₦airaland Forum

Gabrielshow26:
You seem not to know anything about history and its methods. Let me educate you quick. In history, if you find a rather embarrassing story then it's more likely to be True. This historical method of choosing an embarrassing story as more likely to be true is called the Criterion of Embarrassment (or criterion of authenticity). It posits that an author or tradition is unlikely to invent a story, detail, or saying that undermines their own reputation, beliefs, or cause. So, if we find in your Hadith, stories that are debilitating to your prophet then they are more likely to be True irrespective of how your scholars try to white wash them by calling them weak.

This claim of yours that this Hadith is weak is rather insufficient and can't convince some of your scholars whom assert it being Sahih(authentic) and others that call it Hasan(good).

You can beguile the average Muslim but you can't deceive me. Now, which is it. If I were to go by some of your notable scholars this Hadith is Sahih🤔 with some being less generous, calling it Hasan. Now that the authenticity👀 of this Hadith is no longer in question as the reader can see with his eyes that the Hadith is graded Sahih, possibly Hasan👀 by some of his scholars. I leave the reader to conclude by himself albeit from the farrago of contradictory verdicts from his own scholars.

I stand with the scholars that assert it to be Sahih and using the criterion method discussed above, I am more than convinced that this story happened and whatever damage control he is trying to do is completely inconsequential and has no bearing on the discussion—which leaves no other outcome than for one to conclude that he is a troll🥱.

Now as for the perversion, which he claims we have done😔. I would like to call the attention of the reader to the Arabic word(yarkabun) used for Mohammed during that night 👀. This Arabic word in the context of humans signify "sexual acts". In the context of animals yeah, we can grant it as "riding".

Now, the so called camel riding salladin, in the form of Qasim6, failed to provide relevant context nor information to disprove the problem but just stated mere empty words strung together to sound intelligent. He is the real troll that has nothing tangible to say.

I have had meaningful discussion with your likes that have spanned many threads. I have had even with the likes of your brothers that rely on AI, Honesttalk21 comes to mind, for their rebuttals, even at this they were completely blown away.🥱 It's not that we can't have meaningful discussions but the rather apparent fact that Qasim6 along with his brothers can't disprove them🥱.

You want to lecture me on criterion of embarrassment? Now let's turn the table around
The Infancy Gospel of Thomas tells us Jesus went on a ki!!ing spree as a kid and since it is embarrassing then it must be true; The Gospel according to Peter tells us Jesus was quite on the cross as though he felt no pain since it is embarrassing then it is true?
What you don't know is that criterion of embarrassment is regarded as one of the most problematic method of reconstructing history, many modern historians have moved away from it due to its logical flaws, what we see as embarrassing in modern times might not even be
embarrassing in ancient times.

Your co-slow bro 'BlackfireX' think because Qur'an contain information that can only be found in "apocryphal" then we Muslims can not turn around and say Christians can not use weak hadith to argue against us. My response to him was what criteria is he using to conclude all information found in the canonical gospels is 100% true and all information in the supposed apocryphals is 100% false when in reality all of them seem apocryphals, they are all books written by unknown authors, they are all written decades after the events they are narrating with no chains of transmission. He believes the story of satanic verses is embarrassing then it must be true, the question is–is it even really embarrassing? One might look at it and just go well it indicates that Allah protected the Qur'an from shaytan whispers.
The story sprung up in the generation that follows that of the Sahaba, there is no connection to the first generation of Muslims. What we have from the Sahabas are several authentic narrations about the incident where the Prophet was reciting surah Najm at the Kaaba and everyone prostrated except some 2 individuals, no mention of shaytan whispering anything in all of the narrations, Hence the story is graded as not authentic by our scholars. Muslims don't grade hadith based on if they are embarrassing or not, but you nairaland experts think otherwise– because it is embarrassing then it must be true, and Muslims are just grading hadith based on how embarrassing it is or not, na only God know how Una take come to that conclusion.
You guys are a joke!


You can keep f°°ling yourself I have had a discussion with you in the past regarding Waraqa being the one that identified what prophet Muhammad saw in the cave of hira as Jibril despite the fact that I provided evidence that Waraqa used the word 'Namus' which in context to how Syriac Christians used the word simply just meant the law of Moses but what did you do, you pretended to be slow.

I have had discussion with your bro regarding Muslims praying to prophet Muhammad in tashahhud, despite the fact that I provided evidence that the prophet did not claim to be all hearing to hear our salawat directly, that there is a narration where the prophet is reported to have said Angels are designated by Allah to take our salawat to him, of course I don't expect you as a Christian to believe that Angels indeed take our salawat to our prophet but does that not explain the fact the the prophet doesn't hear us directly?. I don't even understand how anyone would read the tashahhud that starts out as "all adoration, all prayers and good things are for Allah" and ends with "I bear witness that there is no god but Allah, and I bear witness that Muhammad is His slave and messenger" then go 'Muslims worship their prophet' if not dishonesty.

For "yarkabun", I don't even understand what kind of si©k individuals you guys are, the word could mean different things, could mean crowded, could mean to follow closely. these beings were described as having lean flesh, despite the fact that they have no clothes on, Ibn masud said he couldn't see their privates but based on the fact that you guys are si©k mischievous individuals you choose a meaning that fit whatever narrative you want to push.

You guys choose to be mischievous by always putting together nonsense/profane words then turn around and cry about how you are being ban for 100 yrs.
Now tell me how can one have meaningful discussion with intellectual dishonest individuals like you two?

Qasim6:
Why are you wasting your precious time with trolls?
BlackfireX and Gabrielshow26 are trolls you can not have meaningful discussion with their likes.

Who in his right senses pervert the incident of Al-zutt to mean something sexual?
Those slow boys even think Hadith are graded based on how embarrassing they are or not, so weak hadith are game to them.

So don't waste your time with those boys, except if only just want to troll them back.

Oh I see !

😃 For you to confirm those guys as Pauline people , I think you are very right . I have taken note of them as time waster and Pauline people .

I always notice that once you finished them off once , they will start repeating same thing over and over . Is like Allah has sealed their reasoning faculty . Seriously being a Muslim is one of the greatest favour Allah has bestowed on us .

Allah has told us much about them :
As for those who persist in disbelief, it is the same whether you warn them or not—they will never believe. Quran 2:6

They are indeed time waster that doesn’t need the attention.

BlackfireX:
Please I want you to defeat me... please please 🙏 please please please biko Ejo si vous plait tibuxchi

Everyone please come I have found someone who will defeat me by answering my question and asking me a question I can't answer...


And he has defeated my friends here antislam Gabrielshow26 tenQ and others


Now let's go

Don't panic

I see, no wonder no one bother to reply you .


They have casted you here . You can never learn , so why will I waste my time on you nah 🤣. My time is too precious to waste it on any empty basket .

