₦airaland Forum

mukina2:
i am just happy that my family doesnt allow arranged marriages

And they will never allow it in Jesus' Name! Muki, you're too valuable to be given away like that.

Ouuhhh!!   Is this how I taught you, my pikin??

babyosisi:
Mukina,would the length of beard be a requirement when you are about to choose a spouse?

mukina2 link=topic=31940.msg803623#msg803623 date=1168290341:
no no and no

And why not?? How can you just shame us all like that? why is SR Engr. Olabowale's theory not applicable to you?  

babyosisi:
from a Muslimah perspective,would you be happy being a second,third or 4th wife or even a first wife with many other co wives to share your matrimonial bed with?

mukina2 link=topic=31940.msg803623#msg803623 date=1168290341:
i would never do that . . yes Islam says that a man can have up to four wives but that wont happen to me . .it wont be . .

***(sighs, roles eyes and faints**then sighs again). . . (when did ma daughter start backsliding from Islam??  

babyosisi:
How would you feel as a woman on your bed lonely at night,knowing that another woman perhaps younger and preetier is next door with your man and you have no say and that yet another may come in later.

mukina2 link=topic=31940.msg803623#msg803623 date=1168290341:
i dnt how i'll feel because i wont even try it

ojibi-jibi-jibi!! Why have they suddenly ganged up to put you in such a predicament?? This interview was sudden. . . not enough time for me to have stretched my bia bia!!

But, my dear, I'm really proud of you! At least, you will go very far - for telling the truth this time!  
(that is, you will go very far from those. . . long bearded pedos and their religion, who know nutin but to beat their wives because they fail to bring in the concubines or those whom their right hand possess!!)    

@Bobbyaf,

It's not my style to keep up unreasonable harangue like you've been sweating it all this while. But since you won't be the wiser for it, here are a few things to think through carefully:

Bobbyaf:
I have all rights to choose the denom I believe to be expressing God's truth as best as I am aware of it, and to say it loud and clear. Don't challenge my freedom to express, but challenge whether or not I am speaking the truth.

Childish rantings like this really are of no interest to me; but the reason why I oblige you an answer at all is that you often misread people and then turn round and cry like everyone is against you. Are you failing to see that everyone else has as much right to talk about their choice of "denoms"  as you arrogate to yourself? The reason why I don't see many people doing that and whining the way you do is because not many of them are that childish. Only kids behave the way you do; and you miss the mark by a million miles if you thought I was challenging your freedom to express anything.

Bobbyaf:
Jesus is no doubt God, but He is not allowed to use that power as long as He is man.

Don't even go there - I'm not one of those who confesses the deity of Christ and at the same time deny the same confession. The talk of "not allowed to use that power" is a twister that gets many folks in the confusion they find themselves, because such an idea supposes at the same time that He was not God at all.

Bobbyaf:
So how do you explain why there are so many denoms if there were no major differences in doctrines then?

Oh bother! Small minds! Where did I deny or pretend that there were not so many denominations? The point I've been trying to make is this: as long as you see everyone else as "babylon", you are part of the accusation that you level at others! How? As long as SDA is included in the "professing christian churches", you are part of the babylon you see in others. The only way you can deny that is to declare that the SDA is not a professing christian church!

Bobbyaf:
There can only be one true church in which is found un-diluted doctrines and teachings.

. . . And only the SDA is the true church, abi??

Bobbyaf:
Come out of religious confusion and separate yourself from pagan teachings, otherwise you will suffer the wrath of God when he pours 7 plagues upon all those who recieve the mark of the RCC, being Sunday observance.

In what way have you been able to conclude that I adhere to pagan teachings - because I worship on Sundays? Phew!! FYI, my faith is in Jesus Christ, not in the rituals of worshipping on a particular day!

Gal 4:10-11
"Ye observe days, and months, and times, and years. I am afraid of you, lest I have bestowed upon you labour in vain."

Bobbyaf:
That is why I use the term babylon. Its a combination of denoms that are set up in the name of unity to be used of the devil to decieve with their false miracles.

Yes, and that "combination of denoms" includes the SDA as well, no??

Bobbyaf:
Thank God the elect will have left the system long before. make sure you and malik leave before the 7 plauges start fallling.

Keep deceiving yourself. . . may God have mercy and open your eyes.

