Kissing the stone and Muhammad and his Allah were poor theologians

Submitted by Dhimmi no more (United States), Jan 19, 2006 at 07:18

Dear Nuray:

You do not seem to learn. Now google this because we need to talk about it later on: "Enta non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem." And let me whisper in your ears if you want to debate anyone you need to live by this great sentence. Your debating skills are very poor.

So what is idolatry Nuray? Remember what I said so far if you use the Qur'an or the Bible to define what is an idol, you are using circular reasoning and this does not work in the real world.

Let me see and this is all at the heart of what is an idol: would a Muslim dare destroy a copy of the Qur'an? Would a Muslim destroy or deface Qur'anic calligraphy hanging in Mosques or in homes? Would any Muslim dare let us say spit or pee on the black stone? And what is the difference between this and the great art that you see in Catholic Churches and in Hindu temples? Let me help you there is no difference. But you never see Hindus or Catholics having fits when such art is defaced or even destroyed?

So much for the poor and non systematic theologian that Muhammad, or is it Allah, was!!

As for the issue of Muslims kissing the filthy black stone in the Ka'ba your reply was nothing but DRIVEL. Kissing the balck stone is: idolatory period. The way Muslims treat caligraphy or a copy of the Qur'an is nothing but idolatory.

You also wrote: "Kissing the balck stone can't be cosidered as an action of idol worship."

Says who? But I will leave this little gem to the readers to judge you.

Next you are quoting al-Bukhari, remember what I told you if you are to use a quote from primary Muslim sources, you must provide me with the ARABIC saying and not through a translation and you remember our little Ta'weel (ah life is tough Nuray. What can I tell you) and you DO NOT KNOW ANY ARABIC. So until you learn Arabic when debating with me do not use translations and if you use a translation you must provide me with the source of the translation or I would regard you as a plagiarist.

Then you wrote: "If you go to (a) Buddhist temple you can see statue of (the) Buddha."

This is very true, but again your understanding of Buddhism and of idolatory is very superficial and I can only blame the teachings of ignorant Muhammad and his angry and insecure God that Allah thing.

You need to go back and try to define what is really idolatory which I believe that you have no clue what it means.Also your understanding of Buddhism is very poor. What is more significant here is that Buddhism is a non-theistic religion (do you know what this word means? I forgot that you can google it). The rule of God or Gods in Buddhism is marginal at best. Also Buddhists follow the great Hindu doctrine of Vedanta Dharma or the way of the truth. The truth is what you or I see: in your case if you see that your Allah is not the moon God he is not the moon God. Very profound. Islam? It is nothing but poor theology and drivel.

Then you wrote: "if you go to a mosque you cannot find any statue of Muhammad."

Very true, but if you read the sira he appearance is described in great pornographic details and if this a form written of idolatory I do not know what idolatory is. Now next time you go to pray for your Allah remember that there is no statue of Muhammad but you treat the copy of the Qur'an and the Arabic caligraphy on the wall not any different from the way Christians and Hindus treat the great art that they have in their places of worship. So much for Muhammad and his ignorance.

Then you wrote: "What will I gain if I get angry with you? I won't."

You are angry and you are angry at yourself because you are discovering that you are not the Muslim 'Alim that you want to be. There is so much that you need to learn and it is not even funny. I'm also glad that you think that I'm funny.

One final reminder: "Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem."

---

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".