₦airaland Forum

These posts all make me laugh.

I like the passion shown by everyone, and I now understand how religion can do this to people.

If only we showed an equal amount of passion to solve some of the world's problems,

Wouldn't it be a more beautiful world?

It is still a beautiful world nevertheless.

Salam Alaykum

To butress my point of view, I have culled this article from the Guardian today. It was written by a public commentator. He seemed to share my views on the middle-eastern crises. For your consideration.


Proxy war in the Middle East
By Sylvester Odion-Akhaine
IN the last few weeks, Israeli government has unleashed a wave of state terrorism on the Palestinian and Lebanese peoples in the Middle East. Instead of full condemnation, the so-called world leaders are prevaricating, refusing to call a spade a spade. This is the complexion of the new world order led by the U.S. with willing allies in tow. The on-going Israeli war on Palestine and Lebanon is proxy war being fought on behalf of the United States in order to break the social formations in the areas branded "Axis of Evil" by George W. Bush in the aftermath of September 11, 2001. The unpopularity of the war in Iraq, the mounting casualties, and in the words of Larry Diamond, the bungling of the peace in Iraq (and to add Afghanistan) has necessarily made at least for now unattractive another adventure in Syria and Iran, though on the Pentagon's table.

That Israeli fits the bill in the unleashing of state terror on its Arab and Persian neighbours is in no doubt. It is an essential element of the grand area plan. The grand area plan, a product of the State Department and Council on Foreign Relations' intellection was about U.S. domination of the post-war world order, in other words, the area "strategically necessary for world control." Minimally, the area included the Western hemisphere, the Far East and the British Empire, which was expected to disintegrate and then brought under U.S. control. Maximally, the grand area planners sought control of everything under the sun. Indeed, this grand area plan was operationalised in the Middle East.

In the mid-1940s, it dawned on the U.S. and the world that the cheapest source of oil lay in the Arabian Peninsula qualified by the U.S. State Department as one of the greatest material prizes in world history. As Noam Chomsky rightly noted, the U.S. was going to hold onto this and in the process spawned a foreign policy axiom over the control of the Middle Eastern oil, the world's cheapest energy source. The means for a hold on this "stupendous strategic resources" was the institution of pliant regimes in the Middle East with Israel and Iran as guarantors. But Arab nationalism was a veritable threat to U.S. control of this resource. Israel which was pro-U.S. was seen as the solution rather than Iran. Israel proved its mettle in 1967 when it defeated all the Arab armies and seized chunks of their territories. With the fall of the Shah in Iran, Israel became the sole guarantor of U.S. interest in the region. The Camp David accord which eliminated Egypt from the conflict equation in the region further enhanced Israeli hegemony in the region and was there to reign in threats from the Baathist regimes in Syria and Iraq.

It is precisely in this context that the current Israeli surrogate action in Palestine and Lebanon should be appreciated. Was the kidnapping of the Israeli Soldier, Cpl. Gilad Shalit, or the later Hezbollah's kidnapping of two other soldiers on July 12 enough to warrant a full-scale war on the defenceless peoples of Palestine and Lebanon, given the long drawn cat and mouse conflict between these peoples which has seen many provocations and mutual carnages? I would answer in the negative and proceed to lay bare the point that this on-going assault on Palestine and Lebanon is the climax of a well-coordinated action by the U.S. and its main allies in the region as an essential flank in the new "Jihad-Crusade" conflict otherwise known as "war on terror" to allow the U.S. control global resources and extirpate any alternative values. President Bush puts it mildly that "the best hope for peace in our world is the expansion of freedom in the entire world."

On February 14, 2005, Former Lebanese Prime Minister, Rafik Hariri - a critic of Syria was killed by a massive truck bomb blast in Beirut. Also, 20 others, including a former minister, Bassel Fleihan were killed by the explosion. These led to political tension in the country. The incident prompted a UN enquiry which placed the blame of the assassination of Hariri on the doorstep of Syria and resulted as well in renewed call on Syrian troops that had remained in South Lebanon on a peace-keeping mission in the country's civil war of 1975-1990 to pull out its nearly 14,000 troops and intelligence officers in line with UN resolution 1559, sponsored jointly by Washington and Paris which called for the pull out of all foreign forces in Lebanon. Israel had earlier pulled out from South Lebanon. Syria eventually pulled out last year and the removal of Syrian forces was a prelude to Israeli re-occupation of Lebanon. The exit of the Syria paved way for the election of a pro-U.S. government of Prime Minister Fuad Saniora.

Last year, the Hamas, the Palestine resistance movement won election by popular mandate which the apostles of liberal democracy and economic liberalism found difficult to accept. Instead, they based its recognition on the latter's acceptance of Israeli right to existence. The Hamas as organisation does not recognise Israeli right to existence in the Palestine and the moderate President Mamoud Abbas has been pre-occupied with hammering a compromise position with Hamas in which the latter will recognise Israel.

