My Story

This is a guest post by Irtaza Hussain

Have difficulty in trying to see why religion gets a bad reputation amongst some people? No problem, just see the crimes done in the so called sacred name of it and see the justifications made by many for those crimes as well as the condition of the majority of its adherents to know how limiting it actually is to the lives of many. Of course, you can say that it’s their life and happiness is the primary goal but doesn’t that mean that people should be more educated in their own religion? What about the social mobility through education that many say has considerable significance? But it seems those questions aren’t very important. Apparently it’s too much to ask them to partake in such a task, some may not be up to it as I’m advised but I also have to consider the idea how intuitive it is as well as how important it is in changing our viewpoint.

One would immediately think that these kind of biases have no reason to clog up the mind in more satisfying pursuits but apparently that isn’t the case amongst the people I’ve been. Although many did suggest that some religions provoke the mind into going towards academia by suggesting that their divine guidance of choice has suggested that there are more surprises awaiting in such pursuits but I feel it’s considerably contradictory by suggesting that the supernatural element is the one worthy of all worship and will make life easier for them as soon as it’s called upon and that is all I see around me. I was participating on Big Questions that aired on the 6th of May and didn’t feel like I would actually suggest anything new but it seems to me that I may have a bit more to say than I actually thought. As soon as I suggested that we should pursue curiosity for curiousity’s sake, I was told that Muslims had done a great deal towards academia and had translated the Greek works before that. A woman on Twitter suggested that doing something for its sake isn’t exactly a good idea at all but she was okay with raising her children in Christian atmosphere and I would’ve asked her if that wasn’t for the sake of anything else other than Christianity. The orthodox community that I’ve come across would’ve suggested that it all comes down to the word of God and that is one thing I’ve been told by numerous Christians. It seems to me that this is absolutely fine for them to justify their certain habits but what about all those things that come down to their deity?

Before I left Islam, I was worried about the divide between it and numerous other things. Some people who were far more knowledgeable of Islam suggested that Muslims had done considerable work towards academia and went as far as to suggesting that Islam was one of the causes for it. It was also suggested that the works Islam was based on had also predicted or guided academia yet academia was quite simply just not the highest priority. Ever since I realised that rigour was mainly what I was aiming for, I quite simply could not make any compromises for it and had to spend a considerable time to understand and learn to make use of it in my life. The same goes for the ethics that are above religion and numerous other things that make life meaningful but what I can’t quite simply let go is how much satisfaction the religious adherents have in their apathetic attitude towards the things I’ve already mentioned. Having numerous teachers out of which I didn’t have many people who stimulated my mind in ways that would’ve been considered detrimental towards my previous religious beliefs, I’m unhappy at how they held themselves back to praise all the good things that academia has done and the rigour it possesses yet some of them took considerable effort in trying to suggest that some areas were very much likely to fail. A few teachers suggested that it was very unlikely evolution could actually be right but what they undermined was all the work in mathematics, physics, biology, chemistry and whatever subject that may be related to this would’ve been wrong regardless of the rigour that led to it, regardless of the applications that the academic work in evolution would’ve had towards the betterment of the lvies of many and regardless of all the brilliant minds and the thoughts they had towards the subject. It seems that certain topics such as evolution, cosmological origins, the working of the mind that would’ve undermined the concept of the soul and free will and numerous others would’ve been wrong because they are not in agreement with faith.

How can we let this happen? It would’ve been easy to let such ideas pass in some cases because the adherents of ignorance would’ve found someone they couldn’t easily compete against but what about those people who are dependent on these people? What if I studied under a mathematician who suggested the idea that evolution would’ve been wrong? The answer is that there would’ve been considerable consequences. If that very mathematician took his/her time to suggest that there are very interesting areas in mathematics that are made use of in evolution, I would’ve been exposed to the elegance of the subject of mathematics itself and found numerous uses for it and I would’ve been more attached to the subject during my studies. Would it have been too much to ask to be provided such passion? Although I can’t complain that my time was not well used in the past because I’ve come to realise the greatness of such subjects now, I can make a case for those who weren’t provoked at all and had a stronger dependency on their teachers and didn’t get the chance to have their curiousities sparked. It’s one of the ways I see people not taking a great interest in academia and I dearly wish that such teachers took a more stronger approach that appreaciates academia more. I feel as it is terribly hypocritical to suggest that some students may not be up to the task at all. It’s as if it’s okay to imply that some students quite simply don’t have the will that will help them achieve a greater success in this area but then why be a teacher who is there to teach them what they don’t know? If they do not have the capability to understand more then does this not negate the idea of teaching as a whole? Many people are in support of the idea that you can be all that you want to be but how would you know what you want to be if you’re not aware of all the things that you can be?

For this very reason, I feel as if people should be more curious and more appreciative of all the knowledge that there is. Having difficulty meeting likeminded people is not the reason I suggest what I already did but the idea that we need more capable people in this society who are more aware of all the things that break boundaries. It would be difficult to meet a person who had never listened to music before in his life or someone who was against music because their faith of choice commanded that this be the case, we could not let ourselves think that they were better off but what if people were not interested in the next step? Let’s say not appreaciting musicology, music cognition or the idea that AI can use the findings from those previous subjects and make music by itself. Hence, I suggest that systematic studies bring forward more for us to enjoy. If one was to suggest that splitting apart the rainbow negated the beauty of it and had disregard for all the advancements made in optics and its applications. The rainbow is still as beautiful as it can be but that doesn’t mean that knowing about optics isn’t fun at all and I suggest that people understand the idea that the mind needs to make room for the appreciation of such thinking as well because it’s satisfying in its own way.

Some may suggest that all this is dry and requires a certain amount of effort to appreciate but when wasn’t this case with all the things that we’ve learnt? I was told that some people didn’t have the interest in reading, learning and all that but it’s somehow okay to make someone feel slightly guilty or praise them for studying a religious text as well as suggesting that in time of crisis, it would’ve been okay to lose yourself in religious studying but do we suggest that some people may not have the capability as sane human beings to read those texts? I suggest that many people make ammendments in their time towards rigour and curiousity to be more aware of what is going on and accept that it is well within their reach and they should remove such idealistic thinking that hinders them in such a path, be it religion.

This entry was posted in Apostasy. Bookmark the permalink. Trackbacks are closed, but you can post a comment.

69 Comments

  1. Amin Riaz
    Posted July 3, 2012 at 5:59 PM | Permalink

    Huh?

    It is difficult to discern what this article is about. I have given it a good going over – but the author has started several thought strands – that don’t seem to go anywhere.

    Either an unnecessarily tedious writing style – Or I am stupid.

  2. No one
    Posted July 3, 2012 at 7:52 PM | Permalink

    “Either an unnecessarily tedious writing style – Or I am stupid.”

    You’re stupid.

  3. Ayyaz
    Posted July 4, 2012 at 1:47 PM | Permalink

    The Quran 10:47 says,

    And for every people there is a Messenger.

    And 14: 4 says,

    And WE have not sent any Messenger except with revelation in the language of his people in order that he might make things clear to them.

    If these verses are true, then Islam is not for non-Arabs. The Quran attests that every people have received their divine message in their own language so they can understand it and the Quran is for Arabs.

    This concept is so important that it is repeated numerous times.

    Q. 16:36.
    And WE did raise among every people a Messenger

    Q. 5:48
    For each of you WE prescribed a clear spiritual Law and a manifest way in secular matters

    Q. 32:3
    It [the Quran] is the truth from your Lord; that you [Muhammad] may warn a people to whom no Warner has come before you, that they may be guided.

    Q. 36.6
    [This is a revelation] That thou mayest warn a people whose fathers were not warned, and so they are heedless.

