Prophecy and the Mullah: Hotel Mohenjodaro

escapist: Simply ridiculing me by calling me a mullah does not mean what I wrote is incorrect. If you have a problem with anything I wrote in that earlier post, I suggest you say it.

Someother ideas of Mullah Tahmed.



#149 by tahmed32 on December 15, 2003 11:03am PT
hamidm #144 And one more thing on the man in the cave. I am not saying the prophet sat around a round table with the angel dictating the message to him. I do believe that the prophet had an experience of some kind in the cave, that he relayed the message as he understood it to those around him, that the message was subsequently penned by various scribes (with the initial copies of the Quran in fact being somewhat different), and that the caliph usman then commissioned a standard version. So clearly there is room, for a ``slip between the cup and the lip`` (or between the experience in the cave and the standard version of the Quran). Nevertheless, it seems safe to say that the basic message of the Quran (which is poles apart from that of the maulvi, and which can be summarizd in one page as a set of values) is based on what the prophet originally related.

My belief above is based on archaeological facts (some time back the NYT reported on different versions of the Quran being studied even today in Europe just as the Dead Sea Scrolls and other aspects of biblical archaeology have been studied - although the muslim world is not ready as yet for this, no doubt it will be ready in a hundred years from now).

It does call for a leap of faith (with respect to the experience in the cave), but as long as one recognizes that and as long as one respects other people`s right to not share this faith, I dont see any problem. And indeed religion can be a positive source of peace and tranquility and moral character, What exactly went on in the cave (or on the mount where the burning bush spoke to moses, or under the banyan tree where buddha sat and meditated) is not so important as the fact that religion can (hard though it may believe for us desis who are used to mobs attacking innocent people in the name of religion) be a source of peace and goodwill. The west has done it. So can we.

Raw Dust #284 Thanks for your appreciative note. As for my ``personal understanding of the Quran``, I thought that is what I had been presenting below. :-)

The answer to your question is #2 without reservation.

To discuss this a bit: As I said earlier, on matters of religion the Quran makes it clear that judgement is reserved by God and will be between the God and the individual. Mankind is entreated not to split apart on religious issues, to treat all religions and even their rituals as given by God.

HOWEVER, the Quran also makes it clear that on the Judgement Day each individual will be held INDIVIDUALLY RESPONSIBLE for his ACTIONS. Thus, you can believe in mirza or maududi or some pir, fakir or aalim. That is not my concern. All I say is that if someone does something that common sense and decency would say is wrong, then clearly that is going to be very relevant on the Judgement Day.

My opposition to the mullahs or the followers of maududi or of mirza or of any other pir, fakir, aalim, ``holy man`` or any other man - is based on the fact that what they all have in common is that they detract from this INDIVIDUAL RESPONSIBILITY, and that has resulted all too often in ACTIONS that are clearly evil - these actions include the irresponsible creation of animosities between communities (as we see all too often on chowk, where hindutvas have been coming in hordes to insult muslims, and a handful of shameless muslim fanatics have done the same), and thus create the atmosphere for so much evil to be carried out in the name of their respective ``religions`` (burning of muslim families in Gujrat, bombing of innocent shiite mosque-goers in Quetta, killing of 3,000 innocent people on 9/11 - these are all actions that I cannot imagine can be inspired by anyone but the devil himself.). Thus, I consider those who cause rifts between communities (even those on chowk who do so while hiding their true identities behind fancy titles) that they know leads to such actions to be as surely dozakhis as any cold blooded killer. Which man misled them does not matter - whether it is modi our maududi.

Sattar Sahib and Tahmed Sahib:
Good exchange!
I was curious to know from both of you, what do you guys think according to your very own personal understanding of Quran, Would a person who interprets Quran diametrically opposite to your interpretation will be shown the gates of hell? Ofcourse to make that judgement whether a person be eternally damned is solely upto God, BUT what is your impression? Has (the way you read Quran) God given any indications of how would he dispose when the time comes:

1) You can say, yes That person will most likely be eternally damned.

2) Cannot and do not make a personal impression about the eventual End of that person (persons siding with Maudodi interpretation for example.), not even remotely.

3) Everyone who considers Quran as the word of God will be saved from Hellfire (does not matter if you think as `yes` he interprets it as `no` in Quran)

Many thanks and peace.

Urstruly: and other muslims.

This is a great site. Everyone should access it and promote it.
Contradictions in the writings of mirza-ghulam-e-farangi

sattar #281 Very good then, as I said earlier - to you be your way, and to me be mine. You have maintained a civility and decorum that is appropriate for any religious discussion, and I hope you have no complaint from my side either.

While I believe in the finality of the prophethood and you do not, your beliefs are your personal matter and not my business (unless you were to seek to impose it on society, in which case it would be a different matter). I wish you all the best in your personal life, and thank you for having the chance to present my views.

Tahmed,

Your fundamental problem is not with prophethood, but with Quran itself. And no, I am not running out of arguments … but thanks for your make-believe concern anyway. I hope it made you feel better.

You should let Allah know that … since mommies and kindergarten teachers have existed throughout the ages, there was never any need to send prophets to warn people. I am sure Allah will value your input … and amend His grand plan accordingly.

A prophet appearing to remind people of their duty does not conflict with individual responsibility. Quran is full of such examples. It attests to the fact that prophets appeared to remind and warn people as they went astray. If this bothers you, take up your issue with Allah.

And finally …

We are going in circles … while failing to see eye to eye. I am content with my take on Quran … and you should do what makes sense to you. Final point remains that civility and courtesy should be extended to everyone. Whether a person worships a monkey, or follows prophets, or day-trades tech stocks … is his prerogative.

With that comment, I bow out of this discussion.

sattar #279 In justifying the continuing need for prophets, you say ``Prophets primarily serve the function of warning people and reminding them of their duty. ``

Isnt that the reason God made mommies? And kindergarten teachers? I think my friend that you are running out of arguments.

More seriously, your argument does NOT counter the second point it made - it simply re-iterates your original point which I had countered with my argument concerning the central role of the Day of Judgement in the Quran and the emphasis on individual responsibility. You have not addressed this point.

Would you care to address this point directly? Specifically: How can you accept the Quranic emphasis on individual responsibility and at the same time look towards kindergarten teachers (excuse me, I meant follow-up prophets, ulema, holy men, mullahs, and so forth) for guidance? Is it really that hard to tell right from wrong?

Tahmed Sahib …

Contrary to what you state, I did not question the need for Quran. Therefore, your response to the hypothetical question you raised should be directed not to me, but to one who questions the need for Quran. Fair enough?

According to Quran, Torah was revealed for guidance of Israelites. Undoubtedly, Torah put the burden of following God’s commandments on each individual. Quran attests to the fact that … as Israelites went astray, Allah raised prophets for their guidance. Prophets primarily serve the function of warning people and reminding them of their duty. This fits perfectly well with Allah’s attribute of being Merciful. Condition of the world shows that mankind has gone astray once again. The obvious conclusion is inescapable for one who uses Quran as his guide. Remember, it is not about you and me personally … but the condition of the mankind as a whole.

