₦airaland Forum

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

muslim100:
The phrase "For which reason God exalts Him" (Philippians 2:9) actually presents a logical challenge to the Trinity. If Jesus is God, he cannot be "exalted" to a higher position by another being. God is already the highest. Getting exalted by another is only logicaly coherent if "the one to be exalted" is inferior to the exalter.
The fact that his exaltation is a reward for his obedience suggests a hierarchy where the Father is the superior who grants the reward and the Son is the subordinate who earns it.

In Hebrews 1:8, the Greek text can be translated in two ways: "Your throne, O God..." or "God is your throne..."

Also, verse 9 says, "Therefore God, your God, has set you above your companions." This indicates that even in his highest state, Jesus has a God. If Jesus has a God, he cannot be the "Only True God" in the absolute sense.
Exodus 7:1 "I have made you a God (theos) to pharaoh and Aaron as your prophet" - The same term (theos) for Jesus is also used for Moses.
This makes it what, a Quadnity?

The phrase "Today I have become your Father" implies a beginning to that specific relationship. If the Son were "eternally begotten," there would be no "today" in which the relationship started.

Again in Psalms the Father did say to David "You are my son, today I have begotten thee"

Begotten son isn't for Jesus alone, even David is his begotten son.

Introducing alternate rendering or different translations is a weak and unsuccessful effort to void the narrative. It is futile. The bible is clear Jesus Christ is Lord. I have demonstrated this from both the OT & NT. You haven't mastered English, can;t speak Arabic and you are disputing Greek and Aramaic? Joker .

I repeat, Jesus Christ is God incarnate God taking on human form. Jesus Christ is the Eternal Word Who is and Has always been God and With God. One needn't reference the Greek to grasp the clear implication of Jesus' divinity. "Sui Generis" is the Greek for uniquely begotten. References to other uses of the phrase son of Gd add nothing to you attempts to deny what the biblical text clearly says.

John 3:16 - For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life.

Can there be more than one "only begotten" in that sense? That God took on human form and gave Himself for those who believe is clear.

Acts 20:28 - Therefore take heed to yourselves and to all the flock, among which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to shepherd the church of God which He purchased with His own blood.

Colossians 2:9 - For in Him dwells all the fullness of the Godhead bodily

Hebrews 1:3 - who being the brightness of His glory and the express image of His person, and upholding all things by the word of His power, when He had by Himself purged our sins, sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high,

Philippians 2:6 - who, being in the form of God, did not consider it robbery to be equal with God,

John 1 - 1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was in the beginning with God. 3 All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made.

muslim100:
The Greek word used here is proskuneo, it is also used in the bible to describe bowing down or showing obeisance to kings and superiors .
Lot worships the angels in Gen 19:1 with same word used for Jesus in these verse - are the angels also god? I guess not.

In the context of Hebrews, the angels are commanded to honor the Son because God has highly exalted him, not necessarily because he is the Creator Himself.

In Islam we believe messengers of God are gteater than the Angels.

◄ 4352. proskuneó ►
Lexical Summary
proskuneó: To worship, to bow down, to prostrate oneself

I don't deny you your reading of Greek word. But we know what they mean and we are not relying on one verse or piece of scripture. You cry homage! Fine, I pay homage to my son on taking his first steps, on passing his common entrance, on graduating. Does that entail bowing down? Or falling at his feet.

muslim100:
💯 wrong, already answered

I retracted that. But please show any islamic source text that characterises Apostle Paul as a false prophet? There is non. present day muslim scholars (who have no standing other than that which men accord to them), have to claim Paul is a false prophet as his writings falsify the koran and islam more generally.

muslim100:
This is why I want a zoom call, but you are always running away. I will answer all your questions and I will ask you mine. Writing here is a pain, especially on mobile phone. These incidents cannot be explained in 200 words, this is recorded history.

I am not ready to do calls for a number of reasons. I am happy to discuss or not discuss here. There is no obligtion.

muslim100:
Uthman standardized the Quran to prevent civil strife, not to change the content.

"Burning" - He never burnt the main copies scribed by the scribes of the Prophet Muhammad (Historical facts), copies of the ordinary masses were burnt to preserve the main text which was copied by Uthmans scribes from the main canon just 30+ years after the prophet, they sent these copies to all Islamic provinces [Makka, Madina, Yemen, Kufa, Shaam, Basra], and then they were recopied to increase their numbers. These copies contained all the Ahrufs of the Qur'an ( you can google this )

So you agree the koran was standardised? Not the unchanging word of allah - written on tablets in heaven - originally delivered by jibreel to mohammed. . Why would there be civil strife if there was one unchanging koran?

muslim100:
Unlike the Bible, which has thousands of manuscript variations and different canons (Catholic vs. Protestant vs. Orthodox) there is only one version of the Quran used by all Muslims worldwide - (7 Ahruf or 10 qira'at is not different Qur'an) - ask Google/AI what they are.

The ahruf\qiraat defence is feeble and weakens your already weak case. The word of God has to come in different renderings and recittions of the one arcane language, yet it is for the whole world. ANd it's not ahruf or qiraat. There are at least 38 known koran with different word meanings.

muslim100:
the earliest complete New Testament manuscripts (Codex Sinaiticus) date to the 4th century, 300 years after Jesus. As for Hadith, while the formal books were compiled later, they relied on (isnad) a rigorous system of oral and written chains of narration. Regarding the OT, the "Dead Sea Scrolls" show significant variations between manuscripts, the "complete copy" was not as uniform as claimed. google/AI

"Compilation with isnad" not writing. The hadith was collected by the companions of the prophet and passed down, then there was a need to compile it, that was what Imam malik, Bukhari, Muslim, Abu Dawud etc did.

Infact, the 5 daily prayers in details were only recorded in hadith, not the Qur'an.
The Qur'an only says "pray", "prostrate and bow", "pray at dawn", "pray in the afternoon", "pray at sunset" etc.
How to pray and the units of prayer was only recorded in the hadith.

After the death of the prophet Muhammad, his companions went to different cities, yet these hadith were narrated by more than 100s of companions of the prophet from different cities in the same way without any difference.

The bible is the best evidenced and attested text from antiquity. No gainsaying. Isnad is a contrived term used in rear-guard action to validate the hadith. They were not compiled bottom-up, but top down. In retrospect. It's a lie to claim they were compiled real-time and transmitted through time. Even the koran cannot claim this.

muslim100:
The prophet Muhammad said "Whoever lies against me intentionally should seek a place in hell" - This statement was reported by more than 50 companions with different chains of narration.

It is impossible to say he never said those words.
If 10 people from different locations say the same thing it is enough to call it authentic, then lets say 50 or 100 persons saying the same thing!

This is what we call - mutawaatir hadith "multitude narration" it is the only form is hadith that is 💯 authentic.

There are weak narrations recorded in hadith books that do not fulfill the authenticity criterias, muslims don't use them because we cannot guarantee they were from the prophet - but we keep them as part of history.

The hadith is 💯 more authentic than the Bible from its original source.

Not so. The islamic claims are all false narrative. Forged to lend legitimacy to a fake religion. Why are the hadith needed if the koranic claim to be "a clear explanation of all things" is true?

muslims are quick to reject hadiths that do not corroborate their claims and even accept thosse that contradict the koran, or reject them in their entirety. You lie, as sunni and shia have different hadiths in some instances. And Zakir Naik claims trying to be a muslim without the hadith is like trying to fly with one wing.

muslim100:
Hello! These are two different geneologies of Jesus through josephs - The law of non-contradiction, LNC - something can not be true and at same time false. One of these geneologies must be wrong.

Regarding the geneology of prophet Muhammad, it is as clear as day light. If his geneology is false why didn't the Arabs use this "fact" against him? Instead they used other things.

Arabs, just like jews didn't have any real sense of pride more than their lineage - if it was false why didn't anyone in those centuries ever say "Hey this man is lying", until 10+ centuries later.

I ask again, please detail mohammeds genealogy back to Abraham. Assertions and claims are not facts.

muslim100:
Jesus/Yahweh/God are same according to you, so all the commands made in the OT are purely Jesus's motives. He ordered all the killings in the OT, including infants and animals.

Why is it something praise worthy "if he protected an adulterer from stoning" by saying "Anyone that is clean should stone".

He was the one that laid down the law of killing adulterers and apostates.

So Yes!
Jesus of the Bible is the perpetrator of all divine laws of killing in the OT.

The Old Testament, which Christians accept as the Word of God goes thus;

copied section <<<<<

I accept all the writings as God (yes Christ) given text.

1.The judgement on the nations driven out before the Israelites was ordained and due to their iniquities
2. 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

muslim100:
You should not accuse anybody killing apostates until you openly say "Jesus was wrong, violent, wicked and blood-thirsty when he commanded moses, Joshua and co to kill apostates". If not all Christians are just HYPOCRITES.

As above

Your text read the below - from here - https://sunnah.com/
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 ‏"‏ ‏.‏
Grade: Sahih (Darussalam)

muslim100:
The Quran strictly forbids the killing of innocents (5:32) and commands that there be "no compulsion in religion" (2:256). Jihad primarily means "struggle." Military Jihad is permitted only in self-defense or against oppression.

