vaxx:
it simply demonsrate that the idea of conquering the whole world is meaningless and purposeleas since islam will soon go into extinctions toward the last days.

You mistake me. I meant that I didn't see anything in what you said to suggest that Islam will ever go into extinction.

vaxx:
this is why Muslim accused you guys of misinformed or inadequate knowledge. you went straight online to draw random interpretation of quran text without understanding what quran and islam stands for. i am not an islamic apologetic, so i will not go with details of those verses. but i will enlight you on on the context of those verses as regard to islamic history.

Islam has through time tolerate many non muslim.. After all Mohammed became a prophet at a time and place where there was a great deal of other religions. Not only was Judaism and Christianity already thriving, but in Saudi-Arabia where he did his teachings a lot of minor religions was thriving (The time of Ignorance or Uninlightenment, if my English serves me well.) So throughout his life he has to answer to comments and questioning of his preachings. This led to an Islam that was able to take criticism (which they have endured much of and still do), but also made it into a religion that was able to tolerate the religions around it. Throughout history Muslims have led peacefully beside other religions (obviously some mishaps here and there). They have generally always been able to accept other religions, even if we take examples like the Ottoman Empire that lasted hundreds of years and had numerous religions under its wing, even though the primary governing body was Islamic and during some of the time even under Sharia law, they still managed to respect all their colonies religious freedoms.

As i said , you are obviously ignorant of Islamic teaching and it will be good if you seek knolwedge of it before debating it.

Your first defense was that I shouldn't judge Islam by the actions of some Muslims. Now, you are telling me to judge it by the actions of other Muslims. But what I told you is that my claim was made, not on the back of the actions or lack thereof of Muslims of any hue or shade, but on the back of the teachings of the Qur'an.

If I have been wrong about the teachings I quoted, for example, if the verses were wrongly interpreted, then, you would be better served to offer a counter-interpretation and validate it. It is useless to argue that I took a random interpretation and went to town with it. Should I post the Arabic instead? You will probably be the only one to understand it. What good would that do?

JeromeBlack:


What other questions?

As for the taxes on churches, evangelism, preaching are not charity activities. Hosting AA meetings, granting scholarships, hosting free weddings etc are charity activities.

Refer to the post I was talking about.

Who said that they were? I don't care about that. I asked you to explain what makes the primary meaning of church taxable.

Ihedinobi3:

Refer to the post I was talking about.

Who said that they were? I don't care about that. I asked you to explain what makes the primary meaning of church taxable.

The church is an organisation that profits off preaching. It should be taxed. Unless you want to argue that preaching is charity.

Is your sunday service a charity event?

Ihedinobi3:

Is the Bible responsible for disobedience to its principles?

Yes, if its principles are confusing, outdated and contradictory.

JeromeBlack:



The church is an organisation that profits off preaching. It should be taxed. Unless you want to argue that preaching is charity.

Is your sunday service a charity event?

The church according to the Bible is a meeting of believers to encourage each other in the Truth, nothing more, nothing less. That is why I kept telling you that I don't hold brief for churches. Very few churches do that.

Now, I ask you again: what is taxable about meeting to encourage each other in the Truth?

And why on earth do you keep harping on charity? Should families be taxed too or towns or communities since they are not charities? How about social clubs?

JeromeBlack:
Yes, if its principles are confusing, outdated and contradictory.

Well, are they?

Ihedinobi3:

You mistake me. I meant that I didn't see anything in what you said to suggest that Islam will ever go into extinction

i earlier indicate those point as signs islam says we be the signs of the last day. one of the prophesy of islam by muhammed himself is islam will go into extinction. .according to the saying, allah will send a special wind that will take the souls of all the believers in one go, so that they wouldn’t have to witness that difficult day.

Your first defense was that I shouldn't judge Islam by the actions of some Muslims. Now, you are telling me to judge it by the actions of other Muslims

You are not doing any justice by quoting me out of context. you may need to go back and read
What i post again

.

But what I told you is that my claim was made, not on the back of the actions or lack thereof of Muslims of any hue or shade, but on the back of the teachings of the Qur'an.

And i said your claim so far is inconsequential as far as islam is concern. you took random verses out of context and jump into conclustion. A very bad approach to intellectual reasoning. Using those types of verses without context would be like saying that the United States is a racist/genocidal country because they bombed Japan in 1945, killing 250,000 people. The statement that they bombed Japan is true, but there's a whole context (a preceding global war that lasted 6 years) that it needs to be considered in the context of.

If I have been wrong about the teachings I quoted, for example, if the verses were wrongly interpreted, then, you would be better served to offer a counter-interpretation and validate it.

The verses you quoted were random without understanding of islamic history. verses according to quran follow event and cause. it is like me quoting a biblical verses without doing thorough exegesis of it and holding it as vital true. thst is delibrate ignorance

It is useless to argue that I took a random interpretation and went to town with it. Should I post the Arabic instead? You will probably be the only one to understand it. What good would that do?

it serve no any useful purpose to attack the idea you knew nothing about. all those verses you quoted are used out of context and that is the simple truth. both quran and bible has the same issue.

vaxx:
i earlier indicate those point as signs islam says we be the signs of the last day. one of the prophesy of islam by muhammed himself is islam will go into extinction. .according to the saying, allah will send a special wind that will take the souls of all the believers in one go, so that they wouldn’t have to witness that difficult day.

But this does not contradict the claim that world conquest is an Islamic goal. Islam could still keep fighting to conquer the whole world in obedience to Allah until faithful Muslims are removed from the world so that Allah will punish those who are still resisting Islamic rule.

vaxx:
You are not doing any justice by quoting me out of context. you may need to go back and read
What i post again

I did not quote you at all. I just summarized what you said. If you believe that my summary was wrong, you should explain to me why it is.

vaxx:
. And i said your claim so far is inconsequential as far as islam is concern. you took random verses out of context and jump into conclustion. A very bad approach to intellectual reasoning. Using those types of verses without context would be like saying that the United States is a racist/genocidal country because they bombed Japan in 1945, killing 250,000 people. The statement that they bombed Japan is true, but there's a whole context (a preceding global war that lasted 6 years) that it needs to be considered in the context of.

The verses you quoted were random without understanding of islamic history. verses according to quran follow event and cause. it is like me quoting a biblical verses without doing thorough exegesis of it and holding it as vital true. thst is delibrate ignorance

it serve no any useful purpose to attack the idea you knew nothing about. all those verses you quoted are used out of context and that is the simple truth. both quran and bible has the same issue.

Vaxx, I am here. I am talking with you. I am giving what I believe you demand. If anything is not as it should be, you do have a part to play. What is the historical context that I am ignoring? If you know this better than me, then you should clear it up. I have tried to be clear and up-front with everything we are discussing.

