₦airaland Forum

Nothing.


- - - - -

edited.

On second thoughts, I would be giving up the ritual of lent for Lent.

focused:
I cannot understand why all these Islamic followers on Nairaland, cannot write things in their own words without aggressive plagiarism. Does it mean that they don't have a clue about their Quran and hadith.

This is one thing I've often drawn attention to.

@Logical,

Logical:
And why would I want to do that?

Because you of all people here have been hooting for Deedat as a scholar.

Logical:
I have listened and watched a lot of his tricky ways to reaching a conclusion in youtube videos. Interesting, you should watch them. That does show how he uses his knowledge, which I think can be classified within the realms of someone that knows something.

It is precisely because I have taken the time to watch some of his video presentation that I came to the staggering conclusion that he was not scholarly - and I know precisely the fact that he made false assertions in so many instances!

That is why I have been asking those who are convinced that Deedat is a scholar to please invite a discussion on just one example - the example that babs787 has plagiarized several times (from Deedat's arguments about Greek terms in John 1:1) and has been presenting as his own arguments to mesmerize readers on Nairaland!

Since you are convinced that Deedat was scholarly, please convince me so by defending your convictions thereto! As I do not see disguised tricks (which are FALSE assertions in his arguments) as part of "scholarship", I'd be glad to defend my convictions thereto. Is that not fair enough as yet?

Logical:
When a scholarship is defined, no character is associated, just the extensive knowledge of the subject.

If someone states something that is false as true, he is still wrong and has no knowledge of what he has asserted!

You would not be fine-tuning this round-about idea of dissociating character from scholarship and still recognize that Deedat was employing "tricky ways" of reaching his inferences. The tricks are false - wrong as "wrong" can be - and when someone has made assertions which are false, we should be able to separate his fallacy from scholarship. That's what I have invited you to do - and for the umpteenth time, I am still waiting!

Nothing.

@Logical,

Logical:
Are you saying we don't have scholars that are frauds?

If scholarship has nothing to do with character, on what grounds are you going to defend the idea of scholars who are "frauds"?

You seem to be inching closer to affirming the very same thing I have been trying to share with you - and that is why I've invited you to enter into the John 1:1 argument of Deedat just as a foretaste of how he misled his audience! You don't address such unfortunate career of misleading people as "scholarship", nevermind that the one doing so has a moral bankruptcy!

Point simply is this: Deedat was not a scholar - an example is his argument on John 1:1. He was absolutely wrong, and he used his wrong assertions to cheat his audience.

Now, you really want to celebrate Deedat's false assertions as "scholarly"? Be my guest and be willing to defend Deedat's argument. Do you care to do so?

@Logical,

Logical:
Ah, well character has nothing to do with knowledge. He is very aware, has gone through learning to acquire a lot of knowledge to be able to cheat his audience with false assertions as you claim. He can be classified a scholar, because he has the education or rather he is someone who has studied the bible extensively. Motives and character has nothing to do with his knowledge.

This is how sad your inferences can get. Motive and character have everything to do with scholarship - especially when one's motive is to dupe his audience with false assertions! Anyone can gather so-called knowledge from the Bible or Qur'an, but that does not mean that they are correctly assessing the verses they gather!

I would regard someone with even a basic knowledge of Greek who is honest to point out issues as they are - and not someone who dupes others and makes false statements aabout the Greek that no Muslim can defend! If cheating your readers is what you are pushing for as "scholarship", you only confirm the point I made earlier that there is nothing worth celebrating in Muslim hypocrisy.

Please dress warm and invite a discussion to Deedat's assumptions about the Greek terms he flatly denied on John 1:1 - that way you get to taste the real "scholarship" of a cheat whose false assertion you're at pains to glorify before considering the facts! Rather than hide behind these cheap statements, smart up and enter a discussion to reveal the facts!

Logical:
How do we define a scholar? I have watched some debates on Youtube, pretty insightful i must admit, and hec there is no bashings there.

