₦airaland Forum

!

honesttalk21:
He/His/Him refer to God's essence.
We/Our signify divine majesty (pluralis majestatis).
Him points to the Servant (Muhammad peace and mercy of Allah be upon him).
The Hearing/Seeing represents God.

This is standard Semitic rhetoric, mirrored in Hebrew scripture. It may be confusing for contemporary readers, but it's not incomprehensible.

Six pronouns in one verse!?
1. Someone is speaking about a He, Him and His
2. We can assume that this same person speaking is the one who calls himself We and Our

Applying the rule, we have a confused unintelligible meaningless statement.

honesttalk21:
The Farthest Mosque; Al-Masjid al-Aqsa, has
the name is explicitly given. Masjid means a place of prostration, not necessarily a building.

Aqsa means farthest in relation to Mecca, not the global antipode. Applying modern cartography is anachronistic.

Claiming 124,000 prophets doesn't undermine anything. Al-Aqsa is a specific site of historical significance, not just any place of prayer.

What is the name of the farthest mosque to Mecca?
Doesn't it have a name?
If I was in Jerusalem, will this mosque remain the farthest mosque?

124,000 Messengers expose other lies of Muslims.

Is it possible that non of these Messengers were sent to China or Africa which would be farther than your extant farthest mosque?

Except your conclusion is that none of these Messengers established prayers to Allah!

Why do prostrators lie so much?
Unfortunately, you don't even ask questions to know the truth.

honesttalk21:
Your perception of illogicality arises from ignoring Arabic semantics, misinterpreting recitation, and applying modern expectations.

Declaring the Qur'an baseless without addressing the linguistic context, its thematic rhetorical style, or its historical placement isn't a critique it's an assertion. False at that!

Precision, context, and a full understanding of classical Arabic resolve your objections. Your insistence on modernist interpretations creates problems that don't exist within the original Semitic literary framework.

Only in Islamic Arabic does
Him mean Me.
Me, mean You
He mean Us or We
SMH!!


Is facing the truth difficult for you!?

TenQ:
What are your historical sources leading up to Abraham?
Provide your evidences otherwise, you are exactly like the Eckanka or Grail message.



Give me instances where a person can recite things he doesn't have in memory before!

This show the illogicality of your claim.

From a command given to RECITE!
The response I can NOT RECITE is a cognitive defect. QED!

It makes sense for a command be given as READ! The response I can NOT READ for an unlettered person is correct.




Illiteracy is not a cognitive defect, However an inability to RECITE is a cognitive defect.
Toddlers in kindergarten RECITE all day long even things they don't understand yet.



Muslims with lies.
The pen is useless then!
Why does Allah teach by the pen if you ultimately learn from recitation?
SMH!


Six pronouns in one verse.
1. Someone is speaking about a He, Him and His
2. We can assume that this same person speaking is the one who calls himself We and Our

Applying the rule, we have a confused unintelligible meaningless statement


And this is a linguistic miracle!?


What is the name of the al-Masjid al-Aqsa (farthest mosque). Doesn't it have a name?

Farthest mosque!? Relative to where?
Only Allah will write a book, introduce a place that have no location



A bundle of confusion from the eloquent Allah
1. Someone is speaking about a He, Him and His
2. We can assume that this same person speaking is the one who calls himself We and Our




Stop lying sit. It's too much. It's not a standard way of speaking in any culture


You forgot that in Islam you have over 124,000 Messengers of Allah all over the world. Are you telling me that non of them have a place of prayer(by your definition of mosque)?

Please explain with another lie



Sorry, the comedy of errors in the Qur'an are so numerous the book cannot even be made by a born Arabic speaking.

Equating Islam with movements like Eckankar is a false comparison. Islam doesn't independently invent Abraham; it inherits him from the Genesis tradition already recognized by Judaism and Christianity. If the absence of contemporary archaeological records before Abraham invalidates Islam, it first invalidates Judaism, as Abraham himself lacks independent archaeological support outside of Genesis. The earliest extra-biblical references to Abraham appear centuries after his supposed lifetime in 2nd millennium BCE sources.

Present extra-biblical archaeological proof for Abraham in Genesis before using his absence as a critique. Otherwise, you're applying a standard to Islam you don't apply to the Bible a textbook case of special pleading.

Your confusion about "iqra'" reveals a lack of familiarity with both Arabic and oral cultures. In Arabic, iqra means to recite, proclaim, or receive orally; it doesn't require a written text. Illiteracy isn't a cognitive defect, nor does it prevent oral reception. This reflects standard Semitic oral culture, where memorization and oral transmission were primary. You claim you can't recite what you haven't memorized, but you're confusing two meanings of recite:

1. Reciting from memory (reproducing previously learned material).

2. Receiving and repeating orally (hearing instruction and proclaiming it).

When the angel commanded iqra, Muhammad, peace be upon him, wasn't being asked to reproduce memorized text; he was being commanded to receive and proclaim revelation orally. This is how oral instruction works: the teacher speaks, the student repeats. Toddlers in kindergarten don't recite from prior memorization; they repeat what's taught to them orally in real-time. Your own example disproves your point.

Muhammad, peace be upon him's, I cannot iqra expressed an inability/unreadiness to receive and proclaim prophetic revelation, not a cognitive defect. This mirrors Moses' I am slow of speech (Exodus 4:10) and Jeremiah's I don't know how to speak (Jeremiah 1:6)- prophetic hesitation, not mental deficiency.

Demonstrate from Arabic usage that iqra requires a physical text. You can't, because it doesn't.

In your claim, why does Allah teach by the pen if you learn from recitation? The pen is useless! You practice a false dichotomy. Writing preserves revelation; recitation transmits it. Oral cultures employed both without contradiction. The historical reality is that every oral society that developed writing adopted it enthusiastically precisely because writing complements oral transmission by preserving what's recited.

Vedas: orally transmitted for centuries, eventually written down.

Homer's epics: orally composed, later transcribed.

Qur'an: orally revealed to Muhammad, peace be upon him, written down by scribes during his lifetime, compiled into a standardized text afterward.

If recitation renders writing useless, explain why no oral culture in history ever refused writing once available? Your logic would make all historical literacy efforts pointless.

Quran 96:4-5 - who taught by the pen, taught humanity what they didn't know- emphasizes that God enables human knowledge preservation through writing; it doesn't contradict oral revelation to one prophet. You're creating a problem that doesn't exist. Where did Adam keep text of what God taught him about the names of animals before asking the angels?

Your objection, classifying six pronouns in one verse as confused and unintelligible, applies equally to the Hebrew Bible. Established Semitic rhetoric includes the plural of majesty (We/Our for God) and third-person narration (He/His when describing God's actions), shifting between perspectives for emphasis.

Genesis 1:26: Then God said, Let *us* make mankind in *our* image... (plural).

Genesis 1:27: So God created mankind in *His* own image (singular).

Isaiah 6:8: Then I heard the voice of the Lord saying, 'Whom shall *I* send? And who will go for *Us*?'" (singular and plural in the same sentence).

If Quran 17:1's pronoun shifts make it unintelligible, then Genesis and Isaiah are equally unintelligible. Apply your standard consistently, or admit you're holding different scriptures to different criteria. Your claim that it's not standard in any culture is demonstrably false; it's standard Semitic rhetoric found throughout the Hebrew Bible, which predates the Qur'an by over a millennium.

Again, regarding Al-Masjid al-Aqsa, your questions What's its name? Farthest relative to where? Where's its location? are answered:

1. Al-Masjid al-Aqsa is the name and is the farthest place of prostration. In Qur'anic usage, "masjid" is defined by function (prostration), not architecture. The phrase identifies the site by its characteristic (farthest from Mecca) and sacred function (place of prostration). The Western Wall identifies a location by direction and function; it doesn't require a personal name like "Bob's Wall."

2. Farthest relative to Mecca, the starting point of the journey in the verse itself (from al-Masjid al-Haram [Mecca] to al-Masjid al-Aqsa).

3. The location is Jerusalem, specifically the Temple Mount area, a site sacred in Abrahamic tradition, where prophets worshiped, and which Muslims identify with the Isra journey.

In Islamic teaching, the entire Earth is a valid place of worship (masjid). Qur'an 7:29 and the hadith Sahih Bukhari state, The Earth has been made a mosque for me. Demanding a named architectural structure misunderstands Islamic theology, as sacred space is universal, not confined to buildings.

Your claim that Allah introduced a place with no location is factually wrong. The location (Jerusalem/Temple Mount) is identified by its geographic relationship to Mecca and its sacred history.

You claim that in Islam, you have over 124,000 messengers, but the fact is this number does NOT appear in the Qur'an. The Qur'an states messengers were sent to all peoples (Quran 16:36: We sent a messenger to every community) but never quantifies them. The 124,000 figure comes from a hadith classified specifically as a weak/disputed narration, not the Qur'an itself. Provide a Qur'anic verse stating 124,000 prophets before using it as a critique. Is your aversion to Islam so strong that you're leaning on unreliable sources? You're bringing in stuff from outside the Quran and then using it to bash the Quran itself? that's a classic strawman argument.

