₦airaland Forum

deols: I saw plenty o. You need to go out tomorrow and especially if tomorrow is the first of Ramadan to confirm.


Talking hot whether, you need to ask people in the middle east and North/East Africa.

A brother who just arrived from egypt some days ago marvelled at the heat over der o!!! May Allah help them and make it easy for us all.

deols: The 'cool' weather depends on where you are. But a cool weather anywhere is a good thing.


I also notice that oranges(which is the main fruit eaten in Ramadan in the south west) comes out during Ramadan.



Is this some form of miracle to make Ramadan easier for us? I want to believe it is.

I'm not so sure we have the hot weather at many places around the world this time.

Oranges is no doubt a favourite around here and I've also pondered on the annual miraculous coincidence. But I've not been seeing the balls lately anyway.

My favourite verse depends on the genre (mystery, literature, science et al), while my best verse varies with time. So;

For now, my best verse is in suratul-ghashiyah, where Allah talks of the camel. It says:

"Do they not look at the Camels, how they are made? [17]" and verily, science has it that the camel has many mysterious features, that makes it a special animal.

My best surah for now is suratul-yusuff. No matter how frequently you read the story time and time again, you just can't help but get engrossed over and over again. Indeed, Allah is the best storyteller.

Hmmm...

I think fasting is easier with this type of cool weather, unlike in the hot ones when you'll get dehydrated. Anyway, I'm not mostly into food things during ramadan (but don't try me on normal days ), so I prefer the light meals for sahur mostly, and fatur may require little heavy meals. Fruits and milk is highly preferred by me for iftar, followed by the real meal. May Allah accept it as an act of ibadah.

My feelings change from a big smile to a deep sense of thought when I see a mere islamic related article, news or opinion, turn on the ever-confronting switch of inferiority in the non-muslims on NL.

But seriously, don't they think that they need to save themselves some dose of hypertension on some of this cases?

Mintayo: if she had picked all ur words and talk abt them,will u believe her?
Jesus did not wash His disciple's feet to contact GOD,it is a wrong interpretation on ur side;d person u quote has given u d right answer to why Jesus washedd their feet.
You cnt bribe God with works or deeds,God is nt moved by that!
And for d record,Jesus did not do any ablution neither His disciple!
An unclad body is nt a condemned heart to God(i pray u understand what i mean); God dnt condemn a sinner,He only condemn d Sin d person is committing-thank God for d finished work of Christ! God loves a sinner,He only have issues with d sin being committed by d person-Jesus died for everybody regardless of ur sin!

I don't think I'm up to force you to believe that washing of the feet is ablution and I agree that it MAY be a misintepretation by me, but what would you call that of Moses, Aaron and the sons'? (Exodus 40:32)

See, you guys really need to go beyond the demacations of the church's doctrines to find out somethings for your own selves. Stop being so dogmatic and bigotic.

The unclad body that is not condemned by GOD is that which finds the act as an unpleasant one, is willing to repent and not go back to the form of dressing any longer. You can't think a person dresses to harrase the men of God in the churches and still wants to move with God. The problem with christianity is that modern civilization has been allowed to have a great effect on the basis, and the church has designed the doctrines to blend and roll with the day to day changes of the world. That is why every modern indecency that comes with civilisation is found in the church practice.

andromida: Jesus did not wash the disciples feet in preparation for prayers. It was Jewish custom for the host to provide water for guests to wash their feet usually servants did the washing of the feet simply because the roads were very dusty and to show hospitality. This is not ablution and the custom was not practiced by the jews only,other ancient civilization had been doing this. Why don't you wipe your feet with a towel after ablution? again this is not ablution Jesus was leading by example teaching them servant leadership.

Worshiping God truly lies in the heart. When the heart is right everything will fall into place they will get there if they continue in their walk with God.

I think you need a constructive understanding of the bible. I never meant prayers, I said making a CONTACT WITH GOD. Making a contact with God does not only go for prayers. When you do things as stated by God's rule, when you praise Him, in fact, when you only remember GOD, you are in contact with Him. I'm Islam, there's a way of doing EVERYTHING (sleeping, eating, urinating, etc) and when you go through those ethics, you are maintaining a contact with God. The thing is when one has a valid ablution like that of Jesus and the desciples, one has maintained a contact with God.

