₦airaland Forum

Fastestmanalive:
This ur FTC na dead in arrival

and why?

no be person wey first comment made FTC?

nice story..like I've read it before






FTC for the first time..lolz

nuggarito:
Na the smell I like bros, I no ki person

am just surprised...my own na d smell of sachet starch nd that of Hypo..lolx

nuggarito:
Onion smell on my hands, weird isn't it?

wat!...d smell wey I hate like kilode na im u come like

iyke926:
Sharia law is for the poor and less privileged Nigerian Muslims.

And the non-shariah law practised in Nigeria is for who?

what did you use in cooking this story, gas or electric cooker?

who would sleep with a woman one-time and pay 10m unless he wanted to use her for ritual. the situation would persist and the husband wouldn't aware
that 9m given to the husband is a shut up fee when the whoring continues in full-time.

It is a no for me

ABSAO:
I got your point very well but I want to assure that most Yoruba don't talk like this. Average Yoruba don't use the term "Yoruba Muslim" while speaking or writing. It's other people that are interested in our disunity that always use the term. Whenever we see this, itt our duty as a good Yoruba to correct them and call them to order before this stereotype start manifesting in our society.

I got your point

ABSAO:
I'm not interested in the population. I'm concerned about our unity!

well..that's what comes to mind whenever I heard Yoruba Muslims, although it is better to see it in the way of unity, but it is unfortunate that religion has disintegrated us already, so the term Yoruba Muslim is more about population than unity.

ABSAO:
There's nothing like Yoruba Muslim. we have Yoruba. wẹ view religion as personal thing In Yoruba land. Don't cause division among us.

I wonder...Yoruba Muslims indeed, as though muslims constitute just 3/10 of south-west population, like south-east where being a muslim is uncommon, don't sure of the percentage but Muslims constitute a significant percentage in south-western population.

BOOOMNAIJA:
U are a legend if u are able to know that d pic below is not blue garri....

Indomie generation, pls step aside...

nah OMO/Soofu be dis, it is an outdated kind of detergent

sagenaija:
[size=6pt]
Can you make your comments more orderly please!!!
I hope your BOOK'S contradictions is not beginning to affect your coordination.

Lols... If you are a christian and you are talking about contradiction, this your comment is waiting to be modified

sagenaija:
[size=6pt][/size]
(a) A simple question for you: are the 'WEAK' hadiths rejected in Islam?

(b) The fact that islamic scholars DIFFER in points of view about authentic, weak or fabricated should show you that Islam's inability to come up with a clear position.  It also means that ANY Moslem can pick and choose which one he wants at any point in time.

(c) If like you said "there were variations in the opinions of the scholars" then which one do we accept and on what basis?

(d) Still on the Koran; the Koran itself is based on the narrations of people. That is why you have VERSIONS that labelled "ACCORDING TO" so and so.

(e) The onus is therefore on you to prove that no SINGLE change has taken place.

(f) If you now attempt to redefine what "change"

(g) Why can Moslems not read the "UNCHANGED" Koran the way it was revealed?

(h) To EMBELLISH means there is an addition; don't you get it?

I'm holding you to your claims!

(a) Whether weak narrations are rejected or not is of no use here, what is of use to this discussion is that narration used in support of your claim is fabricated, hence, I didn't take it.


(b) A clear position on what?
Does difference in point of view in any way an advantage to this discussion?


(c) By opinion we mean the four existing famous schools of thought.

Difference in the opinion of these schools of thought is not differences in the fundamental of Shariah but an exploration if possible options and choosing of preference in Shariah owing to their geographical location, way of analysing references and the recipients; In Islam, marriage in compulsory but this does not encompasses everybody depending on ttheindividual in question.


(d) Narrations! This says volume about your little or not knowledge about the subject of this discussion

And since the dawn of this discussion I don't remember mentioning dot and jot. have you now gone to saying what I said not?


(e) The unceasing questions calling for the establishment (from you to me) that diatrical marks is not a change to the Quran is as a result of nothing but your meagre knowledge on the subject of discussion. A person who reads Arabic would surely relate.

If there had ever been a concealment of fact that diatrical marks you referred to as "jot and dots" was in the Quran right from the inception and you people later find out, then we would have to say that we are hidding something in order to prove that no change has ever happened to it. Of course we are quit learned and well informed of the invention of diatrical marks and its incorporation before we said it is not a change.

