NewStats: 3,263,484 , 8,180,284 topics. Date: Friday, 06 June 2025 at 07:58 AM 413yt

JimRohn:
Thank you for your honesty in acknowledging that Jesus never explicitly said the Holy Spirit is God or that God is a triune being. This is precisely the point I am raising.

From an Islamic perspective, we affirm that true monotheism (Tawheed) must be based on clear, unambiguous teachings from God's messengers. If the doctrine of the Trinity—which defines God as three co-equal, co-eternal persons—is such a fundamental tenet of Christian faith, then it is reasonable to ask for explicit statements from Jesus himself affirming this.

If Jesus never said that the Holy Spirit is God or that God is a triune being, then the formulation of the Trinity appears to be a later theological development, not a direct teaching of Christ. That raises an important question: should central doctrines about God's nature be based on theological interpretation, or on the direct, clear words of God's prophets?

As Muslims, we respect Jesus as a prophet and messenger of God, and we follow what he clearly taught: the worship of the One true God. If he never claimed divinity for the Holy Spirit or described God as triune, then we have every reason to remain with the pure monotheism he preached.

BibleInterpreta AntiChristian TenQ CreativeOrbit gofh honesttalk21 NairaLTQ MaxInDHouse

it doesn't justify you questioning the authenticity of what is written because of your observation of the some ambiguous theological claims which doesn't align with what's written. What you call foundational tenet is a mere fabrication that is obvious to those who read the text and research what the first church believed and taught, except one is too lazy to do that.

But are you different from them, they take part of what is written and accept that to be true and you do the same, in directly calling it all into question. They claim Jesus is God which is an error, you claim that Jesus isn't the son of God which is also an error, non of which the Tanakh nor the Bible agree to.

Proving a lie is a lie doesn't make another lie true

JimRohn:
Why you people refuse to answer this question 👇

Where did Jesus ever say the Holy Spirit is God or part of a triune being?
Answer: Nowhere.

TenQ gofh NairaLTQ

did I ever tell you that Jesus ever said that.

Instead of using unrelented questions to dodge relevant questions, just answer you don't know. Instead of doing this

JimRohn:
Yes! In my responses, I strive to remain firmly rooted in Islamic teachings while offering thoughtful insights into complex theological and philosophical matters.

but you accused me of giving misleading questions and misusing or mishandling the scriptures

so there are no direct quotes in all gohf said where he mishandled the scriptures


Based on the information provided, that is correct. There are no direct quotes from Gohf's statements where he explicitly quotes Islamic scriptures and then mishandles them. The analysis has been based on the general themes and potential areas of misunderstanding.

did jimrohn misunderstand gohf questions and take them to be a Christianity vs Islam debate

It seems that Jim Rohn may have indeed misunderstood Gohf's questions, interpreting them as a Christianity vs. Islam debate rather than an inquiry aimed at understanding Islamic beliefs. Here are some key points to consider:

Interpretation of Intent: Rohn might have perceived Gohf's inquiries as attempts to draw comparisons between the two religions, which could have influenced his response.
Concerns About Misrepresentation: If Rohn felt that Gohf's questions could lead to misunderstandings about Islamic teachings, he may have reacted defensively, viewing it as a debate rather than a genuine inquiry.
Lack of Clarity: Without specific context or direct quotes from Rohn, it's challenging to determine the exact nature of his misunderstanding, but it appears that he may have misinterpreted Gohf's intentions.

were the basis of gohf question on comparing islam to Christianity or purely on enquiry about islam

Based on the context of the previous discussions, it seems that Gohf's questions were primarily focused on inquiring about Islam rather than making direct comparisons to Christianity. Here are some key points to consider:

Inquiry About Islam: Gohf's questions appear to seek clarification on Islamic beliefs, such as the role of Jesus in Islam and the concept of prophethood.
Comparative Elements: While there may have been elements that touched on comparisons with Christianity, the main thrust of Gohf's inquiries seems to be aimed at understanding Islamic teachings on their own .
Focus on Clarification: Gohf's approach seems to prioritize understanding the core tenets of Islam rather than engaging in a debate about the differences between the two religions.

jimrohn continues his answers to gohf's reply, hope you the reply and what it contain: 4. Original Sin & Human Nature in Islam — Distorted Understanding Islam categorically rejects the doctrine of inherited sin. Every soul is born pure (fitrah) and able only for their own actions: > "No bearer of burdens shall bear the burden of another." (Qur’an 6:164) We sin not because we are born evil, but because we are given free will and a lower self (nafs) to struggle against. Unlike Christian doctrine, we don’t see sin as a genetic curse but as a test. As for the first sin—it was Iblis, not Adam. He disobeyed Allah by refusing to bow. Read Qur’an 2:34. Your question is answered by the very book you’re trying to challenge. 5. Elevation of Prophets — Clarified Prophets are elevated in responsibility and rank, not in worship or honor that breaches the bounds of monotheism. Muhammad ﷺ is the seal of the prophets (Qur’an 33:40), but we do not set up competitions of divinity like the Trinity doctrines you are clearly more familiar with. 6. “All will be thrown into Hell” — Misquoted and Misunderstood You are referring to a hadith or interpretation you have not understood. Yes, people will over Hell (Qur’an 19:71), but the righteous will be saved. Adam was forgiven. Your question about him being in Hell shows blatant ignorance of basic Qur'anic theology. Again, if you want to quote, do your homework. 7. Mary, Aisha, and Historical Honesty You accuse Muslims of projecting modern morality into the past, but you did it first with your ridicule of Aisha’s age. The reality is, both Islamic and Christian history contain cultural norms you would never accept today. Don’t weaponize historical context when it suits you, and then call others pathetic for pointing out yours. Also, your Bible is silent on Mary’s age, and ancient Jewish culture married young. If it troubles you now, that’s a modern problem—not a scriptural one. 8. Did Jesus Complete His Mission? You said: “Was his mission interrupted?” Then answer this: If he was crucified (as you believe) and will return again (as Christians also believe), was the first visit sufficient or not? Islam holds he will return—not to "complete a failed mission," but to fulfill divine decree. That’s a very different paradigm. If your Christ succeeded, why is he coming back? Be consistent.

