₦airaland Forum

Explore2xmore:
One of the most overlooked problems in Christianity is that Jesus himself never wrote a scripture, supervised one, or left behind a compiled body of teachings. He preached in a first-century Jewish oral culture where expectation of the imminent Kingdom mattered far more than preserving written texts. Instead of producing a book, he appointed followers and living witnesses. Even theologically, he presented himself as fulfilling prior revelation rather than introducing a completely new scripture, so the absence of a founder-authored text is not accidental ; it is built into the movement from the start.
What Christianity later produced came afterward and in reaction to circumstances. Paul’s letters were not systematic theology or scripture manuals; they were responses to disputes, discipline problems, and doctrinal confusion inside scattered communities. The Gospels themselves appeared decades after the crucifixion, at a time when eyewitnesses were aging or already dead. The canon Christians now treat as fixed did not descend fully formed from heaven either. It emerged slowly through centuries of disagreement, debate, and church authority deciding which texts counted and which did not.

The manuscript tradition is often presented as Christianity’s strongest defence because the New Testament survives in thousands of Greek manuscripts. But scholars like Bart Ehrman repeatedly point out that abundance does not mean purity. In reality, the huge number of manuscripts increases the evidence of alteration because every copy introduced opportunities for change.
The criticicm is about the estimate of somewhere between 200,000 and 400,000 textual variants across the manuscript tradition which presents as more variants than words in the New Testament itself. Some differences are harmless copying mistakes, but others involve meaningful theological additions, omissions, or harmonisations introduced by scribes over centuries.
There is also the issue of authorship. Several letters traditionally attributed to Paul are rejected by many critical scholars as pseudonymous, meaning written later in his name rather than by Paul himself. The Gospels are not fully independent testimonies either. Matthew and Luke rely heavily on Mark, meaning what looks like multiple separate witnesses often traces back to a shared literary source. That complicates claims of independent corroboration inside the text itself.

The deeper issue is not that Jesus left no written text, but whether the New Covenant promises are actually fulfilled in any observable way. Jeremiah describes a covenant where everyone knows God directly and sins are fully forgiven. Those are strong, universal claims, yet religious division and moral failure remain obvious.
Christian theology responds that the promise is “already but not yet.” But that shifts the claim from fulfilment to partial, future completion. So the real tension is not textual absence, but whether the promised transformation is visibly real in history at all.

One of the most overlooked problems in Christianity is that Jesus himself never wrote a scripture, supervised one, or left behind a compiled body of teachings. He preached in a first-century Jewish oral culture where expectation of the imminent Kingdom mattered far more than preserving written texts. Instead of producing a book, he appointed followers and living witnesses. Even theologically, he presented himself as fulfilling prior revelation rather than introducing a completely new scripture, so the absence of a founder-authored text is not accidental ; it is built into the movement from the start.
What Christianity later produced came afterward and in reaction to circumstances. Paul’s letters were not systematic theology or scripture manuals; they were responses to disputes, discipline problems, and doctrinal confusion inside scattered communities. The Gospels themselves appeared decades after the crucifixion, at a time when eyewitnesses were aging or already dead. The canon Christians now treat as fixed did not descend fully formed from heaven either. It emerged slowly through centuries of disagreement, debate, and church authority deciding which texts counted and which did not.

It's genuinely astonishing that you somehow failed to realise you only exposed the weakness of your own methodology not Islam.
The Qur’an explicitly says there is nothing whatsoever like unto Him (42:11) and none is comparable to Him (112:4). You ignored both because they destroy your argument before it even gets off the ground. Instead, you imposed an embarrassingly crude literalism onto texts scholars already discussed centuries ago. Both hands are right refers to perfection, not anatomy. Shin was understood either as severity or affirmed without resemblance. Sibghat Allah refers to divine guidance and fitrah, not literal colour. None of these are modern escape attempts or theological damage control. These interpretations existed long before your criticism did.
Your method throughout has been painfully obvious, remove context, ignore the interpretive tradition, flatten nuanced theology into something simplistic, then attack the oversimplification you created yourself. That is not scholarship. It is polemics aimed at people who will not bother checking whether your claims survive contact with the actual tradition.
And no, I do not consider the Alexander Romance divine. But that still proves nothing. The Qur’an engaging familiar narrative material while arriving at completely different theological conclusions is not plagiarism. The Qur’anic account strips power of divinity, places it under moral accountability, and makes it subordinate to Allah. That is reinterpretation and correction, not copying. More importantly, resemblance by itself proves absolutely nothing. Similarities can emerge through shared cultural environments, common narrative circulation, adaptation, or independent engagement. To establish plagiarism, you need evidence of direct textual dependence and a demonstrable transmission chain. You have not provided either.
So your argument still collapses at the exact same point. You have shown the possibility of influence, not the necessity of derivation. Until you can bridge that gap with actual evidence instead of insinuation, all you really have is rhetoric dressed up as certainty.

Gabrielshow26:
I find this hilarious, it seems watching you and your AI-assistant👀 tag-team these responses is like watching a low-budget movie where the villain keeps insisting he didn't steal the plot, even though the dialogue is identical🤧. You’ve conceded the resemblances, the motifs, and the proximity, yet you’re demanding a "transmission chain" as if we need a signed document from 7th-century Arabia to prove the obvious.🤕

Let me dismantle this "Independent Revelation" fantasy once and for all. 🥱
Throughout your write-up, you argued that shared motifs could just be "independent revelation engaging a shared world." This is the ultimate Special Pleading. In the realm of Naruto, ultimate jutsu🌀😂

Now, if two students turn in the same essay, with the same "surface features," the same errors, and the same structural flow, no teacher on earth accepts the excuse that they "independently engaged with the same topic."👀 Thus, when the Quran repeats the Alexander Romance (Dhul-Qarnayn) or the Infancy Gospel of Thomas (Jesus breathing life into clay birds🤕), it isn't just "engaging a world"—it is reproducing specific, apocryphal, and historically inaccurate fables that existed only in the human literary environment of the time🤨. What you failed to account for is the fact that an Omniscient God would provide the actual history. A human author solely copies the local legends.🤦🏾‍♂️ The fact that the Quran mirrors the errors and myths of the 7th-century milieu proves it is a product of that milieu, not a correction of it. Consequently, can't be the work of an Omniscient God😮‍💨.