    These verses leave no room for misunderstanding. Allah is saying that every people has had their own messenger who warned them in their own language, and that Muhammad is for those who have not yet received any guidance, and whose fathers were not warned, i.e. the Arabs. In this way they won’t have any excuse and can’t say, but we did not receive any message.

    Q. 6: 156- 157 explain,
    Lest you should say, `The Book was sent down only to two peoples before us, (Jews and Christians) and we were indeed unaware of what they read.

    Or lest you should say, `Had the Book been sent down to us, we should surely have been better guided than they.’ There has now come to you a clear evidence from your Lord and a guidance and a mercy.

    The Quran is clear only to Arabs. Non Arabs don’t understand it. Muslims insist that no translation of the Quran can be accurate. Hence, it can never be clear to non-Arabs. That makes sense because it is not intended for non-Arabs.

    Another confirmation that the Quran was sent only for the Arabs is in verses 26: 198-199

    And if WE had sent it down to one of the non-Arabs, and he had read it to them, they would never have believed in it.

    Just as Arabs have no reason to believe in a book written in a non-Arab language, non-Arabs have no reason to believe in a book written in Arabic. That is why Allah sends a messenger to each people in their own language so they understand. That makes perfect sense.

    To make sure there is no misunderstanding the Quran 5:19 reiterates:

    O People of the Book, there indeed has come to you Our Messenger, after a break in the series of Messengers, who makes things clear to you lest you should say, `There has come to us no bearer of glad tidings and no Warner.’ So a bearer of glad tidings and a warner has indeed come to you. And ALLAH has power over all things.

    According to the Quran all people have received a revelation. The above verse says the Quran is for those who never received a revelation, lest they should say, `There has come to us no bearer of glad tidings and no Warner’.

    This matter is clear, but Allah wants it to be clear even to the dumbest of people. He names the exact geographic location for which Muhammad was sent.

    Q. 6:92
    And this is a Book which WE have revealed, full of blessings, to fulfill that which preceded it, and to enable thee to warn the Mother of towns and those around it. أُمَّ الْقُرَى وَمَنْ حَوْلَهَا

    The mother of towns, Umul Qura, is Mecca. This verse says Islam was sent to warn Mecca and its surrounding حَوْلَهَا. How can it be for all mankind?

  4. al-thaqafi
    Posted July 4, 2012 at 4:49 PM | Permalink

    “Either an unnecessarily tedious writing style – Or I am stupid.”

    You’re unnecessarily tedious.

  5. Amin Riaz
    Posted July 5, 2012 at 8:56 PM | Permalink

    “Either an unnecessarily tedious writing style – Or I am stupid.”

    You’re unnecessarily tedious.

    “Either an unnecessarily tedious writing style – Or I am stupid.”

    You’re stupid.

    - – -

    I might’ve set myself up… but oh….the illuminating responses… the originality is killing me.

  6. Amin Riaz
    Posted July 5, 2012 at 9:29 PM | Permalink

    Huh? Call me stupid again… But what has Ayyaz’s comments have to do with the post above… do people call around random blogs and post whatever agenda they fee like pushing?

    - – -

    The Quran is clear only to Arabs. Non Arabs don’t understand it. Muslims insist that no translation of the Quran can be accurate. Hence, it can never be clear to non-Arabs. That makes sense because it is not intended for non-Arabs.

    “Muslims insist…”

    This was telling – shouldn’t it have been “Arabs insist”.

    No translation of any book is ever accurate. One language cannot convey the exact nuances of another.

    Quran is simply in Arabic language… hence all those that learn the language can understand it. The greatest of Arabic linguists were non-Arabs – the likes Sibawayah or Jurjani. And it is an extensive list.

    - – -

    “Another confirmation that the Quran was sent only for the Arabs is in verses 26: 198-199

    And if WE had sent it down to one of the non-Arabs, and he had read it to them, they would never have believed in it.

    Just as Arabs have no reason to believe in a book written in a non-Arab language, non-Arabs have no reason to believe in a book written in Arabic. That is why Allah sends a messenger to each people in their own language so they understand. That makes perfect sense.”

    But no one is talking about Arabs believing in non-Arabs books. The verses says that even if the Quran was from a non-Arab – those who do not believe still wouldn’t have believed.

    Why then make a point which is directly opposite to what the Qur’an verse is implying?

    - – -

    O People of the Book, there indeed has come to you Our Messenger, after a break in the series of Messengers, who makes things clear to you lest you should say, `There has come to us no bearer of glad tidings and no Warner.’ So a bearer of glad tidings and a warner has indeed come to you. And ALLAH has power over all things.

    According to the Quran all people have received a revelation. The above verse says the Quran is for those who never received a revelation, lest they should say, `There has come to us no bearer of glad tidings and no Warner’.

    huh? yet the verses clearly is targeting: “O People of the Book”

    Then: “there indeed has come to you Our Messenger, after a break in the series of Messengers, who makes things clear to you”

    So how has the author concluded that the Qur’an is clearly for those who have never received a revelation…

    Then:

    ” lest they should say, `There has come to us no bearer of glad tidings and no Warner’.”

    lest=unless.

    - – -

    “And this is a Book which We have sent down, blessed and confirming what was before it, that you may warn the Mother of Cities and those around it. Those who believe in the Hereafter believe in it, and they are maintaining their prayers.” [6:92]

    Physically himself the Prophet Muhammad could only warn a limited set of people.

    This verse does not restrict in anyway that the Quran is just for Arabs.

    - – - * – - – * – - -

    The author of the comment has only chosen verses that somehow reflect his point of view – whilst not dealing with verses that go against his view point.

    - – - *- – -*- – -

    Has Ali Sina been here…

    Aren’t these his words….

    http://alisina.org/is-islam-for-all-mankind/

    Ah…

  7. Ayyaz
    Posted July 5, 2012 at 10:09 PM | Permalink

    Spot on! Here’s more from Ali Sina:
    http://alisina.org/how-can-muhammad-be-narcissist-when/

    Muhammad also had a vision. His vision was slavery of man. He said this slavery is to God. However, the god he was talking about was his own alter-ego, a tool to make people do what he wanted. The slavery was to him. Allah was a fictitious being, without whom he could not achieve his vision of domination and mastery over others. Why would anyone want to fight and sacrifice his life for someone else? But if you can convince people that by fighting for you, they will be rewarded, in this world and the next, they may do anything for you. They may kill for you, plunder for you and allow you to have sex with their underage daughter.

    I am not a Christian. I don’t believe in God. In my opinion Jesus is a composite myth. I am mentioning him only for the sake of comparison. My point is that IF God existed and IF He wanted to send someone to guide mankind, he would send a holy soul like Jesus and not a despicable thug like Muhammad.

    Millions of Germans committed unthinkable atrocities. These were ordinary people. They fought a bloody war. Many of them sacrificed themselves heroically, not for Hitler, but for the “cause” that he sold them. The cause was only an excuse. Hitler was not after racial or national superiority, he was after personal superiority. He used these as pretexts.

    All cult leaders have a cause. They never promote themselves directly, because it will never be accepted. You will have no one following you if you promote yourself. But if you promote a cause, and convince others that this cause is important and you are pivotal and indispensable for its success, you can have many followers. Hitler chose nationalism and restoring the German pride as his cause. Stalin chose proletariat and class struggle as his cause. Jim Jones chose social justice as his cause. Charles Manson chose preservation of air, trees, water and animals (ATWA) as his cause. Shoko Asahara chose the end of perpetual suffering through rebirth as his cause, and so on and so forth. Muhammad chose the worship of God and monotheism as his cause.

