₦airaland Forum

Because I cannot adopt a faith that cannot name one good thing that humanity wouldn't have if that faith did not exist, but from which result numerous societal ills.


TV

Because I can't adopt faith where the national leader of that faith, in a country ruled by that faith, can end the lives of tens of thousands of his own citizens and be considered a martyr.


TV

Innocence is by definition.
The religion makes every non-adherent "guilty" by default.

Here's an example - capital punishment is the sentence for insulting the profit. Yet, it is considered an insult not to accept him as a profit. Ergo, a non-believer (especially if they have been given daar.waar) is already guilty and therefore under a perennial deaf sentence.


TV

How far, hope all's well with the young ladies? My own is determined to ruin my credit rating .

LordReed:
Hey there!

Yeah I guess the context is the US.

Even then...


TV

LordReed:
The relationship between people of differing skin colours is forever tainted by the history of slavery. But it is particularly sad to see that those who hold on to the expired notion are still held in high regard by the very people they despise. It is like hearing fingernail scratches on a chalkboard to my brain.

Hello, long time.

Don't you think this should be at least contextualised? It is quite broadly cast and easily falsifiable. It could just as easily be read as a reflection of prejudice on your part. Could you defend this position if challenged?


TV

Because I love life - and see no reason to swap the love of life for the love of death.

Death is it's raison d'etre, it's prime imperative and charge, it's leitmotif. What it endures for, loves, craves and celebrates. Death, death, death. Death by sword, by decapitation, by stoning. Death, death, death. Death by car, by bomb by knife, whatever!

Death for dis-believing, death for not believing, death for discontinuing to believe, death for believing differently. Death for blasphemy, death for insults, death for mockery.

Death with each and every empire, every iteration, every instance. With the umayyad, the abbassid, the ottoman, the mughal and the safavid. Death to this day, be it saudi arabia, iran, isis, boko-haram, lakawura, iswap, al-sha whatchamacallit.

Death in the middle-east. Death in the horn of, the north, the west and eastern Africa. Death in the Iberian peninsula, death in Asia. Death in Anatolia. the Caucasus, the Balkans and eastern Europe. Death in Asia, death in Europe and death in north America (and lately Australia - Bondi beach). Death everywhere.

Death of reason, death of progress and advance, death of liberty. Death then and death now. Death in every which way.

Come to Christ, who gives life, life more abundant and life eternal!


TV

Because I love marriage - the beautiful and honourable institution God our Father and Creator bestowed on mankind.

I can't accept that it takes marriage and, profanes and traduces this precious gift from our Maker. Marriage is wonderfully designed and glorious in it's simplicity and rightful outworking.

One man, one woman, lifelong and monogamous. Between two of age, mature and mentally sound. Not too closely related. A relationship for flourishing, mutual love and affection, and the best vehicle for raising children.

It violates marriage in every which way. Firstly, the couple and fidelity principles by introducing the s3csual an social perversion of polygamy. It besmirches the lifelong principle by embedding divorce - ridiculously easy and one-sided.

It at once eliminates consent, and rubbishes maturity, euphemistically categorising secsual violation of prepubescent girls as marriage - too young to consent or be mature enough for the marital estate. It labels violence, assault and violation as marriage.

It encourages cousin marriage, failing to understand the wisdom behind the cautions against consanguineous unions. It takes a covenant and reduces it to a transaction. It makes the sacramental sacrilegious. And the cherry on top - it still has room for secks slaves.

Oh, and I neglected to mention the sneaky formalisation of FWB aka contractual adultery aka mutah, aka misyar. Unacceptable by anyone who understands God's will for holy matrimony.


Let me leave the effects on any offspring. IMHO, one has to not have a mature mind, integrity or wisdom to accept it.


TV

Because I love people and yearn for the prosperity and well-being of mankind. I hate anything that is inherently misanthropic and embeds, rather that eliminates societal pathologies. Anything that gives rise to notions that are barbaric and dark, hating critical thinking, scientific rigour and technological advancement.

