₦airaland Forum

Kukutente23:
Who will do that when those who are supposed to are the ones benefitting from it
After they've impoverished people, they share them handouts in the name of buying votes. Hungry people are desperate. You heard rise the woman said. She's pleading with the govt to solve hunger issues. That tells you that the motivation for her was not greed but deprivation

TenQ:
1. There is nothing anyone can do as help for you if you choose to misunderstand Psalm 137:9
Thus I asked you the simple question:
What do you think this scripture mean?

2. I presented to you Qur'an 5:18 and the sensibility of its conclusion.

Do you discipline your own children and WHY?

It is a YES or NO question sir before you explain why you take your stance!

Kukutente23:
The problem is that most of those selling their votes don't even realise what they are doing.
They are being prodded to see the money as a gift from govt.
And for people who are uneducated, poor and heavily impoverished, how do you convince them that collecting money for their votes is bad?

Kukutente23:
How does one negate the other
Have you seen the video?
The woman innocently said they voted and they collected money. The people around her had to tell her to stop saying that. It's obvious she was unaware of the implication of what she said.
What it shows is that vote buying is now mainstream in Nigeria's electoral culture

Kukutente23:
The quote is drawn directly from Ibn Taymiyyah. So it's either he was lying or you didn't get what he wrote.

What I've pointed out is corroborated by both Haleem and Karazami. There have been different explanations attempted for the usage of We by Allah for himself at different times. That royal we is the mainstream one now does but mean other explanations never existed. It only shows the confusion in Islam and attempts to cover them up.

Kukutente23:
Seems you did not get me. Royal we is to denote majesty . That's why it's used by royals and/or sovereigns. If Abdel Haleem says the WE has different usage in the Qur'an, he is agreeing with ibn taymiyyah that there have been different explanations then for the use of We in the Qur'an. The point I made which is still valid is that royal We is not the only explanation that's been put forward by Islamic scholars to explain the use of We. Abdel Haleem simply butresses my point about confusion with respect too explanation of the We. It shows that Muslims simply DON'T KNOW.

The reference to usage of royal We by Romans is still not found anywhere. I ask you to show me examples cause that of Augustus you highlighted is simply not royal We. Calling oneself "first citizen" is not royal we. Abd Romans never believed in divine right. I stand to be corrected. Divine rights entered the monarchical concept when the church and the state merged from the time of Constantine and not before.

Also, Pharaohs of Egypt couldn't have used royal we because they were seen as representatives of the gods and thus carried ultimate authority. There is no reference to Pharaoh using royal we. If you have, pls share.

Ohyoudidnt:
I have written my view that Abdul Haleem rejected the Royal we explanation for Allah referring to himself in the plural in some verses of the Quran but states that it's use depicts majesty[/b]and at other times refers to communal identity of the people addressed.

Ohyoudidnt:
Indeed M A S Abdel Haleem rejects the existence of the royal we in pre-islamic Arabia he however articulates that [b]Allah’s use of plural pronouns in the Quran serves multiple functions: it expresses majesty, invites reflection on communal identity among believers, and enriches theological discourse regarding divine attributes. He however encourages nuanced understanding to help clarify misconceptions about polytheism while reinforcing the singularity and uniqueness of Allah’s nature.

Ohyoudidnt:
The idea of using plural forms to signify singular authority has roots in many cultures and languages, predating its prominence in medieval Europe.

The use of "We" to refer to Allah in the Qur'an is understood as an expression of majesty and grandeur. This is known in Arabic as the "royal we" or plural of majesty (we of glorification). You may rightly or wrongly tie your understanding to existence or non existence of grandeur kingdoms but the royal we is not exclusively defined by this.

RightChannel:
For allah to have adopted the usage of Royal We as you guys said it means allah has partners or group of people in Royalty. Who are these people or partners of allah for him to have used We?

We all seen and read from the quran that happens to be the direct statements of allah layer mentioned and reckon with some females goddesses. For allah to have adopted Royal We as you said, don't you think allah is referring to these female deities?

Kukutente23:
Like I have earlier said, those who insisted that Mary never married and lived as a single mother are simply ignorant of Moses' law which expressly forbid a bastard or illegitimate child from being a part of God's assembly up to the tenth generation as written in Deuteronomy 23:2.

If Mary was indeed unmarried and thus an adulterer and her son viewed as a bastard, there's no way Jesus would have been allowed into Jerusalem or the temple not to even mention being accepted as a prophet. It is express Moses law and we see it in the life of Jepthah an illegitimate child who was forced to live in the desert far apart from his people in the book of judges. The Pharisees like I already established have very strict interpretation of Moses laws. So Jesus being a bastard as your quran claims would have never been allowed to preach not to even talk of entering into Jerusalem's Temple. He couldn't have been able to gather disciples of men who are legitimate. They will never follow him else they'll be seen as sharing in his sin.

