₦airaland Forum

TenQ:
.

Even nairaland bot is tired of your lies.

Ohyoudidnt:
Moses permitting divorce under God’s allowance is not the same as Aaron building an idol. One is concession, the other is idolatry. So tell me how does the first high priest of Israel leading people into idol worship not shatter his role entirely?

🤦🏾‍♂️He was called to the Lord's work but he had a lapse in judgement when confronted by the Israelites.

How this helps your Quranic claims is yet to be seen? 🤨
The above ties to the fact that he is a man, that experienced a lapse in judgement but God's mercy is enough for him. Not some perfect flawless being🤷.

Anything apart from this is not quality control but lies 🥱,the Quran wasn't aware of this for Mo just wrote down legends of tales and didn't properly understand anything 😮‍💨.

Gabrielshow24:
🤦🏾‍♂️He was called to the Lord's work but he had a lapse in judgement when confronted by the Israelites.

How this helps your Quranic claims is yet to be seen? 🤨
The above ties to the fact that he is a man, that experienced a lapse in judgement but God's mercy is enough for him. Not some perfect flawless being🤷.

Anything apart from this is not quality control but lies 🥱,the Quran wasn't aware of this for Mo just wrote down legends of tales and didn't properly understand anything 😮‍💨.

Keep justifying the unjustifiable.

Or you were fed these legends before hand. I didn't make the idol calf only cast the gold into the fire. Please to what end? What an excuse?

Furthermore the ordinary Israelites were punished as under Moses’ command, the Levites killed about 3,000 Israelites (Exod. 32:28). Nothing was done to Aaron who went as far as declaring the calf the God who brought out the Israelites from Egypt.

Isn't this dumb. What a spin tale.

Ohyoudidnt:
Keep justifying the unjustifiable.

Or you were fed these legends before hand. I didn't make the idol calf only cast the gold into the fire. Please to what end? What an excuse?

Furthermore the ordinary Israelites were punished as under Moses’ command, the Levites killed about 3,000 Israelites (Exod. 32:28). Nothing was done to Aaron who went as far as declaring the calf the God who brought out the Israelites from Egypt.

Isn't this dumb. What a spin tale.

It's not dumb, if you had read through the book you would have discovered that he was coerced. While it's not a justification for whatever he did. At least he had an argument for that, the same can't be said for your prophet who wasn't coerced but did all those despicable things from a supposed ’sharingan' free mind🤦🏾‍♂️.

Invariably, your Quran affirms this spin tale🥱 your QURAN will always refute your ’criticism' of the bible because it affirms it😅. pls tell us another lie. Your desperation to remain on this topic is comedic.

The ’spin tale’ clearly highlights his participation in the creation of the calf. As for the judgement, we can see clearly in those verses that Moses interceded for him, we can also see that it wasn't a voluntary act as he was overwhelmed by the Israelites. Tell me another lie🥱

DoWhatThouWilt:
Even nairaland bot is tired of your lies.

1. One, you have not been able to produce just one lie I spoke on Nairaland
2. You probably is the aka Nairaland bots doing Jihad in the name of Allah

LOL!

At least, I know for sure that
Sterope is the Admin feigning to be the Nairaland bots

Gabrielshow24:
It's not dumb, if you had read through the book you would have discovered that he was coerced. While it's not a justification for whatever he did. At least he had an argument for that, the same can't be said for your prophet who wasn't coerced but did all those despicable things from a supposed ’sharingan' free mind🤦🏾‍♂️.

Invariably, your Quran affirms this spin tale🥱 your QURAN will always refute your ’criticism' of the bible because it affirms it😅. pls tell us another lie. Your desperation to remain on this topic is comedic.

The ’spin tale’ clearly highlights his participation in the creation of the calf. As for the judgement, we can see clearly in those verses that Moses interceded for him, we can also see that it wasn't a voluntary act as he was overwhelmed by the Israelites. Tell me another lie🥱

Oh, tell what you think I missed.

You’ve just admitted Aaron did participate in the calf story whether coerced or not, the Bible still records him fashioning it (Exodus 32:4). Coercion doesn’t erase responsibility, it only exposes weakness in a prophet’s leadership. By contrast, the Qur’an protects prophets from such moral collapse Aaron declares I feared you would say I caused division among the Children of Israel (Qur’an 20:94), showing he resisted idolatry, not facilitated it.

As for the claim that the Qur’an affirms every biblical tale that’s false; the Qur’an repeatedly says it comes to confirm truth and expose corruption (Qur’an 5:48). So it is not desperation but a consistent correction: where the Bible blames prophets with sin, the Qur’an restores their true prophetic dignity.

The Bible portrays Aaron as failing, the Qur’an clears him.

Your Bible then questionably has God punish 3000 with death and spares Aaron. It doesn't add up but shows extreme injustice. Still feel it's simple for you to defend as coercion and intercession?