Cheers.

@babs787,

babs787:
to the issue of isa (asw) which is called jesus, they r just twisting issues. the questions raised by shahan was off the track of what we have been saying but having known that there is no hiding place for them, he threw a question different from the one we have been iscussing.(is christianity wrong)

Lol,. . . now that just confirms your struggle with simple English. First, I wasn't the one hiding or "waiting" (remember). Second, because you were scared of your own reading ability, you thought my question was a different one than the topic suggests! In what way??

babs787:
jesus was nothing than a prophet, sent to israelite. u know that christians are hypocrites, they can lay their hands on where jesus said, i am here for for sacrifice, kill me and use my blood for atonement.

Oh child, what a snorter! First, the rascally way in which you assume to quote Jesus' supposed sayings from the Bible is an oscar! Kia-kia, grab a Bible and read it - you can't go wrong when you do.

Now, even your Qur'an affirms that Jesus was more than a prophet indeed. He was called "Christ" (a title that none of the other prophets in Islam was given); He was also called God's Word as well as a Spirit proceeding from God (Q. 4:171). All these are not even remotely hinted at as being titles given to any other Islamic prophet, nor attributed to the much appraised Muhammad.

Not only so, according to the Qur'an, Jesus Christ is to be "held in honour in this world and the Hereafter" (Q. 3:45). One way of thinking about the honour of the hereafter is that He comes to finish and perfect that which no other prophet could accomplish, including Muhammad.

Ask yourself a salient question here: Why is Jesus referred to as 'Christ' (or, "Messiah" even in the Qur'an? Not even Muhammad could deny that title conveyed on Jesus; but what is the meaning behind that title? Regardless of the denials of the Qur'an about the vicarious work of Christ, have you noticed that not even Muhammad was able to face the Dajjal (the "anti[b]christ[/b]"?) This sinister being is not concerned about Muhammad, and that is why he was not called the "anti[b]hammad[/b]" or "anti[b]mu'amad[/b]".

The answer is because Satan's war has never been against Muhammad, but rather against Jesus Christ. The "rasul allah" (as Muhammad is fondly termed) is no speck of trouble to the Dajjal, for the One this enemy fears is actually the Christ. several hadiths testify that Muhammad was indeed terrified of the Dajjal, and concours that only the Christ will be able to pursue and kill this dreadful being (see, for example: Book 40, Number 7023: Narrated Abdullah ibn Amr).

In all these, if Jesus was no more than a "prophet", why was Muhammad, "the rasul allah" so terrified of the Dajjal, but trusted so much that only Christ could vanquish the sinister minister of sin?

babs787:
they claim that jesus of the bible was sinless

We still stand by that claim.

babs787:
and i brought out certain verses for them.

. . . and which one of those verses proved that Jesus was a sinner?

babs787:
jesus wasnt the only prophet to be acused of things, most of the prophets of God were accused of adultery, fornication etc and which isnt supposed to be like that.

Babs787, Muhammad should really be ashamed of you! Not even your prophet with a thousand sins could prove that Jesus committed adultery, fornication, etc. To be sure, look again, and we stand by the claim that Muhammad was a sinner too shameful to be quoted in a public forum. Thing is, not one of you chaps has come to refute that claim.

babs787:
I DIDNT SAY JESUS WAS SINFUL LIKEWISE MUHAMMED (SAW) BUT I BROUGHT OUT VERSES FROM THE BIBLE FOR THEM TO SEE.

You quickly and directly deny the very thing you proclaim indirectly. Sorry for you; English has been a tough one on you.

babs787:
we the entire muslim world believe in jesus (but not as a son, or saviour nor who was crucified) and we accord him respect like every other prophets because we were told never to make comparism among the prophets, we equally believe in all of them including jesus

And which version of "jesus" do you believe in - the cannabis jesus, the kinky jesus whom you insinuated might have been accused of fornication and adultery? No wonder you fellows are scared to investigate matters for yourself - because you don't know beyond 'what you have been told'!

babs787:
and by the way maybe if you christians do not know, muhammed, wasnt the only prophet of islam, so why the fuss,

We know that already - that Muhammad wasn't the only "prophet" of Islam! As he did, so his followers - get it now?? The fuss is that you chaps have the uncanny and frivilous air of Quriash inability to reason!! Open yours eyes - read the Qur'an beyond what you have been told!!

babs787:
even jesus wasnt a christian and all the prophets before him practised islam. so in a nutshell muhammed (saw) wasnt the originator iof Islam.