Mary would have been an outcast as well. It is because of this reality that Joseph in Matthew "fearing the people" wanted to divorce Mary quietly and it was also why Gabriel intervened. Both situations as detailed in Matthew was to cure the conundrum of Jewish traditions and customs that prevailed then. It is because Muhammad was ignorant of such customs that made him think an unmarried woman and her son will be accepted into Jewish society and even allowed to gather followers and preach in towns while being an illegitimate child. It is totally impossible based on Moses' law.

Also know that there's no distinction between betrothal and marriage in Jewish custom. Your betrothed is viewed as your wife and you have all rights over her. If you do not wish to continue the marriage, what is required is akin to a divorce.

Another interesting contradiction about Jesus in the Qur'an is his coming back and Muhammad being referred to as the last prophet. If Muhammad's the last prophet, what is Jesus coming back to do? If Jesus comes back according to the Qur'an, does he not then become the last prophet?

Kukutente23:
Like I have earlier said, those who insisted that Mary never married and lived as a single mother are simply ignorant of Moses' law which expressly forbid a bastard or illegitimate child from being a part of God's assembly up to the tenth generation as written in Deuteronomy 23:2.

If Mary was indeed unmarried and thus an adulterer and her son viewed as a bastard, there's no way Jesus would have been allowed into Jerusalem or the temple not to even mention being accepted as a prophet. It is express Moses law and we see it in the life of Jepthah an illegitimate child who was forced to live in the desert far apart from his people in the book of judges. The Pharisees like I already established have very strict interpretation of Moses laws. So Jesus being a bastard as your quran claims would have never been allowed to preach not to even talk of entering into Jerusalem's Temple. He couldn't have been able to gather disciples of men who are legitimate. They will never follow him else they'll be seen as sharing in his sin.

Mary would have been an outcast as well. It is because of this reality that Joseph in Matthew "fearing the people" wanted to divorce Mary quietly and it was also why Gabriel intervened. Both situations as detailed in Matthew was to cure the conundrum of Jewish traditions and customs that prevailed then. It is because Muhammad was ignorant of such customs that made him think an unmarried woman and her son will be accepted into Jewish society and even allowed to gather followers and preach in towns while being an illegitimate child. It is totally impossible based on Moses' law.

Also know that there's no distinction between betrothal and marriage in Jewish custom. Your betrothed is viewed as your wife and you have all rights over her. If you do not wish to continue the marriage, what is required is akin to a divorce.

Another interesting contradiction about Jesus in the Qur'an is his coming back and Muhammad being referred to as the last prophet. If Muhammad's the last prophet, what is Jesus coming back to do? If Jesus comes back according to the Qur'an, does he not then become the last prophet?

Ohyoudidnt:
Well I can't see any named person giving this Fatwa unless salad of the early generations did.
This is vague and names no one in particular.
What was the agreed view and how is this related to when Allah resolved in relation to Allah referring himself in the singular in the Quran.

Kukutente23:
You have not shown usage of royal We in Rome before 12th century mind you. I just pointed out to you that it changes nothing since Rome had an emperor and was also in Europe not Arabia that's the subject of discussion here.

Even from your description of Abdel Haleem, it's obvious even he didn't conclusively accept the royal We explanation for Allah. He added other conjecture such as communal identity and symbolising of divine attributes to Allah. The problem with the two other reasons he proposed is that Allah used We in the Qur'an when talking about creation. Does Haleem now imply that Allah is saying the quranic narrative of creation was a communal work and not singularly done by Allah? Does that really fit into Islamic belief? If we is used to encompass divine attributes, what about such passages where We is used to speak to Muhammad on issues. What divine attributes are being shown there? It simply contradicts the singularity of Allah which you guys claim is central to Islam.
There's a need to let you know the distinction between royal We and plural We in usage. Royal we is an exclusivity for royalties where they refer to themselves in first person plural to show sovereignty and majesty.
Plural We is used to show plurality if action or thoughts taken on behalf of others. It has existed in different language and culture throughout history and is totally different from royal we because it subsumes individuality and projects unity and group action. Even till today, plural we is used in everyday speech among leaders in different facets of life. So the use of royal we is what is being debated and you haven't shown any existence of such usage in pre-Islamic Arabia till now.
Don't confuse royal We with plural We.

