Name: al ham dull ill aaaahhhh good article
Date: Saturday April 19, 2008
Time: 04:26:22 -0700
al ham dull ill aaahhhh good article,it shows that koran and allah is full of contradictions,i am happy to know now many muslims r leaving islam and inshallah soon islam shall be destroyed.
Name: you are doing a great job
Date: Saturday April 19, 2008
Time: 05:44:01 -0700
you are doing a great job by exposing the most cultfaith.
Name: Allat
Date: Saturday April 19, 2008
Time: 08:55:00 -0700
Look at the Old Testament. All the West, venerates the Old Testament, doesn't it? After all, every other "Creation" story, has been chucked down the drain. Well, allah is the psycho Jehovah, back again.
Name: Quran on Jews and Christians
Date: Saturday April 19, 2008
Time: 09:42:29 -0700
*Quran on Jews: Quran is the only non-Jewish scripture in the world where Jews have been honored and protected in so many verses [2:40; 2:47; 10:47; 2:122; 3:113-115; 10:93; 20:47; 20:80; 44:30-32; 45:16; etc.], good Jews have been praised [5:65-66], and they have also been offered salvation if they follow their own scriptures [5:69; 5:65-66; 2:62]. *Quran on Christians: Quran is the only non-Christian scripture in the world where Jesus Christ and Mary have been honored with very high regard [3:42 and Chapter 19 on Mary], good Christians have been praised [5:65-66; 5:82], and they have also been offered salvation if they follow their own scriptures [5:69; 5:65-66; 2:62]. #Verse 5:51 and 3:28 refers to terrorist/intolerant Jews and Christians, not ALL. See 5:57-59 and 60:7-9 for clarification.
Name: The Prophet Mohammed
Date: Saturday April 19, 2008
Time: 10:27:44 -0700
The Koran is a merger of Judaism and the Christian Bible so it is bound to have mistakes. Yesterday a muslim told me that G-d is embarassed if he does not grant what you pray for! These Muslims are insane; how can an all powerful entity be ashamed of specs of dust like us human beings? Why do they not try to sort out their Muslim countries before blaming all their problems onto us? Muslim countries are run by them and they have no respect for human beings - unless you have money. That is why they run away from their countries to join the civilised people of the West.
Name: These are some pretty dumb sand dwellers
Date: Saturday April 19, 2008
Time: 14:09:52 -0700
One can only hope that they will go the way of the Edsel and end up as rare as chicken teeth. They are about as useful.
Name: moderationist
Date: Saturday April 19, 2008
Time: 14:46:53 -0700
This is why there never have been any successful muslim societies and never will be any successful muslim societies
Name: agnostic
Date: Saturday April 19, 2008
Time: 15:05:04 -0700
Tks buddy. Good to have you on board. Sex maniac allah has already proven over and again that he is helpless, hopeless, useless, as are his 'best of men'. What a joke when muslims glorify they are 1.5 billion, 1.8 billion. Goddamn lie, but then muslims are LIARS because their sex obsessed allah and their rapist MO were liars. It is good to know they are dying, slowly, painfully, daily of Depleted Uranium Poisoning. And now of course famine and lack of water which is spreading world-wide will finish them will slowly, painfully, daily. Ebola Virus muscums should not be allowed space on earth. Die faster and in multitudes, pls. The rest we will finish off.
Name: Mohammad
Date: Saturday April 19, 2008
Time: 15:37:59 -0700
Another unedited article. What is with all this lack of professionalism on this website? The verse 4:82 does not imply whatsoever that Quran admits it contains discrepancies. The logic is simple here: if Quran was not from God, you would find not only one but many discrepancies. I say: "If this article was not written by an educated person, it would contain many grammatical errors." Am I, by saying this, admitting that this piece may contain a grammatical error? Secondly, any book saying 'there is no error in this book' is making a false statement. Why? Because by saying so, the book would contain the word 'error' hence negating its own assertion!
