₦airaland Forum

honesttalk21:
The Qur’an doesn’t guarantee forced global peace;

Our God promised that if adherents of His words get things right they will use what they found in His words 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

Guy it's not by military force but by the SPIRIT of our God! Zechariah 4:6

That's why He could confidently say there will be understanding among His own worshipers! Zephaniah 3:9

Maximus692:
Our God promised that if adherents of His words get things right they will use what they found in His words 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

Guy it's not by military force but by the SPIRIT of our God! Zechariah 4:6

That's why He could confidently say there will be understanding among His own worshipers! Zephaniah 3:9

That’s not what the text you quote says. Read it properly and don't misquote..

Isaiah 2:3–4 says God teaches, judges, and settles disputes. The nations don’t fix anything; God does, then peace follows.
Micah 4:2–3 has same structure. God is the actor. The peace is His work, not theirs.
Zechariah 4:6 reads not by might nor by power. Human effort is ruled out completely. Zephaniah 3:9 says God gives pure speech. He doesn’t wait for people to get it right.
Your “if they get it right” condition isn’t in the text. You replaced God’s action with human performance. So enough of your refined reference to scripture and distraction of what is discussed here. Enough please.

honesttalk21:
That’s not what the text you quote says. Read it properly and don't misquote..

This is what i told you from the start:

Don't read your own meaning into the book that's not for your religion!🙂

honesttalk21:
Isaiah 2:3–4 says God teaches, judges, and settles disputes. The nations don’t fix anything; God does, then peace follows.
Micah 4:2–3 has same structure. God is the actor. The peace is His work, not theirs.
Zechariah 4:6 reads not by might nor by power. Human effort is ruled out completely. Zephaniah 3:9 says God gives pure speech. He doesn’t wait for people to get it right.
Your “if they get it right” condition isn’t in the text. You replaced God’s action with human performance. So enough of your refined reference to scripture and distraction of what is discussed here. Enough please.

So whatever your Allah says in its book has no meaning since it doesn't give any promises?

Abeg what is the evidence that you guys are worshiping the only true God?🙂

MaxInDHouse:
This is what i told you from the start:

Don't read your own meaning into the book that's not for your religion!🙂


So whatever your Allah says in its book has no meaning since it doesn't give any promises?

Abeg what is the evidence that you guys are worshiping the only true God?🙂

Clearly what you say is here attached and everyone can see. What does Allah say or you misquote as Allah saying.
Which promise can you lay claim to with your organization in claim of its true following of the true failing to uphold.

Because those Fulanis came to enslave your ancestors that's why you don't know how faith works. Our people only believe in a deity who makes promises and see to it that it comes to pass not just some invaders coming to fight and kill people then enforcing their religion on them.

Imagine if those Fulanis never came to your ancestors will you be arguing over their book?

That's why i challenged your intelligence to think and provide something that worth it not just reading the book that was forced on your ancestors.

Prove without using that book that the religion they brought to your ancestors is from the true God.

That's all i'm asking!🤔

honesttalk21:
What does Allah say or you misquote as Allah saying.
Which promise can you lay claim to with your organization in claim of its true following of the true failing to uphold.

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.

It should now be clear to you and those reading us that you are not addressing my questions.
On your contradictory posts, you said you: "only adjusted the wording, not the point." Even then you did not point out how.
You said "Appearance language tracks what a ground-level observer sees. That's the rule.''
I asked that you tell us where the rule is from. You have not addressed that. What I see you do here is that the core question (origin/authority of the rule) is completely unanswered.

I asked: Are the two Sahih reports right or wrong in how they describe the sun?
You have not addressed that. Your reply:
• does not interact with these specifics at all
• you simply say you are “mixing categories”
My actual argument is ignored, not refuted.

On the issue of clarity:
We are talking about the claims of your book, the Koran. We are not talking about what you said that: "no that’s how ancient people described what they saw." or "Travelers always spoke like that." Are we talking about "ancient people" or how "Travellers" spoke? The burden of proof is on you but you have failed in that.

If I write a book and say it should in its entirety be CLEAR to any primary six pupil, and turn around to say that there may be some AMBIGOUS parts to a primary six pupil, what would you say of me as the writer of that book?

If Allah cannot CLEARLY explain what he has in his book of GUIDANCE then can that be a trusted source?

At the end of the day, the issue is that my points were not addressed by you not to talk of being refuted by you. What has happened is that UNFORTUNATELY they were largely sidestepped by you.

Straight and direct.
There are no contradicting posts.
Nothing shifted. What happened is simple, you objected, so the explanation became tighter. The Qur’an itself (Q3:7) already separates clear verses from those that require reflection. That’s not my framework; that’s the text explaining itself. Earlier I spoke briefly, later I spoke precisely. That is refinement, not reversal.
Regarding appearance language rule,you’re already using that rule you just don’t want to admit it here. When your Bible says the sun rises or moves across the sky, you don’t panic or call it error. Please confirm the Bible does or doesn't use this. You understand it as normal human description regarding how things appear, not a science lesson. That’s basic language. The same way we all talk in everyday life when we say the sun has set, nobody thinks it literally dropped somewhere. So the rule exists, you apply it freely just not consistently.
On the two Sahih reports, the authentic narration speaks about the sun in a theological sense; the submission to God’s command. That is no different from your own scripture describing heaven as God’s throne. You don’t take that as furniture, you understand the meaning behind it. The “muddy spring” wording you keep pushing comes from a weaker chain. You’ve quietly merged a weak narration with a strong one, then borrowed the strength of the authentic report to support the weak detail. Remove that mix-up, and the argument doesn’t stand.
On clarity and the primary six test the Qur’an is clear and it says so. But it also clearly explains that some verses are foundational and others require deeper thought. That’s not confusion; that’s the text being honest about its own structure. The clarity is in guidance; who God is, how to live, what is right and wrong. And that has been understood consistently across centuries, cultures, and languages.
Now apply your own standard to your Bible. Revelation, Ezekiel, Daniel and even Song of Solomon; would a primary six pupil read that and grasp it fully? You already know the answer. But you don’t call your scripture unclear because of that. So the issue isn’t the principle, it’s how you’re applying it.
On sidestepping you know nothing was dodged. Every point has been answered. What you’re calling sidestepping is simply the argument becoming sharper as the pressure increased. That’s not avoidance that’s what happens when a discussion is handled properly.
At the end, this isn’t about lack of answers. The answers are there. The real issue is consistency; once you apply the same standard across the board, the objections don’t hold anymore.

