Agboriotejoye:



I guess Muhammad wrote the Quran himself abi? BTW, who is the true successor to Muhammad, Ali or Rashul?

You see your life? How you are disgracing yourself!

Lol go get to know about the four rightly guided caliphs..

Back to bussiness!

Is the Bible 100% faultless and untampered with by the Church?

Well then, in spite of these facts are the records found in the New Testament known to be 100% completely and fully authentic such that no intentional nor unintentional changes have ever been made by the church to the text of the NT? Well, since our opinion in this matter might be biased, therefore, let meask the Christian scholars themselves if you cant answer

Ibkhaleel001:

Has not the Qur'an actually legalized adultery by allowing for
the master to have sexual relationships with his female slaves?

Female slaves are the natural by-product of the system of
slavery. The situation that prevailed in all societies where the institution
of slavery existed was such that slave women were used at will and
were employed to gain economic advantage by inciting them towards
prostitution. As for Islam, it provided for a facility which would, in the
course of one generation, bring an end to the system through the slave
women themselves.
The slave woman is the property of the master. However, the
master has no right, whatsoever, to incite her towards adultery. Like
the male slaves, the female slaves, too, have rights of their own. It is
the duty of the master to provide her with food, shelter, clothes and
other necessities. Moreover, the Qur'an has asked the owner to make
the necessary arrangements for her marriage as well (Qur'an 24:32).
This, in effect, means that the Qur'an has prompted the owner
towards having sexual relations with an unmarried female slave. This
permission is however restricted to the owner alone. No one else is
allowed to use her in this fashion even if it be with the permission of
the master!
In giving birth to the child of the master, the slave woman
becomes entitled to new rights. Thenceforth, the master has no right
to sell her. She becomes the mother of her master’s children. These
children, too, become entitled to all the rights and privileges enjoyed by
the master’s other children. Islam disagrees with the Jewish stand
that the children born through a slave woman have none of the rights
that should naturally be given to them by virtue of paternity. These
children are, in all respects, his own children. There is to be no
discrimination of any kind between them and the other children. With
the death of the master, the slave woman, who is the mother of his
children, becomes a free woman. She is then protected by her own
children. They, too, like the other children, will becomes entitled to a
share in their father’s inheritance.
The permission to accept slave women as one’s life-partner
was, in fact, a provision which would, in the course of one generation,
cut out the very root of slavery. In reality, therefore, the permission
granted for having relations with slave women was one among the
many unique steps taken by Islam in practically eradicating slavery.
It is not possible to equate the permission given for having
relations with slave women to adultery. These acts stand at two extreme
poles. One is the case of the woman who lives under her master
enjoying the protection that he confers upon her. It is a relationship in
which he fully agrees to take up the responsibilities that may result as
a product of that relationship. It is a relationship in which her personality,
beyond the contours defined by sex, is accorded full recognition. It is
a relationship which opens to her the door to freedom. As for the
second, it is nothing but a carnal relationship with a prostitute without
any sort of commitment.

Hahahahaha

Lies!! Ok then. What about the male slaves? How do you end slavery in that regard? Besides, we all know, Islam never preached because the prospect of enslaving people appealed to them.

Agboriotejoye:


Hahahahaha

Lies!! Ok then. What about the male slaves? How do you end slavery in that regard? Besides, we all know, Islam never preached because the prospect of enslaving people appealed to them.

The truth sounds like lie to you?

Dull dead brain!!!

So are all Christians evil and deceitful?

Does this mean that all Christians are conniving traitors to the words of God? Very definitely yes! .

Xscape1993:
The major problem of the world today is religion.

. Be specific, it's Islam

Reminderz:



Leemao.. forced .. check the rate of conversion amongst both popular religion.. then come back to me

Muslim are growing bcus them preaching support extended families. They embrace multiple wives . Not bcus they convert ppl to Islam . No sane human being will like to be converted to any religion (all are scam) .

Ibkhaleel001:
Let me once again disgrace you! Even the pope can not save your stinking ass today!

Even if we agree to your bias claim Jesus existing before Abraham doesn't prove that he is GOD Almighty.

In the Old Testament, the Bible presents Jeremiah as being a prophet before he was conceived in his mother's womb; "Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, before you were born I set you apart; I appointed you as a prophet to the nations. (From the NIV Bible, Jeremiah 1:5)" Yet no one says that his pre-human existence qualifies him for deity.

And as to "I am" that Jesus used, no it wasn't the same "I am" that GOD Almighty used in the Old Testament. GOD used "HO ON", while Jesus used "EGO EIMI".

If Jesus wanted to tell the Jews that he was claiming to be God he should have at least remained consistent in the use of words or the whole point is lost. How many people in that age would have said "I am," in answer to questions in everyday life. Billions. Are they all gods? Of course not!

Are you still lost?

Why did you insist in worshiping Jesus when he hates you and doesn't know you?

Remember he was only sent to the lost sheeps of israel

I am really enjoying your comic relief
Matthew 14:13

Then those who were in the boat worshiped him, saying, “Truly you are the Son of God.”

Matthew 16:15

“But what about you?” he asked. “Who do you say I am?”

16. Simon Peter answered, “You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God.”

17. Jesus replied, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by flesh and blood, but by my Father in heaven.

Jesus actually was worshipped you said no it's not worship

I pointed out it was worshipped with the acknowledgement of him as God, you are dumb fonded

You have agreed that Jesus existed before his birth or time yet he wasn't an angel you are still asking how it makes him God when Peter called him God and he commended Peter as saying the truth instead of rebuking him.

You foolishly say nothing special about Jesus Even though the works of creation which only Allah claims he is the best of was also done by Jesus who gave life to objects

Nothing special about Jesus but Muslims argue that when Jesus said he was sending someone he was referring to Muhammad

Does this mean Jesus sent Mohamed because it takes the greater to send the lesser yet you claim Jesus wasn't higher than Mohamed.

