salam8528:
U are saying what u know not facts. So u are entitled to ur opinion, u can as well shove it under ur ass.

My dear take Ibruprofen for your menstrual pains, you'll be alright.

kilonshele101:



And how come you missed these
You should worry about the credibility as an historian that you're claiming to be

I have Given an Islamic Narration to the idols supported by Mohammed below, it is no hidden truth on these passages, Muslims have however chosen however to do image laundry for Mohamed by dismissing his errors or tagging his atrocities as weak hadits or allegations even when it comes from Muslim historians themselves

After deleting so many of these they lot of atrocities like pedophile still can't be erased instead justify it



Tafsir Al-Jalayn (Asbab-Al-Nuzul by Al -Wahidi)

Chapter 52


The commentators of the Quran said "We the messenger of Allah", Allah bless him and give him peace saw that his people were shunning him.

He was aggrieved by their rejection of the message he brought them and he secretly wished that Allah, exalted is he, reveals something to him which would bring him and his people closer to each other, keen as he was to see them accept faith.


One day, he sat in one of the congregation of qurash which attracted a huge number of its members, and he wished that Allah, exalted is He, does not reveal to him on that day anything that might repeal them from him.

Allah exalted is He revealed to him then (By the star when it stetteth).

Chapter 53

The messenger of Allah, Allah bless him give him peace, recited it but when he reached (Have ye thought upon al-lat and uzza and manat, the third and the other, the devil put on his tongue what he had secretly wished and hoped for and said.

"These are the mighty cranes and their intercession is hoped for" when the Quraysh heard this they were very pleased.

The messenger of Allah, Allah bless him and give him peace, carried on reciting until the end of the surah and then prostrated.

All the muslims followed suit and prostrated and all the idolaters who were present prostrated too.

All those who were present whether Muslim or disbeliever, prostrated except al-walid ibn al-mughirah and Abu Uhyahah said ibn al-as who were too advanced in age and could not postrate, but they both grabbed a handful of dust and put their foreheads on it.

The Quraysh then dispersed, happy with what they have heard they said "Muhammad has mentioned our idols with complimentary terms.

We know that Allah gives life and takes it away, He creates and provides sustenance, but these idols of ours will intercede for us with him.

Now that Muhammad has associated them, we are all with him, that evening Gabriel peace be upon him, went to the messenger of Allah, Allah bless him and give him peace, said "what have you done?

You recited to people that which i did not bring from Allah

Mikecold:
I have Given an Islamic Narration to the idols supported by Mohammed below, it is no hidden truth on these passages, Muslims have however chosen however to do image laundry for Mohamed by dismissing his errors or tagging his atrocities as weak hadits or allegations even when it comes from Muslim historians themselves

After deleting so many of these they lot of atrocities like pedophile still can't be erased instead justify it



Tafsir Al-Jalayn (Asbab-Al-Nuzul by Al -Wahidi)

Chapter 52


The commentators of the Quran said "We the messenger of Allah", Allah bless him and give him peace saw that his people were shunning him.

He was aggrieved by their rejection of the message he brought them and he secretly wished that Allah, exalted is he, reveals something to him which would bring him and his people closer to each other, keen as he was to see them accept faith.


One day, he sat in one of the congregation of qurash which attracted a huge number of its members, and he wished that Allah, exalted is He, does not reveal to him on that day anything that might repeal them from him.

Allah exalted is He revealed to him then (By the star when it stetteth).

Chapter 53

The messenger of Allah, Allah bless him give him peace, recited it but when he reached (Have ye thought upon al-lat and uzza and manat, the third and the other, the devil put on his tongue what he had secretly wished and hoped for and said.

"These are the mighty cranes and their intercession is hoped for" when the Quraysh heard this they were very pleased.

The messenger of Allah, Allah bless him and give him peace, carried on reciting until the end of the surah and then prostrated.

All the muslims followed suit and prostrated and all the idolaters who were present prostrated too.

All those who were present whether Muslim or disbeliever, prostrated except al-walid ibn al-mughirah and Abu Uhyahah said ibn al-as who were too advanced in age and could not postrate, but they both grabbed a handful of dust and put their foreheads on it.

