This blog have moved to FFTsys's domain. Newer posts will appear on the new URL of the blog. Thanks for visiting.

Monday, March 8, 2010

Absolute Belief, The Truth about Religions


Non-religious concepts

Most people get a religion after their birth for completely free. Children are taught things by their parents or other people, resources from their environment. They are obviously diverted to a religion. Most religions have a base book or books which is also called divine book of that religion. The followers of those religions believe their books after all.

There are thousands of religions in this world. Check the following link for detailed list on religions.
     http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_religions

Different people have different religions. Majors are Christian, Islam etc. The followers think that their religion is the ultimate truth to life. For example, Christians think that their bible is the only true thing in the world, same goes for Quran of Muslims. Same happens for other religions. They claim that their individual books are from the God. For example a muslim (follower of Islam) will think that only Islam and Quran is the truth. Same might think the Christian. All believers of other religions also claim the same thing of their own.

So are all religions true? Christians know that only their bible and the religion is true and all others like Quran and other religions are wrong because one religion comes from God and not all religions are true. Same way thinks Muslims that their book Quran is true and all others false! Respectively other people believe their own religion and deny others.

Let’s dig a little bit deeper. There is only one God. Then one religion that he had created for human being should be the absolute truth.

Is there only one religion in the universe? I think no. And every follower of every religion claims for their God in own ways and says that their book is truth.

Hence neither a religion is true nor its books.
God didn’t create religions. He didn’t create divisions on the mankind. All religions are self-claimed and therefore completely false.

It’s a general statement. There are thousands of proofs against every divine book that each is wrong! No book ever came from God! Why don’t give a try? Search with keywords contradictions in quran, contradictions in bible etc using a search engine.

Polytheism
Monotheists, how do you deny polytheism?

     1. As you are theist you believe in God. But you didn’t see him all alone. Right?
    2. Monotheist people generally would say if there were multiple God/Goddess or deities they’d have ruined the entire world to take the possession. Universe could never run in such harmony!

     How do you know that Gods or those heavenly existences would fight each other. Gods are the wisest and prudent ever. They can obviously be in harmony of power!

If you believe monotheism you are admitting polytheism with tacit approval.


Not a conclusion really
  • Thousand lies to protect one lie. That’s what religion is! And lie is poison. If you see the destruction/conflicts occurred by religious groups, if you look at the history you’d be astonished!

  • Children shouldn’t be taught religions. Teach them the right thing not bogus religions. It doesn’t require mess of religions to understand what right is and what wrong is!

  • Stand for mankind not for religion.

  • The modern world is adopting Secularism where religions will have no effects on administration or politics. I hope you know how badly affected the civilization is by the religion politics.

  • Here is a statistics of beliefs followed by people. People are coming out to light from darkness. The graph shows an improvement.



Image source [Click image to enlarge]

46 comments:

  1. u should provide more information

    ReplyDelete
  2. Tell me what kind of information I should provide. It will be highly appreciated.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Religion is simply a believe which will help when you are in trouble by something that is not avoidable.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Just diggin' with the conclusions...

    1. If you see the destruction/conflicts occurred by religious groups,

    if you look at the history you’d be astonished!
    True. But who is/are to be blamed for these conficts? The people? The

    religion? Or even the God?? It's the people who can't think

    rationally/logically and hence produce conflicts among views and

    actions. God didn't prescribe any religion which has conflicts.

    2. It doesn’t require mess of religions to understand what right is and

    what wrong is!
    Might be somewhat true. But, people still won't choose to do the right.

    They would always run for evil. Then, how would you come up with a way

    to establish the right and prevent the wrong? Wait, you don't need to

    take time to think about it. Religion already provides these

    guidelines...

    3. Stand for mankind not for religion.
    Religion IS for mankind. It never goes against mankind. It's the

    mankind who uses religion for satisfying their selfish needs. The blame

    is to be given not to religion, rather to those selfish people.

    4. I hope you know how badly affected the civilization is by the

    religion politics.
    Again, religion is not to be blamed for it, rather the people should

    be.

    Conclusion from these?
    If two people quarrel and kill one-another over the ownership of a car,

    is the car to be blamed for the mess or those two people?? Religion is

    not a problem. It is people who causes it to appear like a problem...

    The other objections mentioned in the post are too easy to refute. Only

    some logical analitical ability is needed to do so...

    ReplyDelete
  5. waiting for more on this topic...

    ReplyDelete
  6. we need god when we are in trouble. We believe in religion when we need to Neglect people of other religion.
    We bribe the god by praying (something like giving TEL(oil)) to get advantages in real life or life after death(!!!).

    ReplyDelete
  7. "we need god when we are in trouble. We believe in religion when we need to Neglect people of other religion."
    That's exactly what I was talking about: the people are the selfish one - when they're in trouble, they need god; when they're fine, they just leave him; when they need to neglect people of other religion, they start believing in one. Does any religion teach these???

    "We bribe the god by praying (something like giving TEL(oil)) to get advantages in real life or life after death(!!!)."
    Yeah - from people's point of view. God is such a fool that he can't even understand that the people (whom He created) are 'bribing' Him to get advantages!!! He doesn't even care if we don't do what He wants us to do. He needn't care whether we get advantages or are deprived of advantages. He just prescribed religion for our own good....

    ReplyDelete
  8. @Sharafat: I don't know how to appreciate your long mail. But thanks for your patience. You mentioned your opinions. I'll mention mine.

    >who is/are to be blamed for these conficts? The people? The religion? Or even the God??

    Obviously not the people and not you are responsible for it. The imposters of religions are completely liable for this. They made thousand lies to protect one lie. We inherit religion from our ancestors. Do we ever think if everything is true? Do we ever think that said things might be wrong? Do we ever negotiate with followers of other religions considering the possibility that their beliefs might be true which in terms invalidates our beliefs? Do we ever think all infidels out of our religion would go to religion-made hell just because of no reason? God made the decision of giving birth to them in a different religion as desired. So do they deserve hell really?

    >It's the people who can't think rationally/logically and hence produce conflicts among views and actions.

    How will people be able to think? They poisons of religions are seeded from the very childhood of religious people.

    Forget about the people. Can you think?

    God didn't prescribe any religion which has conflicts.

    You are right. This is what invalidates all religions because all religions have conflicts. You don't know because you never tried to find it out.

    >But, people still won't choose to do the right. They would always run for evil.

    Could ever any religion prevent people from doing wrong? How could they? Even they themselves are not right. Do some research. It's not hard to find out among thousands of errors and inconsistencies in major religions.

    Don't say that sometimes it works. Who cares for this sometimes beneficial religions!

    > Religion IS for mankind. It never goes against mankind. It's the mankind who uses religion for satisfying their selfish needs. The blame is to be given not to religion, rather to those elfish people.

    Religions failed again! Using enough faults lying inbetween religions this is made happened. Do you know the suicide bombers take the oath straight from Quran. But it's a different point of view. If you were born in that culture you'd have believed same way. But now you're not coz you are not going to bomb some people tongiht. A religion is so fragile? Then what good will it bring? What Shiya, Sunni dividends? What about differentiated cultures on women?

    Just curiosity, did you see a documentary named "Inside the Koran"? It will help you to have some of the insights.

    Before you cannot think neutrally you'll be puzzled by religious errors and keep cycling. So try to think neutral first. What if you were not provided any religion from your birth? Then which religion would had been true to you?

    > If two people quarrel and kill one-another over the ownership of a car, is the car to be blamed for the mess or those two people??

    Does people believe the car more than their ilfe unless religion is involved? If they feel like the order is from their Boss and that came straight from Allah they will not mess with the car but anything definitely? Then who is responsible?

    > The other objections mentioned in the post are too easy to refute.

    You said "it's the people who can't think rationally/logically and hence produce conflicts among views and actions."

    You should think rationally first. You'll understand how much true they are; not comparable with just religious beliefs.

    ReplyDelete
  9. "Do we ever think if everything is true? Do we ever think that said things might be wrong? Do we ever negotiate with followers of other religions considering the possibility that their beliefs might be true which in terms invalidates our beliefs?"
    Answer to all the above questions: at least I did, even if we ignore the fact that millions of people before me did. I asked myself exactly the same question - is everything I hear about religion true? And behold! Throughout years of research, I found out the truth - not all I "hear" about MY religion are true due to people's ignorance while speaking. But, what I came to find out - all I read in the original texts of MY religion are indeed true and contradiction-free.

    "Do we ever think all infidels out of our religion would go to religion-made hell just because of no reason? God made the decision of giving birth to them in a different religion as desired. So do they deserve hell really?"
    Nope. They never deserve hell just because of God's decision. God made human the best of creations. Why? Because he gave him something called 'brain' to think logically. So, it is up to you whether you'd use it to find out the right thing. Whether you born in a Muslim or Christian or Hindu or Atheist family, you must think whether what you're learning is the right thing. If you don't use your brain to know the right thing and consequently follow the wrong path, shouldn't you deserve punishment?

    "How will people be able to think? The poisons of religions are seeded from the very childhood of religious people."
    Again, this is people's fault, not religion's.

    "Forget about the people. Can you think?"
    At least I try to.

    "God didn't prescribe any religion which has conflicts.
    You are right. This is what invalidates all religions because all religions have conflicts. You don't know because you never tried to find it out."
    False. Rather I tried my best to find out. The result? At least I didn't find any contradiction in the Quraan and the authentic Prophetic traditions. If you've found one, you're welcome to mention it. :)

    "Could ever any religion prevent people from doing wrong?"
    Yeah. During the life of the Prophet Muhammad (may peace be upon him), Islaam prevented people from doing wrong. You can read any history book mentioning that period for details. It's only one example.

    "If you were born in that culture you'd have believed same way. But now you're not coz you are not going to bomb some people tongiht."
    Wrong. Rather I'm not coz I KNOW the right thing from the very religious texts.

    "What Shiya, Sunni dividends? What about differentiated cultures on women?"
    Again, these are not religion's fault, rather people's. What about contradictions among the scientists about a scientific issue?? You must provide valid proof to justify you're the correct one. Same is true in the above mentioned cases. However, as people are blind and emotional, they don't want to accept proofs. That's why the contradictory views persist. Again, that's not religion's problem.

    "What if you were not provided any religion from your birth? Then which religion would had been true to you?"
    According to what I've mentioned before, I was a Muslim by birth before; now I'm a Muslim by choice.

    "If they feel like the order is from their Boss and that came straight from Allah they will not mess with the car but anything definitely? Then who is responsible?"
    The people is responsible. Why would they 'feel' that the order is from their boss? Rather they should 'verify' that the order is indeed from their boss and only then act accordingly. And it's certain that the boss won't order them something wrong to do, isn't it?

    ReplyDelete
  10. @Sreezin: If you want to just believe things for things there are many ideas and forms of things that actually work when you are in a challenging situation.

    Religion kills much of your insights by showing wrong fear and superstition.

    Is the world flat still now?

    ReplyDelete
  11. So you and your 21% find yourselves really brainy!! And others are all ignorant!! :D

    You have been grown up in islamic environment and you grown up as strict follower of Islam!! I know you'd have been same way follower of christian if you were born in christian environment.

    If you were following Christian(or any other religion) strictly still being born in Muslim it might convinced me! But now you are dumb fool follower underestimating others!

    You are overestimating your brain. What about the people who are inborn less merited? Are they not so called "Ashraful Makhlukhat"? The people who are more intelligent than you, do they make you inferior creation? If a beast; which you call beast for example chimpanzees get a better brain than the dumb human being. Then is that a better creation? Possibly "Ashraful Makhlukhat"!

    I'm not really convinced. And I'm not amazed by your research result! There are so many errors and inconsistencies, you find out none!

    Islam was kind of suitable for primitive times. It's completely worn out!

    You are saying something about original text. What did Allah say in Quran?

    Allah says: [We have revealed the Reminder and We have taken upon ourselves the duty of preserving it intact] (Al-Hijr 15:9).

    So don't make us fool telling about your authenticity.

    Don't keep yourself blind. Open your eyes.

    And just don't decline seeing the links.. Research them please and do in amazing way. Remember only one error found in Quran invalidates the whole Quran. And trust there is not one!

    http://www.faithfreedom.org/Articles/SKM/contradictions.htm
    http://www.chick.com/information/religions/islam/errors2.asp
    http://mukto-mona.com/wordpress/?p=54

    If you want use google to find more and use your quran to match them.

    ReplyDelete
  12. "If you were following Christian(or any other religion) strictly still being born in Muslim it might convinced me! But now you are dumb fool follower underestimating others!"

    What about the other way around?? If somebody is following Islaam strictly still being born in Christian (or any other religion), would it convince you??? Don't keep yourself blind. Open your eyes. You'll be able to see that thousands of Christians and followers of other religions are accepting Islaam within their strict religious environment. Even Christian priests became Muslims after they sought for the truth and not just stayed as a simple Muslim, rather became scholars in comparing Islaam, Christianity and other religions (and of course, atheism). Were they paid for it or did they do it by making use of their own brain?

    About what you said on people with less merit and beasts having better brain than human.

    It seems that you've misunderstood the meaning of "the best of the creations". It refers to the mankind as a whole and not to individual persons. Man can think better than other animals in orders of magnitudes. There is of course differences of level of merit among people, but even the dumbest person can think much more better than any beast.

    "Islam was kind of suitable for primitive times. It's completely worn out!"

    There is no doubt that many scientific facts which were revealed relatively recently were already mentioned in the Quraan 1400 years ago. Then is it primitive or thousand years advanced?? Rather Islaam is completely compatible with time. Its rulings are formulated in such a way that those would be best suited to current people as well as to those coming later.

    "You are saying something about original text.
    Allah says: [...] (Al-Hijr 15:9).
    So don't make us fool telling about your authenticity."

    If I'm not mistaken, you've misunderstood my word "original text". It means the Quraan and the authentic Prophetic traditions. All other books referencing these sources are not considered as original. Rather the case is similar to the fact that we learned Newton's laws of motion from our H.S.C physics book - it's not the original book on laws of motion; rather the book written by Newton on these laws is called the original book.
    Quraan has been and always will be preserved as it was revealed. Have any proof that it hasn't been? Anybody's welcome to put it forth. :)

    "And just don't decline seeing the links.. Research them please and do in amazing way."

    A true researcher never declines to study the logic of other views, and hence neither do I. Rather I already DID research on the issues posed in your provided links long ago.

    Let me take as example only the first issue provided on the first link. You can find the answer to it at the following link:
    http://www.islamqa.com/en/ref/31865/
    Similarly, answer to all the other issues can be found easily. Just google with "refuting contradictions in quran". (It's been 3 years since I left out my research work on these things. That's why collecting together all the issues would take me a lot of time right now. And hence I rather asked just to google.)

    "Remember only one error found in Quran invalidates the whole Quran."

    Everybody should agree to it without any doubt.

    "And trust there is not one!"
    Of course there is not one... I totally agree!!!
    Bro, your sentence means "there is not any error", or more readably, "there is no error".
    I believe you wanted to say, "And trust there is not ONLY one!". Rather believe it or not - all of those so-called errors have already been refuted by so many people!

    ReplyDelete
  13. LOL.

    You shouldn't had left your research. You got a point that patched with a fatwa. Leaving the strong points for refuting with google is really disappointing..

    First read this: http://sa-sdft.blogspot.com/2010/03/blog-post_09.html

    Answer me these:
    ā§§ āĻ•ৃāϤāĻĻাāϏ āĻĒ্āϰāĻĨা āφāϞ্āϞাāĻš āĻ•োāϰāφāύে āύিāώিāĻĻ্āϧ āĻ•āϰেāύāύি āĻ•েāύ?
    ⧍ āĻŽুāĻšাāĻŽ্āĻŽāĻĻ āϏা. āĻ•ৃāϤāĻĻাāϏāĻĻেāϰ āĻšāĻ• āύিāϝ়ে āĻŦিāĻĻাāϝ়ী āĻšāϜ্āϜ্āĻŦāϏāĻš āĻŦিāĻ­িāύ্āύ āϏāĻŽāϝ়ে āĻ…āύেāĻ• āĻ•িāĻ›ু āĻŦāϞāϞেāĻ“, āĻ āĻĒ্āϰāĻĨা āϰāĻĻে āĻ­ূāĻŽিāĻ•া āύিāϞেāύ āύা āĻ•েāύো?
    ā§Š āϜেāĻšাāĻĻে āĻĒāϰাāϜিāϤ āĻĒāĻ•্āώেāϰ āĻŽāĻšিāϞাāĻĻেāϰāĻ•ে āύিāϜ āĻ…āϧিāĻ•াāϰāĻ­ূāĻ•্āϤ āĻĻাāϏী āĻšিāϏাāĻŦে āĻ—āĻŖ্āϝ āĻ•āϰে āϤাāĻĻেāϰ āĻ­োāĻ— āĻ•āϰা āĻ•োāϰāφāύে āĻ•েāύ āϜাāϝ়েāϜ(āĻāĻ•ে āϧāϰ্āώāĻŖ āĻŦāϞা āϝাāĻŦে āĻ•ি?) āĻ•āϰা āĻšāϝ়েāĻ›?
    ā§Ē āφāϜāĻ•ে āĻŦুāĻļ āĻŦাāĻšিāύী āϝāĻ–āύ āχāϰাāĻ•/ āφāĻĢāĻ—াāύিāϏ্āϤাāύāϏāĻš āĻŦিāĻ­িāύ্āύ āĻĻেāĻļāĻĻāĻ–āϞেāϰ āϝুāĻĻ্āϧে āϝে āύাāϰী-āύিāϰ্āϝাāϤāύ-āϧāϰ্āώāĻŖ āϚাāϞাāϝ়, āϤা āϝāĻĻি āϧāϰ্āώāĻŖ āĻšāϝ়- āϤāĻŦে āύāĻŦী-āĻ–āϞিāĻĢা-āϏাāĻšাāĻŦীāϰা āϝা āĻ•āϰেāĻ›েāύ āϤাāĻ•ে āύাāϰী āϧāϰ্āώāĻŖ āĻŦāϞা āĻšāĻŦে āύা āĻ•েāύো? (āĻŦুāĻļāĻŦাāĻšিāύী āĻ•ে āϘৃāĻŖা)। āύা-āĻ•ি āωāĻ•্āϤ āĻŦিāϧাāύ āĻļুāϧু āĻŽুāϏāϞিāĻŽ āϜিāĻšাāĻĻীāĻĻেāϰ āϜāύ্āϝ āĻĒ্āϰāϝোāϜ্āϝ; āĻ…āϰ্āĻĨাāϤ- āĻ…āĻŽুāϏāϞিāĻŽāĻĻেāϰ āϜāύ্āϝ āĻĒāϰাāϜিāϤ āĻĒāĻ•্āώেāϰ āύাāϰীāĻĻেāϰ āĻ­োāĻ— āĻ•āϰা āϧāϰ্āώāĻŖ āĻāĻŦং āĻŽুāϏāϞিāĻŽāĻĻেāϰ āϜāύ্āϝ āĻ–ুāĻŦāχ āϜাāϝ়েāϜ āĻ“ āϏāĻ“āϝ়াāĻŦেāϰ āĻ•াāĻŽ(āĻ•োāϰāφāύে āφāĻĻেāĻļ/āĻĒāϰাāĻŽāϰ্āĻļ āĻĻেāĻ“āϝ়া āĻ•āϰ্āĻŽ āĻĒাāϞāύে āϤো āϏāĻ“āϝ়াāĻŦ āĻšāϝ় āĻŦāϞেāχ āϤো āϜাāύি!!)
    ā§Ģ 'āĻ•োāϰāφāύ āϏāϰ্āĻŦāĻ•াāϞেāϰ, āϏāϰ্āĻŦāϝুāĻ—েāϰ āϜāύ্āϝ āĻ…āĻŦিāĻ•ৃāϤāĻ­াāĻŦে āĻĒ্āϰāϝোāϜ্āϝ' āĻāĻŦং 'āϐ āφāϝ়াāϤ āύাāϝিāϞেāϰ āϏāĻŽāϝ় āĻĻাāϏ āĻĒ্āϰāĻĨা āĻ›িāϞো, āϏে āĻĒāϰিāĻĒ্āϰেāĻ•্āώিāϤে āϤāĻ–āύāĻ•াāϰ āϜāύ্āϝ āĻ•āĻĨাāϟা āĻāϏেāĻ›িāϞো' - āĻāĻĻুāϟি āĻ•ি āĻĒāϰāώ্āĻĒāϰāĻŦিāϰোāϧী āύāϝ় āĻ•ি?
    ā§Ŧ āϐ āϏāĻŽāϝ়েāϰ āĻĒ্āϰেāĻ•্āώিāϤে āĻŦিāϚাāϰ āĻ•āϰāϞেāĻ“- āĻĒāϰাāϜিāϤ āĻĒāĻ•্āώেāϰ āύাāϰীāĻĻেāϰ āωāĻĒāϰ āĻ•ি āϤা āĻŦāϰ্āĻŦāϰāϤা āĻ›িāϞ āύা?
    ā§­ 'āĻŽুāĻšাāĻŽ্āĻŽাāĻĻ āϏা. āĻāϰ āĻ•āĻĨা-āĻ•āϰ্āĻŽ āĻŽু'āĻŽিāύāĻ—āĻŖেāϰ āϜāύ্āϝ āĻ…āύুāĻ•āϰāĻŖীāϝ়, āĻ…āύুāϏāϰāĻŖীāϝ়' āĻ“ 'āĻ āĻšুāĻ•ুāĻŽ āĻļুāϧু āφāĻĒāύাāϰāχ āϜāύ্āϝ, āĻ…āύ্āϝ āĻŽু'āĻŽিāύāĻĻেāϰ āϜāύ্āϝ āύāϝ়'- āĻāĻĻুāϟিāĻ“ āĻ•ি āĻĒāϰāώ্āĻĒāϰāĻŦিāϰোāϧী āύāϝ়?
    ā§­ āĻ•োāϰāφāύে āύাāĻŦাāϞিāĻ•া āĻŦিāĻŦাāĻš(āĻŦাāϞ্āϝ āĻŦিāĻŦাāĻš ) āĻĒ্āϰāĻĨা āϰāĻĻ āĻ•āϰāϞো āύা āĻ•েāύো? āĻŽুāĻšাāĻŽ্āĻŽাāĻĻ āϏ. āĻāϰ āϏāϰ্āĻŦāĻļেāώ (āĻŦিāĻŦাāĻšāĻ•ৃāϤ) āϏ্āϤ্āϰী āĻŦিāĻŦি āφāϝ়েāĻļা āϰা. āĻŦিāĻŦাāĻšেāϰ āϏāĻŽāϝ় āύাāĻŦাāϞিāĻ•া āĻ›িāϞেāύ (āϤিāύি āύāĻŦীāϜীāϰ āϏāϰ্āĻŦাāĻĒেāĻ•্āώা āĻĒ্āϰিāϝ়āĻ“ āĻ›িāϞেāύ āĻŦāϞে āϜাāύা āϝাāϝ়) āφāϜāĻ•ে āĻāχ āĻ•āϰ্āĻŽ āĻ•েāω āĻ•āϰāϤে āϚাāχāϞে, āϧāϰ্āĻŽ āĻ•ি āφāϟāĻ•াāϤে āĻĒাāϰāĻŦে?

