₦airaland Forum

TenQ:
You see that I didn't even interpret any of the scriptures I quoted, I only stated them. But the plain English meaning has already put you on the defensive.
If you ask me, what I see is Muslims rewriting history as they go. The story they like is Authentic and the one they don't like is Fabricated

Yes, Tafsirs, Hadiths, and Asbāb al-Nuzūl aren’t optional but they sometimes conflict with each other.

My issue is not even this:
My problem with Muslims is that Allah says that the Quran is simple to understand and the Quran is clear yet what I see Muslims do is the exact opposite: They need the consensus of their scholars to reinterpret the Quran to speak exactly what they want the Quran to say.

Examples:
Quran 9:31 is a place where what Allah says is different from what your scholars arrive at
Another is
Quran 19:71-72 what Allah says is different from what your scholars arrive at

Let me make a few things very clear, since you’ve decided to take the condescending route while pretending you’re just “quoting plainly.”

You claim you “only stated” verses without interpreting them, but that’s disingenuous. Anyone who cherry-picks verses without understanding context, background, or language nuances is already interpreting—poorly, at that. You’re not some neutral reader; you’re projecting your own bias while pretending it's objective reading.

Now to your lazy accusation of “Muslims rewriting history”: that’s rich coming from someone dismissing an entire scholarly tradition because it doesn’t serve your polemical agenda. Muslims preserved millennia of intellectual tradition—linguistic, contextual, and historical analysis—while you flip through a translation and assume divine-level insight.

Yes, Tafsir, Hadith, and Asbāb al-Nuzūl can have tensions, but they are meant to grapple with complexity, not give you a spoon-fed soundbite. Real texts, real traditions, real histories are not comic strips.

Your central gripe—“the Quran says it’s simple but Muslims make it complex”—betrays a fundamental misunderstanding of what “mubeen” and “yassarna” mean. Simple doesn’t mean reductionist. The Quran is accessible, yes—but only to those who engage sincerely, not to those playing semantic games from their armchair.

Now let’s deal with your examples:

Quran 9:31 – Your whole “gotcha” is based on ignoring grammar, context, and tafsir. The verse condemns those who gave divine authority to rabbis and monks—not in mere obedience, but in placing them above revelation. Muslim scholars actually clarify this, not contradict it.

Quran 19:71-72 – Again, you ignore context and try to twist a verse to fit your narrative. Scholars interpret this in light of other verses, prophetic traditions, and linguistic constructs. That’s not rewriting; that’s understanding the Quran holistically—something you conveniently avoid.

What you call “reinterpreting” is actually deep reading. You don’t get to throw away centuries of scholarly consensus because you’re uncomfortable with the idea that the Quran requires thought, not Twitter-length takes.

You can’t attack from a place of ignorance and then act shocked when you're corrected by those who actually study.

Either argue in good faith or admit you're just here to provoke. But don’t expect Muslims to dumb down their faith for the sake of your shallow reading.

gohf AntiChristian TenQ

AntiChristian:
Same way you need the the HOLY SPIRIT (that was absent when the Bible was written) to interprete the Bible that was written independenly then later selected and approved by some trinitarians!

CreativeOrbit, you sabi waste your time o!

TenQ no be person you fit reason with on an intellectual level!

It is evident that TenQ is not capable of engaging in meaningful or intellectually grounded discourse.

Nonetheless, the matter cannot be disregarded or left unaddressed, as it requires a clear and principled response to prevent the spread of misinformation and confusion.

Thanks,
Bro. AntiChristian

TenQ:
What you are saying is that it is impossible to understand the clear Qur'an without using Tafsirs, Asbāb al-Nuzūl, Hadiths, and other islamic books

So let me get this straight—you believe you can grasp the full depth of the Qur'an while ignoring the very tools that have been used for over 1,400 years to preserve, explain, and contextualize it? That’s not insight, that’s delusion wrapped in arrogance.

Tafsirs, Hadiths, and Asbāb al-Nuzūl aren’t optional—they're essential to understanding the intended meanings, not just what your uninformed ego projects onto the text.

Your approach strips the Qur'an of its divine precision and replaces it with reckless guesswork. If anything, your stance proves why unqualified interpretation does more harm than good.

TenQ:
I honestly understand the dilemma of peaceful Muslims especially because of interpretations of verses like

Qur'an 9:29
"Fight those who do not believe in Allah or in the Last Day and who do not forbid what Allah and His Messenger have forbidden and who do not adopt the religion of truth from those who were given the Scripture- [fight] until they give the jizyah willingly while they are humbled."

Qur'an 5:51
"O you who believe! Do not take the Jews and the Christians as friends (awliyaa). They are [in fact] friends of one another. And whoever among you takes them as friends, then indeed, he is one of them. Indeed, Allah does not guide the wrongdoing people."
AND

Qur'an 1:6-7
Guide us to the straight path –
The path of those upon whom You have bestowed favor, not of those who have evoked [Your] anger or of those who are astray

Because,
1. Your Tafsirs explained them clearly to mean exactly what the verses reads on the surface
2. As long as there are many Muslims who see it as a command to dominate and humiliate non Muslims, no explanation or reinterpretation avails much
3. Those who need re-education are actually Muslims and not Christians and Jews who are on the recieving side when Muslims are either in power or are a majority
4. The fact that even though you deny the apparent direct meanings, Christians (especially) experience marginalisation and injustice as a result of not being Muslims doesn't help your case.


Finally,
The Qur'an is supposed to be simple and clear to understand because Allah explains things in detail

Qur'an 11:1
This is a Book whose verses are perfected and then presented in detail from [one who is] Wise and Acquainted"

Qur'an 41:3
"[A Book] whose verses have been detailed, an Arabic Qur'an for a people who know."

Qur'an 12:1
"These are the verses of the clear Book"


BUT
It seems that no one including Muslims can understand the plain words of Allah in the Qur'an.
Instead, We need
1. Loads of Tafsirs which sometimes even disagree with each other
2. Asbāb al-Nuzūl
3. Lots of Hadiths and we then begin to argue over the chains of narrations
4. Reinterpretation by modern Muslims.


So, we can only say
We hear you as it is just your opinion and not a consensus of Islam or Muslims.

