₦airaland Forum

The incongruence in this ideology is off the charts. Boko Haramites and dua for exams . A religion that by its very nature inculcates backwardness and breeds unbridled regressiveness. Wetin concern brigand with BA (Hons) . Please, what is the Arabic word for irony?


TV

StillDtruth:
That's what heslam is. And I think people know, they just want to eat their cake and have it and still put it in the fridge

The appeal to the carnal and unregenerate man is understandable. As much readily available carnal pleasure as you can manage - even in the afterlife - and all religiously sanctified.

And yes, I know of men who practice just because of the control over women it affords. Funnily enough you have to be a beta male, unable to woo under your own steam and compete with other men, to want control, or be able to force women to do your will..

What I don't understand is the women who push this falsehood, talking of rights ee.slam supposedly affords them and championing the garb of oppression they are forced to wear?

May The Lord open eyes to see the liberty in Christ.


TV

Hasan chose to conduct his own defense during the trial but called no witnesses and gave no testimony, and made no attempt to deny the charges. Court-appointed defense attorneys expressed concern that he was seeking execution.

To his mind, this means he dies as a martyr, securing a direct ticket to paradise and 3 score and a dozen springy, bouncy and flexible courtesans! Why, how, can anyone believe this?

Please, we don't want to hear the usual tropes of this not being representative, not all scholars agreeing etc. etc. The outworking is clear. Hatred, violence and bloodshed.

Even now, that he would repent and serve as a lesson to others equally possessed and deluded. I take no joy in this and won't be watching. I hate to see harm or suffering to one created in Gods image - for any reason.


TV

Spambot got me last night . Let me remove some of the pepperiness and try again!

AntiChristian:
Back to the convo, for you to be able to discuss marriage, you should at least have some marital experince. Isa didn't marry since he was raised up early. So he will come back to get married and later die. So how many of the disciples of Jesus and Paul got married once again?

And what does experience of marriage have to do with understanding Gods requirements and the blessing of marriage? And more importantly, how does being married explain why ee.slam, prescribes lopsided, discriminatory, adulterous and immoral arrangements and term them "marriage"? Multiple wives, underage wives, temporary wives. How can anyone, married or not, fail to see how utterly perverse this is .

AntiChristian:
Always abusive! That's how you are Christ-like! Jesus said he did not come to abolish the law but to fulfil them. Are you saying that verse in Matthew was a lie? God and read the story of Jacob (Israel), Rachel and Leah with each of their maid servants Zilpah and Bilhah!

Moose.lim fabrication - Zilpah and Bilhah were not slaves, they were maidservants, later wives and their children were full children of Jacob

AntiChristian:
Are those God's laws fair to women?

Yes.

AntiChristian:
I quote verses. You only bring conjectures and lies! You lied again that Christian women are equal partners with different roles. That's false. A wife submits to his husband and not otherwise as Paul said below:

So because they have different roles, they are not equal as human beings? or of equal worth before God?
Galatians 3:28 - There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus.

AntiChristian:
Wives, submit to your husbands as to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife... Ephesians 5:22-23

Yes, my wife submits to me. I am not more worthy than her, better than her in the sight of God, or allowed to have 4 of her along with the other elements twisted ee.slamic arrangement.

AntiChristian:
This is not equal at all. This can be seen everywhere in the Bible. No woman among the disciples! No woman among the Bible writers?

So?

AntiChristian:
Woman must not teach men! They must shut up and cover their head! And you said for the Angel's sake!

The natural order as outlined by God places greater responsibility and burden on men. Women ere made for men, men come from women. Bibeli...perfecto !

AntiChristian:
Can you quote where Jesus said all this in the Bible?

Just did .

AntiChristian:
All these are conjectures without evidence. Bring the proof for your Christian lies!

Seks slafery in your texts is not conjecture...please explain it. Stop running and hiding.

AntiChristian:
For seks slafery ask Jacob when he beded Zilpah and Bilhah both Leah and Rachel's slaves to give birth to 4 out of the 12 children of Israel.

Nailed already. Zilpah and Bilhah were handmaids not seks slafes. From the pages of holy scripture.

AntiChristian:
You can also ask Moses in Numbers 31:17-18 - where virgin girls were spared for the warriors and your God got 32 virgin girls as tribute Numbers 31:40.

No seks slaves...brides.

AntiChristian:
Talking about seks slaves- war booties. All the men were unalived. Old women too!

You have nothing.

What is the purpose of seks slaves in society as prescribed by ee.slam.


TV - marital bless, holy matrimony, the husband of one wife. Consensual, No multiples, no temps (or contractors ), no underage, no seks slafes, no beatings, no deception...

AntiChristian:
See the words i made in bold above, the Prophet commanded the father not to marry her without her permission. This means you are telling lies again. It shows women have right to choose who they marry!

See moose.slim logic .
A woman has the right to "choose who to marry". That is akin to a rat having the right to enter a trap. Or the right to jump from a high place?

Once married the man can
1. Marry up to 3 other wives - without the first wifes consent
2. Have temporary wives - as pe desert runs na
3. Have seks slafes
4. Beat her - just on suspicion 0! Not necessarily with evidence - both vile
5. Summarily divorce here via talaq x3
6. Her female children get half the bequeathment of male heirs
7. Her witness is considered half\less than a mans.

Please tell us, what rights do women have in ee.slam, that 1. they did not have prior to ee.slam and 2. that only ee.slam grants. And please don't forget my original question, Q - what is the purpose of seks slaves in society.

You clearly have no answers, hence your running to mis-ascribe things to the OT. Everything is backward, upside down, back to front and inside out. Ugh!

Answering your fake rights with left uppercuts .


TV

The same Iran that killed 50'000+ of it's own citizens for peaceful protest? The same Iran that has a long history of femicide for as little as stray hairs from under a hijab? Irony killed this joke stone-dead - excuse the pun!


TV

honesttalk21:
Your Rushdie example actually reinforces the distinction. Khomeini issued a specific decree as a political/religious authority; that does not magically turn every Muslim worldwide into an independently authorized executor. A particular ruling by an authority is not the same thing as a universal private licence.

Bait swallowed whole .

There is no distinction between state sponsored terror, militia-type enterprises, or individually undertaken violence. They are flip sides of the same coin. The direct result of Khomeini's fatwa has been attempts by lone-wolf individuals to end Rushdie's life - as recent as a few years ago!

