Banner Advertise

Sunday, June 15, 2008

[chottala.com] FW: Response to Avijit's Article [Final Version]

Response to Avijit's Article

"Most of them follow not but conjecture. Assuredly conjecture can by no means take the place of truth." (Qur'an 10:36)

Note: Avijit Roy is promoting Hitler and Stalin type evils in the name of promoting (pseudo) science. Because not only he doesn't believe in God but also he preaches his belief in the name of (pseudo) science. And according to his belief, Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, Mao, Saddam, Modi and Bush type evils and all those terrorists, killers and rapists will never ever be judged! He is trying his best to let them go free without any judgment in the name of (pseudo) science. You see, how loving, kind and merciful he is! Even the so-called greatest terrorist Bin-Laden never preached this kind of belief! If he thinks otherwise, then he must come up with solid argument. He can also take help from his idol, Oxford Prof. Richard Dawkins, if he wants.

According to Muslim belief, however, this temporal world is a test for the hereafter (18:7, 67:2, 2:155, 2:214), and each and every individual will be judged perfectly according to his/her own deeds and actions including Prophet Muhammad (11:35, 46:9, 36:54, 4:85, 40:17, 21:47, 36:54, 2:281, 7:29, 16:111, 17:13-15, 20:134-135). Therefore, there is not an iota of inhumanity or irrationality in Muslim belief.

Avijit has posted a long article in NFB site as a response to Mr. Gani's write-up on "Science and Religion: Reality vs. Emotion!" I would not have to write this response, had he not brought up all those old issues that have already been refuted without leaving any gap. He has also tried to show that how ignorant and dishonest the people like Mr. Gani are who believe in God and also try to match ancient holy book with science! He has even tried to make lots of fun out of almost nothing. Let's see whether it's other way round.

The way some people are trying to give an idea to their readers as though it's a crime/sin to try to match ancient holy book with science! This kind of new 'crime/sin' has emerged suddenly when Muslims have started doing the same. It was probably not considered as a crime/sin before Maurice Bucaille's book "The Bible, the Qur'an and Science" in general and 9-11 event in particular.

Anyway, there is no doubt that he is an excellent writer, especially from literary viewpoint; but he severely lacks logic, rationality, common sense, and above all honesty. Although he blindly believes in all those fairytales (to date) of Darwinism in the name of (pseudo) science (ex: reptiles were evolved from fish through random mutation and natural selection and yet fishes are there, birds were evolved from reptiles and yet reptiles are there, apple trees were evolved from jackfruit tree and yet jackfruit trees are there, humans were evolved from ape like animal and yet ape like animals are there, etc. etc. etc.) yet he himself doesn't seem to evolve! He composed some articles several years ago without doing any study and research. But he probably never bothered to realize that his 'logics and arguments' might have already been refuted. Instead, he is playing with the same old stuffs again and again and over again to mislead some unwary readers. He
also has a habit of mixing up wheat with rubbish to hide the truth.

Let's address his arguments on "Theism and Atheism" issue first. The readers may want to go through my below write-ups on this issue where one can see that all possible common arguments of Atheists have been refuted with the help of clear-cut logic and established science, not pseudo science:

http://shodalap. com/R_File- 1.pdf

http://shodalap. com/R_File- 2.pdf

http://shodalap. com/R_File- 3.pdf

http://shodalap. com/R_File- 4.pdf

http://shodalap. com/R_File- 5.pdf

If he thinks otherwise on any point, then he must come up with solid argument and to-the-point without beating around the bush. The ball is now in his court.

He wrote in his response to Mr. Gani: In the first step, the authors start with typical 'God in Gaps' argument - i.e., try to poke holes in science and then stuff their God into them. Their typical argument is - "Science cannot explain that, cannot do this", and then conclude, "God did this" or if put in a more humble way, "There must be a place for God in science". I will start from 'God in Gaps' argument. To me and many others, this is not an argument; this is actually an argument from ignorance: "Since we don't know how this happened, it must mean God did it."

My response: I'm really sorry to say that Avijit is probably talking about his previous (traditional) belief or he has no idea what he is talking about! I don't think even an illiterate mullah believes in the God (Creator) the funniest way he has tried to suggest! This is more than just funny! This old and funny argument "god in gaps" has been refuted very clearly in my above write-ups, and it has also been shifted on the shoulder of Atheists. The readers can check it out. He says about argument from ignorance, "Since we don't know how this happened, it must mean God did it." There are only two possible options regarding the origin of the natural universe: (1) Creator; (2) Accident. Is there any third option? If not, then who is in fact trying to fool whom!

He wrote: As a second step, these "premise keepers" will try to reconcile their particular faith with recent scientific advancements. If one is brought up in an Islamic faith, he will find Big Bang in Qur'an, if he is a Christian, he will find Black holes in Biblical verses, and if the person is Hindu, he will find 'time dilation' in Vedic slokes etc.

Response: Well, Muslims have got no problem if other religious people have also found some scientific information in their holy books. Muslims do not try to forcefully prove other holy books unscientific, anyway. If other holy books really contain some scientific info, then let it be. So, what is he trying to say? Is he trying to say that other holy books contain some scientific info, and therefore Qur'anic scientific info are invalid? Or he is trying to legitimate others' claim? Or he is trying to mislead the readers? If not, then what's the point of bringing others' claim here!

He wrote: After doing such 'eminent research' in reconciling, he would eventually conclude that it was indeed a miracle to have the advanced scientific information in such so-and so-ancient holly books; it must be the act of God.

Response: Not necessarily. 'Scientific info' may not be the criterion to logically prove that a book is the word of God. Had it really been so, then all the scientific books and journals would have been the words of Gods and Goddesses! 'Scientific info' is just one logical argument among many. For example, Muslims have presented many logical arguments including scientific info to show that it's not possible for a human being to write a book like the Qur'an; and finally they conclude that it's a revelation from God, as the Qur'an strongly claims to be so (4:82, 17:88, 2:23-24, 10:37, 32.2, 26.192-4, 16.102, etc.). Qur'an very emphatically and probably uniquely claims to be a revelation from the Lord of the Worlds (Muhammad? LOL!). This point alone could be sufficient for a person to believe in it. What else does Avijit want to be convinced? Can he logically answer this question? Yet Muslims have presented many more logical arguments to substantiate their
faith. Interested readers may want to take a look:

http://shodalap. com/R_Koranic_ Belief.pdf

http://www.answerin g-faithfreedom. org/forum/ viewtopic. php?f=56&t=586

http://youtube. com/watch? v=muFJX880cOc

http://youtube. com/watch? v=zATtBLSOpec&feature=related

What other religious people try to prove when they claim that their holy books contain some scientific info, by the way? For example, does having some scientific info in the New Testament, although there is hardly any, anyway prove that Jesus is the Creator of the universe in human form or the begotten son of the Creator? If the answer is yes, then how? If not, then what they try to prove with scientific info!