You begin with “I understand,” but everything that follows makes it abundantly clear you don’t. You’re not here to understand—you’re here to indict. You parade a series of verses divorced from context, history, and scholarly interpretation, and then pretend confusion when Muslims rely on the very scholarly tradition that has always accompanied the Qur’an since its revelation.

1. Qur’an 9:29 – This verse was revealed in the context of the Tabuk expedition—a time of military threat and betrayal by the Byzantine-backed tribes. It’s not a blanket command for perpetual war, but a legal instruction during a specific historical conflict. Do you even know what “jizyah” meant in practice? It was a form of tax exemption from military service, not a mechanism of humiliation—unless you think modern taxes are also “humiliation.”

2. Qur’an 5:51 – The word “awliyaa” in Arabic has a range of meanings: allies, guardians, political protectors—not casual friendships. The context was the betrayal by some Jewish and Christian tribes during the Prophet’s time, not a ban on coexistence or friendship. Qur’an 60:8 literally states: “Allah does not forbid you from being kind and just toward those who have not fought you.” But of course, you left that out—because your argument falls apart when the full picture is presented.

3. Qur’an 1:6–7 – This is a supplication for guidance. The classical tafsir that mentions Jews and Christians in connection with this verse refers to specific types of people who rejected truth knowingly or were misguided—not wholesale condemnation of entire faith groups. Your interpretation reflects polemics, not Islamic theology.

Then you list how Muslims need tafsir, asbab al-nuzul, hadith, etc., as if the presence of scholarly tools somehow makes the Qur’an less divine. That’s a childish point. No religious or philosophical tradition can be understood properly without context and scholarship—not Christianity, not Judaism, not even secular law.

You complain about diversity in interpretation—as if that invalidates the faith. Should we discard democracy because people debate its form? Should we abandon science because scholars disagree on theories? No, disagreement is a sign of intellectual vitality—not weakness.

Your final claim—that Muslims marginalize others—is sheer hypocrisy. Shall we go through the centuries of systemic oppression, forced conversions, inquisitions, and colonization committed by Christian empires? Islam, in contrast, maintained coexistence for centuries—from Andalusia to the Ottoman millet system—far more than can be said of most historical Christian powers.

So no, you’re not presenting facts. You’re reciting selective, decontextualized verses with polemical intent. You ignore the Qur’an’s clear call to justice, mercy, and coexistence because you’re not here for truth. You’re here to accuse and pretend it’s insight.

gohf AntiChristian TenQ

TenQ:
The fact that the pre-Islamic Arabs stated that the three daughters of Hubal are al-Lāt, al-‘Uzzā, and Manāt is already HISTORY and because they existed before Islam, Islam cannot reject them. Any notion of rejecting these history is weak attempts to rewrite history.

Check even Islamic sources about Abdul Mutalib and you will find out that Hubal is aka Allah: the difference is that Hubal is represented by an image in the Kaaba while Allah is not.


This is true.

However, how is it that the exact names of the daughters of Hubal is the exact names of the daughters of Allah?

Isn't it another proof that Hubal is a synonym for Allah?


Secondly, I do not think that Islam came to restore a pure monotheism. Islam came to UNIFY the objects of worship into one name called Allah.

Otherwise,
1. What is the exact meaning of Ahad?
2. What is the exact meaning of Taoheed?

Neither mean ONE!

Thank you for sharing your perspective. However, your argument contains several misunderstandings—both historical and linguistic—that need clarification.

1. Pre-Islamic Deities and Islamic Rejection

Yes, the pre-Islamic Arabs worshipped al-Lāt, al-‘Uzzā, and Manāt. They were considered daughters of their chief deity. However, Islam did not inherit or accept this belief—it explicitly rejected it. The Qur’an directly confronts this myth in Surah An-Najm (53:19–23):

“Have you considered al-Lāt and al-‘Uzzā, and Manāt, the third, the other? Are you to have the males and He the females? That is indeed an unfair division. These are but names you have named…”

Far from adopting these deities, Islam denounced them as human fabrications. The existence of these names before Islam is not evidence of continuity; it's the very error Islam came to correct.

2. Hubal and Allah Are Not the Same

The claim that Hubal is another name for Allah is historically inaccurate. Hubal was a pagan idol placed in the Kaaba by the Quraysh. In contrast, "Allah" was known before Islam as the name of the supreme Creator God—even among pagan Arabs.

The Qur’an acknowledges this in several places:

“If you ask them who created the heavens and the earth, they will surely say ‘Allah.’” (Qur’an 31:25)

Islam rejected the idols besides Allah—not Allah Himself. Abdul Muttalib, the Prophet’s grandfather, may have acknowledged Allah, but like many pre-Islamic Arabs, he practiced shirk (association of partners). Islam came to correct that deviation—not to continue it.

3. Daughters of Allah? A Refuted Claim

The Qur’an is clear: Allah has no offspring. Associating daughters (or sons) with Him is categorically rejected:

“He neither begets nor is born.” (Qur’an 112:3)
“And they attribute to Allah daughters—exalted is He!—and to themselves what they desire.” (Qur’an 16:57)

The resemblance of names (al-Lāt, etc.) does not imply equivalence or continuity. These were the names of pagan goddesses—Islam denounced both their names and their worship.

4. Tawheed and Ahad

Your linguistic claim is mistaken.

"Ahad" (أَحَد) in Qur’an 112:1 means “One and Only”—a unique singularity that excludes all plurality, unlike the ordinary word "Wāhid" (واحد), which can be used in numerals.

"Tawheed" (توحيد) means affirming oneness—derived from the verb waḥḥada, “to unify” or “declare one.” In theology, it refers not to combining many gods into one, but to declaring that only one God exists, with no partners, equals, or intermediaries.

Tawheed is not about merging objects of worship—it is about eliminating all others and affirming only Allah as the true God.

Conclusion

Islam did not evolve from paganism; it came to erase it. Islam affirms pure monotheism, not by inheriting pre-Islamic concepts, but by purifying them. Associating Allah with Hubal or claiming Islam adopted pagan goddesses is not only incorrect—it contradicts the Qur’an’s explicit rejection of such beliefs.

I welcome further dialogue, but it must be grounded in accurate historical, theological, and linguistic understanding.

gohf AntiChristian TenQ honesttalk21

TenQ:
You say this because as a Muslim, you have never experienced marginalisation by Muslims as I have.