    Do you underestimate Lalon? What about this song of lalon:
    http://sa-sdft.blogspot.com/2010/03/blog-post_8758.html

    What about this lines from Kazi Nazrul Islam

    āĻŽাāύুāώেāϰে āϘৃāĻŖা āĻ•āϰি'
    āĻ“ āĻ•াāϰা āĻ•োāϰাāύ, āĻŦেāĻĻ, āĻŦাāχāĻŦেāϞ āϚুāĻŽ্āĻŦিāĻ›ে āĻŽāϰি' āĻŽāϰি'
    āĻ“ āĻŽুāĻ– āĻšāχāϤে āĻ•েāϤাāĻŦ-āĻ—্āϰāύ্āĻĨ āύাāĻ“ āϜোāϰ āĻ•'āϰে āĻ•েāĻĄ়ে,
    āϝাāĻšাāϰা āφāύিāϞ āĻ—্āϰāύ্āĻĨ-āĻ•েāϤাāĻŦ āϏেāχ āĻŽাāύুāώেāϰে āĻŽেāϰে।
    āĻĒূāϜিāĻ›ে āĻ—্āϰāύ্āĻĨ āĻ­āύ্āĻĄেāϰ āĻĻāϞ! - āĻŽূāϰ্āĻ–āϰা āϏāĻŦ āĻļোāύো,
    āĻŽাāύুāώ āĻāύেāĻ›ে āĻ—্āϰāύ্āĻĨ; - āĻ—্āϰāύ্āĻĨ āφāύেāύি āĻŽাāύুāώ āĻ•োāύো!
    ......।
    (āύāϜāϰুāϞ)

    ReplyDelete
  14. āϏেāχ āĻĒ্āϰাāϚীāύāĻ•াāϞ āĻĨেāĻ•ে āĻŽাāύুāώ āĻ•োāύ āύা āĻ•োāύ āϏংāϘেāϰ/āĻ—োāϤ্āϰেāϰ āĻ…āϧীāύে āĻĨাāĻ•ে āĻļুāϧুāĻŽাāϤ্āϰ āĻ•িāĻ›ু āĻŦা⧜āϤি āϏুāĻŦিāϧা āĻĒাāĻ“ā§Ÿাāϰ āφāĻļা⧟।
    āϏেāχ āĻĻিāĻ• āĻĨেāĻ•ে āĻŦিāϚাāϰ āĻ•āϰāϞে āϤ āĻāĻŽāύ āĻĻাঁ⧜া⧟ āφāĻŽি āĻŽুāϏāϞিāĻŽ āĻāϟা āĻĻাāĻŦি āĻ•āϰāϞে āĻŽুāϏāϞিāĻŽāĻĻেāϰ āĻĨেāĻ•ে āϏাāĻšাāϝ্āϝ āĻĒেāϤে āϏুāĻŦিāϧা। āϤাāϰ āĻŽাāύে āĻ•ি āφāĻŽি āĻ•িāĻ›ু āĻŦা⧜āϤি āϏুāĻŦিāϧা āφāĻĻা⧟েāϰ āϜāύ্āϝāχ āĻŽুāϏāϞিāĻŽ āĻŦা āĻšিāύ্āĻĻু āĻŦা āĻ–্āϰীāϏ্āϟাāύ āĻšāĻŦ?āφāϰ āĻ•োāϰāφāύে(āĻ…āύ্āϝ āϧāϰ্āĻŽāĻ—্āϰāύ্āĻĨেāϰ āĻ•āĻĨা āϊāϞ্āϞেāĻ– āĻ•āϰা āĻšāϞ āύা) āϊāϞ্āϞেāĻ– āφāĻ›ে āϝাāϰা āĻĻāϞāϚ্āϝুāϤ āϤাāĻĻেāϰ āϜāύ্āϝ āφāĻ›ে āĻ•āĻ িāύ āĻļাāϏ্āϤি। āϤাāϰāĻŽাāύে āϤাāϰা āĻĒāϰāĻ•াāϞে āϤ āĻ­ূāĻ•্āϤāĻ­োāĻ—ীāχ,āχāĻšāĻ•াāϞেāĻ“ āĻ­ূāĻ•্āϤāĻ­োāĻ—ী।āĻāχ āĻļাāϏ্āϤিāϰ āĻŦ্āϝāĻŦāϏ্āĻĨা āĻ•েāύো?āĻŽাāύুāώেāϰ āφāϞাāĻĻা āĻŽāϤāĻŦাāĻĻ āĻĨাāĻ•āϤেāχ āĻĒাāϰে। āύাāĻ•ি āφāϞাāĻĻা āĻŽāϤāĻŦাāĻĻ āĻĨাāĻ•াāχ āϝাāĻŦেāύা?? āĻāĻ–āύ āĻ•āĻĨা āĻšāϚ্āĻ›ে āĻ•োāύ āĻāĻ•āϜāύ āϝে āĻ…āύ্āϝ āϧāϰ্āĻŽেāϰ āϤাāϰ āĻĒ্āϰāϤি āφāĻŽাāϰ āφāϚāϰāύāĻ—āϤ āĻ…āĻŽিāϞ āĻĨাāĻ•āĻŦেāχ। āĻ•িāĻ­াāĻŦে?!! āϏেāϟাāχ āĻ•āĻĨা। āϝে āĻ…āĻŽুāϏāϞিāĻŽ āϤাāĻ•ে āφāĻŽি āφāĻŽাāϰ āϜীāĻŦāύāϏāĻ™্āĻ—ী āĻšিāϏাāĻŦে āύিāϰ্āĻŦাāϚāύ āĻ•āϰāϤে āĻĒাāϰāĻŦ āύা(āĻĒāϰিāĻŦাāϰ āĻĨেāĻ•ে āĻĒাāĻ“ā§Ÿা āĻļিāĻ•্āώা)। āϤাāϰāĻŽাāύে āϤাāϰ āĻĒ্āϰāϤি āφāĻŽাāϰ āφāϚāϰāύেāϰ āϤāĻĢাāϤ āĻĨেāĻ•েāχ āϝাāϚ্āĻ›ে। āĻāĻŽāύ āĻ•োāύ āϧāϰ্āĻŽ āφāĻ›ে āĻ•ি āϝেāĻ–াāύে āĻŽাāύুāώে āĻŽাāύুāώে āĻ­েāĻĻাāĻ­েāĻĻ āύাāχ?āύাāĻ•ি āĻ­েāĻĻাāĻ­েāĻĻ āĻĨাāĻ•াāϟাāχ āωāϚিāϤ ??

    ReplyDelete
  15. āφāĻŽি āχāϏāϞাāĻŽ āϧāϰ্āĻŽাāύুāϏাāϰী āĻāϟা āĻŦāϞāϤে āĻĒাāϰিāύা।āĻŦāϞা āϚāϞে āφāĻŽি āĻ•োāύ āϧāϰ্āĻŽেāχ āĻŦিāĻļ্āĻŦাāϏী āύা। āĻ•াāϰāύ āφāĻŽি āĻ•িāĻ›ু āĻ…āύুāĻļাāϏāύ āĻĒাāϞāύ āĻ•āϰি āĻ•িāĻ›ু āĻ•āϰিāύা। āφāϰ āφāĻŽি āϚাāχ āĻĒুāϰোāĻĒুāϰি āĻ•িāĻ›ু āĻāĻ•āϟা āĻ—্āϰāĻšāύ āĻ•āϰāϤে। āϏেāϟা āĻ•িāĻ­াāĻŦে āĻ•āϰা āϝাāĻŦে???

    ReplyDelete
  16. @āĻĢাāϞāϤু,
    Why are you trying to buy what others are trying to sell? Life is long and every people have their own philosophy. We learn from our mistakes. See good and truth is not always welcome. So if you are not welcome on some very good visions of you don't be disappointed. They killed socrates for his wisdom really!

    So hold on to your own belief. Day by day your mind grows up and you know better. It's better to have own judgement and knowledge than being blindly followed by.

    The world is amorphous and no-one really knows everything. So don't worry.

    At least you got to touch the reality that should make you feel better.

    Happy hunting.
    [Never mind. I wrote in English to make the access easier for international users.]

    ReplyDelete
  17. āφāĻŽি āϝুāĻ•্āϤি āϚাāχāĻ›ি, āĻ•োāύ āĻĻিāĻ•āύিāϰ্āĻĻেāĻļāύা āύ⧟। āĻŽāϤāĻŦাāĻĻ āύিāϰীāĻ•্āώāĻŖেāϰ āĻĒāϰ āφāĻŽিāχ āĻ িāĻ• āĻ•āϰāĻŦ āĻ•ি āĻ•āϰা āωāϚিāϤ āφāĻŽাāϰ।
    āφāĻŽি āĻĒাāϰিāĻŦাāϰিāĻ•āĻ­াāĻŦেāχ āĻŽুāĻ•্āϤāϚিāύ্āϤা āϚāϰ্āϚাāϰ āϏুāϝোāĻ— āĻĒে⧟েāĻ›ি। āϤāĻĨাāĻ•āĻĨিāϤ āύাāϏ্āϤিāĻ•-āφāϏ্āϤিāĻ• āĻŽāϤāĻŦিāϰোāϧিāϤা⧟ āφāĻŽাāϰ āĻ…āύীāĻšা āφāĻ›ে।āϏৃāώ্āϟিāĻ•āϰ্āϤাāϰ āĻ…āϏ্āϤিāϤ্āϤ্āĻŦে āĻ…āĻŦিāĻļ্āĻŦাāϏ āύাāχ।

    ReplyDelete
  18. āĻĢাāϞāϤু āĻ­াāχ āφāĻĒāύি āĻŽāύে āĻšā§Ÿ āĻĻিāĻ• āύিāĻĻāϰ্āĻļāύ āφāϰ āϝুāĻ•্āϤিāϰ āĻŽāϧ্āϝে āϤāĻĢাāϤ āϟা āĻāĻ–āύো āĻŦুāĻে āωāĻ েāύ āύাāχ। āφāĻĒāύাāϰ āĻĒ্āϰāĻļ্āύ āĻ›িāϞ
    "āϏেāϟা āĻ•িāĻ­াāĻŦে āĻ•āϰা āϝাāĻŦে?" āĻāχāϟা āĻšāϞ āĻĻিāĻ• āύিāϰ্āĻĻেāĻļāύা āϚাāĻ“ā§Ÿা। āϝāĻĻি āĻŦāϞāϤেāύ,
    "āϏেāϟা āĻ•েāύ āĻ•āϰāĻŦ(āύা)?" āϏেāϟা āĻšāϤ āϝুāĻ•্āϤিāϰ āĻ…āύ্āύেāώāĻŖ। āϏুāϤāϰাং āφāĻĒāύি āφāĻ—ে āύিāϜেāχ āĻ­েāĻŦে āĻĻেāĻ–েāύ āφāϏāϞে āφāĻĒāύি āĻ•ি āϚাāϚ্āĻ›েāύ। āϤাāĻ›া⧜া āφāĻĒāύাāϰ āĻ•āĻĨা āĻļুāύে āĻŽāύে āĻšāϞো āφāĻĒāύি āφāϧা-āύাāϏ্āϤিāĻ•। āĻŽাāύে āĻ•āύāĻĢিāωāϏāĻĄ। āϏেāĻ•্āώেāϤ্āϰে āĻĻিāĻ•āύিāĻĻāϰ্āĻļāύ āφāĻĒāύাāϰ āĻĒ্āϰ⧟োāϜāύ

    ReplyDelete
  19. āϏুāϏ্āĻĒāϏ্āϟāϤাāϰ āϜāύ্āϝ āĻŦāϞāĻ›ি āφāĻŽাāϰ āĻŽāύ্āϤāĻŦ্āϝে āϝে āϜিāϜ্āĻžাāϏা āĻ›িāϞ
    (āφāĻŽি āχāϏāϞাāĻŽ āϧāϰ্āĻŽাāύুāϏাāϰী āĻāϟা āĻŦāϞāϤে āĻĒাāϰিāύা।āĻŦāϞা āϚāϞে āφāĻŽি āĻ•োāύ āϧāϰ্āĻŽেāχ āĻŦিāĻļ্āĻŦাāϏী āύা। āĻ•াāϰāύ āφāĻŽি āĻ•িāĻ›ু āĻ…āύুāĻļাāϏāύ āĻĒাāϞāύ āĻ•āϰি āĻ•িāĻ›ু āĻ•āϰিāύা। āφāϰ āφāĻŽি āϚাāχ āĻĒুāϰোāĻĒুāϰি āĻ•িāĻ›ু āĻāĻ•āϟা āĻ—্āϰāĻšāύ āĻ•āϰāϤে। āϏেāϟা āĻ•িāĻ­াāĻŦে āĻ•āϰা āϝাāĻŦে???)
    āϏেāϟা āφāϤ্āύāϜিāϜ্āĻžাāϏা।

    ReplyDelete
  20. Sorry for being so late because of day-long work. :)

    “You shouldn't had left your research. You got a point that patched with a fatwa.”

    LOLz… When you can’t answer to a logical argument, just label it as ‘fatwa’!!! Rather than emotionally calling it a ‘patched fatwa’, try to logically refute the arguments if you can. ;)

    “Leaving the strong points for refuting with google is really disappointing..”

    Yep. That’s why I already gave my proposal beforehand – put forth a point you think to be ‘strong’ and then let’s see it. It seems that you think the ‘slavery’ (and other) issues you posed in your post to be some ‘strong’ points. Fine. Let’s see those then.

    The questions 1 to 4 and 6 – all the 5 questions are answered in details at the following link:
    http://public.sharafat.co.cc/home/islaam_and_slavery.html

    If you don’t have enough time to go through all of it, for your convenience, I’ve colored and bold-faced a small portion of it. You can first study those. If you don’t feel being convinced, then I’m sorry but you have no choice other than studying the topic in full. And of course, don’t forget to mention anything from that document which you can refute.

    ā§Ģ 'āĻ•োāϰāφāύ āϏāϰ্āĻŦāĻ•াāϞেāϰ, āϏāϰ্āĻŦāϝুāĻ—েāϰ āϜāύ্āϝ āĻ…āĻŦিāĻ•ৃāϤāĻ­াāĻŦে āĻĒ্āϰāϝোāϜ্āϝ' āĻāĻŦং 'āϐ āφāϝ়াāϤ āύাāϝিāϞেāϰ āϏāĻŽāϝ় āĻĻাāϏ āĻĒ্āϰāĻĨা āĻ›িāϞো, āϏে āĻĒāϰিāĻĒ্āϰেāĻ•্āώিāϤে āϤāĻ–āύāĻ•াāϰ āϜāύ্āϝ āĻ•āĻĨাāϟা āĻāϏেāĻ›িāϞো' - āĻāĻĻুāϟি āĻ•ি āĻĒāϰāώ্āĻĒāϰāĻŦিāϰোāϧী āύāϝ় āĻ•ি?

    Of course these two wordings are contradictory. But the fact is, Islaam never says that slavery was only for the ancient period, rather it’s for all periods. For details, see the above link.

    ā§­ 'āĻŽুāĻšাāĻŽ্āĻŽাāĻĻ āϏা. āĻāϰ āĻ•āĻĨা-āĻ•āϰ্āĻŽ āĻŽু'āĻŽিāύāĻ—āĻŖেāϰ āϜāύ্āϝ āĻ…āύুāĻ•āϰāĻŖীāϝ়, āĻ…āύুāϏāϰāĻŖীāϝ়' āĻ“ 'āĻ āĻšুāĻ•ুāĻŽ āĻļুāϧু āφāĻĒāύাāϰāχ āϜāύ্āϝ, āĻ…āύ্āϝ āĻŽু'āĻŽিāύāĻĻেāϰ āϜāύ্āϝ āύāϝ়'- āĻāĻĻুāϟিāĻ“ āĻ•ি āĻĒāϰāώ্āĻĒāϰāĻŦিāϰোāϧী āύāϝ়?

