₦airaland Forum

ledaman:
Well detailed.
May Almighty God save us from the current situation.

Amen!

yinkus6750:
You people will be reacting to issues without thinking deeply. Am not saying even if the President is wrong,you can't fight him. A Senator was suspended,and the next thing is digging on social media and through media houses,is that matured enough? Also, you have not addressed the cause of the fight( seating arrangement). Now that she has brought ridicule to herself ,the SP, the NASS and the county at large, how comfortable will she be resuming back in the midst of her colleagues,after the embarrassment she caused the institution? NOTE- Am not supporting either of them. When the advancement or harassment was going on,she didn't complain,until she was found wanting of seating order. We are not kids here. The female gender is used to that at every slightest opportunity.

Your entire argument collapses under its own contradictions and thinly veiled bias. You accuse others of not thinking deeply, yet you regurgitate shallow talking points that deflect from the core issue. Let’s break it down.

First, you're quick to criticize public reaction, yet silence from the public is exactly what allows abuse of power to thrive. When a senator is suspended under questionable circumstances, the public should speak out. Digging through media and social platforms is not immaturity—it’s accountability. Or would you prefer a nation where we all keep quiet while institutions rot behind closed doors?

Second, your emphasis on the seating arrangement as the cause of the conflict is laughable. You’re reducing a systemic issue to furniture logistics. The suspension wasn't about a chair—it was about control, power, and silencing dissent. If you're going to argue, address the political undercurrents, not the symptoms.

Third, your question about how “comfortable” she’ll be when she returns reeks of victim-blaming. It’s not the suspended senator who brought ridicule to the Senate—it’s the leadership that couldn’t handle internal disagreements without resorting to suspension. Public embarrassment came not from her actions but from the institution’s inability to uphold democratic maturity.

Finally, your closing remark—“the female gender is used to that at every slightest opportunity”—is pure misogyny disguised as realism. If a woman speaks up after being harassed or wronged, it’s not an opportunistic gender stunt—it’s a right. Suggesting otherwise is not just dismissive, it's dangerous.

If you're not supporting either side, at least don’t become a mouthpiece for status-quo intimidation and gendered gaslighting. We’re not kids, as you said—but your argument surely treats the audience like fools.

obailala:
The reason you were asked to read the statement again is because the person you quoted never claimed it was a JUSTIFICATION, and neither did they suggest the actions were RIGHT. They simply pointed out the obvious (albeit selfish) reason why politicians were endorsing the president.

Thank you all for your responses. I understand that the core argument being made is that the initial comment was simply stating an observable political reality rather than justifying it. However, my response was not rooted in misunderstanding that distinction—it was a deliberate call for deeper reflection on how such “obvious truths” are framed.

Merely pointing out that politicians endorse a president for selfish gains, without expressing disapproval or contextual critique, risks normalizing the very dysfunction we claim to oppose. My concern is not with the factual content of the statement, but with the passive tone that allows unethical political behavior to be discussed as if it were routine, acceptable, or beyond scrutiny.

We might indeed be on similar pages regarding the outcomes of these endorsements—but if we use different routes, it's critical to ensure that our route doesn’t silently excuse the erosion of accountability. Transparency and responsible political discourse demand that we do more than observe; they require us to challenge, question, and call out what is wrong, even when it’s "obvious."

Ultimately, it's not about anger or agreement—it's about how we use our voices to shape public understanding and expectations.

ledaman obailala emmanugo DeJoeee phr0nesis kclub83 Berankis

kclub83:
you point is contradicting what the man was pointing out about governors endorsing the president. Maybe you should read over again

Don’t patronize me with that lazy “read again” nonsense. I read it just fine the first time—and what’s actually contradicting here is your ability to process what was said.

The man’s point was that governors and lawmakers are endorsing the president because he’s funneled more money their way—not because of national progress, not because of any transformative leadership, but because their pockets are heavier. That’s not a justification—it’s an indictment.

So when I call that out as corruption, not merit, you say I’m contradicting him? No—I’m exposing him. You’re just too comfortable with mediocrity and greed masquerading as governance to admit it.

Here’s the bottom line: if a president needs to grease the hands of governors and lawmakers with outrageous allocations just to earn their endorsement, that’s not democracy—that’s organized looting. And if you’re defending that, then don’t pretend you care about Nigeria. You're just defending a feeding trough because your favorite pigs are the ones eating.

Now go read that again—slowly this time.

Britishpea:
Endorsing him means they want him to continue. Tinubu has increased the allocations of the governors to about 300% and National Assembly members each earns nothing less than 1B for constituency project. They earn way more than they have ever been since 1999

So who else should endorse the president for a second term if not them!

Are they not the coordinators of the votes during elections? 90% of those complainants don’t go out to vote!

So let me get this straight—you're saying that because Tinubu has increased the personal benefits of governors and lawmakers, it justifies their endorsement of him for a second term? Are you even listening to yourself? Since when did self-serving greed become a benchmark for national leadership?

What you’re defending isn’t governance; it’s a transactional racket where public funds are weaponized to buy loyalty from the political elite, all at the expense of the people. Increased allocations to governors? A billion naira for each National Assembly member under the guise of "constituency projects"? Show us the impact. Where are the results? Or do you think Nigerians are too blind or too beaten down to question this blatant looting?

You say, “Who else should endorse him?” How about the Nigerian people? Or do they not count in your idea of democracy anymore?

And your lazy jab about voters not coming out—do you even care to ask why? Maybe it’s because people are sick of a political system rigged in favor of politicians who endorse each other while the country crumbles. Maybe it's because no matter who they vote for, they end up with leaders more loyal to their bank accounts than the citizens.

Now let me ask you—is this what you think a president should be doing? Using national resources to bribe the political class into backing him? Is that your idea of leadership? If so, then you’re part of the problem.

dequir:
To you, it is logic, to others, it is a diatribe filled publicity rants for your captive hero.