Be it state-sponsored or individually undertaken, there is no difference. Imams often encourage adherents to carry out scripturally permitted or divinely sanctioned judgements on their own violition. Deborah Samuels, victims like her worldwide and their loved ones could not care less.


TV

StillDtruth:
I understand just that as you said, even a Muslim woman wants monogamy, so monogamy is better

At some point people will realise that ee.slam only cares about, and caters to, the desires and lusts of men. Women are nothing more than chattel in ee.slam, hence women's "wants", cares, desires and aspirations are of no import unless wholly directed to satisfying the same in men.


TV

أَنَّ رَجُلًا أَتَى بِابْنَةٍ لَهُ إِلَى – النَّبِيِّ صَلَّى اللهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ فَقَالَ: إِنَّ ابْنَتِي هَذِهِ أَبَتْ أَنْ تَتَزَوَّجَ، قَالَ: فَقَالَ لَهَا: «أَطِيعِي أَبَاكِ» قَالَ: فَقَالَتْ: لَا، حَتَّى تُخْبِرَنِي مَا حَقُّ الزَّوْجِ عَلَى زَوْجَتِهِ؟ فَرَدَّدَتْ عَلَيْهِ مَقَالَتَهَا قَالَ: فَقَالَ: «حَقُّ الزَّوْجِ عَلَى زَوْجَتِهِ أَنْ لَوْ كَانَ بِهِ قُرْحَةٌ فَلَحَسَتْهَا، أَوِ ابْتَدَرَ مَنْخِرَاهُ صَدِيدًا أَوْ دَمًا، ثُمَّ لَحَسَتْهُ مَا أَدَّتْ حَقَّهُ» قَالَ: فَقَالَتْ: وَالَّذِي بَعَثَكَ بِالْحَقِّ لَا أَتَزَوَّجُ أَبَدًا قَالَ: فَقَالَ: «لَا تُنْكِحُوهُنَّ إِلَّا بِإِذْنِهِنَّ»

“A man came with his daughter to the Messenger of God (may God’s prayers and peace be upon him) and said: “This daughter of mine refused to be married”. He (sws), said to her: “Obey your father”, and she said: “By Him who sent you with truth, I will not marry until you tell me what the husband’s right over his wife is”? He said: “The husband’s right over his wife: If he had an ulcer, she licked it, or his nostril spread pus and blood, then she swallowed it, even then she did not fulfill his right”. She said: “By Him who sent you with the truth, I will never marry”. He (sws) said: “Do not marry them without their permission”.

AntiChristian:
How many of christ disciples and Paul got married ?

A question only a moose.lim could ask? Pray tell, what has that to do with the conversation? Did Isa marry?

AntiChristian:
You are yet to explain why God suspended his original intention to give David wives! You are yet to tell us why majority of the children of Israel were from the children of slave-brides. I don't think God could be fickle to change his mind or forget His original intention!

"I don't think" is a hallmark of ee.slam

I explained and showed from Matthew how God allowed deviations due to "the hardness of men's hearts". But in CHrist is calling us back to is blueprint for marriage - one man and one woman.

Who is a moose.lim to question this. Do you not practice "abrogation"? Do you not believe that successive prophets changed preceding laws?

Please show evidence regards the "children of slave brides" remark.

AntiChristian:
Old Testament Views
Genesis 3:16: Women are told they will suffer pain in childbirth, a verse historically used by the Church to oppose anesthesia during labor.
Exodus 21:7-11: A father could sell his daughter into slavery to pay debts, and unlike male slaves, daughters sold this way were not freed after six years.
Exodus 22:16-17: An unbetrothed virgin who is seduced must marry her seducer.
Leviticus 12, 15: Women are considered ritually unclean after childbirth and during menstruation, requiring purification rites and restrictions on contact.
Leviticus 27:3-7: Males are valued more highly than females in certain offerings.
Numbers 5:12-31: A woman suspected of adultery undergoes a trial by “water of bitterness,” a test not applied to men.
Deuteronomy 22:13-29: Severe punishments for women accused of not being virgins, or for victims of rape, including forced marriage to the rapist.
Deuteronomy 24:1-4: Men could divorce their wives simply for displeasure.
Judges 21:21: Women were taken as spoils of war by force.

Are you wanting to know about Christian marriage or the fine detail of the OT laws\covenant between God & Israel?

AntiChristian:
New Testament Views
1 Corinthians 11:9: And man was not made for woman, but woman was made for man.
1 Corinthians 11:3-10: Women are instructed to cover their heads while praying or prophesying.
1 Corinthians 14:34-35: Women are told to remain silent in church and to ask their husbands at home if they have questions.
1 Timothy 2:9-12: Women are advised against elaborate dress and are instructed to learn quietly and submissively, without teaching or having authority over men.
1 Peter 3:1-6: Wives are urged to be submissive to their husbands, even if husbands are disobedient to God.

Yes, women were made for men, after men and from men. Never the less, man comes from women. Purpose, order symmetry, beauty, Christianity. All I can see from the ee.slam.ic text is that women were made to satisfy man's carnal urges, no?

Yes for modesty and the angels sake

Yes, the creational order and family hierarchy mean men should lead homes and church affairs

Yes, modesty for all is instructed and as above. Christian women are equal partners with different roles. A 1:1 relationship. Not like the ee.slam.ic fractional affair , with concubinage and sks slafe decimal on top

Yes, the head of a wife is her husband. Men lead and have the main responsibility to God for their family. It makes no sense for a woman to be wayward if her husband is disobedient. God can and will deal with the erring husband of a faithful Christian wife.

AntiChristian:
And one more question, can a Christian woman divorce the husband if he abuses her according to Jesus's rule on divorce?

I do not see divorce in Christianity. An abused spouse can separate. If reconciliation cannot be effected, they remain as they are. Remarriage is permitted upon death of a spouse.

It's not the transactional, lopsided and discriminatory transaction that characterises ee.slam.ic unions. "marriage" in ee.slam, is an excuse for carnal relations, whereas, physical intimacy is a key underpinning of the marital union. ee.slam, get's everything wrong and everything back to front.

