Al Hanif's Shoutbox

[Alchemist]

tsk tsk tsk ...

First of all I apologize for offending your namoose. I forgot that you consider the women of the British royalty as your namoose.


Secondly I am sure you are distoring what al hanif said, owning to the fact that you are severely demented...as can be clearly seen from your last post. Chill out sis.

[ScimitarXEdge]

You are a bigger fitnah buddy.

This is from the guy who thinks suicide bombers murdering their own people is ok. Because they're doing it to fight people who murder their own people.
.

With you. You are just flat out wrong.

So wrong you've never disproved them.

First of all, all your arguments together are a patch work of contradictions burrowed. You put the horse before the cart.

This is from the guy who dvocates shari'ah but will sell pork

You make the argument that ulama of deen use their own opinions to come to a conclusion,

JUst the ones you support.

even though their epistemology is familiar to the scholars.

Then why do most of the actually LEARNED Ulama, call you guys kharijis and rafidhi?

And there is the sting, you are not a scholar of anything, but you spout your own warped opinions as Islamic and "rational".

Even though all your claims in every thread is unfounded. So to an extent you are no different than Al Hanif because if he goes after other sects for straying from the 7th century version of Islam,

Only that his version of Islam is from the 19th century.

you go after all sects for not being too close to 21st century myths.

Except the fact the theories I propose were first advocated by Muslims centuries ago.

So you go on synthesizing a new outlook of Islam that burrows heavily from western mythologies.

except they originated from Al-Jahith, Al-Nazzam and their observations of nature.

There is no Islamic Scholar that backs up any of your claims in regard to evolution.

Al Jahith, Al Nazzam, Ibn Haytham, Al Biruni, Al-Zamakhshari

You have no references to their original work,

You're contradicting yourself; first you say I don't have any scholars backing up my claims; but then you admit that I do but I don't have their original works.

You're blindly throwing arrows, what else is new.

only what floats in the internet from other deluded fools. It is because of this that I suspect that you had your period of atheism.

Yeah because sources on the internet would logically = atheism.

You might think wriiting long responses means you have a credible more meritable response; but when broken down logically; you're ranting irrational banter.

After all, every atheist here calls himself nowadays an "atheist agonist".

So that must automatically mean that someone was an Atheist? False conclusion

I don't know for what reasons, but you switched over to "agnostic theism" and then rationalized your switch.

I think it's you who are trying to rationalize why someone isn't following things blindly like you are. so you invent this scenario in your head of what you want things to be like..

You did by compromising real tenants of Islam.

More like compromising YOUR dogma; I'm perfectly fine with the tenants of Islam that I follow.

Which is why you can so easily sympathize with atheists

I sympathize with logic; if people who have a more logical argument happen to be Atheist...should I reject it?

This is why your arguments are almost always nonsense; you look at status than content. NONE of your debates have been based on understanding evidence but your absurd opinions of the sources of evidence

Which is why your views are much closer to pantheistic naturalism than any other sect of Islam.

Pantheistic Naturalism? ....Isn't that what Ibn 'Arabi believed? Wahdat Al Wujud? I think Wahdat Al Wujud is an idea that is pretty pervasive amongst Muslims. However, I'm not a Pantheistic Naturalism.

Instead of using words YOU can't pronounce. Look up their correct meanings.

Since you seem deluded enough to think that Hitler was a god fearing man.

I said he believed in God, I never said God fearing; scroll up and find the quote.

When it is a known fact that Nationalist Socialism is completely irreconcilable with Christianty.

How so?

