₦airaland Forum

MaxInDHouse:
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🙂

Fundamental truth is that faith cannot be forced; real conviction comes from the heart.
But refusing to quote or compare texts shuts down honest inquiry.
Good deeds show value, not ultimate truth.
Millions can follow what works socially without it being fully true.
Truth isn’t measured by numbers or benefits alone. It requires coherence, consistency, and scrutiny. Sincere faith and questioning matter most. Shutting discussion doesn’t protect truth; it limits it.

honesttalk21:
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.

On Dhul-Qarnayn:
The text does not talk about the sun at the horizon but about the sun in clearly physical place. It is not talking about Sunset language. It is talking about THE SUN (a literal object) and what the sun is said to be doing or going into. You are the one imposing what you term "appearance-language across every human culture and literary tradition" on the text. In straightforward narrative, the default is that the narrator is describing what they take to be real unless there’s a clear signal otherwise.

Let me close this by asking you what you think of Mohamed's statement here:
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.’”

Your Allah says Dhul-Qarnayn got to a place, saw the sun (a literal object) setting in muddy water, and found a people near this place. Moslems are embarrassed by that and switch into the "magic" of Koran reinterpretation.

So, what do you think of Mohamed's statement above?
Also please answer this next question directly and don't try to skip it: Did he also "perceived" that he saw a people there but there were actually no people there?

On scripture and higher standards:
On the one hand you said "I agree" to the fact that religious texts should be held to a higher standard because they claim perfection. Then you immediately shift grounds to "holding to a different standard selectively, and without justification." Earlier you said "The Qur’an is clear where it intends to be; belief, law, guidance."
Is this truly what your Koran says it means by being clear? If so, where did it make this claim that it is only clear where it intends to be?

sagenaija:
[size=6pt][/size]
On Dhul-Qarnayn:
The text does not talk about the sun at the horizon but about the sun in clearly physical place. It is not talking about Sunset language. It is talking about THE SUN (a literal object) and what the sun is said to be doing or going into. You are the one imposing what you term "appearance-language across every human culture and literary tradition" on the text. In straightforward narrative, the default is that the narrator is describing what they take to be real unless there’s a clear signal otherwise.

Let me close this by asking you what you think of Mohamed's statement here:
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.’”

Your Allah says Dhul-Qarnayn got to a place, saw the sun (a literal object) setting in muddy water, and found a people near this place.Moslems are embarrassed by that and switch into the "magic" of Koran reinterpretation.

So, what do you think of Mohamed's statement above?
Also please answer this next question directly and don't try to skip it: Did he also "perceived" that he saw a people there but there were actually no people there?

On scripture and higher standards:
On the one hand you said "I agree" to the fact that religious texts should be held to a higher standard because they claim perfection. Then you immediately shift grounds to "holding to a different standard selectively, and without justification." Earlier you said "The Qur’an is clear where it intends to be; belief, law, guidance."
Is this truly what your Koran says it means by being clear? If so, where did it make this claim that it is only clear where it intends to be?

You pack together a few different claims however, let’s separate them and answer directly.

On Dhul-Qarnayn and the sun:
Saying it mentions the sun (a real object) doesn’t settle the question. Of course it’s the real sun,no one disputes that. The issue is how its action is being described. In ordinary narrative, real objects are still described by appearance all the time:

the sun in the sea, the sun disappeared behind the hills.

That’s not poetry it’s how people report what they see. So the presence of a real object doesn’t force a cosmological claim. What decides that is whether the language is describing mechanism or appearance. Nothing in the verse switches into mechanism.

And your default = literal rule cuts both ways. People also default to describing sunsets phenomenologically. That’s not an imposition, it’s the baseline of human language.

On the people question
No, he did not misperceive the people. He encountered real people. The verb wajada covers encountering and observing within the same scene. What changes is not reality, but the type of description:

Regarding people, it's a direct encounter, while the sunset is appearance-based observation.

Same verb, different function. That’s normal usage, not special pleading.

On the hadith you shared in support:
There are two important clarifications.

1. The core report about the sun prostrating is in Bukharī and Muslim and is sahih (authentic).

2. The specific wording you quoted (setting in a muddy spring”inside the hadith) is not sound in that full form, it’s from a weaker, expanded version.

So it’s not valid to fuse that wording back into Qur’an 18:86 and treat it as a control.

As for the authentic core:, yes, taken at face value it describes the sun prostrating. And historically, scholars did not handle that one way some read it literally, some symbolically, some left it without specifying how. That tells you something important. Even within the tradition, it was not used to override clear linguistic readings elsewhere.

So the move hadith fixes the verse into literal cosmology isn’t how the sources were actually treated.

On “reinterpreting to escape”: Magic?
That cuts both ways. Your reading also has a dependency: it needs the verse to be cosmologically crude for the argument to work. So both readings are motivated. The real question is which one follows a consistent linguistic rule without forcing the text?

On clarity and “higher standards”:

The Qur’an doesn’t say it’s only clear where it intends to be. What it does say is that it contains:

clear (muhkam) verses and others that are less specific (mutashsbih) (Qur’an 3:7)

That’s an internal distinction, not an external escape. So “higher standard” doesn’t mean force maximum literalism everywhere. It means read each statement according to the kind of language it is actually using.

If a statement uses universally human appearance-language, forcing it into a physical mechanism is less precise, not more rigorous.

Mentioning a real sun doesn’t force a literal mechanism. Wajada supports both encounter and observation without confusion.

The hadith you cited isn’t fully authentic in that wording, and even the authentic core wasn’t used as a rigid cosmological key.

“Higher standard” means consistent reading, not defaulting to the crudest literalism.
Appearance language tracks what a ground-level observer sees. That's the rule. It's not selective it's consistent. The distinction isn't in the verb. It's in what's being described. Wajada a people means he came upon them. Wajada the sun setting means he came upon the scene of sunset. Context determines category, not the verb alone.

Once you remove the assumption that narrative automatically equals cosmology, the tension you’re pointing to doesn’t actually hold.

honesttalk21:
Fundamental truth is that faith cannot be forced; real conviction comes from the heart. But refusing to quote or compare texts shuts down honest inquiry.

So if someone wants to be sincere with himself does it have to be on a public forum?
NO!
Why? Because we humans are full of pride publicly admitting we have found the truth is almost impossible but when you inquire about something with a friend you will ask honest questions that comes from the heart. Something that is totally difficult to do publicly.
That is why you can never ever see one Muslim admitting he is convinced that Christianity has the truth neither can you see a Christian acknowledge Islam here on Nairaland whereas many does so secretly. That is what makes things like this a waste of time, energy and resources.

honesttalk21:
Good deeds show value, not ultimate truth. Millions can follow what works socially without it being fully true.
Truth isn’t measured by numbers or benefits alone. It requires coherence, consistency, and scrutiny.