That's why I love Christ and Christianity, which progressively ended internecine wars, slavery, child labour, child marriage and cousin marriage. Which engendered public hygiene, universal healthcare and welfare reforms. Notions of interpersonal goodwill and commonwealth. Which is the basis for high-trust societies, rational enquiry, empirical research and innovation. Which is why all the major scientific progress mankind has experience comes from historically Christian nations - even post-Christian nations do miles better and are still way ahead.

How can I personally accept something that,
...makes VVF endemic by default https://www.nairaland.com/8349907/notable-women-early-marriages-bible#134323939
...can't figure out cousin marriage https://brilliantmaps.com/consanguineous-marriage/
...a man can legally marry his own biological daughter
...ended adoption to introduce incest
...has no objective morality or even basic ethics
...is utterly controlling and baulks at freedom of expression
...cannot stomach difference or plurality
...hates the arts and music, learning and enlightenment more generally
...is not backed by prophecy, is ahistorical and anti-science and who's outworking is only death and destruction
...is totaliatian and totalising
...breeds rampant ethno and sectarian supremacists
...has never created anything but wants to rule everything
...can never lead to flourishing, prosperity or advancement - quite the opposite, regressive, backward, benighted, poverty-inducing
...is aptly represented by Afganistan and Somalia

Life in Christ - abundant and eternal - is offered freely, on a platter, why would I choose death


TV

https://www.youtube.com/shorts/xW9rhmcTALU

Because I love women and see them as equal in worth to men, and essential to human flourishing. Therefore, I do not believe that

...women should be treated as chattel by men
...that it's manly or godly for a man to patrol schools with semi-automatic weapons to ensure little girls do not receive an education
...policing women to the point of death on account of "hair-covering" is a credible vocation or way to serve our creator
...there is anything honourable about honour killing
...or customary eff gee hem
...s3cs slavery is a ok!
...multiple wives for one man engenders social flourishing
..women should have zero agency or be forced to wear tents
...that women need a chaperone or permission to step out, travel or even drive
...that the sentence for ray ape should be the victims brother committing same to the perpetrators sister
...that if a woman cannot produce 4 male witessess to ray ape, she can be stoned to death for adultery
...domestic violence should be codified into law or considered as a customary right for males
...that marriage is a euphemism for the gross s3csual violation of pre-pubescent girls

and so on and so forth...to any reasonable and right-thinking person any 1, or 2 at most, of the above should be reason enough. But other reasons are it's morality-eroding and critical thinking reducing features!


TV

https://www.youtube.com/shorts/xW9rhmcTALU
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/nK6D9OnTBi4

https://www.youtube.com/shorts/nK6D9OnTBi4


TV

https://www.youtube.com/shorts/nK6D9OnTBi4


TV

https://www.youtube.com/shorts/nK6D9OnTBi4


TV

DropsMic:
You’re still being disingenuous, just like the typical Nigerian politician. I sincerely hope God changes your soul so you can speak the truth plainly instead of twisting words and rambling because you feel obligated to. Ciao

Show us one Jewish or Christian group, community or nation that follows or imposes OT laws, or seeks to impose them on others. Or one that legalises violence and slavery, or codifies a caste system into its jurisprudence.


TV

^{ps. Christianity does not oblige, impose or force - unlike you know which religion}

https://www.youtube.com/shorts/nK6D9OnTBi4

DropsMic:
Why didn't you just ask me to show you where such things are in the Bible ? Why ask about just the New Testament?? Is the Old Testament not part of the Bible?? Why are you being disingenuous?? What do you stand to gain from denying what is in your own holy book

Please return to the mic. But before you utter a word, listen and understand.

The Old Testament is not prescriptive or binding on Christians. It is specifically the history of, and the law given by God to the Israelite nation. To be used and applied only by them and whoever voluntarily chose to live amongst them - for that time. Not to be forcibly imposed on any other peoples or nations.