A one on one will be nice on this particular issue. Jijad is the most misunderstood or deliberately mistranslated term in Islam.

For a headstart the prophet Muhammad said "The best Jihad, is the Jihad of the soul" He also said "The best jihad is the word of truth in front of a tyrant leader"

Assertions, claims, lies and taqqiyya. islam considers all non-muslims as guilty! We know mohammeds change in approach as he went from weakness in mecca to authority and power in medina. We know the islamic tact of feigned humility and friendship whilst weak but domination, imposition and elimination when strong.

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".

muslim100:
History begs to disagrees. Many have killed in the name of Christ (e.g., the Crusades, the Inquisition). Here are 5 groups/instances often cited:
1. Lord’s Resistance Army (LRA): Led by Joseph Kony, seeking to establish a state based on the Ten Commandments.
2. The Ku Klux Klan (KKK): Historically justified their actions as "Christianity in action."
3. National Liberation Front of Tripura (NLFT): A militant group in India seeking a Christian state.
4. The Anti-balaka: Christian militias in the Central African Republic.
5. Army of God: An American underground network that uses violence to oppose abortion.
etc
6. The missionaries came to spread Christianity in Africa and the Americas. They killed millions and resolved to slave trade because they believed the bible didn't warn against it.

Also, absolute majority of all killings on earth in recorded history was by Christians. It doesn't matter wether they say "Jesus is great". What matters is that Christianity has brought more havoc in the world than all other religions combined.

As I showed you above, show me any Christian text that demands Christians kill unbelievers or apostates

muslim100:
The Bible was Aramaic - but we have it in GREEK today surprise 🫢 😲.

John 1:1 uses the word theos (God) in two different ways. The Word was with the God (ton theon), and the Word was a god/divine (theos). If the Word was with God, the Word cannot be the God he was with. Many scholars suggest "The Word" (Logos) is God’s plan or creative power personified, which later "became flesh" in the person of Jesus.

The greek term used for "the word is *god*" is theos, "theos" was used for God, Jesus, moses, kings and even paul in the bible and even Herold and satan.

Regarding paul, in Acts the islanders called him theos, even though they knew he was not the God in heaven. This strengthens the fact that "theos" doesn't mean "The God" - it can be God or a person of great essence and divine authority and that's all.

If we say all theos in the bible should be translated to "God", we'd have dozens of Gods in the Bible.

Another angle, linguistically and logically if the word was **with** God - Then the word cannot be the God it was with, it was surely a different god.
The term "with" makes them distinct.

Combining the linguistic angle and the meaning of theos we can 💯 come to a logical conclusion that the word was a theos but not the theos.




Yes, it is homage/honor (proskuneo) given to the King whom God has appointed. The word translated as worship from greek is not used exclusively for God. It is used as homage in many passages.

An addition, according to the Bible Adam is the firstborn of God it all makes sense with Qur'an 2:34 "God commanded the Angels to bow to Adam"

Bowing is worship according to the Bible and even in Islam.

Done for now and might have missed to answer few, I am tired writing.

I have answered your cunning attempts to insist on alternative (unjustifiably) translations or uses of words. I don't have to argue with you or convince you about that. Those futile attampts are to convince yourself, not me.


TV

Explore2xmore:
] If we’re going to judge Islam based on its later political decline, then we have to hold Christianity to the same standard. After all, over a thousand years of European theocracy led to inquisitions, witch hunts, slavery, religious wars, and a stifling of scientific progress, all until the enlightenment finally put a check on Christianity’s power. If decline is a disqualifier for Islam, then it’s Christianity that takes the first hit.

No strawman required - I am appraising islam based on it's outworking - it's fruits.

Explore2xmore:
When it comes to conquest, Christianity has a much darker record in forced conversions, the extermination of pagans in Europe, the Crusades, the obliteration of indigenous religions around the globe, and church-supported colonialism. These weren’t just isolated incidents they were widely accepted practices, all done in the name of Christ.

This is not a discussion about relative darkness. I am happy to defend Christianity if required. The question is "is islam a religion of peace?" No. Neither is it a religion of prosperity or progress, which I have severally demonstrrated.

Explore2xmore:
If we’re blaming Islam for modern extremists, t hen Christianity has to reckon with the KKK, the Lord’s Resistance Army, residential schools, apartheid theology, and centuries of racialized slavery that were justified right from the Bible. Picking and choosing moral standards isn’t ethics; it’s just propaganda.

There are Christians who commit atrocities under cover of the faith. However, the faith itself does not prescribe violence or killing for unbelievers or apostates. A person killing and claiming Christianity is falsified by the text. Whereas for islam, atrocities are permitted, sanctioned, commanded and celebrated.

Explore2xmore:
If Arabic liturgy is seen as parochial, then Christianity’s long history of mandatory Latin worship is a clear condemnation. If Islam is expected to name prophets for every tribe, then Christianity needs to explain why Jesus never set foot in Africa, Asia, or the Americas yet still claimed to have universal authority.

No one, nowhere, at any time has demanded a single language for Christian worship, under guise that it is demanded by God.

Islam is not expected to name prophets for every tribe, islam claims to have done so! To have sent prophets to every language group. A s many as124,000 according to some islamic sources - without evidence as usual.

Explore2xmore:
We either apply the same standards to Christianity or acknowledge that this critique isn’t about historical analysis, it’s about showing favoritism in theology.

Agreed. Ask away.


TV

muslim100:
The only thing I am replying to is "BULUS". The Qur'an never mentioned Paul/Saul/Bulus let alone call the scammer a prophet.
Infact, Muslim scholars have a consensus BULUS changed the teachings of Jesus.

I wonder where you get your false informations 🤔. Some even say 72 virgins in the Quran.

You didn't answer any single thing.

I am asking and begging, pls let us run a zoom/clubhouse call this weekend on "The trinity" or "Is Jesus God?".

Ok. I take the comment about Paul back it is not the main thrust of the conversation or a question you asked - I hereby retract it without prejudice. Now please answer the 99% remainder of the post. Thank you. Don't use that too run and avoid answering questions. Or introduce distractions like 72 virgins.

All questions can be asked and answered here.


TV

muslim100:
1. Philippians 2:6 Philippians 2:6 explicitly distinguishes Jesus from God, says he did not seize equality with God, and presents God as the one who later exalted and rewarded him.

That's Trinity bro'. Jesus is a distinct person in the form of God, who chose to humble Himself despite the fact He is equal with God.

muslim100:
A being who refuses equality with God, is exalted by God, and is given authority by God cannot logically be God himself. - I don't even understand the gymnastics Christians are pulling out of this verse that grammatically distinguishes Jesus from God.

Read it as you like, interpret it as you will. The meaning is clear. Jesus in the form of God is equal with God, but chose to humble himself. For which reason God exalts Him.

muslim100:
The Bible clearly says "God doesn't change", "God is not a man", "God is not the son of man". All these attributes are 200% Jesus's!

2. Colossians 2:9 - if something dwells in you, grammatically and logically you are distinct from that thing - you are not it. In addition, the greek word used here is translated to "Godhead" by translators to foool followers. Check the word and its true meaning, then come back with the verse.

Ephesians 3:19 clearly debunks the funny claim "and to know this love that surpasses knowledge—that you may be filled to the measure of all the fullness of God" - All believers are also filled with the fullness of God according to the same bible.

I think you are as God as Jesus

3. Hebrews 1:1-9
I love it that you started from verse 1. The verse in Hebrew are clearly hierarchical, God spoke to us by his prophets, he now spoke by his son.
It never says "God spoke as His son or by Himself in His sons essence".
Who speaks ? God
Who are the instruments ? Prophets, his son.
God —> prophets —>people
God —> son —> people
The remaining verses are clearly praising Jesus not as God but as someone revered by God.
It is not rocket science, How can I pray to God and you call me God, or God says I bless this my Servant, how can two different entities separated by pronouns be same entity!

If Jesus is God why does paul say God's fullness dwells in him and also god's fullness dwells in believers?
Why doesn't he just day "Jesus is God" instead of comparing Jesus to you?

I post the rest of Hebrews 1. Dribble all you please. God the Father clearly refers to The Lord Jesus Christ as God and as Lord.

The Son Superior to Angels

5 For to which of the angels did God ever say,

“You are my Son;
today I have become your Father”?

Or again,

“I will be his Father,
and he will be my Son”?

6 And again, when God brings his firstborn into the world, he says,

“Let all God’s angels worship him.”

7 In speaking of the angels he says,

“He makes his angels spirits,
and his servants flames of fire.”

8 But about the Son he says,

“Your throne, O God, will last for ever and ever;
a scepter of justice will be the scepter of your kingdom.
9 You have loved righteousness and hated wickedness;
therefore God, your God, has set you above your companions
by anointing you with the oil of joy.”[e]

10 He also says,

“In the beginning, Lord, you laid the foundations of the earth,
and the heavens are the work of your hands.
11 They will perish, but you remain;
they will all wear out like a garment.
12 You will roll them up like a robe;
like a garment they will be changed.
But you remain the same,
and your years will never end.”[f]

13 To which of the angels did God ever say,

“Sit at my right hand
until I make your enemies
a footstool for your feet”[g]?