    Nope. Take an example. Suppose a teacher says to his class – “this rule is applicable to all of you. However, it’s not applicable to students X and Y because of such and such.” Is there any problem? If you make it clear which rulings are for all people and which are for a few particular people, then where is the contradiction??

    ReplyDelete
  21. ā§­ āĻ•োāϰāφāύে āύাāĻŦাāϞিāĻ•া āĻŦিāĻŦাāĻš(āĻŦাāϞ্āϝ āĻŦিāĻŦাāĻš ) āĻĒ্āϰāĻĨা āϰāĻĻ āĻ•āϰāϞো āύা āĻ•েāύো? āĻŽুāĻšাāĻŽ্āĻŽাāĻĻ āϏ. āĻāϰ āϏāϰ্āĻŦāĻļেāώ (āĻŦিāĻŦাāĻšāĻ•ৃāϤ) āϏ্āϤ্āϰী āĻŦিāĻŦি āφāϝ়েāĻļা āϰা. āĻŦিāĻŦাāĻšেāϰ āϏāĻŽāϝ় āύাāĻŦাāϞিāĻ•া āĻ›িāϞেāύ (āϤিāύি āύāĻŦীāϜীāϰ āϏāϰ্āĻŦাāĻĒেāĻ•্āώা āĻĒ্āϰিāϝ়āĻ“ āĻ›িāϞেāύ āĻŦāϞে āϜাāύা āϝাāϝ়) āφāϜāĻ•ে āĻāχ āĻ•āϰ্āĻŽ āĻ•েāω āĻ•āϰāϤে āϚাāχāϞে, āϧāϰ্āĻŽ āĻ•ি āφāϟāĻ•াāϤে āĻĒাāϰāĻŦে?

    First of all, what do you mean by āύাāĻŦাāϞিāĻ•া ? Is it just the prior time of the natural age of puberty? Or is it the ‘human-defined’ prior time of 18 years??

    Let’s consider the case that you meant the natural age of puberty. Now, the fact is – the marriage CONTRACT between Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) and ‘Aishah (may Allaah be pleased with her) was done before she reached puberty. However, the CONSUMMATION of marriage was done AFTER she reached puberty. So, Islaam never prohibits to simply contract marriage before puberty. Rather it prohibits the consummation of marriage before puberty.

    About your mentioned lalon’s song and similarly Nazrul’s poem – I don’t understand songs and poems well. However, I think the mentioned song and poem are not that difficult to understand. Just mentioning one line from the song (actually the summary line): “āĻŽাāύুāώে āϰāϚিāϤ āϜাāύি, āĻŽাāύুāώে āϰāϚিāϤ āϜাāύি āϞাāϞāύ āĻĢāĻ•িāϰ āĻ•āϝ়!”. If that’s the case, then I’d say: Lalon is saying that what HE knows is that religions are made by people. However, what I (and billions of people other than me) know is that Islaam and Quraan has been revealed from Allaah the Almighty. Have any doubt? Then let’s share it. :)

    ReplyDelete
  22. Now some words for “Faltu”...

    “āϏেāχ āĻĒ্āϰাāϚীāύāĻ•াāϞ āĻĨেāĻ•ে āĻŽাāύুāώ āĻ•োāύ āύা āĻ•োāύ āϏংāϘেāϰ/āĻ—োāϤ্āϰেāϰ āĻ…āϧীāύে āĻĨাāĻ•ে āĻļুāϧুāĻŽাāϤ্āϰ āĻ•িāĻ›ু āĻŦা⧜āϤি āϏুāĻŦিāϧা āĻĒাāĻ“ā§Ÿাāϰ āφāĻļা⧟। āϏেāχ āĻĻিāĻ• āĻĨেāĻ•ে āĻŦিāϚাāϰ āĻ•āϰāϞে āϤ āĻāĻŽāύ āĻĻাঁ⧜া⧟ āφāĻŽি āĻŽুāϏāϞিāĻŽ āĻāϟা āĻĻাāĻŦি āĻ•āϰāϞে āĻŽুāϏāϞিāĻŽāĻĻেāϰ āĻĨেāĻ•ে āϏাāĻšাāϝ্āϝ āĻĒেāϤে āϏুāĻŦিāϧা। āϤাāϰ āĻŽাāύে āĻ•ি āφāĻŽি āĻ•িāĻ›ু āĻŦা⧜āϤি āϏুāĻŦিāϧা āφāĻĻা⧟েāϰ āϜāύ্āϝāχ āĻŽুāϏāϞিāĻŽ āĻŦা āĻšিāύ্āĻĻু āĻŦা āĻ–্āϰীāϏ্āϟাāύ āĻšāĻŦ?”

    Ask your common sense, you’ll definitely get the correct answer.

    “āφāϰ āĻ•োāϰāφāύে(āĻ…āύ্āϝ āϧāϰ্āĻŽāĻ—্āϰāύ্āĻĨেāϰ āĻ•āĻĨা āϊāϞ্āϞেāĻ– āĻ•āϰা āĻšāϞ āύা) āϊāϞ্āϞেāĻ– āφāĻ›ে āϝাāϰা āĻĻāϞāϚ্āϝুāϤ āϤাāĻĻেāϰ āϜāύ্āϝ āφāĻ›ে āĻ•āĻ িāύ āĻļাāϏ্āϤি।“
    āφāĻŽি āĻāϰāĻ•āĻŽ āĻ•োāύ āĻ†ā§ŸাāϤেāϰ āĻ•āĻĨা āϜাāύি āύা āϝেāĻ–াāύে āĻĻāϞāϚ্āϝুāϤ āĻšāĻŦাāϰ āϜāύ্āϝ āĻļাāϏ্āϤিāϰ āĻ•āĻĨা āĻŦāϞা āĻšā§ŸেāĻ›ে। āĻ•ুāϰāφāύ-āĻšাāĻĻীāϏে āĻŦাāϰāĻŦাāϰ āĻŽুāϏāϞিāĻŽāĻĻেāϰ āĻŽāϧ্āϝে “āĻĻāϞাāĻĻāϞি” āϏৃāώ্āϟি āĻ•āϰাāϰ āĻ•্āώেāϤ্āϰে āĻšুঁāĻļি⧟াāϰ āĻ•āϰা āĻšā§ŸেāĻ›ে। āĻš্āϝাঁ, āϝāĻĻি āĻĻāϞāϚ্āϝুāϤ āĻŦāϞāϤে āĻŽুāϰāϤাāĻĻ āϤāĻĨা āχāϏāϞাāĻŽāϚ্āϝুāϤ āĻšāĻŦাāϰ āĻ•āĻĨা āĻŦāϞ, āϤāĻŦে āĻāϰ āϜāύ্āϝ āĻļাāϏ্āϤিāϰ āĻ•āĻĨা āχāϏāϞাāĻŽে āĻŦāϞা āĻšā§ŸেāĻ›ে। āĻĒ্āϰāĻļ্āύ āĻšāϚ্āĻ›ে āϝে, āĻāχ āĻļাāϏ্āϤিāϰ āĻŦ্āϝāĻŦāϏ্āĻĨা āĻ•েāύ? āĻ–ুāĻŦ āϏংāĻ•্āώেāĻĒে āωāϤ্āϤāϰāϟা āĻĻেāχ (āĻāϤāĻ•্āώāĻŖ āϧāϰে āϟাāχāĻĒ āĻ•āϰāϤে āĻ•āϰāϤে āφāϰ āĻ­াāϞ āϞাāĻ—āĻ›ে āύা)। āϤুāĻŽি āϤোāĻŽাāϰ āϝāĻ–āύ āχāϚ্āĻ›া āĻšāĻŦে, āϤāĻ–āύ āĻŽুāϏāϞিāĻŽāĻĻেāϰ āϏাāĻĨে āĻĨেāĻ•ে āϏুāĻŦিāϧা āύিāĻŦা, āφāϰ āϝāĻ–āύ āχāϚ্āĻ›া āĻ•āϰāĻŦে, āϤāĻ–āύ āϤাāĻĻেāϰ āĻĨেāĻ•ে āĻŦেāϰ āĻšā§Ÿে āĻ—ি⧟ে āĻŽুāϏāϞিāĻŽāĻĻেāϰ āύাāĻŽে āĻŽিāĻĨ্āϝা āĻ…āĻĒāĻŦাāĻĻ āĻ•āϰāĻŦা āφāϰ āĻĻুāϰ্āύাāĻŽ āϰāϟাāĻŦা, āĻāϟা āϤো āĻšāϤে āĻĻেāĻ“ā§Ÿা āϝা⧟ āύা, āϤাāχ āύা? āωāϤ্āϤāϰāϟা āĻ­াāϞ āύা āϞাāĻ—āϞে āĻŦāχāϞো, āĻĒāϰে āĻŦিāϏ্āϤাāϰিāϤ āĻŦ্āϝাāĻ–্āϝা āĻ•āϰāĻŦ āύে, āχāύāĻļা āφāϞ্āϞাāĻš।
    “āĻŽাāύুāώেāϰ āφāϞাāĻĻা āĻŽāϤāĻŦাāĻĻ āĻĨাāĻ•āϤেāχ āĻĒাāϰে। āύাāĻ•ি āφāϞাāĻĻা āĻŽāϤāĻŦাāĻĻ āĻĨাāĻ•াāχ āϝাāĻŦেāύা??”

    āĻš্āϝাঁ, āφāϞাāĻĻা āĻŽāϤāĻŦাāĻĻ āĻĨাāĻ•āϤেāχ āĻĒাāϰে āϝāĻĻি āϏāĻŦāĻ—ুāϞো āĻŽāϤাāĻŽāϤāχ āϝৌāĻ•্āϤিāĻ• āĻšā§Ÿ। āϤুāĻŽি āϝāĻĻি āϜিāϜ্āĻžাāϏা āĻ•āϰ āϝে, āϚাāύāĻ–াঁāϰāĻĒুāϞ āĻĨেāĻ•ে āύীāϞāĻ•্āώেāϤ āϝাāĻ“ā§Ÿা āϝা⧟ āĻ•েāĻŽāύে, āϤাāĻšāϞে āĻ•েāω āĻŦāϞāĻŦে āĻļāĻšীāĻĻ āĻŽিāύাāϰ āĻĻি⧟ে āϝাāĻ“, āĻ•েāω āĻŦāϞāĻŦে āĻŦাংāϞা āĻāĻ•াāĻĄেāĻŽীāϰ āĻĒাāĻļ āĻĻি⧟ে, āĻ•েāωāĻŦা āĻŦāϞāĻŦে āĻŦু⧟েāϟেāϰ āĻĒাāĻļ āĻĻি⧟ে। āĻāĻ•্āώেāϤ্āϰে āϏāĻŦাāϰ āĻŽāϤāĻŦাāĻĻāχ āϝৌāĻ•্āϤিāĻ• āĻāĻŦং āĻ—্āϰāĻšāĻŖāϝোāĻ—্āϝ। āĻ•িāύ্āϤু āϝāĻĻি āĻŽāϤāĻ­েāĻĻ āĻšā§Ÿ āĻŽিāĻĨ্āϝা āĻŦāϞা āϝাāĻŦে āĻ•ি āϝাāĻŦে āύা, āϤাāĻšāϞে āϏেāĻ•্āώেāϤ্āϰে āĻŽāϤāĻ­েāĻĻāϟা āφāĻĻৌ āĻ—্āϰāĻšāĻŖāϝোāĻ—্āϝ āύ⧟। āĻāϟা āĻ…āϤ্āϝāύ্āϤ āϝুāĻ•্āϤিāĻĒূāϰ্āĻŖāĻ­াāĻŦে āĻĒ্āϰāĻŽাāĻŖ āĻ•āϰা āϝা⧟ āϝে, āĻŽিāĻĨ্āϝা āĻŦāϞা āϝাāĻŦে āύা āĻāχ āĻŽāϤāϟাāχ āϏāĻ িāĻ• āĻāĻŦং āĻ…āύ্āϝāϟা āĻ­ুāϞ।

    “āĻāĻ–āύ āĻ•āĻĨা āĻšāϚ্āĻ›ে āĻ•োāύ āĻāĻ•āϜāύ āϝে āĻ…āύ্āϝ āϧāϰ্āĻŽেāϰ āϤাāϰ āĻĒ্āϰāϤি āφāĻŽাāϰ āφāϚāϰāύāĻ—āϤ āĻ…āĻŽিāϞ āĻĨাāĻ•āĻŦেāχ। āĻ•িāĻ­াāĻŦে?!! āϏেāϟাāχ āĻ•āĻĨা। āϝে āĻ…āĻŽুāϏāϞিāĻŽ āϤাāĻ•ে āφāĻŽি āφāĻŽাāϰ āϜীāĻŦāύāϏāĻ™্āĻ—ী āĻšিāϏাāĻŦে āύিāϰ্āĻŦাāϚāύ āĻ•āϰāϤে āĻĒাāϰāĻŦ āύা(āĻĒāϰিāĻŦাāϰ āĻĨেāĻ•ে āĻĒাāĻ“ā§Ÿা āĻļিāĻ•্āώা)। āϤাāϰāĻŽাāύে āϤাāϰ āĻĒ্āϰāϤি āφāĻŽাāϰ āφāϚāϰāύেāϰ āϤāĻĢাāϤ āĻĨেāĻ•েāχ āϝাāϚ্āĻ›ে।“

    āĻš্āϝাঁ, āφāϚāϰāĻŖেāϰ āϤāĻĢাāϤ āϤো āĻĨাāĻ•াāϟাāχ āϏ্āĻŦাāĻ­াāĻŦিāĻ•। āĻ•িāύ্āϤু āĻāχ āϤāĻĢাāϤেāϰ āĻ•াāϰāĻŖে āĻ•ি āφāĻŽāϰা āĻ…āĻŽুāϏāϞিāĻŽāĻĻেāϰāĻ•ে āĻĻুāχ āϚোāĻ–ে āĻĻেāĻ–āϤে āύা āĻĒাāϰাāϰ āĻŽāϤ āĻĒāϰিāϏ্āĻĨিāϤি āϤৈāϰি āĻ•āϰāĻŦ? āĻ–োāĻĻ āĻ•ুāϰāφāύ āĻĨেāĻ•েāχ āωāϤ্āϤāϰāϟা āϜেāύে āύাāĻ“: “āϝাāϰা āϤোāĻŽাāĻĻেāϰ āĻŦিāϰুāĻĻ্āϧে āϧāϰ্āĻŽেāϰ āĻ•াāϰāĻŖে āϝুāĻĻ্āϧ āĻ•āϰেāύি āĻāĻŦং āϤোāĻŽাāĻĻেāϰāĻ•ে āϤোāĻŽাāĻĻেāϰ āĻŦāϏāϤāĻŦা⧜ি āĻĨেāĻ•ে āϤা⧜ি⧟ে āĻĻে⧟ āύি, āφāϞ্āϞাāĻš āϤোāĻŽাāĻĻেāϰāĻ•ে āϤাāĻĻেāϰ āϏāĻ™্āĻ—ে āϏāĻĻ্āĻŦ্āϝāĻŦāĻšাāϰ āĻ•āϰাāϰ āĻāĻŦং āύ্āϝা⧟āĻĒāϰা⧟āĻŖāϤাāϰ āϏাāĻĨে āφāϚāϰāĻŖ āĻ•āϰāϤে āύিāώেāϧ āĻ•āϰেāύ āύি; āύিāĻļ্āϚ⧟ āφāϞ্āϞাāĻš āύ্āϝা⧟āĻĒāϰা⧟āĻŖāĻĻেāϰāĻ•ে āĻ­াāϞāĻŦাāϏেāύ। āϝাāϰা āϤোāĻŽাāĻĻেāϰ āĻŦিāϰুāĻĻ্āϧে āϧāϰ্āĻŽেāϰ āĻ•াāϰāĻŖে āϝুāĻĻ্āϧ āĻ•āϰেāĻ›ে āĻāĻŦং āϤোāĻŽাāĻĻেāϰāĻ•ে āϤোāĻŽাāĻĻেāϰ āĻŦāϏāϤāĻŦা⧜ি āĻĨেāĻ•ে āϤা⧜ি⧟ে āĻĻি⧟েāĻ›ে āĻāĻŦং āϤোāĻŽাāĻĻেāϰāĻ•ে āĻŦāĻšিāώ্āĻ•াāϰেāϰ āĻŦ্āϝাāĻĒাāϰে āĻĒৃāώ্āĻ āĻĒোāώāĻ•āϤা āĻ•āϰেāĻ›ে, āφāϞ্āϞাāĻš āϤোāĻŽাāĻĻেāϰāĻ•ে āϤাāĻĻেāϰ āϏাāĻĨে āĻŦāύ্āϧুāϤ্āĻŦ āĻ•āϰāϤে āύিāώেāϧ āĻ•āϰেāĻ›েāύ। āφāϰ āϝাāϰা āϤাāĻĻেāϰ āϏাāĻĨে āĻŦāύ্āϧুāϤ্āĻŦ āĻ•āϰāĻŦে, āϤাāϰা āϤো āϤাāĻšāϞে āĻ…āϤ্āϝাāϚাāϰী।“ (āϏূāϰা āĻŽুāĻŽāϤাāĻšিāύাāĻš ā§Ŧā§Ļ:ā§Ž-⧝) āϏুāϤāϰাং, āϝাāϰা āĻŽুāϏāϞিāĻŽāĻĻেāϰ āϏাāĻĨে āϝুāĻĻ্āϧ āĻ•āϰāĻ›ে āύা, āϤাāĻĻেāϰ āϏাāĻĨে āĻ–াāϰাāĻĒ āĻŦ্āϝāĻŦāĻšাāϰ āĻ•āϰāϤে āϤো āĻŦāϞা āĻšā§Ÿāχ āύি, āωāĻĒāϰāύ্āϤু āϤাāĻĻেāϰ āϏাāĻĨে āĻ­াāϞ āĻŦ্āϝāĻŦāĻšাāϰ āĻāĻŦং āύ্āϝা⧟āĻĒāϰা⧟āĻŖ āφāϚāϰāĻŖ āĻ•āϰাāϰ āĻĒ্āϰāϤি āωāϤāϏাāĻš āĻĻেāĻ“ā§Ÿা āĻšāϚ্āĻ›ে āĻāχ āĻ•āĻĨা āĻŦāϞে āϝে, āύ্āϝা⧟āĻĒāϰা⧟āĻŖāĻ•াāϰীāĻĻেāϰāĻ•ে āφāϞ্āϞাāĻš āĻ­াāϞāĻŦাāϏেāύ।

    ReplyDelete
  23. “āĻāĻŽāύ āĻ•োāύ āϧāϰ্āĻŽ āφāĻ›ে āĻ•ি āϝেāĻ–াāύে āĻŽাāύুāώে āĻŽাāύুāώে āĻ­েāĻĻাāĻ­েāĻĻ āύাāχ?āύাāĻ•ি āĻ­েāĻĻাāĻ­েāĻĻ āĻĨাāĻ•াāϟাāχ āωāϚিāϤ ??”