Is it your quran we should now believe, your corrupted Quran that says Imran was the father of Moses/Aaron and also the father of Mary

You dull sha

Mind you the quoted is all coming from Jesus and peter directly not from Paul you want to use as excuse

The Jeremiah verse you quoted are you not stupid not to notice that is Some one (Yaweh) talking to Jeremiah

Truthissupreme:
I am really enjoying your comic relief
Matthew 14:13

Then those who were in the boat worshiped him, saying, “Truly you are the Son of God.”

Matthew 16:15

“But what about you?” he asked. “Who do you say I am?”

16. Simon Peter answered, “You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God.”

17. Jesus replied, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by flesh and blood, but by my Father in heaven.

Jesus actually was worshipped you said no it's not worship

I pointed out it was worshipped with the acknowledgement of him as God, you are dumb fonded

You have agreed that Jesus existed before his birth or time yet he wasn't an angel you are still asking how it makes him God when Peter called him God and he commended Peter as saying the truth instead of rebuking him.

You foolishly say nothing special about Jesus Even though the works of creation which only Allah claims he is the best of was also done by Jesus who gave life to objects

Nothing special about Jesus but Muslims argue that when Jesus said he was sending someone he was referring to Muhammad

Does this mean Jesus sent Mohamed because it takes the greater to send the lesser yet you claim Jesus wasn't higher than Mohamed.

Is it your quran we should now believe, your corrupted Quran that says Imran was the father of Moses/Aaron and also the father of Mary

You dull sha

Mind you the quoted is all coming from Jesus and peter directly not from Paul you want to use as excuse

Where then did our modern Bibles come from?

The Biblical world has in its possession a large collection of ancient manuscripts of the Bible. These ancient copies of the Bible were written in different locations around the world and in different ages. We are told that in our current age there are up to 24,000 such ancient copies of the Bible. These are the manuscripts that the scholars go to in order to produce our modern Bibles (such as the KJV, the RSV, the NIV, etc.). In most cases the most ancient copies of the Bible are the ones held in the highest regard and considered to be the most accurate. This, however, is not a hard and fast rule.

All biblical versions of the Bible prior to the revised version of 1881 were dependent upon the "Ancient copies" (those dated at about five to six hundred years after Jesus). The revisers of the Revised Standard Version (RSV) 1952 were the first biblical scholars to have access to the "Most ancient copies" which date roughly four hundred years after Christ. It is only logical for us to concur that the closer a document is to the source the more authentic it is. Upon discovering these "most" ancient copies of the Bible, what did the scholars of the Bible learn about their "King James Version" (KJV) of the Bible?

Ibkhaleel001:
You see your life? How you are disgracing yourself!

Lol go get to know about the four rightly guided caliphs..

Back to bussiness!

Is the Bible 100% faultless and untampered with by the Church?

Well then, in spite of these facts are the records found in the New Testament known to be 100% completely and fully authentic such that no intentional nor unintentional changes have ever been made by the church to the text of the NT? Well, since our opinion in this matter might be biased, therefore, let meask the Christian scholars themselves if you cant answer

Yes. The Bible is faultless. I can't say that of the Quran which was plagiarism to start with

Agboriotejoye:


Yes. The Bible is faultless. I can't say that of the Quran which was plagiarism to start with

In the preface of the RSV 1971 we find the following:

"...Yet the King James Version has GRAVE DEFECTS.."

They go on to caution us that:

"...That these defects are SO MANY AND SO SERIOUS as to call for revision"

The New Revised Standard Version of the Bible by Oxford Press has the following to say in its preface:

"Yet the King James Version has serious defects. By the middle of the nineteenth century, the development of biblical studies and the discovery of many biblical manuscripts more ancient than those on which the King James Version was based made it apparent that these defects were so many as to call for revision."

Who says so? Who are these people who claim that the Bible in the hands of the majority of today's Christians contains "many" "grave defects" which are so "serious" as to require a complete overhaul of the text? Well, we can find the answer in the very same RSV Bible. In it, the publishers themselves (Collins) mention on page 10 of their notes:

"This Bible (RSV) is the product of thirty two scholars assisted by an advisory committee representing fifty cooperating denominations"

Let us see what is the opinion of Christendom with regard to these scholars and their work in the revision of the Bible (revised by them in 1952 and then again in 1971):

"The finest version which has been produced in the present century" - (Church of England newspaper)

"A completely fresh translation by scholars of the highest eminence" - (Times literary supplement)

"The well loved characteristics of the authorized version combined with a new accuracy of translation" - (Life and Work)

"The most accurate and close rendering of the original" - (The Times)

Ibkhaleel001:
The truth sounds like lie to you?

Dull dead brain!!!

So are all Christians evil and deceitful?

Does this mean that all Christians are conniving traitors to the words of God? Very definitely yes! .

Answer the question oga. What about the male slaves?

Ibkhaleel001:
Where then did our modern Bibles come from?

The Biblical world has in its possession a large collection of ancient manuscripts of the Bible. These ancient copies of the Bible were written in different locations around the world and in different ages. We are told that in our current age there are up to 24,000 such ancient copies of the Bible. These are the manuscripts that the scholars go to in order to produce our modern Bibles (such as the KJV, the RSV, the NIV, etc.). In most cases the most ancient copies of the Bible are the ones held in the highest regard and considered to be the most accurate. This, however, is not a hard and fast rule.

All biblical versions of the Bible prior to the revised version of 1881 were dependent upon the "Ancient copies" (those dated at about five to six hundred years after Jesus). The revisers of the Revised Standard Version (RSV) 1952 were the first biblical scholars to have access to the "Most ancient copies" which date roughly four hundred years after Christ. It is only logical for us to concur that the closer a document is to the source the more authentic it is. Upon discovering these "most" ancient copies of the Bible, what did the scholars of the Bible learn about their "King James Version" (KJV) of the Bible?

shut your dirty mouth

Keeping running like a zombie that I have drained in hot oil

Shey na you create Bible, shey Mohamed knew Jesus ni or even step foot in Israel to be dishing you fallacies on what he never saw.

