₦airaland Forum

Please try and understand me. You see a murderer in the act of killing. You want to CATCH him, he is holding an AK-47 rifle. You have a gun too. You tell him to drop the gun because you are police. He refuses and shoots at you. How are you going to stop him from killing again?

Good softee, now we are getting somewhere. Now, if this murderer has a gun and intends to kill again, how do you apprehend him? By preaching to him? Or by showing him your own gun? And if he shoots at you while you are preaching to him are you going to allow him continue killing or will you shoot him to prevent him from killing? Now Since your God is not stupid, and he can allow the murderer to be jailed, then is he a good god? Why would a good god allow his followers carry guns, make atom bombs to kill other people? It is the same reason why the one true God will allow retialation-to ensure justice and fairness and order in the world. I hope you understand now?

Softee,

All you have stated smack of pure hypocrisy. Why would God set a standard nobody would be able to attain? You believe in something, but you acknowledge that you rarely follow what you believe in. My sister, 1 advice, practice what you preach. Or better still, join a religion that alllows you what is practical.

You asked what retialaion does? It's simple. Even though we are encouraged to forgive in Islam, but retialation is allowed and it serves the purpose of serving as a deterrent to those who are incorrigibly aggressive and bellicose as well as belligerent. So, if we were to go by christian doctrines, you will have me believe that a murderer should just be allowed to kill another person instead of being punished. So much for justice. So christianity supports injustice. If you disagree, provide your proof.

Yeparipa!! Ogbeleu. Are those quotes really from the bible? Oh my God. So much for peace. Now, I am getting convinced that I was right afterall.

Christianity supports Immorality and Injustice.

I have studied a lot of christian doctrines, and I can now confirm that while christians are told to avoid immorality in their holy scriptures, they also are taught to ignore restitution for such sins and instead believe in a most fraudulent doctrine of total atonement of sin by believing in the grace the blood of Jesus brings to them. Thus, according to christianity, just believing in Jesus redeems you, and you will enter heaven even if you commit the most heinous crimes.

I will like other people to confirm that my views about christianity are correct, and ask christians themselves to state the position of christianity on morality, and if retialation is a sin.

Unnecessary repetition. However, here is my reply again.

[b]Mlks_baby,

I seemed to have been in such a hurry to repudiate the inconsistencies in the examples cited by Gwaine, TayoD, Davidylan etc, that I decided to work based on their statements, without bothering to provide background proof. Thus my stance on making assumptions. But I took your advice and did some research the result of which is below.

@ Gwaine
I must confess, you and Davidylan and mlks_baby are very persuasive arguementators. If you should know, a lot of questions you raise here make me ask myself some questions which I hitherto would not have bothered to ask. But, just as I try to fix those scenarios into real life situations, and possibly view them from a human perspective or more accurately put, from your perspective, I also see other occurences which re-strengthenes my faith in Islam, which I suspect you may not know or will not even consider. So, while I try to understand the reason and rationale behind Fatima's marriage and some other sundry issues which prove the humanity and fallibility of the Prophet of Islam (SAW), I also see practical solutions to the myriad of modern day problems, like interest free banking, a strict moral code to prevent almost all the trouble between contending forces in today's world and a lot of other laudable aspects of Islam which are the primary cause for my attraction to the religion. Mention must also be made of it's practicality as regards dealing with people who are intent on persecuting you, self defence and cohabitation with people who do not share the same beliefs.

All these make me stronger as a muslim, even as your queries make me have a better understanding of some situations which existed in the time of the Prophet (SAW), his actions and reactions to those situations ( whether wrong or right), and if those same constraints apply to me, and whether I can possibly improve upon them by following the later day corrections to those situations. So, I wouldn't say for instance that the Prophet rode on a camel, and therefore it's compulsory for me to ride on a camel. etc. etc. I hope you understand that Muslims are required not to follow a dogma but the principles. This said, I went to research the validity of your proofs of Ayesha's age and found the following.

