₦airaland Forum

madridguy:
The family concluded by stating they take solace in the fact that the ultimate comprehensive justice rests with the Supreme Judge and their Creator.

Are you saying what tinubu did is against the Supreme Judge and their Creator?!

Are you saying the people now take solace in the Supreme Judge since tinubu has proven himself unreliable to ensure justice?!

Rilwayne001:
Why is the opposition more focused on Wike than an ineffective opposition leader like Atiku and Peter Obi.

The rate of defections shows that they have no chance at all in 2027.

It shows that tinubu is a user and dumper. Therefore, unreliable.

Harnny:
I never said invaded, I said they attempted. They failed. You seems to be avoiding the mention of christian slave trade and colonialism but that's okay.

Show me the specific year when Roman Empire attempted to invade North Africa. They fully withdrew from Africa in 255AD, long before they adopted Christianity!

Were the ottoman empire not Muslims? Was it the prophet that invaded North Africa?. If you read the history of Islam, you would know already that things turned political fast immediately after the death of Mohammed.

Ottoman empire was Muslim, but it didn't feature until 16th century, long after muhamed's henchmen had already invaded Middle East.

Muslims who invaded North Africa did so by following the teachings of Muhammad. Muhamed himself was an invader before his death.

Islam had been political since inception. Muhamed was a political leader pretending to be spiritual. He was just using his fake revelations to advance his political interests. . His invasion and subsequent conquest of Mecca was fully political. So, anything his henchmen did after his death, they learned them from him.

Slavery was a thing then so it is normal for your slaves to be expected to carry on the religion of their masters. These are all spoils of war. Like I said, it was cheaper for most subjected territories to convert financially. I do not see where the Bible also condemned and abolished slavery. None of the Abrahamic religion did.

Now, you have jumped to slavery. Keep jumping around. 🤣🤣🤣.

Show me where Jesus captured people as slaves like muhamed dud. Show me where Jesus was sleeping with slaves like muhamed did.
Show me where Jesus ever encouraged people to own slaves like muhamed did! In fact, Galatians 3:28 discouraged designating people as slaves![/quote]

Your opinion on the revelation is yours. I do not argue with you on that. It is okay to believe Jesus existed and he is God. That Moses got messages from God. Yet, difficult to believe Mohammed got messages from God. However, your modern pastors claims this but its alright.

The existence of Jesus is a historical FACT. The existence of Moses and his activities on earth are provable scientifically. On the flip side, the things claimed by muhamed are unprovable scientifically. For example, Muhammad claimed that Abraham built Kaaba in Quran 22:26-33 and Quran 2:127. Till today there is no singular scientific proof for that. There is no singular record to prove or back the claim. Distance between Ur (Abraham's home) and Kaaba is 1500 kilometers
How could Abraham travel that distance and stayed there for several months to build kaaba but it wouldn't feature in history?!

Do you know that the so-called 5 times daily prayers that Muslims do wasn't according to any revelation?! No, muhamed copied it from Sabians!

All the so-called scientific miracles in the Quran are also false. If muhamed got those revelation from a god, then that god made a lot of disturbing mistakes. Since God of Abraham can't make mistakes, then whoever "revealed" Quran to muhamed wasn't God of Abraham. So, all those references to Moses, Abraham, or Jesus in the Quran were copied from Judaism and Christianity, not revealed by any God!

Your insistence that the verse has no relationship with the context amazes me. Like you were present at the event. At one point, you claimed the revelation did not occur and was made up by Mohammed, at some other you are claiming his revelation is evil. Choose a stand.

Read Quran 9:29 yourself and point to any part of it that indicated war or treaty.

If I needed to be there, then it means what Quran said can't be trusted. Muhamed made up the so-called revelations to advance his political interests! No god or angel reveal anything to him!

[

Harnny:
lol... you are talking to someone who studied history from the university.

A sound graduate of history will never say that Christian Roman Empire invaded North Africa when Christianity hadn't even started when the Roman empire invaded North Africa during the period!!

The ottoman empire had the least interest in spreading Islam... it is more about a nations expansion.

I can't remember ever saying Ottoman empire spread Islam. Arab Muslims had already invaded Middle east before ottoman empire took control of the middle east.

