₦airaland Forum

Fenrir:
Then we agreed its all fairytale because I did not say "either existed" I just stated a moral framework

Wise man
War lord

Mohammed is alleged to have written the Quran, so a fair comparison would be him with other supposed writers of Bible books, some of who were warlords. And I'm very certain you wouldn't claim the Bible advocates murder just because some verses state that their God told them to murder people. Or would you?

Fenrir:
Thats my beliefs,
I follow no religion
I practice no religion
I believe in no gods at all

Thats definition of atheist

That is your own definition of your own atheism, which is your "belief".

I do not believe there are no gods because I know there are no gods, and that gods are created by human beings who believe in their imaginary existence.

So perhaps you should go do some more research so your "beliefs" can become actual knowledge.

Fenrir:
And what it doesn't take into account is more people are leaving Islam faster than they are coverting or breeding more

People that are born into it are leaving it faster than its growing

Please don’t be dumb. If it doesn’t take those leaving into account, why would Islam still be the fastest growing? How can Islam grow if significant numbers are leaving?

Fenrir:
And now jusd tried to use AI to win the debate

The "+2" happens when AI forms a link BUT that link WONT copy and paste

I researched the crap out of AI the second people started accusing me of using it

Then I got a PAID AI DETECTOR not a free one a paid one

And this is just further proof of your hypocrisy

What has that got to do with the facts presented?

Eniitankorede:
➜So you agree!
➜ And you are now asking why?
➜ You will continue to argue about the why until all your family become Muslims.

1. Agree with what?🥱🥱🥱

2. Asking you why what? 🥱🥱🥱

3. You have the wrong person entirely, as I have to Whys to shove in your direction, especially where religion is concerned. I deal with fact,s not falsehoods or suppositions.🥱🥱🥱

budaatum:
➜You are entitled to disagree. Especially when you call ops post "Islamic truth", which it clearly is not.
➜ If op's post were "Islamic truth", don't you think most of the world would ban it?
➜ And do you think predominantly Christian London would elect a Muslim as Mayor three times if what op posted were "Islamic truth"? Now, if that particular man had, say, instituted Sharia Law in London, then it would make sense for you to bring it up as an issue for us to debate here on this thread.

1. It isn't? Please, do tell us what aspect of the post is not based on that which concerns Islam? I am actually interested in reading your rebuttal. 🥱🥱

2. You mean the same way that the world has literally banned every other evil religion out there? Are you sheeting me? 🥱🥱🥱

3. First, London is not predominantly Christian. Second, this subject is not about a man who was elected mayor and happens to be of the religion of Islam. This topic concerns the religion of Islam and its teachings for those who subscribe to it. 🥱🥱

Eniitankorede:
What has that got to do with the facts presented?

It means Nigerian men are hypocrites, throw accusations around for months with no proof and cant prove it because I don't do it but you all do

Check my posts, I went on a rampage proving frauds that scream AI were using AI and posting the proof

Oh wrong person, I was distracted

Kobojunkie:
1. It isn't? Please, do tell us what aspect of the post is not based on that which concerns Islam? I am actually interested in reading your rebuttal.

The problem with some of you is you completely disregard your own personal experience and say what contradicts said experience.

I am very certain there must be Muslims where you live. Pray tell, how many of them have tried to kill you?

When you go to the market, how many times have you asked the religion of the person selling to you to ensure you are not buying from a Muslim who wants to put poison in what you buy?

Regarding your "This topic concerns the religion of Islam and its teachings for those who subscribe to it", the Mayor of London subscribes to Islam and has not killed anyone yet, and nor do we Londoners have any reason to think he intends to, which is why we have elected him three times already.

As to your "First, London is not predominantly Christian", "the religious composition of London comprised: 40.7% Christianity, 27.1% No religion, 15.0% Islam, 5.1% Hinduism, 1.7% Judaism, 1.6% Sikhism, 0.9% Buddhism, 1.0% Other religion, and 7.0% Not stated". Wiki. And you contesting this makes me think you are just pulling your supposed facts out of thin air.

