Why NY Ahmadi Disgusts Me!

In response to NY Ahmadi’s post in the Politics forum - “Should Pakistan be a secular state.”

NY Ahmadi wrote: “[A bunch of bullshit, which I’ve snipped away.]”

You start off by discussing your regular visits to the seminaries and group discussions of what you see to be relatively progressive Christian “movements” that reflect “societal expectations and fine tune the value system according to the needs of the people they serve.” You are apparently well aware of the diversity of opinion within the Christian school of thought. You understand that there is not “one” sole Christianity, but rather a number of differing versions of Christianity. This is a good observation, unfortunately you fail to apply the same principle of understanding to your mis-informed and highly biased opinion of Islam

You believe, and quite casually write, “Islam is the most rigid of all monotheistic religions.” I say casually because those ignorant of others often in casual conversations express their feelings and attitudes without regard to others. They casually disclose their racist tendencies, their prejudices, and the generalizations with which they judge others. It is in this casualness that they are often confronted and asked to re-evaluate their opinions and rethink their positions. If we take Christianity and Judaism to be the other two monotheistic religions, judging the three side by side in terms of “rigidity” is near impossible. Impossible because all three are not monolithic. All three have differing schools of thought. All three have “fundamentalist conservative” movements and zealots. Here is a sample of Christian fundamentalism in the US:

Pat Robertson, republican presidential candidate stated that the Equal Rights Amendment (which would provide women with equal rights to men in the US) was part of an agenda that was “socialist, anti-family political movement that encouraged women to leave their husbands, kill their children, practice witchcraft, destroy capitalism and become lesbians.”

All three also have equally outspoken liberal moderates. And on the other end of the spectrum, all three have mystical components, which are the furthest away from “rigidity” one can get. Its also futile and a waste of time to judge religions in such a manner. I can’t see any benefit from such an analysis of ranking in terms of ones perception of “rigidity”.

NY Ahmadi wouldn’t use the terms “tolerant” or “accommodating” to describe Islam, he writes. You’d rather reserve these words for what? I assume the Christian denominations you mentioned earlier. Apparently the monolithic version of Islam, which occupies your limited understanding of religion, does not deserve the right to be judged on the merits of its teachings. Rather, you’d like to judge what you view to be a solidified, unchanging, and unalterable Islam on the basis of, what seems to be the practices and beliefs of a select set of Ulama (which ulama is still quite unclear from your post - it seems as though your understanding of Islam limits the domain of Islam to one set of Ulama, who interpret and set out the rules and regulations for all adherents of the faith). It would seem that this Ulama (you are criticizing, although not constructively, insulting is a better word) is the Sunna orthodox - however even if it is, the differences of opinion within this school are plentiful enough to discount your broad over-simplifications and generalizations.

Not surprisingly your reading of “Al-Maida” “confused” you. You could not reconcile certain concepts. You searched and found what you were looking for - discrepancies. You found them because you wanted to find them. Buddha once said that “when someone is seeking it happens quite easily that he only sees the thing he is seeking; that he is unable to find anything, unable to absorb anything, because he is only thinking of the thing he is seeking, because he has a goal, because he is obsessed with his goal…in striving towards your goal, you do not see many things that are under your nose.” It seems that you have failed to view the entire Qur’an, rather you’ve decided to selectively pluck out verses to fuel your passion and legitimize your stereotypical view of Islam. Perhaps you missed this verse in your selective reading of Al-Ma’idah:

“Those who believe (in the Qur’an), those who follow the Jewish (scriptures) and the Sabians and the Christians - And who believe in Allah and the Last Day and work righteousness - on them shall be no fear nor shall they grieve.” (5:69) (also see 2:62)

A similar verse will not be found in the works of your Christian friends. Because many Christians believe that the Christian God, condemns non-Christians to a fiery hell. The verse you were discussing (5:51) “Oh ye who believe! Take not the Jews and the Christians for your friends and protectors…” is in relation to ‘hypocrites’. The verses previous to and right after this particular verse discusses the hypocrites amongst the Jews and Christians, those who reject the word of the Torah and Injeel (both of which are the word of God). Hypocrites are not to be trusted - do you trust hypocrites? I doubt it. The fact that you can marry a Christian or a Jew tells you what - that you can obviously trust them.