Ohyoudidnt:
Oh, tell what you think I missed.

You’ve just admitted Aaron did participate in the calf story whether coerced or not, the Bible still records him fashioning it (Exodus 32:4). Coercion doesn’t erase responsibility, it only exposes weakness in a prophet’s leadership. By contrast, the Qur’an protects prophets from such moral collapse Aaron declares I feared you would say I caused division among the Children of Israel (Qur’an 20:94), showing he resisted idolatry, not facilitated it.

As for the claim that the Qur’an affirms every biblical tale that’s false; the Qur’an repeatedly says it comes to confirm truth and expose corruption (Qur’an 5:48). So it is not desperation but a consistent correction: where the Bible blames prophets with sin, the Qur’an restores their true prophetic dignity.

The Bible portrays Aaron as failing, the Qur’an clears him.

Your Bible then questionably has God punish 3000 with death and spares Aaron. It doesn't add up but shows extreme injustice. Still feel it's simple for you to defend as coercion and intercession?

The bolded is false as I have outlined earlier, we find Ibrahim lying and serving idols🤦🏾‍♂️. We find David taking Bathsheba with supposed angels(in some accounts) or men scaling the ’prophet's’ palace🤨—how odd that a poor man got a rich man to follow him to scale the king's palace wall? —which by the way is an obvious adulteration of Nathan's parable. Need I say more? 🤨

Obviously, you tell such lies to people that don't know their left from their right. Aaron is a man that made mistakes and he expressed himself. God judged based on Moses' intercession and his involvement ( coerced and overwhelmed by the Israelites, which just assert that it wasn't from his heart) unlike someone whose ’lord is quick to fulfill the desires of his heart😮‍💨’. For his sake, his lord canceled adoption👀, he even said “allah gave me leave to marry her“(paraphrased).

We can see that while your book states one thing, ’prophets are flawless' it also contradicts itself by ’depicting prophets doing despicable things’—Need I say more?😔

Our book is free of such contradictions 😂 as from the beginning we have seen that Man is not perfect (flawless) and the prophets as well are not perfect(flawless). Only Jesus is without sin and flawless🤨, this claim is also copied by your Quran thereby throwing the rest👀 under the bus! Your also book affirms only two that the devil didn't touch(Mary and Jesus)😔—I wonder what this does to your sentiments 🥱.

Pls, tell me another lie.

Gabrielshow24:
The bolded is false as I have outlined earlier, we find Ibrahim lying and serving idols🤦🏾‍♂️. We find David taking Bathsheba with supposed angels(in some accounts) or men scaling the ’prophet's’ palace🤨—how odd that a poor man got a rich man to follow him to scale the king's palace wall? —which by the way is an obvious adulteration of Nathan's parable. Need I say more? 🤨

Obviously, you tell such lies to people that don't know their left from their right. Aaron is a man that made mistakes and he expressed himself. God judged based on Moses' intercession and his involvement ( coerced and overwhelmed by the Israelites, which just assert that it wasn't from his heart) unlike someone whose ’lord is quick to fulfill the desires of his heart😮‍💨’. For his sake, his lord canceled adoption👀, he even said “allah gave me leave to marry her“(paraphrased).

We can see that while your book states one thing, ’prophets are flawless' it also contradicts itself by ’depicting prophets doing despicable things’—Need I say more?😔

Our book is free of such contradictions 😂 as from the beginning we have seen that Man is not perfect (flawless) and the prophets as well are not perfect(flawless). Only Jesus is without sin and flawless🤨, this claim is also copied by your Quran thereby throwing the rest👀 under the bus! Your also book affirms only two that the devil didn't touch(Mary and Jesus)😔—I wonder what this does to your sentiments 🥱.

Pls, tell me another lie.

You have a right to your misconstrued critical view of Islam but the Sacred Books of Islam do not state that the prophets were necessarily sinless; rather, they were human and chosen by God for prophetic missions. They were protected and guided by God, not because they were divine, but to be true to the message of the mission and the divine revelation. They may err or act out of worldly desires but are always corrected by God, and thus, do not violate the credibility and divine origin of what was expected of them.

This is different from the biblical conception of prophets, some of whom committed sins that shake the trust we can place in their prophecies. For instance, Abraham lied about Sarah being his sister, David was guilty of slaughtering a man by marrying his disobedient wife, and Aaron mistakenly became an idol worshipper. However, the Qur'an has Abraham physically breaking idols, David judging a dispute between two lamb owners a lesson on what fair justice entails, and Aaron being praised as innocent in another verse.