Except you don't believe in the verse
Qur'an 9:29
"Fight those who do not believe in Allah or in the Last Day and who do not forbid what Allah and His Messenger have forbidden and who do not adopt the religion of truth from those who were given the Scripture- [fight] until they give the jizyah willingly while they are humbled."

Is this not the instructions of Allah?



You paint Prophet Mohammad as so nice but your religious books say the exact opposite. Yes, why should he kill his own people of Mecca after his victory?
But that didn't say he didn't kill anyone such as Abdullah ibn Khatal and Miqyas bin Sababa.

Prophet Mohammad killed over 700 men and boys of the Banu Qurayza tribe who Surrendered to his mercy after his siege against them when he concluded the battle of the Trench. These people even helped him did the trenches but their offence was that they didn't join him in battle against his enemies. Even if there was betrayal as claimed by Muslims, justice required that the offenders be fished out and punished.

This clearly showed how merciful he was.

You recite the Al-Fathiha at least five times a day, and your prayers is against Christians and Jews. Those who are under the curse of Allah and those who have missed the way.. Is this not the origin of the problem!?



Yes, a peaceful Muslim is torn between obeying Allah, obeying the Sunah and loving his neighbour.

Qur'an 5:51
"O you who believe! Do not take the Jews and the Christians as friends (awliyaa). They are [in fact] friends of one another. And whoever among you takes them as friends, then indeed, he is one of them. Indeed, Allah does not guide the wrongdoing people."

Should you take me as a friend against the clear teachings of Qur'an 5:51 ?


This is the problem of peaceful Muslims!

Thank you for sharing your concerns. I understand that your views stem from personal experiences and certain interpretations of Islamic texts, and I appreciate the opportunity to clarify and respond.

Firstly, regarding marginalisation, I do not deny that individuals can experience mistreatment at the hands of people from any group—including Muslims. However, it is important to distinguish between the actions of individuals and the teachings of a faith. Islam, like other major religions, is not immune to misrepresentation or abuse by its followers. If you were wronged by Muslims, I sincerely regret that and pray for justice and healing. However, this should not serve as a blanket judgment on the religion itself or on Muslims who strive to live ethically and peacefully.

Now, regarding your interpretation of specific Qur’anic verses and historical events, I would like to address them one by one:

1. Qur’an 9:29

This verse is often quoted without historical and textual context. It was revealed in a time of war and political tension between the early Muslim community and the Byzantine Empire. It is not a blanket command to kill non-Muslims. The term "jizyah" refers to a historical tax that exempted non-Muslims from military service, while Muslims were obligated to fight in defense of the state and pay zakat. The verse addresses hostile combatants, not peaceful coexistence. Islam has a long record of religious tolerance—as demonstrated in Muslim-ruled Spain and the Ottoman Empire.

2. Prophet Muhammad’s actions

You cited the execution of individuals like Abdullah ibn Khatal. These individuals were not targeted simply for being non-Muslims but were guilty of severe crimes, such as treason, murder, and inciting violence against Muslims during wartime. Even modern legal systems prescribe capital punishment for treason in times of war.

As for Banu Qurayza, historical sources, including non-Muslim historians, confirm that their leadership broke a critical treaty during a time of existential threat to the Muslim community (Battle of the Trench). The punishment—carried out by a Jewish arbitrator chosen by the Banu Qurayza themselves (Sa’d ibn Mu’adh)—was consistent with the Jewish law of the Torah (Deuteronomy 20:10-14), which they abided by.

3. Al-Fatiha and "those who have gone astray"

This is a common misunderstanding. Al-Fatiha is a supplication to be guided on the straight path—not a condemnation of any particular group. Classical Islamic scholars interpreted “those who have earned anger” and “those who went astray” as types of behavior, not ethnic or religious identities. Moreover, the Qur’an explicitly affirms the validity of previous scriptures (e.g., Qur’an 2:62), and Prophet Muhammad lived peacefully with Christians and Jews in Medina.

4. Qur’an 5:51 – 'Do not take Jews and Christians as awliyaa'

The word awliyaa has various meanings: protectors, political allies, guardians. It is not a blanket prohibition on friendship. Many scholars agree that this verse refers specifically to political alliances in contexts of conflict, where loyalty to justice and ethical conduct must not be compromised. The Qur’an elsewhere encourages kindness and justice toward non-Muslims who are not hostile (Qur’an 60::

"Allah does not forbid you from being kind and just toward those who have not fought you because of your religion..."

Conclusion

Islam does not ask Muslims to hate or harm non-Muslims. It calls for justice, compassion, and peaceful coexistence. Any verse or historical event must be interpreted in its proper context—linguistically, historically, and ethically. A true Muslim is not torn between loving his neighbor and being faithful to God; rather, loving and respecting others is a part of his faith.

If peaceful Muslims are the "problem" in your view, then I respectfully suggest that perhaps the issue lies not with Islam itself, but with how it is being misunderstood.

gohf AntiChristian TenQ

Basicend:
Jesus was not/never poor.

He commanded only the things the he needed at a time. Signalling to us that God supplies based on necessity. That is the highest height of kingdom power and authority.

He is the Lord and has unlimited command and access to all.

Lastly, Jesus does hate poverty or the poor. He loves all.

Thank you for your remarks. As a Muslim, I respectfully offer a different understanding based on Islamic teachings and a critical view of your assertions.

Firstly, the claim that “Jesus was never poor” contradicts both Christian and Islamic narratives that describe his life as humble and detached from material wealth. In Islam, Jesus (peace be upon him) is revered as a prophet who lived a life of asceticism, simplicity, and complete trust in God's provision.

The Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) said:

"The most beloved of people to me are the prophets, and the most similar of them to me in character is Jesus son of Mary. He used to go about in rags, eating wild plants..."
— Musnad Ahmad 8492

Jesus’ lack of worldly possessions and his simple lifestyle do not reflect poverty as a curse, but rather spiritual strength and detachment from the material world.

