Assalamu Alaikum,
It's been long indeed! These days' exigencies could consume.
Mine is not yet another women bashing topic as is typical of some post you find in the chitchat forum of this board. But an insight into a trend that appears to be consuming even my blood cousins and sisters and which I believe if allowed unchecked could go along way into influencing the mind of many among our future daughters.
Sometime back I noticed one of our friends here reasoning that women are most shy since they cannot display their nakedness as men do. I really was wondering if that could be a measure of shyness when I realise the need for us look at modern fashion and the image it reflects of womanhood. Perhaps I see it a problem because I spend almost 14 hours of my day always in University environment like ABU with a diverse population of about 35 thousand students from all parts of the country. But even then, that trend in fashion is one which we can see coming into many of our homes and affecting the mindset of our people seriously.
I really wonder what informs the conception of our new generation of students on fashion and dressing. I everyday see women increasingly dressing half naked in the name of fashion. The latest are the series of clothes in the name of show me "your breast". Woman will dress with almost half of her breast exposed. One would wonder as to what is it she wants? Why the desperation? What informs her feeling of self-respect and worth? What are her values? What does she want to achieve in life?
Many a times you see them not only with skimpy dresses but also very thinly knitted shirts, at times black with white brazier as an outline or white with black brazier as an outline. They stand in front of you; they start emphasizing their womanness at the expense of humanness.
I was in my early twenties few years back when I was managing the busiest place in the Campus. We had to enact rules that we would not be attending any lady that feels she is a woman not a human being. We sometimes had to boldly tell them to come close to us only when they feel they are human beings not women. I asked one lady the other time: is there no way you can feel important enough but by dressing this wise? You can get your feeling of importance by being intelligent, humorous or by even being interested in bashing men just like that.
Where does lie their pride? Most disheartening of this is when you see the increasing number of our women who join the trend everyday. More of the discontent is when you see some parents encouraging their children into it by chastising them not. Just this morning I jokingly (not directly) told one of my elderly students that I can never ever marry her daughter who does not have any idea of achieving self worth apart from showcasing her body.
Well you too could say I was hard and harsh but people must just learn to understand that theirs is conscience, conscience, conscience every time. Though I wish I could say other wise.
Quote from: "_Waziri_"Assalamu Alaikum,
Many a times you see them not only with skimpy dresses but also very thinly knitted shirts, at times black with white brazier as an outline or white with black brazier as an outline. They stand in front of you; they start emphasizing their womanness at the expense of humanness.
[/color]
Assalamu alaikum,
It is really pathetic how morality is degenerating in our campuses. Yes some of the dresses are terrible but one there abound still some decent-looking sisters and brothers.
The Muslim woman should not wear transparent or indecent clothes. Malik [RL] reports that Abu Huraira (RA) said, " Women who are naked even though (they) are wearing clothes, go astray and make others to go astray, and they will not enter the Garden (Al-Jannah) or even smell its scent, which can be perceived at a distance covered by five hundred years journey." The above hadith is referring to, for instance, transparent or tight fitting dress.
The men some times also dress terribly, not to mention the kuffar-like hair style. It is our duty to admonish our friends, class-mates and isisters/brothers.
Allah (SWT) Ya shiryar da mu, kannenmu, matanmu da 'yayanmu.
I think we should find a way of having dress codes in our institutions of higher learning as well as the work place. It may sound too prescriptive but we must ask our selves what kind of environment we want to live in and what type we want our to children grow up. We must try and respect each other and be africans
Salam
Nice toipic waziri and I dare add, If you may say otherwise then do so by all means. ABU is particularly bad in this respect. The ABU students tell us, BUK students that our is an Islamiyya because of the comparative decency prevalent on campus. I guess that should make us, Kanawa and Bukites (and ex Bukites) proud.
This issue is a serious one indeed. We all have heard of instances where Lecturers were lured into unspeakable circumstances with theses women of easy virtue. What makes this all the more worrysome is the fact that no punitive measures can be taken against them- legally atleast. It should be noted that their behavior is a morally abhorrent one not illegal- and as any student of law or philosophy would know, morality CANNOT be codified as a statute.
So, the best way to deter this behavior is by making it clear to these folks that what they are doing is wrong. Anything beyond this like banning someone from class or suspension from school will be unconstitutional.
