Al Zulfiqars Questions

[Adam]

when you utter laanats against the first 3 khalifas and aisha, whom the prophet personally chose as his companions, are you saying that the prophet had no foresight, that he did not have ghaib nu ilm or was he a fool? (naauzobillah!)

The answer is very simple.
Each person is accountable for their own deeds.
If they are good and remain good, they're good.
If they are (or act to be good) and in the end mess up, and go astray they are bad?

Did the Prophet have foresight, of course he did.
His reasons for keeping 1 2 3 as his companions are for reasons solely up to him. They maybe religious (ie they claimed to be good in HIS time, but went against his word after his death), or political (ie he kept them close to him for political reasons, for the betterment of Islam), even his marriage to their daughters may have been for political reasons, to keep them silent.

Your question:
"are you saying that the prophet had no foresight, that he did not have ghaib nu ilm or was he a fool? (naauzobillah!)"

In the same way, do you mean to say ALLAH "was a fool" to create Iblis, if he knew he would one day turn against him? Or are you saying Allah wasn't aware that he would turn against him? NO. Iblis actions are his problem.
And he then became worth of LA'NAT (as stated in the Quran).

In the same way 1 2 3, were the companions of the Prophet (just like iblees was an angel) and then went astray.

ABOUT THE NAMES:

when ali named his first born sons after abubakr, umar and usman, from wives he married AFTER fatima's death and they accepted martyrdom in kerbala alongside hussain, was he also a fool or a coward to do so, did he lack bravery?

Please answer, do not disappear as you always do, esp when i corner you, you coward!

Again, "call a rose by any other name". Names do not make people good or bad.
Secondly, Abu Bakr isn't a name (just in case you didn't know that), his name was ABDULLAH. He was the "father of Bakr (his son)"
hence he got the name "Abu Bakr". (Are you implying we shouldn't name anyone ABDULLAH, because that was Abu Bakrs name? NO.
In the same way anyone with a first son who's name is Bakr, his father will be called Abu Bakr.

About Uthmans name.
Again, someone asked Moulana Ali about naming his son Uthman, he said it was after the respected Sahaabi Uthman bin Maz'oon

The answers are very simple.
Don't get excited.
And don't let your hatred make you blind.

[anajmi]

Again, someone asked Moulana Ali about naming his son Uthman, he said it was after the respected Sahaabi Uthman bin Maz'oon

And yet, you won't find any abde idiot named Uthman. So much for following Moulana Ali!!

There are a lot of iffs and butts in the bitch's responses. Maybe Allah created the Dai for the same reason he created Iblis eh? To throw people onto the wrong path.

[Adam]

Your beliefs are unto yours. No one really cares about it. But when you meddle with my community, I will answer.
I clarified my position.

لكم دينكم و لي دين

[anajmi]

Answer with what? You and your answers have been bitch slapped all over the place!! You didn't need to clarify your position. Your position is already known.

[ghulam muhammed]

Again, "call a rose by any other name". Names do not make people good or bad.

It means that you and your Dai wont have any problem naming their sons "Yazid" or "Shimr" because as you said 'Call a rose by any other name', so Adam please make the beginning or do an arzi in the darbar of your mola to name their next sibling as Yazid and/or Shimr !!

[Adam]

AlZulfiqar.
Still waiting for your answer. It was YOU who posted the question. Where have you run off to?

[SBM]

Adam
Can you answer GM about naming your sons as Shimr and Yazid since you justified what is in the name
AND CAN YOU ASK YOUR KOTHARI MASTERS WHY THEY ARE ASKING PEOPLE TO CHANGE THEIR NAMES WHEN THOSE ABDES ARE UNSUCCESSFUL IN THEIR BUSINESS,EDUCATION,AND UNABLE TO CONCEIVE YES PEOPLE HAVE BEEN ASKED TO CHANGE THEIR NAME AS THEY COULD NOT CONCEIVE A CHILD
Seems you are not in tune with Kothari customs

[Adam]

What ever my Moula deems a suitable name for me is what I will name myself.

Al zulfiqar, where have you run off to?

[Adam]

Since you ll are barking about the name thing, I understand that you ll have accepted the first part namely 123 being the bad guys.
Zulfiqar, where have you run off to?

[anajmi]

Which "II" are you referring to you, you coward? The first 3 khalifas were not bad guys. If they were bad, Hazrat Ali wouldn't be working with them lock stock and barrel. It is you and your Dai that are bad. As someone raised the question earlier, bohras claim that Uthman elevated his own family members to positions of importance and hence the abde idiots curse him. But that is what your Dai has done too. He has elevated his zaadas and zaadis and nieces and nephews and even bitches like you to higher positions with stolen throw aways. Shouldn't you be cursing him too?

What ever my Moula deems a suitable name for me is what I will name myself.

The state your Moula is in these days, he probably doesn't even remember his own name!! You seriously think, it is your Moula that gives you these abde names? You aren't that naïve are you? The names come from a pool picked at random by a bitch like you.