Deaths of Abu Talib and Khadija. In 619 C.E. Abu Talib and Khadija died. Among the Muslims the year 619
C.E. came to be known as 'The Year of Sorrow'. Abu Talib had been more than a father to the Holy Prophet.
In spite of the strong pressure of the Quraish he had protected the Holy Prophet. Khadija had been for the
Holy Prophet more than a wife. She had placed all her wealth ,which was considerable, at his disposal. She
had given him love. She was the first person to be converted to Islam, and had been a pillar of strength for
the Holy Prophet as well as the Muslims.

The passing away of Abu Talib and Khadija created a great vacuum in the life of the Holy Prophet, and he
felt very lonely and disconsolate. In this hour of bereavement Abu Bakr tried to console the Holy Prophet,
and he spent most of his time in his company. It was the endeavor of Abu Bakr that he should as far as
possible fill the vacuum created by the deaths of Abu Talib and Khadija.

Holy Prophet's marriage with Sauda. At the instance of Khawla bint Hakim the Holy Prophet married
Sauda bint Zama'a. Sauda was an elderly lady and was among the early converts to Islam. She was a good
housewife, and looked very well after the house and the children of the Holy Prophet.

Proposal for engagement to Ayesha. Khawla bint Hakim suggested to the Holy Prophet that he should
marry some young lady as well who could keep him company. Whom could he marry, inquired the Holy
Prophet. Khawla suggested that Ayesha the daughter of Abu Bakr would be a good choice. The Holy
Prophet left it to Khawla to pursue the matter with Abu Bakr. Khawla approached Abu Bakr, and his wife
Umm Ruman and made the proposal for the engagement of Ayesha to the Holy Prophet. Abu Bakr felt
honored at the proposal, but his difficulty was that Ayesha was already engaged to Jubayr son of Mut'im,
and it was against Abu Bakr's code of conduct to break his pledge. When this difficulty was brought to the
notice of the Holy Prophet, he said that God would Himself provide a way out of the difficulty.

Mut'im. Abu Bakr called at the house of A1Mut'im. Al-Mut'im was still a disbeliever, and Mu'tim's wife said to
Abu Bakr "O son of Abu Qahafa, suppose we married our son to your daughter, you would turn him into an
infidel, and convert him to your religion". Abu Bakr made no reply, but turning to Mut'im said, "What does
she mean? " Mut'im said indifferently, "She is saying what you have heard."

Abu Bakr said, "This means that you repudiate the engagement." "So let it be," said Al-Mut'im.

Ayesha's engagement to the Holy Prophet. At the repudiation of the engagement by Al-Mut'im, Abu Bakr
felt happy, and returned home relieved of a great burden. God had Himself provided a way out of the
difficulty. Abu Bakr hastened with the good news to Khawla, and asked her to invite the Holy Prophet to his
house. The Holy Prophet responded to the call, and formally asked for the hand of Ayesha. Abu Bakr was
overwhelmed with joy and emotion and said, "O Prophet of God, all that I have is yours".

At a simple ceremony Ayesha was engaged to the Holy Prophet. It was, however, decided that the
actual marriage ceremony would be held later.

Age of Ayesha. In most of the accounts that have come down to us, it is stated that at the time of her
engagement to the Holy Prophet, Ayesha was a girl of six or seven years only. This appears to be an
understatement. We have it on record that when Abu Bakr became a Muslim his children included Abdur
Rahman, Abdullah, Asma, and Ayesha. Abu Bakr became a Muslim in 610 A.D. and Ayesha must be at
least eleven or twelve years of age at the time of her engagement, and not six or seven years.


Now to his marriage,

Marriage of Ayesha. When the Muslims were duly settled in Madina, and the families of the Holy
Prophet and Abu Bakr had come to Madina, it was decided that the formal ceremony of the marriage of
Ayesha the daughter of Abu Bakr to the Holy Prophet should be performed. Ayesha was now of age.
The crisis of Islam was over. The Holy Prophet was no longer a persecuted person; he was now the ruler of
Madina. The Holy Prophet needed a young lady by his side whom he could love. One day early in 623 C.E.,
the Holy Prophet accompanied by his companions went to the house of Abu Bakr at Sukh to seek the hand
of Ayesha in marriage.