You ask if I'm saying none of them had a place to pray (a mosque). In Islam, the whole earth is a place of prayer. Wherever the prophets bowed down to God became a masjid (a place of prostration) because of what it was used for, not because they built and named a special building.

Adam, Noah, Abraham, Moses, and Jesus all prostrated to God wherever they happened to be. Islam doesn't need huge buildings or designated sanctuaries. It all fits together theologically; it's not a contradiction.

You're convinced the book is full of errors and couldn't have been written by a native Arabic speaker, but the funny thing is, every single problem you've pointed out comes from:

1. Misunderstanding the words (iqra' doesn't have to mean written text)

2. Creating a false choice (oral vs. written tradition)

3. Not knowing Semitic writing styles (pronoun changes happen in the Hebrew Bible too)

4. Mixing up categories (masjid is about function, not architecture)

5. Attacking a hadith number that isn't even in the Quran (strawman again!)

6. Holding Islam to a higher standard than the Bible

When your arguments depend on misunderstanding Arabic, Semitic literary customs, and Islamic theology, the real joke is on you, not the Quran.

For 1,400 years, native Arabic speakers - even those who hated Islam - didn't bring up these issues because they understood the language and the way it was written back then. Your confusion just proves that modern readers who try to apply outside ideas end up creating problems where there aren't any.

honesttalk21:
Equating Islam with movements like Eckankar is a false comparison. Islam doesn't independently invent Abraham; it inherits him from the Genesis tradition already recognized by Judaism and Christianity. If the absence of contemporary archaeological records before Abraham invalidates Islam, it first invalidates Judaism, as Abraham himself lacks independent archaeological support outside of Genesis. The earliest extra-biblical references to Abraham appear centuries after his supposed lifetime in 2nd millennium BCE sources.

Present extra-biblical archaeological proof for Abraham in Genesis before using his absence as a critique. Otherwise, you're applying a standard to Islam you don't apply to the Bible a textbook case of special pleading.

Your confusion about "iqra'" reveals a lack of familiarity with both Arabic and oral cultures. In Arabic, iqra means to recite, proclaim, or receive orally; it doesn't require a written text. Illiteracy isn't a cognitive defect, nor does it prevent oral reception. This reflects standard Semitic oral culture, where memorization and oral transmission were primary. You claim you can't recite what you haven't memorized, but you're confusing two meanings of recite:

1. Reciting from memory (reproducing previously learned material).

2. Receiving and repeating orally (hearing instruction and proclaiming it).

When the angel commanded iqra, Muhammad, peace be upon him, wasn't being asked to reproduce memorized text; he was being commanded to receive and proclaim revelation orally. This is how oral instruction works: the teacher speaks, the student repeats. Toddlers in kindergarten don't recite from prior memorization; they repeat what's taught to them orally in real-time. Your own example disproves your point.

Muhammad, peace be upon him's, I cannot iqra expressed an inability/unreadiness to receive and proclaim prophetic revelation, not a cognitive defect. This mirrors Moses' I am slow of speech (Exodus 4:10) and Jeremiah's I don't know how to speak (Jeremiah 1:6)- prophetic hesitation, not mental deficiency.

Demonstrate from Arabic usage that iqra requires a physical text. You can't, because it doesn't.

In your claim, why does Allah teach by the pen if you learn from recitation? The pen is useless! You practice a false dichotomy. Writing preserves revelation; recitation transmits it. Oral cultures employed both without contradiction. The historical reality is that every oral society that developed writing adopted it enthusiastically precisely because writing complements oral transmission by preserving what's recited.

Vedas: orally transmitted for centuries, eventually written down.

Homer's epics: orally composed, later transcribed.

Qur'an: orally revealed to Muhammad, peace be upon him, written down by scribes during his lifetime, compiled into a standardized text afterward.

If recitation renders writing useless, explain why no oral culture in history ever refused writing once available? Your logic would make all historical literacy efforts pointless.

Quran 96:4-5 - who taught by the pen, taught humanity what they didn't know- emphasizes that God enables human knowledge preservation through writing; it doesn't contradict oral revelation to one prophet. You're creating a problem that doesn't exist. Where did Adam keep text of what God taught him about the names of animals before asking the angels?

Your objection, classifying six pronouns in one verse as confused and unintelligible, applies equally to the Hebrew Bible. Established Semitic rhetoric includes the plural of majesty (We/Our for God) and third-person narration (He/His when describing God's actions), shifting between perspectives for emphasis.

Genesis 1:26: Then God said, Let *us* make mankind in *our* image... (plural).

Genesis 1:27: So God created mankind in *His* own image (singular).

Isaiah 6:8: Then I heard the voice of the Lord saying, 'Whom shall *I* send? And who will go for *Us*?'" (singular and plural in the same sentence).

If Quran 17:1's pronoun shifts make it unintelligible, then Genesis and Isaiah are equally unintelligible. Apply your standard consistently, or admit you're holding different scriptures to different criteria. Your claim that it's not standard in any culture is demonstrably false; it's standard Semitic rhetoric found throughout the Hebrew Bible, which predates the Qur'an by over a millennium.

Again, regarding Al-Masjid al-Aqsa, your questions What's its name? Farthest relative to where? Where's its location? are answered:

1. Al-Masjid al-Aqsa is the name and is the farthest place of prostration. In Qur'anic usage, "masjid" is defined by function (prostration), not architecture. The phrase identifies the site by its characteristic (farthest from Mecca) and sacred function (place of prostration). The Western Wall identifies a location by direction and function; it doesn't require a personal name like "Bob's Wall."

2. Farthest relative to Mecca, the starting point of the journey in the verse itself (from al-Masjid al-Haram [Mecca] to al-Masjid al-Aqsa).

3. The location is Jerusalem, specifically the Temple Mount area, a site sacred in Abrahamic tradition, where prophets worshiped, and which Muslims identify with the Isra journey.

In Islamic teaching, the entire Earth is a valid place of worship (masjid). Qur'an 7:29 and the hadith Sahih Bukhari state, The Earth has been made a mosque for me. Demanding a named architectural structure misunderstands Islamic theology, as sacred space is universal, not confined to buildings.

Your claim that Allah introduced a place with no location is factually wrong. The location (Jerusalem/Temple Mount) is identified by its geographic relationship to Mecca and its sacred history.

You claim that in Islam, you have over 124,000 messengers, but the fact is this number does NOT appear in the Qur'an. The Qur'an states messengers were sent to all peoples (Quran 16:36: We sent a messenger to every community) but never quantifies them. The 124,000 figure comes from a hadith classified specifically as a weak/disputed narration, not the Qur'an itself. Provide a Qur'anic verse stating 124,000 prophets before using it as a critique. Is your aversion to Islam so strong that you're leaning on unreliable sources? You're bringing in stuff from outside the Quran and then using it to bash the Quran itself? that's a classic strawman argument.

You ask if I'm saying none of them had a place to pray (a mosque). In Islam, the whole earth is a place of prayer. Wherever the prophets bowed down to God became a masjid (a place of prostration) because of what it was used for, not because they built and named a special building.

Adam, Noah, Abraham, Moses, and Jesus all prostrated to God wherever they happened to be. Islam doesn't need huge buildings or designated sanctuaries. It all fits together theologically; it's not a contradiction.

You're convinced the book is full of errors and couldn't have been written by a native Arabic speaker, but the funny thing is, every single problem you've pointed out comes from:

1. Misunderstanding the words (iqra' doesn't have to mean written text)

2. Creating a false choice (oral vs. written tradition)

3. Not knowing Semitic writing styles (pronoun changes happen in the Hebrew Bible too)

4. Mixing up categories (masjid is about function, not architecture)

5. Attacking a hadith number that isn't even in the Quran (strawman again!)

6. Holding Islam to a higher standard than the Bible

When your arguments depend on misunderstanding Arabic, Semitic literary customs, and Islamic theology, the real joke is on you, not the Quran.

For 1,400 years, native Arabic speakers - even those who hated Islam - didn't bring up these issues because they understood the language and the way it was written back then. Your confusion just proves that modern readers who try to apply outside ideas end up creating problems where there aren't any.

Stop comparing the babblings of the Twitch the Bible.
1. God in the Bible is a Trinity, Taoheed is not. This, Allah speaking unintelligently have to be explained in another way.
2. My argument is that apart from the Bible you have no historical claim to Abraham. And I asked, Ishmael was 14 year old when he learned Arabic, how could he be the progenitor of the Arabs.
3.I gave you a hadith of your prophet where he himself admitted that IQRA means READ and not RECITE. But you have made your prophet a liar and you know more than him. Continue with your self delusion.
4. Your last argument is laughable. Allah is supposed to be the direct origin of the Qur'an: unfortunately, what you have simply said is that Allah is the WORST communicator of his mind to mankind.
We have to reinterpret the Qur'an for it to make sense.

