₦airaland Forum

parisbookaddict:
I have studied islam, I have read tonnes of hadiths and quran passages, Watched scores of religious debates, lectures by top islamic scholars like zaki nakir, ali shibry, ahmed deedat, yusuf estes excetera, testimonies by exmuslims etc

The OPs article is Right. Islam is despicable and evil in its true form and one can't be a Good muslim and a good human.

in fact I want to test you knowledge of mohammed and the quran. Pls answer the following questions.

Did Mohammed sleep with a child, 9 year old
Aisha?YES/NO/I DON'T KNOW

Did he kill people eg meccans, pagans, Jews etc?YES/NO/I DON'T KNOW

Did Mohammed command his followers to fight people based on their beliefs?YES/NO/I DON'T KNOW

Did he sleep with and have sex slaves?YES/NO/I DON'T KNOW

Did he command his followers to sleep with captives their right hand possess?YES/NO/I DON'T KNOW

Did Mohammed marry more wives than Islamic Allah permits Muslims?YES/NO/I DON'T KNOW

Did the quran claim that no miracle will be performed by mohammed?YES/NO/I DON'T KNOW

Did mohammed contradict himself or abrogate quran passages because they where contradictory to earlier revelations?YES/NO/I DON'T KNOW

Did he permit the murder of his critics?YES/NO/I DON'T KNOW

Did he rape women during after war, which he
called war booty?{I.e Slave-girls as sexual property}YES/NO/I DON'T KNOW

Did he permit Muslims to beat their wives? {Even if but lightly}YES/NO/I DON'T KNOW

Did he ask people to drink camel piss and milk for good health?YES, HEALTHY/NO, HE DIDN'T/I DON'T KNOW

Did Mohammed say apostates should be killed?YES & I CONCUR / YES, BUT I DON'T CONCUR / NO, HE COULDN'T HAVE!

Did mohammed say he can't guide anyone. YES/NO/I DON'T KNOW

Did mohammed say muslims should cut of the finger tips of their enemies
YES/NO/I DON'T KNOW

Mahatma Gandhi“I wanted to know the best of the life of one who holds today an undisputed sway over the hearts of millions of mankind... I became more than ever convinced that it was not the sword that won a placefor Islam in those days in the scheme of life. It was the rigid simplicity, the utter self-effacementof the Prophet the scrupulous regard for pledges, his intense devotion to his friends and followers, his intrepidity, his fearlessness, his absolute trust in God and in his own mission. These and not the sword carried everything before them and surmounted every obstacle. When I closed the second volume (of the Prophet's biography), I was sorry there was not more for me to read of that great life.” (A statement published in 'Young India'.1924).

Mahatma Gandhi“I wanted to know the best of the life of one who holds today an undisputed sway over the hearts of millions of mankind... I became more than ever convinced that it was not the sword that won a placefor Islam in those days in the scheme of life. It was the rigid simplicity, the utter self-effacementof the Prophet the scrupulous regard for pledges, his intense devotion to his friends and followers, his intrepidity, his fearlessness, his absolute trust in God and in his own mission. These and not the sword carried everything before them and surmounted every obstacle. When I closed the second volume (of the Prophet's biography), I was sorry there was not more for me to read of that great life.” (A statement published in 'Young India'.1924).

[quote author=BeeBeeOoh post=36427121]God please give this poster ^^^^^ sense...
Are u a rapper.You should try music.

A photograph showing a Nigerian policeman tending to a white man has surfaced.The photographed, which appears to have been taken around Victoria Island, shows the policeman holding an umbrella above the expatriate as he makes a call.What makes it more absurd is that rain isn’t even falling.What do you think of the photo though? Is this a policeman’s job?

Mogidi:
6th country in 2 months, na wa.

Are u a rapper.I think u should try music.

http://www.jewsnews.co.il/2015/05/10/china-makes-major-moves-to-ban-islam/
News coming from anti-Islam site,and to u all nobody can stop my religion Islam from spreading not even Jehovah or Jesus

I pity some naija youth,they get nothing upstair.In asa voice MR WAILER

I pity some wailers,they will die on top buhari matter

DONMAYOR19:
To us it has been eradicated, but to the dull-rd no way because he is still far behind 2015. Buhari still dey 2003.

oponu check the website to get ur fact,wailing wailer

Splashme:
Buhari is one shameless liar. Why are our politicians so deceitful? What about simply openly thanking GEJ?

Nigerians know GEJ did the bulk of the work in eradicating polio. So, what happens if Buhari acknowledges that openly? Will it take a strand of hair off him?

ur point pls,sometimes it is best u keep mute.

Op nigeria not yet totally free,get ur fact right before posting.ID!!OT

By the time the curtain fell on the 7th session of Nigeria’s National Assembly in June, one of the most prominent characters of that era, who retreated backstage as a member of the 8th session (after his party became a minority), is former Senate President, David Mark.
Mr. Mark, a retired army general, would be remembered for his ignoble role in deepening and institutionalising the culture of secrecy at Nigeria’s federal legislative body.
In 2003, total National Assembly budget was about N23.347 billion.
The next year, the figure rose to about N32.229 billion (2004) and then N55.422 billion in 2005.
Although the figure dropped to N39.810 billion in 2006, the allocations have remained on the upswing ever after.
Immediately Mr. Mark became Senate President in 2007, the National Assembly’s budget rose from N66.488 billion to a shocking N104.825 billion in 2008, before dropping marginally to N96.052 billion in 2009.
By 2010, while he was still in charge, the allocation had a geometric jump, skyrocketing to unprecedented levels to a peak of about N154.2 billion.
With the Nigerian public increasingly scrutinizing the spiraling annual allocations to the National Assembly, questions about why the lawmakers got so much, amid rising overheads in the national budget, became inevitable.
To block Nigerians from knowing details of how the National Assembly’s jumbo allocations are spent, and how much lawmaker’s earn in allowances, Mr. Mark’s leadership wrapped up the federal legislator’s finances in utmost secrecy.
In one master stroke of legislative brinkmanship, the National Assembly budget, hitherto open to public scrutiny, like those of all ministries, departments and agencies, suddenly became secret.
Details of the allocation were never made known, and Mr. Mark and his team resisted all efforts to pry it open.
By 2010, the National Assembly legislated to make itself member of an exclusive club of agencies whose budget details are never disclosed but whose finances are deducted en-bloc (first-line charge) via statutory transfers.
This group includes the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC), the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC), the National Judicial Council (NJC), the Niger-Delta Development Commission (NDDC) and the Public Complaints Commission (PCC).
Agencies in this group receive their annual budgetary allocations in bulk without providing breakdown of expenditure details.
Under Mr. Mark’s leadership, details of the National Assembly’s N150 billion allocations remained secret, despite public outcry against it.
For the first time in several years, the federal lawmakers agreed to cut their jumbo allocation by 23.3 percent to N115 billion in 2015.
Yet, details of how the fund would be spent remained secret.
Disturbed by the trend, the Lead Director, Centre for Social Justice (CENSOJ), Eze Onyekpere, citing the Freedom of Information Act and Section 48 of the Fiscal Responsibility Act, demanded budgetary and expenditure details from both the National Assembly and the Federal Ministry of Finance.
When Mr. Mark failed to grant the request, Mr. Onyekpere went to court.
After several adjournments, the court, on February 25, 2014, ordered the Minister of Finance to oblige the civil society group with details of all statutory transfers.
But Mr. Mark and the finance ministry ignored the order.
The closest anyone got to knowing how lawmakers spend Nigeria’s hard-earned money was the indication given by Governor of the Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN) and current Emir of Kano, Lamido Sanusi.
Mr. Sanusi had said expenses by the National Assembly accounted for about 25 percent of the total overhead cost by the federal government.
Apart from allocations for salaries and allowances, Mr. Sanusi said all other items packed under different sub-heads in the appropriation bill consist mainly of expenses on the personal benefits of lawmakers.
According to the former CBN boss, the National Assembly under Mr. Mark perfected a curious system of “retiring” the huge allocation.
“There is an entire structure within the National Assembly whose job is to prepare different receipts and vouchers to cover every item in the budget,” Mr. Sanusi had said.
A review of the details of the National Assembly budget for 2009 highlights some items the lawmakers spend their huge annual budget on.
Out of a total appropriation of N106.64 billion for that year, recurrent expenditure was N101.39 billion, or 95 percent, allowing just N5.25 billion for capital projects.
Under the recurrent, overheads accounted for N87.69 billion, or 86.48 percent, with personnel cost allocated N13.69 billion, or 13.52 percent.
Apart from payment of salaries and other fringe benefits, which takes an average of about N10 billion, Mr. Sanusi said the bulk of the allocations were shared among members according to pre-agreed formula after allocations for such items as constituency projects, budget tracking, software, hardware, implementation and monitoring; NASS equipment; judgment debt; renovation projects; general goods and non-personal services; general travels and transport (local and international) as well as general training.
Other provisions include general utilities; general materials and supplies; general maintenance services; security vote, consultancy and professional services; insurance premium charges; fuel and lubricants; contingency; NASS programmed activities, NASS law magazine; media and Public Relations as well as miscellaneous expenses.
Mr. Mark stepped down from the leadership of the National Assembly in June. He would most likely be remembered more for the lack of accountability under his watch.

