₦airaland Forum

Exodus 12:2

This month shall be unto you the beginning of months:

it shall be the first month of the year to you.


January.

Make goals - endeavour to reach your targets.

Let this month not be a waste to anyone who reads this.

A Happy New Year to ALL.

focused:
The people drinking hypochlorous acid as water are the Islamist , . . .

Relax. Dem so soon come back and salute you with more hydrochlorine formula for 'pure water'

By the way, where's the guy who luvs-2-talk? Wasn't he the originator of this thread? How come he has chosen to "Remain Silent For Ever"?

Hi @zigbo,

zigbo:
the lady in the first picture pilgrim posted is wearing a sleeveless top looking so attractive in it, then she goes right after n puts a veil round her face. . what is that about .

The clue about what is going on is in the person behind her:

[img]http://sabbah.biz/mt/wp-content/burqa02.jpg[/img]

Did you see the GUN?

@davidylan

davidylan:
The quran fails the simple test of logical reasoning!

Lol. . . you don come again! Nice reading o jare!

@seeklove,

seeklove:
@ pilgrim.1
Mind you you have nt given any explanations as per the meaning of the words of Jesus posted. All you have done is attack moslems and justcoll and the Mr shin.
You are a tipical Nigerian girl,always ready toattack but never objective.

Hehehe. . . True talk - even though I dey UK, I am a typical Nigerian lady, and I'm proud to make that point very clear to all yanga people that Nigerain women are not dunces. Match intelligence for intelligence, one of the many reasons why I started investigating my fate as a (former-) Muslim was because Islam sees women as below average on the IQ scale.

That said, thank you for your inputs. And no, I won't 'attack' you. If "explanations" are sought from me, then I would oblige - I have never been shy of dealing with issues; and so many times have I made it clear that where the motive in any debate is a DELIBERATE Islamic castigating of my Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, I will spare NOTHING to sanitize the stupidity of the rascals involved in such games. This na 2008 - and anyone who wants to bring the old game over should tread softly.

That was why I earlier hinted that:

[quote author=pilgrim.1 link=topic=101571.msg1812162#msg1812162 date=1199223303]@justcool,

There was nothing tangible to be addressed in the original post that opened this thread; and if you could not see that the originator was set in his ways to castigate and deride Christ Himself from the onset, you will never be able to make sense even in your submissions.[/quote]The original poster was not interested in reason and amicable discussions. For all he cared, Jesus Christ in his quote "told two lies" - did you miss that? I simply left him to ride on castigating the same One the Muslims regard as their "beloved" prophet, so that readers at least could see clearly that Muslim love for Jesus Christ is HYPOCRISY undiluted! The many Muslims who troll this motherboard are pretending they NEVER saw it - that is why they have deliberately stayed away from this thread and allowed such brigand adventures of a Muslim referring to Christ as having "told two lies". Well done.

If una want answers, relax. Answers plenty in the Bible - and in due course, I shall come back to discuss it in DETAIL. If I summarize my inputs, babs787 go complain (as he did in recent times) that I don't say much these days. But just to let him know how wrong he was, readers will read from me in due course.

For now, I am simply observing the rough play from those who have taken it upon themselves to LIE for 'Allah'. That adventure is one of the things I have determined to bleach in this New Year.

seeklove:
Of course you are attacking islam(religion) and defending Christianity(religion) so you can be attacking and defending religion at the same time.

Point made. I was being facetous to dear justcool, and actually wanted him to understand that his entries were deliberately and unjustifiably maligning Christianity. Not to mention that he really doesn't have a clue about what he was espousing before making comments.

seeklove:
What tha ??
somebody cannot be freed by "religion"
You mean somebody cannot be free of religions!!
Besides,the guy just told you that the quoran has being interfered with and still you are quoeting the quoran on him?
What if he tells you that the verses you quoted are those interfered with.

Rest your heart. It is of no consequence to me at all if the gentleman has his own personal persuasion against the Bible or Qur'an - but he obviously was bloviating by trying to cheat us about whether or not Muhammad brought RELIGION!

I just knew his was spewing what he had been spoonfed without CAREFULLY checking the FACTS either in the Qur'an or the Bible!! For which reason I simply offered him a few out of the MANY verses in the Qur'an to show that Muhammad INDEED brought religion. I was hoping that he would kindly come back and let me know if Qur'an 3 v 19 is no longer in the Qur'an - "The Religion before God is Islam".

To make a conclusive statement and try to pass that off as authentic is simply asking for some bleaching till he has no colours left! But with guys like you weighing in on the issue, I acquiesce and will gently set him down next time! (Let's just hope he won't come again in any rascally moves).

seeklove:
I'm still waiting to hear you explanation on the Jesus's sayings

Dear bros, I will definitely offer some pointers to help readers. You're not the only person requesting this - there are loads of emailers who have challenged me to respond with clear enunciations as well. The one thing I am waiting for here is a response from the originator as to whether Muhammad's "prophecy" of Jesus SOON coming has been fulfilled after 15 centuries?

As I often say - na my own I sidon jeje until. . .

I hope that this year will bring us many happy occasions to discuss. It all depends on whether or not Muslims will have it the usual way of being taken to the cleaners.

@mukina2,

Glad to read your clarifications - I asked those questions so that I don't misunderstand you.

mukina2:
In Islam the traditional dress code for male is mostly Thobes, those long flowing white gown like . and Galabiyyas for women its mostly Abayas

I'm quite aware of that (or, so we were made to believe when I was formerly in Islam). However, I don't think that answers the question precisely. Distinguishing between the sexes in clothes isn't as simplistic as many Muslims may think; and as we progress, I will bring about these issues in more detail.

mukina2:
A Muslim must not wear something that has inscriptions of the Christian cross or other Religion.

Wearing "inscriptions" of the Christian cross does not therefore turn someone into an unbeliever - especially bearing mind that you were referring to "unbelievers religion"! To Muslims, it is the default thinking that Christians and Jews are "unbelievers", but this is a gravely mistaken idea that does not bear up at all when closely examined.

The Cross may be an offence to Muhammad. But have you carefully considered WHY Islam is so virulent against the Cross? What does it remind them of - and what are the implications of the Cross to Muslims?

