₦airaland Forum

luiscarter:
I'm reporting them to EFCC tomorrow

Thanks bro, please take note of the account number and if possible the associated BVN number that are linked to his other accounts. These are the guys giving Nigeria bad names all over the world.

Sagal0:
How did I get access to their whatsapp? Please stop peddling falsehood

One of your gang member, or even you, use ecobank account number 8144240099 (account name, balogun Moses) to defraud people with fake promise of cheap data and in the process steal their money and take over their WhatsApp phone number details, which you use to send a fake message to unsuspecting public. May God punish you all for your evil deeds.

Sagal0:
How did I get access to their whatsapp? Please stop peddling falsehood

God will punish you and your crew members. I will keep exposing you criminals. Where is your office located for the records? Do you have an office address?

Sagal0:
Ok

These is a lie and you are an unrepentant criminal. You scammed my friends and use their WhatsApp numbers to defraud people who are in their contact list.

May God punish you and your crew members. It won't be well with you.

Please Family, the offer below is a scam, DO NOT give him your WhatsApp mobile number or else he will steal it and personalize your WhatsApp number for different nefarious activities. Be warned!

Rashduct4luv:
Na'am, fabricating lies on the Prophet's is a great sin.
.
Let's shun all the common lies/innovations around in Islam.
Shun celebration of birthdays whether Mawlid, Christmas or personal birthdays.

Monday is a public holiday in Nigeria and I thank God for the birthday of the Islamic prophet. At least I can take a day, or two, away from work and enjoy myself. Please do not tell the Fulani-muslim-dominated FG that it is against sunnah to celebrate Mohammed's birthday.

AbdulHakeem44:
What you have written is a repetition of what I am refuting. You claim Adam isn't prophet because Christianity and Judaism doesn't carry them so, you also buttress your point that they didn't prophecy to anyone. Those characteristics may be a yardstick for being a prophet in Christianity but not Islam. Seems you don't understand my point. We don't need a Christian Bible to tell us who a prophet is in Islam, we don't need the religion of Judaism to tell us who a prophet is in Islam. Islam as a religion believe in the previous prophets and ALLāh mentioned them in the Quran and we Muslims belief without an iota of doubt.

Muslims claim Islam is the continuation of the Abrahamic faith (the first two were assumed corrupt according to islam), and equally claimed to accept all prophets attributable to christianity and Judaism (muslims have no prophets attributable to hunduism or budism). The issue is that Islam has not provided the criteria for ascribing prophethood to anyone except lifting almost all Old testamant bible characters as prophets. What are the criteria for prophethood in Islam?

AbdulHakeem44:
The major problem here is that the non Muslims do not believe in the prophethood of Muhammad in the first place, so why would they believe the Quran if Quran calls Adam a prophet. I hope you get my point. That the Christian don't call a particular person prophet doesn't mean Islam has to follow suite all in the name of one came first. Haba, it is very easy to understand na, Christian says Jesus is God and they worship, the same Jesus muslims believe is a prophet And messenger of ALLāh, hope u get the logic. So Christianity doesn't characterize a prophet for Islam. Islam believes in those who were called prophet by ALLāh and His messenger.

You are gradually shifting the dicsussion to the Trinity, the best and sweetest Islamic debate topic. We are discussing the characters of some prophets attributable to Judaism and christiniaty but unacceptable to the ummah. Yes, mohammed did not fulfil the requirement for the office of prophethood that is why the Jews and the christians in medina rejected him, the same reason the christians today is rejecting him.

AbdulHakeem44:
As for the Quran verses you quoted where ALLāh ask the prophet to ask the people of the book, it wasn't the book that has Ben distorted ALLāh was referring to, it was the original testament given to the prophet. So do not get confused.

I will be glad if you can provide the ORIGINAL torah and the injil to at least put all christians to shame. Allah said his words can not be distorted (Surah 6:115 and 18:27), do the words of allah include the torah and the injil of mohammed's era?

AbdulHakeem44:
Secondly, I could have messaged this differently but i choose to write it here, concerning the analogy you wrote about Ghanaians calling awolowo something what the Yoruba (who owned him) never called him. Lol, I will like to counter that with this analogy of mine as well, Yoruba see Oduduwa as their father, someone divine and they hold him of high esteem, but to an Arab where he came from (either Saudi or egypt: since historians are not sure) , he is just a common man. Can you see? Imagine a Yoruba man and an Arab man now arguing about the personality of oduduwa, you can't expect them to be the same!!! As simple as that!!!!!

Your analogy actually nailed your arguemnt as being wrong. I would rather believe the narration of the Yorubas concerning Oduduwa instead of the Arabs. Why? Oduduwa is a mythical figure, the the genesis of Yoruba people, culture and tradition, the same way the Jews believed that all prophets, except mohammed, represent their culture, religion and tradition. It is quite strange that you are remotely saying that Oduduwa is an Arab. Very strange and wrong; an insult to the Yoruba race.

Arabs/muslims of course borrowed all their prophets (Jewish prophets), minus mohammed, from the Jewish religion and tradition, why will muslims now claim to know their propehts (Jewish prophets) better than Jews? The same way you try to connect Oduduwa to the Arab; do you mean Abdul-Oduduwa?