This is page 7

Kukutente23:
What events are those? Is there any other event outside those the Qur'an described? The fact remains that there's ni way the Jews would have accepted her back into society as a single mother. It is a taboo in Jewish society to have a child out of wedlock. Simple as that and no explanation from a supposed product of adultery will change that.
You mean Mary remained unmarried and after the birth of Jesus in Islamic narrative?
Where is the killing of Jesus a subject of disagreement? It is only muhammad who disagrees with the fact that Jesus was killed and he wasn't there when it happens so he can't be a valid witness to dispute it. The Jews who masterminded the killing ur Jesus never denied killing him. Muhammad claimed it was made to appear so whatever that means.
The birth of Mary is irrelevant to this discourse. She was never born out of wedlock as Jesus was reputed to have been in the Qur'an.
You seem to note imply that Mary was called sister of Aaron due to her pious nature and not because he's her ancestor as the hadith claimed. I find your claim interesting. What's your source for this? Because Muhammad's explanation was that people are named after people they share ancestry with in respect to Aaron and Mary for which there's no evidence that's the case

Kukutente23:
Rome is still Europe not Arabia. They are different civilisations. One is not known to have influenced the other unlike Rome and British who are in the same part of the world.
You have not shown kings in other continents use the royal we before the 12th century. Your accept that there are no organised societies in Arabia so the use of royal We never existed. Even your scholars agree

Kukutente23:
You did not get my point. If Mary appeared with a child while unmarried, she is automatically an adulteress. Adultery is punishable by stoning to death in Mosaic laws. Muhammad made allowance for this by claiming in the quran that the baby spoke up for his mother by declaring himself a servant of "Allah" sent to carry out a message. In Muhammad's account, this scenario, prevented the stoning of Mary. But I am disputing that by telling you that the working of miracles does not stop Jews from carrying out the requirement of Moses' laws. I gave you an example of Jesus himself. The Jews killed him despite the many miracles he showed them. So it is totally unbelievable that they would have spared Mary and accepted her back into society just cause the fruit of her adultery spoke up. That idea does not correlate with the knowledge we have of Pharisees and Jews. They believed in the strict interpretation and implementation of Moses' laws and nothing ever stands in their way of implementing it, not even Jesus.

The miraculous birth of Mary is irrelevant. Her mother did not birth her out of wedlock. Mary and Elizabeth being relative does not automatically make Mary a Levite. Her father Joachim was reputed to be a rich man and Levites are not rich since they do not own properties.

No one is disputing the reuse of names in Jewish culture. What I am disputing is calling descendants brothers or sisters of their ancestors as is being claimed in the quran. There is no historical evidence to that ever happening.

Kukutente23:
It is not a problem if you seek to contend that Royal We has existed before it was codified by the English from Latin writings in the 12th century. All you have to do is to place it in history as to who used it before then and where. But it is obvious from all indications that the We in the Quran cannot be a royal We because there was no such thing as royalty in Mecca and the Southern Arabic Peninsula in the time of Muhammad. So how can they employ something that never existed in their culture? There are so many borrowed words and concept in different languages. Yorubas have no word for rice. They call it "iresi" which is an adaptation of the original English word. So if royalty was strange to the Arabs, how could they have used a royal We?
Also, for your claim on classical Arabic, it was codified from the Hajiz texts and mostly used by the Bedouin tribes which implies that it had various forms and dialects. This is important to note because the Quran was originally written in different dialects, and the royal We was obviously used in all the different reductions. What this implies as well is that the language used today in the quran is totally different from the original dialects used for its writing. The question then still remains out of which of the dialects the royal We sprang from since Muhammad's tribe had no royalty. So your story about classical Arabic adds nothing to this discourse. It does not explain where the tradition of royal We appears from in Arabic language and where it has been used before and after the Quran in those times.

Kukutente23:
The name is already given. Why do you enjoy going back and forth on this? You quoted from same text earlier but you are making ridiculous arguments about it here. If you dispute the fact that some Islamic scholars claimed that the We in Quran stood for Allah and Jibreel his Angel, kindly come out and say so

Kukutente23:
The Pharisees follow Mosaic laws religiously. Anything that contradicts God's laws as given by Moses is fake. So a virgin getting pregnant and giving birth will not be viewed as a miracle as you think but as evidence of adultery. A baby speaking from the cradle (and using such term as Allah which is coined from Canaanite eloha) will be termed sorcery and idolatry based on Mosaic law. The mother will be summarily put to death for adultery. It speaks to Muhammad's ignorance of Jewish laws that he thought a miracle will change the mind of Jews to an obvious sin against Moses' law. Why then did they kill Jesus of miracles can change their minds? At least even the Qur'an accepts that they claimed to kill Jesus despite the miracles he performed.
I don't know where you got your idea from but Mary was not living with Zakarriya even in your quran. And Jews never called God "Allah" as Jesus was reported to have done in the Qur'an. Allah would have been very strange to Jews. You have to show me where Jews culturally refer to their ancestors as their brothers or sisters cause I've never seen that anywhere. It seems only Mary had such description reserved for her.
So you're claiming it's simply a coincidence that Mary in the Qur'an was called sister of Aaron even when the gap between both is about 2000 years and her father happened to have the same name as Miriam? Note that Mary in Christianity does not have her father's name as Imran or Amram. Rather, her father's name is given as Joachim. So it is obviously a confusion to allot Mariam's father's name to Mary mother of Jesus as was done in the Qur'an. If you have the historical context of Imran being Mary's father, share it.