Oh child! I wish you'd open your eyes and see that even Muhammad wasn't sure of the origins of Islam - and the claim of Jesus practicing Islam (of all things) was a cheap interjection Muhammad sold gullible people who only believe what they have been told. You really don't have a clue about what you're practising.

Jesus was not a Muslim - He was not called "jesus-mus" or "jesus-slam" or "jesus slim": He was called Jesus CHRIST, from whom you get the name "Christians". Haa! na wah!!  

belloti:
i would love to have replied all of you but i noticed some deliberate attempt at falsehood by Havila and Maliki, i don't need to go after an exercise in futility.

I'm sure those gentlemen will take up your challenge and claims in their own time. But i acn't understand why you gave no point or outlines of what you perceived to be "some deliberate attempt at falsehood"?? This sounds more like a careful backdoor escape from real issues.

belloti:
Mr Havila as always choose to create some unreasonable and flimpsy excuses to tarnish islam just because he had to do it not for any sensible purpose.

Can you please highlight the unreasonable and flimsy excuses??

belloti:
Ibadur Rahman or rather the servants of God are basic descriptions of pious muslims and i don't see how that can be confusing to any responsible adult.

Tell you what responsible adults do: they don't gullibly base their lives or settle a matter on "titles" - they go one step further to verify and ascertain what the titles in question actually mean, and if they can be applied to those claiming such.

Now, my concerns were not merely about titles; rather, after going through your post, I querried if Muhammad fitted the descriptions of what you stated for those you recognise as the "Servants of God". It doesn't matter if the title is in Quraysh or Aramaic, the question is: does Muhammad qualify as any such, judging from what you posted and what he actually did?

belloti:
Allah SWT in the Holy Book always uses the appellations We and Us to refer to His majesty and the muslims are well aware of that so if that confused you mr shahan its basically because you are not a muslim and nothing else.

I never came here claiming to be an Muslim; and my efforts are geared more as to why I cannot be one or encourage anyone to even contemplate it.

Now, it is interesting that the WE and US you call majesty shows how much you chaps don't read. let me offer you this: go through the Qur'an again and see that it was not the chief "god" that was speaking, but rather the lesser "gods" claiming to be doing the very same thing as the chief god who Muslims call *Allah.* If you can't see the difference after having gone through, then I'll gladly come back and point you to those texts.

Cheers.

@babs787,

Let me reason with you. . . or, perhaps, you can help this thread to become another joke. Anyhow, here's what you missed:

The case of Wife-Beating

babs787:
i ask you, did the bible teach you to love your wife that bring concubine to your bedroom more than twice, u will pat her on the back and tell her welldone baby, i still love and will continue loving you.

In the first place, the bible does not teach any woman to bring concubines to her husband's house - infact, if you know the tenderness of a woman's heart and her sensible jealousy, then you will have no trouble understanding that no sane woman would bring her husband a concubine, unless she's asking for double trouble!

In the second place, it is not surprising that you could suggest that - judging from the many concubines that Muhammad "possessed with his right hand!" Not only so, he encouraged indiscriminate sexual lewdness among his followers to the extent that they openly, unblushingly told him that they were practising coitus interruptus while the Qur'an was being revealed!

Thirdly, it is no secret that most Muslim men in Afghanistan have seized upon the mentality of Muhammad to beat their wives silly for one thing - the failure to bring them concubines. The situation is so bad that it is common to see an elderly man in his 50s boasting himself as the husband of several wives, among which you will find a kid barely struggling to become a teenager.

Besides all this, what is the "ill-conduct" of a wife that merits the "beating" and blows from any man? I remember once when a muslim family friend once complained about his wife to his brother. before the gentleman got home, his brother had gone to beat the poor woman, in the belief that he was fulfilling an injunction of *Allah*! This friend turned on his brother and served him serious blows with this warning: "Beat your wife if you may! But don't you ever, I repeat, ever, touch the woman I love!! If she did something wrong, we can sort it out ourselves!" I'd say, "Right-O" to that man!

babs787:
does your bible tells u to love a wife that changed her attitude and started going wayward eg, coming home late and uve told her and she didnt take to correction. u will continue loving her. NA WA O

Now, by way of repetition, this is what the Bible actually teaches us Christians:

Colossians 3:19
"Husbands, love your wives, and be not bitter against them."

