₦airaland Forum

@oyb,

Just a few more to make your day: The Faces of Islam - the Peaceful Religion!!


https://kenlydell.typepad.com/islamic_evil/images/alien_muslim.jpg

Em. . . do you ahve a suitable caption for this one

@oyb,

Just a few of those faces of the Religion of Peace. Enjoy.  


                                                     Peace By Jihad!!

          https://kenlydell.typepad.com/islamic_evil/images/captsri10209151139india_kashmir_pope_pro.jpg


                            Yes, Brothers: Sala'am!!

              https://kenlydell.typepad.com/islamic_evil/images/muslimcartoonprotest.jpg


                     Our Protests Are Peaceful!!
              (Nevermind the Hate-Speech - It's Allowed)
      https://kenlydell.typepad.com/islamic_evil/images/london.jpg

@oyb,

Now to the step of your worries:

B. The Actual Meaning of Jihad from Muslim Sources Themselves

You had listed four "academic" ideas in defining jihad; but let's look at the others you conveniently evaded.

(a) Qur'an: Jihad Means Physical Warfare and Fighting

Qur'an 2:216 -- Jihâd (holy fighting in Allâh's Cause) is ordained for you (Muslims) though you dislike it, and it may be that you dislike a thing which is good for you and that you like a thing which is bad for you. Allâh knows but you do not know. [Hilali-Khan tr.]

Now, can you tell me why Muslims in Muhammad's day disliked (or 'hated') Jihâd if it did not include the idea of warfare? Muslim apologists try to circumvent this conspicuous declaration by euphemizing it for something other than it means. The fact that unprovoked warfare and violence are entrenched in Islam is well attested in Islam's holy books and historical documents. Let's review a few more of them from the Qur'an:

From these, it is obvious that the Qur'an does not define Jihâd in parabolic terms, but rather in literal terms.

oyb:
Having said this, I would like to classify war in Islam into three main categories:

1-Defensive War, which is resorted to when the enemies of Muslims attack the religion, honor, property, territories etc,

2-Liberating War, which is done to liberate all those who are oppressed, such as slaves. This form of war was normal in the early days of Islam.

3- Preemptive War, which is launched only when Muslims know for sure that there is treason against their peaceful treaties with the enemy, when the enemy has a serious plan to attack them.

Actually, none of these cases apply to the warfare waged by Muhammad and his companions as ordered by Allah in the name of Jihâd. Muhammad was known to launch UNPROVOKED warfare against non-Muslims - whether they were Jews, Christians, or Arabians. There is a plethora of evidence for this in your holy books, oyb. Let's examine them a few of them

oyb:
the eminent Muslim scholar, Sheikh Muhammad `Ali Al-Hanooti, member of the North American Fiqh Council, states

He is more of a political jackboot than a scholar, in as much as he plays around the obvious evidence for the meaning of Jihad.

oyb:
1) Teaching people the message of Islam: Any plans or steps of making Da`wah is a kind of Jihad. Allah, Most High, says: "O Prophet! Strive against the disbelievers and the hypocrites! Be harsh with them. Their ultimate abode is hell, a hapless journey's end." (At-Tawbah: 73)

We know that addressing the hypocrites in this verse never means combating, but means Da`wah because a hypocrite is still a Muslim and a Muslim cannot combat another Muslim.

It is not true that Jihad "never means combating". You only need to consult a good Islamic dictionary or glossary to see the word explained. A basic online glossary states that:

"Jihad literally means 'to strive' or 'to exert to the utmost.' In islamic parlance
it signifies all forms of striving, including armed struggle, aimed at making the
Word of God prevail"

Source: http://www.islam101.com/selections/glossaryJ.html

The word for Jihâd in the Qur'an never once occurs as Da`wah - they are two different words. In the verse cited above, its context is clear that armed, physical warfare is meant, and nothing less than that. The major tafsirs explain that verse in precisely that sense, including the popular ones - Tafsir al-Jalalayn and Tanwîr al-Miqbâs min Tafsîr Ibn ‘Abbâs which state that the prophet Muhammad was commanded to fight disbelievers "with the sword"!

