₦airaland Forum

honesttalk21:
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.

Eckankar and the Grail Message are new movements, but so is Islam at least 600years after Christianity. Secondly, Islam doesn't have any historical link to the past except what it had gleaned from the Bible just like Eckankar and Grail Message. Your only use of Jesus is to get legitimacy as we don't even know who Isa is. Arab Christians call Jesus Yesua and not Isa.

You forget that both Eckankar and Grail Message like Islam stole stories from the Bible that they adapted to their new religion?

Who told you that YHWH is a Hebrew name? It is a personal name meaning "I AM WHO I AM" (EVERYTHING THAT EXIST). Can you tell me the meaning of Allah so that we correlate the names and see if it is the same
The title of God in the Semitic languages is EL- or AL- or IL- ( depending on the dialect) , thus we have names like Gabri-El, Isma-El, El-ohim (plural form of God), El-oha (singular form of God) Isre-El etc

The surprising thing is that Allah has 99 names and not one of them is the most sacred personal name of God YHWH!
What an omission!?
This further proves that god-LAH aka Allah is ignorant of the existence of his supposed sacred Name YHWH. This may be that Mohammed is actually the pseudoname Allah!

Lame argument again, that Arab Christians use Allah in their Bible!
Allah is used as a TITLE like GOD is a title for the Creator in English.
My God's name is YHWH
Your God's name is is Allah
A Hindi God's name is could be Vishnu
A Gothics God's name is could be Atlas or Apollo

Stop generalizing!

It seems you are not aware that Christianity is based on the foundation of Judaism. We adopt their whole scripture as ours. Christianity is EXTENDED or UPGRADED Judaism.

Can we say such for Islam?
No!
The Torah, Zabur and Injeel you claim to believe in doesn't EXIST again.

honesttalk21:
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.

Islam can definitely not survive without Strawman Argument.

A mainstream Jewish belief was Rejected for a new one that Rejected Jesus as the Messiah BUT you think this is the correct Judaism?
Are you aware that those who killed Jesus as your so-called now the mainstream Judaism?
Since you think the so-called mainstream Judaism is correct, Why don't you follow the religion of the Jews rather than Islam?

The fundamental Law of Christians is summarised in the Christ's Expanded SHEMA below:
Mar 12:29-31:
"And Jesus answered him, The first of all the commandments is, Hear, O Israel; The Lord our God is one Lord: And you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind, and with all your strength: this is the first commandment. And the second is like, namely this, You shall love your neighbor as yourself. There is none other commandment greater than these."

Mr Honesttruth21, Is the above an EXPANDED SHEMA or not for Christians?

Trinity had always been about ONE God who exists simultaneously in three Dimensions
BUT
For Islam to be able to argue, they must say that Trinity is THREE Gods united as one.

When you base your argument on false premises, how can it even hold.


Mohammed's claim is baseless!
So are the claims of the Grail Message and the Eckankar! Claims mean NOTHING if the IDENTITY of their God is DIFFERENT!

Your so-called strict monotheism has boxes Allah into a box of not being Omnipresent nor Omnipotent. This is not YHWH as He is Omnipresent, Omnipotent and Omniscient.
The bottom line,
The Identity of Allah and the Identity of YHWH are completely DIFFERENT
You Muslims want assocation with YHWH by force unfortunately, it cannot happen.

As reward in paradise, the Al-Makr will give you ..,so many things seun's bots doesn't want me to talk about but which you relish.
Bottom line: Even our Paradise is Different

Must you die before knowing the truth?
Do you think God will pardon you because you assumed it was Him all along you worship?

Good luck to those who invent a God whose Taoheed is NOT different from the Taoheed of Iblis!


At least you will agree that the true God is UNLIKE ANYTHING in Creation.

TenQ:
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!

Your attempt at mockery can't mask the fact that you've committed some fundamental errors in logic and ignored readily available information. Let's break down each of your claims:

1. We Need Mothers of Allah' to Interpret Babblings

You argue that the Qur'an is so unclear that scholars are needed to reinterpret its "babblings."

But the reality is alll ancient texts require interpretation. Even the Bible admits in 2 Peter 3:15-16 stating Paul's letters contain things hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort. Christianity has
over 45,000 different denominations, each with its own interpretations, sometimes contradictory. You should do better to address or concede.

Centuries worth of councils, creeds, and systematic theologies are dedicated to interpretation. Entire academic fields (hermeneutics, exegesis) focused solely on interpreting scripture.

If needing scholars to interpret means the text consists of unclear babblings then the Bible is equally guilty.

Furthermore, your phrase mothers of Allah is just crude blasphemy, not a legitimate argument.

2. Nothing in the verses or Qur'an states what you Say. Your argument that my explanation is made up and doesn't come from the Qur'an is untrue since what Qur'an 17:1 actually says is exalted is He who took His Servant by night from al-Masjid al-Haram to al-Masjid al-Aqsa, whose surroundings We blessed, to show him of Our signs.

This verse explicitly states:

1. Al-Masjid al-Haram which is the Sacred Mosque located in Mecca and universally understood.

2. Al-Masjid al-Aqsa is the farthest Mosque and its name is right there in the verse.

3. Whose surroundings We blessed means the area around al-Aqsa is blessed.

4. His Servant isIdentified throughout the Qur'an as Muhammad pbuh (57:19, 18:1, 72:19).

The Qur'an does state these things. The issue is that you want more detail than the verse provides, which isn't the same as the verse being unclear.

3. When Did Allah Bless the Surroundings of the Farthest Mosque?

Qur'an 17:1:Whose surroundings We blessed.
The verse describes an already-existing blessed state, not a specific moment when the blessing occurred.

The surrounding area (Jerusalem/Temple Mount) has been considered blessed throughout both Biblical and Islamic history.

Biblically Psalm 132:13-14: "For the LORD has chosen Zion... 'This is my resting place forever, 2 Chronicles 7:16:I have chosen and consecrated this house [Temple] so that My name may be there forever, Zechariah 2:12:The LORD will... choose Jerusalem again.

Islamic understanding is that the site's blessed status predates the specific mosque structure. It's the location itself that's sacred (the place where Abraham, David, Solomon, and Jesus worshipped), not dependent on whether a building existed there in 621 CE.

Your comparison to Moses on Sinai actually proves my point. Sinai became holy at a specific event, but Jerusalem's holiness spans millennia through multiple prophets and revelations.

4. What Name Is This Farthest Mosque Called in Jerusalem?

The name is given in the verse: as al-Masjid al-Aqsa (The Farthest Mosque). You're essentially asking but what's its other name?

Why would it need another name? Think of it like this: The White House has its official name (describes its characteristic: a white building). The Forbidden City by its official name (describes its characteristic: forbidden access). The Holy Land has its official name (describes it: sacred). So Al-Masjid al-Aqsa is the Farthest Place of Prostration describing its characteristic as the farthest sacred site from Mecca.

You're demanding a proper name as if the Farthest Mosque isn't a proper name.? It is.