Christians believe the fullness of God's revelation is in Christ and has been fully outlined in the New Testament. The OT and any assciated laws are no longer applicable. No one is denying the OT, we just don't live by it. Neither d the Jews, as evidenced by their technologically advanced, progressive and liberal society.

Please show us any other faith, religion or ideology that can match the progress and advancement inherent in Judeo-Christianity.


TV


https://www.youtube.com/shorts/nK6D9OnTBi4

Let's see, It all in there - codified violence against women, slavery, class based judicial & societal tiering,(caste system). Not too mention the usual absurdities like jail time for "incorrectly "trimming a beard. And this is just the beginning, mark my words, it will get worse.

Which ideology is it that inverts morals, erodes clear and logical thinking, and has no notion of civil rights, personal liberties or individual freedoms. All roads leading to dehumanisation and death.


TV


https://www.youtube.com/shorts/nK6D9OnTBi4

honesttalk21:
Three bans indicate a pattern of behavior rather than moderator bias. Every platform has its rules, and repeated violations lead to consequences. Harshness does not equal censorship; it reflects the enforcement of standards in this space that everyone has agreed upon directly or covertly by continuous use of the platform.

If you feel the moderation is unfair; review the actual rules, compare your posts with the standards or appeal through the appropriate channels should you so strongly feel violated.

For fulll disclosure, why not reveal your moderator status? ROPers want to play and ref - yet they still lose . How were you able to quote a post hidden 2 days ago? It's actually 8 bans


TV

Arowojobe86:
The encounter between Yoruba Muslim society and the trident of British colonialism, Christian missionary enterprise, and Western education was not a meeting of equals. It was an asymmetric assault that did not merely add new elements to our culture, but actively fractured it from within. This is not a comprehensive history, but an analysis of key strategic wounds—distortions that continue to shape our religious practice, scholarship, and identity today.

islam was not natal to the Yoruba or Yorubaland. And the Yoruba culture was anything but islamic. Whatever charges can be levelled about the advent of Christianity can be equally levelled against the incursion of islam. Don't whine because Christianity was better in all ways - education, infrastructural development - and left a more enduring legacy than islam has.

Arowojobe86:
1. The Sectarian Fracture: A Strategic Diversion
Faced with the missionary bait of "education for conversion," Yoruba Muslims devised three responses: outright rejection, the creation of Arabic schools (Al-madaris an-Nidhamiyyah), and the pooling of resources to establish private Muslim schools.
While the third strategy was pragmatically brilliant, its legacy is a paradox. The very organizations formed to unite Muslims for survival became the breeding grounds for enduring sectarian cleavages. The struggle against an external threat turned inward, fragmenting the community along lines of mundane organizational allegiance, diverting energy from consolidation to internal rivalry. The colonial challenge didn't just create Muslim schools; it helped create Muslim factions.

islam has no scholarship outside the fraudulently named "hadith science". Madrassa, ile kewu' and any other type of "islamic studies" never innovate, produce or create anything that advances humanity. So called islamic scholarship can only produce fractures. the islamic text are quite contradictory and can be read situationally as the "scholar" wills. Most fatwas are nothing more than opinion.

Arowojobe86:
2. The Manufactured Scholar: Curriculum as a Weapon of Distortion
The University of Ibadan, established in 1948, did not have a Department of Arabic and Islamic Studies until 1962 (after intense pressure). When it finally arrived, its architects were Orientalists, Christian missionaries, and secularists. The curriculum they designed was a deliberate departure from orthodox Islamic legal scholarship.
This was not an oversight; it was policy. The goal was to breed a generation of Muslim intellectuals formed by a Western, often skeptical, gaze upon their own tradition. The result is a profound disunity between scholars and their communities, and among scholars themselves. We were given not leaders formed by usul al-fiqh (Islamic jurisprudence), but apologists, pantheistic thinkers, and advocates for a syncretism that served colonial notions of "moderate" religion.

