₦airaland Forum

CreativeOrbit:
So let me get this straight—you believe you can grasp the full depth of the Qur'an while ignoring the very tools that have been used for over 1,400 years to preserve, explain, and contextualize it? That’s not insight, that’s delusion wrapped in arrogance.

Tafsirs, Hadiths, and Asbāb al-Nuzūl aren’t optional—they're essential to understanding the intended meanings, not just what your uninformed ego projects onto the text.

Your approach strips the Qur'an of its divine precision and replaces it with reckless guesswork. If anything, your stance proves why unqualified interpretation does more harm than good.

to be honest so far I haven't seen you use these essentials to properly debunk tenq guesswork and misinterpretations. You did debunk the claim of Hubal not being Allah by using the Quran.

But then are you saying that the interpretations of these essentials are more valid that the texts in the Quran.

You know Christians say, Spirit gives life but the text brings death, so to some of them the answer may already be given.

Are you saying that the essentials are more valid than what's in the text, .

because I believe it's one of such "essentials" that claimed the age of Aisha to be underaged

TenQ:
I know that Antichristian is your brother and both of you are sympathetic to Islam and the Quran. But trust me on this. Muslims on the average hate the truth. Muslims will resist the truth strongly in other that Islam might be correct.

All I do is to show you what your religious books say: unfortunately, they are not usually what you want to hear.
I understand Islam because I almost became a Muslim (thanks to Ahmed Deedat). Before reciting the shahada, I decided to read the Quran. It was eventually reading the Quran by myself that snapped me out of my delusion. I decided to search for the truth by asking Questions. Here I am.

Muslims don't ask Questions: they just believe whatever their scholars have told them.
Unfortunately,
Most of what your scholars are telling you are lies upon lies upon more lies. I am sure, even you probably believe in many these lies

1. Allah is the same God of the Jews and the Christians
2. The Quran is the Exact Verbatim words of Allah
3. The Quran is Perfectly Preserved
4. There is only ONE Quran unlike the bible that has KJV, NIV, GNT etc
5. Christians worship three Gods
6. Jesus was given a book called Injeel
7. Jesus was not Crucified and neither did He die on the Cross
8. Jesus is coming back to convert every Christian to Islam
9. All prophets and Patriarchs of old are Muslims
10. Mohammed is a Prophet and Servant of God
11. Mohammed is the greatest of all Messengers and Prophets of God
12. Jubril is the same as Angel Gabriel
13. Islam has come to Replace Christianity and Judaism.
14. Mohammed couldn’t read nor write
15. All the Prophets of God from Adam to Moses to Jesus are Muslims.
16. All Muslims will enter Paradise
17. Scientific Miracles in the Quran


Until you ask requisite questions and you are willing to swallow the painful pill of truth, you will remain in darkness thinking that you are in the light.





Suppose I invite you to join my religion NUDINITY, where in our paradise, our reward are
1. Nothing we do in paradise is a sin
2. We will have eternal erections
3. We shall be deflowering a new girl every day
4. We shall drink all we want and we shall not be intoxicated
5. We even have a 3D market with images of mean and women (like a brothel) that we can pick our choices form
What will you say about the source of such a religion?

Is this a Reward or a Temptation?

lol but Muhammad could not read nor write? 😲 Because of you I had to verify this and realize it's true, so that means he didn't write it nor could he even read what they wrote.

Wait I am trying to wrap my head around how someone can believe a book was given to Muhammad, his illiteracy wasn't cured by the same God that made a one year old baby to talk. Yet still believe that Muhammad is greater than that baby and his book corrects what others have written.

CreativeOrbit:
You're not being accused of cherry-picking because you “refuse to reinterpret.” You're being accused because you deliberately extract texts out of context, twist their meanings, and ignore everything that contradicts your narrative. That’s not integrity—that’s intellectual fraud.

Let’s tear down this shallow rant:

1. The Communication Fallacy

You ask whether Allah or the Prophet Muhammad (ﷺ) are “bad communicators” as if the existence of scholarly interpretation proves some deficiency. That is a spectacularly ignorant view of how language, revelation, and law function. By your logic, legal systems, academic disciplines, and even science are flawed because experts exist to interpret them.

Do you think the U.S. Constitution is vague because Supreme Court judges interpret it? Or is it that humans need frameworks and trained minds to extract meaning in changing contexts? Your argument collapses under its own ignorance.

But you didn't answer the questions if you think (as I assume) that both Allah and Mohammed are good communicators. If they are, why do you think men who came several decades after mohammed would have better ALTERNATIVE ways to reinterpret what both have said.?

It seems you don't believe these verses or they need clear

Quran 44:58
"Verily, We have made this (Qur'an) easy, in thy tongue, in order that they may give heed."

Quran 54:17
"And We have indeed made the Qur'an easy to understand and remember: then is there any that will receive admonition?"


Quran 16:89
"...And We have sent down to thee the Book explaining all things, a Guide, a Mercy, and Glad Tidings to Muslims."

CreativeOrbit:
2. Your Strawman of Islamic Scholarship
You pretend Islamic scholarship replaces Allah and the Prophet. Wrong. It exists to preserve, transmit, and explain their words—not override them. The Prophet commanded his followers to transmit and teach. The Qur’an itself urges believers to ask those “who know” (Qur’an 16:43). So your mockery of scholarship isn't just misguided—it opposes the very system laid down in Islamic sources.

Yes, it does! Islamic scholars have replaced Allah and his Prophet.
This is why you need their reinterpretations to replace their words
Except:
1. Allah's Quran is difficult according to Quran 44:58
2. Allah's words in the Quran are difficult to understand according to Quran 54:17
3. Allah's words need to be re-explained because it is cryptic according to Quran 16:89

CreativeOrbit:
3. The Illusion of “No Consensus”

You claim there is “no consensus” among scholars even over minor issues. That’s either a lie or an admission of your ignorance. There is consensus (ijma‘) on core tenets: Tawheed, the Prophethood of Muhammad, prayer, zakat, fasting, and so on. Scholars may differ on peripheral jurisprudential rulings, and that’s not a flaw. It’s flexibility built into the system—something your binary, absolutist thinking can’t process.

Among the Sunni, you will find different re-interpretations according to the Hanafi, the Maliki, the hambali, the Shafi’i. Beyond these you also have the Salafi, the Ash'ari and the Maturidi...all interpreting the same Quran differently

-Allah say you can do Mutah, what do you do? You abrogate it!
-Allah enjoined three daily prayers for you: but hadiths say five!
-Allah gives you permission to marry and divorce pre-pubescent girls, but, it is silently ignored.
-Allah revealed the verse of Rajam; but your scholars deleted it from the Quran
-Allah says you can let an adult male breastfeed 10 times from a female breast (later abrogated to 5) but, your scholars somehow deleted it from the Quran

Is this not enough evidence?

