₦airaland Forum

Gabrielshow24:
Lies, lies and more lies!

Let's tackle your claims one after the other🤨:
Claim 1: "The Qur’an refers to him as al-Samiri not a Samaritan,not a nation, and definitely not the later ethnic group that came about centuries after Moses."

Like I have rebutted earlier, the name or title whichever one you uphold in its primitive sense refers to one from ’samaria’. The people from Samaria are called Samaritans by the people of the book(Torah and gospel). If the Quran came to confirm what was before,🤔that will mean it confirms the Jewish understanding that Samaritans proceeded from Samaria; and ’as an addendum or correction’👀, it asserts that al-samari not Aaron created a calf. 🤨—can you see the problem?As at the time of Moses, there were no Samaritans! Your argument is already self-refuting that's why as a last resort you're committing false equivocations 😵‍💫 to avoid this error. Furthermore, was anyone arguing that as-samiri was not an individual? 🤷You built a straw around this but we are not faced by such incompetent logic!

Al-samari is a term or title that derives from a place, the samari is buttressed to show the ’individual’ is different from people of other originations e.g., Hindi, Jat👀 etc.

Claim 2: Muhammad pbuh distinguishing him from Samaritans there's no information that he mixed them up.
The present knowledge and pre-islamic exegesis establish he mixed them up. We don't his self affirmation before we conclude he mixed them up! Nobody says I saw a Nigerian fighting for pharaoh and then suddenly turn to metaphorical allusions😵‍💫—this is an anachronism. Nigeria has a nation wasn't even formed yet. We find similar to this in your book🤨. Therefore, the excuse ’it was an individual’ doesn't help you, if it weren't an individual was he a jinn? 🤷

Claim 3:If the Hebrew Bible portrays Aaron; the very first High Priest, as the creator of an idol, that certainly presents a theological dilemma.

It's not a theological issues for us as it is for you! We know that all men are sinners and Jesus is the only exception, funnily enough you also believe this, but unlike us you went a step further by claiming the prophets were flawless—that's your conundrum, not ours.

Aaron for fear of what the Israelites will do to him made them the calf, we also find Jesus referencing something similar regarding Moses allowing divorce because of the hardness of their hearts. So, we see here that the people's hearts were hardened and in that moment could have done anything.

This doesn't stop God's forgiveness upon them, as it is repeated times again that they were merely men—not flawless!

If there is any theological dilemma it will be on yours! Why then, with all the perfection attributed to your prophet, did he do all those👀things? Certainly, he wasn't perfect to begin with neither was he a suitable role model.

This bid to avoid ’Aaron becoming a role model for the people of Quraish’ to continue in their idolatry appeared as the anachronism we are dealing with now! We also have reasons to believe that he just simply conflated🤕 different accounts together, the pattern of this we find in the Quran in several places😂!

Get better or more cannons.

There's no error in the Qur’an. The Qur’an mentions al--Samiri (20:85–97) as an individual deceiver who misled the Israelites. The name Samiri connects to the region of Samaria, but it does not mean the later Samaritan sect existed in Moses’ time. It’s a personal designation, not an anachronism.


Prophets are protected from shirk. The Qur’an upholds all prophets as models of faith. It rejects the idea that Aaron a prophet of God could fashion an idol with his own hands. That contradiction exists in the Bible (Exodus 32:4), where Aaron makes the calf himself. The Qur’an instead preserves his honor and assigns blame where it belongs: on the deceiver and the people who followed him. Even within Exodus isn't there some contradiction about the origins of the golden calf?


Regarding Theological clarity. Which is more consistent with monotheism ? That a prophet builds an idol and leads people into idol worship/shirk, or that a false man (al-Samiri) deceives the people while the prophet resists? The Qur’an removes the blasphemy against God’s messenger and keeps the test on the people. It may be the norm in your book for your prophet's to sin to the point of idolatry but that indeed is ludicrous.

Well even if far off perhaps you should consider Columbus and the country Columbia about 4 centuries apart

Gabrielshow24:
🥱
See you are such a bore, trying to avoid the inherent error of your book. By the Arabic term alone, as-samiri is linked to samiri; the same way Al-Dimashiqi is linked to Damascus and Al-Hindi to India. I don't imagine seeing ’Al-Hindi’ in some ancient book and still suggests it's a metaphorical allusion to something else—that's dishonesty!

Taking the above in mind, it's therefore not an allusion to a non-existent entity👀. If you posit other ’alternatives’ it still contradicts your book.

If you posit, ’keepers or observers’ then what exactly were they keeping or observing at the time of Moses when the Torah was not fully formed🤨? If you posit descent, that's also nonsensical.

The last resort is some mysterious individual, conveniently tagged ’the Samaritan’. This brings scrutiny to your prophet's words. Did he conflate different Jewish stories with themselves?
Pls, tell us another lie🥱

You're no longer excited since you previous exciting alleged error in the Quran is flawed?

Well it still remains that your criticism hinges on the arguement that the Qur’an makes an error when it names al-Samiri as the one who led Bani Isra’il astray in the episode of the golden calf (Qur’an 20:85–97) and points to the fact that the Samaritan sect only emerged centuries after Musa, suggesting an anachronism. A closer look, however, shows the charge collapses under scrutiny.

The Qur’anic text itself is simple. Allah says the people were tried in Musa’s absence and that al-Samiri misled them. The Qur’an mentions an individual, not a later religious community.

The objection you raised rests on assuming that al-Samiri must mean “a Samaritan” in the later sectarian sense. But Arabic nisbahs (titles) are not limited to one meaning.

Classical scholarship clarifies that al-Samiri likely refers to a man from the region of Samirah (Samaria) or to a descriptive role like watcher or guardian. Nisbahs are common in Arabic. al-Dimashqi (from Damascus), al-Hindi (from India), al-Haddad (the smith). They describe origin or role, not necessarily a sect.

If taken as an observer/keeper, it need not mean Torah-keepers, but simply a person of a certain social role. Security watch? Water scout?

The Qur’an does not confuse later Jewish sects with the time of Musa pboh; it names one deceiver, not a community.

The scholarly tradition (al-Tabari, Ibn Kathir, al-Razi, etc.) treat al-Samiri as an individual impostor from Palestine who claimed piety but misled the people.

Both simply share the same geography.

The Qur’an does not confuse histories. The figure of al-Samiri is an individual marked either by his origin or role. The later emergence of the Samaritan sect explains the overlap of names but has nothing to do with the Qur’anic account. What appears at first as an error is, in truth, a misreading of how Arabic nisbahs function. Far from undermining the Qur’an, the discussion highlights its precision in naming individuals and its independence from later Jewish sectarian history.

Gabrielshow24:
So you see no text thus no claim.

It only buttresses our point that Mo didn't know anything. If he had known or if indeed Allah spoke to him then such error or ambiguity won't be there, after all Allah claims ’everything will be answered in detail’.

Furthermore, we are not committing false equivocations. It's you that is desperately trying to equate this as-samiri to some unknown, unrecognized, possibly non-existent person. The onus is on you to prove such 🥱. Unfortunately, for you. You can't! No such record ever, the fact remains that early pre-islamic traditions refer to as-samiri as the Samaritan, not some vague fellow. Upon modern criticism, you are forced to reinvent the wheel😮‍💨. This surely can't be the perfect revelation of God👀, it's revelation of men.

but it must serve you some purpose that Aaron did, why?
We do not believe that the prophets are without sin or perfect(flawless). We believe they are humans and subject to flesh but your claim of flawlessness in them puts your theology in jeopardy when one of them seemingly created a golden calf😮‍💨—a moral example for one to live by👀. Probably, one of the reasons, along with his igno....ra...nce that forced your prophet to assert it was some ’as-samiri'—A non-existent figure!

Pls, tell us another lie🥱.

Since you are so knowledgeable please take the verse of the Quran and prove it refers to a Samaritan and not an individual.

TenQ:
Meaning that all is fabrication as you don't have any evidence apart from claims.
Eye witnesses at the time of Moses knew that Aaron built the gold calf
Without evidence, you claim opposite.


Can't you see that you are defending errors?

