₦airaland Forum

AntiChristian:
You switched off your thought process again! Are you not the one comparing Holy Spirits to Tafsirs and co?

May you be healed!

to answer your question, no I am not. You are the one who switched off your mind and forgot that you were the one who compared the holy Spirit to tafsirs, even stating that the Holy Spirit was not involved in the writing of the bible

TenQ:
A man mesmerised his gullible fellow arabs that a Demon (Afrit) came to the mosque to disturb his prayers AND he would have tied the demon to one of the poles of the mosque for all Muslims to see, except that everything was AUDIO.

As you know, Muslims do not ask Questions. They swallow every lie hook, line and sinker

The Question is:
Are Demons Physical Beings?
What kind of ropes can be used to tie up demons to a tree?


Sahih al-Bukhari 461
Narrated Abu Huraira:
"The Prophet (ﷺ) said, "Last night a big demon (afreet) from the Jinns came to me and wanted to interrupt my prayers (or said something similar) but Allah enabled me to overpower him. I wanted to fasten him to one of the pillars of the mosque so that all of you could See him in the morning but I remembered the statement of my brother Solomon (as stated in Quran): My Lord! Forgive me and bestow on me a kingdom such as shall not belong to anybody after me (38.35)." The sub narrator Rauh said, "He (the demon) was dismissed humiliated."

All Mohammed's miracles do not have any evidence. only he is the evidence

Since you brought up the TOPIC again, you may wish to answer the following questions supported with ANY hadith (sahih or daif) the answers to the questions
Mr honesttalk21,
1. Tell me, which of the followers of prophet Mohammed saw the afreet?
2. What did prophet Mohammed use to tie up the afreet?
3. Who finally untied the afreet or was it killed?
4. Can you describe a little how the afreet look like?

I do not know if demons are physical but then one could argue that Jacob wrestled with an angel, and abraham fed angels, lot and his family were grabbed and taken away by angels. It makes one to probably assume that demons could as well make physical appearance though it could be a faulty conclusion as demons are not angels.

TenQ:
Adam and Eve being ONE is a compound Unity not Unitary or singular unity

yes I understand, just as you can use the word "same" for singular and plural purpose. He is the same person, they are both the same.

No Hebrew scholar gives echad the sole interpretation of being a compound unity because they use it severally to mean a singular unit.

CreativeOrbit:
I don’t waste my time engaging with people who clearly lack the mental capacity to grasp even the simplest concepts. No matter how thoroughly or patiently you try to explain, it’s like talking to a brick wall—absolutely pointless. Some minds are just too far gone to reason with. I’m done. Goodbye.

the truth you are avoiding which is clearly beyond your reasoning, a obvious simple question that even a toddler will comprehend became a brick wall for you to run into and hopefully knock some sense into you, but instead of sense all you got was offense with the truth.

AntiChristian:
I'm not the same person as NairaLTQ in your conversations. I don't know of what importance it is if Allah calls Jesus lord in the Qur'an. It has a context. Even in your Bible, there are many other "Elohim" apart from Yahweh. And Yahweh did mentioned them too.

Since Yahweh called smaller gods Elohim why don't you also call them Elohim too?

That's why your thoughts has folly embedded in it.

Christ is one of the messengers of Allah. That some worship him as lord doesn't make him one. And once again, Muslims honour Christ but he wasn't sent to us. On judgement day, each Prophets will come with their nations.

Jesus will come with his and Muhammad will come with his. As well as others, some having more that others!

Where does it says Adam will go to hell? All believers will pass over it. And those who are sinful will be drawn into it for their sins as Allah wills.

Of course, Muhammad ran the last lap of prophethood so all other prophets will have to follow him.

there are a number of other things you don't know but I do appreciate the honesty in your stating that you don't know the importance of Allah calling Jesus Lord in the Quran. But despite agreeing and being aware of your ignorance, you still try to undermine and strawman your own Quran text.

There's a difference between recognizing that the Messiah is Lord and speaking of false gods that would die and be destroyed. You may pretend not to know the difference but since your thoughts are embedded with folly, you probably would.

AntiChristian:
Tafsirs, etc are human efforts and can be authentic or otherwise!

Your own holy spirit can enter Samson to kill.

So I don't see how relevant they are!

Despite the holy spirit there are many tafsirs (Exegesis) of the Bible too.

Examples includes the attached.

if you don't see how relevant your tafsirs and hadiths are why even consider them

honesttalk21:
Allah is over and on top literally or otherwise?
Clarity required

What sort of shape does Allah have please explain?

Allah created Adam in his image sounds more like what Christianity says.

tenq quoted scriptures of those who said or wrote that Adam/man is the image of God. My question to you is are they Christians he quoted?

TenQ:
Let me show you how Echad is used: not as singular one but compound one!

Like

Gen 2:21-24:
"And YHWH God causes a deep sleep to fall on the man, and he sleeps, and He takes one of his ribs, and closes up flesh in its stead. And YHWH God builds up the rib which He has taken out of the man into a woman, and brings her to the man; and the man says, “This at last! Bone of my bone, and flesh of my flesh!” For this is called Woman, for this has been taken from Man; therefore a man leaves his father and his mother, and has cleaved to his wife, and they have become one flesh."



The two of Adam and Eve shall become ONE (Ehad) Flesh


Deu 6:4:
"Hear, O Israel: Our God YHWH— YHWH [is] one!"

The ONE is a compound One not Unitary One!



I asked you some questions

Questions
1. Do you concur that if the following are TRUE that
1. Allah is one and
2. Allah is over/on top of the universe and
3. Allah is not a spirit and
4. Allah has at least a shape
then Allah CANNOT be LOGICALLY Omnipresent?
2. Mohammed said that Allah created Adam in his image and then goes on to describe Adams image in the physical terms of face and height.
Can you thus explain in clear terms how Adam is created in Allah's image?

not interested in this discuss, but hope you realize that even the picture you used, stated echad is one, a number, a masculine singular usage, not in compound. And echad does mean one not one of, it can also mean united. Even Jesus taught the meaning which the teachers agree to, it means YHVh alone is God.