Secondly, the idea that Jesus “commanded only what he needed” and had “unlimited access to all” aligns more with a theological claim of divinity, which Islam does not accept. Islam honors Jesus as a mighty prophet and servant of God, not as divine himself. The Qur’an clearly states:

“Jesus said, ‘Indeed, I am the servant of Allah. He has given me the Scripture and made me a prophet.’”
— Qur’an 19:30

Thirdly, to clarify, neither Islam nor Jesus (peace be upon him) viewed poverty as a virtue or a vice. Both traditions emphasize compassion toward the poor, not disdain. The Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) himself prayed:

“O Allah, let me live as a poor man, die as a poor man, and resurrect me among the poor.”
— Sunan al-Tirmidhi 2352

This illustrates that in Islamic thought, material poverty is not a mark of inferiority, and Jesus’ humble life reflects his role as a spiritually elevated servant of God—not someone asserting material control or kingdom power in the worldly sense.

In conclusion, Jesus' life of simplicity, both in Christianity and Islam, demonstrates deep spiritual authority—not material dominion. From the Islamic perspective, true kingdom power lies in submission to God, not in command over worldly possessions.

gohf:
focus on the subject of discuss, which isn't about if Jesus is divine or not. You made mention of Jesus being the Messiah without explaining what that actually means, neither are you stating the specific roles that you say Jesus will fulfill at his return before the Day of Judgement. Do you even know what it means to call Jesus the Messiah not just a prophet or an anointed person, but the Messiah. Do you know what it means or you are just posting information.


to you it is incorrect to suggest that prophet Muhammad will submit to God's will of giving judgement to Jesus? Meanwhile I am asking you all a question not making a suggestion. Now you seem to have a need to establish or imply the superiority or hierarchy after death by stating again that Muhammad brought the Quran, how does that nullify or answer the question. If Jesus is the anointed one to judge by the standard of your Quran will Muhammad submit to his judgement? Is this question too hard, or you cannot just accept that Muhammad will follow a judge appointed by God? And if you cannot accept that, the question is why?


here again you are not following the discuss, there wasn't a mention of Jesus bringing in a new law, but using your very believe that Jesus would judge with that your shariah law and rule by the Quran. Answer the question will Muhammad be under that same rule, that Jesus will rule by with the Quran.

I can see why some people have problems with some of you Muslims, how did you come about this conclusion. So to you Jesus who will rule and judge others with the Quran will be a follower of Muhammad, okay please explain to us why that is the case.

And don't say something silly like because God gave Muhammad the Quran, did God giving Muhammad the Quran mean he is above the ruling of the Quran?

Thank you for your comment. Let me address your concerns directly and respectfully.

In Islam, Jesus (peace be upon him) is indeed the Messiah, but this title refers to his unique mission—not divinity or superiority over other prophets. His return before the Day of Judgement is to fulfill a role decreed by God: to uphold justice and rule by the Shariah revealed in the Qur’an, not to bring a new law.

Regarding your question about Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) being under Jesus' judgment—Islam does not see it as a matter of hierarchy after death. Prophet Muhammad’s mission is complete; he delivered the final revelation. Jesus, upon returning, will follow that final revelation—the Qur’an. This does not make Jesus superior to Muhammad; rather, it shows that Jesus himself will confirm the truth of Muhammad’s message.

No prophet is above God’s law. Prophet Muhammad lived by the Qur’an, and Jesus will judge by it. This reflects continuity in divine guidance, not a competition between prophets.

Therefore, the Islamic view maintains respect and clarity: each prophet serves his divinely appointed role, and Jesus’ future role will affirm—not override—what Prophet Muhammad brought.

In Islam, Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) is regarded as the final Messenger and Seal of the Prophets (Qur’an 33:40). Jesus the Messiah (peace be upon him) is also highly revered as one of the greatest prophets, but not divine. According to authentic Islamic teachings, Jesus will return before the Day of Judgment to fulfill specific roles, including restoring justice and correcting misbeliefs about his nature.

However, it is not correct to suggest that Prophet Muhammad will "submit to the judgment of Jesus" in a way that implies superiority or hierarchy after death. Prophet Muhammad has completed his mission and passed away, having fulfilled the final revelation—the Qur'an—which is the standard of judgment for all people, including Jesus upon his return.

When Jesus returns, he will follow the Shariah (law) of Muhammad, not bring a new law. This is supported by Hadith, such as in Sahih al-Bukhari and Sahih Muslim, where the Prophet said Jesus will "break the cross, kill the swine, and abolish the jizya," and that he will rule by the Qur’an and Sunnah, not the Gospel.

So, in Islamic belief, Jesus (peace be upon him) will be a follower of the final Prophet, Muhammad (peace be upon him), upon his return—not the other way around.

gohf AntiChristian

TenQ:
Thanks for this writeup.

It represents exactly what moderate Muslims would want the rest of us to believe and not the reality of what happens when Muslims are in power or are the majority.

Secondly, it is impossible to deny that examples of harsh misbehaviours of Muslims to others abound in the Sunah of your prophet.

Strictly following the Sunah of your prophet results into the intolerance we see in Islam except if you reject following the traditions of your prophet (which goes against the Qur'an).

Thus , a peaceful Muslim is torn between being peaceful and obeying Allah because they go against each other.

Thank you for your response. While I understand your concerns, I must respectfully clarify several points.

First, the claim that peaceful conduct by Muslims is only a façade until they become a majority is a sweeping generalization not supported by the diversity of Muslim-majority societies across the world. Countries like Indonesia, Senegal, Albania, and others with Muslim majorities are known for religious tolerance and coexistence. Power or majority status does not inherently lead to oppression—political, cultural, and historical factors often play a more decisive role than religion alone.

Second, the Sunnah of the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) does not promote intolerance. On the contrary, it is rich with examples of mercy, restraint, and respect for others—Muslim and non-Muslim alike. The Prophet entered Mecca with the power to exact revenge but chose to forgive even his staunchest enemies, saying, “Go, for you are free.” He lived peacefully alongside Jews and Christians, established treaties with non-Muslim tribes, and strictly forbade harming civilians, clergy, or places of worship in warfare.

Yes, there are firm rulings in the Sunnah, especially related to justice, law, and social order—but these must be understood in context, not selectively cited without the surrounding ethical and historical background.

To suggest that a peaceful Muslim is “torn” between peace and obedience to Allah is a false dichotomy. Islam commands both justice and mercy. The Qur’an repeatedly instructs Muslims to act with kindness, to repel evil with good, and to be just even toward those they dislike (Qur’an 5:8, 41:34).

