₦airaland Forum

Thank you, @olabowale. . . I'm not taking it personal. And how I have belittled the love of all believing men and women by typing a 'wink' to be translated as e-fornication, I really don't know. It's simple: my life's straight and if my winks are misread, it's not sufficient grounds for anyone to translate them into what they're not.

Amicably.

@ishmael,

I really think you've mixed up issues.

1. It might have been a custom - of who? That Sarah followed the custom of the people of the day did not make it legal in God's eyes. This is clear from two things:

(a) I may be wrong, but where did God refer to Hagar as Abraham's "wife"? Of course, we read in Gen. 17:15 that God addressed Sarah directly as Abraham's "wife", later in the same chpater (verse 12) God Himself called Hagar Abraham's "bondwoman". The point is that if Sarah's action was legally binding in God's eyes, He would most definitely had called Hagar the "wife" of Abraham, rather than a "bondwoman". Guess what he called Ishmael in the same relationship? "And also the son of the bondwoman will I make a nation, because he is thy seed."

(b) Again, Hagar did not protest this fact when she was asked about her plight in the wilderness, for she did not brag about being a wife of Abraham, but in humility confessed that Sarah was her "mistress" (not "mate" - Gen. 16:8; neither did the angel of the Lord correct her, but said: "Return to thy mistress, and submit thyself under her hand" (verse 19).

So, you see that when you read and make inferences, it helps to clearly see the big picture - for it is not what men make of an issue that matters, but rather what and how God sees a matter.

2. I don't read Sarah as being jealous of Hagar from the onset, because the Bible says that when Hagar saw that she had conceived (became preganant), she despised Sarah (Gen. 16:4). That was what actually resulted in Sarah's maltreatment of Hagar to show the latter that she was still maid/bondwoman and not on equal status with her as "wife" or "co-wife". I've already shared that not one time was Hagar referred to as 'wife' - whether by Gd or Abraham himself.

I might have used the wrong word or drawn the wrong inference of jealousy. But notice that four years after Ishmael was born, God appeared to Abraham and asked him to "walk before Me and be thou perfect" (Gen. 16:16-17:1). Why do you think God made this dramatic call to Abraham? I offer that from the context of what went before, it is obvious that not all was well in Abraham's home. There again I may be wrong; but at the end of the day, something was just not right in the relationships at home - and God yet in His condescension blessed Ishmael for Abraham's sake.

3. Bottomline is that God's purpose (even before Ishmael was born) was that Isaac was to be the seed to whom the covenant appertained (Gen. 17:19). That did not mean that Ishmael and the sons of Keturah were cursed by God, for indeed God blessed them. However, of Ishmael we read: "And he will be a wild man; and his hand will be against every man, and every man's hand against him; and he shall dwell in the presence of all his brethren" (Gen. 16:12).

The promise to Isaac through Abraham has come to all the world through Jesus Christ - for it was He actually that was the real Seed prophecied about from Gen. 3:15 - "the Seed of the woman". Remember Gal. 3:16 that clearly identifies Christ as the Seed? Voila, mon ami! C'est fini!

Uncle Olabowale,

I'm not a military man, nor do I wear 'mei-guard' uniform and stand at the backyard of any Imam. Second, I'm not in Nigeria, even though I visit at least once a year (not for Hajj, but to see my parents and siblings), besides my many travels routinely between 7 countries in Europe and USA. Third, my heart does not long for another woman, and the one that God gave me has been the best thing that ever happened to me in terms of marriage. Your efforts to pronounce me a fornicator are not helping your case. There are many men who would take the excuse of a Qur'anic text for 4 wives and sleep around with 72 women (do the maths: that's 18 rounds of 4 'wives', or 8 x 3²).

My wife knows that I don't have girlfriends; and 1 wife is just the best thing that could ever happen to a man. It's a tough world for those who can't be satisfied with 1; so I see your desire for 3 extras. When you get there, whether you like it or not, your eye will still stray and your heart will still lust - until you know the power to live right on the inside, which comes only by faith in Jesus Christ.

I wouldn't mind much if 'he' had 4 wives and still made sense in spiritual matters; but to have 3 + 1 and still make no-sense is way beyond 'spiritual awareness' - it's rather a 'spiritual problem'. Go and read his posts and you'll get my point. Not even Muhammad who got over 22 (that's 5 times the prescribed 4, plus 2 'extras') was as incoherent as to use uncouth language about the Holy Ghost - and your dear friend would appal Muhammad the way he tries to 'defend' Islam with tactless inputs.

No, I'm not upset - rather, I think it's about time I be strict with you on this matter of fornication. If mukina2 ever felt I was tending to fornication with her from my greeting her sometime ago on Nairaland (from which time you no go let me rest ever since with your 'fornication'),  she would have openly posted any secret emails of 'toasting' or 'wooing' that she got from me - if ever there was any. I greet other people in just the same way: "How bodi?"  If you want to fornicate, uncle. . . you're in New York: go pick one from 42nd street where almost every three shops is a porn shop. No thanks, I'm not in the least interested.

I'm happy with just 1 - the only number that makes sense.

Psst: *my darling wife, if you ever read this, tell Uncle 'Wale wetin dey - I love you and you alone, from start to finish - and the day we got married will live long in my heart. Muuaaahh!!    

I fear that there are not many mainstream Muslims who take the view of the moderate Muslims. While the latter are more reasonable, the former class will hurt and maim and think it only pleases God.

I've learned as well to be courteous in addressing issues, and I'm still learning - who knows, perhaps someone might be helped, or otherwise be turned off entirely by my action and/or reaction. Here I agree with olabowale, even though we differ in our views many times.

Belloti, thanks for that input to make some of us see how some Muslims feel about issues and how to handle them; I only pray that on both sides of the divide we'd be more respectful and tolerant, as well as be ready to engage in honest dialogue than go on rampage at every effort to reconcile faith and reason. I apologise if my inputs or reactions have hurt anyone, but I do pray that people would understand that we must as a matter of urgency and priority speak the truth - even if it hurts.

texazzpete, that's so, so true - and those who weird the cutlasses should understand that progress and development do not come by cutting off productive hands.

