His arguments are straw-man arguments and childish secondly he is after all preaching to the converted.
Let me provide the context that Dr. Zakir Naiks claims is missing when people quote the given suras:
Islam divides the world into Dar-ul-Harb and Dar-ul-Islam . Islam is at perpetual war to bring Dar-ul-Harb into the fold of Islam and make it Dar-ul-Islam. This is not in dispute but is conveniently ignored when Muslims go into defensive mode. Given the context please read the suras again. Now his example regarding the Vietnam war, first he slyly drops the word "soldiers" in his second use of the Presidents order, second it is different from the surah where it says kill all kafirs, which is equivalent to the President instructing his soldiers to kill all non-Americans. Context or no context now it means exactly the same thing "kill the kafirs where you find them" since Islam is at perpetual war with kafirs. The rest is just more of his typical illogical drivel. Now let me quote a true scholar of Islam, Ayatollah Khomeini not some intellectual fraud that can impress people that lack the courage to critically examine their own dogma or his arguments, but someone who knew Islam better than Dr. Zakir Naik and for that matter most Muslims in the world.
"Islam makes it incumbent on all adult males, provided they are not disabled and incapacitated, to prepare themselves for the conquest of countries so that writ of Islam is obeyed in every country in the world.
But those who study Islamic Holy War will understand why Islam wants to conquer the whole world ... Those who know nothing of Islam pretend that Islam counsels against war. Those [who say this] are witless. Islam says 'Kill all the unbelievers' just as they would kill you all! ... People can't be made obedient except wit h the sword .. There are hundreds of other [Koranic] psalms and Hadiths urging Muslims to value war and to fight. Does all that mean that Islam is a religion that prevents men from waging war ? I spit upon those foolish souls who make such a claim."
I don't think I need to add to such a clear and well articulated understanding of the Islamic religion. This clear exposition is a dictionary doctrine of Jihad. If the Koran is the word of God as Muslims believe then who is being more logical Khomeini or the Muslims that pretend otherwise.
Please don't assume that we are living in the 7th century, people have advanced sufficiently to spot a con job when the see on (though after reading some post s that may not be 100% true).
RE:Rebuttal to Shenidh's arguments
by Shenidh on Feb 24, 2007 10:04 AM Permalink
Secular Indian or whatever your name is,
You did not understand the simple english that I wrote regarding launching pad theory. All I said was if Mohammed(pbuh) had to marry khadija(RA) for lanching pad, then how come he waited for 15 years then declared himself prophet? Since Khadija(RA) was rich lady and he would have got enough resources to launch his project as a prophet, he would have rather declare himself a prophet immediately after marriage or may be after 2 years or 3years or 4 years or 5years. Why he waited till 15 years to declare himself as prophet. You could not understand that simple english, now it's difficult for me to continue further. Either I'm very week in expaling things to you or you are very stupid that you cannot understand the simple english. So I feel it's waste time continuing the conversation. If you really want to debate, then i guess you need contact some islamic scholor like Dr.Zakir Naik. I know you will tell Dr.Zakir Naiks arguments insane blah..blah. But there is difference between debating with him and writing big comments about his articles in this forum.
RE:RE:Rebuttal to Shenidh's arguments
by Secular Indian on Feb 24, 2007 01:10 PM Permalink
She was rich and he saw an opportunity, his fortunes changed after he married Khadija and as I claimed earlier he used this as a launching pad. I can't see how you've refuted what I've said. In order to get people to follow him and listen to his lunatic ravings and incredible claims (he after all claimed he was specially chosen by Mr. God and was handed his exclusive franchise certificate in secret in a cave). A little digression if I may, someone making these sort of claims, will have the guys in white coats at his doorstep. Now, given that he was making his claims ~1400 years ago it is quite valid to assume that the Arabs weren't that stupid to fall for it straight away. (a) He would have had to first be sure about not being taken for a loony. (b) He had a mental disorder that kicked in at 40, hearing voices in his head. There again your claims haven't refuted anything, there are alternate explanations which may or may not be true but which are equally valid, like your claims. This is what you people miss.
