₦airaland Forum

Gabrielshow24:
😅Law of non-contradiction refutes you also you have committed false analogy again. You seem to think that the bible made such outrageous claims🤨...Nope, no such thing. It's only you guys😁 . The existence of foreign words proves it's not pure arabic —case closed.

What kind of ludicrous argument is this, does recitation stop borrowing😂? The Crux of the matter is that he heard them and had them written down😁—woah😳, that sounds extremely familiar 🤔,I wonder who said that 👀. Pls, get yourself together and present a better defense, this is just shambolic!

It doesn't counter anything, it only created more gaping holes, presumably in the SIN. Now, his words must be infallible 🤕 and accurate since they actually come from the divine. A simple example is where he said Gabriel told him that the first to ’heightened sensation’ determines the child's gender😂. Divine wisdom, indeed. Let's not forget ’seed of man’ coming from between ... You know this , you should fill in the gap😁. There are other plethora of examples that brings his divine revelation under scrutiny 🤔.

It ’clarifies the narrative by fixing’, or in this present context purifying😁. he seemed not to know simple details such as Mary's lineage asserting she came from Aaron—let's not even talk about the obvious error in she being Aaron's sister. It was also obsessed with the palm tree👀, I wonder what other stories had this same narrative 🤨... apocryphal tales. Obviously, he didn't know any better.

This is just shows his ignorance, if he had known better his book won't be like this🥱.

Yes, he purified the cube but yet he still commanded his people to do the activities of ancient paganism 🤨. This answers your allusions to Christmas, we do not have any command to do such; the same can't be said for you 🤧. Your false analogy is evident.

The challenge has been refuted by Satan, since he produced a verse like God's and the prophet was none wiser🥱. So keep the sentiments to yourself. Also, no God sets a challenge so easily overcome. There are even hadiths that depict a daughter of a poet claiming that Mo plagiarized her father's works—Definitely, it's reproducible. We now even have surahs with short verses 😮‍💨.

I don't need to, his own scribe negates this logic. Abdallah said he produced like as he was the one obviously writing ’the divine revelation '. Simple induction coupled with the paragraph above shows us that both men and jinn could well reproduce the book!

You borrowed words and ideas from others to form your theology. You might have added your Arabic ’style’ that is an aberration of Arabic grammar which forced your scholars to reinvent Arabic grammar🤧. Definitely, you are ’purifiers’😮‍💨. Even at this, you still kiss the black stone and follow in the pagan footsteps of old. Not much has really changed, save the change of name😔.

The presence of a few loanwords does not make the Qur’an impure Arabic. Every language borrows terms Bible does too, using Persian, Greek, & Aramaic words). All agree it's pure. The Qur’an talks to this claim: “We know they say, ‘A man teaches him.’ The tongue they hint is odd, but this Qur’an is in plain Arabic” (Qur’an 16:103). The Prophet did not steal old tales. His foes saw the Qur’an's style was new. They knew no item like it. If he stole, his foes – great poets & traders who knew many tales – could have made a same text. But, no one could match the Qur’an’s call: “If you doubt… then make a surah like it” (Qur’an 2:23).

Claims of Satan making verses are baseless attacks, not proof. The said satanic verses aren't real, & the Qur’an states that Falsehood can't touch it, from front or back (Qur’an 41:42).

Claims of wrong facts on things like how a baby forms are due to bad texts & weak tales. The Qur’an says how life forms right from a fluid drop, then a clot, then a chunk of flesh (Qur’an 23:13-14) steps that modern tests back.

On Mary’s roots, saying her sister of Aaron (Qur’an 19:28) uses old talk ways. It's not wrong but a nod to how Jews named kin. For her, it means more she is seen high in the Qur’an.

The Qur’an does not take odd tales. It sets Mary above all women. No Jewish or Christian text does this. In the Qur’an, she leads all women (Qur’an 3:42), a whole part is hers; named after her, and her life of pure acts is a link to Aaron, showing her high place.

This is not an error or theft; it lifts & cleans her tale. The Qur’an clears away myths and shows Mary as the icon of good, the one lady named in the Qur’an, with her godly birth told in full.

The Kaaba lost its idols, and though some rites were old, Islam tied them back to Abraham’s one-god faith. This isn’t old gods kept but a holy turn just as how Christians kept prayer & fasting but left out animal gifts. Teasing the kiss of the Black Stone sees it wrong; it is just a sign to do as told, not a god act; even Umar said, if he had not seen the Prophet do it, he wouldn't have (al-Bukhari 1597, Muslim 1270).

Claims of theft by Abdullah or a poet’s child show wrong, as the past proved. Abdullah left but came back to Islam, odd if he wrote the Qur’an. The Qur’an’s flow and pull aren't just bits of tales, even top non-local minds like Angelika Neuwirth see it as a bold new word, unmatched in all other Arabic words.

honesttalk21:
On the Kaaba, you say Allah was not sure on where to pray. This view is wrong. Abraham & Ismail set up the Kaaba for faith in one God. Over time, wrong faith filled it, so, new sites like Jerusalem were used. Each prophet followed Allah's lead; Moses in Jerusalem, Noah had no temple, Abraham at the Kaaba. All were right. When Muhammad came, Allah made the Kaaba the Qibla again. Using Jerusalem first linked to old prophets. The Kaaba was set to meet Abraham’s ask & show the last and full word. This shows a clear plan, not doubt. First the Law, then the Gospel, then the Qur’an. Allah picks what fits each time.

Now, on Christianity & Greek thought. This is true. The idea of a soul that lasts is from Plato, not the Hebrew word. In the Bible, it means breath or life. Plato said souls don't die; this thought stuck. The Logos in John’s book fits Greek ideas of divine thought. It is Greek thought used for Christ.

The Trinity is told in Greek terms; essence, person, same stuff. These are not in Hebrew texts; they are high thought. Augustine took from Neoplatonism. God as the top Good, bad as lack of good. Aquinas used Aristotle. God as the Still Source & Pure Act.

Church Fathers knew this. Justin Martyr called it the true thought. Clement said thought made way for Christ.

So, it’s clear that the Kaaba’s back as a plan, not a mix-up. And yes, Christianity took in Greek thought; Logos, the soul, Trinity, Neoplatonism, Aristotle’s views. These are just facts, not guesswork.

If the Kaaba’s return shows God’s plan through time, then Christianity’s use of Greek thought shows our weak try to frame the divine with human terms.

Muslims looked at Greek thought much later, but Islam’s truth didn't lean on it, while Christianity’s core ideas did. The Qur’an states it backs and details all prior words (12:111). Islam doesn't need Plato or Aristotle to know God. It has its own proof from Allah. Christianity used Athens to know God; Islam went back to Mecca to praise God. This is the gap between thought built on philosophy & truth built on clear word.

Again, you're simply showing the lack of consistency and logic of the Islamic narrations. If Abraham had the Kaaba and it was necessary for it to be restored to ensure true worship, where did Adam worship? Did he have a Qibla? If no why? If yes where is it? Why is it not restored as the original place where Islam was first practiced? Why is Allah silent on its existence? For all we know it could be the Osogbo Grove. It has also been inhabited by idol worship and would need restoration.

The Qur'an simply does not go beyond what was already known or established in its time. What would have been a perfect revelation would have been Adam or Noah's place of worship. Restoring it would have ensured that Islam returns to its original state.

Choosing Abraham as the starting point of Islamic worship already contradicts Islamic narration which selects Adam as the first prophet.

Again, after Islam until the building of the Jerusalem temple by Solomon, there are about 10 prophets. Didn't they also have a place of worship? It certainly couldn't have been the Kaaba as we all know that Israel is East of the Kaaba while the children of Israel journeyed from the West which is Egypt. So what happened to their worship? How did they complete their worship without a Qibla and a pilgrimage? Yet they are prophets!! Inconsistency!!

Islam does not seem to have its narrative straight for its prophets beyond what's in the Bible. Note that we have established that of the five pillars of Islam, four are already established practices linked to pagan worship in Arabia. The fifth one was a tribal triumph for Muhammad. It declares his tribal god as supreme over other gods and even asserts Muhammad as the authentic messenger to the exclusion of all others.

That's why of all prophets listed in his quran, only Muhammad is on your lips to the exclusion of all others including Abraham whom you claim built your central place of worship.

Now to the claim of Greek philosophy in Christianity, I find it laughable. You've dropped your attempt to make Logos seem like a central theme but now you bring in different Greek words and claim they are philosophical ideas that shaped Christianity.

You even laughably mentioned Plato and other Greek philosophers. Did Greek philosphers every believed in miracles? Greek philosophy was an attempt to explain phenomenon in the most rational and logical way.

The life and teachings of Jesus were an attempt to defy logic. Born of a virgin, a king in a manger, formed eyes from spit and clay, fed five thousands with five loaves and two fishes, walked on water, raised the dead, died at the hands of those he wanted to save only to resurrect and still offer to save them. Oh and most importantly, ascended to an heaven.

How do you explain these actions in the light of Greek philosophy? It simply wouldn't fit. Greek philosophies was more about understanding nature and natural consequences. Jesus was about upturning nature itself. There's no way both can be merged.

In philosophical terms, I already explained to you that words were used as they are in Greek. Greek was the prevailing language of the time most widely spoken. The Romans guarded their language jealously from the commoners. That's the only reason the New Testament is written in Greek.

The old Testament is written in Hebrew by the way not Greek. And the consistency of events and philosophy and references between both exists throughout the new Testament even though they were written in different languages at different periods.

If the focus of new Testament was to incorporate Greek philosophy into Jewish religion, the easiest way should be to discard the old Testament. But no it is preserved till this day. This is in direct conflict with Islam which cannot explain how other prophets worshipped and link them with the present worship instituted by Muhammad. Instead, there are large gulfs needing to be filled. From Adam to Abraham. Abraham to Solomon. Jesus to Muhammad

Kukutente23:
Again, you're simply showing the lack of consistency and logic of the Islamic narrations. If Abraham had the Kaaba and it was necessary for it to be restored to ensure true worship, where did Adam worship? Did he have a Qibla? If no why? If yes where is it? Why is it not restored as the original place where Islam was first practiced? Why is Allah silent on its existence? For all we know it could be the Osogbo Grove. It has also been inhabited by idol worship and would need restoration.

The Qur'an simply does not go beyond what was already known or established in its time. What would have been a perfect revelation would have been Adam or Noah's place of worship. Restoring it would have ensured that Islam returns to its original state.

Choosing Abraham as the starting point of Islamic worship already contradicts Islamic narration which selects Adam as the first prophet.

Again, after Islam until the building of the Jerusalem temple by Solomon, there are about 10 prophets. Didn't they also have a place of worship? It certainly couldn't have been the Kaaba as we all know that Israel is East of the Kaaba while the children of Israel journeyed from the West which is Egypt. So what happened to their worship? How did they complete their worship without a Qibla and a pilgrimage? Yet they are prophets!! Inconsistency!!

Islam does not seem to have its narrative straight for its prophets beyond what's in the Bible. Note that we have established that of the five pillars of Islam, four are already established practices linked to pagan worship in Arabia. The fifth one was a tribal triumph for Muhammad. It declares his tribal god as supreme over other gods and even asserts Muhammad as the authentic messenger to the exclusion of all others.

That's why of all prophets listed in his quran, only Muhammad is on your lips to the exclusion of all others including Abraham whom you claim built your central place of worship.

Now to the claim of Greek philosophy in Christianity, I find it laughable. You've dropped your attempt to make Logos seem like a central theme but now you bring in different Greek words and claim they are philosophical ideas that shaped Christianity.

You even laughably mentioned Plato and other Greek philosophers. Did Greek philosphers every believed in miracles? Greek philosophy was an attempt to explain phenomenon in the most rational and logical way.

The life and teachings of Jesus were an attempt to defy logic. Born of a virgin, a king in a manger, formed eyes from spit and clay, fed five thousands with five loaves and two fishes, walked on water, raised the dead, died at the hands of those he wanted to save only to resurrect and still offer to save them. Oh and most importantly, ascended to an heaven.

How do you explain these actions in the light of Greek philosophy? It simply wouldn't fit. Greek philosophies was more about understanding nature and natural consequences. Jesus was about upturning nature itself. There's no way both can be merged.