14 Are not all angels ministering spirits sent to serve those who will inherit salvation?

muslim100:
Paul tried while wanting to make jesus god, but he did a bad job after all. Paul the self appointed prophet!

The koran causl Paul (Boulos) a prophet and has nothing bad to say about him - unless you can show otherwise. muslims started to hate on Paul when they say his Holy Ghost inspired writings falsified the koran. Sorry 0!

muslim100:
The Quranic manuscripts during the century of the prophet are 100% identical to what we have today. The earliest manuscript of the Bible are more thay a century from Jesus. No complete manuscripts were gotten until up to 3-4 centuries after Jesus. Historically, the Qur'an and Hadith stand the test of historical preservation than the Bible! Ask google.

You can only dissemble , make claims or lie. There have been a number of canonisation events of the koran. First, there was never agreemnt on how many chapters. Second the 3rd caliph - uthman - collated all the text, standardised and burnt the rest.

There were complete copies of the Torah from way back. The NT was complete while eye-witnesses were still alive. It's the earliest hadith that was compiled 200+ years after the death of mohammed, by someone who lived hundreds of miles away, who never met him or any of the sahaba. Hadith are all speculation, mostly written for political reasons.

muslim100:
Lies from the pit of hell!
Both geneologies from matthew and like start thus;
Luke "Jesus ... being the son of Joseph"
Matrhew "Jacob begat Joseph..."

Both are clearly of joseph. Also Jewish geneologies like Arab geneologies were always patrilineal never matrilineal. How can son-of, son-of, son-of be matrilineal? Nothing like daughter of even in your so called mary side geneology.

Why then did the two geneologies converge until they reach David then they diverge?

The explanation that they are two different geneologies came centuries later to protect scripture, nothing more.!

So this is a major contradiction in the Bible!

The geneology is written in the Hebrew form of the time. it doesn't have to conform to your imaginary requirement. There are 2 for soundness, all the way back to Adam. mohammeds genealogy from Adnan is supposed, there is no record no chain. which mohammed himself said no one could prove. It's the usual islamic backfill to cover gaps and to validate falsehood.

muslim100:
90% of all deaths through wars in the world were by Christians
British Empire, American, German, Belgian, french, Portuguese, Italian, Dutch etc
World war I, world war II - Hiroshima and Nagasaki were niked by Christians.
All deaths caused by muslims in the world throughout history is not upto 5% of what Christians have done (google, AI).
They raped your forefathers, killed enslaved them to sell to you the Christianity you are busy defending today.
Your usual replies "They didn't do it for Christianity" - Of course they did!
They brought Christianity while forcing it on your forefathers.
95% of deaths in African history through wars and genocides were by Christian missionaries.
King Leopold of Belgium na play?
10s of millions of bombs have been thrown by the US Christian regime, more than all others in the world combined!, not mentioning other Chrsitian regimes.
A person can boldly say that 70% of the millions of bombs used to kill in the world were by Christians.

Till date some of these countries still have UXOs, and are afraid to do anything with vast lands because of Christian killings.

Genocide upon genocide!

I can go on and on!

Please do so. The Christian scriptures do not charge it's adherents with killing unbelievers or those who do not bow the knee to Christianity. Further, anyone who kills and claims Christianity is lying. Also, post-Christian nations are not ruled by Christians. Even if they are historiclly Christian, they are secular.

Islam by contrast insists muslims follow the path of Jihad as a duty and an honour. Killing Christians, Jews, plytheists and other non-believers is holy writ to muslims and comes with virginal rewards abi ?

No one has ever killed anyone shouting "Jesus is Lord". Jesus died that we may have eternal life. islam demies you life if you don;t believe. Extreme opposites. Light & darkness. Truth & falsehod.

muslim100:
How does any of these verses show that
1. Jesus is God
2. Jesus is coeternal with God
3. Jesus is coequal to God

John 1: The Eternal Word - 1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was in the beginning with God. 3 All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made.

The same God referenced in Hebrews 1:10 above - I know the islamic darkness will not let you see. Jesus is God. God has revealed Himself in 3 persons.

muslim100:
These verses you cited use proskuneð, a word that means homage, not exclusive divine worship. The bible applies it to kings, prophets, angels, and even believers. None of these passages say Jesus is God; they show reverence toward God's appointed Messiah. The Bible consistently distinguishes Jesus from the one true God.

Hebrews 1:6 - 6 And again, when God brings his firstborn into the world, he says, “Let all God’s angels worship him. Is this homage too ?

muslim100:
Cannot be traced - yet prophets Muhammad's detractors, haters etc from his kin and other opponent families never even had the guts to say anything about his pure lineage. For 1400 years.

Please detail it here - all the way back to Abraham as claimed. Thank you.


TV

Explore2xmore:
It is unnecessary for Islam to have invented every discipline to challenge your assertion. Rather, a single, demonstrably unique and enduring contribution rooted in its intellectual tradition suffices. One such example stands out which is the systematic preservation, transmission, and integration of Greek, Persian, and Indian scientific knowledge into a unified, multilingual scholarly ecosystem.

Collecting, collating or aggregating is not the same as advancing or inventing. Plus, I have already credited islam with that much.

During a period of expansive conquest, before islam fully embedded, it made sense to take stock, keep inventory and let seemingly beneficial works continue. But firstly, little or none of that work would have been by native muslims (more likely busy with sword fights ). Secondly, as things settle and islam works its way through every aspect of society, such endeavours will cease - by design.

It's the regressive nature of islam. It can't help itself. Policing every aspect of womens lives is ore important than scientific advance. Quibbling over the age of consent, acquiring wives and sex slaves. Ablutions & ensuring the correct foot is used to entry lavatories, takes priority over technological advance. Ensuring all worship is for their god and done their way is lifes prime directive. Advance ke? Said life has to be lived based on rigid, unyielding immutable 7th century dictates. (which we all know were conveniently revealed by mohammeds alter-ego )

Explore2xmore:
Without this achievement, the later scientific synthesis in Europe would not have been possible. This is not to claim that Islam originated mathematics or medicine, but rather that it established the civilizational mechanisms that safeguarded and expanded these fields at a time when Europe had largely lost access to their foundational sources.

This is completely wrong. Firstly, Europe's advance was not due to or as a result of any knowledge or advances from islam by native muslims. Secondly, the knowledge and learning would have been passed on in other ways. The fact islam collated knowledge, does not mean they were the only possible conduit, or there were not other channels. And thirdly, things can be re-discovered, re-created or re-invented., As would have happened under an ethos that engendered systematic research and discovery (i.e. Christianity).

Explore2xmore:
The argument based on efficacy over 1400 years is flawed, as the rise and fall of civilizations are shaped by geopolitical forces, not theology alone. The historical trajectories of Rome, Byzantium, Christendom, and modern secular states all follow similar patterns. The current state of Afghanistan, for instance, reveals no more about the essence of Islam than the Inquisition does about Christianity or Hiroshima about modern science.

No. That's the best proof - the outworking. Christianity has eliminated pretty much all social pathologies. This is evident even in post-Christian nations. Sexual exploitation, slavery, child labour, inheritance, rights, freedoms and liberties. Social welfare. Islam cannot even solve for cousin marriage , something the most primitive tribes have dealt with.

islam not only fails to deal with social pathologies, it embeds them. It ensures they are entrenched. Slavery, abuse of women, sexual exploitation, discriminatory taxes, oppression of minorities, medieval and brutal punishments and cousin marriage ewww!

Explore2xmore:
Islam’s claim to universality does not require an ethnic prophet for every nation. The Qur’an itself acknowledges the existence of previous messengers, though not all are named (Qur’an 40:78). The use of Arabic as a liturgical language does not undermine Islam’s validity any more than Hebrew does for Judaism or Latin did for medieval Christianity.

No one said it did, that is islams own claim. And with most of islams claims, assertions, half-truths and outright lies, it cannot be proven, no recorded history. What were the names of the prophets sent to the tribes of Nigeria? As mohammed was sent to the arabic speaking people?

Eighty percent of muslims cannot read, understand or speak arabic. Why is the islamic god so parochial. What is wrong in worshipping the creator in Efik? Afterall, He created the tongue. There has never been a writ for Christianity to be mediated through onelanguage or ritualised based on a single culture. Muslims in 21st century Britain dress like 7th century arabs. Please.

Explore2xmore:
It is important to recognize that polemical statements are not evidence. Assertions such as no miracles, no name, or no power remain claims, not substantiated arguments. Repetition does not transform them into proof. If Islam were inherently incapable of fostering order, learning, or continuity, it would not have maintained coherent legal, educational, and administrative systems across continents for over a thousand years.