It is true that the Qur'an and authentic Hadith speak of the unique nature of Jesus and Mary in being saved from the temptation of Satan when born, but this does not make the Jesus and Mary infallible whereas other prophets of God non-infinitesimally sinless. It shows a particular honor given to Jesus and Mary by God, but denies being perfect for the sacred mission of prophethood given to them or to any prophet. If prophets were to disobey or sin freely as the biblical tradition would have it, then there is no point of having a revealed teaching. Without the miracles and protections, how can anybody trust a revealed teaching from the heavens? However, it is only the Qur'an that preserves the integrity of the prophets through divine protections while giving them human limitations. Therefore, the charge of contradiction is cleared, thus revealing the Islamic view as the more satisfying one.

Ohyoudidnt:
You have a right to your misconstrued critical view of Islam but the Sacred Books of Islam do not state that the prophets were necessarily sinless; rather, they were human and chosen by God for prophetic missions. They were protected and guided by God, not because they were divine, but to be true to the message of the mission and the divine revelation. They may err or act out of worldly desires but are always corrected by God, and thus, do not violate the credibility and divine origin of what was expected of them.

This is different from the biblical conception of prophets, some of whom committed sins that shake the trust we can place in their prophecies. For instance, Abraham lied about Sarah being his sister, David was guilty of slaughtering a man by marrying his disobedient wife, and Aaron mistakenly became an idol worshipper. However, the Qur'an has Abraham physically breaking idols, David judging a dispute between two lamb owners a lesson on what fair justice entails, and Aaron being praised as innocent in another verse.

It is true that the Qur'an and authentic Hadith speak of the unique nature of Jesus and Mary in being saved from the temptation of Satan when born, but this does not make the Jesus and Mary infallible whereas other prophets of God non-infinitesimally sinless. It shows a particular honor given to Jesus and Mary by God, but denies being perfect for the sacred mission of prophethood given to them or to any prophet. If prophets were to disobey or sin freely as the biblical tradition would have it, then there is no point of having a revealed teaching. Without the miracles and protections, how can anybody trust a revealed teaching from the heavens? However, it is only the Qur'an that preserves the integrity of the prophets through divine protections while giving them human limitations. Therefore, the charge of contradiction is cleared, thus revealing the Islamic view as the more satisfying one.

🤣🤣🤣liefilled reply. Even with the assistance of LLM you still put yourself in contradictions.

[1] directly contradicts SIN. A simple question is this, if your book affirms they were humans then why the need to ’protect’ their ’integrity’?🤨 Or their errors as you said in [2]? Shouldn't they be reported as they were?🤨 Why the need to whitewash?🤧

Is presenting whitewashed prophets the result of the points above? To what end? 🤨 So that people can trust the divine message, especially the one presented to the ’final messenger’🤨.

You just buttress more the need for such whitewashing in order for your prophet to appear infallible and people will not use his ’fruits’ to dismiss his prophet hood 🥱. This attempt of yours fails miserably. Do you want me to start quoting surahs and hadiths that outline many such fruits 🤨?

Abraham you supposedly portrayed in a good light as breaking the idols, was also portrayed as lying and serving the moon, stars and the sun🥱.

David that judged between supposed ’two lamb owners’😂 is recorded in the hadith as removing ’uzziah’ out of the way to marry Bathsheba. If not I ask how Solomon was conceived from the Islamic standpoint? 🤨I guess the whitewashing failed🤧.

[3] is just a straw 🥱. The bible teaches holiness and righteousness but it doesn't depict prophets whitewashed! It displays them how they are, no need for ’protection' of ’integrity’ 👀. It displays God helping them even in their weaknesses. We do not need for you or your book to preserve ’integrity’ of prophets bordering on falsehood 🥱. Even this attempt fails as I have outlined above of the ’preserved' 'integrity’ of Abraham and David 🥱. Pls, tell us another lie.


[4] is just delusional, your logic in arriving at such a conclusion is baffling 😂. From asserting [1] that refutes your argument already to concluding with [4] begs me to ask, “are you even familiar with your own SIN“?🤨

Gabrielshow24:
🤣🤣🤣liefilled reply. Even with the assistance of LLM you still put yourself in contradictions.

🤨

To say that Muslim tradition just preserves the prophets to hide their inadequacies is not only unfair, but puts forth an important theological doctrine to rest. In the doctrine of Islamic orthodoxy, prophets are in fact human but they are protected from wilful mishandling or distortion of divine revelation (the doctrine of isma'), This cover does not constitute a kind of public relations operation to address human frailty, but to ensure the integrity of the revelation of something. If a prophet habitually lies or fabricates, that would be saying that the cornerstone of the revelation he allegedly received was in question.

To criticise Muslim narratives for white-washing simply because they do not contain some sensational anecdotes lumps together disparate typologies of source material.

The Qur'an is taken as the core scripture, while the tradition came to include many easily sensationalised storeys later added through isramiliyyat (Jewish or Christian folk-tales) or through sham storeys, weaken storeys, i.e. weak reliability). Contemporary Muslim scholarship treads carefully around such material not out of an unwillingness to accept but rather explicitly because the reliability of the accounts is suspect in terms of evidentiary value.