When one person proves to be good we can attribute such to personal behavior but when it resulted from the study of a religion then such a religion is undoubtedly the truth.
When millions from different countries throughout the world agreed to work out what benefits all races surely they have gotten the truth because the purpose of religion is to make mankind cohabit peacefully without having to raise weapons against one another.
Any spirit that can achieve that is the one true God as in the real Creator.

honesttalk21:
Sincere faith and questioning matter most. Shutting discussion doesn’t protect truth; it limits it.

Sure but it can never ever work when it is made public rather it can only lead to abusive speechs and curses just as you have seen many doing here.
If you want to know the truth speak one on one with the person without hiding anything. Most people here only argue aimlessly due to ego they are not sincere!

MaxInDHouse:
So if someone wants to be sincere with himself does it have to be on a public forum?
NO!
Why? Because we humans are full of pride publicly admitting we have found the truth is almost impossible but when you inquire about something with a friend you will ask honest questions that comes from the heart. Something that is totally difficult to do publicly.
That is why you can never ever see one Muslim admitting he is convinced that Christianity has the truth neither can you see a Christian acknowledge Islam here on Nairaland whereas many does so secretly. That is what makes things like this a waste of time, energy and resources.

When one person proves to be good we can attribute such to personal behavior but when it resulted from the study of a religion then such a religion is undoubtedly the truth.
When millions from different countries throughout the world agreed to work out what benefits all races surely they have gotten the truth because the purpose of religion is to make mankind cohabit peacefully without having to raise weapons against one another.
Any spirit that can achieve that is the one true God as in the real Creator.

Sure but it can never ever work when it is made public rather it can only lead to abusive speechs and curses just as you have seen many doing here.
If you want to know the truth speak one on one with the person without hiding anything. Most people here only argue aimlessly due to ego they are not sincere!

Private conversations can feel more honestbut that feeling alone doesn’t make them a reliable path to truth.

If a belief is true, it shouldn’t rely on being kept private. It should hold up under public scrutiny, where ideas are tested against clear evidence, consistent standards, and open accountability.

In private settings, it’s easier to agree too quickly, avoid difficult questions, or be influenced by personality rather than proof. That can create the impression of sincerity without actually strengthening the argument.

The claim that people secretly accept the truth isn’t something you can verify, it’s speculation. And notably, competing beliefs all make the same claim about their critics, which weakens it as evidence.

Likewise, widespread good behavior doesn’t prove a belief is true. It shows that it can encourage cooperation but secular systems do that as well. And since both harmony and conflict appear across all major belief systems, that pattern doesn’t help identify any one as uniquely true.

Public debate isn’t perfect,it can be messy, but it remains one of the few ways ideas are genuinely tested. Without it, any belief can avoid challenge.

So the real issue isn’t private vs. public sincerity. It’s whether a belief can stand up to questioning anywhere.

honesttalk21:
If a belief is true, it shouldn’t rely on being kept private. It should hold up under public scrutiny, where ideas are tested against clear evidence, consistent standards, and open accountability.

Yes accountability can only be measured publicly and that means all eyes should see and acknowledgement should follow that it is working out what is beneficial everywhere it is taken. But talking about scrutiny you should know that each individual differ and our motive to scrutinizing matters are not based on truth but selfish purpose that is why scrutiny can't work in this matter but benefits that could be seen by one and all! Matthew 7:16-18

honesttalk21:
It’s whether a belief can stand up to questioning anywhere.

A so called pastor will never ever agree that Islam is a better religion than the religion that is bringing him lots of money the same way an Iman will never ever admit publicly that Christianity is better than the religion that makes him popular.
But when benefits comes out there is nowhere to hide!🙂

MaxInDHouse:
Yes accountability can only be measured publicly and that means all eyes should see and acknowledgement should follow that it is working out what is beneficial everywhere it is taken. But talking about scrutiny you should know that each individual differ and our motive to scrutinizing matters are not based on truth but selfish purpose that is why scrutiny can't work in this matter but benefits that could be seen by one and all! Matthew 7:16-18



A so called pastor will never ever agree that Islam is a better religion than the religion that is bringing him lots of money the same way an Iman will never ever admit publicly that Christianity is better than the religion that makes him popular.
But when benefits comes out there is nowhere to hide!🙂

Benefits can point towards usefulness, but they don’t prove that a belief is true. Something might seem helpful, moral, or uplifting, yet be built on false claims.

Public accountability and visible outcomes matter, they show what actually works but truth is measured by evidence and accuracy, not by how many people benefit or approve. A religion can inspire kindness, cooperation, and order, and still be wrong about God, revelation, or ultimate reality. Matthew 7 reminds us that judging by appearances can easily mislead.

Ultimately, benefits everyone notices demonstrate practical value, not divine or factual truth.

Please i will like to ask you a question!

Can an organization of human be wiser than God?
Because from what you are saying it's like God can't make humans benefit in His own gathering whereas they can benefit themselves without God's guidance!😟

honesttalk21:
Benefits can point towards usefulness, but they don’t prove that a belief is true. Something might seem helpful, moral, or uplifting, yet be built on false claims. Public accountability and visible outcomes matter, they show what actually works but truth is measured by evidence and accuracy, not by how many people benefit or approve. A religion can inspire kindness, cooperation, and order, and still be wrong about God, revelation, or ultimate reality. Matthew 7 reminds us that judging by appearances can easily mislead. Ultimately, benefits everyone notices demonstrate practical value, not divine or factual truth.

MaxInDHouse:
Please i will like to ask you a question!

Can an organization of human be wiser than God?
Because from what you are saying it's like God can't make humans benefit in His own gathering whereas they can benefit themselves without God's guidance!😟

That’s not really what I’m saying and I think that’s a bit of a stretch. Of course humans aren’t wiser than God. The point is simply that seeing benefits doesn’t automatically mean something is from God.Didn't some initially benefit financially from MMM or pyramid systems before they crashed?

People regardless of being religious or not can build systems that work, that help others, that bring order. We see that everywhere. So if benefit shows up across the board, it can’t really be the thing that proves divine truth.

So no, it’s not about God being unable to guide people. It’s about not confusing what works with what’s actually true.

Do you think it is possible that humans can gather and benefit themselves in all countries yet it is just human wisdom? Isaiah 48:17-18

honesttalk21:
That’s not really what I’m saying and I think that’s a bit of a stretch. Of course humans aren’t wiser than God. The point is simply that seeing benefits doesn’t automatically mean something is from God.Didn't some initially benefit financially from MMM or pyramid systems before they crashed?
People regardless of being religious or not can build systems that work, that help others, that bring order. We see that everywhere. So if benefit shows up across the board, it can’t really be the thing that proves divine truth.