Ayesha's account of marriage. Ayesha has left an account of the wedding day in the following
terms: "The Prophet of Allah came to our house where many of the companions were waiting. My mother
brought me sitting in a litter on two poles. She made me descend; then she smoothened my hair, and
washed my face with water. Then she led me to the door of the house where she stopped until I regained
my composure. Then she took me to where the Prophet of God was sitting in our house, and made me sit
near him saying, 'These are your people. May God bless them through you, and you through them'. The
people then left, and the Prophet consummated the marriage while in our house."

After the marriage. After the marriage, Ayesha was assigned a separate quarter adjoining the
mosque. Ayesha was handsome, intelligent and eloquent, and the Holy Prophet loved her intensely. The
marriage brought Abu Bakr still closer to the Holy Prophet. There is a tradition that once a companion
asked the Holy Prophet whom did he love most, and he said 'Ayesha'. 'And whom do you love next'
asked the companion, and the Holy Prophet said 'Her father Abu Bakr'.

Now, it is worthy to note two points;
Firstly, The Prophet got engaged to Ayesha at above 10 years since her father became a muslim at 610 AD, and Ayesha (RA) was already born then, and the year of the engagement was 619 AD.

Secondly, She was with her family until 623 AD when He (SAW) finally married her. Meaning she was probably older than 13 years, assuming that she was born in the year 610 AD just before her father converted to Islam. So you can see that the reports of six or nine years are most probably wrong.


Fatima's marriage,


When the Holy Prophet migrated to Yathrib he left his family at Makkah. When the Muslims had settled in
Yathrib (renamed Madina) the Holy Prophet and the other Muslims called their families to Madina. At the
time of migration, Sauda an elderly lady was the only wife of the Holy Prophet whom he had married after
the death of Khadija. About a year after his arrival in Madina, the Holy Prophet married Ayesha, a
daughter of Abu Bakr.

By this time, Fatima, the youngest daughter of the Holy Prophet had come of marriageable age, and the
Holy Prophet had to consider the question of her marriage. Abu Bakr waited on the Holy Prophet, and
asked for the hand of Fatima. The Holy Prophet made no answer. Thereafter Umar asked for the hand of
Fatima and the Holy Prophet maintained silence. In the Arabian society of the day, the disparity in the age
of the bride and the bridegroom did not matter. The Holy Prophet married Khadija when he was twenty-five
and she was forty, fifteen years older than him. Later the Holy Prophet, when over fifty, married Ayesha
yet within her teens. When the Holy Prophet did not respond to the requests of Abu Bakr or Umar he was
not bothered about the age question; his silence was due to the fact that he had to wait for the guidance
of God which was wont to get in all matters of importance affecting his person.

After the Battle of Badr, Ali made his suit. The Holy Prophet told Ali that he would give his reply after
consulting Fatima. The Holy Prophet consulted Fatima, and she maintained silence signifying her assent. In
the meantime the Holy Prophet received the revelation that God approved of the marriage of Fatima
with Ali. When Fatima the mother of Ali called on the Holy Prophet to press the suit on behalf of Ali, the Holy
Prophet was pleased to announce his acceptance.

According to all accounts that have come down to us, the marriage of Ali and Fatima was an ideal
marriage. It was a union of two great souls. Hafsa, a daughter of Umar and later a wife of the Holy
Prophet wrote some verses highlighting the greatness of the pair. She said: Fatima is superior to
womankind in the world; she is the lady whose face shines as the full moon; she is the bride whose groom
excels all in Scholarship.

According to some authors Ali was twenty-one years old at the time of marriage, while Fatima was
sixteen years old. According to my research the date of the birth of Ali is to be placed around 599 C.E. and
on this basis he was 24/25 years old at the time of marriage. Fatima was born around 604 C.E. and on
this basis she was 19/20 years old at the time of marriage. There appears to be a tendency with the
writers of old to under estimate the ages of persons particularly women. In most of the books, for example,
it is said that at the time of her marriage with the Holy Prophet, Ayesha was a child barely nine years
old. Ayesha was more or less of the same age as Fatima or very nearly so, and was well within her teens
at the time of her marriage.

