₦airaland Forum

Gandollar:
He realized that after issuing the threat, hence the repetitive apology. But his soul is already lost and he will still kpay the evangelist if he gets the opportunity and no one is watching.

He risks death sentence and dismissal if he tries it and gets caught. The military won't tolerate that nonsense.

Harnny:
bro... you are feeling the economy, I am not. We are not even resident of the same country. Why do you jump into conclusions? Same way you are jumping into conversations.

Who's your bro?
You're replying a woman yet you can't type respectively. Na wah for men like you o.

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So you have a basis to say why that is no longer applicable and I understand but it is difficult for you to understand there was a reason for a similar verse in the Quran.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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I know someone like you will wish Quran 4:36 never exist. Truth is... you know this already. However, it does not suit your position. You will find some arguement against it but you will in the same line claim Jesus asked you to disregard all previous law because there are new ones. I do not know how you convince yourself that context in the Quran is not valid but it is in the Bible.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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


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

You said Quran does not in anyway preach loving your neighbor. You know this, but you refused to acknowledge it. I have shown you. You are here insisting the violent passages in the Bible is not applicable anymore just because love was preached by Jesus in the new testament. I have shown you a verse in the new testament that can protray Jesus as racist, is there anywhere in the Bible this was debunked explicitly except that Jesus said love your neighbour according to yourself? I have now shown you where the Quran said love your neighbor. that is not enough for you. I have also told you, these verses you sat on has to do with war and further down, there are more passages that further ties it to the scene as at then. The only form of war permissible in Islam is in self defence and this is clearly outline severally. the verse was in regards to those who broke a treaty and how they should be dealth with when they attack. I do not think any sane person will not prepare to defend themselves from aggression no matter how peaceful they might be.

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

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

What kind of God is that?!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What kind of God is that?!

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

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



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



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

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

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

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

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

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

Quran 9:29, from the chapter At-Tawbah, was revealed around 630 CE in a specific historical context related to the Byzantine Empire and the Battle of Tabuk. It is part of a larger discussion about hypocrites, pagans, and the "People of the Book" (Jews and Christians), and outlines the rules for dealing with those who are actively hostile towards Muslims.
The verse and its historical context
The verse reads, "Fight those who do not believe in Allah or in the Last Day and who do not consider unlawful what Allah and His Messenger have made unlawful and who do not adopt the religion of truth from those who were given the Scripture, until they give the Jizya willingly while they are humbled".
The historical backdrop is crucial for understanding its intent:
The Battle of Mu'tah and Byzantine aggression: The conflict began when a Byzantine ally assassinated a Muslim emissary. After a Muslim expedition met heavy Byzantine forces, word reached the Muslims that a large Byzantine army was gathering to attack the fledgling Muslim state in Medina.
The Tabuk expedition: In response to this impending threat, the Prophet Muhammad led an army to Tabuk, near the Syrian border. It was in this setting that Quran 9:29 was revealed, authorizing the Muslims to fight against the specific hostile forces threatening them.
The outcome of Tabuk: The Byzantine army ultimately did not show up for a fight. Instead, some local rulers from the "People of the Book" made peace with the Muslims, agreeing to pay a tribute known as jizya. This payment was a sign of submission to Muslim authority and a pledge not to fight against them.
Interpretations and conditions of the verse
Modern Islamic scholars emphasize that this verse should not be interpreted as a general command for aggression against all non-Muslims. Instead, they highlight that it is a conditional directive for a specific military context.
Self-defense, not aggression: The verses must be read alongside other Quranic passages that permit fighting only in self-defense and command Muslims to pursue peace if the enemy inclines towards it (e.g., Quran 2:190 and 8:61).
A "war tax," not an unfair burden: Jizya is understood by some as a tax paid by non-Muslims in an Islamic state in exchange for protection and exemption from military service, which was compulsory for Muslims. However, this is debated and the phrase "willingly while they are humbled" is viewed differently depending on the interpretation.
Targeting hostile forces: The phrase "Fight those who..." is interpreted to mean those who initiated aggression, violated treaties, and threatened the safety of the Muslim state, rather than all People of the Book indiscriminately.
Alternative views
Some classical and alternative interpretations differ significantly:
The Doctrine of Abrogation (naskh): Some classical scholars adopted the view that verses like 9:29, revealed later, abrogated or superseded earlier, more peaceful verses of the Quran.
General command for warfare: This view posits that 9:29 is a universal command for warfare until People of the Book convert or pay jizya, regardless of whether they initiated aggression.
Interpretive differences on jizya: Some classical scholars described jizya as a sign of humiliation and subservience. However, others contend that the phrase "humbled" refers to ending their rebellious pride rather than daily humiliation.
Ultimately, interpreting the context of Quran 9:29 requires careful consideration of the verse's historical setting, the entirety of the Quran, and the different perspectives within Islamic scholarship.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



