₦airaland Forum

The first question is answered thus:

أَيُّهَا الَّذِينَ آمَنُوا أَطِيعُوا اللَّهَ وَأَطِيعُوا الرَّسُولَ
وَأُولِي الْأَمْرِ

Did he automatically decide to burn without consulting with the Sahaba? Did they not conclude to write only in the Qureysh dialect because this is the primary language of revelation and the language of Muhammad pbuh?

TenQ:
I said:
If Allah recited the Qur'an in 7 different Arabic dialects, do you think Uthman have the right to eliminate six of them?
Is Uthman also a prophet of Islam?

AND
If he didn't burn every Qur'an in existence, it could mean that
1. The Islamic Narrative is a LIE
2. Uthman failed in his bid the destroy all variant Qur'an


These Recitations were written down on paper were they not?

What then the Uthman burn?.

Did he not replace all he burnt with only one dialect (the Quraish dialect)?


We should have Seven different Qur'an in Seven Dialects of Arabic: where are they?

@Tenq Awaiting your response to this. Appreciating in advance.

honesttalk21:
The first question is answered thus:

أَيُّهَا الَّذِينَ آمَنُوا أَطِيعُوا اللَّهَ وَأَطِيعُوا الرَّسُولَ
وَأُولِي الْأَمْرِ

Did he automatically decide to burn without consulting with the Sahaba? Did they not conclude to write only in the Qureysh dialect because this is the primary language of revelation and the language of Muhammad pbuh?

honesttalk21:
The first question is answered thus:

أَيُّهَا الَّذِينَ آمَنُوا أَطِيعُوا اللَّهَ وَأَطِيعُوا الرَّسُولَ
وَأُولِي الْأَمْرِ

Did he automatically decide to burn without consulting with the Sahaba? Did they not conclude to write only in the Qureysh dialect because this is the primary language of revelation and the language of Muhammad pbuh?

أَيُّهَا الَّذِينَ آمَنُوا أَطِيعُوا اللَّهَ وَأَطِيعُوا الرَّسُولَ
وَأُولِي الْأَمْرِ Translates to
"O you who have believed, obey Allah and obey the Messenger and those in authority among you.

1. Is Uthman now a prophet of Islam?
2. Did Mohammed give any instructions as per the burning of variant Qur'an?
3. Did any of your Hadiths give this same reason for burning the various Qur'an?




Allah gave Mohammed one Qur'an dialect. It was Mohammed who requested for more. He was given 6 additional dialects.

Did Mohammed make a mistake in requesting for more dialects of the Arabic Qur'an?

Sahih Muslim 821 a
Ubayy b. Ka'b reported that the Messenger of Allah was near the tank of Banu Ghifar that Gabriel came to him and said:

Allah has commanded you to recite to your people the Qur'an in one dialect. Upon this he said: I ask from Allah pardon and forgiveness. My people are not capable of doing it. He then came for the second time and said: Allah has commanded you that you should recite the Qur'an to your people in two dialects. Upon this he (the Holy prophet) again said: I seek pardon and forgiveness from Allah, my people would not be able to do so. He (Gabriel) came for the third time and said: Allah has commanded you to recite the Qur'an to your people in three dialects. Upon this he said: I ask pardon and forgiveness from Allah. My people would not be able to do it. He then came to him for the fourth time and said: Allah has commanded you to recite the Qur'an to your people in seven dialects, and in whichever dialect they would recite, they would be right.

honesttalk21:
Written or not leads to other questions which I beleve you will provide answers to.

1. Did the compillation rely only on written documents?

No

honesttalk21:
2. What was the main mode of transmitting or learning the Quran in the life of Prophet Muhammad? Remember that he himself could neither read nor write.

Mohammed could read and write: this is a lie Muslims tell to sell him. I will prove that to you in another post.

Recitation was the main mode but Mohammed also had secretaries who helped him to write. Also the Sahaba wrote on every kind of material available to them.

Musnad Ahmad 57
It was narrated that Zaid bin Thabit said:
Abu Bakr sent for me when many of the people of al-Yamamah were killed. Abu Bakr said: O Zaid bin Thabit, you are a wise young man and we trust you; you used to write down the Revelation for the Messenger of Allah. Seek out the Qur'an and collect it.

honesttalk21:
3. What percentage of the companions and arabians could read or write at this time?

Not even Muslims clerics know this answer. What we have reported that after a certain battle, most of those who know the Qur'an by heart were killed

honesttalk21:
4. Why was recitation allowed in 7 ways, forms, styles or dialects?

The Arabs definitely had different dialects of word pronunciation. This is your preferred Narrative.

The truth:
Mohammed kept forgetting the Qur'an. The one he recited for one group is slightly different from the one he recites to another group of Sahaba.
This differences he resolved by saying that all the recitations were correct.

وَأُولِي الْأَمْرِ Those in authority.
At this point Uthman was in authority.

The reasons for the burning was to bring unification and prevent differences. Hudhaifa was afraid that differences in the recitation of the Qur'an between the people amongst which were Sha'm and Iraq would lead to differences like that of the people of the book (Jews and Christians) and asked Uthman to save against similar arguments.

Uthman then ordered the commitee with Zaid ibn Thabit writing tp make perfect copies. He said should there be disagreements on any point in the Quran then it should be written in the dialect of the Quraish as the Qur'an was revealed in their tongue.

I don't know. You are Hadith Tenq Hadith Master squared to infinity.

No mistake made in asking it was to ease understanding and recitation of the people who would have been challenged otherwise.

TenQ:
أَيُّهَا الَّذِينَ آمَنُوا أَطِيعُوا اللَّهَ وَأَطِيعُوا الرَّسُولَ
وَأُولِي الْأَمْرِ Translates to
"O you who have believed, obey Allah and obey the Messenger and those in authority among you.

1. Is Uthman now a prophet of Islam?
2. Did Mohammed give any instructions as per the burning of variant Qur'an?
3. Did any of your Hadiths give this same reason for burning the various Qur'an?




Allah gave Mohammed one Qur'an dialect. It was Mohammed who requested for more. He was given 6 additional dialects.

Did Mohammed make a mistake in requesting for more dialects of the Arabic Qur'an?

honesttalk21:
وَأُولِي الْأَمْرِ Those in authority.
At this point Uthman was in authority.

The reasons for the burning was to bring unification and prevent differences. Hudhaifa was afraid that differences in the recitation of the Qur'an between the people amongst which were Sha'm and Iraq would lead to differences like that of the people of the book (Jews and Christians) and asked Uthman to save against similar arguments.

Uthman then ordered the commitee with Zaid ibn Thabit writing tp make perfect copies. He said should there be disagreements on any point in the Quran then it should be written in the dialect of the Quraish as the Qur'an was revealed in their tongue.

I don't know. You are Hadith Tenq Hadith Master squared to infinity.

No mistake made in asking it was to ease understanding and recitation of the people who would have been challenged otherwise.

Are you saying that those in authority are free to edit, modify, delete, eliminate the Qur'an at will!?


The Qur'an is a book already written in the mother book in heaven : how come Uthman has authority to eliminate some copies he doesn't like?

Thesis: Proving the Corruption of the Qur'an Beyond Reasonable Doubt
This thesis systematically demonstrates that the Qur'an has not been perfectly preserved, contrary to Muslim claims based on verses like
Quran 15:9
("We have, without doubt, sent down the Message; and We will assuredly guard it (from corruption)".

Using historical, textual, and manuscript evidence, including arguments and evidences from TenQ's submissions, combined with additional scholarly sources, we refute every major Muslim defense: mass transmission (tawatur), intentional variants (qira'at or ahruf), abrogation (naskh), and divine protection. The case progresses logically from foundational flaws in transmission to empirical proofs of alterations, deletions, and additions, showing the Qur'an's earthly text diverges from any claimed eternal original.

1. Foundational Flaws in Qur'anic Transmission: Reliance on Weak Narrators Undermines Claims of Perfection
Muslims assert the Qur'an's preservation through tawatur (mass, unanimous transmission), distinguishing it from hadith grading (sahih, da'if, mawdu'). However, the most widespread recitation—Hafs (used by ~95% of Muslims)—relies on narrators deemed unreliable by Islamic standards, violating consistency.

Hafs ibn Sulayman's Weakness:
TenQ cites Al-ʿUqaylī's Ḍuʿafā’ al-ʿUqaylī (ed. ʿAbd al-Muʿṭī Amīn Qalʿahjī, Beirut: Dār al-Kutub al-ʿIlmiyyah, 1984, 1:257):
"كَانَ يَسْرِقُ الْكُتُبَ، وَيَضَعُهَا فِي كُتُبِهِ، وَكَانَ هُوَ وَأَبُوهُ مَتْهُونَيْنِ فِي الْحَدِيثِ، ضَعِيفَيْنِ"
("He used to steal books and incorporate them into his own books. He and his father were considered worthless/despised in Ḥadīth, weak.".

Hafs is weak in hadith due to poor memory and fraud, yet accepted for Qur'an. This "category error" (Muslim defense) fails: the Qur'an is a "hadith of Allah" (Q39:23), transmitted via chains.
Why accept Hafs for Qur'an but reject him for hadith? TenQ questions: If known liars taint hadith as mawdu' or matruk, why not Qur'an? Muslims "pick and choose" standards.

Chain Disappearances:
Despite thousands memorizing pre-Hafs, Muslims rely on his chain.
TenQ asks: "Are you telling me that other credible chains of transmission of the Qur'an somehow disappeared!?" The 1924 Cairo edition standardized Hafs despite faults, due to Ottoman printing, not divine merit. This contradicts tawatur: if mass-transmitted, why standardize a weak version?
Refuting Muslim Claims:
Tawatur requires unanimous, independent verification. But Hafs' acceptance ignores his flaws, showing subjective bias. Scholarly sources confirm Hafs' weakness in rijal (narrator criticism). If tawatur protects, why include frauds? This proves early corruption in transmission, defeating claims of flawless chains.

2. Multiple Arabic Qur'ans with Meaning-Altering Variants: No Single "Exact Copy"
Muslims claim one Qur'an with minor dialectical readings (qira'at) within the rasm (consonantal skeleton), all from seven ahruf (modes) for flexibility, not corruption. But variants change words, grammar, and meanings, proving textual divergence.

List of Variants:
TenQ lists 32-36 Arabic Qur'ans (e.g., Hafs, Warsh, Qalun, Al-Duri), noting ~51 differences between Hafs and Warsh alone, affecting 77,000+ words. Examples:
Q2:125: Hafs ("wattakhizu" – "take" vs. Warsh ("wattakhazu" – "you have taken". Changes imperative to statement.
Q2:140: Hafs ("taquluna" – "you say" vs. Warsh ("yaquluna" – "they say". Shifts subject.
Q3:133: Hafs ("wasaari'uu" – "and hasten" vs. Warsh ("saari'uu" – "hasten". Extra "wa" alters connection.
Q5:54: Hafs ("yartadda" – "turn back" vs. Warsh ("yartadid" – "turn back". Dialectical but variant roots.
Q91:15: Hafs ("walaayakhaafu" – "and for him is no fear" vs. Warsh ("falaayakhaafu" – "therefore, for him is no fear". Changes "and" to "therefore," altering logic.

Doctrinal Impacts: Variants aren't mere "nuance.
" Q98:6: Hafs ("sharru al-bariyyati" – "worst of creatures" vs. Warsh ("sharr al-bari'ati" – "worst of the innocent".
Changes meaning subtly.
Verse counts differ: Hafs (6,236) vs. Warsh (6,214).

TenQ asks: "Which one is the exact copy of the Quran of Allah in heaven (Lawh Mahfuz)?"
No Muslim can answer, as all claim equality, yet differ.

Refuting Muslim Claims: Qira'at as "divine diversity" fails: Uthman standardized one rasm in Quraysh dialect, burning others.
TenQ asks: "Were the other six dialects written down? Where are the other six ahruf?"

If ahruf accommodate dialects within rasm, why burn variants? Sources show 25x more variants than claimed. This proves post-revelation corruption, not flexibility.

3. Missing Verses: Hadiths Prove Deletion of Revealed Text
Muslims claim "missing" verses were abrogated (naskh) during revelation, not post-Muhammad deletion, preserved in hadith for rulings, not as Qur'an. But hadiths show verses recited until Muhammad's death, then removed.

Suckling Verse:
TenQ cites
Sahih Muslim 1452:
"'A'isha reported that it had been revealed in the Holy Qur'an that ten clear sucklings make the marriage unlawful, then it was abrogated by five sucklings and Allah's Apostle died and it was before that time (found) in the Holy Qur'an (and recited by the Muslims)."