sagenaija:
[size=6pt][/size]
It should now be clear to you and those reading us that you are not addressing my questions.
On your contradictory posts, you said you: "only adjusted the wording, not the point." Even then you did not point out how.
You said "Appearance language tracks what a ground-level observer sees. That's the rule.''
I asked that you tell us where the rule is from. You have not addressed that. What I see you do here is that the core question (origin/authority of the rule) is completely unanswered.

I asked: Are the two Sahih reports right or wrong in how they describe the sun?
You have not addressed that. Your reply:
• does not interact with these specifics at all
• you simply say you are “mixing categories”
My actual argument is ignored, not refuted.

On the issue of clarity:
We are talking about the claims of your book, the Koran. We are not talking about what you said that: "no that’s how ancient people described what they saw." or "Travelers always spoke like that." Are we talking about "ancient people" or how "Travellers" spoke? The burden of proof is on you but you have failed in that.

If I write a book and say it should in its entirety be CLEAR to any primary six pupil, and turn around to say that there may be some AMBIGOUS parts to a primary six pupil, what would you say of me as the writer of that book?

If Allah cannot CLEARLY explain what he has in his book of GUIDANCE then can that be a trusted source?

At the end of the day, the issue is that my points were not addressed by you not to talk of being refuted by you. What has happened is that UNFORTUNATELY they were largely sidestepped by you.

honesttalk21:
Straight and direct.
There are no contradicting posts.

Honestly it's these unbelievers claiming Christians that makes it easy for people like you to think you're worshiping God.
Demons do pretend like angels of light {2Corinthians 11:14} as they demand sacred service from humans and claim they are the God of Abraham but then demons have nothing to say about the future because they themselves can't speak about their own future that is why all false religionists are blind to that viewpoint.
The true God told Abraham what to expect so that he (Abraham) could be sure that it's the Almighty God that is talking to him.
When Moses spoke with the true God He made a promise and say this will serve as evidence that He is the Almighty God.
So when He talked about a time people throughout the global will know His name God also made a promise that will distinguish His own worshipers from worshipers of demons.
That is why He said when worshipers of demons are confused and killing one another due to racism and politics His own worshipers will use what He gave them which is His word to settle their disparities peacefully among themselves and vow never to raise weapons against anyone again! Isaiah 2:2-4
So if any religion can't achieve this among their members let them tell us what their God promised as evidence of His presence in their midst of course all other religions are worshipers of demons who can't predict their own future not to talk of those worshiping them:

Why should the nations say: “Where is their God?” Our God is in the heavens; He does whatever he pleases.  Their idols are silver and gold, The work of human hands.  A mouth they have, but they cannot speak; Eyes, but they cannot see; Ears they have, but they cannot hear; A nose, but they cannot smell; Hands they have, but they cannot feel; Feet, but they cannot walk; They make no sound with their throat.  The people who make them will become just like them, As will all those who trust in them. Psalms 115:2-8

Can anyone prove this wrong if your God is not riches?
Of course worldly riches can't speak that is why those putting their trust in these things may claim they worship God but when it's time to put what their God said into practice they will trash their god and reach out for weapons against one another! Revelation 6:3-4🙂

honesttalk21:
Straight and direct.
There are no contradicting posts.
Nothing shifted. What happened is simple, you objected, so the explanation became tighter. The Qur’an itself (Q3:7) already separates clear verses from those that require reflection. That’s not my framework; that’s the text explaining itself. Earlier I spoke briefly, later I spoke precisely. That is refinement, not reversal.
Regarding appearance language rule,you’re already using that rule you just don’t want to admit it here. When your Bible says the sun rises or moves across the sky, you don’t panic or call it error. Please confirm the Bible does or doesn't use this. You understand it as normal human description regarding how things appear, not a science lesson. That’s basic language. The same way we all talk in everyday life when we say the sun has set, nobody thinks it literally dropped somewhere. So the rule exists, you apply it freely just not consistently.
On the two Sahih reports, the authentic narration speaks about the sun in a theological sense; the submission to God’s command. That is no different from your own scripture describing heaven as God’s throne. You don’t take that as furniture, you understand the meaning behind it. The “muddy spring” wording you keep pushing comes from a weaker chain. You’ve quietly merged a weak narration with a strong one, then borrowed the strength of the authentic report to support the weak detail. Remove that mix-up, and the argument doesn’t stand.
On clarity and the primary six test the Qur’an is clear and it says so. But it also clearly explains that some verses are foundational and others require deeper thought. That’s not confusion; that’s the text being honest about its own structure. The clarity is in guidance; who God is, how to live, what is right and wrong. And that has been understood consistently across centuries, cultures, and languages.
Now apply your own standard to your Bible. Revelation, Ezekiel, Daniel and even Song of Solomon; would a primary six pupil read that and grasp it fully? You already know the answer. But you don’t call your scripture unclear because of that. So the issue isn’t the principle, it’s how you’re applying it.
On sidestepping you know nothing was dodged. Every point has been answered. What you’re calling sidestepping is simply the argument becoming sharper as the pressure increased. That’s not avoidance that’s what happens when a discussion is handled properly.
At the end, this isn’t about lack of answers. The answers are there. The real issue is consistency; once you apply the same standard across the board, the objections don’t hold anymore.