Name: Abu Taleb
Date: Saturday April 19, 2008
Time: 18:48:21 -0700
The statement "if it is not from Allah, then there will be many error" is telling us that if there is only a few (as the opposite of many) errors, it is still can be from Allah. Therefore, Allah doesn't say that there is no error in Quran, Allah only says Quran doesn't contain many errors. So there may be a few errors. The question is why Allah doesn't say there is no error at all in Quran?
Name: ZuK
Date: Saturday April 19, 2008
Time: 20:43:10 -0700
Mohammad: with all due respect (I acknowledge in you one of the few worthy vis-a-vis in this forum), your logic and rethoric need a little update. As for the "many errors vs. few errors" thing, see the answer by Abu Taleb right under your post. As for the "there is no error in this book" thing, you fail to distinguish between a word refering to a phenomenon (the word "error" referring to errors) and a word referring to another word or sign (called metalanguage - the word "error" referring to the word [not the phenomenon!] "error"). If you really want to learn about falacies and faulty logic in the Qur'an, you should sharpen your tools first, IMHO.
Name: Mohammad to Abu Taleb and ZUK
Date: Saturday April 19, 2008
Time: 22:04:34 -0700
Let's talk about simple logic here. The statement that Quran states is this (in simple language): "If it is not from allah, then it contains many errors". This statement is logically equivalent to: "If it contains not many errors, then it is from Allah". This statement is even stronger than what Abu Taleb is asking for. For simplicity, say the limit of errors that Quran is talking about is 10, i.e. if a book contains less than 10 errors, then it is from God. Then all you need to establish to negate this statement is to bring a book not from god that contains less than 10 errors. This is an easier task for you than bringing a book with no errors at all. So the statement made by Quran is even a stronger statement than saying that Quran contains no errors from the point of view of a person who wants to negate it.
Name:
Date: Saturday April 19, 2008
Time: 23:16:11 -0700
So Allah errs. The biggest error is quran, appointment of the rapacious murderer Muhamad as his 'sole' selling agent. I would say that Muhamad succeeded in selling Allahs wares ful of errors to the unsuspecting and gullible masses the murderous cult , ofcourse with sword to the neck on the one hand and plunder and rape and massacre on the other hand if the populace was not so willing!
Name: Abu Taleb
Date: Sunday April 20, 2008
Time: 02:14:14 -0700
I think, it is easy to find many books without a single error if properly checked nowadays. A school text book for example. Is it from Allah? Of course not. So the text book writer and editor(s) are doing a much better job than Allah. There goes Quran to the trash!
Name: agnostic
Date: Sunday April 20, 2008
Time: 15:40:04 -0700
QUESTIONS we should ask muslims on the ERRORS of their book. Muslims have been nutured to TAQIYYAH. They lie and falsely claim ‘all qurans are the same’. But in truth, they are not the same and that is why different Islamic sects have different number of quran contents, {6,200 to nearly 6,700 sura - hundreds of differences}. Different Islamic sect’s websites also quote different content figures– check Islamic websites, for proof. Thus, it evidently proves that all qurans are changed and corrupted by humans. That is why the major Sunni is obsessed with murdering Shiites, Kurds, Ismailis, and lesser muslim sects. The sect bearing the most hideous brunt are the Ahmadiyas.////The muslim allah also proves he is a BUNGLER. . In Sura 2:106 aAllah himself admits to his clumsy ways, “Such of Our Revelations as We abrogate or cause to be forgotten, We bring (in place) one better or the like thereof.” Why did he abrogate some revelations and improve {be on others? Weren’t his initial verses any good? Couldn’t he get it right the first time, instead of bungling his way around? --- Allah created everything "in the twinkling of an eye" (54:49,50), "in two Days" (41:9,12), "in four Days" (41:10), "in six Days" (7:54, 10:4;32:4), "a Day," equaling "a thousand years" (32:5) and also "fifty thousand years" (70:4); Jesus is not the Son of God (4:171), yet He is (19:17-21), etc. So which is which? ------In 21:60 allah says, “They said: We heard a youth make mention of them, who is called Abraham.” Sheehs. How come allah did notknow that his name was changed to ‘Abraham’, only at age 99, and not in his youth? Why is allah’s knowledge so limited? The all-knowing? Shit.----No wonder muslim mind is a sewer.