Conquest by sword and rule by power, but a failure to maintain, or build proves there is nothing at islams heart. Everywhere it has the rule, islam lags on all key metrics and ultimately fails,

Explore2xmore:
Robust disagreement is entirely legitimate however, dismissing a civilization without proportion, historical context, or consistent standards is not genuine analysis it is ideology.

Evidenced by outworking - which s visible to all.


TV

muslim100:
1. Jesus Christ called the father "God", he prayed to him, he even cried to him saying "My God, My God, Why have you forsaken me". "god" praying to "GOD". This is as clear as daylight for anyone that wants truth not blind followership.

Philippians 2:5 Let this mind be in you which was also in Christ Jesus, 6 who, being in the form of God, did not consider it robbery to be equal with God, 7 but made Himself of no reputation, taking the form of a bondservant, and coming in the likeness of men.

Colossians 2:9 For in Him dwells all the fullness of the Godhead bodily

Hebrew 1:1 God, who at various times and in various ways spoke in time past to the fathers by the prophets, 2 has in these last days spoken to us by His Son, whom He has appointed heir of all things, through whom also He made the worlds; 3 who being the brightness of His glory and the express image of His person, and upholding all things by the word of His power,

muslim100:
2. "Show me how the Qur'an was given to Allah to Jibreel" , show me how the bible was inspired by God directly to prophets. Funny how you use logic that Christianity isn't immune to.

Eye-witnesses for all biblical records. Who saw jibreel give mohammed a book or a recitation. No one. Witness is mohammed to mohammed for mohammed (from mohammed really - we know )

muslim100:
3. "The Qur'an has no external affirmarion"
Ask Google, ask AI. Between the Qur'an and bible which is more preserved as it was from its time or revelation.

Which non-muslim historical text confirms the koran or hadiths?

muslim100:
4. Muhammad didn't descend from Ishmael
I just dey laff, because omo!
History is your friend, just read!
Ancient Arabs were proud of kinship than any other thing. If fact was false the main enemies of Islam 1400 years ago would have scored points with it. But they couldn't deny the fact which is so clear.
I just remembered that two gospels couldn't even agree on the genealogy of Jesus. Two completely different genealogies while he doesn't have a father.

Two ways of accounting for ancestry. Patrilineal and Matrilineal. Muhammed goes back no further than Adnan. Anything further is wishful thinking.

muslim100:
5. North filled with Almajiri - makes islam false?
There are 2 billion+ muslims in the world with 50+ Muslim majority countries. Only Nigeria and maybe Niger have the Almajiri system. It is pure ignorance and foolishness to say "it is an Islamic thing".
Also 90% of Almajiris in Nigeria today are followers of sect known as the Tijjaniyya sect. Tijjani - founder of Tijjaniyya was born ~250 years ago, 1150 year after Prophet Muhammad.

Explain to yourself. Islam is regressive.

muslim100:
6. 2 billion+ muslims worldwide, ISIS, ISWAP, BH, Al-qaeda total population at most ~60,000 (confirm online).
If you meet 50 muslims on the way and ask them if they support any of these groups, 48 or 49 will objectively say "NO" (confirm with questionnaire).
Just 0.000015 of muslims - yet haters say all muslims are terrorists

I am very sure that more than 0.0009 percentage of Christians worldwide have commited adultery, check the stats of infidelity in marraiges worldwide. Does this mean all Christians are adulterers?

islam teaches terror, war and destruction - so potentially all adherents are terrorists, brigands

muslim100:
7. Also, all these groups were only founded when the US intervened, and the US have clearly admitted that they created ISIS.
The faces behind the terrorism are Christian leaders

Yes now. muslims have zero agency and no god. So Christians play them like puppets.

muslim100:
8.[b] All muslim countries that entered into war in the 20th - 21st century was 100% due to the US and their allies [/b]coming in the name of freedom to destabilize the countries.
Afghanistan, Yemen, Syria etc.
Saudi, Oman, Qatar, Kuwait, Bahrain, UAE, Indonesia, Egypt, Malaysia, Algeria, Brunei, Malaysia, Tunisia, Turkey, Azerbaijan, Uzbekistan, Jordan, Kazakhstan etc are all muslim countries.
Just a few countries out of ~50 muslim countries have displayed any form of what is called by the media as "Islmaic terrorism", yet "All muslims are terrorists".

Nigerian genocide - Islam
South Sudanese genocide - Islam
DR Congo genocide - Islam
Saudi-Yemen - Islam
Iran vs. Iraq - Islam
Pakistan vs,. Bangladesh - Islam

muslim100:
9. You said "show me", and yet you are running away from an explanation via zoom or even clubhouse.

You are dawah 001. Nothing new. You are just learning. Claiming perfect preservation for the koran.Please!

muslim100:
10. Jesus Christ - The son of man is a messenger and prophet of God - it is clesrly written in the Bible.
The Bible also says God is not a man or son of man.
Jesus is my prophet - I revere him! He is far from divine.

# Miracles ? Many prophets performed miracles - Moses, Elijah.
# Fatherless conception? How About Adam without any parents.
# Died and resurrected? Enoch didn't even taste death, he was taken alive, Melchizedek didn't have beginning or end of days.
# Raised the dead ? Elijah and Elisha both did.
Called the begotten son ? David is also the "begotten son" according to the bible.
Claimed divinity ? He never did.
He never accepted worship, how then is he GOD?

12 instances in The Gospel according to Matthew alone - some below. Leave bible, it's not for koranists !

Matthew 2:2 saying, “Where is He who has been born King of the Jews? For we have seen His star in the East and have come to worship Him.”
Matthew 8:2 And behold, a leper came and worshiped Him, saying, “Lord, if You are willing, You can make me clean.”
Matthew 14:33 Then those who were in the boat came and worshiped Him, saying, “Truly You are the Son of God.”
Matthew 15:9 And in vain they worship Me, Teaching as doctrines the commandments of men.’
Matthew 28:9 The Women Worship the Risen Lord And as they went to tell His disciples, behold, Jesus met them, saying, “Rejoice!” So they came and held Him by the feet and worshiped Him.

muslim100:
11. Funny assertion "Muhammad said no one should pass his genealogy past his grandfather"? Ignorance in display. Your pastor misinformed you.
You post replies with mobile data, atleast sesrch some stuff before you say anything.

mohammeds lineage cannot be reliably traced beyond one of if forebearers named Adnan. Adnans descent from "ishmael" is a claim. There is no evidence. As all islamic scholars know - despite many attempts to do so.

muslim100:
12. Finally, I don't know what to say. I don't have tome on myside to be typing for 30mins and more. If you can spare 1 hour 30mins (just a one timer) of your time lets meet on zoom. Writing long epistles here is exhausting.

You are not bringing anything I haven't heard before - countess times. If\\when you do, I may consider it.


TV

Explore2xmore:
Again you assert that Islam hinders humanity, and its scriptures lack substance, its followers are backward, and its influence is destructive. You ask for a single, concrete example,a real metric, that proves otherwise persistently rejecting all that had been earlier said?

Thank you sir ! Per the former, I couldn't have said it better myself. And, for the latter, I await your response - 1 concrete thing that islam has delivered that has advanced mankind technologically or improved society in a way no other faith or ideology has.

Explore2xmore:
When evaluating Islam’s influence, many immediately point to present-day challenges in some Muslim-majority countries such as corruption, poverty, or conflict. Yet, this approach is akin to judging the efficacy of medicine by observing those who refuse to take it. Historically, the Islamic world led humanity in learning, discovery, and civilization not through wealth or conquest, but through a sincere engagement with the Qur’an.

Not at all. All medicines are judged by their Efficacy over time - it is a data-driven metric. A full sequence of data-points over 1400 years clearly demonstrate that islam not only fails to bring progress, it actively regresses.

Explore2xmore:
The Qur’an inspired a transformative worldview, encouraging the pursuit of knowledge and reflection on the natural world as signs of the Creator. This vision led to the establishment of the world’s first hospitals, public libraries, and universities. It gave rise to algebra, optics, astronomy, chemistry, and the scientific method itself. Figures such as Ibn al-Haytham, al-Khwarizmi, al-Zahrawi, and Ibn Sina did not merely recite scripture; they embodied the Qur’anic imperative to observe, reflect, and seek knowledge. Their contributions laid the groundwork for modern science and medicine. Notably, Western historians have acknowledged that the Renaissance and Enlightenment would have been impossible without the transmission of knowledge from the Muslim world.

This is not embellishment. It's not airbrushing. It's not aggrandisement. It is not hyperbole. It is sheer fantasy. What you wrote up there is that islam laid the foundation for all the scientific and technological advances seen n the world today. Like really And then headed on back to the 7th century and let the rest of the (non-muslim) world take the glory and reap the benefits. Whilst even now, the islamic world struggles to deliver real progress based on what islam itself gave humankind? Come on!

You don't even hesitate to claim for islam all the advances that were present before islam made it's way out of the cave at hira?

Explore2xmore:
You request a single metric so consider the scientific method. The very foundation of modern progress was shaped by Muslim scholars acting on Islamic principles. If you are reading this on a device built upon advances in optics and mathematics, you are already benefiting from Islam’s enduring legacy.

