₦airaland Forum

honesttalk21:
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.

So no evidence from Allah SWT in the Quran Al kareem that there was a Hijra from mecca to medina by persecuted Muslims as refugees

Now move along
Shooter


So the Qur'an is incoherent to such a new calender but if it to kill infidels he will spelt it out

The Quran needs your help white wash to save the Quran a whole word of Allah ....what a shame


How can a whole big occasion like the AH be missing unknown unspecified vague clueless empty confusing.

The Qur’an is not vague on the Hijrah. It gives you expulsion (Q59:, refuge by those already settled (Q59:9), the flight itself with concealment (Q9:40), and then names the two legal communities built around it in Q8:72; those who migrated and those who gave them shelter. That is not a missing story. That is a complete sequence told in the Qur’an’s own style.

The legal point is where the objection dies. You do not build law on fiction. Al-Muhajirun and those who sheltered them were not poetic labels. They were legal categories with real consequences in loyalty, inheritance, distribution, and communal standing. Law presumes an actual event behind it. You do not legislate around metaphor.

The calendar point fails the same way. The Hijri calendar was standardised later under ʿUmar r.a for administration. That did not invent the migration; it simply dated from it. Formalising a calendar is not the same as creating the event it measures.

And demanding one neat sentence naming both cities is not a historical standard but a modern reading habit. The Qur’an does not narrate like a government file. It speaks by linked passages, legal consequences, and historical reference spread across the text. That is not confusion. That is how the Qur’an speaks.

BlackfireX:
So no evidence from Allah SWT in the Quran Al kareem that there was a Hijra from mecca to medina by persecuted Muslims as refugees

Now move along
Shooter


So the Qur'an is incoherent to such a new calender but if it to kill infidels he will spelt it out

The Quran needs your help white wash to save the Quran a whole word of Allah ....what a shame


How can a whole big occasion like the AH be missing unknown unspecified vague clueless empty confusing.

honesttalk21:
The Qur’an is not vague on the Hijrah. It gives you expulsion (Q59:, refuge by those already settled (Q59:9), the flight itself with concealment (Q9:40), and then names the two legal communities built around it in Q8:72; those who migrated and those who gave them shelter. That is not a missing story. That is a complete sequence told in the Qur’an’s own style.

The legal point is where the objection dies. You do not build law on fiction. Al-Muhajirun and those who sheltered them were not poetic labels. They were legal categories with real consequences in loyalty, inheritance, distribution, and communal standing. Law presumes an actual event behind it. You do not legislate around metaphor.

The calendar point fails the same way. The Hijri calendar was standardised later under ʿUmar r.a for administration. That did not invent the migration; it simply dated from it. Formalising a calendar is not the same as creating the event it measures.

And demanding one neat sentence naming both cities is not a historical standard but a modern reading habit. The Qur’an does not narrate like a government file. It speaks by linked passages, legal consequences, and historical reference spread across the text. That is not confusion. That is how the Qur’an speaks.

So no evidence

This life sef.... a lie can run for 1,400 years but one day the truth will outrun it.


So unequivocally unambiguously there is no hija from mecca to medina by Muslims as refugees

Saying no evidence doesn't engage what's already been laid out, it bypasses the structure of the argument rather than testing it. The Qur'anic material presents a connected narrative across passages. Q59:8 describes expulsion and loss of property. Q59:9 describes a receiving community providing support. Q9:40 depicts a moment of flight under pursuit with divine protection. Q8:72 names two legally distinct communities those who emigrated and those who gave shelter with defined rights between them. Q22:39 introduces permission to respond to aggression after expulsion, not before. Read together, the sequence is consistent: pressure, forced departure, reception, and only then conditional permission to fight. That order matters. Migration precedes resistance in the text, not the other way around.
That coherence is reinforced by the text's own legal language. Al-Muhajirun and al-Ansar are not rhetorical flourishes. They are categories carrying defined obligations within inheritance law, social responsibility, loyalty, and communal authority across multiple chapters. Legal categories reflect existing social realities. They do not float above events that never happened. You do not legislate around fiction.
The administrative point runs the same direction. The Hijri calendar, formalised under Umar ibn al-Khattab, takes the Hijrah as its fixed starting point because it marked a recognised communal turning point significant enough to anchor time itself. Civilisations do not date their calendars from ambiguous or invented moments. They date from events their entire community already knows and agrees upon.
So the question was never whether every detail appears in one sentence. It is whether the cumulative pattern across narrative sequence, legal structure, and early communal memory coheres around a real migratory event. It does. Across every test applied from textual, legal, administrative, the same event appears at the centre.
Repeating no evidence after all of that is not a conclusion. It is a refusal to engage. And a refusal to engage is not the same as a rebuttal.

BlackfireX:
So no evidence

This life sef.... a lie can run for 1,400 years but one day the truth will outrun it.