If fact remains that diatrical marks was to preserve the Quran from being wrongly recited by the unskilled non-Arabs and Arabs whose dialects were corrupted and if it was a development in the way of writing Arabic language, then it is senseless to deem it a change. having said this, to establish your claim, I challenge you to prove otherwise; (a) that invention of diatrical mark was not to preserve wrong recitation from the non-Arabs (b) that placement of diatrical marks means removal of words or necessitate it


(f) You are the one trying to redefine the meaning and I'm still expecting what change means.


(g) That's because the contemporary Arabic reader are also unskilled just as the the non-Arabs were; an experience which birthed diatrical marks

You shocked me, at this point you don't know what diatrical marks for? , do you have comprehensive issue?


(h) "Embellish the Quran with your sweet voices" said Prophet Muhammed
painting is a form of embellishment to your room, now tell me, is painting your room a removal of some of the blocks that hold it? you will answer NO because it is only a beautification.

sagenaija:
[size=6pt][/size]
(*) A simple question for you: are the 'WEAK' hadiths rejected in Islam?

Whether weak narrations are rejected or not is of no use here, what is of use to this discussion is that narration used in support of your claim is fabricated, hence, I didn't take it.

(*) The fact that islamic scholars DIFFER in points of view about authentic, weak or fabricated should show you that Islam's inability to come up with a clear position

A clear position on what?
Does difference in point of view in any way an advantage to this discussion?

(*) If like you said "there were variations in the opinions of the scholars" then which one do we accept and on what basis?[/quote]By opinion we mean the four existing famous schools of thought.

Difference in the opinion of these schools of thought is not differences in the fundamental of Shariah but an exploration if possible options and choosing of preference in Shariah owing to their geographical location, way of analysing references and the recipients; In Islam, marriage in compulsory but this does not encompasses everybody depending on the individual in question.


(*) Still on the Koran; the Koran itself is based on the narrations of people. That is why you have VERSIONS that labelled "ACCORDING TO" so and so.[/quote]Narrations! This says volume about your little or not knowledge about the subject of discussion

(*) You also claim that not a SINGLE dot or jot[/]

Since the dawn of this discussion I don't remember mentioning dot and jot.

have you now gone to saying what I said not?

(*) The onus is therefore on you to prove that no SINGLE change has taken place[/b].[/quote]The unceasing questions calling for the establishment (from you to me) that diatrical marks is not a change to the Quran is as a result of nothing but your meagre knowledge on the subject of discussion. A person who reads Arabic would surely relate.

If there had ever been a concealment of fact that diatrical marks you referred to as "jot and dots" was in the Quran right from the inception and you people later find out, then we would have to say that we are hidding something in order to prove that no change has ever happened to it. Of course we are quit learned and well informed of the invention of diatrical marks and its incorporation before we said it is not a change.

If fact remains that diatrical marks was to preserve the Quran from being wrongly recited by the unskilled non-Arabs and Arabs whose dialects were corrupted and if it was a development in the way of writing Arabic language, then it is senseless to deem it a change. having said this, to establish your claim, I challenge you to prove otherwise; (a) that invention of diatrical mark was to preserve wrong recitation from the non-Arabs (b) that placement of diatrical marks means removal of words or necessitate it


(*) If you now attempt to redefine what "change" is then tell me why I should accept it.

You are the one trying to and I'm still expecting it

(*) Why can Moslems not read the "UNCHANGED" Koran the way it was revealed?

That's because the contemporary Arabic reader are also unskilled just as the the non-Arabs were; an experience which birthed diatrical marks

(*) What are "INVENTION" of the markings for?

You shocked me, at this point you what diatrical marks for, do you have comprehensive issue?

(*) To EMBELLISH means there is an addition; don't you get it? Who authorised that addition?


"Embellish the Quran with your sweet voices" said Prophet Muhammed
painting is a form of embellishment to your room, now tell is painting your room a removal of some of the blocks that hold it? you will answer NO because it is only a beautification.

sagenaija:
But Huasein01, according to Islam the Koran as a book already existed in heaven. If it was already a completed volume in heaven why should it take till Mohamed died to complete it. Beside Allah must KNOW that his prophet was going to die and when that would happen so couldn't he have told Mohamed exactly what to do about his (Allah's) 'critical revelation' to mankind?

What does each of those bolded portions tell you? Do i need to take them one by one?

Islamic history does not support this your claim that "the prophet had it stored in a place and arranged". If it was already "stored in a place" why was Zaid ibn Thabith saddled with the task of collecting and confirming which writings were genuine and then binding them into a single volume to become one book?