Fifty thousand errors!
The Jehovah’s Witnesses in their “AWAKE!” Magazine dated 8 September, 1957, carried this startling headline “ 50,000 Errors in The Bible ?”.
While I was still formulating the theme of this booklet, I heard a knock at my door one Sunday morning. I opened the door. A European gentleman stood there, grinning broadly. “Good morning’” he said. “Good morning” I replied. He was offering me his “Awake” and “Watchtower” magazines. Yes, a Jehovah’s Witness! If a few had knocked at your door previously, you will recognize them immediately. The most supercilious lot of people who ever knocked at people’s doors! I invited him in.
As soon as he settled down, I produced the full reproduction of what you see below. Pointing to the monograph at the top of the page, I asked, “Is this your’s?” He readily recognised his own. I said, “It says:
50,000 Errors in the Bible, is it true?” “What’s that!” he exclaimed. I repeated, “I said, that it says, that there are 50,000 errors in your Bible.” “Where did you get that?” He asked. (This was published 53 years ago, when he was perhaps a little nipper) I said, “Leave the fancy talk aside is this your’s?” pointing again to the monograph “Awake!” He said, “Can I have a look?” “Of course,” I said. I handed him the page. He started perusing.
They (the Jehovah’s Witnesses) are trained. They attend classes five times a week in their “Kingdom Halls.” Naturally, they are the fittest missionaries among the thousand and one sects and denominations of Christendom. They are taught that when cornered, do not commit yourself to anything, do not open your mouths. Wait for the Holy Ghost to inspire you with what to say.
I silently kept watching him, while he browsed the page. Suddenly he looked up. He had found it. The “Holy Ghost” had tickled him. He began, “The article says that “most of those errors have been eliminated.” I asked “If most are eliminated, how many remain out of 50,000? 5000? 500? 50? Even if 50 remain, do you attribute those errors to God?” He was speechless. He excused himself by suggesting that he will come again with some senior member of his Church. That will be the day!
This “cult” of Jehovah’s Witnesses which is so strong in its condemnation of the orthodox Trinitarians, for playing with the “Word of God,” is itself playing the same game of semantic gymnastics. In the article under review “50,000 Errors In The Bible?” they say: “there are probably 50,000 errors ... errors that have crept into the Bible text ... 50,000 such serious errors... most of those so-called errors... as a whole the Bible is accurate.”
We do not have the time and space to go into the tens of thousands of grave or minor defects that the authors of the Revised Standard Version (RSV) have attempted to revise. We leave that privilege to the Christian scholars of the Bible.
Here I will endeavour to cast just a cursory glance at a “half-a-dozen” or so of those “minor” changes:
1. “Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign: Behold, a Virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.” (Isaiah 7:14 - AV)
The indispensable “Virgin” in the above verse has now been replaced in the RSV with the phrase “a young woman,” which is the correct translation of the Hebrew word Almah. Almah is the word which has occurred all along in the Hebrew text and not bethulah which means Virgin. This correction is only to be found in the English language translation, as the RSV is only published in this tongue. For the African and the Afrikaner, the Arab and the Zulu, in fact, in the 1 500 other languages of the world, Christians are made to continue to swallow the misnomer “Virgin.”
Begotten, not made
“Jesus is the only begotten son of God, begotten not made,” is an adjunct of the orthodox catechism, leaning for support on the following:
2. For God so loved the world, that he gave his only BEGOTTEN son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.” (John 3:16 - AV)
No priest worth his cloth would fail to quote “the only Begotten of the Father!” when preaching to a prospective convert. But this fabrication “Begotten” has now been unceremoniously excised by the Bible Revisers, without a word of excuse. They are as silent as church-mice and would not draw the reader’s attention to their furtive excision. This blasphemous word “Begotten” was another of the many such interpolations in the “Holy Bible.” God Almighty condemned this blasphemy in the strongest terms soon after its innovation. He did not wait for 2000 years for Bible scholars to reveal the fraud:
“They say: (God) Most Gracious has begotten a son! Indeed ye have put forth a thing most monstrous! At it the skies are ready to burst, the earth to split asunder, and the mountains to fall down in utter ruin, That they should invoke a son for (God) Most Gracious. For it is not consonant with the majesty of (God) Most Gracious that He should beget a son.” (Quran 19:88-92)
The Muslim World should congratulate the “Fifty cooperating denominations” of Christendom and their Brains Trust the “Thirty-two scholars of the highest eminence” for bringing their Holy Bible a degree nearer to the Quranic truth: “He begetteth not, nor is He begotten;” (Quran 112:3)
“Christian mes-a-mathics”
3. “For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.” (1st Epistle Of John 5:7 – AV)
This verse is the closest approximation to what the Christians call their Holy Trinity in the encyclopaedia called the Bible. This key-stone of the Christian faith has also been scrapped from the RSV without even a semblance of explanation. It has been a pious fraud all along and well-deservedly has it been expunged in the RSV for the English-speaking people. But for the 1499 remaining language groups of the world who read the Christian concoctions in their mother tongues, the fraud remains.
These people will never know the truth until the Day of Judgement. However, we Muslims must again congratulate the galaxy of D.D.’s who have been honest enough to eliminate another lie from the English (RSV) Bible, thus bringing their Holy Book yet another step closer to the teachings of Islam. For the Holy Quran says:
“Say not ‘Trinity’: desist: it will be better for you: for Allah is one Allah”

