₦airaland Forum

Its the Mountain of Fire and others in that category i blame for this, i recently read a booklet where readers were told to scream "the blood of Jesus" 500 times!!!!

No kidding?

500 times? Was that to celebrate the introduction of the N500 notes?
.

You, Sir, are talking bull. This last response is Sarah Palin-ish; why punish your readers so.
.

[quote author=Aloy.Emeka link=topic=183994.msg3008034#msg3008034 date=1225217130]Our God is a God of second chances.[/quote]If that is so, why's an exception made for the Holy Spirit? It is God's Holy Spirit, isn't it?
.

And, there's a minimum percentage of the population that's gay; and it's everywhere. It's one reason people laughed when Iran's Ahmedinejad said there were no gays in Iran; ridiculous. What's close to being as bad is the assumption that all gays are a result of the environment only, and that there's no genetic disposition. You'd suppose commen sense should at least dictate that the genetic angle should be on the table in any case, considering that behaviour has a psycho-biological basis.
.

Chris: JWs, a strange bunch.

Even their stance on blood transfusion is "strange" and dishonest at best: they denounce the transfusion of "whole blood", red and white cells, plasma and platelets, but they allow the transfusion of fractions of red and white cells, plasma and platelets; fractions. Meaning that if blood is processed, then it's acceptable. What's stranger is that they don't allow their members to donate blood. Yet, the blood fractions they allow are from donated blood. That sort of hypocrisy, reaping where they have not sowed, is unChristian at best, and completely inhumane.

Previously, they opposed vaccinations, calling it a violation of God's laws; they also condemned organ transplants as cannibalism; they have reversed themselves on these two; their opposition is well-documented. JWs today are allowed to accept haemoglobin; they're still not allowed to donate blood from which they're allowed to accept blood fractions.

The reason I'm asking Perrito4u the repeated question about membership is that there may be many things (s)he isn't aware of; and JWs wouldn't reveal all until one is a full member, at which time it may be too late.

Here is about the most comprehensive JW quotes page on the Internet:

http://www.quotes-watchtower.co.uk/ ;

the original site was in Canada, but the JW organisation hounded the guy who owned that site, almost got him bankrupt; but that only served to make others mirror the website. This is a good preservation; it is about the best.
.

Where're the references to tithes in the New Covenant?
.

So what is blasphemy against the Holy Spirit?

Can blasphemy against God be forgiven?

.

The Jewel of Medina will now be published in 15 countries "including Italy, Spain, Hungary, Germany, Brazil, Russia, Republic of Macedonia, Denmark, Finland and Poland; as of mid-September [2008], negotiations were ongoing with publishers in Sweden and the Netherlands."

A number of Muslims have reviewed the book, one of whom, although having the opinion that the book is flawed, also says its publication must not be stopped. Another reviewer (a Muslim, no less) has commented that the author portrayed the Prophet quite favourably. And, of course, there's another Muslim who on record cursed the writer. Of the three above, two of the (Muslim) reviewers spoke directly with the author.

The firebombings and outrage will only serve to make this book another bestseller, just like SV; of course, Sir Salman has weighed in, villifying Random House for submitting to intimidation. Censorship does not work. Simple. Let writers do their thing, and let there be discussion. And let those who haven't read the book keep their mouths shut, and/or hold their fingers away from the keyboard if discussing the contents of the book is the issue. As can be seen above, people, Muslims, will come to different conclusions about a book deemed controversial by the loudest and most violent voices claiming to speak for Islam and Muslims.

The author is already working on a sequel; the success of The Jewel of Medina is about completely guaranteed.
.

It has long been recognised that the US must talk with the Taliban. Heck the US armed similar groups in Afghanistan against the Soviets. The strategy has had good success in Iraq.

But, er, how's this relevant to this thread??

.

DavidDylan:
Hell will freeze over before a muslim is ever allowed to sensitive government positions in the West.

David: what this you mean by " the West"?

.

[quote author=congoshine link=topic=185574.msg3006735#msg3006735 date=1225202617]
,[/quote]Well done!
.

zayhal:
And by the way, it is Nimshi who's at the throat of active Muslim posters.
He/she's decided to be a confusionist around here.

Quite the contrary. Not at anyone's throat. I don't think the throat should be a target for anything because we disagree; heck, I don't think any part fo the body should be a target becasuse of disagreements.

