₦airaland Forum

honesttalk21:
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.

Evaluate the sense in these four conclusions
1. There is no chain of reference for Alexander the Great therefore his story is weak and untrustworthy
2. There exists no reliable chain of reference for Emperors like Julius Caesar of Rome, therefore his story is weak and untrustworthy
3. There is no known chain of Reference for Mary Slessor of Calabar therefore this her story is weak and untrustworthy
4. Apart from newspaper stories about Anini and Osunbo the Armed Robbers, no chain of reference exists therefore his story is weak and untrustworthy

Ask yourself: Do you think these conclusions above make sense? This is how the Islamic LOGIC work!

You still have not answered the question
Why did your early Muslim scholars tell such kind of lies against your prophet if they were not true?
AND
Why are you afraid of quoting the Asbab al-Nuzul of Quran 53:19-20

You have consistently refused to answer these questions!

You are Bent on misrepresenting Allah with your Statement B which incompletely UNTRUE

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?

Since you are AI specialist, check if LOGICALLY and SYNTACTICALLY Qur'an 16:25 is the same in MEANING to your misrepresentation of my statement B.

Statement B: misleaders earn extra accountability for causing harm also stands fully intact.

TenQ:
Evaluate the sense in these four conclusions
1. There is no chain of reference for Alexander the Great therefore his story is weak and untrustworthy
2. There exists no reliable chain of reference for Emperors like Julius Caesar of Rome, therefore his story is weak and untrustworthy
3. There is no known chain of Reference for Mary Slessor of Calabar therefore this her story is weak and untrustworthy
4. Apart from newspaper stories about Anini and Osunbo the Armed Robbers, no chain of reference exists therefore his story is weak and untrustworthy

Ask yourself: Do you think these conclusions above make sense? This is how the Islamic LOGIC work!

You still have not answered the question
Why did your early Muslim scholars tell such kind of lies against your prophet if they were not true?
AND
Why are you afraid of quoting the Asbab al-Nuzul of Quran 53:19-20

You have consistently refused to answer these questions!

You are Bent on misrepresenting Allah with your Statement B which incompletely UNTRUE

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?

Since you are AI specialist, check if LOGICALLY and SYNTACTICALLY Qur'an 16:25 is the same in MEANING to your misrepresentation of my statement B.

Why ask me to evaluate?

This only shows you no longer know what you are proposing at. Do what you need to do then come back with meaningful points to address.

honesttalk21:
Why ask me to evaluate?

This only shows you no longer know what you are proposing at. Do what you need to do then come back with meaningful points to address.

It is good you saw the illogicality and senselessness of the logic of Islamic scholars in determining what is real and what is not.

The plain truth if you can handle it is that it doesn't make any sense.

Simple questions, you cannot answer simply because it betrays the LIES you chose to believe. Why dont you just hold on to the Truth?
Why must you convince yourself to adopt a lie?

Is it because you think you have gone too far?


Let me ask you a question (to expose the loads of contradictions within your religion)

Mohammed says that Islam will break into 73 Sects and only ONE of them is authentic and the rest to hell.


Sunan Ibn Majah (Book 36, Hadith 3992)
It was narrated from 'Awf bin Malik that the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) said: “The Jews split into seventy-one sects, one of which will be in Paradise and seventy in Hell. The Christians split into seventy-two sects, seventy-one of which will be in Hell and one in Paradise. I swear by the One Whose Hand is the soul of Muhammad, my nation will split into seventy-three sects, one of which will be in Paradise and seventy-two in Hell.”
It was said: “O Messenger of Allah, who are they?”
He said: “The main body.”


1. Is this hadith TRUE?
2. Is the ransom of Muslims with Christians and Jews for the One group of true Muslims or the 72 sects of false Muslims?
3. There are Many sects of Islam even now: which sect (Shia, Sunni, Ahmadiyah, Sufi, Ibadi etc) will enter paradise or you are in the dark?

TenQ:
It is good you saw the illogicality and senselessness of the logic of Islamic scholars in determining what is real and what is not.

The plain truth if you can handle it is that it doesn't make any sense.

Are you absolutely certain and agree to stand by this stance on this particular matter?

honesttalk21:
Are you absolutely certain and agree to stand by this stance on this particular matter?

At least, I am happy that It is good you saw the illogicality and senselessness of the logic of Islamic scholars in determining what is real and what is not.

I asked you questions you dodged as usual

1. Is this hadith TRUE?
2. Is the ransom of Muslims with Christians and Jews for the One group of true Muslims or the 72 sects of false Muslims?
3. There are Many sects of Islam even now: which sect (Shia, Sunni, Ahmadiyah, Sufi, Ibadi etc) will enter paradise or you are in the dark?

TenQ:
At least, I am happy that It is good you saw the illogicality and senselessness of the logic of Islamic scholars in determining what is real and what is not.

I asked you questions you dodged as usual

1. Is this hadith TRUE?
2. Is the ransom of Muslims with Christians and Jews for the One group of true Muslims or the 72 sects of false Muslims?
3. There are Many sects of Islam even now: which sect (Shia, Sunni, Ahmadiyah, Sufi, Ibadi etc) will enter paradise or you are in the dark?

You make an analogy with:

TenQ:
Evaluate the sense in these four conclusions
1. There is no chain of reference for Alexander the Great therefore his story is weak and untrustworthy
2. There exists no reliable chain of reference for Emperors like Julius Caesar of Rome, therefore his story is weak and untrustworthy
3. There is no known chain of Reference for Mary Slessor of Calabar therefore this her story is weak and untrustworthy
4. Apart from newspaper stories about Anini and Osunbo the Armed Robbers, no chain of reference exists therefore his story is weak and untrustworthy

Ask yourself: Do you think these conclusions above make sense? This is how the Islamic LOGIC work!