Undoubtedly the marriage of Ali and Fatima was an ideal marriage as the marriage was performed
by the Holy Prophet in accordance with the will of God, it could not be anything but an ideal marriage. As
an ideal marriage it should have been a happy marriage. In this context two aspects of the case need
special consideration. One is the economic factor and the other is the temperamental factor.


Now, having seen all these, you may accept or reject them ONLY if you can give proof of more authentic hadiths about these incidences. Most of this history is culled from Sahih Bukhari, and the commentary given by established Islamic teachers.


So, my friends please keep asking questions that attack the very morality that I cherish in Islam, so that I can put to test my knowledge about my beliefs.
Thanks[/b]

Hi all, to further butress my position that the bible surely contradicts itself, here is an excerpt from the Guardian newspaper of Nigeria today.

[b]Still on the Da Vinci Code
By Osaro Odache
THE recent article by Pius Isiekwene in The Guardian of June 29, 2006 condemning author Dan Brown over his depiction of Jesus in The Da Vinci Code was another spirited attempt to hoodwink the unwary amidst inexplicable inconsistencies and contradictions in the present-day Bible. Over the years, reasoned literary critiques of religious dogmas have always met with accusations of blasphemy and heresy. Adherents of Christian faith deliberately avoid discussing or debating such doctrines. In the process, the uninformed is further misled and sound reasoning is suppressed. But is the modern Bible totally free of flaws, as Mr. Isiekwene would want us to believe? A cursory assessment of certain Biblical positions run counter to the writer's position of justifying that every word in the Book was spiritually inspired.

The doctrine of Trinity forms the cornerstone on which Christianity stands. Yet it is one of the most profound and difficult dogmas to explain and understand. But should it be so? Of course, truth should not be so difficult to espouse and justify. If we agree that there is a Supreme Being called God then Trinity is clearly against the concept of one father in heaven who creates and sustains.

With the Old Testament saying "in the beginning there was God and the word was with God and the word was God", then the Bible is implying that God had a beginning. That would be contrary to the concept of eternity of God. Shouldn't the "Word" with God mean the command by which the Supreme Father causes all things to be and also bring them to an end as He wills. It is by "Word" that Adam was created (with neither father nor mother), Eve was created (without a mother but with a father) and Jesus created (with a mother but not a father). The lesson is that God is almighty and is capable of doing all things. If it would take the immaculateness of a being to cleanse the world of sins, the angels are better placed for that purpose. Otherwise, it would run counter to Jesus' statement that no man born of a woman is without sins: Jesus was born of a woman. The Bible also informs us that Jesus was baptised by John the Baptist, (presumably, a sinner).

If Jesus is God, then the concept of God was incomplete for three days when Jesus was killed. The God in Heaven was also incomplete while Jesus was sojourning on earth and, of course, before his birth. This would be contrary to the notion of God being the same always. Also, of the three Godheads, whom do we supplicate to? Which of the three Godheads will sit in judgment on the last day?

That Jesus is the same as God predisposes that he was addressing himself on the cross for being forsaken in his hours of need. And how do we justify Mark 16:19 where Jesus sat on the right hand of God (sitting besides a different person or besides himself?). In the same verse, the Holy Spirit is missing. If Christ voluntarily surrendered himself to redeem mankind, how come that he tried frantically to prevent his own trial and crucifixion? And should Judas Iscariot be considered an enemy if he facilitated redemption of mankind through crucifixion? Judas ought to be glorified and commended rather than condemned and vilified. Were the people who wrote about the incident on the Calvary present at the site? Didn't they all flee when Jesus was captured?

The concept of God begetting a biological son was strange to Jesus' teaching. It is unity of essence/purpose and not of person. The Jews and Romans brought the doctrine into Christianity. Jews equally believe that Ezra is beloved son of God. Several people are referred to as sons of God in the Bible. In any case, what sort of father would ransom his beloved and righteous son to redeem the wayward and irresponsible children? Seems quite strange. Is it not against natural law for a carrier of burdens to carry other people's burdens?

