₦airaland Forum

nferyn,

Let's stop this mind game. If the first caller intended to discuss atheism, he should have plainly said so, then we can pick it up from there.

9ijaMan,

If I was dribbling around, Nairaland readers would have seen that from a mile off. Let me remind you of two things. The Muslim mindset today does not want to read or hear anything from America because they don't trust the news coming from there - they see it as the 'propaganda' of the "Christian West." Secondly, they are highly critical of anything that suggests the fact that Islam has been used for bad ends by some Muslims - which still remains a fact on ground and not propaganda. At the backdrop of this, I offered several websites (some of which have been floated by Muslims themselves), and so far the only conclusion that one may draw is that you simply refused to go through any one of them. I am not aware that Wikipedia is a 'Christian' website or affiliated to CNN - it is just an assumption you created in your mind so you could feel safe and not face the truth.

Let's even weigh your illustrations - at the end of the day, they are wide of the mark. The fightings in Warri have never been attributed to causes that are religious or "Christian sectarian" violence. How cheeky could you get? How many of those people have you seen waving Bibles in hand during disturbances, like Muslims do whenever they take to the streets in Muslim dominated countries like Pakistan, Iraq, and Iran? So, you're one of those who feels that anything outside Islam must necessarily be 'Christian' - no wonder the communal clashes in the Niger Delta could pop up in your mind as a classic example of religious terrorism. Please don't make me laugh.

You haven't hurt me by asking for genuine evidence - it's a legitimate enquiry; and I've provided them in my previous reply before this, since the earlier one did not carry weight with you. However, if you still want to disparage them without even checking them up, there's nothing more anyone could do to help your bias. Anyone could see that I've put in effort to 'do research' in my writeups; but it surprises me that you'd rather sit back in your armchair philosophy and not attempt to provide me with even one web reference to debunk my claim that the very organisations mentioned in my piece are in very fact violent. I still maintain the facts of my findings: "However one may interpret the controversial verses of Sura 2:191-192, many* Islamic organizations exist for the purpose of these same evil acts of murdering people, and it would border on insanity and base perversion for anyone to sanction their actions by any stretch." (*many - I did not say 'ALL').

As far as I know, these Islamic groups understand "the politics of the world" in only one vernacular - violence. And it cannot be denied that they point to the Qur'an as their source of inspiration for whatever they do. At the trigger of a hairpin, the Islamic world would seize the slightest chance to blame "Christians" and "Jews" for any and everything that upsets them. So, the Danish newspaper media in Denmark was "Christian" simply because it was a non-Islamic corporation? And the Muslims (many of whom have not even seen the cartoons) who started killing their innocent neighbours got their inspiration from where, if not the Qur'an? But focusing on institutionalised terrorism, everyone knows that most of the Islamic groups listed in my writeup got their inspiration from Islam's holy book. If you can't see that, then let it rest. The question then is: "Why does it have to be so?"

9ijaMan,

You could blind yourself to reason as best suits you, no wahala. Call it propaganda - I've heard that a million and one times - and it still does not change the fact that Islamic groups exist with the main purpose of murdering innocent people: at least, you didn't deny that. I don't know what anyone would make of your questions about why the Nigerian and Ghanaian embassies were not bombed. The last two lines of your second paragraph go so far to show that you would support the killing of innocent people in the name of a religion, a holy book and a god. Everyone knows today that Muslims are not fighting a war based on oil - that's the hogwash that some Muslim 'intellectuals' have been pushing - and you make me shake my head for buying that lie. How many million barrels of oil are they fighting for in Pakistan that Muslims are killing each other? How many less million barrels of oil are they fighting for in Iraq that some Muslims would go so far as to bomb their Mosque and take up arms to kill fellow Muslims? And I guess you could blame the insanity of Muslims killing innocent Nigerians in the north on the Kaduna refineries? I'm staggered.

I am not an American; but for you to quip as to why I would "want to question the same set of boys when they on bombing rampage" on any embassy at all (including even official facilities of an Islamic government - Egypt) just proves my point - that something is intrinsically wrong with that kind of mentality. And all the hullaballoo we hear about the "peace" in that system of reasoning is not helping the 'Cinderella' image you're trying to prop up on your remarks.