We just hope it ends the way it started. That is, from the Girls themselves.
myadudu
I believe this is an issue that does disturb a great majority of nigerians irrespective of religion or tribe.
QuoteWe all have heard of instances where Lecturers were lured into unspeakable circumstances with theses women of easy virtue
I think every person is responsible for his/her action the lecturer who is lured by a student and goes ahead and indulges in disrespectful acts is as guilty as the student. Let us be fair on the matter because such a lecturer is also of very questionable character as the student. I get the feeling also you are assuming that the only perparators are female students and male lecturers what of the female lecturers and male students? or is it because we do not have enough data on them?
QuoteSo, the best way to deter this behavior is by making it clear to these folks that what they are doing is wrong. Anything beyond this like banning someone from class or suspension from school will be unconstitutional.
So how can it be made clear that what they are doing is wrong? Is sending a student out of class or suspension not a deterance? What is unconstitutional with a people defining how they want to live without infringing on the rights of others? There are several organisations around the world even in the USA that have dress codes, some establishments also require specific dress codes before they are entered and this does not infringe on constitutional rights, so why can't the NUC or universities in Nigeria develope dress codes for staff and students? I think that it may be the way to attack this suggestive type of dressing we see in our campuses. We must remember that on this issue the present and future generation of nigeria are at risk of not knowing themselves and losing their morality. The future of nigeria seriously depends on us taking a stand on this matter today
Dress code is one of the things Shariah is introducing but
our christian freinds are not willing to cooperate?
That is true Barde. A good number of Christians feel something is being imposed on them by that action.
Waziri and Barde,
What are you both dragging Christianity into this for? Stop confusing issues and make a correct judgement. You know very well that enforcement of moderate dress sense is hardly the only thing Sharia is supposed to do, and I do not need to explain to you two again why Christians (or anyone for that matter) should bluntly reject this masquerade for the continued relevance of a corrupt political elite and the continued exploitation of the helpless northern masses. Infact, Barde, your very statement itself is enough an indictment of Sharia as you would like it. I won't say any more on the subject. I honestly wonder what percentage of the students in ABU, BUK are Christian.
That said, the degeneration of our moral values is something to be taken seriously. However, I would like to hear what the women on this forum have to say on this, because frankly it is silly for a bunch of men to sit around discussing the promiscuity of women's dressing and the approriate steps to curb it w/out adequate female imput. That's why I have held my peace. It will keep us in check and stop us from going overboard and becoming overbearing. Waziri, this is what I'm talking about:
Quote
..we would not be attending any lady that feels she is a woman not a human being. We sometimes had to boldly tell them to come close to us only when they feel they are human beings not women.
Waziri, she is a woman, not just a human being. And as such should be able to express her feminity
moderately. That's what you meant, right? :D [/b]
Lionger,
Get me right, i did not say Sharia is only introducing dress code. Mallamt suggested that a dress code be introduced that was why i made my statement. That remainds me of an Institution in Bauchi state, the management introduced a kind of dress code for both male and female students but the Christians refused to abide by it, to the extent that the local branch of the Christian Association of Nigeria(CAN) took up the matter to Court. I wonder if they have forgotten what 1st Corianthians chapter 11 Verses 6 and 10 are saying. In view of the above fact, i want you to please tell me, how will i not drag Christianity whenever an issue of a decent dress code is been discussed?
Quote from: "Barde"Lionger,
Get me right, i did not say Sharia is only introducing dress code. Mallamt suggested that a dress code be introduced that was why i made my statement. That remainds me of an Institution in Bauchi state, the management introduced a kind of dress code for both male and female students but the Christians refused to abide by it, to the extent that the local branch of the Christian Association of Nigeria(CAN) took up the matter to Court. I wonder if they have forgotten what 1st Corianthians chapter 11 Verses 6 and 10 are saying. In view of the above fact, i want you to please tell me, how will i not drag Christianity whenever an issue of a decent dress code is been discussed?