CreativeOrbit:
Your argument is a messy cocktail of half-truths, pseudo-history, and arrogant speculation, pulled straight from anti-Islam playbooks that have long been debunked. Let’s dissect it with precision and give your confusion the burial it deserves.

1. "Allah means The God" – So you're saying ‘The God’ was the name of a specific deity?"

Yes—exactly. “Allah” is a contraction of “Al-Ilah”, meaning “The God.” This wasn’t some random idol plucked from a desert pantheon—it referred to the supreme creator deity, even before Islam, across monotheistic currents in pre-Islamic Arabia. Arab Christians before and after Muhammad used the same name for God—Allah. So yes, “Allah” referred to the same supreme, singular Creator, not some pagan statue in a dusty shrine. Your confusion stems from an inability (or refusal) to separate linguistic meaning from idol worship, which are not the same thing.

2. Hubal in the Kaaba: The Flawed Historical Leap

Yes, the Kaaba housed idols before Islam, including Hubal, but here’s the part your sources conveniently ignore: Islam obliterated that idol worship. When Prophet Muhammad conquered Mecca, what did he do? He destroyed all the idols, including Hubal, and rededicated the Kaaba to the worship of the one true God—Allah. Islam did not inherit polytheism; it eradicated it. Citing Hubal’s presence in the Kaaba before Islam to undermine Islamic monotheism is like citing Aztec sacrifices to criticize modern-day Mexico. It's historically illiterate.

And don’t toss around names like “Julius Wellhausen” as if quoting outdated 19th-century Orientalist conjecture makes your point valid. His “suggestions” were speculative, often unbacked by archaeological or linguistic evidence, and have been challenged or discarded by modern scholarship. You’re leaning on colonial-era armchair guesswork, not real history.

3. The Black Stone and Kaaba: “Man-made” ≠ Idolatry

You say: “Aren’t the Kaaba and Black Stone man-made?”
Yes. So is every religious building on Earth. By your logic, no place of worship—churches, synagogues, temples—would be valid because bricks and stones are “man-made.” That’s not an argument; that’s philosophical laziness.

And no, Muslims do not worship the Black Stone or the Kaaba. The Black Stone is respected, not venerated as a deity. It is not prayed to, it does not speak, and it holds no divine essence. It is a symbol—nothing more. Muslims pray towards the Kaaba, not to it. If you can't tell the difference between direction and deification, that’s on you—not Islam.

4. Your Conclusion: Hollow, Misleading, and Already Refuted

You’re trying to force a link between pre-Islamic paganism and Islamic monotheism with a shoddy bait-and-switch. You throw around names and historical scraps, hoping it’ll stick—but it doesn’t. Islam’s entire mission was to purge paganism, and your failure to grasp that basic fact makes your argument not just wrong—it makes it intellectually bankrupt.

So yes, your historical claim is either a lie or the result of parroting bad scholarship without fact-checking. Either way, it crumbles under real scrutiny. Try again—this time with something grounded in facts, not recycled propaganda.

AntiChristian TenQ

lol read what you wrote and read this, from the same Moses and God Muhammad and Quran try to associate with

Deut.7.5 Here's what you are to do: Tear apart their altars stone by stone, smash their phallic pillars, chop down their sex-and-religion Asherah groves, set fire to their carved god-images.
Deut.7.25 "You must burn their idols in fire, and do not desire the silver or gold with which they are made. Do not take it or it will become a snare to you, for it is detestable to the LORD your God.

Deut.12.2 Destroy completely all the places on the high mountains and on the hills and under every spreading tree where the nations you are dispossessing worship their gods.

So are you telling us the same God that commands people to destroy what's use to worship idols, let you all keep the kabba and black stone to worship him through it?

Please explain why, because it's not our fault for associating Allah to Hubal, blame that on those who still use the kabba and the black stone. Do explain why the kabba and the black stone??

CreativeOrbit:
You know what’s truly mind-blowing? The way you casually twist complex theological, historical, and political realities into a cheap attempt at sectarian fearmongering. Let’s rip this apart piece by piece because this is not just flawed—it’s dangerously misleading.

1. "A Muslim could rightly say they have the right to be unkind to the Igbos who fought them in the civil war" — Are you serious?

This is one of the most reckless and disgusting logical leaps I’ve ever read. You take a Quranic verse about defensive ethics, rip it out of context, then use it to justify tribal hatred in Nigeria’s civil war—a conflict with deep political, ethnic, and economic roots that had nothing to do with Islam as a religion.

Let me say this clearly: no verse in the Quran or Islamic jurisprudence gives anyone the license to target a group of people today based on a war that ended over 50 years ago. You’re using manipulative, weaponized guilt by association to project some sick fantasy of religious justification for ethnic violence that simply doesn’t exist in Islamic doctrine.

This isn't interpretation. This is incitement disguised as reflection, and it’s both cowardly and intellectually bankrupt.

2. “I’m beginning to understand why Igbos in the north are wary of Muslims” – Then maybe try understanding truthfully.

Fear, suspicion, and intercommunal tension in Nigeria are often politically engineered and socially fueled. But instead of promoting peace, you’re here justifying that fear with fabricated theology and painting Nigerian Muslims as secretly hostile because of what? A butchered verse and your personal insecurity?

Let’s be real: millions of Igbos and Muslims live side-by-side peacefully every day in the north and elsewhere. Intermarriages, businesses, friendships—you name it. But you want to overwrite that lived reality with your twisted hypothesis that Islam endorses grudges from historical wars? That’s not just wrong—it’s maliciously divisive.

