Post what you believe is a contradiction in the Quran and let's see the answers
-
peace abdun nun
as expected u did not translate that for me but u refer it to another person let me make it easy for the readers
"there is no god except for the one who does not engagge in worship"
first of all you are relying on someone else interpretation and moreover the person is not showing the method how he translate. i have a good memory but i want you to remind my nonsense once again you call me half wit (about 2 yrs ago) and my nonsense remarks in the first reply of yout post but dnt worry i will not say you a blind follower in return so plz try not to use this langauage again specially when we are dealing complicated things.
NOTE i asked from bk anwar lot of times lot of things out of which he hardly give any answer to my questions i feel he is struggling in finding answers
-
There are injonctions in 4.23 where simultaneous marriage to two sisters is forbidden, except for what is past. Obvioysly it refer sto marriages already ongoing, they did not have to disolve. With the prophet is the same, things were not more slack for him than for others, in fact they were stricter. In sura 33 he is forbidden from marry any new women or for divorcing or for exchanging one for another. Nobody else was forbiden divorce. So, if thre are special disposition for the prophet after that point it was to make them "harder".
I agree with that.
And yes, again we are ordered to marry the singles, but what if there are no singles?And I am not talking about what mullahs say,. Your objection with mullahs is that you are saying that there can never be any unbalance in populations save for what the mullas say, as if mullahs were God, but that is nto so, nor do we have ny guarantee that it can naver happen. It may happen. So let us leave the mullahs out of the equation, they are no authority in population or demography, not even in Qur'an. Nor do they interest me in the least.
God will get someone for the person looking for a mate. But from practical point of view and theory of compatibility, it is useless to marry just about anyone. The person has to make sure he or she can live under one roof with the mate peacefully.
The fact is that there have been occasions and we do not know that there may not to be again, where proportion between the sexes has been very unbalanced. If the population is going to recover minimally and if you do not want sexual and social morals to run riot and have a lawless society you have to provide for some legal and social structure. I have a very clear example in mind. The war of the Triple alliance against Paraguay from 1864 to 1870. There were almost no males left between the ages of 13 an 70 and very few women. But still the few women left outnumbered the males by more than ten to one. The government of the time proclaimed free love as the legal family which was maintained till the population recovered. Of course there was poligamy, what else? And nobody complained aobut it but took it as the only fair and intelligent way to have a nation again. They shouldered their burden and carried on. Since They died for their nation, they did want a nation. Poligamy was the least of their worries and rather than a worry, was the only thing possible. So, no, it does not happen all the time, thank God, but that shows why it is not prohibited in the Qur'an.
This world is huge. They could have welcomed interracial marriages. For Paraguay, it would have been quite easy since many of the countries nearby speak Spanish and share cultural similarities. I am usually not very convinced by what comes out of South America about women. I haven't seen a time when that side didn't consider females to be nothing but pieces of meat. And they are usually quite good at turning almost anything into sob story.
You ask that there shoudl be some line saying it is nto allowed. No, that is not the way it works. It is the same when somebody asks where is a line in Qur'an that says that women can lead prayers or be judges or whatever.
The two aren't same. God has nothing in Quran about leading prayer at all.
Each society makes its rules to suit the context and the circumstances, but we should not attribute to God something God has nto said. Marry the single yes, He says, poligamy is prohibited forever no, He has not said and I insist lest it be forgotten, neither feminine nor masculine. When there are no singles we can marry, then we may see to it, may be we would rather remain single ourselves. But if the ones who do not find singles to marry are too many, it may be that at some point they start spilling over and the general good should be looked after in the real circumstances, not in ideal sircumstances.
Marry the single does cancel polygamy. The world is huge. Only if we remove the ego of "oh I must marry only someone from my country" then it becomes easy to see that shortage of males and females do not exist. I do remember discussing the people with my husband some years ago. They do have a problem in how they think. They don't marry for companionship, but for pleasing the society. For them, mating is simply a deal to enhance their name, expand their culture, gene, etc. This is how things don't work.
-
peace brother sardar just to let you know i m not a language expert but a simple randam human being who try to learn and understand things since childhood
You can read arabic though right? I can send you 2 websites that could help linguistic skills in your PM if you want.