    All these causes sound noble. You have to give people a worthy cause, if you want them to sacrifice themselves for you and commit atrocities at your behest. If your cause is worldly, you can’t expect anyone to sacrifice himself for it. Let us say your cause is to make a lot of money. If you have a good plan many people will work with you to achieve your vision, as long as they get a piece of the pie at the end. But no one will be willing to sacrifice his life for it. Whereas, people cheerfully lay their lives for a lofty cause, such as God, country, justice, etc.

    The cult leader makes himself inseparable from his cause. The success of the cause depends on him and him alone. Without him there will be no cause and disaster will ensue. He must be perceived as the only person who can bring mankind to his vision of the promised land. That is the key. There are many causes that are important, but they are not cult because their success does not depend on any single person. Let us take the example of fighting Islam. In my opinion this is the most important cause today. The survival of our civilization and millions of lives depend on the success of this cause. But it does not rely on any single person. Millions of enlightened people are fighting against Islam and thousands more are joining every day. A cult is a cause that hinges on one person. Muhammad made himself inseparable from his cause. You cannot believe in Allah without believing in Muhammad. He was the linchpin of his message. Allah and Muhammad are twins, joined in their hips. One is hidden, the other is manifest. They are inseparable partners, promoting each other. All cults share this characteristic. Anytime a cause and a human become inseparable you have a cult.

    The cause per se is irrelevant. Narcissists are not committed to any cause. They pick a cause that they think can attract followers and will abandon it and champion another one if the latter proves to be more effective. When Muhammad started his prophetic career, he had no cause other than the claim that he was a prophet and that people had to believe in him, love him and follow him. That was his message and his cause. But that was a very shallow cause with little appeal. He then adopted monotheism as his cause and started insulting the religion of the Quraish. This strategy proved more successful as it generated controversy and raffled some feathers. As advertisers say today there is no such thing as negative advertising. Any advertising attracts interest. It dose not matter what you preach; there will be always someone who will follow you. But Muhammad wanted more. When he faced resistance and saw that his religion is not growing, he conceded that Lat, Uzza and Manat, the three daughters of allah Hubaal are also worthy of worship. This made people happy and the animosity ended. But it did not gain him new followers. In fact it made his religion indistinguishable from the paganism of the Quraish. After a few months he realized his miscalculation and retracted his words saying Gabriel came to him and admonished him for saying something he (Gabriel) had not said. He said those verses were Satanic verses that the Devil had put them in his tongue without him noticing it. The narcissist, needs enemies. He needs to stir disunity and discord. It’s by dividing that he can rule. So Muhammad switched back to monotheism and resumed insulting the religion of the Quriash. There is more of this kind of flip flopping in the life of Muhammad. His message kept changing according to the response he was getting.

    Narcissist cult leaders want total control over the lives of others. This can be attained only by selling them a noble cause – a cause so lofty and so inspiring for which they may want to sacrifice themselves. The cause does not have to be true. It just has to be perceived as the ultimate truth. In fact, as Hitler used to say, a bigger lie is more believable than smaller lies. We should believe him. He was an expert in lies.

    Do you really believe that Muhammad designed Islam as a timeless religion for billions of people just to fulfill narcissistic ambitions in his short 22 year career?

    Yes! That is how narcissist cult leaders devise their causes. Their causes are always transcendental, cosmic, encompassing, unrivaled and divine. The cause is the source of their power. The loftier and the more awe inspiring it is the more powerful they become. Will you kill your father, your mother or children for money or for any trivial cause? No sane person will commit such crime for any mundane gain. However, if I elevate the cause. make it sound more important than your life and the lives of everyone, you will do it. There are many stories like that in early Islam. You can find them in my book and you will see them in my movie. Even today, Muslims kill their children because they violate some Islamic rule or apostatize. That is because for them Islam is more important that the lives of all mankind. When you become this brainwashed, you become very dangerous.

    Does a narcissist obligate people to feed the poor, give charity, look after orphans?

    Yes, 0f course! The narcissist will have to first convince you of his legitimacy and for that he will tell you things that you can readily recognize as good. Will anyone follow someone who spews only evil teachings? The narcissist’s only tool is deception. He also uses fear, but that too is administered through deception. He can control you as long as you believe in him. Therefore, he must portray a holy image of himself. It is that image that hooks you. If the mask is removed he will lose all his credibility and power. For the narcissist, the image is everything. Therefore his words are always lofty and deceiving.

    So how can you distinguish a true leader from an impostor charlatan? You can recognize them by their fruits. Don’t pay attention to what they say. Words are used to deceive. Pay attention to how they live. Compare their words with their deeds. They often don’t match. If someone does not walk his own talk it is a clear sign that he is an impostor and not true spiritual leader. Muslims only quote Muhammad’s words to show that he was a holy man. Words are misleading. Look at his life instead, if you want to learn the truth about him.

    It’s worth repeating: for the narcissist the image is everything. He feeds off other people who hurl back at him an image that he projects. That is the main difference between a narcissist and a sociopath. The sociopath does not care about his image. He wants to control his victims physically through fear. Both sociopath and narcissist use fear as the a tool of domination. The former uses fear physically, such as threatening his victims with maiming them or killing them. The latter uses it psychologically, such as threatening them with Hellfire. The narcissist resorts to violence through his followers, when he comes to power. He doesn’t generally soil his hands with blood. His minions will do all his dirty work for him. The aura of holiness for a narcissist is a sine qua non. All cult leaders, without exception, are “holy people.” They want to be admired as holy men and they brag about their holiness while feigning modesty.

    At-Tirmidhi quotes a hadith that is typical narcissistic talk. “The Prophet said, I myself am the Beloved of Allâh (habibullah) and I say this without pride, and I carry the flag of glory (liwa ul-hamd) on the Day of Judgment, and am the first intercessor and the first whose intercession is accepted, and the first to stir the circles of Paradise so that Allâh will open it for me and I shall enter it together with the poor among my Community, and I say this without pride. I am the most honored of the First and the Last, and I say this without pride.”

    Now compare this pompous bragging with his actions. He lived like a thug. He was the head of a gang of bandits who raided innocent people, ruthlessly massacred unarmed men, took their wives and children as slaves and sold them or raped them. He assassinated his critics, tortured his prisoners to death to make them reveal where they had hidden their money, and had sex with a child. He actually went after two other children but the girls were afraid of him and cried out “I take refuge in Allah from you” and he desisted. One was Jauniyah from Bani Jaun and the other was Fatima bt. Zahhak from the Hawazin tribe.

    If I do any of the things Muhammad did, you would not hesitate to call me a criminal and would rejoice in hearing my execution by lethal injection. I confess that I become very happy when a despicable criminal is removed from the society for good. Yet you have no problem believing that Muhammad was a holy man, the best specimen that human race can produce and justify all his crimes. Can you explain that? This is cultic thinking. The fact that Islam is spread widely and now 1.5 billion benighted souls believe in it, doesn’t make it a true religion. It is still a cult.

    Jesus lived a holy life. He never committed any of the crimes that Muhammad committed, and yet, when someone called him good master he objected and said the only good is my Father who is in Heaven. Do you see the difference? A man who lived like a monster, claimed to be the most prefect man and the most immaculate man refused to be called good.

    Did Muhammad feed the poor and the orphan? No! He raided, looted people and reduced thousands into poverty. He made thousands of children orphan. There is a famous story of a certain Oqba, a man he captured in the battle of Badr and decided to decapitate him because he had spat at him in Mecca, some years earlier. Oqba cried, “And who will take care of my children?” Muhammad responded, “Hell.”

