidence? You are either obsessed with evidence or you are just in denial that this is
garbage verse. I mean we need evidence to define differences in two words? And if I do bring in evidence it is not accepted.
What is this a one way debate? Why cant my evidence be from scholar of Islam instead of Islamic scholar. You bring in your
verses from Islamic scholars, obviously they are going to sing songs about it. Even the verses you brought are unfair, ask any
sane person.
I have never changed my posture and any of my arguments whatsoever. What ever I had uttered before I am reiterating the
same all along. There is not a sole place in my writing where I have altered my statement. The only motive I introduced the
notion of 'out of context' is that you were not in accordance to my foremost elucidation where I said that 'ruthless' is not
accurate translation, and latter is only incorporated to make the opening proof much brawny. I had no other alternative but to
bring in the idea of 'out of context'; and this is just to formulate things comfortable for you to cotton on. If I still undergo the
same hunch that you are still not able to comprehend my explanations then I will bring more proofs. I am taking you step by
step in comprehending this precise Quranic verse in correct context. Be sure! I am not going to perplex you; I am not Ali Sina.
We will go on a very slow pace.
Alright! Here is my one line answer.
"Yes! The Quranic verse 48:29 is ‘unfair’ to non-Muslims, if and only if, you pluck it out from its respective chapter and quote it
'out of context'."
Mind it brother that the word ‘unfair’ you used in your explanation is again erroneous. Why? I will vindicate down in my reply. I
have fulfilled your request dearly; now you have to fulfill mine.
In turn, now you have to tell me in one line if this verse is unfair to Muslims or not?
"They are the ones who denied Revelation and hindered you from the Sacred Mosque and the sacrificial animals, detained
from reaching their place of sacrifice." (Quran 48:25)
Note! I will substantiate down in my reply that in this specific chapter it is unbelievers who were in reality ‘unfair’ to Muslims and
not vice versa.
Good man for admitting and I like that because it is only fair. Thanks.
About the verse you posted the simeple answer is, yes it is unfair to Muslims. However, The part that says "Denied
Revealation" I think it is not unfair. Because anyone can deny any revealation. There should be no force so it is not unfair to
Muslims that non-muslims denied revealation. But about taking over your mosque and all tha tis unfair.
Anyway, I am going to stop now. Agreement is all I was looking for and if you can agree here you can agree with the rest of
stuff. The point here is that and the point of my whole point is that these verses are causing problems. I just picked the first
one I found. What was in Mohammed's mind when he said them and people who wrote them I dont know and so I am not going
to judge. The point is your maulvis and mullah's need to stop concentrating on these verses and teach your kids the good
verses. Elaborate on those good verses instead of these. Again, this verse might not be bad at all but when we see Muslims
coming out of mosque and saying "Kill the Kaafirs" then it is obviously what was taught to them in those 4 walls. Maybe "Kill the
Kaafirs" made perfect sense when Mohammed said them, that is not my concern or even a matter of any lost sleep my
concern is what followers of mohammed are doing. So I did not come here to bad mouth your religion but I came here to show
you that Muslims are abusing your religion and in turn the non-muslims.
Do you see my point? my point is result is all that matter. Maybe Islam is perfect religion. It very well might be and that is not
my concern, in fact, if it is perfect religion than it is actually good. But concern here is results. If you think Islam is perfect
religion that prove it and nothing better than your actions.
Dont get me wrong. Not all Muslims are bad. This is individual thing. But violence in name of religion is definately more
prevalant in Muslims than anybody else. Again, I said more prevalant, so it means other people do it too but with Muslims it is
more. So I want no offence --->> You see I am trying to watch my actions. Greatness of religions in books is of no use.
Relligions are only great if they make people great.
What good is religion when it says dont drink liquor and its followers dirnk more. So what do you do put a gun on their heads?
I think not. What is it. The issue is logical explanation. Human mind is very curious and untill you give a LONG explanation for
simple things it does not understand. So if this logical understanding has been put into the brain of people since they are
young. It will last them for life. And at laast, the only mind you have control over is your own and so the only thing you can do
is give knowledge. What does the other mind do is totally out of your control.
Keep up the good work and be a good human and I will do same on my side. Also, I am not runnig away. I will keep coming
here regularly. If you want to start something on new topic just put it on.
My Response:
Dear brother iandonlyi,
Hoping that you are in the best of your health.
First of all, what you say is oxymoron. First you say that in English ruthless might be a analogous but in Arabic they are
different but then the verse is in ENGLISH!!!! I mean hello?
Brother! Recurring arguments again from your side as in former post I have already illuminated that the translations are not
true portrayal of the originals. They can come close to it but never become the original. As for the rest of the people who do
not know Arabic; English translations are at hand. Such translations cannot denote the true meaning of the original; yet only
they come close to it in depicting the actual gist. For denser explanation, there are tafsirs available which are explanations or
descriptions of the verses in detail. Even tafsirs give explanation of Arabic words itself. This is not just limited to Quran only;
Bible in Greek and Hebrew is also part of such resemblance.
In Islam it is an utmost duty of a Muslim to learn Quran with its meanings and tafsir; therefore such practice is part of a learning
process and if some one still misunderstood a verse and did not follow the correct process then it is only he who is to blame
and not the process. Process is there and if you are not following it then it is your own dilemma and no one else is to blame.
Therefore your ‘hello’ goes back to you :).
Therefore the correct process of understanding such verses is: if you are not Arabic speaking person then you refer to
English translation of the Quran. If you cannot understand the translation easily then you refer to Islamic Scholars for
interpretation or refer to tafsirs for explanation in detail.
By my question was not even about that. My question was, what in your words is different about the verse I brought in and the
verses you brought in? Is it ruthless and hard? Okay fine let's take it the Arabic way. Let's take the word hard against ruthless.
But why dont you please explain breifly what is the difference between the two translations? Dont worry about arabic part.
Repetitive arguments once again! Refer to my old post and look for yourself. How many times do I have to repeat everything?
'Ruthless' falls in the category of 'Cruelty' in English and both the words means that you are doing some kind of injustice or
you are being cruel to some one. However, the Arabic word in the verse does not fit in the category of 'cruelty'. Therefore it is
foolish of you to keep yapping apropos that this verse is unfair to unbelievers. This particular verse does not depict Muslims of
being cruel, merciless and ruthless towards unbelievers. Yet on the other hand you deliberately filch the behavior of
unbelievers towards Muslims. Muslims were just only hard, harsh or strong towards their unfair demeanor and much
explanation is in my earlier post. And unfair demeanor of unbelievers is mentioned in Quranic verse 48:25; which you
deliberately filching out because it is going against your doctrine and the false idea you are trying to impose here.
Secondly, I have challenged you in my last post to locate me a single verse from this chapter where Muslims were ‘unfair’ to
unbelievers. You did not provide me a single verse. You cannot outdo the challenge because there is no such verse present
in this chapter. Despite this fact, ‘unfairness’ and ‘injustice’ of unbelievers is clearly mentioned in Quranic verse 48:25. If you
are not speaking about it then it is framing you fraud in the end. Definition of the word ‘unfair’ that you are trying to force on
me is clearly mentioned in the verse 48:25. Go and read it carefully.
Just explain to me in english. However, if you tell me that you cant explain in english then I beg your forgiveness but I am not
going to learn arabic to debate you about Islam. I doubt however, that in Arabic this verse sounds any wiser, better, fairer. I
think it is just a bad verse and that is all there is. But is it possible for you to explain in English or not? If not, why diddnt you tell
me beforehand that I need knowledge of Arabic before we start debate? So I would not waste my time.
Brother! I was not talking confusion all along this debate. I have never solicited you to learn Arabic. Did I? However I am
educating you on the correct understanding of this precise verse in English and in a very unpretentious and easy way; but it
seems your intellect is not bending towards mere astuteness. I very well realize that you do not know Arabic; however at least
show your consent when I am teaching something new to you. I am giving you a new knowledge of another language and in
the end you are arguing with me that this is indecorous with only imparting your erroneous logics. On what basis you are
saying that this verse is unfair when even you are an illiterate in Arabic? It is not you whose time is getting wasted but it is me
whose time is getting wear and tear. I am giving you knowledge and you are not agreeing to it. Height is that, you do not even
know about this new language and you are denying it. On what basis, brother?
And you keep asking for evidence. What evidence? You are either obsessed with evidence or you are just in denial that this is
garbage verse. I mean we need evidence to define differences in two words? And if I do bring in evidence it is not accepted.
What is this a one way debate? Why cant my evidence be from scholar of Islam instead of Islamic scholar. You bring in your
verses from Islamic scholars, obviously they are going to sing songs about it. Even the verses you brought are unfair, ask any
sane person.
What kind of logic is this? Do you want me to believe everything what your mind deems? No matter if it is filth. What is the
credence that you are speaking truthful? What is the credibility that I am uttering truthful all along this course. And where did
you bring in your evidence and where I have denied it? Can you please show me? Alright bring me evidence from scholar of
Islam and I will see what he cites apropos this precise verse. Do you call Ali Sina 'scholar of Islam'? He is a scholar of garbage,
foul mouth, rubbish and stupidity and nothing else. Therefore do not bring him as your evidence. Who is going to listen to
you? Evidence is required when you do not simply believe any one's words. If you have faith in my words then you ought to
believe them as well. If not, then I have to bring in proofs from an authentic source in order to put more fuel to my fire.
Regarding Islamic Scholars singing songs about Quranic verses; I have never brought one yet and I am still speaking
translators only. I have a very good answer for your contention; however I am keeping it for later reply.
Good man for admitting and I like that because it is only fair. Thanks.
Is this what you call an admission? This is an admission in denial. Read it more carefully as I have put inverted commas on the
word 'unfair' and I have made my statement non-effectual. If you are taking my statement as my admittance then I also have a
privilege to take your admission of leaving the debate by saying "I will leave and debate is over" as your declaration. This is
not admission. This is fraud you have done. And there is no soul on the face of the Earth who is going to endorse fraud. Same
with my statement and still remains for yours as well. As you have quoted me ‘out of context’ once again. You are censuring a
person of being a murderer in a court of justice where in his statement he said, “I killed him. But in self-defense”. And now you
are sticking a charge of murder on him by quoting him ‘out of context’ and using his first statement only i.e. “I killed him”; and
deliberately filching the rest of his account. This is actually ‘unfairness’ and ‘injustice’ and that is what you actually did to my
words. If such practice keeps you happy and you can sleep at night with calm then please be my guest. I will not amend my
statement and will keep it for the enlightened readers to fix upon.
About the verse you posted the simeple answer is, yes it is unfair to Muslims. However, The part that says "Denied
Revealation" I think it is not unfair. Because anyone can deny any revealation. There should be no force so it is not unfair to
Muslims that non-muslims denied revealation. But about taking over your mosque and all tha tis unfair.
Again! Reverse your gear to earlier posts and read carefully. I seriously doubt that you are not examining my posts carefully
as most of the times you have repeated the same arguments again that were already responded by me. I have already
clarified earlier that it was never because of 'Denial of Revelation'. Go back to my earlier posts and read it again the part
where I spoke about ‘Denial of Revelation’.
Anyway, I am going to stop now. Agreement is all I was looking for and if you can agree here you can agree with the rest of
stuff.
Read above regarding my agreement. Where I have said that Muslims are unfair to unbelievers? You are quoting me 'out of
context'. Even I explained to you that they were unbelievers who actually were unfair to Muslims in this precise chapter. I posed
you with a challenge to find me a sole verse from this chapter where Muslims have done any kind of unfair act to unbelievers.
'Unfairness' in English means to do injustice or to be dishonest to some one. You failed to produce a single verse from this
chapter. And you are accepting my 'out of context' agreement. Now you are being 'unfair' to me by quoting me 'out of context'.
And I really didn't like that. Now one is going to like that. If you still feel happy about this then I will leave it for the enlightened
readers to fix upon. Take my advice and try your trick with Ali Sina or any of his clowns. I want to see how they retort.
The point here is that and the point of my whole point is that these verses are causing problems. I just picked the first one I
found. What was in Mohammed's mind when he said them and people who wrote them I dont know and so I am not going to
judge. The point is your maulvis and mullah's need to stop concentrating on these verses and teach your kids the good
verses. Elaborate on those good verses instead of these. Again, this verse might not be bad at all but when we see Muslims
coming out of mosque and saying "Kill the Kaafirs" then it is obviously what was taught to them in those 4 walls. Maybe "Kill the
Kaafirs" made perfect sense when Mohammed said them, that is not my concern or even a matter of any lost sleep my
concern is what followers of mohammed are doing. So I did not come here to bad mouth your religion but I came here to show
you that Muslims are abusing your religion and in turn the non-muslims.
You are very right that there are some Maulvis and Mullahs who are igniting hate among young Muslims and they are sticking
a diverse perception of Quranic verses on their juvenile intellects. I agree with no doubts! However, they are few of them and
even my government is trying hard to nail them down as well. But wait a minute! This is what you said, “Again, this verse might
not be bad at all but when we see Muslims coming out of mosque and saying "Kill the Kaafirs". Now this is your admission that
this verse might not be bad but the people are taking it in a false perception. Again the Quran is correct and people are
wrong. Thank you brother for your admission as this is what I wanted you to admit.
Regarding people coming out of mosques blabbering ‘Kill the Kaafirs’, again I have never seen such kind ever in my life. May
be there are some mosques which are instigating such so-called ‘Muslims’; I do not deny that; however again there are vast
majority of Muslims who do not heed to such ‘Maulvis’ and ‘Mullahs’. Do not give them credence and they will become
worthless in the end. For example; this dupe named Ali Sina made an impression on me at first and I got very upset when I
read his own perverted ‘version’ of Islam on his filthy website. However I took an extra step and started searching for actual
truth. I have scanned almost all the Islamic books and discussed with many Islamic Scholars but I failed miserably to find a
single acceptance of Ali Sina’s yowling. Where else can I find the evidence in regards to Islam? Surely, in Islamic books or
where else should I find it? This is what I did and I found the truth. I referred to black and white proofs in Islamic books as they
are the most authentic rather than listening to a common person. Quran clearly states:
“if any one slew a person - unless it be for murder or for spreading mischief in the land - it would be as if he slew the whole
people: and if any one saved a life, it would be as if he saved the life of the whole people” (Quran 5:32)
The verse is self-explanatory and generic. It does not require any pre or post verses for correct elucidations. One does not
have to perform any mental gymnastics as this verse particularly uses the English word ‘person’ and it means any person
whether Hindu, Muslim, Sikh, Christian, Jew and Buddhist or any one in the world. If some kill an innocent ‘person’ then it
implies that he has killed the whole humanity. Let me re-phrase it; if a ‘Muslim’ kills an innocent ‘person’ then it means he has
killed the whole humanity. There is not a single religious book on the face of the earth which has such kind of comparison
between killing one innocent person denoting that you have killed the whole of human kind. If some one is not following such a
commandment of Quran then you can easily deem him out of the fold of Islam. If some one is still not following such a
commandment of Quran is not a Muslim.