In philosophical terms, I already explained to you that words were used as they are in Greek. Greek was the prevailing language of the time most widely spoken. The Romans guarded their language jealously from the commoners. That's the only reason the New Testament is written in Greek.

The old Testament is written in Hebrew by the way not Greek. And the consistency of events and philosophy and references between both exists throughout the new Testament even though they were written in different languages at different periods.

If the focus of new Testament was to incorporate Greek philosophy into Jewish religion, the easiest way should be to discard the old Testament. But no it is preserved till this day. This is in direct conflict with Islam which cannot explain how other prophets worshipped and link them with the present worship instituted by Muhammad. Instead, there are large gulfs needing to be filled. From Adam to Abraham. Abraham to Solomon. Jesus to Muhammad

Adam worshipped Allah directly (Qur’an 2:37), and each prophet was given guidance suited for their people. The Kaaba was not a new shrine but rebuilt by Abraham and Ishmael as a house of monotheism (Qur’an 2:127). Silence about Adam’s specific place of worship is not inconsistency; it shows it was not binding for later nations. Prophets like Noah, Hud, and Saleh still upheld Monotheism without pilgrimage, because while divine law varied, the core of worship as devotion to one God was always the same (Qur’an 16:36).

The children of Israel had their own revealed law with the Temple in Jerusalem as their center (Qur’an 5:44–48). The Qibla first faced Jerusalem to affirm this continuity, then Allah restored Mecca as the universal Qibla through Abraham’s Kaaba (Qur’an 2:142–150). This is progressive revelation, not contradiction (Qur’an 5:48). The Kaaba itself had been polluted by idols (Qur’an 8:35), and Muhammad pbuh was sent to purify it. Pagan innovations in idol worship, naked circumambulation were abolished, while Abrahamic rites were restored. This is purification, not adoption of paganism. To call that pagan is like saying Moses was pagan for keeping sacrifices after destroying the golden calf.

Christianity, by contrast, cannot escape Greek influence. From the 2nd century, figures like Justin Martyr, Origen, and Augustine drew on Platonic and Stoic thought probably you can directly contest this.

John’s use of Logos (John 1:1) was not random it was a Hellenistic-Jewish philosophical category. The Council of Nicaea settled the Trinity using Greek metaphysical terms (ousia, hypostasis). Greek thinkers may not have accepted miracles, but Christian theologians explained Christ’s nature through categories like substance and essence, borrowed directly from Aristotle.

Both Justin Martyr (2nd c.) and Origen (3rd c.) did not simply import Greek ideas into Christianity; they read Christian revelation through Greek conceptual tools and reworked those tools so Christianity could speak credibly to Hellenic intellectuals.

Justin used the Logos concept to argue that Christ is the rational principle known to philosophers (and thus accessible to them), while Origen developed an elaborate Platonic/Neoplatonic-style metaphysical and exegetical framework (allegory, hierarchy of being, spiritual sense of Scripture). Their moves made Christianity intelligible in Greco-Roman intellectual culture and paved the way for later theological formulations (Christology, Trinity language, allegorical hermeneutics).

Islam restored the Kaaba to Abraham’s worship and preserved monotheism across nations. Christianity, however, merged revelation with Greek categories, producing doctrines like the Trinity absent from both the Torah and Jesus’ teaching. Islam’s continuity is in monotheism, while Christianity’s rupture lies in philosophy shaping theology.

honesttalk21:
The presence of a few loanwords does not make the Qur’an impure Arabic. Every language borrows terms Bible does too, using Persian, Greek, & Aramaic words). All agree it's pure. The Qur’an talks to this claim: “We know they say, ‘A man teaches him.’ The tongue they hint is odd, but this Qur’an is in plain Arabic” (Qur’an 16:103). The Prophet did not steal old tales. His foes saw the Qur’an's style was new. They knew no item like it. If he stole, his foes – great poets & traders who knew many tales – could have made a same text. But, no one could match the Qur’an’s call: “If you doubt… then make a surah like it” (Qur’an 2:23).

Claims of Satan making verses are baseless attacks, not proof. The said satanic verses aren't real, & the Qur’an states that Falsehood can't touch it, from front or back (Qur’an 41:42).

Claims of wrong facts on things like how a baby forms are due to bad texts & weak tales. The Qur’an says how life forms right from a fluid drop, then a clot, then a chunk of flesh (Qur’an 23:13-14) steps that modern tests back.

On Mary’s roots, saying her sister of Aaron (Qur’an 19:28) uses old talk ways. It's not wrong but a nod to how Jews named kin. For her, it means more she is seen high in the Qur’an.

The Qur’an does not take odd tales. It sets Mary above all women. No Jewish or Christian text does this. In the Qur’an, she leads all women (Qur’an 3:42), a whole part is hers; named after her, and her life of pure acts is a link to Aaron, showing her high place.

This is not an error or theft; it lifts & cleans her tale. The Qur’an clears away myths and shows Mary as the icon of good, the one lady named in the Qur’an, with her godly birth told in full.

The Kaaba lost its idols, and though some rites were old, Islam tied them back to Abraham’s one-god faith. This isn’t old gods kept but a holy turn just as how Christians kept prayer & fasting but left out animal gifts. Teasing the kiss of the Black Stone sees it wrong; it is just a sign to do as told, not a god act; even Umar said, if he had not seen the Prophet do it, he wouldn't have (al-Bukhari 1597, Muslim 1270).

Claims of theft by Abdullah or a poet’s child show wrong, as the past proved. Abdullah left but came back to Islam, odd if he wrote the Qur’an. The Qur’an’s flow and pull aren't just bits of tales, even top non-local minds like Angelika Neuwirth see it as a bold new word, unmatched in all other Arabic words.

😅 It's nice when God prepares a table before you, early in the morning as you awake. Such logical feasts are lovely😁.

I appreciate the effort both you and your LLM as put into this🥱but it still fails miserably. I say this for the umpteenth time, “the bible doesn't have such claim of supposed one language purity“; Ergo, appealing to it doesn't help you. The English is clear, your eisegesis is irrelevant! It makes its own claims which obviously shows the ’first believer’ failed to account for the hundreds of borrowed words😮‍💨.

We know he had all his enemies executed🥱as usual and we also have hadiths that depict clearly the words of the daughter of a poet alleging he plagiarized her father's works. None even needs to take such challenge serious as Satan did that convincely😅—the prophet didn't know any better. He was bamboozled 😅, this is a sign to us that he couldn't differentiate nor discern between jubril's words and those of Satan. Surely, he is no prophet! Jesus says my sheep knows my voice but unlike your prophet he didn't know jubril's words 🤧. Let's not also forget the error in the Quran by making Satan omnipotent 😅by dwelling the noses of the believers🤧.

You never truly read what is generated😅, this is the umpteenth time I have told you this. Your dependence on LLM is double-edge with most of the time it backfires🤤. Surely, such stories are bad texts and weak tales!

No ’old talk’ ways as ever been seen to use such non-existent idioms😅, even the prophet when addressing his wife used, “Moses is my Father and Aaron is my uncle“. He didn't tell his wife to say, “Moses is my brother“— an obvious ahistorical reference. But when it comes to Maryam, you all start ascribing this non-existent idioms to your prophet—How convenient? No where in the ’old ways’, do they use terms such as ’sister of Aaron’, ’brother of Moses’, ’brother of David’ without it being taken literally! If you have show us🤨. Stop with the lies. 🥱

The same way, a whole part is named after a cow🤨. I guess by your logic cows are more honored above all animals for a surah to be named after them—Stop with such scripts. You should know better that this don't work on me. This solely comes from your plagiarized book that didn't know any better. In the bible, many women were praised but unfortunately for you, it's only Mary you know has such claim😮‍💨. The truth of the matter lies in the fact that the surahs are not named after the ’greatest subject ’ contained within them with some exhibiting random names. Isa was mentioned many times but yet he doesn't have a surah after him. Such logic that surah naming means prominence is awful.

The Quran didn't know any better, it just cleaned the apocryphal tales it copied from—When I mean ’cleaned’, it should be taken as gleamed 😁and the statement above should be conceived as ’apocryphal tales gleamed on the Quran’.

It lost it idols, yet there is command to serve and kiss the black stone😳. The same practices done before your ... Fill in the gap, it shouldn't be hard for someone of your caliber🤧. The toned down excuse to return to the God of Abraham is amusing, may I ask did Abraham kiss any black stone? 🤨 You continue to amuse me with your logic. Obviously such claims to Abraham is just to justify their ignorant ways. History suggests Abraham never went to your city 😂. Pls, tell us another lie.

Abdallah was one of the scribes until he figured out that Mo didn't know any better as he added his own flare to it. There are times when he will exclaim something and Mo will immediately say, it was revealed as such🤨. Can you see his logic? No wonder he said that if Mo received divine revelation then he too receives likewise! That was someone close to him. The poet's works are still alive till today, some expressions used in the Quran are found therein. The fact his daughter challenged one of the prophet's wives that Mo plagiarized her father's works is evident. I can continue to write but time won't permit me, but it's enough to make the reader come to his own conclusion that Mo didn't know any better and just wrote(had them write) tales down! If you appeal to one western scholar then I can appeal to millions of scholars that affirm the Quran was formulated from oral traditions regarding Jewish and Christian tales among others 🤨. This is enough for the time being, if you commit other errors or fallacies I will add more😁. If you are under a ’sharingan’, I am not. I see clearly!

Gabrielshow24:
😅 It's nice when God prepares a table before you, early in the morning as you awake. Such logical feasts are lovely😁.

I appreciate the effort both you and your LLM as put into this🥱but it still fails miserably. I say this for the umpteenth time, “the bible doesn't have such claim of supposed one language purity“; Ergo, appealing to it doesn't help you. The English is clear, your eisegesis is irrelevant! It makes its own claims which obviously shows the ’first believer’ failed to account for the hundreds of borrowed words😮‍💨.

We know he had all his enemies executed🥱as usual and we also have hadiths that depict clearly the words of the daughter of a poet alleging he plagiarized her father's works. None even needs to take such challenge serious as Satan did that convincely😅—the prophet didn't know any better. He was bamboozled 😅, this is a sign to us that he couldn't differentiate nor discern between jubril's words and those of Satan. Surely, he is no prophet! Jesus says my sheep knows my voice but unlike your prophet he didn't know jubril's words 🤧. Let's not also forget the error in the Quran by making Satan omnipotent 😅by dwelling the noses of the believers🤧.

You never truly read what is generated😅, this is the umpteenth time I have told you this. Your dependence on LLM is double-edge with most of the time it backfires🤤. Surely, such stories are bad texts and weak tales!

No ’old talk’ ways as ever been seen to use such non-existent idioms😅, even the prophet when addressing his wife used, “Moses is my Father and Aaron is my uncle“. He didn't tell his wife to say, “Moses is my brother“— an obvious ahistorical reference. But when it comes to Maryam, you all start ascribing this non-existent idioms to your prophet—How convenient? No where in the ’old ways’, do they use terms such as ’sister of Aaron’, ’brother of Moses’, ’brother of David’ without it being taken literally! If you have show us🤨. Stop with the lies. 🥱

The same way, a whole part is named after a cow🤨. I guess by your logic cows are more honored above all animals for a surah to be named after them—Stop with such scripts. You should know better that this don't work on me. This solely comes from your plagiarized book that didn't know any better. In the bible, many women were praised but unfortunately for you, it's only Mary you know has such claim😮‍💨. The truth of the matter lies in the fact that the surahs are not named after the ’greatest subject ’ contained within them with some exhibiting random names. Isa was mentioned many times but yet he doesn't have a surah after him. Such logic that surah naming means prominence is awful.

The Quran didn't know any better, it just cleaned the apocryphal tales it copied from—When I mean ’cleaned’, it should be taken as gleamed 😁and the statement above should be conceived as ’apocryphal tales gleamed on the Quran’.

It lost it idols, yet there is command to serve and kiss the black stone😳. The same practices done before your ... Fill in the gap, it shouldn't be hard for someone of your caliber🤧. The toned down excuse to return to the God of Abraham is amusing, may I ask did Abraham kiss any black stone? 🤨 You continue to amuse me with your logic. Obviously such claims to Abraham is just to justify their ignorant ways. History suggests Abraham never went to your city 😂. Pls, tell us another lie.