The particular examples that you cite represent a conflation of sources. The Qur'anic treatment of Abraham clearly states Abraham's rejection of the celestial entities moon, sun and stars rather than their worship. Thus, the claim that Abraham served the moon and stars either represents either a misinterpretation of the Qur'an, or is derived from extra-Qur'anic folk tradition.

Similarly, the case of Bathsheba and Uriah already firmly exists in the biblical source 2 Sam 11-12 and is therefore a concrete example where a prophet is pronouncing a serious sin. This conception turns the traditional claim that the biblical scripture always cleanses its prophets. Islamic sources simply leave that comparative episode out of the Qur'anic picture; if it occurs at all in Islamic literature, it usually occurs in the form of a later islets eruption of the legend (israliyat), the authority of which is itself problematic.

The rhetorical move you've identified to use, trawling out late and tenuous narratives while impugning the opposite side's as whitewashing, is less a serious rebuttal, and more a polemical effort. Hence if one were to pursue an ongoing argument, appeals to canonical authority, such as the Qur'an and sound hadith, or to comparison of an explicit biblical quotation, are absolutely necessary.

Moreover, one must not confuse the non-genuine folklore with the scriptural sources.

Sterope is watching to see which post he should delete!?
SMH!

Ohyoudidnt:
To say that Muslim tradition just preserves the prophets to hide their inadequacies is not only unfair, but puts forth an important theological doctrine to rest. In the doctrine of Islamic orthodoxy, prophets are in fact human but they are protected from wilful mishandling or distortion of divine revelation (the doctrine of isma'), This cover does not constitute a kind of public relations operation to address human frailty, but to ensure the integrity of the revelation of something. If a prophet habitually lies or fabricates, that would be saying that the cornerstone of the revelation he allegedly received was in question.

To criticise Muslim narratives for white-washing simply because they do not contain some sensational anecdotes lumps together disparate typologies of source material.

The Qur'an is taken as the core scripture, while the tradition came to include many easily sensationalised storeys later added through isramiliyyat (Jewish or Christian folk-tales) or through sham storeys, weaken storeys, i.e. weak reliability). Contemporary Muslim scholarship treads carefully around such material not out of an unwillingness to accept but rather explicitly because the reliability of the accounts is suspect in terms of evidentiary value.

The particular examples that you cite represent a conflation of sources. The Qur'anic treatment of Abraham clearly states Abraham's rejection of the celestial entities moon, sun and stars rather than their worship.¹ Thus, the claim that Abraham served the moon and stars either represents either a misinterpretation of the Qur'an, or is derived from extra-Qur'anic folk tradition.

Similarly, the case of Bathsheba and Uriah already firmly exists in the biblical source 2 Sam 11-12 and is therefore a concrete example where a prophet is pronouncing a serious sin. [b]This conception turns the traditional claim that the biblical scripture always cleanses its prophets. Islamic sources [/b]simply leave that comparative episode out of the Qur'anic picture; if it occurs at all in Islamic literature, it usually occurs in the form of a later islets eruption of the legend (israliyat), the authority of which is itself problematic.

The rhetorical move you've identified to use, trawling out late and tenuous narratives while impugning the opposite side's as whitewashing, is less a serious rebuttal, and more a polemical effort. Hence if one were to pursue an ongoing argument, appeals to canonical authority, such as the Qur'an and sound hadith, or to comparison of an explicit biblical quotation, are absolutely necessary.

Moreover, one must not confuse the non-genuine folklore with the scriptural sources.

Always proofread whatever LLMs generate for you. What you wrote there are arsenals to me, they do not help you at all. You even made some straws highlighted above🥱.

As for [1], it seems you are shy guy. You are already aware that for him to prove Allah as the supposed high God he worshipped the stars, moon and sun🤨. Or did you forget that narrative? Do you need a refresher?😮‍💨

David is also depicted in your book(Hadith) contrary to your opinion that He went after Bathsheba 🥱. Why won't your scholars not go to the scriptures for information? When the supposed book that explains the scriptures doesn't explain anything 😅?—Surah10:37 “And this Qur'an is not such as could ever be produced by other than Allah, but [it is] a confirmation of what was before it and a detailed explanation of the [former] Scripture, about which there is no doubt, from the Lord of the worlds.“🥱

Pls tell me another lie. I will properly address this in the morning until then get your act together 😮‍💨. SMH😔

Gabrielshow24:
Always proofread whatever LLMs generate for you. What you wrote there are arsenals to me, they do not help you at all. You even made some straws highlighted above🥱.