In just the same way that Muslims may unfairly accuse Christians of being "unbelievers" on issues of the cross, so also we find that worship that is based on bowing before a stone (as in the Kaa'ba) is clearly idolatrous. I do not want to reharsh that argument here. The point, however, is that while you may regard the CULTURAL dress code in Islam to be free from "inscriptions" of the Cross, it is quite unbalanced to therefore classify Christianity the way you did. The difference here is that discussants do not adjudge Islam based on culture - but rather based on the Qur'an and Sunna.

mukina2:
yeah it is a cultural thing the burqa thing. the veiling as it is in the Quran, says the head, the hands up to the wrist and the clothes must be loose and non-transparent .Like i stated earlier in a my previous post, the sunnah parts include covering the face, hands and feet.

Lol. . . like I said, Christianity is not to be adjudged as the "unbelievers religion" based on mere CULTURAL persuasions that have been crystalized into Islam. In as much as you do not worship CULTURE, what then would be the basis of using CULTURE as a the yardstick of referring to other religions as "unbelievers religion"?

mukina2:
when a muslim wears a cross as a necklace, knowing fully well he is not a christian, that is wrong , if i am not mistaken the cross is worn by catholics to identify them . The rosary beads, the star of David for the Jews .

These again may be special ways of identifying these groups of people and their persuasions. Now if a Jew identifies his "messianic" connection and hope in the davidic reign, does that necessarily account him as practising the "unbelievers religion"? That would be like asking him to jettison his Scriptures in order to appease the Muslim mindset. And that would be a huge problem for the Muslim to even contemplate.

mukina2:
If a muslim mixes any of this, then he is definately going against the Islamic dress code

Actually, you have intoned that the dres code in Islam is a cultural thing, so I don't see why Islam should now seek to bend his neck to that rigid rule.

@justcool,

justcool:
@ pilgrim.1
Thanks but I have to say this. You defend and attack religions but like I said, I don't deal with religions.

I cannot be defending and attacking religions all at the same time; so your statement truly leaks through. If you don't deal with religions, one wonders what you were doing in discussing religious matters in the first place.

justcool:
I don't even have a religion. Neither do I defend the Bible for I have made it known many times that although the Bible still contains some truths, it has been interfered with thus it also contains some things that are not in accord with the Truth. The Koran itself is also very much interfered it. Both books have been reduced to religious weapons and neither contains the Truth in it pure form.

Attacking the Bible and the Qur'an at the same time while claiming that you are not doing so, does not really score the mark. The one thing that you have done was to try and advertize the same trend as Abd-ru-shin did - pretend to expound Biblical truth while callously proclaiming that the Bible contains "some truths". This is typically the lyrics of people who are intellectually challenged - and we should make no pretences about the fact that they have deliberately sought to ridicle the convictions of other people while pretending a scholarship they obviously do not possess!

If you can learn to drop such callous attitude when you discuss issues, perhaps you will not have to come back whinging the way you do. WHY should anyone want to let you into the theater with a free pass to ridicule and degrade their convictions while you cry hooha at being set straight on such matters?

justcool:
It ridiculous of you to discredit my explanation based on the fact that certain verses of the Bible does not agree with it when I never claimed to have drawn my knowledge from the Bible. I made it clear that I draw from the Grail Message.

You could draw your knowledge from the stone under Arabia for all I care - Mr Shin's book is a softsell that has not stood up to scrutiny the way you guys demand of the Bible. Period.

Your so-called "explanation" clearly contradicted Biblical teaching - and that was why I offered the verses in my rejoinder to show you HOW, WHY and WHERE! You cannot come on board and make bland statements and expect us to just swallow them like some gullible turkeys! Sorry, Mr Shin may lead you by the nose - but for me, no such shakara will survive if you bring it near me!

justcool:
However I owe it to God for the recognition that He has granted me out of the Grail message, to defend His words which mankind has reduced to religion.

Don't be fooled. The saddest thing for anyone to accalim is pretend to have been freed from "religion" when he is deep into it - only it comes under a different name!

justcool:
Neither Christ nor Mohamed brought any religion.

I see. Please open the Qur'an and read what Muhammad said:


Qur'an 2 v 193:
And fight them until persecution is no more, and religion is for Allah.
But if they desist, then let there be no hostility except against wrong-doers

Qur'an 3 v 019:
The Religion before God is Islam (submission to His Will):
Nor did the People of the Book dissent therefrom except through
envy of each other, after knowledge had come to them.
But if any deny the Signs of God, God is swift in calling to account.

You may sit smug behind the 'puter and think to impress Muslims - obviously they will be impressed indeed if you ignorantly deny what is in their holy writ.

justcool:
They brought the living word of God for man irrespective of his race, nationality, and creed.

Another LIE. Go find out if Muhammad gave two shillings' concern about your Abd-ru-Shin creed! Pleaase impress me, and I'll only be too glad to wise you up this New Year!

justcool:
Jesus who was, is and will forever remain the love of God brought His word for every human spirit. Whenever I find his word being massacered like you have always done, I will always offer the truth.

Where did I massacre His WORD? Or, HOW did I do so? Are you making these cheap claims because you felt cheapened on your adventures of trying to be so slick in offering "reincarnation" into the Bible where there was none?

I'm sorry, don't take a bad hit. Truth be told - your ideas are NOT espoused by the Bible. . . and you cannot cross the bridge from Abd-ru-Shin's creed into the Bible and then scoot off the way you did!

justcool:
Not for you but for those who your words might mislead. It is left for everybody to examine both and decide which makes more sense.

Thank you for making it clear that your efforts to bring the WORD were not for me. Again, not all who read and compare will be as blind as you had hoped they would be!

justcool:
You have judged ABD-RU-SHIN by saying that he takes from the pages of the Bible. Rest assured we will all recieve the judgment we give to others.

Was he quoting from the pages of a magazine? Puh-leeeaase! You guys should grow up and cease from these cheap scare-antics! Abd-ru-Shin copped out verses from the Bible and sculpted anti-Biblical ideas. Period.

Would I be judged for stating the truth? Woo. . . I'm shaking terribly from fright - NOT!

justcool:
This attack on the personality of ABD-RU-SHIN is uncalled for! Why can't we let facts speak against facts? Why must we condescend to attacking people who have done nothing wrong to us.

