₦airaland Forum

honesttalk21:
I see you put thought and passion into your position even if we clearly disagree.

You say “They are not mutually exclusive. They can co-occur 😁.”

That sounds like a clever way to brush the issue aside, but let’s be real this isn’t just about “two things happening at the same time.”

Here’s the actual contradiction:
You’re saying Muhammad pbuh wasn’t truthful but also that Allah (who you claim to believe in) let him go on preaching in His name for over two decades. Not just quietly, but with growing influence, followers, and what many people saw as divine guidance.

So the question isn’t just about timing it’s about justice. Would a just God really allow someone to falsely speak in His name uncorrected, undenied, and fully supported for that long?

You can’t say he was lying and that Allah just let that ride, then also believe Allah is just and wise. That’s not mutually coexisting truths. That’s a contradiction that deserves a real answer.

You say that He allowed such for the Christians and the Jews?

I hear you but let’s slow that down.
In Islam, the belief is that God sent real prophets to those communities; Moses, Jesus, and others. The corruption came later, from followers, not from the prophets themselves.

So using that example doesn’t actually help your case because you’re not accusing followers of messing things up after Muhammad pbuh. You’re saying Muhammad pbuh himself was dishonest and that God not only didn’t stop it, but actually let him lead a global movement in His name.

If that’s what you believe, then you're basically saying God allowed a massive deception to succeed and you're okay with that. That’s a much deeper claim than maybe you’re admitting.


Well you say this is a test reply and has message limitations.

I get the frustration. Algorithms can be overly cautious sometimes, and it can feel limiting. But honestly, it’s not about censoring criticism it’s about tone, wording, and how the message is framed. You’re clearly free to disagree, even passionately. Just try to keep the language in the realm of fair and focused rather than hostile or loaded. That’s not weakness that’s clarity.

And look you don’t have to say your prophet like it’s a landmine. You can say Muhammad (I add pbuh, you don't have to), you can even say you don’t believe in his prophethood just do it in a way that shows you’re arguing a position, not attacking a person or mocking a faith. That actually makes your points hit harder, not softer.

Let Allah be true and others be false.

Agreed but that line cuts both ways.

If you truly believe Allah is true, then you also have to take seriously what He said about Muhammad pbuh in the Qur’an:

* That he was His messenger.
* That he was sent as a mercy.
* That Allah protected him and his message.
* That accusing him falsely is a major wrong.

So quoting let God be true while dismissing the very person God declared as a prophet? That’s not a consistent stance.

You either believe Allah speaks the truth in which case you’d need to rethink your accusation.
Or you believe Muhammad pbuh lied in which case, you'd have to admit you're rejecting what God Himself affirmed.

Both positions can’t be true. And I’m not saying that as a trap I’m just pointing out that these are serious claims with serious implications.

If you’ve got a longer or more detailed reply you’re working on, go ahead and send it just know that I’m not here to shut down honest discussion.

But I do think conversations like this deserve more than sarcasm, emojis, or surface-level comebacks. If you’re confident in your view, then say it clearly, back it up thoughtfully, and let’s have that real dialogue.

I was going through my mentions and stumbled across this — genuinely amusing 😂. Let’s unpack this so-called "refutation" of yours 🥱.

First, let’s talk about the character of Allah according to your own sources👀:

->Surah 3:54 – “And Allah is the best of deceivers.” The Arabic word makr is used here — which refers to strategic deception or deceit 😁. So yes, Allah is described as outwitting opponents through deceit they don’t expect.

->Surah 7:99 – “Do they feel secure from the plan of Allah? None feels secure from the plan of Allah except the losers.”Again, this emphasizes Allah's hidden hand in events — a divine schemer, whose plans are not transparent and whose actions are unpredictable.

->Surah 4:157 – Allah tricked people into thinking Jesus was crucified. This is the textbook definition of a divine deception — not just passive allowance but active intervention to mislead for a purpose😂.

->Surah 3:55 – Allah confirms to the tricked disciples that they will be above the disbelievers. So not only did Allah deceive people, but He rewarded those misled individuals based on that deception😁.

->Battle of Badr – Allah made Mo underestimate the size of the enemy (Surah 8:43-44), also supported in hadith. Mo thought he was operating with divine insight — but Allah was manipulating perceptions for a “greater plan.” Don't also let us forget that ’Mo’ had the history of “doing something when he was not“👀—he thought he was ’going down’ on his wives but he wasn't .😂

🤔So let’s not pretend this kind of action is “out of character” for Allah. The idea that Allah could allow lies or deception to persist — even for decades or centuries — is not only possible within Islamic theology, it's documented. Your own sources confirm that divine deception is on the table.😮‍💨

Now, let’s turn to your main argument:
"You're saying Muhammad wasn’t truthful, but that Allah let him preach for two decades — wouldn’t a just God intervene?"
This assumes that God always acts in immediate and visible ways to correct falsehood🥱. But biblical and Quranic history suggest otherwise.

In the Bible:
->God allowed false prophets to operate for years — even decades — misleading entire nations (e.g., the 400 prophets in 1 Kings 22, or Balaam in Numbers, or Ahab's false prophets).

->In Jeremiah 23, God condemns false prophets who “speak lies in my name,” yet they thrived for a time.

->In 2 Peter 2:3, it says: “In their greed these teachers will exploit you with false words. Their condemnation has long been hanging over them...” Implying delay, not absence, of judgment.

->In Matthew 7:22-23, many claim to have prophesied in God's name, yet God says,
“I never knew you.”

So no — a false prophet’s success, following, or longevity does not prove divine approval. I have substantiated this earlier with Buddha 👀whose message you do not affirm😂 The Bible makes this explicitly clear.

And if you're arguing from a purely Islamic view, remember: Surah 6:112 says Allah allows shayateen (devils) to inspire people with false speech as a test. That includes religious deception.👀 Mo also comes to mind with the ’satanic verses’😂.

So your “two decades” argument doesn’t carry the theological weight you think it does. God has allowed sin, corruption, and even people falsely using His name to persist — not because He endorses it, but because judgment comes in His time.

"But in Islam, prophets were real and the corruption came later from followers."
That’s fine — from an Islamic perspective. But I’m not approaching this from within Islam, I’m analyzing it from a biblical/theological lens and evaluating your own logic. If Allah is capable of letting people be deceived, then it’s not inconsistent to say He allowed Muhammad to operate as a test👀, or even as a judgment😂.

You want me to treat Muhammad as divinely confirmed because he ’succeeded’? Then what do we do with every false prophet in history who succeeded for a [b]time? Are they also validated by their results?[/b]🥱

Also, you quoted me: “Let God be true and every man a liar.” Absolutely. That includes any man who preaches contrary to the gospel of Christ👀 — even if he gathers followers, leads a movement, or dominates a region.

"You can’t believe Allah is just and still say He allowed a false prophet to succeed."
That’s a theological assertion, not a logical one. You’re assuming that immediate intervention is the only way God shows justice. That’s not how the Bible describes God’s justice — nor, ironically, how the Qur’an presents Allah’s methods either.

You want a clean equation: “Success = God’s approval.” 😂But that equation fails both scripturally and historically.

My “Allah gimmericks” comment — was sarcastic wordplay😁. Equivocation. Similar to how early Arab Christians often used Arabic terms that sounded Islamic but had radically different meanings. I knew what I was doing 😉. You fell for it 😂.

Summary:
->The idea that Allah allows deception is consistent with your own scripture.

->The idea that false prophets can operate for years is consistent with both Bible and Qur’an.