That is why I say that Islam and Moslems speak from both sides of the mouth.

sagenaija:
[size=6pt][/size]
That is why I say that Islam and Moslems speak from both sides of the mouth.

Which sides? Show and stop alleging

honesttalk21:
Which sides? Show and stop alleging

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=07dBO20E2U8?si=prMZWvFBkWq858UF
I'm showing you this for you to enjoy and understand.
If you can't see it then we'll go on from there.

sagenaija:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=07dBO20E2U8?si=prMZWvFBkWq858UF
I'm showing you this for you to enjoy and understand.
If you can't see it then we'll go on from there.

Enjoyable. In your preferred media. Enjoy this too.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u7UwO8qYK9E?si=7NiGr8bA94taV5F3

honesttalk21:
Enjoyable. In your preferred media. Enjoy this too.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u7UwO8qYK9E?si=7NiGr8bA94taV5F3

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6fhm9vo9MwA?si=eFFYg4m_ufsffL-j
This is a shorter video, just in case you have issues with long videos.

None of the older scholars in Islam hold the view that recent ones hold.

Mohamed clearly said in Sunan Abi Dawud 4002, that the sun "sets in" not "appears to set" or "is seen to set" or "looks like" or "in the view of" or words like that. By reinterpreting his words his followers set themselves against him and Allah and still claim to be Moslems.

Where in the Koran is "the principle of referring the ambiguous to the clear"?
It's just not there. It is an "invention'' of Moslems to explain away the unexplainable.

If it takes more than the Koran and Hadiths to interpret Allah's words then it must be seen that something is really wrong. I urge you to take Christian Prince's offer.

sagenaija:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6fhm9vo9MwA?si=eFFYg4m_ufsffL-j
This is a shorter video, just in case you have issues with long videos.

None of the older scholars in Islam hold the view that recent ones hold.

Mohamed clearly said in Sunan Abi Dawud 4002, that the sun "sets in" not "appears to set" or "is seen to set" or "looks like" or "in the view of" or words like that. By reinterpreting his words his followers set themselves against him and Allah and still claim to be Moslems.

Where in the Koran is "the principle of referring the ambiguous to the clear"?
It's just not there. It is an "invention'' of Moslems to explain away the unexplainable.

If it takes more than the Koran and Hadiths to interpret Allah's words then it must be seen that something is really wrong. I urge you to take Christian Prince's offer.

The point is addressing you in your preferred YouTube videos style. The length is not a measure of its substance.

Your last 2 videos centre around with Christian Prince who's views resonate with you. However both videos despite sounding confident ignore how the Qur’an explains itself. It already states the sun moves in an orbit (21:33, 36:38), so the idea of it literally setting in a spring can’t be physical. And 3:7 makes it clear not every verse is meant to be taken literally. The word wajada simply describes what Dhul-Qarnayn saw, not what actually happens.

With hadith, they blur the line between weak and authentic reports and present everything as reliable, which isn’t how the science works. Even the prostration narration speaks about submission to Allah, not astronomy. So the contradiction only exists if you ignore the Qur’an’s own framework.

honesttalk21:
The point is addressing you in your preferred YouTube videos style. The length is not a measure of its substance.

Your last 2 videos centre around with Christian Prince who's views resonate with you. However both videos despite sounding confident ignore how the Qur’an explains itself. It already states the sun moves in an orbit (21:33, 36:38), so the idea of it literally setting in a spring can’t be physical. And 3:7 makes it clear not every verse is meant to be taken literally. The word wajada simply describes what Dhul-Qarnayn saw, not what actually happens.

With hadith, they blur the line between weak and authentic reports and present everything as reliable, which isn’t how the science works. Even the prostration narration speaks about submission to Allah, not astronomy. So the contradiction only exists if you ignore the Qur’an’s own framework.

When you say, “explains itself” you're making a statement you have not been able to prove. Verses that mention the sun moving don’t automatically resolve the issue in 18:86. The tension remains: one set of verses describes motion, while another describes a very concrete scene where the sun is said to set in a muddy spring. Simply asserting “it’s not literal” doesn’t demonstrate that – it just assumes it.

Also, appealing to 3:7 (that some verses are metaphorical) actually weakens the argument rather than strengthening it. Why? Because it introduces subjectivity. Once you say “this verse is metaphorical,” you need a clear, objective rule for why that verse (and not others) is interpreted non-literally. You have not been able to produce that. Otherwise, it becomes ad hoc: literal when convenient, metaphorical when problematic.

You've gone at length in these our exchanges that the Arabic word wajada (“he found”) is not as decisive as claimed. If I say “he found the sun setting in a spring,” the plain reading still describes what he encountered as reality, not explicitly as an illusion or optical appearance. The text itself doesn’t clarify that distinction – it is interpreters that are adding their own position.