Barde
You are a very dangerous venom! Indeed I made suggestion of a dress code but as lionger commented I do not see why you start by an attack on christians what have they done to you? Naturally you must understand that you can not develope a dress code based on only one religion if indeed you want a dress code and peace in your society. Now that is the problem of the attempts made so far in developing dress codes. The codes are being drawn based on islamic rules and the interpretation by muslims of what other religions (in particular christianity) say about dressing. Now is that fair and right? The university of lagos is probably the first university in recent times to take the matter seriously. The senate called for the development of a dress code and parents were brought into the matter, a meeting called for between parents and university authorities. I am not sure how far the coding of dressing has gone in unilag nor how far the implemetation has gone, but what I know a number of other southern universities followed suite on the dress code issue. As of today I am not aware of any northern university that has visited the codifying of dressing on campus.
Lionger/mallamt,
Am so sorry, what i considered a decent dress code might not be same as what you considered a decent dress code. But all what i know is that during the life time of Jesus christ, women were always covering themselves in respective of where they are. But am so suprised that christians who are supposed to be christ-like are now referring to such a dress code as a 'masquerate'. No wonder we see them dancing half naked in churches.
I want you to please tell us the way a born-again christian supposed to dress. How would you see any northern university introducing a dress code when they been threatened with a court case? and Thanx for the name you gave me.
Quote from: "lionger"Waziri and Barde,
What are you both dragging Christianity into this for? Stop confusing issues and make a correct judgement.
It is not myself and ofcourse not Barde who dragged Christianity into it but it is lionger doing it now.
What Barde and myself submitted is nothing more than the fact that our Christians friends see an attempt to come up with a dress code to mean an imposition with the view of Islamazing them. And you will agree with me that this does not mean Christianity, because orthodox Christiianity is not necessarily what Christians in our environment see and practice.
If women on this board want to partake in this discourse let them come in. They are highly welcome. If they feel like not participating, fine. It is not silly of us to continue discussing. What is right doesn't have to wait for a voice of a woman or even that of a particular section of men before it prevails. What is right does not necessarily come in votes and samples.
Finally, it is my conviction that a moderate dress code with a minimum specific area it should cover and based on what orthodox christiniaty prescribes for the Christians can be achieved for Christians. This is what our Shari'a governments among other things are seeking to establish. We only do not want see women going about half naked.
Lionger is right by observing that dresscode should not be the major occupation of Shari'a. But I submit here that dress code has never been the major occupation of Shari'a. The Shari'a governments have never made it there only occupation. They only pursue it as a part not the main.
Barde,
Of course I know what Sharia is about, abi u have forgotten who I am? :lol: I was simply responding to this post of yours:
QuoteDress code is one of the things Shariah is introducing but
our christian freinds are not willing to cooperate?
Listen, and listen well: It is not a matter of our rejection of a dress code, it is a matter of our rejection of Sharia itself! Christians are not opposed to appropriate dressing; we are opposed to SHARIA! Barde, if indeed I was referring to the dress code as a 'masquerade', then what on earth was I talking about in the second paragraph? Surely you can see the difference.
I would like you and Waziri to consider the propriety of mentioning Sharia and accusing christianity, in a discussion on appropriate dressing in our
university campuses. When did our tertiary insitutions become religious domains? Waziri, why would you imagine that Sharia's dress code would be appropriate or even acceptable in a place like ABU, 'with a diverse population of about 35 thousand students from all parts of the country'? This not an Islamic shool; this is a public institution. As such I submit to you that neither Sharia nor Christianity should ever dominate such a discussion. Afterall, we have dress codes in workplaces and even restaurants all over the world; thanks to religion? I repeat, we should stop confusing issues and make a correct judgement.
And btw, Barde, let me state for the record, that Christians are very much in favor of appropriate dressing. However, Christ did not leave us a dress code, but He did leave us two commandments: to love God with all our heart and strength, and to love one another. That, my friend is enough in this respect, believe it or not!
You did not adress my points lionger, this is what I said:
Quote from: "_Waziri_"Quote from: "lionger"Waziri and Barde,
What are you both dragging Christianity into this for? Stop confusing issues and make a correct judgement.
It is not myself and ofcourse not Barde who dragged Christianity into it but it is lionger doing it now.
What Barde and myself submitted is nothing more than the fact that our Christians friends see an attempt to come up with a dress code to mean an imposition with the view of Islamazing them. And you will agree with me that this does not mean Christianity, because orthodox Christiianity is not necessarily what Christians in our environment see and practice.
If women on this board want to partake in this discourse let them come in. They are highly welcome. If they feel like not participating, fine. It is not silly of us to continue discussing. What is right doesn't have to wait for a voice of a woman or even that of a particular section of men before it prevails. What is right does not necessarily come in votes and samples.