You then say:

TenQ:
It is good you saw the illogicality and senselessness of the logic of Islamic scholars in determining what is real and what is not.

To which I ask:

honesttalk21:
Are you absolutely certain and agree to stand by this stance on this particular matter?

Is this absolutely your stance? Yes or No and if you like elucidate if you need to.

honesttalk21:
You make an analogy with:



You then say:

To which I ask:

Is this absolutely your stance? Yes or No and if you like elucidate if you need to.

I agree with this stance as it applies to you. I do not rely on chains of reference for validating common historical events.

BUT

You dodge Questions like your life depends on it. Its your trademark as a Muslim.

1. Is this hadith TRUE?
2. Is the ransom of Muslims with Christians and Jews for the One group of true Muslims or the 72 sects of false Muslims?
3. There are Many sects of Islam even now: which sect (Shia, Sunni, Ahmadiyah, Sufi, Ibadi etc) will enter paradise or you are in the dark?

TenQ:
I agree with this stance as it applies to you. I do not rely on chains of reference for validating common historical events.

BUT

You dodge Questions like your life depends on it. Its your trademark as a Muslim.

1. Is this hadith TRUE?
2. Is the ransom of Muslims with Christians and Jews for the One group of true Muslims or the 72 sects of false Muslims?
3. There are Many sects of Islam even now: which sect (Shia, Sunni, Ahmadiyah, Sufi, Ibadi etc) will enter paradise or you are in the dark?

The isnad wasn't really built to be a complete historical record. It was more about checking specific claims, the ones that carried actual legal weight. And you accept that kind of sifting, right? It weeds out weak reports about Alexander the Great, for instance. That Gharaniq story? It got looked at and tossed out the same way.

So, really, it's not the method itself that's the issue now. You've already signed off on how it works. The question is why you're not sticking to it all the time.

And you brought up that hadith about the 73 sects to back up your point. Just stop and think about that one for a sec.

You're pushing back against the same old arguments. It doesn't hold water to dismiss hadith standards when they don't fit your point, then suddenly rely on them when it suits you. That's not principled; it's just cherry-picking.

Plus, about that saved group? The hadith doesn't slap a modern label on them. It just describes folks who stick to the Qur'an and the authenticated Sunnah. That's really about their actions, not what they call themselves.

Figuring out which present-day group best fits that description sparks a debate scholars often have. It's not some built-in contradiction, either. On the ransom issue, that's already been severally clarified. Fikak means release, not swapping one person for another. The individuals mentioned are accountable for their own actions. Nothing's being transferred. Trying to merge separate hadiths into one combined claim they were never making just creates a problem that was never there.

Concerning the background reports for 53:19–20, those narrations have already been evaluated and deemed weak. Reiterating them does not strengthen their validity. Ultimately, all points have been covered. What remains absent is a credible chain that supports the Gharaniq narration and that void has not been addressed, as there simply isn’t one. A stronger chain for the Gharaniq narration has never appeared in this entire exchange. Not because it hasn't been asked for; it has with you ignoring it because it simply does not exist.

honesttalk21:
The isnad wasn't really built to be a complete historical record. It was more about checking specific claims, the ones that carried actual legal weight. And you accept that kind of sifting, right? It weeds out weak reports about Alexander the Great, for instance. That Gharaniq story? It got looked at and tossed out the same way.

So, really, it's not the method itself that's the issue now. You've already signed off on how it works. The question is why you're not sticking to it all the time.

I gave you four similar real life historical situations and even you know deep down that the islamic methodology of using the isnad determine valid history is nonsense!

Unfortunately, this illogical nonsense is a life saver in rejecting MAINLY uncomfortable truths about Islam.

Let me prove this to you.

1. What is the Isnad that proves that the original name of your prophet is Mohammed?
2. What is the isnad that proves that Jibril commanded Mohammed to Read (IQRA) three times in the cave?
3. What is the isnad that show that Mohammed's father's name is Abdullah?
4. What is the isnad that shows the sequence of revelation of the Qur'an and time?

You will see clearly that yours is a selective insistence of ISNAD to validate or reject plain history whenever convenient.

Secondly
The hadith Sunan Ibn Majah 1944, narrated by Aisha states that verses on stoning (rajm) and adult breastfeeding 10 times were revealed, written on paper under her pillow, and eaten by a tame sheep after the Prophet's death.

The ISNAD is very strong and reliable
Chain Analysis
Narrators: Aisha → Amrah bint Abdur-Rahman → Abdullah ibn Abi Bakr → Muhammad ibn Ishaq → Abd al-A'la → Yahya ibn Khalaf Abu Salamah.

BUT when we ask you Muslims the simple question of YES or NO, you begin to bring EXCUSES
1. Is it TRUE that Allah revealed in his Qur'an the verse of Breastfeeding an adult man 10 times ?
2. Is it TRUE that Allah abrogated the 10 times breastfeeding command and REPLACED it in his Qur'an the verse of Breastfeeding an adult man 5 times?

I put it to you that even though logically ISNAD as a means of checking historical validity is silly, it is an attempt to delete unwanted history.

honesttalk21:
And you brought up that hadith about the 73 sects to back up your point. Just stop and think about that one for a sec.

You're pushing back against the same old arguments. It doesn't hold water to dismiss hadith standards when they don't fit your point, then suddenly rely on them when it suits you. That's not principled; it's just cherry-picking.