Kobojunkie, and before you start arguing about predominance, perhaps look up its definition.

As used, it means Christianity has the most adherents of any religion, and we Londoners, including atheist me, elected a Muslim as Mayor!

budaatum:
➜The problem with some of you is you completely disregard your own personal experience and say what contradicts said experience. I am very certain there must be Muslims where you live. Pray tell, how many of them have tried to kill you?
➜ When you go to the market, how many times have you asked the religion of the person selling to you to ensure you are not buying from a Muslim who wants to put poison in what you buy?
➜ Regarding your "This topic concerns the religion of Islam and its teachings for those who subscribe to it", the Mayor of London subscribes to Islam and has not killed anyone yet, and nor do we Londoners have any reason to think he intends to, which is why we have elected him three times already.
➜ As to your "First, London is not predominantly Christian", "the religious composition of London comprised: 40.7% Christianity, 27.1% No religion, 15.0% Islam, 5.1% Hinduism, 1.7% Judaism, 1.6% Sikhism, 0.9% Buddhism, 1.0% Other religion, and 7.0% Not stated". Wiki. And you contesting this makes me think you are just pulling your supposed facts out of thin air.

1. Do I need to wait for a muslim to actually attack me before I can acknowledge that indeed the Quran is a book that promotes violence against those who do not subscribe to the religion? I am trying really hard here to understand why you seem to be having a terribly hard time with this one, given that you don't ever have a hard time at all, casting Christianity down as a religion that never seems to have truth to offer. I mean, what is with th double standard here?

2. Again, I made clear in my previous post that this discussion isn't about us trying to diagnose individuals but the belief behind a religion out there. So, why are you supposedly having an utterly hard time separating sentiments from the issue and facts that apply to it?

3. So, you equate this Mayor of London with the person of Mohammed in the quran whom all Moslims are expected to live their lives in honor of? Do tell us, what aspect of this mayor of yours reminds you of the person of Mohammed? Since you have made him the standard as far as Islam and its teachings are concerned. I am curious to know what it is about him that reminds you of Mohammed, the figure whose example every muslim is expected to follow. 🥱🥱🥱

4. Oh boy! Now, figures taken from the London census of 2021 data are not good enough for you? 😫😫😫😫

budaatum:
..., and before you start arguing about predominance, perhaps look up its definition.
As used, it means Christianity has the most adherents of any religion, and we Londoners, including atheist me, elected a Muslim as Mayor!

Huh?

Kobojunkie:
Huh?

I knew you'd want to argue it, so explain to me please how Christianity, with 40%, is not the religion with the most adherents in London!

budaatum:
➜I knew you'd want to argue it, so explain to me please how Christianity, with 40%, is not the religion with the most adherents in London!

Recall what you, in fact, posted, which is...

budaatum:
And do you think predominantly Christian London would elect a Muslim as Mayor three times if what op posted were "Islamic truth"?

London is not predominantly Christian. Yes, there are more individuals in London who are recognized as Christian compared to those who recognize any other religion, but again, London is not predominantly Christian. 🥱🥱🥱

Kobojunkie:
1. Do I need to wait for a muslim to actually attack me before I can acknowledge that indeed the Quran is a book that promotes violence against those who do not subscribe to the religion?

Yes, I think you should! Unless you want to argue that Muslims don't do what you claim their religious books says they should do!

And for your information, the Quran does not "promote violence against those who do not subscribe to the religion"! And claiming it does is like saying Christianity promotes crusades because some Christians interpreted their Bible so, or that Muslims adhere to the interpretations of boko haram!

