₦airaland Forum

Gabrielshow24:
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!

I want to check if these bots will attack this attachment.
Immediately I told honesttalk, the attack began not up to two hours after

TenQ:
I want to check if these bots will attack this attachment.
Immediately I told honesttalk, the attack began not up to two hours after

That ’decepticon’🤦🏾‍♂️ tends to target us, it's become very annoying and rampant—I have come to dislike its intentional suppression of truth. Today, I have gone several times just by engaging with honest talk🤕. I have stopped mentioning their prophet's name😮‍💨 entirely.

It's just too bad they can't handle the truth but we will continue to tell them!

TenQ:
Which is FALSEHOOD!

Contemporary Muslims are just finding excuses to prevent the embarrassment.

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

So, What did your prophet say about this?

It more likely is irrelevant responding to your fixations.

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

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

The Prophet pbuh commanded truthfulness and warned against lying.

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

Ohyoudidnt:
It more likely is irrelevant responding to your fixations.

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

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

The Prophet pbuh commanded truthfulness and warned against lying.

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

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

Gabrielshow24:
That ’decepticon’🤦🏾‍♂️ tends to target us, it's become very annoying and rampant—I have come to dislike its intentional suppression of truth. Today, I have gone several times just by engaging with honest talk🤕. I have stopped mentioning their prophet's name😮‍💨 entirely.

It's just too bad they can't handle the truth but we will continue to tell them!

Unfortunately, Seun will kill Nairaland with this if he continues with this AI bot that can be manipulated by some Muslim Admin.

I remember in those days of Nairaland when the Battle was hot between Atheists and Christians. Nairaland was sweet then because no holds was bared. Then the Muslims started complaining AND because of them Seun created their own section where you have to swear an Allegiance to Allah to comment.

Now, it seems he has given them the power to frustrate any Christian saying Truths they want censored out from Islam.

Ohyoudidnt:
It more likely is irrelevant responding to your fixations.

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

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

The Prophet pbuh commanded truthfulness and warned against lying.

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

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


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

Ohyoudidnt:
It more likely is irrelevant responding to your fixations.

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

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

The Prophet pbuh commanded truthfulness and warned against lying.

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

The Samaritans were not a sect o!

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

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

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

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 know 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!

TenQ:
The Samaritans were not a sect o!

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

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

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

Remember the irrelevance of my response to your mentions.


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


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

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

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

Prophet Muhammad pbuh only mentioned what was revealed to him.

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

Prophet Muhammad pbuh only mentioned what was revealed to him.

what do Pre Islamic Arabs call samaritans?

Ohyoudidnt:
Remember the irrelevance of my response to your mentions.


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


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

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

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

THEN,

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


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



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

SIRTee15:
what do Pre Islamic Arabs call samaritans?

I am not privy to this kindly share

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

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

THEN,

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


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



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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Very eagerly too.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Very eagerly too.

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


Can't you see that you are defending errors?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Very eagerly too.

So you see no text thus no claim.

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

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

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

Pls, tell us another lie🥱.

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


Can't you see that you are defending errors?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Gabrielshow24:
So you see no text thus no claim.

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

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

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

Pls, tell us another lie🥱.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Lies, lies and more lies!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Both simply share the same geography.

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

Gabrielshow24:
Lies, lies and more lies!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Get better or more cannons.

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


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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Both simply share the same geography.

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

😂Water scout? Some people's dependence on LLMs will be their own undoing😂. Pls, let me know why you made al-samari, “a water scout“?

Security watch 🤨? What was he watching over? Water? 😂😂 What an apologetic!

You didn't address anything as we all know al-samari was a man🤷. That's not our bone of contention, the title of that man is the contention! The man in the literal sense originates from ’samaria’👀.

All this mental gymnastics to suggest role still fails. Pls, stop with the lies. As for the italicized statement of yours🤨, better take it back, as we are very certain of many parallels found in the Jewish targums and talmuds that your prophet copied into his stories🥱.

Gabrielshow24:
😂Water scout? Some people's dependence on LLMs will be their own undoing😂. Pls, let me know why you made al-samari, “a water scout“?

Security watch 🤨? What was he watching over? Water? 😂😂 What an apologetic!

You didn't address anything as we all know al-samari was a man🤷. That's not our bone of contention, the title of that man is the contention! The man in the literal sense originates from ’samaria’👀.

All this mental gymnastics to suggest role still fails. Pls, stop with the lies. As for the italicized statement of yours🤨, better take it back, as we are very certain of many parallels found in the Jewish targums and talmuds that your prophet copied into his stories🥱.

What a sorry state. Can you establish from that Quran verses or any other verses there in that name originates from Samaria?

When you do go on to share.

Ohyoudidnt:
Get better or more cannons.