Who established UI? Who funded it? Why do the Yoruba need to study Arab culture? Could the institutions you mentioned in your post above not provide the desired rigorous islamic scholarship? Why wait for western\Christian based efforts, piggy-back of them and then complain they use an unfavourable heuristic? What islam withers under is forensic rigour and scientific scrutiny.

Arowojobe86:
3. The Crisis of Identity: Redemption Through Erasure
British colonial philosophy operated on a simple, racist hierarchy: the native was subhuman. "Redemption" was offered through conversion to Christianity or mastery of Western education.
With the colonial government ceding education to missionaries, the only path to literacy for many young Muslims was through Christian schools. This placed them in an impossible bind: convert, or hide their Muslim identity to gain access. This early compulsory dissimulation created a lasting schism in the Yoruba Muslim psyche. To this day, manifesting Islamic identity—the beard, the jalabiyyah, the raised trouser hem—in "corporate" Nigeria is often stigmatized, reserved for the professional "Alfa," while the Muslim elite often codeswitch into a secular, deracinated neutrality.

And the aforementioned educational establishment above. islam is not a culture of learning - it rarely educates it's females. Boko Haram is your name. Insistence on wearing 7th century academic garb is typical of islamic regressiveness - can't build anything, forcefully try to islamise everything.

Arowojobe86:
4. The Criminalization of Norms: Polygamy as a Social Taboo
Colonialism made Nigeria a legal and cultural photocopy of Britain. A core component of this was imposing Victorian Christian morality as the universal standard of "civilization."
Thus, Islamic practices like polygamy were not merely different; they were criminalized as backward and barbaric. The effect was so profound that, until recently, defending polygamy as a valid social norm was taboo among the Yoruba Muslim elite and academia. The lifestyle of the colonizer became the undisputed benchmark for social respectability, forcing a religious community to treat its own divine permissions as a source of shame.

Please? Sex slavery, and "child marriage" too - along with polygamy are all sexually perverse practices. Besides, As odious as the practice of polygyny is, it is not outlawed in Yorubaland or Nigeria more widely. Enlightened minds realise that marrying pre-pubescent children, sex slaves and multiple wives are abusive, and forms of sexual violence.

Arowojobe86:
5. The Linguistic Hegemony: When English Mastery Trumps Quranic Literacy
By making English the sole language of official education and advancement, colonialism engineered a hierarchy of knowledge. Fluency in English became the definitive marker of the elite, including the religious elite.
A paradoxical and damaging dynamic emerged: a Muslim scholar (Alfa), deeply learned in Arabic and the Islamic sciences, could be dismissed as "illiterate" if he lacked fluency in English. Conversely, a convincing command of English could grant religious authority to those with shallow Islamic knowledge. The language of the Quran was subtly displaced as the primary language of religious prestige and persuasion within the educated class.

More whining - islamic science? I laugh in Persian - there is no such creature. arabic as our lingua franca? Look at the global university ranking, investgate where all scientific research and technological advancement emanates from. Hint, it's not muslim majority countries or islamic studies departments.

Arowojobe86:
Conclusion: The Enduring Legacy
These five points are not mere historical observations. They are active legacies —the sectarian disputes, the intellectual disorientation, the identity conflict, the cultural shame, and the linguistic displacement that continue to weaken Yoruba Muslim society from within.
To decolonize our minds is to recognize these fractures not as natural evolution, but as deliberate engineering. The path to recovery lies not in rejecting tools like Western education, but in rejecting the internalized hierarchy that places them above our own intellectual and spiritual heritage. It requires a conscious re-centering of our own epistemology, jurisprudence, and identity—on our own terms.

islamic culture and education are inferior when it comes to the rational thought and scientific rigour required to bring about advancement. What have the 12 states under sharia delivered. How have they advanced since it's introduction.

islam that left the Hausa culturally impoverished and a vassal nation. islam is contrary to the sophisticated, urbane and progressive ethos of the Yoruba. Thank God for Christianity prevailing and clearly showing it's superiority- The Yoruba would have been made like many of the northern tribes. islamic remains a weak spot and a danger to the Yoruba. Especially it if takes on it's more extreme aspects, which we have so far managed to avoid. Woe is the Yoruba if they make the mistake of islamising further.