This is what i'm saying because when you say God (Creator) can't achieve the best thing among those worshiping the God yet imperfect humans can do better doesn't that bring to question the authenticity of the God you are talking about?

honesttalk21:
So no, it’s not about God being unable to guide people. It’s about not confusing what works with what’s actually true.

MaxInDHouse:
Do you think it is possible that humans can gather and benefit themselves in all countries yet it is just human wisdom? Isaiah 48:17-18


This is what i'm saying because when you say God (Creator) can't achieve the best thing among those worshiping the God yet imperfect humans can do better doesn't that bring to question the authenticity of the God you are talking about?

Yes, it’s possible. Humans cooperating globally doesn’t require God; shared needs, empathy, and trial-and-error are enough. Medicine, science, and human rights improve lives without relying on any religion.
If a faith claims to come from a perfect God, yet its followers don’t consistently outperform ordinary human systems, that raises questions. Good results alone don’t prove divine truth.
Quoting Isaiah assumes the very thing that needs proof; that the source is God. The real test isn’t “does it produce benefits?” Many things do. The test is whether the truth claims themselves hold up under evidence and reason.

honesttalk21:
Yes, it’s possible.

There are different religions in the world all claiming they are connected to God so what is the essence of holy books or God if we can just come together from different nations throughout the world and make peace reign among us? 🙂

TenQ:
The day Muslims will discover that there is no coming out from hell fire AND the best deceiver has scammed them!

On that day,
Muslims will ask Allah when he comes to them in a shape they know not and say:.
Are you TWO Allah? Is the first Allah dead?
Then Allah will remove his garment and show them his Shin : and they would be assigned each their endless penis and appropriate brothel.

How do you create a post and didn't tag me


My brother The Lord is opening eyes of people to the lies of centuries...

Even Muslims scholars avoid certain people...and advice others to stay clear


Glory to the king of kings

MaxInDHouse:
There are different religions in the world all claiming they are connected to God so what is the essence of holy books or God if we can just come together from different nations throughout the world and make peace reign among us? 🙂

Restricting your reply to just tis phrase of my comment leaves too much room to lean on a misinterpretation outside context.

Peace and unity are good but they don’t replace the need for God.

Peace isn’t the ultimate goal; we still need answers about our origin, purpose, and what comes after. Without revelation, truth becomes opinion, and unity has no solid foundation.

So unity alone may bring temporary peace but only divine guidance gives lasting truth, justice, and meaning.

Peace is valuable, but it doesn’t prove truth.
Only revelation reveals God, purpose, and what comes after. Harmony alone isn’t guidance.

Peace amongst adherents of the same book becomes the ultimate when there are different religious texts all claiming they are from the Creator.
The religious book that could make its adherents from different nations around the world cohabit peacefully has the ultimate truth.

Why?

Because each religious book is written or designed to lead its adherents in the same direction so when adherents are getting confused to the extent of ignoring their religious texts in the face of politics, nationalism, tribalism or racism then such religious book has failed the test.

Please what right does a Muslim or Christian has to look down on a Ṣàngó worshiper?
Is it not just what is written in the book?
If the book failed to unite its adherents how can you prove that the book is not another trick from the devil?😟

honesttalk21:
Peace isn’t the ultimate goal; we still need answers about our origin, purpose, and what comes after. Without revelation, truth becomes opinion, and unity has no solid foundation.

honesttalk21:
You pack together a few different claims however, let’s separate them and answer directly.

On Dhul-Qarnayn and the sun:
Saying it mentions the sun (a real object) doesn’t settle the question. Of course it’s the real sun,no one disputes that. The issue is how its action is being described. In ordinary narrative, real objects are still described by appearance all the time:

the sun in the sea, the sun disappeared behind the hills.

That’s not poetry it’s how people report what they see. So the presence of a real object doesn’t force a cosmological claim. What decides that is whether the language is describing mechanism or appearance. Nothing in the verse switches into mechanism.

And your default = literal rule cuts both ways. People also default to describing sunsets phenomenologically. That’s not an imposition, it’s the baseline of human language.

On the people question
No, he did not misperceive the people. He encountered real people. The verb wajada covers encountering and observing within the same scene. What changes is not reality, but the type of description:

Regarding people, it's a direct encounter, while the sunset is appearance-based observation.

Same verb, different function. That’s normal usage, not special pleading.

On the hadith you shared in support:
There are two important clarifications.

1. The core report about the sun prostrating is in Bukharī and Muslim and is sahih (authentic).

2. The specific wording you quoted (setting in a muddy spring”inside the hadith) is not sound in that full form, it’s from a weaker, expanded version.

So it’s not valid to fuse that wording back into Qur’an 18:86 and treat it as a control.

As for the authentic core:, yes, taken at face value it describes the sun prostrating. And historically, scholars did not handle that one way some read it literally, some symbolically, some left it without specifying how. That tells you something important. Even within the tradition, it was not used to override clear linguistic readings elsewhere.

So the move hadith fixes the verse into literal cosmology isn’t how the sources were actually treated.

On “reinterpreting to escape”: Magic?
That cuts both ways. Your reading also has a dependency: it needs the verse to be cosmologically crude for the argument to work. So both readings are motivated. The real question is which one follows a consistent linguistic rule without forcing the text?

On clarity and “higher standards”:

The Qur’an doesn’t say it’s only clear where it intends to be. What it does say is that it contains:

clear (muhkam) verses and others that are less specific (mutashsbih) (Qur’an 3:7)

That’s an internal distinction, not an external escape. So “higher standard” doesn’t mean force maximum literalism everywhere. It means read each statement according to the kind of language it is actually using.

If a statement uses universally human appearance-language, forcing it into a physical mechanism is less precise, not more rigorous.

Mentioning a real sun doesn’t force a literal mechanism. Wajada supports both encounter and observation without confusion.

The hadith you cited isn’t fully authentic in that wording, and even the authentic core wasn’t used as a rigid cosmological key.

“Higher standard” means consistent reading, not defaulting to the crudest literalism.
Appearance language tracks what a ground-level observer sees. That's the rule. It's not selective it's consistent. The distinction isn't in the verb. It's in what's being described. Wajada a people means he came upon them. Wajada the sun setting means he came upon the scene of sunset. Context determines category, not the verb alone.

Once you remove the assumption that narrative automatically equals cosmology, the tension you’re pointing to doesn’t actually hold.

Moslems enjoy speaking from both sides of the mouth.
How convenient that in ONE SINGLE SENTENCE you can choose which words are "perceived" and which ones are taken as literal. Interesting!
What does this your statement say of Islam?: "And historically, scholars did not handle that one way some read it literally, some symbolically, some left it without specifying how." Agreement or no agreement within Islam?