And that rants, start and end here on Nairaland only. They serve no purpose to help her case. Just suggesting maybe you can follow h-er to court, if not in the dock, but at the least, to whisper to her ears what she needs to say to defeat h-er ene-mies when she stands there herself. You have good points, and a friend in need is a friend indeed.

Don't be offended, it is just an advice.

If you truly intended to offer advice, you would have done so without the condescending tone or the unnecessary sarcasm. But let’s be clear: dismissing well-reasoned arguments as "publicity rants" says more about your bias than it does about the validity of my points.

You seem more interested in silencing dissent and ridiculing those who stand for due process than engaging in any meaningful discourse. That’s fine—if shallow commentary and passive-aggressive jabs are your forte, own it. But don’t pretend you’re offering anything constructive.

As for following her to court—rest assured, she doesn't need whispered instructions to defend herself. What she needs, and what any democratic society demands, is a system that allows the accused a fair chance—not a kangaroo court of public opinion led by keyboard judges.

So if you’re done cloaking cynicism in faux advice, we can return to discussing facts, not feelings. And no, I’m not offended—just unimpressed.

dequir:
You are a good defender. S he will definitely need your in c-ourt at her coming appearance there. Kindly make yourself available for the dock witnessing, with all your defens-ive points, to defeat her opposition arms down.

T-hanks.

Spare me the sarcasm—it’s as weak as your grasp on reality. I don’t need to stand in a courtroom to dismantle the nonsense you spew. Unlike you, I deal in facts, not bitter jabs disguised as wit. If you think throwing shade counts as an argument, you're already defeated. Save the theatrics for someone impressed by cheap shots—because here, logic buries ego every time.

Babatunjo:
One thing is sure. She's not coming back to the senate.
Even if it takes INEC rigging, they won't allow her back.

She doesn't know you fight to live another day.

These men she's fighting are mini gods, and they have patriachial mindset.... Woman must not fight and defeat them

Your statement unintentionally reveals the very rot Natasha is challenging—where rigging is normalized, injustice is expected, and patriarchy is defended as strategy. If she is being blocked not through due process, but through manipulation and bias, then her fight is not just valid—it is necessary.

Saying “you fight to live another day” implies silence in the face of oppression. That’s not wisdom, it’s surrender. The fact that you call these men “mini gods” only highlights the dangerous culture of power worship and gender suppression.

A society that punishes women for daring to stand up is not stable—it is stagnant. And history has shown time and again: those who resist, even when the odds are against them, are the ones who truly shape the future.

Anijay1212:

Like play like play Natasha could find herself in jail o... But we warned her and like the proverbial fly that never listen is gradually following the corpse to the grave.
She is definitely going to learn her lessons the hard way.

Your glee at the thought of a woman being silenced through state power isn’t just pathetic—it’s dangerous. Comparing Natasha to a “fly following a corpse” is the language of someone who fears boldness in women and worships oppression disguised as order.

You didn’t “warn” her—you cheered for her downfall because she dared to speak where silence was expected. That’s not wisdom; that’s cowardice dressed up as concern.

If fighting for justice and exposing abuse of power puts someone at risk of jail, then it’s not Natasha who’s the problem—it’s the system you’re too spineless to question. You act like imprisonment is some divine punishment, when in reality, it’s often the go-to tool of regimes scared of the truth.

And let’s talk about “learning lessons”—maybe it’s you who needs to learn that fear-mongering, gender-based mockery, and groveling before corrupt institutions isn’t strength. It's submission. Natasha may be under fire, but history doesn't remember cowards like you—it remembers those who stood up and shook the table, even when the price was high.

So enjoy your moment of mockery—it’s the only power people like you ever get: shouting from the sidelines while braver souls fight real battles.

Lanruze:
It took VDM a visit to EFCC to know that after God Almighty is Government.

You see a trained Lawyer with her yellow paw paw face go on Live TV and allege the number three (3) man of a country of an assassination attempt and expect him to sweep it under the carpet ?

Natasha Akpoti- Uduaghan will be used as a clear example for people who have a speciality in running their mouths and using gender as a bait to commit offence.

The woman allowed the mob mentality people lead her to a point of no return.

She is in hot soup !

Your rant is a masterclass in cowardly bootlicking and dangerous ignorance.

First, the idea that someone needs a visit to the EFCC to “realize” the government ranks just below God is exactly the slave-minded thinking that keeps corrupt power unchecked. Government is not a god—it’s a structure created to serve, not intimidate. When citizens become afraid to speak truth to power, democracy dies. And people like you, who cheer from the sidelines when intimidation is used as a weapon, are its gravediggers.

Second, you mocked a trained lawyer by reducing her to her looks—"yellow paw paw face"? That's not just pathetic; it’s proof you have no real argument. You’re not debating facts—you’re reaching for insults because your brain came up empty.

If Natasha made serious allegations on live TV, the correct response from any self-respecting democracy would be an investigation—not threats, not intimidation, not mob-fueled smear campaigns. But I guess you’re more comfortable in systems where power crushes dissent and critics are “made examples of.”

Your obsession with her gender shows your fragility. She’s not using her gender as a “bait”—she’s using her voice. And it's telling how threatened you are by a woman who doesn’t cower.

As for your “mob mentality” comment, that’s rich coming from someone parroting the exact script of corrupt apologists who twist justice to shield the powerful. If she’s in hot soup, it’s because too many spineless people like you celebrate tyranny and call it order.

