₦airaland Forum

Kukutente23:
Yet another tissue of dishonest talk
Your very limited knowledge of the book of Isaiah keeps dripping with each post.
It is not true that every chapter that starts with "burden" is dedicated to prophesying doom and destruction. Isaiah 19 started with the phrase "Burden against Egypt" and ended with blessings upon Egypt.
I have also previously corrected you that isaiah 42 does not stand in isolation. It is part of a compendium starting from 41 all through 45 where Isreal is referred to as God's chosen and His Servant.
Isaiah 42 is not the only place where Sela is used to refer to wilderness. Sela is also used to refer to the wilderness in c16.
There's no place in v11 where it says the Arabian tribes will lead the song of praise to God. That's simply your imagination and false insertion on a bid to buttress your fallacies. And 42 never said any light will arise from Arabia either. Another lie against the scripture from you.
I already referred you to Matthew 5 for the legal codes instituted by Jesus Christ. You're attempting to delegitimise the injeel simply because it makes a lie of your claim that Jesus brought no law. Meanwhile there's no much difference between the laws in the Torah and the Sharia law yet you claim Sharia is a new law while the new laws promulgated by Jesus which have far and wide deviations from the Mosaic laws, you claim are not laws but moral codes. This is laughable. There's no religious law that's not moral in its application after all religion itself is borne out of the quest for moral consolidation.
History is replete with Muhammad levying wars against his enemies. He even got poisoned by one of them. He encouraged the rape of slaves. He also took his adopted son's wife and ensured a separate law for himself different from that which was required of his followers such as in marriage and inheritance. I don't think such a man can be described as just and compassionate.
Lastly, there is no place where a prophet of Arabia is mentioned in c42. You can point me to the verse and prove me wrong.

I can sense your passion, and I respect it. But strong words don’t change what the text or the historical record actually say. Let’s walk through this carefully, without emotion clouding reason.

You’re right that Isaiah 19 begins with burden against Egypt and ends in blessing. But that actually proves my point about the prophetic style. Those burden sections are judgment oracles and sometimes they end with hope, sometimes not, but their purpose is warning. Isaiah 42 isn’t in that category at all; it sits in the section scholars call the Servant Songs (Isaiah 42, 49, 50, 52–53). These chapters are about a chosen servant who brings law, light, and justice to the nations. A message of guidance, not condemnation. That’s why it doesn’t begin with burden. The literary form is simply different.

Now about Sela:, yes, the name appears elsewhere, even in chapter 16, but names often repeat in the Bible. What matters is the context. In Isaiah 42, the prophet moves from global to local. Sing to the Lord a new song… you who go down to the sea, you coastlands, the wilderness and its towns, the villages that Kedar inhabits; let the people of Sela sing for joy. That progression isn’t random; it narrows down to specific names. Kedar, as every Bible dictionary confirms, refers to Ishmael’s descendants in Arabia. Pairing it with Sela in the same breath strongly suggests a shared region, not unrelated compass points. You’re right that verse 11 doesn’t literally say Arabian tribes will lead, but the verse clearly singles them out among the rejoicing peoples. That’s not imagination, it’s plain textual observation.

And you’re also right that Isaiah doesn’t spell out the words light will arise from Arabia, but that’s not how prophecy works. It uses description and symbolism, not modern labels. The light in this passage is the new law and divine justice the servant brings, which perfectly fits Muhammad peace be upon him, who arose from Arabia and delivered a law that reached nations across continents. Jesus, peace be upon him, as the Gospels themselves record, said he came to fulfil the Law, not to replace it. The new commandment in John 13 love one another was moral renewal, not legislation. He never codified a civil or judicial law. Islam’s Shariah, by contrast, is a full legal and moral system that’s exactly the kind of mishpat (justice/judgement) and torah (instruction/law) Isaiah describes.

As for the following accusations about the Prophet’s pbuh life; the wars, the poisoning, the marriage to Zaynab, the treatment of captives, these are often repeated without context. Muhammad peace be upon him fought in defense after years of persecution, not as an aggressor. The poisoning at Khaybar is a historical event that even Muslim sources record; it doesn’t stain his character. His marriage to Zaynab came by divine command to reform adoption laws, which is explained openly in the Qur’an. Regarding captives, Islam didn’t invent slavery but restricted and humanized it, making the freeing of slaves one of the greatest virtues. To claim he encouraged rape is not supported by the texts or early Islamic law, which strictly regulated and gradually pushed toward emancipation.

The Prophet’s life is full of verified examples of gentleness forgiving his enemies at Mecca, sharing food with the poor, freeing captives, and forbidding cruelty. These are not the marks of a tyrant but of a leader who lived the very mercy Isaiah describes: He will not break a bruised reed, nor quench a dimly burning wick.

Finally, Isaiah doesn’t need to spell out Prophet of Arabia for the description to fit. The chapter gives the signs. Aservant bringing a new law, praised in Kedar and Sela, spreading light to nations, supported by divine power in battle, gentle yet steadfast. Those details form a fingerprint and when you match it against history, it fits only one man. That’s not a lie against Scripture; it’s taking the text seriously.

So we can disagree respectfully, but calling this reading dishonest doesn’t make it less valid. The prophecy stands on its own words and its fulfillment, by every historical measure, began in Arabia.

honesttalk21:
I can sense your passion, and I respect it. But strong words don’t change what the text or the historical record actually say. Let’s walk through this carefully, without emotion clouding reason.

You’re right that Isaiah 19 begins with burden against Egypt and ends in blessing. But that actually proves my point about the prophetic style. Those burden sections are judgment oracles and sometimes they end with hope, sometimes not, but their purpose is warning. Isaiah 42 isn’t in that category at all; it sits in the section scholars call the Servant Songs (Isaiah 42, 49, 50, 52–53). These chapters are about a chosen servant who brings law, light, and justice to the nations. A message of guidance, not condemnation. That’s why it doesn’t begin with burden. The literary form is simply different.

Now about Sela:, yes, the name appears elsewhere, even in chapter 16, but names often repeat in the Bible. What matters is the context. In Isaiah 42, the prophet moves from global to local. Sing to the Lord a new song… you who go down to the sea, you coastlands, the wilderness and its towns, the villages that Kedar inhabits; let the people of Sela sing for joy. That progression isn’t random; it narrows down to specific names. Kedar, as every Bible dictionary confirms, refers to Ishmael’s descendants in Arabia. Pairing it with Sela in the same breath strongly suggests a shared region, not unrelated compass points. You’re right that verse 11 doesn’t literally say Arabian tribes will lead, but the verse clearly singles them out among the rejoicing peoples. That’s not imagination, it’s plain textual observation.

And you’re also right that Isaiah doesn’t spell out the words light will arise from Arabia, but that’s not how prophecy works. It uses description and symbolism, not modern labels. The light in this passage is the new law and divine justice the servant brings, which perfectly fits Muhammad peace be upon him, who arose from Arabia and delivered a law that reached nations across continents. Jesus, peace be upon him, as the Gospels themselves record, said he came to fulfil the Law, not to replace it. The new commandment in John 13 love one another was moral renewal, not legislation. He never codified a civil or judicial law. Islam’s Shariah, by contrast, is a full legal and moral system that’s exactly the kind of mishpat (justice/judgement) and torah (instruction/law) Isaiah describes.

As for the following accusations about the Prophet’s pbuh life; the wars, the poisoning, the marriage to Zaynab, the treatment of captives, these are often repeated without context. Muhammad peace be upon him fought in defense after years of persecution, not as an aggressor. The poisoning at Khaybar is a historical event that even Muslim sources record; it doesn’t stain his character. His marriage to Zaynab came by divine command to reform adoption laws, which is explained openly in the Qur’an. Regarding captives, Islam didn’t invent slavery but restricted and humanized it, making the freeing of slaves one of the greatest virtues. To claim he encouraged rape is not supported by the texts or early Islamic law, which strictly regulated and gradually pushed toward emancipation.

The Prophet’s life is full of verified examples of gentleness forgiving his enemies at Mecca, sharing food with the poor, freeing captives, and forbidding cruelty. These are not the marks of a tyrant but of a leader who lived the very mercy Isaiah describes: He will not break a bruised reed, nor quench a dimly burning wick.

Finally, Isaiah doesn’t need to spell out Prophet of Arabia for the description to fit. The chapter gives the signs. Aservant bringing a new law, praised in Kedar and Sela, spreading light to nations, supported by divine power in battle, gentle yet steadfast. Those details form a fingerprint and when you match it against history, it fits only one man. That’s not a lie against Scripture; it’s taking the text seriously.

