₦airaland Forum

Not much evidence to suggest it religious bias. But possibility of the boy not paying for ticket is suggested. But hey, definitely, guard action uncalled for. He's only 9 for God's sake. He doesn't work yet. UNDERAGE!!!....they are usually not bothered by police where i live. Only once in a while if they jump over turnstile. But thats for adult where they are criminally charged.

Yes, I can partially rule out islamophobia. I think guard motives need examination for his excessive force. This happens where i live. At the end of investigations the officer involved confessed 'I just dont like him' suggesting hate against race or religion. I am well aware of that.

Oh, my mind wasn't there. Check it out now.

YourMain:
The OP writes the whole article.

YourMain:
I understand. I absolutely detest it when people make unnecessary things racist or sexist or phobic..

I agree the assault was wrong. But it might have absolutely nothing to do with religion.

You have the article on this to read?

YourMain:
He was on the train without a ticket. They don't seem to care that he was a Muslim. It seems to me he was assaulted for fare dodging.

okay, i will take your word for you. I am personally not into making everything 'islamophobia'. I usually ignore. But even considering your point, i am sure police know better that kids do that all the time. Doesn't warrant this type of treatment though.

malvisguy212:
quote it for me let me see it .

Okay, it appears that you trying to be smart. Since you love quoting from Islam Holy book, then help yourself. Is that difficult to do now?. Plus search previous pages. Simple as that.

YourMain:
I have none. Just like the OP can't prove any islamphobia has occurred.

Actually, islamophobia may be proven just by watching. I am not sure if i read article on this. I thought i did

malvisguy212:
how is this an answer to my question? Where in the quran it say the bible/scripture is corrupted?

Honestly, i am so bored reading from you lately. Havent we cited verses several times from Quran and hadith that your Bible is very badly corrupted?. If i call you 'robot' now you gonna say it's an insult. You are very lazy. Go back to previous pages where i made the allegation. And it's not only on this thread. Rilwayne and others have said the same thing over and over. But you act like robotic machine.

^ okay, you believe in "trinity" or not?. I know ifean does. Is this nonsense you people want muslims to worship?. Hell, no.

^evidence pls?

malvisguy212:
where in the quran it say "the bible/scripture is corrupted? "

You say anyone who is not an eye witness does not have the right to compel a "holy book" we the christians say this men were inspired by God himself, but if we are to agree with you, how did muhammed compel the quran? Is muhammed an eyewitness when God created the world? Was he around when God created the world? MUHAMMED WAS NOT AN EYEWITNESS WHEN ALLAH CREATED THE WORLD YET HE WROTE IT IN THE QURAN AND YOU BELIEVE HIM.
You see how when you used logic to explained the nature of God failed you?

Mr. man, you now seem to be suffering from brain dysfunction. You dont make any sense. You love to systematically digress point being raised here. First all, this quote in blue was written by allnaijablogger.(see attached pix) Why did you embed the quote in rilwayne's? Are you trying to be smart?. I dont blame you. You Christians have been doing that lately including naijablogger himself.

This is the quote:

After all, people reject Ali (according to Lagoshia)as a companion. I did my research after empiree was playing me "wayo" with islam.

Second, we dont need your "tafsir". If you and others think there is fake Quran somewhere, kindly bring it forward. We know already there are different bibles by different authors. "holy spirit" nonsense!

AgricSalt:
Is the Trinity doctrine in the Bible? See here http://www.jw.org/en/bible-teachings/questions/trinity/

You might need to tell this to true2god, ifeann aka parisbookaddict, pastorkun,allnaijablogger and other like them that worship "3-headedgods" like picture seen below.

dejilg:
When will u ever make sense do u realize that YHWH never claimed to reveal the quran but the quranic deity (allah) claimed to have revealed d Bible (hence saying according to Islam, d Bible is a divine revelation) and also asks muslims to ask "people of the book" when they are confused...so its d quran dat is tryna equate "YHWH as allah".

now let's move on to the error of wat u jst quoted from d quran, the translation u used is dubious, did allah mention d word "Trinity" in the Quran as far as I can tell, the word translated as Trinity is actually "three"...so why did d translator used the word "Trinity"? Isn't this a stupidity? Puttin words in "allah's mouth"?...and dis verse also shows d ignorance of the quranic deity (allah).... We Christians shld "desist from say three"....if we may ask, "three what?"...isn't this d ignorance of muhammed being attributed to allah? Or is allah talking to other groups aside from Christians?