TenQ:
Stop comparing the babblings of the Twitch the Bible.
1. God in the Bible is a Trinity, Taoheed is not. This, Allah speaking unintelligently have to be explained in another way.
2. My argument is that apart from the Bible you have no historical claim to Abraham. And I asked, Ishmael was 14 year old when he learned Arabic, how could he be the progenitor of the Arabs.
3.I gave you a hadith of your prophet where he himself admitted that IQRA means READ and not RECITE. But you have made your prophet a liar and you know more than him. Continue with your self delusion.
4. Your last argument is laughable. Allah is supposed to be the direct origin of the Qur'an: unfortunately, what you have simply said is that Allah is the WORST communicator of his mind to mankind.
We have to reinterpret the Qur'an for it to make sense.

You're judging Islam by standards that even Christianity struggles to meet. Let's try using the same yardstick for both.

1. Complexity of Trinity vs. Tawheed. You dismiss Islamic monotheism as simplistic, yet you defend the Trinity - a concept of three persons in one God that took 400 years and countless church councils to hammer out, and is still considered a mystery. If the need for theological explanation is a deal-breaker, the Trinity falters first.

2. Historical claims about Abraham. You demand non-biblical evidence for Islamic claims about Abraham, but you don't have any yourself. Archaeological proof of Abraham is absent from both our religious texts. Plus, you've misread Genesis. Ishmael was 14 when Isaac was born, not when he started learning Arabic. The Bible says nothing about his language skills. You're arguing against points the text never makes.

3. Iqra - Reading vs. Reciting. In the 7th century, a time of oral tradition, reading and reciting weren't separate things. Reading meant reciting aloud. The Arabic root "qara'a" covers both, just as the Hebrew "qara" does in your Bible. You're imposing modern ideas of literacy onto ancient oral contexts. Even your prophet's apostles weren't literate. Acts 4:13 calls Peter and John uneducated, yet they received revelation.

4. Quranic interpretation. You claim the need to interpret the Quran proves it's not clearly divine. Yet Christianity has over 45,000 denominations precisely because the Bible needs interpretation. The word "Trinity" isn't even in your Scripture, and it required centuries of reinterpretation using Greek philosophy. If needing interpretation means poor communication, your God communicated even worse.

5. The real point is that for 1,400 years, native Arabic speakers - including Christian Arabs, Jews, and pagans who opposed Islam - never raised these linguistic issues because they understood the language and literary conventions. Your criticisms show a lack of familiarity with Arabic, not flaws in the Quran.

Apply your own standards to Christianity first. Does the Bible explicitly teach the Trinity? No. Does it need interpretation? Yes. Do Christians disagree on that interpretation? Constantly. Does archaeological evidence confirm all biblical claims? No.

Either interpretive complexity disqualifies both traditions, or neither. Pick one standard and stick to it.

Your arguments are like boomerangs, hitting Christianity harder than Islam. They depend on double standards, historical inaccuracies, and a shaky grasp of language, all while defending a faith that faces the same, or even greater, challenges in interpretation.

honesttalk21:
You're judging Islam by standards that even Christianity struggles to meet. Let's try using the same yardstick for both.

1. Complexity of Trinity vs. Tawheed. You dismiss Islamic monotheism as simplistic, yet you defend the Trinity - a concept of three persons in one God that took 400 years and countless church councils to hammer out, and is still considered a mystery. If the need for theological explanation is a deal-breaker, the Trinity falters first.

Sorry! Even the early Jews spoke about the Two Powers of Heaven (Duality of God) before Christianity. This they retracted only to deny the Trinity and there are scriptures to support this.
YHWH is complex and not singular like Allah.
It makes logical sense for YHWH to use the pronoun US for Himself. But does it make sense in Islam for Allah to use US or WE or OUR SELF .

Royal WE is the king with his Council. Are you associating partners with Allah?

honesttalk21:
2. Historical claims about Abraham. You demand non-biblical evidence for Islamic claims about Abraham, but you don't have any yourself. Archaeological proof of Abraham is absent from both our religious texts. Plus, you've misread Genesis. Ishmael was 14 when Isaac was born, not when he started learning Arabic. The Bible says nothing about his language skills. You're arguing against points the text never makes.

My argument is simple. Find your own sources rather than perching on the account of the Bible.
I did not misread Genesis at all.
Your Islamic sources say that Ishmael was 14 year old when he learned to speak Arabic. Must I teach you your own religion? Check!

My question: If Ismael learnt Arabic at 14, how could he be the progenitor of the Arabs?

This are the kind of things you see when a religion is based on cascades of lies and fabrications

honesttalk21:
3. Iqra - Reading vs. Reciting. In the 7th century, a time of oral tradition, reading and reciting weren't separate things. Reading meant reciting aloud. The Arabic root "qara'a" covers both, just as the Hebrew "qara" does in your Bible. You're imposing modern ideas of literacy onto ancient oral contexts. Even your prophet's apostles weren't literate. Acts 4:13 calls Peter and John uneducated, yet they received revelation.

Your prophet said IQRA was about reading. Are you claiming that he lied?

Here is a Hadith to prove to you that IQRA means READ and not RECITE.
Will you throw Mohammed under the bus after this evidence?

Sahih al-Bukhari 4953
Narrated Aisha:
(the wife of the Prophet) The commencement (of the Divine Inspiration) to Allah's Messenger (ﷺ) was in the form of true dreams in his sleep, for he never had a dream but it turned out to be true and clear as the bright daylight. Then he began to like seclusions, so he used to go in seclusion in the cave of Hira where he used to worship Allah continuously for many nights before going back to his family to take the necessary provision (of food) for the stay. He come back to (his wife) Khadija again to take his provision (of food) likewise, till one day he received the Guidance while he was in the cave of Hira. An Angel came to him and asked him to read. Allah's Messenger (ﷺ) replied, "I do not know how to read." The Prophet (ﷺ) added, "Then the Angel held me (forcibly) and pressed me so hard that I felt distressed. Then he released me and again asked me to read, and I replied, ' I do not know how to read.' Thereupon he held me again and pressed me for the second time till I felt distressed. He then released me and asked me to read, but again I replied. 'I do not know how to read.' Thereupon he held me for the third time and pressed me till I got distressed, and then he released me and said, 'Read, in the Name of your Lord Who has created (all that exists), has created man out of a clot, Read! And your Lord is the Most Generous. Who has taught (the writing) by the pen, has taught man that which he knew not." (96.1-5).
...........




Tell me your prophet is ignorant and misinformed about the event in the cave

honesttalk21:
4. Quranic interpretation. You claim the need to interpret the Quran proves it's not clearly divine. Yet Christianity has over 45,000 denominations precisely because the Bible needs interpretation. The word "Trinity" isn't even in your Scripture, and it required centuries of reinterpretation using Greek philosophy. If needing interpretation means poor communication, your God communicated even worse.

Stop this lame argument in 2026. Is the Taoheed in the Qur'an? You think Islam with all your books of interpretations don't have sects you don't even consider as Muslims. It's so bad that you don't even agree on the interpretations of your scholars. Lame argument!

But at least EVERYONE can pick up the Bible and Read to comprehend for himself in his own language and based on his own reasoning without intermediaries.

Unfortunately for you, Allah's words has to be treated like the words of a babbling toddler whose mother (your scholars) have to interpret the incoherent babblings into something that sounds meaningful.

Allah will say something plainly BUT as Muslims, your Allah is the voice of your scholars or the voice of Mohammed. SMH!

honesttalk21:
5. The real point is that for 1,400 years, native Arabic speakers - including Christian Arabs, Jews, and pagans who opposed Islam - never raised these linguistic issues because they understood the language and literary conventions. Your criticisms show a lack of familiarity with Arabic, not flaws in the Quran.

Apply your own standards to Christianity first. Does the Bible explicitly teach the Trinity? No. Does it need interpretation? Yes. Do Christians disagree on that interpretation? Constantly. Does archaeological evidence confirm all biblical claims? No.

Either interpretive complexity disqualifies both traditions, or neither. Pick one standard and stick to it.

Your arguments are like boomerangs, hitting Christianity harder than Islam. They depend on double standards, historical inaccuracies, and a shaky grasp of language, all while defending a faith that faces the same, or even greater, challenges in interpretation.

Boohoo!
The confluence of jargons in the Qur'an should tell anyone that this cannot be from God.

Quran 4:82 is the most powerful verse in the Qur'an. It gives us an objective proof of the source of the Qur'an. Only one contradiction is enough to disprove Allah but several exist that Muslims choose to reinterpret.