Name: Walter Sieruk
Date: Monday April 21, 2008
Time: 10:32:34 -0700
Instead of a person trusting in the Pillars of Islam to get to right with God and trusting the testimony of the prophet [Matthew 7:15.] in which these pillars are laid on. It is better to embrace and receive the Jesus of the Bible to get to heaven.[John 14:6.- Acts 4:12.]"For no other foundation can anyone lay than that which is laid, which is Jesus Christ." First Corinthians 3:11. [NKJV]
Name: ZuK
Date: Monday April 21, 2008
Time: 13:52:52 -0700
Mohammed: I accept your formulation as a bona fide attempt at finding common ground. I share Abu Taleb's opinion about being able to find a book without a single error. However, to be honest, we should establish what kind of errors are we talking we about here: logical, grammatical, factual, scientifical errors? or just typos? The second thing is (and this is my biggest issue with hermeneutics, or the study of religious texts in general, not just with Islam) that the step of "extraordinarity" or unusual character of a claim, as well as the consequences (theological or otherwise) that we attach to that claim should determine the level of reliability of the proof. To offer an example, compare these two claims: (1) "there was the son of a carpenter back then in the first century, who turned into an heretic and the Jewish autorities got him killed for that" and (2)"Jesus of Nazareth is the only begotten Son of God, and also God himself, the whole universe was created with him in mind, and his sacrifice in the Cross, and only that sacrifice, is the way and only way to salvation, every non-believer past and future being forever condemned to Hell." As you see, the first claim is a merely historical statement without fundamental consequences for history in general or our destiny in particular. The second claim is a statement about the nature and meaning of all and everything, and, should it be true, it would have the most serious consequences for us and our understanding of... well, probably everything! So, it is only LOGICAL, NATURAL and EXPECTABLE from rational beings that the quality of the proof match the tenor of the claim. In my opinion, Christians haven't yet even meet the challenge of proving the *historical* existence of Jesus. In my opinion, that wouldn't change much of the value of his interesting but completely unoriginal teachings (every single idea proposed by this persona belongs to somebody else in the Antique World). For those who believe in Saulina theology, if there was no historical Jesus, there is no Christianty. Those in this cathegory, I guess, should start shopping for a new religion or keep their heads in the sand. But, you see, the same criterion is applicable to Islam, and any other religion and their exalted claims. And that's what we are trying to do.
Name: ZuK
Date: Monday April 21, 2008
Time: 14:00:16 -0700
Sorry, I meant "Saulian" (i. e. from Paul and his Epistoles). A strong argument has been made about Jesus being understood by the early Helenized Christians as a mythical and archetypical being. See http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/theism/christianity/historicity.html look for Earl Doherty and links to his articles. And note please, that, if there was no Jesus, then not only there is no historically-graounded Christianty (as I said, there can be a doctrinal Xtianty without the fables), but definitely there is no Islam, since the whole concept of prophethood gets a serious arm-twist (and with it, Mohammed's claims) [meaning here THE Mo, not our forum poster :) ]
Name: Mohammad to ZUK
Date: Monday April 21, 2008
Time: 14:06:54 -0700
Dear ZUK, the challenge is simple: find a book that contains no contradictions including the word 'contradiction' and words that are equivalent to it in meaning. I agree with the rest of your statement. Here I don't want to prove Quran is from god but rather claim that finding such a book is impossible. This statement is obviously falsifiable and muslims may be interested in seeing such evidence.