The question before us is:
“Do you accept that the Bible is God’s Word?” The question is really in the form of a challenge. The questioner is not simply seeking enlightenment. The question is posed in the spirit of a debate. We have every right to demand in a similar vein “Which Bible are you talking about?”, we may ask.
“Why, there is only one Bible!”.
The Catholic bible
Holding the “Douay” Roman Catholic Version of the Bible aloft in my hand, I ask, “Do you accept this Bible as the Word of God?” For reasons best known to themselves, the Catholic Truth Society have published their Version of the Bible in a very short, sturnpy form. This Version is a very odd proportion of the numerous Versions in the market today.
The Christian questioner is taken aback. “What Bible is that?” he asks. “Why, I thought you said that there was only one Bible!” I remind him. “Yes,” he murmurs hesitantly, “but what Version is that?” “Why, would that make any difference?” I enquire. Of course it does, and the professional preacher knows that it does. He is only bluffing with his “one Bible” claim.
The Roman Catholic Bible was published at Rheims in 1582, from Jerome’s Latin Vulgate and reproduced at Douay in 1609. As such the RCV (Roman Catholic Version) is the oldest Version that one can still buy today. Despite its antiquity, the whole of the Protestant world, including the “cults” (This Disparaging Title Is Given By The Orthodox To Jehovah’s Witnesses, The Seventh Day Adventists And A Thousand Other Sects And Denominations With Whom They Do Not See Eye To Eye.) condemn the RCV because it contains seven extra “books” which they contemptuously refer to as the “apocrypha” i.e. of doubtful authority. Notwithstanding the dire warning contained in the Apocalypse, which is the last book in the RCV (renamed as “Revelation” by the Protestants), it is “revealed”:
“If any man shall add to these things (or delete) God shall add unto him the plagues written in this Book.” (Revelation 22:18-19)
But who cares! They do not really believe! The Protestants have bravely expunged seven whole books from their Book of God! The outcasts are:
The Book of Judith The Book of Tobias The Book of Baruch The Buck of Esther, etc.
The Protestant bible
Sir Winston Churchill has some pertinent things to say about the Authorised Version (AV) of the Protestant Bible, which is also widely known as the “King James Version (KJV)”.
“The authorised version of the bible was published in 1611 by the will and command of his majesty king James the 1st whose name it bears till today.”
The Roman Catholics, believing as they do that the Protestants have mutilated the Book of God, are yet aiding and abetting the Protestant “crime” by forcing their native converts to purchase the Authorised Version (AV) of the Bible, which is the only Bible available in some 1500 languages of the lesser developed nations of the world. The Roman Catholics milk their cows, but the feeding is left to the Protestants! The overwhelming majority of Christians both Catholics and Protestant use the Authorised (AV) or the King James Version (KJV) as it is alternatively called.
Glowing tributes
First published, as Sir Winston says, in 1611, and then revised in 1881 (RV), and now re-revised and brought up to date as the Revised Standard Version (RSV) 1952, and now again re-revised in 1971 (still RSV for short). Let us see what opinion Christendom has of this most revised Bible, the RSV:
1. “The finest version which has been produced in the present century.” (Church Of England Newspaper).
2. “A completely fresh translation by scholars of the highest eminence.” (Times Literary Supplement).
3. “The well-loved characteristics of the authorised version combined with a new accuracy of translation.” (Life And Work).
4. “The most accurate and close rendering of the original” (The Times).
The publishers (Collins) themselves, in their notes on the Bible at the end of their production, say on page 10:
“This bible (RSV), is the product of thirty-two scholars, assisted by an advisory committee representing fifty co-operating denominations.” Why all this boasting? To make the gullible public buy their product? All these testimonies convince the purchaser that he is backing the right horse, with the purchaser little suspecting that he is being taken for a ride. See The Multiple Bible's Versions.
The world’s best seller
But what about the Authorised Version of the Bible (AV), the “World’s Best Seller?” These Revisers, all good salesmen, have some very pretty things to say about it. However, their page iii, paragraph six of the preface of the RSV reads:
“The king James version (alternative description of av) has with good reason been termed ‘the noblest monument of English prose.’ its revisers in 1881 expressed admiration for ‘its simplicity, its dignity, its power, its happy turns of expression ... the music of its cadences, and the felicities of its rhythm.’ it entered, as no other book has, into the making of the personal character and the public institutions of the English-speaking peoples. we owe to it an incalculable debt.”
Can you, dear reader, imagine a more magnificent tribute being paid to the “Book of Books” than the above? I, for one, cannot. Let the believing Christian, now steel himself for the un-kindest blow of all from his own beloved Lawyers of Religion; for in the very same breath they say:
“Yet the king James version has grave defects.” and, “that these defects are so many and so serious as to call for revision ...” This is straight from the horse’s mouth, i.e. the orthodox Christian scholars of “the highest eminence.” Another galaxy of Doctors of Divinity are now required to produce an encyclopedia explaining the cause of those grave and serious defects in their Holy Writ and their reasons for eliminating them.