1 Pet. 3:7
"Likewise, ye husbands, dwell with them according to knowledge, giving honour unto the wife, as unto the weaker vessel, and as being heirs together of the grace of life; that your prayers be not hindered."

The problem with your thinking is that you're quite eager and happy to beat the your wife. Poor woman! Nonetheless, it is the very hardness of men's hearts (especially among "devout" muslim men seeking to follow Muhammad) that make them begrudge their wives.

Notice the few things in the Bible texts quoted above:

* * * love your wife (do this from your heart instead of seeking when next to clobber them)

* * * be not bitter against them (do not burn in your mad anger against them)

* * * dwell with them according to knowledge (understand who they are and don't treat them as "property"

* * * give honour unto your wife (try it, I guarantee you that your wife will positively change!)

Women are not "stupid" as Muhammad stated; they are honourable, hardworking, intelligent and successful. Only men who are redundant and have complexes in themselves will recommend that their wives be beaten.

babs787:
does your bible tells u to love a wife that doesnt perform her role like cooking,

Yes, indeed. You really don't understand what loving a person is like. People naturally respond to love; and even the most hardened heart of a woman can be reached with the love of a husband who knows how to love, honour, understand, reassure and forgive her.

Cooking is a small thing. perhaps the reason why some women would not cook or perform their functional roles is because of the way Muhammad recommended that men treat them:

Quran 4v34

men are the protectors and maintainers of women, because Allah has make one of them to excel the other, and because they spend (to support them) from their means. Therefore the righteous women are devoutly obedient (to Allah and to their husbands), and guard in the husband’s absence what Allah orders them to guard (e.g. their chastity, their husband’s property). As to those women you see ill-conduct, admonish them (first), (next), refuse to share their beds, (and last) beat them (Lightly, if it is useful); but if they return to obedience, seek not against them means (of annoyance), surely Allah is ever Most High, Most great."

If a man truly loves his wife, he would not be so big-headed as to fail in his own functional role as protector, provider, supporter, confidante, and lover. A true lover is one who sees past a woman's mistakes and re-assures her in order to bring the best out of her. Whereas, a man who recommends that a woman should be beaten on silly ill-perceived excuses of ill-conduct is himself a loser!

@Genial,

The gentleman has responded to the point:

davidylan:
Oh sorry, i thought sokislam was one of those muslim appologists always "waiting. . . " for non-existent "proofs".
Sorry bro to have confused you with idol worshipping heretics.

Cheers.

And thanks, davidylan for being such a gentleman.

@babs787,

babs787:
your response didnt come as a surprise, i asked u questions and rather than answer those questions, u pumelled irrelevant questions at me. why don't we do it one after the other?

Right, perhaps I can oblige you your request and take up your challenge - one after the other. And while on that, you can rest assured that the sources you suggested will be referenced - Quran, hadith, and the Bible.

However, I'd like to confirm that you have a firm grasp of the Quran in readiness. This is just so that we don't argue back and forth on non-essentials, but be open to see things as they really are. After that, you'll be amicably served some of my questions  - to the effect that you might realise where you missed it.

Cheers for now.

davidylan:
Yet another confused individual who like others before him needs to run to google to "copy and paste" his "proof"!

@Davidylan,
How bodi? Abeg, I don't think our beloved brother sokislam is confused. He is beloved and knows Jesus Christ. Here's why:

sokislam:
A word is enough for the wise, these I suppose should make our Muslim brother think and seek for how their sins can be forgiven, instead of rejecting and mocking the one that can save them from their sins.

May God bless you my Muslim friends.

I know a muslim when I read one. Muslims don't talk like our beloved sokislam. In the spirit of love and brotherhood, I think you owe him an apology.

Peace and blessings.

@Bobbyaf,

Anybody can quote scripture the way you do to support their group. I don't count as one of those seeking to do that. It's a complete waste of time. To assure you, I'm not a Catholic; and certainly not in 'babylon'. To make matters worse, nowhere in God's precious Word are Christians asked to be a part of the SDA. QED.