So unequivocally unambiguously there is no hija from mecca to medina by Muslims as refugees

honesttalk21:
Saying no evidence doesn't engage what's already been laid out, it bypasses the structure of the argument rather than testing it. The Qur'anic material presents a connected narrative across passages. Q59:8 describes expulsion and loss of property. Q59:9 describes a receiving community providing support. Q9:40 depicts a moment of flight under pursuit with divine protection. Q8:72 names two legally distinct communities those who emigrated and those who gave shelter with defined rights between them. Q22:39 introduces permission to respond to aggression after expulsion, not before. Read together, the sequence is consistent: pressure, forced departure, reception, and only then conditional permission to fight. That order matters. Migration precedes resistance in the text, not the other way around.
That coherence is reinforced by the text's own legal language. Al-Muhajirun and al-Ansar are not rhetorical flourishes. They are categories carrying defined obligations within inheritance law, social responsibility, loyalty, and communal authority across multiple chapters. Legal categories reflect existing social realities. They do not float above events that never happened. You do not legislate around fiction.
The administrative point runs the same direction. The Hijri calendar, formalised under Umar ibn al-Khattab, takes the Hijrah as its fixed starting point because it marked a recognised communal turning point significant enough to anchor time itself. Civilisations do not date their calendars from ambiguous or invented moments. They date from events their entire community already knows and agrees upon.
So the question was never whether every detail appears in one sentence. It is whether the cumulative pattern across narrative sequence, legal structure, and early communal memory coheres around a real migratory event. It does. Across every test applied from textual, legal, administrative, the same event appears at the centre.
Repeating no evidence after all of that is not a conclusion. It is a refusal to engage. And a refusal to engage is not the same as a rebuttal.

Writting long sequences of words without truth is not gonna help you.
All the verses you Quoted I have answered with facts not emotion or years of lies.

That you believed a lie for years dosent make it true, that a whole village believed a lie doesn't make it true------FACT.

YOU WANT ME TO BE REPEATING MYSELF WHEN YOU KEEP THROWING VAGUE EMPTY NO EVIDENCE VERSES.

YATHRIB means a city , the city and this can mean any city .

MUHAJIRUN this are mercenaries who are willing to die called to join in the battle of batuk , badr, invading of the 3 Jewish clans like Khybar,
THIS MUHAJIRUN were promised war booty and if they die they will get war booty on heaven.

NO HIJRA in 9:40 because this is where the lies sparked, Qutham a.k.a was driven out from point A and he went to point B which is a cave with one companion who was with him, so the subsequent verses encouraged MUHAJIRUN to join Muhammad in the JIHAD.
note I said driven out which I have explained above . Since the Quran didn't say WHAT LOCATION how dare you corrupt the word of Allah?

ANSAR these are the people whom the Muhajiruns that left there places to join Muhammad in JIHAD meets , for example if a Muhajirun or mujahadeen leaves LONDON to join BOKO HARAM in the northern Nigeria to kill non Muslims and take there land as prescribed in the verses you stated above the fellow Muslims he meet in northern Nigeria are the ANSAR. those who are there already.
More example: Islamic terrorist in Nigeria are the Muhajirun/ mujahadeens and the normal Conservative Muslims like you on nairaland are the ANSAR. You are the white washers.

AL MAKKAH there is no where In those verses that any people in massive number were persecuted that they left MAKKAH....point A ... no where.

JiHAD. all the verses quoted are incitement to steal kill and destroy non Muslims, in such raids blacks ( our ancestors) were ambushed , killed and sold as slaves ,the population of blacks were so reduced that you can't find 10 Indigenous blacks in Arabia again, infact Muhammad ( a white man)said anyone who say he is black should be killed, muhamed owns black slaves , sold backs .
They invaded communities who mind there business,people s business were stolen caravan looted by Muhajiruns

No mecca to medina ....back to the topic question where in the Quran can I find the hijra from mecca to medina?


Take away: the so-called islamic hijra wasn't even known until under a caliphate that now decide to create a date.... that means it was human origin not divine command or recognition. Allah didn't recognise it....that is why Quran didn't say anything about it-----muhamed didn't say anything about it.....

After his death many years later it was fabricated.

Where in the Quran can we find HIJRA from mecca to medina by muslim refugees----an unequivocal unambiguous statement from Allah in the Quran?


And if you can't give me the answer---- you will be ignored------as no evidence.

TenQ:
Waiting!!!!!!!!!

It's a new month and we never see him irrefutable question😅.

That guy na joke😅.

The core claim does not collapse it is being relabeled rather than addressed. Redefining al-Muhajirun as later mercenaries for Tabuk does not fit Q8:72.The verse treats al-Muhajirun and al-Ansar as already established groups with binding duties of support, protection, and inheritance. That is long-term communal law, not recruitment language, and it presupposes an existing social split.
Q59:8–9 describes expulsion from homes and wealth followed by reception by an already settled community. Q9:40 adds flight under pursuit, and Q22:39 allows fighting only after expulsion and harm. The sequence is consistent: expulsion, departure, refuge, reception, then conflict.
The calendar point is similar. The Hijri system under Umar does not create the event it dates; it anchors administration to an already recognised historical turning point.
The demand for a single Mecca to Medina sentence misreads how ancient texts work. The Exodus is never given in one explicit line either. Its movement from Egypt to Canaan is spread across Exodus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, and later texts, yet it is still treated as one migration because the audience already knows the shared event.
The Qur’anic pattern is the same in form: expulsion (59:, reception (59:9), flight (9:40), and legal distinction between emigrants and helpers (8:72). Like the Exodus tradition, it encodes a known event across multiple passages instead of restating it in one label.
So the issue is not absence of reference, but refusal to read it in its own narrative style.

BlackfireX:
Writting long sequences of words without truth is not gonna help you.
All the verses you Quoted I have answered with facts not emotion or years of lies.

That you believed a lie for years dosent make it true, that a whole village believed a lie doesn't make it true------FACT.

YOU WANT ME TO BE REPEATING MYSELF WHEN YOU KEEP THROWING VAGUE EMPTY NO EVIDENCE VERSES.

YATHRIB means a city , the city and this can mean any city .