Noo OO!! Gigitte, please don't vamoose like that from this thread OO!! Plenty still dey wey we must yan!

Anyhow, how bodi? I like your sense of humour; but here's my rejoinder to your latest post -

gigitte:
1. i meant the pope is the head of the church in the way a pastor is the head of a pentecostal church. i didnt mean to imply that he takes the place of christ. so i hope that piece of confusion is clarified.

Okay, gotcha. But then, the Pope as the head of the RCC is not the same as a pentecostal pastor being the head of his denomination. There's more to the Pope being "head of the RCC" than meets the eye.

gigitte:
2. as for traditions, those are traditions of men, the traditions im talking about are those of the church. those bible verses apply to upholding your traditions over what the bible says when both are in conflict. if they are not in conflict, i don't really see the argument there

First, traditions of the church which do not square with the Scriptures are still traditions of men - only this time, rather than a Pharisaic tag, na RCC dem put there. Second, we all know that RCC traditions are largely in conflict with what the Bible says, and my RCC friends would vow that their traditions are weightier than the Scriptures.

gigitte:
3. who told you that cocaine and weed defile the temple that is the body? in excess they will affect your function, this is true for absolutely everything. so is it a sin to smoke weed once in a blue moon now? psshw

True?? Gigitte, come back and erase this line of reasoning O (otherwise, you go just spoil show for one of my friends wey dey eye you with some undiclosed interest )!

Anyway, cocaine and weed + 'gbana' & 'wee-wee' defile the temple that is the body - whether in excess or moderation. How much of 'gbana' or 'wee-wee' is okay and within the parameters of 'not-so-much-in-excess'? I can't imagine a dear 'sista' or 'broda' taking some portion before Mass and offering a smaller portion to the vicar/priest in good gesture. Infact sef, you won't want to marry a 'wee-wee' husband (experience is the best teacher!).

gigitte:
4. Jesus christ in the sense that he is the only way to salvation is not the same as an intercessor.

It may well be true that salvation and intercession are not the same in meaning, but still Jesus Christ is both the Saviour and our Intercessor. With 'Saviour' and 'Lord', I need not quote texts to show that. But how about "Intercessor"? I offer you a few:

Rom. 8:34 -- "Who is he that condemneth? It is Christ that died, yea rather, that is risen again, who is even at the right hand of God, who also maketh intercession for us."

1 John 2:1 -- "My little children, these things write I unto you, that ye sin not. And if any man sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous."

gigitte:
5. wow if you say dead people are nothing, then why are you a christian, you obviously do not share in the belief of eternal life or life after death. i am sorry for you.

Don't be sorry, my dear. I truly believe in eternal life in Jesus Christ, but that does not mean that I talk to dead people - remember the sin of necromancy condemned by God in the Bible. Even the children of Israel were not permitted to pray to or solicit the prayers of righteous men like Moses, Samuel or Elijah after their departure from this life.

Besides, I never said 'dead people are nothing'; rather, I offered a few scriptures to show that you can go and eat your bread with joy because God now accepts your work in the person of the Beloved - Jesus Christ (Eph. 1:6). According the the texts from Eccles., the dead are unable to affect the living with their love, hatred or anger. . . as there is nothing they can do under the sun.

"Out of the body, present with the Lord" does not translate into soliciting the prayers of those who have departed this life. For all I know, God discountenances such and writes it off as the sin of necromancy (Deut. 18:10-12).

gigitte:
the fact is you have no monopoly of interpretation of the scriptures, lol you are no-one to tell my interpretation of the scriptures is right or wrong.

Bang on target - it's true I have no official authority to tell you what or how to interpret Scripture. The one thing we can both do is submit to the clear teaching of the Bible and reason together with one mind and one understanding.

Philp. 2:2 -- "Fulfil ye my joy, that ye be likeminded, having the same love, being of one accord, of one mind."
Rom. 15:6 -- "That ye may with one mind and one mouth glorify God, even the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ."
1 Cor. 1:10 -- "Now I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you; but that ye be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment."

gigitte:
sha sha this is the end of my contributions to this topic.

Well, em. . . could I interest you somehow to come back?? You can't make us miss you like that, you know.

You know why some people are so upset with Isaac? They are jealous with seething rage from the fact that Isaac was the covenant child and no one else - not Ishmael nor any of the sons of Keturah. God didn't hate Ishmael, but indeed it was through Isaac's lineage that the rest of the world would be blessed (including the descendants of his half brothers -Ishmael and the sons of Keturah).

If you trace the lineage of the sons of Keturah, not one of them has been jealous of Isaac.

But the lineage of Ishmael have been seethingly antagonistic against anything that pertains to Isaac - and that started happening even before Ishmael and his mother Hagar were sent away from "home".

Now, the sending away from home attests to the fact that God did not recognise Sarah's action of marrying Hagar to Abraham as legal. How do you send your own "wife" away - if she was really, legally your "wife"? When the quarrel arose at home from the antagonism from Ishmael, Sarah didn't call Hagar a "wife" to Abraham; rather she said in Gen. 21:10 --

"Wherefore she said unto Abraham, Cast out this bondwoman and her son: for the son of this bondwoman shall not be heir with my son, even with Isaac."

See? Sarah didn't call Hagar 'mate' or 'second iyawo' - rather, even after the birth of Ishmael, Sarah knew that Hagar was still a bondwoman!

Of all the sons of Abraham through Sarah, Hagar and Keturah, only Isaac was called and specially marked out by God as the promised child of the covenant - that's why the Hebrew writer referred to Isaac as Abraham's only begotten son. Hard pill to swallow? Deal with the seething rage and jealousy of Ishmael the son of the bondwoman, and voila!

Na wah!! I tire for the bros, no be small!