Double peace.

Reverend:
Religion is the root of all evil.

Including your own.

Amusing Ourselves to Death!

9ijaMan:
Hahahahah that's agood one!!!
You'll wonder why I'm amused by your write up.
Let's assume the publication is not a propaganda (which it certainly is), how come Bin Ladin has not sent suicide bombers to Nigeria (at least we have lots of xtians here too)? How com suicide bombers don't go to Ghana, South Africa, Sweden, Norway, China etc to blow themselves up? I'm not trying to make a case for suicide bombing but rather trying to awaken your conciousness to the politics of the world.

In as much as I hate violence, I still would not allow propaganda such as the one you posted above to becloud my sense of reasoning and judgement.

Please I'll also want you to direct me to the source of your info above where "Muhammad stated that Allah sent him with Swords between his hands". We'll all do ourselves a lot of good if we make accurate references to our postings.

I do not want to dwell so much on the write up in the you have posted 'because it's authenticity is found wanting.

I expected you would laugh - laugh at something as serious as taking people's lives in Allah's name. Now what you call propaganda is self-evident; and just in case you missed the points in my protest, I'll oblige you by restating them:

The case of Propaganda:

The basic question here is whether or not the aforementioned organisations exist for the purpose stated in my earlier reply. If you had carefully done a search and come up with a counter that the organizations mentioned above do not exist, then you would have carried the day. However, you should know that they exist, and exist indeed for the purpose of murdering people - they do not know nor care about who is innocent as the sanctity of life does not command their respect. I offer you a few other reputable websites to check out if you doubt the authenticity of the ones indicated earlier (the only reason I would offer other websites is so that you have no doubts as to the the fact of the groups' activities).

First, try these other sites and see if there's nothing to the said communiqué I made reference to in my writeup:
http://www.mideastweb.org/osamabinladen2.htm or http://www.mideastweb.org/osamabinladen1.htm
(scroll down to the paragraghs where the articles carry the communiqué)

In addition, other websites of significant repute have articles on some of these groups referenced in my earlier reply -

(a) Jihad Group in Egypt - This group goes by various appellations: Egyptian Islamic Jihad (EIJ), Islamic Jihad, and the Jihad Group. It has to its credit the following interesting activities: "The organization specializes in armed attacks against high-level Egyptian Government personnel, including cabinet ministers, and car-bombings against official US and Egyptian facilities. The original Jihad was responsible for the assassination in 1981 of Egyptian President Anwar Sadat." Read some more in this link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Egyptian_Islamic_Jihad .

(b) The Jihad Movement in Bangladesh and the Jamiat-ul-Ulema-e-Pakistan - There is just so much information on these groups that one hardly knows where to begin. Perusing through the activities of groups involved leaves a basic question on most people's minds: "where do these groups get their inspiration from for these activities?" Sample this: "Two of the main reasons believed to be responsible for terrorism in Pakistan are sectarian/religious violence and the mistrust in the Musharraf-Bush coalition in the war on terror. However, other causes like political rivalry and business disputes too take its toll. It is estimated that more than 4,000 people have died in Pakistan in the past 25 years due to sectarian strife." Then the article goes on to state precisely what was penned in my earlier reply that "some Islamic governments pretend that they don't know these organisations exist and operate in their own countries with institutionalised consent." This is how it runs on the website: "The Government of Pakistan is accused by India of having supplied monetary aid to certain separatist organisations fighting for secession in Kashmir. It has strongly denied the latter. However some statements have claimed the involvement of the now Pakistani information minister in establishing militant training camps in the early stages of the war many years ago." Get the full gist here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorism_in_Pakistan .

There are hundreds of these groups around the globe, and the same questions are being asked: "Where do they get their inspiration from? From arts and music, peace initiatives, or from Islam?" Please notice one thing: the very names of some of these organizations are very revealing, because they tell you exactly where they got their ideas from. To give a few examples:

Jihad Group in Egypt; Egyptian Islamic Jihad; Islamic Jihad; Jamiat-ul-Ulema-e-Pakistan;
Jamaat-e-Islami ('Islamic Assembly'); aj-Jabhah al-Islamiyah al-Qawmiyah ('National Islamic Front')
al-Jama'ah al-Islamiyah al-Musallah ('The Armed Islamic Group'); etc.