Presumptuous Christians
Whether Catholic, Protestant or a “Cultist,” of the thousand and one sects and denominations-of-Christianity, never will you find a missionary who will not, prima facie, presuppose that his potential convert accepts his “Holy Bible” as the book of final authority on every religious opinion? The only answer the prospective proselyte has is to quote verses from the Bible which are contradictory to the missionary’s or debate their interpretations.
The dogged question
When the Muslim proves his point from the Christian’s own Holy Scripture, and when the professional priest, parson or predikant cannot refute the arguments the inevitable Christian evasion is “Do you accept the Bible as God’s word?
On the face of it, the question seems to be an easy one, but a simple “Yes” or “No” cannot be given as an answer. You see, one has first to explain one’s position. But the Christian will not give one the opportunity. He gets impatient.
“Answer ‘Yes or No!’ “ he insists. The Jews did the same to Jesus two thousand years ago, except that surprisingly he was not strait-jacketed, as is the fashion today!
The reader will readily agree that things are not always either black or white. Between these two extremes there are various shades of grey. If you say “Yes” to his question, then it would mean that you are prepared to swallow everything Hook, Line and Sinker, from Genesis to Revelation from his Bible.
If you respond with a “No” he quickly unhooks himself from the facts you have presented, and rallies support from his co-religionists in the audience with; “You see, this man does not believe in the Bible! What right has he to expound his case from our Book?” With this hydra-like somersault he rests content that he has safely evaded the issue. What is the Muballigh1to do? He has to explain his position vis-a-vis the Bible, as he ought to do.
- We Muslims have no hesitation in acknowledging that in the Bible, there are three different kinds of witnessing recognizable without any need of specialized training. These are:
Type 1:
You will be able to recognize in the Bible what may be described as “The Word of God.”
Type 2:
You will also be able to discern what can be described as the “Words of a Prophet of God.”
Type 3:
And you will most readily observe that the bulk of the Bible is the records of eye witnesses or ear witnesses, or people writing from hearsay. As such they are the “Words of a Historian”
You do not have to hunt for examples of these different types of evidences in the Bible. The following quotations will make the position crystal clear:
The First Type
a) “I will raise them up a prophet ... and I will put my words in ... and he shall speak unto them all that I shall command him.” (Deuteronomy 18:18)
b) “I even, I am the Lord, and beside me there is no saviour.” (Isaiah 43:11)
c) “Look unto me, and be ye saved, all the end of the earth: for I am God, and there is non else.”
(Isaiah 45:22)
Note the first person pronoun singular in the above references, and without any difficulty you will agree that the statements seem to have the sound of being God’s Word.
The Second Type
a) “Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying Eli, Eli, lama sabachtani?” (Matthew 27:46)
b) “And Jesus answered him, The first of all the commandments is, Hear, O Israel; the Lord our God is one Lord:” (Mark 12:29)
c) “And Jesus said unto him, Why callest thou me good? There is none good but one, that is God.” (Mark 10:18).
Even a child will be able to affirm that: Jesus “cried” Jesus “answered” and Jesus “said” are the words of the one to whom they are attributed, i.e. the words of a prophet of God.
The Third Type
“And seeing a fig tree afar off having leaves, he, (Jesus) came, if haply he (Jesus) might find anything thereon: and when he (Jesus) came to it, (Jesus) found nothing but leaves” (Mark 11:13)
The bulk of the Bible is a witnessing of this third kind. These are the words of a third person. Note the pronouns. They are not the Words of God or of His prophet, but the words of a historian.
For the Muslim it is quite easy to distinguish the above types of evidence, because he also has them in his own faith. But of the followers of the different religions, he is the most fortunate in this that his various records are contained in separate Books!
One: The first kind ‘The Word of God’ is found in a Book called The Holy Quran.
Two: The second kind the words of ‘The Prophet of God’, (Muhammad) are recorded in the Books of Tradition called The Hadeeth.
Three: Evidence of the third kind abounds in different volume of Islamic history, written by some of high integrity and learning, and others of lesser trustworthiness, but the Muslim advisedly keeps his Books in separate volumes!
The Muslim keeps the above three types of evidence Jealously apart, in their proper gradations of authority. He never equates them. On the other hand, the “Holy Bible” contains a motley type of literature, which composes the embarrassing kind, the sordid, and the obscene all under the same cover A Christian is forced to concede equal spiritual import and authority to all, and is thus unfortunate in this regard.
The multiple bible versions
Before we scrutinize the various versions, let us clarify our own belief regarding the Books of God. When we say that we believe in the Tablets, the Psalms, the Gospel and the Quran, what do we really mean? We already know that the Holy Quran is the infallible Word of God, revealed to Prophet Muhammad word for word, through the agency of the Archangel Gabriel, and perfectly preserved and protected from human tampering for the past fourteen hundred years! See The Quran - The Miracle of Miracles Even hostile critics of Islam have grudgingly vouched for the purity of the Holy Quran:
“There is probably in the world no other book which has remained twelve centuries (now fourteen) with so pure a text.” (Sir William Muir).
The Old and New Testaments we Muslims believe in is not the “Old and New Testaments” of the Jews and the Christians, though the words one Arabic, the other Hebrew are the same. We believe that whatever the Holy Prophet Moses preached to his people, was the revelation from God Almighty, but that Moses was not the author of those “books” attributed to him by the Jews and the Christians.
Likewise, we believe that the Psalms was the revelation of God granted to David, but that the present Psalms associated with his name are not that revelation. The Christians themselves do not insist that David is the sole author of “his” Psalms. (Later on you’ll read how Christian “Brains Trust” confess “Author; Principally David, though there are other writers.”)
What about the ‘Gospel’? or ‘good news’ which Jesus Christ preached during his short ministry. The “Gospel” writers often mention that Jesus going about and preaching the Gospel “And Jesus went ... preaching the gospel ... and healing every disease among the people.”
(Matthew 9:35)
“but whosoever shall lose his fife for my sake and the gospel’s, the same shall save it.” (Mark 8:35)
“preached the gospel” (Luke 20:1)
The “gospel” is a frequently used word, but what Gospel did Jesus preach? Of the 27 books of the New Testament, only a small fraction can be accepted as the words of Jesus. The Christians boast about the Gospels according to St. Matthew, according to St. Mark, according to St. Luke and according to St. John, but there is not a single Gospel “according” to (St.) Jesus himself! We sincerely believe that everything Christ preached was from God. That was the Injeel, the good news and the guidance of God for the Children of Israel. In his life-time Jesus never wrote a single word, nor did he instruct anyone to do so. What passes off as the “Gospels” today are the works of anonymous hands!