How can the heart be right when the body is failing. The two works together. The body gives the picture of the heart. An unclad body definitely paints a condemned heart. That is a weak defence used in pocket evangelism. You can't even bear a person to accompany you for a contract when he's not well dressed and you expect an indecently dressed person to take a walk with God.

I'm not too satisfied with the way you pick some of my words an keep quiet on the remaining. Why don't you react to all or agree some are true?..

Salaam brother.

Indeed, it is God that makes all things easy no matter how little or heavy it is. I don't know if this is acceptable or if it is bidia'h but I think you should try this technique because it helped me.

Try it first by praying whenever it comes to your mind to do so. Enter into the prayer even if you find it uneasy to do the outstanding ones. Then, after each prayer you do, ask for Allah's strenght to help you in your deen. May Allah make it easy insha ALLAH.

andromida: Washing of feet by Jesus was to teach the need for humility and show that to lead you must learn to and be willing to serve. Learn the lesson don't be trapped in the fault finding maze.

Yes my church gives interpretation to tongues as appropriate.

Your opinion of etiquette in the bible does not make it a standard.The Bible does tell me not to judge.. Just because some people's sin is out there for everyone to see does not make you better. It is in bad taste to be indecently dressed at any point in time. Thank God you know what the Bible says about homo.Its an individual thing not a christian thing.

@the bolded you need to reread my previous posts.

Now I think you, just like every other xtian folks have gotten it wrong somewhere there. Like I said earlier The church has been made to choose what and what to believe by most xtians. The point is this; all these prophets sent by God to man have come to aside, bring us the message of HIS oneness, to teah us the right way of life physically, morally and spiritually by their words and actions. These three aspects cannot be seperated, but the church has skillfully made a biased selection.

Washing of the feet for example, has these three aspect of teaching;
* teaching to become a servant leader as you have said, by Jesus washing their feets for them. (Moral)
* teaching cleanliness, by washing the feet, heads and arms. (Physical)
* teaching the desciples a procedure of getting prepared to make a contact with GOD (as in ablution). (Spiritual).

Not only Jesus christ that did it in the bible, “(Moses, Aaron and his sons) washed their hands and feet whenever they entered the Tent of Meeting or approaching the altar, as the Lord commanded Moses...” (Exodus 40:32).

If the physical teachings are not so relevant, why would you condemn the unclad dressings to church when they believe "worshipping God lies in the heart".

I am not getting any trapped in fault finding maze. I understand my plights. You'll agree with me that your church (of which I doubt as if I'm entitled to doubting) is just one in a million churches that do the interpretation of tongues. Then if that is so, is the christian world not failing?

If the bible condemns homo acts and the reverends approves it's solemnization, are the christians following the biblical etiquettes?. Watch out for the new thread by me , please. The dialogue don't belong here.

nzechu: quran says man was ceated from nothing

golpen says this


hahahaha

welcome to the world of truth

I won't blame you. The bible is full of the acts you have just perpetrated. Quoting out of context and (probably intentional) misconceptions. I'm sure some reasonable people will go back up to read the original version of what I said. I think we are off this part bro, let's move on. Who knows, you may come back to your right senses there. Part 2 is underway

Still waiting on @andrmida o!!!...

truthman2012: I love your rational argument here. At least we have reached some agreements:

1. Adam and Eve were not created from clot, which is one of the basis of this thread. Good

2. Man was created from something, not nothing even though the something came from nothing. Good.

CONCLUSION:

At creation man (Adam and Evil) was not created from clot according to the quran.

Man was not created from nothing but something, i.e. dust, clay or mud, which was or were the raw materials used.

With these I think I can go to the part 2 of the study of the quran.

Thank you.

Adam and Eve were not created from clot of blood. HE created Adam from dust. Which points to the verse in your reference list. Every other man is also from dust, passing through the process of procreation, part of which is the clot stage. No contradictions.

No matter how hard we fail to not want to realise, the point from which creation of every man starts is NOTHING. No contradictions. Thank you.

Let's see what your part 2 holds and we'll hope you have a more rational absorption there.