This argument also counters the second point you raised.

malik #276 I suggest you go back and read my article which I wrote before the Iraq war - read it carefully, and you will see that I supported it for the following reasons: (a) regardless of anything else, Iraqis would be rid of an evil dictator; (b) that America has a great record of introducing democracy - I gave the example of Japan and Germany. On these two counts, (a) is already done. Saddam is behind bars.

On (b), let us take the score: over 500,000 children had starved to death while Saddam was building his fine palaces, and Iraq had piled up $300 billion debt to countries like Russia and France. Due to US lobbying on behalf of Iraq (by James Baker and others), much of the debt has been forgiven. There is no chance of Iraq again entering into wars of the kind it engaged in under Saddam - the 10 year war with Iran cost over a million lives, for example. So, when you count the war dead, you should also count lives that have been saved. While Iraq may not emerge as another Japan or Germany, there is no question that over time the insurgency will end and oil-rich Iraq will emerge as the first Arab nation with a proper constitution. It took Japan and Germany several years to get back on their feet - and there is every reason to hope that Iraq will too.

Coming to the innocent lives lost in Iraq - I will admit that the cost has been appalling, and something I had not paid attention to in my article. For that I accept my mistake in supporting the war - and as a result am even more resolute than I was before in saying that the only time violence is permissible is in pure self-defense. While on balance, via cold calculation, one could argue that more lives have been saved in Iraq than have been lost (per the above discussion), there is a question of the ends not justifying the means. And on that basis I accept my error in supporting the war. I allowed the ends to blind me to the horrors of war.

sattar #275 On your first point (why do we need the Quran), I am afraid sir that you have completely missed my point. My point was that the Quran itself provides, simply and clearly, the reason why it was necessary even though (as it itself notes) it says nothing that has not already been revealed in earlier books (e.g. the Torah to use your example). The reason being that it is the Arabic Quran, meant for a people who do not know the languages in which earlier books were revealed. Please provide me an answer to THIS point. Not to something I did not say.

On our second point (your contention that there is a continuing need for prophets, rather than the finality of the prophethood with Prophet Muhammed), I am afraid your argument is quite faulty. And this is where the fault lies: the argument you have presented goes contrary to the clear implications of the Quranic emphasis on the Judgement Day. That is, by emphasizing the Judgement Day, AND by emphasizing individual responsibility on the Judgement Day (and explicitly rejecting ``advocates`` and intercessors between the individual and God on that day), the Quran places accountability squarely with the individual. What you are saying (namely, this need for a continuing stream of warners and messengers following the Prophet Muhammed) clearly dilutes this responsibility. Please reflect upon this carefully, since this is a fundamental flaw in your entire philosophy. (Not, btw, I may add is this flaw insignificant - since, by emphasizing individual accountability Islam automatically rejects the need for a priesthood or a follow-up prophet or a theocracy. And by emphasizing individual accountability that Islam re-inforces human dignity.)

tahmed32 - you write ``My basic point is very simple: those who actively promote violence and discord between communities of people are to be condemned.``

Thank you. In this spirit I condemn you for supporting and promoting the invasion of Iraq. In fact, you went beyond other war promoters on chowk - you wrote an article promoting the war. I condemn you for joining the thousands of propagandists of this genocide. I condemn you for being a follower of Iblis. I condemn you for having the blood of innocent iraqi children on hand. How do you sit at home with your kids and have dinner when the TV in front of you shows another bloody massacre of Iraqi children as result of a war you so promoted?

Tahmed32 - your rhetoric cannot hide the blood on your hand.

Tahmed Sahib …

Individual responsibility that Quran emphasizes … was emphasized in Torah as well. But prophets were raised as people went astray. Nothing changed in the time interval between Torah and Quran … as far as human behavior and psychology is concerned.

You ask me … why do I need prophets to understand the message of Quran? It’s not about you and me … but the condition of the world at large suggests that mankind indeed has gone astray (re-read this sentence). You may argue that the world should not need more prophets. You may also argue that Israelites should not have needed more prophets. But the fact remains that Israelites did need more prophets. Similarly, the humanity still needs prophets today … as human corruption and suffering across the world at large continues to rise. Note that one of the main functions of prophets is to warn and to remind.

Let’s call it quits … but you should review your habit of unnecessarily bashing Ahamdi-Muslims. Re-read my first post on this board (#237)… and you should realize that your response was inappropriate and below the mark of civility.

+++++++++++++

Urstruly,

… I am only giving you the cyber-equivalent of a kick in the groin … that you continue to ask for by posting incorrect, hateful information about Ahamdis. If I hold a mirror to you, and you see a limping eunuch, is it my fault?

+++++++++++++

Atif Sahib,

When you imprison Ahmadis for saying prayers or giving aazan … it is not tolerance. It is gundaa-gardi. A person who claims to follow Quran should know better. Obviously you don`t. And that`s the travesty of the ummah nowadays.

malik: you forgot to mention the 3000 people of other nationalities who were killed on 9/11 whom I did not mention either. Should I therefore claim that you consider their lives to be less valuable than of the 60 pakistanis who were killed? No. Should I ask about the large number of bengalis that were killed by our own army and by the jamaatia and bihari paramilitaries in 1971 and ask why you forgot to mention them? I wont. Because all it means is that one can only give so many examples.

My basic point is very simple: those who actively promote violence and discord between communities of people are to be condemned. And those who do so by using religion as an excuse do so in violation of the Quranic injunctions are twice condemned - for promoting violence that leads to death and injury to countless innocent people in the first instance, and for replacing the peaceful message of Islam with their own satanic ideology of hate and violence and hypocrisy.

tahmed32 - you write ``Who cries for the 60 young pakistanis who were killed at the WTC by another branch of these followers of iblis? ``

it is strange how selective you are you in your mourning. While you have repeatedly brought up the death of 60 Pakistanis in WTC, since it fits in well with the agenda of your masters, i remember fully well that you openly promoted the invasion of Iraq that killed 100,000 innocent men/women/children of iraq. I also remember your joy upon the killings of hundreds of innocent pakistanis in Wana. Do you realize that by being an aide to the agent of death, you personally have the blood of these innocent people on your hand?

Or is it just that the death of these thousands of innocents was NOT the work of Iblis?!!!!

At some point hypocrisy ceases to be repulsive - it just makes one sad.

sattar - just like I am pretty tolerant towards whatever christians and jews do to their religions, I am pretty tolerant towards what you do to your qadiyani religion. The problem I have is when Qadiyanis show THEIR intolerance my messing with my religion and my Prophet (saw) and my Quran.

as for the stick you are planning to throw at me, use it to on your fellow Qadiyanis to bring some tolerance in them and to tell them to show sensitivities towards the majority Muslim population of Pakistan.

sattar #267 Let us agree to disagree. We have been around this issue enough times, and on matters of religion as I have said that is between God and the individual according to the Quran. So, to you be your way, and to me be mine.

You have not issued any threats to me, nor mischievously attributed to me the opposite of my views (like usrtruly), and for that I respect you as an individual.