Finally, it is my conviction that a moderate dress code with a minimum specific area it should cover and based on what orthodox christiniaty prescribes for the Christians can be achieved for Christians. This is what our Shari'a governments among other things are seeking to establish. We only do not want see women going about half naked.
Lionger is right by observing that dresscode should not be the major occupation of Shari'a. But I submit here that dress code has never been the major occupation of Shari'a. The Shari'a governments have never made it there only occupation. They only pursue it as a part not the main.
All right, Waziri:
Quote
It is not myself and ofcourse not Barde who dragged Christianity into it but it is lionger doing it now.
What Barde and myself submitted is nothing more than the fact that our Christians friends see an attempt to come up with a dress code to mean an imposition with the view of Islamazing them. And you will agree with me that this does not mean Christianity, because orthodox Christiianity is not necessarily what Christians in our environment see and practice.
This simply aint true. Like I said to Barde, Christians are certainly concerned about approriate dressing. Our standards may not be as 'lofty' as yours, and frankly that doesn't make your standards so right either! But when you start saying things like 'this is one one of the things Sharia brings', don't be surprised if we back off, cuz we are not fools. I hope you have not concluded that all those girls runnign around in skimpy clothing are Christians - well some of them are, but i'm sure there are a couple of muslims and plenty of 'secular' ppl among them! I'm not sure what you mean by 'othodox Christianity', but by the grace God has given me, I follow Christ.
QuoteIf women on this board want to partake in this discourse let them come in. They are highly welcome. If they feel like not participating, fine. It is not silly of us to continue discussing. What is right doesn't have to wait for a voice of a woman or even that of a particular section of men before it prevails. What is right does not necessarily come in votes and samples.
You would see thigns differently had u not put your religious stamp on the matter. Because unfortunately you do need the woman's input, even on something you feel is right. It is true that what is right does not need the approval of a woman's voice, but the right thing done the wrong way is ultimately the wrong thing. I guess this is where our faiths clash quite unreconciliably.
Quote
Finally, it is my conviction that a moderate dress code with a minimum specific area it should cover and based on what orthodox christiniaty prescribes for the Christians can be achieved for Christians. This is what our Shari'a governments among other things are seeking to establish. We only do not want see women going about half naked.
Lol what do you think 'orthodox christianity' prescribes? Read what I said to Barde on this subject. We don't want to see women going about half-naked either
QuoteLionger is right by observing that dresscode should not be the major occupation of Shari'a. But I submit here that dress code has never been the major occupation of Shari'a. The Shari'a governments have never made it there only occupation. They only pursue it as a part not the main.
I never suggested that the Sharia should not be pre-occupied with dress codes, infact i agree with what you've said in this sense. Like I've always said, Northern Nigeria's Sharia simpy exists for division and for the continued survival of those corrupt politicians.
Lionger,
One Fundamental fact is that all what sharia is saying can be found in the Bible, infact jesus is been quoted given such admonitions but you guys (Christians) decided to abondoned all the teachings of Jesus for st Paul's teachings who systematically cancelled the laws. In his letter to the Romans, Chapter 7:6, he stated,
"BUT NOW WE ARE DISCHARGED FROM THE LAW, DEAD TO THAT WHICH HELD US CAPTIVE, SO THAT WE SERVE NOT UNDER THE OLD WRITTEN CODE BUT IN THE NEW LIFE OF SPIRIT". Emphasis mine. What laws are christians discharged from?
For clearity i have to state where Jesus is quoted in Mathew 5:18.
"THINK NOT THAT I HAVE COME TO ABOLISH THE LAW OF MOSES OR THE WRITINGS OF THE PROPHETS. NO I CAME TO FULFILL THEM".Emphasis mine.
Again this is what Allah (SWT) is telling us in Qur 5:46.
"AND IN THEIR FOOTSTEPS, I SENT JESUS, SON OF MARY, CONFIRMING THE TORAH THAT HAD COME BEFORE HIM, AND I GAVE HIM THE GOSPEL, IN WHICH WAS GUIDANCE AND LIGHT AND CONFIRMATION OF THE TORAH THAT HAD COME BEFORE IT". emphasis mine.
