₦airaland Forum

honesttalk21:
These questions have already been answered. What follows isn't new it's where your claims keep collapsing once the distinctions you keep removing are put back in place 📢

On Qur'an 2:79, the tafsir is explicit: a group of Jews and later Christians altered, wrote, and falsely attributed to God. Not all, not original revelation a subset corrupting what existed. Your argument only works by erasing that distinction 📖

Your comparison to Qur'anic scribes fails immediately: they didn't author content they transmitted under direct prophetic oversight, memorized publicly, and cross-checked collectively. That's preservation, not fabrication 🔍🤔

Then answer my question according to your Qur'an.
I insist that Quran 2:79 refers to you
1. Is it true that Your Quran was written by the hands of Zayd ibn Thabit , Ubayy ibn Ka'b, Ali ibn Abi Talib , Uthman ibn Affan etc
2. Is it TRUE that they claimed that what they wrote was from Allah through an Angel Jibril Mohammed?

Is it true that some islamic scholars say that many verses of your Qur'an are lost?

honesttalk21:
On Jew strictly equals just ethnicity, both scripture and usage show it's religious, communal, and historical. That's standard language, not an error.

It is a WRONG and ERRONEOUS usage to Call Ethnic Description Religious IDENTITY.

A Jew is a person from the Tribe of Judah in Israel not a Religious Identity BUT it is disgraceful that the one who claims to be all-knowing doesn't know.

An error is an error however it is used.
Can we replace the word Muslim with Arab and still claim correctness?

honesttalk21:
On where is Muhammad pbuh named, you're imposing a condition the text never sets. Recognition in tafsir is by description and traits, not forced name-matching. You added the rule, then judged the text by it ✋

Let me go with you:
Can you explicitly tell us what the text is then saying with respect to your prophet found in both the Torah and the Injeel AND how to verify the truth of the statement?

The ball is in your court!

honesttalk21:
Jibril appearing as a man doesn't make God a man. Created form is not the Creator's nature. You're collapsing categories again ⚖️

That wasn't what I said: you are avoiding the question
The question was
Does Allah have the power of incarnation like Jibril?

It is a YES or NO question sir!

honesttalk21:
On incarnation this hasn't moved. It requires the infinite becoming finite and dependent simultaneously. That's not power it's contradiction, and calling it possible doesn't resolve it 💡🤔🫥🥵🔥

Okay , Let me rephrase

As a human being, I am not infinitely powerful and I can not do seemingly contradictory things like making something out of nothing. Even Angels, Jinn and Demons are not infinite in oower and cannot know things and events before they happen nor raise up the decayed and rotten corpse of many years.

Now, the Question is:
Can Allah be finite and infinite at the same time without ceasing to be Almighty?

Again as an example
Can Allah be SOMEWHERE and EVERYWHERE at the same time without ceasing to be almighty?

This is another YES or NO question before you go at tangent again!

honesttalk21:
On Mary tafsir is clear: Allah is the cause, the angel is the means. No confusion there. You're asking what's already defined 📚

You always manage to avoid answering a question by answering a DIFFERENT question while assuming that your answer has perfectly answered the original question

Check the question and your answer again!
I said(according to Allah in the Qur'an)
Who is the One who made Mary pregnant!?
Is it a Joseph or Mohamed?

I didn't ask for the cause or means but who made Mary pregnant.

honesttalk21:
On Q19:71-72, this has been answered repeatedly: yes, all reach it; only wrongdoers remain. They are left in it, others are saved. The everyone burns claim only appears when you split the verse and ignore its conclusion. 🤔🔥

I have said this several times about Qur'an 71-72
Is there an ERROR in my claim below: YES or NO?
Is it UNTRUE that Qur'an 19:71-72 says that
You MUSLIMS along with Evildoers will be in the FIRE of HELL for an UNSPECIFIED duration of Time AFTER WHICH you will be removed



Why are you afraid to say EXPLICITLY that you concur that you will be in the FIRE of HELL for an UNSPECIFIED duration of Time AFTER WHICH you will be removed

honesttalk21:
On Uthman, what was standardized was writing form, not revelation. No companion dispute over content exists. If there were real differences, history would record conflict it doesn't 📖

See how you answered a different question
Why did Uthman BURN variant manuscripts of the Qur'an when Muslims who had perfectly memorized the Qur'an wrote it down?


If no companions disputed over the content of the Qur'an, then tell us
1. where is the verse of Rajam: they used to RECITE it as Qur'an isn't it?
2. where is the verse of breastfeeding adult man 10 times or the 5 times after initial abrogation?
3. that in In Sahih Muslim and other early books, Abu Musa al‑Ash‘ari reports something like:
“We used to recite a surah which we likened in length and severity to Surah at‑Tawbah (al‑Barā’ah), but I have forgotten it except this much: ‘ O you who believe, why do you say that which you do not do…’”

honesttalk21:
At this point the pattern is obvious: you keep merging what the text separates revelation vs handling, approach vs remaining, cause vs means and then calling the result a contradiction.

But the contradiction was never in the text. It was introduced by removing the distinctions the text itself maintains.

Put them back, and there is nothing left to answer 🎯

So, over to you to continue to deny occurrence with evidences in your islamic sources!

TenQ:
Then answer my question according to your Qur'an.
I insist that Quran 2:79 refers to you
1. Is it true that Your Quran was written by the hands of Zayd ibn Thabit , Ubayy ibn Ka'b, Ali ibn Abi Talib , Uthman ibn Affan etc
2. Is it TRUE that they claimed that what they wrote was from Allah through an Angel Jibril Mohammed?

Is it true that some islamic scholars say that many verses of your Qur'an are lost?


It is a WRONG and ERRONEOUS usage to Call Ethnic Description Religious IDENTITY.

A Jew is a person from the Tribe of Judah in Israel not a Religious Identity BUT it is disgraceful that the one who claims to be all-knowing doesn't know.

An error is an error however it is used.
Can we replace the word Muslim with Arab and still claim correctness?



Let me go with you:
Can you explicitly tell us what the text is then saying with respect to your prophet found in both the Torah and the Injeel AND how to verify the truth of the statement?

The ball is in your court!


That wasn't what I said: you are avoiding the question
The question was
Does Allah have the power of incarnation like Jibril?

It is a YES or NO question sir!



Okay , Let me rephrase

As a human being, I am not infinitely powerful and I can not do seemingly contradictory things like making something out of nothing. Even Angels, Jinn and Demons are not infinite in oower and cannot know things and events before they happen nor raise up the decayed and rotten corpse of many years.

Now, the Question is:
Can Allah be finite and infinite at the same time without ceasing to be Almighty?

Again as an example
Can Allah be SOMEWHERE and EVERYWHERE at the same time without ceasing to be almighty?

This is another YES or NO question before you go at tangent again!




You always manage to avoid answering a question by answering a DIFFERENT question while assuming that your answer has perfectly answered the original question

Check the question and your answer again!
I said(according to Allah in the Qur'an)
Who is the One who made Mary pregnant!?
Is it a Joseph or Mohamed?

I didn't ask for the cause or means but who made Mary pregnant.


I have said this several times about Qur'an 71-72
Is there an ERROR in my claim below: YES or NO?
Is it UNTRUE that Qur'an 19:71-72 says that
You MUSLIMS along with Evildoers will be in the FIRE of HELL for an UNSPECIFIED duration of Time AFTER WHICH you will be removed



Why are you afraid to say EXPLICITLY that you concur that you will be in the FIRE of HELL for an UNSPECIFIED duration of Time AFTER WHICH you will be removed


See how you answered a different question
Why did Uthman BURN variant manuscripts of the Qur'an when Muslims who had perfectly memorized the Qur'an wrote it down?


If no companions disputed over the content of the Qur'an, then tell us
1. where is the verse of Rajam: they used to RECITE it as Qur'an isn't it?
2. where is the verse of breastfeeding adult man 10 times or the 5 times after initial abrogation?
3. that in In Sahih Muslim and other early books, Abu Musa al‑Ash‘ari reports something like:
“We used to recite a surah which we likened in length and severity to Surah at‑Tawbah (al‑Barā’ah), but I have forgotten it except this much: ‘ O you who believe, why do you say that which you do not do…’”




So, over to you to continue to deny occurrence with evidences in your islamic sources!

Are you acting like you got lost in discussion?🤔.

Here are direct answers only, matching your questions:

1. Does Quran 2:79 apply to Qur’an writers?
No. It condemns false authorship attributed to Allah. The companions were transmitters of publicly known revelation, not independent authors.

2. Did they claim it was from Allah via Jibril?
Yes. As transmission of revelation, not as personal composition.

3. Do scholars say verses are lost?
No. What is cited is abrogation of recitation (naskh al-tilawa) during the Prophet’s lifetime not post-compilation loss.

4. Is "Jew” only an ethnic term?
No. Both Qur’an and Bible use it as religious and communal identity.

5. Where is the Prophet in Torah/Injeel and how verified?
By description, not necessarily name. Verified through prophetic characteristics,
continuity of message (monotheism), scriptural indicators

6. Who made Mary pregnant?
Allah. (Quran 21:91)

7. Can Allah do what Jibril does (incarnation)?
Yes to ability.
No to incarnation as becoming creation that is a logical contradiction, not a limitation.

8. Can Allah be finite and infinite at the same time?
No. Contradiction, not power.

9. Can Allah be somewhere and everywhere simultaneously?
No (in created spatial terms). Allah is not bound by space the premise is invalid.