Get this straight: raising your voice against power isn’t recklessness—it’s courage. And if that threatens your warped worldview, that’s your discomfort to live with.

yinkus6750:
Natasha is putting herself into trouble. Fighting the No.3 citizen through social media and using gender as an excuse was definitely bound to fail. There is difference between sexual advancement and sexual harassment. She failed to know how best to go about her case, and goofed with all the unnecessary media interviews she kept granting. Don't know how she intends going back to NASA ,after her suspension.

Your take reeks of ignorance wrapped in arrogance. First, the notion that standing up against misconduct—whether it's from the so-called "No.3 citizen" or anyone else—is “putting herself into trouble” reflects the same toxic mindset that enables abuse of power. If accountability feels like an attack, perhaps the issue is with the one being held accountable.

Second, your attempt to draw a neat line between “sexual advancement” and “harassment” is laughable at best, dangerous at worst. Unwanted, persistent advances—especially from someone in power—are harassment. The fact that you’re more concerned about how she voiced her experience than the experience itself says a lot about your priorities.

As for the media interviews, speaking out publicly is sometimes the only tool available when institutions close ranks to protect their own. Silence is complicity, and Natasha chose to resist it. If her suspension was a result of her refusal to stay silent, then that suspension indicts the system, not her.

Lastly, your petty speculation about her return to NASS shows more about your discomfort with a woman who refuses to back down than it does about her political future. You don’t have to like her courage—but you will have to live with the fact that she used it.

emkz:
Natashism: the act of prostituting from one controversy to another without following any to the end or supplying evidence on claims made.

Supply evidence in the court of public opinion where trial was initiated. They didn't.

File a case in court and present evidence. No.

Okay, file evidence in senate petition. They filed affidavit.

What kind of law are they teaching?

Your definition of “Natashism” is as lazy as your thinking — shallow, agenda-driven, and intellectually bankrupt.

Let’s break your hollow tantrum into parts:

1. “Prostituting from one controversy to another” — Look at the irony of a man crying about decency while using the language of a gutter. If you had a real argument, you wouldn’t need to lace it with vulgar metaphors. Resorting to name-calling just shows that facts are not on your side.

2. “Court of public opinion” — You and your crew initiated the smear campaign in the court of public opinion, not Natasha. You cheered as your fake “professor” pushed out half-baked accusations on Facebook and AI graphics. Now you’re suddenly screaming for evidence when the heat is on? You don't get to light the fire and then complain about the smoke.

3. “No case in court” — And? Filing in court isn’t a requirement to expose political rot or respond to attacks. Many political exposés start in the public sphere. Ever heard of investigative journalism? Whistleblowing? Apparently not. If Mgbeke’s evidence is that strong, why hasn’t she filed a case? Why is she hiding behind social media and throwing breadcrumbs instead of serving hard facts?

4. “Affidavit” in Senate — Yes, an affidavit is a legal document. It carries legal weight. If it was false, it could be challenged or punished under perjury laws. But that hasn’t happened. You pretend like affidavits are gossip notes when you clearly don’t understand basic legal procedure. Or maybe you do — and you’re just hoping your audience doesn’t.

So, what kind of law are they teaching? Apparently, not the kind that defends frauds hiding behind AI filters and imaginary titles. Not the kind that rewards people who scream “release the evidence!” every week while refusing to back anything up with verifiable facts.

You don’t get to demand court filings while you run your courtroom circus online with fake credentials, doctored chats, and zero legal merit.

Put up or shut up. Otherwise, stay in your lane and let real people with actual credibility speak.

Coward! Go and use the new block button.

TenQ:
Why are you this aggressive?
I never ever compared Muslims to rabid dogs.
My illustrations is that probably one in 1000 dogs is rabid. However, a person who has been bitten by just one rabid dog will be weary of all dogs rabid or not.
It is like most snakes are no lt venomous, but we don't take chances around ANY snake. We treat all snakes as venomous until we have enough information specific to that snake.

So, I don't know if you chose to be aggressive about everything I said.



Yes, the Jews and Christians lived peacefully with the Arabs until the coming of prophet Mohammad.
Don't forget that the Christians kept him safe from the Meccans when he was small in power and influence before the hijrah.

However, even count the number of Christians still remaining in Arabia now. Till now, there is a big signboard that says non-muslims cannot enter Medina.




Umar followed this campaign.
Most Muslim leaders followed this campaign.
Otherwise tell me what Muslims are doing at Jerusalem by occupying the land for several years and building their holy mosque their?

If you Muslims dye your beards, put on dress to conform to Mohammed, you even urinate like him. Why wouldn't you follow his Sunah?



Aren't the wahabi's Muslims?
Are they not using the same Quran, Hadiths, Tafsir etc. So, how are they getting different interpretations from you?

I parrot nothing other than what your Quran , Hadith and Tafsirs say.



Yes!
If you read it carefully, you will see that it is the Christians that would be killed because of Him and not the other way round.




Crusades cannot be supported by ANY teaching of Jesus Christ. Meaning that the crusaders acted outside the teachings of Christ

Unfortunately, we cannot say the same about Mohammed

Your attempt to whitewash your analogy is laughable. Comparing Muslims — human beings — to snakes and rabid dogs, even under the pretense of “illustration,” is dehumanizing, condescending, and transparent in its intent. Don't insult everyone's intelligence by pretending it was innocent — you implied fear and hostility are justified toward Muslims based on the actions of a few, exactly like racists do with other groups. If you don’t want to be called out for being offensive, stop being offensive. Period.

Now let’s dissect your pile of historical half-truths and convenient forgetfulness:

1. Jews and Christians lived peacefully in Arabia until Muhammad? You clearly haven't studied the tribal conflicts, betrayals, or political alliances that were in constant flux in 7th-century Arabia. Some Jewish tribes in Medina violated treaties, allied with enemies during wartime, and conspired against the Prophet. Actions had consequences — the expulsions and punishments were political and strategic, not religious extermination.

