Typical Muslim fascism

ajali wrote:
Their judgement were based on their scholarships. The ulamaks in many
ways can be considered as religios scientists. They are the people who
have done all the study.....just like we rely on experts and
scientists advices or judgements because of their work.

The reason we can often rely on scientists is because their conclusions are
subject to falsifiability and independent verification. Religion is
specifically contrived so that there can be no right answer available to
independent analysis, which is how it serves the interests of the power
structures that use it to manipulate people.

Combining religion and science in one sentence is an insult to both.

miguel
--
Hit The Road! Photos and tales from around the world: http://travel.u.nu

mark wrote:
Can *anyone* explain what other interpretations the word shahid has?

eg., in English, the word fat might mean the organic substances themselves,
or might be used to describe someone's physical condition.

So, what meanings does shahid have?

I don't have my Hans Weir with me as I'm on the road, but I'll warn you that
this line of inquiry is not going to get you were you expect. The sense of
meaning in Arabic vocabulary is a little different from European languages.
A single word will have an array of meanings ranging from the concrete to
the broadly allusive.

miguel
--
Hit The Road! Photos and tales from around the world: http://travel.u.nu

"ajali" wrote in message
om...
The qur'an is the highest source of knowledge. However, there are
cases where the Qur'an did not explain clearly what the muslims should
do. So, they rely on the hadiths.

So how do you know the Hadiths actually
are not false?

Do you ever hear words like methodology, validity, reliability,
trustworthiness?

So what are you saying here?
That you dare not answer a straight
forward question?
I asked: How do you know if they are
not false?
Answer in plain English and stop weaseling?
Do you know whether any hadith can be false?
Even the one that you are trying to preach right
now?
Yes or no?


The scholars only accepted hadiths reported by several researchers
like Bukhari &muslim, At Tarmidzi but reject others.

So tell us the methodology of your
"researches" and how do you determine
their error rate?
Can you actually tell us their error rate
or are you just BULL****TING?
LOL.


But of course
nobody knows 100 % sure.

I'm not asking "nobody"...idiot.
I'm asking YOU....you MORON.
So once again....are you sure they
not falsified?
Yes or no?


Even in a scientificc study, the researchers
use "margin of error".

Hehe...good bluff.
Tell us how the methodology of your researchers
resemble a scientific study if at all?
So whats their "margin of error?

Tell us please...and stop BULL****TING.
Is it 30%....or 40% ..or 50%
And are you saying that you've been preaching
and killing people based on Hadiths that you now
claim that:
"nobody know's 100% for sure"
and that these Hadiths actually have
a "margin of error" which you suddenly cannot
recall what this rate of error is?

And so do now admit that your ulamak's are
making decision based on Hadiths that are
-"nobody know's 100% for sure" and
- have "margin of error"
and then FORCING Muslims to abide by their
ruling and claiming that their rulings are inspired
by God?

So are you now admitting that decisions made
by your ulamak could be flawed because they
are based on Hadiths that are
-"nobody know's 100% for sure" and
- have "margin of error"

Is this the kind of religion you want Muslims
to follow....that its based on Hadiths that even
you say
-"nobody know's 100% for sure" and
- have "margin of error"

Hehe.....MORON...
Tu lah...nak MENIPU....


The hadiths compliment the Qur'an.

How so?
You just said if its not in the Quran...
the Hadith was relied on...
So thats in ADDITION to the Quran...
not complimentary.

I said when thr Qur'an did not explained clearly....so the hadiths
compliment the Qur'an....not addition.

What do you mean the "Quran did not explained clearly"?
Are you saying God is a liar?
Because God said in the Quran that its
a CLEAR guidance for humans....
So how come you're now saying that the
Quran is not "clear"?
Are you a LIAR....or God?
Hehe....LYING kufur...

BTW....you just admit above that Hadiths are
-"nobody know's 100% for sure" and
- have "margin of error"

So how is it that Hadiths that have
-"nobody know's 100% for sure" and
- have "margin of error"
can explain what the Quran could not?

So how is it that Hadiths that have
-"nobody know's 100% for sure" and
- have "margin of error"
can compliment the Quran when you just
admit that you don't even know they are
authentic?

LYING MORON....
LOL.



But as human life get more complicated as the time pass by, there are
many cases where the muslims could not get a clear guide from the
Qur'an and hadiths.

So they have ulamaks to make up stories
and then attribute that to God?