NY Ahmadi spewed: “Now can a Muslim tell a Jew that “I don’t trust you (because Quran tells me so) but I will dine with you (because I like Gafilta fish) and marry your daughter”. I think by saying that a Muslim will make a complete fool of himself.”

I think your the only one making the fool of yourself, by showing your ignorance. I find your mocking my religion and set of beliefs extremely offensive and it only reflects poorly on yourself. You further believe that the Qur’an advocates the death sentence for apostasy. Could you kindly present the verses you are referring to (so they can be refuted). Than you go on to briefly mention the intolerance of Islam when it comes to the subjects of “place of women, and sexual orientation.” Homosexuality and gender equality are two separate discussions and far too broad to discuss in this post. In Islam homosexuality is not permitted (as it is not permitted in Judeo-Christian teachings). The punishment for homosexual behavior is open to interpretation.

NY Ahmadi again disrespectfully blurted out: “I know people will say that I should be killed for thinking that, if they don’t then I am wrong. And also killing and destruction is the only solution Islam preaches to resolve differences.”

You put a death sentence on your own head, claim that Islam placed it there, than go on to insult the religion further. How ingenious you are. (Disgusting!)

NY Ahmadi continued to disgust his readers with these remarks: “I won’t go back to the desecration of idols (Gods to some) by Fattah pur Sikri in Southern India, and by Mohamd bin Qasim in the lower Indus Valley. I won’t talk about even more recent ones like St. Sophia and the Ottoman either, because you will tell me they were not Muslims. The rest of the world believes they were.”

And hey I won’t go back to the days of the Crusades, and the Inquisition (the real holocaust), or the slave trade, or the years of colonial oppression - all in the name of Christ. But I won’t go back there because I make a distinction between the historical actions of Christians and the religion of Christianity. The two differ, just as the religion of Islam differs from the actions of its adherents. Not everything in the world is black and white.

NY Ahmadi offends his reader once again with the following remarks: “I have been to Vatican and let me tell you that Michael Anglo’s work in Sistine Chapel beat Khana Kaba any day (in my opinion). Having said that, if you still think that I deserve respect for my views, you are fine person (Muslim or not).”

You just don’t get it do you? Its not a competition. The west has to see everything in relation to it. To the east is China, in the middle is the Middle East - everything in relation and in comparison with its “greatness”. It is unable to observe the greatness of others, or see the inherent value in what others hold dear, without having a competing interest. You don’t deserve any respect until your ready to respect others.

NY Ahmadi, sometimes your posts are so insulting and so disgusting - perhaps you do not notice. Perhaps you really have legitimate concerns but are unable to express yourself in a respectful and meaningful manner. You have the right to disgust me with your idiocy, but be assured that I will reply.

Achtung (disgusted!)

“Who is more evil than one who attributes lies to Allah or denies His revelations? Surely the transgressors will not succeed.” 6:121

i agree absolutely. i would also like to add that this man has no knowledge of islam or koran whatsoever.
the basic thing is, he talks about stuff he doesnt know.

i hereby challenge him openly to try and prove any of the alligations he made. he can make an allegation on islam, by coming up with any verse from the koran, and everyone with a neutral self would see how i answer him from within the koran and negate his allegations.

NYAhmadi, are you coming up to accept the challenge?


So be on watch for a day when heaven shall bring a manifest smoke
covering the people; this is a painful chastisement. 'O our lord remove thou from us, the chastisement; we are believers.' How should they have the reminder? seeing a clear Messenger has already come to them, then they turned away from him, and said,' A man, tutored, possessed!"
( the koran, verse 11-14, chapter 44, Smoke, the nuclear explosion.)

No giving examples of inquisitions does not make Islam tolerent, it would say that they are as intolerent as Chistians. Good. Religions are generally intolerent. (repeat after me.. religions... intolerent :)) Worese they are proud of it. Iqbal's poetry is best example of it. In fact he mourns that despite destruction so many temples god has not given due award to Muslims. Now don't say that Iqbal is not representative Muslim. He is afterall the founder ideologue of Pakistan.

And if indeed man woman equality is there, why a Jew gentleman can not marry your daughter while you can marry a daughter of Jew. It is clearly aimed to see that number of people in the herd is not reduced.

NY, as Achtung has asked, could you give the verse from Quaran in which there is a death sentence for apostacy according to you?

[This message has been edited by PG (edited March 21, 1999).]