Plus, about that saved group? The hadith doesn't slap a modern label on them. It just describes folks who stick to the Qur'an and the authenticated Sunnah. That's really about their actions, not what they call themselves.

Figuring out which present-day group best fits that description sparks a debate scholars often have. It's not some built-in contradiction, either. On the ransom issue, that's already been severally clarified. Fikak means release, not swapping one person for another. The individuals mentioned are accountable for their own actions. Nothing's being transferred. Trying to merge separate hadiths into one combined claim they were never making just creates a problem that was never there.

A lame excuse as it doesn't answer my questions.

1. Is this hadith TRUE?
2. Is the ransom of Muslims with Christians and Jews for the One group of true Muslims or the 72 sects of false Muslims?
3. There are Many sects of Islam even now: which sect (Shia, Sunni, Ahmadiyah, Sufi, Ibadi etc) will enter paradise or you are in the dark?

Except if all you are saying is that the probability of a Muslim entering paradise is 1/73.
Yours is a lost battle if your prophet is correct with this hadith.

honesttalk21:
Concerning the background reports for 53:19–20, those narrations have already been evaluated and deemed weak. Reiterating them does not strengthen their validity. Ultimately, all points have been covered. What remains absent is a credible chain that supports the Gharaniq narration and that void has not been addressed, as there simply isn’t one. A stronger chain for the Gharaniq narration has never appeared in this entire exchange. Not because it hasn't been asked for; it has with you ignoring it because it simply does not exist.

You will note how you carefully avoided the Asbab al-Nuzul of Quran 53:19-20 for the satanic verses

Tell me, what exactly did Gabriel corrected by abrogating the satanic addition via Quran 22:52-53 ?

Note how Islam can be described as a Religion of DENIAL of TRUTH.

Islam does EVERYTHING to minimise the DAMAGE of Truth to the Religion.
You should ask yourself if your objective is to know the TRUTH and ADOPT is
Is this A whitewashed sepulchre from the Al-Makr! ?
Is this Food laced with Poison from the Al-Makr! ?
Is this A deception projected as truth from the Al-Makr! ?


Otherwise, why is Islam a denial of historical events?

You will agree with me that a statistical probability of 1/73 is a lottery of certain DEATH!


Why don't you Pause and think?

No

TenQ:
I gave you four similar real life historical situations and even you know deep down that the islamic methodology of using the isnad determine valid history is nonsense!

Unfortunately, this illogical nonsense is a life saver in rejecting MAINLY uncomfortable truths about Islam.

Let me prove this to you.

1. What is the Isnad that proves that the original name of your prophet is Mohammed?
2. What is the isnad that proves that Jibril commanded Mohammed to Read (IQRA) three times in the cave?
3. What is the isnad that show that Mohammed's father's name is Abdullah?
4. What is the isnad that shows the sequence of revelation of the Qur'an and time?

You will see clearly that yours is a selective insistence of ISNAD to validate or reject plain history whenever convenient.

Secondly
The hadith Sunan Ibn Majah 1944, narrated by Aisha states that verses on stoning (rajm) and adult breastfeeding 10 times were revealed, written on paper under her pillow, and eaten by a tame sheep after the Prophet's death.

The ISNAD is very strong and reliable
Chain Analysis
Narrators: Aisha → Amrah bint Abdur-Rahman → Abdullah ibn Abi Bakr → Muhammad ibn Ishaq → Abd al-A'la → Yahya ibn Khalaf Abu Salamah.

BUT when we ask you Muslims the simple question of YES or NO, you begin to bring EXCUSES
1. Is it TRUE that Allah revealed in his Qur'an the verse of Breastfeeding an adult man 10 times ?
2. Is it TRUE that Allah abrogated the 10 times breastfeeding command and REPLACED it in his Qur'an the verse of Breastfeeding an adult man 5 times?

I put it to you that even though logically ISNAD as a means of checking historical validity is silly, it is an attempt to delete unwanted history.




A lame excuse as it doesn't answer my questions.

1. Is this hadith TRUE?
2. Is the ransom of Muslims with Christians and Jews for the One group of true Muslims or the 72 sects of false Muslims?
3. There are Many sects of Islam even now: which sect (Shia, Sunni, Ahmadiyah, Sufi, Ibadi etc) will enter paradise or you are in the dark?

Except if all you are saying is that the probability of a Muslim entering paradise is 1/73.
Yours is a lost battle if your prophet is correct with this hadith.


You will note how you carefully avoided the Asbab al-Nuzul of Quran 53:19-20 for the satanic verses

Tell me, what exactly did Gabriel corrected by abrogating the satanic addition via Quran 22:52-53 ?

Note how Islam can be described as a Religion of DENIAL of TRUTH.

Islam does EVERYTHING to minimise the DAMAGE of Truth to the Religion.
You should ask yourself if your objective is to know the TRUTH and ADOPT is
Is this A whitewashed sepulchre from the Al-Makr! ?
Is this Food laced with Poison from the Al-Makr! ?
Is this A deception projected as truth from the Al-Makr! ?


Otherwise, why is Islam a denial of historical events?

You will agree with me that a statistical probability of 1/73 is a lottery of certain DEATH!


Why don't you Pause and think?

There is no contradiction between applying isnad to prophetic narrations and not applying it to general history. These are two separate categories with different consequences, so they require different standards.

Before we go further, let me ask you something simple:
Do you believe all knowledge must be verified in exactly the same way, regardless of what is at stake?

If you say yes, that position is not defensible.
If you say no, then the distinction I’m making already stands.