No conquered nation was required to be Muslims and they even are allowed to maintain thier culture and traditions. Just be a vassal and pay taxes. Most choose Islam because it was cheaper. At some point, they stopped people from converting because of less revenue. This is model for almost all empires then. The Roman empire attempted to capture north Africa but failed as it already in decline.

Muslims invaded and forcefully converted people in Middle east, especially Christian boys, to Islam between 633AD and 641AD. The Ottoman empire came in the 16th century. Therefore, the region was already Islamic following earlier Muslim invasion that subjected conquered people to jizya payment.

People wey recieve verse said this is why a verse was revealed. But you said the text did not say exactly what it is. You know more than them right. Jokes.

The verse wasn't "received". Muhamed lied to people that he got revelation from an angel. Quran was thought up and dictated by muhamed.

Read the verse and tell me the relationship between its content and the context you are claiming!

Why do you think the Bible was revised so many times?. Is it because some of the context needed to be added? Muslim refused to update the text as recieved.[/quote ] Stop deceiving yourself, bro. Quran had been updated, revised and changed over time. It is not original anymore. The first person to update the Quran was Allah by abrogating verses in it! Caliph uthman further modified the Quran after caliph abubakir had compiled an incomplete Quran. He current Quran you read today is the 1924 edition/revision/update of the Quran. Despite the update, there are still several Arabic versions of the Quran out there today!

[quote]If you need the context, you have to depend on the explanation If it is not contained in the original text. The Quran is words as received. The situations that warranted these words are not stated except if it is in the word itself.

If Quran needs another book before someone can understand it, it means Quran 54:17 is a lie. It means Quran is not easy to understand!

Quran is not original anymore. It has already been corrupted. The first person to corrupt the Quran is allah. Ttttt

[

Harnny:
lol... you are talking to someone who studied history from the university.

A sound graduate of history will never say that Christian Roman Empire invaded North Africa when Christianity hadn't even started when the Roman empire invaded North Africa during the period!!

The ottoman empire had the least interest in spreading Islam... it is more about a nations expansion.

I can't remember ever saying Ottoman empire spread Islam. Arab Muslims had already invaded Middle east before ottoman empire took control of the middle east.

No conquered nation was required to be Muslims and they even are allowed to maintain thier culture and traditions. Just be a vassal and pay taxes. Most choose Islam because it was cheaper. At some point, they stopped people from converting because of less revenue. This is model for almost all empires then. The Roman empire attempted to capture north Africa but failed as it already in decline.

Muslims invaded and forcefully converted people in Middle east, especially Christian boys, to Islam between 633AD and 641AD. The Ottoman empire came in the 16th century. Therefore, the region was already Islamic following earlier Muslim invasion that subjected conquered people to jizya payment.

People wey recieve verse said this is why a verse was revealed. But you said the text did not say exactly what it is. You know more than them right. Jokes.

The verse wasn't "received". Muhamed lied to people that he got revelation from an angel. Quran was thought up and dictated by muhamed.

Read the verse and tell me the relationship between its content and the context you are claiming!

Why do you think the Bible was revised so many times?. Is it because some of the context needed to be added? Muslim refused to update the text as recieved.[/quote ] Stop deceiving yourself, bro. Quran had been updated, revised and changed over time. It is not original anymore. The first person to update the Quran was Allah by abrogating verses in it! Caliph uthman further modified the Quran after caliph abubakir had compiled an incomplete Quran. He current Quran you read today is the 1924 edition/revision/update of the Quran. Despite the update, there are still several Arabic versions of the Quran out there today!

[quote]If you need the context, you have to depend on the explanation If it is not contained in the original text. The Quran is words as received. The situations that warranted these words are not stated except if it is in the word itself.

If Quran needs another book before someone can understand it, it means Quran 54:17 is a lie. It means Quran is not easy to understand!

Quran is not original anymore. It has already been corrupted. The first person to corrupt the Quran is allah.

Harnny:
You still failed to understand the simple concept of context. If something is not explicitly stated, does not mean a text has no context.

You can only talk about context if the content is not clear or not clearly explained.

Quran 9:29 is clearly explained. So, there is no hiding behind any nonexistent context.