As for those who persist in disbelief, it is the same whether you warn them or not—they will never believe. Quran 2:6

Antlisiam:
That name befit your palẹ

m
My student , are you ready to abandon your Pauline religion?

dofman:
m
My student , are you ready to abandon your Pauline religion?

dofman:
🤣 Werey

So you want to abandon this your palẹ's name abi?

Qasim6:
You want to lecture me on criterion of embarrassment? Now let's turn the table around
The Infancy Gospel of Thomas tells us Jesus went on a ki!!ing spree as a kid and since it is embarrassing then it must be true; The Gospel according to Peter tells us Jesus was quite on the cross as though he felt no pain since it is embarrassing then it is true?
What you don't know is that criterion of embarrassment is regarded as one of the most problematic method of reconstructing history, many modern historians have moved away from it due to its logical flaws, what we see as embarrassing in modern times might not even be
embarrassing in ancient times.

Your co-slow bro 'BlackfireX' think because Qur'an contain information that can only be found in "apocryphal" then we Muslims can not turn around and say Christians can not use weak hadith to argue against us. My response to him was what criteria is he using to conclude all information found in the canonical gospels is 100% true and all information in the supposed apocryphals is 100% false when in reality all of them seem apocryphals, they are all books written by unknown authors, they are all written decades after the events they are narrating with no chains of transmission. He believes the story of satanic verses is embarrassing then it must be true, the question is–is it even really embarrassing? One might look at it and just go well it indicates that Allah protected the Qur'an from shaytan whispers.
The story sprung up in the generation that follows that of the Sahaba, there is no connection to the first generation of Muslims. What we have from the Sahabas are several authentic narrations about the incident where the Prophet was reciting surah Najm at the Kaaba and everyone prostrated except some 2 individuals, no mention of shaytan whispering anything in all of the narrations, Hence the story is graded as not authentic by our scholars. Muslims don't grade hadith based on if they are embarrassing or not, but you nairaland experts think otherwise– because it is embarrassing then it must be true, and Muslims are just grading hadith based on how embarrassing it is or not, na only God know how Una take come to that conclusion.
You guys are a joke!


You can keep f°°ling yourself I have had a discussion with you in the past regarding Waraqa being the one that identified what prophet Muhammad saw in the cave of hira as Jibril despite the fact that I provided evidence that Waraqa used the word 'Namus' which in context to how Syriac Christians used the word simply just meant the law of Moses but what did you do, you pretended to be slow.

I have had discussion with your bro regarding Muslims praying to prophet Muhammad in tashahhud, despite the fact that I provided evidence that the prophet did not claim to be all hearing to hear our salawat directly, that there is a narration where the prophet is reported to have said Angels are designated by Allah to take our salawat to him, of course I don't expect you as a Christian to believe that Angels indeed take our salawat to our prophet but does that not explain the fact the the prophet doesn't hear us directly?. I don't even understand how anyone would read the tashahhud that starts out as "all adoration, all prayers and good things are for Allah" and ends with "I bear witness that there is no god but Allah, and I bear witness that Muhammad is His slave and messenger" then go 'Muslims worship their prophet' if not dishonesty.

For "yarkabun", I don't even understand what kind of si©k individuals you guys are, the word could mean different things, could mean crowded, could mean to follow closely. these beings were described as having lean flesh, despite the fact that they have no clothes on, Ibn masud said he couldn't see their privates but based on the fact that you guys are si©k mischievous individuals you choose a meaning that fit whatever narrative you want to push.

You guys choose to be mischievous by always putting together nonsense/profane words then turn around and cry about how you are being ban for 100 yrs.
Now tell me how can one have meaningful discussion with intellectual dishonest individuals like you two?

You wrote much but answered little. It seems your grievance toward my colleague has clouded your judgment to the point that you are now conflating separate conversations just to find a safe place to land.

Let’s clear the air and address your retreat:
Notice, how you’ve completely abandoned your initial claim that the al-Zutt Hadith was 'weak.' Now that I’ve shown you it is graded Sahih or Hasan by notable scholars, you’ve stopped talking about its authenticity and started attacking me personally. In debate, we call that a white flag. My application of the Criterion of Embarrassment stands: your own tradition preserved a story so bizarre and awkward that no fabricator would have invented it to help the Prophet's reputation. It exists because it was too well-known to hide.

You suggested yarkabun means 'crowded' or 'following closely.' Nice try, but context is king. In the context of the al-Zutt narration—where we have descriptions of 'lean flesh' and unclothedness—the word choice is jarring for a reason. Even if we take your most charitable 'riding' definition, why is your Prophet 'mounting' or 'being mounted' by these beings in a dark valley? Your attempt to sanitize the language doesn't change the physical awkwardness of the scene described in your own Sahih literature.

Bringing up the Namus/Syriac Law argument is a distraction. Even if we grant that Waraqah meant 'The Law,' it actually weakens your case. If the 'Law' was sent to Moses, why did Muhammad’s experience result in zero new laws for years, but instead resulted in suicidal thoughts and confusion? You are trying to use an Arian Christian scholar’s terminology to validate a phenomenon that the scholar didn't live to see the end of. I have tackled this your fallacious sentiment, you can go back and re-read my refutations on this. I will direct the reader as well, once I am done with this write up, to that thread; let them decide who the slow poke is🥱.

As for the Tashahhud, you claim it’s dishonest to say Muslims pray to the Prophet because the Tashahhud mentions Allah first. This is a classic strawman. The issue isn't the order of the prayer; it’s the direct address (Assalamu 'alayka ayyuhan-Nabiyyu—'Peace be upon YOU, O Prophet'). If he cannot hear you directly, as you admitted, then you are speaking to a dead man in the second person during your most sacred act of worship. Whether angels deliver the message or not, the linguistic structure is a direct call.

You can’t 'flip' your way out of your own books. You called the Hadith weak; I proved it’s considered authentic. You called us sick; I pointed out that your scholars wrote the descriptions. If the truth of your own sources makes you uncomfortable, don't blame the messenger—blame the ink.

Qasim6:
You want to lecture me on criterion of embarrassment? Now let's turn the table around
The Infancy Gospel of Thomas tells us Jesus went on a ki!!ing spree as a kid and since it is embarrassing then it must be true; The Gospel according to Peter tells us Jesus was quite on the cross as though he felt no pain since it is embarrassing then it is true?
What you don't know is that criterion of embarrassment is regarded as one of the most problematic method of reconstructing history, many modern historians have moved away from it due to its logical flaws, what we see as embarrassing in modern times might not even be
embarrassing in ancient times.