To be honest, the Yoruba are not really cut out to be muslims. Natal Yoruba culture and customs cut across much of what islam demands and anyone who claims Yoruba in any meaningful way cannot be a true muslim. Likewise a devout muslim will have to discard any true identification as Yoruba. It's why northern muslims despise you.

islam, always blaming others for its failings.


TV

Although It's not something I often do, I did not respond to your initial response, as tbh - and it may have just been me - I found it garbled and not actually addressing the points I made...

Lionessza6:
I went through your post again and I see where this is coming from. It’s the usual African self-degradation: the idea that black people cannot manage themselves properly.

But this is not about race, genetics, or moral superiority .

Black South Africans are not genetically, morally, or culturally better than other Africans. We are simply a product of a very different history and set of lived experiences.

... which non of the above straw men do either. And, for what it's worth, I'm a devout Christian, and my worldview doesn't parse issues through positions of racial or genetic difference.

Lionessza6:
Across the continent, black societies were pulled out of their own systems and forced into colonial ones they did not create or fully understand. In many places, people were prevented from developing their own institutions, yet were also never fully integrated into the new ones. Independence arrived with states that existed on paper but not in daily life.

Which, all but makes my point, and speaks directly to the questions I asked - based on your claim that the infrastructure, institutions and governance of SA was a joint enterprise between the natives and the colonizers. I asked as follows;

1. Evidence to this "joint-enterprise" claim. And,
2. How a native majority government would be able to maintain and\or improve the system - given majority experience across wider Africa (which would be easily enough done if indeed it was a joint enterprise).

There may well have been difference between garden variety colonialism and brutally enforced apartheid, but the after effects to my mind, aren't to much different. Nor, as I see it are the newly enfranchised in either situation. If anything, and on the whole, I'd say the after-effects of apartheid are worse.

Lionessza6:
South Africa was different because the system was intense and unavoidable. Apartheid forced black people into constant contact with institutions....cities, factories, laws, unions, courts, and the state itself. It was violent and oppressive, but it created familiarity. The system had to be understood in order to survive it.

It could equally be argued that apartheid afforded less accessibility and inculcated lower level values in it's victims. However, I'm not wont to look backwards here.

Lionessza6:
Black South Africans, like Black Americans, learned how these systems work simply through proximity and repetition.

At this point and for black Americans at least, that doesn't align with how well they are flourishing in comparison to more recently arrived black people - Nigerians again!

Lionessza6:
That is why our criticism sounds different. It comes from experience, not arrogance. We know what institutions look like when they function, and we also know how dangerous they are when they collapse.

So we don’t romanticize ideas. We are suspicious of slogans without structure. We expect clarity, accountability, and clear goals....because we have lived under systems powerful enough to destroy lives, and structured enough to deliver results.

Black South Africans are not trying to assert themselves as “special” or superior Black people. Our skepticism toward Pan-Africanism comes from a different place. We are critical because many Pan-African narratives dismiss, ridicule, or attempt to erase the institutional knowledge, governance experience, and intellectual traditions that Black South Africans have built over time. Too often, it asks us to abandon hard-won systems and standards and conform to a post-colonial mediocrity simply because we are Black. That is not unity......it is regression.

The difference is not who we are.
It is what we have lived through

Non of the above addresses what I questioned, wrote or believe. Like I mentioned, I don't know enough native South Africans to form any such conclusions.


TV

Lionessza6:
Nigerians shout “Giant of Africa” unprovoked because:

*They overcompensate for structural weaknesses.
*They equate loudness with authority.
*Their leaders have spent decades telling them they’re the* best blacks*, so they grow up expecting other blacks to bow down to them.
*Social norms reward showing off as proof of strength.