10. Do Quran 19:71–Quran 19:72 say all Muslims enter Hell temporarily?
No. They describe approach/passing, not all believers remaining in Hell.

11. Why did Uthman burn manuscripts?
To standardize written dialect/orthography, not remove content.

12. Where is the stoning verse?
Abrogated in recitation, ruling preserved in Sunnah/tradition.

13. Breastfeeding verse?
Same. Abrogation of recitation, not lost later.

14. Abu Musa “forgotten surah”?
Refers to abrogated/withdrawn recitation, not corruption.

You are repeating claims already answered and treating repetition as proof.🔥

It isn’t. 🎯

honesttalk21:
Here are direct answers only, matching your questions:

5. Where is the Prophet in Torah/Injeel and how verified?
By description, not necessarily name. Verified through prophetic characteristics,
continuity of message (monotheism), scriptural indicators

You do realise that this claim is so vague as to be meaningless?
Even if not named, a clear timeline and detail of the "works" the "prophet" would accomplish should be readily discernible. And said "prophet" must fil them perfectly and deliver as stated. There is nothing there!

It reads so damningly, so poorly, when moose.slims make claim like "he is mentioned in the Songs of Solomons - with nothing indicating where he comes from, how he arises or what he will do. Nothing about his antecedents, parentage or lineage.

Shocking that you can claim prophetic characteristics, when there are no signs or wonders, no witnesses and no prophecies - about him or from him - nothing!.

As for scriptural indicators. What does that even mean? From scriptures moose.lslims claim are corrupted? There are no indicators, references, pointers, shadows or precursors for the advent of a local tribal warlord from the arabian peninsula succeeding the prophets of Israel, which the same bible you reference shows culminate in The Lord Jesus Christ.

As for a message of monotheism? Both Judaism and Christianity are clear that there is only one God.

Nothing, nada, nein, no, nyet, zero, zilch. He is not there, not, prophesied, identified, verified or witnessed.


TV

honesttalk21:
Are you acting like you got lost in discussion?🤔.

Here are direct answers only, matching your questions:

1. Does Quran 2:79 apply to Qur’an writers?
No. It condemns false authorship attributed to Allah. The companions were transmitters of publicly known revelation, not independent authors.

And it applies directly to those who wrote a book called the Qur'an and said that it is from Allah!

honesttalk21:
2. Did they claim it was from Allah via Jibril?
Yes. As transmission of revelation, not as personal composition.

What was the claim of Mohammed with respect to the Qur'an?
Was there ANY evidence by Anyone that they witnessed Jibril giving the Qur'an to Mohammed?

Even Mohammed wasn't sure of who Jibril is!
Didn't Iblis come to Mohammed in the shape of Jibril to dictate the so-called satanic verses to Mohammed?

How come Mohammed did not know that this wasn't Jibril but Iblis?

Mohammed said the Quran is from Allah with ZERO evidence and Muslims wrote it down with their hands and believed it.

honesttalk21:
3. Do scholars say verses are lost?
No. What is cited is abrogation of recitation (naskh al-tilawa) during the Prophet’s lifetime not post-compilation loss.

Were the abrogated verses revealed as Quran or not?
Isn't the Qur'an eternal according to Islam?

honesttalk21:
4. Is "Jew” only an ethnic term?
No. Both Qur’an and Bible use it as religious and communal identity.

The Bible does not use "Jew" exclusively as a term for religion; it primarily denotes ethnic or tribal identity from Judah.
The Bible does not explicitly name the religion of the Jews with a single term like "Judaism," as that word emerged later in history.

honesttalk21:
5. Where is the Prophet in Torah/Injeel and how verified?
By description, not necessarily name. Verified through prophetic characteristics,
continuity of message (monotheism), scriptural indicators

WHERE ARE they in the Torah and Injeel is the Question!

honesttalk21:
6. Who made Mary pregnant?
Allah. (Quran 21:91)

Ashamed to quote the verse!?

[b]Quran 21:91
"And the one who guarded her vulva, so We breathed into it from Our Spirit, and We made her and her son a sign for the worlds."[/b]

So, do you agree that the one who blew into Mary's vulva is the one who made Mary pregnant?

honesttalk21:
7. Can Allah do what Jibril does (incarnation)?
Yes to ability.
No to incarnation as becoming creation that is a logical contradiction, not a limitation.

See how you fell into your logical quagmire!
LOL! Didn't you say that this kind of answers are contradictory?

Going with your response,
Since Allah cannot become Incarnated without ceasing to be unlimited, then Allah cannot be Almighty!

The God of Moses, Abraham, Jews and Christians can Incarnate without ceasing to be Unlimited and evidences abound in the Torah and Injeel.

honesttalk21:
8. Can Allah be finite and infinite at the same time?
No. Contradiction, not power.

Alright, lets test it out.
a. Do you agree that ANY Being that can be carried is LIMITED unless he is incarnated?
b. Do you agree that ANY Being that can be seen is LIMITED unless he is Incarnated?

honesttalk21:
9. Can Allah be somewhere and everywhere simultaneously?
No (in created spatial terms). Allah is not bound by space the premise is invalid.

Thanks for your answer of NO because:
Only an Omnipresent Being can be somewhere and everywhere at the same time.

honesttalk21:
10. Do Quran 19:71–Quran 19:72 say all Muslims enter Hell temporarily?
No. They describe approach/passing, not all believers remaining in Hell.

Why don't you quote exactly what Allah said from the Arabic and not spoon-feed him with what you'd like him to say!

There is not one of you but must get into the fire of hell

honesttalk21:
11. Why did Uthman burn manuscripts?
To standardize written dialect/orthography, not remove content.

Are you concurring that the Qur'an was not perfectly memorised?
How may dialects did Mohammed dictate?

honesttalk21:
12. Where is the stoning verse?
Abrogated in recitation, ruling preserved in Sunnah/tradition.

Was the verse of stoning in the eternal Qur'an on the tablet in Heaven?

honesttalk21:
13. Breastfeeding verse?
Same. Abrogation of recitation, not lost later.

Was the verse of breastfeeding in the eternal Qur'an on the tablet in Heaven?

honesttalk21:
14. Abu Musa “forgotten surah”?
Refers to abrogated/withdrawn recitation, not corruption.

Was this forgotten surah in the eternal Qur'an on the Tablet in Heaven?

honesttalk21:
You are repeating claims already answered and treating repetition as proof.🔥

It isn’t. 🎯

When you wouldn't reply a direct question, the question get repeated or rephrased: not even as an evidence but to bring you back from changing the subject!

TenQ:
And it applies directly to those who wrote a book called the Qur'an and said that it is from Allah!




What was the claim of Mohammed with respect to the Qur'an?
Was there ANY evidence by Anyone that they witnessed Jibril giving the Qur'an to Mohammed?

Even Mohammed wasn't sure of who Jibril is!
Didn't Iblis come to Mohammed in the shape of Jibril to dictate the so-called satanic verses to Mohammed?

How come Mohammed did not know that this wasn't Jibril but Iblis?

Mohammed said the Quran is from Allah with ZERO evidence and Muslims wrote it down with their hands and believed it.


Were the abrogated verses revealed as Quran or not?
Isn't the Qur'an eternal according to Islam?


The Bible does not use "Jew" exclusively as a term for religion; it primarily denotes ethnic or tribal identity from Judah.
The Bible does not explicitly name the religion of the Jews with a single term like "Judaism," as that word emerged later in history.



WHERE ARE they in the Torah and Injeel is the Question!


Ashamed to quote the verse!?

[b]Quran 21:91
"And the one who guarded her vulva, so We breathed into it from Our Spirit, and We made her and her son a sign for the worlds."[/b]

So, do you agree that the one who blew into Mary's vulva is the one who made Mary pregnant?


See how you fell into your logical quagmire!
LOL! Didn't you say that this kind of answers are contradictory?

Going with your response,
Since Allah cannot become Incarnated without ceasing to be unlimited, then Allah cannot be Almighty!

The God of Moses, Abraham, Jews and Christians can Incarnate without ceasing to be Unlimited and evidences abound in the Torah and Injeel.


Alright, lets test it out.
a. Do you agree that ANY Being that can be carried is LIMITED unless he is incarnated?
b. Do you agree that ANY Being that can be seen is LIMITED unless he is Incarnated?



Thanks for your answer of NO because:
Only an Omnipresent Being can be somewhere and everywhere at the same time.



Why don't you quote exactly what Allah said from the Arabic and not spoon-feed him with what you'd like him to say!

There is not one of you but must get into the fire of hell



Are you concurring that the Qur'an was not perfectly memorised?
How may dialects did Mohammed dictate?



Was the verse of stoning in the eternal Qur'an on the tablet in Heaven?



Was the verse of breastfeeding in the eternal Qur'an on the tablet in Heaven?


Was this forgotten surah in the eternal Qur'an on the Tablet in Heaven?



When you wouldn't reply a direct question, the question get repeated or rephrased: not even as an evidence but to bring you back from changing the subject!

Direct answers. Final submission. 📢

1. Q2:79 – fabrication vs transmission
This verse condemns knowingly inventing scripture and attributing it to God. It doesn’t describe a publicly recited, widely memorized text.
Your own Bible makes the same distinction: Jesus criticizes those who had scripture but distorted its meaning (Mark 7:8–9).
Different category so your argument doesn’t land.

2. “No evidence of Jibril”
You’re applying a standard your own tradition doesn’t meet.
At Sinai, people explicitly avoid direct encounter and rely on Moses (Exodus 20:19). Revelation is not “video evidence”; it’s evaluated through consistency,transmission, and impact.
If you reject that standard, you undercut your own foundation.