Each person is born in a circumstance which is not of his own choosing. The religion of his family or the ideology of the state is thrust upon him from the very beginning of his existence in this world. By the time he reaches his teens, he is usually fully brain-washed into believing that the beliefs of his particular society are the correct beliefs that everyone should have.
However, when some people mature and are exposed to other belief-systems, they begin to question the validity of their own beliefs. The seekers of truth often reach a point of confusion upon realizing that each and every religion, sect, ideology and philosophy claims to be the one and only correct way for man. Indeed, they all encourage people to do good. So, which one is right? They cannot all be right since each claims all others are wrong. Then how does the seeker of truth choose the right way?
God gave us all minds and intellects to enable us to make this crucial decision. It is the most important decision in the life of a human being. Upon it depends his future, Consequently, each and every one of us must examine dispassionately the evidence presented and choose what appears to be right until further evidence arises.
Like every other religion or philosophy, Islam also claims to be the one and only true way to God. In this respect it is no different from other systems. This booklet intends to provide some evidence for the validity of that claim.
However, it must always be kept in mind that one can only determine the true path by putting aside emotions and prejudices, which often blind us to reality. Then, and only then, will we be able to use our God-given intelligence and make a rational and correct decision.
There are several arguments, which may be advanced to support Islam’s claim to be the true religion of God. The following are only three of the most obvious.
The first argument is based on the divine origin of the names of the religion and the comprehensiveness of its meaning.
The second deals with the unique and uncomplicated teachings concerning the relationship between God, man, and creation.
The third argument derives from the fact that Islam is universally attainable by all men at all times. These are the three basic components of what logic and reason dictate necessary for a religion to be considered the true religion of God. The following pages will develop these concepts in some detail.
The religion’s name
The first thing that one should know and clearly understand about Islam is what the word ‘Islam” itself means. The Arabic word “Islam” means the submission or surrender of one’s will to the only true God, known in Arabic as “Allah”. One who submits his will to God is termed in Arabic a “Muslim”. The religion of Islam is not named after a person or a people, nor was it decided by a later generation of man, as in the case of Christianity which was named after Jesus Christ, Buddhism after Gautama Buddha, Confucianism after Confucius, Marxism after Karl Marx, Judaism after the tribe of Judah and Hinduism after the Hindus.
Islam (submission to the will of God) is the religion which was given to Adam, the first man and the first prophet of God, and it was the religion of all the prophets sent by Allah to mankind. Further its name was chosen by God Himself and clearly mentioned in the final scripture which He revealed to man. In that final revelation, called in Arabic the Quran Allah states the following:
“This day have I perfected your religion for you, completed My favour upon you, and have chosen for you Islam as your religion.” (Quran 5:3)
“If anyone desires a religion other than Islam (submission to God), never will it be accepted of Him.” (Quran 3:85)
Hence, Islam does not claim to be a new religion brought by Prophet Mohammed into Arabia in the seventh century, but rather to be a re-expression in its final form of the true religion of Almighty God, Allah, as it was originally revealed to Adam and subsequent prophets.
At this point we might comment briefly on two other religions that claim to be the true path. Nowhere in the Bible will you find God revealing to Prophet Moses’ people or their descendants that their religion is called Judaism, or to the followers of Christ that their religion is called Christianity. In other words, the names “Judaism” and “Christianity” had no divine origin or approval. It was not until long after his departure that the name Christianity was given to Jesus’ religion.
What, then, was Jesus’ religion in actual fact, as distinct from its name? (Both the name Jesus and the name Christ are derived from Hebrew words, through Greek and Latin. Jesus is the English and Latin form of the Greek Iesous, which in Hebrew Is Yeshua or Yehoshua’ (Joshua). The Greek word Christos is a translation of the Hebrew (for) ‘messiah’, which is a title meaning ‘the anointed’.) His religion was reflected in his teachings, which he urged his followers to accept as guiding principles in their relationship with God.
In Islam, Jesus is a prophet sent by Allah and his Arabic name is Eesa. Like the prophets before him, he called upon the people to surrender their will to the will of God (which is what Islam stands for). For example, in the New Testament it is stated that Jesus taught his followers to pray to God as follows:
“Our father in heaven, hallowed be your name, may your will be done on earth as it is in heaven.” (Luke 11:2/Matthew 6:9-10)
This concept was emphasised by Jesus in a number of his statements recorded in the Gospels. He taught, for example, that only those who submitted would inherit paradise. Jesus also pointed out that he himself submitted to the will of God.
“None of those who call me ‘Lord’ will enter the kingdom of God, but only the one who does the will of my Father in heaven.” (Matthew 7:21)
“I cannot do anything of myself I judge as I hear and my judgment is honest because I am not seeking my own will but the will of Him who sent me.” (John 5:30)
There are many reports in the Gospels which show that Jesus made it clear to his followers that he was not the one true God. For example, when speaking about the final Hour, he said:
“No-one knows about the day or hour, not even the angels in heaven, not the son, but only the Father.” (Mark 13:32)
Thus, Jesus like the prophets before him and the one who came after him, taught the religion of Islam: submission to the will of the one true God.
God and creation
Since the total submission of one’s will to God represents the essence of worship, the basic message of God’s divine religion, Islam, is the worship of God alone. It also requires the avoidance of worship directed to any person, place or thing other than God. Since everything other than God, the creator of all the things, is God’s creation, it may be said that Islam, in essence, calls man away from worship of creation and invites him to worship only his Creator. He is the only one deserving of man’s worship, because it is only by His will that prayers are answered.
Accordingly, if a man prays to a tree and his prayers are answered, it is not the tree which answers his prayers but God, who allows the circumstances prayed for to take place. One might say, “That is obvious”. However, to tree-worshippers, it might not be so. Similarly, prayers to Jesus, Buddha, or Krishna or Saint Christopher, or Saint Jude or even to Muhammad, are not answered by them, but are answered by God. Jesus did not tell his followers to worship him but to worship God, as the Quran states:
“And behold! Allah will say: ‘O Jesus, the son of Mary! Did you say to men, worship me and my mother as gods besides Allah?, He will say: “Glory to you, I could never say what I had no right (to say).” (Quran 5:118)
Nor did Jesus worship himself when he worshipped, but rather he worshipped God. And Jesus was reported in the Gospels to have said, “It is written: ‘Worship the Lord your God and serve Him only.’” (Luke 4:
This basic principle is contained in the opening chapter of the Quran “you alone do we worship and from you alone do we seek help.”
Elsewhere, in the final book of revelation, the Quran, God also said “And you Lord says: ‘Call on Me and I will answer your (prayer).’” (Quran 40:60)
It is worth emphasizing that the basic message of Islam (namely, the worship of God alone) also proclaims that God and His creation are distinctly different entities. God is neither equal to His creation nor a part of it, nor is His creation equal to Him or a part of Him.
This might seem obvious, but man’s worship of creation, instead of the Creator is to a large degree based on ignorance, or neglect, of this concept. It is the belief that the essence of God is everywhere in His creation or that His divine being is or was present in some parts of His creation, which has provided justification for the worship of God’s creation and naming it the worship of God.
However, the message of Islam, as brought by the prophets of God, is to worship only God and to avoid the worship of His creation either directly or indirectly.
In the Quran God clearly states
“For we assuredly sent amongst every people a prophet, with the command Worship Me and avoid false Gods.” (Quran 16:36)
When idol worshippers are questioned as to why they bow down to idols created by men, the invariable reply is that they are not actually worshipping the stone image, but God who is present within it. They claim that the stone idol is only a focal point for God’s essence and is not in itself God! One who has accepted the concept of God being present in any way within His creation will be obliged to accept this argument for idolatry. Whereas, one who understands the basic message of Islam and its implications would never agree to idolatry no matter how it is rationalized.
Those who have claimed divinity for themselves down through the ages have often based their claims on the mistaken belief that God is present in man. Taking one step further, they claim that God is more present in them than in the rest of us, and that other humans should therefore submit to them and worship them as God in person or as God concentrated within their persons. Similarly, those who have asserted the godhood of others after their deaths have found fertile ground among those who accept the false belief of God’s presence in man.
It should be abundantly clear by now that one who has grasped the basic message of Islam and its implications could never agree to worship another human being under any circumstance. God’s religion, in essence, is a clear call to the worship of the Creator and the rejection of creation-worship in any form. This is the meaning of the motto of Islam There is no god but Allah.
The sincere declaration of this phrase and the acceptance of prophethood automatically bring one within the fold of Islam, and sincere belief in it guarantees one Paradise. Thus, the final Prophet of Islam is reported to have said, “Any one who says: There is no God but Allah, and dies holding that (belief) will enter paradise.”
Belief in this declaration of faith requires that one submit his/her will to God in the way taught by the prophets of God. It also requires the believer to give up the worship of false gods.
Conclusion
The preceding presentation has demonstrated that the name of the religion of Islam expresses Islam’s most central principle, submission to God, and that the name “Islam” was chosen not by man, but by God, according to the holy scriptures of Islam. It has also been shown that Islam alone teaches the uniqueness of God and His attributes and enjoins the worship of God alone without intermediaries. Finally, due to the divinely instilled inclination of man to worship God and the signs revealed by God throughout the ages to each individual, Islam may be achieved by all men at all times.
In short, the significance of the name Islam (submission to God), Islam’s fundamental acknowledgment of the uniqueness of God and Islam’s accessibility to all mankind at all times convincingly support Islam’s claim that from the beginning of time in whatever language it was expressed, Islam alone has been, and will be the true religion of God.

