Dialog with Wahhabis on this board.

[porus]

Let us summarize 10 years of conversations between anajmi and Shias on this board.

Conversation 1.

Shia: Prophet Muhammad was infallible and never erred.

anajmi: Load of Shia crap. Quran clearly states that Muhammad (saw) frowned and turned away from a poor blind believer who interrupted him when he was busy explaining Islam to his other listeners.

Shia: Shia interpretation is based on a hadith related by our infallible Imam Jafar al-Sadiq that it was Uthman who turned away.

anajmi: Rubbish. It was the Prophet (saw) who frowned and turned away. Rubbishing Hazrat Uthman (ra) is a Shia plot to pile insults on our revered Khalifa. They must do this in order to worship Hazrat Ali (ra).

Muslim First: Yes, brother Shaikh anajmi. Give it to them. These rafidis never learn and what was Imam Jafar al-Sadiq smoking when he accused our dear Uthman (ra) of turning away. It was Prophet (saw) who had to be taught a lesson. So we can see that Allah does not spare even his favorite Messenger (saw) from censure.

anajmi: Yes brother Muslim First. These idiotic Shia do not realize that by insulting Hazrat Uthman (ra) in this way, they are unwittingly raising Hazrat Uthman (ra) to a such a height that even Allah would see it fit to send a message about him in the Quran. Although he is very dear to us, Hazrat Uthman (ra) would never be censured in this way in the Quran. This sort of censure is reserved only for Prophet (saw) who clearly had faults.

Shia: We do not say that it was Uthman who turned away to give him any special honor.

anajmi: I know you do not. But in your ignorance, that is what you are doing.

Shia: Hmmm.

Conversation 2.

Shia: We believe that Prophet Muhammad’s ahl-e-bayt consists only of the Prophet, Ali, Fatima, Hasan and Husain. That is our interpretation of the Quran.

anajmi: Another Shia fantasy. What does ahl-e-bayt mean? You guys do not know the first thing about Arabic and I have been reading it very carefully for at least 10 years since I joined this board. I have done this to protect the world from Shia rubbishing the Quran. Ahl-e-bayt means “people of the house”. Would you say that people living in your house including your wife, children, and other relatives are not “people of your house”?

Shia: We base our interpretation on a hadith.

anajmi: Shia hadiths are all fairy stories. You guys have concocted this hadith to insult Hazrat Aisha (ra) and, in your fantasy, to remove her from affection of the Prophet (saw) for whom she was the favorite wife.

Muslim First: Yes brother Shaik anajmi, I do not even want to know what these Rafidis have to say about Islam. I do not care. Bohras especially believe that Burhanuddin is Allah. One of their members confirmed it right here on this board.

Shia: So, you do not care at all what the Shia say.

anajmi: Nope.

Shia: Then why do you interfere here? I am sure no Shia wants to hear anyone rubbishing their faith.

anajmi: I come here to show the world that Shia are kuffar. No, worse. They are Mushriks, They worship Hazrat Ali (ra) and their Imams. My participation here is my personal Jihad. And I am doing what Allah has asked a true believer to do.

Muslim First: Yes, brother Shaikh anajmi. I am with you all the way. These Rafidis must be shown proper Islam so they can save themselves from eternal fire.

Shia: Hmmm.

[To be continued at my pleasure]

[incredible]

very interesting hahaha please carry on with more question and answers.i use to debate with wahabis in yahoo islamic rooms and i know how exactly it feels to debate with this wahabi idiots,they simply run arround same things.

[anajmi]

Extremely dishonest piece by porus. I wasn't expecting this, but then I was. Let me correct it.

Shia: Prophet Muhammad was infallible and never erred. He pulled the Quran out of thin air. You actually believe an angel came to him in the desert and gave him a message? If you do, then the earth is 64 bazillion gazillion years old.

Shia: Our infallible Imam Jafar al Sadiq claimed that the earth is 64 baillion gazillion years old. He also claimed that Hazrat Fatima was jealous and Hazrat Ali was ashamed, but that doesn't mean that they are spiritually infallible. Infact our Imam Jafar al Sadiq is not always clear about what he writes. He is infallible though.

