₦airaland Forum

^^^
I was responding in accordance to the OP so instead of researching I just ran with the interpretations granted by the OP because I assumed the author being Muslim that her definitions would sufficiently stand. I stand corrected then.
Actually after reviewing what I responded to again I believe I was following the authors mother’s definitions dismissing the following explanation from “however”...and that’s the fault of my comprehension – my apologies for being so hasty.

There have been so many misconceptions about hijab, what it entails and why it should be used. To youu, hijab is meant to conceal beauty? To me , the most important thing about using it is as an obedience to ALlah. Reading further, Allah describes it as something that distinguishes us from others(u can even tell a Muslim who wears scarf from others). it is also a sign of modesty. Apart from that is its role in keeping the 'sanity' of the populace(lack of a better word there). the possibility of a man lusting after a properly covered woman is definitely slimm when compared with an uncovered one of the same pedigree.

Well all my comments were tailored to the OP’s viewpoint or what I believed were the views of the OP...women who wear the hijab apparently potentially appearing less unattractive inspired that comment. Actually I had always associated the hijab with Muslim women portraying modesty according to my Muslimah friends anyway and that the crown of a woman’s beauty was to be reserved for her husband and of course obedience to the requirements of their faith.

Now we’re on this topic I hope you don’t mind me asking...do Muslim men work towards lowering the possibility of a woman lusting after them (just like Muslim women do in relation to men)?

I want to assume you'd agree that beauty isnt the primary thing people seek in marriage. A man who wants to marry someone wearing Niqaab must have done his homework. the only thing left would then be to see what she looks like. In that case, he is allowed to see her face and even a part of her body like her leg. This, she does in the presence of a mahram(a relative she can't marry ).

Again I was responding in accordance to the OP’s comment and I do agree with your point hence I asked that question.

Try have an understanding of the difference between Islamic and Arabic. As you are right now, you could be doing something Islamic without being a Muslim.

That’s a very good and interesting point. Point taken.

tbaba1234: Lol, Boonaa is aight

The Arabs at the time of the prophet were master poets, so poetry amongst muslims has a pretty long history::

Interesting...have you read poetry from Somalia aka "Land of poets"?

tbaba1234: Quran: Why Arabic?


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g7FcAy3KlbE&list=PL4E314305FD36766C&index=8&feature=plpp_video

...A way to spread dominance is through language and I’m sure the gentleman speaking knows this.

“The Arabs are not superior”...but having the “final revelation” conveyed solely via Arabic no doubt accords the Arabs a unique position. By the way which language(s) was the preceding revelation conveyed in?

So Arabic is a very “rich”, “nuanced” and “precise” language and apparently the most so in the history of any languages? Hhmm according to who?
But what about Greek? Or Latin?
These two languages are “rich”. So it still doesn't necessarily satisfy the question because if god then wanted to reveal the truth of itself in a rich and precise language then why not say...Greek or Latin?

The explanation that god merely employed Arabic because of it’s precision etc doesn't pale the fact that a language is part and parcel of one’s culture. Whether it was not gods intention to promote one culture over another doesn't eliminate the fact that it certainly has – of course not all aspects but facets of the Arabic culture.

It seems partial because it appears that a “powerful” being could not pervade societal barriers such as culture to reveal the truth of itself.

The message had to be “precise”, ok...

I understand that when one text is translated into another language it loses some essence. But if the message of god cannot be mapped out into other languages or relevant contexts due to the risk of loss in accuracy then that is not the deficiency or fault of such society but that in essence exposes a flaw or discrimination of some sort in god (after all we inherit what “he” has bestowed us with, “rich” language or not)...how can the truth of an all present being be limited and captured via one particular context?

In a way one could still consider it this way - the Italians were great artists for example...thus why didn't god reveal the truth of itself via Italian art?
The revelation had to be “precise”...but Master Artists like the Italians hailing from the Renaissance era were brilliant and skilled in capturing naturalism. Naturalism is that not precision, rich and nuanced?
The truth of an encompassing god doesn't necessarily have to be revealed by a specific “rich” “precise” “nuanced” language anyway...the truth could have also been revealed in addition through a “rich” “precise” “nuanced” music or art etc or is that too abstract? If so then it’s ironic because Islamic art is abstract.
Or if god could not have made the truth of itself manifest to all cultures precisely...could not god have employed a neutral medium that would not be seen to favour a particular populace?

