Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - lionger

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 38
32
General Board / Re: Israel New Agression
« on: January 16, 2009, 09:03:57 PM »
Assalamu alaikum,
..... What Hitler says,
" I could have annihilated all the Jews in the world, but I left some of them so you will know why I was killing them." Adolf Hitler; Mien Kampf.

In Suratul Fatiha of the Glorious Qur'an Allah (SWT) taught the Muslims to pray:
"Guide us ( O' Allah!) onto Your rightous path. The path of those whom You have favoured (Believers) NOT the Path of those who went astray (Christians) or those who earned your Anger (Jews)."

 Haba EMTL, that Hitler quote of yours is obviously garbage. I mean, Hitler wrote Mein Kampf long before he even came to power! 

33
General Board / Re: Israel New Agression
« on: January 15, 2009, 03:44:58 PM »
usman_11

Your first post is unnecessarity provocative, and I am not really surprised at Muhsin's response. Your borderline blanket characterization of all Nigerian muslims is not constructive, and I'm not sure that your accusation of hypocrisy has much merit. I don't know how much time you have spent on this forum since our last discussion in 2005, but I vaguely remember that the last time sectarian violence flared up in the North, most responders condemned the violence without restraint. My understanding of the Jos debacle is that it was actually an ANPP/PDP conflict that later degenerated predictably into sectarian violence. In any case, you know that Palestine is an emotional issue for most muslims, so if you actually wish to engage them it would be better to leave out provocative blanket characterizations.

The Muslims on this thread are not hypocrites; however I will say this. The grassroots activity and donation drives among some Muslims as evidenced on this site, and which I have also observed among the Muslim community where I am is commendable. Frankly we should all be willing to do what we can to alleviate the suffering in Gaza, regardless of our religious affiliation. My only grouse is that I did/have not seen such Muslim initiative for places like Darfur, where far, far more Muslims have died in the past 4-5 years. Indeed, when Darfur was discussed here it was plain that many were ill-informed of the situation; and others obstinately resorted to siege mentality and interpreted criticism of Sudan as propaganda against an Islamic country. I have long suspected that when issues like this come up some are disposed to responding in what they feel is a show of solidarity withe Muslim brethren; regardless of the facts. Very unfortunate!

34
General Board / Re: Israel New Agression
« on: January 15, 2009, 02:33:00 PM »
Who the frigging hell are you? I don't know which word would best decribe you; dunce or dense? I wish I hadn't said I won't say another word here. Bold brat! Get your ass out of this forum or else we certainly will deal with your brainless baldy head. Stupid ideot!

Muhsin,
You are out of order. Your wild insults won't do any good here other than getting this thread locked. I understand that this is an emotional issue for you; however if you cannot respond coherently (as I shall soon attempt) then it would be better for you to adher to your previous promise and not say anything at all.

35
General Board / Re: Israel New Agression
« on: January 12, 2009, 04:26:58 PM »
Here with go again...

Interesting comments from Cekenah; for the most part well-balanced in my opinion. These discussions often do not go anywhere because most people prefer to heap blame on one side based on personal bias and barely pay attention to the immediate facts; let alone analyzing them objectively. It is extremely naive to suggest, as many are doing here, that everything will be cool if Israel would just quit its evil ways. Nor is it reasonable to suggest, as I would probably be accused of doing by Kano-online  ;D -  that Hamas and terrorists like them are the sole enemies of peace. Neither rocket fire nor disproportionate military retaliation will bring either side any real gains. I mean, we all know that eventually, after a while a new cease-fire agreement will will be negotiated. What then will be the big difference b/w that time and pre-December 27 apart from the fact that 1000+ Palestinians are now dead?  ???

As for those of you who think Obama will support your side of the story...well, Obama visited Sderot in southern Israel last year and said this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PFoj-PKJhck

36
General Board / Re: Zimbabwe; what are the real scenes there?
« on: December 23, 2008, 04:50:29 PM »
First off, this whole 'invasion' talk coming from all corners is pure madness. Haven't we learnt anything from the disaster in Iraq?

Class post by sherrif. Very, very well said -  though I do not think the African polity can so readily wash its hands off the economic/political basketcases it oversees as readily as you seem to suggest. As for the rest of you - esp. the naijan posters,  >:( I am amazed at how unwittingly some of us Africans cut our noses to spite our face in defending the indefensible with respect to Mugabe. How many of us would be so gallant if Mugabe were Nigeria's head of state?

37
General Board / Re: Nigerian Intelligence Agency
« on: June 26, 2008, 05:14:23 PM »
The Nigerian intelligence agencies were not created to deal with genuine domestic security issues like armed robbery, MEND and kidnappings.  They were created by Obasanjo in 1975 after the Dimka coup (as the NSO), and later strengthened by IBB as a knee jerk reaction to the phenomenon of serial coup plotting.