I asked you one question, you replied with 100's of queries and no answer. I'll try again. "Please explain how seks slafery works in a normal society". Any society sef


TV

honesttalk21:
You call this needless, yet it has run over several days. I have conceded the warfare character of the verses, the broader readings of jihad in the classical juristic tradition, and the existence of jizya. I also called Deborah Samuel's killing murder. The question now is what these texts establish.

You have moved from clear to can be read as. That matters.

Bukhari 2810 asks which fighter is in Allah's Cause. 2782 is the report ranking jihad among the best deeds. Bukhari 2783 says if you are called… go forth. You cannot turn if you are called into a permanent command that every individual Muslim may act on alone.

On authority, Qur'an 4:59 refers disputes back to Allah and the Messenger. 4:83 refers matters to those able to draw the right conclusion. 9:122 says believers are not all to go forth at once, and that a group should devote itself to religious understanding and instruct others. None of that makes every individual the executor of a warfare verse.

It is also ironic to dismiss the scholars while relying on Bukhari, whose authentication, classification and legal use are products of that same scholarly tradition.

On the lone wolf, Bukhari 3014-3015 record the Prophet's prohibition on killing women and children, and 3166 warns severely against killing a person under treaty protection. A mob does not gain Islamic legitimacy by quoting a verse.

Muslims never condemn is an absolute claim, so one counterexample defeats it. The Sultan of Sokoto condemned the killing. You can argue one voice does not represent all Muslims, but then never is gone. He is a highly reverred Muslim leader amongst the highest in Nigeria.

On Deuteronomy, calling it time-bound is contextualizing. If that is taqiyya when I do it, it is taqiyya when you do it. (Taqiyya also has specific, limited meanings in jurisprudence. It is not a license to reinterpret inconvenient texts.)

Nobody does it today is your outworking test again, and it fails:

- Crusaders and Puritans drew on Canaanite conquest imagery to justify taking land.
- Slaveholders leaned on Leviticus 25:44-46 and the curse of Ham.
- Netanyahu quoted "Remember what Amalek did to you" during the Gaza war, and repeated it in a letter to soldiers days later. South Africa cited such Amalek references in its genocide case at the ICJ. He said he meant Hamas and the October 7 attack, while critics read it differently.

Invocation shows what people claim, not what the text requires. That holds for a politician quoting Deuteronomy and for a militant quoting the Qur'an. Apply one standard to both books.

So the step you still haven't shown is how you get from Islamic scripture contains warfare commands to an individual Muslim today is authorized to attack his neighbour. Show it from the Qur'an, authentic Sunnah and juristic principles, not from the mere existence of the verses.

Story. The sword verse and it's like are believed, loved and lived by adherents of ee.slam everywhere you find them. Their capacity and ability to follow through is thankfully limited and often thwarted. But great damage, hurt and suffering are still taking place as a result.

And you are hear arguing, not so much against it, but how it must be under the aegis of legitimate state-sponsorship. Your only problem is it being done without the approval of your preferred "classical ee.slam.ic scholars" or "jurists".

Was the fatwah against Salman Rushdie legit? Issued by a whole Ayatollah? Sugar coated taqqiyah does not change the reality on the ground. People are being killed. Great harm and suffering are the result of tear.or.wrist attacks motivated by ee.slam.ic text. The list in the UK aone, not too mention the almost daily horror in Nigeria. I am not here to split hairs over the correct ecclesiatical
authority that is required to provide holy writ.


TV

jokerphilics:
So what is happening in the north is what you will use to judge an entire religion? I might as well judge the followers of Paul that they are terrorist because of what the earlier generations of them did. E.g crusaders, Adolf Hitler etc

No just northern Nigeria - everywhere there is a significant moo.slim presence, bloodshed, crime and regressivness follow.


TV

^{...is the spambot on hajj . This normally gets me banned like, not even 2 secs. Long may it continue. I will enjoy it whilst it lasts!}

jokerphilics:
Look at your write-up. If it's the very few of them that live and the vast majority support them, how come you are alive or are you not a Nigerian? And you have not been killed in the name of jihad?

What was the ee.slam.ic response to the killing of Miss Debbie Samuels? Not a word. Any that tried decry it were instantly silenced. It was carried ut by students - on a female, someone they knew! Not herders or bushmen. No matter how intellectual you are, ee.slam has the potential to make a bloodthirsty animal of you. Are moo.slims not beheading Yoruba as we speak?

And no, I am not a Nigerian and I make a point of staying far away from ee.slam and it's regressiveness as possible. Even here. The horrors of ee.slam.ic tear.or.ree.sm are constant.

jokerphilics:
Are Muslims not among your neighbors, people on the streets,in schools, workplace and the likes? If I should judge by this your measurement yard-stick, then no the followers of Paul won't be a terrorist because we saw what the crusaders did to the people and what America have done and is doing.

The crusades were a direct response to ee.slam.ic aggression. Before the first crusade in 1095, ee.slam had forcibly converted by the sword or attacked, Christian Syria, Jordan Palestine, Egypt, Algeria, Libya, Morocco, Portugal, Spain France, Sicily, Turkey, Armenia and Italy. The crusades were a legitimate and needed response to ee.slam.ic supremacism, colonialism and aggression. Moose.slims be whining about getting their behinds handed to them after initiating open hostility, violence and warfare. The natureof ee.slam is clear, until it is utterly extirpated, the aggression and violence will always rear it's head.

jokerphilics:
You said the tiny fraction dare not say anything about it. This means you are living in the bush. Social Media only proves your claim false. And what am I doing now? Chickening out?

Can you even quote me correctly? ee.slam, dulling human beings since the 7th century. Although only a small percentage are actively carrying out attacks, many more would join them if possible and the vast majority support them. The few that don't and do not, cannot speak out or they would be direct targets themselves.

jokerphilics:
State those verses that preaches hate, violence, conquer and the likes. Remember you have questions to answer in your bible too?

If you claim ignorance of text in the ee.slam.ic scripture that preach violence and bloodshed against non-believers, you are either lying or ignorant. No one denies the verses exist, they simply try to rationalise or justify them by "contextualising" or "historicising". But it changes nothing. The sum import of the scriptures is ee.slam.ic supremacism, enjoining hatred, violence and bloodshed against unbelievers in the quest for ee.slam.ic domination. Preached in mosques worldwide.


