WAZIRI REALLY IS TIRED!!

[_Waziri_]

Ok, lionger look at it this way.

I said it even very early in response to Husna on this thread that:

Bible and Qur'an are read not on the merit of the textual or contextual meaning of the subject matters they tackle alone but rather side by side the realities of history and the records of how the first receivers of these books interpreted them.

For example, Islam cannot be said to be Qur'an alone, but Hadith and the large work of Usul Fiqh produced by both the scholars of Sunni and Shi'a world. Also judaism, is not Torah, Pentateuch, Prophets, Nebuim and the Books, Kitabim as classified by the Jews but also the oral version of the Torah as interpreted by the priests overtime and known as Midnash and the Talmud.

This means from the onset our reading of the Torah, hence Deutronomy, that took us to such conclusion was based on how we knew the Jews to interprete them not how Christians or Muslims do. And Jews interprete them side by side the oral version of the Torah, which is Talmud.

And if you can still remember you responded to the first part of my statement  in agreement saying:

As regards the Bible, this is true for the most part.

Then how do you suppose that the interpretation of the Torah according to the Christians is the same as according to the Jews? And since you did not know much about how the Jews do it why didn't you ask me instead of confronting me and accusing me of distorting the meaning of the Torah for an unjust end. You see, if you had to confront me in such manner I would have had to tell you how  sure I was that you do not know anything. Then you resort to saying I am condencending. Then I continued saying you are ignorant. Tit for tat. Okay? Or do you suppose I should be lavish and you hoard? :lol:  :lol:  :lol:

Again concerning religion, and this goes to Ete and Mr. David as well. Why is it easy for Muslims to be seen as waging a war or commiting terrorism in the name of Islam, their religion, and yet when others who are not Muslims do the same thing it is said it is not in the name of religion.

Remember lionger, theocracy, is only a label for a state that is being governed by Priests, democracy by popular votes, and monarchy by royal families. But that, notwithstanding, does not mean a democracy cannot have an ideological pot of religion.

That is why we have Islamic Republic of Iran that is a democracy. Saudi Arabia, a monarchy, but rooted in Islamic ideology. American Identity as well its ideological base is always seen in the light  of the abbreviation WASP. That is Western Anglo-Saxon Protestant.

So also Isreal. It may be a democracy but its legitimacy  among its leaders is found in the religion of Judaism, it is governed by the definition of right and wrong in the light of Judaism. Look at what Golda Meir said:

"This country exists as the fulfillment of a promise made by God Himself. It would be ridiculous to ask it to account for its legitimacy." - Golda Meir, Le Monde, 15 October 1971

This invariably means to the Jews, the fight to defend Israel is a fight to defend a state ordained by God of Judaism. This is a religous war. There is no two ways about it.

Back to lionger. Please sentiment aside. Between you and the Glorious God who made me and made you. Have I made enough case above to justify the fact that you should have viewed my submission from the onset to mean Deutronomy in the light of the how the Jews interpreted them? Even if I did not, from the onset, don't you think I have in my first post on this thread. A reference to what you too have agreed?

lionger, it is not my nature to win a debate,  but it is my nature to learn and impart knowledge. Should you agree that I have made my points or not, it wouldn't change my view of you as a good Christian who tries to understand the realities of the world as they are.

I think I have said enough on this subject in preparation of the minds of this forum readers before the article that discusses Jewish world.

[Yoruba Land]

Waziri, you did a very good job here. It turned out that they don't know what they are vehemently opposing you about.

May God greese your elbow or ink your pen, no, soften your keyboard that we may continue to learn from your fountain of knowledge. May Allah bless you. Amen. The living legend!

[lionger]

Then how do you suppose that the interpretation of the Torah according to the Christians is the same as according to the Jews? And since you did not know much about how the Jews do it why didn't you ask me instead of confronting me and accusing me of distorting the meaning of the Torah for an unjust end. You see, if you had to confront me in such manner I would have had to tell you how sure I was that you do not know anything. Then you resort to saying I am condencending. Then I continued saying you are ignorant. Tit for tat. Okay? Or do you suppose I should be lavish and you hoard?...