Stop dragging allah in the mud by quoting "its" ignorance

These are other translations (Qur'an 4:171):

"O followers of the Book! do not exceed the limits in your religion, and do not speak (lies) against Allah, but (speak) the truth; the Messiah, Isa son of Marium is only an apostle of Allah and His Word which He communicated to Marium and a spirit from Him; believe therefore in Allah and His apostles, and say not, Three. Desist, it is better for you; Allah is only one Allah; far be It from His glory that He should have a son, whatever is in the heavens and whatever is in the earth is His, and Allah is sufficient for a Protector." Shakir


"O people of the Scripture (Christians)! Do not exceed the limits in your religion, nor say of Allah aught but the truth. The Messiah 'Îsa (Jesus), son of Maryam (Mary), was (no more than) a Messenger of Allah and His Word, ("Be!" - and he was) which He bestowed on Maryam (Mary) and a spirit (Ruh ) created by Him; so believe in Allah and His Messengers. Say not: "Three (trinity)!" Cease! (it is) better for you. For Allah is (the only) One Ilah (God), glory be to Him (Far Exalted is He) above having a son. To Him belongs all that is in the heavens and all that is in the earth. And Allah is All-Sufficient as a Disposer of affairs." Khan


"O People of the Scripture, do not commit excess in your religion or say about Allah except the truth. The Messiah, Jesus, the son of Mary, was but a messenger of Allah and His word which He directed to Mary and a soul [created at a command] from Him. So believe in Allah and His messengers. And do not say, "Three"; desist - it is better for you. Indeed, Allah is but one God. Exalted is He above having a son. To Him belongs whatever is in the heavens and whatever is on the earth. And sufficient is Allah as Disposer of affairs." Sahih International

The Arabic word:[size=15pt]ثَلَـٰثَةٌ[/size] which means Three (3). So Qur'an is telling you to desist from saying 3 i:e in reference to you who say "three people bear witness" i:e God, Holy spirit, Jesus joined and became One. That's polytheism.

And no, Qur'an doesn't say we should ask you if 'we' are confused. We are not confused....you are

True Definition Madness And Stupidity. Verbal Assaults - Uncalled For - WATCH

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Ib0IF7jnWQ

olire:
This is actually a nice thread. But it is not meant to be in this section because only your fellow Muslims would see it. For example, before I could comment, I had to accept that i am a Muslim, which I'm not. Hence, if u want to educate people about ur religion, post this thread where it would be accessible to all.

Thanks for the compliment. I understand but hey, your christian brothers are too much. They dont think anything positive can emanate from muslims. Take a look at the thread i called u from. Thats how this will end up. Hope you understand

@ olire , concerning the thread https://www.nairaland.com/2160571/non-muslims-only-prophet-army-modern-day#down. The lady is bigot. Pay her no mind. Here is useful thread and some more are here.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tVLUevuVV4A

The Person of Paul

We have seen in the previous section that there exists distinct differences between Paul's teachings and what we know to be Jesus'. Yet, who is this man? On what authority did he preach the things that he preached?

The Acts of the Apostles tells us that Paul was a diaspora Jew born in the city of Tarsus in Cilicia (today a part of modern Turkey).