So in order for me to fully understand the "truth" of Allah I have to learn (or memorize as some do) perfect Arabic because the truth is trapped in one context even though apparently god is supposed to be all pervading?

If I lost one of my senses then would I not still be able to receive data via any of my other capabilities?...The format and pattern of that data will be adapted to make up for that particular sense lost but if this data is only truthfully captured in one context alone and cannot be accurately or sufficiently relayed via other forms to the convenience of certain individuals then that individual through no fault of their own have lost out.
How does a blind person who has never had the sense of sight know how to paint clouds? How do they know of clouds? Because of what they have been told? Maybe...or maybe because of what they “sense” because without sight they were still able to “see”...without the knowledge of Arabic am I thus handicapped despite what I can sense?

The thing is...as pedantic as I am I can still look further at this “precise” medium and question why on earth are some fonts in the Quran printed bigger than others? Why are some fonts in different colours? But that doesn’t matter, right? Because essentially it’s all about the message. Thus if the “final revelation” was to be translated via Arabic, paint, recording or dance etc...the message should still be in tact or survive in other forms and not just one context alone because it actually limits its extension.
I understand that Muslims will try and preserve and protect the authenticity of that in which they call the “truth” but surely if one has faith in the being in which they call god then one should also trust that this god will never allow the truth to be hijacked because in its current context it appears exclusive and restricted.

tbaba1234: I will argue that it does not take a literary genius to recognize the beauty of the Quran any one with a rudimentary knowledge of classical arabic would see it.. We simply have to look at the earliest recipients to understand why..

Yes I bet it doesn't. But what about the Bible or Torah or even the Veda?
Does beauty reveal truth?

The Quran challenged the Arabs:

“Say: ‘If all mankind and the jinn would come together to produce the like of this Quran, they could not produce its like even though they exerted all and their strength in aiding one another.’” (Quran 17:8

No offence but isn’t this pretty cocky?

Sure it’s a challenge but it reeks of smugness. I bet the people who posed such challenge at the time had not even read all literary articles before they concluded that the Qu’ran was apparently the best of them all.

Read: Gender and the Shaping of Modern Jewish Identities Paula E. Hyma

Will do, cheers.

2. Put in the circumstances of revelation: an unlettered prophet (with no training) stumping the most eloquent people of his time...

That’s like a young untrained artist surpassing the talent of that of the masters of his/her time. Extraordinary phenomena has occurred in various times and various forms.

As regards a philosophical discovery of truth, we can talk about that: we do believe that our beliefs are based on rational grounds...

Ok...when?

Image123: What is the meaning of omnipresent?

Jenwitemi: Omnipresence simply means the ability to be present in every culture throughout the globe all at the same time. That would have eliminated the need for missionaries, crusades and jihads. But since the missionaries, crusades and jihads were needed to "spread" this god all over the planet, it completely removed this characteristic of omnipresence from the deity in question.

Image123: Also can you ask your question in english, emofine?

How can one context solely be employed to reveal the truth of an omnipresent being? Is that oyinbo enough for you?

tbaba1234: I Have Broken Free

[flash=500,400]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8L5UxFFY6F8[/flash]

Lol she was aware that her delivery was "sassy" I thought I was the only one not bad though.

I probably should be asking all this on the Muslim Q&A thread so excuse me. Tbaba is the Qur'an 3rd time lucky?

I ask because according to the testimonies of muslims the Quaran is a miracle; the Quaran is a miracle because it is said to be "uncorrupt" and therefore entirely authentic.

Now I could not help thinking that if not for the preceding books, would the Quaran have even existed? What I mean is, if the "holy" books that precede the Quaran according to Muslims was not "corrupted" via "mistranslations" and other sorts of tampering would the Quaran have existed as the answer to the perfect article?