CreativeOrbit:
4. You’re Not Defending Clarity—You’re Demanding Literalism

You act as if words should always be interpreted one-dimensionally. That’s not a defense of “clarity,” that’s a childish demand that everything sacred conform to your primitive interpretive lens. Ambiguity doesn’t mean confusion—it’s part of divine wisdom. Some verses are clear (muhkam), others are allegorical (mutashabih). This isn’t a bug—it’s a feature. But of course, that would require actual study to understand.

CreativeOrbit:
5. Your Rebellion Against Authority Is Self-Refuting

You reject scholars as “final authority” while simultaneously trying to replace them with your own interpretations. What qualifies you? Nothing. Your entire argument is one big attempt to sound profound while dodging the responsibility of engaging with real Islamic sources and traditions with humility and rigor.

Bottom line: You’re not challenging Islam—you’re fighting your own cartoon version of it. You cherry-pick, misrepresent, ignore context, and then demand answers to strawman dilemmas. This isn’t a quest for truth. It’s a performance. And not even a good one.

Do better—or stop pretending you care about honest debate.

Is the Quran contradicting itself?
Quran 44:58
"Verily, We have made this (Qur'an) easy, in thy tongue, in order that they may give heed."

Quran 54:17
"And We have indeed made the Qur'an easy to understand and remember: then is there any that will receive admonition?"


Quran 16:89
"...And We have sent down to thee the Book explaining all things, a Guide, a Mercy, and Glad Tidings to Muslims."

If these are correct, why are they ignored?

CreativeOrbit:
So you dug up a single headline and an out-of-context Hadith, slapped them together, and called it an argument? That’s not critical thinking—it’s weak sensationalism.

Your entire logic rests on intellectual laziness. “There is no compulsion in religion” (Qur’an 2:256) is a clear, standing declaration of religious freedom in Islam. Full stop. But of course, you ignore that because it doesn’t fit your narrative.

Your Hadith quote? Try understanding jurisprudence before using it as a weapon. The scholars didn’t read it the way you are. Most understood it as a response to treason during wartime—not personal belief change. But nuance obviously isn’t your strong suit.

Dragging a single Sharia court case in Zamfara to indict 1.9 billion people is laughably pathetic. That’s like blaming all of Christianity because of one crooked judge in Alabama. You’re not arguing—you’re fearmongering.

Your complaints don’t expose Islam. They expose your bias, your ignorance, and your unwillingness to think critically. If you want to debate religion, bring arguments—not headlines and half-truths.

gohf AntiChristian TenQ

going to ask you a simple question

Are you saying that people don't get threatened for leaving Islam?

Let's not even globalize it, let's localize it to Nigeria here. Please answer honestly

CreativeOrbit:
Your point, though passionately made, reflects a dangerously oversimplified and misinformed understanding of both Islamic theology and religious interpretation in general.

The claim that “some Muslims justify violence using the Qur’an or Hadith” does not prove that Islam promotes violence any more than extremists in any religion prove the inherent violence of that religion. If misuse of scripture were a valid argument against a faith, then no religion would stand untouched—history is full of examples where verses from the Bible, Torah, or even secular ideologies were twisted to justify atrocities.

What you call “a matter of opinion” is actually a matter of context, scholarship, and intellectual honesty. Islam has a rich and disciplined tradition of jurisprudence and interpretation—what a fringe group claims cannot override 1,400 years of mainstream theological consensus that explicitly condemns unjust violence, aggression, and the killing of innocents.

To equate extremists’ warped logic with valid theological reasoning is not only dishonest—it’s intellectually lazy. It’s like saying doctors and quacks are equal simply because they both prescribe medicine. The fact that some people twist religion for violence doesn’t indict the religion itself—it indicts those people and their motives.

If you’re truly concerned about theological interpretations that cause harm, then the responsible approach is to engage with credible scholars, understand the core message, and stop painting over 1.9 billion people with the brush of a misguided minority. Otherwise, you’re not debating—you’re just amplifying ignorance.

gohf AntiChristian TenQ

look this bunch of words do not address the question.

From an aethistic pov
Did your messenger of god say kill whoever leaves your religion? Yes or no

If you have another interpretation let's hear it, instead of condemning an interpretation, gives yours let's read it.

TenQ:
How do we reconcile this with


Sunan an-Nasa'i 4060
It was narrated from 'Ikrimah:
"Some people apostatized after accepting Islam, and 'Ali burned them with fire. Ibn 'Abbas said: 'If it had been me, I would not have burned them; the Messenger of Allah [SAW] said: 'No one should be punished with the punishment of Allah.' If it had been me, I would have killed them; the Messenger of Allah [SAW] said: 'Whoever changes his religion, kill him.'"

And

Mishkat al-Masabih 3936
Abu Wa’il told that Khalid b. al-Walid wrote to the people of Persia:
In the name of God, the Compassionate, the Merciful. From Khalid b. al-Walid to Rustum and Mih'an among the nobles of Persia. Peace be to those who follow the guidance. To proceed: We summon you to Islam, but if you refuse then pay the jizya in subjection feeling humbled (Cf. Al-Qur'an, 9:29). If you refuse to do that, I have with me people who love being killed in God’s path as the Persians love wine. Peace be to those who follow the guidance.

Jizyah was meant to humiliate us who are not Muslims.

How can we reconcile this with no compulsion in religion?

wow killing people is being compared to loving wine, wow just wow

And honesttalk21 I didn't see your response to this post, if you responded kindly tag me to it

People that love being killed, omg 😱😱. Is this Quran or path of "the essentials" creativeorbit

CreativeOrbit:
I see what you’re trying to say—but your analogy and reasoning are both deeply flawed, and frankly, quite dangerous.

Let’s deal with your example: if you host ten people, and one is a thief, does that justify distrusting or punishing all ten? Of course not—unless you believe in guilt by association, which is the foundation of discrimination and bigotry. By that logic, no group—religious, ethnic, or national—would be trusted, because every group has its criminals, extremists, and deviants. The real question is: do we judge people by the worst among them, or by the values they consistently uphold?

Now to your “two parts of Islam” claim. This is a gross oversimplification. Islam is not a pick-your-side ideology. The verses and teachings you’re referring to exist in historical, legal, and situational contexts. Muslims are required to interpret them with knowledge and discipline—not reckless literalism. That’s why the overwhelming majority of Muslims today live peacefully with Christians, Jews, atheists, and people of all beliefs. The existence of extremists doesn’t prove Islam is flawed—it proves that ignorance, when weaponized, exists in all communities.

You suggest that non-Muslims should “stay on the side of caution” when dealing with Muslims. But let’s be honest—what you’re proposing isn’t caution, it’s prejudice disguised as prudence. Would it be acceptable if a Muslim said, “We should all be cautious around non-Muslims, because some of them invaded our lands, colonized our people, and dropped bombs on our homes”? Of course not. That would be unjust and dehumanizing. Just like your reasoning is now.