When did I ever say or imply that the Christian interpretation of the Torah was the same as that of rabbinic judaism? Of course it isn't! Remember my Deuteronomy post, where I concluded that 'at the very least, you were making the same mistake the Jews [of Jesus' time, mind you] made in misunderstanding their Torah?' In hindsight you should have jumped on this statement.  And in any case, I don't really have to be a Talmudic scholar to know that few religious Jews today will stand up and say that hatred of other races is sanctioned by God in their Torah, which happens to be a book that I also consider sacred as a Christian! There was little need to simply ask questions when you based you argument on the Torah which I know well.

You characterise your response to me as 'tit for tat'. Not quite! What else was I supposed to think of your post when based on a 'passage' of Deuteronomy that doesn't exist? Without reference to Talmudic text, without concrete proof that its the Talmud that misrepresents Deuteronomy and turns it into the form of your 'passage', was I just supposed to assume that at the beginning? Why should I keep quiet or simply ask questions because I don't know Talmud, when you based your argument on the Torah and not the Talmud? Until now, knowledge of the Talmud was about as irrelevant as knowledge of the Quran!

Waziri, when you want to show someone clearly that they don't know what they are talking about and that their views are wrong, you don't start a thread saying how 'allergic to reason' they are, or how their tactics constitute a 'gross insult to the intelligence', or how tired you are of them, or how you intend to ignore them in anything they say in the future - all without actually debunking their stance. This is pure disrespect, not the art of logical debate. What you do is debunk their arguments with solid facts. Why did you not just say that I was only presenting the Christian interpretation of Deuteronomy and that the Jews see it differently through the Talmud, whose view you have presented? This is all you needed to do!

Please sentiment aside. Between you and the Glorious God who made me and made you. Have I made enough case above to justify the fact that you should have viewed my submission from the onset to mean Deutronomy in the light of the how the Jews interpreted them? Even if I did not, from the onset, don't you think I have in my first post on this thread. A reference to what you too have agreed?

No, you haven't proved that Jewish interpretation of the Torah through the Talmud should have been assumed from the start, and I have shown this already through my previous post. How can anyone think of Talmudic interpretation of Torah, when you directly appealed to the 'hatred that is explicated on the pages of Deuteronomy'? If you had provided solid Talmudic backing from the beginning, I most definitely would have said very little. But unfortunately this was not the case. Once again, given the serious nature of your charges and the immense disrepute that comes along with it, you should have made this clearer.

I see that you take my Deuteronomy posts as frantic, confrontational, even insulting. Well at the very least this was not intended. But as I said before, I had to respond. Because you did not bring the Talmud into view, no-one would have had it in mind when they read your Deuteronomy 'passage'. And no doubt, some readers would know that Deuteronomy is also in the Christian Bible and thus assume that the charges made concerning Judaism are also true of Christianity. Some might now use the Deuteronomy 'passage' to explain why 'christian' nations like America and the UK are evil and carrying out evil actions against Muslims and nations across the globe, as well as supporting Israel in its evil against Arabs and muslims. Go to the Islamic forum and read EMTL's thread titled 'what the Bible says about apostasy', in which he quotes largely from Deuteronomy, and you will see that my concerns are not far-fetched. This is why I had no choice but to respond decisively to your presentation.

However in this thread you have made it very clear that your target is the Talmud and its interpretation of the Torah. This is fine. As such your argument can no longer be about hatred on the pages of Deuteronomy, but hatred on the pages of the Talmud. I assume, then, that your next article will be centered on the Talmud. Once again I think its important that you present the Talmudic writings that produced that phantom Deuteronomy passage, which can only otherwise be only considered as very poor scholarship of Deuteronomy. Good luck!

[_Waziri_]

However in this thread you have made it very clear that your target is the Talmud and its interpretation of the Torah. This is fine. As such your argument can no longer be about hatred on the pages of Deuteronomy, but hatred on the pages of the Talmud. I assume, then, that your next article will be centered on the Talmud. Once again I think its important that you present the Talmudic writings that produced that phantom Deuteronomy passage, which can only otherwise be only considered as very poor scholarship of Deuteronomy. Good luck!

I expect you to respond to the most important part of my post above that centred the argument but you didn't, I reproduce it here:

I said it even very early in response to Husna on this thread that:

Bible and Qur'an are read not on the merit of the textual or contextual meaning of the subject matters they tackle alone but rather side by side the realities of history and the records of how the first receivers of these books interpreted them.

For example, Islam cannot be said to be Qur'an alone, but Hadith and the large work of Usul Fiqh produced by both the scholars of Sunni and Shi'a world. Also judaism, is not Torah, Pentateuch, Prophets, Nebuim and the Books, Kitabim as classified by the Jews but also the oral version of the Torah as interpreted by the priests overtime and known as Midnash and the Talmud.