In conclusion, extremism and intolerance are not products of sincere Islamic practice, but of ignorance, manipulation, or political misuse of religion—a reality acknowledged by Muslims themselves and actively addressed by scholars and communities worldwide.

Rich4god RightChannel Entusky TenQ AntiChristian

TenQ:
Please tell me exactly when you answered the questions

1. What are the names of the three daughters of Hubal?
AND
2. Who is Hubal?


I am waiting because neither you or any Muslim have answered these questions!


I await the link to when you answered the questions OR you kuku answer them for me.

1. In pre-Islamic Arabian belief systems, al-Lāt, al-‘Uzzā, and Manāt were three prominent goddesses. However, there is no authentic Islamic source or historical evidence directly linking them as literal "daughters of Hubal." This association stems from pre-Islamic mythologies and interpretations that Islam later rejected as false.

2. Hubal was a major idol worshipped by some Arab tribes in pre-Islamic Mecca. He was placed in the Kaaba and considered a central figure in idol worship. With the advent of Islam, the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) cleansed the Kaaba of all idols, including Hubal, restoring it to the pure monotheism of Abraham. In Islam, Hubal and similar idols are seen as symbols of the ignorance (Jāhiliyyah) that Islam came to end.

Rich4god RightChannel Entusky TenQ AntiChristian

ManuelNate1:
Islam is cursed
Islam is cursed
Islam is cursed
Islam is cursed
Islam is cursed
Islam is cursed
Islam is cursed
Islam is cursed
Islam is cursed
Islam is cursed
Islam is cursed
Islam is cursed
Islam is cursed
Islam is cursed
Islam is cursed
Islam is cursed
Islam is cursed
Islam is cursed
Islam is cursed
Islam is cursed
Islam is cursed
Islam is cursed
Islam is cursed
Islam is cursed
Islam is cursed
Islam is cursed
Islam is cursed
Islam is cursed
Islam is cursed
Islam is cursed
Islam is cursed
Islam is cursed
Islam is cursed
Islam is cursed
Islam is cursed
Islam is cursed
Islam is cursed
Islam is cursed
Islam is cursed
Islam is cursed
Islam is cursed
Islam is cursed
Islam is cursed
Islam is cursed
Islam is cursed
Islam is cursed
Islam is cursed
Islam is cursed
Islam is cursed
Islam is cursed
Islam is cursed
Islam is cursed
Islam is cursed
Islam is cursed
Islam is cursed
Islam is cursed
Islam is cursed
Islam is cursed
Islam is cursed
Islam is cursed
Islam is cursed
Islam is cursed
Islam is cursed
Islam is cursed
Islam is cursed
Islam is cursed
Islam is cursed
Islam is cursed
Islam is cursed
Islam is cursed
Islam is cursed
Islam is cursed
Islam is cursed
Islam is cursed
Islam is cursed

Repeating “Islam is cursed” like a broken record doesn’t make it true—it just exposes your ignorance and desperation for attention. If you had anything intelligent to say, you would’ve said it by now.

Islam has stood strong for over 1,400 years, shaping civilizations, inspiring billions, and surviving far more powerful enemies than some keyboard warrior spewing hate.

You don’t like Islam? Fine. But if you want to challenge it, come with facts, not brainless repetition. Until then, sit down—you're not ready for this conversation.

Rich4god RightChannel Entusky TenQ AntiChristian

Thank you for raising your concerns. These are important questions, and I appreciate the opportunity to clarify and provide perspective.

1. On eating in public during Ramadan and the claim of compulsion in Islam:
Indeed, Islam teaches that “There is no compulsion in religion” (Qur’an 2:256). Fasting during Ramadan is an obligation for Muslims who are physically and mentally capable, but it is not something to be imposed on non-Muslims or those exempt. Unfortunately, in some Muslim-majority societies, cultural practices and religious expectations can become intertwined with legal or social norms, leading to enforcement that does not reflect the spirit of Islam. It's important to distinguish between cultural enforcement and Islamic teachings. Irritation or cursing others for not fasting is not condoned by Islamic ethics, which emphasize patience, respect, and leading by example.

2. On Muslims in non-Muslim countries and integration:
Muslims, like followers of any other faith, have a right to practice their religion peacefully, even in countries where they are a minority. Practicing one’s religion publicly—such as wearing religious attire or requesting halal food options—is not the same as imposing beliefs. In most cases, Muslims seek only the freedom to live in accordance with their faith while respecting local laws and cultures. In pluralistic societies, mutual respect and dialogue are essential. Any effort to impose religious laws on others without consent contradicts both Islamic principles and democratic values.

3. On extremism and the silence of the majority:
It is a misconception that the majority of Muslims remain silent in the face of extremism. Many Muslim scholars, organizations, and individuals across the world have publicly condemned terrorism and violence carried out in the name of Islam. However, these condemnations are often underreported by mainstream media. Extremist actions represent a distortion of Islamic teachings, and it is unfair to judge a global faith followed by over a billion people by the actions of a radical few.

4. On reactions to blasphemy in Nigeria and elsewhere:
Blasphemy is a sensitive topic in many religious traditions, including Islam. While some individuals respond with hostility, this is not representative of the religion's teachings. Islam encourages respectful disagreement and patience. The Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) himself endured insults with tolerance and dignity. Calls for violence are not only un-Islamic but also illegal and counterproductive. It is the responsibility of scholars, leaders, and communities to speak against such incitement, and many have done so, though again, these voices may not always be amplified.

In conclusion, the actions of some individuals or groups should not be seen as representative of an entire faith. Just as no religion is free from those who misinterpret or misuse its teachings, the same applies to Islam. Mutual understanding, open dialogue, and a commitment to justice are essential steps forward.

Rich4god RightChannel Entusky TenQ AntiChristian

The ongoing political rift in Rivers State between Minister Nyesom Wike and suspended Governor Siminalayi Fubara reflects the persistent challenge of political godfatherism and institutional instability within Nigeria’s democratic structure. While Minister Wike’s assertion that he is not in direct conflict with Governor Fubara may be intended to downplay tensions, his statements and actions suggest otherwise, particularly given his open condemnation of other political actors and his endorsement of federal intervention in the state's governance.