    Muhammad did not help the poor. He only helped those who had migrated to Medina with the money that he had stolen in his raids, with their help. Any gangster will show generosity to his gang. This is done to buy their loyalty. Did you see the movie Godfather? Wasn’t Don’t Corleone, the head of the family, generous and helpful to people who came to him for help? They wanted to pay him for his services, but he was offended and refused to get their money. Why? Because he wanted to gain their loyalty so in future they may return the favor. Muhammad did not help any orphan. He only gave lip service to it to feign piety. Up to this day you quote his deceptive words, even though you can’t provide any example of his generosity to the poor and the orphan. That is why he said them. Without these words would you or anyone follow him? You are deceived by these sugary words. To undeceive yourself you have to ignore his words and look at his deeds. Know them by their fruits.

    Does a narcissist say that animals live in communities like us and should be respected?

  8. Amin Riaz
    Posted July 5, 2012 at 11:26 PM | Permalink

    Ayyaz I doubt that this is your name – however…

    Why are you pasting Ali Sina – for what reason?

    And why did you not declare the first time around… that this was Ali Sina’s work?

    The implication else would be that this is somehow your work…

  9. question
    Posted July 6, 2012 at 11:21 AM | Permalink

    If Islam was just for the Arabs why did the Prophet (pbuh) send letters to the Kings of Rome, Persia etc inviting them to Islam?

  10. Ayyaz
    Posted July 6, 2012 at 11:25 AM | Permalink

    >> Ayyaz I doubt that this is your name – however…
    It’s my grandfather’s name. Is there any rule that I have to post comments under my real name?

    >> Why are you pasting Ali Sina – for what reason?
    Because I find Ali Sina interesting and I think these snippets from his blog go with the flow of this article by Irtaza Hussain.

    >> And why did you not declare the first time around… that this was Ali Sina’s work?
    No intention to claim Ali Sina’s work as my own. I don’t think posting his stuff means that I wrote it!

  11. Denzil
    Posted July 6, 2012 at 11:46 AM | Permalink

    If Islam was just for the Arabs why did the Prophet (pbuh) send letters to the Kings of Rome, Persia etc inviting them to Islam?

    Could it be because of the same reason why Hitler sought alliances with Italy, Spain and Russia even though Nazism was for the Germanic peoples only.

  12. question
    Posted July 6, 2012 at 12:36 PM | Permalink

    Could it be because of the same reason why Hitler sought alliances with Italy, Spain and Russia even though Nazism was for the Germanic peoples only.

    Classy. That’s why there were non-Arab sahabas from Suhayb ibn Rumi (blonde European) to Salman al-Farsi (Persian) to Bilal al-Habishi (Ethiopian) to name just the most famous.

  13. question
    Posted July 6, 2012 at 12:45 PM | Permalink

    >Why are you pasting Ali Sina – for what reason?
    Because I find Ali Sina interesting and I think these snippets from his blog go with the flow of this article by Irtaza Hussain.

    Ali Sina is an extremist maniac who supports the genocide of Muslims

    http://www.ittaqullah.org/ali-sina-genocidal-tendencies/

    http://theamericanmuslim.org/tam.php/features/articles/ali-sina-launches-sharpened-olive-branch-of-hate

    Presumably youd consider Julius Streicher a legitemate authority on Judaism

  14. Ayyaz
    Posted July 6, 2012 at 1:32 PM | Permalink

    I just read the link that “question” links to suggesting that “Ali Sina is an extremist maniac who supports the genocide of Muslims”

    Unfortunatelty for “question”, there is a link to Ali Sina’s text and he suggests no such thing. If you’re going to misrepresent someone, make sure you don’t link directly to his own stuff! Lolz.

  15. Ayyaz
    Posted July 6, 2012 at 1:50 PM | Permalink

    Ali Sina’s point is not that there were no non-Arabs in the early history of Islam. His point is that Islam was specifically an Arabic religion by it’s own admission.

    And for every people there is a Messenger. (10:47)

    Ali Sina’s point is simple:

    “Just as Arabs have no reason to believe in a book written in a non-Arab language, non-Arabs have no reason to believe in a book written in Arabic. That is why Allah sends a messenger to each people in their own language so they understand. That makes perfect sense.”

  16. Amin Riaz
    Posted July 6, 2012 at 6:10 PM | Permalink

    >> Ayyaz I doubt that this is your name – however…
    It’s my grandfather’s name. Is there any rule that I have to post comments under my real name?

    There are lot of people here… who adopt a Muslims name and then post anti-Islamic stuff. Abu Faris is one such person. The person calling himself “AVICENNA” is another example.

    But in general – doesn’t it imply that you are hiding something by not using your own name….? That is why names are there for. It seems cowardly not to use it.

    Also there is no way of knowing who is posting what and how authentic the comments are.

    - – -

    >> Why are you pasting Ali Sina – for what reason?
    Because I find Ali Sina interesting and I think these snippets from his blog go with the flow of this article by Irtaza Hussain.

    In what way? This article is different in nature and content from Ali Sina stuff that you posted.

    - – -

    >> And why did you not declare the first time around… that this was Ali Sina’s work?
    No intention to claim Ali Sina’s work as my own. I don’t think posting his stuff means that I wrote it!

    Well yes it does – if you don’t declare your sources. Also you did not paste the whole thing – there was a bit chopped off.

  17. Amin Riaz
    Posted July 6, 2012 at 7:46 PM | Permalink

    Unfortunatelty for “question”, there is a link to Ali Sina’s text and he suggests no such thing. If you’re going to misrepresent someone, make sure you don’t link directly to his own stuff! Lolz.

    However there is a screenshot given of a forum – Also the second presents a series of emails.

    I don’t really see misrepresentation – unless Sina himself denies these as false – and presents evidence to the contrary.

  18. Kisan
    Posted July 7, 2012 at 2:46 PM | Permalink

    Congratulations Irtaza. However when writing if you could break up your paragraphs a bit more it would be less intimidating to read.

  19. mtume
    Posted July 9, 2012 at 12:35 PM | Permalink

    Thanks for the quotes from Ali Sina, Ayyaz – great resource.

  20. Ayyaz
    Posted July 9, 2012 at 2:53 PM | Permalink

    Here is another good piece – a young Palestinian explains why he has left Islam:

    http://exmuslim-n-free.blogspot.com/2012/05/palestinian-leaves-islam-ex-muslim.html

  21. Abu Faris
    Posted July 9, 2012 at 3:49 PM | Permalink

    “There are lot of people here… who adopt a Muslims name and then post anti-Islamic stuff. Abu Faris is one such person.”

    Plausibly because “Abu Faris” happens to be my kunya, sunshine. I post anti-*Islamist* “stuff”, incidentally – not “anti-Islamic”.

  22. Ayyaz
    Posted July 9, 2012 at 4:56 PM | Permalink

    Abu Faris,

    Since the vast majority of Muslims cannot, or rather – refuse to, make the distinction between Islam and Islamism, it doesn’t matter how hard you labour the point. You could be writing reams of sensible, balanced analyitical stuff about politial Islamic extremism but you can be sure as the sun rises in the east and sets in the west that it will still be interpreted as an action equivalent to wearing a t-shirt emblazoned with big black letters saying:

    “MUHAMMED WAS A PAEDOPHILE, A MURDERER AND A RAPIST. AND I AM A ZIONIST FREEMASON”

    Such is the state of play.

  23. Amin Riaz
    Posted July 10, 2012 at 6:08 PM | Permalink

    Abu Faris

    You started insulting (I like the net term – trolling) me – what for?

    And your actual name is “Ben” – Isn’t it? And you are NOT a Muslims. And I don’t think you have a son called “Faris”.

  24. Amin Riaz
    Posted July 10, 2012 at 6:12 PM | Permalink

    Ayyaz

    “You could be writing reams of sensible, balanced analyitical stuff about politial Islamic extremism “

    Yes… but this isn’t you. You go around posting random stuff on comments sections – under false pretenses. Why?

    “Since the vast majority of Muslims cannot, or rather – refuse to, make the distinction between Islam and Islamism”

    Also – Sina is anti-Islam not anti Muslim. And it is rather OBVIOUS so are you.