Your co-slow bro 'BlackfireX' think because Qur'an contain information that can only be found in "apocryphal" then we Muslims can not turn around and say Christians can not use weak hadith to argue against us. My response to him was what criteria is he using to conclude all information found in the canonical gospels is 100% true and all information in the supposed apocryphals is 100% false when in reality all of them seem apocryphals, they are all books written by unknown authors, they are all written decades after the events they are narrating with no chains of transmission. He believes the story of satanic verses is embarrassing then it must be true, the question is–is it even really embarrassing? One might look at it and just go well it indicates that Allah protected the Qur'an from shaytan whispers.
The story sprung up in the generation that follows that of the Sahaba, there is no connection to the first generation of Muslims. What we have from the Sahabas are several authentic narrations about the incident where the Prophet was reciting surah Najm at the Kaaba and everyone prostrated except some 2 individuals, no mention of shaytan whispering anything in all of the narrations, Hence the story is graded as not authentic by our scholars. Muslims don't grade hadith based on if they are embarrassing or not, but you nairaland experts think otherwise– because it is embarrassing then it must be true, and Muslims are just grading hadith based on how embarrassing it is or not, na only God know how Una take come to that conclusion.
You guys are a joke!


You can keep f°°ling yourself I have had a discussion with you in the past regarding Waraqa being the one that identified what prophet Muhammad saw in the cave of hira as Jibril despite the fact that I provided evidence that Waraqa used the word 'Namus' which in context to how Syriac Christians used the word simply just meant the law of Moses but what did you do, you pretended to be slow.

I have had discussion with your bro regarding Muslims praying to prophet Muhammad in tashahhud, despite the fact that I provided evidence that the prophet did not claim to be all hearing to hear our salawat directly, that there is a narration where the prophet is reported to have said Angels are designated by Allah to take our salawat to him, of course I don't expect you as a Christian to believe that Angels indeed take our salawat to our prophet but does that not explain the fact the the prophet doesn't hear us directly?. I don't even understand how anyone would read the tashahhud that starts out as "all adoration, all prayers and good things are for Allah" and ends with "I bear witness that there is no god but Allah, and I bear witness that Muhammad is His slave and messenger" then go 'Muslims worship their prophet' if not dishonesty.

For "yarkabun", I don't even understand what kind of si©k individuals you guys are, the word could mean different things, could mean crowded, could mean to follow closely. these beings were described as having lean flesh, despite the fact that they have no clothes on, Ibn masud said he couldn't see their privates but based on the fact that you guys are si©k mischievous individuals you choose a meaning that fit whatever narrative you want to push.

You guys choose to be mischievous by always putting together nonsense/profane words then turn around and cry about how you are being ban for 100 yrs.
Now tell me how can one have meaningful discussion with intellectual dishonest individuals like you two?

Now to address the "other" meritorious lies in your claims. I do find it fascinating, watching you dismiss the Gospels and Apocrypha as 'probably false' due to a lack of Isnad (chains of narration). You are effectively sawing off the branch you are sitting on. If these books are 'nonsense' and 'profane,' why did your 'revelation' copy-paste their specific errors and myths into its eternal pages?

You claim the Gospels are unreliable because they lack an Islamic-style Isnad. Yet, you believe the Quran is the word of God👀. If a book's truth depends on a chain of human transmitters, then you must admit that the stories in the Quran regarding Jesus' childhood—which appear nowhere in history until hundreds of years after Christ—are even more suspect. Historical criticism doesn't need an Isnad to show that a 7th-century book is echoing 2nd and 3rd-century folklore. Christian scholars didn't need your help to reject the Infancy Gospel of Thomas or the Arabic Infancy Gospel. These were identified as late-date, heretical fictions centuries ago because they portray a Jesus who is unrecognizable from the historical record. The story of Jesus breathing life into clay birds is a famous fabrication from the Infancy Gospel of Thomas. Likewise, The story of Jesus speaking in the cradle comes from the Arabic Infancy Gospel.

If these stories are 'false' and 'profane' as you suggest, why did Allah put them in Surah Maryam and Surah Al-Ma'idah? If a student submits an essay containing errors from a Wikipedia page, we know he plagiarized that page. If the Quran contains the specific fictional 'miracles' of the Gnostics, the conclusion is unavoidable: the source isn't divine; it’s 7th-century hearsay.

Nothing exposes this 'Islamic Gimmick' more than the story of Dhul-Qarnayn. Your scholars desperately try to claim he was a monotheist, but the historical and literary evidence is ironclad: the Quran’s account of the 'Sun setting in a muddy spring' and the 'Gates of Iron' is a direct lift from the Syriac Alexander Romance. Alexander the Great was a documented pagan who offered sacrifices to Zeus-Ammon and claimed divinity for himself. Allah (or whoever was informing the Prophet) mistook a popular, fictionalized Greek legend for actual history. You are now stuck claiming a pagan conqueror was a 'Muslim' simply because your book accidentally canonized a medieval romance novel👀.

Here is the corner you’ve painted yourself into, accidentally it has two horns like Alexander😂:
If the Apocrypha and legends like the Alexander Romance are false, then the Quran is false for citing them as historical facts.

If the Quran is true, then these 'profane' and 'chainless' books you despise must be the true word of God—which they aren't🥱.

You can't have it both ways, Qasim6. You call us 'intellectually dishonest,' yet you worship a text that presents 3rd-century Christian fan-fiction and Greek myths as divine revelation. Who is really 'f°°ling' themselves here?😂

https://www.nairaland.com/8626669/contrasting-islamic-christian-fasting/1#138652902

Anyone can go back and view how Qasim6 threw his scholars under the bus. All his usual antics and fallacies were debunked, hence the reason why he is afraid. Scared, like Aisha😂. Someone should give him a doll to play with.

BlackfireX:
Bismil-Aabi wal-Ibni war-Ruuhil-Qudus



Good day everyone
Seekers, fanatics, liberals, open minded,

In today's lecture I will be talking about HIJRA and I will split it into 3 parts with questions to your soul's and a reminder to your subconscious mind

I will make it short , simple, summarised.

PART 1

WHAT IS HIJRA?
HIJRA is a syriac aramaic word used by Christains in Syria and part of Arabia , which was later arabanised... the word H-J-R is the root word that means moving from point A to point B for greener pastures, exposures and so on

Examples
When an igbo man leaves Anambra state to Lagos state that is HIJRA

When a child leaves Nigeria for Germany or Russia for scholarship Education that is HIJRA.

WHEN you from Akwa ibom go to Lagos to buy goods that is Hijra

When an igbo man goes to China, Singapore to goods that is Hijra

When the Europeans came to Africa that is hijra

When you go for a wedding in another state that is HIJRA.