And why such verses are causing problems? Because people like you are not willing to heed to their correct interpretation. I
can easily put your good self in this example. I have been trying to teach you the real interpretation of this verse with
evidences and proofs; but you keep sticking to your false notion. There is not a single Islamic book on this face of the Earth
that portrays this verse as unfair to unbelievers. And you wanted me to heed to the rants of populace like Ali Sina. You are
imposing me to listen to intellectually dumb Ali Sina rather than listening to an Islamic Scholar. You are again imposing me to
discard all the literature available and all the material available on this particular chapter and agree to what you are saying.
This is idiocy and nothing at all. Isn’t it brother?
Do you see my point? my point is result is all that matter. Maybe Islam is perfect religion. It very well might be and that is not
my concern, in fact, if it is perfect religion than it is actually good. But concern here is results. If you think Islam is perfect
religion that prove it and nothing better than your actions.
Here is my counter argument. If you consider Harvard University as the best university in the world and they have a perfect
curriculum to teach; however still some students failed and their time spent at the campus never afforded them a desired
success in their lives. It doesn’t mean that it was a predicament with the University itself; rather it is the ‘misunderstood’
students who are to accuse. Indeed curriculum is flawless; however, some students were not being up to snuff in order to use
their intellects in comprehending the correct and actual teaching. And if some one wills to fallaciously advertise such students
and point the finger at the University itself for their failure then it is mere stupidity from his side. Isn’t it, brother?
Such students are menace to society. This is an area where I put all those ‘misunderstood’ Muslims; as for in my opinion,
Islamic Curriculum is perfect however there are some Muslims who failed to understand correctly. And there are some
‘westerners’ who are willing to advertise them for their own warped benefits and they have good means to do it. Such also
includes idiot Ali Sina as well.
Dont get me wrong. Not all Muslims are bad. This is individual thing. But violence in name of religion is definately more
prevalant in Muslims than anybody else. Again, I said more prevalant, so it means other people do it too but with Muslims it is
more. So I want no offence --->> You see I am trying to watch my actions. Greatness of religions in books is of no use.
Relligions are only great if they make people great.
My earlier argument still holds good here. I also condemn violence in the name of religion and it may be prevalent in Muslim
world; however to some degree, very few people. However people like Ali Sina and media transform them to ‘all Muslims’ in
order to satisfy their means. If I were to follow such dumb ‘Prophets’ (Ali Sina) then brother it is impossible that you could still
be living. We could have killed you long before. You are still breathing is an evidence to itself that you still do not become a
victim of atrocities of “all Muslims”.
What good is religion when it says dont drink liquor and its followers dirnk more. So what do you do put a gun on their heads?
I think not. What is it. The issue is logical explanation. Human mind is very curious and untill you give a LONG explanation for
simple things it does not understand. So if this logical understanding has been put into the brain of people since they are
young. It will last them for life. And at laast, the only mind you have control over is your own and so the only thing you can do
is give knowledge. What does the other mind do is totally out of your control.
Again brother! My earlier example of ‘University’ still holds good here. Regarding your example of ‘drinking’; my religion says
‘do not drink’ and there are again very few Muslims who drink. Just a word from my beloved Prophet Muhammad's (Peace be
upon him) blessed mouth against drinking and it was pouring down on the streets of medina never to be filled again. This is
what you call a miracle. Words being so effective. We have the lowest of drunkards, lowest of pork eaters, lowest of gambling
and highest of charity. No guns on the heads! This is the effect of religion of Islam on Muslims. The people who are not
following these commandments are again very few. Similarly, the people who ‘misunderstood’ are again very few. How am I
going to stop media who is covering a disco club in dubai and showing very few Muslims drinking and deliberately snub to
cover a mosque which is full of Muslims praying. People who are not aware of lifestyle of dubai would definitely perceive a
wrong perception and they will establish that ‘most’ of the Muslims are drunkards. That is how ‘west’ world and stupid populace
like Ali Sina are playing games with your intellects and defaming Islam. Showing very few; however again and again; and
making them larger than life in the end.
Keep up the good work and be a good human and I will do same on my side. Also, I am not runnig away. I will keep coming
here regularly. If you want to start something on new topic just put it on.
The inkling of starting a new topic was a proposition from your side as you had commented on different subjects in your earlier
post. Therefore, you have to decide and not me :).
Thank you very much for you comments brother. You are always welcome on this forum. At least you have guts to debate with
a Muslim on an Islamic website. I dearly admire that.
Take good care of yourself. May be we will discuss in near future.
Suhail
iandonlyi posted:
Suhail,
Okay, yes I admit I diddnt read your point carefully. Now that I re-read it I see that you are saying that you admit the verse is
only unfair if it is quoted out of context. But can you please do me three favours. So let's continue out topic. And OK, I shall not
bring in any anybody else in our discussion.
1) Can you talk down to point. I dont talk here and there. I like down to point discussion.
2) Can you tell me in your opinion what do you think is the problem in the world between Muslims and non-mislims. Whatever
your opinoin is I will respect your right to say but I might or might not disagree.
3) Since you talk logic all the time let me prove a point about logic. So a question to you on logic. If a child eats candy 10 days
and his teeth goes bad by the scale of X, so logically, if a child eats candy 1 day wil his teeth go bad X/10. Yes or No?(Please
Note: I am not saying you are not logical, I just need to prove a point about Logic)
Brother! Recurring arguments again from your side as in former post I have already illuminated that the translations are not
true portrayal of the originals. They can come close to it but never become the original. As for the rest of the people who do
not know Arabic; English translations are at hand. Such translations cannot denote the true meaning of the original; yet only
they come close to it in depicting the actual gist. For denser explanation, there are tafsirs available which are explanations or
descriptions of the verses in detail. Even tafsirs give explanation of Arabic words itself. This is not just limited to Quran only;
Bible in Greek and Hebrew is also part of such resemblance.
In Islam it is an utmost duty of a Muslim to learn Quran with its meanings and tafsir; therefore such practice is part of a learning
process and if some one still misunderstood a verse and did not follow the correct process then it is only he who is to blame
and not the process. Process is there and if you are not following it then it is your own dilemma and no one else is to blame.
Therefore your ‘hello’ goes back to you .
Therefore the correct process of understanding such verses is: if you are not Arabic speaking person then you refer to
English translation of the Quran. If you cannot understand the translation easily then you refer to Islamic Scholars for
interpretation or refer to tafsirs for explanation in detail.
Okay my friend, so looking at your summary that said. If you dont know arabic, you read english translations. If you cannot
understand you consult the translations of Islamic scholars.
So now my WHOLE point has been even the translation of Islamic scholars are no better. And then I have to consult Islamic
scholar, I dont know why not scholar of Islam? That is unfair. But then you can argue that Scholar of Islam can be biased but
then Islamic scholar can also be baised about their own religion. Is that not possible? I mean he can make day look like night
or vice versa because it suits his agenda and his ego and faith in his religion, NO?
Secondly, I have challenged you in my last post to locate me a single verse from this chapter where Muslims were ‘unfair’ to
unbelievers. You did not provide me a single verse. You cannot outdo the challenge because there is no such verse present
in this chapter. Despite this fact, ‘unfairness’ and ‘injustice’ of unbelievers is clearly mentioned in Quranic verse 48:25. If you
are not speaking about it then it is framing you fraud in the end. Definition of the word ‘unfair’ that you are trying to force on
me is clearly mentioned in the verse 48:25. Go and read it carefully.
Dude, first of all. When have I ever said that Muslims in those days were unfair or not? I do not care what happened in those
days. I even said that kill the kafirs made sense when Mohammed said it. So what happened in those days is least of my
concern.
LET ME POINT THIS OUT TO YOU IN CAPS, I AM NOT HERE TO PROVE WHAT HAPPENED BACK IN THOSE DAYS WAS
WRONG OR RIGHT I AM HERE TO PROVE WHAT THESE VERSES ARE DOING TODAY. The issue is you are too insecure
that when I am saying that there are bad verses in Koran. You are taking an offence to it, although you are a nice guy, but you
need to understand that I careless of what mohammed did and what happened in those days. I only care what it is doing to the
world TODAY. I dont live in yesterday. I am here today so I live in today.
About, unfair verse, when I bring it you tell me you have to read whole chapter and then you chalenge me to bring in any
unfair verse. What is this catch 22?
Brother! I was not talking confusion all along this debate. I have never solicited you to learn Arabic. Did I? However I am
educating you on the correct understanding of this precise verse in English and in a very unpretentious and easy way; but it
seems your intellect is not bending towards mere astuteness. I very well realize that you do not know Arabic; however at least
show your consent when I am teaching something new to you. I am giving you a new knowledge of another language and in
the end you are arguing with me that this is indecorous with only imparting your erroneous logics. On what basis you are
saying that this verse is unfair when even you are an illiterate in Arabic? It is not you whose time is getting wasted but it is me
whose time is getting wear and tear. I am giving you knowledge and you are not agreeing to it. Height is that, you do not even
know about this new language and you are denying it. On what basis, brother?
Yes but you have not convinced me with even the translations you brought in, do you see? I mean think about it. Even the
translations you brought in are still unfair to non-muslims.
What kind of logic is this? Do you want me to believe everything what your mind deems? No matter if it is filth. What is the
credence that you are speaking truthful? What is the credibility that I am uttering truthful all along this course. And where did
you bring in your evidence and where I have denied it? Can you please show me? Alright bring me evidence from scholar of
Islam and I will see what he cites apropos this precise verse. Do you call Ali Sina 'scholar of Islam'? He is a scholar of garbage,
foul mouth, rubbish and stupidity and nothing else. Therefore do not bring him as your evidence. Who is going to listen to
you? Evidence is required when you do not simply believe any one's words. If you have faith in my words then you ought to
believe them as well. If not, then I have to bring in proofs from an authentic source in order to put more fuel to my fire.
Regarding Islamic Scholars singing songs about Quranic verses; I have never brought one yet and I am still speaking
translators only. I have a very good answer for your contention; however I am keeping it for later reply.
Okay good, I will but can you please answer the second and third questions above.
You are very right that there are some Maulvis and Mullahs who are igniting hate among young Muslims and they are sticking
a diverse perception of Quranic verses on their juvenile intellects. I agree with no doubts! However, they are few of them and
even my government is trying hard to nail them down as well. But wait a minute! This is what you said, “Again, this verse might
not be bad at all but when we see Muslims coming out of mosque and saying "Kill the Kaafirs". Now this is your admission that
this verse might not be bad but the people are taking it in a false perception. Again the Quran is correct and people are
wrong. Thank you brother for your admission as this is what I wanted you to admit.
Regarding people coming out of mosques blabbering ‘Kill the Kaafirs’, again I have never seen such kind ever in my life. May
be there are some mosques which are instigating such so-called ‘Muslims’; I do not deny that; however again there are vast
majority of Muslims who do not heed to such ‘Maulvis’ and ‘Mullahs’. Do not give them credence and they will become
worthless in the end. For example; this dupe named Ali Sina made an impression on me at first and I got very upset when I
read his own perverted ‘version’ of Islam on his filthy website. However I took an extra step and started searching for actual
truth. I have scanned almost all the Islamic books and discussed with many Islamic Scholars but I failed miserably to find a
single acceptance of Ali Sina’s yowling. Where else can I find the evidence in regards to Islam? Surely, in Islamic books or
where else should I find it? This is what I did and I found the truth. I referred to black and white proofs in Islamic books as they
are the most authentic rather than listening to a common person. Quran clearly states:
“if any one slew a person - unless it be for murder or for spreading mischief in the land - it would be as if he slew the whole
people: and if any one saved a life, it would be as if he saved the life of the whole people” (Quran 5:32)
The verse is self-explanatory and generic. It does not require any pre or post verses for correct elucidations. One does not
have to perform any mental gymnastics as this verse particularly uses the English word ‘person’ and it means any person
whether Hindu, Muslim, Sikh, Christian, Jew and Buddhist or any one in the world. If some kill an innocent ‘person’ then it
implies that he has killed the whole humanity. Let me re-phrase it; if a ‘Muslim’ kills an innocent ‘person’ then it means he has
killed the whole humanity. There is not a single religious book on the face of the earth which has such kind of comparison
between killing one innocent person denoting that you have killed the whole of human kind. If some one is not following such a
commandment of Quran then you can easily deem him out of the fold of Islam. If some one is still not following such a
commandment of Quran is not a Muslim.
And why such verses are causing problems? Because people like you are not willing to heed to their correct interpretation. I
can easily put your good self in this example. I have been trying to teach you the real interpretation of this verse with
evidences and proofs; but you keep sticking to your false notion. There is not a single Islamic book on this face of the Earth
that portrays this verse as unfair to unbelievers. And you wanted me to heed to the rants of populace like Ali Sina. You are
imposing me to listen to intellectually dumb Ali Sina rather than listening to an Islamic Scholar. You are again imposing me to
discard all the literature available and all the material available on this particular chapter and agree to what you are saying.
This is idiocy and nothing at all. Isn’t it brother?
Dude, are you insecure about Koran or something? Do you understand that I DONT CARE REALLY WHAT KORAN SAYS. My
concern is what Muslims are doing using these verses. And yes you can take the above as in bold as my admission that the
verse might not be bad at all but Muslims using them the wrong way is bad. And yes maybe the verse made perfect sense
when it was written but to use it in same way today is unfair.
And if you already admit what Mullahs and Maulvis are doing is wrong then what are we arguing about? If you admit that much
then it is time for action. You need to act against these idiotic maulvis and mullahs and ayotollahs. If Muslims and non-muslims
live peacefully then no one will visit FFI and Ali Sina will be prophet of his own. But lots of people do visit there and that is no
thanks to Ali Sina but it is Thanks to these maulvis.
You need to understand in simple terms, that as far as I am concerned. I am not even worred about these verses in Koran if
Muslims did not misuse them and it did not mean any offence to non-muslims. The problem is muslims are using them the
wrong way. So now that you admit, let me ask a good Muslim like yourself. When will good folks like you let this happen? When
will you rescue your religion from these idiots? I think the time is now and everyday that passes time is running out. It seems if
these OBL and his idiotic associates throughout the world get a hold of nukes then we are looking at World War III. Dont you
think? There needs to be revolution in Islam against these idiots and then you will see that I will walk ten steps to your one to
shake hands there will be FFI or a-FFI. BUT UNTILL THEN who do I blame?
Here is my counter argument. If you consider Harvard University as the best university in the world and they have a perfect
curriculum to teach; however still some students failed and their time spent at the campus never afforded them a desired
success in their lives. It doesn’t mean that it was a predicament with the University itself; rather it is the ‘misunderstood’
students who are to accuse. Indeed curriculum is flawless; however, some students were not being up to snuff in order to use
their intellects in comprehending the correct and actual teaching. And if some one wills to fallaciously advertise such students
and point the finger at the University itself for their failure then it is mere stupidity from his side. Isn’t it, brother?
Such students are menace to society. This is an area where I put all those ‘misunderstood’ Muslims; as for in my opinion,
Islamic Curriculum is perfect however there are some Muslims who failed to understand correctly. And there are some
‘westerners’ who are willing to advertise them for their own warped benefits and they have good means to do it. Such also
includes idiot Ali Sina as well.