->The presence of a following, influence, or “success” does not prove authenticity.

->God’s justice is not always immediate, but it is certain.

->’Success’ doesn’t mean we automatically accept every man who claims to speak for God.

Finally, You’re trying to present a binary where none exists: either Allah is just and Muhammad is true, or Allah is unjust. But a third option remains — that Muhammad was false, and God allowed it as He has done with many others — until the appointed time of judgment.🥱

Gabrielshow24:
I was going through my mentions and stumbled across this — genuinely amusing 😂. Let’s unpack this so-called "refutation" of yours 🥱.

First, let’s talk about the character of Allah according to your own sources👀:

->Surah 3:54 – “And Allah is the best of deceivers.” The Arabic word makr is used here — which refers to strategic deception or deceit 😁. So yes, Allah is described as outwitting opponents through deceit they don’t expect.

->Surah 7:99 – “Do they feel secure from the plan of Allah? None feels secure from the plan of Allah except the losers.”Again, this emphasizes Allah's hidden hand in events — a divine schemer, whose plans are not transparent and whose actions are unpredictable.

->Surah 4:157 – Allah tricked people into thinking Jesus was crucified. This is the textbook definition of a divine deception — not just passive allowance but active intervention to mislead for a purpose😂.

->Surah 3:55 – Allah confirms to the tricked disciples that they will be above the disbelievers. So not only did Allah deceive people, but He rewarded those misled individuals based on that deception😁.

->Battle of Badr – Allah made Mo underestimate the size of the enemy (Surah 8:43-44), also supported in hadith. Mo thought he was operating with divine insight — but Allah was manipulating perceptions for a “greater plan.” Don't also let us forget that ’Mo’ had the history of “doing something when he was not“👀—he thought he was ’going down’ on his wives but he wasn't .😂

🤔So let’s not pretend this kind of action is “out of character” for Allah. The idea that Allah could allow lies or deception to persist — even for decades or centuries — is not only possible within Islamic theology, it's documented. Your own sources confirm that divine deception is on the table.😮‍💨

Now, let’s turn to your main argument:
"You're saying Muhammad wasn’t truthful, but that Allah let him preach for two decades — wouldn’t a just God intervene?"
This assumes that God always acts in immediate and visible ways to correct falsehood🥱. But biblical and Quranic history suggest otherwise.

In the Bible:
->God allowed false prophets to operate for years — even decades — misleading entire nations (e.g., the 400 prophets in 1 Kings 22, or Balaam in Numbers, or Ahab's false prophets).

->In Jeremiah 23, God condemns false prophets who “speak lies in my name,” yet they thrived for a time.

->In 2 Peter 2:3, it says: “In their greed these teachers will exploit you with false words. Their condemnation has long been hanging over them...” Implying delay, not absence, of judgment.

->In Matthew 7:22-23, many claim to have prophesied in God's name, yet God says,
“I never knew you.”

So no — a false prophet’s success, following, or longevity does not prove divine approval. I have substantiated this earlier with Buddha 👀whose message you do not affirm😂 The Bible makes this explicitly clear.

And if you're arguing from a purely Islamic view, remember: Surah 6:112 says Allah allows shayateen (devils) to inspire people with false speech as a test. That includes religious deception.👀 Mo also comes to mind with the ’satanic verses’😂.

So your “two decades” argument doesn’t carry the theological weight you think it does. God has allowed sin, corruption, and even people falsely using His name to persist — not because He endorses it, but because judgment comes in His time.

"But in Islam, prophets were real and the corruption came later from followers."
That’s fine — from an Islamic perspective. But I’m not approaching this from within Islam, I’m analyzing it from a biblical/theological lens and evaluating your own logic. If Allah is capable of letting people be deceived, then it’s not inconsistent to say He allowed Muhammad to operate as a test👀, or even as a judgment😂.

You want me to treat Muhammad as divinely confirmed because he ’succeeded’? Then what do we do with every false prophet in history who succeeded for a [b]time? Are they also validated by their results?[/b]🥱

Also, you quoted me: “Let God be true and every man a liar.” Absolutely. That includes any man who preaches contrary to the gospel of Christ👀 — even if he gathers followers, leads a movement, or dominates a region.

"You can’t believe Allah is just and still say He allowed a false prophet to succeed."
That’s a theological assertion, not a logical one. You’re assuming that immediate intervention is the only way God shows justice. That’s not how the Bible describes God’s justice — nor, ironically, how the Qur’an presents Allah’s methods either.

You want a clean equation: “Success = God’s approval.” 😂But that equation fails both scripturally and historically.

My “Allah gimmericks” comment — was sarcastic wordplay😁. Equivocation. Similar to how early Arab Christians often used Arabic terms that sounded Islamic but had radically different meanings. I knew what I was doing 😉. You fell for it 😂.

Summary:
->The idea that Allah allows deception is consistent with your own scripture.

->The idea that false prophets can operate for years is consistent with both Bible and Qur’an.

->The presence of a following, influence, or “success” does not prove authenticity.

->God’s justice is not always immediate, but it is certain.

->’Success’ doesn’t mean we automatically accept every man who claims to speak for God.

Finally, You’re trying to present a binary where none exists: either Allah is just and Muhammad is true, or Allah is unjust. But a third option remains — that Muhammad was false, and God allowed it as He has done with many others — until the appointed time of judgment.🥱

Allowance of small, temporary deception is biblical. But allowance of a false prophet whose message endures, dominates, and rivals the gospel for 14 centuries without correction is not. That would make God negligent, not just. Your third option collapses under the scale of Islam’s persistence.

SIRTee15:
Let's start from the beginning
Can U tell us the etymology of the word 'Allah'

Got you! Been a while.

Stating that Allah is not unique by being referred to as al-ilah misses the point. Etymology reveals only the language's origin, not theological truth. The word God, like the Greek equivalent of Theos, has its roots in pagan beliefs, but it is used to refer to the authentic God in Scripture.

Islam regards Allah as more than just a mere word, but rather an attribute consisting of absolute unity, self-sufficiency, everlasting knowledge and unparalleled power. The Qur'an repeatedly states that no one can attain His essence or authority (Qur’an 112:1-4). Despite the use of language as an attribute, divine uniqueness cannot be negated; the question at hand is whether the attributes and essence described are truly unique.

honesttalk21:
Allowance of small, temporary deception is biblical. But allowance of a false prophet whose message endures, dominates, and rivals the gospel for 14 centuries without correction is not. That would make God negligent, not just. Your third option collapses under the scale of Islam’s persistence.

Define temporary 🥱?
God is not negligent but rather letting men decide their fate. Even in revelation we see where the saints that have died clamoured for justice 😮‍💨Rev 6:9-11.

So length is not an affirmation of God's approval as God allowed iniquity to be from the very beginning. Pls, stop with the lies.
Your refutation doesn't refute anything!

It's seems you were taught repeat until it becomes true🥱. Even Buddhism that is older than your religion and still practiced till today, is considered false😮‍💨, according to both of us, so your allusions of ’age’ is off point🥱.

Gabrielshow24:
Define temporary 🥱?
God is not negligent but rather letting men decide their fate. Even in revelation we see where the saints that have died clamoured for justice 😮‍💨Rev 6:9-11.

So length is not an affirmation of God's approval as God allowed iniquity to be from the very beginning. Pls, stop with the lies.
Your refutation doesn't refute anything!

It's seems you were taught repeat until it becomes true🥱. Even Buddhism that is older than your religion and still practiced till today, is considered false😮‍💨, according to both of us, so your allusions of ’age’ is off point🥱.