He wrote: If any rational person look at the past 100 years of scientific advancement and he will notice that scientists were indeed able to solve many such puzzles which were thought to be impossible.

Response: Yes, it's true. For example, Avijit can't see Angels (that are made up of light, according to Qur'an) with his naked eyes, and therefore he doesn't believe in it. So, it's a puzzle for him! Maybe several years later it will no longer be a puzzle to the scientists, like black hole, ultra violate rays and many other things that can't be seen with naked eyes. It works!

He wrote: For anything could not be explained by science was thought to be guided by supernatural causes indeed. For example it was not known before Newton how earth hangs upon nothing in space circling around the sun. Many people must have thought of a mysterious "supernatural force" behind it.

Response: What is he trying to say here? And what does he mean by 'supernatural causes'? For example, let's say, scientist X has manufactured a mobile phone. Is he trying to say that 'scientist X' is a 'supernatural cause'? Or believing in the existence of 'scientist X' is considered to be supernatural? What's the definition of his 'natural cause', anyway? And how does he distinguish between 'natural cause' and 'supernatural cause'?

He wrote: Mr. Gani cannot see how the universe came about naturally, so it must be an act of God. He cannot see how the universe became orderly by natural processes, so order must have come about by supernatural processes. He cannot see how the physical laws can be originated, so it must be divine. In each of these cases I can give a plausible natural explanation that requires no divine actions. None can show in proving these natural explanations wrong. That is, it provides an economical explanation of the origin of the universe without creation or design. A creator is not required by the data.

Response: Here he has cited some technical papers to show high court to some 'blind' people in the name of (pseudo) science. Nowhere in any scientific journal does it say that "divine action is not required" or "creator is not required by the data"! Scientific journals cannot say anything like that! Because this is not within the realm of science. He is challenged to produce his evidence. It is he who blindly believes that creator is not required by the 'data'. But he is propagating the same in the name of (pseudo) science. What does he mean when he says "creator is not required by the data", anyway? What kind of 'data' is he talking about? It seems like he is trying to make a fool out of himself! What does he mean when he says "I can give a plausible natural explanation" ? He seems to have no idea about the difference between 'explanation' and 'proof' either. Explanation is not a proof at all! For example, scientists can scientifically explain (not
plausible natural explanation) how a watch was manufactured and how it works. None can show in proving this scientific explanation wrong! Yet that doesn't anyway prove that the watch doesn't have any maker! Or does it. This kind of "argument from ignorance" has already been refuted in the above write-ups. Although he has an excellent ability to read, write and memorize lots of stuffs but he probably thinks and ponders less.

He wrote: But that will not satisfy Mr. Gani for sure. Mr. Gani believes in a Creator (God) because he 'sees the creation around' him everyday. Unfortunately, I do not.

Response: Avijit can't see anything around! Maybe he can't even see himself! Well, if he doesn't see anything around and even himself, then what kind of 'evidence' he wants to see to believe in God, one may wonder! He is probably living in his own fancy world or doesn't know what he is talking about.

He wrote: If an all-good, all-powerful, and all-knowing God existed, he could posses the power to comfort a child dying an excruciating death from leukemia or cancer. He chooses not to do so.

Response: This is called "argument from emotion" that has nothing to do with reality. This kind of argument doesn't anyway disprove the existence of Creator. This is not an argument to start with.

He wrote: Moreover, humans cannot be held responsible for a massive flood, earthquake, plague or Tsunami. In fact, we can explain such calamities only by concluding that God is malevolent, because he knew of terrible destructive events to occur. It suggests that God is impotent to prevent evil.

Response: This is called "argument from evil" that is also based on nothing. This age old argument has been refuted without any gap in my above write-ups. What is his definition of 'evil', by the way? How did he make sure that 'evil' does exist? And how did he make sure when he says, "God is impotent to prevent evil"? Does the existence of 'evil' disprove the existence of God? If not, then what's the point here! It may appear to the readers that although he doesn't believe in God but he believes in evil, and he really does. People believe in God to eradicate evil. But he needs an evil to eradicate God, to justify Hitler's actions!

He wrote: Needless to say, this would also suggest an unintelligent, deficient, faulty or evil designer, no doubt. The most logical position for me- such evil God does not exist at all.

Response: Once again "argument from emotion" based on nothing. Who says that God must only be all-loving and all-kind? Or is he talking about a dead god! What is his 'yardstick' to judge God's actions, anyway? There is none! So, this kind of empty and emotional argument has nothing to do with fact and reality. He is trying to judge anything and everything from his self-created '50 year old' fancy world. He can't think anything beyond the periphery of his little tinny world. He wants to see everything and every result instantly before his own eyes to believe in it! This kind of belief is even inferior to paganism. He says, "The most logical position for me- such evil God does not exist at all." Well, science never draws this kind of 'absolute conclusion' on probabilistic issues. So, it's crystal clear that he is a No.1 pseudo scientist masquerading as a 'man of science', probably having some evil agenda, maybe to forgive Hitler's crime!

Bottom line: The same old but irrefutable argument! Mobile phone has a maker (no?), it never evolves through random mutation and natural selection (RMNS)! Laptop has a maker (no?), it never evolves through RMNS! Radar has a maker (no?), it never evolves through RMNS! Aero-plane has a maker (no?), it never evolves through RMNS! Watch has a maker (no?), it never evolves through RMNS! No animal evolves from another animal through RMNS before our eyes and observation! Even if it does, that doesn't prove/disprove anything. And so on so forth. Using the same logic and known facts, the vast natural universe including billions of living species and trillions of stars and planets must have a Grand Maker. No? But why?

Now, if Avijit doesn't believe that the universe has a Maker and if it's really true, although most unlikely, then the scientists will never ever be able to prove his 'belief' (i.e. the Maker doesn't exist)! On the other hand, if the Maker of the universe does indeed exist, most likely it does, then the scientists may be able to prove His existence one day. So, it's been proved conclusively that his 'belief' has nothing to do with science, logic and rationality. Therefore, he should stop from fooling himself and others in the name of promoting logic, rationality and (pseudo) science. It might sound harsh but this is the fact and reality, not emotion!