The suspension of a sitting governor, deputy governor, and the state legislature—followed by the appointment of a state administrator—raises significant constitutional and democratic concerns. It sets a dangerous precedent that undermines the principles of federalism and the autonomy of state institutions.

While Governor Fubara's calls for peace are commendable, reconciliation cannot be achieved through rhetoric alone. All parties must commit to transparent dialogue, uphold the rule of law, and prioritize the interests of Rivers people above personal or political ambitions.

Ultimately, the resolution of this crisis requires maturity, restraint, and respect for democratic processes. Political differences should be resolved within the boundaries of legality and democratic ethics, not through threats, federal overreach, or the marginalization of duly elected officials.

While the concerns raised by the National Prayer Altar reflect deep-seated apprehensions about maintaining Nigeria’s secular character, the call to abolish the recognition of Arabic and Islamic qualifications such as those issued by the National Board for Arabic and Islamic Studies (NBAIS) requires a more nuanced and constitutionally grounded evaluation.

First, it is essential to recognize that NBAIS is a federally approved examination body under the Federal Ministry of Education, established to standardize and regulate Arabic and Islamic education in Nigeria. The equivalence of NBAIS certifications with WAEC and NECO is not a privileging of one religion over others, but rather a recognition of the educational and linguistic competence of a specific academic track, just as technical and vocational certifications are recognized alongside general education.

Secondly, Nigeria’s Constitution does not prohibit the state from acknowledging religious or cultural education; rather, it prohibits the adoption of any state religion (Section 10). The recognition of NBAIS does not equate to the establishment of Islam as a state religion—it is a functional acknowledgment of a segment of the population whose educational training is grounded in Arabic and Islamic studies. Such recognition promotes inclusivity and allows students from this background to access higher education opportunities without discrimination.

It is also important to note that the Nigerian education system already accommodates multiple pathways—technical (via NBTE), academic (WAEC/NECO), and religious (NBAIS)—each subject to quality assurance and standardization by the relevant authorities. The call for exclusive recognition of only WAEC, NECO, and NBTE disregards the diversity of Nigeria’s educational ecosystem and risks marginalizing learners whose education has followed a legitimate, federally regulated path.

Furthermore, the argument that there are no equivalent federal education boards for other cultural or religious traditions overlooks the fact that such boards can be proposed, established, and regulated through proper channels if there is a legitimate demand and educational rationale for them. The existence of NBAIS should be viewed not as religious favoritism, but as a precedent that other groups can adapt to their own educational frameworks—provided they meet the required national standards.

Lastly, the assertion that NBAIS lacks legislative or executive legitimacy is not supported by current administrative practice. NBAIS has been operating under the oversight of the Federal Ministry of Education and its qualifications are recognized by JAMB for university admissions, which confirms its integration into the national framework.

In conclusion, rather than calling for abolition based on perceived religious imbalance, a more constructive approach would be to ensure transparency, standardization, and equal access to certification for all groups—religious, cultural, or otherwise—under a unified regulatory standard. Nigeria’s pluralism is a strength, not a threat, and its educational system must reflect that reality through inclusion, not exclusion.

In Lagos State, commercial buses obtain Road Worthiness Certificates through a process managed by the Vehicle Inspection Service (VIS), under the Ministry of Transportation. The goal is to ensure that vehicles are safe to operate on public roads.

The process involves the following steps:

1. Payment: The vehicle owner pays the required roadworthiness fee through government-approved channels.

2. Booking an Inspection: An appointment is made for the bus to be inspected at a Lagos Computerized Vehicle Inspection Centre (LACVIS).

3. Vehicle Inspection: The bus is examined using computerized systems to check brakes, lights, tires, emissions, and overall safety.

4. Certification: If the vehicle passes, a Road Worthiness Certificate is issued. If it fails, the owner must fix the problems and return for a second inspection.

Lagos State is working to ensure that this process is transparent, standardized, and not compromised by shortcuts or corruption.

In theory, there should be an ideological difference between the All Progressives Congress (APC) and the People's Democratic Party (PDP), as is typical of parties in a healthy democratic system. However, in practice, the ideological distinctions between the two major Nigerian parties are often blurred.

Both parties have adopted similar positions on key economic and political issues over the years, and their platforms tend to emphasize general themes like national unity, development, and anti-corruption—without a consistent, distinct ideological framework. Additionally, frequent cross-carpeting of politicians between the two parties has further eroded any clear ideological identity, making party loyalty more about political expediency than about principle or policy.

That said, there are rhetorical differences: the PDP often presents itself as a center-left party with a focus on social welfare and infrastructure investment, while the APC has positioned itself, at least nominally, as a center-right party advocating anti-corruption and fiscal responsibility. However, these distinctions are rarely reflected in consistent governance philosophies or policy implementation.

In summary, while there may be theoretical or rhetorical ideological leanings, the practical difference between APC and PDP has largely been one of personalities, political alignments, and power dynamics, rather than of clearly defined and consistently upheld ideological principles.

DeLaRue:
Many of these ideas have been reharshed over the years, but only few are achievable due to entrenched intetests.

That's because many of these changes require chance of several laws, and with the sort legislators we have who see most things through ethnic lens, it would be very difficult to make many of these charges.

See what happened to the tax bills. And that's just one set of laws o.

If a President says I want to merge this and that agency, a section of the country dominating these agencies will cry foul and claim the President is against them.

You want legislators to go part-time? You think Nigerian legislators will vote for that? A turkey never votes for Christmas.

So these are the challenges that any President that tries to make these changes will face.

Your concerns about entrenched interests and legislative resistance are understandable, but difficulty should not be mistaken for impossibility. Many impactful reforms throughout history faced strong opposition at first—until sustained pressure, political will, and public demand shifted the balance.

Yes, reforms may require changes to laws and mindsets, but dismissing them outright because of anticipated resistance only guarantees stagnation. Ethnic and regional sensitivities are real, but effective leadership means addressing them through dialogue, fairness, and inclusivity—not allowing them to block progress.

The fact that some legislators may resist part-time roles, or that certain groups may oppose agency mergers, is precisely why reform is necessary. The greater the challenge, the more urgent the need for courageous leadership and an engaged, reform-minded public.

AntiChristian:


There's no way the money can be monitored!

Padded Contracts will be awarded and the extras will be forwarded to a crony's account to be gradually disbursed.