Can you tell us why the Quran that is "perfect" calls Moses father the father of Mary?

Ibkhaleel001:
In the preface of the RSV 1971 we find the following:

"...Yet the King James Version has GRAVE DEFECTS.."

They go on to caution us that:

"...That these defects are SO MANY AND SO SERIOUS as to call for revision"

The New Revised Standard Version of the Bible by Oxford Press has the following to say in its preface:

"Yet the King James Version has serious defects. By the middle of the nineteenth century, the development of biblical studies and the discovery of many biblical manuscripts more ancient than those on which the King James Version was based made it apparent that these defects were so many as to call for revision."

Who says so? Who are these people who claim that the Bible in the hands of the majority of today's Christians contains "many" "grave defects" which are so "serious" as to require a complete overhaul of the text? Well, we can find the answer in the very same RSV Bible. In it, the publishers themselves (Collins) mention on page 10 of their notes:

"This Bible (RSV) is the product of thirty two scholars assisted by an advisory committee representing fifty cooperating denominations"

Let us see what is the opinion of Christendom with regard to these scholars and their work in the revision of the Bible (revised by them in 1952 and then again in 1971):

"The finest version which has been produced in the present century" - (Church of England newspaper)

"A completely fresh translation by scholars of the highest eminence" - (Times literary supplement)

"The well loved characteristics of the authorized version combined with a new accuracy of translation" - (Life and Work)

"The most accurate and close rendering of the original" - (The Times)

The defect is in the translation you ignoramus. Not in the original message and meanings

Your Quran however remains a product of plagiarism. Know this, know peace

Agboriotejoye:


Answer the question oga. What about the male slaves?

Lying or dodging my challenges will not save you tonight!

You will receive the greatest lesson of your life today.... I'll deal with you till you die!! U wil regret touching a Muslim...

Agboriotejoye:


Answer the question oga. What about the male slaves?

Lying or dodging my challenges will not save you tonight!

You will receive the greatest lesson of your life today.... I'll deal with you till you di**!! U wil regret touching a Muslim...

Ibkhaleel001:
Lying or dodging my challenges will not save you tonight!

You will receive the greatest lesson of your life today.... I'll deal with you till you di**!! U wil regret touching a Muslim...

Let us look at the following Sayings from our beloved Prophet Muhammad peace be upon him:

Abu Mas'ud al-Ansari reported: "When I was beating my servant, I heard a voice behind me (saying): Abu Mas'ud, bear in mind Allah has more dominance over you than you have upon him. I turned and (found him) to be Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him). I said: Allah's Messenger, I set him free for the sake of Allah. Thereupon he said: Had you not done that, (the gates of) Hell would have opened for you, or the fire would have burnt you. (Translation of Sahih Muslim, The Book of Oaths (Kitab Al-Aiman), Book 015, Number 4088)"

Abu Mas'ud al-Badri reported: "I was beating my slave with a whip when I heard a voice behind me: Understand, Abu Masud; but I did not recognise the voice due to intense anger. He (Abu Mas'ud) reported: As he came near me (I found) that he was the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) and he was saying: Bear in mind, Abu Mas'ud; bear in mind. Abu Mas'ud. He (Aba Maslad) said: threw the whip from my hand. Thereupon he (the Holy Prophet) said: Bear in mind, Abu Mas'ud; verily Allah has more dominance upon you than you have upon your slave. I (then) said: I would never beat my servant in future. (Translation of Sahih Muslim, The Book of Oaths (Kitab Al-Aiman), Book 015, Number 4086)"

Abu Mas'ud reported that he had been beating his slave and he had been saying: "I seek refuge with Allah, but he continued beating him, whereupon he said: I seek refuge with Allah's Messenger, and he spared him. Thereupon Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) said: By Allah, God has more dominance over you than you have over him (the slave). He said that he set him free. This hadith has been narrated on the authority of Shu'ba with the same chain of transmitters, but made no mention of (these words) of his: I seek refuge with Allah, I seek refuge with Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him). (Translation of Sahih Muslim, The Book of Oaths (Kitab Al-Aiman), Book 015, Number 4089)"

If a Muslim beats his slave or slaps him on the face, then he must set him free:

"Zadhan reported that Ibn Umar called his slave and he found the marks (of beating) upon his back. He said to him: I have caused you pain. He said: No. But he (Ibn Umar) said: You are free. He then took hold of something from the earth and said: There is no reward for me even to the weight equal to it. I heard Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) as saying: He who beats a slave without cognizable offence of his or slaps him, then expiation for it is that he should set him free. (Translation of Sahih Muslim, The Book of Oaths (Kitab Al-Aiman), Book 015, Number 4079)"

The above Sayings of our beloved Prophet peace be upon him are very straight forward. If a Muslim beats his slave, then the gates of hell will open for him. Muslims must not mistreat their slaves, because slaves in Islam are like brothers:

Narrated Al-Ma'rur: At Ar-Rabadha I met Abu Dhar who was wearing a cloak, and his slave, too, was wearing a similar one. I asked about the reason for it. He replied, "I abused a person by calling his mother with bad names." The Prophet said to me, 'O Abu Dhar! Did you abuse him by calling his mother with bad names You still have some characteristics of ignorance. Your slaves are your brothers and Allah has put them under your command. So whoever has a brother under his command should feed him of what he eats and dress him of what he wears. Do not ask them (slaves) to do things beyond their capacity (power) and if you do so, then help them.' (Translation of Sahih Bukhari, Belief, Volume 1, Book 2, Number 29)"

Abu Huraira reported Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) as saying: "When the slave of anyone amongst you prepares food for him and he serves him after having sat close to (and undergoing the hardship of) heat and smoke, he should make him (the slave) sit along with him and make him eat (along with him), and if the food seems to run short, then he should spare some portion for him (from his own share) - (another narrator) Dawud said:" i. e. a morsel or two". 4097. (Translation of Sahih Muslim, The Book of Oaths (Kitab Al-Aiman), Book 015, Number 4096)"