[Al Zulfiqar]

haha, so adam thinks he has discovered his 'eureka' moment! he revels in his ignorance, little realising that he has fallen in my trap!! the fool thinks that he is the first one who's ventured to ask my questions! fyi, beta adam, i am a past master at pocketing 'dedh shaana's' like you. as i had predicted, (and yes, you are so boringly predictable and naive to the point of stupidity) you gave the stock-in-trade answers which all abde idiots are taught in their secret brainwashing sessions known as sabaks. let me counter your laughable and pathetic replies point-by-point, as below:

when you utter laanats against the first 3 khalifas and aisha, whom the prophet personally chose as his companions, are you saying that the prophet had no foresight, that he did not have ghaib nu ilm or was he a fool? (naauzobillah!)

The answer is very simple.
Each person is accountable for their own deeds.

if so, then why do you curse and say laanats on the first 3? let them be accountable for their own deeds. let allah be their judge. who are you and who are your slave masters to dare to say laanats on them?

If they are good and remain good, they're good.
If they are (or act to be good) and in the end mess up, and go astray they are bad?

Did the Prophet have foresight, of course he did.
His reasons for keeping 1 2 3 as his companions are for reasons solely up to him.

in your case, it seems that he kept them as companions so that evil rascals like you who would follow centuries later could amuse themselves by cursing them. by your distorted and self-serving logic, you should be saying laanats on the prophet also (naauzobillah!) because he kept these companions and did not reveal his reasons to idiots like you!

They maybe religious (ie they claimed to be good in HIS time, but went against his word after his death), or political (ie he kept them close to him for political reasons, for the betterment of Islam), even his marriage to their daughters may have been for political reasons, to keep them silent.

so you are now claiming that the prophet was a wily politician who was ready to sacrifice his principles, integrity, his daughters and prophethood at the altar of expediency? that he was just like any other slimy leader, hell-bent on gaining influence and power at any cost? are you a muslim or muslim hater??!

Your question:
"are you saying that the prophet had no foresight, that he did not have ghaib nu ilm or was he a fool? (naauzobillah!)"

In the same way, do you mean to say ALLAH "was a fool" to create Iblis, if he knew he would one day turn against him? Or are you saying Allah wasn't aware that he would turn against him?

if these are the type of questions you pose in a desperate attempt to cover your backside, then YOU are the one who needs to study the quran, you are the one who has understood nothing, not even an infinitesimal iota of islam!


NO. Iblis actions are his problem.
And he then became worth of LA'NAT (as stated in the Quran).

In the same way 1 2 3, were the companions of the Prophet (just like iblees was an angel) and then went astray.

ABOUT THE NAMES:

when ali named his first born sons after abubakr, umar and usman, from wives he married AFTER fatima's death and they accepted martyrdom in kerbala alongside hussain, was he also a fool or a coward to do so, did he lack bravery?

Please answer, do not disappear as you always do, esp when i corner you, you coward!

Again, "call a rose by any other name". Names do not make people good or bad.

as several members have already pointed out, follow your own excellent advice and call your kids aisha, uthman, umar etc. also advise syedna to start giving out these names when abdes send in arzis asking for names for their newborn!


Secondly, Abu Bakr isn't a name (just in case you didn't know that), his name was ABDULLAH. He was the "father of Bakr (his son)"
hence he got the name "Abu Bakr". (Are you implying we shouldn't name anyone ABDULLAH, because that was Abu Bakrs name? NO.
In the same way anyone with a first son who's name is Bakr, his father will be called Abu Bakr.

its very simple. then call your son bakr, so we can call you abubakr.

About Uthmans name.
Again, someone asked Moulana Ali about naming his son Uthman, he said it was after the respected Sahaabi Uthman bin Maz'oon

again very simple. follow ali's excellent example to prove you are a true shiate ali.

The answers are very simple. Don't get excited.

your answers are far from simple. they are the self-serving answers of a crook who is attempting to bend the truth, who thinks that we are all fools here to swallow your crap and who is so excited with his deceit and trickery, employing the lies taught in sabaks, that he is creaming his langot with orgasmic excitement, little realising that i have had the same bullshit replies from abdes over many many years. you are gullible and naive enough not to understand that my question was purely rhetorical, designed to elicit a set response which i knew beforehand. now go, 'peshaab karine sui ja dikra'.

[ghulam muhammed]

its very simple. then call your son bakr, so we can call you abubakr.

[Adam]

AlZulfiqar

if so, then why do you curse and say laanats on the first 3? let them be accountable for their own deeds. let allah be their judge. who are you and who are your slave masters to dare to say laanats on them?

Because in the QURAN, Allah, angels and humans pray La'nat. Because the QURAN teaches me to pray La'nat on certain categories (see the La'nat blog i've posted), and we consider 1 2 3 to fall into those categories.

if these are the type of questions you pose in a desperate attempt to cover your backside, then YOU are the one who needs to study the quran, you are the one who has understood nothing, not even an infinitesimal iota of islam!