Acts 22:3 (Also Acts 21:39)
Then Paul said: "I am a Jew, born in Tarsus of Cilicia"

His given name was Saul (Hebrew: Shaul) which he eventually latinized to Paul (Latin: Paulus). [1] A near-contemporary of Jesus [a], Paul was a devout Jew before his conversion to Christianity, as he himself tells us:

Philippians 3:5-6
I was born of the race of Israel and the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew born of Hebrew parents, and I was circumcised when I was eight days old. As for the law, I was a Pharisee...as far as the law can make you perfect I was faultless.

Paul was tent-maker by profession:

Acts 18:2-3
Paul went to see them, and because he was a tent-maker as they were, he stayed and worked with them.

He was a Roman citizen:

Acts 22:27
The commander went to Paul and asked, "Tell me, are you a Roman citizen?" "Yes, I am." he answered.

This Tarsiot Jewish tent-maker, a Roman citizen and a Pharisee initially persecuted the followers of Jesus as he himself admits:

Philippians 3:6
I was a persecutor of the church.

Acts 8:2-3
On that day a great persecution broke out against the church of Jerusalem...Saul began to destroy the church. Going from house to house, he dragged off men and women and put them in prison.

According to Acts, he even consented to the stoning to death of Stephen, ostensibly the first martyr of the new religion:

Acts 7:59-8:1
While they were stoning him, Stephen prayed "Lord Jesus, receive my spirit." Then he fell on his knees and cried out, "Lord do not hold this against them." When he had said this he fell asleep. And Saul was there, giving approval to his death.

It is also important to note that we have no evidence, neither in the Acts of the Apostles nor in his epistles, that Paul ever met the human Jesus. Indeed, in his epistles as we will show letter, he did not consider meeting or having known the earthly Jesus of any great importance. The mark of apostleship is, for him, having seen the risen Jesus. Paul was converted by his own experience of the risen Jesus. The account is given three times in Acts:

Acts 9:1-9 (Also 22:6-16; 26:12-18)
Meanwhile, Saul was still breathing out murderous threats against the Lord's disciples. He went to the high priest and asked him for letters to the synagogues in Damascus, so that if he found any there who belonged to the Way, whether men or women, he might take them as prisoners to Jerusalem. As he neared Damascus on his journey, suddenly a light from heaven flashed around him. He fell to the ground and heard a voice say to him, "Saul! Saul! Why do you persecute me?" "Who are you, Lord?" Saul asked. "I am Jesus the Lord whom you are persecuting." he replied. "Now get up and go into the city, and you will be told what you must do." The men travelling with Paul stood there speechless; they heard the sound but did not see anyone. Saul got up from the ground, but when he opened his eyes he could see nothing. So they led him by the hand into Damascus. For three days he was blind, and did not eat or drink anything.

The account above continued with the story of his conversion and baptism by a follower of the Way (as the early followers of Jesus seemed to have been called) who was in Damascus, a man called Ananias (Acts 9:10-19). Just as he has zealously persecuted the followers of the Way earlier, now with equal zeal Paul preached the new religion; but with a twist not found in it before.

Paul, together with his followers went on three missionary journeys throughout the cities of the eastern Mediterranean. He also wrote epistles to the various places that he had visited to guide his newfound converts. It was Paul who first started preaching the Christian message to the Gentiles. He had problems with the leaders of the religion, Peter and James because of this Gentile conversions, something we will look into more detail later.

The final phase of Paul's life started with his visit to Jerusalem around AD58. There he was accused of being a transgressor of the law, was beaten up by the Jewish mob and rescued by the Roman soldiers. Being a Roma citizen Paul appealed his case to Caesar and he was sent to Rome around AD60 for his trial. He remained under house arrest in Rome for two years (from AD61-62). The book of Acts ends at this point:

Acts 28:30-31
For two whole years Paul stayed there in his own rented house and welcomed all who came to see him. Boldly and without hindrance he preached the kingdom of God and taught about the Lord Jesus Christ.