Kobojunkie:
Recall what you, in fact, posted, which is...London is not predominantly Christian. Yes, there are more individuals in London who are recognized as Christian compared to those who recognize any other religion, but again, London is not predominantly Christian. 🥱🥱🥱

That is predominance! It means more Londoners are Christians than any other faith, and not 'most Londoners are Christians', which is what you seem to think it means.

The fact is London, which is 40% Christian do not think Islam promotes their murder, or they wouldn't have elected a Muslim as Mayor!

budaatum:
➜Yes, I think you should! Unless you want to argue that Muslims don't do what you claim their religious books says they should do!
➜ And for your information, the Quran does not "promote violence against those who do not subscribe to the religion"!
➜ And claiming it does is like saying Christianity promotes crusades because some Christians interpreted their Bible
➜ so, or that Muslims adhere to the interpretations of boko haram!

You conveniently didn't answer the actual question asked. Again, do I need to wait for a muslim to actually attack me before I can acknowledge that indeed the Quran is a book that promotes violence against those who do not subscribe to the religion?🥱🥱

2. I take it then that you have never in fact read the Quran at all? 🥱🥱🥱

3. Wrong! Christianity, the religion, is found nowhere in the Bible, nor can anything about the religion be connected to the Book in question. It is literally impossible to trace anything that the Christian world engages in back to the books of the Bible. Anyone who has honestly studied the religion of Christianity would admit that the book is a chronicle meant entirely for the bloodline of Israel— the people who bear YHWH's name— God of Israel—, and the population that is Christianity does not claim to be of that bloodline. The Romans— the very people who destroyed Judea and exiled the Jews from the land(bringing an end to the movement that once existed in the land) —not only created and championed the religion that is Christianity today. 🥱🥱

4. I don't do interpretations of any book. I read and comprehend what is written as it is written, and that book clearly states that all Jews and Christians(including all those who do not believe) are fodder for those who do. 🥱🥱

budaatum:
➜ That is predominance! It means more Londoners are Christians than any other faith, and not 'most Londoners are Christians', which is what you seem to think it means.
The fact is London, which is 40% Christian do not think Islam promotes their murder, or they wouldn't have elected a Muslim as Mayor!

Again,

Kobojunkie:
London is not predominantly Christian. Yes, there are more individuals in London who are recognized as Christian compared to those who recognize any other religion, but again, London is not predominantly Christian. 🥱🥱🥱

Look up the meaning and correct use of the word again, if you are still struggling beyond this point.

Kobojunkie:
Again, Look up the meaning and correct use of the word again, if you are still struggling beyond this point.

I so love how you ignore the fact that a city with only 15% of Muslims elected a Muslim whom you believe practices a religion that you claim wants to murder you.

Even New York that is 57-60% Christain just elected a Muslim mayor, but you want to believe Muslims are encouraged by their Quran to murder non-believers, and you want me to discard all those opinions and voters that disagree with yours and elected a Muslim and consider yours worthy of consideration. Sorry, no can do. Enjoy your opinion.

And I have read the Quran. That's why I know it does not encourage Muslims to murder you! And that's apart from the fact that I bet you meet Muslims every day and none of them have ever threatened to murder you, yet.

Kobojunkie:
4. I don't do interpretations of any book. I read and comprehend what is written as it is written, and that book clearly states that all Jews and Christians(including all those who do not believe) are fodder for those who do. 🥱🥱

Quote chapter and verse that you read that tells Muslims to kill non-believers then. It is that simple!

budaatum:
➜I so love how you ignore the fact that a city with only 15% of Muslims elected a Muslim whom you believe practices a religion that you claim wants to murder you.
➜Even New York that is 57-60% Christain just elected a Muslim mayor, but you want to believe Muslims are encouraged by their Quran to murder non-believers, and you want me to discard all those opinions and voters that disagree with yours and elected a Muslim and consider yours worthy of consideration. Sorry, no can do. Enjoy your opinion.
➜And I have read the Quran. That's why I know it does not encourage Muslims to murder you! And that's apart from the fact that I bet you meet Muslims every day and none of them have ever threatened to murder you, yet.