As for [1], it seems you are shy guy. You are already aware that for him to prove Allah as the supposed high God he worshipped the stars, moon and sun🤨. Or did you forget that narrative? Do you need a refresher?😮‍💨

David is also depicted in your book(Hadith) contrary to your opinion that He went after Bathsheba 🥱. Why won't your scholars not go to the scriptures for information? When the supposed book that explains the scriptures doesn't explain anything 😅?—Surah10:37 “And this Qur'an is not such as could ever be produced by other than Allah, but [it is] a confirmation of what was before it and a detailed explanation of the [former] Scripture, about which there is no doubt, from the Lord of the worlds.“🥱

Pls tell me another lie. I will properly address this in the morning until then get your act together 😮‍💨. SMH😔

If indeed you aren't the one misled by your dependence on LLM and perhaps ignorant polemics propaganda present the exact narrative you refer to. Sorry attempt to depict knowledge yet terribly ignorant.

Perhaps if you understand the use of Arabic language you will be sad to know your confirmation is not blind, blank confirmation.

Hurry up and present more folly. Make more noise please.

TenQ:
Yes, we Christians are not afraid to defend our faith. It's a belief with objective evidence.

I now know the Muslim Nairaland Admin that keeps deleting my posts and putting me under ban and he is no one other than sterrrrope . He knows that I know that his secret is out.

He is not a woman but a man. His admin privileges are very high as he can do and undo with the Nairaland platform. This explains why he was able to remove every post to him.

Every post he feels threatens Islam, he deletes.
Is this not cowardice?

so the cho cho guy is male.

That's taqqiyaa in action

honesttalk21:
Do you have verifiable proof Waraqah ibn Nawfal read out loud bible stories in the open in then pagan Mecca?

So if Warakah wasnt reading the injil out loud, how did Khadijah know he's the right person that could help Muhammed explain his revelation. What prompted Khadijah to take Muhammed to Waraka if she had no idea of the content of the injil, how it was related to Muhammed's encounter and how Waraka can be of invaluable help.
How did Kadijah know all these if Waraka was'nt reading the injil loud.

How did the people know God was helping him to translate the injil to arabic if he wasn't telling people what he was doing, or is Aisha lying.

Khadija then accompanied him to her cousin Waraqah bin Naufil bin Asad bin 'Abdul 'Uzza, who, during the Pre-Islamic Period became a Christian and used to write the writing with Arabic letters. He would write from the Gospel in Arabic as much as God wished him to write.

Waraka was a unitarian christian, he was eager to teach Muhammed how to become a prophet, that shows he's someone who is eager share his knowledge of the injil with others.

honesttalk21:
If this were the case wouldn't the Quraysh have directly accused the Prophet pbuh of this?

They definitely accused him of forgery, but u guys said they were liars.

quran 25.5
And they say, "Legends of the former peoples which he has written down, and they are dictated to him morning and afternoon."

16.103
And We certainly know that they say, "It is only a human being who teaches the Prophet." The tongue of the one they refer to is foreign, and this Qur'an is [in] a clear Arabic language.

honesttalk21:
He is known to have been a quiet seeker, respected for his knowledge, but not an active preacher. He translated what he was able to of the Torah from Hebrew to Arabic in a society where literacy was poor.

Really, but was eager to teach Muhammed how he could become a Prophet. That sounds like an active preacher to me.

honesttalk21:
The pagan Mecca was hostile to outside religions, how was your alleged public preaching by Waraqah accepted unless you mean there was agreement in what he publicly said and their practices?

Waraqa freely expressed his faith in Mecca and no one was hostile to him. He openly challenged those who persecuted their monotheist slaves and no one attacked him.

Bilal kept insisting, "One, one!" i.e., there was only one God. Waraqah joined, "One, one, by God, Bilal!" He then protested against the abuse, telling Umayyah and his clan: "I swear by God that if you kill him in this way, I will make his tomb a shrine." Umayyah took no notice.

The Qurash were hostile to Muhammed because he was insulting their gods, not because he was preaching monotheism. When Muhammed was actually preaching, they simply ignored him. But he didnt like the fact that he wasn't getting the attention he wanted, so he resorted to abusing their gods which led to his self induced victimisation.

When the Islamic prophet Muhammad initially spread Islam in his hometown, Mecca, he did not meet with any significant opposition from his tribesmen, the Quraysh. Rather, they were indifferent to his activities, as they did not appear to be particularly interested in devotional meetings. This was the case until Muhammad started attacking their beliefs, which caused tensions to arise.

Lewis, Bernard (2002). The Arabs in History. Oxford, New York: Oxford University Press.

honesttalk21:
In regards to context the Quraysh accused Muhammad pbuh of merely retelling tales of the ancients because they had picked up snippets of old stories from Jews and Christians, rather than having any genuine understanding of the scriptures themselves.

These accusation served as a convenient way for them to brush aside the revelation, similar to how some people today might dismiss something by saying, Oh, that’s just the same old myth recycled.

No the Qurash had strong evidence Muhammed was making up stories he heard from people of the books and they rightly accused him of plagiarism. Reason why they didn't take him serious until he brought Islam to Mecca with force.