5. Any Pre-Islamic historical evidence for both Mosques?

You're asking for pre-Islamic evidence for mosques. But that's a category error. Masjid in Arabic simply means place of prostration (sujud). It doesn't exclusively mean Islamic mosque building. So, pre-Islamic "mosques" (places of prostration/worship) would include
Al-Masjid al-Haram (Mecca).

In Islamic belief, the site dates back to Abraham building the Kaaba (Genesis 16-17 timeframe). By pre-Islamic Arab sources the Kaaba existed and was venerated for centuries before Islam.

The historical evidence has Mecca as a well-known pilgrimage site in pre-Islamic Arabia.

Al-Masjid al-Aqsa (Jerusalem) has the biblical Temple Mount which is Solomon's Temple (1 Kings 6), rebuilt as the Second Temple destroyed in 70 CE.

Byzantine sources show Jerusalem was a major Christian holy site with the Church of the Holy Sepulchre, etc.

The Qur'an references this sacred site, not necessarily a physical mosque building in 621 CE.

The farthest place of prostration refers to the Temple Mount area where prophets worshipped (Abraham, David, Solomon, and Jesus in Biblical accounts).

You're essentially demanding Islamic mosque evidence pre-Islam, which is logically impossible in the exact context you demand. The site has ancient sacred history; the Islamic interpretation begins with Muhammad pbuh.

6. Identity of Servant Not Introduced by Allah

By Your argument you say Allah doesn't specify who His Servant is. But the Qur'an repeatedly identifies Muhammad pbuh as His Servant. Do you expect that chapter to refer to a different servant or prophet?

Quran 72:19 states when the Servant of Allah stood up calling upon Him..."

Quran 18:1 Praise be to Allah who revealed the Book to His Servant ...

Quran 57:9:He sends down clear verses to His Servant...

In the context of Surah 17:1:The entire Qur'an is about Muhammad pbuh's prophethood. His Servant in a passage about a night journey is universally understood to be Muhammad pbuh by both the original audience and all subsequent readers. Perharps you should feel free to boldly say who that should be if you have justifiable and verifiable proof.

Do you expect Allah to repeat Muhammad pbuh in every single verse? That's not how literature or scripture works.

Think of it like this: The U.S. Constitution refers to the President without naming Washington, Trump, Obama or Clinton every time. The context makes it clear who is being referred to.

7. Location of al-Masjid al-Haram Not Mentioned

Your argument that the Qur'an doesn't say where al-Masjid al-Haram is located but this is simply untrue. Al-Masjid al-Haram is the Sacred Mosque in Mecca. Let's be clear about this, because every early Muslim understood as Muhammad pbuh spent over 40 years living in Mecca. The Kaaba had been the central pilgrimage site for centuries. Muslims face it in prayer five times a day. The Qur'an was revealed there and makes repeated references to Mecca (48:24, 3:96).

Are you seriously suggesting that the Qur'an should spell it out like this al-Masjid al-Haram, located at coordinates X, in the city known as Mecca'?

That's not how any text from that era functions. The Bible doesn't give you Jerusalem's GPS coordinates, but we all know where it is.

The people who first heard the Qur'an knew exactly what al-Masjid al-Haram was. Your lack of understanding is your issue, not a flaw in the text.

8. The Claim of Inconsistent Pronoun Use which I shouldn't continue to readress going by your repeatedly inconsigruent mockery but being in this group

Take a look at Quran 17:1: Exalted is He who took His Servant by night... whose surroundings We blessed, to show him of Our signs. Indeed, He is the Hearing, the Seeing.

Here's how it breaks down: He/His in singular, third person refers to Allah.

We/Our in plural, first person also refers to Allah (a majestic plural).

him in singular object refers to the Servant Muhammad pbuh.

This is a standard feature of Semitic and applicable to regular writing and extends to the plural of majesty.

Think about this Biblical parallel in Genesis 1:26-27 which reads let Us make man in Our image (plural). So God created man in Hisown image (singular).

See the pattern? The text switches between singular and plural when referring to God within the same passage.

If you're going to call Qur'an 17:1 unclear rambling, then you have to apply that same label to Genesis 1:26-27. Either be consistent in your criticism, or admit you're applying different rules.

9. Your confusions are fully addressed.

You claim:

1. The identity of the servant isn't clear.
The Qur'an consistently identifies Muhammad pbuh as His Servant (18:1, 57:9, 72:19); it's clear from the context.

2. The location/name of the farthest mosque isn't mentioned. It's named in the verse itself is al-Masjid al-Aqsa. The location is the Temple Mount in Jerusalem, a site of immense importance in the Abrahamic tradition.

3. The location/name of al-Masjid al-Haram isn't mentioned. Everyone at the time knew it; it's the Sacred Mosque in Mecca, housing the Kaaba, and it's referenced throughout the Qur'an.

4. The pronouns 'He,' 'Him,' and 'His' are switched without explanation.
This is the standard Semitic plural of majesty, just like in Genesis 1:26-27. The grammar is clear in context. These aren't legitimate problems. You're simply failing to understand.

The contextthe shared knowledge of the people who first heard the Qur'an)

The genre: (an ancient religious text, not a modern instruction manual)

Semitic literary conventions: (like the plural of majesty and understanding identity from context)

10. The Mothers of Allah Insult is a sign of Weakness

Resorting to crude insults (mothers of Allah,toddler babbling) shows that you lack any real arguments.

This tactic reveals
Dishonestyusing mockery instead of engaging with the content)

Double standards: (the Bible requires interpretation too; the existence of 45,000 denominations proves that)

Ignorance: (demanding modern precision from a 7th-century text)

Every point you've tried to make has been answered:

✓ The verse names both locations (al-Masjid al-Haram and al-Masjid al-Aqsa).

✓ The Qur'an consistently identifies the Servant as Muhammad.

✓ The surroundings are blessed (Jerusalem has a sacred history spanning thousands of years).

✓ The shifts in pronouns are standard Semitic rhetoric (also found in Genesis).

✓ People at the time understood the context (just as Bible readers understand that "the President" refers to the current officeholder).

Your mockery isn't a refutation.

You're demanding:

GPS coordinates for 7th-century locations.

Every verse to repeat obvious information.

Modern technical precision from an ancient religious text.

Standards that you don't apply to the Bible.

You're ignoring:

The context and shared knowledge of the audience the Qur'an was originally intended for.

Semitic literary conventions (which the Bible also uses).

The fact that needing interpretation applies equally to the Bible (2 Peter 3:15-16).

The confusion isn't in the Qur'an it's in your unrealistic expectations and refusal to be consistent in how you judge it.

Your babbling insult is actually a projection of your own failings. The text is clear to anyone who approaches it honestly, taking into account its literary and historical context.

I will stop after this as you are trying too hard to repeat yourself and be correct. Unfortunately, what is wrong cannot be made un-wrong!
LOL!!

honesttalk21:
Your attempt at mockery can't mask the fact that you've committed some fundamental errors in logic and ignored readily available information. Let's break down each of your claims:

1. We Need Mothers of Allah' to Interpret Babblings

You argue that the Qur'an is so unclear that scholars are needed to reinterpret its "babblings."

But the reality is alll ancient texts require interpretation. Even the Bible admits in 2 Peter 3:15-16 stating Paul's letters contain things hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort. Christianity has
over 45,000 different denominations, each with its own interpretations, sometimes contradictory. You should do better to address or concede.