If you want peace and coexistence, then you don’t build it by mistrusting 1.9 billion people based on the actions of a few. You build it by recognizing that good and evil are human problems—not Islamic problems, Christian problems, or Jewish problems.

The real problem isn’t Islam. It’s the insistence on judging people through the lens of fear and ignorance rather than fairness and understanding. That’s what truly needs fixing.

gohf AntiChristian TenQ

I blame myself for not reading this earlier when you quoted me because I was busy. Ah creativeorbit you are saying tenq reasoning is flawed, so you are indirectly saying that everyone who shares his worries concerning what is written and possibly taught by Muslims in Islam is flawed. Ah creativeorbit you may as well be part of the problem.

Is your eagerness to be right more important than what is true?

You ignored the issue nor gave attention to the seriousness of the note, let me repeat it for you

On a serious note,
Do you think we non-muslims should stay on then side of CAUTION in dealing with you Muslims OR we assume that every Muslim will act like you?

I think this is the main problem.

I think people like you and those who liked and shared your post put the minds of those of us who are ignorant concerning what is actually taught in Islam to Muslim at easy that we throw away the CAUTION tenq mentions.

One would have to be wicked to call such a flawed reasoning.. would you tell your children to play with tigers because some are kept by humans in a zoo?

This isn't about human weakness but what exactly is being taught by the Quran and from the Quran. It's like saying that because some fake men exort money from people with the bible it is a flawed and dangerous reasoning to be caution of all of them that teach such.

I know their are extremist but they are also those who distort a text to mean something else. But it becomes clearly different when there are extremist who didn't distort any text but based on what is repeated mentioned in a book.

We are not talking about being radically good

CreativeOrbit:
You’re quoting a hadith without context and ignoring centuries of scholarship to push a biased narrative.

The Qur’an clearly says: “There is no compulsion in religion” (2:256)—a foundational principle, not a suggestion. The hadith you mentioned (“Whoever changes his religion, kill him”) has been debated for centuries and is context-specific. It refers to treason during a time of war, not someone quietly changing their personal beliefs.

You can’t pick a single narration, strip it of context, and ignore the Qur’an, legal nuance, and scholarly interpretation just to make a point. That’s not honest inquiry—it’s deliberate misrepresentation.

If Islam truly mandated killing apostates, 1.9 billion Muslims wouldn’t be living peacefully among people of all faiths. The fact that you ignore this and cling to a militant reading says more about your intent than about Islam itself.

gohf AntiChristian TenQ

what do you mean by "quietly" changes their beliefs, would a public Muslim who publicly changes their view be seen as one who should be killed?

Would it be seen as war, when someone speaks against Islam and the prophet? would that then justify killing the person or threatening them.

You keep saying 1.9billion many of which you don't know what they practice, when you come down to Nigeria and your local area you can begin to make your assessment from there

CreativeOrbit:
Your analogy is lazy and laced with dangerous prejudice. If you host ten guests and hide your valuables because one is a thief, you're not being cautious—you’re indicting them all without evidence. And if your fear is that the “good ones” won’t stop the bad one, then you’ve already decided they’re guilty by association. That’s not wisdom; that’s paranoia dressed up as logic.

you logic counts for that the good ones know the bad one, question is, do you as a Muslim know the bad ones? That's if you consider yourself one of the "good ones". And you seem to suggest that it's the duty of the good ones to stop the bad ones, question is, have you the "good" ones do so? Expect the majority are actually bad and are incapable of doing so, or are in bed with them. It's not like a thief would announce they are one, they would still present themselves as honest and honorable. If you don't see your reasoning as flawed then you are part of the problem.

Now to your religious claims—let’s unpack each one of your assertions, all of which are based on shallow assumptions and weak understanding.

1. “It is impossible that the way to paradise outlined in the Bible and Qur’an lead to the same Paradise.”
False. You're imposing your binary thinking on God. Islam acknowledges previous revelations and sees itself as a continuation—not a contradiction. The Qur’an explicitly says people of previous scriptures who believe in God and do good will be rewarded (Qur’an 2:62). If God wants to grant salvation through multiple paths, who are you to limit Him?

do you really believe that and is this something Quran teachings that salvation can be through many paths? Islam may not see it's self as a contradiction but it contradicts the very revelations you claim it continues as well as stating that there are errors in those revelations, even though the same Quran claims to acknowledge them as being from God.

2. “The paradise preached by Jesus is different from that of Muhammad.”
Only if you twist both teachings out of context. Both speak of a Day of Judgment, of divine justice, of reward for righteousness and punishment for wickedness. The imagery may differ, but the core is the same: submit to God, live righteously, and hope for His mercy. Your obsession with surface-level differences ignores the unity in message.

3. “Islam contradicts Judaism and Christianity.”
Of course it does—because those religions contradict each other too. Judaism rejects Jesus as the Messiah. Christianity says salvation is through belief in Jesus’ divinity and resurrection. Islam rejects both claims, restoring monotheism to its purest form. If contradiction means Islam isn’t true, then by your logic, Christianity must be false too—for contradicting Judaism.

4. “Islam is incomplete without borrowing from Judaism and Christianity.”
That’s like saying physics “borrows” from arithmetic. Islam builds on earlier revelations—it doesn’t plagiarize, it fulfills. Islam explicitly honors earlier prophets (including Moses and Jesus), but it also corrects where their messages were distorted. That’s not weakness—that’s continuity. You call it borrowing; we call it revelation in stages.

5. “Modern Jews still practice strict monotheism.”
Yes—and so do Muslims. That’s precisely why Islam rejects the trinity and divine sonship of Jesus, both of which violate monotheism. Islam shares the strict monotheism of Judaism, but without racial exclusivity or rejection of later prophets. If you admire Jewish monotheism, you should appreciate Islam’s even more uncompromising stance.

In short, your arguments are riddled with contradictions, half-truths, and a stunning lack of depth. You want to discredit Islam, but your own logic collapses under scrutiny. Islam stands on 1,400 years of theological, philosophical, and moral substance. If you want to critique it, do better than recycled talking points and amateur apologetics.

gohf AntiChristian TenQ

I think it's pathetic that you judge someone's elses argument without realizing how horrible yours is, it's like that peck and log in the eye parable. You wrote Islam isn't contradictory yet you also in the same post wrote of course Islam contradicts Judaism and Christianity. I hoped for an explanation that clarifies your point, but instead you wrote, because both religious contradict each other two. And that is supposed to make logical sense and bring an understandable conclusion to those reading it, right?


What you call a thing doesn't explain what it is, do you understand what I mean

Now you call those contradictions, correction: it also corrects where their messages were distorted. While you stated what you believe is taught by each religion, what does Islam correction state, that the text is wrong? No, because what you wrote is what Judaism and Christianity teach, not what is written. And you skip the main point, which is what exactly is written.

Did the new testament write those claims, did the Tanakh write those claims. The answer is no, so back to the original question what right does a Muslim or Quran have to say they are making corrections?