Shia: The only way we will believe is if Allah shouts in a booming voice and puts a Quran on every table on the 7th birthday.

Shia: The Quran changes language and context and grammar every few years and between cities. It is very confusing and can only be understood by our interpretation. If the Quran can be pulled out of thin air so can grammer, english, arabic etc.

Shia: The prophet married young and old impure women because he wanted to. He was a horse. He didn't make a mistake. He is infallible. He did all this on purpose.

Shia: Mutah is allowed. I will give a weekend pass to Hazrat Abu LuLu to enjoy all the rides in my house.

anajmi: tsk tsk tsk.

This one didn't need any changing.

Shia: We believe that Prophet Muhammad’s ahl-e-bayt consists only of the Prophet, Ali, Fatima, Hasan and Husain. That is our interpretation of the Quran.

anajmi: Another Shia fantasy. What does ahl-e-bayt mean? You guys do not know the first thing about Arabic and I have been reading it very carefully for at least 10 years since I joined this board. I have done this to protect the world from Shia rubbishing the Quran. Ahl-e-bayt means “people of the house”. Would you say that people living in your house including your wife, children, and other relatives are not “people of your house”?

Shia: We base our interpretation on a hadith. And we hate the wives of the prophet (saw). And we hate his sahabas. And that is because we worship Hazrat Ali and his family. Ya Ali Ya Ali.

anajmi: I have countered every hadith quoted by shia.

Shia: anajmi rubbishes shia beliefs.

anajmi: I have given enough evidence.

Shia: anajmi rubbishes shia beliefs.

anajmi: But this is what the Quran says.

Shia: anajmi rubbishes shia beliefs.

anajmi: But this is what your Imam Jafar al Sadiq is saying.

Shia: anajmi rubbishes shia beliefs.

anajmi: But this is how Hazrat Fatima acted based upon your own hadith.

Shia: anajmi rubbishes shia beliefs.

anajmi: But this is how Hazrat Ali acted based upon your own hadith.

Shia: anajmi rubbishes shia beliefs.

Thud Thud Thud. anajmi banging his head against a wall.

[porus]

Conversation 3

Shia: We believe that Allah revealed the Quran to his beloved messenger Nabi Muhammad (sallal-laho alayhe wasallam wa alehi).

Muslim First: What are you smoking? You guys don’t believe that at all. You believe that Quran was revealed to Hazrat Ali (ra)

Shia: That is outrageous, a damned lie. We Shia believe that Quran was revealed to Prophet Muhammad (saw).

Muslim First: Look, don’t play games with me. Your taqiyya is not going to work with me. You better renounce your rafidi beliefs and join the mainstream ahlal sunna wal jama’a, the true followers of Rasulullah (saw).

Shia: What evidence do you have that Shias believe Quran was revealed to Ali?

Muslim First: Look, I don’t like your line of questioning. Not only do you believe that Quran was revealed to Ali but also that Ali is Allah himself and he revealed the Quran to himself. That is why you worship Ali.

Shia: But I insist. What evidence do you have that Shias believe Ali is Allah and he revealed Quran to himself?

Muslim First: I have studied your so-called religion for a long time and……..Sorry, correction. I have not studied since I left my brain in Makka during my last Hajj ten years ago. That is when I decided to join this board. And all my Wahhabi friends agree with me absolutely. They have all left their brains in Makka. When we get them back, they will be thoroughly purified.

Shia: Oh. So what evidence do you have that Shias believe Ali is Allah and he revealed Quran to himself?

Muslim First: I do not care to answer your questions and I do not care to listen to anything you have to say. Just join the mainstream. That will be good for you if you care about saving your soul.

Shia: Hmmmm.

[anajmi]

Shia: We believe that Allah revealed the Quran to his beloved messenger Nabi Muhammad (sallal-laho alayhe wasallam wa alehi).

Muslim First: What are you smoking? You guys don’t believe that at all. You believe that Quran was revealed to Hazrat Ali (ra)

A lie. Please do not stoop to this level. I do not believe Muslim First has ever said that.