In May 2005, there were reports in the United Kingdom about the U.S. military base in Menwith Hill. Its staff was not only increased, the technology/military know-how was also intimidating. Besides, a new massive runway that can accommodate the massive stealth bombers and more staff was about being completed at Fairford. About the same time, there were movements of ships in the Mediterranean and in the Gulf of Guinean. It reinforced the apprehension that both Syria and Iran were the next target. The increasing unpopularity of the war in Iraq and the attendant political cost possibly prevented what may have been yet another misadventure.

In the first assault on Gaza aftermath of the kidnap of Shalit on June 28, Israel went after officials of the Palestinian Government, largely Hamas partisans, whom it has along with its western backers refused to recognise - a terrorical dissolution of a democratic government and the wish of the west expressed in verbal terms has been fulfilled in military terms. The Israel not done yet took their assault into Lebanon in response to Hezbollah's kidnap of its soldiers. It launched a massive military assault on the country's infrastructure crippling its airports, roads, bridges and hundreds of innocent lives. The West, especially the U.S. only response is that Israeli is acting in self defence and therefore no pressure will be brought to bear on it to relax its offensive until after a thorough mop up of the "terrorists" in Lebanon who are been supported by Syria and Iran. How else can a clearer picture be seen? Afterall, the U.S. is not under focus here and it is about sending humanitarian relief to Lebanon and proposing a cease-fire that must simultaneously involve the deployment of the Lebanese army and an international force in south Lebanon and the removal of Hezbollah weapons from a buffer zone extending 30 kilometres from the Israeli border. What is this proposal, if not the peace of the grave yard?

As the call for ceasefire and deployment of international peace-keepers continue, diplomats would be well advised not to back a sectarian force, like NATO. It will simply mean a continuation of U.S. policy in the Middle East.


Dr. Akhaine is the Executive Director of the Lagos-based Centre for Constitutionalism and Demilitarization.



Here is the link to that site. http://www.ngrguardiannews.com/editorial_opinion/article04

Please give me your opinions on my earlier stance, and correct me where I am wrong.

Ma Salam

Seems similar to mine

Command Children's school Jos
NMS Zaria,
NDA
USIU

Muslims,

Salam Alaykum,

Recently, a brother asked me the following question- Whether it was right for Al-Qaeda(Sunni) to join forces with Hizbollah(Shia) to fight Israel. This is the response I gave below. I invite enlightened opinions on the issues raised, and correction any where I am wrong. Thank you.
Ma Salam

Salam Alaykum Abu Mazeedah and all my other brothers and sisters.

My take on this issue is simple, firstly, if Al-Qaeda is responsible for blowing up the World Trade Centre and associated incidents such as blowing up civilian targets, I am sorry, I do not support their actions, and infact I denounce them. But, except if amnesia is really getting at me which I don't think is the case, I seem to recall Al-Qaeda distancing itself from such crimes. That being the case, if Al-Qaeda is fighting a legal Islamic war against the state of Israel and other perpertrators of injustice, they firmly have my backing.

Secondly, while Hizbollah is shii, they seem to be able to challenge an injustice meted out to the people of Lebanon, and in doing so have inflicted losses on the Israeli Defence Forces. This is good news to any muslim that follows the Middle East crises closely especially as there is a pervading view that the Israeli miltary is invincible. But you must also note that amongst the tactics employed by Hizbollah, some very clearly un-Islamic methods are employed, as personified by their firing rockets deliberately at Israeli civilians. I have studied the state of Israel, and found out that military service is compulsory for everybody that attains at least high school education, but also, the Israeli society is typically divided over this issue. And many of them do not actually support the atrocities carried out by their army or political leaders. Having said this, I have found to my dismay, Muslims who would justify attacks on Israeli civiians as retialatory, this kind of thinking, I hold- although I may be wrong ( I am open to correction), is flawed, and and totally bereft of the Islamic values which the Holy Prophet (SAW) bequeathed to us Muslims. You will recall that the Prophet (SAW) never sanctioned the use of un-Islamic tactics when laying down the rules of engagement in Islam. Even while the pagans of Mecca seemed to relish killing women, children and even old men who professed Islam, the Prophet (SAW) made these acts Haram for the Muslims. Even when it was obvious  that one of the tricks employed by those misguided people was to hunt down the vulnerable amongst the muslims, Rosullulah (SAW) NEVER gave the muslims the right to retialate against their own civilians. This typically should be the hallmark of any truly muslim army. When the current conflagration started, Hizbollah took out IDF personnel for continued occupation of Lebanese territory (Islamic). IDF responded  in a most callous and disproportionate way by attacking uitlities, services and even civilians directly, in the name of punishing the Lebanese (Admittedly very unfair). Then Hizbollah started raining down missiles on Israeli towns with targets as residences, train stations etc (Un-Islamic) and the rest is history. I would have expected Hizbollah to possess anti-aircraft weapons, in addition to the anti-tank ones they currently have, and engage the Israeli military  for the repossession of the Shebaa farms, instead of causing suffering to those who do not possess weapons, and may or may not support their governments actions. Bomb Israeli army bases, aircraft, tanks, etc, until Israel agrees to end it's unlawful occupation and acts of terrorism against innocent civilians in Lebanon and Palestine and commits to a long time agreement to negotiate with their neighbours, instead of adopting the arrogance which has typified their existence in that region.