Tradition placed Paul's death in Rome during the Neronian persecution of AD64

References

1. Craveri, The Life of Jesus: p158
2. Armstrong, The First Christian: p180
3. Livingstone, Dictionary of the Christian Church: p385-386

[size=15pt]James, The Brother of Jesus[/size]

The most important figure in earliest Christianity just after the death of Jesus, was, not Paul, not Peter, but James, the brother of Jesus.

James was referred to in the New Testament as "the brother of the Lord" (Galatians 1:18; Mark 6:3; Matthew 13:55-56). Catholic and Eastern Orthodox traditions have tended to minimize his role; the former claiming that he was the cousin while the latter saying that he was Jesus half brother, the son of Joseph but not of Mary. However the historical evidence is unequivocal in telling us that James was the full biological brother of Jesus.

A critical appreciation of the historical sources all tells us it was James, and not Peter, who was the undisputed leader of the Jerusalem church following the death of Jesus.

We also know that, unlike Paul, James was a devout Jew and a strong proponent of the continued validity of the Mosaic laws for all followers of Jesus.

The Theology and Person of Paul

Now if James, was faithful to the teachings of Jesus and did not repudiate the law, how did Christianity develop into the law-free religion we find soon after? The crucial personality here is Paul, the self-proclaimed Apostle to the Gentiles (Romans 11:13, 15:16-18 Galatians 2:2).

Paul, the apostle formerly known as Saul, was a trained Pharisee, a Roman citizen and a tentmaker by profession. Very importantly, he never met the human Jesus. His conversion was a purely personal hallucinatory experience.

The theology of the atonement did not originate from Jesus. It originated from Paul of Tarsus! Unlike the Jerusalem Church, headed by James, Paul was not shackled by the historical Jesus; he invented Christian theology. It is in the epistles of Paul that we find the kernels of many tenets and dogmas of modern Christian theology. Paul's theology expressly contradicts many of Jesus' teachings.

Pauline theology was to be fully developed by later Christian theologians but it cannot be doubted that Paul metaphorically planted the seeds for the subsequent development and evolution of Christian theology. In this sense, it is certainly valid to call Paul the true founder of Christianity.


Paul and the Jerusalem Church

While Paul was preaching what was essentially his own innovative theology about Jesus, what was going on with the apostles; the ones who knew the earthly Jesus was, and were aware of his teachings? Of course Christian mythology, primarily through the Acts of the Apostles and the forgeries known as the Petrine epistles, have presented the teachings of apostles as being essentially in harmony with Paul and his teaching. That this was not the case is what we will be showing here.

The problem can be traced to Paul's preaching to the Gentiles. After complaints by Jewish Christians from Jerusalem, Paul was summoned to Jerusalem to meet the church there headed by James, Peter and John. In this so-called "Jerusalem Council" an uneasy truce was agreed upon by both parties. It was a truce that did not last. For immediately following the council meeting, an incident occurred at Antioch which, in retrospect, severed forever the ties between Paul and the Jerusalem church.

While Paul wanted to keep some ties to the Jerusalem Church, it was obvious that the latter did not share the same sentiments. Indeed the evidence from Paul's own epistles show that the Jerusalem church, headed by James, actively opposed Paul's missionary activities by sending out emissaries of their own to combat his gospel.

Paul's final attempt to reconcile himself to the Jerusalem Church, by delivering the collection he promised during the "Jerusalem council", met with failure. A careful reading of the evidence shows that the Paul's collection was rejected by the Jerusalem Church and that they very probably "had a hand" in Paul's arrest!

We can conclude that the Jerusalem church, which consisted of Jesus' brothers and the apostles who knew the earthly Jesus (such as Peter and John), never accepted Paul as a "fellow apostle". Indeed, their intense opposition to Paul's mission can only mean that they viewed Paul's theology as heretical.