In summary, a sane mind will go with the narrative of the Yorubaman on Oduduwa instead of the arabman's narrative because Oduduwa represents the Yoruba people, culture and religion and did not have any role in Arab mythology. The Arabian story on Oduduwa will of course be false if it contradicts the yoruba version. Two contradcitory statements cannot be both true, it is either both of them are false or only one of the version is true.

Babaheekmat:
What concerns you here? A Christian interfering in Islamic matters.. when there's no difference between you and the so called non Muslims you referred to as Muslim

Religion aside, what you are doing amounts to character assassination. I know you won't be happy if your name popped up somewhere that your are a criminal. Do unto others what others will do unto you (the golden rule).

AbdulHakeem44:
Also your point of believing those who wrote about Jesus and his life and a prophet who came 600 year after debunking the history narratives, yes, because the creator of these prophets revealed to the last messenger the truth and undiluted story. There are lots of contradictions in the bible itself which shows that people were just narrating what they know or heard, whereas it was a revelation to Prophet Muhammad from ALLāh the most high, hope u can see the difference.,

Your claim is subjective and based on Islamic bias. Can you show me, in the Quran, where Allah said Mohammed is the last messenger?

Christians claim there are contradiction in the Quran and the Muslims also claim there are contradictions in the Bible, that's fair enough but this is not the bone of contention now. The argument here is the characters associated with biblical prophets which Islam deny because, to Muslims, God's prophet can never fall into grave errors, but the Quran has no detailed information about the biblical prophets. And Mohammed asked Muslims to consult the people of the book for further clarification on theological issues. Now tell me, why did Mohammed ask Muslims to consult the people of the book to confirm if what he said was true or false? This is because he understood that the people of the book has the torah and the injil upon which Mohammed's 'revelation' can either be validated or invalidated by the meccan pagans. Mohammed didn't ask the arab Muslims or/pagan to consult the sabians or the Hindus.

AbdulHakeem44:
Do not use the Christians standard of prophethood for Islam. Prophet in Islam doesn't necessarily mean someone who prophecy. There are many people today who called themselves prophet of God in the name of prophecy whereas in Islam, prophethood ends with the death of Prophet Muhammad. We can have preachers those who propagate the teachings of Islam, not prophets. But as per Christianity ideology, there are many prophets nowadays, I hope you can see that your standards for measuring prophethood is quite different from Islam. If Islam says they are prophet, yes they are cos we don't use ur standards for prophethood. Thank you.

If you appropriate some characters and claim exclusive right to them then the people (whose ancestors are the prophets) will appraise you on how you view those characters. If a Yorubaman said his ancestor, Chief Obafemi Awolowo, was a politician and a Ghanaian, after 100 years, wrote a short essay on chief Obafemi Awolowo and claimed he was a doctor, Yoruba people has the right to tell the Ghanaian man he is wrong.

All the prophets, except Mohammed, were characters in Jewish and Christian religion and they didnt identify Lot, Adam and Noah as a prophet. If Islam, which came last, claimed they are also prophets then you should explain what and what make them prophets. The prophecies they made and who they prophesied on or to. Adam is regarded as the first man in all the 3 major religions but only Islam regarded him as a prophet. Who did he prophesied to and what did he prophesied on? You cannot make a blanket statement and expect the people to 'figure it out'. Maybe you are parroting the same narrative because Muhammad called them 'proohets' and you don't want to take a position contrary to your prophet, however Mohammed asked Muslims to consult the people of the book to get a better understanding of whatever he says or teaches but unfortunately 99% of Muslims failed to adhere to this instruction.

Babaheekmat:
See this dumb fool.. those people can't even deny it. It's exactly what they're calling people to. That's their aqeedah ..

Call them and they won't even deny it..

The reason why they're kufar are right there in front of their names.

Which one is not innovation in the allegations leveled against them?

If you don't have dalil to prove them right.
Just keep quiet..

I think you are a potential extremist and a dangerous one for that matter. You can disagree with people but you have no right to publish their names, it is a serious breach of people's security. Their beliefs are their personal affair and they don't need your endorsement to believe what they wanted to. I think it will be fair for you to mind your business and leave others to live their lives. What gives your the assurance that you are following the right path? What you believed to be the truth today was probably passed down to you in your family. Respect people but if you disagree with them, DO NOT publish their names on an open space. You can as well take them to court if you think what they are doing is wrong, otherwise keep 'kwayet'!

A friend told me that Kanye west is an Igbo guy, that his real name is Kanayochukwu Duru West. I don't know true it is, I am still making enquiries.

Empiree:
mo wa occupied ni faah

Tó, oda be. Maba mi ki awon ara ile é.

Empiree:
troublemaker

Ogbeni empire, kilosele? Oju to ri e ti gbo ooo!

iamgenius:
Well, I've got no problem with my ancestors. They have surely faced the reality concerning what they did on this earth. We pray for those that were Muslims among them only. Deal with that. Abi ki o fi ori f'ole.