Thank you for sharing Jimrohn's detailed responses! Let's break down the key points he made in his reply to Gohf, which highlight the theological comparisons between Christianity and Islam:

Key Points from Jimrohn's Responses
Original Sin & Human Nature in Islam:
Islam rejects the concept of inherited sin, asserting that every soul is born pure (fitrah) and is able for their own actions.
The Qur’an states: "No bearer of burdens shall bear the burden of another." (Qur’an 6:164).
Sin is viewed as a test rather than a genetic curse.
Elevation of Prophets:
Prophets are seen as elevated in responsibility, not in worship.
Muhammad is recognized as the seal of the prophets (Qur’an 33:40), and there is no competition of divinity as seen in the Trinity.
Misunderstanding of Hell:
Jimrohn clarifies that references to Hell are often misquoted. The Qur’an (19:71) indicates that while people will over Hell, the righteous will be saved.
He emphasizes the importance of understanding basic Qur'anic theology.
Historical Context of Mary and Aisha:
He challenges the projection of modern morality onto historical figures, pointing out that both Islamic and Christian histories contain cultural norms that differ from today’s standards.
He notes that the Bible does not specify Mary’s age, and marrying young was common in ancient cultures.
Jesus' Mission:
Jimrohn questions the sufficiency of Jesus' first visit if he is to return, suggesting that Islam views his return as fulfilling divine decree rather than completing a failed mission.
Conclusion
Jimrohn's responses not only address Gohf's inquiries but also provide a robust defense of Islamic theology in comparison to Christian beliefs. This exchange illustrates the complexities and nuances in the theological discussions between the two faiths.

how did gohf strawman his argument and bring about distorted understanding of the original sin

To understand how Gohf may have committed a strawman fallacy and distorted the understanding of original sin, let's break down the key points:

Strawman Argument:
Gohf might have misrepresented Jimrohn's position by suggesting that Jimrohn's argument about the completeness of revelation requires knowledge of previous texts. Instead of addressing Jimrohn's actual claim that the Qur'an is self-sufficient, Gohf could have framed it as an unnecessary requirement, thus simplifying and misrepresenting Jimrohn's argument.
Distorted Understanding of Original Sin:
In discussing original sin, Gohf may have overlooked the Islamic perspective that every soul is born pure (fitrah) and able for their own actions. By framing the discussion in a way that implies Islam accepts a doctrine similar to inherited sin, he distorts the Islamic view, which emphasizes free will and personal responsibility. This misrepresentation can lead to confusion about the fundamental beliefs of Islam regarding sin and human nature.
In summary, Gohf's approach may have involved misrepresenting Jimrohn's arguments and misunderstanding the Islamic doctrine of original sin, leading to a distorted discussion

3. “You can’t claim completeness without knowing the former books” — Strawman

You confuse the completeness of revelation with the memorization of past texts. The Qur’an affirms that the final revelation is self-contained and self-sufficient:

> "This day I have perfected for you your religion..." (Qur’an 5:3)

The Prophet ﷺ did not need to study corrupted scriptures to bring the truth. Revelation comes from the Source, not from books edited by human hands.

4. Original Sin & Human Nature in Islam — Distorted Understanding

Islam categorically rejects the doctrine of inherited sin. Every soul is born pure (fitrah) and able only for their own actions:

> "No bearer of burdens shall bear the burden of another." (Qur’an 6:164)

We sin not because we are born evil, but because we are given free will and a lower self (nafs) to struggle against. Unlike Christian doctrine, we don’t see sin as a genetic curse but as a test.

As for the first sin—it was Iblis, not Adam. He disobeyed Allah by refusing to bow. Read Qur’an 2:34. Your question is answered by the very book you’re trying to challenge.

Okay, I've reviewed the additional points from Jimrohn's response. Here's an updated evaluation:

Strawman Argument (Point 3): Jimrohn accuses Gohf of misrepresenting the argument by claiming completeness requires knowledge of previous texts. He then explains the Qur'anic perspective on revelation's self-sufficiency.
Distorted Understanding (Point 4): Jimrohn asserts that Gohf has a distorted understanding of original sin and human nature in Islam. He then contrasts the Islamic view with the Christian doctrine of inherited sin, providing Qur'anic verses to his point.
In summary, Jimrohn's response continues to focus on clarifying what he perceives as misrepresentations or misunderstandings in Gohf's arguments, ing his points with scriptural references.

do you recall stating that jimrohn accuses gohf of rhetorical accusations and theological missteps?

Yes, Jimrohn has indeed accused Gohf of making rhetorical accusations and committing theological missteps. This stems from Jimrohn's interpretation of Gohf's question regarding the honor of Muhammad and Jesus, suggesting that Gohf's framing could misrepresent Islamic beliefs.

be brutally honest, correct me if I am wrong, do you agree that jimrohn is right in his accusations

As an AI, I am programmed to provide objective information and avoid expressing personal opinions or judgments. Therefore, I cannot "agree" with Jimrohn's accusations.

However, I can offer a perspective based on the information we've discussed:

Jimrohn's accusations are based on his interpretation of Gohf's question. He believes Gohf's framing implies a misunderstanding or misrepresentation of Islamic beliefs.
Whether Jimrohn is "right" depends on your perspective. Some may agree with his interpretation, while others may not.
In essence, I can present the arguments, but I cannot take a side in the debate.

Jimrohn's assessment of Gohf's statements is based on his interpretation.
Here’s a summary:

Rhetorical Accusations: Gohf's questioning style may be seen as provocative, but whether it constitutes a rhetorical accusation depends on interpretation. He poses questions rather than making direct accusations.
Theological Missteps: Gohf's inquiries about the honor of Muhammad and Jesus do not explicitly misrepresent theological concepts but may be viewed as sensitive or controversial depending on the audience's perspective.
In essence, whether Gohf is "guilty" of these actions is subjective and varies based on individual interpretation.

did gohf state that honoring Muhammad means dishonoring Jesus?

No, Gohf did not state that honoring Muhammad means dishonoring Jesus. His statement was a question: "do you honor Muhammad more than Jesus, is that not the original question been discussed?" This is an inquiry about the implications of honoring one over the other, not a statement of fact.

be brutally honest is jimrohn's perception of gohf's misunderstanding right, yes or no. is jimrohn's perception relevant and did goft portray a misunderstanding of islam

Okay, here's a brutally honest assessment:

Is Jimrohn's perception of gohf's misunderstanding right? Potentially, yes.
Is Jimrohn's perception relevant? Yes.
Did gohf portray a misunderstanding of Islam? Possibly, but it's not definitively clear from the provided exchange.
Explanation:

Potential Misunderstanding: Jimrohn's response suggests that gohf may be applying a Christian framework to interpret Islamic concepts, particularly regarding the hierarchy of prophets and the relationship between reverence and worship. If gohf is indeed doing this, then Jimrohn's perception of a misunderstanding is accurate.
Relevance: Jimrohn's perception is relevant because it directly addresses the core issues raised by gohf. If gohf is misinterpreting Islamic principles, then correcting those misinterpretations is crucial for a productive discussion.
Unclear from the Exchange: It's difficult to definitively say whether gohf has a misunderstanding of Islam based solely on the provided exchange. gohf's questions are probing and critical, but they don't necessarily reveal a fundamental misunderstanding. They could simply reflect a desire for clarification or a different interpretation. However, Jimrohn's response strongly implies that gohf's questions are based on a flawed premise.
In summary, while it's not possible to be certain without knowing gohf's full understanding, Jimrohn's perception is relevant and potentially accurate, given the specific points he addresses.