The civil servants and the average masses too corrupt!

While I understand your concerns regarding potential misuse of funds, I believe it's an oversimplification to claim that there is "no way" the money can be monitored. Robust financial oversight mechanisms, such as independent audits, digital tracking systems, transparent procurement processes, and active civil society participation, can significantly reduce the risk of corruption.

As for the allegation that all civil servants and the average masses are "too corrupt," such a sweeping generalization is not only unfair but also counterproductive. There are countless individuals within the public service and among citizens who are committed to integrity and good governance. The path to progress lies in strengthening institutions and promoting accountability—not in dismissing the entire system as irredeemable.

Britishpea:
Nigerian politicians thrive with money and on money. They can’t stay two years without power or align with power.

APC had Tinubu who had a vision to become the president one day and believed in his strategy thus he was ready to be funding the party.

PDP has no one with strong vision. Atiku himself doesn’t believe he can win elections so he can’t spend much for the party. Amaechi and Bukola Saraki can’t spend such money.

Wike as the one funding them and he’s now a rogue.

Thus, they have no stronghold on the leadership or who becomes the leader. They are not respected within the party. This and more is the reason you see the party eroding.

Thank you for your observations. While it's true that money plays a significant role in Nigerian politics—as it does in many democracies—the assertion that political relevance is solely sustained by financial capacity oversimplifies a much deeper issue.

Political endurance and party strength are not merely a function of who spends the most. Vision, ideology, internal democracy, strategic planning, and public trust are far more sustainable pillars of influence. Tinubu’s rise, for instance, was not just about funding—it involved building alliances, negotiating interests, and maintaining a long-term political strategy. Reducing it only to money overlooks the complexity of political capital.

PDP’s current challenges go beyond funding. A party’s decline often reflects internal disunity, lack of ideological cohesion, and absence of clear leadership—not just the withdrawal of financial sponsors. Atiku, Saraki, and Amaechi may not play the same financial role as Tinubu did, but leadership should not be measured only by how much one spends. In fact, parties built solely around wealthy individuals often become unstable when those individuals fall out of favor or pursue personal interests over party objectives—something we are seeing across multiple platforms.

Furthermore, describing Wike as a "rogue" ignores the broader issue of structural weakness in party discipline and accountability. When institutions are strong, no individual can singlehandedly capture or derail a party.

If we want Nigeria’s political space to mature, we must move beyond the narrative that power belongs to the highest spender. We need to emphasize institutions over personalities, and vision over vaults.

Britishpea:
A brilliant mind who doesn’t know the meaning of “shadow” govt?

If you are the president will you allow it?
This is how it always starts. Another govt inside a govt.

America will not even accept such! If I was a president I will make sure that anyone who does that is jailed.

He could chose to call it something else but not shadow u govt.

Even if Obi was the president and a Tinubu that I love so much creates such I will bash Tinubu.

However, most of these guys that we call brilliant are just at the disposal of opportunities which many better brilliant minds don’t have.

I appreciate your concerns, but it’s important to clarify what a shadow government actually means in democratic discourse.

The term shadow government is not a sinister or illegal concept. In many advanced democracies, it refers to a group formed by the opposition to monitor and critique the policies of the ruling party, offering alternative solutions and preparing to assume office if elected. It is a standard democratic practice—not an act of rebellion or sabotage.

To suggest that anyone who proposes such a structure should be jailed is not only extreme, but also dismissive of the principles of democracy, which include freedom of political expression and the right to dissent. If America, which you referenced, truly opposed the concept, it wouldn’t support similar opposition roles in other democratic systems.

As for your final point, brilliance should not be reduced to who has access or who doesn’t. The fact that someone chooses to act within the law, propose alternatives, and model constructive opposition should not be vilified—it should be encouraged. We need more of such ideas in a system that often discourages creativity and dissent.

Let’s not allow emotion or political allegiance to cloud our understanding of governance. Democracy thrives not on silence, but on engagement, alternatives, and accountability.

AntiChristian:
They always blame Jagaban and leave their governors!
It's their drug to blame BAT twice in the morning, afternoon and night.

This obsession can't be cured!

They'll never see the governors to blame!

LG chairman also!

May we not be asinine forever cause of election loss!

Everything started from OBJ especially the corruption!

Your perspective is noted, but it's important to acknowledge that criticism of the President does not automatically absolve state and local officials of responsibility. Nigerians are capable of holding multiple levels of leadership accountable simultaneously—be it governors, local government chairmen, or the presidency.

While past administrations, including Obasanjo's, played roles in shaping our current challenges, leadership is a continuum. Each administration inherits both assets and liabilities, but also has the opportunity—and obligation—to lead with integrity, competence, and vision.

When citizens express concerns about President Tinubu’s administration, it is not necessarily an "obsession," but rather a reflection of democratic accountability. Resorting to insults or dismissing criticism as bitterness over election outcomes diminishes the legitimacy of public discourse.

Constructive criticism should not be taken as enmity, and blaming citizens for speaking out is neither democratic nor productive. All leaders, past and present, should be scrutinized. That is how nations grow.

Alright! #TheJustPart #Jimrohn #WanderTryangle

Yahaya Bello Should Sit This One Out

It is laughable—no, insulting—that Yahaya Bello dares to position himself as a forerunner of forest security and a pioneer of effective governance. The same Yahaya Bello who presided over a state riddled with unpaid salaries, deteriorating infrastructure, and rising insecurity now wants credit for a half-baked, publicity-stunt version of what President Tinubu is trying to implement on a serious national scale?

Let’s be clear: recruiting 300 so-called “forest guards” in Kogi without proper training, equipment, or long-term strategy was nothing but a gimmick. A hollow PR move masquerading as governance. If Bello’s so-called forest guards were even remotely effective, Kogi wouldn't have been a breeding ground for kidnappers, illegal loggers, and armed criminals throughout his tenure.

And the audacity to flaunt awards like “Most Security Conscious Governor” from faceless, compromised groups—likely paid praise-singers—just adds insult to injury. The people of Kogi know the truth: under Bello, insecurity festered, public funds vanished, and civil servants were pushed to the brink of poverty while his cronies fattened themselves on state resources.