Name: Stephanie
Date: Monday April 21, 2008
Time: 15:42:31 -0700
Muslims spending in the way of Allah, are actually helping this world, helping mankind, GIVING CHARITY!!!! That is spending ones wealth in the way of Allah, Prophet Mohammad SAW was never rich he spent most of his money on other people and gave to others! Being rich does not make you happy as seen in celebraties. This life is paradise for the disbelivers so i think they should be richer than us..........they should have everything they want! Allah does keep his words, Allah may not give you fortunes now, or may give you things better in his own time, have paitence.
Name: Abu Taleb
Date: Monday April 21, 2008
Time: 16:17:07 -0700
Muslims always claim something but they can not prove it. I can do the same. So I repeat what I said before, there are many books that are free from errors nowadays, for example school text books. On the other hand, Allah never says that Quran is free from errors, it shows that Allah has no confidence on himself. Quran itself has tons of errors, scientific errors, historical errors, mathematical errors, grammatical errors, logical errors, and moral errors. Why the muslims are not allowed to use their brains when they think that Allah's command is bad, and how come they can consider that Allah's command is bad? It shows that Quran has errors and not perfect.
Name: ZuK
Date: Monday April 21, 2008
Time: 19:37:59 -0700
Dear Mohammad: since you didn't specify the type of errors to be avoided (and I honestly made that question), you left things extremely easy to me: that book is the List of Telephone Numbers of Tokyo. If you have any doubt whatsoever about the inerrancy of this book, please deign to show me a single claim of inacuracy, or please find a single misspelled name or one that doesn't match its telephone number. Of course, you can argue that the intricacies of the Japanese language prevent you from carrying on such and inquiry, but... isn't it the argument of the Muslimuun that the Qur'an is untranslatable? Don't they play the language card every time the get beaten on the nonsense of your bogus holy book? So, sorry, Mohammad. The Telephone Directory of Tokyo contains less errors than your Qur'an. (For your convenience, I found what you could call "a translations of the meanings of the Tokyo Phone Directory" http://english.itp.ne.jp/ enjoy!) ------- If, however, this is too a lenghty book for your research grant, I can without effort cite to very short and absolutely inerrant books: the multiplication tables, also known as Pithagorical tables and the Common Integrales and Derivatives tables (see http://tutorial.math.lamar.edu/pdf/Common_Derivatives_Integrals.pdf
Name: Mohammad to ZUK
Date: Monday April 21, 2008
Time: 22:07:11 -0700
Well how about a book saying in every page that 1=1? Probably the problem is in the definition of 'book'. About the telephone directory, it is obvious than in a matter of a few years, say 100 years, all the numbers are irrelevant and false. I don't even need to know Japanese to demonstrate that the book will soon contain many contradictions and errors. About the integration table, again what is a book to you? Will those few pages be considered a book by anybody by any standards? Would a layperson who has an average knowledge of English language be able to read those pages? Quran was understood by the arabs at the time of prophet. So I agree that I didn't specify in details what a book is, what kind of errors I am talking about, etc. but we should also agree that these examples you provided are weak at best.
Name: Abu Taleb
Date: Tuesday April 22, 2008
Time: 00:14:13 -0700
So, marrying an underage girl is still applicable today because Quran contains no error forever.
Name: ZuK
Date: Tuesday April 22, 2008
Time: 11:20:30 -0700
Strictly speaking, the Qur'an is not a book either, is a RECITATION put in written. So are my examples (i.e. intelligible data put in written). And the Phone Directory of Tokyo will be as valid in 3455 as it is today, beacause it states that *in 2008's Tokyo* Mr. XYZ has the number 555555555. If it's true now, it will be true in year 3455, whereas I fail to understand when and where statements about the earth being flat, men coming from a blood cloth, or Jesus as an real historical figure can be regarded as true. In your logic, the requirement for the Qur'an (which, I hope we agree, is not a book and was NOT meant to become one!) to be the Holy Word of God is not to be free of error (you conceded that it might contain some), but essentially what you are saying is that it suffit to you that it contain SOME TRUTH. It is though my contention that, if we rip Al-qur'aan of all its manifest errors (I mean here mostly historical, factual and scientific), the remaining "true" statements would tantamount to a bunch of platitudes and common places that were common knowledge in the 7th century and needed no Divine revelation. And that, sadiqii, is a more than weak proof to the high prophetic and theological claims of Islam and its founder - I have addressed this problem in another post.