That’s why the calmer, more deliberate, non-bending South African blacks trigger them more than anyone else on the continent. At the end of the day, it’s fragile ego dressed up as power....loud, performative, and built on decades of hype

In as much as I can claim Nigerian, I will readily admit that Nigerians "typically", range from fraudsters to grifters. And few - even the most eminently qualified - see beyond serving themselves. The desire is mostly for their individual self-aggrandisement. And, if that is at the expense of others, then so be it. That is why "the hustle" is evident at all levels and in all strata. It's not just "the leaders". If anything they merely epitomise it.

A true sense of the collective, of commonwealth, is almost totally absent. Whether that is predicated on the tribalism that bedevils them, the sectarianism that primes much of their responses, or these in combination with other ills, I'll refrain from speculating for now.

Any notion of pan-Africanism (and pan-blackness, if that's a thing and means essentially the same?) is dead in the water. It's not a pipe or a dream. If it was a political notion, it would mean eternal minor-party opposition. With only the merest consideration and grasp of realities on the ground, can anyone really believe that pan-Africanism is achievable?

Does it include Arabs? Hope not, they simply cannot ever see themselves as equal with black people - their racism, even the merely customary kind - is off the charts.

Okay, just black people. The ethnic Somali are pretty close to being perfectly homogenous, but are so clannish, they seem to have been at war forever. And any government has to be along clan lines, not principles, not policy. They even "clanned" themselves out of the recent Minnesota mayoral election. No to mention they look down - to the point of despising - on the Bantu Somali who occupy the same space, speak the same language and have the same culture.

Back to Nigeria. The ethnic Fula are keen to eradicate or enslave every other tribe in pursuit of their ethno-religious-supremacist dream. A vast swathe of Nigerians with the wherewithal would rather be in freezing Siberia, the most racist and far-right Western nation or even China, where you can be treated like vermin.

Like islam is best for muslims outside islamic majority\dominated countries, pan-africanism would probably work best elsewhere. Or, in a very lurid imagination, that realises the wretchedness of its position but seeks some relief in an unattainable fantasy. This literally allows you to boast, be judgemental and even supremacist in your wretchedness, but nothing will ever change.

However, I have one small quibble with the SA specific rebuttal to pan-africanism. Pray tell, what antecedents do the native south-Africans have the suggests they would have built modern day liberal democratic infrastructure before the advent of Europeans? How are the Bantus in the south in any way different from the Cushites on the horn, or those in the West or Central regions.

What, in the inherent make-up of black SA before the advent of white SA suggest they could natively give rise to those institutions, or the governance and the processes required? Something none of the other African tribes\nations have been able to achieve - individually or collectively.

Is there anything you can point to, if only nascent or embryonic, prior to the arrival of white SA, that suggests these structures would have arisen without white SA. Or alternatively, anything within the antecedents of the white SA that suggests wherever they rocked up, those infrastructures would not have followed - like night follows day - with or without black SA?

You whole-chestedly claim "joint enterprise" in what are clearly the artefacts of a colonialist\apartheid regime. Albeit, a regime with the make-up to build those systems. To be clear, I do not see anything that suggests the SA of recent decades was ever a partnership in the building. I stand to be corrected - if you can evidence otherwise.

Having said that you get 2 shots. You see Nigeria (and I'd guess other African countries post-colonialism), also had these same artefacts in place. From functioning railways stations (I've seen tickets) to working bureaucracies and administrative frameworks. But as inherency took a hold - nepotism, tribalism, sectarianism, clannishness, mediocrity, malfeasance and wholesale corruption - the frameworks, the structures and the governance were all degraded. And now, we are where we are.

Two shots I said, because all that has to be done to obviate the ask to evidence the joint-enterprise (and shut me up ), and gainsay all the vitriol around black SA being xenophobic, lazy, servile etc., is too maintain those artefacts - at the least.

In a simplistic way, it can be seen as SA simply coming to the end of colonialism\apartheid later, so having the artefacts for that much longer.
I'll be honest, based on what has gone before and currently persists with SA' near neighbours, I wouldn't stake my hard-earned cash on it. But I sincerely wish SA all the best.