Yes and my counter argument. In the case of university student the only person he/she ends up hurting is him/herself while in
the case of student of Islam he/she ends up hurting others. And that is nature and I agree with it that if you are not a good
student you lose. But then your loss should not mean loss to others.
Let me again clarify for you, I DO NOT CARE OF ANY VERSES IN KORAN AND MAYBE NOTHING IS WRONG WITH ISLAM
AND EVEN IF THERE IS I AM NO ONE TO JUDGE. EVEN STILL THERE IS THEN IT IS NOTHING NEW. THE WHOLE POINT
HERE IS WHAT IS BEING DONE WITH THESE VERSES. YOU NEED TO TAKE YOUR LOVE, RESPECT AND DEVOTION OF
ISLAM OUT OF THIS ARGUMENT BECAUSE NO ONE IS QUESTIONING YOUR BELIEF. WHAT IS BEING QUESTIONED IS
WHY IS THIS *** HAPPENING? IN FACT, LET ME ASK YOU IF YOU THINK CASTE SYSTEM IN HINDUISM IS BAD OR NOT?
My Response:
Dear brother iandonlyi,
Hoping that you are in the best of your health. I would really like you to join hands with me on the joyous days of Eid. Eid
Mubarak to you. You are dearly invited to share happy hours of Eid with us.
Okay, yes I admit I diddnt read your point carefully. Now that I re-read it I see that you are saying that you admit the verse is
only unfair if it is quoted out of context.
Again you have quoted me ‘out of context’. There was never inkling from my side that I ever admitted that this verse is only
‘unfair’ if it is quoted ‘out of context’. Please read carefully where I have cited that the word ‘unfair’ you incorporated is again
unfair to use for the Muslims of that time. Muslims were only hard, harsh or strong towards the unfairness of unbelievers. They
had never done any ‘unfair’ or ‘injustice’ acts towards unbelievers. They had never ceased unbelievers to “enter Medina” nor
had they ever “detained their animals”. In turn, unbelievers “hindered Muslims to enter the sacred Mosque” and “detained
their animals”. All the statements in double quotation marks are ‘unfair’ acts. Being hard, harsh or strong towards some ones
grievance is never labeled as ‘unfair’ or ‘injustice’.
Another evidence is that the unbelievers did an ‘unfair’ act towards Muslims by “hindering them to enter the Sacred Mosque”
and “detaining their animals”. Consequently, MUSLIMS ONLY RETALIATED BY BEING HARD, HARSH OR STRONG
TOWARDS THEM. Hence, they were unbelievers who really initiated their offense towards Muslims and it was NEVER vice
versa. Thus, the inception of offense was from the unbelievers and not from the Muslims. If you slap some one without any
reason then please never expect him ‘to turn other cheek’ in normal circumstances; as he will definitely even the score by
slapping you back. Point to be noted; that Muslims of that time never strike back in the manner unbelievers fired up their
transgression.
I shall not bring in any anybody else in our discussion
Thank you very much.
Can you tell me in your opinion what do you think is the problem in the world between Muslims and non-mislims. Whatever
your opinoin is I will respect your right to say but I might or might not disagree.
I will put my opinion in short. I sincerely deem that there are two mad groups in the world who are at war; one is lead by
materialistic desires and other by religion. And none of them is able to justify their acts of what they actually believe.
Since you talk logic all the time let me prove a point about logic. So a question to you on logic. If a child eats candy 10 days
and his teeth goes bad by the scale of X, so logically, if a child eats candy 1 day wil his teeth go bad X/10. Yes or No?(Please
Note: I am not saying you are not logical, I just need to prove a point about Logic)
On the surface; YES.
Okay my friend, so looking at your summary that said. If you dont know arabic, you read english translations. If you cannot
understand you consult the translations of Islamic scholars.
You are very much right.
So now my WHOLE point has been even the translation of Islamic scholars are no better. And then I have to consult Islamic
scholar, I dont know why not scholar of Islam? That is unfair. But then you can argue that Scholar of Islam can be biased but
then Islamic scholar can also be baised about their own religion. Is that not possible? I mean he can make day look like night
or vice versa because it suits his agenda and his ego and faith in his religion, NO?
Your point is already refuted by me in virtually every post of mine. Reminding you once again; that I have already articulated in
my preceding post that I have still not bring any Islamic Scholar yet, to prove my point. Isn’t it brother? I was very well aware
beforehand that you are going to state the same thing if I had ever brought one in support of my line of reasoning.
A Muslim Scholar can be biased towards his religion than ‘Scholar of Islam’, and may not be of any advantage for a Muslim in
order to prove his point. Similarly, I can defy your ‘Scholar of Islam’ by saying that he is bias towards your concept than Islamic
Scholar, and may not be of any advantage to you in order to prove your point. In this way both of them would be futile for us,
in order to utilize them as our evidences. That is the reason I have never brought one in the picture and speaking logic only.
Logic is one of the ways that is acceptable to every logical person. Isn’t it brother?
One of the evidences I brought are 9 translations. Reminding you once again that some of these translators are non-Muslims
as well. Therefore there is no concept of biasness in my evidence. Isn’t it? And we can both use these translations as our focal
point of discussion and can disprove one’s points logically. This is what I am doing so far with you. Isn’t it brother? Therefore I
brought my evidence in an attire of equality where we both can use it.
Secondly, in my last post I had already asked you to bring your ‘Scholar of Islam’ in your defense and I will see what he says
about this precise verse. Therefore, I have never blocked you to bring one in the picture to defend your claims. You have a
free hand to do so. However, I am not going to accept any rants from populace like stupid Ali Sina. They are not 'Scholars' of
Islam as they are not aware of Arabic language.
Dude, first of all. When have I ever said that Muslims in those days were unfair or not? I do not care what happened in those
days. I even said that kill the kafirs made sense when Mohammed said it. So what happened in those days is least of my
concern.
You position is cleared now. Thanks.
LET ME POINT THIS OUT TO YOU IN CAPS, I AM NOT HERE TO PROVE WHAT HAPPENED BACK IN THOSE DAYS WAS
WRONG OR RIGHT I AM HERE TO PROVE WHAT THESE VERSES ARE DOING TODAY. The issue is you are too insecure
that when I am saying that there are bad verses in Koran. You are taking an offence to it, although you are a nice guy, but you
need to understand that I careless of what mohammed did and what happened in those days. I only care what it is doing to the
world TODAY. I dont live in yesterday. I am here today so I live in today.
Recurring statements once again from your side, as I have already replied before many times that ‘some’ of the Muslims
‘misunderstood’ such verses of Quran. It doesn’t mean Quran is fallible. But people who ‘misunderstood’ are erroneous. I am
not going to change the syllabus if ‘some’ students ‘misunderstood’ ‘some’ parts of it. This is stupidity.
Such of my statements are based on your first contention in your first post where you said, “it is about time you stop
concentrating on *** up verses in Koran”. Since then I am proving that Quran is not fallible but people ‘misunderstood’ some
parts of it. And by the grace of Allah you had already admitted in your earlier post and declared, “Again, this verse might not
be bad at all but when we see Muslims coming out of mosque and saying "Kill the Kaafirs". Now you have changed your stance
once again and reiterated the same arguments. There are no bad verses in Quran as you had admitted correctly. Why are
you changing your statement when you had already admitted in your last post regarding this verse might not be bad?
About, unfair verse, when I bring it you tell me you have to read whole chapter and then you chalenge me to bring in any
unfair verse. What is this catch 22?
My counter argument; are you going to consent if I aver my win over you by stating your statement “I will leave and debate is
over”? Quoting some one ‘out of context’ is a fraud and you cannot even use it in a court of law to substantiate your thrust.
This is generic and not limited to Quran only, but to every literature and its Authors on the face of the Earth. Therefore your
line of reasoning is not acceptable.
The reason I challenged you to bring one verse from the chapter is just in order for you to disprove me once and for all. My
point is to bring me one verse from this chapter where Muslims are shown ‘unfair’ by some acts. Being hard, harsh or strong
towards someone is not an action and it is only an inkling of an attitude. For example; if I slap you on your face without any
reason, such an act would be labeled as ‘unfair’ or ‘injustice’ to you. On the contrary, you never retaliate by slapping me back;
but you just change your attitude towards me in such a way that next time I would not dare hitting you once more. Therefore, in
this example you never reacted; you never hit me back. Similarly, in this particular chapter unbelievers ‘slapped’ Muslims by
“hindering them from entering the Sacred Mosque” and “detaining their animals”. Muslims never retaliated by ‘slapping them
back’ but just change their behavior and attitude towards them by being hard, harsh or strong (over here it is only change of
attitude).
Keeping this ‘slapping’ example in consideration; if you still feel that I am talking ‘gibberish’ then please find me a verse from
this chapter where Muslims had retaliated in return of unbelievers ‘unfair acts’.
Yes but you have not convinced me with even the translations you brought in, do you see? I mean think about it. Even the
translations you brought in are still unfair to non-muslims.
Same old stories from your side and nothing new whatsoever. Let me put in view for you, your alteration of stances all along
this discussion:
1. In your first post you said that some of the verses of Quran are *** up. And you brought verse 48:29 as your evidence.
2. And when I proved to you that your translation is not correct. Afterwards, you changed your stance and said even
translations brought by me are no different then the one you brought at first.
3. I explained you a little bit more and proved to you that these translations are not depicting the message you are trying to
impose. You changed your stance once again and started speaking about followers.
4. And when I clarified regarding ‘followers’; you changed your standpoint for the third time and said that the verses might not
be bad but their results are not good.
5. And for the fourth time you again changed your stance after admitting that the verses might not be bad and spoke about
followers once again.
6. Afterwards, your fifth change of stance where you again brought translations in the picture.
See brother! You are going in circles. You are changing positions. Every time when you change your stance is evidence to
itself that you agree to my preceding explanation. Changing position means that you are convinced on one conception of mine
and you are going towards another one. I have never changed my position all along this discussion. What I was speaking at
initial remain the same all along. But you are repeating your arguments again and again in your replies to my arguments. At
least give me something new to retort.
Okay good, I will but can you please answer the second and third questions above.
Already answered!
Dude, are you insecure about Koran or something? Do you understand that I DONT CARE REALLY WHAT KORAN SAYS. My
concern is what Muslims are doing using these verses. And yes you can take the above as in bold as my admission that the
verse might not be bad at all but Muslims using them the wrong way is bad. And yes maybe the verse made perfect sense
when it was written but to use it in same way today is unfair.
If I were to feel insecure then I would not be debating with you. Isn’t it brother? Muslims are the only ones in vast majority who
defend their faiths and spread the truth. There is not a single religion on the face of the earth whose cohorts defend their
belief in such numbers. We are proud of Islam and we believe Quran to be the word of Allah. Creation of this forum is
evidence that I am not feeling insecure. You are wide of the mark.
As for your rest of the comments; I concur. You just changed the words of my earlier statements and stick your name on to
them. However, it requires a slight variation where you used the word ‘Muslims”; you should be using ‘some’ Muslims. Using
word ‘Muslim’ gives an off beam perception to a stranger in a way that you are talking about ‘all Muslims’. This is the same trick
used by western media and populace like Ali Sina ‘The stupid one’. Otherwise, you would be contradicting yourself once again
where you had already admitted earlier that you do not deem that all Muslims are bad.
And such ‘some’ Muslims who ‘misunderstood’ Quran, are negligible in amount. Even they are less than 1% of total population
of Muslims. However, they have become stronger enough to shake the world; thanks to the western media and their foreign
policies. Still it does not prove your point of Muslims being bad religiously as it would be stupid of me if I label Christianity as a
ruthless faith because Hitler slaughtered around 6 million Jews. Whatever Christians had done to Hitler by labeling him as a
part of ‘some misunderstood’ Christians; do the same with these ‘some misunderstood’ Muslims. Why are you having double
standards? Even followers of Hitler were greater in number if you compare it with these ‘some misunderstood’ Muslims. They
had more ferocious agenda rather than these ‘some misunderstood’ Muslims. Hitler alone has blood of millions of innocent
human beings on his collar relatively then ‘some’ ‘misunderstood’ Muslims who are carrying some thousands of innocent blood
on their collars, allegedly. Then why are you not pointing fingers to Christianity? Keeping this example in consideration; it
denotes Christianity as more brutal than ‘Islam’. This is again an example of your ‘unfairness’ and ‘injustice’ towards Muslims.
And if you already admit what Mullahs and Maulvis are doing is wrong then what are we arguing about? If you admit that much
then it is time for action. You need to act against these idiotic maulvis and mullahs and ayotollahs. If Muslims and non-muslims
live peacefully then no one will visit FFI and Ali Sina will be prophet of his own. But lots of people do visit there and that is no
thanks to Ali Sina but it is Thanks to these maulvis.
Am I arguing apropos ‘Maulvis’ and ‘Mullahs’? It was you who brought in ‘followers’ in our discussion. I already made myself
clear in my earlier posts that I am not going to follow the ‘followers’; however I will follow the scripture. And this is what I am
doing till now. I am following the book of Allah i.e. Quran. Therefore, you have to point finger to yourself and not to me.
My counter argument regarding your statement, “If Muslims and non-muslims live peacefully then no one will visit FFI”, similarly
if Muslims and non-Muslims live peacefully then no one will visit Answering Christianity as well. Illogical statement once again
from you, brother!
You need to understand in simple terms, that as far as I am concerned. I am not even worred about these verses in Koran if
Muslims did not misuse them and it did not mean any offence to non-muslims. The problem is muslims are using them the
wrong way. So now that you admit, let me ask a good Muslim like yourself. When will good folks like you let this happen? When
will you rescue your religion from these id
Suhail Khalid,
Okay I diddnt know that you needed proof for simple stuff which is obvious, i.e., the fact that the verse is still unfair to Muslims
does not need proof. Just to remind you that we agreed upon this beforehand that things that are obvious do not require proof.
But anyway you said "Bring me any Islamic Scholar who negates the way of interpretation that I actually did". Why do I have to
bring it from Islamic Scholar why cant it be Scholar of Islam? I hope you can see the difference, Or you mean to say that only
Islamic scholar can give right definition and not a non-islamic scholar of Islam? And let's not even count Ali Sina.
By the way what proof did you yourself bring to prove your point about the verse? The 10 or something different translations
of the same verse? And I said the verse is still racist even if we take your definition, is it not? And then you said that the verse
is actually a continuation of the whole chapter. And I said I dont care the issue is verses like that are causing problem. Are
they not?
I am sorry bud I am not going to play that game. Things that are obvious do not require proofs like people dont need to tell me
in broad day light that sun is somewhere upthere and I the same from people.
And my last point is that you said something like or similar to "The non-muslims in those days were the aggressors we were
just responding" or "It was non-muslims who disregarded the revealation". Well in the world of freedom that is awfull logic,
people can disregard whatever they rightfully want. Also, the other difference is whatever the non-muslims were doing in those
days is not written in religion but what Muslims did is and so non-muslims are not acting like the non-muslims in those days but
Muslims are. I understand that it was the age of barbarians but non-muslims grew out of it but scores and scores of your folks
diddnt. And my proof on this is the beheading you see on TV(I hope that is proof enough or do I actually need to show you a
muslim beheading a non-muslim? If yes, sorry I cant and I wont and I dont have heart for it). There are many terrorist
organizations in the world, do you see them beheading on TV like your fellow Muslims are doing in Iraq and Afghanistan?