So we can disagree respectfully, but calling this reading dishonest doesn’t make it less valid. The prophecy stands on its own words and its fulfillment, by every historical measure, began in Arabia.

A prophetic scroll is not about style. It is about message and its content. If it is about style, the Quran is known to be the most poorly written piece of literature with a very high level of disjointedness and a lack of chronology or historical context to it. Most of its narrations do not follow any particular order. Yet you cling unto it despite its literary weakness and poor rendition.

You just employ flowery words with unclear meaning to cover up your lack of depth in this discourse. What exactly do you mean by "the prophet went from global to local?" What is global and what is local in this respect and how do you know when the prophet changes course and to what end does he do that? I'm sure you cannot give a cogent, sensible response to these questions.
Now for some lecture on style. As concerning your claim about Muhammad being the chosen Servant in c42, take note of the following verses:

c41v8“But you, Israel, are My servant, Jacob whom I have chosen,
c42v1 Behold! My Servant whom I uphold, My Elect One in whom My soul delights
c43v10 “You are My witnesses,” says the Lord, “And My servant whom I have chosen,
c44v1 “Yet hear now, O Jacob My servant, And Israel whom I have chosen.
c45v4 For Jacob My servant’s sake, And Israel My elect,

From the above 4 chapters, you can see that the prophet is repeatedly saying Israel is God's servant and chosen. So pray tell how Muhammad becomes the servant and chosen in 42?. Note that these chapters follow each other in succession and yet the emphasis on servant and chosen remains the same.

Note also the following:
c41v5 The coastlands saw it and feared, The ends of the earth were afraid;
c42v10 Sing to the Lord a new song, And His praise from the ends of the earth, You who go down to the sea, and [d]all that is in it, You coastlands and you inhabitants of them!
c43v5 Fear not, for I am with you; I will bring your descendants from the east, And gather you from the west; 6 I will say to the north, ‘Give them up!’ And to the south, ‘Do not keep them back!’ Bring My sons from afar, And My daughters from the ends of the earth
c44v23 Sing, O heavens, for the Lord has done it! Shout, you lower parts of the earth; Break forth into singing, you mountains, O forest, and every tree in it!
c45v22 “Look to Me, and be saved, All you ends of the earth!

You can see from the above chapters that the prophet clearly employs the same style in describing Israel/Jacob and he consistently uses the word ends of the earth to refer to far places and not just a singular place. That right there is style for you

Now for a quick summary of chapter 42 that you have been so shamelessly misinterpreting in a desperate bid to fit Muhammad into it, Read:

c41v8 “But you, Israel, are My servant,
Jacob whom I have chosen,
The descendants of Abraham My friend.
9You whom I have taken from the ends of the earth,
And called from its farthest regions,
And said to you,
‘You are My servant,
I have chosen you and have not cast you away:

So obviously, you can see that Isaiah already identified the chosen Servant as Israel and he had already used the ends of the earth to describe the "farthest regions" and not Arabia. Thus, chapter 42 is simply a reinforcement of the declarations already made here in 41 about Israel. It had nothing to do with Muhammad or Arabia. Never has and never will.

You don't have to tell lies to defend your prophet. If you claim he only engaged in wars of defense, can you show where the people of Khaybar attacked him before he declared war against them and killed them?

It is also funny you say Islam didn't invent slavery as your excuse of Muhammad owning and trading slaves. He even sold two black slaves for the price of an Arab slave which shows he sees you blacks as lesser humans to his fellow Arabs. Is that not racist? Do you mean the only viable way to reform adoption laws is to marry his son's wife? That's twisted logic. To correct an anomaly, you carry out an abominable act! Really? Is that Islamic logic?

You mean you have not come across the hadith where Muhammad encouraged his men to have intercourse with slaves from the warfront? Read Sahih Al-Bukhari 2542

Kukutente23:
A prophetic scroll is not about style. It is about message and its content. If it is about style, the Quran is known to be the most poorly written piece of literature with a very high level of disjointedness and a lack of chronology or historical context to it. Most of its narrations do not follow any particular order. Yet you cling unto it despite its literary weakness and poor rendition.

You just employ flowery words with unclear meaning to cover up your lack of depth in this discourse. What exactly do you mean by "the prophet went from global to local?" What is global and what is local in this respect and how do you know when the prophet changes course and to what end does he do that? I'm sure you cannot give a cogent, sensible response to these questions.
Now for some lecture on style. As concerning your claim about Muhammad being the chosen Servant in c42, take note of the following verses:

c41v8“But you, Israel, are My servant, Jacob whom I have chosen,
c42v1 Behold! My Servant whom I uphold, My Elect One in whom My soul delights
c43v10 “You are My witnesses,” says the Lord, “And My servant whom I have chosen,
c44v1 “Yet hear now, O Jacob My servant, And Israel whom I have chosen.
c45v4 For Jacob My servant’s sake, And Israel My elect,

From the above 4 chapters, you can see that the prophet is repeatedly saying Israel is God's servant and chosen. So pray tell how Muhammad becomes the servant and chosen in 42?. Note that these chapters follow each other in succession and yet the emphasis on servant and chosen remains the same.

Note also the following:
c41v5 The coastlands saw it and feared, The ends of the earth were afraid;
c42v10 Sing to the Lord a new song, And His praise from the ends of the earth, You who go down to the sea, and [d]all that is in it, You coastlands and you inhabitants of them!
c43v5 Fear not, for I am with you; I will bring your descendants from the east, And gather you from the west; 6 I will say to the north, ‘Give them up!’ And to the south, ‘Do not keep them back!’ Bring My sons from afar, And My daughters from the ends of the earth
c44v23 Sing, O heavens, for the Lord has done it! Shout, you lower parts of the earth; Break forth into singing, you mountains, O forest, and every tree in it!
c45v22 “Look to Me, and be saved, All you ends of the earth!

You can see from the above chapters that the prophet clearly employs the same style in describing Israel/Jacob and he consistently uses the word ends of the earth to refer to far places and not just a singular place. That right there is style for you

Now for a quick summary of chapter 42 that you have been so shamelessly misinterpreting in a desperate bid to fit Muhammad into it, Read:

c41v8 “But you, Israel, are My servant,
Jacob whom I have chosen,
The descendants of Abraham My friend.
9You whom I have taken from the ends of the earth,
And called from its farthest regions,
And said to you,
‘You are My servant,
I have chosen you and have not cast you away:

So obviously, you can see that Isaiah already identified the chosen Servant as Israel and he had already used the ends of the earth to describe the "farthest regions" and not Arabia. Thus, chapter 42 is simply a reinforcement of the declarations already made here in 41 about Israel. It had nothing to do with Muhammad or Arabia. Never has and never will.

You don't have to tell lies to defend your prophet. If you claim he only engaged in wars of defense, can you show where the people of Khaybar attacked him before he declared war against them and killed them?

It is also funny you say Islam didn't invent slavery as your excuse of Muhammad owning and trading slaves. He even sold two black slaves for the price of an Arab slave which shows he sees you blacks as lesser humans to his fellow Arabs. Is that not racist? Do you mean the only viable way to reform adoption laws is to marry his son's wife? That's twisted logic. To correct an anomaly, you carry out an abominable act! Really? Is that Islamic logic?

You mean you have not come across the hadith where Muhammad encouraged his men to have intercourse with slaves from the warfront? Read Sahih Al-Bukhari 2542

Hi. This is an elaborate response to your question about global and local while others pend for now.

In Isaiah 42 the prophet begins with a global invitation:, sing to the Lord a new song, His praise from the ends of the earth, you who go down to the sea and all that is in it, you coastlands and all who dwell in them.

That reaches as wide as possible. It calls the entire world to celebrate a new divine act. The ends of the earth, sea, and coastlands are poetic ways of saying, let every corner of humanity join this song. It’s a worldwide frame. What we call the global scope of the prophecy.

Then, in verse 11, Isaiah suddenly zooms in on specific names. Let the wilderness and its towns raise their voices; let the villages that Kedar inhabits rejoice; let the people of Sela sing for joy; let them shout from the tops of the mountains. Here, the tone changes from general to particular. Instead of speaking to the whole world, the prophet now pinpoints real peoples and places; Kedar and Sela both associated with Arabia in biblical and general geography. This is what we mean by the local shift.

