₦airaland Forum

iice:
[color=#9900ff]More papers Gawd can't wait for my vacation time jare.  .  .totally getting away from civilization [/color]

if i may ask what papers r u reading?

@igbogirl,

am sure u dont mean what u say about women and money, infact the most people wit this habit r u

confirmed

lol

see me see trouble o, went to buy fuell and this okada guys where close by, as the metre get close to 5k, they start to talk about me as if am not there, one of the guys said [i]see how person go dey buy feul of 5k just dey waste money [/i] the other replied na so dey go dey buy big motor if u ask am now u go see e no get house e dey stay 4 rented house. , it really got me thinking

here i hope we share daily interesting event that happened/experienced of recent. it can be good/bad/honurable/sad/courageous/amazing or any interesting event, please share it here ,

just count those that have more than 3 post on this section, they are the worst posters, they only know how to talk talk talk no substance

uote
Sura 114 v 4:

  Hilali-Khan (singular)
  "From the evil of the whisperer (devil who whispers evil in the hearts of men)
  who withdraws  (from his whispering in one's heart after one remembers Allah)"

  M. M. Pickthall (singular)
  "From the evil of the sneaking whisperer"

  Rashad Khalifa (plural)
  "From the evils of sneaky whisperers.

  S. M. Sarwar (plural)
  "against the evil of the temptations of the satans,"

  M H Shakir (singular)
  "From the evil of the whisperings of the slinking (Shaitan),"
@OHSISI


  Yusuf Ali (singular)
  "From the mischief of the Whisperer (of Evil),
  who withdraws (after his whisper),"

Which Arabic Koran did they use out of the 7  different Arabic Korans or did anyone of them use the Othman's revised standard Koran?
why the differences
abi arabic has no plural and singular or has shaitan multiplied himself in some korans.


FROM THE ABOVE, YOU CAN SEE THE NEED TO UNDERSTAND ARABIC, THAT IS WHY MUSLIM ARE ENCOURAGE TO LEARN ARABIC SO THAT THEY WILL NOT BE CONFUSED BY TRANSLATORS. COS IF U BASE UR BELIEVE ON THE TRANSLATORS THEN U MIGHT BE MISSING IMPORTANT POINT,

where are all those people that are shouting on the roof that d change is because sanusi wants arabic on the note, please stand up one by one and accept your insults, SHAME ON YOU

very happy for jeny, but the way my igbo brothers they hala trying to corner her as an igbo babe, who argue with una, how i wish una go corner all the things wey igbos dey do every where wey we know

MONEY MONEY MONEY IS YOUR ANSWER
make money and show it and see what will hapeen
you go tire, and another way is if u sabi lie well and pretend, then it works, form big boy build castle for air but this one no dey last,
the real juju na MONEY

no money no love, but to be honest u can really show love with money,
na love she go chop
so guys go out make legit money and buy love
love is for sale now

THE ACID TEST

How do we know that a book claimed to be from God is really the Book of God? One of the tests, out of many such tests, is — that a Message emanating from an Omniscient Being MUST be consistent with itself. It ought to be free from all discrepancies and contradictions. This is exactly what the LAST TESTAMENT, the Book of God says:



GOD OR THE DEVIL?

If God Almighty wants us to verify the authenticity of His Book (The Holy Qur-an) with this acid test, why should we not apply the very same test to any other Book claiming to be from Him? We do not want to bamboozle anybody with words as the Christians have been doing. It would be readily agreed from the references, I have given from Christian scholars, that they have been proving to us that the Bible is NOT the Word of God, yet making us believe that they have actually convinced us to the contrary.

A classic example of this sickness was in evidence again only "yesterday" The Anglican synod was in session in Grahamstown. The Most. Rev. Bill Burnett, the Archbishop was preaching to his flock. He created a confusion in his Anglican community. An erudite Englishman, addressing a group of learned English priests and bishops, in their own mother-tongue — English, which his learned colleagues drastically misunderstood: to such an extent that Mr. McMillan, perhaps also an Anglican, the Editor of an English daily — "The Natal Mercury" dated December 11, 1979, had this to say about the confusion the Archbishop had created among his own learned clergy:

"ARCHBISHOP BURNETTS REMARKS AT THE SYNOD WERE HARDLY A MODEL OF CLARITY AND WERE WIDELY AND DRAMATICALLY MISINTERPRETED BY MANY OF THOSE PRESENT."

There is nothing wrong with English as a language, but can't you see that the Christian is trained in muddled thinking in all matters religious. The "bread" in his Holy Communion is not "bread" but "flesh?" The "wine" is "blood?" "Three is one?" and "Human is Divine?" But don't make a mistake, he is not that simple when dealing with the earthly kingdom, he is then most precise. You will have to be doubly careful when entering into a contract with him! He can have you sold out, without you realising it.

The examples that I shall furnish in substantiating the points I have raised about the contradictions in the so-called Book of God, would be found so easy even for a child to follow and understand. See below.
II SAMUEL 24

The Numbering

AND again the anger of the LORD was kindled against Israel, and he moved David against them to say, Go, number Israel and Judah.
While the author of Samuel 24 above, makes God the boss of the situation, the author of Chronicles below gives credit to the Devil.

I CHRONICLES 21

The Numbering

AND SATAN stood up against Israel, and provoked David to number Israel.




Apart from showing allegiance to God as is noted elsewhere, the Devil (Satan) is also given his due. This dichotomy on the part of the author of Chronicles reminds one of the story of the old woman who lit one candle to St. Michael and another to the devil. St. Michael was trampling underfoot, so that whether she went to Heaven or Hell, she would have a friend. This Chronicles fellow, made sure that he had a friend at court Above, as well as a friend at court Below. He wanted to have it both ways, or wanted to have his cake and eat it too.

You will observe that the authors of the books of "Chronicles" and of "Samuel" are telling us the same story about David taking a census of the Jews. Where did David get his "inspiration" to do this novel deed? The author of 2 Samuel 24:1 says that it was the "LORD" God who MOVED (RSV: "incited" David, but the author of 1 Chronicles 21:1 says that it was "SATAN" who PROVOKED (RSV: "incited" David to do such a dastardly thing! How could the Almighty God have been the source of these contradictory "INSPIRATIONS?" Is it God or is it Satan! In which religion is the DEVIL synonymous with GOD? I am not talking about "Satanism" a recent fungus growth of Christianity, in which ex-Christians worship the Devil. Christianity has been most prolific of spawning isms. Atheism, Communism, Fascism, Totalitarianism, Nazism, Mormonism, Moonism, Christian Scientism and now Satanism. What else will Christianity give birth to?