Qurash knew Muhammed was friends with Christian slaves like Jabr and Yasar who lived in Mecca and worked in a shop near Mount Safa. "Ibn Ishaq also provides some detail, also seen in Al Tabari tafsir:

"According to my information the apostle used often to sit at al-Marwa at the booth of a young Christian called Jabr, a slave of B. al-Hadrami and they used to say "The one who teaches Muhammad most of what he brings is Jabr the Christian, slave of the B. al-Hadrami." Then God revealed in reference to their words "We well know that they say, "Only a mortal teaches him"."

THE CLAIM THAT THERE WERE NO CHRISTIANS IN MECCA DURING THE LIFETIME OF MUHAMMED IS A BIG LIE.

Both Ibn Ishaq and Al Tabri confirmed the association of Muhammed with Jabr, an ex christian who later converted to Islam. He was the most valuable source of Mohammed's rehashed Jewish, Arabic fables and pseudo-Christian suras. It is often said Muhammed comes up with his "revelation" after meeting with his friend Jabr, and surely the people noticed.

Quran 25:5
And they say: "Tales of the ancients, which he has caused to be written: and they are dictated before him morning and evening."

The connection was so strong and hard to ignore that Mohammed was forced to do some damage control by bringing up yet another sura.

Sura 16.103 We know indeed that they say, "It is a man that teaches him." The tongue of him they wickedly point to is notably foreign - ( this is Jabr), while this is Arabic, pure and clear.

Muhammed's defense was that since Jabr was of "a foreign tongue" (he was not an Arab by birth), he could not have taught Muhammad anything. But it does not matter if Jabr was a non-Arab, he had stayed long in Arabia to learn arabic. Besides how could Jabr be a close friend of Muhammad (if he did not understand Arabic) since Muhammad did not understand any other language?

Guy, it's not because I'm a christian that I'm saying the Quran is not from God. Even if I'm a Muslim, there's no way I would ever accept that the Quran was dictated by God. The evidence is just too glaring.

honesttalk21:
1. I am not aware that Waraqah read out loud the Gospel stories.

already dealt with

honesttalk21:
2.Yes the narrative is in line with what happened after the first revelation in the cave. Waraqah had left polytheism and new the Torah and Injil as he understood Hebrew language.

How did people around him got to know he was translating the gospel to arabic if he kept to himself and minded his business?

How did Khadijah got to know that the right person that could explain Muhammed's encounter was Waraqah if not that both had been talking to each other about the injil
except u want to push the conspiracy theory that Khadijah was a catholic christian so had solid knowledge of the bible.

honesttalk21:
3. Waraqah was Khadijah 's (the prophet's wife) cousin not Muhammad's pbuh

Mr Man, learn your own Hadith. Waraqah called Muhammed his nephew. Muhammed and Khadija were related via distant relatives.

Khadija then accompanied him to her cousin Waraqah bin Naufil bin Asad bin 'Abdul 'Uzza, who, during the Pre-Islamic Period became a Christian and used to write the writing with Arabic letters. He would write from the Gospel in Arabic as much as God wished him to write. He was an old man and had lost his eyesight. Khadija said to Waraqah, "Listen to the story of your nephew, O my cousin!" Waraqah asked, "O my nephew! What have you seen?" God's Apostle described whatever he had seen.

honesttalk21:
4. You say cousin in error then Uncle? The prophet is not known to have had earlier close relations with Waraqah who passed shortly after the first revelation.

Pls come back her and chew your words and get busy reading your hadiths instead of wasting time on the bible u don't even understand.

Waraqah asked, "O my nephew! What have you seen?" God's Apostle described whatever he had seen.

SIRTee15:
so the cho cho guy is male.

That's taqqiyaa in action

He is o!
They used to call him Korope just search. Nothing of Sterope threads exist now non Nairaland including posts responding to him. Thus you can see that his privileges on Nairaland is very high. He is probably one of those that maintain the backend of Nairaland platform.

One day, he will format the whole of Nairaland for Seun, probably then he will understand.

Ohyoudidnt:
Reference for this please. I know you don't expect me to just take your words for this.

samiriyyun is a transliteration from the syriac language word for samaritans- shamraye. The two words are very close phonetically.

Hebrew- shomronim
Greek/syriac- samareia/shamraye
arabic- samirah/samiriyyun

samiriyyun is not originally arabic but a loan word from syriac.

Ohyoudidnt:
Are you trying to give the impression that there wasn't any form of moulded object worship around the Israelites in Egypt before this incident?

I dont understand what u mean by above and how it's relayed to the anachronism problem of the smaritan.

SIRTee15:
samiriyyun is a transliteration from the syriac language word for samaritans- shamraye. The two words are very close phonetically.

Hebrew- shomronim
Greek/syriac- samareia/shamraye
arabic- samirah/samiriyyun

samiriyyun is not originally arabic but a loan word from syriac.


I dont understand what u mean by above and how it's relayed to the anachronism problem of the smaritan.