You do not have answers to just one of the questions : it's a shame
a. The Historical Nation or Community called Samiri at the time of Moses

b. An Evidence from Mohammed himself showing that he is aware that the Samiri is different from the Samaritan

c. An Evidence from Allah (who should be aware that there could be a potential mix-up with the Samaritans)

d. We can even concede that ANY of the Companions of Mohammed (Ibn Abbas, Umar, Uthman, Bildad etc) distinguished between the Samaritans and the AL-Samari of the Qur'an.

You keep saying this is all a fabrication, but your whole argument is built on an assumption that the Qur’an doesn’t actually make or does it?

On Aaron and the Golden Calf
The Hebrew Bible presents a significant theological issue by showing Aaron the very first High Priest as the one who creates the calf and calls for a festival in its honor (Ex. 32:4–5). According to Deuteronomy 9:20, God was ready to wipe him out! Yet, this same Aaron is later celebrated as God’s chosen priest. That’s the real contradiction. The Qur’an clears this up by exonerating Aaron and putting the blame on al-Samiri. That’s not an error it’s correcting a distortion.

Who is al-Samiri?
The Qur’an refers to him as al-Samiri not a Samaritan,not a nation, and definitely not the later ethnic group that came about centuries after Moses. It’s you who are imposing an anachronism onto the text. In Arabic, as-Samiri can refer to a proper name, a title, or someone from a specific place. Early Muslim scholars always viewed him as an individual, not as part of the post-exilic Samaritans.

Your four challenges (a–d)
a. A historical nation called Samiri during Moses’ time is a strawman argument. The Qur’an never claimed there was a nation by that name. It talks about a man.
b. On you requesting evidence from Muhammad pbuh distinguishing him from Samaritans there's no information that he mixed them up. The only ones equating Samiri with Samaritans are later critics, not the Qur’an, not the Prophet, and not his Companions.

c. There’s no confusion in the Qur’an. The Arabic term used in the Qur'an isn’t Samaritan it contextually refers to an individual. The misunderstanding is only in your interpretation.

d. Companions distinguishing between Samaritans and Samiri. Tafsir reports (like those from Ibn ‘Abbas) treat al-Samiri as an individual who lived at the same time as Moses. They never suggested he was part of the later Samaritan sect. So yes, the earliest Muslims made a clear distinction.

Who is really defending errors?
You claim the Qur’an has errors without providing this particularly on this verse.

If the Hebrew Bible portrays Aaron; the very first High Priest, as the creator of an idol, that certainly presents a theological dilemma.

The Qur’an steps in to clear up this contradiction, safeguarding Aaron's prophetic integrity. Your criticism claims the Qur’an contains an error but support a narrative that depicts a prophet leading others into shirk(idolatry ) so tell, which scenario poses a bigger challenge?

TenQ:
The Samaritans were not a SECT, I have given you a verify available Historical source of the Samaritans.

Can you give me their islamic historical source of how they became a SECT of the Jews?

THEN,

1. Let's assume that the Qur’an speaks of al-Samiri, a deceiver in Musa’s (Moses) time.
2. AL-Samiri mean "A man from Samiri" like you will say "a Nigerian"
3. So, as Muslims, you must tell us
a. The Historical Nation or Community called Samiri at the time of Moses
b. An Evidence from Mohammed himself showing that he is aware that the Samiri is different from the Samaritan
c. An Evidence from Allah (who should be aware that there could be a potential mix-up with the Samaritans)
d. We can even concede that ANY of the Companions of Mohammed (Ibn Abbas, Umar, Uthman, Bildad etc) distinguished between the Samaritans and the AL-Samari of the Qur'an.
4. If you can't find a solution within these FOUR above, then all you are doing is damage control because of the historical blunder of the Qur'an.


BTW:
The Bible States exactly who Made the Golden Calf and it was Aaron because he was afraid of his people .
If this is UNTRUE, you must do better than just asserting a position without EVIDENCE



So. Easy a proof to make it you wouldn't dodge the questions as usual!

Do you say the links I shared are not verifiable, unaccessible or false? Should we rely solely on what you say as fact oh, it's you the acclaimed all knowing.

Obviously the Qur’an doesn’t mention Samaritans during Moses’ time; it specifically refers to one individual, al-Samiri. (Qur’an 20:85-97). You and others like you are the one committing the fallacy of equivocation.

The Prophet pbuh only shared what was revealed to him and didn’t provide any verified identification beyond the verses. (Qur’an 53:3-4)

There’s no mention in the Qur’an or authentic Sunnah about a nation or group called Samiri in Moses’ time, nor about Samaritans as a distinct sect. So you see no text thus no claim.

The Qur’an clears Aaron of blame and attributes the creation of the calf to al-Samiri (Qur’an 20:88-94; 7:150-151) but it must serve you some purpose that Aaron did, why?

Let me put your questions back at you and do provide evidence in support for your claims and as you say I am waiting.

Very eagerly too.

SIRTee15:
what do Pre Islamic Arabs call samaritans?

I am not privy to this kindly share

SIRTee15:
Did the Quran know the Samaritans came much letter?
Did Muhammed know there were no Samaritans during the time of Moses

No.
The Qur’an never mentions the Samaritans . It only mentions al-Samiri, an individual deceiver at the time of Musa (Moses) (Qur'an 20:85–97).

Prophet Muhammad pbuh only mentioned what was revealed to him.

TenQ:
The Samaritans were not a sect o!

The origins of the Samaritans date to the Assyrian conquest of the Northern Kingdom of Israel in 722 BCE. Several conquered tribes were resettled in the Northern kingdom of Israel.

Thus, the Samaritans were a mixture of Several Tribes who intermarried with the Northern Tribes of Israel after the Assyrian deported them by conquest. The resulting mix produced a group with a funny Hebrew Dialect that the Southern tribes looked down upon. Idolatry was common within them because of these multitudes even though they tried to make the Torah their scripture.

The Jews despised them because they were an impure breed of Israelites that they wouldn't want to interact with. This was why Jesus gave the parable of the Good Samaritan in the book of Luke 10:29-37

Remember the irrelevance of my response to your mentions.


The Samaritans are a religious sect of ethnic Jews living near Mount Gerizim, Nablus, Hebron, and the West Bank in Israel.
https://www.worldhistory.org/Samaritans/


SAMARITANS sə măr’ ə tənz. The term normally applies to an Israelite sect that lived in the territory of Samaria and had their central sanctuary on Mt. Gerizim.
https://www.biblegateway.com/resources/encyclopedia-of-the-bible/Samaritans

TenQ:
Which is FALSEHOOD!

Contemporary Muslims are just finding excuses to prevent the embarrassment.

If I claimed that former president Buhari was born in Bayelsa and we found out this is not true, my best excuse is not to say that I was referring to a different president Buhari!

So, What did your prophet say about this?

It more likely is irrelevant responding to your fixations.

The Qur’an speaks of al-Samiri, a deceiver in Musa’s (Moses) time.

Yes the Samaritans as a sect came much later, so they are unrelated.

The Prophet pbuh commanded truthfulness and warned against lying.

Correcting a misunderstanding is not making excuses, but fulfilling the command of Allah to speak justly and truthfully.

SIRTee15:
Yeah I should be believe the above statement because your Quran says so. a book filled with historical blunders and theological inconsistency.
Let me ask u a question?
Who should I believe to tell the story of the Yorubas accurately. The native Yoruba historian in Ile ife who is also an ifa priest or an illiterate Sudanese man who never visited any Yorubaland but claimed God has revealed to him the true story of the Yorubas. Who should I go to If I want to learn the ancient story of the Yorubas.

samirah a solid guess? based on what? what clan is samirah, where are they from? who are they? what ancient land are they linked to?
what's the archeological or historical evidence for this samirah as a people or land?
Oh, it's just a guess and because it's in the tafsir- a solid guess!!!!!very interesting

well I can also guess that the first king ever to be crowned is Oduduwa in ile ife because the yoruba ifa oracle said so. solid guess, I should think.
u think above is ridiculous? That's exactly how u sound.

and dont even dare attempt the watchman definition for as- samiri because u would only expose your Quran more. The Samaritans defined their names as watchman. The question is samaritans are watchman of what? what are they watching over? when did they become watchman?

