₦airaland Forum

NothingDoMe:
Earthquake that struck close to Iran's nuclear enrichment facility?

That was no earthquake.

I am proud to be the 100th person to like this post

bravehost4u:
HAARP at work... This is a modern warfare not popular yet deadlier than atomic bomb

must you talk?
I know but I chose to be reading comments

TenQ:
I agree except that Iran's Islamic government had vowed to wipe out the state of Israel even if it would cause them to cease as a nation?

Nuclear weapon systems along with long range missile system for their deployment is what Israel is going after

Your agreement in principle is noted, but the justification you present for denying Iran its right to a nuclear deterrent lacks consistency and fairness. If the mere suspicion or rhetoric of a government is enough to deny a sovereign state access to defensive capabilities, then the same standard must apply universally—including to Israel.

Israel has not only possessed nuclear weapons for decades but has also refused to sign the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), unlike Iran, which is a signatory and has allowed inspections under the IAEA framework. Moreover, Israel has engaged in preemptive wars, assassinations of scientists, and occupation of foreign land—concrete actions, not just rhetoric.

If your concern is Iran’s alleged threat to Israel's existence, then the solution is not selective disarmament but rather establishing a nuclear-free zone in the Middle East—a proposal historically supported by Iran but rejected by Israel.

Finally, it is dangerous to justify the monopolization of nuclear arms in the hands of one state, especially in a volatile region, based on hypothetical threats. That logic leads to a world where power, not principle, determines legitimacy. Peace and stability demand fairness—not double standards.

Arrowhead71:
There are weapons that causes Earthquakes but not Nuclear

They should have mercy on themselves.

The war is unnecessary!

CreativeOrbit:
Your agreement in principle is noted, but the justification you present for denying Iran its right to a nuclear deterrent lacks consistency and fairness. If the mere suspicion or rhetoric of a government is enough to deny a sovereign state access to defensive capabilities, then the same standard must apply universally—including to Israel.

Israel has not only possessed nuclear weapons for decades but has also refused to sign the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), unlike Iran, which is a signatory and has allowed inspections under the IAEA framework. Moreover, Israel has engaged in preemptive wars, assassinations of scientists, and occupation of foreign land—concrete actions, not just rhetoric.

If your concern is Iran’s alleged threat to Israel's existence, then the solution is not selective disarmament but rather establishing a nuclear-free zone in the Middle East—a proposal historically supported by Iran but rejected by Israel.

Finally, it is dangerous to justify the monopolization of nuclear arms in the hands of one state, especially in a volatile region, based on hypothetical threats. That logic leads to a world where power, not principle, determines legitimacy. Peace and stability demand fairness—not double standards.

1. I believe nuclear weapons shouldn't be a monopoly of a few countries like USA, Russia, China or Israel
2. I also strongly believe that any country that has vowed to eliminate or wipeout another country based on ideological differences should be prevented from having it.

Except for North Korea, I don't know any other nuclear power nation that had vowed or threatened to erase another country with their nuclear weapons except Iran.

Israel has nuclear weapons but have they threatened any country with it? Are countries afraid of France, Britain, China or USA because they have nuclear weapons?

Pakistan is an Islamic country but they pose no existential threat to any neighbouring countries.

Is the problem of Iran because they are Shia Muslims? Even Saudi Arabia is AFRAID of Iran.

Expanse2020:
so earthquake cannot happen again freely 🤣🤣😂😂

Ahahahahaha what is coming will be massive than earthquake. That earthquake is just to tell you that Olorun ti ko'yin si ilu satani called iran

AntiisIam:
Ahahahahaha what is coming will be massive than earthquake. That earthquake is just to tell you that Olorun ti ko'yin si ilu satani called iran

It has happen already . All the nuclear facilities have been reduced to rubbish. Let Iran do it’s worst.

okuta007:
I am proud to be the 100th person to like this post

Congratulations 🎊 👏 😅

Skydivine:
It has happen already . All the nuclear facilities have been reduced to rubbish. Let Iran do it’s worst.

All thanks to Donald Olawale Chinedu Ibrahim Trump PBUH

TenQ:
1. I believe nuclear weapons shouldn't be a monopoly of a few countries like USA, Russia, China or Israel
2. I also strongly believe that any country that has vowed to eliminate or wipeout another country based on ideological differences should be prevented from having it.