3. “Don’t you think it’s wrong to call those who have faced such [marginalization] hypocritical?” – No, I think it’s wrong to weaponize trauma dishonestly.

No one is denying that injustice exists. But here’s the problem: you're not defending victims, you're weaponizing selective pain to frame Muslims as inherently hypocritical or threatening. That’s not solidarity—that’s a slander campaign cloaked in pseudo-concern.

You admit to having "good Muslim friends"—then throw them under the bus by suggesting that Islam inherently supports hostility against Igbos. That’s not an honest question. That’s emotional manipulation and betrayal of your own supposed values.

Final word:

You aren’t unpacking a theological issue—you’re injecting sectarian venom into a national wound. You cherry-pick a verse, misinterpret it, rip it from context, and then hang it like a threat over the heads of peaceful Nigerian Muslims and Igbos alike.

If you truly care about peace, unity, or justice, start by dropping the bad-faith arguments, the tribal baiting, and the cowardly scapegoating.

Because what you’ve written here isn’t “mind-blowing”—it’s dangerously ignorant, historically blind, and morally bankrupt.

TenQ AntiChristian

lol you called it defensive ethics 😂😂 is it from this verse you quoted "Allah does not forbid you from being kind and just toward those who have not fought you."

Try and take on track with the convo please.

By the way I am being very serious, not your serious scholarly but a serious note like tenq, which you undermined with hypocrisy.

Is Allah saying you should be kind to those who fought you?
A simple question like this, but being you, would you not be errant in your response.

Guy you are funny, to you it doesn't matter people's personal experience you probably never went to a federal school and lived mostly in doors with a internet enabled system.

Look no matter how verbal or grammatical you want to be, you cannot undermine a simple truth that those who have been aware of what is written and taught by Islam have been wary of you guys more than those of us who were ignorant.

Personally I never understood why Muslims would try to kill an evangelist who comes to tell them about Jesus being the Messiah because I didn't fully understand the view you guys had towards Christians.

When you say people are mislead and Jews have angered God. Lol you said it's dangerous, I can see how welcoming the Muslim Arabs are to the Jews. I think you leave in a fantasy world where what you think Quran Islam should mean isn't what it actually stands for in reality.

Because something contains some truth doesn't make it the truth.

MaxInDHouse:
I'm not interested in chatting with you it's the Muslim guy i want to know what he understands by the Arabic word:

"Al-Masih"

I don't want him to feel i'm on the same page with you so please let him respond after all i've told you:

"if you're not one of Jehovah's Witnesses you and i aren't worshiping the same God"

That has not can not and will never change!

lol and you think I am laughing with you 😂😂😂, you are still full of self and opinion of your self 🤣🤣🤣

CreativeOrbit:
No—what’s actually "essential" here is some intellectual discipline, which you're clearly trying to sidestep with vague philosophical tap-dancing and weak rhetorical traps. Let's unpack your confusion, because it's not deep—just loud and wrong.

1. “You haven’t debunked Tenq’s guesswork properly” – You mean you ignored what I already explained.

I already dismantled Tenq’s claim about Hubal with textual, historical, and linguistic evidence. If you’re still whining about it, it’s not because it wasn’t debunked—it’s because you didn’t like that it was debunked. Big difference.

seems like you are forgetting yourself, maybe because I just read it and you forgot what you actually wrote. Be humble and go and reread your responses and not stay here and assume you did your imagination. All you did was say Quran teachings this, maybe you quoted one verse and this thing you are typing here about lingu and histo, is you just being a philologaster

Also, let’s not pretend Tenq came with some scholarly goldmine. He brought shallow conspiracy-tier arguments fueled by 19th-century Orientalist guesswork, not facts. That’s what I buried—because nonsense doesn't need a seminar, just a shovel.

ya shovel you used to dig a hole for yourself. True tenq wasn't overly scholarly or verbose as esteemed self, but calling him quoting Quran a shallow conspiracy oriental guesswork is pure bul**ocks

2. “Are you saying the interpretation of essentials is more valid than the Qur’an itself?” – That’s a deliberate distortion.[quote]simple questions to you is either confusion or deliberate distortion. Shaking my head


[quote]No, I’m saying the essentials (Usul)—which are derived from the Qur'an—are the structured framework used by scholars over 1400 years to interpret, understand, and apply the Qur’an correctly. They're not more valid—they are the method by which the text is honored, not butchered.

This is how mature traditions work: you don’t throw raw verses at each other like darts in a bar fight. You study the context, the language, the grammar, the Asbab al-Nuzul (reasons for revelation), and consensus (ijma) from qualified scholars—not YouTube interpretations and bad-faith guesswork.

if it's not more valid then doesn't that mean it doesn't change the original context or meaning or a text, no does it give it a modern meaning which is different from the texts intent. Meaning we are looking at objective interpretations that help one understand the Quran, right? If you can humbly answer and not speculate.

If you answer is yes, why then did you use the said essentials to properly and accurately correct the wrong interpretations you claimed tenq gave.

3. “Christians say ‘the letter kills but the spirit gives life’” – That’s not a point, it’s a distraction.

Quoting a Christian theological idea in this debate is irrelevant and frankly a smoke bomb. Islam doesn’t operate on vague “spirit vs letter” binaries. The Qur’an is both a divine message and a legal-textual system that requires a rigorous methodology to understand—not poetic ambiguity that justifies personal whims.

If you want to apply Pauline Christian theology to defend misreadings of Islamic scripture, then you’re not here to discuss—you’re here to confuse. And I won’t entertain lazy analogies meant to derail with soft-sounding mysticism.