3. “Satanic verses”
Not found in any sahih (reliable) sources, rejected by the scholarly tradition.
Building an argument on weak reports is like constructing doctrine from apocrypha. Methodologically inconsistent.

4. Abrogation (Q2:106)
Yes some rulings are replaced. That’s not a flaw; it’s a feature of a law-giving system over time.
Your Bible does the same (e.g., Acts 10:15; shifts in legal codes).
So either both are invalid or neither is.

5. “Jew = only ethnicity”
Your own text expands the term: “a Jew is one inwardly” (Romans 2:28–29).
So it’s not strictly ethnic in your own framework. You can’t restrict what your scripture broadens.

6. "Where is Muhammad named?”
Prophecy doesn’t require explicit naming.
Isaiah 53 is understood as referring to Jesus without naming him.
Description-based recognition is already part of your interpretive method.

7. Mary (Q21:91)
“Breathing” is metaphorical language for divine command same pattern as Adam (Genesis 2:7).
No biology implied just creative will. Taking it literally creates problems you don’t apply elsewhere.

8. Incarnation and contradiction
Numbers 23:19: God is not a man.
If God is infinite, timeless, and unbounded how does He become limited, located, and dependent without contradiction?
This isn’t dismissed it’s an unresolved tension.

9. Seen / carried proves limitation
Anything seen, carried, or physically constrained is by definition limited in space and time.
Saying “incarnation solves it” isn’t an explanation; it’s a label. The mechanism still needs to be made coherent.

10. Q19:71–72 (Hell passage)
Quoting half the verse misleads.
All pass by; only the wrongdoers remain.
Same structure as judgment passages in the Bible (e.g., Matthew 25:46): exposure not identical outcome.

11. Uthman and preservation
Standardization of recitation form, not invention of content.
No competing Qur’anic corpus survived as a rival text.
Compare that with multiple manuscript traditions in biblical history this is actually a point for preservation.

12. “Missing verses”
What you’re referring to are reports about abrogated recitations, not lost scripture.
Textual history exists in every tradition (see Jeremiah 8:.
History of transmission isn't corruption.

Repeating the same objections doesn’t strengthen them. Each point either applies equally to your own scripture or relies on a double standard.

If you want to go deeper, we can isolate just one issue like incarnation or revelation and analyze it step by step using consistent logic.

TV01:
You do realise that this claim is so vague as to be meaningless?
Even if not named, a clear timeline and detail of the "works" the "prophet" would accomplish should be readily discernible. And said "prophet" must fil them perfectly and deliver as stated. There is nothing there!

It reads so damningly, so poorly, when moose.slims make claim like "he is mentioned in the Songs of Solomons - with nothing indicating where he comes from, how he arises or what he will do. Nothing about his antecedents, parentage or lineage.

Shocking that you can claim prophetic characteristics, when there are no signs or wonders, no witnesses and no prophecies - about him or from him - nothing!.

As for scriptural indicators. What does that even mean? From scriptures moose.lslims claim are corrupted? There are no indicators, references, pointers, shadows or precursors for the advent of a local tribal warlord from the arabian peninsula succeeding the prophets of Israel, which the same bible you reference shows culminate in The Lord Jesus Christ.

As for a message of monotheism? Both Judaism and Christianity are clear that there is only one God.

Nothing, nada, nein, no, nyet, zero, zilch. He is not there, not, prophesied, identified, verified or witnessed.


TV

If your standard for prophecy demands clear names, timelines, and verifiable details, then Isaiah 53 fails it outright. It names no Jesus, gives no date, no location only a vague, poetic “servant” open to multiple interpretations. By your own criteria, it cannot function as a precise prophecy.

Yet the New Testament repeatedly reuses texts like Isaiah 7:14, Hosea 11:1, and Jeremiah 31:15 by lifting them out of their original context and applying them to Jesus. That is not strict prophecy it is interpretive re-reading.

So the issue is consistency. When it comes to Jesus, flexible, symbolic readings are accepted. When it comes to Muhammad peace and blessings of Allah be upon him the standard suddenly becomes rigid and literal.

But passages such as Deuteronomy 18:18, Isaiah 42, and John 14–16 can reasonably be read as pointing to a later figure non-Israelite, linked to Ishmael, bringing law, and conveying revelation. Dismissing them outright isn’t careful scholarship; it’s selective application of criteria.

Muhammad peace be upon him fits Deuteronomy 18:18 as a prophet like Moses by mirroring key human and leadership traits, having a biological father and mother, marrying, having children, leading a community and army, and delivering a complete law unlike Jesus, who does not share these parallels.

You can choose one method or the other. But you can’t switch standards depending on the conclusion you prefer.

honesttalk21:
Direct answers. Final submission. 📢

1. Q2:79 – fabrication vs transmission
This verse condemns knowingly inventing scripture and attributing it to God. It doesn’t describe a publicly recited, widely memorized text.
Your own Bible makes the same distinction: Jesus criticizes those who had scripture but distorted its meaning (Mark 7:8–9).
Different category so your argument doesn’t land.

You wrote a book with your hands called the Qur'an and claimed it is from Allah!

honesttalk21:
2. “No evidence of Jibril”
You’re applying a standard your own tradition doesn’t meet.
At Sinai, people explicitly avoid direct encounter and rely on Moses (Exodus 20:19). Revelation is not “video evidence”; it’s evaluated through consistency,transmission, and impact.
If you reject that standard, you undercut your own foundation.

It seems tou are not aware that they were TERRIFIED of God's presence that they asked Moses to represent them. Unfortunately, you also didn't know that Moses appointed 70 Elders of Israel who witnessed the God of Israel.

As per Jibril, who was the evidence?
Was it Waraqa!?

honesttalk21:
3. “Satanic verses”
Not found in any sahih (reliable) sources, rejected by the scholarly tradition.
Building an argument on weak reports is like constructing doctrine from apocrypha. Methodologically inconsistent.

Do you want us to start from the Asbab al-Nuzul of (Quran 53:19-20 to checkout the weakness of my claim and proceed from there.
SMH!

Why is Islam a religion of Denial of Truth?

honesttalk21:
4. Abrogation (Q2:106)
Yes some rulings are replaced. That’s not a flaw; it’s a feature of a law-giving system over time.
Your Bible does the same (e.g., Acts 10:15; shifts in legal codes).
So either both are invalid or neither is.

And verses were deleted, removed and forgotten from the Bible?

Are the words of your Quran eternal as claimed by you or not?
Are the so-called abrogated verses in the Qur'an of Allah in paradise or not?
Only Liars will not be able to answer this question truthfully!

honesttalk21:
5. “Jew = only ethnicity”
Your own text expands the term: “a Jew is one inwardly” (Romans 2:28–29).
So it’s not strictly ethnic in your own framework. You can’t restrict what your scripture broadens.

The only religion Allah knows is ETHNICITY of a group called Jews!

How cool os it to justify Ignorance of a supposed knowledgeable VIP!

honesttalk21:
6. "Where is Muhammad named?”
Prophecy doesn’t require explicit naming.
Isaiah 53 is understood as referring to Jesus without naming him.
Description-based recognition is already part of your interpretive method.

Except you are admitting that Allah is untrustworthy. If Allah says something, can we find it as said?

Why is it that Mohammed's name or description is not found anywhere in the Torah or Injeel?

honesttalk21:
7. Mary (Q21:91)
“Breathing” is metaphorical language for divine command same pattern as Adam (Genesis 2:7).
No biology implied just creative will. Taking it literally creates problems you don’t apply elsewhere.

Breathing into her vulva!?
I didn't ask you what it meant as Allah did not explain in DETAIL as he claimed: so, its not in your position to manufacture excuses for Allah.


The question was:
So, do you agree that the one who blew into Mary's vulva is the one who made Mary pregnant?

honesttalk21:
8. Incarnation and contradiction
Numbers 23:19: God is not a man.
If God is infinite, timeless, and unbounded how does He become limited, located, and dependent without contradiction?
This isn’t dismissed it’s an unresolved tension.

Is God a nan that he should tell Lies!?
No!
My God can be somewhere and everywhere at the same time without

Since Allah cannot become Incarnated without ceasing to be unlimited, then Allah cannot be Almighty!

The God of Moses, Abraham, Jews and Christians can Incarnate without ceasing to be Unlimited and evidences abound in the Torah and Injeel

Allah cannot because he is LIMITED!

honesttalk21:
9. Seen / carried proves limitation
Anything seen, carried, or physically constrained is by definition limited in space and time.
Saying “incarnation solves it” isn’t an explanation; it’s a label. The mechanism still needs to be made coherent.

Good!
You have just confirmed that Allah is LIMITED!
1. Eight limited angels carry the throne of Allah, meaning that Allah is limited
2. You Muslims will use your eyes to see Allah on the day of judgment, meaning that Allah is LIMITED!

See your life on the outside!

honesttalk21:
10. Q19:71–72 (Hell passage)
Quoting half the verse misleads.
All pass by; only the wrongdoers remain.
Same structure as judgment passages in the Bible (e.g., Matthew 25:46): exposure not identical outcome.

I agree with you only the evildoers remain after you have spent your time of eternity in hell.

What a smart trick to get you into the fire thinking that AFTER a long while, you will be released WITH the Christians removed from Paradise and used in exchange for you.
LOL!

You will wait taya!!

honesttalk21:
11. Uthman and preservation
Standardization of recitation form, not invention of content.
No competing Qur’anic corpus survived as a rival text.
Compare that with multiple manuscript traditions in biblical history this is actually a point for preservation.