-
peace abdun nun
as expected u did not translate that for me but u refer it to another person let me make it easy for the readers
"there is no god except for the one who does not engagge in worship"
first of all you are relying on someone else interpretation and moreover the person is not showing the method how he translate. i have a good memory but i want you to remind my nonsense once again you call me half wit (about 2 yrs ago) and my nonsense remarks in the first reply of yout post but dnt worry i will not say you a blind follower in return so plz try not to use this langauage again specially when we are dealing complicated things.
NOTE i asked from bk anwar lot of times lot of things out of which he hardly give any answer to my questions i feel he is struggling in finding answers
Bold i did remember seeing that post a while ago (not 2 years ago)
Orange What questions are these? -
You can read arabic though right? I can send you 2 websites that could help linguistic skills in your PM if you want.
lol i said i m not expert
but i can read arabic since i was 7
and its not only arabic at this age of life we have everything(online libraries,corpus,lexicon,classical arabic dictionaries,interpretors) etc so i feel it easy when i have to search for somethingalthough i always appreciate a gift of learning when somebody give it to me so thanks for offering these websites i ll look for it.
-
Bold i did remember seeing that post a while ago (not 2 years ago)
Orange What questions are these?aah hahaha no it was two years ago mr abdun nun call me half wit and it was funny though coz i dnt understand why he call me half wit i even ask but he did not replied there lol
https//free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=9607893.msg377890#msg377890 herez the link
aww about questions my first question from him (bk anwar)to show me his source of translating text and the method he applied to his interpretations but i did not get a satisfactory reply
-
There is pretty comprehensive list here.
http//www.answering-islam.org/Quran/Contra/And I am sure you'll find rebuttals on the internet too.
A very boring exercise if you ask me. I think it's much better to discuss what ideas the Quran promotes and if bad ideas are just misunderstanding then why has it been unable to communicate them effectively.
We shouldn't be afraid if we trust God and want to learn from these so called rebuttals. It grants you a different kind of angle and perspectif and actually fuels your faith.
-
I agree with that.
This world is huge. They could have welcomed interracial marriages. For Paraguay, it would have been quite easy since many of the countries nearby speak Spanish and share cultural similarities. I am usually not very convinced by what comes out of South America about women. I haven't seen a time when that side didn't consider females to be nothing but pieces of meat. And they are usually quite good at turning almost anything into sob story.
The two aren't same. God has nothing in Quran about leading prayer at all.
Marry the single does cancel polygamy. The world is huge. Only if we remove the ego of "oh I must marry only someone from my country" then it becomes easy to see that shortage of males and females do not exist. I do remember discussing the people with my husband some years ago. They do have a problem in how they think. They don't marry for companionship, but for pleasing the society. For them, mating is simply a deal to enhance their name, expand their culture, gene, etc. This is how things don't work.
I doubt that you have any idea whatsoever of what did happen or even of what happens and goes around.
Would you flock now to southern Sudan to help lift up the Country? Woudl you flock to make a living in a completely destroyed country where nothing works nor stands and is militarily occupied?
A resent deply that you call those people racists that they did not want to mix because if they had wanted they cpould have brought men over. No, they could not. Those few who might come did not come to marry from a people practically without anything to eat, dipossessed of everything by the winners and their backers. Nobody flocks to a country like that except to get the spoils.
The paraguayan people were mixed and they used to get people from many lands too and later on did too, but to imagine that men would go to Paraguay to marry women in the hardest predicaments completely destroyed and their economy destroyed is to be thinking out of this world. It took them many years to recover. YOu have not tought about this with sufficient knowledge or with sufficient understanding, otherwise you would realise how insulting, heartless and overbearing your assumptions are for those who suffered such horror and for any paraguayan of any time. They are the most hospitable, unpretentious and open people.
But they committed the worst sin they tried to advance and develop and have a strong economy and they were succeeding, so they were crushed.
Your ideas about south Americans are simply shocking. Pieces of meat... ?For God's sake! It is not only insulting for South American males, but to south American women particularly. Do you think they are idiots and have no guts?
Just as a side note, the first woman president of a Republic in the World was precisely a South American.