Equating Jesus with God is not a position shared by all Christian denominations. Are they worse Christians? Why are there so many divergent interpretations and modes of worship in Christendom even though it is the same God, the same Jesus and the same Scripture? Why would a Christian refuse to attend any other church apart from his own denomination even with similarity of God and Scripture? Why are there so many versions of the Bible? Does the same Holy Spirit inspire these different versions with diverse teachings?

The controversy often generated by Trinity and other biblical dogmas and plain contradictions in several places in the Bible call to question Apostle Paul's statement (shared by Mr. Isiekwene) that everything in the Bible was inspired by God. Surely, God could not have inspired confusion. The original scripts of the Bible were in Hebrew, then Greek before being translated into numerous languages whereas Jesus did not speak any other language except Aramaic, a subset of Hebrew, now extinct. So, in what language was the Bible inspired and after how many years after the death of Christ? Of course, God could not have inspired the numerous contradictions in both the Old and the New Testaments. He could also not have inspired the disparaging statements made against other holy men such as Noah, Abraham and David.

The Bible calls on us to reason together. Therefore, does Trinity recognise the mightiness of God? If so, then what sort of (almighty) God would be defeated by a man (Israel defeated God in the Bible)? What sort of (almighty) God would be tempted by the devil (Jesus was)? What sort of (visionless) God would regret his action (God regretted creating man in the Bible)? What sort of (almighty) God would be powerless in the midst of miscreants who wanted his blood? How mighty is a God that got tired and slumbered (Biblical God was after the creation)? Is the statement credited to Jesus asking his mother what had he got to do with her a fair report?

Apostle Paul's coming into Christianity and outshining disciples like John and James after enormous persecution of the early converts is quite intriguing. His role in writing those books in the New Testament and in formulating new rules and declarations (unknown to or sanctioned by Christ) are so significant that his coming ought to have been predicted by Jesus. Disappointedly, Jesus never knew him nor did Christ anoint him in anyway. Was Paul's vision and conversion to Christianity corroborated by any of the known disciples?

There are several issues in the Bible that call for strong reservation and for which writers like Dan Brown are entitled to take positions. Trinity is just one of them. Religion is a matter of the soul and eternal salvation. It should be based on strong conviction not conjectures. Man should use education and intellect to ascertain the truth in order to earn salvation. This informs the need to study other Scriptures to ascertain the truth. It is the only way we can be free as people perish for lack of (true) knowledge. Dan Brown's literary work should be appreciated and not condemned. Mr. Isiekwene and other ecclesiastics should allow literary critiques of nebulous dogmas.


Odache lives in Benin City, Edo State.


© 2003 - 2006 @ Guardian Newspapers Limited (All Rights Reserved).[/b]

It sure raises a lot of interesting  questions doesn't it? please gwaine, TayoD, mlks_baby, 4get_me, answer some of these questions in the most scientific way possible. I have looked for the answers to these for a long time.
Here is the link to the article http://www.guardiannewsngr.com/editorial_opinion/article04

Good for you. You will live long that way. If you see a suicide bomber, please kill him before he detonates his bomb. And tell all the other christians especially softee to consider what I have said. It is the word of our elders.

I make bold to disagree with you kellorah. They are only superficially similar, a more careful observation will show that Islam is all about morality and it's enforcement, while christianity is about love, grace, etc, while abandoning morality. What am I saying in effect, christianity supports immoral activities by jettisoning God's Law as expoused in the bible claiming it is old-fashioned in an old testament, while asking adherents to hold on to Jesus' love which redeems them inspite of whatever sins they commit. Christianity from my observation, does not support an implementtation of a strict moral code, and has no punitive measures for perpetrators of evil.

Thanks for the remark kellorah. The truth is almost always boring. However, my candid advice to you all would be to fight for the precious life God has given you. Please if someone holds a weapon to hurt you by, do not allow him to use it, defend yourself, otherwise, you will account to God for not preserving His gift.