The three monotheistic religions – Judaism, Christianity, and Islam – all purport to share one fundamental concept: belief in God as the Supreme Being, the Creator and Sustainer of the Universe. This concept of the Oneness of God was stressed by Moses in a Biblical passage known as the ‘Shema’, or the Jewish creed of faith “Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God is one Lord.” (Deuteronomy 6:4)
It was repeated word-for-word approximately 1500 years later by Prophet Jesus, when he said “...The first of all the commandments is, Hear, O Israel; the Lord our God is one Lord.”
(Mark 12:29)
Prophet Muhammad came along approximately 600 years later, bringing the same message again “And your God is One God: there is no God but He...” (Quran 2:163)
Christianity has digressed from the concept of the Oneness of God, however, into a vague and mysterious doctrine that was formulated during the fourth century. This doctrine, which continues to be a source of controversy both within and outside the Christian religion, is known as the Doctrine of the Trinity. Simply put, the Christian doctrine of the Trinity states that God is the union of three divine persons – the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit – in one divine being.
If that concept, put in basic terms, sounds confusing, the flowery language in the actual text of the doctrine lends even more mystery to the matter “...we worship one God in Trinity, and Trinity in Unity... for there is one Person of the Father, another of the Son, another of the Holy Ghost is all one... they are not three gods, but one God... the whole three persons are co-eternal and co-equal... he therefore that will be saved must thus think of the Trinity...”
(Athanasian Creed)
Let’s put this together in a different form: one person, God the Father, plus one person, God the Son, plus one person, God the Holy Ghost, equals one person, God the What? Is this English or is this gibberish?
It is said that Athanasius, the bishop who formulated this doctrine, confessed that the more he wrote on the matter, the less capable he was of clearly expressing his thoughts regarding it. How did such a confusing doctrine get its start?
Trinity in the Bible
References in the Bible to a Trinity of divine beings are vague, at best.
In Matthew 28:19, we find Jesus telling his disciples to go out and preach to all nations. While this ‘Great Commission’ does make mention of the three persons who later become components of the Trinity, the phrase ‘...baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost’ is quite clearly an addition to Biblical text – that is, not the actual words of Jesus – as can be seen by two factors:
1) baptism in the early Church, as discussed by Paul in his letters, was done only in the name of Jesus; and
2) the ‘Great Commission’ was found in the first gospel written, that of Mark, bears no mention of Father, Son and/or Holy Ghost – see Mark 16:15.
The only other reference in the Bible to a Trinity can be found in the Epistle of 1 John 5:7. Biblical scholars of today, however, have admitted that the phrase:
“...there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one” …is definitely a ‘later addition’ to Biblical text, and it is not found in any of today’s versions of the Bible.
It can, therefore, be seen that the concept of a Trinity of divine beings was not an idea put forth by Prophet Jesus or any other prophet of God. This doctrine, now subscribed to by Christians all over the world, is entirely man-made in origin.
The doctrine takes shape
While Paul of Tarsus, the man who could rightfully be considered the true founder of Christianity, did formulate many of its doctrines, that of the Trinity was not among them. He did, however, lay the groundwork for such when he put forth the idea of Jesus being a ‘divine Son’. After all, a Son does need a Father, and what about a vehicle for God’s revelations to man? In essence, Paul named the principal players, but it was the later Church people who put the matter together.
Tertullian, a lawyer and presbyter of the third century Church in Carthage, was the first to use the word ‘Trinity’ when he put forth the theory that the Son and the Spirit participate in the being of God, but all are of one being of substance with the Father.
A formal doctrine is drawn up
When controversy over the matter of the Trinity blew up in 318 between two church men from Alexandria – Arius, the deacon, and Alexander, his bishop – Emperor Constantine stepped into the fray.
Although Christian dogma was a complete mystery to him, he did realize that a unified church was necessary for a strong kingdom. When negotiation failed to settle the dispute, Constantine called for the first ecumenical council in Church history in order to settle the matter once and for all.
Six weeks after the 300 bishops first gathered at Nicea in 325, the doctrine of the Trinity was hammered out. The God of the Christians was now seen as having three essences, or natures, in the form of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.
The church puts its foot down
The matter was far from settled, however, despite high hopes for such on the part of Constantine. Arius and the new bishop of Alexandria, a man named Athanasius, began arguing over the matter even as the Nicene Creed was being signed; ‘Arianism’ became a catch-word from that time onward for anyone who didn’t hold to the doctrine of the Trinity.
It wasn’t until 451, at the Council of Chalcedon that, with the approval of the Pope, the Nicene/Constantinople Creed was set as authoritative. Debate on the matter was no longer tolerated; to speak out against the Trinity was now considered blasphemy, and such earned stiff sentences that ranged from mutilation to death. Christians now turned on Christians, maiming and slaughtering thousands because of a difference of opinion.
Debate continues
Brutal punishments and even death did not stop the controversy over the doctrine of the Trinity, however, and the said controversy continues even today.
The majority of Christians, when asked to explain this fundamental doctrine of their faith, can offer nothing more than ‘I believe it because I was told to do so.’ It is explained away as ‘mystery’ – yet the Bible says “…God is not the author of confusion…” (1 Corinthians 14:33)
The Unitarian denomination of Christianity has kept alive the teachings of Arius in saying that God is one; they do not believe in the Trinity. As a result, mainstream Christians abhor them, and the National Council of Churches has refused their admittance. In Unitarianism, the hope is kept alive that Christians will someday return to the preaching of Jesus “Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and Him only shalt thou serve.” (Luke 4:
Islam and the matter of the Trinity
While Christianity may have a problem defining the essence of God, such is not the case in Islam “They do blaspheme who say: Allah is one of three in a Trinity: for there is no god except One Allah. If they desist not from their word (of blasphemy), verily a grievous penalty will befall the blasphemers among them.” (Quran 5:73)
It is worth noting that the Arabic language Bible uses the name ‘Allah’ as the name of God.
Suzanne Haneef, puts the matter quite succinctly when she says:
‘But God is not like a pie or an apple which can be divided into three thirds which form one whole; if God is three persons or possesses three parts, He is assuredly not the Single, Unique, Indivisible Being which God is and which Christianity professes to believe in.’ (What everyone should know about Islam)
Looking at it from another angle, the Trinity designates God as being three separate entities – the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. If God is the Father and also the Son, He would then be the Father of Himself because He is His own Son. This is not exactly logical.
Christianity claims to be a monotheistic religion. Monotheism, however, has as its fundamental belief that God is One; the Christian doctrine of the Trinity – God being Three-in-One – is seen by Islam as a form of polytheism. Christians don’t revere just One God, they revere three.
This is a charge not taken lightly by Christians, however. They, in turn, accuse the Muslims of not even knowing what the Trinity is, pointing out that the Quran sets it up as Allah the Father, Jesus the Son, and Mary his mother. While veneration of Mary has been a figment of the Catholic Church since 431 when she was given the title ‘Mother of God’ by the Council of Ephesus, a closer examination of the verses in the Quran most often cited by Christians in support of their accusation, shows that the designation of Mary by the Quran as a ‘member’ of the Trinity, is simply not true.
While the Quran does condemn both Trinitarianism and the worship of Jesus and his mother Mary, nowhere does it identify the actual three components of the Christian Trinity. The position of the Quran is that WHO or WHAT comprises this doctrine is not important; what is important is that the very notion of a Trinity is an affront against the concept of One God.
In conclusion, we see that the doctrine of the Trinity is a concept conceived entirely by man; there is no sanction whatsoever from God to be found regarding the matter simply because the whole idea of a Trinity of divine beings has no place in monotheism. In the Quran, God’s Last and Final Revelation to mankind, we find His stand quite clearly stated in a number of eloquent passages:
“Say: ‘I am but a man like yourselves, (but) the inspiration has come to me, that your Allah is one Allah: whoever expects to meet his Lord, let him work righteousness, and, in the worship of his Lord, admit no one as partner.’” (Quran 18:110)
“These are among the (precepts of) wisdom, which thy Lord has revealed to thee. Take not, with Allah, another object of worship, lest thou shouldst be thrown into Hell, blameworthy and rejected.” (Quran 17:39)
God tells us over and over again in a Message that is echoed throughout all His Revealed Scriptures “Verily, this brotherhood of yours is a single brotherhood, and I am your Lord and Cherisher: therefore serve Me (and no other).”
(Quran 21:92)