If you actually wanted FACTS to speak for FACTS, hold your peace, employ some sanity in reading through my persuasions and then show me WHERE, HOW or WHY you felt I might've missed your gist. I ahve held discussions with many people in very amicable manner - but those who read me well know enough to understand that pilgrim.1 is zero-tolerant to deception of ANY kind!

justcool:
I stand proudly by my words and don't ever think that you can intimidate me.

You don't feel the need to mention that if you were not already intimidated by your drivel.

Pass along and let's see some more serious gist in this thread.

@olabowale,

olabowale:
How on earth a person who can't clean the private parts properly, every time after using the bathroom, be it no 1 or no 2 except, only when they do shower right after, that you can vouch that there is no remnant of dirt and stench, on the person can talk about modesty, from the perspective of Qur'an and Sunnah? This is mind boggling!

What is mind boggling indeed is the culture that has been crystalized as 'Islam' for women who fall into the very same thing you complain about.

olabowale:
If a person who is not a Muslim thinks he or she is modest, it is very clear to me that when that person becomes Muslim and obeys the instructions concerning modesty, that person will become a more modest person.

One doesn't have to be Muslim (or even religious for that matter) in order to be modest. Sad to say, even religious people are quite easily prone to immodesties in behaviour, outlook, association. . . and, of course, dress codes. What is even sadder is the FACT that the "culture" of Islam has made it far worse for women who should understand their mental freedom to choose modesty - not by the dictates of ring leaders who cannot agree on what is Qur'anic or Sunna! That was why I offered the pictures earlier and asked:

How is it "most convenient" for women to be covered in those ways?

olabowale:
A Muslim who is not modest will be worse in modesty, if he or she were to go out of Islam. We can look around and see glaring examples.

Those who leave Islam (or any religion) and become even more immodest simply demonstrate the fact that they never were modest at heart from the onset. Worse than that is to carry the Islamic ideology along as a tool for such immodesty when they leave that religion.

olabowale:
They abound everywhere and Nairaland is not without some examples.

Please be man enough to name those on your mind. They may have a few words of wisdom for you.

olabowale:
If the New Testament declares that there are 3 gods or godheads, take your pick, and Qur'an says there is no three God, but One God, is this not correction? There are still many parts of the NT that the Qur'an rejects, as it has a different opinion. This is correction. I asked the pundit to define correct or if they wish correction. Davidylan, has become empty barrel and I am losing respect in his veracity. I had hoped that he will be true to form, since he calls himself a Tiger. But its is Tony the Tigre that is showing up, these days.

@olabowale,

In the first place, the New Testament does NOT "declare" that there are 3 gods or godheads! Only illiterates keep forcing that idea into the Bible ESPECIALLY when I have personally corrected you on that drivel! If you are not satisfied and it has become your nightmare that informs your hide-and-seek games in recent times, then please quote the NT verse where it DECLARES that there are "3 gods or godheads".

Second, this thread was opened for a simple enquiry: "WHERE does the Qur'an say so" in reference to babs787's assertion that the Qur'an came to "correct" the Biblical scriptures. Do you have the verse where the Qur'an claims to have come to "correct" the Biblical scriptures, olabowale? Does the Qur'an ever make that claim ANYWHERE in any of the 114 Suras? If you do not have such a verse in your Qur'an, would you please refrain from your adventures of LYING for 'Allah' in order to appear intelligent where you obviously are worsening your emptiness?

Nowehere does the Qur'an purport to have come to "correct" the Biblical scriptures - find me the verse in the Qur'an ANYWHERE and ANYDAY! After a hard search, you will have to come back to the very same thing in my persuasion - that the Qur'an claims to have come to "CONFIRM" the Biblical scriptures which are "WITH THEM" (i.e., "with Jews and Christians"!! If you no longer believe that, we can now move on to the next stage in this thread where I intend to bleach you and you folks a bit further and expose the duplicity of Muhammad's fabrications. Fair enough?

While you're biting your fingernails on that, take a deep breath and go back the previous page where I carefully enunciated the meaning of the simple word "CONFIRM" - the very word that Muslim translators have used so many times in so many verses in the Qur'an! Not one time did anyone of them suggest that the Qur'an ever came to "correct" the Biblical scriptures. When you are ready to be the next sacrificial cow for the FACT that Muslims LIE, LIE and LIE for 'Allah', just let me know - and I shall promptly unmask the facade you guys have been wearing in your Islamic propaganda!

Cheers.

@justcool,

justcool:
As usual posters have deviated from the main point of this thread and have condescended to religious attacks.

There was nothing tangible to be addressed in the original post that pened this thread; and if you could not see that the originator was set in his ways to castigate and deride Christ Himself from the onset, you will never be able to make sense even in your submissions.

justcool:
Obliviously neither party can explain what the above biblical sayings mean.

Don't be too sure about that - I'll wait to see how far you have performed before taking your early pride on board.

justcool:
I am not here to attack or defend any religion, I only here to offer explanation on the biblical sayings in question.

Okay. . . we'll see just how you seek to explain them.

justcool:
In other for one understand the sayings in question one must have knowledge of these two spiritual facts -- reincarnation and spiritual death.

I'm sorry to burst your bubble too soon. The Bible does not teach "reincarnation" - and that already is a dead tool in trying to exegete the Bible by any stretch. You would rather need revelation and insight by the Spirit of God before you can understand the meaning of those verses.

justcool:
You are wrong to say that they have perished because only their physical bodies perished. Jesus spoke to their spirits, which are still alive and are still spreading His massage. Some of them are on earth today (reincarnated) and are still carrying on the task that Jesus gave them; and up till today the true message of Christ have finished going through the cities of Israel. They will continue this task till the Son of man comes.

Lol. . . the highlighted parts in yours leaks through. None of the apostles are on earth today; nor are they still carrying out the task that Jesus gane them. This fact is borne out by the very scriptures they were inspired to pen down:

2 Cor. 5:6-8
Therefore we are always confident, knowing that,
whilst we are at home in the body, we are absent from the Lord:
(For we walk by faith, not by sight
We are confident, I say, and willing rather to be absent from the body,
and to be present with the Lord.

Php. 1:23-24
For I am in a strait betwixt two,
having a desire to depart, and to be with Christ;
which is far better: Nevertheless to abide in the flesh
is more needful for you.

2 Pet. 1:14
Knowing that shortly I must put off this my tabernacle,
even as our Lord Jesus Christ hath shewed me.

Eccl. 12:7
Then shall the dust return to the earth as it was:
and the spirit shall return unto God who gave it.