And, no, again; I'm no confusionist. This, I will say: there're many matters on which we agree; and there're many others on which we do not agree.

.

samba123:
Nimshi can you post the content of the book of Rusdie to clear this issues.

First, I don't think the copyright on the book has expired.

Second, I don't think it'll be possible to post all of the book were the above not to be the case.

Do you want to read SV? Have you read any other of Rushdie's works?
.

ayinba1:
@nimshi

You have assumed that the judgement was passed on S. Rushdie without the concerned authorities actually reading the publication. Can you actually prove this?

The burden of proof is not on me. The burden of proof is on those who claim that the fatwa was/is actionable to show that it was a valid fatwa. And particularly, anyone who'll come to a public forum to advocate such a fatwa has the responsibility for knowing what they're talking about.

We find it so easy to pass judgements on other authority once it's not the US of A, or Britain.

Such an inferior disposition isn't ever my way. (You many well go see my comments on the US and Britain on the topic of "terrorists", "moderate Muslims" etc etc)

Note that I do not know the details but since you are so vehement about how wrong the sentence was, can you say for sure that it was passed with no knowledge of what Satanic Verses contained?

First of all, you have alluded to my posts what has not been evident. Below, to clear you all up:

1) I have speculated that the Ayatollah Khomeini (who issued the fatwa) probably never read SV.
2) What you may say Ihave been vehement about (and have no apologies for) is this: olabowale (and anyone else) couldn't reasonably discuss the contents of the book without having read it.
3) I have also said this: there were devoted and devout Muslims who read SV and disagreed with the fatwa on religious grounds.
4) There are devoted and devout Muslims who felt Rushdie is indictable for the things he wrote; yet, were completely against the fatwa.

The major point is this: my interlocutor on this issue has no basis for discussing the contents of the book without having read it. That is, I think, makes straighforward sense.
.

Perrito4u:
You see Nimshi you are right The JW's thought it was the end. There is a calculation u can do using the bible that will bring you the year 1914. JW's where the only ones to see it. They figured the date out and they thought it was the end. But JW's are not prophets. They were wrong about what the year really meant - Mathew 24:36 Just a mistake. But they where right about one thing, this date had to do with the end of days, and history says it all.

Do you know this calculation? If you do, share it. JWs are fond of being vague about some date, and they arrive at 1914. Many JWs mention this date, 1914, and refer to the calculations in one or more of the JW so-called "study books"; yet, many can't pin it down when asked. If you're sure you know what you're talking about, then let's start up with this calculation. Of course, you'll pay attention to the 607 BCE date, and you may want to check it for the starting date of your calculations.

CT Russell and his friends had lots of date; so you'll have to be precise about what you mean about JWS being right about the 1914 date. First of all: "Jehovah's Witnesses" (JWs) were not really in existence before 1933. But the group with CT Russell, who expected something thappen in 1914 were wrong about everything they wrote. Note that: everything. If you could point to direc quotes that predicted the 1914 events before the fact, then you may be making a headway.

And since you appear to have missed the points of the quotes in the earlier post, here, in plain words:

1) JWs (as now known) predicted that the world was going to end in 1914.
2) When that didn't happen, they changed dates, predicting further that the world would end in 1915, 1918, 1920 and also 1925. Much later, 1975 was looked forward to too.

If you want proof of these from JWs publications, I will be glad to oblige you.

Perrito4u: are you one of Jehovah's Witnesses, or, are you "studying" with them?

.

DavidDylan:
this is confused garble.

Your brain is in underdrive, eh? Need some brain food?
.

this claims of "homosexuality in nature" is nonsense. If i put 15 8-week old male mice together in a cage, close to 100% of them will show "active homosexuality".

Hahaha. Daveed! Did you perform this experiment? Or - wonder of wonders - do you now allow yourself to be influenced by controlled experiments? Pray tell, Dave.

My point is this - animals have much lower intelligence than man . . . so its extremely difficult to extrapolate social activities in animals to man.

Hahaha. Precisely because of instint, non-human animals are useful in ways humans are not. Do you understand that?

.

DavidDylan:
I choose to ignore much of your puerile nonsense that don't really make sense. But this lie takes the cake.
The US is a secular nation (because the founding fathers realised the need to create a viable, competitive state rather than the theocratic enclave that Saudi Arabia has become). It doesnt remove the FACT that it is and was founded as a christian nation.