Back to the statement of contradictions, where your written account of Adam, God, Abraham and Israel are filled with contradictions to what is written in the Tanakh is the question.

The Tanakh is filled with God's prophecies concerning who the Messiah is, does the Quran accept those to be true or corrects them?

You can't claim the Quran is an original text if it's a correction to previous text and if it's an original text with it because it also believes there is one God, listen to someone written in the bible, even demons believe there's one Lord and tremble. Now do you believe that the Quran is true because it believes and teaches one God? You may so, but you mentioning the Quran correcting the texts written by Moses has to be followed by proof for it to be believed or are you expecting those reading this to swallow your claims as what is true?

You ask why Jesus is the Messiah.
Islam answers this clearly. Jesus is the Messiah because he was anointed by God, born miraculously, and given a specific mission to guide the Children of Israel. He was not sent to die for sins, nor to abolish the law, but to reaffirm monotheism. You’ve inherited a redefined Messiah molded by Greek and Roman philosophy, not the Hebrew concept.

creativeorbit you are saying that God only anointed Jesus to tell the people of Israel what they already know that there is one God, are you trying to insult our intelligence or you are trying to mock God. So God spoke so much about a Messiah only to send him to tell one nation what he had already revealed to them numerous times, and do nothing else? And that is the whole igneel or gospel? And you believe that?

Now to your five “simple” questions, which are designed to confuse rather than reveal truth:

1. Why is Jesus a Word and Spirit from Allah?
Because Allah created him by His Word ("Be" and supported him with the Holy Spirit (like many prophets). That doesn’t make him divine—it magnifies the power of God, not the status of the creation.

so God created Jesus by his word and his spirit to just tell one nation that there is only one God? And like you unnecessarily stated, like other prophets. Meaning God did something unnecessary for a reason he could have as well done with just about any of his other prophets. That's what is you are saying right?

AntiChristian TenQ

TenQ:
Using small "g" for my God shows exactly how you value the words of Allah. Read Qur'an 29:46
Even though I don't believe we serve the same God, I don't intentionally disrespect your prophet or Allah unless you show me an example: then you will find me untameable!
Enough of this as I assume it's unintentional from your part. We can vehemently disagree without becoming enemies.

See your confusion:
1. When Jibril came to Mary as a perfect man, did he stop being an angel?
2. Is Jibril a man or an Angel?


You will not be able to answer the above simple questions!

Call a spade a spade. You pick ridicule when you mock my religion and religious practice. If you cannot stand the heat don't get in the kitchen.

Your making fun of angels though disliked may be tolerated however you cannot ridicule Allah who is very far above all this

Allah is distinct and different from everything else. Allah is extremely far from being an angel, man or any other thing he created is

gohf:
Allah means the God, so you are saying that the God was the name of the supreme creator God?

Now I want you to read something;
In pre-Islamic Arabia, the Kaaba housed a statue of Hubal, a deity revered by the Quraysh tribe. Hubal was a prominent god, with his idol placed inside the Kaaba, sometimes above the dry well, and his position near the Black Stone suggests a connection between the two, according to Answering Islam. Some scholars, like Julius Wellhausen, suggest the idea that Hubal may have originally been the Black Stone itself, or even an early form of Allah.


Is this historically a lie, because even till date Muslims venerate the black stone and kabba, to you it maybe for a different reason, but are both structures not man made and the same

Your argument is a messy cocktail of half-truths, pseudo-history, and arrogant speculation, pulled straight from anti-Islam playbooks that have long been debunked. Let’s dissect it with precision and give your confusion the burial it deserves.

1. "Allah means The God" – So you're saying ‘The God’ was the name of a specific deity?"

Yes—exactly. “Allah” is a contraction of “Al-Ilah”, meaning “The God.” This wasn’t some random idol plucked from a desert pantheon—it referred to the supreme creator deity, even before Islam, across monotheistic currents in pre-Islamic Arabia. Arab Christians before and after Muhammad used the same name for God—Allah. So yes, “Allah” referred to the same supreme, singular Creator, not some pagan statue in a dusty shrine. Your confusion stems from an inability (or refusal) to separate linguistic meaning from idol worship, which are not the same thing.

2. Hubal in the Kaaba: The Flawed Historical Leap

Yes, the Kaaba housed idols before Islam, including Hubal, but here’s the part your sources conveniently ignore: Islam obliterated that idol worship. When Prophet Muhammad conquered Mecca, what did he do? He destroyed all the idols, including Hubal, and rededicated the Kaaba to the worship of the one true God—Allah. Islam did not inherit polytheism; it eradicated it. Citing Hubal’s presence in the Kaaba before Islam to undermine Islamic monotheism is like citing Aztec sacrifices to criticize modern-day Mexico. It's historically illiterate.

And don’t toss around names like “Julius Wellhausen” as if quoting outdated 19th-century Orientalist conjecture makes your point valid. His “suggestions” were speculative, often unbacked by archaeological or linguistic evidence, and have been challenged or discarded by modern scholarship. You’re leaning on colonial-era armchair guesswork, not real history.

3. The Black Stone and Kaaba: “Man-made” ≠ Idolatry

You say: “Aren’t the Kaaba and Black Stone man-made?”
Yes. So is every religious building on Earth. By your logic, no place of worship—churches, synagogues, temples—would be valid because bricks and stones are “man-made.” That’s not an argument; that’s philosophical laziness.

And no, Muslims do not worship the Black Stone or the Kaaba. The Black Stone is respected, not venerated as a deity. It is not prayed to, it does not speak, and it holds no divine essence. It is a symbol—nothing more. Muslims pray towards the Kaaba, not to it. If you can't tell the difference between direction and deification, that’s on you—not Islam.

4. Your Conclusion: Hollow, Misleading, and Already Refuted

You’re trying to force a link between pre-Islamic paganism and Islamic monotheism with a shoddy bait-and-switch. You throw around names and historical scraps, hoping it’ll stick—but it doesn’t. Islam’s entire mission was to purge paganism, and your failure to grasp that basic fact makes your argument not just wrong—it makes it intellectually bankrupt.

So yes, your historical claim is either a lie or the result of parroting bad scholarship without fact-checking. Either way, it crumbles under real scrutiny. Try again—this time with something grounded in facts, not recycled propaganda.

AntiChristian TenQ

gohf:
Creative I know I am cutting out from your words to tenq but it is mind-blowing what you have written here.

Putting this into the Nigerian context, a Muslim could rightly say they have the right to be unkind towards the igbos who fought them in the civil war.

I think I am beginning to understand why some igbos in the north are wary of the Muslims, such reaction isn't one you expect from those who are welcomed. I have not experienced such marginalization and I have had some "good" Muslim friends but don't you think it's wrong to call those who have or may have faced such hypocritical?

You know what’s truly mind-blowing? The way you casually twist complex theological, historical, and political realities into a cheap attempt at sectarian fearmongering. Let’s rip this apart piece by piece because this is not just flawed—it’s dangerously misleading.