On hadith: the objection about “blurring weak and authentic” sidesteps the main issue. The specific narration about the sun prostrating (found in major collections like Sahih Bukhari and Sunan Abi Dawud 4002 I mentioned in my last post) is widely classified as authentic within traditional Islamic scholarship. So dismissing it as unreliable isn’t accurate. And even if one argues it’s metaphorical, that again raises the same consistency problem: what principle determines when to read such reports literally vs symbolically?

Why do you want us to believe that what Allah said Dhul-Qarnayn saw is "not what actually happens"? Where is Allah's principle that should make us see it as you are telling us CLEARLY stated?

Finally, saying “the contradiction only exists if you ignore the Qur’an’s framework” is circular reasoning. The issue is precisely about what that framework is. I would argue that the "framework" you are talking about is itself is a new thing brought up afterwards (outside the Koran and the Hadiths) to make Moslems attempt (notice I say attempt) to resolve contradictions in the Koran.

sagenaija:
[size=6pt][/size]
When you say, “explains itself” you're making a statement you have not been able to prove. Verses that mention the sun moving don’t automatically resolve the issue in 18:86. The tension remains: one set of verses describes motion, while another describes a very concrete scene where the sun is said to set in a muddy spring. Simply asserting “it’s not literal” doesn’t demonstrate that – it just assumes it.

Also, appealing to 3:7 (that some verses are metaphorical) actually weakens the argument rather than strengthening it. Why? Because it introduces subjectivity. Once you say “this verse is metaphorical,” you need a clear, objective rule for why that verse (and not others) is interpreted non-literally. You have not been able to produce that. Otherwise, it becomes ad hoc: literal when convenient, metaphorical when problematic.

You've gone at length in these our exchanges that the Arabic word wajada (“he found”) is not as decisive as claimed. If I say “he found the sun setting in a spring,” the plain reading still describes what he encountered as reality, not explicitly as an illusion or optical appearance. The text itself doesn’t clarify that distinction – it is interpreters that are adding their own position.

On hadith: the objection about “blurring weak and authentic” sidesteps the main issue. The specific narration about the sun prostrating (found in major collections like Sahih Bukhari and Sunan Abi Dawud 4002 I mentioned in my last post) is widely classified as authentic within traditional Islamic scholarship. So dismissing it as unreliable isn’t accurate. And even if one argues it’s metaphorical, that again raises the same consistency problem: what principle determines when to read such reports literally vs symbolically?

Why do you want us to believe that what Allah said Dhul-Qarnayn saw is "not what actually happens"? Where is Allah's principle that should make us see it as you are telling us CLEARLY stated?

Finally, saying “the contradiction only exists if you ignore the Qur’an’s framework” is circular reasoning. The issue is precisely about what that framework is. I would argue that the "framework" you are talking about is itself is a new thing brought up afterwards (outside the Koran and the Hadiths) to make Moslems attempt (notice I say attempt) to resolve contradictions in the Koran.

The rule is already in the Quran. The baseline is there. The language was always there nothing new was added.
The subjectivity charge fails because the trigger is objective; a sun literally sitting in a spring cannot coexist with continuous orbital motion. That's a real contradiction, not a chosen one.
Hadith confirms transmission. The Quran controls meaning. A literal reading of the prostration narration clashes with the orbital verses in the Quran. It collapses on its own terms.
And if you apply that same strict literalism to your own scripture it falls apart just as fast. Ecclesiastes 1:5 has the sun rising, setting and hurrying back to its place. Revelation 7:1 gives the earth four corners. Isaiah 11:12 gives it ends. Either those are observational and contextual or your scripture has the same problem you're assigning to the Quran. You already know which reading you apply to your own text. Apply it consistently.

honesttalk21:
The rule is already in the Quran. The baseline is there. The language was always there nothing new was added.
The subjectivity charge fails because the trigger is objective; a sun literally sitting in a spring cannot coexist with continuous orbital motion. That's a real contradiction, not a chosen one.
Hadith confirms transmission. The Quran controls meaning. A literal reading of the prostration narration clashes with the orbital verses in the Quran. It collapses on its own terms.
And if you apply that same strict literalism to your own scripture it falls apart just as fast. Ecclesiastes 1:5 has the sun rising, setting and hurrying back to its place. Revelation 7:1 gives the earth four corners. Isaiah 11:12 gives it ends. Either those are observational and contextual or your scripture has the same problem you're assigning to the Quran. You already know which reading you apply to your own text. Apply it consistently.

Let's make this simple:
The question I'm asking you is show us where the Koran CLEARLY talks about this rule? Not just statements but specifically portion saying: this is the rule to apply to interpreting or understanding the Koran in so and so situations. Where is the objective rule for why that verse (and not others) is interpreted non-literally?

Do you agree that the "framework" you are talking about is itself a new thing brought up afterwards (outside the Koran and the Hadiths) to make Moslems attempt (notice I say attempt) to resolve contradictions in the Koran? If not, can you show us from Mohamed or the Koran how this "framework" came about?

sagenaija:
[size=6pt][/size]
Let's make this simple:
The question I'm asking you is show us where the Koran CLEARLY talks about this rule? Not just statements but specifically portion saying: this is the rule to apply to interpreting or understanding the Koran in so and so situations. Where is the objective rule for why that verse (and not others) is interpreted non-literally?

Do you agree that the "framework" you are talking about is itself a new thing brought up afterwards (outside the Koran and the Hadiths) to make Moslems attempt (notice I say attempt) to resolve contradictions in the Koran? If not, can you show us from Mohamed or the Koran how this "framework" came about?

Please tell what Quran 3:7 says.

honesttalk21:
Please tell what Quran 3:7 says.