Your "appearance language" doesn't really work. The verse talks about:
• a defined physical location (a muddy spring)
• and pairs it with a real geographical encounter (people nearby)
The structure of the sentence treats both elements the same way. You cannot assign two different epistemic meanings within the same grammatical construction without a clear textual signal.

If the structure is:
“He found [X] … and found near it [Y]”
Then the default reading is:
• both X and Y are part of the same encountered reality
If you split them:
• X = illusion/perception
• Y = real people
you are introducing a distinction not indicated in the text.
That’s exactly what is meant by selective reinterpretation.
Do see why I talk about the "magic" of Koran reinterpretation?

Here: https://www.nairaland.com/7774998/where-quran-mohammed-it-permanently/4#138945356
You said: "Clear (mubin) means clear in guidance, not technical detail. Expecting cosmology from a travel account is a category mistake."
Here: https://www.nairaland.com/7774998/where-quran-mohammed-it-permanently/4#138964564
You said: "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."
I'm surprised that now you suddenly switch to: "The Qur’an doesn’t say it’s only clear where it intends to be. What it does say is that it contains:

clear (muhkam) verses and others that are less specific (mutashsbih) (Qur’an 3:7)"
Who made the first two statements? You, or someone else?

So, where in ONE SENTENCE the Koran (again, quoting your words) "Regarding people, it's a direct encounter, while the sunset is appearance-based observation." How is the average reader supposed to know he has to switch his mind from understanding that a part is literal to that another part is not? Where did the "clear" Koran (however you want to define your clarity) say readers should see something as "appearance-based observation'' as against literal in a single sentence? Where did it say, "It means read each statement according to the kind of language it is actually using."?

You said "Appearance language tracks what a ground-level observer sees. That's the rule.'' Please, rule from where? Tell us.

The Koran repeatedly describes itself as:
• clear
• fully explained
• guidance for mankind
So the question again is: Why would a cosmological-looking statement be placed in a form that:
• naturally reads as physical
• but requires reinterpretation to avoid that reading?

On the hadiths: the authentic reports in Sahih Bukhari and Sahih Muslim you mentioned still describe the sun as:
• going somewhere after sunset
• prostrating under the Throne
• then being permitted to rise again
That’s not just your “appearance-language.” It reflects a literal, directional model of the sun’s movement, which fits the straightforward reading of the verse much more naturally than your interpretation does. Can you see these and for once agree with me?

sagenaija:
[size=6pt][/size]
Moslems enjoy speaking from both sides of the mouth.
How convenient that in ONE SINGLE SENTENCE you can choose which words are "perceived" and which ones are taken as literal. Interesting!
What does this your statement say of Islam?: "And historically, scholars did not handle that one way some read it literally, some symbolically, some left it without specifying how." Agreement or no agreement within Islam?

Your "appearance language" doesn't really work. The verse talks about:
• a defined physical location (a muddy spring)
• and pairs it with a real geographical encounter (people nearby)
The structure of the sentence treats both elements the same way. You cannot assign two different epistemic meanings within the same grammatical construction without a clear textual signal.

If the structure is:
“He found [X] … and found near it [Y]”
Then the default reading is:
• both X and Y are part of the same encountered reality
If you split them:
• X = illusion/perception
• Y = real people
you are introducing a distinction not indicated in the text.
That’s exactly what is meant by selective reinterpretation.
Do see why I talk about the "magic" of Koran reinterpretation?

Here: https://www.nairaland.com/7774998/where-quran-mohammed-it-permanently/4#138945356
You said: "Clear (mubin) means clear in guidance, not technical detail. Expecting cosmology from a travel account is a category mistake."
Here: https://www.nairaland.com/7774998/where-quran-mohammed-it-permanently/4#138964564
You said: "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."
I'm surprised that now you suddenly switch to: "The Qur’an doesn’t say it’s only clear where it intends to be. What it does say is that it contains:

clear (muhkam) verses and others that are less specific (mutashsbih) (Qur’an 3:7)"
Who made the first two statements? You, or someone else?

So, where in ONE SENTENCE the Koran (again, quoting your words) "Regarding people, it's a direct encounter, while the sunset is appearance-based observation." How is the average reader supposed to know he has to switch his mind from understanding that a part is literal to that another part is not? Where did the "clear" Koran (however you want to define your clarity) say readers should see something as "appearance-based observation'' as against literal in a single sentence? Where did it say, "It means read each statement according to the kind of language it is actually using."?

You said "Appearance language tracks what a ground-level observer sees. That's the rule.'' Please, rule from where? Tell us.

The Koran repeatedly describes itself as:
• clear
• fully explained
• guidance for mankind
So the question again is: Why would a cosmological-looking statement be placed in a form that:
• naturally reads as physical
• but requires reinterpretation to avoid that reading?

On the hadiths: the authentic reports in Sahih Bukhari and Sahih Muslim you mentioned still describe the sun as:
• going somewhere after sunset
• prostrating under the Throne
• then being permitted to rise again
That’s not just your “appearance-language.” It reflects a literal, directional model of the sun’s movement, which fits the straightforward reading of the verse much more naturally than your interpretation does. Can you see these and for once agree with me?

Your grammar point seems strong but it doesn't hold. Same verb doesn't force identical meaning. Language follows context: people are encountered directly, sunsets are observed visually. Apply your rule strictly and you're forced to claim the sun physically sinks into a muddy spring which is what you are driving at but know it's absurd. Your method produces contradiction, not precision.

Classical scholars already settled this. Ibn Kathir's commentary on 18:86 uses Ka'annaha ,"as if", describing appearance from Dhul-Qarnayn's visual perspective. That word is in the tafsir itself, not a modern gloss. Al-Tabari engages the same question. Neither concluded a literal physical event. The reference is Tafsir Ibn Kathir, Surah Al-Kahf 18:86 check it directly.

The Qur'an itself distinguishes muhkam from mutashabih verses in Quran 3:7 so expecting uniform literalism across every descriptive phrase contradicts the text's own self-description.

The hadith concerns the unseen. Scholars who accepted it literally did so bila kayf, without specifying or asking how, precisely because it lies beyond physical observation. None mapped it onto a geographical spring on Earth.

And appearance language isn't invented here. You apply it to your own scriptures without demanding textual flags do very well to prove this incorrect or untrue. Rejecting it selectively here is the inconsistency that needs answering.

The issue isn't the text. It's forcing literalism where language, scholarship, and the Qur'an itself don't support it.

MaxInDHouse:
Peace amongst adherents of the same book becomes the ultimate when there are different religious texts all claiming they are from the Creator.
The religious book that could make its adherents from different nations around the world cohabit peacefully has the ultimate truth.