The Quraysh then dispersed, happy with what they have heard they said "Muhammad has mentioned our idols with complimentary terms.

We know that Allah gives life and takes it away, He creates and provides sustenance, but these idols of ours will intercede for us with him.

Now that Muhammad has associated them, we are all with him, that evening Gabriel peace be upon him, went to the messenger of Allah, Allah bless him and give him peace, said "what have you done?

You recited to people that which i did not bring from Allah

Provide a link Mr historian or at least a pictorial evidence from the source you believe is more credible than Wikipedia.

Note: I'm neither a Muslim nor a Christian but you can't just be playing on people's intelligence in the name of history that you actually know nothing about.

I even don't want to believe you're a Christian because It's disgusting and hypocritical for Christians to be finding faults in islam when Christianity itself is full of faults. Islam just like Christianity contains a lot of factual and historical errors, it takes a sceptical mind to swallow the red pill.

But Of all the errors and miss match in Islam, the nonsense you're displaying here is embarrassing.


Quick tip.: to understand the flaws in your assertion, ask yourself these questions "have I trace this my assertion to a credible historical source" "is it okay to form a claim on Islam based on the publication of a renowned Islamophobic western author or who chose to use the account of a questionable historian to promote his Islamophobic motive"

kilonshele101:




Provide a link Mr historian or at least a pictorial evidence from the source you believe is more credible than Wikipedia.

Note: I'm neither a Muslim nor a Christian but you can't just be playing on people's intelligence in the name of history that you actually know nothing about.

I even don't want to believe you're a Christian because It's disgusting and hypocritical for Christians to be finding faults in islam when Christianity itself is full of faults. Islam just like Christianity contains a lot of factual and historical errors, it takes a sceptical mind to swallow the red pill.

But Of all the errors and miss match in Islam, the nonsense you're displaying here is embarrassing.


Quick tip.: to understand the flaws in your assertion, ask yourself these questions "have I trace this my assertion to a credible historical source" "is it okay to form a claim on Islam based on the publication of a renowned Islamophobic western author or who chose to use the account of a questionable historian to promote his Islamophobic motive"

listen and listen well, i have enumerated the source of idols Mohamed flirted with i further gave you Tafsir Al-Jalayn and it's passage to go research on, these are Islamic works in their own right not my work.

I also gave you a brief Wikipedia page highlighting this, these numerous Islamic narration as highlighted on Wikipedia comes in hard copy

I don't understand what you mean by mismatch

You have seen the summary of the events on Wikipedia quoting Islamic sources, why don't you go buy the books of these scholars and read them

Your problem is that you have concluded they are allegation just because some Muslims convince themselves they are.

In histology we don't think this way, we believe that ardent followers of Mohamed have no basics of embarrassing their revered prophet with a wrong narration.

Muslims only deny this because it bruises their prophet ego, and in histology the most bruising narration have the best percentage of been truthful

What makes the alleged good side of Mohammed not allegation too, it is easier for an adent follower to forge a fake story to help his prophet cause than the opposite

Mohamed flirted with idols a resource of his invented allah if you follow the depth of this flirt.

They were compiled by early Islamic scholars and historians who documented them.




Muslims have been erasing every figment of controversies that links Mohamed so you don't expect them to not call it allegation.

Abdul go to Tasfir Al- Jalayn (Asbab -Al-Nuzul by Al-Wahidi) chapter 52 53

Mikecold:
More helpful to northern christians Bible God isn't allah (aka Baal)

Even Muslims sef fail to understand their supposed god never introduced itself as allah.

It was Mohamed whom connoted the name allah for it after his so many encounters with the quresh tribe that worshipped baal

It irritate me when an illiterate try to act literate with out going to seek or the knowledge . Let me teach you

God in arabic is Illah, Allah. the A & I depend on certain technicality like in english you say ”a boy , an apple” not " a apple” so does arabic has it own technicalities

BTW about you claim have you read the koran before .
So before you go abt disgracing your self atleast use google.