The verse gave Muslims the reason why Muslims should attack in clear terms. It specifically told Muslims when they should stop attacking in clear terms. It also showed Muslims who to attack in clear terms. Stop deceiving yourself by hiding behind any nonexistent context.

Also, the Roman Empire after converting to a Christian state attempted to conquer north Africa... read your history.

I read my history and it stated that The Roman Empire invaded North Africa in 204BC and started controlling the region in 46BC. That's long before Jesus was born and long before Christianity even started. Roman Empire converted to Christianity in 313AD.. So, roman empire wasn't a Christian country when it invaded North Africa. Christianity had not even started then! You should update your knowledge of history.

Also, that a majority Muslim state waged war does not mean it was done for religious purpose. Every state waged war and tried to conquer in the earlier ages. Be it a Christian or Muslim state.

The reason why Muslims invaded North Africa was because of religion. After the invasion, they named the conquered areas as Islamic Provinces. That should tell you that the sole purpose was to spread Islam. The Muslim were only using military conquest to spread Islam.

At some point, the ottoman empire court was as immoral as it could get but was still seen as a Muslim state because of the majority Muslims there. Does not mean anything they did was based off religion.

The ottoman empire came long after Muslims have invaded and conquered and spread Islam by sword through the Middle east. There were Muslims in ottoman empire because the Muslims reached an agreement with the ottoman empire on the condition that the fighting would stop. Stop manipulating history to suit Islamic deception. People are wiser now!

There were wars between Muslim majority nations, do you classify this as religious affairs or do you still claim this was done because of the verse above?.

Fighting between Muslim majority nations are religion wars, which means there is even division among Muslims.

The First Fitna between 657 and 661AD led to the separation of Sunni from Shiite Muslims.
The Yemeni war that started in 2014 till date is between Sunni and Shiite Muslims.
The Iran-Iraq war between 1980 and 1988 was also between Sunni and Shiite Muslims, same with the Saudi Arabia war between 2017 and 2021.

People are now well informed and Islam can't deceive us anymore!

GeneralOuki:
He's using the same shameless ignorant talks that most of you Yoruba do here on nairaland na... How many times have I read Yarimo zero8zero and that helinues guy say that there are no Igbo people indigenous to South South and that every Igbo person comes from the Sout East zone?

The person you replied is being sarcastic while exposing the bigotry and ignorance of a lot of people here.

Can you show me where I ever made such a statement?! If you are not a f00l, you will ask yourself if that statement ever came from me

Harnny:
But others are first regarded as Dogs?.... come on! It is forbidden for me to speak ill of Jesus or any entity in relation to the Supreme Being. So I will let this be.

If I say this Yoruba proverb: "Àì tètè m'ólè, olè n m'ólóko", does it mean I'm calling you a thief?! Jesus didn't refer to them as dogs. He gave a proverb.

Even if you speak ill of Jesus, it doesn't change anything. Christians don't go about killing people for abusing Jesus the way Muslims kill people for abusing muhamed.

Was it Mohammed who waged war in North Africa? You refer to muslims, like over time, there have not been people more motivated by political gain than religion? Did the Roman Christian empire not attempt to conquer North Africa as well before its decline? Was it written in the Bible for them to do so?

Roman empire invaded North Africa long before it converted to Christianity.. Stop lying, bro and trying to twist the point. You said reason why Muslims fight was because of self defence and I asked you if self defense was also the reason why Muslims invaded North Africa. Instead of being sincere with your answer, you are trying to twist it.

The verses you kept referring to were revealed to address a case of war when dealing with enemies. Once again, it was not explicitly stated, but I have mentioned the context several times, and you keep ignoring it, asking for evidence. The explanation was proferred in several Hadiths. I know you know this already, but for the sake of argument, you kept at it.

There is no relationship between that verse and war. It didn't say Muslims should fight against those who fight against them or dial to fulfil treaty with them. it says Muslims should fight against non-Muslims who refuse to accept Islam The verse stated the reason for fighting and that reason is not war or treaty. Stop lying!

I have helped you with a detailed context in case you do not have data. I doubt you will read it anyways.