Also
Sunan Ibn Majah 1944: Aisha's paper with "stoning and breastfeeding an adult ten times" eaten by a sheep.

Muwatta Malik 30:17: "Ten known sucklings made haram, abrogated by five... it was what is now recited."

TenQ asks: "Why do you think Allah revealed the verse of breastfeeding adults ten times?" If abrogated pre-canon, why recited post-death? No manuscript includes it.
Stoning Verse:
Sahih Muslim 1691b: Umar: "The verse of stoning was included... We recited it, retained it... I am afraid people may say: We do not find stoning in the Book."
Sunan Ibn Majah 2553: Umar fears forgetting stoning verse. TenQ: "The verses existed till Mohammed died!"

If tawatur-protected, why missing? No protests from companions?

Lineage Verse:
Sahih Muslim 1453a: "Do not forsake your real father... for this is kufr." Recited but absent.

Refuting Muslim Claims: Abrogation was pre-canon, but hadiths say verses "revealed in the Holy Qur'an" and "recited by Muslims" post-death. If solitary (ahad) reports, why in sahih collections? Transparency? No: proves deletion due to "shame." TenQ: "These verses were removed because Muslims are ashamed." Bottom line: "The Qur'an of Allah is different from the Qur'an of Mohammed." Sources confirm hadiths as fabrications or excuses for missing text.

4. Additions to the Text: Basmala Inserted Post-Revelation
Muslims claim Basmala (Bismillahir Rahmanir Raheem) is Qur'anic (Q27:30), placed by Muhammad in compilation (order differs from revelation).

Asbab al-Nuzul for Quran 17:110:
TenQ: 50th surah by revelation. Muhammad used "In Thy name, O Allah" for first 49 surahs. After encountering Musaylimah's "Beneficent," idolaters mocked;
Allah revealed Quran 17:110. Thereafter, Muhammad wrote Basmala. But it appears in surahs 1-49 (pre-50th).

TenQ asks: "How come every chapter... except 9 begins with Bismillahir Rahmanir Raheem? Was it Jibril that came back to re-reveal? Whose words in 1-49: Allah's or Mohammed's?" Proves addition by Muhammad/followers.

Refuting Muslim Claims:
Revelation order vs. compilation doesn't explain retroactive insertion. Quran 27:30 (48th by revelation) has Basmala, but pre-Q17:110, Muhammad hadn't used "Rahman."
Sources: Early scholars debated Basmala as verse or separator; some saw additions as corruption. If divine, why not from start? Proves human editing.

5. Manuscript and Preservation Flaws: Empirical Evidence of Changes
Muslims claim oral memorization flawless, manuscripts consistent with rasm.

Sana'a Manuscript: Lower text (pre-671 CE) varies from upper (Uthmanic): different order, wording (e.g., Q2:87 "wa-qaffaynā 'alā āthārihi" vs. standard "wa-qaffaynā min ba'dihi". 61 non-orthographic variants in 11 folios. TenQ: Sana'a differs from Hafs/Warsh. Proves non-Uthmanic variants survived, contradicting standardization.

Forgetting Verses: Sahih al-Bukhari 5037-5038: Muhammad forgot verses.

TenQ: "Even Mohammed forgot the Qur'an... Muslims have better memories than their prophet?"

No Originals: TenQ: "Where is the copy of copies of Uthman's Qur'an? Qur'an of Abubakar identical to Uthman's?" Birmingham (~1% Quran) incomplete; Topkapi/Samarkand 8th century, variant.

Refuting Muslim Claims: Tawatur failed: variants show "defective" memory (TenQ). Uthman's burning hid corruption. Sources: Uthman destroyed to prevent "division, strife." If protected, why burn?

6. Unanswered Questions: Burdens on Muslims Expose Inconsistencies
TenQ's questions defeat defenses:

"Was the Qur'an of Abubakar identical with Uthman?"
"Where are the other six ahruf?"
"If you cannot RECITE these recited verses [stoning/suckling], your recitations are flawed."
"Provide manuscript of Muhammad/Abubakar/Uthman."
"Consensus that verses NEVER revealed?"
No answers, as evidence contradicts claims.

Conclusion: Beyond Doubt, the Qur'an is Corrupted
The Qur'an's transmission relies on frauds; variants alter meanings; verses deleted for shame; additions human; manuscripts diverge; preservation flawed. Muslim claims—tawatur, ahruf, naskh—collapse under evidence. No "exact copy" matches heavenly tablet. This proves corruption, defeating divine preservation.

Indeed you wrote a lot… but none of it actually lands.

You’re attacking Hafs, yet the Qur’an was never hanging on one man in the first place; it was carried by entire communities, memorized publicly, corrected collectively. One narrator being weak in hadith doesn’t magically rewrite what thousands were reciting in sync.

Then you label qiraʾat as different Qur’ans, but can’t show a single one changing any core belief not a single one. Same text, same structure, just recognized readings the tradition itself preserved and catalogued. That’s not confusion that’s transparency!

And here’s the part that really breaks your whole case: every evidence you used comes from the very Islamic sources you’re trying to discredit. You trust them enough to build your argument… but not enough to accept their explanations? That’s not a critique that’s a contradiction. 🤦‍♂️

The suckling and stoning reports weren’t lost as they were kept on purpose because they still shaped legal rulings through naskh al-tilawa. Their presence in sahih collections reflects that openness, not any attempt to hide something. 🤦‍♂️ 🤦‍♂️

The 1924 Cairo Hafs edition was just a practical print choice at the time, not a theological reset. Other readings, like Warsh, are still widely recited, which shows the transmission never narrowed to a single chain. 🍿🍿


As for the Sana’a manuscripts, the early variations are exactly what the tradition says should exist before standardization so they end up matching the narrative rather than contradicting it.

At the end of all this, you still don’t have what actually matters: no alternate Qur’an, no missing manuscript, no competing canon, no historical community preserving your “lost verses.” Just claims stacked on claims.

That’s not proof of corruption. That’s just a long argument with no evidence behind it.

honesttalk21:
Indeed you wrote a lot… but none of it actually lands.

You’re attacking Hafs, yet the Qur’an was never hanging on one man in the first place; it was carried by entire communities, memorized publicly, corrected collectively. One narrator being weak in hadith doesn’t magically rewrite what thousands were reciting in sync.

Then you label qiraʾat as different Qur’ans, but can’t show a single one changing any core belief not a single one. Same text, same structure, just recognized readings the tradition itself preserved and catalogued. That’s not confusion that’s transparency!

And here’s the part that really breaks your whole case: every evidence you used comes from the very Islamic sources you’re trying to discredit. You trust them enough to build your argument… but not enough to accept their explanations? That’s not a critique that’s a contradiction. 🤦‍♂️

The suckling and stoning reports weren’t lost as they were kept on purpose because they still shaped legal rulings through naskh al-tilawa. Their presence in sahih collections reflects that openness, not any attempt to hide something. 🤦‍♂️ 🤦‍♂️

The 1924 Cairo Hafs edition was just a practical print choice at the time, not a theological reset. Other readings, like Warsh, are still widely recited, which shows the transmission never narrowed to a single chain. 🍿🍿

As for the Sana’a manuscripts, the early variations are exactly what the tradition says should exist before standardization so they end up matching the narrative rather than contradicting it.

At the end of all this, you still don’t have what actually matters: no alternate Qur’an, no missing manuscript, no competing canon, no historical community preserving your “lost verses.” Just claims stacked on claims.

That’s not proof of corruption. That’s just a long argument with no evidence behind it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pqESGCBsO2w?si=ZjAd29fOoeshajrM
Clips from a video in which Shabir Ally says that 'word for word' preservation of the Quran has always been known to be untrue, interspersed with clips of well-known Muslims claiming 'word for word' preservation since the time of Muhammad

sagenaija:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pqESGCBsO2w?si=ZjAd29fOoeshajrM
Clips from a video in which Shabir Ally says that 'word for word' preservation of the Quran has always been known to be untrue, interspersed with clips of well-known Muslims claiming 'word for word' preservation since the time of Muhammad

Hi. Thanks for sharing though it's not unknown on the tube 🤣🤣.

You’re arguing against a strawman. Serious scholarship never claimed zero variation in recitation; it claimed controlled, transmitted variation within a fixed revelation 📚.

The Sana’a manuscript doesn’t expose corruption rather it reflects exactly that early stage of transmission before standardization, which the tradition itself already records 🔍.

So the real question isn’t are there variants?I t’s whether they break the text, and they don’t; the Qur’an’s structure, message, and core wording remain intact across all readings ⚖️. You disagree? Show it exactly! 😎

honesttalk21:
Hi. Thanks for sharing though it's not unknown on the tube 🤣🤣.

You’re arguing against a strawman. Serious scholarship never claimed zero variation in recitation; it claimed controlled, transmitted variation within a fixed revelation 📚.

The Sana’a manuscript doesn’t expose corruption rather it reflects exactly that early stage of transmission before standardization, which the tradition itself already records 🔍.

So the real question isn’t are there variants?I t’s whether they break the text, and they don’t; the Qur’an’s structure, message, and core wording remain intact across all readings ⚖️. You disagree? Show it exactly! 😎

Refer to this article and see that there are clear variations in the different Korans. These have to do with extra words, grammatical differences, etc.
Honest Moslem scholars know this. I hope you will be honest enough to read through the article and see the true position.
https://www.answering-islam.org/Green/seven.htm

sagenaija:
[size=6pt][/size]
Refer to this article and see that there are clear variations in the different Korans. These have to do with extra words, grammatical differences, etc.
Honest Moslem scholars know this. I hope you will be honest enough to read through the article and see the true position.
https://www.answering-islam.org/Green/seven.htm

Thanks for the link but citing answering-islam.org already sets the tone. That’s apologetics, not scholarship. If we’re talking serious manuscript work, the names are Sadeghi, Puin, Déroche people who study the text, not defend a conclusion.

And here’s the part that undercuts the whole argument: the variants you’re pointing to were never hidden. Muslim scholars documented them, classified them, and transmitted them for centuries. That’s not what corruption looks like, corruption hides. This was preserved, taught, and debated openly.

You’re also attacking a claim nobody made. The claim was never zero variation. It’s controlled, traceable variation within a fixed textual framework exactly what the qira’at system represents. Multiple authorised readings, all mapped, all preserved, all within the same consonantal structure.

So the real question, the one your source avoids is simple: where do these variants actually break the text?

Show a variant that changes a core doctrine, alters a legal ruling, or creates a contradiction. Just one. Without that, all you’ve pointed to is pronunciation and minor grammatical variation the kind the tradition itself preserved and explained.

That’s the part that matters. The evidence you’re using isn’t exposing a problem.

It’s confirming the system you’re trying to attack.

honesttalk21:
Thanks for the link but citing answering-islam.org already sets the tone. That’s apologetics, not scholarship. If we’re talking serious manuscript work, the names are Sadeghi, Puin, Déroche people who study the text, not defend a conclusion.

And here’s the part that undercuts the whole argument: the variants you’re pointing to were never hidden. Muslim scholars documented them, classified them, and transmitted them for centuries. That’s not what corruption looks like, corruption hides. This was preserved, taught, and debated openly.

You’re also attacking a claim nobody made. The claim was never zero variation. It’s controlled, traceable variation within a fixed textual framework exactly what the qira’at system represents. Multiple authorised readings, all mapped, all preserved, all within the same consonantal structure.

So the real question, the one your source avoids is simple: where do these variants actually break the text?

Show a variant that changes a core doctrine, alters a legal ruling, or creates a contradiction. Just one. Without that, all you’ve pointed to is pronunciation and minor grammatical variation the kind the tradition itself preserved and explained.

That’s the part that matters. The evidence you’re using isn’t exposing a problem.

It’s confirming the system you’re trying to attack.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9CSb15tkMwI?si=beIH1enV5qNwrkhw

sagenaija:
[size=6pt][/size]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9CSb15tkMwI?si=beIH1enV5qNwrkhw

Thank you for sharing the video. The clearly laid out point, the questions about variant readings, interpretation, and consistency are worth taking seriously. But looking at each one carefully, the contradiction charge doesn't stick.

Regarding the creation sequence. Ibn Kathir separates two distinct things: the original creation of the earth and its later preparation and spreading. Surah 79 is talking about the second phase, not contradicting the first. And thumma in Arabic shifts the narrative it doesn't always pin down a strict before-and-after. That's not a convenient escape hatch; it's how the language has always worked.