MUHAJIRUN this are mercenaries who are willing to die called to join in the battle of batuk , badr, invading of the 3 Jewish clans like Khybar,
THIS MUHAJIRUN were promised war booty and if they die they will get war booty on heaven.

NO HIJRA in 9:40 because this is where the lies sparked, Qutham a.k.a was driven out from point A and he went to point B which is a cave with one companion who was with him, so the subsequent verses encouraged MUHAJIRUN to join Muhammad in the JIHAD.
note I said driven out which I have explained above . Since the Quran didn't say WHAT LOCATION how dare you corrupt the word of Allah?

ANSAR these are the people whom the Muhajiruns that left there places to join Muhammad in JIHAD meets , for example if a Muhajirun or mujahadeen leaves LONDON to join BOKO HARAM in the northern Nigeria to kill non Muslims and take there land as prescribed in the verses you stated above the fellow Muslims he meet in northern Nigeria are the ANSAR. those who are there already.
More example: Islamic terrorist in Nigeria are the Muhajirun/ mujahadeens and the normal Conservative Muslims like you on nairaland are the ANSAR. You are the white washers.

AL MAKKAH there is no where In those verses that any people in massive number were persecuted that they left MAKKAH....point A ... no where.

JiHAD. all the verses quoted are incitement to steal kill and destroy non Muslims, in such raids blacks ( our ancestors) were ambushed , killed and sold as slaves ,the population of blacks were so reduced that you can't find 10 Indigenous blacks in Arabia again, infact Muhammad ( a white man)said anyone who say he is black should be killed, muhamed owns black slaves , sold backs .
They invaded communities who mind there business,people s business were stolen caravan looted by Muhajiruns

No mecca to medina ....back to the topic question where in the Quran can I find the hijra from mecca to medina?


Take away: the so-called islamic hijra wasn't even known until under a caliphate that now decide to create a date.... that means it was human origin not divine command or recognition. Allah didn't recognise it....that is why Quran didn't say anything about it-----muhamed didn't say anything about it.....

After his death many years later it was fabricated.

Where in the Quran can we find HIJRA from mecca to medina by muslim refugees----an unequivocal unambiguous statement from Allah in the Quran?


And if you can't give me the answer---- you will be ignored------as no evidence.

Gabrielshow26:
It's a new month and we never see him irrefutable question😅.

That guy na joke😅.

Its the same demon using the same tactics : it is their normal response when quizzed

honesttalk21:
The core claim does not collapse it is being relabeled rather than addressed. Redefining al-Muhajirun as later mercenaries for Tabuk does not fit Q8:72.The verse treats al-Muhajirun and al-Ansar as already established groups with binding duties of support, protection, and inheritance. That is long-term communal law, not recruitment language, and it presupposes an existing social split.
Q59:8–9 describes expulsion from homes and wealth followed by reception by an already settled community. Q9:40 adds flight under pursuit, and Q22:39 allows fighting only after expulsion and harm. The sequence is consistent: expulsion, departure, refuge, reception, then conflict.
The calendar point is similar. The Hijri system under Umar does not create the event it dates; it anchors administration to an already recognised historical turning point.
The demand for a single Mecca to Medina sentence misreads how ancient texts work. The Exodus is never given in one explicit line either. Its movement from Egypt to Canaan is spread across Exodus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, and later texts, yet it is still treated as one migration because the audience already knows the shared event.
The Qur’anic pattern is the same in form: expulsion (59:, reception (59:9), flight (9:40), and legal distinction between emigrants and helpers (8:72). Like the Exodus tradition, it encodes a known event across multiple passages instead of restating it in one label.
So the issue is not absence of reference, but refusal to read it in its own narrative style.

the hijra of isrealites from egypt to cannan was well documented----that is how YAHWEH roll He makes things well documented from point A to Point B.


now show us that Allah in the Al Quran Kareem that muslims went from mecca to medina as refugees-----do you understand.


Now show me an unequivocal unambigous statement from allah that muslim moved from mecca to medina as refugees hijra.

That standard isn’t how ancient texts works. Even the Exodus isn’t one neat verse stating a move from Egypt to Canaan in one sentence; I will appreciate you show us otherwise. It’s spread across multiple books and assumed as shared memory. The Qur’an too does the same in its own style seen in expulsion (59:, reception (59:9), flight (9:40), and defined emigrant helper groups (8:72). That’s a consistent migration pattern, not silence.
Demanding one modern style line is importing a format the text doesn’t use. We all now see it’s not absence but a different narrative method and your inequitable demand.

BlackfireX:
the hijra of isrealites from egypt to cannan was well documented----that is how YAHWEH roll He makes things well documented from point A to Point B.


now show us that Allah in the Al Quran Kareem that muslims went from mecca to medina as refugees-----do you understand.


Now show me an unequivocal unambigous statement from allah that muslim moved from mecca to medina as refugees hijra.

honesttalk21:
That standard isn’t how ancient texts works. Even the Exodus isn’t one neat verse stating a move from Egypt to Canaan in one sentence; I will appreciate you show us otherwise. It’s spread across multiple books and assumed as shared memory. The Qur’an too does the same in its own style seen in expulsion (59:, reception (59:9), flight (9:40), and defined emigrant helper groups (8:72). That’s a consistent migration pattern, not silence.
Demanding one modern style line is importing a format the text doesn’t use. We all now see it’s not absence but a different narrative method and your inequitable demand.

So no evidence

You don't even understand what you are saying contradicting yourself--- trying to defend a vague book.
Historical context will give the name of the place point A to point B---- Quran failed woefully and you are here trying to help and white wash it ----in so doing expose more lies of the Quran Allah and the 200 years later commentaries.