When one leaves this earth, his spirit does not remain on the earth roaming about and doing some kind of work - it goes back to God who gave it! Those who have died do not engage in any kind of work or commission:

Eccl. 9:6
Also their love, and their hatred, and their envy, is now perished;
neither have they any more a portion for ever in any thing that
is done under the sun.

Eccl. 9:10
Whatsoever thy hand findeth to do, do it with thy might;
for there is no work, nor device, nor knowledge, nor wisdom,
in the grave, whither thou goest.

There! The Bible does not teach what you are espousing. And the reason why you have assumed to "explain" those verses the way you did and still missed the point, is this:

justcool:
I have drawn my knowledge from "In the Light of Truth: The Grail Message" by ABD-RU-SHIN. Being an imperfect human spirit my explanation cannot be perfect. If you want hear from the horses mouth, from the Truth Itself, read the Grail Message

Unfortunately, Abd-Ru-Shin does not exegete the Bible - he takes from its pages to produce what even his followers today have no coherence to bear out.

Cheers.

@mdsocks,

mdsocks:
Pilgrim, Thats a challenge

Lol. . . that was no challenge at all. I was hoping to see something more nerve-rattling than those verses you posted; and when we look closely in the real gist of Muhammad's claims in the Qur'an, we find so many gaps that no Muslim has been able to coherently discuss.

So, if the "challenge" was about produing a verse like any of the verses in the Qur'an, sure anyone can do so - as long as the person is a bit more imaginative to refer to the Arabs of the dessert as "the worst in unbelief and hypocrisy, and most fitted to be in ignorance" of Muhammad's tales (Qur'an 9 v 97).

The real challenge, however, is helping the same people who fall into the accusation above to get their life and dignity back - so that they can leave Muhammad's phobias personally to him and understand that Arabs are not ignorant or hypocrites in any way, form or shape! And that is the challenge we have been demonstrating by carefully and systematically setting the Muslim arrogance and empty bloviates aside.

There! Want a real challenge, ask and I will share more.

Cherio.

@mdsocks,

mdsocks:
hmmm, what the verse dealt with was reincarnation and not miralces.

I understand that - and I wasn't dealing with reincarnation either.

mdsocks:
You can note the difference between reincarnation and raising people from the dead.

I quite understand the difference.

mdsocks:
If there are no barriers , i think you are supporting reincarnation then, which the Quran does not support

Nope, I wasn't supporting the reincarnation view. That is why I have tried again and again to be clear in my views that I was dealing with people being "raised from the dead", which is not the same thing as 'reincarnation' (the reappearance or a person in another form).

mdsocks:
What the barriers mean :is that men can't return to the earth in another form after been dead,like coming back as a new child,goat or something else.

Lol. . . okay, if you say so. It didn't appear that way initially in your entry, as the 'barrier' you hinted was more like the impossibility of a person being raised from the dead - especially since you intoned that:

When a person dies, God takes his/her soul while he is still in the process of imploring God for another chance.

.

Cheers.

@mukina2,

Again, thanks for your inputs.

What really amazes people is the rigidity of rules in Islam that hasn't brought the expected widespread "convenience" for womenfolk, or even help a coherence in lifestyle. For example, women have to go through the rigid code of identifying her male relatives in the crowd before they could "display their beauty and ornaments" [Al-Qur'an 24:31] - which even in most cases have not made sense at all for the women practising such codes, especially made more confusing by Muslim (male) scholars who make the 'options' a set of 'compulsory' rules.

As for the remaining five criteria, every single one of them has been disregarded even by staunch Muslims in the Western democracies - especially the last two listed in yours:

mukina2:
5.The clothes worn should not resemble that of the opposite sex.

6.The clothes worn should not resemble that of the unbelievers i.e. they should not wear clothes that are specifically identities or symbols of the unbelievers religions.

How do Muslims distinguish between clothes resembling those of the opposite sex and those resembling that of the unbelievers? What makes dress codes specifically 'identities or symbols of the unbelievers religions', more so when you have earlier intoned that the Islamic dress code is more a matter of culture than of Islam?

Great job @Betty605! Be encouraged and keep up the endeavour.

Happy New Year.


Proverbs 11:25

The liberal soul shall be made fat:
and he that watereth shall be watered also himself.

mdsocks:
pilgrim

not in an ordinary sense but in miraculous way,if destined by God

Moses asked people to strick a dead boy with part of already slaughtered cow, in surah baqarah, so that he can tell them who killed him. his cousin killed him for the dead boys inheritance.

@mdsocks,

Once again, thanks for your response. I will not be tedious to you this evening on this subject, even though again the 'striking' the dead with a part of already slaughtered cow really contradicts the coherence of the Mosaic Law (e.g., what was the purpose of the slaughtered cow in all the types of offerings delineated in the Torah?).

However, my concern was about your statement earlier that:

This barrier prevents his/her soul from returning to earth. This barrier is maintained till the Day of Resurrection

. . . which sounded like nobody comes back to life UNTIL that Day!

On the contrary, there are no such "barriers" maintained so as to prevent a soul from being raised from the dead. This is why we read of the miracles in the Bible where Elijah raised a child up (1 Kings 17:22); and Elisha as well raised another child from the dead (2 Kings 4:32-37); and Jesus raised several people from the dead.

@olabowale,

olabowale:
And to you davidylan: It is enough to read my entry whereby I asked simple question; if the law of Torah about fornication for a woman who is not married or adultery for a woman who is married, was not scrapped at the time of Mary's delivery of Jesus; How did it escape being punished? The answer is in the miracle of Jesus speaking in the cradle, where by he defended his mother's good womanness and declared his position as a prophet/messenger with a revealed Book to be given in the future. You will find this only in the Qur'an and it does have any trace in the Bible.

The idea that Jesus spoke as an infant in the cradle is a fabrication. Period. That tale has no bearing whatsoever in the analysis of the events surrounding the birth - for Mary was not harangued or beleaguered with accusations of ADULTERY or FORNICATION!

Besides, the tale of the Islamic version bungles common sense when we take into account that Muhammad had no clue about Jewish customs, tradition or beliefs - and none of you have taken the time to systematically enunciate why Muhammad's tales tessellates with Jewish Law! Nor did you consider the historical and political antecedence to the event!