The "Holy Bible" lends itself to all kinds of contradictory interpretations. This is the Christian boast! "SOME CLAIM AND RIGHTLY SO, THAT BIBLICAL PASSAGES HAVE BEEN CONTINUOUSLY MISUSED AND MISAPPROPRIATED TO JUSTIFY ALMOST EVERY EVIL KNOWN TO MAN" (From: "The Plain Truth" an American-based Christian Journal under the heading: "THE BIBLE — World's Most Controversial Book." (July 1975).

WHO ARE THE REAL AUTHORS?

As further evidence will be adduced from "Samuel" and "Chronicles" I deem it advisable first to determine their authors instead of suspecting God of those books' incongruities. The Revisers of the RSV say:

(a) SAMUEL: Author "Unknown" (Just one word)

(b) CHRONICLES: Author "Unknown, probably collected and edited by Ezra."

We must admire the humility of these Bible scholars, but their "possiblys" "probablys" and "likelys" are always construed as ACTUALLY'S by their fleeced sheep. Why make poor Ezra or Isaiah the scapegoats for these anonymous writers?

WHAT DID THE LORD DECREE 3 YEARS FAMINE OR 7 YEARS FAMINE?
II SAMUEL 24:13

13.So Gad came to David, and told him, and said unto him, Shall seven years of famine come unto thee in thy land? Or wilt thou flee three months before thine enemies, while they pursue, thee?

I CHRONICLES 21:11

11. So Gad came to David, and said unto him, Thus saith the LORD, Choose thee
12. Either three years' famine; or three months to be destroyed before thy foes, while that the sword of thine enemies overtaketh thee;




If God is the Author of every single word, comma and full-stop in the Bible, as the Christians claim, then is He the Author of the above arithmetical discrepancy as well?

THREE OR SEVEN?

Note the reproduction of above. Compare both the quotations. 2 Samuel 24:13 tells us — "So Gad came to David, AND TOLD HIM, and said unto him . . ." These words are repeated word for word in 1 Chronicles 21:11, except the redundant "AND TOLD HIM" is removed! But while trimming the useless phrase, the author also pruned the time factor from "SEVEN" years to "THREE" years. What did God say to Gad — Three or Seven years plague — "on both your houses?"



EIGHT OR EIGHTEEN?

See below. Compare the two quotations. 2 Chronicles 36:9 tells us that JEHOIACHIN was "eight" years old when he began to reign, while 2 Kings 24:8 says that he was "eighteen" when he began to reign. The "unknown" author of KINGS must have reasoned that what possible "evil" could a child of eight do to deserve his abdication, so he generously added ten years to make JEHOIACHIN mature enough to become liable to God's wrath. However, he had to balance his tampering, so he cut short his reign by 10 days! Add TEN years to age and deduct TEN days from rule? Could God Almighty say two widely differing things on the same subject?

THE BOOK CHRISTENED "THE NEW TESTAMENT"



WHY "ACCORDING TO?"

What about the so-called New Testament? 1 Why does every Gospel begin with the introduction — ACCORDING TO , ACCORDING TO , (See below). Why "according to?" Because not a single one of the vaunted four thousand copies extant carries its author's autograph! Hence the supposition "according to!" Even the internal evidence proves that Matthew was not the author of the first Gospel which bears his name.

"And as Jesus passed forth thence, HE (JESUS) saw a man, named Matthew, sitting at the receipt of custom: and HE (JESUS) saith unto HIM (MATTHEW), follow ME (JESUS) And HE (MATTHEW) arose, and followed HIM (JESUS)."

(Matthew 9:9)

1. The "so-called," because nowhere does the "New Testament" calls itself the New Testament, and nowhere the Old Testament calls itself the Old Testament. And also the word "Bible" is unknown within the pages of the Bible. God forgot to give a title to "HIS" books!

Without any stretch of the imagination, one can see that the "He's" and the "Him's" of the above narration do not refer to Jesus or Matthew as its author, but some third person writing what he saw and heard — a hearsay account. If we cannot even attribute this "book of dreams" (as the first Gospel is also described) to the disciple Matthew, how can we accept it as the Word of God?





ST. MATHEW 9

Mathew Called

9. And as Jesus passed forth from thence, he
saw a man named Mathew, sitting at the receipt
of custom: and he saith unto him, follow me. And he arose, and followed him.

"HE" AND "HIM"
NOT MATHEW!












"HE" AND "HIM"
NOT JOHN!

ST. JOHN 19

35. And he that saw it bare record,
and his record is true: and he knoweth
that he saith true, that ye might believe. ST. JOHN 21

24. This is the disciple which testifieth
of these things, and wrote these things:
and we know that his testimony is true.

The Conclusion

25. And there are also many other things
which Jesus did, the which, if they should
be written every one, I suppose that even
the world itself could not contain the books
that should be written. Amen.






We are not alone in this discovery that Matthew did not write the "Gospel according to St. Matthew" and that it was written by some anonymous hand. J. B. Phillips concurs with us in our findings. He is the paid servant of the Anglican Church, a prebendary of the Chichester Cathedral, England. He would have no reason to lie or betray to the detriment of the official view of his Church! Refer to his introduction to the "Gospel of St. Matthew" (reproduced here below). Phillips has this to say about its authorship.

"EARLY TRADITION ASCRIBED THIS GOSPEL TO THE APOSTLE MATTHEW, BUT SCHOLARS NOWADAYS ALMOST ALL REJECT THIS VIEW." In other words, St. Matthew did not write the Gospel which bears his name. This is the finding of Christian scholars of the highest eminence — not of Hindus, Muslims and Jews who may be accused of bias. Let our Anglican friend continue: "THE AUTHOR, WHOM WE STILL CAN CONVENIENTLY CALL MATTHEW" "Conveniently" because otherwise everytime we made a reference to "Matthew" we would have to say — "THE FIRST BOOK OF THE NEW TESTAMENT" Chapter so and so, verse so and so. And again and again "The first book . . ." etc. Therefore, according to J. B. Phillips it is convenient that we give the book some name. So why not "Matthew?" Suppose its as good a name as any other! Phillips continues: "THE AUTHOR HAS PLAINLY DRAWN ON THE MYSTERIOUS 'Q' WHICH MAY HAVE BEEN A COLLECTION OF ORAL TRADITIONS." What is this "mysterious 'Q'?" "Q" is short for the German word "quella" which means "sources." There is supposed to be another document — a common source — to which our present Matthew, Mark and Luke had access. All these three authors, whoever they were, had a common eye on the material at hand. They were writing as if looking through "one" eye. And because they saw eye to eye, the first three "Gospels" came to be known as the Synoptic Gospels.



WHOLESALE CRIBBING

But what about that "inspiration" business? The Anglican prebendary has hit the nail on the head. He is, more than anyone else, entitled to do so. A paid servant of the Church, an orthodox evangelical Christian, a Bible scholar of repute, having direct access to the "original" Greek manuscripts, let HIM spell it out for us. (Notice how gently he lets the cat out of the bag): "HE (Matthew) HAS USED MARK'S GOSPEL FREELY" which in the language of the school-teacher — "has been copying WHOLESALE from Mark!" Yet the Christians call this wholesale plagiarism the Word of God?