GothamCities:
You asked a question about the metaphoric use of words in the Bible and I gave you the bolded as an example.

GothamCities:
Sure. Even metaphors are always logical, and are matched to the elements or objects they describe.

See for example:

Isaiah 40:22

"It is he who sits above the circle of the earth, and its inhabitants are like grasshoppers; who stretches out the heavens like a curtain, and spreads them like a tent to dwell in;"

Look at the words bolded in the verse. The scientists argued against the earth being a circle at the time this verse was written. The only person who could have known that the earth is a circle before even science discovered it is the Creator of the earth.

Now, look at the words 'Stretch' and 'Spread' used for the heavens (universal sky), those words were not used for earth because its illogical to say the earth spread or stretched, even when talking metaphorically. When spread is used for earth in the Bible, it is used in relation to the inhabitants of the earth. For example "By him was the inhabitants of the earth spread about."

The heavens were said to be stretched and spread like a curtain in that verse. And indeed the heavens are actually stretched and spread. Scientists today believe it is infinite. That's a real spread or stretch.

Please just put your biases aside and make a good and honest study of the Bible as you have studied the Quran, you'll find out that only the Creator could do the things God did and said in the Bible.

GothamCities:
My dear, the earth was not spread, neither was it laid.

Kukutente23:
You're looking at the text.

GothamCities:
What's the difference between laid and spread in this context?

Kukutente23:
You seem to have not followed this discussion well. What we have established is that royal We is common to European monarchies and was introduced in 12th century. Islam and Qur'an is much older than that period so the explanation can't fly.
You have also claimed that the use of plural we existed in classical Arabic literature. Can you share examples of such literature where royal We is employed for usage you described?
Note that Muhammad's tribe does not have kings neither does any king exist in the southern Arabic peninsula who might have used such term. So how does a tribe that has no kings use a royal rendition in their lexicon?

Ohyoudidnt:
You have the one you say reads laid so bring it.

GothamCities:
Are you afraid to do it yourself?

Here you go:

Quran 71:19

وَالْأَرْضَ فَرَشْنَاهَا بِسَاطًا

See word for word translation below:

GothamCities:
Bring out the full Arabic verse. Quran translators are known to be tricky with words whenever it denegrates Allah.

GothamCities:
The truth is that the verse says all laid the earth as a carpet. This is consistent with all the transactions. You know better than your translators I suppose. How much Arabic do you even speak? Allah laid the earth as carpet, mat, rug an expanse. All means the same thing - he laid the earth as a flat surface. You know the truth but you'll want us to accept a lie.

Kukutente23:
You believe Pharisees and the sanhedrin will desist from meting out punishment to a woman with incontrovertible evidence of adultery simply because a baby spoke? If that is so, why did the Jews go ahead to kill Jesus and his disciples even with the many miracles they performed. The prevailing opinion in Jewish society is that the soul that sins shall die. So the righteousness of the mother can't save the child and vice versa.

Also, there's no evidence that points to Mary being from Aaron's lineage. The closest shed had to Levites was her cousin Elizabeth but note that not all levies are descended from Aaron. Most importantly, which culture refers to one's ancestor as one's brother or sister? At least the Jewish custom does not do that. It would have been plausible if it was daughter of Aaron and not sister of Aaron. Aaron's sister Miriam was known to be unmarried just like Mary was portrayed in the Qur'an. Her father's namegiven in the Qur'an was same with Miriam and Aaron's father's name given in the bible. All these cannot be mere coincidence. It's a mix-up

GothamCities:
My dear, cut the crap!

All these fluffy explanations on top of what? Someone says he has spread the earth like a mat, you're talking about comfort and flowery fields. The statement does not fit that context at all.

If Allah has said that the created the world as a bisāṭan', then we might say he meant he created it as a place of comfort. But he didn't say so. He said he laid it as a bisāṭan! What other things are laid other than a flat surface such as mat, rug, bed, table tops, etc. Please stop this deception and also stop thinking that you're talking to people who have no sense.

Kukutente23:
Here it is:


This is part of his introduction of his fatwa 12713 on polytheism