₦airaland Forum

babs787:

@Gwaine
________________________________________
I've been following your debates with babs787. You've done quite well in exposing his hypocrisy and deliberate defamation of Christ, as well his unceasing calumny against Christianity. It's obvious he's been playing these illiterate games for long; but he didn't quite prepare for the exposure. You don't have to worry a thing now: we dey here and in the coming weeks, I'll help him further with the hideous camouflage about Muhammad - right from their very books.

Bird of a feather. Brother, you have decided to be shedding tears too. When you create threads about my belief, nobody challenges or tell you that you are defaming his/her faith but when questions are asked on your so called false doctrines, then you go about crying that babs has been deriding your jesus. You may shout from now till tomorrow, the fact remains, I am used to it and it never move me. He has really exposed babs’ hypocrisy especially when stimulus lied that there is no name called Jesus Barabas and babs had to show him. Keep deceiving yourself and you know what, threads will be created on your doctrines and I will serve you questions and please you must answer them and don’t run like your brother.

Let me have where I have been deriding your Jesus or your belief and I will back it up with verses from your book. Are you not the one that has been preaching that without jesus no salvation, blood atonement, jesus dying for your sin, crucifixion of jesus, trinity etc but when questions are served on your belief, you quickly resort to ‘babs is deriding your faith’, you may shout from now till tomorrow for all I care.

Lest I forget, you can continue from where he stopped since he may not be around and threads will be created on your doctrine in which you must answer the questions in those threads.

Cheers

Okay, babs. You predictably have pushed your luck. Since caution is a strange word to you, then you're inviting it's raw meaning on the other end. The self-appointed authority you think you have arrogated to yourself to demand that people chase your roundabout illiteracy is going to be well-fed; so just enjoy the interlude only as time-out to allow you prepare for your worst nightmares.

You don't mess with Gwaine!

@donnie,

donnie:
Mr. Mayor wrote:
Moral of the story is if you are healed by Pastor Chris and Benny Hinn don't ever go back to your church because the healing would fail.

And i do not agree with that. I will rather put his statement correctly:

If you are healed by God in any meeting through any man of God, you must fellowship in a church where the Word is exhalted above all else in order to keep your healing. You must stay close to God's Word and in an environment where the annointing of God is present. You must learn to use the Word of faith.

This is another fine way of saying the same thing stated earlier - that one must be bound to a denomination/movement where they have been healed. Sadly, this is not teaching from God's Word, but purely a case of human craft injected people's minds.

When Jesus healed people, He did not seek to bind anyone to following Him (bitter truth, but true all the same!). As already observed by somze above, rather than Jesus sending the healed back to the synagogues or strategizing to coerce them upon Himself, He sent them home to their own people:

Howbeit Jesus suffered him not, but saith unto him, Go home to thy friends,
and tell them how great things the Lord hath done for thee, and hath had
compassion on thee. --- Mark 5:19

Even when in John 6 many of His disciples turned from following Him, we don't read anywhere that anyone lost his healing as a result. When all deserted/forsook Paul at his first defence (2 Tim. 4:16), we don't read that those he had healed later lost their healing.

The idea that one must remain in a particular church/denomination or cling to a particular MOG is quite simply the thinking of men who are ambitious to promote and keep their empires. It feeds the cancer of personality/hero worship; and one who hears from God will immediately sense that something is wrong somewhere with that kind of system.

I cannot question the source of the anointing in the healing. God is sovereign, and we are not to legislate for Him. What I do know is that not all who are faith-healers are actually having a healthy relationship with the Lord Jesus Christ.

-------------------------

Remember Judas - he healed also; but his end should not be used to query the source of his anointing to heal, because it was Christ Himself who gave that power of healing to him when He commissioned the Twelve -

And when he had called unto him his twelve disciples, he gave them power
against unclean spirits, to cast them out, and to heal all manner of sickness
and all manner of disease. Now the names of the twelve apostles are these;
The first, Simon, who is called Peter, and Andrew his brother; James the son
of Zebedee, and John his brother; Philip, and Bartholomew; Thomas, and Matthew
the publican; James the son of Alphaeus, and Lebbaeus, whose surname was
Thaddaeus; Simon the Canaanite, and Judas Iscariot, who also betrayed him.
                                     --- Mark 10:1-4.

Please people, look before you leap!! Just because some people are messing with God's Word and anointing does not mean the anointing must necessarily be denounced as occultic! We know some MOG who live like we're reading another Bible: their oppulence and what they promote have not been touched by the Cross at all; blah-blah. But don't let the shades of their lives push you to condemn yourself in the porcess.

I know what I'm saying from experience; but thank God for His grace that I didn't end up abandoned to my devices!!  