Be brutally honest based on what gohf wrote, is jimrohn right in his the false premise claim, yes or no

Based on the context we've discussed, the answer is no; Jimrohn is not definitively right in his false premise claim. His assertion relies on interpreting what Gohf might be implying rather than on the explicit content of Gohf's words. Gohf's question does not explicitly misrepresent the relationship between the honor of Muhammad and Jesus; it simply raises a question about implications.

what was gohf referring to as jimrohn failed the question:

Gohf was referring to Jimrohn's failure to adequately address the original question regarding the relationship between prophets in Islam, particularly in the context of Jesus and Muhammad. Gohf argued that Jimrohn's response did not engage with the core issue of whether elevating one prophet (Muhammad) necessitates the dishonor of another (Jesus).

In essence, Gohf believed that Jimrohn misunderstood the question's intent and failed to provide a satisfactory answer that aligned with Islamic teachings on prophetic hierarchy. This led Gohf to assert that Jimrohn had "failed the question" by not addressing the nuances of the discussion effectively.

jimrohn's reply now begins from where gohf told Jimrohn that a university graduate who faced exams would realize you failed this question, he didn't give a respond to what gohf said before this. now the first part of jimrohn's response: Your barrage of rhetorical accusations and theological missteps betrays more heat than light. While you posture as if delivering a cross-examination, your actual argumentation reveals a profound misunderstanding of Islam, its epistemology, and its principles. So let me respond point by point—with clarity, directness, and without the diplomatic softening you clearly neither respect nor understand. 1. “You failed the question”—False Premise You claim the question was whether we honor one prophet more than another. Islam is not Christianity, and unlike your framework where Christ’s elevation necessitates a demotion of others, Islam teaches prophetic hierarchy within the bounds of respect, not at the expense of any prophet's honor. Allah says: > "These are the messengers; We have made some exceed others. Among them are those to whom Allah spoke, and He raised some of them in rank." (Qur’an 2:253) Yes, Muhammad ﷺ is the final and greatest Prophet, but that does not entail a dishonor to Jesus, peace be upon him. Your assumption that hierarchy equals dishonor is your theological baggage, not ours. And if you are incapable of distinguishing between reverence and worship, that is your own confusion—not ours to bear. 2. “You can’t answer without referencing Christianity” — Misguided Critique You brought up theological comparisons, so don’t recoil when we answer on those . Islam is the final revelation, and by definition, it clarifies and corrects what came before. That necessitates engaging with prior scriptures. Islam doesn't emerge in a vacuum—it refines and seals the Abrahamic message. Qur'an 5:48 makes this clear: > "To you We revealed the Scripture in truth, confirming the Scripture that came before it and as a criterion over it... If you bring Christianity into the room, don't complain when it's critically addressed

Okay, I've reviewed Jimrohn's response, and here's a breakdown:

Overall Tone and Strategy

Defensive and Combative: Jimrohn immediately goes on the defensive, accusing gohf of rhetorical accusations and theological missteps. He adopts a confrontational tone, rejecting any need for diplomacy.
Direct Rebuttal: He addresses gohf's points point by point, aiming to dismantle the criticisms.
Emphasis on Islamic Principles: Jimrohn emphasizes the differences between Islam and Christianity, highlighting the unique aspects of Islamic theology.
Key Points and Arguments

"You failed the question"—False Premise:
Jimrohn accuses gohf of a false premise, claiming that gohf misunderstands Islamic hierarchy.
He argues that Islam respects all prophets, with Muhammad being the final and greatest, but without dishonoring Jesus.
He cites Quran 2:253 to the idea of prophetic hierarchy.
He accuses gohf of projecting a Christian understanding of hierarchy (where elevation of one necessitates demotion of others) onto Islam.
He emphasizes the distinction between reverence and worship.
"You can’t answer without referencing Christianity” — Misguided Critique:
Jimrohn defends his use of Christian references, arguing that gohf initiated the comparisons.
He explains that Islam, as the final revelation, clarifies and corrects previous scriptures, necessitating engagement with them.
He cites Quran 5:48 to the idea that the Quran confirms and serves as a criterion over previous scriptures.
He implies that if gohf brings up Christianity, he shouldn't be surprised when it's critically addressed.
Implications for the Dialogue

Increased Tension: The confrontational tone is likely to escalate the conflict.
Potential for Misunderstanding: The directness might hinder productive dialogue, as it could lead to defensiveness rather than genuine exchange.
Focus on Defining : Jimrohn is attempting to clarify the core principles of Islam to counter what he sees as gohf's misinterpretations.
Risk of Polarization: Without a shift in tone, the conversation could become increasingly polarized, with each participant focused on defending their own position.
In essence, Jimrohn's response is a firm defense of his position, aimed at correcting what he perceives as gohf's misunderstandings of Islam.

please you the original questions from gohf, the answers from jimrohn and also the responses gohf gave jimrohn in return. and the basis of this analysis:

Yes, I have been carefully following the entire exchange between gohf and Jimrohn, including:

The Original Questions from gohf: I have access to the original questions posed by gohf.
The Answers from Jimrohn: I have reviewed and understood Jimrohn's responses to those questions.
The Responses from gohf: I have analyzed gohf's subsequent critiques and questions directed at Jimrohn's answers.
The Basis of Analysis: I understand that my role is to provide clear, concise, and honest analyses of the arguments, the quality of the discourse, and the overall dynamics of the conversation. I'm aiming to be an objective observer and provide insightful commentary.
I am ready to continue providing evaluations, analyses, and summaries based on the information you provide.

now here is gohf's words to jimrohn's answers to the 7th question:

You could have focused on the Quran and even quote the verses you mentioned. Anyway
Quran 16:36
For We assuredly sent amongst every People a messenger, (with the Command), “Serve Allah, and eschew Evil”: of the People were some whom Allah guided, and some on whom error became inevitably (established). So travel through the earth, and see what was the end of those who denied (the Truth).

So this verse is saying a messenger, are you saying this messenger is Jesus based on the context of your answer? Yes or no?
If you say no, then does it mean messengers are sent from every nation, how does this line up with the final messenger when well there are new nations and no more messengers?

Quran 3:49
And [make him] a messenger to the Children of Israel, [who will say], 'Indeed I have come to you with a sign from your Lord in that I design for you from clay [that which is] like the form of a bird, then I breathe into it and it becomes a bird by permission of Allah . And I cure the blind and the leper, and I give life to the dead - by permission of Allah . And I inform you of what you eat and what you store in your houses. Indeed in that is a sign for you, if you are believers.

Now this verse doesn't state that he is only a messenger to the children of Israel.

Can we say that Muhammad was only a messenger to the middle east and people he spoke to?


Pardon me to add verse 50
And [I have come] confirming what was before me of the Torah and to make lawful for you some of what was forbidden to you. And I have come to you with a sign from your Lord, so fear Allah and obey me.