Qur'an 4:82
"Do they not then reflect upon the Qur'an? If it had been from [any] other than Allah, they would have found within it much contradiction (ikhtilāfan kathīran)."

Muslims have been struggling to fix these Inconsistencies to no avail till date instead of admitting that this book could not have been from God.

Your Quran teach Taoheed (a UNIFICATION) and Ahad(ONE OF a group/many) proving that Islam is paganism REBRANDED under a Unified Front called Allah. You practice several rebranded Pre-islamic Religious rituals.

Sorry!

honesttalk21
https://youtube.com/shorts/uA8-noqWHeQ?si=8D8r7BNE2GpYJW_i



https://m.youtube.com/shorts/uA8-noqWHeQ

TenQ:
Sorry! Even the early Jews spoke about the Two Powers of Heaven (Duality of God) before Christianity. This they retracted only to deny the Trinity and there are scriptures to support this.
YHWH is complex and not singular like Allah.
It makes logical sense for YHWH to use the pronoun US for Himself. But does it make sense in Islam for Allah to use US or WE or OUR SELF .

Royal WE is the king with his Council. Are you associating partners with Allah?

You’re applying a double standard and misrepresenting theology, language, and history.
Two Powers in Heaven and Divine Plurality

Regarding that Two Powers in Heaven idea, mainstream Judaism flat-out rejected it as heresy (look it up in Sanhedrin 38b). It goes against the very core of the Shema: The LORD is one (Deut 6:4). So, dragging up a Jewish heresy to prop up Christian theology or bash Islamic monotheism? That's just not honest.

And this idea that royal we means God plus His council? It totally undermines your own point. If Let us make man (Gen 1:26) means God + angels, suddenly angels are partners in creation. That flies in the face of Isaiah 44:24 (I created alone). Neither Jewish nor Christian theology puts angels in the role of co-creators.

All three traditions acknowledge the plural of majesty:
Judaism: they use a royal or deliberative plural.
Christianity: they interpret it through the Trinity. Though challenging.
Islam: they recognize it as the plural of majesty (pluralis majestatis).

You're okay with this when it's YHWH's Us, but you reject it for Allah's We? It's the same literary device, but you're drawing completely different conclusions. You can't have it both ways.

God, the Divine Council, and the Royal We: A Clearer Perspective

The idea that the royal We signifies God plus His council is fundamentally flawed.

1. Understanding the Royal We

The royal we (pluralis majestatis) functions as a figure of speech, not a mathematical equation. It's used to amplify authority, emphasize sovereignty, and convey a sense of importance, not to indicate shared responsibility. When a monarch declares, We decree, it doesn't suddenly make the council co-rulers. The power remains with the individual, even if advisors are present.

For instance, where Queen Victoria says We are not amused, no one assumes her advisors were collectively feeling unamused alongside her.

Why God + council doesn't work theologically is clear in if Let us make man (Gen 1:26) means God and His council working in unison, we're forced to draw one of three problematic conclusions:

1. Angels participated in creation, which contradicts Isaiah 44:24: I, the LORD, made all things alone."

2. The council was merely observing, making it pointless to address them directly.

3. It's a rhetorical expression of majesty, which actually supports the Islamic interpretation.

Only the third option allows us to maintain a belief in one God.

Biblical Texts Explicitly Deny Council Participation. The Hebrew Bible is unambiguous in Isaiah 44:24 that God alone created everything, Isaiah 45:5-7 clearly says there is no god besides Me, Job 38:4-7 shows Angels witnessed creation; they didn't carry it out.

The divine council in Scripture offers advice?, observes events, carries out commands
ever creates anything, never shares divine power therefore, interpreting Genesis 1:26 as a collaborative creative act directly opposes scripture.

The Common Ground Between Jewish, Christian, and Islamic Theology is seen in all three traditions reject the notion of angels as co-creators.

Judaism interprets the plural as royal language or internal deliberation.

Christianity sees it as a conversation within the Trinity (not with angels).

Islam understands it as a plural of majesty.

None of them claim God and the council created together.

So, invoking a council doesn't explain the plural form; it introduces a theological inconsistency.


You're exposing the double standard when YHWH uses us, it's considered a metaphor, an expression of majesty, or a mystery. However, when Allah uses We, it's often interpreted as implying partners and polytheism (shirk).

It's the same linguistic device, yet it receives opposite interpretations.

If Allah's We suggests partners, then so should Genesis 1:26. If Genesis 1:26 is simply rhetorical majesty, then so is the Qur'an. You have to apply the same standard across the board.

The God + council explanation doesn't reflect how the royal plural is actually used. If it does that implies that angels are co-creators and contradicts Isaiah 44:24.

Is rejected by Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. So it ultimately collapses into the plural-of-majesty explanation anyway.

The royal We never suggests shared divinity or shared action. Using it to criticize Islamic monotheism while excusing it in the Bible is a clear case of making exceptions for one's own beliefs.

TenQ:
My argument is simple. Find your own sources rather than perching on the account of the Bible.

Islam is in continuity with the Abrahamic tradition, just as Christianity builds or follows strongly on the Hebrew Bible. Demanding Muslims avoid biblical references while Christians freely rely on Jewish scripture is arbitrary. Shared figures justify shared sources.

TenQ:
My question: If Ismael learnt Arabic at 14, how could he be the progenitor of the Arabs?

This are the kind of things you see when a religion is based on cascades of lies and fabrications

The claim that Ishmael learned Arabic at 14 comes from later historical reports, not the Qur’an. It means learning a specific dialect, not inventing a language. Progenitor ≠ language inventor. Semitic languages develop over generations this is linguistically uncontroversial.

This account is drawn from later historical sources like Ibn Kathir and al-Tabari, not the Qur'an itself. It's a historical narrative, not a divinely binding revelation, and the authenticity of its chains of transmission is questionable.

Learning a dialect is not the same as inventing a whole new language. The story says Ishmael picked up the dialect of the Jurhum tribe, not that he was speechless before. He probably already spoke a Semitic language and then adopted the local Arabic dialect as he integrated and married into the community.

Being a progenitor doesn't automatically make you a language creator. Just because he's an ancestor of Arabic-speaking people doesn't mean he had to invent the language. His descendants gradually became Arabic speakers over generations and is a perfectly normal process of linguistic transmission.

There's no contradiction with the Bible here. Being that specifically Genesis doesn't say what language Ishmael spoke. Arabic, Hebrew, and Aramaic all share Semitic origins, so the evolution of language presents no problem.

Your objection hinges on historical reports outside the Qur'an that are themselves debated, and it doesn't understand how languages and cultures evolve over time.

TenQ:
Your prophet said IQRA was about reading. Are you claiming that he lied?

Here is a Hadith to prove to you that IQRA means READ and not RECITE.
Will you throw Mohammed under the bus after this evidence?

Sahih al-Bukhari 4953
Narrated Aisha:
(the wife of the Prophet) The commencement (of the Divine Inspiration) to Allah's Messenger (ﷺ) was in the form of true dreams in his sleep, for he never had a dream but it turned out to be true and clear as the bright daylight. Then he began to like seclusions, so he used to go in seclusion in the cave of Hira where he used to worship Allah continuously for many nights before going back to his family to take the necessary provision (of food) for the stay. He come back to (his wife) Khadija again to take his provision (of food) likewise, till one day he received the Guidance while he was in the cave of Hira. An Angel came to him and asked him to read. Allah's Messenger (ﷺ) replied, "I do not know how to read." The Prophet (ﷺ) added, "Then the Angel held me (forcibly) and pressed me so hard that I felt distressed. Then he released me and again asked me to read, and I replied, ' I do not know how to read.' Thereupon he held me again and pressed me for the second time till I felt distressed. He then released me and asked me to read, but again I replied. 'I do not know how to read.' Thereupon he held me for the third time and pressed me till I got distressed, and then he released me and said, 'Read, in the Name of your Lord Who has created (all that exists), has created man out of a clot, Read! And your Lord is the Most Generous. Who has taught (the writing) by the pen, has taught man that which he knew not." (96.1-5).
...........




Tell me your prophet is ignorant and misinformed about the event in the cave

The hadith you're quoting makes no mention of any written material,no scrolls, books, or scripts are involved. Gabriel commands "iqra'," and Muhammad pbuh responds, I am not a qari'."Then, Gabriel recites orally, and Muhammad repeats it.

This actually lines up with the Islamic understanding. Iqra in this instance means to receive and proclaim something orally, not to read from a written text. The English translation of read can be a bit misleading. Your point actually highlights how consistent the idea of oral revelation is!

The confusion arises in the ENGLISH translation, not in the Arabic. In Arabic, iqra can mean:

* Reading (from a text)

* Reciting (orally)

* Proclaiming (announcing)

Muhammad pbuh's reply, I am not a qari' means I am not someone who reads/recites, showing his feeling of being unable or unprepared to make a prophetic proclamation.