No. Sorry, not sorry. islam is incapable of delivering anything other than 7th century Saudi Arabia or 21st century Afghanistan.

Explore2xmore:
To claim that the Qur’an is vacuous overlooks its profound and lasting influence. How could an empty text ignite a civilization or be memorized, word for word, by millions across fourteen centuries? No other book in human history has achieved such preservation or impact. The Qur’an addresses both reason and spirit, calling humanity to a higher awareness of purpose and existence. It is not a mere imitation of previous scriptures; it is the continuation and culmination of the same divine message, intended for all humanity.

The koran is base, leading men to full-on gorge on their foulest inclinations, sexual depravity, bloodlust and plunder. So profound the near 100% muslim nations such as Somalia remain an enduring mess?

Explore2xmore:
You suggest that if Muhammad peace be upon him were truly part of the Abrahamic tradition, his revelation should have been greater. In fact, it was. Earlier prophets were sent to specific peoples; Muhammad pbuh was sent to all peoples, in every language, for all times. As the Qur’an states: “We have not sent you except as a mercy to the worlds.” The greatness of this revelation lies not in novelty, but in its universality,its capacity to unite all nations under one God and one moral law.

1. No. Jesus was sent to the whole world. As evidenced by the great commission given to his apostles.
2. mohammed did not have a greater revelation of YAHWEH\YHWH\YHVH. mohammed had no personal or additional revelation at all. Just claim to a god he called "allah".
3. Every language? . Only arabic, the language of mohammed. Which is mandated for all islamic rituals, which 80% of muslims can't understand or read. The koran itself says messengers were sent to people in their own language. Who was the messenger to the Igbo? The Yoruba?? The Ijaw

Explore2xmore:
Regarding Waraqah ibn Nawfal, once again, he was a Christian scholar who recognized the divine nature of Muhammad pbuh's experience. However, Islam does not rest on his testimony. The Qur’an was revealed through the angel Jibril and Waraqah’s involvement was brief. Remove him from the narrative, and the core of Islam remains unchanged.

islamic continued recourse to waraqah highlights it's desperation. He was a random nobody.

Explore2xmore:
You mention Nigeria and Sharia, suggesting Islam has failed there. In reality, what you observe is not Islam failing, but individuals failing to uphold its principles. Sharia was never intended as a political tool or slogan; it is a moral and legal framework designed to protect life, intellect, family, property, and faith. When invoked without justice, compassion, or knowledge, its true purpose is betrayed. The Qur’an itself condemns hypocrisy more severely than disbelief. Your attention should be more on the governing individuals that sustain poor governance.

Nope. Islam is the marriage of state and religion. Not just moral, ehtical or legal. Whole of life - but it only delivers death.

Explore2xmore:
The assertion that Islam brings destruction wherever it goes is not supported by history. In Spain, Islam fostered centuries of peaceful coexistence among Muslims, Christians, and Jews. When Caliph Umar may Allah be pleased with him, entered Jerusalem, he refused to pray in a church to prevent future claims over it. In China and Southeast Asia, Islam spread through trade, honesty, and scholarship not warfare. The violence witnessed today stems not from Islam itself, but from its abandonment, much as every faith has suffered at the hands of those who misuse it for power.

Half-truths, claims and assertions
1. Spain was doing fine before islam and continued to prosper after it was rightfully expunged. Why do muslims still insist on calling it Andalusia? It's not theirs. islam breeds land-grabbers & colonisers.
2. How did he "enter" Jerusalem. Selling gala .
4. Then immediately following claiming islam spread to China and Southeast asia by trade How many Hindus, Sikhs, Buddhist and Jainist did islam slaughter - 10's of millions !

Explore2xmore:
It is true that many Muslim countries face significant challenges today. The Qur’an anticipated such decline, stating “Indeed, Allah will not change the condition of a people until they change what is in themselves.” The struggles of Muslims are not evidence of Islam’s weakness. Civilizations rise and fall; only truth endures.

Is islam not the perfect deen and mohammed not the perfect role model? Where is the islamic god in all this? No name, no revelation, no power, no miracles, no evidence.

Explore2xmore:
Despite global turmoil, Islam continues to grow not by force, but through conviction. Across the world, people are drawn to its simple, profound message; There is no god but Allah, and Muhammad pbuh is His messenger. Those disillusioned by materialism are rediscovering meaning in submission to their Creator.

islam forces you to stay and forces you to convert wherever it is able - at best dhimmitude awaits.

Explore2xmore:
If you see confusion among Muslims, your frustration is understandable. Yet, if you examine Islam itself, its scripture, ethics, legacy, and living spirit you will find a faith that uplifts both heart and mind, body and soul, in a way no empire or ideology has ever matched.

I have. And, it does not. islam's outworking is as designed. The utter chaos is not a defect, it's by design.

Explore2xmore:
“Say: The truth has come, and falsehood has vanished. Indeed, falsehood is bound to vanish.” (Qur’an 17:81)

The truth of Islam does not depend on imperfect followers; it endures and shines by its own light.

I will not cease to speak the truth about the falsehood of islam. No nation, no community, no people, no individual has ever demonstrated or exemplified any good coming out of islam, that was unique to islam or did not precede islam.


TV

Explore2xmore:
You're not really making a point here; you're just recycling old assumptions and pretending they're conclusions.

At all. I outline and detail the real-world impact of islam (and it's followers). On every conceivable metric, islam and islamic communities are laggards and an overall drag to humanity

Explore2xmore:
There's no biblical rule that says God has to use the same covenant name for every prophet that comes after. Even the Bible itself doesn’t stick to that. YHWH was revealed to Israel specifically for Israel; Abraham was aware of the same Creator long before that name was ever mentioned. Expecting a later, non-Israelite prophet to use an Israel-specific covenant name is more about nostalgia than actual scripture.

In my post above this, I spoke about the relevance of names in a scriptural context. The vacuity of the islamic scriptures and their total ability to grasp or transmit this exposes them as fraudulent and not of divine origin.

God's revelation of Himself through the Abrahamic lineage was unfolding. If anything, there should be a greater revelation to mohammed, if he was indeed rightfully part of that lineage and sent by The Almighty. There is no hiding place, no ruse - islam is false and that is evidenced in every which way one looks at it. Most especially when trying to claim continuation from earlier divine revelation and texts.

Explore2xmore:
Waraqah is just a distraction. Islam doesn’t hinge on his authority, lineage, or credibility. The Qur’an clearly states that revelation came through an angel (Qur’an 2:97; 26:193–194). If you were to remove Waraqah from the picture, Islamic doctrine would still stand strong. Treating him as the cornerstone of Islam only highlights the weakness of that argument.

It is defenders of islam who reference waraqah in trying to validate islam. I merely demonstrate that he has no provenance, no imprimatur, and hence, no standing.

Explore2xmore:
The assertion that Islam contributed nothing falls apart with a little historical knowledge. Algebra, experimental optics, clinical medicine, hospitals, universities, pharmacology, surgical tools, and astronomical tables all emerged from Islamic civilizations and directly influenced Europe’s Renaissance. Claiming they were conquered cultures doesn’t save that argument. Europe itself gained much of its Greek knowledge through Arabic channels. You can’t celebrate the Renaissance while ignoring the library that kept it alive.

One thing. Just one. Please!

Explore2xmore:
Counting Nobel Prizes is just rhetorical fluff, not a serious way to analyze civilizations. By that logic, you could label most of Africa, Asia, and Latin America as civilizational failures and this says more about the metric than the societies themselves. History isn’t a scorecard like a football game.

Please employ any metric of your choosing, and demonstrate any way islam engenders superior outcomes for it's communities or, has contributed anything to recent human advancement. One thing in either category. Come on man I'm bending over backwards here .

Explore2xmore:
And blaming Islam for the issues in Northern Nigeria while overlooking colonial borders, exploitative governance, military rule, and post-colonial economic turmoil isn’t insightful it’s just convenient.

You continue to testify against yourself. The factors mentioned were experience by all the Nigerian regions. Plus, the colonialists left the northern elite with the upper hand politically. Still their religion and god could not prosper them. Rather it's been one long downward spiral in mass illiteracy, governmental malfeasance, widespread lawlessness and wholesale sectarian slaughter. With sharia law 0! In fact exacerbated by that very sharia law.

Explore2xmore:
Bold claims need solid evidence. What’s being presented instead is certainty without foundation, noise without substance, and dismissal where a thoughtful explanation is needed.

Look around you. Look around the world. Where islam goes, terror, bloodshed and destruction follow. Where it embeds, it's backwardness, regression and darkness. Look at individual muslim countries, or aggregates for all nations across any indicator or data point. islamic countries always lag in their own right, and islamic communities drag on any countries they form a sizeable part of.

Evidence ke? It's a living real-time reality - globally.


TV

muslim100:
1. I do know that Allah the the God of Jesus Christ and Jesus Christ is a great prophet of Allah born without a father nothing more nothing less.