😂 😂 😂 you that distracting write ups a lot, making some one read a bunch of meaningless words whereas you don't derive to a point that actually addresses the question. Whereas even a simple minded person would easily comprehend the point of my quoting that inference from the bible, so that you can have an answer as clearly as some of those Christians would have. Why, they can give you book chapter verse, even though some misquote and misuse it. It's for us to at least give us a reference as well as your answer, instead of wasting time writing words meaningless and irrelevant to the convo

Final Reality Check:

The Qur’an stands supreme, and its correct understanding comes through the tools it commands us to use: reflection, consultation, language, history, and scholarship. That’s what the "essentials" are. They’re not in competition with the text—they are how the text is respected instead of abused.

So let’s not pretend your question is deep. It’s not. It’s a rhetorical gimmick trying to trap me into admitting something I never claimed. If you’re serious about understanding, engage with honesty. If you’re here to stir smoke with theological buzzwords, I’ll keep clearing it with fire.

TenQ AntiChristian

you are not at an intellectual level to be passing stricture passims on others. For questions beyond your shallow observation you are unable to give properly responses not dialogue in an appropriate manner

MaxInDHouse:
Please can you expatiate further on the meaning of this world:

al-Masih (Messiah)

lol you expect him to explain clearly the truth 😂😆😂

CreativeOrbit:
Your comment is a textbook example of confusion layered on arrogance, topped with a sloppy misunderstanding of theology—Islamic and Christian. Let’s untangle your mess point by point.

1. “So antiChristian, your Quran calls the Messiah Lord?” – No, you’re cherry-picking and still getting it wrong.

First, the Qur’an does not call Jesus “Lord” (Rabb) in the way Christians use it. Islam calls him Messiah (al-Masih), a prophet, the Word of God, born of a virgin, and highly honored—but not divine.

the devil is said to be an author of confusion and so are his children, it's probably as a result of arrogance which brings ignorance of the truth, the kind of pride that causes one to fall.

A mess is when one leaves the context of the verse quoted and "cherry picks" another which neither rebutes what was stated and yet claimed to be confusion. Where you not the one tenq told Jesus is called the word of God but you wrote instead of agreeing with what he wrote, stated and implied that well Jesus was just formed from God's word. I can get accustomed to your semantics. First you undermine, then you strawman then change the context of conversation into a different narrative that wasn't mentioned nor stated. Such is real example of confusion and messes reasoning and approach to any subject matter.

Did I tell you that Jesus is God or that the Messiah is divine? Can you not understand the simple basis of the text I quoted from your own scripture?

The Qur’an makes it crystal clear:

“Indeed, the Messiah, Jesus son of Mary, was no more than a messenger of Allah…” (Qur'an 4:171)

if you were intellectual honesty I wouldn't have had to check what that verse said and realized that you left out the part that says he is a fulfillment of God's word, because the question then becomes what word was Jesus coming to fulfill. But such an answer I will accept from one who is honest and clear about what is true.

Islam doesn’t reduce Jesus’ status—it restores it to what he actually taught: submission to One God. That’s not dishonor. That’s truth stripped of pagan fusion and theological inflation.

you ignored a text, you removed our of a text you quoted, what you are doing isn't that an example of what Islam does? Or should I take it has what you are doing, removing what you don't like and adding what befits you.

So no—Muslims don’t call Jesus “Lord” because worship is due to God alone. You can’t accuse Muslims of disrespect for refusing to commit shirk (associating partners with God)—that’s like calling a surgeon anti-medicine for refusing to drink poison.

forgive me for not accepting your response which is based on your personal misunderstanding.

2. “You honor him lesser than Muhammad?” – That’s not a contradiction. That’s consistent theology.

that is why the said theology is said to be inconsistent and doubtful, contradicting it's own words and phrases. Making a statement doesn't qualify for an explanation that was requested for.


One of the contradiction is that deviates and shows it illogical is your following statement

Muhammad (ﷺ) is the final prophet, the seal of the messengers, sent with the universal message for all of mankind. Jesus (‘Isa), peace be upon him, was a mighty prophet, sent to the Children of Israel.

Islam doesn't rank prophets like a fanboy list. It honors them all, but acknowledges that some were given specific roles and statuses by divine decree (Qur’an 2:253).

it's funny the Quran 2:253 you quoted states And these Messengers (who have been designated to guide people), We have exalted some of them above the others. Among them are such as were spoken to by Allah Himself, and some He exalted in other respects. And We granted Jesus, son of Mary, Clear Signs and supported him with the spirit of holiness.

Speaking of exaltation and Jesus given signs and supported by the Holy Spirit.

Look even usage of text is poor, nevertheless you claim you don't rank prophets yet you still claimed that Muhammad is higher. Another example of confusion. These are readable verifiable proofs unlike one accusing another of confusion with no proof. Yours is quite clear

If you’re angry that Muhammad has a higher status in Islam, that’s not a theological critique—it’s just ego dressed up as outrage. We don’t rewrite divine hierarchy to please your feelings.

here you are getting side tracked making another assumption and accusation towards how I possible feel, when I possible really don't care as probably should, because if I did I would read the Quran myself but reading your responses to simple questions and trying to verify it's accuracy shows inconsistency and dishonesty. But you can continue focusing on how you think I feel though.

3. “Adam was forgiven but it says they will all go to hell?” – Learn to read before you debate.

Adam was forgiven by Allah, full stop. Islam doesn't teach that he was condemned to hell. You’re confusing temporary consequences on Earth with eternal damnation, and once again showing you haven’t read the Qur’an—you’ve read bad summaries of it.

As for "they will all go to hell," you’re likely mangling Qur'an 19:71, which says:

“And there is none of you but will pass over it (hellfire); this is upon your Lord an inevitability decreed.”

But the next verse (19:72) clarifies:

“Then We will save those who feared Allah and leave the wrongdoers within it, on their knees.”