The Dhul-Qarnayn passage is similar. "He found it setting" is what the traveller saw, described from where he stood. This is a matter of perception not exactness. That kind of language, the sun appearing to sink into water at the horizon runs through early Arabic expression. It conveys a scene, not a scientific claim. The Abu Dawud hadith brought in to read it literally has a weak chain, and a shaky narration can't reframe how a Quranic passage is written.

On the qira'at, these aren't slips or accidents. They passed through rigorous chains of transmission. With Lot's wife, the two readings aren't fighting each other. One speaks to her final exclusion from salvation, the other to her turning back mid-escape. Surah 66:10 ties it together.

Abrogation is just law developing over time. A ruling that changes doesn't contradict itself any more than an amended statute contradicts the legal system it belongs to.

A real contradiction needs two claims about the same thing, in the same sense, at the same moment, with no way through. None of these get there.

honesttalk21:
Thank you for sharing the video. The clearly laid out point, the questions about variant readings, interpretation, and consistency are worth taking seriously. But looking at each one carefully, the contradiction charge doesn't stick.

Regarding the creation sequence. Ibn Kathir separates two distinct things: the original creation of the earth and its later preparation and spreading. Surah 79 is talking about the second phase, not contradicting the first. And thumma in Arabic shifts the narrative it doesn't always pin down a strict before-and-after. That's not a convenient escape hatch; it's how the language has always worked.

The Dhul-Qarnayn passage is similar. "He found it setting" is what the traveller saw, described from where he stood. This is a matter of perception not exactness. That kind of language, the sun appearing to sink into water at the horizon runs through early Arabic expression. It conveys a scene, not a scientific claim. The Abu Dawud hadith brought in to read it literally has a weak chain, and a shaky narration can't reframe how a Quranic passage is written.

On the qira'at, these aren't slips or accidents. They passed through rigorous chains of transmission. With Lot's wife, the two readings aren't fighting each other. One speaks to her final exclusion from salvation, the other to her turning back mid-escape. Surah 66:10 ties it together.

Abrogation is just law developing over time. A ruling that changes doesn't contradict itself any more than an amended statute contradicts the legal system it belongs to.

A real contradiction needs two claims about the same thing, in the same sense, at the same moment, with no way through. None of these get there.

You Moslem try very hard to look for reasons to believe the unbelievable. Look at how you've tried to explain away the Dhul-Qarnayn story. Did the story also say he found people where the sun set? If so, how do you explain that?

By the way, those who did the chains of transmission where they "inspired" by Allah?

Also, the sheer number of hadiths, many of which were rejected or, as you said, some regarded as weak, should immediately hit one as problematic. Having hundreds of thousands of "stories" about Mohamed or his explanations of the Koran would mean that every minute of his life was being noted by thousands of people. Think about the implications of that. If Allah now wanted these people to be the purveyors or messengers of his mind for Moslems then we can comfortable say that Allah regarded them as his mouthpieces. If that is so, then who was Allah's "last" messenger? Was is still Mohamed, since you guys rely on the words or claims of others after him to run your religion?

sagenaija:
[size=6pt][/size]
You Moslem try very hard to look for reasons to believe the unbelievable. Look at how you've tried to explain away the Dhul-Qarnayn story. Did the story also say he found people where the sun set? If so, how do you explain that?

By the way, those who did the chains of transmission where they "inspired" by Allah?

Also, the sheer number of hadiths, many of which were rejected or, as you said, some regarded as weak, should immediately hit one as problematic. Having hundreds of thousands of "stories" about Mohamed or his explanations of the Koran would mean that every minute of his life was being noted by thousands of people. Think about the implications of that. If Allah now wanted these people to be the purveyors or messengers of his mind for Moslems then we can comfortable say that Allah regarded them as his mouthpieces. If that is so, then who was Allah's "last" messenger? Was is still Mohamed, since you guys rely on the words or claims of others after him to run your religion?

Good to see an actual argument instead of just a video link that deserves a proper reply.

On Dhul-Qarnayn, the verse describes what he saw; the sun appearing to set in a murky spring, and a people there. That’s observational language, not a scientific claim. Every pre-modern culture described the horizon this way. Greeks spoke of the sun sinking into Oceanus, medieval maps placed its resting place at the world’s edge, and even today the sun looks like it drops into water at the coastline. The Qur’an is using the same traveller’s perspective common to ancient accounts; reaching the far west and describing what appears at the horizon, along with the people encountered there. That’s not unique or problematic it’s normal human description.

So if the claim is that the Qur’an is making a scientific error, it first has to be shown that the passage is intended as science rather than experiential narrative. That case hasn’t been made.

On hadith transmission, transmitters were never considered infallible. They were evaluated in character, memory, consistency then reports were graded. The large volume exists because material was widely collected and then sifted, with weak reports openly identified and often rejected. A system that critiques and filters its own sources is a sign of methodological strength, not weakness.

And on the finality of prophethood, narrators aren’t prophets. Preserving and transmitting reports is not the same as bringing revelation. Muhammad, peace and blessings of Allah be upon him, remains the last messenger; what came after is simply the preservation and scrutiny of his teachings through a developed human discipline.

honesttalk21:
Good to see an actual argument instead of just a video link that deserves a proper reply.

On Dhul-Qarnayn, the verse describes what he saw; the sun appearing to set in a murky spring, and a people there. That’s observational language, not a scientific claim. Every pre-modern culture described the horizon this way. Greeks spoke of the sun sinking into Oceanus, medieval maps placed its resting place at the world’s edge, and even today the sun looks like it drops into water at the coastline. The Qur’an is using the same traveller’s perspective common to ancient accounts; reaching the far west and describing what appears at the horizon, along with the people encountered there. That’s not unique or problematic it’s normal human description.

So if the claim is that the Qur’an is making a scientific error, it first has to be shown that the passage is intended as science rather than experiential narrative. That case hasn’t been made.

On hadith transmission, transmitters were never considered infallible. They were evaluated in character, memory, consistency then reports were graded. The large volume exists because material was widely collected and then sifted, with weak reports openly identified and often rejected. A system that critiques and filters its own sources is a sign of methodological strength, not weakness.

And on the finality of prophethood, narrators aren’t prophets. Preserving and transmitting reports is not the same as bringing revelation. Muhammad, peace and blessings of Allah be upon him, remains the last messenger; what came after is simply the preservation and scrutiny of his teachings through a developed human discipline.

On Dhul-Qarnayn, do the hadiths agree with you? If you come now to talk about "observational language", what Greeks and other people do, you are missing something, you are moving from a supposedly divinely revealed book to one we can argue based on human approach. If he found THE PLACE where the sun sets as opposed to getting to a place WHEN the sun was setting, where are you getting your understanding from?

On the hadiths, it's interesting that you said "through a developed human discipline." Think about that again. If access to divine truth depends on human systems (like Hadith tradition and the like), then:
• Disagreement is inevitable
• Error is possible
• Authority becomes contested and questionable
If Allah did not inspire the transmitters of the hadiths and other Islamic books that means you guys are now relying on fallible humans as gatekeepers of Islam.

Bukhari is reputed to have collected 600,000 (six hundred thousand) hadith that he had to sift through. Look at that number again. Now, if he had to look at each hadith (600,000 of them), establish the authenticity of chain of narration and then put down what he has accepted as valid or discard what he considers as invalid, do you think it was really possible for him to thoroughly do that work in the time he was said to have done it? If you argue that Allah inspired him as a messenger and gave him the extraordinary ability to do the work, then you can see again how some other claims of yours fall down flat. Do you see it? If Allah inspired him, the in reality we have other messengers after Mohamed.

sagenaija:
[size=6pt][/size]
On Dhul-Qarnayn, do the hadiths agree with you? If you come now to talk about "observational language", what Greeks and other people do, you are missing something, you are moving from a supposedly divinely revealed book to one we can argue based on human approach. If he found THE PLACE where the sun sets as opposed to getting to a place WHEN the sun was setting, where are you getting your understanding from?

On the hadiths, it's interesting that you said "through a developed human discipline." Think about that again. If access to divine truth depends on human systems (like Hadith tradition and the like), then:
• Disagreement is inevitable
• Error is possible
• Authority becomes contested and questionable
If Allah did not inspire the transmitters of the hadiths and other Islamic books that means you guys are now relying on fallible humans as gatekeepers of Islam.

Bukhari is reputed to have collected 600,000 (six hundred thousand) hadith that he had to sift through. Look at that number again. Now, if he had to look at each hadith (600,000 of them), establish the authenticity of chain of narration and then put down what he has accepted as valid or discard what he considers as invalid, do you think it was really possible for him to thoroughly do that work in the time he was said to have done it? If you argue that Allah inspired him as a messenger and gave him the extraordinary ability to do the work, then you can see again how some other claims of yours fall down flat. Do you see it? If Allah inspired him, the in reality we have other messengers after Mohamed.

Look, I think you’re mashing together a couple of separate objections here that just don't really hold water when you peel back the layers.

Particularly, that verse about Dhul-Qarnayn. When it uses the word wajada, it’s clearly describing a point of view experience; what he saw from where he was standing, not making some grand, literal claim about the sun’s orbital mechanics. Today's modern person says, I watched the sun set into the ocean, without believing the sun is literally drowning in salt water.

It’s just traveler talk. If I say the sun dipped behind the hills at the end of a hike, nobody pulls out a physics textbook to correct me, right? Trying to force a technical, scientific lens onto a narrative travelogue just misses the forest for the trees.

Then there's the whole human involvement critique you raised regarding hadith. If we tossed out every historical record that touched a human hand, we’d basically have to delete the entire history of the world. The point isn’t that the process was perfect, but that it was intentional. Hadith scholarship was basically a massive, ancient peer-review system verifying chains, cross-referencing stories, and basically fact-checking before fact-checking became a thing. It’s a sieve, not a loophole.

Bukhari didn't just casually glance at 600,000 reports; he spent his life being an absolute niche specialist, tossing out anything that didn't meet a sky-high bar of reliability. And honestly, the idea that being thorough makes someone a prophet? That doesn’t follow. In Islam, there's a huge line between academic mastery and actual revelation.

Moreover, Bukhari's collection wasn't just accepted based on his authority alone. Scholars from later generations both Muslim and non-Muslim examined, cross-checked, and debated his work in great detail. The acceptance of Sahih Bukhari emerged from this ongoing collective scrutiny, not from blind loyalty to a single individual. This approach stands in stark contrast to having a single, fallible gatekeeper. It represents a self-correcting scholarly tradition that has endured for centuries.

At the end of the day, there’s no real clash here. The verse is just a story being told, and the hadith system is a tool designed specifically to handle the fact that humans even brilliant ones can make mistakes.

honesttalk21:
Look, I think you’re mashing together a couple of separate objections here that just don't really hold water when you peel back the layers.

Particularly, that verse about Dhul-Qarnayn. When it uses the word wajada, it’s clearly describing a point of view experience; what he saw from where he was standing, not making some grand, literal claim about the sun’s orbital mechanics. Today's modern person says, I watched the sun set into the ocean, without believing the sun is literally drowning in salt water.

It’s just traveler talk. If I say the sun dipped behind the hills at the end of a hike, nobody pulls out a physics textbook to correct me, right? Trying to force a technical, scientific lens onto a narrative travelogue just misses the forest for the trees.

Then there's the whole human involvement critique you raised regarding hadith. If we tossed out every historical record that touched a human hand, we’d basically have to delete the entire history of the world. The point isn’t that the process was perfect, but that it was intentional. Hadith scholarship was basically a massive, ancient peer-review system verifying chains, cross-referencing stories, and basically fact-checking before fact-checking became a thing. It’s a sieve, not a loophole.

Bukhari didn't just casually glance at 600,000 reports; he spent his life being an absolute niche specialist, tossing out anything that didn't meet a sky-high bar of reliability. And honestly, the idea that being thorough makes someone a prophet? That doesn’t follow. In Islam, there's a huge line between academic mastery and actual revelation.

Moreover, Bukhari's collection wasn't just accepted based on his authority alone. Scholars from later generations both Muslim and non-Muslim examined, cross-checked, and debated his work in great detail. The acceptance of Sahih Bukhari emerged from this ongoing collective scrutiny, not from blind loyalty to a single individual. This approach stands in stark contrast to having a single, fallible gatekeeper. It represents a self-correcting scholarly tradition that has endured for centuries.

At the end of the day, there’s no real clash here. The verse is just a story being told, and the hadith system is a tool designed specifically to handle the fact that humans even brilliant ones can make mistakes.