Assalam o alaikum wa rahmatullah,
Achtung! mashaAllah, what an amazing response! you’ve covered everything that I felt necessary to respond to as well, but without the talent to do so as eloquently as you did! Jazakullah, for making it very clear for everyone.

http://www.pak.org/gupshup/biggrin.gif


Which of the favours of your Lord do ye deny??
Surat Al-Rahman

yeah

yeah

NY saab,
peace be upon you.

you ask,
if someone calls your leader an imposter, then why cant you do the same to them?
you want an answer?
fine!

if someone calls your leader, mirza ghulam ahmad sahab of qadian, an imposter, you ARE NOT allowed to call his leader any name in reply!
you are not allowed to do that, because your leader , mirza ghulam ahmad sahab of qadian forbade that!
yu know why?
because he wants us to be TOLERANT!
and well if we disobey him, and get intolerant, will we have any reason to call ourselves better than them?

the leader taught us, that if we are as intolerant as them, we will not stand any better on doomsday!

my friend,

if yu are an ahmadi, and contrary to the rest of the muslim world, yu care about your community, then know it,

its an AHMEDI who has to be tolerant, and not a blind deaf and dumb follower of mullah-ism.

how can you expect tolerance from a molvi-follower, those who rejected the imam they were waiting for?
how can yuo expect tolerance from those who invite curse and wrath of god, and allow people to make fun of islam?
how can you expect tolernce from those who believe that killing you is exactly in accordance with koran?

So well, if you realize what tolerance is,
and if you realize how important it is,
and if you believe in a sophisticated religion,
if you think you are any better than them,

then its YOU who has to be tolerant.
i expect that from YOU,
and not from a molvi~

may god bless you!
sincere friend,

  • jewels of insignificance

So be on watch for a day when heaven shall bring a manifest smoke
covering the people; this is a painful chastisement. 'O our lord remove thou from us, the chastisement; we are believers.' How should they have the reminder? seeing a clear Messenger has already come to them, then they turned away from him, and said,' A man, tutored, possessed!"
( the koran, verse 11-14, chapter 44, Smoke, the nuclear explosion.)

about the other point,
here you go:

i can prove it from the koran that islam has no objection to changing of religion. thus i will hereby prove that the orthodox muslim belief of killing the one who leaves islam to convert to another religion is absolutely against the teachings of koran.
i will hereby challenge all the followers of molvi-ism to prove against it.

Maulana Modoodi believes, that anyone who turns away from islam must be killed:
"deen main koi jabar nahee, is ka matlab hai hum kisi ko apnay deen main aanay kay liye majboor nahee kertay, aur waqei hamari rawish yehi hai. magar jisay waapis jaana ho hum usay pehlay say khabardaar ker dete hain kay yeh darwaza aamad-o-ruft kay liye khulla huwa nahee hai. lihaza agar aatay ho to yeh faisla ker kay aao kay waapis nahee jaana hai warna baraah-e-karam aao hi nahee."

modoodi sahab's islam is like a mousetrap!
or in the words of a poet,
"aa to sakta hai chooha magar jaa nahee sakta"
how will thr molvis account for those who are born muslims. can they not say,
" it is true what you said, but dear sir, i havent come myself! i have been brought in! i was born as a muslim. i never knew this was a one way street. i never knew i would be born under modoodi's influence! what right do u have, to kill me? "
what possible replies will modoodi have?
the real koranic point of view is clear in the koran:

-- verse 1:
"they will not cease to fight with you, till they run you away from your religion, if they are able; and whosoever of you turns away from his religion, and dies disbeliving- their works have failed in this world, and the next. those are inhabitants of fire, therein they shall dwell forever." (-verse 218, chapter 2, the cow.)

-- verse 2:
"those who have turned back in thier traces, after guidance has become clear to them, satan it was, that tempted them." ( -verse 26, chapter 47, Mohammad)

-- verse 3:
"o believers! whosoever of you turns away from his religion, god will assuredly bring a people he loves, and who love him, humble towards tge believers, disdainful towards the unbelievers, men who struggle in the path of god, not fearing the reproach of any reproacher. That is god's bounty. He gives it unto whom he will. and god is all-embracing, all-knowing." ( -verse 55, chapter 5, the table.)