Since you have no evidence--- kindly move along


In zaik naik voice--show me an unequivocal unambiguous statement from the Quran where I can find muslim refugees moving from one point A mecca to point B medina?

Still repeating the same demand while unable to meet it from your own sources? You said the Israelite migration from Egypt to Canaan was well documented — that is how Yahweh rolls, point A to point B — yet you cannot produce a single Biblical verse stating that explicitly. Try it. One verse, precise and unambiguous, naming both locations as origin and destination in one statement.

That is not a defence of the Qur'an but your own standard applied consistently for your book. When you can meet it from your own scripture you can justifiably demand it of Islam otherwise be quiet so we don't confirm in the words of Abraham Lincoln.

BlackfireX:


So no evidence

You don't even understand what you are saying contradicting yourself--- trying to defend a vague book.
Historical context will give the name of the place point A to point B---- Quran failed woefully and you are here trying to help and white wash it ----in so doing expose more lies of the Quran Allah and the 200 years later commentaries.

Since you have no evidence--- kindly move along


In zaik naik voice--show me an unequivocal unambiguous statement from the Quran where I can find muslim refugees moving from one point A mecca to point B medina?

honesttalk21:
Still repeating the same demand while unable to meet it from your own sources? You said the Israelite migration from Egypt to Canaan was well documented — that is how Yahweh rolls, point A to point B — yet you cannot produce a single Biblical verse stating that explicitly. Try it. One verse, precise and unambiguous, naming both locations as origin and destination in one statement.

That is not a defence of the Qur'an but your own standard applied consistently for your book. When you can meet it from your own scripture you can justifiably demand it of Islam otherwise be quiet so we don't confirm in the words of Abraham Lincoln.

Exactly how to deal with those boys. They always try to hold our scripture, our tradition to unimaginable standard, when they can only dream of our standard with what they have. One of them even called a mutawatir hadith a cock and bull story when they have the new testament for a scripture, a new testament where close to 80% of its books are either pseudonyms or outright forgeries.
Those boys are just trolls, having a chat with them is a waste of time.

honesttalk21:
Still repeating the same demand while unable to meet it from your own sources? You said the Israelite migration from Egypt to Canaan was well documented — that is how Yahweh rolls, point A to point B — yet you cannot produce a single Biblical verse stating that explicitly. Try it. One verse, precise and unambiguous, naming both locations as origin and destination in one statement.

That is not a defence of the Qur'an but your own standard applied consistently for your book. When you can meet it from your own scripture you can justifiably demand it of Islam otherwise be quiet so we don't confirm in the words of Abraham Lincoln.

Now I know you don't even know the Quran not to talk of the Holy Bible--- so I have Ben talking to a child depending on Ai
Even your Muslim brothers are ashamed you asked that question.

The HIJRA journey from Egypt to Canaan—popularly called the "Exodus"—is a central theme of the Old Testament. God’s promise to deliver the Israelites from slavery and bring them to a "land flowing with milk and honey" is repeated at several times.

Pinpointing the point A Egypt to point B canaan in clear terms without vague empty incoherent cut and join.

This your question showed I have been talking to a toddler ... now I will indulge and lecture you to see that Our LORD GOD YAHWEH is precise clear detailed.


​Here are the key Bible verses where God declares move from Point A to point B
​1. The Call of Moses (The Burning Bush)
​This is the first time God explicitly outlines the plan to Moses.
​Exodus 3:8
​"So I have come down to rescue them from the hand of the Egyptians and to bring them up out of that land into a good and spacious land, a land flowing with milk and honey—the home of the Canaanites, Hittites, Amorites, Perizzites, Hivites and Jebusites."
You say what ?Mon Dieu see detailed precise coherent instruction... YAHWEH you too much, abeg Clap for my God jare


​Exodus 3:17
​"And I have promised to bring you up out of your misery in Egypt into the land of the Canaanites, Hittites, Amorites, Perizzites, Hivites and Jebusites—a land flowing with milk and honey."
See levels , kilode see levels ---see unambiguous unequivocal statement from my YAHWEH, can your god do that?

​2. Formal Confirmation to Israel
​After Moses expresses doubt, God reaffirms His covenant using His formal name (Yahweh).
​Exodus 6:6–8
​"Therefore, say to the Israelites: ‘I am the Lord, and I will bring you out from under the yoke of the Egyptians... And I will bring you to the land I swore with uplifted hand to give to Abraham, to Isaac and to Jacob. I will give it to you as a possession. I am the Lord.’"
Ogini ogini ogini ogini too much God, you wish it was like this in ya Quereyana? See God speaking with evidence....see evidence not tasfir not white wash not dem talk say he talk say---MY YAHWEH IS AWESOME...say it...say it

​3. During the Journey (Reassurance)
​As the Israelites moved through the wilderness, God reminded them of the destination to keep them focused.
​Exodus 23:23
​"My angel will go ahead of you and bring you into the land of the Amorites, Hittites, Perizzites, Canaanites, Hivites and Jebusites, and I will wipe them out."
Kilode kilode evidence yapa... otipoju ... make una clap again na , even if your god no get him own evidence

​Exodus 33:1
​"Then the Lord said to Moses, 'Leave this place, you and the people you brought up out of Egypt, and go up to the land I promised on oath to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, saying, "I will give it to your descendants."'"
I love my God the creator--- the owner---his words are clear too much clear. Baba God I worship you.
Make I stop here jare my God too get evidence

​tenQ antislam Gabrielshow24
Abutwins doffman seun


NowBack to the question show me from the Quran where Allah SWT in an unambiguous unequivocal statement says Muslims refugees moved from mecca to medina?