That movement from global to local is deliberate, not random. Hebrew prophetic poetry often paints the big picture first and then spotlights a location where the prophecy begins to unfold. You can see the same literary motion in Psalms 96–98. Sing to the Lord, all the earth… let the wilderness rejoice. Isaiah uses the same device here. Note particularly that with regards to Psalms 96–98 the wilderness and all the earth are generic imagery. They’re celebrating God’s kingship from Zion outward, without naming any tribe or landmark. The psalmist never mentions identifiable peoples like Kedar or Sela; it’s pure praise poetry.

So, Isaiah starts with the world rejoicing (global), then focuses on the desert towns and tribes of Kedar and Sela (local). The idea is that the new song of praise will begin in a particular region; the Arabian wilderness, and from there spread outward until all nations join in. That’s why Muslim interpreters find this detail significant: it suggests that the global message originates from a specific local event, exactly as Islam historically did. A revelation arising in Arabia that eventually reached every corner of the earth.

honesttalk21:
Hi. This is an elaborate response to your question about global and local while others pend for now.

In Isaiah 42 the prophet begins with a global invitation:, sing to the Lord a new song, His praise from the ends of the earth, you who go down to the sea and all that is in it, you coastlands and all who dwell in them.

That reaches as wide as possible. It calls the entire world to celebrate a new divine act. The ends of the earth, sea, and coastlands are poetic ways of saying, let every corner of humanity join this song. It’s a worldwide frame. What we call the global scope of the prophecy.

Then, in verse 11, Isaiah suddenly zooms in on specific names. Let the wilderness and its towns raise their voices; let the villages that Kedar inhabits rejoice; let the people of Sela sing for joy; let them shout from the tops of the mountains. Here, the tone changes from general to particular. Instead of speaking to the whole world, the prophet now pinpoints real peoples and places; Kedar and Sela both associated with Arabia in biblical and general geography. This is what we mean by the local shift.

That movement from global to local is deliberate, not random. Hebrew prophetic poetry often paints the big picture first and then spotlights a location where the prophecy begins to unfold. You can see the same literary motion in Psalms 96–98. Sing to the Lord, all the earth… let the wilderness rejoice. Isaiah uses the same device here. Note particularly that with regards to Psalms 96–98 the wilderness and all the earth are generic imagery. They’re celebrating God’s kingship from Zion outward, without naming any tribe or landmark. The psalmist never mentions identifiable peoples like Kedar or Sela; it’s pure praise poetry.

So, Isaiah starts with the world rejoicing (global), then focuses on the desert towns and tribes of Kedar and Sela (local). The idea is that the new song of praise will begin in a particular region; the Arabian wilderness, and from there spread outward until all nations join in. That’s why Muslim interpreters find this detail significant: it suggests that the global message originates from a specific local event, exactly as Islam historically did. A revelation arising in Arabia that eventually reached every corner of the earth.

You see. I said you won't be able to answer my questions and you proved me right!
These are the questions again for your perusal:
1. What is global and local in this respect
2. What shows the distinction between the global and local
3. Why does the Prophet switch from global to local

The amusing thing is that in your bid to cook up a lie to defend your meaningless claim, you negated a basic principle of Islam which is that Islam has existed before Muhammad through other prophets. Now you're here saying Islam originated from Arabia during the time of Muhammad (which is the truth anyways) while your Quran's position is that Islam has existed since the time of Adam! So do we simply disregard the Qur'an's claim about Islam in a bid to validate your global to local mumbling?

Another thing is your insistence that Sela is in Arabia instead of Edom as established by the bible. This weak claim you keep hanging on is already trashed by c43v5-6 which describes the ends of the earth as the four cardinal points of the earth. Read:

Fear not, for I am with you; I will bring your descendants from the east, And gather you from the west; 6 I will say to the north, ‘Give them up!’ And to the south, ‘Do not keep them back!’ Bring My sons from afar, And My daughters from the ends of the earth

If you juxtapose this elaborate description of the ends of the earth by isaiah himself with c41v11, you'll have no choice but to situate Sela in the wilderness of Edom to the south. Your see how stylish Isaiah is now?

Lastly, as usual, you inserted into Isaiah 41 something that's clearly not there. Can you point out where exactly in c41 Isaiah said "a new song of praise will spring up from Arabia and spread to other regions"?

You claimed that he went from global to local but you end up claiming that the song of praise will go from Arabia to the ends of the earth, clearly opposite of going from global to local
What a confusion!!

Kukutente23:
You see. I said you won't be able to answer my questions and you proved me right!
These are the questions again for your perusal:
1. What is global and local in this respect
2. What shows the distinction between the global and local
3. Why does the Prophet switch from global to local

The amusing thing is that in your bid to cook up a lie to defend your meaningless claim, you negated a basic principle of Islam which is that Islam has existed before Muhammad through other prophets. Now you're here saying Islam originated from Arabia during the time of Muhammad (which is the truth anyways) while your Quran's position is that Islam has existed since the time of Adam! So do we simply disregard the Qur'an's claim about Islam in a bid to validate your global to local mumbling?

Another thing is your insistence that Sela is in Arabia instead of Edom as established by the bible. This weak claim you keep hanging on is already trashed by c43v5-6 which describes the ends of the earth as the four cardinal points of the earth. Read:


If you juxtapose this elaborate description of the ends of the earth by isaiah himself with c41v11, you'll have no choice but to situate Sela in the wilderness of Edom to the south. Your see how stylish Isaiah is now?

Lastly, as usual, you inserted into Isaiah 41 something that's clearly not there. Can you point out where exactly in c41 Isaiah said "a new song of praise will spring up from Arabia and spread to other regions"?

You claimed that he went from global to local but you end up claiming that the song of praise will go from Arabia to the ends of the earth, clearly opposite of going from global to local
What a confusion!!

It's good that the response to other issues you raised haven't been presented to you. There sure is remarkable misunderstanding of my meaning. I understand your persistence, but you’re forcing a false dilemma between global and local when Isaiah’s text clearly uses both to build one image. In Isaiah 42:10, the call begins universally with sing to the Lord a new song, His praise from the ends of the earth, you who go down to the sea, and you coastlands. That’s the global frame. Then in verse 11, the prophet suddenly names the villages that Kedar inhabits and the people of Sela which you seem unwilling to acknowledge. Those aren’t poetic metaphors; they’re identifiable places. Kedar is consistently described in Scripture and Assyrian records as an Ishmaelite tribe dwelling in Arabia (Genesis 25:13, Isaiah 21:16-17). When Isaiah pairs Kedar with Sela in the same breath, the natural reading is that both belong to the same geographical scene of the Arabian wilderness. The text therefore moves from a worldwide invitation to a specific region where this new song first rises, exactly the rhetorical movement I called global to local.

And that brings us to your use of Isaiah 43. Your citation of Isaiah 43:5-6 doesn’t undermine that at all; it simply shows that Isaiah sometimes uses ends of the earth to describe God’s universal reach, not to exclude a particular location. The cardinal point specifics of east, west, north and south expresses totality, while Isaiah 42:11 names real places that embody the start of that totality. The prophet often zooms in on one land as the spark of a global event, a pattern also seen in Psalms 96–98, which begin with all the earth and then mention specific wilderness regions. So it’s not confusion; it’s Hebrew poetic rhythm. A broad call to praise then narrowing to a specific scene. And since those names are Kedar and Sela, both historically tied to Arabia, the plain reading is that this new song first rises there before echoing to the ends of the earth..

Let's just clear up what you see as a contradiction. You have a misunderstanding of what Islam actually teaches. The Qur’an explains that Islam simply means submission to the One God, and that message goes all the way back to Adam. Every prophet from Noah, Abraham, Moses, and Jesus called people to willingly surrender to God’s will. In that sense, Islam as a way of submission is eternal and universal.

So when it's said that Islam originated in Arabia, it's not talking about the belief itself, but about its final revelation. The completion of that same divine message through Prophet Muhammad peace be upon him. The truth of submission has always existed; it was in Arabia that it reached its final, perfected form.

Kukutente23:
You see. I said you won't be able to answer my questions and you proved me right!
These are the questions again for your perusal:
1. What is global and local in this respect
2. What shows the distinction between the global and local
3. Why does the Prophet switch from global to local

The amusing thing is that in your bid to cook up a lie to defend your meaningless claim, you negated a basic principle of Islam which is that Islam has existed before Muhammad through other prophets. Now you're here saying Islam originated from Arabia during the time of Muhammad (which is the truth anyways) while your Quran's position is that Islam has existed since the time of Adam! So do we simply disregard the Qur'an's claim about Islam in a bid to validate your global to local mumbling?