Really! so all of a sudden theological exegesis means nothing but historical evidence is valid and thrumbs theological claims because u are now attacking the bible.
earlier u rejected western historical anachronism claim for samaritan in the Quran but now u are hyperventilating and supporitng over the same western anachronism claim in the bible.
According to u, academic scholars are wrong when they claimed Quranic mention of as-samiri is anachronism, but they are correct with the anachronism of philistine mention in genesis.
this is the most extreme form of cognitive dissonance I have ever seen.

U guys dont need this, look at what u are doing to yourself just because Quran must always be right and can never be wrong. In the course of defending the Quran, objectivity must be thrown out and falsehood embraced if that's what is needed to save the Quran.
A faith that lacks objectivity cannot be a true religion and its followers are best described as blind adherents.



Obviously your brain didnt tell u that the author of Genesis wrote at a time the philistine already occupied the Land.
according to historians, the philistines arrived in canaan around 12th century BC which is around the time of the exodus. Moses wrote the Torah at a time the philistines were already in the Land. He employed familiar geographic or ethnic names for earlier periods so readers can identify the region or people group.


so that means Quran is not a clear book but a mystery that leaves more confusion than answers.

funny enough, there's internal evidence in the bible itself that destroys the anachronism claim of the historians something Quran couldnt do.
Yes, the midrash insists the philistines in Genesis is different from the later sea people of the coastal lands and they could well be right.

The evidence is rooted in the genealogy consideration mentioned in Genesis 10

Genesis 10:13-14 states that the Philistines descended from Mizraim:
“And Mizraim was the father of the Ludites, Anamites, Lehabites, Naphtuhites, Pathrusites, Kasluhites (from whom the Philistines came), and the Caphtorites.” (Genesis 10:13-14)
This genealogical note implies that some branch of people/Canaanites known by the same root name-“Philistines”-existed well before the major influx of Aegean-related Sea Peoples in the Iron Age. The text ties them to local parent groups (Kasluhites and Caphtorites), suggesting that “Philistines” could apply to an earlier group inhabiting the region- Abimelech, king of the philistines, which later merged with or was supplanted by the larger or more famous wave of Philistines.
The biblical record demonstrates consistency within its own narrative by referring to Philistines in the patriarchal period (Genesis 21, 26) and also describing them under the term “uncircumcised Philistines” in the era of the Judges and early monarchy.

So the septuagint and the midrash could be correct to differentiate the two philistines because there is internal evidence in the bible to support this.

Quran woefully failed to provide any explanation whatsover to this as-samiri mystery that could explain its anachronism both within or outside the bible. And that's why its now called a sophisticated mystery and solid guess at best.

Remarkable expose however The Qur’an doesn’t actually refer to him as a Samaritan, which is a term associated with the later inhabitants of Samaria in Palestine. Instead, it mentions a specific individual known as al-Samiri.

Interestingly, the Qur’an doesn’t provide any details about his lineage, tribe, or homeland; it simply identifies him by this title, which might be a proper name or just a descriptive term.

So, there’s really no anachronism to speak of here. The mix-up comes from people outside the context who mistakenly link as-Samiri with the Samaritans, a group that emerged much later in history. The Qur’an itself doesn’t make that connection at all.

SIRTee15:
It's like u guys don't understand your religion.
Quran is meant to be the quality control over previous scriptures according to Muslims. If the Torah makes a mistake of placing wrong people in inappropriate historical settings, should the Quran repeat such mistakes or should the Quran corrects such mistakes.

But U are here telling me because the Quran repeats the mistake of the Torah, then such error should be overlooked in the Quran.

Isn't that the reason we say Torah was written by Men. And that's why we say the Quran was also written by Men.

This is nothing but a conjecture, a mere guess. An attempt to cover up the historical blunder in your Quran. It's your duty to bring evidence that as-samiri can be applied to specific things apart from Samaritans. Give us the names of those things.
U didn't bring any but simply assumed as-samiri could mean other things.


U simply can't save the Quran from this. Anachronism cannot work for as- Samiri because it creates more problem than it solves.
Whether as Samiri is the name of a person, land or tribe is irrelevant. The question is what is the meaning of that name, what is the etymology of as samiri, where did that name come from?
All research ever done by both islamic and non Islamic scholars have traced the name as Samiri to Samaritans.
There's nothing to indicate an alternative or contradicts it.

No, it seems like you're mixing things up a bit. The Qur’an didn’t repeat the mistakes of the Torah; it actually corrected them. Aaron wasn’t the one at fault; it was al-Samiri. That’s some serious quality control.

And to clarify, al-Samiri doesn’t automatically mean Samaritan. Tafsir existed long before Western critics offered alternatives.It could come from a clan called Samirah, or it might be derived from the root s-m-r, meaning watchman. That’s solid evidence, not just a guess.

On another note, the two Philistines argument is really just midrash gymnastics with no archaeological support. If you can twist Genesis with rabbinic rewrites, don’t be surprised when Muslims interpret al-Samiri with a bit more linguistic nuance.

The Philistines in the Bible are a dead-end anachronism. In obvious contrast, the Qur’an’s Samiri presents a mystery with several valid interpretations. That’s a significant difference.

The Bible’s Philistines are a proven historical error, the Qur’an’s Samiri is an open linguistic puzzle. Know the difference before crying‘blunder.

Gabrielshow24:
Perhaps, wisdom failed you in understanding that such ’mention’ was used in comparison with the standard Islamic narratives(SIN). It's your prophet that's known to write fables definitely not me🥱.

With such garrulous words, You didn't address anything. You even purport some ’edit’ 🤔after the time of your prophet because we have proven beyond doubt that such books existed and were affirmed by your prophet in his time! This ’edit’ is contrary to the present fact of history. Pls,provide evidence to support this ludicrous position of your book! You seem to have ’changed mouth’ or deviated slightly from the SIN that asserts some missing ’original revelation’.

Furthermore, I am not like you nor your LLM that doesn't read context. We know you can't help but to lie 🥱. The stage is yours, serenade us with more lies 😂.

You don't understand zit. Perhaps you would have understood better if I wrote the Qur’an makes a clear separation between God’s original revelations and the subsequent writings, edits, and interpretations crafted by humans on the original Torah, Psalms Injil and other older scripture.

Do you deny the the Bible, as known today, is the result of a long and complex history of composition, compilation, translation, and revision? It is a collection of texts written over more than a thousand years, edited and shaped by diverse communities across different cultures and languages.

Gabrielshow24:
’Refutation’ without substance🥱. Your first two questions are tangential. You have dressed up a straw, I am not concerned with these things. I am addressing your claim that there's anachronism in the bible, especially thr ’philistine mention’. You have my reply already so I won't go over it again. The fact you didn't even mention them shows you are just beating the air. As for the Arabic allusion, it's a known fact that Arabic words do have several meanings based on various ’diacritical marks’😮‍💨 along with their supposed ’symbolic meanings’. It's also wisdom to ensure that the meaning chosen adheres to the text: CONTEXT!

Since you have decided to assert that your prophet didn't know how to properly express himself and you are now filling his shoes to provide what he originally meant🥱. Whichever meaning you apply still fails miserably. Don't even get me started on the self imploding claim, “explains all things in detail“ in direct correlation with this surah—I wonder where it was🤔 when this surah was being revealed.

You also made some questionable claims which I will address shortly. I want to bear to mind that the Quran made some assertions, such as being unequivocally a perfect document without error(Surah 2:23-24, 2:97, 10:37-38, 17:88) in addition to this, its words are never too be changed 👀(Surah 6:34 & 115). Now, in light of the above we see that your prophet changed them here based on ’new revelations’😵‍💫(Surah 2:106)—sometimes he even forgot them🤣[1].

To address the claim:
but also as a corrective measure against potential alterations in earlier scriptures.

Your Quran asserts it was written in heaven by Allah and has no earthly sources😁(Surah 25:4-6). Logically speaking the burden of proof is on you to substantiate such claims👀 but before we get to the core of this claim, I will like to call your attention to the Sana'a Palimpsest among other visible ’preservation’ of the Quran—20+ variations. This dashes your hope of preservation.