Does it not make you wonder that an eye-witness and an ear-witness to the ministry of Jesus, which the disciple Matthew was supposed to be, instead of writing his own first hand impressions of the ministry of "his Lord" would go and steal from the writings of a youth (Mark), who was a ten year old lad when Jesus upbraided his nation? Why would an eye-witness and ear-witness copy from a fellow who himself was writing from hearsay? The disciple Matthew would not do any such silly thing. For an anonymous document has been imposed on the fair name of Matthew.

PLAGIARISM OR LITERARY KIDNAPPING

Plagiarism means literary theft. Someone copies ad verbatim (word for word) from another's writing and palms it off as his own, is known as plagiarism. This is a common trait amongst the 40 or so anonymous authors of the books of the Bible. The Christians boast about a supposedly common cord amongst the writers of the 66 Protestant booklets and the writers of the 73 Roman Catholic booklets called the "Holy Bible." Some common cord there is, for Matthew and Luke, or whoever they were, had plagiarised 85% word for word from Mark! God Almighty did not dictate the same wordings to the synoptists (one-eyed). The Christians themselves admit this, because they do not believe in a verbal inspiration, as the Muslims do about the Holy Qur'an. 1

This 85% plagiarism of Matthew and Luke pales into insignificance compared to the literary kidnapping of the authors of the Old Testament where a hundred percent stealing occurs in the so-called Book of God. Christian scholars of the calibre of Bishop Kenneth Cragg euphemistically calls this stealing, "reproduction"2 and take pride in it.

FIFTY THOUSAND ERRORS (?)



The Jehovah's Witnesses in their "AWAKE!" Magazine dated 8 September, 1957, carried this startling headline — "50000 ERRORS IN THE BIBLE?" (See below for the reproduction).

While I was still formulating the theme of this booklet, I heard a knock at my door one Sunday morning. I opened the door. A European gentleman stood there, grinning broadly. "Good morning'" he said. "Good morning" I replied. He was offering me his "Awake" and "Watchtower" magazines. Yes, a Jehovah's Witness! If a few had knocked at your door previously, you will recognize them immediately. The most supercilious lot of people who ever knocked at people's doors! I invited him in.

As soon as he settled down, I produced the full reproduction of what you see below. Pointing to the monograph



at the top of the page, I asked, "Is this your's?" He readily recognised his own. I said, "It says: 50 000 Errors in the Bible, is it true?" "What's that!" he exclaimed. I repeated, "I said, that it says, that there are 50 000 errors in your Bible." "Where did you get that?" He asked. (This was published 23 years ago, when he was perhaps a little nipper) I said, "Leave the fancy talk aside — is this your's?" pointing again to the monograph — "Awake!" He said, "Can I have a look?" "Of course," I said. I handed him the page. He started perusing. They (the Jehovah's Witnesses) are trained. They attend classes five times a week in their "Kingdom Halls." Naturally, they are the fittest missionaries among the thousand -and - one - sects - and - denominations of Christendom. They are taught that when cornered, do not commit yourself to anything, do not open your mouths. Wait for the Holy Ghost to inspire you with what to say.





* To read the complete article, click here

I silently kept watching him, while he browsed the page. Suddenly he looked up. He had found it. The "Holy Ghost" had tickled him. He began, "The article says that "most of those errors have been eliminated." I asked "If MOST are eliminated, how many remain out of 50000? 5000? 500? 50? Even if 50 remain, do you attribute those errors to God?" He was speechless. He excused himself by suggesting that he will come again with some senior member of his Church. That will be the day!

If I had this booklet ready, I would have offered him, saying — "I would like to do you a favour, give me your name and address, and your telephone number. I will lend you this booklet — IS THE BIBLE GOD'S WORD?" for 90 days. I want a written reply!" If you do this, And a few other Muslims do the same. They and the other missionaries will never darken your doors again. I believe that this publication will prove the most effective talisman to date. Insha-Allah!

This "cult" of Jehovah's Witnesses which is so strong in its condemnation of the orthodox Trinitarians, for playing with the "Word of God," is itself playing the same game of semantic gymnastics. In the article under review — "50000 ERRORS IN THE BIBLE?" — they say: "there are probably 50 000 errors . . . errors that have crept into the Bible text . . . 50000 such serious (?) errors… most of those so-called errors, as a whole the Bible is accurate." (?)

We do not have the time and space to go into the tens of thousands of — grave or minor — defects that the authors of the Revised Standard Version (RSV) have attempted to revise. We leave that privilege to the Christian scholars of the Bible. Here I will endeavour to cast just a cursory glance at a "half-a-dozen" or so of those "minor" changes.

1. "Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign: Behold, a VIRGIN shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel."

(Isaiah 7:14 - AV)

The indispensable "VIRGIN" in the above verse has now been replaced in the RSV with the phrase "a young woman," which is the correct translation of the Hebrew word almah. Almah is the word which has occurred all along in the Hebrew text and NOT bethulah which means VIRGIN. This correction is only to be found in the English language translation, as the RSV is only published in this tongue. For the African and the Afrikaner, the Arab and the Zulu, in fact, in the 1 500 other languages of the world, Christians are made to continue to swallow the misnomer "VIRGIN."

THREE GRADES OF EVIDENCE

We Muslims have no hesitation in acknowledging that in the Bible, there are three different kinds of witnessing recognizable without any need of specialized training. These are:

1. You will be able to recognize in the Bible what may be described as "The Word of God."

2. You will also be able to discern what can be described as the "Words of a Prophet of God."

3. And you will most readily observe that the bulk of the Bible is the records of eye witnessess or ear witnesses, or people writing from hearsay. As such they are the "Words of a Historian"

You do not have to hunt for examples of these different types of evidences in the Bible. The following quotations will make the position crystal clear:

The FIRST Type:

(a) I will raise them up a prophet . . . and I will put my words in , and he shall speak unto them all that I shall command him." (Deuteronomy 18:18)

(b) I even, I am the Lord, and beside me there is no saviour." (Isaiah 43:11)

(c) "Look unto me, and be ye saved, all the end of the earth: for I am God, and there is non else." (Isaiah 45:22)

Note the first person pronoun singular (highlighted in green) in the above references, and without any difficulty you will agree that the statements seem to have the sound of being GOD'S WORD.

The SECOND Type:

(a) "Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying Eli, Eli, lama sabachtani? . . ." (Matthew 27:46)

(b) "And Jesus answered him, The first of all the commandments is, Hear, O Israel; the Lord our God is one Lord:" (Mark 12:29)

(c) "And Jesus said unto him, Why callest thou me good? There is none good but one, that is God." (Mark 10:18).