When you as a Sokoto lady marries an EDO man and you travel down south to be with your husband that is hijra


Are you getting the point?
When you leave your parents house in kano and travel to onitsha to start a new life that is hijra

When our youth Corp members are posted from there state to another state that is hijra

When NNAMDI KANU was moved from Kuje prison in Abuja to Sokoto prison that is hijra


A man who goes on this Hijra is call ALHAJI
A FEMALE who goes on this hijra is called ALHAJA

Someone on hijra(most of the time) is a stranger where he or she is going

Note :this is a word used by syriac Christain aramaic which was later arabanised which leads us to the next point

The demand sounds strict. The Qur'an has already met it.
Qur’an 9:40 states the Prophet was driven out, he was one of two in a cave, and Allah sent tranquility upon him. That is expulsion, journey, cave, and protection in one verse. If that is not unequivocal, nothing would qualify.
Supporting verses reinforce it. Q4:100, those who emigrate for Allah, Q2:218, those who believed and emigrated, Q8:72, the Muhajirun named as a distinct group. These refer to real people who left one place for another. That is the migration.
On Hijra as a borrowed word. The term comes from the Arabic root هجر. Arabic and Aramaic share Semitic roots. Shared form does not prove borrowing or erase the event. On the broad definition. The root means movement. Islam fixes it to a specific historical event. Context defines meaning.
The Qur’an is not a travel log. 3:7 states its method. And 9:40 already gives the Hijra, expulsion, companion, cave, protection. The event is in the text.

BlackfireX:
To the MOD who removed my post continue
To the MOD who banned me...continue
To the scared little chicken 🐔 who reported for the 2 above ... continue.


Now I asked you is this the best you can give as reply... add more or ask alhaji Ai

Before I decimate you and show the world how Islam is a false cult.

Try and add more , I want to warm the gas cooker

Essentially nothing communicated here. Perhaps you should check the words used in your statements. It sure is convenient blaming an abritrary mod when you can't write within limits governing the site.

You only make empty unsubstantiated threats. I will do is clearly not the same as doing.

Antlisiam:
So you want to abandon this your palẹ's name abi?

Repent o

You will learn

doffman:
Repent o

You will learn

Sule, abi you go look for another name for your palẹ nii?

honesttalk21:
The demand sounds strict. The Qur'an has already met it.
Qur’an 9:40 states the Prophet was driven out, he was one of two in a cave, and Allah sent tranquility upon him. That is expulsion, journey, cave, and protection in one verse. If that is not unequivocal, nothing would qualify.
Supporting verses reinforce it. Q4:100, those who emigrate for Allah, Q2:218, those who believed and emigrated, Q8:72, the Muhajirun named as a distinct group. These refer to real people who left one place for another. That is the migration.
On Hijra as a borrowed word. The term comes from the Arabic root هجر. Arabic and Aramaic share Semitic roots. Shared form does not prove borrowing or erase the event. On the broad definition. The root means movement. Islam fixes it to a specific historical event. Context defines meaning.
The Qur’an is not a travel log. 3:7 states its method. And 9:40 already gives the Hijra, expulsion, companion, cave, protection. The event is in the text.

Good day everyone
My replies are deleted or removed but I hope they won't this time.

You used Quran verses to support that there is a hijra ..

Though you failed to pinpoint that muhamed and his minions went from mecca to medina

Which means you can't find it and you made The Quran look clueless and incoherent

You used the verses below and i am going ro use it to show that there was nothing like hijra from mecca to medina
9vs 40
4 vs 100.
2 vs 218.
8 vs 72 and you spoilt it with 3 vs 7

I asked did you have better verses

So I will respond hope you won't tag the MODs to ban or remove my responses

Let's go

You used Quran 9 vs 40 to say the meccans wants to kill muhamed and he hid inside a cave with another person.

To fully understand this let's read previous verse and after verses to get the content.

Quran 9 vs 35 to 45

Surah At-Tawbah (9:35–45)
​35. On the Day when that will be heated in the fire of Hell and with it their foreheads, their sides, and their backs will be branded, [and it will be said], "This is what you hoarded for yourselves, so taste what you used to hoard."

​36. Indeed, the number of months with Allah is twelve [lunar] months in the register of Allah [from] the day He created the heavens and the earth; of these, four are sacred. That is the correct religion, so do not wrong yourselves during them. And fight against the disbelievers collectively as they fight against you collectively. And know that Allah is with the righteous [who fear Him].

​37. Indeed, the postponing [of a sacred month] is an increase in disbelief by which those who have disbelieved are led [further] astray. They allow it one year and forbid it another, to agree with the number which Allah has forbidden and [thus] enjoy what Allah has forbidden. Made pleasing to them is the evil of their deeds; and Allah does not guide the disbelieving people.

​38. O you who have believed, what is [the matter] with you that, when you are told to go forth in the cause of Allah, you adhere heavily to the earth? Are you satisfied with the life of this world rather than the Hereafter? But what is the enjoyment of worldly life compared to the Hereafter except a little.

​39. If you do not go forth, He will punish you with a painful punishment and will replace you with another people, and you will not harm Him at all. And Allah is over all things competent

​40. If you do not aid the Prophet - Allah has
already aided him when those who disbelieved had driven him out ,as one of two, when they were in the cave and he said to his companion, "Do not grieve; indeed Allah is with us." And Allah sent down His tranquillity upon him and supported him with angels you did not see and made the word of those who disbelieved the lowest, while the word of Allah - that is the highest. And Allah is Exalted in Might and Wise.

​41. Go forth, whether light or heavy, and strive with your wealth and your lives in the cause of Allah. That is better for you, if you only knew.

​42. Had it been an easy gain and a moderate journey, the hypocrites would have followed you, but distant to them was the journey. And they will swear by Allah, "If we could have, we would have come out with you," destroying themselves [through false oaths], and Allah knows that indeed they are liars.

​43. Allah has pardoned you, [O Muhammad]; why did you give them permission [to remain behind] before it was clear to you who were truthful and you knew the liars?

​44. Those who believe in Allah and the Last Day would not ask permission of you to be excused from striving with their wealth and their lives. And Allah is Knowing of those who fear Him.

​45. Only those would ask permission of you who do not believe in Allah and the Last Day and whose hearts have doubted, and they, in their doubt, are hesitating.


From the verses above you will find out that Allah is calling muslims to come and join in fighting and invading lands and community
This battle is called BATTLE OF BATUK it happened around 629 or 631, it was the last raid or banditry before Qutham a.k.a Muhammad died.


Look at the verses it was about threatening those who don't want to join vs 39, promising booty to those who join vs 38.... so you see there was nothing like journey from mecca to medina

Then let's go to verse 40... in that verse it says Allah protected Muhammad in the cave when he was driven out ( which can be from anywhere, in the market where he goes to insult the sahabas. Or in kabba where he insult the family of those who came to do tawaf and kiss the Blackstone, or driven out when he try to sleep with a dead woman etc)

So there is nothing in that verse that says it was mecca or medina ...or he moved from mecca to medina.

