davidylan:

this would have been laughable if it wasnt quite silly. How does the quran judge history? Are you serious? So we should all throw out our history books in favor of the quran?

Bro stop this nonsense. This are YOUR OWN WORDS - after so many arguments on this issue and being humbled,you are still raising it?

Zhul-Qarnain is more likely to be Alexander the Great.

WHICH IS IT? Is this figure Alexander the great or not? When you were making the above hypothesis, did you consider the quran was written in arabic only? Is the english interpretation of Zhul Qarnian = alexander? How did you make the above deduction and based on exactly WHAT FACTS?

On exactly WHICH FACTS do they base this claim and why are uplawal and bashydemy on the opposite side of you in this debate?

LagosShia:

after you bible calls the king of egypt in the time of Joseph son of Jacob with the title of "pharoah",you'd definitely wish to throw your so called history books.the Quran rightly refers to him as "king of egypt" and not "pharoah of egypt".these are all signs of divinity.

LagosShia:

Mr. Man,

the credibility of the Quran weighs far ahead of your doubt or anyone's whether or not Zhul-Qarnain is Alexander or not.

LagosShia:

there was the same confusion about the city called "Iram" which is mentioned in the Quran and described as the "city of pillars".many mocked and laughed and said Muhammad (sa) was hallucinating.but what happened?Muhammad's (sa) knowledge of the unseen which is from a divine source proved him right when a stunning discovery was made not too long ago:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iram_of_the_Pillars#Evidence_for_Iram

LagosShia:

so because you do not have evidence for a claim you yourself cannot disprove does not make it null or void except if you want to make use of the attitude prevalent in atheism which denies God's existence when they themselves have not disproved it but only argue based on impossible and fictional possibilities of the universe existing without a Creator,

LagosShia:

there is absolutely no obstacle in accepting that Zhul-Qarnain is Alexander the great.and i can put forth evidence to back it up and prove the descriptions of the Quran about the personality of Zhul-Qarnain which matches Alexander's.to us we know Zhul-Qarnain who was a believer.just like we know Isa (as) who was a man and a prophet who you believe to be a "god"!

LagosShia:

unfortunately,Uplawal and Bashy have denied it based on innocence and using the common knowledge in existence among disbelievers like yourself that calls Alexander different names like man-lover and pagan.

davidylan:

Puerile and false nonsense. The title pharaoh was used (became prominent during the 18th dynasty) quite clearly in history to depict Egyptian rulers. The title "king of egypt" is nonsensical as it is practically meaningless . . . any ruler can be refered to as a "king" of whatever kingdom he or she rules. Indeed Quran 89:10 uses the title "pharaoh"!

Actually it is. the ONLY REASON you say this is because once again the quran is caught trying to force-fit another of its inventions on history. If indeed the quran had been accurate on who zhul qarnian was, muslims would never let us rest.

Huh? Did you do a background check on this obviously bogus claim? Perhaps you should, it simply protrays muslims as being so desperate to prove islam is historically correct that they will latch unto any form of myth. The national geographic article that is cited as the SOLE EVIDENCE for this (there is NO INDEPENDENT SCIENTIFIC PROOF) mentions nothing about a city of pillars. Actually the only "proof" for this claim is that certain "scientists" discovered the name "Iram" in some library somewhere . . . really? No artifacts, no historical record of an entire city disappearing in sand?

this is quite daft. We have concrete proof of who alexander the great was. Islam is the religion struggling too hard to force a mythical fellow in the quran into his mould. The burden of proof is on you.

and where is this evidence? why cant you provide it? Your evidence is that "he was a believer"? Alexander the great was certainly no believer of anything my friend. Better to stop lying like a disgraceful demon.

perhaps they are not ready to lie for the quran unlike you.

« #103 on: December 14, 2011, 08:55 PM »
Plappville and co are in for it.

@Plappville,the Alexander the great is not the one the Quran mentioned,cos he died at 30's and he was an idol worshipper, sleeps with men and women,Dhul-Qarnian was a monotheist,hope you know its not only Alexander the great that was Alex,and Alexander the great was not said to have built any wall from history,any attempt to coin in Alexander the great in to the Quran is false ,besides the name Alexander was not in the Quran but Dhul-Qarnian.

plappville:

What are defending blindly, are u addressing those old aboki tht ve never set eyes on the kuran but yet accept what they are told? Must muhammed mention his name? He mention his title and made drastical error with his name. U re here blabbaring.
Is this the only error he made? I will creat a thread on all his errors let me see how many u can defend.

tpia@:

@ topic

lagosshia

are you just posting for the sake of posting or what. You seemed sharper than this before.

