Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - AhmadFarooq

Pages: 1 ... 5 6 7 8 [9] 10 11 12 13 ... 21
121
Once again, where did that come from? When did I say anything remotely like that?

You are the one contending that Europeans especially Germans allowed refugees to come into their country to "make fake rape allegations and try to get muslims out". You are the one who has to show proof or a valid logical argument for malicious intentions on behalf of the European authorities. You have to show that the German authorities knowingly and willingly allowed the refugees to commit crimes. As of yet no evidence has been provided for the claims made, just more and more allegations.

122
And what if he had simply lied? If someone came for the specific reason to commit an act of terrorism, isn't he likely to have already made up a believable cover story? How exactly would they have checked the person's background?
Additionally, how many tens of thousands of people, should have gone through this process? How many tens of thousands should the police have been keeping tabs on?

123
How exactly should they have checked whether a refugee is fake or real?

124
Which refugees who were found to be possessing weapons not jailed?
On what basis do you make the allegation that they didn't check?
How were they supposed to effectively check literally thousands of refugees?
I highly doubt the refugees were carrying weapons and bombs all the way from Syria to Germany.

In any case this might be a case of their incompetence (as a few people would argue) but it definitely does not show their malicious intentions which is what your original claim was.

125
So..., you are saying that if the Germans (i.e. non-Muslims) had not went so much out of their way to help Muslims, their country would have been better off?

Didn't reply before because I thought the ironies would be all to obvious but just in case they weren't.

126
- "IT IS the Governments fault for not keeping these people under limits to their rights..."

I am unsure which people you are talking about (actually I'm not even completely sure what that entire sentence even means), but I'm going to guess these people as the European far right nationalists. In which case, I would recount the case when a particular group of Pakistani Muslims on hearing rumours of blasphemy, damaged and looted a Christian settlement. The Pakistani government was unable to protect those Christians so I suppose it was the Muslim "Governments fault for not keeping these people under limits to their rights" and Christians living in Pakistan now have the right to stab and bomb random Pakistani Muslims. From what I have personally seen, the German government had been especially careful of not quickly ascribing the attacks as terrorist attacks and going the other way and in some cases, even pointing out the perpetrators being afflicted by psychological or mental health issues. And whether some Muslims like it or not, the fact is, whenever some Western right-wingers fabricate some story against Muslims living in the West, a lot of times it is government data or Western non-Muslim liberals who refute those fabricated stories.

Regarding the "re-phrasing", the irrelevancy and fallacious nature (specifically the straw man fallacy) of the statement is astounding. While my re-phrasing was, or at-least it appeared to me that way, a logical conclusion of your previous arguments i.e. bombings and stabbings are the fault of the victims and because the victims are innocents it naturally concludes that innocents deserve to be bombed and stabbed (for whatever faults of their governments). But because I accept the possibility that I can be wrong, I specifically asked to make sure, "Is this really what you are saying?" And interestingly, you did not deny that.

Because you are apparently not getting this, let me spell this out for you: It absolutely does not matter how many thousands or millions of innocent Muslims are killed, hurt or lied against by non-Muslims, Muslims can not ever be knowingly unjust or kill a single innocent person.
Quote
... and let not hatred of a people incite you not to act equitably...
(Qur'an 5:8 )

While on the other hand, the re-phrasing in your case,

- "We should respect Europeans to do  their Job and protest against Islam and destruct it..."
Irrelevant and a straw man.

- "... we should boycott Syrian Refugees..."
Irrelevant and a straw man.

- "... so Bashar al Assad can do his job because i'm like any other Wahhabi and Salafi out there"
Seriously, where did this even come from? The truth be told, I am amazed how creative a person has to be, to go from whatever was said above and to come to an argument of Sunni (or specifically "Wahhabi and Salafi") Vs. Shia debate.

On the matter of death penalty for apostasy, do some particular Muslim countries by law have that punishment or not? A very simple question with a simple answer. There is at-least one active member (no offence/disrespect meant to that person) on this forum who will even defend the punishment as part of Islamic Sha'riah.

127
The Hadith that was quoted above does not say that the polytheists were asking for a miracle and this splitting of the moon was the miracle he responded with.

A Pakistani scholar Maulana Maududi who although believed in the splitting asunder of the Moon, wrote the following for not taking this as a "miracle of Prophet Muhammad performed in response to the polytheists":

Quote
The information that one gathers from the various traditions is that this incident occurred about five years before the Hijrah. It was the 14th night of the lunar month; the Moon had just risen when it suddenly split and its two parts were seen on either side of the hill in front. Then after a moment or so they rejoined. The Holy Prophet (upon whom be peace) at that time was at Mina. He told the people to mark it and be witnesses to it. The disbelievers said that Muhammad (upon whom be Allah’s peace and blessings) had worked magic on them; therefore, their eyes had been deceived. The other people said: “Mnhammad could have worked magic on us but not on all the people. Let the people from other places come: we shall ask them if they also had witnessed this incident. ” When the people from other places came, they bore evidence that they also had witnessed the same phenomenon.