The Quran is the word of Allah very detailed, anyone who adds to his words is committing SHIRK ...YOU KUFFAR


Everyone notice in the entire Quran 9 vs 35 to 45 . No arabic word of Hijra was used ... even in verse 40 no word of hijra was used by Allah SWT

Remember HIJRA IS A JOURNEY FROM MECCA TO MEDINA

Antlisiam:
Sule, abi you go look for another name for your palẹ nii?

Libya boy is your name nah ?

Did I lie ?

BlackfireX:
Good day everyone
My replies are deleted or removed but I hope they won't this time.

You used Quran verses to support that there is a hijra ..

Though you failed to pinpoint that muhamed and his minions went from mecca to medina

Which means you can't find it and you made The Quran look clueless and incoherent

You used the verses below and i am going ro use it to show that there was nothing like hijra from mecca to medina
9vs 40
4 vs 100.
2 vs 218.
8 vs 72 and you spoilt it with 3 vs 7

I asked did you have better verses

So I will respond hope you won't tag the MODs to ban or remove my responses

Let's go

BlackfireX:
You used Quran 9 vs 40 to say the meccans wants to kill muhamed and he hid inside a cave with another person.

To fully understand this let's read previous verse and after verses to get the content.

Quran 9 vs 35 to 45

Surah At-Tawbah (9:35–45)
​35. On the Day when that will be heated in the fire of Hell and with it their foreheads, their sides, and their backs will be branded, [and it will be said], "This is what you hoarded for yourselves, so taste what you used to hoard."

​36. Indeed, the number of months with Allah is twelve [lunar] months in the register of Allah [from] the day He created the heavens and the earth; of these, four are sacred. That is the correct religion, so do not wrong yourselves during them. And fight against the disbelievers collectively as they fight against you collectively. And know that Allah is with the righteous [who fear Him].

​37. Indeed, the postponing [of a sacred month] is an increase in disbelief by which those who have disbelieved are led [further] astray. They allow it one year and forbid it another, to agree with the number which Allah has forbidden and [thus] enjoy what Allah has forbidden. Made pleasing to them is the evil of their deeds; and Allah does not guide the disbelieving people.

​38. O you who have believed, what is [the matter] with you that, when you are told to go forth in the cause of Allah, you adhere heavily to the earth? Are you satisfied with the life of this world rather than the Hereafter? But what is the enjoyment of worldly life compared to the Hereafter except a little.

​39. If you do not go forth, He will punish you with a painful punishment and will replace you with another people, and you will not harm Him at all. And Allah is over all things competent

​40. If you do not aid the Prophet - Allah has
already aided him when those who disbelieved had driven him out ,as one of two, when they were in the cave and he said to his companion, "Do not grieve; indeed Allah is with us." And Allah sent down His tranquillity upon him and supported him with angels you did not see and made the word of those who disbelieved the lowest, while the word of Allah - that is the highest. And Allah is Exalted in Might and Wise.

​41. Go forth, whether light or heavy, and strive with your wealth and your lives in the cause of Allah. That is better for you, if you only knew.

​42. Had it been an easy gain and a moderate journey, the hypocrites would have followed you, but distant to them was the journey. And they will swear by Allah, "If we could have, we would have come out with you," destroying themselves [through false oaths], and Allah knows that indeed they are liars.

​43. Allah has pardoned you, [O Muhammad]; why did you give them permission [to remain behind] before it was clear to you who were truthful and you knew the liars?

​44. Those who believe in Allah and the Last Day would not ask permission of you to be excused from striving with their wealth and their lives. And Allah is Knowing of those who fear Him.

​45. Only those would ask permission of you who do not believe in Allah and the Last Day and whose hearts have doubted, and they, in their doubt, are hesitating.


From the verses above you will find out that Allah is calling muslims to come and join in fighting and invading lands and community
This battle is called BATTLE OF BATUK it happened around 629 or 631, it was the last raid or banditry before Qutham a.k.a Muhammad died.


Look at the verses it was about threatening those who don't want to join vs 39, promising booty to those who join vs 38.... so you see there was nothing like journey from mecca to medina

Then let's go to verse 40... in that verse it says Allah protected Muhammad in the cave when he was driven out ( which can be from anywhere, in the market where he goes to insult the sahabas. Or in kabba where he insult the family of those who came to do tawaf and kiss the Blackstone, or driven out when he try to sleep with a dead woman etc)

So there is nothing in that verse that says it was mecca or medina ...or he moved from mecca to medina.

The Quran is the word of Allah very detailed, anyone who adds to his words is committing SHIRK ...YOU KUFFAR


Everyone notice in the entire Quran 9 vs 35 to 45 . No arabic word of Hijra was used ... even in verse 40 no word of hijra was used by Allah SWT

Remember HIJRA IS A JOURNEY FROM MECCA TO MEDINA

You’re treating the absence of a label as if it cancels the event but that’s not how the Qur’an communicates. The Qur’an does not operate by repeating technical terms in every instance. It conveys meaning through sequence, context, and shared historical awareness. If a passage describes a battle, it doesn’t need to say this is a battle every time, conventional English writing regards often repetition of words poorly. The same applies here.

In 9:40, the wording is precise; akhrajahu alladhina kafaru, those who disbelieved drove him out or expelled him.That is not neutral movement. Akhrajahu is forced expulsion under pressure from hostile forces. Then the verse gives you a sequence in expulsion, retreat to a cave, one companion, fear of pursuit, divine reassurance and eventual safety. That is not random displacement. That is a coherent narrative of flight under persecution. Calling it being driven out from anywhere strips the sequence of meaning and ignores how language actually works. Then you have idh huma fi al-gahr, when the two of them were in the cave. This is not a floating image. It is a specific reference recognized by the first audience, the same audience the Qur’an was addressing directly. The text assumes that recognition. It does not pause to re-explain what they already know. Now look at the structure of the passage. 9:38–45 is about mobilization. Within that, 9:40 inserts a reminder If you do not support him, Allah already supported him… That only works if it points to a known past event that proves the point. The present command depends on that past reality. Removing the historical referent collapses the argument the verse is making.

Then the issue you haven’t addressed at all is that the Qur’an repeatedly refers to al-Muhajirun,a defined group, with legal, social, and moral standing. A named category of those who emigrated is meaningless without an actual migration. The Qur’an is speaking to people who lived that reality. It doesn’t narrate every detail because it doesn’t need to. It is invoking, not introducing. So no, identifying the cave incident as part of the Hijrah is not adding to the Qur’an. It is reading the text the way it demands to be read through its language, through its internal structure, through the lived context of its first audience. What is being added is the claim that every event must be explicitly labeled in order to be real. That standard doesn’t come from the Qur’an rather it’s imposed on it. And dismissing tafsir as shirk doesn’t solve that problem. It just abandons the very tools required to read the text coherently.

honesttalk21:
You’re treating the absence of a label as if it cancels the event but that’s not how the Qur’an communicates. The Qur’an does not operate by repeating technical terms in every instance. It conveys meaning through sequence, context, and shared historical awareness. If a passage describes a battle, it doesn’t need to say this is a battle every time, conventional English writing regards often repetition of words poorly. The same applies here.