Moving on, I find this claim of yours "that because the Quran adds a "moral lesson" to the Alexander story, it isn't borrowing" ludicrous. That is like saying if I rewrite Batman to make him a pacifist, I didn't borrow the character of Batman🤷.
The structure is the same: the horns, the journey to the setting sun, the muddy spring, the wall against Gog and Magog. These are specific markers of the Syriac Alexander Legend.🤦🏾‍♂️Thus, adding a "theological spin" doesn't prove independence🤨; it proves redaction. Your prophet took a popular pagan/secular legend and "Islamized" it to fit his narrative. That is the definition of human authorship, not divine revelation.🥱

I noticed you demanded a "textual transmission chain" while ignoring the most basic rule of history: Occam’s Razor🤧.
Let's address these premises.
1. We know the stories existed in the region (Arian, Nestorian, Jewish apocrypha).
2. We know the Prophet’s contemporaries accused him of repeating these specific stories ("Fables of the ancients" .
3. We know the Quran contains these stories.👀
Hence, you don't need a "signed contract" to see the influence. Your demand for a "transmission chain" is a desperate attempt to ignore the Elephant in the Room: that your "Eternal Book" looks exactly like a 7th-century scrapbook of regional folklore🥱.

In your bid to defend your prophet, you argued that because contemporaries called him a "madman" and a "sorcerer," their claim about "human instruction" is invalid. Nice shrai😂. People can be wrong about his mental state but right about his sources. If I see you reading a cheat sheet before an exam, I might call you a "genius," a "cheater," or a "wizard." My name-calling doesn't change the fact that you have a cheat sheet🤷. The "Fables of the ancients" (Asateer al-awwaleen, culled from google) is a specific, recurring charge in the Quran itself🤧. Your "omniscient" god spent a lot of time defending against the charge of plagiarism—this is usually a sign that the charge👀 was hitting a little too close to home.

I don't know whether you asking me how borrowing from Arian and Nestorian sources could produce "coherence" was rhetorical or not but the simple truth is that it didn't. We have the Quran as a proof😂. Furthermore, Your "coherence" required 200 years of Hadith, multiple schools of law, and centuries of bloody civil wars (Fitnas) to figure out what the "clear" Quran actually meant😂. If it were coherent and independent, you wouldn't need a massive library of human interpretation to explain why it contradicts itself or repeats regional errors.👀 I definitely have a picture,might as well attempt to post it later, it's a meme about how the Quran brought up a chimera. Let me not waste time man-splaining, you will understand it when you see it. Hopefully it's not taken down by your mods🤧.

In conclusion, you’ve conceded the "shared world." You’ve conceded the "motifs." You’ve conceded the "proximity." You are now just arguing over the word "borrowing"🤦🏾‍♂️ because your theology can't handle the truth😂. In every other field of study—literature, history, law—this level of similarity is called Derivation. Only in Islamic apologetics is it called "independent revelation" .🥱 Definitely, you aren't defending a miracle; you are defending a 7th-century redaction. If the "Mother of the Book" is just a "greatest Hit" of 7th-century regional myths, then your claim of "Divine origin" is officially bankrupt. Better still, "concede the gap, because you certainly can't fill it"👀🥱.

One last thing: Why are you still dodging the question? Do you hold the Alexander Romances as divine? If the stories in them are "independent revelation" when they appear in the Quran, then the original pagan versions must be "inspired" too, right?🤷 Or is Allah just a fan of plagiarizing secular fiction? 🤨🤧

BlackfireX:
3 gbosa for AI


All that you posted from alhaji Ai do you even know the meaning or phrases of words used

You implicated yourself the more

Shall I show you?

When you didn't seek permission to open your post I wonder why you need permission to show or disagree with what I posted.
If you truly had something to say what keeps you?

Gabrielshow26:
By the way, in addendum, your book, the Quran explicitly claims to be the Umm al-Kitab (Mother of the Book)—a perfect, preserved, uncreated speech. If the text requires centuries of Hadith and conflicting schools of jurisprudence just to be understood, then the claim of "clarity" and "completeness" is a lie🥱. Stop deflecting to the Bible; defend your book's specific claim of being "clear" and "complete"—🤔I should probably add "Divine"😂. Anyone familiar with simple basic history knows John is a human document reflecting its context. The Quran is a divine document, supposedly😂, claiming to be outside of its context. When John uses "Logos," he is using a philosophical framework of his time. He isn't claiming that God is a Greek philosopher but when the Quran repeats flood myths or Alexander the Great fables, it claims these are revelations from an Omniscient Mind🤨—A very ridiculous claim, if you ask me. If the Quran were truly omniscient, it would be correcting the myths, not copying them verbatim from external sources, including the "corrupted" Torah you claim to be fixing🤦🏾‍♂️. This shows you aren't "fixing" the corrupted text; you're just copying the mistakes. Indeed, it's from an omniscient deity 🥱.

Let me also buttress my earlier point, it seems I addressed your banal claims too easy, might as well add some sauce to my earlier points. Once again the issue isn't just one guy, Waraqah. The issue is that the Quranic narrative is steeped in the Arian, Nestorian, and Jewish traditions already present in the Hijaz🤨. Whether it was Waraqah, or the "fables of the ancients" mentioned by the Prophet’s own contemporaries👀...they even went as far as naming him the 👂 just to emphasize he only repeated whatever he heard🤕...the milieu was saturated with these stories. Trying to "debunk" the influence by timing one person's death is a desperate attempt to ignore the entire historical context of 7th-century Arabia🥱, that's even if it existed 👀.

In conclusion, you haven't defended the Quran's claim; you've just proved that you're an expert at "Whataboutism." You haven't explained why a "clear and complete" book needs centuries of Hadith to be understood—Hadiths that came too far to offer any semblance of historicity🥱.
You haven't explained why an "Omniscient" god plagiarizes 7th-century fables and biological myths(emphasis is mine)👀.

Gabrielshow26:
🥱You have said much but little. Now let's address your claims. You seem to think that because the Quran made claims of having no human influence that the bible made such. That's your own misconception as each book is responsible for its claims. If such claims existed in the bible then I would have dignified your comparisons with a suitable response but since such can't be found, I leave you to your folly.