Another thing is your insistence that Sela is in Arabia instead of Edom as established by the bible. This weak claim you keep hanging on is already trashed by c43v5-6 which describes the ends of the earth as the four cardinal points of the earth. Read:


If you juxtapose this elaborate description of the ends of the earth by isaiah himself with c41v11, you'll have no choice but to situate Sela in the wilderness of Edom to the south. Your see how stylish Isaiah is now?

Lastly, as usual, you inserted into Isaiah 41 something that's clearly not there. Can you point out where exactly in c41 Isaiah said "a new song of praise will spring up from Arabia and spread to other regions"?

You claimed that he went from global to local but you end up claiming that the song of praise will go from Arabia to the ends of the earth, clearly opposite of going from global to local
What a confusion!!

You are working hard in the way I trained you my son. Ride on.

honesttalk21:
It's good that the response to other issues you raised haven't been presented to you. There sure is remarkable misunderstanding of my meaning. I understand your persistence, but you’re forcing a false dilemma between global and local when Isaiah’s text clearly uses both to build one image. In Isaiah 42:10, the call begins universally with sing to the Lord a new song, His praise from the ends of the earth, you who go down to the sea, and you coastlands. That’s the global frame. Then in verse 11, the prophet suddenly names the villages that Kedar inhabits and the people of Sela which you seem unwilling to acknowledge. Those aren’t poetic metaphors; they’re identifiable places. Kedar is consistently described in Scripture and Assyrian records as an Ishmaelite tribe dwelling in Arabia (Genesis 25:13, Isaiah 21:16-17). When Isaiah pairs Kedar with Sela in the same breath, the natural reading is that both belong to the same geographical scene of the Arabian wilderness. The text therefore moves from a worldwide invitation to a specific region where this new song first rises, exactly the rhetorical movement I called global to local.

Can you point out where Isaiah mentioned Arabian wilderness in Isaiah 41? He mentioned wilderness AND mountains. You've deleted mountains in your desperate quest to fit Muhammad in and retained only wilderness

11Let the wilderness and its cities lift up their voice,
The villages that Kedar inhabits.
Let the inhabitants of Sela sing,
Let them shout from the top of the mountains

Even if you follow the punctuations in that verse, you'll see that Kedar and wilderness are in one sentence while Sela and mountains are in a separate sentence

And that brings us to your use of Isaiah 43. Your citation of Isaiah 43:5-6 doesn’t undermine that at all; it simply shows that Isaiah sometimes uses ends of the earth to describe God’s universal reach, not to exclude a particular location. The cardinal point specifics of east, west, north and south expresses totality, while Isaiah 42:11 names real places that embody the start of that totality. The prophet often zooms in on one land as the spark of a global event, a pattern also seen in Psalms 96–98, which begin with all the earth and then mention specific wilderness regions. So it’s not confusion; it’s Hebrew poetic rhythm. A broad call to praise then narrowing to a specific scene. And since those names are Kedar and Sela, both historically tied to Arabia, the plain reading is that this new song first rises there before echoing to the ends of the earth..

You seem to forget what you typed earlier and just mumbled another piece together when confronted with stronger facts
You claimed before that ends of the earth and the description that follows cannot be for just compass
Now I'm showing you where Isaiah explicitly used compass you started another offpoint story. What do you mean by start of totality? And can you quote where Isaiah said the new song will start from Arabia? Cause it was the coastlands that were first mentioned here!!

Honesttalk or should I say aitalk👀 never ceases to amaze me 🤔. Your username and your actions are so disjointed they could form parallel universes 👀—forever running side by side, never meeting 😂.

Why must you lie for this man? 🤕 Is it truly impossible for you to go a single day without taqqiya 👀? To make matters worse, you’re desperately rummaging through what you yourself call a corrupted book—’written by men for a false price’—to find validation for him 🤨. The irony is so dense it could bend light.

And then comes your masterpiece: your ’global-to-local’ gymnastics 😅. You move from the ends of the earth to Kedar and Sela and think you’ve uncovered divine prophecy? 🤨 Truly, your imagination deserves its own holy book. If I were the one critiquing a surah, you’d be foaming about context from dawn to dusk. Yet here you are, cherry-picking🤕😔.

Nobody—absolutely nobody—outside your madrasas believes Isaiah 42 is about your prophet 🤨. It takes a fascinating imagination (which, by your precedent, you clearly possess) to even suggest it🤔. Coming back from hiatus to see this spectacle is pure comedy 😂. I’m half-convinced your responses are ai-generated—only an algorithm could maintain this level of delusion with such confidence 😅. Scratch that... You’re not reasoning—you’re just running a Mohammedan algorithm 😔👀.

Kukutente23:
Can you point out where Isaiah mentioned Arabian wilderness in Isaiah 41? He mentioned wilderness AND mountains. You've deleted mountains in your desperate quest to fit Muhammad in and retained only wilderness

Even if you follow the punctuations in that verse, you'll see that Kedar and wilderness are in one sentence while Sela and mountains are in a separate sentence


You seem to forget what you typed earlier and just mumbled another piece together when confronted with stronger facts
You claimed before that ends of the earth and the description that follows cannot be for just compass
Now I'm showing you where Isaiah explicitly used compass you started another offpoint story. What do you mean by start of totality? And can you quote where Isaiah said the new song will start from Arabia? Cause it was the coastlands that were first mentioned here!!

You seem to be mixing the chapters a little, and that’s where the misunderstanding starts. I never said Isaiah 41 mentions the Arabian wilderness that’s not written anywhere, and it’s not my claim. What I’ve said consistently is that Isaiah 42:11 identifies the region through its inhabitants, specifically naming Kedar and Sela. It’s not me inserting Arabia; it’s the text itself pointing there. Kedar, as every biblical and historical source agrees (Genesis 25:13, Isaiah 21:16–17), was a well-known Ishmaelite tribe settled in northern Arabia. Once Isaiah names Kedar, the geography is already set, the scene has moved south and east, into the Arabian lands. That’s how Arabia enters the discussion not by assumption, but by direct association with Kedar.

Now, about the wilderness and mountains, that’s not evidence of two separate places or nations it’s a perfect example of parallelism, one of Isaiah’s poetic signatures. The wilderness represents the desert plains where Kedar lived, and the mountains refer to Sela, the rocky elevations nearby with both part of one connected landscape. Splitting them apart by punctuation is a modern choice, not something Isaiah’s original text supports, since ancient Hebrew didn’t use commas or semicolons. The natural reading joins Kedar and Sela together in one prophetic vision of rejoicing.

And that brings us back to the broader structure. Isaiah 42:10 begins universally with sing to the Lord a new song, His praise from the ends of the earth, you who go down to the sea, and you coastlands and you inhabitants of them. Then verse 11 shifts focus to let the wilderness and its towns raise their voice; let the villages that Kedar inhabits rejoice; let the people of Sela sing for joy. That’s Isaiah’s typical rhythm a global call narrowing to a concrete scene. The coastlands are part of the outer frame, but the rejoicing begins in the land tied to Kedar the Arabian wilderness.

So no, I’m not forcing Arabia into the prophecy. Isaiah himself leads us there. Once Kedar is mentioned, the location is already established. Arabia becomes the natural stage for the new song of praise Isaiah foretold the place where that light first rises before spreading to the ends of the earth.

I may get your attempt to deliberately act like you don't get it and it's fine for you. Same way you earlier wrongly claim prophet Muhammad pbuh in Sahih Al-Bukhari 2542 encourages rape but know the text doesn't say that. Keep it up.

Gabrielshow24:
Honesttalk or should I say aitalk👀 never ceases to amaze me 🤔. Your username and your actions are so disjointed they could form parallel universes 👀—forever running side by side, never meeting 😂.

Why must you lie for this man? 🤕 Is it truly impossible for you to go a single day without taqqiya 👀? To make matters worse, you’re desperately rummaging through what you yourself call a corrupted book—’written by men for a false price’—to find validation for him 🤨. The irony is so dense it could bend light.

And then comes your masterpiece: your ’global-to-local’ gymnastics 😅. You move from the ends of the earth to Kedar and Sela and think you’ve uncovered divine prophecy? 🤨 Truly, your imagination deserves its own holy book. If I were the one critiquing a surah, you’d be foaming about context from dawn to dusk. Yet here you are, cherry-picking🤕😔.

Nobody—absolutely nobody—outside your madrasas believes Isaiah 42 is about your prophet 🤨. It takes a fascinating imagination (which, by your precedent, you clearly possess) to even suggest it🤔. Coming back from hiatus to see this spectacle is pure comedy 😂. I’m half-convinced your responses are ai-generated—only an algorithm could maintain this level of delusion with such confidence 😅. Scratch that... You’re not reasoning—you’re just running a Mohammedan algorithm 😔👀.