As for getting along - I am sorry but too many innocent people have been killed by these followers of iblis (whether they are hindutva extremists or mullah rascals) for this evil ideology that they promote to go unchallenged. Thousands of shias have been murdered - some while saying prayers in mosques, others while leaving their families to go to work - by the followers of mullahism. Innocent christians have been attacked while praying in churches in Pakistan by men who are deaf to the specific Quranic injunctions calling for respect for all places of worship. Would a man who fears Allah ever attack innocent people? Would a man who truly fears Allah attack someone in a house of worship? Or even excuse such evil behavior? Hundreds of innocent hindu and sikh villagers have been killed by these rascals. Thousands of muslim families were murdered in Gujerat by the hindutva branch of this evil family. Who cries for the 60 young pakistanis who were killed at the WTC by another branch of these followers of iblis?

urstruly #268 spare me your royal ``we``, and mend your evil ways while you still have time. And I see you have shamelessly posted yet another lie in your pseudo-arabic mullah-speak (``gustakh-e-rasul``): You have lied again. And once again I challenge you to cut and paste anything I have written to back your filthy lie. You have already failed once this challenge when you implied that i was a qadiyani.

sattar #267 one more thing - I did read AND respond to your post #248 (see my post #253), including the point you said I ducked (I didnt, and gave you a proper response, I think).

As for the continuing evil in this world (which I see is a new argument you now present as a reason for the continuance of prophets in this world) - your argument is negated by the fact that the Quran places responsibility on the individual for his actions in this world (a basic tenet of Islam).

You can learn to tell right from wrong - truth from deceipt, kindness from cruelty, humility from chauvinism, respect from ridicule - from the Quran, and/or you can learn about it if you are raised in a good household, and/or you can learn this from other religious or non-religious aspects of any civilized culture. Surely you dont need an endless line of prophets to get this message across.

tahmad

We keep an eye on all gustakh-e-rasul mirzais whether they use hate speech like sattar, mantolives, and hamidm do to harass and insult Muslims, or it is someone like you who is trying to weasel their way in. We are watching you. You will be checked at every forum whether it is chowk or mirzai mouthpiece TFT.

Tahmed (#253):

I explained how your faith has subdued your rationality. Don’t stop after reading only the first line … but read the rest of my post #248 as well …

The basic point seems to have escaped you. Ahmadis believe that Allah raised Mirza Sahib as a prophet … just like Allah raised Noah, Jesus, Muhammad as prophets. No big deal … if you understand the message of Quran. Every evil mentioned in Quran is abundant in this world today. And you still cannot explain why prophets will appear no more. You may as well argue that Allah has fallen asleep at the wheel …

Simply insisting that Muhammad was a prophet since the book he wrote portrays him as a genuine follow … is faith-based, circular reasoning. Sorry … your view fails to measure up … which I predicted even before you said it. And btw, the book Muhammad wrote, never says that he is the last prophet (wink).

Re #258, I don’t think Urstruly suffers from temporary blindness. His real problem is perpetual stupidity … but I get the point anyway …

++++++++++++

Atif,

I appreciate your display of faith and your kind words. Now, if I throw a stick, will you go away?

+++++++++++

Tahmed, Atif, Urstruly … kindly keep up the fatwas of kuffr … against Ahmadis ... as well as against each other. It paints an accurate picture of how low the ummah has sunk (... where is MaududiLives when he is needed ...??).

As for me, I consider all of you Muslims (sigh). If you claim to be a Muslim, it is good enough for me. This is a matter between you and God Almighty … and I see no reason to dissect and label your faith.

Now, can’t we all just get along …???

urstruly #265 So now you change your tune - now you call me a munafiq!! And are you threatening me by saying this will not end with this board? You think I am afraid of you, and that you can intimidate me like you shaitani rascals try to intimidate people in Pakistan, you proven liar? Go to hell (where you and the rest of you mullah rascals will end up anyway, given your wilful violation of the Quran and the hypocritical manner in which you seek to replace its peaceful message with your own hypocrisies and lies to cause a fitna in this world)!!

tahmad

I hope you fully understand that this will not end with this thread - choice is yours to make it easier on yourself by chosing between either path. This dilemma comes in every munafiq`s life sooner or later. A few words will set you free.

Atif2

I thought it was understood - the method that you mentioned.

Urstruly - In all fairness to tahmed32, he may have hestitations about putting his age, father`s name etc. So I suggest that he say ``I agree`` or ``I disagree`` to the following statement. That would set the record straight. In fact, let me set an example:

I atif2 of www.chowk.com , adult Muslim, hereby solemnly declare that :-

(i) I am Muslim and believe in the absolute and unqualified finality of the prophethood of Muhammad (peace be upon him) the last of the prophets.

(ii) I do not recognise any person who claims to be a prophet in any sense of the word or of any description whatsoever after Muhammad (peace be upon him) or recognise such a claimant as prophet or a religious reformer as a Muslim.

(iii) I consider Mirza Ghulam Ahmad Quadiani to be an imposter nabi and also consider his followers whether belonging to the Lahori or Qadiani group to be Non-Muslim.


[signed Atif2 of Chowk]

urstruly #262 I dont need your prompting to say that I the prophet muhammed to be the final prophet and mirza ahmed to be a fake rasul - I have not just taken this view on chowk, i have also explained why I consider this to be based on what is written in the Quran. You know that very well, having been on chowk for years - and all you were doing was following the standard mullah technique of trying to intimidate anyone who speaks out against them by labelling him a kafir or an qadiyani. The fact is that maududi is a prophet in all but name to his followers - and while this many maududi followers wont like my saying this, just as many mirza followers wont like my saying this - that does not change this fact.

I am also on record for opposing all religious parties on principle - and this would include any ahmedi religious parties as well as religious parties of any other kind. So, you should not have needed confirmation of this issue from me as well, since you have been long enough on chowk to know better. I not only oppose the concept of a religious party, I also provide the reason for it: The reason being that by definition a religious party seeks to gain political power on the basis of religion - and this is a clear violation of the Quranic injunction against compulsion in religion. As for which party has created fitna, to the best of my knowledge you are wrong in pointing to qadiyani parties for this - the reason being that thousands of pakistanis that have been killed by sectarian violence have been the victims of shia vs sunni violence, and to the best of my knowledge no qadiyanis were involved. If you have better knowledge, i suggest you share it - otherwise try to be honest.

Finally, I never asked anyone to follow me. Indeed, if I were to do so, I would be violating the basic point I have been making all along - namely, if someone considers himself to be a muslim, then he has a responsibility to read and understand the message of the Quran FOR HIMSELF in an honest and common sensical manner. And it is a fact that the Quran is explicity and crystal clear on the couple of issues I have raised - respect for all religions and faiths and even their rituals; equality of all individuals (regardless of religion) before God.

tahmad

If that is so then you would not have any problem saying that it is your belief and Iman that Mohammad - peace be upon him - was the last of Allahs apostels and Mirza Quadiani was an imposter nabi and a fake rasul. And that you condemn both Quadiani and Lahori groups for creating this fitna in Islam.