RE:RE:RE:Rebuttal to Shenidh's arguments
by Shenidh on Feb 26, 2007 10:16 AM Permalink
Mr.Secular,
Sorry for the late response. Becuase I do have full time job and I write my comments only in spare time unlike you as your full time job is writing comments here :)
Now coming back to your reply, do you really read what I reply to you? If you read, do you really understand my simple english? In my earlier reply I had clearly replied you that he was already called by the arabs as "Al-Amin" i.e trustworthy even before his prophethood. He had won their trust completely. He didn't need any more time after his marriage with Khadija(RA) to win Arabs trust. And this is the fact. Nobody has denied that. Just because you are not ready to accept it, it does not mean that fact will change. That's why I told you are like a revolving object which does not change it axis. I hope this time you will not try to pretend as stupid and keep on repeating your baseless claims about the prophet(pbuh). Also, where did u get this claim that he had mental disorder at 40? Are you insane?? Do you have any proof for this claim? Try to be realistic. Don't you think these are your own imaginary views just to defame Islam and prophet(pbuh)?
Anyways, below are answers for you other questions that you posted in your later comments
Once again please provide the proof that 1. There is a GOD The proof of God is achieved through using your own logic. I will give an example. If you were walking in the middle of the desert, and come across a beautiful watch, and the watch has the exact time displayed, just because you don't see anybody around in the desert, you cannot say that something as accurate and flawless as this watch doesn't have a creator. You know that somebody made it. Similarly, if you look around you, the solar system, and how it works flawlessly and perfectly to the second, the ecological system, and how perfectly it works in sync with each other, so much so that if you abuse one part of it, you are damaging the rest of the system, when you see these things, but don't see a creator, you still know that something so perfectly made HAS to have a creator, just like that watch!
2. it is a HE In Islam, we don't believe God has a gender. The word He is used because there are only two forms in Arabic, male or female, we have to use either one.
3. There are angels If we believe from the above example that there is a creator, then we must believe what the creator tells us, and he tells us there are angels, so we believe it.
4. Koran was "Gods" word dictated to Muhammad. The Quran itself challenges people to prove otherwise! It is a flawless book, with no contradictions. Even if you believe that there are contradictions, those seeming contradictions have a very logical explanation. Nothing in the Quran goes against modern scientific theory. Amazing considering it is 1400 years old, and presented to us by someone who couldn't read or write!
5. That Islam doesn't divide the world into Dar-ul-Islam and Dar-ul-Harb and that it is the duty of every Muslim to bring Dar-ul-Harb into the fold of Dar-ul-Islam, with explicit instructions of using any means possible and killing mentioned explicitly.
Actually there are three distributions. DarulIslam, Darul-Harb, and Darul-Aman. DarulIslam=Islamic rule. DarulHarb means that society or government that is striving to eliminate Islam, Muslims are obliged to raise arms against them. DarulAman means that place where Muslims are allowed to live peacefully under non-Muslim rule, they must live according to the rules and regulations and laws of that country. This simple distribution of DarulKufr and DarulIslam is incorrect, otherwise Muslims would be fighting in every single country that they lived!
RE:RE:RE:RE:Rebuttal to Shenidh's arguments
by Secular Indian on Feb 26, 2007 01:49 PM Permalink
For a refutation of the watch maker argument, I will refer you to this refutation:
The rest of your claims unfortunately depend on the analogy of the watch which is refuted above and so there is no point in bothering to refute your subsequent claims.
Regarding your Dar-ul-* arguments, did you read Mr. Khomeini's explanation. I believe he is more qualified than I am. Muslims are always fighting in every single country they have lived. I think it was Huntington who said "Islam has bloody borders".
RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:Rebuttal to Shenidh's arguments
by Shenidh on Feb 27, 2007 05:33 AM Permalink
"This argument is a circular argument. It assumes that the universe, black holes, stars, planets, snowflakes, life etc are created. Actually physics, chaos theory and evolutionary theory tell us how most complex things in the world could have evolved on their own, without any help from any "watchmaker". "
That's the text I can find in that link (http://www.update.uu.se/~fbendz/nogod/watchmak.htm) that you specified. So it cleary says that evolution theory creates complex things in the world. That's my point there. I hope u understood.
Regarding khomeni, do u understand the basics of Sunni & shia. If you would have understood, you would not have brought such crappy argument about khomini just to prove your point. All you are doing is search in internet some negetive views and just paste it here. So, you got khomemi comment from some where and you posted on your comment. This shows your again aweful and appalling arguements just to prove your own imaginary views. Muslim do not follow khomeni. In fact Muslim umma do not have any leader as such except our prophet(pbuh). We have ulemas that is set of scholors. Your comments are very bizzare! just as I said before like revolving object.
Regarding your youtube videos, don't come with all those stupid videos just to prove your point. Those people are extremist. Even I can show you Hindu, christians extremist videos. These videos and your crappy khomeini stuff does not refute anything. Go and do some more research before doing copy/paste here...
Now your comment "Secondly, how many evolutionists have burned down churches and mosques and killed the creationists in the name of evolution, Zero, because the very idea is absurd. How man Christians & Muslims have killed non-believers for simply having an alternative view of life and the universe, millions."
What do u mean by that. Who has killed non-believers, do u have any proof for that?? Killing has happen in all wars. So even Indian kings like harsha vardhan have spread their kingdom by wars. Does not prove anything. I think day by day your are becoming insane just to prove your points your bringing up new crapy stuff..
And what are comments "on finally you are agreed on fact." Did you read my complete comment. I was just trying to prove that arabs during prophet's(pbuh) time believed him as turstworthy even before his marriage. Are you a confused man. Really tell me, I think you need stop responding to other's comments as you are getting confused. First try to concentrate on my comments and respond to them instead of responding everybodys comment in this forum. At least you can concentrate better.
RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:Rebuttal to Shenidh's arguments
by Secular Indian on Feb 27, 2007 04:21 AM Permalink
Now regarding the theory of evolution defense that you've put forward. It's irrelevant whether it's true or not. I just have to show that your claims and assertions about "God" and "his" exclusive franchise to Islam are false. Perhaps evolution is all wrong and tomorrow some new theory will explains life etc. That is the beauty of the scientific method. It's a self correcting system.
Nothing like a few good books on epistemology to fix your ignorance about what the scientific method really is all about.
Secondly, how many evolutionists have burned down churches and mosques and killed the creationists in the name of evolution, Zero, because the very idea is absurd. How man Christians & Muslims have killed non-believers for simply having an alternative view of life and the universe, millions.
So what's your point ? I'm at a loss now understanding what you are really arguing about.
RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:Rebuttal to Shenidh's arguments
by Secular Indian on Feb 27, 2007 03:03 AM Permalink
1. Did yoo actually read the refutation or are you simply criticizing evolution. It is irrelevant whether evolution is true or not. It is an equally valid explanation. What you claim has been clearly refuted. That's at issue.
2. He may be a Shia but the bit on which he is commenting is common to both Shia and Sunni Muslims, so again don't go for and Ad Hominem defense.
3. Name one country where the Muslims haven't or aren't causing mischief. For their modus operandi you are again advised to watch first hand what are Sunni brothers are openly claiming in mosques in he UK. Part 1 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9MSFbhIG-sk&eurl=
Part 2 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xoi5DWt3b0w&eurl=
Part 3 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q_TjzCcTkE8&eurl=
RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:Rebuttal to Shenidh's arguments
by Secular Indian on Feb 27, 2007 02:32 PM Permalink
1. Since it's beyond your comprehension skills I will now no longer address the God hypothesis.
2. I understand the Shia/Sunni divide better than probably you do. Regarding the comment on the Koran it's the Shia/Sunni distinction is irrelevant.