I also wondered, if the other books were indeed "corrupted" how interesting that Allah never adopted a different context to convey and reveal the truth of "himself" - or was the Qu'ran only meant to be a correction to the alleged "corrupt" Abrahamic literary articles? If so, what of all other contextual forms that may have fallen victim to corruption also or is the Quaran an amendment to all distorted articles of varying forms?

I wondered about this because I thought was it not risky in employing a medium that had not apparently been successful before due to "mistranslations" etc...because if an employed system has failed the first time and perhaps a second time some consider changing the system. Well I suppose some Muslims may claim that the Quaran is a different system because it still till date maintains the original translation but could not a new medium (as opposed to a book) have been adopted?
Not only because the other two books according to Muslims have lost it's authenticity but because if a book already governs other belief systems why would Islam indeed follow that format (or was a book the required standard?) which may render Islam inseparable from the other like faiths i.e. Islam and Christianity are often studied as a pair due to similarities such as the adopted medium.

Are the Abrahamic faiths meant to complement each other?

Tbaba, how important do you think text plays in faith? I've often wondered about this because at least with Islam and Christianity for example, they can cite quotes to compare and contrast each other's faith.

P.S. I loved the melody in the background of the video embedded.

Is spoken word an important component in Islam?

I take back what I said about Boonaa. I'm not a semi-fan anymore. I am a fan.

nene1: She said that we are different from arab women and that it is their culture. However, this is something that a MUSLIM woman should wear regardless of their culture or race as anyone can be muslim. Besides, not all arabs are muslims and the Christian Arabs do not wear hijab.

If so, if an African woman was to dress modestly must she wear an Arabic traditional attire? I understand that some regard the hijab as perhaps an Islamic uniform but that doesn't still negate the fact that it is traditionally Arabic.

Some young African women who try to appear “modern” or some may call it “western” in terms of fashion tailor their traditional African fabrics into a “western” syntax thus could not a Muslim African woman consider doing such?

BTW I do love the Hijab though but I don’t understand the idea of adopting another traditional attire as a mark of being “modest” or “muslimy”

How many "modern" and well-educated AFRICAN muslim men would actually want a hijabi or would they think she is backwards or unattractive. I think this is why so many women who wear hijab try to do extra things to look attractive b/c they have to compete with non-hijabis who can do things with their hair and show more skin.

Yes, the point of a hijab is to be modest, but modest does not mean you have to look unattractive or cannot look pretty. I think it is important for your future husband to have some type of physical attraction to you whether you wear hijab or not.

This is actually the irony. The beauty of an attractive woman will still resonate no matter her attire (well I mean no matter how she tries to conceal and not highlight it). The majority of hijab clad women I have seen were very beautiful that I often thought erm...is this really a design to conceal one’s beauty because to me it enhances it in some way...but maybe because I find eyes to be very beautiful...for another it could be hair or something...so erm maybe it’s just me

As a non-Muslim to a Muslimah, if you feel the hijab is appropriate for you and a reflection of your faith and not because of another human being (especially a man) then really you shouldn't be conflicted or perhaps even unconfident about adorning yourself in the attire.

I think it is important for your future husband to have some type of physical attraction to you whether you wear hijab or not.

What about ladies wearing the niqab?

tbaba1234: The speaker tries to show a few of the literary subtlety of the Quran. Making a discussion on whether this is God's word is left to individuals.


Tell me what you think about it?

Orature is an art.

Literature is an art.

Language is an art.

Art is subjective thus not everybody will comprehend or appreciate the Qu'aran or consider the article as a sole work of truth. But there are truths in art.

But I find it intriguing that if there is one god, one truth, one absolute answer then can an objective answer be conveyed in one truth via a subjective medium?

How do people arrive at one answer via a subjective tool?

Do not Jewish people take the maternal side thus Jesus is a Jew, right? @ 18:00 mins+

How different is this guy and his trajectory from another individual whose course was similar (i.e. philosophy/atheism etc) but decided to be an orthodox/Christian etc.
I ask because it was what he found substance in which would of course differ from person to person...are humans seeking for differing (personal) truths or universal truth? Does the truth have one colour alone?