Quran 9:29, from the chapter At-Tawbah, was revealed around 630 CE in a specific historical context related to the Byzantine Empire and the Battle of Tabuk. It is part of a larger discussion about hypocrites, pagans, and the "People of the Book" (Jews and Christians), and outlines the rules for dealing with those who are actively hostile towards Muslims.
The verse and its historical context
The verse reads, "Fight those who do not believe in Allah or in the Last Day and who do not consider unlawful what Allah and His Messenger have made unlawful and who do not adopt the religion of truth from those who were given the Scripture, until they give the Jizya willingly while they are humbled".

Now, read the bolded again and ask yourself if it relates at all to the so-called explanation you gave. Show me any relationship between that verse and your so-called explanation. Be sincere to yourself!

A "war tax," not an unfair burden: Jizya is understood by some as a tax paid by non-Muslims in an Islamic state in exchange for protection and exemption from military service, which was compulsory for Muslims. However, this is debated and the phrase "willingly while they are humbled" is viewed differently depending on the interpretation.
Targeting hostile forces: The phrase "Fight those who..." is interpreted to mean those who initiated aggression, violated treaties, and threatened the safety of the Muslim state, rather than all People of the Book indiscriminately.
Alternative views
Some classical and alternative interpretations differ significantly:

Jizya is a payment to indicate that someone has been defeated and humbled. Stop lying.

The Doctrine of Abrogation (naskh): Some classical scholars adopted the view that verses like 9:29, revealed later, abrogated or superseded earlier, more peaceful verses of the Quran.

Why would allah abrogate verses in the Quran?! Is it because Allah wasn't using his mind right? Was allah unable to see beyond his nose when he gave the abrogated verse?

Ruke1991:
They are migrant Yoruba settlers. Just because their parents migrated to kogi a century or two ago doesn't give them right to annex kogi lands. The Fulani emirate owns Kwara, kogi and the Hausa majority states. Any land where 40% are Muslims is owned by the sultan who conquered those territories long ago. Non muslims are allowed to live there as long they pay tax to the emirate. The bandits didn't step.out of their law. You have to respect the law of the land as enshrined by your host. The fulanis are only enforcing their ownership rights by driving out the Yoruba settlers who have trespassed and refuse to be submissive to their host by paying tax which non Muslims in conquered territories must pay or they face the sword option. In the far north, many conquered communities have agreed and negotiated to resume paying taxes to the fulanis as enshrined in the Qur'an. Yoruba settlers either negotiate and pay their tax or face the sword option. This is the Qur'an.

History says the Yorubas (Okuns) were already living in kogi state when the Fulanis came in the Early 19th century.

If history was part of school curriculum, some people would have been saved from their dumbness.

Harnny:
You said Quran does not in anyway preach loving your neighbor. You know this, but you refused to acknowledge it. I have shown you. You are here insisting the violent passages in the Bible is not applicable anymore just because love was preached by Jesus in the new testament.

Do you know that Quran 4:36 was "revealed" to muhamed before Quran 9:29 and verse 123?!
This means allah first said Muslims should treat their neighbors right and later changed his mind and said Muslims should treat their neighbors badly!

What kind of God is that?!

Jesus didn't just preach love in New testament; he specifically told us that the days of violent laws are over! HE SPECIFICALLY said that! In the case of allah, he first "revealed" a peaceful verse but later changed it to a violent "revelation"!

I have shown you a verse in the new testament that can protray Jesus as racist, is there anywhere in the Bible this was debunked explicitly except that Jesus said love your neighbour according to yourself?

If you read the entire new testament, you'll see the reason why Jesus said that. He wasn't racist; he was just telling that woman that his first focus was on Jews before focusing on others.

I have now shown you where the Quran said love your neighbor. that is not enough for you. I have also told you, these verses you sat on has to do with war and further down, there are more passages that further ties it to the scene as at then.

Have you asked yourself why Allah said Muslims should be kind to their neighbors in Quran chapter 4 ("revealed" in year 625AD) but changed his mind and told Muslims to attack and hate their neighbors in 630AD

The only form of war permissible in Islam is in self defence and this is clearly outline severally. the verse was in regards to those who broke a treaty and how they should be dealth with when they attack. I do not think any sane person will not prepare to defend themselves from aggression no matter how peaceful they might be.

Now, tell me the broken treaty that made Muslims attack and overrun north Africa and Europe.