I see that you are stuck.
You can't answer the questions.
What did you you just write up there?

sagenaija:
I see that you are stuck.
You can't answer the questions.
What did you you just write up there?

Is this your answer to a question on what Quran 3:7 says?
You obviously don't know what you ask or you are making a weak attempt at saving face?

honesttalk21:
Is this your answer to a question on what Quran 3:7 says?
You obviously don't know what you ask or you are making a weak attempt at saving face?

Remember That I asked you questions first. Instead of answering directly you came up with a verse of the Koran. That verse does not say how to interpret one portion of a verse as literal and the other portion(s) as allegorical or whatever. That is why I said "Not just statements but specifically portion saying: this is the rule to apply to interpreting or understanding the Koran in so and so situations."

If you don't understand a question say so.

How has the verse you specifically put there said that when you are reading or interpreting a passage, use literal for it if it follows this pattern and use allegory if it follows that other pattern. That is what I'm asking you. You haven't provided that. If you think I missed it show us again clearly here.

If IN ONE SENTENCE Allah say that Dhul-Qarnayn got to a place, saw the sun (a literal object) setting in muddy water, and found a people near this place, how do we Interpret one part of that same sentence as allegorical and another part of the same sentence as literal? This is what you still have not told us.

How do you take the sun "sets in" to mean the sun "appears to set" or "is seen to set" or "looks like" or "in the view of" or words like that? Which clear Koranic rule or directive explains this?

I have gone at length here to help you understand my questions. So now please answer if you think you can if not just simply own up.

Clearly Q3:7 sets the principle that clear governs ambiguous. The orbital verses create the contradiction. That's the trigger. No interpretive tradition anywhere be it Biblical, legal or otherwise provides a verse-by verse manual specifying literal here, allegorical there. They all establish principles and apply them where contradictions arise.

Dhul-Qarnayn is a narrative particular. The sun's continuous motion is a universal statement established elsewhere. You read the specific through the general. That's coherence, not arbitrary selection.

And on sets in meaning appearance like in Ecclesiastes 1:5 has the sun hurrying back to its place. You already read that as observational without a verse explicitly licensing it. The principle you're demanding spelled out for the Quran is one you apply instinctively to your own scripture without once asking where the rule is written.

That's the inconsistency. That's the answer.

sagenaija:
Remember That I asked you questions first. Instead of answering directly you came up with a verse of the Koran. That verse does not say how to interpret one portion of a verse as literal and the other portion(s) as allegorical or whatever. That is why I said "Not just statements but specifically portion saying: this is the rule to apply to interpreting or understanding the Koran in so and so situations."

If you don't understand a question say so.

How has the verse you specifically put there said that when you are reading or interpreting a passage, use literal for it if it follows this pattern and use allegory if it follows that other pattern. That is what I'm asking you. You haven't provided that. If you think I missed it show us again clearly here.

If IN ONE SENTENCE Allah say that Dhul-Qarnayn got to a place, saw the sun (a literal object) setting in muddy water, and found a people near this place, how do we Interpret one part of that same sentence as allegorical and another part of the same sentence as literal? This is what you still have not told us.

How do you take the sun "sets in" to mean the sun "appears to set" or "is seen to set" or "looks like" or "in the view of" or words like that? Which clear Koranic rule or directive explains this?

I have gone at length here to help you understand my questions. So now please answer if you think you can if not just simply own up.

honesttalk21:
Clearly Q3:7 sets the principle that clear governs ambiguous. The orbital verses create the contradiction. That's the trigger. No interpretive tradition anywhere be it Biblical, legal or otherwise provides a verse-by verse manual specifying literal here, allegorical there. They all establish principles and apply them where contradictions arise.

Dhul-Qarnayn is a narrative particular. The sun's continuous motion is a universal statement established elsewhere. You read the specific through the general. That's coherence, not arbitrary selection.

And on sets in meaning appearance like in Ecclesiastes 1:5 has the sun hurrying back to its place. You already read that as observational without a verse explicitly licensing it. The principle you're demanding spelled out for the Quran is one you apply instinctively to your own scripture without once asking where the rule is written.

That's the inconsistency. That's the answer.

Again, let's be clear about this: It is the claim a book makes that should make anyone assess the claim to see if it is true or not. If another book does not make the same claim it would make no sense comparing it to that other book.

What I see you state here is that No interpretive tradition in the Koran provides a verse-by verse manual specifying literal here, allegorical there. Am I correct?

The Quran doesn't provide a verse-by-verse manual of literal versus allegorica but establishes something more precise. A method, not a labelling system.
Q3:7 identifies foundational clear verses and others requiring proper understanding through them and Q4:82 explicitly denies internal contradiction meaning the starting point is never here is a conflict to resolve but rather here is a misreading to correct.

On 18:86 specifically reject allegory outright. The verse is real, accurate and true. The Arabic wajada already establishes perception within the wording itself describing what appeared to Dhul-Qarnayn at the horizon from his vantage point. The orbital verses describe cosmic reality. These never conflicted because they were never making the same kind of claim. No reinterpretive principle needs invoking. No allegory needs declaring.

The harmony was always inside the text. The perceived contradiction exists entirely in a flat literal English reading of Arabic narrative language not in the Quran itself.

sagenaija:
[size=6pt][/size]
Again, let's be clear about this: It is the claim a book makes that should make anyone assess the claim to see if it is true or not. If another book does not make the same claim it would make no sense comparing it to that other book.

What I see you state here is that No interpretive tradition in the Koran provides a verse-by verse manual specifying literal here, allegorical there. Am I correct?