BusinessCity:




That's easy to say. Do you know the term Ba and the other Al has been used by Arabians for over 4000 years to ascribe different deities and gods?


My dear, Arabs brought things people who didn't question it's root accepted. Period. 9 out of 10 of such faithful never knew beyond Allah is God in Arabic which is what was dished.



All ancient Arabic gods that was served in place of God was termed " the Lord " aka ba'al aka Allah to proof superior to other faiths which y'all do not know until today your day of being educated.. That's the origin of the term, Allah



My dear Allah isn't god but a man made idol

And how the crap does "Baal" and "Allah" sound any where near the same in you head

Sammy07:


Just like Igbos / Yoruba substituting Chineke / Olorun for Yahweh / Jehovah in our sayings / sentences and words

You are confused. Is Jehova Igbo? Even before Christianity came Chineke as a word was in existence. It means God of creation.

jcmaiah:

You are confused. Is Jehova Igbo? Even before Christianity came Chineke as a word was in existence. It means God of creation.

You have reading comprehension bro

Sammy07:


You have reading comprehension bro

Yes, I do have reading 'comprehension'

Mikecold:
listen and listen well, i have enumerated the source of idols Mohamed flirted with i further gave you Tafsir Al-Jalayn and it's passage to go research on, these are Islamic works in their own right not my work.

I also gave you a brief Wikipedia page highlighting this, the details comes in pdf files on the numerous Islamic narration

I don't understand what you mean by mismatch

Your argument isn't that Mohamed controversy on this doesn't exist but rather it is mere allegation.

In histology we don't think this way, we believe that ardent followers of Mohamed have no basics of embarrassing their revered prophet with a wrong narration.

Muslims only deny this because it bruises their prophet ego, and in histology the most bruising narration have the best percentage of been truthful



Mohamed flirted with idols long enough to borrow their pagan rituals and i have quoted the source

They were compiled by early Islamic scholars and historians who documented them.

Your job is to go download these files, they come in pdf

I only tried to make it easier for you by showing you the topic in brief from Wikipedia (you denied you not an Abdul but supposedly concluded it is mere allegation).

Muslims have been erasing every figment of controversies that links Mohamed so you don't expect them to not call it allegation.

Abdul go to Tasfir Al- Jalayn (Asbab -Al-Nuzul by Al-Wahidi) chapter 52 53

You should stop embarrassing yourself Mr "histologist" this is not a chemical structure. you have no slight knowledge of historiography and etymology. you're just a usual ignorant non Muslim invoking history to prove point and provoke the faithfuls.


Every historian, even new age story tellers and professional journalists can't dabble into controversies the way you did and they understand the weigh of the word alleged. They understand that plausibility of an argument alone is insufficient to guarantee its authenticity.



All what you know or what you think you know, your claims are motivated by your quest to discredit a religion, nothing more or less. If not, you won't choose a side of an argument, the side of the controversy that suit your biased motive.

Funnily enough you chose the weaker one, the side that is characterized with a lot of inconsistency, a side that is unpopular and rejected by many and you're trying to invoke historiography, how awesome, poor you don't know that in the study of source and method in history, the more popular and consistent a narration is, the more validity ascribe to it.


I knowingly asked you to provide a link to your source coz I know you will shoot yourself in the foot. I know you don't know that there are different inconsistent version of the narration and all are traced to just one person, an historian with a questionable integrity, someone birthed years after the death of Mohamed.



In that spirit, if you're not an hypocrite, if You can easily believe this, then you should easily believe the controversy that Jesus had sexual relation, a secret wife (Mary Magdalene) and two children. Read the book "lost gospel" and more historical evidence backing is up are gathering dust in the British library. But clearly looking at the inconsistency of the narration, it's obvious that is is a dubious plot by some to discredit Christianity. Hypocrite you will see that.


Besides, you still haven't explaine how the word Allah is linked to Baal according to your initial assertion

Quick advice : it is better you stick to your "histology" and biology than dabbling into history, you might get lost.

Mikecold:
Muslims only deny this because it bruises their prophet ego, and in histology the most bruising narration have the best percentage of been truthfu

Just to show you that you don't just believe every negative side of a controversy because it suit your biased motive.

