NewStats: 3,265,365 , 8,186,525 topics. Date: Saturday, 14 June 2025 at 04:31 PM 6u5l5p

adolfHitler1934:
Rasheed you should be ash,amed of yourself.
Why you are trying to defend and spew this trash is because SW ranked highest in the whole of South. If it were to be the SE that have that SW figures I'm very sure your line of argument would have changed, and insult the SE people

Bigotry at its peak. I'm Hausa man by the way.

Out of school doesn't necessarily translate to poor and destitutes. The narrative about school being key to success is no longer sellable in the north

Yes it's true. it eventually dies with time

chinchum:
Why does the front page comments look phony? It is toi smooth and appears like paid actor comments or the same individual with multiple id commenting

I swear it's paid. We are in trouble in Nigeria. They think we are dumb. This is to confirm to you is a scam. The whole process is a scam. I know a guy that got 68 out of 70 from the CBT but wasn't picked.

The bast^rds have been silenced. Sowore always knows how to clickbait gullible Nigerians with his Sahara Reporters

Uncovering
@SaharaReporters
LIES;

Firstly — The individual in question, Aalia, is not Nigerian. She hails from Texas, USA, and embraced Islam after converting from Christianity in 2023.

Secondly — It is disheartening to observe certain media platforms in our country persistently disseminating misinformation and biased narratives. Such actions not only misinform the public but also undermine journalistic integrity.

Thirdly — Recent attempts to portray Zamfara, a state that operates under Shari’ah law, as a symbol of extremism are unfounded and misleading. These narratives aim to tarnish the image of Islam by targeting regions like Zamfara, but such efforts have already proven ineffective.

Lastly — In this digital age, where information is readily accessible, it is imperative for individuals to facts before forming opinions or making public comments. The spread of unverified information only serves to deepen misunderstandings and divisions.

Below is Aalia short video that I cropped from Youtube and here is a link to the full video
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qHGWJs8dSm4?si=i8zBOsgkpwetucas
Her Instagram page https://instagram.com/aaliaa_reeves?igsh=cDFjaWFpZW5laTg0
Also her VoyageLA interview https://voyagela.com/interview/conversations-with-aalia-reeves/

https://x.com/AM_Saleeeem/status/1924900813601964157

;DWerey

Magnificenttop:


Wow! Glory to God.
I somehow saw this thread just today and immediately I was tensed until I saw your reply and later noticed the thread was from last year. Great relief.

Thanks much. Your message above love is indeed inspiring.

ShinjaWWest:


Have U seen them?

Yes thank you. They have been rescued

SIRTee15:

Then same standard should be applied to the Quran. The perfect preservation of the Quran cannot be traced to the original source- Muhammed, but only to the Uthman caliphate. Prior to that there were different Quranic versions flying around and they don't always agree.


claiming Johannine comma bears any weight to trinity is laughable. The eastern churches were the vanguard and champions of Trinity, yet their bible versions don't have the Johannine comma. 90% of the bishops who voted for Trinity in the nicene council came from the eastern churches. In fact, there was no Johannine comma in any 4th century bible when the Trinity concept was established. Johannine comma appeared in the Latin biblical versions around the 6th century.


Preservation of the Quran up to Uthman is inconsequential and irrelevant, the Quran didn't originate from Uthman; whatever was achieved during his time means nothing. what matters is preservation of the Quran prior to Uthman. And we know the Quran wasn't preserved perfectly in anyway b4 Uthman codex was standardized.
Ibn masud and Ibn Ubay both had their own codex, where are they? Both disagreed with the Uthman codex and Ibn Masud deemed it a corrupted text. Ironically, these 2 were considered the best of reciters by Muhammed himself yet they rejected the Quran compiled under Uthman authority.
To make matters worse, Uthman ordered all textual variants of the Quran to be burnt except his own. That action alone is very disturbing because he had no authority to do so.

Bible compilation has always been decentralised right from the inception and there was never an attempt centralize its compilation at any point in history. variation will always arise due to human nature. That's a fact.
But the early church fathers were honest and transparent enough to acknowledge these variants even in the 2nd century and they talked about it. What they didn't do is burn or destroy any copy of the bible they didn't agree with. They let them be. That's intellectual honesty.
Imagine if King James had ordered all prior manuscript to be burnt after production of KJV or Father Jerome destroyed all copies of the bible after compiling the Latin vulgate, no one will know of any shorter ending of Mark or 1 John 5.7. Of course, it would have been easy for them to lie that the bible is preserved all the way to the apostles, but that would have been a very disingenuous act....exactly what Uthman did by burning previous Quranic text.

