₦airaland Forum

emkz:
Atiku has demonstrated the lack of capacity to challenge the likes of Wike, Makinde and Ortom to wrestle the soul of PDP.

The question is: does Atiku have rhe capacity to build a real party?

1. Let us recall that Atiku had run under AC in 2007 and Buhari ran under CPC in 2011. Atiku secured less than 8% of the votes in 2007. Buhari did well, but lost. They could have done better if they marketed their parties more.

2. How does Atiku intend to market ADC nationwide in less than two years before the next elections? He is using the same old and tired hands who formed a retinue to unorganized and disorganized spokesmen who ruined his 2023 campaign by not focusing their messaging on Atiku's plans and focused on irrelevant issues. APC was heavily marketed with Late Buhari's persona and Tinubu's media machinery, including hiring young media entrepreneurs to rebrand Buhari. Does Atiku have it and does he have the funds?

3. The gang in the coalition consists of politicians who are mostly yesterday's men or have one electoral baggage or the other. There are new kids on the block. Can Atiku's yesterday's men out-wit the new kids on the block?

4. If Atiku wants to play a northern affair, he should forget about the presidency. Buhari did it in 2011 and lost. Spread is important. The concensus is that the south should have 8 years. Hakeem Baba Ahmed said so. Has Atiku ever supported a southern candidate apart from 2003 where he had to be begged to allow Obasanjo before Obasanjo showed him pepper after winning?

5. What exactly does Atiku want to do differently for the nation? His ambition is becoming desperate. What is Atiku's scorecard in the sale of government infrastructure? What is Atiku's scorecard in economic reforms? Some Nigerians will say the Obasanjo/Atiku template of defending the naira is more useful. That template sold billions of dollars at artificially low rates. What it means is that someone wasted his salary on unproductive things only to say we shouldn't worry about the future and then the person loses his job. What is Atiku's scorecard in power sector reforms where he admitted that they paid some contractors 100% upfront for power sector contracts that were never done. Atiku also needs to clarify the PTDF scandal, the US Senator Jefferson bribery case and his real estate investments in USA.

Your analysis is long, but it lacks balance, context, and basic political honesty. Let’s unpack it."

1. On Atiku’s political journey:
Yes, Atiku ran under AC in 2007 — as a pioneer voice against PDP's internal dictatorship. So what? Political evolution is not a weakness. Every credible politician in Nigeria has changed platforms at some point, including Buhari. What matters is consistency of vision, not the logo on the ballot.

2. On building a real party:
Atiku doesn’t need to build a party from scratch; he needs to realign existing forces toward credible national rescue. If the coalition is “yesterday’s men,” who exactly built the APC? Tinubu didn’t use new politicians — he recycled tired elites and powered them with messaging. The difference is that Atiku has ideas and experience, not media gimmicks.

3. On messaging and campaign:
Blaming Atiku for campaign missteps in 2023 is convenient, but lazy. The entire electoral process was compromised. The INEC server failure and the refusal to transmit results in real-time were the real issues — not media tweets. Yet despite all that, Atiku still pulled over 6 million votes — in a split race with Obi.

4. On northern focus and ambition:
It’s ironic that people criticize Atiku for not backing southern candidates, but conveniently ignore how many southern leaders have failed to support northern candidates based on merit. Politics is national — and Atiku has never run a strictly northern campaign. He has always had a nationwide structure and a national message. He isn’t desperate — he’s determined, and there’s a difference.

5. On economic reforms and privatization:
Atiku’s role in the Obasanjo-era economic reforms is one of the most successful periods of Nigeria’s recent history. GSM revolution, banking consolidation, debt forgiveness, pension reforms, and more. Was everything perfect? No. But what came after Atiku? An oil boom wasted by successors and economic disasters under Buhari. People blaming privatization forget Nigeria was a sinking state-owned economy before those reforms.

6. On scandals:
Every major political figure has faced allegations — but until today, Atiku has not been convicted of any crime, in Nigeria or abroad. Meanwhile, many of those casting stones are silent about politicians openly looting their states. Double standards don’t make for honest conversations.

Conclusion:
Atiku is not perfect — no politician is. But what he brings to the table is unmatched: national reach, institutional knowledge, economic experience, and unmatched resilience. Nigeria needs competence, not noise. If your only metric is rebranding and media hype, then you’re still thinking like a campaigner, not like a voter interested in national progress.

Aminda

emkz:
Natasha, try and resume please.

By the way, they asked her to publish an apology in two national dailies and Facebook. She has refused to do so.

Due to her stubbornness, she might spend that six months suspension and even more.

Senate suspended activities to honour Buhari. After that, they'd proceed on their two month vacation.

Natasha is incorrigible. Therein lies her fundamental issue.

Your comment completely misses the point. Senator Natasha Akpoti isn’t being “stubborn” — she’s standing on principle. Apologizing for exposing institutional wrongdoing would be nothing short of cowardice. She was elected to represent the people, not to bow to political intimidation or rubber-stamp hypocrisy.

Calling her “incorrigible” because she refuses to play along with a flawed system only proves how uncomfortable some people are with strong, independent women in power. If defending truth and integrity means facing unjust suspension, then so be it. She’s setting a precedent that leadership isn’t about submission — it’s about courage.

In Islam, it is not from the Sunnah to insult or speak ill of the dead, even if the person was known to be wicked. The Prophet Muhammad (ﷺ) explicitly instructed: “Do not abuse the dead, for they have reached the result of what they sent forth” (Bukhari). This teaching encourages Muslims to maintain dignity, restrain their tongues, and leave judgment to Allah, who alone knows the full truth of each soul.

However, Islam does permit speaking truthfully about the public crimes or oppression of a person—if there is benefit, such as warning others or exposing injustice. But even this must be done with respect, facts, and sincerity, not out of personal hatred or vengeance.