Just because you read Muhammad's fabrications in the Qur'an which were pretended as "revelation" from 'Allah' does not mean that questions should not be asked! We have asked those questions - and the tales are simple that: 'tales'. Until Muslims can simply enunciate the event with clear pointers to the Mosaic LAW, the Jewish customs, the political and historical antecedence of the event, they should simply stop making these utility-grade noise that they litter the threads with!

olabowale:
For a person to have stated that I said that Mary was punished, amounts to dishonesty. Davidylan, I am a very busy man and i have no time for child's play. I only want people to be honest. Dishonest people do not mean anything to me.

Questions were asked, so stop whinging here that anyone was directly attributing stuff to you!

And talk of being "dishonest" - Muslims have well established their reputation of LYING for 'Allah' - and that is why I often like to take you guys to a neat thread and bleach dorti patapata comot for una body! It is only now that you are a "very busy man" after TRUTH stares you full circle in the face! Your hide-and-seek antics you've been playing in recent days say a lot about your busy schedule indeed!

mdsocks:
pilgrim

her exact age must not be an issue here, it should be if shes matured enough to be married to the prophet.The age range according bro olabowales and other references show that she's matured enough to be married to the Prophet(saw).

@mdsocks,

I understand your persuasion, and can well sympathize with it.

The huge problem here is well encapsulated in my previous questions; and let me put it this way:

Should we rubbish Aisha's testimony on the basis of
the inconsistencies of those who contradict her with
no coherence in their arguments?

The hadiths known as "SAHIH" (sound, authentic, undisputable) clearly show that:

~ Aisha was a LITTLE GIRL

~ not quite attained the age of puberty

~ a "LADY" could NOT have been playing with dolls

All these are insurmountable and incontrovertible evidence that the argument to make her a "lady" mature enough for marriage is a farce. Besides those already cited, there are tons of evidence in the Hadiths that confirm that Aisha was a child-bride, rather than mature enough to fit the age-bracket cut out for her as a "lady".

@olabowale,

Now you can help us address the same question I have offered earlier. Incase you missed it for lack of anything you blame under the sun, here it is again:

[quote author=pilgrim.1 link=topic=101111.msg1810211#msg1810211 date=1199139156]@olabowale,

(a) when you find the Hadiths that confirms the issue here IN HER OWN WORDS,
would it be taken that Aisha was LYING?

(b) If she was NOT lying, what is the problem you Muslims have with her own words?[/quote]And while you are on it, could you please refrain from the short-lived jubilation that nwando 'disappeared'? She obviously did not - and around this time of New Year celebrations, a lot of people are busy with loads of other things to catch up on! You often quickly celebrate such half-hearted jubilation over nothing - as if everyone has to sleep on their keyboard as you do, and then play hide-and-seek when you meet with answers to your bloviates!

Now, kindly address the simple questions - just two (as I don't want you to choke on so many this New Year!) Thank you plenty again O!

@mdsocks

Now comes the interesting part - Islamic arithmetics!

Observation #4. The researcher only argues away from the main gist and arrives at contradictory ages, ranging from anywhere between 15, 17 or even 21 years of age! At the end of the day, there is not a single coherent or accurate figure for Aisha's age which the researcher had imagined to resolve! Please allow me to simply quote the relevant sections to make this clear:

~ (a) Aisha must have been between 18 to 20 years old at marriage:

-----According to almost all the historians Asma (ra), the elder sister of Ayesha (ra) was ten years older than Ayesha (ra). It is reported in Taqri'bu'l-tehzi'b as well as Al-bidayah wa'l-nihayah that Asma (ra) died in 73 hijrah when she was 100 years old. Now, obviously if Asma (ra) was 100 years old in 73 hijrah she should have been 27 or 28 years old at the time of hijrah. If Asma (ra) was 27 or 28 years old at the time of hijrah, Ayesha (ra) should have been 17 or 18 years old at that time. Thus, Ayesha (ra), if she got married in 1 AH (after hijrah) or 2 AH, was between 18 to 20 years old at the time of her marriage.

However, the account from the Sahih hadith in Aisha's own words state that she was 18 years when Muhammad died, and not when she married him:

Sahih Muslim, Book 008, Num. 3311:
'A'isha (Allah be pleased with her) reported that Allah's Apostle
(may peace be upon him) married her when she was seven years old,
and he was taken to his house as a bride when she was nine,
and her dolls were with her; and when he (the Holy Prophet) died
she was eighteen years old.


Anyhow, we move on to the next contradictory piece of Islamic arithmetic:

~ (b) Aisha must have been most likely 14 years old at marriage:

Tabari in his treatise on Islamic history, while mentioning Abu Bakr (ra) reports that Abu Bakr had four children and all four were born during the Jahiliyyah -- the pre Islamic period. Obviously, if Ayesha (ra) was born in the period of jahiliyyah, she could not have been less than 14 years in 1 AH -- the time she most likely got married.

~ (c) Aisha must have been 15 or 16 years old at marriage:

----According to Ibn Hajar, Fatimah (ra) was five years older than Ayesha (ra). Fatimah (ra) is reported to have been born when the Prophet (pbuh) was 35 years old. Thus, even if this information is taken to be correct, Ayesha (ra) could by no means be less than 14 years old at the time of hijrah, and 15 or 16 years old at the time of her marriage.

Okay, the figures are in! But which is it actually? Is it -

~ 18 to 20 years old at the time of marriage?

~ 14 years old at the time of marriage?

~ 15 or 16 years old at the time of marriage?

~ 19 or close to 21 years old when they consumated the marriage
(according to olabowale's theory: click here)

On what basis then should we jettison one contradiction in favour of another contradiction if simple Islamic arithmetics are as contradictory as the above?

The researcher(s) do(es) not leave us any wiser with an accurate figure; and it does not make sense to reject one set of so-called 'contradiction' in order to curry another set of 'contradictions'. Common sense requires us to slice through the impaled conundrum and understand that one set of misleading accounts do not justify another set of yet misleading references.