The practices you are referring to in the bible (which btw are Jewish traditons) all preceded Islam.

Surely it must have occurred to you that maybe they are called Islamic now but most likely were derived from Judaism?

LagosShia: must bring to your attention that none of the prophets mentioned in the bible up to Jesus claimed that or named the religion of God to be "judaism" or "christianity".to us Muslims,we believe Islamic teachings preceeded Muhammad (sa) because whatever the previous prophets taught we believe in them and the "Quran" orders us to love and respect them.

that aside,these practices today are islamic practices regardless of how you view or judge their source to be.furthermore,it is clear for even the blind to see that while muslims uphold them in the true spirit of following the prophets of God and [b]Muhammad (sa) "glorifying" Jesus as we are told in the new testament about the next comforter to come after Jesus,[/b]we muslims practice our religion as the prophets did.but as for you christians,even the practices in the new testament you do not even uphold.

LagosShia:

the peak of dishonesty!

why still go ahead to address and quote my post that is not the immediate last post in which i gave detailed explanation?

plappville:

Liessssssssssssssss! here are just a few Quranic verses contradicting your lies!

Quran (9:30) - And the Jews say: Ezra is the son of Allah, and the Christians say: The Messiah is the son of Allah, Allah (Himself) fighteth against them. How perverse are they!

Quran (4:52) - Those (Christians) are they whom Allah hath cursed,

Quran (4:47) - O you (Jews) who have been given the Book! ""believe that which We have revealed"", verifying what you have, before We alter faces then turn them on their backs, or curse them as We cursed the violaters of the Sabbath, and the command of Allah shall be executed.


The kuran contains dozens of verses that specifically describe Jews and christians in the ugliest, most hateful terms. Just leave thise your pretending story of respecting the previews prophets.

bashy_demy:

Nice one Lagoshia

uplawal:

@Lagosshia, plappvile a christian,of a foreign religion ,following the previous prophet?,islam is for the humble,those seeking truth,not just for anybody.

thimbook2:

if you had all the time to do all this research in the scriptures etc etc; you ought to be able to know the Bible came before the Quran even chronologically in authorship and Mohammed had a coptic christian consort, Mary, right?

does it not stand to reason that its probably your quran that is a pale imitation of the Holy Bible? Afterall, a child born yesterday can't possibly be older than his elder brother who was born years ago?!

let's stop stirring up stuff

LagosShia:

if you have proof that the Quran copied from the bible,please bring it forth so we can examine it together.

if not,i can give you proof where the christian new testament authors copied from the jewish old testament:

Proof Of Plagiarism In The Christian New Testament From The Jewish Old Testament
https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-820199.0.html

also,there are evidence supporting the idea that the authors of the old testament itself copied from other texts existing before the former.

davidylan:

makes zero sense here. Of course the authors of the new testament epistles were ALL JEWS! Its like accusing a nigerian of plagiarism for relating instances in nigerian history.

LagosShia:

if you have proof that the Quran copied from the bible,please bring it forth so we can examine it together.

if not,i can give you proof where the christian new testament authors copied from the jewish old testament:

Proof Of Plagiarism In The Christian New Testament From The Jewish Old Testament
https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-820199.0.html

also,there are evidence supporting the idea that the authors of the old testament itself copied from other texts existing before the former.

vedaxcool:

Funny they all wrote in a foreign language, yet they were all jews, it hardly makes sense, why would a Jew write in a language that his amin audience would be unable to read, as for copying the OT, well it has been stated that Luke and Mathews were in the business of copying marks' gospel!

davidylan:

Many of the bible writers like Paul were very well educated and could speak multiple languages. People like Paul would have had to write in a foreign language like Greek (which was widely spoken at that time) to reach their foreign audiences. Jews were not the only christians at that time, others would have translated the gospels in a language that was understandable to them. Just the same way popular books today are translated into different languages . . .

