₦airaland Forum

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.

LordReed:
All humans were atheists before 80k years ago.

I see why the mix up. Fingers slower than my thoughts. Abraham and other prophets are considered Muslims. You easily would have discerned that.

LordReed:
"Considered Muslim" is the claim but you have no evidence backing that up so your assertion is rejected. You laid that standard so accept your forfeit.

Did they or didn't they submit to God?

LordReed:
LoLz. Look at the bolded and consider how you are contradicting yourself. History has not left us much to go on other than that humans only started being religious circa 80k years by reason of the burial practices we have evidence for, therefore humans were atheists before then. If you cannot see your own contradictory standard then something is wrong.

That is from my statement. You were pointing at evidence you had earlier given?
Abraham are considered Muslims. Even though there are few tangible remnants, archaeology demonstrates the existence of belief in Abraham's and other prophetic communities' theistic practices.

Ur of the Chaldeans where Abraham was born show signs of worship and Cuneiform tablets provide texts for concepts of religious belief. My general statement was more for other prophets without much recognised archaeological artefacts.

LordReed:
This has no bearing on the argument.

Sorry! Wasn't for you.

jmoore:
Trump goes to UK for treatment too?

Abi, you don't why Tinubu is always flying to France? He should use same technology from Asorock to communicate with whoever he's meeting in France.

Wait, we should accept some remote governance from Paris but he can't do remote consultations and physical treatment with French doctors? 😅 Make it make sense! If bandwidth is good enough to run Nigeria via video call, it's good enough for medical appointments. The math ain't mathing.

The world with emphasis on the world powers appear to be cooking at something regardless of how prepared Nigeria, Africa and other 3rd world countries are.

LordReed:
LoLz. Yes let's just hand wave away the evidence but produce none for our position then ask for evidence again. Dude I gave the evidence for my position, you gave NONE, by your own standard you forfeit the argument.

Wait, we should accept some remote governance from Paris but he can't do remote consultations and physical treatment with French doctors? 😅 Make it make sense! If bandwidth is good enough to run Nigeria via video call, it's good enough for medical appointments. The math ain't mathing.

LordReed:
LoLz. Yes let's just hand wave away the evidence but produce none for our position then ask for evidence again. Dude I gave the evidence for my position, you gave NONE, by your own standard you forfeit the argument.

With your starting inclination to humor I wonder. However, the lack of artifacts doesn’t mean someone is ungodly; rather, it’s the act of submitting to God that truly defines a Muslim. Take prophets like Abraham, for instance, they were Muslim, even if history hasn’t left us much to go on.

If you will quote a pointer to your evidence please.

jmoore:
Which UAE? We all know he spent most of his time in France. That UAE trip was meant to deceive Nigerians.

What is Tinubu doing in france? Was his plancenta buried their?
He will visit France again at least four times before the year ends.

Absentee President.

Not particularly a fan of anyone or government generally but mostly doesn't equate totally.

The world has embraced technology to enable communication and control for most activities plus will his presence in Nigeria have directly enabled or prevented anything?

LordReed:
Yes based on your own standard. You produced no evidence of any kind so I reject your assertion.

Despite clearly showing why the sort of archaeological evidence you request doesn't exist? Maybe we should switch for a moment and you show the same for your view.

LordReed:
Then I reject your categorising of any pre Mohammedean believers as Muslim. It's that simple.

Logically?

Abraham was neither a Jew nor a Christian, but he was a hanif, a Muslim (submitting to Allah), and he was not of the polytheists.(Qur’an 3:67)

LordReed:
It is a resounding evidence of lack of belief in any gods as religion tends to leave behind evidence of practice which is why we have the burial sites. If they were believing in gods before that then we should have had evidence. You dismissal is inadequate especially as you provide nothing substantial to refute it except nah-uh.

Meanwhile I am yet to see you provide evidence that any believers in your god were Muslims before the advent of your prophet Mohammad. Can you show any text that calls them Muslims written before 571 CE?

Despite the lack of pre-571 texts, early monotheists, such as Idris/Enoch, are counted as Muslims because submission to God is what defines a Muslim, and the 170,000-year archaeological gap does not prove ungodliness.

Consider too that perishable materials (wood, paint, dance, song) were used in rituals. Few traces were left by tiny populations. Most sites and organic materials are lost after more than 100,000 years; only stone and bone in extraordinary circumstances survive.

LordReed:
I already did, are you paying attention?

Lack of belief in any gods.

The 170,000-year archaeological gap merely indicates a lack of material religion, not a lack of faith in God, which need not leave physical remnants. It is by no means conclusive proof of ungodliness.

LordReed:
Well then, till when you able to produce definitive evidence that that was the case then the point stands.