It seems you are from England and you grew up there, let me ask, did you ever hear IRA beheaded people?
My Response:
Dear brother iandonlyi,
Hoping that you are in the best of your health by the grace of God.
Okay I diddnt know that you needed proof for simple stuff which is obvious, i.e., the fact that the verse is still unfair to Muslims
does not need proof. Just to remind you that we agreed upon this beforehand that things that are obvious do not require proof.
What you are labeling a simple ‘stuff’ as an observable phenomenon is actually going against the rules of literature. No author
is going to concur to your theory if you quote him ‘out of context’. Follow my examples where I have quoted you ‘out of context’
and portrayed the actual perception of your sayings upside down. It also depicts that your statement ‘I will leave and debate is
over’ can very much befall to a justification for me as your endorsement of ‘defeat’. Brother! Can I abscond from this debate
and aver my win over you? Are you going to assent to my departure from this dialogue on the basis of your ‘out of context’
declaration? No, such a practice from my side is actually a devious act that is not going to be swallowed by any sane soul on
the face of the earth. Isn’t it brother?
Similarly, the entire chapter is actually about a glad tiding of a victory from God to his Prophet (Peace be upon him) and if you
draw out a single verse from the chapter then you can have an assortment of inferences to concur with. However, when it is
put back to its respective chapter then it gives you a different perception. Therefore, one has to pursue the rules of literature
in order to have an explicit gist. Again, follow the examples above where I have quoted you ‘out of context’.
But anyway you said "Bring me any Islamic Scholar who negates the way of interpretation that I actually did". Why do I have to
bring it from Islamic Scholar why cant it be Scholar of Islam? I hope you can see the difference, Or you mean to say that only
Islamic scholar can give right definition and not a non-islamic scholar of Islam? And let's not even count Ali Sina.
If a person is so obtuse in such a way that he is not competent enough to merely comprehend the difference between quoting
‘in context’ and ‘out of context’; then it is an obligatory prerequisite to bring an Islamic Scholar for apposite understanding and
afford him as evidence. If you require learning about plants then you refer to botanist. Similarly, if you are eager in studying
animals then you refer to zoologists. In the same way if you want to learn about Quran you refer to Islamic Scholars. You never
confer with physicists if you want to learn something about chemistry. That is the reason we include Ali Sina in the category of
brainless twits as this fraud idiot does not even know Arabic and he is going about doing his own perverted interpretations of
the Holy Quran. What do you label such people who follow the understandings of ‘Ali Sina’? Definitely they can also be termed
as stupid too. You are asking for definition and interpretation of Arabic literature from a person who is not aware of the
language. Such a laughable notion! Isn’t it brother? And in turn, you are denying all the Islamic Scholars who are well versed
in Arabic literature and Quran, over populace like Ali Sina. Is this logical brother? In simple language, you are rebuffing all the
Scientists who say that ‘Earth is round’ over a person who is not even a scientist and cite that ‘Earth is flat’. You will definitely
injure your reputation if you follow such a person.
By the way what proof did you yourself bring to prove your point about the verse? The 10 or something different translations
of the same verse? And I said the verse is still racist even if we take your definition, is it not? And then you said that the verse
is actually a continuation of the whole chapter. And I said I dont care the issue is verses like that are causing problem. Are
they not?
I have brought my proof in an attire of unfussy and acceptable logic. Ask any literate person if I am speaking illogically.
Quoting ‘out of context’ is never pleasing for any soul on this earth. Try it with someone else who is erudite and let’s see how
he responds. No doubt that he is going to label you as a fraud on an allegation of misquoting him. Reminding you, that I still
have not brought my other evidences in support of this precise verse. I have more ammunition in my bunker to bombard you
extraneously. However, what is the use of bringing other evidences when you are not deliberately agreeing to acceptable
logic? Bringing in other evidences is only going to portray myself as a person who is trying to clutch a straw for survival in an
ocean. Though, I am not going to do that. I will just keep you sticking to my first evidence until you agree or I back off. You
have a full right not to agree to my logic; but in order to defy me you have to bring your logic. If you fail to bring one then world
will label you as 'illogical'. Otherwise, we will leave our conversation and let the readers decide for themselves.
I am sorry bud I am not going to play that game. Things that are obvious do not require proofs like people dont need to tell me
in broad day light that sun is somewhere upthere and I the same from people.
You have to play this ‘game’ otherwise there is no other way out. Defy my logic with your logic. Defy what I have proven to you
that you are quoting this precise verse ‘out of context’ with something very logical to defend with.
There are some verses in the Holy Quran whose meanings and interpretations are straight forward and easy to understand.
Such verses do not require any connoisseur for construal rather they can be understood by populace by far. Please find
below some of those verses.
“Say: He is Allah, the One and Only;” (Quran 112:1)
“Allah, the Eternal, Absolute;” (Quran 112:2)
“He begetteth not, nor is He begotten;” (Quran 112:3)
“And there is none like unto Him.” (Quran 112:4)
All of these verses are simple and straightforward in their comprehension and do not require any expert for their exegesis.
You can easily quote them ‘out of context’ as all of these verses do not require pre and post verses for support in order to
understand them easily. Your example of ‘sun in a broad day light’ easily befits such verses.
And my last point is that you said something like or similar to "The non-muslims in those days were the aggressors we were
just responding" or "It was non-muslims who disregarded the revealation". Well in the world of freedom that is awfull logic,
people can disregard whatever they rightfully want. Also, the other difference is whatever the non-muslims were doing in those
days is not written in religion but what Muslims did is and so non-muslims are not acting like the non-muslims in those days but
Muslims are.
You presented yourself as an ideal example of a person who quotes ‘out of context’ and you have proven me truthful. Thank
you very much brother. You uttered, “It was non-muslims who disregarded the revealation”. Now have another look at the
verse:
“They are the ones who denied Revelation and hindered you from the Sacred Mosque and the sacrificial animals, detained
from reaching their place of sacrifice.” (Quran 48:25)
If you intimately look at the translation it is evidently unfolding unbelievers as the ones “who denied Revelation” AND “hindered
you from the Sacred Mosque” AND “the sacrificial animals, detained”. Pay close attention to the word “AND”. In English
grammar it is called coordinating conjunction and its function is to join two or more clauses. In this particular verse it is emitting
different qualities and characteristics of unbelievers at the time of Prophet Muhammad (Peace be upon him). Therefore these
unbelievers were not three distinct groups of people; but they were all same with all these characteristics. If Quran were to use
“OR” as a coordinating conjunction; then brother you would have a chance to nail us down. But by the grace of Allah, you do
not have anything to hit us back. Therefore, Muslims naturally became ‘hard’, ‘strong’ or ‘harsh’ towards unbelievers because
they hindered them from entering the Sacred Mosque and they detained their animals from reaching the place of sacrifice. It
was never because unbelievers reject the revelation; since Quran clearly states, “Unto you your religion, and unto me my
religion” (Quran 109:6). And, you have quoted me 'out of context'. I am sure you have percieved of what actually happen
when you quote 'out of context', by now.
For your kind information, this precise verse is only depicting ‘some qualities’ of unbelievers as there are other verses in
the Holy Quran that describe them more densely as one of the ferocious beasts towards Muslims. However, I am
not going to incorporate such verses in my talk right now as I do not have a sickness likewise Ali Sina to go out of track of what
we are actually discussing right now.
I understand that it was the age of barbarians but non-muslims grew out of it but scores and scores of your folks diddnt. And
my proof on this is the beheading you see on TV(I hope that is proof enough or do I actually need to show you a muslim
beheading a non-muslim? If yes, sorry I cant and I wont and I dont have heart for it). There are many terrorist organizations in
the world, do you see them beheading on TV like your fellow Muslims are doing in Iraq and Afghanistan?
Brother! I am not inscribing anything apropos to your statements, as much of it is already been replied by me in earlier posts
and rest is a different subject.
It seems you are from England and you grew up there, let me ask, did you ever hear IRA beheaded people?
IRA? Or is it ‘Catholic Militants’? Brother! I would really like to label it from Muslim’s perspective. Please do not get into such
subjects, as you are not going to win in this particular topic as well. Stick to what we are discussing right now.
Note: Brother! You may perceive some long delays in my replies to your queries, as I am working on a new layout of my
website and I am replying to some other goons of Ali Sina on the forum, in chorus. Please bear with me.
Take good care of yourself. Hoping to hear from you soon.
Kindest regards.
iandonlyi posted:
Suhail,
Okay you want to discuss a topic logically even when to me or to any person who is not in denial it is clear. Good enough.
Let's go as deep as we can.
I had brought this verse from somewhere.
"Muhammad is God's apostle. Those who follow him are ruthless to the unbelievers but merciful to one another."Victory 48:29
And then you brought in the following.
Pickthall - Muhammad is the messenger of Allah. And those with him are hard against the disbelievers and merciful among
themselves.
Yusuf Ali - Muhammad is the apostle of God; and those who are with him are strong against Unbelievers, (but) compassionate
amongst each other.
Hilali-Khan - Muhammad (SAW) is the Messenger of Allah, and those who are with him are severe against disbelievers, and
merciful among themselves.
Shakir - Muhammad is the Apostle of Allah, and those with him are firm of heart against the unbelievers, compassionate
among themselves
Sher Ali - Muhammad is the Messenger of ALLAH. And those who are with him are hard against the disbelievers but tender
among themselves.
Arberry – Muhammad is the Messenger of God, and those who are with him are hard against the unbelievers, merciful one to
another.
Palmer – Mohammed is the Apostle of God, and those who are with Him are vehement against the misbelievers,-
compassionate amongst themselves;
Rodwell – Muhammad is the Apostle of God; and his comrades are vehement against the infidels, but full of tenderness
among themselves.
Sale - Mohammed [is] the apostle of God: And those who are with him are fierce against the unbelievers, [but] compassionate
towards one another.
Just tell me in one line or elaborate upto a book full on what do you find as a difference between the verse I brought in and
translations you brought in? So let's take very small steps. I thought we were grown up and was expecting higher level but let's
talk primary.
Also, tell me in one line if you think this verse is unfair to non-muslims or not? Obviously you can elaborate a book full but
busy people like us can help each other by talking upto the point. And since we are talking about asking literate person about
things. Make sure you ask a literate person before you respond. But then you will go back to your point that this verse is part
of whole chapter. Find, read on...
Let me tell you about your argument that any literate person would find me silly if you tell him that I dont care about whole
chapter just the verse. The truth is you are right. But do you know why I said that? Because I do not want to bring good verses
in Koran into this when we are talking about a bad verses. Have I not said beforehand? But now you want to bring in whole
chapter or whole Koran it is fine by me. Koran being dragged into this is your fault not mine. So here I go....
Okay fine so this verse might be part of whole chapter about victory, so what? Does that give Muslims the right to be unfair
with non-muslims? I mean you were the ones following will of God... Is that how the will of your God is? Isnt God suppose to be
mercifull to ALL? I thought we are all God's children so now Muslims are better children of God? What a rip off.
And from my whole post you are probably saying this guy doesnt know what he is talking about and my answer to that is "I do,
you just dont want to understand my point" But since we are talking primary let me say it in simple terms. If Muslims were really
following will of God then as far as I know, defence is right of any animal so God would not say no to that. But these kind of
verses are offensive. Do you know the difference between offence and defence? This is a serious question. Do you know that
offence is bad and defence is good? I hope you do.
Now you will obviously come back and say that Muslims were only defending. Well I got news for you my friend. This verse is
not at all about defence and neighter is the chapter, it is more about revenge. Also this chapter is more like either you agree
to what we say or we will be harsh with you and kick your ***. That is called hegemony my friend not defence.
So now verses like these are not defensive but offensive. Please read up all you can on defence and offence and then read
this verse again. You will see what I am saying.
Another way of proving my contention that this verse and chapter is offensive is that we take ground situation. Are Muslims
offensive or defensive in general? You will obviously not agree but in any situation between Muslims and non-muslims the
offensive side is almost always muslim. If they are not the ones who started first they create enough bloodshed to be given
any credit. So let's take ground result of Islamic bad verses.
Maybe you dont agree with my argument of muslims being offensive but you see humans in general dont like offence. If a
worst person is being a judge between two unknown parties, he/she will take side of the defensive person in their minds. So let
me ask you my friend. Why are there so many sites that are Anti-Islam and you guys have to defend Islam from them? You
see because lots of people are tired of offence they take a stand against offence. Do you see what I am saying? I mean we
are talking Karma here. Do you find anti-buddhist, anti-sikh anti-hindu, anti-christian, anti-jew site started by anyone? Let's
keep truth into our discussion. There are few anti-hinduism sites outthere which is for caste system. Which is correct. Caste
system is obviously wrong. so you see people automatically speak out against what is wrong. So now can we conclude that
something is wrong with Islam also? ( I hope you will atleast agree that religions and its teachings have a big impact on their
followers and so people following different religions act differently. I hope I dont have to find something from science for this or
maybe find a Islamic scholar to prove).
So what is it about act of Muslims which is making the rest of the non-muslims so anti-muslims everyday?
So why is the whole world after Islam? Do you believe in conspiracy theories? I hope not. Do you believe CIA and Mosad has
time and energy to really work against Islam? I hear Muslims crying that Infidels are after Islam???? I hope you dont truely
believe that? You really think non-muslims have free lives that they want to lose fighting terrorists? Do you believe non-
muslims have money they love spending killing and dying? Oh no no, maybe it is media. I mean Hindus and Buddhists also live
in west and media says nothing about them but they hate Islam and Muslims. I think it is media after Islam, right?
Let's see what you can say about all this.
The fact is my friend that Muslims are offensive lot and that is why there are so many anti-muslim sites and that is why there
are so many anti-muslim people in the world.
Sorry I tried to keep it as primary as I could but you will definately have to higher your standards because we are talking
religions and theyeffect lots of people.
IRA? Or is it ‘Catholic Militants’? Brother! I would really like to label it from Muslim’s perspective. Please do not get into such
subjects, as you are not going to win in this particular topic as well. Stick to what we are discussing right now.
I have more ammunition in my bunker to bombard you extraneously.
You have been calling me brother all this time but you see, you are no brother of mine. I tell you why!!! See the bold part in
first quote? Well that tells me that you have already accepted that I have lost this debate. Brothers dont do that. Maybe Muslim
brothers do in non-muslim world that does not happen. You would wait till the end before you can start making conclusions.
And now you see why I have seldom called you my brother? Otherwise reciprocating is a normal human instinct but I knew it
was all fake.
And about second quote, you are forgetting, if I want to start talking about ammo I have FFI and all the million other anti-
muslim sites as my ammo. But obviously we have decided that we wont use that ammunition so on the other side of spectrum I
can also say that if we are not going to use anti-muslim perrspective as our ammo then we cant use muslim perspective either.