Shia: We believe that Muhammad pulled the Quran out of thin air. Are you seriously suggesting that an angel visited Muhammad and gave him the Quran? If yes, then you have to believe in Mahabharata and Ramayana and that Hanuman swallowed the Sun. Everything is the truth.

[porus]

Conversation 4.

Shia: anajmi, I think you are misrepresenting the Shia. Shia do not believe what you attribute to them:

anajmi: I accurately reflect what one of your own, porus, writes on this board.

Shia: Really, anajmi! We do not think that porus is a Shia at all.

anajmi: That is news to me. He defends you guys all the time.

Shia: I think he defends himself. He is not a Shia. I am not sure if he is even a Muslim.

anajmi: Why do you say that?

Shia: For a start, he cannot be a Shia for three reasons. 1. He does not believe that all our Imams are infallible. He thinks only Prophet, Ali, Fatima, Hasan and Husain are infallibe. That is not a Shia view. 2. He does not believe in cursing the first 3 Khalifas. 3. He is against beating chest in memory of Imam Husain. So, he is not a Shia. I seriously doubt if he is a Muslim. As you point out yourself, he thinks that JIbrail bringing wahi to our lord Muhammad (saw) is a fairy story. Shias do not believe that.

anajmi: I see what you mean. Should I change my conversations as coming from porus rather than a Shia?

Shia: I rather think you should.

anajmi: well, I am not 100% convinced. So, I will assume that whatever porus writes are Shia beliefs.

Shia: Ohhhhh.......(a big sigh)

[anajmi]

Shia1: Shia2 is not a shia even though he defends shia beliefs.

Shia2: Shia1 is not correct because all shia Imams are not infallible. These are shia1's shia beliefs and he is wrong.

Shia1: Shia2 is not a shia so how can he tell us what shia beliefs are wrong. Infact shia2 believes that Quran was pulled out of thin air.

Shia2: I believe Quran was pulled out of thin air but I also believe that ahlul bayt are infallible. Only the infallible ones can pull the infallible Quran out of thin air.

anajmi: I am confused.

Shia1: You are wahhabi. I have debated many wahhabis. They are idiots. Mutah is allowed. Bring Abu LuLu to my house.

Shia2: I do not agree with all shia beliefs. They pull stuff out of thin air. I do not agree with the Quran. It was pulled out of thin air. But I defend shia beliefs as they were pulled out of thin air but I am not sure why I defend those beliefs. Maybe I defend them because those who actually believe in them are a bunch of cowards. Or maybe I just pretend to be a disbeliever when I cannot defend something that I actually believe in. I am pretty malleable. When with shia1 I say shia1 is right and when with shia3 I say shia3 is right. Hare Rama Hare Krishna Hallelujah. Everything is the truth.

[anajmi]

anajmi: Didn't porus start this conversation with a label of "Shia:". Was that shia or was that porus?

Shia1: Depends on what is being discussed. Every few years the grammatical context of the Quran changes.

Shia2: Depends on who is being talked to. While talking to Shia1 pretend to be in Rome and while talking to anajmi pretend to be in Timbakhtu. Hindus get hallelujah and christians get Mazel Tov. Wait.. what??

[zak]

enough shia / wahabi dialogue .

question : are bohras even shias let alone muslims ?
if yes explain why ?

[incredible]

anajmi shame on you.

Admin

must banned this person he is calling names to prophet Muhammed(saw)

[porus]

Let us take a break from conversations with Wahhabis. Here is a conversation between shia and porus.

Conversation A

shia: I have concluded that you are not a Shia? Are you?

porus: I have not said anything here about my personal beliefs. The meaning of the word Shia has evolved a lot. During Ali’s time, Shia were those who supported Ali’s right to succeed the Prophet. Now the meaning has developed a distinct character such as those who believe in infallibility of Imams and mourn over martyrdom of Inam Husain. As you know, Shia come in different subsects. Ismailies and Ithna-asharies have totally different belief systems although they both uphold Ali’s right to succeed the Prophet.

shia: If you are not a Shia, why do you support Ali’s right succeed the Prophet?