How come Jesus is talking about Fulfilling the law while Paul is talking about abolishing the law yet you want us to believe that Christians do not leave under any law and are christ-like? Who is talking about abolishing the law, Paul or Jesus? It will be more appropriate if i put it to you that christians are Paul-like, not Jesus-like, since the former does not believed in any law. Micheal H. Hart (a christian) stated in his book "The 100".
"Although Jesus was responsible for the main ethical and moral precepts of christianity, st paul was the main developer of christian theology, its principal proselytizer, and the author of a large portion of the new testament". This clearly indicates that what you are practicing is not the true teachings of Jesus Christ but Paul, hence you are Paul-like not Jesus-like. We would have been more peaceful if christians will start implementing the true teachings of Jesus Christ.
I might be misinterpreting the verses cose of my little knowledge of English grammer, i will be pleased if any one can clarify what Jesus is saying and that of st Paul (from the above verses) or are the words similar? (Fufilment and Abolishment).
Quote from: "Barde"Lionger/mallamt,
Am so sorry, what i considered a decent dress code might not be same as what you considered a decent dress code. But all what i know is that during the life time of Jesus christ, women were always covering themselves in respective of where they are. But am so suprised that christians who are supposed to be christ-like are now referring to such a dress code as a 'masquerate'. No wonder we see them dancing half naked in churches.
I want you to please tell us the way a born-again christian supposed to dress. How would you see any northern university introducing a dress code when they been threatened with a court case? and Thanx for the name you gave me.
Barde
I don't know if your poblem is language or mere ignorance. When you talk of women dressing during the time of either Christ or Mohammed please be more specific about which women because it was not all women as in some other parts of the world people (women inclusive) wore leaves or even walked around naked! In christianity you do not have to dress like an arab or jew to be considered as having dressed decently please take note. So all you name calling and insult of christainity holds no water.
Quote from: "Barde"Lionger,
One good thing is that all what sharia is clamouring for is there in the Bible, infact jesus is been quoted given such admonitions but you guys (Christians) decided to abondoned all the teachings of Jesus for st Paul's teachings who systematically cancelled the laws. In his letter to the Romans, Chapter 7:6, he stated,
"BUT NOW WE ARE DISCHARGED FROM THE LAW, DEAD TO THAT WHICH HELD US CAPTIVE, SO THAT WE SERVE NOT UNDER THE OLD WRITTEN CODE BUT IN THE NEW LIFE OF SPIRIT". Emphasis mine. Which of the laws are christians discharged from?
For clearity i have to state where Jesus is quoted in Mathew 5:18.
THINK NOT THAT I HAVE COME TO ABOLISH THE LAW OF MOSES OR THE WRITINGS OF THE PROPHETS. NO I CAME TO FULFILL THEM".Emphasis mine..........
.....I might be misinterpreting the verses cose of my little knowledge of English language, i will be pleased if any one can clarify what Jesus is saying and the one of st Paul? (from the above verses).
Barde
It is precisely because of people like you that christians get scared when the matter of dress code is brought up, here you are trying to interprete to christains what you yourself doesn't know! and you are presenting it as the correct interpretation.
I have once before told you to always search for context please. Read and cross reference Roman 7:6 with the following if you really want to understand it (or else stop your blasphemy) Rom 6:1&15, Rom 8:4, Rom3:31.
Barde
I just thought I should explain properly Rom 7:6 and Mat 5:18 to the best of my ability
Rom 7:6
..DELIVERED (DISCHARED) FROM LAW...not freedom to do what God's law forbids(see Rom 6:1&15; Rom8:4; and Rom3:31), but freedom from spiritual liabilities and penalties of God's law (In response to faith in Christ, God makes the believing sinner forever dead to the condemnation and penalty of the law) Because believers died in Christ when He died the law with its condemnation and penalties no longer has jurisdiction over believers.
...SERVE... this a verb from the word "bondservant", but here it is parallel to being slaves of rightouesness (see Rom 6:22) emphasizing this service is not voluntary. Not only is the believer able to do what is right, he will do what is right.