    āĻ­েāĻĻাāĻ­েāĻĻ āĻĨাāĻ•াāϟাāχ āĻ•ি āωāϚিāϤ?? āĻāϟা āĻĄিāĻĒেāύ্āĻĄ āĻ•āϰে। āϝে āϜাāύে, āφāϰ āϝে āϜাāύে āύা, āϤাāϰা āĻ•ি āϏāĻŽাāύ? āĻļিāĻ•্āώāĻ•āĻ—āĻŖ āĻ•ি āĻ•্āϞাāϏে āĻ­াāϞ āϏ্āϟুāĻĄেāύ্āϟ āφāϰ āĻ–াāϰাāĻĒ āϏ্āϟুāĻĄেāύ্āϟāĻĻেāϰ āĻŽāϧ্āϝে āĻ­েāĻĻাāĻ­েāĻĻ āĻ•āϰেāύ āύা? āĻŦāϰং āĻĒ⧟েāύ্āϟāϟা āĻšāϚ্āĻ›ে āϝে, āĻāχ āĻ­েāĻĻাāĻ­েāĻĻāĻ•ে āĻļিāĻ•্āώāĻ•āĻ—āĻŖ āĻ•িāĻ­াāĻŦে āĻŦ্āϝāĻŦāĻšাāϰ āĻ•āϰāĻ›েāύ। āϤাāϰা āϝāĻĻি āĻ­েāĻĻাāĻ­েāĻĻ āĻ•āϰাāϰ āĻĒāϰ āĻ–াāϰাāĻĒ āϏ্āϟুāĻĄেāύ্āϟāĻĻেāϰāĻ•ে āĻ…āĻŦāϜ্āĻžাāϰ āϏাāĻĨে āĻ›ুঁ⧜ে āĻĢেāϞে āύা āĻĻি⧟ে āϤাāĻĻেāϰāĻ•ে āϤাāĻĻেāϰ āĻ­ুāϞ āĻ•āϰা āĻŦিāώ⧟āĻ—ুāϞো āĻ­াāϞ āĻ•āϰে āĻŦুāĻাāύোāϰ āϚেāώ্āϟা āĻ•āϰেāύ āϤাāĻĻেāϰāχ āĻŽāĻ™্āĻ—āϞেāϰ āϏ্āĻŦাāϰ্āĻĨে, āϏেāϟাāχ āĻšāĻŦে āϏāϰ্āĻŦোāϤ্āϤāĻŽ āĻļিāĻ•্āώāĻ•āϤা। āφāϰ āĻļিāĻ•্āώāĻ• āĻāϤ āĻ•িāĻ›ু āĻ•āϰাāϰ āĻĒāϰāĻ“ āϝāĻĻি āϐ āϏ্āϟুāĻĄেāύ্āϟ āĻŦāϞে āϝে, āύা, āφāĻŽি āĻ­াāϞ āĻšāϤে āϚাāχ āύা, āϤাāχāϞে āϐ āĻļিāĻ•্āώāĻ•েāϰ āϤাāĻ•ে āĻā§œি⧟ে āϚāϞা āĻ›া⧜া āĻ—āϤি āĻĨাāĻ•āĻŦে āύা। āĻ িāĻ• āĻāĻ•āχāĻ­াāĻŦে āχāϏāϞাāĻŽ āĻŦāϞে āϝে, āĻ…āĻŽুāϏāϞিāĻŽāĻĻেāϰāĻ•ে āϘৃāĻŖা āύা āĻ•āϰে āϤাāĻĻেāϰāĻ•ে āϝুāĻ•্āϤি āĻĻি⧟ে āϤাāĻĻেāϰ āĻ­ুāϞāĻ—ুāϞো āĻŦুāĻাāĻ“। āφāϰ āĻāϰāĻĒāϰāĻ“ āϝāĻĻি āϤাāϰা āĻĒ্āϰুāĻĢ āĻĒাāĻ“ā§Ÿাāϰ āĻĒāϰāĻ“ āϜোāϰ āĻ•āϰে āĻŽাāύāϤে āύা āϚা⧟, āϤাāχāϞে āϤাāĻĻেāϰāĻ•ে āĻā§œি⧟ে āϚāϞা āĻ›া⧜া āφāϰ āĻ•ী-āχ āĻŦা āĻ•āϰাāϰ āφāĻ›ে। āĻ•িāύ্āϤু āĻāϰāĻĒāϰāĻ“ āϤাāχ āĻŦāϞে āϤাāĻĻেāϰ āϏাāĻĨে āĻ…āύ্āϝা⧟ āĻ•āϰাāϟাāĻ•ে āχāϏāϞাāĻŽ āύিāώেāϧ āĻ•āϰāĻ›ে – āĻš্āϝাঁ, āϤাāϰা āϝāĻĻি āĻŽুāϏāϞিāĻŽāĻĻেāϰāĻ•ে āφāĻ•্āϰāĻŽāĻŖ āĻ•āϰে, āϤাāχāϞে āĻŽুāϏāϞিāĻŽāϰা āĻ…āĻŦāĻļ্āϝāχ āϤাāĻĻেāϰāĻ•ে āϘৃāĻŖা āĻ•āϰāĻŦে āĻāĻŦং āϤাāĻĻেāϰ āφāĻ•্āϰāĻŽāĻŖ āĻĒ্āϰāϤিāĻšāϤ āĻ•āϰাāϰ āϜāύ্āϝ āĻŦ্āϝāĻŦāϏ্āĻĨা āĻ—্āϰāĻšāĻŖ āĻ•āϰāĻŦে।

    “āφāĻŽি āχāϏāϞাāĻŽ āϧāϰ্āĻŽাāύুāϏাāϰী āĻāϟা āĻŦāϞāϤে āĻĒাāϰিāύা।āĻŦāϞা āϚāϞে āφāĻŽি āĻ•োāύ āϧāϰ্āĻŽেāχ āĻŦিāĻļ্āĻŦাāϏী āύা। āĻ•াāϰāύ āφāĻŽি āĻ•িāĻ›ু āĻ…āύুāĻļাāϏāύ āĻĒাāϞāύ āĻ•āϰি āĻ•িāĻ›ু āĻ•āϰিāύা। āφāϰ āφāĻŽি āϚাāχ āĻĒুāϰোāĻĒুāϰি āĻ•িāĻ›ু āĻāĻ•āϟা āĻ—্āϰāĻšāύ āĻ•āϰāϤে। āϏেāϟা āĻ•িāĻ­াāĻŦে āĻ•āϰা āϝাāĻŦে???”

    āĻ–ুāĻŦāχ āϚāĻŽāϤāĻ•াāϰ āĻĒ্āϰāĻļ্āύ। āϤāĻŦে āϤুāĻŽি āϝা āϚাāϚ্āĻ›, āϏেāϟাāϰ āϜāύ্āϝ āϤোāĻŽাāĻ•ে āϏāĻŽā§Ÿ āĻāĻŦং āĻļ্āϰāĻŽ āĻĻুāϟোāχ āĻĻিāϤে āĻšāĻŦে (āĻŽāύে āϰেāĻ– – āϤুāĻŽি āϝāĻĻি āϏāϤ্āϝāĻ•ে āϜাāύāϤে āϚাāĻ“, āϤোāĻŽাāĻ•ে āĻ…āĻŦāĻļ্āϝāχ āĻĒāϰিāĻļ্āϰāĻŽ āĻ•āϰāϤে āĻšāĻŦে)। āϤুāĻŽি āĻĒ্āϰāϤ্āϝেāĻ• āϧāϰ্āĻŽেāϰ (āĻāĻŦং āϏেāχ āϏাāĻĨে āύাāϏ্āϤিāĻ•āϤাāĻŦাāĻĻীāĻĻেāϰāĻ“) āĻĒāĻŖ্āĻĄিāϤāĻĻেāϰāĻ•ে āϜিāϜ্āĻžাāϏা āĻ•āϰ – ā§§. āĻ•েāύ āφāĻĒāύি āĻŽāύে āĻ•āϰেāύ āϝে, āφāĻĒāύাāϰ āϧāϰ্āĻŽāχ āφāĻŽাāϰ āĻŽেāύে āϚāϞা āωāϚিāϤ? ⧍. āĻ…āύ্āϝাāύ্āϝ āϧāϰ্āĻŽেāϰ āĻŦ্āϝাāĻĒাāϰে āφāĻĒāύি āĻ•ী āĻŽāύে āĻ•āϰেāύ āĻāĻŦং āĻ•েāύ? āĻāĻŦাāϰ āϤুāĻŽি āϝāĻ–āύ āϏāĻŦ āϧāϰ্āĻŽেāϰ āĻŦ্āϝাāĻĒাāϰে āĻāχ āĻĻুāϟি āĻĒ্āϰāĻļ্āύেāϰ āωāϤ্āϤāϰ āĻĒে⧟ে āϝাāĻŦা, āϤāĻ–āύ āϤুāĻŽি āφāĻŦাāϰāĻ“ āϏেāχ āϏāĻ•āϞ āĻĒāĻŖ্āĻĄিāϤāĻĻেāϰāĻ•ে āϜিāϜ্āĻžাāϏা āĻ•āϰ – āĻ…āύ্āϝাāύ্āϝ āϧāϰ্āĻŽেāϰ āĻĒāĻŖ্āĻĄিāϤāĻ—āĻŖ āϤো āϤাāĻĻেāϰ āĻāĻŦং āφāĻĒāύাāϰ āϧāϰ্āĻŽেāϰ āĻŦ্āϝাāĻĒাāϰে āĻāχ āĻāχ āĻ•āĻĨা āĻŦāϞেāĻ›েāύ। āĻāϏāĻŦ āĻ•āĻĨাāϰ āĻŦ্āϝাāĻĒাāϰে āφāĻĒāύাāϰ āĻŦāĻ•্āϤāĻŦ্āϝ āĻ•ী? āĻŦ্āϝাāϏ, āĻāĻŦাāϰ āĻāχ āϏāĻ•āϞ āĻ•āĻĨোāĻĒāĻ•āĻĨāύেāϰ āĻĒāϰিāĻĒ্āϰেāĻ•্āώিāϤে āϤুāĻŽি āύিāϜেāϰ āĻŦিāĻŦেāĻ•-āĻŦুāĻĻ্āϧি āĻĒ্āϰ⧟োāĻ— āĻ•āϰে āϏিāĻĻ্āϧাāύ্āϤ āύাāĻ“ āϝে, āϤুāĻŽি āĻ•ী āĻ•āϰāĻŦা। āφāĻŽাāϰ āĻĒāĻ•্āώ āĻĨেāĻ•ে āĻ āĻŦ্āϝাāĻĒাāϰে āĻāϟাāχ āϏāϰ্āĻŦোāϤ্āϤāĻŽ āĻĒāϰাāĻŽāϰ্āĻļ। āĻāϰ āĻĨেāĻ•ে āωāϤ্āϤāĻŽ āĻ•োāύ āĻĒāϰাāĻŽāϰ্āĻļ āĻ•েāω āϜেāύে āĻĨাāĻ•āϞে āϤাāĻ•ে āĻāĻ–াāύে āϏেāϟা āĻ…āĻŦāĻļ্āϝāχ āωāϞ্āϞেāĻ– āĻ•āϰাāϰ āϜāύ্āϝ āĻ…āύুāϰোāϧ āĻ•āϰা āϝাāϚ্āĻ›ে।

    āϏāĻŦāĻļেāώে āφāĻŽি āĻŦāϞāĻŦ (āϝāĻĻিāĻ“ āχāϤিāĻŽāϧ্āϝেāχ āĻŦāĻšুāĻŦাāϰ āĻĒ্āϰāϤ্āϝāĻ•্āώ-āĻĒāϰোāĻ•্āώāĻ­াāĻŦে āĻāϟা āφāĻŽি āĻŦāϞেāĻ›ি): āϏ্āϰāώ্āϟা āϤোāĻŽাāĻ•ে āĻāĻ•āϟি āĻŦ্āϰেāύ āĻĻি⧟েāĻ›েāύ āϝেāϟাāϰ āĻ•াāϰāĻŖেāχ āϤুāĻŽি āϏৃāώ্āϟিāϰ āϏেāϰা āϜীāĻŦ। āĻāχ āĻŦ্āϰেāύāϟাāĻ•ে āύিāϰāĻĒেāĻ•্āώāĻ­াāĻŦে āϝুāĻ•্āϤি-āĻĒ্āϰāĻŽাāĻŖ āĻĒāϰ্āϝাāϞোāϚāύাāϰ āĻ•াāϜে āϞাāĻ—াāĻ“। āϤুāĻŽি āĻĒāϰāĻ•াāϞে āĻŦিāĻļ্āĻŦাāϏ āĻ•āϰ āφāϰ āύা-āχ āĻ•āϰ, āĻ…āύ্āϤāϤāĻĒāĻ•্āώে āĻāχ āϜীāĻŦāύে āϤোāĻŽাāϰ āĻŦ্āϰেāύāϚāϰ্āϚা āύিঃāϏāύ্āĻĻেāĻšে āϤোāĻŽাāϰ āωāĻĒāĻ•াāϰে āφāϏāĻŦে – āĻāϤে āĻ•োāύ āϏāύ্āĻĻেāĻšāχ āύাāχ।

    ReplyDelete
  24. āĻāϤ āĻĄিāϟেāχāϞāϏ āϞেāĻ–াāϞেāĻ–ি āĻ•āϰাāϰ āĻ…āĻ­্āϝাāϏ āύাāχ, āϧৈāϰ্āϝāĻ“ āύাāχ। āϝাāĻšোāĻ•,

    āĻĒ্āϰāĻĨāĻŽেāχ āĻĢাāϞāϤু āĻ­াāĻ‡ā§Ÿেāϰ āϏুāϏ্āĻĒāώ্āϟ āĻĒ্āϰāĻļ্āύেāϰ āωāϤ্āϤāϰ āĻĻিāϤে āϚাāχ,
    āφāĻĒāύি āϝে āĻ…āĻŦāϏ্āĻĨাāύে āφāĻ›ে āĻ“āϟাāĻ•ে āĻŦāϞা āĻšā§Ÿ Agnostic (not Atheist)। āϝāĻĻি āĻ…āϤ্āĻŽāϜিāϜ্āĻžাāϏা āĻšā§Ÿে āĻĨাāĻ•ে āϤাāĻšāϞে āĻŽাāύুāώāĻ•ে āĻĒ্āϰāĻ•াāĻļ্āϝে āϜাāύাāύোāϰ āĻĻāϰāĻ•াāϰ āĻ›িāϞ āύা, āϝেāĻšেāϤু āĻĒ্āϰāĻ•াāĻļ্āϝেāχ āϜিāϜ্āĻžাāϏা āĻ•āϰেāĻ›েāύ āϏুāϤāϰাং āϧāϰে āύিāϚ্āĻ›ি āĻāϟাāϰ āϜāύ্āϝ āφāϏāϞেāχ āφāĻĒāύি āĻĻিāĻ• āύিāϰ্āĻĻেāĻļāύাāχ āϚাāϚ্āĻ›েāύ(āĻ…āϰ্āĻĨাā§Ž āĻŽাāύুāώেāϰ āĻĒāϰাāĻŽāϰ্āĻļ)। āφāĻĒāύি āϝāĻ–āύ āύিāϜে āĻĨেāĻ•েāχ āĻŦুāĻāϤে āĻĒেāϰেāĻ›েāύ āϝে āφāĻĒāύি āĻ…āύুāĻļাāϏāύেāϰ āωāĻĒāϰ āϚāϞāĻ›েāύ, āϏুāϤāϰাং āϧāϰে āύিāϚ্āĻ›ি āφāĻĒāύি āϝāĻĨেāώ্āϟ āϞāϜিāĻ•াāϞি āĻāĻŦং āύিāϰāĻĒেāĻ•্āώāϤাāϰ āϏাāĻĨে āĻāĻ—ুāϚ্āĻ›েāύ (āĻ­াāϞ āϞাāĻ—āϞো)। āĻāĻ–āύ āϝāĻĻি āϏāĻ•āϞ āϧāϰ্āĻŽāχ āφāĻĒāύাāϰ āĻ•াāĻ›ে āĻĢেāχāĻ• āĻŽāύে āĻšā§Ÿ āĻāĻŦং āϝāĻĻি āϏৃāώ্āϟিāĻ•āϰ্āϤা āĻĨেāĻ•েāχ āĻĨাāĻ•ে āϤাāĻšāϞে āĻŽাāύুāĻŦāϧāϰ্āĻŽāϟাāχ āĻ•ি āϏāϰ্āĻŦাāĻĒেāĻ•্āώা āĻ—্āϰāĻšāύāϝোāĻ—্āϝ āύ⧟? āĻ•াāϰāĻŖ āφāĻĒāύি āϝāĻ–āύ āϏāĻ•āϞ āĻŽাāύুāώāĻ•ে āϏāĻŽাāύ āĻ­াāϞāĻŦাāϏāϤে āĻļিāĻ–āĻŦেāύ āϤāĻ–āύāχ āĻĒৃāĻĨিāĻŦী āĻšā§Ÿে āωāĻ āĻŦে āϤāĻĨাāĻ•āĻĨিāϤ āϏ্āĻŦāϰ্āĻ—েāϰ āĻŽāϤ। āĻāϟাāχ āύিāĻļ্āϚāχ āĻāĻ•āϜāύ āϏāϰ্āĻŦāϜ্āĻžাāύী,āĻĒāϰāĻŽ āĻ•āϰুāύাāĻŽā§Ÿ, āĻĒāϰāĻŽ āĻĻ⧟াāϞু āϏৃāώ্āϟিāĻ•āϰ্āϤাāϰ āϚোāĻ–ে āĻ…āύ্āϝা⧟ āĻšāϤে āĻĒাāϰে āύা। āφāϰ āĻāχ āωāϤ্āϤāϰ āϤো āĻāĻ•āϟু āĻ­েāĻŦে āĻĻেāĻ–āϞে, āύিāϜেāχ āĻ–ুāϜে āĻĒেāϤেāύ।


    āĻĻ্āĻŦিāϤী⧟āϤ āĻŽোāϞ্āϞা āϏাāϰাāĻĢাāϤ,
    āϝে āϧāϰ্āĻŽে āĻŽাāύুāώে āĻŽাāύুāώে āĻ­েāĻĻাāĻ­েāĻĻ āĻ•āϰāϤে āĻŦāϞা āĻšā§Ÿ āϤা āφāĻŽাāϰ āĻ•াāĻ›ে āĻ•āύোāĻĻিāύো āĻ—্āϰāĻšāύী⧟ āĻšāϤে āĻĒাāϰে āύা। āϏেāϟা āĻĻোāϝāĻ–েāϰ āϭ⧟েāχ āĻšোāĻ• āφāϰ āĻŦেāĻšেāϏ্āϤেāϰ āĻ—েāϞāĻŽাāύāĻĻেāϰ āϞোāĻ­েāχ āĻšোāĻ•āύা āĻ•েāύ। āφāϰ āϝে āĻ—āĻĄ āύিāϝেāϰ āϏ্āĻŦাāϰ্āĻĨেāϰ/āĻĻাāϏāϤ্āϤেāϰ/āĻāĻŦাāĻĻāϤেāϰ āϜāύ্āϝ āĻāϤ āĻ•িāĻ›ু āϘāϟাāϤে āĻĒাāϰেāύ āϏেāχ āϏ্āĻŦাāϰ্āĻĨāĻĒāϰ āĻ—āĻĄেāϰ āĻ…āϏ্āϤিāϤ্āϤে āĻŦিāĻļ্āĻŦাāϏেāϰ āĻ•োāύো āĻĒ্āϰ⧟োāϜāύ āĻŦোāϧ āĻ•āϰি āύা।