The DIA, DMI, NIA and SSS were all glorified organs for suppressing coup plots and opposition to the government.

http://maxsiollun.wordpress.com/

I concur. During the IBB-Abacha years I came to view the SSS in particular as merely a tool for arm-twisting the opposition. Looking at the circumstances surrounding its conception it should probably be no surprise. Perhaps with time it might develop more substance..

P.S. Welcome to Kanoonline, Max! I've come across your writings on other Nigerian forums and have read most - if not all - of your articles on your website. Your reputation precedes you!



38
Quote
We need to really educate ourselves and rid ourselves of the slave mentality that still keeps some of us thinking that Whites are better and superior. Goodness!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

King, this is false attribution. Dan Borno's comments about Obama didn't make sense to me either, but there's nothign to suggest that it was the product of an inferiority complex.

39
General Board / Re: FOOD SCARCITY - HOW PREPARED ARE WE?
« on: April 30, 2008, 06:09:55 PM »
I think the main forces behind the current food crisis are largely un-natural, or in other words economic. Climate change seems to be a secondary issue compared to the biofuel industry and the changing demands of an exploding middle class in Asia.

40
General Board / Re: Ahmadinejad's letter to Bush
« on: April 11, 2008, 02:29:14 PM »
Oga Waziri,

How bodi. Since you are now responding directly to me, I will return the favor.

Lionger,

Here you are again, for the many years we've been  in this forum, could you remember how many times I made reference to Ahmed Deadat's works? Could you remember me saying I would rely on his works in some of my expositions? Where you here when I offered the forumnites the gift of the book, The Controversy of Zion and others? Could you remember how many times I made reference to the book here and the author?

Actually you never mentioned Ahmed Deedat in connection with this duscussion until now. I personally remember you mentioning his name on this forum just once! I just did a search on this forum. Prior to your posts yesterday there are only two other instances when you mentioned Deedat on this forum. Here's the first:

Nigeria denied Ahmed Deedat entry into it's territory... before we say the Authorities have the rights to do that even when allowing other foreigners to come in we have to look at the reason they give first.

The second - and this one I remembered, since I took part in this discussion:
Thus a Muslim reading Bible can only produce people like Ahmed Deedat since as he goes differ he sees more a Muslim Jesus, not a founder of a new religion.

If you can find other instances I'd like to see it. As for Douglas Reed, I also did an forum search on his name and on the Controversy of Zion. You only mentioned them twice: on this thread and on the thread from 2004. About that thread - I vaguely remember it. If I ever got to that thread, it was probably months after the discussion ended. In the first place, I can hardly be blamed for not taking an opportunity that I might not even have been aware of. Secondly, we are all busy men here. It would be silly of you to conclude that I am 'not the reading type' simply because I did not inquire about those books. Obviously you do not know me in real life!

All this, however, is besides the point. As I said before, if we want to considered as scholars, then we must be ready to stand the acid test of true scholarship. A reasonable scholar never fails to lay out his references in proper order, it is that simple. That is his responsibility, not the readers'. It is plain madness to suggest otherwise. Where would the world of research be today if that was the norm? I've worked in the university setting, and if I submitted a paper to my professors that was devoid of references, it would end up in the garbage bin!

Whatever the case may be your charges of plagiarism against me can hold water only if you can quote where I claim the expression of any author as mine.

Here's Webster's definition of plagiarism:
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/plagiarizing
Quote
to steal and pass off (the ideas or words of another) as one's own : use (another's production) without crediting the source
Coincidental referrals two years apart from and devoid of actual connection to your work does not count as due credit to the source. Period.

For example, have you ever seen The Talmud? Have you ever read through it? I had wanted you to admit so that we can rub shoulders in this discussion earlier but you couldn't and as such I coudnt find you worthy or able to really do this with me.

This again? One: This is quite redundant, since I already said clearly that I am not well versed in the Talmud. Two: what really is the point of boasting in your superior knowledge of the Talmud, when you are yet to bring it to bear on this discussion? I asked for it two years ago and I'm still asking now. Where is the Talmudic backing for your post? Until you supply those details, this topic will remain a red herring.

This is a discussion that held some two years back and yet you admitted of not knowing this until now. Is it my fault or yours? Do you think I am dumb to assume nobody could get to read Deedat's works here that I used his referencing style and some of his valid arguments?

No Lionger, I am not at my worst here but rather you are after reaching where I was two years back. Thank God you've admitted.

Waziri, read my posts carefully. I discovered the connection between your posts and Deedat in early February last year. And it was specifically of this that I alluded to when I said to Myself around that time:
This is a bit of an aside, but I think it is high time Muslims started reading the Bible for themselves and not solely through the eyes of supposed Muslim Bible 'scholars' such as the above. Read their work if you like, but also read the Bible for yourself and see if what they say is true. Too many people do just the former and swallow their arguments hook, line and sinker, without doing adequate original research themselves. I have noticed that Barde and Waziri have been obviously guilty of this error, in my discussions with them.
I had no reason to mention your name then until I read Arabs and Israel. I did not bring it up with you on this thread then because you decided to ignore my posts. Even now, I entered this thread to respond to Cekenah directly. I have only responded  to you when I realised that you would return the favor.