TV

Expanse2020:
As you show me that verse , show me a verse which directly said if you are a christian you will enter heaven
If Yu are not a Christian no heaven for you ..
As simple as that....

Acts 4:12 - Nor is there salvation in any other, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved.”


TV

keemsleek:
Have u not seen Christians marry more than 1 wife? Even with them doing registry. I have seen Muslim men married to only 1 wife. Even with the 2 shall become 1, almost all the men in the Bible had more than 1 wife. The highest rate of divorce comes from Christians.

What is the difference between a Muslim man that has 4 wives and a so call Christian that has 1 wife and 4 side chick even after registry.

Hypocrites. Do Christianity of sure protect women. Regardless of religion, a good man will always be a good man, a man who respects and treats a woman right doesn't have anything to do with religion.

This is not about what individuals who claim to be Christian or Muslim do. It's about what the Christian and Islamic scriptures teach.

Christianity permits one man and one wife. Islam allows one man, multiple wives, temporary wives and seks slafes. Choose your deity wisely.


TV

Fiscus105:
I don't think, Muslim person should take blood from infidel.

Islam is too righteous to do that. A good Muslims shouldn't allow

Kalfri to teach their kids in school.

Disbeliever to treat them in clinic.

Buy food from infidels.

Partner with non-believers to win contract.

Muslims can of course take advantage of all the technological advancement and scientific progress made by non-believers, none of which emanated out of, or was predicated on, anything from the islamic milieu.

Be clear, not one innovation that has advanced mankind or bettered humans, is as a result of endeavour or progress made by musims in an islamic milieu. Beginning with the mobile phone you are using. Do you own a car perchance?

Also interesting is your use of the word "righteous". It is non-existent in islam, along with holiness or even basic morality. What islam has is supremacism and hypocrisy.


TV

^{ps - the world would be a better pace if muslims could truly lose their appetite for "infidel" blood}

Two shot, over-the-hill fighters, with huge name-recognition, if fading star-quality, are lured back by a bumper pay-day for a figt that should have happened a decade ago.

Fury has always been the more skilled boxer and good at imposing his physical advantages. If he puts in the work at training camp, it would be hard to bet against him. Joshua looks punchy at this point and never really had great ring generalmanship.

May the best man win. Stepping in that square circle is never easy.


TV

honesttalk21:
TV01, the distinction is clear enough now. Jihad means striving and includes non-military effort, but that doesn't erase its military use.

Needless - nobody is worked up over anyone's personal inner struggle. Religious or otherwise. Jihad is only in view, a concern, because little girls are being blown up at music concerts and planes hijacked and flown into buildings.

honesttalk21:
Bukhari 2782 shows armed fighting can be jihad: asked which of three fighters is in Allah's cause, the Prophet pbuh names the one fighting so that Allah's word is supreme. That tells us which fighter counts, not that anyone must fight.

Read in tandem and as a whole, the call is absolute. Any fight by any believer to advance the cause (or defeat perceived enemies) is pleasing. I appreciate you or others may choose to interpret it differently. It clearly reads as the cause, not the fighter

honesttalk21:
The Ibn Abbas report concerns a call to go forth; "by the Muslim ruler" is the translator's bracket, so the ruler point has to come from the jurists, not the English. And 2:256 covers belief, not armed jihad, so I won't claim it settles that.

Again, you may wish to qualify it in that way. Others may choose not to do so. Scholars, imams, sheiks and the like only have the authority others place in them. Where is the clear divine writ in islam for these jurusts?

honesttalk21:
What remains is jurisprudence: who may fight, whom, and under what conditions. Dhimmitude and blasphemy laws belong in that question.

The message can clearly be read as absolute. Yes, certainly easier to codify and implement within an islamic state, but no less acceptable as an offering as a lone or individual endeavour. Hence the "lone wolf" attack is as valid and as well received as state-sponsored action by muslims.

honesttalk21:
Deborah Samuel's killing was murder, and a mob is private violence, which is exactly what that question asks whether anyone was authorized to commit.

The predicate was the same. Islamic writ and an act of service to the muslim god. Note how any condemnation by other muslims (even high profile ones like A. Atiku) were quickly retracted. Muslims never condemn anything done by other muslims whether good or bad in the name of their god or against non-muslims.

honesttalk21:
Deuteronomy 20:10-15 has a similar shape to 9:29, an offer of peace first and forced labor for those who accept. Verses 16-18 order total destruction of six named peoples. Christians read that as bound to ancient Israel, which is the contextualizing you call taqiyya. Apply your outworking test to it, or drop it.

The OT is not proof text for Christian behaviour or lifestyle. The covenant was between God and the Israelites and very specific and time bound - there are no Israeli terrorists rampaging the globe summarily or systematically ending non-believers to further the cause of YHWH now are there?


TV

Expanse2020:
Make yourself happy 🤣🤣🤣🤣

You failed to replied the question
Show us on the bible where if we aren't Christians or do Christianity we won't make heaven..
Na simple question oo

Eternity with God the Heavenly Father is through Jesus Christ our Lord. No other way, no other name.
John 14:6 Jesus said to him, “I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me.


TV

honesttalk21:
You can’t really isolate Qur’an 8:39 from verses 38–40. It speaks about opponents who had already been warned, and commands fighting until fitnah ends and religion is for Allah. So it’s hard to reduce it to simple self-defense. But the context also doesn’t prove a blanket command to attack non-Muslims whenever Muslims gain power. That broader claim needs the wider texts and juristic tradition. The same applies to dhimmitude, Muslim rulers, and cases like Deborah Samuel. The real question is what the texts require, how scholars understood them, and how Muslim leaders actually applied them.

No. But what I can do is tie it to a holistic review of the islamic text and the imprimateur it gives to violence and warlike behaviour to advance islam and the islamic god.

56 Fighting for the Cause of Allah (Jihaad)
(15)Chapter: Whoever fights so that Allah's Word be superior(15)باب مَنْ قَاتَلَ لِتَكُونَ كَلِمَةُ اللَّهِ هِيَ الْعُلْيَا
Narrated Abu Musa:

A man came to the Prophet (ﷺ) and asked, "A man fights for war booty; another fights for fame and a third fights for showing off; which of them fights in Allah's Cause?" The Prophet (ﷺ) said, "He who fights that Allah's Word (i.e. Islam) should be superior, fights in Allah's Cause."