Further, did you notice how confused your scholar was? On the one hand, he states that "a hypocrite is still a Muslim", and then on the other hand states that "a Muslim cannot combat another Muslim". Your scholar should have taken another look again at that verse to see that Muhammad was commanded to combat the same hypocrites here defined as "still Muslims"!

Let me help you understand your own Qur'an. In Sura 4:63 (Hilali-Khan's translation), it seems that Muhammad was prohibited from punishing or physically combating the 'hypocrites' (i.e., the Muslims). So, it is not surprising here that your "scholar" uses Da`wah instead of Jihâd (i.e., "jahidi alkuffara" - wage war against the disbelievers - Sura 9.73 arabic transliteration).

In anycase, we read in the same Sura 9:73 does not suppose that Muhammad was to admonish the 'hypocrites' (i.e., the Muslims). Rather, he was to "strive hard" (Hilali-Khan), "wage war againt" (Sale), and "be harsh" (Hilali-Khan), "be severe unto" (Sale) the hypocrites. The same thing is said in Sura 66:4 - "O Prophet (Muhammad SAW)! Strive hard against the disbelievers and the hypocrites, and be severe against them, their abode will be Hell, and worst indeed is that destination" (Hilali-Khan). Notice here the simple straightforward import of that verse. Although many tafsirs tried to deny that Muhammad actually combated the 'hypocrites' (i.e., the Muslims), yet some others acknowledge that he did. One such is Tafsir Ibn Kathir on this verse that states: "Allah the Exalted orders His Messenger to perform Jihad against the disbelievers and hypocrites, the former with weapons and armaments and the later by establishing Allah's legislated penal code."

The point is even all the more pronounced in Sura 33: 60 & 61 that makes the case for Muhammad's revelation to kill the 'hypocrites' (i.e., the Muslims):

Qur'an 33:60 & 61 -- If the hypocrites, and those in whose hearts is a disease
(evil desire for adultery, etc.), and those who spread false news among the people
in Al-Madinah, cease not, We shall certainly let you overpower them, then they will
not be able to stay in it as your neighbours but a little while. Accursed, wherever found,
they shall be seized and killed with a (terrible) slaughter.


Yes, both Muhammad and his companions were commanded to kill the 'hypocrites' - which is translated by your scholar as "Muslims".

@oyb,

The next set of verses:

Luke 22:36 - "Then said he unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one."

Was Jesus in very fact promoting a jihad or physical armed warfare in that verse? Many Muslims are made to believe that is the case; but they only believe it so because they fail to look at the context or study the language construct. In order not to be tedious to anyone on this, the context and construct lead to just one thing: He was speaking parabolically to draw out their faith and dependence on God for protection and providence. How?

Notice that He had first asked them: "And he said unto them, When I sent you without purse, and scrip, and shoes, lacked ye any thing? And they said, Nothing." (verse 35). Have our Muslim friends taken time to understand the connection in that verse? He was simply challenging them, as we would colloquailly say: "Since you lacked nothing before now, then go fend for yourself if you really can do that!" Admittedly, it is a pun, in precisely the same construct as we find in Rev. 22:11 - "He that is unjust, let him be unjust still: and he which is filthy, let him be filthy still: and he that is righteous, let him be righteous still: and he that is holy, let him be holy still."

Would any careful reader suppose that the Lord was actually encouraging people to be unjust? Not at all. The word has been given in its fulness, as well as demonstrated in its power. Therefore, it is up to people themselves to either respond positively or negatively. The same thing is punned in Luke 22:36.

The fact that we know Jesus' words were not intended literally in that verse is attested by the fact that He rebuked his disciples for attempting to use the sword in John 18:10-11 -- "Jesus unto Peter, Put up thy sword into the sheath: the cup which my Father hath given me, shall I not drink it?" Not even in one instance did Jesus seek to take up swords in armed warfare against anyone.


Luke 19:26-28 -- "For I say unto you, That unto every one which hath shall be given; and from him that hath not, even that he hath shall be taken away from him. But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me. And when he had thus spoken, he went before, ascending up to Jerusalem."