@n-ago-2007

[quote author=n-ago-2007 link=topic=51734.msg1117208#msg1117208 date=1179219006]Dear brothers/Sisters

Nowadays, the people's gatherings are filled with unrestrained conversations that seem to cover every area. If one were to judge these, they could only come to the conclusion that the vast majority of these conversations are comprised of useless or even harmful talk. This is certainly not why Allaah has gifted us with tongues and this definitely not how gifts are appreciated. Allaah says that which what translates as: "No good is there in much of their private conversation, except for those who enjoin charity or that which is right or conciliation between people. And whoever does that seeking the means to the approval of Allaah - then We are going to give them a great reward." (An-Nisaa' 4:114).

Islaam has given great emphasis to speech and on the way that words are delivered, as this reflects people's thoughts and mentality, as well as how morality, or its opposite, is spread through society.

A person must ask himself before saying anything: `Is there any need for me to talk?' If there is a need, then it is fine to talk.
Otherwise, silence is better because refraining from unnecessary speech is a form of worship which has a great reward.

`Abdullaah Ibn Mas'ood, may Allaah be pleased with him, said: "I swear by the One besides Whom there is nothing worthy of worship: one's need to imprison their tongue is greater than anything else."

Ibn `Abbaas, may Allaah be pleased with him, said: "Achieving the following five matters is more beneficial than owning the best types of horses:

1. Not involving yourselves in conversations that do not concern you, as there is no guarantee that you would not sin

therein.

2. Not talking about things that do concern you, until you find the proper time; as a person may talk about a matter that

does concern them but at the wrong time and therefore produce a bad consequence.

3. Not arguing with a wise or a foolish person, as the wise person would desert you and the foolish person would humiliate

you.

4. Mentioning your brother, in his absence, with things with which you would wish him to mention you with in your absence

- and forgiving him for that which you would wish him to forgive you for.

5. Performing the actions of one who is certain that he would be rewarded for the good and punished for the bad that he

does".

A Muslim cannot achieve these five things unless he strictly controls his tongue, silences it whenever he wishes and curtails any
unnecessary activity on its part. As for those who are driven by their tongues, they are being piloted to their destruction.

Loose talk causes one to become heedless. It is a fact that the majority of those who take the lead in vain talk during sinful gatherings talk so much that one who listens to them comes to realise that they themselves are not aware of what they are saying and that there is no thought-process behind their words.


This is exactly the reason why the Prophet sallallaahu `alaihi wa sallam advised Abu Dharr, may Allaah be pleased with him, saying: "Stay silent for long periods, as this keeps Satan away from you and helps you in the practice of your religion." He sallallaahu `alaihi wa sallam also said: "No servants of Allaah's belief will be correct until his heart is corrected, and his heart will never be corrected until his tongue is" The first phase of achieving this correctness is for a person to give up that which does not concern them and not to involve themselves in things that they were not asked about, as the Prophet sallallaahu `alaihi wa sallam said: "A sign of one's good practice of Islaam, is having given up that which does not concern them"

Shunning frivolities and idle talk is the gate to success. Allaah says that which translates as: "Certainly will the believers have succeeded. They who are during their prayer humbly submissive. And they who turn away from ill speech." (Al-Mu'minoon 23:1-3). Islaam has dispraised frivolities and idle talk as they are immaterial and evil. In fact, the more a person stays away from them, the higher their rank becomes with Allaah. Conversely, the more a person indulges in them, the more their punishment will be with Allaah, this is why the Prophet sallallaahu `alaihi wa sallam said: "A slave (of Allaah) will utter a word for no other reason but to make people laugh, and it would cause him to go down into Hell as far as the distance between the Heavens and the earth; and a person will slip with his tongue more often than he will stumble off his feet".

Allaah took a pledge from the children of Israel not to say but that which is good, as He said that which translates as: "And [recall] when We took the covenant from the Children of Israel, [enjoining upon them], `Do not worship except Allaah; and to parents do good and to relatives, orphans, and the needy. And speak to people good [words]." (Al-Baqarah 2:83).

Kind words are effectual with friends and enemies alike. As for friends, they will maintain the good relationship and prolong the friendship - and prevent the traps of Satan as Allaah says that which translates as: "And tell My servants to say that which is best. Indeed, Satan induces [dissension] among them. Indeed Satan is ever, to mankind, a clear enemy." (Al-Israa' 17:53). As for enemies, it will put out the fire of their enmity and prevent any further evil to take place, or at least reduce it, as Allaah says that which translates as: "And not equal are the good deed and the bad. Repel [evil] by that [deed] which is better; and thereupon, the one whom between you and him is enmity [will become] as though he was a devoted friend." (Fussilat 41:34).