2. Christians protected Muhammad? Yes — and Muslims still respect the Christian king of Abyssinia (Negus) for that. It shows the Prophet was capable of peaceful relations, unlike the blanket villainy you try to paint.

3. Non-Muslims can’t enter Mecca or Medina? So what? That’s like saying you’re oppressed because you can’t enter the Vatican during a papal conclave. Sacred spaces are protected in many religions. This restriction is based on religious law — not hatred or oppression.

4. Christians in Arabia? There are over a million Christians in Saudi Arabia today — mostly expatriates. They're not being exterminated; they simply don’t get to practice publicly in a country that chooses to enforce religious homogeneity. You may not like it, but it's not genocide — it's legal policy, just like France banning niqabs. Double standards much?

5. Jerusalem and Al-Aqsa? You clearly know nothing about history. The Muslim presence in Jerusalem dates back to the 7th century — long before Zionists and long after the Crusaders massacred every man, woman, and child in the name of Jesus. Al-Aqsa wasn’t built on stolen land — Muslims liberated the city from blood-soaked Christian fanatics.

6. Following the Sunnah? Muslims choose to follow the Prophet’s Sunnah because they love and revere him. It’s called religious devotion. You mock it because you don’t understand it. Ironically, Jesus’ true followers washed feet and dressed humbly — today’s Christians often dress like Wall Street bankers and live like Caesar. Hypocrisy much?

7. Wahhabis and different interpretations? Thanks for admitting that there are multiple interpretations. Now stop acting like your Google search of hadiths makes you an authority. The Quran and Sunnah are interpreted through schools of jurisprudence, context, linguistic depth, and scholarly consensus — not by random outsiders cherry-picking and weaponizing verses to vilify.

8. You parrot what’s in the Qur’an and hadith? No. You parrot mistranslations, out-of-context snippets, and anti-Muslim propaganda that would make even Islamophobes cringe. If you were serious about understanding, you’d consult scholars — not bigots.

9. Christian teachings and violence? Crusaders, inquisitors, colonizers — all slaughtered in the name of Christ. Your claim that they “acted outside his teachings” is weak deflection. You don’t get to disown centuries of history. Meanwhile, Muhammad fought defensive wars, established a just state, and signed treaties — like Hudaybiyyah — that showed diplomacy and restraint.

So yes — Muhammad has a complete record: statesman, leader, warrior, judge, husband. Jesus was a spiritual guide who never ran a state — different missions, different methods. Stop making childish comparisons.

Don’t preach history you clearly haven’t studied. And don’t dish out veiled bigotry if you can’t handle someone calling it out for what it is.

gohf AntiChristian TenQ

TenQ:
When a rabid dogs have bitten you before, you get apprehensive of all dogs.

We read disturbing things from your religious literatures that infringe on our rights
BUT
you say that we should not be worried about it

Unfortunately, ignorance on our part about Islam is death and destruction for us.

Mishkat al-Masabih 4053
Jabir b. ‘Abdallah said he was told by ‘Umar b. al-Khattab that he had heard God’s Messenger say, “I will certainly expel the Jews and the Christians from Arabia so as to leave only Muslims in it.”
Muslim transmitted it. A version has, “If I live, God willing, I will certainly expel the Jews and the Christians from Arabia.”

But you say, this is harmless and the hadith doesn't say exactly what is says!

Should Muslims today follow the sunnah of your prophet?

Your analogy is as flawed as it is offensive. Comparing Muslims to rabid dogs reveals more about your prejudice than it does about Islam. Let’s be clear: fear rooted in past trauma doesn't justify bigotry or ignorant generalizations. If "being bitten before" makes you see every Muslim as a threat, then you’re not being vigilant—you’re being irrational and hateful.

You throw around "disturbing" quotes without context, hoping they’ll scare people into accepting your narrative. Let’s examine the hadith you quoted.

Mishkat al-Masabih 4053 – “I will expel the Jews and Christians from Arabia.”
Yes, that hadith exists. And yes, the Prophet was speaking in the context of a region, a specific time, and a set of political-religious dynamics. Arabia was not a secular democracy. It was a fragile, emerging polity surrounded by enemies. That statement reflected the need to consolidate a unified base in a volatile land—not a blanket call for global expulsion of non-Muslims.

Context matters. You conveniently leave out that Jews and Christians lived peacefully under Islamic rule for centuries—often with more rights than they had under Christian empires. In fact, when Jews were expelled from Europe, they found sanctuary in Muslim lands. So spare us the cherry-picked fear-mongering. If this hadith justified mass expulsions, history would be soaked in Jewish and Christian blood under Islamic rule—but it’s not. Your logic collapses under historical evidence.

Now to your smug question:
“Should Muslims today follow this Sunnah?”

No. Because Islamic jurisprudence does not operate on isolated hadiths without context, nor does it universally apply every single political instruction from 7th-century Arabia to 21st-century pluralistic societies. You're parroting a Wahhabi-level interpretation and projecting it as the Islamic standard. That’s either ignorance or intellectual dishonesty.

If you're so obsessed with texts that seem “dangerous,” let’s play fair:

Should Christians today follow Jesus when he says, “I have not come to bring peace but a sword” (Matthew 10:34)?

Should we fear Christianity because it justified inquisitions, crusades, colonization, and genocides—all with Biblical backing?

If Muslims had your logic, they’d conclude the Bible is a terrorist manual. But we don't. Because that would be stupid.

Your fear isn’t based on Islamic teachings. It’s based on your own refusal to study them beyond hate blogs and cherry-picked narrations. If your survival depends on ignorance, you’re not in danger from Islam—you’re in danger from your own willful blindness.