P.S. I see you've updated. So I need to watch the last couple of vids you've embedded because I reviewed the other vids a few weeks back before structuring my response. By the way Tbaba what do you think about philosophy?

Kay 17: An omnipresent being like God will have impression of that essence in every culture and thought

+1

Jenwitemi: It is all lies, emofine. I have asked this same question since i was a kid and i concluded that the claim of omnipresence is all bogus shyte. Why do i, a yoruba person, have to read jewish mythology to get close to an omnipresent God? That was the question i kept asking myself back in the days.

If this god i was reading about in this book is truly omnipresent, then why the Bleep do i have to read about him in a jewish scripture first before knowing him?. Some very smart people are just trying to play on my intelligence was my conclusion. If this god was omnipresent, then i would've known him without the bible.

I never could quite grasp it myself . How does it seem feasible and unquestionable that I as an African in order to connect to god - an omnipresent one at that – will have to go through the Persona of a Jewish rabbi that is far removed from me in so many ways?

Is it possible that an omnipresent god could not have revealed the truth of itself to any society or on any continent for a huge length of time?

We all have differing ways of collecting and relaying information thus could not an omnipresent god be conveyed or reflected in various contextual forms according to the comprehension of particular societies/individuals?

The weird irony is, claiming to be the sole owners of the truth and claiming that the truth of god has been revealed through a specific context alone actually reduces an omnipresent being into a static entity.

AlvinPlantinga: The problem here being that most of the questions asked, including this one are strawmen arguments.even hardened Atheis Philosphers would not take serious many of the questions asked here.

I agree with regards to some questions posed here (even some of the questions I asked in the past were questionable) but that may depend on the motives for asking a question.

As regards to this particular question being a “strawman argument”...well I guess that largely depends on how one interprets the question. All text is open to interpretation after all (even “holy” ones).

But let me concede that “truth” cannot be presented to everyone at all time just like in our world there are particular topics or revelations that some are not capable of comprehending particularly at a tender age and thus may have to wait for maturity or of a required age to understand. But when I wrote “all people at all time” I simply meant everyone or people from everywhere.

***

So in the 15th century is when the truth of an omnipresent god was finally revealed to Sub Sahara Africa? - Even earlier if we consider Islam in West Africa...What about South America and the likes? (Were we actually the least of god's priority?)

So an omnipresent being could not have been revealed without a particular medium being solely adopted? Without a particular group of people being exclusively privy to the "truth"?

If all living things and unexplainable phenomenon alludes to god then there are many revelations of god. If there are many revelations and evidence of god (which I have not denied) then there are various contexts in which the “truth” could be captured and not just as a literary article.
If god is omnipresent, how can this all enveloping presence be captured particularly in one medium or context alone at a particular period that most definitely favours a particular group of people?

So how do we know for sure that the various articles that other societies possessed were not a legitimate pointer to god in which in our various communities at one time could only be interpreted and comprehended within the context of one’s society?

The Kunama and the Shona people to name but a few believed in the concept of one god before the arrival of the missionaries. So if there is truly one god how did the revelation of “one god” become revealed to these people? A lucky guess? Coincidence? Because god could not have revealed the truth of itself to Africans and other “ethnic minorities” without a translator abi?

Furthermore there were particular groups on the continent that claim their own traditional belief system had striking similarities with certain religions of the Abrahamic faiths. Even most or all of the “ten commandments” was a blueprint in certain societies before any of the Holy Scriptures were published.

If we are to accept an omnipresent god in the parcel of religion, can religion be divorced from its origin/culture?
Can an omnipresent god not be mapped out into all cultures?

“strawman argument”? Not at all but my "argument" is certainly for all men of different creeds and backgrounds.

erm...logicboy my intention for asking this question or any other kinds of question here is not to “debunk” anyone’s faith. Faith is largely personal and that to me is sacrosanct.
However questioning certain aspects of a particular belief-system (at least in my own regards) is to understand what inspires some believers inclination towards their faith or yes even to draw a believer’s attention to what one may perceive as an inconsistency that thus may need explaining.

