₦airaland Forum

dofman:
When hand reach you well , you now start changing mouth . 🤣

I have refuted you that Muslim never bow to stone or worship it , evidence base research are also there in public place as well . You are the one that will tell the world where Muslim were instructed to bow to stone 🤣🤣

Na you refuse to use your brain because you lack one ; it is a pity you are not intelligent at all . I am not surprised nah , 99.9 percent of Christians can never reason straight .

Now that you you are slightly changing to bow and not worshiping again , show us where Muslims were instructed to bow to stones ?

Who claim something must proof it nah 🤣

So glaring you are not intelligent . Shioor

No be your fault shaa , na those people who colonize you guys need to be questioned ?

Wallahi everybody on this thread can see u have demen.........tia. I'm not joking now but humbly go and see your doctor and ask him to do cognitive assessment for u b4 it's too late.

Right from page 4 on this thread I hv been shouting and correcting u that my question is why Muslims bow to a stone and has nothing to do with worship.

U can imagine this guy only got the message in page 10. I corrected him over and over again that my question has to do with bowing to a stone and not worshiping a stone. He initially seem to understand until he defaulted again to answering question I never asked him.

It's not your fault, na your dementia

dofman:
When hand reach you well , you now start changing mouth . 🤣

I have refuted you that Muslim never bow to stone or worship it , evidence base research are also there in public place as well . You are the one that will tell the world where Muslim were instructed to bow to stone 🤣🤣

Na you refuse to use your brain because you lack one ; it is a pity you are not intelligent at all . I am not surprised nah , 99.9 percent of Christians can never reason straight .

Now that you you are slightly changing to bow and not worshiping again , show us where Muslims were instructed to bow to stones ?

Who claim something must proof it nah 🤣

So glaring you are not intelligent . Shioor

No be your fault shaa , na those people who colonize you guys need to be questioned ?

Now that I finally got the question. So answer it.

Why do Muslims bow to a stone when God commanded previous prophets never to bow to a stone.

Your answer that u pray facing the kabba na wash. because the kabba has a sacred stone inside called the black stone. So when Muslims pray facing the kabba, u guys are bowing to a stone inside the kabba.

God said flee from all forms of idolatry, not giving excuses or rationalizing them as u do now.
Telling me u bow to the kabba but not the stone na wash.

But if u insist then answer this question. I asked u before and I will bring it here.

If the kabba is moved to Medina but the black stone remained in mecca. Which direction will u face when u bow- the black stone or the kabba

Critics of Christianity- other theists, atheists and agnostics, often reject attempts to harmonize apparent differences within the biblical texts. However, this rejection is frequently not based on a demonstrated lack of internal consistency but on a prior commitment to skepticism. From that perspective, narrative variations are assumed to be contradictions rather than complementary accounts that may be reconciled through careful analysis.

In historical research, scholars commonly employ the principle of charity: an ancient source is not presumed to be in error unless compelling evidence demonstrates otherwise. Historians regularly apply this approach to non-religious ancient writers such as Herodotus and Plutarch, recognizing that differing eyewitness perspectives naturally produce variations in detail without invalidating the core historical event. Yet many critics appear unwilling to extend the same interpretive generosity to the Gospel writers, treating even minor variations as evidence against reliability.

This raises an important question: If differing accounts from secular historians are routinely examined with the goal of understanding how they fit together, why should the Gospel accounts be treated differently? Why deny the same academic charity to the biblical authors that is afforded to other ancient sources?

Another common criticism portrays the earliest Christians as uneducated "sheep herders" operating within a primitive, pre-scientific culture. This characterization is historically inaccurate. The early Christian movement included professionals, tax officials, merchants, and individuals immersed in a highly literate theological tradition. By establishing that the cosmos was designed by one rational Mind rather than chaotic, unpredictable gods, their worldview laid the foundational framework for modern science: that nature follows stable, mathematically consistent laws.

