Can You Post this as an Article?
-
You gave dramatics. Here they are
to whoever reads this, look at me as an example, if you notice I stop posting here, it was forcibly (i was banned). Which is evidence of the greater picture i have been trying to argument since I return to post on this site.Maybe you right. Maybe I got bit dramatic. But in my defense, Wakas threaten to ban me. Which is unfair because there are several individuals who post here that present their opinions as fact. But I am not doing that. Plus I back up some of my assertions about PM. Yet when other people present assertions about Islam and the Koran as fact, once its in the flavor of PM, it all good. Seem unfair.
Most articles posted are either attacked or praised, as can be seen in this very thread. The threat to disciplinary action was because of a lack of evidence to substantiate claims cited as facts (rule #2). Proper usage of words, such as "fact" are essential to the integrity and progress of any discourse. Otherwise you'd have people blathering about supposed facts that have absolutely zero meaning. Things can quickly digress from that point.
I agree. But that have nothing to go with me using the word, but the integrity of the author. I think it very strange that because of my harsh criticism of PM, I must present evidence every time I use the word ?fact?? Or are you trying to shut me up? I think it the later. Where is this in the rules? Like I said, others have done similar things, yet SHM get scolded. Seem unfair.
No, it is not a fact. It is your opinion that islam is such a fragile establishment that people questioning the validity of it's current practices would render it "demolished".
Although you disagree with my assertion, it is indeed true. PM seeks to demolish Islam.
Well I am wrong. I shouldn?t say ?seek.? That implies that PM purposely trying to destroy Islam. So I apologize for that statement.I should say, Progressive Muslims is indirectly demolishing Islam in an attempt to reform and recreate a more appeasing religion.
I'm not sure why this is such a difficult concept to grasp.
Fact <---requires evidence
Opinion <---does not require evidenceIt is indeed easy, but it seems the enforcement of this ?rule? is very lopsided.
But let?s just end it here. I understand your point. I got threatened to be ban for criticizing PM motives, division within the organization, and their inability to provide solutions and answers. Why? Because I didn?t present evidence every time I use the word ?fact? since fact requires evidence and opinions do not require evidence. I have learned my lesson.
-
As-Salaamu Alaikum all,
Very interesting read this thread. Noteworthy to notice how the mods protect this forum by use of the "rules". Personally, although I don't agree with every assessment of SHM, it is no different than all the other opinions about Al Quran that people present as fact, but with no real evidence other than their own understanding of words and phrases from Al Quran; with the exception that his opinions are about PM and FM, not Al Quran in this thread. Evidence to prove a fact is subjective, just like opinion; in many cases.
Threatening people is very serious no matter what type of disciplinary action is threatened. Please try to understand that power can blind and corrupt, and to use it fairly and appropiately is the goal. I find what some say here in reference to Al Quran without evidence, highly more offensive than the claims made my SHM. Yet I don't see any action being threatened against the majority of them. I also don't see where he used any profanity, lies, etc. that would warrant disciplinary action. If I missed that, then feel free to point it out to me.
A forum in general is a place to speak out on your point of view on things, not a court room. Most of everything on here is opinion, including whatever I write, because it is all translation of Al Quran. Only Al Quran is Al Haqq, and therefore factual evidence. The interpretation thereof, as proven already by traditionalists, is opinion of what that Haqq means.
Just my two cents.
As-Salaamu Alaikum, peace
-
Peace, SHM,
You provide evidence to back up Code-19 but not here, why?
Plus I back up some of my assertions about PM. Yet when other people present assertions about Islam and the Koran as fact, once its in the flavor of PM, it all good. Seem unfair.
Quote someone doing this please? That's evidence.
I think it very strange that because of my harsh criticism of PM, I must present evidence every time I use the word ?fact??
No, everytime you use the word "fact" in ANY circles, you must present evidence. For the obvious, i.e. "water is wet" or "2+2=4", it isn't needed. But for "PM seeks to demolish Islam", which is highly subjective, controversial, and offensive to PM, you MUST back it up. Evidence, put up, or shut up. When we have people following conjecture and opinion, it leads to much bad. 45 minute WMDs, a conjecture resulting in 655,000 Iraqi deaths? Is that a good sign for your position? Most certainly not.
Although you disagree with my assertion, it is indeed true. PM seeks to demolish Islam.
To date you have not produced an iota of evidence to back up this assertion. Innocent until proven guilty.