3. The quote by Khomeini comes from Ibn Warraq's book "Why I'm not a muslim". I' ve done my research. I'm not making things up.
4. For a start Aurangzeb has killed Hindus. Forget the thousands lets stick to Guru Tegh Bahadur. No amount of sophistry or chicanery on your part can gloss over it. He was killed for refusing to convert to Islam. How many evolutionary biol ogists do you know that have gone around killing "Creationists".
5. I can no longer make sense of your incoherent babble. It's gotten to a point where you might as well have a post modernist bullshit generator replying to my refutations. Give it a go: http://www.elsewhere.org/pomo
6. I've read everything you have written and in hindsight wasting time one trying to reason with you has only hardened my opinion about the likes of you.
RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:Rebuttal to Shenidh's arguments
by Shenidh on Feb 26, 2007 10:07 PM Permalink
As per P.w.Atkins theory, basically it believes in Darwin's theory of evolution. So it basically says that universe and all living being on Earth are created by chance and there is no creator. However, there are many scientics, genetics scientist have disproved Darwin's theory evolution as darwin's theory of evolution always remained a theory without any scientific proof. So the link whatever you gave never refutes my claim on God.
Regarding Khomeine's explanation, who told you that Khameini is more qualified or he is leader of whole muslim umma. He is the leader of the Shias who are minorities(10-15%) in the muslim population. So, only 15% of the muslim population follow him. So again your claims never refute my claims on Dar-Ul*
Give an example where muslims have fought in a every country without any reason. Then I'll anser your questions. I'm not aware of any Huntington's qoute that says "Islam has bloody borders". Even if he said that, it does not mean that Islam is bloody, it can also imply that Islamic empire was attached by crusaders, mongols, etc so its border were bloody (I hope u r aware of ruthless crusaders, mongol's invasion on muslim empire) So, again u have not refuted anything ..
RE:RE:RE:RE:Rebuttal to Shenidh's arguments
by Secular Indian on Feb 26, 2007 01:52 PM Permalink
Now the Al-Amin claim, I actually wrote a much longer refutation but it was reported as an abuse alert. Here is attempt # 2.
Given that he spent his early life as a shepherd and an attendant of caravans, it doesn't make sense for the Arab chiefs seeking his advice. So your claim is a dubious.
Now for the epilepsy attack argument. If you had bothered to read what I said, I said that my explanation was as good as yours irrespective of whether it was true or not. This is point you miss.
RE:RE:RE:RE:Rebuttal to Shenidh's arguments
by Secular Indian on Feb 26, 2007 03:07 PM Permalink
Regarding your claim of "facts", for your education:
Just because you "believe" and the people around you "believe" it, it doesn't make it a "fact". And the same applies to my case. Which is why no one, repeat no one can claim the absolute truth to be on their side. Unfortunately the Koran preaches the exact opposite and when people disagree with the Koran the prescribed punishment is death.
Fact and Opinion (Provable statements or thoughts and feelings)
To see if something is a fact, ask yourself, %u201CCan this statement be proved?
To check for opinions, ask yourself, %u201CDoes this tell a thought or feeling?%u201D %u201CWould the statement be true all of the time?%u201D
Look for clue words such as feel, believe, always, never, none, most, least, best, and worst
RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:Rebuttal to Shenidh's arguments
by Shenidh on Feb 27, 2007 12:20 AM Permalink
Fact is nothing to do with what you believe or what I believe. Fact remains fact whether anybody believes or not. For example there is country called "Lesotho" which might be heard by very few people. Just becuase nobody has heard about it, does not mean that that country does not exist.