[size=14pt][b]In essence the bible writers ignore their primary audience to write in a language that they their primary audience would not understand, I see you thought your write up thru , Jesus spoke a language that is more or less extinct, implying that his primary audience spoke were not Greeks, I think from all indication Christianity has the dubious toga of having books that were written in a foreign language, no religion in the world wrote their religious text in a language foreign to its' founder, call me brainless, [an indication your frustration in answering simple questions posed], we all know Jesus contemporaries should have wrote their books in Aramaic not Greek, since their primary target were the Jews, but alas never was it eye witness that wrote Mark, Matthew, Luke and John, they all wrote hear say accounts of what they received orally, in essence we cannot buy the garbage that Jesus disciples who were more familiar with Aramaic decided to write books to cater for their primary target in a language foreign to their audience, it can never make sense. Scholars of the bible would tell you that Luke and Mathew copied their gospels from Mark, they will go further and state that None of this writers were eye witnesses, again they will further tell you that the so called gospel appeared long after the demise of Jesus, meaning we do not even know those who wrote the bible, there are simply anonymous books, written by unknown individuals who simply collected material and remix them to underscore their own view point![/b][/size]

vedaxcool:

[size=14pt][b]In essence the bible writers ignore their primary audience to write in a language that they their primary audience would not understand, I see you thought your write up thru , Jesus spoke a language that is more or less extinct, implying that his primary audience spoke were not Greeks, I think from all indication Christianity has the dubious toga of having books that were written in a foreign language, no religion in the world wrote their religious text in a language foreign to its' founder, call me brainless, [an indication your frustration in answering simple questions posed], we all know Jesus contemporaries should have wrote their books in Aramaic not Greek, since their primary target were the Jews, but alas never was it eye witness that wrote Mark, Matthew, Luke and John, they all wrote hear say accounts of what they received orally, in essence we cannot buy the garbage that Jesus disciples who were more familiar with Aramaic decided to write books to cater for their primary target in a language foreign to their audience, it can never make sense. Scholars of the bible would tell you that Luke and Mathew copied their gospels from Mark, they will go further and state that None of this writers were eye witnesses, again they will further tell you that the so called gospel appeared long after the demise of Jesus, meaning we do not even know those who wrote the bible, there are simply anonymous books, written by unknown individuals who simply collected material and remix them to underscore their own view point![/b][/size]

davidylan:

quite a dumb post regurgitating previously debunked islamic propaganda.

1. Christ spoke primarily in aramaic - his audience was mainly jewish.

davidylan:

2. The other apostles did not write to a majority jewish audience as you stupidly and falsely allege here - for example Paul spent most of his time with gentiles hence we see books written to romans, corinthians, ephesians, philipians, colosians, greeks e.t.c. are those jews? Why would Paul write in a language that jews could understand if his roman audience could not speak hebrew or aramaic?

vedaxcool:

Lol  Yet all his messages were recorded in Greek! we see you make "sensible" points

vedaxcool:

You only rope yourself more, It seems you only know of Paul being a Biblical writer, funny enough Paul audience were only Greek speaking individuals, and so you mean to say the writers of Luke, Mark, Mathew and John were also writing for romans, corinthians etc?  , It remains incredulous that a book intended for a jewish audience was written in a language they do not speak.

frosbel:


Christians have never for once tried to look for Jesus or Moses in the Quran, yet Muslims spend their entire lives trying to look for Muhammad ( SAW ) in the Bible.

They even twist the inspired words of God to force Islamic meanings into them.

This comes across as wild desperaration and madness gone global.

Admit it guys, the Quran is not the word of any god not to talk of God himself, it is simply a concocted mixture of fables, myths, fairy tales, agnostic bible stories and Talmudic scripture.

@LagosShia:i must bring to your attention that none of the prophets mentioned in the bible up to Jesus claimed that or named the religion of God to be "judaism" or "christianity".to us Muslims,we believe Islamic teachings preceeded Muhammad (sa) because whatever the previous prophets taught we believe in them and the Quran orders us to love and respect them.

To respect is to accept them as they believe, why cursing them because they disbelieve u?

Mohammed is saying here that Jesus want christians to forbid his teaching and turn to Islam, where did he see Jesus?

This is all about the "Trinity'", If Muhammed himself refused Christ as the son of God filled with the Holy spirit, then how does the kuran ordered Muslims to respect previews prophets oooo @LagosShia? am sorry but i want to believe either u or the muhammed or both of u are contradicting each other with lies, Islam has no single respect for other belief, islam is hate, discremination, this has caused distruction to humanity.