Lol. . . I have not insinuated that anyone was "bashing" another, so what's the pancreas release there about that?

In anycase, in all of the ways a "scholar" could be described, it does not involve cheating your audience with false assertions. That is precisely what Deedat has been doing - and if anyone is willing to engage the discussion to that point, I'd be too glad to point them out. That was what I was waiting for last night when babs787 was hellbent on recycling his theories on the Greek term for God in John 1:1 - but as quickly as he logged in, so quickly did he vamoose!

Whenever they so wish ("they" meaning any Muslim at all), they could recycle whatever part of Deedat's assumptions on John1:1 for starters, and then you just hang around and let's see if he remains one of your fav on the list of Muslim "scholars" after the exposé!

olabowale:
@4Him, Longman83, Olrotimi, Millena, ~Lad~: All of you are very laughable! How come you can even defend your Own Bible?

The plagiarized post by Alphazee has been defended one too many times in other sites already! In the same way, Christians can go to the same website where she harvested those Biblical verses and post some quizzes for your consideration and let's see how you defend your own Qur'an. It won't take time to do a prelim on the same thing from the Qur'an, if you care; and the reason why Christians are not doing you the same disservice is because we don't have the time to stoop so low to your adventures.

After having satisfied yourself on these postulations, would you care for us to see what the Qur'an says as well? I could just as well serve you a few without any comments of my own - just ask!

olabowale:
All of you should be ashamed of yourselves, ganging up, while propping out 'lies!'

No problem - just ask for the Qur'an version and we'll see how many of your gang will have a leg to stand on.

@olabowale,

olabowale:
@Stillwater: My dear, every important thing in Christianity is 'Imaginary.' For example, Trinity! This is imaginary, because you do not have it in the Bible! You can prove it to us, if you can.

I'd be delighted to discuss it with you if you are willing to come clean and drop the meaningless games and slurring that have characterized your posts.

olabowale:
However, copying truth from website is like copying information from Book.

It is worse than that. There's nothing wrong in making reference to other people's materials as long as one quotes the source and presents his own original thoughts in discussions. The art of copying other people's articles and pretending it is your own is sinister, and we have pointed out this baneful habit of plagiarism several times already!

olabowale:
So my friend I ask you to produce the word Trinity from your Bible! If you can not, you have to scrap it.

We would have to ask you to scrap the entire concept of Islam fom the Qur'an - because there is no place where Jesus was ever called a Muslim! Yeah, I know that a lot of people have imagined that several verses in the Qur'an say so; but on closer scrutiny, we find that it was all made up!

If this hide-and-seek games you Muslims play are the best you can offer, you are not presenting an intelligent argument at all. We might as well say that the word Trinity is the Qur'an - therefore what? One needs to understand the concept of the Trinity in the Bible, and not hide behind this excuse of 'the word Trinity is not in the Bible', therefore it cannot be true!

The Trinity involves God being known and addressed as FATHER - and both the OT and NT have stated that in bold terms! Start from there - and you will see the Deity of the Son in both the OT and NT as well; and that will inevitably lead you to the very Person of the Holy Spirit - again well attested to in both the OT and NT!

Even if one begins with God being known as FATHER, where do you begin, olabowale? Does the Qur'an anywhere state that God is known as FATHER? Shall we then jettison the revelations of the prophets in preference for what the Qur'an denies? Would that not immediately render the entire Qur'an untennable by your own argument?

Please just smart up and let's see where Muhammad ever called 'Allah' by the name "FATHER" as is clearly revealed by the OT prophets! Starting from there, we can then go on and see what exactly the OT prophets have said about the Deity of the Son of God!

olabowale:
Please explain Mark 12 Verse 29. If you present a good and honest argument, we will reason with you.

This is interesting - and it would be my pleasure to enter into that discussion and present you with a very good argument. As a starter, I would like any Muslim who has been plagiarizing Ahmed Deedat on John 1:1 to kindly proffer answers to these simple questions:

(a) which of the Greek terms in John 1:1 is properly used for God?