The angel then reveals the verses orally, which Muhammad repeats. This is oral transmission - the usual meaning of "iqra'" in this context.

TenQ:
Stop this lame argument in 2026. Is the Taoheed in the Qur'an? You think Islam with all your books of interpretations don't have sects you don't even consider as Muslims. It's so bad that you don't even agree on the interpretations of your scholars. Lame argument!

Your Quran teach Taoheed (a UNIFICATION) and Ahad(ONE OF a group/many) proving that Islam is paganism REBRANDED under a Unified Front called Allah. You practice several rebranded Pre-islamic Religious rituals.

Sorry!

To say that ahad simply means one of a group is just not right, linguistically speaking. When the Quran uses ahad, it's talking about absolute uniqueness. Think about Surah 112 - it clearly says no to partners, no to dividing things up, no to offspring, and no to anything being equal to God. That's a stricter form of monotheism than what you find in Trinitarian theology. It's really similar to the Hebrew word echad in the Shema.

TenQ:
But at least EVERYONE can pick up the Bible and Read to comprehend for himself in his own language and based on his own reasoning without intermediaries.

Unfortunately for you, Allah's words has to be treated like the words of a babbling toddler whose mother (your scholars) have to interpret the incoherent babblings into something that sounds meaningful.

Allah will say something plainly BUT as Muslims, your Allah is the voice of your scholars or the voice of Mohammed. SMH!

The Bible says as much, actually. Even Scripture acknowledges it can be tough to grasp (2 Peter 3:16). The sheer number of Christian denominations, each with its own spin on things, proves that interpretation is just part of the deal. Exploring different viewpoints doesn't mean everything's a jumbled mess; it's more about getting into the nitty-gritty of language, history, and background and that goes for any holy book.

TenQ:
Boohoo!
The confluence of jargons in the Qur'an should tell anyone that this cannot be from God.

Quran 4:82 is the most powerful verse in the Qur'an. It gives us an objective proof of the source of the Qur'an. Only one contradiction is enough to disprove Allah but several exist that Muslims choose to reinterpret.

Qur'an 4:82
"Do they not then reflect upon the Qur'an? If it had been from [any] other than Allah, they would have found within it much contradiction (ikhtilāfan kathīran)."

Muslims have been struggling to fix these Inconsistencies to no avail till date instead of admitting that this book could not have been from God.

Qur’an 4:82 and contradictions presents the
verse which challenges critics to find abundant, irreconcilable contradiction, not superficial sequence questions. Your examples rely on rigid modern chronology, ignoring standard Semitic narrative style exactly the same issue seen in Genesis 1 vs. 2 and Gospel resurrection accounts. Apply your standard consistently or abandon it.

honesttalk21:
You’re applying a double standard and misrepresenting theology, language, and history.
Two Powers in Heaven and Divine Plurality

Regarding that Two Powers in Heaven idea, mainstream Judaism flat-out rejected it as heresy (look it up in Sanhedrin 38b). It goes against the very core of the Shema: The LORD is one (Deut 6:4). So, dragging up a Jewish heresy to prop up Christian theology or bash Islamic monotheism? That's just not honest.

So you know that the ancient Jews before and at Jesus time believed in Devine plurality!?
That was my argument. Modern Judaism reject it because it will make them like they killed their Messiah.
Sorry

honesttalk21:
And this idea that royal we means God plus His council? It totally undermines your own point. If Let us make man (Gen 1:26) means God + angels, suddenly angels are partners in creation. That flies in the face of Isaiah 44:24 (I created alone). Neither Jewish nor Christian theology puts angels in the role of co-creators.

All three traditions acknowledge the plural of majesty:
Judaism: they use a royal or deliberative plural.
Christianity: they interpret it through the Trinity. Though challenging.
Islam: they recognize it as the plural of majesty (pluralis majestatis).

You're okay with this when it's YHWH's Us, but you reject it for Allah's We? It's the same literary device, but you're drawing completely different conclusions. You can't have it both ways.

God, the Divine Council, and the Royal We: A Clearer Perspective

The idea that the royal We signifies God plus His council is fundamentally flawed.

1. Understanding the Royal We

The royal we (pluralis majestatis) functions as a figure of speech, not a mathematical equation. It's used to amplify authority, emphasize sovereignty, and convey a sense of importance, not to indicate shared responsibility. When a monarch declares, We decree, it doesn't suddenly make the council co-rulers. The power remains with the individual, even if advisors are present.

For instance, where Queen Victoria says We are not amused, no one assumes her advisors were collectively feeling unamused alongside her.

Why God + council doesn't work theologically is clear in if Let us make man (Gen 1:26) means God and His council working in unison, we're forced to draw one of three problematic conclusions:

1. Angels participated in creation, which contradicts Isaiah 44:24: I, the LORD, made all things alone."

2. The council was merely observing, making it pointless to address them directly.

3. It's a rhetorical expression of majesty, which actually supports the Islamic interpretation.

Only the third option allows us to maintain a belief in one God.

Except you believe in devine Plurality, Royal we is Allah and his council. There is no two ways about it.

God is too great to address Himself as WE only to feel BIG.

Only an ARROGANT personality will do that and the last time I checked, Allah is the Arrogant.

honesttalk21:
Biblical Texts Explicitly Deny Council Participation. The Hebrew Bible is unambiguous in Isaiah 44:24 that God alone created everything, Isaiah 45:5-7 clearly says there is no god besides Me, Job 38:4-7 shows Angels witnessed creation; they didn't carry it out.

The divine council in Scripture offers advice?, observes events, carries out commands
ever creates anything, never shares divine power therefore, interpreting Genesis 1:26 as a collaborative creative act directly opposes scripture.

The Common Ground Between Jewish, Christian, and Islamic Theology is seen in all three traditions reject the notion of angels as co-creators.

Judaism interprets the plural as royal language or internal deliberation.

Christianity sees it as a conversation within the Trinity (not with angels).

Islam understands it as a plural of majesty.

None of them claim God and the council created together.

So, invoking a council doesn't explain the plural form; it introduces a theological inconsistency.


You're exposing the double standard when YHWH uses us, it's considered a metaphor, an expression of majesty, or a mystery. However, when Allah uses We, it's often interpreted as implying partners and polytheism (shirk).

It's the same linguistic device, yet it receives opposite interpretations.

If Allah's We suggests partners, then so should Genesis 1:26. If Genesis 1:26 is simply rhetorical majesty, then so is the Qur'an. You have to apply the same standard across the board.

The God + council explanation doesn't reflect how the royal plural is actually used. If it does that implies that angels are co-creators and contradicts Isaiah 44:24.

Is rejected by Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. So it ultimately collapses into the plural-of-majesty explanation anyway.

The royal We never suggests shared divinity or shared action. Using it to criticize Islamic monotheism while excusing it in the Bible is a clear case of making exceptions for one's own beliefs.

Just rhetoric grammar explaining what is NOT.
YHWH is not mate will Allah. There is no double standard: YHWH is a Devine Plurality and Allah is NOT.


Is Allah Omnipresent? NO!
YHWH is Omnipresent!

Is Allah Omniscient? NO!
YHWH is Omniscient!

Is Allah Omnipotent? NO!
YHWH is Omnipotent!

Is Allah a Father? NO!
YHWH is the Father!

It is you who seek the elevation of Allah to the status of YHWH so, keep your Lane. Have you ever heard a Christian speaking about a Royal We about YHWH?

Only an imposter will inflate himself to look bigger than he truly is. It is no wonder that Allah craves worship of both jinn and human Qur'an 51:56

honesttalk21:
Islam is in continuity with the Abrahamic tradition, just as Christianity builds or follows strongly on the Hebrew Bible. Demanding Muslims avoid biblical references while Christians freely rely on Jewish scripture is arbitrary. Shared figures justify shared sources.

Ask the Grail Message and the Eckankar, they also claim to follow the teachings of Jesus too.

Yours is just a claim too. Is the name of your God YHWH?

Sorry

honesttalk21:
The claim that Ishmael learned Arabic at 14 comes from later historical reports, not the Qur’an. It means learning a specific dialect, not inventing a language. Progenitor ≠ language inventor. Semitic languages develop over generations this is linguistically uncontroversial.

This account is drawn from later historical sources like Ibn Kathir and al-Tabari, not the Qur'an itself. It's a historical narrative, not a divinely binding revelation, and the authenticity of its chains of transmission is questionable.

Learning a dialect is not the same as inventing a whole new language. The story says Ishmael picked up the dialect of the Jurhum tribe, not that he was speechless before. He probably already spoke a Semitic language and then adopted the local Arabic dialect as he integrated and married into the community.

Being a progenitor doesn't automatically make you a language creator. Just because he's an ancestor of Arabic-speaking people doesn't mean he had to invent the language. His descendants gradually became Arabic speakers over generations and is a perfectly normal process of linguistic transmission.

