₦airaland Forum

DavidDylan:
na today?

babs787:
E don tay jare my brother

Your brother? Hehe. You wouldn't recognise irony if it bit you on the nose, crawled into your left eye and rest back out on your lips.
.

He's surely gone mental.

Perhaps very cheap crack.

Improbable.
.

N1answer:
Of course Jehovah's Witnesses are the only true religion!
You want proof?

Why don't you read the contributions prior to your bursting on the scene and address them; you could start from the 5 items numbered in this post: https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria?topic=4050.msg3014758#msg3014758 ; and you could take a stab at the last two too; that's 7. Let's see how the "true religion" claim holds up.

1 - The best proof is to grab a bible and read it from the very first page to the last page of it.
While you are reading, don't just read, but meditate too.

2 - Now, can someone tell me which other religion is more united and friendly then JW's? I don't think so, All the other religions havent got a problem to go on war and kill themselfs! don't matter what the background is, language or religion they are, they just simply kill, JW's never go to war,

Looks like you have quite a limited knowledge of world religions; that's not atypical of JWs or those newly "studying" with them. It is anti-intellectual to make a claim you've not thoroughly examined. But, to give you a not-so-subtle hint: no, JWs are not the only religion who don't go to war. Your calim above is so ridiculous it's imposssible to begin debunking it.

besides, we all know hundreds of JW's if not thousands of them, got killed in the 2nd world war for not going to war in Germany. That was in 1914 and that was when Jesus cleaned the heavens and the devil (satan) and the evil angels (demons) were sent to earth knowing that they have little time. So satan made this war knowing that he could make JW's suffer on this war. JW's never got involved in the war, they were prisioners and most of them got killed.

First off: it is not true that "most of them got killed"; that's a blatant lie; stop repeating it. You're parroting the popular JW explanation to explain what happened in 1914: '. . . there was war in heaven . . . Michael (who JWs believe is the resurrected Jesus Christ) prevails over Satan and his angels/demons . . . Satan and his friends were sent out of heaven . . . they come to planet earth with anger and orchestrate the WW1 . . . but they have a little time . . . ' If you want to know more about 'conscientious objectors' during was WWI and WW2, this is a good place to start: conhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conscientious_objector ; and, please, do stop repeating claims you haven't investigated.

3 - JW's show love for everyone, do the other religions show love to everyone? Why do they show love to

everyone? Because JW's follow Jesus example because he is perfect, and we all know Jesus was kind and showed love to everyone.

Yeah, love:

1) Right now, you can leave your current Church; when you become a JW by getting baptised, you will not be able to leave without serious consequences. Ask your JW handlers about this.

2) If a member of your family needs blood, you will not be able to support such a family member, even if that family member is not a JW.

3) When you get baptised, you will be required to go from door-to-door to preach; the catch is that for you to remain an "active publisher", you will need to preach for some minimum number of hours every month; if you don't you will be considered "spiritually weak", no matter what else you do.

4) When you get baptised, you will be required to obey every instruction of the JW Governing Body; the Governing Body is a men-only group, their office is in Brooklyn, and they are the de-facto head of the JW organisation. They claim to be "representatives" of the Faithful and Discreet Slave Class (the 144,000 who will be the only ones to go into heaven), and they hold absolute authority over JW doctrine. If you decide not to follow these rules, you will be labelled as "spiritually weak".

5) If you choose to leave the JWs, or openly disagree with Governing Body teachings, you may be "disfellowshipped"; basically, this means all JWs all over the world will not be allowed to talk to you, and you will be sth of an outcast. You may survive this if you have other relationships outside of the JW fold, but if you have burned your bridges before you join the JWs, you will be in a tight fix. If your employer is a JW, you will most likely lose your job; if your business involves other JWs, you will most definitely lose your customers.

.

Ndipe:
Yeah, they do deny the physical resurrection of Jesus Christ of Nazareth. I am not making it up, that was one of the sole reason why I refused to join the group, otherwise, I would have fallen hook line and sinker to their deceit.

There is no ambiguity in your post above; and I have to tell you that you have levelled a false accusation against JWs. No, JWs do not deny the physical resurrection of Jesus the Christ. when you level false accusations, you imbue JWs with power, because they claim that their persecutors will do this. If you came away with the impression that they deny the physical resurrection of Jesus, then you've got it all wrong.

1) Provide a reference for your claim
2) During your interaction with JWs, what book(s) did you "study" with them? If you provide the title(s) of the book(s), then your caim could be easily debunked.

The Holy Bible has clearly stated that the next coming of Jesus Christ will be visible, so the 1914 claim of His second coming by JW clearly contradicts the teachings of the Holy Bible.

This is different from your claim from your 'physical resurrection' claim. And yes, JWs do teach that the 'second coming' of Jesus (they call it 'presence'), will be invisible. That's another matter than 'physical resurrection'.

P:S: I am not a perfect human being.

No one is; but that's different from levelling a false claim against a Christian sect.
.

The freely available copy of the prologue of The Jewel of Medina is attached.

.

The question of what Jesus meant in invoking paradise for the criminal becomes clear when one considers "a reading" of the promise Jesus made.

Peritto4u: where are you when you're needed?
.

Samba: I think Rushdie is an exceptional writer; this is simple enough. There's no doubt that were it not for SV and the controversy surrounding it, Rushdie would have won the Nobel Prize for Literature. He's also a dangerously playful genius. Of course, I cannot claim to endorse all his views, and because he is irreligious (at least at this time), you should expect that he'll claim some liberties that may be sacriligious/blasphemous to many. Nothing he has written, nor anything he may further write, will warrant an execution. I hope that clears the part about endorsing Rushdie.

Bhola is correct that your request isn't clear. And even if clarity is assumed, you're asking that I post a paragraph or sentence from SV that makes it palatable; there're many such, and I don't think doing that will do anything to move the discussion forward. I asked if you wanted to read SV; the reason is simple: if you do want to read it, you could obtain a copy; yet, I'm not encouraging you to do that; it must be your choice, in accordance with your faith and disposition. I have an electronic copy of SV, but do I distribute it? No, I do not, and I have not. And, many Muslims have read SV, that's not necessarily because it is palatable; you read books for many reasons. For me, the reading to read SV is because it is controversial; that is enough. I will also be reading The Jewel of Medina (in fact, I have committed to post the prologue on the appropriate thread). When I read, then I can contribute and perhaps decide on where to stand. In short: it is a difficult task to comment on a book you haven't read.

I hope you're able to find the answer to your question about why anyone would read Rushdie's book above; and I hope it makes some sense to you.

P.S.: The list in post #105 does not include two of Rushdie's most recent books:

Shalimar The Clown, 2005
The Enchantress of Florence, 2008

Bhola: Thanks for your kind words; they are, to me, like fresh air. I agree with you that samba123 isn't straightforward to understand, but I try not to let that overshadow the posted opinion; I think what samba's got to say is more important than how he says it; yet, that's not to diminish your point about difficulty in understanding.

Thank you, again, for your reasonable position on declaration of faith. I would easily have declared my faith - there's no shame, nor compulsion in religion, or lack of it - but I refuse to, for the very fact that some on this board have made it a point to demand that I do it; my response is simple: no; not on this board; heck, I wouldn't do it if I didn't want to even if a sharp, long knife was grazing the small of my neck. We must get to a point where we do not allow threats, or abuse make us do things we do not want to; and not that we like abuse or threats, but because we refuse to give the lawless the satisfaction of lording it over us.