Then we will have to start talkign just logic and rationality. Just because I let you use your ammo and dont use mine does not
mean you can be overconfident. Let's stay real.
And lastly you talking ammo with me is like Iraq talking ammo with US.
My Response:
I had brought this verse from somewhere.
As I had already put in the picture for you that your 'somewhere' is actually a wrong location. You fetch this precise verse from
an anti-Islamic site. And I stanchly believe the fellow who is running the site deliberately alter the translation in order to satisfy
his own cravings. This particular translation is not even done by an authentic person making it a reason for me not to have
faith in it.
And then you brought in the following.
Yes! I brought famous and less famous, Muslim and non-Muslim translators in aiding of my argument that the word 'ruthless'
is erroneously exploited by the person who translated this precise verse. IN ENGLISH 'RUTHLESS' MAY BE ANALOGOUS TO
'HARD', 'HARSH' OR 'STRONG'; HOWEVER, IT IS NOT IN ARABIC LANGUAGE. I have already stated prior please do not
measure Arabic with the scale of English as the measurements are exclusively poles apart.
Just tell me in one line or elaborate upto a book full on what do you find as a difference between the verse I brought in and
translations you brought in? So let's take very small steps. I thought we were grown up and was expecting higher level but let's
talk primary.
Here I go again. I do not be in agreement to the usage of word 'ruthless' as a correct translation of an Arabic word 'ashidda' in
Quranic verse 48:29 that you offered. English word 'ruthless' falls into the category of 'zulm' in Arabic Language (In English
'Cruelty'). Whoever has done the translation has faultily incorporated the word 'ruthless' in the translation. In other words he
has committed a fraud. Why are you finding this simple definition so hard to accept? Give me your evidence and prove me
wrong?
I believe I am speaking very simple English; am I? And why were you expecting a higher level when we are discussing basic
knowledge of Arabic Language?
Also, tell me in one line if you think this verse is unfair to non-muslims or not? Obviously you can elaborate a book full but
busy people like us can help each other by talking upto the point. And since we are talking about asking literate person about
things. Make sure you ask a literate person before you respond. But then you will go back to your point that this verse is part
of whole chapter.
I have never changed my posture and any of my arguments whatsoever. What ever I had uttered before I am reiterating the
same all along. There is not a sole place in my writing where I have altered my statement. The only motive I introduced the
notion of 'out of context' is that you were not in accordance to my foremost elucidation where I said that 'ruthless' is not
accurate translation, and latter is only incorporated to make the opening proof much brawny. I had no other alternative but to
bring in the idea of 'out of context'; and this is just to formulate things comfortable for you to cotton on. If I still undergo the
same hunch that you are still not able to comprehend my explanations then I will bring more proofs. I am taking you step by
step in comprehending this precise Quranic verse in correct context. Be sure! I am not going to perplex you; I am not Ali Sina.
We will go on a very slow pace.
Alright! Here is my one line answer.
"Yes! The Quranic verse 48:29 is ‘unfair’ to non-Muslims, if and only if, you pluck it out from its respective
chapter and quote it 'out of context'."
Mind it brother that the word ‘unfair’ you used in your explanation is again erroneous. Why? I will vindicate down in my reply. I
have fulfilled your request dearly; now you have to fulfill mine.
In turn, now you have to tell me in one line if this verse is unfair to Muslims or not?
"They are the ones who denied Revelation and hindered you from the Sacred Mosque and the sacrificial animals, detained
from reaching their place of sacrifice." (Quran 48:25)
Note! I will substantiate down in my reply that in this specific chapter it is unbelievers who were in reality ‘unfair’ to Muslims and
not vice versa.
Let me tell you about your argument that any literate person would find me silly if you tell him that I dont care about whole
chapter just the verse. The truth is you are right.
Thank you very much for your agreement.
But do you know why I said that? Because I do not want to bring good verses in Koran into this when we are talking about a
bad verses. Have I not said beforehand? But now you want to bring in whole chapter or whole Koran it is fine by me. Koran
being dragged into this is your fault not mine.
Brother! You have already agreed above in your argument that it is very much silly for a person to recount only one verse
WHERE IT GIVES YOU DIVERSE MEANING when pluck out from its respective chapter. The same way your declaration "I will
leave and debate is over" gives diverse perception when pluck out from its respective paragraph. It would be injustice to you
from my side if I use your statement 'out of context' and aver my win over you. You are not going to enjoy that. Isn't it brother?
Similarly, no author on the face of the Earth is going to be pleased with you if you do such a prejudice to him. Therefore, such
is not rare to Quran only, but generic to all the literature on the face of the earth.
Similarly, bringing in the whole chapter of Quran is going to make your own knots tighter. The more you reference the whole
chapter of Quran the more meanings are going to get soothe; likewise, the more you refer to the whole of Quran the more
meanings get bias toward Muslims. Such a practice surely goes against you.
By God! I can show Muslims more merciful, defensive and loving to unbelievers if you dare considering the whole Quran.
Remember in my earlier post where I cited, "this precise verse is only depicting 'some qualities' of unbelievers as there are
other verses in the Holy Quran that describe them more densely as one of the ferocious beasts towards Muslims". I am still
clinging to my statement. You won't find me varying statements as I am not likewise Ali Sina. I know what I am talking about.
If you are bringing in Quran, then please be remain adamant that it is indeed go hostile to your doctrine of what actually you
are striving to impose here. Therefore, my counsel to you is to only glue to chapter since this way the course of your
understanding will remain be unadorned and trouble-free. Also you may have some odds to bring in your 'valid' arguments
against Muslims, if and only if, you remain affix to the chapter only. When we would be done with this chapter then you can
bring in Quran for discussion. OR it is all up to you to settle on? I am here and willing to discuss anything pertaining to Quran.
Okay fine so this verse might be part of whole chapter about victory, so what? Does that give Muslims the right to be unfair
with non-muslims? I mean you were the ones following will of God... Is that how the will of your God is? Isnt God suppose to be
mercifull to ALL? I thought we are all God's children so now Muslims are better children of God? What a rip off.
Over here I will attest that unbelievers were truly ‘unfair’ to Muslims and not vice versa.
Yet again, the word you used 'unfair' is surely unfair to use for the Muslims of that time. The English word 'unfair' means you
are doing some kind of injustice or you are being dishonest to someone. However, the English word 'hard', 'harsh' or 'strong'
are individual stances of those Muslims and also they do not fell under the category of being 'unfair' or 'dishonest'. The
correct understanding is that those Muslims are strong, harsh and hard in their inner selves towards unbelievers in a way that
unbelievers cannot sway them from the belief, cannot scare them with their evil tactics and cannot mold them to their manners.
The evidence is present in the chapter itself, if you read the whole chapter you will not find any proof of their unfairness and
dishonesty towards unbelievers. However on the other hand unbelievers are defined as in verse 48:25:
1. Who hindered Muslims from entering Sacred Mosque
2. Who detained animals from reaching their places
Now this is what you call 'unfairness'. Imagine if I hinder you from entering into your home. Such an act would be 'unfair' to
you. Isn't it?
Now brother, I challenge you to find me a single verse from this whole chapter where Muslims had done anything
'unfair' to unbelievers. You are deliberately filching verse 48:25 which is actually befits fittingly in the category of
'unfairness' for unbelievers and you are blaming Muslims. This is injustice from your side. Isn't it?
Now you will obviously come back and say that Muslims were only defending. Well I got news for you my friend. This verse is
not at all about defence and neighter is the chapter, it is more about revenge. Also this chapter is more like either you agree
to what we say or we will be harsh with you and kick your ***. That is called hegemony my friend not defence.
Again, see Quranic verse 48:25 then read my earlier argument and my challenge.
So now verses like these are not defensive but offensive. Please read up all you can on defence and offence and then read
this verse again. You will see what I am saying.
Again, see Quranic verse 48:25 then read my earlier argument and my challenge.
Another way of proving my contention that this verse and chapter is offensive is that we take ground situation. Are Muslims
offensive or defensive in general? You will obviously not agree but in any situation between Muslims and non-muslims the
offensive side is almost always muslim. If they are not the ones who started first they create enough bloodshed to be given
any credit. So let's take ground result of Islamic bad verses.
Brother! Do you really desire to switch on this discussion? Shall I conclude our discussion and speak 'followers'? You are
changing stances. First you brought me a verse and ask me to explicate; and when you did not hit upon anything to corner me
you started bringing in 'followers'. You know what you are actually doing by speaking about ‘followers’? You are showing world
the photo of Idi Amin Dada and telling them that this is Africa. Similarly, you are showing the picture of Hitler and notifying the
world that this is Germany. Likewise, you are showing the picture of some 'misunderstood' followers and you are revealing to
the world that this is Islam. This is idiocy and nothing at all. I have already clarified before that I am not going to follow the
'followers'; rather I would follow the scripture. This is logical. In most cases, followers are not true picture of their religion.
Can I label your whole family as 'menace' if only your brother has 'misunderstood'? Brother! You would find me standing alone
with you hand in hand if your whole family has 'misunderstood' except you.
I have already replied all of your sham allegations in my earlier posts regarding followers. Why are you bringing them again
and again? I also afforded you the solution on how to stop it; "don't advertise them". The same ways atrocities of American
forces in Iraq and Afghanistan are not shown on the T.V, they never get unearth. Similarly, if you keep on watching Al-Jazeera
or Al-Arabiya News Channel you will definitely jump into the boats of Muslims. That is the reason westerners living in Middle
East have the same views as Muslims regarding World Politics. They are with us hand in hand. Do the same with these
'misunderstood' so-called followers of Islam. Stop giving them any credence.
If you really want to discuss these issues then please accept my request to conclude our debate and let's start this new topic
in a new thread. And bring in your evidence by giving me the name of Muslims or Muslim who are really keeping you awake at
night.
Maybe you dont agree with my argument of muslims being offensive but you see humans in general dont like offence. If a
worst person is being a judge between two unknown parties, he/she will take side of the defensive person in their minds. So let
me ask you my friend. Why are there so many sites that are Anti-Islam and you guys have to defend Islam from them? You
see because lots of people are tired of offence they take a stand against offence. Do you see what I am saying? I mean we
are talking Karma here. Do you find anti-buddhist, anti-sikh anti-hindu, anti-christian, anti-jew site started by anyone? Let's
keep truth into our discussion. There are few anti-hinduism sites outthere which is for caste system. Which is correct. Caste
system is obviously wrong. so you see people automatically speak out against what is wrong. So now can we conclude that
something is wrong with Islam also? ( I hope you will atleast agree that religions and its teachings have a big impact on their
followers and so people following different religions act differently. I hope I dont have to find something from science for this or
maybe find a Islamic scholar to prove).
This is another subject. Please see my reply above.
You have been calling me brother all this time but you see, you are no brother of mine. I tell you why!!! See the bold part in
first quote? Well that tells me that you have already accepted that I have lost this debate. Brothers dont do that. Maybe Muslim
brothers do in non-muslim world that does not happen. You would wait till the end before you can start making conclusions.
And now you see why I have seldom called you my brother? Otherwise reciprocating is a normal human instinct but I knew it
was all fake.
Brother! I do apologize for my statement. I may be got into a frenzy mood because you were going out of track of what actually
we were discussing. I am a bit aggressive in nature and sometimes it gets reflected in my writings as well. I will be more careful
next time. Do not take it too seriously as I dearly admit that it is my mistake. I shouldn't be talking like this.
And about second quote, you are forgetting, if I want to start talking about ammo I have FFI and all the million other anti-
muslim sites as my ammo. But obviously we have decided that we wont use that ammunition so on the other side of spectrum I
can also say that if we are not going to use anti-muslim perrspective as our ammo then we cant use muslim perspective either.
Then we will have to start talkign just logic and rationality. Just because I let you use your ammo and dont use mine does not
mean you can be overconfident. Let's stay real.
Brother! You have already used your ammo when you brought this verse from anti-Islamic website. Isn't it? I have never
ceased you to use FFI and all the million other anti-Muslim websites in our discussion. However, I said that I am not going to
confer to the interpretations of clowns like Ali Sina since they are not learned in this particular field. Why would I ask a biology
question from a physicist? This is illogical. You are not going to follow a chemistry book written by a biologist. Are you? That is
the motive behind where I had urged you to visit the "Interpretation Section" on this forum to get a glimpse of Ali Sina's world of
interpretations. Now it gives the impression from your replies that you are well-disposed to the interpretations that I am
bringing in; as they are more logical and with evidences. If you think I am wrong then please correct me.
Secondly, besides we are discussing logic and rationality; I am bringing in my evidences as well. Therefore, there is an
immense divergence concerning your ammo and my ammo. You cannot utilize your ammo logically, rationally and evidently
because it is framed by a person (Ali Sina) who is not well-versed in ammunition (Interpretation). Similarly if your ammo does
not work then no one is going to blame you for this blunder. However, you cannot use such ammo in the war (debate) as well
as it is not going to be effective.
However, my ammo is authentic as it is prepared by a person (Islamic Scholar) who is well-versed in ammunition
(Interpretation). Therefore, I can use it anywhere and whenever I desire. And it is very effectual as well. Therefore, if you want
to bring me down then you have to purchase your ammo from my manufacturer (Islamic Scholar). Then only you are going to
destroy me. Isn't it brother?
And lastly you talking ammo with me is like Iraq talking ammo with US.
Hhhhmmmm!!! I would rather write this statement as "U.S talking ammo with Iraq". I think this is more suitable because it was U.
S. who swanked about Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq, at first. Several years have been passed and U.S is still locating
WMDs in Iraq. It is a war based on a fib. Isn’t it?
Secondly; I just used a figure of speech; an allegorical statement. It doesn't insinuate that I am talking real ammo with you. If
you find it offensive then I will not use such figurative speech again; but you have to be careful with your foul language as well.
I could see some *** & 'BS' again in your writings.
MY REQUEST:
Brother! Please keep this discussion between me and yourself. Please do not include comments of third person in our
discussion. If you want to highlight them then please you can do it in "General Comments" forum. I will ask admin to move your
replies to muslim22 some where else. However; I really like to give my comment on where you said,
Suhail, do I need to give more proof of offence and hegemony?
Therefore, it also means I can quote clowns and goons of Ali Sina on this forum and in turn ask you a question about their
offense and hegemony. Illogical again!
Take good care of yourself. Hoping to hear from you soon.
Kindest regards,
Suhail
iandonlyi posted:
Suhail Wrote:
As I had already put in the picture for you that your 'somewhere' is actually a wrong location. You fetch this precise verse from
an anti-Islamic site. And I stanchly believe the fellow who is running the site deliberately alter the translation in order to satisfy
his own cravings. This particular translation is not even done by an authentic person making it a reason for me not to have
faith in it.
Yes! I brought famous and less famous, Muslim and non-Muslim translators in aiding of my argument that the word 'ruthless' is
erroneously exploited by the person who translated this precise verse. IN ENGLISH 'RUTHLESS' MAY BE ANALOGOUS TO
'HARD', 'HARSH' OR 'STRONG'; HOWEVER, IT IS NOT IN ARABIC LANGUAGE. I have already stated prior please do not
measure Arabic with the scale of English as the measurements are exclusively poles apart.