It's no mystery or conspiracy that the Soviets and Nazis put a lot of effort in suppressing Religion

Protestant Churhes in the Third Reich

“We demand the freedom of all religious denominations in the State insofar as they do not endanger its existence or violate the ethical and moral feelings of the Germanic race. The Party as such takes its stand on a positive Christianity but does not tie itself in the matter of confession to any particular denomination. It fights the spirit of Jewish materialism inside and outside ourselves and it is convinced that a lasting recovery of our nation can only come from within and on the basis of the principle that the common good comes before the selfish good.” ( Rhum von Oppen, 25)

Yeah clearly ......NOT

. Yet in your view their attitude was one of indifference.
This is a cause for alarm since you preach watershed version of humanism, attributed to your indoctrination and assimilation in philly, but never apply the same sort of criticism to zionists, nazis, soviets as you do to "taliban suicide bombers and whabbism".

That's because Nazis and Soviets are history; we're dealing with the now, Zionism is a face of European IMperialism; so no need to be redundant, notice that the only reason this subject of Nazis and soviets came up is because of Al Khaneeth trying to claim Extremists who perverse Islam are scott free.

Worse still, to an extent you actually defend the former and even promote their ideals subversively.

Subversively? Conspiracy Theory; take your tinfoil hat off.

You make such bold claims that most of the Quran is metaphorical. Isra and Miraj never happened.

Where have I said "most" of the Qur'an is metaphorical? MOST is a very big claim. Please supplement quotations

Or are you just INTERPOLATING and lying for dramatic effect?

Then ask questions that make the atheists put a feather in your cap - "Show me the Pillars that hold the skies that can't be seen? Show me the shooting stars that chase the devils!" ...Taken to its logical conclusion...why don't you just ask: Show me God?

Because the point was to emphasize that clearly these are Metaphoric statements. the Qur'an isn't literally saying the pillars hold up the Earth. because space does not have an absolute "up, down, left and light" this is all relative. There's no bottom of space.

As usual you interject to take things out of their context the argument here is that Qur'anic Literalism is not an absolute; but one taken in a case by case basis, likewise with Allegory.

Where as with Al Hanif the message is familiar, concise, and even predictable, it can easily be dissuaded.

Superficial, shallow, inaccurate, easily falsified, logically inconsistent, the list goes on.

But with you...its problematic because you mesh truth with false hood with such cunning

Sophistry and conspiracy theory.

that not many notices it that you do it.

Not even you do; hence why you tend to Straw Man the arguments and put your own spin on everything instead of the words of the arguments themselves.

Such as the way you label ulama a cartel,

Wahhabis are a cartel.

but then when pressed to show ijma on your own delusions you turn to that same "cartel" for backing

I don't turn to Wahhabis.

...still they are fabrications.

You just contradicted yourself

Not a surprise because you don't follow the cartal.

I follow anything which is in sync with reason.

You follow your whims

you think this way because yourself have ulterior motives behind your ideology push, and therefore naturally you would suspect others.

Sure Al hanif can easily be branded and recognized...but your's is a more dastard poison.

Yeah for the paranoid, mentally ill and deranged like yourself who always think something surreptitious is going on but just can't prove it.

heh

[ScimitarXEdge]

It's not offensive to my namous ....it's a pathetic demonstration of why exactly you are not nor ever will be a moral compass for Islam and Muslims.

You live in a world of smut stories; this is the stuff I see on the front pages of Tabloid Papers as I walk through a super market check out isle.

You're a total hypocrite is what I am saying; that while you go "hehe he said sex ..hehehe" like a deprived sexually conflicted wimp; you have no problem looking for sex stories on the internet of some other people's dirt?

Why should Muslims be concerned about torrid details about what happens with a bunch of infidels who we already know live a perverse way of life by their very foundations?

I didn't misunderstand Al Khaneeth at all ......I'm waiting for Al-Khaneeth to murder all the Moroccan tarts in France just as he promised.

He's full of sh*t , much like you ....you will never fight to liberate Afghanistan, you will forever happily collect welfare from Canada for the rest of your life. You know it, I know it, everyone knows it.

hahha the transvestite with a woman's hair cut is calling me sis? that's rich.