Qur'an 9:29 didn't talk about any treaty. It says Muslims should attack non-Muslims because they choose a different religion and stop attacking when those people convert to Islam. I challenge you to read the verse and show me anything related to a treaty in it.

CorrectionFLuid:
And in your enlightenment, you couldn't decipher that he was replaying the same diss track that Yoruba play for Igbo people at any given moment? Heck he even used the same "5 states" point, and you couldn't see it regardless.

I don't know about any diss track

chiagozien:
Attache by Force..




Stop grabbing other tribes

Lolz. Best way to know people with useless education. Even when facts stare them in the eyes, they still insist on being stupid than to accept their mistake . .

AntiChristian:
Having the virginity intact is something common in the olden days! Nowadays, this culture is still prevalent in some families.

Virgins should be hotcakes! I wonder why guys are not marrying them all! If guys were marrying 2, 3 or 4 wives all these old virgins won't remain!

Samson would rather go look for Delilah to make straight!

If the person they called wòli was alive today, he would have opued all of them through contract marriage .

The only thing he knows is Opue things.

OneCandleAway:
Even Tinubu can't utter this statement.

Hon. Faleke is a Yoruba from kogi. He would have been the governor instead of bello had audu just remained alive to die after being sworn in.

Leave chiagozien alone. Let him be making a f00l of himself. In this 21st century, to think someone who claimed he went to school still declares there is no Yoruba in Kogi state! What then had he spent his life learning?! Has he even learned anything at all throughout his life?!

Gustavowhite:
Ojukwu could speak Both yoruba and Hausa fluently even-though he was Igbo
Anybody can learn any language

Going by your reasoning Dino Melaye too is not Yoruba. He just learned how to speak Yoruba, same with Smart Adeyemi.

Instead of doing proper research, they will be using their half-baked brains to conclude on matters!

chiagozien:
There's no Yorubas in kogi, Yorubas are only in 5 south west states.

My wife is from kogi state and she is Yoruba. Her family originated from the local government and still live there till today. Smart Adeyemi, a Yoruba man is an indigenes of kogi state, same with Dino Melaye, another Yoruba man.

Some people will just open their mouth and say rubbish fueled by shameless ignorance. Small time now, they will start claiming that they travel more than all other tribes. Yet, their traveling has not enlightened them enough to know that several local governments in kogi state belong to Yorubas.

Bunch of empty chest-beating noisemakers!

Harnny:
"It is not right to take the children 's bread and throw it to the dogs."

This is racism but I understand the context.
Same with so many verses. However, you refused to agree there are context related to the Quranic verses. It is biased views and subjective.

You understand the context because the context is fully reflected in the Bible passage. The same can't be said about Quran 9:29. There is nothing like treaty in the verse. It straightforward told Muslims to attack Christians and Jews because they do not follow muhamed's religion. It also clearly said Muslims should stop fighting them after they accept Islam. The purpose is very clear in the passage. The purpose is forcefully convert people into Islam.

I know someone like you will wish Quran 4:36 never exist. Truth is... you know this already. However, it does not suit your position. You will find some arguement against it.

Show me where Quran says Quran 9:123 and Quran 9:29 do not apply anymore.

but you will in the same line claim Jesus asked you to disregard all previous law because there are new ones. I do not know how you convince yourself that context in the Quran is not valid but it is in the Bible.

The Bible explicitly say those violent laws do not apply anymore. Show me where your Quran say Quran 9:29 or Quran 9:123 do not apply anymore..

helinues:
Peter Obi and his supporters should stop being bitter about the progress been made by this administration.

Progress like claiming to have removed subsidy but still paying the subsidy through backdoor?

May the life of this person represent all the things tinubu has done to Nigeria since he became president. Amen.

Harnny:
So you have a basis to say why that is no longer applicable and I understand but it is difficult for you to understand there was a reason for a similar verse in the Quran. Is that not double standard?

That's not double standard. That's based on the information available in bible and Quran.

Jesus explicitly stated in Mathew 5,6 and 7 that he has given us new laws to follow, which are laws of loving our neighbors and living peacefully with them.

On the other hand, Quran said all Muslims must make muhamed their examples. It also says his "revelations" are sent to all Muslims all over the world and they must abide by it. So, Muslims are bound to obey contents of Quran whether they like it or not.