While what I outlined here may be a tall dream, it certainly is achievable. On Sunni muslims joining with Shii Muslims to fight a common enemy, there is no controversy on that. The Prophet (SAW) actually sought the protection of the Coptic Christians in Ethipia against the Jews and Pagans of Mecca. Now, this shows that you can albeit temporarily, enter into an agreement with people who you have less differences with to fight those whom you both consider as a mutual enemy. Even the Coptics asked for protection from the Muslims against the Roman Catholic church when the tide turned around later, and the Muslims were a great fighting force, while the Roman Catholics were determined to destroy every sect of christianity that didn't agree with theirs. The Coptics did not and do not believe in trinity, ans naturally became targets for Roman Catholic aggression. The Muslims decided to offer this protection to the Coptics, and today Egypt is overwhelmingly Muslim as a result of that agreement. So, if the Sunni enter into agreement with the Shii to fight the aggressive state of Israel, until they(Israel) negotiate for their existence in the Middle East, instead of fighting their way through by oppression, I believe they are perfectly in order Islamically. However, I must say that the Sunni should strive to make sure that at least they bargain fairly with the Shii, and ask for help from God to eventually pass the true message accross to them, instead of employing any dubious means to cause the annihilation of the Shii.


I would want the Middle-East crises resolved not through the barrel of the gun, but by talking to each other as humans. The Israeli may be viewed as taking the land they live on by force, but it is pertinent to remind you all that NOBODY brought land from their mothers womb. And Islamic history is replete with Holy wars fought against a people which saw Muslim army conquer those areas, and the substitution of Muslims for the original inhabitants of these areas. Christianity and Zionism also have this history. So it would be hypocritical for Muslims and indeed all the other major religions to claim injustice, while they have in fact in the past also done similar things in the spread of Islam or their respective religions. A large portion of what is known as Arabia today was actually inhabited by the Persians, who have  been pushed back into Iran. Baghdad was Persian in the past. If the Muslim Holy book Al-Quran claims that the land belongs to the Muslims-which is not the case, then also the the Jewish Torah, which they have equal rights to believe in, also claims the disputed land belongs to the Jews. The Palestinians and other occupied peoples only claim injustice because the establishment of the Israeli state came in the 20th century when there were international laws in place that governed such things. Think about it, if the occupation took place in say the 10th century, would there still be such hues and cries? While stating this, I am not in any way justifying the British or Israeli action of forceful takeover inspite of International law, but I am just alluding to the fact that the One True God, would not like to see as many people suffer because two sets of people are in an unending and fatalistic battle for something which is a free resource granted us all by that creator. And so my take on the eventual resolution of this crises is simple like I mentioned earlier. Israel has come to stay, but there will be negotiations amongst all parties as to which land the Israelis will stay on, and restitution in form of blood money for all the civilian killings and injustice meted out against the people of the occupied territories, while at the same time, the Arabs will also pay for the Israeli civilians caught in the cross fire of their suicide bombers. The dead soldiers on both sides are combatants and all Islamic law applies to them. It is my hope that if this is done, religion will cease to be an issue in this conflict, and the truth will be there for the whole world to see, and those who would be saved will see Islam for what it truly is.

Nferyn
You probably got my message wrong. God helps a man who tries to help himself, but does not suceed in doing that-meaning the man has to make an effort, then he finds out that he wansn't successful, God steps in because he sees his intentions. But God does not tell his enemies, I will send you to heaven, no, he tells them, you will burn in hell so long as you persist in your rebellion. He however, out of His mercy grant those who believe in Him Paradise inspite of their shortcomings. Now that is the Islamic concept of Grace. It doesn't have to be more appealing than christianity however, it is just the way it is in Islam.
Yes, God wants evil to exist so that man may prove that he is really worthy of whatever destination he ends up in, in the Hereafter.

Me, myself

Take it over from here because I promised to ignore gwaine until he reformed and learned to discuss with a little more respect.When he does that, then I will have an intellectual discusiion with him. However, I will follow you arguments closely.