I am not by no means ignorant of Deedat. On the contrary, I have read many of his booklets - though I definitely missed out on Arabs and Israel. I am also well aware of the large following he has among muslims. Deedat's works unforutnately are pure disingenuity in my opinion, and I think I have said this before. It is a shame to observe that many Muslims think taht Deedat's booklets are a proper substitute for their own reading of the Bible, and count themselves more knowledgeable than Christians on that basis. Anyone who knows his Bible well will not be swayed. I have already combated his doctrine in the person of Barde and other forumners, and finally your posts. Earlier you said that the burden of proof is on me to debunk Deedat's argument - well, I did so ages ago. The burden of proof has long been yours, but you are yet to oblige. If Deedat's Hebrews 11:13 exegesis can be defended, then I should have seen it by now.  Frankly there isn't any defense for it!

I will remind you of my 'reading and comprehension' analogy a while back. While it may have offended you, that was not the objective. All this talk about scholarship is necessary, but has the danger of clouding issues and making the subject seem more complicated than it really is. I don't know how you guys study your Quran (though I sometimes get the feeling that many of you on this forum read it solely through the eyes of certain scholars); however, the Bible as a book that purports to carry God's message is meant to be read and understood by all people, lay-men and erudite alike. There was once a time when the Bible could only be read by the educated elite who then taught the people; this era is also co-incident with the Crusades and the the Inquisition. Today, many translations and versions of the Bible exist to keep its message accessible to a changing world (unfortunately many Muslims including yourself ignorantly use this as a pretext for attacking the Bible's authenticity). As such we do not need to be at the whim and mercy of scholarly agenda to understand the Bible as was the case before - we can read the Bible ourselves and see if their message is true.

I have already said that your error is not simply in your reliance on Deedat or Reed. It is the fact that you did not properly check up their presentation of Bible verses, and subsequently included errors that should have been immediately obvious - for example, the Deuteronomy 51 citation. I didn't even have to open my Bible to know that this was a mistake. Obviously you believe that copying their Bible verses was as good as copying from the Bible - wrong! You will never find Deuteronomy 51 in the Bible! Ahmed Deedat could well have made up a Bible verse and you would have swallowed that! Never mind the issues of misplaced context that you have not yet rectified.

From my reading of Douglas Reed's book, I gather that he holds to the 'documentary hypothesis' theory on the origin of the Torah and Deuteronomy. (Ironically, this is probably the only theory in that book that most scholars today will find value in). However, this theory is completely incompatible with the NT, which states emphatically everywhere that Moses actually wrote those books. For the Bible-believing Christian, that alone is enough.

Finally, this continuing talk from you about the efficacy of your arguments and my supposed inferiority remains pointless as long as my rejoinders stand unchallenged. Moreover, it is also possible to show even by your own admission that I am right to deem Deedat and Douglas Reed's work as fatally flawed due to lack of proper contextual appraisal of the Bible verses they used. Do you remember the Nigeriaworld thread you posted here last year?

Assalamu Alaikum,

Fellow forumnites, I was away for sometime in another forum debating other issues with some good and not-so-good commentators. I dig you may want have a feel of what we have been doing even though it may take y take a good chunk out of your time. But then in as much as we have to educate others about things we believe we know, we too have to learn to read. So please here is the link to the debate among others. I even got myself a wifey :o ::) on the process!! The "sabbatical" was a pleasant xperience!!!!

http://nigeriaworld.com/board/viewtopic.php?t=3512

Thanx once again!!!

Waziri

On that Nigeriaworld thread, Ochi Dabari posted a copy-and-paste hack job of verses from the Quran to depict it as a violent book. As Ammar, you countered cleverly by posting the Deuteronomy passage and argued that it discredited the Christian faith as well as Ochi's verses discredited the Quran. Now this what you had to say afterwards about the actual reliability of both your passage and his:

http://nigeriaworld.com/board/viewtopic.php?p=24694#24694
Quote
But that is not the essence of my earlier quotes from the Bible. It was only to show that in as much as we can find references to violence and killings in Qur'an and Bible. That should not mean that those faiths certainly commanded its followers to kill others indiscriminately. And in as much as we can give excuses or interpretation for the existence of them in the Bible we could find some excuses for them in the Qur'an. It is and has never been a oneway thing.

So it goes as Olumoko tried showing that my quotes from the Bible were only restricted to some time in the past and under certain condition so also we must understand that those verses from the Qur'an are also revealed to counter some unique times and conditions in Muslims life, history and traditions.