As for context, I wanted to post the whole Surah but there is an anti-spam bot on the website that tags posts that copy long articles. I didn't want to take the risk of a ban to post the whole Surah (more than 60 verses).

If you are willing to take the risk, by all means, post it. Otherwise, explain the context that I have not accounted for.

JeromeBlack:


Sharrap. No one is saying that religion is the only problem we have. What we are saying is that religion is a problem.

It encourages foolishness in the name of faith.

I'm sorry Sir for annoying you!
I only tried to make everyone open their minds to grasp the main cause of poverty in Africa.
The whites also have the same problem and because they don't want to adopt what JESUS of Nazareth taught,they turned to plan B which is controlling child bearing so as not to outgrow their resources.
For instance from year 1950~2000 the population of Great Britain remains within 50~60 million,while the population of Nigeria during the same period has grown from 50~over 200 million. Despite the civil war that claimed many lives, you can go and study political science to know that if the government as in the rulers want to control the population,they can instigate people so that the people starts killing themselves to reduce the population!
TRUTH is bitter because even when JESUS was teaching His own people all these theories they ganged up and had Him killed,so you can continue arguing,insulting,cursing and humiliating one another if you're not interested in the TRUTH. But know that God's kingdom is fast approaching and all those who aren't aware of this arrangement will be DESTROYED!

Ihedinobi3:

But this does not contradict the claim that work conquest is an Islamic goal. Islam could still keep fighting to conquer the whole world in obedience to Allah until faithful Muslims are removed from the world so that Allah will punish those who are still resisting Islamic rule.

Look at the logic you apply here just to force out what is not really an islamic goal. ( this in itself is a radical approach)when quran repeat its goal in a number of times that its main aim is for each Muslim to attain satisfaction and approval from ALLAH(the name of Muslims god ).i am sure you couldn't find any verse about that to quote since it is opposite of your labelling. islamophobia

i did not quote you at all. I just summarized what you said. If you believe that my summary was wrong, you should explain to me why it is.

You quoted me, if not, i will not be replying you. your summary of my write up there is faulty, my simply claim here is, no explicit or uncontested verses of Quran that indicates muslim mission is to conquer the world.. it is normal, Muslims love Islam just like Christian love Christianity , so naturally they’d love to share it with the whole world. They’re happy whenever someone overcomes the immense negative image of Islam, discovers its beauty and joins the worldwide family of nearly 1,8 Billion Muslims.

Vaxx, I am here. I am talking with you. I am giving what I believe you demand. If anything is not as it should be, you do have a part to play. What is the historical context that I am ignoring? If you know this better than me, then you should clear it up. I have tried to be clear and up-front with everything we are discussing.

And that is what i am telling you, you can't quote a verse without understanding the historical context that links to it. every verses of the quran wasn't sent at once, the verses were sent base on event and cause. so for you to treat a particular text literarilly, You have to understand the historical connection that leads to the verse.

As for context, I wanted to post the whole Surah but there is an anti-spam bot on the website that tags posts that copy long articles. I didn't want to take the risk of a ban to post the whole Surah (more than 60 verses).

If you are willing to take the risk, by all means, post it. Otherwise, explain the context that I have not accounted for.

for if this understanding of yours were true as far as islam/quran is concern, then the current state of the propagation of islam should have proof it. no widely recognized majority Muslim government either officially or unofficially, currently advocates for the spread of Islam via militaristic means. The Islamic State and its close affiliates like boko haram, which are obviously loathed within the Muslim world, almost as much as they are outside of it, are regarded by nearly all Islamic scholars as heretical in their views and practices regarding the propagation of Islam, and also are obviously at the danger of collapsing.

Certainly within Islam there remain the radical missionary minded individuals just like that of Christianity who continue to imagine that their respective religions will each somehow one day “conquer” the world. Still, in practical terms, most Muslims remain both unsure if this might ever happen, and certainly would not support its accomplishment.

vaxx:
Look at the logic you apply here just to force out what is not really an islamic goal. ( this in itself is a radical approach)when quran repeat its goal in a number of times that its main aim is for each Muslim to attain satisfaction and approval from ALLAH(the name of Muslims god ).i am sure you couldn't find any verse about that to quote since it is opposite of your labelling. islamophobia

Seriously, I don't know what your problem with me or my argument is. If I go and find Qur'anic verses now, you will start fighting about this. I was only explaining that this argument you made is tangential to the issue. It does not address my claim that Islam does not respect the integrity of nations since it necessarily seeks to dominate the world by force. How does the fact that Muslims will be taken out of the world at some point negate that argument?

vaxx:
You quoted me, if not, i will not be replying you.

Oga, you said that I quoted you out of context. I did not quote you at all. I only summarized what you said. If you insist that I did, show me where I quoted you.

vaxx:
your summary of my write up there is faulty, my simply claim here is, no explicit or uncontested verses of Quran that indicates muslim mission is to conquer the world..

But I have seen no contests from you of the verses I quoted. Only a bogus claim that I quoted them out of context and failed to account for their historical background.

vaxx:
it is normal, Muslims love Islam just like Christian love Christianity , so naturally they’d love to share it with the whole world. They’re happy whenever someone overcomes the immense negative image of Islam, discovers its beauty and joins the worldwide family of nearly 1,8 Billion Muslims.

And this is the non-Muslim apologist talking?

Regardless, I was not arguing that Muslims shouldn't share Islam with the rest of the world. I gave Islam as an example of a religion that seeks to subvert nations to itself. That is my argument. And I don't see any reason from you yet to believe that that is untrue.

vaxx:
And that is what i am telling you, you can quote a verse without understanding the historical context that links to it. every verses of the quran wasn't sent at once, the verses were sent base on event and cause. so for you to treat a particular text literarilly, You have to understand the historical connection that leads to the verse.

for if this understanding of yours were true as far as islam/quran is concern, then the current state of the propagation of islam should have proof it. no widely recognized majority Muslim government either officially or unofficially, currently advocates for the spread of Islam via militaristic means. The Islamic State and its close affiliates like boko haram, which are obviously loathed within the Muslim world, almost as much as they are outside of it, are regarded by nearly all Islamic scholars as heretical in their views and practices regarding the propagation of Islam, and also are obviously at the danger of collapsing.

Certainly within Islam there remain the radical missionary minded individuals just like that of Christianity who continue to imagine that their respective religions will each somehow one day “conquer” the world. Still, in practical terms, most Muslims remain both unsure if this might ever happen, and certainly would not support its accomplishment.

If you are saying that certain parts of the Qur'an have become irrelevant over time, why should anyone believe that? In the Bible, the Law of Moses governed the way believers believed in Israel until Jesus Christ came and died for sin. Because of the way that His Sacrifice would change everything, Moses himself told the Israelites well ahead of time that when Jesus came, He was the One that they would listen to.