Who am I to force you to listen to an argument. But Dr Campbell tried his best (even after studying the Qur'an for 14 yrs) and came up with a book (Qur'an in the light of science) fumbling on some verses of the Qur'an and claims it doesn't correlate with the Qur'an. I'm sure he wouldn't have been short of knowledge in the things of the spirit if he had gone away with it. The dialogue actually shortened his spiritual knowledge and bigotic views.

truthman2012: 1. Can you answer this question? Were Adam and Eve created from clot?

2. The contradiction is not only in 'clot' alone but also in 'nothing'. That God made use of existing materials proves man was not created from 'nothing' but from 'something' i.e dust, clay, mud etc.

Thank you.

I have tried as much as possible to answer your questions, but it seems to me you intentionally don't want to understand.

- Adam and Eve were not created from clot. They were created from dust (soil). The clot you are even talking about is after a series of stages as part of what you'll call proreation. There's no contradiction. Let's try to put it this way;

Adam was created from dust. Eve was created from Adam. Then we can say Eve was a creature made from dust!!! Embryology has proven it right that clot of blood stage is in reproduction.

- yes I agree that man was created from something. Something that was made from "nothing". No matter how hard you argue, the start point of creation starts from nothing to somethings.

Thank you.

truthman2012: According to the Bible, God created for six days and ceased creating the seventh day, which is called rest. He was said to rest because He had finished the work of creation, no more thing to create. After the creation God had stopped creating by His Personal Self as He had created clot in man to continue reproduction.

But at creation there was no human clot available to be used and that was why He used dust. To use clot at that time would require a woman in whose womb the process of child bearing would take place and Eve was not yet in existence.

Therefore man could not have been created from clot at creation but procreation unless YOU ARE SAYING GOD CREATED MAN FROM CLOT EXCEPT ADAM AND EVE, and this not what quran says.

I think with this post of yours, you have agreed with me to an extent. The only problem I see us having is you trying to seperate 'creation' and 'pro-creation' which is not possible at least in this aspect.

I'm saying it again that procreation is a stage in creation. Creating Adam from dust is a means of starting procreation by creation and that is why ALLAH has laid emphasis on Adam in that particular verse. Procreation in the process follows (still from soil point) according to my forst post here. No contradiction.

I think @udatso should have posted a link or refered us to download the video. Kudos to you anyway, Jazaka LLAHU.

@truthman2012, I remember I have once refered you to download this video in question, but I don't think you have. Maybe when you do and watch it, you may be able to try not to sleep off when Dr Campbell delivers his arguments and also try to save him from the hands of Dr Naik's questions.

Maybe you should produce your Qur'anic references for your claims. It will help my explanation.

truthman2012: Thank for being polite in your approach this time. I'm sure you remember me quite well.

All you have explained about agriculture boils down to procreation. It is true there was nothing before God created anything but the fact remains that everything became something as soon as it was created. Once created, it is no more nothing but something. Agreed?

Something of great interest to to me is this statement of yours: "The male organ produces the SPERM, which with order secretion, is stored, then proceeds to become a 'clot of blood', then the leech like substance and so on, according to the Qur'anic analysis of Dr Keith L. Moore.

This is the point am driving at. "the male organ produces SPERM. If man was created from clot, whose clot did God use to create Adam as there was no male organ to produce sperm when he was being created. Therefore how correct is it to say God created man from clot? Whose clot? Waiting!!!

All your questions have been answered in my earlier post. Procreation is a stage of creation, they cannot be seperated. something, once created from nothing only removes it from the stage of being nothing. It does not cancel the fact that the point starts from zero.

The Adam case you are hinting at is the begining of creation, of which the other stages of procreation are attained. You can see that in the point you quoted. ALLAH specifically points at Adam (not man generally) in that verse. So once he was created, the other ingredients can be used and the stages of procreation can be attained for procreation. Read my earlier post again. You'll understand better.

Alhamdulillah! It's a cool world here. Some parts are better and some are worse.

I remember last Ramadan when a man called to ask if despite not taking sahur and iftar, their fasts can still be accepted by ALLAH.

I was driven to tears but the arab guest on the program actually cried. We can only TRY to help them if we can, we pray ALLAH, the banisher of distress to please come to the aid of the distressed muslims around the world.