He should immediately tell his idol, Oxford Prof. Richard Dawkins, that he (Dawkins) is fooling some gullible people in the name of logic, rationality and (pseudo) science to make some bucks!

Some of his favorite arguments on this subject:

- Once upon a time scientists couldn't explain how a laptop (say) was manufactured and how it works. Some ignorant people believed that laptop has a maker! Scientists are now able to explain everything about the laptop. The ignorant people gave up (?) their belief on the maker of the laptop! That's how some ignorant people believe in God! And this is called "god in gaps" argument (aka "argument from ignorance") that science is eliminating day by day, although I never tried to realize that I am the one who doesn't know how a person believes in the God in the first place!

- Scientists can explain how a watch was manufactured and how it works. They do not require any 'data' of the maker of the watch to explain all these. Therefore, the maker of the watch doesn't exist!

Now let's address his allegations on the Qur'an. Let's see what he repeatedly says about the Qur'an.

He wrote in his response to Mr. Gani: The Qur'anic solar system also contains the invisible Jinns. These Jinns, according to Qur'an are made of fire and they climb over each other's shoulders and reach the heaven to eavesdrop the conversation of the "Exalted Assembly".

My response: He claimed the same in a debate with me long ago. But he couldn't produce any evidence when he was asked! Then I proved with solid evidence that he got this stuff from (Dr) Ali Sina's article without ever checking with the Qur'an! Now he is claiming the same in the debate with another person without any reference! He seems to be playing jackal-crocodile game! Nowhere in the Qur'an does it say that "Jinns climb over each other's shoulders to reach the heaven"! This is the 'point' that he has inserted into the verse to make it look like unscientific.

He wrote: But the most interesting part is that Allah believed that the shooting stars and the meteors are the missiles thrown at the eavesdropping Jinns.

Response: Yet again another manipulation. It is Avijit, and not Allah, who believes in the above statement! Nowhere in the Qur'an does it say so, the way he has presented. 'Shooting stars', 'meteors' and 'thrown at the Jinns' are not mentioned in the verse! He has inserted his own (copy-paste) fancy words into the verse to prove his point. So, he has made it even more interesting! Anybody can check it out. Oh btw, he has not given any reference!

He wrote: Qur'an said that the Sun also must arise from the muddy waters and must enter the murky waters just as Zul Qaranain had witnessed.

Response: This is a clear-cut misrepresentation of the verse. Also one can see his usage of the word 'must'! WOW! Qur'an never states the way he has imposed his own imagination into the verse. This issue has been answered in many places throughout the net including my write-up long ago, and I also had a debate with him on this issue! Zakir Naik has also answered this allegation very clearly in the debate with Dr. Campbell several years ago.

In another write-up he claimed that Angel Mikhail controls rains without any reference. But nowhere in the Qur'an does it say so! Rather one can find some natural description of how clouds are formed and how it rains (24:43, 30:48, etc.).

He says lots of stuffs in the name of Qur'an that do not exist in it to begin with! He thinks that Qur'an says so and so and he believes in it, and also propagates the same to mislead others. Only Nature knows how someone could refute this kind of blind and random allegations without even any reference!

Readers! It has been shown with at least four examples from one article that he has used lies and deceptions to desperately prove his points. He has again claimed that the Qur'anic earth is flat, immovable, geo-centric, etc.; although I already had a debate with him on these issues where he could not present a single clear-cut argument to support his claim. Yet he is propagating the same time and again. He is simply beating around the bush to prove his points. The funniest thing is that, the same person is accusing Muslim and non-Muslim scholars (who try to match some Qur'anic statements with established scientific facts) of being liar, dishonest, pseudo scientist, and what not! It sounds like the pot calling the kettle black!

He wrote: Down through the centuries, science has eliminated a great many of its gaps. People who had used the Gap argument were embarrassed, since their God shrank in power with each new scientific advance. In fact in the past we have seen how science falsified various religious claims (six days creation, earth-centric solar system, age of earth, various fancy creation stories etc) and came out with correct answers. Even today many religionists put "Adam Eve" story or some religious holy verse as an evidence to oppose evolution. However, needless to say, scientific evidences are going entirely opposite direction refuting all such fancy religious claims.

Response: Here he has tried to mislead the readers by mixing up apple with pineapples that he always does. He should address the issue to-the-point without beating around the bush. What does he mean when he says "fancy creation stories"? Where has he found "Adam-Eve" 'fancy story' in the Qur'an and how science has disproved this 'fancy story'? Can he clearly explain his point in the light of Qur'an and established scientific fact? Which (pseudo) scientist says that Qur'anic creation story is a 'fancy story', and how? Where is that 'fancy story', anyway! Why doesn't he produce Qur'anic reference with logical explanation as to why this or that sounds 'fancy story', and as such unscientific? Otherwise how could someone address his allegations and how would someone know whether his allegations are true or not! Is this a (pseudo) scientific way, who knows!

Muslims do not believe in anything blindly - be it with religion or science. Unlike other religions, they have very strong and solid foundation of their faith. It's a fact. Therefore, they will never accept anything without solid evidence that goes directly against the Qur'an. So, it's just a kind of idiocy to try to bring some hypotheses or fairytales in the name of (pseudo) science to make a conflict between Qur'an and science. One can believe in anything and everything that s/he wishes. But if someone wants to bring a conflict between Qur'an and science, then s/he must come up with solid scientific evidence that is testable without any doubt. Otherwise it's just garbage!

He wrote regarding Big-Bang: If these few words are really the proof of 'Big-Bang', then one may legitimately ask; where is the mention of the huge explosion? The word 'Big-Bang', itself, is very significant here. Where do we find the sign of that famous 'Bang?' From Quantum theory we know that moments after the explosion occurred, the four forces of nature; strong nuclear, weak nuclear, electromagnetic and gravity were combined as a single "super force" (Wald). Where are those indications in those verses of Qur'an? How can someone derive Hubble's constant from those verses? How can some one calculate red shift? How can we measure Doppler shifts? No answer.