Narrated AbuDharr: "The Prophet (peace_be_upon_him) said: Feed those of your slaves who please you from what you eat and clothe them with what you clothe yourselves, but sell those who do not please you and do not punish Allah's creatures. (Translation of Sunan Abu Dawud, General Behavior (Kitab Al-Adab, Book 41, Number 5142)"





2- Slaves are not meant to be slaves, because eventually they will all be set free. A slave in Islam can request and be granted his freedom from his master:

First, it is important to know that thousands of years ago life was different than today. Today, people wouldn't accept slavery for any reason. The reason for this is because people are a lot more independent both financially, education wise, mentally, etc... But people back then were different. When a tribe or a group of people lose a major battle and their money is mostly, if not all, is taken as war booty by the other side, then people could and would accept being slaves for the following reasons:

1- Both financial and social security. When their country or tribe lost the war, they also lost most or all of their money as war booty. Being out of money and food, it becomes necessary for an individual to find the means for basic survival in life. Living as a slave would provide this.

2- Protection from hostile individuals. Even under the Islamic rule, you can still find hostile individuals who violate the Law and take matters into their own hands. An enemy family can be sometime in danger if they don't have a "protector".

3- Widows, Orphans, and the extremely poor of the enemy side need the financial and social protection from a Master. Back then, there were no governments with good social system that protects everyone. Slavery back then was that social system in special cases.

There are probably more points I can add, but I think these are sufficient enough. Let us now see the Islamic System toward Slaves:



Slaves can request and get their freedom from their Muslim Masters:

Yes slaves were taken from the blood-thirsty and hostile enemies, but they were also given the right to get their freedom when ever they want. The Noble Quran not only allows slaves to request their freedom from their Muslim masters, but also orders the Muslim masters to pay the slaves money to help them stand on their feet and to be able to face life with a good jump start.

Let us look at Noble Verse 24:33 "Let those who find not the wherewithal for marriage keep themselves chaste, until God gives them means out of His grace. And if any of your slaves ask for a deed in writing (to enable them to earn their freedom for a certain sum), give them such a deed if ye know any good in them: yea, give them something yourselves out of the means which God has given to you. But force not your maids to prostitution when they desire chastity, in order that ye may make a gain in the goods of this life. But if anyone compels them, yet, after such compulsion, is God, Oft-

Ibkhaleel001:
Denying the truth will never save you tonight....

Did Moses write his own obituary? Similarly, Joshua too speaks in detail about his own death in Joshua 24:29-33.

How comes?

The Pentateuch was completed by Joshua. Same with the book of Joshua completed by Caleb. No one claimed any asinine revelations. They were written down by men about God's dealings with Israel.

Now, can you show us any mention of Mohammad in the Torah for him to have received a revelation about Torah that existed before him?

Agboriotejoye:


The defect is in the translation you ignoramus. Not in the original message and meanings

Your Quran however remains a product of plagiarism. Know this, know peace

lol ao lies have been translated for you fooools to consume blindly

Show me some examples of thesee 'grave defects' in the Bible:

So if these highly esteemed 32 Christian Biblical scholars backed by fifty cooperating Christian denominations tell us that through their study of recently discovered manuscripts of the Bible they have found many grave and serious defects in the King James Version of the Bible then where are some examples of these "defects"? A good question, let us have a look:

In 1 John 5:7 (King James Version) we find:

"For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost, and these three are one. (John 5:7)"

Ibkhaleel001:
Let us look at the following Sayings from our beloved Prophet Muhammad peace be upon him:

Abu Mas'ud al-Ansari reported: "When I was beating my servant, I heard a voice behind me (saying): Abu Mas'ud, bear in mind Allah has more dominance over you than you have upon him. I turned and (found him) to be Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him). I said: Allah's Messenger, I set him free for the sake of Allah. Thereupon he said: Had you not done that, (the gates of) Hell would have opened for you, or the fire would have burnt you. (Translation of Sahih Muslim, The Book of Oaths (Kitab Al-Aiman), Book 015, Number 4088)"

Abu Mas'ud al-Badri reported: "I was beating my slave with a whip when I heard a voice behind me: Understand, Abu Masud; but I did not recognise the voice due to intense anger. He (Abu Mas'ud) reported: As he came near me (I found) that he was the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) and he was saying: Bear in mind, Abu Mas'ud; bear in mind. Abu Mas'ud. He (Aba Maslad) said: threw the whip from my hand. Thereupon he (the Holy Prophet) said: Bear in mind, Abu Mas'ud; verily Allah has more dominance upon you than you have upon your slave. I (then) said: I would never beat my servant in future. (Translation of Sahih Muslim, The Book of Oaths (Kitab Al-Aiman), Book 015, Number 4086)"

Abu Mas'ud reported that he had been beating his slave and he had been saying: "I seek refuge with Allah, but he continued beating him, whereupon he said: I seek refuge with Allah's Messenger, and he spared him. Thereupon Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) said: By Allah, God has more dominance over you than you have over him (the slave). He said that he set him free. This hadith has been narrated on the authority of Shu'ba with the same chain of transmitters, but made no mention of (these words) of his: I seek refuge with Allah, I seek refuge with Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him). (Translation of Sahih Muslim, The Book of Oaths (Kitab Al-Aiman), Book 015, Number 4089)"

If a Muslim beats his slave or slaps him on the face, then he must set him free:

"Zadhan reported that Ibn Umar called his slave and he found the marks (of beating) upon his back. He said to him: I have caused you pain. He said: No. But he (Ibn Umar) said: You are free. He then took hold of something from the earth and said: There is no reward for me even to the weight equal to it. I heard Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) as saying: He who beats a slave without cognizable offence of his or slaps him, then expiation for it is that he should set him free. (Translation of Sahih Muslim, The Book of Oaths (Kitab Al-Aiman), Book 015, Number 4079)"

The above Sayings of our beloved Prophet peace be upon him are very straight forward. If a Muslim beats his slave, then the gates of hell will open for him. Muslims must not mistreat their slaves, because slaves in Islam are like brothers:

Narrated Al-Ma'rur: At Ar-Rabadha I met Abu Dhar who was wearing a cloak, and his slave, too, was wearing a similar one. I asked about the reason for it. He replied, "I abused a person by calling his mother with bad names." The Prophet said to me, 'O Abu Dhar! Did you abuse him by calling his mother with bad names You still have some characteristics of ignorance. Your slaves are your brothers and Allah has put them under your command. So whoever has a brother under his command should feed him of what he eats and dress him of what he wears. Do not ask them (slaves) to do things beyond their capacity (power) and if you do so, then help them.' (Translation of Sahih Bukhari, Belief, Volume 1, Book 2, Number 29)"

Abu Huraira reported Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) as saying: "When the slave of anyone amongst you prepares food for him and he serves him after having sat close to (and undergoing the hardship of) heat and smoke, he should make him (the slave) sit along with him and make him eat (along with him), and if the food seems to run short, then he should spare some portion for him (from his own share) - (another narrator) Dawud said:" i. e. a morsel or two". 4097. (Translation of Sahih Muslim, The Book of Oaths (Kitab Al-Aiman), Book 015, Number 4096)"

Narrated AbuDharr: "The Prophet (peace_be_upon_him) said: Feed those of your slaves who please you from what you eat and clothe them with what you clothe yourselves, but sell those who do not please you and do not punish Allah's creatures. (Translation of Sunan Abu Dawud, General Behavior (Kitab Al-Adab, Book 41, Number 5142)"





2- Slaves are not meant to be slaves, because eventually they will all be set free. A slave in Islam can request and be granted his freedom from his master:

First, it is important to know that thousands of years ago life was different than today. Today, people wouldn't accept slavery for any reason. The reason for this is because people are a lot more independent both financially, education wise, mentally, etc... But people back then were different. When a tribe or a group of people lose a major battle and their money is mostly, if not all, is taken as war booty by the other side, then people could and would accept being slaves for the following reasons:

1- Both financial and social security. When their country or tribe lost the war, they also lost most or all of their money as war booty. Being out of money and food, it becomes necessary for an individual to find the means for basic survival in life. Living as a slave would provide this.

2- Protection from hostile individuals. Even under the Islamic rule, you can still find hostile individuals who violate the Law and take matters into their own hands. An enemy family can be sometime in danger if they don't have a "protector".

3- Widows, Orphans, and the extremely poor of the enemy side need the financial and social protection from a Master. Back then, there were no governments with good social system that protects everyone. Slavery back then was that social system in special cases.

There are probably more points I can add, but I think these are sufficient enough. Let us now see the Islamic System toward Slaves:



Slaves can request and get their freedom from their Muslim Masters:

Yes slaves were taken from the blood-thirsty and hostile enemies, but they were also given the right to get their freedom when ever they want. The Noble Quran not only allows slaves to request their freedom from their Muslim masters, but also orders the Muslim masters to pay the slaves money to help them stand on their feet and to be able to face life with a good jump start.

Let us look at Noble Verse 24:33 "Let those who find not the wherewithal for marriage keep themselves chaste, until God gives them means out of His grace. And if any of your slaves ask for a deed in writing (to enable them to earn their freedom for a certain sum), give them such a deed if ye know any good in them: yea, give them something yourselves out of the means which God has given to you. But force not your maids to prostitution when they desire chastity, in order that ye may make a gain in the goods of this life. But if anyone compels them, yet, after such compulsion, is God, Oft-

Another tissue of lies. If so, why did Muhammad tell his followers to beat their wives. Are the wives worse than slaves?

Agboriotejoye:


Another tissue of lies. If so, why did Muhammad tell his followers to beat their wives. Are the wives worse than slaves?

Are there any other examples? Well, how about John 3:16(KJV) ?:

"For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life..(John 3:16)"

This verses is a cornerstone of Christian preaching the world over. Even at american football matches you will find people in the stands holding up massive signs declairing:

"JOHN 3:16"

But as seen in section 1.2.3.10, this fabrication "begotten" has now been unceremoniously removed from the Bible by these most eminent of Bible revisers. However, once again, humanity did not have to wait 2000 years for this revelation. In Maryam(19):88-98 of the noble Qur'an

Ibkhaleel001:
Are there any other examples? Well, how about John 3:16(KJV) ?:

"For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life..(John 3:16)"

This verses is a cornerstone of Christian preaching the world over. Even at american football matches you will find people in the stands holding up massive signs declairing:

"JOHN 3:16"

But as seen in section 1.2.3.10, this fabrication "begotten" has now been unceremoniously removed from the Bible by these most eminent of Bible revisers. However, once again, humanity did not have to wait 2000 years for this revelation. In Maryam(19):88-98 of the noble Qur'an

begotten son is not only used in John 3:16. There are many other verses in the bible that refers to Jesus as the begotten son of God. If begotten is removed from John 3:16, it still stands as " His only son" which still carries the same meaning and effect as only begotten son. Do you agree?

You have still not answered. Are your wives worse than slaves?

Agboriotejoye:


The Pentateuch was completed by Joshua. Same with the book of Joshua completed by Caleb. No one claimed any asinine revelations. They were written down by men about God's dealings with Israel.

Now, can you show us any mention of Mohammad in the Torah for him to have received a revelation about Torah that existed before him?

So is the revised Standard Version of the Bible the only one that makes these changes? Is it just a matter of the KJV vs. the RSV? Far from it. These very same changes have become so widely acknowledged by the scholars of Christianity that we find the very same changes made to most other modern versions of the Bible, such as the New International Version (NIV), the New American Standard Version (NASV), etc. Go to your local library and have a look.



So, where did these discarded verses come from in the first place?