I should say, Progressive Muslims is indirectly demolishing Islam in an attempt to reform and recreate a more appeasing religion.
Sorry but this is a slight rewording of your original statement, though less controversial. Again, a parallel with Iraq - the mission statement was originally "We're going to bring freedom to the Iraqis!", it is now "We're going to remove the terrorists from Iraq!"
It still needs evidence to back it up. Have you considered the possibility that Islam, the religion decreed by God, the natural law, MIGHT POSSIBLY BE APPEASING AND APPEALING TO ALL? Or did that slip your mind? Is Islam restricted to a bunch of barbaric, conservative Arabs and Asians with a restricted, blind view of the world, and conforming only to their mysogynist ideals? Or is Islam a religion ordained for all mankind irrespective of traditional values? I think the latter, and a lot of converts in the UK also seem to think so. This site seems to think so. Yet, we still have foolish East-Asian tribalistic "elders" in the UK seeking to restrict Islam to their backward tribalistic sense (this was the view presented in an Islamic magazine I read some 2 years ago, by the way). No surprise that it is a "more appeasing religion", one would think that a religion of natural law would be "appeasing". But no, I guess we should live in the 6th century, or rather, what a bunch of Persians in the 8th century thought would happen in the 6th.
It is indeed easy, but it seems the enforcement of this ?rule? is very lopsided.
Evidence please?
But let?s just end it here. I understand your point. I got threatened to be ban for criticizing PM motives, division within the organization, and their inability to provide solutions and answers. Why? Because I didn?t present evidence every time I use the word ?fact? since fact requires evidence and opinions do not require evidence. I have learned my lesson.
Because you didn't provide evidence for relatively slanderous accusations, you got threatened with being banned? Well, there's a newsflash.
Here's a snippet of the evidence this article has been much deprived of
024.004
YUSUFALI And those who launch a charge against chaste women, and produce not four witnesses (to support their allegations),- flog them with eighty stripes; and reject their evidence ever after for such men are wicked transgressors;- -
As-Salaamu Alaikum all,
Very interesting read this thread. Noteworthy to notice how the mods protect this forum by use of the "rules". Personally, although I don't agree with every assessment of SHM, it is no different than all the other opinions about Al Quran that people present as fact, but with no real evidence other than their own understanding of words and phrases from Al Quran; with the exception that his opinions are about PM and FM, not Al Quran in this thread. Evidence to prove a fact is subjective, just like opinion; in many cases.
Threatening people is very serious no matter what type of disciplinary action is threatened. Please try to understand that power can blind and corrupt, and to use it fairly and appropiately is the goal. I find what some say here in reference to Al Quran without evidence, highly more offensive than the claims made my SHM. Yet I don't see any action being threatened against the majority of them. I also don't see where he used any profanity, lies, etc. that would warrant disciplinary action. If I missed that, then feel free to point it out to me.
A forum in general is a place to speak out on your point of view on things, not a court room. Most of everything on here is opinion, including whatever I write, because it is all translation of Al Quran. Only Al Quran is Al Haqq, and therefore factual evidence. The interpretation thereof, as proven already by traditionalists, is opinion of what that Haqq means.
Just my two cents.
As-Salaamu Alaikum, peace
Peace,
Evidence to prove a fact is subjective, just like opinion; in many cases.
You seem to have a skewed definition of "fact". A fact is "that which can be concretely supported by evidence or proof that stands up to scrutiny". Not subjective whatsoever.
Threatening people is very serious no matter what type of disciplinary action is threatened.
Conversely, slander, or false witness is also very serious no matter what type of slander or false witness is presented.
Please try to understand that power can blind and corrupt, and to use it fairly and appropiately is the goal. I find what some say here in reference to Al Quran without evidence, highly more offensive than the claims made my SHM. Yet I don't see any action being threatened against the majority of them.
Very true. But you need evidence to substantiate that. -\
A forum in general is a place to speak out on your point of view on things, not a court room. Most of everything on here is opinion, including whatever I write, because it is all translation of Al Quran. Only Al Quran is Al Haqq, and therefore factual evidence. The interpretation thereof, as proven already by traditionalists, is opinion of what that Haqq means.
Again, correct.
Only Al Quran is Al Haqq,
So water is not wet?
-
umm...where does it say alquran is al haq?
SHM, if you can show us a few instances of when people have tried to demolish islam or have done other things you accuse them of, then you'll you be taken seriously.