TenQ:
Many Muslims are not aware that there are up to 32 Arabic Qur'an of which the Hafs Qur'an and the Warsh Qur'an are the most popular. A vast majority of the Islamic world uses the Hafs Qur'an (including Muslims in Nigeria).

However, the point of emphasis today is not about the various Arabic Quran's in circulation (thanks to Hatun Tash who exposed this). Today, we want to ask just one basic simple Question.
"Where is the Quran of Mohammed?"

Facts:
1. The Oral and Partially written Qur'an:
The Qur'an was in was at least partially in written form before the death of Mohammed. A tame sheep was said to eat up a chapter during Mohammed's funeral
2. The first complete Qur'an :
Abu Bakr (the first Khalif) appointed a committee led by Zaid ibn Thabit, who was known for his expertise in writing and memorizing the Qur'an, to collect and compile all the scattered written fragments and the memorized portions of the Qur'an.
3. The second complete Quran:
Somehow the Qur'an of Abu Bakr was unavailable and people were reciting the Qur'an with variations, distortions and errors and these were put in written form. The third Khalifa Uthman thus appointed a committee led by Zaid ibn Thabit (the same person who led the compilation efforts during the time of Abu Bakr) to create an official written copy of the Qur'an. The committee's task was to produce multiple copies of the Qur'an. Every variant Qur'an was BURNT to remove the evidence.

4. At least SEVEN authorised version of the standardised Qur'an of Uthman was distributed to lands far and near to Mecca
Medina, Kufa, Basra, Damascus, Cairo and Baghdad

Note:
1. You will agree with me that we have established the existence of PRINTED Qur'an as of the Time of the First and Third Khalifa after Mohammed
2. Mohammed himself recommend FOUR of the best reciters of the Qur'an during his life time and only Salim Mawla Abi Hudhayfah was dead as of the time of the Third Khalif Uthman : it is strange that non of their Qur'an was used for the authorised version of Uthman.
Sunan Ibn Majah, Hadith Number: 215
The Prophet once said, "Learn the Qur'an from four: from Abdullah ibn Masud, Salim Mawla Abi Hudhayfah, Ubayy ibn Ka'b, and Mu'adh ibn Jabal"



ENTER MODERN QUR'AN
Any reasonable person will expect that the modern Arabic Qur'an we use today would be from copies from either one of the Qur'an from Mecca, Medina, Kufa, Basra, Damascus, Cairo and Baghdad

Unfortunately, this is not. The version in popular use today is according to the RECITATION of Hafs (not even according to the written text of Hafs).

Introducing Hafs:
1. Hafs ibn Sulayman al-Kufi, the transmitter of the Qur'an was Born almost 150 years after the death of Mohammed. He never met ANY of the companions not knew any of the Khalifs of Islam.
2. Hafs and his father are known by Muslims as great liars who fabricate Hadiths. Even though he narrated hadiths, they were all deemed to be fabrications.
Ibn Hijr, Tahtheeb-Al-Tahtheeb, Volume 2, p. 245
“Ibn Adi’ said: most of his (Hafs’) hadiths, and those he narrated about, are not kept…”

Al-Albani, Irwaa-Al-Ghaleel, Volume 1, p. 260
“Abu Omar (said): this is Hafs Ibn Sulayman the Qari (Quran reader or narrator) from Kufa, and his hadiths are to be abandoned. And Uman Abu Hafs followed him, who is also (known as) Ibn Hafs A—Abdi, and he is like him in weakness, or weaker. Revised by Tabarani in A-Khabeer (1/49/3), and Qawl Al-Haythami (333/1) in his Isnad- and they are trustworthy men. But he (Hafs) was cavalier in the matter, so should not be looked at(meaning acknowledged).”


3. The introductory page or "page A" of the Arabic Qur'an just before the first chapter (Al-Fathia" include what is known by Muslims as Isnad (chains of narration) of the Qur'an. Any chain that leaves out the Qur'an of Abu Bakr or the Qur'an of Uthman is broken in transmission and cannot be trusted.


Questions:
1. If Recitations of the Qur'an could not be trusted during the lifetime of Khalif Uthman, why do you think that the Recitation of Hafs (who was born 150 years after the death of Mohammed) be trusted?
2. Where are the copies of the Qur'an sent to Mecca, Medina, Kufa, Basra, Damascus, Cairo and Baghdad so that we can compare it with the Hafs Qur'an.?
3. If the Isnad of the Qur'an is broken, how can the whole Qur'an not be Daif at best?
4. Why should anyone trust the Recitation of Hafs since he ans his father are known as fraudulent according to Muslim sources?




Note:
If you are interested in reading about the differences between the Hafs and Warsh Qur'ans you may read the writeup in the link below
https://answering-islam.org/Green/seven.htm

Attached is the Isnad of both the Warsh and Hafs Qur'an


Please let's make the answers short, direct and precise
Cc:
All my Friends on Nairaland:
LegalWolf Vanessa7 AntiChristian Empiree, Rash4ductluv, BabaHeekmat, aekymbahd, motayoayinde, drlateef, Thatfairguy1, MrCodeSolo , Hisbah21, atsleepboy1 , Lordmoh , OBALOLA55, x123xlolls , Lukuluku69 , mhmsadyq, Ibsaq , Herkeym001 , Sulasa07 , hakeemhakeem , abduljabbar4 ,olaalekan ,Friend22 , uthlaw , Exc2000 , AbuTwins ,Akhirastriver ,Akinbahm , Sino , KayB , youngdroly , jaggabban , ukeleh , Realismailakabir , Bami8064 Greatgr , Gaskiyamagana , compton11, Alfarouq , MrCodeSolo Satmaniac saintHot, drlateef, Donkmore Akinbahm , IMEI , FATHAT , talk2hb1 , iamrealdeji , Encyclopedia1 , aheeqilmaktoom , Bintdawood , Flanker , Raheeqilmaktoom , rolams ,honesttalk21 , Negroid001 , Nvestor02 , Coolsat, iamrealdeji

Wow
I never knew this though

TenQ:
Many Muslims are not aware that there are up to 32 Arabic Qur'an of which the Hafs Qur'an and the Warsh Qur'an are the most popular. A vast majority of the Islamic world uses the Hafs Qur'an (including Muslims in Nigeria).