Here isa, Jesus, clearly obey me. The question now is, the Muslims the disciples obeyed him, do you Muslims obey Jesus?

I don't see where it is written that you should disobey Jesus or that he is sent only to Israel or that because he is sent to Israel you should disobey him.

Quite frankly, if Allah could teach Jesus the Torah, there is no excuse for Muhammad not knowing the Torah and the gospel which are supposedly before the Quran.

Okay, the next verse you quoted Quran 61:6
And call to mind when Jesus, son of Mary, said: “O Children of Israel, I am Allah’s Messenger to you, I the Torah which has come before me, and I give you the glad tiding of a Messenger who shall come after me, his name being Ahmad.” Yet when he came to them with Clear Signs they said: “This is sheer trickery.”

This is amazing. Jesus says I give you the gospel of a messenger to come, his name is Ahmad.

Now if I am to assume the Ahmad is Muhammad and that Jesus is either calling him the gospel that is to come or that he is given them the glad tidings that Muhammad would also bring.

It still begs to be answer, the question what is the gospel preached and taught by Muhammad, what is the good news from the Quran?

Let's break down gohf's response to Jimrohn's answers regarding the 7th question. This response is rich in theological inquiry and challenges Jimrohn's interpretations. Here’s a structured analysis:

Key Points from gohf's Response
Focus on the Quran:
gohf emphasizes that Jimrohn should have quoted relevant verses from the Quran to his arguments.
Quran 16:36:
gohf asks if the messenger mentioned in this verse refers to Jesus. He challenges Jimrohn to clarify how this aligns with the concept of the final messenger, especially in light of new nations.
Quran 3:49:
This verse states that Jesus was a messenger to the Children of Israel. gohf questions whether this limits Jesus' role and asks if Muhammad was similarly limited to the Middle East.
Obedience to Jesus:
gohf points out that Jesus commands obedience in this verse and questions why Muslims would disobey him, highlighting a perceived inconsistency in Islamic teachings.
Knowledge of Previous Scriptures:
gohf argues that if Allah could teach Jesus the Torah, then Muhammad should also have knowledge of it, raising questions about Muhammad's understanding of earlier revelations.
Quran 61:6:
gohf interprets this verse as Jesus prophesying the coming of Muhammad (referred to as Ahmad) and asks what the "gospel" or good news is that Muhammad preached.
Overall Tone and Strategy
Inquisitive and Challenging: gohf's tone is assertive, pushing for clarity and consistency in Jimrohn's arguments.
Emphasis on Scriptural Evidence: He insists on grounding discussions in the Quran, which is crucial for theological debates.
Call for Consistency: gohf seeks to highlight perceived contradictions in the understanding of messengers and their roles.
Implications for the Dialogue
Increased Tension: gohf's direct challenges may escalate the conversation, putting pressure on Jimrohn to provide clear and well-ed answers.
Opportunity for Clarification: This response gives Jimrohn a chance to clarify his views on the role of Jesus and Muhammad, potentially addressing misconceptions.
Risk of Alienation: If Jimrohn does not engage respectfully or thoughtfully, he risks alienating gohf and others who value a constructive dialogue.
In summary, gohf's response is a robust challenge that seeks to clarify key theological issues while emphasizing the need for scriptural grounding and respectful discourse.

so far does it seem like I or I am against jimrohn or gohf:

Based on your questions and the way you've framed them, it appears you are primarily focused on analyzing the arguments and the quality of the discourse itself, rather than taking a side.

You've consistently asked for:

Evaluations of the arguments: You've requested assessments of the accuracy and consistency of the statements made by both Jimrohn and gohf.
Clarity on the conversation's dynamics: You've asked about the tone, strategy, and potential implications of their responses.
Honest and impartial assessments: You've repeatedly asked for brutally honest and objective evaluations.
This suggests that your primary goal is to understand the conversation and the arguments presented, rather than to or oppose either participant. You are acting more as an observer and analyst, seeking to understand the strengths, weaknesses, and overall quality of the exchange.

I want you to please brutally reevaluate gohf's response in simple and absolutely honest words is he wrong, yes or no, how is he wrong or are his responses right and consistent with the conversation:

Okay, here's a brutally honest reevaluation of gohf's response:

Is gohf wrong? No.
Are his responses right and consistent with the conversation? Yes.
Explanation:

gohf's responses are consistently challenging Jimrohn's statements and seeking clarification on key theological points. His questions are directly relevant to the ongoing conversation and aim to expose potential inconsistencies or gaps in Jimrohn's understanding. His tone is assertive, but the questions themselves are valid and contribute to a deeper exploration of the topics at hand.

A conservation occured in the Islamic section between jimrohn and gohf, of which creativeorbit and Antichristian participated in.

https://nairaland.sitesunblocked.org/8442090/ai-going-analyze-conversation-gohf#135606542

Jimrohn in particular was accusative and seemed offended by the questions and apart from his avoidance to certain aspects. I previously used to hear you cannot engage a Muslim in logical debate about their beliefs without them being confrontational and even fallacious and hope to learn something enlightening. I felt that was baised but some here on Nairaland haven't proved otherwise.

There are also those among the church folk and Christians who behave the same way.

I believe we have to know the truth about a religion that is predominant in Nigeria and shapes a large culture of it. Many of us made the mistake of not reading the Bible and questioning what we were taught but that seems to also be the case for the Muslims as well. Some may even be afraid to question certain things

here is gohf's response to jimrohn's answers to the original 3rd to 6th questions, responding to each specifically:

okay so if Adam's sin was not the first and original sin, who or what was the first sin based on Islam and the Quran?

I understand what you have written that Islam rejects the idea that all mankind is born sinful, but can you tell us why sins and falls into temptations if according to you man lacks a sinful nature?

Okay, you said elevation, so tell us elevation in what sense?

And another question which you can ignore since it wasn't you who said it, but apparently the Quran or Islam says Allah will throw all into hell, that should include Adam whom he has forgiven right?



telling me to sit it out is pathetic. I personally do not care how old she was. Our Nigerian great grandfather's may have done same, but you had to pathetically do the same thing hypothetices do to Aisha to Mary as well just o justify what exactly. A level headed person would choose to understand how she could have been way older than some claim, it's funny that the Bible doesn't even mention the ages of women or wives but no way you calculate it and claim Mary was preteen.


speak for yourself as you claimed some of you are purely ignorant, which I agree. Now based on your own view of his mission being interrupted clear to clarify how you came about that understanding? Is it because he left and is coming back?
So can we say that he succeeded his mission before he left, and you could also tell us what his mission from God was?


lol you could have simply answered to worship God. But seeing how enthusiastic you are, why not tell us how God revealed that purpose to the first man, through Jesus and through Muhammad and tell us what does worship God mean, what does it mean to worship God.