Another benefit of kind and upright words, are that they get people accustomed to polite and pleasant ways of expressing themselves. The Prophet sallallaahu `alaihi wa sallam said: "One cannot endear people to themselves by means of wealth, but can do so with a smiling face and good conduct"

Anas bin Maalik, may Allaah be pleased with him, reported that a man came to the Prophet sallallaahu `alaihi wa sallam and asked: "Teach me something that would result in me entering Paradise": the Prophet sallallaahu `alaihi wa sallam replied: "Feed the people, spread the greetings of salaam, keep good ties with your kith and kin and pray at night while the people are sleeping and you will enter Jannah peacefully"

If these are the ranks that those who possess good conduct and proper manners possess, then what a great loss it is for those who are harsh, argumentative, shameless and unrelenting. Nothing will stop such people and no reminder will benefit them; such people will always harm others whenever an opportunity arises to satisfy their habit of fighting and arguing. If one is tested by having to deal with such a character, then they must try to avoid their evil, and deal gently with them. The Prophet sallallaahu `alaihi wa sallam said: "The most evil of people in rank on the day of judgement, are those who people avoid due to their evil". That is why Allaah regards good conduct as the foremost of the desired characteristics of His slaves, which protects them from evil. He says that which translates as: "And the servants of the Most Merciful are those who walk upon the earth without arrogance, and when the ignorant address them [harshly], they say [words] of peace." (Al-Furqaan 25:63) and He also says that which translates as: "And when they hear ill speech, they turn away from it and say, `For us are our deeds, and for you are your deeds. Peace will be upon you; we seek not the ignorant.'" (Al-Qasas 28:55).[/quote]Not bad stuff - from the Islamic POV. And no worries at all to repost from other websites _{so long as you remember to give due credit to the source/original authors.}

[size=14pt] حصائد الألسن[/size]

http://www.alminbar.com/khutbaheng/303.htm



Regards.

---------------------------------

NB.
Forgot to add that I hope babs787 will be self-advised with the moral from the above.

The 'fruit' that Eve ate and gave to her husband Adam is not 'sex' (Gen. 3:6). 

1. She first ate of the fruit - "she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat"

2. then next she gave to Adam - "and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat."

The fruit was not an 'apple', in so far as the Bible does not state it so. Even then, it's not a platform to launch one's ignorance about other issues.

For those who are seeing 'sex' in Genesis 3:6 where it does not exist, there's just one word of advise for you --

                    https://bestsmileys.com/signs11/11.gif

babs787:
@stimulus

I am not surprised at you because I have noticed that you have been avoiding most of my questions.

Just one thread stimulus opened to answer your challenges, and you're taking such a bad hit already! If he had opened half the number of threads you did, you probably would have had a heart attack, abi? As if you have not been dodging his questions, this one for example: https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-52589.0.html#msg1102231

And where's firdaus4us? He should go there and prove his mettle as well.

babs787:
@babyosis,

I have nothing to say to you, you know the position I put you and I don't give a damn.

Good to know; so that when you receive some more knocks, no one will 'give a damn' how bad it turns out for you. 

[quote author=jo-z link=topic=51218.msg1116987#msg1116987 date=1179200363]@macalurs
i can only tell u to watch your tongue. [/quote]Best thing you can serve such attention-seekers is simply ignore them and get on with the discussion. When they realize no one's paying them attention from their cheap popularity campaigns, they'll fizzle out of the Religion motherboard.

Pilgrim.1 had a real and intelligent reason for starting this thread, and she won't get into any trouble - as long as Gwaine is here!

If you have been following the discussion carefully, you'll understand that she raised this thread as a challenge to help Muslim apologists think and come round to knowing that most of their claims are just noise without substance. This is what I understand from some of her threads:

- Muhammad performed NO miracles
(contrary to the bogus claims made by Muslims that he did!)

- There are NO 99 names of Allah
(another unsubstantiated claim by Muhammad which Muslims know nothing about!)

- There are NO guarantees of salvation in Islam
(the noisy myth has been debunked and laid to rest!)

There are some other issues that have also been uncovered, such as the lost books of the Qur'an which babs787 categorically declared on the Forum.

Of course, Jesus is Lord and Muhammad cannot be compared to Him at all. It is the very Lordship of Jesus Christ that Muslim apologists (such as babs787) have been seeking to derogate in order to "prove" Islam is THE religion of 'Allah'. E no go work!!

Hehe, I no tell you before??

Oya, smokers - you can get closer to a 'formal' entering 'in' to that place by smoking "speed"!! _{afteral, there's a high concentrate of "formalin" in that brand!}

bonheur:
_{WHAT DO YOU GUYS THINK OF RELGIOUS NAMES?}

Em. . . could we type our responses in lower case, or all names in upper case??

Lol, just kidding ya. Anyhow, religious names are cool, I think. No offences meant; but na until I step outside naija before I begin hear names like Mr Cook, Mr Graves, Miss Rider, and Mr Bugg - all good names, though.

My traditional name has religious connotations as well. I don't use it often (unless when I wan start trouble for anybody wey no dey hear word!)

In all, names tell some important story behind them; and I'm one for religious names if they tell good stories.

Lol, I hope the smokers won't silently embalm themselves before their time! 

----------------------------

Come to think of it, "formalin" is just one word from two: 'formal' and 'in'.
Hmmm, does that suggest also that the cigar companies are helping 'em
smokers to the finishing line for some "formal" entrance "in" to that place?