Even a child will be able to affirm that: Jesus "cried" Jesus "answered" and Jesus "said" are the words of the one to whom they are attributed, i.e. the WORDS OF A PROPHET OF GOD.

The THIRD Type:

"And seeing a fig tree afar off having leaves, he, (JESUS) came, if haply he (JESUS) might find anything thereon: and when he (JESUS) came to it, (Jesus) found nothing but leaves . . ." (Mark 11:13)

The bulk of the Bible is a witnessing of this THIRD kind. These are the words of a third person. Note the underlined pronouns. They are not the Words of God or of His prophet, but the WORDS OF A HISTORIAN.

For the Muslim it is quite easy to distinguish the above types of evidence, because he also has them in his own faith. But of the followers of the different religions, he is the most fortunate in this that his various records are contained in separate Books!

ONE: The first kind — THE WORD OF GOD — is found in a Book called The Holy Qur’an.

TWO: The second kind — THE WORDS OF THE PROPHET OF GOD, (Muhummed, may the peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) are recorded in the Books of Tradition called The Hadith.

THREE: Evidence of the third kind abounds in different volume of Islamic history, written by some of high integrity and learning, and others of lesser trustworthiness, but the Muslim advisedly keeps his Books in separate volumes!

The Muslim keeps the above three types of evidence Jealously apart, in their proper gradations of authority. He never equates them. On the other hand, the "Holy Bible" contains a motley type of literature, which composes the embarrassing kind, the sordid, and the obscene — all under the same cover — A Christian is forced to concede equal spiritual import and authority to all, and is thus unfortunate in this regard.

WHAT THEY SAY

CHRISTIANS CONFESS

Dr. W. Graham Scroggie of the MOODY BIBLE INSTITUTE, Chicago, one of the most prestigious Christian Evangelical Mission in the world, answering the question — "Is the Bible the Word of God?" (also the title of his book), under the heading: IT IS HUMAN, YET DIVINE. He says on page 17:

"Yes, the Bible is human, though some, out of zeal which is not according to knowledge, 1 have denied this. Those books2 have passed through the minds of men, are written in the language of men, were penned by the hands of men, and bear in their style the characteristics of men." (Emphasis added).

Another erudite Christian scholar, Kenneth Cragg, the Anglican Bishop of Jerusalem, says on page 277 of his book, "The Call of the Minaret":

"Not so the New Testament3 . . . There is condensation and editing; 4 there is choice, reproduction and witness. The Gospels have come through the mind of the Church behind the authors. They represent experience and history." 5

If words have any meaning, do we need to add another word of comment to prove our case? No! But the professional propagandists, after letting the cat out of the bag, still have the face to try to make their readers believe that they have proved beyond the shadow of any doubt that the Bible is the "irrefragable 6 Word of God." Their semantic gymnastics — equivocating, and playing with words — is amazing!

1. Out of ignorance.

2. The Bible is not Just a Book. It is a selection and compilation of many books.

3. As opposed to the Qur'an.

4. Another word for Interpolating.

5. Emphasis are mine.

6. Indisputable.

Both these Doctors of Religion are telling us in the clearest language humanly possible that the Bible is the handiwork of man, all the while pretending that the are proving to the contrary. An old Arab saying goes: "IF SUCH ARE THE PRIESTS, GOD BLESS THE CONGREGATION."

With this sort of drive, the hot-gospeller and the Bible-thumper is "inspired" to harry the "heathen." 1 A theological student — a not-yet-qualified young evangelist — from the University of Witwatersrand, became a frequent visitor to the Newtown Mosque in Johannesburg, with the "noble" thought of "witnessing"2 to the members of its congregation. When I was introduced to him, (and having learnt his purpose), I invited him to lunch at my brother's residence — a stone's-throw from the Mosque. While discussing the authenticity of the Bible over the dinner table and sensing his stubborn dogmatism, I put out a feeler: "Your Professor Geyser, (The Head of the Department of Theology) does not believe the Bible to be the Word of God." Without the slightest surprise he answered, "I know." Now I personally had no knowledge of the Professor's conviction about the Bible. I had only assumed so from a controversy which raged around him about the "Divinity of Christ." 3 He had taken issue with the orthodox believers on this point some years ago. I continued further, saying, "Your lecturer does not believe the Bible as being God's Word." The young evangelist, responded again, "I know" but he continued this time-with the words, "but I believe that it is the Word of God!" There is no real remedy for such people. Even Jesus bewailed this sickness:

", seeing they see not; and hearing they hear not, neither do they understand." (Matthew 13:13)

Al-Qur'an, the Holy Book of God, also condemns this mulish mentality:



These pages are now addressed to those sincerely humble souls, who are genuinely interested in seeking the Light of God, and who wish to be guided by it. As for the other, with a sickness in their souls, the facts presented herein can only increase the disease of their hearts.



1

Mary Honored

The birth of Jesus Christ is described in two places of the Quran - chapter 3 and chapter 19. Reading from the beginning of his birth, we come across the story of Mary, and the esteemed position which she occupies in the House of Islam, before the actual annunciation of the birth of Jesus is given:

"'Behold'! the angels said: 'O Mary! God hath chosen thee and purified thee, and chosen thee above the women of all nations" (3:42)

"Chosen thee above the women of all nations." Such an honor is not to be found given to Mary even in the Christian Bible! The verse continues:

"O Mary! Worship thy Lord devoutly: prostrate thyself, and bow down (in prayer) with those who bow down." (3:43)

Divine Revelation

What is the source of this beautiful and sublime recitation which, in its original Arabic, moves men to ecstasy and tears? verse 44 below explains:

"This is part of the tidings, of the things unseen, which We reveal unto thee (O Muhammad!) by inspiration: Thou wast not with them when they cast lots with arrows, as to which of them should be charged with the care of Mary: nor wast thou with them when they disputed (the point)." (3:44)

Mary's Birth

The story is that the maternal grandmother of Jesus, Hannah, had hitherto been barren. She poured out her heart to God: If only God will grant her a child, she would surely dedicate such a child for the service of God in the temple.

God granted her prayer and Mary was born. Hannah was disappointed. She was yearning for a son, but instead she delivered a daughter; and in no way is the female like the male, for what she had in mind. What was she to do? She had made a vow to God. She waited for Mary to be big enough to fend for herself.

When the time came, Hannah took her darling daughter to the temple, to hand over for temple services. Every priest wanted to be the god-father of this child. They cast lots with arrows for her - like the tossing of the coin - head or tail?
eventually she fell to the lot of Zakariya, but not without a dispute.