However, on a closing note, let us also observe the gist in the researcher's effort:

Observation #5. The researcher believes that the accounts should be disregarded regardless of the fact that they do not lend any credence to his arguments. What he argues away from are the FACTS; and then he leaves the reader the more confused with inaccurate figures that are clearly in contradistinction. However, the researcher attempts to present Aisha as a "lady" at the time she got married:

----According to a narrative reported by Ahmad ibn Hanbal, after the death of Khadijah (ra), when Khaulah (ra) came to the Prophet (pbuh) advising him to marry again, the Prophet (pbuh) asked her regarding the choices she had in her mind. Khaulah said: "You can marry a virgin (bikr) or a woman who has already been married (thayyib)". When the Prophet (pbuh) asked about who the virgin was, Khaulah proposed Ayesha's (ra) name. All those who know the Arabic language, are aware that the word "bikr" in the Arabic language is not used for an immature nine year old girl. The correct word for a young playful girl, as stated earlier is "Jariyah". "Bikr" on the other hand, is used for an unmarried lady, and obviously a nine year old is not a "lady".

The FACTS however in the Sahih Bukhari account by Aisha in her own words quoted earlier do not lead to the inference that she was a lady! Aisha was with Muhammad at the time, duely settled in her marital life; and common sense requires the reader to ask what a "lady" would be doing with dolls!! Let's remind ourselves again:

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

Sahih Bukhari, Vol. 8, Book 73, Num. 151:

Narrated 'Aisha: I used to play with the dolls in the presence of the Prophet,
and my girl friends also used to play with me. When Allah's Apostle used to
enter (my dwelling place) they used to hide themselves, but the Prophet
would call them to join and play with me.
(The playing with the dolls and similar images is forbidden, but it was allowed
for 'Aisha at that time, as she was a little girl, not yet reached the age of puberty.)
(Fateh-al-Bari page 143, Vol.13)

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

This account is corroborated ('confirmed') by the other cross references in yet other "Sahih" hadiths - like Sahih Muslim!

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

Sahih Muslim, Book 031, Num. 5981:

'A'isha reported that she used to play with dolls in the presence of
Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) and when her playmates
came to her they left (the house) because they felt shy of Allah's
Messenger (may peace be upon him), whereas Allah's Messenger
(may peace be upon him) sent them to her.

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

The Hadith in Sahih Bukhari clearly said that she was a LITTLE GIRL not yet reached the age of puberty - and we should be asking here what correlation is there between a "lady" and a "little girl"!

Hallo @mdsocks and Happy New Year!

Thanks for the link - I have carefully gone through it before you posted it, but could not easily remember what thread on Nairaland I saw it earlier since it was actually re-posted from another site - (http://www.understanding-islam.com/ri/mi-004.htm). There is a footnote on that webpage that gives us a clue as to whom the research was attributed:

The answer to this question is primarily based on the research
by Habib ur Rahman Kandhalwi (urdu) as presented in his booklet,
"Tehqiq e umar e Siddiqah e Ka'inat", Anjuman Uswa e hasanah,
Karachi, Pakistan.

If anything, you should understand that authors linked to Pakistan have a huge problem with accepting anything coming from Iraq! But that is of little consequence to me presently. All the same, many thanks.


Now, let's make a few observations:

Observation #1. The researcher(s) favour the idea that the Hadith accounts are unreliable:

The age of Ayesha (ra) has been grossly mis-reported in the hadith. Not only that, I think -that the narratives reporting this event are not only highly unreliable but also that on the basis of other historical data, the event reported, is quite an unlikely happening.

The problem for whoever is making this thrice-unreliable statements is that he is discrediting what has been received as "Sahih" - that is, authentic, sound and undisputable! If this is the way Muslims now want us to adjudge the Sahih Hadiths, then again it presents a huge issue for Islam indeed - because it would be saying that absolutely nothing is to be trusted in the Hadiths regarded as "Sahih" - whether reported from 'Sahih Bukhari' or 'Sahih Muslim'.

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

Observation #2. The researcher(s) has a problem with the Hadith accounts because they seem to have been reported by the same person:

-----Most of these narratives are reported only by Hisham ibn `urwah reporting on the authority of his father. An event as well known as the one being reported, should logically have been reported by more people than just one, two or three

It is clear that the researcher(s) was being highly disingenous, because he was trying to carve a 'convenience tool' of denying the obvious on the basis that the narratives came from only one reporter. What the Muslim should understand is that there are a lot of Hadith accounts that have been acknowledged without question by the Muslim ummah even though they were reported by ONLY ONE person! It does not matter at all where such a singular reporter lived - whether in Iraq, Iran, or Bahrain. As long as the majority of Islamic scholars acknowledge that the accounts are "Sahih" (authentic, sound, undisputable), the complaints of this researcher(s) are untenable. If we apply the same rule of thumb to all the "Sahih" hadiths, we would have to slake off a whole lot of tenets held in Islam and render the religion a mere skeleton of its former self!

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

Observation #3. What the the researcher(s) indeed favour was highly partisan; because he had held the reports of the "Sahih" hadith to be:

~ grossly mis-reported

~ highly unreliable

~ an unlikely happening

. . . and for all that, he came back acknowledging the accounts of some other sources to be acceptable:

----According to the generally accepted tradition, Ayesha (ra) was born about eight years before Hijrah. But according to another narrative in Bukhari (kitabu'l-tafseer) Ayesha (ra) is reported to have said that at the time Surah Al-Qamar, the 54th chapter of the Qur'an, was revealed, "I was a young girl". The 54th surah of the Qur'an was revealed nine years before Hijrah. According to this tradition, Ayesha (ra) had not only been born before the revelation of the referred surah, but was actually a young girl (jariyah), not an infant (sibyah) at that time. Obviously, if this narrative is held to be true, it is in clear contradiction with the narratives reported by Hisham ibn `urwah. I see absolutely no reason that after the comments of the experts on the narratives of Hisham ibn `urwah, why we should not accept this narrative to be more accurate.

On what basis then should we jettison one contradiction in favour of another contradiction? That is the crux of the issue here that requires a little more effort in our intellectual exercise. Although the claim that favours the researcher's mindset is that Aisha was a young girl (jariyah), one would have to wonder what a girl of that age would be doing with dolls!