Allah validated our scriptures with its corruption because he was ignorant of its content.

No wonder he commands us to judge by a book that says God is our Father and that Jesus died on the Cross andd Resurrected on the third day.

This is gross irreparable IGNORANCE!

honesttalk21:
12. “Missing verses”
What you’re referring to are reports about abrogated recitations, not lost scripture.
Textual history exists in every tradition (see Jeremiah 8:.
History of transmission isn't corruption.

Were the abrogated verses part of the eternal Qur'an of Allah on the tablet in paradise?

honesttalk21:
Repeating the same objections doesn’t strengthen them. Each point either applies equally to your own scripture or relies on a double standard.

If you want to go deeper, we can isolate just one issue like incarnation or revelation and analyze it step by step using consistent logic.

Avoiding sensible answers for my questions weaken your case and position!

TenQ:
You wrote a book with your hands called the Qur'an and claimed it is from Allah!


It seems tou are not aware that they were TERRIFIED of God's presence that they asked Moses to represent them. Unfortunately, you also didn't know that Moses appointed 70 Elders of Israel who witnessed the God of Israel.

As per Jibril, who was the evidence?
Was it Waraqa!?


Do you want us to start from the Asbab al-Nuzul of (Quran 53:19-20 to checkout the weakness of my claim and proceed from there.
SMH!

Why is Islam a religion of Denial of Truth?


And verses were deleted, removed and forgotten from the Bible?

Are the words of your Quran eternal as claimed by you or not?
Are the so-called abrogated verses in the Qur'an of Allah in paradise or not?
Only Liars will not be able to answer this question truthfully!


The only religion Allah knows is ETHNICITY of a group called Jews!

How cool os it to justify Ignorance of a supposed knowledgeable VIP!


Except you are admitting that Allah is untrustworthy. If Allah says something, can we find it as said?

Why is it that Mohammed's name or description is not found anywhere in the Torah or Injeel?




Breathing into her vulva!?
I didn't ask you what it meant as Allah did not explain in DETAIL as he claimed: so, its not in your position to manufacture excuses for Allah.


The question was:
So, do you agree that the one who blew into Mary's vulva is the one who made Mary pregnant?



Is God a nan that he should tell Lies!?
No!
My God can be somewhere and everywhere at the same time without

Since Allah cannot become Incarnated without ceasing to be unlimited, then Allah cannot be Almighty!

The God of Moses, Abraham, Jews and Christians can Incarnate without ceasing to be Unlimited and evidences abound in the Torah and Injeel

Allah cannot because he is LIMITED!


Good!
You have just confirmed that Allah is LIMITED!
1. Eight limited angels carry the throne of Allah, meaning that Allah is limited
2. You Muslims will use your eyes to see Allah on the day of judgment, meaning that Allah is LIMITED!

See your life on the outside!




I agree with you only the evildoers remain after you have spent your time of eternity in hell.

What a smart trick to get you into the fire thinking that AFTER a long while, you will be released WITH the Christians removed from Paradise and used in exchange for you.
LOL!

You will wait taya!!



Allah validated our scriptures with its corruption because he was ignorant of its content.

No wonder he commands us to judge by a book that says God is our Father and that Jesus died on the Cross andd Resurrected on the third day.

This is gross irreparable IGNORANCE!



Were the abrogated verses part of the eternal Qur'an of Allah on the tablet in paradise?


Avoiding sensible answers for my questions weaken your case and position!

Are you minding aitalk?
All what he wrote were completely generated!

Even his AI agent is unaware that each book is responsible for substantiating its own claims! The Quran can't substantiate such claims against an Eternal tablet😂—Abrogation clearly shows it was man-made!

The bible doesn't have such claims so his Ai's appeal is totally irrelevant 🥱. The irony of trying to play down "abrogation" and incomplete surahs😂.

I still wonder why the people cried out to Uthman if "differences" were mainly 'dialectal'😂👀. There were big theological differences which Uthman sought to 'trim'. Even at this, he still failed🤨. We have over 20+ variants of the Quran👀, Eternal immutable🤕 speech of Allah😔, with over thousands of differences.

His agent even entangled itself by mentioning "apocrypha". It failed to realize that the religion was built on apocryphal books😂. It bears remarkable similarities with the Talmuds, which leads to the Talmudic dilemma👀. It also has several stories plagiarized from the protoevangelium of James among others😂.

Imagine an infinite, all powerful👀, supposedly omnipresent and omnipotent God calling Alexander, the great, a Muslim😂. Someone who was a certified pagan🤦🏾‍♂️! Should I apply principles of equivocation👀?...fallacies Muslims employ everyday... Dare I posit that being "Muslim", based on this, means "being pagan"😂.

Job well done, brother. He can only hide behind generative ai😂 which just spews out old rehashed scripts🥱.

Gabrielshow24:
Are you minding aitalk?
All what he wrote were completely generated!

Even his AI agent is unaware that each book is responsible for substantiating its own claims! The Quran can't substantiate such claims against an Eternal tablet😂—Abrogation clearly shows it was man-made!

The bible doesn't have such claims so his Ai's appeal is totally irrelevant 🥱. The irony of trying to play down "abrogation" and incomplete surahs😂.

I still wonder why the people cried out to Uthman if "differences" were mainly 'dialectal'😂👀. There were big theological differences which Uthman sought to 'trim'. Even at this, he still failed🤨. We have over 20+ variants of the Quran👀, Eternal immutable🤕 speech of Allah😔, with over thousands of differences.

His agent even entangled itself by mentioning "apocrypha". It failed to realize that the religion was built on apocryphal books😂. It bears remarkable similarities with the Talmuds, which leads to the Talmudic dilemma👀. It also has several stories plagiarized from the protoevangelium of James among others😂.

Imagine an infinite, all powerful👀, supposedly omnipresent and omnipotent God calling Alexander, the great, a Muslim😂. Someone who was a certified pagan🤦🏾‍♂️! Should I apply principles of equivocation👀?...fallacies Muslims employ everyday... Dare I posit that being "Muslim", based on this, means "being pagan"😂.

Job well done, brother. He can only hide behind generative ai😂 which just spews out old rehashed scripts🥱.

I am well aware that he may be mostly using AI to generate answers unfortunately, the AI he uses are dumb probably because he deletes any answer he feels incriminating and posts only the incoherent and unrelated answers. Only God know how much the Muslim world have paid the owners of AI companies to help them in getting out their preferred narrative.

The major weakness of him and his AI is that they routinely discard the words of Allah AND Mohammed with narratives from SELECTIVE Islamic scholars. Unfortunately, the proper way should be that the Islamic scholars should actually go in line with what Allah and Mohammed had spoken in the Qur'an and Hadiths and not contradict or modify it.

Islam indeed is a Religion of DENIAL of Truth for preferred selected Narrative of men!

TenQ:
You wrote a book with your hands called the Qur'an and claimed it is from Allah!


It seems tou are not aware that they were TERRIFIED of God's presence that they asked Moses to represent them. Unfortunately, you also didn't know that Moses appointed 70 Elders of Israel who witnessed the God of Israel.

As per Jibril, who was the evidence?
Was it Waraqa!?


Do you want us to start from the Asbab al-Nuzul of (Quran 53:19-20 to checkout the weakness of my claim and proceed from there.
SMH!

Why is Islam a religion of Denial of Truth?


And verses were deleted, removed and forgotten from the Bible?

Are the words of your Quran eternal as claimed by you or not?
Are the so-called abrogated verses in the Qur'an of Allah in paradise or not?
Only Liars will not be able to answer this question truthfully!


The only religion Allah knows is ETHNICITY of a group called Jews!

How cool os it to justify Ignorance of a supposed knowledgeable VIP!


Except you are admitting that Allah is untrustworthy. If Allah says something, can we find it as said?

Why is it that Mohammed's name or description is not found anywhere in the Torah or Injeel?




Breathing into her vulva!?
I didn't ask you what it meant as Allah did not explain in DETAIL as he claimed: so, its not in your position to manufacture excuses for Allah.


The question was:
So, do you agree that the one who blew into Mary's vulva is the one who made Mary pregnant?



Is God a nan that he should tell Lies!?
No!
My God can be somewhere and everywhere at the same time without

Since Allah cannot become Incarnated without ceasing to be unlimited, then Allah cannot be Almighty!

The God of Moses, Abraham, Jews and Christians can Incarnate without ceasing to be Unlimited and evidences abound in the Torah and Injeel

Allah cannot because he is LIMITED!


Good!
You have just confirmed that Allah is LIMITED!
1. Eight limited angels carry the throne of Allah, meaning that Allah is limited
2. You Muslims will use your eyes to see Allah on the day of judgment, meaning that Allah is LIMITED!

See your life on the outside!




I agree with you only the evildoers remain after you have spent your time of eternity in hell.

What a smart trick to get you into the fire thinking that AFTER a long while, you will be released WITH the Christians removed from Paradise and used in exchange for you.
LOL!

You will wait taya!!



Allah validated our scriptures with its corruption because he was ignorant of its content.

No wonder he commands us to judge by a book that says God is our Father and that Jesus died on the Cross andd Resurrected on the third day.

This is gross irreparable IGNORANCE!



Were the abrogated verses part of the eternal Qur'an of Allah on the tablet in paradise?


Avoiding sensible answers for my questions weaken your case and position!