Truth and divinity are based on the idea of time. Depicting something as temporary is a false assertion that disregards the essence of what is eternal.Although myths, idols and fleeting belief systems may be present in human history, they lack the lasting truth that only God embodies. Why?

In addition, the belief that allowing free will to occur is a fundamental misrepresentation of divine principles. Allah, who is aware of wrongdoing but has a reason for delaying judgment (Qur'an 14:42), appears in this passage. Rather than endorsing sin, this delay is an indication of the ability to be patient and repentant.

This sentiment is also noteworthy in the Bible, as evidenced by Revelation 6:9–11, where martyrs are instructed to anticipate justice. Their patience highlights that divine omission doesn't necessarily indicate divine sanction.

Age alone cannot validate truth. Christianity is compromised in the same way that Judaism is undermined if Islam is considered false due to its later appearance. Why? The measure of truth should be Revelation, not longevity.' Falsehoods can be temporary, but they remain transient in the face of an everlasting and eternal reality.

honesttalk21:
Truth and divinity are based on the idea of time. Depicting something as temporary is a false assertion that disregards the essence of what is eternal.Although myths, idols and fleeting belief systems may be present in human history, they lack the lasting truth that only God embodies. Why?

In addition, the belief that allowing free will to occur is a fundamental misrepresentation of divine principles. Allah, who is aware of wrongdoing but has a reason for delaying judgment (Qur'an 14:42), appears in this passage. Rather than endorsing sin, this delay is an indication of the ability to be patient and repentant.

This sentiment is also noteworthy in the Bible, as evidenced by Revelation 6:9–11, where martyrs are instructed to anticipate justice. Their patience highlights that divine omission doesn't necessarily indicate divine sanction.

Age alone cannot validate truth. Christianity is compromised in the same way that Judaism is undermined if Islam is considered false due to its later appearance. Why? The measure of truth should be Revelation, not longevity.' Falsehoods can be temporary, but they remain transient in the face of an everlasting and eternal reality.

This is a false assumption analogy🥱, you are assuming that “if the Quran is false then the rest are false“ 🥱. Each are responsible for their own proofs, so if your Quran can't substantiate its own claims, it doesn't affect me in anyway😂. Even if I were to be wrong, your Quran will still be wrong for affirming a wrong book😂. Either way, you are still wrong!

Its claim is simple, ’if mo were to be a false prophet, he will be heavenalized in a certain way👀’—🙃 this is not dependent on time but rather on the mode! And as God would have it, we have his own affirmation 😂 on the subject matter 😔; in the same exact ’metaphorical’😂 words.

We have our proofs for our own claims, it's left to you to defend yours🤕! If your prophet was heavenalized in the way Allah said he would, if he were to be a false prophet, not also excluding the fact that he gave satanic verses😂then you have your work cut out for you😔—A really difficult one at that.

As for the rest of your write-up, you only affirm my stance that Allah intentionally delays judgement 😔, so it's not immediate, except you want to assert that Allah's ’judgement's delayal’ doesn't exceed ’two decades’—A very ludicrous assertion😅.

Pls, serenade me with more lies 😁

Gabrielshow24:
This is a false assumption analogy🥱, you are assuming that “if the Quran is false then the rest are false“ 🥱. Each are responsible for their own proofs, so if your Quran can't substantiate its own claims, it doesn't affect me in anyway😂. Even if I were to be wrong, your Quran will still be wrong for affirming a wrong book😂. Either way, you are still wrong!

Its claim is simple, ’if mo were to be a false prophet, he will be heavenalized in a certain way👀’—🙃 this is not dependent on time but rather on the mode! And as God would have it, we have his own affirmation 😂 on the subject matter 😔; in the same exact ’metaphorical’😂 words.

We have our proofs for our own claims, it's left to you to defend yours🤕! If your prophet was heavenalized in the way Allah said he would, if he were to be a false prophet, not also excluding the fact that he gave satanic verses😂then you have your work cut out for you😔—A really difficult one at that.

As for the rest of your write-up, you only affirm my stance that Allah intentionally delays judgement 😔, so it's not immediate, except you want to assert that Allah's ’judgement's delayal’ doesn't exceed ’two decades’—A very ludicrous assertion😅.

Pls, serenade me with more lies 😁

You already tell yourselves enough lies.

Ironically, your complaints end up confirming core Islamic truths. Your frustration over the delayed judgment actually illustrates the Qur’an’s teaching that Allah’s patience is deliberate and wise (Qur’an 14:42).

This insistence on a specific heavenalization mode or immediate recognition of the Prophet pbuh reinforces the principle that prophethood is independent of human perception or timing.

Then your repeated reference to satanic verses underscores the historical consistency and preservation of the Qur’an, because defending against such claims requires the very textual integrity Islam asserts.

Every objection you raise, rather than undermining Islam, highlights its core claims about divine wisdom, prophetic legitimacy, and the Qur’an’s preservation.

honesttalk21:
Got you! Been a while.

Stating that Allah is not unique by being referred to as al-ilah misses the point. Etymology reveals only the language's origin, not theological truth. The word God, like the Greek equivalent of Theos, has its roots in pagan beliefs, but it is used to refer to the authentic God in Scripture.

Islam regards Allah as more than just a mere word, but rather an attribute consisting of absolute unity, self-sufficiency, everlasting knowledge and unparalleled power. The Qur'an repeatedly states that no one can attain His essence or authority (Qur’an 112:1-4). Despite the use of language as an attribute, divine uniqueness cannot be negated; the question at hand is whether the attributes and essence described are truly unique.

Everyone has theological truth which is mostly subjective.
Islamic definition of Allah can only be objective if the name Allah originated within the islamic theology. Unfortunately, it's not, thus islamic definition of Allah only makes sense within it's faith.

Arabic speakers had been calling the name Allah b4 Muhammed was born.

So tell us what is the root meaning of the word Allah amongst native Arabic speakers b4 existence of Muhammed and Islam.
When they mentioned the word Allah, what do they mean? Where did they get that word from?
What we fis

SIRTee15:
Everyone has theological truth which is mostly subjective.
Islamic definition of Allah can only be objective if the name Allah originated within the islamic theology. Unfortunately, it's not, thus islamic definition of Allah only makes sense within it's faith.

Arabic speakers had been calling the name Allah b4 Muhammed was born.

So tell us what is the root meaning of the word Allah amongst native Arabic speakers b4 existence of Muhammed and Islam.
When they mentioned the word Allah, what do they mean? Where did they get that word from?
What we fis

When it comes to theological truth, Islamic theology makes a clear distinction between conceptual truth and subjective opinion.

While personal faith can vary from person to person, the Qur’an lays out specifics about God (Allah) that focus on His attributes, oneness, and divinity. Claims that are both internally consistent and rationally sound. So, in Islam, the definition of Allah isn’t just a matter of personal interpretation; it’s rooted in a solid theological and philosophical framework.

In the context of polytheistic tribes, Allah was often viewed as the supreme god above a host of lesser deities, though He wasn’t typically worshiped as an idol.

Arabic speakers likely borrowed the term from earlier Semitic languages, with linguists tracing it back to al-ilah, which literally means the God. This is similar to the Hebrew Eloah or the Aramaic Elah.

The existence of the term before Islam highlights linguistic continuity rather than theological accuracy. Islam took this established term and infused it with a clear, objective meaning, defining Allah in a way that is monotheistic, rational, and consistent.

honesttalk21:
When it comes to theological truth, Islamic theology makes a clear distinction between conceptual truth and subjective opinion.