For example both the longer and shorter ending of Mark 16 was well known to early church Fathers in the 2nd century. The oldest copy of Mark 16 Epistula Apostolorum dated 120 AD has the longer ending. Both Justyn Martyr and Irenaeus quoted from the longer ending of Mark 16 in 150 and 180 AD respectivley.
Eusebius of Caesarea itted both versions of Mark 16 were read in early churches , and advised the congregation to use the shorter version for preaching, he never told them to destroy the longer version.


U are simply a victim of eurocentric world without even knowing.
Now some Christian sect in other regions of the world preserved their text and avoided interpolation, but u are telling me their own version of the bible is corrupt because the European churches allowed interpolation into their own version of the bible!!!!
Mr Man, the bible wasn't compiled by europeans neither do they have monopoly over it. WHAT YOU SHOULD SAY IS THE EUROPEAN VERSIONS OF THE BIBLE SOURCED FROM LATIN AND BYZANTINE TEXTS ARE FLAWED OR IS CORRUPT- ANYTHING BEYOND THAT IS A BIZZARE STATEMENT LACKING IN ANY FACTUAL EVIDENCE.

EVEN BIBLE SCHOLARS IT THE COPTIC, PESHITTA AND GE'EZ ARE WELL PRESERVED BIBLE VERSIONS.

When bible scholars in the 16-18th century in Europe decided to use ancient manuscript for translation, they noticed the discrepancy in the contemporary Latin and Byzantine biblical texts sourced from the LV and ancient greek texts; without any regard for bible versions in other regions, these european scholars came to the conclusion the bible is corrupt.
However by the 20th century, when thousands of non european bible manuscripts were discovered, it was obvious these interpolations wasn't uniform and the appropriate terminology is textual variance NOT corruption.

Finally I noticed u mentioned adulteress pericope as a corruption. No it's not. The age in John 7-8 is part of the gospel of Jesus Christ.
Early church fathers confirmed the adulteress pericope was part of the oral gospel and a historical tradition taught and ed down by the apostles to the church.
so kindly remove it as a corruption, its not.

You are mistaken qiraats as translations which is very much laughable, but I will excuse you being non Muslim. Let's disect this together please. Take your time to everything here.

The Quran’s preservation is anchored in both oral and written transmission. During the Prophet Muhammad’s lifetime (570–632 CE), the Quran was memorized in full by companions such as Zayd ibn Thabit and Abdullah ibn Mas'ud, and it was also written down on parchments, bones, and other materials. After the Prophet’s death, the first compilation was initiated by Abu Bakr around 633 CE following the Battle of Yamama.

This project, led by Zayd ibn Thabit, was supervised by senior companions and was later inherited by Caliph Umar and then Hafsa, the Prophet’s widow. Around 650 CE, Uthman standardized the Quran to prevent dialectal disputes and distributed the standardized copies to major cities. This process was not arbitrary—it was done by a committee that included those who had memorized and written the Quran during the Prophet’s lifetime.

The burning of variant texts was not a suppression of theological differences, but a unification of dialectal variations. Unlike the Bible, no variant Quranic manuscript has ever been discovered containing extra chapters or contradicting the theological core of the text. Manuscripts like the Sanaa palimpsest (dated between 650–705 CE by radiocarbon testing) match the Uthmanic text with only minor orthographic and non-theological differences.

In contrast, the Bible lacks any centralized, contemporaneous compilation effort. The four canonical Gospels were written between 65 and 100 CE—decades after Jesus—and none of the original autographs exist. The earliest nearly complete New Testament manuscripts, such as Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus, date to the 4th century (around 325–360 CE). Between the 2nd and 4th centuries, numerous manuscripts show wide variation. According to Dr. Bart Ehrman, there are over 400,000 textual variants among the existing Greek manuscripts—more variants than there are words in the New Testament. Many of these are minor, but some involve entire ages.

The long ending of Mark (Mark 16:9–20), for instance, is absent in the earliest and most reliable manuscripts like Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus. The pericope adulterae (John 7:53–8:11) is similarly absent in all early manuscripts before the 5th century and appears in varying locations, indicating it was a later insertion.