Now most of these groups are violent in nature and by default - no one today would contest that unless they had no inkling about them. But have you noticed how they insert ideologies connected with "the religion of peace" into their organisations' names? 'Jihad' and 'Islamic' runs through these groups' operatives and yet the tool of achieving their political and social aims is simply first and last recourse to violence.

The Case of Mohammed's Sword:

Let us even take the joke that the authenticity of the group's fatwa quoted in my write earlier is questionable. As to the question of what verse the group quoted for Mohammed's sword and spear, I stated clearly that I had not read about that in the Qur'an. Let me remind you of my statement: "Excuse me, but what verse or hadith was the Islamic group quoting of Muhammad when he said Allah "inflicts humiliation and scorn on those who disobey my orders." I'd be happy to have you quote me that verse. However, if it's not in the Qur'an, what about the hadith? For whatever reason the group quoted that statement as attributed to Mohammed without leaving any reference in the Qur'an or hadith, what still amazes me is that so many Muslims have seen the communiqué and yet have done nothing about it.

The question of how come 'suicide bombers don't go to Ghana, South Africa, Sweden, Norway, China etc to blow themselves up' is childish to say the least. That same question was asked just before the bombings in London twice last July. And who was responsible for the bombings of the American embassies in Kenya and Tanzania in 1998? Screaming news headlines clearly indicated the four men charged with the bombings were linked to Al-Qaeda, Osama bin Laden's brainchild. (Sample here: http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/africa/embassy_bombing/ and http://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/ps/2002/12508.htm).

It is really hypocritical for anyone to pretend that these are not real issues that stare us in the face because the authenticity of the articles they read is found wanting. Pardon me??!! How long do we have to wait before we can establish an otherwise "authenticity" for these atrocities? Typical harmattan bureaucracy.

Closing Thoughts.

Individuals the world over who are genuinely concerned about the spate of recent expressions of insanity under the unbrella of Islam, have made painful sacrifices to oppose this madness. One of such moves did not include laughter. But what price have these individuals had to pay for their efforts? Censoring and use of force or political pressure to drown their voice - and those using the force always come back to the Qur'an to justify their high-handeness. One thing is clear: there are simple minded Muslims who will prefer to die for their peaceful way of life than go out to murder others in the name of religion, a holy book, or a god. It does not matter to them what the verses say or not say, or whose cosmetic interpretation is blaring over the public address system - to kill my innocent neighbour who did not wrong me in the name of a god or a holy book is just not acceptable in our age! And to justify the atrocities of religious groups existing with the purpose of murdering people is an attack on social sagacity.

Islam:
and again it doesnt say that we stop until they believe in allah!!!! we stop until the person who assaulted stop!

Oh, p'leeeezzzzzee!! It still makes me wonder why Muslims in Pakistan and in northern Nigeria kept on the killings for days and did not stop, even when they had no reason to justify the killings in the first place. It also makes me wonder why Muslims turned on one another in Iraq, killing fellow Muslims who did not assault them to begin with. And for Muslims to try to bomb the oil well in Saudi Arabia really leaves me bewildered all the more.

The excuse I hear a lot when things get out of hand is that the Qur'an does not sanction these killings and those murderers were acting on their own. Smoke screen. Even then, why did we not see or hear informed Muslims come out in very strong terms to condemn the murders instead of the taciturn remarks here and there? Sponsored killings occur in broad day in some countries by organizations recognised as acting for Muhammad and Allah, and some Islamic governments pretend that they don't know these organisations exist and operate in their own countries with institutionalised consent.