Now it’s confirmed. You are acting like you got lost in the discussion?
Two separate submissions were already answered, the first with fourteen direct numbered responses, the second with twelve. Merging them into one new post doesn’t create new questions. It just reorganizes what was already addressed.

You didn’t engage; true to type, you multiplied claims. Jumping from one point to another doesn’t strengthen a case. It avoids scrutiny.

Flooding an exchange with unconnected angles has a name;gish gallop, and it works by creating the impression of weight rather than the substance of it.

The audience sees it even when the one doing it doesn’t.

When ten arguments are thrown at once, none of them get properly examined. That is the point of the technique. But it also reveals something: a position that needs that many diversions to survive is a position that cannot stand still long enough to be tested.

Fourteen points were answered directly and numbered. Then twelve more. The response was to merge both into one new submission as if the answers hadn’t been given. That is not pursuit of truth. That is the hope that reorganizing questions substitutes for engaging answers. Patheticc.
Every point has been addressed. Twice in some cases. The answers are sitting above this post in the thread. If any single one of those points holds, isolate it. Stand on it. Defend it without borrowing from the others. You can do this for each single one if you like, but not a flood unless you feign being too busy to or actually don’t want to face the truth in each.

Right now, the volume is doing what the substance cannot. Pick one. Let’s examine it properly.

honesttalk21:
Now it’s confirmed. You are acting like you got lost in the discussion?
Two separate submissions were already answered, the first with fourteen direct numbered responses, the second with twelve. Merging them into one new post doesn’t create new questions. It just reorganizes what was already addressed.

You didn’t engage; true to type, you multiplied claims. Jumping from one point to another doesn’t strengthen a case. It avoids scrutiny.

Flooding an exchange with unconnected angles has a name;gish gallop, and it works by creating the impression of weight rather than the substance of it.

The audience sees it even when the one doing it doesn’t.

When ten arguments are thrown at once, none of them get properly examined. That is the point of the technique. But it also reveals something: a position that needs that many diversions to survive is a position that cannot stand still long enough to be tested.

Fourteen points were answered directly and numbered. Then twelve more. The response was to merge both into one new submission as if the answers hadn’t been given. That is not pursuit of truth. That is the hope that reorganizing questions substitutes for engaging answers. Patheticc.
Every point has been addressed. Twice in some cases. The answers are sitting above this post in the thread. If any single one of those points holds, isolate it. Stand on it. Defend it without borrowing from the others. You can do this for each single one if you like, but not a flood unless you feign being too busy to or actually don’t want to face the truth in each.

Right now, the volume is doing what the substance cannot. Pick one. Let’s examine it properly.

All I did was to poke deep HOLES in your narratives parroted as answers to my questions. Those holes remain unplugged with your feeble responses feigning to be answers to the questions.

You avoid answering questions that betray the feebleness of your claims.

If the Qur'an is truely eternal, then Abrogation is a LIE!

The Asbab al-Nuzul of Quran 53:19-20 is the first evidence that the Satanic verse was real even before we look at your sirah

Allah enjoined the people of the book to judge from their corrupt scripture is a clear prove that the author of the Qur'an is aka Mohammed as he doesn't know.

You think speaking your defense is the same as speaking the truth and answer!? You are mistaken!
This is why the one who passes an exam is not the one who wrote the most but the one who wrote according to the truth of the marking scheme.

Unfortunately, here you failed terribly!




Why is Islam a religion of Denial of Truth?

TenQ:
All I did was to poke deep HOLES in your narratives parroted as answers to my questions. Those holes remain unplugged with your feeble responses feigning to be answers to the questions.

You avoid answering questions that betray the feebleness of your claims.

If the Qur'an is truely eternal, then Abrogation is a LIE!

The Asbab al-Nuzul of Quran 53:19-20 is the first evidence that the Satanic verse was real even before we look at your sirah

Allah enjoined the people of the book to judge from their corrupt scripture is a clear prove that the author of the Qur'an is aka Mohammed as he doesn't know.

You think speaking your defense is the same as speaking the truth and answer!? You are mistaken!
This is why the one who passes an exam is not the one who wrote the most but the one who wrote according to the truth of the marking scheme.

Unfortunately, here you failed terribly!




Why is Islam a religion of Denial of Truth?

You keep dodging the core issue. Your individual arguments are weak, so you bundle them instead of proving any one of them.

You lean on claims already disputed like the “Satanic verses” and misread how the Qur’an addresses the People of the Book. None of this shows corruption or contradiction; it reflects confusion between revelation, its transmission, and later interpretations.

Your method fails at the basic level. Stacking claims isn’t proof. Demonstrating textual corruption requires clear evidence; altered finalized texts, manuscript variation, or early documented disputes. You provide none. What you offer are scattered, often weak reports paired with interpretive leaps. That’s not evidence; it’s misreading. Bottom line: the claim that Islam distorts or denies truth isn’t supported it rests on misrepresentation and inconsistent standards.

honesttalk21:
You keep dodging the core issue. Your individual arguments are weak, so you bundle them instead of proving any one of them.

You lean on claims already disputed like the “Satanic verses” and misread how the Qur’an addresses the People of the Book. None of this shows corruption or contradiction; it reflects confusion between revelation, its transmission, and later interpretations.

You speak like the satanic verses doesn't exist and its a fabrication however, I asked

Can you quote what the Asbab al-Nuzul of Quran 53:19-20 said before even before we look at your Hadiths and Sirah?

Are you bold enough for this?

honesttalk21:
Your method fails at the basic level. Stacking claims isn’t proof. Demonstrating textual corruption requires clear evidence; altered finalized texts, manuscript variation, or early documented disputes. You provide none. What you offer are scattered, often weak reports paired with interpretive leaps. That’s not evidence; it’s misreading. Bottom line: the claim that Islam distorts or denies truth isn’t supported it rests on misrepresentation and inconsistent standards.

Showing you evidences from your sources is proof and necessary evidence.
This I did very well with no response other than denial of events.

I ask again:
Why is Islam a religion of Denial of the Truth?

TenQ:
You speak like the satanic verses doesn't exist and its a fabrication however, I asked

Can you quote what the Asbab al-Nuzul of Quran 53:19-20 said before even before we look at your Hadiths and Sirah?

Are you bold enough for this?


Showing you evidences from your sources is proof and necessary evidence.
This I did very well with no response other than denial of events.

I ask again:
Why is Islam a religion of Denial of the Truth?

Asbab al-Nuzul is Hadith and Sirah. You cannot cite it "before" the sources it is literally built from. That is not a challenge — that is a circular trap you set for yourself.

Al-Tabari records weak, strong and disputed narrations alike. Appearing in his tafsir proves nothing about authenticity. Your own tradition's scholars rejected these specific narrations on that basis. That is not denial — that is Islamic scholarship doing exactly what it does.

And even if every disputed narration were true, they describe an interference that was *caught and rejected*. You are presenting a failed attempt as evidence of a successful corruption. That is not logic.

Where you can no longer defend your stance you revert to calling disagreement "denial of truth" which is not an argument. It is what someone says when their evidence has run out.

honesttalk21:
Asbab al-Nuzul is Hadith and Sirah. You cannot cite it "before" the sources it is literally built from. That is not a challenge — that is a circular trap you set for yourself.

Al-Tabari records weak, strong and disputed narrations alike. Appearing in his tafsir proves nothing about authenticity. Your own tradition's scholars rejected these specific narrations on that basis. That is not denial — that is Islamic scholarship doing exactly what it does.

Did I ask you about al-tabari!?
So, you have. no answer!?

honesttalk21:
And even if every disputed narration were true, they describe an interference that was *caught and rejected*. You are presenting a failed attempt as evidence of a successful corruption. That is not logic.

Where you can no longer defend your stance you revert to calling disagreement "denial of truth" which is not an argument. It is what someone says when their evidence has run out.

Rejecting what is TRUE doesn't make it untrue.


Why is Islam a religion of Denial of the Truth?

TenQ:
Did I ask you about al-tabari!?
So, you have. no answer!?


Rejecting what is TRUE doesn't make it untrue.


Why is Islam a religion of Denial of the Truth?

You can’t use a report while dismissing the sources that preserve it. Saying you didn’t ask about al-Tabari is a deflection, not a rebuttal.

You are yet to show a single clearly authenticated truth that Islam denies. Until you do, your claim remains unsupported.

honesttalk21:
You can’t use a report while dismissing the sources that preserve it. Saying you didn’t ask about al-Tabari is a deflection, not a rebuttal.

You are yet to show a single clearly authenticated truth that Islam denies. Until you do, your claim remains unsupported.

Too easy but you will deny it as usual

Allah says no one will bear the burden of sin of another

Quran 6:164
Say, "Is it other than Allah I should desire as a lord while He is the Lord of all things? And every soul earns not [blame] except against itself, and no bearer of burdens will bear the burden of another. Then to your Lord is your return, and He will inform you concerning that over which you used to differ."

Allah says some people will in addition to their own burden carry the burdens of thise they have deceived

Quran 16:25
those who fabricate lies against Allah will bear their own burdens fully on the Day of Resurrection, along with some of the burdens of those they mislead without knowledge. Evil indeed is what they bear


Your Hadith says categorically that the sins of Muslims will be put on the head of Jews and Christians

Sahih Muslim 2767d:
Abu Burda reported: The Prophet said, "There would come people amongst the Muslims on the Day of Resurrection with as heavy sins as a mountain, and Allah would forgive them and He would place in their stead the Jews and the Christians."


Quran contradicted Qur'an
Hadith Contradicted Qur'an

See your life outside. How you can hold on to this self delusion is a wonder!