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



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



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



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


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

You still failed to understand the simple concept of context. If something is not explicitly stated, does not mean a text has no context. Also, the Roman Empire after converting to a Christian state attempted to conquer north Africa... read your history. Also, that a majority Muslim state waged war does not mean it was done for religious purpose. Every state waged war and tried to conquer in the earlier ages. Be it a Christian or Muslim state. At some point, the ottoman empire court was as immoral as it could get but was still seen as a Muslim state because of the majority Muslims there. Does not mean anything they did was based off religion. There were wars between Muslim majority nations, do you classify this as religious affairs or do you still claim this was done because of the verse above?.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



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


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



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


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

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

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

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

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

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

Why do you think the Bible was revised so many times?. Is it because some of the context needed to be added?. Muslim refused to update the text as recieved. If you need the context, you have to depend on the explanation If it is not contained in the original text. The Quran is words as received. The situations that warranted these words are not stated except if it is in the word itself.

[

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

olabrad:
[

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



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


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



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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Harnny:
.

Check This video for the things that you are trying to cover up.

Islamic extremists are the green snakes, while socalled moderate Muslims are the green grass shielding the green snakes!


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o_ijZ3fuEE0?feature=shared

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




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

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

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


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

Show me where Jesus captured people as slaves like muhamed dud. Show me where Jesus was sleeping with slaves like muhamed did.
Show me where Jesus ever encouraged people to own slaves like muhamed did! In fact, Galatians 3:28 discouraged designating people as slaves!
Your opinion on the revelation is yours. I do not argue with you on that. It is okay to believe Jesus existed and he is God. That Moses got messages from God. Yet, difficult to believe Mohammed got messages from God. However, your modern pastors claims this but its alright.

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

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

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

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

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

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

People that recieved a revelation said it referenced a treaty, you are saying it did not. At least there are historical sources traceable to the life of Mohammed unlike Paul who lived centuries after writing about the life of someone he did not witness without any reliable manuscript. Don't throw stones in a glass house mate.

Read about the reign of Justinian in 533AD and you will find your answer. It seems it is very difficult for you to comprehend.

How could Abraham have traveled that far right? But Jesus can live resurrection the 3rd day, Moses can split the red sea.

You asked why I jumped into slavery, isn't everything the Christians did supposed to portray their religion?. Are the Christians not the perpetrators of slavery and colonialism?

Who witnessed Jesus conversation with the devil while he was on his 40 days fast?. Did he write down his account himself? You really are a piece of work not looking inward first while trying to discredit something else.

Harnny:
People that recieved a revelation said it referenced a treaty, you are saying it did not.

The "revelation" was received by muhamed ONLY! Show me where he personally said it was about a treaty. Show me anything that relates to a treaty in that verse?

At least there are historical sources traceable to the life of Mohammed unlike Paul who lived centuries after writing about the life of someone he did not witness without any reliable manuscript. Don't throw stones in a glass house mate.

History about the life of Muhammad is traceable to lying, deception, murder, bloodshed and trickery. Quran said Paul is a true messanger of God. Or did the Quran lied about Paul.

Muslims condemn the message of Paul because he never saw Jesus, but they swallow the fake revelations of Muhammad, who also never saw Jesus! That's double standard and hypocrisy!

How can a self acclaimed history graduate make the statement bolded above. A true history student will know that Paul started preaching just 4 years after Jesus resurrected and not centuries after. It was the fake prophet Muhammad that came centuries after Jesus, not Paul!

No true student of history will make the bolded statement. Paul started preaching about Jesus 4 years after Jesus died and resurrected

Read about the reign of Justinian in 533AD and you will find your answer. It seems it is very difficult for you to comprehend

Justinian's Vandalic War of 533AD WAS NOT a religious war. He didn't fight it to expand Christianity. He fought the war to reclaim lost Roman Empire.