Centuries worth of councils, creeds, and systematic theologies are dedicated to interpretation. Entire academic fields (hermeneutics, exegesis) focused solely on interpreting scripture.

If needing scholars to interpret means the text consists of unclear babblings then the Bible is equally guilty.

Furthermore, your phrase mothers of Allah is just crude blasphemy, not a legitimate argument.

Until we can understand the Qur'an without you Muslims re-interpretating Allah's words to mean something different.

honesttalk21:
2. Nothing in the verses or Qur'an states what you Say. Your argument that my explanation is made up and doesn't come from the Qur'an is untrue since what Qur'an 17:1 actually says is exalted is He who took His Servant by night from al-Masjid al-Haram to al-Masjid al-Aqsa, whose surroundings We blessed, to show him of Our signs.

This verse explicitly states:

1. Al-Masjid al-Haram which is the Sacred Mosque located in Mecca and universally understood.

Who told you that the sacred mosque is in Mecca. Does Allah have only one messenger or when did Allah named a particular mosque as the sacred mosque? The mosque is Sacred to who? Is it Moses?

honesttalk21:
2. Al-Masjid al-Aqsa is the farthest Mosque and its name is right there in the verse.

Who determined that a mosque is the farthest mosque? Was it Allah? If the mosque at Jerusalem is the farthest mosque, then your islamic claim of 124,000 Messengers of Allah is a FABRICATION

honesttalk21:
3. Whose surroundings We blessed means the area around al-Aqsa is blessed.

When did Allah bless the surrounding and why?
If the identity of the farthest mosque is s unknown other than by what you Muslims say, how can we be sure when and how Allah blessed it's surrounding?

honesttalk21:
4. His Servant isIdentified throughout the Qur'an as Muhammad pbuh (57:19, 18:1, 72:19).

You forget that Jibril is Allah's servant and so is Moses, Aaron, David etc. Mohammed's name was mentioned only four times in the Qur'an.
Sorry!

honesttalk21:
The Qur'an does state these things. The issue is that you want more detail than the verse provides, which isn't the same as the verse being unclear.

3. When Did Allah Bless the Surroundings of the Farthest Mosque?

Qur'an 17:1:Whose surroundings We blessed.
The verse describes an already-existing blessed state, not a specific moment when the blessing occurred.

The surrounding area (Jerusalem/Temple Mount) has been considered blessed throughout both Biblical and Islamic history.

Biblically Psalm 132:13-14: "For the LORD has chosen Zion... 'This is my resting place forever, 2 Chronicles 7:16:I have chosen and consecrated this house [Temple] so that My name may be there forever, Zechariah 2:12:The LORD will... choose Jerusalem again.

You have to come to the bible for explanation of the eloquently written book by Allah? Don't forget that you claim that the original Torah , Injeel and Zabur are lost!

The blessed land is [b]Mount Sinai my dear and it was with Moses.[/b]
Exo 19:9-13:
"And the LORD said to Moses, See, I come to you in a thick cloud, that the people may hear when I speak with you, and believe you for ever. And Moses told the words of the people to the LORD. And the LORD said to Moses, Go to the people, and sanctify them to day and to morrow, and let them wash their clothes, And be ready against the third day: for the third day the LORD will come down in the sight of all the people on mount Sinai. And you shall set bounds to the people round about, saying, Take heed to yourselves, that you go not up into the mount, or touch the border of it: whoever touches the mount shall be surely put to death: There shall not an hand touch it, but he shall surely be stoned, or shot through; whether it be beast or man, it shall not live: when the trumpet sounds long, they shall come up to the mount."


The Temple of Solomon the as Blessed but not the surrounding except you will show me the verse.

So, you see how explicit the God of Moses is unlike the God of Mohammed

honesttalk21:
Islamic understanding is that the site's blessed status predates the specific mosque structure. It's the location itself that's sacred (the place where Abraham, David, Solomon, and Jesus worshipped), not dependent on whether a building existed there in 621 CE.

Your comparison to Moses on Sinai actually proves my point. Sinai became holy at a specific event, but Jerusalem's holiness spans millennia through multiple prophets and revelations.

Story story.
I gave you a scriptural evidence. I need yours from the perfectly written Qur'an.

What kind of author will name a subject without introducing it in his book?

honesttalk21:
4. What Name Is This Farthest Mosque Called in Jerusalem?

The name is given in the verse: as al-Masjid al-Aqsa (The Farthest Mosque). You're essentially asking but what's its other name?

Why would it need another name? Think of it like this: The White House has its official name (describes its characteristic: a white building). The Forbidden City by its official name (describes its characteristic: forbidden access). The Holy Land has its official name (describes it: sacred). So Al-Masjid al-Aqsa is the Farthest Place of Prostration describing its characteristic as the farthest sacred site from Mecca.

You're demanding a proper name as if the Farthest Mosque isn't a proper name.? It is.

The name of the farthest mosque is called "farthest mosque"!?
I remember In asked a boy a question!
What is the name of your daddy?
He said. "The name of my dadd is Daddy!"

You can see how sensible your answer is.

honesttalk21:
5. Any Pre-Islamic historical evidence for both Mosques?

You're asking for pre-Islamic evidence for mosques. But that's a category error. Masjid in Arabic simply means place of prostration (sujud). It doesn't exclusively mean Islamic mosque building. So, pre-Islamic "mosques" (places of prostration/worship) would include
Al-Masjid al-Haram (Mecca).

In Islamic belief, the site dates back to Abraham building the Kaaba (Genesis 16-17 timeframe). By pre-Islamic Arab sources the Kaaba existed and was venerated for centuries before Islam.

The historical evidence has Mecca as a well-known pilgrimage site in pre-Islamic Arabia.

Al-Masjid al-Aqsa (Jerusalem) has the biblical Temple Mount which is Solomon's Temple (1 Kings 6), rebuilt as the Second Temple destroyed in 70 CE.

Byzantine sources show Jerusalem was a major Christian holy site with the Church of the Holy Sepulchre, etc.

The Qur'an references this sacred site, not necessarily a physical mosque building in 621 CE.

The farthest place of prostration refers to the Temple Mount area where prophets worshipped (Abraham, David, Solomon, and Jesus in Biblical accounts).

You're essentially demanding Islamic mosque evidence pre-Islam, which is logically impossible in the exact context you demand. The site has ancient sacred history; the Islamic interpretation begins with Muhammad pbuh.

So. You don't have any evidence that a place exist in history called the farthest mosque!?
I am asking for pre-islamic historical proving that places of such names exist!
QED!

If I told you that the national mosque at Abuja is the farthest mosque, won't you ask me for evidence?

honesttalk21:
6. Identity of Servant Not Introduced by Allah

By Your argument you say Allah doesn't specify who His Servant is. But the Qur'an repeatedly identifies Muhammad pbuh as His Servant. Do you expect that chapter to refer to a different servant or prophet?

Quran 72:19 states when the Servant of Allah stood up calling upon Him..."

Quran 18:1 Praise be to Allah who revealed the Book to His Servant ...