First, the “it’s just perspective language” defense of the Dhul-Qarnayn verse sounds reasonable at first - but it quietly assumes what it needs to prove. You seem to be ignoring something I've tried to highlight. The issue isn’t whether humans can speak phenomenologically (“the sun set behind the hills”); it’s whether this specific text, presented as divine revelation, consistently signals that kind of non-literal framing. Like I said, if he found THE PLACE where the sun sets as opposed to getting to a place WHEN the sun was setting, where are you getting your understanding from?
In everyday speech, we all know we’re using metaphor because we share the same scientific background. But the original audience didn’t have that shared framework. If a text says someone “found the sun setting in a muddy spring,” the most natural reading (especially in a pre-scientific context) is descriptive, not metaphorical. So the question becomes: why would a divine message, meant for all times, lean on language that so easily maps onto a scientifically inaccurate worldview without clarifying itself?
Saying “it’s just traveler talk” only works after you already accept that it can’t be literal. In other words, the interpretation is being guided by modern knowledge, not by the text itself. After all, the Koran claims to be "clear", doesn't it? (Even though we know in other instances it claims the opposite - but that is not at issue here for now).

On the hadith point, comparing hadith preservation to “all of history” is a false equivalence.

Most historical records are open to revision and aren’t treated as binding sources of divine law. Hadith, on the other hand, directly shape theology, ethics, and legal rulings. That raises the evidentiary bar significantly. You don’t just need “a careful process” - you need something close to certainty.
And that’s where the “ancient peer review” analogy breaks down. Hadith verification largely rests on chains of narration (isnad) - basically, trusting that individuals accurately reported from one another over generations. Again, note "over generations". But even a perfectly “sound” chain doesn’t guarantee the content is accurate. Memory errors, paraphrasing, bias, and social pressure don’t disappear just because narrators are deemed trustworthy.
Modern peer review checks methods and evidence directly. Hadith criticism often checks who said what, not whether what was said is independently verifiable.
As for Bukhari, the issue isn’t whether he was thorough - it’s that his entire project still depends on human judgment at every level:
• Deciding which narrators are reliable
• Deciding what counts as a “break” in a chain
• Deciding which reports to include or exclude
Filtering 600,000 reports down to a few thousand doesn’t eliminate subjectivity - it concentrates it. Have you guys considered whether for him to have been thorough he could actually have done the work of methodically going through 600,000 reports in the time it is said he did it or would it have taken twice or thrice that much time. Did he work alone or were there subcommittees? Again, was he "inspired" by Allah to do the work?

While later scholars did critique his work, the tradition also developed a strong deference to canonical collections like Sahih Bukhari. That creates a tension: if the system is truly self-correcting, why are its most foundational outputs so rarely revised in any substantial way?

Calling Bukhari’s method “sky-high” assumes that rigorous filtering equals rigorous verification. But filtering based on narrator reputation and chain continuity can only ever establish probability, not near-certainty.
A truly “sky-high” bar - especially for something treated as binding religious truth - would require methods that directly verify what happened, not just confidence in who reported it.
A “sky-high bar of reliability” isn’t just about being selective or hardworking. It would require methods that can meaningfully rule out error, not just reduce it. For something as consequential as hadith, that would imply at least a few things:
1. Independent verification of content (not just chains)
2. Protection against memory distortion
3. Minimal time gaps between event and recording
et cetera.

So the core issue remains:
• The verse relies on an interpretation that seems driven by modern hindsight rather than textual clarity.
• The hadith system, while sophisticated, still cannot escape the fundamental limitations of human transmission- especially when the stakes are divine authority.
Calling it “a sieve” is fair, but you will agree with me that a sieve doesn’t guarantee purity. It just reduces impurities. And when you’re dealing with claims of revelation, “reduced error” and “reliable truth” aren’t the same thing.

sagenaija:
[size=6pt][/size]
First, the “it’s just perspective language” defense of the Dhul-Qarnayn verse sounds reasonable at first - but it quietly assumes what it needs to prove. You seem to be ignoring something I've tried to highlight. The issue isn’t whether humans can speak phenomenologically (“the sun set behind the hills”); it’s whether this specific text, presented as divine revelation, consistently signals that kind of non-literal framing. Like I said, if he found THE PLACE where the sun sets as opposed to getting to a place WHEN the sun was setting, where are you getting your understanding from?
In everyday speech, we all know we’re using metaphor because we share the same scientific background. But the original audience didn’t have that shared framework. If a text says someone “found the sun setting in a muddy spring,” the most natural reading (especially in a pre-scientific context) is descriptive, not metaphorical. So the question becomes: why would a divine message, meant for all times, lean on language that so easily maps onto a scientifically inaccurate worldview without clarifying itself?
Saying “it’s just traveler talk” only works after you already accept that it can’t be literal. In other words, the interpretation is being guided by modern knowledge, not by the text itself. After all, the Koran claims to be "clear", doesn't it? (Even though we know in other instances it claims the opposite - but that is not at issue here for now).

On the hadith point, comparing hadith preservation to “all of history” is a false equivalence.

Most historical records are open to revision and aren’t treated as binding sources of divine law. Hadith, on the other hand, directly shape theology, ethics, and legal rulings. That raises the evidentiary bar significantly. You don’t just need “a careful process” - you need something close to certainty.
And that’s where the “ancient peer review” analogy breaks down. Hadith verification largely rests on chains of narration (isnad) - basically, trusting that individuals accurately reported from one another over generations. Again, note "over generations". But even a perfectly “sound” chain doesn’t guarantee the content is accurate. Memory errors, paraphrasing, bias, and social pressure don’t disappear just because narrators are deemed trustworthy.
Modern peer review checks methods and evidence directly. Hadith criticism often checks who said what, not whether what was said is independently verifiable.
As for Bukhari, the issue isn’t whether he was thorough - it’s that his entire project still depends on human judgment at every level:
• Deciding which narrators are reliable
• Deciding what counts as a “break” in a chain
• Deciding which reports to include or exclude
Filtering 600,000 reports down to a few thousand doesn’t eliminate subjectivity - it concentrates it. Have you guys considered whether for him to have been thorough he could actually have done the work of methodically going through 600,000 reports in the time it is said he did it or would it have taken twice or thrice that much time. Did he work alone or were there subcommittees? Again, was he "inspired" by Allah to do the work?

While later scholars did critique his work, the tradition also developed a strong deference to canonical collections like Sahih Bukhari. That creates a tension: if the system is truly self-correcting, why are its most foundational outputs so rarely revised in any substantial way?

Calling Bukhari’s method “sky-high” assumes that rigorous filtering equals rigorous verification. But filtering based on narrator reputation and chain continuity can only ever establish probability, not near-certainty.
A truly “sky-high” bar - especially for something treated as binding religious truth - would require methods that directly verify what happened, not just confidence in who reported it.
A “sky-high bar of reliability” isn’t just about being selective or hardworking. It would require methods that can meaningfully rule out error, not just reduce it. For something as consequential as hadith, that would imply at least a few things:
1. Independent verification of content (not just chains)
2. Protection against memory distortion
3. Minimal time gaps between event and recording
et cetera.

So the core issue remains:
• The verse relies on an interpretation that seems driven by modern hindsight rather than textual clarity.
• The hadith system, while sophisticated, still cannot escape the fundamental limitations of human transmission- especially when the stakes are divine authority.
Calling it “a sieve” is fair, but you will agree with me that a sieve doesn’t guarantee purity. It just reduces impurities. And when you’re dealing with claims of revelation, “reduced error” and “reliable truth” aren’t the same thing.

Stop switching standards and calling precision a flaw.

On Dhul-Qarnayn;wajada describes what he experienced, not a literal location of the sun. It's ordinary observational language; the same kind used across ancient cultures for sunsets. You're forcing a scientific reading onto narrative phrasing, then blaming the text for not being a physics manual. Wajada encodes neither. The Arabic phrase describes observed appearance at that horizon, not physical discovery of a location.

Clear (mubin) means clear in guidance, not technical detail. Expecting cosmology from a travel account is a category mistake.

On hadith, you're demanding a level of certainty no pre-modern history meets. By that standard, you lose all ancient history. Hadith science doesn't hide that it grades reports openly. That's rigor, not weakness.

Bukhari stands not by blind trust but because his criteria are explicit and have held under centuries of scrutiny.

So the issue isn't the text or the method.
It's the standard you're applying and not applying consistently.

honesttalk21:
Stop switching standards and calling precision a flaw.

On Dhul-Qarnayn;wajada describes what he experienced, not a literal location of the sun. It's ordinary observational language; the same kind used across ancient cultures for sunsets. You're forcing a scientific reading onto narrative phrasing, then blaming the text for not being a physics manual. Wajada encodes neither. The Arabic phrase describes observed appearance at that horizon, not physical discovery of a location.

Clear (mubin) means clear in guidance, not technical detail. Expecting cosmology from a travel account is a category mistake.

On hadith, you're demanding a level of certainty no pre-modern history meets. By that standard, you lose all ancient history. Hadith science doesn't hide that it grades reports openly. That's rigor, not weakness.

Bukhari stands not by blind trust but because his criteria are explicit and have held under centuries of scrutiny.

So the issue isn't the text or the method.
It's the standard you're applying and not applying consistently.

Most time you guys refuse to stay on the path of reality because if you do, you cannot remain sane and remain in Islam. So, when like we are doing here the other side posts certain thing you never really step aside to look at what has been said. Instead what you do is block your minds to what has been written for fear of it making you change your mind. Also you guys' resort to Arabic as if translators of the Arabic to English (who in most cases are Arabic speaking themselves) miss out some "deeper understanding" of their own language. These tactics are all too well known to some of us.

On Dhul-Qarnayn, a text – the Koran – narrates something. I talked about how the ORIGINAL audience would have understood what was said. Then you claim that I'm "forcing a scientific reading onto narrative phrasing." How do you reconcile the two except that you blocked your mind to what I wrote? Did you see where I talked about the fact that "the most natural reading (especially in a pre-scientific context) is descriptive, not metaphorical"? Did you see pre-scientific there? Yet you are accusing me of "forcing a scientific reading onto narrative phrasing." You end up accusing me of what I never held on to.

If I have not dealt with you guys long enough to know that what matters more to you is winning an argument rather than the truth I would just have regarded you as been slow on the uptake.

Your line of argument is what assumes that the audience is expected to reinterpret apparently concrete descriptions as subjective impressions, even though the text itself doesn’t clearly signal such a shift. In other words, it imports a reading strategy rather than deriving it from the passage. In a 7th-century context, that corrective lens wasn’t universally available in the same way. So when a narrative describes someone “finding” the sun setting in a particular location, the default interpretive framework is much more likely to be concrete and descriptive, not consciously metaphorical.

The question remains: what would the earliest audience most naturally have understood? If the most straightforward reading for them was literal, then the burden shifts to explaining why a divine message would adopt wording that strongly suggests a concrete picture of the world without clearly indicating otherwise.

Do you agree that if a text is presented as divine revelation, the expectations around clarity and guidance become more demanding, not less?

On the hadith, the comparison to “all pre-modern history” sounds compelling, but it blurs an important distinction. Not all historical claims are doing the same kind of work. If we’re talking about ordinary ancient history – like what Julius Caesar did in Gaul – we’re usually dealing with probabilistic reconstruction. Historians are comfortable saying, “this is likely” or “this is the best-supported account.” The bar is explicitly not certainty.

Hadith, however – especially in collections like Bukhari – often functions at a different level of certainty and authority. Many reports are treated not just as historically plausible, but as normatively authoritative – sometimes even binding for theology and law. That’s a much higher stakes use of historical material. So asking for a higher level of justification isn’t applying a double standard; it’s recognizing that different uses demand different levels of confidence.

On the point about rigor: it’s true that hadith scholars developed an elaborate system – evaluating chains of transmission, narrator reliability, continuity, and so on. That’s impressive for its time. But rigor within a system doesn’t automatically guarantee accuracy about the past. The key question is whether the method can reliably get us to what was actually said or done, not just whether it is internally consistent.
Again, how plausible is it that Bukhari exhaustively went through all 600,000 stories in the time frame reported that he did?