Except for North Korea, I don't know any other nuclear power nation that had vowed or threatened to erase another country with their nuclear weapons except Iran.

Israel has nuclear weapons but have they threatened any country with it? Are countries afraid of France, Britain, China or USA because they have nuclear weapons?

Pakistan is an Islamic country but they pose no existential threat to any neighbouring countries.

Is the problem of Iran because they are Shia Muslims? Even Saudi Arabia is AFRAID of Iran.

Thank you for your reply. While I appreciate your acknowledgment that nuclear weapons should not be monopolized, your reasoning regarding Iran still reflects selective judgment and overlooks key facts.

1. On the issue of threats:
There is no official Iranian state policy or declaration that explicitly vows to "wipe out" another nation using nuclear weapons. The oft-cited quote attributed to Iranian leaders about the “eradication” of Israel is regularly mistranslated or taken out of context—often referring to the Zionist regime, not to Jewish people or the State of Israel in existential terms. Iran’s official doctrine—both military and religious—prohibits the use of nuclear weapons. In fact, Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei issued a fatwa declaring the development and use of nuclear weapons haram (religiously forbidden).

2. On double standards and historical precedent:
You claim Iran should be denied nuclear deterrence based on its rhetoric, yet ignore Israel's concrete record:

Possession of undeclared nuclear weapons

Refusal to join the NPT

Preemptive strikes in neighboring countries (Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, etc.)

Assassinations of Iranian scientists and military officers

Occupation and illegal settlement in Palestinian territories
These are not hypothetical threats—they are actions. If we deny nuclear rights based on ideology, then these acts must also justify equal scrutiny.

3. On other nuclear powers:
The assumption that countries like the U.S., France, or Israel are inherently “safe” with nuclear weapons ignores their histories of war, invasions, regime change operations, and civilian casualties. The 2003 invasion of Iraq by the U.S. (based on false claims of WMDs) caused mass death and regional instability. Are we to trust such powers solely because of their political alliances?

4. On Iran and sectarianism:
Raising the Sunni-Shia divide or Saudi fears is not a valid argument against Iran’s rights. Strategic rivalries exist among many nations—India vs. Pakistan, North vs. South Korea—yet deterrence, not denial, has preserved balance. It is not Iran’s sectarian identity that is the issue—it is the geopolitical interests of the West and Israel that resist a regional counterbalance.

5. On Pakistan:
Pakistan pursued nuclear capability due to existential threats from India. By your standard, it should have been denied nuclear weapons. Yet today, its arsenal has contributed to a fragile but lasting deterrence in South Asia. Iran seeks the same balance—not domination.

Conclusion:
A just and peaceful world order cannot be built on selective morality. If nuclear weapons are inherently dangerous, disarm everyone. If deterrence is allowed, allow it fairly. Singling out Iran on ideological grounds while excusing the illegal stockpiles and wars of others is not a path to peace—it is a formula for injustice.

Let us advocate for a nuclear-free Middle East through fairness, not fear. Iran has supported that idea. Israel has blocked it.

bionixs:
cure Iran of madness before letting them.

See how so-called bandits and Boko Haram are routing this country now and imagine how it will be when they have nukes. Iran is a state that support terrorism.
All their missiles are targeting civilian population.

Mind what you are endorsing because you hate Isreal.

Book haram and Bandits are agents of CIA and Mossad. They toppled Gadafi, destabilised Libya and caused proliferation of arms into the Sahel. Iran has nothing to do with it. You all don't know America, please reject whatever they support. They are evil and would kill you without thinking twice if you become a competitor...economically.

CreativeOrbit:
Thank you for your reply. While I appreciate your acknowledgment that nuclear weapons should not be monopolized, your reasoning regarding Iran still reflects selective judgment and overlooks key facts.

1. On the issue of threats:
There is no official Iranian state policy or declaration that explicitly vows to "wipe out" another nation using nuclear weapons. The oft-cited quote attributed to Iranian leaders about the “eradication” of Israel is regularly mistranslated or taken out of context—often referring to the Zionist regime, not to Jewish people or the State of Israel in existential terms. Iran’s official doctrine—both military and religious—prohibits the use of nuclear weapons. In fact, Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei issued a fatwa declaring the development and use of nuclear weapons haram (religiously forbidden).