Sahih al-Bukhari · No. 2782
Chapter 56
حَدَّثَنَا الْحَسَنُ بْنُ صَبَّاحٍ، حَدَّثَنَا مُحَمَّدُ بْنُ سَابِقٍ، حَدَّثَنَا مَالِكُ بْنُ مِغْوَلٍ، قَالَ سَمِعْتُ الْوَلِيدَ بْنَ الْعَيْزَارِ، ذَكَرَ عَنْ أَبِي عَمْرٍو الشَّيْبَانِيِّ، قَالَ قَالَ عَبْدُ اللَّهِ بْنُ مَسْعُودٍ ـ رضى الله عنه ـ سَأَلْتُ رَسُولَ اللَّهِ صلى الله عليه وسلم قُلْتُ يَا رَسُولَ اللَّهِ أَىُّ الْعَمَلِ أَفْضَلُ قَالَ ‏"‏ الصَّلاَةُ عَلَى مِيقَاتِهَا ‏"‏‏.‏ قُلْتُ ثُمَّ أَىٌّ‏.‏ قَالَ ‏"‏ ثُمَّ بِرُّ الْوَالِدَيْنِ ‏"‏‏.‏ قُلْتُ ثُمَّ أَىٌّ قَالَ ‏"‏ الْجِهَادُ فِي سَبِيلِ اللَّهِ ‏"‏‏.‏ فَسَكَتُّ عَنْ رَسُولِ اللَّهِ صلى الله عليه وسلم وَلَوِ اسْتَزَدْتُهُ لَزَادَنِي‏.‏

I asked Allah's Messenger (ﷺ), "O Allah's Messenger (ﷺ)! What is the best deed?" He replied, "To offer the prayers at their early stated fixed times." I asked, "What is next in goodness?" He replied, "To be good and dutiful to your parents." I further asked, what is next in goodness?" He replied, "To participate in Jihad in Allah's Cause." I did not ask Allah's Messenger (ﷺ) anymore and if I had asked him more, he would have told me more.

56/1. Chapter:

The superiority of Jihad
وَقَوْلُ اللَّهِ تَعَالَى: {إِنَّ اللَّهَ اشْتَرَى مِنَ الْمُؤْمِنِينَ أَنْفُسَهُمْ وَأَمْوَالَهُمْ بِأَنَّ لَهُمُ الْجَنَّةَ يُقَاتِلُونَ فِي سَبِيلِ اللَّهِ فَيَقْتُلُونَ وَيُقْتَلُونَ وَعْدًا عَلَيْهِ حَقًّا فِي التَّوْرَاةِ وَالإِنْجِيلِ وَالْقُرْآنِ وَمَنْ أَوْفَى بِعَهْدِهِ مِنَ اللَّهِ فَاسْتَبْشِرُوا بِبَيْعِكُمُ الَّذِي بَايَعْتُمْ بِهِ} إِلَى قَوْلِهِ: {وَبَشِّرِ الْمُؤْمِنِينَ} قَالَ ابْنُ عَبَّاسٍ الْحُدُودُ الطَّاعَةُ.
And the Statement of Allah تعالى: "Verily, Allah has purchased of the believers their lives and their properties; for the price that theirs shall be the Paradise. They fight in Allah's Cause, so they kill (others) and are killed. It is a promise in truth which is binding on Him in the Taurat (Torah) and the Injeel (Gospel) and the Qur'an. And who is truer to his covenant than Allah? Then rejoice in the bargain which you have concluded.. (up to).. And give glad tidings to the believers." (V.9:111, 112)


Sahih Bukhari : 2783



حَدَّثَنَا عَلِيُّ بْنُ عَبْدِ اللَّهِ، حَدَّثَنَا يَحْيَى بْنُ سَعِيدٍ، حَدَّثَنَا سُفْيَانُ، قَالَ حَدَّثَنِي مَنْصُورٌ، عَنْ مُجَاهِدٍ، عَنْ طَاوُسٍ، عَنِ ابْنِ عَبَّاسٍ ـ رضى الله عنهما ـ قَالَ قَالَ رَسُولُ اللَّهِ صلى الله عليه وسلم ‏ "‏لاَ هِجْرَةَ بَعْدَ الْفَتْحِ وَلَكِنْ جِهَادٌ وَنِيَّةٌ، وَإِذَا اسْتُنْفِرْتُمْ فَانْفِرُوا ‏"‏‏.‏

Narrated Ibn `Abbas: Allah's Messenger (ﷺ) said, "There is no Hijra (i.e. migration) (from Mecca to Medina) after the Conquest (of Mecca), but Jihad and good intention remain; and if you are called (by the Muslim ruler) for fighting, go forth immediately.

[1] After the conquest of Makkah there was no need for Muslims to emigrate from Makkah to Al-Madīna. The Prophet ﷺ tells his companions that one can attain rewards through Jihād against Kufr ; i.e., to fight for Allāh's Cause when there is a call for it, otherwise one should have the intention to participate in Jihād and this intention has the same reward as that of Jihād itself.
Reference : Sahih al-Bukhari 2783
In-book reference : Book 56, Hadith 2
USC-MSA web (English) reference : Vol. 4, Book 52, Hadith 42

There is no honest, coherent defence, explanation, amelioration or even the remotest dilution of the islamic war-cry. It is writ loud and clear.


TV

Lukgaf:
Sometimes life becomes so difficult that we begin to wonder:

“Where is Allah?”

You make duʿā, but the problem remains.

You work hard, but things don't improve.

You try to find a way forward, but every door seems closed.

But difficulty does not mean Allah has abandoned you.

Look at the Battle of Khandaq.

The Muslims in Madinah found themselves surrounded by a huge coalition of enemies. They were outnumbered, frightened and under enormous pressure.

The Qur'an describes their condition:


“When they came upon you from above you and from below you, when eyes became terrified and hearts reached the throats, and you began to have various thoughts about Allah.”
Qur'an 33:10

Imagine being there.

Fear everywhere.

The enemy surrounding you.

Resources were limited.

And yet, the believers did not abandon Allah.

They remained patient, worked, planned and trusted their Lord.