For example, the system tends to privilege the chain over the content. If a report has a strong chain, it can be accepted even if the content raises historical or conceptual questions. Modern study of how history is written, interpreted, and analyzed over time usually works the other way as well: it cross-checks content against independent evidence, broader context, and plausibility. That difference matters.
There’s also the issue of independence. Many hadith ultimately trace back through a relatively small network of transmitters. Even if each link is evaluated, the overall tradition can still reflect the dynamics of that network – shared assumptions, memory reshaping, or later standardization – rather than multiple independent attestations in the modern historical sense. You have conveniently avoided the issue of whether the chains of narrators and the hadith collectors were "inspired" by Allah to be his messengers to do this work of high spiritual significance to Moslems.

As for “centuries of scrutiny,” that shows the system is stable and respected within its own tradition, but that’s not the same as external validation. Lots of intellectual traditions maintain internal coherence over centuries. The question is whether the criteria themselves are sufficient by broader historical standards, not just whether they’ve been consistently applied.

sagenaija:
[size=6pt][/size]
Most time you guys refuse to stay on the path of reality because if you do, you cannot remain sane and remain in Islam. So, when like we are doing here the other side posts certain thing you never really step aside to look at what has been said. Instead what you do is block your minds to what has been written for fear of it making you change your mind. Also you guys' resort to Arabic as if translators of the Arabic to English (who in most cases are Arabic speaking themselves) miss out some "deeper understanding" of their own language. These tactics are all too well known to some of us.

On Dhul-Qarnayn, a text – the Koran – narrates something. I talked about how the ORIGINAL audience would have understood what was said. Then you claim that I'm "forcing a scientific reading onto narrative phrasing." How do you reconcile the two except that you blocked your mind to what I wrote? Did you see where I talked about the fact that "the most natural reading (especially in a pre-scientific context) is descriptive, not metaphorical"? Did you see pre-scientific there? Yet you are accusing me of "forcing a scientific reading onto narrative phrasing." You end up accusing me of what I never held on to.

If I have not dealt with you guys long enough to know that what matters more to you is winning an argument rather than the truth I would just have regarded you as been slow on the uptake.

Your line of argument is what assumes that the audience is expected to reinterpret apparently concrete descriptions as subjective impressions, even though the text itself doesn’t clearly signal such a shift. In other words, it imports a reading strategy rather than deriving it from the passage. In a 7th-century context, that corrective lens wasn’t universally available in the same way. So when a narrative describes someone “finding” the sun setting in a particular location, the default interpretive framework is much more likely to be concrete and descriptive, not consciously metaphorical.

The question remains: what would the earliest audience most naturally have understood? If the most straightforward reading for them was literal, then the burden shifts to explaining why a divine message would adopt wording that strongly suggests a concrete picture of the world without clearly indicating otherwise.

Do you agree that if a text is presented as divine revelation, the expectations around clarity and guidance become more demanding, not less?

On the hadith, the comparison to “all pre-modern history” sounds compelling, but it blurs an important distinction. Not all historical claims are doing the same kind of work. If we’re talking about ordinary ancient history – like what Julius Caesar did in Gaul – we’re usually dealing with probabilistic reconstruction. Historians are comfortable saying, “this is likely” or “this is the best-supported account.” The bar is explicitly not certainty.

Hadith, however – especially in collections like Bukhari – often functions at a different level of certainty and authority. Many reports are treated not just as historically plausible, but as normatively authoritative – sometimes even binding for theology and law. That’s a much higher stakes use of historical material. So asking for a higher level of justification isn’t applying a double standard; it’s recognizing that different uses demand different levels of confidence.

On the point about rigor: it’s true that hadith scholars developed an elaborate system – evaluating chains of transmission, narrator reliability, continuity, and so on. That’s impressive for its time. But rigor within a system doesn’t automatically guarantee accuracy about the past. The key question is whether the method can reliably get us to what was actually said or done, not just whether it is internally consistent.
Again, how plausible is it that Bukhari exhaustively went through all 600,000 stories in the time frame reported that he did?

For example, the system tends to privilege the chain over the content. If a report has a strong chain, it can be accepted even if the content raises historical or conceptual questions. Modern study of how history is written, interpreted, and analyzed over time usually works the other way as well: it cross-checks content against independent evidence, broader context, and plausibility. That difference matters.
There’s also the issue of independence. Many hadith ultimately trace back through a relatively small network of transmitters. Even if each link is evaluated, the overall tradition can still reflect the dynamics of that network – shared assumptions, memory reshaping, or later standardization – rather than multiple independent attestations in the modern historical sense. You have conveniently avoided the issue of whether the chains of narrators and the hadith collectors were "inspired" by Allah to be his messengers to do this work of high spiritual significance to Moslems.

As for “centuries of scrutiny,” that shows the system is stable and respected within its own tradition, but that’s not the same as external validation. Lots of intellectual traditions maintain internal coherence over centuries. The question is whether the criteria themselves are sufficient by broader historical standards, not just whether they’ve been consistently applied.

Good length of material but you’re not engaging the argument, you’re repeating your assumption and treating it as the conclusion.

On Dhul-Qarnayn, your default literal reading doesn’t hold. Even pre-scientific audiences used observational language for sunsets;“into the sea,” “behind the hills” without believing the sun literally settles there. That’s ordinary human description, not cosmology. You’re imposing literalism where the text itself doesn’t require it.

And on wajada, there’s no special or hidden Qur’anic meaning. It carries its normal Arabic sense; to find, to encounter, to come upon. That range already includes subjective experience. So when the text says he found the sun setting in a place, it’s describing what he encountered from his perspective not mapping the structure of the universe. The translation is accurate; the over-literal reading is not.

This isn’t unique to the Qur’an. The same kind of language appears in the Bible. Ecclesiastes describes the sun rising, setting, and returning; Joshua speaks of the sun standing still; Psalms portrays it moving like a runner across the sky. These are not treated as scientific claims they describe how things appear. The Qur’anic phrasing falls into that same category.

On clarity, you’ve quietly redefined it. Clear guidance does not mean every narrative line is written in technical terms. No scripture operates that way.

On hadith, your distinction still doesn’t stand. Higher stakes led to stricter methods chains, narrator criticism, and content evaluation together. It’s not chain over content; it’s both. And whether Bukhari reviewed 600,000 reports or fewer doesn’t change the principle; defined criteria, preserved judgments, and sustained critique.

As for “inspiration,” hadith scholars were never claimed to be prophets. That’s the point;a disciplined human method, not revelation.

The pattern hasn’t changed. You assume a reading, treat it as default, then fault the text for not matching it. That isn’t analysis. No

honesttalk21:
Good length of material but you’re not engaging the argument, you’re repeating your assumption and treating it as the conclusion.

On Dhul-Qarnayn, your default literal reading doesn’t hold. Even pre-scientific audiences used observational language for sunsets;“into the sea,” “behind the hills” without believing the sun literally settles there. That’s ordinary human description, not cosmology. You’re imposing literalism where the text itself doesn’t require it.

And on wajada, there’s no special or hidden Qur’anic meaning. It carries its normal Arabic sense; to find, to encounter, to come upon. That range already includes subjective experience. So when the text says he found the sun setting in a place, it’s describing what he encountered from his perspective not mapping the structure of the universe. The translation is accurate; the over-literal reading is not.

This isn’t unique to the Qur’an. The same kind of language appears in the Bible. Ecclesiastes describes the sun rising, setting, and returning; Joshua speaks of the sun standing still; Psalms portrays it moving like a runner across the sky. These are not treated as scientific claims they describe how things appear. The Qur’anic phrasing falls into that same category.

On clarity, you’ve quietly redefined it. Clear guidance does not mean every narrative line is written in technical terms. No scripture operates that way.

On hadith, your distinction still doesn’t stand. Higher stakes led to stricter methods chains, narrator criticism, and content evaluation together. It’s not chain over content; it’s both. And whether Bukhari reviewed 600,000 reports or fewer doesn’t change the principle; defined criteria, preserved judgments, and sustained critique.

As for “inspiration,” hadith scholars were never claimed to be prophets. That’s the point;a disciplined human method, not revelation.

The pattern hasn’t changed. You assume a reading, treat it as default, then fault the text for not matching it. That isn’t analysis. No

If we look at these two On Dhul-Qarnayn:
Q. 18:86:
Till, when he reached the setting-place of the sun, he found IT SETTING IN a muddy spring… (Pickthall)
Until, when he reached the setting of the sun, he found IT SET IN a spring of murky water. (Y. Ali)
Until, when he reached the setting place of the sun, he found IT SETTING IN a spring of black muddy (or hot) water. (Hilali-Khan)
Hadith:
Abu Dharr narrated, “Once I was with the Prophet (riding) a donkey on which there was a saddle or a (piece of) velvet. That was at sunset. He said to me, ‘O Abu Dharr, do you know where this (sun) sets?’ I said, ‘Allah and His Messenger know better.’ He said, ‘It sets in a spring of murky water, (then) it goes and prostrates before its Lord, the Exalted in Might and the Ever-Majestic, under the Throne. And when it is time to go out, Allah allows it to go out and thus it rises. But, when He wants to make it rise where it sets, He locks it up. The sun will then say, “O my Lord, I have a long distance to run.” Allah will say, “Rise where you have set.” That (will take place) when no (disbelieving) soul will get any good by believing then.’”

You are saying that "setting in", "set in", or "It sets in" are not literal but something else. That's very interesting!

The bottom line is you’re still sidestepping the core issue. Calling it “perspective” doesn’t solve the problem – it just restates your assumption in softer terms.
On Dhul-Qarnayn, the text doesn’t signal metaphor, approximation, or poetic framing. It presents a straightforward narrative: he travels, reaches a place, and finds the sun setting in a specific location. If the intent were merely observational language, then the burden is on you to show where the text itself indicates that shift. Otherwise, you’re importing a non-literal reading to avoid the plain sense, not deriving it from the wording.

In narrative contexts, especially when tied to physical travel and geography, the more natural reading is that he encountered something presented as part of the scene. You’re selecting the subjective nuance because it resolves the tension, not because the context demands it.
The comparisons to biblical language don’t really help your case. Pointing out that other texts use phenomenological descriptions doesn’t prove that this instance must be read that way. Each passage stands on its own indicators. Simply grouping them together risks flattening meaningful differences in style and intent.

On clarity, the issue isn’t about expecting “technical language.” It’s about whether a text described as clear should so readily lend itself to fundamentally different readings on something this concrete. If a passage can be taken at face value to mean one thing, but requires external framing to mean another, then “clarity” becomes dependent on interpretation rather than something inherent in the wording.

On the hadiths what I'm getting across is
1. An unbroken, sound chain of good characters does not guarantee truth.
2. For a text presented as divine revelation the involvement of the divine at every step is what ensures validity. If it is "a disciplined human method" you are relying upon, then human flaw cannot be ruled out.
3. If you do the maths, sifting through 600,000 stories using "disciplined human method" makes the claim for Bukhari very unlikely.
4. And on hadith methodology, saying “it’s both chain and content” is fine in principle, but the weight clearly leans on transmission.
5. If hadith scholars were never claimed to be messengers of Allah, then on what basis have you guys chosen to accept their work as authority for your spiritual life?
Again, if a text is presented as divine revelation, the expectations around clarity and guidance become more demanding, not less.

sagenaija:
[size=6pt][/size]
If we look at these two On Dhul-Qarnayn:
Q. 18:86:
Till, when he reached the setting-place of the sun, he found IT SETTING IN a muddy spring… (Pickthall)
Until, when he reached the setting of the sun, he found IT SET IN a spring of murky water. (Y. Ali)
Until, when he reached the setting place of the sun, he found IT SETTING IN a spring of black muddy (or hot) water. (Hilali-Khan)
Hadith:
Abu Dharr narrated, “Once I was with the Prophet (riding) a donkey on which there was a saddle or a (piece of) velvet. That was at sunset. He said to me, ‘O Abu Dharr, do you know where this (sun) sets?’ I said, ‘Allah and His Messenger know better.’ He said, ‘It sets in a spring of murky water, (then) it goes and prostrates before its Lord, the Exalted in Might and the Ever-Majestic, under the Throne. And when it is time to go out, Allah allows it to go out and thus it rises. But, when He wants to make it rise where it sets, He locks it up. The sun will then say, “O my Lord, I have a long distance to run.” Allah will say, “Rise where you have set.” That (will take place) when no (disbelieving) soul will get any good by believing then.’”

You are saying that "setting in", "set in", or "It sets in" are not literal but something else. That's very interesting!

The bottom line is you’re still sidestepping the core issue. Calling it “perspective” doesn’t solve the problem – it just restates your assumption in softer terms.
On Dhul-Qarnayn, the text doesn’t signal metaphor, approximation, or poetic framing. It presents a straightforward narrative: he travels, reaches a place, and finds the sun setting in a specific location. If the intent were merely observational language, then the burden is on you to show where the text itself indicates that shift. Otherwise, you’re importing a non-literal reading to avoid the plain sense, not deriving it from the wording.