St. Paul was answerable for having made during his lifetime wholesale changes to the religion of Jesus . Changes which Jesus himself never authorized to anyone during his lifetime. After his departure the pagan gentiles who accepted Paul's simplified version of "Christianity" continued to adapt it and to introduce into it many of the doctrines of paganism which they had already been practicing for so may centuries. Among these doctrines was the concept of the "trinity" which was a very widely practiced and accepted concept in the pagan beliefs of the surrounding nations of Romans, Greeks, Babylonians, and Hindus many centuries before they were finally officially defined and "recognized" in the fourth century C.E. After this doctrine received the official support of the pagan Roman emperor Constantine, a massive campaign of death and torture was launched against all Christians who refused to renounce the teachings of the apostles in favor of the modified and expanded Pauline doctrines.

Ibkhaleel001:
So is the revised Standard Version of the Bible the only one that makes these changes? Is it just a matter of the KJV vs. the RSV? Far from it. These very same changes have become so widely acknowledged by the scholars of Christianity that we find the very same changes made to most other modern versions of the Bible, such as the New International Version (NIV), the New American Standard Version (NASV), etc. Go to your local library and have a look.



So, where did these discarded verses come from in the first place?

St. Paul was answerable for having made during his lifetime wholesale changes to the religion of Jesus . Changes which Jesus himself never authorized to anyone during his lifetime. After his departure the pagan gentiles who accepted Paul's simplified version of "Christianity" continued to adapt it and to introduce into it many of the doctrines of paganism which they had already been practicing for so may centuries. Among these doctrines was the concept of the "trinity" which was a very widely practiced and accepted concept in the pagan beliefs of the surrounding nations of Romans, Greeks, Babylonians, and Hindus many centuries before they were finally officially defined and "recognized" in the fourth century C.E. After this doctrine received the official support of the pagan Roman emperor Constantine, a massive campaign of death and torture was launched against all Christians who refused to renounce the teachings of the apostles in favor of the modified and expanded Pauline doctrines.

Chai so because Paul called Ishmael and by Muhammad the slave son, you guys hate him so. But he did not lie now? Ishmael was a slave son so your Muhammad comes from a generation of slaves. Yet he loved enslaving women.

Agboriotejoye:


begotten son is not only used in John 3:16. There are many other verses in the bible that refers to Jesus as the begotten son of God. If begotten is removed from John 3:16, it still stands as " His only son" which still carries the same meaning and effect as only begotten son. Do you agree?

You have still not answered. Are your wives worse than slaves?

Yiu are dodging my concrete evidence! Anyway thats xtians act when they are exposed

Shege shameless trinitarian pagan....

Online baseless liar

Christian scriptures were re-written in order to conform to the doctrines of the eleventh and twelfth centuries and even the writings of the early church fathers were "corrected" so that the changes would not be discovered.

How many books of the Bible are 'truly inspired'?

Today, Christian sects are not agreed on the definition of what exactly is an "inspired" book of God. The Protestants are taught that there are 66 truly "inspired" books in the Bible, while the Catholics have been taught that there are 73 truly "inspired" books, not to mention the many other sects and their "newer" books, such as the Mormons, etc. As we shall see shortly, the very first Christians, for many generations, did not follow either the 66 books of the Protestants, nor the 73 books of the Catholics. Quite the opposite, that generation believed in books that were, many generations later, "recognized" to be fabrications and apocrypha by a more enlightened age than that of the apostles and which have since been completely destroyed by the Church.

Who Inspired? The bible?

Answer me and I'll expose you further

Agboriotejoye:


Chai so because Paul called Ishmael and by Muhammad the slave son, you guys hate him so. But he did not lie now? Ishmael was a slave son so your Muhammad comes from a generation of slaves. Yet he loved enslaving women.

Do you want to run from the topic?

I can help educate you on any lie you have been brainwashed and programmed to accept abt islam!!

But before you run...tell me where do all of these Bibles come from and why the difficulty in defining what is a truly "inspired" word of God?

Ibkhaleel001:
Yiu are dodging my concrete evidence! Anyway thats xtians act when they are exposed

Shege shameless trinitarian pagan....

Online baseless liar

Christian scriptures were re-written in order to conform to the doctrines of the eleventh and twelfth centuries and even the writings of the early church fathers were "corrected" so that the changes would not be discovered.

How many books of the Bible are 'truly inspired'?

Today, Christian sects are not agreed on the definition of what exactly is an "inspired" book of God. The Protestants are taught that there are 66 truly "inspired" books in the Bible, while the Catholics have been taught that there are 73 truly "inspired" books, not to mention the many other sects and their "newer" books, such as the Mormons, etc. As we shall see shortly, the very first Christians, for many generations, did not follow either the 66 books of the Protestants, nor the 73 books of the Catholics. Quite the opposite, that generation believed in books that were, many generations later, "recognized" to be fabrications and apocrypha by a more enlightened age than that of the apostles and which have since been completely destroyed by the Church.

Who Inspired? The bible?

Answer me and I'll expose you further

The Bible was inspired by the spirit of God.

Now your Quran was a subject of debate about which is right and which isn't. Tell us about the burnt scrolls and what they contain. How many versions of the Quran do the Shia and the Shiites use. Which hadiths are acceptable and which are Daesh? Tell me more.

Xscape1993:
The major problem of the world today is religion.

Shut up and call a spade by it's name, the name is Islam (Forced submission)

Agboriotejoye:


The Bible was inspired by the spirit of God.

Now your Quran was a subject of debate about which is right and which isn't. Tell us about the burnt scrolls and what they contain. How many versions of the Quran do the Shia and the Shiites use. Which hadiths are acceptable and which are Daesh? Tell me more.

Holy spirit of lies and deceit?

The demonic satanic spirit that makes your pastors rape children and engage in fraud in the churches...

Useless bunch of Criminals...

Abeg mek i continue exposing the bible.... People are enjoying the lectures here!