While personal faith can vary from person to person, the Qur’an lays out specifics about God (Allah) that focus on His attributes, oneness, and divinity. Claims that are both internally consistent and rationally sound. So, in Islam, the definition of Allah isn’t just a matter of personal interpretation; it’s rooted in a solid theological and philosophical framework.

In the context of polytheistic tribes, Allah was often viewed as the supreme god above a host of lesser deities, though He wasn’t typically worshiped as an idol.

Arabic speakers likely borrowed the term from earlier Semitic languages, with linguists tracing it back to al-ilah, which literally means the God. This is similar to the Hebrew Eloah or the Aramaic Elah.

The existence of the term before Islam highlights linguistic continuity rather than theological accuracy. Islam took this established term and infused it with a clear, objective meaning, defining Allah in a way that is monotheistic, rational, and consistent.

Ok now that U admitted Arab speakers borrowed the word allah from ancient Semitic languages, can U tell me the name of your God b4 people started speaking Arabic.

SIRTee15:
Ok now that U admitted Arab speakers borrowed the word allah from ancient Semitic languages, can U tell me the name of your God b4 people started speaking Arabic.

This is just natural since Arabic is a later Semitic language.

You asked what God’s name was before Arabic. Isn't this clear to you?

In Hebrew it was El, Eloah, Elohim (Genesis 1:1).
Aramaic/Syriac (the language of Jesus); Alaha. In Akkadian, Ilu is used for the supreme God.

Allah is simply the Arabic continuation of this ancient Semitic root (ʾ-L). That’s why even Arab Christians today still pray to Allah.

Note that the same root name (El, Elohim) is used in the Bible both for the true God and for false gods (Exodus 20:3, Psalm 82:1). So if you argue that Allah is invalid because pre-Islamic Arabs also misused the word, then by your own logic, Elohim is invalid too since pagans used it for Baal and other idols.

The reality is that the name predates pagan corruption. Arabs preserved it as Allah, Hebrews as El/Eloah, Aramaeans as Alaha. Islam restores it to its pure monotheistic meaning.

honesttalk21:
Nice for you to comment though I don't quite understand your first paragraph. Then if it is partly understood do you suggest revelation is to come after prophet Muhammad pbuh?

In the Qur’an (69:44–46), Allah states that if Muhammad pbuh were to fabricate revelations, He would severe his al-watīn (aorta). The message is clear and urgent, indicating immediate judgment rather than a slow demise.

However, the Prophet pbuh lived for another decade after this verse, completing the message of Islam (5:3). If he were indeed false, Allah’s warning would have come before the mission was fulfilled.

According to the Hadith (Bukhari 4428), the Prophet pbuh remarked during his illness, It feels like my abhari (artery) is being cut. Do you imply that abhari and al-watin are the same?

It’s important to note that al-watin (from the Qur’an) is not the same as abhar (from the Hadith).

The Qur’an delivers a literal divine judgment, while the Hadith uses metaphor to express pain. Confusing the two is a linguistic error.


The poisoning at Khaybar (7 AH) didn’t stop the Prophet pbuh; he continued to lead Islam for four more years, guiding it to prominence. Do you state this to be false?

His death in 11 AH was due to a natural illness, witnessed by his companions, rather than a sudden divine intervention.

Experiencing suffering is part of the prophetic journey.
Job faced illness, Jacob lost his sight, Moses experienced fear, and Jesus (as per the Bible) was crucified. Suffering does not equate to falsehood.


If verse 69:46 implied lingering pain,then it would apply to everyone’s death, rendering it meaningless.

Since the Prophet pbuh lived to witness the completion of Islam, the Qur’an itself stands as evidence that he was not seized in falsehood.

Then regarding me refferencing the suffering of Jesus you called it shambolic though I wasn't trying to dodge the main issue since suffering doesn't equate to falsehood.

It's actually the crux of the matter. If we say that a prophet is false because they experience physical pain, illness, or suffering, then we have to apply that same logic to Jesus, who endured immense suffering on the cross. The Qur’an, the Bible, and historical accounts all illustrate that prophets were fully human and experienced physical frailty. Their physical experiences don’t discredit them; rather, they highlight their humanity.

Motte and bailey fallacy. You hide behind the straw, ’physical pain or suffering is a sign of falsehood’, negating the simple fact that people suffer for different things. Your overgeneralization commits a grave error as it assumes, Jesus suffers for falsehood, your prophet suffered for his own sins while Jesus offered himself. This are two different things. You have to prove to me, that people can't suffer for their own wrongs, that suffering or pain is solely a precursor of 'good works'. I don't think you can, because it applies for both, the context determines which is being connoted.

Now, you have committed another error by assuming the Quran's literary device is literal while some of you argue it's metaphorical, the very context suggest such. Your appeal to some Arabic word is unnecessary as according to traditional narrative both words can used to refer to similar things, ’metaphorically’. This vain attempt to make it literal is striking as the Quran doesn't posit so, Allah's speech was definitely metaphorical; implying ’death’ for his falsehood. The exact nature of his death is metaphorically expressed and if you want a literal assertion then it bears remarkable similarities also.

All your allusions to other ’prophets's suffering’ doesn't even help you out, as these prophets' didn't have a precursor of any kind. This precursor warning affirms that he committed falsehood. If it loomed above Jacob that he will be blind if he were false, his blindness will affirm it. The same goes for Mohammed, he had a lot to do, to ensure he didn't die by expressing ’my aorta being cut’.
Unfortunately, he just couldn't help it .

Continuation doesn't mean he was ’right’ with God. You have to prove that just because some men 'continue' that it means God's approval. This is also false, for you have assumed ’long life’ is a sign of truthfulness and God's approval—I beg to differ. False prophets are numerous that continued for a time, if you want us to accept Mohammed just because he ’prospered’ or lived ’20 years extra’ then we will be forced to inculcate and believe in all false prophets because they too, prospered for a time—You know this is a problem, an inherent problem. Another absurdity, is that you have fixed God's judgement to come upon him within those 20 years and the absence of it, confirms your doctrine? I don't think so, God's judgement from scripture comes at his will, his will is subject to him, you don't constrain it as you like —If he wanted to ’take’ him instantly then he would have, and if he also wanted he will let him die in his folly, it's not beyond God.

if you want to assert your logic, then we you must assert that God must strike within 20years to judge a person, when simple reasoning shows that people have reaped what they sowed 50years later, this is just an illustration, while others have reaped it instantly. Karma comes for us all, but for some it appears to be delayed. I can draw parallel and ask why God hasn't taken judgement on tyrannical regimes for the needless killing of his slaves? some of these regimes span more than twenty years—This county can also be construed to be inhabited by bandits who intentionally put the lives of their citizenry in jeopardy, and yet they have lived for over 20years!

Completion of something doesn't mean it was God inspired. I can mirror the same logic by asserting that just because the ’kamasutra’ was completed then it was inspired of God. Now, you have to prove otherwise which will make you bring up other ’points’ that go beyond the surface of 'completion'. Stop reducing intricately complex stuffs into simple things inorder to sell your point—You and I both know that 'completion' never signals God's approval! There are many that have completed their ideas, books, doctrines and even religion before their demise, all of this are in no way an indicator of God's approval.

His death was not due to natural illness, if it were the poison won't be brought up. It's just your self denial to avoid the fulfillment of Allah's prophecy that you proffer another solution or alternative to bypass this. Even within your school there are varying accounts with some asserting that he died from the lamb meat. Do you want to disbelieve them just because you don't agree with it? Thus objectively, it's safe to assume that he died from the meat and such implications puts him as a false prophet.