Wait, what am I doing? I don't even need to tell you this, your very nature will guide you, it is a truth your tongues belie, but your heads and actions confirm.

Firstly, let me acknowledge and praise OlaAjia for his dexterity and suaveness in responding to the queries of the christians on this thread, and the attempts by the other muslims to show them that when they see a muslim, they hardly give him a chance, but view only a personification of their own stereotypes of who a muslim is. Well done my brothers!

I will however not be as smooth as OlaAjia has been, and I will show you why. I find glaring contradictions in what softee and others will have us believe is christianity. Let me explain. Firstly baby Osisi said,

babyosisi:
Show me any muslim converts in Nigeria and I'll show you a man with Naira signs in his eyes,I'm sure y'all catch my drift.
Islam cannot change any man for better,only Jesus The Christ can.

Is she implying that christianity is all about financial success?

Then Softee,

Softee:
OlaAjia,

What beautiful replies are you referring to? No muslim has answered my question that how can a GOOD God tell you to fight in his name? I mean everybody knows what violence leads to, this just does not add up to me. I also have many more questions that has yet to be answered.

How can a good God tell you to fight those who fight you?
How can a good God tell you every muslim must be willing to fight until they give you peace?

Continuing she also says,

Softee:
Thank you for trying to make this clearer for me but it still seems very wrong to me and my questions were not answered fully. Showing me that Allah only wants you to fight if another person starts it does not shed any light on my view.

2:190 Fight in the way of Allah against those who fight against you, but begin not hostilities. Lo! Allah loveth not aggressors.

Regardless of they way in which you should fight or who starts it. A GOOD God will not tell you to fight back.

2:191 And slay them wherever ye find them, and drive them out of the places whence they drove you out, for persecution is worse than slaughter. And fight not with them at the Inviolable Place of Worship until they first attack you there, but if they attack you (there) then slay them. Such is the reward of disbelievers.

Slay them if they attack you first!! how can a good God say this, i don't get it.

Blakconjee, OlaAjia, LAHLAXZA

Let me tell you something. God is good. Vengeance is his. You leave things in his hands and get on with your walk using Jesus as your personal saviour and role model. You cannot spend your life fighting those who fight you because then what kind of life will you have! I am not saying this to make you feel bad, i am just saying the truth. The truth shall set you free. I'm sorry if the subject was a bit intimidating, i didn't really know much about what the Anti-Christ was when i posted it but since, i have learnt. I also know now that ALL muslims do not hate christians and certainly are not the Anti-Christ.

God bless and the Lord knows i'm sorry if i offended.

But here Baby osisi says  something which contradicts her earlier assertions,

babyosisi:
Good talk 4get_ me.
I really do encourage the olaajia and the lahlaxia guy to continue in their quest of the holy scriptures there are a few testimonies of people like them that had miraculous conversions in their quests,actually an Islamic guy got converted to Christianity by reading the "holy" koran specifically the area about Christ returning to wage war and Him and his followers winning.
The guy was smart enough to put two and two together and reasoned that this Christ must be simply too much when even the Koran declared him a winner at the end why waste time with Mo.

Now, if chrisitianity is so peaceful as softee would have us believe, why would it fortell of a war in which Christ will kill the antichrist in revelations? Why would a good God send his 'only begotten son' to wage a war against an evil antichrist who is persecuting his children on earth? Is vengeance not for God? The pacifism which christianity claims is not only unworkeable, but totally unGodly by christian standards as according to the bible, even God waged a war against Satan in Heaven. Besides, I often see christians fight back when they are aggressed against. Should we take that to mean they have been filled by the 'holy spirit'as softee asserted here?

Softee:
I'm sprry if i have offended you in any way but i am a girl who speaks the truth by what i see. I cannot sit here and lie to people. The demon behind everything has to be EXPOSED. I understand that some of my lanugage might have come across unfriendly, this is not what Jesus would have liked me to do and i will be the first to admit i have, in some situations, acted not very christianly.
I love everybody for who they are, not what they believe in, HOWEVER, their comes a point in a christian life that you become ignited by the holy spirit and you can't hold it in, you just have to PREACH.