In summary: it is not Sunnah to insult the wicked after death, but it may be allowed to speak the truth about their actions when it serves a greater good. Islam calls us to justice with mercy, and to discipline even in speech.

TenQ:
You are still buttressing my point.

The Rich and Influential in Islam has higher chances of entering the Islamic paradise because more Islamic clerics will pray to Allah on their Behalf!


Or are you saying that your prayers are worthless?

How exactly am I buttressing your point? Try to follow your own argument for once instead of twisting it to sound clever. Islam does not teach that wealth or status guarantees Paradise — if anything, the opposite is true. The Prophet Muhammad (ﷺ) warned that the rich will be held to account more severely, and no amount of clerics praying can bribe Allah.

So your claim that ‘more prayers for the rich means higher chances of Paradise’ is just lazy thinking. Our prayers are never worthless, but they don’t override someone’s deeds, because ultimate judgment belongs to Allah alone — not crowds at a funeral.

Next time, get your facts right before parroting half-baked assumptions about Islam. Sincerity and good deeds matter, not your warped idea that influence buys divine favour. Try reading what Islam actually says — it might help you make a point that holds up for once.

AMINDA:
If you're confident that Obi can defeat Tinubu in the South and protect his votes, then he should go ahead and contest as an independent candidate. Tinubu will come third in that scenario. The North is already settled for Atiku and Northerners will defend their votes, plus they have the numbers. Unlike in 2023, Atiku will end up getting enough votes from pragmatic Southerners and Easterners who wouldn't want to sink with Obi. This will be enough to take him through the finish line. The coalition would forge ahead with or without Obi. Infact, Obi needs the coalition more than the coalition needs him. Numbers don't lie.

Aminda, your analysis is solid and well thought out. You’ve captured the practical electoral dynamics with clarity — the numbers truly don’t lie.

Obi’s political survival depends heavily on the coalition’s broader structure and national reach; standing alone would only isolate his base and split votes further.

It’s refreshing to see someone break it down without emotional bias. Well done — you’re a good analyst.

TenQ:
If your prayers are not guaranteed, why waste your time?

What we Observe as Reality:
Poor people don't get as many Muslims praying for the repose of their souls as the Rich.

How many Muslims pray for the Aboki who fell off a moving Trailer?
Compare with those who prayed for Gen Sanni Abacha.

Sorry!

Your attempt at cheap mockery only exposes your shallow grasp of Islamic belief and basic human decency. First, who told you prayers are ‘wasted’? In Islam, the acceptance of any act of worship lies with Allah — not with your petty sarcasm. The fact that we can’t ‘guarantee’ what’s accepted doesn’t make it worthless — it makes us humble, unlike your smug certainty that reeks of arrogance.

Second, your comparison is laughable. Whether it’s the janitor who dies in obscurity or a head of state — the point is that everyone returns to Allah alone. Some may get more public prayers because of their position, but that doesn’t add an ounce to their deeds if they were corrupt. That Abacha had crowds at his funeral didn’t buy him an inch of Paradise if he didn’t deserve it.

Instead of obsessing over how many people pray, maybe learn that Islam values the sincerity of a single prayer more than your entire collection of sarcastic comments. Worry less about counting other people’s duas and more about the state of your own soul — because no amount of mockery will change your fate when your time comes.

TenQ:
In Islam, the Rich and Powerful are guaranteed paradise because a lot of people can be hired to pray for them.

Lucky you Buhari that people are praying for Allah to have Mercy on you!

Your mockery only exposes how little you understand about Islam and how desperate you are to twist anything to fit your hollow narrative. In Islam, no amount of hired prayers, wealth, or worldly power can buy someone Paradise — not for Buhari, not for any king, not even for a Prophet’s own family. Allah says clearly: “And no bearer of burdens will bear the burden of another.” (Qur’an 6:164). Everyone is judged by their deeds, sincerity, and faith — not by who prays for them out of show or how much they can pay.

Unlike the man-made loopholes you see in corrupt religious structures — where power and money buy “indulgences” or “guaranteed salvation” — Islam shuts that door completely. The Qur’an says: “Indeed, the most noble of you in the sight of Allah is the most righteous of you.” (Qur’an 49:13). Not the richest. Not the most powerful. Not the one with the biggest crowd.

If people gather to pray for someone, it’s not a “guarantee” — it’s a request for Allah’s mercy. But whether that mercy is granted depends on the sincerity of the person’s own faith and deeds. Islam teaches us to pray for the living and the dead because we believe in the power of supplication, not because we believe prayers magically cancel out injustice or corruption if they truly existed.

So instead of mocking, maybe reflect on the fact that in Islam, no one gets a free pass — and every leader, no matter how high they sit in this world, will stand alone before Allah. That’s real accountability. Can you say the same for your own beliefs, where people claim to be “saved” no matter what they do?

Next time, learn the difference between sincere prayer and empty ritual. In Islam, money and titles die at the grave — only deeds live on.

TenQ:
TenQ had been shadowbanned for some times now. It is so serious that I may have to stop using Nairaland in it's entirety.

There is no Muslim that knows how to be saved. They only hope that by doing more religion, Allah will have mercy upon them.

They honestly want to be able to hold on to any guarantee BUT unfortunately, there isn't. This is their dilemma!

It’s quite revealing how you distort Islamic teachings to fit your own preconceived narrative, ignoring context and misrepresenting verses to score cheap theological points.

First, regarding Qur’an 46:9, the Prophet Muhammad ﷺ said: “I am not something original among the messengers, nor do I know what will be done with me or with you…” — but you conveniently ignore its context. This statement was made early in his mission, demonstrating his absolute humility and complete reliance on Allah’s will. Unlike self-proclaimed “saved” individuals, the Prophet ﷺ never claimed independent power over salvation — because ultimate judgment belongs to Allah alone. Ironically, this verse only reinforces the pure Tawhid (Oneness of God) that Islam upholds: no human being, not even a Prophet, assumes the position of a divine judge.