The Source of His Message

This was the story. But where did Muhammed, salla Allah u alihi wa sallam, get this knowledge from? He was an Ummi, Arabic for "unlettered". He did not low how to read or write. He is made by God Almighty to answer this very question in the verse above, by saying that it was all by divine inspiration. "No!", says the controversialist. "This is Muhammed's own concoction. He copied his revelations from the Jews and Christians. He plagiarized it. He forged it."

Knowing full-well, and believing as we do, that the whole Quran is the veritable Word of God, we will nevertheless agree, for the sake of argument, with the enemies of Muhammed, salla Allah u alihi wa sallam, for a moment, that he wrote it. We can now expect some cooperation from the unbelievers.

Ask him: "Have you any qualms in agreeing that Muhammed was an Arab?" Only an ignorant will hesitate to agree. In that case there is no sense in pursuing any discussion. Cut short the talk. Close the book!

With the man of reason, we proceed. "That this Arab, in the first instance, was addressing other Arabs. He was not talking to Indian Muslims, Chinese Muslims, or Nigerian Muslims. He was addressing his own people, the Arabs. Whether they agreed with him or not, he told them in the most sublime form, words that were seared into the hearts and minds of his listeners that Mary the mother of Jesus, a Jewess, was chosen above the women of all nations. Not his own mother, nor his wife nor his daughter, nor any other Arab woman, but a Jewess! Can one explain this? Because to everyone his own mother or wife, or daughters would come before other women.

Why would the prophet of Islam honor a woman from his opposition! and a Jewess at that! belonging to a race which had been looking down upon his people for three thousand years? Just as they still look down upon their Arab brethren today."

Sarah and Hagar

The Jews learn, from the Bible, that their father, Abraham, had two wives Sarah and Hagar. They say that they are the children of Abraham through Sarah his legitimate wife; that their Arab brethren have descended through Hagar, a "bondwoman", and that as such, the Arabs are an inferior breed.

Will anyone please explain the anomaly as to why Muhammed, salla Allah u alihi wa sallam, if he is the author, chose this Jewess for such high honor? The answer is simple, he had no choice he had no right to speak of his own desire. "It is no less than an inspiration sent down to him." (53:4)

The Chapter of Maryam

There is a Chapter in the Holy Quran, named Surat u Maryam "Chapter Mary", named in honor of Mary the mother of Jesus Christ, peace and blessings of Allah be upon him; again, such an honor is not to be found given to Mary in the Christian Bible. Out of the 66 books of the Protestants and 73 of the Roman Catholics, not one is named after Mary or her son. You will find books named after Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Peter, Paul and two score more obscure names, but not a single one is that of Mary!

If Muhammed, salla Allah u alihi wa sallam, was the author of the Holy Quran, then he would not have failed to include in it with Mary, the mother of Jesus, his own mother Aamina, his dear wife Khadija, or his beloved daughter Fatima. But No! No! This can never be. The Quran is not his handiwork!.

ristians Unaware

The Christian does not know that the true spirit of charity which the Muslim displays, always, towards Jesus and his mother Mary spring from the fountainhead of his faith - the Holy Quran. He does not know that the Muslim does not take the holy name of Jesus, in his own language, without saying Eesa, alaihi assalam ("Jesus, peace be upon him"

The Christian does not know that in the Holy Quran Jesus is mentioned twenty five times. For example:

"We gave Jesus, the son of Mary, clear signs and strengthened him with the Holy Spirit" (The Holy Quran 2:87)

"O Mary! God giveth thee glad tidings of a Word from Him: his name will be Christ Jesus, the son of Mary, " (3:45)

", Christ Jesus the son of Mary was (no more than) an apostle of god, " (4:171)

", And in their foot steps we sent Jesus the son of Mary, " (5:46)

"And Zakariya and John, and Jesus and Elias: all in the ranks of the righteous." (6:85)

Jesus - His Titles

Though Jesus is mentioned by name in twenty-five places in the Holy Quran, he is also addressed with respect as: Ibn Maryam, meaning "The son of Mary"; and as the Maseeh (in Hebrew it is the Messiah), which is translated as "Christ". He is also known as Abdullah, "The servant of Allah"; and as Rasul u Allah, the messenger of Allah.

He is spoken of as "The Word of God", as "The Spirit of God", as a "Sign of God", and numerous other epithets of honor spread over fifteen different chapters. The Holy Quran honors this mighty messenger of God, and the Muslims have not fallen short over the past fourteen hundred years in doing the same. There is not a single disparaging remark in the entire Quran to which even the most jaundiced among the Christians can take exception.

Eesa Latinised to "Jesus"

The Holy Quran refers to Jesus as Eesa, and this name is used more times than any other title, because this was his "Christian" name. Actually, his proper name was Eesa (Arabic), or Esau (Hebrew); classical Yeheshua, which the Christian nations of the West latinised as Jesus. Neither the "J" nor the second "s" in the name Jesus is to be found in the original tongue - they are not found in the Semitic languages.

The word is very simply "E S A U" a very common Jewish name, used more than sixty times in the very first booklet alone of the Bible, in the part called "Genesis". There was at least one "Jesus" sitting on the "bench" at the trial of Jesus before the Sanhedrin. Josephus the Jewish historian mentions some twenty five Jesus' in his "Book of Antiquities". The New Testament speaks of "Bar-Jesus" a magician and a sorcerer, a false prophet (Acts 13:6); and also "Jesus-Justus" a Christian missionary, a contemporary of Paul (Colossians 4:11). These are distinct from Jesus the son of Mary. Transforming "Esau" to (J)esu(s) - Jesus - makes it unique. This unique (?) name has gone out of currency among the Jews and the Christians from the 2nd century after Christ. Among the Jews, because it came to be a name of ill - repute, the name of one who blasphemed in Jewry; and among the Christians because it came to be the proper name of their God. The Muslim will not hesitate to name his son Eesa because it is an honored name, the name of a righteous servant of the Lord.

ALLAH IN THE CHRISTIAN BIBLE

The Rev. C. I. Scofield, D. D. with a team of 8 Consulting Editors, also all D.D.’s in the "Scofield Reference Bible" thought it appropriate to spell the Hebrew word "Elah" (meaning God) alternatively as "Alah" The Christians had thus swallowed the camel — they seemed to have accepted at last that the name of God is Allah — but were still straining at the gnat by spelling Allah with one "L"! (Photographic reproduction of the Bible page showing the word "ALAH" is preserved here for posterity below). References were made in public lectures to this fact by the author of this booklet. Believe me, the subsequent "Scofield Reference Bible" has retained word for word the whole commentary of Genesis 1:1, but has, by a clever sleight-of-hand, blotted out the word "Alah" altogether. There is not even a gap where the word "Alah" once used to be. 1 This is in the Bible of the orthodox! One is hard pressed to keep up with their Jugglery.

1. See "WHAT IS HIS NAME" for more information on this Biblical omission of the word Allah. Under the section of "Now you see it, now you don’t".