And, I thank you again for the recognition that there are other voices in Islam. At present, I am posting articles written by Muslims on contemporary issues on this site; it is the "Essays by Muslims" series. Please take a look if and when you have the time; the purpose is to generate discussion:

The politics of hijab - A bit of black cloth - https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-189842.0.html
Let The Qur’an Define Itself - https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-189486.0.html
Finding Sincerity In Cross-religious Dialogue - https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-189488.0.html

The book "The Jewel of Medina" has received some attention because of its theme; there's a thread about it here: https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-165868.0.html . I now have an electronic copy of the prologue of this book in my possession and will probably upload it today, Insha Allah.

Many times - as I suspect you may have concluded - the loudest voices do not speak for Muslims.
.

The politics of hijab - A bit of black cloth

By Karen Estes, September 27, 2008

Could I wear hijab in a place where it has come to mean a thousand and one things that have nothing whatsoever to do with Allah and everything to do with the all too mundane agendas of humanity? Never

The hijab (headscarf) has burst into the passionate and often confused discussion of current events and has become a highly charged battle standard on both sides of the veil. It has become an object of rage and indignation for many non-Muslims who see the practice as a backward custom, but one which is defiantly elbowing its way into the popular culture with increasing demands to be respected along with the identifying dress of other world religions. The phenomenon which most interests me, is the western woman convert to Islam with no experience of veiling growing up in the West who embraces hijab. It is however a phenomenon with what appears to be a remarkably short and identifiable history.

It was in 1975, in San Francisco, that I embraced Islam. I was the manager of a printing shop with a customer base that included a large number of Palestinians. These people delighted in discovering a Muslim convert and undertook to broaden my education in Islam. A large number of these people were women. Without exception they were strong and intelligent, and fiercely committed to their faith and to the salvation of their homeland, and none of them wore hijab of any kind. But this was the mid 1970s, Afghanistan and the Americans was decades away, Afghanistan and the Russians had not yet happened, and the political writings of ideologues like Dr. Ali Shari’ati and Jalal Al-i Ahmad and others that would help change the face of Islam and arguably the world forever, were just going to press.

The other side of my Islamic family was the mosque I attended and which had a large number of Iranian immigrants. This was a very different crew. Here was the Chanel suit crowd, the Mercedes, the Rolex watches, the poetry and the ney in place of the angry handbill and the never discrete collection envelope. And although we women did cover our heads during salat (prayer) in the mosque, none of these Iranian women ever wore any sort of hijab on the streets.

But this was the 1970’s in San Francisco, a confused experimental explosion of cults and religions and every possible and shameless cultural rip-off. The commonplace of turbans and harem pants, of saris and of a wealth of African plunder and Chinese imperial garb trailing in splendid layers off blue-eyed white bodies on the streets and in the cafes of San Francisco only increased the stark contrast of the Palestinians in their blue jeans and inexpensive brown business suits, and the Persians in their Chanel and Armani. And everyone drooled over the pages of National Geographic and the award winning photographs of veiled women jingled down under a wealth of jewelry and we each thought something very different, my two Islamic families and I.

Of course all us whiteys thought the veils were beautiful and exotic, we thought they were cool in our neo-Romantic ignorance of world culture. And all my Palestinian and Persian women friends hated the veil as an outdated symbol of former oppression, old fashioned and something their mothers did. And that’s where it stayed for a while, in the West, like a secret pregnancy, or a hidden virus, depending on how you chose to see it.

But there were widespread changes reshaping the world long before the events of September 11, 2001, changes which had their dark and tangled roots in Iran and the Middle East and in the imperialistic activities of three Western nations, Great Britain, the US, and Russia/USSR, and in events of the earliest decades of the 20th century and beyond which shaped future global conflicts. Then came the arrival of several waves of immigrants from places in the world referred to loosely as the "Middle East” but which included many countries not truly located in that geographic region at all.

Afghans fleeing the Russians came first - some of them wore hijab, and some did not - then came Iranians fleeing the Ayatollah - mostly not veiled - and, of course, more and more Palestinians fleeing everybody. Later still came the arrival of large numbers of people from Africa fleeing famine, war, corrupt and oppressive governments, drought, and AIDS. And this piece of cloth, hijab - a woman’s head covering which can be as simple as a scarf - has come out of the closet to become the branding logo for a whole new generation and a diverse range of conflicts, cultural and economic, religious and secular. These and similar issues, impossible to solve without the elixir of time, have now been distilled down to this little piece of black cloth.

Like the burning bra of the ‘60s, the hijab is on fire in the opening decade of the 21st century. But perhaps one of the saddest forums in which this controversy is raging is among Muslim women themselves. The dialogue among Western convert women at times has taken a peculiar turn. Several times I have encountered hijab-wearing convert women on the streets of Manhattan, their angry faces starring defiantly at me, seemingly very aware that they have adopted a mode of dress that singles them out and which affords them a strange and usually painless sort of martyrdom.

The purpose of hijab, as stated in the Qur’an, is modesty, and its purest goal is to remind one of their submission to Allah. Yet the reasons many convert women have cited to me for wearing hijab seldom include remembrance of God, but refer ironically to the great pride they feel when they wear hijab in public. With the growing number of mosques in the United States and the greater immigrant population, western converts to Islam increasingly find themselves unwelcome in mosques that frequently serve one ethnic or national group or another, and these converts will often adopt the national dress of the people whose mosque they attend in order to fit in.

This, too, is a change from decades in the past. Today, convert women are often not welcome at all if they happen to show up alone on the doorsteps of a mosque. Some convert women have told me that one cannot be a Muslim at all without adhering to not only hijab but an entire mode of Middle Eastern dress. But I tell these women to be honest and admit to yourselves, if to no one else, the real reason you don that foreign garb - it's cool, it’s beautiful, and you like it, and the human creature always delights to drink deeply at the well of novelty. And there will always be those who secretly thrill to the kiss of hubris by feeling that they have shouldered a heavy and visible burden for the sake of religion.

But does it really bring one closer to Allah? Which century, which country, which social class, tribe, or religious sect within Islam is considered the correct mode of dress to adopt? I am not proposing that as was the policy during the reign of Reza Shah in the 1920s, the hijab be forcibly ripped from women’s heads on the street. Nor do I discourage any woman from wearing hijab. I defend a woman’s right to wear hijab if it is her desire to do so, and if she understands the act she is engaging in. But neither do I wish to be told by a furious recent convert who has no understanding of the cultural and political history of hijab, that the contents of my heart are invalid as long as I am not wearing a piece of fabric on my head.

What I am always most intrigued to discover is this lack of historic understanding of that piece of cloth, the role that hijab as little more than a symbol is playing in some very troubling global movements within Islam, and the ease with which some western women have embraced and championed various elements within Islam that are clearly under historic and heated internal debate and which are being used to polarize various camps in a global conflict.

And I wonder if people who convert to a new religion cling to the visible signs of a cultural faith. Do such people become addicted to these symbols and their antinomian place within American culture, and become so enamored with these surface symbols that they never penetrate to the real treasures they might discover within their new faith. Do I wear hijab on the streets of Manhattan? No. Do I dress modestly? Of course.