1. London is not Nigeria, where I would expect individuals to vote only along religious lines. So, stop focusing on the silly things. 🥱🥱🥱

2. Again, stop deviating and focus on the topic! 🥱🥱🥱

3. Are you Mohammed that you would imagine some sort of authority over muslims? Are you sure you are OK? 🥱🥱

budaatum:
➜Quote chapter and verse that you read that tells Muslims to kill non-believers then. It is that simple!

You mean the passage you quoted out of context earlier is what you present in defense of Islam? You previously scolded someone else regarding the quoting of verses out of context, yet you turned around and did the same... expecting me to do exactly what with that? 🥱🥱🥱

Eniitankorede:
Pentecostal growth is situated within Christianity. The fastest growing religion in the world is Islam. Read what AI has to say:

AI Overview


+2
Why Muslims are the world's fastest-growing religious group
Islam is projected to be the fastest-growing major religion globally, primarily due to high fertility rates and a young population, with forecasts suggesting it will nearly equal Christianity in numbers by 2050, though Christianity remains the largest faith now, according to studies by the Pew Research Center.
Key Factors in Islam's Growth:
Youthful Population: Muslims have the youngest median age compared to other religious groups.
Higher Fertility Rates: Muslim women generally have more children, contributing significantly to population growth.
Geographic Spread: Continued growth through migration and commerce, especially in Asia, America, and Europe.
Projections:
By 2050, the global Muslim population is expected to grow faster than the Christian population.
While Christianity currently has the largest number of followers (around 2.3 billion), Islam is close behind (around 2.0 billion) and growing rapidly.

U will do well to read what I wrote.
I said Pentecostalism is the fastest growing religion by CONVERSION.
When u look at rate of conversion to new religious movement, Pentecostalism has the highest not Islam.

Islam is the fastest growing religion by birth not religion. More people are being added to Islam by birth than conversion.

SIRTee15:
U will do well to read what I wrote.
I said Pentecostalism is the fastest growing religion by CONVERSION.
When u look at rate of conversion to new religious movement, Pentecostalism has the highest not Islam.

Islam is the fastest growing religion by birth not religion. More people are being added to Islam by birth than conversion.

That’s not true. In the west, Islam is the fastest growing either by conversion or whatever.

Eniitankorede:
If you understand simple English you will know that heaven was formed but not completed when He created the earth. It is so easy for a kindergarten child to understand. I am even surprised you are wondering if this is a revelation when you can see the truth depressions in the verses. Do they sound like someone telling the story of another person?

Oga explain the contradiction, leave kindergarten analogy alone.
You said Allah created heaven first but later came back to complete it.

The problem is surah 79.27-30 inferred Allah already created heaven, sun and moon - Allah separated night from morning which can't happen without the sun which is a star.

Then according to u Allah proceeded to create earth, fixed the mountains on the earth's surface, then went back to create light in the heavens- surah 41.9-12

How can Allah go back to heaven to create light when he already done that prior to earth's creation.

This is beyond contradiction, this is confusion and ignorance in full display. It is obvious the author of the Quran has poor knowledge of cosmology.

SIRTee15:
Oga explain the contradiction, leave kindergarten analogy alone.
You said Allah created heaven first but later came back to complete it.

The problem is surah 79.27-30 inferred Allah already created heaven, sun and moon - Allah separated night from morning which can't happen without the sun which is a star.

Then according to u Allah proceeded to create earth, fixed the mountains on the earth's surface, then went back to create light in the heavens- surah 41.9-12

How can Allah go back to heaven to create light when he already done that prior to earth's creation.

This is beyond contradiction, this is confusion and ignorance in full display. It is obvious the author of the Quran has poor knowledge of cosmology.

It's not a contradiction, just a misunderstanding of sequence versus description.