The Vandals (those occupying north Africa then) that Justinian fought against were also Christians. This is unlike the Arab invasion of North Africa, which was a religion war inspired by the demonic "revelations" of Muhammad.

How could Abraham have traveled that far right? But Jesus can live resurrection the 3rd day, Moses can split the red sea.

There are eye witnesses to the resurrection of Jesus Christ and there are clear evidences of the parting of the red sea. Can you show me evidences of Abraham traveling to mecca to build kaaba?

There is no evidence. There are no eye witnesses! There is no singular historical proof! The story is false! Muhamed lied, the same way he lied about scientific miracles in the Quran, all of which have been debunked!

You asked why I jumped into slavery, isn't everything the Christians did supposed to portray their religion?. Are the Christians not the perpetrators of slavery and colonialism?

A truly informed person, who is a true history graduate, will judge Christianity by what Jesus teaches in the Holy Bible, not by the behaviours of some Christians. Show me where Jesus encouraged slavery or owned slaves. There are evidences that muhamed had slaves and captured people as slaves!

Who witnessed Jesus conversation with the devil while he was on his 40 days fast?. Did he write down his account himself? You really are a piece of work not looking inward first while trying to discredit something else.

Quran says Gospel is true. The gospel says Jesus was tempted by Satan. Doubting the story is saying that Quran is lying when it claimed to confirm the gospel!

olabrad:
The "revelation" was received by muhamed ONLY! Show me where he personally said it was about a treaty. Show me anything that relates to a treaty in that verse?




History about the life of Muhammad is traceable to lying, deception, murder, bloodshed and trickery. Quran said Paul is a true messanger of God. Or did the Quran lied about Paul.

Muslims condemn the message of Paul because he never saw Jesus, but they swallow the fake revelations of Muhammad, who also never saw Jesus! That's double standard and hypocrisy!

How can a self acclaimed history graduate make the statement bolded above. A true history student will know that Paul started preaching just 4 years after Jesus resurrected and not centuries after. It was the fake prophet Muhammad that came centuries after Jesus, not Paul!

No true student of history will make the bolded statement. Paul started preaching about Jesus 4 years after Jesus died and resurrected


Justinian's Vandalic War of 533AD WAS NOT a religious war. He didn't fight it to expand Christianity. He fought the war to reclaim lost Roman Empire.

The Vandals (those occupying north Africa then) that Justinian fought against were also Christians. This is unlike the Arab invasion of North Africa, which was a religion war inspired by the demonic "revelations" of Muhammad.



There are eye witnesses to the resurrection of Jesus Christ and there are clear evidences of the parting of the red sea. Can you show me evidences of Abraham traveling to mecca to build kaaba?

There is no evidence. There are no eye witnesses! There is no singular historical proof! The story is false! Muhamed lied, the same way he lied about scientific miracles in the Quran, all of which have been debunked!


A truly informed person, who is a true history graduate, will judge Christianity by what Jesus teaches in the Holy Bible, not by the behaviours of some Christians. Show me where Jesus encouraged slavery or owned slaves. There are evidences that muhamed had slaves and captured people as slaves!



Quran says Gospel is true. The gospel says Jesus was tempted by Satan. Doubting the story is saying that Quran is lying when it claimed to confirm the gospel!

Your last points sums it all... by the behavior of some Christians. People gave accurate account of the life of Mohammed but the human and the prophetic account. 10s of thousands of people gave account. You all followed the account of someone who was not even a disciples and this makes sense to you?.

I never doubted any of the biblical stories. You are the one doubting the Quranic accounts. I only compared them to the biblical stories which despite how wild, you still believed in.

Sometimes it is really not even the how you Christians tarnish other people's believe that might make them angry. Look at all our conversation history. Review it yourself. Is there any point where I have called Jesus by any insulting names? Is there any point I have likened him to devil, evil, fake, murderer, thief. Even at the point where I pointed at a racist comment, I explained that I understand the context. This is indicative of how an average Nigerian Christian thinks and behave. More holy than the Pope. Have absolutely no respect for others. I cannot even Imaginr how you will relate with an Hindu. Yet, others are the one not tolerant.