Abdallah was one of the scribes until he figured out that Mo didn't know any better as he added his own flare to it. There are times when he will exclaim something and Mo will immediately say, it was revealed as such🤨. Can you see his logic? No wonder he said that if Mo received divine revelation then he too receives likewise! That was someone close to him. The poet's works are still alive till today, some expressions used in the Quran are found therein. The fact his daughter challenged one of the prophet's wives that Mo plagiarized her father's works is evident. I can continue to write but time won't permit me, but it's enough to make the reader come to his own conclusion that Mo didn't know any better and just wrote(had them write) tales down! If you appeal to one western scholar then I can appeal to millions of scholars that affirm the Quran was formulated from oral traditions regarding Jewish and Christian tales among others 🤨. This is enough for the time being, if you commit other errors or fallacies I will add more😁. If you are under a ’sharingan’, I am not. I see clearly!

I bet you will make really boring media representation for MTN Nigeria but seriously
the notion that the Prophet Muhammad pbuh indiscriminately executed all his enemies is terribly poor exaggeration. A pivotal moment is the Conquest of Mecca, during which he declared an amnesty for nearly all the Quraysh, including prominent figures like Abu Sufyan, who had long opposed him. You will do well to back up your claim rather give blanket statement boy.

The executions that occured, were largely confined to individuals implicated in severe violations such as war crimes, treason, or incitement to violence. Such actions align with the norms of any 7th-century political entity, underscoring that the portrayal of the Prophet as one who eliminated his opponents without discretion grossly distorts historical reality. You will comedically reject this but please do with unquestionable proof.

Your accusations that the Qur’an plagiarized poets relies on weak anecdotal evidence, particularly the narrative regarding the daughter of a poet.This claim suffers from significant weaknesses and it is absent from the primary collections of authentic hadith. It only mainly exists in unreliable polemical texts. We should discuss this as I know you will stick to your guns but doubt you have the truth and dignity to.

I have informed you severally how the Qur'an itself has addressed your claims on plagiarism and no point repeating what you already have read and know as truth. Though by default you rather call what isn't. al-Walid ibn al-Mughira a skilled poet admits the Qur’an’s style was unlike poetry or human speech. Do well to contest that please.

Thr Bible's multilayered linguistic origins surely deprived it of laying claim to such language purity or is this false?

Islam’s treatment of Mary demonstrates its originality and theological clarity, avoiding both exaggeration and neglect. At the same time, the accusations of plagiarism from poets or apocryphal sources do not withstand historical or textual analysis, since the Qur’an’s linguistic and conceptual framework stands apart from both poetry and the narratives of surrounding cultures.
The truth you vehemently reject remains That’s a very common polemic, but here’s the concise response you can use:

The claim that calling Mary “sister of Aaron” (Q 19:28) is an unknown idiom misunderstands both Semitic naming practices and the Qur’anic intent. In Jewish and Arab traditions, titles of kinship were often used metaphorically to express affiliation, lineage, or resemblance. For example, the Israelites are repeatedly called children of Israel long after Jacob had died, and in the Bible John the Baptist is linked to Elijah though they lived centuries apart (Luke 1:17, Matthew 11:14). In the same way, Mary’s honorific “sister of Aaron” connects her to the priestly line of Aaron, emphasizing her chastity and devotion to temple service.

Far from being a mistake, this is an elevated title. Islam uses the idiom not to confuse her genealogy but to ennoble her status among the pure and devout descendants of Aaron. The fact that such honorifics are rare makes it more powerful, not less, and it shows the Qur’an honors Mary uniquely, free from the slanders that crept into other traditions.

I expect your baseless disagreement.

Lukuluku69:
It is true that there were some Jews in Arabia before the message of Islam was preached. History had them their for between 350-400 years, and some historians placed them in Arabia when the Romans exiled them. Of the fleeing lots, some prefer Arabia for so many reasons, chief of which the fact that, Arabia because of it terrain is impenetrable to the Romans and also, the Jews believed that their Promised Messiah will rise from Arabia! So, also, is the fact that some Christians also reside in Arabia, but the question is: how effective was there Teachings on the Pagan Arabs? Remember that Judaism is not a faith looking for converts. You must be born a Jew! On a scale of 10, Christianity and Judaism scored zero on impacts in Arabia after centuries of being there, so the stories had to be retold to the Pagan Arabian who shared common ancestry with the Jews via Abraham.

Going by your logic, when Jesus mentioned Noah, was the story of Noah lost on his listeners? When his disciples referenced Enoch, were they doing it just for the fun of it?


On Zoroastrianism, I can see that you are utterly ignorant of that faith. But I don't/can't blame you. You are only parroting the centuries of brainwashing done on the African Christians.

Do you remember the Three Magis at Babe Jesus crib? They were Zorasatrians, and what were they looking for? A Deliverer and Reformer of their Corrupt Faith as foretold in their scriptures the Upanishad and Avesta. So, they came to check out Babe Jesus if indeed he was the Deliverer of their faith.

For you to say that God told Abraham to abandon the Persian Faith shows the level of your ignorance. Abraham was a Semite and was of the Sumerrian stock, or if you like a Hebrew: Someone from beyond the River Eber. He was never a Persian, and Abraham predate the Zoroastrian Prophet known as Zarathustra by at least 2,000 years or more, so how can he be of that faith?


A simple Google search with tell you that the Truine Godhead predates your Christian faith. If you don't know that, it shows your knowledge of world history. Try and get a copy of An Encyclopedia on World Religion on know of other faith.

Also, you don't know that Christmas, Easter, and Santa are of Pagan origin befuddles me. Even here in Nigeria, there are notable G.O. that says Christmas is of Pagan Origin. Kumuyi and Mountain of Fire people say so too, and they are filled with the Holy Ghost oo.

Lol

You said Zeus did not exist in Greek myths at the time of Jesus? Is that a joke or deliberate attempt to be ignorant? Greek myths predate Christ by centuries!

Gods have been begetting sons by the tons way before the Pagans foisted that idea on you Christians.

Use Google if you can not visit a library. It will cure many of your ignorance.

Justin Martyr compared Christian beliefs about Jesus, particularly His unique birth, suffering, death, resurrection, and ascension, to the well-known stories of the mythical sons of Jupiter in his First Apology. He argued that Christian accounts were not novel but were instead paralleled in pagan mythology, with Jupiter's "sons" like Mercury, Hercules, Bacchus, and Perseus serving as precedents for claims about Jesus. Justin used these comparisons to demonstrate to his pagan audience that Christian beliefs were not uniquely strange but followed a pattern familiar to them, despite his overall purpose of defending Christianity.
in his famous quote:
“And when we say also that the Word, who is the first-birth of God, was produced without sexual union, and that He, Jesus Christ, our Teacher, was crucified and died, and rose again, and ascended into heaven, we propound nothing different from what you believe regarding those whom you esteem sons of Jupiter.''[b]

honesttalk21:
I bet you will make really boring media representation for MTN Nigeria but seriously
the notion that the Prophet Muhammad pbuh indiscriminately executed all his enemies is terribly poor exaggeration. A pivotal moment is the Conquest of Mecca, during which he declared an amnesty for nearly all the Quraysh, including prominent figures like Abu Sufyan, who had long opposed him. You will do well to back up your claim rather give blanket statement boy.

The executions that occured, were largely confined to individuals implicated in severe violations such as war crimes, treason, or incitement to violence. [b]Such actions align with the norms of any 7th-century political entity, underscoring t[/b]hat the portrayal of the Prophet as one who eliminated his opponents without discretion grossly distorts historical reality. You will comedically reject this but please do with unquestionable proof.

Your accusations that the Qur’an plagiarized poets relies on weak anecdotal evidence, particularly the narrative regarding the daughter of a poet.This claim suffers from significant weaknesses and it is absent from the primary collections of authentic hadith. It only mainly exists in unreliable polemical texts. We should discuss this as I know you will stick to your guns but doubt you have the truth and dignity to.

I have informed you severally how the Qur'an itself has addressed your claims on plagiarism and no point repeating what you already have read and know as truth. Though by default you rather call what isn't. al-Walid ibn al-Mughira a skilled poet admits the Qur’an’s style was unlike poetry or human speech. Do well to contest that please.

Thr Bible's multilayered linguistic origins surely deprived it of laying claim to such language purity or is this false?

Islam’s treatment of Mary demonstrates its originality and theological clarity, avoiding both exaggeration and neglect. At the same time, the accusations of plagiarism from poets or apocryphal sources do not withstand historical or textual analysis, since the Qur’an’s linguistic and conceptual framework stands apart from both poetry and the narratives of surrounding cultures.
The truth you vehemently reject remains That’s a very common polemic, but here’s the concise response you can use:

The claim that calling Mary “sister of Aaron” (Q 19:28) is an unknown idiom misunderstands both Semitic naming practices and the Qur’anic intent. In Jewish and Arab traditions, titles of kinship were often used metaphorically to express affiliation, lineage, or resemblance. For example, the Israelites are repeatedly called children of Israel long after Jacob had died, and in the Bible John the Baptist is linked to Elijah though they lived centuries apart (Luke 1:17, Matthew 11:14). In the same way, Mary’s honorific “sister of Aaron” connects her to the priestly line of Aaron, emphasizing her chastity and devotion to temple service.

Far from being a mistake, this is an elevated title. Islam uses the idiom not to confuse her genealogy but to ennoble her status among the pure and devout descendants of Aaron. The fact that such honorifics are rare makes it more powerful, not less, and it shows the Qur’an honors Mary uniquely, free from the slanders that crept into other traditions.

I expect your baseless disagreement.

I wonder why they are not called, ’brothers of Jacob’🥱. You have no point. Your own examples refute you. Pls, provide proof of such semitic examples 🤨, I am waiting.

Appealing to mu...gh...ira, the same dude🤔 that was stomped by the christians at najran that went to hear the awful response I tackled above from the prophet?🤨
Obviously, as I have said before if your appeal to people validate style then my own appeal to people invalidate it as well—Perhaps,you skipped the part where I said such earlier... it's definitely not you but your LLM. By the way, thanks to the both of you because now I can use the words of scholars to invalidate your book🥱. We are very aware of the reinvention of Arabic grammar just to make the book make sense, we are also aware of the early grammatical mistakes in the hadith which they corrected but unfortunately the ones in the Quran are there for all to see.

The Lord didn't reveal the bible in one language as language is not of paramount importance in our book but rather the message🤨 unlike your own claims. So we do not need to make such claims but you that made such claims must substantiate it. So far, you have failed miserably 😂 which has forced you to reinvent the meaning of ’pure’.

In western academia, the hadiths have been completely invalidated. The Quran under textual analysis and formulaic density research shows an high percentage of plagiarism 🥱. You can do so well to query the ’formulaic density of the Quran research’ you will find enough to convince you of your illusions🥱.

As for the poet it's not even the basis of my argument, it's a side mention. I have listed over ten sources of the Quran through oral traditions 😮‍💨. This, no matter your gymnastics, you can't take away. It's there for all to see. Anyone can query and perform some rudimentary research about it👀.

Political entity😅. Your LLM can't just help refuting you. Thus, it affirms he committed those heinous acts. Need I mention them? 🤨

Pls, tell me another lie!

Gabrielshow24:
😅 It's nice when God prepares a table before you, early in the morning as you awake. Such logical feasts are lovely😁.

I appreciate the effort both you and your LLM as put into this🥱but it still fails miserably. I say this for the umpteenth time, “the bible doesn't have such claim of supposed one language purity“; Ergo, appealing to it doesn't help you. The English is clear, your eisegesis is irrelevant! It makes its own claims which obviously shows the ’first believer’ failed to account for the hundreds of borrowed words😮‍💨.

We know he had all his enemies executed🥱as usual and we also have hadiths that depict clearly the words of the daughter of a poet alleging he plagiarized her father's works. None even needs to take such challenge serious as Satan did that convincely😅—the prophet didn't know any better. He was bamboozled 😅, this is a sign to us that he couldn't differentiate nor discern between jubril's words and those of Satan. Surely, he is no prophet! Jesus says my sheep knows my voice but unlike your prophet he didn't know jubril's words 🤧. Let's not also forget the error in the Quran by making Satan omnipotent 😅by dwelling the noses of the believers🤧.