A close look at all the verses quoted by Ochi and pasted here, will show how some of them started with conjuctions like "And", "Then" and "As". Which means other things or conditions have earlier been laid before those things were said. Also it is clear to every scholar of reason and logic that no one sentence or more sentences picked randomly from a written book, even if it were a novel, could tell the complete story if the process of picking those sentences ignored and disregarded every other thing written in the book. Unfortunately that was what Ochi did. And when I complained he followed by calling me names like 'idiot' and 'stupid', thinking that that is what he needs to cower me down and win the day. In his overt frustration, he glowingly shows tendencies of violence and terrorism right before our eyes, in a larger scale than the claimed 'violent' Ammar. Well, next time when he wants to quote and prove those verses, he may have to quote the whole chapter in order for readers to be able to judge it by its context rather than rely on a flawed scholarship that rests with cut and paste, which is denied in every civilised arena of Intellectual Karate.

And this is how things are with regards to your arguments her until you prove otherwise. Until then,

Peace,
lionger

41
General Board / Re: Ahmadinejad's letter to Bush
« on: April 09, 2008, 03:54:23 PM »
So it turns out that your intuitions about plagiarism were spot on, Cekenah. This probably explains why Waziri hardly made any attempt to rebutt my rejoinders to his posts. They were never his arguments in the first place, and he did not do enough legwork to make them his in any real sense.

These facts also bring into sharp focus Waziri's grand assessment of his Bible knowledge - and my lack thereof. Of course its perfectly acceptable to use the work of other scholars in an 'intellectual discourse'. However, it becomes problematic when we fail to acknowledge those scholars, or even worse, deliberately misrepresent our research methods and sources. This is especially true if we present ourselves as scholars/expert thinkers, as Waziri was disposed to doing. He had ample opportunity to acknowledge Douglas Reed and Ahmed Deedat as his sources, and he should have done so from teh beginning. One would have thought that in the wake of what he considered my 'strong worded opposition' to his Deuteronomy passage, that he would simply have referred me to Reed as the true source. But instead of doing the simple, fortright thing, Waziri resorted to beating his intellectual chest and petulent comments like this:

...I expect people like lionger and Ete to admit on theit shortcomings in issues of knowledge even if it concerns the faith which they profess...at any rate, I really do not think Lionger and Ete, can claim intimate familiarity with the divisions of the Holy Bible as described above not to talk of being able to reason thru' my arguments, and that informed my frustrations.

And after I responded to his rehash of Deedat's writings on the Jews and the promised land concept in the Bible, he said:

But one thing is you cannot deny me the thorough knowledge of what I am doing. You know quite all right that I couldn't have gotten those verses without having laboured thru the scriptures!

Concerning the contextual meaning of those verses, I thing I am now convinced that you are not necessarily knowlegeable in this regard and as such will sudedenly look for an alternative measure.

First of all, Waziri ought to know quite well that plagiarising Ahmed Deedat and Douglas Reed does not, cannot and will never qualify as 'labouring throught the Scriptures,' or as proof of 'intimate familiarity with the Bible,' or as the sort of water-tight analytical methods that he presented in his first response to you:

As for my interpretative methods, I say, for Old Testament, I use;

1.  The contextual history of events and issues referred to in the Bible,
2.  The Bible itself,
3.  Other books used by the Jews like Talmud and Midrash which are believed to carry the interpretations of the Bible .

These I must say are the agreed points of convergence among all serious scholars in the field both religious and not so.

In the case of New Testament, I am forced to use;

1.  The contextual history of events and issues referred to in the Bible,
2.  The Bible itself both New and Old Testament

In the case of the Qur'an, apart from the above mentioned sources I also use;

1.  The contextual history of events and issues referred to in the Qur'an,
2.  The Qur'an itself
3.  The Hadith(preserved saying of the holy Prophet)

And unfortunately this is what I think Lionger has failed to do all thru' cos he always plucks verses from the Bible and claims they must be exactly as he excavated them. 

Moreover, just as it would be disingenous for me to plagiarise anti-Islamic sources on the Internet while mocking Muslims on this forum for not understanding their own Quran, it cannot be right for Waziri to do the same thing with the Bible. The amazing irony of it all is that he previously declared that my self-acknowledged deficient knowledge of Talmud made me inferior to him in this discussion - despite the fact that he himself never quoted substantially from the Talmud. Perhaps I should have declared my own 'intimate familiarity' with the Talmud and supported it with a copy-and-paste hack job from web sources. Would that have been better?

I hope this helps you Cekenah. I have responded to this thread to keep you from what would have been a wild goose chase by your own standards.  Hopefully my case is detailed enough to show that I'm not just throwing wild accusations. Waziri's persistent refusal to offer the kind of sincerity that he required from me - and now from you - by being forthright about his methods is quite disappointing. As you noted on another thread, he is one of the intelligent forumners here. This thread and all the related ones probably depicts him in his worst form. Anyways, over to you!


lionger.