[ScimitarXEdge]

By the way for the record; I don't think badly of Moroccan women in general; I've been involved with a few Moroccan women in the past and I would never think ill of any of them.

Luckily they're strong Muslim women who would have no problem spitting in Al-Khaneeth's face. Which would explain why Al Khaneeth turned to Saudi Wahhabism as a refuge.

[Alchemist]

By the way for the record; I don't think badly of Moroccan women in general; I've been involved with a few Moroccan women in the past and I would never think ill of any of them.

Luckily they're strong Muslim women who would have no problem spitting in Al-Khaneeth's face. Which would explain why Al Khaneeth turned to Saudi Wahhabism as a refuge.

DId this buffoon just imply that he was involved with some moroccan prostitutes ...and only yesterday he asked al hanif to kill them?

Sick!

[ozymandias]

DId this buffoon just imply that he was involved with some moroccan prostitutes ...and only yesterday he asked al hanif to kill them?

Sick!

Do you think every woman in Morocco is a prostitute?

[Alchemist]

Do you think every woman in Morocco is a prostitute?

No, just the ones that get involved with men willy nilly ... same goes for women of all nationalities.

Problem?

[Tjanaparh]

Dear Alchemist what is the sense of taking everybody part in your personal problems with Scimitar? Weren't you friends? Can't you keep your differences on a more logical and less personal level?

[ozymandias]

No, just the ones that get involved with men willy nilly ... same goes for women of all nationalities.

Problem?

Ah. It's a language barrier. 'Involved' means many things. It is correct, in English, to state that you were 'involved' with a woman that you dated, or had a deep friendship with -- it does not require one to have sex in order to be 'involved' with someone. It is one possible definition, but not the only definition.

[Tjanaparh]

Ah. It's a language barrier. 'Involved' means many things. It is correct, in English, to state that you were 'involved' with a woman that you dated, or had a deep friendship with -- it does not require one to have sex in order to be 'involved' with someone. It is one possible definition, but not the only definition.

I think our dear Alchemist is aware of that!?!
But they have a kind of hatelove with Scimitar.

[Alchemist]

Ah. It's a language barrier. 'Involved' means many things. It is correct, in English, to state that you were 'involved' with a woman that you dated, or had a deep friendship with -- it does not require one to have sex in order to be 'involved' with someone. It is one possible definition, but not the only definition.

Language barrier?

LOL


Sex and dating are inextricably interlinked. The whole point of going on a date is to have sex somewhere down the line.

If he didn't have sex with them, then it means that his dates were failures. Rather, he has been a failure.

Isn't that how it goes in your culture? Or don't tell me - you are not even american.

[ozymandias]

Language barrier?

LOL


Sex and dating are inextricably interlinked. The whole point of going on a date is to have sex somewhere down the line.

This may be true -- but not every woman that dates is a prostitute.

If he didn't have sex with them, then it means that his dates were failures. Rather, he has been a failure.

Or successes. The whole point of dates is to identify someone you wish to spend the rest of your life with. If you cross a possibility off the list, that is a success, in a way. You are narrow minded if you think that dating is only a success if it involves sex.

Isn't that how it goes in your culture? Or don't tell me - you are not even american.

Oh, I am American -- and I have been very open about that, but your concept of dating appears very.... incorrect. Dating is not just about sex. There is much more to it than that. You may not want to get your views on American culture from reruns of the Jersey Shore.

[IamDZJ]

Alchemist's ego lays unconscious in a deep coma. He will do anything and everything to bring it back to life.

[ozymandias]

Alchemist's ego lays unconscious in a deep comma. He will do anything and everything to bring it back to life.

It's very interesting to see the straws he will grasp at. He is unwilling to admit he jumped the gun, and is now trying to redefine the entire concept of dating to justify his original slip-up.

[Alchemist]

Alchemist's ego lays unconscious in a deep coma. He will do anything and everything to bring it back to life.

LOL


"EGo lays unconsious in a deep coma"

LOL

LOL