Dem too dey copy!

The one thing about copyists is that they take other people's material and make it exclusively their own - whether they're articles lifted from other websites; or "enter into the Kingdom of God".

I'm not surprised that plagiarists who cop out elements from others will want to see themselves as final! Is that, prehaps, the reason why Muhammad is declared the LAST and greatest prophet?

-------------------------------

Now, this issue about being a prophet. . . I really would like to know what exactly is a prophet in Islamic thinking. A few sub-questions:

(a) how does Muhammad resemble any Biblical prophet in ministry?

(b) why was Muhammad often mixing up issues that those prophets preached?

https://bestsmileys.com/smoking/5.gif   One does not need religion to know the dangers of smoking.

The Federal Ministry of Health does not "advice" people on its dangers. Rather, the jingle back in those days was something like -

'The Federal Ministry of Health has WARNED that tobacco smoking is dangerous to your health!'

Anyone with a functional brain knows what that means. To find out more quickly what is behind that warning, try "speed" - it's guaranteed to leave sad testimonies. 

See what babs787 has caused now?? They're now on assignment looking for the great loss!!

firdaus4us:
In the Holy Quran, God speaks about the stages of man’s embryonic development:

We created man from an extract of clay. Then We made him as a drop in a place of settlement, firmly fixed. Then We made the drop into an alaqah (leech, suspended thing, and blood clot), then We made the alaqah into a mudghah (chewed substance), (Quran, 23:12-14)

Literally, the Arabic word alaqah has three meanings: (1) leech, (2) suspended thing, and (3) blood clot.
In comparing a leech to an embryo in the alaqah stage, we find similarity between the two as we can see in figure 1. Also, the embryo at this stage obtains nourishment from the blood of the mother, similar to the leech, which feeds on the blood of others.


Figure 1: Drawings illustrating the similarities in appearance between a leech and a human embryo at the alaqah stage. (Leech drawing from Human Development as Described in the Quran and Sunnah, Moore and others, p. 37, modified from Integrated Principles of Zoology, Hickman and others. Embryo drawing from The Developing Human, Moore and Persaud, 5th ed., p. 73.)
The second meaning of the word alaqah is “suspended thing.” This is what we can see in figures 2 and 3, the suspension of the embryo, during the alaqah stage, in the womb of the mother.
Figure 2: We can see in this diagram the suspension of an embryo during the alaqah stage in the womb (uterus) of the mother. (The Developing Human, Moore and Persaud, 5th ed., p. 66.)


Figure 3: In this photomicrograph, we can see the suspension of an embryo (marked B) during the alaqah stage (about 15 days old) in the womb of the mother. The actual size of the embryo is about 0.6 mm. (The Developing Human, Moore, 3rd ed., p. 66, from Histology, Leeson and Leeson.)

The third meaning of the word alaqah is “blood clot.” We find that the external appearance of the embryo and its sacs during the alaqah stage is similar to that of a blood clot. This is due to the presence of relatively large amounts of blood present in the embryo during this stage (see figure 4). Also during this stage, the blood in the embryo does not circulate until the end of the third week. Thus, the embryo at this stage is like a clot of blood.
Figure 4: Diagram of the primitive cardiovascular system in an embryo during the alaqah stage. The external appearance of the embryo and its sacs is similar to that of a blood clot, due to the presence of relatively large amounts of blood present in the embryo. (The Developing Human, Moore, 5th ed., p. 65.)

So the three meanings of the word alaqah correspond accurately to the descriptions of the embryo at the alaqah stage.
The next stage mentioned in the verse is the mudghah stage. The Arabic word mudghah means “chewed substance.” If one were to take a piece of gum and chew it in his or her mouth and then compare it with an embryo at the mudghah stage, we would conclude that the embryo at the mudghah stage acquires the appearance of a chewed substance. This is because of the somites at the back of the embryo that “somewhat resemble teethmarks in a chewed substance.” (see figures 5 and 6).
Figure 5: Photograph of an embryo at the mudghah stage (28 days old). The embryo at this stage acquires the appearance of a chewed substance, because the somites at the back of the embryo somewhat resemble teeth marks in a chewed substance. The actual size of the embryo is 4 mm. (The Developing Human, Moore and Persaud, 5th ed., p. 82, from Professor Hideo Nishimura, Kyoto University, Kyoto, Japan.)

Figure 6: When comparing the appearance of an embryo at the mudghah stage with a piece of gum that has been chewed, we find similarity between the two.
A) Drawing of an embryo at the mudghah stage. We can see here the somites at the back of the embryo that look like teeth marks. (The Developing Human, Moore and Persaud, 5th ed., p. 79.)
B) Photograph of a piece of gum that has been chewed.