The Johannine Comma (1 John 5:7), which reads "For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one," does not appear in any Greek manuscript before the 14th century and only entered the Latin Vulgate in the 6th century. Erasmus initially omitted it from his 1516 and 1519 Greek New Testaments due to lack of manuscript evidence but was pressured to include it in his 1522 edition after being shown a single Greek manuscript, Codex Montfortianus, which was likely back-translated from Latin. This fabricated verse then shaped Trinitarian theology in Europe for centuries despite having no basis in early manuscripts.

Regarding non-European Biblical traditions, such as the Coptic, Syriac (Peshitta), and Ge'ez texts, it is true that they preserve certain readings not found in Western manuscripts. However, they also contain their own variants and were all translated from Greek originals that were themselves in flux. No ancient Christian tradition—Eastern or Western—possesses a manuscript lineage that traces directly and unaltered to the original writings of the apostles.

For example, the oldest Syriac manuscript of the Gospels (Curetonian Gospels) dates to the 5th century, long after the canonical texts were written. These versions reflect theological and textual decisions made long after the original teachings of Jesus.

The Quranic qira’at, or canonical readings, are another point of confusion. These are not textual variants in the same way as Biblical divergences. All qira’at are based on the same consonantal skeleton (rasm) and are transmitted with rigorous chains (isnad). They were codified by the 10th century, but the readings themselves trace back to companions of the Prophet and were orally transmitted and widely accepted within scholarly communities. Importantly, no qira’a introduces or omits verses, nor do they affect theology.

In contrast, the Bible contains hundreds of textual differences that do alter doctrine or narrative detail. For example, the resurrection appearances in Mark 16:9–20 are absent from the earliest manuscripts, yet they have been used to affirm the resurrection as historical fact. Some modern Bibles now include footnotes or brackets around these verses, but for centuries, these additions were read as authentic scripture. The same applies to the Johannine Comma and the adulteress story.

The idea that oral tradition validates such ages is not sustainable. No early church father before the 4th century mentions the pericope adulterae. It is absent in P66 and P75 (both dated c. 200 CE), Codex Vaticanus, and Codex Sinaiticus. When it finally appears, it does so in different places—sometimes in Luke—which shows it was floating and unanchored. That is the opposite of what would be expected from a divinely preserved text.

The notion that early Christians were "intellectually honest" because they didn’t destroy manuscripts doesn’t excuse the instability. Honesty in acknowledging variants does not resolve the chaos caused by centuries of uncontrolled copying, nor does it erase the doctrinal confusion resulting from it.

Islamic tradition acted decisively and within one generation to standardize and protect the Quranic text. The Bible, in contrast, was left to evolve regionally, leading to conflicting texts, theological insertions, and delayed recognition of errors. This is why modern biblical scholars—whether Christian or secular—do not claim the Bible has been perfectly preserved. Even the Nestle-Aland Greek New Testament, the standard academic edition, uses a critical apparatus to document thousands of variations.

Again, the Quran has a consistent, traceable textual history, with preservation mechanisms built into both oral and written traditions. The Bible, by contrast, suffers from extensive textual instability, late additions, and no continuous manuscript chain to the original texts. These are not simply "textual variants" but represent deep-rooted problems.

In all of this, it is important to clarify that we Muslims do accept the Bible—but not the Bible as it exists today. We believe that Allah revealed divine scriptures such as the Torah to Musa (Moses), the Zabur to Dawud (David), and the Injil to Isa (Jesus), peace be upon them all. However, the current Bible is not a single revealed book; it is a collection of writings composed over centuries by different authors—some of whom were kings, fishermen, priests, religious leaders, anonymous writers, and even councils of men who decided which texts to include or exclude.

Some were sincere believers, others were scribes, and in many cases, the exact identity of the authors is unknown. What we now have is a text shaped by translation, redaction, and political decisions—not the unaltered word of God.

We do not deny that divine guidance was once sent to previous nations. On the contrary, belief in those original revelations is a pillar of Islamic faith. But what remains of those scriptures today does not represent their pure, original forms. Only the Qur’an, revealed to the final Messenger Muhammad (Salallahu Alaihi Wasallam), has been preserved without alteration.

It came not through anonymous hands or political councils, but directly from Allah through the angel Jibril, memorized by the Prophet’s companions, and transmitted with an unbroken chain both orally and in writing. Allah Himself promised its protection: “Indeed, it is We who sent down the Qur’an, and indeed, We will be its guardian” (Surah Al-Hijr 15:9).

Therefore, while we respect the prophets and the scriptures they were given, we do not rely on the Bible of today as a source of divine law or belief. Only the Qur’an remains as the final, complete, and uncorrupted guidance for all of humanity, until the end of time.