Managing 1 wife is something - and praise God, it's beautiful when she manages me.

But managing 4 wives and still be yapping incoherently on Nairaland, haa!! Babyosis, I see your point!

@olabowale,

The facts are simple and plain. The "Barnabas" you're misconstruing and mixing up is not the Barnabas of Acts 14; unless you're trying to say that the same individual lived from the 1st century to the 6th century when Islam was born!

Read carefully the work and Person of the Holy Spirit in John 14 to 16 - you will see without bias that Muhammad did not fit the description at all.

You want to know what the Holy Spirit has taught Christians? Read the epistles in the New Testament!

@olabowale,

In divine matters about who the Creator is, you don't use a plural pronoun to describe Him or His work; because the moment you do that, the ones claiming to have 'created' with a plural pronoun are impugning on the glory of the Creator Himself. If *Allah* in the Qur'an is satisfied to use "We created man", how does that set him apart from those who associate themselves with him in that plural pronoun?

At the time Muhammad was praising the Bible, both the Old and New Testaments were canonised and had Psalm 2:12, Mark 1:1 and John 1:1 in them in exactly as we read them today. The idea that the Bible has been corrupted is Muhammad's disavowal of what he couldn't accept, and his denials are still unsustained to this very day.

I am not so sure that most of your Muslim brothers would be happy with you saying this:

olabowale:
Uthman burnt the various degrees of incomplete copies of Qur'an because they become irrelivant, since there are now various complete copies available.

Muslims never see any part of the Qur'an as irrelevant - not at any one time in Islamic history, although I stand to be corrected. Even if that were the case, why would a Caliph - a leader in Islamic community - order *Allah's* book to be burnt?? The idea that there were various complete copies should not be an excuse to burn a document regarded as sacred to Muslims. The real history behind this is that Caliph Uthman was alarmed that there were "corrupt" copies of the Qur'an in circulation, where upon he engaged in a project that saw his own political redaction as the only one to displace all others - thus ordering the burning of those extant copies.

olabowale:
Inshort, God Almighty gives a rich legacy to the Muslims by all of these many ways to preserve the purity of the Qur'an.

If the Psalms of David, the Law of Moses, and the Gospel of Jesus wer actually sent down and given by *Allah*, why did he not apply the same rule to 'his' sacred scriptures that he sent down and preserve their purity as well? Is there a suspicious element why he could not preserve the other "books" he claimed to have sent down, revealed and confirmed?

olabowale:
As to the command of Zachariah to the children of Israel, when the news of John was given to him, he can only instruct with his hand. That instruction of praising Allah is practiced by Muslims after the Morning prayer and the late afternoon or evening prayer. This prayer is Alhamdulillah, Surulillah. All of these prophets are aour prophets (AS).

Zachariah who was John the Baptist's father was not the same as the prophet Zechariah. The first was a priest in the New Testament, while the other was an Old Testament prophet whose name is the title of one of those OT books. 

Ah-ah, B-babe. . . how far?

I'm still not back to base, but we're having a week's break and so we can play. Hope to see ya say in about a forthnight when I get back. Trust you're doing okay?

Ha, uncle 'Wale. . . I almost missed your enquiry

olabowale:
@Havila, 4get_me; Are you saying that barnabas was not a companion of Jesus. I am just asking. If he is you must know that according to the Bible, he Barnabas will be one of the Judges of the children.

If by 'companion' you mean one of those called 'the Twelve disciples' or 'Twelve apostles', then the answer is a straight "No." You may verify for yourself from the following references:

(a) Matthew 10:2-4

(b) Luke 6:13-16

(c) Mark 3:14-19.

However, there was actually a Barnabas who was later called an apostle (Acts 14:14), but he was not part of the Twelve apostles given in the references above. All these apostles lived in the first century, and the Twelve knew Jesus Christ quite well -

John15:27 - "And ye also shall bear witness, because ye have been with me from the beginning." (This was Jesus speaking to the Twelve apostles).

However, the so-called "gospel of Barnabas" is said to have been written by someone who tried to reconcile Christianity and Islam - and since Muhammad appeared on the scene in the late 6th century (570-632 CE), anyone thinking about Islam was not writing from the first century. Therefore, that so-called gospel of Barnabas is dubious at best. There is simply no Muhammad or Ahmad in the Bible, QED.

olabowale:
None of you africans is from the children of Israel.

That is true, and I don't think anyone of us has claimed to be "from the children of Israel". There's an appellation for non-Israelites (or non-Jews) - it's called "Gentiles." But don't forget that salvation is of the Jews - so said Jesus in John 4:22, and therefore that salvation has come to the Gentiles as well; as exactly as the Psalmist said: "Kiss the Son, . . . Blessed are all they that put their trust in Him" (Psa. 2:12). We gentiles are part of "all they" who have put our trust in Jesus Christ the Son of God.

olabowale:
Ahmad means comforter. Ask an Arab. Muhammad is also known as Mustafa (AS).

That may well be, but don't make the mistake of thinking that Muhammad was the comforter Jesus spoke about in John 14-16. The Comforter there is the Holy Spirit whom Jesus promised would be with Christians (not Muslims) forever. All who hunger for Him can know Him today, even now - it only takes faith in Jesus Christ.

Nne, I tire for the bobo O!

My friend's uncle was the first from whom I heard that common sense is not so common - now I see it demonstrated, but still pray and offer reason by persuasion. . . who knows, perhaps his heart may be touched.

@firdaus4us,

Your opening lines are as confused as your trademark, so please don't make it any worse in a public Forum.

"The Bible is not the Book that God sent down to any prophet" - so your Qur'an is blowing lies like no man's business, or was it rather a magazine that was sent? Did *Allah* in the Qur'an not categorically state that he/they sent down, reveal and confirm the books of the Biblical prophets? Let me remind you -

When were the Law and the Gospel revealed? Q.3:65 >> "Ye People of the Book! Why dispute ye about Abraham, when the Law and the Gospel Were not revealed Till after him? Have ye no understanding?"