1. "A Muslim could rightly say they have the right to be unkind to the Igbos who fought them in the civil war" — Are you serious?

This is one of the most reckless and disgusting logical leaps I’ve ever read. You take a Quranic verse about defensive ethics, rip it out of context, then use it to justify tribal hatred in Nigeria’s civil war—a conflict with deep political, ethnic, and economic roots that had nothing to do with Islam as a religion.

Let me say this clearly: no verse in the Quran or Islamic jurisprudence gives anyone the license to target a group of people today based on a war that ended over 50 years ago. You’re using manipulative, weaponized guilt by association to project some sick fantasy of religious justification for ethnic violence that simply doesn’t exist in Islamic doctrine.

This isn't interpretation. This is incitement disguised as reflection, and it’s both cowardly and intellectually bankrupt.

2. “I’m beginning to understand why Igbos in the north are wary of Muslims” – Then maybe try understanding truthfully.

Fear, suspicion, and intercommunal tension in Nigeria are often politically engineered and socially fueled. But instead of promoting peace, you’re here justifying that fear with fabricated theology and painting Nigerian Muslims as secretly hostile because of what? A butchered verse and your personal insecurity?

Let’s be real: millions of Igbos and Muslims live side-by-side peacefully every day in the north and elsewhere. Intermarriages, businesses, friendships—you name it. But you want to overwrite that lived reality with your twisted hypothesis that Islam endorses grudges from historical wars? That’s not just wrong—it’s maliciously divisive.

3. “Don’t you think it’s wrong to call those who have faced such [marginalization] hypocritical?” – No, I think it’s wrong to weaponize trauma dishonestly.

No one is denying that injustice exists. But here’s the problem: you're not defending victims, you're weaponizing selective pain to frame Muslims as inherently hypocritical or threatening. That’s not solidarity—that’s a slander campaign cloaked in pseudo-concern.

You admit to having "good Muslim friends"—then throw them under the bus by suggesting that Islam inherently supports hostility against Igbos. That’s not an honest question. That’s emotional manipulation and betrayal of your own supposed values.

Final word:

You aren’t unpacking a theological issue—you’re injecting sectarian venom into a national wound. You cherry-pick a verse, misinterpret it, rip it from context, and then hang it like a threat over the heads of peaceful Nigerian Muslims and Igbos alike.

If you truly care about peace, unity, or justice, start by dropping the bad-faith arguments, the tribal baiting, and the cowardly scapegoating.

Because what you’ve written here isn’t “mind-blowing”—it’s dangerously ignorant, historically blind, and morally bankrupt.

TenQ AntiChristian

gohf:
to be honest so far I haven't seen you use these essentials to properly debunk tenq guesswork and misinterpretations. You did debunk the claim of Hubal not being Allah by using the Quran.

But then are you saying that the interpretations of these essentials are more valid that the texts in the Quran.

You know Christians say, Spirit gives life but the text brings death, so to some of them the answer may already be given.

Are you saying that the essentials are more valid than what's in the text, .

No—what’s actually "essential" here is some intellectual discipline, which you're clearly trying to sidestep with vague philosophical tap-dancing and weak rhetorical traps. Let's unpack your confusion, because it's not deep—just loud and wrong.

1. “You haven’t debunked Tenq’s guesswork properly” – You mean you ignored what I already explained.

I already dismantled Tenq’s claim about Hubal with textual, historical, and linguistic evidence. If you’re still whining about it, it’s not because it wasn’t debunked—it’s because you didn’t like that it was debunked. Big difference.

Also, let’s not pretend Tenq came with some scholarly goldmine. He brought shallow conspiracy-tier arguments fueled by 19th-century Orientalist guesswork, not facts. That’s what I buried—because nonsense doesn't need a seminar, just a shovel.

2. “Are you saying the interpretation of essentials is more valid than the Qur’an itself?” – That’s a deliberate distortion.

No, I’m saying the essentials (Usul)—which are derived from the Qur'an—are the structured framework used by scholars over 1400 years to interpret, understand, and apply the Qur’an correctly. They're not more valid—they are the method by which the text is honored, not butchered.

This is how mature traditions work: you don’t throw raw verses at each other like darts in a bar fight. You study the context, the language, the grammar, the Asbab al-Nuzul (reasons for revelation), and consensus (ijma) from qualified scholars—not YouTube interpretations and bad-faith guesswork.

3. “Christians say ‘the letter kills but the spirit gives life’” – That’s not a point, it’s a distraction.

Quoting a Christian theological idea in this debate is irrelevant and frankly a smoke bomb. Islam doesn’t operate on vague “spirit vs letter” binaries. The Qur’an is both a divine message and a legal-textual system that requires a rigorous methodology to understand—not poetic ambiguity that justifies personal whims.

If you want to apply Pauline Christian theology to defend misreadings of Islamic scripture, then you’re not here to discuss—you’re here to confuse. And I won’t entertain lazy analogies meant to derail with soft-sounding mysticism.

Final Reality Check:

The Qur’an stands supreme, and its correct understanding comes through the tools it commands us to use: reflection, consultation, language, history, and scholarship. That’s what the "essentials" are. They’re not in competition with the text—they are how the text is respected instead of abused.

So let’s not pretend your question is deep. It’s not. It’s a rhetorical gimmick trying to trap me into admitting something I never claimed. If you’re serious about understanding, engage with honesty. If you’re here to stir smoke with theological buzzwords, I’ll keep clearing it with fire.

TenQ AntiChristian

honesttalk21:
Call a spade a spade. You pick ridicule when you mock my religion and religious practice. If you cannot stand the heat don't get in the kitchen.

Your making fun of angels though disliked may be tolerated however you cannot ridicule Allah who is very far above all this

Allah is distinct and different from everything else. Allah is extremely far from being an angel, man or any other thing he created is

Nowhere have you seen me ridicule your religion. I have only poked at the implications of the words of Allah and his prophet Mohammad . Of course, you do not like being shown this truth, so younger angry.

Trust me, if I choose to ridicule Islam, Mohammed or Allah, I will do to your humiliation with the words of Allah and your prophet Mohammad alone.
BUT
My objective is not to make an enemy out of you. No! It is a necessary fact that it is impossible that BOTH Islam and Christianity lead to paradise.en, In have an advantage over you. I have committed myself to Islam before in search for the way to paradise before discovering that it is a journey into deception.



My Questions again:
1. When Jibril came to Mary as a perfect man, did he stop being an angel?
2. Is Jibril a man or an Angel?


You will not be able to answer the above simple questions!

CreativeOrbit:
No—what’s actually "essential" here is some intellectual discipline, which you're clearly trying to sidestep with vague philosophical tap-dancing and weak rhetorical traps. Let's unpack your confusion, because it's not deep—just loud and wrong.

1. “You haven’t debunked Tenq’s guesswork properly” – You mean you ignored what I already explained.