Julia25:
Motte and bailey fallacy. You hide behind the straw, ’physical pain or suffering is a sign of falsehood’, negating the simple fact that people suffer for different things. Your overgeneralization commits a grave error as it assumes, Jesus suffers for falsehood, your prophet suffered for his own sins while Jesus offered himself. This are two different things. You have to prove to me, that people can't suffer for their own wrongs, that suffering or pain is solely a precursor of 'good works'. I don't think you can, because it applies for both, the context determines which is being connoted.

Now, you have committed another error by assuming the Quran's literary device is literal while some of you argue it's metaphorical, the very context suggest such. Your appeal to some Arabic word is unnecessary as according to traditional narrative both words can used to refer to similar things, ’metaphorically’. This vain attempt to make it literal is striking as the Quran doesn't posit so, Allah's speech was definitely metaphorical; implying ’death’ for his falsehood. The exact nature of his death is metaphorically expressed and if you want a literal assertion then it bears remarkable similarities also.

All your allusions to other ’prophets's suffering’ doesn't even help you out, as these prophets' didn't have a precursor of any kind. This precursor warning affirms that he committed falsehood. If it loomed above Jacob that he will be blind if he were false, his blindness will affirm it. The same goes for Mohammed, he had a lot to do, to ensure he didn't die by expressing ’my aorta being cut’.
Unfortunately, he just couldn't help it .

Continuation doesn't mean he was ’right’ with God. You have to prove that just because some men 'continue' that it means God's approval. This is also false, for you have assumed ’long life’ is a sign of truthfulness and God's approval—I beg to differ. False prophets are numerous that continued for a time, if you want us to accept Mohammed just because he ’prospered’ or lived ’20 years extra’ then we will be forced to inculcate and believe in all false prophets because they too, prospered for a time—You know this is a problem, an inherent problem. Another absurdity, is that you have fixed God's judgement to come upon him within those 20 years and the absence of it, confirms your doctrine? I don't think so, God's judgement from scripture comes at his will, his will is subject to him, you don't constrain it as you like —If he wanted to ’take’ him instantly then he would have, and if he also wanted he will let him die in his folly, it's not beyond God.

if you want to assert your logic, then we you must assert that God must strike within 20years to judge a person, when simple reasoning shows that people have reaped what they sowed 50years later, this is just an illustration, while others have reaped it instantly. Karma comes for us all, but for some it appears to be delayed. I can draw parallel and ask why God hasn't taken judgement on tyrannical regimes for the needless killing of his slaves? some of these regimes span more than twenty years—This county can also be construed to be inhabited by bandits who intentionally put the lives of their citizenry in jeopardy, and yet they have lived for over 20years!

Completion of something doesn't mean it was God inspired. I can mirror the same logic by asserting that just because the ’kamasutra’ was completed then it was inspired of God. Now, you have to prove otherwise which will make you bring up other ’points’ that go beyond the surface of 'completion'. Stop reducing intricately complex stuffs into simple things inorder to sell your point—You and I both know that 'completion' never signals God's approval! There are many that have completed their ideas, books, doctrines and even religion before their demise, all of this are in no way an indicator of God's approval.

His death was not due to natural illness, if it were the poison won't be brought up. It's just your self denial to avoid the fulfillment of Allah's prophecy that you proffer another solution or alternative to bypass this. Even within your school there are varying accounts with some asserting that he died from the lamb meat. Do you want to disbelieve them just because you don't agree with it? Thus objectively, it's safe to assume that he died from the meat and such implications puts him as a false prophet.

Your argument seems to follow a classic Motte and Bailey tactic. You confidently claim that Muhammad’s (pbuh) death fulfills Qur’an 69:44–46, but then you backtrack to a safer position, saying prophets can suffer and God judges when He wills. However, this doesn’t really support your accusation. The warning in the Qur’an about al-watin is taken literally and was never activated since he lived long enough to complete the revelation. Plus, the hadith mentioning suffering is just a metaphor for pain; note the difference unless you say Hadith equals Quran. If suffering disqualifies someone from being a prophet, then you’re also undermining Jesus. But if it doesn’t, then you can’t use that argument against Muhammad. Either way, your reasoning falls apart.

honesttalk21:
Your argument seems to follow a classic Motte and Bailey tactic. You confidently claim that Muhammad’s (pbuh) death fulfills Qur’an 69:44–46, but then you backtrack to a safer position, saying prophets can suffer and God judges when He wills. However, this doesn’t really support your accusation. The warning in the Qur’an about al-watin is taken literally and was never activated since he lived long enough to complete the revelation. Plus, the hadith mentioning suffering is just a metaphor for pain; note the difference unless you say Hadith equals Quran. If suffering disqualifies someone from being a prophet, then you’re also undermining Jesus. But if it doesn’t, then you can’t use that argument against Muhammad. Either way, your reasoning falls apart.

Probably, the LLM you gave to provide a ’meaningful’ rebuttal didn't understand the context. it also repeated the same thing without achieving nor refuting anything—such redundancy coming from an inferior logical position is necessary.

Back to your rebuttal, I noticed you gravely committed the motte and bailey error but somehow you, along with your LLM, conflated my position. Irrespective of this glaring error, your points fail because you have attacked a straw man, a misrepresentation of my position. You stated that he experienced suffering as the prophets before him, you also stated that such suffering is for good works only, generalizing such to ludicrous proportions. You also asserted that God had 20 years to fulfill the judgement, as though you were God spokesperson or his commander that should tell him when or not to perform his Judgement . The implication of this is simple, you do not have a handle on God's judgement as it comes in its time! No case there.

The warning Al watin, may be literal as well as metaphorical, while it's convenient for you to intrepret such as literal to bypass the inherent self-fulfillment of Allah's prophecy. It's also metaphorical as it was used as such in the very Quran. Now, just as the way you have set yourself as ’judge and jury’ of Allah's judgement, you have done likewise here—It's you that is deciding when it's literal and when it's not among other things . You have misconstrued this verse to mean that if the heart-vein or neck-vein of an impostor is not immediately severed by Allah, it would be a proof that he was a true prophet —How happy many false prophets will be! Also, isn't Allah's hands incomparable to his creation?
If you affirm a literal meaning then Allah has literal hands, I am certain this goes against your core doctrines. This shows it's not literal but metaphorical! Allah will do the seizing by his ’metaphorical hand’!

Your other points are tangential as they do not address anything. Suffering is a consequence of an 'action', you have focused on ’suffering’ while negating the ’action’ that warrants it! Until, you focus on that 'action' instead of this allusion and its false equivocation then it's irrelevant to the subject matter.

Julia25:
Probably, the LLM you gave to provide a ’meaningful’ rebuttal didn't understand the context. it also repeated the same thing without achieving nor refuting anything—such redundancy coming from an inferior logical position is necessary.

Back to your rebuttal, I noticed you gravely committed the motte and bailey error but somehow you, along with your LLM, conflated my position. Irrespective of this glaring error, your points fail because you have attacked a straw man, a misrepresentation of my position. You stated that he experienced suffering as the prophets before him, you also stated that such suffering is for good works only, generalizing such to ludicrous proportions. You also asserted that God had 20 years to fulfill the judgement, as though you were God spokesperson or his commander that should tell him when or not to perform his Judgement . The implication of this is simple, you do not have a handle on God's judgement as it comes in its time! No case there.