The is a controversy about your every holy Jesus. Hope you won't deny it because it bruises you holy lord ego. Remember the most bruising narration have the best percentage.


https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2014/11/10/the-book-that-claims-jesus-had-a-wife-and-kids-and-the-controversial-author-behind-it/

Sammy07:


Just like Igbos / Yoruba substituting Chineke / Olorun for Yahweh / Jehovah in our sayings / sentences and words

Yes something of that nature
The thrend was very hot
Saw alot of things 2day

Mikecold:
That guy is so englighted, it is actually the Crux of the matter that the word allah doesn't translate to God except you mean "god".

So if hausas what to refer to Ugbagiji the supreme God just like yorubas would say olorun, you can't even compare a pagan baal just like olurun is different from sango

Can't you all dumbie understand that hausas native name to God is going on extinction?.... That's the point of this thread

kilonshele101:




Provide a link Mr historian or at least a pictorial evidence from the source you believe is more credible than Wikipedia.

Note: I'm neither a Muslim nor a Christian but you can't just be playing on people's intelligence in the name of history that you actually know nothing about.

I even don't want to believe you're a Christian because It's disgusting and hypocritical for Christians to be finding faults in islam when Christianity itself is full of faults. Islam just like Christianity contains a lot of factual and historical errors, it takes a sceptical mind to swallow the red pill.

But Of all the errors and miss match in Islam, the nonsense you're displaying here is embarrassing.


Quick tip.: to understand the flaws in your assertion, ask yourself these questions "have I trace this my assertion to a credible historical source" is it okay to form a claim on Islam based on the publication of a renowned Islamophobic western author or who chose to use the account of a questionable historian to promote his Islamophobic motive"

I like your arguments but I think you are shooting yourself on the foot with the bolded. If you can not trust the argument of "renowned islamophobic" on what ground would you want the guy whose point you are trying to counter to trust a source from "renowned Muslim pacifist or from a devoted muslim"?

Which brings me to another question, what degree of trust (level of authenticity) to ascribed to authors on both divides when it comes to religious discuss - given that the events contain in the holy books of Islam and Christianity are based on the narrative of an individual or individuals that share the same belief system with no input from people of that time with contrary opinions
( even if they were their inputs where never included by them but as narrated by the religious faithful).

If you don't mind I would like your thoughts on the above. Thanks

Sammy07:
I have noticed the word Ubangiji is almost (if not) going into extinction.

Hausa word for God is Ubangiji. Even google self made mistake.

Reason behind them using Allah, I don't know when Allah Is purely an Arabic word.



Source: https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.legit.ng/amp/1184912-names-god-hausa-language-meanings.html

Any northerner here to explain why Ubangiji and Allah are used as a substitute above?

When you cannot separate religion from culture, that's what you get. They allowed religion to infiltrate their mother tongue

kilonshele101:




You should stop embarrassing yourself Mr "histologist" this is not a chemical structure. you have no slight knowledge of historiography and etymology. you're just a usual ignorant non Muslim invoking history to prove point and provoke the faithfuls.


Every historian, even new age story tellers and professional journalists can't dabble into controversies the way you did and they understand the weigh of the word alleged. They understand that plausibility of an argument alone is insufficient to guarantee its authenticity.



All what you know or what you think you know, your claims are motivated by your quest to discredit a religion, nothing more or less. If not, you won't choose a side of an argument, the side of the controversy that suit your biased motive.

Funnily enough you chose the weaker one, the side that is characterized with a lot of inconsistency, a side that is unpopular and rejected by many and you're trying to invoke historiography, how awesome, poor you don't know that in the study of source and method in history, the more popular and consistent a narration is, the more validity ascribe to it.


I knowingly asked you to provide a link to your source coz I know you will shoot yourself in the foot. I know you don't know that there are different inconsistent version of the narration and all are traced to just one person, an historian with a questionable integrity, someone birthed years after the death of Mohamed.



