₦airaland Forum

TenQ:
Is this story even remotely TRUE?
Why?
Abraha, the Abyssinian was not a prophet nor a magician, can you explain HOW he succeeded in Bringing an Army of Elephants into the Arabian Desert?




Note:
Elephants cannot survive in deserts as they need lots of water for drinking and cooling themselves

Also
An adult elephant typically needs to drink between 100 to 200 liters (about 25 to 50 gallons) of water per day for drinking in cool regions and double the amount in hot climates. They also need to drink 2 to 3 times a day.

Cc: All Muslims
Antichristian
Honesttalk21
Gaskiyamagana
Lukuluku69 ,
mhmsadyq
AbuTwins
Explore2xmore


Isn't this tales of the ancients indeed?

One of the many tales by moonlight in the Qur'an.
Now , anyone that sheds light on this is shadowbanned by the Nairaland Admins.


Shame.





No wonder they cannot respond!

SIRTee15:
Let me ask u a question.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

They won't, the day I knew that guy was dishonest, was when he said brazenly that ’Allah wonders’ and ’Mo wonders’ were the same😂—Since, then I knew he could never change😂—in a vain bid to defend the perfect preservation of Qu...

God could never have revealed such an ahistorical book Surah 4:82 confirms this.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Pls, tell us more lies🥱

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Pls, tell us more lies🥱

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Only you can address your misunderstanding and confusion.

Ohyoudidnt:
100% of your text is likely AI-generated

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Only you can address your misunderstanding and confusion.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Pls, tell us another lie.

DoctorStanley:
You can also only call your dad daddy without asking his name. Which is what Muslims do. Moses, on the other hand, asked YHWH his name

Moses asked clearly to differentiate Him from other gods, which should be obvious to anyone aware of many gods except they didn't feel the need to do such.

Tenq what do you think?

TenQ:
Is this story even remotely TRUE?
Why?
Abraha, the Abyssinian was not a prophet nor a magician, can you explain HOW he succeeded in Bringing an Army of Elephants into the Arabian Desert?




Note:
Elephants cannot survive in deserts as they need lots of water for drinking and cooling themselves

Also
An adult elephant typically needs to drink between 100 to 200 liters (about 25 to 50 gallons) of water per day for drinking in cool regions and double the amount in hot climates. They also need to drink 2 to 3 times a day.

Cc: All Muslims
Antichristian
Honesttalk21
Gaskiyamagana
Lukuluku69 ,
mhmsadyq
AbuTwins
Explore2xmore


Isn't this tales of the ancients indeed?

😂 great point

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

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

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

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

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

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

Pls, tell us another lie.

There are just few things I would respond to.

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

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

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

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

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

Ohyoudidnt:
There are just few things I would respond to.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Jesus also said if you see him you've seen that one God. Something Muhammad or any other prophet dared not say. But love is his main message (and non-violence), quite different fro Mohammed

Ohyoudidnt:
There are just few things I would respond to.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Pls, tell me more lies

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Pls, tell me more lies

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

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

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


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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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


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

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

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

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

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

Lies, lies and more lies!

You even made some errors by saying this:
“the Bible has a divine origin. Interestingly, Islam shares this view in some way too. "

We have different claims, we do not purport our book was written on heavenly tablets before the beginning of the world! We also do not imply infallibility(inerrancy) of our book, as we assert that God's inspiration through human beings brought about such books hence it's not perfect 👀. We also do not make claims that the bible does not contain external sources😂—our book contains history as well.

You lot make such claims! The onus is on you to substantiate them. Given the unprecedented claims you have made:😂 we must not find fallibility in the Quran, it must be perfectly preserved, there must be no ’abrogation' as such contradicts perfection, your Quran must not contain historical or mundane sources👀, your Quran must not contradict itself, the Quran must be inimitable (unfortunately, Satan has rendered this part void as he imitated Allah's words that even the prophet didn't know the difference! 😂)etc., I could go on and on but I will stop here. It's safe to say, that if one of the above is broken then the Quran is false!

It doesn't take much thought for one to see that the Quran is not perfectly preserved, it's imitable (Satan to the rescue😂), it plagiarized lots of apocryphal sources🤕, it's filled with contradictions such as "David building chain mail in his time, Jesus dieing on a cross and also not dieing on a cross 🤕), “is Mo' the first muslim?“ etc. I could go all day, listing contradictions this will suffice to drive home my point.