Name: ZuK - sidenote
Date: Tuesday April 22, 2008
Time: 11:43:16 -0700
Only now I notice that you, Mohammad, apparently (and correct me if I am wrong) seemed to imply that the word "error" is absent in Al-Qur'aan. Actually, in Yusuf Ali's English translation it appears 28 times, 50 times in Shakir's translation, 42 times in Pickthal's translation and finally 45 times in Mohsin Khan's translation. Mostly, by "error" the Arabic word "D*alAl" is translated.
Name: me
Date: Tuesday April 22, 2008
Time: 12:33:29 -0700
stephanie become buddhist if you search for inner god not muslim...
Name: balam ref 101019
Date: Tuesday April 22, 2008
Time: 14:09:50 -0700
When the crusaders attacked to free Jeruslem from the clutches of Mohammadans,they called the the muslims Mosquitos and the places of worship where the muslims hid,were called :MOSQUES: by the crusaders.
Name: Mohammad to ZUK
Date: Tuesday April 22, 2008
Time: 16:26:40 -0700
I am learning and rethinking this issue as we are progressing. I think we should make a distinction between 'error' and 'contradiction'. The claim that 4:82 is making is that Quran does not contain contradictory statements. Do we agree on this?
Name:
Date: Tuesday April 22, 2008
Time: 16:55:05 -0700
me - The quran is true, and worshoping god is real, i prey for help To the god and so far god has answered, why should i become buddist? im perfectly happy being muslim. :)
Name: Stephanie
Date: Tuesday April 22, 2008
Time: 16:55:37 -0700
sorry that last post was mine :)
Name: ZuK
Date: Tuesday April 22, 2008
Time: 18:58:45 -0700
Mohammad: different English translation use slightly different words in 4:82: "discrepancy", "incongruity," but I gladly agree with your proposed word, "contradiction." I think the reason why some translators preferred singular nouns is the particular way Arabic language has to deal with grammatical number. The original Arabic text says ^^Akhtilāfāan Kathīrāan^^ (this is an accusative grammatical form), which I personally would rather translate as "much discrepancy." --- Now, as for your proposed differentiation between "error" and "contradiction", surely it is clear to me: if a text, for ex., consistently says that the Sun is a ball of zaphyre, it would be certainly erroneous but not contradictory. If the same text would state that the Sun is a ball of zaphyre in one place, and that it is a cube of black smoke in another one, it would be BOTH contradictory and erroneous. Is that what you meant? This is indeed and interesting topic, because it brings us to watch closer (with the eyes of logic, I mean) the antics that the interpreters of sacred texts (beginning with the exegets of the Torah, and the Christian texts later) went to to resolve the issue of discrepancy. I could expand a good deal on this, but let it suffit to say that most of these readings... are based on contradictory and incongruent positions!
Name: ZuK - sidenote
Date: Tuesday April 22, 2008
Time: 19:06:53 -0700
This is Sayyid Abul Ala Maududi's tafseer for Qur'aan 4:81-82: "The main cause of the wrong attitude of the hypocrites and the people of weak faith, who had been warned in the foregoing verses, was that they had doubts that the Qur'an was from Allah. They could not believe that it was being sent down by Allah to the Holy Prophet and that the Commandments contained in it were directly coming from Him. That is why they are being admonished to consider the Qur'an by giving close attention to it, and to verify whether their doubts are genuine and whether it is from Allah or not. The Qur'an itself bears witness to the truth that it is from none other than Allah, for none else, however wise and intelligent he might be, could have gone on delivering addresses under different circumstances about variant topics so as to form a connected, balanced and coherent Book at the end of twenty-three years and that too, without showing any contradiction whatever from the beginning to the end, and without there arising any need to revise or make any change in it." ------- I guess that's what you and me are doing, right? - "consider the Qur'an by giving close attention to it, and to verify whether their doubts are genuine and whether it is from Allah or not."