But it is the meaning that hijab holds in the minds of others that I disdain. Can I and have I worn hijab in a mosque? Of course. Could I wear hijab in any place where it is the custom and appropriately respectful of my fellow Muslims? Gladly and with great pleasure. Could I wear hijab in a place where it has come to mean a thousand and one things that have nothing whatsoever to do with Allah and everything to do with the all too mundane agendas of humanity? Never.

Karen Estes works in the children's book publishing industry and is a freelance writer with a focus on a variety of historic academic Islamic topics. She is currently preparing a book of essays on Abu Hamid al-Ghazali and a novel chronicling one seeker's spiritual journey. Source: http://www.altmuslim.com/a/a/a/2820/

The article was posted to inspire discussion. It is not necessarily the poster's point of view. Now:

On Interest . . .

The Socratic approach may help in reasoning:

1) How does a Muslim acquire property via, say, mortgage?
2) How does a Muslim buy a car for which (s)he may not have the full amount to pay?
3) How does a Muslim execute a capital intensive project for which personal funds are severely inadequate and the assistance of financial institutions are needed?

.

Ndipe:
And what about the JW's claim that only 144,000 people will go to heaven? Is anybody familiar with this false doctrine of theirs?

This is already being discussed here: https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-188667.32.html

But, how come you refer to it as false?
.

Ndipe wrote: PS: Stay away from JW. I almost joined that group, but their denial on the physical resurrection of Jesus Christ was a turn off.

Are you sure?

JWs do not deny that Jesus Christ was resurrected.

At 1st Corinthians 15:42 - 44:

So also [is] the resurrection of the dead. It is sown in corruption; it is raised in incorruption. It is sown in dishonour; it is raised in glory: it is sown in weakness; it is raised in power. It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body. There is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body

JWs hold that the resurrection was physical, but that the 'body' was different, being spiritual.
.

huxley:
So essentially the "144000" figure carries not useful information, because fewer or more than this number of the Jewish tribe could go into heaven. What significance has this figure got then?

Yet another piece of useless rubbish from the pages of the bible!

Not quite, yet. The Jehovah's Witnesses (JWs) claim consistency in their understanding/teaching of this doctrine. The number 144,000 for them is literal. Excluded from this number is everyone who died before Jesus Christ was born (this position is used to explain the Acts 2:34 earlier quoted), so the Israelites of old are all disqualified. As of their current teaching, there're about 8,000 or so of the 144,000 still living and breathing. An extension of this doctrine is that only Christians will get to heaven, as is obvious from the above.
.

PepERSprAY:
Stop playing with the name of Jesus.

I stand corrected.

Huxley wrote: And according to one reading, only 144000 are suppose to go to heaven.  Given that there are more that 30 billions humans have ever existed,  your chances of being amongst the 144000 is infinitesimal.

This is what Jehovah's Witnesses teach, that only 144,000 humans will get to heaven; of course, they're able to provide bible verses to support the view, even if the doctrine is debatable. But according to them, the chance of being one of the 144,000 wouldn't be as small as it would appear; the pool from which the 144,000 will be drawn is quite small compared to the number of humans who have ever lived.

Revelation 14 v 1-5:

1 And I saw the Lamb on the mountain of Zion, and with him a hundred and forty-four thousand, marked on their brows with his name and the name of his Father.

2 And a voice from heaven came to my ears, like the sound of great waters, and the sound of loud thunder: and the voice which came to me was like the sound of players, playing on instruments of music.

3 And they made as it seemed a new song before the high seat, and before the four beasts and the rulers: and no man might have knowledge of the song but the hundred and forty-four thousand, even those from the earth whom God has made his for a price.

4 These are they who have not made themselves unclean with women; for they are virgins. These are they who go after the Lamb wherever he goes. These were taken from among men to be the first fruits to God and to the Lamb.

5 And in their mouth there was no false word, for they are untouched by evil.

JWs don't interpret all of the above literally, but, we get the idea.

Below, I'm linking an ongoing discussion with a potential Jehovah's Witness convert: https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-4050.96.html
.

Acts 2:34 - For David did not go up to heaven, but he said, 'The Lord said to my Lord, "Sit at my right hand . . .

John 3:13 - "No one has ascended to heaven . . . "

.

Chris,

not trying to paint things bad; but these are things as they are.

A new potential convert like Perrito4u is at a huge disadvantage: his interaction with JWs will affect his family relationships. JWs will essentially teach that he should expect opposition from his family, and that such opposition is a confirmation that he's doing the right thing; already, I can see he is sold, since he's started to use JW buzz words, especially, he believes he has found "the truth"; in fact, JWs call their religion "the truth". JWs will encourage him to share what he's learning with his family; and since JWs teach that all other religions, and all other non-JW Christians are going to be destroyed during the war of Armageddon (JWs don't teach the "hell-fire" doctrine), you can immediately see how this will cause friction. The potential convert telling his Catholic and Pentecostal friend and family that he's found "the truth", and that unless they join him, they'll be destroyed at Armageddon.

Many people criticise JWs for the wrong things. JWs don't celebrate Christmas; they are correct that the 25th of December isn't Jesus Christ's birthday (but they not the first to know that), so attacking JWs for not celebrating Christmas couldn't be a winning argument. As an extension of this, they do not celebrate anyone's birthdays. One of their arguments here is that the birthday celebrations in the bible (three of them, if memory serves) ended in some form of disaster; in this, they are correct about the history; the interpretation is however debatable.

In any case, any Church goer who's interested in the bible will almost certainly be impressed with JWs and the wealth of knowledge they have and do teach. This, plus the "love-bombing", sucks people in. Mostly, people who are interested in deep bible doctrines, people who're experiencing some turbulence in their lives, people who've noticed hypocrisy in the Church, people who're tired of Chruch practices, and people who love knowledge are prime targets; the JW religion quite sucks them in. No, it's not that these people aren't smart, but they're primed for "change", and their situations make them quite vulnerable. In this state, they see only what they want to see; and they take the singular most important step of getting baptised by JWs; this seals the deal, and it may take a while before they realise they may have decided differently had they known differently. For many, it'll rather be too late.

Of course, a potential convert may decide to join JWs even after knowing the facts; but not revealing these before baptism into the JW religion isn't fair.

But Perrito4u wanted deep bible talk; he's been invited to share his research in blood or any other JW doctrine. It is my hope that he returns. because, there's more.

Perrito4u: there's a discussion ongoing about an aspect of JW doctrine; scriptures have been quoted there. Perhaps, you may want to take a look: https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-188667.32.html
.

Hundreds of the most senior Muslim scholars signed a message to the leaders of the most significant Christian Churches. Muslims and Christians, it said, were united on two solid principles – love of God, and love of the neighbour, and it called for dialogue on the basis of real commonalities at the highest levels. It received a resounding reception.

The above represents part of the face of modern Islam; one based on reason and thought rather than learning by rote. Enjoy the rest of the piece. "New initiatives in the interfaith community that draw in top-level scholars and leaders are transforming inter-religious discussion."

Interfaith - Finding sincerity in cross-religious dialogue

By H. A. Hellyer, August 3, 2008

Different parts of my extended family are atheist, Christian and Muslim, with my ethnic background being somewhat more complicated. But I am not particularly enthralled with the “interfaith movement”; it served to establish good relations between small numbers of people, but they have always been held back in two ways.