Even after the “authorized’ version came out many objections came up, including from Mohamed’s widow, to the effect that portions of known recitations by Mohammed when he was alive were missing from this new compilation. If it was already "stored in a place" as you claim why did Aisha complain that portions were missing?

[Narrated 'Aisha] "The verse of the stoning and of suckling an adult ten times were revealed, and they were (written) on a paper and kept under my bed.
When the messenger of Allah expired and we were preoccupied with his death, a goat entered and ate away the paper."
Musnad Ahmad bin Hanbal. vol. 6. p. 269; Sunan Ibn Majah, p. 626; Ibn Qutbah, Tawil Mukhtalafi 'l-Hadith
(Cairo: Maktaba al-Kulliyat al-Azhariyya. 1966) p. 310;
As-Suyuti, ad-Durru 'l-Manthur, vol. 2. p. 13

Don't you see that what you wrote here is still supporting my assertion?

Sometimes you guys just want to believe what you want to believe even when it goes against your own Islamic sources and history. That's simply amazing.

Your words on the Diacritical markings again proves my point. They were NOT there in the earliest copies of the Koran. They are NOW in today's copies. And to you that is not change?

So, there have indeed been problems, from the inception, with the preservation of the Koran.

As for the narration, it is a fabricated one on the following reasons:

1-Any Hadith or narration whose content is contrary to what is revealed in the Quran is considered unauthentic and fabricated. Allah has made it known in the Glorious Quran that the responsibility to preserve the Quran is divine. As per the narration, a portion of the Quran has lost, meaning it is not well preserved. This makes it contrary to the revelation.

2- From the Hadith Science Scholars' point of view, there is defect in both the Isnad( chain of narration) and Matn (the content) of that narration, thereby making the narration unauthentic and a weak one.
One of the scholars that clarified this is Shaykh Muhammad Taqi Usmani in Takmala Fath Al-Mulhim 1/69 pub. Darul Ahya Al-Turath Al-Arabi, Beirut.

That narration is exposed to more criticism because many other narrators have related from ‘Aisha (RA) about the suckling/breastfeeding but no one has narrated the words found in this chain even though the narrators in those cases are more reliable and consistent than Muhammad bin Ishaq. And due to the fact of these words being narrated solely by him and in defiance to other much more reliable narrators, scholars have questioned its authenticity. Shaykh Shu’aib Arnaud has classified it as Da’if in his classification of Musnad Ahmad. See Musnad Ahmad 6/269 Hadith 26359.

In a more concise expression, the two ideas in that narration is about missing stoning verse and breastfeeding, other narrators related this from Aishat without the idea that a verse was missing (only breastfeeding) , only this narration whose chain of narration is weak and content contrary to the Quran says otherwise.

3- One of the two allegedly lost verses as per this narration was about stoning i.e. punishment of married adulterers. But other narrations prove that a commandment was revealed about stoning but the Holy Prophet (PBUH) did not allow it to be written as a part of the Qur’an implying that it was not meant to be Qur’an integral part. The following narrations testify to this;

It is reported in a narration from Kathir bin Salt that: Zaid (b. Thabit) said: ‘I heard the Messenger of Allah say, ‘When a married man or woman commit adultery stone them both (to death)’, (hearing this) Amr said,

‘When this was revealed I came to Prophet and asked if I could write it, he (the Prophet) disliked it.’ (Mustadrik Al-Hakim, Hadith 8184. Hakim called it Sahih)

b- About this ‘verse’ Kathir bin Salt says that he, Zaid bin Thabit and Marwan bin Hakam were discussing as to why it is not written in the Quranic manuscript and Umar bin Khattab was present with them and listening to their discussion he said he knew it better then them and told them that he came to Messenger of Allah and said:

“‘O Messenger of Allah, let the verse about stoning be written for me.’ He (the Prophet) said, ‘I can’t do this.'” (Sunan Al-Kubra Baihiqi 8/211 & Sunan Al-Kubra Nasai Hadith 714

Again, the above narration is indicative of the fact that your referred narration is fabricated. Stoning verse did not lost, it is not meant to be part of the Quran in the first place.

From another point of view, let's assume the narration is authentic and was not fabricated, we will have to say that perhaps ‘Aisha (RA) had kept them with her as a historical record and nothing more. Thus even if the goat actually ate them up no part of the Qur’an was lost.