The warning Al watin, may be literal as well as metaphorical, while it's convenient for you to intrepret such as literal to bypass the inherent self-fulfillment of Allah's prophecy. It's also metaphorical as it was used as such in the very Quran. Now, just as the way you have set yourself as ’judge and jury’ of Allah's judgement, you have done likewise here—It's you that is deciding when it's literal and when it's not among other things . You have misconstrued this verse to mean that if the heart-vein or neck-vein of an impostor is not immediately severed by Allah, it would be a proof that he was a true prophet —How happy many false prophets will be! Also, isn't Allah's hands incomparable to his creation?
If you affirm a literal meaning then Allah has literal hands, I am certain this goes against your core doctrines. This shows it's not literal but metaphorical! Allah will do the seizing by his ’metaphorical hand’!

Your other points are tangential as they do not address anything. Suffering is a consequence of an 'action', you have focused on ’suffering’ while negating the ’action’ that warrants it! Until, you focus on that 'action' instead of this allusion and its false equivocation then it's irrelevant to the subject matter.

You’re calling me out for using the motte and bailey tactic, but your whole argument is built on a shaky foundation. The Qur’an doesn’t claim that God has to eliminate a false prophet right away history shows that false prophets often lived for years before facing judgment. The term al-watin can be interpreted both literally and metaphorically, just like many Semitic expressions, without leading to any contradictions. Plus, your point about suffering proving falsehood doesn’t hold up either, since every true prophet Moses, Jesus, Muhammad pbuh endured significant suffering. In short, you’ve wrapped your rhetoric in the guise of logic, but the verse remains intact.

honesttalk21:
You’re calling me out for using the motte and bailey tactic, but your whole argument is built on a shaky foundation. The Qur’an doesn’t claim that God has to eliminate a false prophet right away history shows that false prophets often lived for years before facing judgment¹. The term al-watin can be interpreted both literally and metaphorically, just like many Semitic expressions, without leading to any contradictions². Plus, your point about suffering proving falsehood doesn’t hold up either, since every true prophet Moses, Jesus, Muhammad pbuh endured significant suffering³. In short, you’ve wrapped your rhetoric in the guise of logic, but the verse remains intact.

At this point, your admissions in [1] and [2] have defeated your entire argument .

So indeed, you know that Allah permits 1 yet you set decrees for Allah to do otherwise. You also know that 2 can likewise be intrepreted metaphorically then why the insistence of literally . By this two admissions, you have no argument. You have thrown your argument out the window.

This third one is funny. May I ask, if Allah wants to perform judgement on these false prophets in [1], do they enjoy? if you answer this in light of [1] then you have defeated your third and final strawman!

In summary, you have proved that ¹Allah's judgement can come at any time and it's not a prerequisite for Allah to perform is judgement instantly. ²You have also proved that al-watin has metaphorical uses and alluding to its literal meaning when Allah doesn't have a literal hand is false.

By answering the question, you will let us know whether or not Allah when punishing false prophet, sends ’joy on them or punishment and suffering’. This alone renders your strawman mute, as suffering can also be used for judgement upon falsehood! As a corollary, Allah can use suffering as a test or as judgement. You deciding, as usual , that Allah only uses suffering on prophets(people) as an affirmation of their prophet hood is false. As you have clarified above, Allah can also judge false prophets through suffering!

If you want I can bring out Surahs that depict Allah's ability to send suffering on falsehood. You will see such surahs counter your surmised claim, “suffering is for good deeds only“ .

TenQ:
But Al-Jabbar, Al-Karim, Al-Muhaymin, Al-Mujtaba, and Al-Ra'uf specifically also refer to Mohammed's name isn't it?

Meaning that Mohammed is partner with Allah by name?


So, Mohammed shares some Attributes with God!?
But my questions were very specific!


1. Do you know any other person who shares attributes with God apart from Mohammed?

2. These are NAMES of Allah example, you can call Allah by the name Al-Rahman or Al-Raheem just as you can call Allah by the names Al-Jabbar, Al-Karim, Al-Muhaymin, Al-Mujtaba, and Al-Ra'uf.

Can you disprove the LOGIC that if ANY or just ONE of these names are also the names of Mohammed , then Mohammed is Allah?

3. Does Mohammed share knowledge with Allah?
4. When you recite the shahada, do you not associate the name of Allah with then name of Mohammed?




Withnall these, don't you think you are a polytheist?

The names of Allah are dependent on humans😮‍💨. I think the third one is subtly connoted in their books; in one case, we have obey Allah, in another we have ’obey Mo in everything’.

There are also reasons to suggest that the shahada is incomplete 😂 as the earliest ones include Christ😮‍💨. Overall, their book is an abridged version of itself as well as a plagiarized verison of others—It definitely cannot be inimitable, shaitan already proved otherwise.

Julia25:
At this point, your admissions in [1] and [2] have defeated your entire argument .

So indeed, you know that Allah permits 1 yet you set decrees for Allah to do otherwise. You also know that 2 can likewise be intrepreted metaphorically then why the insistence of literally . By this two admissions, you have no argument. You have thrown your argument out the window.

This third one is funny. May I ask, if Allah wants to perform judgement on these false prophets in [1], do they enjoy? if you answer this in light of [1] then you have defeated your third and final strawman!

In summary, you have proved that ¹Allah's judgement can come at any time and it's not a prerequisite for Allah to perform is judgement instantly. ²You have also proved that al-watin has metaphorical uses and alluding to its literal meaning when Allah doesn't have a literal hand is false.

By answering the question, you will let us know whether or not Allah when punishing false prophet, sends ’joy on them or punishment and suffering’. This alone renders your strawman mute, as suffering can also be used for judgement upon falsehood! As a corollary, Allah can use suffering as a test or as judgement. You deciding, as usual , that Allah only uses suffering on prophets(people) as an affirmation of their prophet hood is false. As you have clarified above, Allah can also judge false prophets through suffering!

If you want I can bring out Surahs that depict Allah's ability to send suffering on falsehood. You will see such surahs counter your surmised claim, “suffering is for good deeds only“ .

You should be remarkably applauded for engaging in pretty much a garrulous academic play of words without understanding the Quranic verses emphasize the immediate and decisive consequence of divine judgment for fabricating false sayings, stating that God certainly should have cut off his life artery (Aorta).

So all the God's patience, time etc. do not apply.😭🤣👍🥴🤔.

Anyway it's only expected of you since to a large extent you disagree that a prophet should come after Jesus haven been led to misinderstand his words or been totally deprived of them.

honesttalk21:
You should be remarkably applauded for engaging in pretty much a garrulous academic play of words without understanding the Quranic verses emphasize the immediate and decisive consequence of divine judgment for fabricating false sayings, stating that God certainly should have cut off his life artery¹ (Aorta).

So all the God's patience, time etc. do not apply.😭🤣👍🥴🤔.

Anyway it's only expected of you since to a large extent you disagree that a prophet should come after Jesus haven been led to misinderstand his words or been totally deprived of them².

The first one doesn't have a bearing on this argument as it's axiomatic you do not have an handle on Allah's judgement.

[2] is just a weird addition, it addresses nothing! You should keep such observations to yourself and focus on the argument on ground. It will do your position better.

Summary:
You have no refutation or escape hole to wriggle your way out of. All your excuses have been rendered 'not useful'. Any point of yours that might better serve your case¿

Julia25:
The first one doesn't have a bearing on this argument as it's axiomatic you do not have an handle on Allah's judgement.

[2] is just a weird addition, it addresses nothing! You should keep such observations to yourself and focus on the argument on ground. It will do your position better.