Surah 79 offers a broad overview of the cosmic order; the shaping of the heavens, the regulation of night and day not a strict, chronological account. Surah 41 provides a more detailed explanation in the Earth is made habitable first, and then the heavens are completed (sawwahunna), not brought into existence from nothing all over again.

The crucial point you seem to have missed is
creation (khalq) is not the same as completion or ordering (taswiyah). Regulating light (night and day) isn't the same as igniting stars from absolutely nothing.

The Qur'an often employs a non-linear narrative style, which is common in Semitic texts, including the Bible.

This isn't about being ignorant of cosmology; it's about mistaking a thematic description for a chronological sequence of events.

honesttalk21:
It's not a contradiction, just a misunderstanding of sequence versus description.

Surah 79 offers a broad overview of the cosmic order; the shaping of the heavens, the regulation of night and day not a strict, chronological account. Surah 41 provides a more detailed explanation in the Earth is made habitable first, and then the heavens are completed (sawwahunna), not brought into existence from nothing all over again.

The crucial point you seem to have missed is
creation (khalq) is not the same as completion or ordering (taswiyah). Regulating light (night and day) isn't the same as igniting stars from absolutely nothing.

The Qur'an often employs a non-linear narrative style, which is common in Semitic texts, including the Bible.

This isn't about being ignorant of cosmology; it's about mistaking a thematic description for a chronological sequence of events.

surah 79 itself confirms chronological order

Quran- 79:27-30: Are you the harder to create, or is the heaven that He built ? He raised the height thereof and ordered it; and He has made dark the night thereof, and He brought forth the morning thereof. And after that, He spread (flattened) the earth.

The highlighted is a clear evidence of chronological order in the verse. except u want to tell me 'after that' mean something else in arabic.

the verse is saying Allah created the heaven, separated morning from night which cant happen without the sun which gives light. Then he proceed to spread the earth- whatever that meant.

But surah 41 is telling us Allah fixed the lights in heaven after forming the earth. which makes no sense at all. If anything surah 79 makes better sense since if follows cosmological order of creation. The universe precede earth formation

So if u telling us surah 41 is the detailed chronological order, then that's a big cosmological blunder because The stars existed b4 the earth. Quran got it wrong and shows the author of Quran lacks sound cosmological knowledge.

SIRTee15:
surah 79 itself confirms chronological order

Quran- 79:27-30: Are you the harder to create, or is the heaven that He built ? He raised the height thereof and ordered it; and He has made dark the night thereof, and He brought forth the morning thereof. And after that, He spread (flattened) the earth.

The highlighted is a clear evidence of chronological order in the verse. except u want to tell me 'after that' mean something else in arabic.

the verse is saying Allah created the heaven, separated morning from night which cant happen without the sun which gives light. Then he proceed to spread the earth- whatever that meant.

But surah 41 is telling us Allah fixed the lights in heaven after forming the earth. which makes no sense at all. If anything surah 79 makes better sense since if follows cosmological order of creation. The universe precede earth formation

So if u telling us surah 41 is the detailed chronological order, then that's a big cosmological blunder because The stars existed b4 the earth. Quran got it wrong and shows the author of Quran lacks sound cosmological knowledge.

Your argument falls apart due to Arabic semantics, not cosmology.

The phrase Thumma / baʿda dhalika doesn't always indicate a chronological order; it frequently signals a shift in the discussion or adds emphasis. Classical Arabic and the Qur'an itself uses it in a non-sequential way in other instances.

Surah 79 describes the organization and arrangement (the regulation of night and day), not the initial creation of stars. Surah 41 discusses the completion and assignment of roles in the heavens (jaʿala, zayyana), not the act of initial creation.

You're imposing a modern, linear timeline on what is essentially thematic Semitic storytelling.

There's no contradiction here.

It's simply a category error disguised as cosmology.

Thumma / baʿda dhalika doesn't always indicate a strict chronological sequence; quite often, it signals a transition in the discourse or a shift in emphasis. Classical Arabic and the Qur'an itself employs it non-sequentially in other instances.