Your entire defense is relied solely on some form of tu quoque fallacy but it failed to account for each book substantiating it own claims🥱. First let's mention some basic facts in Islamic theology, one of which being the Quran doesn't have an human influence. Thus, if we find any human influence, as you so finely put it "through shared cultural themes" then it negates its assertions and proves otherwise that the Quran indeed was man made.

I have made suitable references within your posts so that I can address the necessary ones. [1] like I have said earlier, the Quran claims doesn't warrant it to rely heavily on shared cultural themes since if we were to go by its divinity claim then the original authors which it plagiarized were the ones actually divinely inspired🥱

[2] this is pathetic, as you have built a straw man, I am not concerned with exposure or not but rather on the unprecedented claims made by the Quran. If indeed we find such exposures, and we find multiple such instances then we can conclude the Quran gobbled these stories from external sources and this conclusion contradicts its claims! As simple as that.

[2b] Could you show us examples from the "Every prophet" that faced such claims as citing fables as divine revelations?🤨We would really like to know.🥱

[3] What issue remains unanswered, 😅 Could you point us to where you asked this question, that it was left unanswered? Your Al Agent's hallucinations in full purview🥱. At least, you should have the dignity to proof read whatever it generated for you🥱...

[3b] Of course, I do. Such affirmation doesn't do you any good, 'cuz if you affirm that the Alexander romances were Divine then the Quran becomes nothing more but a plagiarized book🥱. You seriously🤦🏾‍♂️thought bringing up this question was some form of hook 😅—So Ludicrous. This shows that your misconceptions such as projecting the Quran's claims into the bible is totally unfounded. Once again, every book substantiates its claims. We don't negate human authorship because we know that God divinely inspired them but what do you have? A supposed claim that the Quran was written word for word as Jibril dictated it to Mohammed, therefore denying any human influence. Thus if we find any human influence then it can't be Divine🥱.

[4] A deflection, albeit futile as it doesn't address anything. A puerile attempt to apply tu quoque fallacy🥱. I am not concerned with that, my statement was regards the Quran's irreconcilable differences about neo-platonic ideologies and the clear descriptions given.

[4b] "Neither has been answered". Pls show us where you made any such question🥱. Another one of your Al slop. You, obviously,just brought them up, So don't try to backdate them as if they've been posed from the beginning🥱. I guess it's hereditary, the SIN backdates the purported existence of Mohammed into the non-existent Mecca at the purported time; while you backdate new questions as being old🥱.

I know all these circumlocution, just to avoid the obvious, is the only defense you have🥱. But Pls, let us know if you consider the Alexander Romances as divine revelation 🥱? Why are you shy? 😮‍💨 I don't bite🤧.

At this point, the disagreement is not about whether the Qur'an shares motifs with earlier traditions as that is already conceded. The issue is what that fact actually proves.
Resemblance does not imply dependence. The same evidence,shared narratives, cultural proximity, contemporary accusations is equally consistent with two explanations: direct borrowing, or independent revelation engaging a shared world. Both predict identical surface features, so similarity alone selects neither. A transmission chain is required to close that gap. None has been provided.
On Dhul-Qarnayn, structural overlap in a journey narrative is historically unremarkable. What matters is theological content and there the divergence is fundamental. The Romance elevates a ruler toward semi-divine stature; Surah Al-Kahf presents power as contingent, morally governed, and subordinate to divine permanence. That is not borrowing, it is the opposite ideological conclusion drawn from a shared narrative form. The plagiarism hypothesis has to explain that divergence, not just assert proximity.
On copied errors, the argument requires three things: a specific source error, a Qur'anic retention of that same error, and absence of reinterpretive transformation. None of the three has been supplied.
On Arian and Nestorian influence, those systems contradict each other on questions both treated as salvation-critical. If the Qur'an borrowed from both, explain how that produced coherence rather than inherited their contradictions. Selection and harmonisation describes exactly what independent engagement with a shared environment looks like and you have restated the alternative hypothesis while trying to rebut it.
On the asateer witnesses, those same voices attributed the Qur'an simultaneously to sorcery, madness, and human instruction which are mutually exclusive claims. You are citing the one accusation that serves your conclusion while discarding the rest of their testimony. Apply a consistent witness standard or the selective citation carries no evidentiary weight.
What has been established is shared environment, motif overlap, cultural proximity. What has not is a transmission chain, textual dependence, or evidence that uniquely supports borrowing over the alternative.Possibility of influence has been shown. Necessity of derivation has not. That gap is where the entire case sits. The gaps are visible to everyone reading. Fill them or concede them.

Gabrielshow26:
Without much talk, remind us again your Quran's claim? I believe one of them being it is divine, emphasis on divine👀, and consequently having no human origin. This claim is rather ridiculous and very easy to dismiss. So if you assert, in your bid to further your incongruity of a religion that this was done due to "shared cultural space". Then we are to believe that the original authors which the Quran "shared their stories due to cultural space" were divinely inspired🥱.

Do you want to go there? Also, as regards clear pathway don't forget, I know you don't know, that the Jews during Mohammed's time taught the Arabs the Torah and possibly the Talmud. Don't also forget that Mohammed's wife's uncle, Waraqah, the Arian christian monk was fluent in hebrew and use to translate it. Even from your own sources we find traces of your prophet being influenced by the stories of the Jews and christians around him, among other things. We also find the people of your prophet antagonizing him by saying he only repeats fables of the ancients. This leads me to my next point.

From your sentiment, do you hold the Alexander Romances as divine? If you do let us know. Your response determines what comes next.

As for figuratively vs literally, that's the problem of your Quran. Your Quran was probably influenced by neo-platonic heretics but because he had plagiarized aspects of the Torah and Injeel where God clearly was described, it becomes hard to reconcile both🤕. He even added fire to the controversy by describing his lord. These two are not reconcilable. Once again, that's your headache. My brief mention of this will act as buffer for a later point of mine.