Moreover ‘Aisha (RA) lived through the whole period of Qur’an compilation during the time of Abu Bakr (RA) and Uthman (RA) while she was unanimously considered an authority for herself so if she had any thought about some verses missing she would have brought it to attention of other Companions of the Prophet (PBUH). Infact we have evidence of Uthman (RA) making special endeavor of consulting ‘Aisha (RA) and her records for verifying the official compilation. See Ibn Shabba’s Tarikh Al-Madina p.997. Despite all this she never raised the issue supporting our conclusion that no part of the Qur’an was lost even if the narration is considered to be authentic.
None of my comment supports your assertion, in case you don't understand, what I did there was explaining to you the reason diatrical marks could not be consider a change or alteration in the Quran.
I can see you trying to narrow down the meaning of the word "change", you can perhaps tell me another meaning of change.
take for instance: you bought some meat, having no any modern means, you add salt to preserve it, could adding salt to meat engendered any change in it?
Diatrical and vocalization marking itself is a preservation to the Quran.

Changes could be said to have happened when you leave the meat to rot and buy another one, old and new testament of the bible is a perfect example.

As to your first paragraph, Google up why Quran was revealed in piece meal.
Second paragraph; character of a typical christians and atheists, quoting part of a whole to suit there interest you should have quoted it in a whole.

But you surely know you are hypocrite, it was you who said truth requires admitting change when there is, a statement which urged me to make you know the rationale behind the invention of diatrical and vicalisation marks, and why it can never be consider a change in the Quran but you jejely turned it to a support to your assertion. huh

Change is what happened to the bible, preservation and embellishment is what happened to the Quran. LOBATAN.

sagenaija:
[size=6pt][/size]
If all that Abubakar and Uthman did was compilation and standardization, let me ask you this question: compilation of what and what do you mean by 'standardization'? What standard?

Also, if during the time of Mohamed the Koran was written in notes here and there and Mohamed NEVER thought it fit to compile them into a single volume, was it Allah then who authorised it's compilation? If so, how? If not, why did the followers DEVIATE from Mohamed's example when he was supposed to be the person they were to COPY? How come he was no longer an example to follow in this case?

When you say you are not being truthful, are you? For example, did the Uthmanic Koran have the dots and markings of the Koran you have today? And you still say that they did not ADD to it? With all the different VARIANTS today you still claim that someone didn't 'sub tract' from it? If one variant says "We said ..." and another says "You said ..." you don't think something has been added or subtracted somewhere?

Truth requires that clear discrepancies be admitted where you see them. Otherwise you will only be living in self delusion.

Btw, I will address the issue of memorization of the Koran later. Just note that the reason given in the first place for compilation was because those who 'memorized' it may all die YET today you guys are claiming a different things. If they believed what you believe why would compilation be necessary in the first place?

If you read my comment which you quoted and still not understand what compilation and standardization mean, then you need to re-read or consult youtube there would be a video for it too...lol

The start in the revelation of the Quran marked the beginning of Muhammed (pbuh) prophethood while its end preceeded the subsequent demise of the prophet. The revelation which started when he was 40 years of age ended when he was 63, bringing us to the fact that Quran was revealed for period of 23 years.

Though there were variations in the opinions of the scholars as to wheither the prophet died 9 days after the end of revelation or not, either of the two possible situation, fact remains that the prophet died the same year the revelation ended.

Wouldn't it be illogical to have the Quran compiled into a single book when the revelation was still in process?

If Prophet Muhammad couldn't compile the Quran into a single volume by virtue of his immediate death after the end of revelation, then, what did he do apart from the Quran been revealed through him?

The arragement of verses which led to formation of chapters,as Quran was revealed in piecemeal, was done by the prophet himself, it was he who indicated in which chapter each revealed verse was to be placed. As aforesaid that the Quran was on different materials before compilation, the prophet had it stored in a place and arranged, meaning the prophet, before his demise, had the Glorious Quran but not in a single book but on different materials.

Now that you have known the role of the prophet, can you say, if making it a single book is a "CHANGE", or makes Caliph Abubakar its author?

As to wheither the compilation a divergency from the tradition of the prophet.

As stated already, that the compilation was a suggestion by Umar to Abubakar, the first caliph, who (the latter) refused to welcome the suggestion claiming he will not innovate into the religion what is not there and never to do what the prophet did not. he was succesfully conviced by Umar. Abubakar summoned Zaid bn. thabit, the chief secretary in a bid to assign him and others for the task, he also refused and abdicated his post claiming he would never deviate from the prophet and other notable companions held thesame opinion, the situation remained undecided until divine authorisation came through Ali bn Abi Talib.