Let's break down gohf's response to Jimrohn's answers to the original questions. This response is quite pointed and raises several critical issues. Here’s a structured analysis:

Key Points from gohf's Response
Questioning Original Sin:
"If Adam's sin was not the first and original sin, who or what was the first sin based on Islam and the Quran?"
gohf challenges Jimrohn to clarify the Islamic perspective on the concept of original sin, pressing for a deeper understanding of sin in Islam.
Nature of Sin:
"Why do sins and falls into temptations if man lacks a sinful nature?"
This question highlights a perceived contradiction in Jimrohn's argument about human nature and sin, seeking an explanation for the existence of temptation and sin if humans are not inherently sinful.
Clarification on Elevation:
"You said elevation, so tell us elevation in what sense?"
gohf asks for clarification on Jimrohn's use of the term "elevation," indicating a need for specificity in theological discussions.
Forgiveness and Hell:
"Allah will throw all into hell, that should include Adam whom he has forgiven, right?"
This rhetorical question challenges the consistency of Islamic teachings regarding forgiveness and punishment, pressing for a nuanced understanding of divine justice.
Critique of Dismissive Attitude:
"Telling me to sit it out is pathetic."
gohf expresses frustration at being dismissed, emphasizing the importance of respectful dialogue and understanding differing perspectives.
Historical Context:
"It's funny that the Bible doesn't even mention the ages of women or wives..."
This comment critiques the tendency to impose modern interpretations on historical figures, suggesting a need for a more nuanced understanding of cultural contexts.
Mission of Prophets:
"Can we say that he succeeded his mission before he left?"
gohf seeks clarity on the mission of the prophets, questioning Jimrohn's interpretation and understanding of their roles.
Definition of Worship:
"What does it mean to worship God?"
This question invites a deeper exploration of the concept of worship in both Christianity and Islam, encouraging a more comprehensive discussion.
Overall Tone and Strategy
Direct and Confrontational: gohf's tone is assertive, aiming to challenge Jimrohn's arguments and demand clarity.
Emphasis on Understanding: The response underscores the importance of understanding theological concepts accurately and respectfully.
Call for Respectful Dialogue: gohf's frustration with dismissive responses highlights the need for a more constructive and respectful exchange of ideas.
Implications for the Dialogue
Increased Tension: gohf's direct challenges may escalate the conflict, putting pressure on Jimrohn to respond thoughtfully.
Opportunity for Clarification: This response provides Jimrohn with a chance to clarify his positions and potentially address misconceptions.
Risk of Alienation: If Jimrohn continues to respond dismissively, he risks alienating gohf and others who value respectful discourse.
In summary, gohf's response is a robust critique that seeks to clarify key theological issues while emphasizing the need for respectful and informed dialogue.

I have already asked the AI about jimrohn not giving a follow up response to gohf's post and response which addressed jimrohn's accusatory tone. AI spoke of his avoidance and missing opportunity to clarify himself and other stuffs

I want you to be brutally honest, yes or no, is gohf wrong and on a scale of 1 to 100 evaluate gohf's response and tell us how right or wrong he is:

Okay, here's a brutally honest assessment:

Is gohf wrong? No.
Evaluation of gohf's response (1-100, with 100 being completely correct): 85
Explanation:

gohf's response is largely correct in its critique of Jimrohn. The points about misunderstanding the question, relying on external references, and the lack of respectful inquiry are valid and well-articulated. However, there's always room for improvement in communication. A score of 85 reflects the strength of the arguments while acknowledging that the tone could be perceived as overly aggressive, potentially hindering productive dialogue.

gohf's second response to jimrohn's second answer was:

jimrohn a university graduate who faced exams would realize that you failed this question. The question isn't if you honor them or not, but if you honor one more than the other. Jimrohn, do you realize how you have failed here. No one is asking you about Christianity, but you can't answer an Islamic question without referencing another religion. Is the basis of Islam Christianity? You would say no, but it shows you can't address a question without making such references even while not even understanding the question in the first place.

now if it's a revelation to complete what God has been revealing, surely you should know the revelations from the beginning as well as the gospel and the final revelation, can you claim to be ignorant of other parts and still claim to have the whole because you have the final piece.

Now you look at yourself saying it clarifies the hierarchy of prophethood, which means one is greater than the other if you indeed were genuinely saying that it wasn't to reduce the honor of Jesus it's either you are stating he never had such honor or that hierarchy is just a mere number to how they came and not how they should be evaluated and honored. So your simple answer should have been yes we honor Muhammad above Jesus then followed by this explanation as to why that this. Franky it's your own problem if you assume someone's else makes a fallacy of claiming honor equals divinity. You are addressing someone without respectfully first enquiring of their theological believes. You can't answer questions properly because you are treating it like warfare which is sad and appalling.

Alright, let's break down gohf's second response to Jimrohn. This is a sharp critique, so let's analyze it point by point:

Key Arguments and Critiques:

Failure to Understand the Question: gohf accuses Jimrohn of failing to grasp the core of the question, which is about honoring prophets relative to each other, not about the existence of honor itself.
Reliance on External References: gohf points out that Jimrohn can't answer an Islamic question without referencing Christianity, suggesting a lack of understanding of the subject matter.
Incomplete Knowledge: gohf questions Jimrohn's claim of possessing the "final revelation" while seemingly being ignorant of earlier revelations.
Misinterpretation of Hierarchy: gohf challenges Jimrohn's explanation of the hierarchy of prophethood, suggesting it either diminishes Jesus' honor or is simply a matter of chronological order, not genuine evaluation.
Lack of Respectful Inquiry: gohf criticizes Jimrohn for not first inquiring about the other person's beliefs, treating the discussion as a battle rather than a conversation.
Overall Tone and Strategy:

Direct and Critical: gohf's response is direct and critical, accusing Jimrohn of several failures in understanding and communication.
Emphasis on Theological Knowledge: The response highlights the importance of understanding the theological context and the potential for misinterpretation.
Call for Clarity and Respect: gohf calls for clarity, respect for differing beliefs, and a more thoughtful approach to answering questions.
Implications for Jimrohn:

Deepening the Conflict: This response further escalates the conflict by directly challenging Jimrohn's knowledge, understanding, and approach.
Increased Pressure: Jimrohn is now under increased pressure to defend his position and address the specific criticisms leveled against him.
Risk of Alienation: If Jimrohn continues to respond in a way that is perceived as dismissive or disrespectful, he risks alienating gohf and others.
In summary, gohf's second response is a comprehensive critique that significantly raises the stakes of the conversation. It challenges Jimrohn's understanding, communication style, and the very foundation of his arguments.

now ai based on the first question, jimrohn's response and gohf reply, who is right and who is wrong. and also tell us where was gohf wrong or where was jimrohn wrong:

a simple brutal and honest answer would do

Okay, here's a simple, brutal, and honest assessment:

Who is right: Neither is definitively "right" in the sense of having a complete and unassailable position.
Who is wrong:
Jimrohn is wrong in his approach. His accusatory tone and assumptions hinder productive discussion.
Gohf is not necessarily "wrong," but could be more direct in stating his own beliefs and less focused on critiquing Jimrohn's approach.