Their judgement were based on their scholarships. The ulamaks in many
ways can be considered as religios scientists. They are the people who
have done all the study.....just like we rely on experts and
scientists advices or judgements because of their work.

I see.
So what do these ulamaks based their "scientific"
study on?
Do they rely on Hadiths that are
-"nobody know's 100% for sure" and
- have "margin of error"
as their data?

Did they try to make sure that their sources
are accurate before using the data?
Do tell us how is it you consider their work
as scientific?
Can they show their statistical analysis?
How about showing how they use mathematical
analysis in their work?
So WHERE is the science in their work?
STOP BULL****TING...
LOL.


their role. They will debate it and find a common decision. Finally
they came out, its ok as long as the eggs and the sperm used came from
a married couple.

And you claim that their
decision is "Islamic" and that its unIslamic
to go against you ulamak?

Whoelse can you rely on if not the people who spend time to study it.

Hey BOZO...you just admitted that your
ulamak uses Hadiths that are error prone
as a basis for their "work".
And now you want us to "trust" them?


Anybody can be the ulamaks but they have to do all the work to reach
that status.

And what work is that?
Can they show their work in public?
Show us the data that they used so that
we can point out that the Hadiths that they
use are error prone?
(hehe...you admitted that..MORON..)


Just like professors.

Oh...harun din and his ayer jampi type
of professors eh?


If you do enough scholarships work,
you will be awarded the professorship. I am sure you have heard the
word "teacher" "tutor", "lecture", assistant prof. Professor, adjunct.
prof.......

STOP BULL****TING.
And stop trying o equate your obscure
taleban academia to real world academics
who are subjucted to rigourous scrutiny NOT
only from within their ranks but from the public.
Whereby their work must and can be seen to
adhere to rigid and formalised standards of
logical steps that can be followed by anyone and
their works reproduced by others.

Can you say the same for your FALSE ulamak...
whose only claim to scholarship only comes
from their own ranks and never accepting public
scrutiny or criticism even if it proven that their
works are FLAWED?

BTW....lets call your bluff...
Show us which of your ulamak nowadays
can write a book like Biruni, Aljabbar, Ibn Sinnah...
Show us that your ustaz can comfortably discuss
the rudiments of Geometry and astronomy like Biruni did....
How about asking harun din to teach the books
on medicine by Ibn Sinnah.
Go on...try to BLUFF more...
Or perhaps you now claim that those olden
ulamaks are not true ulamaks....but your MORONIC
ones who can hardly pinpoint the Shawal moon
are the real ones?
LOL.


Its the same thing ...."guru", "imam", "ustaz", "Kadi" and
"ulamak". The ulamaks is just ordinary people but because of their
knowledge and scholarships, they become the religious authority which
in Islamic tradition we called them ulamaks

What you call them or worship them is
not our business.
But what you want us to accept them as...
WITHOUT proof of their scholarship is.
Just because they can quote a few Hadiths
(that "nobody is 100% sure) is not proof of
scholarship...you IDIOT.
Or the ability to memorise a few lines
of the Quran...
Scholarship is the ability to show consistent
arguments and backing them up with
proofs that use rules that have been accepted
by convention....so that everyone can agree to
their correctness.
Giving interpretations that cannot be supported
by proofs and only supported by further conjecture
is NOT scholarship....you dumbbat.


...Some called it
"ayatollah" - in Shia tradition.

Who cares?
You can even give titles to MORONs
amongst you and call them god.
But what you cannot do is ask us to
accept them as such....
Unless you're willing to open up their
work here for public scrutiny....so that
every inch of their work can be investigated
for possible errors...
Go on....do tell us how is it your ulamak BONGOK
can be called scholars if YOU admitted that part
of their work is based on Hadiths that are
-"nobody know's 100% for sure" and
- have "margin of error"

LOL.


About going against the "ulamaks"......you can go againsts them. But
you have to have more knowledge then them.

LOL...
Why must that be so?
Your ulamak BONGOK asks the public
to follow them by claiming that they represent
God....
So why should anyone follow them if they
cannot show proof that they indeed represent
God?
Why must anyone need to be "more knowledge"
to reject FRAUDS and charlatans?
....LOL


But of course if you have
reach that level, you are considered by many as ulamak themselves. So
if that happen, its actually two different ulamaks who have
differences. Nothing uncommon about that. Just like two scientists
differ with each other.

Hehe...
BTW...who determines what is needed to
be called an ulamak?
Is it God or your own ulamak?