.

SIRTee15:



U did not answer my question. Instead U dabbled into textual criticism and I'm not sure how knowledgeable U are in that regards.

If there's no uniform alteration of a age in all our ancient bible versions, then U can't say the bible is corrupt.
It only means there's textual variation in our ancient extant manuscripts. Which means some bible versions still held onto the preserved transmission of prior scriptures.

For example the Johannine comma 1 John 5.7 is not seen in any coptic, Syriac, Ge'ez, Armenian, Georgian bible- ancient or modern. It's not seen in the Ethiopian Garima gospel as well.
Thus, claiming the bible is corrupt because of presence of Johannine comma makes no sense because majority of our independent ancient bible versions don't have it.
Rather it's a textual variance seen in Latin Vulgate and subsequent translations that used LV as their source.

Textual variant is not a problem of the bible alone. Quran also has same issue. The discovery of Sana manuscript found in Yemen, the codex of Ibn Masud shows there were definitely textual variance in ancient Quranic versions and these versions don't always agree.

You accuse me of dabbling into textual criticism, but that’s precisely where the core issue lies. If we're evaluating whether the Bible has been preserved or altered, then we must look at the actual manuscripts—where we find undeniable inconsistencies, additions, and omissions that go far beyond simple “textual variation.”

You argue that because no single age is altered uniformly across all ancient versions, we can't call the Bible corrupt. But that logic is flawed. Corruption doesn't require universal uniformity. A single corrupted tradition—especially if it influences major translations and theology, like the Latin Vulgate or KJV—introduces error into the religious understanding of millions. The Johannine Comma, for instance, may not exist in early Eastern manuscripts, but it did make its way into Western canon and was used for centuries to justify the doctrine of the Trinity. That alone demonstrates how serious the impact of a single textual addition can be.

You also try to deflect by pointing to the Qur'an and the Sana'a manuscript. However, unlike the Bible, the Qur'an has a clearly documented and centralized process of canonization under Uthman, with variant readings (qira’at) preserved and classified—not hidden or quietly inserted over centuries like many biblical interpolations. The fact that different Bible versions disagree on whether certain ages are scripture (like Mark 16:9–20 or John 7:53–8:11) is not a minor issue—it’s a glaring sign that we are not dealing with a perfectly preserved revelation.

So no, this isn’t just “textual variation.” It is textual instability that undermines the claim of divine preservation. If God's word was meant to guide all people, shouldn’t it have been protected from such confusion?

SIRTee15:


To my understanding, paganism mean religions outside of the main ones and possibly could refer to animist religions.
.
I don't think traditionalists consider idols deity and most don't worship them.
They idols are mostly symbolic representation of the unseen deity but they are not deity themselves.

That's why I'm asking why those who kiss a stone for symbolic reason accuse traditionalist as idolaters?

Early versions of the Bible, including the Greek manuscripts, the Latin Vulgate, the Syriac Peshitta, the Coptic Bible, the Armenian Bible, and the Gothic Bible, do not align perfectly. In fact, some verses appear in certain versions but are entirely absent in others, while many others are worded differently or contain additions and omissions that affect their meaning. For instance, the long ending of Mark (Mark 16:9–20) and the story of the adulterous woman (John 7:53–8:11) are among the most notable examples of such textual discrepancies. These variations indicate not just simple copying mistakes but point to a deeper issue of alteration over time.

BrighterSyde:


I see. Now what about the fact that Muslims see their religion as more important than the constitution of any country they migrate to? Why do they always want to impose sharia law which Non-religious countries and Christian countries do not permit as it clashes or goes against their own constitution? Why should Muslims always do this when they are in the majority in any place? Why do they always force non-Muslims to be under sharia law once they are the majority in a place?

I believe I have responded to this in my earlier Write up but here is small explanation. it’s simply not true that all or even most Muslims try to impose Sharia law wherever they go.
There is a huge difference between Muslims wanting to personally follow Sharia (like praying five times a day, fasting during Ramadan, eating halal food) and forcing others to live under Sharia.

The vast majority of Muslims, especially in democratic societies like the U.S., U.K., Canada, and Europe, respect the constitution and laws of the country they live in.

In most Muslim-majority countries, even among Muslims, for enforcing full Sharia over everyone (Muslims and non-Muslims) is very mixed.