Then Allah says:

“And Allah turned back those who disbelieved in their rage, having gained no good. And Allah spared the believers from fighting.”
Qur'an 33:25

The situation looked impossible.

But Allah was never absent.

Sometimes we make the mistake of thinking:

“If Allah loves me, I shouldn't have problems.”

But the lives of the prophets and the righteous teach us otherwise.

Being tested does not mean being abandoned.

Being delayed does not mean being forgotten.

Having difficulties does not mean Allah is against you.

Sometimes Allah allows you to reach the point where you realise that your strength is limited and His power is unlimited.

So if life is difficult for you right now, don't conclude that Allah has forgotten you.

Keep praying. Keep working. Keep doing what is right. Keep trusting Allah.

The battle may be difficult.

The road may be long.

But Allah knows exactly where you are.

May Allah strengthen us when we are tested, give us patience when things become difficult, and grant us relief from places we never expect.

آمين.

Has this god ever spoken to anyone, anywhere ever? When, where?? Whom


TV

honesttalk21:
TV01, thank you for naming Qur'an 8:39 and 9:29, because that's the standard I asked for. But "clear" is still a conviction until the work is shown. I'll concede what's true as both are warfare verses, some classical jurists read jihad more broadly than modern self-defence, and jizya was a differentiated status you can criticize. But 9:29 ends at jizya, not conversion, so "force conversion" isn't in it. And between "the verse exists" and "a Muslim in Nigeria must attack his neighbour," you skip who had authority to wage war and why a ruling on states binds private individuals. Jihadists quoting a verse shows they quote it, not that they read it correctly. Your "outworking" test also has to run both ways since Deuteronomy 20 orders the destruction of the peoples in the land, and Dum Diversas and the Crusades were justified in terms taken from Christian scripture. Christians now read those texts in context, which you inaccurately call taqiyya when Muslims do it. Same rule for both, or neither.

Therein lies the rub. Surah 8:39 can be as narrowly or broadly defined as suits. It's situational - dependent largely on the situation of the "ummah". The Mecca vs. Medina dichotomy - defensive when weak, offensive when strong. There will always be those who read the verses belligerently and follow through forcefully when opportuned.

As for dhimmitude. The outworking of that is clear in Muslim-majority countries. Forced conversions, forced marriage, ray.ape-to-marry\convert, job and housing discrimination. Political disenfranchisement, summary executions based (often false) blasphemy law violations. The mu-mu ticket in Nigeria is a prime example. Muslims dominant, persecution, violence and bloodshed follow. Euphemistically termed banditry or grazer vs. herdsmen clashes.

Let's not ever forget the name of Miss Debbie Samuels. Islam does not brook plurality, competition or dissent and always drives for dominance. If that means eliminating competing ideologies or faiths, or even individual voices, so be it.

Where ee.slam goes, hate, violence, death and destruction follow. At pace!


TV

honesttalk21:
It's a bother that you are asserting the conclusion rather than demonstrating it.



You say scholars' interpretations don't matter because you can read the text yourself, but then you treat your own reading as self-evidently authoritative. If interpretation is purely individual, the jihadist's reading and yours have no stated method for deciding which one represents the text's meaning.



That's not actually true of Islam, though. The tradition has established mechanisms for distinguishing authoritative interpretations from fringe ones, including ijmaʿ (scholarly consensus). The 2005 Amman Message is a particularly clear modern example. It was endorsed by scholars and authorities representing the major Islamic legal schools and explicitly rejected the practice of declaring Muslims outside the faith on the basis of unauthorized interpretations. You may disagree with that methodology, but saying no methodology exists is simply inaccurate.



There's a deeper irony here as the Bible you're claiming to read free of authority exists in the form you're reading because of centuries of scholarly and ecclesiastical decisions about canon. Catholics have 73 books; most Protestants and Anglicans have 66; Orthodox traditions include additional books. Councils, synods, bishops, theologians and later reformers all played roles in determining which texts their communities recognized. You didn't escape authority by reading the text yourself; you inherited a canon shaped by authorities and then rejected the need for authority in interpreting it.

Taqiyya is also being used loosely here; and it's a common go to perhaps without better arguments, in the way anti-Islam commentary often deploys it as a catch-all for "any Muslim explanation I don't like is a lie." The actual doctrine is considerably narrower and is particularly associated with Shia traditions of concealing one's faith under serious persecution. It is not a theological license to fabricate history or scholarship during an argument. Perhaps you have a verifiable reference saying otherwise. Using the word to pre-declare the other side's evidence deceptive isn't an argument against that evidence.

And "spread by the sword" is another historical claim, not proof of a religious mandate. The historical record is considerably more varied. Indonesia's Islamization is generally associated with trade, Muslim merchants and Sufi networks rather than military conquest, while much of the spread of Islam in West Africa likewise occurred through commerce, scholarship and missionary networks. That doesn't erase Muslim conquest elsewhere; it demonstrates why one mechanism cannot simply be projected onto the entire history of Islam.

Your claim that 'Christian scripture cannot be read that way' deserves the same historical and interpretive scrutiny. Christianity spread through peaceful missionary activity but also through periods of political coercion. Charlemagne's forced conversions are a documented example, while papal documents such as Dum Diversas provided religious authorization for conquest and enslavement of non-Christian peoples. That doesn't make Christianity reducible to those acts, any more than Muslim warfare makes Islam reducible to warfare. Both histories are more complicated than "peaceful religion versus violent religion."

There are therefore two separate claims being conflated: that Islamic history contains warfare and discriminatory institutions, and that Islam's scripture consequently commands Muslims today to attack or subordinate unbelievers. The first can be investigated historically; it does not automatically establish the second.

And 'Christian scripture cannot be read that way' is itself an interpretive claim. Christianity has difficult texts concerning warfare, conquest, punishment and outsiders. That doesn't make Christianity a violent religion, but it does demonstrate why "the text is clear" was never a sufficient method for establishing what scripture mandates, for either tradition.

If the claim is that Islam mandates present-day violence against unbelievers, make that case from the actual texts and evidence. "I can see the intent" is not evidence of intent.

The verses in the Islamic texts are clear. There are legitimate readings of offensive warfare against non-believers and to force conversion or subjugation. Surahs 8:39 and 9:29 are clear cases of offensive action until all worship is for the isamic god and the subjugation of non-muslims.