This is exactly why standard historical charity is applied here. We are dealing with an intellectually rigorous community that left behind highly consistent historical data. If you look at the facts accepted by almost all critical historians, you have to account for: 1) Jesus's certain death by crucifixion, 2) the empty tomb, 3) the sudden, overnight transformation of the disciples into martyrs, and 4) the radical conversion of hostile enemies like Paul. People don't willingly get tortured and executed for a hoax they know they made up themselves. The resurrection remains the only viable historical explanation

Supporters of the resurrection argue that the disciples' willingness to endure persecution and death is difficult to reconcile with the claim that they knowingly fabricated their testimony. While people may suffer or die for beliefs that are mistaken, they rarely choose such suffering for what they know to be a deliberate hoax. For this reason, many Christians maintain that the resurrection remains the most compelling explanation of the available historical evidence.

The significance of this question extends beyond academic debate. If the resurrection occurred, then Christianity's central claims about salvation, forgiveness, and eternal life rest upon a historical foundation rather than mere philosophical speculation. In that case, righteousness is not something earned through human effort but a gift received through faith in Christ. For believers, history is therefore not separate from hope; it is the very ground upon which that hope stands.

dofman:
🤣🤣🤣🤣 you now want to change mouth ahaa.

So, have you now agreed that Muslims do not bow to any stone or worship any stones?

Yes or no ?

This is the bone of contention . Focus nah .

Lobatan

I cant say what's in my mind because Seun's autospam will ban me.

But for the sake of your children's future, make sure u marry someone who is intelligent and pray they take the gene of their mum's cognitive reasoning and not yours.

because I dont understand how u think bow is the same as worship.

My question is clear- Muslims bow to a stone, I did not say worship. U muslims including dofman bow to a stone. That's what I said.

Why do u dofman bow to a stone?

Privateworld:
We have don everything doable and she seem to be issue. She has pcos and its a chronic one according to the doctor

PCOS is not a difficult condition to treat. ordinary metformin can manage the condition adequately coupled with ovulatory stimulant like clomiphene or letrozole.
Go see gynaecologist, they can help u guys out. sometimes they offer this injection called GnRH hormone that also induce ovulation.

if above doesn't work, there's IVF but I understand your financial capacity may be a limitation. all the same, talk to experienced gynaecologist. B4 I left Nigeria some gynae doctors in hinterland states like osun, benue offers 800k for a cycle- though I admit the baseline for IVF treatment would have gone up in this Tinubu era.

But the first step is to see an experienced gynaecologist who can help both of u out.

besides, except u get married very late or your wife is in her mid or late 30s, I dont really see why u should be impatient within just 2 years. newly married couples do postpone having kids for 4-5 yrs despite both being fertile.

pls seek expert opinion on this matter, rather than looking for a convenient way out. PCOS is not that hard like u painting it here. lots of women do have it and they have multiple kids.

Expanse2020:
Why would I never kissed when my beloved prophet s.a.w did that
We are not some other people in one religion that leave what thier God said and do what they desire

Guy this is idolatry

if I have doubt b4, u and doffman response to my query remove all doubt.

U guys came here and argued u bow to kabba and not the stone. that the stone has no significance in your worship of Allah
But doffman said the stone and the kabba can never be separated- THEY ARE ONE. Yet in his mind when he bows to kabba, he's not bowing to the stone.
Now u came here and said u will lick the stvne- stone u called insignificant.

Let me tell u something about my question - When God told Moses to tell the Israelites not to copy the cannanites buy bowing to stone. The cannanites actually don't worship the stone. They worship Asherah, the cannanite goddess. But they worship this goddess by bowing to sacred stones.
That is why God told Moses that Israelites should not copy their practice by bowing to a stone when worshipping HIM.

YOU MUSLIMS BOW TO A STONE WHEN WORSHIPPING ALLAH. SOMETHING HE TOLD MOSES THE PEOPLE SHOULD NEVER TO DO because HE HATES IT.

There's only one word for this and its called paganism mixed with idolatry. IF U KNOW WHAT'S GOOD FOR U, U WILL RUN FOR YOUR LIFE B4 U END UP IN HELL FIRE.