Summary:
You have no refutation or escape hole to wriggle your way out of. All your excuses have been rendered 'not useful'. Any point of yours that might better serve your case¿

You are the one making a case to prove your point .

Gabrielshow24:
The names of Allah are dependent on humans😮‍💨. I think the third one is subtly connoted in their books; in one case, we have obey Allah, in another we have ’obey Mo in everything’.

There are also reasons to suggest that the shahada is incomplete 😂 as the earliest ones include Christ😮‍💨. Overall, their book is an abridged version of itself as well as a plagiarized verison of others—It definitely cannot be inimitable, shaitan already proved otherwise.

That's why when you ask them a direct question, instead of answering it, they will manufacture their own preferred questions and respond to that.

Is La aM is a joke at best. A collection of tales, rituals from every source to form a religion that leads away from the TRUE God

honesttalk21:
This is just natural since Arabic is a later Semitic language.

You asked what God’s name was before Arabic. Isn't this clear to you?

In Hebrew it was El, Eloah, Elohim (Genesis 1:1).
Aramaic/Syriac (the language of Jesus); Alaha. In Akkadian, Ilu is used for the supreme God.

Allah is simply the Arabic continuation of this ancient Semitic root (ʾ-L). That’s why even Arab Christians today still pray to Allah.

Note that the same root name (El, Elohim) is used in the Bible both for the true God and for false gods (Exodus 20:3, Psalm 82:1). So if you argue that Allah is invalid because pre-Islamic Arabs also misused the word, then by your own logic, Elohim is invalid too since pagans used it for Baal and other idols.

The reality is that the name predates pagan corruption. Arabs preserved it as Allah, Hebrews as El/Eloah, Aramaeans as Alaha. Islam restores it to its pure monotheistic meaning.

The problem is El, Elohim or Baal or Alaha is not the name of God. They are the linguistic word for god I'm their respective languages.
Elohim can be used for any deity, Baal is the name for deity in cannanite language.

The personal name of God is I AM THAT I AM. IN ANY LANGUAGE U SPEAK, THE NAME OF GOD IS I AM.
IN HEBREW, I AM SOUNDS LIKE YHWH.

NOW TELL US, WHAT IS THE PERSONAL NAME OF YOUR GOD. what is the name of Allah b4 the Arabic language came into existence.

SIRTee15:
The problem is El, Elohim or Baal or Alaha is not the name of God. They are the linguistic word for god I'm their respective languages.
Elohim can be used for any deity, Baal is the name for deity in cannanite language.

The personal name of God is I AM THAT I AM. IN ANY LANGUAGE U SPEAK, THE NAME OF GOD IS I AM.
IN HEBREW, I AM SOUNDS LIKE YHWH.

NOW TELL US, WHAT IS THE PERSONAL NAME OF YOUR GOD. what is the name of Allah b4 the Arabic language came into existence.

Thank you for your response.
I didn't include Baal in the names where my response is and wonder why you include it. In any case Jesus by the Bible said Eli; guess by your view this is wrong.

The Hebrew for I am that I am אֶהְיֶה אֲשֶׁר אֶהְיֶה or I am אני; Ani, and its pronunciation is distinct from the Tetragrammaton YHVH (יהוה)

The sound-alike aspect is more about a shared etymological origin and a theological continuity of meaning rather than a direct phonetic resemblance.
This continuity fits with Allah as one word not compounded from time immemorial and your view about al-ilah which isn't commonly used in Arabic language.

I have answered your following statement but sense you are just doing a back and forth more so seeming to try to wave me off with Hebrew.

The name Allah is a special title that refers to the one true God in the Qur’an, setting it apart from ilah, which is a more general term for god or deity. This distinction emphasizes the core monotheistic belief in Islam, showcasing Allah's unique and transcendent nature. Perhaps you can try to show me the non unique ones that have this name.

honesttalk21:
Thank you for your response.
I didn't include Baal in the names where my response is and wonder why you include it.

Baal simply means lord and it's a synonym for deity in Canaanites language.
Cannanite call their different gods Baal because that's the name for god.
Israelites also borrowed the word and used it when referencing God in ancient times as reflected in their early books.
Gideon is also known as Jerubaʿal, meaning "The Lord Strives", Saul's son Eshbaʿal ("The Lord is Great", and David's son Beeliada ("The Lord Knows". The name Bealiah meaning "Yahweh is Baʿal" combines both names to reflect how it's used. Baal is not the personal name of any deity but simply a derived linguistic name.

Even God confirm this when he told Jews not to call him Baal anymore but husband.

Amos 2.16
“And in that day, declares the Lord, you will call me ‘My Husband,’ and no longer will you call me ‘My Baal.’

honesttalk21:
In any case Jesus by the Bible said Eli; guess by your view this is wrong.

Aramaic name for deity is Elah. It's not a personal name. Elaha can be used for any deity. Jesus made it clear the name of his Father is I AM.
Jesus spoke Aramaic and used the common term for God in the language - Elah. That is not the personal name for God.

honesttalk21:
The Hebrew for I am that I am אֶהְיֶה אֲשֶׁר אֶהְיֶה or I am אני; Ani, and its pronunciation is distinct from the Tetragrammaton YHVH (יהוה)

I AM means ehyeh in Hebrew which sounds like YHWH when pronounced. Ani is a figment of your own imagination.

If Allah is a continuity of similar sounding Semitic words Elohim, Elah, EL, Baal; it shows Allah is a derived name which simply means god.

So u have not answered my question. What is the name of your God before even the first language was created.

honesttalk21:
You already tell yourselves enough lies.

Ironically, your complaints end up confirming core Islamic truths. Your frustration over the delayed judgment actually illustrates the Qur’an’s teaching [/b]that Allah’s patience is deliberate and wise (Qur’an 14:42).

[b]This insistence on a specific heavenalization mode or immediate recognition of the Prophet pbuh reinforces the principle that prophethood is independent of human perception or timing.

Then your repeated reference to satanic verses underscores the historical consistency and preservation of the Qur’an, because defending against such claims requires the very textual integrity Islam asserts.

Every objection you raise, rather than undermining Islam, highlights its core claims about divine wisdom, prophetic legitimacy, and the Qur’an’s preservation.

Laughable and 🤡-ish.

You just can't help but to refute yourself. No one cares for the irrelevant quotation of that Surah that inadvertently refutes your claim—If Allah is patient then why demand from him an immediate strike?😅🤷

It seems at this point I will just sit back and let you do all the work, as you continue to bring all the tools for self-refutation🤣. First, ’immediate recognition’ is a straw to bypass the error. Second, the remaining clause is also a straw, it doesn't answer pertinent questions outlined above. It's a byproduct of your infinitesimal wisdom🤨. The irony now lies that ’prophethood’ is independent of human perception, thereby throwing your hadith allusions and sabi..uns accounts under the bus. ’Timing’ is also independent of humans as it comes in His time—God's time😅. Once more you have thrown your argument out the window.Ergo, why the incessant allusion to people ’confirmed him’ and ’it must occur within 20years’ by you? 🤨When you already knew all this. Intellectual dishonesty on display 😔.

The third one is just funny. You actually used this to defend someone that couldn't differentiate between God's words and Satan's 😮‍💨. The levels you stoop to amazes us. How then do you know that others weren't inspired by Satan?🤷 This along with abrogation shows that it was man made😮‍💨. I don't take this as a response for it addresses nothing! An error by Satan was recited by your prophet which is also confirmed in the hadith along with the fact that he was under a spell for 6-12months🤨, performing invisible ’make out sessions’ with his wives. Such a person that easily fell under the ’sharingan’ is what you assert as true? 🤷 By the way, your book is not preserved nor consistent!