No, I gave you a simple answer. You claimed the Prophet didn't know or knew of 1 2 3. I gave you an example of Allah and iblees. It is identically the same scenario. Iblees went bad, so did 123. That doesn't affect Allah nor Rasulullah, and that also doesn't make Iblees or 123 any better!

About the names, I will call myself exactly what my Moula wants me to call myself. I have no issues. (Just like you claim that Syednna Burhanuddin gave you the name Zulfaqar.

your answers are far from simple. they are the self-serving answers of a crook who is attempting to bend the truth, who thinks that we are all fools here to swallow your crap and who is so excited with his deceit and trickery, employing the lies taught in sabaks, that he is creaming his langot with orgasmic excitement, little realising that i have had the same bullshit replies from abdes over many many years. you are gullible and naive enough not to understand that my question was purely rhetorical, designed to elicit a set response which i knew beforehand. now go, 'peshaab karine sui ja dikra'.

If you already knew the answers, why bother wasting yours and the time of others? The truth cannot set you free, and you've accepted it. You're a sick man and definitely a goner.

[anajmi]

Because in the QURAN, Allah, angels and humans pray La'nat. Because the QURAN teaches me to pray La'nat on certain categories (see the La'nat blog i've posted), and we consider 1 2 3 to fall into those categories.

And yet your Dai had to eat his words and apologize on national TV, correct? So much your considerations!!

[ghulam muhammed]

Because the QURAN teaches me to pray La'nat

The QURAN also teaches you many other things which are far far MORE important then uttering laanats !!

[Al Zulfiqar]

Because the QURAN teaches me to pray La'nat

If you already knew the answers, why bother wasting yours and the time of others?

adam, the more you continue in your debate with me, the more you end up putting your deformed foot in your stinking mouth! i am now really enjoying this. you are digging a deeper and deeper hole to bury yrself in.

let me answer your 2 points above:

1. wow! so is this what the vast ocean of knowledge and wisdom which is the quran, has taught you? HATRED???? your statements prove the ancient adage true: never to cast pearls before swine. out of all the amazing treasures in the quran, you chose to glorify it by picking HATRED as its most valuable nugget??!! never ever have i seen a more vile creature worth condemning to hell than you.

2, i already knew and had predicted what answers you were going to provide, (because all you staunch abde defenders of criminals vomit the same putrid excrement) but i got great pleasure in exposing your lies and falsehoods. if that is a waste of YOUR time, it was worth it for me. in fact, your whole life of slavery is a collossal waste, so a few more seconds wasted from it answering my rhetorical questions should not hurt you too much. on the contrary, imagine how much enjoyment your kufr-filled answers are providing to the thousands who visit this forum!

[Adam]

Great.
So we've established that you wont accept what little the Quran teaches you.
And my answers wont make any difference whatsoever (if the Quran can't change you, nothing can).
We have reached a conclusion.

[anajmi]

Actually, what you are presenting as the Quran is not the Quran but your misinterpretation of it. The Misaaq is a case in point. The Quranic text of this misaaq is clear. However, if you look at the Dai's and his goons' interpretation of it, and if you have a little sense, you will see the difference pointed out multiple times on the misaaq thread.

[Al Zulfiqar]

Great.
So we've established that you wont accept what little the Quran teaches you.
And my answers wont make any difference whatsoever (if the Quran can't change you, nothing can).
We have reached a conclusion.

not so fast buddy. i haven't yet reached a conclusion with you.

1. what we have established is that you have learnt nothing from the quran except laanats and you wont accept anything else from it, in line with the flagrant violations committed against it by your slave masters.
2. your answers are making a difference to the reformists. they are helping us to establish the level of kufr that die-hard abdes and kothari apologists like you have fallen to. as i have said before, the more you open your mouth, the more you put your foot in it. keep barking and defending the kothari criminals, it helps our case.
3. abdes like you should stop talking about the quran. your type have strayed far away from it. the quran is but a convenient tool for the safia (saifee mahal mafia) to manipulate the community, loot them and misguide them. they have no fear of allah, nor of human laws. why should they, when they have brainwashed fools like you defending their illegitimate actions?

[Adam]

1. what we have established is that you have learnt nothing from the quran except laanats

Well, I have learned much more than La'nats from the Quran.
But just for the sake of argument. The Quran DOES TEACH La'nat. And I am following it.
Are you saying there is something wrong with practicing what the Quran teaches me?
At least i'm doing "something" unlike you losers.

[anajmi]

The Quran DOES TEACH La'nat.

The Quran does not TEACH la'nat. Do you understand the meaning of "TEACH"? According to you the Quran also teaches you to bow down in front of humans. Obviously, it does not as that would be shirk. The Quran cannot teach shirk!! Infact, the Quran prohibits you from bowing down in front of Allah's creation.

[Al Zulfiqar]

At least i'm doing "something" unlike you losers.

what you are doing is reverse sajdas to your allah on earth. great going. keep it up!