2. On double standards and historical precedent:
You claim Iran should be denied nuclear deterrence based on its rhetoric, yet ignore Israel's concrete record:

Possession of undeclared nuclear weapons

Refusal to join the NPT

Preemptive strikes in neighboring countries (Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, etc.)

Assassinations of Iranian scientists and military officers

Occupation and illegal settlement in Palestinian territories
These are not hypothetical threats—they are actions. If we deny nuclear rights based on ideology, then these acts must also justify equal scrutiny.

3. On other nuclear powers:
The assumption that countries like the U.S., France, or Israel are inherently “safe” with nuclear weapons ignores their histories of war, invasions, regime change operations, and civilian casualties. The 2003 invasion of Iraq by the U.S. (based on false claims of WMDs) caused mass death and regional instability. Are we to trust such powers solely because of their political alliances?

4. On Iran and sectarianism:
Raising the Sunni-Shia divide or Saudi fears is not a valid argument against Iran’s rights. Strategic rivalries exist among many nations—India vs. Pakistan, North vs. South Korea—yet deterrence, not denial, has preserved balance. It is not Iran’s sectarian identity that is the issue—it is the geopolitical interests of the West and Israel that resist a regional counterbalance.

5. On Pakistan:
Pakistan pursued nuclear capability due to existential threats from India. By your standard, it should have been denied nuclear weapons. Yet today, its arsenal has contributed to a fragile but lasting deterrence in South Asia. Iran seeks the same balance—not domination.

Conclusion:
A just and peaceful world order cannot be built on selective morality. If nuclear weapons are inherently dangerous, disarm everyone. If deterrence is allowed, allow it fairly. Singling out Iran on ideological grounds while excusing the illegal stockpiles and wars of others is not a path to peace—it is a formula for injustice.

Let us advocate for a nuclear-free Middle East through fairness, not fear. Iran has supported that idea. Israel has blocked it.

1. Yes, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, Iran's Supreme Leader, has explicitly threatened the destruction of Israel. He has vowed to "destroy" or "wipe out" Israel, describing the Israeli regime as an "abhorrent Zionist regime" that must be eliminated

https://www.yahoo.com/news/irans-supreme-leader-vows-destroy-191134502.html?utm_source=perplexity&guccounter=1


Khamenei has also referred to Israel as a "cancerous tumor" that should be eradicated.

https://www.timesofisrael.com/do-tehrans-nuclear-program-and-terror-proxies-legally-justify-israels-attack/?utm_source=perplexity

2. Israel has not even acknowledged that they have nuclear weapons (even though we all know they do). The difference is that Israel has not threatened the existence of any nation including Iran.
Isra-el fights only those who consider themselves as enemies to the existence and survival of Israel and they have done everything to normalise relationship with Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Jordan and many Arab countries. Iran is the opposite to this!

3. No!
4. The point is: has Israel threatened any neighbouring nation eradication? No! Has Saudi Arabia? No! Has Syria? No! But has Iran ? YES!
This is big problem.

If Iran can Arm Hezbollah and Houthis with hypersonic missiles and ballistic missiles, do you think they wouldn't do that with Nuclear weapons if they had one?

Do you think it is safe for Israel to wait until Iran have their nuclear weapon before they take action against it?

5. It is an erroneous claim that Pakistan pursued nuclear capability due to existential threats from India. No sir.
India conducted its first nuclear test on May 18, 1974, known as "Smiling Buddha". Pakistan conducted its first nuclear tests on May 28, 1998, with five devices detonated in the Chagai district, followed by a sixth test on May 30, 1998

Both countries were simultaneously working on acquisition of nuclear weapons it is not about existential threats.

If not for ISLAMIC NARRATIVES, there should be no enemity between Israel and Iran.

Do you DENY that Iran feel that they are the LEADER of the Muslims all over the world to usher in the Al-Mahdi and the ultimate reign of Muslims at the end time.





Mr CreativeOrbit
It seems you are knowledgeable in Islam and this was why you disengaged from continuing the debate. Don't you think you need to CONFRONT the TRUTH rather than holding on to what could lead you permanently out of the presence of God?

Your help is needed with my other post about the Word for Word, Letter for Letter preservation of the Quran down to the diacritical marks.

There was a time in my Life I had to make this same decision: the Truth Vs Sentiments
I chose the Truth!