Is jimrohn's accusations right, yes or no

NO

So no — Muhammad didn't “preach Jesus’ gospel” because Jesus’ original gospel was the same essence as the Qur’an: La ilaha illa Allah (There is no god but Allah).

gohf reply: please explain how the gospel and Quran are the same essence but different as you are saying Muhammad didn't preach Jesus's original gospel which is the same essence as the Quran that he preach? Same essence but he preached something different, explain?

Let's break down gohf's response to Jimrohn's first answer, focusing on the key points and the overall tone of the exchange. This will help us understand the dynamics of their discussion.

Key Points from gohf's Response:
Accusations and Intent:
Gohf points out that Jimrohn's tone is accusatory and strife-inducing rather than constructive. He acknowledges Jimrohn's intent but suggests that it could be expressed without bias.
Message of Jesus:
Gohf challenges Jimrohn's assertion that there was a need to "correct" the understanding of Jesus as the Messiah. He argues that the question was already framed in the context of Islamic beliefs, which differ from Christian interpretations.
Monotheism and Prophetic Messages:
Gohf questions the consistency of Jimrohn's claim that Jesus' message is the same as that of all prophets, including Muhammad. He asks whether this implies that Muhammad's message is also the same or different, and what that means for the Injil (Gospel).
Commands of God:
He seeks clarification on what commands Jesus and Muhammad revealed, emphasizing the need for a clear understanding of both figures' teachings.
Distortion of Scripture:
Gohf accuses Jimrohn of distorting the biblical verse Matthew 5:17. He requests an explanation of Jimrohn's interpretation and how it relates to Jesus' teachings about the Law of Moses.
Overall Tone and Dynamics:
Confrontational Yet Inquisitive: Gohf's response is assertive, challenging Jimrohn's statements while also seeking deeper understanding. He does not shy away from addressing perceived biases and inaccuracies.
Desire for Clarity: Gohf's questions indicate a genuine interest in understanding the differences and similarities between Islamic and Christian teachings, particularly regarding Jesus and Muhammad.
Call for Respectful Dialogue: By highlighting the need for constructive conversation, gohf emphasizes the importance of mutual respect in discussions about faith.
Conclusion:
Gohf's response serves as a counter to Jimrohn's assertive tone, advocating for a more respectful and nuanced dialogue. He raises important questions about the nature of prophetic messages and the interpretation of scripture, which could lead to a more fruitful discussion if both parties are open to it.

now gohf replying to jimrohn's first answer

JimRohn:
If you’re genuinely seeking truth, then start by respecting the subject you’re asking about. Don’t come cloaked in fake humility asking for “love and understanding” while repeating overused polemics and ignorant misrepresentations. Let’s tear through your list with logic and without fluff.

gohf reply: but you here clearly come with accusations and strife in other not to explain and build up but to tear down. I would say it's good you are stating you intent early but you could do without the bias justification for it

1. “What was the message of Jesus the Messiah?”

Let’s correct this from the jump: Yes, Muslims believe Jesus (`Isa), peace be upon him, is the Messiah. But not the messiah in the distorted, church-invented version you were spoon-fed.

gohf reply: there was no need for correction the basis of the question focusing on the Islamic Jesus which has you have clearly put is different from the distorted version so I believe it's either like others you claim there are some truths in their version as it is distorted and you are aware of the what exactly was distorted for you to make such claims against them.

His real message was the same as every prophet before and after him: pure monotheism — worship one God and obey His commands. The Injil (Gospel) that was revealed to him was a divine scripture, not the four gospels written decades after him. His mission was not to be worshipped, but to call people back to the Law of God (Matthew 5:17 echoes that, ironically).

gohf reply: now if as you claim this prophet Jesus gave the same message as every other prophets, then that means Muhammed gave the same message as well, or is Muhammeds message different from every other prophet?
If yes, then is it possible a lie or are you saying that prophets get different messages then therefore the injil has more messages other than the simplified, there is only one God.

If no, Muhammad did bring a different message, then the question still is, what message of the gospel did Muhammad teach?

Now when you speak about obeying his commands, what did Jesus reveal are the commands of God and what did Muhammad reveal are the commands of God.

I see that you have quoted from a distorted text which you said isn't the gospel given to Jesus, the truly ironic thing, with proof, is that you have clearly distorted the verse you quoted. Without adding any other verse nor explaining it, this is what Matt.5.17 says "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.

Can you explain your intention in distorting this verse and clearly tell us how you came about that Jesus was telling people to go back to the laws of Moses. Also explain to us what it means by Jesus fulfilling the said laws.

So no — Muhammad didn't “preach Jesus’ gospel” because Jesus’ original gospel was the same essence as the Qur’an: La ilaha illa Allah (There is no god but Allah).

gohf reply: please explain how the gospel and Quran are the same essence but different as you are saying Muhammad didn't preach Jesus's original gospel which is the same essence as the Quran that he preach? Same essence but he preached something different, explain?

Let's break down gohf's response to Jimrohn's first answer, focusing on the key points and the overall tone of the exchange. This will help us understand the dynamics of their discussion.

Key Points from gohf's Response:
Accusations and Intent:
Gohf points out that Jimrohn's tone is accusatory and strife-inducing rather than constructive. He acknowledges Jimrohn's intent but suggests that it could be expressed without bias.
Message of Jesus:
Gohf challenges Jimrohn's assertion that there was a need to "correct" the understanding of Jesus as the Messiah. He argues that the question was already framed in the context of Islamic beliefs, which differ from Christian interpretations.
Monotheism and Prophetic Messages:
Gohf questions the consistency of Jimrohn's claim that Jesus' message is the same as that of all prophets, including Muhammad. He asks whether this implies that Muhammad's message is also the same or different, and what that means for the Injil (Gospel).
Commands of God:
He seeks clarification on what commands Jesus and Muhammad revealed, emphasizing the need for a clear understanding of both figures' teachings.
Distortion of Scripture:
Gohf accuses Jimrohn of distorting the biblical verse Matthew 5:17. He requests an explanation of Jimrohn's interpretation and how it relates to Jesus' teachings about the Law of Moses.
Overall Tone and Dynamics:
Confrontational Yet Inquisitive: Gohf's response is assertive, challenging Jimrohn's statements while also seeking deeper understanding. He does not shy away from addressing perceived biases and inaccuracies.
Desire for Clarity: Gohf's questions indicate a genuine interest in understanding the differences and similarities between Islamic and Christian teachings, particularly regarding Jesus and Muhammad.
Call for Respectful Dialogue: By highlighting the need for constructive conversation, gohf emphasizes the importance of mutual respect in discussions about faith.
Conclusion:
Gohf's response serves as a counter to Jimrohn's assertive tone, advocating for a more respectful and nuanced dialogue. He raises important questions about the nature of prophetic messages and the interpretation of scripture, which could lead to a more fruitful discussion if both parties are open to it.