In that spirit, if you're not an hypocrite, if You can easily believe this, then you should easily believe the controversy that Jesus had sexual relation, a secret wife (Mary Magdalene) and two children. Read the book "lost gospel" and more historical evidence backing is up are gathering dust in the British library. But clearly looking at the inconsistency of the narration, it's obvious that is is a dubious plot by some to discredit Christianity. Hypocrite you will see that.


Besides, you still haven't explaine how the word Allah is linked to Baal according to your initial assertion

Quick advice : it is better you stick to your "histology" and biology than dabbling into history, you might get lost.

THUMBS UP.

I GIVE YOU LOADS OF CREDIT FOR PUTTING UP THIS DEFENCE EVEN THOUGH YOU'RE NOT MUSLIM.

IF WE HAD MORE OF PEOPLE LIKE YOU HERE, THIS FORUM WON'T BE AS TOXIC AS SOME CHRISTIANS HERE HAVE MADE IT.

THE HATE IS INDESCRIBABLE.

slachtoffers:


I like your arguments but I think you are shooting yourself on the foot with the bolded. If you can not trust the argument of "renowned islamophobic" on what ground would you want the guy whose point you are trying to counter to trust a source from "renowned Muslim pacifist or from a devoted muslim"?

Which brings me to another question, what degree of trust (level of authenticity) to ascribed to authors on both divides when it comes to religious discuss - given that the events contain in the holy books of Islam and Christianity are based on the narrative of an individual or individuals that share the same belief system with no input from people of that time with contrary opinions
( even if they were their inputs where never included by them but as narrated by the religious faithful).

If you don't mind I would like your thoughts on the above. Thanks

I'm not at any point in my argument telling him to believe a source from the Muslim faithfuls. It is a controversy, and choosing a side in a controversy shouldn't be because of emotional sentiment which i discovered to be the primary factor motivating him and the reasoning he isn't being open minded.


Deviating a little from religion, looking at popular controversies like nature vs nurture controversy, freewill vs determinism controversy, rationalism vs empiricism controversy, dualism vs monism controversy etc, you will notice the tentativeness given to each side of this positions. Thinkers and philosophers can't say with any degree of certainty that one side is superior to the other because each side of this controversies is as popular and accepted as the other, that is why these controversies have been in existence for long and will be in existence for long. That's why you see them forming synthesis for each controversy.


Now back to our very own controversy of satanic verses recited by the Islamic prophet.

If we should look if from a spiritual point of view, Muslims believe the prophets are spiritually guided from satanic and demonic temptations, so the alleged incident is impossible. But people who are non Muslims might have problem with that position which is normal because it seems biased.

But appraising it from an historical perspective, which seems to be the absolute right way to appraise it. Because (as you said) things contain in the holy books are narrations (history)

Now, looking at the both sides of this historical controversy, one is more popular and accepted than the other. The stand that the allegation is false is popularly accepted than the stand that the alleged satanic verses was truly recited by the Islamic prophet. So this controversy don't share the characteristics of the controversies we mentioned earlier. The two positions of the controversy don't share the same popularity and in historiography, the more popular a narration is, the more validity ascribed to it.

Apart from that, looking as both positions, the weaker and unpopular one is characterized with a lot of inconsistency, there are numerous versions of the narration which are differ in construction and details and all these Inconsistent versions are traced to just one historian. This historian is birthed generations after the death of the Islamic prophet. That should worry an open minded modern historian /thinker. Meanwhile the other position is accepted by many because of its consistency and are traced to different credible historian and narrators of which some of their chain of narration can be traced to people who are directly involved with the prophet.

As you can see this historical evaluation is void of religious sentiment. And this historical evaluation gives the side of the controversy that favor the Muslim faithful an edge over the other one that seems to be the anthem of Islamophobic minds.


Like I said, I wasn't forcing him to believe in the other position, it is a controversy, I was just showing him the flaws in his own position.

I was even thinking that there are new developments in the weaker position, which I will openly welcome, that was the reason I was telling him to provide a source that he believe is more credible than Wikipedia, then I discovered that there is none, just the usual song by Islamophobic mind.