However, the point of emphasis today is not about the various Arabic Quran's in circulation (thanks to Hatun Tash who exposed this). Today, we want to ask just one basic simple Question.
"Where is the Quran of Mohammed?"

Facts:
1. The Oral and Partially written Qur'an:
The Qur'an was in was at least partially in written form before the death of Mohammed. A tame sheep was said to eat up a chapter during Mohammed's funeral
2. The first complete Qur'an :
Abu Bakr (the first Khalif) appointed a committee led by Zaid ibn Thabit, who was known for his expertise in writing and memorizing the Qur'an, to collect and compile all the scattered written fragments and the memorized portions of the Qur'an.
3. The second complete Quran:
Somehow the Qur'an of Abu Bakr was unavailable and people were reciting the Qur'an with variations, distortions and errors and these were put in written form. The third Khalifa Uthman thus appointed a committee led by Zaid ibn Thabit (the same person who led the compilation efforts during the time of Abu Bakr) to create an official written copy of the Qur'an. The committee's task was to produce multiple copies of the Qur'an. Every variant Qur'an was BURNT to remove the evidence.

4. At least SEVEN authorised version of the standardised Qur'an of Uthman was distributed to lands far and near to Mecca
Medina, Kufa, Basra, Damascus, Cairo and Baghdad

Note:
1. You will agree with me that we have established the existence of PRINTED Qur'an as of the Time of the First and Third Khalifa after Mohammed
2. Mohammed himself recommend FOUR of the best reciters of the Qur'an during his life time and only Salim Mawla Abi Hudhayfah was dead as of the time of the Third Khalif Uthman : it is strange that non of their Qur'an was used for the authorised version of Uthman.
Sunan Ibn Majah, Hadith Number: 215
The Prophet once said, "Learn the Qur'an from four: from Abdullah ibn Masud, Salim Mawla Abi Hudhayfah, Ubayy ibn Ka'b, and Mu'adh ibn Jabal"



ENTER MODERN QUR'AN
Any reasonable person will expect that the modern Arabic Qur'an we use today would be from copies from either one of the Qur'an from Mecca, Medina, Kufa, Basra, Damascus, Cairo and Baghdad

Unfortunately, this is not. The version in popular use today is according to the RECITATION of Hafs (not even according to the written text of Hafs).

Introducing Hafs:
1. Hafs ibn Sulayman al-Kufi, the transmitter of the Qur'an was Born almost 150 years after the death of Mohammed. He never met ANY of the companions not knew any of the Khalifs of Islam.
2. Hafs and his father are known by Muslims as great liars who fabricate Hadiths. Even though he narrated hadiths, they were all deemed to be fabrications.
Ibn Hijr, Tahtheeb-Al-Tahtheeb, Volume 2, p. 245
“Ibn Adi’ said: most of his (Hafs’) hadiths, and those he narrated about, are not kept…”

Al-Albani, Irwaa-Al-Ghaleel, Volume 1, p. 260
“Abu Omar (said): this is Hafs Ibn Sulayman the Qari (Quran reader or narrator) from Kufa, and his hadiths are to be abandoned. And Uman Abu Hafs followed him, who is also (known as) Ibn Hafs A—Abdi, and he is like him in weakness, or weaker. Revised by Tabarani in A-Khabeer (1/49/3), and Qawl Al-Haythami (333/1) in his Isnad- and they are trustworthy men. But he (Hafs) was cavalier in the matter, so should not be looked at(meaning acknowledged).”


3. The introductory page or "page A" of the Arabic Qur'an just before the first chapter (Al-Fathia" include what is known by Muslims as Isnad (chains of narration) of the Qur'an. Any chain that leaves out the Qur'an of Abu Bakr or the Qur'an of Uthman is broken in transmission and cannot be trusted.


Questions:
1. If Recitations of the Qur'an could not be trusted during the lifetime of Khalif Uthman, why do you think that the Recitation of Hafs (who was born 150 years after the death of Mohammed) be trusted?
2. Where are the copies of the Qur'an sent to Mecca, Medina, Kufa, Basra, Damascus, Cairo and Baghdad so that we can compare it with the Hafs Qur'an.?
3. If the Isnad of the Qur'an is broken, how can the whole Qur'an not be Daif at best?
4. Why should anyone trust the Recitation of Hafs since he ans his father are known as fraudulent according to Muslim sources?