First, the People of the Book are Christians, yes or no?
Second, "the Book" is the Bible - yes or no?
Next, the Law and the Gospel are specific books of the Bible - yes or no?
Plus, we have understanding and that's why we don't swallow everything Muhammad claimed without asking questions, thank you.
Do you really read your Qur'an at all?

Q.3:84
>>Say: "We believe in Allah, and in what has been revealed to us and what was revealed to Abraham, Isma'il, Isaac, Jacob, and the Tribes, and in (the Books) given to Moses, Jesus, and the prophets, from their Lord: We make no distinction between one and another among them, and to Allah do we bow our will (in Islam)."

Q.2:136
>>Say ye: "We believe in Allah, and the revelation given to us, and to Abraham, Isma'il, Isaac, Jacob, and the Tribes, and that given to Moses and Jesus, and that given to (all) prophets from their Lord: We make no difference between one and another of them: And we bow to Allah (in Islam)."

"All the prophets" surely includes those not mentioned by name - Isaiah, Micah, Zechariah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel. . . Malachi. It is either you believe those statements in the Qur'an, or deny them altogether and prove to yourself that the Qur'an was not telling the truth. Which brings about some interesting questions -

(a) what exactly were revealed and contained in the Books given to Moses and Jesus?

(b) if you have no idea at all what the 'original' Books contained, why all the noise and denials that you can't sustain?

(c) are the "Books" given to Moses and to Jesus different from the same Law of Moses and Gospel of Jesus that Muhammad praised in his day - which same have remained until today?

(d) are you forgetting Islamic history that God never sent down any "book" to Muhammad, but the Qur'an was merely written down by the hands of men?

Now, it is interesting that you'd have to consult Random House to explain how *Allah* associated himself with his angels in stating "We created man". The emphasis is on the work done - "create" - and once you lose the meaning of that, then the confusion continues perennially in the Qur'an as to who actually is the Creator. The work of creation is shared by no one else because that is a prerogative specially reserved for God, just as in the case of worship and prayer. Now if this idea of the "We" as explained by Random House et al is all there is to the polytheistic leanings of that Qur'anic verse, then one has to wonder that there's nothing special that distinguishes the *Allah* of the Qur'an from the ordinary affairs of men!

Don't forget it's first-aid to them!

@firdaus4us,

See where your reasoning goes on vacation? I'm not a Christian because of "Miracle", but rather because Jesus Christ is the Saviour. Besides, did the Qur'an not acknowledge that Jesus Christ performed miracles?? So where did you get 'witches' and 'magic' in the name of Jesus? If this is a way of advertizing what you're suffering from in your family, help is only a prayer away - call on the Name of Jesus Christ, and you will see healing and deliverance that Muhammad was unable to give you.

SEFAGO:
It was probably written by someone who wanted to reconcile chistianity with Islam.

Then that would put it somewhere after Muhammad appeared on the scene - which would be so very late as to establish that the said Barnabas had anything to do with Jesus Christ!

olabowale:
@forget-me: If you were able to give Wumine an answer that was so pleasing from the Qur'an, why have you failed to apply that to yourself?

I beg your pardon? How have I failed to apply that to myself - by not using uncouth language and unreasonably far-fetched ideas??

Here's a beautiful one from the Bible in Colossians 4:6 --

"Let your speech be alway with grace, seasoned with salt, that ye may know how ye ought to answer every man."

. . . and this one from I Pet. 3:16

"Having a good conscience; that, whereas they speak evil of you, as of evildoers, they may be ashamed that falsely accuse your good conversation in Christ."

Uncle 'Wale, I hope you didn't misread me again?

@olabowale,

So far it's wonderful that we've managed an amicable exchange of ideas in our discourses. I trust this will continue and lead to some good fruit.

Let me assure you that I'm not confused at all. All I did was to open the Qur'an and read what it says before asking questions. We are reasoning adults, and I guess that if anyone turned the pages of the Bible and found the same words as "We created man from sounding clay," Christians would long have been denounced as polytheists per excellence. But no, those words are found instead in the Qur'an, word for word.

It is interesting, though, that you've acknowledged the very same thing that we've been trying to tell our Muslims friends:

olabowale:
First, it is clear and accepted, even by the enemies of Islam that Muhammad said that Allahsent revelation to him. Allah sent the revelation throught Angel Gabrael. Angel Gabrael repeated what he heard from his Lord, word for word to Muhammad. Muhammad memorized and dictated the same thing, word for word to his community and the scribes wrote them down, exactly.

So, *Allah* did not send down any "Book" to Muhammad afterall, but only sent down some "revelation" through an angel - and at the end of the day it is correct therefore to say that the Qur'an was written down by men - because, as indeed you acknowledged, "the scribes wrote them down"!

Of greater import, however, is the fact that "Angel Gabrael repeated what he heard from his Lord, word for word to Muhammad." In other words then, *Allah* in the Qur'an is saying that there are several besides him who joined themselves to him in creating man, not so? I quote it once more, and according to you, this is what *Allah* said - "We created man from sounding clay" (Q.15:26). So, if *Allah* in the Qur'an is saying that "We created man", then by direct inference there are several creator[b]s[/b] in the Qur'an.

Angel Gabrael only repeated what he heard from his lord *Allah*, and the same *Allah* said "We created man". Question: who then created - *Allah* or several besides him? You really can't have it both ways, because language in such matters should be clear enough to be understood.

olabowale:
The community used this exact revelation and passed it down, generation after generation. the chain has not been broken, even up to this present day.

Don't forget that there was a broken chain when the third Caliph Uthman burnt some "corrupt" copies of the Qur'an. Why did he do that if there was nothing wrong with those copies he burnt?

olabowale:
This continum is what the christian hierrachy and with the edging on of the Jews are complaining about Islam on. They want reformation of the Qur'an. What they mean is this; change a little here and there.