In 9:40, the wording is precise; akhrajahu alladhina kafaru, those who disbelieved drove him out or expelled him.That is not neutral movement. Akhrajahu is forced expulsion under pressure from hostile forces. Then the verse gives you a sequence in expulsion, retreat to a cave, one companion, fear of pursuit, divine reassurance and eventual safety. That is not random displacement. That is a coherent narrative of flight under persecution. Calling it being driven out from anywhere strips the sequence of meaning and ignores how language actually works. Then you have idh huma fi al-gahr, when the two of them were in the cave. This is not a floating image. It is a specific reference recognized by the first audience, the same audience the Qur’an was addressing directly. The text assumes that recognition. It does not pause to re-explain what they already know. Now look at the structure of the passage. 9:38–45 is about mobilization. Within that, 9:40 inserts a reminder If you do not support him, Allah already supported him… That only works if it points to a known past event that proves the point. The present command depends on that past reality. Removing the historical referent collapses the argument the verse is making.

Then the issue you haven’t addressed at all is that the Qur’an repeatedly refers to al-Muhajirun,a defined group, with legal, social, and moral standing. A named category of those who emigrated is meaningless without an actual migration. The Qur’an is speaking to people who lived that reality. It doesn’t narrate every detail because it doesn’t need to. It is invoking, not introducing. So no, identifying the cave incident as part of the Hijrah is not adding to the Qur’an. It is reading the text the way it demands to be read through its language, through its internal structure, through the lived context of its first audience. What is being added is the claim that every event must be explicitly labeled in order to be real. That standard doesn’t come from the Qur’an rather it’s imposed on it. And dismissing tafsir as shirk doesn’t solve that problem. It just abandons the very tools required to read the text coherently.

I have replied to all the verses you posted but you and your minions reported it for removal and I was banned.

Concerning 9 vs 40 it says he was expelled, from where to where ? It could be from kabba , it could be from the market , it could be from the street, it could be when he stole the war booty and the people discovered, it could be when his wives discovered he f****ked a slave girl he captured by banditry in the bed of his wife, it could be when he is insulting the people who came to worship, it could be alot of things that made them expelled him from that vicinity------and he went to the CAVE -------and that was it it didn't say anything else

You are projecting your thinking to the Quran and Allah said anyone who adds to his word will burn in 🔥 fire


Tasfir are commentary of men 150 to 400 years after Qutham has died.
Hadith are words of men "dem talk say" 200 years after Quthams death
And all these books are bidah innovation works of men , no where did the Quran say men will help me where I am incoherent.--------don't get angry at me ,get angry at Incoherent Quereyana

Lastly the verse never mentioned HIJra... verse 35 to 45 talks about MILITARY JIHAD BATTLE OF BATUK I think around 630 or 631 .

The verses show promises of war booty and if anyone dies promise of heavenly booty is that hijra or JIHAD

Now let me warn you again that the Quran is the word of Allah PRECISE CLEAR DETAILED UNCREATED DIRECT SPEECH OF ALLAH , you trying to insert words or white wash it ---- you are committing shirk



Take away : the verse you provided showed that nothing like HIJRa the entire chapter is a call to JIHAD A CALL FOR MILITARY EXPEDITION ON NON MUSLIMS PROMISES OF WAR BOOTY ( SLAVES LIKE SUFFYIAT , TREASURES FROM KHYBAR, kidnapping for ransome and so on)
I told you the more you try to white wash more decay will appear.

doffman:
Libya boy is your name nah ?

Did I lie ?

dẹpẹ, tell AI make e suggest another name 4u nau

To the MoD or the minions who report , removed or ban me

I will send replies and it will be removed and I will be banned

My discussion was smooth my comments are precised....one of my brother Gabrielshow24 was banned for 10 years

Removing my replies that is just low


If you don't want me replying say so... but it all showed you are cowards scared

@seun

Antlisiam:
dẹpẹ, tell AI make e suggest another name 4u nau

If I can have another platform to discuss islamic dilemma...I think i will move from nairaland

You will sit down write replies ...only for it to be removed ...and you banned.

Do you know another platform please suggest to me in my gmail

Unsubstantiated claims of minions report and entry deletions. If true at all, that is a platform moderation issue, not an argument.

1. Akhrajahu alladhina kafaru those who disbelieved drove him out is not vague
You are trying to dissolve alladhina kafaru, those who disbelieved into any possible group in any possible situation but grammatically and contextually this is not an undefined crowd in a random dispute. It is a collective, defined opposition category in Qur'anic usage. Those who reject the message and act against the Prophet's mission. In Surah 9, the audience already knows exactly who is being referred to. The Qur'an does not reintroduce them as strangers. The move from those who disbelieved drove him out to "could be anything from marketplace to domestic dispute is not tafsīr. It is removing semantic constraints from the language.

2. The narrative sequence is intact and bounded. You listed the sequence correctly then tried to detach it from its referent; expulsion, cave, companion, fear of pursuit, divine reassurance, protection, outcome of safety. A sequence does not require every geographical detail to be explicitly spelled out. It requires coherence of events, not enumeration of locations. What you are demanding is if the Qur'an doesn't name the exact starting point and destination, the sequence is undefined. That is not how narrative language works in any Semitic text, classical Arabic or otherwise.

3. The it could be anything move collapses meaning entirely. Your list of possibilities; Kaaba, market, theft, domestic dispute is not interpretive analysis but deliberate semantic indeterminacy. But here is the problem. If alladhina kafaru; those who disbelieved, can mean random merchants, family members, unrelated bystanders, or domestic disputants, the phrase loses all function in the Qur'an. It no longer identifies a group. It becomes meaningless noise. The Qur'an does not operate with meaningless labels.

4. Tabuk context is not optional it is structural. Surah 9 is explicitly about mobilisation and community response. Within that structure, verse 40 functions as a past stabilising reference supporting present action. That is not replacement of meaning. It is internal argumentation. Removing that function breaks the rhetorical structure of the passage.

5. Wiith Hijrah and al-Muhajirun are not dependent on the word Hijrah,you are repeating the same linguistic fallacy. If the label is not explicitly repeated, the concept is not present. But Qur'anic discourse regularly names categories al-muhajirun, those who emigrated, al-ansar, those who gave support then references the historical reality that generated those categories without repeating the full narrative every time. That is how all historical legal language works.