Salaam
-
While i don't agree with worshiping, we are to serve Allah/God (SWTAY) https//mentalbondageinthenameofgod.wordpress.com/2008/12/28/god-is-not-to-be-worshiped/#comment-16306
Yellow Wait let me edit that little mistake https//mentalbondageinthenameofgod.wordpress.com/2008/12/28/god-is-not-to-be-worshiped/
There you go, sorry. -\ -
Does God need to be served? Does God need anything in fact? No. Does he want to be served? No. That, we may do to other people if we have a pact of any sort with them. God is not a creature, what we do with respect to Him is like nothing we would do for any creature or thing. We may know of the usefulness of anything we do for somebody or something else. We do know God does not need a damned thing from us or from anything or anybody else, but we need to do or be something with respect to Him, for our own sake and what we should do in the first place is acknowledge our true nature and it is that we are contingent creatures who only exist because there is a God that make them exist, and from there follows everything else. God tells us the ways by which we can fulfill our nature. If we want to serve ourselves we will follow God's teachings so that we can live in Reality and not in vain dreamings. We are not solving God's problems or fulfulling His needs, but ours.
We may serve somebody who exacts from us certain services and still dislike that person and feel enmity towards her or him, but we cannot do that with God, that is, we can, but then it will avail us nothing.
Salaam
-
Does God need to be served? Does God need anything in fact? No. Does he want to be served? No. That we may do to other people if we have a pact of any sort with them. Gid is not a creature, what we do with respect to Him is like nothing we would do for any creature or thing. We may know of the usefulness of anything we do for somebody or something else. We do know God does not need a damned thing from us or from anything or anybody else, but we need to do or be something with respect to Him, for our own sake and what we should do in the first place is acknowledge our true nature and it is that we are contingent creatures who only exist because there is a God that make them exist, and from there follows everything else. God tell us the ways by which we can fulfill our nature. If we want to serve ourselves we will follow God's teachings so that we can live in Reality and not in vain dreamings. We are not solving God's problems or fulfulling His needs, but ours.
We may serve somebody who exacts from us certain services and still dislike that person and feel enmity towards her or him, but we cannot do that with God, that is, we can, but then it will avail us nothing.
Salaam
Salaam
You did read the article right? Besides i serve God because i want to, i want to be learn from Allah (SWTAY), also because i love & revere The Divine Infinite Creator. Here is a verse 5156 Wama khalaqtu aljinna waal-insailla liyaAAbudooni I did not create the Jinn and mankind except to serve Me.
-
It is a matter of how you translate 3-b-d, if you choose to translate serve or worship. Worship is not equal to ritual, which is what some people seem to make it. Ritual is ritual and worship is worship. worship is from the heart and the mind.
If you choose to translate serve, then serve is serve, not serve plus something else. If you translate worship it is just worship, the certainty that you belong to Him that you exist because He makes you existe at every single instant and that if He did not do that you would cease to exist or have existed.
And if you do not "serve" Him, you still serve Him, because He is the one o whom you belong and you are not wronging Him but yourself. So anything you do you do, right or wrong, you do "serve" Him. That is what He created and wanted. But if you worship Him with all your being, you are serving Him equally, but it does not serve you.
Salaam
Salaam
-
peace all,
Glorification Allah
praising (alhamdulliah)
remembring (zikar of Allah)
sabeeh Allah
and also serving Allah ( doing anything here mean we are actually doing it in the kingdom of the one who created All this ) so officialy we acknowledge or not it will not change the fact that we are creation and any created thing is totally belong to creator.this word also in urdu and punjabi taken as ibadat mean worshiping by a lip service or actions but in real terms this word is something like a duty how a slave/servant/worker do it to the reporting person(BOSS/MASTER) but obviously God is not human neither he need his servant to make a cup of tea for him or doing rituals etcexample a rich man earn money and was very clingy with the money people think he did not serve creator but infact he indirectly did. whatever he collect will remain at this physical world just ownership will get change. the next owner possibly serve humanity and it reffers to God that serving humanity = serving God as you share the provision of God mean u just did a good caretaking of his providings
every single atom is serving God directly or indirectly willingly or unwillingly
by different modes of actions what i post above one more SubhanAllah -
I doubt that you have any idea whatsoever of what did happen or even of what happens and goes around.
I am not convinced by the number. Why so many women were kept alive by the enemy exactly? I did a bit of research. I pasted them below.
Would you flock now to southern Sudan to help lift up the Country? Woudl you flock to make a living in a completely destroyed country where nothing works nor stands and is militarily occupied?
Shortage of men is very common in war zones. But I have yet to see people wanting polygamy because of that. Even a terrorist organization like ISIS recruits terrorists from other countries. Same was done by the Vietnamese fighting against the US. Meanwhile, majority of the new places have more men first. How did America and Australia manage back in the days? Europe was sending mainly more men than women to those two places. Polygamy does not solve men women ratio because there is no guarantee on the sex of the child. It can?t help the economy either. That kind of system used to be very common in Middle East. Even the richest ones practiced it. But still it did not have any impact on the labor force and they kept bringing foreigners to work in their countries.