Quran 57:9:He sends down clear verses to His Servant...

In the context of Surah 17:1:The entire Qur'an is about Muhammad pbuh's prophethood. His Servant in a passage about a night journey is universally understood to be Muhammad pbuh by both the original audience and all subsequent readers. Perharps you should feel free to boldly say who that should be if you have justifiable and verifiable proof.

Do you expect Allah to repeat Muhammad pbuh in every single verse? That's not how literature or scripture works.

Think of it like this: The U.S. Constitution refers to the President without naming Washington, Trump, Obama or Clinton every time. The context makes it clear who is being referred to.

Allah has only one servant and he is Mohamed alone!
The book of Allah is indeed eloquent!

honesttalk21:
7. Location of al-Masjid al-Haram Not Mentioned

Your argument that the Qur'an doesn't say where al-Masjid al-Haram is located but this is simply untrue. Al-Masjid al-Haram is the Sacred Mosque in Mecca. Let's be clear about this, because every early Muslim understood as Muhammad pbuh spent over 40 years living in Mecca. The Kaaba had been the central pilgrimage site for centuries. Muslims face it in prayer five times a day. The Qur'an was revealed there and makes repeated references to Mecca (48:24, 3:96).

Are you seriously suggesting that the Qur'an should spell it out like this al-Masjid al-Haram, located at coordinates X, in the city known as Mecca'?

That's not how any text from that era functions. The Bible doesn't give you Jerusalem's GPS coordinates, but we all know where it is.

The people who first heard the Qur'an knew exactly what al-Masjid al-Haram was. Your lack of understanding is your issue, not a flaw in the text.

We started with how eloquent linguistically the Qur'an is isn't it.
Allah I ask is the evidence from the Qur'an of the location. Since you say it's not true, where in the Qur'an is the location of the mosques?

honesttalk21:
8. The Claim of Inconsistent Pronoun Use which I shouldn't continue to readress going by your repeatedly inconsigruent mockery but being in this group

Take a look at Quran 17:1: Exalted is He who took His Servant by night... whose surroundings We blessed, to show him of Our signs. Indeed, He is the Hearing, the Seeing.

Here's how it breaks down: He/His in singular, third person refers to Allah.

We/Our in plural, first person also refers to Allah (a majestic plural).

him in singular object refers to the Servant Muhammad pbuh.

This is a standard feature of Semitic and applicable to regular writing and extends to the plural of majesty.

Think about this Biblical parallel in Genesis 1:26-27 which reads let Us make man in Our image (plural). So God created man in Hisown image (singular).

See the pattern? The text switches between singular and plural when referring to God within the same passage.

If you're going to call Qur'an 17:1 unclear rambling, then you have to apply that same label to Genesis 1:26-27. Either be consistent in your criticism, or admit you're applying different rules.

Let me help Allah by rewriting the verse in a clear manner.

I will write it in two literally styles
1. The Original
Qur'an 17:1
"Exalted is He who took His Servant by night from al-Masjid al-Haram to al-Masjid al-Aqsa, whose surroundings We have blessed, to show him of Our 5 signs. Indeed, He is the Hearing, the Seeing."


2. First style: Someone speaking for Allah
Qur'anx 17:1
"Exalted is He who took His Servant by night from al-Masjid al-Haram in Mecca to al-Masjid al-Aqsa in Jerusalem, whose surroundings He has blessed, to show his servant Mohammed of his signs. Indeed, He is the Hearing, the Seeing."

All the pronouns He and His belong to Allah and the servant Mohammed was shown the signs

3. Second Style: Allah speaking
Qur'anx 17:1
"Exalted is Us who took Our Servant by night from al-Masjid al-Haram in Mecca to al-Masjid al-Aqsa in Jerusalem, whose surroundings We have blessed, to show our servant Mohammed of our signs. Indeed, We are the Hearing, the Seeing."

All the pronouns Us, We and Our belong to Allah and the servant Mohammed was shown the signs


Can you see how eloquent my corrections are compared with the original?

honesttalk21:
9. Your confusions are fully addressed.

You claim:

1. The identity of the servant isn't clear.
The Qur'an consistently identifies Muhammad pbuh as His Servant (18:1, 57:9, 72:19); it's clear from the context.

No!

honesttalk21:
2. The location/name of the farthest mosque isn't mentioned. It's named in the verse itself is al-Masjid al-Aqsa. The location is the Temple Mount in Jerusalem, a site of immense importance in the Abrahamic tradition.

No location mentioned.

honesttalk21:
3. The location/name of al-Masjid al-Haram isn't mentioned. Everyone at the time knew it; it's the Sacred Mosque in Mecca, housing the Kaaba, and it's referenced throughout the Qur'an.

No location mentioned anywhere in the Qur'an!

honesttalk21:
4. The pronouns 'He,' 'Him,' and 'His' are switched without explanation.
This is the standard Semitic plural of majesty, just like in Genesis 1:26-27. The grammar is clear in context. These aren't legitimate problems. You're simply failing to understand.

The contextthe shared knowledge of the people who first heard the Qur'an)

The genre: (an ancient religious text, not a modern instruction manual)

Semitic literary conventions: (like the plural of majesty and understanding identity from context)

It isn't. It is a messed up changes of pronouns which I have corrected for you Muslims.

honesttalk21:
10. The Mothers of Allah Insult is a sign of Weakness

Resorting to crude insults (mothers of Allah,toddler babbling) shows that you lack any real arguments.

This tactic reveals
Dishonestyusing mockery instead of engaging with the content)

Double standards: (the Bible requires interpretation too; the existence of 45,000 denominations proves that)

Ignorance: (demanding modern precision from a 7th-century text)

Every point you've tried to make has been answered:

Sorry for the apparent insults, it is because Muslims do not follow Allah or his words. Muslims follow the Islamic scholars interpretation of what Allah said.

Allah gave the Qur'an in Arabic so that Arab Muslims can understand the Qur'an BUT what we observe is that even Arab Muslims are confused about the Qur'an and so Arab Muslims need several Tafsirs also in Arabic to understand the words Allah says is easy to understand.

honesttalk21:
✓ The verse names both locations (al-Masjid al-Haram and al-Masjid al-Aqsa).

✓ The Qur'an consistently identifies the Servant as Muhammad.

✓ The surroundings are blessed (Jerusalem has a sacred history spanning thousands of years).

✓ The shifts in pronouns are standard Semitic rhetoric (also found in Genesis).

✓ People at the time understood the context (just as Bible readers understand that "the President" refers to the current officeholder).

Your mockery isn't a refutation.

You're demanding:

GPS coordinates for 7th-century locations.

Every verse to repeat obvious information.

Modern technical precision from an ancient religious text.

Standards that you don't apply to the Bible.

You're ignoring:

The context and shared knowledge of the audience the Qur'an was originally intended for.

Semitic literary conventions (which the Bible also uses).

The fact that needing interpretation applies equally to the Bible (2 Peter 3:15-16).

The confusion isn't in the Qur'an it's in your unrealistic expectations and refusal to be consistent in how you judge it.

Your babbling insult is actually a projection of your own failings. The text is clear to anyone who approaches it honestly, taking into account its literary and historical context.