Did God appoint them as ulamak or did
they bestow that title upon themselves?
Oh...I know..you're going to claim that they
are ulamaks because they attend madrasahs...
SO HOW THE HELL DO WE KNOW THAT
GOD EVEN LIKES THEM AND IS PLEASED
WITH THEM....you MORON.


Tell us how in the above process can anyone
be sure that God actually agree to all thats
been determined by your ulamak?

Nothing is 100 %. But the ulamaks are the scholars.

Says who?
You?
What we want are directions from God
you MORON....
Not some idiots trying to claim that they
are ulamaks.
So please bring proof that your ulamaks
do indeed say things that God approves
of.
Go on...


They do all the
study.

So?
Does this mean that God will give the
approval for all their decision and to those
that follow these decisions?
Oh...I know...you're going to say nothing
is 100% sure..
THEN STOP TELLING US TO FOLLOW THESE
MORONS......


They debate and the make consensus decision based on their
knowledge.

So can you prove that all this will result in
God's approval?
Tell us how all their debate and consensus
will lead to God's approval?
Is God even in the picture at all?
LOL.


Just like scientists do.We trust the scientists because of
their works.

STOP trying to make it that they are
similar to scientists when you cannot
show that their works are at the same
calibre of accuracy and reliability you
weaseling LIAR....


And if you cannot, how do you then claim
later or that the ulamaks decision is from
God or part of God's edict to humans?

Ulamaks is just like you and me....human being, but they are the
scholars.

What kind of BULL**** is this?
You're trying very hard to keep repeating
that they "are scholars" without being able
to tell us what they do to attain this "scholarship"
nor able to give us a clear guideline as to
the level of unbiased scrutiny they have to
go thru just to reach this level......in the hope
that your simple rhetoric will simply make us
accept these morons as scholars...

Go on...show us some of the "papers" and
thesis that your scholars wrote so that we can
all judge the standard of scholarship of your
ulamak BONGOK...
(Don't forget to show harun dins work on
ayer jampi ok.....LOL)


So we rely on their scholarship work. the more knowledge
they have, the more reliable they can be.

LOL..
Yet another attempt at BULL****TING.
You keep repeating "they are knowledgeable"
without being able to tell us specifically what
these knowledge are....
Maybe even BULL****TING is considered
as "knowledge" to attain the title of ulamak
eh?....LOL.


There is no 100 % guarantee.

So why should we believe you?
Even scientists will tell you their
error rate and the degree of reliability
you can put on their work.
So how come...you ulamak come with
"no gurantee"...LOL


Thats why we hear debate all the time.

And by debating....God is deemed to have
agreed with them?
Look....all those who take up a religion do it
because they want God's approval...you MORON.
Not to follow idiotic mullahs who come with
no guarantee....
Show us that God approves of your ulamak
and that He will abide by their rulings....
Show us proof that those who follow your
idiotic ulamak is guaranteed God's favour
and reward....


STOP BULL****TING and just show
us the proof....you blasphemous LIAR.



ulama still have difficulty to decide whether it is a plain "suicide"
which is a sin and "shahid" because of the sacrife is based on
destroying the enemy......So it still up in the air.

Tell us...
Where can we find hadiths (you did
say that you rely on hadiths for guidance)
that mentiond that the prophet asked his
people to commit suicide as you suggest
against the pagan Arabs back then who
outnumber them.

None. Nothing specific.

None...or nothing specific....
What a load of BULL...LOL


Thats why you rely on the works of the
ulamaks.

For them to create something out of
thin air?
For them to create stuffs when its NOT
in the Quran and the Hadiths?
So this is the scholarship that you've been
babbling about eh?
That they are geniuses and making things
up?
LOL.


They do the research.

On what?
You just admitted that theres NOTHING
from the Quran or the Hadiths.
So what research did they do?
What data do they base their conclusion
on?
Do they have a discussion with God to
come up with things when its not in the
Quran or the Hadiths?
LIAR.

Ever heard the word "Qias"? Just like
we rely on the work of scientists. I am sure you have seen the words
like "indicate", "suggests" in research journals....

So...?
What has Qias got to do with God...you
LYING monggrel.
Do your ulamak actually show that whatever
they come up with comes from God....or
just need no show BULL****?


The ulamaks use
the same approach...look at the Qur'an, then hadiths, if its not
clear, they sit down and debate it, and come out with a concensus.

Stop trying to equate their works to scientists..
you lying weasel.
Scientists base their works on data that can
be scrutinised....they do NOT call their own
consensus as coming from God....nor do
they call their conjecture based on nothing more
than their own hunch as being scientific....