In narrative contexts, especially when tied to physical travel and geography, the more natural reading is that he encountered something presented as part of the scene. You’re selecting the subjective nuance because it resolves the tension, not because the context demands it.
The comparisons to biblical language don’t really help your case. Pointing out that other texts use phenomenological descriptions doesn’t prove that this instance must be read that way. Each passage stands on its own indicators. Simply grouping them together risks flattening meaningful differences in style and intent.

On clarity, the issue isn’t about expecting “technical language.” It’s about whether a text described as clear should so readily lend itself to fundamentally different readings on something this concrete. If a passage can be taken at face value to mean one thing, but requires external framing to mean another, then “clarity” becomes dependent on interpretation rather than something inherent in the wording.

On the hadiths what I'm getting across is
1. An unbroken, sound chain of good characters does not guarantee truth.
2. For a text presented as divine revelation the involvement of the divine at every step is what ensures validity. If it is "a disciplined human method" you are relying upon, then human flaw cannot be ruled out.
3. If you do the maths, sifting through 600,000 stories using "disciplined human method" makes the claim for Bukhari very unlikely.
4. And on hadith methodology, saying “it’s both chain and content” is fine in principle, but the weight clearly leans on transmission.
5. If hadith scholars were never claimed to be messengers of Allah, then on what basis have you guys chosen to accept their work as authority for your spiritual life?
Again, if a text is presented as divine revelation, the expectations around clarity and guidance become more demanding, not less.

Your continued engagement is noted but you’re not uncovering a flaw, you’re front-loading an assumption and calling it a plain reading.

Everything turns on wajada. It anchors the scene in lived experience, not cosmology. Remove that, and you can force he found the place where the sun sets but that meaning isn’t coming from the Arabic. It’s being imposed onto it.

Appealing to multiple English translations doesn’t strengthen your case. The Qur’an isn’t in English. Wajada carries a range of meanings encompassing found, encountered, perceived, experienced. English narrows that range. Stacking translations just repeats the same limitation. Once the full range is restored, your reading stops being natural and becomes selective.

The hadith doesn’t support you either. It uses ordinary sunset language the same way people say the sun “sets in the sea” or “drops behind the hills.” No one builds cosmology from that. You are.

Your no signal of metaphor point misses something basic; context is the signal. This is a journey narrative; west, east, a barrier, Gog and Magog. It describes what is seen, not how the universe works. You’re implicitly demanding scientific precision from a passage that never set out to provide it.
And this isn’t unique.

The same observational language appears in Ecclesiastes, Joshua, and Psalms; the sun rising, setting, even standing still. No one reads those as technical cosmology. Applying a different standard here is inconsistent.

Ecclesiastes 1:5
The sun rises, and the sun goes down, and hastens to the place where [/b]it rises.

Joshua 10:12–13
“Then Joshua spoke to the Lord in the day when the Lord gave the Amorites over to the sons of Israel, and he said in the sight of Israel:
Sun, [b]stand still at Gibeon, and moon, in the Valley of Aijalon.
And the sun stood still, and the moon stopped, until the nation took vengeance on their enemies.

Is this not written in the Book of Jashar? The sun stopped in the midst of heaven and did not hurry to set for about a whole day.

Psalms 19:4–6
In them he has set a tent for the sun,
which comes out like a bridegroom leaving his chamber,
and, like a strong man, runs its course with joy.
Its rising is from the end of the heavens,
and its circuit to the end of them,
and there is nothing hidden from its heat.”

On clarity, you’ve stretched the term beyond its function. The Qur’an is clear where it intends to be; belief, law, guidance. That clarity is demonstrated by consistent understanding across centuries. Extending that demand to every descriptive phrase is a standard you don’t apply elsewhere.

On hadith, the bar you’re setting isn’t just high; it’s impossible. No pre-modern history meets it. Hadith science doesn’t claim absolute certainty; it classifies, corroborates, and critiques. That’s rigor.

Reducing al-Bukhari’s work to a number misses the point. This wasn’t a solitary effort but a lifetime within a disciplined scholarly network; transmission, memorization, scrutiny. You’re critiquing a caricature, not the method.

And on authority, you’re aiming at the wrong target. Authority isn’t in a person, but in a transparent, contested process. If you accept figures like Josephus, Tacitus, or Herodotus, you’ve already accepted far looser standards of transmission.

So it comes back to the same pattern: Assume the narrowest translation
Ignore the source language
Impose literalism
Then declare contradiction

That isn’t reading the text. It’s constructing a problem, then pointing at it.

honesttalk21:
Your continued engagement is noted but you’re not uncovering a flaw, you’re front-loading an assumption and calling it a plain reading.

Everything turns on wajada. It anchors the scene in lived experience, not cosmology. Remove that, and you can force he found the place where the sun sets but that meaning isn’t coming from the Arabic. It’s being imposed onto it.

Appealing to multiple English translations doesn’t strengthen your case. The Qur’an isn’t in English. Wajada carries a range of meanings encompassing found, encountered, perceived, experienced. English narrows that range. Stacking translations just repeats the same limitation. Once the full range is restored, your reading stops being natural and becomes selective.

The hadith doesn’t support you either. It uses ordinary sunset language the same way people say the sun “sets in the sea” or “drops behind the hills.” No one builds cosmology from that. You are.

Your no signal of metaphor point misses something basic; context is the signal. This is a journey narrative; west, east, a barrier, Gog and Magog. It describes what is seen, not how the universe works. You’re implicitly demanding scientific precision from a passage that never set out to provide it.
And this isn’t unique.

The same observational language appears in Ecclesiastes, Joshua, and Psalms; the sun rising, setting, even standing still. No one reads those as technical cosmology. Applying a different standard here is inconsistent.

Ecclesiastes 1:5
The sun rises, and the sun goes down, and hastens to the place where [/b]it rises.

Joshua 10:12–13
“Then Joshua spoke to the Lord in the day when the Lord gave the Amorites over to the sons of Israel, and he said in the sight of Israel:
Sun, [b]stand still at Gibeon, and moon, in the Valley of Aijalon.
And the sun stood still, and the moon stopped, until the nation took vengeance on their enemies.

Is this not written in the Book of Jashar? The sun stopped in the midst of heaven and did not hurry to set for about a whole day.

Psalms 19:4–6
In them he has set a tent for the sun,
which comes out like a bridegroom leaving his chamber,
and, like a strong man, runs its course with joy.
Its rising is from the end of the heavens,
and its circuit to the end of them,
and there is nothing hidden from its heat.”

On clarity, you’ve stretched the term beyond its function. The Qur’an is clear where it intends to be; belief, law, guidance. That clarity is demonstrated by consistent understanding across centuries. Extending that demand to every descriptive phrase is a standard you don’t apply elsewhere.

On hadith, the bar you’re setting isn’t just high; it’s impossible. No pre-modern history meets it. Hadith science doesn’t claim absolute certainty; it classifies, corroborates, and critiques. That’s rigor.

Reducing al-Bukhari’s work to a number misses the point. This wasn’t a solitary effort but a lifetime within a disciplined scholarly network; transmission, memorization, scrutiny. You’re critiquing a caricature, not the method.

And on authority, you’re aiming at the wrong target. Authority isn’t in a person, but in a transparent, contested process. If you accept figures like Josephus, Tacitus, or Herodotus, you’ve already accepted far looser standards of transmission.

So it comes back to the same pattern: Assume the narrowest translation
Ignore the source language
Impose literalism
Then declare contradiction

That isn’t reading the text. It’s constructing a problem, then pointing at it.

One of the things that interests me in engaging others here is that beyond us others are reading our posts. Hopefully even if we can't agree, those reading will have their eyes open to the issues.
First, on your wajada:
You’re right that the word can have more than one meaning – “found,” “encountered,” “perceived,” “experienced.” But that actually doesn’t solve the issue, it just relocates it. Even if we grant the full semantic range, the structure of the verse still ties the perception to a concrete scene:
he reached the place where the sun sets and found/perceived it setting in a muddy spring

The question isn’t whether wajada allows perception – it does. The question is: what exactly is being perceived?
The object of perception is still “the sun setting in a spring,” not “what looked like a sunset over a horizon.” That your interpretive softening isn’t coming from the Arabic itself – it’s being inferred to avoid the literal implication.

Bringing back the full range of meanings for your wajada doesn’t prove your reading is the obvious one – it just shows there’s more than one possible reading.
So you’re not getting rid of assumptions; you’re just swapping a clear, direct one for a more subtle, less obvious one.

On context and narrative:
Saying “this is a journey narrative, not cosmology” doesn’t automatically make the description phenomenological. Narratives can still contain claims about the world as understood by the narrator. Simply labeling it “what is seen” doesn’t establish that the text intends a visual illusion rather than a literal description.
If anything, the narrative framing (“he reached… he found…”) reads like a report of what is actually there from the character’s perspective – not a disclaimer that appearances are deceptive.

On metaphor vs. literal language:
You said “context is the signal,” but context has to indicate figurative intent – not just be non-scientific. In the examples you gave:
• In Book of Psalms, the language is clearly poetic (“like a bridegroom,” “runs its course with joy”).
• In Book of Ecclesiastes, it’s reflective and cyclical, not tied to a specific physical location.
• In Book of Joshua, the “sun standing still” is presented as a miracle, not a normal geographic endpoint.
Those are all genre-signaled or rhetorically marked. By contrast, that Koran passage is presented as straightforward travel description – westward journey, a location reached, a thing found there. That’s not the same kind of language.

So applying the same interpretive lens isn’t actually consistent – it flattens meaningful differences in style and framing.

On the hadith:
Saying it uses “ordinary sunset language” is exactly the point under dispute. The hadith doesn’t just say “the sun sets” – it describes a specific destination/action (e.g., prostration under the throne). That goes beyond everyday phrasing and again reflects a pre-modern cosmological model.
So the question is whether we read that as:
• purely metaphorical (which the text doesn’t signal), or
• reflective of how the phenomenon was actually understood at the time.

Appealing to everyday speech doesn’t fully account for those added details.

On clarity and standards:
You argue the Koran is only “clear” in matters of guidance, not description. But that introduces a moving standard: when a passage appears problematic, it becomes “non-literal,” while clearer doctrinal passages remain literal.
The issue isn’t demanding “scientific precision” – it’s asking for interpretive consistency. If a plain reading creates tension with established knowledge, and the resolution is to reclassify the language as phenomenological, that move needs justification from the text itself – not just from external expectations.

On hadith methodology and historical standards:
No one is denying that hadith scholars developed a rigorous system. The question is whether that system produces reliable access to specific historical claims. Comparing it to historians like Tacitus or Herodotus doesn’t really settle that – it just shows that all ancient sources require scrutiny. (I have not even touched on the fact that the hadiths were written hundreds of years from the fact. Ever heard of Chinese whispers?)
Pointing out that others use imperfect sources doesn’t automatically validate this one; it just levels the playing field. Again, pardon my repetition: for a text that is presented as divine revelation, the expectations around clarity and guidance become more demanding, not less. I'm sure you agree with me on this even if on nothing else.

Bottom line:
Your argument depends on reclassifying the language as observational and non-literal – but that move isn’t clearly anchored in the text itself. It’s motivated by the need to harmonize the passage with a non-literal reading.
So the disagreement isn’t that one side is “ignoring Arabic” and the other isn’t – it's that:
• one reading takes the description at face value within its narrative frame,
• the other introduces a phenomenological layer that the text doesn’t explicitly signal.
That’s the real point of tension. And I hope that you see that.

Your argument depends on one move:
you literalise phenomenological language but only when it’s the Qur’an.
That selective literalism is the flaw, and everything else flows from it. Regardless of whether others read this exchange or not undiluted truth is of essence and this needs no public validation.Your entire argument rests on one move; you literalise phenomenological language but only when it's the Qur’an.

That selective literalism is the flaw, and everything else flows from it.

1. Wajada: you're assuming what you need to prove. You insist the object is “the sun setting in a spring,” as if grammar fixes reality. It doesn’t.

Perceptual language routinely uses real objects for experienced appearances: A traveller finds water at the horizon (mirage)
An observer sees the sun sink into the sea
In both cases, the object is grammatically real but not ontologically literal.That’s exactly what wajada captures.Encounter, not verification.