General history is reconstructed from multiple sources and carries no legal or theological authority. Prophetic narrations, however, shape belief and law. The standard must match the weight of the claim. That is not inconsistency,it is precision.

The Prophet peace be upon him's name, lineage, and major life events are not based on isolated reports. They are transmitted through tawatur; mass transmission across generations. That gives them a stronger historical foundation than many figures people accept without question. So let me ask you directly:

Are you rejecting mass transmission as a valid way of knowing?

Because if you are, then you are not just challenging Islam, you are undermining a large portion of human history.

About, the Gharaniq story, it was examined using the correct method and found to be weak. The chains are broken, the narrators are problematic, and the content contradicts the Qur’an:
“He does not speak from desire” (53:3–4)

As for Qur’an 22:52–53, it does not confirm that story. It gives a general principle that Allah nullifies satanic interference not a specific historical endorsement.

Using that verse to prove the story requires assuming the story inside the proof itself. That is circular reasoning. Ibn Kathīr explicitly rejected that approach. So the question remains:
Can you produce a single sound, fully connected chain for the Gharaniq report?

If not, then by any serious standard of historical reliability, the claim does not stand.

Regarding Ibn Majah 1944, the chain is not as strong as claimed. It includes Muhammad ibn Ishaq, who is known for tadlis (the habit of omitting his teacher [as opposed to merely changing his name], then his narrations will only be accepted if he reports the narration using words that denote him acquiring the narration directly from the source he quotes. If he uses the word ‘an when reporting, the chain will be considered weak.. , and the narration lacks explicit confirmation of direct transmission).

More importantly, the Qur’an is preserved through tawatur; mass transmission, not isolated reports. A single narration about a written sheet cannot override what was memorized and transmitted by large numbers of companions and standardized under ʿUthman, may Allah be pleased with him.

As for the breastfeeding issue:, abrogation (naskh) includes cases where recitation is removed while the ruling remains. This is a recognized category in Islamic legal theory. It is not “lost Qur’an.”

The hadith about the 73 sects is also misunderstood. It does not mean a 1-in-73 chance of salvation. It identifies a criterion. Following the Qur’an and Sunnah as understood by the companions. Deviation does not automatically equal disbelief.
So let me ask:
Where does the hadith say that all other groups are eternally damned?
If it doesn’t say that, then the “lottery” framing is rhetorical not textual.

On the ransom issue, the Qur’an is clear:
“No soul bears the burden of another” (6:164)
Fikak means release, not substitution. No one carries another person’s sins.

Note that this reply tackles all twenty questions packed into a single post Honest questioning doesnt follow that path If any point here deserves a serious challenge, bring it forward one at a time with supporting evidence and it will be met directly. Spreading out arguments doesnt make you stronger its just trying to look like youve got unanswered questions when you dont.

Let’s be honest about what is really happening here. You are not rejecting isnād because it is illogical.
You are rejecting it because it filters out the reports you want to use.
It forces claims to stand up to scrutiny.
Without isnad, any report;no matter how weak, can be treated as history.
With isnad, only what is reliable survives.
So the real question is:
Do you want a method that distinguishes truth from error,
or one that allows any narrative to be used as long as it serves an argument?
Because once you remove isnad, the Gharaniq story is no longer evidence; it becomes speculation among many competing claims. And that is not truth. That is confusion.

honesttalk21:
No
There is no contradiction between applying isnad to prophetic narrations and not applying it to general history. These are two separate categories with different consequences, so they require different standards.

Before we go further, let me ask you something simple:
Do you believe all knowledge must be verified in exactly the same way, regardless of what is at stake?

Your question is silly because the way mathematics is verified is different from the way history is verified and is different from the way Artifacts are verified.

Islam false under RELIGIOUS HISTORY thus, Academic historians use a rigorous process known as historical methodology to verify accounts. This process is divided into two primary stages: external criticism, which tests the authenticity of a Original SOURCE doucument, and internal criticism, which evaluates its reliability and content.

Even for the BIBLE this is the Method used by Academic Historians.
Academic Historians NEVER use chain of Reference or ISNAD to accept or reject a history.

Can Islamic History PASS when subjected to Academic Historical Methodology?

honesttalk21:
If you say yes, that position is not defensible.
If you say no, then the distinction I’m making already stands.

General history is reconstructed from multiple sources and carries no legal or theological authority. Prophetic narrations, however, shape belief and law. The standard must match the weight of the claim. That is not inconsistency,it is precision.

The Prophet peace be upon him's name, lineage, and major life events are not based on isolated reports. They are transmitted through tawatur; mass transmission across generations. That gives them a stronger historical foundation than many figures people accept without question. So let me ask you directly:

Are you rejecting mass transmission as a valid way of knowing?

Because if you are, then you are not just challenging Islam, you are undermining a large portion of human history.

Academic Historians dont reject ANY History based on chains of naration. They follow rigorous methodologies as detailed be3low

1. External Criticism (Authenticity)
Before analyzing what a document says, historians determine if the document itself is a genuine artifact from the time it claims to be.
• Provenance and Chain of Custody: Historians trace the physical history of a document—who owned it and where it was stored—to ensure it hasn't been planted or forged.
• Technical Analysis: They examine physical materials like paper, ink, parchment, and handwriting. For example, they check if the chemical composition of the ink was available during that era.
• Philological Analysis: They look at the language, vocabulary, and grammar to see if it matches the period. Anachronistic words (words not yet invented) are a major red flag.
• Scientific Dating: Techniques like radiocarbon dating or dendrochronology (tree-ring dating) are used for physical artifacts and older documents.