-- verse 4:
"Muhammad is naught but a messenger, messengers before him have passed away. If he should die or is slain, will you turn about on your heels? If any man should turn about on his heels, he will not harm god in any way. and god will recompense the thankful." ( verse 145, chapter 3, the house of imarn)

all the verses above have clearly stated that those who change their religion are not to be killed. if anyone still argues that islam believes in killing of those who leave islam and turn away, it would be very cruel of them.


So be on watch for a day when heaven shall bring a manifest smoke
covering the people; this is a painful chastisement. 'O our lord remove thou from us, the chastisement; we are believers.' How should they have the reminder? seeing a clear Messenger has already come to them, then they turned away from him, and said,' A man, tutored, possessed!"
( the koran, verse 11-14, chapter 44, Smoke, the nuclear explosion.)

Its always the same vicious circle. Some one objects to a harsh ruling in Islam. A rationalist will come up with a theory that such laws do not exist or even if they do they benefit us in some " Scientific Manner".
And Because this is a circle we never find out who is ahead.
The real betrayel is by Achtung ofcourse. The Islamic Warrior who is motivated by Liberal Secular Passions. What a Joke.

Stud

Roohh: Thank-you.

PG:

Religions are not intolerant, individuals are intolerant. If individuals decide to use religion to legitimize their intolerance, it is not the religion which should be looked upon as the source of that intolerance but rather the individual who has used the particular religion as a tool to spread hate and enmity. It is the subverted analysis of religious text and the distortion of historical traditions which has lead to the legitimization of intolerance within religious circles.

Rather than use Iqbal as your choice for a representative of Islam, why not choose a true Muslim, like Jesus, Moses or Muhammad?

NYAhmadi:

NY Ahmadi wrote: "Perhaps a better use of words could have been "NYAhmadi's views disgust me" and not NYAhmadi as a person."

Actually that's what I meant...Yeah your probably right, bad judgment on my part.

NY Ahmadi wrote: "But that will be too much to expect from a Muslim. This is exactly the mentality that I speak of "kill the messenger"."

Are you dead, did somebody kill you. Because I can still hear you barking in my ear. Nobody "killed the messenger", just offered a difference in opinion.

NY Ahmadi wrote: "I was never to compare Islam with Christianity, but you did a fine job doing that."

Listen NY Ahmadi, I can read, I am not stupid. You started off your thread discussing post-Christian movements "that reflect...the needs of the people", you paralleled their developments with a "rigid" Islam, in fact I think your words were "the most rigid of all monotheistic religions". You went on to "bash" Islam with your limited knowledge of the religion. You obviously wished to draw parallels between Judeo-Christianity and Islam, otherwise why mention the "post-Christian" movements. I never compared Islam with Christianity in my post (you did in yours) - please show me where I did in mine.

NY Ahmadi wrote: "No one is arguing about the Inquisition or the Holocaust or Crusades." They are wrong."

This was my point actually in my post - that discussing the historical rivalries and violence claimed by opposing zealous factions in the name of religion - and in turn taking their actions to be representative of the religious denomination as a whole is unfair and as you put it "wrong".

NY Ahmadi wrote: "And don't tell me what Pat Robertson says either. None takes him seriously politically anyway."

My point was that there are religious fundamentalists and conservatives everywhere. The word "fundamentalism" has exclusively been attributed to Muslims, yet in the US you find an equally powerful force of conservative politicians and religious icons who uphold their definition of "family values" and will go to great lengths to impose their value system on others. People do take them seriously - perhaps not a sizable majority, but definitely a significant portion of the population. The same can be said for Islam, not too many take the religious zealots and fundamentalists in Islam seriously either - but a sizable portion of the population does.

NY Ahmadi wrote: "I just say that I liked Sistine chapel because it looked nice to me. I will tell you how Khana Kaba looks to me after I have an opportunity to see it. Perhaps you can write a letter to King of Saudi Arabia for it to be opened to everyone, and not just to Muslims."

I'm not sure where the decree arose which barred certain individuals from entering into the Kabba. NY Ahmadi, if you have certain questions you should perhaps address them in a respectful manner. You can simply ask where did this practice arise? And why? I'd rather not comment on the subject until I got further information (I can think of a few logistical reasons for barring non-Muslims from Mecca, but I'd rather do some research and find a sound answer).