God cannot be mocked, u are only deceiving yourselves. obedience is better than sacrifice. If God say dont bow down before a stone, common sense will tell u to run away from anything related to stone. anything at all.

Finally, u can redeem your own case by answering this simple question. this will show if u are a certified, recalcitrant and unrepentant pvgan.
doffman is lost already, I doubt there's hope for him.

IF THE KABBA IS DISMANTLED AND RELOCATED TO MEDINA BUT THE BLACK STONE REMAIN INTACT IN MECCA.
WHERE WILL U BOW TO WHEN PRAYING, MECCA OR MEDINA?

Expanse2020 IF THE KABBA IS DISMANTLED IN MECCA AND REASSEMBLED IN MEDINA. BUT THE BLACK STONE REMAINED IN MECCA. WHICH DIRECTION WOULD U NOW FACE WHEN PRAYING.
MEDINA OR MECCA.

dofman:
Christian lies a a lot . Chai

You have been bursted already nah . Stone is powerless and it can never forgive anyone . I have lectured you about that nah .


Maybe you are talking about your god’s powerless blood .

Hebrews 9:22 : "without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness.


My only question still stands :


Defend yourself and tell us where Muslims were instructed to worship stone

No story o 🤣

show me where I said Muslims worship a stone. when u are ready to answer my question, u respond to the correct question I asked not the one u created.

Expanse2020:
You whey you run away when you see truth that time 🤣🤣🤣🤣

Which truth? U get truth for mouth. People dey talk of truth u sef they chook mouth.


Bring the truth here and let's dissect it. I will be last person to run away from the truth.

Besides u can help your friend answer my question

Question number 1.

RESOLVE THIS CONTRADICTION.

God told Prophet Moses, tell the people not to bow to a stone because I hate it.

Leviticus 26.1
‘Do not make idols or set up an image or a sacred stone for yourselves, and do not place a carved stone in your land to bow down before it. I am the Lord your God.

Deuteronomy 16.22
22 and do not erect a sacred stone, for these the Lord your God hates.

Now according to Muslims, same God told your prophet to tell the people to bow before a stone.

How would God give 2 contradictory message to his own prophets. Are u saying God changed his mind?

Why did God tell Muhammed it's ok to bow before a stone but told Moses he hates it when people bow before a stone.

Answer the question?

AntiisIam:
doffman dofman even his second Expanse2020 don't use to answer difficult question like this.

It is either they try to deviate, tell you to be repeating the same question over and over again or change am to insult. These are what they are good at when question is too hard for dem to answer

doffman never responds. He knows the truth but his HARDENED heart like that of a stone rejects all truth even when it stares him in the face.

doffman bragged he knew the bible more than any pastor in the church, he even said he will teach me the scriptures.

I then asked him 6 questions that points him to the truth, he refused to answer them. One is even from is own Quran, unfortunately he rejected his own Quran because he was embarrassed by what's written in it.

It's a pity because people like doffman have made up their mind to end up in hell rather than embrace the truth.

I will ask the 6 questions again, let's see if he can attempt to answer just one this time.

sonmvayina:
Please can you provide proper referencing, so I can read the context

While at it, do well to check Isaiah 45:5
Isaiah 45:5
I am the Lord, and there is no other;
apart from me there is no God.
I will strengthen you,
though you have not acknowledged me,

Thanks

I sent it to u b4, I'm not bothering my head about that
Go and read your tanakh and stop acting ignorant

doffman:
🤣🤣🤣 pagan himself , the enemy of God that chose human as his god .

Na you refuse to answer my question nah .

stone licker

I answered all your questions. But u refused to answer mine.

Question number 1.

RESOLVE THIS CONTRADICTION.

God told Prophet Moses, tell the people not to bow to a stone because I hate it.

Leviticus 26.1
‘Do not make idols or set up an image or a sacred stone for yourselves, and do not place a carved stone in your land to bow down before it. I am the Lord your God.