The three monotheistic religions – Judaism, Christianity, and Islam – all purport to share one fundamental concept: belief in God as the Supreme Being, the Creator and Sustainer of the Universe. This concept of the Oneness of God was stressed by Moses in a Biblical passage known as the ‘Shema’, or the Jewish creed of faith “Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God is one Lord.” (Deuteronomy 6:4)
It was repeated word-for-word approximately 1500 years later by Prophet Jesus, when he said “...The first of all the commandments is, Hear, O Israel; the Lord our God is one Lord.”
(Mark 12:29)
Prophet Muhammad came along approximately 600 years later, bringing the same message again “And your God is One God: there is no God but He...” (Quran 2:163)
Christianity has digressed from the concept of the Oneness of God, however, into a vague and mysterious doctrine that was formulated during the fourth century. This doctrine, which continues to be a source of controversy both within and outside the Christian religion, is known as the Doctrine of the Trinity. Simply put, the Christian doctrine of the Trinity states that God is the union of three divine persons – the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit – in one divine being.
If that concept, put in basic terms, sounds confusing, the flowery language in the actual text of the doctrine lends even more mystery to the matter “...we worship one God in Trinity, and Trinity in Unity... for there is one Person of the Father, another of the Son, another of the Holy Ghost is all one... they are not three gods, but one God... the whole three persons are co-eternal and co-equal... he therefore that will be saved must thus think of the Trinity...”
(Athanasian Creed)
Let’s put this together in a different form: one person, God the Father, plus one person, God the Son, plus one person, God the Holy Ghost, equals one person, God the What? Is this English or is this gibberish?
It is said that Athanasius, the bishop who formulated this doctrine, confessed that the more he wrote on the matter, the less capable he was of clearly expressing his thoughts regarding it. How did such a confusing doctrine get its start?
Trinity in the Bible
References in the Bible to a Trinity of divine beings are vague, at best.
In Matthew 28:19, we find Jesus telling his disciples to go out and preach to all nations. While this ‘Great Commission’ does make mention of the three persons who later become components of the Trinity, the phrase ‘...baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost’ is quite clearly an addition to Biblical text – that is, not the actual words of Jesus – as can be seen by two factors:
1) baptism in the early Church, as discussed by Paul in his letters, was done only in the name of Jesus; and
2) the ‘Great Commission’ was found in the first gospel written, that of Mark, bears no mention of Father, Son and/or Holy Ghost – see Mark 16:15.
The only other reference in the Bible to a Trinity can be found in the Epistle of 1 John 5:7. Biblical scholars of today, however, have admitted that the phrase:
“...there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one” …is definitely a ‘later addition’ to Biblical text, and it is not found in any of today’s versions of the Bible.
It can, therefore, be seen that the concept of a Trinity of divine beings was not an idea put forth by Prophet Jesus or any other prophet of God. This doctrine, now subscribed to by Christians all over the world, is entirely man-made in origin.
The doctrine takes shape
While Paul of Tarsus, the man who could rightfully be considered the true founder of Christianity, did formulate many of its doctrines, that of the Trinity was not among them. He did, however, lay the groundwork for such when he put forth the idea of Jesus being a ‘divine Son’. After all, a Son does need a Father, and what about a vehicle for God’s revelations to man? In essence, Paul named the principal players, but it was the later Church people who put the matter together.
Tertullian, a lawyer and presbyter of the third century Church in Carthage, was the first to use the word ‘Trinity’ when he put forth the theory that the Son and the Spirit participate in the being of God, but all are of one being of substance with the Father.
A formal doctrine is drawn up
When controversy over the matter of the Trinity blew up in 318 between two church men from Alexandria – Arius, the deacon, and Alexander, his bishop – Emperor Constantine stepped into the fray.
Although Christian dogma was a complete mystery to him, he did realize that a unified church was necessary for a strong kingdom. When negotiation failed to settle the dispute, Constantine called for the first ecumenical council in Church history in order to settle the matter once and for all.
Six weeks after the 300 bishops first gathered at Nicea in 325, the doctrine of the Trinity was hammered out. The God of the Christians was now seen as having three essences, or natures, in the form of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.
The church puts its foot down
The matter was far from settled, however, despite high hopes for such on the part of Constantine. Arius and the new bishop of Alexandria, a man named Athanasius, began arguing over the matter even as the Nicene Creed was being signed; ‘Arianism’ became a catch-word from that time onward for anyone who didn’t hold to the doctrine of the Trinity.
It wasn’t until 451, at the Council of Chalcedon that, with the approval of the Pope, the Nicene/Constantinople Creed was set as authoritative. Debate on the matter was no longer tolerated; to speak out against the Trinity was now considered blasphemy, and such earned stiff sentences that ranged from mutilation to death. Christians now turned on Christians, maiming and slaughtering thousands because of a difference of opinion.
Debate continues
Brutal punishments and even death did not stop the controversy over the doctrine of the Trinity, however, and the said controversy continues even today.
The majority of Christians, when asked to explain this fundamental doctrine of their faith, can offer nothing more than ‘I believe it because I was told to do so.’ It is explained away as ‘mystery’ – yet the Bible says “…God is not the author of confusion…” (1 Corinthians 14:33)
The Unitarian denomination of Christianity has kept alive the teachings of Arius in saying that God is one; they do not believe in the Trinity. As a result, mainstream Christians abhor them, and the National Council of Churches has refused their admittance. In Unitarianism, the hope is kept alive that Christians will someday return to the preaching of Jesus “Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and Him only shalt thou serve.” (Luke 4:
Islam and the matter of the Trinity
While Christianity may have a problem defining the essence of God, such is not the case in Islam “They do blaspheme who say: Allah is one of three in a Trinity: for there is no god except One Allah. If they desist not from their word (of blasphemy), verily a grievous penalty will befall the blasphemers among them.” (Quran 5:73)
It is worth noting that the Arabic language Bible uses the name ‘Allah’ as the name of God.
Suzanne Haneef, puts the matter quite succinctly when she says:
‘But God is not like a pie or an apple which can be divided into three thirds which form one whole; if God is three persons or possesses three parts, He is assuredly not the Single, Unique, Indivisible Being which God is and which Christianity professes to believe in.’ (What everyone should know about Islam)
Looking at it from another angle, the Trinity designates God as being three separate entities – the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. If God is the Father and also the Son, He would then be the Father of Himself because He is His own Son. This is not exactly logical.
Christianity claims to be a monotheistic religion. Monotheism, however, has as its fundamental belief that God is One; the Christian doctrine of the Trinity – God being Three-in-One – is seen by Islam as a form of polytheism. Christians don’t revere just One God, they revere three.
This is a charge not taken lightly by Christians, however. They, in turn, accuse the Muslims of not even knowing what the Trinity is, pointing out that the Quran sets it up as Allah the Father, Jesus the Son, and Mary his mother. While veneration of Mary has been a figment of the Catholic Church since 431 when she was given the title ‘Mother of God’ by the Council of Ephesus, a closer examination of the verses in the Quran most often cited by Christians in support of their accusation, shows that the designation of Mary by the Quran as a ‘member’ of the Trinity, is simply not true.
While the Quran does condemn both Trinitarianism and the worship of Jesus and his mother Mary, nowhere does it identify the actual three components of the Christian Trinity. The position of the Quran is that WHO or WHAT comprises this doctrine is not important; what is important is that the very notion of a Trinity is an affront against the concept of One God.
In conclusion, we see that the doctrine of the Trinity is a concept conceived entirely by man; there is no sanction whatsoever from God to be found regarding the matter simply because the whole idea of a Trinity of divine beings has no place in monotheism. In the Quran, God’s Last and Final Revelation to mankind, we find His stand quite clearly stated in a number of eloquent passages:
“Say: ‘I am but a man like yourselves, (but) the inspiration has come to me, that your Allah is one Allah: whoever expects to meet his Lord, let him work righteousness, and, in the worship of his Lord, admit no one as partner.’” (Quran 18:110)
“These are among the (precepts of) wisdom, which thy Lord has revealed to thee. Take not, with Allah, another object of worship, lest thou shouldst be thrown into Hell, blameworthy and rejected.” (Quran 17:39)
God tells us over and over again in a Message that is echoed throughout all His Revealed Scriptures “Verily, this brotherhood of yours is a single brotherhood, and I am your Lord and Cherisher: therefore serve Me (and no other).”
(Quran 21:92)

Mahatma Gandhi
“I wanted to know the best of the life of one who holds today an undisputed sway over the hearts of millions of mankind... I became more than ever convinced that it was not the sword that won a place for Islam in those days in the scheme of life. It was the rigid simplicity, the utter self-effacement of the Prophet the scrupulous regard for pledges, his intense devotion to his friends and followers, his intrepidity, his fearlessness, his absolute trust in God and in his own mission. These and not the sword carried everything before them and surmounted every obstacle. When I closed the second volume (of the Prophet's biography), I was sorry there was not more for me to read of that great life.” (A statement published in 'Young India'.1924).