Here I go again. I do not be in agreement to the usage of word 'ruthless' as a correct translation of an Arabic word 'ashidda' in
Quranic verse 48:29 that you offered. English word 'ruthless' falls into the category of 'zulm' in Arabic Language (In English
'Cruelty'). Whoever has done the translation has faultily incorporated the word 'ruthless' in the translation. In other words he
has committed a fraud. Why are you finding this simple definition so hard to accept? Give me your evidence and prove me
wrong?
I believe I am speaking very simple English; am I? And why were you expecting a higher level when we are discussing basic
knowledge of Arabic Language?
First of all, what you say is oxymoron. First you say that in English ruthless might be a analogous but in Arabic they are
different but then the verse is in ENGLISH!!!! I mean hello?
By my question was not even about that. My question was, what in your words is different about the verse I brought in and the
verses you brought in? Is it ruthless and hard? Okay fine let's take it the Arabic way. Let's take the word hard against ruthless.
But why dont you please explain breifly what is the difference between the two translations? Dont worry about arabic part. Just
explain to me in english. However, if you tell me that you cant explain in english then I beg your forgiveness but I am not going
to learn arabic to debate you about Islam. I doubt however, that in Arabic this verse sounds any wiser, better, fairer. I think it is
just a bad verse and that is all there is. But is it possible for you to explain in English or not? If not, why diddnt you tell me
beforehand that I need knowledge of Arabic before we start debate? So I would not waste my time.
And you keep asking for evidence. What evidence? You are either obsessed with evidence or you are just in denial that this is
garbage verse. I mean we need evidence to define differences in two words? And if I do bring in evidence it is not accepted.
What is this a one way debate? Why cant my evidence be from scholar of Islam instead of Islamic scholar. You bring in your
verses from Islamic scholars, obviously they are going to sing songs about it. Even the verses you brought are unfair, ask any
sane person.
I have never changed my posture and any of my arguments whatsoever. What ever I had uttered before I am reiterating the
same all along. There is not a sole place in my writing where I have altered my statement. The only motive I introduced the
notion of 'out of context' is that you were not in accordance to my foremost elucidation where I said that 'ruthless' is not
accurate translation, and latter is only incorporated to make the opening proof much brawny. I had no other alternative but to
bring in the idea of 'out of context'; and this is just to formulate things comfortable for you to cotton on. If I still undergo the
same hunch that you are still not able to comprehend my explanations then I will bring more proofs. I am taking you step by
step in comprehending this precise Quranic verse in correct context. Be sure! I am not going to perplex you; I am not Ali Sina.
We will go on a very slow pace.
Alright! Here is my one line answer.
"Yes! The Quranic verse 48:29 is ‘unfair’ to non-Muslims, if and only if, you pluck it out from its respective chapter and quote it
'out of context'."
Mind it brother that the word ‘unfair’ you used in your explanation is again erroneous. Why? I will vindicate down in my reply. I
have fulfilled your request dearly; now you have to fulfill mine.
In turn, now you have to tell me in one line if this verse is unfair to Muslims or not?
"They are the ones who denied Revelation and hindered you from the Sacred Mosque and the sacrificial animals, detained
from reaching their place of sacrifice." (Quran 48:25)
Note! I will substantiate down in my reply that in this specific chapter it is unbelievers who were in reality ‘unfair’ to Muslims and
not vice versa.
Good man for admitting and I like that because it is only fair. Thanks.
About the verse you posted the simeple answer is, yes it is unfair to Muslims. However, The part that says "Denied
Revealation" I think it is not unfair. Because anyone can deny any revealation. There should be no force so it is not unfair to
Muslims that non-muslims denied revealation. But about taking over your mosque and all tha tis unfair.
Anyway, I am going to stop now. Agreement is all I was looking for and if you can agree here you can agree with the rest of
stuff. The point here is that and the point of my whole point is that these verses are causing problems. I just picked the first
one I found. What was in Mohammed's mind when he said them and people who wrote them I dont know and so I am not going
to judge. The point is your maulvis and mullah's need to stop concentrating on these verses and teach your kids the good
verses. Elaborate on those good verses instead of these. Again, this verse might not be bad at all but when we see Muslims
coming out of mosque and saying "Kill the Kaafirs" then it is obviously what was taught to them in those 4 walls. Maybe "Kill the
Kaafirs" made perfect sense when Mohammed said them, that is not my concern or even a matter of any lost sleep my
concern is what followers of mohammed are doing. So I did not come here to bad mouth your religion but I came here to show
you that Muslims are abusing your religion and in turn the non-muslims.
Do you see my point? my point is result is all that matter. Maybe Islam is perfect religion. It very well might be and that is not
my concern, in fact, if it is perfect religion than it is actually good. But concern here is results. If you think Islam is perfect
religion that prove it and nothing better than your actions.
Dont get me wrong. Not all Muslims are bad. This is individual thing. But violence in name of religion is definately more
prevalant in Muslims than anybody else. Again, I said more prevalant, so it means other people do it too but with Muslims it is
more. So I want no offence --->> You see I am trying to watch my actions. Greatness of religions in books is of no use.
Relligions are only great if they make people great.
What good is religion when it says dont drink liquor and its followers dirnk more. So what do you do put a gun on their heads?
I think not. What is it. The issue is logical explanation. Human mind is very curious and untill you give a LONG explanation for
simple things it does not understand. So if this logical understanding has been put into the brain of people since they are
young. It will last them for life. And at laast, the only mind you have control over is your own and so the only thing you can do
is give knowledge. What does the other mind do is totally out of your control.
Keep up the good work and be a good human and I will do same on my side. Also, I am not runnig away. I will keep coming
here regularly. If you want to start something on new topic just put it on.
My Response:
Dear brother iandonlyi,
Hoping that you are in the best of your health.
First of all, what you say is oxymoron. First you say that in English ruthless might be a analogous but in Arabic they are
different but then the verse is in ENGLISH!!!! I mean hello?
Brother! Recurring arguments again from your side as in former post I have already illuminated that the translations are not
true portrayal of the originals. They can come close to it but never become the original. As for the rest of the people who do
not know Arabic; English translations are at hand. Such translations cannot denote the true meaning of the original; yet only
they come close to it in depicting the actual gist. For denser explanation, there are tafsirs available which are explanations or
descriptions of the verses in detail. Even tafsirs give explanation of Arabic words itself. This is not just limited to Quran only;
Bible in Greek and Hebrew is also part of such resemblance.
In Islam it is an utmost duty of a Muslim to learn Quran with its meanings and tafsir; therefore such practice is part of a learning
process and if some one still misunderstood a verse and did not follow the correct process then it is only he who is to blame
and not the process. Process is there and if you are not following it then it is your own dilemma and no one else is to blame.
Therefore your ‘hello’ goes back to you :).
Therefore the correct process of understanding such verses is: if you are not Arabic speaking person then you refer to
English translation of the Quran. If you cannot understand the translation easily then you refer to Islamic Scholars for
interpretation or refer to tafsirs for explanation in detail.
By my question was not even about that. My question was, what in your words is different about the verse I brought in and the
verses you brought in? Is it ruthless and hard? Okay fine let's take it the Arabic way. Let's take the word hard against ruthless.
But why dont you please explain breifly what is the difference between the two translations? Dont worry about arabic part.
Repetitive arguments once again! Refer to my old post and look for yourself. How many times do I have to repeat everything?
'Ruthless' falls in the category of 'Cruelty' in English and both the words means that you are doing some kind of injustice or
you are being cruel to some one. However, the Arabic word in the verse does not fit in the category of 'cruelty'. Therefore it is
foolish of you to keep yapping apropos that this verse is unfair to unbelievers. This particular verse does not depict Muslims of
being cruel, merciless and ruthless towards unbelievers. Yet on the other hand you deliberately filch the behavior of
unbelievers towards Muslims. Muslims were just only hard, harsh or strong towards their unfair demeanor and much
explanation is in my earlier post. And unfair demeanor of unbelievers is mentioned in Quranic verse 48:25; which you
deliberately filching out because it is going against your doctrine and the false idea you are trying to impose here.
Secondly, I have challenged you in my last post to locate me a single verse from this chapter where Muslims were ‘unfair’ to
unbelievers. You did not provide me a single verse. You cannot outdo the challenge because there is no such verse present
in this chapter. Despite this fact, ‘unfairness’ and ‘injustice’ of unbelievers is clearly mentioned in Quranic verse 48:25. If you
are not speaking about it then it is framing you fraud in the end. Definition of the word ‘unfair’ that you are trying to force on
me is clearly mentioned in the verse 48:25. Go and read it carefully.
Just explain to me in english. However, if you tell me that you cant explain in english then I beg your forgiveness but I am not
going to learn arabic to debate you about Islam. I doubt however, that in Arabic this verse sounds any wiser, better, fairer. I
think it is just a bad verse and that is all there is. But is it possible for you to explain in English or not? If not, why diddnt you tell
me beforehand that I need knowledge of Arabic before we start debate? So I would not waste my time.
Brother! I was not talking confusion all along this debate. I have never solicited you to learn Arabic. Did I? However I am
educating you on the correct understanding of this precise verse in English and in a very unpretentious and easy way; but it
seems your intellect is not bending towards mere astuteness. I very well realize that you do not know Arabic; however at least
show your consent when I am teaching something new to you. I am giving you a new knowledge of another language and in
the end you are arguing with me that this is indecorous with only imparting your erroneous logics. On what basis you are
saying that this verse is unfair when even you are an illiterate in Arabic? It is not you whose time is getting wasted but it is me
whose time is getting wear and tear. I am giving you knowledge and you are not agreeing to it. Height is that, you do not even
know about this new language and you are denying it. On what basis, brother?
And you keep asking for evidence. What evidence? You are either obsessed with evidence or you are just in denial that this is
garbage verse. I mean we need evidence to define differences in two words? And if I do bring in evidence it is not accepted.
What is this a one way debate? Why cant my evidence be from scholar of Islam instead of Islamic scholar. You bring in your
verses from Islamic scholars, obviously they are going to sing songs about it. Even the verses you brought are unfair, ask any
sane person.
What kind of logic is this? Do you want me to believe everything what your mind deems? No matter if it is filth. What is the
credence that you are speaking truthful? What is the credibility that I am uttering truthful all along this course. And where did
you bring in your evidence and where I have denied it? Can you please show me? Alright bring me evidence from scholar of
Islam and I will see what he cites apropos this precise verse. Do you call Ali Sina 'scholar of Islam'? He is a scholar of garbage,
foul mouth, rubbish and stupidity and nothing else. Therefore do not bring him as your evidence. Who is going to listen to
you? Evidence is required when you do not simply believe any one's words. If you have faith in my words then you ought to
believe them as well. If not, then I have to bring in proofs from an authentic source in order to put more fuel to my fire.
Regarding Islamic Scholars singing songs about Quranic verses; I have never brought one yet and I am still speaking
translators only. I have a very good answer for your contention; however I am keeping it for later reply.
Good man for admitting and I like that because it is only fair. Thanks.
Is this what you call an admission? This is an admission in denial. Read it more carefully as I have put inverted commas on the
word 'unfair' and I have made my statement non-effectual. If you are taking my statement as my admittance then I also have a
privilege to take your admission of leaving the debate by saying "I will leave and debate is over" as your declaration. This is
not admission. This is fraud you have done. And there is no soul on the face of the Earth who is going to endorse fraud. Same
with my statement and still remains for yours as well. As you have quoted me ‘out of context’ once again. You are censuring a
person of being a murderer in a court of justice where in his statement he said, “I killed him. But in self-defense”. And now you
are sticking a charge of murder on him by quoting him ‘out of context’ and using his first statement only i.e. “I killed him”; and
deliberately filching the rest of his account. This is actually ‘unfairness’ and ‘injustice’ and that is what you actually did to my
words. If such practice keeps you happy and you can sleep at night with calm then please be my guest. I will not amend my
statement and will keep it for the enlightened readers to fix upon.
About the verse you posted the simeple answer is, yes it is unfair to Muslims. However, The part that says "Denied
Revealation" I think it is not unfair. Because anyone can deny any revealation. There should be no force so it is not unfair to
Muslims that non-muslims denied revealation. But about taking over your mosque and all tha tis unfair.
Again! Reverse your gear to earlier posts and read carefully. I seriously doubt that you are not examining my posts carefully
as most of the times you have repeated the same arguments again that were already responded by me. I have already
clarified earlier that it was never because of 'Denial of Revelation'. Go back to my earlier posts and read it again the part
where I spoke about ‘Denial of Revelation’.
Anyway, I am going to stop now. Agreement is all I was looking for and if you can agree here you can agree with the rest of
stuff.
Read above regarding my agreement. Where I have said that Muslims are unfair to unbelievers? You are quoting me 'out of
context'. Even I explained to you that they were unbelievers who actually were unfair to Muslims in this precise chapter. I posed
you with a challenge to find me a sole verse from this chapter where Muslims have done any kind of unfair act to unbelievers.
'Unfairness' in English means to do injustice or to be dishonest to some one. You failed to produce a single verse from this
chapter. And you are accepting my 'out of context' agreement. Now you are being 'unfair' to me by quoting me 'out of context'.
And I really didn't like that. Now one is going to like that. If you still feel happy about this then I will leave it for the enlightened
readers to fix upon. Take my advice and try your trick with Ali Sina or any of his clowns. I want to see how they retort.
The point here is that and the point of my whole point is that these verses are causing problems. I just picked the first one I
found. What was in Mohammed's mind when he said them and people who wrote them I dont know and so I am not going to
judge. The point is your maulvis and mullah's need to stop concentrating on these verses and teach your kids the good
verses. Elaborate on those good verses instead of these. Again, this verse might not be bad at all but when we see Muslims
coming out of mosque and saying "Kill the Kaafirs" then it is obviously what was taught to them in those 4 walls. Maybe "Kill the
Kaafirs" made perfect sense when Mohammed said them, that is not my concern or even a matter of any lost sleep my
concern is what followers of mohammed are doing. So I did not come here to bad mouth your religion but I came here to show
you that Muslims are abusing your religion and in turn the non-muslims.
You are very right that there are some Maulvis and Mullahs who are igniting hate among young Muslims and they are sticking
a diverse perception of Quranic verses on their juvenile intellects. I agree with no doubts! However, they are few of them and
even my government is trying hard to nail them down as well. But wait a minute! This is what you said, “Again, this verse might
not be bad at all but when we see Muslims coming out of mosque and saying "Kill the Kaafirs". Now this is your admission that
this verse might not be bad but the people are taking it in a false perception. Again the Quran is correct and people are
wrong. Thank you brother for your admission as this is what I wanted you to admit.