Is it true that Allah says no one will bear the burden of sin of another

TenQ:
Too easy but you will deny it as usual

Allah says no one will bear the burden of sin of another

Quran 6:164
Say, "Is it other than Allah I should desire as a lord while He is the Lord of all things? And every soul earns not [blame] except against itself, and no bearer of burdens will bear the burden of another. Then to your Lord is your return, and He will inform you concerning that over which you used to differ."

Allah says some people will in addition to their own burden carry the burdens of thise they have deceived

Quran 16:25
those who fabricate lies against Allah will bear their own burdens fully on the Day of Resurrection, along with some of the burdens of those they mislead without knowledge. Evil indeed is what they bear


Your Hadith says categorically that the sins of Muslims will be put on the head of Jews and Christians

Sahih Muslim 2767d:
Abu Burda reported: The Prophet said, "There would come people amongst the Muslims on the Day of Resurrection with as heavy sins as a mountain, and Allah would forgive them and He would place in their stead the Jews and the Christians."


Quran contradicted Qur'an
Hadith Contradicted Qur'an

See your life outside. How you can hold on to this self delusion is a wonder!




Is it true that Allah says no one will bear the burden of sin of another

Yes, the satanic verses and Asbab al-Nuzul point is now addressed satisfactorily and can be crossed off.

These verses do not clash.

6:164 sets a rule. No one carries another person’s sin. Each soul owns its deeds.

16:25 adds a detail. People who mislead others carry extra responsibility. Their own actions create that burden.

No transfer happens between souls. Only personal accountability expands through influence.

Sahih Muslim 2767 uses “fikak.” Classical Arabic usage points to release or relief. Not transfer of sins. Scholars like an-Nawawi read it within intercession and mercy, not substitution of guilt.

The key issue sits in method, not text.

One rule applied across all sources avoids tension. Each person answers for their deeds. Influence changes weight of responsibility, not ownership of sin.

Islamic agents deleted my post after hours after posting. What are you guys afraid of?

honesttalk21:
Yes, the satanic verses and Asbab al-Nuzul point is now addressed satisfactorily and can be crossed off.

These verses do not clash.

Aren't you ashamed, from your claim that

3. “Satanic verses”
Not found in any sahih (reliable) sources, rejected by the scholarly tradition.
Building an argument on weak reports is like constructing doctrine from apocrypha. Methodologically inconsistent.

Suddenly, you said:
Yes, the satanic verses and Asbab al-Nuzul point is now addressed satisfactorily and can be crossed off.

So, you admit that the Satanic Verse exist but you answered it satisfactorily!?
SMH!

Why are you afraid of quoting the Asbab al-Nuzul Quran 53:19-20

honesttalk21:
6:164 sets a rule. No one carries another person’s sin. Each soul owns its deeds.

16:25 adds a detail. People who mislead others carry extra responsibility. Their own actions create that burden.

Sorry Allah was wrong! It seems you are not aware that
The misleader commits two sins:
1. His own original sin (say, fabricating against Allah).
2. The act of misleading others (which is just another thing he does).

Then the punishment for both is his own burden, because both sins are committed by him.
So there is no “extra” burden from another’s sin; there is only more sins of his own, and thus more punishment for himself.

Checkmate!
Tell me, do you think the misleader will not carry his burden of sin for misleading another person?

honesttalk21:
No transfer happens between souls. Only personal accountability expands through influence.

Sahih Muslim 2767 uses “fikak.” Classical Arabic usage points to release or relief. Not transfer of sins. Scholars like an-Nawawi read it within intercession and mercy, not substitution of guilt.

The key issue sits in method, not text.

One rule applied across all sources avoids tension. Each person answers for their deeds. Influence changes weight of responsibility, not ownership of sin.
The misleader commits two sins:
His own original sin (say, fabricating against Allah).
The act of misleading others (which is just another thing he does).
Then the punishment for both is his own burden, because both sins are committed by him.
So there is no “extra” burden from another’s sin; there is only more sins of his own, and thus more punishment for himself.

All these are your new additions! Was this the reason my post was deleted?

Yes, there is a logical tension with Qur’an 6:164 (and 35:18, 53:38), which say:
“No bearer of burdens will bear the burden of another.”

Because if “burden” = punishment for an offense, then:
Qur'an 6:164 says: Punishment‑A belongs only to Person‑A.
Qur'an 16:25 then says: Person‑B (misleader) also bears some of Punishment‑A (from Person‑A).


See what your Allah said if you think that there is no “extra” burden from another’s sin; there is only more sins of his own, and thus more punishment for himself.

Quran 16:25
those who fabricate lies against Allah will bear their own burdens fully on the Day of Resurrection, along with some of the burdens of those they mislead without knowledge. Evil indeed is what they bear


The MISLEADER takes ALONG SOME OF THE BURDENS OF THOSE THEY MISLED and not the burden of his own sins.

BUT as usual, you don't believe in Allah nor his words. You believe more in your Lying scholars.

Allah was explicit:
those who fabricate lies against Allah will bear their own burdens fully on the Day of Resurrection, along with some of the burdens of those they mislead without knowledge. Evil indeed is what they bear

Another logical contradiction!
No one bears the burden of the sins of another
BUT
some people will bear SOME of the burden of Sin of those they Misled!


Tell them to delete this again!
Islam is the only religion where the words of their God is disrespected by his worshippers


Sahih Muslim 2767 makes it worse.

TenQ:
Islamic agents deleted my post after hours after posting. What are you guys afraid of?

Aren't you ashamed, from your claim that

Suddenly, you said:
Yes, the satanic verses and Asbab al-Nuzul point is now addressed satisfactorily and can be crossed off.

So, you admit that the Satanic Verse exist but you answered it satisfactorily!?
SMH!

Why are you afraid of quoting the Asbab al-Nuzul Quran 53:19-20



Sorry Allah was wrong! It seems you are not aware that
The misleader commits two sins:
1. His own original sin (say, fabricating against Allah).
2. The act of misleading others (which is just another thing he does).

Then the punishment for both is his own burden, because both sins are committed by him.
So there is no “extra” burden from another’s sin; there is only more sins of his own, and thus more punishment for himself.

Checkmate!
Tell me, do you think the misleader will not carry his burden of sin for misleading another person?


All these are your new additions! Was this the reason my post was deleted?

Yes, there is a logical tension with Qur’an 6:164 (and 35:18, 53:38), which say:
“No bearer of burdens will bear the burden of another.”

Because if “burden” = punishment for an offense, then:
Qur'an 6:164 says: Punishment‑A belongs only to Person‑A.
Qur'an 16:25 then says: Person‑B (misleader) also bears some of Punishment‑A (from Person‑A).


See what your Allah said if you think that there is no “extra” burden from another’s sin; there is only more sins of his own, and thus more punishment for himself.

Quran 16:25
those who fabricate lies against Allah will bear their own burdens fully on the Day of Resurrection, along with some of the burdens of those they mislead without knowledge. Evil indeed is what they bear


The MISLEADER takes ALONG SOME OF THE BURDENS OF THOSE THEY MISLED and not the burden of his own sins.

BUT as usual, you don't believe in Allah nor his words. You believe more in your Lying scholars.

Allah was explicit:
those who fabricate lies against Allah will bear their own burdens fully on the Day of Resurrection, along with some of the burdens of those they mislead without knowledge. Evil indeed is what they bear

Another logical contradiction!
No one bears the burden of the sins of another
BUT
some people will bear SOME of the burden of Sin of those they Misled!


Tell them to delete this again!
Islam is the only religion where the words of their God is disrespected by his worshippers


Sahih Muslim 2767 makes it worse.

Nobody deleted your post because of its content. Posts get removed when they break forum rules, you already know that from being here. There isn’t some hidden group of Muslims amongst the moderators or programmed into the system targeting you; it’s the same moderation applied across the board.

When your point was marked as addressed, that wasn’t agreement, it simply meant a response had been given. That’s procedural, not validation. The reports about the so-called Satanic Verses linked to Surah 53:19–20 have been scrutinized for centuries and are consistently graded weak or fabricated in the tafsir tradition, including by Ibn Kathir. If there’s a specific part you think wasn’t answered, isolate it and bring it forward. Repeating the same point across threads without narrowing it just diffuses the discussion.

On burden and responsibility, there isn’t a contradiction to resolve. Quran 6:164 sets the principle: no one is punished for another’s sin. Quran 16:25 addresses a different issue: those who actively mislead others are accountable for the consequences they cause. That’s not transfer, it’s responsibility.

This isn’t a later patch. The Prophet pbuh spells it out in Sahih Muslim 2674: whoever leads others astray carries a burden equal to what results from that misguidance, without reducing what those people themselves carry. Everyone answers for their own actions, and the one who caused the harm answers for causing it. Quran 29:13 reinforces the same framework independently.

The confusion only comes in when burden is read as if sins are being shifted from one person to another, which the text itself denies. Keep that distinction clear, and the supposed contradiction disappears.

Saying something is wrong doesn’t establish that it is. If there’s a real issue, it has to be shown through the language and structure of the texts not just asserted.

In Qur’an 16:25 the phrase wa-min awzari means “a share resulting from, not sins being transferred. The misleader carries his own sins plus additional blame for causing others to go astray, the followers still carry theirs in full.

That’s exactly why it aligns with Qur’an 6:164: no soul carries another’s sin. It’s not transfer, it’s responsibility for consequences.