Retro

Thank you for giving me the biblical perspective. Islam however adopts a different approach. God created Satan as a Jinn-something made from fire, unlike the angels who were made from light. Jinns have free will like humans, angels do not possess free will. God knew Satan was going to be arrogant, but he still created him, and he asked him to bow to Adam (ASW) who was made from clay. Statn refused. The God asked him to leave heaven. Now, all the while Adam (ASW) was in pardise, but before his creation, God had told the angels that He was going to create a vicegerent on earth. So, he gave Adam (ASW) a free will to either choose to obey him and stay away from that beleguered fruit, or obey the devil and eat the fruit. He chose the latter, and Adam (ASW) was sent to earth thus fulfilling God's initial design of man living on earth. He gave Adam (ASW) a free will to choose where he was going to stay, but He knew Adam was going to make that fatal mistake, however, He did not cause Adam(ASW) to make the mistake. So, you see the difference between His knowledge, and His action. Man was solely responsible for his action. God helps a man that tries to help himself but fails, but God is not an over generous grace or mercy giver that extends the olive branch even to His eneies. That is the God-concept in Islam. It is quite different from that of christianity.

Davidylan

Calm down and do not relapse to your old ways. Be reasonable. I have not even defended anybody or passed the buck to anybody. I am only being a pragmatist here, and I asked a simple question, how would a 70% shia army disarm a shia miltia that even the army sees as heroes? And explain how a minority sunni government will ask that majority army to disarm their heroes practically. Please provide an answer.
Now, I will take a position. Remember, it is not only the muslims that are suffering in Lebanon for Israel's actions. There are about 40% christian Lebanese in the areas Israel is bombing, now are these also guilty of a crime? why are they being shelled and killed? The truth is, Israel must measure it's responses to Hizbollah, and go only for those they consider to be a threat. That would seem fair enough. But bombing a whole country, taking out their airports, power stations, water etc, under the guise of defending themselves is simply untenable and violates all international laws. The US supports Israel only because it also has a recent history of unjustifiable aggression against other countries. Check out what other members of the international community are saying, the EU, Russia, China. They have all had histories of this kind of thing and they know what it means to do what Israel is doing now,-they are crimes against a whole country.They want to punish a country for not disarming some so called terrorists when they know that the government is new and is largely toothless. Please do not be mawkish.


Xkape

If a suicide bomber blows himself up in Iraq and his target is a market place or a school or hospital or other people who are non-soldiers, he will be denounced by the Islamic world, and indeed those who do such acts are probably being fed with balderdash by their leaders who are on the payroll of America to divide the country along sectarian lines. But when a palestinian blows up himself fighting Israeli soldiers, I see him as a soldier fighting other soldiers whom he may perceive rightly or wrongly as occupying his land. It is very much akin to having a soldier who has run out of ammo run into the enemy, and he detonates a grenade to kill himself as well as others-there is no harm done. But when the said person kills civilians that are unconnected with the war, then he has overstepped the boundaries set by Islam. However, the middle-east is a unique situation because the Arabs would claim that the Israeli also kill their own civilians when fighting against perceived militants or terrorists, and Israel would label these fatalities as 'collateral damage'. What a derogatory appelation you would agree. So, the muslim world just watches when a Palestinian strews up a bomb to himself to inflict the same civilian losses to Israel. I am not justifying their actions because in Islam, it is forbidden to kill civilians, but I only attempt to give you an understanding of why there is that perceived silence. However, I must say striking at the Israeli miltary is not considered a sin in Islam if that military is an enemy force.


However, I would truly want the middle east crises to be resolved amicably by instituting Justice and equity in the region.


Abeem

I do not understand your post. You alleged hypocrisy, only to repost exactly what I said. What are you getting at?

Me, myself

It really is curious that you do not approve of my methods but choose to be silent about the methods of others especially Gwaine who described the Prophet of Islam as follows.

quote author=Gwaine link=topic=7756.msg494402#msg494402 date=1153115225]
That's why you continue to be a juvenile delinquent. You're cheaply applauding yourself when you have nothing more to grasp at because you know that your Quraish prophet Muhammad was a pedophile, a womanizer and an Arab pornographer. W[/b]hining the way you're doing is amusing me all the more, because you're still unable to deny the claims that Muhammad was all of that and more - and your desperation is pathetic since you now can see that Muhammad obtained his licence from the "Allah" of the Qur'an to pursue his unbridled sexual promiscuities. You said people are meant to learn more by the day? Exactly - because more revelations about what you're ignoring in Muhammad's pornographic and licentious career will be posted in days to come, so that you could learn more about what your imams haven't told you.

Typical again of your Islamic juvenile delinquency, because you're excusing the hardcore X-RATED porn in the Qur'an. The arabic word used in [b]Sura 021:091 is not 'chastity' but 'farjaha' (virgina) - and that is the place where Muhammad claimed the "Allah" of the Qur'an was blowing into! What your 'Jibril' was looking for in a woman's farjaha is beyond me. If that is not luridly X-RATED enough to stagger your juvenile mind, we can understand it's because you're a 'minor' who shouldn't be reading such things. So, don't cry so much by making excuses for Muhammad's explicit pornographic tendencies in the Qur'an.