What did your ancestors do wrong that the Arabs did not do worse? Did your ancestors invade other people's land and impose their way of life on them? Did your ancestors kill to convert others into their religion? Your ancestors do not need your prayers because it has no effect whatsoever.

iamgenius:
About the Hadith. You'll be claiming again that you read things with your minds opened. Where's the insult in what the Prophet (peace be upon him) said? If you're sensible enough to want someone to do something while you didn't want him to be biased when making a choice about it. We surely know that you have to bring a worse example(if the person might not like the situation).

If I want to advise someone and I say 'obey iamgenious even if he has a dull brain and a coconut head' wil you, 'iamgenuious', feel offended? This is exactly what your mohammed did when he called black people 'raisin heads'.

iamgenius:
It's akin to the example that you brought about obeying ones mother. Yes, we have to obey our parents(even if they are none Muslims) unless they want us to worship none other than Allah. Being non Muslim is worse than being prostitute.

So all the muslims that have left Islam are worst than prostitutes? What about the ones that have joined Islam? What are they now? You need your brain examined bro.

malvisguy212:
to show how confused the writer of the Qur'an is, the Qur'an say David is the Author of Zabur (psalm) not knowing the psalm is a collection of books with MANY author.

Yes, the author of the Quran has a limited understanding of the Jewish and the Christian scriptures.

gidjah:
@True2god, been following your posts here since morning , you are a rare gem when it comes to issues like this I must say sir, your unbiased analysis are top notch sir, well done bro.

Thanks for your compliment bro. Islam thrives on the atmosphere of ignorance, and Muslims and non-muslims need to be educated on the REAL Islam and not the 'Holywood' Islam we are being shown/thought to believe. Over 95% of Muslims do not know what is in their religious literature and the history of their religion, so it is our duty to educate them on it and for them to also verify if what we are saying is true or false.

malvisguy212:
long time bro. the op is a new commer

I think as much. I believe he is actually learning new things about his religion.

Rashduct4luv:
Stop the merry go round and the falsehood by style. In the New Living Translation of Matthew 5:17 Jesus said:
“Don’t misunderstand why I have come. I did not come to abolish the law of Moses or the writings of the prophets. No, I came to accomplish their purpose."

Even below, Jesus says obeying the laws is compulsory to enter paradise.

Mark 10:17-22 New International Version (NIV) same in Luke 18: 18-21 and Matthew 19:16-21

17 As Jesus started on his way, a man ran up to him and fell on his knees before him. “Good teacher,” he asked, “what must I do to inherit eternal life?”

18 “Why do you call me good?” Jesus answered. “No one is good—except God alone. 19 You know the commandments: ‘You shall not murder, you shall not commit adultery, you shall not steal, you shall not give false testimony, you shall not defraud, honor your father and mother.’[a]”

You are the one ignorant of everything here.

What do you understand by Jesus coming to fulfil the purpose of the law? What is the purpose of the law? No one teaches disobedience to the law. The Jewish law has many branches: the moral (like the 10 commandment), the ceremonial (religious) and the dietery law. While the moral law remains unchangeable, the ceremonial and the dietry law has been changed and many done away with because christ had fulfilled them. In what way? Before christ, the Jews slaughter animals (according to mosaic laws) for sacrifice in the temple for atonment for sins (Yonki Pur) but this law was no longer necessary because his death was a ramsom for sin. You need to an indepth study on this so that you have a better understanding of what I am talking about.

Rashduct4luv:
It has been established that Bukhari was a righteous slave of Allah and son of a righteous slave of Allah. It doesn't matter if he reported from the Prophet's family or not. His ahadith is the most authentic after the Qur'an. I have told you the hadith was preserved by memory and by deeds.
None of his contemporaries accused him of falsehood or forgery. Only you Christians and Shiites do so. Here is a biography of Imam Bukhari https://www.nairaland.com/5103322/al-bukhari-master-science-prophetic

Who established the fact that Bukhari was a rightoues man? Is it man or Allah? Hadith is a short short stories about mohammed that were common among the arabs many years after mohammed had died. It is like the story of an arab legend who came to establish Islam and destroy paganism, and this short narrations were peddles based on what they assumed some of the companions said about mohammed. The legend story became so popular that a Persian from Uzbekistan named Bukhari decided to visit the arabia, collect this short short narrations from hundreds of people, document it in a book and this is how the hadith is born. And this is how this narrations is used to complement what Uthman Ibn Affan compiled as the quran. The problem here is that Bukhari does not have anyway to verify if the story the arabs told him, about what people said of mohammed, were true or false. He just keep collecting and documenting rumours as a religious book. This is the reason why his 600,000 hadith collections was downsized to about 7,000, because over 90% of what he collected initially was considered as nonsense. Even the ones regarded as 'sahih' was urther classified as strong, weak and fabricated hadith. No religion, except Islam, maintain this unprofessional standard of information collection and transmission.

Rashduct4luv:
I have answered this before. We follow the Sunnah of the Prophet and his four rightly guided Successors. Compiling a Book does not add anything to the religion or remove from it. And he even appointed who had memorised the Qur'an to do it. Umar was a companion of the Messenger of Allah someone the Prophet vouched for before he died. It is clear that no companion interfered in the content of the Qur'an.

On the other hand Paul who was an enemy of Christ became his disciple after seeing a light. How can a self acclaimed disciple who never meet Christ write more than half of the NT even more than the 11 disciples combined? How can we call this the word of God?