porus: Let me repeat. I have not said anything about my beliefs. So, you cannot say if I am a Shia or not. I support Ali because of conclusions from my interpretation of history and the Quran.

shia: But you do not believe in the Quran. You are on record as saying that Jibrail bringing Quran from Allah is a fairy story pulled out of thin air.

porus: No, I have never said that. If you consider the context of my writing, it is always mentioned as an argument such as ‘’if you consider A is from God because you believe without evidence, then surely, any other proposition is equally valid if offered without evidence. Or not as the case may be. I have used this argument to challenge anajmi to give equal credence to other non-Muslim scriptures believed without evidence.

shia: That was a mouthful. Can you make it simpler?

porus: How about this? You cannot say Quran is from God without evidence and at the same time reject a Hindu’s assertion that Mahabharat is also from God. Both are inspired words and their current written forms were subject to human redaction.

Shia: So, as you do not believe that Quran is from God, we have a right to consider you non-Muslim.

porus: Let me repeat. I have not said anything about my beliefs or whether Quran is from God. . You may conclude what you like. I am going to neither agree nor disagree with you.

shia: Hmmmm

[anajmi]

porus: You cannot consider Quran to be from God without evidence while at the same time rejecting Ramayana.

anajmi: What kind of evidence would you like?

porus: There can be no evidence.

anajmi: hmmmm

[porus]

porus: There can be no evidence.

anajmi: hmmmm

Congratulations, anajmi. I think you have finally understood porus.

There can be no evidence as God is beyond existence. Our evidence all derives from our interaction with existence and our experience of it. God is the creator of existence as we experience it. We cannot experience anything which is not part of existence.

God did not create himself as part of existence. Hence no evidence of his existence can be obtained in creation.

anajmi: But can you prove that there can be no evidence?

porus: Nope.

[anajmi]

anajmi: Who created "existence"?

porus: God is the creator of existence as we experience it.

anajmi: So "existence" itself is evidence of God.

[porus]

anajmi: Who created "existence"?

porus: God is the creator of existence as we experience it.

anajmi: So "existence" itself is evidence of God.

Actually, no.

Let me illustrate with an example. Euclid's Geometry is based entirely on a series of axioms. He states, without proof, existence and properties of points, lines etc. within his Geometry.

Now, one cannot say that existence of points and lines in Euclid's Geometry or even the entire Geometry is evidence for the existence of Euclid. However, Euclid did create the Geometry.

[anajmi]

porus,

1) You are now comparing apples to oranges. Euclid didn't create those points and lines. He is just a messenger who is telling us about their existence. Besides, "Euclid's Geometry" obviously proves the existence of someone or something called Euclid.

2) You said -

God is the creator of existence as we experience it.

You made this statement based on what evidence?

[porus]

porus,

1) You are now comparing apples to oranges. Euclid didn't create those points and lines. He is just a messenger who is telling us about their existence. Besides, "Euclid's Geometry" obviously proves the existence of someone or something called Euclid.

Euclid is not the issue. The form of argument is. You cannot deduce existence of a creator of a thing merely from its existence. You need to be told who created it. If you see a watch lying on a ground, you are entitled to believe that someone manufactured it. But the watch itself will not offer any evidence about who created it.

If someone came along and claimed to be the maker of watch would you accept what he says without some evidence?

2) You said -

God is the creator of existence as we experience it.

You made this statement based on what evidence?

I offer no evidence. Had I erred when I said you finally understood me? My current predicament is that since a Fist Cause is required to make sense of existence, I name the First Cause God. As atheists say, He is the God of the Gaps. i.e. of the gaps in our knowledge and understanding.

[anajmi]

You cannot deduce existence of a creator of a thing merely from its existence.

Yes you can.

You need to be told who created it.

Correct. That is where messengers come into the picture. You can choose to believe Valmiki or you can choose to believe prophet Muhammad (saw). Sometimes people believe because they agree with the "evidence" presented or the arguments presented or because the alternative sounds less viable. This "evidence" may not work for all or may not be sufficient for all to align their faiths one way or another.

Had I erred when I said you finally understood me?

Yes.