  25. Ayyaz
    Posted July 10, 2012 at 6:44 PM | Permalink

    “Yes… but this isn’t you. You go around posting random stuff on comments sections – under false pretenses. Why?”

    Not random, rather very much in context with the article under discussion, in this case by Irtaza Hussain. I don’t agree that I “posted under false pretences”. The reason I didn’t post the reference to Ali Sina is because it would generate the kind of decontextualised criticism of Sina the man that “question” has already made, and which you have, true to type, endorsed – rather than of Sina’s arguments.

    Also – Sina is anti-Islam not anti Muslim. And it is rather OBVIOUS so are you.

    Yes, I agree with that. But don’t worry, I’m anti-religion, so don’t take it personally. ;-)

  26. Amin Riaz
    Posted July 10, 2012 at 7:28 PM | Permalink

    “Not random, rather very much in context with the article under discussion, in this case by Irtaza Hussain.”

    How so? I have asked this before. You didn’t answer – yet you have repeated the same assertions as before.

    - – -

    “I don’t agree that I “posted under false pretences”. The reason I didn’t post the reference to Ali Sina is because it would generate the kind of decontextualised criticism of Sina the man that “question” has already made, and which you have, true to type, endorsed – rather than of Sina’s arguments. “

    It is HIGHLY suspicious if you post some one’s material without declaring the source. Also the bit you did not post and chopped off was highly interesting. This re-double my suspicions… I have asked you THAT as well. No answer.

    The you claim you did not want a certain kind of criticism – yet it happened anyway – as i was able to expose that this is Sina’s work. So this is a bad excuse…

    ” and which you have, true to type, endorsed”

    Yet – I refuted your claim that these were baseless – I did not endorse whatever “Question” was saying… and that is actually pretty obvious. This is all what I said:

    However there is a screenshot given of a forum – Also the second presents a series of emails.

    I don’t really see misrepresentation – unless Sina himself denies these as false – and presents evidence to the contrary.

    As far I know – you could even be Sina!

    - – -

    Also:

    “rather than of Sina’s arguments. ”

    Have you missed the 1st reply? And I find it kind of strange – this section is for comments about the above article – and has nothing to do with Sina and his work.

    Which makes your motives…

    - – -

    Yes, I agree with that. But don’t worry, I’m anti-religion, so don’t take it personally.

    There you go… got it in one.

  27. Ayyaz
    Posted July 10, 2012 at 7:38 PM | Permalink

    “The you claim you did not want a certain kind of criticism – yet it happened anyway – as i was able to expose that this is Sina’s work. So this is a bad excuse… “

    Sina’s work is widely available and widely read on the internet, so to suggest you “exposed” it is grandiose and a bit silly. You haven’t been able to engage with any of his points but you have endorsed a crazy accusation made of Sina which simply takes his words out of context. The link that “question” points to shows his full text, so it’s pretty obvious that the accusation is baseless. Your claim that you “refuted” this is just ridiculous self aggrandisement but you gain points for unintended sense of humour.

    “As far I know – you could even be Sina! “
    For all you know, I could be! But would that stop you from playing the man instead of the ball? I doubt it.

  28. Amin Riaz
    Posted July 10, 2012 at 8:55 PM | Permalink

    “Sina’s work is widely available and widely read on the internet, so to suggest you “exposed” it is grandiose and a bit silly.”

    Hence you beat your own argument – by not declaring the source of your material. If his work is that widely available – what would hiding the source entail and accomplish… nothing. Again a bad excuse. Even you imply that!

    - – -

    “You haven’t been able to engage with any of his points but you have endorsed a crazy accusation made of Sina which simply takes his words out of context.”

    Actually – the very first post I answered – it was about the point raised in the material. At the end I said – this is Sina’s work.

    Again you simply repeat this petty accusation – contrary to proof. The quality of my answers is not the argument here – that I made them in the 1st is. That is obvious from above. Why?

    Also:

    I denied that I have endorsed any views about Sina – again you simply repeated the false accusation – with out any elaboration or proof. Why?

    - – -

    “Your claim that you “refuted” this is just ridiculous self aggrandisement but you gain points for unintended sense of humour.”

    huh? What I claimed is that I refuted YOU and YOUR assertion that there is no evidence given… yet you have twisted that to something else. Why?

    Again my words were:

    Yet – I refuted your claim that these were baseless – I did not endorse whatever “Question” was saying… and that is actually pretty obvious.

    But look at the SPIN you have put on them

    - – -

    I have asked you a few questions above – which you have side-stepped. Why?

    - – -

    One post – many falsehoods. . . this re-asserts my suspicions.

  29. Amin Riaz
    Posted July 10, 2012 at 8:59 PM | Permalink

    “Sina’s work is widely available and widely read on the internet”

    This is simply your claim. No evidence. He is not considered as an Academic. And has less standing than say – Ibn Warraq, Hirsi Ali or Wafa. All three particularly well promoted in USA.

  30. Ayyaz
    Posted July 10, 2012 at 9:41 PM | Permalink

    I think this argument is pointless, so let’s just say I was wrong to post Ali Sina’s material without referencing him. At no point was I suggesting that his material was authored by me. My point is that I am far more interested in the points he makes than to claim his material. Does that seem fair to you?

  31. Ayyaz
    Posted July 10, 2012 at 9:47 PM | Permalink

    The Islamic Reformation

    An analogous reformation also took place in Islam. This reformation was Salafism.

    Many westerners, erroneously believe that Muhammad ibn Abdul Wahhab, (1703–1792) is the founder of an extremist sect of Islam. This is not true. Abdul Wahhab did not found a new sect. He was merely a reformer of Islam in the same way that Luther was of Christianity.

    The core of Abdul Wahhab’s thinking is that Islam was perfect and complete during the days of Muhammad and his companions and its decline is the result of religious innovations (bid‘ah) and that an Islamic revival will result through the emulation of the three early generations and the purging of foreign influences from the religion.

    The concept that Islam was perfect in its early stages is asserted in the Quran.5:3

    الْيَوْمَ أَكْمَلْتُ لَكُمْ دِينَكُمْ وَأَتْمَمْتُ عَلَيْكُمْ نِعْمَتِي وَرَضِيتُ لَكُمُ الإِسْلاَمَ دِينًا

    Today have I perfected your religious law for you, and have bestowed upon you the full measure of My blessings, and willed that self-surrender unto Me shall be your religion.

    Abdul Wahhab, proposed that Muslims should refrain from any innovation and follow the examples of the salaf, (“predecessors” or “early generations) hence the name Salafis.

    Salafi: سلفي, takes the pious ancestors of the patristic period of early Islam as exemplary models.

    This belief is not an invention of Abdul Wahhab but is based on a hadith that reports Muhammad’s saying:

    The people of my generation are the best, then those who follow them, and then those who follow the latter (i.e. the first three generations of Muslims).[Bukhari 3:48:819 and 820 and Muslim 31:6150 and 6151.] (Tabi‘in and the Taba‘ at-Tabi‘in,)

    In another hadith Muhammad, noted:

    In order to demolish the western myth that Abdul Wahhab was the founder of Salafism, it is import to note that ibn Taymiyyah (1263 – 1328) was also a Salafi. Ibn Taymiyyah opposed the celebration of Muhammad’s birthday and the construction of shrines around the tombs of Sufi ‘saints’ saying: “Many of them [the Muslims] do not even know of the Christian [Catholic] origins of these practices. Accursed be Christianity and its adherents.”

    Early usage of the term Salaf appears in the book Al-Ansab by Abu Sa’d Abd al-Kareem al-Sama’ni, who died in the year 1166 (562 of the Islamic calendar). Defining the term al-Salafi he stated, “This is an ascription to the salaf, or the predecessors, and the adaptation of their school of thought based upon what I have heard.” He then mentions examples of more scholars who were utilizing this ascription.

