No Muslim can think of profaning holy Prophet (PBUH): Altaf

There are 20 comments on the Jan 11, 2011, Daily Times story titled No Muslim can think of profaning holy Prophet (PBUH): Altaf. In it, Daily Times reports that:

'Even minorities living in Pakistan cannot blaspheme against the holy Prophet , hence I appeal to religious leaders of every shade of religious persuasion to stop their demonstrations after clear assurances from Prime Minister Yousaf Raza Gilani that no amendment is being made in the blasphemy law,' Altaf said while talking to an assembly of MQM ...

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Daily Times.

Since: May 12

Las Vegas, NV

#48539 Sep 29, 2013
Neville Thompson wrote:
<quoted text>
I was asked of our primary school education,after that comes secondary school followed by university .
I feel as though I am very old in body but young in mind .
..whew..!!...(I thought I was trading online correspondence with a minor )......They ,could take me to jail for that ..!

I'm "much" too pretty , to be locked up with men ..!!

“FREEDOM OF MIND & SOUL-”

Since: Apr 10

MILKY WAY

#48540 Sep 29, 2013
Dragnet52 to Papa Dragnet52 : Baapu Ek cykil kharid dou !
Dragnet52 : Bachchey teri lully teri gaad tak pahunchti haey ?

Dragnet52: Nahi baapu.
Papa Dragnet52: Jab panhuchney laggey tab ana , jawab dunga !

Dragnet52 tries all possible exercises----tying brick in lully etc etc.....and one fine morning achieves the target ! He goes to Papa Dragnet52 and

Dragnet52: Baapu meri lully patli zarur hou gai haey paar aab meri gaand taak pahunchti haey !Aab tou cykil kharid dou !

Papa Dragnet52: Bhosrdi K jaab teri lully teri gaand taak panhuchti haey tou apni gaand maar nA, meri gaand ke pichhey kyon parda haey ?

PS: Oos din sey Dragnet52 apni gaand khud marta haey !
Roger wrote:
<quoted text>Maybe you need to understand why muslims have such an obsession with homosexuality. Islam and homosexuality go together like choli daman. In fact lifting of butts during namaaz reminds us of gaandmasti which is so prevalent in islamic societies.
Now in pakistan gay sex is rampant. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/23811826
Pakistan tops the list of countries that searches for gay porn. Seem like muslim men cannot keep their hands off from the gaands of other men LMAO.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-23422...

“FREEDOM OF MIND & SOUL-”

Since: Apr 10

MILKY WAY

#48541 Sep 29, 2013
WORLD NEWS is that Hindus have the smallest penises in the world. And we know that Gora jhooth nahin bolta and this means if you guys even tried that shit of getting your lullies sliced even by a centimeter, lully gayab aur Choot hazir !

aaj Hindu toe haath faila ke bheekh maangta hei kal pant khol ke mange-ga !ha...ha..ha
Neville Thompson wrote:
<quoted text>
Why don't you ask me if I am a Hindu before declaring me to be or is that beyond your scope of idiotic doctrine ?

“FREEDOM OF MIND & SOUL-”

Since: Apr 10

MILKY WAY

#48542 Sep 29, 2013
Dragnet...subah subah phir John kE tatti ka breakfast kia haey nA? isiliey teri post se itni boo aa rahi haey !

Ganda, jahil kutta....ja kar saharanpur mandir mein apney bachchey khoj.........janjirO mein jakrdey motu-petu pandit sE gaand marawa rahey hein !
Roger wrote:
<quoted text>Madarchod John, everyone knows that you are gutless and spineless eunuch. Haji Kaji rightly called you a lady boy and no matter in what avatar you come as vedic rationalist, imi2000, irfan, voice of india and thousands of fake chaddis you give the same stink of a loser. Your complaints against dragnet never changes... such a sore loser you are forever complaining as to why the creator made dragnet so brilliant and you such a pathetic specimen of mankind. Of course you will again come up with the same complaints since losers like you never learn even after being stomped under jackboots.
harminder

Mumbai, India

#48544 Sep 29, 2013
…the shariat court will now ask the accusing saudi muslim to “PRODUCE 4 MALE WITNESSES TO PROVE THE SHEEP RAPE”

heh heh heh

heh heh heh

sheep fcking muslims sheep fcking muslims

“The True Comrade.”

Since: Apr 11

Around.