Circling back to address this claim, we find in your book several of these surahs:
-> Surah 3:3: He has sent down upon you, [O Mo'], the Book in truth, confirming what was before it, and He revealed the Torah and the Gospel

-> Surah 3:48: And He(Allah) will teach him (Jesus) writing and wisdom and the Torah and the Gospel.

-> Surah 3:65: O people of scripture, why do you argue about Abraham while the Torah and the Gospel were not revealed until after him? Then will you not reason?

-> Surah 5:46: And we sent, following in their footsteps, Jesus, the son of Mary, confirming that which came before him in the Torah; and We gave him the Gospel, in which was guidance and light and confirming that which preceded it if the Torah as guidance and instruction for the righteous

->Surah 5:47: And let the People of the Gospel judge by what Allah has revealed therein. And whoever does not judge by what Allah has revealed—then it is those who are the defiantly disobedient.

->Surah 5:66: And if only they had upheld[the law of] the Torah, the Gospel, and what has been revealed to them from their Lord[i.e., the Quran], they would have consumed[provision] from above them and from beneath their feet. Among them are a moderate[ i.e., acceptable] community, but many of them — evil is that which they do.

->Surah 5:68: Say, ”O, people of the scripture, you are [standing] on nothing until you uphold [the law of] the Torah, the Gospel, and what has been revealed to you from your Lord [i.e., the Quran].” And that which has been revealed to you from your Lord will surely increase many of them in transgression and disbelief. So do not grieve over the disbelieving people.

-> Surah 5:110: [The Day] when Allāh will say, “O Jesus, Son of Mary, remember My favor upon you and upon your mother when I supported you with the Pure Spirit [i.e., the angel Gabriel] and you spoke to the people in the cradle and in maturity; and [remember] when I taught you writing and wisdom and the Torah and the Gospel; and when you designed from clay [what was] like the form of a bird with My permission, then you breathed into it, and it became a bird with My permission; and you healed the blind [from birth] and the leper with My permission; and when you brought forth the dead with My permission; and when I restrained the Children of Israel from [killing] you when you came to them with clear proofs and those who disbelieved among them said, “This is not but obvious magic.”

-> Surah 7:157: Those who follow the Messenger, the unlettered prophet, whom they find written [i.e., described] in what they have of the Torah and the Gospel, who enjoins upon them what is right and prohibits them from what is wrong and makes lawful for them what is good and forbids them from what is evil and relieves them of their burden and the shackles which were upon them.2 So they who have believed in him, honored him, supported him and followed the light which was sent down with him — it is those who will be the successful.

->Surah 9:111: Indeed, Allāh has purchased from the believers their lives and their properties [in exchange] for that they will have Paradise. They fight in the cause of Allāh, so they kill and are killed. [It is] a true promise [binding] upon Him in the Torah and the Gospel and the Qur’ān. And who is truer to his covenant than Allāh? So rejoice in your transaction which you have contracted. And it is that which is the great attainment.

->Surah 48:29: Muḥammad is the Messenger of Allāh; and those with him are forceful against the disbelievers, merciful among themselves. You see them bowing and prostrating [in prayer], seeking bounty from Allāh and [His] pleasure. Their sign is in their faces from the effect of prostration [i.e., prayer]. That is their description in the Torah. And their description in the Gospel is as a plant which produces its offshoots and strengthens them so they grow firm and stand upon their stalks, delighting the sowers — so that He [i.e., Allāh] may enrage by them the disbelievers. Allāh has promised those who believe and do righteous deeds among them forgiveness and a great reward.

->Surah 57:27: Then We sent following their footsteps [i.e., traditions] Our messengers and followed [them] with Jesus, the son of Mary, and gave him the Gospel. And We placed in the hearts of those who followed him compassion and mercy and monasticism, which they innovated; We did not prescribe it for them except [that they did so] seeking the approval of Allāh. But they did not observe it with due observance. So We gave the ones who believed among them their reward, but many of them are defiantly disobedient.

->Surah 10:94: So if you are in doubt[O Mo], about that which We have revealed to you, then[b] ask those who have been reading the Scripture before you[/b]². The truth has certainly come to you from your Lord, so never be among the doubters.

These surahs affirms the preservation of the gospel. Allah told the people to judge by the Gospel! If the Gospel had been corrupted at the time of Mo', why did Mo' and Allah urge people to follow the Gospel?🤧 It becomes imperative that your prophet was deceiving people and the Gospel was never corrupted—Given that we have manuscripts from before Mo that mirror the message in the Bible we have today, it's not feasible to suggest the bible was corrupted after Mo😮‍💨.

Also from [2] we see that the books before confirm the Quran and not the other way around. Your book also must align with the previous books(Torah and gospel)—Such alignment is a necessity, a primordial one, because of your book's claim purporting itself to have come down from heaven, an uncreated eternal speech! It must also not be influenced by any external historical source(s) because you guys also made such claim😵‍💫. As we can see from the above that your Quran affirms the preservation and authority of the bible and doesn't act in any way, as you described it in your claim.

Pls, tell me more lies

Wow! But extremely hilarious thinking about it. Your LLM or more likely fed you quite some bull 🐐or you chose to misunderstand.
Quran 25:4-6 reads (translation of the meaning)
4 Those who disbelieve say, “This is nothing but a lie that he made up, and others have helped him at it.” They have committed an injustice and a perjury.

5. And they say, “Tales of the ancients; he wrote them down; they are dictated to him morning and evening.”

6. Say, “It was revealed by He who knows the Secret in the heavens and the earth. He is always Forgiving and Merciful.”


Please explain where if any of this means it was written in heaven. Fond of telling fables now?


As a Christian; which I believe you claim, you naturally hold the belief that the Bible has a divine origin. Interestingly, Islam shares this view in some way too.

The Qur’an acknowledges that God revealed the Torah to Moses and the Gospel to Jesus (Q3:3, 5:46). However, there’s a crucial distinction; the Qur’an makes a clear separation between God’s original revelations and the subsequent writings, edits, and interpretations crafted by humans.

The Injil (gospel) mentioned in the Qur’an refers to a singular, inspired message that was given directly to Jesus not the four Gospels that were penned decades later by others. This is why the Qur’an honors what God revealed but also points out that some have distorted His word (2:79, 5:13). This isn’t a contradiction; rather, it acknowledges the intricate history of how the Bible has been transmitted, a fact that many Christian scholars recognize as well.

When the Qur’an states, Let the People of the Gospel judge by what Allah has revealed therein (5:47), it’s not giving a blanket approval of the entire New Testament canon. Instead, it’s urging followers to adhere to the truth that God originally provided, much of which resonates with the Qur’an including beliefs in monotheism, prophetic teachings, and ethical laws while also encouraging the rejection of later theological developments, such as the Trinity or the divinity of Christ, which the Qur’an views as human additions.

Ultimately, the Qur’an doesn’t seek to validate the Bible. It positions itself as the final revelation, affirming the enduring truths and correcting human errors (5:48). From an Islamic viewpoint, this isn’t a dismissal of the Bible’s significance, but rather a call to return to the essence of what Jesus truly taught; the worship of one God.

DoctorStanley:
So you truly believe Jesus's message of trun the other cheek and pray for your enemies is the same message Muhammad brought with the Koran?

Is that all you get from what Jesus brought? You ignore Jesus saying your God is one.

And Jesus answered him, The first of all the commandments is, Hear, O Israel; The Lord our God is one Lord. KJV revised in NIV as The most important one,” answered Jesus, “is this: ‘Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one.

Gabrielshow24:
Why not check before you falsely accuse? If you have an incapacity to write well, that's your fault not mine.

Now, back to the subject matter. You can't dismiss a major detail as glib because it doesn't fit with you. The difference in naming is clearly highlighted long before critics brought it up 🥱. If you had hope to dismiss my claim as ’Ai generated’ at least you should have seen “culled from armstronginstitute“. I guess like your prophet, you don't read. You just grab what soothes you then run with it. Even this failed desperate attempt to deflect from the subject matter is hilarious 🥱.