Really now? Is what you generate from whatever AI discussion now qualified as valid proof that pre-islamic Arabians were familiar with the Samaritans?

SIRTee15:
Pre islamic Arabs call samaria al- samirah

Pre islamic Arabs call Samaritans al Samiri.

Both are transliteration from Syriac Christians Aramaic.

Now why would Allah use al Samiri as the person who built the golden calf when he knew people would confuse him with the Samaritan people.

Held you in much higher scholarship expertise

SIRTee15:
already dealt with


How did people around him got to know he was translating the gospel to arabic if he kept to himself and minded his business?

How did Khadijah got to know that the right person that could explain Muhammed's encounter was Waraqah if not that both had been talking to each other about the injil
except u want to push the conspiracy theory that Khadijah was a catholic christian so had solid knowledge of the bible.


Mr Man, learn your own Hadith. Waraqah called Muhammed his nephew. Muhammed and Khadija were related via distant relatives.

Khadija then accompanied him to her cousin Waraqah bin Naufil bin Asad bin 'Abdul 'Uzza, who, during the Pre-Islamic Period became a Christian and used to write the writing with Arabic letters. He would write from the Gospel in Arabic as much as God wished him to write. He was an old man and had lost his eyesight. Khadija said to Waraqah, "Listen to the story of your nephew, O my cousin!" Waraqah asked, "O my nephew! What have you seen?" God's Apostle described whatever he had seen.



Pls come back her and chew your words and get busy reading your hadiths instead of wasting time on the bible u don't even understand.

Waraqah asked, "O my nephew! What have you seen?" God's Apostle described whatever he had seen.

No one can muzzle the Truth
@Honnesttalk21 and OhYoudidnt

SIRTee15:
already dealt with


How did people around him got to know he was translating the gospel to arabic if he kept to himself and minded his business?

How did Khadijah got to know that the right person that could explain Muhammed's encounter was Waraqah if not that both had been talking to each other about the injil
except u want to push the conspiracy theory that Khadijah was a catholic christian so had solid knowledge of the bible.


Mr Man, learn your own Hadith. Waraqah called Muhammed his nephew. Muhammed and Khadija were related via distant relatives.

Khadija then accompanied him to her cousin Waraqah bin Naufil bin Asad bin 'Abdul 'Uzza, who, during the Pre-Islamic Period became a Christian and used to write the writing with Arabic letters. He would write from the Gospel in Arabic as much as God wished him to write. He was an old man and had lost his eyesight. Khadija said to Waraqah, "Listen to the story of your nephew, O my cousin!" Waraqah asked, "O my nephew! What have you seen?" God's Apostle described whatever he had seen.



Pls come back her and chew your words and get busy reading your hadiths instead of wasting time on the bible u don't even understand.

Waraqah asked, "O my nephew! What have you seen?" God's Apostle described whatever he had seen.

I commend your efforts however too shallow.

Was the Prophet pbuh Taught by Waraqah or Jabr?

You caim Waraqah ibn Nawfal was a close family tutor of Muhammad pbuh.

However the clear reality is Waraqah was Khadijah’s cousin, making him the Prophet pbuh's cousin-in-law, not his uncle or teacher (Ibn Hishām, 1955).

Both shared distant descent from Qusayy ibn Kilab, but this was true of most Quraysh, and does not imply an intimate family tie (al-Tabari, 1987).

No historical source records ongoing meetings before revelation. Their first encounter came only after the Prophet’s experience in the cave of Hiraʾ (Sahih al-Bukhari).


You also claim: Waraqah instructed Muhammad in Christianity and scripture. But the is that by the time of their meeting, Waraqah was already old and blind, incapable of actively teaching (Bukhari, Kitab Badʾ al-Wahy).

Earlier, he had been known for writing parts of the Gospel in Arabic script, but this was publicly known, not secret (Donner, 2010) and quite a different from public oral preaching.

His actual role was confirmatory as he saud this is the Namus who came to Moses.” He validated, but did not provide content.


Again your claim that the kinship terms used in hadith prove close relations (my nephew,my cousin) but In Arabic tribal etiquette, ibn akhi (my nephew/son of my brother) was a respectful form of address for younger tribesmen, not literal genealogy (Ibn Hajar, Fath al-Bari).

Khadijah calling Muhammad your nephew, O my cousin was polite framing, not evidence of hidden Christian teaching or close genealogical relationship. This language reflected Quraysh norms of solidarity, not intimate family tutoring.


You claim Khadijah must have been discussing the Bible with Waraqah already and don't appreciate the reality of her turning to him because of his public reputation as a man of scripture, not because of secret Christian instruction.

There is no evidence that Khadijah was a Christian herself; Islamic sources consistently describe her as a believer in the One God, not as a practicing member of the Church (Donner, 2010; Neuwirth, 2019).