You never truly read what is generated😅, this is the umpteenth time I have told you this. Your dependence on LLM is double-edge with most of the time it backfires🤤. Surely, such stories are bad texts and weak tales!

No ’old talk’ ways as ever been seen to use such non-existent idioms😅, even the prophet when addressing his wife used, “Moses is my Father and Aaron is my uncle“. He didn't tell his wife to say, “Moses is my brother“— an obvious ahistorical reference. But when it comes to Maryam, you all start ascribing this non-existent idioms to your prophet—How convenient? No where in the ’old ways’, do they use terms such as ’sister of Aaron’, ’brother of Moses’, ’brother of David’ without it being taken literally! If you have show us🤨. Stop with the lies. 🥱

The same way, a whole part is named after a cow🤨. I guess by your logic cows are more honored above all animals for a surah to be named after them—Stop with such scripts. You should know better that this don't work on me. This solely comes from your plagiarized book that didn't know any better. In the bible, many women were praised but unfortunately for you, it's only Mary you know has such claim😮‍💨. The truth of the matter lies in the fact that the surahs are not named after the ’greatest subject ’ contained within them with some exhibiting random names. Isa was mentioned many times but yet he doesn't have a surah after him. Such logic that surah naming means prominence is awful.

The Quran didn't know any better, it just cleaned the apocryphal tales it copied from—When I mean ’cleaned’, it should be taken as gleamed 😁and the statement above should be conceived as ’apocryphal tales gleamed on the Quran’.

It lost it idols, yet there is command to serve and kiss the black stone😳. The same practices done before your ... Fill in the gap, it shouldn't be hard for someone of your caliber🤧. The toned down excuse to return to the God of Abraham is amusing, may I ask did Abraham kiss any black stone? 🤨 You continue to amuse me with your logic. Obviously such claims to Abraham is just to justify their ignorant ways. History suggests Abraham never went to your city 😂. Pls, tell us another lie.

Abdallah was one of the scribes until he figured out that Mo didn't know any better as he added his own flare to it. There are times when he will exclaim something and Mo will immediately say, it was revealed as such🤨. Can you see his logic? No wonder he said that if Mo received divine revelation then he too receives likewise! That was someone close to him. The poet's works are still alive till today, some expressions used in the Quran are found therein. The fact his daughter challenged one of the prophet's wives that Mo plagiarized her father's works is evident. I can continue to write but time won't permit me, but it's enough to make the reader come to his own conclusion that Mo didn't know any better and just wrote(had them write) tales down! If you appeal to one western scholar then I can appeal to millions of scholars that affirm the Quran was formulated from oral traditions regarding Jewish and Christian tales among others 🤨. This is enough for the time being, if you commit other errors or fallacies I will add more😁. If you are under a ’sharingan’, I am not. I see clearly!

from Gemini

Greek philosophy, especially Plato and Aristotle's, profoundly influenced Christianity by providing a conceptual framework for early Christian theology and ethics, shaping ideas about God, the soul, and reality. Early Church Fathers, educated in Greek thought, used philosophical concepts and logical tools to explain Christian beliefs, leading to the integration of Greek ideas with Christian doctrines. This synthesis is evident in concepts like an omnipotent, non-physical God, the immortality of the soul, and the use of reason to understand faith.
Key Areas of Influence

Concept of God:
The Greek philosophical idea of a transcendent, non-physical, all-powerful, and eternal being was foundational for the Christian concept of God.

The Soul and the Body:
Greek philosophy emphasized the importance of the soul or mind over the physical body. This concept was integrated into Christianity, contributing to beliefs in the soul's immortality, which early Christians adopted from figures like Socrates.
Rational Inquiry and Faith:
The integration of Greek philosophy provided Christianity with tools for rational argument and logical thinking. This helped early theologians defend and explain Christian doctrines, thereby bridging faith and reason.
Theology and Doctrine:
Philosophers like Plato and Aristotle influenced the development of core Christian doctrines. For example, the concept of the Logos, or divine reason, and the development of the Trinity, show significant Platonic influence.
Ethics and Morality:
Stoic philosophy, with its emphasis on reason, virtue, and ethics, found resonance with Christian ethical teachings.

How it Happened

1. Hellenistic Context:
As Christianity spread throughout the Hellenistic world, many converts were educated in Greek philosophy.

2. Application by Church Fathers:
Intellectuals and early Christian leaders, such as Justin Martyr, used their understanding of Greek philosophy to articulate Christian beliefs to a wider, educated audience.
3. Synthesis of Ideas:
Early Christian theologians synthesized Christian teachings with Greek philosophical concepts, which proved to be a crucial step in the development of Christian theology and doctrine.

In essence, Greek philosophy provided a much-needed intellectual framework and language for the nascent Christian faith to be understood and developed by its followers and their philosophical interlocutors

honesttalk21:
Adam worshipped Allah directly (Qur’an 2:37), and each prophet was given guidance suited for their people. The Kaaba was not a new shrine but rebuilt by Abraham and Ishmael as a house of monotheism (Qur’an 2:127). Silence about Adam’s specific place of worship is not inconsistency; it shows it was not binding for later nations. Prophets like Noah, Hud, and Saleh still upheld Monotheism without pilgrimage, because while divine law varied, the core of worship as devotion to one God was always the same (Qur’an 16:36).

The children of Israel had their own revealed law with the Temple in Jerusalem as their center (Qur’an 5:44–48). The Qibla first faced Jerusalem to affirm this continuity, then Allah restored Mecca as the universal Qibla through Abraham’s Kaaba (Qur’an 2:142–150). This is progressive revelation, not contradiction (Qur’an 5:48). The Kaaba itself had been polluted by idols (Qur’an 8:35), and Muhammad pbuh was sent to purify it. Pagan innovations in idol worship, naked circumambulation were abolished, while Abrahamic rites were restored. This is purification, not adoption of paganism. To call that pagan is like saying Moses was pagan for keeping sacrifices after destroying the golden calf.

Christianity, by contrast, cannot escape Greek influence. From the 2nd century, figures like Justin Martyr, Origen, and Augustine drew on Platonic and Stoic thought probably you can directly contest this.

John’s use of Logos (John 1:1) was not random it was a Hellenistic-Jewish philosophical category. The Council of Nicaea settled the Trinity using Greek metaphysical terms (ousia, hypostasis). Greek thinkers may not have accepted miracles, but Christian theologians explained Christ’s nature through categories like substance and essence, borrowed directly from Aristotle.

Both Justin Martyr (2nd c.) and Origen (3rd c.) did not simply import Greek ideas into Christianity; they read Christian revelation through Greek conceptual tools and reworked those tools so Christianity could speak credibly to Hellenic intellectuals.

Justin used the Logos concept to argue that Christ is the rational principle known to philosophers (and thus accessible to them), while Origen developed an elaborate Platonic/Neoplatonic-style metaphysical and exegetical framework (allegory, hierarchy of being, spiritual sense of Scripture). Their moves made Christianity intelligible in Greco-Roman intellectual culture and paved the way for later theological formulations (Christology, Trinity language, allegorical hermeneutics).

Islam restored the Kaaba to Abraham’s worship and preserved monotheism across nations. Christianity, however, merged revelation with Greek categories, producing doctrines like the Trinity absent from both the Torah and Jesus’ teaching. Islam’s continuity is in monotheism, while Christianity’s rupture lies in philosophy shaping theology.

I hope you can see the contradiction you're bringing upon yourself. Muhammad adopts pagan practices and sites but it's not paganism because Allah commanded him to. But Christianity is paganism because some theological concepts by some historians which have no direct bearing on Christian faith nor were they ever sanctioned by Jesus or the scripture.

What do you mean by Adam worshipped Allah directly? Is there any prophet who worshipped Allah indirectly and what does that entail.

You've changed course on the Kaaba, previously you said the Kaaba’s foundation was laid by Abraham and ismail. Now you say it was simply rebuilt? All these in a bid to cover the theological inadequacies of Islam. If you don't know where Adam and those before Abraham worshipped or how they worshipped, at least you should be able to tell us where the prophets after Abraham up to Solomon that built the temple worshipped. Was it at the Kaaba or they had a separate place? These are clear gaps in Islamic history and casts further doubt on the Kaaba being a place of worship.

Another issue is this your point that each prophet preached a different type of Islam for their period. That's shocking to say the least. It seems absurd that a religion will have so many types of it. So why did each adopt a different type and how do you know which type you're practicing today? What is the need for different types of Islam also? And when are we going to have another type come up or is this the last of it?

Apart from John, all those you mentioned are apologists and what they preached or how they preached it is irrelevant except only as far as it agrees with the bible.

For us, they are simply making their own interpretation of the scripture. Anyone is free to agree or disagree with their viewpoints. Their views are not canonical. As for John, like I already told you, he only used Logos to describe Jesus in chapter 1 and the intent was to show that Jesus was with God from the beginning not to appease any Greek sentiments. John wrote to the Jews not Greeks. In fact, the only scripture gospel written explicitly to a gentile audience was Luke.

You're yet to show how the Trinity is a Greek concept till now. The Qur'an spoke about Trinity so how could it be a Greek concept of it already existed in mainstream Christian beliefs before Muhammad?

There's no religion in the world with such a concept as Trinity apart from Christianity

Kukutente23:
I hope you can see the contradiction you're bringing upon yourself. Muhammad adopts pagan practices and sites but it's not paganism because Allah commanded him to. But Christianity is paganism because some theological concepts by some historians which have no direct bearing on Christian faith nor were they ever sanctioned by Jesus or the scripture.

What do you mean by Adam worshipped Allah directly? Is there any prophet who worshipped Allah indirectly and what does that entail.

You've changed course on the Kaaba, previously you said the Kaaba’s foundation was laid by Abraham and ismail. Now you say it was simply rebuilt? All these in a bid to cover the theological inadequacies of Islam. If you don't know where Adam and those before Abraham worshipped or how they worshipped, at least you should be able to tell us where the prophets after Abraham up to Solomon that built the temple worshipped. Was it at the Kaaba or they had a separate place? These are clear gaps in Islamic history and casts further doubt on the Kaaba being a place of worship.

Another issue is this your point that each prophet preached a different type of Islam for their period. That's shocking to say the least. It seems absurd that a religion will have so many types of it. So why did each adopt a different type and how do you know which type you're practicing today? What is the need for different types of Islam also? And when are we going to have another type come up or is this the last of it?

Apart from John, all those you mentioned are apologists and what they preached or how they preached it is irrelevant except only as far as it agrees with the bible.

For us, they are simply making their own interpretation of the scripture. Anyone is free to agree or disagree with their viewpoints. Their views are not canonical. As for John, like I already told you, he only used Logos to describe Jesus in chapter 1 and the intent was to show that Jesus was with God from the beginning not to appease any Greek sentiments. John wrote to the Jews not Greeks. In fact, the only scripture gospel written explicitly to a gentile audience was Luke.

You're yet to show how the Trinity is a Greek concept till now. The Qur'an spoke about Trinity so how could it be a Greek concept of it already existed in mainstream Christian beliefs before Muhammad?

There's no religion in the world with such a concept as Trinity apart from Christianity

The Kaaba was indeed used by pagans, but the Qur’an (2:125–129) states clearly it was originally founded by Abraham and Isma‘il for pure monotheism. Pagan Arabs corrupted it, and the Prophet pbuh was commanded to restore it to its Abrahamic purpose, not invent a new shrine. Restoration isn't adoption.

No contradiction as Islam teaches the Kaaba was first established by Adam, but its foundations were rebuilt and raised by Abraham and Isma‘il (Qur’an 2:127). Both are true,Adam laid the original site, but it fell into ruin, then Abraham restored it. This is why the Qur’an stresses raising the foundations.

You tend to misunderstand that myths and philosophy were not originally for Christianity as is the case regarding the Kaaba. Perhaps you can inform where this concept was hijacked by the Greeks, Romans and philosophers from Christianity before.

Every prophet worshipped Allah directly, meaning without intermediaries. That is the essence of tawhid. Even if Christianity doesn't identify Adam as a prophet. Islam does not claim Adam needed a Kaaba to worship, but the Kaaba was made later as a symbol of unity in worship for humanity. Prophets can worship Allah anywhere; what distinguishes the Kaaba is its Abrahamic restoration as a central direction.