Procreation is part of creation, so if that is true, saying man was created by/from substances of procreation is not a fallacy. If the illustrations you have don't convince you, then I'll to put it to you in another way, but I think its good muslims still have somethings to say about the Qur'an while all you personally could do was accept that they are human ERRORS that found their way in GOD's supposed scripture.

The crux is whether man was created from "nothing, dust, clay, sperm, clot of blood". I'll try as much to give you a more comprehensive explanation.

NOTHING; there was NOTHING before ALLAH created every substance that he used in creating everything. Therefore, creation starts from point zero, to the peak of stages.

Dust is a component of soil, if you'll agree with me, and clay as a type of soil has dust too. Your point 2 points to the creation of Adam, as the begining of human. Removing Eve from his body part still goes in line with the fact.

Let me take you on a trip to agriculture. When you plant a seed, it germinates, grows, becomes ripe to feed on. Feeding/nutrition helps the body in several ways part of which is growth. Growth in every system of the body- respiratory, digestive, reproductive and so on. Here let's proceed from reproduction if you agree with me.

The reproductive enzymes and secretion are produced as end product of the food we eat. That is why improved nutrition has been said to be a strong reason for the new age rapid growth and early puberty stages attained by the young ones.

The male organ produces the SPERM, which with order secretion, is stored, then proceeds to become a 'clot of blood', then the leech like substance and so on, according to the Qur'anic analysis of Dr Keith L. Moore.

The point is this;

Going back to agriculture, the seed planted germinates to NOTHING before the proceedings of the plant's growth. Therefore, every food that comes from the soil has a component of the SOIL itself, which may be CLAY. Feeding on the soil componented food, to have an healthy reproductive secretion such as SPERM, forms the CLOT OF BLOOD and then following the Dr Keith's analysis (search his analysis please) before we have the new creation.

The stage from creation starts from NOTHING to through the other stages. Each stage needs the other in order to have the creation and also, each stage may just be the last (which may mean no creation), therefore a fresh stage is a begining. ALLAH KNOWS BEST.

andromida: You make me smile. Anyway in fulfilling the law yes it was nullified.Again christians will fulfill the law without being subject to it. About women look up the story of Deborah in the OT also look up the story of Esther. A woman can lead if engraced by God.

If the church chooses to celebrate the birth of christ on any one day so be it. Christians are not complaining. We all know why christmas is on that day but that is another talk for another day.

In christendom revelation is an ongoing thing. But the basics never change. This is one of the mission of the holy spirit.How do you know they don't follow the etiquette in the Bible? Did you just assume or are you confused?

If this few makes you smile, then I think the remaining won't stop to make you laugh. But why even smile at my curiosity when you don't have answers to them?

- in fulfilling the law, you must nullify it? How?

- christians fulfil the law without being subject to it? How?

- if you say a woman (who is graced by God) can speak in the church, then show me where the bible says that.
* And if you find, your claim that OT and NT confirms each other has been refutted by you.
* if you can't, then your fabrication is claiming that the bible is lying in that aspect.

- I see you get a like from someone, for saying that the christian world, derailed from the bible and makes christianity so structureless to choose a day on their own as the day of christ's birth, when the bible asks to make thorough findings and establish the TRUTH. It's a pity that most christians don't even knw the root of celebrating xmas, but they join in the baseless celebration and give this kind of confronting answer, when asked about xmas.

How won't I know that christians don't follow the etiquettes of the bible.

- Does your church give interpretations to the foreign tongues according to the bible? If truthfully yes, how many church does it?

- how many times has your priest washed your feet and some parts of your body, like jesus did to his desciples, so that they may have a share in him?

- does the bible ask your brides to expose their cleavages in their gowns to the solemnizing priests or does it teach the ladies to dress almost unclad to the church?

- homo acts is prohibited according to the bible, but why is it that churches engage in it, even ther reverends?

This is just a few to show that I'm not confused. This should make you laugh.

andromida: Christianity is clearly different from judaism. No one was called a christian while Christ himself was alive. You talk of the law,you should read matt 5:38-39 “You have heard that it was said, ‘An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.’ But I say to you, Do not resist the one who is evil. But if anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. This is just for a drip of understanding that the covenant was replaced.