People today generally believe that there is only ONE Bible, and ONE version of any given verse of the Bible. As we have begun to see, this is far from true. All Bibles in our possession today (Such as the KJV, the NRSV, the NASV, NIV,...etc.) are the result of extensive cutting and pasting from these various manuscripts with no single one being the definitive reference. There are countless cases where a paragraph shows up in one "ancient manuscript" but is totally missing from many others. For instance, Mark 16:8-20 (twelve whole verses) is completely missing from the most ancient manuscripts available today but show up in more recent "ancient manuscripts." There are also many documented cases where even geographical locations are completely different from one ancient manuscript to the next. For instance, in the "Samaritan Pentateuch manuscript," Deuteronomy 27:4 speaks of "mount Gerizim," while in the "Hebrew manuscript" the exact same verse speaks of "mount Ebal." From Deuteronomy 27:12-13 we can see that these are two distinctly different locations. Similarly, Luke 4:44 in some "ancient manuscripts" mentions "Synagogues of Judea," others mention "Synagogues of Galilee." This is only a sampling, a comprehensive listing would require a book of its own.

There are countless examples in the Bible where verses of a questionable nature are included in the text without any disclaimer telling the reader that many scholars and translators have serious reservations as to their authenticity. The King James Version of the Bible (Also known as the "Authorized Version", the one in the hands of the majority of Christendom today, is one of the most notorious in this regard. It gives the reader absolutely no clue as to the questionable nature of such verses. However, more recent translations of the Bible are now beginning to be a little more honest and forthcoming in this regard. For example, the New Revised Standard Version of the Bible, by Oxford Press, has adopted an extremely subtle system of bracketing the most glaring examples of such questionable verses with double square brackets ([[ ]]). It is highly unlikely that the casual reader will realize the true function these brackets serve. They are there to tell the informed reader that the enclosed verses are of a highly questionable nature. Examples of this are the story of the "woman taken in adultery" in John 7:53-8:11, as well as Mark 16:9-20 (Jesus' resurrection and return), and Luke 23:34 (which, interestingly enough, is there to confirm the prophesy of Isaiah 53:12).....and so forth.

For example, with regard to John 8:1-11, the commentators of this Bible say in very small print at the bottom of the page:

"The most ancient authorities lack 7.53-8.11; other authorities add the passage here or after 7.36 or after 21.25 or after Luke 21.38 with variations of text; some mark the text as doubtful."

Ibkhaleel001:
Holy spirit of lies and deceit?

The demonic satanic spirit that makes your pastors rape children and engage in fraud in the churches...

Useless bunch of Criminals...

Abeg mek i continue exposing the bible.... People are enjoying the lectures here!


People today generally believe that there is only ONE Bible, and ONE version of any given verse of the Bible. As we have begun to see, this is far from true. All Bibles in our possession today (Such as the KJV, the NRSV, the NASV, NIV,...etc.) are the result of extensive cutting and pasting from these various manuscripts with no single one being the definitive reference. There are countless cases where a paragraph shows up in one "ancient manuscript" but is totally missing from many others. For instance, Mark 16:8-20 (twelve whole verses) is completely missing from the most ancient manuscripts available today but show up in more recent "ancient manuscripts." There are also many documented cases where even geographical locations are completely different from one ancient manuscript to the next. For instance, in the "Samaritan Pentateuch manuscript," Deuteronomy 27:4 speaks of "mount Gerizim," while in the "Hebrew manuscript" the exact same verse speaks of "mount Ebal." From Deuteronomy 27:12-13 we can see that these are two distinctly different locations. Similarly, Luke 4:44 in some "ancient manuscripts" mentions "Synagogues of Judea," others mention "Synagogues of Galilee." This is only a sampling, a comprehensive listing would require a book of its own.

There are countless examples in the Bible where verses of a questionable nature are included in the text without any disclaimer telling the reader that many scholars and translators have serious reservations as to their authenticity. The King James Version of the Bible (Also known as the "Authorized Version", the one in the hands of the majority of Christendom today, is one of the most notorious in this regard. It gives the reader absolutely no clue as to the questionable nature of such verses. However, more recent translations of the Bible are now beginning to be a little more honest and forthcoming in this regard. For example, the New Revised Standard Version of the Bible, by Oxford Press, has adopted an extremely subtle system of bracketing the most glaring examples of such questionable verses with double square brackets ([[ ]]). It is highly unlikely that the casual reader will realize the true function these brackets serve. They are there to tell the informed reader that the enclosed verses are of a highly questionable nature. Examples of this are the story of the "woman taken in adultery" in John 7:53-8:11, as well as Mark 16:9-20 (Jesus' resurrection and return), and Luke 23:34 (which, interestingly enough, is there to confirm the prophesy of Isaiah 53:12).....and so forth.

For example, with regard to John 8:1-11, the commentators of this Bible say in very small print at the bottom of the page:

"The most ancient authorities lack 7.53-8.11; other authorities add the passage here or after 7.36 or after 21.25 or after Luke 21.38 with variations of text; some mark the text as doubtful."

Tell me about Mouhamed and Aisha. I gues he blessed her 9 year old vagina with his pole like dick not rape her.

How does all these you wrote change the Quran from being a product of plagiarism.

Some text missing in ancient manuscripts and present in other manuscripts now make it a lie to you abi? Do you realize the gospel has four different writers?
Oga, prove how an Arab became entangled in Jewish history and started receiving revelations about them or keep quiet forthwith.

Agboriotejoye:


The Bible was inspired by the spirit of God.

Now your Quran was a subject of debate about which is right and which isn't. Tell us about the burnt scrolls and what they contain. How many versions of the Quran do the Shia and the Shiites use. Which hadiths are acceptable and which are Daesh? Tell me more.

Today, the translators and publishers of our modern Bibles are beginning to be a little more forthright and honest with their readers. As we have just seen, although they may not simply openly admit that these twelve verses were forgeries of the Church and not the word of God, still, at least they are beginning to draw the reader's attention to the fact that there are two "versions" of the "Gospel of Mark" and then leave the reader to decide what to make of these two "versions."