TenQ:
1. Yes, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, Iran's Supreme Leader, has explicitly threatened the destruction of Israel. He has vowed to "destroy" or "wipe out" Israel, describing the Israeli regime as an "abhorrent Zionist regime" that must be eliminated

https://www.yahoo.com/news/irans-supreme-leader-vows-destroy-191134502.html?utm_source=perplexity&guccounter=1


Khamenei has also referred to Israel as a "cancerous tumor" that should be eradicated.

https://www.timesofisrael.com/do-tehrans-nuclear-program-and-terror-proxies-legally-justify-israels-attack/?utm_source=perplexity

2. Israel has not even acknowledged that they have nuclear weapons (even though we all know they do). The difference is that Israel has not threatened the existence of any nation including Iran.
Isra-el fights only those who consider themselves as enemies to the existence and survival of Israel and they have done everything to normalise relationship with Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Jordan and many Arab countries. Iran is the opposite to this!

3. No!
4. The point is: has Israel threatened any neighbouring nation eradication? No! Has Saudi Arabia? No! Has Syria? No! But has Iran ? YES!
This is big problem.

If Iran can Arm Hezbollah and Houthis with hypersonic missiles and ballistic missiles, do you think they wouldn't do that with Nuclear weapons if they had one?

Do you think it is safe for Israel to wait until Iran have their nuclear weapon before they take action against it?

5. It is an erroneous claim that Pakistan pursued nuclear capability due to existential threats from India. No sir.
India conducted its first nuclear test on May 18, 1974, known as "Smiling Buddha". Pakistan conducted its first nuclear tests on May 28, 1998, with five devices detonated in the Chagai district, followed by a sixth test on May 30, 1998

Both countries were simultaneously working on acquisition of nuclear weapons it is not about existential threats.

If not for ISLAMIC NARRATIVES, there should be no enemity between Israel and Iran.

Do you DENY that Iran feel that they are the LEADER of the Muslims all over the world to usher in the Al-Mahdi and the ultimate reign of Muslims at the end time.





Mr CreativeOrbit
It seems you are knowledgeable in Islam and this was why you disengaged from continuing the debate. Don't you think you need to CONFRONT the TRUTH rather than holding on to what could lead you permanently out of the presence of God?

Your help is needed with my other post about the Word for Word, Letter for Letter preservation of the Quran down to the diacritical marks.

There was a time in my Life I had to make this same decision: the Truth Vs Sentiments
I chose the Truth!

Your response is riddled with half-truths, propaganda clichés, and a glaring absence of intellectual consistency.

1. On Khamenei’s Statements

You keep parroting Western and Israeli media headlines without critical analysis. Khamenei's reference to the “Zionist regime” being a “cancerous tumor” is political, not genocidal. It targets a political ideology (Zionism), not Jews, not Israeli civilians. It is no different from Western leaders calling for the dismantling of "communist regimes" or "terrorist states"—yet you never accuse them of genocidal threats.

And let’s be clear: Khamenei also issued a religious fatwa banning nuclear weapons. Not once has Iran threatened nuclear first-strike policy. Your obsession with quotes out of context does not replace facts, treaties, and military doctrine.

If rhetorical hostility justifies preemptive war or denial of sovereign defense rights, then what do we make of Israel’s endless threats against Iran, or Netanyahu standing in front of the UN with cartoon bombs advocating for military strikes?

2. On Israel’s “Silence”

You admit Israel has nuclear weapons but then excuse it because “they don’t threaten anyone”. That is absurd. Israel’s mere possession of undeclared nuclear weapons outside any international treaty is a threat—especially when combined with decades of invasions, assassinations, apartheid policies, and UN defiance.

Israel has launched illegal wars, bombed nuclear reactors, armed rebels, and killed scientists—all without any accountability. Spare us the narrative of moral high ground. If Iran had done even half of what Israel has done militarily, the world would have turned it into rubble by now.

3. On Iran’s Alliances

Iran arming Hezbollah or the Houthis is not illegal under international law. States form alliances and defense pacts all the time. The U.S. arms Israel with billions annually. Who gave Israel the right to determine who can and cannot defend themselves in the region?

If arming allies is the benchmark, then the U.S., UK, and Israel are the greatest violators. Your selective outrage is not moral—it’s hypocritical.