I have helped you correct Quran 17:1
You were just repeating yourself without providing solid evidence from the Qur'an of my questions.

Don't forget that the subject was about the LINGUISTICALLY and ELOQUENTLY written Qur'an .

I brought Qur'an 17:1 as a test which showed that Muslims make unsubstantiated claims about the Qur'an and of Islam.

TenQ:
I will stop after this as you are trying too hard to repeat yourself and be correct. Unfortunately, what is wrong cannot be made un-wrong!
LOL!!

Until we can understand the Qur'an without you Muslims re-interpretating Allah's words to mean something different.



Who told you that the sacred mosque is in Mecca. Does Allah have only one messenger or when did Allah named a particular mosque as the sacred mosque? The mosque is Sacred to who? Is it Moses?


Who determined that a mosque is the farthest mosque? Was it Allah? If the mosque at Jerusalem is the farthest mosque, then your islamic claim of 124,000 Messengers of Allah is a FABRICATION


When did Allah bless the surrounding and why?
If the identity of the farthest mosque is s unknown other than by what you Muslims say, how can we be sure when and how Allah blessed it's surrounding?



You forget that Jibril is Allah's servant and so is Moses, Aaron, David etc. Mohammed's name was mentioned only four times in the Qur'an.
Sorry!


You have to come to the bible for explanation of the eloquently written book by Allah? Don't forget that you claim that the original Torah , Injeel and Zabur are lost!

The blessed land is [b]Mount Sinai my dear and it was with Moses.[/b]
Exo 19:9-13:
"And the LORD said to Moses, See, I come to you in a thick cloud, that the people may hear when I speak with you, and believe you for ever. And Moses told the words of the people to the LORD. And the LORD said to Moses, Go to the people, and sanctify them to day and to morrow, and let them wash their clothes, And be ready against the third day: for the third day the LORD will come down in the sight of all the people on mount Sinai. And you shall set bounds to the people round about, saying, Take heed to yourselves, that you go not up into the mount, or touch the border of it: whoever touches the mount shall be surely put to death: There shall not an hand touch it, but he shall surely be stoned, or shot through; whether it be beast or man, it shall not live: when the trumpet sounds long, they shall come up to the mount."


The Temple of Solomon the as Blessed but not the surrounding except you will show me the verse.

So, you see how explicit the God of Moses is unlike the God of Mohammed


Story story.
I gave you a scriptural evidence. I need yours from the perfectly written Qur'an.

What kind of author will name a subject without introducing it in his book?


The name of the farthest mosque is called "farthest mosque"!?
I remember In asked a boy a question!
What is the name of your daddy?
He said. "The name of my dadd is Daddy!"

You can see how sensible your answer is.



So. You don't have any evidence that a place exist in history called the farthest mosque!?
I am asking for pre-islamic historical proving that places of such names exist!
QED!

If I told you that the national mosque at Abuja is the farthest mosque, won't you ask me for evidence?



Allah has only one servant and he is Mohamed alone!
The book of Allah is indeed eloquent!



We started with how eloquent linguistically the Qur'an is isn't it.
Allah I ask is the evidence from the Qur'an of the location. Since you say it's not true, where in the Qur'an is the location of the mosques?



Let me help Allah by rewriting the verse in a clear manner.

I will write it in two literally styles
1. The Original
Qur'an 17:1
"Exalted is He who took His Servant by night from al-Masjid al-Haram to al-Masjid al-Aqsa, whose surroundings We have blessed, to show him of Our 5 signs. Indeed, He is the Hearing, the Seeing."


2. First style: Someone speaking for Allah
Qur'anx 17:1
"Exalted is He who took His Servant by night from al-Masjid al-Haram in Mecca to al-Masjid al-Aqsa in Jerusalem, whose surroundings He has blessed, to show his servant Mohammed of his signs. Indeed, He is the Hearing, the Seeing."

All the pronouns He and His belong to Allah and the servant Mohammed was shown the signs

3. Second Style: Allah speaking
Qur'anx 17:1
"Exalted is Us who took Our Servant by night from al-Masjid al-Haram in Mecca to al-Masjid al-Aqsa in Jerusalem, whose surroundings We have blessed, to show our servant Mohammed of our signs. Indeed, We are the Hearing, the Seeing."

All the pronouns Us, We and Our belong to Allah and the servant Mohammed was shown the signs


Can you see how eloquent my corrections are compared with the original?




No!



No location mentioned.



No location mentioned anywhere in the Qur'an!



It isn't. It is a messed up changes of pronouns which I have corrected for you Muslims.



Sorry for the apparent insults, it is because Muslims do not follow Allah or his words. Muslims follow the Islamic scholars interpretation of what Allah said.

Allah gave the Qur'an in Arabic so that Arab Muslims can understand the Qur'an BUT what we observe is that even Arab Muslims are confused about the Qur'an and so Arab Muslims need several Tafsirs also in Arabic to understand the words Allah says is easy to understand.



I have helped you correct Quran 17:1
You were just repeating yourself without providing solid evidence from the Qur'an of my questions.

Don't forget that the subject was about the LINGUISTICALLY and ELOQUENTLY written Qur'an .

I brought Qur'an 17:1 as a test which showed that Muslims make unsubstantiated claims about the Qur'an and of Islam.

Your stance crumbles due to its own internal contradictions. Setting aside the jabs, the real issue isn't about Qur'an 17:1 or how well it's written. It's that you're using rules that you don't back up or use fairly.

1. You're selectively asking for modern accuracy from an old text.

You expect pinpoint precision, clear repetition, and technical language from a 7th-century Semitic text, but you don't hold the Bible to the same expectations. The Bible mentions places without exact coordinates, uses vague descriptions (ends of the earth, land of the north), switches how it refers to God (Genesis 1:26-27, Isaiah 6:8 ), and assumes the audience knows certain things. If you applied your standards consistently, parts of the Bible would also fall short. You're making a special case, demanding something you don't offer yourself.

2. You're overlooking common Semitic writing styles.

Changes in pronouns (using "we" to mean "I" ), relative descriptions, leaving things unsaid, and organizing by topic are typical in Semitic writing. They're all over the Hebrew Bible and the New Testament. To call this confusing in the Qur'an but accept it in the Bible isn't analyzing language; it's just looking for things to confirm what you already believe.

3. You're mixing up 'needing interpretation' with 'being unclear.'

All religious texts need to be interpreted. The Bible even says so itself (2 Peter 3:15-16: Paul's letters contain things that are hard to understand). Christianity has over 45,000 different groups, precisely because people need to interpret the text and often disagree. Just because you need to understand the context doesn't mean the text isn't eloquent or meaningful. Otherwise, Christianity would fall apart based on its own claims. Your argument discredits every serious religious text, including your own.

4. Qur'an 17:1 didn't reveal a mistake; you forced a modern idea onto it.

-Al-Masjid al-Aqsa (The Farthest Mosque) is mentioned by name in the verse.

"Farthest" means farthest from Mecca (the starting point mentioned in the verse), not the opposite side of the world in modern terms.

"Masjid" means a sacred place for prayer, not just a building made of stone.