42
General Board / Re: Ahmadinejad's letter to Bush
« on: April 09, 2008, 03:24:39 PM »
More evidence of Waziri's reliance on Deedat:
Many of the quotes of other writers and scholars that Waziri mentioned in the build-up to his feature article and in the article itself also came up in Deedat's book on Arabs and Israel:

Alice F. Smith comment

Waziri:
Before I depart I will leave you with what an American Christian lady, Alice F. Smith, said about the Palestian question way back 1989 in the February 20, edition of time magazine, 1989. Hear her describing the Israelites:

What manner of man would retaliate against a stone throwing child by shooting him in the back as  he ran away? What manner of government would retaliate by fining already poverty striken parents $1,000, demolishing their home, and confiscating heir meager possessions? What manner of people are these arrogant settlers who think they have a God-given right to commit such atrocities and still cry for more? What manner of people are we , that we permit our government to give away billions of the American taxpayers' dolloars to Israel every year, enabling it to continue to subjugate the Palestinians?
Before I do that I will want to remind us first of what an American Christian lady, Alice F. Smith, said about the Palestian question way back 1989 in the February 20, edition of time magazine, 1989. This is how she described Jews and their religion:
What manner of people are these arrogant settlers who think they have a God-given right to commit such atrocities and still cry for more?

Deedat includes a picture of this excerpt from Time magazine in his Arabs and Israel booklet:
http://www.ahmed-deedat.co.za/Books/books/aaicoc/43.html
http://www.themodernreligion.com/jihad/aicc3.html (the first picture on this page)


Leopold Weiss quote

Waziri:
But the truth of the matter lies in the words of Leopold Weiss another Jew, who converted to Islam around 1922 and having seen the evil machinations of the Talmudist in their plans to assume control of the region concluded about the ownership of the place, thus:

“It belongs to all those who mentally approach it with a humility born of faith in the one God, and particularly to those who, in the words of the Qur’an: “Believe in all His messengers making no distinction between any of them.”

Deedat also concludes his Arabs and Israel booklet with the same quotation from Leopold Weiss:

http://www.ahmed-deedat.co.za/Books/books/aaicoc/78.html
http://www.themodernreligion.com/jihad/aicc5.html

Quote
Palestine is there for the taking for those who with faith and humility fulfil their Covenant with God. In the words of Leopold Weiss:-

IT BELONGS TO ALL WHO MENTALLY APPROACH IT WITH A HUMILITY BORN OF FAITH IN THE ONE GOD, AND PARTICULARLY TO THOSE WHO, IN THE WORDS OF THE QUR'AN: "BELIEVE IN ALL HIS MESSENGERS MAKING NO DISTINCTION BETWEEN ANY OF THEM."


The conclusions are obvious: Waziri's article about the promised land concept in the Bible was derived wholesale from Deedat's books, and not the result of Waziri's own Bible research.

This leaves us with the 'phantom' Deuteronomy passage that started the whole discussion. I call this passage 'phantom' because it is actually a collection of verses scattered all over the book. I did a google search on the passage and found it in a rather unsurprising source: in the Appendix of Holocaust denier and alleged anti-Semite Douglas Reed's The Controversy of Zion:

http://knud.eriksen.adr.dk/Controversybook/Appendix.htm
Quote
"And the Lord spake unto me, saying. . . This day will I begin to put the dread of thee and the fear of thee upon the nations that are under the whole heaven, who shall hear report of thee, and shall tremble, and be in anguish because of thee . . . And the Lord commanded me at that time to teach you statutes and judgments, that ye might do them in the land whither ye go over to possess it . . . And because he loved thy fathers, therefore he chose their seed after them. . . to drive out nations from before thee greater and mightier than thou art, to bring thee in, to give thee their land for an inheritance . . . And when the Lord thy God shall deliver them before thee, thou shalt smite them, and utterly destroy them; thou shalt make no covenant with them, nor show mercy unto them; neither shalt thou make marriages with them. . . ye shall destroy their altars and break down their images. . . For thou art an holy people unto the Lord thy God; the Lord thy God hath chosen thee to be a peculiar people unto himself, above all people that are upon the face of the earth . . . And thou shalt consume all the people which the Lord thy God shall deliver thee; thine eye shall have no pity upon them. . . But the Lord thy God shall deliver them unto thee, and shall destroy them with a mighty destruction until they be destroyed . . . He shall deliver their kings into thine hand, and thou shalt destroy their name from under heaven, there shall no man be able to stand before thee, until thou have destroyed them . . . Every place whereon the soles of your feet shall tread shall be yours. . . even unto the uttermost sea shall your coast be . . . Of the cities of these people, which the Lord thy God doth give thee for an inheritance, thou shall save nothing alive that breatheth . . . thou shalt lend unto many nations and thou shalt not borrow . . . Ye shall utterly destroy all the places wherein the nations which ye shall possess served their gods. . ."
Deuteronomy.