Why?

Because each religious book is written or designed to lead its adherents in the same direction so when adherents are getting confused to the extent of ignoring their religious texts in the face of politics, nationalism, tribalism or racism then such religious book has failed the test.

Please what right does a Muslim or Christian has to look down on a Ṣàngó worshiper?
Is it not just what is written in the book?
If the book failed to unite its adherents how can you prove that the book is not another trick from the devil?😟

You’re mixing up people’s failures with the truth of the message. A belief isn’t judged by how perfectly people follow it, but by what it actually teaches. By that logic, even laws against crime would be false just because people still break them. That’s not a failure of the law, it’s a failure of people.

The Qur’an itself calls for unity and rejects division: “The believers are but brothers” (49:10). So when Muslims act against that, they’re going against their own teachings not exposing them as false.

Same with arrogance Islam clearly condemns it. The Prophet peace and blessings of Allah be upon him said no one with even a trace of arrogance enters Paradise. So looking down on others isn’t Islamic. Disagreeing with beliefs, though, isn’t arrogance it’s standing by what one holds to be true.

At the end of the day, truth isn’t measured by how well people get along. Even false ideas can unite people for a time. Truth stands on revelation, evidence, and consistency not on whether people live up to it.

So the real question isn’t “Do followers get it right?” It’s “Is the message itself true?”

honesttalk21:
You’re mixing up people’s failures with the truth of the message. A belief isn’t judged by how perfectly people follow it, but by what it actually teaches.

A lecturer's presentation sounds really perfect but the average performance of students in his faculty is 5% will you say that lecturer is good enough not to talk of arguing in favor of such a lecturer when others are presenting lecturers whose students performed well?
Honestly you are now mixing emotions with reality!😟

MaxInDHouse:
A lecturer's presentation sounds really perfect but the average performance of students in his faculty is 5% will you say that lecturer is good enough not to talk of arguing in favor of such a lecturer when others are presenting lecturers whose students performed well?
Honestly you are now mixing emotions with reality!😟

5% versus 80% or 95% isn’t emotion, it’s a straight comparison, and comparisons demand answers.
If poor results are blamed on lectures, that applies to both faculties. You can’t excuse one and not the other.
The issue isn’t crowning a winner. It’s the text’s own standard; clear, fully explained, guidance for all mankind. Struggling students don’t answer that they just lower the bar the text itself set.
That question remains unanswered does this text actually meet the standard it claims for itself?

honesttalk21:
It’s the text’s own standard; clear, fully explained, guidance for all mankind.

So can you present any Islamic group that understood this so called CLEAR, FULLY EXPLAINED GUIDANCE?🤔

If you claim it's clear and fully explained then how come you can't find a single Islamic group that got what this book says correctly?🤔

MaxInDHouse:
So can you present any Islamic group that understood this so called CLEAR, FULLY EXPLAINED GUIDANCE?🤔

If you claim it's clear and fully explained then how come you can't find a single Islamic group that got what this book says correctly?🤔

Proficiency in clipping out parts is quite interesting. Nevertheless the claim that no group got it right is historically false. The Sahabah received the revelation directly, lived it, and are explicitly endorsed in the Qur'an (9:100). That's not a fallback, precisely it's the named answer. If you reject them, say so plainly, because that means rejecting the Qur'an's own testimony and I know you actually do.
Early disagreement isn't your proof. The first community was united on the foundations of tawhid (oneness of God), salah (prayer), zakat (almsgiving), fasting, hajj. No school disputes these. Later differences/disagreement came from politics and spread, not from a broken text. Reversing that is not analysis.
And it was never Qur'an alone. The Qur'an (16:44) makes the Prophet pbuh the explainer. The system is Qur'an, Sunnah, and the lived model of the Sahabah fully present at the source, then transmitted.
The criterion was already set: what the Prophet and his companions were upon. So yes there is a group. Named, endorsed, and historically real.
If that doesn't count, the issue isn't clarity it's your standard.

honesttalk21:
The Sahabah received the revelation directly, lived it, and are explicitly endorsed in the Qur'an (9:100).

This is what all religions always claim:
The people who received the book (whom we can't see now) lived by it. So it means the book failed the test of time!🥴

honesttalk21:
Later differences/disagreement came from politics and spread, not from a broken text.

This means what was written can't work globally otherwise politics should not be a hindrance if the text is perfect!😟

MaxInDHouse:
This is what all religions always claim:
The people who received the book (whom we can't see now) lived by it. So it means the book failed the test of time!🥴


This means what was written can't work globally otherwise politics should not be a hindrance if the text is perfect!😟

Saying a book failed because people didn't follow it is exactly like saying a law failed because people broke it. That's not the law it's people's failure to live within it.
If you apply your standard consistently you see how it's generally broken by a significant group of adherents.
The Watchtower Society claimed divine guidance and gave specific dates for Armageddon as 1914, 1925, 1975. Each one failed, and each time the explanation changed. That's not a minor issue, that's repeated error on a central claim.
So by your own test can something claiming divine truth be trusted after getting something that major wrong multiple times? You can't answer that without dropping your standard.
And when pressed, the usual response is that these were misunderstandings by imperfect men. Fine. But notice what that concedes. If imperfect men misunderstanding doesn't disqualify the Watchtower's claim to be God's sole channel on earth, then imperfect followers misapplying a text doesn't disqualify Islam's clarity claim either. You've just made our argument for us.
Now compare that with Islam. Its core message, scripture, and beliefs have remained consistent across 1400 years and cultures. That's continuity, not revision.
Pointing to human failure doesn't disprove a message it just shows human weakness. Even your own system has had internal changes, doctrinal reversals, and disfellowshipping disputes. Did that make it false?
The real issue isn't time it's consistency. And once you apply your standard fairly, it raises far more problems for your position than for ours.

What did Allah promise as sign that you Muslims are practicing what this God said?

For example the Bible God said if those studying His word gets things right they will use His word to settle their disparities peacefully among themselves, divert their resources into the production of food and information materials, stop the production, buying, selling and using of weapons and vow never to raise weapons against anyone again! Isaiah 2:2-4; Micah 4:1-3

That is exactly what the Watchtower has achieved with the Bible which shows that the Bible is perfect but when talking about the end of this system of things that is error from humans not the book.