"His Servant" is understood to be Muhammad throughout the Qur'an (18:1, 57:9, 72:19 - repeatedly confirmed).

Expecting modern maps, repeated explanations in every line, or detailed descriptions from a text that was spoken aloud and meant for a specific audience is demanding something from a different time, not pointing out a problem with the language. No old text works that way, including the Bible.

5. You claim there's no evidence, even after plenty was given.

I provided:

-Qur'anic verses that call Muhammad "His Servant" (18:1, 57:9, 72:19)

-Examples from the Bible that show changes in pronouns are normal in Semitic writing (Genesis 1:26-27, Isaiah 6:8. )

- Historical background to explain what the original audience knew and the writing styles used

You ignored all of this without explanation and then claimed nothing was provided. Ignoring evidence isn't the same as disproving it. It just shows you can't argue against it properly.

6. You're confusing your own confusion with the text being unclear.

You keep saying Muslims make claims without proof, but your objections are based on consistently ignoring:

-What the original audience already knew (where Mecca was, who Muhammad was, how sacred Jerusalem was)

-The established rules of the language (using "we" to mean "I", providing context to identify someone)

- How the same features are seen as acceptable or even good in the Bible

That's not an objective analysis; it's looking for things to confirm what you already believe, not to find the truth.

7. You're using mockery instead of making arguments in your replies.

Calling scholarly explanations nonsense and making insulting jokes (mothers of Allah) doesn't disprove them. It shows you can't or won't deal with the type of writing, language, and historical background. Dismissing something isn't evidence. Insulting isn't disproving. When you resort to mockery instead of arguing, you've already lost the argument.

The bottom line is that your way of thinking is clearly flawed because it:

-Uses different standards (demands things from the Qur'an that you excuse in the Bible)

-Rejects explanations you already accept elsewhere (Semitic writing in Genesis vs. the Qur'an)

-Confuses interpretation with lack of clarity (ignores 2 Peter 3:15-16, the existence of 45,000 denominations)

-Demands modern technical detail from ancient writing (GPS coordinates, repeated identification)

-Mistakes your own lack of understanding for proof that something is unclear (just because you don't understand it doesn't mean it's unclear)

-Ignores evidence that's provided and then claims there isn't any (intellectual dishonesty)

The Qur'an didn't fail a test. Your method did because it was never consistent, never honest, and never intended to find the truth.

When you use the same standards for your own religious texts that you demand from others, then we can have an honest discussion. Until then, your criticism is just a biased argument disguised as mockery.

honesttalk21:
Your analogy is flawed because it mixes up cause and process. Be refers to divine command that is the cause, while clay, sperm, and clot represent stages and methods which is the process. Stating that I commanded the house to exist and that it was constructed with materials is not contradictory; it’s a more nuanced explanation. Only someone who interprets literally would see a conflict. Regarding the Spirit, the Qur’an clearly states that its nature is beyond human understanding (17:85). Limited knowledge does not equal ignorance. Lastly, I should follow your attitude from the discussion about the Trinity and indeed you only show your poiition based on misconception. The Qur’an does not provide a definition of the Trinity; it outright rejects the idea of divine plurality. Rejection is not the same as misdefinition. Having multiple descriptions does not imply contradiction, and making category errors does not demonstrate ignorance.

This guy—do you even understand yourself?! Oh goodness, what sort of brazen contradiction is this? Are you even listening to yourself, man?! Haa… what kind of blind faith are you exhibiting here in the name of defending what isn’t even defensible—outright contradictions and lies! Man, you’re not making any sense at all!

Christlike01:
This guy—do you even understand yourself?! Oh goodness, what sort of brazen contradiction is this? Are you even listening to yourself, man?! Haa… what kind of blind faith are you exhibiting here in the name of defending what isn’t even defensible—outright contradictions and lies! Man, you’re not making any sense at all!

Exclamations, questions and what more? You are not communicating anything.

To the bots that have been cancelling my Response and rebuttal to the lies of Islam


And constantly banning me just by viewing...


You see eeeeh

Because I love women and see them as equal in worth to men, and essential to human flourishing. Therefore, I do not believe that

...women should be treated as chattel by men
...that it's manly or godly for a man to patrol schools with semi-automatic weapons to ensure little girls do not receive an education
...policing women to the point of death on account of "hair-covering" is a credible vocation or way to serve our creator
...there is anything honourable about honour killing
...or customary eff gee hem
...s3cs slavery is a ok!
...multiple wives for one man engenders social flourishing
..women should have zero agency or be forced to wear tents
...that women need a chaperone or permission to step out, travel or even drive
...that the sentence for ray ape should be the victims brother committing same to the perpetrators sister
...that if a woman cannot produce 4 male witessess to ray ape, she can be stoned to death for adultery
...domestic violence should be codified into law or considered as a customary right for males
...that marriage is a euphemism for the gross s3csual violation of pre-pubescent girls

and so on and so forth...to any reasonable and right-thinking person any 1, or 2 at most, of the above should be reason enough. But other reasons are it's morality-eroding and critical thinking reducing features!


TV

https://www.youtube.com/shorts/xW9rhmcTALU
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/nK6D9OnTBi4

This argument leans on overgeneralization and moral conflation.

First, it flattens nearly two billion Muslims across cultures, languages, and centuries of scholarship into one extreme stereotype. Believing the Qur’an is divinely guided is not the same thing as endorsing vigilante violence, misogyny, or political abuses done in religion’s name. Faith in divine law does not equal approval of every action committed under its banner.

Second, bundling together crimes, cultural practices, extremist regimes, and classical jurisprudence as if they are identical. They are not. So-called honor killings are murder. Sexual violence is prohibited. Forced marriage is invalid in Islamic law. Women were granted property rights, inheritance, contractual agency, and access to learning in early Islam. One may disagree with aspects of Islamic law but disagreement should be grounded in accuracy, not distortion.

Punishments often cited in isolation also require context. Classical Islamic criminal law operated under strict evidentiary standards that made implementation rare, with jurists emphasizing avoidance wherever doubt existed. Viral clips and rally speeches strip away that framework and replace it with outrage. Emotional reactions are not substitutes for legal scholarship.

Appeals to loving women assume Islamic law is inherently degrading. That claim itself requires evidence. Islam affirms the spiritual equality of men and women. Legal differences in certain areas are debated, but difference is not the same as worthlessness. Many Muslim women defend their faith because they see dignity and meaning in it not because they are coerced.

Critique is legitimate. Caricature is not. Serious discussion demands that we separate scripture from culture, law from abuse, theology from politics.

If the goal is understanding, precision matters. If the goal is provocation, nuance will always feel inconvenient.

Because I love people and yearn for the prosperity and well-being of mankind. I hate anything that is inherently misanthropic and embeds, rather that eliminates societal pathologies. Anything that gives rise to notions that are barbaric and dark, hating critical thinking, scientific rigour and technological advancement.

That's why I love Christ and Christianity, which progressively ended internecine wars, slavery, child labour, child marriage and cousin marriage. Which engendered public hygiene, universal healthcare and welfare reforms. Notions of interpersonal goodwill and commonwealth. Which is the basis for high-trust societies, rational enquiry, empirical research and innovation. Which is why all the major scientific progress mankind has experience comes from historically Christian nations - even post-Christian nations do miles better and are still way ahead.