Wow! Now you’ve actually run into a problem of method, not text. You’re asking for a single point A to point B verse like a modern report. But neither the Qur’an nor the Bible writes history that way. That expectation is already imported.Clearly a wrong standard is applied.
Ancient texts don’t compress major events into one documentary line. They build meaning through linked passages. Exodus is spread across promise (Ex 3–6), execution (Ex 12–14), journey (Numbers), and reflection (Deuteronomy). That’s not missing evidence that’s normal ancient narrative style. So the no single verse means no event claim is just a category error.
The promise in difference tofulfilment already exists in the text. Exodus doesn’t stop at promise. It explicitly moves: I will bring you out then the LORD brought them out (Ex 12–14). So the shift from prediction to event is already built into the narrative. You just isolated one layer and ignored the completion layer.
Hijrah works the same way and the Qur’an doesn’t narrate the Hijrah like a police report either. It refers to those who emigrated, those expelled from their homes, the lived reality of migration (e.g. 8:72, 2:218). It describes the event and distributes it across references, just like Exodus.
Now the real issue remains if the demand is: a one sentence, self-contained historical summary then you lose both Exodus and Qur’an, because neither belongs to that genre.

You didn’t expose a missing event.
You imposed a modern documentation standard on ancient narrative and then treated the mismatch as a contradiction. Still you fail to show the single biblical verses exactly stating an exodus of Israelites from Egypt to Canaan.

BlackfireX:
Now I know you don't even know the Quran not to talk of the Holy Bible--- so I have Ben talking to a child depending on Ai
Even your Muslim brothers are ashamed you asked that question.

The HIJRA journey from Egypt to Canaan—popularly called the "Exodus"—is a central theme of the Old Testament. God’s promise to deliver the Israelites from slavery and bring them to a "land flowing with milk and honey" is repeated at several times.

Pinpointing the point A Egypt to point B canaan in clear terms without vague empty incoherent cut and join.

This your question showed I have been talking to a toddler ... now I will indulge and lecture you to see that Our LORD GOD YAHWEH is precise clear detailed.


​Here are the key Bible verses where God declares move from Point A to point B
​1. The Call of Moses (The Burning Bush)
​This is the first time God explicitly outlines the plan to Moses.
​Exodus 3:8
​"So I have come down to rescue them from the hand of the Egyptians and to bring them up out of that land into a good and spacious land, a land flowing with milk and honey—the home of the Canaanites, Hittites, Amorites, Perizzites, Hivites and Jebusites."
You say what ?Mon Dieu see detailed precise coherent instruction... YAHWEH you too much, abeg Clap for my God jare


​Exodus 3:17
​"And I have promised to bring you up out of your misery in Egypt into the land of the Canaanites, Hittites, Amorites, Perizzites, Hivites and Jebusites—a land flowing with milk and honey."
See levels , kilode see levels ---see unambiguous unequivocal statement from my YAHWEH, can your god do that?

​2. Formal Confirmation to Israel
​After Moses expresses doubt, God reaffirms His covenant using His formal name (Yahweh).
​Exodus 6:6–8
​"Therefore, say to the Israelites: ‘I am the Lord, and I will bring you out from under the yoke of the Egyptians... And I will bring you to the land I swore with uplifted hand to give to Abraham, to Isaac and to Jacob. I will give it to you as a possession. I am the Lord.’"
Ogini ogini ogini ogini too much God, you wish it was like this in ya Quereyana? See God speaking with evidence....see evidence not tasfir not white wash not dem talk say he talk say---MY YAHWEH IS AWESOME...say it...say it

​3. During the Journey (Reassurance)
​As the Israelites moved through the wilderness, God reminded them of the destination to keep them focused.
​Exodus 23:23
​"My angel will go ahead of you and bring you into the land of the Amorites, Hittites, Perizzites, Canaanites, Hivites and Jebusites, and I will wipe them out."
Kilode kilode evidence yapa... otipoju ... make una clap again na , even if your god no get him own evidence

​Exodus 33:1
​"Then the Lord said to Moses, 'Leave this place, you and the people you brought up out of Egypt, and go up to the land I promised on oath to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, saying, "I will give it to your descendants."'"
I love my God the creator--- the owner---his words are clear too much clear. Baba God I worship you.
Make I stop here jare my God too get evidence

​tenQ antislam Gabrielshow24
Abutwins doffman seun


NowBack to the question show me from the Quran where Allah SWT in an unambiguous unequivocal statement says Muslims refugees moved from mecca to medina?

Qasim6:
Exactly how to deal with those boys. They always try to hold our scripture, our tradition to unimaginable standard, when they can only dream of our standard with what they have. One of them even called a mutawatir hadith a cock and bull story when they have the new testament for a scripture, a new testament where close to 80% of its books are either pseudonyms or outright forgeries.
Those boys are just trolls, having a chat with them is a waste of time.

They grand stand on false condescension that Muslims are meek and ignorant.

BlackfireX:
​teQ antisam Gabrielsow24
Abutwins doffman Expanse2020 sen


NowBack to the question show me from the Quran where Allah SWT in an unambiguous unequivocal statement says Muslims refugees moved from mecca to medina?