6. The tafsir accusation is self-defeating. You say tafsīr is shirk, human addition. But the moment you said it could be the Kaaba, the market, the street, a domestic dispute you made interpretive choices about what the text means and what it doesn't. That is not plain reading. That is assignment of meaning. The real issue is not interpretation versus no interpretation. It is which interpretation the language of the text actually supports. There are only two coherent options. Either the Qur'an uses structured narrative shorthand referring to a known historical event which the early Muslim community already recognised and transmitted consistently or the Qur'an is so semantically unstable that basic categories like alladhina kafaru; those who disbelieved, and sequence of events collapse into unlimited speculation. Only one of those preserves the language as language. The other dissolves it.

BlackfireX:
I have replied to all the verses you posted but you and your minions reported it for removal and I was banned.

Concerning 9 vs 40 it says he was expelled, from where to where ? It could be from kabba , it could be from the market , it could be from the street, it could be when he stole the war booty and the people discovered, it could be when his wives discovered he f****ked a slave girl he captured by banditry in the bed of his wife, it could be when he is insulting the people who came to worship, it could be alot of things that made them expelled him from that vicinity------and he went to the CAVE -------and that was it it didn't say anything else

You are projecting your thinking to the Quran and Allah said anyone who adds to his word will burn in 🔥 fire


Tasfir are commentary of men 150 to 400 years after Qutham has died.
Hadith are words of men "dem talk say" 200 years after Quthams death
And all these books are bidah innovation works of men , no where did the Quran say men will help me where I am incoherent.--------don't get angry at me ,get angry at Incoherent Quereyana

Lastly the verse never mentioned HIJra... verse 35 to 45 talks about MILITARY JIHAD BATTLE OF BATUK I think around 630 or 631 .

The verses show promises of war booty and if anyone dies promise of heavenly booty is that hijra or JIHAD

Now let me warn you again that the Quran is the word of Allah PRECISE CLEAR DETAILED UNCREATED DIRECT SPEECH OF ALLAH , you trying to insert words or white wash it ---- you are committing shirk



Take away : the verse you provided showed that nothing like HIJRa the entire chapter is a call to JIHAD A CALL FOR MILITARY EXPEDITION ON NON MUSLIMS PROMISES OF WAR BOOTY ( SLAVES LIKE SUFFYIAT , TREASURES FROM KHYBAR, kidnapping for ransome and so on)
I told you the more you try to white wash more decay will appear.

honesttalk21:
Unsubstantiated claims of minions report and entry deletions. If true at all, that is a platform moderation issue, not an argument.

1. Akhrajahu alladhina kafaru those who disbelieved drove him out is not vague
You are trying to dissolve alladhina kafaru, those who disbelieved into any possible group in any possible situation but grammatically and contextually this is not an undefined crowd in a random dispute. It is a collective, defined opposition category in Qur'anic usage. Those who reject the message and act against the Prophet's mission. In Surah 9, the audience already knows exactly who is being referred to. The Qur'an does not reintroduce them as strangers. The move from those who disbelieved drove him out to "could be anything from marketplace to domestic dispute is not tafsīr. It is removing semantic constraints from the language.

2. The narrative sequence is intact and bounded. You listed the sequence correctly then tried to detach it from its referent; expulsion, cave, companion, fear of pursuit, divine reassurance, protection, outcome of safety. A sequence does not require every geographical detail to be explicitly spelled out. It requires coherence of events, not enumeration of locations. What you are demanding is if the Qur'an doesn't name the exact starting point and destination, the sequence is undefined. That is not how narrative language works in any Semitic text, classical Arabic or otherwise.

3. The it could be anything move collapses meaning entirely. Your list of possibilities; Kaaba, market, theft, domestic dispute is not interpretive analysis but deliberate semantic indeterminacy. But here is the problem. If alladhina kafaru; those who disbelieved, can mean random merchants, family members, unrelated bystanders, or domestic disputants, the phrase loses all function in the Qur'an. It no longer identifies a group. It becomes meaningless noise. The Qur'an does not operate with meaningless labels.

4. Tabuk context is not optional it is structural. Surah 9 is explicitly about mobilisation and community response. Within that structure, verse 40 functions as a past stabilising reference supporting present action. That is not replacement of meaning. It is internal argumentation. Removing that function breaks the rhetorical structure of the passage.

5. Wiith Hijrah and al-Muhajirun are not dependent on the word Hijrah,you are repeating the same linguistic fallacy. If the label is not explicitly repeated, the concept is not present. But Qur'anic discourse regularly names categories al-muhajirun, those who emigrated, al-ansar, those who gave support then references the historical reality that generated those categories without repeating the full narrative every time. That is how all historical legal language works.

6. The tafsir accusation is self-defeating. You say tafsīr is shirk, human addition. But the moment you said it could be the Kaaba, the market, the street, a domestic dispute you made interpretive choices about what the text means and what it doesn't. That is not plain reading. That is assignment of meaning. The real issue is not interpretation versus no interpretation. It is which interpretation the language of the text actually supports. There are only two coherent options. Either the Qur'an uses structured narrative shorthand referring to a known historical event which the early Muslim community already recognised and transmitted consistently or the Qur'an is so semantically unstable that basic categories like alladhina kafaru; those who disbelieved, and sequence of events collapse into unlimited speculation. Only one of those preserves the language as language. The other dissolves it.

The ban and removal happened every time so don't taqiyya me . YOU ARE AMONG THOSE FLAGGING ME ON THIS PLATFORM


Back to the topic.

You still fail to point out that When Qutham a.k.a Muhammad was driven out it meant from mecca to medina..

The verse explicitly said he was driven out and he went to the cave--------that is it..

You are the one trying to help the Quran by saying it means mecca to medina, then I point out it could also mean
1.driven out from inside kabba because he will go inside and break rhe idols

2.driven out around kaaba because he will be insulting the calm worshippers

3. Driven out from the road where he stays to insult the forefathers of the worshippers

4.Driven out from home when his wives discovered he was sleeping with another slave girl on there beds after promising nit to do so.

5.Driven out when when he took the war booty and didn't give others there own share

6. Driven out when he obstruct the caravan entering mecca

And he was driven out point A ...... and he moved to the cave point B
Is that mecca to medina? In that while vs 35 to 45 the word H-J-R was not used
The Quran didn't say he was driven out from mecca and he went to medina.

And cut the gish galloping that the Quran dosent have to say it, THEN DONT IMPLY WHAT HE DIDNT SAY------- MECCA TO MEDINA

INFACT THE VS 40 INSIDE 35 TO 45 IS ABOUT JIHAD when people were unwilling to fight as the religion became bloody . HENCE the reference to the cave that 1 person was with Muhammad and if people don't join in this holy jihad alllah will raise Muhajirun to join the Ansar


Appealing to tasfirs 400 years later words of men to white wash the embarrassing embarrassment in the Quran

Back to the question show me one unequivocal unambiguous statement that HiJRA muslim move from mecca to medica as refugees?