BTW....so what if they reach a consensus?
Does that mean that their consensus is definitely
correct?
(Ohh....you mentioned "nothing is 100% sure..LOL)
How would you know if their consensus is not
flawed?
Is there a rigid and structured logical process
that we can go through to make sure that their
decision is based on sound reasoning and not
pure idiocy...
(hehe...you PAS ulamak did come up with a few
incredible bloopers....)

And where is God in all of this?
LOL.


Sometimes, they get everybody agree on it, sometimes they reach
through majority...

So agreeing means it becomes "correct"?
What happens if they agree to ask you to drink
camels pee and eat ****?
Will that make you a saint to follow them?
LOL.


To make it easier for you to understand, it more or less like a
governing system - parliamentary for example, you have problem and
need new law or revise the current law.

Parliament is NOT from God ...you MORON.
Nobody wants to follow another human on
religious matters if it does not come from
God.
Are you saying that Muslims should wear tudung
because your ulamak BONGOK agreed to it....
and not that it is God's commands?


What they do? Well, all the MP
debate about the issue, and then finally pass a new law. So its the
same process.

Its NOT the same process..you LYING
weasel.
Parlimentarians are VOTED by the people
to be there...whilst your ulamak BONGOKs
are self appointed...who then try to rule like
tyrants who cannot be questioned or booted
out...
So stop trying to fool us by saying that its
the same process....
LIAR.


The only different, this time its done by the Islamic
scholars (the ulamaks) and they use religious sources to make their
arguments.

BULL****.
The main difference is that NOBODY appointed
them as leaders or ulamaks and that they have
appointed themselves to these positions without
needing any proof to be given.
That they claim to speak for God when they
did not show any proof of that either...in fact
your orw argument is one such method of trying
no fool people.
You have not shown any proof for all your arguments
here...just simply trying to state them as facts when
they are not.
You claimed that your ulamaks are similar to scientists
when you offered no proof that they are subjected to the
same scrutiny from their peers as well as from the public.

You tried to bluff that your ulamaks are similar to
law makers....when they have NEVER been appointed
as such by the public....nor God.

So what kind of BULL**** will you tell us
next?
LOL.


our ulama might see it differently. So I think, as far as I know there
is still no concensus about it.

What make you think that "consensus" equates
to God's will?

Thats the best human can do under those circumstances. We hope our
efforts and our intention will be accepted by God.

"We hope"?
You ask kids to blow themselves up and
then say "you hope" its correct?
Look...you can use all the decisions of your
moronic ulamak for YOUR own life if you want
to....but you got no right to ask others to follow
them if you're not sure of the result yourself...nor
can you guarantee that God will approve of it.

Or maybe you're trying to claim that you
are God's prophet....issit...
LOL.

"Observer" wrote in message ...
"ajali" wrote in message
om...


-all the craps deleted-

You try to show how smart you are but you question just suggest
otherwise. You only know about one model/methodology of doing research
- Quantititive research. Ever heard about qualitative research where
data were collected through interviews, documents etc. Ever heard
about trigulation?

The hadiths were collected by people like Bukhari & Muslims went
through a lot of interviews with many people before he claimed that
the hadiths were authentics. How he do it? First he ensure that the
person he wanted to interviewed to be a true muslims who practice
Islam. Even a "fasiqs" were rejected. Go find out what fasiqs mean.
The interviews was not done to one person but as many as he could.
Then the interviews were compared with each other. If only one people
say that the hadiths was from the prophets, he will rejects the
hadiths. The hadiths then were check with the quran. Is the hadiths in
line with the teaching of quran. If not, the hadiths will be rejected.
It was a meticulous process. This is what known in today's research as
"trigulation". Every hadiths when through this process of trigulation.

About ulamaks as scientists. Do you know that in today's universities,
there are department of Theoligian, the department of religious study?
Today's ulamaks went through this process. Thats why people like Harun
Din received the title of professor, not in teaching maths, but
teaching religious. Sure they are not Beruni or Al Jabbar...they are
mathematics scientists. Harun Din is religious scientist. Then you say
that their work cannot be srutinized...only ignorant will suggests
that. Do you ever heard that they were critics all the time? Don't you
ever hear people critics people like Hadi Awang (By the way, he holds
a masters degree in Islamixs law)? Harun Din hold a ph.D. Too bad, you
only know scientists as a person who work in a lab...How shallow you
are.