So next time, bring arguments—not cheap analogies and historical amnesia.

gohf AntiChristian TenQ

TenQ:
But if I dont keep my things, it is certain that the thief will take it to my loss.
Is this not the reason why Muslims go to mosque with slippers and shoes they can afford to lose if stolen?
One thief among a hundred Muslims make the mosque unsafe.
This is why in church everyone keeps his phones on themselves.
Because evil people successfully hide among good people



In christianity, salvation is only through the Messiah and it is not just by good deeds
Islam doesn't believe in this:
Meaning that
1. If Christians are right, Muslims will be candidates for Hell
2. If Muslims are right, then Christians will be candidates for Hell

Do you agree with this?
Except that Allah says that Christians, Jews and Sabians will also be in paradise!
And Allah also says that he will only accept Islam as a religion from people!


In the paradise of Jesus, there is no marriage or marrying as Jesus said: we shall be like Angels
Mathew 22:29-30
29 Jesus answered, “You are mistaken because you do not know the Scriptures or the power of God. 30 In the resurrection, people will neither marry nor be given in marriage. Instead, they will be like the angels in heaven.

In Islam However, Mohammed said

Quran 36:55-57
Indeed, the people of Paradise will be busy enjoying themselves: they and their spouses shall be reclining on their couches in shady groves; therein there will be all kinds of fruits to eat, and they shall have all that they desire.
Quran 56:35-37
Indeed, We have created them - (a new) creation. So We made them virgins. Loving ones, of equal age. For the Companions of the Right.

So, you see that the description and destination of the two paradises are different


I am glad you accept they Islam contradicts BOTH Judaism and Christianity

Christianity doesn't contradicts Judaism, Jesus both fulfils and completes it.

According to Islam, was Jesus not expected to make lawful some of the things made unlawful to the Jews as the Messiah?
Quran 3:50
“‘(I have come to you), to attest the Law which was before me. And to make lawful to you part of what was (Before) forbidden to you; I have come to you with a Sign from your Lord. So fear Allah, and obey me.

So, it is understandable if many things are lawful to Christians.


You analogy rightly assumes that the base Arithmetic is CORRECT, thus Physics can build on it isnt it.
So, if Islam builds and borrows from the Bible, then it shouldnt at the same time contradicts the fundermental

Then you made a blatant conclusion that Allah himself never made in the Quran
You said: "Islam explicitly honors earlier prophets (including Moses and Jesus), but it also corrects where their messages were distorted."

You may wish to tell me
i. WHAT was distorted
ii. HOW it was distorted'
iii. WHEN it was distorted
iv. WHO distorted it
This is a challenge to you failing which , all you have done is to manufacture conjectures.


If you reject Christianity because of your wilful ignorance of Trinity, why do you reject JUDAISM.
If it is on the basis of the Messiah, I put it to you that you don't even have a clue apart from the Christians for what the messiah aught to be. You don't know his teachings nor his mission nor his message.

Why is Jesus the Messiah?



It seems that whatever I say, you have programmed yourself to state that my arguments are contradictions, half-truths having lack of depth.
However, NOTE:
I didnt even argue ANYTHING here, I only ASKED Questions

But since Islam is superior, can you please answer these following simple five questions

Tell me, according to your prophet or According to Allah
1. Why is Jesus the only One who is a Trinity of the Word of Allah, the Spirit from Allah and a Messenger of Allah?
2. Why according to your prophet that Jesus and Mary are the only humans that Satan did not touch at birth?
3. Why is it that Jesus is the only co-Creator of Life in the universe aside Allah. If you no anyone else tell me.
4. Why is it according to your prophet that Jesus is still alive with Allah since 2000 years ago?
5. Why was Jesus born without a human Father as it wasn't a necessary miracle in Islam?

You’ve dressed a string of shallow provocations in the illusion of critical inquiry, but let’s strip the fluff and get down to logic and facts. Since you claim you're “only asking questions,” let me do the same—except I’ll attach reasoning to each, rather than rely on empty rhetoric.

1. On theft in mosques:
Your claim that theft in mosques proves a deficiency in Islam is intellectually lazy. By that logic, crimes committed by people near churches would disqualify Christianity. Or do you think every sinner outside the mosque is a perfect reflection of Islam, but Christians are exempt from judgment based on others’ actions? If a thief hiding among Muslims undermines Islam, then centuries of Christian crusades, inquisitions, child abuse scandals, and televangelist frauds should make Christianity indefensible. Be consistent.

2. On salvation and hellfire:
You present a simplistic binary: "If Christians are right, Muslims go to Hell; if Muslims are right, Christians go to Hell." That’s a false dichotomy based on theological tribalism. Islam’s stance is more nuanced. The Quran acknowledges that salvation is open to righteous Jews, Christians, and Sabians before the message of Islam was completed (Quran 2:62). After that, people are accountable based on the truth they receive. You might want to study context before quoting verses in isolation.

3. On paradise descriptions:
You mock the Islamic concept of paradise by contrasting it with a sterile, sexless existence “like angels.” You’re welcome to your interpretation, but Islam’s paradise is tailored to human desires—joy, companionship, beauty. What's illogical about that? Also, there’s no contradiction: if the afterlife is spiritual, why should physical pleasures be forbidden unless your theology demonizes the body?

4. On contradictions with Judaism:
Christianity does contradict Judaism on major theological points. The very idea of Jesus as God incarnate is blasphemous in Judaism. Judaism rejects the Trinity, the virgin birth, original sin, and salvation through faith alone. If you truly think Jesus “fulfills” the law, ask any rabbi if your theology aligns with Torah. Islam acknowledges the original messages of the Torah and Gospel, but corrects distortions added by men, which brings me to your smug "challenge."

5. Your challenge on distortions:
i. What was distorted?
The divinity of Jesus, the Trinity, and salvation by blood sacrifice—none of which Jesus preached.
ii. How?
Through councils, Roman influence, Hellenistic philosophy, and Pauline theology.
iii. When?
Primarily from 70 CE to 400 CE, as doctrines were debated and canonized.
iv. Who?
Early church leaders—especially Paul—who shifted the focus from Jesus' monotheistic message to a Romanized interpretation that conveniently aligned with empire.