Second, your claim that “Muslims don’t know how to be saved” is flatly false. Islam provides a clear, rational path to salvation: belief in the Oneness of Allah, sincere repentance, righteous deeds, and steadfast faith. The Qur’an repeats this formula countless times: “Indeed, those who believe and do righteous deeds — they will have the Gardens of Paradise…” (Qur’an 18:107). There is no confusion here — Islam gives people the dignity of striving sincerely rather than hiding behind the claim that someone else’s sacrifice automatically absolves them of personal responsibility.

You mock Muslims for hoping in Allah’s mercy — yet the Qur’an clearly states: “Say, ‘O My servants who have transgressed against themselves, do not despair of the mercy of Allah. Indeed, Allah forgives all sins…’” (Qur’an 39:53). This is not blind hope — it is balanced by fear of wrongdoing and hope in divine mercy. It is far superior to the dangerous delusion that someone can do whatever they want, then wave the banner of “guaranteed salvation” without accountability.

Finally, your cheap shot at Islam only exposes the weakness of your own position. Islam does not sell false guarantees; it demands moral responsibility, sincere faith, and actions. We do not pass the burden of our sins onto an innocent man — we stand before our Creator, answerable for what we did. That is not a dilemma — that is justice, mercy, and dignity combined.

Next time you quote the Qur’an, try reading it properly — you might discover it exposes the very contradictions you’re trying to hide.

TenQ Ken4Christ

What an insult to the people of Mali! This so-called ‘ruler’ has shamelessly crowned himself with a 5-year mandate that can be renewed forever — a clear mockery of democracy and an open invitation to tyranny.

This is not leadership; it’s raw dictatorship dressed up as constitutional reform. Malians deserve real governance, not a power-drunk junta clinging to the throne while ordinary citizens suffer insecurity, poverty, and instability.

No self-imposed king will save Mali — only true democratic accountability and a return of power to the people will. This reckless hijacking of the presidency is a betrayal of every Malian who dreams of freedom and genuine progress. Enough of these uniformed opportunists pretending to be statesmen!

What an embarrassing spectacle! Posters of Yahaya Bello — the same man neck-deep in allegations of massive fraud, unpaid salaries, and reckless mismanagement — now litter Abuja like a bad joke that refuses to die. Nigerians are not fools!

This is the same Yahaya Bello who turned Kogi State into a tragic symbol of incompetence and corruption. Now he wants to drag his disaster-class style of leadership to the national level as APC Chairman? God forbid!

Instead of answering in court for the billions he allegedly looted, he’s busy pasting his face everywhere, hoping cheap posters will blind us to his monumental failures. But no amount of glossy paper can whitewash a legacy drenched in workers’ tears and unpaid wages.

If the APC still has an ounce of integrity left, they should tear down these shameless posters and tell this political liability to clear his name in court before dreaming of another position. Nigerians are tired of watching the same political criminals recycle themselves while citizens suffer and starve.

Yahaya Bello’s ambition is an insult to every decent Nigerian who demands real leadership and accountability — not another reckless godfather who thinks he’s above the law. Nigerians deserve better. And we will not be silent!

Seun Seunmsg

TenQ:
Is there anyone like the Dajjal in the whole world?
If there is non, your argument of there is no one like Allah is at best vague.

You seem not to understand the level of your problem.
1. Allah comes to you Muslims in a Different SHAPE
2. Based on this new shape of Allah you reject him and even call him satan
3. You Muslims then had a meeting to deliberate on HOW to RECOGNISE Allah from his looks
4. Then you Muslims remember that Allah has a SHIN
5. The Allah Unveils his SHIN to you by which you now RECOGNISE him as Allah

Everything up till now is about recognition of the PHYSICAL SHAPE of Allah.
By the SHAPE of Allah, you Muslims will recognise him. Is that difficult to comprehend?


If the Dajjal is a REAL physical person, all Allah needed to say was "I am not physical"!
Unfortunately, Allah says that the difference between him and the Dajjal is that Allah has two eyes while the Dajjal has one eye.
This is the criteria given by your prophet.

Do you know better than Mohammed?

I think the issue of the Shin of Allah is now over flogged. As described earlier, it was about the physical recognition of Allah and the signs required.



1. Is Allah a good or bad communicator?
2. Is Mohammed a good or a bad communicator?
3. If both Allah and Mohammed are good communicators of doctrine, why do you think it makes sense to have hundreds of scholars who re-interprete what they both have said as if they are the worst of communicators of Islamic doctrine?

If it makes sense that Allah's words and Mohammed's words be re-interpreted. Why do you think it makes sense to even take any scholars words at their face value.

Your argument is a shallow attempt at theological mockery disguised as critique, riddled with logical fallacies, strawman assumptions, and a profound ignorance of Islamic theology. Let's dismantle this nonsense step by step.

1. False Equivalence Fallacy: You compare Allah to the Dajjal and use that to undermine the uniqueness of Allah. That’s absurd. The argument "there’s no one like the Dajjal, so your claim about Allah’s uniqueness is vague" is a category error. The Dajjal is a created being. Allah is the uncreated Creator. Comparing the two is intellectually dishonest and shows you don’t understand the basic ontological distinction in Islamic theology. Or worse—you do, but you ignore it to push your agenda.

2. Misrepresentation of the Hadith: You cherry-pick and distort narrations about the recognition of Allah. The Hadith about the "Shin" is mutashabih (ambiguous in meaning) and is part of eschatological descriptions. It is not meant to be a literal anatomical account of Allah. You strip context, scholarly consensus, and linguistic nuance just to create a laughable strawman. Either you're grossly uninformed, or you're deliberately misrepresenting Islamic texts to provoke rather than understand.