In Indonesia, only 49% making Sharia the law of the land — and even among them, they favor personal application, not forcing non-Muslims.
In places like Lebanon and Albania, for imposing Sharia is very low (below 30%).
Countries like Senegal, Morocco, and Turkey have secular constitutions and Muslims there secularism strongly.

Edipet:
not so, you guys are afraid not to find something that will make you change y mind or convert to Christianity. the difference version of the Bible are the same, just that, you choose it Base on your understand of English

Examples:
- 1 John 5:7 (the "Trinity verse" appears in the King James Version but is absent in many modern translations because it was found to be a later addition and not in the earliest Greek manuscripts.
- Mark 16:9-20 (the "Long Ending of Mark" is also missing or footnoted in modern translations because the earliest and most reliable manuscripts end at Mark 16:8.

These are not just about English understanding — they are about real textual differences that scholars, including Christian scholars, openly acknowledge.

In contrast, the Quran has one text in Arabic globally, unchanged for over 1400 years — and every translation is called just a "translation," not a "version."
So it's not fear that's the reason Muslims do not convert; it's faith, reason, and textual consistency that give many Muslims confidence in Islam.

BrighterSyde:


Final question. I must say you have answered very well so far and I have a better understanding.
Now my final question is this: it is known that of the total population of Muslims in the world about 15 to 20% are radicals. They are the ones who believe that Islam should be enforced on all populations and go as far as killing or beheading infidels as you people call others. As a Christian who do you think I should be wary of more? The 80% of Muslims who are peaceful or the 20% who are radicals considering the damage this 20% can do to the rest of the world. If you answer this honestly you will see why it is important that no nation that is not originally Islamic should allow Muslims he freedom to do whatever they want to do. You have clearly seen that these radical terrorists do not respect the laws of any nation.


Then on the side can I practice Christianity openly in Saudi Arabia or Afghanistan without being beheqded the way Muslims from these countries are allowed to practice Islam in Christian countries like England?
Again this will tell you why Islam is a danger to the world and why peace loving Muslims like you are insignificant even though you are the majority.

I would appreciate your answers.

Thanks much. However, the 20% figures given is wrong and you can please. In a 2013 survey across 39 countries, median 72% of Muslims said violence against civilians is never justified. In some countries like Indonesia (the largest Muslim population), rejection of violence was over 90%. That was then when terrorism was at its peak. Imagine today.

If 20% of 2 billion Muslims were truly violent extremists, that would mean 400 million radical terrorists — a figure completely out of touch with global reality. Intelligence agencies such as the CIA, FBI, and Interpol have consistently stated that the number of active jihadist militants worldwide is estimated to be between 100,000 to 200,000 — a fraction of 1% of the Muslim population, not 20%.

regarding your idea that because of a small dangerous minority the majority must be restricted: this logic is fundamentally unjust. Imagine applying the same standard elsewhere:

In the U.S., most mass shootings are committed by non-Muslims. Should all white males be treated as potential threats because of the actions of a few?

In Europe, right-wing extremism has surged (Europol reports show far-right attacks are now more common than jihadist attacks in places like ). Should all Christians or conservatives be collectively punished because of neo-Nazi groups?

Yes, Saudi Arabia and Afghanistan have a limited religious freedom. But it is also wrong to assume that Islam itself is the cause. Religious oppression is political and historical, not purely theological. Here are examples:

In countries like Senegal, Albania, Kosovo, Jordan, and even the UAE, Christians openly practice their faith, build churches, and celebrate without fear.
In Indonesia (the most populous Muslim country), Christmas is a national holiday, and churches are legal.


Brother, how could you say "peace-loving Muslims are insignificant" ??
It is peace-loving Muslims — scholars, activists, reformers, ordinary citizens — who:

Defeat terrorist groups (Muslims make up 80% of ISIS’s victims according to the U.S. State Department). Reform their societies. Promote interfaith dialogue globally.
Without them, terrorism would be far worse. Saying they are insignificant is like saying firefighters are insignificant because some fires still happen.

Your belief that Muslims inherently threaten world peace ignores hard facts, misrepresents statistics, and encourages collective punishment.
Instead, true security comes from ing the peaceful majority, strengthening freedom and rule of law, and refusing fear-based narratives that divide humanity. Please endeavour to approach Islam from objective view, do away with sentiments and prejudice.

Look at the UK today, there are many Muslim MPs. Churches are being converted to mosques, laws are accepting Muslims. That's people that read and do their research. Unfortunately the audience in Nigeria differ.