The reason for that oath is that since you occassionally give us sermons on how we and every other Ulema-e-din is incorrect in interpretting Qura`n and only one who knows the correct inyterpretation is you and how we shouldn`t follow ulema blindly , therefore, I have to make sure that you are not an imposter pretending to be Muslim, misguiding us. So that when we will be blindly following you there won`t be any burden on our conscience.

urstruly#259 I assume you wrote this without waiting for my response in #258. If this assumption is incorrect and you are sufficiently hypocritical to write this even after reading what I said in #258, then you are merely an even more blatant liar and there is no point in arguing with you.

urstruly: And let me add one more thing - your attempt to portray me as a qadiyani when you know perfectly well that I am as strongly opposed to the qadiyanis for creating a prophet after muhammed as I am to the mullahs for creating ``religious leaders`` like maududi and expecting ordinary muslims to follow their evil ways rather than to have faith in the Quran as being the message of God to the individual.

You of course have no way to back up this vicious personal attack and when challenged to back you lies by cutting and pasting anything I have written. This is a perfect example of the shaitani ways of you mullah rascals: When confronted with the Quran whose injunctions you violate with impunity in order to create mischief in this world, you try to intimidate anyone who dares stand up to you by labelling him a qadiyani or a dehriya. You have given a perfect illustration of this. This is a glimpse of the evil mindset that underlies the mischief created by mullahs in this world - the mindset that has resulted in thousands of innocent pakistanis losing their lives at the hands of sectarian violence, and the mindset that has made islamist terrorism the number one threat to civilized societies across the world.

atif

what did I say

urstruly: you obviously suffer from temporary blindness when confronted with inconvenient facts. You suffered from this blindness when presented with the Quranic verses you requested. And you suffered from this blindness when I called you a liar and challenged you to back your calling me a qadiyani by cutting and pasting anything I have written. You quietly pulled yourself away from chowk when presented with the Quranic verses you yourself requested. Since it is God`s business to deal with hypocrites like you who claim to be muslim but willfully violate the Quranic injunctions.

I can only hold you responsible for your second episode of blindness: So let me repeat myself: You are a cheap liar when you imply that I am a qadiyani. If you dispute this, I challenge you to cut and paste anything I have said to back your lies.

As for that statement, I will be glad to sign it if you will send me your correct name and mailing address (or are you too much of a coward and a hypocrite to do that?).

atif

Mantolives dodged it. Lets see what reason tahmad comes up with while dodging it.

This verse was mentioned in the discussion but not discussed enough.

002.213
YUSUFALI: Mankind was one single nation, and Allah sent Messengers with glad tidings and warnings; and with them He sent the Book in truth, to judge between people in matters wherein they differed; but the People of the Book, after the clear Signs came to them, did not differ among themselves, except through selfish contumacy. Allah by His Grace Guided the believers to the Truth, concerning that wherein they differed. For Allah guided whom He will to a path that is straight.

When the ayat refers to mankind, isn`t it all the humans (not just jews, christians and muslims)?
Doesn`t it clearly say that mankind was sent the Book? and doesn`t it attribute the title of ``the people of the Book`` to all the mankind.
Why then is the popular interpretation of this term as `christians and jews` only?

Urstruly - Good job. I rememebred you had posted the same ``fill in the blanks`` for Mantolives as well to clarify whether he is a qadiyani or not. I did not follow it afterwards (as your perhaps know i was kicked out of Chowk for speaking my mind against qadiyanis on Chowk). Could you please tell me if Mantolives did agree to the 3 statements put forth?

Thanks.

tahmad

There is no ned to scream your thraot dry. There is an easier way to explain your position. Just fill in the gaps:




I .............................. S/O.............................. Aged................. .Years, adult Muslim, Resident of..................................................................... hereby solemnly declare that :-

(i) I am Muslim and believe in the absolute and unqualified finality of the prophethood of Muhammad (peace be upon him) the last of the prophets.

(ii) I do not recognise any person who claims to be a prophet in any sense of the word or of any description whatsoever after Muhammad (peace be upon him) or recognise such a claimant as prophet or a religious reformer as a Muslim.

(iii) I consider Mirza Ghulam Ahmad Quadiani to be an imposter nabi and also consider his followers whether belonging to the Lahori or Qadiani group to be Non-Muslim.

sattar #248 Please cut and paste anuthing I have written to back you statement that my faith has overcome my rationality.

What I am saying is perfectly rational: the Quran itself says that it is a book to make things simple. Not once but many times. And the things it says, consistently and clearly over and over again are there for all to see. It strongly rejects intercessors between man and God. Why then is it necessary for you to look towards other men (``lesser prophets`` in your case, ``religious leaders`` in case of the jamaatiyas) for guidance?

You have failed to provide a reasonable answer to this simple question.

As for my faith in the prophet muhammed - yes it is faith. I have already explained why I consider the prophet muhammed to have been a faithful messenger of God. I will add that my faith in God too rests on common sense - it would in fact be quite incredible to think that mankind alone was endowed with consciousness (as the atheist believes), and even the simplest of understanding of modern physics and biology would make it perfectly rational to believe in a higher order of things.

You refer to an issue you say I ducked - this is the first time you are bringing it up (I dont duck issues) and here is the response: The Quran itself provides a perfectly rational and simple answer in case you missed it - It calls itself the Arabic Quran, which says nothing that has not already been conveyed via earlier prophets, but which is meant for a people (the Arabs) who do not understand the language in which previous messages have been conveyed. This is the answer. It may be too simple for your liking, but it makes perfectly good sense to me.

urstruly: I see you trying to be more clever than you are by repeating your lie that I am an qadiyiani. If you wish to disprove that you are a liar, I challenge you to cut and paste anything I have written to back your lies.

And yes, only a fool would lie in this manner on chowk. Since, unlike the spoken word, all chowk communication is there in black and white for anyone to see. But I guess the filthy habits you picked up when growing up are hard to overcome.

I also understand your problem: in my earlier post I had said that you bootlickers of maududi are no different than the qadiyanis - you both ignore Quranic injunctions that place responsibility on the individual to read and understand the Quran and instead look towards other men for guidance. You ignored the Quranic verses I posted - thus proving that you cannot be considered a muslim, just like the rest of you maududiite rascals. And no honest man would lie in this brazen manner in which you just did. Pathetic man.

echoboom - right on!!!! you are my new hero on chowk. These pathetic creatures like sattar sahib will continue to peel the onion, wasting his time and wasting internet real estate.

sattar - why don`t you preach your qadianiat to qadianis? we are not interested in listening to your bullsh!t. If you like Mirza Qadiyani, then go worship him. you won`t hear us asking why.

It is this messing with other people`s business that is making your fellow qadiyanis life so difficult in Pakistan. You can keep throwing insults our way, but at least be kind to your ilk in Pakistan.

Perhaps I am the village idiot whom you guys are constantly referring to. I fail to understand why two quadianis are having this argument in the first place. May be tahamad belongs to Lahori group or is it vice versa.

An interview:

What`s your name?

My name is Abu Mantaqque

Great & unusual name.How do you know that it is yours?

Well, I just wrote it here. Here`s my I.D card

Who applied for your I.D card?

I did

(laughing) So thats why I should believe you really are Mr. Al-Haqque

I guess so. Or you can ask my father who named me

But he is YOUR father..(an aside) or so he claims. O.K

Ican prove by DNA etc

Sure. From where?

from science labs

(smirk) science labs? who runs those labs?

scientists of-course

Who claimed that DNA is a fool-proof method?

Scientists

And you want the proof from those promoters of their own profession & creed.