However note that there are those referred to as prophets in ancient, non-Abrahamic faiths of India, China, Egypt, Mesopotamia, Africa, who taught oneness of God, but their nations often practiced worship indirectly through symbols, idols, and intermediaries.

As for other prophets like Moses, Solomon, etc., they worshipped Allah where they were commanded. The Qur’an never denies that Bayt al-Maqdis (Jerusalem temple) was a valid sanctuary. The Kaaba’s universality was only re-established through Abraham and finally confirmed for all mankind through Muhammad pbuh.

Islam has always been one:l; submission to Allah. The differences across prophets are in laws, not in creed. For example Jews could not eat camel meat, while Muslims can. But the core belief in one God, prophets, revelation, accountability was the same.

The Qur’an itself clarifies (Qur'an 5:48) that every community had a law and way of life suited to its time. Islam as practiced today is the final, complete form through Muhammad pbuh (Qur'an 5:3).

Logos is not just a word. Philo of Alexandria and Greek Stoics had already developed Logos as a philosophical mediator between God and creation, centuries before John. John adopted this concept into a Jewish-Christian context, but it is undeniably rooted in Greek thought.

The Trinity as dogma was debated for centuries and formalized at Nicaea (325 CE). The Qur’an mentions Trinity because Christians of Muhammad’s pbuh time already held to a triune view of God, though with significant local variations.

Saying there’s no religion in the world with such a concept as Trinity apart from Christianity is exactly the point; it has no precedent in Hebrew monotheism, making its philosophical non-revealed origins even clearer. You may try to reinterpret the old testament if you like.

Gabrielshow24:
I wonder why they are not called, ’brothers of Jacob’🥱. You have no point. Your own examples refute you. Pls, provide proof of such semitic examples 🤨, I am waiting.

Appealing to mu...gh...ira, the same dude🤔 that was stomped by the christians at najran that went to hear the awful response I tackled above from the prophet?🤨
Obviously, as I have said before if your appeal to people validate style then my own appeal to people invalidate it as well—Perhaps,you skipped the part where I said such earlier... it's definitely not you but your LLM. By the way, thanks to the both of you because now I can use the words of scholars to invalidate your book🥱. We are very aware of the reinvention of Arabic grammar just to make the book make sense, we are also aware of the early grammatical mistakes in the hadith which they corrected but unfortunately the ones in the Quran are there for all to see.

The Lord didn't reveal the bible in one language as language is not of paramount importance in our book but rather the message🤨 unlike your own claims. So we do not need to make such claims but you that made such claims must substantiate it. So far, you have failed miserably 😂 which has forced you to reinvent the meaning of ’pure’.

In western academia, the hadiths have been completely invalidated. The Quran under textual analysis and formulaic density research shows an high percentage of plagiarism 🥱. You can do so well to query the ’formulaic density of the Quran research’ you will find enough to convince you of your illusions🥱.

As for the poet it's not even the basis of my argument, it's a side mention. I have listed over ten sources of the Quran through oral traditions 😮‍💨. This, no matter your gymnastics, you can't take away. It's there for all to see. Anyone can query and perform some rudimentary research about it👀.

Political entity😅. Your LLM can't just help refuting you. Thus, it affirms he committed those heinous acts. Need I mention them? 🤨

Pls, tell me another lie!

I invite you to present

1. Present what you know about the use of ancient semitic terms for sister and daughter.

2. What you know of al-Walid ibn al-Mughira.

3. The Qur'an verses that say Abraham worshipped the moon or stars

4. Where God revealed a book called Bible.

Reference is required.

sonmvayina:
Justin Martyr compared Christian beliefs about Jesus, particularly His unique birth, suffering, death, resurrection, and ascension, to the well-known stories of the mythical sons of Jupiter in his First Apology. He argued that Christian accounts were not novel but were instead paralleled in pagan mythology, with Jupiter's "sons" like Mercury, Hercules, Bacchus, and Perseus serving as precedents for claims about Jesus. Justin used these comparisons to demonstrate to his pagan audience that Christian beliefs were not uniquely strange but followed a pattern familiar to them, despite his overall purpose of defending Christianity.
in his famous quote:
“And when we say also that the Word, who is the first-birth of God, was produced without sexual union, and that He, Jesus Christ, our Teacher, was crucified and died, and rose again, and ascended into heaven, we propound nothing different from what you believe regarding those whom you esteem sons of Jupiter.''[b]

You and Lukuluku69 and honesttalk21 keep equating commentary and exegesis for scripture. Even in Acts 17, Paul compared Yahweh the Hebrew God with "The Unknown God" being worshipped in Athens by the Greeks. This is why I told you that the worship of Zeus had ceased after Roman control since the Romans replaced Zeus with Jupiter. Does it mean Paul was saying the Unknown God was copied from Yahweh or vice versa? No. He was only drawing a parallel in terms of worship and devotion. He was asking the men of Athens to substitute the Unknown God for Yahweh. So when you take exegesis and commentaries as if they are scripture, you are simply confusing yourselves. Justin Martyr might have been drawing a comparison. It does not mean he was writing his own gospel. He could have even been wrong in his attempt!

honesttalk21:
The Kaaba was indeed used by pagans, but the Qur’an (2:125–129) states clearly it was originally founded by Abraham and Isma‘il for pure monotheism. Pagan Arabs corrupted it, and the Prophet pbuh was commanded to restore it to its Abrahamic purpose, not invent a new shrine. Restoration isn't adoption.

No contradiction as Islam teaches the Kaaba was first established by Adam, but its foundations were rebuilt and raised by Abraham and Isma‘il (Qur’an 2:127). Both are true,Adam laid the original site, but it fell into ruin, then Abraham restored it. This is why the Qur’an stresses raising the foundations.

You tend to misunderstand that myths and philosophy were not originally for Christianity as is the case regarding the Kaaba. Perhaps you can inform where this concept was hijacked by the Greeks, Romans and philosophers from Christianity before.

Every prophet worshipped Allah directly, meaning without intermediaries. That is the essence of tawhid. Even if Christianity doesn't identify Adam as a prophet. Islam does not claim Adam needed a Kaaba to worship, but the Kaaba was made later as a symbol of unity in worship for humanity. Prophets can worship Allah anywhere; what distinguishes the Kaaba is its Abrahamic restoration as a central direction.

However note that there are those referred to as prophets in ancient, non-Abrahamic faiths of India, China, Egypt, Mesopotamia, Africa, who taught oneness of God, but their nations often practiced worship indirectly through symbols, idols, and intermediaries.

As for other prophets like Moses, Solomon, etc., they worshipped Allah where they were commanded. The Qur’an never denies that Bayt al-Maqdis (Jerusalem temple) was a valid sanctuary. The Kaaba’s universality was only re-established through Abraham and finally confirmed for all mankind through Muhammad pbuh.

Islam has always been one:l; submission to Allah. The differences across prophets are in laws, not in creed. For example Jews could not eat camel meat, while Muslims can. But the core belief in one God, prophets, revelation, accountability was the same.

The Qur’an itself clarifies (Qur'an 5:48) that every community had a law and way of life suited to its time. Islam as practiced today is the final, complete form through Muhammad pbuh (Qur'an 5:3).

Logos is not just a word. Philo of Alexandria and Greek Stoics had already developed Logos as a philosophical mediator between God and creation, centuries before John. John adopted this concept into a Jewish-Christian context, but it is undeniably rooted in Greek thought.

The Trinity as dogma was debated for centuries and formalized at Nicaea (325 CE). The Qur’an mentions Trinity because Christians of Muhammad’s pbuh time already held to a triune view of God, though with significant local variations.

Saying there’s no religion in the world with such a concept as Trinity apart from Christianity is exactly the point; it has no precedent in Hebrew monotheism, making its philosophical non-revealed origins even clearer. You may try to reinterpret the old testament if you like.

There's no place in your quranic reference where it is said that Adam first built the kaaba before it fell into ruins and then rebuilt by Abraham and Ismail. I suggest you check your reference again. It is not right for you to lie on your scripture.

Your argument about Abraham's initial use of the Kaaba raises the question of how it fell into pagan use and why it took so long for it to be restored. It seems Allah simply forgot about the Kaaba, faced Jerusalem for 2000 years for some unexplained reason while his house was left for idols. Remember that in the preceding years after Solomon, even the temple in Jerusalem fell into the hands of the worshippers of idols. But records show what the Temple was meant for initially and it was always restored back to its true faith.

Meanwhile in all these periods, the Kaaba remained exclusively an idol enclave. So why did Allah feel so strongly about the temple in Jerusalem to always restore it while he abandoned the Kaaba for 2000 years? Whichever way you look at it, the fact is that the Kaaba had become a pagan enclave and there was no record to show that Abraham built it nor that it belonged to Allah's worship solely. The quranic claim will only be revisionist at best since the Kaaba predates the quran!

Thus, the Kaaba was inherited from paganism as far as history is concerned. The use of Kaaba in worship by the pagans draws similarities with the use of the Temple by the Jews and the Keblah in Zoroastrianism. In fact, the whole concept of Salat in Islam is wholly lifted from Zoroastrianism. The five times prayer, facing a certain direction, performing ablution, reciting tawhid and even the genuflections were all lifted from Zoroastrianism. Even the ascension to the heavens story which established the salat is a direct lift from Zoroastrianism. So the kaaba is not the only thing that was lifted from other religions in Islam.

If you say every community and era had their own Islamic laws and edict which suited their time, does the present Islamic law suit our age? Is it fashionable to keep women indoors in this age of enlightenment? Is child marriage acceptable today? What about stoning for adultery and blasphemy, does it suit our present enlightenment? Islam is in conflict with the present civilisation and modern man because most of its beliefs and practices were for the 7AD period. The times we live in are vastly different from that period. Yet you still practice same Islam? Is Allah now stuck in 7th Century and does not wish for human lives to move beyond that time? If not, why can't a prophet come with his own laws to institute a version of Islam that will better suit this modern age? There is no prophet whose message held for over 2000years among all the prophets mentioned in Islam except Muhammad.

I'm glad you now accept that trinity concept predated the council of Nicaea. That puts to rest your claim that trinity was developed from any pagan reasoning or idea of God.

That said, I already told you that logos simply means "word" in Greek. That it was used by John in 3 verses of one chapter to describe the relationship of God with Jesus does not make it a central theme. If you read same John 14, you will see Jesus describing the relationship between him and God. The word "logos" does not appear at all in that chapter. Instead, Jesus declares himself "the Way, the Truth and the Life" and says no one can get to God without him. In chapter 15 of same John, he introduces himself as "the Vine". None of the these two profound statements of Jesus about his relationship with God have any bearing with logos. Instead, they are a distinct characterization as a part of God who leads to God solely.

Jesus also described himself as the bread of life in chapter 6 of same John. So dwelling on logos which Jesus never used to describe himself but was used by Apostle John to describe the relationship between God and Jesus as he perceived it is just overflogging and overstretching its importance. The words of Christ has more weight than that of John and Jesus did not use logos to describe himself in relation to the Father.

If the intention of John was to input Hellenistic beliefs into Christian belief, he would have put the words in Jesus' mouth. Fortunately, he never did. He only did a very valid expose of the special relationship that exists between Jesus and God.

Kukutente23:
There's no place in your quranic reference where it is said that Adam first built the kaaba before it fell into ruins and then rebuilt by Abraham and Ismail. I suggest you check your reference again. It is not right for you to lie on your scripture.

Your argument about Abraham's initial use of the Kaaba raises the question of how it fell into pagan use and why it took so long for it to be restored. It seems Allah simply forgot about the Kaaba, faced Jerusalem for 2000 years for some unexplained reason while his house was left for idols. Remember that in the preceding years after Solomon, even the temple in Jerusalem fell into the hands of the worshippers of idols. But records show what the Temple was meant for initially and it was always restored back to its true faith.

Meanwhile in all these periods, the Kaaba remained exclusively an idol enclave. So why did Allah feel so strongly about the temple in Jerusalem to always restore it while he abandoned the Kaaba for 2000 years? Whichever way you look at it, the fact is that the Kaaba had become a pagan enclave and there was no record to show that Abraham built it nor that it belonged to Allah's worship solely. The quranic claim will only be revisionist at best since the Kaaba predates the quran!