I already dismantled Tenq’s claim about Hubal with textual, historical, and linguistic evidence. If you’re still whining about it, it’s not because it wasn’t debunked—it’s because you didn’t like that it was debunked. Big difference.

Also, let’s not pretend Tenq came with some scholarly goldmine. He brought shallow conspiracy-tier arguments fueled by 19th-century Orientalist guesswork, not facts. That’s what I buried—because nonsense doesn't need a seminar, just a shovel.

So,
1. What are the names of the daughters of Hubal?
2. Explain how both the pre-Islamic Allah and Hubal have children of the same name.
3. Have you read the biographies of your prophet by any of Ibn Al-Kalbi, Ibn Hisham or Al-Tabari in relation to Abd al-Muttalib who took Abdullah to the Kaaba for sacrifice and latter replaced by ten Camels?
Of course, you will pretend that the history does not exist so that you can continue in your self deception.

You answered NOTHING sir!

CreativeOrbit:
2. “Are you saying the interpretation of essentials is more valid than the Qur’an itself?” – That’s a deliberate distortion.

No, I’m saying the essentials (Usul)—which are derived from the Qur'an—are the structured framework used by scholars over 1400 years to interpret, understand, and apply the Qur’an correctly. They're not more valid—they are the method by which the text is honored, not butchered.

This is how mature traditions work: you don’t throw raw verses at each other like darts in a bar fight. You study the context, the language, the grammar, the Asbab al-Nuzul (reasons for revelation), and consensus (ijma) from qualified scholars—not YouTube interpretations and bad-faith guesswork.

3. “Christians say ‘the letter kills but the spirit gives life’” – That’s not a point, it’s a distraction.

Quoting a Christian theological idea in this debate is irrelevant and frankly a smoke bomb. Islam doesn’t operate on vague “spirit vs letter” binaries. The Qur’an is both a divine message and a legal-textual system that requires a rigorous methodology to understand—not poetic ambiguity that justifies personal whims.

If you want to apply Pauline Christian theology to defend misreadings of Islamic scripture, then you’re not here to discuss—you’re here to confuse. And I won’t entertain lazy analogies meant to derail with soft-sounding mysticism.

Final Reality Check:

The Qur’an stands supreme, and its correct understanding comes through the tools it commands us to use: reflection, consultation, language, history, and scholarship. That’s what the "essentials" are. They’re not in competition with the text—they are how the text is respected instead of abused.

So let’s not pretend your question is deep. It’s not. It’s a rhetorical gimmick trying to trap me into admitting something I never claimed. If you’re serious about understanding, engage with honesty. If you’re here to stir smoke with theological buzzwords, I’ll keep clearing it with fire.

TenQ AntiChristian

To you the understanding and opinion of your scholars supercede that of Allah and your prophet!
Unfortunately, manufacturing conjectures stopped working from the internet age as the truth cannot be hidden again

CreativeOrbit:
No—what’s actually "essential" here is some intellectual discipline, which you're clearly trying to sidestep with vague philosophical tap-dancing and weak rhetorical traps. Let's unpack your confusion, because it's not deep—just loud and wrong.

1. “You haven’t debunked Tenq’s guesswork properly” – You mean you ignored what I already explained.

I already dismantled Tenq’s claim about Hubal with textual, historical, and linguistic evidence. If you’re still whining about it, it’s not because it wasn’t debunked—it’s because you didn’t like that it was debunked. Big difference.

seems like you are forgetting yourself, maybe because I just read it and you forgot what you actually wrote. Be humble and go and reread your responses and not stay here and assume you did your imagination. All you did was say Quran teachings this, maybe you quoted one verse and this thing you are typing here about lingu and histo, is you just being a philologaster

Also, let’s not pretend Tenq came with some scholarly goldmine. He brought shallow conspiracy-tier arguments fueled by 19th-century Orientalist guesswork, not facts. That’s what I buried—because nonsense doesn't need a seminar, just a shovel.

ya shovel you used to dig a hole for yourself. True tenq wasn't overly scholarly or verbose as esteemed self, but calling him quoting Quran a shallow conspiracy oriental guesswork is pure bul**ocks

2. “Are you saying the interpretation of essentials is more valid than the Qur’an itself?” – That’s a deliberate distortion.[quote]simple questions to you is either confusion or deliberate distortion. Shaking my head


[quote]No, I’m saying the essentials (Usul)—which are derived from the Qur'an—are the structured framework used by scholars over 1400 years to interpret, understand, and apply the Qur’an correctly. They're not more valid—they are the method by which the text is honored, not butchered.

This is how mature traditions work: you don’t throw raw verses at each other like darts in a bar fight. You study the context, the language, the grammar, the Asbab al-Nuzul (reasons for revelation), and consensus (ijma) from qualified scholars—not YouTube interpretations and bad-faith guesswork.

if it's not more valid then doesn't that mean it doesn't change the original context or meaning or a text, no does it give it a modern meaning which is different from the texts intent. Meaning we are looking at objective interpretations that help one understand the Quran, right? If you can humbly answer and not speculate.

If you answer is yes, why then did you use the said essentials to properly and accurately correct the wrong interpretations you claimed tenq gave.

3. “Christians say ‘the letter kills but the spirit gives life’” – That’s not a point, it’s a distraction.

Quoting a Christian theological idea in this debate is irrelevant and frankly a smoke bomb. Islam doesn’t operate on vague “spirit vs letter” binaries. The Qur’an is both a divine message and a legal-textual system that requires a rigorous methodology to understand—not poetic ambiguity that justifies personal whims.

If you want to apply Pauline Christian theology to defend misreadings of Islamic scripture, then you’re not here to discuss—you’re here to confuse. And I won’t entertain lazy analogies meant to derail with soft-sounding mysticism.

😂 😂 😂 you that distracting write ups a lot, making some one read a bunch of meaningless words whereas you don't derive to a point that actually addresses the question. Whereas even a simple minded person would easily comprehend the point of my quoting that inference from the bible, so that you can have an answer as clearly as some of those Christians would have. Why, they can give you book chapter verse, even though some misquote and misuse it. It's for us to at least give us a reference as well as your answer, instead of wasting time writing words meaningless and irrelevant to the convo

Final Reality Check:

The Qur’an stands supreme, and its correct understanding comes through the tools it commands us to use: reflection, consultation, language, history, and scholarship. That’s what the "essentials" are. They’re not in competition with the text—they are how the text is respected instead of abused.

So let’s not pretend your question is deep. It’s not. It’s a rhetorical gimmick trying to trap me into admitting something I never claimed. If you’re serious about understanding, engage with honesty. If you’re here to stir smoke with theological buzzwords, I’ll keep clearing it with fire.

TenQ AntiChristian

you are not at an intellectual level to be passing stricture passims on others. For questions beyond your shallow observation you are unable to give properly responses not dialogue in an appropriate manner

CreativeOrbit:
You know what’s truly mind-blowing? The way you casually twist complex theological, historical, and political realities into a cheap attempt at sectarian fearmongering. Let’s rip this apart piece by piece because this is not just flawed—it’s dangerously misleading.