You’ve spent a lot of energy on mockery, but very little on substance. Personal insults and emojis don’t change the text of Isaiah or erase Kedar and Sela from Isa 42:11. When the noise fades, the question remains the same; why does Isaiah point to the descendants of Ishmael in Arabia as rejoicing over a new divine act?

If your position is truly strong, you shouldn’t need to dress it in mockery. Drop the emojis, pick up the text, and let’s see whose reading of Isaiah 42 actually holds when we stay with context and language. Your reaction only proves how sound my explanation was.

honesttalk21:
Let's just clear up what you see as a contradiction. You have a misunderstanding of what Islam actually teaches. The Qur’an explains that Islam simply means submission to the One God, and that message goes all the way back to Adam. Every prophet from Noah, Abraham, Moses, and Jesus called people to willingly surrender to God’s will. In that sense, Islam as a way of submission is eternal and universal.

So when it's said that Islam originated in Arabia, it's not talking about the belief itself, but about its final revelation. The completion of that same divine message through Prophet Muhammad peace be upon him. The truth of submission has always existed; it was in Arabia that it reached its final, perfected form.

Oga leave grammar
Did Islam exist before Muhammad or it was originated by Muhammad in Arabia as you claim?
Simple question with straightforward answer
Chai!! Una sef. You can never be straight

Kukutente23:
Oga leave grammar
Did Islam exist before Muhammad or it was originated by Muhammad in Arabia as you claim?
Simple question with straightforward answer
Chai!! Una sef. You can never be straight

If we don't speak or write how do we communicate?

Islam, meaning submission to the One God, existed before Muhammad pbuh. Every prophet from Adam to Noah, Abraham, Moses, and Jesus preached that same surrender to God’s will. That’s Islam in essence.

What began in Arabia wasn’t a new religion, it was the final revelation. The completion of that same divine message that all prophets carried. So Islam didn’t start with Muhammad pbuh; it culminated with him.

honesttalk21:
If we don't speak or write how do we communicate?

Islam, meaning submission to the One God, existed before Muhammad pbuh. Every prophet from Adam to Noah, Abraham, Moses, and Jesus preached that same surrender to God’s will. That’s Islam in essence.

What began in Arabia wasn’t a new religion, it was the final revelation. The completion of that same divine message that all prophets carried. So Islam didn’t start with Muhammad pbuh; it culminated with him.

Good!!
Since you now agree that Islam did not start in Arabia what is the base of your claim below that Isaiah was prophesying that a new religion will come from Arabia in c42. Do you now admit you were wrong all along?

honesttalk21:
The coastlands are part of the outer frame, but the rejoicing begins in the land tied to Kedar the Arabian wilderness.
So no, I’m not forcing Arabia into the prophecy. Isaiah himself leads us there. Once Kedar is mentioned, the location is already established. Arabia becomes the natural stage for the new song of praise Isaiah foretold the place where that light first rises before spreading to the ends of the earth.

Kukutente23:
Good!!
Since you now agree that Islam did not start in Arabia what is the base of your claim below that Isaiah was prophesying that a new religion will come from Arabia in c42. Do you now admit you were wrong all along?

Ride on my boy, your father and mentor is behind you gidigba.

honesttalk21:
You seem to be mixing the chapters a little, and that’s where the misunderstanding starts. I never said Isaiah 41 mentions the Arabian wilderness that’s not written anywhere, and it’s not my claim. What I’ve said consistently is that Isaiah 42:11 identifies the region through its inhabitants, specifically naming Kedar and Sela. It’s not me inserting Arabia; it’s the text itself pointing there. Kedar, as every biblical and historical source agrees (Genesis 25:13, Isaiah 21:16–17), was a well-known Ishmaelite tribe settled in northern Arabia. Once Isaiah names Kedar, the geography is already set, the scene has moved south and east, into the Arabian lands. That’s how Arabia enters the discussion not by assumption, but by direct association with Kedar.

Now, about the wilderness and mountains, that’s not evidence of two separate places or nations it’s a perfect example of parallelism, one of Isaiah’s poetic signatures. The wilderness represents the desert plains where Kedar lived, and the mountains refer to Sela, the rocky elevations nearby with both part of one connected landscape. Splitting them apart by punctuation is a modern choice, not something Isaiah’s original text supports, since ancient Hebrew didn’t use commas or semicolons. The natural reading joins Kedar and Sela together in one prophetic vision of rejoicing.

And that brings us back to the broader structure. Isaiah 42:10 begins universally with sing to the Lord a new song, His praise from the ends of the earth, you who go down to the sea, and you coastlands and you inhabitants of them. Then verse 11 shifts focus to let the wilderness and its towns raise their voice; let the villages that Kedar inhabits rejoice; let the people of Sela sing for joy. That’s Isaiah’s typical rhythm a global call narrowing to a concrete scene. The coastlands are part of the outer frame, but the rejoicing begins in the land tied to Kedar the Arabian wilderness.

So no, I’m not forcing Arabia into the prophecy. Isaiah himself leads us there. Once Kedar is mentioned, the location is already established. Arabia becomes the natural stage for the new song of praise Isaiah foretold the place where that light first rises before spreading to the ends of the earth.

I may get your attempt to deliberately act like you don't get it and it's fine for you. Same way you earlier wrongly claim prophet Muhammad pbuh in Sahih Al-Bukhari 2542 encourages rape but know the text doesn't say that. Keep it up.

Anyone with a bit of commonsense will know that was a typo. c42 has been the topic of contention here not 41.
What you've beeen consistently wrong with is your claim that the Sela being referred to in v11 is the Jabal Sela in Medina. Meanwhile Jabal Sela is just a single mountain. While Sela is a city on mountains in Edom, South of Israe consistent with v11 which mentions mountains. It beggars ridicule that you so boldly claim that Isaiah does not know the difference between Jabal Sela and Sela. That is your own imagination. He knew what he was talking about and he made it clearer in c43. See the juxtaposition below for c43v5 and 42v11

Fear not, for I am with you; I will bring your descendants from the east, And gather you from the west; 6I will say to the north, ‘Give them up!’ And to the south, ‘Do not keep them back!’ Bring My sons from afar, And My daughters from the ends of the earth

Sing to the Lord a new song, And His praise from the ends of the earth, You who go down to the sea, and [d]all that is in it, You coastlands and you inhabitants of them! 11Let the wilderness and its cities lift up their voice, The villages that Kedar inhabits. Let the inhabitants of Sela sing, Let them shout from the top of the mountains.

Ends of the earth
east = wilderness
west = coastlands
north = sea
South = mountains
So you can see that it is not a coincidence that the ends of the earth are so described in both successive chapters in terms of cardinal points with Israel as the reference. It has nothing to do with any global to local nonsense.

I also see you claimed the punctuations are irrelevant because the Hebrew scriptures do not use such punctuations. Meanwhile, your Qur'an and hadiths when translated to English also employ punctuations that do not exist in Arabic to convey the clear meanings of each passage. Shall we then say such translations are fraudulent since Arabic in which the Qur'an was claimed revealed does not have punctuations? Tell me

How do you interpret Sahih Bukhari 2542 since you claim I'm lying about it encouraging rape

Kukutente23:
Good!!
Since you now agree that Islam did not start in Arabia what is the base of your claim below that Isaiah was prophesying that a new religion will come from Arabia in c42. Do you now admit you were wrong all along?

Exactly where I know you were headed to but you’re confusing origin with fulfillment. Saying Islam didn’t start in Arabia doesn’t mean Arabia wasn’t the land where God chose to complete His message. The essence of Islam which is submission to the One God existed since Adam. Every prophet, from Noah to Abraham, Moses, and Jesus, preached that same surrender to God’s will or do you claim differently? But each mission was for a time and a people, preparing the way for the final revelation that would unite all nations under one universal message.

That’s exactly what Isaiah 42 captures when it speaks of a new song. This isn’t the repetition of an old revelation; it’s the dawn of something transformative, a new scripture, a new law, a new voice of praise rising from a land previously untouched by revelation. The new song symbolizes renewal by the Qur’an itself revealed in a new tongue, calling all of humanity to the same God of Abraham. And when Isaiah specifically names Kedar and Sela, he’s not being poetic for the sake of geography; he’s anchoring the prophecy in the land of Arabia, among the descendants of Ishmael.