Once upon a time I asked amongst scarce replies. . .

Could not the being in which believers call god manifest the truth of itself in contextually relevant ways to all people at all time?

Is it not ironic that an "omnipresent" god according to some faiths can only be truthfully conveyed via one context from a particular period?

logicboy: Would a world without religion be better?

In the absence of religion, harmony will still be elusive. Once upon a time that experiment was conducted in Eastern Europe. Remember the Soviet Union? (Although that was a dictatorship).

Some of the wildest fanatics I have ever had the displeasure of encountering were a couple of English football fans.

Some of us will fiercely fight and protect that in which we support or believe in be it religion or otherwise.

Humans and emotions eh. . . hmmm can emotions guide us to the/a truth?

Without religion how much of a society's culture will be left?

Also think about[b]
-How would the world be if everyone was christian?
-How would the world be if everyone was muslim?[/b]

Lol if the population of the world all happened to be either Muslim or Christian (aside from varying denominations which may cause friction) what then will be the point of heaven and hell?
If everyone won the lottery the prize will be meaningless? Do we all win or Do we all lose?

-How would the world be if everyone was atheist

Now this is an interesting question.

If we were all atheists would we accord exclusive ownership of "Christmas" to Santa Claus?

Even within each demographic there is diversity, and hence there are degrees in each class. Atheists are humans so as humans atheists will still exercise faith (not in the legitimacy of a god(s)) but in man, lovers, art etc.

We may actually be more divided without "religion".

ijawkid: What about a world without atheist?

Another interesting question.

However I'm relieved that mankind is not exclusively one or the other....despite the disharmony and arguments if not for theology, science, philosophy, unbelievers and believers etc some of us may have been complacent in whatever we've been told and not be motivated/challenged to independently seek, confirm search for answers/truth.

*sigh*

Please don’t be deliberately obtuse. How many “believers” are governed by fear simply because they believe if they don’t believe in god they’ll perish in the lake of fire? Thus did not the threat of hell force some into making a decision to adhere to god?

I agree it’s still a “choice” one has the responsibility for themselves to decide but it’s a limited one in favour of God.

logicboy: you must choose the maker's correct answer

Precisely.

Buzugee, I’m not talking about the daily individual decisions we have the free choice to make and bare the consequences thereof. I’m exclusively discussing this so called god-given “free will”. The “free will” that grants us the apparent right to choose whether one adheres to god or not. Yet if one makes the initial decision not to worship god there is the threat of hell to bare much weight on such a person’s ultimate decision. Does this not sound like extortion? How can one exercise their free will when they are effectively being blackmailed?
Worship me or die does not resemble free will. It’s an ultimatum.

Guys (Logic Mind + ea7) please stop the personal jibes.

Image123: It's like multiple choice, there's only one right answer. Is multiple choice unfair or a coercion?

Except it’s not really a “choice” it’s an ultimatum. It’s not even the threat to set ablaze those who fail to yield to “Him” that I find most conceited but the demand for worship. How much effect can a mere mortal’s belief have on god?

2good: Free will doesn't make sense if God is omniscience and knows all things from the beginning to the end because that will also means he knew the devil was going to rebel against him before he created him and still went ahead to create the devil. He also knew whether we will all go to heaven or hell before creating us yet he did. It is only people that want to deceive themselves that will still hold on to the notion of free will they were brainwashed with from childhood. Within the limit of man, we can talk about free will because we don't know our tomorrow since we are not omniscience. But when you talk about a knower of everything giving free will, then you are definitely deceiving yourself as it contradicts the most basics of reasoning.

I also don't subscribe to this notion of “free will” apparently given by god. A being that engineered the whole system and limited the options to servitude or damnation which is akin to blackmail so as a result those that don’t adhere to “him” will be made to suffer. When one is cornered how does that equate to “free will”?

“Free will” will be more plausible if people made any independent decision themselves and not be restricted by limited available options.

Joel, if you don't mind me asking . . .are you a Jehovah Witness?