Now coming back to prophet's (pbuh) trusthworthy topic, Prophet(bpuh) was not only shepherd but later he became a merchant well before his marriage (I hope you do not disagree with this). let me give an example. I donno whether you have purchased any products online. If you purchase online, you can find seller ratings rated by consumers. When we purchase, we usually try to buy products from highest rated seller. Same thing applies to prophet(pbuh) too. If he would have been a cheater or lier (God forbid) in his business deals, then Arabs at that time would have rated him as cheater and a lier and he would not have been qualified as prophet at all. So, this well proves that, he had been rated by Arabs that he was indeed trustworthy. Check out this text from wikipedia
"Born to %u2018Abdu%u2019llah ibn %u2018Abdu%u2019l-Muttalib, Muhammad initially adopted the occupation of a shepherd, and later became a merchant. In his youth, he was called by the nickname "Al-Amin" (Arabic: %u0627%u0644%u0627%u0645%u064A%u0646 ), a common Arab name meaning "faithful, trustworthy" and was sought out as an impartial arbitrator" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muhammad#Overview
So, it's fact that he was trustworthy. This refutes your claim that there is no proof that Arabs at that time called him trustworthy.
RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:Rebuttal to Shenidh's arguments
by Secular Indian on Feb 27, 2007 04:12 AM Permalink
I'm glad we've finally agreed on what a fact is, I thought you would never come around to it. Now given that you "believe" that the Koran is the word of God, that doesn't make it a fact. So what right do Muslims have shoving it down peoples throats by force, why this intolerance towards different points of view, because of blind faith.
Mr. Gautier has reminded his readers about the fact, Aurangzeb's religious bigotry and inspiration from the Koran resulted in the killing of Hindus and destruction of their temples along their forced conversion to Islam. In the same way that Aurangzeb believed, like all good muslims, that the Koran is the word of God and the Koran says "kill all the non-believers where you find them", he was merely doing his duty. Whats so hard for you to understand and acknowledge about this. These are facts we are talking about not our beliefs.
RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:Rebuttal to Shenidh's arguments
by Secular Indian on Feb 27, 2007 04:42 AM Permalink
Let me now use your own style of argument against you. Since the Hadiths were written well after he died, they were essentially made up to make him look good. It's fortunate for us that Arabs actually recorded Muhammad's pedophilia and we can today see what sort of monster he really was. So what reputation are you talking about, his marriage to Ayesha when she was 6 and his consummation of that marriage when she was 9 is acknowledged by Muslims as some sort of great thing he did and how she was his favorite wife. Not only that he also married his ex daughter-in-law.
Yes, he was his uncles apprentice and they went to Syria etc. to trade but how does that make him successful because he had to go and word for Khadija shortly after returning. To me that is a sign of failure not success. Ahh.. now the 2 2 = 4 therefore he was not a cheater, brilliant.
Even if we go by the Wikipedia entry we can deduce that he wasn't successful when returned from Syria because he had to seek employment with Khadija, he was her sales rep. I can't imagine the Arab chiefs consulting a sales rep. give me a break. It's only when he ended up marrying her that he status increased. Therefore he used her wealth as his launching pad QED.
RE:Rebuttal to Shenidh's arguments
by Shenidh on Feb 24, 2007 10:09 AM Permalink
One more thing, neither I can change your views nor you can change my faith. So, I feel it's waste of time continuing further.
RE:RE:Rebuttal to Shenidh's arguments
by Secular Indian on Feb 24, 2007 10:20 AM Permalink
Regarding changing my views, they are dependent on facts not fairy tales. You will be surprise how easy it is for me to change my views when presented with facts that contradict a previously held view. Of course the same can't be said for dogmatic belief but I understand.
RE:RE:RE:Rebuttal to Shenidh's arguments
by Shenidh on Feb 24, 2007 11:02 AM Permalink
I don't think it is easy to change your views even if some one provides facts to u. You are like an object which revolves around a bigger object in an axis and alwyas remains in the same axis and comes back to the same initial position.