Are you really educating yourself? Didn't Muhammad receive "revelation" from the "Allah" of the Qur'an to pursue his own relatives with his lewd lust - his maternal and paternal cousins?? Or is Sura 033.050 not part of the Qur'an anymore that you're pretending you chaps were not exposed to the possibility of having sexual intercourse with your sisters and relatives??

"Since Hadiths are meant to teach Muslims how to behave and lead good lives, they should naturally not leave any aspect of living uncovered!" That's precisely what I simply helped you to see - uncover the illicit frolic of your Prophet Muhammad with the many women that he lusted after! And it's from the hadiths that we read about Muhammad's confession that your Qur'an was revealed to him while he was 'performing' (having sex) with Aisha -

Sahih Bukhari Volume 5 Book 57 Number 119
". . .the Prophet said, "O Um Salama! Don't trouble me by harming 'Aisha, for by God, the Divine Inspiration never came to me while I was under the blanket of any woman amongst you except her."

So, the Qur'an was "revealed" while he was under the blanket of (having sex with) Aisha! Another hadith is quite revealing, for there we read about the connection between the Qur'an and the lurid dirty game the companions of the Bedouin Prophet Muhammad were playing - messing around with "war booty" (female captives) -

Sahih Bukhari: Volume 7, Book 62, Number 136:
Narrated Jabir:We used to practice coitus interruptus while the Quran was being revealed.
(see Sahih Bukhari: Volume 7, Book 62, Number 135: Narrated Jabir: We used to practice coitus interruptus during the lifetime of Allah's Apostle).

So, the Qur'an was being revealed while Muhammad was engaged in his pedophilic porn business with Aisha and while his comrades were messing around with female captives! Quaint. That's the example in the hadith that Muhammad left as a legacy to teach you "how to behave and lead good lives", abi?

You really have no idea the extent of irritation and damage you're causing your brethren - and you're so glad as to call that a pleasure! Pity. My irritation has nothing to do with succumbing to your juvenile ignorance, so there's no need for you to cheaply applaud yourself as a 'young challenger'. Rather, like I said, 'I really don't mind' if you'd like to know more about the X-RATED porn adventures of your Quraish prophet Muhammad that you never knew existed. And it's quite hilarious to notice you're learning a few vocabs from me with the pun on 'crybaby'. So, keep crying - more illicit porn adventures in the career of the Quraish prophet will be uncovered at your request - both in the Qur'an and the hadiths.

Now, see those who claim peace and accuse others of violence are they any better? You would be charitable enough to me that I never went that far.

Very nice response lioness

Why don't you go and ask Muhammed(SAW) about your own misgivings?

Gwaine:
That's why you continue to be a juvenile delinquent. You're cheaply applauding yourself when you have nothing more to grasp at because you know that your Quraish prophet Muhammad was a pedophile, a womanizer and an Arab pornographer. Whining the way you're doing is amusing me all the more, because you're still unable to deny the claims that Muhammad was all of that and more - and your desperation is pathetic since you now can see that Muhammad obtained his licence from the "Allah" of the Qur'an to pursue his unbridled sexual promiscuities. You said people are meant to learn more by the day? Exactly - because more revelations about what you're ignoring in Muhammad's pornographic and licentious career will be posted in days to come, so that you could learn more about what your imams haven't told you.

Typical again of your Islamic juvenile delinquency, because you're excusing the hardcore X-RATED porn in the Qur'an. The arabic word used in Sura 021:091 is not 'chastity' but 'farjaha' (virgina) - and that is the place where Muhammad claimed the "Allah" of the Qur'an was blowing into! What your 'Jibril' was looking for in a woman's farjaha is beyond me. If that is not luridly X-RATED enough to stagger your juvenile mind, we can understand it's because you're a 'minor' who shouldn't be reading such things. So, don't cry so much by making excuses for Muhammad's explicit pornographic tendencies in the Qur'an.

Are you really educating yourself? Didn't Muhammad receive "revelation" from the "Allah" of the Qur'an to pursue his own relatives with his lewd lust - his maternal and paternal cousins?? Or is Sura 033.050 not part of the Qur'an anymore that you're pretending you chaps were not exposed to the possibility of having sexual intercourse with your sisters and relatives??

"Since Hadiths are meant to teach Muslims how to behave and lead good lives, they should naturally not leave any aspect of living uncovered!" That's precisely what I simply helped you to see - uncover the illicit frolic of your Prophet Muhammad with the many women that he lusted after! And it's from the hadiths that we read about Muhammad's confession that your Qur'an was revealed to him while he was 'performing' (having sex) with Aisha -

Sahih Bukhari Volume 5 Book 57 Number 119
". . .the Prophet said, "O Um Salama! Don't trouble me by harming 'Aisha, for by God, the Divine Inspiration never came to me while I was under the blanket of any woman amongst you except her."