(b) what is the meaning of "ton theon"?

(c) what does theos mean?

I've brought these questions forward from the thread on Trinity, because the same Mark 12 verse 29 will help Muslims see how unfortunately Deedat has glommed them!

olabowale:
Otherwise, we will not listen to you and we will not follow you.

It's alright if you will not listen - you never have demonstrated that you had any inclination to do so hitherto, as we already have seen your attitude in deriding the Trinity.

MC Usman:
One a renown Muslim scholar by name Ahmed Deedat,

Deedat is not a scholar by any stretch. If people like him can be celebrated as such in Islam, it is no wonder that many Muslims with whom I've discussed issues relating to his (Deedat's) articles are uninformed and have had nothing intelligent to say afterwards.

It would perhaps help us more to clear the air about this assertion in the OP's -

Queen Eliza I, then asked for a new religion which is then church of England(Today's Anglican).

This is why I'm asking: What "new religion" did Queen Eliza I ask for?

edited.


@babs787,

If you really want to discuss this issue, please smart up for it. You never complained about whether or not the NT was written in Greek - and unless you have a clear pointer as to what other language it was written in, I do not see why you're whipping that as an excuse for this.

Please go and review Deedat's article that you plagiarized and see that you have no clue how you have absolutely rubbished his argument even on this Forum.

Can I ask you these simple questions:

(a) which of the Greek terms in John 1:1 is properly used for God?

(b) what is the meaning of "ton theon"?

(c) what does theos mean?

If I can get honest answers from you on those three, I will deal with your argument about John 1:1. My singular objective here is to demonstrate that Deedat had no clues about Greek, and he only used his fallacies to cheat his readers. Can I see you answer those questions - and I promise to take up your own queries.

@smile11s,

Thanks; but I still don't see where or how you offered an answer to the question:

stimulus:
What "new religion" did Queen Eliza I ask for?

@babs787,

babs787:
Can you supply me the Greek word for 'God' in the verse up?

Please stop reycling the plagiarized and mendacious articles of people like Ahmed Deedat who have no clue as to what Greek is! There are various terms in Greek for "God" - and if you've been hiding behind such plagiarized comments of Deedat, you're only helping to celebrate the fact that you have never sat down to check out his unfortunate ideas.

@Logical,

We are not on a duel, never have been - and educated people do not bog down to complaining the way you just did.

Sorry if I called something in your initial reply to your attention; but there again I also offered the OP the same question. If I didn't get any answers, that should not mean that I'm holding anyone by the last thread on their shoelaces.

Do enjoy missing me - I might as well avoid unintelligible yodels for convenience sake, yeah?

Logical:
At the beginning of her reign England was in despair. The country had been weakened by war and religious strife, and the treasury was empty.

In religious matters Elizabeth steered a middle course between the extreme Protestants and the Catholics. She restored the Protestant service but retained many features of Catholicism, including bishops and archbishops.

She hoped this compromise would produce unity in the state; but the Catholics, who formed a majority of her subjects, were not reconciled.

In the last years of Elizabeth's reign, Catholics were cruelly persecuted and many were put to death.

How does this answer the simple question I asked earlier:

stimulus:
@Logical,

What "new religion" did Queen Eliza I ask for?

smile11s:
The history is not fabricated.

Don't feel insecure all of a sudden. I made only one request:

stimulus:
What "new religion" did Queen Eliza I ask for?

Do you care to help us clear that piece of assertion?

Logical:
Interesting history. Do you think this history is fabrication @~Lady~ and @mazaje

@Logical,

This "interesting history" predictably would have caught your interest. No doubt, because I would be delighted if you could help me resolve this little piece of history:

smile11s:
Queen Eliza I, then asked for a new religion which is then church of England(Today's Anglican).

What "new religion" did Queen Eliza I ask for?

Logical:
This is the exact reason why this board is getting banned. I just don't get it.

What "exact" reason are you trying to fathom out there?

imhotep:
I see that babs787 is indeed a seeker.