Compare with Waziri's Deuteronomy passage on this thread:
"And the Lord spake unto me, saying. . . This day will I begin to put the dread of thee and the fear of thee upon the nations that are under the whole heaven, who shall hear report of thee, and shall tremble, and be in anguish because of thee . . . And the Lord commanded me at that time to teach you statutes and judgments, that ye might do them in the land whither ye go over to possess it . . . And because he loved thy fathers, therefore he chose their seed after them. . . to drive out nations from before thee greater and mightier than thou art, to bring thee in, to give thee their land for an inheritance . . . And when the Lord thy God shall deliver them before thee, thou shalt smite them, and utterly destroy them; thou shalt make no covenant with them, nor show mercy unto them; neither shalt thou make marriages with them. . . ye shall destroy their altars and break down their images. . . For thou art an holy people unto the Lord thy God; the Lord thy God hath chosen thee to be a peculiar people unto himself, above all people that are upon the face of the earth . . . And thou shalt consume all the people which the Lord thy God shall deliver thee; thine eye shall have no pity upon them. . . But the Lord thy God shall deliver them unto thee, and shall destroy them with a mighty destruction until they be destroyed . . . He shall deliver their kings into thine hand, and thou shalt destroy their name from under heaven, there shall no man be able to stand before thee, until thou have destroyed them . . . Every place whereon the soles of your feet shall tread shall be yours. . . even unto the uttermost sea shall your coast be . . . Of the cities of these people, which the Lord thy God doth give thee for an inheritance, thou shall save nothing alive that breatheth . . . thou shalt lend unto many nations and thou shalt not borrow . . . Ye shall utterly destroy all the places wherein the nations which ye shall possess served their gods. . ."

Deuteronomy.


Everything is exact, word for word, letter for letter.

43
General Board / Re: Ahmadinejad's letter to Bush
« on: April 09, 2008, 02:49:00 PM »
Back in February last year I perused through a booklet titled 'Arabs and Israel: Conflict or Conciliation?', written by the famous Muslim scholar Ahmed Deedat. In Chapter 3, in a section titled 'The True Test of Prophecy', Deedat makes an argument against the authenticity of the Biblical claims of a Jewish promised land in Palestine that rang loud bells in my head.

http://www.ahmed-deedat.co.za/Books/aaicoc/27.html
 
Quote
...I (Deedat) said, "God gives us in the Torah a test with which we can ascertain whether a prophecy attributed to Him is actually His Word or not. He says:

And if thou say in thine heart, How shall we know the word which the Lord hath not spoken? When a prophet speaketh in the name of the lord, if the thing follow not, nor come to pass, that is the thing the Lord hath not spoken, but the the Prophet hath spoken it presumptuously: thou shalt not be afraid of him.
Holy Bible (Deuteronomy 18:21-22)

I asked him, "Is this a valid test?" To which he replied, "Yes!" I said, "Then let us apply it to the prophecy!" The Torah says that on the death of Abraham -

And his sons Isaac and Ishmael buried him in the cave.... The field which Abraham purchased of the sons of Heth: there was Abraham buried, and Sarah his wife.
Holy Bible (Genesis 25:9-10)

And further, the Bible testifies about God's unfulfilled "Promises to the patriarch Abraham and the elders of Israel in these words

These all died in faith, not having received the promises, but having seen them afar off..
Holy Bible (Hebrews 11:13)

And can anything be more explicit than these statements from the Holy Writ?
And God said unto him (Abraham), Get thee out of thy country, and from thy kindred, and come into the land which I shall show thee. Then came he out of the land of the Chaldeans, and dwelt in Haran; and from there, when his father was dead, he removed him into this land (Palestine) in which ye now dwell. And he (God) gave him (Abraham) no inheritance in it, NO, NOT SO MUCH AS TO SET HIS FOOT UPON; yet he promised that he would give it to him for a possession, and to his seed after him..... Holy Bible (Acts 7:3-5) [/color]

Compare this passage to the first half of Waziri's post on the thread 'Concerning the claim of a Promised Land for the Jews':

.. we will certainly find the following verse giving the true test of what prophesy is, most instrumental. It reads:

And if thou say in thine heart, How shall we know the word which the Lord hath not spoken? When a prophet speaketh in the name of the lord, if the thing follow not, nor come to pass, that is the thing the Lord hath not spoken, but the the Prophet hath spoken it presumptuously: thou shalt not be afraid of him.

Holy Bible (Deuteronomy 18:21-22)

Building in the submission of lionger in defense of the fraudulent accord we read in the same Bible how Abraham, the so-called, receiver of the promise, died in a land he bought for himself.