So, the Qur'an was "revealed" while he was under the blanket of (having sex with) Aisha! Another hadith is quite revealing, for there we read about the connection between the Qur'an and the lurid dirty game the companions of the Bedouin Prophet Muhammad were playing - messing around with "war booty" (female captives) -

Sahih Bukhari: Volume 7, Book 62, Number 136:
Narrated Jabir:We used to practice coitus interruptus while the Quran was being revealed.
(see Sahih Bukhari: Volume 7, Book 62, Number 135: Narrated Jabir: We used to practice coitus interruptus during the lifetime of Allah's Apostle).

So, the Qur'an was being revealed while Muhammad was engaged in his pedophilic porn business with Aisha and while his comrades were messing around with female captives! Quaint. That's the example in the hadith that Muhammad left as a legacy to teach you "how to behave and lead good lives", abi?

You really have no idea the extent of irritation and damage you're causing your brethren - and you're so glad as to call that a pleasure! Pity. My irritation has nothing to do with succumbing to your juvenile ignorance, so there's no need for you to cheaply applaud yourself as a 'young challenger'. Rather, like I said, 'I really don't mind' if you'd like to know more about the X-RATED porn adventures of your Quraish prophet Muhammad that you never knew existed. And it's quite hilarious to notice you're learning a few vocabs from me with the pun on 'crybaby'. So, keep crying - more illicit porn adventures in the career of the Quraish prophet will be uncovered at your request - both in the Qur'an and the hadiths.

Gwaine

I am utterly disappointed in you and your conduct. You may not be the christian you claim you are or you are just being plain hypocritical like your faith would have you be. You have exhibited a total lack of respect for other peoples Icons inspite of your acclaim to being peaceful . This shows to the contrary that you really are a war-monger who subtly stokes the ambers of discord. Shame onto you. From now on, I will just ignore you totally, until you make a volte-face and drop your hypocritical ways.

The word used in the Quran Furuj does not mean Vagina like you qouted. Please go and improve your 'so acclaimed scholarship'because each passing moment, you really betray a complete ignorance of the issues you say you know.

Retro

By saying man created evil you are in effect saying man has the power to create. I refute this statement in it's entirety. Man cannot create but can modify. God created Evil. Remember, the devil fell into evil himself before man. It was God who created the Devil and Evil, and the sole purpose is to test man and Jinn to determine if he is truly worthy of God's paradise.

Softee

Firstly, the Quran never said what you alleged. Secondly, do not use todays standards to judge yesterday. Who said an 18 yr old cannot play with dolls or swing?

Mrlawng

This is a contradiction

1

. I personally think hezbollah went overboard when they staged an incursion into the sovereign state of Israel killing and abducting their soldiers. Under those circumstances, Israel reserves the right to defend itself by whatever means it deems fit, Howvever i do not support killing innocent civilians.

If you believe Israel should use any means it deems fit, then killing innocent Lebanese may very well serve to punish the government for not disarming Hizbollah. Now wouldn't that be furthering Israel's cause? It is either you edit the whatever means to become whatever decent means, or you make an ellision of not supporting the killing of innocent civilians.


Davidylan

How does the Lebanese government disarm Hizbollah when 70% of the Lebanese armed forces are Shia? And the Government is Sunni? Please explain how a Shia military will turn the barrel at their own shia militant brothers whom a lot of them actually consider to be heroes? Get real.

What most of you are saying is that because Chadian rebels come into Nigeria, kill Nigerian people and soldiers, rob them, the Nigerian government should invade Chad, blow up her airports, and target rebel strongholds while killing civilians. Then justify this by saying we warned the Chadian Gov to disarm their rebels and they refused, so we had to punish that gov. It doesn't make sense, however, it may make sense if we consider it from the Israeli point of view that as long as it is surrounded by Arabs, it will never go to bed with two eyes closed, so it needs to destroy all the Arabs surrounding it.