After that, more and more prophecies were given to prepare them for the changes that the First Advent would bring.

Why does the Qur'an not indicate that any part of it would become irrelevant at any point in history so that you can say what you say now? Or does it?

Ihedinobi3:





Regardless, I was not arguing that Muslims shouldn't share Islam with the rest of the world. I gave Islam as an example of a religion that seeks to subvert nations to itself. That is my argument. And I don't see any reason from you yet to believe that that is untrue.

Right here is my problem with you- you see the flaws in islam but never see the same flaws in christianity.

Both christianity and islam seek to subvert nations.

1) They both put their God and religious laws above national secular laws. Example- they both fight against gay rights, pro-choice (abortion) and freedom/rights of atheists.

2) They both force the cultures of their religious forefathers on other nations. We see christians and muslims bearing Jewish and Arabic names respectively. What kind of Nigerian name is "Goodluck Jonathan" or "Abubakar Abdulsakam"? Why do we place church/mosque weddings over traditional weddings?

3) They both are fanatical about spreading their faith that they will commit atrocities (and break the law) to do so. They both killed to convert (jihads and crusades). They both engage in charity with the ulterior motive to convert people to their faith. They both make noise during their religious services to detriment of the non-believers in the environment.


The only difference is that christianity is now more secular than islam. The irony. What makes christianity better is secularism. If you look back at the past, christianity was even more dogmatic than islam. They killed people for owning bibles, blasphemy and also promoting science. Christianity also was in support of theocratic monarchies in the past (not so different from sharia law countries).

Ihedinobi3:

Seriously, I don't know what your problem with me or my argument is. If I go and find Qur'anic verses now, you will start fighting about this. I was only explaining that this argument you made is tangential to the issue. It does not address my claim that Islam does not respect the integrity of nations since it necessarily seeks to dominate the world by force. How does the fact that Muslims will be taken out of the world at some point negate that argument?

No one is having a personal issues with you but with your way of reasoning, i earlier made mention that islam will be put into extinction towards the judgements day according to the prophet himself. and this means there will be no purpose to conquer the world if this is expected. This is my claim that you are trying to Conner with a lot of faulty excuses.

Oga, you said that I quoted you out of context. I did not quote you at all. I only summarized what you said. If you insist that I did, show me where I quoted you.

You are arguing without having in mind what you are practically doing.for you to be able to summarize what i said at all, you have to quote me first.

But I have seen no contests from you of the verses I quoted. Only a bogus claim that I quoted them out of context and failed to account for their historical background.

keep in mind i am not an apologetic of islam,what you did up there was quoting a random verses that suit your agenda. which i claim was pull out of context. i have earlier given you a factual demonstration of islam and his prophet in his infancy. and this alone should serve as a watchguide to you.

And this is the non-Muslim apologist talking?

and this idea of labelling is what i am trying to avoid. which was the reasons i actually took the historical part instead of quoting counter verse.

Regardless, I was not arguing that Muslims shouldn't share Islam with the rest of the world. I gave Islam as an example of a religion that seeks to subvert nations to itself. That is my argument. And I don't see any reason from you yet to believe that that is untrue.

just like i already indicated, it is not true and if it is the case, the Islamic divine agenda will be supported today in both official and non official muslim state.

If you are saying that certain parts of the Qur'an have become irrelevant over time, why should anyone believe that? In the Bible, the Law of Moses governed the way believers believed in Israel until Jesus Christ came and died for sin. Because of the way that His Sacrifice would change everything, Moses himself told the Israelites well ahead of time that when Jesus came, He was the One that they would listen to.

This is not in any part of my claim, my mission here is simply to demonstrate how fauilty is your argument in regards to the idea that islam was meant to subvert the world, i have pointed out historical fact as to back up this assertion and at the same time, i have given a modern evidence to suggest it is not true.

After that, more and more prophecies were given to prepare them for the changes that the First Advent would bring.

This is irrelevant since i am not asking for it. your apologetic style is well taken, it is about how the market force appeal to you rather than to real critics or skeptics.

Why does the Qur'an not indicate that any part of it would become irrelevant at any point in history so that you can say what you say now? Or does it?

The Quran definitely gives license to anachronistic beliefs and practices in Islam. Sharia law sometimes takes this license and runs with it, going beyond what the Quran seems to intend. UAE and saudi arabia modernization is a typical example.

JeromeBlack:




Right here is my problem with you- you see the flaws in islam but never see the same flaws in christianity.

Both christianity and islam seek to subvert nations.

There are no flaws in the Bible. If you find any, feel free to challenge my statement.

The Bible is rather clear that we are not to force other people to follow Christ. And we are to be good citizens. There is nothing in the Bible that teaches otherwise.

JeromeBlack:
1) They both put their God and religious laws above national secular laws. Example- they both fight against gay rights, pro-choice (abortion) and freedom/rights of atheists.

There is nothing in the Bible about political issues of this sort. If governments want to make laws regulating sexuality, pregnancy and atheism, the Bible does not say anything about any of that.

JeromeBlack:
2) They both force the cultures of their religious forefathers on other nations. We see christians and muslims bearing Jewish and Arabic names respectively. What kind of Nigerian name is "Goodluck Jonathan" or "Abubakar Abdulsakam"? Why do we place church/mosque weddings over traditional weddings?

I was born and raised in the Methodist Church. All three of my names and my surname are hard-to-pronounce Igbo names. I don't know a single instance where the Bible teaches that children must be named any particular way.

JeromeBlack:
3) They both are fanatical about spreading their faith that they will commit atrocities (and break the law) to do so. They both killed to convert (jihads and crusades). They both engage in charity with the ulterior motive to convert people to their faith. They both make noise during their religious services to detriment of the non-believers in the environment.

The Bible does not teach anything you complain about here.

JeromeBlack:
The only difference is that christianity is now more secular than islam. The irony. What makes christianity better is secularism. If you look back at the past, christianity was even more dogmatic than islam. They killed people for owning bibles, blasphemy and also promoting science. Christianity also was in support of theocratic monarchies in the past (not so different from sharia law countries).

I still don't see where the Bible teaches any of these things. So your claim is very dead and on ice.

vaxx:
No one is having a personal issues with you but with your way of reasoning, i earlier made mention that islam will be put into extinction towards the judgements day according to the prophet himself. and this means there will be no purpose to conquer the world if this is expected. This is my claim that you are trying to Conner with a lot of faulty excuses.

Your response is a non sequitur. The fact that Muslims will be removed from the world does not contradict any goal of world conquest. Even if Muslims conquered the whole world, there would still be unbelievers. Those unbelievers would be the reason that Allah would take all Muslims away so that he could punish the unbelievers since the Muslims have demonstrated their faithfulness by warring so resolutely for him.

vaxx:
You are arguing without having in mind what you are practically doing.for you to be able to summarize what i said at all, you have to quote me first.