TV

Explore2xmore:
Pointing to Islam as violent based on its “fruits” falls apart when you consider the same standard you don’t consistently apply. The core texts of Islam clearly prohibit coercion in matters of faith and the killing of innocents, while classical law places strict limits on warfare to specific situations. Atrocities carried out in its name go against these principles, just as the wrongdoings committed in Christianity contradict Christ’s teachings. When people say Islam celebrates violence or insists on a single language, they’re mixing up ritual unity with coercion Arabic is meant for worship, not ethnicity, much like how Hebrew and Latin were used in other faiths. Regarding prophets, Islam’s belief in many messengers is more about theology than historical records, similar to how Christianity holds truths that go beyond what’s documented and just because there’s no clear evidence doesn’t mean something is false.

I see honesttalk21 has exhaustively replied you.

And hopefully my response to him satisfies this as well.

Plus, I sense you both use the same tools or, are the same entity, 2in1 .


TV

honesttalk21:
The idea that Christianity is all about peace while Islam is seen as violent falls apart when we look at both religions with the same lens.

The Christian set-man is all about peace. mohammed waged 86 wars\raids\sorties in 10years. Enough said.

Isaiah 9:6
For unto us a Child is born, Unto us a Son is given; And the government will be upon His shoulder. And His name will be called Wonderful, Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.
Isaiah 9:7
Of the increase of His government and peace There will be no end,

Isaiah 53:9
And they made His grave with the wicked— But with the rich at His death, Because He had done no violence, Nor was any deceit in His mouth.

honesttalk21:
The Qur’an doesn’t actually call for any earthly punishment for apostasy. In fact, it champions the freedom to believe as one wishes: There is no compulsion in religion (Q2:256) and Whoever wills, let him believe; whoever wills, let him disbelieve (Q18:29). The punishments for apostasy that we see come from later interpretations influenced by medieval politics and concerns about treason, not from the Qur’an itself. That’s why many modern Muslim scholars argue against the death penalty for apostasy, viewing it as something contextual and not binding.

Lies, deceit, taqqiyyah? I posted this in my previous post on this thread - we know it's not in the koran, it's hadith text, which muslims hold as dear as the koran.
37 The Book of Fighting [The Prohibition of Bloodshed]

(14)Chapter: The Ruling on Apostates(14)باب الْحُكْمِ فِي الْمُرْتَدِّ ‏‏
Ibn 'Abbas said:
"The Messenger of Allah [SAW] said: 'Whoever changes his religion, kill him.'"
أَخْبَرَنَا عِمْرَانُ بْنُ مُوسَى، قَالَ حَدَّثَنَا عَبْدُ الْوَارِثِ، قَالَ حَدَّثَنَا أَيُّوبُ، عَنْ عِكْرِمَةَ، قَالَ قَالَ ابْنُ عَبَّاسٍ قَالَ رَسُولُ اللَّهِ صلى الله عليه وسلم ‏ "‏ مَنْ بَدَّلَ دِينَهُ فَاقْتُلُوهُ ‏"‏ ‏.‏

honesttalk21:
On the flip side, the Old Testament, which is still part of the Christian canon, clearly states that death is the punishment for apostasy and blasphemy (Deuteronomy 13; Leviticus 24). Christians rightly see these laws as products of their time. However, when Muslims apply the same reasoning, they’re often accused of dodging the issue. That’s a clear double standard.