As for the diatrical mark:

The Arabian skills in reading of Arabic Language before the advent of Islam and Muslims recitation of the Quran was precise even without diatrical marks with the intended meaning intact.

Diatrical marks came in the wake of the growing trend to convert to Islam by non-Arabs, who are unskilled in reading arabic language precisely without dinstinction in alphabets that share same drawing, as a result of this, error
began to appear in the reading of the Quran when non-Arabs and the Arabs whose dialect was corrupted read it. Incorrect reading would surely bring changes in original meaning . to ward this undesirable occurrence off, distinction in alphabets that share the same drawing was created mainly for the unskilled non-Arabs, the created distinction later known as DIATRICAL MARKS.

The introduction of diatrical marks was a development in Arabic Language not with the wordings of the Quran as it effected not, any interpolation into the Quran.

Other marks you see in the Quran signifies: Assimmilation, Pronunciation, Intensification, Nasalization, depolirization, stoppage, merging, hidden-condition etc. All of these to bring perfection and correctness in MODE OF RECITATION (not in words and there meaning) of the Quran so that it would be recited in clear Arabic tongue of the prophet.

LordReed:
Bye bye.

.

LordReed:
Even after distilling my post you still cannot fathom that my argument is against any sort of divine/supernatural origin for the Quran?

Lobatan..pls go nd work on yourself. I'm done with u

LordReed:
If you don't know the meaning of sleight of hand I suggest you look it up.

You read whatever meaning you wanted into the post thinking I am a Christian so you came to defend thinking your Islamic faith is under attack. Think again.

*There is sleight of hand attempted when talking about the origin of the Quran.

*It is made to seem like the book was delivered fully written by an angel.

*There is nothing spetacular about the process of revelation of the Quran.

So, you wrote all what is upthere in a single comment and you say you are not criticizing. I need not to read between the line to notice your antipathy towards the Holy Quran because it's too glaring, it doesn't matter wheither you are christian or not.

I should go and look up for the meaning of sleight of hand?

If there is dissimilarity in your intended meaning and my own understanding of it; skillful manipulating of truth to won advantage or tocover up the truth, heeding to how you used it in your comment and the environment the phrase keeps, then you need to be explicit next time and refrain from using ambiguities when practising usage of words.

Sheunma:
Why didn't Allah just hand over a copy of the book to Mohammed at the time? I mean it is believed that the original copy of the Quran itself is in heaven, right?

A Simple photocopy would have saved Muslims the world over having to put up with embarrassing situations trying to explain away this monumental confusion.

Come to think of it, our own ancestors did make similar mistakes of passing down our heritage and traditions via oral transmission. I'm pretty sure no sane mind would say our culture and traditions were preserved from earliest time to present day.

Pointedly, it was some men and not Allah who eventually decided to have the Quran compiled and unified when many of its memorizers were being slaughtered in war. Smart men I must say.

Without those future thinking men, the miracle of Allah to the world would probably have been lost in it's entirety to war!

I can't deal mehn!

Supposed the Quran was revealed in a whole, you people would still question its divinity just to bring it on the same ground with the bible.

You claim the preservation of it was not by Allah but some future thinking men. Aren't you wonder why memorizing of it was made so easy? Or your research has not let you to the fact that those memorizers supervised and proof read it?

Allah himself preserved the Quran by making it memorization so easy for mankinds (Children of 7years memorized it), this is the almighty Allah way of preserving the Quran. Should all existing Quran gone into extinction, millions of it exist in our heads.

A photocopy of the Quran? it was revealed in piecemeal for reasons.

And nobody asks you to deal.

sagenaija:
Hussein01, rolams 
You need to look at this thread and educated yourself more about your religion. You may have been told a lie by your teachers.
So, the unlettered or unlearned prophet of Islam WROTE the Koran? And what did Uthman and others do? Did they just pick Mohamed's copy and reproduced more copies? Is that what your books tell you? When did the Koran become 'glorious'? 
You will be living in a world of FANTASY when you hold on to anything other than you own books reveal about your religion.

This is not a matter of teacher teaching student nonsense. All the so called scholar research you see on this thread are sentimental research whose objective is to question the divinity of the Glorious Quran and bersmirch Islam.

None among the caliphs ever interpolate, add to or substract from the word of the Qura.
What Abubakar and Uthman did was compilation and standardization.