3. Your caricature of Islamic scholarship is not clever—it’s lazy: The idea that scholars reinterpret everything because Allah and the Prophet are “bad communicators” is a childish misrepresentation of how religious exegesis works. Interpretation exists not because revelation is unclear, but because human contexts change, languages evolve, and comprehension levels vary. Scholarship refines understanding—it doesn’t override it.

4. Mocking the need for scholars is ironic coming from someone who’s clearly not read any: You demand absolute clarity while rejecting the very process of clarification. Scholars exist to guard orthodoxy, not to invent it. You wouldn't discard physicists because Newton's laws exist. But when it comes to religion, you suddenly pretend interpretive traditions are a problem.

5. You oversimplify complex theological issues to score points—not seek truth: Your summary of Islamic beliefs reduces nuanced metaphysical doctrine into a comic-book level rant about “shape,” “eyes,” and “meetings.” If you spent more time studying and less time trolling, you might realize Islam has robust theological schools that deal precisely with anthropomorphic descriptions—without absurdities like yours.

6. Final question to you: Are you trying to argue or are you just here to ridicule? Because if it’s the latter, at least be honest about your intent. Intellectual cowardice hides behind mockery. If you want a real discussion, bring arguments with philosophical rigor and at least a surface-level understanding of Islamic epistemology.

TenQ:
Lets see!
LOL!


So you agree that all Allah needed to say is that Allah is NOT a man or Allah doesn't look like a man AND the argument is forever settled.

The Dajjal is supposed to be the false Messiah and I think the comparison should be between the real Messiah (a man and the Dajjal). Can you explain how Allah brought himself into the needless comparison?


Unfortunately, if the hand of Allah is a figure of speech to speak of his power, just one hand is enough. Unfortunately, Allah says his TWO hands making it literal. Allah could have even used his FINGER as a figure of speech and we would have recognised it as a figure of speech.

Too bad, your excuse falls apart because ONE hand (one power) was not enough, so Allah had to use two.



You do not comprehend, YET you argue vehemently as if you do.

What prevented you Muslims from seeing the shin of Allah when he obviously came to you in a different shape from the one you know UNTIL he unveiled his SHIN to you?



All I do is to force you to think and reason out the deliberate lies of your scholars. The hadiths betray the cascade of lies islamic scholars have told over the centuries.

Whenever you see disturbing contradictions and problems, no matter how literal it is, your argument is to say "it doesn't say that..."

Like I said earlier:
Muslims believe more in the CONSENSUS of their Scholars OVER the Opinion of both Allah and his Messenger Mohammed. The consensus of your scholars overrule and override the Qur'an and the Hadiths.

It is not surprising anyways as even Mohammed overrules Allah sometimes AND you Muslims will follow Mohammed rather than Allah.

If Allah says that the Qur'an is explained in DETAIL everything, how come no Muslim can read the Qur'an by themselves to understand what Allah is saying without going with the opinion of your scholars of what they mean?

Your entire rant is built on straw men, distortions, and a pompous attitude that assumes you're exposing contradictions, when in reality you're just exposing your own ignorance and lack of depth.

You say, “All Allah needed to say was ‘Allah is not a man’ and that would have settled the argument.”
Except He did—not in your childish wording, but with divine precision:
“There is nothing like unto Him” (Qur’an 42:11) and “No vision can grasp Him” (Qur’an 6:103).
If that’s not clear to you, it’s because you approach the Qur’an like a tabloid, not a revelation. You want divine language to bend to your terms—because your ego can’t handle language more complex than your narrow literalism.

Your Dajjal vs. Messiah point is just another red herring. The Dajjal is a test—not a theological analogy to Allah. The comparison is between truth and falsehood, not between Allah and creation. You drag Allah into a “needless comparison” because you lack the most basic grasp of Islamic eschatology.

As for “TWO hands,” you’ve latched onto a metaphor like a drowning man grabs driftwood. Are you so shallow that you think the number “two” must imply physical limbs? You conveniently ignore centuries of aqeedah explaining Allah’s attributes in a way that affirms them without likening Him to creation. That’s not “falling apart”—that’s deep theological consistency. Your problem is that metaphor and majesty go over your head.

And now your “SHIN” obsession. Again, you're stuck on a hadith while completely ignoring the principles by which it’s understood. The Prophet (ﷺ) described unseen matters in ways believers would recognize their Lord—not define His form. You mock what you don’t understand, not because it's wrong, but because you’re out of your depth and can't admit it.

You cry “the scholars lied!” because you can’t deal with your inability to engage Islamic thought on its own terms. Ironically, you claim to honor the Qur’an and Sunnah—but only your interpretation of them, twisted through arrogance and surface-level reading.

And this gem: “Muslims follow the consensus of scholars over the words of Allah and His Prophet.”
That’s flat-out false. The only reason you even have a Qur’an text, a hadith corpus, and preserved meanings is because of scholars—the same ones whose legacy you're trashing while using their work. You stand on the foundation they built, and spit at it like you laid the bricks.

Finally, your claim that “no Muslim can understand the Qur’an without scholars” is not an indictment of Islam—it’s a reflection of reality. The Qur’an is a deep, multi-layered text revealed in classical Arabic, across 23 years, in a specific historical and linguistic context. Just like no sane person reads legal, scientific, or philosophical works without training, you don’t approach divine revelation with YouTube-tier knowledge and expect depth.

So no, you’re not “forcing Muslims to think.” You’re just shouting contradictions based on your own shallow thinking, then blaming others when they don’t take your straw-man theology seriously.

You're not exposing Islam—you’re exposing your own inadequacy in confronting it with anything beyond arrogance and buzzwords.

TenQ:
What do we do when it was Allah himself and his prophet Mohammad comparing himself to us men?



Allah comparing himself with the Da'jaal (a man)

The difference between Allah and the Dajjal is that Allah is not blind in one eye.

Jami` at-Tirmidhi 2241
'Ibn 'Umar narrated that the Prophet(s.a.w) was asked about the Dajjal, so he said:
"Lo! Indeed your Lord is not blind in one eye, and indeed he is blind in one eye; his right eye is as if it is a floating grape."