Oga, I don't understand what you are saying.

vaxx:
keep in mind i am not an apologetic of islam,what you did up there was quoting a random verses that suit your agenda. which i claim was pull out of context. i have earlier given you a factual demonstration of islam and his prophet in his infancy. and this alone should serve as a watchguide to you.

First, I don't believe a word you say about your not being an apologist.

Second, what factual demonstration? You just told me that other Muslims were nice and I should judge Islam by them. Why would I do that if I don't judge it by the terrorists either?

vaxx:
and this idea of labelling is what i am trying to avoid. which was the reasons i actually took the historical part instead of quoting counter verse.

What?

vaxx:
just like i already indicated, it is not true and if it is the case, the Islamic divine agenda will be supported today in both official and non official muslim state.

That is a very unconvincing and bad argument. Is Islam defined by the Qur'an or by governments of official and unofficial Muslim states?

vaxx:
This is not in any part of my claim, my mission here is simply to demonstrate how fauilty is your argument in regards to the idea that islam was meant to subvert the world, i have pointed out historical fact as to back up this assertion and at the same time, i have given a modern evidence to suggest it is not true.

Your historical facts are beside the point. The question is what Islam teaches, not what Muslims do. Are you telling me that they are one and the same?

vaxx:
This is irrelevant since i am not asking for it. your apologetic style is well taken, it is about how the market force appeal to you rather than to real critics or skeptics.

Oga, I was giving you an example for the question I was going to ask.

vaxx:
The Quran definitely gives license to anachronistic beliefs and practices in Islam. Sharia law sometimes takes this license and runs with it, going beyond what the Quran seems to intend. UAE and saudi arabia modernization is a typical example.

So, basically, the Qur'an teaches things that are outdated or outmoded in some cases?

Ihedinobi3:

Your response is a non sequitur. The fact that Muslims will be removed from the world does not contradict any goal of world conquest. Even if Muslims conquered the whole world, there would still be unbelievers. Those unbelievers would be the reason that Allah would take all Muslims away so that he could punish the unbelievers since the Muslims have demonstrated their faithfulness by warring so resolutely for him.

Are you listening to yourself,? the word conquer means overcome and taking control of the whole world in this context. meaning everyone regardless of everyone faith will be conqured. so therefore, everyone will be under muslim rules amd regulation. and by your double standard here, there still exist unbeliever after the conquest, then that is not conquest since unbeliever still exist.. this is the problem i am having with your reasoning. trying to pin a point where it does not exist. Islam can not even rule over itself or it’s many, many factions and different sects. Islam does not exists. What exists is sunni islam, shia islam, wahabi islam. Just like in any other religion across the world. It is absolutely ridiculous to think that it will

Oga, I don't understand what you are saying.

Your reasoning ability does not impress me.

First, I don't believe a word you say about your not being an apologist

Not necessarily, you dont need to believe but i have made my point clearer. .

Second, what factual demonstration?

The historical account i gave about islam in his earier age was the factual evidence. how muhammed was surrounded by non muslim alike and the treatment he melted out to them.

You just told me that other Muslims were nice and I should judge Islam by them. Why would I do that if I don't judge it by the terrorists either?

none of my writting suggest this, i was only presenting to you what islam represents, i even made mention of similar case in Christianity. the best form of judging islam is by studying Islam, is to study his histrorical account that birth the ways and life of muhammed including quran. Islam is made up of 1.8 billion Muslims, all over the world, representing dozens of cultures and mindsets, as well as a vast spectrum of religious views, ranging from ultra-conservative (i.e. Saudi Salafists) to ultra-liberal (i.e. mystical Sufis, found around the world) — and so, from a pragmatic standpoint, there’s really no single islam to even try to dominate the world.

What

Do you miss anything?

That is a very unconvincing and bad argument. Is Islam defined by the Qur'an or by governments of official and unofficial Muslim states?

islam is defined by the haddith (the saying and doing of muhammed , the quran and the islamic scholars. hence, It’s only the most conservative-extremist that we want to dominate . and not only that. some extremist followers of any religion may also want to try to dominate others in any case, and within Islam, such people and groups are a tiny percentage of the total - and without the military, political or economic power to engage in much domination outside of their own small countries or regions of control.

Your historical facts are beside the point. The question is what Islam teaches,

yes and to understand that you need to factor in the historical account of jslam itself. and it is not by randomly quoting quranic verses because it literarilly agree with your preconsive notion without understanding the historical connection leading to such verse. even bible require exegesis.

not what Muslims do. Are you telling me that they are one and the same?

muslim are those who practised islam. without the former, the latter can't exist.

Oga, I was giving you an example for the question I was going to ask.


So, basically, the Qur'an teaches things that are outdated or outmoded in some cases?

Then that is poor question by the way,

it simply tell that the tradition that hold islam go beyond quran and hadith. e.g the use of traffic light or effect of high rise building in an Islamic world . hope you know fully well quran is a constitutional book to some islamic country. and since quran is silent about this, it become necessary to borrow knolwedge outside of it.

vaxx:
Are you listening to yourself,? the word conquer means overcome and taking control of the whole world in this context. meaning everyone regardless of everyone faith will be conqured. so therefore, everyone will be under muslim rules amd regulation. and by your double standard here, there still exist unbeliever after the conquest, then that is not conquest since unbeliever still exist.. this is the problem i am having with your reasoning. trying to pin a point where it does not exist. Islam can not even rule over itself or it’s many, many factions and different sects. Islam does not exists. What exists is sunni islam, shia islam, wahabi islam. Just like in any other religion across the world. It is absolutely ridiculous to think that it will

Nations are conquered. Individuals are not. Individuals are oppressed, subdued, or persuaded.

I really wonder what you'll do when the Mahdi shows up.

vaxx:
Your reasoning ability does not impress me.

Na wa.

vaxx:
Not necessarily, you dont need to believe but i have made my point clearer. .

What?

vaxx:
The historical account i gave about islam in his earier age was the factual evidence. how muhammed was surrounded by non muslim alike and the treatment he melted out to them.

What factual evidence? How did Muhammad treat the non-Muslims of his day?

vaxx:
none of my writting suggest this, i was only presenting to you what islam represents, i even made mention of similar case in Christianity. the best form of judging islam is by studying Islam, is to study his histrorical account that birth the ways and life of muhammed including quran. Islam is made up of 1.8 billion Muslims, all over the world, representing dozens of cultures and mindsets, as well as a vast spectrum of religious views, ranging from ultra-conservative (i.e. Saudi Salafists) to ultra-liberal (i.e. mystical Sufis, found around the world) — and so, from a pragmatic standpoint, there’s really no single islam to even try to dominate the world.