There are some who would like to interpret these verses in more defensive terms or as only applicable in a properly constituted islamic polity. Those are weak attempts to launder islam's extremeties. The best way to understand islam is by it's outworking. How did it burst forth from the arabian peninsula?

Taqqiya indeed. The whole world is wise to your game.


TV

AntiChristian:
That's holy matrimony as defined by the writer of the book of Matthew!

Exactly clear in the Christian texts and as practiced by followers of Christ

AntiChristian:
Yahwh gave David plenty wives and even wanted to add more! I don't think he forgot polygamy was bad/sinful.

I gave your master’s house to you, and your master’s wives into your arms. I gave you all Israel and Judah. And if all this had been too little, I would have given you even more. 2 Samuel 12:8

And the same Matthew (19:4-6) explains Gods original intention and the temporary departure permitted due to mans hard heartedness. Christ calls us back to the original blueprint God had for man and marriage - a one flesh union. Islam totally traduces and perverts that. Allowing multiple, temporary, underage and seksslaves marriage. Best described as coercive and forced domestic relations. Return to the true God and His blueprint as revealed in Christ Jesus.

AntiChristian:
It is the Bible that hate women starting from the time of Eve! I can give you evidence if you need them!

Please present your evidence. Christianity preaches one man one wife and that husbands should love their wives - sacrificially, in the manner of Christ loving His church. I love Christianity. So joined up, so much sense, so transendant.

Ephesians 5:25 Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ also loved the church and gave Himself for her,
Ephesians 5:28 So husbands ought to love their own wives as their own bodies; he who loves his wife loves himself.
Colossians 3:19 Husbands, love your wives and do not be bitter toward them.

One cannot read ee.slam relative to Christianity and not see the perverse lust-driven nature. Well suited to thugs, warlords and criminals. Christianity loves women and gives them agency and equal worth.


TV

IbeOkehie:
This is just fomenting disagreement for argument sake. Not at all useful.

We are agreed on a number of points. And, as noted, I won't attempt to gainsay the data. I don't agree that IQ is the predicate or main determinant of societal outcomes. Put another way, low HDI, is not the direct consequence of low IQ.

Cheers
TV

Rashduct4luv:
I am not an Afghan but a Nigerian.
Secondly, i am not in support of temporary marriage.
Thirdly, marriage should be determined by maturity not age.
And i have never seen any Abrahamic religion that promotes freeing slaves like Islam.

Marriage should be free and same as divorce with justice!

If you are pained about 4 wives na you sabi o.

Your support or otherwise of temporary marriage - muttah, misyar - is besides the point. Your religion expressly permits it. You are bordering on kuffr if you attempt to gainsay the practice. I appreciate it does makes sense if you are a roaming brigand and need urgent relief. Like urgent 2k .

Pained about 4 wives? At all. I am married - holy matrimony - and know the bliss of a happy marriage. No multiply married woman actually knows what marriage is. No justice, no kindness, no mercy.

Some stuff you can't make up, but they do. Some stuff no one really believes, but they just follow.


Cheers
TV

Islam doesn't really have marriage as properly defined. Holy matrimony the coming together of 2 as 1.
What it has is a form of lopsided domestic transaction - which favours men and leaves women (and girls) at their mercy.

In fact, "marriage" in Islam is part of, and sits atop a layered domestic arrangement, which includes temporary marriages and s3ks slaves.

Long\short, Islam hates women and sees them as an accoutrement of men, which makes abslute sense if yu are a 7th century Arabian brigand whose main occupation is banditry and pillaging. What is to become of all the females left after you have raided, slaughtered and dispossessed the rightful owners?

I could be wrong though? Perhaps someone could explain why s3ks slaves would be a thing in anything resembling a normal society?


Cheers
TV

honesttalk21:
Freedom to interpret scripture does not make an interpretation true. Extremists quoting scripture does not prove what it mandates, and belief alone does not establish causation.

Exactly that. Groups that use the text to justify carrying out attacks are not bound by alternative readings - no matter the fancy titles you give them. Just as I don't give hoot about papal bulls or the declarations of any bishop.

The fact is that the prevailing belief in ee-lam is that violence is justified in order to spread the religion - gee.hard is real. Non-believers are treated like 2nd class citizens at best, and altogether inferior persons. And like fancy titles, derogatory labels like extremist mean nothing either.

Unlike the Christian scriptures, which cannot be read to mean attack unbelievers, or proselytise by force. And any such erroneous notions will never become mainstream

honesttalk21:
If scripture supposedly compels violence today, show it through the text, context, history, competing interpretations, and evidence that its original conditions still apply. “It’s written clearly” is a conviction, not an argument.

To historicise or contextualise are ruses of taqqiya. You know your religion. Own it. Historically how was it spread - by the sword. How did it, and still does, routinely discriminate against non-believers.

honesttalk21:
You're arguing both ends in saying no authority can fix scripture's meaning, yet you're certain there's one true meaning every individual should independently arrive at. Pick a side.

One doesn't need a so called "authority" to clearly see scriptural intent. In Christianity it is loving God and loving your neighbour. In ee.slam, it is obeying god, which includes disaliving your neighbour if he doesn't conform. Or even if your neighbour doesn't conform in a way you like! What a dangerous farce.


TV

IbeOkehie:
1.) Now that's not true. There's no unjustified leap. No Down's Syndrome patient will become a math whiz. Nigerians will not be producing a high HDI nation. Dwarfs are not gonna become basketball stars no matter how they practice. They are all GENETICALLY limited.

Using extreme outliers does not make the case. There are math whizzes in Nigeria and people with downs in the west. Taking the extreme outlier in a very narrowly defined sphere does not an argument make. Here's someone of 5'3'' who made it in the NBA - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muggsy_Bogues

IbeOkehie:
The FOUNDATIONAL difference between male and female humans is GENETIC. That genetic difference produces two genders with measurably different IQ or intelligence. That's the data, it's proven.

Men and women also differ in height & weight, voice timbre, physical strength and IQ...all determined by genes located on a single chromosome.

Yes - on average. But there is much overlap. Not all men in all spheres have more of whatever metric is in view than women. There are even women who have more testosterone than men (they can commonly be found roaming this thread ). The data does not directly map onto every individual or hold true for a comparison of any two individuals between the sets or even within them.