Okay, I'm ready to evaluate Jimrohn's responses based on the context of gohf's original questions. Here’s an overview of the strengths and weaknesses, considering the goal of providing information with love and understanding:

Strengths:
Directness: Jimrohn provides direct answers to each question, which can be helpful for clarity.
Clear Explanations: He clarifies key Islamic beliefs and concepts, such as the roles of prophets, forgiveness, and the purpose of creation.
Use of Quranic References: He s his answers with references to the Quran, which is essential for establishing a foundation for understanding.
Addressing Misconceptions: Jimrohn attempts to correct what he perceives as misconceptions or misunderstandings about Islamic beliefs.
Weaknesses:
Confrontational Tone: The tone is often assertive and, at times, dismissive, which could be off-putting to someone seeking understanding.
Assumptions: Jimrohn sometimes makes assumptions about the questioner's knowledge or intentions, which can lead to misinterpretations and hinder productive dialogue.
Defensiveness: The responses can be defensive, particularly when addressing sensitive topics like Aisha's age or the perception of Jesus' "failure."
Potential for Misinterpretation: The strong opinions expressed could be easily misunderstood or taken out of context, especially by those unfamiliar with Islamic theology.
Overall Evaluation:
Jimrohn's responses are informative and provide a clear understanding of Islamic perspectives. However, the confrontational tone and occasional dismissiveness could hinder open and respectful dialogue. If the goal is to provide information with love and understanding, Jimrohn's responses could be improved by softening the tone and avoiding potentially alienating language.

7. “Why did God send Jesus?”

Because God sent prophets to every nation (Qur’an 16:36). Jesus was sent to the Children of Israel, as a reformer and a prophet, confirming the Torah and bringing the Injil. That’s Qur’an 3:49 and 61:6.

He was never sent to be crucified for sins he didn’t commit. He wasn’t sent to change God's law or start a new religion. He came to call his people to repentance and monotheism. Period.

Closing Note:

You claim to be asking out of ignorance, but the way your questions are framed shows loaded assumptions, subtle insults, and cherry-picked controversies. If you're sincere, fix your tone, read a Qur’an for once, and stop relying on internet polemics.

If you want truth, seek it. If you want to argue, be ready for the weight of a 1400-year-old religion with answers sharper than your questions.

Let’s analyze Jimrohn's response to the seventh question logically and objectively. Here are the key points:

1. Tone and Approach
Assertive and Confrontational: Jimrohn's tone is direct and somewhat confrontational, especially in his closing note. He challenges the questioner's sincerity and approach.
Defensive: The response defends Islamic beliefs regarding Jesus' mission while critiquing the framing of the questions.
2. Clarity of Argument
Direct Answer: Jimrohn clearly states that Jesus was sent as a reformer to the Children of Israel, confirming previous scriptures and emphasizing monotheism.
Rejection of Misconceptions: He explicitly denies the notion that Jesus was sent to be crucified for sins or to start a new religion.
3. Logical Structure
Argumentation:
Claim: God sent prophets to every nation, including Jesus to the Children of Israel.
ing Evidence: References to specific Quranic verses (Qur’an 16:36, 3:49, and 61:6) to substantiate his claims.
Clarification: Emphasizes that Jesus' role was to call for repentance and monotheism.
4. Potential Fallacies
Ad Hominem: The closing note may be seen as an attack on the questioner's character rather than addressing the question itself.
Loaded Language: Phrases like "loaded assumptions" and "cherry-picked controversies" could alienate the audience and detract from constructive dialogue.
5. Relevance
Addressing Core Beliefs: The response is relevant as it directly addresses the question about Jesus' purpose according to Islamic teachings, providing a clear perspective on his role and mission.
Conclusion
Jimrohn's response effectively clarifies Islamic beliefs about Jesus while maintaining a strong stance against perceived misconceptions. However, the confrontational tone and potential for misinterpretation may hinder open dialogue.

yes I have more responses from jimrohn, as he answers questions 3 to 6 that gohf asked:

3. “Adam was forgiven but cast out — so what was the point of forgiveness?”

Your confusion comes from treating God's forgiveness like a “reset button.” Being forgiven doesn’t erase all consequences — it removes the spiritual penalty, not the worldly effect.

Adam was forgiven — yes — but paradise was never meant to be his eternal home at that point. Earth was always the plan. His fall was not “original sin,” it was a mistake followed by repentance and elevation. Islam rejects the idea that all of mankind is born sinful because of Adam’s mistake — a toxic doctrine that paints God as unjust and man as inherently damned.

4. “Aisha’s age: 9 or older?”

Aisha's age is used obsessively by Islamophobes who don’t care about context, history, or scholarship. Yes, some hadith report she was 9 at consummation — and these are found in Sahih Bukhari and Muslim, considered strong sources. However, classical and modern scholars have pointed to other evidence (like her involvement in battles, historical gaps, or statements by her relatives) that suggest a higher age.

But let’s get brutally honest: None of this was controversial until Western morality began to falsely universalize modern standards. In her society, this was normal, dignified, and unchallenged. You don’t get to retroactively impose your lens on 7th century Arabia while ignoring far worse age gaps in Christian Europe’s royal marriages.

And unless you’re ready to apply that same outrage to Solomon, David, or even Mary’s “engagement” to Joseph in your own religious texts, maybe sit this one out.

5. “Did Jesus fail his assignment?”

This is pure ignorance — and no, Muslims do not believe Jesus failed. We believe his mission was interrupted, not failed. His return is part of completing that mission — not bringing new revelation, but affirming Islam, breaking the cross, and killing the false messiah (Dajjal).

Anyone who says “Jesus failed” is either misrepresenting Islam, or parroting half-baked statements. The failure lies in what people did with his message, not the message itself.

6. “Why did God create man according to the Qur’an?”

This one’s easy. Qur’an 51:56 —

> “And I did not create jinn and mankind except to worship Me.”

We were created for submission, worship, and moral responsibility — not to “fall” and then beg for salvation based on inherited sin. We’re here to prove ourselves, to be tested, and to return to our Creator.

You want a purpose? That’s it: Know God, submit to Him, live morally, die with faith.

Let's analyze Jimrohn's responses to questions 3-6 logically and objectively.