Note:
If you are interested in reading about the differences between the Hafs and Warsh Qur'ans you may read the writeup in the link below
https://answering-islam.org/Green/seven.htm

Attached is the Isnad of both the Warsh and Hafs Qur'an


Please let's make the answers short, direct and precise
Cc:
All my Friends on Nairaland:
LegalWolf Vanessa7 AntiChristian Empiree, Rash4ductluv, BabaHeekmat, aekymbahd, motayoayinde, drlateef, Thatfairguy1, MrCodeSolo , Hisbah21, atsleepboy1 , Lordmoh , OBALOLA55, x123xlolls , Lukuluku69 , mhmsadyq, Ibsaq , Herkeym001 , Sulasa07 , hakeemhakeem , abduljabbar4 ,olaalekan ,Friend22 , uthlaw , Exc2000 , AbuTwins ,Akhirastriver ,Akinbahm , Sino , KayB , youngdroly , jaggabban , ukeleh , Realismailakabir , Bami8064 Greatgr , Gaskiyamagana , compton11, Alfarouq , MrCodeSolo Satmaniac saintHot, drlateef, Donkmore Akinbahm , IMEI , FATHAT , talk2hb1 , iamrealdeji , Encyclopedia1 , aheeqilmaktoom , Bintdawood , Flanker , Raheeqilmaktoom , rolams ,honesttalk21 , Negroid001 , Nvestor02 , Coolsat, iamrealdeji

Level: 001
School Of Islamacology
Department Of Islamic Misguidance
Course Content 004
Title : Faking, Foundation of Facts About Quran
Objective: At the of the topic, students must have been thoroughly brainwashed with fabricated, fictitious and false misinformation and disinformation with lies from spurious sources, to equates, if not lower Quran to the level of bible as infiltrated, polluted, contaminated, confusing, contradictory, incoherent and inconsistence holy book.
Sc

honesttalk21:
The Quran doesn't provide a verse-by-verse manual of literal versus allegorica but establishes something more precise. A method, not a labelling system.
Q3:7 identifies foundational clear verses and others requiring proper understanding through them and Q4:82 explicitly denies internal contradiction meaning the starting point is never here is a conflict to resolve but rather here is a misreading to correct.
The harmony was always inside the text. The perceived contradiction exists entirely in a flat literal English reading of Arabic narrative language not in the Quran itself.

You said: "The Quran doesn't provide a verse-by-verse manual of literal versus allegorica but establishes something more precise. A method, not a labelling system."

My concern here is, LEAVE OUT Dhul-Qarnayn for now, and explain a little bit more how the Koran helps identify what is allegorical and what is literal.

Leave out general statements. Give us a plain explanation because here you've AGREED that the Koran DOES NOT provides a verse-by verse manual specifying literal here, allegorical there.

So, what is this "something more precise"? What is "A method, not a labelling system"?

gaskiyamagana:
Level: 001
School Of Islamacology
Department Of Islamic Misguidance
Course Content 004
Title : Faking, Foundation of Facts About Quran
Objective: At the of the topic, students must have been thoroughly brainwashed with fabricated, fictitious and false misinformation and disinformation with lies from spurious sources, to equates, if not lower Quran to the level of bible as infiltrated, polluted, contaminated, confusing, contradictory, incoherent and inconsistence holy book.
Sc

Alright!

Its not just about DENIAL of Truth it is about facing the truth.

If Uthman standardized the Qur'an and wrote it down. why do you adopt the Quran according to the RECITATION of Hafs when copies of the Qur'an of Uthman should be available?

As I stated earlier the Quran outrightly rejects allegory in Quran 18:86 and this is the case elsewhere. Allegory isn't in the character of Islam. The method of distinguishing clear from unclear not allegorical verses is Q3:7 which establishes that clear verses are the foundation.
When a verse's meaning is uncertain, you return to what the Quran states clearly and repeatedly elsewhere. The identification isn't labelled in advance it emerges from whether the text elsewhere speaks to the same subject clearly and definitively.
That is the method. Not a manual. Not allegory labels. Simply it is to identify if the Quran speak clearly on this subject elsewhere? If yes, that clarity governs the uncertain passage.

sagenaija:
You said: "The Quran doesn't provide a verse-by-verse manual of literal versus allegorica but establishes something more precise. A method, not a labelling system."

My concern here is, LEAVE OUT Dhul-Qarnayn for now, and explain a little bit more how the Koran helps identify what is allegorical and what is literal.

Leave out general statements. Give us a plain explanation because here you've AGREED that the Koran DOES NOT provides a verse-by verse manual specifying literal here, allegorical there.

So, what is this "something more precise"? What is "A method, not a labelling system"?

TenQ:
Alright!

Its not just about DENIAL of Truth it is about facing the truth.

If Uthman standardized the Qur'an and wrote it down. why do you adopt the Quran according to the RECITATION of Hafs when copies of the Qur'an of Uthman should be available?

Its always pain you and others when glaring errors, mistakes and faults of various available versions , multiple and mutilated Bibles were pointed out and difficult to defend for objective person as truth seeker. To you way the best way of defending biblical holy errors of your fallible God is faulting Quran with useless, baseless and irrelevant argument that never concerned you as non Islamic scholar, as you are shamefully posing and posting.

Dr

gaskiyamagana:
Its always pain you and others when glaring errors, mistakes and faults of various available versions , multiple and mutilated Bibles were pointed out and difficult to defend for objective person as truth seeker. To you way the best way of defending biblical holy errors of your fallible God is faulting Quran with useless, baseless and irrelevant argument that never concerned you as non Islamic scholar, as you are shamefully posing and posting.

Please answer the Question


If Uthman standardized the Qur'an and wrote it down. why do you adopt the Quran according to the RECITATION of Hafs when copies of the Qur'an of Uthman should be available?

TenQ:
Dr
Please answer the Question


If Uthman standardized the Qur'an and wrote it down. why do you adopt the Quran according to the RECITATION of Hafs when copies of the Qur'an of Uthman should be available?

I am not a fool to answer ignorant and enemy of Islam posing as knowledgeable about Islam.