There's no contradiction with the Bible here. Being that specifically Genesis doesn't say what language Ishmael spoke. Arabic, Hebrew, and Aramaic all share Semitic origins, so the evolution of language presents no problem.

Your objection hinges on historical reports outside the Qur'an that are themselves debated, and it doesn't understand how languages and cultures evolve over time.

So, it was a lie as usual?
What is true in Islam?

Did Christians write these islamic historic books for you or Muslim scholars!?

honesttalk21:
The hadith you're quoting makes no mention of any written material,no scrolls, books, or scripts are involved. Gabriel commands "iqra'," and Muhammad pbuh responds, I am not a qari'."Then, Gabriel recites orally, and Muhammad repeats it.

This actually lines up with the Islamic understanding. Iqra in this instance means to receive and proclaim something orally, not to read from a written text. The English translation of read can be a bit misleading. Your point actually highlights how consistent the idea of oral revelation is!

The confusion arises in the ENGLISH translation, not in the Arabic. In Arabic, iqra can mean:

* Reading (from a text)

* Reciting (orally)

* Proclaiming (announcing)

Muhammad pbuh's reply, I am not a qari' means I am not someone who reads/recites, showing his feeling of being unable or unprepared to make a prophetic proclamation.

The angel then reveals the verses orally, which Muhammad repeats. This is oral transmission - the usual meaning of "iqra'" in this context.

So, you are stating categorically that either you prophet was telling lies or he didn't know what happened to him in the cave.

Are you aware that your prophet thought he had seen a Jinn rather than an Angel!?
It took Waraqa who wasn't a witness to tell your prophet that this Jinn was an Angel called Jibril!?

honesttalk21:
To say that ahad simply means one of a group is just not right, linguistically speaking. When the Quran uses ahad, it's talking about absolute uniqueness. Think about Surah 112 - it clearly says no to partners, no to dividing things up, no to offspring, and no to anything being equal to God. That's a stricter form of monotheism than what you find in Trinitarian theology. It's really similar to the Hebrew word echad in the Shema.

Find me a non Qur'an Arabic that uses Ahad as strictly or uniquely ONE! Only in Islamic Arabic do we find such!
Can you form a non islamic sentence with the word Taoheed and let's check the meaning?
SMH!

Allah will say something BUT Muslims know better!

honesttalk21:
The Bible says as much, actually. Even Scripture acknowledges it can be tough to grasp (2 Peter 3:16). The sheer number of Christian denominations, each with its own spin on things, proves that interpretation is just part of the deal. Exploring different viewpoints doesn't mean everything's a jumbled mess; it's more about getting into the nitty-gritty of language, history, and background and that goes for any holy book.

Tell me if Mohammed was telling lies that you Muslims will be in 73 sects !?

Sunan Abu Dawood (Hadith 4579), Sunan Ibn Majah (3992), and Al-Mustadrak states:
"The Jews split into 71 or 72 sects, the Christians similarly, and my ummah will split into 73 sects—all in the Fire except one," i

Was Mohammed speaking the truth or he lied?

honesttalk21:
Qur’an 4:82 and contradictions presents the
verse which challenges critics to find abundant, irreconcilable contradiction, not superficial sequence questions. Your examples rely on rigid modern chronology, ignoring standard Semitic narrative style exactly the same issue seen in Genesis 1 vs. 2 and Gospel resurrection accounts. Apply your standard consistently or abandon it.

Of course, we have to format our brains and reprogram it Islamically to understand the Qur'an and be able to reconcile the contradictions.

Like the sun setting I'm murky waters
Like the confused destiny of the boy killed by Al-Khidr
Like Mohammed's name found written in both the Torah and Injeel
Like Adam created by BE but he also used his hands and clay and claimed that man was created from sperm
Like Solomon died standing for almost a year with no one discovering it.
Like Hail coming from mountains in the sky
Like Jesus was created by BE but we found out someone was blowing into the Farhjaha of Mary
Etc etc...

The list is endless

TenQ:
!
Only in Islamic Arabic does
Him mean Me.
Me, mean You
He mean Us or We
SMH!!


Is facing the truth difficult for you!?

This claim is simply incorrect and it’s not just an issue with Arabic.

Pronouns aren’t tied to the speaker’s identity.
In every language, pronouns change depending on who is being talked about, not who is doing the talking. A narrator might say He, then quote God saying We, and then refer back to Him that’s just basic grammar, not confusion.

This is typical Semitic rhetoric, not just Islamic Arabic. The Hebrew Bible does the same thing. God speaks in the first person (I, the LORD). Is referred to in the third person (He said…). Uses plural majesty (Let us make man Genesis 1:26). If this makes the Qur’an illogical, then the Bible is illogical too.

We doesn’t mean multiple beings.
The plural of majesty is found in Arabic, Hebrew, Aramaic, Persian, Latin, and English (We are not amused). It signifies authority and grandeur, not a count of individuals.

Him referring to the servant is clear in context. When the Qur’an mentions His servant (ʿabdihi), the grammar clearly differentiates between God (the Speaker / Possessor) and the servant (the object of action). There’s no confusion unless you deliberately ignore the syntax.

Your outrage shows selective reading. You accept pronoun shifts in the Bible without a second thought, but label them as confusion in the Qur’an. That’s not linguistic analysis it’s bias.

Nothing means everything. Nothing is confused. The language is precise, contextual, and typical for Semitic texts. The issue isn’t with Arabic. It’s the assumption that an unfamiliar style equals incoherence.

If you choose to contend further address directly the errors stated here.

TenQ:
What is the name of the farthest mosque to Mecca?
Doesn't it have a name?
If I was in Jerusalem, will this mosque remain the farthest mosque?

124,000 Messengers expose other lies of Muslims.

Is it possible that non of these Messengers were sent to China or Africa which would be farther than your extant farthest mosque?

Except your conclusion is that none of these Messengers established prayers to Allah!

Why do prostrators lie so much?
Unfortunately, you don't even ask questions to know the truth.

This objection is flawed in several ways: linguistically, geographically, and logically.

Doesn't al-Masjid al-Aqsa have a name? Yes, it does. The Qur'an specifically refers to it as al-Masjid al-Aqsa (Qur'an 17:1). The term Aqsa serves as a descriptor, similar to how terms like Holy Land or Forbidden City carry significance.

If I'm in Jerusalem, is it still the farthest mosque? This is a misunderstanding. The term farthest is relative to Mecca, which is the central point of Islamic worship. Words like nearest, farthest, higher, and lower are always relative rather than absolute. Your argument would also undermine phrases like the far west or the Near East.

Why not China or Africa—aren't they farther? You're applying modern geography to a 7th-century Arabic context. Aqsa does not imply the farthest point on Earth. It refers to the farthest known sacred site from Mecca within the religious geography of that time.

124,000 prophets prove Muslims are lying. This is a non sequitur. The existence of many prophets does not imply that each one established a permanent sanctuary or that every prayer location is designated as a masjid. The idea that farthest mosque must be the absolute farthest on Earth would absurdly suggest that every prophet in the Bible founded a cathedral.

So none of them established prayer? This presents a false choice. Islam teaches that all prophets engaged in prayer, but not all established named, lasting sanctuaries for communal rituals.

The main misunderstanding is you are conflating a place of prostration (anywhere prayer is performed) with a specific sacred site that has historical and theological significance. Al-Masjid al-Aqsa fits the latter description.

There is no contradiction or deception, nor is there a linguistic issue. The confusion arises from repeated category errors,anachronisms, and overly literal interpretations.The text itself is clear, while the misunderstanding seems to stem from external sources.

TenQ:
!


Six pronouns in one verse!?
1. Someone is speaking about a He, Him and His
2. We can assume that this same person speaking is the one who calls himself We and Our

Applying the rule, we have a confused unintelligible meaningless statement.

Your argument falls apart as soon as you apply basic grammar principles.

Just because there are multiple pronouns doesn't automatically mean there are multiple speakers. Ancient Semitic languages often switch between persons for rhetorical effect, not because they're confused.

He /His refers to God being spoken about in the third person, which was common in proclamations. We/Our is a plural of majesty, not a numerical plurality; it was used by kings and in the Hebrew Scripture. Him is a separate referent, the servant, and it's clearly distinguished grammatically. The Hearing,the Seeing are explicit divine attributes, not new persons.

This is typical Semitic discourse, and you can find it all over the Hebrew Bible. For example, God is spoken of as He while speaking as I within the same passage. No reasonable reader would mistake this for multiple gods.

Your rule is completely made up. If pronouns shift, the statement is unintelligible." That rule would also make Genesis, Psalms, Isaiah, and the Gospels unintelligible.

The verse makes sense grammatically, is consistent semantically, and is rhetorically normal. The problem isn't with the text itself, it's with forcing modern English expectations onto an ancient Semitic language. This isn't a problem with the language, it's a problem with the reader.

honesttalk21:
This claim is simply incorrect and it’s not just an issue with Arabic.