( exasperated) then what do you want me to do

Just say: ``That is all I know, just believe me``. If you ever try be speciously logical and cynical like Diogenes, you won`t get anywhere. Most of the everyday practical ``un-educated`` folk live on conventions and wisdom which mankind has accumulated.

Never peel an onion--you`ll weep for nothing

(Just coined it--like it?)

Tahmed Sahib …

It seems your faith has subdued your rationality ...

You seem to argue that Muhammad was true, since he limited his own role in Quran.

Sahib … this is the oldest trick to con village idiots. Every con artist wins people’s trust by telling him he has nothing personal to gain. Sorry, your reasoning fails to measure up.

As I earlier pointed out … in the mock Q&A bit … all you have is Muhammad’s own word to show that he was a prophet. This indeed is circular reasoning … and you have proven me right on the mark. Thanks for the show of confidence. So, here we go again … Q: How do you know Muhammad was a prophet? A: The book shows he was genuine. Q: Well … who wrote the book? A: Mohammad did. Got it?


Moving on to the issue you have ducked several times in the past …

Quran made things simple. And so did Torah. But Allah still raised prophets as people went astray. Your selective memory of Quran is very convenient.

Every social ill mentioned in Quran is abundantly present in this world, today. You have failed to explain why prophets appeared earlier, but will appear no more? Yours is an illogical conclusion.


And finally ...

Sahib … if you want to follow that middle-aged arab named Muhammad … and think the book he wrote will take you places … knock yourself out. But owing to common sense and intelligence, stop criticizing those who follow their own prophets. Important thing is that people follow their prophets, gods, or wives in a civil, peaceful manner.

And that is a simple enough point that must be appreciated.

++++++++++

Maududi Sahib …

… if you get your tiny head out of the hole in the wall … you may realize that I am applying tahmed Sahib’s criterion … to his own beliefs... to highlight inconsistency of his approach.

Quran and stuff are good … but are no substitute for basic decency. You seem to have quite a bit of one … and very little of the other.

sattar shaib you wrote - ``Get this ... an illiterate Arab went into a cave 1400 years ago, claimed that god spoke to him, went on to write a book``

sounds intriguing. doesn`t it? that an illiterate person would WRITE such a book that would find its place in the greatest books in world history !!!

then you utter a pathetic sentence ``I follow Islam according to my understanding, and am quite comfortable with my take on things. ``

so you still are resigned to follow the religion, which according to you, was started by a ``middle aged illiterate man in ancient times``???? !!!

There is no shortage of idiotic superficial wanna bes in this world after all!

Tahemed32 - I have nothing to say to you brother. Please be happy in whatever knowledge you think you have and are content with.

maududi #243 ``- People of the book according to Islam are:`` You say this after ignoring the verses I mentioned that make it clear that what you say is ``according to Islam`` is the opposite of what the Quran says. This is a perfect example of the way you maududiites have replaced the Quran with your own views. How dare you rascals disgrace my religion in this manner?

(I had ignored your last two posts addressed to me, ignored the rubbish you posted to another poser about my ``motives`` behind exposing your hypocrisy, but will not let you get away with covering up the Quranic message with your own mullah ideology.)

sattar2 #244 Your questions have no relevance to the point I made. Kindly address the point I made: i.e. that if the Quran itself says that it is a book to make things simple, why do you need some other man (a ``lesser prophet`` in your case, or maududi, or some other ``aalim`` or any any other man, it does not matter) to explain it to you?

btw, the answers you provided to your own questions are not correct. Here are the questions and the correct answers:

Q: How do you know Muhammad told the truth?
Your Answer: Well … the book says so.

Wrong answer. The reason I consider Muhammad to have spoken the truth is because I am convinced he was an honest man who tried to convey the message as best he could. The reason I am convinced that he was a faithful messenger is very simple: references made to his own role in society are clearly geared to place limits on them (as being a messenger, a warner, and no more - NOT as caliph or king or mard-i-momin or anything that charlatans coming after him have tried to do through the ages).

Q: Ok … and who wrote this book?
Your answer Huh? ... of course, Muhammad did.
Correct answer: Scribes organized by the caliph usman wrote the current version of the Quran, in response to complaints from muslim generals about different versions of the Quran being used in different corners of the realm.

You say: Duh! … duh!! … duh …!!!
Exactly!! THAT is the sum total of all arguments I have heard from you or from others who look towards other men for guidance and ignore the teachings of the Quran. I pray for the day that muslims learn to be honest and start using their own eyes and brains and end their slavish mentality that history seems to have instilled in them. Amen.

Tahmed Sahib (#240),

Given enough time, the mullah in you eventually takes over … and you start bashing everyone who disagrees with you. Apparently having a civil discourse is not possible for you (so much for following Quran). I follow Islam according to my understanding, and am quite comfortable with my take on things.

You claim that Ahmadis follow human beings. Depending on what this means … you actually do the same … but are not smart enough to realize this! Get this ... an illiterate Arab went into a cave 1400 years ago, claimed that god spoke to him, went on to write a book, and presented it as the word of the invisible god. And today you swear by this book, go around claiming that god spoke to humanity through Muhammad ... and will debate on what god said, what he meant ... and what not. All this based on a book authored by a middle-aged man in ancient times. Get real, pal ...

Here`s a reality check:

Q: How do you know Muhammad told the truth?
A: Well … the book says so.

Q: Ok … and who wrote this book?
A: Huh? ... of course, Muhammad did.

Duh! … duh!! … duh …!!!
You seem to lack basic intelligence to appreciate this irony …

Last time we discussed Quran, you did not have much to say … except avoiding questions and telling pathan jokes. So pardon my Sahib … if I fail to take your ramblings seriously … and instead, write you off as yet another high-strung, annoying muslim …

Just to put this ``tangential`` discussion to a closure:

- There is NOTHING in Islam that says that we should not respect other religions. `lakum deenokum wali-addin` - explains it all. For those who are creating this impression that ``some people`` promote the idea that Islam is against other religions - are merely creating a target just so that they can shoot it down. Thats a fun thing to do - make up an argument in the name of ``other`` people, and then shoot down that argument with your own limited knowledge :)

- reading Quran is individual`s responsibility, however it does not absolve the person making arguments like ``islam says this...`` and ``islam says that...`` to provide the exact quotation, surah or ayah to back up his assertions. If nothing else, he may educate his interactors. But when he gets defensive about it, and even angry at ``having to quote a ayah``, then you know that the person has nothing useful to contribute and merely wasting time with his heresay.

- People of the book according to Islam are: taurah (old testament, people of Moses), zaboor (not in existence, but was for the people of Daaudo r David), Injeel (new testament or bible, for the people of Jesus), and Quran (for muslims).

Mohar,

I am merely pointing out that using the logic of the Quran, that Tahmed is arguing by, everyone on this planet atleast is amongst the people of the book. Besides there is no one kind of Hinduism either... and on the huge pantheon of Gods and goddesses rests Brahma .... who in attributes is similar to that of the Islamic god.

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

Raw_Dust: You can see ``No`` written and disagree and say you interpret it to be ``Yes``, if you wish. No skin off my back what you wish to believe. Doesnt make any sense to me - but dont worry about me. I`ll be fine regardless of what you choose to believe.