I don't know how many "christian hierrachy" or Jews are calling for a reformation of the Qur'an. If you ask me, I would say a big "NO" - don't reform the Qur'an; rather, let the reader discover for himself that Muhammad actually shortchanged his followers with his version of a "god" that says "We created man."

olabowale:
No. Islam is not for sale. However some muslims are for sale. So the category of hypocracy emerged and you will find a chapter in the Qur'an about this.

You're correct, uncle Olabowale - I've seen the sell-outs in the Qur'an and in real life. Such is life, you know - because there are, sadly, sell-outs and hypocrites even in Christianity.

olabowale:
The plural pronoun or majestic pronoun is commonly used. I use it to dignify myself with my wife and my family members. This is a pronoun to impress the important of the speaker. The Yoruba kings often use it. Again, read the Qur'an for the first time. You must clear your mind of all encumbrances. Then God will guide you aright.

So, afterall *Allah's* uniqueness in the 112th chapter of the Qur'an is without weight, if he could be compared to anything - including men who speak in general terms, not so? Let's make it as direct as can be: who actually created man in the Qur'an: "We created man" or "I created man"?? You could speak as so pleases you when referring to your family; but you cannot pass the same rule in matters relating to the prerogative power of God as "Creator". From the Qur'an, I might as well say "They created man in sounding clay" - would that statement be correct, and why not??

There again, my dear belloti. . . somehow you've managed to sustain the respect I have for you.

Good points you made, as far as open dialogues on a Forum are concerned (but why Havila is a jerk. . . hmmm, I can't understand). All the same, regards.

twinstaiye:
I need not join issues with you, you can interprete history of the Muhammed as you like, but I don't believe in it. Those are what you people are good at, provoking the person of Muhammed (SAW) even though you knew the muslims does not like it, and when we reacts, you say we are terrorists. Muslim will never say anything bad about any prophet of God Prophet Isa (Jesus) inclusive.

Please, twinstaiye. . . cool temper.

I know of many Muslims who have said unprintable things about Jesus and treated Him as if He's Muhammad's courtier or household servant! The lack of respect for Jesus Christ is evident among many Muslims; and not counting or meaning that you're one of them, I observe that whenever Muslims write or say the name 'Muhammad', you follow it up quickly with an invocation (SAW or PBUH).

Check your post again - although you didn't say anything bad about Jesus, you typically left out the invocation. Not that I believe in the invocation as such, but the point I'd like to make here is that you're very wrong to suppose that Muslims will never say anything bad about any prophet of God. On the contrary, many have done so time and again.

@firdaus4us,

Just one more thing: does Islam actually encourage the sort of rascality you often come up with? Let me quote you and ask a pointed question:

firdaus4us:
[b]Holy spirit further told me that, for you to be saved from all these misfortune, you have to fast continuously for complete 25years. Somebody bellow haleluyah there! [/b]

Did the Holy Spirit actually tell you such in all honesty?

Now, we thought we've heard it all; but if neither Muhammad nor other pious Muslims would pull such rascal jokes, I wonder what that says about you as a person. Actually, I don't mind jokes or insults at my person, afterall I'm a human being like you. But does not Islam teach as well that it is a serious thing to say untrue things about God?

Just a friendly warning - take it or leave it: God is able to prove Himself to you.

belloti:
Babe1, thats sensible post. i think that intolerance might just be the bad part. But then must we always try to provoke a wellknown intolerant person? thats my point. Cant we just agree to mind our businesses, so that no one get offended?. Lets not create the loopholes

Oga belloti, I miss you no be small.

I don't want to provoke anyone, but who was this "wellknown intolerant person" of yester-years that went everywhere with his sword, so that the 14th century Emperor whom the Pope recently quoted had to voice out his concerns? Who be that "wellknown intollerant person", hhnnn??

Second, no vex again; but did this same "wellknown intollerant person" mind his own business and respect the faiths of other people? I'm only seeking intellectual dialogue; but if I sounded like the Pope just now, please forgive and then. . . 4get me kpata-kpata!!

My dear Dru,

If to you it was a waste of breath to have said what I did, the breath was mine - not yours!  

Second, you can't condemn other preachers and churches and hope that you're all just about fine.

Third, I didn't ignore what you said as a whole - jihad, crusades, etc; so my rejoinders were placed in just on the points you didn't bother to clarify until now.

Fourth, I didn't condemn you. If you felt condemned, that says a lot about how you read my rejoinder, and if you want an apology for that, it's not a hard thing for me to do; so here's one - I apologise ma!!    

Fifth, if it suits you well to "take the same less than honorable tactics and condemn the bible", then I leave that to God to judge - it's not in my place to condemn the Bible, sorry.

Did I leave out anything?  

@muki-babe,
How bodi? I hope uncle Olabowale will not insinuate something 'inbetween the lines' - abeg helep me tell am wetin dey!

@firdaus4us,

firdaus4us:
@4get_me
In Islam, we call him Isa, yes, that sounds more close to Yeshua pronunciation than Jesus. Is Y absent in English?
J & I are both present in Arabic language. Or What are u really talking about?

First, there's no J and I in crusade, so fear not! 

Now, if J & I are both present in Arabic, for crying out loud, why not then use "J[/b]sa" instead of Isa? This lectures on language barrier is not helping the Quraish (or is it "Qurajsh"?) at all.

Interestingly enough, there are some languages that have their perculiarities. In one of my recent travels, I learnt that the Swedes have very interesting tongue-twisters. Take for instance, the word "gift" (meaning "married" is pronounced something like "[b]y[/b]ift" and not the [b]g[/b]ift with a strong guttoral on '[b]g'. So, what we call 'Gothenborg' in English (south of Sweden) is actually "Guteborg" and pronounced (Yu-te-bo-ree), not "gu-te-bug"! Fancy that!  And whether you say "Gothenborg" or "Guteborg", the Swedes know exactly where you're talking about!