Even their oga wey dey sokoto, the number 1 Muslim in Nigeria can't answer the question

Qasim6:
Exactly how to deal with those boys. They always try to hold our scripture, our tradition to unimaginable standard, when they can only dream of our standard with what they have. One of them even called a mutawatir hadith a cock and bull story when they have the new testament for a scripture, a new testament where close to 80% of its books are either pseudonyms or outright forgeries.
Those boys are just trolls, having a chat with them is a waste of time.

All assertions, no substance🥱. Care to explain how these books were forgeries?
Care to also explain why your omniscient god confirmed them? And if you disagree, care to show us what the Injil revealed to Isa was? 🤨
Any other lie? 🥱

Just because your book doesn't meet up to scrutiny doesn't mean the bible, which was first rigorously and academically tested didn't meet up. Every book is responsible for its own claims.

Mind you, should I remind you of one such claim, which your prophet, purportedly👀 said the two mosques where built between 40years🥱.
Anyone with basic knowledge of History knows that's false🥱. Should I go on?

honesttalk21:
They grand stand on false condescension that Muslims are meek and ignorant.

I must appreciate that you have toned down on your ignorant🤨 use of AI. Which shows you take criticisms and try to improve. Even though your new approach of humanizing AI generated text doesn't help you because at the core: the mislead, ignorant and as you say "meek" one, still evinces forth.

In your conversation above, the only thing I could see is your desperate attempt to change the subject. And more so, to avoid the obvious that in the Quran, a lot of things are not mentioned. This is a debacle given the heaps of self-praise we find in the Quran about it being clear, explains all things and complete among other claims🥱. Your dependence on later traditions, hadiths, that came toot fart😅(too far) to offer a glimpse about whatever the Quran meant highlights this. It goes to show that the Quran isn't sufficient and thus isn't complete. As we have also discussed in another thread, one thing is concrete, the SIN was made up. Prima facie, the hadiths too!

Blackfirex is right in pointing this out. You haven't done anything special except to try and save face. Let's keep in mind, that the book we are talking about, came from an omniscient mind, emphasis on omniscient 👀. You Muslims make Allah like an average human. He forgets and mixes up basic things about his prophets, gets basic history wrong. He used confined 7th century cosmology as a truth🥱, likewise 7th century science... Obviously, these all point to human origins. No omniscient god would have done this.

Dazzle us by trying to reconcile the numerous contradictions found in it, keep in mind that the Quran makes a claim about "contradictions" but in the limit of the thread explain to us why Allah in the Quran isn't clear about the vertices of the Hijra👀?

The omniscience point in this response is where your argument leans and where it fails. An omniscient source addressing a 7th-century audience would use their language and frame of reference. That’s not a flaw; it’s effective communication. If a pre-modern register proves human origin, the same standard collapses the Bible’s own cosmology. Apply it consistently or admit it’s selective. On insufficiency, no scripture stands alone. The Torah is read through the Talmud; the Gospels required councils and theology to define core doctrines. Demanding zero interpretive tradition is a standard no text meets.
On the Hijrah, the structure is already there: expulsion (Q59:, reception (Q59:9), flight (Q9:40), and defined communities (Q8:72). Calling it absent doesn’t engage that sequence.
Regarding contradictions, Q4:82 sets a clear test. A claim isn’t enough please produce one that survives linguistic and contextual scrutiny. What remains is a pattern: impose a standard no text survives, apply it selectively, then call the result disproof.

Gabrielshow26:
I must appreciate that you have toned down on your ignorant🤨 use of AI. Which shows you take criticisms and try to improve. Even though your new approach of humanizing AI generated text doesn't help you because at the core: the mislead, ignorant and as you say "meek" one, still evinces forth.

In your conversation above, the only thing I could see is your desperate attempt to change the subject. And more so, to avoid the obvious that in the Quran, a lot of things are not mentioned. This is a debacle given the heaps of self-praise we find in the Quran about it being clear, explains all things and complete among other claims🥱. Your dependence on later traditions, hadiths, that came toot fart😅(too far) to offer a glimpse about whatever the Quran meant highlights this. It goes to show that the Quran isn't sufficient and thus isn't complete. As we have also discussed in another thread, one thing is concrete, the SIN was made up. Prima facie, the hadiths too!

Blackfirex is right in pointing this out. You haven't done anything special except to try and save face. Let's keep in mind, that the book we are talking about, came from an omniscient mind, emphasis on omniscient 👀. You Muslims make Allah like an average human. He forgets and mixes up basic things about his prophets, gets basic history wrong. He used confined 7th century cosmology as a truth🥱, likewise 7th century science... Obviously, these all point to human origins. No omniscient god would have done this.

Dazzle us by trying to reconcile the numerous contradictions found in it, keep in mind that the Quran makes a claim about "contradictions" but in the limit of the thread explain to us why Allah in the Quran isn't clear about the vertices of the Hijra👀?

Antlisiam:
Even their oga wey dey sokoto, the number 1 Muslim in Nigeria can't answer the question

Where is your broda turji🤣

doffman:
Where is your broda turji🤣

Sule, ask your palẹ the sultan of Sokoto to tell you where you'd buroda dey nau. E be like say he dey go mecca diz year

honesttalk21:
The omniscience point in this response is where your argument leans and where it fails. An omniscient source addressing a 7th-century audience would use their language and frame of reference. That’s not a flaw; it’s effective communication. If a pre-modern register proves human origin, the same standard collapses the Bible’s own cosmology. Apply it consistently or admit it’s selective. On insufficiency, no scripture stands alone. The Torah is read through the Talmud; the Gospels required councils and theology to define core doctrines. Demanding zero interpretive tradition is a standard no text meets.
On the Hijrah, the structure is already there: expulsion (Q59:, reception (Q59:9), flight (Q9:40), and defined communities (Q8:72). Calling it absent doesn’t engage that sequence.
Regarding contradictions, Q4:82 sets a clear test. A claim isn’t enough please produce one that survives linguistic and contextual scrutiny. What remains is a pattern: impose a standard no text survives, apply it selectively, then call the result disproof.