#48545 Sep 29, 2013
First it was the size of Penis that made Indian men famous for wrong reason worldwide.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/6161691.stm

Then slowly but steadily nation came together and wove a theory that big penises are bad for health and found solace in miki diks. Now another news has emerged that puts Indian men in further bad light and I wonder how they re going to shake this away?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asi...

No sex please, we're Indian: survey finds men in the sub-continent have fewest partners

Indian men have less sex than men from any other country around the world, according to a survey for Men's Health magazine.

The magazine surveyed more than 50,000 respondents from more than 30 countries to compare sexual attitudes and practices and found that Indian men and women have sex less frequently and with fewer partners throughout their lives.

According to the survey, Indian men have sex less than once a week on average, and have only three sexual partners in their lifetime. Indian women have only two sexual partners – seven fewer than British, American and Australian women who jointly topped the table with nine.

Men's Health India's managing editor Bobby Varkey said many Indians do not have enough privacy to have sex as often as they might want to because the live in noisy "joint family" homes with their parents and adult siblings. The taboo against sex outside marriage may also explain the finding.
He said sexual frustration among men could be a factor in the recent rise in sexual assaults on women, but he believes frustration is less common now than in recent years.

The survey was based on questionnaire replies from correspondents around the world between April and August this year. Indians were the third largest respondent group and revealed unexpected findings

Despite the value Indians attach to chastity and modesty, Indian women were six times more likely to "make love" in the back of a taxi than American women, the survey found.

It also found that 32 per cent of Indian men shave their lower body hair and that 77 per cent of women prefer them to do so.

Mr Varkey said he believed the contrast between the infrequency with which Indians have sex, and the relatively high number of Indian women 'making out' in public was again explained by the inhibiting circumstances of Indian home life.

The magazine's findings were challenged however by leading Indian women's rights campaigner Dr Ranjana Kumari of the Centre for Social Research. She said 95 per cent of Indians have arranged marriages and that 50 per cent of them are married by the time they are 18 years old.

"Sexual access is very much there for men," she said. Most Indians no longer live in "joint-family" households. "I would insist on to generalise that India is a frustrated [sexual] culture. Rape isn't about sex but about men who think they can control women and instill fear in them," she said.
Vedic Rationalist

New Delhi, India

#48546 Sep 29, 2013
Dragnet52 wrote:
<quoted text>1}You are leveling unsubstantiated allegations against me. Your main grouse against me is that I presented my views as gospel truths without anything to support them. It is true that I expressed my views in a very emphatic manner, but somehow you took that as an affront to your rational instincts and that made you adopt a very confrontational approach.
Your confrontational approach hardened our respective stands and thus narrowed the discussion into a very narrow channel
where the only thing that mattered was proof. It's not that proof is not important, but in addition to that there could have been a more meaningful and enriching exchange of ideas not driven by a need for one-upmanship.
Lastly, as far as proofs were concerned your whole approach was wrong. We are dealing with subjective experiences and to insist that these subjective experiences have to be validated by objective, observable proofs is itself an irrational demand. In any case, you never clarified as to what kind of proofs you needed. The proofs that you are demanding must be proper to the domain of the subject matter that we are dealing with.
Yes to all that.
Hence it's your responsibility to throw light on the kind of proofs that you want, you cannot be ambiguous about that.
NO, you present a theory, onus is on you to prove it. What type of prove- is your prerogative (and not my responsibility AT ALL).

You are being absurd. You claim you have had YOUR subjective experiences, and that I can not know of them unless I experience them, but you want me to be specific about the kind of proof I want? The subject matter is a black box, and YOU only (claim to) know what is inside, and you want me to ask the exact questions, only then you'll answer?
2)Just because neti neti is explained in vedic texts, that doesn't absolve you of the need to prove it. I could say the same thing about my own convictions and experiences and can give references from various texts and experiences of great personalities.
SOURCE of logic/information is not relevant. The source is only important if you want to decide if going into a (tedious) subject is going to be worth it. Or you cant.

Elimination techniques are a logical exercise. And the manual/ instructions to do neti neti on the self {to test for location,(and also other attributes of self)} are clear, easily available online. You just do them, to get the result/understand. Note I refrain from using term "subjective experience", for thoughts and emotions are also subjective experiences. Doing math/logic is a subjective experience. Also the exhilaration experienced when you understand something (profound or earthy). Nothing special about it

Na iti Na iti. Quite simple if you translate the simple sanskrit. Na = Not, Iti = here. Not here, Not here, then where? Place/s leftover of course. So it a simple logical tool.