Now, you might say there were Israelites and Jews already living in Arabia and though that’s true it doesn’t undermine the prophecy; it actually confirms it. Those Jewish tribes like Banu Qurayza and Banu Nadir in Medina were the very people waiting for this prophecy to unfold. Even the Jerusalem Talmud records that many Israelites fled south after the fall of Jerusalem, expecting the next prophet to arise among the Ishmaelites. In fact, those same tribes used to tell the Arabs, when the final prophet comes, we will follow him and defeat you.

So the Jews were there as witnesses, not as the focus. The prophecy wasn’t about Israel being revived again; it was about God’s light rising from the line of Ishmael from Kedar’s land to reach the entire world. That’s why Isaiah called it a new song because it would be a fresh revelation, in a new language, from a new prophet Muhammad peace be upon him who brought the faith of all prophets to its final perfection. Arabia wasn’t the birthplace of faith; it was the stage of its fulfillment.

Kukutente23:
Anyone with a bit of commonsense will know that was a typo. c42 has been the topic of contention here not 41.
What you've beeen consistently wrong with is your claim that the Sela being referred to in v11 is the Jabal Sela in Medina. Meanwhile Jabal Sela is just a single mountain. While Sela is a city on mountains in Edom, South of Israe consistent with v11 which mentions mountains. It beggars ridicule that you so boldly claim that Isaiah does not know the difference between Jabal Sela and Sela. That is your own imagination. He knew what he was talking about and he made it clearer in c43. See the juxtaposition below for c43v5 and 42v11



Ends of the earth
east = wilderness
west = coastlands
north = sea
South = mountains
So you can see that it is not a coincidence that the ends of the earth are so described in both successive chapters in terms of cardinal points with Israel as the reference. It has nothing to do with any global to local nonsense.

I also see you claimed the punctuations are irrelevant because the Hebrew scriptures do not use such punctuations. Meanwhile, your Qur'an and hadiths when translated to English also employ punctuations that do not exist in Arabic to convey the clear meanings of each passage. Shall we then say such translations are fraudulent since Arabic in which the Qur'an was claimed revealed does not have punctuations? Tell me

How do you interpret Sahih Bukhari 2542 since you claim I'm lying about it encouraging rape

A typo is fine, it happens but what isn’t a typo is your misunderstanding of Isaiah’s style and geography. You can call it commonsense, but Isaiah 42:11 doesn’t describe a city named Sela; it speaks of the people of Sela rejoicing from the tops of the mountains. That’s a prophetic image, not a civic address. And when that same verse pairs Sela with Kedar a known Ishmaelite tribe of Arabia the simplest and most natural reading is that both belong to the same regional scene. It’s not ridicule to say Isaiah knew what he was writing it’s respect for his precision. The Jabal Sela in Medina fits that image perfectly. A mountain overlooking a city that literally rejoiced and sang when the Prophet Muhammad peace and blessings of Allah be upon him entered, fulfilling the prophetic pattern Isaiah drew.

Now, your comparison to chapter 43 is misplaced. Isaiah 43 uses cardinal points symbolically to describe God’s universal gathering of Israel’s exiles north, south, east, and west not to define geography for Isaiah 42. The two chapters serve different purposes: 43 is restoration, the other 42 is revelation. Isaiah moves from Israel’s history to God’s new act among the nations. The global to local structure you mock is right there in the text verse 10 begins with sing to the Lord a new song, His praise from the ends of the earth, and verse 11 immediately names real locations in Kedar and Sela. That’s not nonsense; it’s prophetic focus.

And about punctuation, I never said translations are fraudulent. I said punctuation is interpretive, not original. There’s a difference. Translators add punctuation to help readers follow meaning, but that doesn’t make the punctuation itself part of revelation. The same goes for the Qur’an or the Bible both were written without modern punctuation, and later editors added it to clarify sense. So appealing to punctuation doesn’t settle the meaning; the context and Hebrew parallelism do.

You can mock the idea all you like, but the text still stands as Isaiah 42:11 joins Kedar and Sela in one breath, one wilderness, and one song of praise a new revelation arising in Arabia, not Edom.

Seems you are shy to respond to my observation on your claims about the hadith you referenced.

honesttalk21:
You’ve spent a lot of energy on mockery, but very little on substance. Personal insults and emojis don’t change the text of Isaiah or erase Kedar and Sela from Isa 42:11. When the noise fades, the question remains the same; why does Isaiah point to the descendants of Ishmael in Arabia as rejoicing over a new divine act?

If your position is truly strong, you shouldn’t need to dress it in mockery. Drop the emojis, pick up the text, and let’s see whose reading of Isaiah 42 actually holds when we stay with context and language. Your reaction only proves how sound my explanation was.

It's been thrashed out extensively before. You are the one regurgitating old scripts🥱.

honesttalk21:
A typo is fine, it happens but what isn’t a typo is your misunderstanding of Isaiah’s style and geography. You can call it commonsense, but Isaiah 42:11 doesn’t describe a city named Sela; it speaks of the people of Sela rejoicing from the tops of the mountains. That’s a prophetic image, not a civic address. And when that same verse pairs Sela with Kedar a known Ishmaelite tribe of Arabia the simplest and most natural reading is that both belong to the same regional scene. It’s not ridicule to say Isaiah knew what he was writing it’s respect for his precision. The Jabal Sela in Medina fits that image perfectly. A mountain overlooking a city that literally rejoiced and sang when the Prophet Muhammad peace and blessings of Allah be upon him entered, fulfilling the prophetic pattern Isaiah drew.

Now, your comparison to chapter 43 is misplaced. Isaiah 43 uses cardinal points symbolically to describe God’s universal gathering of Israel’s exiles north, south, east, and west not to define geography for Isaiah 42. The two chapters serve different purposes: 43 is restoration, the other 42 is revelation. Isaiah moves from Israel’s history to God’s new act among the nations. The global to local structure you mock is right there in the text verse 10 begins with sing to the Lord a new song, His praise from the ends of the earth, and verse 11 immediately names real locations in Kedar and Sela. That’s not nonsense; it’s prophetic focus.

And about punctuation, I never said translations are fraudulent. I said punctuation is interpretive, not original. There’s a difference. Translators add punctuation to help readers follow meaning, but that doesn’t make the punctuation itself part of revelation. The same goes for the Qur’an or the Bible both were written without modern punctuation, and later editors added it to clarify sense. So appealing to punctuation doesn’t settle the meaning; the context and Hebrew parallelism do.

You can mock the idea all you like, but the text still stands as Isaiah 42:11 joins Kedar and Sela in one breath, one wilderness, and one song of praise a new revelation arising in Arabia, not Edom.

Seems you are shy to respond to my observation on your claims about the hadith you referenced.

What you're simply engaging in is geographic manipulation and theft. It is like saying anywhere you see the word Lago, it means Lagos, Nigeria whereas there are multiple places all over the world that have Lago as part of their names.

For the umpteenth time, the mountain in Arabia is Jabal Sela not Sela. It is a single mountain and it is not a city. The city around it is Medina
Sela is the name of a city in Edom. It is a city that's built on mountains

Isaiah referenced mountains not a single mountain. It is virtually impossible for Isaiah to have mistaken Sela for Jabal Sela or to have misnamed the place. When he said Sela, he meant Sela not Jabal Sela. He doesn't need your help to complete or add what he never intended.

Th comparison is apt. Both verses 5-6 and 10-11 reference the ends of the earth in relation with Israel. One employs the direct use of the cardinal points which you wrongly claimed that Isaiah had no interest in while in the other chapter, he used cities and locations to point to the cardinal points.

It is illogical to claim that because he mentioned Kedar in the wilderness, then Sela in the mountains must be in the wilderness as well when we know the coastlands and the sea he mentioned are not also close.

There is no global to local structure anywhere. Isaiah kept on referencing the ends of the earth from chapter 41 to 45. It was not an isolated mention in 42. And it's contradictory that you claim global to local but end up saying Isaiah was saying the song will come from Arabia to the ends of the earth, a direct opposite of global to local!

So since you know and agree that punctuations are given to give the clear meaning, what problem do you have with the punctuations in c42v10-11? They do not sit with your false narratives and must thus be expunged I guess? Las las you go write your own bible

The punctuations make a lie of your claim that Kedar and Sela were mentioned in one breath. They are in two separate sentences being used to describe totally different geographies. One is wilderness, the other is mountains.

I already told you Sahih bukhari 2542 justified rape. You can't say anything to contest that cause you know it to be true.

Gabrielshow24:
It's been thrashed out extensively before. You are the one regurgitating old scripts🥱.