The Prophet pbuh made this explicit in Sahih Muslim 2674: whoever leads others astray bears a burden like theirs without reducing theirs at all. Parallel accountability not substitution.

honesttalk21:
Nobody deleted your post because of its content. Posts get removed when they break forum rules, you already know that from being here. There isn’t some hidden group of Muslims amongst the moderators or programmed into the system targeting you; it’s the same moderation applied across the board.

When your point was marked as addressed, that wasn’t agreement, it simply meant a response had been given. That’s procedural, not validation. The reports about the so-called Satanic Verses linked to Surah 53:19–20 have been scrutinized for centuries and are consistently graded weak or fabricated in the tafsir tradition, including by Ibn Kathir. If there’s a specific part you think wasn’t answered, isolate it and bring it forward. Repeating the same point across threads without narrowing it just diffuses the discussion.

On burden and responsibility, there isn’t a contradiction to resolve. Quran 6:164 sets the principle: no one is punished for another’s sin. Quran 16:25 addresses a different issue: those who actively mislead others are accountable for the consequences they cause. That’s not transfer, it’s responsibility.

Denial of damning Evidence is not synonymous with satisfactory answers sir.
Isn't it true that EVERY fraudster when caught deny evidence and hope that such evidences be treated as circumstancial?

Why did your early Muslim scholars tell such kind of lies against your prophet if they were not true?

Why are you afraid of quoting the Asbab al-Nuzul of Quran 53:19-20

honesttalk21:
This isn’t a later patch. The Prophet pbuh spells it out in Sahih Muslim 2674: whoever leads others astray carries a burden equal to what results from that misguidance, without reducing what those people themselves carry. Everyone answers for their own actions, and the one who caused the harm answers for causing it. Quran 29:13 reinforces the same framework independently.

You have to treat Allah as being incoherent for Islam to make sense. What exactly did Allah say without your interpolations and re-interpretations?

honesttalk21:
The confusion only comes in when burden is read as if sins are being shifted from one person to another, which the text itself denies. Keep that distinction clear, and the supposed contradiction disappears.

Read my post as I never assumed sin was transferred: this wasn't what Allah said.

It is the BURDEN of SIN that is carried NOT the SIN

The burden of sin is the PUNISHMENT for SIN!

So Allah's error again
1. No one will bear the Punishment of the sin of another
2. People who mislead others will carry in adding SOME of the Punishment of the sin of the Misled person.
3. The Hadith was even very specific of Christians and Jews bearing the Punishment of the Muslims.

honesttalk21:
Saying something is wrong doesn’t establish that it is. If there’s a real issue, it has to be shown through the language and structure of the texts not just asserted.

Unfortunately, Allah's words meaning NOTHING to you as Muslims because you have to reinterpret it for Islam to make any sense

Is is UNTRUE that the misleader commits two sins:
1. His own original sin (say, fabricating against Allah).
2. The act of misleading others (which is just another thing he does).

Then the punishment for both is his own burden, because both sins are committed by him.
So there is no “extra” burden from another’s sin; there is only more sins of his own, and thus more punishment for himself.

BUT Allah says
Quran 16:25
those who fabricate lies against Allah will bear their own burdens fully on the Day of Resurrection, along with some of the burdens of those they mislead without knowledge. Evil indeed is what they bear

Did Allah say that the Misleader will carry SOME OF THE BURDENS OF THOSE THEY MISLED or NOT?

TenQ:
Denial of damning Evidence is not synonymous with satisfactory answers sir.
Isn't it true that EVERY fraudster when caught deny evidence and hope that such evidences be treated as circumstancial?

Why did your early Muslim scholars tell such kind of lies against your prophet if they were not true?

Why are you afraid of quoting the Asbab al-Nuzul of Quran 53:19-20


You have to treat Allah as being incoherent for Islam to make sense. What exactly did Allah say without your interpolations and re-interpretations?


Read my post as I never assumed sin was transferred: this wasn't what Allah said.

It is the BURDEN of SIN that is carried NOT the SIN

The burden of sin is the PUNISHMENT for SIN!

So Allah's error again
1. No one will bear the Punishment of the sin of another
2. People who mislead others will carry in adding SOME of the Punishment of the sin of the Misled person.
3. The Hadith was even very specific of Christians and Jews bearing the Punishment of the Muslims.




Unfortunately, Allah's words meaning NOTHING to you as Muslims because you have to reinterpret it for Islam to make any sense

Is is UNTRUE that the misleader commits two sins:
1. His own original sin (say, fabricating against Allah).
2. The act of misleading others (which is just another thing he does).

Then the punishment for both is his own burden, because both sins are committed by him.
So there is no “extra” burden from another’s sin; there is only more sins of his own, and thus more punishment for himself.

BUT Allah says
Quran 16:25
those who fabricate lies against Allah will bear their own burdens fully on the Day of Resurrection, along with some of the burdens of those they mislead without knowledge. Evil indeed is what they bear

Did Allah say that the Misleader will carry SOME OF THE BURDENS OF THOSE THEY MISLED or NOT?

You’re treating transmission as endorsement, and that’s where the confusion starts.

The reports around Surah 53:19–20 were already cited and answered. Early scholars like Ibn Kathir and al-Tabari didn’t lie, they recorded everything and then graded it. That’s how hadith science works. Quoting a weak report to critique it isn’t fabrication, it’s method. You can’t lean on those scholars when it suits you, then dismiss their methodology when it doesn’t.

Now the core issue.

Yes, Qur’an 16:25 says misleaders carry from the burdens of those they mislead but you’re reading that as transfer. The Prophet himself closed that door in Sahih Muslim 2674. The one who misguides carries a burden like theirs without reducing theirs at all. That’s not shared punishment, it’s added liability for causing harm.

So 6:164 and 16:25 are not in contrast. One denies transfer. The other affirms responsibility for consequences. Both stand exactly as they are.

The contradiction only appears when you strip the verse from the explanation that was given with it. Once you put them back together, it resolves cleanly and stays resolved.

honesttalk21:
You’re treating transmission as endorsement, and that’s where the confusion starts.

The reports around Surah 53:19–20 were already cited and answered. Early scholars like Ibn Kathir and al-Tabari didn’t lie, they recorded everything and then graded it. That’s how hadith science works. Quoting a weak report to critique it isn’t fabrication, it’s method. You can’t lean on those scholars when it suits you, then dismiss their methodology when it doesn’t.

It seems you are not aware that your witness At-Tabari wrote his book 280+ years after the death of Mohammed
It is even worse for Ibn Kathir who wrote 700+ years after the death of Mohammed.

Again, Why did your early Muslim scholars tell such kind of lies against your prophet if they were not true?

Why are you afraid of quoting the Asbab al-Nuzul of Quran 53:19-20

honesttalk21:
Now the core issue.

Yes, Qur’an 16:25 says misleaders carry from the burdens of those they mislead but you’re reading that as transfer.

Exactly, contradicting

Quran 6:164
Say, "Is it other than Allah I should desire as a lord while He is the Lord of all things? And every soul earns not [blame] except against itself, and no bearer of burdens will bear the burden of another . Then to your Lord is your return, and He will inform you concerning that over which you used to differ."

Allah says NO ONE will bear the Burden of sin of another
BUT
You just agreed that Qur'an 16:25 says that SOME PEOPLE (misleaders) will carry from the burden of those they Misled.

honesttalk21:
The Prophet himself closed that door in Sahih Muslim 2674. The one who misguides carries a burden like theirs without reducing theirs at all. That’s not shared punishment, it’s added liability for causing harm.

If the hadith Muslim 2674 is not a contradiction or an error, tell me
1. Will Muslims be punished in hell for their sins since you have to bear your own burden of sin?
2. Why then would Allah uses Christians and Jews as a RANSOM for you Muslims from the Fire.
3. Can Mohammad override the plain edict of Allah in the Qur'an?

honesttalk21:
So 6:164 and 16:25 are not in contrast. One denies transfer. The other affirms responsibility for consequences. Both stand exactly as they are.

The contradiction only appears when you strip the verse from the explanation that was given with it. Once you put them back together, it resolves cleanly and stays resolved.

Quran 6:164 and Qur'an 16:25 contradict each other except if Mohammed is your FINAL Authority on this case.

Statement A:
Allah says no one will bear the burdens of the sins of another

Statement B:
Allah says, some people will bear SOME OF the Burdens of the sin of those they Misled

Statement C:
Mohammed says the Misleader will be punished in addition to his sins the punishment the misled would bear without lessing the punishment of the Misled.


Unfortunately, all you have said is that
Statement A = Statement C
BUT
Statement B CONTRADICTS both Statements A and C

Allah contradicts himself and Mohammed

TenQ:
It seems you are not aware that your witness At-Tabari wrote his book 280+ years after the death of Mohammed
It is even worse for Ibn Kathir who wrote 700+ years after the death of Mohammed.

Again, Why did your early Muslim scholars tell such kind of lies against your prophet if they were not true?

Why are you afraid of quoting the Asbab al-Nuzul of Quran 53:19-20


Exactly, contradicting

Quran 6:164
Say, "Is it other than Allah I should desire as a lord while He is the Lord of all things? And every soul earns not [blame] except against itself, and no bearer of burdens will bear the burden of another . Then to your Lord is your return, and He will inform you concerning that over which you used to differ."

Allah says NO ONE will bear the Burden of sin of another
BUT
You just agreed that Qur'an 16:25 says that SOME PEOPLE (misleaders) will carry from the burden of those they Misled.



If the hadith Muslim 2674 is not a contradiction or an error, tell me
1. Will Muslims be punished in hell for their sins since you have to bear your own burden of sin?
2. Why then would Allah uses Christians and Jews as a RANSOM for you Muslims from the Fire.
3. Can Mohammad override the plain edict of Allah in the Qur'an?