I even gave him the benefit of doubt, I was thinking his assertion was as a result of his ignorance of the historical evaluation, but then, his inability to be open minded gave him out as an Islamophobic fellow.

BusinessCity:



My dear take Ibruprofen for your menstrual pains, you'll be alright.

u need to take more than ibrofen, keep deceiving yourselfs there.

BusinessCity:


If people delve deep into the origin of the word Allah, you'll be shocked to see its root deep in Baal, pro-government time idol King. Ba-al which was wrongly asserted as a straightforward word Baal.

You're correct....... History and research have shown that the original Arabic name for God is not Allah and that Allah was an imported name/god from the defunct middle East countries.

In theogony, there's a clear distinction that 'allah' was an imported name, the coinage/making of men and the supreme head of some set of lower gods.

This hidden truth is one of the reasons some middle East religious scholars/leaders are extremely fanatics to veil the truth from their followers.

kilonshele101:



I'm not at any point in my argument telling him to believe a source from the Muslim faithfuls. It is a controversy, and choosing a side in a controversy shouldn't be because of emotional sentiment which i discovered to be the primary factor motivating him and the reasoning he isn't being open minded.


Deviating a little from religion, looking at popular controversies like nature vs nurture controversy, freewill vs determinism controversy, rationalism vs empiricism controversy, dualism vs monism controversy etc, you will notice the tentativeness given to each side of this positions. Thinkers and philosophers can't say with any degree of certainty that one side is superior to the other because each side of this controversies is as popular and accepted as the other, that is why these controversies have been in existence for long and will be in existence for long. That's why you see them forming synthesis for each controversy.


Now back to our very own controversy of satanic verses recited by the Islamic prophet.

If we should look if from a spiritual point of view, Muslims believe the prophets are spiritually guided from satanic and demonic temptations, so the alleged incident is impossible. But people who are non Muslims might have problem with that position which is normal because it seems biased.

But appraising it from an historical perspective, which seems to be the absolute right way to appraise it. Because (as you said) things contain in the holy books are narrations (history)

Now, looking at the both sides of this historical controversy, one is more popular and accepted than the other. The stand that the allegation is false is popularly accepted than the stand that the alleged satanic verses was truly recited by the Islamic prophet. So this controversy don't share the characteristics of the controversies we mentioned earlier. The two positions of the controversy don't share the same popularity and in historiography, the more popular a narration is, the more validity ascribed to it.

Apart from that, looking as both positions, the weaker and unpopular one is characterized with a lot of inconsistency, there are numerous versions of the narration which are differ in construction and details and all these Inconsistent versions are traced to just one historian. This historian is birthed generations after the death of the Islamic prophet. That should worry an open minded modern historian /thinker. Meanwhile the other position is accepted by many because of its consistency and are traced to different credible historian and narrators of which some of their chain of narration can be traced to people who are directly involved with the prophet.

As you can see this historical evaluation is void of religious sentiment. And this historical evaluation gives the side of the controversy that favor the Muslim faithful an edge over the other one that seems to be the anthem of Islamophobic minds.


Like I said, I wasn't forcing him to believe in the other position, it is a controversy, I was just showing him the flaws in his own position.

I was even thinking that there are new developments in the weaker position, which I will openly welcome, that was the reason I was telling him to provide a source that he believe is more credible than Wikipedia, then I discovered that there is none, just the usual song by Islamophobic mind.

I even gave him the benefit of doubt, I was thinking his assertion was as a result of his ignorance of the historical evaluation, but then, his inability to be open minded gave him out as an Islamophobic fellow.

I have two things to point out one is more personal which I believe is essential for civil conversion and the other is on the premise of your central idea.

First thanks for the response and your perspective on the idea that the degree of acceptance should lean towards where the narrative of the majority of the scholars.