Mahatma Gandhi
“I wanted to know the best of the life of one who holds today an undisputed sway over the hearts of millions of mankind... I became more than ever convinced that it was not the sword that won a place for Islam in those days in the scheme of life. It was the rigid simplicity, the utter self-effacement of the Prophet the scrupulous regard for pledges, his intense devotion to his friends and followers, his intrepidity, his fearlessness, his absolute trust in God and in his own mission. These and not the sword carried everything before them and surmounted every obstacle. When I closed the second volume (of the Prophet's biography), I was sorry there was not more for me to read of that great life.” (A statement published in 'Young India'.1924).

barcanista:
Like I said bro, stop being dogmatic. Which Commandment was Jesus referring too? He was giving some Teachings/Commandments on the Mount in Matthew 5:2-18. He ended by saying his followers must keep to the teachings-all of them.

Now which of those teachings was mosaic? Are they not what are binding on christians? My guy, stop being dogmatic.

Why According To?
Why does every Gospel begin with the introduction According To ... According To ... Why "According to?". Because not a single one of the vaunted four thousand copies extant carries its author's autograph! Hence the supposition "according to!" Even the internal evidence proves that Matthew was not the author of the first Gospel which bears his name.

While the Peoples Democratic Party administration of former President Goodluck Jonathan lasted, I did not see the national leader of the All Progressives Congress, Asiwaju Bola Tinubu, inside the Villa. I cannot say as a matter of finality that he did not come. This is because experience has taught me that reporters can only see those authorities want them to see. They can decide to receive visitors who do not want to attract media attention at ungodly hours, which is always the time of nocturnal meetings or meet such people in locations in the Villa that are strictly out of bounds to journalists.
Since his party man, President Muhammadu Buhari, came on board, it was taken for granted that the former governor of Lagos State would be a regular face in the seat of power. But it has never been so. The situation further fuelled speculations that he and the President had fallen apart shortly after the March presidential election.
When news filtered in that the President would be breaking his Ramadan fast on Wednesday with some APC chiefs and that Asiwaju, popularly known as the Lion of Bourdillon, was among the expected guests, journalists decided to stay back in case the former governor turned up.
At about 6pm, the President’s guests started arriving. Many of those who were part of the first set of guests to arrive were not known faces. At a point, former governor of Rivers State, Rotimi Amaechi, arrived. A former member of the National Assembly, Senator Olorunimbe Mamora and some others also arrived. Not long after, we saw Asiwaju from afar while he was scaling through the last security check. Behind him was the National Publicity Secretary of the party, Alhaji Lai Muhammed, and a few others.
Venue of the event was the new Banquet Hall. Some guests who had arrived earlier were standing at the lobby, armed with fruits or cups of water or juice provided by the stewards. Some others went to the mosque near the President’s office to offer prayers before breaking their fast.
By the time Tinubu stepped into the lobby, the atmosphere changed. Almost all the politicians standing there wanted to greet and pose for photographs with him. With the exchange of pleasantries over, the guests were led into the main hall. The former Lagos State governor and Amaechi joined Buhari on the same table with another two elderly men.
There was no room for wasting of time. Immediately the opening prayer was said, it was time to eat. While others were asked to walk to any of the two serving points to help themselves with any of the food available, those on the President’s table were asked to remain seated as stewards would serve them. Rice, pap, salad, tuwo, moin moin, dodo, vegetable, fish pepper soup, fresh fish, snail and assorted meats featured prominently on the menu. There were enough to eat.
With the “stomach infrastructure” session over, Tinubu was asked to speak on behalf of the group. He thanked the President for hosting them and promised continued support for his administration. He had words for those accusing Buhari of being too slow. He said the President could not clear PDP’s 16-year mess in 30 days.
Buhari also thanked his guests for joining him at the event. He appreciated their contributions to his success at the poll while tracing the history of the merger that gave birth to the APC.
His address marked the end of the event. Tinubu was again asked to lead other guests out to the lobby where they shook hands and posed for photographs with the President one after the other. With that arrangement, Tinubu was the first person to step out of the building after shaking hands with Buhari. He stepped into the waiting hands of reporters who had laid ambush for him with their cameras.
The former governor was visibly reluctant to speak with journalists, especially on the crisis rocking his party as a result of the leadership crisis in the National Assembly. He had not spoken publicly on the matter but it seemed we succeeded in boxing him into a corner. He had to talk and he decided to choose his words carefully.
“That (the leadership crisis in the National Assembly) is an area where I am very cautious of my position and utterances. I still want to keep my side of interpretation or analysis to me to be able to achieve a resolution of the matter as quickly as possible. I am backing all the President has carefully enumerated and articulated to the party. The party is supreme. The party must have disciplined leadership and followers. The party’s process must be respected because that is the confidence and the trust of the people,’ he went on and on as the tape kept rolling.
Tinubu also used the opportunity of his first interview with State House correspondents to dispel rumours that he and Buhari are no longer on the same page because of some demands he was alleged to have made. “I have no demand on the party. If you understand what party politics and leadership are all about, they are about loyalty and commitment to the values that leadership believes in. I believe in what the President believes in. I respect him and I stand firmly loyal to his cause. You can go to any length of speculation that you might want. I have not responded to all of that because I understand the President and the President understands me clearly,” he said.
By the time the interview was going on, many APC chiefs such as Chief Audu Ogbeh and others joined Tinubu. One of his aides who joined him midway quickly started using his smartphone to record the interview for reasons best known to him. It was the same man who quickly said “thank you gentlemen” when his boss finished answering the third question, a clever way of stopping the interview.
At the end of the short interaction, APC chiefs still milled around Tinubu as he made his way out of the premises.
Buhari and the PDP governors
Those who think that state governors elected on the platform of the PDP may not be having the listening ears of the President may have a rethink soon. I can say authoritatively that apart from when he met all the 36 state governors and later met with APC governors, most of those who have been having one-on-one meetings with Buhari are PDP governors.
Last week, Governor Seriake Dickson of Bayelsa State met with Buhari. This week, two PDP governors met separately with the President. Governor Dave Umahi of Ebonyi met him on Wednesday while it was the turn of Governor Udom Emmanuel of Akwa Ibom State on Thursday.
The three of them agreed that elections were over and there was the need for all political gladiators to come together with a common goal of improving the living conditions of those who voted them into office.
All of them were however smart enough to quickly explain in their encounters with State House correspondents that their meetings with the President were not indications of any plan to defect from the PDP to the ruling party.
Barka de Sallah.
All rights reserved. Th

Jagoon:
It's because they see christianity as a rival religion and rome(vatican) is the base of the largest and oldest christian congregation in the world. No doubt in my mind these muslims are agents of the anti Christ, it's so obvious that they like mentor mohamed are working for satan.

proof or shut up for live

barcanista:
This is the truth. It doesn't mean that they should alter their holy book. What they need is wisdom to understand and apply what is written in their book in a way that would promote the tenet of humanity.

Matthew 5:19
Anyone who breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

Hero10001:
another d.umb post??!!
Btwn, who's arguing with a confused fellow that knows no difference btwn old and new testament?!
Google shoulda taught you better.

u go siddon.

Hero10001:
Haha, can't you read and comprehend again?!
Abi you wan run ni?
Who says you aint proud of terrorism?!
The verses are from the Bible of course.
I repeat, gimme a scenerio where Christains stoned sex offenders to death or where a christain court maimed pple for stealing.

I can't argue with u bcose u nothing about the book u read.If some Muslims wish to kill for God knows what does that mean we are all terrorist.

barcanista:
Bless you too. It is funny that some people will try to rope in Christians citing old testament to justify passages in the Koran. My ethics forbids me from castigating any religion but I think Muslims should be concerned in reforming their teachings.

Nobody is justifying anything in ur bible,all what I quote there are in the holy Bible or aren't they in the Bible again.

mod stop hiding my post ooo