Israel is terrorising the Arab nations for political reasons.
They are killing innocent arab children.
Christians should not support this because this is anathema to what Christ preached.
It may be fulfilling prophecy but prophecy only tells of what will happen, it doesnt cause it to happen or justify the means by which it happens.
American christians especially have dissapointed the world by turning this middle-east thing into a neo-crusade and voting that slowpoke Bush

Xkape

True talk. It may be a biblical prophecy, but that prophecy did not justify all the atrocities by the Israeli State against the Arabs. But what you said concerning peace in the region is not so accurate. The year 1994, a peace accord was reached for the first time. Israel made some concessions. The Arabs also made some concessions. Each side was truly satisfied that there had been a truly balanced and productive agreement. Then Yitzhak Rabin, the then Israeli PM was assasinated under the watchful eye of the strongest and most effective security force and intelligent service in the world-The Mossard. Events later showed that the assasin was part of a grandiose plan by hardline Israeli to prevent peace from being reached in that region. The point of this illustration is that on both sides there are hardliners who want total destruction of the other. The most important factor in achieving peace is the third factor which has not helped at all since the election of Bush, the International community. In all disptes between peoples, when the international community takes a Unified ad just position, those disputes are always resolved. But when the international community takes a biased or divided position, then the hardliners always win. So, it is not a question of a factor resident in the middleeast which methinks is a veiled reference to Islam. I hope I am wrong.

Old glory

Are you a christian? Because if you ARE, this certainly is a radical departure from the normal peaceful disposition of christians. 500 pounds bombs should be dropped huh? How would you like those bombs to be dropped where you are? Real people are suffering. This is not merely about statistics, but you would prefer a show of force isn't it? I pray God does not listen to that your wish even on yourself. I pray you never have to experience what it feels like being under the siege that all people in the middle east have to bear everyday be they Israeli or Arab.

retro

Why do you think seun cannot star a churh? Afterall you were calling to a new religion altogether when you asked us to worship Afeni.

Gwaine

Please do not be selective in responding to Abeem's or other questions. There are lots of outstanding questions begging answers from Odache's post and Abeem. Please respond to each concern so that atleast they will be cleared from the list of concerns which I have about christianity.

Gwaine

We are still waiting,

Salam Alaykum O Muslims,

Smash, there is no such place for Sajdah in suratul Yasin. Youcan check the Quran for yourself, you will fing out that all places of Sajdah have a long bar struck accross them.

Ma Salam

I will try hard not to encourage bigotry in the future, it just happens that sometimes, in the heat of an exchange btween contending forces, it may not be out of place to slide into an 'us versus them'mood.

I understand what you stated about the American state, but going into details will expose my view point. The document which defined the Bush first term was drawn by one of his aides (I have forgotten his name now), in the name of fulfiling a biblical prophecy. That is why I stated that the secular machinery of the American state was hijacked by a conservative christian minority to achieve its own aims.

True talk about the deafening silence of the African Muslims on some terrorist acts. But you must realise that those who are opinionated do not have channels to publicise their views so that it may reach the widest audience possible.

I submit to the Sharia law willingly not as a consequence of any intimidation or fear, but out of conviction that it will help me live a fulfilled life. There are many like me.

Again you are right about the double standards thing. That is human and muslims see it and actually protest. I for one, speak out against such double standards, but it does not detract from the fact that Islam is against all such things, and if that prince were caught in an Islamic state perpetrating such acts, he will be made to face the Sharia. You just reiterated my point that those people find safe heavens in Western societies as a result of the decadence in such societies.


I want you to reply to the issues Odache raised so that I may have a very clear understanding of the seemingly glaring contradictions. You may quote the bible, but I want a summary of the lessons in the verses you quote as I am not good at interpreting the often grandiose language employed. But try and make it simple so that as a sceptic, I will have a shift in opinion at the very least. Thank you for calming down.

Gwaine

The reason you think there is an arbitrariness is that in Islam, God says the only sin He cannot forgive, is associating partners with Him which includes denying His existence and other such things.

It is interesting to note that the God concept in christianity also acknowledges that some other people apart from christians will enter Heaven. That is indeed gratifying to me, meaning that if I continue to be a muslim, but truely recognising the one true God, and continuing in my good nature, I may be admitted into Heaven even though I missed the concept or way to worship that God. That seems like a fair bargain to me.

Gwaine

I must be totally honest with you here. In the Islamic belief, there will be no Muslim sinner in Hell afterall. However, those pagans and unbelievers who denied the existence of God or associated partners with Him will abide in Hell FOREVER. Paradise however, is a different story. There will be other people besides muslims in Paradise.

Well, most certainly, Islam beliefs in grace and mercy from God. Muslims always recite this verse before any other activity- In the Name of Allah The Most Gracious, The Most Merciful. It is the belief in Islam, that no matter the good deeds you do, It takes only the Grace of God to get admitted into Paradise. Consequently, even the Propht of Islam Muhammed (SAW) asked for this grace because he couldn't be too sure about God's pleasure. Allah indeed offers His Grace to anyone deserving of it. If you have tried hard to be good, and you have your failings and foibles, after a perusal of your innermost intentions, Allah does admit such people into His grace and eventually Paradise.

Babyosisi
I am glad to see those words on Justice which you posted baby osisi, I hope you truly believe in them, because I certainly do. I am averse to violence unless it becomes necessary. Believe me, an average muslim would not try to proselytize to you. I think stating that if muslims kept their religion to themselves is slightly misplaced, as on the contrary, it's christians that see it as a duty to convert other people. And it is a sin for muslims to terrorize anybody, but you will note that when an 'act of terror'as defined by America is committted, it certainly is in response to some other act of terror perpetrated by America or her allies.