    ReplyDelete
  25. "āϝে āϧāϰ্āĻŽে āĻŽাāύুāώে āĻŽাāύুāώে āĻ­েāĻĻাāĻ­েāĻĻ āĻ•āϰāϤে āĻŦāϞা āĻšā§Ÿ āϤা āφāĻŽাāϰ āĻ•াāĻ›ে āĻ•āύোāĻĻিāύো āĻ—্āϰāĻšāύী⧟ āĻšāϤে āĻĒাāϰে āύা। āϏেāϟা āĻĻোāϝāĻ–েāϰ āϭ⧟েāχ āĻšোāĻ• āφāϰ āĻŦেāĻšেāϏ্āϤেāϰ āĻ—েāϞāĻŽাāύāĻĻেāϰ āϞোāĻ­েāχ āĻšোāĻ•āύা āĻ•েāύ। āφāϰ āϝে āĻ—āĻĄ āύিāϝেāϰ āϏ্āĻŦাāϰ্āĻĨেāϰ/āĻĻাāϏāϤ্āϤেāϰ/āĻāĻŦাāĻĻāϤেāϰ āϜāύ্āϝ āĻāϤ āĻ•িāĻ›ু āϘāϟাāϤে āĻĒাāϰেāύ āϏেāχ āϏ্āĻŦাāϰ্āĻĨāĻĒāϰ āĻ—āĻĄেāϰ āĻ…āϏ্āϤিāϤ্āϤে āĻŦিāĻļ্āĻŦাāϏেāϰ āĻ•োāύো āĻĒ্āϰ⧟োāϜāύ āĻŦোāϧ āĻ•āϰি āύা।"

    āĻŽুāĻ–ে āĻ•িāύ্āϤু āϤুāĻŽি āĻ িāĻ•āχ āĻŦāϞāĻ› "āϏāĻ•āϞ" āĻŽাāύুāώ āϏāĻŽাāύ। āĻ…āĻĨāϚ āϤুāĻŽি āĻ•িāύ্āϤু āĻāĻ•āϜāύ āĻŦাāĻ™াāϞি āφāϰ āĻāĻ•āϜāύ āχংāϰেāϜেāϰ āĻŽāϧ্āϝে āĻ­েāĻĻাāĻ­েāĻĻ āĻ•āϰ। āĻ•ীāĻ­াāĻŦে? āĻ•াāϰāĻŖ āĻāĻ•āϜāύ āĻŦাংāϞা⧟ āĻ•āĻĨা āĻŦāϞে āφāϰ āφāϰেāĻ•āϜāύ āχংāϰেāϜিāϤে। āĻ•িāύ্āϤু āĻāχ āĻ­েāĻĻাāĻ­েāĻĻāϟাāĻ•ে āĻ•ি āϤুāĻŽি āĻāĻ•āϜāύāĻ•ে āĻ­াāϞāĻŦাāϏা āφāϰ āĻāĻ•āϜāύāĻ•ে āϘৃāĻŖা āĻ•āϰাāϰ āϜāύ্āϝ āĻ•াāϜে āϞাāĻ—াāĻŦা?? āφāĻŽি āĻ•ী āĻŦāϞāϤে āϚাāϚ্āĻ›ি āĻŦুāĻāϤে āĻĒাāϰāĻ›? "āĻ­াāώাāĻ—āϤ" āĻ…āϰ্āĻĨে āϤুāĻŽি āϝেāĻ•োāύ āĻŽাāύুāώেāϰ āĻŽāϧ্āϝেāχ āϤো āĻ­েāĻĻাāĻ­েāĻĻ āĻ•āϰāĻŦা - āϤুāĻŽি āύিāĻļ্āϚ⧟āχ āĻĨিāϏিāϏ āĻ•āϰাāϰ āϏāĻŽā§Ÿ āĻŽাāύুāώেāϰ āĻŽāϧ্āϝে āĻ­েāĻĻাāĻ­েāĻĻ āĻ•āϰাāϰ āϚেāώ্āϟা āĻ•āϰāĻŦা āϝে, āĻ•াāϰা āϐ āĻĨিāϏিāϏেāϰ āϟāĻĒিāĻ• āĻ­াāϞ āϜাāύে āφāϰ āĻ•াāϰা āϝাāύে āύা āĻāĻŦং āϏেāχ āĻĒ্āϰেāĻ•্āώিāϤে āϝে āϜাāύে, āϤাāϰ āĻ•াāĻ›েāχ āĻĻৌ⧜াāĻŦা। āĻāχ āĻ­েāĻĻাāĻ­েāĻĻ āĻĒাāϰāĻĢেāĻ•্āϟāϞি āĻ“āĻ•ে। āĻ•িāύ্āϤু āϝāĻ–āύāχ āϤুāĻŽি āĻ­েāĻĻাāĻ­েāĻĻ āĻŦāϞāϤে āφāϰেāĻ•āϜāύāĻ•ে āύিāϚু āϚোāĻ–ে āĻĻেāĻ–া āĻŦুāĻাāĻŦা, āϤāĻ–āύāχ āĻ­েāϜাāϞ। āϝে āϧāϰ্āĻŽে āĻŽাāύুāώে āĻŽাāύুāώে āĻ­েāĻĻাāĻ­েāĻĻ āĻ•āϰāϤে āĻŦāϞা āĻšā§Ÿ āϤা āĻ•āĻ–āύোāχ āĻ•াāϰো āĻ•াāĻ›েāχ āĻ—্āϰāĻšāĻŖী⧟ āĻšā§Ÿ āύা। āĻāχ āĻ­েāĻĻাāĻ­েāĻĻ āĻ•োāύ āĻ…āϰ্āĻĨে? āϝāĻ–āύ āĻ­েāĻĻাāĻ­েāĻĻāϟা āĻāĻ•āϜāύ āφāϰেāĻ•āϜāύāĻ•ে "āĻĻেāĻ–āϤে āĻĒাāϰি āύা āϤোāϰে" āϟাāχāĻĒ āφāϚāϰāĻŖেāϰ āĻĻিāĻ•ে āύি⧟ে āϝা⧟। āφāϰ āχāϏāϞাāĻŽ āĻ•āĻ–āύোāχ āĻāχ āĻ­েāĻĻাāĻ­েāĻĻেāϰ āĻ…āύুāĻŽোāĻĻāύ āĻĻে⧟ āύা। āĻāχ āĻĻুāχ āϧāϰāύেāϰ āĻ­েāĻĻাāĻ­েāĻĻেāϰ āĻ•āĻĨা āφāĻŽি āωāĻĻাāĻšāϰāĻŖāϏāĻš āĻāϰ āφāĻ—েāχ āĻŦ্āϝাāĻ–্āϝা āĻ•āϰেāĻ›ি। āφāĻŦাāϰো āφāĻ—েāϰ āĻĒোāϏ্āϟāϟা āĻĻেāĻ–ে āύাāĻ“।

    ReplyDelete
  26. "āφāϰ āϝে āĻ—āĻĄ āύিāϝেāϰ āϏ্āĻŦাāϰ্āĻĨেāϰ/āĻĻাāϏāϤ্āϤেāϰ/āĻāĻŦাāĻĻāϤেāϰ āϜāύ্āϝ āĻāϤ āĻ•িāĻ›ু āϘāϟাāϤে āĻĒাāϰেāύ āϏেāχ āϏ্āĻŦাāϰ্āĻĨāĻĒāϰ āĻ—āĻĄেāϰ āĻ…āϏ্āϤিāϤ্āϤে āĻŦিāĻļ্āĻŦাāϏেāϰ āĻ•োāύো āĻĒ্āϰ⧟োāϜāύ āĻŦোāϧ āĻ•āϰি āύা।"

    āĻ āĻ•āĻĨাāϟাāĻ“ āĻāϰ āφāĻ—েāχ āĻŦ্āϝাāĻ–্āϝা āĻ•āϰেāĻ›ি। āφāϞ্āϞাāĻš āφāĻŽাāĻĻেāϰ āĻ•োāύ āϧāϰāύেāϰ āχāĻŦাāĻĻāϤেāϰāχ āĻŽুāĻ–াāĻĒেāĻ•্āώী āύ⧟। āϏাāϰা āĻĻুāύি⧟াāϰ āĻŽাāύুāώ āϝāĻĻি āĻ•িāĻ›ুāχ āύা āĻ•āϰে, āϤাāϤেāĻ“ āϤাāϰ āĻ•িāĻ›ুāχ āϝা⧟-āφāϏে āύা। āĻŦāϰং āϤিāύি āχāĻŦাāĻĻāϤ āĻ•āϰāϤে āĻŦāϞেāĻ›েāύ āĻŽাāύুāώেāϰ āύিāϜেāϰ āĻŽāĻ™্āĻ—āϞেāϰ āϜāύ্āϝāχ। āϝāĻĻি āĻŦিāĻļ্āĻŦাāϏ āύা āĻšā§Ÿ, āϤাāĻšāϞে āĻ–ুāĻŦ āĻ›োāϟ্āϟ āĻāĻ•āϟা āωāĻĻাāĻšāϰāĻŖ āĻĻেāχ। āφāϞ্āϞাāĻš āφāĻŽাāĻĻেāϰāĻ•ে āĻ“āϝূ āĻ•āϰে āύাāĻŽাāϝ āĻĒ⧜āϤে āĻŦāϞেāĻ›েāύ। āĻ•েāύ? āĻļāϤ āĻļāϤ āĻ•াāϰāĻŖ āφāĻ›ে, āĻŽাāϤ্āϰ āĻ•ā§ŸেāĻ•āϟা āωāϞ্āϞেāĻ– āĻ•āϰāĻ›ি:

    ā§§. āϏāĻŽā§ŸāĻŽāϤ āύাāĻŽাāϝ āĻĒ⧜াāϰ āĻŽāϧ্āϝ āĻĻি⧟ে āĻāĻ•āϜāύ āĻŽাāύুāώ āĻļিāĻ–āϤে āĻĒাāϰে āĻ•িāĻ­াāĻŦে āϏāĻŽā§Ÿেāϰ āϏāĻĻ্āĻŦ্āϝāĻŦāĻšাāϰ āĻ•āϰāϤে āĻšā§Ÿ।
    ⧍. āϜাāĻŽাāϤে āύাāĻŽাāϝ āĻĒ⧜াāϰ āĻŽāϧ্āϝ āĻĻি⧟ে āĻŽাāύুāώে-āĻŽাāύুāώে āĻŦāύ্āϧāύ āĻĻৃā§ āĻšā§Ÿ।
    ā§Š. āĻĻিāύে ā§Ģ āĻŦাāϰ āĻ“āϝূ āĻ•āϰāϞে āϤোāĻŽাāϰ āĻļāϰীāϰে āĻ•āĻ–āύো āĻŽā§ŸāϞা āϜāĻŽāĻŦে āύা। āφāϰ āĻ–ে⧟াāϞ āĻ•āϰে āĻĻেāĻ–: āϝেāϏāĻŦ āϜা⧟āĻ—া⧟ āϧূāϞা-āĻŦাāϞি āϜāĻŽে, āĻ“āϝূāϤে āϏেāϏāĻŦ āϜা⧟āĻ—াāχ āϧুāϤে āĻŦāϞা āĻšā§Ÿ।
    ā§Ē. āĻāĻ•āϟু āĻĒāϰāĻĒāϰ āϝāĻ–āύ āϤুāĻŽি āĻŽুāĻ–ে āĻĒাāύি āϞাāĻ—াāĻŦা, āϤāĻ–āύ āϤোāĻŽাāϰ āĻĢ্āϰেāĻļ āϞাāĻ—āĻŦে।

    āĻŽāϜাāϰ āĻŦ্āϝাāĻĒাāϰ āĻšāϚ্āĻ›ে, āϝāĻ–āύ āφāĻŽি āύাāĻŽাāϝ āĻĒ⧜āϤাāĻŽ āύা, āϤāĻ–āύ āĻāϏāĻŦ āφāĻŽাāϰ āĻ•াāĻ›ে āĻ•েāĻŦāϞ āĻĨিāĻ“āϰী āĻŽāύে āĻšāϤ। āĻāĻ–āύ āφāĻŽি āύিāϜেāχ āĻāϰ āϏুāĻĢāϞ āĻĒাāχ। āφāĻ—ে āϝāĻ–āύ āĻŽāύোāϝোāĻ— āĻĻি⧟ে āĻ•াāϜ āĻ•āϰāϤে āĻĨাāĻ•াāĻ•াāϞীāύ āύাāĻŽাāϝেāϰ āϏāĻŽā§Ÿ āĻšāϤ, āϤāĻ–āύ āĻ•াāϜ āĻĢেāϞে āύাāĻŽাāϝ āĻĒ⧜āϤে āĻŦিāϰāĻ•্āϤ āϞাāĻ—āϤ। āĻāĻ–āύ āφāĻŽাāϰ āϚāϰāĻŽ āĻŦ্āϝāϏ্āϤāϤাāϰ āĻŽāϧ্āϝে āϝāĻ–āύāχ āύাāĻŽাāϝেāϰ āϏāĻŽā§Ÿ āĻšā§Ÿ, āϤāĻ–āύāχ āĻ–ুāĻŦ āĻ­াāϞ āϞাāĻ—ে - āϝাāĻ•, āĻ…āύ্āϤāϤ ā§§ā§Ģ/⧍ā§Ļ āĻŽিāύিāϟেāϰ āϜāύ্āϝ āĻāĻ•āϟু āĻŦ্āϰেāĻ• āĻĒাāϚ্āĻ›ি।

    āĻŽোāϟ āĻ•āĻĨা, āϤুāĻŽি āϝে āĻ…āĻ­িāϝোāĻ—āĻ—ুāϞো āφāύāĻ›, āχāϏāϞাāĻŽ āĻ•āĻ–āύোāχ āϏেāϏāĻŦ āĻ•াāϜ āĻ•āϰāϤে āĻŦāϞে āύা। āϤোāĻŽাāϰ āφāϰো āĻ•োāύ āĻ•āύāĻĢিāωāĻļāύ āĻĨাāĻ•āϞে āϜাāύাāύোāϰ āϜāύ্āϝ āϏ্āĻŦাāĻ—āϤ āϜাāύাāϚ্āĻ›ি।

    ReplyDelete
  27. >> It doesn’t require mess of religions to understand what right is and what wrong is!

    >Might be somewhat true. But, people still won't choose to do the right. They would always run for evil. Then, how would you come up with a way to establish the right and prevent the wrong? Wait, you don't need to take time to think about it. Religion already provides these guidelines...
    “A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death.” -- Albert Einstein

    Einstein is not only a great scientist he was also an eminent social reformer and educationist, you should have known that.
    >> Stand for mankind not for religion.
    > Religion IS for mankind. It never goes against mankind. It's the mankind who uses religion for satisfying their selfish needs. The blame is to be given not to religion, rather to those selfish people.
    Religion is guilty that’s what I explained.

    >> I hope you know how badly affected the civilization is by the religion politics.
    > Again, religion is not to be blamed for it, rather the people should be.
    Yes people who created religions for interests except for Buddhism which is a philosophy not an imposting religion with lies.
    >> Debashis wrote: We bribe the god by praying (something like giving TEL(oil)) to get advantages in real life or life after death(!!!).

    > Yeah - from people's point of view. God is such a fool that he can't even understand that the people (whom He created) are 'bribing' Him to get advantages!!! He doesn't even care if we don't do what He wants us to do. He needn't care whether we get advantages or are deprived of advantages. He just prescribed religion for our own good....
    Sura 2: al-Baqara (The Cow), 2:21
    “Allah created the mankind; they should worship Him.”
    Contradiction: 3:97, 35:15 say “Allah does not need mankind and the jinns; He is free of
    all want.”
    What you said is a contradiction in quran. Did you read Quran well?

    ReplyDelete
  28. > Throughout years of research, I found out the truth - not all I "hear" about MY religion are true due to people's ignorance while speaking. But, what I came to find out - all I read in the original texts of MY religion are indeed true and contradiction-free.

    I said once. Your religion is same way guilty as others and contains a lot lies and contradictions inside. You have seen a lot. Why do you deny?

     Nope. They never deserve hell just because of God's decision. God made human the best of creations. Why? Because he gave him something called 'brain' to think logically……... If you don't use your brain to know the right thing and consequently follow the wrong path, shouldn't you deserve punishment?

    You got wrong idea. I’ll talk about it more. You owe me thanks for the payback patience I’m giving to you to disabuse you out of religious misconceptions.

    >> "How will people be able to think? The poisons of religions are seeded from the very childhood of religious people."
    > Again, this is people's fault, not religion's.

    Obviously religion is guilty enough.

    >> "Forget about the people. Can you think?"
    > At least I try to.
    No you don’t. Your every thinking is religion-centred even you don’t think neutrally. Your every word is backed from a religion called Islam. When you at first assume the wrong answer as true how will you be able to differentiate true answer from wrong? I am not saying to assume that religion as wrong. At least don’t take it as correct. That’ll be helpfully neutral to start the thinking correctly. God damn if you could ever do that!

    You don’t know how much limited you are!

     False. Rather I tried my best to find out. The result? At least I didn't find any contradiction in the Quraan and the authentic Prophetic traditions. If you've found one, you're welcome to mention it. :)
    I’ve mentioned. The world mentions it so much. Someone is sleeping awake cannot be waked up!
    To help you I’ll mention more. But I fear you got a resistive mind you see everything from Islamic perceptions and become fooled by religious scruples! Let’s see how much you can help yourself.

    >> "Could ever any religion prevent people from doing wrong?"
    > Yeah. During the life of the Prophet Muhammad (may peace be upon him), Islaam prevented people from doing wrong. You can read any history book mentioning that period for details. It's only one example.
    Again misunderstood. Under the hood of religion and costumes bad is still bad good is still good. You need to know the definition of justice from good philosophers. Then you’ll be able to differentiate between good and bad truly. Relgions are so limited!

    >> "If you were born in that culture you'd have believed same way. But now you're not coz you are not going to bomb some people tongiht."
    > Wrong. Rather I'm not coz I KNOW the right thing from the very religious texts.
    You are a fool or what? Does the non-religious people of the roads and pavements know about your religious texts? Think like that. If your words had any effect in real there would have been no people out of your religion! But in real another religion still has the majority! What I wanted to mean is still having the best brain you wouldn’t have been muslim if you were born in Christian society. Like the majority is increasing still being born in their very own religious community.

    You might name some Christians who came muslim. I know that much clever you are cycling around your religious garbage. Go to http://www.ex-muslim.org.uk/ you’ll find lakhs of muslims adopted different beliefs. That’s just an example. Reality is more bad for you if your ideas have still not changed.

    ReplyDelete
  29. >> "What Shiya, Sunni dividends? What about differentiated cultures on women?"
    > Again, these are not religion's fault, rather people's. What about contradictions among the scientists about a scientific issue?? You must provide valid proof to justify you're the correct one. Same is true in the above mentioned cases. However, as people are blind and emotional, they don't want to accept proofs. That's why the contradictory views persist. Again, that's not religion's problem.

    It’s not true that only your view is correct and all others wrong. You should understand what contradiction means first. A contradiction is not stated just for one person’s emotional case. Religion containing contradictions is not good guideline for mankind.

    Is science a religion? Is it imposed on anyone? Science is an established procedure to find the truth. Some concepts might be in development and in future might be proved different, but they are not imposed ever for personal interests in wrong ways. You’re having the very advantages of science like every other people. You shouldn’t believe in religious superstitions.

    >> "What if you were not provided any religion from your birth? Then which religion would had been true to you?"
    > According to what I've mentioned before, I was a Muslim by birth before; now I'm a Muslim by choice.
    No you are wrong. You had 99.99999999..% probability of being Christian. Look at others you of that community. They Christian and they are happy. There are other religion followers too.