If the place is already devastated then polygamy would turn into a burden for any man. How would he afford multiple wives? Sure they can work also, but then how would things be for the children? It would actually make more sense to pass the women around to cut the cost if we take rationality into account. What if the tables are turned? The Indian state I mentioned becomes the result. Not all women can accept gangbang.
A resent deply that you call those people racists that they did not want to mix because if they had wanted they cpould have brought men over. No, they could not. Those few who might come did not come to marry from a people practically without anything to eat, dipossessed of everything by the winners and their backers. Nobody flocks to a country like that except to get the spoils.
The paraguayan people were mixed and they used to get people from many lands too and later on did too, but to imagine that men would go to Paraguay to marry women in the hardest predicaments completely destroyed and their economy destroyed is to be thinking out of this world. It took them many years to recover. YOu have not tought about this with sufficient knowledge or with sufficient understanding, otherwise you would realise how insulting, heartless and overbearing your assumptions are for those who suffered such horror and for any paraguayan of any time. They are the most hospitable, unpretentious and open people.
Actually, they did end up welcoming foreign people
?European and Middle Eastern immigrants began making their way to Paraguay in the decades following the Paraguayan War of 1864-1860 (from 1870 onward). Only 28,000 men and 200,000 women had survived the war, the reason why Paraguay had since then a high rate of illegitimate births. The government pursued a pro-immigration policy in an effort to increase population. Government records indicated that approximately 12,000 immigrants entered the port of Asunci?n between 1882 and 1907, of that total, almost 9,000 came from Italy, Germany, France, and Spain. Migrants also arrived from neighboring Spanish American countries, especially Argentina.?Apparently, conspiracy already exists in the number of people brought to their country
?Analysts also rejected government figures on the number of immigrants from South Korea, Hong Kong and Taiwan. The 1982 census reported that there were 2,700 Koreans in Paraguay, along with another 1,100 non-Japanese or non-Korean Asian immigrants. The actual number of Koreans and ethnic Chinese, however, was believed to be between 30,000 and 50,000. Virtually all Koreans and ethnic Chinese lived in Ciudad del Este or Asunci?n and played a major role in the importation and sale of electronic goods manufactured in Asia.?https//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_ParaguayThen this is about the casualties
After I finished the legwork that went into the last two posts, I discovered two other scholars had gotten there first. In 1988, Vera Blinn Reber took on the idea that Paraguay had lost more than half its population. Her evidence fell into four buckets
We have four decent censuses 1792, 1846, 1886 and 1899. The intercensal growth rates are 1.7%, 0.8%, and 3.1%. The censuses distinguish between native-born and foreign-born populations, so we can strip out immigration, which was anyway near negligible. The numbers given imply a slowdown between 1846 and 1886, but not a catastrophe;
The 1857 census that gave a population of 1.3 million does not exist. It appears to have been a Stalinesque propaganda ploy by the Paraguayan government to frighten its enemies.Once the war broke out, the Paraguayan government undertook a series of annual household surveys for the purposes of taxation and conscription. If we assume a household size of 6.98 people (which is very high by the standards of contemporary Latin American countries, but about what the 1846 census showed) then the population was 370,073 in 1864. It declined to 304,824 by the end of 1867, but that could have been evasion combined with the fact that much of the male population was at war.
Finally, biannual figures on crop production (Paraguay had a remarkably well-organized war economy) show no declines between 1863 and 1867.While she effectively debunked the genocidal claims, her conclusion that Paraguay lost most likely 8% of its population is still largely conjecture. For example, roughly 80,000 Paraguayan men cycled through the armed forces during the war. She posited that it was unlikely that casualty rates could have been much higher than 24,000; roughly 30% of everyone who served.
I am not so sure. For example, the standard figures for Confederate military mortality (including disease) in the U.S. Civil War ranged from 23% to 38%. But when J. David Hacker (Binghampton) used census records to estimate excess male mortality for the 1860s, he found numbers that were more in line with mortality rates of 33% to 54%.
http//noelmaurer.typepad.com/aab/2015/04/the-existing-debate-on-the-paraguayan-war.htmlBut they committed the worst sin they tried to advance and develop and have a strong economy and they were succeeding, so they were crushed.