At the end of the day, the Bible says that all nations that God has made will come and worship Him (Psa. 86:9), and He most certainly welcomes worship in the language that people are born with. I have always called upon the name of the Son of God as "Jesus" in English, and when worshipping with my Yoruba friends we call Him "Jesu". Believe me, just because we use the J in '[b]J[/b]esus', God hasn't frowned one single time upon His children - and we have seen miracles happen before our very eyes, because that Name is powerful! 

Wumine:
i thot i read somewhere in the quoran that it is a sin to argue!

No, it's not a sin to argue; but rather, that they should do it with reason and decorum. This is the text I read in the Qur'an -

Q.16.125
"Invite (all) to the Way of thy Lord with wisdom and beautiful preaching; and argue with them in ways that are best and most gracious: for thy Lord knoweth best, who have strayed from His Path, and who receive guidance."

Dear olabowale,

You're going round in circles and losing the plot of your own arguments. Let me ask you a few questions:

1. If the Bible, particularly the Old Testament, was corrupt before Jesus appeared on the scene in His ministry, why did He quote from the same "corrupt" OT to prove that God's Word was still true and authoritative in His day? Sample a few:

Mat 5:18-19.
"For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven."

2. If the Gospel of Jesus Christ was "corrupt" after He left the scene, why then does the Qur'an endorse the same Gospel of Jesus as having come from *Allah* - did *Allah* give you guys the same "corupt" Injil while knowing that they were already corrupt before Muhammad started praising them in the Qur'an??

3. If it was ever possible that the Injil (Gospel of Jesus Christ) could be allowed to suffer any "corruption" after *Allah* gave it, then by implication you're saying that it's either *Allah* was unable and defenceless to preserve his *Injil*, or he deliberately allowed Muhammad a 'corrupted version' to place in the Qur'an, so that today you guys can banter off that excuse. Why is that so?

4. This leads to an interesting point: if *Allah* was defenceless to preserve any book he sent down, revealed and confirmed; then also he was defenceless to preserve the Qur'an from being burnt by the third Caliph Uthman who produced a political redaction with his gang. If the Qur'an was ever so pure from the onset, why did Caliph Uthman order that other copies of the Qur'an be burnt?

5. When you guys offer these tales of a corruption of the Bible before Muhammad came on the scene, please think properly and ask yourselves: (a) in what year exactly was the "original" Bible given by *Allah* corrupted? (b) who actually corrupted *Allah's* 'original' Bible - since he claims to have sent down and revealed the books of the Bible, including the Psalms of David and Law of Moses? (c) what texts or parts of *Allah's* original Bible were corrupted? (d) what in particular did *Allah's* original Bible say in Psalm 2:12, Mark 1:1 and John 1:1?? (e) What other parts of *Allah's* original Bible do you actually know of that you can produce here for all to read, containing the exact words that *Allah* gave in his own *pure Bible* before Muhammad? Etc. . . ask for more and I'll be too glad to oblige you about 500 - no jokes.

olabowale:
Maybe, I disagree with you. Hence, it was natural for you to think that I have no brain. My idea is to aggitate your thought. The Bible is a very romantic reading. I give that to it.

Now if "the Bible is a very romantic reading," that says a lot about what *Allah* sent down, revealed and confirmed! My goodness! Was this why Muhammad went ahead with no less than 9 wives (maybe more), and ordered only 4 for his followers?

Okay, seriously and jokes apart. Whenever you take a slap at the Bible, please remember that you're doing it for *Allah's* sake - for he said that he was the one who gave it before Moses. Thank you.

As to the fights in the Qur'an, I give you the airspace so we don't argue out of control and spin into an e-fight. I love you, brother. . . and this is not trying to flatter you; but you still have my respect.

But one thing I wonder is this: what or how were the Muslims in northern Nigeria defending themselves by killing non-muslims who did not provoke or push them by any stretch? So, just because some people are muslims, it is alright to go on rampage and kill just about anyone for an event that took place far from were Muslims mayhem broke out? I guess not, and that is why you also should carefully weigh your points before making replies.

Regards

Oga TV01,

How bodi?     Yes, it's been a while with so many stuff. . . and I've been out of base for quite a while. I still thank God because inbetween the rigours we're given time off to rest and play - and that's why while at work, I can afford to be on Nairaland, until we go into serious work season again. Thanks for asking, and you were missed as well.

Now to address your concern. My input was to directly address the context and make it plain that Christians are not 'freelancers' in God's House. I don't subscribe to "slavery" or "enslavement" in any setting - religious , political or otherwise; however, the idea that "submission" and "rule" in God's House should be taken as "control" misses the point.

First, I'd like us to keep in perspective what we're saying. I didn't read "church organisation" but simply "church" in Drusilla's post. Second, it would have helped if she clarified this issue of control. But the context in which it was so used leaves one wondering if Christians should just each go to their own tents and do our own individual things because we don't want to be under "control". God set leaders in His Church - and the Bible clearly stipulates that we should obey them and submit ourselves to them because they rule over us and watch for our souls. If this is translated as "control", then it seems to me that we're trying to be wise in our own eyes and playing the same pack of religious cards we very often condemn in others. Read the context again, and catch my meaning -

Drusilla:
This is why I believe in the bible, and not what preachers or the churches teach.

We are the church, everyone of us is the preacher.

[/quote]What does that sound like? First, I am not to believe what preachers or the churches teach; next, we are both the church and the preacher in the same breath. By implication, we should be hypocrites, since the first line says what I believe is not what the preachers or churches teach! Get it? If anything at all, that is "control" in a small box. Why? For the simple reason that in a mere 3 lines to finish the argument in her post, I am both to disregard what preachers and churches teach; and at the same time make myself one of those preachers and church while claiming that "I believe in the bible"! The only thing I could think of in arguments like this is what Gal 2:18 says: "For if I build again the things which I destroyed, I make myself a transgressor."

I think then it is aptly fitting to quote the finisher -

[quote author=Drusilla link=topic=23948.msg618252#msg618252 date=1158810873]No preacher or church should have control over you and your life.