The first is that religious authorities never took the same route as the interfaith community in terms of dialogue. The second is linked to the first. Often, due to the absence of high-level authorities in interfaith discussions, the groups come to a hodgepodge of well-meaning but ultimately meaningless positions of “multifaith eclecticism”. The essential message: we are all the same, and there are no real differences between us. That’s a theological confusion that does not satisfy any believer.

But the interfaith movement has taken a new turn of late. In the aftermath of the Pope’s regrettable statements about Islam in 2006, a number of Islamic scholars and intellectuals wrote a letter to the Vatican. The same small group that initiated the Amman Message, a first in history, bringing Sunni and Shia together in a way that had never been done, led this. In 2007, they had another “first”: the Common Word.

Hundreds of the most senior Muslim scholars signed a message to the leaders of the most significant Christian Churches. Muslims and Christians, it said, were united on two solid principles – love of God, and love of the neighbour, and it called for dialogue on the basis of real commonalities at the highest levels. It received a resounding reception.

As one of the signatories, I travelled last week to Yale University for the first conference dedicated to the Common Word. I wondered, as I flew across the Atlantic, what I might find. Would this be an initiative that would go down in history: the first high-level, sustainable, interfaith discussion between the world’s two largest religious communities? Or would it be yet another “talking shop”? The stakes were high. If some of the highest religious authorities and intellectuals could not make progress, what hope was there for the laity?

There was a very particular specificity to the Yale conference: a strong evangelical component. Many Christian intellectuals argue that non-Christians can find salvation without accepting Christ. Not so the evangelical movement; on the contrary, the basis of their movement is to proselytise to the “heathens” to save their souls.

This is somewhat different from the Muslim tradition, where there exists an urge to deliver the message, but it is less of an essential sacrament and more of a side effect of living a sacred life. Moreover, Islam admits possible salvation for those who do not believe in the Prophet.

Throughout the conference, there was an underlying query on this point; in the midst of good interfaith relations, what possibilities were there for evangelicals to send missions to the Muslim world? At least one evangelical leader defended his participation on the basis that one could “bear witness” through dialogue. There were probably many who shared his view. (I suspect not all: Christian minorities within the Muslim world are usually the most avowed opponents of missionary activity. Not surprising: they’ve been Christian for 2,000 years and don’t take well to being told they got it “wrong” by modern evangelical movements.)

None of these issues were resolved at Yale. And they weren’t meant to be. These were religious people; they weren’t interested in diluting their faiths. And in that, a type of sincerity emerged that was perhaps the greatest benefit of the initiative. That was combined with a healthy respect for each other as people who believed in a loving God and loving one’s neighbour.

Never in human history had that happened before. For that alone, the Common Word is significant – whether it stays as such is down to every faithful Muslim and Christian. But one thing is sure, it’s long overdue. The UAE can be proud that it was due in no small part to a Muslim scholar who has found a home within its borders: Al Habib Ali al Jifri.

The Muslim and Christian delegations, represented by Prince Ghazi of Jordan, and Miroslav Wolf of the Yale Divinity School, ensured that this initiative did not come away without concrete achievements. A declaration affirmed the unity and absoluteness of God, and declared: “No Muslim or Christian should… tolerate the denigration or desecration of one another’s sacred symbols, founding figures, or places of worship.”

That was put to a vote – and unanimously accepted. That’s no small achievement. If the Common Word had achieved nothing else, it would have sufficed – but the conference opened up the possibility for much more in the future. Time will tell.

Dr. H. A. Hellyer is the Director of the Visionary Consultants Group and Fellow of the University of Warwick. A member of the Oxford Centre for Islamic Studies of the University of Oxford, he has just completed a six-month research project on Muslim European communities. This article previously appeared in The National (UAE).

These articles are posted to give a peep into what contemporary Muslisms are thinking, doing, and discussing. Al-Mutawa begins his article by stating what is - sadly - a fact:

In our schools, we get an “A” if we can memorise something, but an “F” if we dare to analyse it. If God had wanted us to be parrots, he would have given us feathers and beaks instead of minds and free will.

Enjoy the rest of the piece. And, of course, feel free to contribute to the discussion.

Interpreting divine texts - Let the Qur’an define itself
By Naif Al-Mutawa, September 29, 2008

In the Arab world, it is held as an unadulterated truth that the Qur’an is best read in its original classical Arabic. But is keeping it closed off to further translation supporting God’s will or suppressing it?

Many believe that what differentiates the Qur’an from other holy books is that it is undiluted by translation, that once a word is translated it loses its original breadth and depth. But is that really the case? Can we not also make the argument that a word, once translated into 100 languages, expresses an even greater breadth and depth?

The Qur’an defines itself. Less perfectly, perhaps, in Swedish than in Arabic, but surely far more valuably to the Swedes. One cannot hold goodness hostage to perfection.

Life is all about the grey area. When I was growing up I wasn’t sure where I belonged in the world of religion. The way religion was taught in the Arab world was always in absolutes. While I didn’t know much when I was young, I knew that I could not live in a black and white, either-or world. This was made most clear through a sermon delivered by a young imam who was studying for his doctorate at the Harvard Divinity School.

Speaking to a group of Muslim students, Imam Talal Eid said, “If you ask me whether charging interest is haram (forbidden) in Islam, I would say ‘yes’ and I would quote chapter and verse from the Qur’an for you.”

After a long pause, he went on to say, “But if I didn’t pay for my car with an installment loan, I wouldn’t be able to come here to talk to you about Islam.”

With that simple, expressive example between the absolute and the relative, the imam carved out a place of tolerance and compromise for me. He made it safe for me to be the judge of my own actions, to set my own course, to walk to the beat of my own drum. He made it safe to make my own rules using the lessons I learned with the heart and mind that God gave me. No one could force me to walk away from my duty as a Muslim by insisting there was only one way to live my life and practice my faith.

Tolerance begins in the classroom. Tolerance begins when we are allowed to read any text from any source, in any translation, and offer our opinions. Tolerance is born when there are as many opinions as there are people and when the power of reason is what separates a good grade from a bad one. In an Arab education, the power of memory and repetition are too often rewarded, while the power of reason is reprimanded.

In our schools, we get an “A” if we can memorise someone else’s teachings but an “F” if we dare to analyse it. Worse yet, we can be branded as heretics. I have heard many proudly say that one should value repetition over the use of one’s mind.

But if God had wanted us to be parrots, he would have given us feathers and beaks instead of minds and free will.

We need to move on.

In Europe the Renaissance helped break the control of those who favoured recitation over reason. Art played a huge part in that revolution. Suddenly, people were encouraged to have opinions about art and to discuss its implications. Meanwhile, art in our neck of the desert was, until recently, limited exclusively to the beautiful calligraphy of the Qur’an.

As beautiful as our art is, its meaning gave no room for openness of interpretation. How could one comment? I don’t like the colour purple on that verse? Maybe the writer should have used a larger font?

I once asked my ten-year-old son, Hamad, what he thought of Leonardo da Vinci’s painting, the Mona Lisa. He liked her smile but not the colours. “Too dark”, he said.

I then asked him what he thought of a beautiful piece of Qur’anic calligraphy that honours a wall in our home. He looked at it and asked me what I meant. “Hamad, you just told me what you liked and didn’t like about the Mona Lisa”, I replied. “Why can’t you tell me the same about this piece of art?”