On the premise of your central idea correct me if I am wrong. I think judging by verdict of most scholars more especially on historical issue and more so of one that borders on faith. Don't you think there is still some reasonable degree of bias? Taking the Catholic teaching for example there is likely to be more theological teachings favoring such faith just because majority of those that have interest in defending the teachings are most likely those of the Catholic faith who may likely feel that their faiths are either misunderstood or threatened as result you get more Catholic faithful devoting their time to it ( because to the unbiased non Catholic scholars it might be just a pure academic exercise while for the Catholic faith it is more than an academic exercise). I understand that this type of bias are complex to analysis and can not be completely eliminated. But don't you think that discussions that bases their evidence on such complex source of information such be preceeded with warning about the possible biases inherent in such evidence? What do you think?

Secondly about the personal point ( discount that you are trying to handle the guy you were arguing with since name calling is normal on NL and people should take it serious). Don't you find it like an attempt to shut someone up through shaming by calling them names like islamaphobic, tribalist, bigot rather than driving home your argument? Usually when I listen to discussion on serious issues that are mostly evidence based once name calling comes into I kind of tune out. Does that happen to you?

slachtoffers:


I have two things to point out one is more personal which I believe is essential for civil conversion and the other is on the premise of your central idea.

First thanks for the response and your perspective on the idea that the degree of acceptance should lean towards where the narrative of the majority of the scholars.

On the premise of your central idea correct me if I am wrong. I think judging by verdict of most scholars more especially on historical issue and more so of one that borders on faith. Don't you think there is still some reasonable degree of bias? Taking the Catholic teaching for example there is likely to be more theological teachings favoring such faith just because majority of those that have interest in defending the teachings are most likely those of the Catholic faith who may likely feel that their faiths are either misunderstood or threatened as result you get more Catholic faithful devoting their time to it ( because to the unbiased non Catholic scholars it might be just a pure academic exercise while for the Catholic faith it is more than an academic exercise). I understand that this type of bias are complex to analysis and can not be completely eliminated. But don't you think that discussions that bases their evidence on such complex source of information such be preceeded with warning about the possible biases inherent in such evidence? What do you think?

Secondly about the personal point ( discount that you are trying to handle the guy you were arguing with since name calling is normal on NL and people should take it serious). Don't you find it like an attempt to shut someone up through shaming by calling them names like islamaphobic, tribalist, bigot rather than driving home your argument? Usually when I listen to discussion on serious issues that are mostly evidence based once name calling comes into I kind of tune out. Does that happen to you?

Assessment bias is everywhere and that doesn't invalidate the method of carrying out the assessment. You find assessment bias not only in faith related discussions, you come across them in political issues, gender issues, cultural discussions, sport, even in empirical argumentations, for example the possibility of the occurrence of an assessment bias in statistics led to the creation of tools like "inter rater reliability" which measures the degree of homogeneity, consensus and consistency in the results given by various evaluators

Fortunately, the principle behind "inter rater reliability" can be applied to other objective evaluations outside statistical methods which history is one.
History, in presentation is literary but in methods is objective. history is constructed, it's a narrative built by historians, and in historical discussions, these builit narratives are what should be tandered as evidence, any inconsistency in these narratives is a red flag. That's why I tagged the guy's position weak, not only because it's accepted by many scholars but because of it's inconsistency
To simply answer your question, the possibility of the occurrence of an assessment bias doesn't invalidate the method of carrying out the assessment.




And to your second question.
In as much as your observation is true of NL, I also believe that appealing to pity for being judged according to one's actions and omissions or playing a victim card for what one is guilty of, or claiming to be a victim of 'name calling' when all obvious evidence fits one into the category of the set of people being called that particular name, rather than focusing or turning a blind eye to the evidences that the alleged accused tendered, is fallacious and a dubious attempt to discredit the argument of the alleged 'name caller'

And also, you can go back and reread my replies and see if I was calling him names to shut him up rather than driving home my points or I was driving home my argument and at the same time tell him what his argument proved him to be.

You be the judge.

MadamExcellency:


Igbos are not substituting anything in place of God. 85% of Igbo names start with Chi meaning Chineke.

Another bloated lie. 85% of Igbo names start with chi. Madam fear God.

Chi used in names is totally a recent invention. Your forebearers knows nothing of such.

Hisduchess:


Bro this your comment off me like NEPA

ok i misss u. is yor yansh now bigger?