We challenge you in front of everyone: either you become a Muslim if you don’t win, or my friends and I become Christians if you win
Being muslim, I doubt your definition of “winning” and my definition are very much the same.
Christians are called to transform into the selfless love of Jesus. God is described as light and in him is not darkness at all. Light gives illumination, warmth, and life sustaining energy. Darkness might be seen as the opposite of “giving” light. The consumptive taking (darkness) of Satan can be seen in Isaiah 14.
“Wining” might be considered conquest (taking"). Most people are not going to be interested in Christianity because most people are more interested in taking than giving.
If you are interested in what you can get, Christianity can only offer;
Eternal life
Access to wisdom
Knowledge of truth
Better character
A good ol fashioned relig-off 
Here’s the challenge! Find any group of Christians anywhere in the world currently exterminating others for their beliefs , go ahead I’ll wait
1 Like
Win what? Did I miss something?
Happy to take this discussion head on, but first it would help to know your background, are you Sunni, Shia, or aligned with another Islamic tradition, since that affects how claims are evaluated.
Reason why I’m asking…
In Sunni Islam, the most authoritative hadith collections are collectively called the Kutub al Sittah, the Six Books, with Sahih al Bukhari and Sahih Muslim holding the highest status, regarded as the most rigorously authenticated, followed by Sunan Abu Dawud, Jami at Tirmidhi, Sunan al Nasa i, and Sunan Ibn Majah, with Bukhari often treated functionally as second only to the Quran in authority.
Sunni legal schools, Hanafi, Maliki, Shafi i, and Hanbali, all use these collections but weigh individual hadiths differently, with Malikis giving special weight to the practice of Medina, Hanafis prioritizing legal reasoning when hadiths conflict, and Hanbalis tending toward maximal hadith acceptance.
In Shia Islam, Sunni hadith collections are not authoritative, because Shia reject many transmitters close to the early caliphs, and instead rely on collections rooted in the Imams descended from Ali, with the Four Books being primary, al Kafi by al Kulayni, Man La Yahduruhu al Faqih by al Saduq, Tahdhib al Ahkam and al Istibsar by al Tusi.
For Twelver Shia, authority rests not merely in the hadith text but in its transmission through the Imams, who are viewed as divinely guided interpreters, meaning a hadith traced to an Imam can outweigh one traced to Muhammad through Sunni chains.
Ismaili Shia rely far less on classical hadith compilations and place authority primarily in the living Imam, with hadith functioning interpretively rather than juridically, making their use of hadith fundamentally different from both Sunni and Twelver Shia practice.
Ibadi Islam, often overlooked, accepts some Sunni hadith material but uses its own collections such as the Musnad of al Rabi ibn Habib, and applies stricter communal criteria for acceptance, often rejecting hadiths widely accepted in Sunni Islam.
Quranist groups reject hadith authority altogether, holding that the Quran alone is binding, and while they may cite hadiths historically, they deny them any normative or legal authority.
This diversity means that when a Muslim speaker appeals to hadith, the first necessary clarification is always which corpus they regard as authoritative, because a citation from Bukhari means everything to a Sunni, nothing to a Twelver Shia, little to an Ismaili, and absolutely nothing to a Quranist.
As you know, hadith authority in Islam is sect specific, chain dependent, and interpretively contested, so without identifying the sect, claims based on hadith lack defined authority and cannot be meaningfully evaluated.
Correct?
J
.
Your challenge is to define “Christian”. If you’re a Muslim now, you never were a Christian my friend.
1 Like
Agreed!
7*^$%)( nonsense symbols&^#@#$%^& to make the neccessary character requirement.
If you want a serious discussion, then drop the wager, drop the theatrics, and define the ground clearly, texts, history, claims, and standards, because Christianity stands or falls on the crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus Christ in real history, not on who blinks first in a public challenge.
J.
Bro @Johann
@Abdo has shown no activity since posting this juvenile challenge over a month and a half ago. I doubt you will get the serious discussion you would like.
Just my opinon
KP
Maybe, just maybe, we are dealing with “bots” infiltrating online Christian forums.
J.
1 Like