Response: It seems he has tried to make a fun of it. He curiously asks, "Where is the 'Bang' of the Big-Bang in this verse?", as though he has heard the 'Bang' of the Big-Bang! What exploded, by the way? He further asks, "How do I derive this or that from these verses?" Here is the cake! He wants to derive all those constants from these verses to be convinced! WOW! He probably doesn't ask this kind of 'smart questions' to other religious followers to make a fool of them. He pretends not to know the difference between a 'statement' and its scientific proof with mathematical model and experimental data. He also pretends not to know the difference between a religious book and a scientific book, and their aim and purpose.

He has quoted a verse (13:2) from Pickthal's translation that says "Allah raised up the heavens without visible supports" without looking at Yusuf Ali and Shakir's translations that states "Allah raised up the heavens without any pillars that ye can see", as he probably thought that he has got a point in Pickthal's translation. This point has been addressed very clearly in my write-up long ago. Even if we take Pickthal's translation as correct one yet it doesn't justify his fun. Unlike Bible, Qur'an uses 'invisible supports', to avoid Biblical confusion? 'Invisible supports' could easily mean some kind of forces. What's the problem with that? Is he saying that there is no force between the planets? However, Qur'an is not a book of science; it's a book of signs.

So, it's not expected to explain the things using all those scientific terms that he is expecting as a man of science! Instead, Qur'an talks about this kind of things symbolically and advices the readers to do research. For example, Qur'an says, "The heavenly bodies are sustaining in the space on invisible supports". Now, it's the job of scientists to find out the 'invisible supports'. They have already discovered the 'invisible supports' and they have also given it a name, for example 'gravitational force', although it cannot be seen or touch! I am afraid if he further asks, "Where is the mention of the 'gravitational force' in this verse?"

He has also claimed that Qur'anic statements have been plagiarized from previous myths and scriptures, without any solid evidence and how Muhammad did it. This is called "old missionary argument" that has been challenged by many scholars but none can produce any convincing evidence. Like missionary, he also thinks that Qur'an was plagiarized from previous scriptures and he believes in it. He is trying to say that Muhammad had a big collection of all the previous scriptures and myths in his library and he used to do research and experiment everyday to write the Qur'an!

For example, Biblical authors clearly thought that the sun moves around the earth (Ecclesiastes 1:5), the shape of the earth is like flat circle (Luke 4-5, Matthew 4:8, Job 28:24, Daniel 4:11), the earth has foundations (1 Samuel 2-8), the earth has got pillars (Job 9-6, Psalm 75-3), heavens have also got pillars (Job 26-11), the earth has ends and it has no gravitational force (Job 38:13), clear-cut universal flood (Genesis 7:19-20), and so on. Muhammad discarded all these Biblical verses after having a thorough experiment in his lab with astounding accuracy! Not to be mentioned many other Biblical verses and many clear-cut mathematical contradictions.

In Gita 11:39, Krishna (God, according to Hindu belief) talks about 'water god' and 'moon god'. (Note: 'god' with small 'g' means a kind of deity having some power and intelligence; in that sense a human can also be a god.) After having substantial research in space, Muhammad thought that it cannot be true. So, he discarded this verse. In Gita 10:21 (I am the moon among the stars), Krishna thought that the moon is the biggest (shinning) object among the stars (as he is comparing himself with moon), as it appears to be with naked eyes at night. In Gita 10:31 (I am the crocodile among the fishes), he thought that the crocodile is a fish and it's the biggest one among the fishes (as he is comparing himself with crocodile), as it appears to be in river. Again, after having experiment in rivers and oceans, Muhammad thought that it cannot be true. So, he discarded these verses. According to Rig-Veda 10:90:12, God created Brahman from his mouth, Rajanya from
his arms, Vaisya from his thighs and Sudra from his feet. Once again Muhammad thought that this is not only discrimination among human beings, it could also be anything but scientific. So, he discarded this verse. Not to be mentioned dozens of other scriptures of Hinduism that Hindus themselves do not believe, many other religious scriptures, and myths.

Is that what Avijit is trying to establish? I don't think so! He would rather take a u-turn saying that how could Muhammad be a researcher and scientist! Does it make any sense? He just got the things 'out of air' and wrote them in the Qur'an, and a bunch of goats and sheep believe in it as the revelation from God! It seems he wants to have his cake and eat it too! He probably feels good with this kind of belief. Moreover, who knows whether he has ever thought about the 'chalk and cheese' difference between the Qur'an and Hadiths, although Hadiths were compiled long after the Qur'an!

Readers! I showed only a few samples against a fancy claim that Muhammad plagiarized Qur'anic statements from previous scriptures and myths. Nadir Ahmed has answered this kind of allegation considering all possible probabilities long ago:

http://youtube. com/watch? v=R9VKKOXjYB4&feature=related

If you ask them, how did Muhammad know this or that? They will immediately tell you, well, he has plagiarized from the previous scriptures. If you further ask, where did the authors of the previous scriptures plagiarize from? This time, no answer! Why didn't he copy all those myths and lots of clear-cut unscientific stuffs that were roaming around at that time and some of them can even be found in Hadiths? Again, no answer! It seems evils don't even want to give credit to Muhammad!

The way he has tried to represent the Qur'an, had there been a fraction of truth in it, educated Muslims would have given up defending the Qur'an long ago! He probably never tried to realize the 'chalk and cheese' difference between Muslim belief and other religious beliefs. No other religious people believe in their scriptures the way Muslims believe in the Qur'an and also try to defend it from cover-to-cover, especially among educated people. This is a fact and a vital point that cannot be ignored so easily. Unless someone thinks that all Muslims are a bunch of ducks and chicks, and do not know what they believe! He has been trying to mix up apple with pineapples to make a fool of himself and some unwary readers for a long time. He cannot be an unbiased researcher, anyway.

Having said that, almost all possible allegations against the Qur'an (ex: flat earth, immovable earth, geo-centric universe, sun rise and sun set, six days creation, big-bang, jinns, Noah's flood, contradictions, etc.) have been refuted in my below write-up long ago:

http://shodalap. com/R_Koranic_ Discrepancies. pdf

If he thinks otherwise on any point, then he has to come up with clear-cut argument without beating around the bush as to why he thinks so and so. Beside this write-up, if he thinks he has some new points on the Qur'an then he has to address them too. Subjective issues, imagination, etc. will not be considered as valid argument. He can also take help from (Dr) Ali Sina and Dr. Campbell on this issue. However, he has to present his arguments in brief and to-the-point so that the readers can easily follow them without getting bored. The ball is now in his court.