Uh; David boy! C'mon! Here: the US is a secular nation, yet, you haev all presidential candidates invoking God in public, and you have you asserting that a Muslim couldn't do well running for president; same in Nigeria: a secular nation, yet with religion written all over it. Somehow, you missed the contradiction between what the founding fathers wanted, and the meaning of the "under God" insertion. too late for you, eh? Or, is it your bed time, David?

If you hate church noise please move to Dubai or Saudi Arabia.

Dubai isn't bad, eh. Saudi Arabia, only on a visit

Are you happy now?
.

ayinba1:
@nimshi

All you have explained is very clear. You have refused to answer, not evaded the question.

Good.

And if you take time to read my post, I have answered your questions.

Well, if you say so. . . I got it all laid out in my most recent direct response to yours.

Again, a question is not the same thing as a smear, stop trying to play victim here.

No victim; the comment may no thave been appropriate to your posts, but there are others here who have gone far ahead to make suggestions fitting the description of "smear"

Hopefully, people who wrongly refer to you as a muslim read your post!

No one could reasonably make that claim from anything I've written. My refusal to answer does not mean I am not; the only valid claim would be that I haven't identified/declared myself as one; I'll expect that you'll see the difference.
.

ayinba1:
And of what use is his reading of the book? If you reindeer and nimshi wish to read it, go ahead, it's your life, why do you insist that he has to read it to know that it is bad.

No; no one's forcing him to read the book; only that, for him to discuss the book, he'll need to read it. And since he's not read it, he ought to keep mute when there's a discussion of the contents of the book. It's simple as that.

porn movies are bad for you spiritually. Do you have to watch one to know they are truly bad?

This is an example of the 'slippery slope' argument. SV isn't a Indecency movie. But more importantly: a sentence of death was issued on the writer. If you do not condemn the writer, ten there's no problem; but if you suppose the write has a case to answer, then you can't advance that course of reasoning without having read the book. It's only fair. How would you decide a case without examninign the evidence? Better to recluse yourself if you're not going to consider the most important piece of evidence.
.
.

DavidDylan:
you seem to live in a bubble where logic is non-existence. People can enjoy freedoms but YET can't enjoy the freedoms of living where they please?

Did you mean: ". . . where logic is non-existen[t]"?

Of course, you could exercise the freedom of choosing where to live; but it'll be foolhardy of you to complain about tremors if you lived where tectonic plates are cracking. One'd 've thought that was sth about commonsense, no?

May i also ask, if you live in the largely christian south of nigeria what the heck are you doing complaining?

That's a big If. Assuming the assuming of your "if" is wrong?

Muslims are the worst hypocrites on earth . . . they want to enjoy freedoms in christian areas and at the same time force you to either endure harsh living realities in muslim dominated areas or leave.

You've painted with a big, bigoted brush; and bigot is as bigot does. Some Muslims are hypocrites, just as some Christians are hypocrites. In fact, going by what they profss, you could argue that Christians aren't anymore hypocritical than Muslims. And, well, we could agree that 'political' Islam appears to be quite intolerant of Christians than Christianity has been of the practice of Islam; that is far off from suggesting that "Muslims are the worst hypocrites on earth". Subtlety isn't your strong suit, Dave, is it?

Nigeria is a secular nation not an islamic enclave for 14th century nomads.

This one, I agree. Just like the US is a secular nation (with that post-founding fathers insertion of "under God".

I don't have to live in Saudi Arabia to be disturbed by the constant islamic need to force their outrage on us.

You'll never have the peace you deserve until you take a close look and attempt to understand those against whom you exhibit so much hate. And your hatred hurts you, Dave. It hurts you and makes you a bad Christian; why must I be the one to tell you that??
.

For some 35 years prior to 1914, The Watchtower (now the most widely distributed religious magazine on earth) had been calling attention to 1914 as a year marked in Bible prophecy.

You've bought into a lie. The Watchtower did predict that something was going to happen in 1914; something; but, what was it? Here is what the Watchtower wrote prior to 1914:

But bear in mind that the end of 1914 is not the date for the beginning, but for the end of the time of trouble. Zion's Watch Tower 1894 July 15 p.226

and

The year A.D. 1878, being the parallel of his assuming power and authority in the type, clearly marks the time for the actual assuming of power as King of kings, by our present, spiritual, invisible Lord, " Studies in the Scriptures - Thy Kingdom Come p.239

There are other quotes.