4. On Pakistan and India

Your claim about Pakistan’s nuclear development being independent of India’s threat is historically laughable. Pakistan’s nuclear doctrine was explicitly born out of the Indian threat after the 1971 war and India’s nuclear test in 1974. Your timeline confirms the point you tried to deny.

Pakistan repeatedly stated its deterrent is “India-specific.” That’s the textbook definition of existential motivation. So yes—Iran has the same right to strategic deterrence in the face of repeated Israeli aggression and open military threats.

5. On Islam and the Mahdi

Your desperate theological diversion at the end reveals your actual motive: not political concern, but religious antagonism.

Yes, Muslims believe in the Mahdi, just as Christians believe in the Second Coming. So what? Are you saying Christian eschatology is more “rational”? Was Bush invading Iraq and claiming he was fighting "evil" more moderate?

Stop pretending your faith tradition has no apocalyptic expectations. Iran’s belief in the Mahdi has nothing to do with nuclear policy. You’re weaponizing theology to justify modern war policy—ironically, the very thing you accuse Muslims of.

Final Word

I did not disengage because I lack answers—I disengaged from emotional sermons masquerading as debate. You preach “truth” but ignore justice. You invoke “God” but defend state-sponsored oppression. You preach “peace” but cheer assassination and war.

Truth is not what flatters your side. Truth is what stands up to scrutiny.

If you're serious about peace, then demand universal disarmament, accountability for all war crimes—including Israeli ones—and an end to Western double standards. If not, then you are not defending truth. You're just another apologist for power and hypocrisy—dressed in religion.

TenQ:
It seems you are knowledgeable in Islam and this was why you disengaged from continuing the debate. Don't you think you need to CONFRONT the TRUTH rather than holding on to what could lead you permanently out of the presence of God?

Your help is needed with my other post about the Word for Word, Letter for Letter preservation of the Quran down to the diacritical marks.
[/i]
There was a time in my Life I had to make this same decision: the Truth Vs Sentiments
I chose the Truth!

Your assumption is misplaced. My decision to momentarily disengage was not due to inability or lack of knowledge, but because engaging further with someone who continuously shifts the goalpost and ignores consistency adds no value.

You speak of "truth" yet constantly rely on selective arguments, emotional appeals, and misrepresentations. If you were truly committed to truth, you'd hold yourself to the same standards of scrutiny you demand of others—especially regarding your own scriptures, history, and political stances.

As a Muslim, I am guided by the principle:
"Do not argue with the People of the Book except in the best manner—except with those who act unjustly..." (Qur’an 29:46).
I do not engage endlessly in debates that have turned into provocations rather than sincere inquiry.

You speak of a decision between “truth vs. sentiment.” I agree. But truth is not decided by personal stories or theological bravado—it is established through reason, consistency, and submission to divine guidance. For us, that guidance is the Qur’an, a Book preserved not just word-for-word, but letter-for-letter—with a divine challenge still unmatched to this day.

If you’re truly seeking truth, begin by being consistent. Truth is not afraid of questioning—but it does require honesty.

This what is called a double whammy - airstrike is hitting you from one side and an earthquake is hitting you from the other side

neyop85:
Book haram and Bandits are agents of CIA and Mossad. They toppled Gadafi, destabilised Libya and caused proliferation of arms into the Sahel. Iran has nothing to do with it. You all don't know America, please reject whatever they support. They are evil and would kill you without thinking twice if you become a competitor...economically.

you are a suspect

CreativeOrbit:
Your assumption is misplaced. My decision to momentarily disengage was not due to inability or lack of knowledge, but because engaging further with someone who continuously shifts the goalpost and ignores consistency adds no value.

You speak of "truth" yet constantly rely on selective arguments, emotional appeals, and misrepresentations. If you were truly committed to truth, you'd hold yourself to the same standards of scrutiny you demand of others—especially regarding your own scriptures, history, and political stances.

As a Muslim, I am guided by the principle:
"Do not argue with the People of the Book except in the best manner—except with those who act unjustly..." (Qur’an 29:46).
I do not engage endlessly in debates that have turned into provocations rather than sincere inquiry.