RE:RE:RE:RE:Rebuttal to Shenidh's arguments
by Secular Indian on Feb 24, 2007 11:22 AM Permalink
Speak for yourself please, I've refuted each and every assertion you have made, the very fact that you have quoted an imbecile like Dr. Zakir Naik shows not only your intransigence but the inability to debate logically and rationally. This is nothing but blind faith!
RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:Rebuttal to Shenidh's arguments
by ss gpal on Mar 01, 2007 02:45 PM Permalink
Hey secular indian I shall now be the superman to decide that the qran is indeed a the word of GOD.Just get the corrected lateral inversion of the word Sun revolves around the earth and at the end of the day goes to a far off place and sets in a muddy pond called ?? forget the arabic name for that area. Then courses under the allahs throne and prostrates and begs allah to let it go.Allah lets it out on the other side. My 4 year old daughter laughed when I taught her this stuff. 2.The flat earth like a carpet is stuck with giagantic nails tom prevent it from shaking. 3.Women are half as intelligent as men.This verse made my daughter a bit angry. 4.Ther is cure for many diseases.Drink camel's urine.Cures many diseases. 5.Fly has disease in one wing and cure in the other wing.If you are driking cofee or arabic shai, and fly accidentally falls in it, make sure you immerse it fully in shai and drink it up, for see above. 6.Indian cumin seeds cure all disease except death! 7.The fairer sex should be treated as land tilth land to be specific and u can go in when ever you want even on a camel's back.Please dont go looking for camel, for you need to go a long way. 8.All kafirs are Najis/ unclean. 9.Right hand possessions are women captured in wars and u do not need any one's permission to go in to them. When ever where ever and what ever way you feel like you can go in. Do you need any more to prove that these are the fault less and eternal words of wisdom? You are blind to it and are propogating nothing but hatred, 10..2 2 = 0 allah's logic
RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:Rebuttal to Shenidh's arguments
by chaitanya kumar on Feb 25, 2007 02:14 AM Permalink
Shenidh, read something other than Quran sometimes dude. Your sardar jokes are lame. grow up. what is it about the revolving theory? where did you make that up? You are regurgitating same thing and it's boring. RSS is Hindu extremists you call and you keep calling the same and see how many Hindus that don't support the organisation will support it just because it's involvements are unnecessarily exaggerated by jehadis like you. What do you think about Aurangzeb? that the guy is a great islamic patriotic? sure you do.
RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:Rebuttal to Shenidh's arguments
by Secular Indian on Feb 25, 2007 06:56 AM Permalink
It is not just an "opinion" but logically argued with facts unlike you, all you have said is that someone told you that Koran is the word of GOD and you believe. I'm surprised you can't see the obvious flaw in your argument. You've consistently attacked me not any of the facts that I've put forward and logically argued from those "axioms". If you keep making the same absurd claims I will keep tearing the same absurd claims down. I have no choice but to follow your lead.
RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:Rebuttal to Shenidh's arguments
by Secular Indian on Feb 25, 2007 07:03 AM Permalink
Just because I don't believe that divine origin of Islam and recognize Muhammad as his prophet. That makes me an RSS member ? What tosh! Once again please provide the proof that 1. There is a GOD 2. it is a HE 3. There are angels 4. Koran was "Gods" word dictated to Muhammad. 5. That Islam doesn't divide the world into Dar-ul-Islam and Dar-ul-Harb and that it is the duty of every Muslim to bring Dar-ul-Harb into the fold of Dar-ul-Islam, with explicit instructions of using any means possible and killing mentioned explicitly.
You've not answered any of this questions and I've provided proof from the Quran and the missing context that is used by Muslims to dodge the question of kill all the kafirs.
RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:Rebuttal to Shenidh's arguments
by Shenidh on Feb 25, 2007 12:23 AM Permalink
That is your opinion that u refuted every thing, but the truth is different. You are coming back to the same views that you mentioned in your first response to my first comment in your so called rebuttal. ONly difference I can find is your so called rebuttal has been elongated with new words. Though you claimed yourself to be a secular, after seeing all your comments in this forum (including your responses to others) I did not find any difference between you and any extremist RSS hindus comments.