Your misgivings about the people of Northern Nigeria is most certainly valid.I also have relatives in Northern Nigeria who bear the brunt of the protests usually but erroneosly associated with religion. This is inspite of them being Muslims. They get killed like any other southerner is, and their houses which were bulit with toil are burnt down despite praying 5 times a day with the northerners. This shows religion is merely a pretext and not the cause. The problem is largely that of inadequate and improper education. We need to make a commmmitment to them, to lift them out of their ignorance thus equipping them with the ability to think independently and question unscrupulous elements who are bent on stoking the embers of discord.

Chrisitianity is supposed to embody love-God's love. But the American establishment under the leadership of a self-confessed conservative christian along with a largely conservative christian cabinet is unleashing unrestrained terror against certain parts of the world. Chrisitians all over are doing very little to distance themselves from their actions. This is wrong. Under Clinton, who is also a christian, albeit a liberal one, such things like 9/11 never occured. This goes to show that the secular American state is being directed by a christian minority into committing acts of terror which also elicit acts of terror in equal or more horrifying proportions. This circle of hate should be stopped, But it cannot be stopped with such statements as Islamic terrorism:The new threat to global peace, or Muslims hate christians, etc. These only inspire hatred, and I am sure God, be He the Muslim God, Christian God or Hindu God will not want His Children or servants to spread hatred.

You asked about whether I feel that the provision in Islam which allows Muslims to marry four wives is a panacea to the assymetricity of the numbers of the sexes, and my response to that question is most certainly Yes. I believe it actually alleviates the problem, but doesn't solve it completely. I however will like you to proffer solutions to this imbalance in numbers. It's something I have pondered about for a while, and as yet, I have not found a truely complete solution from any quarters. It certainly makes an interesting topic to me. Can you help please?

Smash

I think I may be able to help. Please check Suratul Hajj, verse 77. There Allah says, Yaa hayu Alladhi na Amanu, ir kawu wasjudu wa ábudu Rabbakum, Waf alu Hoirat laalakum tuflihun.

Meaning
O ye who believe, Bow, PROSTRATE, and worship your Lord, and do good, so that you may be successful.

Gwaine,
I do not deny being gleeful, however that does not detract from the intention of the message . I concede to you that indeed some chrisitans in the Western world actually oppose the American government poicies against Muslims and the middle eastern countries. But it is rather curious that African christians seem to be mute and I can say that christians simply are not doing enough to impress it upon the war-mongering christian sect that Bush and his fellow neo-cons belong to, that they are errant and have gone against the word of God in the bible.

You think the Sharia law is oppressive? But majority of the people governed by that law submit to it willingly. It's just the same way some people feel the Judeo-Christian laws used to govern most countries in the world are oppressive.

Please ignore my Islamic mindset, and try to answer my questions about the divinity of christ and the relationship between christianity and secular states. May be the respondents have not been able to explain it simply enough to me. You will have observed that when indeed someome convinces me on a point, I readily concede, as I do not argue for the sake of argument. But, the answers I have gotten so far have not convinced me, but confused me further as you have noted. So please continue in this calm disposition to try and explain the matter to me knowing that I am a sceptic of the Bible. Putting this into perspective will help you fine-tune your responses appropriately.

Thanks

Love child

This war goes beyond what is in any scriptures. For once, I expect Muslims, and chrisitians alike to observe what is going on in the middle east dispassionatley and instead seek a peaceful resolution instead of trying to justify one country's action or the other. The truth is, if an all out war does break out, the whole world will be affected. The prices of oil have already reached an all time high of$78 Dollars a barrel. If this continues, there may be distruptions of oil supply from the middle east and the price of oil could very well reach the $100 mark and over. What this means is that the world economy may crash, and a lot of people will suddenly become jobless. Besides the economic implications, the military escalation will lead to a loss of human lives which otherwise would have been preserved if caution and humility had been employed by the players instead of aggression and arrogance.

It is time we in Africa also stated our stand on these issues. We had better consider the actions of all parties and condemn those who have gone overboard, and try to foster reconciliation because, if the war escalates to an apocalyptic stage, nobody on the planet will be as comfortable as he is as of now. For once, let us put aside the predictions in our Bible, or Hadiths, and instead face the problem with the spirit of love which God has implanted in us. We should not allow ourselves to fall to the evil machinations of men and the devil in mutual rivalry and greed which will lead only to the destruction of our kind.

So you are accusing seun of bias? When he did allow and publicise all those hate-filled threads against muslims, he was being fair then right?

I really did not know celibacy is mot supported in the bible. Wow, that's such a relief. At least that's something practical.