Please read the following carefully to understand the context as pointing to the Final Judgement, and not to the Islamic vendata pursued by Muhammad:


Deut. 32:41 -- If I whet my glittering sword, and mine hand take hold on judgment;
I will render vengeance to mine enemies, and will reward them that hate me.

2 Thes. 1:8-9 -- In flaming fire taking vengeance on them that know not God, and that
obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ: Who shall be punished with everlasting
destruction from the presence of the Lord, and from the glory of his power.

2 Thes. 2:8 -- And then shall that Wicked be revealed, whom the Lord shall consume
with the spirit of his mouth, and shall destroy with the brightness of his coming.

You can see for yourself that a proper reading of the texts in your posts will demonstrate to you that Jesus Christ was not on a jihad of murdering people for the same Islamic cause that Muhammad pursued. I hope this is now clear to you, oyb?

And lastly, the Gospel of Thomas extract you referenced has nothing to do with Biblical Christianity. There was no disciple among the apostles known by the name Didymus Jude Thomas, and the document itself is far removed in date from the Biblical Gospels. It is pertinent to ask whether Christ waged an armed struggle (jihad) with swords at anytime in precisely the way Muhammad did. None of the Gnostic Gospels make any perusading reference to such; and so quoting gnostic sources to pepper your misconceptions is rather weak.

@oyb,

You have a nice way of running round in circles, don't you? I had hoped to see how you would struggle out of hell from the other thread debating the decree of Allah to send ALL muslims to hell (Qur'an 19:71). But after some fever from the heat of hell, you've cleverly ducked that thread to show up here with you latest drivel. Let's have a look at your latest worries.

oyb:
y'all should spend more time reading your bible(whichever version suits you best ) and less time cherry picking the Quran.

Thanks, and we've well done that before entering into the on-going debates on this very polemical subject of jihad. Your worries are going to be dealt with in three steps:

(a) the meaning of Jesus' words in the verses cited

(b) the actual meaning of jihad from Muslim sources themselves

(c) the tangential allusions made by Muslims to obfuscate issues on this subject.


A. First then, the meaning of Jesus' words in verses cited:

Matthew 10:34-39:

Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword.
For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother,
and the daughter in law against her mother in law. And a man's foes shall be they of his own
household. He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me: and he that loveth
son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me. And he that taketh not his cross, and followeth
after me, is not worthy of me. He that findeth his life shall lose it: and he that loseth his life for
my sake shall find it.

The basic question here is how does one understand what Jesus was saying? Was He speaking in literal terms or allegorical terms? To be sure, He was definitely speaking in allegorical (or parabolical) terms, as this was often His style of communicating His message in His earthly ministry: "All these things spake Jesus unto the multitude in parables; and without a parable spake he not unto them" (Matt. 13:34).

Jesus distinguishes His divine peace from the worldly secular understanding of 'peace' -- "Peace I leave with you, my peace I give unto you: [b]not as the world giveth, give I unto you. Let not your heart be troubled, neither let it be afraid[/b]" (John 14:27). When in Matt. 10:34 He spoke of not having come to "send peace on earth", He was clearly pointing out the fact that His peace was not in any secular sense. He had not come to give worldly peace; but rather a divine inner peace for the heart.

The 'sword' also has a parabolic meaning in that verse. Compare Matt. 10:34-39 with Luke 2:34-35, and you will see what exactly Jesus meant:

And Simeon blessed them, and said unto Mary his mother, Behold, this child is set for
the fall and rising again of many in Israel; and for a sign which shall be spoken against;
(Yea, a sword shall pierce through thy own soul also,) that the thoughts of many hearts
may be revealed. (Luke 2:34-35).

That 'sword' is used symbolically to represent the sharpness of the divine word or a searing speech is well attested in other verses of the Bible. For example: "whose teeth are spears and arrows, and their tongue a sharp sword" (Psa. 57:4); "There is that speaketh like the piercings of a sword: but the tongue of the wise is health" (Prov. 12:18 ). Again, the sword of the Spirit is called the word of God (Eph. 6:17).