Let us know🥱

Your initial calling a response "AI slop" without identifying a single concrete error isn't a rebuttal it's avoidance. Once that's set aside, the claims themselves don't hold under consistent scrutiny. Similarity does not prove copying. Texts from the same region and religious environment will naturally share themes. If overlap establishes borrowing, then the Epic of Gilgamesh which predates the Torah by centuries and contains a parallel flood account creates the same problem for your own scripture. Either that standard applies consistently, or it's being applied selectively.
The appeal to Waraqah ibn Nawfal fails on its own timeline. He died shortly after the first revelation. That removes any possibility of sustained transmission across a 23-year prophetic career. A brief encounter is not a pipeline. Pointing to Jewish and Christian presence in Arabia establishes exposure, not authorship. Every prophet operated within a context. If exposure equals invention, that logic dismantles every tradition shaped by its environment including yours. Quoting accusations like fables of the ancients proves nothing. Every prophetic figure in the Torah and the Gospels faced equivalent charges. Repeating an accusation is not evidence. It's part of a predictable polemical pattern.
On the Logos, the issue remains unanswered. The Gospel of John opens with a Logos framework widely recognised as shaped by Hellenistic philosophy. If engagement with external conceptual categories disqualifies the Qur'an, it must apply here as well. If it doesn't, the standard isn't principled. The question is still on the table. Do you hold the Gospel of John as divinely inspired? The readers are waiting for a direct answer, not a repositioning.
On divine transcendence, the Qur'an states its governing principle explicitly that nothing is like God (42:11). That is not a later theological addition. It sits within the text alongside descriptive language and frames how that language is understood. No textual basis has been offered for reversing that hierarchy.
Again internal disagreement is not unique to Islam. Early Christianity required centuries of councils; Nicaea, Chalcedon, and sustained doctrinal conflict to articulate its core beliefs. That process is not treated as proof of incoherence in your tradition. It cannot be applied selectively here.
Across this discussion the same pattern repeats. A standard is introduced, then applied in one direction only. Once applied consistently to Gilgamesh, to the Logos, to internal doctrinal development it stops undermining the Qur'an and starts exposing the method itself. The Gilgamesh question is open. The Logos question is open. Both have been asked directly. Neither has been answered directly. Until they are, the reader has everything needed to judge whether this is principled argument or selective pressure applied to one text while others are quietly exempted.
The OP's silence while their position goes undefended is itself a data point the audience has already registered.

Gabrielshow26:
Believe me, you don't want to go there. I am highlighting to the reader, perhaps you missed it, that your rebuttal is AI generated redundant script. The same old scripts. I am also calling the reader's attention to a recurring pattern evincing in so called Muslim dawah guys—They don't know their own books.

And you bring no counter just bluff?

Gabrielshow26:
🥱AI slop.
Are you Honesttalk21 in disguise? 👀🤨

Interesting. Is this all you can say and find nothing to counter besides seeking identity?

BlackfireX:
Bismil-Aabi wal-Ibni war-Ruuhil-Qudus

Good day to Everyone I will implore you all to open your eyes and minds to decipher the truth for yourselves

It is one thing to make a claim another thing is to present the evidence, anyone can claim whatever but proof is the difference, I can claim to be the president of Nigeria but without evidence it is a LIE, deception, cover up, incoherent .

Now the reason I started this lecture on this topic is to show evidences against a very agelong verbatim of muslims that ALLAH dosent look like nothing among his creation, that is He is not his creation, He is above all nor can he be compared to anything-------Hope you get the claim Now


As a Muslim you were taught this, you even parroted it -------THAT ALLAH IS NOT IN HIS CREATION OR ANYTHING LIKE HIS CREATION, HE IS ABOVE ALL


BUT.... if I show you from the islamic sources like Al Quran kareem
Hadiths
Tasfirs and
SIRaT(biography of Qutham known as Muhammad)

That it is all a lie and infact the opposite is what is portrayed

All you have written comes from a basic language understanding issue. In classical Arabic, yad and even yamin don't always reduce to physical anatomy. They can express honour, strength, or perfection that's essentially the opposite of deficiency (naqs). That's standard Arabic semantics, not reinterpretation. Same with the shin argument. In Quran 68:42, kashf 'an saq is a known Arabic idiom for severity or distress, widely used in classical poetry. Reading it literally ignores how the language actually functions. In Quran 2:138, sibghah refers to an existing ritual image (baptismal colouring). Classical tafsir such as Tabari, Ibn Kathir, Al-Qurtubi reads it as replacing external ritual with inward fitrah, not talking about literal colour.

On Talmudic borrowing, motif similarity is not transmission. Without a clear chain or pathway, it remains shared cultural space, not copying. Otherwise you'd have to apply the same logic across all ancient religious texts equally.

Crucially, Islamic theology never denied figurative language. It developed detailed interpretive frameworks across Ash'ari, Maturidi, and Athari traditions precisely to handle it. Reducing that to isolated literal readings is not critique but selective extraction, not engagement with the system itself. So the claim that Islamic sources contradict Islamic theology is wrong. They don't and they require it. The interpretive tradition exists because the texts demanded one. And when the Quran calls itself clear, it means its guidance is unambiguous not that every expression in it is literal. Quran 3:7 itself distinguishes between precise verses and allegorical ones. Clarity of purpose and uniformity of register are not the same thing.

BlackfireX:
Did Muslims invaded Jerusalem?

Where they mujahadeens fighting defensive or offensive?

Did the Jews invade Muhammad?

I doubt your access to history isn't impaired.

Interesting but why bother the individual regardless of religion has the relationship with God. The worshipped and worshipping are what is most important. They know themselves with that worshipped God knowing all.

What we see in Christian theology is not a completely separate foundation, but a reinterpretation of earlier Jewish teachings.
For example, Passover originally had a fixed structure and meaning centered on deliverance, not atonement. Yet in later Christian thought, its timing becomes debated across the Gospel accounts, and its meaning is extended into a sin-bearing framework. Likewise, the broader sacrificial system is no longer maintained as an ongoing practice but is understood as fulfilled in a single offering.

Even the core declaration of pure monotheism develops into the more complex formulation of the Trinity. So the issue is not just disagreement but how earlier teachings are re-expressed and reshaped over time.

As for whether Muslims and Christians worship the same God, the answer requires precision. Both claim to worship the God of Abraham, the one Creator. In that sense, the reference point is the same. However, the understanding of God differs significantly:

In Islam God is absolutely One, without partners or divisions while in Christianity: God is understood through the Trinity.

So while the intended object of worship may be the same in origin, the concept of God is not the same, and that difference is foundational.

Interesting but why bother the individual regardless of religion has the relationship with God. The worshipped and worshipping are what is most important. They know themselves with that worshipped God knowing all.

Read history then tell it's a life

insidelife22:
Who took it back from them,
And why are they dealing with Iran so heartlessly?