Allah has two hands

Quran 38:75
"O Iblis! What prevented you from prostrating to that which I created with My two hands? Are you arrogant, or were you [already] among the haughty?"




Allah's clothes!?
Qur'an 68:42:
"The Day the shin will be uncovered and they are invited to prostrate but will not be able to."

Your argument reflects a fundamental misunderstanding of Islamic theology and a reckless attempt to anthropomorphize the divine. Let's be clear: quoting scripture out of context and without proper scholarly grounding is not only intellectually lazy, it's dishonest.

1. The Comparison to the Dajjal
The hadith in Jami’ at-Tirmidhi does not compare Allah to the Dajjal in essence or nature. It highlights a distinguishing sign to help believers identify a deceiver. The Prophet (peace be upon him) didn’t say “Allah is like a man”; he said the Dajjal’s blindness is a clear sign he is not God. If you're going to quote scripture, at least understand the point—this isn’t Allah being likened to a man, this is Allah being distinguished from one. That’s the opposite of your claim.

2. "Two Hands" in Surah Saad
When Allah says "with My two hands," it is not an anatomical statement. Islamic theology has always maintained that Allah's attributes are unique and incomparable (see Qur’an 42:11: “There is nothing like unto Him.”). Classic scholars—from Imam Malik to Ibn Taymiyyah—have made it clear: affirm the attributes without likening them to creation, imagining them, or denying them. Your interpretation is a shallow literalism with zero theological depth.

3. "Allah’s Clothes" and "The Shin"
Again, the Day the "shin is uncovered" (Qur’an 68:42) is metaphorical, not physical. Even traditional scholars who take an apparentist approach do so with the caveat that we do not comprehend the “how” (bi la kayf). These are signs of divine power and majesty, not descriptions of human traits. You're treating divine metaphors like comic-book panels—which is not only ignorant but profoundly disrespectful.

4. The Real Issue: Intentional Misinterpretation
This kind of rhetoric isn’t about genuine inquiry. It’s a deliberate attempt to mock, provoke, and project modern materialism onto transcendent theology. You're not engaging with scripture—you're manipulating it to fit a shallow argument that doesn’t hold under scrutiny.

Conclusion
Islamic theology was developed over centuries by minds far more rigorous and intellectually honest than this cheap attack. If you're serious about challenging Islamic concepts, engage with the actual theological framework, not this cartoonish misrepresentation. Until then, this is not critique—this is clownery masquerading as insight.

This raises serious concerns about the integrity of due process.

How can a defamation case rely on witnesses whose credibility is in question—one evading arrest for alleged grand corruption, another with a documented record of deceit?

Justice must be grounded in truth, not theatrics. Nigeria deserves better.

TenQ:
The questions were very simple.


I asked you some questions

Questions
1. Do you concur that if the following are TRUE that
1. Allah is one and
2. Allah is over/on top of the universe and
3. Allah is not a spirit and
4. Allah has at least a shape
then Allah CANNOT be LOGICALLY Omnipresent?

2. Mohammed said that Allah created Adam in his image and then goes on to describe Adams image in the physical terms of face and height.
Can you thus explain in clear terms how Adam is created in Allah's image?


Unfortunately, your only solution to this was to redescribe Allah differently from how Mohammed described him.



I am only going with the Tafsir of your prophet in the hadiths about Allah. Is it untrue that the best description of Allah should be that given by Mohammed.
Now, you seem to deny his description. What do we do now?



Is your argument that the Jews are correct about the interpretation of their scripture? Because, if they are correct, they should have come to the conclusion that Jesus is the Messiah. Since they couldn't, your argument falls yakata to the ground.



Hadiths like this are Tafsirs of your prophet, unfortunately, you reject it.
It's your call o!
Mohammed described Allah in terms of space, time and location. What then do you expect? To help you to redefine the nature of Allah?




When you defined Allah in terms of Taoheed (onensss), you ascribe to him properties unique to physical existence. You unknowingly strip Allah of Omniscience, Omnipresence and Omnipotence without knowing.
Your only way out is to make vague every description your prophet gave Allah.

Is it true that your prophet went before Allah to receive the five daily prayers or is it allegorical?



Are you aware that you couldn't answer how Adam was created in Allah's image?


Your prophet obviously saw Allah as physical, otherwise, why would he relate hitting the face with Allah's image!

Let’s dismantle your pseudo-logical theatrics, point by point. You’re not asking questions in pursuit of truth—you’re setting up straw men with loaded assumptions, then pretending to be shocked when they collapse under scrutiny.

1. Your claim: If Allah is one, above the universe, not a spirit, and has a shape—then He cannot be logically omnipresent.

This is a textbook case of category error and philosophical ignorance.

Being “above” creation does not imply spatial limitation. Allah being “over” the universe refers to transcendence—not physical location as you understand it through your human lens. You're equating divine transcendence with being “in a place.” That’s like asking where the number 7 lives. Your reasoning collapses because you don’t grasp the distinction between the created physical realm and the uncreated nature of the Divine.

Omnipresence in Islamic theology doesn't mean Allah is “spread out” like gas or a spirit hovering in space. It means that His knowledge, power, and will encompass every atom of existence. He is not contained within creation, yet nothing escapes His grasp. This is a coherent and well-established theological view—and far more intellectually robust than your clumsy materialistic framing.

Also, “has a shape” is an empty phrase unless you define what you mean by it. Are you claiming shape = limited? If so, prove that concept within metaphysical theology—don’t just throw it out like it’s obvious.

Your logic is flawed from the ground up because it applies corporeal mechanics to a non-corporeal Being whose attributes transcend creation. You might as well argue that mathematics can't exist because it doesn't have mass.