Some traditions which have been related from Hadrat Anas give rise to the misunderstanding that the incident of the splitting of the Moon had happened twice. But, in the first place, no one else from among the Companions has stated this; second, in some traditions of Hadrat Anas himself also the words are marratain (twice), and in sane firqatain and shaqqatain (two pieces); third, the Qur’an mentions only one incident of the Moon’s splitting asunder. The correct view therefore is that this incident happened only once. As for the stories which are current among the people that the Holy Prophet (upon whom be peace) had matte a gesture towards the Moon and it split into two parts and that one part of the Moon entered the breast of the garment of the Holy Prophet and went out of the sleeve, have no basis whatever.

Here, the question arises: What was the real nature of this incident. Was it a miracle that the Holy Prophet (upon whom be peace) performed on the demand of the disbelievers of Makkah as a proof of his Prophethood? Or, was it only an accident that occurred on the Moon by the power of Allah and the Holy Prophet had only called the people’s attention to it and warned them to mark it as a Sign of the possibility and nearness of Resurrection? A large group of the Muslim scholars regards it as among the miracles of the Holy Prophet and holds the view that it had been shown on the demand of the disbelievers. But this view is based only on some of those traditions which have been related from Hadrat Anas. Apart from him no other Companion has stated this. According to Fath al Bari Ibn Hajar says: “Apart from the narration by Hadrat Anas, in no other narration of this story have I come across the theme that the incident of the splitting of the Moon had taken place on the demand of the polytheists. (Bab Inshiqaq al-Qamar). Abu Nu’aim Isfahani has related a tradition on this subject in Dale il an-Nubuwwat, on the authority of Hadrat ‘Abdullah bin ‘Abbas also, but it has a weak chain of transrmitters and none of the traditions that have been related with strong chains of tranamitters in the collections of Hadith on the authority of Hadrat ‘Abdullah bin ‘Abbas, contains any mention of this. Furthermore, neither Hadrat Anas nor Hadrat `Abdullah bin `Abbas was a contemporary of this incident. On the contrary, none of the Companions from among Hadrat `Abdullah bin Mas’ud, Hadrat Hudhaifah, Hadrat Jubair bin Mut`im, Hadrat ‘Ali, Hadrat `Abdullah bin ‘Umar, who were contemporaries of the incident, has stated that the pagans of Makkah had demanded a Sign of the Holy Prophet to testify to his Prophethood on which he might have shown the miracle of the splitting of the Moon. Above all, the Qur’an itself also is presenting this event not as a Sign of the Prophethood but as a Sign of the nearness of Resurrection. However, this was indeed conspicuous proof of the Holy Prophet’s truthfulness because it testified to the news that he was giving to the people of the coming of Resurrection.

128
If the person wasn't Syrian Muslim refugee, he was an Afghani Muslim refugee, doesn't really make much of a difference. But regardless of that, you said "Suicide bombing,stabbings,etc is their fault..." Are you serious?

Let me re-phrase your statement, because of whatever crimes their governments committed, innocents "deserve" to be stabbed and bombed. Is this really what you are saying?

129
From the scholars I have read, the narrations which depict this event as: the Prophet calling the Quraish to come to him, then he raising his index finger, due to which the Moon gets split into two, with such a distance between the two portions that one of its parts gets hidden behind a mountain - are unreliable narrations. The companions to whom such narrations are attributed were either not present or unable to be witness to the event. The most significant personality among them is Ibn Abbas, but the huge and obvious problem with Ibn Abbas being a witness is that, from other sources we know, he was around 13 years old when the Prophet died and this event happened during the Makkan period which means that during this event Ibn Abbas was 1-3 years old therefore making him unable to be a witness to this. Apparently, because of the high status of Ibn Abbas, he has often become the preferable "narrator" of fabricated narrations.

Some scholars, even though they believe in the splitting of the moon, contend that this wasn't a miracle of the Prophet because he didn't call people to come to him and told them he is going to show them a miracle but it was an event (actual splitting of the moon or whatever) that happened during the Prophet's time in Makkah and he directed the attention of the Quraish towards it.

130
If I'm not mistaken the verse is talking about livestock and not only about just "cows". And from what I understand, lactose intolerance is not limited to only cow's milk. So it doesn't appear to matter which livestock animals are being specifically talked about.

As far as I have read, raw milk is more dangerous as compared to pasteurized milk.

Sources:
www.foodsafetynews.com/2011/11/raw-milk-myths-busted/#.V81DbJh97Dc
www.fda.gov/Food/ResourcesForYou/Consumers/ucm079516.htm

According to the American FDA "Pasteurizing milk DOES NOT cause lactose intolerance and allergic reactions. Both raw milk and pasteurized milk can cause allergic reactions in people sensitive to milk proteins."

In any case, these lactose intolerance studies don't have much to do with which milk is more dangerous. The research, of course, does not appear to be conclusive. There are a number of available criticisms and further research, apparently, is still required; but as far as its reliability is concerned, it was done by a University of Stanford professor, in this particular scenario you pretty much don't get more reliable than that.