Who do you mean by we and what do you mean by the completing sentence? The Romans?

The conquest of Jerusalem by Umar ibn al-Khattab may Allah be pleased with him occurred in 637 CE when the Rashidun Caliphate besieged the city, leading to its peaceful surrender after six months. Umar's arrival was marked by humility, and he established a treaty that ensured protection for the Christian population while allowing Jews to return to the city after centuries of exclusion.

The conquest of Jerusalem by Umar ibn al-Khattab occurred in 637 CE when the Rashidun Caliphate besieged the city, leading to its peaceful surrender after six months. Umar's arrival was marked by humility, and he established a treaty that ensured protection for the Christian population while allowing Jews to return to the city after centuries of exclusion.

Kobojunkie:
There were, in fact, two Islamic golden ages

⚈ Harun ibn al-Mahdi was the fifth Abbasid caliph of the Abbasid Caliphate, reigning from September 786 until his death in March 809. He was allied with or on friendly terms with Charlemagne. Charlemagne(2 April 748 – 28 January 814) was King of the Franks from 768, King of the Lombards from 774, and Emperor of what is now known as the Carolingian Empire from 800. Charlemagne spread Christianity to his new conquests (often by force), as seen at the Massacre of Verden against the Saxons. He also sent envoys and initiated diplomatic contact with Harun al-Rashid, the Abbasid caliph in the 790s, due to their mutual interest in Iberian affairs.

⚈ There's also a supposed golden age in Spain, the Umayyad, in Cordoba. The Umayyad Caliphate of Cordoba (929–1031) marked the golden age of Muslim Spain, transforming it into a center of intellectual, cultural, and economic prosperity. Under leaders like Abd al-Rahman III and al-Hakam II, Cordoba became one of Europe's largest, most advanced cities, famous for its libraries, scientific advancements, and the architectural masterpiece, Madinat al-Zahra.

And what needs to be understood about the golden age is this... Let me try to start off by giving you an analogy. Imagine, many, many decades or centuries from now, those buildings are still standing. Everything's changed, and Islam may be gone or whatever. And people look at it and go, "Wow, that was a golden age, that country, that civilization, because look what it led to. "Now, we would say, well, no, I mean, they had their Islam, sure, but this is actually money, and Westerners built it ...western technology, western workers... and it just so happened that these Arabs had the money to spend on it. That, I submit to you, is the best way to understand the golden age that happened historically. It didn't happen due to Islam. Quite the contrary, it happened despite Islam.
... continued

Some trouble with the continuation?

The analogy of Arabs with oil money hiring Western builders is inappropriate. During the Islamic Golden Age, scholars made significant contributions to original intellectual work such as al-Khwarizmi's invention of algebra, Ibn al-Haytham's advancements in optics, and al-Razi's progress in medicine within caliphal institutions that actively supported and organized scholarship rather than merely overseeing construction.

The video posted contains several factual inaccuracies such as the claim that the doors of ijtihad closed in the 10th century whic has been disproven since 1984 by Wael Hallaq's seminal article Was the Gate of Ijtihad Closed? 19th century European Orientalists and later Muslim reformers created the closure narrative to explain the perceived "backwardness" of Muslims which the former aimed to justify colonialism, and the latter sought to advocate for modernization.

The assertion that all achievements were by non-Muslims or recent converts overlooks the contributions of multi-generational Muslim scholars; and attributing the decline to hardline Islam winning fails to consider the Mongol destruction of Baghdad in 1258, as well as political fragmentation and economic changes.

Kobojunkie:
1. Please provide a reference for your claim here regarding this universal deity "Rahmanan" that isn't linked to Judaism or Christianity.

2. I read the pages indicated of the book, Arabia and the Arabs by R. Hoyland, and nothing of what you claim is mentioned in there. Rather, those pages assure the reader that polytheism was the way among the Arabs an visitors were expected to honor the traditions and festivals surrounding the worship of said gods. In particular, those pages highlight hajj that were made to certain locations during which a truce would exist — for periods lasting approximately a month — so people could peacefully worship, pay homage to the gods, and socialize.
Pages 139 -145 discuss the culture of worship of various gods that was common among the Arabs of the time, too. No mention of Hanif.

3. I am interested in evidence, not a lecture! 🥱🥱

Hoyland, Arabia and the Arabs (2001), pages 146-147. I mistakenly cited pages 161-165 (polytheism) instead which discuss the monotheistic shift to the Merciful...Lord of heaven and earth.

Gajda, Le royaume de Himyar (2009), pages 115, 226-231.

CIH 6 is a physical artifact that has been catalogued.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CIH_6

Can you find one Himyarite monotheistic inscription that uses Hebrew or Christian divine names?

Kobojunkie:
1. Can you provide a reference to at least one of these pre-Islamic records?

2. Himyarite Sabaic inscriptions reflect exclusive monotheism with no references to pagan gods is more than likely a reference to the Jews among the Sabaens of the time. Yes, many Jews lived among them and introduced monotheism to the Sabean religion landscape. That does not, however, suggest that all Sabeans worshipped one deity. There are still records of Sabean polytheism that exist to this day. 🥱 🥱

3. There is no record of such a sect ever existing before those words were printed in Mohammed's Quran. 🥱

@Explore2xmore

The Qur'an's description of Abraham as a hanif is not merely a historical label but signifies an existential commitment to exclusive devotion to one God and the rejection of idols. This commitment persisted in Arabia. Epigraphic evidence from the 4th to 6th centuries CE reveals that Arabs were invoking a singular, universal deity Rahmanan, Lord of Heaven and Earth in their native language, without references to Judaism or Christianity as there are no Hebrew divine names (YHWH, Elohim), nor Trinitarian expressions (Hoyland, Arabia and the Arabs, 2001, pp. 161–165).

This indicates a sustained monotheistic inclination in Arabia that existed independently of synagogues or churches. Islam did not originate this orientation; rather, it identified, revived, and organized it, linking it back to Abraham as its archetype. The continuity is more about existential experience than institutional structures: the same attitude toward God submitting without intermediaries recurs throughout history in various contexts.[/quote]The Qur'an's description of Abraham as a hanif is not merely a historical label but signifies an existential commitment to exclusive devotion to one God and the rejection of idols. This commitment persisted in Arabia. Epigraphic evidence from the 4th to 6th centuries CE reveals that Arabs were invoking a singular, universal deity Rahmanan, Lord of Heaven and Earth in their native language, without references to Judaism or Christianity as there are no Hebrew divine names (YHWH, Elohim), nor Trinitarian expressions (Hoyland, Arabia and the Arabs, 2001, pp. 161–165).