NA-ITI NA-ITI TECHNIQUE
==========
Before answering WHY am I?, WHAT am I? etc Answer simpler question WHERE AM I?. But to help you do that you change question to WHERE AM I NOT?(Elimination logic)
Am I in the tree in front?. Am I in the floor below? Am I in my foot? Am I in my stomach? Am I in my chest? Neck? Am I in my nose, ears? Am I in the sky above? Am I in my hair or my scalp?

All answers are easy,all answers are NO. SO where is left? That is where you are!
3)Instead of "subjective realms" would "subjective world" or "subjective universe" make it less of a jargon."
NO
4)can't remember where you provided proof....there is a lot of fog surrounding the very nature of proof. We have yet to reach a consensus on what constitutes a credible proof and hence I find this claim of yours as jumping the gun.
Go reread if u cant remember

Read the laws of constant proportions & multiple proportions. Then deduce FROM THEM ALONE, that as long as these rules hold, there MUST be an unbreakable Atom. PROOF
Vedic Rationalist

New Delhi, India

#48548 Sep 30, 2013
Vedic Rationalist wrote:
But the reasons for religion (both its need and its proliferation) will only cease to exist if WE change, raise our intellect enough to :-

1. realize the real source of morals (reasons for being good ie not doing bad) is not a punishing god, but REASON;- simply that certain (bad) behavior, is harmful to us and society, renders society not peaceful, not progressive, not happy. Like violence to resolve disagreements, or inequality, curbing free speech, incest, noncleanliness. Some brighter minds (of their time) realized this, and made up religions or ways of living. To enforce, they used what ever they thought will work, god (one, many), ghosts, sprits sons and messengers of gods. If a prophet be born today, he must appeal to those not prone to believings, he must give reasons why/how certain behavior effects individual and society badly, and thus be- not allowed, reasons to exercise self restraint.

2. realize the weaknesses in us humans, our bad emotions, anger, our greed, our ego, and our weak minds with limited intellect and memories, and loss of mental plasticity that enables another to indoctrinate us, control us (for his greed/power and or HOLD US TO BE GOOD). As long as these weakness remain, religion will proliferate, and also be necessary for man.
number four wrote:
Reason ..then, reason isn't really working
Why study physics? Reason:- cause it tries to gives reasons for the physical. Reason itself can be a reason for doing something. We have reason to do a religion that depends on reason rather than belief, faith, god... Reason is more reasonable than belief, in the age of reason. Ppl have no reason to accept a reasonless god.

Hence the reason for reason.
..greed, war concupiscence, use of illicit chemicals, destruction of the bio-sphere ....Actually seem to be on the rise ...
without religion; does not life become meaningless, I suspect when belief of God wanes, our social ills will increase...
Gradual change. Substituting reason for god for the source of morals. Is all that can be done. If humanity is capable of such intellect, then it will work. Indications are it will. But future is all just a probability. We need to focus on rational civics that shows the effects of various behavior, giving illustrations how certain behavior is harmful for others and self too. If ppl see how stealing / rape works out as a net loss/harm for oneself eventually, then they have incentive/reason not to steal/rape. The effect of good laws needs to be illustrated to children in civics class. Of course we need to formally study them first.
How is ...."denying the existence of God"....any different from ..."knowing there is no God"...
It seems the difference is so minimal , that it doesn't even effect the equation...
Belief has no support and knowing requires supporting logic/evidence. You can deny or accept anything arbitrarily. If you later seek proof, it is an assumption. If you do not, it becomes belief.

Out imaginings may not be the truth, it is a single guess out of many possible answers.
Eg- If you have to guess which store has a product u want 2 buy, you can guess one store, and go there. If they dont have it, then you guess and try another store, so on till you find it. You may be lucky on the first try, or not at all.
But you might call first all the stores, and the ones that say they got it, you can go there. Saves time.{But the store representative might have told you wrong, lied to increase foot falls! So information can be wrong.} But it is always worth it to call first, get supporting evidence.

If store does not have a phone, like Dragnet52's store (of objective experiences), then you have to take the word of someone whose been there. And he may be lying/wrong too.

From long human experience, we know that knowing is far more beneficial than believing.

Without belief, life is actually better, more meaningful, satisfying..