THE MULTIPLE BIBLE VERSIONS

It will now be easy for us to analyze a Christian's claim about his Holy Book.

SEPARATING THE WHEAT FROM THE CHAFF

Before we scrutinize the various versions, let us clarify our own belief regarding the Books of God. When we say that we believe in the Tauraat, the Zaboor, the Injeel and the Qur'an, what do we really mean? We already know that the Holy Qur'an is the infallible Word of God, revealed to our Holy Prophet Hazrat Muhummed Mustapha (Peace be upon him) word for word, through the agency of the Archangel Jibraeel, (known as Gabriel in English), and perfectly preserved and protected from human tampering for the past fourteen hundred years! 1 Even hostile critics of Islam have grudgingly vouched for the purity of the Holy Qur'an: "THERE IS PROBABLY IN THE WORLD NO OTHER BOOK WHICH HAS REMAINED TWELVE CENTURIES (now fourteen) WITH SO PURE A TEXT." — (Sir William Muir)

The Tauraat we Muslims believe in is not the "Torah" of the Jews and the Christians, though the words — one Arabic, the other Hebrew — are the same. We believe that whatever the Holy Prophet Moses (Peace be upon him) preached to his people, was the revelation from God Almighty, but that Moses was not the author of those "books" attributed to him by the Jews and the Christians. 2

Likewise, we believe that the Zaboor was the revelation of God granted to Hazrat Dawood (David) (Peace be upon him), but that the present Psalms associated with his name are not that revelation. The Christians themselves do not insist that David is the sole author of "his" Psalms.3

1. Whether Muslim or non-Muslim, you do not have lo accept this claim on faith alone. You can verify the fact that Al-Qur'an is the Word of God. See "AL-QURAN- The Miracle of Miracles";

2- More evidence later on — "Moses not the author of the Biblical "Torah."

3, Later on you’ll read how Christian "Brains Trust" confess — "Author; Principally David, though there are other writers."

What about the Injeel? INJEEL means the "Gospel" or "good news" which Jesus Christ preached during his short ministry. The "Gospel" writers often mention that Jesus going about and preaching the Gospel (the Injeel):

1. "And Jesus went . . . preaching the gospel . . . and healing every disease among the people." (Matthew 9:35)

2. ", but whosoever shall lose his fife for my sake and the gospel's, the same shall save it." (Mark 8:35)

3. ", preached the gospel. . ." (Luke 20:1)



The "gospel" is a frequently-used word, but what Gospel did Jesus preach? Of the 27 books of the New Testament, only a small fraction can be accepted as the words of Jesus. The Christians boast about the Gospels according to St. Matthew, according to St. Mark, according to St. Luke and according to St. John, but there is not a single Gospel "according" to (St.) Jesus himself! We sincerely believe that everything Christ (May the peace and blessings of God be upon him) preached was from God. That was the Injeel, the good news and the guidance of God for the Children of Israel. In his life-time Jesus never wrote a single word, nor did he instruct anyone to do so. What passes off as the "GOSPELS" today are the works of anonymous hands!

The question before us is: "Do you accept that the Bible is God's Word?" The question is really in the form of a challenge. The questioner is not simply seeking enlightenment. The question is posed in the spirit of a debate. We have every right to demand in a similar vein — "Which Bible are you talking about?", we may ask. "Why, there is only ONE Bible!" he mutters.

THE CATHOLIC BIBLE

Holding the "Douay" Roman Catholic Version of the Bible aloft in my hand, I ask, "Do YOU accept THIS Bible as the Word of God?" For reasons best known to themselves, the Catholic Truth Society have published their Version of the Bible in a very short, stumpy form. This Version is a very odd proportion of the numerous Versions in the market today. The Christian questioner is taken aback. "What Bible is that?" he asks. "Why, I thought you said that there was only ONE Bible!" I remind him. "Y-e-s," he murmurs hesitantly, "but what Version is that?" "Why, would that make any difference?" I enquire. Of course it does, and the professional preacher knows that it does. He is only bluffing with his "ONE Bible" claim.

The Roman Catholic Bible was published at Rheims in 1582, from Jerome's Latin Vulgate and reproduced at Douay in 1609. As such the RCV (Roman Catholic Version) is the oldest Version that one can still buy today. Despite its antiquity, the whole of the Protestant world, including the "cults"* condemn the RCV because it contains seven extra "books" which they contemptuously refer to as the "apocrypha" i.e. of DOUBTFUL AUTHORITY. Notwithstanding the dire warning contained in the Apocalypse, which is the last book in the RCV (renamed as "Revelation" by the Protestants), it is "revealed":

". . . If any man shall add to these things (or delete) God shall add unto him the plagues written in this Book."
(Revelation 22:18-19)

But who cares! They do not really believe! The Protestants have bravely expunged seven whole books from their Book of God! The outcasts are:

The Book of Judith
The Book of Tobias
The Book of Baruch
The Buck of Esther, etc.

* This disparaging title is given by the orthodox to Jehovah's Witnesses, the Seventh Day Adventists and a thousand other sects and denominations with whom they do not see eye to eye.

THE PROTESTANT BIBLE

Sir Winston Churchill has some pertinent things to say about the Authorised Version (AV) of the Protestant Bible, which is also widely known as the "King James Version (KJV)".

"THE AUTHORISED VERSION OF THE BIBLE WAS PUBLISHED IN 1611 BY THE WILL AND COMMAND OF HIS MAJESTY KING JAMES THE 1ST WHOSE NAME IT BEARS TILL TODAY."

The Roman Catholics, believing as they do that the Protestants have mutilated the Book of God, are yet aiding and abetting the Protestant "crime" by forcing their native converts to purchase the Authorised Version (AV) of the Bible, which is the only Bible available in some 1500 languages of the lesser developed nations of the world. The Roman Catholics milk their cows, but the feeding is left to the Protestants! The overwhelming majority of Christians — both Catholics and Protestant — use the Authorised (AV) or the King James Version (KJV) as it is alternatively called.

GLOWING TRIBUTES

First published, as Sir Winston says, in 1611, and then revised in 1881 (RV), and now re-revised and brought up to date as the Revised Standard Version (RSV) 1952, and now again re-re-revised in 1971 (still RSV for short). Let us see what opinion Christendom has of this most revised Bible, the RSV:-

1. "THE FINEST VERSION WHICH HAS BEEN PRODUCED IN THE PRESENT CENTURY." — (Church of England Newspaper)

2. "A COMPLETELY FRESH TRANSLATION BY SCHOLARS OF THE HIGHEST EMINENCE." — (Times literary Supplement)

3. "THE WELL-LOVED CHARACTERISTICS OF THE AUTHORISED VERSION COMBINED WITH A NEW ACCURACY OF TRANSLATION." — (Life and Work)

4. "THE MOST ACCURATE AND CLOSE RENDERING OF THE ORIGINAL" — (The Times)

The publishers (Collins) themselves, in their notes on the Bible at the end of their production, say on page 10: "THIS BIBLE (RSV), IS THE PRODUCT OF THIRTY-TWO SCHOLARS, ASSISTED BY AN ADVISORY COMMITTEE REPRESENTING FIFTY CO-OPERATING DENOMINATIONS." Why all this boasting? To make the gullible public buy their product? All these testimonies convince the purchaser that he is backing the right horse, with the purchaser little suspecting that he is being taken for a ride.