This indicates a sustained monotheistic inclination in Arabia that existed independently of synagogues or churches. Islam did not originate this orientation; rather, it identified, revived, and organized it, linking it back to Abraham as its archetype. The continuity is more about existential experience than institutional structures: the same attitude toward God submitting without intermediaries recurs throughout history in various contexts.

No existing Jewish sources mention Ezra being worshipped, but this absence does not contradict Qur’an 9:30; it merely highlights the limitations of surviving records. The Qur’an may refer to a localized, extinct, or misunderstood belief known in Arabia but lost to history considering how many ancient sects left no evidence behind. A lack of corroboration does not equal disproof, and the verse stands as a theological assertion rather than a claim reliant on later Jewish documentation.

Kobojunkie:
There is no evidence that the so-called pre-Islamic people called Hanifs described in your Quran ever existed. Same way there is no evidence that a Jewish tribe which worshipped Ezra ever existed.🥱🥱🥱

Pre-Islamic Arabia had records of non-Jewish, non-Christian monotheists known as Ḥanīfs, supported by dated inscriptions that invoke a single God without idols, existing decades to centuries before Muhammad pbuh's propagation of Islam. Evident in Himyarite texts from the 4th to 6th century CE that call on Raḥmānān (The Merciful), the Lord of Heaven and Earth. These inscriptions have been photographed, catalogued, and peer-reviewed.

Himyarite Sabaic inscriptions reflect exclusive monotheism with no references to pagan gods.(Christian Robin; Iwona Gajda; Oxford Handbook of Late Antiquity)

Northern Arabian inscriptions (pre-Islamic) appeal to one God alone.(Robert Hoyland, Fred Donner)

Not all Jews but some of a now extinct sect worshiped Ezra

LordReed:
LoLz. Like I said your argument is fraught with inconsistency and equivocation. Suddenly a new condition has appeared that precludes a set you previously emphatically encapsulated.

I think my work is done here.

DeepSight is there any reason to continue with this? (BTW I suspect the work of Chat GPT)

Look true my earlier explanations that got us here. I haven't said differently. You asked a yes or no question hoping to box me in and I strictly answered to your restrictions. You pick from my earlier posts so I give you the interpretation you earlier avoided.

Explore2xmore:
Historical records indicate that pre-Islamic Arabia had monotheists known as Hanifs, who rejected idol worship and traced their beliefs back to Abraham. This is supported by external evidence. Islam interprets this historical context by asserting that Abraham's way of worship was a form of submission, which it later identifies as Muslim an Arabic word meaning submission to Allah.

Explore2xmore:
Being Muslim signifies someone who surrenders to God a concept that transcends time, it's not just a label from the 7th century. The Hebrew Bible is quite clear about its monotheistic nature. Terms can be used to describe things that happened earlier. Think of how we use philosopher or the concept of gravity. Actually, Islam identifies Abraham as a muslim in the Qur'an (3:67). The reality is there first, then come the labels we use to describe it.

Besides I categorically said

Explore2xmore:
But it really doesn't matter.

LordReed:
This was you



So explain how Christians and Jews do not meet your definition.

Yes, it was and still is.

Today, Christians and Jews are not classified as Muslims because they do not acknowledge Muhammad (peace be upon him) as God's messenger. However, the Qur'an states that the term Muslim refers to anyone who completely submits to God, even before the time of Muhammad (Quran 3:67). In this theological sense, Abraham is a Muslim because he fully submitted to God. What defines a religion is not strictly shared figures, but rather the act of submitting to God, while following Muhammad pbuh's teachings has characterized historical Islam since his time.

LordReed:
Very simple question, are Christians and Jews Muslims? Just a simple yes or no.

NO

But it really doesn't matter.

LordReed:
The fact is you won't accept this conceptual thingy you are clinging to for any other argument that opposes your view. The was what even launched this discussion and you pressed for evidence then rejected even that. The fact is you are caught in a hypocritical and fallacious position which you don't want to give up.

Oh! And you're not?
Didn't feel it was important enough too earlier but as you tend to insist here it is.

Your argument that we can't call Abraham a muslim because the Arabic term didn't exist back then makes a pretty big mistake when it comes to how we look at history and religious ideas. If we took that approach all the time, it would mess up almost every discussion about history and philosophy. Here's why:

1. Applying Philosophical Ideas to the Past

Think about Plato. We often call him a dualist because he talked about the difference between the physical world and the world of perfect ideas. But the term dualism as a formal philosophical idea wasn't around until after Plato was gone. Using your logic, calling Plato a dualist would be wrong because he never used that word, and it didn't exist in his time.

But experts agree that what Plato described is basically what we later called dualism. The concept was there; we just came up with the specific term later. No serious philosopher says we can't call Plato a dualist just because the word came later. We understand that words can still be accurate even if they came about after the thing they describe.

2. We also describe ancient Chinese dynasties as totalitarian when we see how much control they had, how they watched their people, and how they stopped anyone from disagreeing with them. The term totalitarianism was created in the 20th century to describe certain governments. But historians still use it to talk about earlier governments that acted the same way with complete state control, forcing everyone to think the same way, and getting rid of anyone who opposed them.

By your way of thinking, we couldn't call Qin Shi Huang's government totalitarian because that word didn't exist back in 221 BCE. That would make it really hard to understand and analyze political systems from the past using the best ideas we have.

3. Isaac Newton's work is called physics, but the term for physics as a formal science came about after he lived. Newton himself used the term natural philosophy. Should we refuse to say his Principia Mathematica is physics just because he didn't use that exact term?

Similarly, we call the ancient Greeks' studies of matter chemistry,even though chemistry as a formal science came much later. We call prehistoric humans Homo sapiens, even though they had no idea about that scientific classification. The reality was there; the terminology came later.

4. We call ancient Israelites monotheists, even though that term (which comes from Greek) was formalized after the Hebrew Bible was written. The Shema says there is one God; we use monotheism to describe that idea.
We call the followers of Gautama Buddha Buddhists, even though that term developed after he died they just followed the dharma.