2. Internal Criticism (Credibility)
Once a source is proven authentic, historians examine the "truthfulness" of its contents.
• Bias and Perspective: They identify the author’s background, intent, and potential prejudices. They ask: Does the author have a reason to lie or exaggerate (e.g., propaganda)?.
• Proximity to Event: Accounts from eyewitnesses (primary sources) are generally preferred over hearsay (secondary sources). The closer the report is to the actual time of the event, the more reliable it is considered.
• Internal Consistency: Historians check for contradictions within the text itself. If a witness tells a story that doesn't "hang together," its credibility drops.
• Plausibility: They weigh claims against "common sense" and known human nature. For instance, if an ancient text claims a tiny city sent an army of millions, historians flag this as literary license or hyperbole.

3. Corroboration and Triangulation
A single source is rarely accepted as absolute truth. Historians verify accounts by comparing multiple independent pieces of evidence.
• Cross-Referencing: If two or more independent sources (authors who did not consult each other) agree on a detail, the likelihood of it being true increases significantly.
• Archaeological Evidence: Written accounts are often tested against physical remains. For example, a chronicler’s claim of a great fire can be verified by finding a burn layer in the soil of that city.
• Incidental Evidence: Historians often trust "unintentional" details—things the author mentioned in passing without trying to prove a point—more than the main argument the author is trying to sell.

4. Specialized Disciplines
For complex or ancient texts, historians use specific technical fields:
• Diplomatics: The study of the formal structure of official records (e.g., is the seal in the right place?).
• Sigillography: The study of seals to verify the authority of a document.
• Paleography: The study of ancient handwriting styles to date a text.

BUT
Here is ISLAM, rejecting these proven methods to focus on chain of Narration that cannot even be trusted based on BIAS from the Islamic Scholars

honesttalk21:
About, the Gharaniq story, it was examined using the correct method and found to be weak. The chains are broken, the narrators are problematic, and the content contradicts the Qur’an:
“He does not speak from desire” (53:3–4)

As for Qur’an 22:52–53, it does not confirm that story. It gives a general principle that Allah nullifies satanic interference not a specific historical endorsement.

Using that verse to prove the story requires assuming the story inside the proof itself. That is circular reasoning. Ibn Kathīr explicitly rejected that approach. So the question remains:
Can you produce a single sound, fully connected chain for the Gharaniq report?

If not, then by any serious standard of historical reliability, the claim does not stand.

I do not use chains of Reference to determine the veracity of any historical fact. I prefer the Academic historians' use of the rigorous process known as historical methodology to verify any history.

Early biographers (like Ibn Ishaq and al-Tabari) recorded that Muhammad was initially tricked by Satan into praising the goddesses of Mecca. According to these accounts, verses 22:52–53 were later revealed to abrogate (cancel) the error, explaining that all prophets are subject to such "Satanic suggestions."

Is it TRUE that Ibn Ishaq wrote in the 8th Century the collection of the earliest comprehensive oral traditions for the Prophet's biography (Sira).

Is it TRUE that Al-Tabari wrote in the 9th Century, The "Great Synthesizer"; writing ~150 years after Ibn Ishaq, where he preserved Ibn Ishaq's lost original works by quoting them extensively in his massive chronicles.

BUT, ISLAMIC SCIENCE OF THE HADITH THINK THAT IBN KATHIR's RECORD should overide that of Ibn Ishaq and Al-Tabari
Is it TRUE that Ibn Kathir wrote in the 14th Century ~450 years after al-Tabari and ~600 years after Ibn Ishaq, where he rejected these Islamic Histories by applying chains of reference excuse?

You said:
“He does not speak from desire” (53:3–4)
Tell me, if this is TRUE,
1. Why did Mohammed divorced his wife Hafsa bint Umar (RA) once, but later took her back. Did Allah make a mistake in his inspiration to him?
2. Why did Mohammed swore not to sic "eat honey" again but Allah corrected him in Quran 66:1-2. Did Allah make a mistake in his inspiration to him?
3. Why did Mohammed swore an oath to his wife Hafsa that he would not have sex with his slave-girl, Mariyah al-Qibtiyyah, again to please Hafsa. Did Allah make a mistake in his inspiration to him? because Mohammed went back on his words.

You said:
As for Qur’an 22:52–53, it does not confirm that story. It gives a general principle that Allah nullifies satanic interference not a specific historical endorsement.

If this is TRUE:
1. Did satan put any words in Mohammed mouth?
2. Is it True that Gabriel later informed the Prophet that these words were not from Allah and Allah then "abolished" (revoked) those false verses and replaced them with the correct revelation
3. Can you be kind enough to post what the Asbab al-Nuzul of Quran 53:19-20 says

honesttalk21:
Regarding Ibn Majah 1944, the chain is not as strong as claimed. It includes Muhammad ibn Ishaq, who is known for tadlis (the habit of omitting his teacher [as opposed to merely changing his name], then his narrations will only be accepted if he reports the narration using words that denote him acquiring the narration directly from the source he quotes. If he uses the word ‘an when reporting, the chain will be considered weak.. , and the narration lacks explicit confirmation of direct transmission).

Hafs Quran should be rejected based on this because the isnt it that the Quran is the best Hadith?
Isnad is a silly method of verification of history

honesttalk21:
More importantly, the Qur’an is preserved through tawatur; mass transmission, not isolated reports. A single narration about a written sheet cannot override what was memorized and transmitted by large numbers of companions and
standardized under ʿUthman, may Allah be pleased with him.