Apparently, they were at fault. It is also believed that the male casualties number was used by their government to gain emotional support from the world and cover that fault.
Your ideas about south Americans are simply shocking. Pieces of meat... ?For God's sake! It is not only insulting for South American males, but to south American women particularly. Do you think they are idiots and have no guts?
We are surrounded by them.
Just as a side note, the first woman president of a Republic in the World was precisely a South American.
Salaam
Women in leadership position served the "muslim" countries also. But that didn't improve the status of average women there. They say women are equal to men in my country and yet we never had a female president.
Peace
-
You can find in internet enaything you wish for, There are millions of pages written on that, particular by written by the victors and their handlers. Given your views, I know that no matter what is said you have already ordered the world past and to come as you say it should be, monogamnous to the dot even if it means its end.
Anothet thing you seem to price a lot is love for marriage. So where is love where you import or export men for owmen who are in shortage (or viceversa if it were the case).
As to people, men and women, coming to Paraguay after, I said so to start with, so you are not discovering anything that nulifies that fact. I do not care how improper you find the number of women who survived the war. It is absurd that you say they were many. They were very few, but since men were almost nil the proportion of women to men was very high, over ten to one. You say they should not have bred. Just those who could catch some 13 year old or some over seventy and the very few in between whould have bred to your liking. If you were there, I am sure nobody would have forced you into marriage, but you were not there. Those who were there were Paraguayan women and they did want children. That to you may be a sin, but they owed nothing to you nor to anybody else nor did they force anybody, so your opinion stays your opinion, and today's Paraguayans who are a very mixed and patriotic people are very proud and grateful of those women who kept the nation alive, and even having many ancestors of foreign origin, they still revere the women of that time and their history.
As to the upkeep of the children... well everywhere in any country there are women who keep up their children even being married or even there being plenty of men around. So when there are no men around it is better for women to live and die childless so that even there won't be anybody to keep them company when they are old and die... Hopeless. On the other hand, Paraguayan women were used to get into business and carry their own undetakings before the war as they have done after. From that point of view tghey were no as helpless, save of course for the fact that ev erything was in shambles and there was nothing to trade or do right after the war. The occupants took everything away.
As to lack of men, the victors did take many Paraguayan men prisoners into slavery into Brazil. Those same Brazilians would then have sent men for Paraguayan women? Nice joke.
You seem to be in the delusion that same number of males and females is guaranteed for ever and for any situation, place or time but as it happens God has not imposed on Himself to keep up such a condition under all time, place or circumstances, even if you will deny to death that that happened and may happen. Monogamy seems to be holier than God.
Fine, you wont get into polgamy even if the world were to end because of it. Fine, you are responsible for yourself, but other people are responsible for themselves and act in their circumstances not in those you imagine for them.
And please do not turn this into me supporting poligamy. I uphold completely the marry the single, except where there are no singles to marry for too many people for it to be feasible. You cannot ask 90% of the people to keep virgin all their life or not to breed, or 80% or any number. Or rather, yes, you can ask them, but do not be disappointed if they do not oblige. If there is a proper way to arrange for families under those conditions, why should the worship monogamy ratgher than family? They are responsible for themselves and nobody should decide for them.
For the few men, many of them maimed in the war, the situation of course was not a comfotable one. Dismal poverty, no future and no help. They did what they could. They lived that time and not a happier or more restful one. But Paraguay, survived, even if monogamy was not worshipped for a little while.
Salaam
-
peace, wanted to finalize issue with the magicians different "dialog" was with (3) groups and each converted.
https//s10.postimg.org/utrwszyih/Ahlwardt_305_ch7v106-127.jpg
https//s10.postimg.org/tu67aniwp/Ahlwardt_305_ch20v65-78.jpg
https//s10.postimg.org/6v9hrxx95/Ahlwardt_305_ch26v26-49.jpg
-
Does God need to be served? Does God need anything in fact? No. Does he want to be served? No. That, we may do to other people if we have a pact of any sort with them. God is not a creature, what we do with respect to Him is like nothing we would do for any creature or thing. We may know of the usefulness of anything we do for somebody or something else. We do know God does not need a damned thing from us or from anything or anybody else, but we need to do or be something with respect to Him, for our own sake and what we should do in the first place is acknowledge our true nature and it is that we are contingent creatures who only exist because there is a God that make them exist, and from there follows everything else. God tells us the ways by which we can fulfill our nature. If we want to serve ourselves we will follow God's teachings so that we can live in Reality and not in vain dreamings. We are not solving God's problems or fulfulling His needs, but ours.