"THE WORLD'S BEST SELLER"

But what about the Authorised Version of the Bible (AV), the "World's Best Seller?" These Revisers, all good salesmen, have some very pretty things to say about it. However, their page iii, paragraph six of the PREFACE of the RSV reads;

"THE KING JAMES VERSION (alternative description of AV) HAS WITH GOOD REASON BEEN TERMED 'THE NOBLEST MONUMENT OF ENGLISH PROSE.’ ITS REVISERS IN 1881 EXPRESSED ADMIRATION FOR 'ITS SIMPLICITY, ITS DIGNITY, ITS POWER, ITS HAPPY TURNS OF EXPRESSION , THE MUSIC OF ITS CADENCES, AND THE FELICITIES OF ITS RHYTHM.’ IT ENTERED, AS NO OTHER BOOK HAS, INTO THE MAKING OF THE PERSONAL CHARACTER AND THE PUBLIC INSTITUTIONS OF THE ENGLISH-SPEAKING PEOPLES. WE OWE TO IT AN INCALCULABLE DEBT."

Can you, dear reader, imagine a more magnificent tribute being paid to the "Book of Books" than the above? I, for one, cannot. Let the believing Christian, now steel himself for the un-kindest blow of all from his own beloved Lawyers of Religion; for in the very same breath they say:

"YET THE KING JAMES VERSION HAS GRAVE DEFECTS." And, "THAT THESE DEFECTS ARE SO MANY AND SO SERIOUS AS TO CALL FOR REVISION . . ." This is straight from the horse's mouth, i.e. the orthodox Christian scholars of "the highest eminence." Another galaxy of Doctors of Divinity are now required to produce an encyclopaedia explaining the cause of those GRAVE AND SERIOUS DEFECTS in their Holy Writ and their reasons for eliminating them.





This is a photographic reproduction from the R.S.V. 1971.

THE MUSLIMS' STANDPOINT

PRESUMPTUOUS CHRISTIANS

Whether Catholic, Protestant or a "Cultist," of the thousand -and - one - sects - and - denominations-of-Christianity, never will you find a missionary who will not, prima facie, presuppose that his potential convert accepts his "Holy Bible" as the book of final authority on every religious opinion? The only answer the prospective proselyte has is to quote verses from the Bible which are contradictory to the missionary's or debate their interpretations.

THE DOGGED QUESTION

When the Muslim proves his point from the Christian's own Holy Scripture, and when the professional priest, parson or predikant cannot refute the arguments — the inevitable Christian evasion is — "DO YOU ACCEPT THE BIBLE AS GOD'S WORD? On the face of it, the question seems to be an easy one, but a simple "Yes" or "No" cannot be given as an answer. You see, one has first to explain one's position. But the Christian will not give one the opportunity. He gets impatient. "Answer — 'Yes or No!' " he insists. The Jews did the same to Jesus two thousand years ago, except that surprisingly he was not strait-jacketed, as is the fashion today!

The reader will readily agree that things are not always either BLACK or WHITE. Between these two extremes there are various shades of GREY. If you say "Yes" to his question, then it would mean that you are prepared to swallow everything HOOK, LINE and SINKER, from Genesis to Revelation from his Bible. If you respond with a "No" he quickly unhooks himself from the facts you have presented, and rallies support from his co-religionists in the audience with; "You see, this man does not believe in the Bible! What right has he to expound his case from our Book?" With this hydra-like somersault he rests content that he has safely evaded the issue. What is the Muballigh1to do? He has to explain his position vis-a-vis the Bible, as he ought to do.

1. MUBALLIGH: The Propagator of Islam



THREE GRADES OF EVIDENCE

We Muslims have no hesitation in acknowledging that in the Bible, there are three different kinds of witnessing recognizable without any need of specialized training. These are:

1. You will be able to recognize in the Bible what may be described as "The Word of God."

2. You will also be able to discern what can be described as the "Words of a Prophet of God."

3. And you will most readily observe that the bulk of the Bible is the records of eye witnessess or ear witnesses, or people writing from hearsay. As such they are the "Words of a Historian"

You do not have to hunt for examples of these different types of evidences in the Bible. The following quotations will make the position crystal clear:

The FIRST Type:

(a) I will raise them up a prophet . . . and I will put my words in , and he shall speak unto them all that I shall command him." (Deuteronomy 18:18)

(b) I even, I am the Lord, and beside me there is no saviour." (Isaiah 43:11)

(c) "Look unto me, and be ye saved, all the end of the earth: for I am God, and there is non else." (Isaiah 45:22)

Note the first person pronoun singular (highlighted in green) in the above references, and without any difficulty you will agree that the statements seem to have the sound of being GOD'S WORD.

The SECOND Type:

(a) "Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying Eli, Eli, lama sabachtani? . . ." (Matthew 27:46)

(b) "And Jesus answered him, The first of all the commandments is, Hear, O Israel; the Lord our God is one Lord:" (Mark 12:29)

(c) "And Jesus said unto him, Why callest thou me good? There is none good but one, that is God." (Mark 10:18).

Even a child will be able to affirm that: Jesus "cried" Jesus "answered" and Jesus "said" are the words of the one to whom they are attributed, i.e. the WORDS OF A PROPHET OF GOD.

The THIRD Type:

"And seeing a fig tree afar off having leaves, he, (JESUS) came, if haply he (JESUS) might find anything thereon: and when he (JESUS) came to it, (Jesus) found nothing but leaves . . ." (Mark 11:13)

The bulk of the Bible is a witnessing of this THIRD kind. These are the words of a third person. Note the underlined pronouns. They are not the Words of God or of His prophet, but the WORDS OF A HISTORIAN.

For the Muslim it is quite easy to distinguish the above types of evidence, because he also has them in his own faith. But of the followers of the different religions, he is the most fortunate in this that his various records are contained in separate Books!

ONE: The first kind — THE WORD OF GOD — is found in a Book called The Holy Qur’an.

TWO: The second kind — THE WORDS OF THE PROPHET OF GOD, (Muhummed, may the peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) are recorded in the Books of Tradition called The Hadith.

THREE: Evidence of the third kind abounds in different volume of Islamic history, written by some of high integrity and learning, and others of lesser trustworthiness, but the Muslim advisedly keeps his Books in separate volumes!