Summary, your ’rebuttal’ doesn't address any core claims but rather your supposed facts render your own allusions null and void! Allah is patient👀 Ergo, allusions to immediate judgement is wrong!

Pls, tell us another lie!

SIRTee15:
Baal simply means lord and it's a synonym for deity in Canaanites language.
Cannanite call their different gods Baal because that's the name for god.
Israelites also borrowed the word and used it when referencing God in ancient times as reflected in their early books.
Gideon is also known as Jerubaʿal, meaning "The Lord Strives", Saul's son Eshbaʿal ("The Lord is Great", and David's son Beeliada ("The Lord Knows". The name Bealiah meaning "Yahweh is Baʿal" combines both names to reflect how it's used. Baal is not the personal name of any deity but simply a derived linguistic name.

Even God confirm this when he told Jews not to call him Baal anymore but husband.

Amos 2.16
“And in that day, declares the Lord, you will call me ‘My Husband,’ and no longer will you call me ‘My Baal.’



Aramaic name for deity is Elah. It's not a personal name. Elaha can be used for any deity. Jesus made it clear the name of his Father is I AM.
Jesus spoke Aramaic and used the common term for God in the language - Elah. That is not the personal name for God.



I AM means ehyeh in Hebrew which sounds like YHWH when pronounced. Ani is a figment of your own imagination.

If Allah is a continuity of similar sounding Semitic words Elohim, Elah, EL, Baal; it shows Allah is a derived name which simply means god.

So u have not answered my question. What is the name of your God before even the first language was created.

ani ►
Lexical Summary
ani: I, me
Original Word: אֲנַי
Part of Speech: pronoun singular, common
Transliteration: aniy
Pronunciation: ah-nee
Phonetic Spelling: (an-ee')
KJV: I, (as for) me, mine, myself, we, X which, X who
NASB: Myself, alone
Word Origin: [contracted from H595 (אָנוֹכִי - myself)]

So the question will now return to why Jesus will use a general name for deity when calling to the uniquely named God?

Is it proper to associate Eli with Elah in Aramaic?

Do you now say Yahweh or YHVH is the unique name of God?

honesttalk21:
ani ►
Lexical Summary
ani: I, me
Original Word: אֲנַי
Part of Speech: pronoun singular, common
Transliteration: aniy
Pronunciation: ah-nee
Phonetic Spelling: (an-ee')
KJV: I, (as for) me, mine, myself, we, X which, X who
NASB: Myself, alone
Word Origin: [contracted from H595 (אָנוֹכִי - myself)]

I'm not even going to waste my time with your mumbo jumbo. Experts and acholars in ancient hebrew language are saying I AM in exodus 3 is eheyeh in Hebrew. Yet u are forcing something else on me, what's your qualification of I may ask?

honesttalk21:
So the question will now return to why Jesus will use a general name for deity when calling to the uniquely named God?

because Jesus spoke Aramaic and the word for God in Aramaic is Elah.
Just like Muhammed spoke Arabic and used the Arabic word for God when calling on his deity.
Arabic Christians have been calling on Allah as God centuries b4 Muhammed was born. They never said it's the personal name of God.

honesttalk21:
Is it proper to associate Eli with Elah in Aramaic?

Eli means my God
Elah means God
Elaha means The God.
They are all Aramaic language

honesttalk21:
Do you now say Yahweh or YHVH is the unique name of God?

Yes, finally we have gotten there. YHWH is the personal name of God. I AM in whatever language U speak.
It denotes aseity and self existence. I AM THAT I AM is a name that defines who God is. He's the source of everything. Nothing comes from outside of him.
Therefore, U cannot use anything to define God. He is telling us we can only define HIM BY HIMSELF. U CANNOT USE OTHER THINGS TO Define GOD BECAUSE THERE'S NOTHING OUTSIDE OF GOD THAT CAN BE USED TO DEFINE GOD.
And this goes into divine simplicity which is another topic altogether.

SIRTee15:
I'm not even going to waste my time with your mumbo jumbo. Experts and acholars in ancient hebrew language are saying I AM in exodus 3 is eheyeh in Hebrew. Yet u are forcing something else on me, what's your qualification of I may ask?



because Jesus spoke Aramaic and the word for God in Aramaic is Elah.
Just like Muhammed spoke Arabic and used the Arabic word for God when calling on his deity.
Arabic Christians have been calling on Allah as God centuries b4 Muhammed was born. They never said it's the personal name of God.



Eli means my God
Elah means God
Elaha means The God.
They are all Aramaic language


Yes, finally we have gotten there. YHWH is the personal name of God. I AM in whatever language U speak.
It denotes aseity and self existence. I AM THAT I AM is a name that defines who God is. He's the source of everything. Nothing comes from outside of him.
Therefore, U cannot use anything to define God. He is telling us we can only define HIM BY HIMSELF. U CANNOT USE OTHER THINGS TO Define GOD BECAUSE THERE'S NOTHING OUTSIDE OF GOD THAT CAN BE USED TO DEFINE GOD.
And this goes into divine simplicity which is another topic altogether.

I hope you read up what you posted in the image? Ehyeh is the future imperfective term but Ani is described as I or I am. However irrelevant.

Well now you are collapsing your argument. You see nothing wrong in Jesus using a general name but fault Muhammad pbuh using similar?

Did Prophet Muhammad pbuh say he brought a new God?

Clarification on Eli and El noted though your tone suggests disagreement with use of non specific or is this exact name for God.

Now why is this personal name of God never used by Jesus? Does this not question the perception of this name as the personal name of God?

Sirtee15, nothing to say in response yet?

[quote author=SIRTee15 post=136632715][/quote]I hope you have now found that your claim that Allah is merely a borrowed compound word is misleading. Even if Allah historically comes from al-ilah, it has been a single, standalone word in Arabic long before Islam.

Islam did not borrow Allah but used the already existing Arabic word for God, which shares the same root as the biblical Eloah / Elah.

honesttalk21:
I hope you read up what you posted in the image? Ehyeh is the future imperfective term but Ani is described as I or I am. However irrelevant.

Ehyeh and Ani are not the same thing. argue with scholars.

honesttalk21:
Well now you are collapsing your argument. You see nothing wrong in Jesus using a general name but fault Muhammad pbuh using similar?

when did I argue this. U guys are the ones that stole the general word for God in arabic and personalised it as the PERSONAL NAME OF YOUR GOD. and we are asking, before arabic language was created, what is the personal name of your God.

honesttalk21:
Did Prophet Muhammad pbuh say he brought a new God?

I have no business with the deity Muhammed brought. My question is what is the personal name of your God.
honesttalk what is the personal name of the God you worship, and when did he start bearing that personal name?

honesttalk21:
Clarification on Eli and El noted though your tone suggests disagreement with use of non specific or is this exact name for God.

Eli, El, Elohim, Baal are all non generic name of God in cannanite languages. They can be sued for God or any other deity, they are not personal names.

honesttalk21:
Now why is this personal name of God never used by Jesus? Does this not question the perception of this name as the personal name of God?

He did!!! Jesus mentioned the name[b] 'I AM'- Ehyeh[/b]

TenQ:
The Gentle Jesus sweetly used the rod of correction on those buying and selling in the synagogue.

Please can you quote the highlighted in any Bible version of your choice?

Thanks in advance Sir!