Thus, the Kaaba was inherited from paganism as far as history is concerned. The use of Kaaba in worship by the pagans draws similarities with the use of the Temple by the Jews and the Keblah in Zoroastrianism. In fact, the whole concept of Salat in Islam is wholly lifted from Zoroastrianism. The five times prayer, facing a certain direction, performing ablution, reciting tawhid and even the genuflections were all lifted from Zoroastrianism. Even the ascension to the heavens story which established the salat is a direct lift from Zoroastrianism. So the kaaba is not the only thing that was lifted from other religions in Islam.

If you say every community and era had their own Islamic laws and edict which suited their time, does the present Islamic law suit our age? Is it fashionable to keep women indoors in this age of enlightenment? Is child marriage acceptable today? What about stoning for adultery and blasphemy, does it suit our present enlightenment? Islam is in conflict with the present civilisation and modern man because most of its beliefs and practices were for the 7AD period. The times we live in are vastly different from that period. Yet you still practice same Islam? Is Allah now stuck in 7th Century and does not wish for human lives to move beyond that time? If not, why can't a prophet come with his own laws to institute a version of Islam that will better suit this modern age? There is no prophet whose message held for over 2000years among all the prophets mentioned in Islam except Muhammad.

I'm glad you now accept that trinity concept predated the council of Nicaea. That puts to rest your claim that trinity was developed from any pagan reasoning or idea of God.

That said, I already told you that logos simply means "word" in Greek. That it was used by John in 3 verses of one chapter to describe the relationship of God with Jesus does not make it a central theme. If you read same John 14, you will see Jesus describing the relationship between him and God. The word "logos" does not appear at all in that chapter. Instead, Jesus declares himself "the Way, the Truth and the Life" and says no one can get to God without him. In chapter 15 of same John, he introduces himself as "the Vine". None of the these two profound statements of Jesus about his relationship with God have any bearing with logos. Instead, they are a distinct characterization as a part of God who leads to God solely.

Jesus also described himself as the bread of life in chapter 6 of same John. So dwelling on logos which Jesus never used to describe himself but was used by Apostle John to describe the relationship between God and Jesus as he perceived it is just overflogging and overstretching its importance. The words of Christ has more weight than that of John and Jesus did not use logos to describe himself in relation to the Father.

If the intention of John was to input Hellenistic beliefs into Christian belief, he would have put the words in Jesus' mouth. Fortunately, he never did. He only did a very valid expose of the special relationship that exists between Jesus and God.

Thank you for continuing engagement and latest response.

You are wrong to ascert that I lied about Adam and the Kaaba, as this only shows you haven’t done your homework. The Qur’an says clearly that Abraham and Ishmael raised the foundations of the House (2:127). Raised, not built from scratch. That wording alone implies prior foundations. Early exegesis long before you or I preserved reports that Adam founded the Kaaba and Abraham rebuilt it.

Ibn ʿAbbas stated that Adam was the first to build the Kaaba, but it was ruined by the Flood of Noah before Abraham and Ismail rebuilt it on the same site. Mujahid, his famous student, gave the same explanation, as preserved in al-Tabari's tafsir. Reports attributed to ʿAli in al-Mustadrak describe Adam performing ṭawāf around the Kaaba, guided by angels. Al-Suddi added that the Kaaba began as a raised mound where Adam prayed, then was built up. Even the reports about the Black Stone state it was sent down with Adam from Paradise.

Then regarding your view or question if Allah abandoned the Kaaba for 2000 years if this is the number of years between Abraham and prophet Muhammad pbuh is just shallow. The Jerusalem Temple itself fell into idolatry, was destroyed, and rebuilt multiple times. Was Yahweh forgetful then? Or do you only apply that standard against Islam? In truth, Allah’s wisdom determines when restoration occurs. The final and permanent restoration came with Muhammad pbuh not endless cycles of rebuilding and ruin like the Temple.

The Kaaba was never exclusively an idol enclave. Like the Jerusalem Temple, it was founded for monotheism but later corrupted by idolaters. Corruption does not erase origin as you have shared the Bible itself shows the Temple defiled and restored repeatedly. Why accept that cycle in Jerusalem but deny it in Mecca? The Kaaba’s pre-Islamic pagan use actually proves Islam’s point that it needed cleansing, and Muhammad pbuh restored it to its original Abrahamic purpose.

As for Zoroastrianism, spare us the conspiracy theory. Prayer facing a direction? Ablution? Prostration? That’s in Judaism and even Christianity. Didn't Daniel pray towards Jerusalem? Acts 3:1 mentions the ninth-hour prayer. If Islam copied Zoroastrians then Jews copied them too, and so did Christians. No serious scholar accepts that lazy argument. Islam’s salah is unique in language, structure, and theology. Similar outward forms don’t prove dependence; they prove a universal pattern of worship across prophets.

Jews prayed at fixed times, faced Jerusalem, purified themselves with washing, bowed and prostrated, and recited the Shema. These are all clear parallels to Islamic salah. Early Christians, too, preserved these practices: they prayed at set hours (Acts 3:1), fell on their faces in worship (Matthew 26:39), and maintained ritual prayer patterns before later drifting from them.

Islam is not a faith frozen in the 7th century but the final revelation designed for all times. Its core principles are timeless, while cultures around the world may misapply them. The Qur’an gave women rights to inheritance, property, and education centuries before Europe; keeping women indoors is a cultural distortion, not divine command. Child marriage is not sanctioned as Islam requires maturity and consent.

Punishments like stoning are taken from the same root as Mosaic law, but Islam sets the evidentiary bar so high that their purpose is deterrence rather than widespread application. What changes with the times is technology and custom, but justice, human dignity, and worship of God are permanent. Muhammad pbuh’s message remains preserved and practiced after 1400 years which proves its universality and that it was intended as the final message for all mankind.

Do not misunderstand my assertion that people were engaged in trinity arguments before to the Nicaean conventions unless you assert that Christianity as it exists now predominantly emerged more than three hundred years after Jesus.

The claim that Logos is just a word ignores why John chose to open his Gospel with it. Out of all possible introductions, John begins with in the beginning was the Logos, and the Logos was with God, and the Logos was God. This is not casual vocabulary; it is deliberate theological framing.

By employing Logos, John tapped into an already loaded term that had centuries of philosophical and religious baggage from Heraclitus and the Stoics, who used it for the rational principle ordering the cosmos, to Philo of Alexandria, who identified the Logos as God’s intermediary between Himself and creation. John takes this concept and merges it with Jewish monotheism, presenting Jesus as the incarnate Logos.

That Jesus later uses metaphors like the Vine or the Bread of Life does not diminish the theological weight of Logos. Those are teaching analogies; Logos is the ontological foundation of John’s entire Gospel. The prologue sets the stage for interpreting everything that follows Jesus is the eternal Word through whom all things were made.

The insistence that Jesus never called himself Logos misses the point as John’s Gospel is not a stenographic transcript but a theological narrative, and the very choice of Logos shows the author’s engagement with Hellenistic Jewish thought. Far from being accidental, it is precisely John’s adoption of the Logos theme that opened the door for later Christian theology to merge Jewish scripture with Greek philosophical categories.

Kukutente23:
First of all there's no such thing as Greco-Roman invasion of judea. The Greeks invasion of Judea ended over 100years before Jesus was born. The Jews took control of the area and established a Jewish dynasty that lasted over 100years. Unlike the Greeks, the Romans were after political control not colonialism. They didn't bother themselves with what the locals in their conquered territory did as long as they paid tributes and recognised caesar's authority. So it is simply false to try to merge Greek and Roman rulership over Judea. So how does it make sense to claim that the Greeks whom the Jews chased out of Judea over 100 years ago in an attempt to return to judaism where the same ones who institutes a strange religion and the Jews allowed it? It makes no sense. You wrote QED for a tale you have no historical reference for. How does that even make sense?
Secondly, the people who called Barnabas Jupiter were neither Romans nor Greeks. They did that because of the miracle they witnessed not because they wanted to institute a religion. Like I already told you, by that period, Jupiter had replaced Zeus since the Greek empire had crumbled. So it is totally impossible to name a god or religion after the Greeks. Greek became the popular language because of the colonialism of the Greeks. It's just as English is now our lingua franca. The Romans were never interested in colonialism. That's why Latin did not replace Greek and why the NT was written in Greek

You don't seem to have a grasp of the history of Greeks and Roman forays into Judea. It is true the Romans care little about what was worship in any of their colonies up until Emperor Constantine embraced Christianity but to say or insinuate that the Jews ever chased the Greeks completely from Judea is not only laughable but also reeks of ignorance.

The woman who told Jesus about her sick daughter was of which country?

The people who called Paul and Barnabas Jupiter and Mercury spoke Lycaonia, a region in Anatolia present day Turkey but then with a heavy Greco-Roman influence otherwise why would they attributed or see their gods in human form in Paul and Barnabas?

The Greeks might have lost rulership in Judea, but they are in , but their in Judea, but their influence is of the highest.

They were the ones who wrote your Jesus story. They're the ones that translated the Old Testament as such they named your Jesus after their Zeus, who they see as Zeus in human form.

Please listen to yourself again.

You wrote, and I quote, "Greek became the popular language because of the colonialism of the Greeks," but you said earlier that their Empire collapsed and the Jews chased them away! How is it then that their Language prevailed? And it was used in most of your
Scriptures?

And to let you know, there was no Jewish dynasty in Judea some 200 years before Christ.

Herodian Dynasty were idumean, and not Jewish.

Kukutente23:
You and Lukuluku69 and honesttalk21 keep equating commentary and exegesis for scripture. Even in Acts 17, Paul compared Yahweh the Hebrew God with "The Unknown God" being worshipped in Athens by the Greeks. This is why I told you that the worship of Zeus had ceased after Roman control since the Romans replaced Zeus with Jupiter. Does it mean Paul was saying the Unknown God was copied from Yahweh or vice versa? No. He was only drawing a parallel in terms of worship and devotion. He was asking the men of Athens to substitute the Unknown God for Yahweh. So when you take exegesis and commentaries as if they are scripture, you are simply confusing yourselves. Justin Martyr might have been drawing a comparison. It does not mean he was writing his own gospel. He could have even been wrong in his attempt!

Wrong again.

Paul never compared the "The Uknown God" to any Yahweh. Clearly in the Act 17, you can read that Paul accused the Greeks of worshipping Idols made of gold and clearly in Act 17:16 Paul said he saw Athens wholly given to idolatory.

Sir what God were they worshipping that Paul consider Idolatory? I asked because you want to make us accept that the Romans have decreed and replace Zeus with Jupiter? And also, you said the worship of Zeus have ceased with tur Greeks?

Acts 17:15-16 (KJV) And they that conducted Paul brought him unto Athens: and receiving a commandment unto Silas and Timotheus for to come to him with all speed, they departed.
Now while Paul waited for them at Athens, his spirit was stirred in him, when he saw the city wholly given to idolatry.

Kukutente23:
You and Lukuluku69 and honesttalk21 keep equating commentary and exegesis for scripture. Even in Acts 17, Paul compared Yahweh the Hebrew God with "The Unknown God" being worshipped in Athens by the Greeks. This is why I told you that the worship of Zeus had ceased after Roman control since the Romans replaced Zeus with Jupiter. Does it mean Paul was saying the Unknown God was copied from Yahweh or vice versa? No. He was only drawing a parallel in terms of worship and devotion. He was asking the men of Athens to substitute the Unknown God for Yahweh. So when you take exegesis and commentaries as if they are scripture, you are simply confusing yourselves. Justin Martyr might have been drawing a comparison. It does not mean he was writing his own gospel. He could have even been wrong in his attempt!

That's a lie, its either you are ignorant or just plan deceptive, Christianity was just been formed, it was still at the early stage. and during this time a lot of Greek philosophy was greatly involved. from philo of Alexandria to Augustine of Hippo. the bulk of the new faith is 95 % based on platonism and Neo-platoism. since they have the Greek translation of the Tanakh, they were scouting everywhere for passages to pass of as messianic. Christianity did not start in Judea. there was no mention of Jesus throughout the first century.