If you see a watch lying on a ground, you are entitled to believe that someone manufactured it. But the watch itself will not offer any evidence about who created it.

Again, an invalid comparison. The existence of the watch offers evidence of its creation, hence a creator. That is all I am suggesting. We can argue if the creator was Timex or Rolex. As far as "existence" is concerned, it offers evidence of its creator. If you so wish, we can argue if the creator is the God of Mahabharata or the God of Quran.

[porus]

Carrying on conversation between Shia and porus:

Conversation B

Shia: Mubarak quoted Imam Jafar al-Sadiq saying that the age of the earth is 64 quadrillion years. What do you think?

porus: I have not independently verified the saying but if Mubarakbhai has reported Imam al-Sadiq saying that I have no reason to doubt that he said it.

Shia: But do you agree with Imam?

porus: I accept that if Imam said it then it is correct.

Shia: But you wrote that Earth is only 4.5 billion years old. Are you not contradicting yourself?

porus: Let me clarify. There is a concept called NOMA (non-overlapping magisteria) which was invented by biologist Stephen Jay Gould to state that ‘’truths’ of religion and science are correct within their own universes of discourse. We must not bring scientific ideas into discussion of religion and vice versa. I extend the concept of NOMA to include discussions of different religious ideas. All ideas of a particular religion need to be examined with its own framework.

So, while my preference is for scientific ideas which state that the earth is 4.5 billion years old, I do not reject that it is 64 quadrillion years old within the Ismaili/Bohra Metaphysical paradigm. I have explained that the scientific estimates of the age of the earth are continually being revised by scientists as new evidence piles up. Ismaili/Bohra Metaphysics also evolves but believers tend to loath the idea. They believe that ideas are fixed and were handed to humans by God.

Shia: That was a bit too complicated. Let me think about that a bit.

porus: Please do.

[porus]

Conversation 5

Shia: We invoke wasila of of ahl-e-bayt when we pray to Allah.

Muslim First: Praying to anyone other than Allah is shirk. You rafidis never learn. Pray only to Allah.

Shia: Did I not say that just now. We invoke wasila of ahle-e-bayt, not pray to them.

anajmi: Brother Muslim First, I warn you do not get into arguments with Mushriks. They have perfected the craft of playing games with words. Before long they will pull wool over your eyes and I will have to come and rescue you.

Muslim First: Thank you brother Shaikh anajmi. But I think I can handle this one all by myself. This Shia is lying when he says he does not pray to other than Allah. Don’t you hear them saying “Ya Ali, madad” all the time?

Shia: “Ya Ali madad” is a just a popular expression. It is not praying to Ali but beseeching Allah that we are followers of Ali, and ask Allah to take that into account. You will not find “Ya Ali madad” in any one of our prayer books.

porus: That is perhaps true about Ithna-asharis but not about Ismailies and Bohras. They address their pleas directly to Ahl-e-bayt. On lailat al-qadr Bohras recite “haadhihi as-salaat..” to ask Prophet and Fatima to reward them.

Shia: I am aware that Ismailies and Bohras do that. But in their defense, I must say that they have a self-consistent metaphysical system which allows them to do that. That is because of the saying of the Prophet that “I am the City of Knowledge and Ali is its gate.” To understand Allah in His infinite mystery, you need to go through Ali, the Master of Tawil.

anajmi: What a load of crap! Mushriks will invent all sorts of damned lies to persist in idol-worship.

Muslim First: Yes, give it to them brother Shaikh anajmi. I don’t know what this Rafidi is smoking. This wasila thing clearly shows these nefarious Shia to be Mushriks. They need help in saving their souls. With your help, brother Shaikh anajmi, we will succeed.

Shia: Don’t Sunnis invoke wasila?

Muslim First: Some misguided Sunnis do because they have been influenced by the nefarious Shia. And they must stop immediately.

Shia: But, there is a hadith in Bukhari Sharif which clearly shows that your revered neta Khalifa Umar ibn al Khattab confirming that he invoked wasila of Prophet and his uncle Abbas ibn Abdul Mutaalib.

http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamental ... 7.sbt.html

Muslim First: That is because those people were alive. And you are allowed to take wasila of people who are alive.