As I have pointed out myriad of times to you, if the Bible is wrong then the Quran is wrong. Why then in the wisdom of Allah did he confirm a book that has been...according to you... "twist(ed) and turn(ed) with translators, rabbinic commentary, and those two Philistine contortions to make history fit“?🥱—Your guess is as good as mine😂.

Pls, at least read the response your LLM generates for you to confirm if indeed it answers your question. You and your colleague use LLMs without thinking or ensuring it answers or gets the proper context!

Nobody mentioned that the Jewish Midrash “was proof“, but to solely point out that such has been handled years before critics showed up🥱. It's a mention to show that such different use of words “for both groups was noticed by Jewish scholars“.

As for as-samari, your entire write-up reeks of desperation to just ’match’ with ’something’ to wade off the inherent anachronism in the Quran. It doesn't do you any good, as the context from both ’he that watches’ and “person from the tribe of ’samirah’“ doesn't fit the passage.

Pls, tell us another lie.

There are just few things I would respond to.

1. What use is your culled information from armstronginstitute if you are not assured of its credibility and value to the discussion?

2. Is the statement that Archaeology hasn’t found any Philistines in Canaan before 1200 BCE false? No.

3. It is no where near false that a word in Arabic can have several meanings. When you can fault that then you just may have something to really say.

Finally the Quran is revered as the comprehensive and unaltered word of Allah, bestowed upon the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him). This sacred text is seen not only as a culmination of divine revelations to prior prophets, including Moses and Jesus (peace be upon them), but also as a corrective measure against potential alterations in earlier scriptures. Muslims believe that human interpretation and translation may have obscured the original messages of past revelations. Thus, the Quran serves as a guardian, affirming their truths while clarifying misconceptions, establishing itself as the ultimate source of guidance for humanity.

You only see where it asks to refer to earlier scripture but fail to see the emphasis about the truth in them and that it is above them in credibility.

Gabrielshow24:
You keep committing the fallacy of false assumption over and over again. You wrongly assume that if the Quran is false then the bible is false😂. Every book is responsible for it's proof. Even if we are wrong you are still wrong 😂.

Although, I commend you for your ’research’ but your attempt to bring a supposed ’philistine’ anachronism is far-fetched and has long been resolved. As we have from history, the Jews recorded two people differently.
Take a look at this extract below:

“There are two entirely different names used to describe the Philistines. One is Φυλιστιειμ (Philistiim); the other, ἀλλόφυλοι (allophiloi).

Interestingly, use of the term Philistiim is found exclusively in the books from Genesis through Joshua. From Judges through the rest of the Hebrew Bible, the term allophiloi is used—a word meaning foreigners or strangers!

Here, then, we already see understanding of a clear distinction between two groups of “Philistine” people. One from the start of the Bible through to Joshua—and then a dramatic change beginning with the Judges period, fitting with the very time in which archaeology reveals a new Mediterranean migration into the land.

This two-part distinction, as highlighted by the Septuagint translators, continued to be stressed in early Jewish writings throughout the following centuries. Mark Brett writes in his book Ethnicity in the Bible: “Rabbinic sources insist that the Philistines of Judges and Samuel were different people altogether from the Philistines of Genesis” (emphasis added throughout).

One such early rabbinic source, Midrash Tehilim (a text circulating since at least the 11th century c.e.), highlights the entirely different “Philistine” population at the time of the judges and kings. The following is from its commentary on Psalm 60: “Pay attention … upon entering the land of the [later] Philistines, they [the Israelites] said to them …
You are not keeping the precepts of the covenant Abraham made with Abimelech [the early, Philistine king of Genesis] … you are not Philistines. And the Philistines departed them” (1:2).

This understanding, revealed by the Septuagint translators and affirmed by later rabbinic sources, came thousands of years before certain scholars began “crying foul” that the early Philistines could not have been the same people as the later. (Who, exactly, was behind the times?)“ (culled from armstronginstitute)

As you can see from the above, the bible's case is entirely different from yours🥱—🙃One shows a display of knowledge while the other a display of ignorance😁.

Pls, tell us more lies🥱

Oh, here we go again—back to the classic debate of "you’re wrong, I’m right!" How original! 😂

And let’s not forget the ever-popular theory about those two Philistine groups, which supposedly clears up centuries of archaeological confusion by claiming, “The Bible was right all along—just wait, the evidence will show up any day now.” 🥱

But let’s get real: Archaeology hasn’t found any Philistines in Canaan before 1200 BCE.

Your clever Greek wordplay (Φυλιστιειμ vs ἀλλόφυλοι) is just a game of semantics by translators. Changing a word doesn’t rewrite history, folks. And Midrash Tehillim? That’s a medieval commentary written over a millennium after Abraham. Using it as proof for Bronze Age events is… let’s just say, quite generous. 🙃

Now, let’s take a look at the comparison. The Qur’an mentions al-Samiri, and critics are quick to shout “Samaritan anachronism!”

But here’s the twist; Samiri doesn’t have to refer to the later Samaritan sect. Linguistically, it could simply mean:
- A person from a tribe called Samirah/Samirah
- A title or descriptive nisbah (the one who watches)

Unlike your Philistines, this interpretation is straightforward and doesn’t require centuries of apologetic gymnastics. 😏

If we’re willing to let the Bible twist and turn with translators, rabbinic commentary, and those two Philistine contortions to make history fit, then why can’t we read the Qur’an with a bit of linguistic nuance and classical tafsir logic?

One book gets harmonized, while the other is dismissed as “ignorance.” That, my friend, is bias dressed up as scholarship.

So, go ahead and keep your Philistines and Midrash patches. Meanwhile, al-Samiri stands there historically plausible, linguistically sound, and untouched by your last-minute rewrites. 😎

Only you can address your misunderstanding and confusion.

SIRTee15:
Really as per the highlighted. The problem with the Quran is it was written with poor knowledge of historical context and that's forcing U Muslims to disregard historical reality.

What does Samaritan mean? Can we have a Samaritan without Samaria.
What is the root word of Samaritan?

There is no way a Samaritan will be present during that exodus journey. It just doesn't make sense.

It's like saying when Mungo Park came to west Africa, he met someone who is a Nigerian.

Even Samaritans definition of their own name still makes it illogical for a Samiri to be present in that Israelites journey.

U guys should just give it up, Quran wasn't dictated by God. It's impossible for God to have revealed the Quan
Embrace the reality and free yourself from cognitive dissonance.

The argument that the Qur’an is incorrect for mentioning a Samiri during the Exodus is built on a misunderstanding. The Arabic term al-Sāmiri isn’t the same as the later term Samaritan,”which is linked to Samaria and came about centuries afterward. In Semitic languages, nisbah names (like al-Miṣri, meaning the Egyptian) can refer to a tribe, a region, or even a descriptive title not just a nation state that developed later.

Biblical texts also use names that are retrojected. For instance, Abraham is described as encountering Philistines (Gen. 21:32–34), even though the Philistines didn’t actually settle in Canaan until much later. If we were to reject the Qur’an for this reason, we’d have to apply the same logic to the Torah.

In truth, al-Samiri might simply refer to a tribal or regional identity that would have been recognizable to the audience of the Qur’an, rather than being an anachronism. Therefore, the accusation of poor historical knowledge falls apart. It’s a misinterpretation of Arabic usage and a double standard when it comes to scripture.

SIRTee15:
Let me ask u a question.

what is samaritan called in arabic?
what is the arabic word for samaria?

Indeed Samaritans in Arabic is As-Samiri. However The Qur’an tells the story of As-Samiri, who was a contemporary of Musa who's actions led the Israelites off course. It shouldn't be confused with the Samaritans who came about much later as a distinct sect. The resemblance in their names is purely coincidental.

Gabrielshow24:
Any person can see you didn't refute anything, just reiterating whatsoever I said🥱.

I have expostulated using these point above. Your scholars are just looking for ’jewish connection’ or as you put it ’tribal connection’🤧.

Your stance falls apart as Mary's genealogy was specific 😂, she along with Moses had Imran(amram in Hebrew) as Father, a double connection 😅—This must be Allah's ’mangekyo sharingan’ at work.
😮‍💨, such ’symbolism’ falls apart🥱.