The early muslims will disagree with you on Omar ibn kathab. He was killed, while he was in power by his fellow muslims, because of the fact that he derailed from the sunnah. You attempt at patronizing him because he suggested the collections of the quran is not a honest argument. Mohammed asked the sahabas to collect the quran from from 4 trusted sahabas, among then is Ibn Masood:

"Narrated Masruq: Abdullah bin Mas'ud was mentioned before Abdullah bin Amr who said, "That is a man I still love, as I heard the Prophet (saw) saying, 'Learn the recitation of the Qur'an from four: from Abdullah bin Mas'ud - he started with him - Salim, the freed slave of Abu Hudhaifa, Mu'adh bin Jabal and Ubai bin Ka'b"." - Sahih al-Bukhari, Vol. 5, p.96.

Meanwhile all the 4 sahabas that mohammed advised that the quran should be collected from, none of them where in agreement with Omar and Uthman on what they collected as the present-day quran. It was however zaid ibn thabit, who mohammed never mentioned, that supervised the entire project. How can one then trust the work of Omar who went against his own prophet?

Rashduct4luv:
Then Jesus came to them and said, "All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Matthew 28:18. He has the ability to wake the dead but his knowledge is limited even with all the authority he got. You just type one theory that is not evidence based in your acclaimed Gospel. No wonder some called your religion Paulinism.

Once again Muhammad forgot. He is human. Jesus who you claim is God himself with all the authority given to him on heaven and on earth has a limited knowledge of things. [b]This means Jesus is not God. God is omniscient. God can do all things.[ /b]

I dont know the issue you have with Paul. If Paul came to corrupt christianity why did the 'almighty' allah never talked anything about him? Why was the quran, the hadith and the sirah silent about the activities of Paul?

On Jesus, you have swtiched from 'forgot' to 'limited knowledge'. Jesus never thought his disciples anything and he was reminded later by his disciples. On Jesus having a limited knowledge, you are wrong. The father, ONLY, has the exclusive right as to when the final day will be and for Jesus aknowledging and confirming this reality does not diminish his authority and given to him by the father. Buhari and Osibanjo represent the highest authorities in Nigeria but there is a particular right that Buhari will never give to Osinbanjo, and that does not mean Osinbanjo is now an office assistance to Buhari.

Rashduct4luv:
The need for compilation of the Quran arose during the caliphate of Abu Bakr Siddiq (RA) when several companions of the Prophet (PBUH), who had memorized the Quran, were martyred in the battle of Yamama. That created a cause for concern for Muslims because the loss of those companions also meant the loss of the Quranic content. As a result, Umar bin Khattab (RA) suggested the idea of the compilation of the Quran to Abu Bakr Siddiq (RA), who was hesitant at first, seeing as the Prophet (PBUH) himself had not taken any such measures during the course of his life. However, upon recognizing the rising need of it, he appointed Zayd bin Thabit to supervise the project of compilation.

In order to ensure authenticity and eradicate all possible human errors, all the companion who possessed the written text of the Quran collected during the Prophet’s (PBUH) Ramadan recitation, were asked to bring in their copies. All texts were compared to check for the authenticity of ayahs.

Moreover, Zayd bin Thabit and Umar bin Khattab (RA) also verified each verse as they themselves had memorized the Quran by heart. Therefore, the Quranic text was collected, compiled, proofread and authenticated with the utmost care and precision. The completed version of the Holy Quran was then given in the possession of the caliph at the time, Abu Bakr Siddiq (RA) and was later passed down to the next caliph, Umar bin Khattab (RA).

As I said ealier, the present-day quran is a salvage (recovered or back-up) quran and NEVER the quran as given by mohammed to his sahabas. In one of the hadith it was narrated that many muslims, who knew the quran by heart, died in the battle of Yamama and Omar feared that more casaulties will result to more quran being lost. This means some people who fought and died in that battle, and who knew the quran by heart, led to lose of many quranic verses. I didnt say so but that is how Bukhari documented it. You can google 'the quran, battle of yamama' to get the full hadith narration.

Rashduct4luv:
You see it is evident that Luke and Paul were not disciples of Christ. Yet they wrote the a huge part of the Bible (NT). Paul was even against Christ while he was on earth.

Once again The hadith are memorised just as the Qur'an and also by deeds. The Hadith collected by Imam Bukahri are much but he could only vouch for those ones after authentication!

Who verified the Books of Paul and Luke? Which of your Books is even authenticated? Even the original manuscripts of the Bible no two documents are similar.
Luke and Paul did not meet Jesus yet they wrote 14 out 27 books of the NT. At least Bukhari didn't claim to see a light from sky.

Paul was a lawyer and a pharisee before his conversion to christianity. In the early years of christiniaty the early christian community was facing a serious persecution form the pharisee and the saducees, and many other Jewish religious leaders. So Paul, unfortunately, was in this category before his journey to damascus which led him had an encountered with the resurrected Jesus, he became blind (temporarily) and his conviction made his join the christian community. What Paul wrote were all letters to individual christrians and churches. Paul was a lawyer and very vast in Jewish law and religion and his vast knowledge in Judaism and the activities of the early christian church helped him have a better understanding of christ and his earth mission. As I said earlier, Allah and mohammed never condemned Paul, so why are muslims now trying to play the role of allah and mohammed because of Paul?

iamgenius:
There's nothing wrong in sending prayers upon our ancestors if they were Muslims. And you said an Arab who gave no qualms about us Africans, well that Arab who's a messenger of Allah also said:

Narrated Anas bin Malik:

Allah's Messenger (ﷺ) said, "You should listen to and obey, your ruler even if he was an Ethiopian (black) slave whose head looks like a raisin."