However one may interpret the controversial verses of Sura 2:191-192, many Islamic organizations exist for the purpose of these same evil acts of murdering people, and it would border on insanity and base perversion for anyone to sanction their actions by any stretch. As an example, consider the following:

    Five Islamic organisations including the Jihad Group in Egypt, the Jamiat-ul-Ulema-e-Pakistan, and the Jihad Movement in Bangladesh issued a joint communiqué to promote the killing of Americans (both civilian and military), Jews and "Crusaders" (that is, Christians). [Link: http://www.fas.org/irp/world/para/docs/980223-fatwa.htm]. This is what their opening paragraph says (emphasis mine):

           Praise be to Allah, who revealed the Book, controls the clouds, defeats factionalism, and says in
      His Book: "But when the forbidden months are past, then fight and slay the pagans wherever ye find
     them, seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem (of war)"; and peace be
      upon our Prophet, Muhammad Bin-'Abdallah, who said: I have been sent with the sword between my
     hands to ensure that no one but Allah is worshipped, Allah who put my livelihood under the shadow of
                       my spear and who inflicts humiliation and scorn on those who disobey my orders.
         (see the arabic version of the statement here: http://www.library.cornell.edu/colldev/mideast/fatw2.htm)

Now this befuddles the mind of any reasoning person, and there are issues to be raised here:
   1. How come the Muslim world has people engaging in such nefarious occupations in the name of Allah and prophet Muhammad and we don't see Islamic governements and institutions taking it upon themselves to wage an all-out war on these organisations - until something bad has happened? The Pakistani and Saudi Arabian governements (as far as I know) have a stance against supporting terrorism: and that is why they have become unpopular among many Muslims around the world who see them as allies with "the West."
   2. The group cited above does not seem to be quoting a soft-sell magazine when they said it was Allah in "His Book" who stated that Muslims are duty bound to 'fight and slay the pagans' after the forbidden months (Muslim holy months of fasting?_perhaps in reference to Sura 9.5?). So, what do Muslims say in the face of an Islamic group claiming justification from the Qur'an for their murderous intentions?
   3. How is it then that the Prophet Muhammad is given a face-lift as a man of peace when he says that Allah sent him "with a sword between [his] hands" in order to force the worship of Allah on other people? Does this not conflict with the statutes in Sura 2:256 ("There is no compulsion in religion, for the right way is clearly from the wrong way" and (Sura 16:82 "But if they turn away from you, (O Prophet remember that) your only duty is a clear delivery of the Message (entrusted to you"?
   4. We are often told that Muhammad came to preach the religion or message of Allah - and therefore he did not impose his own orders in Islam. Excuse me, but what verse or hadith was the Islamic group quoting of Muhammad when he said Allah "inflicts humiliation and scorn on those who disobey my orders" ("my orders" in that line clearly points to Muhammad's orders - not Allah's).

The group gave a list of three issues that they supposed were at stake, and an unbiased reader (Musilim, Christian, or other) who's acquainted with historical facts, knows immediately that facts have been twisted to sound like the group had reasons to justify their call for "Jihad." Anyone is free to counter my opinion about what is written in the communiqué, but I'd gladly present the facts for discussion in another thread if necessary.

At any rate, the group went on to say:

"On that basis, and in compliance with Allah's order, we issue the following fatwa to all Muslims:
The ruling to kill the Americans and their allies -- civilians and military -- is an individual duty for every Muslim who can do it in any country in which it is possible to do it, in order to liberate the al-Aqsa Mosque and the holy mosque [Mecca] from their grip, and in order for their armies to move out of all the lands of Islam, defeated and unable to threaten any Muslim. This is in accordance with the words of Almighty Allah, "and fight the pagans all together as they fight you all together," and "fight them until there is no more tumult or oppression, and there prevail justice and faith in Allah."

The question here is, how come every Muslim - in compliance with Allah's order - is to kill Americans (civilians and military) in any country in which it is possible to do it? So, if an American Muslim engineer goes to another country on call of his professional duty, he would not be counted as a Muslim, but killed because first and foremost he is American? Or again, a Muslim who is unfortunate to find himself in one of those countries "in which it is possible to do it" is also to be killed under the fatwa because he is a citizen of "their allies"?

We may sound unreasonable or accusative, and here I appeal that you don't necessarily write me off as such. The point that is just unacceptable to some of us is the excuse that anyone should go out to kill another person in the first place all in the name of protecting Allah or his prophet. I don't know what verse the group was referencing when they wrote: "Almighty Allah said: "O ye who believe, give your response to Allah and His Apostle, when He calleth you to that which will give you life. And know that Allah cometh between a man and his heart, and that it is He to whom ye shall all be gathered." How in the world am I to understand that when I take someone else's life, then I am being called to that which will give me life?