So, when Jesus declared that He had come with a sword (not literally, but parabolically speaking), He was clearly directing our minds to a prophecy that was made in the OT with the same connotation:

And he hath made my mouth like a sharp sword; in the shadow of his hand hath he hid me,
and made me a polished shaft; in his quiver hath he hid me"  -- Isaiah 49:2

Simply put, the sword that Jesus had brought was the divine word of God - the very same that has the effect of piercing through the soul (as was said to Mary - Luke 2:35), and revealing the thoughts and intents of the heart (Heb. 4:12). This 'sword', still in powerful picturesque language, is said to issue forth from His mouth (Rev. 1:16 & 2:16).

From the foregoing, one can easily understand that Jesus was speaking figuratively; and to read it otherwise in literal terms is to ignore the meaning pointed out in Biblical prophecies of the OT and ancillary verses of the NT. The divine word which Jesus spoke would not be received by everyone in the smallest unit of any given society - the family. And if you begin to read from Matt. 10:33, then you understand why this is so: "But whosoever shall deny me before men, him will I also deny before my Father which is in heaven." Because the divine word is characteristically rejected by worldly-minded (and often well-meaning) people, they would deny Him.

This covers the parallel texts of Luke 12:49-53 & 14:25-33. Jesus was not speaking in a literal sense, as the above demonstrates.

I would just need to point out that Luke 14:26-27 is indicative of total and loving commitment to the Lordship of Jesus Christ. To 'hate father and mother' and oneself is colloquial Aramaic that points to the same thing - utter and complete commitment of one's life to someone or something to which one is called (in this case, called to bear the Cross and follow Christ). This colloquialism was well-known throughout the Orient and survived for several centuries, so that even Muslims who followed Muhammad used an akin expression: "May my parents be sacrificed for you!" Go read about the history and culture of the Semitic peoples.

@Horus,

When you're done recycling, let's know what had happened to your black jesus; and what he has done for YOU.

Is he such a shadowy figure with muted larynx to have passed unnoticed among his own people because your god doesn't speak? Where is your black jesus?

@needeeg,

What issues do you really have as relates to the topic? Christians are not bound by only one language:

Now when this was noised abroad, the multitude came together, and were confounded,
because that every man heard them speak in his own language. -- Acts 2:6.

There are different kinds of languages, and God is well able to understand every language in which people speak to Him in prayer or praise. The question here is why Islam chose only one language, despite the fact that the Qur'an borrowed words from other languages (e.g., Hebrew) as well.

Good points, donnie.

However,

donnie:
Sickness disease and death will be destroyed from the church when we come to the fullness of the knowledge of the gospel of Christ.

If that was referring to Eph. 4:13, I'd rather say that death will be destroyed by divine judgement; and not by how much any Christian amasses knwoledge. See Rev. 20:14.

marlet01:
I think it will be impossible for an individual to answer that. Go ask your pastor in church. Ok?

If an individual can't answer the question, how would a pastor be able to do so?

@Horus,

Keep recycling the same tired old story. Having ignored the non-exitent "facts" of your shadowy "black jesus", you're still swimming in your own confused belief.

What has happened to your black jesus - what has he done for YOU?

belloti:
Telly B, i give that title to David and i may probably come a distant second.

Abeg you O, belloti. . . no follow me drag position!! You no see how many people don already seal that stamp on me - officially??

@belloti,

belloti:
Telly dude, i think you are a nice guy.

Compliments to you too.

belloti:
a. Am not very familiar with the lote tree story and i really don't even know lote tree

Okay, I won't push it; but will post a few later on about that.

belloti:
but any fatwa given by the holy prophet is devinely ordained and not his personal judgement.

Well, this is one very interesting issue - and that is why I continue to ask my Muslim friends why most of those fatwa are not found in the Qur'an, especially when the Qur'an claims that Allah has not left anything outside the book for Muslims.

belloti:
b. The name of our holy prophet is the concluding part of the shahada as a mark of respect for the leader of the faithfuls and to define his true status and avoid wrong perception for latter day followers to know fully that he was never God.