So passing over doesn't mean eternal damnation. It refers to a moment of judgment—a test that the righteous will pass, and the wicked will not. If you’re going to quote the Qur’an, quote both verses, or don’t quote at all.

unlike you I have been honest from the beginning stating clearly that I have little knowledge of the Quran and haven't read it, but you obviously didn't see it or you did and forgot because you are set in your own ways and right in your own eyes, so it doesn't matter. Whatever you right is true even if it's subjective it must be accepted if not, the person is a lazy illiterate, your words, which show how humble you are and the state of your mind to being questioned about things concerning your religion. Are you not proving that when Muslims are questioned they get offended and angry.

If you were not so touchy you would also know some bible believers think all will pass hell. It doesn't undermine the question that was based on what someone said. But you are too full of yourself to actually use what's on your shoulders.

4. “Even creativeorbit said the Messiah Lord will follow Muhammad” – Exactly. That’s Islamic eschatology.

Yes, Jesus (peace be upon him) will return. And guess what? He won’t come with a new religion. He will return as a follower of Muhammad (ﷺ)—as part of the finale revealed path, not as a separate savior figure.

This isn’t confusing—it’s coherent, consistent, and rooted in tawheed (oneness of God).

The real confusion is in trying to understand Islamic theology through a Christian lens, twisting verses, demanding contradictions, and then calling Islam “confusing” when it doesn’t mirror your broken framework.

Final word:

Your argument is riddled with poor comprehension, selective quoting, and bad logic. You’re not here for dialogue—you’re here to poke holes using cut-up verses and confused theology. But this isn’t Sunday school. If you want to attack Islam, come with facts, not this mangled mess of misinterpretation and emotional noise.

Until then, don’t confuse your misunderstanding with Islam’s clarity.

TenQ AntiChristian

is this one not confused, who said any about Jesus bringing in a new religion? So all this verbosity is to undermining your own verses that state the Messiah is Adoni, lord, as one anointed as king in God's kingdom.

Just look at yourself, okay show how I tried understand Islamic theology through a Christian lens?

You are good at making assumptions and accusations than you are at making any logical explanation to be frank.

Even if I poked holes and cut up verses, you failed to quoted the verses accurately nor use them. Instead went on a tirade of trying to ridicule a simple statement that provokes what you fear to be true

CreativeOrbit:
Your attempt to corner Muslims into a false dichotomy with a simplistic “gotcha” question reeks of both intellectual laziness and dishonest intent. You’re not asking in good faith—you’re looking for ammunition, not understanding.

could you quit repeating the same tiresome **** it's getting stale reading such from one who shouldn't be so lazy to think of an alternative approach to regard in text, it's like reading an automated response by an 1985 bot.

Let’s get this straight: the verse you're referring to (likely Quran 5:51) does not say “Muslims are categorically forbidden from being friends with Jews and Christians.” That’s a mistranslation and misinterpretation commonly weaponized by anti-Muslim propagandists who rip verses out of context like it’s a game of ideological Jenga.

The Arabic word “awliyaa” doesn’t simply mean “friends” in the casual sense. It means allies, guardians, or political protectors in a conflict—and was revealed at a time when Jews and Christians in Arabia were actively conspiring with enemy tribes against the Muslim community. The context is historical and political—not a universal command to socially isolate or discriminate.

when one pathetically shows aggression and self justifies it by assuming the other person's intent, isn't that low and should such a person be listened to? Your response is evidence you are not moderate in your approach nor friendly in your opinion. Subtly trying to undermine others instead of being calm and quoting the text you claim should be viewed in context. What assures us that if we go through the chapter we would get an interpretation inline with what you have arrogantly responded with? And why not just go with that approach.

Now to your baited question: Are Muslims “taught not to vote for non-Muslims”? No. That is a gross overreach. Islam teaches Muslims to act in justice, wisdom, and the best interest of society. There's no blanket prohibition against political cooperation or participation in pluralistic systems. What is discouraged is blind allegiance to oppressive systems or hostile forces, regardless of faith.

Let’s flip your logic: should Christians avoid voting for Jews? Should Jews avoid voting for Muslims? Your implication reduces interfaith dynamics to paranoia and tribalism, which says more about your worldview than it does about Islam.

The truth is, you're distorting scripture to push a divisive narrative, and that’s not a critique—it’s manipulation dressed up as inquiry. If you’re truly interested in what Islam teaches, go to qualified scholars, not political forums or your own biased echo chamber.

So no, Islam is not the caricature you're trying to paint. But if you're hell-bent on spreading this ignorance, at least admit you're arguing in bad faith—don’t pretend you’re asking honest questions when you’ve already decided the answers.

you attempt to flip said logic shows how inept one's reasoning could be. Was there a quote from the said new testament that would even surmise your logical buhaha? But it seems fit to you to imply that my implication reduces interfaith dynamics to paranoia and tribalism, which says more about your worldview than it does about Islam. Indirect personal attacks? is that probably what you were taught to do, because it is showing in your response.

Your response is clumsy and no one was baiting you to respond in such manner. Meanwhile you believe a conspiracy is a more valid explanation that solicitates your view whereas you are devoid of contextual explanation has to how my implications, which you exaggerated and misguided from what I interpreted, as an instruction to not support Jewish and Christian politicians and leaders is wrong. Calling it lazy is also undermining the majority of Nigerian muslims who probably follow such precept in their preferences.

I honestly took time to read your responses and you have portrayed Islam as what you termed it.

"a caricature" in your own words.

Maybe you should focus on the subject instead of being overly verbose

Can that verse be used to teach what I implied or is there a better interpretation? But that's not something you can answer when you already assume other people intentions and respond in such inappropriate manner.

CreativeOrbit:
Your post is a patchwork of historical distortion, orientalist fantasy, and outdated polemics that have been thoroughly debunked by serious scholarship. Let’s tear it down, brick by brick.