That part I put in bold text is an obvious lie.

What similar case in Christianity?

So, basically, the Qur'an is not to be relied upon to know what Islam is? Why then were you making such a fuss about verses allegedly taken out of context?

The fact that Islam is fragmented does not mean anything. The Mahdi is expected to come and unite Islam, restore it and rid the world of evil.

vaxx:
Do you miss anything?

I try not to. But I didn't understand anything you said there.

vaxx:
islam is defined by the haddith (the saying and doing of muhammed , the quran and the islamic scholars. hence, It’s only the most conservative-extremist that we want to dominate . and not only that. some extremist followers of any religion may also want to try to dominate others in any case, and within Islam, such people and groups are a tiny percentage of the total - and without the military, political or economic power to engage in much domination outside of their own small countries or regions of control.

What do the Haddith and Islamic scholars say about the verses I posted?

vaxx:
yes and to understand that you need to factor in the historical account of jslam itself. and it is not by randomly quoting quranic verses because it literarilly agree with your preconsive notion without understanding the historical connection leading to such verse. even bible require exegesis.

What is this historical context you keep talking about?

vaxx:
muslim are those who practised islam. without the former, the latter can't exist.

If I should judge by the Muslims you like, why should I not also judge by the ones you dislike?

vaxx:
Then that is poor question by the way,

it simply tell that the tradition that hold islam go beyond quran and hadith. e.g the use of traffic light or effect if high rise building in an Islamic world . hope you know fully well quran is a constitutional book to some islamic country. and since quran is silent about this, it become neccasry to borrow knolwedge outside of it.

What made it a poor question? You appeared to suggest that the Qur'an is outdated in some respects at least. So, I was asking you why it did not provide information that at some point in history, some parts of it would be outmoded. Why is that a poor question?

What I am getting from you so far is that the Qur'an is not the authority in this matter. But if that is true, why are you insisting that the verses I quoted were taken out of context? If they are outdated, why didn't you just say so?

But if they are, how do you explain the Mahdi?

Ihedinobi3:

Nations are conquered. Individuals are not. Individuals are oppressed, subdued, or persuaded

Nations simply means a large number of individual bonded with same historical background and culture.for you to conquer nation, you will be conquering induvidual that makes the nation.

ri eally wonder what you'll do when the Mahdi shows up.



Na wa.



What?

stick to the point of discussion, the discussion is about your false allegation that islam aim is to conquer the world, which i says it is not true.

What factual evidence? How did Muhammad treat the non-Muslims of his day

You may need to go read my early first three reply again.. not gonna repeat myself.

That part I put in bold text is an obvious lie

lets see..

What similar case in Christianity?

That there also exist extremists among Christian, those who nurses the idea that everyone should be christain.

So, basically, the Qur'an is not to be relied upon to know what Islam is?

how those this correlate with what i said there. Islamic teaching fall into three part, the quran, the hadith, the scholarly opinion. all of this are vital to islamic teachings.

Why then were you making such a fuss about verses allegedly taken out of context?

i guess your inability not to accept you are lacking the knowledge here is an issue. jumping toward conclusion when validation is yet to be made.

The fact that Islam is fragmented does not mean anything. The Mahdi is expected to come and unite Islam, restore it and rid the world of evil

i dont really know how this relate to the question at hand. this is why i said you lack the knowledge you are debating. and if you must know, not all muslim are expecting Mahdi, some believe he is dead and gone (The hamadiya) some believe NOTHING of such is coming (another fracture of islam) different sect with diffrent opinion.

But I didn't understand anything you said there.

Read it again but this time around, read it slowly.

What do the Haddith and Islamic scholars say about the verses I posted

This question was historically answer in my first three response to you. go back there and read it again.i am having the notion that you are not reading my reply but just interested to make your point.You are only appealing to poppular demand instead of critics and skeptic.

What is this historical context you keep talking about?

again, it is stated in my first three response to you. will not be repeating myself.

If I should judge by the Muslims you like, why should I not also judge by the ones you dislike?

and how those this contribute to the disscussion at hand.judging muslim is irrelevant, what to judge is quran, hadith and consensus agreement of the muslim scholar.

What made it a poor question?

The premises of the question itself.

You appeared to suggest that the Qur'an is outdated in some respects at least. So, I was asking you why it did not provide information that at some point in history, some parts of it would be outmoded. Why is that a poor question?

No, dont get me wrong, i appear to suggest that Quran gives allowance to borrowed outside of it, that those not mean my response literarilly suggeast it is outdated. Quran being the ultimate source of Islam, is considered the base of every rules and regulation for present time and the time which has yet to come. some islamic country use it as constitution but If one thing is not openly declared in Quran, then Hadith (Muhammad's words, action and agreeness to any action done in front of him) is the reference for Islamic Laws. Any event which takes place and isn't covered already will be addressed by scholars (Islamic Reasoning) by exploring the existing teachings in Quran, Hadith sharia base.

What I am getting from you so far is that the Qur'an is not the authority in this matter. But if that is true, why are you insisting that the verses I quoted were taken out of context? If they are outdated, why didn't you just say so?

You are not reading my words, you are only replying for the purpose of argument. Quran is not the only sole authority of islam as their other source if clarification does not exist in quran.
In muhammed time there was no missile or atomic bomb, neither can we find reference to even fire arms like Gun.. so any validation about that will be taken out of Quran.

But if they are, how do you explain the Mahdi

This is irrelevant anyway. but if i must answer. diffrent islamic denominations has different understanding to it. it is not a general idea thall all Muslim follow.

Ihedinobi3:

There are no flaws in the Bible. If you find any, feel free to challenge my statement.

The Bible is rather clear that we are not to force other people to follow Christ. And we are to be good citizens. There is nothing in the Bible that teaches otherwise.



There is nothing in the Bible about political issues of this sort. If governments want to make laws regulating sexuality, pregnancy and atheism, the Bible does not say anything about any of that.



I was born and raised in the Methodist Church. All three of my names and my surname are hard-to-pronounce Igbo names. I don't know a single instance where the Bible teaches that children must be named any particular way.



The Bible does not teach anything you complain about here.



I still don't see where the Bible teaches any of these things. So your claim is very dead and on ice.

The bible can do no wrong in your eyes. The same way a deluded muslim will come here and say that the Quran is perfect.



1) You say the bible says nothing about atheism but there is psalm 14;1-
"The fool says in his heart, “There is no God.” They are corrupt, their deeds are vile; there is no one who does."