I'll be honest with you, right now, you and whatever you say is a joke. -
SHM,
There is a difference between giving opinions on al quran and slander. I strongly suggest you look up "slander" in a dictionary and reflect upon why al quran treats "slander" very harshly.
Your post shows you still dont get it
I think it very strange that because of my harsh criticism of PM,
It is nothing to do with the severity or harshness of your criticism and everything to do with making unevidenced accusations, i.e. slander.
I must present evidence every time I use the word ?fact??
If it is in relation to a slanderous comment then yes you will be pressed for evidence.
I got threatened to be ban for criticizing PM motives, division within the organization, and their inability to provide solutions and answers.
Again, nothing to do with that and everything to do with making unevidenced accusations, i.e. slander.
As a side note, no single mod can ban someone, there must be agreement amongst other mods/admin.
-
As-Salaamu Alaikum all,
OPF, bro I don't intend to get into a war of words and indications here. I gave my opinion only. If I gave a fact, consider it only my opinion.
Lobster, your name makes me hungry! rotfl Oh, but look up Haqq in a concordance for all its uses in Al Quran and maybe you can find what I am saying.
As-Salaamu Alaikum, peace
-
OPF,
Quote someone doing this please? That's evidence.
No it is not. That demand for me to quote people is completely unfair. You are targeting me simply because I criticize PM.
No, everytime you use the word "fact" in ANY circles, you must present evidence. For the obvious, i.e. "water is wet" or "2+2=4", it isn't needed. But for "PM seeks to demolish Islam", which is highly subjective, controversial, and offensive to PM, you MUST back it up. Evidence, put up, or shut up. When we have people following conjecture and opinion, it leads to much bad. 45 minute WMDs, a conjecture resulting in 655,000 Iraqi deaths? Is that a good sign for your position? Most certainly not.
OPF, do you know HOW MUCH PEOPLE IN HERE made claim as fact?! Do you know how many articles were posting claiming salat is this as a fact.
Sorry but this is a slight rewording of your original statement, though less controversial. Again, a parallel with Iraq - the mission statement was originally "We're going to bring freedom to the Iraqis!", it is now "We're going to remove the terrorists from Iraq!"
OPF, I don?t think my criticism about PM will start a war. I understand your point however.
It still needs evidence to back it up. Have you considered the possibility that Islam, the religion decreed by God, the natural law, MIGHT POSSIBLY BE APPEASING AND APPEALING TO ALL? Or did that slip your mind? Is Islam restricted to a bunch of barbaric, conservative Arabs and Asians with a restricted, blind view of the world, and conforming only to their mysogynist ideals? Or is Islam a religion ordained for all mankind irrespective of traditional values? I think the latter, and a lot of converts in the UK also seem to think so. This site seems to think so. Yet, we still have foolish East-Asian tribalistic "elders" in the UK seeking to restrict Islam to their backward tribalistic sense (this was the view presented in an Islamic magazine I read some 2 years ago, by the way). No surprise that it is a "more appeasing religion", one would think that a religion of natural law would be "appeasing". But no, I guess we should live in the 6th century, or rather, what a bunch of Persians in the 8th century thought would happen in the 6th.
Man I don?t think you get it OPF.
Evidence please?
Because you didn't provide evidence for relatively slanderous accusations, you got threatened with being banned? Well, there's a newsflash.
Here's a snippet of the evidence this article has been much deprived of
This is not about Islam or appeasing people. It is about me, SatanHatesMe, being targeting because he criticize PM. Two major assertion I made have been proven true. NO consensus. No answers. The third people want to fight me for; PM indirectly demolish Islam. And that assertion is true. PM main agenda is to remove any element of Islam simply because it is a traditional view. That is a fact. Google and research Progressive Muslims if you disagree. Because of that simply fact of their agenda PM indirectly demolish Islam, the religion. Period. This is not my opinion. But a fact.
Here is an analogy. If Christianity core belief is that Jesus is GOD. And the Koran testifies against that, then the Koran is demolishing the essence of Christianity. The Koran is demolishing Christianity! What is wrong in that statement? What is false about that statement? Learn to accept criticism! Harsh or gentle, it constructive depending how you accept it. -
SHM, if you can show us a few instances of when people have tried to demolish islam or have done other things you accuse them of, then you'll you be taken seriously.
I'll be honest with you, right now, you and whatever you say is a joke.Wakas, why inst Lobster threatened for calling my assertions "a joke? yet he didn?t provide any fact as to why it is funny?!?!?