First, your claim that "Allah" was a moon god with daughters is not just false—it’s laughably ignorant. “Allah” was the Arabic word for God long before Islam, used by Arab Christians and Jews alike. Even today, Arabic-speaking Christians refer to God as “Allah.” Conflating Allah with a moon deity is a lazy, discredited trope pushed by fringe sources and pseudo-historians who can’t distinguish between mythology and linguistics.

Second, let’s talk about the so-called “Satanic Verses” incident—yes, the one you're parroting without critical thought. The story is not from the Quran itself, and Islamic scholars have historically regarded it with extreme skepticism or outright rejection. Why? Because it contradicts the Quran’s core claim that God protects the revelation from corruption (Quran 15:9). The alleged event appears in a few weak, conflicting reports centuries after the Prophet’s life—not the Quran, not the Hadith collections with strong isnads, and not anything you can credibly call a “fact of history.”

Moreover, the argument that Muhammad was “deceived by the devil” is circular nonsense. You cite a narrative not accepted by the majority of Islamic scholarship, then use it to attack the integrity of the Quran. That’s not logic; that’s intellectual dishonesty.

And your smug conclusion that this “raises more doubts” is just rhetorical fluff with zero substance. If you’re going to critique Islamic theology, do it with real evidence and a basic understanding of how isnad (chain of narration), tafsir (exegesis), and usul al-fiqh (principles of jurisprudence) work. Otherwise, you’re not debating—you’re regurgitating tabloid-level propaganda.

You want to raise questions? Fine. But don't pretend you're operating from a position of reason while spreading historically illiterate fiction.

TenQ

you call something an oriental fantasy claiming to debunk it with "serious" scholarship to make a joke of others or yourself. Definitely, yourself, for building an expectation that one would read something scholarly from one who laughs ignorantly without understanding what he even read. "I came across an info"

Your first point is inept of any scholarly input nor view but a barrage to undermine a simple reference which is accurate that Allah means the God. But never the less reading through ur noncince with respect to scholarly seriousness, I would simple say or simple put are you not an ostentatious philologaster?

With all your verbosity you find a way to skip past the point in your rhetorics.

You could have simply said none of your essentials which you claimed were important to understanding the Quran claimed that Muhammad was deceived at some point.

One can arrogantly look at others as lazy and still pathetically call it extreme skepticism but is that truly a scholarly view while ignoring to explain or show how incorrect the view is. I believe as shown by your response who the lazy is as you fail to properly answer and clarify your view, but instead you give us this as your serious scholarly response, "The alleged event appears in a few weak, conflicting reports centuries after the Prophet’s life—not the Quran"


And you acknowledging the narrative as cited but not accepted by the majority of Islamic scholarship, is that supposed to be your logical and intellectual honest input to something you don't even consider debate but an illiterate fiction posed as a question. Meanwhile you are agreeing that the narrative as I found it, exists. It's obvious Islamic scholars would debunk such a narrative but honestly your response is as crappy as your reasoning.

CreativeOrbit:
The Quran acknowledges that salvation is open to righteous Jews, Christians, and Sabians before the message of Islam was completed (Quran 2:62). After that, people are accountable based on the truth they receive. You might want to study context before quoting verses in isolation.

it seems that the basis for salvation changed according to what you are writing. Are you saying that after the Quran was completed people are judged not more on their righteousness but based on the truth they received? So what if someone is righteous and didn't receive any truth?

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

you may notice I am ignoring areas I feel you are ignorant concerning the teachings of the new testament especially about what Paul wrote. But my question to you is this do you believe and practice everything Jesus taught in the gospels?

Note, Jesus never taught that he is God, but for the rest of what he taught, concerning love, forgiveness, prayer and the rest do you believe and obey God and what he taught, removing the said distortions and neglecting all Paul wrote. Do you and Muslims believe and practice what Jesus taught?

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

creativeorbit you are saying that God only anointed Jesus to tell the people of Israel what they already know that there is one God, are you trying to insult our intelligence or you are trying to mock God. So God spoke so much about a Messiah only to send him to tell one nation what he had already revealed to them numerous times, and do nothing else? And that is the whole igneel or gospel? And you believe that?

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

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

so God created Jesus by his word and his spirit to just tell one nation that there is only one God? And like you unnecessarily stated, like other prophets. Meaning God did something unnecessary for a reason he could have as well done with just about any of his other prophets. That's what is you are saying right?

AntiChristian TenQ

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

you logic counts for that the good ones know the bad one, question is, do you as a Muslim know the bad ones? That's if you consider yourself one of the "good ones". And you seem to suggest that it's the duty of the good ones to stop the bad ones, question is, have you the "good" ones do so? Expect the majority are actually bad and are incapable of doing so, or are in bed with them. It's not like a thief would announce they are one, they would still present themselves as honest and honorable. If you don't see your reasoning as flawed then you are part of the problem.

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

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

do you really believe that and is this something Quran teachings that salvation can be through many paths? Islam may not see it's self as a contradiction but it contradicts the very revelations you claim it continues as well as stating that there are errors in those revelations, even though the same Quran claims to acknowledge them as being from God.

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

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

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

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

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

gohf AntiChristian TenQ

I think it's pathetic that you judge someone's elses argument without realizing how horrible yours is, it's like that peck and log in the eye parable. You wrote Islam isn't contradictory yet you also in the same post wrote of course Islam contradicts Judaism and Christianity. I hoped for an explanation that clarifies your point, but instead you wrote, because both religious contradict each other two. And that is supposed to make logical sense and bring an understandable conclusion to those reading it, right?


What you call a thing doesn't explain what it is, do you understand what I mean

Now you call those contradictions, correction: it also corrects where their messages were distorted. While you stated what you believe is taught by each religion, what does Islam correction state, that the text is wrong? No, because what you wrote is what Judaism and Christianity teach, not what is written. And you skip the main point, which is what exactly is written.