Please allow me to once again quote the particular "Sahih" Hadith from Bukhari where we even find a commentary as to what age-bracket Aisha must have been at the time she was with Muhammad:

- - - - - - - - - - -
Sahih Bukhari, Vol. 8, Book 73, Num. 151:

Narrated 'Aisha: I used to play with the dolls in the presence of the Prophet,
and my girl friends also used to play with me. When Allah's Apostle used to
enter (my dwelling place) they used to hide themselves, but the Prophet
would call them to join and play with me.
(The playing with the dolls and similar images is forbidden, but it was allowed
for 'Aisha at that time, as she was a little girl, not yet reached the age of puberty.)
(Fateh-al-Bari page 143, Vol.13)
- - - - - - - - - - -

I have simply lifted reference from Sahih Bukhari, not editing, no additions. Could you please also notice two huge things:

(a) this reference did not state that it was reported by any other person except from Aisha herself! Not from Hisham ibn `urwah or anyone else from Iraq! That is why I was asking earlier whether Aisha's in her own words could be considered as simply lying, whereas I doubt that any Muslim would have the mettle to say so!

(b) the footnote in the parenthesis was not my addition - you may consult the hadith and see that it is there! What is mentions is that Aisha at the time:

~ was with Muhammad

~ she was a "little girl"

~ she was not yet considered as having reached the age of puberty!

These alone should set the whole context for the new argument that Aisha's own words cannot be trusted! I am sorry to notify you that if we jettison this reference that clearly enunciates that Aisha was a "little girl not yet reached the age of puberty", then there would be no basis to accept the opposite contradiction that favours the idea that Aisha was a teenager! We would only then be chasing belly-bottons and playing religious bunco.

mdsocks:
As soon as the human dies a barrier is immediately in place. This barrier prevents his/her soul from returning to earth. This barrier is maintained till the Day of Resurrection.

@mdsocks,

Let me ask a simple question:

Does Islam recognize that a dead person can be raised from the dead BEFORE the Day of resurrection?

@olabowale,

olabowale:
@mdsocks: Salaamualaykum. Jazakallahu Khair. I am going to begin my Quiyam now. But we in Islam know the truth, and that was why I was giving Nwando all kind of cronological developments, to be able to find out truly about Aisha. But, true to her form, she went away or hiding probably when she found out the truth, she can't bear to tell it. That make her testimony worth even less. I do not think greatly of her statements towards Islam anyhow.

If anyone knew the relationship between Abu Bakr and Muhammad, before Islam, it would be surprising to know that Abu Bakr, was the first person, outside of Muhammad's household to accept Islam. This was the fisrt year of Islam and Aisha was Already 4 or 5 years old by the time of the first revelation. They spend 13 years in Makka on top of her 4 or 5 years. Then they spend 2 years before she and the prophet(as) consumated the marriage. She was atleast 19 or close to 21 at this time! We are talking about Arabia of over 1400 years back. The first thing was that no one in either Makka or Madina or inbetween or those who heard amongst the people; Jews and Christians includedalong with the to the core idol worshippers, none use this early spring and late fall relationship as a means to accuse him. Here you have freaks from Nigeria, who probably lost their virginities in the backroom somewhere, come to show us what morality. Considering that they do not even know how to adore their Creator and they set up an intermediary between themselves or worship whatever they set up along with Him!

I am tired of their lies and its better to let them wallow in Ignorance. God will excite them as He excited Pharaoh, and they will enter the fire of hell in lock steps with him. That is if they do not turn back and repent and enter Islam. I am very confidence without any doubt no One has the right to be worshipped, but the Almighty alone. And He is not three, but in Oneness. And Muhammad is His last Prophet and Messenger.

Do not fret yourself. Wisdom offers that we be not hasty in our words, lest we celebrate foolishness! See it in Proverbs 29:20.

Cherio. . . and Happy New Year!

@mdsocks,

mdsocks:
Pilgrim, finally i got the link


https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria?topic=95899.msg1722072#msg1722072

Thank you - I am grateful. I will carefully clear my desk and then spend a few minutes to quickly post a reply. (You can't believe that I'm working on New Year's day!) Lol.

I appreciate your efforts, though.

Cheers.

For those who have been spouting a LOST Torah where the Qur'an does not claim any such idea, let me remind you what Muslim translators have said:

Sura 7 v 157 (Pickthall):

Those who follow the messenger,
the Prophet who can neither read nor write,
whom they will find described in the Torah and the Gospel
(which are) with them.


If Muhammad is NOT in the Bible which the Qur'an describes as being "with them" (i.e., being with Jews and Christians), why have Muslims abandoned their own LOST Torah and searching the one that is with us?

Where did the Qur'an claim that the Torah which 'Allah' gave was LOST?

Where did the false Muslim idea emanate from that the Qur'an was referring to "another" Torah when as a matter of FACT Muslim translators and scholars know that it was referring to the very same Torah that is with us TODAY?

#1.

For example, it was the same babs787 who lied to the public on this Forum that the Qur'an was "stating" that the Torah was lost - see again:

IS THE QURAN WRONG IN STATING THAT THE TORAH WAS LOST OR CORRUPTED?

(Source: babs787's assertion in another thread)

Can we ask babs787 to please kindly quote where the Qur'an was "stating" that the Torah was LOST! Without the usual drama of long stories, WHERE did the Qur'an "STATE" that the Torah was LOST, babs787?

#2.

Can you please QUOTE THE VERSE from the QUR'AN where Allah said that the Qur'an came to CORRECT (instead of "CONFIRM" the Biblical scriptures?

Answers please. . . and we can then know how far you want to take these LIES for Allah to wayo people on the Forum!

---

WHY is it taking you FOREVER to simply quote the verses for your assertions above, babs787? All the verses you quoted so far are simply saying the very thing I stated:

The Qur'an purports to have come to CONFIRM the Biblical scriptures

The Qur'an never said that it came to CORRECT the Biblical scriptures!

UNTIL you can find the verse for your assertions, ALL your excuses are simply a waste of internet space!

@davidylan,

davidylan:
are those words not a part of the injeel allah claimed to have revealed?

The easiest thing for a Muslim propagandist to do is DENY them - that is so easy to do. But to show us where Allah's Injil is, that one is the onerous task that never materializes with any answers.

davidylan:
blabs787, i will give u a few more hrs before i respond to your drivel dressed up as "questions".

They are not "questions", however he dressed them. He was deliberately being mischievous in his adventures to castigate Jesus Christ where he said Jesus "told two lies". I saw it the very day he opened the thread and the one reason why NO OTHER Muslim has made any comment here is that they know it is expressly forbidden in Islam for any Muslim to deride their prophets. I waited this long to see how many other Muslims will comment here - but they have all been ducking behind their fingers.