Pronouns aren’t tied to the speaker’s identity.
In every language, pronouns change depending on who is being talked about, not who is doing the talking. A narrator might say He, then quote God saying We, and then refer back to Him that’s just basic grammar, not confusion.

This is typical Semitic rhetoric, not just Islamic Arabic. The Hebrew Bible does the same thing. God speaks in the first person (I, the LORD). Is referred to in the third person (He said…). Uses plural majesty (Let us make man Genesis 1:26). If this makes the Qur’an illogical, then the Bible is illogical too.

We doesn’t mean multiple beings.
The plural of majesty is found in Arabic, Hebrew, Aramaic, Persian, Latin, and English (We are not amused). It signifies authority and grandeur, not a count of individuals.

Him referring to the servant is clear in context. When the Qur’an mentions His servant (ʿabdihi), the grammar clearly differentiates between God (the Speaker / Possessor) and the servant (the object of action). There’s no confusion unless you deliberately ignore the syntax.

Your outrage shows selective reading. You accept pronoun shifts in the Bible without a second thought, but label them as confusion in the Qur’an. That’s not linguistic analysis it’s bias.

Nothing means everything. Nothing is confused. The language is precise, contextual, and typical for Semitic texts. The issue isn’t with Arabic. It’s the assumption that an unfamiliar style equals incoherence.

If you choose to contend further address directly the errors stated here.

Check again Qur'an 17:1

Qur'an 17:1
"Exalted is He 1 who took His 2 Servant by night from al-Masjid al-Haram to al-Masjid al-Aqsa, whose surroundings We 3 have blessed, to show him 4 of Our 5 signs. Indeed, He 6 is the Hearing, the Seeing."

Six pronouns in one verse!?
1. It is clear that a Narrator or Someone is speaking about a He, Him and His let's assume that it is Allah according to the claims of Muslims

So, we expect by normal rules of language that the Narrator is referring to a THIRD PARTY!

2. We can assume that this same person speaking is the one who calls himself We and Our

Interpretation of this verse will require the Mother of Allah (Islamic scholars) to tell us what Allah really means. SMH!

Applying the rule, we have a confused unintelligible meaningless statement.

TenQ:
So you know that the ancient Jews before and at Jesus time believed in Devine plurality!?
That was my argument. Modern Judaism reject it because it will make them like they killed their Messiah.
Sorry

That assertion simply doesn't hold up, either historically or logically.

1. The Two Powers idea was hardly a mainstream Jewish belief.

Rabbinic texts, like Sanhedrin 38b, clearly denounce the concept of Two Powers in Heaven as heresy. It arose from the fringes of speculation, not from the core of Jewish thought, and it was condemned both before and after Jesus.

2. The Shema existed long before Christianity.

The LORD is one (Deuteronomy 6:4) was the defining creed of Second Temple Judaism, a daily recitation. If Jews truly believed in a divine plurality, the Shema would be meaningless and it isn't.

3. Your claim about motives is unfounded.

Modern Judaism didn't reject divine plurality to dodge any guilt related to Jesus. The rejection stems from its violation of strict monotheism, the same reason it was rejected even before Christianity came into being.

4. You're using a heresy to try and justify orthodoxy.

Using a condemned Jewish heresy to prop up Christian theology is like using Gnosticism to define Christianity. It doesn't prove anything.

5. Muhammad pbuh was clear about not introducing anything new.

The Prophet pbuh stated that he brought no new god, only the religion of Abrahamic monotheism.

So, let's address this directly:

Did Jesus ever say, I am introducing a new concept of God? Or was he redefined by later theology?

The bottom line is this:

Fringe Jewish ideas isn't mainstream Jewish belief

Heresy isn't doctrine

Rewriting history isn't a valid argument

Strict monotheism was the standard.

Islam aligns with it.

Your claim? Not so much.

TenQ:
Except you believe in devine Plurality, Royal we is Allah and his council. There is no two ways about it.

God is too great to address Himself as WE only to feel BIG.

Only an ARROGANT personality will do that and the last time I checked, Allah is the Arrogant.

This whole argument crumbles apart when you look at the language, the theology, and just plain logic.

1. The idea that Royal We means God + council is just flat-out wrong.

No respected source on language, the Bible, or history says the royal we means the person speaking plus a group acting together. It's a figure of speech, not a literal count of people.

You should validate your stand andfind even one respected grammar book or historical source that says royal we means the king and his council sharing power?


2. What you're saying accidentally leads to belief in multiple gods. If We equals Allah or God as prefer plus council, then the council is involved in divine actions (creating, deciding, commanding).

That makes them partners, which goes against Isaiah 44:24 (I created alone) and every form of belief in one God.

Do well to show clearly well how that wouldn't be.

You're accusing Islam of associating partners with God, while you're the one sneaking it into Genesis.

3. Accusing God of arrogance misunderstands what it means to be sovereign.

Using the plural form to show majesty isn't arrogant; it's how authority is expressed.

Even unimportant earthly kings use it.

God's greatness makes it even more fitting, not less.

Calling God arrogant for speaking as a ruler shows you don't understand theology, it's not a valid critique.

4. You're contradicting yourself.

When YHWH says Us that's fine.

When Allah says We that's arrogant or means partners.

It's the same literary device, but you're judging it completely differently. That's not analysis, it's just bias.

5. Yes, a council exists but it doesn't share God's divinity.

The Bible mentions a divine council (angels as servants), but not as co-authors of God's will.

Talking to them or recognizing them doesn't mean they share God's identity or power.

The bottom line is:

The royal We never meant me plus partners.

Your interpretation creates the very association of partners with God that you're accusing others of.

And you still haven't provided a single real source to prove your point.

This isn't theology, it's just trying to justify a biased opinion disguised as outrage.

honesttalk21:
This objection is flawed in several ways: linguistically, geographically, and logically.

Doesn't al-Masjid al-Aqsa have a name? Yes, it does. The Qur'an specifically refers to it as al-Masjid al-Aqsa (Qur'an 17:1). The term Aqsa serves as a descriptor, similar to how terms like Holy Land or Forbidden City carry significance.

If I'm in Jerusalem, is it still the farthest mosque? This is a misunderstanding. The term farthest is relative to Mecca, which is the central point of Islamic worship. Words like nearest, farthest, higher, and lower are always relative rather than absolute. Your argument would also undermine phrases like the far west or the Near East.

Why not China or Africa—aren't they farther? You're applying modern geography to a 7th-century Arabic context. Aqsa does not imply the farthest point on Earth. It refers to the farthest known sacred site from Mecca within the religious geography of that time.

124,000 prophets prove Muslims are lying. This is a non sequitur. The existence of many prophets does not imply that each one established a permanent sanctuary or that every prayer location is designated as a masjid. The idea that farthest mosque must be the absolute farthest on Earth would absurdly suggest that every prophet in the Bible founded a cathedral.

So none of them established prayer? This presents a false choice. Islam teaches that all prophets engaged in prayer, but not all established named, lasting sanctuaries for communal rituals.

The main misunderstanding is you are conflating a place of prostration (anywhere prayer is performed) with a specific sacred site that has historical and theological significance. Al-Masjid al-Aqsa fits the latter description.

There is no contradiction or deception, nor is there a linguistic issue. The confusion arises from repeated category errors,anachronisms, and overly literal interpretations.The text itself is clear, while the misunderstanding seems to stem from external sources.

You can see that we cannot depend upon Allah to speak clearly and we need the mothers of Allah to reinterpret the babblings to make some sense.

This is what you have done as there is nothing in the verse or the whole Qur'an that states what you have just said.

It is obviously a fabrication to defend the Qur'an rather than a statement of what Allah said plainly in the Qur'an.

When did Allah bless the surrounding of the farthest mosque? We know for Moses that Mount Sinai was made Holy in his time for the children of Israel.

Since you admit that the farthest mosque is relative only to Mecca, please what name is this farthest Mosque called in Jerusalem.

Any pre-islamic historical evidence will do for both of these mosques.

So, we have a verse where
1. The identity of the servant was not introduced by Allah
2. The location of the farthest mosque nor it's name was not mentioned (even in the past verses)
3. Nowhere was the location of al-Masjid al-Haram mentioned in the Qur'an nor it's proper name.
4. He, Him and His changed within a verse with no proper labelling

Of course, the Mothers of Allah will help us resolve this babblings from the toddler


SMH!

TenQ:
Just rhetoric grammar explaining what is NOT.
YHWH is not mate will Allah. There is no double standard: YHWH is a Devine Plurality and Allah is NOT.


Is Allah Omnipresent? NO!
YHWH is Omnipresent!

Is Allah Omniscient? NO!
YHWH is Omniscient!

Is Allah Omnipotent? NO!
YHWH is Omnipotent!

Is Allah a Father? NO!
YHWH is the Father!