God bless you.

The truth is, a good God would not allow diseases such as HIV AIDS kill his faithful servants, or the worldwars that claimed all together some 60 million people, or for that matter, the holy crusades where christians and non-christians died, or tell the Jews to fight other unbelievers and kill them in the bible. Except of course if she means to tell me that God had since reformed since he gave those commandments. Please spare me and other muslims all these tell-rales. God is very realistic by ordering that when someone attacks you, you defend yourself. That is another reason why sometimes, I read hypocrisy in christian doctrines as chrisitians sometimes support America's premptive strikes against Arab states in the name of self-defence, while in actual fact the Americans are always the aggressors. Even if America's actions are deemed to be self defence, I thought biblical teachings said you are not to defend yourselves? So why would christians support their actions?  And if I happen to slap softee, would she turn the other side? If you wouldn't, then please do not believe in that pathetic doctrine and embrace the realistic Islamic doctrine of self defence which confirms the first law of nature self preservation.

Well, I can see that there is a difference between praying for the dead, and praying to the dead. The latter is forbidden in Islam, and that is why a particular sect in Islam- Shii, are denounced as not practicing pristine Islam, because amongst other things, they go to graves circumambulate them, and pray to the dead.

In pristine Islam however, we are required by the Quran to pray for thr Prophet Muhammed (SAW) because, as God put it, the angels send their blessings unto him, and so the believers to should do it. The prophet of Islam also said, anybody that hears his name, but doesn't send blessings and benedictions of God on him, is in error. The same way, we are required to bless the name of all Prophets prior to Muhammed's (SAW) time because God also said he was pleased with them, and we should do this as an act of worship.

Now coming to other muslims, one of the charitable acts a dead muslim can benefit from when he is in the grave is if his virtuous son prays to God for his forgiveness, this is believed will let the torment of the grave be alleviated on that dead muslim. And it is encouraged that the living pray for the forgiveness of the dead so that they will not suffer too much for their sins in the grave, and may possibly receive God's mercy and grace on the day of recompense. The only crime in Islam which cannot be forgiven by God is toassociate partners with Him. And that is why Muslims are not allowed to pray for a dead unbeliever. However, they can pray for that person while he is alive, but as soon as he dies, there is no restitution for his sins. But for the believer, He will have the benefit of intercession on the Day of Recompense.

I am by no  means assuming that the muslim belief about these things is correct to you, I however belief them to be the correct beliefs about the hereafter. The christian belief may be different, but that proves once more a radical difference between the two religions. So, because as you have said the bible doesn't support praying for the dead, it doesn't mean that the muslims doing it is wrong in the eyes of God, but it is certainly wrong to you. So, I will say, let every man hold on to his own belief. On the Day of Recompense, one of us will be vindiated. I pray we are all vindicated.

Good! I sure hope the said crimes are allegations that I have not heard on this forum before, because if they are, I will not even dignify them with answers or my time, and will instead suggest that you start your research by reading from the begining most of the threads in the religious section. Please don't ask me to simplify your job. However, if there are new allegations, they are most welcome and I will gladly like to examine them, and may be it could provide some illumination that I never had in the past. The ball is already rolling, and it sure is in your court.

Exactly, please expantiate.

Why do you pray for the dead when you are about to bury them in christianity?

Please speak queens's English next time.

Wait a go 4get_me.

That was a very crude attempt to obfuscate issues. However, anybody that read my post would discover you are the one suggesting everything you said.

Hi Babyosisi,

Nairobi is very cold now. About 11 degrees sometimes, and 23 in the afternoons. I am not even attempting to win anybody. I am strictly here for holidays. I appreciate your explanation. In Islam however, we are expected to bless the name of any prophet of God by saying may the peace and blessings of God be on them.

