Page 1 of 1

Comments: al-boriqee V. Haik/Khalil

PostPosted: Sat Jan 03, 2009 2:14 pm
by Brendalee
Well done for cutting through all the sectarian obfuscation, Khalil, and restoring the topic.

Re: Comments: al-boriqee V. Haik/Khalil

PostPosted: Sat Jan 03, 2009 3:43 pm
by apostasyrus
Brendalee wrote:Well done for cutting through all the sectarian obfuscation, Khalil, and restoring the topic.


Hello Brenda. Hope you are well :)

Al-Bakaki appears to be reasonably well versed in Islamic terminology but everytime I see a muslim using the word heresy, it just cracks me up. For followers of a belief system such as Islam which claims that Judaism and Christianity were true faiths at first but distortions and changed introduced by their respective followers caused for God to send down Islam to correct the corruption, to discuss heresiology with a negative connotation, is oxymoronic. Just as oxymoronic as the term "Muslim free-thought". Though I see nothing oxymoronic with the term if the order in which the words make up the term is reversed, i.e. Thought-free muslim :*)

I may have had a reason to want to read more of this debate because of the subject, but anyone who not only asserts Saudi to be a dreamland, but also claims to have known Kaafirs that concur, has their credibility shot in my view. It can be the dreamland for an excessively fanatic muslim male but certainly not for anybody else. What a load of crap. I think Khalil with his background and exposure to life in the dreamland, will have a good time doing this debate.

Re: Comments: al-boriqee V. Haik/Khalil

PostPosted: Sat Jan 03, 2009 5:08 pm
by Brendalee
Hello apostasyrus! :*)

Actually, I have heard a (very) few Western men sing the praises of Saudi Arabia. It seems to appeal to a certain brand of misogynistic-narcissist who wishes he could excercise a god-like power to abuse women, the unwashed poor, religious/political opponents,and foreign workers in a similar manner. But the same personality-damaged fellow would not wish himself poor (even if superior as a male) in Saudi. He admires Saudi Arabia only from a ruling-elite point of view.

Re: Comments: al-boriqee V. Haik/Khalil

PostPosted: Sat Jan 03, 2009 5:36 pm
by apostasyrus
Brendalee wrote:Hello apostasyrus! :*)

Actually, I have heard a (very) few Western men sing the praises of Saudi Arabia. It seems to appeal to a certain brand of misogynistic-narcissist who wishes he could excercise a god-like power to abuse women, the unwashed poor, religious/political opponents,and foreign workers in a similar manner. But the same personality-damaged fellow would not wish himself poor (even if superior as a male) in Saudi. He admires Saudi Arabia only from a ruling-elite point of view.


True, there are exceptions. I once knew a fellow in states who was a biker. Though not all bikers are alike,this chap was most definitely a misogynist and always looked like could use a shower. He was the only non muslim I have ever known who considered Saudi a good place. Why? because he thought that the much talked about harsh punishments for crimes were commendable. He had never sat foot outside USA, and knew little about Saudi other than this subject. But something about brutality tickled his fancy, so there you go.

You are right on mark with your idea of what kind of men may like the dreamland. I spent a few years there a good 20 years ago. I had friends both from amongst the Saudis, and ofcourse the expats from a variety of countries. Save for one of the two locals I was friends with, none had anything good to say about the place. As for the expats, they were only there for the extra money, and living there was from their perspective a trade-off for a certain length of time so during that time they could make the extra bucks while they lived in what they considered a jail (to put it mildly) and then "return to civilization".

Re: Comments: al-boriqee V. Haik/Khalil

PostPosted: Fri Jan 16, 2009 8:25 am
by al-boriqee
apostasyrus wrote:
Brendalee wrote:Well done for cutting through all the sectarian obfuscation, Khalil, and restoring the topic.


Hello Brenda. Hope you are well :)

Al-Bakaki appears to be reasonably well versed in Islamic terminology but everytime I see a muslim using the word heresy, it just cracks me up. For followers of a belief system such as Islam which claims that Judaism and Christianity were true faiths at first but distortions and changed introduced by their respective followers caused for God to send down Islam to correct the corruption, to discuss heresiology with a negative connotation, is oxymoronic. Just as oxymoronic as the term "Muslim free-thought". Though I see nothing oxymoronic with the term if the order in which the words make up the term is reversed, i.e. Thought-free muslim :*)

I may have had a reason to want to read more of this debate because of the subject, but anyone who not only asserts Saudi to be a dreamland, but also claims to have known Kaafirs that concur, has their credibility shot in my view. It can be the dreamland for an excessively fanatic muslim male but certainly not for anybody else. What a load of crap. I think Khalil with his background and exposure to life in the dreamland, will have a good time doing this debate.


nice comments preposterus, keep up the good work :D

Re: Comments: al-boriqee V. Haik/Khalil

PostPosted: Sat Jan 17, 2009 4:23 am
by apostasyrus
al-boriqee wrote:
nice comments preposterus, keep up the good work :D


Hello al-bakaki,

You probably meant "preposterous". So, are we even now? :*)