BrighterSyde:



I totally understand you brother and of course you are right. Their population is not because people are converting but because one man fathers and wives up to four women whereas Christian’s mostly stick to one man one wife.

Firebomber is lying to you. He's apparently biased and not being objective. He's talking from deep hatred which is against all i mentioned in my previous posts

According to a report by the Pew Research Center, about 77% of people raised Muslim remain Muslim into adulthood—a retention rate comparable to Christians at 75%. In the United States, nearly one in four Muslim adults (23%) are converts to Islam, which clearly indicates that people are willingly choosing to embrace the faith based on belief, not birthrate. Islam’s growth is therefore not just biological, but spiritual and ideological.

Pew’s data also shows that the global population of atheists, agnostics, and religiously und people is expected to decline by 2050, while Islam and Christianity will continue growing, based on trends in belief, not just demographics.

BrighterSyde:


I see. Now what about the fact that Muslims see their religion as more important than the constitution of any country they migrate to? Why do they always want to impose sharia law which Non-religious countries and Christian countries do not permit as it clashes or goes against their own constitution? Why should Muslims always do this when they are in the majority in any place? Why do they always force non-Muslims to be under sharia law once they are the majority in a place?

Please, this sweeping generalization that does not reflect the reality of Muslim communities worldwide. Islam is practiced by over 1.9 billion people from a wide range of cultures, nationalities, and political backgrounds. The vast majority of Muslims live peacefully within the legal and constitutional frameworks of their countries, including secular democracies like the United States, India, and Indonesia.

Also, your idea that Muslims “always want to impose Sharia law” in non-Muslim countries is a distortion of what Sharia actually is. Sharia is a broad ethical and moral framework that primarily governs personal behavior, such as prayer, fasting, charity, and family matters. It is not a singular or uniform legal code, and its interpretation varies widely across cultures and legal systems.

In many Muslim-majority countries, such as Turkey, Tunisia, and Senegal, Sharia is not implemented as state law, and these countries maintain secular governance. Muslims living in the West rarely seek to implement religious law on others and often actively participate in upholding the constitutions and legal systems of their host nations. Examples like Ilhan Omar, Rashida Thlaib both in US Congress.

Your assertion that Muslims force non-Muslims to live under Sharia law once they become the majority is a myth fueled by fear and misinformation. In Islam, coercion in matters of faith is explicitly forbidden. The Quran clearly states, “There is no compulsion in religion” (Quran 2:256), emphasizing freedom of belief and conscience. Where individuals or groups do attempt to impose religion by force, they are acting in contradiction to Islamic teachings and are often motivated by political or ideological agendas rather than genuine religious principles.


You will be surprise if you continue to research Islam.

Firebomber:


Stop showing your hypocrisy online Abdul 😂

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apostasy_in_Islam_by_country#:~:text=Prevailing%20Hanafi%20jurisprudence%2C%20per%20consensus,of%20apostasy%20and%20res%20Islam.


All the list you needed is above. 😂

And when did Nigeria become Islamic country that you listed?

Shameless hypocrite 😂

You keep going in circles. The rules exist but show me where people are killed in the listed countries? There are conditions fool

TenQ:

1. You forgot to tell our friend that Quran 9:5 had abrogated Qur'an 2:256
Quran 9:29
“Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His apostle nor acknowledge the religion of truth (even if they are) of the People of the Book until they pay the Jizya with willing submission and feel themselves subdued.”


2. Is the Qur'an or the Hadiths of your prophet for all times or just for the times of your prophet?

3. The Hadiths below show Muslims on the Offensive against others.

Mishkat al-Masabih 3929
Sulaiman b. Buraida told on his father’s authority that when God’s Messenger appointed a commander over an army or a detachment he instructed him to fear God himself and consider the welfare of the Muslims who were with him. He then said, “Go forth in God’s name in God’s path and fight with those who disbelieve in God. Go forth and do not be unfaithful regarding booty, or treacherous, or mutilate anyone, or kill a child. When you meet the polytheists who are your enemy summon them to three things, and accept whichever of them they are willing to agree to, and refrain from them. Then
1. summon them to Islam, and if they agree accept it from them and refrain from them.
2. Then summon them to leave their abodes and transfer to the abode of the Emigrants, and tell them that if they do so they will have the same rights and responsibilities as the Emigrants; but if they refuse to transfer from them tell them they will be like the desert Arabs who are Muslims, subject to God’s jurisdiction which applies to the believers, but will have no spoil or booty unless they strive with the Muslims.
3. If they refuse demand the jizya from them, and if they agree accept it from them and refrain from them; but if they refuse seek God’s help and fight with them.
When you invest a fortress and its people wish you to grant them the protection of God and His prophet, grant them neither but grant them your protection and that of your companions, for it is less serious to break your guarantee of protection and that of your companions than to break that of God and His Messenger. If you invest a fortress and its people offer to capitulate and have the matter referred to God’s jurisdiction, do not grant this, but let them capitulate and have the matter referred to your jurisdiction, for you do not know whether or not you will hit on God’s jurisdiction regarding them.”