1. "A Muslim could rightly say they have the right to be unkind to the Igbos who fought them in the civil war" — Are you serious?

This is one of the most reckless and disgusting logical leaps I’ve ever read. You take a Quranic verse about defensive ethics, rip it out of context, then use it to justify tribal hatred in Nigeria’s civil war—a conflict with deep political, ethnic, and economic roots that had nothing to do with Islam as a religion.

Let me say this clearly: no verse in the Quran or Islamic jurisprudence gives anyone the license to target a group of people today based on a war that ended over 50 years ago. You’re using manipulative, weaponized guilt by association to project some sick fantasy of religious justification for ethnic violence that simply doesn’t exist in Islamic doctrine.

This isn't interpretation. This is incitement disguised as reflection, and it’s both cowardly and intellectually bankrupt.

2. “I’m beginning to understand why Igbos in the north are wary of Muslims” – Then maybe try understanding truthfully.

Fear, suspicion, and intercommunal tension in Nigeria are often politically engineered and socially fueled. But instead of promoting peace, you’re here justifying that fear with fabricated theology and painting Nigerian Muslims as secretly hostile because of what? A butchered verse and your personal insecurity?

Let’s be real: millions of Igbos and Muslims live side-by-side peacefully every day in the north and elsewhere. Intermarriages, businesses, friendships—you name it. But you want to overwrite that lived reality with your twisted hypothesis that Islam endorses grudges from historical wars? That’s not just wrong—it’s maliciously divisive.

3. “Don’t you think it’s wrong to call those who have faced such [marginalization] hypocritical?” – No, I think it’s wrong to weaponize trauma dishonestly.

No one is denying that injustice exists. But here’s the problem: you're not defending victims, you're weaponizing selective pain to frame Muslims as inherently hypocritical or threatening. That’s not solidarity—that’s a slander campaign cloaked in pseudo-concern.

You admit to having "good Muslim friends"—then throw them under the bus by suggesting that Islam inherently supports hostility against Igbos. That’s not an honest question. That’s emotional manipulation and betrayal of your own supposed values.

Final word:

You aren’t unpacking a theological issue—you’re injecting sectarian venom into a national wound. You cherry-pick a verse, misinterpret it, rip it from context, and then hang it like a threat over the heads of peaceful Nigerian Muslims and Igbos alike.

If you truly care about peace, unity, or justice, start by dropping the bad-faith arguments, the tribal baiting, and the cowardly scapegoating.

Because what you’ve written here isn’t “mind-blowing”—it’s dangerously ignorant, historically blind, and morally bankrupt.

TenQ AntiChristian

lol you called it defensive ethics 😂😂 is it from this verse you quoted "Allah does not forbid you from being kind and just toward those who have not fought you."

Try and take on track with the convo please.

By the way I am being very serious, not your serious scholarly but a serious note like tenq, which you undermined with hypocrisy.

Is Allah saying you should be kind to those who fought you?
A simple question like this, but being you, would you not be errant in your response.

Guy you are funny, to you it doesn't matter people's personal experience you probably never went to a federal school and lived mostly in doors with a internet enabled system.

Look no matter how verbal or grammatical you want to be, you cannot undermine a simple truth that those who have been aware of what is written and taught by Islam have been wary of you guys more than those of us who were ignorant.

Personally I never understood why Muslims would try to kill an evangelist who comes to tell them about Jesus being the Messiah because I didn't fully understand the view you guys had towards Christians.

When you say people are mislead and Jews have angered God. Lol you said it's dangerous, I can see how welcoming the Muslim Arabs are to the Jews. I think you leave in a fantasy world where what you think Quran Islam should mean isn't what it actually stands for in reality.

Because something contains some truth doesn't make it the truth.

CreativeOrbit:
Your argument is a messy cocktail of half-truths, pseudo-history, and arrogant speculation, pulled straight from anti-Islam playbooks that have long been debunked. Let’s dissect it with precision and give your confusion the burial it deserves.

1. "Allah means The God" – So you're saying ‘The God’ was the name of a specific deity?"

Yes—exactly. “Allah” is a contraction of “Al-Ilah”, meaning “The God.” This wasn’t some random idol plucked from a desert pantheon—it referred to the supreme creator deity, even before Islam, across monotheistic currents in pre-Islamic Arabia. Arab Christians before and after Muhammad used the same name for God—Allah. So yes, “Allah” referred to the same supreme, singular Creator, not some pagan statue in a dusty shrine. Your confusion stems from an inability (or refusal) to separate linguistic meaning from idol worship, which are not the same thing.

2. Hubal in the Kaaba: The Flawed Historical Leap

Yes, the Kaaba housed idols before Islam, including Hubal, but here’s the part your sources conveniently ignore: Islam obliterated that idol worship. When Prophet Muhammad conquered Mecca, what did he do? He destroyed all the idols, including Hubal, and rededicated the Kaaba to the worship of the one true God—Allah. Islam did not inherit polytheism; it eradicated it. Citing Hubal’s presence in the Kaaba before Islam to undermine Islamic monotheism is like citing Aztec sacrifices to criticize modern-day Mexico. It's historically illiterate.

And don’t toss around names like “Julius Wellhausen” as if quoting outdated 19th-century Orientalist conjecture makes your point valid. His “suggestions” were speculative, often unbacked by archaeological or linguistic evidence, and have been challenged or discarded by modern scholarship. You’re leaning on colonial-era armchair guesswork, not real history.

3. The Black Stone and Kaaba: “Man-made” ≠ Idolatry

You say: “Aren’t the Kaaba and Black Stone man-made?”
Yes. So is every religious building on Earth. By your logic, no place of worship—churches, synagogues, temples—would be valid because bricks and stones are “man-made.” That’s not an argument; that’s philosophical laziness.

And no, Muslims do not worship the Black Stone or the Kaaba. The Black Stone is respected, not venerated as a deity. It is not prayed to, it does not speak, and it holds no divine essence. It is a symbol—nothing more. Muslims pray towards the Kaaba, not to it. If you can't tell the difference between direction and deification, that’s on you—not Islam.

4. Your Conclusion: Hollow, Misleading, and Already Refuted

You’re trying to force a link between pre-Islamic paganism and Islamic monotheism with a shoddy bait-and-switch. You throw around names and historical scraps, hoping it’ll stick—but it doesn’t. Islam’s entire mission was to purge paganism, and your failure to grasp that basic fact makes your argument not just wrong—it makes it intellectually bankrupt.

So yes, your historical claim is either a lie or the result of parroting bad scholarship without fact-checking. Either way, it crumbles under real scrutiny. Try again—this time with something grounded in facts, not recycled propaganda.

