Does the quran guarantee equal human rights for all people...?
-
And JM is waiting for YOURS.
It's ok Danish.
It's not OK, mquran. Come out of your cobweb and admit that you are wrong in your understandings, especially when you can't defend or loose grounds to explain. You need to expound on JM's request and as well as Arnold's silly notions above.
I can see why you refused the moderators decision.
And when did that happen? )
I guess you can take the boy out of sunnistan, but not sunnistan out of the boy.
I have no idea what you just said. voodoo
-
It's not OK, mquran. Come out of your cobweb and admit that you are wrong in your understandings, especially when you can't defend or loose grounds to explain. You need to expound on JM's request and as well as Arnold's silly notions above.
So you want me to go through an entire thread? Tell you what, you accept the moderators decision and bring it up yourself, ok ? Obviously if you're not man enough, I understand. You are the Prophet of Dung after all, as your dung sura indicates.
And when did that happen?
When you refused to comment on Wakas decision that if you bring a reference YOU are liable to prove it. And Danish, you better be very prepared to prove it. None of your dung sura stuff will help.
Quote
I guess you can take the boy out of sunnistan, but not sunnistan out of the boy.
I have no idea what you just said.No of course you don't because that would require literacy and intelligence.
-
Fa'aqtau aydi is for EACH of them, hence why I didn't mention the saariqah. Please see all occurences of 'huma' in al-quraan and you will see that there's no 'breaking down' but rather the 'huma' refers to each person.
Really ???
Could you explain this to Saladin in this thread ?
http//www.free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=3399.0Peace
The guy is duckin around and ashamed to respond.
who ? me ?
salam.
-
Fa'aqtau aydi is for EACH of them, hence why I didn't mention the saariqah. Please see all occurences of 'huma' in al-quraan and you will see that there's no 'breaking down' but rather the 'huma' refers to each person.
Really ???
Could you explain this to Saladin in this thread ?
http//www.free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=3399.0Peace
The guy is duckin around and ashamed to respond.
who ? me ?
salam.
No not you, Saladin. The quote was referenced to the 'prophet of doom'.
-
Peace all. Why does not mquran or others clarify whether they believe the verse means amputation of hands,or taking of resources,or whatever they think it means.....?
My 'alleged' running is quite pedestrian compared to some folks..... D
Why is no-one taking up danish on his merits,and having a moderated debate with him,rather than just throwing around defensive allegations/name calling....?
Im begining to think some of the posters here cannot defend their beliefs.......
I suggest you 'surpass' the non-sense like good brother danish.......
Peace all. ps;where is idol-free when you need him....... ) -
It's not OK, mquran. Come out of your cobweb and admit that you are wrong in your understandings, especially when you can't defend or loose grounds to explain. You need to expound on JM's request and as well as Arnold's silly notions above.
So you want me to go through an entire thread?
Alright then, just explain the silly notion of Arnold above when he talks about 1231 in relations to 538 and I'll take it from there.
And when did that happen?
When you refused to comment on Wakas decision that if you bring a reference YOU are liable to prove it. And Danish, you better be very prepared to prove it. None of your dung sura stuff will help.
I gave my decision several times but it swooshed pass your ears. Neither Wakas nor any other moderator has answered my post addressed to them and you keep running back and forth, up safah and marwah. Here's my post to the moderators http//www.free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=5845.105
Quote
I guess you can take the boy out of sunnistan, but not sunnistan out of the boy.I have no idea what you just said.
No of course you don't because that would require literacy and intelligence.
Like in your 'divine wonderland', I agree.
-
DanishAlright then, just explain the silly notion of Arnold above when he talks about 1231 in relations to 538 and I'll take it from there.
Please tell me why it's 'silly' ?
You explain the relationship which Arnold brought about that it cannot mean 'cutting of hands' but resources/abilities and I will tell you why its silly.
-
You explain the relationship which Arnold brought about that it cannot mean 'cutting of hands' but resources/abilities and I will tell you why its silly.
I agree with Arnold and don't think I need to add to his explanation. So why is it silly or do you not know?
-
You explain the relationship which Arnold brought about that it cannot mean 'cutting of hands' but resources/abilities and I will tell you why its silly.
I agree with Arnold and don't think I need to add to his explanation. So why is it silly or do you not know?
As expected, dodging the issue and playing around with words.
-
Peace mquran. And that your response.......? I cant see how you can accuse others of not answering questions,with a 'subjective',evasive response like this........? (612-3.)
You are acting like a university intellectual who doesnt know which end to hold a shovel....,all theory,rhethoric and 'western logic' (how ironic. )., but very little real real-life application.....Grow up mr idealist........ handshake
peace danish. I agree with you danish, people playing with words,diverting,defending,and wasting time,prolonging the realisation that this book cannot be defended...... bravo -
The problem is, Danish is like you. An inferority-complex ridden individual intoxicated by the words of western philosophy (Danish is slightly better because he actually read a bit, unlike you who thinks Neitzsche was spiritual) and keen to be 'one of the boys'. Sadly, you both need to take a hard look at yourself and ask 'why cant i answer for my accusations. Here i am trying to be a great modernist or po-modernist but i don't know what 'silly' is'. Danish called the Arnold's interpretation 'silly' but he doesn't know WHY its silly? What does this make him? Honestly its shameful and I wish we had a better class of freethinkers in this forum.
-
Peace mquran and all. And your post is not an accusation regarding me and danish,i suppose,........? Incredible jingoism and disregard of self-reflection....... bravo
ps;maybe danish will answer a bit later,why so impatient.....? -
Danish is like you, he'll never answer why its silly. He's here for the same reasons you are, for an ego-stroking. You guys wanted all of us here to fall in sajda to your enlightened souls and the liberation you bring but you have nothing to substiantie. Well, im done with the small talk. I await both your answers.
-
You said it was silly. Kindly tell me why its silly. Or can't you?
Mquran, let us know what did the governer's wife give to the gossipers when she invited them into the room, as per 1231?
-
Mquran, let us know what did the governer's wife give to the gossipers when she invited them into the room, as per 1231?
Moderators, I call your attention once again to this person who refuses to clarify his point. He called Arnold's view 'silly' but refuses to explain himself. Could you comment please?
-
Mquran, let us know what did the governer's wife give to the gossipers when she invited them into the room, as per 1231?
Moderators, I call your attention once again to this person who refuses to clarify his point. He called Arnold's view 'silly' but refuses to explain himself. Could you comment please?
Good Lord, crying and bickering like a baby to moderators all over the forum. I am getting to Arnold's and yours silly notions by asking you a straightforward question, which you are inadvertently deviating from, including JM's post.
-
DanishGood Lord,
The only 'lord' you believe in are your delusions.
crying and bickering like a baby to moderators all over the forum. I am getting to Arnold's and yours silly notions by asking you a straightforward question, which you are inadvertently deviating from, including JM's post.
'am getting' ? By the rules which YOU POSTED, you should clarify your accusations first unless you cannot, of course.
I repeat once again
Why is Arnold's view 'silly' ?