Surah 79 portrays structuring and ordering (regulation of night and day), not the initial creation of stars. Surah 41 discusses the completion of the heavens and the assignment of functions (jaʿala, zayyana), not their primordial creation.

You're imposing a modern, linear sense of time onto a thematic Semitic narrative. There's no contradiction here. It's simply a category error masquerading as cosmology.
Claim Being Challenged

Qur'an 79:27-30 (full text)

27 Are you more difficult to create, or is the heaven? He constructed it.

28 He raised its ceiling and proportioned it.

29 He darkened its night and brought forth its morning.

30 And after that (baʿda dhalika) He spread the earth.

Key point to note from the text is no verb indicating creation (khalaqa) is used for the heavens here. The actions described are building, ordering, and regulating (night/morning), not bringing something into existence for the first time. Dahaha= spread/extended the earth, not created it.

Qur'an 41:9-12 (full text)

9 Say, Do you disbelieve in He who created the earth in two days…

10 And He placed therein mountains and blessings and determined therein its [creatures'] sustenance…

11 Then (thumma) He directed Himself to the heaven while it was smoke…

12 And He completed them as seven heavens… and adorned the nearest heaven with lamps.

The earth is explicitly created first (khalaqa). The heaven already exists in a smoke-like (pre-material) state. The stars serve as adornments/assignments, not as a part of initial creation.


baʿda dhalika / thumma in Qur'anic Arabic frequently denote a shift in focus, not a strict chronological sequence. Creation doesn't equal completion nor assignment. Different verbs signify distinct stages.

There is no verse stating that the stars were created after the earth. Surah 79 depicts ordering, while Surah 41 describes creation followed by completion. The contradiction only arises when a Western linear chronology is artificially imposed upon a Semitic narrative structure.

honesttalk21:
Your argument falls apart due to Arabic semantics, not cosmology.

The phrase Thumma / baʿda dhalika doesn't always indicate a chronological order; it frequently signals a shift in the discussion or adds emphasis. Classical Arabic and the Qur'an itself uses it in a non-sequential way in other instances.

Surah 79 describes the organization and arrangement (the regulation of night and day), not the initial creation of stars. Surah 41 discusses the completion and assignment of roles in the heavens (jaʿala, zayyana), not the act of initial creation.

You're imposing a modern, linear timeline on what is essentially thematic Semitic storytelling.

There's no contradiction here.

It's simply a category error disguised as cosmology.

So in surah 41, when did Allah adorn the heavens with lamp, was it b4 or after creation of the earth.

2. The 7 heavens were INITIALLY CREATED when, was it before or after creation of the earth.

SIRTee15:
So in surah 41, when did Allah adorn the heavens with lamp, was it b4 or after creation of the earth.

2. The 7 heavens were INITIALLY CREATED when, was it before or after creation of the earth.

1. Following the Earth's creation, Surah 41 details the completion of the heavens, including their embellishment with celestial lights

2. prior to the Earth's formation, the heavens existed in a nascent, smoke-like state (verse 11). Their finalization and organization into seven distinct layers took place subsequent to the creation of the Earth.

SIRTee15:
Oga explain the contradiction, leave kindergarten analogy alone.
You said Allah created heaven first but later came back to complete it.

The problem is surah 79.27-30 inferred Allah already created heaven, sun and moon - Allah separated night from morning which can't happen without the sun which is a star.

Then according to u Allah proceeded to create earth, fixed the mountains on the earth's surface, then went back to create light in the heavens- surah 41.9-12

How can Allah go back to heaven to create light when he already done that prior to earth's creation.

This is beyond contradiction, this is confusion and ignorance in full display. It is obvious the author of the Quran has poor knowledge of cosmology.

You don’t know how to interpret Quran. We follow word for word in sequence of creation. So do that, and you will understand.