So what exactly did Allah promise that will serve as proof you Muslims are getting the sense of this Quran or it's just about obeying a god you can't see with no evidence nor promises?🤔

honesttalk21:
Saying a book failed because people didn't follow it is exactly like saying a law failed because people broke it. That's not the law it's people's failure to live within it.
If you apply your standard consistently you see how it's generally broken by a significant group of adherents.
The Watchtower Society claimed divine guidance and gave specific dates for Armageddon as 1914, 1925, 1975. Each one failed, and each time the explanation changed. That's not a minor issue, that's repeated error on a central claim.
So by your own test can something claiming divine truth be trusted after getting something that major wrong multiple times? You can't answer that without dropping your standard.
And when pressed, the usual response is that these were misunderstandings by imperfect men. Fine. But notice what that concedes. If imperfect men misunderstanding doesn't disqualify the Watchtower's claim to be God's sole channel on earth, then imperfect followers misapplying a text doesn't disqualify Islam's clarity claim either. You've just made our argument for us.
Now compare that with Islam. Its core message, scripture, and beliefs have remained consistent across 1400 years and cultures. That's continuity, not revision.
Pointing to human failure doesn't disprove a message it just shows human weakness. Even your own system has had internal changes, doctrinal reversals, and disfellowshipping disputes. Did that make it false?
The real issue isn't time it's consistency. And once you apply your standard fairly, it raises far more problems for your position than for ours.

honesttalk21:
Your grammar point seems strong but it doesn't hold. Same verb doesn't force identical meaning. Language follows context: people are encountered directly, sunsets are observed visually. Apply your rule strictly and you're forced to claim the sun physically sinks into a muddy spring which is what you are driving at but know it's absurd. Your method produces contradiction, not precision.

Classical scholars already settled this. Ibn Kathir's commentary on 18:86 uses Ka'annaha ,"as if", describing appearance from Dhul-Qarnayn's visual perspective. That word is in the tafsir itself, not a modern gloss. Al-Tabari engages the same question. Neither concluded a literal physical event. The reference is Tafsir Ibn Kathir, Surah Al-Kahf 18:86 check it directly.

The Qur'an itself distinguishes muhkam from mutashabih verses in Quran 3:7 so expecting uniform literalism across every descriptive phrase contradicts the text's own self-description.

The hadith concerns the unseen. Scholars who accepted it literally did so bila kayf, without specifying or asking how, precisely because it lies beyond physical observation. None mapped it onto a geographical spring on Earth.

And appearance language isn't invented here. You apply it to your own scriptures without demanding textual flags do very well to prove this incorrect or untrue. Rejecting it selectively here is the inconsistency that needs answering.

The issue isn't the text. It's forcing literalism where language, scholarship, and the Qur'an itself don't support it.

I have referred you to your posts where you made statements and more or less made U-turn on the statements. You did not address that.
I asked you where you said "Appearance language tracks what a ground-level observer sees. That's the rule.'' To tell us where the rule is from. You have not addressed that.

I have shown you that the authentic reports in Sahih Bukhari and Sahih Muslim you mentioned still describe the sun as:
• going somewhere after sunset
• prostrating under the Throne
• then being permitted to rise again
And that what we see there is not just your “appearance-language.” That it reflects a literal, directional model of the sun’s movement, which fits the straightforward reading of the verse much more naturally than your interpretation does. I asked that at least on that you will agree with me. You again have not addressed that. Are the two Sahih reports right or wrong in how they describe the sun?

I want you to directly address these three issues I've pointed out up there.

Isn't it interesting that a so-called divine book will on one hand describe itself as "clear" and on the other hand be talking about parts of it being "unclear"? So we see Islam speaking from both sides of the mouth. I see also that you are not sticking to what your books say. You resort to "grammar", "what people encounter" and the like. We are talking about the claims of your book.

The book that [b]CLAIMS [/b]clarity now needs other books to clarify it. And even those other books have to have some other "systems" of analysis to "interpret" them correctly in order to decipher what is [b]literal [/b]and what is not. At the end of the day which "system" of interpretation is right? No wonder you guys always return to "Allah knows best" because you refuse to want to deal with the incongruities of your religion.

sagenaija:
[size=6pt][/size]
I have referred you to your posts where you made statements and more or less made U-turn on the statements. You did not address that.
I asked you where you said "Appearance language tracks what a ground-level observer sees. That's the rule.'' To tell us where the rule is from. You have not addressed that.

I have shown you that the authentic reports in Sahih Bukhari and Sahih Muslim you mentioned still describe the sun as:
• going somewhere after sunset
• prostrating under the Throne
• then being permitted to rise again
And that what we see there is not just your “appearance-language.” That it reflects a literal, directional model of the sun’s movement, which fits the straightforward reading of the verse much more naturally than your interpretation does. I asked that at least on that you will agree with me. You again have not addressed that. Are the two Sahih reports right or wrong in how they describe the sun?

I want you to directly address these three issues I've pointed out up there.

Isn't it interesting that a so-called divine book will on one hand describe itself as "clear" and on the other hand be talking about parts of it being "unclear"? So we see Islam speaking from both sides of the mouth. I see also that you are not sticking to what your books say. You resort to "grammar", "what people encounter" and the like. We are talking about the claims of your book.

The book that [b]CLAIMS [/b]clarity now needs other books to clarify it. And even those other books have to have some other "systems" of analysis to "interpret" them correctly in order to decipher what is [b]literal [/b]and what is not. At the end of the day which "system" of interpretation is right? No wonder you guys always return to "Allah knows best" because you refuse to want to deal with the incongruities of your religion.

That U-turn you’re talking about, nothing like that happened. I only adjusted the wording, not the point. The distinction has always been there, and it’s already in Qur’an 3:7. If you think anything actually changed, point it out. If not, then this is just side talk. And even if I did change position, it still doesn’t solve your problem you still haven’t shown the verse is making a scientific claim, or that the hadith forces a literal reading, or why your own standard shouldn’t apply to your texts.

On this appearance language you already use it without stress. Your Bible talks about the sun rising, standing still, running its course. You don’t take that as science. Nobody asks for explanation. But now, suddenly, everything here must be literal? That’s not principle that’s selective reasoning.

Yes, genres differ, but that doesn’t save your point. This is still a travel account someone describing what he saw. And the simple fact is no human being can reach a place where the sun literally sets. That’s not interpretation, that’s basic reality. So if your reading leads to that, then the issue isn’t the text it’s how you’re reading it. The only sensible understanding is that it appeared that way at the horizon. That’s exactly how early scholars understood it no stressing, no forcing.

And before you twist it to so the Qur’an is wrong scientifically; no that’s how ancient people described what they saw. Travelers always spoke like that. Even your own texts do it. If you want to call that error, then be ready to apply it everywhere including your side.

On the hadith, you’re mixing categories. What’s described there is unseen reality, not physical location. That’s a different discussion entirely. And again, early scholars had all this and still didn’t arrive at your conclusion. If it was that obvious, they would have said it.