2. Your attempt to weaponize the hadith: “Allah created Adam in His image.”

Once again, this is a linguistic and theological misfire on your part. The hadith (in Arabic: "khalaqa Allahu Adama ‘ala suratihi" has multiple scholarly interpretations, and none of them support the childish literalism you’re trying to force:

The phrase “in His image” has been understood to mean Adam was created with faculties—like hearing, seeing, speaking—not that Allah has a human form. That’s basic. If you’re unfamiliar with classical exegesis, that’s on you—not the tradition.

Furthermore, nothing in this hadith necessitates anthropomorphism. The Prophet himself repeatedly emphasized that “nothing is like unto Him” (laysa kamithlihi shay’ - Qur’an 42:11). That’s the interpretive rule you ignore because it ruins your weak argument.

Finally, your closing claim: “Your only solution was to redescribe Allah differently from how Muhammad described Him.”

No. The solution is to understand the context, language, and limits of your reasoning, which you clearly haven’t. You’re not exposing contradiction—you’re exposing your own theological illiteracy and philosophical shallowness.

Islamic theology has addressed these nuances for over 1,000 years—from Ash’aris, Maturidis, to Hanbalis. You’re not doing anything original. You’re just regurgitating failed arguments from orientalist blogs and atheist forums without even understanding the basic terms you’re throwing around.

If you want to critique Islamic theology, fine—but do it with intellectual integrity, not with juvenile strawmen and smug ignorance masquerading as logic.

Rich4god honesttalk21 TenQ

TenQ:
My argument is that whatever you want me to believe about Islam contrary to my understanding is just your OPINION as even your scholars disagree over these things.

So, how dare you claim I am wrong when I am simply stating the position of a chunk of your scholars.

I want to believe that you are not a scholar are you!?

First of all, don’t mistake your limited understanding for intellectual superiority. I am a scholar—and unlike you, I don’t hide behind selective interpretations or use disagreement among scholars as an excuse to push lazy generalizations.

Yes, Islamic scholars differ on many issues—because Islam encourages ijtihad (independent reasoning) within the bounds of its jurisprudential tradition. But don’t twist that legitimate diversity into a blank cheque for distortion. The existence of scholarly debate doesn't automatically validate your take, especially when it’s rooted in shallow readings or bias.

You’re not just “stating the position of a chunk of scholars.” You’re cherry-picking views that fit your narrative while dismissing the rigorous methodologies that real scholarship demands. That’s not opinion—that’s intellectual dishonesty.

And your smug little “are you even a scholar?” jab? Laughable. If you need to question credentials every time you’re out-argued, you’ve already lost the argument. I don’t have to be loud to be right—I have facts, context, and depth. You just have ego.

So next time, come with knowledge, not arrogance. Because when it comes to serious discourse, posturing won’t save you—substance will. And clearly, you’re running low on that.

TenQ:
Hear yourself

Even scholars have disagreed over the interpretation of this hadith. Ibn Abbas disagreed with Ali. Many classical and modern scholars also restrict or reject the use of this hadith as a basis for punishment in today's context, especially in non-theocratic, pluralistic societies.

BUT then,

So no, this doesn’t contradict “no compulsion in religion” unless you insist on ripping hadiths out of context and interpreting Islamic law through your own ignorance.


Meaning that there is no CONSENSUS about this hadith in Islam as your Learned Scholars disagree about it.

All you did was to chose the set of scholars that align with your views!


I align with your other set of scholars and the plain reading of the Hadith!

Your argument collapses under the weight of its own inconsistency. First, you appeal to scholarly disagreement as if it nullifies my position, but then proceed to affirm your own based on another set of scholars. That’s not rigorous argumentation—it’s selective bias masquerading as principle. If scholarly disagreement disqualifies a view, then yours is equally disqualified. You can’t have it both ways.

You mentioned Ibn Abbas disagreed with Ali. Yes—welcome to Islamic legal tradition, where scholarly debate is not a flaw but a feature. But disagreement does not imply equivalence of positions. The strength of a position is measured by its dalil (evidence), not by how many people held it. The classical jurists—Imam Malik, Abu Hanifa, al-Shafi’i, Ibn Taymiyyah, and others—did not treat every opinion as equal, and neither should we.

Your invocation of “no compulsion in religion” (Qur’an 2:256) is a textbook example of decontextualization. That verse addresses initial acceptance of faith, not the legal consequences of public apostasy, which is treated distinctly in classical fiqh across all major madhhabs. Even modern reformist scholars like Fazlur Rahman or Abdullah Saeed—whom you likely lean on—acknowledge this, while advocating for reinterpretation based on maqasid al-shari‘ah (higher objectives of law), not on denial of historical precedent.

So let’s be clear: I’m not 'ripping hadiths out of context.’ I’m engaging with centuries of scholarly tradition that you’re oversimplifying or ignoring. If your argument is that certain rulings may be unsuitable for modern, secular contexts—fine, make that argument. But don’t pretend your stance is the singular enlightened interpretation while dismissing the rest as ignorant. That’s not critical thinking—that’s intellectual arrogance..

TenQ:
If there is no compulsion in religion as you want us to believe,

How do we reconcile the words of your prophet that


Sunan an-Nasa'i 4060
It was narrated from 'Ikrimah:
"Some people apostatized after accepting Islam, and 'Ali burned them with fire. Ibn 'Abbas said: 'If it had been me, I would not have burned them; the Messenger of Allah [SAW] said: 'No one should be punished with the punishment of Allah.' If it had been me, I would have killed them; the Messenger of Allah [SAW] said: 'Whoever changes his religion, kill him.'"

If there is no compulsion in religion, why kill a person who returned back to his old religion before accepting Islam?

Your attempt at a gotcha moment falls flat due to a shallow and cherry-picked understanding of Islamic jurisprudence and hadith sciences.