2) You say that the bible says nothing about names- the same bible that has over twenty verses showing the importance and destiny tied to a name https://www.openbible.info/topics/names

3) You say the bible says nothing about forcing others to join the religion. Excuse me, what do you think hell is? Hell is a tool to scare people into being good religious folk. You forget all the old testament teachings that call for stoning of unbelievers- who are seen as witches, pagans and sabbath day rebels.


You can lie all you want but we all know how useless the bible is. A book that regulates slavery instead of abolishing it. Do you know that you cannot use the bible to rule against slavery?


Islam and christianity are as good as dead in Nigeria. Why? Just take a look around you. For all our religiosity, suffering remains paramount in our society. We just dont care about ourselves and our neighbours. "Love thy neighbour" is contradicted by too many other inhuman rules in the bible; love thy neiighbour, except the gay ones.

Una dey try.

vaxx:
Nations simply means a large number of individual bonded with same historical background and culture.for you to conquer nation, you will be conquering induvidual that makes the nation.

stick to the point of discussion, the discussion is about your false allegation that islam aim is to conquer the world, which i says it is not true.


You may need to go read my early first three reply again.. not gonna repeat myself.



lets see..

That there also exist extremists among Christian, those who nurses the idea that everyone should be christain.

how those this correlate with what i said there. Islamic teaching fall into three part, the quran, the hadith, the scholarly opinion. all of this are vital to islamic teachings.

i guess your inability not to accept you are lacking the knowledge here is an issue. jumping toward conclusion when validation is yet to be made.

i dont really know how this relate to the question at hand. this is why i said you lack the knowledge you are debating. and if you must know, not all muslim are expecting Mahdi, some believe he is dead and gone (The hamadiya) some believe NOTHING of such is coming (another fracture of islam) different sect with diffrent opinion.



Read it again but this time around, read it slowly.




This question was historically answer in my first three response to you. go back there and read it again.i am having the notion that you are not reading my reply but just interested to make your point.You are only appealing to poppular demand instead of critics and skeptic.



again, it is stated in my first three response to you. will not be repeating myself.


and how those this contribute to the disscussion at hand.judging muslim is irrelevant, what to judge is quran, hadith and consensus agreement of the muslim scholar.


The premises of the question itself.

No, dont get me wrong, i appear to suggest that Quran gives allowance to borrowed outside of it, that those not mean my response literarilly suggeast it is outdated. Quran being the ultimate source of Islam, is considered the base of every rules and regulation for present time and the time which has yet to come. some islamic country use it as constitution but If one thing is not openly declared in Quran, then Hadith (Muhammad's words, action and agreeness to any action done in front of him) is the reference for Islamic Laws. Any event which takes place and isn't covered already will be addressed by scholars (Islamic Reasoning) by exploring the existing teachings in Quran, Hadith sharia base.

You are not reading my words, you are only replying for the purpose of argument. Quran is not the only sole authority of islam as their other source if clarification does not exist in quran.
In muhammed time there was no missile or atomic bomb, neither can we find reference to even fire arms like Gun.. so any validation about that will be taken out of Quran.

This is irrelevant anyway. but if i must answer. diffrent islamic denominations has different understanding to it. it is not a general idea thall all Muslim follow.

So far, all I have seen is you

1. accusing me of judging Islam by the actions of some Muslims;

2. accusing me of taking verses out of context;

3. arguing that Islam will go extinct and thus will not conquer the world;

4. arguing about some undefined historical context involving Muhammad;

5. arguing that the Qur'an's authority is not absolute for Islam;

6. arguing that Islam should be judged by the actions of Muslims that you approve of.


I'm afraid none of this really flies. If the Qur'an is not the absolute authority on Islam, then Islam is whatever any Muslim wishes it to be. Therefore, there is no true definition of Islam. Therefore, the Islam of terrorists is no less legitimate than the Islam of the progressive Muslims. Therefore, my argument still stands.

Ihedinobi3:

So far, all I have seen is you

1. accusing me of judging Islam by the actions of some Muslims;

2. accusing me of taking verses out of context;

3. arguing that Islam will go extinct and thus will not conquer the world;

4. arguing about some undefined historical context involving Muhammad;

5. arguing that the Qur'an's authority is not absolute for Islam;

6. arguing that Islam should be judged by the actions of Muslims that you approve of.


I'm afraid none of this really flies. If the Qur'an is not the absolute authority on Islam, then Islam is whatever any Muslim wishes it to be. Therefore, there is no true definition of Islam. Therefore, the Islam of terrorists is no less legitimate than the Islam of the progressive Muslims. Therefore, my argument still stands.

i think this is worth replying, the rest doesn't matter since it fall on deaf ear.

Hadith and jurisdiction of the islamic scholars augment Quran, it does not stop it from being an absolute islamic book. just like how some books augment bible, it does not stop bible from it being an absolute book to the Christian . for example the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (Mormons) recognize the Book of Mormon, the Pearl of Great Price, and the Doctrine and Covenants. They also believe in continuing revelation. Jehovah's Witnesses use the periodic publications of the Watchtower as authoritative.The Catholic Church recognizes the Deuterocanon as part of the Bible, which most other Christian faiths do not. even seventh Day Adventists use the writings of Ellen White. all this does not invalidate the absolutness of the bible.

JeromeBlack:



The bible can do no wrong in your eyes. The same way a deluded muslim will come here and say that the Quran is perfect.

Even if that were so, it's no different than how you are with atheism.

JeromeBlack:
1) You say the bible says nothing about atheism but there is psalm 14;1-
"The fool says in his heart, “There is no God.” They are corrupt, their deeds are vile; there is no one who does."

Does that translate in any way to legislation for or against atheism or atheistic interests?

JeromeBlack:
2) You say that the bible says nothing about names- the same bible that has over twenty verses showing the importance and destiny tied to a name https://www.openbible.info/topics/names

How does that translate to forcing Jewish culture on believers up to the point of naming children any particular way?

JeromeBlack:
3) You say the bible says nothing about forcing others to join the religion. Excuse me, what do you think hell is? Hell is a tool to scare people into being good religious folk. You forget all the old testament teachings that call for stoning of unbelievers- who are seen as witches, pagans and sabbath day rebels.

I understand why antichristians love these two arguments sounded much that they continue to miss the very obvious flaws in them:

1. Clearly, Hell is not scary enough to make you a believer. Why then should it be believed that anyone has been forced to become a believer because if the fear of Hell? It is still a choice.

2. Do you begrudge a sovereign country its right to a justice system to protect its chosen way of life?

JeromeBlack:
You can lie all you want but we all know how useless the bible is. A book that regulates slavery instead of abolishing it. Do you know that you cannot use the bible to rule against slavery?

What lies do you accuse me of?

Who is "we all"? You and other antichristians? Or who? If in one breath you call me a liar and in the next you say this, how are you not the liar?

The Bible is not concerned with politics and political issues. Didn't I already say this?