Regarding people coming out of mosques blabbering ‘Kill the Kaafirs’, again I have never seen such kind ever in my life. May
be there are some mosques which are instigating such so-called ‘Muslims’; I do not deny that; however again there are vast
majority of Muslims who do not heed to such ‘Maulvis’ and ‘Mullahs’. Do not give them credence and they will become
worthless in the end. For example; this dupe named Ali Sina made an impression on me at first and I got very upset when I
read his own perverted ‘version’ of Islam on his filthy website. However I took an extra step and started searching for actual
truth. I have scanned almost all the Islamic books and discussed with many Islamic Scholars but I failed miserably to find a
single acceptance of Ali Sina’s yowling. Where else can I find the evidence in regards to Islam? Surely, in Islamic books or
where else should I find it? This is what I did and I found the truth. I referred to black and white proofs in Islamic books as they
are the most authentic rather than listening to a common person. Quran clearly states:
“if any one slew a person - unless it be for murder or for spreading mischief in the land - it would be as if he slew the whole
people: and if any one saved a life, it would be as if he saved the life of the whole people” (Quran 5:32)
The verse is self-explanatory and generic. It does not require any pre or post verses for correct elucidations. One does not
have to perform any mental gymnastics as this verse particularly uses the English word ‘person’ and it means any person
whether Hindu, Muslim, Sikh, Christian, Jew and Buddhist or any one in the world. If some kill an innocent ‘person’ then it
implies that he has killed the whole humanity. Let me re-phrase it; if a ‘Muslim’ kills an innocent ‘person’ then it means he has
killed the whole humanity. There is not a single religious book on the face of the earth which has such kind of comparison
between killing one innocent person denoting that you have killed the whole of human kind. If some one is not following such a
commandment of Quran then you can easily deem him out of the fold of Islam. If some one is still not following such a
commandment of Quran is not a Muslim.
And why such verses are causing problems? Because people like you are not willing to heed to their correct interpretation. I
can easily put your good self in this example. I have been trying to teach you the real interpretation of this verse with
evidences and proofs; but you keep sticking to your false notion. There is not a single Islamic book on this face of the Earth
that portrays this verse as unfair to unbelievers. And you wanted me to heed to the rants of populace like Ali Sina. You are
imposing me to listen to intellectually dumb Ali Sina rather than listening to an Islamic Scholar. You are again imposing me to
discard all the literature available and all the material available on this particular chapter and agree to what you are saying.
This is idiocy and nothing at all. Isn’t it brother?
Do you see my point? my point is result is all that matter. Maybe Islam is perfect religion. It very well might be and that is not
my concern, in fact, if it is perfect religion than it is actually good. But concern here is results. If you think Islam is perfect
religion that prove it and nothing better than your actions.
Here is my counter argument. If you consider Harvard University as the best university in the world and they have a perfect
curriculum to teach; however still some students failed and their time spent at the campus never afforded them a desired
success in their lives. It doesn’t mean that it was a predicament with the University itself; rather it is the ‘misunderstood’
students who are to accuse. Indeed curriculum is flawless; however, some students were not being up to snuff in order to use
their intellects in comprehending the correct and actual teaching. And if some one wills to fallaciously advertise such students
and point the finger at the University itself for their failure then it is mere stupidity from his side. Isn’t it, brother?
Such students are menace to society. This is an area where I put all those ‘misunderstood’ Muslims; as for in my opinion,
Islamic Curriculum is perfect however there are some Muslims who failed to understand correctly. And there are some
‘westerners’ who are willing to advertise them for their own warped benefits and they have good means to do it. Such also
includes idiot Ali Sina as well.
Dont get me wrong. Not all Muslims are bad. This is individual thing. But violence in name of religion is definately more
prevalant in Muslims than anybody else. Again, I said more prevalant, so it means other people do it too but with Muslims it is
more. So I want no offence --->> You see I am trying to watch my actions. Greatness of religions in books is of no use.
Relligions are only great if they make people great.
My earlier argument still holds good here. I also condemn violence in the name of religion and it may be prevalent in Muslim
world; however to some degree, very few people. However people like Ali Sina and media transform them to ‘all Muslims’ in
order to satisfy their means. If I were to follow such dumb ‘Prophets’ (Ali Sina) then brother it is impossible that you could still
be living. We could have killed you long before. You are still breathing is an evidence to itself that you still do not become a
victim of atrocities of “all Muslims”.
What good is religion when it says dont drink liquor and its followers dirnk more. So what do you do put a gun on their heads?
I think not. What is it. The issue is logical explanation. Human mind is very curious and untill you give a LONG explanation for
simple things it does not understand. So if this logical understanding has been put into the brain of people since they are
young. It will last them for life. And at laast, the only mind you have control over is your own and so the only thing you can do
is give knowledge. What does the other mind do is totally out of your control.
Again brother! My earlier example of ‘University’ still holds good here. Regarding your example of ‘drinking’; my religion says
‘do not drink’ and there are again very few Muslims who drink. Just a word from my beloved Prophet Muhammad's (Peace be
upon him) blessed mouth against drinking and it was pouring down on the streets of medina never to be filled again. This is
what you call a miracle. Words being so effective. We have the lowest of drunkards, lowest of pork eaters, lowest of gambling
and highest of charity. No guns on the heads! This is the effect of religion of Islam on Muslims. The people who are not
following these commandments are again very few. Similarly, the people who ‘misunderstood’ are again very few. How am I
going to stop media who is covering a disco club in dubai and showing very few Muslims drinking and deliberately snub to
cover a mosque which is full of Muslims praying. People who are not aware of lifestyle of dubai would definitely perceive a
wrong perception and they will establish that ‘most’ of the Muslims are drunkards. That is how ‘west’ world and stupid populace
like Ali Sina are playing games with your intellects and defaming Islam. Showing very few; however again and again; and
making them larger than life in the end.
Keep up the good work and be a good human and I will do same on my side. Also, I am not runnig away. I will keep coming
here regularly. If you want to start something on new topic just put it on.
The inkling of starting a new topic was a proposition from your side as you had commented on different subjects in your earlier
post. Therefore, you have to decide and not me :).
Thank you very much for you comments brother. You are always welcome on this forum. At least you have guts to debate with
a Muslim on an Islamic website. I dearly admire that.
Take good care of yourself. May be we will discuss in near future.
Suhail
iandonlyi posted:
Suhail,
Okay, yes I admit I diddnt read your point carefully. Now that I re-read it I see that you are saying that you admit the verse is
only unfair if it is quoted out of context. But can you please do me three favours. So let's continue out topic. And OK, I shall not
bring in any anybody else in our discussion.
1) Can you talk down to point. I dont talk here and there. I like down to point discussion.
2) Can you tell me in your opinion what do you think is the problem in the world between Muslims and non-mislims. Whatever
your opinoin is I will respect your right to say but I might or might not disagree.
3) Since you talk logic all the time let me prove a point about logic. So a question to you on logic. If a child eats candy 10 days
and his teeth goes bad by the scale of X, so logically, if a child eats candy 1 day wil his teeth go bad X/10. Yes or No?(Please
Note: I am not saying you are not logical, I just need to prove a point about Logic)
Brother! Recurring arguments again from your side as in former post I have already illuminated that the translations are not
true portrayal of the originals. They can come close to it but never become the original. As for the rest of the people who do
not know Arabic; English translations are at hand. Such translations cannot denote the true meaning of the original; yet only
they come close to it in depicting the actual gist. For denser explanation, there are tafsirs available which are explanations or
descriptions of the verses in detail. Even tafsirs give explanation of Arabic words itself. This is not just limited to Quran only;
Bible in Greek and Hebrew is also part of such resemblance.
In Islam it is an utmost duty of a Muslim to learn Quran with its meanings and tafsir; therefore such practice is part of a learning
process and if some one still misunderstood a verse and did not follow the correct process then it is only he who is to blame
and not the process. Process is there and if you are not following it then it is your own dilemma and no one else is to blame.
Therefore your ‘hello’ goes back to you .
Therefore the correct process of understanding such verses is: if you are not Arabic speaking person then you refer to
English translation of the Quran. If you cannot understand the translation easily then you refer to Islamic Scholars for
interpretation or refer to tafsirs for explanation in detail.
Okay my friend, so looking at your summary that said. If you dont know arabic, you read english translations. If you cannot
understand you consult the translations of Islamic scholars.
So now my WHOLE point has been even the translation of Islamic scholars are no better. And then I have to consult Islamic
scholar, I dont know why not scholar of Islam? That is unfair. But then you can argue that Scholar of Islam can be biased but
then Islamic scholar can also be baised about their own religion. Is that not possible? I mean he can make day look like night
or vice versa because it suits his agenda and his ego and faith in his religion, NO?
Secondly, I have challenged you in my last post to locate me a single verse from this chapter where Muslims were ‘unfair’ to
unbelievers. You did not provide me a single verse. You cannot outdo the challenge because there is no such verse present
in this chapter. Despite this fact, ‘unfairness’ and ‘injustice’ of unbelievers is clearly mentioned in Quranic verse 48:25. If you
are not speaking about it then it is framing you fraud in the end. Definition of the word ‘unfair’ that you are trying to force on
me is clearly mentioned in the verse 48:25. Go and read it carefully.
Dude, first of all. When have I ever said that Muslims in those days were unfair or not? I do not care what happened in those
days. I even said that kill the kafirs made sense when Mohammed said it. So what happened in those days is least of my
concern.
LET ME POINT THIS OUT TO YOU IN CAPS, I AM NOT HERE TO PROVE WHAT HAPPENED BACK IN THOSE DAYS WAS
WRONG OR RIGHT I AM HERE TO PROVE WHAT THESE VERSES ARE DOING TODAY. The issue is you are too insecure
that when I am saying that there are bad verses in Koran. You are taking an offence to it, although you are a nice guy, but you
need to understand that I careless of what mohammed did and what happened in those days. I only care what it is doing to the
world TODAY. I dont live in yesterday. I am here today so I live in today.
About, unfair verse, when I bring it you tell me you have to read whole chapter and then you chalenge me to bring in any
unfair verse. What is this catch 22?
Brother! I was not talking confusion all along this debate. I have never solicited you to learn Arabic. Did I? However I am
educating you on the correct understanding of this precise verse in English and in a very unpretentious and easy way; but it
seems your intellect is not bending towards mere astuteness. I very well realize that you do not know Arabic; however at least
show your consent when I am teaching something new to you. I am giving you a new knowledge of another language and in
the end you are arguing with me that this is indecorous with only imparting your erroneous logics. On what basis you are
saying that this verse is unfair when even you are an illiterate in Arabic? It is not you whose time is getting wasted but it is me
whose time is getting wear and tear. I am giving you knowledge and you are not agreeing to it. Height is that, you do not even
know about this new language and you are denying it. On what basis, brother?
Yes but you have not convinced me with even the translations you brought in, do you see? I mean think about it. Even the
translations you brought in are still unfair to non-muslims.
What kind of logic is this? Do you want me to believe everything what your mind deems? No matter if it is filth. What is the
credence that you are speaking truthful? What is the credibility that I am uttering truthful all along this course. And where did
you bring in your evidence and where I have denied it? Can you please show me? Alright bring me evidence from scholar of
Islam and I will see what he cites apropos this precise verse. Do you call Ali Sina 'scholar of Islam'? He is a scholar of garbage,
foul mouth, rubbish and stupidity and nothing else. Therefore do not bring him as your evidence. Who is going to listen to
you? Evidence is required when you do not simply believe any one's words. If you have faith in my words then you ought to
believe them as well. If not, then I have to bring in proofs from an authentic source in order to put more fuel to my fire.
Regarding Islamic Scholars singing songs about Quranic verses; I have never brought one yet and I am still speaking
translators only. I have a very good answer for your contention; however I am keeping it for later reply.
Okay good, I will but can you please answer the second and third questions above.
You are very right that there are some Maulvis and Mullahs who are igniting hate among young Muslims and they are sticking
a diverse perception of Quranic verses on their juvenile intellects. I agree with no doubts! However, they are few of them and
even my government is trying hard to nail them down as well. But wait a minute! This is what you said, “Again, this verse might
not be bad at all but when we see Muslims coming out of mosque and saying "Kill the Kaafirs". Now this is your admission that
this verse might not be bad but the people are taking it in a false perception. Again the Quran is correct and people are
wrong. Thank you brother for your admission as this is what I wanted you to admit.
Regarding people coming out of mosques blabbering ‘Kill the Kaafirs’, again I have never seen such kind ever in my life. May
be there are some mosques which are instigating such so-called ‘Muslims’; I do not deny that; however again there are vast
majority of Muslims who do not heed to such ‘Maulvis’ and ‘Mullahs’. Do not give them credence and they will become
worthless in the end. For example; this dupe named Ali Sina made an impression on me at first and I got very upset when I
read his own perverted ‘version’ of Islam on his filthy website. However I took an extra step and started searching for actual
truth. I have scanned almost all the Islamic books and discussed with many Islamic Scholars but I failed miserably to find a
single acceptance of Ali Sina’s yowling. Where else can I find the evidence in regards to Islam? Surely, in Islamic books or
where else should I find it? This is what I did and I found the truth. I referred to black and white proofs in Islamic books as they
are the most authentic rather than listening to a common person. Quran clearly states:
“if any one slew a person - unless it be for murder or for spreading mischief in the land - it would be as if he slew the whole
people: and if any one saved a life, it would be as if he saved the life of the whole people” (Quran 5:32)
The verse is self-explanatory and generic. It does not require any pre or post verses for correct elucidations. One does not
have to perform any mental gymnastics as this verse particularly uses the English word ‘person’ and it means any person
whether Hindu, Muslim, Sikh, Christian, Jew and Buddhist or any one in the world. If some kill an innocent ‘person’ then it
implies that he has killed the whole humanity. Let me re-phrase it; if a ‘Muslim’ kills an innocent ‘person’ then it means he has
killed the whole humanity. There is not a single religious book on the face of the earth which has such kind of comparison
between killing one innocent person denoting that you have killed the whole of human kind. If some one is not following such a
commandment of Quran then you can easily deem him out of the fold of Islam. If some one is still not following such a
commandment of Quran is not a Muslim.
And why such verses are causing problems? Because people like you are not willing to heed to their correct interpretation. I
can easily put your good self in this example. I have been trying to teach you the real interpretation of this verse with
evidences and proofs; but you keep sticking to your false notion. There is not a single Islamic book on this face of the Earth
that portrays this verse as unfair to unbelievers. And you wanted me to heed to the rants of populace like Ali Sina. You are
imposing me to listen to intellectually dumb Ali Sina rather than listening to an Islamic Scholar. You are again imposing me to
discard all the literature available and all the material available on this particular chapter and agree to what you are saying.
This is idiocy and nothing at all. Isn’t it brother?
Dude, are you insecure about Koran or something? Do you understand that I DONT CARE REALLY WHAT KORAN SAYS. My
concern is what Muslims are doing using these verses. And yes you can take the above as in bold as my admission that the
verse might not be bad at all but Muslims using them the wrong way is bad. And yes maybe the verse made perfect sense
when it was written but to use it in same way today is unfair.
And if you already admit what Mullahs and Maulvis are doing is wrong then what are we arguing about? If you admit that much
then it is time for action. You need to act against these idiotic maulvis and mullahs and ayotollahs. If Muslims and non-muslims
live peacefully then no one will visit FFI and Ali Sina will be prophet of his own. But lots of people do visit there and that is no
thanks to Ali Sina but it is Thanks to these maulvis.