6. You ask why Jesus is the Messiah.
Islam answers this clearly. Jesus is the Messiah because he was anointed by God, born miraculously, and given a specific mission to guide the Children of Israel. He was not sent to die for sins, nor to abolish the law, but to reaffirm monotheism. You’ve inherited a redefined Messiah molded by Greek and Roman philosophy, not the Hebrew concept.

Now to your five “simple” questions, which are designed to confuse rather than reveal truth:

1. Why is Jesus a Word and Spirit from Allah?
Because Allah created him by His Word ("Be" and supported him with the Holy Spirit (like many prophets). That doesn’t make him divine—it magnifies the power of God, not the status of the creation.

2. Why did Satan not touch Jesus and Mary?
A special favor granted by God—exceptional, not divine. If God chose to protect someone, does that elevate them to divinity? Was John the Baptist divine for being filled with the Holy Spirit from the womb (Luke 1:15)?

3. Why is Jesus a co-creator?
He’s not. He performed miracles by God's permission (Quran 5:110). There’s a massive difference between “creating” and being used by God to perform a miracle. If God let Moses part the sea, is Moses now Lord of oceans?

4. Why is Jesus alive?
Because God chose to raise him—just as He raised Enoch. Being alive doesn't make you divine; Lazarus was raised from death too—was he God?

5. Why the virgin birth?
As a sign, not a divine seal. Adam had no mother or father—was he God? Your logic collapses when you cherry-pick miracles to justify divinity.

You mistake rhetorical bombardment for depth. Islam doesn't need to borrow anything from a corrupted tradition to validate itself. It corrects, completes, and refines. So if you’re genuinely seeking truth, ask with humility. If you’re looking to score points, prepare to be answered with facts, not flattery.

gohf AntiChristian TenQ

Fake news merchants must be dealt with decisively and within the bounds of the law in order to bring an end to this growing menace.

It is deeply troubling to witness the deliberate spread of falsehoods—such as accusing an entire state and the Islamic faith of prosecuting someone simply for changing their religion. Such claims are not only baseless but dangerously inflammatory, aimed at inciting mistrust and division within our society.

One must ask: what exactly do some of these individuals or groups, particularly among certain Christian circles, hope to gain from such relentless propaganda? Is it political mileage, religious superiority, or just pure antagonism?

Whatever the motive, it is imperative that we call out misinformation, regardless of who spreads it. Respectful coexistence in a multi-religious society demands truth, fairness, and a commitment to peace—not reckless narratives that seek to vilify an entire faith or population.

gohf AntiChristian TenQ

TenQ:
Once I receive a guest of these ten brothers , I will start keeping my things so that it wouldn't disappear. Yes, only One of them is a thief BUT bad things happen when the thief is with his good brothers.

Permit me please to change the topic

Why do you think Islam is the way knowing that
1. It is impossible that the way to paradise outlined in the Bible and Quran lead to the same Paradise
2. the paradise preached by Jesus is different from that preached by Mohammed
3. Islam contradicts the earlier religions of the Jews and the Christians
4. islam is incomplete without borrowing heavily from the doctrine of the Jews and Christians
5. Modern Jews still practice strict monotheism

Your analogy is lazy and laced with dangerous prejudice. If you host ten guests and hide your valuables because one is a thief, you're not being cautious—you’re indicting them all without evidence. And if your fear is that the “good ones” won’t stop the bad one, then you’ve already decided they’re guilty by association. That’s not wisdom; that’s paranoia dressed up as logic.

Now to your religious claims—let’s unpack each one of your assertions, all of which are based on shallow assumptions and weak understanding.

1. “It is impossible that the way to paradise outlined in the Bible and Qur’an lead to the same Paradise.”
False. You're imposing your binary thinking on God. Islam acknowledges previous revelations and sees itself as a continuation—not a contradiction. The Qur’an explicitly says people of previous scriptures who believe in God and do good will be rewarded (Qur’an 2:62). If God wants to grant salvation through multiple paths, who are you to limit Him?

2. “The paradise preached by Jesus is different from that of Muhammad.”
Only if you twist both teachings out of context. Both speak of a Day of Judgment, of divine justice, of reward for righteousness and punishment for wickedness. The imagery may differ, but the core is the same: submit to God, live righteously, and hope for His mercy. Your obsession with surface-level differences ignores the unity in message.

3. “Islam contradicts Judaism and Christianity.”
Of course it does—because those religions contradict each other too. Judaism rejects Jesus as the Messiah. Christianity says salvation is through belief in Jesus’ divinity and resurrection. Islam rejects both claims, restoring monotheism to its purest form. If contradiction means Islam isn’t true, then by your logic, Christianity must be false too—for contradicting Judaism.

4. “Islam is incomplete without borrowing from Judaism and Christianity.”
That’s like saying physics “borrows” from arithmetic. Islam builds on earlier revelations—it doesn’t plagiarize, it fulfills. Islam explicitly honors earlier prophets (including Moses and Jesus), but it also corrects where their messages were distorted. That’s not weakness—that’s continuity. You call it borrowing; we call it revelation in stages.

5. “Modern Jews still practice strict monotheism.”
Yes—and so do Muslims. That’s precisely why Islam rejects the trinity and divine sonship of Jesus, both of which violate monotheism. Islam shares the strict monotheism of Judaism, but without racial exclusivity or rejection of later prophets. If you admire Jewish monotheism, you should appreciate Islam’s even more uncompromising stance.