    There is a hadith where Muhammad says, “I am the best Salaf for you.” [Sahih Muslim: no. 2450]

    The desire to reform Islam and go back to its original pristine state is actually an old thought. Abdul Wahhab, however, succeeded to give shape to this concept, which took ground thanks to the Saudi kings who are his descendants through one of his daughters.

  32. Amin Riaz
    Posted July 10, 2012 at 9:50 PM | Permalink

    I think this argument is pointless, so let’s just say I was wrong to post Ali Sina’s material without referencing him. At no point was I suggesting that his material was authored by me. My point is that I am far more interested in the points he makes than to claim his material. Does that seem fair to you?

    Look – you posted Sina’s work here – under dubious motives and without acknowledging as such. You couldn’t really give reasons why you did that.

    Then you made few unsubstantiated accusations… and now you have withdrawn under a cloud.

    - – -

    If you want to leave it at that – fine.

  33. Amin Riaz
    Posted July 10, 2012 at 9:52 PM | Permalink

    The Islamic Reformation

    An analogous reformation also took place in Islam. This reformation was Salafism.

    Many westerners, erroneously believe that Muhammad ibn Abdul Wahhab, (1703–1792) is the founder of an extremist sect of Islam. This is not true. Abdul Wahhab did not found a new sect. He was merely a reformer of Islam in the same way that Luther was of Christianity.

    The core of Abdul Wahhab’s thinking is that Islam was perfect and complete during the days of Muhammad and his companions and its decline is the result of religious innovations (bid‘ah) and that an Islamic revival will result through the emulation of the three early generations and the purging of foreign influences from the religion.

    The concept that Islam was perfect in its early stages is asserted in the Quran.5:3

    الْيَوْمَ أَكْمَلْتُ لَكُمْ دِينَكُمْ وَأَتْمَمْتُ عَلَيْكُمْ نِعْمَتِي وَرَضِيتُ لَكُمُ الإِسْلاَمَ دِينًا

    Today have I perfected your religious law for you, and have bestowed upon you the full measure of My blessings, and willed that self-surrender unto Me shall be your religion.

    Abdul Wahhab, proposed that Muslims should refrain from any innovation and follow the examples of the salaf, (“predecessors” or “early generations) hence the name Salafis.

    Salafi: سلفي, takes the pious ancestors of the patristic period of early Islam as exemplary models.

    This belief is not an invention of Abdul Wahhab but is based on a hadith that reports Muhammad’s saying:

    The people of my generation are the best, then those who follow them, and then those who follow the latter (i.e. the first three generations of Muslims).[Bukhari 3:48:819 and 820 and Muslim 31:6150 and 6151.] (Tabi‘in and the Taba‘ at-Tabi‘in,)

    In another hadith Muhammad, noted:

    In order to demolish the western myth that Abdul Wahhab was the founder of Salafism, it is import to note that ibn Taymiyyah (1263 – 1328) was also a Salafi. Ibn Taymiyyah opposed the celebration of Muhammad’s birthday and the construction of shrines around the tombs of Sufi ‘saints’ saying: “Many of them [the Muslims] do not even know of the Christian [Catholic] origins of these practices. Accursed be Christianity and its adherents.”

    Early usage of the term Salaf appears in the book Al-Ansab by Abu Sa’d Abd al-Kareem al-Sama’ni, who died in the year 1166 (562 of the Islamic calendar). Defining the term al-Salafi he stated, “This is an ascription to the salaf, or the predecessors, and the adaptation of their school of thought based upon what I have heard.” He then mentions examples of more scholars who were utilizing this ascription.

    There is a hadith where Muhammad says, “I am the best Salaf for you.” [Sahih Muslim: no. 2450]

    The desire to reform Islam and go back to its original pristine state is actually an old thought. Abdul Wahhab, however, succeeded to give shape to this concept, which took ground thanks to the Saudi kings who are his descendants through one of his daughters.

    !

  34. Ayyaz
    Posted July 10, 2012 at 9:57 PM | Permalink

    How can Muhammed by a Narcissit when…?

    Muhammad did not sacrifice himself. He launched 87 or 88 raids in the last ten years of his life, never taking part in person to person combat. He never fought in any battle personally. He would wear two coats of mail (chain link armor), one on top of the other, protected by his bodyguards while shouting and encouraging his followers to hasten to their deaths for the rewards that awaited them in the other world.

    He massacred thousands of innocent people in his life and after him; his successors killed hundreds of thousands. This number eventually reached to hundreds of millions and counting.

    Muhammad resembles Hitler, not Jesus. This is a clear clue to know that he was not a true prophet, but an impostor. If I have a vision to become rich and sacrifice others to achieve my goal I can’t be a good person, let alone a holy person.

    Now, let us talk about the vision. The vision of Jesus for man-kind was liberation, freedom, salvation. These are all synonymous words. Freedom from what? Freedom from false beliefs, false religion, rigid rules, arbitrary authority, etc. This is, what is called “liberation discourse.” This freedom is the essence of Jesus’s vision for mankind. You can summarize Christianity in five words: “Truth will set you free.” Jesus sacrificed himself for this vision so others can be free.

    Muhammad also had a vision. His vision was slavery of man. He said this slavery is to God. However, the god he was talking about was his own alter-ego, a tool to make people do what he wanted. The slavery was to him. Allah was a fictitious being, without whom he could not achieve his vision of domination and mastery over others. Why would anyone want to fight and sacrifice his life for someone else? But if you can convince them that they are not fighting for you, but for God and that they will be rewarded, in this world and the next, they may do anything for you. They may kill for you, plunder for you and allow you to have sex with their underage daughter.

    I am not a Christian. I don’t believe in God. In my opinion Jesus is a composite myth. I am mentioning him only for the sake of comparison. My point is that IF God existed and IF He wanted to send someone to guide mankind, he would send a holy soul like Jesus and not a despicable thug like Muhammad.

    Millions of Germans committed unthinkable atrocities. These were ordinary people. They fought a bloody war. Many of them sacrificed themselves heroically, not for Hitler, but for the “cause” that he sold them. The cause was only an excuse. Hitler was not after racial or national superiority, he was after personal superiority. He used these as pretexts.

    All cult leaders have a cause. They never promote themselves directly, because it will never be accepted. You will have no one following you if you promote yourself. But if you promote a cause, and convince others that this cause is important and you are pivotal and indispensable for its success, you can have many followers. Hitler chose nationalism and restoring the German pride as his cause. Stalin chose proletariat and class struggle as his cause. Jim Jones chose social justice as his cause. Charles Manson chose preservation of air, trees, water and animals (ATWA) as his cause. Shoko Asahara chose the end of perpetual suffering through rebirth as his cause, and so on and so forth. Muhammad chose the worship of God and monotheism as his cause.

  35. qidniz
    Posted July 13, 2012 at 10:22 PM | Permalink

    And your actual name is “Ben” – Isn’t it?

    His actual name is not a secret. He is under no obligation to use it as a handle. You must be new to the internet.

    And I don’t think you have a son called “Faris”.

    It seems to have been already established upthread that you are stupid.

  36. Abu Faris
    Posted July 14, 2012 at 4:27 PM | Permalink

    Being “outed” by Islamist clerical fascist fan-boys is always invigorating.

  37. Amin Riaz
    Posted July 14, 2012 at 5:57 PM | Permalink

    Abu Faris

    “Being “outed” by Islamist clerical fascist fan-boys is always invigorating.”

    You’ve got nothing more than petty insults to add. Why is that? Yet it has never been me who disturbed your peace…

    You are nothing more than a hate monger.