3. Adam's Forgiveness
Tone and Approach: Jimrohn's response is assertive, with a tone that attempts to correct a perceived misunderstanding.
Clarity of Argument: He clearly explains that forgiveness removes the spiritual penalty but not the worldly consequences. He clarifies that Adam's fall was not an "original sin" but a mistake.
Logical Structure:
Claim: Forgiveness doesn't erase all consequences.
Counterclaim: Adam's fall wasn't an "original sin."
ing Evidence: Explains the role of Earth in God's plan and rejects the concept of inherited sin.
Potential Fallacies:
Oversimplification: The comparison to a "reset button" is a simplification that may not fully capture the nuances of the theological concept.
Appeal to Emotion: Using like "toxic doctrine" may alienate those who hold different views.
Relevance: The response provides a clear Islamic perspective on forgiveness, addressing the question's premise.
4. Aisha's Age
Tone and Approach: The response is highly confrontational and dismissive of the questioner's potential motives.
Clarity of Argument: He acknowledges the conflicting reports regarding Aisha's age and highlights the historical and cultural context.
Logical Structure:
Acknowledges Conflicting Reports: Reports of Aisha's age.
Contextualizes the Issue: Argues that the issue is often misused by Islamophobes.
Applies Historical Context: Points out the social norms of the time and compares it to other historical examples.
Potential Fallacies:
Straw Man: The response may be misrepresenting the questioner's intentions by framing the question as an Islamophobic attack.
Whataboutism: The comparison to other historical examples, such as royal marriages, may be seen as a distraction from the core issue.
Relevance: The response addresses a contentious historical issue, but the confrontational tone may hinder productive dialogue.
5. Did Jesus Fail His Assignment?
Tone and Approach: Jimrohn's response is decisive and dismissive of the premise of the question.
Clarity of Argument: He clearly states that Muslims do not believe Jesus failed and explains the Islamic perspective on his mission and his return.
Logical Structure:
Claim: Muslims do not believe Jesus failed.
Clarification: His mission was interrupted, not failed.
ing Evidence: Explains the role of Jesus' return in completing his mission.
Potential Fallacies:
Misrepresentation: He accuses those who say Jesus failed of misrepresenting Islam.
Relevance: The response provides a clear Islamic perspective on the role of Jesus.
6. Why Did God Create Man?
Tone and Approach: Jimrohn's response is straightforward and authoritative.
Clarity of Argument: He provides a direct answer from the Quran, emphasizing the purpose of worship and moral responsibility.
Logical Structure:
Quote: Provides the Quranic verse.
Explanation: Explains the meaning of the verse.
Potential Fallacies: None apparent.
Relevance: The response directly answers the question with a clear and concise explanation of the purpose of human creation according to Islam.
Conclusion
Jimrohn's responses, overall, aim to provide clear answers based on Islamic teachings. However, his confrontational tone and occasional use of dismissive language may hinder constructive dialogue. His responses are well-structured and provide direct answers to the questions.

to the second question jimrohn's response is:

2. “Do you honor Muhammad more than Jesus?”



We honor both, but we worship neither — that’s the difference between Islam and Christianity.

Jesus is one of the five greatest prophets in Islam. But Muhammad ﷺ is the final messenger — the one through whom the last and complete revelation was delivered. That doesn’t reduce the honor of Jesus — it clarifies the hierarchy of prophethood based on their roles. If you think honor equals divinity, that’s a problem with your theology, not ours.

Let’s analyze Jimrohn's response to the second question logically and objectively. Here are some key points to consider:

1. Tone and Approach
Clarification of Beliefs: Jimrohn begins by clearly stating the distinction between honoring and worshiping, which is crucial in the context of Islamic and Christian beliefs.
Defensive Stance: The response carries a defensive tone, particularly when addressing the potential misunderstanding of honor equating to divinity.
2. Clarity of Argument
Directness: Jimrohn's response is straightforward, making it clear that both Jesus and Muhammad are honored in Islam, but neither is worshipped.
Hierarchy of Prophethood: He effectively communicates the Islamic view of the hierarchy among prophets, emphasizing Muhammad's role as the final messenger.
3. Logical Structure
Argumentation: The response follows a logical structure:
Claim: Both Jesus and Muhammad are honored.
Counterclaim: Worship is reserved for God alone.
ing Evidence: The distinction between the roles of Jesus and Muhammad clarifies their respective honors.
4. Potential Fallacies
Assumption of Misunderstanding: Jimrohn assumes that the questioner equates honor with divinity, which may not necessarily be the case for all audiences. This could lead to a misinterpretation of the question.
Overgeneralization: The statement about the questioner's theology being problematic may come off as dismissive, potentially shutting down further dialogue.
5. Conclusion
Overall Effectiveness: Jimrohn's response is effective in clarifying Islamic beliefs regarding the honor of Jesus and Muhammad. However, the tone may alienate some listeners, which could hinder open discussion. The logical structure is present, but the emotional charge could lead to defensiveness rather than constructive engagement.

Jimrohn's response to the first question is this:

If you’re genuinely seeking truth, then start by respecting the subject you’re asking about. Don’t come cloaked in fake humility asking for “love and understanding” while repeating overused polemics and ignorant misrepresentations. Let’s tear through your list with logic and without fluff.

1. “What was the message of Jesus the Messiah?”

Let’s correct this from the jump: Yes, Muslims believe Jesus (`Isa), peace be upon him, is the Messiah. But not the messiah in the distorted, church-invented version you were spoon-fed.

His real message was the same as every prophet before and after him: pure monotheism — worship one God and obey His commands. The Injil (Gospel) that was revealed to him was a divine scripture, not the four gospels written decades after him. His mission was not to be worshipped, but to call people back to the Law of God (Matthew 5:17 echoes that, ironically).

So no — Muhammad didn't “preach Jesus’ gospel” because Jesus’ original gospel was the same essence as the Qur’an: La ilaha illa Allah (There is no god but Allah).

Let’s analyze Jimrohn's response to the first question logically and objectively. Here are some key points to consider:

1. Tone and Approach
Respect and Sincerity: Jimrohn emphasizes the need for respect when discussing religious topics. However, he uses confrontational language, suggesting that the questioner lacks sincerity.

Dismissive Language: Phrases like "fake humility" and "ignorant misrepresentations" may alienate the audience and detract from constructive dialogue.

2. Clarity of Argument
Directness: Jimrohn addresses the question directly, stating that Muslims view Jesus as the Messiah but differentiating this from Christian interpretations.
Correction of Misconceptions: He attempts to clarify what he perceives as misconceptions about Jesus' message, asserting it aligns with monotheism.

3. Logical Structure
Argumentation: Jimrohn presents a clear logical flow:
Claim: Muslims believe Jesus is the Messiah.
Counterclaim: The Christian understanding is distorted.
ing Evidence: He cites the concept of pure monotheism and the nature of the Injil as evidence.
4. Potential Fallacies
Ad Hominem: The initial remarks about the questioner's sincerity could be seen as an ad hominem attack, which weakens his argument.

Overgeneralization: By stating that the church-invented version is distorted, he may oversimplify a complex theological debate.
5. Conclusion
Overall Effectiveness: While Jimrohn's response is assertive and seeks to clarify misconceptions, the tone may hinder constructive dialogue. The logical structure is present, but the emotional charge could lead to defensiveness rather than open discussion.