We describe ancient Egyptian religion as polytheistic, using a term they never used though they worshipped many netjeru (gods).

5. Applying ideas to the past is okay when:

a) The underlying reality matches the concept. Abraham's worship of one God matches Islam's idea of submission (islam).

b) The later term accurately describes earlier things. Monotheism accurately describes how Israelites worshipped; muslim accurately describes submission to God in Islamic theology.

c) We admit we're using our own way of thinking and historians make it clear that they're using modern ideas to understand the past.

This is how things are done in history, philosophy, science, and theology.

The key thing you're missing is there's a big difference between saying someone had an identity that didn't exist yet as your Nigerian example where saying someone born in 1910 Lagos was Nigerian is wrong because Nigerian identity legally started in 1914; it's a specific political status that didn't exist before.

But applying a concept to something from the past in the Abraham example by
describing him as a muslim (someone who submitted to God) is a valid religious idea.
The idea of submitting to one God existed; Islam uses Arabic terms for it.

Your incorrect im treating religious/philosophical ideas which describe realities the same as legal/political identities which create new statuses.

Islam specifically defines muslim as anyone who submits to God in any time period. This isn't Muslims stretching definition, it is Islam's core religious idea, straight from its own primary source.

You can disagree with this religious idea (many do), but you can't say it's linguistically wrong, logically flawed, or doesn't match Islamic scripture. The Qur'an itself applies the term to people in the past - it's part of what defines Islam.

If you say that Islam's use of muslim for prophets before Islam is wrong, you need to show why applying ideas to the past is generally wrong which would mess up history/philosophy

Your Nigerian example mixes up different kinds of terms

LordReed:
The analogy holds up very well because it is factual reality that no Nigerians existed before 1914 same way factual reality is no Muslims existed before 571 CE.

The ancient Hebrews were not monotheists so that isn't even a point.

The word philosopher - lover of wisdom, was contemporary with Socrates and the other Greek philosophers so that also fails.

The key issue is you and wherever you got the idea are involved in a fallacious claim. You have to equivocate the meaning of Muslim to stretch its identity to cover people who cannot be considered Muslim as an identifier even by the standards of your Quran.

Are you erasing the lines between political affiliations and matters of faith? Being Muslim signifies someone who surrenders to God a concept that transcends time, it's not just a label from the 7th century. The Hebrew Bible is quite clear about its monotheistic nature. Terms can be used to describe things that happened earlier. Think of how we use philosopher or the concept of gravity. Actually, Islam identifies Abraham as a muslim in the Qur'an (3:67). The reality is there first, then come the labels we use to describe it.

CyynthiaKiss:
EPAPER
METRO
SPORT
LIFE
TECH
GTV
OPINION
WOMAN
REVIEWED
‘U.S. plans options to protect Christians in Nigeria soon’
By : Tobi Awodipe
Date: 22 January 2026 2:55am WAT
Share :
Riley M. Moore
Rep Riley M. Moore
• Insecurity, not religious war, hits all faiths, Presidency insists

United States (U.S.) Congressman Riley Moore has disclosed that the White House will soon come up with options to protect Christians in Nigeria against persecution by Islamist extremists.

However, the Presidency, yesterday, dismissed claims that Nigeria’s insecurity was driven by religious sentiment, insisting that violence across the country affects people of all faiths and should not be framed as a religious war.

Moore, in a post on his X handle yesterday, said he would soon brief President Donald Trump on his observations from the fact-finding mission to Nigeria, which would enable the White House to proffer options for protecting Christians.

The congressman, who was reacting to a testimony by Bishop Robert Barron to U.S. lawmakers on the alleged Christian genocide in Nigeria, said the U.S. was not taking the allegations lightly.

“Thank you, Bishop Barron, for shedding light on how our brothers and sisters in Christ are being persecuted for their faith in Nigeria,” Moore wrote after the briefing. “Thanks for the shout-out. You are right; I will be briefing the White House on this topic very soon to give them options on how to protect Christians in Nigeria.

Related News

US' Moore canvasses more airstrikes, vows peace for Nigerian christians
Nigeria security forces, not US strikes gave us yuletide peace -Sani
NIPR decries exclusion of information minister from FG's delegation to US
“In addition to our recently passed FY26 National Security, Department of State, and Related Programs (NSRP) bill, which protects U.S. security, upholds humanity and safeguards religious freedom, the House Appropriations Committee will soon deliver a report to President Trump on the situation in Nigeria – facts, oversight and leadership.”

THE Presidency’s position was articulated by the Senior Special Assistant to the President on Chieftaincy Matters, Abba Hashim, during an interaction with the Methodist Archbishop of Anambra, Dr Vincent Onoh, as part of ongoing engagements between government officials and religious leaders on peace, unity and national stability.

Hashim cautioned that narratives portraying Nigeria’s security challenges as genocide or faith-based conflict risk deepening divisions and undermining national cohesion at a critical time for the country.

“What’s important now in this country is togetherness. We should put everything aside between Muslims, Christians and even people who don’t have a religion. We should not go with the stories going around, which all of us know are false,” he added.

Responding to allegations of mass killings and abductions of Christian faithful, Hashim said realities on the ground show that insecurity cuts across religious lines, particularly in conflict-prone regions

https://guardian.ng/news/u-s-plans-options-to-protect-christians-in-nigeria-soon/?fbclid=IwZnRzaAPe0gxleHRuA2FlbQIxMQBzcnRjBmFwcF9pZAo2NjI4NTY4Mzc5AAEemdew_ec4AmALd02OFfOZ4xLC62rJQA8vVfGvuuxqjaek3n6vRvqmwH8X8vE_aem_R_Dm84Are_y6XifcuvUz1g