You speak of a decision between “truth vs. sentiment.” I agree. But truth is not decided by personal stories or theological bravado—it is established through reason, consistency, and submission to divine guidance. For us, that guidance is the Qur’an, a Book preserved not just word-for-word, but letter-for-letter—with a divine challenge still unmatched to this day.

If you’re truly seeking truth, begin by being consistent. Truth is not afraid of questioning—but it does require honesty.

No sir!
It is not about arguments it was a DEBATE where FACTS are to be Traded in DEFENCE of a Position Held.

You were not willing to face the EVIDENCES I was showing you.
Instead, you wanted me to accept the Standard Islamic Narrative against the Evidences I am supplying.

You DO NOT want me to ASK you Questions relating to your Hadiths, Qur'an and Sirah. Instead of showing counter Proof or Evidence against my position, all you do is to repeat the Standard Islamic Narrative.

This is my problem with you!

TenQ:
No sir!
It is not about arguments it was a DEBATE where FACTS are to be Traded in DEFENCE of a Position Held.

You were not willing to face the EVIDENCES I was showing you.
Instead, you wanted me to accept the Standard Islamic Narrative against the Evidences I am supplying.

You DO NOT want me to ASK you Questions relating to your Hadiths, Qur'an and Sirah. Instead of showing counter Proof or Evidence against my position, all you do is to repeat the Standard Islamic Narrative.

This is my problem with you!

No, the real problem is your intellectual laziness and circular tactics. You keep parroting the same loaded questions, not to seek truth, but to exhaust the conversation and create the illusion of superiority. That’s not a debate—it’s deflection.

You accuse me of repeating the Islamic narrative, yet you ignore every response and keep circling back to the same points you failed to prove. If you truly believed in your evidence, you wouldn’t need to repeat yourself like a broken record—you’d engage directly and consistently with my rebuttals.

CreativeOrbit:
No, the real problem is your intellectual laziness and circular tactics. You keep parroting the same loaded questions, not to seek truth, but to exhaust the conversation and create the illusion of superiority. That’s not a debate—it’s deflection.

You accuse me of repeating the Islamic narrative, yet you ignore every response and keep circling back to the same points you failed to prove. If you truly believed in your evidence, you wouldn’t need to repeat yourself like a broken record—you’d engage directly and consistently with my rebuttals.

If you ever had engaged me, you will note that you need more than repeating the same rhetorics of your standard islamic narrative to convince me because
My aim is to show you with EVIDENCE that your narratives are full of holes.

The way I do that is to SHOW you your Religious Literatures as my EVIDENCE and I ask you DIRECT QUESTIONS based on those Literatures.


1. What do I expect?
Answer my direct questions (who's objective is to show the weakness of the Islamic narrative) truthfully according to the text
What do you do?
You repeat the standard islamic narrative as if it is the answer to the direct question

2. What do I expect?
Prove your case with literatures from the Qur'an, Hadith and Biography of your prophet
What do you do?
You repeat the same standard islamic narrative as if it is the proof to explaining your position.

You get angry that I am not taking your Islamic narrative as the final answer when my objective is actually to debunk the narrative.



To you, the narrative is the Truth
BUT
For me, the Narratives are mere Conjectures


Example:
You believe that the Qur'an is perfectly preserved word for word, letter for letter down to the diacritical marks
For me, I show you from your religious literatures that evidence abound that your claim is completely UNTRUE

Don't forget that where I started with you was that YOU should define what you understand by COLLECTION of the Qur'an and you did.

However, immediately I applied your definition to Mohammed collecting the Qur'an during his lifetime, you freaked out. You fell back to repeating the standard islamic narrative and logic, truth and grammar was thrown out of the window.

From then, it was impossible to take Allah and Mohammed EXACTLY at their words except if their words are RE-INTERPRETED according to the standard islamic narrative.

You thus get angry because I refuse to go with the standard islamic narrative but choose to go with the plain INTERPRETATION of the text.
Must you put words into the mouths of Allah and Mohammad as if they are speech incapable?


This is your problem sir.

As per knowledge of Islam, I perceive that you have it. BUT you have probably never met a person who will grill you on the Verses of the Qur'an and Hadiths you accepted without question. This was why you disengaged with the discussion.

I will ask that you read our interactions once again without sentiments and also ask yourself the deep questions I ask you as almost every Islamic narrative break down irrevocably with scrutiny.


The Truth you know and adopt will certainly set you free!