When you tell me that I should give maududilives his space, please review the discussion before reaching conclusions. I not used any foul language (he has, on the other hand, although ``only once`` as he reminded me as if that makes any difference - and no apologies, nor regrets), nor have I called him any names other than the one he has chosen to define his presence on chowk (maududiite) whereas he has started at least two posts addressing me as a retard.

While I can understand your emotional sympathies with him (after all, he is repeating the piece of rubbish too many muslims like to believe in - namely that they are something special and people of other religions are not), with all due respect I would suggest your post would have been better directed to him.

I would also add that if someone wishes to glorify maududi (and by definition, his abuse of islam) in the privacy of his home that is fine. But when he does that on chowk - any poster has the right to challenge him.

Finally: you asked me a question, which I assumed was in all sincerity, and I took the time to find the Quranic verses for you. I can see you dont appreciate the time I took, and chose to simply tell me that you ``disagree``. I dont consider this behavior any different than that of escapist (to whom I have stopped responding, after going through a similar waste of time with him).

So go on faking that you people are muslims and respect the Quran - you have demonstrated in this interaction the level of respect you have. This in an microcosm is an example of the hypocrisy that pervades the muslim world. And how far removed their mindsets are from the book they all profess to venerate.

Raw Dust: (to add to me other post I just sent you), that if you read the past few posts you will see I have stopped responding to maududilives for some time. He on the other hand has two posts (#227 and #221) addressed to me to which I have not responded, and in addition I see him using his mocking my repetition of Quranic verses concerning respect for all religion (by referring to some hidden motive of india-pakistan friendship on my part, rather than accepting that as a simple representation of something made loud and clear in the Quran, even though it goes counter to what he would like to think). I have not responded to any of this. THis makes your advice to me to make space for him all the more gratuitous.

But these are simple facts - and if simple facts of what the Quran itself says fail to impress you, I am sure what I have said above is of no consequence to you.

sattar: #237 actually much of what I have said about maududiites and mullahs applies to ahmedis also. You people are more alike than either side cares to admit - you chose to disblieve the Quran when it says that it is a book to make things simple (not once but a number of times), and look towards other men for guidance.

Anyway, we have had this discussion before, and I know nothing I say will convince you either. At least you people are not a threat to pakistani society, while maududiites are a very real threat and have already caused bloodshed through sectarian violence in Pakistan.

My two bits on this …

My view is that Ram, Krishna, and several other prophets were sent to Indus valley civilizations by Allah Almighty. Vedas is the scripture from Allah/God/Bhagwan for these nations.

I have read parts of Gita, which is a dialogue between Arjun and Lord Krishna. I found teachings of Gita to be strikingly similar to the message of Quran. The concept of one’s duty, moral code, rising above one’s selfish desires, the Supreme being etc. bear close resemblance to Islamic teachings of Quran.

The polytheistic appearance of Hinduism that we see nowadays, in my view, is due to changes Hinduism suffered at the hands of people over time. That’s all. Not surprisingly, even Islam is undergoing similar changes at the hands of its followers. If you peel through the layers … and read the true message of Vedas, you’ll find it very similar to Quran. And yes, you may also discover that Vedas contain references to a future ‘Rishi’ … which seem to fit the person of Prophet Mohammad (pbuh) in Arabia.

In summary … I have strong reasons to think that Hindus are among the People of the Book …

( … on a lighter note … I am clueless when it comes to the chaste/unchaste women issue. If my college day experiences are to serve as a yardstick … which in itself is a dangerous proposition … I recall the unchaste ones being a lot more fun to be around …)

tahmed32 sahib: I disagree with your ``reading`` of Quran and i wont make a judgement whether your approach is closed minded or open minded etc. I expect you to give MaududiLives his space too without being judgemental about his interpretation.

peace.

#229 by Mantolives
//...tahmed`s argument about Hindus being the people of the book is sound... //

Gosh... Hindus are people of the book? You sure? Better check it out guys - this looks like a sure-shot case of blasphemy.

I thought only Muslims, Christians and Jews are people of the book ... How can polytheist hindus be people of the book?

tahmad

Thank you, as promised there will not be follow-up questions so you don`t need to get defensive.

urstruly #232 This should not be news to you if you have read the Quran - as you should know there are a number of verses that explicitly limit the prophet`s role to that of messenger or warner. So you are either pretending to be ignorant (I doubt it) or trying to be clever.

I would normally not give you references you ask, for reasons explained in #231. You, and only you, are responsible for making sure you are not being misled by charlatans and power hungry men who make religious parties and claim to be enforcing God`s laws when in fact all they are doing is trying to seeking by hook or by crook to gain power. Surely these are the most evil of men, and the damage they have done to human societies and muslim societies is immense. They will pay for it one day. So, dont let me stop you from following them.

Just this once I will give you some references: see e.g. 2:256 (``Let there be no compulsion in religion``). This one phrase is a rejection of the concept of an islamic state (since a state by definition implies compulsion). Of course, clever mullahs will find ways around it (cooking convenient hadith to negate the Quranic injunction), but this is the truth. Similarly, on how muadudi and his followers seek to arrogate to themselves the role deined explicitly even to the Holy Prophet, see 3:144 (``Muhammad is no more than a Messeenger: many were the Messengers that passed away before him``), and 32:3, 36:3, 48:8, 50:2, 51:50, 51:51, 53:56, 54:5 e.g. where it restates over and over again his role as messenger and warner.

I will not waste any more time with you, and am sure you will find something around it. But please dont feign ignorance, since I am sure you must have read these things a hundred times in the Quran, and these things have obviously fallen on deaf ears and sealed hearts.

tahmad

Although you have resigned yourself from the debate citing the reason that you can deal only one moulvi at a time, but I am not debating you. I only want to know how you reached to the following conclusion in your words ``On your question: do i need to remind you of the clear instruction to the prophet that he is a messenger, a warner, and implementation of the message is not his concern. This is crystal clear in the Quran, and maududiism is a violation of this fundamental instruction in the Quran. There is no compulsion in religion.``

With reference please.

Raw Dust #225 You say ``infact, Quran makes a clear distinction between People of the Book and Polytheists.`` It certainly does in some places. But the two questions I have are as follows:

1. It can easily be argued that hinduism is, IN ESSENCE, the same as islam - the Supreme Being - Brahman (God, not the caste) is central to the concept of hinduism. As I said earlier in this discussion, there is even a hindu prayer (as I understand from reading about it in Huston Smith`s book ``The World`s Religions``) where the devotee begs forgiveness for worshipping God in material form saying that it is his own weakness that leads him to worship God as an image. The ``consensus`` you say is heavily colored by a thousand years of history in India, not based on an objective view.

2. EVEN if the above were not true (i.e., hinduism was a polytheistic religion, the Quran makes it amply clear that one should nevertheless respect all religions - on matters of religion the judge is God, not man). I would normally end my post here, without pulling verses out of the Quran - rather I would simply urge you to read the Quran carefully and with an open mind untinged by a thousand years of tradition - and reach your own conclusions on this matter. In discussion in past years on chowk, when asked I would go through the specific verses, but dont like to do that any more - as an individual it is your responsibility to read carefully through the Quran with an open mind, use your common sense, and reach your own conclusions, rather than to simply accept what some other man claims is being said. In this case, I will make an exception, and refer you to specific verses (from Yusuf Ali translation) in support of this point 2:

22:17

Thos who belive (in the Quran),
Those who follow the Jewish (scriptures),
And the Sabians, Christians,
Magians, and Polytheists -
Allah will judge between them
On the Day of Judgeemnt:
For Allah is witness
Of all things.