Wrong again. I have given you the definition of atheism, LACK OF BELIEF, it doesn't require any concept of god to reject since it is not a rejection. Also remember we are playing word games so you can't seriously challenge this or else we also fault your definition of Muslim.

Can you provide any definitive evidence for your own claims? Then you say lack of belief is your definition but cannot say what isn't believed in. So you are not making a clear statement.

LordReed:
Homo sapiens have been around for more than 250,000 years while the earliest evidence of ritualistic or proto-religion is about 80,000 years. This suggests humans didn't have religious beliefs for more time they've been around than the time they did have it.

While that might hold true from an archaeological standpoint, it really only reflects evidence, not actual belief. Just because we don’t have any surviving rituals doesn’t mean that early humans didn’t have a sense of God or some form of spiritual awareness.

LordReed:
Nope. Atheism is lack of beliefs and as I have shown lack of belief was around for far longer than any belief in any gods.

Atheism, by its very nature, needs the idea of God to be able to reject it. So, just because early humans didn’t leave behind evidence of belief doesn’t automatically make them atheists, they simply might not have had a documented concept of God at that time.

LordReed:
My statement has nothing to do with evolution.

The term Muslim refers to anyone who submits to God, even those who lived before Muhammad pbuh. While being an atheist is rooted in denial and doesn't allow for a retroactive application of beliefs. So, these two concepts aren't really equivalent.

LordReed:
My statement has nothing to do with evolution.

I am starting with the root of atheism with regards to the origin of man. Maybe you could clarify how atheism predates all religion which is a practice of mankind.

Kayberg:
That a child is named Mercy does not mean the child is merciful… so that doesn't work.

Do break down your analogy

LordReed:
Ahhh, then we can say that atheism predates all religion once we rejig the meaning of what an atheist is. Playing word definition games can bite both ways.

We will need to come to an agreement about the ambiguity of evidence supporting evolution, and the belief that life cannot arise from non-life before agreeing that early mankind had no concept of the existence of God.

Kayberg:
You don't need to open a defense on this with me.

The Israelites never knew anything called Islam during their days; if they do, they won't have found it strange when it was introduced to them back then.

No defense or debate as it only takes knowing what Islam means.

BlackfireX:
Chspgpt makes mistake when it is against Islamic lies.


Abdul
Salat means prayer
And no it dosent mean blessings....blessings means barakat.

And keep your delusional confusion to yourself

Even you that isn't chatgpt is making mistake. What is chspgpt?

I presented screenshot and web links to a dictionary can you dignify your false Arabic expertise there?

Kayberg:
The OP was clear enough to make it known that Aisha was born before Islam began around 610 CE, also providing evidence.

I see your restrictions however in the absolute sense Islam did not begin in 610 CE. What began then was the final revelation to Prophet Muhammad pbuh.

Kayberg:
How then was Moses and the other Israeli prophets Muslims? 😏

Perhaps the op omitted saying Islam as completed under prophet Muhammad pbuh.
However specific to your question is understanding the meaning of being Muslim.

TV01:
And hopefully my response to him satisfies this as well.

Plus, I sense you both use the same tools or, are the same entity, 2in1 .


TV

Good to share similar thoughts in faith with my brother. This is unity.

TV01:
No strawman required - I am appraising islam based on it's outworking - it's fruits.

This is not a discussion about relative darkness. I am happy to defend Christianity if required. The question is "is islam a religion of peace?" No. Neither is it a religion of prosperity or progress, which I have severally demonstrrated.

There are Christians who commit atrocities under cover of the faith. However, the faith itself does not prescribe violence or killing for unbelievers or apostates. A person killing and claiming Christianity is falsified by the text. Whereas for islam, atrocities are permitted, sanctioned, commanded and celebrated.

No one, nowhere, at any time has demanded a single language for Christian worship, under guise that it is demanded by God.

Islam is not expected to name prophets for every tribe, islam claims to have done so! To have sent prophets to every language group. A s many as124,000 according to some islamic sources - without evidence as usual.

Agreed. Ask away.


TV

Pointing to Islam as violent based on its “fruits” falls apart when you consider the same standard you don’t consistently apply. The core texts of Islam clearly prohibit coercion in matters of faith and the killing of innocents, while classical law places strict limits on warfare to specific situations. Atrocities carried out in its name go against these principles, just as the wrongdoings committed in Christianity contradict Christ’s teachings. When people say Islam celebrates violence or insists on a single language, they’re mixing up ritual unity with coercion Arabic is meant for worship, not ethnicity, much like how Hebrew and Latin were used in other faiths. Regarding prophets, Islam’s belief in many messengers is more about theology than historical records, similar to how Christianity holds truths that go beyond what’s documented and just because there’s no clear evidence doesn’t mean something is false.

I see honesttalk21 has exhaustively replied you.