Get it? "No preacher or church" (including the very same ones Drusilla said in "We are the church, everyone of us is the preacher" should have control over anyone. Smart. . . but not so smart. God set leaders in the Church and asks us to obey them and submit to them. Some may not like these words because it conjures up "control" in their minds. I only referenced the quotes in my rejoinder to show that, while God was not asking people to submit to a control of enslavement, He most defintely yet asks that believers submit to leaders who rule over us in God's Church.

So, in perspective, my point was not saying or "insisting" what you misread. I'm not one of those who just "believes in the Bible" in disregard of what God's appointed pastors teach in His Church. To do that is to sit in our little corners of a "control" of our own making.

Regards.

No offences to my RCC friends, but I'm a bit concerned about some issues here -

gigitte:
the roman catholic church is simply that because it considers the pope as its head and not all rites do so.

Eph. 5:23 -- "For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and He is the Saviour of the body."

gigitte:
as for saints, show me where in the bible it says that just because someone is dead they can't pray for you.

Do you have any scripture that directly says that dead people can, should and must pray for you?

1 Tim. 2:5 - "For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus."

gigitte:
so you saying that a dead person is less than a live being, you my friend do not understand death then and what it means to be in the presence of christ.

Ecc 9:4-7
"For to him that is joined to all the living there is hope: for a living dog is better than a dead lion.

"For the living know that they shall die: but the dead know not any thing, neither have they any more a reward; for the memory of them is forgotten.

"Also their love, and their hatred, and their envy, is now perished; neither have they any more a portion for ever in any thing that is done under the sun.

"Go thy way, eat thy bread with joy, and drink thy wine with a merry heart; for God now accepteth thy works."

Eph. 1:6 -
"To the praise of the glory of His grace, wherein He hath made us accepted in the Beloved"

gigitte:
does the bible say you should not do cocaine, or smoke weed. please jare lol. and the church doesnt subscribe to sola scriptura which im sure you know all about.

1. Does the Bible say you should not do cocaine, or smoke weed?

I Cor. 3:17 - "If any man defile the temple of God, him shall God destroy; for the temple of God is holy, which temple ye are."

I Thes 4:4 - "That every one of you should know how to possess his vessel in sanctification and honour."

Don't tell me that the Roman Catholic Church allows its members to do "weed" or "gbana"!!

2. The Church Doesn't Subscribe to Sola Scriptura?

Matt. 15:3, 6 - "But He answered and said unto them, Why do ye also transgress the commandment of God by your tradition?. . . Thus have ye made the commandment of God of none effect by your tradition."

Mar 7:8-9 - "For laying aside the commandment of God, ye hold the tradition of men, as the washing of pots and cups: and many other such like things ye do. And He said unto them, Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition."

I Cor. 4:6 - "And these things, brethren, I have in a figure transferred to myself and to Apollos for your sakes; that ye might learn in us not to think of men above that which is written, that no one of you be puffed up for one against another."

II Thes. 3:14-15 - "And if any man obey not our word by this epistle, note that man, and have no company with him, that he may be ashamed. Yet count him not as an enemy, but admonish him as a brother."

olabowale:
4get_me: Have you heard this statement: Awa la le ko o. Another; Awa la wanbe. The speaker is speaking about himself, alone. The British royal family members and all royal person around the world use prural term for when each is talking about him/herself.

@olabowale,

It's a fine morning here, and I trust you had a good evening last night.

Both quotes in Yoruba are well understood, and the analogy of the British royal family you tried to offer for the polytheism in Islam does not fit well into the corners. First, you guys persistently pander that weathered tale from one Imam who tried to make excuses for these lapses without checking out what he was doing.

Second, did you guys not say that in the 112 chapter of the Qur'an nothing compares to *Allah* in defence of his uniqueness? This is what you said not so long ago:

olabowale:
God is so unique that He declares His uniqueness in the 112 Chapter of the Qur'an. You have never seen anything compared to Him.

If there has never been anything compared to God, why now are you soliciting that weathered appeal of an analogy that does not apply, by saying:

olabowale:
How then do you expect that God will be less in Qualifying and showing His majestic Identity.

Excuse me, sir, but you can't have both legs on either side of the highway - it's dangerous. Those creatures in the Qur'an were not qualifying *Allah's* majestic identity if they were claiming equal status of having directly created man just as the Creator Himself would do. Read it again: "We created man from sounding clay" (Q.15:26). Do you really want me to believe that your creator(s) was/were angels - did angels create you? Remember that only He who is the Creator is worthy of being called "Creator" - nothing compares to Him, and I don't expect any analogy to impugn or sully the majesty of the Creator.

Thirdly, if Muslims actually believe in all the Biblical prophets before Muhammad according to what the Qur'an states, then let me leave you a few texts of what those Biblical prophets stated in defence of God's prerogative as Creator. In particular, since the Qur'an attests the authenticity of the Psalms of David, notice what the inspired Psalmist said as well -

Psalm 100:3
"Know ye that the LORD he is God: it is He that hath made us, and not we ourselves; we are His people, and the sheep of His pasture."

Psalm 86:9
"All nations whom Thou hast made shall come and worship before Thee, O Lord; and shall glorify Thy name."

Psalm 96:5
"For all the gods of the nations are idols: but the LORD made the heavens."

Psalm 104:24
"O LORD, how manifold are Thy works! in wisdom hast Thou made them all: the earth is full of thy riches."

Psalm 119:73
"Thy hands have made me and fashioned me: give me understanding, that I may learn Thy commandments."

Isaiah 44:24
"Thus saith the LORD, thy Redeemer, and He that formed thee from the womb, I am the LORD that maketh all things; that stretcheth forth the heavens alone; that spreadeth abroad the earth by Myself."

Psalm 139:14
"I will praise Thee; for I am fearfully and wonderfully made: marvellous are Thy works; and that my soul knoweth right well."