JeromeBlack:
Islam and christianity are as good as dead in Nigeria. Why? Just take a look around you. For all our religiosity, suffering remains paramount in our society. We just dont care about ourselves and our neighbours. "Love thy neighbour" is contradicted by too many other inhuman rules in the bible; love thy neiighbour, except the gay ones.

How is any of this the fault of the Bible?

vaxx:
i think this is worth replying, the rest doesn't matter since it fall on deaf ear.

That is proof enough in itself that your defense is unreliable.

vaxx:
Hadith and jurisdiction of the islamic scholars augment Quran, it does not stop it from being an absolute islamic book. just like how some books augment bible, it does not stop bible from it being an absolute book to the Christian . for example the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (Mormons) recognize the Book of Mormon, the Pearl of Great Price, and the Doctrine and Covenants. They also believe in continuing revelation. Jehovah's Witnesses use the periodic publications of the Watchtower as authoritative.The Catholic Church recognizes the Deuterocanon as part of the Bible, which most other Christian faiths do not. even seventh Day Adventists use the writings of Ellen White. all this does not invalidate the absolutness of the bible.

I am not going to address your claims about the Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses and Adventists because I consider them all cults that twist the meanings of the Bible to serve their own ends. That already means that you cannot justify your own arguments to me by appealing to their methods.

Now, are you saying that the Hadith, the Islamic scholars and the Qur'an are together absolute in authority?

Ihedinobi3:

That is proof enough in itself that your defense is unreliable.

it is fruitless discusing with someone who is in fringe in his own cbristain teaching. on this issue, it is not about analytical and data-driven again but personal gullibility.

i amm not going to address your claims about the Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses and Adventists because I consider them all cults that twist the meanings of the Bible to serve their own ends. That already means that you cannot justify your own arguments to me by appealing to their methods.

A well display of confirmation bias.If you as a Christians really read through your bible and actually understood it in terms of historical context of what was happening at the time, in which i was pointing to you about islam. You would understand that your belief is a much more like islam itself But you are not interested in this information, you ignored it or not even cared about it . same thing is what is happening here, blackmailing other denomination becuse of your personal bias.

Now, are you saying that the Hadith, the Islamic scholars and the Qur'an are together absolute in authority?

There is different between augmenting and absolutness. catholic is a typical example, we have the pope, the bible and the Deuterocanon. all occupying their various position.

vaxx:
it is fruitless discusing with someone who is in fringe in his own cbristain teaching. on this issue, it is not about analytical and data-driven again but personal gullibility.

I don't understand the above but I agree with the idea that it is fruitless discussing with anyone who has decided never to entertain the possibility that they are in error.

vaxx:
A well display of confirmation bias.If you as a Christians really read through your bible and actually understood it in terms of historical context of what was happening at the time, in which i was pointing to you about islam. You would understand that your belief is a much more like islam itself But you are not interested in this information, you ignored it or not even cared about it . same thing is what is happening here, blackmailing other denomination becuse of your personal bias.

Olive branch: you probably don't know anything about me, so I encourage you to avoid making such assumptions as the above. If you look through my post history, you will quickly learn that I know a bit about history, especially the historical background of the Bible. I will throw in a bonus and tell you that I also know something of the history of Islam and the Qur'an too.

Accept this olive branch for your own sake.

vaxx:
There is different between augmenting and absolutness. catholic is a typical example, we have the pope, the bible and the Deuterocanon. all occupying their various position.

The Pope and the Apocrypha are false authorities for anyone who believes the Bible.

Ihedinobi3:

I don't understand the above but I agree with the idea that it is fruitless discussing with anyone who has decided never to entertain the possibility that they are in error.

Yes it is indeed a fruitless exercise.

Olive branch: you probably don't know anything about me, so I encourage you to avoid making such assumptions as the above. If you look through my post history, you will quickly learn that I know a bit about history, especially the historical background of the Bible. I will throw in a bonus and tell you that I also know something of the history of Islam and the Qur'an too.

Accept this olive branch for your own sake.

Do i need to learn more about you again, your post here is enough to judge your mind set and level of understanding. .you post what you know and belive. and i am sorry to say you seems not to appear like someone who knows. if i am even wrong with this assessment, the margin of error will be low.

The Pope and the Apocrypha are false authorities for anyone who believes the Bible.

Another confirmation bias. You claim to be a Methodist from birth, another Christian denomination. so it make sense to suggest you were raised/schooled to believe the pope and the apocryphal are false with a great deal of misinterpretation and flat out lies taught as truth. . therefore this lies is expected.

vaxx:
Do i need to learn more about you again, your post here is enough to judge your mind set and level of understanding. .you post what you know and belive. and i am sorry to say you seems not to appear like someone who knows. if i am even wrong with this assessment, the margin of error will be low.

Well then. Feel free to test my claims whenever you want.

vaxx:
Another conformation bias. You claim to be a Methodist from birth, another Christian denomination. so it make sense to suggest you were raised/schooled to believe the pope and the apocryphal are false with a great deal of misinterpretation and flat out lies taught as truth. . therefore this lies is expected.

Incredible.

Well, I am not currently a Methodist nor do I have an affiliation with any Christian denomination. I also have a Roman Catholic heritage through my mom who was raised a Catholic and remained one until a little after I was born. I personally investigated Roman Catholicism because I was drawn to the tradition and because my grandma used to take me with her to sacraments and masses when I was little until she died. It took a very long time before I completely broke with any notion that Roman Catholicism is truly Christian if only with some major faults. I was essentially sitting on the fence about that because they accept the Trinity and the Cross of Christ. But not so anymore.

In other words, there is very little that I currently believe which did not come from a long time searching, questioning, testing, discarding and retesting.

If you wish to continue to debate with me assuming that I am just carrying about typical assumptions that other people make, you do so at your own risk.

I am not here to show off what I know. I am here to encourage and strengthen fellow believers in Jesus Christ. That is why I often answer these threads that attack Christianity. If I wanted to show off, that is, for me personally to show off, I would be in the Islamic section going toe to toe with anyone who thinks they know Islam. I don't know it all, but I know enough to hold my own in a debate in such things. The same applies to atheism, Roman Catholicism, Seventh Day Adventistism, Jehovah's Witnesses and Mormonism. If I wanted to show off, I would be writing threads attacking all these things with what I know. But they are not my cup of tea. Some other believer may be gifted to deal specifically and more effectively with them. I am not. My gift is to teach the Bible and protect fellow believers from lies like this thread sought to spread.

Now, I believe that you and I are done. If you don't think so, then find some way of explaining Surah 9 so that we can know that Christianity and Islam are both non-coercive systems that not only do not threaten but also actively promote national integrity. If you cannot, my claim stands that Islam is opposed to national integrity and will subvert nations and compromise their sovereignty if it is able to.