How could Muhammad have possibly known all this 1400 years ago, when scientists have only recently discovered this using advanced equipment and powerful microscopes which did not exist at that time? Hamm and Leeuwenhoek were the first scientists to observe human sperm cells (spermatozoa) using an improved microscope in 1677 (more than 1000 years after Muhammad ). They mistakenly thought that the sperm cell contained a miniature preformed human being that grew when it was deposited in the female genital tract.
Professor Emeritus Keith L. Moore is one of the world’s most prominent scientists in the fields of anatomy and embryology and is the author of the book entitled The Developing Human, which has been translated into eight languages. This book is a scientific reference work and was chosen by a special committee in the United States as the best book authored by one person. Dr. Keith Moore is Professor Emeritus of Anatomy and Cell Biology at the University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada. There, he was Associate Dean of Basic Sciences at the Faculty of Medicine and for 8 years was the Chairman of the Department of Anatomy. In 1984, he received the most distinguished award presented in the field of anatomy in Canada, the J.C.B. Grant Award from the Canadian Association of Anatomists. He has directed many international associations, such as the Canadian and American Association of Anatomists and the Council of the Union of Biological Sciences.
In 1981, during the Seventh Medical Conference in Dammam, Saudi Arabia, Professor Moore said: “It has been a great pleasure for me to help clarify statements in the Quran about human development. It is clear to me that these statements must have come to Muhammad from God, because almost all of this knowledge was not discovered until many centuries later. This proves to me that Muhammad must have been a messenger of God.”
Consequently, Professor Moore was asked the following question: “Does this mean that you believe that the Quran is the word of God?” He replied: “I find no difficulty in accepting this.”
During one conference, Professor Moore stated: “, Because the staging of human embryos is complex, owing to the continuous process of change during development, it is proposed that a new system of classification could be developed using the terms mentioned in the Quran and Sunnah (what Muhammad said, did, or approved of). The proposed system is simple, comprehensive, and conforms with present embryological knowledge. The intensive studies of the Quran and hadeeth (reliably transmitted reports by the Prophet Muhammad’s companions of what he said, did, or approved of) in the last four years have revealed a system for classifying human embryos that is amazing since it was recorded in the seventh century A.D. Although Aristotle, the founder of the science of embryology, realized that chick embryos developed in stages from his studies of hen’s eggs in the fourth century B.C., he did not give any details about these stages. As far as it is known from the history of embryology, little was known about the staging and classification of human embryos until the twentieth century. For this reason, the descriptions of the human embryo in the Quran cannot be based on scientific knowledge in the seventh century. The only reasonable conclusion is: these descriptions were revealed to Muhammad from God. He could not have known such details because he was an illiterate man with absolutely no scientific training.”

Next time, don't forget to leave us the link. https://bestsmileys.com/expressions/10.gif

http://www.famousmuslims.com/human%20embryonic.htm

I no fit laugh finish!!    

It just makes me wonder that with all their boasting about "scientific Qur'an", when issues are presented and no material to rank-xerox, then that cliche is usually offered as a life-saver!

stimulus:
_{I've often warned you to behave; but just a single thread I opened in answer to your challenges, and you're having nightmares. If I had opened 7 threads nko - will you die straight to the Islamic hell?}

Huh?

Mosetra:
_{I'm sure by now you are close to bursting!} 

Just for babs?? https://bestsmileys.com/lol/13.gif

@topic,

Me, I really don't know why the Catholics use the  apocrypha along with the Bible. At least, informed people know that those 14 books are not regarded as the "Bible", but they stand alone as the "apocrypha."

Now, in fair exchange, can you tell me why every Muslim today uses the Qur'an whose TORAH and INJIL are LOST?? It is not now a question of addition or subtraction; but rather of entire books that cannot be found!! They just simply disappeared, and the same Muslims who make that claim have not been able to tell us WHEN and HOW exactly this great loss happened! Boy, that simply leaves me dazed beyond words! https://bestsmileys.com/beatup/1.gif

As for the Muslims who read the Torah and Injil of the Bible, you're free to do so. But a note of caution: since the Torah and Injil of the Qur'an are confirmed lost by your clever apologists, don't go cheating around by trying to find Muhammad in Deuteronomy 18 or John 14 & 16. Any rascally development in this regard will be taken care of promptly!

Signed,
Gwaine! 

Wey the Islamic monotheists?? I'm also interested in your answers to these issues here about the WE-US-OUR of a single 'Allah' in the Qur'an.

Hehehe  

-------------------------------------

Meanwhile, wey oyb

Infact, I'm beginning to wonder what exactly is the guarantee of salvation (or any other "promise" in Islam. What is the basis of such a guarantee, if any?

A few more of my concerns in addition to those raised by zai:

#1. Is it true that all muslims will enter HELL?

Qur'an 19:71:
And there is not one of you but shall come to it; this is an unavoidable decree of your Lord. (Shakir's tr.)
And there is not one of you but will come to it. This is an absolute decree of thy Lord. (Sher Ali)
There shall be none of you but shall descend into the same [hell]: [This] is an established decree upon thy Lord. (Sale's Tr.)