And his sons Isaac and Ishmael buried him in the cave....
The field which Abraham purchased of the sons of Heth: there was Abraham buried, and Sarah his wife.

Holy Bible (Genesis 25:9-10)

How possible is it then that he was given a land when he had buy one for his own grave? This is especially true when we see how another verse from the scripture confirmed it this way:

These all died in faith, not having received the promises, but having seen them afar off..

Holy Bible (Hebrews 11:13)

Nothing is most explicit than the account given by Luke in the Acts of the apostles as follows:

And God said unto him (Abraham), Get thee out of thy country, and from thy kindred, and come into the land which I shall show thee. Then came he out of the land of the Chaldeans, and dwelt in Haran; and from there, when his father was dead, he removed him into this land (Palestine) in which ye now dwell. And he (God) gave him (Abraham) no inheritance in it, NO, NOT SO MUCH AS TO SET HIS FOOT UPON; yet he promised that he would give it to him for a possession, and to his seed after him.....
Holy Bible (Acts 7:3-5)

I've used color codings to pinpoint very carefully the striking similarities between Deedat's work and Waziri's. The same verses are used, in the same version (the KJV), and with the same reference style , i.e. Holy Bible (Hebrews 11:13) . Deedat and Waziri highlighted the same phrases and added the same annotations (bracketed terms; they don't exist in the KJV text) to Acts 7:3-5. Moreover, the verses are listed in the same order: Deuteronomy 18:21-22-> Genesis 25:9-10 -> Hebrews 11:13 -> Acts7:3-5. The end result is that apart from the commentary that precedes each verse, everything else is identical, word for word, letter for letter.

The other four Bible verses Waziri used in his post can be found in Chapter 1 of another Deedat publication titled "Muhammed, the natural successor to Christ".

http://jamaat.net/muh-christ/Muh-Christ1.html
Quote
God chooses His Messengers and God chooses His People, In the realm of the Spirit no nation was as favoured as the Jews and yet Moses (pbuh) is made to bewail against his own people -

Ye have been rebellious against the Lord from the day I knew you.
(HOLY BIBLE) Deutronomy 9: 24

In this last will and testament of Moses (pbuh) the Israelites frustrate their "meek and gentle" Messenger who is forced to rail against their continual stubborn resistance and arrogant attitudes to God's guidance -

For I knew thy rebellion, and thy stiff neck: behold, while I am yet alive with you this day, ye have been rebellious against the lord; and how much more after my death?
(HOLY BIBLE) Deutronomy 51:27

Alas how true! I am not going to philosophise on God's choice. But in the very next chapter the fire of God's anger is kindled to a blaze and He decries the Jews -

They have moved me to jealousy with that which is not God; they (the Jews) have provoked me to anger with their vanities: and I will move them to jealousy with those which are Not A People; I will provoke them to anger with a Foolish Nation.[/b](HOLY BIBLE) Deutronomy 32:21
...
...
...

The foregoing is the exact fulfilment of Jesus Christ's (pbuh), (the last of the great Jewish prophets) own prediction of the displacement of the Jewish race in the spiritual guidance of man. In the words of the Master himself -

Therefore I say unto you (Jews), The Kingdom of God shall be taken away from you (Jews), and shall be given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof.
(HOLY BIBLE) Matthew 21: 45


Here's what Waziri said:
No wonder Jesus Christ (AS), the Messiah, liberator of the Jews has never mentioned anything, with emphasis, like the promised land given to the Jews anywhere. But rather he found comfort in telling them the stark truth that the spiritual leadership of Mankind has been taken away from them permanently with his coming, only to be given to another… in his own word:

Therefore I say unto you (Jews), The Kingdom of God shall be taken away from you (Jews), and shall be given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof.

(HOLY BIBLE) Matthew 21: 45

Earlier on Moses(AS) foretold them in this manner as seen in the following verses from our dear Deuteronomy:

Ye have been rebellious against the Lord from the day I knew you.

(HOLY BIBLE) Deutronomy 9: 24

For I knew thy rebellion, and thy stiff neck: behold, while I am yet alive with you this day, ye have been rebellious against the lord; and how much more after my death?
(HOLY BIBLE) Deutronomy 51:27

They have moved me to jealousy with that which is not God; they (the Jews) have provoked me to anger with their vanities: and I will move them to jealousy with those which are Not A People; I will provoke them to anger with a Foolish Nation.