We may serve somebody who exacts from us certain services and still dislike that person and feel enmity towards her or him, but we cannot do that with God, that is, we can, but then it will avail us nothing.
Salaam
An English translation of the Quran 5156 I did not create the Jinn and mankind except to serve Me.
-
An English translation of the Quran 5156 I did not create the Jinn and mankind except to serve Me.
actually u did not get what sister huruf meant to be..
let say human being is not serving God.. and what exactly hes doing= ?
indirectly or directly hes serving God its another matter how you perceive the word "serve" its actually an interpretation of word "ibada" when poet and lyrics makers use this word "ibadat" in songs it totally give us a different meaning than worship
-
Peace imrankhawaja.
your wrote below now with added comments
"peace abdun nun (this is not my name (correct - Abdun Nur))
as expected u did not translate that for me but u refer it to another person let me make it easy for the readers
"there is no god except for the one who does not engagge in worship" (this is not a correct quote, you cannot even manage that simple task)
first of all you are relying on someone else interpretation (I know this is hard for you to grasp but references are the key, not who wrote the referenced work, I know this may be a difficult concept for you to get your head around) and moreover the person is not showing the method how he translate (the work is fully referenced). i have a good memory but i want you to remind my nonsense once again you call me half wit (about 2 yrs ago, and two years later nothing has changed) and my nonsense remarks in the first reply of yout post but dnt worry i will not say you a blind follower in return so plz try not to use this langauage again specially when we are dealing complicated things. (do not refute through logical fallacies this makes you look like a retarded moron, instead refute the references that arrive at the meanings, if you are struggling with what a logical fallacy is I can explain, but I would imagine you found not be able to comprehend.)
NOTE i asked from bk anwar lot of times lot of things out of which he hardly give any answer to my questions i feel he is struggling in finding answers" (Is Badar your personal linguistic investigator? otherwise he's very busy doing his job, family life and working on things he finds most pressing)
-
"peace abdun nun (this is not my name (correct - Abdun Nur))
ok corrected with brackets {this is not my name (correct - Abdun Nur)} you dnt have manners of using brackets such a manner less attitude i corrected it properly and how you interpret your correct name ?
"there is no god except for the one who does not engagge in worship" (this is not a correct quote, you cannot even manage that simple task)
yeh i did not because after requesting again and again u did not give me the translation so i just put your understanding of word "allah" who does not engagge in worship
now u have a chance to complete this simple task.
(I know this is hard for you to grasp but references are the key, not who wrote the referenced work, I know this may be a difficult concept for you to get your head around) (the work is fully referenced).
so thats what i was asking from him to provide me a method what he apply to his translation by which reference? its very simple
(about 2 yrs ago, and two years later nothing has changed) and my nonsense remarks in the first reply of yout post but dnt worry i will not say you a blind follower in return so plz try not to use this langauage again specially when we are dealing complicated things. (do not refute through logical fallacies this makes you look like a retarded moron, instead refute the references that arrive at the meanings, if you are struggling with what a logical fallacy is I can explain, but I would imagine you found not be able to comprehend.)
now here we Go i was expecting this kind of "burning" attitude from you ...
yes you are right after two years your arrogance did not changed much , say BK anwar to interpret 49 11 for you hope it will help you , i send a ref 2 years ago but i think you dnt beleive in literal translation of 4911 and also not applying on you while talking with other people... do u have any idea how funny it was in that post two years ago... u said me half wit without giving me a reason infact i remember i did not even ask anything from you on that post ,
in my area this attitude is the symbol of madness/insanity if somebody just abuse somebody for no reason..
once an arrogant always an arrogant ..
atleast see the forum rules its in plain english
and yeh forget about logical fallacy learn one important thing from me first i.e
the manner how to reply a post by quoting it how i did it here...(Is Badar your personal linguistic investigator? otherwise he's very busy doing his job, family life and working on things he finds most pressing)
rotfl oh no not mine
he is doing a favor on humanity to provide a correct translation and you are backing him up seems he is your personal ( ) fill the brackets by suitable word whatever fits...NOTE i know more abusive words than u can even imagine. i can also use it here without any fear of getting bullet in my head cox i know u cant send me a bluetooth bullet police ... but i never wanted to use those abusive words
reason is, i atleast understand the message behind 4911 hope you also learn it one day...