    - – -

    qidniz

    “His actual name is not a secret. He is under no obligation to use it as a handle. You must be new to the internet. “

    Other than a sign of cowardice… Your name is you identity – what has “handles” got to do with anything.

    “It seems to have been already established upthread that you are stupid.”

    As per usual – petty insulting – unfortunately that is all what these comments sections are worth.

    - – -

    What an amazing time waste!

  38. Amin Riaz
    Posted July 14, 2012 at 6:06 PM | Permalink

    Abu Faris

    You used another made up name to talk about your OWN SELF…. wow! The intelligence and the ego.

    Yet most of your comments are nothing but petty insults. You tried to have a go… but it is the abode of the ignorant – when all else fails – petty insults!

    Enjoy

  39. qidniz
    Posted July 14, 2012 at 6:54 PM | Permalink

    Your name is you[r] identity – what has “handles” got to do with anything.

    As I said, you must be new to the internet. “Identities” don’t matter.

  40. Amin Riaz
    Posted July 14, 2012 at 8:01 PM | Permalink

    As I said, you must be new to the internet. “Identities” don’t matter.

    You assume – incorrectly. Identity does matter.

    You should use your actual name as far as possible. There a quiet a few dangers of using fake names.

    You might think there are no consequences for the things you say – as no one will come knocking on the door. So you indulge in rudeness, intolerance and unkindness. That is false courage.

    People draw false courage from anonymity and mobs. A weak person when among a group often acts up – very different to when alone. Same thing is with people who use pseudonyms.

  41. Amin Riaz
    Posted July 14, 2012 at 8:15 PM | Permalink

    Many people hide behind pseudonyms on the internet to bully others. Without the fear of being traced, they resort to saying things to hurt people, without consequences.

    Your name is what represents you and helps you behave with dignity. Hence using your own name is empowering. Pseudonym users tend to have no pride & confidence, they were the kids who played knock door run, make anonymous phone calls or spray graffiti messages.

    You should be proud to put your own name to what you are saying and doing. Unless deep down you know that you are coward.

  42. Abu Faris
    Posted July 15, 2012 at 1:27 AM | Permalink

    Show me were I bully – in truth, and I will apologise.

    You object to my name being Benjamin?

    Who knew?

  43. Denzil
    Posted July 15, 2012 at 9:45 AM | Permalink

    “You should use your actual name as far as possible. There a quiet a few dangers of using fake names.

    You might think there are no consequences for the things you say – as no one will come knocking on the door. So you indulge in rudeness, intolerance and unkindness. That is false courage. “

    Where’s the proof that “Amin Riaz” is your real name?

  44. qidniz
    Posted July 15, 2012 at 5:22 PM | Permalink

    You assume – incorrectly. Identity does matter.

    As I said, you must be new to the internet.

  45. Amin Riaz
    Posted July 15, 2012 at 6:18 PM | Permalink

    qidniz

    “As I said, you must be new to the internet.”

    Repeating the something without adding anything extra – a bit desperate.

    - – -

    Abu Faris

    “Show me were I bully – in truth, and I will apologise.”

    I have accused you of “Petty Insults” and that I can show. Who said anything about bullying?

    And why did you even ask me that – and not about what I accused you of?

    - – -

    Denzil

    Where’s the proof that “Amin Riaz” is your real name?

    None whatsoever – however I can say with 100% certainty “qidniz” is not called qidniz in real life.

  46. Denzil
    Posted July 15, 2012 at 8:03 PM | Permalink

    I can say with 100% certainty that I believe “Amin Riaz” is not your real name.

  47. Amin Riaz
    Posted July 15, 2012 at 10:58 PM | Permalink

    Denzil

    “I can say with 100% certainty that I believe “Amin Riaz” is not your real name.

    No you can’t. Else on what bases? It is easy to say but much harder to give reason for. Simply making an assertion in this case is pretty useless.

    However, do you want me to give my reasoning for saying this:

    “…I can say with 100% certainty “qidniz” is not called qidniz in real life.”

  48. Amin Riaz
    Posted July 15, 2012 at 11:05 PM | Permalink

    Abu Faris

    “You object to my name being Benjamin?

    Who knew?”

    As with your other comment – you had no basis to claim this either. Why “infer” the exact opposite from what I said?

    It is pretty clear I [somewhat] objected to the use of “Abu Faris” and not your actual name.

  49. Denzil
    Posted July 16, 2012 at 1:01 AM | Permalink

    “No you can’t. Else on what bases? It is easy to say but much harder to give reason for.
    Rubbish. It is my belief that you are using a false name. I don’t have to provide you a reason for it.

    Simply making an assertion in this case is pretty useless.”
    For you, perhaps. I have the same opinion of your assertions.

  50. qidniz
    Posted July 16, 2012 at 1:02 AM | Permalink

    However, do you want me to give my reasoning for saying this:

    You googled it, you clever boy.

    Next!

  51. Abu Faris
    Posted July 16, 2012 at 4:28 AM | Permalink

    Amin Riaz

    Let’s leave aside the issue of the name I choose to operate with here and elsewhere. Even, I beg you, let us put away niggles about others’ manners. I wonder if you might be so kind as to suggest anything you might have objection to in my ideas?

    Just a thought.

  52. Amin Riaz
    Posted July 16, 2012 at 5:58 PM | Permalink

    qidniz

    You googled it, you clever boy.

    Next!

    Ah, How funny… the wit!

    - – -
    Denzil

    “Rubbish. It is my belief that you are using a false name. I don’t have to provide you a reason for it.”

    True enough… but it is question of certainty. 100% – that you ain’t.

    “For you, perhaps. I have the same opinion of your assertions.”

    Sure – but which ones? Again a meaningless thing to say.

    - – -
    Abu Faris

    Let’s leave aside the issue of the name I choose to operate with here and elsewhere. Even, I beg you, let us put away niggles about others’ manners. I wonder if you might be so kind as to suggest anything you might have objection to in my ideas?

    Ideas? What Ideas?

    Sure you don’t think this is an idea:

    “Being “outed” by Islamist clerical fascist fan-boys is always invigorating.”

  53. Denzil
    Posted July 16, 2012 at 6:37 PM | Permalink

    True enough… but it is question of certainty. 100% – that you ain’t.

    You’re 100% sure of my uncertainty proves the point – there is no certainty that you are using your real name.

    “Sure – but which ones?”
    for starters, how about the ones which are based on your opinion alone?

  54. Abu Faris
    Posted July 16, 2012 at 7:21 PM | Permalink

    Ideas? What Ideas?

    Oh, I see: you are simply trolling. Perhaps this might suggest why I could not be bothered to interact with you? What a shame – I thought you might have something to write.

  55. Amin Riaz
    Posted July 16, 2012 at 9:05 PM | Permalink

    Denzil

    You’re 100% sure of my uncertainty proves the point – there is no certainty that you are using your real name.

    Yes – however that was already resolved & understood. But with obvious pseudonym – there is certainty that it isn’t the persons real name. Also if it did come down to it – I can prove that Amin Riaz is my real name.

    “for starters, how about the ones which are based on your opinion alone?”

    Such as? That is the exact thing I asked you last time. You’ll have to give me examples.

    - – -

    Abu Faris

    Oh, I see: you are simply trolling. Perhaps this might suggest why I could not be bothered to interact with you? What a shame – I thought you might have something to write.

    You have NEVER bothered to interact with me other than – petty insults and rudeness. Pretty much from the day one…

    Yet you accuse me of it – however with out any proof or evidence.

    You haven’t expressed any ideas in this section.

    Here are your own “trollnesses”

    “Plausibly because “Abu Faris” happens to be my kunya, sunshine. I post anti-*Islamist* “stuff”, incidentally – not “anti-Islamic”.”