Thanks

Thank you for raising these points. You're not alone in asking these questions—many sincere seekers and critics alike have wondered about these verses and hadiths. Let’s look at each point carefully and respond from within Islamic sources, using the Qur'an, hadith

The Claim of Abrogation: Does 9:5 Cancel 2:256?
One of the most misunderstood topics in Islamic theology is the claim that Qur’an 9:5—the so-called “Verse of the Sword”—abrogates peaceful verses like 2:256, which says, “There is no compulsion in religion.” While it is true that some scholars in the medieval period ed the idea of abrogation here, this view is not unanimous. Many of the most respected exegetes of the Qur’an, including Imam al-Tabari, Fakhr al-Din al-Razi, and modern scholars such as Muhammad Asad and Yusuf al-Qaradawi, have rejected this position. These scholars argue that verse 2:256 is a foundational principle of Islamic belief, affirming that genuine faith cannot be compelled.


Qur’an 9:29, which discusses fighting “those who do not believe in Allah,” must be read in the historical and situational context of conflict with the Byzantine Empire. It was revealed at a time when the Muslims were in a state of war, and surrounding empires posed a military threat. The verse is not a license to attack peaceful non-Muslims but a directive for dealing with hostile forces. The inclusion of “until they pay jizya” is a reference to a political agreement, not religious persecution. In return for jizya, non-Muslims were exempted from military service and guaranteed protection by the Muslim state. This was a common practice in empires of the time, and it is not unique to Islam.

The concept of jizya is often misunderstood. It is not a punishment or humiliation, but rather a tax that non-Muslims paid in Islamic states for public services and military exemption. Muslims paid zakat, which often amounted to more than the jizya. In practice, jizya was often lower than the taxes people paid to other governments, including the Byzantine and Sassanid empires. Non-Muslims under Islamic rule—particularly “People of the Book” like Jews and Christians—were permitted to practice their religion, govern their internal affairs, and live peacefully under Muslim protection. This was part of a pluralistic legal framework, not a campaign of forced conversion.

The hadith you cited from Mishkat al-Masabih outlines military conduct during the Prophet Muhammad’s time. However, even in this report, the Prophet’s instructions emphasize diplomacy and restraint: the commander is told first to invite the enemy to Islam, then to peaceful integration, and only to fight if these options are refused. Even then, there are strict ethical rules: no treachery, no harming civilians, no mutilation. This demonstrates that warfare in Islam is highly regulated and ethical, even by today’s standards of international law. These instructions were necessary for a time when warfare between empires was the norm and alliances constantly shifted. The Prophet’s approach was rooted in justice and pragmatism, not aggression or compulsion.


Yes, both the Qur’an and authentic hadith are relevant for all times, but they must be applied in the context in which they are revealed. Islamic law (Shari’ah) is built on principles that for changing circumstances, including war, peace, minority status, governance, and international relations. The overarching aim is always justice, as seen in Qur’an 16:90: “Indeed, Allah commands justice, kindness, and giving to relatives, and forbids immorality, bad conduct, and oppression.” Any interpretation of the Qur’an or hadith that justifies terrorism, forced conversions, or blind aggression violates this core ethic.


Despite being revealed in a context of conflict, the Qur’an constantly promotes peace when possible. Qur’an 8:61 says, “And if they incline to peace, then incline to it [also].” The Prophet Muhammad’s life shows us this clearly: in Medina, he signed treaties with Jews and pagans, upheld rights of religious minorities, and condemned acts of injustice. Even at the conquest of Mecca—when he had the upper hand—he forgave his former enemies and declared amnesty. If Islam were truly about conquest or forced belief, this would not have been the Prophet’s example.


Taken out of context, verses like 9:5 and 9:29 may seem to promote violence. But when read in the broader Qur’anic and Prophetic framework, it becomes clear that Islam’s message is one of justice, freedom of belief, and ethical governance. The Qur’an does not condone terrorism or forced conversion—it outright prohibits them. Like any tradition, Islam can be misinterpreted, but its core teachings, properly understood, reject the idea that faith can be spread by the sword.