1. The rules are documented for us to study,learn and understand God, his nature,his agenda,his purpose,his power through time all working towards the coming of Christ himself. When you read the bible as a whole book not looking for errors you will understand.

2.The Bible is clear that believers in Christ Jesus as propitiation for their sins (Christians) are not subject to the law.

3.The Bible consist of the OT and the new testament the old testament confirms the new testament. Precept upon precept,truth upon truth.

4.I don't get this question but i'll try- Yes Jesus has fulfilled the law. when you say enforce you mean a different thing, when you say fulfill it means something else by his death the law was fulfilled. For many of the laws pointed to him a constant sacrifice, a constant shedding of blood for atonement of sins by the high priest. Jesus is now our high priest and his blood speaks a better covenant.The morality of the law was in his way of life. Which is why the early believers were called Christians. Note they did not call themselves Christians but were so called by people who observed their way of life- they acted like Christ. This is the spiritual aspect of that saying.

5.Christians don't choose which law to adhere to by being in Christ the laws are written in our hearts. They can read and learn from it.Christ encompasses the law. All believers should be like Christ and so all believers should fulfill the law without being in subjection to it. However, most times becoming Christ like is a gradual process and not every one reaches spiritual maturity while on earth.

John 13:34 A new commandment I give unto you, That ye love one another; as I have loved you, that ye also love one another.
New in the sense of the pattern highlighted above,not in the old sense of law and fear of consequences of sin but the spirit of love, meekness without judgement not just to and for believers but any other person. And by love serve one another.

A nice cook up you have there...

But I won't like you to get hooked up in your own words, so I'll like to help you a bit. Let me give you a series of deductions from your write up (just a few).


-if it was after the death of christ that pagans actually named some sect christians, it means that those jesus met were jews and some other tribes. So fulfilling the law as he meant, should have been met for them as jews and not to be not for them as believing him, because he never claimed believing in him will segregate you from the laws.

-I'll agree with you that it is to fulfil despite I've read it in some earlier versions as 'enforce', but if it is to fulfil truly as I agree, then the documents I think should help in fulfilling those laws, not segregating the christians from adhering to them.

-yes I already knw the classificational content of the bible (the OT and NT), but I'd rather you say the NT confirms the OT, because the NT is the later. If you'll agree with that, then I'll proceed to disagree with you about one confirming one. With your words, if the christians are not subjected to the law, then it means the new testament is nullifying the old, not confirming it.

-i'll agree that christians don't choose which law to adhere to, but I'll put it as 'the church makes the choice'. Christians are the ones who have not looked into the bible themselves, they rather let the church interprete what is vivid to them. Jesus christ has not cancelled the law that asks 'women to keep quiet in churches, but the pastors have made it lawful because of their wives. The act of speaking in tongues has ethics and etiquettes in the bible, but the church has made it a free-way zone. Christmas day has not been documented anywhere in the bible, but the church has chosen an idol worship day as celebrating the birth of christ.

I understand you had to go for some research in trying to answer my question. If you need any reference as to any of my points here, to help you in your research, I'll be willing to help at your request. Thank you.

andromida: Tbaba you must stop this falsehood. Acquaint yourself with history Christianity and Judaism are different but in your zeal to prove the untenable you conveniently become negligent in your studies. Study to show yourself approved a worthy student so that when you speak you will be believed. This scriptures you have quoted were in existence 100 of years before the coming of Christ and you know it. And its not Old testament Vs New testament it is the fact that Judaism is NOT Christianity. Read the rules for Christians in the same bible. All you are doing is playing rofo rofo to win.

@andromida;

This is share hypocrisy. When a rule is set out in the bible and the church finds it as not in correlation with modern civilisation, hence relegating the image of christianity, they either claim it is for the jews (forgetting thath the judaism has its own tamul scriptures) or it is in the OT, which makes it an old rule (forgetting that Jesus himself claimed in the bible that he has come NOT to nullify those rules, but to enforce them)

If you claim those rules you have there are for the jews, then you'll have to answer this questions;

1. Since xtianity is different from judaism, then what are this rules in the bible for?

2. Has the bible stated, that those rules are for the JEWS ALONE?

3. Will you say that the bible is adopting or including the rules of the jews for its own comfirmation?

4. Are we to decline from Jesus' claims of coming to enforce the law?

5. Are christians to adhere only to the laws of the OT, such as the 10 commandments and other laws that are found affordable and nullify the others?