You say it’s been thrashed out, but what’s really been recycled are the same evasions that avoid engaging the text itself. If the discussion has truly been had before, then it should be easy to show from the passage itself where my reading fails. Yet all I see are dismissive gestures, not textual engagement.

Ironically, your dismissal extends to zero reference to the book of Isaiah in your own Bible and that says more about the strength of your argument than mine.

honesttalk21:
Exactly where I know you were headed to but you’re confusing origin with fulfillment. Saying Islam didn’t start in Arabia doesn’t mean Arabia wasn’t the land where God chose to complete His message. The essence of Islam which is submission to the One God existed since Adam. Every prophet, from Noah to Abraham, Moses, and Jesus, preached that same surrender to God’s will or do you claim differently? But each mission was for a time and a people, preparing the way for the final revelation that would unite all nations under one universal message.

That’s exactly what Isaiah 42 captures when it speaks of a new song. This isn’t the repetition of an old revelation; it’s the dawn of something transformative, a new scripture, a new law, a new voice of praise rising from a land previously untouched by revelation. The new song symbolizes renewal by the Qur’an itself revealed in a new tongue, calling all of humanity to the same God of Abraham. And when Isaiah specifically names Kedar and Sela, he’s not being poetic for the sake of geography; he’s anchoring the prophecy in the land of Arabia, among the descendants of Ishmael.

Now, you might say there were Israelites and Jews already living in Arabia and though that’s true it doesn’t undermine the prophecy; it actually confirms it. Those Jewish tribes like Banu Qurayza and Banu Nadir in Medina were the very people waiting for this prophecy to unfold. Even the Jerusalem Talmud records that many Israelites fled south after the fall of Jerusalem, expecting the next prophet to arise among the Ishmaelites. In fact, those same tribes used to tell the Arabs, when the final prophet comes, we will follow him and defeat you.

So the Jews were there as witnesses, not as the focus. The prophecy wasn’t about Israel being revived again; it was about God’s light rising from the line of Ishmael from Kedar’s land to reach the entire world. That’s why Isaiah called it a new song because it would be a fresh revelation, in a new language, from a new prophet Muhammad peace be upon him who brought the faith of all prophets to its final perfection. Arabia wasn’t the birthplace of faith; it was the stage of its fulfillment.

It doesn't matter how you seek to twist it or hide under semantics. The fact remains you have driven yourself into a cul de sac
If you say Islam is not a new religion but continuation of the old that has existed from the time of Adam, then it cannot be the one being referred to as a new song in Isaiah since something "new" implies something unseen or unheard of before.

If on the other hand you say Islam is a new religion then it means the Quran was lying as it claimed Islam already existed since the time of Adam. In fact, Islam had troubles being accepted willingly by the Meccans and surrounding tribes which made it become a political religion that required full subordination of the people through violence and coercion. This is in clear contrast with Isaiah 42v3 that says "a broken reed he will not bruise nor a smoking flax quench" signifying a peaceful and gentle disposition devoid of any iota of violence or threats of violence

And in actual fact, there is nothing new about Islam in the real sense. None of its practices or beliefs were novel. The shariah law has very clear resemblance with the mosaic laws. You pray five times like the Zoroastrians and face the east like them as well. In fact, the five pillars of Islam existed before Muhammad and even the Kaaba existed before him. So pray how can Islam be a new song?

The Jews in Mecca and Medina and the surrounding regions never accepted Muhammad as a prophet try as much as he did to court them. He joined them to face Jerusalem in prayer still they rejected him. He claimed to be like one of their prophets still they denounced him. He did pilgrimage to Jerusalem still they knew him not.

Most importantly, the essence of Christianity and Judaism is not submission to God. That is a big fallacy. Christianity is a religion that looks to develop a personal relationship with God through His Son Jesus Christ. Judaism was a communal relationship with God through his covenant with Abraham. None of them preached submission to God neither was their theme about submission. Afterall, Jacob the progenitor of the Israelites fought with the Angel of God in his sleep which earned him the name Israel.

Kukutente23:
It doesn't matter how you seek to twist it or hide under semantics. The fact remains you have driven yourself into a cul de sac
If you say Islam is not a new religion but continuation of the old that has existed from the time of Adam, then it cannot be the one being referred to as a new song in Isaiah since something "new" implies something unseen or unheard of before.

If on the other hand you say Islam is a new religion then it means the Quran was lying as it claimed Islam already existed since the time of Adam. In fact, Islam had troubles being accepted willingly by the Meccans and surrounding tribes which made it become a political religion that required full subordination of the people through violence and coercion. This is in clear contrast with Isaiah 42v3 that says "a broken reed he will not bruise nor a smoking flax quench" signifying a peaceful and gentle disposition devoid of any iota of violence or threats of violence

And in actual fact, there is nothing new about Islam in the real sense. None of its practices or beliefs were novel. The shariah law has very clear resemblance with the mosaic laws. You pray five times like the Zoroastrians and face the east like them as well. In fact, the five pillars of Islam existed before Muhammad and even the Kaaba existed before him. So pray how can Islam be a new song?

The Jews in Mecca and Medina and the surrounding regions never accepted Muhammad as a prophet try as much as he did to court them. He joined them to face Jerusalem in prayer still they rejected him. He claimed to be like one of their prophets still they denounced him. He did pilgrimage to Jerusalem still they knew him not.

Most importantly, the essence of Christianity and Judaism is not submission to God. That is a big fallacy. Christianity is a religion that looks to develop a personal relationship with God through His Son Jesus Christ. Judaism was a communal relationship with God through his covenant with Abraham. None of them preached submission to God neither was their theme about submission. Afterall, Jacob the progenitor of the Israelites fought with the Angel of God in his sleep which earned him the name Israel.

I think it's very questionable to say that any Abrahamic religion does not preach submission to God. They all obviously do albeit with differing degrees of emphasis.

DeepSight:
I think it's very questionable to say that any Abrahamic religion does not preach submission to God. They all obviously do albeit with differing degrees of emphasis.

No Sir. It is very false to say Judaism and Christianity preaches submission to God. Judaism was borne out of a covenant between God and Abraham. In the covenant, the children of Israel are required to follow God's instructions and ordinance and he will in turn bless them and make them invincible, the supreme of the earth
Christianity on the other hand is a relationship that seeks to restore man to the relationship God had with Adam in the wilderness. It was a relationship of friendship and mentorship not slave-master relationship. In fact, Adam was more or less like a pet to God in the garden of Eden.
Islam's emphasis on submission is based on the belief that humans are slaves to God. This characterization totally negates both Judaism and Christianity. Abraham was God's friend. David was a man after God's heart. Moses was God's oracle whom he spoke with face to face and most importantly, Jesus is God's Son. So the idea of being slaves to God is at variance with Judaism and Christian beliefs.
Thank you

Kukutente23:
No Sir. It is very false to say Judaism and Christianity preaches submission to God. Judaism was borne out of a covenant between God and Abraham. In the covenant, the children of Israel are required to follow God's instructions and ordinance and he will in turn bless them and make them invincible, the supreme of the earth
Christianity on the other hand is a relationship that seeks to restore man to the relationship God had with Adam in the wilderness. It was a relationship of friendship and mentorship not slave-master relationship. In fact, Adam was more or less like a pet to God in the garden of Eden.
Islam's emphasis on submission is based on the belief that humans are slaves to God. This characterization totally negates both Judaism and Christianity. Abraham was God's friend. David was a man after God's heart. Moses was God's oracle whom he spoke with face to face and most importantly, Jesus is God's Son. So the idea of being slaves to God is at variance with Judaism and Christian beliefs.
Thank you

I hear you, but note I said with varying degrees of emphasis. And that is indubitable. The Islamic conception of being slaves to God is clearly an extreme. Nevertheless it is wrong to say it is completely absent in the other Abrahamic faiths to a different degree especially considering that many in those faiths are called "servants" of God. Quibbling between both words would be, for me a bit pedantic - nonetheless, leaving that aside, it is all too easy to drag up verses in both the NT and OT prescribing submission to God.

Surely you dont need me to drag them up?

Okay then, tell us how these do not clearly prescribe absolute submission -

Old Testament -

Deuteronomy 13:4:

"You shall walk after the Lord your God and fear him and keep his commandments and obey his voice, and you shall serve him and hold fast to him."

Ecclesiastes 12:13:

"The end of the matter; all has been heard. Fear God and keep his commandments, for this is the whole duty of man."

New Testament

Direct Command to Submit to God
James 4:7

"Submit yourselves therefore to God. Resist the devil, and he will flee from you."