[size=20pt]Paul and the Origins of Christianity[/size]

"...it is...a fact of history that St. Paul and his successors added to,..., or imposed upon, or substituted another doctrine for...the plain...teachings of Jesus..."
H.G. Wells (1866-1946)

"The conversion of Paul was no conversion at all: it was Paul who converted the religion that has raised one man above sin and death into a religion that delivered millions of men so completely into their dominion that their own common nature became a horror to them, and the religious life became a denial of life."
George Bernard Shaw (1856-1950)

On the Sources

Like our study of Jesus earlier http://www.rejectionofpascalswager.net/jesus.html#sources, it is important to critically evaluate the primary documents available to us. The documents are mainly to be found in the New Testament, although we will need to supplement these with extra-canonical writings including the writings of the church fathers and some apocryphal works.

A Christian might think that The Acts of the Apostles, which purports to be a historical account of the development of the early Church, provides complete information about this period of Christianity. However a closer analysis shows that this is not case.

First we note that although Christian tradition claims to know the author as Luke, the companion of Paul, the evidence shows otherwise. Indeed the author of the two volume Luke-Acts is unknown to us. [Or course, for ease of reference we will continue to refer to the anonymous author of Acts as "Luke"-but always remembering that this is merely a shorthand for "the anonymous author of the two volume work known to us as the Gospel according to Luke and the Acts of the Apostles"]

Furthermore, critical historical research over the past two hundred years have shown that our "Luke" cannot be considered a very reliable historian. In the twentieth century, with the advent of new methodologies of historical and literary research, scholars made another startling discovery: that the speeches in Acts are unhistorical and are essentially the literary invention of the author. Scholars have also noted that the picture of Paul as presented in Acts is not completely compatible with what we can derive from the genuine Pauline.

While it is certainly not to be doubted that Acts contained some historical data, care and skepticism must be applied when using the information derived from it.

From Acts we move on to the epistles of Paul. In the New Testament there are thirteen epistles attributed to him: Romans, I & II Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, I & II Thessalonians, I & II Timothy, Titus and Philemon. However only seven of these thirteen epistles attributed to Paul in the New Testament are authentic. The pastoral epistles (I & II Timothy & Titus ) are generally regarded as spurious. While Ephesians, Colossians and II Thessalonians have their authenticity disputed; with most scholars doubting Pauline authorship. In our analysis of the history of the origins of Christianity below, we will be relying mainly on the seven undisputed epistles: Romans, I & II Corinthians, Galatians, Philippians, I Thessalonians, and Philemon.

We can dismiss the two epistles attributed to Peter as forgeries. They will be of no use to us in our study. Having provided ourselves with the proper grounding on the documents pertaining to earliest Christianity, we can now proceed to analyze the period in detail.

AgentXxx:
lol i hate seeing BUY ME got loads of his books already for free from his site...i mean books from other authors partaining to wayfaring

Lol.. give me his site pls. They shipped them to you or you meant you read them online?

joseph1832:
I see. And what about the evidence that the Koran originated from God?

Can we Prove Quran is From God?

Muslims have something that offers the clearest proof of all - The Holy Quran. There is no other book like it anywhere on earth. It is absolutely perfect in the Arabic language. It has no mistakes in grammar, meanings or context. The scientific evidences are well known around the entire world, even amongst non-Muslim scholars. Predictions in the Quran have come true; and its teachings are clearly for all people, all places and all times.

Surprisingly enough, the Quran itself provides us with the test of authenticity and offers challenges against itself to prove its veracity. Allah tells us in the Quran:

Haven't the unbelievers considered if this was from other than Allah, they would find within it many contradictions? [Noble Quran 4:82]

Another amazing challenge from Allah's Book:

If you are in doubt about it, bring a chapter like it.[Noble Quran 2:23]

And Allah challenges us with:

Bring ten chapters like it. [Noble Quran 11:13]

And:

Bring one chapter like it. [Noble Quran 10:38]

No one has been able to produce a book like it, nor ten chapters like it, nor even one chapter like it. It was memorized by thousands of people during the lifetime of Muhammad (peace be upon him) and then this memorization was passed down from teacher to student for generation after generation, from mouth to ear and from one nation to another. Today every single Muslim has memorized some part of the Quran in the original Arabic language that it was revealed in over 1,400 years ago, even though most of them are not Arabs. There are over nine million (9,000,000) Muslims living on the earth today who have totally memorized the entire Quran, word for word, and can recite the entire Quran, in Arabic just as Muhammad (peace be upon him) did 14 centuries ago.