He looked at me confused and said, “It’s the Qur’an. Of course it’s beautiful.” And indeed it is. But that is beside the point; someday he will know of his own intellect why it is beautiful.

Dr. Naif Al-Mutawa is the creator of The 99, the internationally acclaimed group of superheroes based on Islamic archetypes. For more information, please visit the99.org. This article was written for the Common Ground News Service (CGNews).

https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-189486.0.html

.

Muslims and Music: foward to Modernity

Nine musical heavens

Self-described as "folk music for the 21st century," Niyaz is an exciting fusion of traditional Middle-Eastern, South Asian, and contemporary Western musical styles that redefines the world music platform and sets a new standard for global trance.

By Jehanzeb Dar, October 18, 2008

Musically speaking

In the mystic garden where romance emanates in every bloom, even Beauty is difficult to see when the Beloved is separated from the Lover. The clouded skies and rainstorms loom over the night, but the Lover still plays his song for the wounded flowers and silent spring-fountains. Left alone in an estranged land, he continues to sing, sending his longing out to the world so that his sorrow may echo into eternity. Maybe someday, the painful state of his exile will bring back the Light that once shined upon his rose garden. But in his relentless tears and heartbreak, little does he know that the Presence of Beauty is Eternal, and that Angels listen to his yearnings with compassion. One yearning he has, and that is reunion, if he were to yearn at all. One desire he has, and that is reunion, if he were to desire at all.

This kind of vivid imagery comes to mind when one is entranced by the incredibly captivating music of Niyaz. Self-described as "folk music for the 21st century," Niyaz is an exciting fusion of traditional Middle-Eastern, South Asian, and contemporary Western musical styles that redefines the world music platform and sets a new standard for global trance. Led by the hauntingly beautiful vocals of Iranian-born songstress, Azam Ali, and accompanied by multi-instrumentalist Loga Ramin Torkian and synthesizer programmer Carmon Rizzo, Niyaz not only blends East and West, but also bridges the ancient and the modern with profound mystical poetry from the Islamic world.

Their new album, Nine Heavens, marks their second release and continues to explore the heart of Islamic mysticism, or Sufism, as well as the much-needed bond between the East and the West. The album opens with a fun track titled Beni Beni, where Ali sings in Turkish. It is a traditional Sufi song about humankind longing to be united with God through Love - a prevalent theme in Sufi literature and teachings. The song is very festive with wonderfully complex instrumentation and joyous vocals which makes it the perfect introduction for the album.

The pulsating and bass-thumping tabla on the second track, Tamana, makes it the most cinematic track on the album, and although the Urdu lyrics sing of sorrow and lament, it is also hopeful and healing. Feraghi is an impassioned Farsi song about exile and it features traditional Persian melodies merged with synthesized brilliance by Rizzo. It is a song of separation, of abandonment, of being left alone without any compassion, and desperately longing for return. Ali's performances, whether in Turkish, Urdu, or Farsi, are elegantly unique, and much of that may be due to her exposure to diverse surroundings - she was born in Iran, but raised in India and the United States. In other words, her singing style is not distinctly Persian, Indian, or Western, but rather an exceptional creation of her own.

The violins on Allah Mazare are gorgeous and resonate with orchestral flair, while the ecstatic pace of Molk-e-Divan blasts with beautiful percussions and brilliant guitar and saz performances by Torkian. The Farsi lyrics on Molk-e-Divan and Sadrang were written in the 13th century by Amir Khusrau of the Indian Subcontinent, who is often credited as the "father of Qawwali music" - traditional Sufi music found predominately in South Asia. Ishq and Iman are beautiful Urdu tracks; the former was written in the 18th century by Khawaja Mir Dard and sings about God's endless Love: "Tere Ishq main humne kya kya nahi dekha?" That roughly translates as "What have I not seen in Your Love?" Iman is the slowest and most ambient track on the album, and Urdu lyrics translate as: "Do not despair, for God is always there."

With so many stereotypes and misconceptions about Islam, Middle-Easterners, and South Asians, Niyaz is more than a breath of fresh air. It serves as dialogue and it reveals a side of Islam that we don't often see in the mainstream media. For too often, the achievements and contributions of Islamic civilization has been ignored and neglected in American high schools; hardly anything is learned about the profound poetic works of Jalaluddin Rumi or Rabia Al-Adawiyyah, the mathematical breakthroughs of Mohammad Al-Khwarizmi, the inspired leadership of Salah Al-Din, or even the medical discoveries of Abdallah ibn Sina. Instead, only European history is taught, along with Greek philosophies and European innovations, while Islamic history is either not discussed or vilified. Niyaz fills in many of those forgotten areas and introduces us to the extraordinary realm of Islamic poetry, music, and culture, a refreshing contrast to what we see on the daily news.

Throughout the album, the music stimulates the listener with feelings of joy, sorrow, and yearning, and it transports them into an unseen realm - a place deep within our hearts and souls. With the sound of 13th-18th century Sufi poetry fused with magnificent vocals that carry us beyond, classical instruments of the Islamic world, and modern synthesizer ingenuity, Niyaz opens so many doorways in the human imagination and liberate listeners to travel wherever their hearts desire.

Nine Heavens is not just a celebration of Islam's mystical culture and diversity; it is also a bridge between the old world and the new. It is a union of the ancient and the modern, the East and the West, and it is one great song of the human soul - its longings, its joys, its pains, and its calling to the Divine. As we listen to Nine Heavens, we learn that in every drum beat, in every string that is plucked, and in every word that is sung, the name of Love is enamored, wholly and purely.

Jehanzeb Dar is a Pakistani Muslim-American, a student, writer, and filmmaker who dwells on issues of Faith, Love, and Spirit. He currently blogs at Islam on My Side.
.

Well Nimshi this is what I saw when I visited them.  Everybody was happy when I went to the meeting for the first time. Even I felt the joy. Really nice people. I even got into good conversation with kids.  Really nice experience.  So different from Catholics. They didn't even ask me for money. Not like the Pentecostal ( don't even ask ).  I don't understand why people criticize them so much. They really are good people.   I really think there is only one true religion.  All of them think they are the ones,  not just the JW's.

This is not unusual. It is called "love-bombing"; everyone joining the JW religion is "love-bombed"; people show you "love", they shower attention on you; as a new "bible study", you'll get lots of this, plus lots of encouragement to keep coming, plus lots of association to make up for the "opposition" you may be encountering from your non-JW friends, family and neighbours. It's regular JW fare; and it's not unique to you. JWs practice their perception of "love" quite "openly", and that's because they refer to the scripture from Jesus: . .  by this all will know you are my disciples, if you have love among yourselves. . . Their way of fulfilling this scripture is to encourage their members to show love: hand shaking at every opportunity; smiles everywhere; afterall, they are Jevovah's Happy People.

But I have noticed one thing Nimshi about you, you don't really use the Bible much.  You should back everything you say with the Bible to have credibility. You mainly use personal opinions or maybe what other people have told you.  I think you should read the Bible more and/or use it more. If a person says they are religious but don't use the Bible, my personal opinion, I don't think they are spirit directed.