You are joking, you always make these comments with less thought. Let me remind the reader of this story. It was recorded by your hadiths that they asked Mohammed what determined the sex of a child. Could you remind us what he said Jibril told him?
For context: Jibril is the spirit of Allah, an omniscient god.

According to their history, Mohammed said whosoever climaxes first between both parties determines the child's sex👀—totally ridiculous, yet this was what Jibril told him.
I can cite plenty of examples that highlight that the Quran of Mohammed was influenced by 7th century cosmology of the time and not by an omniscient god.

I have noticed you have a penchant for tu quoque fallacy and I must admit it's rather futile as each book is responsible for its own claims🥱. This puerile attempt of yours is insufficient and doesn't address the underlying contradiction we find in your Quran. According to the Quran, it's clear, easy, written solely in Arabic, explains all things and complete. If we are to go by this, then why do you need the Hadith to complement something that lauds itself as complete? 🤨Or don't you know the meaning of complete? Perhaps, you care to educate us as to your perceived meaning of complete.

By the way, the bible doesn't make such claims so whatever gimmick you hope to achieve by deflection is futile🥱.

honesttalk21:
The omniscience point in this response is where your argument leans and where it fails. An omniscient source addressing a 7th-century audience would use their language and frame of reference. That’s not a flaw; it’s effective communication. If a pre-modern register proves human origin, the same standard collapses the Bible’s own cosmology. Apply it consistently or admit it’s selective. On insufficiency, no scripture stands alone. The Torah is read through the Talmud; the Gospels required councils and theology to define core doctrines. Demanding zero interpretive tradition is a standard no text meets.
On the Hijrah, the structure is already there: expulsion (Q59:, reception (Q59:9), flight (Q9:40), and defined communities (Q8:72). Calling it absent doesn’t engage that sequence.
Regarding contradictions, Q4:82 sets a clear test. A claim isn’t enough please produce one that survives linguistic and contextual scrutiny. What remains is a pattern: impose a standard no text survives, apply it selectively, then call the result disproof.

Let’s strip away your apologetic gymnastics🥱. You have argued that because God is 'omniscient,' he had to adopt the limited, inaccurate 'frame of reference' of a 7th-century audience👀. Think about the implications of that: you are admitting that your 'Eternal👀' revelation was chained to the scientific ignorance of the 7th century😂. If a message must be scientifically illiterate to be understood by 7th-century listeners, then it isn't 'for all time'—it's just a provincial, dated opinion🥱

You’ve effectively argued yourself into a corner where your god is indistinguishable from a superstitious nomad😅. If your god was truly omniscient, he shouldn't pander to the scientific errors of the day; he should elevate the reader🥱. The fact that the Quran simply mirrors the primitive guesses of the era proves it isn't 'effective communication'—it’s a limitation of the human author.

And since you’re so keen on 'frames of reference,' let’s address the sex-determination Hadith😂. When your Prophet asked Jibril (the literal conduit of the Creator🤦🏾‍♂️) what determines a child's sex, the answer was: 'whichever parent climaxes first.' That isn't a '7th-century perspective'—it is a verifiable biological falsehood, a campfire myth disguised as divine revelation🥱. To claim this is 'effective communication'👀 is to admit that your god chose to lie about human biology just to keep the 7th-century audience happy—Totally, ridiculous!

Now, you are stuck in a pathetic dilemma: either your 'Omniscient' god(emphasis mine)👀 didn't know the basic mechanics of human reproduction, or he knew the truth but chose to teach 'divine lies😮‍💨' that would eventually be exposed as fraudulent 1,400 years later. Which is it?🤨 You definitely can’t hide behind 'frame of reference' when your theology is actively hallucinating biological facts.🥱

Pls, think before you make such shortsighted statements as they don't do your god, the supposed omniscient being, any credit🥱.

The same charge appearing twice doesn't strengthen it. The argument is addressed once because the premise is the same throughout.
Several points are being raised, but they all rest on the same flawed assumption. Speaking in the language and worldview of its first audience isn't an error but exactly how meaningful communication works. The Qur'an uses human, experiential language, not scientific jargon. Calling that primitive science forces a category the text never claimed. Applied consistently, that standard would undermine other ancient scriptures just as quickly.
The expectation that revelation should contain advanced science is also imported. The Qur'an presents itself as guidance in moral, theological, and legal affairs, not a technical manual. Filling it with future scientific detail would make it unintelligible to its first audience and miss its purpose entirely. On the reproduction hadith, two clarifications matter. It is hadith, not Qur'an, and the two don't carry the same authority and clearly Islamic theology has never treated them as equivalent. That distinction matters because the dilemma being constructed that either God is ignorant or God deliberately lied only works if hadith and Qur'an are treated as epistemologically identical, which they are not. Beyond that, the language reflects pre-modern ideas about influence and resemblance, not genetics. Reading it as a modern biological claim is a category mistake imposed on a pre-modern description.
On completeness, the Qur'an is complete as guidance, not as an all-encompassing reference. No tradition functions without interpretation, and the Qur'an itself assigns the Prophet a clarifying role. That is part of the design, not a flaw.
Finally, comparison isn't deflection it tests consistency. If a standard disqualifies all ancient texts it's universal. If it's applied to only one it's selective. At root, the issue hasn't changed. A guidance text is being judged by a standard it never claimed. It can't fail a test it was never meant to meet.