.....THE NEWNESS OF THE SPIRIT (NEW LIFE OF SPIRIT)...A new state of mind which the spirit produces, characterised by a new desire and ability to keep the law of God (see Rom 8:4)
....OLDNESS OF THE LETTER (WRITTEN CODE)...the external, written law code that produced hostility and condemnation
MAT 5:18 (I noticed you have erred and qouted verse 17 as verse 18)
....TILL HEAVEN AND EARTH PASS AWAY...TILL ALL IS FULFILLED...here Christ was emphasizing both the inspiration and the enduring authority of all scripture. He was specifically affirming the utter inerrancy and absolute authority of the old testament as the word of God-down to the least jot and tittle. (see verse 17), this tells us that the new testament is not supplanting and abrogating the old testament but fulfilling and explicating it.
Mallamt,
Does Fulfilment and abolishment means the same? Just help me with the literal meaning of these words after that you tell us the laws that Jesus came to Fulfilled.
Haba lionger,
I expect you to say the truth whenever you put forward a claim that what I say is not true in some way. But I did not see you trying to do that the way I know you before. Anyway that is not the issue.
Actually Shari a in this sees our Christians neighbours as people who can help in coming up with a dress code. And this however does not say the Christians must dress exactly the way Muslims dress. In fact in the social laws of Islam, in Islamic states, non Muslims are required to dress differently from Muslims that they may be recognized.
Therefore what we want is for our Christian friends to understand that when we say dress code we don't mean Islamizing them. We mean they should come together with us and look at an appropriate yardstick as expressed in their scriptures too that we can have something minimum for them and minimum for us.
Another thing is how do we come about doing the right thing in a wrong way here? Remember nobody is restricting any woman from commenting around here. The point is if she commented and made sense she is considered. If she comment not, it will not stop us from reaching a conclusion.
Finally when you say something like this:
QuoteLike I've always said, Northern Nigeria's Sharia simpy exists for division and for the continued survival of those corrupt politicians.
I will only dismiss that as only your opinion with some parochial tendencies. It is a conclusion without premise. A sweeping statement. For instances must be cited first before such a statement can assume credibility even in a court of law.
Barde,
E bi like say u no remember my name anymore..have u forgotten the long argument we had on this sharia issue?? This is not the place to restart this discussion o!
Waziri,
Actually I have no beef with most of what you've said in ur latest post, not even with ur statement thatmy opinions on Northern Nigeria's sharia are biased, lol. I believe i've said plenty to support my statement much earlier on this forum. I don't think the discussion on this thread should go in that direction.
Quote from: "Barde"Mallamt,
Does Fulfilment and abolishment means the same? Just help me with the literal meaning of these words after that you tell us the laws that Jesus came to Fulfilled.
Barde
Firstly, what is your point about the sameness in meaning between fulfilment and abolishment? Secondly this is not the right thread to bring the discussion you are trying to, if you want to discuss/debate this matter or similar please start a new thread on it, take this as an advice if not take it as a challenge. Let this response of mine on this subject be the last one in this thread and you start a new thread on the subject.
FULFILMENT:1 to carry out (something promised, desired, expected, predicted, etc.); cause to be or happen
2 to do (something required); obey
3 to fill the requirements of; satisfy (a condition) or answer (a purpose)
4 to bring to an end; complete:
ABOLISHMENT:to do away with completely; put an end to; esp., to make (a law, etc.) null and void
As I have told you on several occassions since you have a bible please read it carefuly. In what context and on what occassion was Jesus speaking when He uttered the phrase I have come to fulfil them? This is a qoute from you (you actually indicated you were qouting the bible)
QuoteFor clearity i have to state where Jesus is quoted in Mathew 5:18.
THINK NOT THAT I HAVE COME TO ABOLISH THE LAW OF MOSES OR THE WRITINGS OF THE PROPHETS. NO I CAME TO FULFILL THEM".Emphasis mine..........
So you tell me even from your own qoute what laws Jesus was talking about. Now also do you know the laws that are refered to as the laws of Moses? I am sure you can now see the answer to your question from your own posting (please read your postings or you will embarasse yourself)
I also noted you have not actually said what verse you are qouting or if you erred in you qouting the bible. You qouted Mat 5:17 and refered to it as Mat 5:18 can you please give an indication of what verse you are actually refering to.
Quote from: "mallamt"Barde
I just thought I should explain properly Rom 7:6 and Mat 5:18 to the best of my ability
Rom 7:6
..DELIVERED (DISCHARED) FROM LAW...not freedom to do what God's law forbids(see Rom 6:1&15; Rom8:4; and Rom3:31), but freedom from spiritual liabilities and penalties of God's law (In response to faith in Christ, God makes the believing sinner forever dead to the condemnation and penalty of the law) Because believers died in Christ when He died the law with its condemnation and penalties no longer has jurisdiction over believers.