Deuteronomy 16.22
22 and do not erect a sacred stone, for these the Lord your God hates.

Now according to Muslims, same God told your prophet to tell the people to bow before a stone.

How would God give 2 contradictory message to his own prophets. Are u saying God changed his mind?

Why did God tell Muhammed it's ok to bow before a stone but told Moses he hates it when people bow before a stone.

Answer the question?

sonmvayina:
No prophet preached a triune god. God is one indivisible entity. The idea of a trinity was created by the Catholic church at one of their church council in the 5th century.

God is existence itself, God is one. Every other thing exist within God. I have posted a picture here before of Marduk with the universe as his garment. .... understand the symbolism.

Ezekiel preached a figure like a Man sits on the throne of God.

Is God like a man?
Who is that figure like a man

doffman:
Which fake book .

The corrupt book has been casted nah

My pagan friend, are u better equiped to answer my questions now or u want to continue your waffling.

I gave u enough space and time to research my 6 questions.

I will be repeating them here

franchasofficia:
All these goes to show that White people are wonderful people. Imagine Europe have been enduring, tolerating and accommodating Africans, Indians, etc with us trooping into their countries illegally without documentation for several decades now and they never attacked us physically or harmed us but rather created Asylum pathways and more through which many dejected, helpless and poor Africans were able to build a worthy life in Europe and escaped generational poverty, wars, communal crisis and failed governments in their home countries.



May God continue to bless the White race

Actually Europe is the one that should get its acts together otherwise it becomes another 3rd world dong hole. Canada also and to some extent USA.

Uncontrolled migration is a disaster anywhere and there's no reason natives should be forced to accept factors that will change their way of life.

All these talk about Africans fought against apartheid is just silly excuse. So because of that, Africans should be allowed to flood South Africa or what.

Migration anywhere in the world should be controlled and regulated. Simple.

lawani:
These bible books had been lying around for centuries before they were compiled into one volume. So at what point did they become the word of God when even the authors can not be clearly identified?

Then people are converted to religion by force, by intimidation, by indoctrination and by band wagon effect. Not by reason

Your argument falls apart under critical and logical scrutiny. This argument of corruption and editing is simply lafable.
The dead sea scrolls makes the whole argument of corruption fall apart.

Now u guys argue the bible is corrupt. At what point did the corruption start and when did it stop. Who decided that the corruption in the bible is enough and thus no further need for corruption.

The dead sea scrolls are oldest extant old testament manuscripts written around 250BC. if we are to go by that date, it means the dead sea scrolls are over 2,000 yrs old and possibly 400-1000 yrs removed from the original copies of the old testament books.

Now the beautiful thing is the dead sea scroll is exactly like the old testament we have today. No doctrinal or theological difference. No added chapters or missing chapters. No passage omission, addition, editing or correction.

I have the dead sea scroll English translation with me and if I give u a copy, u won't know the difference. The book of Isaiah or exodus in dead sea scroll is just like the ones in KJV or NIV.

We can then deduce that there is a high level of textual stability and preservation in the old testament books from 250BC till date. Even the academic scholars admit to this stability.

Now what this shows is there was no corruption in the old testament from 250bc.
From 250bc, the scribes were not corrupting the text or decided to stop corrupting the old testament for reasons best known to them.

So according to people like u, All so called corruption or manipulation or editing happened before 250BC.

Now my question is this. Why do u think the scribes and the priests from 250BC onwards decided not to corrupt the bible any longer.
Is it they were happy with the corruptions in the bible and felt no need to corrupt further
OR
They were bereft of ideas on how to corrupt the bible this couldn't do it.
OR
Jews started producing saints as scribes from 250bc thus wouldn't think of corrupting the bible
OR
The Jews didn't create a quality control system to ensure preservation and stability of the bible until 250BC. Thus became impossible to corrupt the bible after 250BC.

Which one is the answer. I want u to tell me why corruption of the bible suddenly stopped after 250 BC. Why were the scribes b4 250 BC awfully corrupting the text without any conscience but scribes after 250 BC choose not to.