Name: Mohammad to ZUK
Date: Tuesday April 22, 2008
Time: 20:45:15 -0700
Thanks for the clarification. Now even though I have 'faith' in the Quran being from God, I don't want to be intellectually dishonest and pretend that I have a clear picture of the logic employed here. I am not a blind believer and have no fear of accepting the truth. I have looked into different objections by the opponents of Quran's divinity and I find such objections weak. Let us first see if Quran is a book. You may be more knowing than me on this but Quran itself refers to itself as a book; for instance says: "27:1 These are verses of the Qur'an,-a book that makes (things) clear". It is true that Quran was first recited by Mohammad to his followers but its verses were written down as well and later collected as a complete book. There is no contradiction between being a recitation and also being a book. Writing systems are invented to record what is initially a recitation, a thought, or a feeling. Another example is that of a composer who records his music in writing. The writing doesn't have the sound but it has the same value since the sound can be recovered from the notes by an expert. The way I understand 4:82 is that Quran is claiming that being recorded in a span of 23 years, it would be plausible to think that it would contain contradictions and inconsistencies. This is assuming that the Quran was not polished or edited as any other book would be. I have looked through a few lists made by the opponents of the Quran as inconsistencies of the Quran but again I am not convinced at all.
Name: Abu Taleb
Date: Tuesday April 22, 2008
Time: 21:21:02 -0700
Quran clearly is not a book that makes (things) clear as claimed in 27:1, Quran is the book that needs hadiths, tafsir etc to clear its content. Saying Quran is a clear book or such things is just another lie.
Name: VISHWATMA
Date: Wednesday April 23, 2008
Time: 02:47:57 -0700
Is brahmaand ka ek ansh hai ye sansaar ye dharati ye dhara ye prithvi. Isamein jivankarta paalankarta aur sangharkarta ko bhagvan ishwar aur parmaatma ya vishwatma kehate hain. Par hamaari ye kahani us ishwar ya bhagvaan ki nahi is vishwa mein aayi huyi un aatmayon ki hai jo parmaatma ka ek ansh hain. Aur wo ansh jivaatma ka roop lekar dharati par aata hai to manushya kehalaata hain. Jo manusya apane jivan ke uddeshya ko apane laksh ko nahi jaanata aur us tak nahi pahunchata yo saadharan insaan banakar reh jaata hai. Lekin jis insaan ko apane laksh aur uddeshya ka gyan ho jaata hai aur use paane ke liye wo jivan aur mrittu ko koi mehatva nahi deta wo aatma ek saadharan manushya se uncha utakar ban jaati hai (vishwatma)
Name: ZuK (to: Mohammad)
Date: Wednesday April 23, 2008
Time: 17:36:02 -0700
You said: "I am not a blind believer and have no fear of accepting the truth." --- I'm glad to hear that, because that means that we CAN actually have a discussion. As to the matter of "book-non book" I agree with you, accept your argument in favor of the inclussion of Al-Qur'aan in the "book" cathegory - although my point is that the Recitation wasn't originally meant to become a written book -, and find your example of a music score a particularly good one. Now you might grasp the validity of my previous examples from the mathematic field. We are essentially speaking here of "texts" (in a very ample sense) or "messages" (idem) rather than books in a restrictive sense, aren't we? ---- As for the Q. 4:82 reference, the verse itself does not make any declaration regarding the process of recension, or compilation, of the Qur'aan. It is hoewever a well known fact that as a text, or message, it developed over a span of 23 years. Now, a number of circumstances prevent us from tracing back the whole story of its redaction, the most serious of them being Uthman's order to BURN every other Qur'aan that didn't fully agree with his own. I won't address the issue of the textual corruption of the Qur'aan here - you can find a lot about that on-line, both in favor and against. I will limit myself to pointing a number of things that, if you will, we can discuss at length. (a) Are you familiar with Qur'aan 3:7? Are you aware that the last sentences of this verse allow two DIAMETRALLY OPOSED readings? I invite you to do your own research before we touch this matter. (b) Most certainly, you are familiar with these quranic declarations: 2:2 ("This is the Book; in it is guidance sure, without doubt, to those who fear Allah"), the already quoted 27:1, and my favorite, 16:103. So, we may say that the Qur'aan affirms to be clear, without doubts, and easy to understand.(c) I am more than sure that you are familiar, or at least you have encountered during your quranic reading, the Muqatta'at, or "disjoint letters" also known as "enigmatic verses of the Qur'aan", consisting merely of letters. Well, here is my question: how do we reconcile the obvious embedded ambiguity (not to say contradiction) of 3:7, with the declarations I quoted in point (b), with the Muqatta'at, of which, according to the most prestigious tafseer, "no one knows the meaning except Allah" 8-0 !! PS: Should you prefer to have this exchange by email, my email is dzhinnizbutylki{at}yander{dot}ru . I just would regret preventing other inquisitive minds from participating in our exchange.