This verse is explicit enough on this issue - it does not draw this arbitrary distinction between ``people of the book``, and even includes polytheists. And this is not a standalone verse (a common excuse of the maulvis), but is entirely consistent with the basic message that is repeated over and over again in the Quran: it is not for man to pass judgement on religious matters. See for example 16:36 (``For we assuredly sent among every people a mesenger``) - it refers to ``EVERY`` people and 22:67 (``To every people We appointed rites``). As I said earlier - the Quran expects us not only to respect every religion but their rites and rituals as well. THAT is the way of islam.
And another one, 2:213 ``Mankind was one single nation. And Allah sent messengers...and with them He sent down the Book n Truth...But the people of Book after the clear signs came to them did not differ among themselves except through selfish contumacy``. This last is a clear condemnation of religious differences promoted by mullahs.

Other verses with a similar, consistent message are to be found across the Quran.
I could go on, but as I said, it is your responsibility to read the Quran and not just follow like sheep what other men are saying.

mantolives #229 I am glad you and I agree on this point. I have always had respect for your honesty even when have sometimes differed on some issues. And if one is honest and reads the Quran with a view to understanding what it says then there is no question that the direction the maulvi points is in opposite on fundamental issues to the one direction the Quran points. The Quran does NOT make distinctions between people of different religions (in my post to Raw Dust below, I even went through the trouble of pointing to some verses at his request - even as I emphasize that it is his duty to read the entire Quran and to understand these things for himself).

The Quran calls for respect for all religions. Over and over again it says all religions are from God. Over and over again it calls for people not to fight over differences in religion. That religions is a personal matter. Maulvis have made a career (literally) out of fanning religious hatreds and intolerance. This makes them criminals not just in the eyes of human law, but also (from what is clearly written in the Quran) in the eyes of God as well. To take just one example.

tahmed`s argument about Hindus being the people of the book is sound... according to the Quran... Quran said that we sent every people on earth a book and a prophet... the name Hindu comes from the land... so it is quite probable, nay quite definite that the Hindus are the people of the book...

Raw_dust - Please note the ayah below. I quoted it in post # 200. brother Tahmed made the shameful attempt of distorting it by moulding it to fit his argument. PLease note, this ayah clearly refers to the people of the book (monotheistic) prior to Islams coming. Also the word ``believer`` is a translation of the arabic word ``maumin``. So the ayah says that either you can marry amongst the ``mauminaats`` or from among the people of the book revealed before Islam. However, in his absurd efforts to look more likeable to his masters, and in the spirit of Pak-india friendship, tahmed32 has ``proven`` from the following ayah that hindus are ``believers`` !!!!

Al-Ma`idah (The Table Spread) - (Arabic)
5:5 This day are (all) things good and pure made lawful unto you. The food of the people of the book is lawful unto you and yours is lawful unto them. (Lawful unto you in marriage) are (not only) chaste women who are believers , but chaste women among the people of the book , revealed before your time ,- when ye give them their due dowers, and desire chastity, not lewdness, nor secret intrigues if any one rejects faith, fruitless is his work, and in the Hereafter he will be in the ranks of those who have lost (all spiritual good).

I just happened to browse this debate and i find it very very strange that tahmed sahib is including Hindus in the ``people of the book``. There has been a concensus (correct me if am wrong) on this (in all fiqhs and sects in Islam) that Books refer to the previously revealed sources of ``Divine Religion`` (Allah`s religion).
How tahmed can argue for Hindus to be considered as people of the book escapes me.

peace.

infact, Quran makes a clear distinction between People of the Book and Polytheists. Tahmed sahib your assertion is conclusively shot down by the Divine word Himself.

098.001
YUSUFALI: Those who reject (Truth), among the People of the Book and among the Polytheists, were not going to depart (from their ways) until there should come to them Clear Evidence,-
PICKTHAL: Those who disbelieve among the People of the Scripture and the idolaters could not have left off (erring) till the clear proof came unto them,
SHAKIR: Those who disbelieved from among the followers of the Book and the polytheists could not have separated (from the faithful) until there had come to them the clear evidence:

tahmed32 - beleagured? me? hardly :)

Continuing your view of the ``simple islam`` you claim that implementation of islam is not Prophet (saw)`s concern. Then you say ``there is no compulsion in Islam. Well, aside from the fact that you have once again failed to provide any Quranic or sunnah references to this regard so we can establish a context, these are two DIFFERENT things.

Have you ever heard of the ayah ``amr bil maaruf, va nahee unil munkar`` ?

urstruly #220 I am glad to see chowk`s resident maulvi arriving to save the beleagured maududilives, whose lack of respect for the Quran has been exposed by his own words.

On your question: do i need to remind you of the clear instruction to the prophet that he is a messenger, a warner, and implementation of the message is not his concern. This is crystal clear in the Quran, and maududiism is a violation of this fundamental instruction in the Quran. There is no compulsion in religion.

Now go ahead and tell me what loophole you have found around this simple and clear instruction in the Quran? Exactly what part of this clear and simple NO in the Quran do you propose to say on Qiyamat day you did not understand?

maududilives: I have wasted enough time with you (you say now ``I never brought maududi up.`` - what kind of claim is this when your very nick is dedicated to your god maududi). With urstruly here, i am through wasting time with you and your hypocrisy. I will waste time on chowk with one mauvli at a time.

Go in peace and pray that one day maududi`s bhoot is lifted from your head and you become a human being before you die.

tahmed32 - dear brother, you are indeed being funny, or retarded. Here are the major points from your latest post, and my responses:

``You say I know nothing about maududi?``

I never said that! I never brought maududi up. You did. all i said was that the fact you were going in tangents had nothing to do with maududi. besides this discussion was about your non-sense argument that hindus are ``believers``. but you started going into tangents talking about military rulers of pakistan, zia, benazir, etc etc. Its like I talk about your house rent, and you start telling me about your village in Pakistan! How stupid!!

``you cannot by definition be considered a muslim ``

brother, even though you were mischievous in misquoting Quran, I still not ONCE said that you were not a Muslim. Who am I to say that? But you on the other hand, using the typical tactic of people of your kind have given the fatwa that I am not a Muslim!!! Brother, mullahs may be bad, but people of your kind are worse. I am sorry to say that.

``If you really took the Quran and Islam seriously, you would have some concern for these issues that I have raised ``

dear brother, the problem is this that I never heard an argument from you. Your style was that of making personal attacks from the beginning. you never provided me a direct reference from Quran or sunnah. However, you did try to cheat and be clever with the ayah that I provided! You were bent on making this ``debate`` into mud-slinging, since deep down you knew you had no knowledge base to derive from.