Gabrielshow26:
You are joking, you always make these comments with less thought. Let me remind the reader of this story. It was recorded by your hadiths that they asked Mohammed what determined the sex of a child. Could you remind us what he said Jibril told him?
For context: Jibril is the spirit of Allah, an omniscient god.

According to their history, Mohammed said whosoever climaxes first between both parties determines the child's sex👀—totally ridiculous, yet this was what Jibril told him.
I can cite plenty of examples that highlight that the Quran of Mohammed was influenced by 7th century cosmology of the time and not by an omniscient god.

I have noticed you have a penchant for tu quoque fallacy and I must admit it's rather futile as each book is responsible for its own claims🥱. This puerile attempt of yours is insufficient and doesn't address the underlying contradiction we find in your Quran. According to the Quran, it's clear, easy, written solely in Arabic, explains all things and complete. If we are to go by this, then why do you need the Hadith to complement something that lauds itself as complete? 🤨Or don't you know the meaning of complete? Perhaps, you care to educate us as to your perceived meaning of complete.

By the way, the bible doesn't make such claims so whatever gimmick you hope to achieve by deflection is futile🥱.

Gabrielshow26:
Let’s strip away your apologetic gymnastics🥱. You have argued that because God is 'omniscient,' he had to adopt the limited, inaccurate 'frame of reference' of a 7th-century audience👀. Think about the implications of that: you are admitting that your 'Eternal👀' revelation was chained to the scientific ignorance of the 7th century😂. If a message must be scientifically illiterate to be understood by 7th-century listeners, then it isn't 'for all time'—it's just a provincial, dated opinion🥱

You’ve effectively argued yourself into a corner where your god is indistinguishable from a superstitious nomad😅. If your god was truly omniscient, he shouldn't pander to the scientific errors of the day; he should elevate the reader🥱. The fact that the Quran simply mirrors the primitive guesses of the era proves it isn't 'effective communication'—it’s a limitation of the human author.

And since you’re so keen on 'frames of reference,' let’s address the sex-determination Hadith😂. When your Prophet asked Jibril (the literal conduit of the Creator🤦🏾‍♂️) what determines a child's sex, the answer was: 'whichever parent climaxes first.' That isn't a '7th-century perspective'—it is a verifiable biological falsehood, a campfire myth disguised as divine revelation🥱. To claim this is 'effective communication'👀 is to admit that your god chose to lie about human biology just to keep the 7th-century audience happy—Totally, ridiculous!

Now, you are stuck in a pathetic dilemma: either your 'Omniscient' god(emphasis mine)👀 didn't know the basic mechanics of human reproduction, or he knew the truth but chose to teach 'divine lies😮‍💨' that would eventually be exposed as fraudulent 1,400 years later. Which is it?🤨 You definitely can’t hide behind 'frame of reference' when your theology is actively hallucinating biological facts.🥱

Pls, think before you make such shortsighted statements as they don't do your god, the supposed omniscient being, any credit🥱.

Antlisiam:
Sule, ask your palẹ the sultan of Sokoto to tell you where you'd buroda dey nau. E be like say he dey go mecca diz year

Ahaaaaa. No be your broda again ahaa

See them ahaaa🤣

Antlisiam:
Even their oga wey dey sokoto, the number 1 Muslim in Nigeria can't answer the question

Ahaaaa happiness is free .

Pauline ; you guys don cast nah

honesttalk21:
The same charge appearing twice doesn't strengthen it. The argument is addressed once because the premise is the same throughout.
Several points are being raised, but they all rest on the same flawed assumption. Speaking in the language and worldview of its first audience isn't an error but exactly how meaningful communication works. The Qur'an uses human, experiential language, not scientific jargon. Calling that primitive science forces a category the text never claimed. Applied consistently, that standard would undermine other ancient scriptures just as quickly.
The expectation that revelation should contain advanced science is also imported. The Qur'an presents itself as guidance in moral, theological, and legal affairs, not a technical manual. Filling it with future scientific detail would make it unintelligible to its first audience and miss its purpose entirely. On the reproduction hadith, two clarifications matter. It is hadith, not Qur'an, and the two don't carry the same authority and clearly Islamic theology has never treated them as equivalent. That distinction matters because the dilemma being constructed that either God is ignorant or God deliberately lied only works if hadith and Qur'an are treated as epistemologically identical, which they are not. Beyond that, the language reflects pre-modern ideas about influence and resemblance, not genetics. Reading it as a modern biological claim is a category mistake imposed on a pre-modern description.
On completeness, the Qur'an is complete as guidance, not as an all-encompassing reference. No tradition functions without interpretation, and the Qur'an itself assigns the Prophet a clarifying role. That is part of the design, not a flaw.
Finally, comparison isn't deflection it tests consistency. If a standard disqualifies all ancient texts it's universal. If it's applied to only one it's selective. At root, the issue hasn't changed. A guidance text is being judged by a standard it never claimed. It can't fail a test it was never meant to meet.

Pagan can never understand. Only Allah can save them .
Quran 2:6-7
Indeed, those who disbelieve - it is all the same for them whether you warn them or do not warn them - they will not believe.

doffman:
Ahaaaa happiness is free .

Pauline ; you guys don cast nah

Sule, see idakuda anobi turn you to bayii

Na question dem ask you to answer, na another tin you dey talk, o mase o