Shia: Then, are Bohras justified in taking wasila of their living Dai Burhanuddin and are Ismailies justified in taking wasila of their living Imam Aga Khan?

Muslim First: Don’t play games with me, you son of the damned Fathers. You will go to hell, no doubt.

Shia: Quran says that those who are killed or those who gave their lives fi sabilillah are alive. Shias believe that the ayat of the Quran applies to ahl-e-bayt. And they are alive. So, just like Umar did, Shia can invoke wasila of ahl-e-bayt.

Muslim First: I don’t care what you say. I don’t want to listen to you. You better get into line and stop this Shirk

Shia: Hmmmm

[Humsafar]

porus, I'm really enjoying this conversation. You seem to have accurately captured the positions from both sides. Hopefully, this will end the endless shia/sunni or rather porus/anajmi debate. The next time you guys feel an itch to go at each other, just refer to this thread.!!!

[porus]

You cannot deduce existence of a creator of a thing merely from its existence.

Yes you can.

College Graduate: I think I know what porus is saying. Deduction is a logical process which connects axioms, an assumed set of propositions held to be true, to a conclusion through logical arguments, i.e. through arguments based on rules of deductive logic. Axioms can be true or false. No logical argument can applied to a thing that exists apart from saying that it exists.

anajmi: If that is what you learn in college, you have become really dumb. When you see an object, then it follows that there must be a creator.

College Graduate: No, it does not follow. You may assume that there is a creator of the object. That is because that is your experience. You have not made a deduction. It is actually an induction. You have introduced a creator, not unreasonably, but it does not follow merely from the fact that the object exists.

It is reasonable to apply that sort of inductive thinking to man-made objects only. Our experience tells us these are created by men. But we have no experience about the actual creation of the whole universe. We have never seen creation of universe before. So, we do not have the experience to make that sort of inductive leap.

anajmi: Really? Did you have a Shia friend in college. You talk like a Shia. They weave rings around you with sophistry of words.

College Graduate: I did have a Shia friend in college but he kept making the same logical errors that you are making. I got tired of him and dumped his friendship.

anajmi: Excellent. Keep away from mushriks. That is what the Shia are, bloody idolators.

[

[anajmi]

porus: I am now a college graduate.

anajmi: ok

porus: Wait that didn't work very well. I am now a shia.

anajmi: ok.

porus: Bummer. I am not really a shia.

anajmi: ok.

porus: Sorry. I might not even be a muslim.

anajmi: ok.

porus: Why are you assuming I am a shia? I am a college graduate.

anajmi: hmmm.

porus: God created stuff.

anajmi: ok.

porus: But I offer you no evidence.

anajmi: ok.

porus: You are illogical because deduction and induction are two sides of the same axiom that can be proved either true or false by the same reasoning presented through logical arguments.

anajmi: ok. Please spare me this babble.

porus: No. Humsafar likes it so I will continue.

anajmi: ok.

[porus]

If you see a watch lying on a ground, you are entitled to believe that someone manufactured it. But the watch itself will not offer any evidence about who created it.

Again, an invalid comparison. The existence of the watch offers evidence of its creation, hence a creator. That is all I am suggesting. We can argue if the creator was Timex or Rolex. As far as "existence" is concerned, it offers evidence of its creator. If you so wish, we can argue if the creator is the God of Mahabharata or the God of Quran.

porus: Did I not just say that you are entitled to believe that watch has a creator?

College Graduate: So you did. I tried to explain to anajmi, but he completely ignored me by going off the tangent and accusing you of being me and every one else at the same time.

porus: That is anajmi for you. To get him to be in his elements, you must start with an English translation of an ayat from the Quran. Not belabor intricacies of mathematical logic.

College Graduate: I told him that while you are entitled to believe that a watch has a creator, you are not entitled to believe that universe, as a whole, has a creator. That is because you have no previous experience of Universe being created by some one.

porus: Did you know that Quran never makes that argument?

College Graduate: You don't say. Quran does not use the 'First Cause' to argue existence of the Creator?

porus: No, it does not. It simply states that Allah is the creator and sustainer of the universe.