Bobbyaf:
I see your technicality Shahan. The fact that I am even making such a statement means that I have excluded my denom from babylon. Can't your logical mind see that? Do I have to spell it out for you? Isn't it obvious that because I am apart of the SDA church that I would naturally think it is not apart of babylon? Hahaha, , You guys never fail to amuse me!

No, we are not amused; and just so we don't get you wrong or pre-judge your statement, it was rational that you said it in white and black. So, how does this take away from the earlier inferences that you make yourself a judge over others? Or, how does this detract from the statement by m4malik that only legalistic men see themselves as "bible-believing christians" and all others are wrong but them alone?

Bobbyaf:
And the funny thing is, is that you think the same way. If you didn't think that your denom was representing all that Christ expected, would you be there now?

I can think all by myself, thank you. And you're doubly wrong! several times I have offered like m4malik that we all try and appreciate other believers in every Christian denomination or every professing Church without pre-judging them. The only point of difference I made was:  if anyone's "tradition contradicts God's Word, do not remain there but seek to obey His word". That does not warrant my lumping them up as you did; and certainly God's Word does not do that at all.

Bobbyaf:
The fact that you on this board have disagreements with others about the matter of Jesus being God means that you would certainly not be found in such denoms that uphold that Jesus wasn't God would you?

And your point is. . . that I should have been in the SDA in order to understand the deity of Jesus Christ? Not even when you have not been able to defend His deity and humanity coherently.

Bobbyaf:
In your heart you're saying that those movements are based on false teachings.

When a person openly denies the deity of Jesus Christ contrary to the Word, I don't sit timid calling such as belonging to "babylon". I share with them by asking questions and not making it mandatory, or pressure them into being obliged to respond; or yet, I have sought to post my persuasions with Scripture.

Bobbyaf:
Anyway you choose to put it, the fact is there is a babylon as spoken by the prophet John.

I didn't deny that, did I?

Bobbyaf:
The term babylon constitutes, whether you desire to accept it or not, false worship.

Did I state otherwise?

Bobbyaf:
However, I am not labelling others in the sense that you and malik think I am doing it.

Oohh And you only just admitted to the same in your opening paragraph, buddy!

Bobbyaf:
The SDA church doesn't need to take that overly-righteous approach, nor do I.

I don't know about the SDA; unless they do exactly what you do, then they leave me no choice than to shrug about their overly-righteous approach, sorry.

Bobbyaf:
All I am saying is that not all denoms out there are teaching the truth as it is in Jesus.

No. . . but SDA alone, which according to you, "comes closest"?? Here we go again ***roles eyes.

Bobbyaf:
Those denoms happen to have people in them that will one day leave and join with the true bible-beliving christians who are prepared to go with Jesus all the way.

Applause! And these "true bible-beliving christians" are supposed to be. . . the SDA??

Bobbyaf:
I am not excluding you or Malik, or anyone else here on this board who happens to profess Christ. That was never my objective when I raised the issue of babylon.

Pardon? Did you miss something or you're hoping no one can read between the lines?

Bobbyaf:
With regards to my denom the SDA church, I am apart of it because of my conviction that it represents what God intends for His end-time church to be representing. I am also aware that there is a lot to be desired, and that we have problems just like anyone else, because when the rubber touches the road, we are humans, right?

See? You come back full circle to the very same thing. So much for your denom the SDA, and I commend your appraisal of it. However, if all other denoms have problems like anyone else, are they also going to come out and join with the true bible-beliving christians separate from the SDA?? Or, those from the "professing Christian churches" lumped under "babylon" are going to come out and join with the SDA?

Bobbyaf:
So when I use the term we are closest I mean that when I compare biblical teachings, the SDA church's teachings are bible-based. All our doctrines can be supported by scriptures.

So are the teachings of many non-SDA churches. And this is why we appealed to you to be open and appreciate other Christians instead of lumping them one and all as 'babylon'.

Bobbyaf:
Am I committing a crime when I think or express how I feel?

Hardly. And I do not suppose we are criminals for doing the same? Cheers.

Cheers, olat.

Bobbyaf:
This proves how big a liar you really are. If you can show anything I have said in any of my posts to this thread that indicates that, then I stand to be corrected.

Catch your breath - here it is:

Bobbyaf:
Symbolical babylon is doing the same thing today, but this time it represents all false teachings, including professed christian churches. Every false prophet, the chief of which is the RCC is lumped under the general term babylon.