    >> "If they feel like the order is from their Boss and that came straight from Allah they will not mess with the car but anything definitely? Then who is responsible?"
    >The people is responsible. Why would they 'feel' that the order is from their boss? Rather they should 'verify' that the order is indeed from their boss and only then act accordingly. And it's certain that the boss won't order them something wrong to do, isn't it?

    You misunderstood. These bosses are religious gurus who provide corrections for incompatible things in your religion and the book, Quran. Not believing them is denying the fundamentals of that religion.

    ReplyDelete
  30. >>"If you were following Christian(or any other religion) strictly still being born in Muslim it might convinced me! But now you are dumb fool follower underestimating others!"

    > …Even Christian priests became Muslims after they sought for the truth and not just stayed as a simple Muslim, rather became scholars in comparing Islaam, Christianity and other religions (and of course, atheism). Were they paid for it or did they do it by making use of their own brain?

    You are too biased. You only know the opinion of one party. You don’t know the others’. That’s why you seek brain on accepting Islam. I got people in front of me accept Islaming to whom no religions did matter. The matter was only the help of neighbor muslims. He’d never gave a shit about this religion if he wasn’t seriously troubled being the minority in locality. You find too much truthfulness and intelligence on switching on Islam. You’d understand how fake that is if you were that other religion follower.

    Definitely no one ever loves to change his religion/belief because his fellow society, his friends, relatives will leave him. Did you meet a religion switcher? Did you observe their true condition in real life? There is no Allah who made’em happy.

    >> About what you said on people with less merit and beasts having better brain than human.

    > It seems that you've misunderstood the meaning of "the best of the creations". It refers to the mankind as a whole and not to individual persons. Man can think better than other animals in orders of magnitudes. There is of course differences of level of merit among people, but even the dumbest person can think much more better than any beast.

    Should I say you fool again! You didn’t get the logic. Definitely not. There are human beings who are worst than some intelligent beasts in case of intelligence. They are named disabled. I respect them but in your judgement, every people would find Islamic belief from intelligence. They’ll never find.

    You think others will go hell. They think you people will be damned to hell. It’s called damnation without relief and etc. I focused on my post in a general statement that makes it easy to understand. But you never get it and you are banging with your own religion.
    If you respect your religion too much then you shouldn’t dig it deep here because there are hateful crocodiles inside.

    ReplyDelete
  31. >> "Islam was kind of suitable for primitive times. It's completely worn out!"

    > There is no doubt that many scientific facts which were revealed relatively recently were already mentioned in the Quraan 1400 years ago. Then is it primitive or thousand years advanced?? Rather Islaam is completely compatible with time. Its rulings are formulated in such a way that those would be best suited to current people as well as to those coming later.

    That’s fool paradise. Islam never knew science. No joking.. Many erroneous issues have been resolved by religious leader time to time. If you read Quran from first to last you’ll see discussions about those Arab people at that primitive time, places on proximity and related facts on Muhammad. They are related to Muhammad’s life, his hates, his fears and the people, relatives who disobeyed him. There are contradictions about the implementation technique too. I’ll mention if you continue writing your novels. What can you sense from that? Completely written on that time and space. Now it worns out long before.

    Not only one book came. There are many kitabs: the Suhuf Ibrahim, the Tawrat, the Zabur, the Injil etc are major. Didn't they came from Allah?

    One kitab after another comes because that previous becomes inappropriate with the flow of time, space and race. Same way comes Quran.

    Now if a kitab really came from Allah how do they become faulty and inappropriate? There are many contradictions with quranic laws and current phenomenons. Now alims and other so called wise religious people are called to compromise these conflicts..

    A book that came from Allah becomes invalidated? And humans decide what should be the modification?
    Dig it up. If you have just to come to deny every fact and reason against Islam then I politely say please leave. I haven’t come to make assaults on Islam. My intentions are far from these narrow low-level things.

    >>"You are saying something about original text.
    >>Allah says: [...] (Al-Hijr 15:9).
    >>So don't make us fool telling about your authenticity."

    >If I'm not mistaken, you've misunderstood my word "original text". It means the Quraan and the authentic Prophetic traditions. All other books referencing these sources are not considered as original. ………………………. Quraan has been and always will be preserved as it was revealed. Have any proof that it hasn't been? Anybody's welcome to put it forth. :)

    Yes, you are mistaken. I said your Allah preserves Quran on his own interest as said. So there cannot be modified copies which in terms stand against this statement.

    ReplyDelete
  32. About all your words where you've tried to say that religion is guilty - you said that you've discussed it and I'm also saying that I've discussed it, too. In this case, the audience would decide whether the statement is correct.


    "Sura 2: al-Baqara (The Cow), 2:21
    “Allah created the mankind; they should worship Him.”
    Contradiction: 3:97, 35:15 say “Allah does not need mankind and the jinns; He is free of all want.”
    What you said is a contradiction in quran. Did you read Quran well?"

    Of course I read the Quraan very well (and much better than you did) - to the extent that I learned Arabic just to correct people like you who think themselves to be 'neutral' but yet copy-paste texts from websites without even verifying whether the so-called contradictory aayaat they're copying are indeed meant in the Holy Quraan as they're trying to mean.

    Below are the translations of the actual aayaahs in the referred chapter and verse numbers:

    2:21. O mankind! Worship your Lord Who created you and those who were before you so that you may become Al-MuttaqÃģn (the pious).
    3:97. ...and whoever disbelieves, then AllÃĸh stands not in need of any of the 'AlamÃŽn (mankind and jinns).
    35:15. O mankind! it is you who are the needy, but AllÃĸh is Rich (Free of all wants and needs), Worthy of all praise.

    This is quite simple English and is clearly comprehendible that Allaah is giving a clear message here that everyone should worship Him so that they become pious. It is not the need of Allaah, but for the good of the mankind as piousness would obviously bring good to people.

    Brother, if you want to know the truth, then first of all, be neutral. When you quote something, first check whether that quoted message indeed exists in the reference exactly as you're quoting. You shouldn't blindly copy-paste from websites to suit to your own desires. It's a reprehensible deception.

    ReplyDelete
  33. "Your religion is same way guilty as others and contains a lot lies and contradictions inside. You have seen a lot. Why do you deny?"

    I deny because I can proof (quite easily) that the claims of existence of those so-called lies and contradictions in Islaam are themselves lies. I already proved quite a few. If you think you're smart enough to refute those, give it a try.


    You think that religion is imposed on people. However, Islaam never says to impose it on anybody. Rather surah Kaafiroon (chapter 109) says that if you don't want to come to Islaam, then be with your own religion/view. Islaam is for people's own good. If they don't want it, nobody has the right to force them accepting it. Rather Allaah says in the holy quran (2:256) "There is no compulsion in religion. Verily, the Right Path has become distinct from the wrong path."

    Brother, before you state something, you should do some research to verify what you're saying is correct.


    "I am not saying to assume that religion as wrong. At least don’t take it as correct. That’ll be helpfully neutral to start the thinking correctly. God damn if you could ever do that!"

    Yeah, I already mentioned before that I did that long before. I already mentioned before that I started research when I suspected that what people are telling me is not correct. And I know very well how to be neutral to think correctly.


    "I said your Allah preserves Quran on his own interest as said. So there cannot be modified copies which in terms stand against this statement."

    The Quraan has indeed been preserved without any modification. You're asking about different copies. Tell me, our Bangabandhu gave a historic speech on 7th March; has it been preserved? Of course it is. But it wasn't a written document, it was a speech. Now, if you write in plain bangla and if you write it in Banglish (Bangla text written with English characters which is common in messenger chats), if both of them sound like the original speech when read, then would you say that his speech has been modified because of different copies?? Quraan was revealed as speech, not as a written script. All the copies of Quraan that you think to be 'different' actually sounds exactly the same when they are recited. So, it indeed has been preserved.

    ReplyDelete
  34. You have mentioned many other issues which can be logically refuted very easily. However, as I found out from your last posts that you're in fact not acting neutral, therefore I think that refuting those would only waste my valuable time. By grace of Allaah, I have all the patience, knowledge and expertise needed to clear all your confusions, but first, you must comply to the following:

    1. You must act neutrally and logically (not emotionally). Before you state anything, verify that what you're referencing actually exists in the referenced book.

    2. Try to do some research thinking. Rather than copy-pasting the so-called contradictions from websites, try to google for refutations of those contradictions - you're guaranteed to find the answers to all the so-called contradictions on the Internet. Study those; and if, still you find out that those answers can be refuted, then present those contradictions with your refutations. Don't merely utter words without researching even a little bit.

    3. Try to be modest. You don't need to call someone fool, dumb, limited etc. to refute his arguments. Smart people need only logical arguments to refute somebody else's arguments. If you can't respect people, don't think they'd thank you just because they owe you to (and it's silly to demand thanks from people or reminding them of owing thanks, anyway...).

    4. Try to be honest. If you can't refute my arguments, you should admit that. Don't try to bypass those arguments. You raised some serious objections on contradictions in the Quraan and 'slavery' issue in Islaam. If you can refute my arguments on those issues, then present your arguments. Otherwise, you should admit that the objections you raised were not correct indeed.

    So, as I said - adhere to these common-sense rules and I'll have all the patience and time needed to clear all of your confusions, if Allaah wills.

    ReplyDelete
  35. @ Sharafat,
    “āφāϰ āĻ•োāϰāφāύে(āĻ…āύ্āϝ āϧāϰ্āĻŽāĻ—্āϰāύ্āĻĨেāϰ āĻ•āĻĨা āϊāϞ্āϞেāĻ– āĻ•āϰা āĻšāϞ āύা) āϊāϞ্āϞেāĻ– āφāĻ›ে āϝাāϰা āĻĻāϞāϚ্āϝুāϤ āϤাāĻĻেāϰ āϜāύ্āϝ āφāĻ›ে āĻ•āĻ িāύ āĻļাāϏ্āϤি।“
    āφāĻŽি āĻāϰāĻ•āĻŽ āĻ•োāύ āĻ†ā§ŸাāϤেāϰ āĻ•āĻĨা āϜাāύি āύা āϝেāĻ–াāύে āĻĻāϞāϚ্āϝুāϤ āĻšāĻŦাāϰ āϜāύ্āϝ āĻļাāϏ্āϤিāϰ āĻ•āĻĨা āĻŦāϞা āĻšā§ŸেāĻ›ে। āĻ•ুāϰāφāύ-āĻšাāĻĻীāϏে āĻŦাāϰāĻŦাāϰ āĻŽুāϏāϞিāĻŽāĻĻেāϰ āĻŽāϧ্āϝে “āĻĻāϞাāĻĻāϞি” āϏৃāώ্āϟি āĻ•āϰাāϰ āĻ•্āώেāϤ্āϰে āĻšুঁāĻļি⧟াāϰ āĻ•āϰা āĻšā§ŸেāĻ›ে। āĻš্āϝাঁ, āϝāĻĻি āĻĻāϞāϚ্āϝুāϤ āĻŦāϞāϤে āĻŽুāϰāϤাāĻĻ āϤāĻĨা āχāϏāϞাāĻŽāϚ্āϝুāϤ āĻšāĻŦাāϰ āĻ•āĻĨা āĻŦāϞ, āϤāĻŦে āĻāϰ āϜāύ্āϝ āĻļাāϏ্āϤিāϰ āĻ•āĻĨা āχāϏāϞাāĻŽে āĻŦāϞা āĻšā§ŸেāĻ›ে। āĻĒ্āϰāĻļ্āύ āĻšāϚ্āĻ›ে āϝে, āĻāχ āĻļাāϏ্āϤিāϰ āĻŦ্āϝāĻŦāϏ্āĻĨা āĻ•েāύ? āĻ–ুāĻŦ āϏংāĻ•্āώেāĻĒে āωāϤ্āϤāϰāϟা āĻĻেāχ (āĻāϤāĻ•্āώāĻŖ āϧāϰে āϟাāχāĻĒ āĻ•āϰāϤে āĻ•āϰāϤে āφāϰ āĻ­াāϞ āϞাāĻ—āĻ›ে āύা)। āϤুāĻŽি āϤোāĻŽাāϰ āϝāĻ–āύ āχāϚ্āĻ›া āĻšāĻŦে, āϤāĻ–āύ āĻŽুāϏāϞিāĻŽāĻĻেāϰ āϏাāĻĨে āĻĨেāĻ•ে āϏুāĻŦিāϧা āύিāĻŦা, āφāϰ āϝāĻ–āύ āχāϚ্āĻ›া āĻ•āϰāĻŦে, āϤāĻ–āύ āϤাāĻĻেāϰ āĻĨেāĻ•ে āĻŦেāϰ āĻšā§Ÿে āĻ—ি⧟ে āĻŽুāϏāϞিāĻŽāĻĻেāϰ āύাāĻŽে āĻŽিāĻĨ্āϝা āĻ…āĻĒāĻŦাāĻĻ āĻ•āϰāĻŦা āφāϰ āĻĻুāϰ্āύাāĻŽ āϰāϟাāĻŦা, āĻāϟা āϤো āĻšāϤে āĻĻেāĻ“ā§Ÿা āϝা⧟ āύা, āϤাāχ āύা? āωāϤ্āϤāϰāϟা āĻ­াāϞ āύা āϞাāĻ—āϞে āĻŦāχāϞো, āĻĒāϰে āĻŦিāϏ্āϤাāϰিāϤ āĻŦ্āϝাāĻ–্āϝা āĻ•āϰāĻŦ āύে, āχāύāĻļা āφāϞ্āϞাāĻš।

    - āωāϤ্āϤāϰāϟা āĻ­াāϞো āϞাāĻ—ে āύাāχ।

    “āĻŽাāύুāώেāϰ āφāϞাāĻĻা āĻŽāϤāĻŦাāĻĻ āĻĨাāĻ•āϤেāχ āĻĒাāϰে। āύাāĻ•ি āφāϞাāĻĻা āĻŽāϤāĻŦাāĻĻ āĻĨাāĻ•াāχ āϝাāĻŦেāύা??”
    āĻš্āϝাঁ, āφāϞাāĻĻা āĻŽāϤāĻŦাāĻĻ āĻĨাāĻ•āϤেāχ āĻĒাāϰে āϝāĻĻি āϏāĻŦāĻ—ুāϞো āĻŽāϤাāĻŽāϤāχ āϝৌāĻ•্āϤিāĻ• āĻšā§Ÿ। āϤুāĻŽি āϝāĻĻি āϜিāϜ্āĻžাāϏা āĻ•āϰ āϝে, āϚাāύāĻ–াঁāϰāĻĒুāϞ āĻĨেāĻ•ে āύীāϞāĻ•্āώেāϤ āϝাāĻ“ā§Ÿা āϝা⧟ āĻ•েāĻŽāύে, āϤাāĻšāϞে āĻ•েāω āĻŦāϞāĻŦে āĻļāĻšীāĻĻ āĻŽিāύাāϰ āĻĻি⧟ে āϝাāĻ“, āĻ•েāω āĻŦāϞāĻŦে āĻŦাংāϞা āĻāĻ•াāĻĄেāĻŽীāϰ āĻĒাāĻļ āĻĻি⧟ে, āĻ•েāωāĻŦা āĻŦāϞāĻŦে āĻŦু⧟েāϟেāϰ āĻĒাāĻļ āĻĻি⧟ে। āĻāĻ•্āώেāϤ্āϰে āϏāĻŦাāϰ āĻŽāϤāĻŦাāĻĻāχ āϝৌāĻ•্āϤিāĻ• āĻāĻŦং āĻ—্āϰāĻšāĻŖāϝোāĻ—্āϝ। āĻ•িāύ্āϤু āϝāĻĻি āĻŽāϤāĻ­েāĻĻ āĻšā§Ÿ āĻŽিāĻĨ্āϝা āĻŦāϞা āϝাāĻŦে āĻ•ি āϝাāĻŦে āύা, āϤাāĻšāϞে āϏেāĻ•্āώেāϤ্āϰে āĻŽāϤāĻ­েāĻĻāϟা āφāĻĻৌ āĻ—্āϰāĻšāĻŖāϝোāĻ—্āϝ āύ⧟। āĻāϟা āĻ…āϤ্āϝāύ্āϤ āϝুāĻ•্āϤিāĻĒূāϰ্āĻŖāĻ­াāĻŦে āĻĒ্āϰāĻŽাāĻŖ āĻ•āϰা āϝা⧟ āϝে, āĻŽিāĻĨ্āϝা āĻŦāϞা āϝাāĻŦে āύা āĻāχ āĻŽāϤāϟাāχ āϏāĻ িāĻ• āĻāĻŦং āĻ…āύ্āϝāϟা āĻ­ুāϞ।
    -āĻāχ āωāϤ্āϤāϰেāϰ āĻĒ্āϰেāĻ•্āώিāϤে āĻŦāϞāϤে āĻšā§Ÿ। āϝāĻĻি āϞāĻ•্āώ্āϝ āĻ িāĻ• āĻĨাāĻ•ে āϤাāĻšāϞে āϝে āωāĻĒা⧟েāχ āϞāĻ•্āώ্āϝে āϝাāĻ“ā§Ÿা āĻšোāĻ• āύা āĻ•েāύ āϝাāĻ“ā§Ÿা āϝাāĻŦে।āϤাāĻšāϞে āϤ āĻāĻŽāύ āĻšāϤে āĻĒাāϰে āĻŽা āφāύāύ্āĻĻāĻŽā§Ÿীāϰ āĻŽāϤাāύুāϏাāϰে 'āϝāϤ āĻŽāϤ āϤāϤ āĻĒāĻĨ' āϏāĻ িāĻ• āĻŽāϤ। āĻ•োāϰাāφāύে āφāĻ›ে,'āϝাāϰা āϤোāĻŽাāϰ āĻĒ্āϰāϤি āϝা āĻ…āĻŦāϤীāϰ্āĻŖ āĻšā§ŸেāĻ›ে āĻ“ āϤোāĻŽাāϰ āĻĒূāϰ্āĻŦে āϝা āĻ…āĻŦāϤীāϰ্āĻŖ āĻšā§ŸেāĻ›ে āϤাāϤে āĻŦিāĻļ্āĻŦাāϏ āĻ•āϰে āĻ“ āĻĒāϰāϞোāĻ•ে āύিāĻļ্āϚিāϤ āĻŦিāĻļ্āĻŦাāϏ āĻ•āϰে.........āϤাāϰাāχ āϏāĻĢāϞāĻ•াāĻŽ'- āϏেāχ āĻ…āύুāϝা⧟ী āĻŦāϞা āϝা⧟ āϏāĻŦ āϧāϰ্āĻŽেāχ āψāĻļ্āĻŦāϰāĻŦাāĻĻেāϰ āĻ•āĻĨা āωāϞ্āϞ্āϝেāĻ– āφāĻ›ে। āĻ•িāĻ›ু āϧāϰ্āĻŽে āĻāĻ•েāĻļ্āĻŦāϰāĻŦাāĻĻ āĻ•িāĻ›ু āϧāϰ্āĻŽে āĻŦāĻšেāĻļ্āĻŦāϰāĻŦাāĻĻ। āĻāĻŦং āĻļেāώেāϰāĻĻিāĻ•ে āĻĒ্āϰāϚাāϰিāϤ āϧāϰ্āĻŽে āĻāĻ•েāĻļ্āĻŦāϰāĻŦাāĻĻāχ āĻŽুāϞ āĻ•āĻĨা। āϧāϰāϞাāĻŽ āĻļেāώেāϰāĻĻিāĻ•ে āϝেāϏāĻŦ āϧāϰ্āĻŽ āĻĒ্āϰāϚাāϰিāϤ āĻšā§ŸেāĻ›ে āϏেāĻ—ুāϞোāχ āĻŦিāĻŦেāϚ্āϝ। āϤাāĻšāϞে āĻ•ি āĻāĻŽāύ āĻšāĻ“ā§Ÿা āωāϚিāϤ āĻ›িāϞ āύা āĻāĻ•েāĻļ্āĻŦāϰāĻŦাāĻĻ āĻŽাāύāϞেāχ āφāĻŽি āϏāĻ িāĻ•āĻĒāĻĨে āφāĻ›ি। āϏেāϟা āϝে āϧāϰ্āĻŽāχ āĻšোāĻ• āύা āĻ•েāύ। āϤাāĻšāϞে āĻ•েāύো āĻļুāϧুāĻŽাāϤ্āϰ āχāϏāϞাāĻŽেāϰ āĻĒāĻĨেāχ āϝেāϤে āĻšāĻŦে? āφāĻŽি āϝāĻĻি āĻāĻ•েāĻļ্āĻŦāϰāĻŦাāĻĻি āĻšāχ āĻāĻŦং āĻ­াāϞো āĻ•াāϜ āĻ•āϰি āϤাāĻšāϞে āĻ•েāύো āφāĻŽি āϏ্āĻŦāϰ্āĻ—ে/ āĻŦেāĻšেāϏ্āϤে āϝেāϤে āĻĒাāϰāĻŦ āύা? āφāĻŽি āϤ āϝেāĻ•োāύ āωāĻĒা⧟ে āĻ…āĻ­ীāώ্āϟ āϞāĻ•্āώ্āϝে āϝেāϤে āĻĒাāϰি। (āφāϰ āφāĻŽি āϝāĻĻি āϏāĻŦ āϧāϰ্āĻŽেāχ āϏāĻŽ্āĻŽাāύ āϰাāĻ–ি āφāϰ āĻ•োāύ āϧāϰ্āĻŽāχ āϞৌāĻ•িāĻ•āĻ­াāĻŦে āĻĒাāϞāύ āύা āĻ•āϰি āĻļুāϧু āϏāĻŦ āϧāϰ্āĻŽেāϰ āĻŽূāϞ 'āψāĻļ্āĻŦāϰ'āĻ āĻŦিāĻļ্āĻŦাāϏ āϰাāĻ–ি āĻāĻŦং āĻ¸ā§ŽāĻĒāĻĨে āĻĨাāĻ•ি āϤাāĻšāϞে āφāĻŽি āĻ•ি āĻŦিāĻĒāĻĨāĻ—াāĻŽী āĻŦāϞা āϝা⧟? )