Let's examine your claims, according to an hadith, when speaking about the wives of the Prophet, Ibn Hisham says: "Not of the Arab women was Safiyah." Aisha considered Safiyah inferior because of her Jewish background, whereupon Muhammad comforted her and counseled her: "So say, my father was Aaron and my Uncle, Moses.""

Even here, we see that Muhammad himself called Safiyia after the pious Jews of old👀. But, note, Muhammad did not say, "So say, my "BROTHER" was Aaron...". Muhammad knew enough that it would have been the wrong idiom to use😂— It would have been confusing.

If Muhammad knew the proper idiom to be used was "daughter", why did he call Mary Aaron's sister unless he meant that she was his literal sister 🥱? Why would he use a confusing idiom? The evidence shows he was familiar with the proper idiom to be used.. Muhammad meant that Mary was Aaron's literal sister. Otherwise he would have used the correct idiom—one that he was familiar with. Also, in the Hadith of Bukhari, volume 6 # 499, Muhammad refers to the descendants of Adam as "sons", not brothers. 🥱.

As an addendum, In Sahih Muslim, the Hadith related by Mughirah ibn Shu'bah, #5326, says:
"When I came to Najran, they (the Christians of Najran) asked me: You read "Sister of Harun", (i.e. Mary), in the Qur'an, whereas Moses was born well before Jesus. When I came back to Allah's Messenger I asked him about that, and he said: "The (people of the old age) used to give names (to their persons) after the names of Apostle and pious persons who had gone before them."" [Sahih Muslim, translated by Abdul Siddiqi]

When Muhammad was confronted with the mistake of confusing Mary as the sister of Aaron he said that Mary was called the "sister of Aaron" because Aaron was a pious person and Mary was called after Aaron. This meant that the use of the idiom "sister of Aaron" was not literal, but metaphorical. He also added that this manner of using the idiom, "sister of Aaron", was done by the pious people of the "old age"🤕, i.e. people who lived during Mary's time. Those people called their fellow citizens after pious persons who had lived earlier😮‍💨.

This ’manner of idiom’ took both the christians of najran and even ’The Arabic Muslim’— who came to Najran, and spoke with the Christians— aback as they understood it as literal👀— His use of a ’non-existent idiom’ model is ludicrous 😮‍💨. Had they known the custom that Muhammad said existed, of people calling other people "brother" or "sister" of ancient pious people, like possibly, "sister of Moses", "brother of David", "sister of Abraham", "brother of Isaac", they would have understood what the Quran was saying and raised no objection. But both the idiom, and the model in which it is used, were foreign to them🤷.

This error stems from the fact that the Arabic term for Mary and Miriam is the same😂.

When the Qur’an refers to Mary as the sister of Aaron, it’s not an error; it’s actually a Semitic expression. In both Hebrew and Arabic, terms like brother, sister, or son often signify an honorific or tribal relationship rather than a direct family tie.

The Prophet pbuh clarified this when he was asked about it, explaining that people were often named after prophets and virtuous figures from the past (Sahih Muslim 5326).

He even told Safiyyah to say, My father was Aaron and my uncle was Moses, using this same honorific approach rather than a genealogical one. The Bible also employs this style, as seen in phrases like sons of Belial in 1 Sam. 2:12 and daughters of Jerusalem in Song 2:7, which aren’t meant to be taken literally. Additionally, Jewish midrash reflects this tradition of connecting figures to Amram, Aaron, and Moses. So instead of being a source of confusion, the Qur’an is actually preserving an Israelite idiom and continuity that has been lost by others.

Got another emoji riddled refutation and erroneous linking to Reddit?

Gabrielshow24:
Let me quote from reddit since it's very obvious you stole your reply from there. Here is a simple rebuttal at least from a linguist🥱:

Linguistically, however, there are a few obvious problems. First, the title is correctly transliterated as ḥm nṯr tpj n jmn.“Chief (or first) servant of Amun”. Thus, it’s clear that /ḥ/ should have entered Arabic as ح and not as /h/ as in هامان (Hāmān). Second, the /m/ of ḥm is, for no reason in particular, dropped in this Arabized version. At least, no explanation is provided. Third, there is the problem of the structure of the word, as the name of the deity Amun is reconstructed by Egyptologists as /jaˈmaːnuw/ and /ʔaˈmaːnəʔ/. Thus, Egyptian Amun is a three-syllable word with one long vowel and ending with /w/ or a glottal stop. It’s not obvious at all why an “Arabized version” should result in Quranic Hāmān with two long vowels. A further point is that Hāmān, can’t, to my knowledge, be derived phonotactically from Arabic itself, as one proposal goes. In other words, Hāmān, is foreign to Arabic. Fourth, it’s also not very clear, not to say mystifying, why only one morphological component of a nominal phrase, that is, ḥm for ḥm nṯr tpj n jmn would be used as the nomen regens of a new construct state and no explanation is offered of why this should have happened or why this should be considered a particularly Arabized form of the title. Finally, to my knowledge, neither the specific proposed title ḥm Jmn, “servant of Amun”, nor ḥm + deity name, is found in ancient Egypt nor is documentation for any such title provided. Thus, Imho this is a completely absurd argument & methodology: If the Quran wished to demonstrate awareness of “secrets” of ancient Egypt, why did the author render /ḥ/ with /h/, drop the /m/ of "ḥm" for no reason in particular and choose a non-existent Egyptian title and syntax? [url]https://www.reddit.com/r/AcademicQuran/comments/151lhgc/h%C4%81m%C4%81n_arabized_version_of_hamamanah%C4%81amen/[/url]

Let me now, add my own reply. We all know the scheme behind all this. You are basically looking for similar words that you can allude to inorder to avoid the inherent error in your book. The term Haman is foreign to Arabic and your other claim Ha-Amen has been refuted by the citation above.

Samiri or as samiri which is typically translated as “the Samaritan“ cannot be at the time of Moses so as a result, your scholars are forced to look for alternatives because obviously it's the arabic form of an Hebrew word🤧. Your scholars continue to posit, shamir, shonmonrin among others (along with their meanings)as possible fits for such an ambiguous verse in a revelation meant to “explain all things“🥱. Either way, you have exhibited a flaw of your book.

If Elizabeth, like you say is called daughter of Aaron then why call her extended relative “sister of Aaron“🤦🏾‍♂️. It became even more specific by assuming the Father of Moses gave birth to her—Mary, daughter of Imran🥱. This doesn't align with semitic naming conventions 🤦🏾‍♂️.They would rather use daughter of ’...’ than sister of ’...’.; either way, your book failed miserably in understanding ancient ’semitic naming convention’🥱—these are also the ’uncreated words of Allah’😮‍💨

The Quran likewise conflated the parable of Nathan the prophet and presented a skewed narrative 😮‍💨.

Emoji Gabrielshow24.

Your objections fall apart when we take a closer look at the language and history involved. Samiri actually points to a tribal connection, not Samaria, and it echoes Jewish stories about a misleading figure during the Exodus. The mention of Mary, the sister of Aaron, is a Semitic expression of respect, rather than a genealogical error. Instead of indicating confusion, these verses highlight how deeply the Qur’an is rooted in Semitic expressions and traditions that aren’t found in Christian texts but have been preserved among the Israelites.

Your coincidental happening on a Reddit post deludes you of the fact that there actually exist reliable reference.

See a few below.

Qur’an 20:85–95; 19:28; 3:35–36

Pirke de-Rabbi Eliezer ch. 45

Sahih Muslim 2135 clearly showing your notice about Mary is very far from new.

1 Chronicles 23:21–22

Gabrielshow24:
That dude just copied tales left, right and center with reckless abandon.

His ’book’ has an high formulaic density to show it can't be the ’uncreated speech of Allah ’...Even his few appeals to history were awful: Confusing Saul with Gideon, Confusing Jacob for Moses(Moses meeting a man with two daughters), Placing Haman in Egypt, Samaritans in the time of Aaron 👀, Affirming Mary has Aaron's sister, Mistaking David for Solomon to say the least🤦🏾‍♂️.