I'm interested in your response.

Nigerian men are confused bunch. If she asks for money for wig or start billing u on first date, u will come here and start lamenting that church girls are no different from street girls.

She came asking questions to know if u are serious, that one too na jamb question. Or they didn't tell u church girls don't date. If u are coming for them, it must be with intention.

WHAT EXACTLY DO NIGERIAN MEN WANT FROM NIGERIAN GIRLS.

The way I see it, it's like u guys don't even want women to have a say in any relationship they commit to. And no be say marriage sure o, there's still the risk of use and dump from u guys..

But u no want them to protect their guard so they don't get burnt easily.

IsraeliAIRFORCE:
This is a testament to the fact that politicians are not the government; institutions are.

Children on Nairaland who know nothing about the workings of a functional system will say something to prove they are always third-world citizens.

Keep quiet. Imagine Tinubu suing Nigerian govt for withholding Lagos State funds when he was governor and the finance ministry then decide to settle the case out of court by awarding Lagos State 38 billion naira as compensation.

Yeah I'm sure such decision will sound right in the eyes of hypocrites like u.


Don't worry, the next northern president will sue his own govt for the unlawful killing of Fulani militia and his govt will then settle Fulani militia with 1.8 trillion naira as compensation.

Radarada. Some people have completely lost their mind.

Explore2xmore:
When historians study ancient texts, they apply consistent criteria: authorship attribution, compositional history, canon formation, and transmission reliability. Applied evenhandedly across the Abrahamic scriptures, those criteria produce materially different results.
The New Testament faces the greatest cumulative challenges. The Gospels are formally anonymous the names attached to them derive from later ecclesiastical tradition, not from the texts themselves. The dominant model in Synoptic scholarship, Markan priority, establishes literary dependence among the Synoptics, meaning the four Gospel accounts are not fully independent eyewitness narratives in the way popular apologetics frequently claims. Canon formation extended over several centuries with significant regional variation, and disputes over individual books continued well into the fourth century. The manuscript tradition is the most pluriform of the three Abrahamic corpora. Scholars including Bart Ehrman and Eldon Epp have documented harmonization, theological smoothing, and scribal modification across manuscript families. The text is not unrecoverable, but it is reconstructed through comparative analysis of divergent manuscript traditions rather than preserved through a singular controlled transmission line. Those are meaningfully different things.
The Hebrew Bible presents a stronger initial structure. Its internal transmission narrative is coherent one named mediator, one foundational national event, one law given to one people. The Masoretic tradition eventually achieved extraordinarily disciplined scribal regularization. But the tradition carries complications that honest analysis cannot set aside. The Dead Sea Scrolls permanently altered scholarly understanding of Second Temple textuality. Emanuel Tov's foundational work demonstrated the coexistence of proto-Masoretic, proto-Septuagintal, proto-Samaritan and mixed textual forms prior to standardization. The Masoretic Text represents a later stage of stabilization, not the endpoint of a singular unbroken transmission. Internal biblical testimony compounds this further. Jeremiah 8:8 records concerns about scribal mediation from within the tradition's own pages. The rediscovery narrative in 2 Kings 22 is treated by most critical scholars as evidence of late Deuteronomistic redaction rather than faithful recovery of an ancient original.
One tradition presents a structurally different profile. Research by François Déroche, Nicolai Sinai, Fred Donner and Harald Motzki consistently describes comparatively early stabilization of the consonantal text within the first Islamic century; a compressed chronological horizon relative to the originating prophetic period. Canonical reading traditions and early manuscript phenomena confirm that variation exists. But the range of divergence is assessed in comparative scholarship as substantially narrower than that observed in the New Testament manuscript tradition or in the pre-Masoretic textual plurality of the Hebrew Bible. Preservation was reinforced through parallel written codification and oral transmission operating independently of each other, a structural redundancy neither of the other two traditions possesses in the same form.
Several qualifications apply and they matter. Transmission integrity and divine origin are separate categories. Historical criticism cannot adjudicate revelation. A text may be well preserved yet false, or theologically meaningful independent of textual uniformity. No serious historian conflates preservation with truth.
But the narrower historical question is answerable. Which Abrahamic scripture presents the strongest documented profile of source proximity, canon stabilization, transmission control and manuscript consistency when identical criteria are applied across all three traditions without special pleading? The comparative scholarly literature points consistently in one direction. And the distance between the strongest and weakest cases is not a matter of degree. It is a matter of kind.