    “āĻāĻ–āύ āĻ•āĻĨা āĻšāϚ্āĻ›ে āĻ•োāύ āĻāĻ•āϜāύ āϝে āĻ…āύ্āϝ āϧāϰ্āĻŽেāϰ āϤাāϰ āĻĒ্āϰāϤি āφāĻŽাāϰ āφāϚāϰāύāĻ—āϤ āĻ…āĻŽিāϞ āĻĨাāĻ•āĻŦেāχ। āĻ•িāĻ­াāĻŦে?!! āϏেāϟাāχ āĻ•āĻĨা। āϝে āĻ…āĻŽুāϏāϞিāĻŽ āϤাāĻ•ে āφāĻŽি āφāĻŽাāϰ āϜীāĻŦāύāϏāĻ™্āĻ—ী āĻšিāϏাāĻŦে āύিāϰ্āĻŦাāϚāύ āĻ•āϰāϤে āĻĒাāϰāĻŦ āύা(āĻĒāϰিāĻŦাāϰ āĻĨেāĻ•ে āĻĒাāĻ“ā§Ÿা āĻļিāĻ•্āώা)। āϤাāϰāĻŽাāύে āϤাāϰ āĻĒ্āϰāϤি āφāĻŽাāϰ āφāϚāϰāύেāϰ āϤāĻĢাāϤ āĻĨেāĻ•েāχ āϝাāϚ্āĻ›ে।“

    āĻš্āϝাঁ, āφāϚāϰāĻŖেāϰ āϤāĻĢাāϤ āϤো āĻĨাāĻ•াāϟাāχ āϏ্āĻŦাāĻ­াāĻŦিāĻ•। āĻ•িāύ্āϤু āĻāχ āϤāĻĢাāϤেāϰ āĻ•াāϰāĻŖে āĻ•ি āφāĻŽāϰা āĻ…āĻŽুāϏāϞিāĻŽāĻĻেāϰāĻ•ে āĻĻুāχ āϚোāĻ–ে āĻĻেāĻ–āϤে āύা āĻĒাāϰাāϰ āĻŽāϤ āĻĒāϰিāϏ্āĻĨিāϤি āϤৈāϰি āĻ•āϰāĻŦ? āĻ–োāĻĻ āĻ•ুāϰāφāύ āĻĨেāĻ•েāχ āωāϤ্āϤāϰāϟা āϜেāύে āύাāĻ“: “āϝাāϰা āϤোāĻŽাāĻĻেāϰ āĻŦিāϰুāĻĻ্āϧে āϧāϰ্āĻŽেāϰ āĻ•াāϰāĻŖে āϝুāĻĻ্āϧ āĻ•āϰেāύি āĻāĻŦং āϤোāĻŽাāĻĻেāϰāĻ•ে āϤোāĻŽাāĻĻেāϰ āĻŦāϏāϤāĻŦা⧜ি āĻĨেāĻ•ে āϤা⧜ি⧟ে āĻĻে⧟ āύি, āφāϞ্āϞাāĻš āϤোāĻŽাāĻĻেāϰāĻ•ে āϤাāĻĻেāϰ āϏāĻ™্āĻ—ে āϏāĻĻ্āĻŦ্āϝāĻŦāĻšাāϰ āĻ•āϰাāϰ āĻāĻŦং āύ্āϝা⧟āĻĒāϰা⧟āĻŖāϤাāϰ āϏাāĻĨে āφāϚāϰāĻŖ āĻ•āϰāϤে āύিāώেāϧ āĻ•āϰেāύ āύি; āύিāĻļ্āϚ⧟ āφāϞ্āϞাāĻš āύ্āϝা⧟āĻĒāϰা⧟āĻŖāĻĻেāϰāĻ•ে āĻ­াāϞāĻŦাāϏেāύ। āϝাāϰা āϤোāĻŽাāĻĻেāϰ āĻŦিāϰুāĻĻ্āϧে āϧāϰ্āĻŽেāϰ āĻ•াāϰāĻŖে āϝুāĻĻ্āϧ āĻ•āϰেāĻ›ে āĻāĻŦং āϤোāĻŽাāĻĻেāϰāĻ•ে āϤোāĻŽাāĻĻেāϰ āĻŦāϏāϤāĻŦা⧜ি āĻĨেāĻ•ে āϤা⧜ি⧟ে āĻĻি⧟েāĻ›ে āĻāĻŦং āϤোāĻŽাāĻĻেāϰāĻ•ে āĻŦāĻšিāώ্āĻ•াāϰেāϰ āĻŦ্āϝাāĻĒাāϰে āĻĒৃāώ্āĻ āĻĒোāώāĻ•āϤা āĻ•āϰেāĻ›ে, āφāϞ্āϞাāĻš āϤোāĻŽাāĻĻেāϰāĻ•ে āϤাāĻĻেāϰ āϏাāĻĨে āĻŦāύ্āϧুāϤ্āĻŦ āĻ•āϰāϤে āύিāώেāϧ āĻ•āϰেāĻ›েāύ। āφāϰ āϝাāϰা āϤাāĻĻেāϰ āϏাāĻĨে āĻŦāύ্āϧুāϤ্āĻŦ āĻ•āϰāĻŦে, āϤাāϰা āϤো āϤাāĻšāϞে āĻ…āϤ্āϝাāϚাāϰী।“ (āϏূāϰা āĻŽুāĻŽāϤাāĻšিāύাāĻš ā§Ŧā§Ļ:ā§Ž-⧝) āϏুāϤāϰাং, āϝাāϰা āĻŽুāϏāϞিāĻŽāĻĻেāϰ āϏাāĻĨে āϝুāĻĻ্āϧ āĻ•āϰāĻ›ে āύা, āϤাāĻĻেāϰ āϏাāĻĨে āĻ–াāϰাāĻĒ āĻŦ্āϝāĻŦāĻšাāϰ āĻ•āϰāϤে āϤো āĻŦāϞা āĻšā§Ÿāχ āύি, āωāĻĒāϰāύ্āϤু āϤাāĻĻেāϰ āϏাāĻĨে āĻ­াāϞ āĻŦ্āϝāĻŦāĻšাāϰ āĻāĻŦং āύ্āϝা⧟āĻĒāϰা⧟āĻŖ āφāϚāϰāĻŖ āĻ•āϰাāϰ āĻĒ্āϰāϤি āωāϤāϏাāĻš āĻĻেāĻ“ā§Ÿা āĻšāϚ্āĻ›ে āĻāχ āĻ•āĻĨা āĻŦāϞে āϝে, āύ্āϝা⧟āĻĒāϰা⧟āĻŖāĻ•াāϰীāĻĻেāϰāĻ•ে āφāϞ্āϞাāĻš āĻ­াāϞāĻŦাāϏেāύ।
    - āφāĻŽাāϰ āĻĒ্āϰāĻļ্āύ āĻ›িāϞ āĻ•েāύ āχāϏāϞাāĻŽ āĻ…āύ্āϝ āϧāϰ্āĻŽেāϰ āĻĒ্āϰāϤি āωāĻĻাāϰ āĻšāϤে āĻĒাāϰāϞ āύা? āĻ•েāύ āĻ…āĻŽুāϏāϞিāĻŽāĻĻেāϰ āϏাāĻĨে āĻŦৈāĻŦাāĻšিāĻ• āϏāĻŽ্āĻĒāϰ্āĻ• āĻ…āĻŦৈāϧ āĻ•āϰে āĻĻিāϞ?? āύাāĻ•ি āĻāϟাāĻ“ āĻŽাāύুāώেāϰ āϏৃāώ্āϟ। āφāĻŽি/āφāĻŽāϰা āύিāϜেāĻĻেāϰ āĻŽāϤ āĻ•āϰে āĻāχ āύীāϤি āϚাāϞু āĻ•āϰেāĻ›ি ??
    @Atiq,
    Allah created the mankind; they should worship Him.”
    Contradiction: 3:97, 35:15 say “Allah does not need mankind and the jinns; He is free of
    all want.”
    -āĻāϤে āφāϤিāĻ•েāϰ āϏাāĻĨে āĻāĻ•āĻŽāϤ।

    ReplyDelete
  36. >> "Forget about the people. Can you think?"
    > At least I try to.
    No you don’t. Your every thinking is religion-centred even you don’t think neutrally. Your every word is backed from a religion called Islam. When you at first assume the wrong answer as true how will you be able to differentiate true answer from wrong? I am not saying to assume that religion as wrong. At least don’t take it as correct. That’ll be helpfully neutral to start the thinking correctly. God damn if you could ever do that!
    - āĻāĻ–াāύে āφāĻĒāϤ্āϤি āφāĻ›ে। āϝāĻĻি āύাāϏ্āϤিāĻ•āχ āĻšā§Ÿে āĻĨাāĻ•ে āψāĻļ্āĻŦāϰেāϰ āĻĻোāĻšাāχ āĻ•েāύ??!!!
    O.T: āĻŦেāĻļীāϰāĻ­াāĻ— āĻ•্āώেāϤ্āϰেāχ (āύিāϜেāϰ āĻĻেāĻ–া)āĻāĻ•āϟা āϏāĻŽā§Ÿে āĻŽাāύুāώ āĻ–ুāĻŦ āĻ—āϰ্āĻŦāĻ­াāĻŦে āĻŦāϞে āĻŦে⧜া⧟ āφāĻŽি āύাāϏ্āϤিāĻ•। āĻāĻŦং āϜোāϰ āϝুāĻ•্āϤিāĻ“ āĻĻা⧜ āĻ•āϰা⧟ āϝেāĻ—ুāϞো āφāĻŽি/āφāĻŽāϰা āφāĻŽāϞে āύা āύি⧟ে āĻĒাāϰিāύা। āĻ•িāύ্āϤু āĻĒāϰে āĻāĻĻেāϰ āϚিāύ্āϤাāϰ āĻ”āĻĻাāϰ্āϝেāϰ āϏাāĻĨে āĻāĻĻেāϰ āĻ•াāϰ্āϝāĻ•āϞাāĻĒেāϰ āĻŽিāϞ āĻĒাāχ āύাāχ। āĻāĻŽāύāĻ•ি āĻāĻĻেāϰ āĻ…āύেāĻ•āĻ•েāχ āĻ•āϟ্āϟāϰāĻĒāύ্āĻĨী āĻ—োāϰা āĻŽুāϏāϞিāĻŽ āĻšāϤেāĻ“ āĻĻেāĻ–েāĻ›ি।āĻļেāώ āĻŦ⧟āϏে āĻāϰা āĻ•েāύ āĻ–োāϞা āϚোāĻ– āĻŦāύ্āϧ āĻ•āϰে āĻĢেāϞে(āĻŽāϤ āĻĒাāϞāϟা⧟)?? āĻāϟা āĻ•ি āϤাāĻĻেāϰ āχāϚ্āĻ›াāĻ•ৃāϤ āύাāĻ•ি āĻ…āϜাāύ্āϤেāχ :-? :-s

    ReplyDelete
  37. @āĻĢাāϞāϤু,
    I don't believe in traditional God who cares about mankind. I have very different perceptions on the word God.

    > God damn if you could ever do that!
    It was completely not intentional that I mentioned that word. See that fundamentalist has no intention to learn anything. He knows nothing but from one side and he thinks he knows everything. Too much complacence. That's what made me little bit angry not seeing any change on his on sided biased point of view.

    āφāĻŽি āĻ•ি āĻ—āϰ্āĻŦāĻ­āϰে āĻ•āĻ–āύো āĻŦāϞেāĻ›ি āφāĻŽি āύাāϏ্āϤিāĻ•? āĻ“āϤে āĻ—āϰ্āĻŦেāϰ āĻ•িāĻ›ু āύাāχ। āĻŦিāĻļ্āĻŦাāϏ āϏāĻŽ্āĻĒূāϰ্āĻŖ āύিāϜেāϰ āĻ•াāĻ›ে।

    > āĻāĻŽāύāĻ•ি āĻāĻĻেāϰ āĻ…āύেāĻ•āĻ•েāχ āĻ•āϟ্āϟāϰāĻĒāύ্āĻĨী āĻ—োāϰা āĻŽুāϏāϞিāĻŽ āĻšāϤেāĻ“ āĻĻেāĻ–েāĻ›ি।āĻļেāώ āĻŦāϝ়āϏে āĻāϰা āĻ•েāύ āĻ–োāϞা āϚোāĻ– āĻŦāύ্āϧ āĻ•āϰে āĻĢেāϞে(āĻŽāϤ āĻĒাāϞāϟাāϝ়)?? āĻāϟা āĻ•ি āϤাāĻĻেāϰ āχāϚ্āĻ›াāĻ•ৃāϤ āύাāĻ•ি āĻ…āϜাāύ্āϤেāχ?

    If you think it's a craze and proud to be atheist and you become atheist just for that and there is no reasoning and matches on your life it's no surprise that you might become Muslim again. Atheists are very much philanthropists & they have good contributions for mankind. Not only there are agnostics, seculars and many types. It depends on you what belief you cling to. I agree with you there should be matches in people's work with their belief.

    Obviously the people you are talking about are too weak to be atheists.

    ReplyDelete
  38. > You have mentioned many other issues which can be logically refuted very easily. However, as I found out from your last posts that you're in fact not acting neutral, therefore I think that refuting those would only waste my valuable time. By grace of Allaah, I have all the patience, knowledge and expertise needed to clear all your confusions, but first, you must comply to the following……….


    That’s why I said your arrogant and complacent existence came here to do nothing but deny. āϤিāϞāĻ•ে āϤাāϞ āĻŦাāύিāϝ়ে āĻšāχāϞেāĻ“ āĻĒ্āϰāϤ্āϝাāĻ–্āϝাāύ āĻ•āϰāϤেāχ āĻšāĻŦে।

    ReplyDelete
  39. “Indeed, your Lord is Allaah, Who created the heavens and the earth in Six Days, and then He rose over (Istawa) the Throne (really in a manner that suits His Majesty). He brings the night as a cover over the day, seeking it rapidly, and (He created) the sun, the moon, the stars subjected to His Command. Surely, His is the creation and commandment. Blessed is Allaah, the Lord of the ‘Aalameen (mankind, jinn and all that exists)!”
    [al-A’raaf 7:54]
    What I understand from this is that Allaah created the heavens and the earth in six days. This is clear.
    But in another passage Allaah mentions the creation of the heavens and the earth, and He says (interpretation of the meaning):
    “Say (O Muhammad): Do you verily disbelieve in Him Who created the earth in two Days? And you set up rivals (in worship) with Him? That is the Lord of the ‘Aalameen (mankind, jinn and all that exists).
    He placed therein (i.e. the earth) firm mountains from above it, and He blessed it, and measured therein its sustenance (for its dwellers) in four Days equal (i.e. all these four ‘days’ were equal in the length of time) for all those who ask (about its creation).
    Then He rose over (Istawa) 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.’
    Then He completed and finished from their creation (as) seven heavens in two Days and He made in each heaven its affair. And We adorned the nearest (lowest) heaven with lamps (stars) to be an adornment as well as to guard (from the devils by using them as missiles against the devils). Such is the Decree of Him, the All-Mighty, the All-Knower”
    [Fussilat 41:9-12]

    Then He “placed therein (i.e. the earth) firm mountains from above it, and He blessed it, and measured therein its sustenance (for its dwellers)” in four days equal– i.e., in two days that were added to the two days in which He created the earth, so the total is four days. It does not say that the creation of the mountains and the measuring of the sustenance took four days.

    --- http://www.islamqa.com/en/ref/31865/

    It does not say that the creation of the mountains and the measuring of the sustenance took two days.

    “Quran 2: 29 It is He who hath created for you all things that are on Earth; THEN He turned to the Heaven and made them into seven firmaments (Skies)….
    Quran 79: 27 - 30 Are you the harder to create, or is the heaven that He built? He raised the height thereof and ordered it; and He has made dark the night thereof, and He brought forth the morning thereof. And after that, He spread (flattened) the earth”

    And does it match modern science? Do you believe that, Earth was created first, after that, God created Heaven? Modern science tells us that? Or how come seven firmaments (layers)? Modern science tells us that, actually there is no such thing Sky is no “roof” over us. It is only a space with no known boundary at all. These verses simply reinforce the ancient idea of ROOF over us which is called SKY, is it not so? How funny!

    Mention if your translations are different.

    ReplyDelete
  40. I searched for refutation of contradiction related to Sun-set and Sun-rise. Couldn’t find relevant result. May be you would find. Contradiction statement is there: http://www.faithfreedom.org/Articles/SKM/contradictions.htm

    You might post the refutations here or send me through emails. I want to see refutations of all on that page:
    4- A Resting Place For Sun!?
    5- Why Allah Created Stars!
    6- Is Sky/Heaven A ROOF or Canopy Over the Earth?
    7- Does Sun Rotate Around the Earth?
    8- Does Earth Spread Out Like Carpet (flat)
    9- Is Man Created From Clotted Blood?
    10- Is Religion Compulsive or is it not?