AntiChristian TenQ

lol read what you wrote and read this, from the same Moses and God Muhammad and Quran try to associate with

Deut.7.5 Here's what you are to do: Tear apart their altars stone by stone, smash their phallic pillars, chop down their sex-and-religion Asherah groves, set fire to their carved god-images.
Deut.7.25 "You must burn their idols in fire, and do not desire the silver or gold with which they are made. Do not take it or it will become a snare to you, for it is detestable to the LORD your God.

Deut.12.2 Destroy completely all the places on the high mountains and on the hills and under every spreading tree where the nations you are dispossessing worship their gods.

So are you telling us the same God that commands people to destroy what's use to worship idols, let you all keep the kabba and black stone to worship him through it?

Please explain why, because it's not our fault for associating Allah to Hubal, blame that on those who still use the kabba and the black stone. Do explain why the kabba and the black stone??

TenQ:
Let me show you how Echad is used: not as singular one but compound one!

Like

Gen 2:21-24:
"And YHWH God causes a deep sleep to fall on the man, and he sleeps, and He takes one of his ribs, and closes up flesh in its stead. And YHWH God builds up the rib which He has taken out of the man into a woman, and brings her to the man; and the man says, “This at last! Bone of my bone, and flesh of my flesh!” For this is called Woman, for this has been taken from Man; therefore a man leaves his father and his mother, and has cleaved to his wife, and they have become one flesh."



The two of Adam and Eve shall become ONE (Ehad) Flesh


Deu 6:4:
"Hear, O Israel: Our God YHWH— YHWH [is] one!"

The ONE is a compound One not Unitary One!



I asked you some questions

Questions
1. Do you concur that if the following are TRUE that
1. Allah is one and
2. Allah is over/on top of the universe and
3. Allah is not a spirit and
4. Allah has at least a shape
then Allah CANNOT be LOGICALLY Omnipresent?
2. Mohammed said that Allah created Adam in his image and then goes on to describe Adams image in the physical terms of face and height.
Can you thus explain in clear terms how Adam is created in Allah's image?

not interested in this discuss, but hope you realize that even the picture you used, stated echad is one, a number, a masculine singular usage, not in compound. And echad does mean one not one of, it can also mean united. Even Jesus taught the meaning which the teachers agree to, it means YHVh alone is God.

honesttalk21:
Allah is over and on top literally or otherwise?
Clarity required

What sort of shape does Allah have please explain?

Allah created Adam in his image sounds more like what Christianity says.

tenq quoted scriptures of those who said or wrote that Adam/man is the image of God. My question to you is are they Christians he quoted?

TenQ:
So,
1. What are the names of the daughters of Hubal?
2. Explain how both the pre-Islamic Allah and Hubal have children of the same name.
3. Have you read the biographies of your prophet by any of Ibn Al-Kalbi, Ibn Hisham or Al-Tabari in relation to Abd al-Muttalib who took Abdullah to the Kaaba for sacrifice and latter replaced by ten Camels?
Of course, you will pretend that the history does not exist so that you can continue in your self deception.

You answered NOTHING sir!



To you the understanding and opinion of your scholars supercede that of Allah and your prophet!
Unfortunately, manufacturing conjectures stopped working from the internet age as the truth cannot be hidden again

Your intelligence and competence are nowhere near the level I expected. It's frankly disappointing. You've asked the same redundant questions repeatedly, wasting time and exposing your inability to grasp basic concepts. How many times must we go over this? It's exhausting and unacceptable. We're done here. Call it a day. Goodbye.

CreativeOrbit:
Your intelligence and competence are nowhere near the level I expected. It's frankly disappointing. You've asked the same redundant questions repeatedly, wasting time and exposing your inability to grasp basic concepts. How many times must we go over this? It's exhausting and unacceptable. We're done here. Call it a day. Goodbye.

Instead of giving answers to the questions, you this repeatedly repeating your standard islamic narrative will sweep it out of existence.

Why is it difficult stating the names of the daughters of Hubal? Didn't Muslim historians write about Hubal?

The truth is bitter!
Muslims generally do not appreciate the truth

gohf:
not interested in this discuss, but hope you realize that even the picture you used, stated echad is one, a number, a masculine singular usage, not in compound. And echad does mean one not one of, it can also mean united. Even Jesus taught the meaning which the teachers agree to, it means YHVh alone is God.

Adam and Eve being ONE is a compound Unity not Unitary or singular unity

TenQ:
Instead of giving answers to the questions, you this repeatedly repeating your standard islamic narrative will sweep it out of existence.

Why is it difficult stating the names of the daughters of Hubal? Didn't Muslim historians write about Hubal?

The truth is bitter!
Muslims generally do not appreciate the truth

Spare me the hypocritical moralizing. If the 'truth is bitter,' then why do your fellow Christians so often twist it into lies to suit their agendas? You want to talk about rejecting truth? Look at your own house first—fraught with corruption, cover-ups, and fabricated piety. Muslims don’t fear truth; we challenge those who weaponize hypocrisy like you. So take your sanctimonious garbage elsewhere—your own scripture warns against bearing false witness, yet here you are, doing exactly that. Pathetic.

gohf:
lol read what you wrote and read this, from the same Moses and God Muhammad and Quran try to associate with

Deut.7.5 Here's what you are to do: Tear apart their altars stone by stone, smash their phallic pillars, chop down their sex-and-religion Asherah groves, set fire to their carved god-images.
Deut.7.25 "You must burn their idols in fire, and do not desire the silver or gold with which they are made. Do not take it or it will become a snare to you, for it is detestable to the LORD your God.

Deut.12.2 Destroy completely all the places on the high mountains and on the hills and under every spreading tree where the nations you are dispossessing worship their gods.

So are you telling us the same God that commands people to destroy what's use to worship idols, let you all keep the kabba and black stone to worship him through it?

Please explain why, because it's not our fault for associating Allah to Hubal, blame that on those who still use the kabba and the black stone. Do explain why the kabba and the black stone??

I don’t waste my time engaging with people who clearly lack the mental capacity to grasp even the simplest concepts. No matter how thoroughly or patiently you try to explain, it’s like talking to a brick wall—absolutely pointless. Some minds are just too far gone to reason with. I’m done. Goodbye.

CreativeOrbit:
Spare me the hypocritical moralizing. If the 'truth is bitter,' then why do your fellow Christians so often twist it into lies to suit their agendas? You want to talk about rejecting truth? Look at your own house first—fraught with corruption, cover-ups, and fabricated piety. Muslims don’t fear truth; we challenge those who weaponize hypocrisy like you. So take your sanctimonious garbage elsewhere—your own scripture warns against bearing false witness, yet here you are, doing exactly that. Pathetic.

Then why do you avoid what your early islamic historians like Ibn Al-Kalbi, Ibn Hisham or Al-Tabari in relation to Abd al-Muttalib who took Abdullah to the Kaaba for sacrifice and latter replaced his son with a sacrifice of ten Camels. You want to claim you don't know this story?

Then, is a sacrifice to Hubal not the same as a sacrifice to Allah?