DeepSight:
I hear you, but note I said with varying degrees of emphasis. And that is indubitable. The Islamic conception of being slaves to God is clearly an extreme. Nevertheless it is wrong to say it is completely absent in the other Abrahamic faiths to a different degree especially considering that many in those faiths are called "servants" of God. Quibbling between both words would be, for me a bit pedantic - nonetheless, leaving that aside, it is all too easy to drag up verses in both the NT and OT prescribing submission to God.

Surely you dont need me to drag them up?

Okay then, tell us how these do not clearly prescribe absolute submission -

Old Testament -

Deuteronomy 13:4:

"You shall walk after the Lord your God and fear him and keep his commandments and obey his voice, and you shall serve him and hold fast to him."

Ecclesiastes 12:13:

"The end of the matter; all has been heard. Fear God and keep his commandments, for this is the whole duty of man."

New Testament

Direct Command to Submit to God
James 4:7

"Submit yourselves therefore to God. Resist the devil, and he will flee from you."

If you were asking a woman to become your wife and you tell her to be faithful to you so that you will be faithful to her and bless her in return. Would you term that a contract of submission?

Kukutente23:
If you were asking a woman to become your wife and you tell her to be faithful to you so that you will be faithful to her and bless her in return. Would you term that a contract of submission?

Let us not be distracted. Look at the verses I gave you and note that they are in the nature of absolute commands of submission, obedience and servitude. In fact, they also speak of fear. That is as absolute as it gets, it is clear. You should not try to change the matter by speaking about the mere example of human marriage. That is far from these direct and absolute commands.

By the way as you know I just selected a few verses.

I know you know almost hundreds can be produced, many with terrible consequences as retribution for failing to submit and obey. You know surely, the Book of blessings and curses in Deuteronomy.

Kukutente23:
What you're simply engaging in is geographic manipulation and theft. It is like saying anywhere you see the word Lago, it means Lagos, Nigeria whereas there are multiple places all over the world that have Lago as part of their names.

For the umpteenth time, the mountain in Arabia is Jabal Sela not Sela. It is a single mountain and it is not a city. The city around it is Medina
Sela is the name of a city in Edom. It is a city that's built on mountains

Isaiah referenced mountains not a single mountain. It is virtually impossible for Isaiah to have mistaken Sela for Jabal Sela or to have misnamed the place. When he said Sela, he meant Sela not Jabal Sela. He doesn't need your help to complete or add what he never intended.

Th comparison is apt. Both verses 5-6 and 10-11 reference the ends of the earth in relation with Israel. One employs the direct use of the cardinal points which you wrongly claimed that Isaiah had no interest in while in the other chapter, he used cities and locations to point to the cardinal points.

It is illogical to claim that because he mentioned Kedar in the wilderness, then Sela in the mountains must be in the wilderness as well when we know the coastlands and the sea he mentioned are not also close.

There is no global to local structure anywhere. Isaiah kept on referencing the ends of the earth from chapter 41 to 45. It was not an isolated mention in 42. And it's contradictory that you claim global to local but end up saying Isaiah was saying the song will come from Arabia to the ends of the earth, a direct opposite of global to local!

So since you know and agree that punctuations are given to give the clear meaning, what problem do you have with the punctuations in c42v10-11? They do not sit with your false narratives and must thus be expunged I guess? Las las you go write your own bible

The punctuations make a lie of your claim that Kedar and Sela were mentioned in one breath. They are in two separate sentences being used to describe totally different geographies. One is wilderness, the other is mountains.

I already told you Sahih bukhari 2542 justified rape. You can't say anything to contest that cause you know it to be true.

Kukutente23:
It doesn't matter how you seek to twist it or hide under semantics. The fact remains you have driven yourself into a cul de sac
If you say Islam is not a new religion but continuation of the old that has existed from the time of Adam, then it cannot be the one being referred to as a new song in Isaiah since something "new" implies something unseen or unheard of before.

If on the other hand you say Islam is a new religion then it means the Quran was lying as it claimed Islam already existed since the time of Adam. In fact, Islam had troubles being accepted willingly by the Meccans and surrounding tribes which made it become a political religion that required full subordination of the people through violence and coercion. This is in clear contrast with Isaiah 42v3 that says "a broken reed he will not bruise nor a smoking flax quench" signifying a peaceful and gentle disposition devoid of any iota of violence or threats of violence

And in actual fact, there is nothing new about Islam in the real sense. None of its practices or beliefs were novel. The shariah law has very clear resemblance with the mosaic laws. You pray five times like the Zoroastrians and face the east like them as well. In fact, the five pillars of Islam existed before Muhammad and even the Kaaba existed before him. So pray how can Islam be a new song?

The Jews in Mecca and Medina and the surrounding regions never accepted Muhammad as a prophet try as much as he did to court them. He joined them to face Jerusalem in prayer still they rejected him. He claimed to be like one of their prophets still they denounced him. He did pilgrimage to Jerusalem still they knew him not.

Most importantly, the essence of Christianity and Judaism is not submission to God. That is a big fallacy. Christianity is a religion that looks to develop a personal relationship with God through His Son Jesus Christ. Judaism was a communal relationship with God through his covenant with Abraham. None of them preached submission to God neither was their theme about submission. Afterall, Jacob the progenitor of the Israelites fought with the Angel of God in his sleep which earned him the name Israel.

Your responses are robustly packed, but once the emotion clears, the text and history don’t actually support your conclusions.

Isaiah 42:11 joins Kedar, a known Ishmaelite tribe of Arabia,with Sela, whose people are described as shouting from the tops of the mountains. That isn’t city planning or architecture; it’s prophetic imagery. Now if you insist that Sela means the Edomite city of Petra, then you’re asking Isaiah to pair Kedar in central Arabia with a city nearly 800 kilometers away in southern Jordan and still treat them as part of one rejoicing scene. There’s nothing like that anywhere else in Scripture. When the Bible pairs peoples and places, they’re always regionally connected. You know Judah with Jerusalem, Moab with Nebo, Egypt with the Nile. Isaiah never fuses tribes and lands separated by whole deserts. The distance alone collapses the Edomite reading.

By contrast, Jabal Sela near Medina fits every detail being an actual mountain where people could literally raise their voices from the tops of the mountains. It shares Kedar’s Arabian setting, the same wilderness atmosphere, and the same prophetic rhythm. That’s coherence, not manipulation.

As for your point about the new song, prophets used that phrase long before Islam as in Psalm 33, 96, 98 and each time to mark a fresh act of God, not a new deity or religion. Islam doesn’t claim novelty; it claims renewal of the same monotheism of Adam, Abraham, Moses, and Jesus, revived in a new revelation and language. That’s exactly what a new song means, a new expression of the same divine truth.

Your appeal to the rejection of Muhammad peace and blessings of Allah be upon him by some Jews of Medina also misses the prophetic pattern. Rejection was the norm for nearly every messenger. Noah, Moses, even Jesus were denied by many of their own people. Scripture never uses rejection as proof against a prophet’s authenticity; it shows how truth often confronts pride and inherited power. Ironically, their rejection fulfills the very pattern Isaiah foresaw; a servant ignored by those who should have recognized him.

So no, this isn’t a cul-de-sac; perhaps it's time you refresh your debate strategy. The geography, the language, and the history line up in one direction. The new song Isaiah heard wasn’t echoing through Edom’s cliffs, it rose from Arabia, from the very descendants of Ishmael rejoicing over a renewed revelation.

Then you added a claim at the end of your post of 16/10/2025; 17:20 hrs citing Sahih Bukhari 2542 as if it settled the matter. That’s a gish-gallop, not a proof. Would you want me to show you what an actual proof looks like before you clearly show your claim?

Then to your claim that the essence of Christianity and Judaism is not submission to God that’s a misunderstanding of their very foundations. Submission to God is the golden thread running through every covenant in Scripture.

Abraham, called the friend of God, was tested precisely in his willingness to submit. Genesis 22 celebrates his readiness to obey God’s command without hesitation and that is pure submission.

Moses and the covenant at Sinai were built on the same principle. If you obey My voice and keep My covenant, then you shall be My treasured possession. (Exodus 19:5).

Even Jesus peace be upon him is portrayed in the Gospels as the perfect model of submission. Not my will, but Yours be done. (Luke 22:42). His greatness was in surrender, not self-assertion.

That’s the very spirit of Islam not a new faith, but the conscious yielding to God’s will that every true prophet embodied. A personal relationship with God doesn’t cancel submission; it completes it. Relationship without submission becomes self-will, and submission without relationship becomes empty ritual. The Qur’an unites both heartfelt devotion anchored in obedience to the One God of all prophets.