Whilst these measures can be a starting point or make difference - possibly even decisive in some instance - they do not singularly determine outcomes. Neither are the measure only applicable at the extremes or at play in isolation.

IbeOkehie:
In the same way, genes dictate ALL differences between natural human groups.

Only innate difference, not necessarily expressions or outcomes.

IbeOkehie:
(2) Biology determines or forms the basis of culture.

Reaching still. IQ is downstream of the primary cultural determinants. Where in history do we have civilisations that have been driven solely by IQ. Might prevails, religious fervour drives, myth, superstition and legend play a role. If one places high IQ folk in a low-brow culture that does not have the wherewithal to cast of the traits that make it primitive, there will be no shift and IQ alone will not enable or drive that shift. The French worship intelligence - as they head for the doldrums. We touched on on the Swedish issues.

IbeOkehie:
(3) People with high IQ figure out ways to resolve problems and gather resources and turn to violence as a last resort within law.

If the setting is right. I'm sure a quick search will still uncover a ton of high IQ folk who turned to various kinds of illegal, immoral or antithetical behaviour. IQ is not a virtue, or a moral attribute, it's a measure.

IbeOkehie:
Criminals are also in prison because they steal. They steal because they don't have the intelligence to obtain resources legally or morally.

A high IQ does not forestall reprobate behaviour any more than hair colour does. Reprobate behaviour I say, because theft is not the only crime.

IbeOkehie:
This is the same affliction that drives people to embrace socialism & communism...they can't produce or obtain the resources they want or need in a free bargain, so they resort to VIOLENCE just like criminals. That's ALSO why leftists tend to excuse theft, illegal immigration and such. Nigerians generally are natural socialists and have produced the Poverty Capital of the World.

Still reaching. There are high IQ, well educated and skilled folk who subscribe to socialism ad communism. Their problem is probably thinking they are smart, as opposed to actually being smart. Or believing they are infallible because of their smartness.IQ is a measure, not an outcome.

I won't comment on the ideological leanings of Nigerians. I think that if applied appropriately with the right adjustments, most political systems could work fairly well. The issue rarely tends to be the intelligence behind them - because again, these systems do not need absolute high IQs to run - it's the tendency to lawlessness.

Nations that make their way to HDI are able to limit these. Once they are breached, the nation (civilisation) will ultimately fail if they are unable to retrace their steps. Exactly what we see in Sweden, France and the UK. Low-brow culture is creeping in, lawlessness and decadence. The prevailing upstream culture in Nigeria, means an HDI can never develop or flourish if imposed.

IbeOkehie:
Genetics set the LIMITS of every living thing. It's simply true and yes it hurts 😥

It may set limits, but it does not solely or even majorly determine outcomes - Muggsy I believe, makes the case .


TV

honesttalk21:
So raise the bar to something that can actually be examined; if the claim is that the Qur'an mandates present day violence against non-Muslims, name the specific ayat. Then look at when and why each was revealed, how classical specialist scholars read them not modern polemicists on either side and, most importantly, make the case for why the historical condition they addressed still holds today. That's a real argument. Pointing to what alleged jihadists quote isn't, because extremists cherry-pick decontextualized lines from every scripture, including yours.

How "classical specialist scholars" read them is of little import. I have no allegiance to the pope, no fealty to the Bishopric of Canterbury and no one can stop me from interpreting and practising Christianity as I read it or force their interpretation on me.

Further, there will be so called classical specialist scholars who interpret them just as the gee.hardists do. One of the issues I have always had with ee.slam is the fact that both sides of an argument can often be taken from the same scriptures. And, adherents love to present as flattering and benign a view as possible on any topic.

ee.sams aim to bestride the world - by violence if need be - is writ clear. There is no gainsaying that. The view as non-adherents as infidels and inferior will always lead to the hate, violence and bloodshed that the "oppression" topic of this thread is but a secondary matter. It is supremacist, totalitarian, broking no dissent or plurality - more political than religious.


TV

Cutezt:
The earlier you advocate for your leaders to rise up and speak strongly against all this nonsense, the better. That is, if you survive your advocacy.

In truth, it's not advocacy at all. We all know what their religious texts command. We all know what the drive and ultimate aim of the religion is.

It's like the rat that blows softly on your toe as it eats you alive. There is no context for what is considered the unchangeable word of god, for all peoples for all time. The call to hate, violence and bloodshed against everyone and everything that is not them are replete.


TV

IbeOkehie:
Recorded history and contemporary outcomes show that groups differ, which you and TV1 agree is true.

I couldn't possibly disagree with the glaring obvious .

IbeOkehie:
The differences are based on genetics. Everything about life is rooted in genes. Genes dictate the BOUNDRIES for outcomes. It's uncomfortable. Sorry about that.

There's that leap again. One, would be hard pressed to prove that genetics plays a part, let alone a significant part and certainly not that genetics or IQ are singularly determinant of any outcome. Hard work beats innate talent every time.

IbeOkehie:
The PREFERENCES of Black Africans show that they're aware of these differences. That's why a vast majority of us choose to live in OTHER countries when we have the ability to exercise that choice. Zimbabwe tells the story as far back as when it was one country with Zambia & Malawi....called Nyasaland. Basically, whenever the Blacks separated from or chased out the Whites, the result was disaster. Black Africans simply don't have the genetic assortment that bestows an ability to generate high HDI environments.

The choice to move is because the cultural milieu f their native countries simply cannot generate and sustain HDI. They can't achieve the requisite lift-off speed. And not because of their IQs.

As I have requested previously, an idea of the exactly how IQ ties into HDI generation would empirically make the case you are presenting. What is the minimum required, individually, on average? And what happens as those variables change?

Even if Nigerians advance to an average 180 IQ, they will not develop western levels of HDI until they unshackle themselves from the culture that hampers. IQ does not, cannot drive HDI without the right cultural bedrock.

IbeOkehie:
Whatever the cause, take heart - credible studies show that IQ, intelligence or whatever name it's given, can change over generations.

As above, will not change things a jot unless the culture shifts first. Perhaps an upward IQ change could enable that shift.


TV

ps. there are likely more men in prison than women because of their higher propensity to violence. High IQ isn't what keeps one out of prison. It's not that hard - high integrity, no matter one's IQ