Sahih al-Bukhari 7142
In-book : Book 93, Hadith 6
USC-MSA web (English) : Vol. 9, Book 89, Hadith 256  (deprecated)

How high has he placed Africans in that narration, O slave of Allah? I believe your hypocrisy is very high, even if there's someone whom you had no relationship with and he had done good to you or the entire world you'll surely pray for that person. But when it comes to Islam, you're something else.

The embolded is an insult to you ancestors. If you are a Yoruba muslim I am 99% sure that your last 4 generations were not muslims, why cant you send blessings to them as well? They are in hell fire right? Keep deluding yourself.

On the hadith you quoted, mohammed was both advising his people to be loyal to their leaders and insullting the black people. It is like me saying to someone 'obey your mother even if she a prostitute' or 'obey your leader even if he is a negro with a coconut head'. Your prophet insulted the sensibilities of black people in this hadith.

Rashduct4luv:
Where did i make such claim that Christians assume that the OT has been corrupted? This your attempt to divert attention to somewhere else is unwise. You first claim that a later book cannot contradict a former book. Why would God use law for a people and grace for another? Is this fair? You can't answer except to shift goal post.

I repeat again. If one man authored a book under inspiration over 23 years and over 40 people authored a book under inspiration over thousands of years which Book will be more error free? Shift goal post again!

My bad, you actually used the word 'better' and not 'corrupted', apologies for the oversight. I am not trying to divert attention. As for God giving a new testament (covenant), not law per se, it is within his soverign right to do as he wishes. The old law says 'thou shalt not kill' but the new covenant law says 'anyone who hates his brother unnecesarily is already condemned as a murderer'. The old laws says 'thou shalt do commit adultery' but the new law says 'anyman that looks at a woman lustfully had already committed adultery in his heart'. The new covenant is meant to address the root cause of the problem and in order to stop it. Jesus said he never came to destroy but to fulfil it. The new covenant is the fulfilment of the old covenant. There are still many laws that this conversation will not allow me mention because of space and time. So it is not a matter of shifting goal post, muslims are just ignorant of the teachings.

Rashduct4luv:
The Hadiths are classified based on the chains of narrator of the hadith and the text of the hadiths. What you don't know is bigger than you. Umar was the Second Successor to the Prophet and a rightly guided successor indeed! So if it is Umar, we stick to it. (Radiya Allahu 'anhu)

The Messenger of Allaah صلى الله عليه وسلم said, "Certainly, the one who will live among you will see lots of differences. So stick to my sunnah and the sunnah of the right-principled and rightly-guided successors. Bite onto that with your molar teeth."
Abu Dawood and at-Tirmidhi, according to ibn Muhammad, al-Albaani, al-Bazzaar, al-Tirmidhi, al-Haakim, ibn Abdul Barr, Abu Nuaim and numerous others, this is an authentic hadith

That the Prophet forgot something does not make him less of a Prophet. Infact, it corroborates the fact that he was human. This also proves that many people memorised the Qur'an during his lifetime. And mind you, you can't forget what you don't know.

Can you compare this with what happened to Jesus in the Bible when he was asked about the hour. He practically said he does not know. How can the son of God or God not know something but can quicken the dead and turn water to wine? He did not forget but he said he didn't know. This proves Jesus' knowledge was limited. Shouldn't we throw away all the Gospel because Jesus failed this one question?

But about that day or hour no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father Matthew 24:36

I have no problem with the clasificaton of the nadith based on their chains of narration. The issue I have is that it was compiled 250 years after mohammed and non of the sahabas was interviewed to give his account about mohammed and his deeds and narrations. The people Bukhari interviewed are street guys who also heard rumours from someone and gave Bukhari the information which he later called the Hadith. Bukhari is not even an Arab man but an Uzbek, how can an Uzbek man compile a religious book for the Arabs without his personal bias? Bukari, being a sunni, did not even report any narration from Imam Ali and Fatimah, the family of your prophet. Something is seriouly wrong here.

On Omar ibn kathab suggesting the collection of the quran as a single book, it is his personal idea and mohammed never gave that instruction to anyone. As a matter of fact Abu Bakr initially objected to the idea, because mohammed never ordered such, but later gave approval for the project after much persuasion from Omar. Was Omar also inspired by Allah? How can we trust his judgement?

On Jesus not knowing 'the time and hour for last judgement', that is the exclusive responsiblity of the father. The father has the exclusive right to certain decision over the son but that does not make the son less relevant in the scheme of things. This argument is however different from someone that said many things and later forget what he said. If you always remind me of what I say that means I have memory problem. Mohammed proved to have memory problem because he was constantly being reminded of what he claimed allah revealed to him. If Allah was actually giving him revelations while will he keep forgetting what he said allah revealed to him?