Something is intrinsically wrong with a system or mentality that requires me to kill my neighbour who did me no wrong or harm just because my Muslim leader issued a fatwa on his head for being a citizen of one of the countries "in which it is possible to do it"? Who was assaulting who in Saudi Arabia - the Americans? Or in northern Nigeria - the Americans occupying the northern states? Or in Iraq in the bombings of their holy place, the Mosque?

No, I cannot go out to kill anyone - especially my non-muslim neighbour who has done me no wrong at all - just because some verses in any holy book at all says I am called to that which will give me life when I take someone's life.

What does your Bible say?

But as for me, my feet were almost gone; my steps had well nigh slipped.
For I was envious at the foolish, when I saw the prosperity of the wicked.
They are not in trouble as other men; neither are they plagued like other men.

Verily I have cleansed my heart in vain, and washed my hands in innocency.
When I thought to know this, it was too painful for me;
Until I went into the sanctuary of God; then understood I their end.

For, lo, they that are far from thee shall perish: thou hast destroyed all them
that go a whoring from thee.

But it is good for me to draw near to God: I have put my trust in the Lord GOD, that I may declare all thy works.

- (Psalm 73 - please read the whole chapter)



Let us hold fast the profession of our faith without wavering; (for he is faithful
that promised

Cast not away therefore your confidence, which hath great recompence of
reward

But we are not of them who draw back unto perdition; but of them that believe to the saving of the soul.

- (Heb.10:23,35 & 39)



Casting all your care upon him; for he careth for you.

- (I Pet.5:7)

Stay with God - He never leaves nor forsakes those who still trust. Don't let the devil cheat you of your long battle for your salvation.

zebudaya:
How can you sit there and accuse others of doing what is not their duty when you yourself have not done anything? Is anybody here a police officer? - Seun_

If it is not the responsibility of Shehu of Borno, The Sultan of Sokoto, the Emir of Kano, The Imams , that zamfara idiot, and other so called leaders of Islam in Nigeria to educate their followers about the importance of non-violence. Whose duty is it?

He says it is my 'hypocritic' duty!

Seun:
If you are in a position to do more than just talking, then be my guest. Nobody is stopping you. However, it is hypocritical to criticize a muslim for saying "Islam is a religion of peace" when you are sitting on your ass, also doing nothing about the problem. This is a case of pot calling kettle black, and I strongly detest that sort of hypocrisy.

Seun, when you talk about hypocrisy, whose marque are you detesting - yours, mine, or the fundamentalist Muslim's? My own 'brand' of hypocrisy (according to you) is that I am "sitting on my ass doing nothing" in the face of threats on my life!!?? The fundamentalist Muslim's hypocrisy is that he claims that "Islam is a religion of peace" and does the exact opposite by taking innocent lives on no justified excuse other than a cartoon he has not even seen (and I am not to criticise that, abi?). Now, your own hypocrisy is that you sit down as much as I do and criticise me for being threatened with death, and also write me off as being 'hypocritical to criticize a muslim for saying "Islam is a religion of peace" when the Qur'an openly sanctions murder? Now see who's the pot calling kettle black. I am not half as intelligent as you are when it comes to confusing issues the way you do; but I certainly know that "talk" is cheap in the face of raw violence and murder.

When I read a thread, I want to feel the pen and brain of the writer. If he was writing merely about "religion" as being unhelpful to mankind, it would obviously have been easy to decipher in his writeup. However, he opens his thread with a direct statement that should turn the reader's attention on Christianity rather than on religion - "Welcome to Church!" Then he kept his skewed opinions focused more on the Christian faith than on anything else, as if Christianity is to be held responsible for his sleepless nights in the wake of the recent global religious disturbances.

Talk of "violations of human dignity" - was he not himself doing exactly that by trying to slur the faiths of other people? If religion has been abused by some, he should condemn the excesses - as indeed any sane member of any society would do, including me. But if, instead, he was all about atheism or secularism, that should not justify his attempts at casting aspersions on the worldviews or beliefs of other people.