He is not. I don't mean to be offensive here; but please understand that a real seeker asks questions of his own heart and not trying to perfect the art of plagiarism!

Horus,

Allah's miracles plenty O! Apart from the one that miraculously appears on shoes, lets sample these others:

https://religiousfreaks.com/UserFiles/Image/allah.arabic.jpg https://www.imine.1colony.com/images/allah_plant.jpg

https://idata.over-blog.com/0/04/55/92/genus.jpg https://archive.muslimuzbekistan.com/eng/ennews/special/miracles/images/sidney.jpg

https://boltwolf.tripod.com/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderpictures/meat.jpg

Question: inspite of all these 'miracles' of allah, which one has healed and delivered those who are most in need of the "miracles"? The swiftest 'miracles' we often hear of is the stoning of women bearing children out of wedlock (and the miraculous escape of the men who took them to bed); the cutting off of hands and legs because Muhammad said so; and jihad that sends millions to their untimely graves in order to reward the jihadists with 72 virgins!

The 'miracles' in Islam are really great. The "sign" of 'allah' could be written on cow's bellies, goats and fish. But the miracle doesn't seem to be applied to his slaves who are most in need of them.

romeo:
ignoramus!! you'll soon catch Aids and nobody will cure you

That fake prophecy can be taken care of by the electric shock machine. No wahala there.

Meanwhile, @davidylan, this is how best to "submit" O! In case you are wondering how best to please 'allah' ~~

London bomb suspect left suicide note

One of the suspects convicted of trying to blow up London's transport system on July 21, 2005, left a suicide note, prosecutors said.

The letter was written by Ramzi Mohammed, who tried to carry out a suicide bomb attack on an underground train near Oval station in south London. Here is the letter:

"First of all I beg Allah to accept this action from me and he to Allah to whom belongs the power and majesty makes it a sincere one and that he admits me to the highest station in paradise for verily he grants martyrdom to whom ever he wills.

Secondly my family don't cry for but instead rejoice in happiness and love what I have done for the sake of Allah for he loves those who fight in his sake.

I pray to Allah the mighty that he keeps your heart sealed to this religion. My family practice your religion and hold tight to the rope of Allah and don't let go. Pray your five daily prayers so that you may be saved from hell and by the permission of Allah I may intercede for you, if he Allah allows to whom belongs the power and the majesty.

My children be good Muslims and obey your mother. Pray your prayers and read Quran. Adam look after your little brother Malik and we shall meet again in paradise god willing. May Allah keep your mothers heart sealed to this religion. Praise be upon you. Gods blessing and mercy."

Ramzi Mohammed.


The 'religion of peace' is easy O! No need for the complications and misinterpretations. One bombing suicide a day pleases allah. What are we waiting for?

Hey davidylan,

There's no need to defend yourself in this one - afterall, 'allah' has ordained that infidels should be treated harshly, and their necks should be struck off their heads. You shouldn't hate those who obey 'allah'; rather, you should love them, be nice to them, "submit" your neck to 'allah's will, and "submit" your wife/wives as booties to those who fight in 'allah's cause. Surely, 'allah' has explained everything in his religion and made it easy in the way of peace.

Islam means "submission", remember? So, why are you and I protesting against 'allah's will instead of "submitting"? It's about time that we "revert" to allah's will so that he can fulfill his irrevocable decree upon us by hording his beloved to Hell. Don't you want the mercy that allah gives to his slaves - the mercy that makes sure all his slaves are taken to hell (where the likes of another slave of his - oyb - says that the fire will cool down first for us)?

Oya, time to "revert" O! You don't want to keep protesting against the "submission" O! As for me and my house, we shall keep submitting the very truth of Sura 19:71 for all to see!