About the title of "ulamaks", this people never claimed that they are
ulamaks, but the general public acknowledge them as "ulamaks" because
of their knowledge and scholarship.

Finally these are your problems.

1. When the "ulamaks" words came out.....all you can think, this idiot
went through madrasah and try to preach to the world as they were the
chosen one, the prophets. Show us the evidence they do so?

2. Second, in your mind, there's only one way of getting knowledge -
schools, universities. Just show how little you know about the
traditions of learning. The university was created later. Before that
the tradition of learning already exist. Check the civilation of
Babylon. They were there way before university was created. Do you
ever hear the concept of "halaqah"?

3. You have problem if the word called madrasah.....What wrong with
the words? It just a school. Only in todays concept, the madrasah
focus on religious study. In Christian tradition, they do it in
church.

4. All your questions suggest how much you hate Islam. Because of that
you try your very best to undermined Islam. Well, its not working. At
least to 1.2 billions believers.

5. You have problem with disagreement. All you can think if people
disagree with you are liars or moron. It just suggest how shallow your
are. Thats about what you can think. Smart people acknowledge
differences but that certainly not you.

6. You try to spin every way possible. You failed to accept logics
arguments.

7. You find it difficult to understand why is so many muslims are so
faithful to their religions, willing to sacrifice their own life for
their believes when you can't find from any other religions.

8. You have problem with the concept of learning.

8. Finally you are afraid of real debate. You try to use intimidations
tactics which is not workings to most people by using all the ugly
words in your questions and statement. Those who are not afraid will
debate in decent, and respectful.

On Tue, 27 Apr 2004 22:39:17 GMT, "Rowani"
wrote:

It's easy to measure grades but harder to measure the true worth of a
person.

I agree with your above statement. The true worth of human is hard to
measure. This statement apply to every individual. I beleive as long as a
human do goods to human kind than, they are worthful. A cleaner women who
clean the public toilet and made the toilet pleasant to use benefiting many
people is probably more worthful than a whole lot of other people.

Amen to that!

Michael

If you would like to send a private email to me, please take out the TRASH, so to speak. Please do not email me something which you also posted.

On 27 Apr 2004 18:21:57 -0700, (Mr_Magoo) wrote:

Pan wrote in message . ..

----snip----

But what you are perhaps ignoring is that Chinese people have been
living in the Malay states for several hundred years. In the event the

The number is very insignificant until the colonial period. Check out
the history book, Mike.

Way back in the 70s, I learned that the Yang di-Pertuan Besar of
Negeri Sembilan invited in a substantial number of Chinese people,
primarily for tin mining. It may have been in the tens of thousands,
but I read this so long ago I don't know for sure. This was all before
British rule.

British had not intervened in their affairs, it is highly unlikely
that the Malay sultans would have prohibited further immigration of
Chinese people to their realms, had they managed to avoid being taken
over by Thailand or another European power.

How would you know that?

I don't know, but the evidence is that Sultans were inviting in
Chinese people and, as far as I know, had not established a precedent
of barring further entry by Chinese people.

And what makes you think the Chinese people
going to side with the Malay Rulers?

Why not, as long as life was good for them under Malay rule?

FYI, your statement might be true
if you are refering to other Malays tribe such as Bugis. Since they
were well known during that era as a gun for hired and many of them
did get involve in the fighting for those Sultans.

Well, if you're considering the Bugis as non-Malay, that does
complicate things. But I just mentioned Negeri Sembilan, which is
heavily Minangkabau. Shall we just say that the sultans who were
ruling the Malay states invited in anyone they saw fit to, and that
included Chinese people when they so desired?

BTW, Thailand influence was only limited to those Northern States such
as Perlis, Kedah, Kelantan & Terengganu. There was a story about Thais
trying to attack Melaka Empire during the period of Tun Perak as its
Bendahara (equivalent to PM post nowaday). He managed to decieve Thais
army through some trick and they ended up only with small skirmishes.
That is about it and the Thais never venture any further than that
after that.

Right, but Thailand hadn't yet occupied Patani, Setul, Narathiwat,
Yala, and Kedah at that time (Kedah of course later being ceded to
Britain as a protectorate).

My feeling is that the individual Malay states could not have
protected themselves from some foreign power or other, whether the
Dutch or perhaps the Thais or French. I think things turned out better
with the Malay states having been under British rule than in those
likely alternatives, and I say that not as someone who's particularly
pro-British, but by looking at the disastrous consequences of Dutch
misrule in what's now Indonesia, the total and problematic
incorporation of "repossessed" Malay states into Thailand, and the sad
results of French stubbornness and U.S. meddling in Indochina, and the
murderous Communist takeovers there.