AntiisIam:
Sule, oya write the above statement in English make I check if you understand singular and plural

3 in 1 nescafe is that what flicks you
Flicky flicky 😂🤣🤣
Oh Jacob of 3 in 1 nescafe God(s)

Expanse2020:
3 in 1 nescafe is that what flicks you
Flicky flicky 😂🤣🤣
Oh Jacob of 3 in 1 nescafe God(s)

Oya ask google the meaning of 3 in 1. It will tell you it is a SINGLE entity

Sebi you can differentiate between God and Gods or you need help?

honesttalk21:
Thank you for continuing engagement and latest response.

You are wrong to ascert that I lied about Adam and the Kaaba, as this only shows you haven’t done your homework. The Qur’an says clearly that Abraham and Ishmael raised the foundations of the House (2:127). Raised, not built from scratch. That wording alone implies prior foundations. Early exegesis long before you or I preserved reports that Adam founded the Kaaba and Abraham rebuilt it.

Ibn ʿAbbas stated that Adam was the first to build the Kaaba, but it was ruined by the Flood of Noah before Abraham and Ismail rebuilt it on the same site. Mujahid, his famous student, gave the same explanation, as preserved in al-Tabari's tafsir. Reports attributed to ʿAli in al-Mustadrak describe Adam performing ṭawāf around the Kaaba, guided by angels. Al-Suddi added that the Kaaba began as a raised mound where Adam prayed, then was built up. Even the reports about the Black Stone state it was sent down with Adam from Paradise.

Then regarding your view or question if Allah abandoned the Kaaba for 2000 years if this is the number of years between Abraham and prophet Muhammad pbuh is just shallow. The Jerusalem Temple itself fell into idolatry, was destroyed, and rebuilt multiple times. Was Yahweh forgetful then? Or do you only apply that standard against Islam? In truth, Allah’s wisdom determines when restoration occurs. The final and permanent restoration came with Muhammad pbuh not endless cycles of rebuilding and ruin like the Temple.

The Kaaba was never exclusively an idol enclave. Like the Jerusalem Temple, it was founded for monotheism but later corrupted by idolaters. Corruption does not erase origin as you have shared the Bible itself shows the Temple defiled and restored repeatedly. Why accept that cycle in Jerusalem but deny it in Mecca? The Kaaba’s pre-Islamic pagan use actually proves Islam’s point that it needed cleansing, and Muhammad pbuh restored it to its original Abrahamic purpose.

As for Zoroastrianism, spare us the conspiracy theory. Prayer facing a direction? Ablution? Prostration? That’s in Judaism and even Christianity. Didn't Daniel pray towards Jerusalem? Acts 3:1 mentions the ninth-hour prayer. If Islam copied Zoroastrians then Jews copied them too, and so did Christians. No serious scholar accepts that lazy argument. Islam’s salah is unique in language, structure, and theology. Similar outward forms don’t prove dependence; they prove a universal pattern of worship across prophets.

Jews prayed at fixed times, faced Jerusalem, purified themselves with washing, bowed and prostrated, and recited the Shema. These are all clear parallels to Islamic salah. Early Christians, too, preserved these practices: they prayed at set hours (Acts 3:1), fell on their faces in worship (Matthew 26:39), and maintained ritual prayer patterns before later drifting from them.

Islam is not a faith frozen in the 7th century but the final revelation designed for all times. Its core principles are timeless, while cultures around the world may misapply them. The Qur’an gave women rights to inheritance, property, and education centuries before Europe; keeping women indoors is a cultural distortion, not divine command. Child marriage is not sanctioned as Islam requires maturity and consent.

Punishments like stoning are taken from the same root as Mosaic law, but Islam sets the evidentiary bar so high that their purpose is deterrence rather than widespread application. What changes with the times is technology and custom, but justice, human dignity, and worship of God are permanent. Muhammad pbuh’s message remains preserved and practiced after 1400 years which proves its universality and that it was intended as the final message for all mankind.

Do not misunderstand my assertion that people were engaged in trinity arguments before to the Nicaean conventions unless you assert that Christianity as it exists now predominantly emerged more than three hundred years after Jesus.

The claim that Logos is just a word ignores why John chose to open his Gospel with it. Out of all possible introductions, John begins with in the beginning was the Logos, and the Logos was with God, and the Logos was God. This is not casual vocabulary; it is deliberate theological framing.

By employing Logos, John tapped into an already loaded term that had centuries of philosophical and religious baggage from Heraclitus and the Stoics, who used it for the rational principle ordering the cosmos, to Philo of Alexandria, who identified the Logos as God’s intermediary between Himself and creation. John takes this concept and merges it with Jewish monotheism, presenting Jesus as the incarnate Logos.

That Jesus later uses metaphors like the Vine or the Bread of Life does not diminish the theological weight of Logos. Those are teaching analogies; Logos is the ontological foundation of John’s entire Gospel. The prologue sets the stage for interpreting everything that follows Jesus is the eternal Word through whom all things were made.

The insistence that Jesus never called himself Logos misses the point as John’s Gospel is not a stenographic transcript but a theological narrative, and the very choice of Logos shows the author’s engagement with Hellenistic Jewish thought. Far from being accidental, it is precisely John’s adoption of the Logos theme that opened the door for later Christian theology to merge Jewish scripture with Greek philosophical categories.

Your interpretation is phony. Can you show any reference from the quran that Adam first buit the Kaaba? Like I said, you have now contradicted yourself. Check your previous posts. You claimed that it was built by Abraham and Ismail and even added quranic reference only to turn round and claim it was only rebuilt using the exact same quranic reference you used to claim that it was originally built by Abraham. I'm sure we are all students of English language and we all know that to "raise a foundation" does not in anyway imply rebuilding it.

The Jerusalem temple was usually restored in a space of ten to twenty years each time it fell into idolatrous use. God then threatened to destroy it completely if the Israelites continued the idolatry and it was destroyed in fulfillment of God's word until the repented and it was rebuilt. The initial building and later rebuilding were all explicitly stated in the Bible and not some subject of curious and baseless interpretation. Meanwhile, while all these was going on in which God was jealous for his house and its correct usage, the Kaaba was exclusively under the usage of idol worshippers. From Isaac down to Jesus, God did not remember to send any of his prophets down to the Kaaba to clean it up and restore it to the right worship. He was solely focused on the Temple that contained his ark of covenant. That signals and abandonment in my view, or at least a preference for the Jerusalem Temple over the Kaaba which begs the question what triggered the latter need to restore it through Muhammad. That's why it is very correct to say the Kaaba was a pagan heritage. If something has been in use for over 2000years for a particular cause without interruption, to all intent and purposes, it belongs to the users.

Prayer facing a direction does not exist in Christianity. Even in Judaism, it was not a commandment given by Yahweh. It was a direction given by Solomon the King. So it was not a binding requirement for prayer or worship. It only became part of the tradition of the Jews. Not facing Jerusalem does not invalidate prayers according to Jewish beliefs. That's why David in Psalms said "I will lift up my eyes to the hills" not to the Temple and Jesus lifted up his face towards heaven in prayers multiple times and not Jerusalem.

Early Christians did not pray at set hours. The Temple was available for prayers at set hours but the Christians prayed in their homes and private gatherings regardless of hours. One of such in Acts 16 led to the freeing of Paul and Silas and also for Peter in Acts 12. The Jews also pray thrice and not five times daily and they do not bow or genuflect in prayers. So it is preposterous to claim that Jews and Christians copied Zoroastrianism. The similarities of salat with Gah worship is too striking for comfort. Five times which are almost the same, facing a certain direction, led by a priest, call to prayer and facing the Kaaba or Keblah!!

The quran is not the first and only religion to give women inheritance rights. Muhammad had only female surviving children so it is simple logic that he will recognize female inheritance rights in a bid to protect his daughters' rights to his properties. Child marriage is established through Muahammad's marriage to Aisha. Mosaic law has been largely abandoned by even the Jews while the Islamic copy is still considered valid till today. If you agree that stoning has roots in Mosaic law, why then do you still apply it when the original owners have deemed it archaic? In Islam, a woman's testimony is worth less than half of a man's. How does that respect women? What about stoning a woman for adultery without asking for her accomplice? How is that just and fair?

There is nothing like tapping. Logos simply means words or thought in Greek. That philosophers employed it does not mean its usage is exclusively for philosophy. That's a very myopic view. John's intended audience were Jews not Greeks. If you insist that the use of logos was to appeal to Greek sentiments, where do you place the chapter where Jesus referred to himself as the Bread of life or the Truth, way and life in this claim? How will Greeks relate with such mysteries? The Jews never assimilated Greek philosophy into their religion which they held dear. Even Hellenistic Jews whom John intended his Gospel for only adopted Greek language and culture but never their religion or philosophy. They still remained Jews who saw themselves as the chosen seed of Abraham. Your claim is simply misguided

Lukuluku69:
You don't seem to have a grasp of the history of Greeks and Roman forays into Judea. It is true the Romans care little about what was worship in any of their colonies up until Emperor Constantine embraced Christianity but to say or insinuate that the Jews ever chased the Greeks completely from Judea is not only laughable but also reeks of ignorance.

The woman who told Jesus about her sick daughter was of which country?

The people who called Paul and Barnabas Jupiter and Mercury spoke Lycaonia, a region in Anatolia present day Turkey but then with a heavy Greco-Roman influence otherwise why would they attributed or see their gods in human form in Paul and Barnabas?

The Greeks might have lost rulership in Judea, but they are in , but their in Judea, but their influence is of the highest.

They were the ones who wrote your Jesus story. They're the ones that translated the Old Testament as such they named your Jesus after their Zeus, who they see as Zeus in human form.

Please listen to yourself again.

You wrote, and I quote, "Greek became the popular language because of the colonialism of the Greeks," but you said earlier that their Empire collapsed and the Jews chased them away! How is it then that their Language prevailed? And it was used in most of your
Scriptures?

And to let you know, there was no Jewish dynasty in Judea some 200 years before Christ.

Herodian Dynasty were idumean, and not Jewish.

The woman whose daughter was healed was a Canaanite not Greek. Go and read Matthew 15. The Greeks were defeated in Judea. You really expect them to remain around and influencing religion and culture? In which universe does a defeated race become the protagonist of cultural colonialism?

Again, you lie. Matthew, Mark and John were Jews not Greeks. Luke was a Roman. None of the four were Greeks. Even the aprochyphal Gospels were written by Jews not Romans. Paul who wrote most epistles was a Roman Jew. Kindly mention the story of Jesus written by a Greek and the translation of the Bible was done by Hellenistic Jews not Greeks.

Again, there is no space for a son of God born without copulation in Greek religion or mysticism. So the story couldn't have come from the Greeks. Zeus had a wife. So who is Jesus' wife and where are his kids in your claim?

Have you ever heard of the Hasmonean dynasty led by the Maccabeans? Herod was also a Jewish descendant. You don't have the accurate history. Just jumping around in ignorance

Lukuluku69:
Wrong again.

Paul never compared the "The Uknown God" to any Yahweh. Clearly in the Act 17, you can read that Paul accused the Greeks of worshipping Idols made of gold and clearly in Act 17:16 Paul said he saw Athens wholly given to idolatory.

Sir what God were they worshipping that Paul consider Idolatory? I asked because you want to make us accept that the Romans have decreed and replace Zeus with Jupiter? And also, you said the worship of Zeus have ceased with tur Greeks?

Acts 17:15-16 (KJV) And they that conducted Paul brought him unto Athens: and receiving a commandment unto Silas and Timotheus for to come to him with all speed, they departed.
Now while Paul waited for them at Athens, his spirit was stirred in him, when he saw the city wholly given to idolatry.

Lol.
Do you mean another name for Zeus is "The Unknown God"? I thought it was Jesus that the Greeks used to replace Zeus according to you. You seem to have abandoned the narrative of JeZeus for a new one. If Jesus was a creation of the Greeks, why is Paul preaching to them to leave idolatry for Jesus in this chapter? Shouldn't the Greeks be the one doing the preaching?