Rashduct4luv:
Our Hadiths are sacrosanct just as the Qur'an. The Qur'an has been memorised by thousands during the lifetime of the Prophet and till now millions do memorise it. Just as the Qur'an was being memorised it is established that the hadiths too were memorised both by memory and by deeds.

So If the hadith was a gossip/rumors then i'll say three thirds of the Bible is same.
Compare what Luke said in Luke 1 vs 1- 4

Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled among us, 2 just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word. 3 With this in mind, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, I too decided to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, 4 so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught.

This clearly says Luke was not an eye witness to anything. He was an investigator/writer/ historian. This applies to Paul/ Timothy his scribe too who were not among the disciples of Jesus during his life time. Yet Paul wrote 13 out of 27 Books of the NT even more than what the 11 remaining disciples of Jesus wrote.

A double standard is the application of different sets of principles for situations that are, in principle, the same, and is often used to describe advantage that is given to one party over another. You need to debunk your Books first.

As i said earlier, the quran in your house today is not the quran we have in the time of mohammed. The momorizers of the quran did not have all the text in their head; some have 1 , some have 3, others 4, etc, ayah on their memory. Stop talking as if anybody, among the companinions, have the full quran in memory. Many momorizers died in the battle of Yamama which led to the loss of large part of the quran. The present-day quran is the SALVAGED copied after the battle of Yamama, aside the ones that were burnt by Uthman.

If you day Luke was not an eye-witness, that is ok, I will look more into that claim. However Luke, geographically and historically was closer to the place and time the event took place, that is less than 20 years after the incident. Imam Bukhari, on the other hand, was not geographically close to the place or time of the event. Bukhari live over 1500kms from mecca and medina and over 250 years after the said event, how do you think his work on the hadith will be reliable? It is like a Ghanaian, after 200 years, writing on the life of Chief Obafemi Awolowo (a Yorubaman), how do you think he will get it right? The original hadith he collected was said to be about 600,000 which was later trimed down to a little over 7000, what did the filtering and whats the criteria?

Rashduct4luv:
STAY ON THE TOPIC & DON'T SHIFT TO ANOTHER TOPIC.

Ok.

Why not send blessing to your African ancestors who gave birth to who gave birth to who gave birth to who gave birth to you? Why send blessings upon an obsure Arabian ancestor who gave no qualms about you and who you have no relationship with? Africans need to start using their senses.

May God bless my late mum (peace be upon her).

Rashduct4luv:
Where did i make such claim that Christians assume that the OT has been corrupted? This your attempt to divert attention to somewhere else is unwise. You first claim that a later book cannot contradict a former book. Why would God use law for a people and grace for another? Is this fair?
You can't answer except to shift goal post.

I repeat again. If one man authored a book under inspiration over 23 years and over 40 people authored a book under inspiration over thousands of years which Book will be more error free?

Shift goal post again!



That the Prophet forgot something does not make him less of a Prophet. Infact, it corroborates that fact that he was human. This also proves that many people memorised the Qur'an during his lifetime. And mind you, you can't forget what you don't know.

Can you compare this with what happened to Jesus in the Bible when he was asked about the hour. He practically said he does not know. How can the son of God or God not know something but can quicken the dead and turn water to wine? He did not forget but he said he didnt know. This proves Jesus' knowledge was limited.

But about that day or hour no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father Matthew 24:36




Our Hadiths are sacrosanct just as the Qur'an. The Qur'an has been memorised by thousands during the lifetime of the Prophet and till now millions do memorise it. Just as the Qur'an was being memorised it is established that the hadiths too were memorised both by memory and by deeds.

So If the hadith was a gossip/rumors then i'll say three thirds of the Bible is same.
Compare what Luke said in Luke 1 vs 1- 4

Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled among us, 2 just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word. 3 With this in mind, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, I too decided to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, 4 so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught.

This clearly says Luke was not an eye witness to anything. He was an investigator/writer/ historian. This applies to Paul/ Timothy his scribe too who were not among the disciples of Jesus during his life time. Yet Paul wrote 13 out of 27 Books of the NT even more than what the 11 remaining disciples of Jesus wrote.

A double standard is the application of different sets of principles for situations that are, in principle, the same, and is often used to describe advantage that is given to one party over another. You need to debunk your Books first.

STAY ON THE TOPIC & DON'T SHIFT TO ANOTHER TOPIC.

You have improved well in your debate, who is coaching you?

Rashduct4luv:
It is similar. Can a father who uses different syllabuses to judge his sons be said to be fair? I don't think the God was involved in the authorship of the OT and NT. Certainly no Book can be compiled by over 40 authors over thousands of years and be free of error.

You are confusing things in a bid to correct your mistake. You made an argument that christians assume that the OT has been corrupted, just as muslims claim that the Torah and the injil had been corrupted, but I told you that no christian has ever made such claim. I repeat, no christian can claim that the OT had been corrupted, except muslims. On father using different standard to judge, as a result of the old and the new testament era, you do not understand the christian teachings with respect to this. The time of the OT was the time of the law while the new testament is the time of grace, according to christian teachings. As for the '40 authors' claim, God has been dealing with man for over 6000 years through different medium. The generation of Noah to the generation of Jesus was expansive and of course you cannot expect a man to write down the events. The quran is a testimony of one man against the bible, the testimony of about 40 men. Despite the fact that the quran is a one-man business, it is still filled with historic, scientific and geographical errors.