This means from the onset our reading of the Torah, hence Deutronomy, that took us to such conclusion was based on how we knew the Jews to interprete them not how Christians or Muslims do. And Jews interprete them side by side the oral version of the Torah, which is Talmud.

And if you can still remember you responded to the first part of my statement  in agreement saying:

As regards the Bible, this is true for the most part.

lionger seems to be missing the point again. It can't be just the Talmud. I still stand on my interpretation of the Torah. or Deutronomy, in the light of the Talmud. Remember the encyclopaedia above called the Talmud, an oral Torah, where you find another Deutronomy that links to the one that is in the Torah. Even the one in the Torah, especially as excerpted by myself in those quotes is completely denied by Jesus. In fact, he never thought Jews are a special people that must conquer orther nations as seen in the Deutronomy which finds most explication in the Talmud. As such don't expect me to come up with something only from the Talmud to make home my points but rather something from the Talmud that justifies the view of the Deutronomy in the light that we have view it.  And ordinarily that is the way it is being done according to Jewish scholars. And anybody with a clear cut knowledge of Judaism woudn't have differed with me on the claims I made.

[_Waziri_]

Salam,

Readers, I am sorry for resurrecting all the relevant threads again to post my earlier response to the first part of the claims lionger and co are puting in relation to the promised land, who also accused me of misreading and misquoting "their" holy scripts in order to serve my purpose of expressing hate against them. Pls I do this for no reason than the following:

1.    To establish within us and them that they have seen our thread and did not respond to what I said because they agreed with our points as such will not bother us again when we make points similar to these in future. It is a settled issue.

2.    That in truth it is not only them that hold the present Bible very dear for it is as dear to us as they believe it is dear to them. That they should never accuse us again of mutiliating the Bible. Yes, we maybe wrong in some of our assertions but they have no right to claim better right of ownership of the scripts than us. Here is it:

Having driven my points in the other thread started by my sister Husna, I will discuss, here, the falsity of the oft repeated claim, that there was an accord between God and the Jews which gave them Palestine permanently and for life, as promised. I will draw from the Biblical sources  through to Qur?an and side by side the insurmountable evidence of history which will portray in grim light that the activities of the Jews in the Middle East is a breach of human dignity, an exercise in avarice and an eccentricity of the highest magnitude in the sight of God. In doing that 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)

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

THE QUR?AN

Having found no any substantial answer as to where the issue for the Promised Land came from in the Bible, only some good references that suggested the whole idea to mean a lie against God, we will turn to the Qur?an, perchance our Jewish brethren can have some legitimate claim in the LAST TESTAMENT of God. Here we find the verses as referred to here, aptly, by my sister Husna. Let?s re-read them together:


20 And (remember) when Moses said unto his people: O my people! Remember Allah's favour unto you, how He placed among you prophets, and He made you kings, and gave you that (which) He gave not to any (other) of (His) creatures.

21 O my people! Go into the holy land which Allah hath ordained for you. Turn not in flight, for surely ye turn back as losers:

22 They said: O Moses! Lo! a giant people (dwell) therein and lo! we go not in till they go forth from thence. When they go forth from thence, then we will enter (not till then).

23 Then out spake two of those who feared (their Lord, men) unto whom Allah had been gracious: Enter in upon them by the gate, for if ye enter by it, lo! ye will be victorious. So put your trust (in Allah) if ye are indeed believers.

24 They said: O Moses! We will never enter (the land) while they are in it. So go thou and thy Lord and fight! We will sit here.

25 He said: My Lord! I have control of none but myself and my brother, so distinguish between us and the wrong-doing folk.

26 (Their Lord) said: For this the land will surely be forbidden them for forty years that they will wander in the earth, bewildered. So grieve not over the wrongdoing folk. (Suratul Ma'ida verses 20 to 26).

Actually, there is no any point in the Qur?an where a contradictory claim, as is above is made, in relation to the story of the Jews and how they lost in the sight of God. As such we can easily conclude that the issue of the Promised Land found much substance only in the Qur?an. But then the truth of the matter as is consistent with every standard Qur?anic exegete, the Jews where given that land in their position then as the chosen people to lead Mankind in all their spiritual journeys in the universe. But as the time went, they proved arrogant and stiff-necked as seen in the accounts given above from the pages of Deuteronomy, by Moses, and Matthews by Jesus. So Allah said in the Qur?an:

O! CHILDREN OF ISRAEL! CALL TO MIND THE SPECIAL FAVOUR WHICH I BESTOWED UPON YOU, AND FULFIL YOUR COVENANT WITH ME AS I FULLFILL MY COVENANT WITH YOU AND FEAR NONE BUT ME.