#2. Is it true that Muhammad rescinded on his assertion to intercede for Muslims?

#3. How could a sex offender and thief still enter paradise if they died in their sins?

#4. Who among Muslims can be sure that his/her good deeds outweigh their evil deeds?

#5. What about al-taqiyya: will all those who practised it still enter paradise if they died in their al-taqiyya?

#6. What exactly is the best of deeds that GUARANTEES paradise to a male Muslim?


-------------------------------

Meanwhile, where's oyb?  

nossycheek:
As if blabs gave translations for all the bible verses he posted.

He actually did - in the reverse style typical of red-eyed noise makers.

It's really a joke that he sees himself as an authority figure of sorts to post vexed questions castigating Christians and then demanding that we answer them! He's in for some real treat. . . his nightmares will begin shortly.  

@babyosisi,

Lol No vex. I recently relocated and it took me a while to settle down and get re-connected online. Actually, I was just sitting down jeje and thought to check nairaland recently; only to find some fellas have been misbehaving so much that I can't let such rascally behaviour pass like that.

I may be busy between times; but I dey ground for now. People like babs have to wake up to reality - and that's one reason why I'm here again.

Enjoy plenty!!

@fadal,

fadal:
when you go in a church you going to see the pastor having a picture of jesus and evrytime his praying his facing the picture,that's what you call whorshiping,is against the muslim religion you can't not get down on the grown for someone ecept Allah.

You're absolutely right. Worshipping those pictures and images are discountenanced as well in the Bible; and I've severally opined that one can take and share pictures - as long as one doesn't worship them.

In anycase, my little knowledge of this issue in Islam reminds me of the discontentment expressed in several islamic sources. I'll reference a few:

Narrated 'Aisha: Um Habiba and Um Salama mentioned about a church they had seen
in Ethiopia in which there were pictures. They told the Prophet about it, on which he said,
"If any religious man dies amongst those people they would build a place of worship at
his grave and make these pictures in it. They will be the worst creature in the sight of
Allah on the Day of Resurrection."
------------------------------------------------
Sahih Bukhari Vol. 1, Bk. 8, Num. 419

Now, the problem here is that Muhammad was only conjecturing and had no concrete basis for his ideas. In the first instances, I'd like you to carefully read the Bible and search out a text that says churches were built at the burying site of any saint for worship. Secondly, not every church or public place display pictures for worship purposes.

Biblically speaking, Christians do not worship any pictures at all. Those who do so may have their reasons; but it cannot be defended intelligently from the Bible. In just about the same way, there are so many issues that Muslims are involved in today that cannot be intelligently defended from the Qur'an; and taking the Hadith as the final authority for such practices makes one wonder if such Muslims are placing the Hadith above the Qur'an. Please reflect on this.

At the end of the day, we've all got to review this issue carefully on both sides. Especially the case of not having pictures based on the texts in the Hadiths, my submission is that the phobias there are quite unfounded.

Lol @nossycheek, one shouldn't go that far as to spread the vexations on his kids (if that's what "by-product" of his groins meant). I may be mistaken; but give credit where it is due, I must say that the kids of any discussant on the Forum are absolutely winsome - including his!

As for babs787, his recent reactions and vexations are only because his covers have been blown. I really do not mind anyone posting articles from any website as long as it is intended to help us learn, the articles reposted are summarized, and credit is given to the original authors. That is what babs failed to do; and now that you have served him his own ale, he's gravely intoxicated and can do nothing else.

Cheers.

@babs787,

<sub>@gwaine

Be careful of what you say. If you don't know what to say to the lies posted by your folks, it will be better to keep your mouth shut please. I can see that you all lack understanding, birds of a feather. You will always behave like one, you didnt read when your sister noisycheeks quoted verses wrongly but making noise over what you never understand. You will answer some questions soon and don't avoid my questions like stimulus please.</sub>

Good to notice you're already warming up. Like I said, if your games are really why you joined the Forum, prepare for your worst nightmares.  

@mukina 2,

i was addressing it to you .i didnt say you said so

you beleive in them

I appreciate your addressing them to me; but let's not get this mixed up - I never said anywhere that I believed those artistic representations were exactly what Jesus looked like.

Muslims do take and share pictures, but we do not have pictures showing the images of any Prophets .even with Islamic Documentaries .you wont see a pic of any Prophet, even in the ones Assosciated with Jesus.

First of all, for Muslims to "take" and "share" pictures, they must be directly contravening what the hadiths stipulate - which for me is a welcome development, because it is high time people stopped making other people's phobias their own.

Secondly, what is behind the idea that pictures are now allowed of other people in Islam but still forbidded of any prophet?