Nlfpmod Nlfpmod

Islamist is not a form of the Muslim faith or an expression of Muslim piety; it is, rather, a political ideology that strives to derive legitimacy from Islam. ....Soner Cagaptay

https://www.washingtoninstitute.org/policy-analysis/muslims-vs-islamists

Trump referred to the violence in Nigeria as genocide against Christians by radical Islamists, but this is a statement that does not hold up under examination. Boko Haram has attacked both Muslims and Christians indiscriminately, targeting places of worship for both faiths. In the northwest and central parts of the country, criminal gangs are responsible for assaults on villages and farming communities, primarily motivated by ransom rather than religious beliefs. Out of 1,923 attacks on civilians in Nigeria, only 50 were aimed at Christians specifically because of their faith. Trump took a complex and tragic security issue and presented it in a simplistic religious framework that the evidence does not support. Experts argue that from a legal standpoint, his genocide claims do not stand up. This rhetoric served to energize his evangelical supporters and provided a rationale for possible intervention. In doing so, he engaged in the same behavior he often criticized in others: using religious language to further a political agenda while overlooking the real suffering of both Muslim and Christian Nigerians caught in the turmoil. Sources:
Council on Foreign Relations: https://www.cfr.org/expert-brief/trumps-focus-christians-misses-boko-harams-wider-threat-nigeria
PBS: https://www.pbs.org/newshour/world/trump-says-christians-are-being-persecuted-in-nigeria-experts-and-residents-say-the-reality-is-more-complicated
ACLED (Armed Conflict Location & Event Data Project): https://acleddata.com
NPR: https://www.npr.org/2025/12/28/nx-s1-5659769/do-trumps-claims-about-christian-persecution-in-nigeria-match-reality

It further appears conveniently ironic that since his statement there are more attacks seeming to fit his narrative. In human relations absolutely nothing is given completely free. May the cost not away the support!

LordReed:
You keep going in circles. IT DOESN'T matter whether it is a theological perspective or otherwise it is still fallacious.

You are like someone calling people who were born in the Niger delta area before 1914 Nigerians because the word Nigerian means anyone born in the territory called Nigeria. It is fallacious to apply that definition to people before 1914 when the territory called Nigeria was actually formed.

If after this example you still struggle with this then you need to go back and examine how you think.

Your analogy is flawed. The term Nigerian refers to a modern political identity that emerged from the state formation in 1914. In contrast, Muslim in Islamic theology is a descriptive term for anyone who submits to God, which is applicable throughout history and not limited to the existence of 7th-century Arabia. Islam asserts that Abraham was a submitter to God,muslim, indicating that the concept existed even if the Arabic term did not. Similarly, Christians refer to Abraham as faithful in the context of the Hebrew Bible, while Jews describe him as righteous before the Torah was given.

Your reasoning would also undermine the validity of calling ancient Israelites "monotheists a term that was coined much later or referring to Socrates as a philosopher a Greek term that was formalized after his time. The key issue is not when the term was created, but whether the reality it represents existed. You are mixing up linguistic history with conceptual reality. If you disagree with the idea that Abraham submitted to God, then make that argument directly instead of relying on fallacies about word origins.

LordReed:
That it is the Quran stating it doesn't make it any less a fallacious claim. So at this point it is clear you are just going around in circles.

The inconsistency stems from you rejecting one claim because you believe it lacks evidence ut believing a different claim despite the lack of evidence.

Like I said you are just going round in circles and are bringing nothing further to the conversation.

Islam encourages that evidence for historical claims are sought out rather than accepting them blindly. Historical records indicate that pre-Islamic Arabia had monotheists known as Hanifs, who rejected idol worship and traced their beliefs back to Abraham. This is supported by external evidence. Islam interprets this historical context by asserting that Abraham's way of worship was a form of submission, which it later identifies as Muslim an Arabic word meaning submission to Allah.
Multiple historical inscriptions and sources show monotheistic belief existed in Arabia in the 5th–6th centuries, and classical Muslim historians recorded hanifs as individuals who rejected paganism in favor of Abrahamic monotheism.

While one can disagree with this theological perspective, it is not an arbitrary invention; it is based on a documented tradition of monotheism in Arabia that Islam presents organized and defined. It is reasonable to reject the theological interpretation, but you are unable to provide evidence contrary to what is shared or in support of your stance.

LordReed:
None of this is evidence for the claim, you are simply restating the claim. What you cannot do is show ANY evidence before 571 CE that anybody was ever referred to as a Muslim. Fallaciously claiming that a broad definition retroactively and with no further supporting evidence refers to people of a completely different belief system just fails.

Further more you rejected my claim based on what you decided was a lack of evidence but go on to accept this fallacious claim even with the same lack of evidence thus contradicting yourself. If a lack of evidence causes you to reject a claim then the same lack of evidence should make you reject any other claim. Accepting a claim even where it clearly lacks evidence makes you inconsistent with your own metric.

Persistently mixing up historical terms with religious identity. In Islam, the term Muslim is rooted in Abraham, not Muhammad, as stated in the Qur'an; He named you Muslims before and in this [revelation](Qur’an 22:78). This is a theological assertion rather than a reflection of how people identified themselves in 200 BCE or 500 CE. Historically, Arab monotheists before Islam were referred to as Hanifs;individuals who turned away from idol worship and embraced Abraham's belief in one God without following a formal law. Theologically, Islam teaches that Abraham's submission (islam) is what defines the concept, and the term Muslim is introduced through later revelations.

So, the distinction is clear and consistent. Historically, there was no confessional label Muslim before 571; identities were based on tribal, Jewish, Christian, or Hanif affiliations. Theologically, it is believed that Abraham referred to those who submit to God as Muslims Disagreeing with this theological perspective does not indicate inconsistency; it simply shows a rejection of the religious claim, not a logical flaw in the claim itself.

LordReed:
Considered is a fallacious claim nor can you show evidence for such a claim. The one being slow here is you. You contradict yourself and even when it is glaringly pointed out to you, you stare at it vacuously.

Referring to Abraham and earlier prophets as Muslims is not a mistake in historical terms, but rather a theological perspective. The Qur'an clearly indicates that Abraham was neither a Jew nor a Christian, but someone who submitted to God (3:67), and that he prayed to be made a Muslim (2:128). This is based on the foundational texts of Islam, not a contradiction. While it's acceptable to disagree with Islam's interpretation, it is incorrect to assert that there is no supporting evidence. Archaeology backs Islam in the same manner it does for Judaism and Christianity, relying on texts and historical records rather than theological arguments. Early manuscripts of the Qur'an, inscriptions, coins, and accounts from non-Muslim sources all validate the origins and claims of Islam in the 7th century. Additionally, ancient evidence shows that prophets adhered to the belief in one God. The Dead Sea Scrolls contain monotheistic writings from Moses and Isaiah, inscriptions reference the worship of YHWH, and Assyrian records differentiate Israel's God from pagan deities.