While bible says, those violent laws are over, Quran says those violent laws are still valid
It's not me that said it; it's the two books that said it.

Harnny:
You mentioned Deutronomy and the likes do not refer to Christianity and I asked you if your pastors never refer to those books or they only choose what they want out of them.

They do not refer to any of the violent laws or commands in Deuteronomy because Jesus told us in the same bible that those laws are not applicable anymore. Read book of Matthew chapters 5,6 and 7. It will help you to understand why Christians ignore the violent laws in the bible.

Harnny:
The way you coin your way out of the things in the Bible is amazing. You have given your own interpretation to it. Choose what you want out of it, saying it does not apply to you as a Christian. Does your pastor quote those books?. It is a simple question.

I challenge you to show me a pastor that preaches the violent laws in the old testament to his congregation. Don't beat about the bush. Go straight to the point and show me where a pastor is preaching to his congregation to kill people!

So what if a Muslim says what you quoted out of the Quran only applies to the situation then and not to him as a present-day Muslim, as the scenario for the verse being revealed is not currently at play, you will shout Taqiya.

This your argument will further destroy Islam. It means you are saying that some.of the things in the Quran are outdated! Which means Allah was myopic and couldn't see into the future when he was giving those commandments!

You mentioned the Bible has many books. You forgot to realize that the Quran also referenced many events in that book.

I can't pick any sense in this comment. Because Quran picked stories from bible doesn't negate the fact that bible contains many books

The verses you mentioned do not apply to you as a Christian. Did they explicitly state that this does not apply to Christians? Abi una all no be children of Israel again?

That's why I said you should study the entire bible and stop cherry-picking verses. Study the old testament and compare with the new testament. Study the things Jesus said and you won't be asking this kind of question.

Harnny:
Since you refused to get the point, I needed to use another example.

I am not looking for an excuse to justify any violence. Violence is violence: defence or attack. What you have refused to acknowledge is the fact that the verse has a context. Would you rather they wait to be killed by their attackers instead? You have seen multiple times that the context refers to a treaty, but if it is not explicitly stated in the verse, it definitely is in the interpretation.

Let's stop deceiving ourselves. There is no context anywhere.. The verse is explicit and straightforward. It says Muslims should hate and kill non-Muslims just because they choose a different religion.

Nothing like treaty was mentioned in the verse. Anyone saying it is because of a treaty is only trying to give the verse his own meaning to cover up the evil the verse portrayed.

If you are the one giving treaty excuse to the verse, then you are only trying to deceive people about the true meaning of the verse. The verse told Muslims why they should attack non-Muslims and also told them when they should stop the attack. The reason for attack as given by the verse is far from anything like treaty. Bro, stop Lying. People are not fools anymore.

However, you choose to stick to ignoring it. I can also stick to saying Jesus was only sent to the Jews and ignore the context, no matter how many times you try to explain it.
Oga, stop lying. The content of that verse is not even related to treaty in any way, not even in the faintest way!

[quote]I am not showing you shit, I only asked you this. You mean as a Christian, not all parts of the Bible apply to you?

Yes, not all parts relate to me as a Christian. Any part Jesus doesn't represent doesn't relate to me. I follow Jesus, not the law. Anything contrary to preachings do not concern a Christian.

What Muslims don't know is that bible is a combination of many books, including Torah,Zabur, book of prophets, Gospels, letters and revelation! Bible is not a single book!

Was the Roman Empire not a Christian state? Can we say they are following the Bible? Aren't all the chapters you mentioned quoted by pastors in church? If it is not part of the Church, why are they still in the Bible?

The Roman Empire persecuted Christians for 330 years as a pagan Empire.

I don't care if it accepted Christianity as a state religion later; I don't support anything it did that went against the teachings of Jesus.

Harnny:
still, you skipped the context around the verses but will willingly add explanation for such occurences in the Bible.

Show me the "context" that says the laws in Exodus, Leviticus or Deuteronomy concern Christians. I'm waiting for your evidence?

So if you can explain the reason for a verse in a Bible, why can't that of the Quran not have a context around it?

I didn't "explain the reasons" for any verse in the Bible. I simply showed you what was written there.