Psalm 146:5-6
"Happy is he that hath the God of Jacob for his help, whose hope is in the LORD his God: Which made heaven, and earth, the sea, and all that therein is: which keepeth truth for ever."

I could go on and on supplying you with numerous verses from the Bible that show that God and God alone is the Creator and no creature ever claimed to have created man or any other part of the world as the Qur'an purports. In fact, if it is okay for *Allah* in the Qur'an to associate himself with angels who share his glory in claiming to have created man; God in the Bible refutes such a notion and statutorily says:

"I am the LORD: that is my name: and my glory will I not give to another, neither my praise to graven images." (Isa 42:.

So, you see that while the Qur'an tries to say that *Allah* is unique and nothing compares to him, yet he still lets mere angels claim equal status with him by arrogating the work of creation to themselves - "We created man from sounding clay." Where in the Bible is it said that any angel created man or any part of the world? Your British royal family and Yoruba analogies do not fit the corners, I'm sorry to say.

olabowale:
Read Qur'an, for the first time. Your eyes will open.

I have started reading the Qur'an, and it shows from the fact that I reference my arguments from texts in the same Qur'an. Guess what? My eyes are now open to so many issues we've been taking for granted about what Islam actually is - and that is what I've been apealling to you about, that you should investigate the claims of Muhammad in the Qur'an and see that he made denials that only leaves Muslims shortchanged or cheated of the real truth.

In fair exchange, have you read the Bible, especially the very Biblical prophets that the Qur'an says Muslims should accept without distinction or difference? Please read the Bible with an open heart and let Jesus Christ prove God's mercy and love to you.

Blessings.

Drusilla:
See the things not liked about Muslims or Christians are not related to their "religion".
It is the way they prostitute their religion for social gain that is hated by the world.

'Pure' Islam as handed down by Muhammad is violent by default. Pick up the Qur'an and read it.

Drusilla:
This is why I believe in the bible, and not what preachers or the churches teach.
We are the church, everyone of us is the preacher.

In that case, nobody should believe in what you are preaching, and everyone should just believe in the Bible. Since you don't believe in what preachers teach, and you make yourself one of those preachers, you fall into the same category that you condemn. Sorry, but the same Bible that you believe in says:

"Hast thou faith? have it to thyself before God. Happy is he that condemneth not himself in that thing which he alloweth" (Rom. 14:22). God loves truth as well.

Drusilla:
No preacher or church should have control over you and your life.

Again, the Bible you believe in says:

"Obey them that have the rule over you, and submit yourselves: for they watch for your souls, as they that must give account, that they may do it with joy, and not with grief: for that is unprofitable for you" (Heb. 13:17).

"Likewise, ye younger, submit yourselves unto the elder. Yea, all of you be subject one to another, and be clothed with humility: for God resisteth the proud, and giveth grace to the humble" (I Pet. 5:5).

@olabowale,

olabowale:
@4get_me: Thanks brother. I no want it. This is my best. I am trying to say that created is not my Creator. I worship only the Creator. Nothing else.

No offences to you, and I'll very much wish and pray for you to know the Creator - and worship Him alone in spirit and in truth, as Jesus said. I'm glad that you're confessing now that those angels/creatures who claimed in the Qur'an to have created man (Q.15:26 - "We created man from sounding clay" are not your creator(s)! God bless you so very much for that bold assertion, for no creature is worthy to claim what is due alone to God Almighty who alone is the Creator.

Please, take time off and look into the other issues raised in my rejoinders, and God enrich your understanding more than I can say here to you. Blessings.

@olabowale,

There's something about your inputs that makes me wonder if you actually take a good look at issues before typing away. Not minding so much about the man-woman palava and Islam's allowance of four wives (or 72 virgins for some jihadists), let's move on to some other matters.

1. Does Islam actually marry faith and reason together - with the very predictable Muslim garboil that we often see at the slightest insinuations?? The Pope only quoted a 14th century text about what Islam was perceived to be by the people of that era; and the reaction of most Muslims around the world only goes to prove that Islam hasn't grown up to the present realities of life.

2. Regarding Jesus' deity and divine Sonship, it's quite simple: the litmus test is for you to either (a) deny *Allah's* claim in the Qur'an as false in having stated that *Allah* gave the Psalms to David (Sura 4:163); or (b) accept that the Psalms as endorsed by the Qur'an actually points out both the deity and divine Sonship of the Messiah - Jesus.

That is the litmus test you ought to apply before taking up issues with what stares you in the face on the pages of the Qur'an. If Islam forbids the deity and divine Sonship of Jesus, as well as His crucifixion, why did it take the trouble to claim that *Allah* was the very one who gave the Psalms to David - the very same Psalms that categorically proclaim these matters? Why denounce what *Allah* in the Qur'an affirms by direct implication to the claim of being the author of the Psalms that declare Jesus' deity and Sonship??

3. How sad that you're the one making the statements about God's forgiveness through blood-letting. Is that not the very same thing that Muhammad preached - that his own version of *Allah* is most merciful and often forgiving when his followers engage in mind-staggering blood-letting? A quote here:

Q.9:5 -- "But when the forbidden months are past, then fight and slay the Pagans wherever ye find them, and seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem (of war); but if they repent, and establish regular prayers and practise regular charity, then open the way for them: for Allah is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful."

Now, in such graphic language of blood letting, one wonders if you remembered to read texts like that in the Qur'an before asking the question you raised: "Where is reasoning when one is deducing that God, the Most Merciful have to forgive through blood letting and grusome death of an innocent man in the hands of hudlooms and thugs." Who are these "hudlooms and thugs" that followed Muhammad in Q.9:5 into wrecking so much havoc on the innocent on Muhammad's pronouncements and denunciations of them as *Pagans*, and yet proclaim that *Allah is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful*?? I guess that is stating it very mildly indeed.

Let me relax this fine evening (and thank God for it), since you're gracious enough to not pronounce a fatwa on me. Enjoy