Thirdly, one must not miss the real issue here: it is not about the pictures or images of any prophets; but rather about the pictures of ANY human being or animals. To narrow it down to just about "prophets" is to circumvent the hadiths.

the difference with the people you listed is that, they are alive and well known figures. known to this present Generation .No one has an idea of what our prophet looked like, so why must we be creating images sayin its him. Understood, he told his Apostles that he resembled Abraham, they didnt know how Abraham looked either so why must we be passing images around.

Whether well-known figures are alive or dead is not the point. The hadiths quoting Muhammad are about any human being or animal - dead or alive. The point is clear that even when he was alive, he expressly forbade any one to make pictures of any human being - including himself. The excuse that it makes any difference between the "dead" and "living" is too weak a point to make here; unless you deliberately want us to cast the hadiths behind us.

for Islam it is very wrong infact it is Haram, we do not know how Our prophet looked like ,any image of any kind of him is just pure ridicle.

That's what Muslims have made out of the core concern of having pictures - ridicule. As far as I know, no hadith ever said that or gave the idea that pictures were forbidden because of "ridicule". Please correct me where I'm wrong - and then reference the partcular text otherwise.

The two straightforward reasons for forbidding pictures of ANY human being or animal were these:

#1. because it is assumed that angels do not enter houses having pictures in them

Narrated Abu Talha: I heard Allah's Apostle saying; "Angels (of Mercy) do not enter
a house wherein there is a dog or a picture of a living creature (a human being or an animal)."
-----------------------------------------------
(Sahih Bukhari, Vol. 4, Book 54, Num. 448).

Narrated Salim's father: Once Gabriel promised the Prophet (that he would visit him,
but Gabriel did not come) and later on he said, "We, angels, do not enter a house
which contains a picture or a dog."
-----------------------------------------------
(Sahih Bukhari, Vol. 4, Book 54, Num. 450).


#2. because it is assumed that picture makers will be asked to put life in them

Narrated 'Abdullah bin 'Umar : Allah's Apostle said, "Those who make these pictures
will be punished on the Day of Resurrection, and it will be said to them. 'Make alive
what you have created.'"
-----------------------------------------------
(Sahih Bukhari, Vol. 7, Book 72, Num. 835).

Narrated Ibn 'Abbas: I heard Muhammad saying, "Whoever makes a picture in this
world will be asked to put life into it on the Day of Resurrection, but he will not be
able to do so."
-----------------------------------------------
(Sahih Bukhari, Vol. 7, Book 72, Num. 846).


As you can see, it has nothing to do with what most Muslims would have us believe - that it is a question of "ridicule". No it is not. Just because Muhammad had that phobia on his own should not mean that everyone else should translate that dread as their own. The fear of having pictures in Islam (far from the idea of a 'ridicule') is quite unfounded. At least, you as a Muslim have taken pictures and I'm certain that the question of "ridicule" never crossed your mind!

Here's precisely why most Muslims dread having, sharing, or making pictures - because of the fear of a severe punishment:

Narrated Muslim: We were with Masruq at the house of Yasar bin Numair. Masruq
saw pictures on his terrace and said, "I heard 'Abdullah saying that he heard the
Prophet saying, "The people who will receive the severest punishment from Allah will
be the picture makers.'"
-----------------------------------------------
(Sahih Bukhari, Vol. 7, Book 72, Num. 834).

This is totally unfounded, as up until now no Muslim has been able to offer a well-reasoned answer for this threat of a severe punishment for merely making pictures! It has nothing to do with the thousand-and-one excuses that are being offered today; and certainly nothing to do with the idea of a ridicule!

Even Muhammad himself uncovered a picture when it was shown him, and he did not express any phobia or fright from doing so:

Narrated 'Aisha: That the Prophet said to her, "You have been shown to me twice
in my dream. I saw you pictured on a piece of silk and some-one said (to me).
'This is your wife.'When I uncovered the picture, I saw that it was yours. I said,
'If this is from Allah, it will be done"
-----------------------------------------------
(Sahih Bukhari, Vol. 5, Book 58, Num. 235).

Can you please explain why Muhammad did not denounce whoever showed him Aisha's picture (which the same Muhammad "uncovered"?? Or why he did not threaten the person with the severest punishment for having shown him Aisha's picture?? What is wrong here in real life is wrong in one's dreams. If it is wrong to steal or commit adultery in real life, then dreaming about them doesn't make them any less a serious matter.

Like i said before , he was comapring himself to Abraham because he wanted to give his apostles an idea of what he looks like. Spiritually , Pysically and Mentally.

And as has been noted earlier, painting pictures in people's minds is a direct contradiction of Muhammad's complaints. Look again as the texts: Muhammad was clearly describing outward features and projecting images of Abraham into the minds of his listeners. There's no going round this issue, and another excuse won't cut it.

Yes . i am painting an image of him in my mind. note: that doesnt warrant that i will have a complete image of him , which i will create and give to people. No .Muhaamad(saw) saying that wants to give his apostles an idea of what he (Jesus) looked like.

