The gentleman puts all his arguments and in the end says he does not want to argue with a "peanut brain owner".
Typical, is not it.
Junaid.Sultan
--- In alochona@yahoogroups.com, Enayet Ullah <enayet_2000@...> wrote:
>
> junaid.sultan
>
> Your argument sound very ridiculous. While Arabesque name supposed to be connoted to be Muslim names, that's necessarily be always true. Keith Ellison, a US senator, who happened to be a Muslim.
>
> Reverse is true, many Jews & Coptic Christians have Arabesque name, they are not necessarily Muslim.
>
> Mohammad As[s]ghar, either a munafiq or k'afir or atheist, can be everything but believer. Name can be deceptive, specially when everyone here is very non-personal. You need to judge people by their arguments, not name, that's silly!
>
> Well, I would not argue with a peanut brain-owner!
>
>
>
> --- On Wed, 4/8/09, junaid.sultan junaid.sultan@... wrote:
>
>
> From: junaid.sultan junaid.sultan@...
> Subject: [ALOCHONA] Re: Remembrance of Shahid Zia and cantonment house
> To: alochona@yahoogroups.com
> Date: Wednesday, April 8, 2009, 9:29 PM
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Mr. Dev
>
> At the least your name suggest that you are not a muslim. Without going
> to the argument who is eligible to be called Shaheed and who is not, may
> I know background of your knowledge for the word "shaheed" from Islamic
> perspective.
>
> Mr. Avijit Dev, or what may ever your real name is, for the sake of
> religion you believe in, come out of this "munafiqat". We know, at
> present, people like you or alike you, with fake identities, are
> creating trouble in the educational campuses in particular and every
> other forum in general,only for the sake of politics. Of course with
> lies some times and half truth rest of the time.
>
> Junaid Sultan
>
> --- In alochona@yahoogroup s.com, "Avijit Dev" <avijit_dev@ ...> wrote:
> >
> > Cyrus wrote:>>I thought a "shahid" is a martyr who sacrifices himself
> or killed in a religious war.<<
> >
> > Just get this, Cyrus, that the word "religion" is foreign to Muslim
> world. The word "religion" is name for the authority of church and that
> had been replaced by political authorities in different guise in
> christian countries. And the concept of "religious war" were waged by
> the crusaders those who were/are wearing a mask of love and for them
> (crusaders) war is peace, freedom is slavery and ignorance is strength.
> >
> > There are no recorded history any Caliphate had ever waged war on to
> spread deen[knowledge] . and to spread knowledge[deen] as Koran says,
> don't compel people to accept deen[knowledge] . Compulsion is not the way
> of peace[Islam] but it is chaotic what crusaders always did and still
> does that in the name of "political economic guise" with a political
> state authority. This distinction must be recognised.
> >
> > As for who deserves to be named shahid? anyone who were wrongfully
> killed or murdered for creating chaos or spreading dogmas are deserved
> to be named shahid. And Shahid Zia is one of them for many people in
> Bangladesh. Just as Quran says: killing someone is killing all humanity
> and saving someone life is saving all humanity.
> >
> > For many people, late president Zia was decent, honest and was working
> for a "just cause" or to build pragmatic society instead of totalitarian
> concept that BAKSAList wanted to achieved.
> >
> > He was the father or architecture of democratic Bangladesh based on
> inclusion of all the members of the society. And it is imperative to
> form a country with all its inhabitants to have a peaceful society and
> otherwise it is chaotic, dogmatic and intentionally mobilising for chaos
> to perpetuate destability for alien causes.
> >
> > There are a few parties under the umbrella of BAL are mobilising for
> chaos in name of democracy for their masters and those should be
> recognised and should be awarded them with a tag "neo-rajakar" . And
> these neo-rajakars' masters' strategy is to divide and conquer and in
> effect, destroying a nation's industrial base and just as destroying the
> moral of a country while we remain infighting to each other.
> >
> > -- In alochona@yahoogroup s.com, Cyrus thoughtocrat@ wrote:
> > >
> > > almost 30 years later, I still don't understand why Major Zia was
> given the posthumous title, "Shahid". I thought a "shahid" is a martyr
> who sacrifices himself or killed in a religious war. If memory serves me
> right, he was killed by his own associates. There was no religious war,
> nor there was any self sacrifice. Just curious!
> > >
> > > C
> >
>
__._,_.___