Now the question becomes "if the Church has tampered with the Gospel of Mark, then did they stop there or is there more to this story?. As it happens, Tischendorf also discovered that the "Gospel of John" has been heavily reworked by the Church over the ages. For example,

1.It was found that the verses starting from John 7:53 to 8:11 (the story of the woman taken in adultery) are not to be found in the most ancient copies of the Bible available to Christianity today, specifically, codices Sinaiticus or Vaticanus.

2.It was also found that John 21:25 was a later insertion, and that a verse from the gospel of Luke (24:12) that speaks of Peter discovering an empty tomb of Jesus is not to be found in the ancient manuscripts.

(For more on this topic please read 'Secrets of Mount Sinai' by James Bentley, Doubleday, NY, 1985).

Agboriotejoye:


Tell me about Mouhamed and Aisha. I gues he blessed her 9 year old vagina with his pole like dick not rape her.

How does all these you wrote change the Quran from being a product of plagiarism.

Some text missing in ancient manuscripts and present in other manuscripts now make it a lie to you abi? Do you realize the gospel has four different writers?
Oga, prove how an Arab became entangled in Jewish history and started receiving revelations about them or keep quiet forthwith.

My refutation to your silky claims is on the way...Lemme finish disgracing your bible first...dont you have the gut to defend?

You are a failure and a disgrace to polytheists

Since you cant defend anything but keep ranting and making lies...

The exposing continues


The evidence of tampering goes on and on. For example, in the Codex Sinaiticus the "lord's prayer" of Luke 11:2-4 differs substantially from the version which has reached us through the agency of centuries of "inspired" correction. Luke 11:2-4 in this most ancient of all Christian manuscripts reads:

"Father, Hallowed by thy name, Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done, as in heaven, so upon earth. Give us day by day our daily bread. And forgive us our sins, as we ourselves also forgive everyone that is indebted to us. And bring us not into temptation."

Further, the "Codex Vaticanus," is another ancient manuscript held by the scholars of Christianity in the same reverent standing as the Codex Sinaiticus. These two fourth century codices are together considered the most ancient copies of the Bible available today. In the codex Vaticanus we can find a version of Luke 11:2-4 even shorter than that of Codex Sinaiticus. In this version even the words "Thy will be done, as in heaven, so upon earth." are not to be found.

When we observe this fact we begin to see why it is that even in our modern Bibles "The Lord's Prayer" in Matthew 6:9-13 is not exactly the same as the version presented in Luke 11:2-4.

With regard to the verse of Luke 24:51 which contains Luke's alleged account of the final parting of Jesus and how he was "raised up into heaven." However, as seen in previous pages, in the Codex Sinaiticus and other ancient manuscripts the words "and was carried up into heaven" are completely missing. The verse only says:

"And it came to pass, while he blessed them, he was parted from them."

C.S.C. Williams observed, if this omission were correct, "there is no reference at all to the Ascension in the original text of the Gospel."

Some other discrepancies between the Codex Sinaiticus and our modern Bibles are:

Matthew 17:21 is missing in Codex Sinaiticus.

In our modern Bibles, Mark 1:1 reads "The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God;" however, in this most ancient of all Christian manuscripts, this verse only reads "The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ" Strangely, the very words which are most grating to the Muslim's Qur'an, "the Son of God," are completely missing. Isn't that interesting?

Ibkhaleel001:
Holy spirit of lies and deceit?

The demonic satanic spirit that makes your pastors rape children and engage in fraud in the churches...

Useless bunch of Criminals...

Abeg mek i continue exposing the bible.... People are enjoying the lectures here!


People today generally believe that there is only ONE Bible, and ONE version of any given verse of the Bible. As we have begun to see, this is far from true. All Bibles in our possession today (Such as the KJV, the NRSV, the NASV, NIV,...etc.) are the result of extensive cutting and pasting from these various manuscripts with no single one being the definitive reference. There are countless cases where a paragraph shows up in one "ancient manuscript" but is totally missing from many others. For instance, Mark 16:8-20 (twelve whole verses) is completely missing from the most ancient manuscripts available today but show up in more recent "ancient manuscripts." There are also many documented cases where even geographical locations are completely different from one ancient manuscript to the next. For instance, in the "Samaritan Pentateuch manuscript," Deuteronomy 27:4 speaks of "mount Gerizim," while in the "Hebrew manuscript" the exact same verse speaks of "mount Ebal." From Deuteronomy 27:12-13 we can see that these are two distinctly different locations. Similarly, Luke 4:44 in some "ancient manuscripts" mentions "Synagogues of Judea," others mention "Synagogues of Galilee." This is only a sampling, a comprehensive listing would require a book of its own.

There are countless examples in the Bible where verses of a questionable nature are included in the text without any disclaimer telling the reader that many scholars and translators have serious reservations as to their authenticity. The King James Version of the Bible (Also known as the "Authorized Version", the one in the hands of the majority of Christendom today, is one of the most notorious in this regard. It gives the reader absolutely no clue as to the questionable nature of such verses. However, more recent translations of the Bible are now beginning to be a little more honest and forthcoming in this regard. For example, the New Revised Standard Version of the Bible, by Oxford Press, has adopted an extremely subtle system of bracketing the most glaring examples of such questionable verses with double square brackets ([[ ]]). It is highly unlikely that the casual reader will realize the true function these brackets serve. They are there to tell the informed reader that the enclosed verses are of a highly questionable nature. Examples of this are the story of the "woman taken in adultery" in John 7:53-8:11, as well as Mark 16:9-20 (Jesus' resurrection and return), and Luke 23:34 (which, interestingly enough, is there to confirm the prophesy of Isaiah 53:12).....and so forth.

For example, with regard to John 8:1-11, the commentators of this Bible say in very small print at the bottom of the page:

"The most ancient authorities lack 7.53-8.11; other authorities add the passage here or after 7.36 or after 21.25 or after Luke 21.38 with variations of text; some mark the text as doubtful."

.
MohaMAD was a peudo, killer, a plagaurist and fraud . �. Your prophet is a fraud like your cowrabic self. You need Christian prince on youtube to set you straight. Even I will set you straight.
Send me your phone number let us discuss.
I like people like you.