“Free Speech in a Free World ”

Since: May 10

AUSTRALIAN

#48549 Sep 30, 2013
number four wrote:
<quoted text>..whew..!!...(I thought I was trading online correspondence with a minor )......They ,could take me to jail for that ..!
I'm "much" too pretty , to be locked up with men ..!!
How pretty ?

“Free Speech in a Free World ”

Since: May 10

AUSTRALIAN

#48550 Sep 30, 2013
HAJl KAJI wrote:
WORLD NEWS is that Hindus have the smallest penises in the world. And we know that Gora jhooth nahin bolta and this means if you guys even tried that shit of getting your lullies sliced even by a centimeter, lully gayab aur Choot hazir !
aaj Hindu toe haath faila ke bheekh maangta hei kal pant khol ke mange-ga !ha...ha..ha
<quoted text>
What length in inches are they ?
Vedic Rationalist

New Delhi, India

#48551 Sep 30, 2013
Some reasons are more reasonable than others. So we have a reason to discern for the more reasonable reasons, in this age of (plentiful) reason.

Even believers are in on it, trying to give reasons WHY(how) their reasonless belief in god is reasonable.

They reason,- that looking for reason itself is unreasonable.

But of course one should be discerning, too many reasons floating about like bait, to see if you'll bite.
Vedic Rationalist

Delhi, India

#48552 Sep 30, 2013
2nd iteration-

In this age of reason people have no reason to accept a reasonless god. For everything- they want reason. Hence the reason for a religion/system based on reason.(reason for reason)

Since: Sep 11

Location hidden

#48553 Sep 30, 2013
Vedic Rationalist wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes to all that.
<quoted text>
1)NO, you present a theory, onus is on you to prove it. What type of prove- is your prerogative (and not my responsibility AT ALL).
You are being absurd. You claim you have had YOUR subjective experiences, and that I can not know of them unless I experience them, but you want me to be specific about the kind of proof I want? The subject matter is a black box, and YOU only (claim to) know what is inside, and you want me to ask the exact questions, only then you'll answer?

2)SOURCE of logic/information is not relevant. The source is only important if you want to decide if going into a (tedious) subject is going to be worth it. Or you cant.
Elimination techniques are a logical exercise. And the manual/ instructions to do neti neti on the self {to test for location,(and also other attributes of self)} are clear, easily available online. You just do them, to get the result/understand. Note I refrain from using term "subjective experience", for thoughts and emotions are also subjective experiences. Doing math/logic is a subjective experience. Also the exhilaration experienced when you understand something (profound or earthy). Nothing special about it
Na iti Na iti. Quite simple if you translate the simple sanskrit. Na = Not, Iti = here. Not here, Not here, then where? Place/s leftover of course. So it a simple logical tool.
NA-ITI NA-ITI TECHNIQUE
==========
Before answering WHY am I?, WHAT am I? etc Answer simpler question WHERE AM I?. But to help you do that you change question to WHERE AM I NOT?(Elimination logic)
Am I in the tree in front?. Am I in the floor below? Am I in my foot? Am I in my stomach? Am I in my chest? Neck? Am I in my nose, ears? Am I in the sky above? Am I in my hair or my scalp?
All answers are easy,all answers are NO. SO where is left? That is where you are!
NO

3)Go reread if u cant remember
Read the laws of constant proportions & multiple proportions. Then deduce FROM THEM ALONE, that as long as these rules hold, there MUST be an unbreakable Atom. PROOF
1)If you don't know how an apple looks like, then how are you going to know that you are being presented with an apple if someone presents you one? You must have a clear idea of what kind of proof you want, or what you deem as a credible proof. In my line of subjective experiences, it's not logical deduction but aspiration or deep yearning that brings about those experiences. There has to be a deep yearning or aspiration for more light, knowledge, peace, tranquility, beauty, harmony. It is that aspiration that brings an opening in our nature for higher experiences to unfold.

2)I tried the neti neti stuff long back and it landed me in a no man's land where my static and powerless witness consciousness watched over the blind workings of nature. Yes, it has certain positive ethical and moral consequences. According to the dualist school of philosophy it is the self that gives sanction to the workings of nature. To that extent neti neti principle is good in withdrawing the self back to its own pristine awareness and thus withdrawing the sanction to our blind impulses, instincts and routine unconscious habits of our nature. But from a larger spiritual angle, neti neti principle is a negationist approach that leads you to the conclusion that the world of phenomena is an illusion having no concreteness of its own.