He claims, in debate with Muslims, that Vedas and Gita also contain some scientific information. Well, I don't think Muslims should have any problem with that! Why should anybody have any problem, if it's really true? However, can he present all those verses of Vedas and Gita that indicate scientific information with a brief logical explanation of every point? How many scientific information has he found in Vedas and Gita so far? Is there any clear-cut unscientific information or anything like that? (Note: Vedas and Gita are two independent books written by different people, and Vedas also consist of four independent books written by different people. So, they cannot be added up all together. Moreover, the name ' Krishna ' is probably not even mentioned in Vedas. So, Vedas have nothing to do with Krishna . But he is probably the central figure of Hinduism now.)

Moreover, does 'some scientific information' alone anyway prove that a book may be the word of God? If not, then what's the point! Can he mention some prominent Hindu scholars who strongly claim that Vedas and Gita are the word of God from cover-to-cover and without any doubt, and the name of that God? If he cannot, then even being an Atheist why does he bring those books in his write-ups on the Qur'an and in the debate with Muslims, one may wonder!

Most importantly, can he anyway prove from Gita and Mahabharata (the source of Krishna) that Krishna is the Creator of the universe in human form, the way Hindus believe in him? If yes, then how? How in the world a book can prove that a human is the Creator of the universe in the first place! And if it's really true, then why doesn't he believe in it even after seeing God with his naked eyes, when millions of people believe in the same! If he cannot believe in God even after seeing with his naked eyes (solid evidence!), then what more 'evidence' does he expect to believe in God, the most legitimate question that he should have answered for the readers long ago! Most surprisingly, if he cannot believe in a God even after seeing with his naked eyes, then why does he ask others to believe in the same! Does it make any sense? Can he address this important issue very clearly for the readers? He can also take help from Oxford Prof. Richard Dawkins who often
says, "There is no evidence to believe in God!" What kind of 'evidence' are they looking for then?

Some of his direct/indirect arguments on this subject:

- According to Hadith, Muhammad had no idea where the sun goes at night! LOL! Isn't funny, although I do not seem to know the difference between Muhammad and God in the first place! I probably think from some other religious viewpoint, you know! Therefore, Qur'an cannot be the word of God.

- Qur'an says, "God hath appointed the earth as a bed for you (20:53)". Although the earth appears to be 'circular' in shape but my bed is 'rectangular' ! So, Qur'an didn't intend to compare the 'shape of the earth' with the 'shape of my bed' in the first place, which I have been propagating for a long time! LOL! Therefore, Qur'an cannot be the word of God. Otherwise I will be proven wrong, unless I have already made a 'circular bed' in my room secretly!

- When Qur'an says "Heavens and earth were joined together and We clove them asunder", it may indicates anything but the concept of Big-Bang. It's idiotic to try to link it with Big-Bang. Because it was plagiarized from pagan belief, as (Dr) Ali Sina rightly said. Prof. Abdus Salam has also advised Muslims not to do that. But when Qur'an says "God hath appointed the earth as a bed for you, God hath made the earth a wide expanse for you, God hath made for you the earth like a carpet spread out", it must indicate the flat-shape of the earth. It cannot have any other interpretation. Period. And Prof. Salam didn't say anything about this kind of 'attempt', btw!

- When someone claims to find some Qur'anic statements that match with scientific facts, s/he must be a pseudo scientist. Because Qur'an doesn't have any empirical data to begin with! But I can prove the same Qur'anic statements unscientific by hooks or by crooks; and I am not a pseudo scientist, btw!

- Non-Muslim scholars have said something in favor of the Qur'an. But I don't like them, as it goes against my point. Therefore, it must be an act of evil! But when some other people say something against Qur'an and Muhammad, no matter how idiotic or BS it may sound, I blindly believe in them as it goes fine with my point. So, it must be an act of anti-evil!

- Other ancient holy books have been proven (?) to be unscientific. Qur'an is an ancient holy book. Therefore, Qur'an must also be unscientific, as it was plagiarized from previous myths and scriptures. Even if it's not, I will make it look like unscientific by any means. Because I am an Atheist! I don't bother what Muslim scholars say about the Qur'an; although I care what Darwinists say about evolution theory, what Atheists say about atheism, what Physicists say about physics, what Chemists say about chemistry, what Scientists say about science, and so on. Because Muslim scholars are all dishonest and liar. They can't be trusted you know, although I have profound faith on (Dr) Ali Sina and Evangelist Dr. Campbell type people. When my Qur'anic 'faith' becomes weak, I would rather visit some anti-Muslim racist sites to regain my 'faith', although I do not like Muslims to visit creationist sites to know anything about Darwinism that I preach in the name
of (pseudo) science to disprove some myth. I use one myth to disprove another myth, scientifically! I do whatever I wish. Because I am a freethinker, although I never realized whether an Atheist can also be a freethinker! Anyway, I don't care at all. Because I am not accounted for my deeds and actions. Above all I am an Atheist!

- Qur'an threats to punish criminal and evil minded kafirs in the hereafter (47:32, 38:28, 16:88, 47:1). But I don't like it. Although I do not believe in the life after death yet I am also afraid of the Qur'anic punishment! Therefore, Qur'an cannot be the word of God.

- Qur'an orders Muslim man to beat his innocent wife with hot iron rod without any reason and without giving any chance for amendment. This sounds to me a barbaric teaching just like widow and witch burning, although I don't care to read the verse in context and whether there is any other interpretation. Therefore, Qur'an cannot be the word of God.

- Qur'an orders Muslims not to take Jews and Christians as friends and protectors. But I don't like it, no matter whether they are terrorist or intolerant or hypocrite (5:57-61, 60:8-9). Because I love those kinds of people and also trying to forgive their crimes in the name of (pseudo) science, you know! Therefore, Qur'an cannot be the word of God.

- So far I have found only two teachings in the Qur'an: (1) Beating innocent wife with hot iron rod (solid evidence, 4:34); (2) Innocent Jews and Christians cannot be taken as friends and protectors (solid evidence, 5:51). How could progressive and modern people follow this kind of backdated, barbaric, hateful and tribal teachings? Therefore, Qur'an cannot be the word of God.

- According to Hadith (not sure whether it's true or not), Muhammad used to hear some kind of ring-tone (like telephone ring to alert someone to convey message, a practical way) before receiving message from Angel Gabriel (a conveyer of the message). After checking Muhammad's blood and brain in American lab, Christian missionaries have come to the conclusion that Muhammad was suffering from temporal lobe epilepsy. I never had any doubt about their ground shattering discovery though. Therefore, Qur'an cannot be the word of God. It could be the word of an epileptic patient though, although I don't have any proof whether an epileptic patient has ever produced any book let alone the book like Qur'an. And neither did I!