Nope. The Lord Jesus Christ called God His Father. The allah of the koran is not a father to anyone or anything. Further, Jesus as a name is a direct reference to The Name of god Almighty - Jesus - Jehoshua - "The Lord Our Saviour". Names matter .

All the names of the biblical prophets (and even the names of the kings and priests) make direct reference to YAHWEH and His attributes. Isaiah = "Yahweh is salvation". Jeremiah = "Yahweh will exalt". Ezekiel = "God strengthens".

Allah can never be the God or the name of the God of Jesus. It's in the name . What does mohammed or any of the multiple variations mean? Tie it to God Almighty. tie it to YAHWEH if you can. What does isa mean? It is not a direct transliteration of the name Jesus, nor does it have any direct reference to The Name revealed by The Everlasting God.

On that point alone, islam falls flat. A huge failure, a colossal scam. It's why it forbids curiosity and learning. It is rigid and controlling and can never engender advancement.

muslim100:
2. Allah is not a generic name, it is the name reserved for "The God" whether by Idolators or monotheists. An Arab idolator calls all other deities Ilah - God, but reserve Allah for who they believe to be the creator of all that exist.

It is not the revealed name of God. End of story. It is a generic term which can be used by any adherent of any faith or no faith.

muslim100:
3. Becoming the religion with the most adherents doesn't make Christianity the true religion, and nothing makes it so. 99% of logical debates with muslims always makes Islam look more coherent and logical compared to Christianity.

No one claimed numbers signify truth. It's muslims that are always prating about islam being the fastest growing religion. Show me one video where an knowledgeable Christian apologist lost a debate to a muslim equivalent. Islam is busted, With the advent of the internet, the gatekeeping has ceased. It's all out there. And it's a sorry tale, a sad story.

muslim100:
4. "Authenticity is pury subjective" - Philosophy here, just like "How do we really know what we have is knowledge", "Truth is subjective". These are philosophical arguments!
Applies to both Islam and Christianity in equal terms, so using it against Islam doesn't make Christianity immune to your claim.
1. The bible is "inspired" by God
2. The Qur'an and Hadith were passed in written and orally directly from the source

Show me how the koran was given by allah to jibreel and then to mohammed. In fact, just show how the koran muhammed received was captured by mohammed into a written form and transmitted unchanged through the centuries.

muslim100:
Which is more logically coherent to be logical?

The bible - prophetic and historically attested to by non-christians and objective observers. The koran has no external or objective affirmation.

muslim100:
5. This is surely ignorance - of the highest degree. The bible clearly says Ishmael is the son of Abraham. I don't know how a Christian doesn't even know it. The genealogy of Muhammad clearly links him to Abraham, even non muslims can't deny the fact.

What I now is that there is no record of mohammed descending from Ishamael - only claims. I also know that mohammed himself said no one should try and parse his geneology past his grandfather. Read your koran

muslim100:
6. I don't have to show you anything, you should ask Google for informations that are readily available. I used my time to prepare a prompt you should use on AI. You clearly did - and you are ashamed after searching and seeing for yourself the Muslim contributions to science.

Oga one thing! Just one thing. Please na .

muslim100:
7. Again, Is scientific discovery a prerequisite/(a proof) that a religion is true? I guess every sensible and logical human being will say "No".

It's proof that isalm is regressive and cannot advance humanity. And makes it adherents simple-minded and less intelligent than they were or should be.

muslim100:
8. For the record, Christians lose 99% of debates against Islam while stumbling and stuttering on easy questions on their theology.

Can't invent, can't create, can't disseminate can't debate - come to Christ and get wisdom. Get wisdom and come to Christ.

muslim100:
9. The Boko haram/Terrorism argument is flawed, also I cannot come to Christ while no two Christians can explain "Trinity" the same way without contradictory statements - never have I gotten 💯 same explanation of trinity from different Christians.

That's why the North is filled with almanjiri only good for reproducing the slawter and tear-or of the ROP founder.

muslim100:
If for example Christianity is true, and no 2 Christians have same understanding of trinity will God hold me accountable for not believing Jesus as God when he called him a prophet in the bible, and he also prayed to God in the bible, He also said he was ignorant of THE HOUR. I guess no - God is just.

Make up your own rules if you will The bible is clear to those who approach and read it with an open and humble heart. You read the bible to support the falsehood f islam and expect understanding and enlightenment. No you just entrench your darkness and ignorance.

muslim100:
10. If you are in for a zoom/meet debate anytime of your choice, I will be pleased.

I should meet you for a zoom call to discuss something I have seen falsified, debunked and ridiculed on every single point? Spare me. Happy to educate you right here.


TV

Explore2xmore:
The name “Allah” isn’t something new; it’s actually the Arabic word for God that was used long before Islam by various groups, including pagans, Jews, and Christians. Islam doesn’t claim to introduce a new name for the divine but rather aims to bring back the worship of the same Creator that Abraham knew.

I agree with your first sentence here. But not the second. The "same Creator that Abraham knew" revealed his personal name. Why does the same creator have only a generic name, not a revealed name according to the acclaimed "seal of all the prophets".

Exodus 3 - 13 Then Moses said to God, “Indeed, when I come to the children of Israel and say to them, ‘The God of your fathers has sent me to you,’ and they say to me, ‘What is His name?’ what shall I say to them?” 14 And God said to Moses, “I AM WHO I AM.” And He said, “Thus you shall say to the children of Israel, ‘I AM has sent me to you.’ ” 15 Moreover God said to Moses, “Thus you shall say to the children of Israel: ‘The Lord God of your fathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, has sent me to you. This is My name forever, and this is My memorial to all generations.’

Explore2xmore:
It’s also important to note that biblical prophets weren’t just from Israel as figures like Job, Melchizedek, and Balaam were outside the 12 tribes, showing that lineage isn’t a requirement for being a prophet. Waraqah, a literate Christian who understood biblical angelology, shouldn’t be dismissed without solid evidence; doing so is more about making a statement than presenting a real argument.

Non of these biblical characters were cited as prophets - or lineal to the tribes of Israel. waraqah should not only be dismissed, he is not admissable - what is his lineage, his provenance, his background, his imprimatur from the Most High? A total random - not mentioned before or after. What are waraqahs bona fides?

Explore2xmore:
When we look at Babylon, Greece, and Egypt, we see they had their own mathematics, but it was in the Islamic world that algebra was developed into a formal, abstract discipline. Simply preserving knowledge doesn’t account for the original contributions made. Yes, Persia was conquered, but that doesn’t explain the brilliance of thinkers like Ibn al-Haytham, al-Biruni, or al-Khwarizmi; it’s the intellectual frameworks that matter. Nobel statistics reflect modern geopolitics and access, not the truth of theology or the causes of history. To dismiss the entire intellectual legacy of a civilization as incapable by nature is more about rhetoric than genuine analysis.

One invention, one technological invention or scientific discovery attributable to a muslim in an islamic setting that has clearly advanced humankind. Sorry, islam can't. C'est impossible.

Islam can only lead to regression, not progression. This is readily apparent even in the Nigerian ecosystem. Islam is wholly attributable for the backwardness of the North. As I noted in my previous response in this thread. 15 million Jews have delivered more than 2 billion muslims in technological advancements using the Nobel prize as a metric.

Harping on about past glories - which are debateable at best - does not ameliorate the void in innovation, invention, creativity and advancement in the islamic world. Economies, 3rd tier, militaries, inefficient, dubious human rights and civil liberties, customary violence against women and girls and a host of other failings.

I forgot to add in my last post notes about islams failure to eradicate slavery, sex slavery, child sexual violations (euphemistically termed marriage), few rights and liberties due to it's totalitarian nature, repression of minorities. There is nothing good to come out of islam. And the more islam a community has the worse it becomes.


TV

oalandAgents2:
So your response to my statement that no evidence exists that supports the theory that Arabs took slaves, is to drop a link of an author who wrote a book about it that is also not backed by any hard evidence🙄

Please forgive me. Arabs never took slaves Nor is slavery, including sexual slavery, permitted in the islamic texts. And no, Saudia Arabia did not finally outlaw slavery as recently as 1962, under threat by the British. And no, slavery does not still exist in muslim majority countires - officially in Mauritania. And no the terms black and slave are not used interchangeably in some muslim majority countries and no....

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trans-Saharan_slave_trade

An excerpt - Estimates of the total number of black slaves moved from sub-Saharan Africa to the Arab world range from 6 to 10 million, and the trans-Saharan trade routes conveyed a significant number of this total, with one estimate tallying around 7.2 million black slaves crossing the Sahara from the mid-7th century until the 20th century when it was abolished.

No matter how young you are, the Arab slave-trade existed in the generation pre-ceeding yours - less than 65 years ago. And you claim there is no evidence? That it is a lie cooked up by Caucasian historians!! It qualifies more as current events than history. At worst "very recent history"

I never met anyone who tried to defend islam who could do so in good faith.

@oalandAgents2 - this is not for you to respond. It's for those reading who may be misled by your shamelessness.


TV

muslim100:
Omo, this one no know anything .