First, "There is no compulsion in religion" (Qur’an 2:256) is an unequivocal verse from the Qur’an itself — the highest source of authority in Islam. It refers to the individual's freedom to accept or reject faith without coercion. This is the cornerstone of Islamic belief regarding conversion.

Now let’s deal with the hadith you referenced (Sunan an-Nasa’i 4060). You parade this hadith around without understanding its context, classification, or jurisprudential scope. The ruling “Whoever changes his religion, kill him” refers not to a simple change of belief in a private setting, but to active political treason during wartime — a rebellion that posed an existential threat to the Muslim community. Apostasy in early Islam was often tied to sedition, espionage, or betrayal of the state — not personal disbelief.

Let me make this clearer for you: apostasy punishable by death was never about someone quietly changing their religion — it was about publicly defecting in a way that endangered the early Muslim state, which was under siege and fragile. Every legal system in history — including yours — has had capital punishment for treason. This is no different.

Even scholars have disagreed over the interpretation of this hadith. Ibn Abbas disagreed with Ali. Many classical and modern scholars also restrict or reject the use of this hadith as a basis for punishment in today's context, especially in non-theocratic, pluralistic societies.

So no, this doesn’t contradict “no compulsion in religion” unless you insist on ripping hadiths out of context and interpreting Islamic law through your own ignorance. If you're going to critique Islam, at least do the homework first.

TenQ:
If there is no compulsion in religion as you want us to believe,

How do we reconcile the words of your prophet that


Sunan an-Nasa'i 4060
It was narrated from 'Ikrimah:
"Some people apostatized after accepting Islam, and 'Ali burned them with fire. Ibn 'Abbas said: 'If it had been me, I would not have burned them; the Messenger of Allah [SAW] said: 'No one should be punished with the punishment of Allah.' If it had been me, I would have killed them; the Messenger of Allah [SAW] said: 'Whoever changes his religion, kill him.'"

If there is no compulsion in religion, why kill a person who returned back to his old religion before accepting Islam?

Your question reflects a common but deeply flawed approach: cherry-picking a single narration without context, then using it to discredit an entire faith and its foundational principle.

First, let’s start with the verse you’re questioning: “There is no compulsion in religion” (Qur’an 2:256). This is not a vague slogan—it’s a foundational rule of Islam, reaffirming freedom of belief. It has been upheld by scholars for centuries, and it directly contradicts forced conversion or coerced belief.

Now, regarding the hadith you quoted—let’s clarify. Yes, there are narrations like Sunan an-Nasa’i 4060, but understanding prophetic tradition requires more than copying a line off a website. That narration is context-specific, tied to treasonous apostasy during wartime or rebellion against the early Muslim state, not a blanket order to kill anyone who changes their faith.

Even major Islamic scholars—classical and modern—have debated this hadith’s application for over a thousand years. Many argue that the hadith refers to political betrayal, not personal belief. You don’t have to take my word for it—read jurists like Imam Abu Hanifa, who ruled that no punishment should apply to a woman who leaves Islam, or modern scholars who argue for freedom of religion based on the Qur’an’s clear message.

The fact that you ignore all scholarly discussion, legal nuance, and historical context—and instead weaponize a single hadith—suggests you’re not seeking truth. You’re looking for ammunition to justify a bias.

If you truly cared about truth, you’d ask why so many Muslims remain committed to a religion that explicitly prohibits compulsion. You’d ask why the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) signed treaties with Christians and Jews, protected churches, and allowed freedom of belief under Islamic governance.

So let’s be clear: yes, Islam prohibits compulsion. Yes, the Qur’an takes precedence over narrations. And no, contextless quotes don't undermine the integrity of a 1,400-year-old faith. What does undermine honest discussion is selective reading and willful misrepresentation.

TenQ:
Cc:
AntiChristian
CreativeOrbit
honesttalk21
TheJustPath
JimRohn


See how I was vindicated: this is Islam!

So you're cherry-picking isolated incidents and out-of-context Hadith to make sweeping generalizations about an entire religion? That’s not just intellectually lazy—it’s dishonest.

First, “There is no compulsion in religion” (Qur’an 2:256) is a direct, unequivocal verse from the Qur’an. That’s not a Hadith—it’s scripture. It sets the foundation for religious freedom in Islam. Period. You don’t get to sidestep that by citing a historical incident or a debated narration.

Second, you quote Sunan an-Nasa’i 4060 without any understanding of context, jurisprudence, or historical application. The statement “Whoever changes his religion, kill him” has been interpreted narrowly by most jurists—referring to political treason in a time of war, not peaceful personal apostasy. But I wouldn’t expect you to know that, since you seem to think Google + outrage = scholarship.

Third, you're using an individual case in Zamfara—one state, one court, one incident—and projecting it onto 1.9 billion Muslims worldwide? That's like using a corrupt court ruling in one U.S. state to say Christianity promotes injustice. It’s laughable.

What you're “complaining about” isn’t Islam. It’s your own prejudice and confirmation bias. If you cared about truth, you’d know better. But since you’re clearly more interested in vilifying than understanding, don’t pretend this is a sincere question. It’s not.

If you’re going to debate religion, at least have the spine to do it with intellectual honesty—not with selective outrage and bad-faith arguments.

Senator Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan’s petition to the IGP and AGF is a bold and lawful move. When faced with serious allegations like defamation, cyberstalking, and threats to life, the proper path is legal redress—not silence or online outrage.

This is about accountability and justice. No one is above the law—not even powerful politicians. Her decision reflects respect for due process, and the authorities must act swiftly to investigate.

The law must protect those who speak truth to power.

TenQ:
I honestly understand the dilemma of peaceful Muslims especially because of interpretations of verses like

Qur'an 9:29
"Fight those who do not believe in Allah or in the Last Day and who do not forbid what Allah and His Messenger have forbidden and who do not adopt the religion of truth from those who were given the Scripture- [fight] until they give the jizyah willingly while they are humbled."