Quran 9:29 already told you why you should fight against non-Muslims and when to stop fighting. The verse says Muslims should fight against non-Muslims BECAUSE they do not accept allah as God, not because the didn't fulfill a treaty. It is clear as day!

The the Roman Empire not conquer most of Europe and also pursue Crusades?. Where they instructed by the Bible to do so?

Show me where the bible instructed Roman Empire to conquer Europe. Bring clear evidence. Don't beat about the bush!


You jumped from US/JAPAN altercation to Roman Empire

Keep jumping around looking for something to excuse the violence in the Quran.

Harnny:
So the gospel only applies to Jews not everyone who received it?

Mark 15:15-16 iand John 1:11-13 are parts of the gospel. Take some time to read them by yourself. Then ask yourself if the gospel only concern Jews!

At some point, was blasphemy not punishable by death in the Roman Empire. Was that not killing people in the name of the religion?

Christianity is not following Roman Empire! We are following Jesus Christ. A true Christian follows the examples of Jesus Christ to love our neighbors as ourselves. Likewise, a true Muslim will follow the examples of Muhammad to hate his neighbors that are not Muslims.

Islam is a religion of violence, not peace!

Harnny:
na you dey do the research now... I just dey point you to where to go. Like I said... its eazy for you to say the verses in the bible only addresses the Jews but are you not all children of Israel again?.

It's obvious you don't read bible. You just pick verse that are convenient for you and start giving them your own meanings. Stop cherry-picking verses and start studying the Bible. Don't just focus on some.parts; read the entire bible!

Cos Jesus said he was sent to the Jews who's lost thier ways. So I do not understand how you easily absolve yourself of the destructive instructions in the Bible.

This is why I said you know little about bible
You are just cherry-picking. Read Mark 15:15-16 and Acts of Apostles 1:8. They'll show you who Jesus was sent to. Also read Daniel 7 to show you Jesus wasn't just sent to Jews. If you read the entire bible, you'll know how and why Jesus said he was only sent to the lost house of Israel. Read and stop cherry-picking.

Also... the crises is not religious war but majority American government are Christians as at the event and Majority Japanese are not. It could be easily claimed to be a religious war.[/quote ]

Show me where US said they attacked Japan because of religion. Simple knowledge of history says the US attacked Japan as a retaliation to Japan attack on Pearls Harbor
You need a good knowledge of history! Your cherry-picking is disturbing!
[quote]It is the same analogy in the case of the crises in Nigeria. If some hausa Fulani terrorists clusters together. Majority identify as Muslims and they can't even recite a verse of the Quran rather than scream Allahu Akbar. It automatically makes it a Muslim war right?.

Rebecca Joseph was killed because she abused Islam fake prophet Muhammad. Don't you dare lie that they didn't attack her because of religion.

When Boko Haram want to behead people, they read from Quran on the victim.

The inscription on Boko Haram flag is Islamic inscription called the shahada. So, don't come here and lie that Boko Haram attacks are not religion attacks.

So i say to you, we can as well claim the US bombing of Hiroshima is a Christian offense because they definitely prayed and covered the operation in the blood of Jesus.

There is clear evidence that Boko Haram attacks and killing of Rebecca Joseph were religion attacks on Christians. Show me clear proof that US retaliation on Japan was a religion war. Show me proof that they prayed and covered the operation in blood of Jesus. Since you claimed they definitely did so, it means you have a concrete evidence. I'm waiting for that evidence. I hope you knew the meaning of definitely before using it.

So if I go about claiming it is a Christian offensive without looking at the underlying political motivations. Does that not make me stupid?

Show me evidence to prove that US retaliation against Japan was a religion war and they definitely prayed and plead blood of Jesus before they went for the attack. Don't beat about the bush
Show me evidence!

You also said I cannot hide behind context. Alas, I am not... you are. The verse relates to a peaceful treaty that was not honored and it further provided explanations how to deal with such cases. I do know you know this already. So if you are not truthful in your arguement then what makes you a believer?

Quran 9:29 says Muslims should attack non-Muslims and stop attacking them of the non-Muslims accept Islam. Irt didn't say they should stop attacking them if the non-Mslims fulfill the condition of a treaty.

Qur'an 9:123 says Muslims should fight against non-Muslims around them, not those who don't fulfil treaty agreement.