Quran 6:164 and Qur'an 16:25 contradict each other except if Mohammed is your FINAL Authority on this case.

Statement A:
Allah says no one will bear the burdens of the sins of another

Statement B:
Allah says, some people will bear SOME OF the Burdens of the sin of those they Misled

Statement C:
Mohammed says the Misleader will be punished in addition to his sins the punishment the misled would bear without lessing the punishment of the Misled.


Unfortunately, all you have said is that
Statement A = Statement C
BUT
Statement B CONTRADICTS both Statements A and C

Allah contradicts himself and Mohammed

The issue starts with a basic confusion. Yes, al-Tabari and Ibn Kathir wrote later but that only matters if you mix up when something was compiled with where it comes from. Islamic scholarship is built on chains of transmission, not just books. So criticizing the compiler while ignoring the isnad is like rejecting a history book without checking its sources. By that logic, most ancient history would fall apart. The difference is that Islamic tradition did not just preserve reports,it rigorously tested them.

As for Surah 53:19–20, the narrations linked to it have already been examined and deemed weak or disconnected by major scholars, including Ibn Kathir. That is not dodging the issue that is applying methodology. Repeating a weak claim does not make it stronger.

Your A–B–C framework only seems contradictory if you assume punishment is transferred. It is not. The hadith in Sahih Muslim (2674) makes that clear: the misled keep their full burden, while the misleader takes on additional sin for influencing them. No transfer, no injustice, no contradiction.

On the Prophet, peace and blessings of Allah be upon him, the Quran itself states he does not speak from desire and that what he gives should be followed. The Sunnah does not override the Quran, it explains it from within the same revelation.

And fikak does not just mean substitution it means release. The hadith specifies Jews and Christians not because they absorb Muslim sins, but because they fill places in Hell already earned by their own rejection and deeds. Forgiveness comes from divine mercy, while punishment remains tied to individual responsibility.

So there is no theological inconsistency here just a misreading of how the system works.

honesttalk21:
The issue starts with a basic confusion. Yes, al-Tabari and Ibn Kathir wrote later but that only matters if you mix up when something was compiled with where it comes from. Islamic scholarship is built on chains of transmission, not just books. So criticizing the compiler while ignoring the isnad is like rejecting a history book without checking its sources. By that logic, most ancient history would fall apart. The difference is that Islamic tradition did not just preserve reports,it rigorously tested them.

As for Surah 53:19–20, the narrations linked to it have already been examined and deemed weak or disconnected by major scholars, including Ibn Kathir. That is not dodging the issue that is applying methodology. Repeating a weak claim does not make it stronger.

Denying an event doesn't make you correct. Every Thief that is caught DENY events that hap

Again, Why did your early Muslim scholars tell such kind of lies against your prophet if they were not true?

Why are you afraid of quoting the Asbab al-Nuzul of Quran 53:19-20

honesttalk21:
Your A–B–C framework only seems contradictory if you assume punishment is transferred. It is not. The hadith in Sahih Muslim (2674) makes that clear: the misled keep their full burden, while the misleader takes on additional sin for influencing them. No transfer, no injustice, no contradiction.

Is it UNTRUE that Allah says
Statement A:
Allah says no one will bear the burdens of the sins of another

Is it UNTRUE that Allah says
Statement B:
Allah says, some people will bear SOME OF the Burdens of the sin of those they Misled


These two questions above are YES or NO questions. Will you be kind to answer them?

honesttalk21:
On the Prophet, peace and blessings of Allah be upon him, the Quran itself states he does not speak from desire and that what he gives should be followed. The Sunnah does not override the Quran, it explains it from within the same revelation.

Allah contradicted Himself with two statements
But you want everyone to believe the claim of Mohammed!

Is Allah your Authority for Islam or Mohammed?

honesttalk21:
And fikak does not just mean substitution it means release. The hadith specifies Jews and Christians not because they absorb Muslim sins, but because they fill places in Hell already earned by their own rejection and deeds. Forgiveness comes from divine mercy, while punishment remains tied to individual responsibility.

So there is no theological inconsistency here just a misreading of how the system works.

These were not my questions.
I said:
If the hadith Muslim 2674 is not a contradiction or an error, tell me
1. Will Muslims be punished in hell for their sins since you have to bear your own burden of sin?
2. Why then would Allah uses Christians and Jews as a RANSOM for you Muslims from the Fire.
3. Can Mohammad override the plain edict of Allah in the Qur'an?

Is a ransom not a form of exchange of VALUE?

TenQ:
Denying an event doesn't make you correct. Every Thief that is caught DENY events that hap

Again, Why did your early Muslim scholars tell such kind of lies against your prophet if they were not true?

Why are you afraid of quoting the Asbab al-Nuzul of Quran 53:19-20


Is it UNTRUE that Allah says
Statement A:
Allah says no one will bear the burdens of the sins of another

Is it UNTRUE that Allah says
Statement B:
Allah says, some people will bear SOME OF the Burdens of the sin of those they Misled


These two questions above are YES or NO questions. Will you be kind to answer them?


Allah contradicted Himself with two statements
But you want everyone to believe the claim of Mohammed!

Is Allah your Authority for Islam or Mohammed?



These were not my questions.
I said:
If the hadith Muslim 2674 is not a contradiction or an error, tell me
1. Will Muslims be punished in hell for their sins since you have to bear your own burden of sin?
2. Why then would Allah uses Christians and Jews as a RANSOM for you Muslims from the Fire.
3. Can Mohammad override the plain edict of Allah in the Qur'an?

Is a ransom not a form of exchange of VALUE?

Denying a report doesn’t erase it. The narrations about Surah 53:19–20 were recorded and graded weak by the very scholars who transmitted them. Recording is not endorsement,that’s a core principle of hadith.
Statement A,yes;no soul bears another’s burden.
Statement B,yes;those who mislead carry extra burden.
Both are true. No contradiction,no burden is transferred, only added. The Prophet clarified this (Sahih Muslim 2674), not opposed it.
Allah forgives by mercy, not by shifting punishment. No innocent soul pays for another. The Prophet explains the Qur’an,he does not compete with it.

honesttalk21:
Denying a report doesn’t erase it. The narrations about Surah 53:19–20 were recorded and graded weak by the very scholars who transmitted them. Recording is not endorsement,that’s a core principle of hadith.

Denying an event takes more than talk, it takes serious EVIDENCE non of which you have provided except you said people who were not witnesses rejected the primary event as weak.

Why did your early Muslim scholars tell such kind of lies against your prophet if they were not true?

Why are you afraid of quoting the Asbab al-Nuzul of Quran 53:19-20

You have consistently refused to answer these questions!

honesttalk21:
Statement A,yes; no soul bears another’s burden.

This is UNTRUE statement and notnwhat Allah said

Statement B,yes; those who mislead carry extra burden

THIS your statement above IS WRONG SIR. WHY TWIST THE STATEMENT B?

Is it UNTRUE that Allah says
Statement B:
Allah says, some people will bear SOME OF the Burdens of the sin of those they Misled

honesttalk21:
Both are true. No contradiction,no burden is transferred, only added. The Prophet clarified this (Sahih Muslim 2674), not opposed it.
Allah forgives by mercy, not by shifting punishment. No innocent soul pays for another. The Prophet explains the Qur’an,he does not compete with it.

NO ONE bears the burden of sin of others and SOME PEOPLE will bear the burden of sin of others are contradictory sir!

Only LIARS will claim that this is NO contradiction

TenQ:
Denying an event takes more than talk, it takes serious EVIDENCE non of which you have provided except you said people who were not witnesses rejected the primary event as weak.

Why did your early Muslim scholars tell such kind of lies against your prophet if they were not true?

Why are you afraid of quoting the Asbab al-Nuzul of Quran 53:19-20

You have consistently refused to answer these questions!



This is UNTRUE statement and notnwhat Allah said

THIS your statement above IS WRONG SIR. WHY TWIST THE STATEMENT B?

Is it UNTRUE that Allah says
Statement B:
Allah says, some people will bear SOME OF the Burdens of the sin of those they Misled






NO ONE bears the burden of sin of others and SOME PEOPLE will bear the burden of sin of others are contradictory sir!

Only LIARS will claim that this is NO contradiction

The report on 53:19–20 was preserved so scholars could examine and evaluate it. It was rejected because its chain is weak and it contradicts Quran 53:3–4, which makes clear that the Prophet does not speak from personal desire. This is not scholars lying; it is scholars doing their duty. To overturn their conclusion, a stronger chain must be provided; assertion alone is not evidence.
Early scholars documented weak reports to examine and refute them. This was not fabrication; it was intellectual honesty. Preserving history while distinguishing authentic guidance from unreliable reports is the core of hadith scholarship.
Regarding Statement B, it is often misunderstood. The burden of those they misled does not mean the misled person’s punishment is transferred. The misled remain fully accountable for their own actions. The Prophet confirmed in Sahih Muslim 2674 that the misleader bears an additional burden for the harm caused, without reducing the follower’s responsibility in the slightest. The misleader’s liability is earned for their act of misleading, not someone else’s sin.
Statement A: no unjust transfer of punishment remains fully intact.
Statement B: misleaders earn extra accountability for causing harm also stands fully intact. They address two separate realities. This is not contradiction; it is precision.
Calling scholars or those who explain this liars is not a rebuttal. It is what is said when the explanation lands and no counterargument remains.