Apparently, you got this from the JWs, right? Look, they're doing a good job on you. Now, let's look at your claim: how many scriptures have you quoted in this post? And, the questions I've asked you - which you ave refused to answer - do they require the scripture? Except you want to show me in the bible where the title "pioneer", which the JWs use is recommended. I have asked you to share your research on blood; perhaps that will require that you use the bible? You advice that I read the bible more; how do you know I don't? Have you also been convinced by the JWs that their New World Translation is also the best? And I sense that when you say"using the bible", you actually meant quoting the bible. Of course, it's good to quote the bible, but did the scriptures not say that God's words shall be inscribed on hearts? And if I type out of the abundance of my "heart" in conformity with the scripture, why's that a problem?

When you start using scriptures to back up what you write, I could match you up; that's a promise. But for those matters that don't require direct scriptures, I'll use published JW material to indict the practice of the JWs. They claim to use the bible, but do they, really? Do you have a copy of the New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures, or do you use some other translations?

So far the JW's have used the Bible more than anybody else I know. I respect that. You say Russell teachings? Until now, all teachings have been backed up by the bible not by something said by Russell. You are absolutely wrong. So I think there's no more to say here for me. You probably wont see me here posting anymore.    Nice talking to you all.

Yet, you promised to share your research about blood, but nothing is forthcoming from you. Share the research, and let's look at the bible and JW doctrines; also, let's look at those new things you're learning from JWs that are getting you excited. And, if indeed you don't return to the thread, then it's safe to say the JWs have succeeded in their first line of attack on new converts: shielding the new convert from outside information; this works quite effectively. Next stage is to continue to make the convert feel that persecution is a must since they're doing the right thing. Whatever book you're studying, the goal will be for them to get you baptised; and once you do that, you would have legally signed away your rights. Here are a few things for you to consider:

1) Right now, you can leave your current Church; when you become a JW by getting baptised, you will not be able to leave without serious consequences. Ask your JW handlers about this.

2) If a member of your family needs blood, you will not be able to support such a family member, even if that family member is not a JW.

3) When you get baptised, you will be required to go from door-to-door to preach; the catch is that for you to remain an "active publisher", you will need to preach for some minimum number of hours every month; if you don't you will be considered "spiritually weak", no matter what else you do.

4) When you get baptised, you will be required to obey every instruction of the JW Governing Body; the Governing Body is a men-only group, their office is in Brooklyn, and they are the de-facto head of the JW organisation. They claim to be "representatives" of the Faithful and Discreet Slave Class (the 144,000 who will be the only ones to go into heaven), and they hold absolute authority over JW doctrine. If you decide not to follow these rules, you will be labelled as "spiritually weak".

5) If you choose to leave the JWs, or openly disagree with Governing Body teachings, you may be "disfellowshipped"; basically, this means all JWs all over the world will not be allowed to talk to you, and you will be sth of an outcast. You may survive this if you have other relationships outside of the JW fold, but if you have burned your bridges before you join the JWs, you will be in a tight fix. If your employer is a JW, you will most likely lose your job; if your business involves other JWs, you will most definitely lose your customers.

The above are only the beginning of "pangs of personal distress" and abandonment.

In the mean time, I'll be waiting for you promised submission on 1914 (starting from 607 B.C.E) and answers to the questions I already asked:

(1) Is the person studying with you a regular "publisher" or a "pioneer", or an "elder" or a combination of publisher/elder, or pioneer/elder?

(2) Which of their books are you "studying" with them right now? I assume that this is your first book, since you've been "studying" for 4 months. If you have studied other books, could you list them?

What have some Muslims said about The Jewel of Medina?

Here:

“The best response to free speech is simply more speech in return. Anyone should have the right to publish whatever they want about Islam or Muslims - even if their views are offensive - without fear of censorship or retribution. Muslims, however, shouldn't be expected to be passive consumers of these views. An offended Muslim has the right - indeed, the responsibility - to vigorously critique anything written about them or their religion, provided they do not cross the line into intimidation and coercion. In an ideal world, both parties would open their minds enough to understand the other point of view.”

– Shahed Amanullah, founding member, AMILA (American Muslims Intent on Learning and Activism; http://www.amila.org/)

"Sherry Jones does an extraordinary service to Islam in popularizing -- and humanizing -- a Muslim heroine. It's the kind of history that I never learned in my mosque or madressa. As a faithful, feminist Muslim, I say 'mashallah' for this riveting novel."

-- Irshad Manji, Director, Moral Courage Project, New York University

Perrito4u: these are responses to your post.

Yes Nimshi I saw the books,

Exactly which books? Give the titles of the books.

And, since you wrote that you saw the books, then I must ask: did you read the books you saw?

As a Pentecostal  I even took a "special course" on how to deal with JW's.   They put alot of things on my head, like how bad they really were. How they let children die because of the blood. But I saw for myself that it was all lies.

One of the most dangerous ways to criticise religions is to exaggerate and lie about their beliefs and doctrines. I will agree that other Christians do this quite a lot; I don't argue that they do it deliberately; many times, they do it out of ignorance, and perhaps with good intentions to protect their flock. Whatever course you may have had in dealing with JWs will not have prepared you for anything you'll get.

That only proved one thing - John 17:14

This scripture is neither unique to JWs nor your situation.

After seeing the movie "Knock"  I decided to investigate about blood transfusions.  They are absolutely right about what they say.  Benefits all of us to use alternate medicines.

Did you mean "Knocking"?

You investigated Blood Transfusions? Good. Then why don't you share the results of your investigation on this page. I have written above about the ethics of blood transfusion as practiced by JWs. Why don't you address those issues? You could ask the JWs "studying" with you; if they're able to provide answers. As for you, I'll tell you again that your relationship with JWs is currently lop-sided: you're not even in a position to ask deep questions because much of what you're encountering is new to you, and you're being bombarded with information, attention, and "love" by JWs. Again, you need to be careful to know exactly what you're getting yourself into.

You say JW's misinterpret the facts.

I said is that JWs misinterpreted scriptures; they named dates and made predictions based on their studies; and they were wrong. They've been wrong many times.

Your stuck with a mistake Russell made in the past.

As you continue your "study", you will see how JWs make the claim that they have been entrusted with God's belongings on earth because they were teaching correct doctrines when the Master (Jesus, that is) came for the "inspection". They will justify their privileged position based on the teachings of CT Russell. If those teachings are wrong, then clearly, their claim cannot be correct. And then you will see that the pillars of the JW religion and doctrines are based on false claims that can be historically debunked.

Tell me what religion you are and I will find a mistake somewhere too. The truth is there are thousands of religions and they all interpret things differently when Jesus only had one way of teaching. Just search for the right one, you might find it.   I think I did.

It is true that religious sects make mistakes in interpretations; but JWs claim that they have the true religion and that they have the correct interpretations. In fact, JWs also claim that they are the only true Christians practicing the only true religion; isn't that so? Have you reached that part in your "study"? JWs seldom admit to doctrinal mistakes; perhaps they've changed. They also claim that their doctrines are from God, since their organisation is "spirit directed". These claims cannot gel well with the reversals and counter-reversals to doctrine that they have made in the past. If you ask the hard questions, you may begin to benefit yourself, and then perhaps you would get the reply that "interpretations of scriptures are not inspired"; this one may be long in coming. In any case, I think you should be concerned about the effect your becoming a JW (if you make the final big step) will have on you, your relationships, and your future. Regarding these, if you do not ask the JWs, they'll not tell you. And I can assure you that many who join JWs are usually not aware of the consequences.