College Graduate: So why does anajmi use it, even though it is logically false?

porus: I don't know. Maybe Allah knows something anajmi does not.

[anajmi]

porus: Did you know that Quran never makes that argument?

anajmi: huh!! The Quran never makes the argument that Allah created the universe? Or never makes the argument that existence is the evidence of Allah?

porus: Let us go back to the axiom induction deduction logical reasoning piece.

anajmi: hmmmm ok.

[porus]

porus: God created the universe.

anajmi: There he goes again, arguing that God created the Universe and also saying that there is no evidence that God created it. The fellow needs to go back to college to learn Logic 101.

porus: I do not offer an argument at all. I just stated that God created the universe. Do you think that it is an argument?

anajmi: On what basis do you say that God created the universe when you say you have no evidence for it nor an argument for it.

porus: Do you really want me to go over it again?

anajmi: Yes. Because I think you are out of your mind.

porus: OK. Argument takes the form: If A, then B. The First Cause argument is that

A - Every thing has a cause.
B - So, Universe as a whole has a cause.

That is an argument. I say, maybe B, but who knows? I have never ever witnessed anyone creating the Universe. No one ever has.

anajmi: I am with you so far.

porus: Good. So maybe Universe has a cause and then maybe it does not. We simply cannot say.

anajmi: So?

porus: That is an end of the argument. However, if you then go on to say that that the cause is God who is omnipotent, omniscient, infinitely merciful and infinitely compassionate etc, then that is something which is not part of the argument at all but something you added to it. You do not need First Cause argument to define a deity like that all.

anajmi: Are you saying Quran is wrong?

porus: No. I am saying that Quran does not use the First Cause argument. You are using it. Quran simply states that there is a God and that he created the universe.

anajmi: Typical Shia sophistry!

porus: You might be surprised to learn that Shia use the same false argument.

anajmi: Huh!

[anajmi]

porus: I do not offer an argument at all. I just stated that God created the universe. Do you think that it is an argument?

anajmi: ok God created universe.

porus: Do you have any evidence?

anajmi: What evidence would you like?

porus: There can be no evidence.

anajmi: So do you agree that God created evidence?

porus: Do you have any evidence that God created the universe? Do you get a Quran on your 7th birthday?

anajmi: Do you want God to dance as per your whims and fancies?

porus: No.

anajmi: Then what evidence would you like?

porus: There can be no evidence.

Thud Thud Thud. anajmi banging his head against the wall.

[porus]

porus: God created the Universe.

anajmi: Are you out of your mind? Why do you keep saying that?

porus: It is my name for the First Cause, if there is one.

anajmi: Are you playing with words again?

porus: I am a human being. Really. My brain needs some logical tying of loose ends. So because there is this gap in my understanding, I call the First Cause God. He is the God of the Gaps. Google "God of the Gaps".

anajmi: No thanks, Quran is good enough for me. It is my argument that God created the universe.

porus: You are welcome to it.

[anajmi]

porus: There is a gap in my understanding.

anajmi: I will try to close the gap. The Quran says that God created the Universe. He is omnipotent. He hears all. He sees all. He created us to worship Him and showed us what is right and what is wrong and on the day of judgment He will punish the evil and reward the good.

porus: Do you have any evidence?

anajmi: What evidence would you like?

porus: There can be no evidence.

anajmi: hmmmm

[anajmi]

porus: I call the First Cause God.

anajmi: That is what creates the confusion. Humans since time immemorial have attributed certain characteristics to God based upon their experiences or the people whom they refer to as God's messengers. When you say God it means this omnipresent entity that hears all sees all punishes evil and rewards good.

porus: So what do I do?

anajmi: You should refer to your first cause as..... "badabing".

porus: Interesting.

anajmi: So you should say - "badabing created the universe and I offer no evidence that badabing created the universe". That will make perfect sense.

porus: That way I won't confuse badabing with the God of the Quran or the God of Mahabhrata or any God for that matter.

anajmi: Correct. If people ask what does this badabing do, you can say that you have no idea except that badabing created the universe and you have no evidence for that.

porus: Nah. I like to confuse people.