Then, Wathctower, like any other dubious prophet caught pants down, began to revise history after the fact, making changes to the text of their predictions. Examples:

Compare:

That the deliverance of the saints must take place some time before 1914 is manifest, since the deliverance of fleshly Israel, as we shall see, is appointed to take place at that time, and the angry nations will then be authoritatively commanded to be still, and will be made to recognize the power of Jehovah's Anointed. Just how long before 1914 the last living members of the body of Christ will be glorified, we are not directly informed; but it certainly will not be until their work in the flesh is done; nor can we reasonably presume that they will long remain after that work is accomplished. With these two thought in mind, we can approximate the time of the deliverance."  -  Studies in the Scriptures Series III - Thy Kingdom Come 1908 edition

with:

"That the deliverance of the saints must take place very soon after 1914 is manifest, since the deliverance of fleshly Israel, as we shall see, is appointed to take place at that time, and the angry nations will then be authoritatively commanded to be still, and will be made to recognize the power of Jehovah's Anointed. Just how long after 1914 the last living members of the body of Christ will be glorified, we are not directly informed; but it certainly will not be until their work in the flesh is done; nor can we reasonably presume that they will long remain after that work is accomplished." - Studies in the Scriptures Series III - Thy Kingdom Come 1915 edition

There are several other examples. And there are scans of the original documents in the open source. The Watchtower (and later, JWs) do this quite often, banking on the fact that several of their incurious members will accept whatever is pulished today as truth, or 'new light' while discouraging members from digging into the archives to check what was 'old light'.

Perrito4u: are you one of Jehovah's Witnesses, or, are you "studying" with them?
.

.

Okay; you made your point, in the glory of all your ignorance.

Now:

In what way was Jesus related to David?

Was he related to David through is paternal or maternal lines?

Did he share genetic material with Kind David?

And, they were Huxley's questions, eh. Quick, take a stab, Dave; do it.
.

DavidDylan:
Were you not the one crying about worship services disturbing you? funny that constant noisy "call to prayers" don't disturb you.
No wonder someone asked if you were a freelance hypocrite.

Your head, David, is again implanted in that place

Yes, people pray where I live.

No, they don't have to endure loud call to prayers.

People can enjoy these freedoms, and get used to it.

But if you live in Zamfara, or in Saudi Arabia, what the heck are you doing complaining?

Of course, all that appears beyond you, be as it is that we're discussing a matter relating to Islam.

.

PepERSprAY:
Nope

Good!

Are you a freelance hypocrite?

Why? Why do you ask?
.

PepERSprAY: why the sad face?

The question is valid, isn't it?

And it's not asked unseriously; that, you should know.

Now: is it blasphemy to write that?

.

Boo hooo Daviiid!

In what way was Jesus related to David?

Was he related to David through is paternal or maternal lines?

Did he share genetic material with Kind David?

Too tough, eh?

Didn't you see the: "No Tu Quoque Arguments" warning?

C'mon; David; not a good defence for your namesake. C'mon!

.

DavidDylan:
That is an allegation that has not been scientifically proven.

Huxley has asked the relevant question with regard to this; what say you?

Do you know what genes control homosexuality?
any proof that it is inherited as a trait?
Any genetic mutations you know that confer homosexuality?

Important questions.
See Huxley's question above. What say you?

What do you say about homosecxuality in nature? 8% of rams, say, show active homosexuality; what do you think about that?
.

Reply to ayinba1

ayinba1: I got redirected from another thread. Here: you claim that I have not answered your questions; but have you answered mine? If you want straightforward discussion from this point on, consider this below:

1) Were I to give you an answer, would the amears stop? Would you (and others) not ask me to prove it? Would you stop imputing bad motives to anything I write? (Those are three questions). Will babs787 and Olabowale do too? Will the others do too? I sense I may have to begin defending whatever I write once I legitimise your first question by answering.