Seun, your recommendations are ok as far as grandiloquence go. I'm not against dialogue, and would even go so far as to add 'tolerance' and 'peaceful co-existence', etc. We need those today more than ever.

But how do you stop a man with a matchet at your door and say, "Hold on,,, calm down,,, let's talk" Talk? He stares you in the face, grins, and with one sharp swing of his cutlass he comes down on you while chanting "Allah is the greatest!"

If I were far away from the scene of raw violence, it would have been easy to say the same thing as you recommend (and I'm not condemning it at all). But where were the police and law enforcement agents when the killings started for days in the north of Nigeria? Let's not forget that Christians made the concerted effort to "talk" and dialogue with their Muslim neighbours in the north; but they were ridiculed, laughed at, and derisively turned away from 'Government House.'

While people waited for "talk", the killings went on unabated. What would non-Muslims (whether Christians, pagans, non-religious, etc) have done under such circumstances? Now, the push is for dialogue; but back then at the moment of crises, what would have been your recommendations to the maddening crowd who didn't understand what it meant to "talk"?

Wait a minute, does it mean that there are no splits in the religion (Islam) that you are trying to 'explore'? Ok for you to say so with your wishful thinking, but how do you explain the rift between Muslims in Iraq today? And in Islamabad, Pakistan? And the recent attempts by 'Muslims' to bomb their own oil wells in Saudi Arabia? Christians have often been on the receiving end for all kinds of runaway accusations of your design, but no church in the UK is bombing oil wells or bombing and killing fellow Christians, are there?

chrisd, it's all well and good to turn on fellow Christians and blame them for almost anything you can think of, from sex scandal to acting like lunatics to being capitalists, etc. But remember that God will require one thing from you on Judgement Day: your faithfulness to Jesus Christ. You well remember that anything you do and say against any church or Christian is tantamount to doing exactly the same thing to Jesus Christ, don't you?

"And the King shall answer and say unto them, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto Me." (Matt.25:40).

So, let me guess: the thread was more about Christianity being responsible for violence in today's world than Islam, or what? Thanks for recognising Christianity as the dominant belief among the religious, but what's the purpose of your statistics? If you want to start another thread here on atheism, say so plainly and close your sob story of complaint against "the god-man known as Jesus." I've lost friends in the riots, my scars are still sore, the streets are not safe where I'm living - and you have the temerity to come here with your lollygag philosophy of pointing your single-ended stick on Christianity as the culprit? So much for your secularism and boasted "study" with no grasp on reality.

sorry choice.A - I thought you were not Catholic? I didn't mean to offend, but it was becoming awkward of chrisd to go on forever with his hate speech and making reference to how evil the pentecostal or protestant churches are, simply because of his marriage problem. The truth is there for all to see - if people who claim to be following Christ begin to go contrary to His teachings in the Bible, we are not under obligation to remain there; but we can go to other churches where people have respect for God's word. I know that not all Catholic priests were involved in the sex scandal; and in the same way, not all pentecostal churches are as 'lunatic' as chrisd wants everyone to believe. Again, I apologise if anyone got offended.

chrisd:
I been to pentecostal churches, and most of them it's just about showing off. All the pastor talks about is money, talking in tongues and acting like lunatics or a rock concert and fornication. So I returned to Catholic church. And many of them are opinionated, mainly comes from the pastor. My lady was pentecostal and was leading prayer meetings and cell groups. They kicked her out once they found out I'm a Catholic. The pastor said he'll better be Muslim than a Catholic. Does that make sense.

chrisd, when you make accusations like this, you're asking for more than you can swallow. I don't mean to offend anyone here (especially Catholics), but was it so long ago to have escaped your memory that the Catholic Church was involved in sex scandal? (You can find samplers here: http://www.boston.com/globe/spotlight/abuse/response/ and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_priests'_sex_abuse_scandal).

You don't have any substance in what you're posting as far as I'm concerned. Just because your wife got kicked out of her local pentecostal church does not mean that every pentecostal church is as evil as the image you're trying to establish. Your own version of Catholic Christianity is your personal cappuccino and should not become the launching pad for your virulent attacks on other Christians.