131
So you are contending that the German government willingly allowed Syrian Muslims to come to their country, gave them refugee status which includes benefits, faced huge criticism of their right-wing opposition parties, ending up losing political support from their people, further polarising their communities, faced deteriorating security situation in their nation dues to stabbings, a suicide bombing etc. just so they can "make fake rape allegations [something British Muslims were actually convicted of doing] and try to get muslims out"? Seriously?

In any case, my point wasn't whether European governments have good intentions or not, just how much the original post was similar and reminiscent of far right European Christians.

132
The Islamic Awareness article on the matter: http://www.islamic-awareness.org/History/kaaba.html

133
Calling for a Muslim genocide by Non-Muslims is talked about and for comparison I can quote Muslims who say that all Jews should be killed and even worse claim that Islam calls for that. When a white person converting to Islam is "thrown out of the country" is talked about (although I personally am not aware of such an occurrence), I can quote the names of Muslim countries who have the death penalty for Muslim apostasy.

In my personal opinion, this post is highly ironic.

Quote
I think Non-Muslims should literally be banned from the Middle-East since most of them are dangerous for Muslims.

Just replace "Muslims" by "Non-Muslims" and "Middle-East" by "Europe" or "America" and this sentence will become exactly what the people, against whom this post is made, would be expected to say, or actually in-fact do repeatedly say. Even more ironic, is the fact that the video linked to in the reply, actually talks about Daesh kicking Christians (i.e. "Non-Muslims") out of their controlled land of the "Middle-East". Additionally, the fact of a lot of Europeans, especially Germans, in-spite of Daesh's alleged terrorist activities against them, opening their doors and hearts for Muslims much more than anyone could have asked them to, is apparently also ignored.

134
According to what I have read, the accepted theory is that all humans used to be lactose intolerant, i.e. after breast feeding is stopped. Some thousands of years ago it was because of a mutation which allowed the LCT gene (which allows for making lactase) to remain turned on and humans were able to continue to consume milk.

Quote
The lactase deficiency also could be linked to certain heritages. Seventy-five percent of all African American, Jewish, Mexican American, and Native American adults are lactose intolerant. Analysis of the DNA of 94 ancient skeletons in Europe and Russia concluded that the lactose tolerant mutation appeared about 4,300 years ago and spread throughout the European population.
Different alleles for lactase persistence have developed at least three times in East African populations, with persistence extending from 26% in Tanzania to 88% in the Beja pastoralist population in Sudan.
Source: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lactose_intolerance

Regarding the criticism of the verse, exactly what does the verse has to do with lactose intolerance? This is a straw man fallacy and probably a red herring too. The verse is talking about the blessing of Allah for creating a palatable drink, a drink consumable for humans (these are actually how other translators translate this verse, instead of "sweet to the drinker", source: islamawakened.com/quran/16/66/). From between the impure and disgusting matters such as "waste matter [or excretions] and blood", consumable milk is produced.

The verse isn't claiming that there are no humans in the world for whom milk is non-consumable. Additionally, as it would appear that around 75% of all Jews are lactose intolerant (source: www.haaretz.com/israel-news/science/.premium-1.664967, www.momentmag.com/the-biggest-jewish-genetic-myths-of-all-time/), if Prophet Muhammad was making the Qur'an up, he would've known about this intolerance.

135
First of all George W. Bush is, by far, not the "most beloved president". Who told you that? Even his own political party, The Republicans, disown him and his policies today.

The links you gave, unless I am very much mistaken, do not in any way show Bush funding the Taliban or ISIS, maybe Al-Qaeda but not the other two. Additionally, the Bush relationship to the bin Laden family article's link is from rense.com, which isn't exactly a reliable source. One heading on their main page is "Islam Means Death To America. Europe Already Gone. Hilary Knows And Supports Islam". Furthermore, regarding the author of the article, Rick Wiles, "a Far-Right fundamentalist Christian radio host and conspiracy theorist", who apparently "has implied he supports the genocide of Muslims, saying they should be 'stomped out like cockroaches'."
Source: rationalwiki.org/wiki/Rick_Wiles

Are you really going to take the opinions of these people as reliable? A cursory search did not show any reliable news agency breaking this story but even if it is true, the bin Ladin family has been a rich family with dozens of male members, it isn't very damning evidence that some members of the family would have invested in Bush's business in the past. Additionally, the first Gulf War by George H. W. Bush was a very sore point for Osama bin Laden. There is very little motivation for Osama's Al-Qaeda to reconcile with George H. W. Bush's son.
Then there is the article "America's Allies Are Funding ISIS", it proves the criminality of Muslim countries (namely, Kuwait, Qatar, and Saudi Arabia) than it does the US'. The article "C.I.A. Cash Ended Up in Coffers of Al Qaeda", also says that half the ransom was paid by Pakistan, then using the same logic, it would be correct to say that a Muslim country namely Pakistan, also "funded" Al-Qaeda.

Pages: 1 ... 5 6 7 8 [9] 10 11 12 13 ... 21

What's new | A-Z | Discuss & Blog | Youtube