I do know that allah is no god. muhammed is no prophet sent by the Almighty God, and the koran is not divinely inspired, but a mixture of c&p, plagiarism, ancient fables and a lurid imagination.

muslim100:
Where do I even start!
1. Pagan Arabs worshipped Idols and believed that there is a greater God in heaven, they worshipped idols so the Idols could intercede for them. So yes, Allah is the term for "The God" in Arabic, this name isn't shared among any dieties.
Even pagan Arabs acknowledged it, but they were still idolators.

Yes, agreed. Both pre- and post-islamic arabs and others used the term allah to refer to a supreme being. It's a generic name, not the revealed name of the Almighty.

muslim100:
2. What rule necessitates that God must have a personal name?
While Allah is the name used solely for the god in heaven, all other semetic languages have that same root for the general name for God. I-L-H
In Aramaic it is Alaha/Elaha, in Hebrew it is El/Eloah/Elohim, in Arabic it is Allah - "The God".
This entity is always singled out as greater than all other "false deities".

Acknowledgement of a Supreme being - and even having a unique descriptor - does not mean your deity, religion, prophet or scriptures are true. And, there is no rule, but God chose to do so, which makes sense as it differentiates Him from all the other named gods such as molech, baal etc, and falsifies your islamic religion and it's claim to be a continuation of Judaism as the name is not carried through. Busted !!!

muslim100:
3. Isnad - An authentic hadith has more credibility than the bible - Abeg ask any AI model! A folklore doesn't have a chain of narration (isnad). The hadith is preserved just like the Qur'an which also has it's isnaad. The religion of Islam is the only religion that necessitates that its sources are credibly preserved.

"Authentic" is purely subjective and no one with understanding outside islam (and this includes well-read muslims) consider hadith compilations science-based. And I have to burst your bubble re koranic preservation - it is widely known and acknowledged that there have been a number of canonisation events. There wasn't even agreement as to what constitutes the koran at the first attempt. Let's nt go down the rabbit hole of "goats eating the verses containing stoning, or whether it shuld be 116, 114 or a 112 chapters. Koranic preservation was debunked a while back. Did you not get the dawah update memo .

muslim100:
4. Muhammad ﷺ is a descendant of kedar a son of Ishmael the son of Abraham. The bible says about Ishmael "I will make him into a great nation", the bible is referenced Ishmael's progeny as a blessed nation.
Forgetten Deuteronomy 18:18 "I will raise up a prophet like you from among thy brothers". - who are the brothers of Israelites? No doubt the Ishmaelites.

Reaching - although many believe it, there is no evidence that Ishmael is a descendant of Abraham. Are Arabs Hebrews?
ROPers are still citing Deuteronomy 18:18? Alfa, your are not on the latest narrative. Go for reset, updates or decommissioning .

muslim100:
So your inference is dead on arrival - Muhammad doesn't have to be "Israelite/(from the 12 tribes) to be a prophet. Jethro, job etc were not from the 12 tribes.

And they were not prophets.

muslim100:
Waraqa was a Christian uncle of Khadija who confirmed the prophecy of another prophet from the previous scriptures.

What was waraqa's provenance? Who sent him, who affirmed him? And no, waraqa did not "confirm the prophecy of another prophet from the previous scriptures" 1. Because there is no such prophecy and 2. Because he merely claimed the being mohammed encountered as jibreel. A defence of islam always requires lies.

muslim100:
5. Olodo!
The Islamic golden age is a joke to you? Try dey read, ignorance is not good.
What makes islam incapable of scientific inventions when infact they set the foundation?

Story! Show us one invention that transformed society or advanced humanity that emanated from the islamic world.

The best the so called islamic golden age did was aggregate knowledge already acquired. Translation, canons, libraries etc. But even that was mostly by scholars and intellects that had been conquered, not by native muslims. That didn't last long. As islam embeds, so does darkness, unenlightenment and ignorance. Boko Haram se?

muslim100:
6. Using your noble prize logic, Judaism is the true religion since 15 million has produced 1 in every 4 noble prize winners compared to 2.5 billion (~170x no. of jews) christians getting 65 - 70%.

In a sense, yes. Judaism was sent by Yahweh, The Everlasting God. And the Jews were blessed - quite evidently. The fact that the Jews have turned and\or misunderstood the prophecies does not make it it a false religion for it's time or the people it was sent too. Whereas, there is no prophetic, historical or achaeological validation of islam.

And the blessedness of Christianity is self-evident. It allows for scientific discovery, academic inquiry in the most rigorous fashion. All the major scientific and technological advancements that humanity enjoys emanate from Judo-Christian nations - even though many could rightly be considered post-Christian. Even Israel is largely Liberal. Yet no other religions or nations have done anything of note.

And islam has the biggest indictment in this regard. Even where individual muslims invent, create or make real credible breakthroughs, it's in a native JudeoChristian setting. mulsims, where is your god? You know,the one with no name, no miralces, nothing to attest him. Come to Christ.

muslim100:
7.

Cool yourself down - have some zam-zam water

muslim100:
8. Finally use this prompt on any AI model of your choice "Without any prejudices or biases, list the inventions made by muslims and how muslims contributed to scientific breakthroughs and knowledge in history. What extraordinary scientific developments have muslims ever made, also is there any field that has a muslim as its founding father/ a towering figure."

Answer my previous question please - One thing!

Nothing innovative, inventive or creative emanates from islam - by design! islams rigidity and lack of curiosity can only produce darkness. What you actually reference testifies against islam. Any advances or breakthroughs were by natives of lands conquered by muslims, not native muslims. And for a while, such scholarly work may have continued and progressed, and I credited islam with some of the early collations of scholarly works. But as islam embeds, and takes hold, darkness follows, as sure as night - forgive the pun - follows day.


May The Good Lord open your eyes.


TV

Explore2xmore:
The assertion that Allah is a pagan name is fundamentally mistaken. In fact, Allah is the ancient Semitic term for The God, and its usage predates Islam by centuries.

So you agree, allah is not a personal, revealed name. It's a "term"

Explore2xmore:
Arab Jews and Arab Christians referred to the God of Abraham as Allah long before the rise of Islam. Even today, the Arabic Bible uses Allah not as a generic label, but as the singular Creator. Christian Arabs continue to pray to Allah al-Ab, meaning God the Father. Just as Elohim existed before Christianity, Allah is rooted in a much older linguistic tradition. The antiquity of a word does not render it pagan simply because it was once misapplied by others.

So not the revealed personal name of the Creator?

Explore2xmore:
The claim that Allah is a god with no name reflects a misunderstanding of Semitic religious thought. In the Hebrew Bible, God is most often addressed by titles such as El, Elohim, and Adonai, rather than by the specific name YHWH. After the exile, Jewish tradition even avoided pronouncing the divine name altogether. Islam follows this longstanding Near Eastern pattern, emphasizing a transcendent God known through attributes rather than human-like naming conventions.

Ok then, what is the revealed or personal name of the islamic god

Explore2xmore:
The suggestion that Muhammad was a prophet with no provenance is contradicted by the historical record. Muhammad stands alone among the founders of major world religions in having his genealogy, community, teachings, conflicts, legal rulings, and public life documented by thousands of contemporaries. These accounts have been preserved through multiple independent chains of transmission (isnad). By comparison, no ancient figure including Jesus or Moses has left behind such extensive contemporaneous documentation.

Isnad? That is an islamic contrivance that essentially means folklore

What are mohammeds antecedents? Specifically his connection to the 12 tribes f Israel, from where YAHWEH' prophets emanated. Likewise the bona fides of Waraqua, who confirmed his cave encounter as a divinely ordered angelic encounter?

Explore2xmore:
When asked for achievements unique to the Islamic world, two examples stand out;
Al-Khwarizmi’s Algebra; the development of algebra (al-jabr) by Al-Khwarizmi did not originate from Greek, Persian, or Indian sources. It is a foundational mathematical system that underpins modern science and technology worldwide.

Algebraic notions was evident in ancient Babylon, through Egypt and Greece.. Let me be clear, islam is inherently incapable of scientific rigour, rational thinking and hence technological advancement.

There may have been periods during islamic expansionism that advancement were made in conquered nations, which would have been attributed to islam by default, but islamic thinking itself did not produce these advances.

Persia was not an islamic country, it was conquered by islam. I grant that there was a period of knowledge gathering and preservation in the islamic empire, but not anything new or innovative due to islam itself.

Fifteen million Jews have 25% of the Nobel peace prizes. The whole of islam has 2 and a bit - shared amongst 2 billion people. Enough said


TV

Explore2xmore:
The term “Allah” has been used as the proper name for the Creator by Arab Jews and Christians long before the advent of Islam, and it continues to appear in the Arabic Bible today. So, the argument that it refers to a different deity simply doesn’t hold up. The Bible often refers to prophets as servants/slaves of God, which means that Islam using the same term doesn’t imply the existence of a new God.

The same term for the generic word god. A term used to describe the pre-islamic pagan deities worshipped by the people of the time. Note, mohammeds father abduallah - slave of god - pre-dated islam. It is not the revealed or personal name of the creator of all things, The Everlasting God, Yahweh, The I AM that I AM.