So, what's the difference between painting a picture in your mind, then projecting that mental picture into someone else's mind? It is all a question of different media used; but the same thing in effect. You cannot even begin to dream up the notion of a partial image of Muhammad, so the idea of not having a complete image of him does not arise at all.

we can take pictures as long as it is not Depicting the image of the prophet or Any other Prophet.

Wrong. The hadiths expressly forbid Muslims to make ANY kind of pictures of both human beings or animals. To begin to make that claim as you have up there is a direct contravention of the injunctions in the hadiths!!

@babs787,

I've actually been waiting for you - and it's really funny that you're predictable. You joined the Forum on August 15, 2006, which is two months later than when I came on board ( June 04, 2006). I should be the one welcoming you.

You don't have any official status here to be throwing questions around and demanding anything of anyone. So, if you have read the massages I left you in some other threads, take the hint: I'm not here for your games, and I'm going to serve you some no-nonsense issues about the stuff you've been beating around.

If you want to discuss, be my guest and I'll just crawl back to my hole jeje. If you would have it otherwise, then please prepare for your worst nightmares, because that's the one reason why I resumed my contributions.

I trust you can be self-advised for the better.

Cheers.

mukina2:
^{fine if you really don't know .why then are pictures of Him all voer and even you beleive that those pictures are of him?}

Awww, mukina2. I don't remember anywhere in my lines where I suggested that even I believed that those pictures are of Him (Jesus). The closest thing to my references to those pictures is that there's nothing wrong in having artistic impressions about Him - and in the same vein, that should go for Muhammad as well.

The gist of my argument is that the fear of being severely punished for making or possessing pictures in Islam is quite unfounded - and I don't see what any Muslim has to fear for taking, having or sharing pictures.

Just to make this point clearer - it's most likely you haven't seen or met face to face people like George Bush (incumbent President of the United States); or Kofi Anan; or many a VIP. The only way you might have a vague idea what they look like is through pictures - whether images projected on TV, or printed in newsprints, etc. How are you supposed to know who is who if Islam places a ban on making pictures??

Again, i don't think anything is wrong with artistic impressions of who Jesus, Muhammad or any other prophet. As long as no one is calling for the worship of these pictures, then what is wrong with having them at all?

mukina2:
<sup>in reference to your question.

He (Muhammam SAW) was refering  to his apostles  , he was explaining to them, they have never seen Abraham . In the same hadith he described Jesus and Moses . He didnt expect them to know what Abraham looked like. he was just explaining about his night Journey to heaven</sup>

I have a small concern here. If Muhammad didn't expect his companions to know what Abraham looked like, why was he comparing himself to the patriarch? I really don't see how this could be circumvented with such explanations. He categorically described Moses, Jesus and a few others - and when someone begins to describe people to you, that person is painting an image in your mind.

If you debate that, then my question is this: what do you understand by Muhammad's description of Jesus as a man with "a moderate complexion inclined to the red and white colors and of lank hair" (Sahih Bukhari, Vol. 4, Bk 54, Num. 462)??

Is that not painting a picture in your mind already? If the injunction against making pictures at all should hold, then Muhammad should not have complained about the pictures which were coming back to his mind (Sahih Bukhari, Vol. 7, Book 72, Num. 842). As long as the mind acts like a canvass for projecting pictures of people, Muhammad should not have tried to describe any physical traits of ANYONE and then come back complaining about the pictures in his mind!

There's nothing wrong with having pictures - as long as we don't have them for worship purposes. To pronounce a total ban on ALL pictures simply misses the mark.

nossycheek:
_{Please tell that to your brother blabs al salaam. He is the chief in charge of plagiarism and an expert at that. I wonder why is ever crying. Weep not, child for your fraud has been exposed.}

See what rank-xeroxing without acknowledgements does to a gentleman? I do hope from henceforth, this trend will change for the better.  

Nicer:
U know it's very annoying when u see someone confidently talking trash.

I concur. And above all, you made huge sense in cautioning that we remain sane as the dicussions progress.

------------------------

Oya stimulus, you hear?? No more hot exchanges with babs787!! Leave them all to me - I have more vocabs for him than you can manage!!   


_{Oops!! @Nicer, just kidding. I'll try and keep my sanity!}  

Don't just glance over or read it in a hurry. I actually answered your question:

Gwaine:
I'll be honest with you - I really don't know!

. . . and then I offered the rest as substance to my response.

I don't see how you answered my question, though:

Gwaine:
he himself said in Sahih Bukhari, Vol. 4, Bk 55, Num. 607 that he resembled Abraham more than any person! Now you tell me - how were his companions supposed to know what Abraham looked like??

Want to give it a try? 

nossycheek:
^{Provide the answers if you have them or have your websites run dry?}

Nope. It's just that he's still redressing them in language that might help hide his plagiarism.  

------------------------

Nicer:
^{what's with the religious bullets between u guys anyway? u guys know each other?}

Nothing wrong in warming up for a familiarity fest! He's only been experiencing a ricochet of his own bullets!