Rashduct4luv:
When it comes to Islam you are always mistaken. Which Qur'an was these?

Ibn ‘Abbas narrates, saying, “The Messenger of Allah (صلى الله عليه وسلم) was the most generous person, and he would be at his most generous in Ramadan because Jibril would come to him every night and he would study the Qur’an with him. Truly, when Allah’s Messenger (صلى الله عليه وسلم) would meet Gabriel, he would be more generous than a fleeting wind.” [Agreed Upon]

Additionally, al-Bukhari reports from Fatima that the Prophet (صلى الله عليه وسلم) told her in the last year of his life, “Jibril used to revise the Qur’an with me once every year, but this year he has revised it with me twice. I do not suspect but that my time has come. And you shall be the first of my household to join me.”

So you believe the hadith only when it suits your argument and you call it 'weak and fabricated' when it fails to support your argument. Thats Islamic standard anyway, HIPOCRISY! Your hadith said mohammed never asked them to COLLATE the quran as a single document. The collation of different recitations as a single document was the brainchild of Omar ibn kathab. There are many quranic recitation that mohammed even forgot and had to be reminded, how can we trust the people compiled the quran when even mohammed couldnt remember all what he was dictating?

Narrated Aisha: The Prophet heard a man reciting the Qur'an in the mosque and said, "May Allah bestow His Mercy on him, as he has reminded me of such-and-such Verses of such a Surah." (Bukhari: volume 6, book 61, number 556, Khan)

Narrated Hisham: (The same Hadith, adding): which I missed (modifying the Verses). (Bukhari: volume 6, book 61, number 557, Khan)

'A'isha reported that the Apostle of Allah (may peace be upon him) heard a person reciting the Qur'an at night. Upon this he said: May Allah show mercy to him; he has reminded me of such and such a verse which I had missed in such and such a surah. (Muslim: book 4, number 1720, Siddique)

'A'isha reported that the Apostle of Allah (may peace be upon him) listened to the recitation of the Qur'an by a man in the mosque. Thereupon he said: May Allah have mercy upon him; be reminded me of the verse which I had been made to forget. (Muslim: book 4, number 1721, Siddique)

Narrated Mu'awiyah ibn Khudayj: One day the Apostle of Allah (peace_be_upon_him) prayed and gave the salutation while a rak'ah of the prayer remained to be offered. A man went to him and said: You forgot to offer one rak'ah of prayer. ... (Abu Dawud: book 3, number 1018, Hasan)

Narrated Imran ibn Husayn: The Prophet (peace_be_upon_him) led them in prayer and forgot something, so he made prostrations and uttered the tashahhud, then gave the salutation. (Abu Dawud: book 3, number 1034, Hasan)

Narrated Abdullah ibn Mas'ud: ... (Muhammad said) I am only a human being and I forget just as you do; so when I forget, remind me, ... (Abu Dawud: book 3, number 1015, Hasan)

Besides, there is no one volume of book called the quran at the time of mohammed.

Rashduct4luv:
Fallacy as usual. The Qur'an and Hadith are our Books though separated but goes together. It is not like your Book that combines all together whether stories, words ascribed to God, Words ascribed to Prophets/men of God, Words of disciples, words of unknown persons, words of love birds, etc. Even if i show you the lessons it will benefit you not.

“And We send down of the Qur’aan that which is a healing and a mercy to those who believe (in Islamic Monotheism and act on it), and it increases the Zaalimoon (polytheists and wrongdoers) nothing but loss”[al-Isra’ 17:82]

Is it mohammed that also dictated the hadith. Hadith is a mere gossip and rumours that people hear people say about mohammed and was collected together by Bukhari, Muslim, Ibn Majjah, etc, as a religios book to complement the quran. Of course the quran cannot stand alone and make sense: this is a fact! The earliest hadith, by Imam Bukhari, was collected over 250 years after the death of mohammed. He never met any of the sahabas to interview them, how then can you trust the testimony of a random guys on the street of mecca or medina (250 years after mohammed was long gone) who tell Imam Bukhari that ibn Abass, Aisha bin abu bakr, omar ibn kathab, etc said so and and so concerning mohammed? How do you validate such a testimony? No wonder that even muslims had to admit that there are many lies in the hadith and yet the same lies are used to complete the words of allah. This is totally strange to any logically mind.

sulasa07:
May you be guided unto the right path,there was a time you questioned and answered people with bigotry in your words and dont take sides and I commended you for that but now, you've changed and you are siding with a part.

I am already guided through in the right path. I have always debated Islam with muslims but you seem not to pay attention; I have not changed.

Rashduct4luv:
Using this your theory we can say the OT is better than the NT, even the Psalms is better than the NT since they came before it.

You don't believe in the Qur'an and i also don't believe in the Bible. So?

Which date was the Bible compiled in the form it was today that you keep mentioning the Bible as if it was available then?