The latter part of the shahada  is not a mark of respect, and as a muslim you should know better. Meanwhile, as used in defining his status, that's another excuse, because the shahada would be unnecessary since the Qur'an speaks of Muhammad's status in other ayats.

belloti:
c. All human beings are equal but then you also know that destiny confers on other humans a greater weight and responsibility than others and with that comes different levels of importance and respect.

What are these different levels of importance and respect that place Muhammad above all others when in fact the Qur'an mentions that Muslims do not make any distinction between ALL the prophets?

belloti:
All prophets are leaders of their respective followers but the holy prophet Muhammad SAW is the last prophet

What makes Muhammad the last prophet?

belloti:
and he formally harmonised the works of the previous prophets and eventually laid down a comprehensive religion for everyone, that is Islam.

In other words, Islam began with Muhammad and not with Adam or Abraham! Now, have you carefully looked into the works of the previous prophets to ascertain Muhammad's claims in the Qur'an? Why is it that Muhammad did not have the slightest clue of who the Holy Spirit is, despite the fact that all the other prophets of the Bible knew Him?

belloti:
d. Ofcourse shahada is the first and biggest pillar of islam and deeply rooted in the quran.

Where in the Qur'an is it?

belloti:
c. Finally, As you are now aware the followers of the earlier prophets had no shahada obligation with the name of prophet Muhammad SAW but after the coming of the final prophet, you can never be a believer unless you pronounce the complete shahada with his name.

Why then must Muhammad's name be mentioned in the shahada alongside the name of Allah, especially when the Qur'an again and again mentions that no name should be mentioned along that of Allah or it constitutes shirk?

@Horus,

What has your black jesus done for YOU? Is he such a shadowy figure with muted larynx to have passed unnoticed among his own people because your god doesn't speak? Where is your black jesus?

sweetchick:
Along comes the sexual revolution and women wanting to have as much sexual freedom as men and sex is suddenly easily available ( mainly to the advantage of the men

Isaiah 4:1.

_{Kai! This is even harder than Cambridge exam!}

There are a few names up there that enrich my spiritual life. Tunde Bakare and Gbile Akanni have some perculiar way of sharing Biblical insights. Others are familiar names who are gifted in their rights as well.

Hey dude belloti, I heard you top the list! https://community.channel4.com/images/icon_ninja.gif

belloti:
we have some bunch of fanatics around here. You are all welcome

Em, . . . was that you again welcoming others to your fana-club??

@Horus,

What has happened to your "black jesus" - what has he done for YOU?

Horus:
The key word in this quote is “fainteth” which in Aramic (Hebrew) is ya'aph meaning “to be/grow weary, to fatigue, to be faint.”

Don't cheat your readers with this misconstruction. There is a huge difference between the two very distinct Semitic languages of Aramaic and Hebrew. Putting the second in parenthesis as if they're the same belittles your IQ; and you can see where I explained the difference in this link:

https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-26406.32.html#msg1156103

My dear belloti,

Howdy?

I hope you can relate your response to the questions offered. Let me outline them again (as I'm also interested, even though raised by stimulus). You ahve raised this issue:

belloti:
As for the Hindus i think they deserve more sympathy from the christians who both has mortals as their gods. We muslims can not worship any human, plant or animal. We worship An Omnipotent God that was never born and can never die, not even on a cross or in a veterinary farm.

The questions then followed:

(a) why Muhammad pronounced judgement on anyone who would cut a lote tree;

(b) why Muhammad's name has to be mentioned in the shahada;

(c) why Muhammad is venerated above other prophets inspite of the Muslim claim
that all prophets are equal and they make no distinction between them?

. . . and I might add:

(d) is there any text in the Qur'an where Allah instituted the shahada?

(e) since you claim by rote that other prophets are also servants of Allah, is
anyone considered a Muslim if he/she declares faith in only one God, but
does NOT pronounce the second part of the shahada - that "Muhammad
is the servant of Allah"?

@gbade. x,

[quote author=gbade. x link=topic=56074.msg1155506#msg1155506 date=1180486180]@ Telly B:

no offence but look, dude or duderess, whichever u pick, take a cue from me and cyber-bitchslap Horus. He actually needs it. Trust me, after the trick-slapping, dude would go on a vacation like babs. Trust me, I've tried it before.