Let’s not rewrite history. Tinubu’s national forest guard initiative is rooted in urgency, structure, and scale—something Bello’s administration never had the competence or will to execute. Trying to latch onto this moment to polish his image is not only desperate, it’s delusional.

Yahaya Bello should focus on answering the growing calls for accountability over his time in office instead of shamelessly inserting himself into national conversations he has no business being part of. #Festacman #Legendhero #Topbanter #Seun #AntiChristian

Appleyard:
Brother, have you read an excerpt of the speech Trump gave at the meeting with Satan Arabia? I don't know if I'm dreaming or not. It's quite revealing. For the first time, the US foreign policy read anti-interventionism and openly admitted that unipolarism as spearheaded by America since the end of the cold war was wrong. Then it goes on to canvass for a new multipolar world order, one in which no single nation would dictate to others how to run things. Unbelievable!!!

First, it was Rubio's astonishing words on the same issue:

....And I think that was lost at the end of the Cold War, because we were the only power in the world, and so we assumed this responsibility of sort of becoming the global government in many cases, trying to solve every problem. And there are terrible things happening in the world. There are. And then there are things that are terrible that impact our national interest directly, and we need to prioritize those again. So it’s not normal for the world to simply have a unipolar power. That was not – that was an anomaly. It was a product of the end of the Cold War, but eventually you were going to reach back to a point where you had a multipolar world, multi-great powers in different parts of the planet. We face that now with China and to some extent Russia, and then you have rogue states like Iran and North Korea you have to deal with.


Now Trump....Here is a part of the speech:

Before our eyes, a new generation of leaders is transcending the ancient conflicts of tired divisions of the past and forging a future where the Middle East is defined by commerce, not chaos, where it exports technology, not terrorism, and where people of different nations, religions, and creeds are building cities together, not bombing each other out of existence. We don’t want that.
(Applause)

And it’s crucial for the wider world to note this great transformation has not come from Western interventionists or flying people in beautiful planes giving you lectures on how to live and how to govern your own affairs. No, the gleaming marvels of Riyadh and Abu Dhabi were not created by the so-called nation-builders, neocons, or liberal nonprofits like those who spent trillions and trillions of dollars failing to develop Kabul, Baghdad, so many other cities. Instead, the birth of a modern Middle East has been brought by the people of the region themselves, the people that are right here, the people that have lived here all their lives, developing your own sovereign countries, pursuing your own unique visions, and charting your own destinies in your own way. It’s really incredible what you’ve done.

In the end, the so-called nation-builders wrecked far more nations than they built, and the interventionists were intervening in complex societies that they did not even understand themselves. They told you how to do it, but they had no idea how to do it themselves. Peace, prosperity, and progress ultimately came not from a radical rejection of your heritage, but rather from embracing your national traditions and embracing that same heritage that you love so dearly.

(Applause)

And it’s something only you could do. You achieved a modern miracle the Arabian way. That’s a good way.

(Applause)


Going by this new US foreign policy shift, Netanyahoo should be having sleepless nights right now. No wonder he is talking about weaning Israel's security off America's support.

Interesting times ahead.

This transformation stands as a powerful testament to what is possible when regional leaders prioritize self-determination over dependency.

It reflects the enduring strength of cultural identity, the promise of economic cooperation, and the resilience of people shaping their own destinies.

The Middle East’s progress is not imported—it is homegrown, rooted in vision, heritage, and unwavering resolve.

TopBanter:
They are shameless bro. Part of the many G & H (gullible and hungry) Lie-Tasha is paying to try and skew the narrative and bamboozle Nigerians away from the fact that, after all the talk and senseless accusations, evidence and conclusive proof of wrongdoing is still the koko of the matter.

They are up and down on social media insulting Duru yet not one of them has tasked Lie-Tasha to do the easiest thing in the world which is to sue Duru for defamation and fraud as Babalola did against Farotimi only recently.

Anyone still supporting Lie-Tasha today, after all we have witnessed, is paid or perverse.

Shameless? Look in the mirror—your entire argument is a festival of hypocrisy and bootlicking desperation. You’re out here screaming ‘G & H’ like a broken record, yet you’re the one gobbling up APC propaganda like a starved attack dog. ‘Lie-Tasha’? Cute nickname, but it only proves you’ve got nothing but cheap insults to mask your lack of substance.

You scream about ‘evidence’ like it’s your job, yet you’re the same coward who won’t hold Akpabio’s feet to the fire. Where’s his proof of innocence? Or does your selective outrage only work one way? Babalola sued Farotimi? Good for him—but since when did that become the standard for truth? Or are you just clutching at straws to distract from the fact that your paymasters are knee-deep in scandals?

And let’s talk about your kind—the online attack hounds who’ll twist, lie, and insult to defend corrupt politicians while pretending to care about ‘evidence.’ Anyone still vomiting this nonsense in 2025 is either on payroll, morally bankrupt, or just painfully stupid. Pick one.

Save your theatrics for your fellow sycophants. Until you can argue without sounding like a brainwashed puppet, keep your garbage takes to yourself. Weak.

9jatriot:
Once again beating around the bush, trying to dampen the fact that Sandra did provide evidence compared to you, (who I am begging to suspect to be Natasha herself) who hasn't provided any evidence at all. In fact, just today the court more or less called Natahsa a liar, this one was even about before the new one on Akpabio.



When is she going to stop telling lies as a grown up?

I still think 'useful idiots' or 'Gullible and Hungry' are shameful names to be called if you ask me.

Your desperate need to spin fiction as fact is as loud as it is laughable. Sandra allegedly presented evidence? Let’s not mistake propaganda for proof. Unlike you, some of us actually understand the difference between media noise and judicial outcomes.

You claim the court “more or less called Natasha a liar”? That’s a bold lie in itself—and a pathetic one at that. Read the judgment, if you even can. There was no adverse finding against Senator Natasha Akpoti, no award of costs, and certainly no declaration of dishonesty. The court ruled for each party to bear their own costs, which is a far cry from the damning verdict you fantasize about.

Your suspicion that I am Natasha herself is as baseless as your argument—grasping at straws because you can't counter the facts. What exactly have you provided here besides empty rhetoric and juvenile name-calling?

If anyone here fits the label of "gullible and hungry," it's those like you—clinging to distorted narratives and feeding on misinformation just to score cheap points. Grow up and come back when you can argue with facts instead of froth.