Holy Qur?an (2:40)

That is to say they have not lived upto the expectations of God in their covenant with Him as such cannot continue to claim their status in His sight as the chosen people.

HISTORICAL REALITIES

From the point of view of history, Jews have never been known to have evolved as Jews, anytime prior to the time they stayed in the ancient Egypt, beginning at the time Joseph (AS) brought all the members of the family there to stay after he ascended a level, in the leadership of the ancient Egypt. Later the whole family was enslaved under the tyrannical administrations of the native Egyptians. Moses came to rescue them with the instructions that they should go and settle newly, in a Promised Land, from which they will give the desired spiritual leadership to mankind. They proved stiff-necked and rebellious until God changed them with the Arabs as the carriers of his message and the spiritual leaders of mankind in Islam under the leadership of Muhammad. But one truth remains like a hanging myth over the reality of human existence. The Jews under Talmudic prompting have never adjusted to the truth that they are no longer the favorites in the sight of God, as such; they attempted to kill Jesus and spent so many resources in bringing down the Prophet of Islam and his message. Palestine as a land that is chosen by God to be the heart of the earth with a great amount of spiritual goodwill was claimed and continued to be claimed by them.

It is a reality of history that since time immemorial, the ideology or nation that controlled the region has always been the nation that led the world in all other spheres of life. Think of Ottaman Empire, France and Britain. They were all world powers only when they were in control of the region, the moment they lost it, the moment their leadership slipped to the new occupiers of the place and Jews since they wanted to continue to lead mankind under a very false claim they kept the grudge touting the idea that its theirs hook or crook. 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.?

I remain most grateful, until I come with my analysis of Jewish worldview in the light of those laws of hate enumerated in the Deuteronomy. Thanks once again.

[lionger]

Click here for my response to your arguments

Readers, I am sorry for resurrecting all the relevant threads again to post my earlier response to the first part of the claims lionger and co are puting in relation to the promised land, who also accused me of misreading and misquoting "their" holy scripts in order to serve my purpose of expressing hate against them. Pls I do this for no reason than the following:

1. To establish within us and them that they have seen our thread and did not respond to what I said because they agreed with our points as such will not bother us again when we make points similar to these in future. It is a settled issue.

2. That in truth it is not only them that hold the present Bible very dear for it is as dear to us as they believe it is dear to them. That they should never accuse us again of mutiliating the Bible. Yes, we maybe wrong in some of our assertions but they have no right to claim better right of ownership of the scripts than us.

Waziri, you've made some rather objectionable and wild statements in this post, but my response is simple: please quote Bible verses in their proper context. It really is not that difficult. Haven't you noticed that I always say the same thing in response to your quotations? Out of context, out of context, out of context, out of context!  This is not good scholarship. Here's a suggestion: before you present another Bible verse on this forum, read the entire chapter surrounding that verse, maybe two chapters. Be sure that you've grasped the context and background of that verse and then go ahead. If you don't, then rest assured that I will once again do your homework for you. If indeed the Bible is dear to you as you claim (which frankly is double-talk since you called it a fraudulent accord previously) then it is not too hard a thing to pay attention to context. From the tragic phantom Deuteronomy passage to this post, contextual respect has been constantly bypassed.  I'm not sure that I'd have enough time for more debate in this in the near future, but I strongly encourage you to read that whole chapter of Hebrews 11 again carefully. As every good scholar knows, context is everything. If you're going to ignore it, then you might as well not read the Bible at all!

[_Waziri_]

lionger,

You can provide the context if u so desire. 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! When you cannot do that you give me the ground in this. You are already looking so much on the defensive and am afraid it is not a very helthy thing for u.

Thanks once again.

[*~MuDa~*]

Which song should i sing?....lemme c...is ist "Hot In Here" by Nelly or "Slow Down" by Bobby V?

Haba u guys are really serious oh, i hope u will keep it strictly arguementative cause i have been sensing some tensions around here and i would not want to see any member getting "Outta Control" ...dats another song by 50cent.

Carry On.