Why is it that the written Quran of Uthman disappeared?
There are supposed to be 7-8 copies.
Was it because it is easier to manipulate recitations rather than texts?

honesttalk21:
As for the breastfeeding issue:, abrogation (naskh) includes cases where recitation is removed while the ruling remains. This is a recognized category in Islamic legal theory. It is not “lost Qur’an.”

You avoided my question
I said: BUT when we ask you Muslims the simple question of YES or NO, you begin to bring EXCUSES
1. Is it TRUE that Allah revealed in his Qur'an the verse of Breastfeeding an adult man 10 times ?
2. Is it TRUE that Allah abrogated the 10 times breastfeeding command and REPLACED it in his Qur'an the verse of Breastfeeding an adult man 5 times?

honesttalk21:
The hadith about the 73 sects is also misunderstood. It does not mean a 1-in-73 chance of salvation. It identifies a criterion. Following the Qur’an and Sunnah as understood by the companions. Deviation does not automatically equal disbelief.
So let me ask:
Where does the hadith say that all other groups are eternally damned?
If it doesn’t say that, then the “lottery” framing is rhetorical not textual.

You agree that only ONE out of 73 sects of Islam will enter paradise?

Note also that Mohammed NEVER said that being in hell was temporary for the remaining 72 sects.

Come to think of it:
According to Quran 19:71-72 even the true Muslims (1/73) will enter the Fire TEMPORARILY.
The remaining Muslims should be the EVIL DOERS according to Quran 19:71-72

Will the EVIDOERS also Temporarily be in Hell?

Prove this from the Quran or Hadith please?

honesttalk21:
On the ransom issue, the Qur’an is clear:
“No soul bears the burden of another” (6:164)
Fikak means release, not substitution. No one carries another person’s sins.

If we go with your theory of substitution, then it LOGICALLY imply that these Christians and Jews were NOT originally in the FIRE?

Will the evildoers in Quran 19:71-72 be used as substitution for Muslims

honesttalk21:
Note that this reply tackles all twenty questions packed into a single post Honest questioning doesnt follow that path If any point here deserves a serious challenge, bring it forward one at a time with supporting evidence and it will be met directly. Spreading out arguments doesnt make you stronger its just trying to look like youve got unanswered questions when you dont.

Let’s be honest about what is really happening here. You are not rejecting isnād because it is illogical.
You are rejecting it because it filters out the reports you want to use.
It forces claims to stand up to scrutiny.
Without isnad, any report;no matter how weak, can be treated as history.
With isnad, only what is reliable survives.
So the real question is:
Do you want a method that distinguishes truth from error,
or one that allows any narrative to be used as long as it serves an argument?
Because once you remove isnad, the Gharaniq story is no longer evidence; it becomes speculation among many competing claims. And that is not truth. That is confusion.

LOL!

Evaluate the sense in these four conclusions
1. There is no chain of reference for Alexander the Great therefore his story is weak and untrustworthy
2. There exists no reliable chain of reference for Emperors like Julius Caesar of Rome, therefore his story is weak and untrustworthy
3. There is no known chain of Reference for Mary Slessor of Calabar therefore this her story is weak and untrustworthy
4. Apart from newspaper stories about Anini and Osunbo the Armed Robbers, no chain of reference exists therefore his story is weak and untrustworthy
Ask yourself: Do you think these conclusions above make sense? This is how the Islamic LOGIC work!

Why didnt you examine how logical islamic position is wrt isnad
1. What is the Isnad that proves that the original name of your prophet is Mohammed?
2. What is the isnad that proves that Jibril commanded Mohammed to Read (IQRA) three times in the cave?
3. What is the isnad that show that Mohammed's father's name is Abdullah?
4. What is the isnad that shows the sequence of revelation of the Qur'an and time?

You will see clearly that yours is a selective insistence of ISNAD to validate or reject plain history whenever convenient.

TenQ:
Your question is silly because the way mathematics is verified is different from the way history is verified and is different from the way Artifacts are verified.

Islam false under RELIGIOUS HISTORY thus, Academic historians use a rigorous process known as historical methodology to verify accounts. This process is divided into two primary stages: external criticism, which tests the authenticity of a Original SOURCE doucument, and internal criticism, which evaluates its reliability and content.

Even for the BIBLE this is the Method used by Academic Historians.
Academic Historians NEVER use chain of Reference or ISNAD to accept or reject a history.

Can Islamic History PASS when subjected to Academic Historical Methodology?

Academic Historians dont reject ANY History based on chains of naration. They follow rigorous methodologies as detailed be3low



BUT
Here is ISLAM, rejecting these proven methods to focus on chain of Narration that cannot even be trusted based on BIAS from the Islamic Scholars




I do not use chains of Reference to determine the veracity of any historical fact. I prefer the Academic historians' use of the rigorous process known as historical methodology to verify any history.

Early biographers (like Ibn Ishaq and al-Tabari) recorded that Muhammad was initially tricked by Satan into praising the goddesses of Mecca. According to these accounts, verses 22:52–53 were later revealed to abrogate (cancel) the error, explaining that all prophets are subject to such "Satanic suggestions."

Is it TRUE that Ibn Ishaq wrote in the 8th Century the collection of the earliest comprehensive oral traditions for the Prophet's biography (Sira).

Is it TRUE that Al-Tabari wrote in the 9th Century, The "Great Synthesizer"; writing ~150 years after Ibn Ishaq, where he preserved Ibn Ishaq's lost original works by quoting them extensively in his massive chronicles.

BUT, ISLAMIC SCIENCE OF THE HADITH THINK THAT IBN KATHIR's RECORD should overide that of Ibn Ishaq and Al-Tabari
Is it TRUE that Ibn Kathir wrote in the 14th Century ~450 years after al-Tabari and ~600 years after Ibn Ishaq, where he rejected these Islamic Histories by applying chains of reference excuse?