Below, I leave you with direct questions I have asked that you haven't answered:

(1) Is the person studying with you a regular "publisher" or a "pioneer", or an "elder" or a combination of publisher/elder, or pioneer/elder?

(2) Which of their books are you "studying" with them right now? I assume that this is your first book, since you've been "studying" for 4 months. If you have studied other books, could you list them?

.

Umar ibn Kattah (RA), the second kalifah of Islam, organized a public demostration to let people of Makka know that he is a mulsim. This was a turning point in the history of Islam in Makka. I do hope that there were two Umars that Allah's Messenger (AS) prayed that one of them will enter Islam to benefit it. The other was Abu Jahl, who happened to be a relationship of the Prophet (as), and died in the battle of Badr as a disbeliever.

Everything you've written here is history, which is sth to read and remember, and – don't forget this – apply. To make an application, an understanding of context is important. If you want to copy what he did, you must also remember the context. The context, that context, is irrelevant to your wish to have me make a declaration for your benefit. You ought to stop seeking it; just drop it; you're not going to get it. And, remember: there's a difference between recalling and thinking things through.

Nimshi, if you are non-muslim, its no problem and its not a skin off anybody's nose. The point we continue to make is this: show us, any proof that goes against an authentic ahadith about the prophet?

For the first time in a long time, you're qualifying a thought of yours: congratulations are due. First: you have imposed a condition that was previously absent: that the Hadith is authentic; that, my friend, makes a world of difference. I now ask you: what re the conditions for accepting a piece of Hadith as authentic? If you could answer the question unambiguously, then you'd save us all a lot of time and bandwidth.

He was reported by his wife, Aisha (RA) that he took allegiance of the women, without touching their hands, while he touched the hands of the men. Now tell us an example wher he touched the hands of the women when he took their allegiance? If you can't, then stop talking without what you are completely Ignorant off, as you are an expert.

Ok, since you've asked somewhat nicely, here it is; it's really simple. The report by Aisha is not necessarily false; this is Sunnah, and it is admirable. Is the claim that the Prophet "did not touch the hands of any woman"? No! Of course, it is absurd to claim that the Prophet did not touch the hands of any woman; or, would you consider it reasonable that a man does not touch the hands of his wife? So, you must modify the claim to protect it from attack: say, the prophet did not touch the hands of a woman not his wife, or sth like that. To write that the prophet did not touch the hands of a woman is – as is – false and untrue. Simple as pie, no? I thought you'd be forced to think a little bit; apparently, you couldn't be forced to think: you're pretty good and vomiting things you've read and crammed; same for that miserable fellow who goes by babs787 on this board. And may Almighty Allah forgive you both for the injury you have attempted to bring on my screen name.
.

So you are irreligious or even worse, an Islamic hypocrites, since you doubt an ahadith where Muhammad (as) is described by his wife, Aisha (ra) to not have touched the hand of a non-mahram woman to him. That alone is hypocracy.

On a simple matter, you could learn sth from one poster on this board: mukina. I have not claimed to be irreligious; you don't need to be Einstein to see that. So, why do you make a conclusion that's quite foolish and outside of the facts (I use the word "foolish" quite deliberately and without insult; it is quite foolish to allude to my words a meaning that simply isn't there). You keep talking about the Prophet and touching the hand of a woman. My claim remains as it is, and it does not (necessarily) invalidate the hadith if it is authentic; but you're too bone-headed to see the point. I could put you out of your misery, but your militant arrogance is off-putting. But, you diminish yourself by your choice of words.

Servant, yes. But humble servant does not say what Allah says is incorrect, since you doubted the veracity of our mother Aisha (RA) about her description of her mother, the Messenger of Allah whom our Lord says that "(1) he was not speaking of his own but except that he was Inspired. (2) whatever the messenger gives, take, and, what he forbids, avoid. (3) And you have an excellent example in this messenger". Each you actually based on your doubt have denied.

You're confusing humility with sth else. And since you've come round to levelling sth close to a clear allegation, then why don't you lay it bare? Provide the references for your quotes, and let's examine the validity of your claim. Are you up to that?

So how could you have been a humble servant when you doubt your Master in the open?

Will it make a difference to doubt the Master in private?

And yes, it is possible, and not inherently contradictory to be humble and to doubt one's Master; there's a difference between deference, reverence, and brain-deadness. I've written this before: I'm not of the class of people who'll agree that 2 + 2 = 10. Here's a proposition: let's say God, Almighty Allah himself says  2 + 2 = 10; if and when I have the opportunity, I'll humbly ask him how come? I'll ask if there's a heavenly field of integers where this is possible. In the meantime, I will not teach others than 2 + 2 = 10; why? Because: I don't get it. I simply can't be repeating what I don't understand to be right. Perhaps this is different from your way of dealing with God; that's your choice; but don't begrudge mine. And I know Almighty Allah understands that my position is true to my understanding; how could He punish me for not doing sth I don't accept as right? If you don't get this, then I can't help you, and much of what may follow may be meaningless to you. Almighty Allah is intelligent, and He understands human intelligence and thought; and He expects His servants to act to the best of their intelligence with and within faith; He would be disappointed – I believe – were I to act beneath the level of the gift he has bestowed on me. Why should you hound me for that position?? Must a Muslim accept everything you accept and/or every Hadith that is presented; there are Hadiths that I'll never accept; what's your problem with that??

Think man.

What you've advocated above is the anti-thesis of thinking.

.

samba123: what're you talking about?? Why should I be able to provide a book for you?? What contents?? SV's a book, more than 300 pages; how does one post that? And, I'm not interested in proving any facts to you or olabowale. My contention is simple ans straighforward: people who haven't read a book shouldn't be commenting about its contents. Simple.

And, I don't think SV is a materpiece; it's not even Rushdie's best. And, no where have I endorsed Rushdie's views, but, I will defend his right to write.

I hope you understand these; in case it appears confusing, perhaps re-reading will be useful.

Cheers.

May be 50 times then?

I'll guess that's a whole lot less.

And much less trouble than 50 Hail Marys.

Blood of Jesus. Blood of Jesus. Blood of Jesus. Blood of Jesus. Blood of Jesus. Blood of Jesus. Blood of Jesus.
Blood of Jesus. Blood of Jesus. Blood of Jesus. Blood of Jesus. Blood of Jesus. Blood of Jesus. Blood of Jesus.
Blood of Jesus. Blood of Jesus. Blood of Jesus. Blood of Jesus. Blood of Jesus. Blood of Jesus. Blood of Jesus.
Blood of Jesus. Blood of Jesus. Blood of Jesus. Blood of Jesus. Blood of Jesus. Blood of Jesus. Blood of Jesus.
Blood of Jesus. Blood of Jesus. Blood of Jesus. Blood of Jesus. Blood of Jesus. Blood of Jesus. Blood of Jesus.
Blood of Jesus. Blood of Jesus. Blood of Jesus. Blood of Jesus. Blood of Jesus. Blood of Jesus. Blood of Jesus.
Blood of Jesus. Blood of Jesus. Blood of Jesus. Blood of Jesus. Blood of Jesus. Blood of Jesus. Blood of Jesus.
Blood of Jeeeeeeezzzzuuuuuussss!.
.

babs787:
@all

I can see that you are ready for me. I will soon be back for this thread. We will know if he was crucified and if he was really like Jonah.