    “Being “outed” by Islamist clerical fascist fan-boys is always invigorating.”

    - – -

    Then there the strange accusations:

    “Show me were I bully – in truth, and I will apologise.

    You object to my name being Benjamin?

    Who knew?

    Then you dropped this – to ask what do I think about you “ideas”.

    So – what Ideas were you talking about?

    - – -

    And now – it is another false accusation. Also you already had me down as:

    “Islamist clerical fascist fan-boys”

    Hence:

    “I thought you might have something to write.”

    No you didn’t. It appears, you already had your mind made up!

    - – -

    In actual fact I have not “trolled” you at all. And this is a useless and petty squabble

  56. Denzil
    Posted July 16, 2012 at 10:57 PM | Permalink

    “Such as? That is the exact thing I asked you last time. You’ll have to give me examples.”

    Why, I have no intention of regurgitating your nonsense. It’s not as if any of it has been worth the effort of re-reading. All of of it has been such twaddle on a cursory read, why on earth should I re-read it and pick out the garbage from the horse manure?

    “Also if it did come down to it – I can prove that Amin Riaz is my real name.”

    That would be now.

  57. Amin Riaz
    Posted July 16, 2012 at 11:46 PM | Permalink

    Why, I have no intention of regurgitating your nonsense. It’s not as if any of it has been worth the effort of re-reading. All of of it has been such twaddle on a cursory read, why on earth should I re-read it and pick out the garbage from the horse manure?

    Meaning that you are nothing more than a troll. The reason why you cannot give an example is that there isn’t one… else you would have jumped on it.

    I have done nothing to you – or said anything to you either. But look at the level of abuse.

    Have A Nice Night!

  58. Denzil
    Posted July 17, 2012 at 12:31 AM | Permalink

    “I have done nothing to you – or said anything to you either. But look at the level of abuse.”

    It wasn’t personal abuse, it was a comment on the your failure to make a single point of any worth over some 30+ comments. Personal abuse, on the other hand, is something different altogether; it is calling people “cowards” and taking a hectoring tone towards people for choosing to use a nickname on a blog comments box. If you can’t take it, don’t dish it.

  59. Amin Riaz
    Posted July 17, 2012 at 3:25 PM | Permalink

    Denzil

    It wasn’t personal abuse, it was a comment on the your failure to make a single point of any worth over some 30+ comments.

    Actually hiding behind pseudonym to bully others is a good point – unless you condone such behaviour.

    ah… yet:

    “Why, I have no intention of regurgitating your nonsense. It’s not as if any of it has been worth the effort of re-reading. All of of it has been such twaddle on a cursory read, why on earth should I re-read it and pick out the garbage from the horse manure?”

    Look at the difference… this was aimed at me – hence personal.

    - – -

    “Personal abuse, on the other hand, is something different altogether; it is calling people “cowards” and taking a hectoring tone towards people for choosing to use a nickname on a blog comments box. If you can’t take it, don’t dish it.”

    And that means … “personal” to you? People who hide behind anonymity and then abuse other people verbally…. the LEAST you can call them is cowards.

    You don’t think – such behaviour is fine do you?

    - – -

    Beside that you level a accusation at me – when asked to prove it – you went all “trollish” – hence it was false. Says it all really.

    - – -

    All your intention from the start was to be argumentative and nothing more… I am glad I was at least worth that!

  60. Denzil
    Posted July 17, 2012 at 5:01 PM | Permalink

    “Look at the difference… this was aimed at me – hence personal.”

    No it was aimed at your comments which have been less than worthless. But you’re free to take as much offence as you like!

    “People who hide behind anonymity and then abuse other people verbally…. the LEAST you can call them is cowards.”

    You can, but unless you’re willing to include yourself as a coward, it is a personal insult.

    “You don’t think – such behaviour is fine do you?”
    Well, it is obvious you do, since your conduct has been far worse.

  61. Amin Riaz
    Posted July 17, 2012 at 5:23 PM | Permalink

    Denzil

    No it was aimed at your comments which have been less than worthless. But you’re free to take as much offence as you like!

    Cop out – you knew it was meant to be derogatory – hence your choice of language.

    - – -

    “You can, but unless you’re willing to include yourself as a coward, it is a personal insult.”

    Again – I have NOT verbally abused anyone – “you can” – doesn’t mean “has done”.

    Personal insult at whom?

    - – -

    “Well, it is obvious you do, since your conduct has been far worse.”

    No it hasn’t – and you know that full well. This is just like the above petty and false accusation…. when I asked you to back that up – you couldn’t. And you won’t do for this either.

    “since your conduct has been far worse.”

    At least you admit your “bad” conduct!

  62. Denzil
    Posted July 17, 2012 at 6:15 PM | Permalink

    Yes, “Amin Riaz”, you have displayed appalling behaviour. But I don’t think you’re ready to admit that since you’re here to lecture others about their cowardliness and your own superiority.

  63. Amin Riaz
    Posted July 17, 2012 at 6:29 PM | Permalink

    Yes, “Amin Riaz”, you have displayed appalling behaviour. But I don’t think you’re ready to admit that since you’re here to lecture others about their cowardliness and your own superiority.

    Meaningless assertions – it is kind of OBVIOUS that you were “out to get me”. You had no other purpose than to seek an argument. That is why every time I ask you to back some thing up. You don’t do it – but just repeat your previous statements.

    - – -

    If you do feel inferior to me – I hope you work it out. I can’t help you there. Low self-esteem issues perhaps?

  64. Abu Faris
    Posted July 21, 2012 at 12:41 PM | Permalink

    Amin Riaz

    I ask again: are you willing to debate any of my views expressed on this site and others? If not, what are you here for?

  65. Amin Riaz
    Posted July 21, 2012 at 5:40 PM | Permalink

    Abu Faris

    “I ask again: are you willing to debate any of my views expressed on this site and others? If not, what are you here for?”

    I like the ego! I wasn’t aware that this is your site… or I was here to “debate” your views. Why would I be?

    I asked you “what views” previously and you had some sort of “attack”. So what views exactly are you referring to?

    - – -

    Also – Look at your “abusive” attitude. If you want a “debate” try cutting the BS out.

    Why is it that you ignore everything put to you and return to this fancy of yours.

    - – -

    Given the above comments – I don’t think you are here to “debate” anything – or that you have the capacity.

  66. Abu Faris
    Posted July 28, 2012 at 10:23 PM | Permalink

    troll.

    Come on, how about actually dealing with my (or anyone else’s) comments and not just your fantasies about internet nicknames. Got anything to say, big man?

  67. Amin Riaz
    Posted July 29, 2012 at 8:38 AM | Permalink

    “troll.

    Come on, how about actually dealing with my (or anyone else’s) comments and not just your fantasies about internet nicknames. Got anything to say, big man?”

    It is pretty obvious – your intent is to be nothing more than – to be rude. And you reply this after seven days….

    - – -

    ” dealing with my (or anyone else’s) comments”

    Lets concentrate on you… what comment are you talking about… third time asking…

    you had the “ego” that somehow I was here to have “debates” with you…. ha ha.

    Really?

    - – -

    “not just your fantasies about internet nicknames. ”

    Right – you mean you are so afraid to use your own name – or ashamed.

    - – -

    You are abusive and insulting – and you really don’t have anything much to say.

  68. Abu Faris
    Posted August 1, 2012 at 9:46 PM | Permalink

    Come on, Amin, tell us something… enough of the cockshuffling.

  69. Amin Riaz
    Posted August 2, 2012 at 8:07 AM | Permalink

Post a Comment

Your email is never published nor shared. Required fields are marked *

*
*

You may use these HTML tags and attributes <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

Subscribe without commenting

  • Categories

  • Archives