Based on this, it's beyond reasonable doubt that the Quran is false!
Pls, tell us more lies 🥱.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What's that got to do with your Quran's claim? Every book is responsible for its proof. With the ’edits, composition, compilation, translation, and revision’ it's been historically and scientifically proven to be preserved unlike yours. With this in mind, Allah also affirms the preservation of the scripture to show that the whole of it is fulfilled (preserved), Allah even gave a verse to the Jews to ensure they do not cherry pick the law but rather take the fullness of the Law! The contrary is what you are doing now! 🥱

If your prophet affirmed, the fullness of the Torah then why are you people now cherry-picking? 🥱
My friend, tell me another lie 🤧.

The Arabic word for God is Illah and not Allah, therefore who Is this Allah?

DoctorStanley:
Have you considered that "Allah" simply means "God" in Arabic, and not name of any particular god

Ohyoudidnt:
The argument that the Qur’an is incorrect for mentioning a Samiri during the Exodus is built on a misunderstanding. The Arabic term al-Sāmiri isn’t the same as the later term Samaritan,”which is linked to Samaria and came about centuries afterward. In Semitic languages, nisbah names (like al-Miṣri, meaning the Egyptian) can refer to a tribe, a region, or even a descriptive title not just a nation state that developed later
Biblical texts also use names that are retrojected. For instance, Abraham is described as encountering Philistines (Gen. 21:32–34), even though the Philistines didn’t actually settle in Canaan until much later. If we were to reject the Qur’an for this reason, we’d have to apply the same logic to the Torah.

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

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

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

Ohyoudidnt:
In truth, al-Samiri might simply refer to a tribal or regional identity that would have been recognizable to the audience of the Qur’an, rather than being an anachronism.

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

Ohyoudidnt:
Therefore, the accusation of poor historical knowledge falls apart. It’s a misinterpretation of Arabic usage and a double standard when it comes to scripture.

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

TVTM2023:
The Arabic word for God is Illah and not Allah, therefore who Is this Allah?

See below

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

So in summary this is your response.
U admit the word as samiri means samaritan in arabic language, but insist the as samiri in the Quran is not the same as the samaritan.
u believe the as samiri mentioned in the Quran mean something else but u have no idea what it could be.
u not sure if the as samiri is the name of a person, place, land or people. u dont know and u have no idea how to guess.
so u summarised the samiri as a mystery and a linguistic puzzle.

Interesting.

Ohyoudidnt by now u know the truth. Quran couldnt have been written by God, its impossible for God to have written that book.
Personally, I believe 99% of educated Muslims know within them that Allah didn't dictate the Quran, they are just too afraid, embarrased or ashamed to admit it.

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

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

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

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

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

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



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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Which is FALSEHOOD!

Contemporary Muslims are just finding excuses to prevent the embarrassment.

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

So, What did your prophet say about this?

gohf:
Moses asked clearly to differentiate Him from other gods, which should be obvious to anyone aware of many gods except they didn't feel the need to do such.

Tenq what do you think?

Exactly.

Yes we can call the creator by the genetic title God, but then this will depend on the God we are referring to.

*Vishnu is to some God
*Ahura Mazda is to some God
*Brahma is to some God
*Unetlanuhi is to some God
*Adi-Buddha is to some God
*Allah is to some God (this is why even Muslims will say Allah means God in Arabic)
*YHWH is to some God.

Meaning that each of the Gods have an IDENTITY.

Ask any Christian or Jew:
Is the personal NAME or IDENTITY of their God YHWH?
The answer is a definite YES!

Ask any Muslim:
Is the personal NAME or IDENTITY of their God YHWH?
The answer is a definite NO!


And for a final nail in their coffin: those who say Allah and God is the same is to get any Muslim to truthfully answer the question.


With Islamic Evidence, Is Allah the same as Ahura Mazda, Brahma, Unetlanuhi, Adi-Buddha, or YHWH?
Because they are known liars
Can they substitute these names in their shahada or Prayers?


Muslims are desperate to claim the God of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Moses and David as their own because that is where they derive their legitimacy!

gohf:
😂 great point

You see why they would avoid the quiz like a plague.

Wars are not fought in three days. How did the army sustain both the feeding and drinking of both Soldiers and Elephants for goodness sake.


And they cannot say that it was a miracle. You see their dilemma!

TenQ:
Which is FALSEHOOD!

Contemporary Muslims are just finding excuses to prevent the embarrassment.

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

So, What did your prophet say about this?

All the more reason he has to lie😂. The next thing is to lie that it's some kind of ’semitic idiom’👀. Every error like this... “it's an idiom“—when such idiom has never been used nor has no record of use save in the Quran😵‍💫. We will like to know where the tribe of ’samirah’ came from🥱 or perhaps what the samaritans were guiding, did Mo' mistake the Levites with ’samiri’? Another mistake from the uncreated Eternal speech of Allah, a book that claims to explain all things in detail 😮‍💨.

Cognitive dissonance at its peak!