Can you show me the treaty that north Africa and Europe didn't fulfill that caused Muslims to invade those continents?!

Harnny:
o... I am the one cherrypicking now? I never quoted any Bible verse... you are the one quoting the Quran. I mentioned that there are a lot more destructive verses in the Bible and tou argued it is for the Jews. I did not argue that with you did I?. It is not okay for the US to drop atomic bomb on Hiroshima and claim they did it because the Bible commanded destruction is it?. You also claimed the Bible preached love your neighbor. So you cannot you cannot find any such directives in the Quran?. If you are going to argue then at least do it truthfully.

Muslims murdered Deborah Samuel in the North. Was she fighting war with Muslims before they killed her?

Muslims have been threatening Noah Ezekiel with death since he started exposing the lies of Mallam Yusuf adepoju. Did Noah fight war with Muslims before they started threatening him?!
Two Muslims killed a man in Egypt because he didn't pay jizya
Did he also fight against Muslims before they murdered him?

Muslims invaded North Africa and Europe without any provocation.

Muslims attack Christians with impunity n Pakistan without the Christians provoking such attacks.

Boko Haram attacked and bombed churches in 2012 and subsequent years. Were those churches fighting war against Muslims to warrant the attacks?!

When Boko Haram invaded chibok, a Christian community in borno, was it because chibok people fought against Muslims to warrant the attack?!

Qutan commands Muslims to attack and kill Christians
The Christians do not have to fight against Muslims before Muslims attack them. So, Muslims can't hide behind context at all regarding Quran 9:29 or Quran 9:123.

Harnny:
the same way you google this verse. Google the context too and be truthful with yourself. I have nothing to drag with someone who obviouse cherrypick Information to suit his own arguement. I can also cherrypick the Bible for arguement sake but there is a basis and explanation for those verses. If you are being deceitful just to suit your purpose then I wonder how you call yourself a believer.

Qur'an says it is easy to understand. If I need google to explain Quran verses to me, it means Quran is not easy to understand, which means Quran lied about being easy to understand. Conclusively, Quran is a book of lies!

Harnny:
o... I am the one cherrypicking now? I never quoted any Bible verse... you are the one quoting the Quran. I mentioned that there are a lot more destructive verses in the Bible and tou argued it is for the Jews. I did not argue that with you did I?.

The destructive verses in the bible address the Jews. Go and read them again.

The destructive verses in the Quran addresses Muslims. Go and read them again. Check them in Quran 9:29 and Quran 9:123. The verses are straightforward and specific. They can't hide behind any context of war. It is pure violence against Jews and Christians.

It is not okay for the US to drop atomic bomb on Hiroshima and claim they did it because the Bible commanded destruction is it?.

The battle between US and Japan was not a religion battle. Don't muddle things together. I challenge you to show me where US said they are doing it for Jesus, the same way Muslims commit murder/genocide for allah

You also claimed the Bible preached love your neighbor. So you cannot you cannot find any such directives in the Quran?. If you are going to argue then at least do it truthfully.

I challenge you to show me a verse in the Quran that told Muslims to love their non-Muslim neighbors! Such a verse doesn't exist. The Quran is majorly about violence against non-Muslims.

Harnny:
like I said... you scream context when I referred to the Bible but ignore it easily when you refer to the Quran.

If you know the meaning of context, you'll know that Quran can't hide behind the excuse of context.

For example, Quran 9:29 clearly explained why Muslims should fight against non-Muslims. It says Muslims should fight against non-Muslims just because those non-Muslims choose a different religion (not because they are fighting war with Muslims, like alfas want to deceive people to think). The verse went further by saying Muslims should stop fighting the non-Muslims after the latter has accepted Islam or agreed to pay jizya as a sign of Muslim superiority.

Harnny:
like I said... you scream context when I referred to the Bible but ignore it easily when you refer to the Quran.

It is not context. It is clearly written in the bible that I should love my neighbor. Those violent verses were also clearly referring to the Jews.

If you study the bible instead of cherry-picking verses to deceive people, you will see what I'm saying.

The same way the violent verses in the bible CLEARLY referred to the Jews is the same way the Quran CLEARLY told .Muslims to hate, attack and make Life difficult for their non-Muslim neighbors.