If it worked for the Revving Rev, it can work for Horus.[/quote]I know, and appreciate that so much. That's why after sizing up his low IQ, I left him to foam in the mouth in this thread - and he continues to do so.

As for Rev., hehe. . I have some word for that chap.

@belloti,

I still dey wait, abeg!

@Horus,

Horus:
The Jehovah's Witnesses racist message and racism that white is good, and brown, red, and yellow are bad is quite blatant. With more than two million Jehovah's Witnesses, of multi races and nationalities that are a part of the organization, why aren't any of the prophets, prophetesses, princes, princesses, priests, Adam and Eve, Jesus, or pharaohs of a different race than Caucasian?

# Since the colour of your "black jesus" matters so much to you, what has that "black jesus" done for YOU and your racist movement?

Horus:
Moreover, please don't say that it doesn't matter because if it didn't, then they all wouldn't be Caucasians.

# Are there any "whites" as well in your own group; or is your group too scared of their own shadows that they would rather disclaim their true identities?

Horus:
Moreover, if it really didn't “matter” you wouldn't have made any pictures at all!

# If it matters that much that you have also posted a picture of your "black jesus", what is the goal of your own racist exercise?

# What has your black jesus done for YOU?

wales:
Horus, i will need you to answer this, are you a Christian or not .

He obviously is not. He's just a racist renegade from his own self-defeated lost "black jesus" movement, trying to cop out Biblical verses for his shadowy figure.

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

afterall there are 'black' people in Australia and papua new guinea, yet they don't claim to be 'African' which is what I feel this claim is all about - to make Jesus an 'African product'.

He obviously was not schooled about that from his factology factory. That is why his "black jesus" is a lost project!

@Horus,

Horus:
1-Who named God?

Who named the same God of whom you have often based your black jesus character as "the true Son of God"?

@Horus,

Yes, we've heard it all. Question: What has your "black jesus" done for YOU?

@Horus,

Aye, we hear. And for all of that, what has your "black jesus" done for YOU?

@ Horus,

Jesus Christ may have been portrayed as Caucasian in the minds of many - is that all you're vexed about? Nonetheless, He is the Saviour and soon-coming King.

Question: What has your "black jesus" done for YOU?

@bongs,

bongs:
This goes to Horus.
Whether you like it or not Jesus will come back.
Whether you believe it or not Jesus will come back.

Sound it well to his hearing!

@Horus,

Horus:
and that’s just what they (religious teachers) have, all belief and no facts

#1. Where are your FACTS that Jesus Christ was married?

#.2 Where are your FACTS that Jesus Christ was an Essene?

#3. Where are your FACTS that Jesus' disciples were Essene?

#4. What has your "black jesus" done for YOU?

@silent1,

Thanks for that input. Blessings.

@BlackMamba,

BlackMamba:
Reciting prayers in Arabic is as ignorant and dumb as reciting prayers in Latin. This is one of the reasons religion is such a repressive concept.

It may not be ignorant or dumb at all: it is their preferred language of prayer - just as many charismatic Christians have taken glossolalia (speaking in tongues) as their preferred prayer-language.

Arabic is quite a beautiful language - if only we knew. I'm not a Muslim, but have very little (or basic) knowledge of the Semitic languages to know what I'm saying. There may be questions to ask and answers to be proffered; and many Muslims do what they do, using the Arabic ignorantly (as I might add, some of us Christians do with the glossolalia).

I'd like to expand on this point later, as my PC does not have the Arabic characters. Over the weekend, I'll trip over to my friend's who has it, and then post something helpful in this regard.

Cheers.  

@KDK,

KDK:
Well, in MFM, we don't pray for people to die. We pray against principalities and Powers. However, a lot of people including some of our MFM pastors miss this point. Those who die as a result of our prayers are those who refuse to let go of such powers hence they preffer to perish with it. Tanxx

Thanks for that highlighted part of your response. I have some MFM friends who still have not grasp it, but it's amazing that they still argue against Eph. 6:12 that says we do not wrestle against flesh and blood.