You said:
“He does not speak from desire” (53:3–4)
Tell me, if this is TRUE,
1. Why did Mohammed divorced his wife Hafsa bint Umar (RA) once, but later took her back. Did Allah make a mistake in his inspiration to him?
2. Why did Mohammed swore not to sic "eat honey" again but Allah corrected him in Quran 66:1-2. Did Allah make a mistake in his inspiration to him?
3. Why did Mohammed swore an oath to his wife Hafsa that he would not have sex with his slave-girl, Mariyah al-Qibtiyyah, again to please Hafsa. Did Allah make a mistake in his inspiration to him? because Mohammed went back on his words.

You said:
As for Qur’an 22:52–53, it does not confirm that story. It gives a general principle that Allah nullifies satanic interference not a specific historical endorsement.

If this is TRUE:
1. Did satan put any words in Mohammed mouth?
2. Is it True that Gabriel later informed the Prophet that these words were not from Allah and Allah then "abolished" (revoked) those false verses and replaced them with the correct revelation
3. Can you be kind enough to post what the Asbab al-Nuzul of Quran 53:19-20 says


Hafs Quran should be rejected based on this because the isnt it that the Quran is the best Hadith?
Isnad is a silly method of verification of history



Why is it that the written Quran of Uthman disappeared?
There are supposed to be 7-8 copies.
Was it because it is easier to manipulate recitations rather than texts?


You avoided my question
I said: BUT when we ask you Muslims the simple question of YES or NO, you begin to bring EXCUSES
1. Is it TRUE that Allah revealed in his Qur'an the verse of Breastfeeding an adult man 10 times ?
2. Is it TRUE that Allah abrogated the 10 times breastfeeding command and REPLACED it in his Qur'an the verse of Breastfeeding an adult man 5 times?


You agree that only ONE out of 73 sects of Islam will enter paradise?

Note also that Mohammed NEVER said that being in hell was temporary for the remaining 72 sects.

Come to think of it:
According to Quran 19:71-72 even the true Muslims (1/73) will enter the Fire TEMPORARILY.
The remaining Muslims should be the EVIL DOERS according to Quran 19:71-72

Will the EVIDOERS also Temporarily be in Hell?

Prove this from the Quran or Hadith please?



If we go with your theory of substitution, then it LOGICALLY imply that these Christians and Jews were NOT originally in the FIRE?

Will the evildoers in Quran 19:71-72 be used as substitution for Muslims




LOL!

Evaluate the sense in these four conclusions
1. There is no chain of reference for Alexander the Great therefore his story is weak and untrustworthy
2. There exists no reliable chain of reference for Emperors like Julius Caesar of Rome, therefore his story is weak and untrustworthy
3. There is no known chain of Reference for Mary Slessor of Calabar therefore this her story is weak and untrustworthy
4. Apart from newspaper stories about Anini and Osunbo the Armed Robbers, no chain of reference exists therefore his story is weak and untrustworthy
Ask yourself: Do you think these conclusions above make sense? This is how the Islamic LOGIC work!

Why didnt you examine how logical islamic position is wrt isnad
1. What is the Isnad that proves that the original name of your prophet is Mohammed?
2. What is the isnad that proves that Jibril commanded Mohammed to Read (IQRA) three times in the cave?
3. What is the isnad that show that Mohammed's father's name is Abdullah?
4. What is the isnad that shows the sequence of revelation of the Qur'an and time?

You will see clearly that yours is a selective insistence of ISNAD to validate or reject plain history whenever convenient.

There are no pleasant words to call the mess you park up feigning to be proper logical argument.

Youre not sticking to one approach, you're flipping the script during the debate. If you dont trust isnad, youre left with Ibn ishaq and Tabari, who are known only through isnad. You're asking for academic feedback, but then you disregard the fact that its challenging the very reports youre citing Thats not methodology; its more about selection.

The lost source argument falls apart. Tabari preserves reports with chains, not endorsements. Ibn Kathir dismisses them using the same internal critique you hold in high regard; it clashes with the main text Q53:3–4 stands on. The report doesnt hold up In missing verses, youre always talking about abrogation as if its a loss when It isn’t.

The revelation led to naskh, not following the compilation. Its mentioned in Quran 2:106 You're basically twisting a well-established category to create an issue In Uthmans time, there wasnt a single competing version of the quran not one. If the contents were different, you'd end up with a competing text You don’t.

On 19:71– 72, same pattern. You pick out a single line, skip the one after it, and then draw a conclusion from whats left. Lets all get together, but only the ones who've done wrong stay. And the biggest contradiction is yours you demand strict historical standards, then abandon them the moment they undermine your claim. This isn’t a critique. It’s inconsistency dressed as one.

‎

honesttalk21:
‎
‎There are no pleasant words to call the mess you park up feigning to be proper logical argument.
‎
‎Youre not sticking to one approach, you're flipping the script during the debate. If you dont trust isnad, youre left with Ibn ishaq and Tabari, who are known only through isnad. You're asking for academic feedback, but then you disregard the fact that its challenging the very reports youre citing Thats not methodology; its more about selection.
‎
‎The lost source argument falls apart. Tabari preserves reports with chains, not endorsements. Ibn Kathir dismisses them using the same internal critique you hold in high regard; it clashes with the main text Q53:3–4 stands on. The report doesnt hold up In missing verses, youre always talking about abrogation as if its a loss when It isn’t.
‎
‎The revelation led to naskh, not following the compilation. Its mentioned in Quran 2:106 You're basically twisting a well-established category to create an issue In Uthmans time, there wasnt a single competing version of the quran not one. If the contents were different, you'd end up with a competing text You don’t.
‎
‎On 19:71– 72, same pattern. You pick out a single line, skip the one after it, and then draw a conclusion from whats left. Lets all get together, but only the ones who've done wrong stay. And the biggest contradiction is yours you demand strict historical standards, then abandon them the moment they undermine your claim. This isn’t a critique. It’s inconsistency dressed as one.