On clarity! you’ve turned it into something impossible. Clear doesn’t mean nobody can ever misunderstand anything. It means the guidance is clear. And on that, the Qur’an is consistent. But if you want to use your standard, check your own side; centuries of councils and still major disagreements on core beliefs. By your measure, that’s not clarity.

And about sources, every religion has layers. Islam is just honest about it: Qur’an, Sunnah, scholarship. It’s open, not hidden.
At the end, your whole argument rests on three things; forcing literal meaning where it doesn’t fit, mixing unseen matters with physical ones, and using a standard you don’t apply to yourself. Remove those, and there’s nothing left.
Pointing at wording won’t fix that. If a standard isn’t applied consistently, it’s not an argument it’s just bias.

The Bible God made a promise that will serve as evidence of pure worship in our time.

What extraordinary thing did your Allah say people will see as evidence of pure worship among Muslims?

Note that all religions have their beliefs so whatever is written in your Quran is just what your religion says but there should be something extraordinary to prove that your Allah is the true God and that Muslims are practicing the true religion!🙂

honesttalk21:
That U-turn you’re talking about, nothing like that happened. I only adjusted the wording, not the point. The distinction has always been there, and it’s already in Qur’an 3:7. If you think anything actually changed, point it out. If not, then this is just side talk. And even if I did change position, it still doesn’t solve your problem you still haven’t shown the verse is making a scientific claim, or that the hadith forces a literal reading, or why your own standard shouldn’t apply to your texts.

On this appearance language you already use it without stress. Your Bible talks about the sun rising, standing still, running its course. You don’t take that as science. Nobody asks for explanation. But now, suddenly, everything here must be literal? That’s not principle that’s selective reasoning.

Yes, genres differ, but that doesn’t save your point. This is still a travel account someone describing what he saw. And the simple fact is no human being can reach a place where the sun literally sets. That’s not interpretation, that’s basic reality. So if your reading leads to that, then the issue isn’t the text it’s how you’re reading it. The only sensible understanding is that it appeared that way at the horizon. That’s exactly how early scholars understood it no stressing, no forcing.

And before you twist it to so the Qur’an is wrong scientifically; no that’s how ancient people described what they saw. Travelers always spoke like that. Even your own texts do it. If you want to call that error, then be ready to apply it everywhere including your side.

On the hadith, you’re mixing categories. What’s described there is unseen reality, not physical location. That’s a different discussion entirely. And again, early scholars had all this and still didn’t arrive at your conclusion. If it was that obvious, they would have said it.

On clarity! you’ve turned it into something impossible. Clear doesn’t mean nobody can ever misunderstand anything. It means the guidance is clear. And on that, the Qur’an is consistent. But if you want to use your standard, check your own side; centuries of councils and still major disagreements on core beliefs. By your measure, that’s not clarity.

And about sources, every religion has layers. Islam is just honest about it: Qur’an, Sunnah, scholarship. It’s open, not hidden.
At the end, your whole argument rests on three things; forcing literal meaning where it doesn’t fit, mixing unseen matters with physical ones, and using a standard you don’t apply to yourself. Remove those, and there’s nothing left.
Pointing at wording won’t fix that. If a standard isn’t applied consistently, it’s not an argument it’s just bias.

honesttalk21:
That U-turn you’re talking about, nothing like that happened. I only adjusted the wording, not the point. The distinction has always been there, and it’s already in Qur’an 3:7. If you think anything actually changed, point it out. If not, then this is just side talk. And even if I did change position, it still doesn’t solve your problem you still haven’t shown the verse is making a scientific claim, or that the hadith forces a literal reading, or why your own standard shouldn’t apply to your texts.

On this appearance language you already use it without stress. Your Bible talks about the sun rising, standing still, running its course. You don’t take that as science. Nobody asks for explanation. But now, suddenly, everything here must be literal? That’s not principle that’s selective reasoning.

Yes, genres differ, but that doesn’t save your point. This is still a travel account someone describing what he saw. And the simple fact is no human being can reach a place where the sun literally sets. That’s not interpretation, that’s basic reality. So if your reading leads to that, then the issue isn’t the text it’s how you’re reading it. The only sensible understanding is that it appeared that way at the horizon. That’s exactly how early scholars understood it no stressing, no forcing.

And before you twist it to so the Qur’an is wrong scientifically; no that’s how ancient people described what they saw. Travelers always spoke like that. Even your own texts do it. If you want to call that error, then be ready to apply it everywhere including your side.

On the hadith, you’re mixing categories. What’s described there is unseen reality, not physical location. That’s a different discussion entirely. And again, early scholars had all this and still didn’t arrive at your conclusion. If it was that obvious, they would have said it.

On clarity! you’ve turned it into something impossible. Clear doesn’t mean nobody can ever misunderstand anything. It means the guidance is clear. And on that, the Qur’an is consistent. But if you want to use your standard, check your own side; centuries of councils and still major disagreements on core beliefs. By your measure, that’s not clarity.

And about sources, every religion has layers. Islam is just honest about it: Qur’an, Sunnah, scholarship. It’s open, not hidden.
At the end, your whole argument rests on three things; forcing literal meaning where it doesn’t fit, mixing unseen matters with physical ones, and using a standard you don’t apply to yourself. Remove those, and there’s nothing left.
Pointing at wording won’t fix that. If a standard isn’t applied consistently, it’s not an argument it’s just bias.

You should know that I have read a lot about your books and I am well familiar with it. Let me give you an excerpt from the Alexander romances then we will also consider your early scholarly works. I know you are misinformed 🤨 but there is a limit to how you can feign ignorance with me.

"He [Alexander] said to them: "This thought has arisen in my mind, and I am wondering what is the extent of the earth, and how high the heavens are ... and upon what the heavens are fixed ... Now this I desire to go and see upon what the heavens rest and what surrounds all creation." The nobles answered and said to the king, "... As to the thing ... which thy majesty desires to go and see, namely ... what surrounds the earth, the terrible seas which surround the world will not give thee a passage. ... Men are not able to come near this fetid sea, neither can ships sail thereon, and no bird is able to fly over it, it is caught and falls and is suffocated therein. Its waters are like pus; and if men swim therein, they die at once; and the leaves of the trees which are by its side are shrivelled up by the smell of these waters as though fire licked them."
So the whole camp mounted, and Alexander and his troops went up between the fetid sea and the bright sea to the place where the Sun enters the window of heaven; for the Sun is the servant of the Lord, and neither by night nor by day does he cease from his travelling. The place of his rising is over the sea, and the people who dwell there, when he is about to rise, flee away and hide themselves in the sea, that they be not burnt by his rays; and he passes through the midst of heaven to the place where he enters the window of heaven; and wherever he passes there are terrible mountains, and those who dwell there have caves hollowed out in the rocks, and as soon as they see the Sun passing [over them], men and birds flee away from before him and hide in the caves. ... And when the Sun enters the window of heaven, he [it] straight away bows down and makes obeisance before God his Creator; and he travels and descends the whole night through the heavens, until at length he finds himself where he rises."