Sad loss. If only the young man knew that jihad was the easiest way to the highest station in Jannah (with 72 virgins, how could he ever be lonely ).

davidylan:
Typically, boys grow pubic hair in the advent of their teenage years and teenagers are famous for notorious behavior. Our great prophet, being the friend of all-knowing Allah, knew the characteristics of a teenager. Hence, he ordered the killing of anyone who had pubic hair. According to a hadith by Abu Dawood, "Narrated Atiyyah al-Qurazi: I was among the captives of Banu Qurayzah. They (the Companions) examined us, and those who had begun to grow hair (pubes) were killed, and those who had not were not killed. I was among those who had not grown hair.”

Ok, that simply goes to show the correlation between Islam and science. If the boys tried to deny their notorious behaviour, then the "scientific proof" of their mischief was the pubic hair in their drawers! Really, 'allah' has made the religion of peace easy!

@pilgrim.1,

Good points you made; but take it easy with 'em men folks.

It's just about time that people begin to ask questions and challenge the ideologies that are already a global threat. I see no reason why Islam should not be questioned in terms of its tenets in relation to non-Muslims.

@otuwe, thanks for your calm response. Apologies where I misread you. Blessings.

That's cool, Paulus.

@TV01,

Many thanks for the manifestation of your rigid spirit, brother I thank you again and again.

Since you have refused to open your eyes and read my inputs, which in many instances do not fall into your allegations, I have offered to leave this thread for you until you invite a discussion. I'm least interested in your slobbers, so you can just as well save them.

Cheers. 

@otuwe,

You really didn't have to shout - that's a put off rather than enlightenment. My question was simple enough, and if I didn't want to discuss, I would have campaigned as you did that this thread should be CLOSED instead of asking the opposite:

stimulus:
Lol, @otuwe, let's leave the thread open. Perhaps they have something to say but haven't been able to do so in a way that we can easily understand.

Anyhow, the reason why I was asking was not to seek your opinion or advice. That's why I was asking the adherents of the Grail message (apologies earlier for assuming the term "Grail messengers" - a kind friend cautioned it means something entirely different: http://www.witchvox.com/va/dt_va.html?a=usca&c=words&id=11653 )

The contexts in which the various terms have been used have not really made any sense to me, and that was what informed my questions. Let me offer a few:

1. Earlier, onyex has offered a few inputs that did not make out clearly what she was trying to offer readers.

2. Others who tried to offer explanations seemed not to be distinct as well; for everyone was just talking about this or that part of the brain - as if man was a mass of pus in a body.

3. There are other contexts in which people who are seekers into spirituality use the terms:

    (a) One source connects the intuition with emotion and sees it as:
    "the most subtle result of secondary emotion, and a power that frontal lobe patients lack"
               http://www.brainconnection.com/topics/?main=fa/emotional-brain6

    (b) the above is not so different from another source that connects the intuition to emotion in a
    religious sense: "Allow your body, emotions, a.k.a intuition to speak to you. Surrender to
    God, the Creator, Source, Existence, Love and transform the moment for the glory of Creation"
    (emphasis mine) http://www.onemancan.ca/articles/intuition

You can see that the way intuition is used in (b) above is that, whie connecting it to the emotion, it is not the same as the Creator, Source, Existence, etc. However, that is quite another thing from yet another source:

     (c) "That quality in an animal which directs its action and tells it where to go to find food and
      shelter, we call instinct. It is, really, Omniscience in the animal. The same quality, more highly
      developed, makes its appearance in man; and is what we call intuition.

      Intuition is God in man, revealing to him the Realities of Being; and just as instinct guides the
      animal, so would intuition guide man, if he would allow it to operate through him."
       (The Science of Mind, by Ernest Shurtleff Holmes, p. 212-213)

What brought about this enquiry is because this kind of spirituality tends make itself appear 'Christian' - as in the case of Ernest Shurtleff who quotes so many verses from the Bible for his argument while at the same time not really discussing Christianity. In just about the same way, I hear adherents of the Grail Message who use similar Christian terms (crossbearer, etc); and a few that I've met personally would not clearly state who they really are.

Anyway, since this discussion is not getting anywhere with all the ideas and opinions floating around, I'll just let you guys carry on.

Enjoy.