(HOLY BIBLE) Deutronomy 32:21

Once again the similarities are obvious: Same verses from the same Bible version, same annotations , same reference style, same emphasized phrases. Only this time, the verses are not quite in the same order; Waziri puts the Matthew verse first. Now notice that I highlighted 'Deutronomy 51:27' in red. As I said when I first responded to Waziri's post, this is an erroneous citation. That verse is in Chapter 31, not 51. In fact there is no Deuteronomy 51 in the Bible; Deuteronomy has 34 chapters. Moreover, 'Deuteronomy' is constantly mis-spelt 'Deutronomy'. All these errors can also be found in Deedat's book, as shown. On his part, they were most likely copyist/typist errors, but the probability of all those errors appearing identically in Waziri's post is very minute indeed. Thus this is concrete evidence that Waziri got these Bible verses directly from Deedat's booklets, or from a source that copied Deedat - rather than the Bible itself. The erroneous Deuteronomy 51 citation also suggests that Waziri did not look up Deedat's verses in the Bible to check for accurate transmission of content, at least. As such, Waziri's interpretation of the Bible in this article was simply a rehash of Deedat's writings, with little  intellectual input from Waziri himself.

44
General Board / Re: Churches in Saudi Arabia?
« on: April 09, 2008, 01:59:58 PM »
Lionger,

The issue of not allowing non-muslim enter into either Mecca or Medina is something that comes in our holy script. It says that these two cities are sacred and thus no unbeliever should be allowed into them. So...think there is nothing if Saudi govt abide by that.
Actually this is fine by me. My comments about Mecca and Medina were designed to correct gogannaka's and Dan Borno's comment that the absense of Church buildings that made those cities unique. On the contrary, that is actually the norm everywhere in Saudi Arabia, by law.

Quote
And about Vatican, where is it mentioned in your scripts that non-christian shouldn't be allowed into it? Don't know but pls if you do know let us know.

The concept of the Vatican does not exist in the Bible, but that is completely besides the point. My point is that there is no reason why a miniscule town of 800+ Catholic clergymen should be held up to the same standards of religious freedom as a full-fledged nation of 27 million!

Quote
And lastly, I'll, inshaAllah, look for the crudility of what you said on the size and other stuff about Vatican because if thats what you say its then...thanks.
Try Wikipedia. My comments are consistent with the article there on the Vatican.




45
General Board / Re: Ahmadinejad's letter to Bush
« on: April 09, 2008, 02:49:49 AM »
Here we go again...

JJC Cekenah, abi you be my houseboy or wetin? Who authorised you to defend me on this thread? I'll show you proper dispassion... ;D ;D.

Welcome to the forum. I hope you enjoy your time here, even as the days of my proactive participation in this forum seem increasingly numbered. But since you are determined to take on my mantle in this thread, I will chip in with some details that you'd probably like to know; things that I wished I had known back then.

Before now, I wouldn't have thought that there was a point in adding further to this thread, esp. since I became persona non grata to Waziri as a result of it. The renewed discussion already looks doomed; you guys are firing half-warning signals at each other without getting anywhere. With all due respect to my estranged friend, he has not satisfactorily answered your questions about his analytical methods with the Bible, and you obviously are not satisfied with his answer either. I'm not surprised, because I've also found it hard to reconcile his posts with his supposed analytical methods. It doesn't make sense to me either.

Let's take the Old Testament for starters. Waziri includes the Talmud and other rabbinic literature as past of his OT interpretative methods, and accuses me of trying to railroad him into sticking purely with the Bible earlier in this thread. If you actually read that thread, you'll be surprised to find out that, on the contrary, I emphatically pointed out the complete absence of substantive Talmud backing in Waziri's defense of his Deuteronomy passage, and I asked him twice on that thread to provide those details, which he promised to do:

http://kanoonline.com/smf/index.php?topic=2459.msg25200#msg25200
Quote
Quote
It is possible by now you have gotten the gist and why I find problem with your submissions. It makes my job easier actually. Now I can write my article having you in mind also. I will give the interpretations of the verses I quoted from Deutronomy in the light of Talmudic Judaism as they are. In that I am sure you will find alot to learn either.

I remain most grateful and I am sure you have seen the reason why you should not have been frantic and confrontational from the on-set. This goes to ETE also, knowledge is a reality, so also ignorance.

Yes Waziri the bolded part is exactly what you need to do, since you've made it obvious that you're criticising the Talmudic interpretation of the Torah, and not the Torah itself. I really would like to see the Talmudic text that generated or inspired your otherwise non-existent passage of Deuteronomy - since it does not exist as such in the Torah. Is there any rabbinic literature that actually contains and presents your passage, or something similar to it? This is all you need to do to 'win' this argument  :D .

As you can see, I said then that this was all that was needed for the discussion to make progress, or for him to 'win' the argument. However, Waziri returned with yet another set of Bible verses, and dsimissed my subsequent response in much the same manner that he did with my earlier rejoinder to the 'phantom' Deuteronomy passage - without substantially contesting them.

Indeed your question about Waziri's analytical methods with the Bible is a good one. Until it is properly dealt with, this discussion is bound to revolve in circles, if it goes anywhere at all. To this end, I once again enter this discussion. Stay tuned...

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 38

Powered by EzPortal