You create excuses for every actions of Christians that I have pointed out but the trying every way to attribute the behaviour of Muslim to the Quran ignoring the more peaceful instruction and the context of the violent ones.

You claimed Jesus gave you new laws... as written by Paul who never followed Jesus durring his life but its okay for you to claim those who were alive durring the life of Mohammed and his followers are wrong to supply the context surrounding his revelation.

The Bible his an account and explanation of events of Jesus not an original note of his words as spoken. It is bound to offer context and explanation.

The Quran is direct speech not context. The hadith is what offers the context. I hope you understand the differences.

Why is Mohammed seeing Jesus supposed to be a thing. Did Jesus met Moses to be validated. How does that even need to be a thing? I really do not get some of your arguement.

Muslims never believe Mohammed is faultless. You really need to understand Islam. As far as they are concerned. He is just a human with a special mission. He also never portrayed himself as otherwise.

Harnny:
Your last points sums it all... by the behavior of some Christians. People gave accurate account of the life of Mohammed but the human and the prophetic account. 10s of thousands of people gave account. You all followed the account of someone who was not even a disciples and this makes sense to you?.

Lolz. Is muhamed a disciple of Jesus Christ?! So, why do you believe the storied muhamed told about Jesus Christ despite the fact that muhamed came almost 600 years after Jesus?! Double Standard and Hypocrisy together in one body!

Who wrote the stories of Muhammad?! Which year was the stories written?! Up to hundred years after his death, right?! Yet, you believe the stories! But you are quick to condemn bible stories Because they were written several years after Jesus has resurrected!

I never doubted any of the biblical stories. You are the one doubting the Quranic accounts. I only compared them to the biblical stories which despite how wild, you still believed in.

If you never doubted bible stories, then you can't believe Quran stories because Quran contradicts the contents of the bible. That's one of the facts pointing to the unreliability of the Quran. Quran clams it confirms the Gospel, but it's contents directly contradict the Gospel. So, muhamed is lying. His revelations couldn't have come from God of Abraham.

Sometimes it is really not even the how you Christians tarnish other people's believe that might make them angry. Look at all our conversation history. Review it yourself. Is there any point where I have called Jesus by any insulting names? Is there any point I have likened him to devil, evil, fake, murderer, thief. Even at the point where I pointed at a racist comment, I explained that I understand the context. This is indicative of how an average Nigerian Christian thinks and behave. More holy than the Pope. Have absolutely no respect for others. I cannot even Imaginr how you will relate with an Hindu. Yet, others are the one not tolerant.

Which religion promotes intolerance against other religions and command it's followers to fight against other religions?! The answer is Islam!

Muslims call us kafirs, yet, you dare complain here! Many of your Alfas even call Jesus a thief and irresponsible child!

Even in your 5 times daily prayers, you refer to Christians and Jews as accursed people. Yet, you dare complain here!

Calling muhamed a liar is a statement of fact. He claimed that Jesus didn't die, whereas, History declares that Jesus died. He claimed that Abraham built Kaaba, whereas, there is zero scientific evidence to back it. He claimed that his name was written in the Torah, whereas, there is nothing like that!

You create excuses for every actions of Christians that I have pointed out but the trying every way to attribute the behaviour of Muslim to the Quran ignoring the more peaceful instruction and the context of the violent ones.

The so-called "peaceful" verses in the Quran came up when muhamed had not built an army and become powerful. The moment he built a big army, he changed his "revelations" from peaceful to violent. Ask yourself why Allah would first give peaceful verses, but then change them to violent verses later! What kind of god is that?!

You claimed Jesus gave you new laws... as written by Paul who never followed Jesus durring his life but its okay for you to claim those who were alive durring the life of Mohammed and his followers are wrong to supply the context surrounding his revelation.

You claim to know history but keep on making disturbingly ignorant comments. It wasn't Paul that told us we should love one another. It was Jesus himself that said it.

Do you know that Quran said Paul is a true messenger of God?! If you condemn Paul's message, it means you are condemning the Quran! .

I don't believe anything muhamed said because his socalled revelations condemn my faith as a Christian and his messages oppose facts. I wouldn't have bothered about muhamed if he didn't claim to be sent by the God of Abraham, which is a big lie!