The Muslim keeps the above three types of evidence Jealously apart, in their proper gradations of authority. He never equates them. On the other hand, the "Holy Bible" contains a motley type of literature, which composes the embarrassing kind, the sordid, and the obscene — all under the same cover — A Christian is forced to concede

it depends on what you want in a wife, if u love her u can encourage and develop her to the standard u want, but if u want ready made then leave her alone cos if u marry her you have to be patient with her,

do you know why some people from north never bother to contribute to such forum, from the write ups, u can gauge the mind set of the contributors and you find out most like u are so shallow minded they see everything in the country from north/south or Christan/Muslim. most times by responding your r dignifying an >>>> ,  so silent is the best answer for a <<<<<,

And your point is?

You can't say that there has been increased confidence, trust, and security of our banking system since Sanusi took over, or can you?

my point is the banking sector is being sanitised, if sanusi didt come out with this drastic measure some of them will collapse, and what do you say to the public? though the way he is going about it might be questioned but i believe in what he is doing in the banking sector.

i read most of the write ups posted of sanusi and also followed the trend of responses, to be honest i came to the conclusion nothing good will ever come out from this country, if at this stage we are still shallow minded to always judge people from either their tribe or religion background without giving room for merit. even when soludo came up with consolidation in the banking industry some shallow minded people from the north also saw it as being a southern agenda. please my friends we should look above the religion/tribal sentiment when we comment on issues of national discuss.

it really beats my imagination how this guy goes about his biz, he comes out boldly to defend currution,

notoriously corrupt Attorney General Michael Aondoakaa has decided to take desperate measures to ensure his survival on Umaru Yar’adua’s inept, snoozing cabinet.

Our reliable sources said Aondoakaa, dubbed by some Nigerian lawyers as the nation’s most corrupt attorney general, has taken to threatening “to spill the beans if he loses his post.”

Our sources said that Aondoakaa had felt like a cornered quarry in recent weeks. One source said the attorney general’s coziness with corrupt former and serving public officials partly accounted for the directness with which Secretary of State Hillary Clinton condemned the Yar’adua regime’s awful record of corruption. A foreign diplomatic source in Abuja also said that Mrs. Clinton “was shocked at the open access to the Nigerian president enjoyed by a criminally indicted person like Mr. James Ibori.”

When the banking scandal broke, Aondoakaa was about to dust off his bag of tricks and work for the freedom of embattled bank chief executives-he had submitted a list of senior (prosecuting) lawyers to the EFCC, but he withdrew in silence after Yar’adua ordered him to stay out of the way.

Aondoakaa’s biggest scare came last week, after he made a curious statement asserting that the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) had cleared three former governors and Yar’adua’s Principal Private Secretary, David Edevbie, of allegations that they stole $38 million from the investments of three states in   Nigeria’s mobile phone company, V-Mobile. Aondoakaa’s statement followed our report that British authorities had indicted former Governors James Onanefe Ibori and Victor Attah as well as Edevbie in the $38 million fraud.

It was characteristic of Aondoakaa, as soon as Saharareporters broke the news last week regarding the filing of new charges against the trio before a UK magistrate court, to jump to the defense of the three former governors, including Bola Tinubu who was not indicted in the UK because he laundered his own share of the loot in Nigeria. He bragged that the case in the UK was without merit because the EFCC had concluded its investigations and concluded that the three governors did not steal the assets of their respective states after divesting from V-Mobile.

A shocker came Aondoakaa’s way a day after his press conference when the EFCC issued a statement contradicting his claim. The agency denied it had exonerated any of the suspects and insisted that the investigations were still ongoing, adding that only the law courts could make a pronouncement on the innocence of the suspects. The EFCC further underscored that Ibori was still facing trial at the Federal High Court in Asaba, Delta State. The EFCC’s statement was signed by EFCC spokesperson, Femi Babafemi. A source close to Aondoakaa said the attorney general was stung by the refutation. “Chief Aondoakaa had never felt this kind of public humiliation as minister,” said the source.

Saharareporters has learnt that the EFCC’s chairperson, Mrs. Farida Waziri, authorized the statement and then traveled out of Nigeria, making herself unavailable to the AGF, who furiously sought to reach her and prevail on her to distance herself from the EFCC spokesperson.

Unable to find Mrs. Waziri, Aondoakaa issued a tepid statement to the effect that he had no disagreements with the EFCC over the former governors.

Our source said Aondoakaa had also tried last weekend to reach Yar’adua or otherwise gauge the position of Aso Rock, national security staff told him that the EFCC statement received the blessing of the “president”. Turned back by Yar’adua’s staff, Aondoakaa arranged to meet with Yar’adua’s wife, Turai, who has been his biggest protector. He reportedly communicated his anger through her to the husband before Turai flew out to Austria to represent Nigeria in Vienna to the 53rd Session of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).

Over last weekend, according to a politician close to the attorney general, a distraught Aondoakaa griped to friends and political allies that Yar’adua “was is an ungrateful person.” Our source said he also threatened that, should Yar’adua yield to pressures to remove him from the cabinet, he would use the media to expose everything he did on Yar’adua’s behalf, especially his efforts to get the justices of the Court of Appeal and Supreme Court to validate the fraudulent 2007 general elections.

After failing to see Yar’adua over the weekend, Aondoakaa was finally summoned to the presidential Villa in Abuja yesterday for an audience with Yar’adua.

Saharareporters can reveal that the simmering feud between Aondoakaa and Waziri has nothing to do with principled disagreement. A source in London revealed that both the AGF and Mrs. Waziri’s EFCC had offered no significant cooperation on the UK’s investigations of the former governors particularly over the V-Mobile case involving theft of funds belonging to three states.

NO MATTER THE INTENTION OF A PUBLIC FIGURE ESPECIALLY FROM THE NORTH, HE WILL NOT BE GIVIN THE BENEFIT OF DOUBT, PEOPLE WILL NOT EVEN UNDERSTAND THE IMPORTANCE OF THE ISSUE, BUT SIMPLY because HE IS FROM THE NORTH, THEN HE DOING A NORTHERN AGENDA OR ISLAMISING THE COUNTRY. WHEN SOLUDO CAME WITH CONSOLODATION IN THE BANKING SECTOR, IT WAS SAID HE WAS DOING THE SOUTHERN AGENDA. WHEN WILL WE LOOK AT ISSUES OBJECTIVELY AND CRITICIZE BASED ON REASONING THEN SENTIMENTS AND MYOPIC VIEW

this i find hard to blive o, cos wit d way we see free girl all over looking for husband at any cost then it beats my imagination.

most nigerian on death row are criminals that deserve what they got, they think they are in nigeria where people do anything and get away with it, let them face the music since they are aware of what they are going into,

what do women want in a man that does not have money but have all the love to give