It's quite sad how every defence of islam has to reference Christianity, but at once twist it's texts. Again, and from my previous post,

1. The old covenant was binding on (and agreed with) the Jews and whoever chose to live amongst them only.
3. It was part of Gods unfolding plan for salvation to be fully revealed in the fullness of time - from law to grace, as no one can fulfil holy law.
4. The fullest revelation of God is in Christ Jesus and the new covenant of grace - which is for all - jews and gentiles
5. The OT legal code is not binding on Christians

However, the koran (and the hadith, in as much as they are considered authoritative), is binding for all times - it cannot change\be changed. Death for apostates, blasphemers and unbelievers is written.

honesttalk21:
The Qur’an allows fighting only under strict conditions: it’s meant for defense (Q22:39), prohibits aggression (Q2:190), and encourages peace (Q8:61). There’s no doctrine in the Qur’an that advocates for forced conversion or holy wars over belief.

The koran is not the only islamic text, or even the source of many of its doctrines or practices.

From here, and islamic source - https://www.islamicity.org/

Sunan an-Nasai 3090 (Book 25, Hadith 6) #17702
Fighting for Faith
SUMMARY: The Prophet Muhammad was commanded to fight people until they accept the Islamic faith, and those who do will be safe from him except in cases where Islamic laws apply.

Narrated Sa'eed bin Al-Musayyab narrated that: Abu Hurairah told him that the Messenger of Allah said: "I have been commanded to fight the people until they say La ilaha illallah (there is none worthy of worship except Allah). Whoever says La ilaha illallah, his life and his property are safe from me, except by its right (in cases where Islamic laws apply), and his reckoning will be with Allah".

honesttalk21:
In contrast, Christian scripture includes wars sanctioned by God, collective punishments, and violent apocalyptic imagery. The key difference isn’t that one tradition is violent and the other isn’t; it’s that violence in Christianity is often put into context, while violence in Islam is seen as fundamental.

Well said. Clearly violence is embedded, and fundamental to islam. It's an aberration in Christianity.

honesttalk21:
Islam keeps Arabic as the language of the Qur’an but doesn’t ban translations or understanding in other languages. Christianity, on the other hand, didn’t universally prohibit vernacular languages, but for a long time, the Western Church favored Latin, limited unauthorized translations, and controlled access to the scriptures. These restrictions varied over time and place, but they definitely centralized linguistic authority.
The real issue isn’t that Christianity lacked linguistic gatekeeping; it’s that its history is often viewed through a more forgiving lens, while Islam’s is not.

"Western church" and "favoured Latin" say it all. Regional differences are permitted, preferences allowed. Liturgy, worship and authorised readings in islam are all arabic.

honesttalk21:
The objection regarding the 124,000 prophets fails to recognize that this number comes from hadith, not the Qur’an, and serves more as a theological symbol than a historical fact. If unverifiable claims are enough to undermine Islam, then we must apply the same level of skepticism to biblical claims, like the global flood, extraordinarily long lifespans, or miracles. No major religion can withstand a purely positivist approach.

I believe all the bolded. The problem with he claim of 124,000 prophets is that there is no record or historical attestation outside the islamic texts. Further, the koran claims that it sent messengers to all language groups, suggetsing that mohammed was only sent to the arabs, but we don't know who was sent to the Ibibio or Kanuri?

honesttalk21:
Neither Islam nor Christianity can be seen as a single moral entity. Both have ethical principles, context-specific legal frameworks, and histories influenced by power dynamics. However, acts of violence committed in the name of Christianity are often portrayed as a betrayal of the faith, while similar acts in Islam are depicted as expressions of obedience. This double standard doesn’t hold up under close examination.

Errr, actually it does. Killing is embedded in islam. For apostacy, blasphemy, adultery, non-belief, incorrect belief, Killing and death are both a sanction and a reward - i.e. for jihad.

honesttalk21:
Islam isn’t uniquely violent, nor is Christianity uniquely peaceful. When we approach Islam with the same contextual understanding and interpretive generosity typically extended to Christianity, the simplistic caricature falls apart. The true divide lies not between Islam and Christianity, but between genuine scholarship and biased double standards.

So your summary is that islam and Christianity are pretty much the same huh? why does islam cling to Chritianity for legitimacy, survival even. Please, let go of the ersatz, the counterfeit, the bogus, the fraudulent. Come to and cling to Christ. Therein is Peace.


TV