Did the new testament write those claims, did the Tanakh write those claims. The answer is no, so back to the original question what right does a Muslim or Quran have to say they are making corrections?

Back to the statement of contradictions, where your written account of Adam, God, Abraham and Israel are filled with contradictions to what is written in the Tanakh is the question.

The Tanakh is filled with God's prophecies concerning who the Messiah is, does the Quran accept those to be true or corrects them?

You can't claim the Quran is an original text if it's a correction to previous text and if it's an original text with it because it also believes there is one God, listen to someone written in the bible, even demons believe there's one Lord and tremble. Now do you believe that the Quran is true because it believes and teaches one God? You may so, but you mentioning the Quran correcting the texts written by Moses has to be followed by proof for it to be believed or are you expecting those reading this to swallow your claims as what is true?

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

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

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

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

gohf AntiChristian TenQ

what do you mean by "quietly" changes their beliefs, would a public Muslim who publicly changes their view be seen as one who should be killed?

Would it be seen as war, when someone speaks against Islam and the prophet? would that then justify killing the person or threatening them.

You keep saying 1.9billion many of which you don't know what they practice, when you come down to Nigeria and your local area you can begin to make your assessment from there

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

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

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

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

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

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

gohf AntiChristian TenQ

I blame myself for not reading this earlier when you quoted me because I was busy. Ah creativeorbit you are saying tenq reasoning is flawed, so you are indirectly saying that everyone who shares his worries concerning what is written and possibly taught by Muslims in Islam is flawed. Ah creativeorbit you may as well be part of the problem.

Is your eagerness to be right more important than what is true?

You ignored the issue nor gave attention to the seriousness of the note, let me repeat it for you

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

I think this is the main problem.

I think people like you and those who liked and shared your post put the minds of those of us who are ignorant concerning what is actually taught in Islam to Muslim at easy that we throw away the CAUTION tenq mentions.

One would have to be wicked to call such a flawed reasoning.. would you tell your children to play with tigers because some are kept by humans in a zoo?

This isn't about human weakness but what exactly is being taught by the Quran and from the Quran. It's like saying that because some fake men exort money from people with the bible it is a flawed and dangerous reasoning to be caution of all of them that teach such.

I know their are extremist but they are also those who distort a text to mean something else. But it becomes clearly different when there are extremist who didn't distort any text but based on what is repeated mentioned in a book.

We are not talking about being radically good

TenQ:
How do we reconcile this with


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

And

Mishkat al-Masabih 3936
Abu Wa’il told that Khalid b. al-Walid wrote to the people of Persia:
In the name of God, the Compassionate, the Merciful. From Khalid b. al-Walid to Rustum and Mih'an among the nobles of Persia. Peace be to those who follow the guidance. To proceed: We summon you to Islam, but if you refuse then pay the jizya in subjection feeling humbled (Cf. Al-Qur'an, 9:29). If you refuse to do that, I have with me people who love being killed in God’s path as the Persians love wine. Peace be to those who follow the guidance.

Jizyah was meant to humiliate us who are not Muslims.

How can we reconcile this with no compulsion in religion?

wow killing people is being compared to loving wine, wow just wow

And honesttalk21 I didn't see your response to this post, if you responded kindly tag me to it

People that love being killed, omg 😱😱. Is this Quran or path of "the essentials" creativeorbit

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

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

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

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

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

gohf AntiChristian TenQ

look this bunch of words do not address the question.

From an aethistic pov
Did your messenger of god say kill whoever leaves your religion? Yes or no

If you have another interpretation let's hear it, instead of condemning an interpretation, gives yours let's read it.

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

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

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

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

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

gohf AntiChristian TenQ

going to ask you a simple question

Are you saying that people don't get threatened for leaving Islam?

Let's not even globalize it, let's localize it to Nigeria here. Please answer honestly

AntiChristian:
When Moses was alive he was the judge of his people. Same as Joshua and even Muhammad. The religious words of a Prophet is a law. In every rights they are the judge of their people.

Jesus will come to exercise this right on earth. He will descend as a Muslim to judge with Islam. He will live as the human he is and die after completing his mission. He will be buried by the Muslims.

Allah is the only Judge of us all on the day of resurrection! Even Jesus will be questioned on that day about his role in making people worship him and his mother and he will deny you all.

This denial is clearly stated by Allah in the Qur'an!

so instead of answering my question you are
adding new insights t show us your believe.
It's interesting that you avoid answering a
simple logical question but looking at what you
just wrote,you are saying that the kingdom of
God that is coming as the Quran teaches where
Jesus would return as the Messiah,and God's
people will live and rule upon the earth. That
they all vill then die again?
Now is it not fuıny that you seem to have the
need to continually state that Jesus is human,
what is he before if not human.Obviously not a
ghost seeing as you all also claim believe he is
alive. Now did your Quran teach you that when
he returns again,he is going to die? Or is that
your personal interpretation from a text or your
personal view?
Lol you then said Jesus would be questioned on
his role and he would deny.Isn't that a logical
fallacy. Is judgement day a day vhere people
can deny false accusations?

NairaLTQ:
Qur'an 9:31
They (Jews and Christians) have taken their scholars and monks as lords besides Allah and the Messiah, the son of Mary. And they were not commanded except to worship one God; there is no deity except Him. Exalted is He above whatever they associate with Him.

Questions:
1. Knowing that the Qur'an is clear and simple to understand, is Allah associating the Messiah as partners with him?
2. Is this Quranic verse an error or mistake OR is it exactly what Allah intend to say?
3. Does Allah truly want us to make the Messiah LORD with him?

OR
Do we need to twist Arabic Grammar to make the verse consistent with what Allah says?


Quran 19:71
There is not one of you who will not go down to it (the Fire), that is a fixed Decree of your Lord

Meaning that ALL Muslims will at least first be in Hell Fire.