‎You repeat accusations and claims with no evidence.
‎
‎You dodge and avoid answering questions when the answers betray your religion.
‎
‎Then you give yourself a hefty pass mark for answering logically and coherently to issues raised
‎
‎Jesus said:
‎People prefer Darkness to Light simply because this is who they are (its just a revelation of the works of their hands)
‎
‎Of many Muslims on nairaland, you have had your conscience disturbed many times when you engage with me BUT you think God should understand that you tried your best to serve him on the day of judgement and overlook your adoption of Islam.
‎
‎I honestly wish this will bail you out except that UNFORTUNATELY, it wouldn't. God gave you His solution in Jesus that you REJECTED but you accepted the testimony of one man called Mohammed without any verifiable evidence.


‎On this note, on this topic I rest my pen.
‎God is always Guiding us!
‎Listen to your Conscience!

honesttalk21:
‎
If you critically examine the evidence, you will ask yourself a question:
Is this MAN you adore so much seemingly or apparently just a business man who created a Taoheed of deities and religions and called it Islam?
‎
You will need to answer this question by yourself.

TenQ:
‎
‎You repeat accusations and claims with no evidence.
‎
‎You dodge and avoid answering questions when the answers betray your religion.
‎
‎Then you give yourself a hefty pass mark for answering logically and coherently to issues raised
‎
‎Jesus said:
‎People prefer Darkness to Light simply because this is who they are (its just a revelation of the works of their hands)
‎
‎Of many Muslims on nairaland, you have had your conscience disturbed many times when you engage with me BUT you think God should understand that you tried your best to serve him on the day of judgement and overlook your adoption of Islam.
‎
‎I honestly wish this will bail you out except that UNFORTUNATELY, it wouldn't. God gave you His solution in Jesus that you REJECTED but you accepted the testimony of one man called Mohammed without any verifiable evidence.


‎On this note, on this topic I rest my pen.
‎God is always Guiding us!
‎Listen to your Conscience!

TenQ:
honesttalk21:
‎
If you critically examine the evidence, you will ask yourself a question:
Is this MAN you adore so much seemingly or apparently just a business man who created a Taoheed of deities and religions and called it Islam?
‎
You will need to answer this question by yourself.

You didn't show anything its same reiterating the claims, getting some response and moving on when responses landed. If anyone cared to read through the thread at all, you will find a pattern from page 2 till about halfway of page 8.

All the things you brought up, isnad, manuscripts, abrogation,Quran 19:71-72 , 73 sects were answered to your face . You didn't pounce on the answers; they sped by you.

That is not a valid argument by saying it ends with light and darkness. It is the exhaust of an argument.

The Qur’an is mass-transmitted and anchored to its earliest period; manuscripts, memorization, and cross-verification all converge. The New Testament comes through later authors who never met Jesus, compiled into a canon centuries afterward, with no original copies surviving.
Apply the same standard consistently, and the harder questions aren’t on our side.

So this isn’t about conscience. It’s about consistency.

You walk not because there are no answers, but due to the fact that those answers were'nt what you wanted.

honesttalk21:
You didn't show anything its same reiterating the claims, getting some response and moving on when responses landed. If anyone cared to read through the thread at all, you will find a pattern from page 2 till about halfway of page 8.

All the things you brought up, isnad, manuscripts, abrogation,Quran 19:71-72 , 73 sects were answered to your face . You didn't pounce on the answers; they sped by you.

That is not a valid argument by saying it ends with light and darkness. It is the exhaust of an argument.

The Qur’an is mass-transmitted and anchored to its earliest period; manuscripts, memorization, and cross-verification all converge. The New Testament comes through later authors who never met Jesus, compiled into a canon centuries afterward, with no original copies surviving.
Apply the same standard consistently, and the harder questions aren’t on our side.

So this isn’t about conscience. It’s about consistency.

You walk not because there are no answers, but due to the fact that those answers were'nt what you wanted.

Question from TenQ:
Is it TRUE that President Bola Ahmed Tinubu is the President of Nigeria?

Answer from honesttalk21
By definition president is the leader of a country. Whether a president is good or not is a matter of if he does his work well or not.

The problem is not lack of response BUT wrong response. This is your favourite way of answering questions. The bad thing is that you begin to claim how wonderful your response was.

So, ignorance is bliss especially when it is self induced and wilful.


Again, I say
‎Listen to your Conscience!

TenQ:
Question from TenQ:
Is it TRUE that President Bola Ahmed Tinubu is the President of Nigeria?

Answer from honesttalk21
By definition president is the leader of a country. Whether a president is good or not is a matter of if he does his work well or not.

The problem is not lack of response BUT wrong response. This is your favourite way of answering questions. The bad thing is that you begin to claim how wonderful your response was.

So, ignorance is bliss especially when it is self induced and wilful.


Again, I say
‎Listen to your Conscience!

Irresponsibly abysmal your running out of valid arguments then open resort to shameless lie. You never asked this question about the president and you create it from your bank of fraud going far to preempt in certainty my response.

Do the best for yourself taking your own advice.