Qur'an 5:51
"O you who believe! Do not take the Jews and the Christians as friends (awliyaa). They are [in fact] friends of one another. And whoever among you takes them as friends, then indeed, he is one of them. Indeed, Allah does not guide the wrongdoing people."
AND

Qur'an 1:6-7
Guide us to the straight path –
The path of those upon whom You have bestowed favor, not of those who have evoked [Your] anger or of those who are astray

Because,
1. Your Tafsirs explained them clearly to mean exactly what the verses reads on the surface
2. As long as there are many Muslims who see it as a command to dominate and humiliate non Muslims, no explanation or reinterpretation avails much
3. Those who need re-education are actually Muslims and not Christians and Jews who are on the recieving side when Muslims are either in power or are a majority
4. The fact that even though you deny the apparent direct meanings, Christians (especially) experience marginalisation and injustice as a result of not being Muslims doesn't help your case.


Finally,
The Qur'an is supposed to be simple and clear to understand because Allah explains things in detail

Qur'an 11:1
This is a Book whose verses are perfected and then presented in detail from [one who is] Wise and Acquainted"

Qur'an 41:3
"[A Book] whose verses have been detailed, an Arabic Qur'an for a people who know."

Qur'an 12:1
"These are the verses of the clear Book"


BUT
It seems that no one including Muslims can understand the plain words of Allah in the Qur'an.
Instead, We need
1. Loads of Tafsirs which sometimes even disagree with each other
2. Asbāb al-Nuzūl
3. Lots of Hadiths and we then begin to argue over the chains of narrations
4. Reinterpretation by modern Muslims.


So, we can only say
We hear you as it is just your opinion and not a consensus of Islam or Muslims.

Stop Pretending to “Understand” Islam While You Weaponize Its Texts

Let’s cut through the pretense. You begin with, “I understand the dilemma of peaceful Muslims,” then proceed to butcher context, flatten centuries of scholarship, and throw out cherry-picked verses to paint Islam as inherently violent or incoherent. You’re not here to understand—you’re here to accuse, and badly at that.

On Qur’an 9:29
This verse was revealed during the Tabuk campaign—a specific military context where treaties had been violated, and the Byzantine threat loomed. It is not a standing order to fight anyone who isn’t Muslim. The command is legally and historically grounded. And jizyah? It was a tax that exempted non-Muslims from military service. Nothing humiliating about it—unless you want to argue that modern taxes are humiliation too.

On Qur’an 5:51
You mistranslate “awliyaa” as simply “friends” to support your narrative. That’s dishonest. The term refers to political allegiance and protection—particularly during wartime treachery. If you actually cared about the Qur’an in its totality, you’d cite Qur’an 60:8:
"Allah does not forbid you from being kind and just to those who have not fought you or driven you from your homes."
But that verse doesn’t serve your agenda, so of course you skip it.

On Qur’an 1:6–7
Your claim that this is some kind of hidden insult to Jews and Christians is based on a polemical misreading. Classical scholars who mention Jews and Christians here are referring to types of spiritual error—not blanket condemnation. You’re either grossly uninformed or willfully distorting.

On Interpretation and Clarity
You mock Muslims for using tafsir, asbab al-nuzul, hadith, etc.—as if deep scholarship is a flaw. That logic is laughable. Should we abandon constitutional law because it needs judges, context, and precedent? Should we throw out Christianity because the Bible is interpreted through councils, Church Fathers, and centuries of exegesis?

The Qur’an is clear in its message, but like any serious body of revelation, it requires study. It’s not a Twitter thread. Your frustration that it’s not simplistic enough for you is your problem—not Islam’s.

On Alleged Muslim Oppression
You mention that Christians experience marginalization under Muslim-majority rule. Even if that were true in some modern cases, it is intellectually dishonest to generalize that across time and geography. Historically, Muslims upheld religious pluralism—from Andalusian Spain to Ottoman millet systems—while Christian empires often enforced conversion, committed genocide, and launched crusades.

So, let’s be clear:

You’re not confused. You’re not seeking clarity.
You’re deploying shallow apologetics and pretending it's an honest inquiry.
You ignore context, cherry-pick verses, and sidestep Qur’anic principles of justice and mercy—because those don’t serve your agenda.

Your understanding of Islam isn’t flawed. It’s fabricated.

This disturbing incident reflects a breakdown in communication and mutual respect between the individuals involved.

While the man's reported use of physical aggression in response to his partner’s refusal is condemnable and constitutes an act of domestic violence, the woman’s reaction—inflicting grievous bodily harm—is equally unacceptable and disproportionate. Both actions represent serious lapses in judgment and self-control.

It is crucial that the law addresses the conduct of both parties appropriately, reinforcing the importance of non-violence and lawful resolution of personal conflicts.

The abduction of Oba James Dada Ogunyanda underscores the alarming collapse of security under the current government.

That armed men can breach a monarch’s palace unchallenged reveals a leadership that has failed to protect both citizens and institutions.

Empty reassurances cannot substitute for decisive governance. Nigeria has descended into lawlessness while those in power remain indifferent.

This government must stop hiding behind rhetoric and start delivering real security, or step aside for leaders who can.

So now the government wants to force Nigerians to vote — as if our rights are tools for state manipulation. A bill mandating voting in all elections is not democracy; it's legislative coercion. Nigerians are already failed daily by a system that barely delivers basic services, security, or justice. Now, instead of fixing the rigged electoral process, they want to criminalize apathy? What next — fines for protesting or prison for demanding accountability?

Voting is a right, not a duty owed to a corrupt, self-serving political class. You don't earn our votes through threats. You earn them by delivering results, showing leadership, and respecting the will of the people. This bill is tone-deaf, authoritarian, and a slap in the face to every Nigerian who's lost faith in a broken electoral system.

Try mandating accountability, not participation. Fix INEC, end vote-buying, punish electoral violence — then maybe, just maybe, people will show up willingly.