- I never wrote a book myself and gave full credit to an imaginary God, although I was asked to do so. Yet I believe that Muhammad wrote a book (Qur'an, the only book) and gave full credit to an imaginary God! Because he was a liar! Or he was deceived by Satan! Therefore, Qur'an cannot be the word of God. It could be the word of Satan though, as Salman Rushdie said.

- The suicide bombers of 9-11 event killed more than 3000 innocent people. They (suicide bombers) were true Muslims. Although dozens of American scholars and Professors have rejected the 9-11 commission report based on many facts and logics yet I never had any doubt about it in my mind. Instead, I try to propagate it as a fact. Oh btw, I am also trying my best to save those innocent suicide bombers in the name of (pseudo) science at the same time! How could a loving God punish those innocent suicide bombers (5:32, 4:29-30, 4:92-93, 17:33, 25:68, 3:21, 2:195)? Does it make any sense? Therefore, Qur'an cannot be the word of God.

- Christian priests have tortured and burned alive some scientists whose discoveries went directly against their established beliefs that were based on the Bible. Therefore, Qur'an cannot be the word of God.

- According to Judio-Christian tradition (based on the Bible), the earth is only six thousand years old. But according to established science, the earth is about five billion years old. Therefore, Qur'an cannot be the word of God.

- Qur'an offers falsification test and challenge to falsify its claim (4:82, 17:88, 2:23-24, 10:37). But I don't think this kind of logical approach can be offered in an ancient holy book! Therefore, Qur'an cannot be the word of God.

- Oxford Prof. Richard Dawkins is a very logical and intelligent man. He says that God doesn't exist. Although it's nothing new to me but another (fundamentalist Atheist) American Professor has proven mathematically that 'God is not required by the data' (?) to explain this universe. I'm not sure whether that Professor is talking about 'Jesus is not required by the data' though! Therefore, Qur'an cannot be the word of God. How could it be in the first place when God Himself told an Oxford Professor that He doesn't exist? Does it make any sense?

- I can go on and on, you know! Yet some ignorant people not only believe in God but also believe in a book as the revelation from God! You see, how deluded they are! They even believe that people like Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, Mao, Bush, Saddam, Modi and all those terrorists, rapists, killers and suicide bombers must be judged and punished according to their own deeds and actions! And these kinds of teachings come from their ancient holy book! Oh my Gosh! You see, how backdated, barbaric, merciless and tribal minded people they are! Not only that, they are also ignorant about Modern Science and Technology, you know! Look at Afghanistan , for example, and see the truth yourself with your naked eyes what I am talking about. Solid evidence, man!

Thanks

Raihan


Get the name you always wanted with the new y7mail email address.
www.yahoo7.com.au/mail

------------------------------------

[* Moderator�s Note - CHOTTALA is a non-profit, non-religious, non-political and non-discriminatory organization.

* Disclaimer: Any posting to the CHOTTALA are the opinion of the author. Authors of the messages to the CHOTTALA are responsible for the accuracy of their information and the conformance of their material with applicable copyright and other laws. Many people will read your post, and it will be archived for a very long time. The act of posting to the CHOTTALA indicates the subscriber's agreement to accept the adjudications of the moderator]
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/chottala/

<*> Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional

<*> To change settings online go to:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/chottala/join

(Yahoo! ID required)

<*> To change settings via email:
mailto:chottala-digest@yahoogroups.com
mailto:chottala-fullfeatured@yahoogroups.com

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
chottala-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:

http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

[FutureOfBangladesh] Bravo! Bravo! Bravo! Our army backed caretaker government - if Tarek – Koko – Khaleda - Nizami gong are released from the custody – than no need keeping anyone in the custody of Bangladesh.

 
Bravo!   Bravo!   Bravo! 
Our  army  backed  caretaker  government

 

 

If Tarek – Koko – Khaleda - Nizami gong are released from the custody – than no need keeping anyone in the jail or custody of Bangladesh.

 

 

Is there was any crime which were not committed (directly and indirectly) by these gongs during their tenure of 2001 – 2006?

 

  • They looted - stolen cores of taka of people of Bangladesh
  • They took thousands of acres of govt owned land
  • They transferred cores of taka to overseas (even when this CA Mr. Fakruddin was Governor of Bangladesh Bank)
  • They killed, injured political leaders - MPs (from topmost level, like Ex Minister & current MP ASMS Kibria, ex MP Mrs. Ivy Rahman, current MP Ahsanullah Master, ex MP Momtazuddin, Manjurul Imam etc to the grass root level workers - supporters of opposition political parties, even person (in Bogura) reading Quran in the mosque)
  • They gave safe shelter to killers in exchange of cores of taka (Basundhora)
  • They killed, insulted their own party leaders - supporters - sympathisers (like Prof Aftab of DU, Jamal Uddin of Chittagong, Badruddoza Choudhury, Mahi Choudhury, Maj Mannan)
  • They tried to cleansing the religious minority group (killed hundreds of non Muslim, including Principal Binod Bihari, Buddhist spiritual leader)
  • They created thousands of "god fathers"
  • They gave 'mega size' (more than 62) corrupt minister
  • They polluted & destroyed the PSC
  • They polluted & destroyed judicial system
  • They polluted & destroyed the educational system
  • They polluted & destroyed the Administration - Bureaucracy
  • They polluted & destroyed the Election Commission (cores of false voter)
  • They polluted & destroyed the Army - Police and other law enforcing system
 

They  had  polluted  &  destroyed  every  thing of  Bangladesh

 
To find their huge number of crimes – no need of the high power electronic microscope or "intensive investigation"!

 

Only need a fair, unbiased normal mind. So, no need of carry out any "intensive investigation" with "high power electronic microscope"!

 

If you go through the "un protested" newspapers reports (also in abroad) on the corruptions published during the tenure of the notorious Jamat-BNP tenure of 2001 – 2006 (and also after that, till now) including the newspapers sympathised or loyal to them including like, the Prothom Alo, the Amader Shomoy, the Jugantor, the Daily Star, the Inkilab, the Amar Desh, the Manabzamin, the Nayadiganta,. Leave the neutral & sincere newspaper like the Sangbad, the Janakantha, the Shamokal, the Ittefaq and other news paper like the Bhorer Kagoj, Ajkerkagoj (now closed) etc etc. (I can quote hundreds of such news paper report).