If 'Babylon' includes 'professed christian churches', why did you not answer the question earlier as to if SDA was also a 'professed christian church'? Now who's the lair, Mr. SDA?? This is why when you read with small brains, you get yourself officially promoted as Nairaland's biggest liar yourself:

nferyn:
Bobbyaf,

You have now officially been promoted to fountainhead of the "Lying for Jesus" society. Congratulations and a happy lying new year to you.

There you have it; and I don't envy you for that title at all.

Bobbyaf:
I have no problem with one disagreeing, but when one begins to label persons as legalistic, as malik started doing, then one wonders who is judging who. Besides, your so-called informed reasons were off the mark comments that served to add more mis-understanding.

I understand. . . you were served your own syrup and you couldn't take it, no? If you had not labelled others as 'babylon' and refused to answer a simple question thereto with regards to your own 'denom', we all would have had a good exchange of ideas and understanding. To you, others' inputs are off the mark - as if you could read in the first place.

Bobbyaf:
In case you have missed what I said before, let me repeat for your hearing. I have no problem with people disagreeing with me. Just don't go mis-representing what I say.

And just in case you are hard of hearing, be grown up when you address people and stop whining when you're served your own syrup.

Bobbyaf:
If you do not understand the point I am making be simply ask me what I meant before trying to read my mind.

And waste my time? How many questions being asked have you sanely replied to without dodging them?

Bobbyaf:
There seems to be a clique on this board that when ever their ideas are challenged they begin to get personal instead of addressing the real issues.

Are you describing yourself? Sorry, whine louder yet!

Bobbyaf:
They conduct a smear campaign trying to make persons appear bad.

Glad to know that's what you do - simply because you can't see on common grounds with others.

Bobbyaf:
I don't appreciate such nasty behaviour coming from professed christians.

Neither do I envy your official title on Nairaland.

ThiefOfHearts:


I'm hoping Seun closes it now that Mr goodwench is satisfied but im sure the others will soon come with their usual rants

Oh bother! Just when we're having the fun of hoping to dicuss the topic, you're recommending mr. admin closes the gate?

Look here, if that happens, I go hold you responsible o!  

Tee-hee-hee!!    

So I got you there on that one! Good for us.

Em, the last time you checked, the theory still remains that long beards in Islam doesn't make me the admin.

TOH, how bodi?? How far with the topic now?

Hi weedplanta,

I'm not aware that my faith was 'imposed' on me - I made a personal choice, and have benefited far more than if I wasn't a believer.

Question: how has the blame-game on media and religion benefitted those who complain and can't gather themselves together beyond blaming others for their woes?

***This thread has been locked till further notice!***

While Saddam ruled, things were calm - but Iraqis were scared. Dictatorship is not freedom; tyranny is not a plausible alternative - and Saddam exercised both. . . on Iraqis themselves.

Enter the Bush-led allied forces; knocked down the reminiscences of Saddam. . . Iraqis for the first time in decades danced on their own streets!

Enter the insurgents - who turned on their own people, the Iraqis! Anti-Americanism fuels the propaganda that Bush is killing everybody!

The allied forces may not have achieved much and only left a backlash of sad occurences in Iraq, engineered on the round table of internal American politics.

Question: what message are the Iraqi insurgents sending out to the world by attacking their own people and culture in the name of anti-American protests??

Ahem!! Can we please discuss the topic??

Maybe a thread needs to be opened for religious detractions where people can take it out on one another and not clutter threads with off-topic inputs.

Enjoy. . . afterall, that sounded a bit off topic perhaps?

mukina2:
no use crying over split coffee ;

Oohhh! No, no, no, no!! That's not how I taught you my dear. The idiom is 'spilt milk' not 'split coffee' (coffee is not firewood to be split like those in Medina!).

Phew! Thank goodness - those long bearded pedos didn't grab you. Good gal!

I see your sense of humour, and couldn't have taken those hypothetical scenario half seriously. I know - because I kid around a lot myself.

Anyway, I was a little concerned about the line that you thought two atheists served Christians on Nairaland. That hasn't been the case, if you go through again.

Anyways, have fun and be cool.