Aha! You quickly jump on this opportunity to display clowning at the circus.

Many shallow critics often claim that the Qur’an mixes history, but the real confusion seems to stem from their arguments. Take Gideon’s drinking test (Judges 7) and Saul’s test at the river (Qur’an 2:249) wrongly as these are two distinct events. It was Moses who encountered Shuʿayb’s daughters in Midian, not Jacob with Rachel.

The name Haman actually refers to a well-known Egyptian priestly title, rather than the Persian antagonist (Most probably, the word “Haman” as used in the Qur’an is not a proper name at all but the Arabicized echo of the compound designation Ha-Amen given to every high priest of the Egyptian god Amon).

In your later adventures look into the opinion that the Book of Esther is often viewed by scholars like Adele Berlin as a historical novella rather than a straightforward account of history. Pointing that its character Haman is more of a fictional villain.
In contrast, the Qur’an situates Haman in Pharaoh’s Egypt, where it makes sense for someone like him to be in charge of grand projects. Instead of being a mistake, this placement is actually more logical. It seems the biblical text borrowed the name but got it mixed up, while the Qur’an keeps the more believable version of events. The real confusion appears to stem from the Bible, not the Qur’an.

The Qur’an mentions a figure named As-Samiri,which is different from the Samaritan sect. When Mary is referred to as the sister of Aaron, it aligns with Semitic naming traditions similar to how Elizabeth is called the daughter of Aaron in Luke. Plus, the Qur’an never mixes up David and Solomon.

Regarding the Year of the Elephant (around 570 AD), history backs it up. The Byzantine envoy Nonnosus (circa 530 AD) noted large herds of elephants near Aksum (Photius, Bibliotheca cod. 3). Archaeologists have found elephant images in South Arabian rock art (Beech et al., The Lost Large Mammals of Arabia, 2020). Christian inscriptions from Yemen also support Abraha’s campaigns, which align with the Qur’an (Robin, Les inscriptions d’Abraha, 1982).

The elephants likely used were African forest elephants (Loxodonta cyclotis) or smaller savanna elephants that the Aksumites imported from East Africa. These elephants weren’t native to Arabia; they were transported across the Red Sea from Ethiopia ,a completely plausible scenario, given that Aksum controlled both sides of the sea.

As for the concern about water in the desert, the elephants brought on campaigns didn’t roam freely in Arabia. Much like war horses or camels, they were managed and supplied by the armies. Abraha’s troops were seasoned in long-distance travel, equipped with logistical support, water carriers, and fodder, just as Roman and Persian armies had done with elephants centuries before. Thus, their presence in Yemen and even central Arabia is historically believable.

The Qur’an’s narrative about the elephant aligns well with the history, ecology, and regional politics of the 6th century. The real mistakes lie in the superficial criticisms, not in the scripture.

GothamCities:
It doesn't happen in Nigeria alone. It's everywhere, and it's in the Quran. Infact, real Muslims who brought you Islam believe that you're not a Muslim if you cannot kill for Allah?

So, Ohyoudidnt, can you kill for Allah?

Do well to show precisely a verse in the Quran that says you are not Muslim if you cannot kill for Allah or mandates Muslims to kill for Allah. Pathetic fraud

Satazaa:
wow, seriously? Out of all the billions of Muslims worldwide if one commits a crime that makes everyone of them terrorists? Dangote, Tinubu, Fasola, Abdulsamad Bua are all terrorists right? This year alone tens of Pastors have been nabbed for raping underage girls so does that make all Christians child rapists? Just saying.

jogojogo:
I am not a Muslim but I must say this your statement is funny. So what those Muslims who had openly condemned BH? He may chosen not to condemned BH cos of the dimension of the argument or manner you went about it.. That Peter Obi has refused to condemn Ipob does not mean Igbos are dangerous. Let's stop the sweeping generalisation

In Nigeria, groups like Boko Haram and ISWAP hide behind a false Islamic front to justify their violent actions. However, their heinous acts—like killing innocent people, destroying communities, and even targeting fellow Muslims—are a direct contradiction to Islamic teachings. They twist religious language to lure in the poor and uneducated, disguising their criminal and political motives as a form of jihad. Mainstream Muslim scholars in Nigeria have denounced these groups as un-Islamic, emphasizing that their acts of terror are driven by a thirst for power and chaos, rather than genuine faith.

Interestingly, some terrorist groups in Nigeria, including Boko Haram and ISWAP, have non-Muslims among their ranks. These individuals often join not out of religious conviction, but for money, power, or other criminal opportunities. They might serve as gunmen, logistics coordinators, or arms dealers, using the group's so-called “Islamic” identity as a convenient cover for their actions.

I appreciate your intelligent response. Let me also call to point how a lot try to drag religion into disputes. Is the Israeli -palestine battle religious?

Read some rumours to resettle Gaza Palestinians in South -Sudan to what spread the conflict?

I only see these terrorist acts as more of economic sabotage. How many core unprotected farmers can safely cultivate as much as they used to?

GothamCities:
I was once discussing with a Muslim on this forum. Ohyoudidnt to be precise . I pointed out the numerous bloodshed committed by their prophet and what boko-haram is doing currently. He was in denial and trying to paint Mohammed good. I asked him to condemn Boko haram. He refused. I pressured him severely in mentions to him to condemn Boko haram to prove that Islam does not condone bloodshed, he blatantly refused to condemn Boko haram. Since that day, I came to understand how very dangerous a Muslim can be.

In Nigeria, groups like Boko Haram and ISWAP hide behind a false Islamic front to justify their violent actions. However, their heinous acts like killing innocent people, destroying communities, and even targeting fellow Muslims are a direct contradiction to Islamic teachings. They twist religious language to lure in the poor and uneducated, disguising their criminal and political motives as a form of jihad. Mainstream Muslim scholars in Nigeria have denounced these groups as un-Islamic, emphasizing that their acts of terror are driven by a thirst for power and chaos, rather than genuine faith.

Interestingly, some terrorist groups in Nigeria, including Boko Haram and ISWAP, have non-Muslims among their ranks. These individuals often join not out of religious conviction, but for money, power, or other criminal opportunities. They might serve as gunmen, logistics coordinators, or arms dealers, using the group's so-called “Islamic” identity as a convenient cover for their actions.

The Bible clearly states that God is the Creator of everything, both what we can see and what we can't, including the angelic being who would eventually become known as Satan (Colossians 1:16). Just like the rest of creation, he was originally made good; as described in the symbolic language of Ezekiel 28:15, he was “blameless… from the day you were created.”

However, this good creation chose to rebel, mirroring the human experience in Eden: pride and self-importance took the place of obedience (Isaiah 14:13–14). This misuse of freedom turned him into God’s adversary, and his corruption didn’t stop with him. He became the deceiver, tempter, and accuser, leading others into his rebellion (Revelation 12:9). Yet, the biblical narrative reassures that God’s sovereignty remains intact; the same story that starts with Satan’s creation concludes with his ultimate defeat (Revelation 20:10).

So, while God did create Satan, he was initially a good and glorious being whose downfall was a result of his own choices.

Getting to if this was determined or predetermined is more likely beyond my certain and explainable reasoning.

IslamVIRGINS:
Question those reading Torah and Injeel, who are those reading Torah and Injeel is the question? Who are the people reading these books

doffman:
No be me edited your book nah 😃

This is more likely a never ending discussion so why have it for this long. Isn't there any better use of your time even if spare?

The Qurʾan’s Place in Relation to Earlier Scripture and its Conversation with the People of the Book

Discussions of the Qurʾan’s relationship to earlier scripture are never just about texts; they are about memory, authority, and the way communities understand their place in the sweep of history.

For Muslims, the Torah and Gospel belong to the same divine conversation, but one that over centuries has been interrupted, altered, and partially forgotten. The Qurʾān, then, presents itself as both a bridge to that ancient discourse and its final word.

The Qurʾān does not pretend that the Torah or the Gospel were irrelevant precursors it actually affirms their divine origin outright.