Your reading only works if you assume every described object must correspond to physical reality. That assumption is not neutral it’s precisely what’s under dispute, and you haven’t argued for it.
And the charge that this reading is “motivated by harmonisation” proves too much because the same applies to standard readings of Ecclesiastes 1:5 (the sun rises and the sun goes down). If harmonisation invalidates one, it invalidates both. You can’t apply that criterion selectively.

2. Narrative does not equal cosmology
“He reached… he found…” is reporting experience, not defining the structure of the universe. You assert that narrative forces literal cosmology but you’ve provided no rule establishing that.

If your rule were true, then any report like:
“the sun set into the sea” would automatically be a cosmological claim. That’s not how language works. Such statements are routinely understood as phenomenological descriptions of appearance, not metaphysical claims about the sun’s location.

So the burden is on you to show why this specific instance must be read cosmologically rather than phenomenologically. You haven’t done that.

3. Your own texts break your standard. Apply your method consistently:

Joshua 10:12–13:
“the sun stood still, and the moon stopped… and did not hasten to go down about a whole day”

This is straight narrative, no poetic framing
explicit physical description
By your rule this is literal cosmology.
But you don’t read it that way. So you’ve already conceded the governing principle;
narrative language can describe phenomena without committing to cosmology.

Once that principle is granted, your objection to the Qur’anic passage loses its force. You cannot allow phenomenological reading for your text and forbid it for mine.
That is not interpretation it is selective enforcement.

4. Your own scripture normalises non-literal description and the same principle governs the hadith.Your interpretive practice already recognises that surface description does not fix ontology.

Consider:
Exodus 15:6: “Your right hand, O Lord, glorious in power”
Isaiah 66:1:“Heaven is my throne, and the earth is my footstool”
Luke 1:78: “through the tender mercy [lit. bowels of mercy] of our God”
None are read literally.

God does not possess anatomical hands,
Heaven is not a physical chair, Mercy is not located in organs; Why? Because you recognise that language can function:metaphorically,phenomenologically or theologically

Now return to Joshua 10:12–13: the sun “stops”, the moon “halts” ,the day is extended.

Again, you do not treat this as literal cosmology. So your own method already affirms even narrative physical descriptions can be read non-literally when warranted.
That same principle applies to the hadith.
Prostration under the throne operates in a theological register, not a spatial one just like Isaiah 66:1.

Pre-modern discourse regularly describes the natural order in terms of submission,
dependence,divine command. Flattening that into astrophysics is not careful reading; it is a category mistake. And if you insist on literalism here, consistency forces you into absurdities in your own texts:
Exodus 15:6 → divine anatomy
Isaiah 66:1 → spatial furniture cosmology
Luke 1:78 → physiological mercy
You avoid those readings because you recognise genre. The inconsistency is refusing that same recognition elsewhere.

5. Your definition of “clarity” defeats every text, including yours. You’ve defined “clear” as impossible to read non-literally under any pressure but no text meets that standard including your own.

In practice, you already do the opposite:
Ecclesiastes 1:5 → phenomenological
Psalms → metaphorical
Joshua 10 → reinterpreted
Qur’an 18:86 → forced literalism
So “clarity” here is not a neutral criterion, it’s a selective filter.

A consistent standard would recognise clarity governs what the text presents, not the impossibility of alternative readings. And if divine revelation demands higher standards, that demand falls on the interpreter’s rigour not on defaulting to the crudest available reading. Otherwise, “higher standard” just becomes more literal when convenient, more flexible when necessary.
At that point, the principle stops guiding interpretation and starts tracking conclusions.

6. The transmission argument collapses on contact with reality. “Chinese whispers” is a single, linear chain with no correction mechanism. Hadith transmission was:
parallel, public, cross-checked, critically, evaluated.

The analogy fails at a structural level. Meanwhile, you accept historians like:
Tacitus
Josephus
Herodotus
despite far weaker transmission controls.
The position reduces to a dilemma:
Reject hadith and you undermine most of ancient history. Accept ancient history and your objection to hadith loses its force.
You cannot consistently maintain both.
Strip it down and the method is plain:
Literalise the Qur'an.
Contextualise your own texts.
Raise standards selectively.
Lower them elsewhere.
That is not discovering a flaw. It is constructing one through asymmetry.
And once that asymmetry is exposed, the argument doesn't just weaken
it loses its foundation entirely.

sagenaija:
[size=6pt][/size]
One of the things that interests me in engaging others here is that beyond us others are reading our posts. Hopefully even if we can't agree, those reading will have their eyes open to the issues.
First, on your wajada:
You’re right that the word can have more than one meaning – “found,” “encountered,” “perceived,” “experienced.” But that actually doesn’t solve the issue, it just relocates it. Even if we grant the full semantic range, the structure of the verse still ties the perception to a concrete scene:
he reached the place where the sun sets and found/perceived it setting in a muddy spring

The question isn’t whether wajada allows perception – it does. The question is: what exactly is being perceived?
The object of perception is still “the sun setting in a spring,” not “what looked like a sunset over a horizon.” That your interpretive softening isn’t coming from the Arabic itself – it’s being inferred to avoid the literal implication.

Bringing back the full range of meanings for your wajada doesn’t prove your reading is the obvious one – it just shows there’s more than one possible reading.
So you’re not getting rid of assumptions; you’re just swapping a clear, direct one for a more subtle, less obvious one.

On context and narrative:
Saying “this is a journey narrative, not cosmology” doesn’t automatically make the description phenomenological. Narratives can still contain claims about the world as understood by the narrator. Simply labeling it “what is seen” doesn’t establish that the text intends a visual illusion rather than a literal description.
If anything, the narrative framing (“he reached… he found…”) reads like a report of what is actually there from the character’s perspective – not a disclaimer that appearances are deceptive.

On metaphor vs. literal language:
You said “context is the signal,” but context has to indicate figurative intent – not just be non-scientific. In the examples you gave:
• In Book of Psalms, the language is clearly poetic (“like a bridegroom,” “runs its course with joy”).
• In Book of Ecclesiastes, it’s reflective and cyclical, not tied to a specific physical location.
• In Book of Joshua, the “sun standing still” is presented as a miracle, not a normal geographic endpoint.
Those are all genre-signaled or rhetorically marked. By contrast, that Koran passage is presented as straightforward travel description – westward journey, a location reached, a thing found there. That’s not the same kind of language.

So applying the same interpretive lens isn’t actually consistent – it flattens meaningful differences in style and framing.

On the hadith:
Saying it uses “ordinary sunset language” is exactly the point under dispute. The hadith doesn’t just say “the sun sets” – it describes a specific destination/action (e.g., prostration under the throne). That goes beyond everyday phrasing and again reflects a pre-modern cosmological model.
So the question is whether we read that as:
• purely metaphorical (which the text doesn’t signal), or
• reflective of how the phenomenon was actually understood at the time.

Appealing to everyday speech doesn’t fully account for those added details.

On clarity and standards:
You argue the Koran is only “clear” in matters of guidance, not description. But that introduces a moving standard: when a passage appears problematic, it becomes “non-literal,” while clearer doctrinal passages remain literal.
The issue isn’t demanding “scientific precision” – it’s asking for interpretive consistency. If a plain reading creates tension with established knowledge, and the resolution is to reclassify the language as phenomenological, that move needs justification from the text itself – not just from external expectations.

On hadith methodology and historical standards:
No one is denying that hadith scholars developed a rigorous system. The question is whether that system produces reliable access to specific historical claims. Comparing it to historians like Tacitus or Herodotus doesn’t really settle that – it just shows that all ancient sources require scrutiny. (I have not even touched on the fact that the hadiths were written hundreds of years from the fact. Ever heard of Chinese whispers?)
Pointing out that others use imperfect sources doesn’t automatically validate this one; it just levels the playing field. Again, pardon my repetition: for a text that is presented as divine revelation, the expectations around clarity and guidance become more demanding, not less. I'm sure you agree with me on this even if on nothing else.

Bottom line:
Your argument depends on reclassifying the language as observational and non-literal – but that move isn’t clearly anchored in the text itself. It’s motivated by the need to harmonize the passage with a non-literal reading.
So the disagreement isn’t that one side is “ignoring Arabic” and the other isn’t – it's that:
• one reading takes the description at face value within its narrative frame,
• the other introduces a phenomenological layer that the text doesn’t explicitly signal.
That’s the real point of tension. And I hope that you see that.

honesttalk21:
Your argument depends on one move:
you literalise phenomenological language but only when it’s the Qur’an.
That selective literalism is the flaw, and everything else flows from it. Regardless of whether others read this exchange or not undiluted truth is of essence and this needs no public validation.Your entire argument rests on one move; you literalise phenomenological language but only when it's the Qur’an.

That selective literalism is the flaw, and everything else flows from it.

1. Wajada: you're assuming what you need to prove. You insist the object is “the sun setting in a spring,” as if grammar fixes reality. It doesn’t.

Perceptual language routinely uses real objects for experienced appearances: A traveller finds water at the horizon (mirage)
An observer sees the sun sink into the sea
In both cases, the object is grammatically real but not ontologically literal.That’s exactly what wajada captures.Encounter, not verification.

Your reading only works if you assume every described object must correspond to physical reality. That assumption is not neutral it’s precisely what’s under dispute, and you haven’t argued for it.
And the charge that this reading is “motivated by harmonisation” proves too much because the same applies to standard readings of Ecclesiastes 1:5 (the sun rises and the sun goes down). If harmonisation invalidates one, it invalidates both. You can’t apply that criterion selectively.

2. Narrative does not equal cosmology
“He reached… he found…” is reporting experience, not defining the structure of the universe. You assert that narrative forces literal cosmology but you’ve provided no rule establishing that.

If your rule were true, then any report like:
“the sun set into the sea” would automatically be a cosmological claim. That’s not how language works. Such statements are routinely understood as phenomenological descriptions of appearance, not metaphysical claims about the sun’s location.

So the burden is on you to show why this specific instance must be read cosmologically rather than phenomenologically. You haven’t done that.

3. Your own texts break your standard. Apply your method consistently:

Joshua 10:12–13:
“the sun stood still, and the moon stopped… and did not hasten to go down about a whole day”

This is straight narrative, no poetic framing
explicit physical description
By your rule this is literal cosmology.
But you don’t read it that way. So you’ve already conceded the governing principle;
narrative language can describe phenomena without committing to cosmology.

Once that principle is granted, your objection to the Qur’anic passage loses its force. You cannot allow phenomenological reading for your text and forbid it for mine.
That is not interpretation it is selective enforcement.

4. Your own scripture normalises non-literal description and the same principle governs the hadith.Your interpretive practice already recognises that surface description does not fix ontology.

Consider:
Exodus 15:6: “Your right hand, O Lord, glorious in power”
Isaiah 66:1:“Heaven is my throne, and the earth is my footstool”
Luke 1:78: “through the tender mercy [lit. bowels of mercy] of our God”
None are read literally.

God does not possess anatomical hands,
Heaven is not a physical chair, Mercy is not located in organs; Why? Because you recognise that language can function:metaphorically,phenomenologically or theologically

Now return to Joshua 10:12–13: the sun “stops”, the moon “halts” ,the day is extended.

Again, you do not treat this as literal cosmology. So your own method already affirms even narrative physical descriptions can be read non-literally when warranted.
That same principle applies to the hadith.
Prostration under the throne operates in a theological register, not a spatial one just like Isaiah 66:1.

Pre-modern discourse regularly describes the natural order in terms of submission,
dependence,divine command. Flattening that into astrophysics is not careful reading; it is a category mistake. And if you insist on literalism here, consistency forces you into absurdities in your own texts:
Exodus 15:6 → divine anatomy
Isaiah 66:1 → spatial furniture cosmology
Luke 1:78 → physiological mercy
You avoid those readings because you recognise genre. The inconsistency is refusing that same recognition elsewhere.

5. Your definition of “clarity” defeats every text, including yours. You’ve defined “clear” as impossible to read non-literally under any pressure but no text meets that standard including your own.

In practice, you already do the opposite:
Ecclesiastes 1:5 → phenomenological
Psalms → metaphorical
Joshua 10 → reinterpreted
Qur’an 18:86 → forced literalism
So “clarity” here is not a neutral criterion, it’s a selective filter.

A consistent standard would recognise clarity governs what the text presents, not the impossibility of alternative readings. And if divine revelation demands higher standards, that demand falls on the interpreter’s rigour not on defaulting to the crudest available reading. Otherwise, “higher standard” just becomes more literal when convenient, more flexible when necessary.
At that point, the principle stops guiding interpretation and starts tracking conclusions.