2) I want to tell you that I am not evading the question. "Evade" is the wrong word. Here's what I am doing: I am refusing to answer. Is that clear?? I refuse to answer because for a number of reasons, among which are (a) I don't see why I should make a declaration of faith to any of you here (b) were I to answer, would that stop you people from asking for further proof? I don't mean to be condescending, but if you understand the logic behind identities on discussion boards, you'll get it. If for example I say: "I am Abcde Fghi"; why should anyone believe me? The next logical questions will be to begin an examination of whether the claim is true, and given that we have different views on important matters (e.g. Mut'a marriage), I don't think there's any assurance that I'll ever be able to convince you guys; this is the reason I refuse to go on that road at all. It's all too easy for anyone to declare "I'm a Muslim", or "I'm a Christian", or "I'm a Buddhist"; but I refuse to make any declaration because I don't consider it important. Matters may be different were we to meet in person, in which case you'll probably not have to ask

3) People who have been observant (like yourself, at least here), will note that I have not declared to be Muslim, Christian, Buddhist, or other; you know that; so why are you bothered by David's assertion to the contrary? You can't tell David I'm not a Muslim (and I don't think you would or should), but you could point it out to him that I haven't declared myself on this board to be a Muslim; I may not conform to anyone's preconceived notions, but either way, I am not robbed of whom I am.
.

mukina the peacemaker

Here you come again to make one feel guilty. But really, I think we could get along; if we all tone down on the rhetoric and witch-hunting. I will, for my part, be civil if my interlocutors are too; but if they choose to attack, they'll be asking for replies in kind.
.

With all these going on, olabowale finds a way to chip something in:

olabowale wrote: Who will Judge actions? Allah. Is there any other "real Judge?"

You still manage to miss the point: so, for the sake of 'reward' and punishment in Shar'ia, is Almighty Allah going to come donw to judge intentions and actions? My question was to highlight the "fluid" nature of humans making these types of judgements.

olabowale wrote: Is there any need for interpretation? Is the text not clear enough? In Islam, the above are what is known as Mutashabiha. It real has no need for interpretation. It is in the same quality of information like commandment for Salah! It is literal. There is no need for interpretation.

Oh dear. Educate me  This is not Mutashabihat; it is Muhkamat in my book. Do we have to argue about this?? 20:5 (Allah) Most Gracious is firmly established on the throne (of authority) is a good example of a Mutashabihat. Or, do you want me to supply a scholarly reference to support that? Will you dispute the reference, or will you simply accept?

Note to olabowale: I've become interested in your responses on this thread: https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-180616.0.html ; 'll be hoping you return when the thread comes alive again.
.

More responses to poster babs787:

babs787 wrote: Its not a big deal learning Arabic but what matter most is the application of what you learned so far which I found out that your lack Islamic knowledge. You prefer making denials but have not been showing sayings, facts from the Quran or Hadith to back it up.

I agree it's not a big deal; but I made that statement because someone did accuse me of not using Arabic words and not making references. Knowledge and its application are both important, but more important are the understanding of principles behind what is knowledge. In the real world, there're many issues outside what is written in Al Quran and reported Haddiths and Sunnah; you don't get everything from cramming and reciting.

I had written that you bring disgrace to Islam. To the extent that you're unable to reason on very elementary matters, that claim remains true. Let's deal with a present example: "The Prophet never touched the hand of a woman". This claim, as written and presented, is false. If I find you in any company attempting to affirm this statement, I'll simply take you as an arrogant ignoramus, and anyone with any sense should too. For it to be true, you need to refine the claim; yet, here we are, wasting time and bandwidth discussing this very straightforward thing. Since you claim to be Muslim, and you fail to reason in the simplest matters, you bring disgrace. How's that difficult to understand? When cramming Hadiths, and Sunnahs, always make sure you employ your thinking faculties; and don't ever make a claim that's easy to show as false.

Look, babs787, you're who you are; if you have any issues with my views, why don't you start threads with clear/focussed topics and let's examine them? I've no use of your running from pillar to post about issues discussed elsewhere (you've mentioned Mut'a, say, on threads different from the original thread). Your purpose appears to be to claim you're the authentic Muslim; then, get ahead with it. The way to do it is to present issues. For example, you've mentioned sth about the permissibility of music in Islam because I recommended that another poster should listen to Asa's music; why don't you start a thread and lay your argument, and let's see whether my recommendation was unIslamic and designed to mislead?

You also keep repeating this thing about the claim of the Prophet not touching the hand of any woman; on this point, I, again, say, you're a disgrace to Islam and logic. Why would you continue to argue that?

When you have an issue, state it clearly, and succintly; if you write a long, rambling post, or spam the borad with cut/paste stuff, I can assure you I won't have the time to read; you have many such posts around here. But if you're original enough and can arrest my attention, then I'm all yours.

Quit making these random accusations, and let's focus on important issues. There're such being discussed on this board, contemporary issues that're of real value; find them and add to the discussion.
.