Lol.

480 days and counting.
.

olabowale:
How is your not declaring your "faith" been relevant to the community of muslims on Nairaland?

The more you guys should stop talking about it!

How have you been relevant to any of us "intended effort to educate and support one another ?"

To the extent that some (a few, eh) have said "thanks" for posts made by this humble servant, one could reasonably conclude that some good it being done, no matter how little you perceive it to be.

Since you have almost single handedly given us a reason not to imitate your brand of belief, how relevant are you to us?

Precisely this: people should be their own persons; they shouldn't try to be others. And, if you wanted to see anyone's relevant, you could check how exercised others (posters olabowale and babs787, say) have exercised themselves in discrediting them

Learn from you own words.
Discuss on thread that have some value.
There're a few of them in the Islamic section of this board.
.

@Nimshi

I can't stop laughing at your ignorance because to me, you have made yourself a clown with your DENIALS that lacks intelligent reasoning.

You may tell others that you are a muslim but please don't DO THAT with babs because your half baked Islamic education would be exposed.

You have a basic reading comprehension problem. My response to poster mukina ought to have enlightened you on the details of the subject you're still commenting about. But being a person impervious to facts and discussion, you keep drooling like a bigot who's exhibiting the early stages of dementia. Beyond Islamin education, you lack the basic faculty of considering things you haven't memorised; that's all such a pity, because you probably have the potential for more. It iwll now be a waste of time and bandwidth to continue discussing this matter with you. When you have considered my comprehensive response to mukina, you may return to write reasonably.

I gave you open challenge that you should go through my posts since I joined NL and go contrary to my posts if you thiink you can and back you DENIALS with Quranic verses and Hadiths

Many of your posts are meaningless drooling. My spat with you on Mut'a Marriage shows you're impervious to facts; what can one do with that? I'd rather have a conversation with a piece of rock.

I asked you questions on Asa's music but you never replied and in case you missed, here are they again:

1. What kind of music is her music ( i.e country music, hip hop, reggae, rap etc)?
2. Is the instrument being used in her music allowed in Islam?
3. What does her music teaches?

When you provide your answers, we look at kind of music in Islam and permissiblity of music in Islam and is

In case you don't know, I know Asa so save your face with your claim.

You're unable to seee the contradiction in the above, eh? Only a thoroughly confused mind like yours could spew forth such garbage.

You know Asa's music, eh? How do you know it? Have you listened to it? So you know the answer to the infantile questions you're asking, so then, go ahead and submit your opinion. Or, go ahead and open a thread on music in Islam; make it your objective to show that a Muslim ought not to listen to Asa'a music.

I can't imagine someone who is ashamed of his faith. I AM A MUSLIM and proud to say that.

What's the meaning of "I'm proud to be a Muslim" other than it being an exposure of an inner inferiority, just as when you hear "I'm proud to be black"; the point isn't so subtle, but one could be almost certain you won't even understand it. And, how does a refusal to make a declaration of faith on a discussion board equate to being ashamed of faith? No, I'm not submitting to your questioning because you matter not; you don't like it, that's your baggage.

And I see you're still writing that it is correct to say that the Prophet never touched the hand of a woman. Again, I will advice that you modify the claim for it to be watertight. Because you're unable to reason this through, I don't think you're worth the fallen fur of a beloved pet.
.

Perrito4u:
Nimshi, you keep saying "prediction". JW's are not prophets, they didn't predict nothing, prophecies are already written in the Bible. They thought it was the end of the world.

Well, you're defending JWs that they nover predicted. Are you sure about this? Have you seen the sources? Have you seen the old books? Have you studied the JW collection of books "Studies in the Scriptures", most of whcih were published by CT Russell? Or, have you only been looking at the more recent publications of JWs? It is true prophecies are written in the bible, but the JWs have misinterpreted facts, and they have predicted dates that have turned out to be false. In my last post, I gave a link to a place called "quotes"; yes, just quotes, to show the development of JW doctrines, and what JWs wil fail to acknowledge. If you want to be objective, you have to take a look at these. If JWs are selling themselves to you based on their superior understanding of scriptures, you cannot reasonably challenge those positions when you're subjugated in "question and answer" sessions where you "study" their books.

Oh and I'm studying with JW's for about 4 months now and I think Ive learned more about the Bible in these 4 months and the 10 years as a Catholic and 3 as a Pentecostal.

Then I did guess right. You'll be impressed with the new things JWs will show you. You've been impressed with their position on "hell fire" haven't you? Have you got round to their position on blood transfusions? There's no denying the fact that JWs can and do impress otherwise nominal Christians who're interested in scriptural matters. But, you're being warned to watch out; just be sure you know what you're dealing with. Right now, the JW(s) you're studying with have lots advantage over you: they're impressing you with "knowledge" [that leads to everlasting life], and they're showing you attention and love. If you're studying with them in Nigerian, you've probably been encouraged to make "voluntary donations" for the study materials you have received. And, have you got round to attending a service (or "meeting" at their place of worship? You'll make your decisions, but you've got to watch out so you know what you're getting into.

Oh and sure I can explain how the JW's came up with the year 1914. Watch future postings, I will explain. SOON!

Good. I'm familiar with that; that is, I'm familiar with a postponement to explain sth like 1914: it's not very easy to explain; but what's interesting is that people who don't understand it present it as fact. I'm of the opinion that once you're able to understand it, then you'll be in a position to ask the right questions. So, we'll be waiting until the time you'll be able to explain.

Pastor AIO: In this 20th century, beginning with WWI, well over 100,000,000 people have been killed in wars, more than four times as many as in the previous 400 years put together! ONLY IN WARS! Not to mention: street violence, diseases like AIDS and Cancer, etc. Whatever happened in 14th century isn't worst that what we see now. Pastor AIO, Do you believe in the Bible? Are you doubting that we are living in the epoch of "the conclusion of the system of things" that Jesus mentioned? - Mathew 24:3 The disciples of Jesus Christ wanted to know those things. They asked him what "the sign" would be of his presence in Kingdom power and "of the conclusion of the system of things." Jesus answered by detailing world-shaking events and conditions that would combine to show that mankind had entered "the time of the end," "the last days" of this system of things. Have we in this century seen that composite sign? Yes, we have, abundantly so!

I can see a lot of JW buzz words here; it's about certain that you're taken. Here:

"the conclusion of the system of things"

the sign" would be of his presence

composite sign?

I see that you have dismissed the 14th century charge out-of-hand. JWs do this too; it represents an incurious disposition to facts: dismissing evidence challenging a position you hold. Not good. You could well end up dismissing how the 14th Century events fit a description of the time of the end, but you couldn't do that without thoroughly examining the evidence were you to be objective. That you do shows you've already made up your mind, without considering conflicting evidence.

It's all fine, you could made doctrinal decisions as you please; but you must consider how becoming a JW will impact your personal life, and what you gain to lose once you sign (yes, legally) your rights away. You're not able to do this because you're relating to JWs right now from a position of weakness: they know so much more than you do, and they've thoroughly impressed you with bible knowledge. I'll tell you to beware and be careful. Let me ask:

Is the person studying with you a regular "publisher" or a "pioneer", or an "elder"?

Which of their books are you studying with them right now?
.