Say, [O Muhammad], "The Pure Spirit has brought it down from your Lord in truth to make firm those who believe and as guidance and good tidings to the Muslims." (Quran 16:102)

Bukhari
Volume 4, Book 55, Number 605:
Narrated 'Aisha:

The Prophet returned to Khadija while his heart was beating rapidly. She took him to Waraqa bin Naufal who was a Christian convert and used to read the Gospels in Arabic Waraqa asked (the Prophet), "What do you see?" When he told him, Waraqa said, "That is the same angel whom Allah sent to the Prophet) Moses. Should I live till you receive the Divine Message, I will support you strongly."

I can elaborate on story of Waraqa if you want.

THE QURAN IS THE WORD OF GOD AND AN UNDENIABLE PROOF FOR MUHAMMAD’S PROPHETHOOD

The Quran is completely different from all the other books in the world

When we study the Quran even superficially from the viewpoint of its wording, styles, and meaning, we will certainly conclude that it is completely different from all the other books in the world. So, in rank and worth it is either below all of them-even Satan cannot claim this, nor does he conceive of it-or above them. Since it is above all of them, it must be the Word of God.

The Quran, which he brought, has challenged all mankind with all their literary geniuses and scientists, from the first day of its revelation to the Last Day, to produce a like of it or even a single chapter of it

The Quran openly declares:

You (O Muhammad) was not a reader of any Scripture before it, nor did you write (such a Scripture) with your right hand, for then those who follow falsehood might (have a right) to doubt it. (al-Ankabut, 29.48)

The verse^ refute allegations by evangelical Christians who say muhammad copied from christians.

It is an established, undeniable fact that the Prophet Muhammad, upon him be peace and blessings, was unlettered. Whereas the Quran, which he brought, has challenged all mankind with all their literary geniuses and scientists, from the first day of its revelation to the Last Day, to produce a like of it or even a single chapter of it:

If you are in doubt concerning that which We have sent down onto Our servant (Muhammad), then produce a chapter of the like thereof, and call your witnesses, supporters, who are apart from God, if you are truthful. (al-Baqara, 2.23)

Mankind have since been unable to produce a like of only one of its chapters, including, of course, its shortest ones like sura al-Ikhlas or sura al-Kawthar; those who have ventured to do that have all laid themselves open to ridicule. This is a clear proof for the Divine authorship of the Quran.

The Quran was revealed in 23 years, yet there are not any contradictory points in it

The revelation of the Quran lasted 23 years. It is inconceivable that any book written by a mortal being in 23 years, one which is a book of Divine truths, metaphysics, religious beliefs and worship, prayer, law and morality, a book fully describing the other life, a book of psychology, sociology, epistemology, eschatology and history, and a book containing scientific facts and the principles of a happy life, does not have any contradictory points. Whereas, the Quran openly declares that it has no contradictions at all and therefore is a Divine Book:

Will they not then ponder on the Quran? If it had been from other than God they would have found therein much contradiction and incongruity. (al-Nisa’, 4.82)

The Qur’an is beyond compare from the viewpoint of its styles and eloquence
The Quran is beyond compare from the viewpoint of its styles and eloquence. All the sentences, words and even letters used in the Quran form such a miraculous harmony that, with respect to rhythm, music, and even geometric proportions and mathematical measures, and with respect to how many times each is used in the whole of the Quran, each is in the exact place it must be and interwoven and interrelated with others. The literary masterpiece of no one, including the sayings of the Prophet himself, upon him be peace and blessings, cannot compete with the Quran.