You are confusing yourself unfortunately

Meanwhile you're yet to explain why pagan practices in Arabia were incorporated into Islam by your prophet

sonmvayina:
That's a lie, its either you are ignorant or just plan deceptive, Christianity was just been formed, it was still at the early stage. and during this time a lot of Greek philosophy was greatly involved. from philo of Alexandria to Augustine of Hippo. the bulk of the new faith is 95 % based on platonism and Neo-platoism. since they have the Greek translation of the Tanakh, they were scouting everywhere for passages to pass of as messianic. Christianity did not start in Judea. there was no mention of Jesus throughout the first century.

Lol.
Christianity did not start in Judea. The Greeks started Christianity but decided to make the central figure of their new religion a Jew, who was born, lived all his life, died, resurrected and ascended in the same Judea. Logic will mean Greeks have come to accept Judea as the center of their spirituality and religion. This makes a lot of sense

Kukutente23:
Lol.
Do you mean another name for Zeus is "The Unknown God"? I thought it was Jesus that the Greeks used to replace Zeus according to you. You seem to have abandoned the narrative of JeZeus for a new one. If Jesus was a creation of the Greeks, why is Paul preaching to them to leave idolatry for Jesus in this chapter? Shouldn't the Greeks be the one doing the preaching?

You are confusing yourself unfortunately

Meanwhile you're yet to explain why pagan practices in Arabia were incorporated into Islam by your prophet

Let me itemise to make it easy for you.

1. The worship of Zeus and others predates Christ.

2. While Christ was here, the Greeks still worship them. You can envince this even in the Gospel when Jesus denied audience to a Grecian woman and called her a dog.

3. That Paul in the Act or whoever wrote it claimed that Athens was wholly given to idolatry should have cured your ignorance of saying Greeks have abandoned Zeus.

What I have been pointing out to you is the fact that, Greco-Roman Roman influenced your Chrisrianity and as such, the Semitic message of Jesus of Nazareth who plainly told us in the Gospel that he came and was sent to the Lost Tribes of Israel changed once the Greco-Romans adopted the message.

As such Yausha turned Jesus bearing in mind that the same Yausha was translated to Joshua for the Joshua that preceded Moses but suddenly turn Jesus! 😳.

Kukutente23:
Lol.
Christianity did not start in Judea. The Greeks started Christianity but decided to make the central figure of their new religion a Jew, who was born, lived all his life, died, resurrected and ascended in the same Judea. Logic will mean Greeks have come to accept Judea as the center of their spirituality and religion. This makes a lot of sense

So, the Apostle that stay behind in Jerusalem as per Jesus command never practiced Christianity?

Lol

Kukutente23:
The woman whose daughter was healed was a Canaanite not Greek. Go and read Matthew 15. The Greeks were defeated in Judea. You really expect them to remain around and influencing religion and culture? In which universe does a defeated race become the protagonist of cultural colonialism?

Again, you lie. Matthew, Mark and John were Jews not Greeks. Luke was a Roman. None of the four were Greeks. Even the aprochyphal Gospels were written by Jews not Romans. Paul who wrote most epistles was a Roman Jew. Kindly mention the story of Jesus written by a Greek and the translation of the Bible was done by Hellenistic Jews not Greeks.

Again, there is no space for a son of God born without copulation in Greek religion or mysticism. So the story couldn't have come from the Greeks. Zeus had a wife. So who is Jesus' wife and where are his kids in your claim?

Have you ever heard of the Hasmonean dynasty led by the Maccabeans? Herod was also a Jewish descendant. You don't have the accurate history. Just jumping around in ignorance

So, those illetrates followers of Jesus wrote in excellent Greeks? Another miracle if you ask me.

Herodian Dynasty were not Jews or Jewish. Use Google or Wikipedia and cure your ignorance. They were idumean and descendants Easu. The one the Jews wrote that sold his heritage for food.

Kukutente23:
The woman whose daughter was healed was a Canaanite not Greek. Go and read Matthew 15. The Greeks were defeated in Judea. You really expect them to remain around and influencing religion and culture? In which universe does a defeated race become the protagonist of cultural colonialism?

Again, you lie. Matthew, Mark and John were Jews not Greeks. Luke was a Roman. None of the four were Greeks. Even the aprochyphal Gospels were written by Jews not Romans. Paul who wrote most epistles was a Roman Jew. Kindly mention the story of Jesus written by a Greek and the translation of the Bible was done by Hellenistic Jews not Greeks.

Again, there is no space for a son of God born without copulation in Greek religion or mysticism. So the story couldn't have come from the Greeks. Zeus had a wife. So who is Jesus' wife and where are his kids in your claim?

Have you ever heard of the Hasmonean dynasty led by the Maccabeans? Herod was also a Jewish descendant. You don't have the accurate history. Just jumping around in ignorance

How come we don't get to read of Jesus Stories in the Language he spoke which was Aramaic?

How come that his stories were largely in Grecian Tongue and not Aramaic?

Remember you said the Greece were chased away, how come their Language remained and influence things so much so that Grecian works remain the sources and Authorities on the Life and Times of Jesus?

Jesus spoke Aramaic, are you saying that that Language was never a written Language at the time of Jesus or even after his time here? How come, the so called 12 Disciples he choose could only write in fluent Greeks and not one of them gave us an account in Aramaic?

Not even one from the 11 remaining aside Judas?

Think about it!

Kukutente23:
The woman whose daughter was healed was a Canaanite not Greek. Go and read Matthew 15. The Greeks were defeated in Judea. You really expect them to remain around and influencing religion and culture? In which universe does a defeated race become the protagonist of cultural colonialism?

Again, you lie. Matthew, Mark and John were Jews not Greeks. Luke was a Roman. None of the four were Greeks. Even the aprochyphal Gospels were written by Jews not Romans. Paul who wrote most epistles was a Roman Jew. Kindly mention the story of Jesus written by a Greek and the translation of the Bible was done by Hellenistic Jews not Greeks.

Again, there is no space for a son of God born without copulation in Greek religion or mysticism. So the story couldn't have come from the Greeks. Zeus had a wife. So who is Jesus' wife and where are his kids in your claim?

Have you ever heard of the Hasmonean dynasty led by the Maccabeans? Herod was also a Jewish descendant. You don't have the accurate history. Just jumping around in ignorance

Mark 7:26-27 (KJV) The woman was a Greek, a Syrophenician by nation; and she besought him that he would cast forth the devil out of her daughter.
But Jesus said unto her, Let the children first be filled: for it is not meet to take the children's bread, and to cast it unto the dogs.

Mark says the woman was Greek, Mathew says she was Cannite. Lol and the both of them were inspired by the Holy Spirit. One penned Cannite and the other penned Greek. Lol again 🤣

Who should we believe between the Two?

I will go with Mark! Do you know why? His Gospel was older than that of Mathew and Scholars generally opined that Mathew was cribbing from Mark, so what he did was just to do a revionist agenda on the Gospel of Mark which was way older than his.

Lukuluku69:
Mark 7:26-27 (KJV) The woman was a Greek, a Syrophenician by nation; and she besought him that he would cast forth the devil out of her daughter.
But Jesus said unto her, Let the children first be filled: for it is not meet to take the children's bread, and to cast it unto the dogs.

Mark says the woman was Greek, Mathew says she was Cannite. Lol and the both of them were inspired by the Holy Spirit. One penned Cannite and the other penned Greek. Lol again 🤣

Who should we believe between the Two?

I will go with Mark! Do you know why? His Gospel was older than that of Mathew and Scholars generally opined that Mathew was cribbing from Mark, so what he did was just to do a revionist agenda on the Gospel of Mark which was way older than his.

You keep exposing your shallow knowledge of history. Syrophoenicians are Canaanite race. Go and read up your history I tell you. Mark referred to her as a Greek to highlight her status as a Gentile not her race. Read very well the verse you quoted. It says a Greek woman of Syrophoenician origin. Now how can a Greek be from Phoenicia and Syria which are both Canaanite race? Or are you unaware that Canaanites are generally used to refer to the descendants of Ham son of Noah whose son is Canaan? Greek there implied that she was a Gentile and that was highlighted to show the depth of her faith.

It is funny you suddenly recognise cribbing from one source to the other. So what do we do to the various biblical characters and stories that are in the Bible but appear in the Quran from Adam down to Jesus and his disciples? Do we also conclude now that Muhammad was just cribbing with a revisionist agenda or do we still stick with the theory of "it was revealed" in which case we have to look for why so many deviations and errors?!!

Kukutente23:
You keep exposing your shallow knowledge of history. Syrophoenicians are Canaanite race. Go and read up your history I tell you. Mark referred to her as a Greek to highlight her status as a Gentile not her race. Read very well the verse you quoted. It says a Greek woman of Syrophoenician origin. Now how can a Greek be from Phoenicia and Syria which are both Canaanite race? Or are you unaware that Canaanites are generally used to refer to the descendants of Ham son of Noah whose son is Canaan? Greek there implied that she was a Gentile and that was highlighted to show the depth of her faith.

It is funny you suddenly recognise cribbing from one source to the other. So what do we do to the various biblical characters and stories that are in the Bible but appear in the Quran from Adam down to Jesus and his disciples? Do we also conclude now that Muhammad was just cribbing with a revisionist agenda or do we still stick with the theory of "it was revealed" in which case we have to look for why so many deviations and errors?!!

Read again Mark says Greek Marhew says she was Cannite. Sort it out.

As for Cribbing, we all know who was cribbing from who. That the stories we retold as I said earlier was to teach doctrines and teach lessons.

Moses told stories of Jonah, a Native of Niniveh, he told story of Ballam a non Jew and Jesus told the story of Noah when in fact Noah was not an Israelite nor a Jew and Jesus disciple appealed to yje Words of Enoch who lived millennia away from their time.

I ask, were they cribbing or retelling an otherwise not lost message?

When Jesus quote Moses and talk about Solomon was he cribbing or the message of Moses, David and Solomon were lost?

Lukuluku69:
How come we don't get to read of Jesus Stories in the Language he spoke which was Aramaic?

How come that his stories were largely in Grecian Tongue and not Aramaic?

Remember you said the Greece were chased away, how come their Language remained and influence things so much so that Grecian works remain the sources and Authorities on the Life and Times of Jesus?

Jesus spoke Aramaic, are you saying that that Language was never a written Language at the time of Jesus or even after his time here? How come, the so called 12 Disciples he choose could only write in fluent Greeks and not one of them gave us an account in Aramaic?

Not even one from the 11 remaining aside Judas?

Think about it!

The Gospels were written in Koine Greek which is a form of the Greek language adopted for use in the Roman Empire for communication among the various nations that made up the empire. It is linguistically distinct from the classical Greek used by Greek philosophers and native speakers.

Like I earlier said, the Romans were not colonialists while the Greeks were. So during the Greek conquests, the Greek language had become a lingua franca. Your question is like asking why the history of Yorubas, Hausa or Igbo is written in English. The simple reason is because English is the lingua franca of the country that majority of Yorubas belong to. The Yoruba history is itself passed down orally in Yoruba language but in written form, it is basically written in English. Again, you have shown your ignorance.

Let us not forget that you're yet to explain why Islam has so many pagan practices and why the quran has took so many of its characters from the Bible.

Lukuluku69:
Let me itemise to make it easy for you.

1. The worship of Zeus and others predates Christ.

2. While Christ was here, the Greeks still worship them. You can envince this even in the Gospel when Jesus denied audience to a Grecian woman and called her a dog.

3. That Paul in the Act or whoever wrote it claimed that Athens was wholly given to idolatry should have cured your ignorance of saying Greeks have abandoned Zeus.

What I have been pointing out to you is the fact that, Greco-Roman Roman influenced your Chrisrianity and as such, the Semitic message of Jesus of Nazareth who plainly told us in the Gospel that he came and was sent to the Lost Tribes of Israel changed once the Greco-Romans adopted the message.

As such Yausha turned Jesus bearing in mind that the same Yausha was translated to Joshua for the Joshua that preceded Moses but suddenly turn Jesus! 😳.

1. Taken

2. There is no Greek woman called dog in Mark. The woman was a syrophoenician. I see you have stylishly dropped the origin the bible gave her for your preference.

3. I guess to you idolatry is only the worship of Zeus. This means the Meccans were not idolators. What then was Muhammad's problem with them?

I see it is no longer YeZeus now. You have now arrived at Yashua You see how you keep confusing yourself in a bid to force a narrative?

When will you explain the pagan practices of Islam such as kissing the black stone and circumbulation of the Kaaba the House of idols