In short, your arguments are riddled with contradictions, half-truths, and a stunning lack of depth. You want to discredit Islam, but your own logic collapses under scrutiny. Islam stands on 1,400 years of theological, philosophical, and moral substance. If you want to critique it, do better than recycled talking points and amateur apologetics.

gohf AntiChristian TenQ

TenQ:
I truely understand your point except that it doesn't solve our predicament.

Its like hosting in your house ten nice brothers with one of them being a thief. If the eldest of them tells you that they are peaceful, trustworthy and wouldn't steal any of your properties, would you leave your house open to them?


The issue is
1. Some part of your religion promote peace with Christians and Jews
2. Some other part of your promote hate and subjugation for Christians and Jews.

Some Muslims (like you) hold on to part 1 and either ignore part 2 or treat it as being misunderstood.
BUT
Some other Muslims take the exact opposite view to yours.

On a serious note,
Do you think we non-muslims should stay on then side of CAUTION in dealing with you Muslims OR we assume that every Muslim will act like you?

I think this is the main problem!

I see what you’re trying to say—but your analogy and reasoning are both deeply flawed, and frankly, quite dangerous.

Let’s deal with your example: if you host ten people, and one is a thief, does that justify distrusting or punishing all ten? Of course not—unless you believe in guilt by association, which is the foundation of discrimination and bigotry. By that logic, no group—religious, ethnic, or national—would be trusted, because every group has its criminals, extremists, and deviants. The real question is: do we judge people by the worst among them, or by the values they consistently uphold?

Now to your “two parts of Islam” claim. This is a gross oversimplification. Islam is not a pick-your-side ideology. The verses and teachings you’re referring to exist in historical, legal, and situational contexts. Muslims are required to interpret them with knowledge and discipline—not reckless literalism. That’s why the overwhelming majority of Muslims today live peacefully with Christians, Jews, atheists, and people of all beliefs. The existence of extremists doesn’t prove Islam is flawed—it proves that ignorance, when weaponized, exists in all communities.

You suggest that non-Muslims should “stay on the side of caution” when dealing with Muslims. But let’s be honest—what you’re proposing isn’t caution, it’s prejudice disguised as prudence. Would it be acceptable if a Muslim said, “We should all be cautious around non-Muslims, because some of them invaded our lands, colonized our people, and dropped bombs on our homes”? Of course not. That would be unjust and dehumanizing. Just like your reasoning is now.

If you want peace and coexistence, then you don’t build it by mistrusting 1.9 billion people based on the actions of a few. You build it by recognizing that good and evil are human problems—not Islamic problems, Christian problems, or Jewish problems.

The real problem isn’t Islam. It’s the insistence on judging people through the lens of fear and ignorance rather than fairness and understanding. That’s what truly needs fixing.

gohf AntiChristian TenQ

TenQ:
There is no compulsion in religion but yet, your prophet said


Sunan an-Nasa'i 4060
It was narrated from 'Ikrimah:
"Some people apostatized after accepting Islam, and 'Ali burned them with fire. Ibn 'Abbas said: 'If it had been me, I would not have burned them; the Messenger of Allah [SAW] said: 'No one should be punished with the punishment of Allah.' If it had been me, I would have killed them; the Messenger of Allah [SAW] said: 'Whoever changes his religion, kill him.'"


Is this not a contradiction?

Meaning that Islam is a matter of personal opinion of what anyone chooses to believe!

You’re quoting a hadith without context and ignoring centuries of scholarship to push a biased narrative.

The Qur’an clearly says: “There is no compulsion in religion” (2:256)—a foundational principle, not a suggestion. The hadith you mentioned (“Whoever changes his religion, kill him”) has been debated for centuries and is context-specific. It refers to treason during a time of war, not someone quietly changing their personal beliefs.

You can’t pick a single narration, strip it of context, and ignore the Qur’an, legal nuance, and scholarly interpretation just to make a point. That’s not honest inquiry—it’s deliberate misrepresentation.

If Islam truly mandated killing apostates, 1.9 billion Muslims wouldn’t be living peacefully among people of all faiths. The fact that you ignore this and cling to a militant reading says more about your intent than about Islam itself.

gohf AntiChristian TenQ

TenQ:
This is exactly my point
That some significant Muslims are willing to THEOLOGICALLY interpret your religion to justify this violence is the problem!

Some Muslims find justification from your doctrines (the Qur'an , Hadiths, Tafsirs, Sunah etc) the things that cause harm to people of other faith. The same way you argue for the contrary is the way they argue for their ways.

Isn't it just matter of opinions!?

Your point, though passionately made, reflects a dangerously oversimplified and misinformed understanding of both Islamic theology and religious interpretation in general.

The claim that “some Muslims justify violence using the Qur’an or Hadith” does not prove that Islam promotes violence any more than extremists in any religion prove the inherent violence of that religion. If misuse of scripture were a valid argument against a faith, then no religion would stand untouched—history is full of examples where verses from the Bible, Torah, or even secular ideologies were twisted to justify atrocities.

What you call “a matter of opinion” is actually a matter of context, scholarship, and intellectual honesty. Islam has a rich and disciplined tradition of jurisprudence and interpretation—what a fringe group claims cannot override 1,400 years of mainstream theological consensus that explicitly condemns unjust violence, aggression, and the killing of innocents.

To equate extremists’ warped logic with valid theological reasoning is not only dishonest—it’s intellectually lazy. It’s like saying doctors and quacks are equal simply because they both prescribe medicine. The fact that some people twist religion for violence doesn’t indict the religion itself—it indicts those people and their motives.

If you’re truly concerned about theological interpretations that cause harm, then the responsible approach is to engage with credible scholars, understand the core message, and stop painting over 1.9 billion people with the brush of a misguided minority. Otherwise, you’re not debating—you’re just amplifying ignorance.

gohf AntiChristian TenQ

TenQ:
Hello,
Here is an example: is there compulsion in religion in Islam!?