You particularly refer to a claim that Jabr the Christian slave taught Muhammad pbuh and though the Quraysh did accuse the Prophet pbuh of this, the Qur’an preserves and refutes the charge. The one they point to speaks a foreign tongue, while this Qur’an is in clear Arabic speech” (Qur’an 16:103).

The Quraysh themselves acknowledged the Qur’an’s unmatched eloquence in Arabic, yet accused him of learning from a foreigner an inherently contradictory claim (Reynolds, 2010). Translation effects would not explain the Qur’an’s unparalleled rhythm, structure, and coherence, which stunned native poets and linguists (Neuwirth, The Qur’an and Late Antiquity, 2019).


Your further claim that the Qur’an plagiarized from earlier scriptures is purely unfounded.
The Qur’an overlaps with Biblical traditions but reframes them with corrections and theological originality (Neuwirth, 2019).

Scholars such as John Wansbrough (1977) emphasize that the Qur’an is not derivative but engages in intertextual dialogue with late Antiquity’s religious environment. He showed that the Qur’an is not derivative but engages in intertextual dialogue with Late Antiquity’s religious environment reframing earlier ideas with originality. In other words it converses, it does not copy.

SIRTee15:
samiriyyun is a transliteration from the syriac language word for samaritans- shamraye. The two words are very close phonetically.

Hebrew- shomronim
Greek/syriac- samareia/shamraye
arabic- samirah/samiriyyun

samiriyyun is not originally arabic but a loan word from syriac.



I dont understand what u mean by above and how it's relayed to the anachronism problem of the smaritan.

I see you are unable to bring up a traceable reference to your claims outside your chatgpt session image.

Now, Gabriel Said Reynolds (Professor of Islamic Studies, Notre Dame) notes that the Qur’anic al-Samiri is “strange” because Samaritans did not exist at the time of Moses, making it unlikely that the Qur’an is reflecting Arabian knowledge of Samaritans; instead, it reflects a theological/narrative borrowing from Jewish polemics, not common Arab awareness.
(Reynolds, “The Qur’an and Its Biblical Subtext,” Routledge, 2010, p. 112–115).

Michael E. Pregill, The Golden Calf between Bible and Qur’an (OUP, 2020): argues that the Qur’an’s “al-Samiri” should not be understood historically, but as part of late antique polemical discourse. This implies that the Qur’anic audience did not need prior knowledge of Samaritans; the name functions symbolically.

W. Montgomery Watt, in Muhammad at Mecca (Oxford, 1953, p. 41), emphasizes that the range of Jewish and Christian knowledge accessible to pre-Islamic Arabs was very partial and selective. If Samaritans were unknown even in Byzantine discourse to most Christians, they would not have been known in Arabia.


So most information regarding pre-islamic Arabia familiarity with Samaritans are hypothetical and conjecture.

Allah did not call him the Samaritan people. He revealed the truth about a particular man, al-Samiri, who misled the Israelites back to a similitude of their previous Egyptian enslavers bull worship. Later historical developments which include the rise of the Samaritan sect caused some modern readers to confuse the two. The Qur’an, however, is precise; al-Samiri is a proper name or nisbah of one man in the time of Musa and Allah’s purpose was moral guidance, not ethnographic detail.

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!

Jesus didn't have to raise his voice o!
He spoke gently to the buyers and sellers!

Jesus set up his own table to share and sell tracts to these buyers and sellers in the House of God!
SMH!

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

Thanks in advance Sir!

When a person doesn't know beyond what the Old men told him to memorize


John 2:15:
"And when he had made a whip of small cords, he drove them all out of the temple, and the sheep, and the oxen; and poured out the changers' money, and overthrew the tables;"


Even though, the phrase "rod of correction" is a biblical metaphor primarily symbolizing discipline and correction aimed at guiding someone away from his foolishness or wrongdoing, you are probably looking for a literal Shephad's Rod SMH!

TenQ:
John 2:15:
"And when he had made a whip of small cords, he drove them all out of the temple, and the sheep, and the oxen; and poured out the changers' money, and overthrew the tables;"

So you lied Jesus never used a rod on people it was their animals that he used a rope to drive out of the temple.
Please next time you want to lie watch out for the people you talk to not someone like me who knows exactly the Bible verse even before you quote it.

MaxInDHouse:
So you lied Jesus never used a rod on people it was their animals that he used a rope to drive out of the temple.
Please next time you want to lie watch out for the people you talk to not someone like me who knows exactly the Bible verse even before you quote it.

As if I knew that this is where your intellectual slavery will lead you.

You should be ashamed but not you!
The spirit of Islam is pushing you on.

It isn't Rod it is Koboko!
SMH!

TenQ:
It isn't Rod it is Koboko! SMH!

Walahi Talahi this is wahala Yaaaso!

Initially you said Jesus used a rod now you changed it to koboko.

Why aren't you people humble to learn for God's sake?