 

That is why Bangladesh was "champion" in corruption out of 5 terms 4 terms of Jamat-BNP era (and one time in Awami League era)!

 

Now these culprits are getting released from the custody by this ABCG!

 

Bravo!  Bravo!  Bravo!  Our army backed caretaker government

 

Really SELUKAS!

 

Our present neutral army backed caretaker government is really strange! SELUKAS!

 

 

 
"Sustha thakon, nirapade thakon ebong valo thakon"

Shuvechhante,

Shafiqur Rahman Bhuiyan (ANU)
NEW ZEALAND.

Phone: 00-64-9-828 2435 (Res), 00-64-0274  500 277 (mobile)
E-mail: srbanunz@gmail.com

N.B.: If any one is offended by content of this e-mail, please ignore & delete this e-mail. I also request you to inform me by an e- mail - to delete your name from my contact list.

 

 

 

__._,_.___

....we must use caution and restraint in our language.  No personal attacks, address the issues, avoid inflammatory rhetoric, do not suggest or infer violence and be able to back up any statements or facts with a credible web site link....



Your email settings: Individual Email|Traditional
Change settings via the Web (Yahoo! ID required)
Change settings via email: Switch delivery to Daily Digest | Switch to Fully Featured
Visit Your Group | Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use | Unsubscribe

__,_._,___

[chottala.com] Thank you very much for sharing my pain for my mother's loss and for your dua for my mother.

Dear my best well wishers & community friends,

I received hundreds of e-mails from many of you concerning the loss of my 85 year old mother.  Many of you shared my mental pain, grief, & sorrow for the loss of my mother.  Many of you informed me that you are forwarding your dua for my mother to Almighty Allah.  In my whole life, I never received such a huge number of e-mails from many of you.  I saved all of those e-mails in a separate folder.  I will show you those e-mails if you do not believe me.  It's very shame on me that I even did not recognize many senders of the e-mails.  Many of you even called me to London and talked to me personally.  Many of you left message to my Bhabis when I was in the Janazah prayer & graveyard.  My Bhabis did not remember their names.  All they said that they received lots of phone calls from Washington DC area.  Many of you called my home in Maryland and shared my pain & grief with my wife Muna.  I can't imagine that all of you love me so much and all of you are so concerned about my mental condition.  At this time, I forgot all of my complains on my community.  Thank you very much for sharing my mental pain & grief and for conveying your Dua to Allah.  May Almighty Allah accept all of your dua for my mother.  May Almighty Allah grant you very high level of rewards, mercy, & blessings.

I am giving very special thanks to Mr. Mosabber Zaman, Dr. Jafrul Hasan, Dr. Badrul Haque, and Mr. Husain Tauhid Alam for taking the trouble & extra time to broadcast & to send the announcement of the death of my mother to the greater Bangali community in Washington DC area within a very short time.  I am very grateful to them.  May Almighty Allah shower extra blessings & mercy to them.

Our family situation in London is slowly settling down.  I had an wonderful experience in my life yesterday.  I went down inside the very narrow & dark grave of my mother, then received the dead body of my mother at my own hand from the top, then laid her with showing my highest respect in the ground, covered her up with wooden planks, and then climbed up to outside.  I am really grateful to Almighty Allah for giving me this very learning opportunity to bury my mother by my own hand.  Her Janazah prayer was held in East London Mashjid (second largest mosque in London).  Whole mashjid was completely filled up by all known & unknown people.  My brothers even do not know many people there who attended my mother's Janazah prayer.  I will tell you all details when I will see all of you.

Insha Allah, I will return to your lap on Thursday.


MAHFUZUR RAHMAN
London telephone number: 011-44-20-8989-2697
6524 Ivy Terrace, Elkridge, MD 21075
410-796-0577 (home)
301-646-3475 (cellular)
703-875-4054 (work)
BangaliBhai@hotmail.com __._,_.___

[* Moderator's Note - CHOTTALA is a non-profit, non-religious, non-political and non-discriminatory organization.

* Disclaimer: Any posting to the CHOTTALA are the opinion of the author. Authors of the messages to the CHOTTALA are responsible for the accuracy of their information and the conformance of their material with applicable copyright and other laws. Many people will read your post, and it will be archived for a very long time. The act of posting to the CHOTTALA indicates the subscriber's agreement to accept the adjudications of the moderator]




Your email settings: Individual Email|Traditional
Change settings via the Web (Yahoo! ID required)
Change settings via email: Switch delivery to Daily Digest | Switch to Fully Featured
Visit Your Group | Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use | Unsubscribe

__,_._,___

Re: [chottala.com] We have to wait till ......

I dont think it will end after KZ and SH..........it will continue through their son or someone  like that..........

--- On Sat, 14/6/08, Mujib Kasem <dbamujib@yahoo.com> wrote:
From: Mujib Kasem <dbamujib@yahoo.com>
Subject: [chottala.com] We have to wait till ......
To: chottala@yahoogroups.com
Date: Saturday, 14 June, 2008, 9:55 PM

Hi,

Right now we do have shortage of leaders in the both party(AL & BNP) who can lead our country properly towards the right direction. So we have to depend on either SH or KZ. Both of them are certified leaders of the corrupted leaders. And unfortunately people of Bangladesh will not allow anybody else as a leader who can truly give our country a good shape as long as they are alive.

 

SO WE HAVE TO WAIT TILL ________ OF THESE TWO LEADERS(KZ & SH). AFTERTHAT ONLY WE MAY HAVE A DYNAMIC & TRUE LEADER IN OUR COUNTRY WHO CAN MAKE THE DREAM TRUE OF OUR PEOPLE.

 

 

BR

MK




From Chandigarh to Chennai - find friends all over India. Click here. __._,_.___

[* Moderator�s Note - CHOTTALA is a non-profit, non-religious, non-political and non-discriminatory organization.

* Disclaimer: Any posting to the CHOTTALA are the opinion of the author. Authors of the messages to the CHOTTALA are responsible for the accuracy of their information and the conformance of their material with applicable copyright and other laws. Many people will read your post, and it will be archived for a very long time. The act of posting to the CHOTTALA indicates the subscriber's agreement to accept the adjudications of the moderator]




Your email settings: Individual Email|Traditional
Change settings via the Web (Yahoo! ID required)
Change settings via email: Switch delivery to Daily Digest | Switch to Fully Featured
Visit Your Group | Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use | Unsubscribe

__,_._,___

[chottala.com] Many historians see little chance for McCain

Many historians see little chance for McCain

David Paul Kuhn 2 hours, 29 minutes ago

One week into the general election, the polls show a dead heat. But many presidential scholars doubt that John McCain stands much of a chance, if any.