How can I personally accept something that,
...makes VVF endemic by default https://www.nairaland.com/8349907/notable-women-early-marriages-bible#134323939
...can't figure out cousin marriage https://brilliantmaps.com/consanguineous-marriage/
...a man can legally marry his own biological daughter
...ended adoption to introduce incest
...has no objective morality or even basic ethics
...is utterly controlling and baulks at freedom of expression
...cannot stomach difference or plurality
...hates the arts and music, learning and enlightenment more generally
...is not backed by prophecy, is ahistorical and anti-science and who's outworking is only death and destruction
...is totaliatian and totalising
...breeds rampant ethno and sectarian supremacists
...has never created anything but wants to rule everything
...can never lead to flourishing, prosperity or advancement - quite the opposite, regressive, backward, benighted, poverty-inducing
...is aptly represented by Afganistan and Somalia

Life in Christ - abundant and eternal - is offered freely, on a platter, why would I choose death


TV

https://www.youtube.com/shorts/xW9rhmcTALU

honesttalk21:
This argument leans on overgeneralization and moral conflation.

First, it flattens nearly two billion Muslims across cultures, languages, and centuries of scholarship into one extreme stereotype. Believing the Qur’an is divinely guided is not the same thing as endorsing vigilante violence, misogyny, or political abuses done in religion’s name. Faith in divine law does not equal approval of every action committed under its banner.

Second, bundling together crimes, cultural practices, extremist regimes, and classical jurisprudence as if they are identical. They are not. So-called honor killings are murder. Sexual violence is prohibited. Forced marriage is invalid in Islamic law. Women were granted property rights, inheritance, contractual agency, and access to learning in early Islam. One may disagree with aspects of Islamic law but disagreement should be grounded in accuracy, not distortion.

Punishments often cited in isolation also require context. Classical Islamic criminal law operated under strict evidentiary standards that made implementation rare, with jurists emphasizing avoidance wherever doubt existed. Viral clips and rally speeches strip away that framework and replace it with outrage. Emotional reactions are not substitutes for legal scholarship.

Appeals to loving women assume Islamic law is inherently degrading. That claim itself requires evidence. Islam affirms the spiritual equality of men and women. Legal differences in certain areas are debated, but difference is not the same as worthlessness. Many Muslim women defend their faith because they see dignity and meaning in it not because they are coerced.

Critique is legitimate. Caricature is not. Serious discussion demands that we separate scripture from culture, law from abuse, theology from politics.

If the goal is understanding, precision matters. If the goal is provocation, nuance will always feel inconvenient.

I can see aitalk hasn't left his old ways😂. You still can't defend your religion without relying on copy and paste🤦🏾‍♂️. Do you even read your books?

Gabrielshow24:
I can see aitalk hasn't left his old ways😂. You still can't defend your religion without relying on copy and paste🤦🏾‍♂️. Do you even read your books?

You have said nothing of value to this discussion. In between I have wondered about your fairly long absence. Here to help your brother? Do that already.

Perharps you can do better than derailing of the topic to another as he and your likes tend to do. Often due to finding out too late you are out of areas with knowledgeable expertise.

honesttalk21:
You have said nothing of value to this discussion. In between I have wondered about your fairly long absence. Here to help your brother? Do that already.

Perharps you can do better than derailing of the topic to another as he and your likes tend to do. Often due to finding out too late you are out of areas with knowledgeable expertise.

I’m aware you may have missed your “beloved oppressor” — that’s simply what happens when someone🧐 consistently challenges your weak arguments😊.

I took some time away to rest and recalibrate. Stepping back has its benefits. It’s interesting, though, that your tone here remains unchanged🥱.

By the way, I am not here for such frivolities, you can bamboozle little children with your lies👀 but you should have known by now that I am not subject to Allah's “mangekyo sharingan“😁. The moral failings of Islam is too much, that I can write lots of treatises on it but I don't have such time. It's a new year, I don't dwell on “puerile farrago of absurdities“ in the form of your book🥱.

As for knowledge, our past exchanges already established that I am very familiar with your sources — Qur’an, Hadith, classical tafsir literature and beyond. I’ve studied them long before. So appeals to authority or attempts at intellectual posturing won’t be persuasive🥱.

Gabrielshow24:
I’m aware you may have missed your “beloved oppressor” — that’s simply what happens when someone🧐 consistently challenges your weak arguments😊.

I took some time away to rest and recalibrate. Stepping back has its benefits. It’s interesting, though, that your tone here remains unchanged🥱.

By the way, I am not here for such frivolities, you can bamboozle little children with your lies👀 but you should have known by now that I am not subject to Allah's “mangekyo sharingan“😁. The moral failings of Islam is too much, that I can write lots of treatises on it but I don't have such time. It's a new year, I don't dwell on “puerile farrago of absurdities“ in the form of your book🥱.

As for knowledge, our past exchanges already established that I am very familiar with your sources — Qur’an, Hadith, classical tafsir literature and beyond. I’ve studied them long before. So appeals to authority or attempts at intellectual posturing won’t be persuasive🥱.

Self care is essential and good. Stay fit and healthy. Your familiarity with sources doesn't transform into proper interpretation which doesn't make it correct.

The truth is distinct from falsehood no matter how you or other people choose to bend or filter lies.

Because I love marriage - the beautiful and honourable institution God our Father and Creator bestowed on mankind.

I can't accept that it takes marriage and, profanes and traduces this precious gift from our Maker. Marriage is wonderfully designed and glorious in it's simplicity and rightful outworking.

One man, one woman, lifelong and monogamous. Between two of age, mature and mentally sound. Not too closely related. A relationship for flourishing, mutual love and affection, and the best vehicle for raising children.

It violates marriage in every which way. Firstly, the couple and fidelity principles by introducing the s3csual an social perversion of polygamy. It besmirches the lifelong principle by embedding divorce - ridiculously easy and one-sided.

It at once eliminates consent, and rubbishes maturity, euphemistically categorising secsual violation of prepubescent girls as marriage - too young to consent or be mature enough for the marital estate. It labels violence, assault and violation as marriage.

It encourages cousin marriage, failing to understand the wisdom behind the cautions against consanguineous unions. It takes a covenant and reduces it to a transaction. It makes the sacramental sacrilegious. And the cherry on top - it still has room for secks slaves.

Oh, and I neglected to mention the sneaky formalisation of FWB aka contractual adultery aka mutah, aka misyar. Unacceptable by anyone who understands God's will for holy matrimony.


Let me leave the effects on any offspring. IMHO, one has to not have a mature mind, integrity or wisdom to accept it.


TV

Because I love life - and see no reason to swap the love of life for the love of death.

Death is it's raison d'etre, it's prime imperative and charge, it's leitmotif. What it endures for, loves, craves and celebrates. Death, death, death. Death by sword, by decapitation, by stoning. Death, death, death. Death by car, by bomb by knife, whatever!

Death for dis-believing, death for not believing, death for discontinuing to believe, death for believing differently. Death for blasphemy, death for insults, death for mockery.