I am not talking about which is better; I am talking about using one document to validate the other. Muslims, not the Quran, claim that previous scriptures (the Torah, the injil and the zabura) has been corrupted but no christian claim the OT to be corrupted. What christian claim is that God had given a new covenant which was fulfilled after the coming of christ; the old testamnet was a shadow of things to come. It is a completely different argument because christians never claimed that the old testament is corrupt.

You made a claim that the Bible was not as it is today. You are right. The Bible is the amalgamantion of Jewish history (the chronicles), Jewish laws, the old Jewish books of prophecies, Songs of David (Pslams), the words and wisdom of solomom (Proverbs and ecclesiastes), the love songs of solomon, the gospel (matthew, mark, luke, john), the activities of the early church (act of the aspostle), the epistles of the apostles of the early churches and the book of revelation at the Island of Patmus (present-day Turkey). So Bible is not a one-man show like the quran. Meanwhile, there is nothing like the quran in the time of mohammed. Mohammed did not arrange the surah and the ayah as we have it today. Quran is a government project conceived by Omar ibn kathab and finally compiled by uthman ibn affan. Mohammed will be shocked and annoyed if presented with the present-day quran because he never sanctioned his sahabas to compiled the quran as a religious book and many of the original manuscript (the hard evidences) were burnt by Uthman ibn Affan. How can we trust today's copy of the quran if some quranic evidences were burnt?

Rashduct4luv:
So you expect me to write the complete story of Abraham, Aaron, David, Jesus, etc. right? Islam does not have time for all those stories. The lessons are enough for us as i have said before. You already know We believe in all the Prophets and Muhammad the final of them. This is the era of Muhammad as the final Messenger.

Which lessons of Abraham, Aaron, David, jesus, etc, do you have in the quran? Can you provide the surah and the surah where I can look them up? The truth is that the Torah and the Injil remain Islamic back-up plan for vital information, just as you have the hadith and the sirah. Without the Torah and the Injil, the hadith and the sirah, a large percentage of quranic verses will never be understandable. At least respect the Jewish Torah and zabura and the christian Injil that give your religion a bit sense of meaning.

Rashduct4luv:
What is nonintellectual in this post?

Your post lacks intellectual honesty because you are using the quran to validate or invalidate the Bible, which is wrong. You cannot use a material that came latest to judge materials and information that were availables hundreds of years earlier.

Rashduct4luv:
Your belief is for you. I am just here to state our belief on the matters which is contrary to your beliefs. So how is it unintellectual?

And I asked you to provide a comprehensive quranic narrative to the events which are contrary to your beliefs. If you are in a law court, the prosecutor will expect you to provide a comprehensive details on how an event took place. If I only say, upon a cross-examination by a competent prosecutor, 'the man didn't steal the car', I am not providing the complete info. I need to also provide an alibi and a witness to make my point valid. The quran lacks details and poorly written.

padi94:
I dont know what weapons will be used to fight World War 3 but, World War 4 will be fought with sticks nd stones

ALBERT EIENSTEIN

johnmartus:
I think Because of tribalism that run in the vain of Innoson that's the major reason he built his company to an unpopular location such as Anambra. For instance ogun state hosting a major multi national companies in Nigeria and their headquarters located at lagos .
Sincerely if innoson build his company in southwest the company will move forward and many will patronize the company more than his expectation. As we all know that environment can be a problem for a business owners sometime in the case of Innoson.

So that he can employ you guys as 'accountants' and 'admin officers', as the 'sophisticated' race, to loot him dry and collapse his business.

Rashduct4luv:
Here is my last reply to you. Jesus has not earthly father hence calling him by his mother's name is not an abuse. Our God has no son, no wife and He is far above procreation as He doesn't support from His creation. Jesus has a mother. If you call Jesus son of God because He has no father then what about Adam? This is double standand plus hypocrisy. The verse you quoted from Al Bayyina does not portray what you said. Allah says " Verily those who has disbelieved from among the people of the Books.............they are the worst of creatures. You just keep cherry picking the Qur'an as you do your Bible. Anyways i am tired of your rantings and mentions! Only you like 12 mentions!



I think intellectual dishonesty is not directly answering the question at hand, shifting goal post, dragging someone back to a previously concluded discussion....
Save your mentions cos i won't only respond to mentions with substance.

Nice try bro and please stop opening controvewrsial thread you cannot defend intelectually,

Rashduct4luv:
My forgiveness is in using the word God. We do not abuse Jesus or Almighty God like you abuse Muhammad and Allah.

You abuse Jesus christ by calling him 'the son of Mary'. In African and Arabian culture, you call the son by his father's name and not his mother's name. It is an insult for you to call me David Rosemary (where Rosemary is my mother's name). Since Jesus did not have an earthly father but a heavenly father, we call him 'the son God' and it is an insult to us for muslims to call Jesus 'the son of Mary'. Also remember, Mohammed also called the christians and the Jews 'the worst of creatures'(quran 98:6). Dont be a hypocrite bro!

Rashduct4luv:
Muhammad is not a superman so stop saying he lifted things from the Bible. The Bible was compiled long after Muhammad.

Which Torah and Injil was mohammed refering to? Where is your copy of the Torah and the Injil?

Rashduct4luv:
I would remind you again. You have the right to live as you like. But dictating how i live my life is Christianisation.

I am not dictating how you should live your life but stop being intellectually dishonest bro.