As we can see, u finally exposed your hidden agenda when u initially claimed your argument has nothing to with Islam.

To u and your fellow Muslims, your claim on early preservation and chain of narration falls apart if the SINGLE MOST IMPORTANT FIRST CHAIN OF NARRATION CANNOT BE ESTABLISHED. THE CHAIN OF NARRATION BETWEEN mormor AND ANGEL JIBRIL.

There's no independent attestation or any eye witness that can confirm mormor spoke to any angel. not his wives or his companions could confirm this encounter despite being with him for 27 years of your prophet speaking to angel jibril.

Every prophet sent by God with a new or transformative message had independent eye witness that attested to the supernatural encounter btw God and the prophet.

70 leaders of Israel witnessed Moses meeting with God on mount Sinai.
exodus 24
9 Moses and Aaron, Nadab and Abihu, and the seventy elders of Israel went up 10 and saw the God of Israel. Under his feet was something like a pavement made of lapis lazuli, as bright blue as the sky. 11 But God did not raise his hand against these leaders of the Israelites; they saw God, and they ate and drank.

Peter confirmed they witnessed the Father speaking to Jesus during the transfiguration.
2 Peter
16 For we did not follow cleverly devised stories when we told you about the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ in power, but we were eyewitnesses of his majesty. 17 He received honor and glory from God the Father when the voice came to him from the Majestic Glory, saying, “This is my Son, whom I love; with him I am well pleased.”[b] 18 We ourselves heard this voice that came from heaven when we were with him on the sacred mountain.

Mormor cannot be said to be a prophet along the line of ancient prophets if he had no eye witness to validate his supernatural claim. For all we know, it could be devised stories, dreams, trance or hallucinations. Unless we have someone telling us these encounters were true, then the validity of Islvm as a true religion falls apart. Even the Quran mormor brought didn't state any angel spoke to mormor.

MindHacker9009:
@SIRTee15

I will put it to you again:
Why would a Jew declare someone who calls himself the Son of God to be the Christ without first exploring the religion for himself, but instead choosing to explore other faiths in Israel and then choosing to live as a Pharisee, instead of becoming a follower of your Christus?

Joseph never wrote Jesus is the messiah. The word Christ in the writing u are quoting as been deemed an interpolation by historical scholars.

The Arabic version of Josephus testimonium do not have the word Christ.

At this time there was a wise man who was called Jesus. And his conduct was good, and [he] was known to be virtuous. And many people from among the Jews and the other nations became his disciples. Pilate condemned him to be crucified and to die. And those who had become his disciples did not abandon his discipleship. They reported that he had appeared to them three days after his crucifixion and that he was alive; accordingly he was perhaps the Messiah concerning whom the prophets have recounted wonders.



So if your argument is based on Josephus calling Jesus Christ and he not being a Christian. That has already been resolved within the academic circles.

MindHacker9009, explain to me how a Jewish historian did not write about disruptive events that happened during his lifetime in Judea but expect him to write about a rabbi who preached repentance and simple message of God's kingdom.

Did he write about Simon of Peraea who declared himself king of the Jews after the death of Herod the great in 4 bce. Simon led an army against the Roman legion to defend his kingship claim. Simon burnt down palaces and led his army as far as Jericho.

philo was very much active that time. Why didn't he write about his events. Even Tacitus wrote about Simon of Peraea.

Did he even write about the samaritan prophet who claimed to be the prophet spoken about by Moses and led a rebellion against Pontus Pilate in 38 AD.
This Samaritan prophet eventually submitted to Simon Agabus who was written about in the book of Acts.