Of course, this is all grist for alt.history.what-if...

Best,

Michael

If you would like to send a private email to me, please take out the TRASH, so to speak. Please do not email me something which you also posted.

Dear Ajali:

I'm a social scientist as well as a physical scientist.

I have NEVER come across the word "trigulation", nor can you find such a
word in the Oxford, Websters, Collins or Macquarie dictionaries.

Furthermore, you have not answered the questions posed by Observer about the
reliability and accuracy of the Hadiths, which I am curious to learn of too.
Other arguments posed by Observer were also not addressed by you. Although
Observers arguments and questions are direct and clear, I think he befuddled
it by using harsh name-calling. However, I would like to see you refute his
arguments.

Thank you.

Jack.






Ajali said:
It was a meticulous process. This is what known in today's research as
"trigulation". Every hadiths when through this process of trigulation.

"Jack." wrote in message
...
Dear Ajali:

I'm a social scientist as well as a physical scientist.

I have NEVER come across the word "trigulation", nor can you find such a
word in the Oxford, Websters, Collins or Macquarie dictionaries.

Furthermore, you have not answered the questions posed by Observer about
the
reliability and accuracy of the Hadiths, which I am curious to learn of
too.

First you must know that Hadiths are just collections of practises and words
of
Prophet Muhamamd.

You must also know about the 4 levels of practises that are encouraged in
Islam,
from mandatory, useful to do, useful to not do, nothing matters.

Only quran orders are mandatory. The rest are not.

Other arguments posed by Observer were also not addressed by you. Although
Observers arguments and questions are direct and clear, I think he
befuddled
it by using harsh name-calling. However, I would like to see you refute
his
arguments.

The arguments can be refuted by books and books. What we can do is just
point
out to you some basic tenets in the topics. You have to work out yourself
the
truth if you are really honest.

Observer is a fool who does not know that he is used by me.


Thank you.

Jack.






Ajali said:
It was a meticulous process. This is what known in today's research as
"trigulation". Every hadiths when through this process of trigulation.

"Pan" wrote in message
...
On 27 Apr 2004 18:21:57 -0700, (Mr_Magoo) wrote:

Pan wrote in message
. ..

----snip----

....


I don't know, but the evidence is that Sultans were inviting in
Chinese people and, as far as I know, had not established a precedent
of barring further entry by Chinese people.
You must realise that there are terms and conditions associated with
their entry.


And what makes you think the Chinese people
going to side with the Malay Rulers?

Why not, as long as life was good for them under Malay rule?

You must realise that they don't expect the chinese to suport them
in ways that are not in their aggreement, but some chinese were
used in wars as well, against other chinese siding with other
Malay rulers.

....

My feeling is that the individual Malay states could not have
protected themselves from some foreign power or other, whether the
Dutch or perhaps the Thais or French. I think things turned out better
with the Malay states having been under British rule than in those
likely alternatives, and I say that not as someone who's particularly
pro-British, but by looking at the disastrous consequences of Dutch

These are facts. Your honesty is to be admired.

Haji,

Thanks for the reply.

Regards,

Jack.



"Jack." wrote in message
Dear Ajali:

I'm a social scientist as well as a physical scientist.

I have NEVER come across the word "trigulation", nor can you find such a
word in the Oxford, Websters, Collins or Macquarie dictionaries.

Furthermore, you have not answered the questions posed by Observer about
the
reliability and accuracy of the Hadiths, which I am curious to learn of
too.

First you must know that Hadiths are just collections of practises and
words
of
Prophet Muhamamd.

You must also know about the 4 levels of practises that are encouraged in
Islam,
from mandatory, useful to do, useful to not do, nothing matters.

Only quran orders are mandatory. The rest are not.

Other arguments posed by Observer were also not addressed by you.
Although
Observers arguments and questions are direct and clear, I think he
befuddled
it by using harsh name-calling. However, I would like to see you refute
his
arguments.

The arguments can be refuted by books and books. What we can do is just
point
out to you some basic tenets in the topics. You have to work out yourself
the
truth if you are really honest.

Observer is a fool who does not know that he is used by me.


Thank you.

Jack.






Ajali said:
It was a meticulous process. This is what known in today's research as
"trigulation". Every hadiths when through this process of trigulation.