Good point. I don't know how many 'tribes' we have in Nigeria; but maybe someday Dr. Zakir Naik will try to convince muslims that Muhammad was predicted in the Nigerian constitution, since he sees Muhammad in every document. Or maybe someday another will post a 'research' in the attempt of proving that Muhammad was prophesied in Harry Potter!

Oh spare me. . . cabali's waiting; don't spoil his fun. He said for you to meet him elsewhere (please avoid dark carparks. . . and don't trust his hands!!)

davidylan:
When a whole Governor of a state is proud to announce a 95% illiteracy rate in his state!

That's simply the answer!

I'm sorry to say that not one muslim has been able to stand atheistic enquiries. Anytime Christians and atheists rub minds on any issue at all, once and again all muslims disappear, and those who dare to attempt any questions simply sound off what they'v learnt by rote without the slightest clue as to the word 'intelligence'. That anyone would try to even defend them is hilarious - why have they disappeared when no one chases them with daggers the way their Qur'an enjoins them?

cabali:
Radiant, meet me somewhere else! am done here

I said it! So. . . ??
Anyways, enjoy your time out (dating) with her. . . and probably make us a home video outa that!

cabali:
@Shalan am done with u. I said i was sorry

For what now? A good chap like you apologising for giving good vibes of bru-ha-ha?? Abeg no apologise - it's not easy to discover a comedian like you (PS: what about a shot at the 1000 night of laughter programme??)

cabali:
your age is important to me maybe your daughter then is older than u?

Oh, bother! How small is your brain? Or is that the case with you - that your daughter is older than you. . .??

cabali:
Take my advise, keep her off nairaland and into her books

She's doing quite well, thank you. . . at least, she won't have to be afraid of you as long as you don't carry long beards around!

cabali:
My Goodness, Shahan is less than 22!!!!

And what's your reference this time - the script you lost??

I have a daughter here that I've been trying to teach not to lie on Nairaland, and also to avoid the long bearded pedos. . . (haven't heard from her since yesterday). Anyhow, she's not quite 22, but even she will show you just how small your brain is.

cabali:
I am not a christian as I am not christlike, I never told these fool I was; I remember I said U can't call yourself a christian if u do the things we unbelievers do like dating period.

This is the "gbe-gben" part of your home video!! I thought we had to wait forever to come up with this. One of those times an unbel tries teaching Christians what to do and not to do . . . and he doesn't understand the subject himself. Your home video go sell!!

cabali:
Now u are making me a standard, what a laugh!! If I come to nairaland, thats me, and I aint christian, just wondering why u as a christian will involve in dating and then u preach to me? Not the right event

A bigger laugh! Where did I make you a standard? If that were so, why have I been coming back and forth with you all this while, until at last you saw your place? As for preaching to you, let me start: repent and believe in Jesus Christ, and you will be saved.

cabali:
Radiant, how can I drum it into the ears of goofs?

You mean. . . your own ears? Never heard you were a goof!

PS. Just tell us you went the whole hog just to catch Radiant's affection. . . it's no sin, my dear: afterall, he that findeth a _ _ _ _ findeth a good thing and obtaineth fav. . . (fill in the gaps).

weedplanta:
It is often said that the victors are the ones who will always write history.

Write yours, and don't whine about victors in the making.

weedplanta:
We are been brainwashed by the local TV,radio and media houses that we are weak. The media plays an instrumental position in shaping our views. Western TV and journals portrait Africans as lower than animals from CNN,BBC and there regional stations. A friend of mine stops using the cable!Growing up this kids will see Africans as been low and there views are been shaped.

The "local TV,radio and media houses. . . Western TV and journals . . . CNN, BBC and there regional stations" are not religious outfits of society. The problem with so many people is that they don't have any sense of identity and purpose; and when they begin to feel the pinch as losers, they start the blame game.

Blame the local TV, radio and media houses. . . for what? For being what they are - media outfits?

Blame Western TV and jounals. . . for what? For being what they are?

Blame CNN, BBC and their regional stations. . . for what? For doing what they know best?

"We are being brainwahsed" - song of the weak-minded that never rise to write their own history. I think it's rather time the blame game stopped and we did something ourselves. If the BBC, CNN, Western TV and journals are bad and "brainwashing us", the big question is what practical things can we do??

PS: and for the friend of yours who stopped using the cable, I can't help saying, 'what a big lose!'