Zamfara Christian Convert, Zainab Muhamadu To Face Trial In Sharia Court
https://www.nairaland.com/8430159/zamfara-christian-convert-zainab-muhamadu



This was what I was complaining about.

According to the Hadith of your prophet,
If anyone leaves his religion, kill him!

Sunan an-Nasa'i 4060
It was narrated from 'Ikrimah:
"Some people apostatized after accepting Islam, and 'Ali burned them with fire. Ibn 'Abbas said: 'If it had been me, I would not have burned them; the Messenger of Allah [SAW] said: 'No one should be punished with the punishment of Allah.' If it had been me, I would have killed them; the Messenger of Allah [SAW] said: 'Whoever changes his religion, kill him.'"

So you dug up a single headline and an out-of-context Hadith, slapped them together, and called it an argument? That’s not critical thinking—it’s weak sensationalism.

Your entire logic rests on intellectual laziness. “There is no compulsion in religion” (Qur’an 2:256) is a clear, standing declaration of religious freedom in Islam. Full stop. But of course, you ignore that because it doesn’t fit your narrative.

Your Hadith quote? Try understanding jurisprudence before using it as a weapon. The scholars didn’t read it the way you are. Most understood it as a response to treason during wartime—not personal belief change. But nuance obviously isn’t your strong suit.

Dragging a single Sharia court case in Zamfara to indict 1.9 billion people is laughably pathetic. That’s like blaming all of Christianity because of one crooked judge in Alabama. You’re not arguing—you’re fearmongering.

Your complaints don’t expose Islam. They expose your bias, your ignorance, and your unwillingness to think critically. If you want to debate religion, bring arguments—not headlines and half-truths.

gohf AntiChristian TenQ

Senator Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan’s decision to file formal petitions with both the Inspector General of Police and the Attorney General of the Federation is a commendable and constitutionally appropriate step. In a democracy governed by the rule of law, serious allegations such as criminal conspiracy, defamation, cyberstalking, and threats to life must be subjected to thorough investigation by competent authorities—not dismissed or trivialized.

Her approach reflects a respect for due process and institutional accountability. Rather than engaging in media theatrics or online battles, she has chosen the path of legal redress, which should be applauded. The petitions raise critical concerns about the misuse of digital platforms, abuse of power, and the personal safety of a sitting Senator. These are not matters to be ignored or politicized.

It is imperative that the IGP and AGF treat this matter with the seriousness it deserves. No public servant—male or female—should be subjected to targeted harassment or intimidation, especially for speaking out against misconduct. The law must apply equally, regardless of status or political affiliation.

Justice must not only be done, but must be seen to be done—and this petition is a crucial step in that direction.

Cherrybae:
Why sue them to court. Honestly I wonder who is advising this woman.

She is really killing her career. No single evidence for anything just allegations and allegations.

Na wa oooo

It’s astonishing how confidently you speak from a place of ignorance. Taking a matter to court is not some reckless move—it’s a legal right exercised when someone seeks justice, especially when other channels fail. If you don’t understand how the legal system works, you should probably stay silent instead of exposing how uninformed you are.

As for your baseless claim that there's 'no evidence'—are you part of the legal team? Have you seen the filings? No? Then you’re in no position to judge. Allegations are not meaningless—they trigger investigations, and that's how the law functions.

Instead of questioning who is advising her, maybe ask yourself who is advising you to speak so recklessly. You’re not helping any cause—just amplifying noise without substance.

In a constitutional democracy such as Nigeria’s, power is derived from the people and exercised through clearly defined legal frameworks—not inherited through bloodlines. The 1999 Constitution (as amended) makes no provision for familial privilege in matters of statecraft. Section 1(2) affirms that Nigeria shall not be governed except in accordance with the provisions of the Constitution. This must remain our guiding principle.

The recent public appearances of Mr. Seyi Tinubu—particularly during President Bola Ahmed Tinubu’s visit to the Vatican, where he stood in close proximity to official security personnel—raise critical questions about protocol, access, and the sanctity of state representation. These are not matters of optics alone; they touch the core of institutional order and national security.

It is the duty of the Chief of Staff to the President, Mr. Femi Gbajabiamila, to regulate access to the presidency and ensure that all official delegations align strictly with diplomatic, constitutional, and security standards. If Mr. Seyi Tinubu’s repeated presence at official functions lacks legal grounding, then Mr. Gbajabiamila’s silence or tolerance of such practices risks undermining the integrity of the office he is appointed to safeguard.

The comparison to past administrations is instructive. Previous Presidents—Obasanjo, Jonathan, and Buhari—maintained a firm boundary between their private family lives and official state matters. None positioned their children in proximity to official engagements in ways that could blur the lines of public authority. This precedent must be preserved to prevent a slow drift toward dynastic governance.

The matter at hand goes beyond one individual. It is about the kind of republic Nigeria aspires to be. When presidential entourages begin to take on the character of royal processions, and unelected family members occupy spaces reserved for public officials, the symbolism becomes corrosive. It signals a shift from merit to entitlement—precisely what a republic is designed to prevent.

Therefore, it is not unreasonable to expect a formal clarification from the Presidency. There should be a deliberate reaffirmation of constitutional boundaries. If Mr. Seyi Tinubu holds no official designation, he should not be accorded privileges that imply otherwise. And if the Chief of Staff cannot—or will not—enforce this separation, then it raises legitimate questions about his continued suitability as custodian of the Presidency’s internal order.

Our republic must not only function like one—it must also look like one. The visual and procedural language of leadership matters. To sustain democratic confidence, we must guard against any creeping perception that governance is becoming the preserve of a privileged few.

Constitutional order is not a suggestion; it is the very fabric of our national identity. It must be preserved—with firmness, clarity, and integrity.