Lobster, your name makes me hungry!....
Now that is a joke. And a funny one!
-
There is a difference between giving opinions on al quran and slander. I strongly suggest you look up "slander" in a dictionary and reflect upon why al quran treats "slander" very harshly.
?..If it is in relation to a slanderous comment then yes you will be pressed for evidence.Honestly, if the enforcement of this was fairly done, I would have believed and trusted your judgment Wakas. But this site alone testifies to the opposite. There are many references within this site of people making slander remarks about Christians, 19 Code, Submitters etc. Here is just ONE recent example;
A member called Samia within a post called the Code 19 ?a bad thing, not good for kids?.
Where was your demand for her to prove that statement? Where did you threaten her with expulsion? Where was the moderators when that comment was made? Why wasnt she demanded to should evidence.Yet my ?opinion? (as you call it) about PM suddenly qualifies as slander? The more you try to justify you threats, the more you discredit your authority as a moderator.
-
SHM, what Samia said was obviously a joke. See, when you say absurd things without any backup, it's assumed to be a joke.
I have found that one can go too far with one's jokes. I've gotten a warning from Zenje because of some of my sarcastic responses.
I know a few others who have received warnings as well as bans even though they have never criticized "PM."
So you aren't being singled out by anyone.
Although the fact that you are annoying the mods/admins with your slandering isn't helping your cause. -
SHM, what Samia said was obviously a joke. See, when you say absurd things without any backup, it's assumed to be a joke.
I have found that one can go too far with one's jokes. I've gotten a warning from Zenje because of some of my sarcastic responses.
I know a few others who have received warnings as well as bans even though they have never criticized "PM."
So you aren't being singled out by anyone.
Although the fact that you are annoying the mods/admins with your slandering isn't helping your cause.Are you hungry ImamQuranonly?
Red Lobster, I meant Lobster. Although the fact that I may indeed annoy mods/admins about PM being divided with no consensus and that they provide no answers, it is far from "slandering." But I digress.Can you provide your evidence as to "right now, you (SHM) and whatever you (SHM) say is a joke"? Or was i to "assumed" that to be a joke?
-
As-Salaamu Alaikum all,
OPF, bro I don't intend to get into a war of words and indications here. I gave my opinion only. If I gave a fact, consider it only my opinion.
Lobster, your name makes me hungry! rotfl Oh, but look up Haqq in a concordance for all its uses in Al Quran and maybe you can find what I am saying.
As-Salaamu Alaikum, peace
Thanks for the clarification, I also hold the same viewpoint.
Peace peace
-
OPF,No it is not. That demand for me to quote people is completely unfair. You are targeting me simply because I criticize PM.OPF, do you know HOW MUCH PEOPLE IN HERE made claim as fact?! Do you know how many articles were posting claiming salat is this as a fact.OPF, I dont think my criticism about PM will start a war. I understand your point however.Man I dont think you get it OPF. This is not about Islam or appeasing people. It is about me, SatanHatesMe, being targeting because he criticize PM. Two major assertion I made have been proven true. NO consensus. No answers. The third people want to fight me for; PM indirectly demolish Islam. And that assertion is true. PM main agenda is to remove any element of Islam simply because it is a traditional view. That is a fact. Google and research Progressive Muslims if you disagree. Because of that simply fact of their agenda PM indirectly demolish Islam, the religion. Period. This is not my opinion. But a fact.
Here is an analogy. If Christianity core belief is that Jesus is GOD. And the Koran testifies against that, then the Koran is demolishing the essence of Christianity. The Koran is demolishing Christianity! What is wrong in that statement? What is false about that statement? Learn to accept criticism! Harsh or gentle, it constructive depending how you accept it.That demand is perfectly fair within reason. I'm not asking you to write a thesis proving your statement, I'm not asking you to write your own Quran on this as I routinely get challenged by people who follow 19, and I'm not asking you to write a book on this either. All I ask is a few fleeting, subjective examples, which can hardly be called rare given that humans are generally prone to presenting their assumptions as fact (irony in this sentence if you note).
You are targeting me simply because I criticize PM
I am targeting you simply because you present unevidenced accusations. I make it a habit of calling people out on evidence when they present something radical, and I suggest you do the same. That way, we all believe in evidenced fact (mostly). I don't care if you're criticizing PM or FSM, slander is slander is slander.