I will stop here now. But I can go on if you want . This is about if Quran is from God according to you. Now if you want some details about Prophet Muhammad's encounter with Angel Gabriel, I will be willing to go into that as well, historically with evidences from Qur'an.

Dem no go defeat Quran....NEVER

AllNaijaBlogger:
What claim about the gospels?

A companion is not a prophet. Uthman had as much right as anyone to compile a holy book. After all, people reject Ali (according to Lagoshia)as a companion.

I did my research after Empiree was playing me "wayo" with islam.

Lagosshia's rejection is about succession.

[quote author=AllNaijaBlogger post=31238806]

Every website is anti-islamic, I know.

Bro, did i make such statement in my earlier post?. I didnt even care if it was. I read it anyways

Earliest Quran was compiled 19 years after Muhammad died. Why?

Does compilation equates transcription? Bro, pls stop deceiving yourself now. I thought you might have heard in history that Quran was written down on several parchment by scribes. Monitored by the prophet himself in his lifetime. In other tradition(shia) they actually believe it was complied during prophet lifetime. Point here is it was written down in prophet's life, unlike your Bible. Get it?

Furthermore, yes, I agree that some of it was written before the prophet's death but not all.

No, everything was written down. Anything otherwise is false. The ONLY way you can prove me wrong is to present another Quran different from the ones we have. If you can't, your case will be dismissed.

There are enough hadith that suggest alterations to the Quran.

Hadith is like Bible of Mathew, Mark Luke and Paul where every Tom, Dick and Harry say whatever. Perhaps, I will like to see the hadith but becareful cuz I am well aware

Alos, remember that portions of the Quran were memorized before being written down. If Muhammad was alive then, why the need to memorise?

I will like to you cite evidence. Talks dont help you. Anyways, Quran is about memorizing. Every muslim is required to memorize Quran. So far you have not prove me wrong.

Why didnt Muhammad and Uthman sign off together on an official copy of the Quran?

Quran was written and documented in his lifetime. Meaning, that's official. Noting added or subtracted unless you have evidence otherwise (different Quran), you have no case. Okay, to elaborate on this, just give me time to get consult my library in some minutes. This space wont allow me to expatiate.

Why so much division after his death?

Irrelevant

AgentXxx:
okay gud to noe, how did your day go by? got any great book you might want a bro to read

I have actually not been reading him lately but watches his lectures more now. Islamic Book store by me doesnt seem to have his books. Have to check on them again. Those ones I see online are BUY ME NOW

AllNaijaBlogger:
The earliest copy of the quran is dated to 19 years after the death of the prophet.

http://irfi.org/articles/articles_401_450/oldest_quran_in_the_world.htm

Bro, what's the difference between TRANSCRIBE and COMPILATION?

Who's Uthman....do you know him?

Even this website, despite questionable, does not digress from saying Qur'an was written down in lifetime of Muhammad (peace be upon him). You have no idea. I don't think you understood this article. Nice try but read again.

Yareey:
Are you trying to tell me that there are no muslim men who are happy with having one wife? are you suggesting that they all have misteresses? what a load of bullshit. There are enough guys who don't want more then one wife, my father for example has been loyal to my mum and never married another. We don't have to settle with a guy who wants more wives.

This is obvious misunderstanding

AgentXxx:
yes so so much ...subhanallah! i love the fact he is both knowledgeable in the reality science of the quran (haqiqah) and modern science (philosophy) ... wat about you? read any of his books?

Sure, i watch his lectures. I read one before

AllNaijaBlogger:
Keep lying. The common knowledge is that it was written by other people after the Prophet's death.

Evidence......please!

^ And she quits and marries another man who "promises" or "just" want "one" wife.

But it's okay if he has mistresses behind your back?.

You will forever quit marriages.

You think polygamy is paradise for men?. Na!

It's pro women actually.