The Bible is an account and explanation of events of Jesus not an original note of his words as spoken. It is bound to offer context and explanation.

The Quran is direct speech not context. The hadith is what offers the context. I hope you understand the differences.

In that case, Quran can't hide behind context.

Why is Mohammed seeing Jesus supposed to be a thing. Did Jesus met Moses to be validated. How does that even need to be a thing? I really do not get some of your arguement

If muhamed not seeing Jesus is not a thing to you, why then do you say Paul not seeing Jesus is a thing?! Hypocrisy and Double Standard in full swing!!!

Muslims never believe Mohammed is faultless. You really need to understand Islam. As far as they are concerned. He is just a human with a special mission. He also never portrayed himself as otherwise.

Quran says muhamed is the perfect example for Muslims. How can an imperfect man be your perfect example?! Or are you saying Quran 33:21 is false?!

olabrad:
Lolz. Is muhamed a disciple of Jesus Christ?! So, why do you believe the storied muhamed told about Jesus Christ despite the fact that muhamed came almost 600 years after Jesus?! Double Standard and Hypocrisy together in one body!

Who wrote the stories of Muhammad?! Which year was the stories written?! Up to hundred years after his death, right?! Yet, you believe the stories! But you are quick to condemn bible stories Because they were written several years after Jesus has resurrected!



If you never doubted bible stories, then you can't believe Quran stories because Quran contradicts the contents of the bible. That's one of the facts pointing to the unreliability of the Quran. Quran clams it confirms the Gospel, but it's contents directly contradict the Gospel. So, muhamed is lying. His revelations couldn't have come from God of Abraham.



Which religion promotes intolerance against other religions and command it's followers to fight against other religions?! The answer is Islam!

Muslims call us kafirs, yet, you dare complain here! Many of your Alfas even call Jesus a thief and irresponsible child!

Even in your 5 times daily prayers, you refer to Christians and Jews as accursed people. Yet, you dare complain here!

Calling muhamed a liar is a statement of fact. He claimed that Jesus didn't die, whereas, History declares that Jesus died. He claimed that Abraham built Kaaba, whereas, there is zero scientific evidence to back it. He claimed that his name was written in the Torah, whereas, there is nothing like that!



The so-called "peaceful" verses in the Quran came up when muhamed had not built an army and become powerful. The moment he built a big army, he changed his "revelations" from peaceful to violent. Ask yourself why Allah would first give peaceful verses, but then change them to violent verses later! What kind of god is that?!


You claim to know history but keep on making disturbingly ignorant comments. It wasn't Paul that told us we should love one another. It was Jesus himself that said it.

Do you know that Quran said Paul is a true messenger of God?! If you condemn Paul's message, it means you are condemning the Quran! .

I don't believe anything muhamed said because his socalled revelations condemn my faith as a Christian and his messages oppose facts. I wouldn't have bothered about muhamed if he didn't claim to be sent by the God of Abraham, which is a big lie!



In that case, Quran can't hide behind context.



If muhamed not seeing Jesus is not a thing to you, why then do you say Paul not seeing Jesus is a thing?! Hypocrisy and Double Standard in full swing!!!



Quran says muhamed is the perfect example for Muslims. How can an imperfect man be your perfect example?! Or are you saying Quran 33:21 is false?!

How did Quran 33 21 claim Mohammed was perfect?.
Where did the Quran mention Paul?
Oh!... you are okay with implicit interpretation here but that's not okay with other verses being interpreted with clear context given?. Jokes.

Bro... no be me dey doubt Paul naa... I just dey compare but now na me be hypocrite.

You are claiming Paul is a prophet who wrote the story of Jesus after being visited by the Holy spirit yeah. I did not doubt Paul and his teachings. Thats up to Paul and God. The contention is that you believed Paul enough to accept everything he wrote about the life of Jesus as a narrative. Paul never even claimed to be a Prophet.. Even his speech and conversations. However, Mohammed cannot have similar revelations.

Because Mohammed went to war makes him less of a prophet right?. Then I guess the same could be said of Elijah, Samuel, Samson, David and Josiah who participated directly or indirectly in wars. Yet, these are all important figures according to the Bible.

In between these Prophets are those that preached love like Jesus then comes those who preached both again way before Jesus. If the message was about love only, we probable should have stopped at Hosea right?. I mean, we get it after that.