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


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


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

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

We are not concerned with your Quran's ’favor’ of assigning Aaron's sins to another—it shows unaccountability, a theme visible in Mo's life— We are concerned with facts! We know that Mo did this, so that others will believe he was not to be questioned and he was perfect🤨. Anyone can reject the truth doesn't mean they are right! All this was done so as to wield power!

Like you said, it's the personal designation of your prophet that caused such a blunder🥱 because he rejected the truth and embraced his falsehood. I suppose according to you that all the prophets were sinless and flawless😵‍💫.Still the Quran threw them all under the bus by asserting only Jesus was sinless(pure). It even threw Ibrahim under the bus by asserting he served false gods and even lied twice for the sake of Allah, justifying taqqiya 😂—Even absurd is making Allah push Ibrahim into idolatry 🤦🏾‍♂️.

We already know the type of model, your prophet was looking for 👀—those he could use to gain power for himself or confirm his false teachings. He knew the concept of ’prophet's being flawed’ will go against him and also he just didn't know that it was Aaron. He must have heard tales which he wrote down🥱ignorantly.

Pls, tell us another lie.

Ohyoudidnt:
What a sorry state. Can you establish from that Quran verses or any other verses there in that name originates from Samaria?

When you do go on to share.

I don't have to, it's already been done by thousands. Your very own scholars translated it as such 🤷.

So, this excuse of yours is an afterthought 🥱—damage control. Mr. Water scout👀, when you have solid, conclusive proof that this nisbah refers to a ’water scout’ or ’security man’👮 and not the literally obvious ’samaritan’. kindly, bring it here until then stop with the failed mental gymnastics... It's like a baby trying to build an app🥱... It's cute😅 but falls short on all grounds🙃.

Gabrielshow24:
I don't have to, it's already been done by thousands. Your very own scholars translated it as such 🤷.

So, this excuse of yours is an afterthought 🥱—damage control. Mr. Water scout👀, when you have solid, conclusive proof that this nisbah refers to a ’water scout’ or ’security man’👮 and not the literally obvious ’samaritan’. kindly, bring it here until then stop with the failed mental gymnastics... It's like a baby trying to build an app🥱... It's cute😅 but falls short on all grounds🙃.

Scholars? Not the Prophet or his companions? They expressly said so? Please educate me and point me to these verses to convince me you speak truth.

Do you deny that water was a problem for the Israelites during the exodus? Indeed I was making an analogy but in this light it really is plausible. Tell me otherwise.

Gabrielshow24:
We are not concerned with your Quran's ’favor’ of assigning Aaron's sins to another—it shows unaccountability, a theme visible in Mo's life— We are concerned with facts! We know that Mo did this, so that others will believe he was not to be questioned and he was perfect🤨. Anyone can reject the truth doesn't mean they are right! All this was done so as to wield power!

Like you said, it's the personal designation of your prophet that caused such a blunder🥱 because he rejected the truth and embraced his falsehood. I suppose according to you that all the prophets were sinless and flawless😵‍💫.Still the Quran threw them all under the bus by asserting only Jesus was sinless(pure). It even threw Ibrahim under the bus by asserting he served false gods and even lied twice for the sake of Allah, justifying taqqiya 😂—Even absurd is making Allah push Ibrahim into idolatry 🤦🏾‍♂️.

We already know the type of model, your prophet was looking for 👀—those he could use to gain power for himself or confirm his false teachings. He knew the concept of ’prophet's being flawed’ will go against him and also he just didn't know that it was Aaron. He must have heard tales which he wrote down🥱ignorantly.

Pls, tell us another lie.

I see you rather focus on assigning the world's sins to Jesus so long they idolise and worship him. Please what's the most important thing to your faith?

Are all sins the same as idolatry?

Does the Qur'an tell you the sin of John the Baptist or he wasn't a prophet. Following your apologetic polemics I see.

Ohyoudidnt:
I see you rather focus on assigning the world's sins to Jesus so long they idolise and worship him. Please what's the most important thing to your faith?

Are all sins the same as idolatry?

Does the Qur'an tell you the sin of John the Baptist or he wasn't a prophet. Following your apologetic polemics I see.

Cognitive dissonance in this gar...b...le you call speech.

This is a path...e...tic attempt to deflect from the inherent flawlessness of the prophets imputed unto them by Mo! This response is a straw that addresses nothing!

You can't defend the indefensible so you have relied on deflection😁. You should know, I will not let you escape that easily.

“Does the Qur'an tell you the sin of John the Baptist or he wasn't a prophet.“

This is laughable 😅as I have stated above it offers nothing to the subject matter. If I can provide one flaw from the prophets then it negates your book's claim🥱. I don't even need Yahya as Mohammed, Ibrahim (as cited above) are sufficient to dismiss such claims!

Pls, tell us another lie🥱.