Name: ZuK
Date: Wednesday April 23, 2008
Time: 17:38:45 -0700
Sorry, it's dzhinnizbutylki{at}yandex{dot}ru
Name: ZuK - sidenote
Date: Wednesday April 23, 2008
Time: 17:43:34 -0700
Of course, point (d) would be the issue of abrogation. But we have a lot to work with already, haven't we? Ma'a salaama :)
Name: ha ha ha ....
Date: Thursday May 01, 2008
Time: 02:49:11 -0700
One common belief in Moslem is: you are poor while living in the world, but you are rich after you enter paradise, with 72 houris (the ever virgin girls, no matter how much you have sex with them) and 28 young boys (for sex purposes also). Other religions, believe that you should not in poor condition while living in the world and after death, no richness is needed anyway. Only Islam promises sex in paradise after someone's death (with the jihad way). Why don't they teach pepole to have a good life, without any shortcomings? Not surprising that many poor islamica nations. Arab countries are rich mostly because they have oil abundantly. But Bangladesh? Pakistan? Indonesia? Became poorer and poorer everyday. I live in Indonesia, a big moslem country, but with so many corruptions in its government. The women here starting to leave the native culture and replace it with Islamic culture, especially the way they are dressed. Now it its hard to find women with Kain & Kebaya (native garments), mostly they wear jilbab (hijab). 20-30 years ago, many women still wear Kain & Kebaya, now only on special occasion only, and rarely. It is saddening to watch the shifting of the culture here. How can they be so foolish?
Name: to: challenge to all infidels from akhter
Date: Monday May 05, 2008
Time: 03:46:02 -0700
I am an infidel. To make a verse like that, just watch an xxx movie. Many sentences can be made in such a movie. I can think of one sentence: "Akhter, you can f*ck your own mother, your sisters, your daughters in laws, nine year old girls who is still playing with their dolls, and with any women who offer herself to you. You can have it a twosome way, threesome way, and foursome way, anytime that suits best to you. You can also play with them missionary style, doggy style, or any style that comes to your mind." I think the sentence is far more better than your verse.
Name: yes allah is smart
Date: Thursday May 15, 2008
Time: 00:39:31 -0700
instead of picking off one thing and not finishing of your sentences or going into the next sentence, all your showing is errors . yes Allah has created us and billions believe that to be true. you showed contentes in 2,216 but in 2,215 ALLAH tell us to be good to parents,orphans and the needy .people should not trust what you are writing because you have a secret agenda and i think that anyone who believes you should do some research. Don't believe in what you watch on t.v people are more than just one side. I believe in Allah and all that he said in the Quran, i know its not false. Allah say through out the quran how smart humans are how they can pick things up. With every religion people should not have hate in their heart they should be open minded islam teaches us to be open minded. I can't change anyone and in writing this i know that there will be those who don't understand but before you disbelieve do some research.