Quran 19:72
Then, We will save those who were cautious of Us, but the harmdoers shall be left there hobbling on their knees

After ALL you Muslims enter the Fire, THEN Allah will THEREAFTER remove the good Muslims and leave other people in the Fire

1. I am sure the first thing you will say is that, "the verse doesn't say that" . So, strictly from the Arabic , what does it say?
2. Why do you think you will first have to go into hell fire before you are freed by Allah?
3. How long do you think you will be in the fire before Allah comes to free you: 1000 years!?





I am not even making any arguments: I am presenting may case based on reasons.
What you seem to want to do is to give me your own views without answering for my reasons AND you want me to take it as the final testament.
I am not here to provoke you o!
You will note that anything I say, I justify it from your own books: Is my offence is selective cherry-picking!?

so antichristian your Quran calls the Messiah lord? But you can't call the Christ Lord but honor him lesser than Muhammad?

This is confusing, and you said Adam was forgiven from going to hell yet it says they will all go to hell?

Even creativeorbit said the Messiah lord will follow Muhammad??

NairaLTQ:
Qur'an 9:31
They (Jews and Christians) have taken their scholars and monks as lords besides Allah and the Messiah, the son of Mary. And they were not commanded except to worship one God; there is no deity except Him. Exalted is He above whatever they associate with Him.

Questions:
1. Knowing that the Qur'an is clear and simple to understand, is Allah associating the Messiah as partners with him?
2. Is this Quranic verse an error or mistake OR is it exactly what Allah intend to say?
3. Does Allah truly want us to make the Messiah LORD with him?

OR
Do we need to twist Arabic Grammar to make the verse consistent with what Allah says?


Quran 19:71
There is not one of you who will not go down to it (the Fire), that is a fixed Decree of your Lord

Meaning that ALL Muslims will at least first be in Hell Fire.

Quran 19:72
Then, We will save those who were cautious of Us, but the harmdoers shall be left there hobbling on their knees

After ALL you Muslims enter the Fire, THEN Allah will THEREAFTER remove the good Muslims and leave other people in the Fire

1. I am sure the first thing you will say is that, "the verse doesn't say that" . So, strictly from the Arabic , what does it say?
2. Why do you think you will first have to go into hell fire before you are freed by Allah?
3. How long do you think you will be in the fire before Allah comes to free you: 1000 years!?





I am not even making any arguments: I am presenting may case based on reasons.
What you seem to want to do is to give me your own views without answering for my reasons AND you want me to take it as the final testament.
I am not here to provoke you o!
You will note that anything I say, I justify it from your own books: Is my offence is selective cherry-picking!?

so antichristian your Quran calls the Messiah lord? But you can't call the Christ Lord but honor him lesser than Muhammad?

This is confusing, and you said Adam was forgiven from going to hell yet it says they will all go to hell?

TenQ:
I know that Antichristian is your brother and both of you are sympathetic to Islam and the Quran. But trust me on this. Muslims on the average hate the truth. Muslims will resist the truth strongly in other that Islam might be correct.

All I do is to show you what your religious books say: unfortunately, they are not usually what you want to hear.
I understand Islam because I almost became a Muslim (thanks to Ahmed Deedat). Before reciting the shahada, I decided to read the Quran. It was eventually reading the Quran by myself that snapped me out of my delusion. I decided to search for the truth by asking Questions. Here I am.

Muslims don't ask Questions: they just believe whatever their scholars have told them.
Unfortunately,
Most of what your scholars are telling you are lies upon lies upon more lies. I am sure, even you probably believe in many these lies

1. Allah is the same God of the Jews and the Christians
2. The Quran is the Exact Verbatim words of Allah
3. The Quran is Perfectly Preserved
4. There is only ONE Quran unlike the bible that has KJV, NIV, GNT etc
5. Christians worship three Gods
6. Jesus was given a book called Injeel
7. Jesus was not Crucified and neither did He die on the Cross
8. Jesus is coming back to convert every Christian to Islam
9. All prophets and Patriarchs of old are Muslims
10. Mohammed is a Prophet and Servant of God
11. Mohammed is the greatest of all Messengers and Prophets of God
12. Jubril is the same as Angel Gabriel
13. Islam has come to Replace Christianity and Judaism.
14. Mohammed couldn’t read nor write
15. All the Prophets of God from Adam to Moses to Jesus are Muslims.
16. All Muslims will enter Paradise
17. Scientific Miracles in the Quran


Until you ask requisite questions and you are willing to swallow the painful pill of truth, you will remain in darkness thinking that you are in the light.





Suppose I invite you to join my religion NUDINITY, where in our paradise, our reward are
1. Nothing we do in paradise is a sin
2. We will have eternal erections
3. We shall be deflowering a new girl every day
4. We shall drink all we want and we shall not be intoxicated
5. We even have a 3D market with images of mean and women (like a brothel) that we can pick our choices form
What will you say about the source of such a religion?

Is this a Reward or a Temptation?

lol but Muhammad could not read nor write? 😲 Because of you I had to verify this and realize it's true, so that means he didn't write it nor could he even read what they wrote.

Wait I am trying to wrap my head around how someone can believe a book was given to Muhammad, his illiteracy wasn't cured by the same God that made a one year old baby to talk. Yet still believe that Muhammad is greater than that baby and his book corrects what others have written.

because I believe it's one of such "essentials" that claimed the age of Aisha to be underaged

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

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

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

to be honest so far I haven't seen you use these essentials to properly debunk tenq guesswork and misinterpretations. You did debunk the claim of Hubal not being Allah by using the Quran.

But then are you saying that the interpretations of these essentials are more valid that the texts in the Quran.

You know Christians say, Spirit gives life but the text brings death, so to some of them the answer may already be given.

Are you saying that the essentials are more valid than what's in the text, .