Ihedinobi3:

Well then. Feel free to test my claims whenever you want.

This is what we been doing bro, your claim had been tested and it seems like some who is much more of anti islam rather than a truth seeker.

if you wish to continue to debate with me assuming that I am just carrying about typical assumptions that other people make, you do so at your own risk

firstly, i deleted most of what you posted here, since i consider them out of point and those not relate with what we are discussing here. so to your query, i do not wish to debate you like i find it interesting, but it is part of my duty as a nairaland religuous member to expose any false allegation against any faiith or ideology even if it is atheism. so be rest assure, no false accusation either from you or some one else will be left to remain closed.

Now, I believe that you and I are done. If you don't think so, then find some way of explaining Surah 9 so that we can know that Christianity and Islam are both non-coercive systems that not only do not threaten but also actively promote national integrity.ifyou cannot, my claim stands that Islam is opposed to national integrity and will subvert nations and compromise their sovereignty if it is able to.

Both Christianity and Islam profess underlying theologies and exchatologies which necessarily are mirror images of each other.

i actually don't know your arguments here, mention suratul 9 without mentioning the verse. well , suratul 9 is called suratul tawbah and it contains 129 verses. which of the verse in them are you referring to .Do you want to know about the whole complete verses?

vaxx:
This is what we been doing bro, your claim had been tested and it seems like some who is much more of anti islam rather than a truth seeker.

Are those two necessarily mutually exclusive? That is, if Islam is a lie, would a truth seeker not be anti-Islam?

vaxx:
firstly, i deleted most of what you posted here, since i consider them out of point and those not relate with what we are discussing here. so to your query, i do not wish to debate you like i find it interesting, but it is part of my duty as a nairaland religuous member to expose any false allegation against any faiith or ideology even if it is atheism. so be rest assure, no false accusation either from you or some one else will be left to remain closed.

I w as just showing you how wrong you are to make the assumptions you made about my background. Obviously being raised a Methodist does not mean that I know nothing about Roman Catholicism or that I inherited an anti-Roman philosophy.

Your error is very important. And your refusal to acknowledge it is equally important since it demonstrates how dishonest you are willing to be.

vaxx:
Both Christianity and Islam profess underlying theologies and exchatologies which necessarily are mirror images of each other.

i actually don't know your arguments here, mention suratul 9 without mentioning the verse. well , suratul 9 is called suratul tawbah and it contains 129 verses. which of the verse in them are you referring to .Do you want to know about the whole complete verses?

Just refer to the post where I gave you evidence for my claim about Islam. Sounds to me like you have really been wasting my time here.

Ihedinobi3:
Are those two necessarily mutually exclusive? That is, if Islam is a lie, would a truth seeker not be anti-Islam?

You dont seem to position your knowledge of islam as a truth seeker, what you represent here is what is expected of an antagonist. A truth seeker dessement/break the truth and understand the implications.

i w as just showing you how wrong you are to make the assumptions you made about my background. Obviously being raised a Methodist does not mean that I know nothing about Roman Catholicism or that I inherited an anti-Roman philosophy

Your background might be tied down by brainwashing , misinterpretation of text and likewise hatred attitude towards other religion group that seems not to support your background . This is very important, so it depends on how much you are ready to unshackled yourself from the existing ignorance.

Your error is very important. And your refusal to acknowledge it is equally important since it demonstrates how dishonest you are willing to be .

very good . and likewise your willingness to admit you are in err is equally important . you do this by focusing attention on the presentation of your opponent . your opponent had contributed three point here.
first (1 Your opponets had demonsrated his. understanding of the topic by referring to historical context which is very important to understand any sacred text of any faith.

2. your opponents had also use cross checking to guide his utterances by providing similarities between the topic discussed and verifiable evidence which are uncontested.

3 and lastly, your opponent had raised an allegation that you do not know the subject debated which is also very obvious.

A sincere truth seeker will have dessement/ break all this point.

Just refer to the post where I gave you evidence for my claim about Islam. Sounds to me like you have really been wasting my time here.

i really should be the very person who supposed to accused you of wasting my time, i have repeated similar words in more than five submission just to let you know the error you are commiting. You don't attack sacred text literarilly, exegesis are done, historical connection are verified to come up with whatever objective you arrive when concluded.

suratul tawab in a nut shell demonsrate the message of and mission of muhammed and the process of the Islamic movement. so to hold any meaningful argument against it , you have to reiterate the objectives and targets for which muhammed claim Allaah sends him in general, and the objectives and targets for which He Muĥammad in particular represent. it is from this context. you can make your argument as a scholar.

vaxx:
suratul tawab in a nut shell demonsrate the message of and mission of muhammed and the process of the Islamic movement. so to hold any meaningful argument against it , you have to reiterate the objectives and targets for which muhammed claim Allaah sends him in general, and the objectives and targets for which He Muĥammad in particular represent. it is from this context. you can make your argument as a scholar.

And thus you affirm my argument. Thank you.

I have nothing more to add.

HappyPagan:
You can't be singing "This world is not my own", and build a great nation..

You can't scream "Islamization" on one hand, while building tithe collection points every 5km....


You can't bow to Mecca, and bang your head on the walls of Jerusalem, yet hope for a greater Africa.

When the BIBLE and QURAN guard your thoughts, controlling you is a mater of reading that which you believe without doubt.

There is no human mind that's free from control!
Many people may argue that they're free from mind controlling,but if
*you do cover your unclothedness
*you get married
*rear children
*work,buy or sell
*dance to music
And many more,there is 100% evidence that you're doing things in accord with other intelligent creatures around you so you're surely under the influence of others!
What we need to do is test all these mind controlling institutions to know the LASTING BENEFIT of each one and know which one we can VOUCH for,that is what WISDOM means!

Ihedinobi3:

Even if that were so, it's no different than how you are with atheism.



Does that translate in any way to legislation for or against atheism or atheistic interests?



How does that translate to forcing Jewish culture on believers up to the point of naming children any particular way?




I understand why antichristians love these two arguments sounded much that they continue to miss the very obvious flaws in them:

1. Clearly, Hell is not scary enough to make you a believer. Why then should it be believed that anyone has been forced to become a believer because if the fear of Hell? It is still a choice.

2. Do you begrudge a sovereign country its right to a justice system to protect its chosen way of life?



What lies do you accuse me of?

Who is "we all"? You and other antichristians? Or who? If in one breath you call me a liar and in the next you say this, how are you not the liar?

The Bible is not concerned with politics and political issues. Didn't I already say this?



How is any of this the fault of the Bible?

Wow. I was reading through this old thread and couldn't help but notice how you consistently play ignorant and deny flaws in your bible/religion.