Anyone that hasn't read the Alexander romances before and just reads/skims through this excerpt can clearly see how strikingly similar it is to the story found in the Quran🥱. Infact, the Quran bears remarkable similarities with the Alexander romances. A simple logical conclusion will be that the Quranic author couldn't distinguish fact from legends🥱.

In case you missed it, I know sage has outlined some, I might as well just put one in here:

"Narrated Abu Dharr: "Once I was with the Prophet in the mosque at the time of sunset. The Prophet said, "O Abu Dharr! Do you know where the sun sets?" I replied, "Allah and His Apostle know best." He said, "It goes and prostrates underneath (Allah's) Throne; and that is Allah's Statement"


The Alexander Romances was a Christian fable about how God favored Alexander the Great, the Jews have theirs as well. This fable is far from reality as Alexander was a pagan! Among other things, He also claimed to be god🥱. He was a priest of Ammon and he erected lots of altars to various gods, the 12 altars he erected to the 12 Olympian gods comes to mind👀.

Can you see why the Quran's claim of Alexander being a Muslim is completely unfounded and wrong? And it's built from the legendized versions of Alexander👀.

From the stories of him found in the Quran we can see some claims:
* He travelled west🤨. This is historically false as he traveled East and South(Ammon and Memphis in Egypt)
* He saw the place of the sun's rising🤔. I think basic science tells us "the sun rises in the east and sets in the west". Thus invariably, he most have gone to the East or he went west to the extent he arrived at the East🤨. Now, how far East did Alexander travel?
Anyone with a little knowledge of History knows that Alexander stopped at the corridors of India. So definitely, he didn't travel far east.
* By the literal composition of the story, we see actions that are literal, not metaphorical🤨. "Traveled" is a literal action. And the fact he came across people that had no "covering" from the sun is another literal action. Don't forget the Quran also said "he reached the place of the setting sun" and "he found it setting in the pool of muddy spring". But when it comes to the sun setting in a pool of muddy spring, it becomes metaphorical🤨 to you. Then why were the people(with no cover) hiding from a metaphorical sun? 👀 Perhaps, they too were metaphors? Or perhaps, you have decided to use selective reinterpretation to mask the errors in such claims🥱?
* Also, in case you missed it. Allah also spoke to Alexander directly without any intermediaries 🤨. Shouldn't he be the best of mankind?👀 Apart from the obvious fact that the Quran's aim was to highlight Alexander as the only being(human)👀 to find the Sun's setting place. If not, it's rather ludicrous as almost everyone has experienced Sun rise and Sunset😅.

We can clearly see that the Quran and the hadiths that explain it have their sources from a Christian fable and legend. A Christian fable that was also influenced by Mar Jacob's legend.

Now the question becomes, is the Quran of divine origin?🤔 Or it's just a "cleansed"... or as honesttalk used to say ... "fixed" repeat of other stories?👀

MaxInDHouse:
What did Allah promise as sign that you Muslims are practicing what this God said?

For example the Bible God said if those studying His word gets things right they will use His word to settle their disparities peacefully among themselves, divert their resources into the production of food and information materials, stop the production, buying, selling and using of weapons and vow never to raise weapons against anyone again! Isaiah 2:2-4; Micah 4:1-3

That is exactly what the Watchtower has achieved with the Bible which shows that the Bible is perfect but when talking about the end of this system of things that is error from humans not the book.

So what exactly did Allah promise that will serve as proof you Muslims are getting the sense of this Quran or it's just about obeying a god you can't see with no evidence nor promises?🤔

The Qur'an doesn’t promise vague feelings it promises moral clarity, justice, and a functioning social order, and history shows it delivered. Warring Arabian tribes were unified, laws enforced, scholarship flourished, and civilisation thrived within decades. Contrast that with Isaiah 2 and Micah 4, which speak of nations globally beating swords into ploughshares. The Watchtower claims internal compliance, enforced by shunning, and has already failed three predicted Armageddons. Islam’s promise is visible, measurable, and historically documented; your end-time prophecy is still pending, defended by fallible humans. If human misinterpretation doesn’t invalidate your scripture, it cannot invalidate Islam either. The evidence is in what actually happened, not what you hope will happen.

honesttalk21:
The evidence is in what actually happened, not what you hope will happen.

So has your Allah been able to unite its worshipers and secure an international brotherhood of peace?

Note that the first thing any ruler must promise is peace and security among his subjects so if there will be anyone causing chaos it shouldn't be among his subjects who are obediently living by the rules. Africans had many deities who have secured peace among their worshipers the failure of African God's is inability to propagate and i believe it's because they are not the Almighty.

If your Allah is the Almighty it shouldn't fail to make peace reign among those worshiping it nah!😟

For example Saudi Arabia claims they own your Allah and Iran also claim they own your Allah both countries are forcing the words of your Allah on people instead of allowing adherents to choose which God they will serve.

Shunning unrepentant wrongdoers is not forceful because if your Allah used shunning and not attacking those who choose other religions it won't get a single worshiper in many lands. Do you think anyone cares about being shunned when the religion has nothing to offer?😟

MaxInDHouse:
So has your Allah been able to unite its worshipers and secure an international brotherhood of peace?

Note that the first thing any ruler must promise is peace and security among his subjects so if there will be anyone causing chaos it shouldn't be among his subjects who are obediently living by the rules. Africans had many deities who have secured peace among their worshipers the failure of African God's is inability to propagate and i believe it's because they are not the Almighty.

If your Allah is the Almighty it shouldn't fail to make peace reign among those worshiping it nah!😟

For example Saudi Arabia claims they own your Allah and Iran also claim they own your Allah both countries are forcing the words of your Allah on people instead of allowing adherents to choose which God they will serve.

Shunning unrepentant wrongdoers is not forceful because if your Allah used shunning and not attacking those who choose other religions it won't get a single worshiper in many lands. Do you think anyone cares about being shunned when the religion has nothing to offer?😟

Your whole argument is a loose,unneeded distraction because you’re holding Islam to a promise it never made. The Qur’an doesn’t guarantee forced global peace; it guarantees guidance, with people free to obey or not. Difference is expected, not failure. By your logic, every divided religion including yours collapses too. Political misuse proves human failure, not divine weakness. And small-group peace proves nothing; any cult can achieve that. You built your case on a standard that doesn’t exist. Ironically, your closing point fits your own shunning system better than anything you’ve criticised.