You need to understand in simple terms, that as far as I am concerned. I am not even worred about these verses in Koran if
Muslims did not misuse them and it did not mean any offence to non-muslims. The problem is muslims are using them the
wrong way. So now that you admit, let me ask a good Muslim like yourself. When will good folks like you let this happen? When
will you rescue your religion from these idiots? I think the time is now and everyday that passes time is running out. It seems if
these OBL and his idiotic associates throughout the world get a hold of nukes then we are looking at World War III. Dont you
think? There needs to be revolution in Islam against these idiots and then you will see that I will walk ten steps to your one to
shake hands there will be FFI or a-FFI. BUT UNTILL THEN who do I blame?
Here is my counter argument. If you consider Harvard University as the best university in the world and they have a perfect
curriculum to teach; however still some students failed and their time spent at the campus never afforded them a desired
success in their lives. It doesn’t mean that it was a predicament with the University itself; rather it is the ‘misunderstood’
students who are to accuse. Indeed curriculum is flawless; however, some students were not being up to snuff in order to use
their intellects in comprehending the correct and actual teaching. And if some one wills to fallaciously advertise such students
and point the finger at the University itself for their failure then it is mere stupidity from his side. Isn’t it, brother?
Such students are menace to society. This is an area where I put all those ‘misunderstood’ Muslims; as for in my opinion,
Islamic Curriculum is perfect however there are some Muslims who failed to understand correctly. And there are some
‘westerners’ who are willing to advertise them for their own warped benefits and they have good means to do it. Such also
includes idiot Ali Sina as well.
Yes and my counter argument. In the case of university student the only person he/she ends up hurting is him/herself while in
the case of student of Islam he/she ends up hurting others. And that is nature and I agree with it that if you are not a good
student you lose. But then your loss should not mean loss to others.
Let me again clarify for you, I DO NOT CARE OF ANY VERSES IN KORAN AND MAYBE NOTHING IS WRONG WITH ISLAM
AND EVEN IF THERE IS I AM NO ONE TO JUDGE. EVEN STILL THERE IS THEN IT IS NOTHING NEW. THE WHOLE POINT
HERE IS WHAT IS BEING DONE WITH THESE VERSES. YOU NEED TO TAKE YOUR LOVE, RESPECT AND DEVOTION OF
ISLAM OUT OF THIS ARGUMENT BECAUSE NO ONE IS QUESTIONING YOUR BELIEF. WHAT IS BEING QUESTIONED IS
WHY IS THIS *** HAPPENING? IN FACT, LET ME ASK YOU IF YOU THINK CASTE SYSTEM IN HINDUISM IS BAD OR NOT?
My Response:
Dear brother iandonlyi,
Hoping that you are in the best of your health. I would really like you to join hands with me on the joyous days of Eid. Eid
Mubarak to you. You are dearly invited to share happy hours of Eid with us.
Okay, yes I admit I diddnt read your point carefully. Now that I re-read it I see that you are saying that you admit the verse is
only unfair if it is quoted out of context.
Again you have quoted me ‘out of context’. There was never inkling from my side that I ever admitted that this verse is only
‘unfair’ if it is quoted ‘out of context’. Please read carefully where I have cited that the word ‘unfair’ you incorporated is again
unfair to use for the Muslims of that time. Muslims were only hard, harsh or strong towards the unfairness of unbelievers. They
had never done any ‘unfair’ or ‘injustice’ acts towards unbelievers. They had never ceased unbelievers to “enter Medina” nor
had they ever “detained their animals”. In turn, unbelievers “hindered Muslims to enter the sacred Mosque” and “detained
their animals”. All the statements in double quotation marks are ‘unfair’ acts. Being hard, harsh or strong towards some ones
grievance is never labeled as ‘unfair’ or ‘injustice’.
Another evidence is that the unbelievers did an ‘unfair’ act towards Muslims by “hindering them to enter the Sacred Mosque”
and “detaining their animals”. Consequently, MUSLIMS ONLY RETALIATED BY BEING HARD, HARSH OR STRONG
TOWARDS THEM. Hence, they were unbelievers who really initiated their offense towards Muslims and it was NEVER vice
versa. Thus, the inception of offense was from the unbelievers and not from the Muslims. If you slap some one without any
reason then please never expect him ‘to turn other cheek’ in normal circumstances; as he will definitely even the score by
slapping you back. Point to be noted; that Muslims of that time never strike back in the manner unbelievers fired up their
transgression.
I shall not bring in any anybody else in our discussion
Thank you very much.
Can you tell me in your opinion what do you think is the problem in the world between Muslims and non-mislims. Whatever
your opinoin is I will respect your right to say but I might or might not disagree.
I will put my opinion in short. I sincerely deem that there are two mad groups in the world who are at war; one is lead by
materialistic desires and other by religion. And none of them is able to justify their acts of what they actually believe.
Since you talk logic all the time let me prove a point about logic. So a question to you on logic. If a child eats candy 10 days
and his teeth goes bad by the scale of X, so logically, if a child eats candy 1 day wil his teeth go bad X/10. Yes or No?(Please
Note: I am not saying you are not logical, I just need to prove a point about Logic)
On the surface; YES.
Okay my friend, so looking at your summary that said. If you dont know arabic, you read english translations. If you cannot
understand you consult the translations of Islamic scholars.
You are very much right.
So now my WHOLE point has been even the translation of Islamic scholars are no better. And then I have to consult Islamic
scholar, I dont know why not scholar of Islam? That is unfair. But then you can argue that Scholar of Islam can be biased but
then Islamic scholar can also be baised about their own religion. Is that not possible? I mean he can make day look like night
or vice versa because it suits his agenda and his ego and faith in his religion, NO?
Your point is already refuted by me in virtually every post of mine. Reminding you once again; that I have already articulated in
my preceding post that I have still not bring any Islamic Scholar yet, to prove my point. Isn’t it brother? I was very well aware
beforehand that you are going to state the same thing if I had ever brought one in support of my line of reasoning.
A Muslim Scholar can be biased towards his religion than ‘Scholar of Islam’, and may not be of any advantage for a Muslim in
order to prove his point. Similarly, I can defy your ‘Scholar of Islam’ by saying that he is bias towards your concept than Islamic
Scholar, and may not be of any advantage to you in order to prove your point. In this way both of them would be futile for us,
in order to utilize them as our evidences. That is the reason I have never brought one in the picture and speaking logic only.
Logic is one of the ways that is acceptable to every logical person. Isn’t it brother?
One of the evidences I brought are 9 translations. Reminding you once again that some of these translators are non-Muslims
as well. Therefore there is no concept of biasness in my evidence. Isn’t it? And we can both use these translations as our focal
point of discussion and can disprove one’s points logically. This is what I am doing so far with you. Isn’t it brother? Therefore I
brought my evidence in an attire of equality where we both can use it.
Secondly, in my last post I had already asked you to bring your ‘Scholar of Islam’ in your defense and I will see what he says
about this precise verse. Therefore, I have never blocked you to bring one in the picture to defend your claims. You have a
free hand to do so. However, I am not going to accept any rants from populace like stupid Ali Sina. They are not 'Scholars' of
Islam as they are not aware of Arabic language.
Dude, first of all. When have I ever said that Muslims in those days were unfair or not? I do not care what happened in those
days. I even said that kill the kafirs made sense when Mohammed said it. So what happened in those days is least of my
concern.
You position is cleared now. Thanks.
LET ME POINT THIS OUT TO YOU IN CAPS, I AM NOT HERE TO PROVE WHAT HAPPENED BACK IN THOSE DAYS WAS
WRONG OR RIGHT I AM HERE TO PROVE WHAT THESE VERSES ARE DOING TODAY. The issue is you are too insecure
that when I am saying that there are bad verses in Koran. You are taking an offence to it, although you are a nice guy, but you
need to understand that I careless of what mohammed did and what happened in those days. I only care what it is doing to the
world TODAY. I dont live in yesterday. I am here today so I live in today.
Recurring statements once again from your side, as I have already replied before many times that ‘some’ of the Muslims
‘misunderstood’ such verses of Quran. It doesn’t mean Quran is fallible. But people who ‘misunderstood’ are erroneous. I am
not going to change the syllabus if ‘some’ students ‘misunderstood’ ‘some’ parts of it. This is stupidity.
Such of my statements are based on your first contention in your first post where you said, “it is about time you stop
concentrating on *** up verses in Koran”. Since then I am proving that Quran is not fallible but people ‘misunderstood’ some
parts of it. And by the grace of Allah you had already admitted in your earlier post and declared, “Again, this verse might not
be bad at all but when we see Muslims coming out of mosque and saying "Kill the Kaafirs". Now you have changed your stance
once again and reiterated the same arguments. There are no bad verses in Quran as you had admitted correctly. Why are
you changing your statement when you had already admitted in your last post regarding this verse might not be bad?
About, unfair verse, when I bring it you tell me you have to read whole chapter and then you chalenge me to bring in any
unfair verse. What is this catch 22?
My counter argument; are you going to consent if I aver my win over you by stating your statement “I will leave and debate is
over”? Quoting some one ‘out of context’ is a fraud and you cannot even use it in a court of law to substantiate your thrust.
This is generic and not limited to Quran only, but to every literature and its Authors on the face of the Earth. Therefore your
line of reasoning is not acceptable.
The reason I challenged you to bring one verse from the chapter is just in order for you to disprove me once and for all. My
point is to bring me one verse from this chapter where Muslims are shown ‘unfair’ by some acts. Being hard, harsh or strong
towards someone is not an action and it is only an inkling of an attitude. For example; if I slap you on your face without any
reason, such an act would be labeled as ‘unfair’ or ‘injustice’ to you. On the contrary, you never retaliate by slapping me back;
but you just change your attitude towards me in such a way that next time I would not dare hitting you once more. Therefore, in
this example you never reacted; you never hit me back. Similarly, in this particular chapter unbelievers ‘slapped’ Muslims by
“hindering them from entering the Sacred Mosque” and “detaining their animals”. Muslims never retaliated by ‘slapping them
back’ but just change their behavior and attitude towards them by being hard, harsh or strong (over here it is only change of
attitude).
Keeping this ‘slapping’ example in consideration; if you still feel that I am talking ‘gibberish’ then please find me a verse from
this chapter where Muslims had retaliated in return of unbelievers ‘unfair acts’.
Yes but you have not convinced me with even the translations you brought in, do you see? I mean think about it. Even the
translations you brought in are still unfair to non-muslims.
Same old stories from your side and nothing new whatsoever. Let me put in view for you, your alteration of stances all along
this discussion:
1. In your first post you said that some of the verses of Quran are *** up. And you brought verse 48:29 as your evidence.
2. And when I proved to you that your translation is not correct. Afterwards, you changed your stance and said even
translations brought by me are no different then the one you brought at first.
3. I explained you a little bit more and proved to you that these translations are not depicting the message you are trying to
impose. You changed your stance once again and started speaking about followers.
4. And when I clarified regarding ‘followers’; you changed your standpoint for the third time and said that the verses might not
be bad but their results are not good.
5. And for the fourth time you again changed your stance after admitting that the verses might not be bad and spoke about
followers once again.
6. Afterwards, your fifth change of stance where you again brought translations in the picture.
See brother! You are going in circles. You are changing positions. Every time when you change your stance is evidence to
itself that you agree to my preceding explanation. Changing position means that you are convinced on one conception of mine
and you are going towards another one. I have never changed my position all along this discussion. What I was speaking at
initial remain the same all along. But you are repeating your arguments again and again in your replies to my arguments. At
least give me something new to retort.
Okay good, I will but can you please answer the second and third questions above.
Already answered!
Dude, are you insecure about Koran or something? Do you understand that I DONT CARE REALLY WHAT KORAN SAYS. My
concern is what Muslims are doing using these verses. And yes you can take the above as in bold as my admission that the
verse might not be bad at all but Muslims using them the wrong way is bad. And yes maybe the verse made perfect sense
when it was written but to use it in same way today is unfair.
If I were to feel insecure then I would not be debating with you. Isn’t it brother? Muslims are the only ones in vast majority who
defend their faiths and spread the truth. There is not a single religion on the face of the earth whose cohorts defend their
belief in such numbers. We are proud of Islam and we believe Quran to be the word of Allah. Creation of this forum is
evidence that I am not feeling insecure. You are wide of the mark.
As for your rest of the comments; I concur. You just changed the words of my earlier statements and stick your name on to
them. However, it requires a slight variation where you used the word ‘Muslims”; you should be using ‘some’ Muslims. Using
word ‘Muslim’ gives an off beam perception to a stranger in a way that you are talking about ‘all Muslims’. This is the same trick
used by western media and populace like Ali Sina ‘The stupid one’. Otherwise, you would be contradicting yourself once again
where you had already admitted earlier that you do not deem that all Muslims are bad.
And such ‘some’ Muslims who ‘misunderstood’ Quran, are negligible in amount. Even they are less than 1% of total population
of Muslims. However, they have become stronger enough to shake the world; thanks to the western media and their foreign
policies. Still it does not prove your point of Muslims being bad religiously as it would be stupid of me if I label Christianity as a
ruthless faith because Hitler slaughtered around 6 million Jews. Whatever Christians had done to Hitler by labeling him as a
part of ‘some misunderstood’ Christians; do the same with these ‘some misunderstood’ Muslims. Why are you having double
standards? Even followers of Hitler were greater in number if you compare it with these ‘some misunderstood’ Muslims. They
had more ferocious agenda rather than these ‘some misunderstood’ Muslims. Hitler alone has blood of millions of innocent
human beings on his collar relatively then ‘some’ ‘misunderstood’ Muslims who are carrying some thousands of innocent blood
on their collars, allegedly. Then why are you not pointing fingers to Christianity? Keeping this example in consideration; it
denotes Christianity as more brutal than ‘Islam’. This is again an example of your ‘unfairness’ and ‘injustice’ towards Muslims.
And if you already admit what Mullahs and Maulvis are doing is wrong then what are we arguing about? If you admit that much
then it is time for action. You need to act against these idiotic maulvis and mullahs and ayotollahs. If Muslims and non-muslims
live peacefully then no one will visit FFI and Ali Sina will be prophet of his own. But lots of people do visit there and that is no
thanks to Ali Sina but it is Thanks to these maulvis.
Am I arguing apropos ‘Maulvis’ and ‘Mullahs’? It was you who brought in ‘followers’ in our discussion. I already made myself
clear in my earlier posts that I am not going to follow the ‘followers’; however I will follow the scripture. And this is what I am
doing till now. I am following the book of Allah i.e. Quran. Therefore, you have to point finger to yourself and not to me.
My counter argument regarding your statement, “If Muslims and non-muslims live peacefully then no one will visit FFI”, similarly
if Muslims and non-Muslims live peacefully then no one will visit Answering Christianity as well. Illogical statement once again
from you, brother!
You need to understand in simple terms, that as far as I am concerned. I am not even worred about these verses in Koran if
Muslims did not misuse them and it did not mean any offence to non-muslims. The problem is muslims are using them the
wrong way. So now that you admit, let me ask a good Muslim like yourself. When will good folks like you let this happen? When
will you rescue your religion from these id