Throughout the period of Muhammed(pbuh)prophethood, the whole of Holy Quran was written on various available materials such as leather, bones, shoulder blades, tree barks etc. so, during the time of Abubakar as caliph a suggestion came from Umar for compilation of Quran into a single book, considering how the memorizer had been largely slain in the battle of Riddah. After his conviction, Abubakar sent for Zaid bn. Thabit, the chief secretary to the prophet and other scribes to compiled it into a book.Utman came and constituted a council to standardize it,having considered how people were reciting it according to there different dialects which brought discrepancy in the way Quran was recited in general.

The Quran was copied into six in the original dialect of the prophet while recitation in all other dialect were prohibited.
In fact, according to Demffer(1983)two out of these Uthmanic copies exist till dat, with one in the Columbia University Libary(USA)while other is kept in Tashkent(former USSR).

What they did is uniting Muslims of all generation upon one text of reading the Holy Quran, the did not add or substract from it.

sakaguchi:
Oh, ok. So the compilation and writing was after Muhammed PBUH? No wonder alot of fantasy and false claim was inserted. The Qur'an should be called the Caliph Umar version. He doctored it.

Mumu, the writing and preservation was done during prophet Muhammed lifetime under his supervision.

It was only compiled by Caliph Umar and standardised by his successor Caliph Uthman by bring in uniformity in handwriting in which it is being documented and tone/dialect in which it is recited.

No changes in the Glorious Quran during the lifetime of the noble unlettered prophet and after it.

But I think you should be more concerned on how bible arrived having 70+ version.

LordReed:
There's always this sleight of hand attempted when talking about the origins of the Quran. It is made to seem like the book was delivered fully written by an angel, when in actual fact it was delivered orally by Mohammed and then subsequently written down. There is nothing spectacular about this process as this was the method many of those times used in producing books.

It is made to seem like the book was delivered fully written by an angel? why do you people always make things up without little or no knowledge about what and how something is in the actual sense.

To disclaim your claim that Quran was made to seem like it was full delivered by an angel propably by muslims in a bid to cover up something: Among the integral and inevitable topics taught and inculcate in the minds of all Islamic Studies student ranging from primary level to the higher level of learning are (a) Preservation of the Quran (b) Compilation of the Quran (c) Standardization of the Quran and placement of diatrical marks.

So, look before leap.

You even say there is nothing spetarcular about it Bro/Sir/Ma there is, and it is many, if only it is its existence for close to 1500 years without version, it is suffice.

Many historians and researchers who are christians and atheists whom if you ever met, you would humbly and eagerly learn from attest to this effect.

A book being in existence for centuries unmanipulated! can you say the same of your bible?
I suppose the many versions into which your so called WORD OF GODs was made is an aftermath of an effort to modernized it to suit the contemporary generation of man and western's ideas like one idiot up there has asserted right? or you explain to us why we have so many versions of it.

Legalising heterosexual comes in our generation, we might as well include it into the bible as way of civilizing and modernizing since it changes like chameleon

this one na old post nah
post wey I don read 2 years back on FB

ethicallyright:
I should ask you "who forced you?" You're from Ibadan and a bit of history will remind you about the massacre of your ancestors by Usman Dan Fodio

na my pastor, he forces me to pay tithe, evem when I had no money to pay it he says I should borrow.

ethicallyright:
Christianity is real and Islam is fake. True Christianity is the true religion.

Lol..who lied to you?

FeliciaOja:
Prove him wrong with facts

FACT!
let me say I'm not in the mood to write and beside he hasn't said things that warrant it......he just write that religions are useless, which is true.

ALL RELIGION ARE USELESS EXCEPT ISLAM IN FACT THEY ARE FAKE

BigJoe19:
Obviously it's my opinion, why do you have to quote me and tell me that?

Public forum we called it.

your opinion is the property of your reasoning until you let it out either verbally or by writing it.
So, bearing this in mind, all opinions are susceptible to criticism especially when it's directed to some sect of people deliberately or not. Nobody will mention you if you had typed this "............"

2go in 2020, think u just wake up from sleep.

BigJoe19:
According to the Bible, what the person posted is true. The whole religion thing is just bullshit.

UR OPINION

FeliciaOja:
Then Islam and Christianity must be the same.

they are not the same at all.
I won't like to say much but the concept of repentance in Islam has conditions. In short, it's not cheap at all if we consider these conditions. it is these conditions that would make one thinks twice before jumping into shit.

But if we talk now, somebody whose sins had been washed away by someone of his kind will say Islam is religion of hardness.