...SERVE... this a verb from the word "bondservant", but here it is parallel to being slaves of rightouesness (see Rom 6:22) emphasizing this service is not voluntary. Not only is the believer able to do what is right, he will do what is right.
.....THE NEWNESS OF THE SPIRIT (NEW LIFE OF SPIRIT)...A new state of mind which the spirit produces, characterised by a new desire and ability to keep the law of God (see Rom 8:4)
....OLDNESS OF THE LETTER (WRITTEN CODE)...the external, written law code that produced hostility and condemnation
Mallamt,
I have not got to read what you wrote untill now. So the law existed during his life time, until after his dead. No wonder some christians will tell you that "the law is nailed to the cross" meaning the law is done away with."We are now living under grace".
Quote from: "mallamt"Quote from: "Barde"Mallamt,
Does Fulfilment and abolishment means the same? Just help me with the literal meaning of these words after that you tell us the laws that Jesus came to Fulfilled.
Barde
Firstly, what is your point about the sameness in meaning between fulfilment and abolishment? Secondly this is not the right thread to bring the discussion you are trying to, if you want to discuss/debate this matter or similar please start a new thread on it, take this as an advice if not take it as a challenge. Let this response of mine on this subject be the last one in this thread and you start a new thread on the subject.
FULFILMENT:1 to carry out (something promised, desired, expected, predicted, etc.); cause to be or happen
2 to do (something required); obey
3 to fill the requirements of; satisfy (a condition) or answer (a purpose)
4 to bring to an end; complete:
ABOLISHMENT:to do away with completely; put an end to; esp., to make (a law, etc.) null and void
As I have told you on several occassions since you have a bible please read it carefuly. In what context and on what occassion was Jesus speaking when He uttered the phrase I have come to fulfil them? This is a qoute from you (you actually indicated you were qouting the bible)QuoteFor clearity i have to state where Jesus is quoted in Mathew 5:18.
THINK NOT THAT I HAVE COME TO ABOLISH THE LAW OF MOSES OR THE WRITINGS OF THE PROPHETS. NO I CAME TO FULFILL THEM".Emphasis mine..........
So you tell me even from your own qoute what laws Jesus was talking about. Now also do you know the laws that are refered to as the laws of Moses? I am sure you can now see the answer to your question from your own posting (please read your postings or you will embarasse yourself)
I also noted you have not actually said what verse you are qouting or if you erred in you qouting the bible. You qouted Mat 5:17 and refered to it as Mat 5:18 can you please give an indication of what verse you are actually refering to.
Mallamt,
I Mistakenly quoted verse 18 instead of 17 as you rightly said. Bear with me, am still learning.
Thank you for giving us the definations but you have not given us the laws, all the same, one thing has been established, that the two words are not the same. Am i right to say Jesus and st Paul are not saying the same thing? since Jesus is talking about Fulfilling the law while Paul is talking about Abolishing Law. So christians decided to stick to what St paul is saying and still want us to believe they Christ-like?
Lionger,
Am sorry for answering you within Mallamt's quote.
Who do you think you are? what did you think you achieved in that our debate? you only succeded in disputing what your "holy book" is saying. See you in my next thread: The true message of Jesus christ. Which is coming as soon as possible inshaAllah.
Quote from: "lionger"
Waziri,
Actually I have no beef with most of what you've said in ur latest post, not even with ur statement thatmy opinions on Northern Nigeria's sharia are biased, lol. I believe i've said plenty to support my statement much earlier on this forum. I don't think the discussion on this thread should go in that direction.
Yes lionger you have said much to support your statements then, which the good people of this forum who found your arguments worth responding to, responded with fine counter arguments. But much water has passed under the bridge since it first saw the light of the day. Your arguments are now years old. They are over taken by events. I suppose you will try supporting your arguments now with new realities according to the present circumstance.
Barde,
The title of that your new thread is a captivating one. I believe we will all find reason to learn from it. I hope we will go about it with some measure of caution. We check our wordings. We seek not to offend or humiliate our opponents and we appeal more to the reason of our readers.
I remain most grateful.