As I as said u r a revolving object which revolves around a big object in the same axis and comes back to same position. Revolving object is - You Bigger object - your views axis - your thinking
So, even if the revolving object(i.e you) tries to change its axis (i.e your thinking) the big object(your views) will not allow you to change. This looks like some sardar joke that is how do u make sardar fool? ask him to find a corner in circular room.
RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:Rebuttal to Shenidh's arguments
by Secular Indian on Feb 25, 2007 12:07 PM Permalink
"As I as said u r a revolving object which revolves around a big object in the same axis and comes back to same position. Revolving object is - You Bigger object - your views axis - your thinking "
More infantile outbursts, again this model doesn't contradict my claim that I will change my views given you come up facts that contradict or prove my axioms (facts) to be wrong. So if you injected new facts into my supposed "view model" it will change. This is to easy looks like Dr. Zakir Naiks "scientific methodology" at work, your claims are getting more and more bizarre. It actually fits in quite well with his 2 2 != 3 therefore you can't have a mosque in Saudi Arabia, hilarious. LOL
RE:RE:Rebuttal to Shenidh's arguments
by Secular Indian on Feb 24, 2007 10:16 AM Permalink
No one is expecting you to change your faith only acknowledge that Aurangzeb did what he did because of the compulsions of his faith, that is all. You on the other hand went into this tirade about the world blaming Islam and I and other non-muslims were ignorant of the true peaceful nature of Islam blah blah blah ...
And now when your claims have been shown to be bogus you have started this new angle of that I'm trying to change your faith ... nothing could be further from my mind.
RE:RE:RE:Rebuttal to Shenidh's arguments
by Shenidh on Feb 24, 2007 10:59 AM Permalink
There is no any new angle here. Whatever claims I made, I gave the proofs too. As I said earlier either your very stupid that u did not understand my simple english or I'm very weak in explaining things to u.
RE:RE:RE:RE:Rebuttal to Shenidh's arguments
by Secular Indian on Feb 24, 2007 11:15 AM Permalink
Where are your proofs, you've simply made unsubstantiated assertions ? Please go and look up the meaning of proof before you embarrass yourself further.
RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:Rebuttal to Shenidh's arguments
by Secular Indian on Feb 25, 2007 06:52 AM Permalink
Logical argument http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Logical%20Argument noun: the methodical process of logical reasoning; "I can't follow your line of reasoning" [syn: argumentation]
As you've admitted in a previous post, you need to brush up you English skills. You've made claims on the divine origin of the Koran etc., The onus is then on you to "logically argue your case" to prove it. Grow up.
RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:Rebuttal to Shenidh's arguments
by Shenidh on Feb 25, 2007 12:38 AM Permalink
Embarras myself?? what a big joke. Is it possible to have honest convesation with a person who tries to argue. As you only mentioned in one of your comments that if I cannot argue why I'm hiding behind historians/intellectual. I never considered this as an argument rather I was considering it as a conversation. you rightly said that i cannot argue. I can only have honest conversation. However you have masters degree in argument. But whoever wins in argument, it does not mean he has proved anything. It means that he is arrogant and stubborn. Hope this explains u.
RE:RE:RE:Rebuttal to Shenidh's arguments
by Shenidh on Feb 24, 2007 10:24 AM Permalink
As I was going thru various comments here I was really amazed to see your comments. You were not only responding to me but all others comments too. I can see your comments every where. I'm really curious r u getting paid for this job. Is this your full time job? I know it's none my business but I'm just curious. If u r not getting paid, then how r u getting so much time to write these comments?
RE:RE:RE:RE:Rebuttal to Shenidh's arguments
by Secular Indian on Feb 24, 2007 10:28 AM Permalink
You are quite right I've spent a considerable amount of time replying, in the past week. I was just bored and I'm lucky to be in a position where I can indulge myself :-).