    And for contradictions on this pages: http://islamic.org.uk/internalc.html [some contradictions might be repeated]
    http://mukto-mona.com/wordpress/?p=54

    ReplyDelete
  41. > LOLz… When you can’t answer to a logical argument, just label it as ‘fatwa’!!! Rather than emotionally calling it a ‘patched fatwa’, try to logically refute the arguments if you can. ;)

    Nope I was not emotional. Seems like you don’t verify your referred links: http://www.islamqa.com/en/ref/31865/

    They labeled it as fatwa no. 31865.


    >> ā§Ģ 'āĻ•োāϰāφāύ āϏāϰ্āĻŦāĻ•াāϞেāϰ, āϏāϰ্āĻŦāϝুāĻ—েāϰ āϜāύ্āϝ āĻ…āĻŦিāĻ•ৃāϤāĻ­াāĻŦে āĻĒ্āϰāϝোāϜ্āϝ' āĻāĻŦং 'āϐ āφāϝ়াāϤ āύাāϝিāϞেāϰ āϏāĻŽāϝ় āĻĻাāϏ āĻĒ্āϰāĻĨা āĻ›িāϞো, āϏে āĻĒāϰিāĻĒ্āϰেāĻ•্āώিāϤে āϤāĻ–āύāĻ•াāϰ āϜāύ্āϝ āĻ•āĻĨাāϟা āĻāϏেāĻ›িāϞো' - āĻāĻĻুāϟি āĻ•ি āĻĒāϰāώ্āĻĒāϰāĻŦিāϰোāϧী āύāϝ় āĻ•ি?

    > Of course these two wordings are contradictory. But the fact is, Islaam never says that slavery was only for the ancient period, rather it’s for all periods. For details, see the above link…

    Why do you always misunderstand simple things? I didn’t say slavery is gone. At the time of advent of Islam slavery was a disease of the society which had even legitimate forms. And Quran supported it. But now slavery is abominable and completely against law, banned, restricted everywhere over the world.

    The matter of fact that quran supports it means it worn out.

    >> ā§­ 'āĻŽুāĻšাāĻŽ্āĻŽাāĻĻ āϏা. āĻāϰ āĻ•āĻĨা-āĻ•āϰ্āĻŽ āĻŽু'āĻŽিāύāĻ—āĻŖেāϰ āϜāύ্āϝ āĻ…āύুāĻ•āϰāĻŖীāϝ়, āĻ…āύুāϏāϰāĻŖীāϝ়' āĻ“ 'āĻ āĻšুāĻ•ুāĻŽ āĻļুāϧু āφāĻĒāύাāϰāχ āϜāύ্āϝ, āĻ…āύ্āϝ āĻŽু'āĻŽিāύāĻĻেāϰ āϜāύ্āϝ āύāϝ়'- āĻāĻĻুāϟিāĻ“ āĻ•ি āĻĒāϰāώ্āĻĒāϰāĻŦিāϰোāϧী āύāϝ়?

    > Nope. Take an example. Suppose a teacher says to his class – “this rule is applicable to all of you. However, it’s not applicable to students X and Y because of such and such.” Is there any problem? If you make it clear which rulings are for all people and which are for a few particular people, then where is the contradiction??

    Still you didn’t get it.

    ReplyDelete
  42. āĻ–ুāĻŦ āĻŽāϜা āĻĒাāϚ্āĻ›িāϞাāĻŽ āϝāĻ–āύ āĻļাāϰাāĻĢাāϤেāϰ āϰিāĻĒ্āϞাāχāĻ—ুāϞো āĻĒ⧜āĻ›িāϞাāĻŽ। āϏāĻŦāϚে⧟ে āĻŽāϜাāϰ āĻŦেāĻĒাāϰ āĻāχ āϝে āĻŦেāĻļিāϰāĻ­াāĻ— āĻ•্āώেāϤ্āϰেāχ āφāĻŽাāϰ āĻŽāύে āĻšā§ŸেāĻ›ে āϝে āφāϤিāĻ• āϝা āĻŦুāĻাāϤে āϚে⧟েāĻ›ে āĻļাāϰাāĻĢাāϤ āĻāϤো āĻ—āĻ­ীāϰে āύা āĻĸুāĻ•ে āĻ•েāĻŦāϞ āĻļাāĻŦ্āĻĻিāĻ• āĻ…āϰ্āĻĨāĻ—ুāϞো āĻŦুāĻāϤে āϏāĻ•্āώāĻŽ āĻšā§ŸেāĻ›ে āĻāĻŦং āĻŦিāϚাāϰ-āĻŦিāĻļ্āϞেāώāĻŖāĻ“ āϏেāĻ­াāχ āĻ•āϰেāĻ›ে। āϞāϜিāĻ• āĻĻি⧟ে āϚুāϞāĻ›ে⧜া āĻŦিāĻļ্āϞেāώāĻŖ āĻ•āϰাāϰ āĻĻāϰāĻ•াāϰ āĻ•ি? āĻāĻ•āϟু āĻŦিāĻŦেāĻ—āĻŦোāϧ,āĻŽāύুāώ্āϝāϤ্āϤ āφāϰ āĻĻāϰ্āĻļāύ āĻĨাāĻ•āϞেāχ āĻāχāϟা āϏুāϏ্āĻĒāώ্āϟ āĻšā§Ÿে āĻ“āĻ ে āĻ•োāύāϟা āϏāϤ্āϝ āφāϰ āĻ•োāύāϟা āĻŽিāĻĨ্āϝা।

    āĻļাāϰাāĻĢাāϤ āϤোāĻŽাāϰ āϰিāĻĒ্āϞাāĻ‡ā§Ÿেāϰ āĻĒ্āϰāϤ্āϝেāĻ•āϟা āϞাāχāύ āϧāϰে āϧāϰে āφāĻŽি āĻŦুāĻি⧟ে āĻĻিāϤে āĻĒাāϰāϤাāĻŽ āϤোāĻŽাāϰ āĻ­ুāϞāĻ—ুāϞো āĻ•োāĻĨা⧟ āĻ•োāĻĨা⧟, āϤāĻŦে āĻĻূঃāĻ–েāϰ āĻŦিāώ⧟ āĻāχ āϝে āφāĻŽি āĻāχāϏāĻŦ āĻŦিāώ⧟ে āĻŦেāĻļি āϝুāĻ•্āϤি-āϤāϰ্āĻ• āĻĻি⧟ে āύিāϜেāϰ āĻŦুāĻĻ্āϧি-āϜ্āĻžাāύāĻ—ুāϞো āϜাāĻšিāϰ āĻ•āϰāϤে āϚাāϚ্āĻ›ি āύা।

    āĻļুāϧু āĻāĻ•āϟা āĻĒ্āϰāĻļ্āύ āĻ•āϰāϤে āϚাāχ? āĻ•ে āϧāϰ্āĻŽ/āĻ•িāϤাāĻŦ/āφāϞ্āϞাāĻš āĻāϏāĻŦ āύিāϰāĻĒেāĻ•্āώāĻ­াāĻŦে āĻŦিāϚাāϰ-āĻŦিāĻļ্āϞেāώāĻŖ āĻ•āϰাāϰ āϏাāĻŽāϰ্āĻĨ āϰাāĻ–ে? āĻāĻ•āϜāύ āĻŽাāύুāώ āϝাāϰ āωāĻĒāϰ āĻ•োāύো āϧāϰ্āĻŽেāϰ āĻĒ্āϰāĻ­াāĻŦ āύাāχ, āύাāĻ•ি āφāϰেāĻ•āϜāύ āϝাāϰ āωāĻĒāϰ āĻāĻ•āϟা āϧāϰ্āĻŽেāϰ āĻļāĻ•্āϤিāĻļাāϞী āĻĒ্āϰāĻ­াāĻŦ (āĻ•ূāĻĒ্āϰāĻ­াāĻŦ) āφāĻ›ে?

    āĻĒৃāĻĨীāĻŦিāϰ āĻĻিāĻ•ে āϤাāĻ•ি⧟ে āĻĻেāĻ–,āϚিāύ্āϤা āĻ•āϰ,āύিāϰāĻĒেāĻ•্āώ āĻšā§Ÿে āϏāϤ্āϝেāϰ āϏāύ্āϧাāύ āĻ•āϰ। āϧāϰ্āĻŽেāϰ āϜāύ্āϝ āφāϜ āĻĒৃāĻĨিāĻŦীāϤে āϝে āĻ…āĻļাāύ্āϤিāϰ āϞীāϞা, āĻŽৃāϤ্āϝুāϰ āĻ›ā§œাāĻ›ā§œি āϤোāĻŽাāϰ āϤāĻĨাāĻ•āĻĨিāϤ āϏৃāώ্āϟিāĻ•āϰ্āϤা āϝāĻĻি āϤা āϜাāύāϤেāύ āϤাāĻšāϞে āĻ•āĻ–āύāχ āĻŽাāύুāώāĻ•ে āĻĒৃāĻĨিāĻŦীāϤে āĻĒাāĻ াāϤেāύ āύা। āφāϰ āϝāĻĻি āϜেāύেāĻ“ āĻĒাāĻ ি⧟ে āĻĨাāĻ•েāύ āϤāĻŦে āφāĻŽাāϰ āĻ•িāĻ›ুāχ āĻŦāϞাāϰ āύাāχ। āϤুāĻŽিāχ āĻŦিāϚাāϰ āĻ•āϰāĻŦে।

    ReplyDelete
  43. >> ā§­ āĻ•োāϰāφāύে āύাāĻŦাāϞিāĻ•া āĻŦিāĻŦাāĻš(āĻŦাāϞ্āϝ āĻŦিāĻŦাāĻš ) āĻĒ্āϰāĻĨা āϰāĻĻ āĻ•āϰāϞো āύা āĻ•েāύো? āĻŽুāĻšাāĻŽ্āĻŽাāĻĻ āϏ. āĻāϰ āϏāϰ্āĻŦāĻļেāώ (āĻŦিāĻŦাāĻšāĻ•ৃāϤ) āϏ্āϤ্āϰী āĻŦিāĻŦি āφāϝ়েāĻļা āϰা. āĻŦিāĻŦাāĻšেāϰ āϏāĻŽāϝ় āύাāĻŦাāϞিāĻ•া āĻ›িāϞেāύ (āϤিāύি āύāĻŦীāϜীāϰ āϏāϰ্āĻŦাāĻĒেāĻ•্āώা āĻĒ্āϰিāϝ়āĻ“ āĻ›িāϞেāύ āĻŦāϞে āϜাāύা āϝাāϝ়) āφāϜāĻ•ে āĻāχ āĻ•āϰ্āĻŽ āĻ•েāω āĻ•āϰāϤে āϚাāχāϞে, āϧāϰ্āĻŽ āĻ•ি āφāϟāĻ•াāϤে āĻĒাāϰāĻŦে?

    >First of all, what do you mean by āύাāĻŦাāϞিāĻ•া ? Is it just the prior time of the natural age of puberty? Or is it the ‘human-defined’ prior time of 18 years??


    It’s the law of the country and same kind of law exists over the world. The law states to reach 18 years before getting married.

    Indolent marriages, fatwa and salish crimes have been consistent news in our daily newspapers. They are human beings misguided by Quran causing oppression on women, child and their relatives. The effect is such intense that social awareness programs and human right organizations’ measures don’t work often. The imams of mosques aver fatwas which in most cases intolerant punishments for innocent people. Depressing indeed. Quran has contributions on making the world worse every day. For example this news was published in daily star,

    “Last month, a woman in Brahmanbaria, first alleged to have been raped and later said to have had a relationship with the man, was married off by her parents to a different man. Finding her seven months pregnant one month into their marriage, the husband divorced her. After returning to her parent's village, the woman was tried by a local salish or arbitration led by village elders and rural clergy and sentenced to 101 lashings and a fine of Tk. 1,000. Later, however, the father of her child was pressured into marrying her and the woman, who had at first filed a case against the arbitrators who had punished her, took the case back.”

    How cruel is that! It should give some foods for thoughts.


    >About your mentioned lalon’s song and similarly Nazrul’s poem – I don’t understand songs and poems well. However, I think the mentioned song and poem are not that difficult to understand. Just mentioning one line from the song (actually the summary line): “āĻŽাāύুāώে āϰāϚিāϤ āϜাāύি, āĻŽাāύুāώে āϰāϚিāϤ āϜাāύি āϞাāϞāύ āĻĢāĻ•িāϰ āĻ•āϝ়!”. If that’s the case, then I’d say: Lalon is saying that what HE knows is that religions are made by people. However, what I (and billions of people other than me) know is that Islaam and Quraan has been revealed from Allaah the Almighty. Have any doubt? Then let’s share it. :)

    You are right. You didn’t understand. Fakir Lalon and other fakirs/gurus of his time knew about contradictory facts about Islam and Quran. On the following lines of his famous song:

    “āĻ•ি āĻ•াāϞাāĻŽ āĻĒাāĻ াāχāϞেāύ āφāĻŽাāϰ āĻļাāĻšী āĻĻāϝ়াāĻŽāϝ়!
    āĻāĻ•েāĻ• āĻĻেāĻļেāϰ āĻāĻ•েāĻ• āĻ­াāώা āĻ•āϝ় āĻ–োāĻĻা āĻĒাāĻ াāϝ়?

    āĻāĻ• āϝুāĻ—ে āϝা āĻĒাāĻ াāϝ় āĻ•াāϞাāĻŽ,
    āĻ…āύ্āϝ āϝুāĻ—ে āĻšāϝ় āĻ•েāύ āĻšাāϰাāĻŽ!
    āĻāĻŽāύি āĻĻেāĻ–ি āĻ­িāύ্āύ āϤাāĻŽাāĻŽ! āĻ­িāύ্āύ āĻĻেāĻ–া āϝাāϝ়!
    āϝāĻĻি āĻāĻ•āχ āĻ–োāĻĻাāϰ āĻšāϝ় āϰāϚāύা, āϤাāϤে āϤো āĻ­িāύ্āύ āĻĨাāĻ•ে āύা!
    āĻŽাāύুāώেāϰ āϏāĻ•āϞ āϰāϚāύা, āϤাāχ āϝে āĻ­িāύ্āύ āĻšāϝ়!
    āĻ•ি āĻ•াāϞাāĻŽ āĻĒাāĻ াāχāϞেāύ āφāĻŽাāϰ āĻļাāĻšী āĻĻāϝ়াāĻŽāϝ়!”

    he mentioned some of his philosophical views and stated that Quran is rather written by mankind than a God or Gods.

    Our rebel poet Kazi Nazrul Islam was also an Islami researcher, composer of numerous Islami songs. He knew the facts about the so called divine book too.

    It’s not doubt. It’s truth.

    ReplyDelete
  44. >Below are the translations of the actual aayaahs in the referred chapter and verse numbers:

    >2:21. O mankind! Worship your Lord Who created you and those who were before you so that you may become Al-MuttaqÃģn (the pious).
    >3:97. ...and whoever disbelieves, then AllÃĸh stands not in need of any of the 'AlamÃŽn (mankind and jinns).
    >35:15. O mankind! it is you who are the needy, but AllÃĸh is Rich (Free of all wants and needs), Worthy of all praise.

    That was the summarized version of the verses quoted from the book of author Abul Kashem. Because of the fact that you are arrogant you think that only your translations make sense. Let’s take your translation into account.
    2:21 says worship lord to become Al-MuttaqÃģn. If you are not Al-MuttaqÃģn you are not qualified. You cannot go to heaven rather you’ll be punished. Now does the author’s compilation make any sense?

    This is indeed a contradiction in Quran.
    > You think that religion is imposed on people. However, Islaam never says to impose it on anybody. Rather surah Kaafiroon (chapter 109) says that if you don't want to come to Islaam, then be with your own religion/view. Islaam is for people's own good. If they don't want it, nobody has the right to force them accepting it. Rather Allaah says in the holy quran (2:256) "There is no compulsion in religion. Verily, the Right Path has become distinct from the wrong path."

    This is not true because of the fact that it also states that infidels will be punished severely and they will be damned to hell (interpretation for not being permitted to heaven). Infidels are represented negatively. It’s why the religion is called to impose making the followers think they are the best among all. People excluding them actually don’t deserve anything good.

    ReplyDelete
  45. > The Quraan has indeed been preserved without any modification. You're asking about different copies. Tell me, our Bangabandhu gave a historic speech on 7th March; has it been preserved? Of course it is. But it wasn't a written document, it was a speech. Now, if you write in plain bangla and if you write it in Banglish (Bangla text written with English characters which is common in messenger chats), if both of them sound like the original speech when read, then would you say that his speech has been modified because of different copies?? Quraan was revealed as speech, not as a written script. All the copies of Quraan that you think to be 'different' actually sounds exactly the same when they are recited. So, it indeed has been preserved.

    You are heretic and pathetic. I’m quoting from freethinker Abul Kashem’s book:
    “This inquiry is intimately connected with the question: Is Mohammed the last prophet/apostle of Allah and is Quran the final book of Allah?
    When I searched the Quran I could find only the following verse which deals with this matter.
    33:40 Muhammad is not The father of any Of your men, but (he is) The apostle of God And the Seal of the Prophets: And God has full knowledge Of all things. (Translation by A. Yusufali)
    In his commentary on this issue, Yusufali writes:
    "When a document is sealed, it is complete and there can be no further addition. The holy Prophet Muhammad closed the long line of Apostles. God's teaching is and will always be continuous, but there has been and be no Prophet after Muhammed. The later ages will want thinkers and reformers, not Prophets. This is not an arbitrary matter. It is a matter full of knowledge and wisdom: "for God has full knowledge of all things." (A. Yusufali; THE
    HOLY QUR'AN Translation; page 1119, commentary number 3731)"
    If we accept this explanation of Yusufali, then, of course, Mohammed is the last prophet and the apostle of Allah. But there are many Muslims (?) who do not believe in Yusufali's analysis; like the Qadiani Muslims (or Ahmedia). They accept the Quran but do not accept Mohammad as the last prophet. How about the followers of Rashad Khalifa? They make a clear distinction between a prophet and an apostle. So, their version of the finality of Mohammad and the Quran is quite different. They accept only the Quran and consider Mohammad as a messenger only and not the final prophet. In fact, Rashad Khalifa claims that he had a dream where he was transported to heaven to meet Mohammad and he (Mohammad) asked to him rescue the Muslims from the present day decay (that implies that Rashad Khalifa is the next prophet after Mohammad). Rashad Khalifa's followers consider the mainstream followers (that is Sunni, Shia, Ahmedia...etc) to be the followers of Satan and not true Muslims. They even have their own version of the Quran and refuse to accpet the Shia/Sunni/Ahmedi versions. What do all these controversies prove? Yes, Quran is not really an unalterable document that many innocent Muslims tend to believe. You can really manipulate this doctrine of hate to suit your needs. There is no central authority on Quranic matters for the Sunnis who form the bulk of the present Muslims. So, it is like a fish market. Anything goes as long as you have the money and the clout to do that.
    If you are a true freethinker/humanist you should not accept any of these stories. We must accept the fact that the Quran is a complete hoax and is never a revelation of Allah (or God), but it (the Quran) is the concoction of a megalomaniac who used the illiterate and the uncultured Arab Beduins to impose his narcissistic ambition to conquer the world through brute force.

    If you are not accepting this truth then you are not a complete freethinker/humanist, your umbilical cord with Islam is not cut yet. You are more of an Islamic Agnost or a Islamic Freethinker or the latest invention, Islamic Atheist!!
    -- Abul Kasem”

    ReplyDelete