However, the vexations of babs787 are simply that he is worried over one thing: that the prophecies declaring the SOON coming of Jesus Christ had not been fulfilled because the word "soon" has taken far too long. For example:

babs787:
9.
Revelation 22:7, 12, 20 - Jesus says, "Behold, I come quickly."

Almost two thousand years have passed, all those who knew him are long dead, yet Jesus’ promise of a quick return remains unfulfilled.

My one answer to such illiterate rants is this:

Muhammad also "prophesied" that Jesus would SOON descend among Muslims. And I ask if that prophesy was fulfilled by the word "SOON" in Muhammad's "prophecy". WHY has it taken 15 centuries for it to materialize while babs787 buries his head in the sand and pretends to have forgotten that one as well?

@Leilah,,

Lol. . . I don't mean to be funny or anything of the sort. But the line in Kobojunkie's that I quoted got me quite unprepared! WHY? For just one fact that my colleagues in the office have said exactly the same thing again and again! I almost fell out my chair when I read it in kobojunkie's post - almost as if he was right in my office when people were mking the same remarks.

All the same, I would rather you calmly examine the claims presented before you. I have refrained for a while in this thread, but came back to debate issues with Muslims here who have tried to be quite insincere and dubious in their submissions - the very same thing I hinted earlier that turns me off and strengthened one of the reasons why I left Islam.

It wasn't easy for me; but a day dawned in my life and I knew that a holy God would not keep up lying with anyone. It is up to you (and your husband) to seek God's truth - not from the mouth of propagandists who cannot be man enough to share simple truth with you; but from carefully examining the issues presented and asking God to help you. He definitely will do so - His love does not discriminate on whether a person is Muslim or pagan - He loves everyone, and that is why Jesus continues to save people today.

Happy New Year again.

Kobojunkie:
Please stop mentioning your husband already. If your husband is really confused, your continous mention of it almost makes him seem a stupid man.

@olabowale,

olabowale:
@Pilgrim.1: Lets assume for a moment that you are correct.

It is not assuming that I am correct - the facts are there. . .UNTIL you can demonstrate otherwise.

olabowale:
But Muhammad spoke about things that Jesus did, that the Bible did not mention.

That is because he was simply making them up - as he made up some other things about Jesus in the Hadith as well. When you read those issues and then systematically seek to adduce prophetic evidence for those things, you will come back yet again to the point that Muhammad was making up those things about Jesus Christ.

olabowale:
Indeed, the Bible is deficient, in how Mary, the mother of Jesus was able to escape with her life or being flogged, of either of adultery or fornication. How this this happen, because the Bible is not clear about?

Just one question I have for you: how did Muhammad come about the fabricated story of Mary being flogged for adultery or fornication?

Muhammad simply dreamt up that story, because Mary was not in a predicament or threat of being flogged for adultery! One thing you should remember is that Muhammad had no clue about Jewish culture, history, or beliefs. Adultery in Judaismn is a serious issue - and if at all Mary was accused of adultery, there should be witnesses to produce sound and incontrovertible evidence to the allegation.

Furthermore, adultery was not punished by "flogging" - which should make the case clear that Muhammad again fabricated his story and you bought into it! Jews punished adultery not by flogging but by stoning - and there are so many Hadiths that attest the fact that Muhammad knew this fact from the Torah!

olabowale:
We have to bear in mind that the Mercy that the Christians are quick to point to us that Jesus displayed on the woman who committed adultery, was not in play then!

Even before the New Testament, the mercy of God has been well established in the Old Testament:

Deuteronomy 7:9
'Know therefore that the LORD thy God, he is God, the faithful God,
which keepeth covenant and mercy with them that love him and
keep his commandments to a thousand generations'.

Mercy is not a new thing that magically appeared in the NT - and you need to get your ideas corrected instead of launching out with your crass against what you really have no clues about!

olabowale:
Jesus could not have said Who ever does not sin, let him cast the first stone!'

Lol. . . Oh, Jesus could NOT have said so. . . because Muhammad's fabrications are confusing you, abi?

Relax. The answer is simple enough! Jesus was only referring the Jews back to their own LAW!! The Law prescribed that the man and the woman are together to be brought for judgement. In the matter of stoning offenders, this is what the Law prescribed:

Deuteronomy 17:5
Then shalt thou bring forth that man or that woman,
which have committed that wicked thing, unto thy gates,
even that man or that woman, and shalt stone them with stones,
till they die.

The Jews said that they caught the woman in "the very act" of adultery (John 8:4); but where was the man as well who was equally guilty? The Law of Moses that they appealed to was clear:

Leviticus 20:10
And the man that committeth adultery with another man's wife,
even he that committeth adultery with his neighbour's wife,
the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death.

Jesus' response was succinct, direct and powerful - He asked that the one without any sin should be first to cast the stone - as you had quoted! Guess what? They were convicted in their hearts in so many ways:

(a) they had broken the Law according to Leviticus 20:10

(b) the prophets had said that none is without sin:

1 Kings 8:46 - "for there is no man that sinneth not"
Proverbs 20:9 - "Who can say, I have made my heart clean, I am pure from my sin?"
Eccl. 7:20 - "For there is not a just man upon earth, that doeth good, and sinneth not"

As they felt the power of this double conviction in their hearts, they dropped their stones and began leaving the scene one after the other!

The problem with you, olabowale, is that you often open your mouth and pretend to have some scholarship - but after the loud noise, one has to feel pity for your emptiness!

Jeremiah 29:11-13

¹¹For I know the thoughts that I think toward you, saith the LORD,
thoughts of peace, and not of evil, to give you an expected end.

¹²[/b]Then shall ye call upon me, and ye shall go and pray unto me,
and I will hearken unto you.

^[b]13And ye shall seek me, and find me, when ye shall search for me
with all your heart.

wendymanda:
I don't think the Burqua is religious but am not muslim so I am not sure. However, the reason I don't think the Burqua is exactly religious is because even some Jewish people cover up or used to cover up like that. Burqua was probably used to prevent sand from the getting into the eyes, ears and nose of the people since they lived in the desert during sand storms.

Lol. . . @wendymanda, the references available were not about covering the eyes to prevent sand from getting into them. After Leilah offers us some citations, I'll add my bit as well to clarify issues.

Regards and Happy New Year!