OPF, do you know HOW MUCH PEOPLE IN HERE made claim as fact?! Do you know how many articles were posting claiming salat is this as a fact.
And the majority presented evidence though! While a lot present one side of the evidence, THEY STILL PRESENT EVIDENCE. Even then, they are not a "fact" in your view. Now, we have raised the bar. Not only must you present evidence, but this evidence must be complete to be called "fact" - unlike those incomplete articles on Salat that you reject.
Man I dont think you get it OPF. This is not about Islam or appeasing people. It is about me, SatanHatesMe, being targeting because he criticize PM.
But you aren't being targeted. You started this thread, did you not? That brings attention to you, you are the focal point in this thread. I see no mention of you, or anyone for that matter being explicitly singled out in other threads. You have not had threatening private messages, or am I wrong? Did someone in real life take your credentials and slander you, a la Boost, for this thread?
Two major assertion I made have been proven true. NO consensus. No answers.
With no evidence they became true? What? There are many answers (the articles on Salat), but no consensus. Sure.
PM indirectly demolish Islam. And that assertion is true. PM main agenda is to remove any element of Islam simply because it is a traditional view.
What is "Islam" in the Quran? Where in the Quran can I find "These are the five pillars ordained for you so you will not go astray - they are Salat, Zakat..."? 6151-153, read up. THAT is Islam. Oh, and THAT is evidence.
That is a fact. Google and research Progressive Muslims if you disagree.
Yes, and my opinion is a fact. Go to a library and read up on Islam if you disagree. I hope you see that citing general sources doesn't work from that analogy.
Because of that simply fact of their agenda PM indirectly demolish Islam, the religion. Period. This is not my opinion. But a fact.
Skewed view of opinion and fact. Again - fact is opinion but backed up by evidence. You have presented the opinion but not the evidence. Therefore, no facts. I personally don't see how PM has demolished or attempted to demolish "submission to the will of God", really. I see that FM has demolished "Sunnism" and all I say is "congratulations, may God bless you for taking the time and debunking that rubbish".
Here is an analogy. If Christianity core belief is that Jesus is GOD. And the Koran testifies against that, then the Koran is demolishing the essence of Christianity. The Koran is demolishing Christianity!
This is a gross misrepresentation of the Quranic CONTEXT, yes, the word you love. Remember the CONTEXT in which it was sent?
020.002
YUSUFALI We have not sent down the Qur'an to thee to be (an occasion) for thy distress,
PICKTHAL We have not revealed unto thee (Muhammad) this Qur'an that thou shouldst be distressed,
SHAKIR We have not revealed the Quran to you that you may be unsuccessful.020.003
YUSUFALI But only as an admonition to those who fear (Allah),-
PICKTHAL But as a reminder unto him who feareth,
SHAKIR Nay, it is a reminder to him who fears002.040
YUSUFALI O Children of Israel! call to mind the (special) favour which I bestowed upon you, and fulfil your covenant with Me as I fulfil My Covenant with you, and fear none but Me.
PICKTHAL O Children of Israel! Remember My favour wherewith I favoured you, and fulfil your (part of the) covenant, I shall fulfil My (part of the) covenant, and fear Me.
SHAKIR O children of Israel! call to mind My favor which I bestowed on you and be faithful to (your) covenant with Me, I will fulfill (My) covenant with you; and of Me, Me alone, should you be afraid.002.041
YUSUFALI And believe in what I reveal, confirming the revelation which is with you, and be not the first to reject Faith therein, nor sell My Signs for a small price; and fear Me, and Me alone.
PICKTHAL And believe in that which I reveal, confirming that which ye possess already (of the Scripture), and be not first to disbelieve therein, and part not with My revelations for a trifling price, and keep your duty unto Me.
SHAKIR And believe in what I have revealed, verifying that which is with you, and be not the first to deny it, neither take a mean price in exchange for My communications; and Me, Me alone should you fear.002.087
YUSUFALI We gave Moses the Book and followed him up with a succession of messengers; We gave Jesus the son of Mary Clear (Signs) and strengthened him with the holy spirit. Is it that whenever there comes to you a messenger with what ye yourselves desire not, ye are puffed up with pride?- Some ye called impostors, and others ye slay!