3)When I said, "Can't remember," it was a polite way of saying that you didn't present any proof. In any case I will be happy to be proven wrong.
Vedic Rationalist

Delhi, India

#48554 Sep 30, 2013
harminder wrote:
…the shariat court will now ask the accusing saudi muslim to “PRODUCE 4 MALE WITNESSES TO PROVE THE SHEEP RAPE”
So if there is video evidence of rape, but no 4 muslims, the woman still goes to jail under sharia law!

So now a bad muslim man can easily rape ALL THE WOMEN he wants in a roomful of people; if all the male witnesses present are christians, hindus buddhists...and sharia law will only punish the woman if they complained?

Gala time for the Sheiks of Saud, in an Expat's party!

Since: Sep 11

Location hidden

#48555 Sep 30, 2013
Vedic Rationalist wrote:
Some reasons are more reasonable than others. So we have a reason to discern for the more reasonable reasons, in this age of (plentiful) reason.
Even believers are in on it, trying to give reasons WHY(how) their reasonless belief in god is reasonable.
They reason,- that looking for reason itself is unreasonable.
But of course one should be discerning, too many reasons floating about like bait, to see if you'll bite.
You are pretty confusing, though I'm not impolite like you to dismiss them as jargon. As far as religion and spirituality is concerned, it's credibility that matters. In religious parlance the only thing that can be credible or reasonable is the promise of direct experience. You are not asked to believe unless you experience it for yourself.
Dak-Original

Mitcham, UK

#48556 Sep 30, 2013
HAJl KAJI wrote:
WORLD NEWS is that Hindus have the smallest penises in the world. And we know that Gora jhooth nahin bolta and this means if you guys even tried that shit of getting your lullies sliced even by a centimeter, lully gayab aur Choot hazir !
aaj Hindu toe haath faila ke bheekh maangta hei kal pant khol ke mange-ga !ha...ha..ha
<quoted text>
Chuddi in HK's grab still continues to peddle a lie that a penis grows if you change your religion! LOL!

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#48557 Sep 30, 2013
Dak-Original wrote:
<quoted text>
Chuddi in HK's grab still continues to peddle a lie that a penis grows if you change your religion! LOL!
Do you think yours is within normal range?
Vedic Rationalist

New Delhi, India

#48558 Sep 30, 2013
Dragnet52 wrote:
<quoted text>
1)If you don't know how an apple looks like, then how are you going to know that you are being presented with an apple if someone presents you one?
How does a child know of apples? How do we know of anything?
You must have a clear idea of what kind of proof you want, or what you deem as a credible proof.
In math class, if a student asks for proof (why/how) for a step, does teacher ask back, "what kind of proof do you want, tell me or I wont tell you!! Sounds like a teacher who does not know the answer and is trying to turn things around on the inquiring (pesky?) student, to evade the question.
In my line of subjective experiences, it's not logical deduction but aspiration or deep yearning that brings about those experiences. There has to be a deep yearning or aspiration for more light, knowledge, peace, tranquility, beauty, harmony. It is that aspiration that brings an opening in our nature for higher experiences to unfold.
You have a thing for all the "higher experiences". An instruction manual would really help. Like do I climb a high mountain? Or a trip to space on Virgin Galactic would be higher.

Neti Neti is sort of a subjective experience. But comes with a manual of instructions. How about you come up with your own manual?

Is math a subjective experience? If so, lower or higher?
2)I tried the neti neti stuff long back and it landed me in a no man's land where my static and powerless witness consciousness watched over the blind workings of nature.
Your watchings and witnessings were outside of neti neti. Extra.

One should try keep things as simple and isolated as possible while learning new things.(Read about Properties of gases- Charles Law, Boyles law...how other factors are kept constant while studying the relation between one chosen pair of parameters)
Yes, it has certain positive ethical and moral consequences.
No, it does not. It has very exact result, and only that much, no more no less. You do it when you start off with the subject of "self", when you start studying the self. You want to know its attributes and properties, static and then behavioral- its response to controlled stimulus...

Same as a child learns of an apple, she sees its color, touches it, pushes it to see it roll, licks it, bites it. New funny smell/taste, ewewww, no wait, sweet.