Re: Comments: al-boriqee V. Haik/Khalil

PostPosted: Thu Jan 22, 2009 1:58 pm
by Cassie
al boriqee wrote:thirdly, Ali SIna attemptd quite poorly to refute the Quran's position on the "big bang which can be found here
http://www.faithfreedom.org/Articles/bigbang50221.htm

That is not by Ali Sina, whose refutation is elsewhere.

al boriqee wrote:
It laughed too hard when reading his fallcious inaccuray because when he attempted to expain the issue using the Qur'an, He brought versus that are irrelevant to the topic he was speas speaking about. The versus that he was representing was merely supplying the inherent universal properties of these entities (earth, hevenas etc) and not about the big bang. So allow me to recycle the Ali SInic argument versus the Quranic argument and I use this only to depose your flimsy argument about the big bang an the issue fo Islam being an entity that condemns it.

The heavens are expanding. Modern science tells us that the universe was started from a singularity. The pictures taken by Edwin Hubbell in Mount Wilson observatory in 1929 showed that the universe was expanding which led to the Big Bang theory. The Qur'an anticipated this "discovery" by 14 centuries.

Here is the relavatory ayaah that Ali SIna somehow"forgot" to incorperate in his so called nullification of this theory being promulgated by the Qur'an.

With power did We construct the heaven. Verily, We are Able to extend the vastness of space (thereof), [51:47]
this is Muhsiin Khan Translation which is a much more accurate rendition of the versus in english.

There is more to the Big Bang theory than just the fact that the universe is huge or expanding.

al boriqee wrote:5. Lastly, your argument which is exemplified by your statement "It is not possible to ask the question what was there before Big bang” or what caused Big Bang for the reason, there is an information cusp. All information began to flow from the point of Big Bang."
is a logical fallacy. All it means is that information can not be ascertained before the advent of the universe. Indeed if the big bang is true, which the ayaah above alludes to, then certainly, it was the cause of gases and smoke which was the opinion of the big bang theorists which was exemplified by the Qur'an in the ayaah

Then He rose over (Istawâ) towards the heaven when it was smoke, and said to it and to the earth: "Come both of you willingly or unwillingly." They both said: "We come willingly." [41:11]

and we scientifically know that smoke is a mixture of gases and suspended particles.

When the Big Bang occurred, the earth was not in existence and would not be in existence for more than 8 billion years.

Re: Comments: al-boriqee V. Haik/Khalil

PostPosted: Fri Jan 23, 2009 11:47 am
by Brendalee
It is hilarious that the Quran has to wait for Kafir science in order to suddenly and miraculously reveal obscure verses that Muslims take as agreeing with that Kafir science.

al boriqee points out, rightly, that science is aware that smoke contains gasses. But, unfortunately for him, the Quran in no way expresses that knowledge for itself. Using a word like "smoke" is not a proof or even any indication that the user knows the components of smoke. To imply, like al boriqee does that "smoke" = "Big Bang Theory" is ridiculous in the extreme.

In any case it is ludicrous for Muslims like al-boriqee to retrospectively decide that the Quran contains Kafir science by taking huge liberties in interpretation and by assuming meanings that are not expressed even in the smallest degree by the text.

But the funniest thing of all to me is that the Quran depends upon the discoveries of Kafir science to "reveal" the "science" in its verses. Thus, in a sense it could be said that the interpretation of the Quran is SUBJECT to KAFIRS and their science. :lol:

Re: Comments: al-boriqee V. Haik/Khalil

PostPosted: Fri Jan 23, 2009 8:29 pm
by Pragmatist
Brendalee wrote:It is hilarious that the Quran has to wait for Kafir science in order to suddenly and miraculously reveal obscure verses that Muslims take as agreeing with that Kafir science.

al boriqee points out, rightly, that science is aware that smoke contains gasses. But, unfortunately for him, the Quran in no way expresses that knowledge for itself. Using a word like "smoke" is not a proof or even any indication that the user knows the components of smoke. To imply, like al boriqee does that "smoke" = "Big Bang Theory" is ridiculous in the extreme.

In any case it is ludicrous for Muslims like al-boriqee to retrospectively decide that the Quran contains Kafir science by taking huge liberties in interpretation and by assuming meanings that are not expressed even in the smallest degree by the text.

But the funniest thing of all to me is that the Quran depends upon the discoveries of Kafir science to "reveal" the "science" in its verses. Thus, in a sense it could be said that the interpretation of the Quran is SUBJECT to KAFIRS and their science. :lol:


Hi BrendaLee (great songs BTW). I have asked Mohammedans time and time again to provide us with ONE just ONE discovery or invention that was made BEFORE Kaffirs discovered it that was DIRECTLY attributed to the koran and no other source. I am still waiting for an answer.

Re: Comments: al-boriqee V. Haik/Khalil

PostPosted: Sat Jan 24, 2009 12:43 pm
by Brendalee
I expect you will be waiting a long time...so, don't be holding your breath.

:wink:

Re: Comments: al-boriqee V. Haik/Khalil

PostPosted: Sat Jan 24, 2009 1:10 pm
by Ariel
Where is KhaliL
I have not seen him for 3 days. I hope he is well .