Dear brother, your repeated statements about that ``fundamental message of islam is peace`` is all well and good, but memorizing this statement is not Islam. There is more to it and by formulating your beliefs on the foundation of hatred for mullahs will not let you go any where. IN fact, not just in religious matters, but in your personal matters too, you should never take this approach. This is an advice from your brother.

May Allah give us hadaya

Urstruly - you write ``Now that would be interesting to see how God explicitly placed that power (which power?) out of bound for Holy Prophet (pbuh) himself? Mr. tahamad what is ``your`` evidence of that.``

Brother, do not expect an answer from brother Tahmed32. I have figured this out that he pulls out things out of blue which have no credibility, no evidence, and then he has the audacity to mould ayahs to fit his argument, rather than the other way around.

Case in point: he is hellbent on insisting that hindus are ``believers`` according to Quran. This is despite my producing a clear verse from Quran which counters that. Then brother Tahmed attacks me personally saying that he would ``lash`` me if he sees me. sad. so sad! His only knowledge of Islam seems to be limited to this: how maududi harmed islam. And thats it. I say fine. May maududi burn in hell if that is what he did. But that does not change the fact that Mr. Tahmed32 has not produced a single debatable argument.

tahmad writes:

`` By ignoring these facts and trying to wave them aside, you have repeated the same mischief you did earlier by ignoring what is written in black and white for all to see (except perhaps to the dozakhees like you maududiites who seek to attain power that God explicitly placed outside limits to the Holy Prophet himself)?``

Now that would be interesting to see how God explicitly placed that power (which power?) out of bound for Holy Prophet (pbuh) himself? Mr. tahamad what is ``your`` evidence of that.

maududilives: So you say you used that filthy word only once (if you had any respect for the Quran, you would not even have used it even once) and I should not mention it? What kind of ridiculous excuse is that? Try to mend you ways and learn to respect the Quran. If you dont respect the Quran, you cannot by definition be considered a muslim - and a muslim would not use filthy language in the same discussion as a discussion on the Quran. Even once.

You say I know nothing about maududi? What kind of delusional thinking is that? Do you deny that maududi sought political power on the basis of religion? Do you deny that pakistani people, when given the choice in elections, have soundly rejected this abuse of religion that he started and which the religious parties continue? Do you deny that it is only under the military general zia that these scoundrels received funds and guns? Do you deny that it was under the order ot the military general that the evil laws desinged to give arbitrary power to the ruler under the guise of islam?

By ignoring these facts and trying to wave them aside, you have repeated the same mischief you did earlier by ignoring what is written in black and white for all to see (except perhaps to the dozakhees like you maududiites who seek to attain power that God explicitly placed outside limits to the Holy Prophet himself)? If you really took the Quran and Islam seriously, you would have some concern for these issues that I have raised and which you have tried to be clever with by simply ignoring them and accusing me instead!! You can fool yourself, you cant fool me. And you certainly wont fool God when your time comes to face the music.

You can call me brother from one side of your mouth and say filth from the other side - what you call me matters not one bit to me. Flattery or insults on chowk mean nothing to me. Mend your evil ways before it is too late. That is all I have to say.

tahmed32 - Dear brother, my one-time use of the word ``ass``, as in `pulling things out of your ass` makes you write a whole 2 posts about my ``filthy`` langugage. And then as expected of a person who lacks argument, you bring maududi - who has nothing to do with the fact that you know nothing about what you are claiming to know. I know people like you too well brother. Whenever people of your kind find themselves in a debate, they resort to personal and other attacks which have no relevance whatsoever with the topic at hand. By creating these smoke screens and broohaha, such as ``filthy language`` and ``hindu women not chaste``, you try to blur the fact that you have no valid points or even basic knowledge to counter my argument with an argument.

Dear brother, just like when you get a speeding ticket, you cannot tell the cop that you were abused as a child and that has resulted in your speeding ticket. Similarly my dear brother, you cannot keep bringing in maududi and mullahs to hide the fact that you are ignorant of even the basic concepts of Islam. But being ignorant is ok - we all make sincere efforts to learn Islam all our lives. What separates you however is that you engage in the repulsive practice of hiding ayahs, misquoting the obvious ayahs of quran, and then trying to be clever in a debate rather than honest.

Dear brother, in the process of this ``debate`` that we had, all your personality lays bare for everyone to see. You have lived with your ideas, which were built around the hatred of mullahs, for far too long. And when challenged, it is understandable why you go into tangents and in making personal attacks.

May Allah give us hadaya.

Mullah manto and Mullah Tahmed.

Great minds think alike, innit!

khwajay da gawah daddu.

maududilives: So, having spoken filth in a discussion on the Quran (thus proving the lack respect you have for islam, while defining yourself with your nick as a maududiite), you now try hide behind the claim that your filthy language was reserved for me. This proves you to be a hypocrite - who misrepresents Quranic verses, says ``brother`` from one side of his mouth and says filth from the other side and then tries to reconcile the two. This is the true face of the maulvi.

Also, your filthy language means nothing to me since any coward can write any kind of filth from the safety of the internet. In using such language in this discussion, you have also demonstrated with your own words the kind of individual you are and the type of household you were raised in. No amount of excuses and cleverness can hide that fact.

In this discussion you have with your own words proved why you cannot be considered muslims (since by definition a muslim would not even inadvertantly use filthy language in the same discussion he is quoting from the Quran, nor would he so brazenly ignore explicit references to Quranic verses calling for respect for all faiths for example). Indeed, by the very nick you have chosen you have demonstrated that you are nothing but a follower of another man - your real god is maududi, that rascal who abused the Quranic message in his vain attempts at gain political power in pakistan - a party that has been given humiliating defeats in elections since the people of Pakistan see through your hypocrisy, and which survive only because the military generals have found it convenient to give your rascals money from the public exchequer, and guns and to tilt the last elections in your favor. No amount of excuses and cleverness can hide that fact either.

mantolives: please see the post i just wrote to this man where i explain why i too have reached the same conclusion as you have.

tahmed...

The people you are arguing with are basically hypocrites without any sense of decency...

To expect a fair minded response from them is useless..

-YLH

tahmed32 - my filthy language was reserved for you after you had deliberately tried to played with the obvious meanings from quran. you are a mean spirited person who deserves no kind words. had you innocently done your mischievous acts, i would have taken 1000 hours to explain to you. but you were being clever. brother you deserve much worse than filthy language. but that is between allah and you. your stupidity and callousness in apparent to all those who have been following this board as well as my ilog.

brother, your deliberate act of playing ``clever`` only shows the puss in your brain that only you with your earnest efforts can clean out.

my best wishes with you. and may allah give us hadaya.

maududilives: Your use of filthy language when discussing religion and the Quran indicates the level of respect you have for the religion that your god maududi abused in his futile efforts for political power. This is another characteristic of you mullahs - saying ``dear brother in islam`` from one side of your mouth and spouting filth from the other side.

tahmed32 - you write ``I should note though that you did not say anything earlier when I mentioned this understanding I had of what you meant, ``

dear brother in islam, you had been pulling a lot of things out of your ass. Please excuse me for saying this. I was having a hard time keeping up with all the tangents meanings you were deriving from my one simple statement and cut/paste of quranic aya.

:)

Maududilives: I am neither retarded, nor trying to be funny. You say that hindus are nonbelievers and, when challenged, ignore t