Death with each and every empire, every iteration, every instance. With the umayyad, the abbassid, the ottoman, the mughal and the safavid. Death to this day, be it saudi arabia, iran, isis, boko-haram, lakawura, iswap, al-sha whatchamacallit.

Death in the middle-east. Death in the horn of, the north, the west and eastern Africa. Death in the Iberian peninsula, death in Asia. Death in Anatolia. the Caucasus, the Balkans and eastern Europe. Death in Asia, death in Europe and death in north America (and lately Australia - Bondi beach). Death everywhere.

Death of reason, death of progress and advance, death of liberty. Death then and death now. Death in every which way.

Come to Christ, who gives life, life more abundant and life eternal!


TV

Because I can't adopt faith where the national leader of that faith, in a country ruled by that faith, can end the lives of tens of thousands of his own citizens and be considered a martyr.


TV

Because I cannot adopt a faith that cannot name one good thing that humanity wouldn't have if that faith did not exist, but from which result numerous societal ills.


TV

Because I can't accept a god with no name, who has never spoken or revealed himself to mankind. Or a profit with no provenance or lineage. No prophecy, no foretelling and no witnesss. Or scriptures that a re copied, plagiarised, fabricated, contradictory and a very hard read. Like kilode!

Come to the God of The Bible. The Living God. The everlasting God. Yahweh, The I am, that I am, in Whose image we are made. Who revealed Himself to His creation in Christ Jesus. How sweet the sound!


TV

I can't accept it because I choose to serve a Holy God, who says be ye holy, even as God is holy. I reject a purported god who claims to apportion adultery to every man.

1 Peter 1:15 but as He who called you is holy, you also be holy in all your conduct,
1 Corinthians 6:18 Flee sexual immorality. Every sin that a man does is outside the body, but he who commits sexual immorality sins against his own body.
James 1:13 Let no one say when he is tempted, “I am tempted by God”; for God cannot be tempted by evil, nor does He Himself tempt anyone.

(5)Chapter: The Son Of Adam's Share Of Zina Etc. Is Decreed For Him(5)باب قُدِّرَ عَلَى ابْنِ آدَمَ حَظُّهُ مِنَ الزِّنَى وَغَيْرِهِ ‏ ‏
Abu Huraira reported Allah's Apostle (ﷺ) as saying:

Verily Allah has fixed the very portion of adultery which a man will indulge in, and which he of necessity must commit. The adultery of the eye is the lustful look, and the adultery of the tongue is the licentious speech, the heart desires and yearns, which the parts may or may not put into effect.
حَدَّثَنَا إِسْحَاقُ بْنُ إِبْرَاهِيمَ، وَعَبْدُ بْنُ حُمَيْدٍ، - وَاللَّفْظُ لإِسْحَاقَ - قَالاَ أَخْبَرَنَا عَبْدُ الرَّزَّاقِ، حَدَّثَنَا مَعْمَرٌ، عَنِ ابْنِ طَاوُسٍ، عَنْ أَبِيهِ، عَنِ ابْنِ عَبَّاسٍ، قَالَ مَا رَأَيْتُ شَيْئًا أَشْبَهَ بِاللَّمَمِ مِمَّا قَالَ أَبُو هُرَيْرَةَ أَنَّ النَّبِيَّ صلى الله عليه وسلم قَالَ ‏ "‏ إِنَّ اللَّهَ كَتَبَ عَلَى ابْنِ آدَمَ حَظَّهُ مِنَ الزِّنَى أَدْرَكَ ذَلِكَ لاَ مَحَالَةَ فَزِنَى الْعَيْنَيْنِ النَّظَرُ وَزِنَى اللِّسَانِ النُّطْقُ وَالنَّفْسُ تَمَنَّى وَتَشْتَهِي وَالْفَرْجُ يُصَدِّقُ ذَلِكَ أَوْ يُكَذِّبُهُ ‏"‏ ‏.‏ قَالَ عَبْدٌ فِي رِوَايَتِهِ ابْنِ طَاوُسٍ عَنْ أَبِيهِ سَمِعْتُ ابْنَ عَبَّاسٍ ‏.‏

How?

TV

Because, too accept it would be to accept shar.ree.yah law as the governance structure and ruling framework. Shar.ree.yah is unable to build thriving economies or create and sustain the institutions required for progressive societies or advancement.

Look around the globe, there is no country which implements shar.ree.yah, which has not suffered from it's retrograde effects. Name one shar.ree.yah run nation with a thriving economy, democratic institutions and a full suite of human rights. Told you!

Evidenced closer to home by the impoverished and backward state of the northern part of Nigeria. After 25 years of shar.ree.yah, the promise and expectations have not only failed to materialise, it's been quite the opposite. Failing and woefully behind the south in all indicators


TV

Because if I ever have to choose between water and life for my citizens and nukes and death for my enemies, I would like to be rightly guided.


TV

Because the living God has blessed me with a daughter - something so heinously senseless and tragic could never be done in his name.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/1874471.stm



TV

Because The Living God has blessed me with a son - and l don't want him growing up with a deep-seated hatred of Jews or Christians or people of other faiths or no faith at all. And, l don't want him to think routinely deceasing any of the aforementioned is a good thing and pleasing to God.


Matthew 22:32 - I am the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob’? God is not the God of the dead, but of the living.”

TV

Because the Lord of Hosts has blessed me with a wife - and I don't feel the need to supplement her with wifelets or secs slaves and have my "right" to beat them codified into law.

Marriage typifies the relationship between Christ and His Church - that up there doesn't

Ephesians 5
25 Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it; 26 That he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word,


Come to Christ. Hope to see you at the wedding supper of The Lamb.


TV

Explain to me how Israeli Prophet gets roped into Islam, people that never heard of Allah Akbar, people that have a name for their God, that their religion forbade them to acknowledge other Gods?

Secondly, how will the greatest Prophet and last Prophet according to Islam comes from Saudi Arabia if we are to believe the same God of Israel is same with Allah, won't it disrupt all what the God of Israel had already revealed to them from Moses to Jesus in a way as to break the Prophecy line?
If God would want another Prophet to come from Israel, won't it be coming from Edom, Esau Descendants instead of Isaac half brother which the scriptures never made mention he obtain any blessings from his father Abraham?

Thirdly, why would I believe a revelation over what is publicly known? The Quran if written in this age and time and the author failed to reference the Bible as it's review note will in no doubt lands the author into big shit. Why should I believe hearsay/revelation over actual eye witnesses?
It's just like saying Prof Wole Soyinka is saying he had a revelation of Ghengis Khan, if I want information about Ghengis Khan, I would approach Mongolian for the information not a Zulu Man in South Africa.

Lastly, Why would I believe the report of a man inside a cave, with a supposedly Angel, over writings of many Men and Women spanning thousands of years, in the same country, same tongue pointing in same direction?


These, if succinctly answered, I may give Islam a chance

Because ee-slam has no regard for life and no love. It see's humans as slaves, motivated only by base human desires.

The God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, The God of the Bible created man in His image and views those who love Him as sons and daughters. So much so that He purchased them with His own blood.

Who you gon' choose?


TV