NY Ahmadi wrote: "How come, no one raises their voices/opinions when the entire Muslim world openly insults beliefs and views of those who don't agree with their beliefs?"

Excuse me. But the religion which was under attack in your post was Islam. Islam is the most misunderstood religion in the world. One of the reasons is the continued attacks on its teachings from ignorant scholars. What you call the "entire Muslim world" has never done anything in unison, they have never stood side by side and insulted anyone's beliefs or values - "the entire Muslim world" (if such a thing exists) is under attack everyday and desperately attempting to fend off its enemies.

NY Ahmadi wrote: "My community is oppressed and persecuted in Pakistan, no one gives a damn about that."

Ok your obviously emotional. People do give a "damn", they do fight for human rights. There are organizations in Pakistan attempting to change things. In terms of oppression and persecution, Ahmadies are one group in a list of many, for whom rights have been denied. This of course is not the point of the post. My post was not in any way discussing the persecution or liberation of Ahmadies (neither was yours I don't think). I don't know where you're going with this or what your point is. Do you think that Islam is intolerant because the Pakistani government, which (perhaps you think) represents the "entire Muslim world" (it doesn't in fact even represent the people of Pakistan), is subjugating Ahmadies? I think that would be stretching it, don't you?

NY Ahmadi wrote: "Muslims call the leader of my community (PBUH) an imposter. Why can't I say the same thing about Muhammad (or his Khalifs)?"

Do you mean - why can't I say the same thing about Muhammad or his Caliphs in a Muslim country? Because you can say the same thing from where you are sitting right now, in New York. Why you would want to is beyond me. What you would gain from such a display of ignorance is beyond me. Blasphemy is just not an exercise in fun. Or is it? Does it make you feel better to call others names and insults?

NY Ahmadi wrote: "If Muhammad marries a 9 year old girl, what's wrong about questioning that? I question one of Ahmadi Khalifa marrying an 18 year old girl when he was in his 60s. Please tell me, why?"

Are you asking if its wrongful for you to ask this question? Or are you asking for an answer to this question (we can start a new thread if you wish)? Questioning is fine, the manner in which you ask the question is not (not in this particular case but in the past). You have a certain way about you, which makes it appear as though you are not asking the question to learn and mutually respect others. But rather to gain a platform to insult and ridicule others. If you can agree to disagree on certain issues, if you can agree to discuss things in a congenial and amicable manner - than yes, you are encouraged to ask questions. If you cannot, than you may ask as well - but expect an equally disrespectful reply.

NY Ahmadi wrote: "Take some Tylenol for your vomit."

Thanks for the advice...

Achtung ;)

"After all, let them bawl their heads off, if it relieves their feelings; dogs that bark don't bite."

Stud:

Stud why do you always have to label and compartmentalize people?

Did you read the original post, did you read my post even? There was no "harsh punishment in question". There was no question, just a series of blatant insults.

Why don't you go sell out someplace else Stud... :)

For someone who rejects his culture, language, nationality, religion and people so adamantly, you hang around forums and environments filled with those who you despise a bit too much, its "contradictory". Why don't you try to mingle with those who, in your self-admitted "inferior" mind are "superior" - won't they allow you in their circle - or is your accent too much for them, or maybe the color of your skin is too dark, or perhaps that pungent smell that circles around you after you finish eating your mothers biryani is too much for them.

"What a joke." No kidding!

Achtung ;)

"Confronted with a world ruled by the settler, the native is always presumed guilty. But the native's guilt is never a guilt which he accepts. It is rather a kind of curse, a sort of sword of Damocles, for, in his innermost spirit, the native admits no accusation. He is overpowered but not tamed; he is an inferior but he is not convinced of his inferiority. He is patiently waiting until the settler is off his guard to fly at him..." (Franz Fanon - The Wretched of the Earth).

[This message has been edited by Achtung (edited March 22, 1999).]

Achtung,

YOu Pseudo Islamic, Rationalizing, Escapist, Post Industrial, Secular Humanistic, Islamic Renaisance Hopeful saviour wanna be SuperMan Complex harbouring Socratic philosopher, do tell me something :

What is the "sword of Damocles".

I found that quotation very disturbing and interesting. Explain this phrase to me.
Refer me to the book as well.