It is you who seek the elevation of Allah to the status of YHWH so, keep your Lane. Have you ever heard a Christian speaking about a Royal We about YHWH?

Only an imposter will inflate himself to look bigger than he truly is. It is no wonder that Allah craves worship of both jinn and human Qur'an 51:56

This isn't theology, it's merely your assertions built upon misunderstandings.

1. The statement YHWH is divine plurality; Allah is not is just that, a statement, not an argument. The Hebrew Bible never defines God or YHWH as a plural being. Judaism explicitly rejected the notion of Two Powers in Heaven as heresy (Sanhedrin 38b). If YHWH were inherently plural, rabbinic Judaism wouldn't have condemned that doctrine.

2. Your comparison of attributes is factually incorrect. Islam explicitly affirms Allah as:

Omnipresent - He is with you wherever you are (Qur'an 57:4)

Omniscient - Allah is Knowing of all things (2:282)

Omnipotent - Allah has power over all things (2:20)

Denying this simply reveals a lack of familiarity with Islamic theology, not the superiority of your own.

3. Fatherhood isn't a measure of divinity. Even in Christianity, calling God Father is metaphorical (John 4:24: God is spirit). Islam rejects divine fatherhood to avoid biological or ontological division and this is consistent with monotheism, not a sign of inferiority.

4. The royal We doesn't signify insecurity, arrogance, or a craving for worship. This is rhetoric, not psychology. Earthly kings use the royal plural despite their insignificance. God using majestic language is neither arrogance nor inflation. Your emotional interpretation replaces linguistics with mockery.

5. Qur'an 51:56 doesn't demonstrate insecurity; it demonstrates sovereignty. I created jinn and humans only to worship Me states purpose, not need. By your logic, biblical commands to worship God would also imply divine insecurity a notion no Christian accepts.

6. You've conceded the core point without realizing it. You admit that angels didn't create, that God created alone (Isaiah 44:24), and that the council doesn't share divinity. This leaves only one coherent explanation for plural speech in Genesis 1:26 and the Qur'an: the plural of majesty or rhetorical deliberation.

7. Your double standard is exposed. YHWH says Us as a metaphor, mystery, majesty. Allah says We is arrogance, partners, impostor. Same language, same function, opposite conclusions. That's not theology; it's special pleading.

Bottom line, the royal We never meant God plus partners. Allah possesses the same divine attributes you claim He lacks. Your argument collapses into mere assertion when scripture and linguistics are applied consistently. Monotheism doesn't depend on your preferred titles, but on exclusive divine agency.

TenQ:
Ask the Grail Message and the Eckankar, they also claim to follow the teachings of Jesus too.

Yours is just a claim too. Is the name of your God YHWH?

Sorry

That comparison simply doesn't hold up when you look at the history. Eckankar and the Grail Message are new movements, without any historical link to the past, no original communities, no line of teachings passed down, and no connection to the scriptures of Abraham before their founders came along. Their use of Jesus is just a way of looking back and doesn't have any real basis.

Islam is completely different. It comes from the same place in the Near East as the Abrahamic religions. It clearly says that Abraham, Moses, David, and Jesus were prophets. It uses the same stories and ideas that Judaism and Christianity already shared.
It appeared in an area that had some knowledge of biblical stories, not made up on its own.

Saying all claims are just claims ignores the historical background, which isn't really being honest.

As for Is the name of your God YHWH? That's mixing things up. YHWH is a specific Hebrew name that was revealed to Moses. Allah is the Arabic word for the one Creator, used by Arabic-speaking Jews and Christians for hundreds of years before Islam. Arabic Bibles still say Allah in Genesis 1:1. Different languages, but they're talking about the same thing just like God, Dieu, and Dios all refer to the same being.

If sharing Abraham, Moses, David, and Jesus isn't enough to show a connection, then Christianity itself falls apart because it's completely based on Jewish scriptures that it didn't create.

So, no, Islam isn't like Eckankar.You can only compare them if you ignore history, language, and theology all at once.

honesttalk21:
This whole argument crumbles apart when you look at the language, the theology, and just plain logic.

1. The idea that Royal We means God + council is just flat-out wrong.

No respected source on language, the Bible, or history says the royal we means the person speaking plus a group acting together. It's a figure of speech, not a literal count of people.

You should validate your stand andfind even one respected grammar book or historical source that says royal we means the king and his council sharing power?


2. What you're saying accidentally leads to belief in multiple gods. If We equals Allah or God as prefer plus council, then the council is involved in divine actions (creating, deciding, commanding).

That makes them partners, which goes against Isaiah 44:24 (I created alone) and every form of belief in one God.

Do well to show clearly well how that wouldn't be.

You're accusing Islam of associating partners with God, while you're the one sneaking it into Genesis.

3. Accusing God of arrogance misunderstands what it means to be sovereign.

Using the plural form to show majesty isn't arrogant; it's how authority is expressed.

Even unimportant earthly kings use it.

God's greatness makes it even more fitting, not less.

Calling God arrogant for speaking as a ruler shows you don't understand theology, it's not a valid critique.

4. You're contradicting yourself.

When YHWH says Us that's fine.

When Allah says We that's arrogant or means partners.

It's the same literary device, but you're judging it completely differently. That's not analysis, it's just bias.

5. Yes, a council exists but it doesn't share God's divinity.

The Bible mentions a divine council (angels as servants), but not as co-authors of God's will.

Talking to them or recognizing them doesn't mean they share God's identity or power.

The bottom line is:

The royal We never meant me plus partners.

Your interpretation creates the very association of partners with God that you're accusing others of.

And you still haven't provided a single real source to prove your point.

This isn't theology, it's just trying to justify a biased opinion disguised as outrage.

1. Is Rabbinic Judaism is correct, why did you reject it for Islam?
Misrepresenting Trinity is doing you no good as God YHWH is ONE.


2. The claim of Omnipotence, Omnipresence and Omniscience of Allah is a mere Claim that fails miserably when put to the test

a. If you claim that Allah is Omnipresent, can he enter your Toilet without ceasing to be Almighty?

b. If you claim that Allah is Omniscient, was the destiny of the boy killed by Al-Khidr to die young or to cause fitna to his parents when he grows up?

c. If you claim that Allah is Omnipotent, can he have a begotten without having a female consort AND can Allah enter your room without ceasing to be Almighty.

I don't need long grammar of "it's beneath his majesty to do a thing." Tell us if it is a possibility for Allah or not. And don't tell me that Allahs presence is by his knowledge as this is not the definition of Omnipresence.


3. YHWH, the God of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Moses, David etc had ALWAYS referred to Himself as a Father to many of His Creations. It had never caused a problem until Muslims arrived with Islam.
So, you have a different God unknown to the prophets of old.

Do you know any of the old prophets that call God by the NAME Allah?


4. In the Bible, Arrogance what what chased satan out of heaven. Iblis is the chief of the arrogant ones.
I hope you will open your eyes because you have adopted the God of Mohammed as your God knowing that he is the Al-Makr at the same time.



5. Even the angels in the bible marveled why God created the insignificant humans and raised him up to Himself. Because your worship is NOT needed nor required by God.
It is Iblis that creates a parallel government to God's so that he can receive human worship.
Thus, Iblis desires your worship in every form like Allah

Humans worship God in appreciation of His Goodness and Awesomeness to them:
God Created Humans to be His Children
Have you ever heard of a parent who gave birth to children in order that they may greet them every morning!?[/i]
This is the logic of Islam!



6. In the Bible, God did Create EVERYTHING Alone [b]with no input from Any Angels.
BUT not so in Islam.
Who breathes the soul into foetus before they are Born. Is it Allah or his Angels?
Tell me the the name of the person who breathe into the Farhjaha of Mary? Was it Allah or Jibril (although Allah said he did it).
You won't answer these questions.

So, I was correct about Allah and his council as the so-called Royal WE



7. Sorry, YHWH is a Trinity thus He could use US or OUR for Himself.
But Allah is not a Trinity according to you Muslims, therefore , when Allah says WE , US, OURSELF he refers to himself and his council probably Angels or the Houris.

Let me prove it for you with a Question
Qur'an 21:17
"If We intended to take a pastime (wife or children), We surely would have taken it from Us—if We were to do."

Other Translations because Muslims tell lies a lot in their translations
Muhsin Khan
Had We intended to take a pastime (i.e. a wife or a son, etc.), We could surely have taken it from Us, if We were going to do (that).

Pickthall
If We had wished to find a pastime, We could have found it in Our presence – if We ever did.

Dr. Ghali
If We had taken to Us a diversion, We would indeed have taken it to Us from very close to Us, in case We are performing (that).

Abdel Haleem
If We had wished for a pastime, We could have found it within Us- if We had wished for any such thing.


a. Tell me, who are the US in Quran 21:17 as the US is definitely not Allah alone.
b. Is it true that some of your scholars speculated that these are probably Angels or Houri ?