PICKTHAL And verily We gave unto Moses the Scripture and We caused a train of messengers to follow after him, and We gave unto Jesus, son of Mary, clear proofs (of Allah's sovereignty), and We supported him with the Holy spirit. Is it ever so, that, when there cometh unto you a messenger (from Allah) with that which ye yourselves desire not, ye grow arrogant, and some ye disbelieve and some ye slay?
SHAKIR And most certainly We gave Musa the Book and We sent messengers after him one after another; and We gave Isa, the son of Marium, clear arguments and strengthened him with the holy spirit, What! whenever then a messenger came to you with that which your souls did not desire, you were insolent so you called some liars and some you slew.002.088
YUSUFALI They say, "Our hearts are the wrappings (which preserve Allah's Word we need no more)." Nay, Allah's curse is on them for their blasphemy Little is it they believe.
PICKTHAL And they say Our hearts are hardened. Nay, but Allah hath cursed them for their unbelief. Little is that which they believe.
SHAKIR And they say Our hearts are covered. Nay, Allah has cursed them on account of their unbelief; so little it is that they believe.002.089
YUSUFALI And when there comes to them a Book from Allah, confirming what is with them,- although from of old they had prayed for victory against those without Faith,- when there comes to them that which they (should) have recognised, they refuse to believe in it but the curse of Allah is on those without Faith.
PICKTHAL And when there cometh unto them a scripture from Allah, confirming that in their possession - though before that they were asking for a signal triumph over those who disbelieved - and when there cometh unto them that which they know (to be the truth) they disbelieve therein. The curse of Allah is on disbelievers.
SHAKIR And when there came to them a Book from Allah verifying that which they have, and aforetime they used to pray for victory against those who disbelieve, but when there came to them (Prophet) that which they did not recognize, they disbelieved in him; so Allah's curse is on the unbelievers.Now, that you observe, how does the Quran demolish Christianity? Quite simple. It takes the Christ out of Christianity and corrects it with "Submission to the will of God, the one". Which of course, is what Abraham followed (and if you wish, I can provide evidence for that).
Now, please tell me, if the Quran acts as a reminder for the children of Israel, SINCE WHEN DID ISRAELIS DANCE AROUND A BLACK CUBE AND PRAY AND KISS A BLACK STONE CENTERPIECE? - IN MAKKA, MILES AND MILES AWAY FROM JERUSALEM?
You are not here to observe the Quran in context, you are here to uphold tradition and where context agrees, use it to support your argument. This is precisely what the sectarians do - cite verses from the Quran to promote Islam, then the hadith of Bukhari (Co-authored by Abu Hurairah) or the book of whoever takes over.
Learn to accept criticism! Harsh or gentle, it constructive depending how you accept it.
I suggest you take your own advice.
Peace, maybe you can see the error you are making in this argument...
-
DEFINTIONS
When SHM is criticizes
....He is threaten with being ban. There is the Different Zenje!
-
SHM, look at all the posts in this thread. Obviously, no one is taking you seriously. I think it's time for you to reevaluate your stance, or at least give what everyone is saying a little bit of thought.
When Samia said that, she was not asked for evidence and she was no action was taken against her because she was kidding. Unless you are also joking with us, we need to ask you to back up your claims. -
OPF, honestly this is pointless.
I am targeting you simply because you present unevidenced accusations....I don't care if you're criticizing PM or FSM, slander is slander is slander.
But since you, Wakas, Zenje, Red Losbter, and any other person who wants to attack me love to throw the term 'slander' around, please show me IN THE KORAN THAT my actions of criticizing PM for not having a consensus, not providing answers, and indirectly demolishing Islam as slander. Although you will never find that explicitly in the Koran, PLEASE present your "evidence" as to why and how IN THE KORAN me saying these statements;
- PM have no consensus.
- PM confused issues and provided no answers.
- PM is indirectly demolish Islam as we know it.
is slander.
Please I want to see this! Oh and please cite verse 3358 as evidence. Please OPF!
-
I just read the comment you referenced by sister Samia. Firstly she did not make any unevidenced accusation, nothing specific about anyone, and it was an unserious comment......
And people wonder why I getting attack. Samia basically called Code 19 (which is part of the Koran) "bad" and "not good for kids". Then she said no evidence about why it is bad, nor why it is not good for kids. But to Wakas, it all in good humor? Where is the justice in this forum.
Ok Wakas, what about other example;
A member named Ansi starting a thread calling submitters pretenders.
Please provide another lame excuse why it cool for you to target me when I criticize PM and other members can called aspect of the Koran "bad" and "not good for kids"?