We all know the Nairaland forum has moderation rules. Posts that drift into insults or inflammatory language get taken down all the time, no matter who writes them. That’s about tone control, not a coordinated effort against any one person.

Now, reducing 9:40 to expelled, cave, end leaves out the structure the text itself gives you. It opens with akhrajahu alladhina kafaru; a defined group driving him out, then situates two people in a cave under pressure, followed by fear, reassurance, and a turn where their opponents are brought low. It reads as a complete episode with a trajectory, not a loose fragment you can stop halfway. The alternatives you suggest in market, house, a private dispute don’t fit those constraints. They don’t match a collective opposition, they don’t account for the fear of pursuit, and they don’t explain why the moment is invoked as evidence of divine support. Once you remove those limits, almost anything becomes possible but that’s no longer guided by the text.

On Mecca and Medina, the Qur’an often works by reference, not repetition. Terms like al-muhajirun already assume a known migration. You don’t get a category like that from people shifting within the same town; it presumes a meaningful relocation the first audience already understood. And on tafsīr, interpretation isn’t optional; you’re doing it too or will you claim you aren't?
The real question is whether it’s anchored to the wording and flow of the verse, or stretched until it loses shape. A careful reading works within those boundaries rather than dissolving them.

BlackfireX:
The ban and removal happened every time so don't taqiyya me . YOU ARE AMONG THOSE FLAGGING ME ON THIS PLATFORM


Back to the topic.

You still fail to point out that When Qutham a.k.a Muhammad was driven out it meant from mecca to medina..

The verse explicitly said he was driven out and he went to the cave--------that is it..

You are the one trying to help the Quran by saying it means mecca to medina, then I point out it could also mean
1.driven out from inside kabba because he will go inside and break rhe idols

2.driven out around kaaba because he will be insulting the calm worshippers

3. Driven out from the road where he stays to insult the forefathers of the worshippers

4.Driven out from home when his wives discovered he was sleeping with another slave girl on there beds after promising nit to do so.

5.Driven out when when he took the war booty and didn't give others there own share

6. Driven out when he obstruct the caravan entering mecca

And he was driven out point A ...... and he moved to the cave point B
Is that mecca to medina? In that while vs 35 to 45 the word H-J-R was not used
The Quran didn't say he was driven out from mecca and he went to medina.

And cut the gish galloping that the Quran dosent have to say it, THEN DONT IMPLY WHAT HE DIDNT SAY------- MECCA TO MEDINA

INFACT THE VS 40 INSIDE 35 TO 45 IS ABOUT JIHAD when people were unwilling to fight as the religion became bloody . HENCE the reference to the cave that 1 person was with Muhammad and if people don't join in this holy jihad alllah will raise Muhajirun to join the Ansar


Appealing to tasfirs 400 years later words of men to white wash the embarrassing embarrassment in the Quran

Back to the question show me one unequivocal unambiguous statement that HiJRA muslim move from mecca to medica as refugees?

honesttalk21:
We all know the Nairaland forum has moderation rules. Posts that drift into insults or inflammatory language get taken down all the time, no matter who writes them. That’s about tone control, not a coordinated effort against any one person.

Now, reducing 9:40 to expelled, cave, end leaves out the structure the text itself gives you. It opens with akhrajahu alladhina kafaru; a defined group driving him out, then situates two people in a cave under pressure, followed by fear, reassurance, and a turn where their opponents are brought low. It reads as a complete episode with a trajectory, not a loose fragment you can stop halfway. The alternatives you suggest in market, house, a private dispute don’t fit those constraints. They don’t match a collective opposition, they don’t account for the fear of pursuit, and they don’t explain why the moment is invoked as evidence of divine support. Once you remove those limits, almost anything becomes possible but that’s no longer guided by the text.

On Mecca and Medina, the Qur’an often works by reference, not repetition. Terms like al-muhajirun already assume a known migration. You don’t get a category like that from people shifting within the same town; it presumes a meaningful relocation the first audience already understood. And on tafsīr, interpretation isn’t optional; you’re doing it too or will you claim you aren't?
The real question is whether it’s anchored to the wording and flow of the verse, or stretched until it loses shape. A careful reading works within those boundaries rather than dissolving them.

So no evidence that muslims were persecuted that they fled mecca to medina as refugees?

So there was no movement from mecca medina in the Quran?

Don't create assumptions for me ...show me

The verses you pointed out were a call for jihad
And the Muhajirun left there homes to join Qutham a.k.a Muhammad to join in his war against Jews and perceived enemies

It is all in the verses I am not the one who puts it there .....A CALL TO JIHAD TO MUHAJIRUN THAY THE ANSARS WILL HELP.


Since you are not saying anything rather than interjections and conjunctions


I ASK AGAIN IN ZAIK NAIK VOICE .. WHEEE IN THE QURAN CAN WE HAVE AN UNEQUIVOAL UNAMBIGUOUS STATEMENT THAT MUSLIMS MOVED FROM MECCA TO MEDINA AS REFUGEES ?

IF YOU DONT HAVE THE ANZWER KINDLY MOVE ALONG.
****concerning ban or removal of my posts they have allays been nice no insults.... you and your minions knows what you did...

The demand for one sentence naming both cities is not how the Qur'an communicates history. Meaning appears across linked passages. Read together: 8:30, threat of expulsion,9:40, expulsion, flight, cave, pursuit, 8:72, migration and reception, 59:8, loss of homes and wealth 59:9, shelter and support 4:97–100, leaving oppression for refuge. The sequence is consistent. Threat → expulsion → migration → loss → reception.

9:40 shows two in flight and concealment, while other passages describe an organised, settled community. That contrast marks different stages, not contradiction. Al-Muhajirun is a defined category tied to rights and identity. Such a category presupposes real, recognized migration within the text’s framework. The Qur’an does not give a labeled sentence. It gives a coherent pattern of forced departure and refuge across multiple verses.

BlackfireX:
So no evidence that muslims were persecuted that they fled mecca to medina as refugees?

So there was no movement from mecca medina in the Quran?

Don't create assumptions for me ...show me

The verses you pointed out were a call for jihad
And the Muhajirun left there homes to join Qutham a.k.a Muhammad to join in his war against Jews and perceived enemies

It is all in the verses I am not the one who puts it there .....A CALL TO JIHAD TO MUHAJIRUN THAY THE ANSARS WILL HELP.


Since you are not saying anything rather than interjections and conjunctions


I ASK AGAIN IN ZAIK NAIK VOICE .. WHEEE IN THE QURAN CAN WE HAVE AN UNEQUIVOAL UNAMBIGUOUS STATEMENT THAT MUSLIMS MOVED FROM MECCA TO MEDINA AS REFUGEES ?

IF YOU DONT HAVE THE ANZWER KINDLY MOVE ALONG.
****concerning ban or removal of my posts they have allays been nice no insults.... you and your minions knows what you did...