Still, it makes a striking claim: this is the final message, the capstone of a long series of revelations. In Q 5:48, it describes itself as “confirming that which preceded it of the Scripture and as a criterion over it.” That’s not just poetic; it’s a statement that the Qurʾān sees itself both as the continuation of an ancient tradition and as the judge of its present form. A similar logic appears in Q 16:101 and Q 2:106, where God is said to replace older directives with new ones that are, in some way, more fitting.

That replacement principle is tied to a critique from the Qurʾān’s perspective, earlier revelations did not survive entirely intact.

Some parts were forgotten, others obscured, and most seriously some were altered by human hands. Q 2:79 even warns about those who “write the Scripture with their own hands” and then pass it off as divine. This isn’t framed as a petty accusation; it’s part of the Qurʾān’s explanation for why fresh guidance was necessary.

And yet, the Qurʾān’s tone toward the Ahl al-Kitāb the “People of the Book,” meaning Jews and Christians isn’t always combative.
It can be sharp; yes, but also oddly invitational.

In Q 2:91, they’re quoted as saying, “We believe only in what was revealed to us,” a stance that ignores later revelation even when it confirms truths they still hold. Q 3:70–71 pushes harder, accusing some of knowingly twisting or concealing what they know.

The irony is that, in other places, the Prophet is told to appeal to them as a kind of corroborating witness. Q 10:94 instructs him, should doubt creep in, to “ask those who have been reading the Scripture before you.” Q 16:43 says something similar about consulting “the People of the Reminder.” These lines aren’t concessions; they’re rhetorical maneuvers.

The point is that the Qurʾān’s message sits squarely in the same lineage as earlier God-given texts, and those who know those texts (at least the parts still preserved) ought to see the connection.

So what emerges is a layered picture, almost like a conversation with history. The Qurʾān honors the sacred beginnings of the Torah and Gospel, critiques the changes and losses that have shaped their current forms, asserts its own position as the last and most authoritative revelation, challenges the People of the Book for rejecting it, and when it suits the argument calls them as witnesses. It is, in its own telling, not merely the continuation of the Abrahamic tradition, but its conclusion and its correction.

TenQ:
The truth is always bitter and many people despise it.

It is obvious when Tenq and his cousin Gabrielshow post replies that are not discernable in legible manner they have no real points.

They are frustrated at the futility of their arguments.

They have some time ahead of them to know and live by the real truth.

The almighty is one and has no divisions in roles or functions.

TenQ:
I was not even trying to produce the Qur'an. I wanted to take you off your scholars re-interpretations of Qur'an 9:31 by giving you a non Qur'anic verse with exactly the same grammatical STRUCTURE used in the Qur'an.

Translate this non-Quran Arabic:
ٱتَّخَذُوا۟ زُعَمَاءَهُمْ وَمُعَلِّمِيهِمْ أَرْبَـٰبًا مِّن دُونِ ٱلْعَدَنِ وَٱلْمَلِكُ بْنُ فَاطِمَةَ



I repeat: I wasn't writing the Qur'an, this was why I changed it from any religious undertone.

The TRUTH is all I need from you for once!

You see how you contradict yourself?

Without knowing and understanding the Arabic grammar rules you say the scholars have reinterpreted. This is nothing but your own deceit.


Regardless explain

Ohyoudidnt:
Can you see your lie? Kindly explain with irrefutable proof why you reject this as a saying of the prophet.

O people, I had permitted you to contract temporary marriage with women, but Allah has forbidden it (now) until the Day of Resurrection. So he who has any (woman with this type of marriage contract), he should let her off, and do not take back anything you have given to them (as dower)

You don't have a defensible truth?

TenQ:
When I tell you Muslims that your normal disposition is to HATE the TRUTH: it is an understatement.









For non-muslims reading this
Allah made a dramatically mistake in his Qur'an in Quran 9:31

Quran 9:31
They took their Rabbis and their Monks as Lords instead of Allah and the Messiah, son of Mary, and they were not commanded except that they worship one God — no god except Him — glory to Him above what they associate.

Allah most likely wanted to say, they took their Rabbis, Monks and the Messiah Won of Mary as Lords instead of Allah ....

Unfortunately, this is a big theological problem for the Muslims so that they have to LIE about this in ALL their English translation of the Qur'an.

Since Mr OhYoudidnt was arguing endlessly, I decided to give him the Arabic with all the NOUNS replaced with Equivalents such that Rabbis changed to Leaders, Monks changed to Teachers, Allah changed to Aldan , the Messiah changed to the King and Mary changed to Fatima

The new statement should now be
Arabic:
ٱتَّخَذُوا۟ زُعَمَاءَهُمْ وَمُعَلِّمِيهِمْ أَرْبَـٰبًا مِّن دُونِ ٱلْعَدَنِ وَٱلْمَلِكُ بْنُ فَاطِمَةَ
Translation:
They took their Rabbis Leaders and their Monks Teachers as Lords instead of Allah Aldan and the Messiah, King son of Mary Fatima....


Nothing else was changed.

Instead of admitting the TRUTH!

He decided to throw the Qur'an under the bus as BAD GRAMMAR
He said:


Word for word apart from the noun replacement I had copied his Qur'an


Can such people who despise the truth be helped?
They think that strong-head and repeating falsehood thousands of times will suddenly convert it into some truths!

Another expert at turning the truth upside down with lies.

The truth requires sincerity, humility, and understanding of context and language.

Rather than accuse others of hating the truth or lying,it’s better to engage honestly with the texts, the grammar, and the centuries of scholarship both Islamic and otherwise that uphold the coherence and beauty of the Quran in Arabic language.

I never condemned the Quran but you for your failure to produce something like the Quran more so with your ignorance of rules in arabic grammar.

Ohyoudidnt:
The conjunction "wa" (وَ) in this context serves as a coordinating particle, linking Jesus to the enumeration of figures erroneously venerated, such as rabbis, monks, and Jesus himself.

Notably, the term "Al-Masih" appears in the accusative case (mansub) الْمَسِيحَ rather than the nominative (marfu), indicating its role as part of the object rather than the subject. This grammatical nuance underscores that Jesus is counted among those mistakenly elevated as lords, not omitted.

Arabic syntax leaves no ambiguity. Jesus is grouped with the falsely worshipped, not aligned with Allah as a rightful recipient of devotion. The conjunction "wa" (and) associates Jesus with the misattributed lords, not with Allah as a co-equal deity.

If you are truthful as you claim directly address and assess the submission regarding your error on Quran 9:31 above and stop deluding yourself and trying to do same for others

Gabrielshow24:
Ohyoudidnt, you will find my response attached.

Surah 3:7 clarifies the nature of the verses in the Qur’an rather than causing confusion. It distinguishes between clear verses, which address legal and doctrinal matters, and allegorical ones that deal with deeper, metaphysical themes.Faith and its foundational texts cannot be reduced to slogans or oversimplified one-liners

The hadiths were compiled with incredible care, with their chains of narration carefully verified. This is quite different from the Bible, which doesn’t have such chains and has uncertain authorship. Early manuscripts like Sana'a and Topkapi, along with the practice of memorization spanning centuries, support the Qur’an’s preservation.

Your co traveller's Arabic challenge was grammatically off, which further emphasizes how unique and inimitable the Qur’an is.

Islam encourages questioning and thoughtful reflection, not blind acceptance. Its message has remained consistent over time, is rooted in history, and is open to honest, sincere examination.

TenQ:
Are you condemning the Qur'an because All I did was to copy the first part of the Quran 9:31 verse and replace the nouns.

Your argument was about the WA = AND , so, I have given you the Arabic of Allah with a slight twist. Fear of the Truth will not let you do the needful.

Can you see how you willingly deceive yourself!

Why are Muslims ALWAYS afraid of the TRUTH that will set them free?

My Challenge remains,
Please translate the Script for me

I am waiting!
ٱتَّخَذُوا۟ زُعَمَاءَهُمْ وَمُعَلِّمِيهِمْ أَرْبَـٰبًا مِّن دُونِ ٱلْعَدَنِ وَٱلْمَلِكُ بْنُ فَاطِمَةَ

Keep failing at your attempts to twist the Quran like your ancestors did with the scripture. You should have better use for your intellectual ignorance.