6. The transmission argument collapses on contact with reality. “Chinese whispers” is a single, linear chain with no correction mechanism. Hadith transmission was:
parallel, public, cross-checked, critically, evaluated.

The analogy fails at a structural level. Meanwhile, you accept historians like:
Tacitus
Josephus
Herodotus
despite far weaker transmission controls.
The position reduces to a dilemma:
Reject hadith and you undermine most of ancient history. Accept ancient history and your objection to hadith loses its force.
You cannot consistently maintain both.
Strip it down and the method is plain:
Literalise the Qur'an.
Contextualise your own texts.
Raise standards selectively.
Lower them elsewhere.
That is not discovering a flaw. It is constructing one through asymmetry.
And once that asymmetry is exposed, the argument doesn't just weaken
it loses its foundation entirely.

1. Is It really “it’s just how it looked”?
Yes, people sometimes describe things based on appearance, like “the sun set in the ocean.” But not every sentence automatically becomes “just appearance.”
If a text says:
• someone traveled to a place
• reached a location
• and found something there
that sounds like a real description, not just a visual illusion. I hope this has answered your demand on this. If I said I saw Olumo rock, what would make you think that it "it only appears as if I saw it" and not that I really physically saw it?

2. Context matters, and this Context suggests a real place
The story describes travel and reaching a location, which sounds like a real-world claim. The natural reading is literal unless the text signals otherwise.
The story isn’t just “he saw the sun setting.”
You have not addressed that.

3. You’re comparing different types of texts
I was hoping that you understand that obvious metaphors aren’t the same as narrative descriptions. You will agree that comparing poetic language to a story about events isn’t a fair match.
You bring up things from the Bible like metaphors (“God’s hand,” “heaven is a throne”). But those are obviously poetic or symbolic. That’s not the same as a story describing events.
Even your example from Book of Joshua is recognized as unusual or miraculous. So it’s not a great comparison to something being presented as a normal journey.

4. You’re assuming your interpretation to avoid a problem
When you say "it only means how he experienced it" or the like, you’re reinterpreting the text to avoid a problem. I usually call that the "magic" of Islamic or Moslem reinterpretation.

5. Consistency goes both ways
You accuse me of being inconsistent, but there’s also an issue here. Let me ask you this: What consistent rule do you use to decide when a text is literal and when it’s metaphorical?

6. History vs scripture isn’t equal
Bringing up Josephus or Tacitus or Herodotus isn’t really the same thing. Writers like Josephus or Tacitus or Herodotus aren’t expected to be perfect. Religious texts like the Koran are, (unless you want to deny that here) so it’s reasonable to judge them more strictly.
If religious texts are meant to be fully true, shouldn’t they be judged more strictly than historians like these men?

sagenaija:
[size=6pt][/size]
1. Is It really “it’s just how it looked”?
Yes, people sometimes describe things based on appearance, like “the sun set in the ocean.” But not every sentence automatically becomes “just appearance.”
If a text says:
• someone traveled to a place
• reached a location
• and found something there
that sounds like a real description, not just a visual illusion. I hope this has answered your demand on this. If I said I saw Olumo rock, what would make you think that it "it only appears as if I saw it" and not that I really physically saw it?

2. Context matters, and this Context suggests a real place
The story describes travel and reaching a location, which sounds like a real-world claim. The natural reading is literal unless the text signals otherwise.
The story isn’t just “he saw the sun setting.”
You have not addressed that.

3. You’re comparing different types of texts
I was hoping that you understand that obvious metaphors aren’t the same as narrative descriptions. You will agree that comparing poetic language to a story about events isn’t a fair match.
You bring up things from the Bible like metaphors (“God’s hand,” “heaven is a throne”). But those are obviously poetic or symbolic. That’s not the same as a story describing events.
Even your example from Book of Joshua is recognized as unusual or miraculous. So it’s not a great comparison to something being presented as a normal journey.

4. You’re assuming your interpretation to avoid a problem
When you say "it only means how he experienced it" or the like, you’re reinterpreting the text to avoid a problem. I usually call that the "magic" of Islamic or Moslem reinterpretation.

5. Consistency goes both ways
You accuse me of being inconsistent, but there’s also an issue here. Let me ask you this: What consistent rule do you use to decide when a text is literal and when it’s metaphorical?

6. History vs scripture isn’t equal
Bringing up Josephus or Tacitus or Herodotus isn’t really the same thing. Writers like Josephus or Tacitus or Herodotus aren’t expected to be perfect. Religious texts like the Koran are, (unless you want to deny that here) so it’s reasonable to judge them more strictly.
If religious texts are meant to be fully true, shouldn’t they be judged more strictly than historians like these men?

The fact that you accept that people sometimes describe things based on appearance is actually significant because that's precisely the concession the argument requires. But let me take each point in turn.

1. "Reached a place and found something" doesn't force literalism

Travel, arrival, and finding something do not automatically mean physical containment. People say we reached the coast and saw the sun sink into the sea.That includes travel, arrival, and observation yet no one understands it as the sun literally entering the water.
The structure you're relying on is perfectly compatible with phenomenological language. It doesn't settle the issue.
The Olumo Rock comparison fails for the same reason. Olumo Rock is accessible and physically co-locatable so I saw it is literal. The sun at the horizon is not. It's a distant visual phenomenon and we describe it accordingly. Those are not parallel cases.

2. Context doesn't eliminate appearance-language

The place described may be real but what's being questioned is the description of the sun, not the location itself. Narratives regularly combine real settings with appearance-based descriptions. So he reached a place doesn't suddenly turn a horizon description into a cosmological claim.

3. Narrative vs metaphor is the wrong distinction

This isn't a choice between literal and metaphor. What's being used here is phenomenological description reporting how something appears. Even in straightforward, non-poetic speech we say the sun set behind the hills or the sun disappeared into the ocean. That's not poetry. That's normal human language. So pointing out that this is a narrative doesn't address the type of language actually being used.

4. "Reinterpretation" cuts both ways
Calling this Islamic reinterpretation doesn't establish anything because your reading is equally motivated. You need the passage to be cosmologically problematic for your argument to work. So both readings are, in that sense, driven by something. The real question is which reading follows a consistent linguistic principle?

It's also worth noting you already read non-literally when necessary. Joshua 10 isn't treated as standard cosmology. God's hand isn't treated as literal anatomy. So interpretation is happening on both sides. The issue isn't whether it's how.

5.A consistent rule, stated clearly

Here is the principle:
When language describes how something universally appears like the sun at the horizon it is read phenomenologically unless the text clearly makes a physical or cosmological claim. Applied consistently:
Olumo Rock is literal (accessible, co-locatable object)
Sunset language is phenomenological
Ecclesiastes 1:5 is phenomenological
Joshua 10 is exceptional, treated as miraculous
Qur'an 18:86 is literal and phenomenological. (Dhul-Qarnayn's journey is presented as real. The location is real. What is phenomenological is specifically the description of the sun — which is a distant, inaccessible object whose appearance at the horizon is universally described in appearance-language across every human culture and literary tradition.)

One rule, applied across the board. If you reject it, the obligation is yours to provide an alternative rule that explains all your readings without exceptions.

That challenge has been on the table for a while now.

6. On scripture and higher standards
You say religious texts should be held to a higher standard because they claim perfection. I agree. But a higher standard means being more careful about what the text is actually claiming not defaulting to the most literal reading available.

If a statement uses language that people universally understand as appearance-based, forcing a literal reading isn't more rigorous. It's less accurate. A higher standard applies to the interpreter's precision not to the crudeness of the reading.

Then on transmission you're willing to rely on Tacitus, Josephus, and Herodotus as historical evidence despite far looser methods of preservation, while dismissing hadith transmission, which was parallel, public, cross-checked, and critically evaluated over generations. That isn't holding scripture to a higher standard. That's holding hadith to a different standard selectively, and without justification. The two moves are not the same.

Summarily, your argument only works if travel language automatically implies literal cosmology (it doesn't). If narrative excludes appearance-based description (it doesn't). And if literalism is always the default (it isn't).
Once those assumptions are set aside, and interpretation is governed by a consistent linguistic principle applied across all texts, the objection doesn't hold. And the readers following this thread can see exactly where the consistency breaks down and on which side.

honesttalk21:
Your argument depends on one move:
you literalise phenomenological language but only when it’s the Qur’an.

Truth has nothing to do with quoting a book you don't trust and claiming it's not holy because you have already judged that book in your own heart but a sincere, honest hearted and faithful individual will not tamper with a book he doesn't believe rather he will ask the one who claims to believe such book to interpret what is found in his own book. There is no need arguing over the interpretation as long as the one believing it conscientiously agree that it's from the divine.
So for a Muslim to quote the Bible with the intention to argue or for a so called Christian to quote the Quran intending to argue makes no sense!😟

MaxInDHouse:
Truth has nothing to do with quoting a book you don't trust and claiming it's not holy because you have already judged that book in your own heart but a sincere, honest hearted and faithful individual will not tamper with a book he doesn't believe rather he will ask the one who claims to believe such book to interpret what is found in his own book. There is no need arguing over the interpretation as long as the one believing it conscientiously agree that it's from the divine.
So for a Muslim to quote the Bible with the intention to argue or for a so called Christian to quote the Quran intending to argue makes no sense!😟

This input truly sounds principled, but it raises concerns when applied consistently.
If only believers can quote just their texts, no belief can be examined from the outside which doesn’t protect truth, it shields claims from scrutiny.

Quoting a text isn’t tampering; it’s engagement. Islam affirms earlier revelations, so referencing the Injil and Torah as combined in the Bible isn’t hypocrisy. For a Muslim specifically, referencing the Bible isn't hypocrisy; belief in previous scriptures revealed through the prophets is a requirement of the faith (Qur'an 4:136).

"Let the believer interpret" also doesn't resolve the disagreement. It just hands the answer to the person whose interpretation is under examination. That's circular. The question isn't who quotes a text. It's whether the engagement is accurate and honest. Closing that down doesn't preserve truth. It avoids it.

This is where tolerance is questioned!

Imagine i'm a worshiper of Ṣàngó surely i will believe in whatever my religion says is best regarding morals neither the Bible or Quran can convince me otherwise.

The only way i could be truly converted to another faith is when i see the benefits which is missing in the worship of Ṣàngó that's when i will start to have a rethink regarding my former religion asking why such benefits are missing if truly my religion is from our benevolent Creator.

Most people claiming Christians or the ones claiming Muslims today never knew how these religions were forced down the throat of their ancestors.
The truth shouldn't have been forceful like that rather it should be based on deep down conviction from the heart so an adherent could pass on what led to his conviction to the next generation.

That is why Jesus said there should be an IDENTIFYING MARK of true faith in God {John 13:34-35} note what he told his disciples regarding forcing their beliefs on others Jesus said they must be cautious as serpent and harmless as dove {Matthew 10:16} because when the faith produces fine fruit everyone will see it and say "this is how believers in the Creator should do things". Matthew 7:16-18

So there shouldn't be quoting as well as counter quoting of scriptures from different religions. Remember whatever a Christian quotes as word of his God are things written in that book he believes just as a Muslim will also quote what is written in the book of his own God but there is no need of quoting actions that proves love exists among worshipers because everyone will see to that! Matthew 5:14-16🙂

honesttalk21:
This input truly sounds principled, but it raises concerns when applied consistently. If only believers can quote just their texts, no belief can be examined from the outside which doesn’t protect truth, it shields claims from scrutiny. Quoting a text isn’t tampering; it’s engagement. Islam affirms earlier revelations, so referencing the Injil and Torah as combined in the Bible isn’t hypocrisy. For a Muslim specifically, referencing the Bible isn't hypocrisy; belief in previous scriptures revealed through the prophets is a requirement of the faith (Qur'an 4:136).
"Let the believer interpret" also doesn't resolve the disagreement. It just hands the answer to the person whose interpretation is under examination. That's circular. The question isn't who quotes a text. It's whether the engagement is accurate and honest. Closing that down doesn't preserve truth. It avoids it.

When debating about what comes from the true God we should be careful to note one thing:

An individual can put his trust in what is illogical and observers will conclude that such a person is a f00l but when millions of people put their trust in the same illogical thing and act in line with their beliefs despite the fact that it's of no practical benefits then mankind will take it as a religion.

My question is can we use the same logic to figure out the true religion?

Let's say one man believes something that is beneficial for all most observers will say he is a gift from God or a genius what do we say when millions of people believe the same thing that is beneficial for mankind in general?
Can we conclude that is the one true religion from God?