The physical world is new to the child. If the mental world is new to you, be a child.
According to the dualist school of philosophy it is the self that gives sanction to the workings of nature.
NO
To that extent neti neti principle is good in withdrawing the self back to its own pristine awareness and thus withdrawing the sanction to our blind impulses, instincts and routine unconscious habits of our nature.
Again. That is not neti neti per se. That is just calming the mind. Other techniques for that. It has an exact purpose, exact method, and exact result. You must have ended up doing other things along with, so felt other effects. Just sitting peacefully and calmly for a while can make you a PASSIVE WITNESS to the physical outside.
But from a larger spiritual angle, neti neti principle is a negationist approach that leads you to the conclusion that the world of phenomena is an illusion having no concreteness of its own.
NO IT DOES NO SUCH THING. It is elimination. It is not "negationist approach" what ever that is, more senseless HiFi jargon.
3)When I said, "Can't remember," it was a polite way of saying that you didn't present any proof. In any case I will be happy to be proven wrong.
And I asked you to go reread. Any support has been debunked, conjectures and personal experiences- remain.
Vedic Rationalist

New Delhi, India

#48559 Sep 30, 2013
Dragnet52 wrote:
<quoted text>You are pretty confusing, though I'm not impolite like you to dismiss them as jargon. As far as religion and spirituality is concerned, it's credibility that matters. In religious parlance the only thing that can be credible or reasonable is the promise of direct experience. You are not asked to believe unless you experience it for yourself.
Muslims belief in afterlife and day of judgement. So do all believing muslims kill themselves, and experience the real thing, before they believe?

NO. They just believe, take it on faith. Cause someone told them so. The credibility of afterlife for them is out of their trust in mohammad, and those who wrote Quran, hoping it is accurate with mohammad.

If someone took you on faith, and just believed all you are saying is truth, and that you are not lying, or were not hallucinating,- then that is a start of a religion with you as its progenitor-prophet. You provide support. logical, evidence, show repeatablity, and you got a new subject for science.
Vedic Rationalist

New Delhi, India

#48560 Sep 30, 2013
http://www. modernrationalist. com/2010/july/page13. html
(remove spaces)

THE MODERN RATIONALIST
Founder : THANTHAI PERIYAR
THE GODS CAME AFTERWARDS
Subodh varma

One of the most abiding perceptions about India is that it is a land of uncritical beliefs steeped in monolithic ancient wisdom cemented by unchanging social practices. Westerners, mainly British colonialists, have largely contributed to this image though some rationalists added to it, seizing upon a fabled past to fight the intruders. Modern-day revivalists, too, have used this image for theocratic ambitions.

But the truth - confirmed by historical evidence - is that since the time of the Vedas there has been a strong tradition of philosophic speculation, scepticism and even rejection of dominant philosophies in favour of heterodox thought. India has for long been the philosophical equivalent of a bazaar - with its noise and chaos, heated arguments and hair-spliting - of shifting moods and tempers. And among them was the first-ever materialist philosophical system that the world has known.

To trace the history of Indian materialism, we have to go back to the pastoral Vedic society and its thought processes. Rig Veda, the oldest existing canonical work on earth and the mainstay of Hindu philosophy, contains an astonishing brand of free speculation:

Who really knows? Who will here proclaim it?

Whence was it produced? Whence is this creation?

The gods came afterwards, with the creation of this universe.

Who then knows whence it has arisen?

Whence this creation has arisen - perhaps it has formed itself, or perhaps it did not

The once who looks down on it, in the highest heaven,

Only he knows - or perhaps he does not know.

That’s from the celebrated ‘Creation Hymn’(Nasadiya Sukta) in the tench chapter of the Rig Veda. The sages are speculating about the most fundamental question of philosophy - how did the universe originate? They are even willing to say that the gods came afterwards and that even the all-pervading spirit may or may not know the answer. And, remember, this is roughly 1400 BCE.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Islam Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Poll It's NOT up to you fools anymore. WE are NOW ca... (Jun '11) 2 min tom_ 176
News Islam Will Conquer Italy and the Entire West (Sep '10) 3 min Egyptian Lad 432,859
News Who Is Allah? (Aug '07) 3 min bmz 217,389
No Muslims died in Nepal EARTHQUAKE _ MIRACLE !... 30 min Kagitapus 41
Calif Abu Baghdadi ALIVE AND WELL --... 33 min Egyptian Lad 45
Packing for my trip to Hell. 36 min You Know Who 4
barbaric !!! 42 min Egyptian Lad 3
DY: Mikey is a chicken; Polaris goat 1 hr Urban _ Legend 51
Why did Mohammed have sex with little girl? 2 hr harminder 29
More from around the web