Please create an answer to these, before we proceed. Thanks.

I'm still amazed by the way xtians are becoming irrational about this issue. If you all insist that Jesus died, then you are calling Jesus himself a liar! And if you insist the Qur'an must tell you in that verse that the raising up must be twice, then you are blaming Jesus for not saying his own will be a bit different from that of Jonah (who didn't die).

You guys have been tied in between your confusion. You guys have always read a series of hadith and condemned the prophet out of your bigotic ignorance, but have not taken your time to read the hadith as to how Jesus will be descended when he visits the earth the second time.

The words of ALLAH are designed to interwovenly support themselves (no contradictions). You guys are yet to keep up with the mystery and can never find a fault no matter how anatagonising your views are. Verily, HE hath challenged you all unbileivers, to bring forth your own verses, if you'll ever match that of the Qur'an. Some of you are begining to see the truth, but your natural hate, or coyness to see people 'whoa' at you for accepting is depriving you your freedom and that won't also help you.

I love prophet ISA (pbuh). There's one thing I've always taken notice of his mode of teaching. He makes illustration his key to open hearts to his lectures.

Will my christian people here agree with me that the illustration jesus christ gave as the type of the miracle he shall shewn his people is that of jonah (who spent 3days and 3 nights in the belly of the fish) and jesus said "so shall the son of man (I.e him) spend it in the heart of the earth. I will be derailing this thread with a fresh argument should I ask if jonah was alive or dead (xtians will start fumbling for words to paint him as dead), but the fact was that "he was alive". Then if we are to agree with the fact of jonah's livelihood coupled with the fact that jesus' illustration is to be adhered to, then it proves he (ISA) did not die.

The bible even started fumbling from the begining, as it was not sure if it was Jesus himself who carried the cross to golgotha or simon of cyrene.

Now to the verse quoted.

Blessing be to him, the day he was born. Every muslims agree and say a very big ameen to that.

Blessings be to him the day HE WOULD DIE; every muslim believes he is coming back to fulfil his destiny and afterwards, he shall DIE.

Blessings be unto him, the day he shall be raised; and yes!, he shall be raised when every bit of every soul is raised.

I'll only hope my explanation can help you, but I'll like you guys to look for another means of claiming jesus christ died. This one won't help you.

^^^

And besides, how do I question Allah's hate and anger on the jews and christians?..they are the most hypocrytic of humans, spoiling the land. And they are very perfect at manipulations.

When you tell them the truth about what the bible says and they find it as relegating the christian image, they say it is old testament, forgetting that Jesus christ himself, said (in the bible)that he has not come to nullify THOSE laws, but to enforce it.

The funny but logical thing is, that their pastors' prayers are still being answered. Let them paste a picture of an actor (who acted Jesus) in their rooms and pray to him, let them call the name JESUS as if that was the name given ti that man himself, but thank God linguistic has never noticed a pronunciation of "J" in hebrew or aramaid (the native language of jesus). Afterall, that is the only means they (pastors) have to acquire their private jets.

I think sometimes, human become so beclouded by some things that gets them foolhardy. For instance, we have very many cases like this, where the only hinderance the couple think they have is the bi-religion issue (that, is if it gives them any worries).

I think marriage is one very delicate decision human can make. It is in the sense that, it reflects in a both's lives no matter how smooth or rough the journey is. It, I think, also has a very great impact in a man's spiritual life, which is very tangible in a man's hereafter.

Islamically, marrying a muslim is under great necessity, as Allah has ordered. Marrying a non-muslim, is logically not so preferable even to the non-muslims. But marrying a person of the same believe is still convinient. But a muslim may befriend a non-muslim, to help her understand the religion to some extent, see the beauty of life and marry her if she is willing to practice. Becoming a muslim because of the marriage is not too good, but she may just end up understanding and liking it if she is not like most bigotic NL non-muslims