Firebomber:


Sell that to those gullible people you are brainwashing with your hypocrisy.

You still don't answer my question.

Why did all your Islamic countries called for the death of anyone that dump your islam


Guess "Objective mind opens hearts to truth" doesn't apply here 😂

Hypocrite

I don't tolerate hearsays. Where? Saudi? Qatar? Dubai? Nigeria? Where?

Firebomber:


It seems you have issue with understanding, just to show your level of hypocrisy here 😂

So your Islamic countries that called for the death of anyone that dump your Islam are not following your Islam right? 😂 😂 Seriously you people are hilariously hypocrite.

We see alot of the so called new Muslim convert in west that was saying all kind of thrash about Christianity yet no one called for their death, infact you hypocrite are busy sharing the false information online and happily glorying your idol, yet no one called for anyone head 😂


Trust me, I know your Islam enough to know how hypocrite you people are.

there is no agenda or ulterior motive here you didn’t get my points just like you didn’t understand. Did your politics and religious spaces that you are trying to infer

[quote author=Kingson28 post=135118799][/quote]


history said the same dirty thing about Africa and Africans. Go and read history go and read books stop making assumptions based on propaganda.

BrighterSyde:


I intend to do just that as it seems to be the fastest growing religion. However can you explain to me what the Quran means by saying you people should fight and terrorize those who do not believe in allah until they are made to willingly pay jizra or what do you call it?

Thanks for honest question.

This verse was revealed during a specific time of war between the early Muslim community and the Byzantine Empire. It was not a blanket command to terrorize or harm non-Muslims. Rather, it referred to defensive military campaigns against empires threatening the Muslim state at the time.

Jizya was a tax paid by non-Muslims in the Islamic state in exchange for protection and exemption from military service. Muslims, on the other hand, had to pay zakat (a different form of tax) and were required to serve in the military.

“Let there be no compulsion in religion…” (Surah Al-Baqarah 2:256)
This verse makes it explicit that belief is a matter of free choice, not coercion. My brother, like many scriptures (including in the Bible), the Qur’an has verses that deal with war, especially because the early Muslim community faced persecution and war. But these are not blanket orders to fight unbelievers; they are tied to specific political or military contexts.

Firebomber:


I pray one day, those blindly attacking Christians and Christianity pick up genuine interest and study the religion and not depend on what their Islamic cleric use to brainwashed them.

When will all your Islamic countries remove death penalty for anyone that leave Islam?
Objective mind opens hearts to truth

it seems you don’t know your Bible because it’s also said the same thing there. However, Islam doesn’t punish people because they leave unless the creating malice and cordoning treason. That's the condition. so stop talking from assumptions, learn the Deen

Edipet:
Muslim too does not studies Christianity, they only pick some verses in the bible to make argument, recent i have been watching youtube channel to see how core Muslim in the middle east and Christian interact

it’s not that we don’t actually it is because the Quran contains comprehensive detail of the actual true events in the Bible. Now, if I am to choose to study Bible, I will be confused on which to go for considering you have multiple versions and each christian denominations are having their own.

VEHINTOLAR:


Don't even go there,man! What's there to sturdy in Islam; is it terrorism or bloody fanaticism? It is even very dangerous to sturdy Islam as one is certain to lose one's sense of humanity! Quran is a book that's full of violent verses and laughable contradictions. Believe it or not,I practiced Islam for well over forty years of my life - it's a fabricated religion that was designed to manipulate people's mind.

My dear man,I would advise you to "pick up genuine interest" and sturdy Christianity, especially the Bible. I actually don't preach religion but FAITH - genuine relationship with God. Having said that,how would I choose to follow Mohammed instead of Jesus Christ having read about the exploits of them both while on earth? I can't abandon love for violence; it doesn't make sense. Unfortunately, that's what I did for over forty years!

Jesus is love!

As dumb as you sound, you only prove my point. This is something ChatGPT can clarify for lazy, dumb like you.

I pray one day, those blindly attacking Muslims and Islam pick up genuine interest and study the religion as westerners do.

Objective mind opens hearts to truth

b3llo:
Most jobs are recycled internally quite true but the question is did your CV and cover letter meet the advertising requirements?

honestly speaking it does meet the requirements, sometimes even outweighs the requirements cuz I apply for lower positions too