(The only way to eat Biryanee is with Imlee slowly melted with the rice over night)

Stud

I think Achtung has really dealt with all the points very well and very elequently, reminds me of a verse in the Quran:
... Therefore, congratulate My servants who listen to all views, then follow the best. These are the ones guided by God; these are the intelligent ones.(Quran, 39:17-18)

I don't think that Islam is intolerant at all, its based on the divine truth and the rules we should follow (as muslims) are derived from this truth. Just like any system you live in you have to adhere to the law, if you break the law there is a punishment you have to suffer. A convicted rapist in a the UK may for an example think that the judicial system is very intolerant towards him because he doesn't understand what he has done wrong. Well surely it is very intolerant towards this criminal is it not? -I'm sure he believes it is.

The Quran gives you the right to break the rules or ignore the rules it has given mankind, its your choice and I think you have that as a right. However, the punishment for ignoring the rules and the true message should not be determined by man but by God. You may feel that according to your truth that Islam is rigid and intolerant, that's your choice.
As rationale, intelligent people we should at least look at and study Islam in its true context based on the Quran without all the baggage, (misunderstandings,misinterpretations,politics etc). If after all this you decide it is not the truth then fine, but don't follow conjecture and guesswork based on other peoples interpretation of their Islam and start labelling the whole religion as false or intolerant. I think most of the criticism is more cultural than religious and the discussion is hardly based on what is said in the Quran. It just seems like people are too busy trying to shoot each other down rather than gain any understanding of each other, all those who believe should try and explain their views clearly and tolerantly without upsetting people or being self righteous, those who reject Islam should also do the same - who knows maybe someone will be converted to what YOUR truth is.

This is for both NYAhmadi and for Achtung and all others that follow the same pattern...

I don't understand why you folks cannot carry on a controversial discussion/debate without the use of words like "spewed", "blurted", etc.

For someone like me, who would like to gain some knowledge and understanding of what the heck it is you guys are talking about, it's really annoying and frankly appears childish. Not only that, it prevents me from being convinced in either direction because all I can see is your anger for each other and not the validity or credibility of the points you present.

This is for both of you guys!!!
In an effort to patch things up..why don't both of you come to my place for chai? i make dood patti very good. But pls. bring some pappey!! :)

Stud:

The "sword of Damocles" is an expression used to describe a disaster waiting to happen. The metaphor is derived from an ancient story regarding a courtier of Syracuse who was supposedly seated at a banquet beneath a sword hung by a single hair.

The book is "The Wretched of the Earth" by Frantz Fanon, a psychiatrist (and humanist and revolutionary) who worked in Algeria during the French occupation and smypathized with the Algerian Nationalist Movement, which he later joined. He is considered this centuries most important theorist of the African struggle for independence. Its an amazing book, you should read it, you'll enjoy it.

Here's another quote:

"The native intellectual had learnt from his masters that the individual ought to express himself fully. The colonialist bourgeoisie had hammered into the natives mind the idea of a society of individuals where each person shuts himself up in his own subjectivity, and whose only wealth is individual thought. Now the native who has the opportunity to return to the people during the struggle for freedom will discover the falseness of this theory. The very froms of organization of the sturggle will suggest to him a different vocabulary. Brother, sister, friend - these are words outlawed by the colonialist bourgeoisie, because for them my brother is my purse, my friend is part of my scheme for getting on....Henceforward, the interests of one will be the intersts of all, for in concrete fact everyone will be discovered by the troops, everyone will be massacred - or everyone will be saved. The motto "look out for yourself," the atheists method of salvation, is in this context forbidden." (Franz Fanon - The Wretched of the Earth, chapter titled "Concerning Violence")

Achtung ;)

Pseudo Islamic, Rationalizing, Escapist, Post Industrial, Secular Humanistic, Islamic Renaisance Hopeful saviour wanna be SuperMan Complex harbouring Socratic philosopher

Vs.

Nothingness.


So be on watch for a day when heaven shall bring a manifest smoke
covering the people; this is a painful chastisement. 'O our lord remove thou from us, the chastisement; we are believers.' How should they have the reminder? seeing a clear Messenger has already come to them, then they turned away from him, and said,' A man, tutored, possessed!"
( the koran, verse 11-14, chapter 44, Smoke, the nuclear explosion.)

Thanks - to a degree I do fit each of those labels (although I hate labels). I'm not really sure what you mean by "vs. nothingness" though. Anyways, it doesn't matter.

Achtung ;)