A god with no name, a "prophet" with no provenance and scriptures with no historical proof.

Explore2xmore:
When Isaiah 48:16 is quoted, it’s important to recognize that it’s poetic language, not a doctrine suggesting multiple divine beings which is something that even Jewish scholars would agree on. While Christianity later developed the concept of God into multiple persons, Islam maintains the straightforward monotheism that Abraham and Moses practiced.

Not poetic. And even if it is, it's meaning is unmistakeably clear.

Explore2xmore:
Moreover, the notion that Islam has contributed nothing to the world is easily debunked by a millennium of scientific, medical, and intellectual advancements that even Western historians acknowledge.

I did not claim that islam has contributed nothing, but that it had not contributed anything uniquely positive. Point to one invention that came solely from muslims, from an islamic miliea. And show me one social pathology that islam has eliminated.


TV

Kemetian:
Before making claims, actually conduct the research first. DON'T throw up figures from your head.

Show us your research findings and figures.

You can use AI like everyone else.

I wasn't making a claim, I was asking that you repeat the exercise for the Arab\Islamic slave trade.

oalandAgents2:
In fact have not seen any concrete evidence that Africans were ever enslaved by Arabs. I am convinced that the so-called "Arab slave trade in Africa" is one big lie created by Caucasian historians.

Look well -


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoN2zoEPrk0


TV

Kemetian:
HERE IS THE WEST'S DEBT TO AFRICA ACCORDING TO AI

ITEMIZED.

SOURCE AI CHATGPT

..................

Here’s the same itemized framework that sums to $5,000 trillion (in rough, inflation-adjusted 2025 USD). Figures are rounded and intended as a reconstruction of the earlier illustrative calculation you asked for.

This is really good. Highly commendable.

Can we now run the same script for the Arab\Islamic or Trans-Saharan slave trade. It lasted more than 3 times as long and took millions of black Africans as slaves. More compensation for the castration that was routinely performed!

We talking 2 or 3 times what the West owes - at least! Please do the math and we can send a delegation to MBS. Gonna get us some oil money, some petrodollars. Yayy!

https://www.youtube.com/shorts/hcY7oOtfKzI

TV

Goodenoch:
Should be instructive for a few folk here.

Instructive? In what way and, for whom exactly?

Some indigenes are not happy with the idea of a foreign-born person of non-British descent holding political office in the UK. In most countries, and amongst most communities and peoples, that is the norm. The ease of gaining citizenship in the UK is way above what most other countries will afford you. Gainsay that if you can.

Check out the UAE - which is closer to this mans ethnicity and likely sectarian leanings. How about Saudi Arabia? Try public worship as a Christian there - you know, like muslims block the streets doing here. Name me one other country where a first generation immigrant has held high, let alone the highest office.

The Bangladeshis have taken over Tower Hamlets. Bringing their homeland politics with them - malfeasance, incompetence, sectarianism, nepotism. There are even Bangladeshi councillors from Tower Hamlet running for office "back home" in Bangladesh - running parallel with their tenures in the UK. Why is that ever ok? And why wouldn't it lead to questions about the loyalties of immigrants and if office should be open to them so soon? Do you know why Birmingham is the way it is?

I appreciate the prevailing ethos here. And by all means feel free to make your case. But being armed with the term "racist", an unyielding entitlement mentality and the victimhood cape, doesn't make one a Ninja or a cogent argument. Nothing stops you getting yours here, if you strive and make savvy - as many have pointed out.

Most and the worst so called "right-wing" out-workings are a response to what indigenes see as the deterioration of their culture and living standards, and perceived threats. to their continued way of life.

There will always be some extremism, but it is mostly a thing of the past here, and would ordinarily gain little traction - it is still strongly resisted by most indigenes. So smears like "All British, see all immigrants as beneath them" are made by ingrates and hypocrites - given you wouldn't say boo to marauding Fula who would take your head without breaking stride.

As people go, the British are amongst - if not pretty much - the most welcoming people and accommodating nations. I have lived, studied and worked on 3 continents - I know. Your own feet testify to that fact - there are 193 other countries you could have chosen to ply your trade - 194 if you learnt to say boo.



TV

deept:
Kemi critics what you say?

There are very few actual or objective critics of Kemi B on here. Most are simply outright haters and pretty much despise her.

Kem is certainly doing better - no gainsaying. by most estimates, she has been on fire since responding to the Rachel Reeves' budget. Comments on some of the clips have been almost universally positive. Even uproariously so. Even the vanishingly rare naysayers have sounded choked as they protest.

She may not have hit the ground running, but is certainly picking up steam, and many that were negative or lukewarm at best, are re-appraising her and her chances. The British love pluck.

Having said that, one swallow does not a summer make! This may not change her long-term outcome. The Labour party led by the gormless Kier Starmer, and with the painfully out-of-her depth Reeves as chancellor are literally punch drunk punching bags. Sitting ducks, with a chorus line of lightweights. If the Labour party were footballers, they'd be the kind "you go take enter camp".

There are still some in her party who will never quite warm to her and others who would politically off her at the slightest chance - and the right time for that is not yet - timing is everything. I still feel she took up the mantle too early and, by default has some of the "last 14-years" stink cling to her.

Then there is of course reform. Conservative MPs and party members are still defecting at pace and scale. They are are narrowing in on the things that are troubling the majority of people (this country is still 75%-odd ethnic\indigenous British).

If she can keep it up and drop some smoking hot policies, get the party to rally around her for the most part, then maybe, just maybe? Hopefully she's learnt to temper her utterances given the fallout from her ill-judged comments about Nigeria - unwise and unprofitable. even where I agree or share sentiments, being in her shoes I would have kept mum or, articulated much better.

Hope she is getting better advice. She is not any less than anyone on the UK political scene - I have little time for pretty much all of them. She is not a Statesman or even one in the making by any means - not just yet.


TV

Explore2xmore:
Be assured that Muslims absolutely acknowledge the God of Abraham, Moses, and Jesus. The name Allah isn’t a different deity; it’s simply the Arabic word for the same One God that you refer to as Yahweh. In fact, Arabic-speaking Christians have been using Allah for centuries without any issue.

Nope, the word allah is not a personal name, it's a generic word for god. Yahweh, The I Am that I Am, is a name revealed in both the Hebrew & Christian scriptures. Neither is there any connection or continuity between the Judeo-Christian scriptures and the koranic text.

And no again, the god of muhammed is not the god of the Hebrew or Christian scriptures. Is the god presented by muhammed a Father? Are followers of the god of muhammed not expressly named as slaves?

Explore2xmore:
When it comes to Isaiah 48:16, Christians often interpret it through a Trinitarian lens, but Jews who have preserved that text don’t see it as evidence of the Trinity. This highlights that interpretations can be more about theology than straightforward facts.

I didn't interpret it, neither did I translate it. As presented, it reads expressly and unambiguously. I only posted the one verse in response to the claim that there is not one OT verse. There are others, across both testaments, which present a compelling portrait as God presenting in a multi-faceted manner.

Explore2xmore:
When you say come to Christ, that reflects your faith perspective. Just as you extend an invitation to Christianity, Muslims invite others to embrace pure monotheism not out of animosity, but from a place of genuine belief.

I appreciate that may be the case and will not deny anyone's right to believe as they will and proselytise accordingly - as long as they do not compel or do any harm.

But hinging on "pure monotheism" is mans insistence on how God must be, not Gods clear revelation of Himself to man - and indeed, "The Lord our God is One"

Explore2xmore:
True belief is most powerful when it’s grounded in evidence and reason, rather than simply passed down through tradition.

Christianity is attested to prophetically, historically, archeologically and, most importantly in some respects, by it's practical outworking. The so called ROP produces anything but. And, the ROP has no recorded positive impact on humanity or, record of eliminating societal pathologies - only embedding and amplifying them.


TV

muslim100:
Christians always show their ignorance everywhere 😂😂 😂.

For the record - Arabs don't say Abdul, it doesn't have any meaning in Arabic, only non Arabs say Abdul.

Abdul is a meaningless word.
Abd is the Arabic word for slave or servant, and no Arab calls anyone Abd.

The names are as follows Abdullah, Abdurrahman, Abdurraheem, Abdulmalik etc. meaning servant of Allah, servant of the most merciful, servant of the most beneficent, servant of the true king. etc.

So it is pure ignorance to say "Arabs say Abdul" - they don't even know it exists.

Let me school you Abeg
Abd - Servant
Al - The
Rahman - The most beneficient

Joining them - Abd'AlRahman - AbdArrahman pronounced Abdurrahman together it becomes a posessive sentence. Servant of the most beneficent.

Abdul means - Servant the
Al'abd means - The servant

Thanks to me, your ignorance have been cleared on this matter.

All the above is inconsequential.

1. Your scriptures declare all men are slaves of allah
2. As you noted, Abd\Abdi or variations can be translated as slave or servant in context and socially black people are derogatorily referred to as slave by the Arab\Arabized world. Many bear the name Abdi.

Long-winded (and needless) "scholarizing" does not change that.


TV