Barde,
So you weren't really listening to me, were you? No wonder you speak as though I never heard of "Sharia in the Bible" theory b4. Some of the questions you asked mallamt, you asked me, adn subsequently some of the things mallamt is saying, I've said to you before. Are you so hard of hearing? Since you obviously did not remember then, why would you remember now or in any other subsequent debate? Or are you simply interested in the joy of revealing your 'vast learning' lol. Well then clap for yourself, however, a little word of warning. Though I 'study to show myself approved unto God' (II Tim. 2:15), but I'm not necessarily interested in 'proving' myself. My duty is to testify to the Truth, and if the good Lord does not open our eyes, we will never see it. May He continue to show us His mercy! See you on that thread.
Waziri,
Honestly speaking, what are the new realities under which my position on Sharia should be revised? Honest question, don't take this for mockery :)
Quote from: "Barde"Mallamt,
I Mistakenly quoted verse 18 instead of 17 as you rightly said. Bear with me, am still learning.
Thank you for giving us the definations but you have not given us the laws, all the same, one thing has been established, that the two words are not the same. Am i right to say Jesus and st Paul are not saying the same thing? since Jesus is talking about Fulfilling the law while Paul is talking about Abolishing Law. So christians decided to stick to what St paul is saying and still want us to believe they Christ-like?
Once again you start with a long irrelevant qoute is this a strategy? What do you mean I did not give you the laws? Did you expect me to write it? Well you have a bible please use it go to Exodus 20:2-17. These are the laws commonly refered to the laws of Moses.
Yes you are right, Jesus and Paul were not saying the same thing and I am suprised it took you this long to see that, the context both of them were speaking in were completely different. You should read the whole of Romans and try to get the context Paul was righting in then also try and read the whole of Mathew to get the context Christ was talking in. Your statements are obviously out of ignorance and a half baked knowledge. I hope you also note that you are qouting from two different books (Roman and Mathew) is their any reason why you are not giving us the context these two books were written? (when we talk about books we are refering to Genesis, Exudos etc) Who was writing or speaking, who were they writting or talking to? what was the occassion, why were they writting or speaking, where were they, what was happening where they were? etc
I look forward to your thread and hope this is the last time we (you and I) hijack threads for our own discussions irrelevant to the thread.
Waziri,
Thank you very much for the advice. What am
going to write is nothing but the truth. Jazakumullahu khayran.
Lionger,
I want to you to understand some few things about me, am not learned that is why you see alot of mistakes in my write-ups, secondly am not doing anything for show-off, is just that i have a responsibility of telling you the truth. It is upto you to either take it or refuse it.
Mallamt,
Had it been you gave us the laws the way you defined Fulfillment and Abolishment, we wouldn't have been prolonging this issue, i want you to say everything yourself, (i mean the laws that kept the Romans captive). Don't give the impression that Jesus and Paul were speaking on different context, Mathew quoted Jesus on why he came to this earth and Paul in his letter to the Romans contradicted Jesus on the same issue. They were all talking about the law...besides, Paul as Jesus disciple is not supposed to contradict the sayings of Jesus in whatever context.
Quote from: "Barde"
Mallamt,
Had it been you gave us the laws the way you defined Fulfillment and Abolishment, we wouldn't have been prolonging this issue, i want you to say everything yourself, (i mean the laws that kept the Romans captive). Don't give the impression that Jesus and Paul were speaking on different context, Mathew quoted Jesus on why he came to this earth and Paul in his letter to the Romans contradicted Jesus on the same issue. They were all talking about the law...besides, Paul as Jesus disciple is not supposed to contradict the sayings of Jesus in whatever context.
Barde
Welcome back, I must say it is truly nice to have you back. I will NOT respond to what you are saying until you start a new thread on the subject matter then I will respond. You must take care and please I shall be waiting for that thread. By the way what do you mean you are not learned?
Quote from: "mallamt"Quote from: "Barde"
Mallamt,
Barde
Welcome back, I must say it is truly nice to have you back. I will NOT respond to what you are saying until you start a new thread on the subject matter then I will respond. You must take care and please I shall be waiting for that thread. By the way what do you mean you are not learned?
Mallamt
Thanks alot, am back for a while. Don't worry am still composing the thread, it will be out as soon as possible. Yes am not learned cose a learned person is characterized by much knowledge and am not one.