I can confirm to you that the prayers for the Prophet's of God in Islam has nothing to do with necromancy as you have described it. It is a duty of a muslim to ask forgiveness and blessings for those Prophet's because they lived their lives serving humanity through God. What would you say when I hear a particular church praying for some of it's founder's because they were perceived as living a life of service to God when they were alive? Is that necromancy, because if it is, I see it happen a lot.

4get_me

So what you are saying in effect is that you will give all those other criminals such as pope urban, stalin, etc. aa thumbs up for their crimes? That's queer isn't it? A crime is a crime no matter who committed it, so I will denounce anybodyt that commits a crime even if he is Jesus.

Besides, the worldcup matches were banned because they were ads of alcoholic drinks aired along with the matches. Alcoholic drinks are forbidden in Islam. However, a better way to combat that problem may be to screen those ads out of the footage. This may not be possible in Somalia presently because of the lack of inrastructure, hence I understnnd the ban.

@ Gwaine, Syrup, TayoD, and 4get_me

I regret the use of some terms which you found offensive, but you would realise that I only adjusted to the situation I met on ground when I signed on to Nairaland. I have however decided to turn a new leaf, and will instead ignore rsponses I find to be particularly offbeat or offensive. TayoD, I didn't even see your request for me to prove that as you put it, christianity supports necromancy. I have however dealt with that enquiry on another thread, and the conclusion is, I didn't make that statement. You must have inferred wrongly from my post. You are rest assured that I wold not resort to making unsubstantiated claims, talkless of employing escapist tendencies. Syrup, take note.

I have really enjoyed the discussions here, and I know more about christianity than I did before, and certainly improved my knowledge of Islam. And since I have been able to use this forum to express my heartfelt misgivings about christianity without let or hinderance, and I have been inundated with another perspective about the whole thing, I am not so unsure about it anymore, so any fears I held before are probably dispelled by now, consequently, I am able to live charitably with christian brethren including the ones I saw as bigotted in the past. I understand them more now. A thumbs up for the creators of this thread, and the christians who rather uncharacteristically, have shown rare patience to painstakingly address the concerns of a suspicious world about their beliefs.

Seun,
Please delete this thred, it serves no useful purpose. Thanks

TayoD

I don't get your point here. So in effect, you are describing prayer for the dead as Necromancy? Whether you are or not, you still have not shown how I said the bible supports necromancy. My words which you quoted there just thanks abdulfata for showing that the bible foretold of people who will bless the Prophet Abraham (ASW), and I stated that mlks_baby erroneously stated that that act was necromancy. In making this explanation, it is my assumption that you know the meaning of necromancy, if that however proves to be incorrect, I suggest you got to online dictionaries to see a definition of Necromancy.

Otherwise, I will read this as an attempt by you to show that the bible doesn't support necromancy, in which case I'd say it is absolutely unnecessary as mlks_baby, davidylan and the others have done this already, and I had conceded that indeed, on that issue, Islam and christianity have a common ground.In the light of this, I'd advice you to review the said statement and see if you can understand it from a different perspective.

But I must say I am quite surprised and indeed shocked that you say the bible doesn't support prayer for the dead. This surprise is born out of the observation of a very ubiqitous practice of seeing priests, pastors, and even the pope offer prayers for the dead who are about to be interred or who have been laid to rest for sometime. Are you saying that this practice is wrong? Please explain it to me. Thanks.

exu

Do you compose poems? That was a very beautiful one.

You all don't get it! I NEVER said christianity supports necromancy. But I am glad at least that it doesn't. That means it has a common ground with Islam on that issue.

TayoD

Prove I said Christianity supports Necromancy.

babyosisi and 4get_me

I am so sorry I may not be able to provide answers to some of your query at this time because most of them have been treated in the pat in this thread and other threads such as ' similarities and differences, ', DaVinci code:lessons to Muslims etc. So if you want answers to some of your questions, may be you should go and review all the threads I mentioned. Good luck in your search. When you do discover some of the responses, I will be glad to explain any grey areas.

Lewa
Please give your definition of razz schools or colleges. Take care not to attack anybody's school because some of this so called razz schools produced some of the best brains in Naija.