Historians belonging to both parties offered a litany of historical comparisons that give little hope to the Republican. Several saw Barack Obama's prospects as the most promising for a Democrat since Roosevelt trounced Hoover in 1932.

"This should be an overwhelming Democratic victory," said Allan Lichtman, an American University presidential historian who ran in a Maryland Democratic senatorial primary in 2006. Lichtman, whose forecasting model has correctly predicted the last six presidential popular vote winners, predicts that this year, "Republicans face what have always been insurmountable historical odds." His system gives McCain a score on par with Jimmy Carter's in 1980.

"McCain shouldn't win it," said presidential historian Joan Hoff, a professor at Montana State University and former president of the Center for the Study of the Presidency. She compared McCain's prospects to those of Hubert Humphrey, whose 1968 loss to Richard Nixon resulted in large part from the unpopularity of sitting Democratic president Lyndon Johnson.

"It is one of the worst political environments for the party in power since World War II," added Alan Abramowitz, a professor of public opinion and the presidency at Emory University. His forecasting model — which factors in gross domestic product, whether a party has completed two terms in the White House and net presidential approval rating — gives McCain about the same odds as Adlai Stevenson in 1952 and Carter in 1980 — both of whom were handily defeated in elections that returned the presidency to the previously out-of-power party. "It would be a pretty stunning upset if McCain won," Abramowitz said.

What's more, Republicans have held the presidency for all but 12 years since the South became solidly Republican in the realignment of 1968 — which is among the longest runs with one party dominating in American history. "These things go in cycles," said presidential historian Robert Dallek, a professor at the University of California at Los Angeles. "The public gets tired of one approach to politics. There is always a measure of optimism in this country, so they turn to the other party."

That desire for change also tends to manifest itself at the end of a president's second term. Only twice in the 20th century has a party won a third consecutive term in the White House, most recently in 1988, when George H.W. Bush replaced the term-limited Ronald Reagan, who was about twice as popular in the last year of his presidency as President George W. Bush is now.

But the biggest obstacle in McCain's path may be running in the same party as the most unpopular president America has had since at least the advent of modern polling. Only Harry Truman and Nixon — both of whom were dogged by unpopular wars abroad and political scandals at home — have been nearly as unpopular in their last year in office, and both men's parties lost the presidency in the following election.

 

Though the Democratic-controlled Congress is nearly as unpopular as the president, Lichtman says the Democrats' 2006 midterm wins resemble the midterm congressional gains of the out-party in 1966 and 1974, which both preceded a retaking of the White House two years later. 

One of the few bright spots historians noted is that the public generally does not view McCain as a traditional Republican. And, as Republicans frequently point out, McCain is not an incumbent. 

"Open-seat elections are somewhat different, so the referendum aspect is somewhat muted," said James Campbell, a professor at the State University of New York at Buffalo who specializes in campaigns and elections.

"McCain would be in much better shape if Bush's approval rating were at 45 to 50 percent," Campbell continued. "But the history is that in-party candidates are not penalized or rewarded to the same degree as incumbents."

Campbell still casts McCain as the underdog. But he said McCain might have more appeal to moderates than Obama if the electorate decides McCain is "center right" while Obama is "far left." Democrats have been repeatedly undone when their nominee was viewed as too liberal, and even as polls show a rise in the number of self-identified Democrats, there has been no corresponding increase in the number of self-identified liberals. 

Campbell also notes that McCain may benefit from the Democratic divisions that were on display in the primary, as Republicans did in 1968, when Democratic divisions over the war in Vietnam dogged Humphrey and helped hand Nixon victory.

Still, many historians remain extremely skeptical about McCain's prospects. "I can't think of an upset where the underdog faced quite the odds that McCain faces in this election," said Sidney Milkis, a professor of presidential politics at the University of Virginia. Even "Truman didn't face as difficult a political context as McCain."

 
 
 

Politico
Many historians see little chance for McCain
Politico, DC - 3 hours ago
But many presidential scholars doubt that John McCain stands much of a chance, if any. Historians belonging to both parties offered a litany of historical ...
Many historians see little chance for McCain
Capitol Hill Blue, VA - 2 hours ago
The election may be close now, but the historical precedents don't look good for the Republican. Capitol Hill Blue is an independent, non-partisan news site ...
Ugly: The Future of the Republican Party
OpEdNews, PA - Jun 12, 2008
Many Republicans are going to quit the party in the weeks and months following. For those who remain, these will be really dark days. I see four possible ...
__._,_.___

[* Moderator's Note - CHOTTALA is a non-profit, non-religious, non-political and non-discriminatory organization.

* Disclaimer: Any posting to the CHOTTALA are the opinion of the author. Authors of the messages to the CHOTTALA are responsible for the accuracy of their information and the conformance of their material with applicable copyright and other laws. Many people will read your post, and it will be archived for a very long time. The act of posting to the CHOTTALA indicates the subscriber's agreement to accept the adjudications of the moderator]




Your email settings: Individual Email|Traditional
Change settings via the Web (Yahoo! ID required)
Change settings via email: Switch delivery to Daily Digest | Switch to Fully Featured
Visit Your Group | Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use | Unsubscribe

__,_._,___

[chottala.com] Avoid Banglish

Hi All,
Pls. try to avoid the Banglish language. It is completely headache and boring for all.
Thanks for your help.
Shahid
 
__._,_.___

[* Moderator's Note - CHOTTALA is a non-profit, non-religious, non-political and non-discriminatory organization.

* Disclaimer: Any posting to the CHOTTALA are the opinion of the author. Authors of the messages to the CHOTTALA are responsible for the accuracy of their information and the conformance of their material with applicable copyright and other laws. Many people will read your post, and it will be archived for a very long time. The act of posting to the CHOTTALA indicates the subscriber's agreement to accept the adjudications of the moderator]




Your email settings: Individual Email|Traditional
Change settings via the Web (Yahoo! ID required)
Change settings via email: Switch delivery to Daily Digest | Switch to Fully Featured
Visit Your Group | Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use | Unsubscribe

__,_._,___