₦airaland Forum

SIRTee15:
u guys have completely modified your theology to where we dont even know what to believe about Islam anymore.

black stone is a mere stone but it can forgive sins
Allah said he's not a father and has no son, but muslims say its ok for Allah to be a father if it's simply metaphorical.
but same quran condemn christians and jews for saying they are children of Allah.
Allah said Jesus is not the Son of God and curse those who says so. Muslims say it's ok for Jesus to be son of God so long he's not God.
Muslims says bible is corrupt but Quran says otherwise, it confirms the injeel and the torah and tells jews and christians to follow the previous scriptures.
Muslims then turn around and say there's general and absolute confirmation. whatever that mean.

I even heard recently that Muhammed will seat on the throne of Allah on judgement day in a desperate bid to show Jesus sitting on the throne of God doesn't make him divine.
is that true, that Allah will stand up for Muhammed to sit on his throne.

Allah said Jesus was never crucified and Jesus disciples were believers. Muslims says it's ok for Jesus disciples to believe in the cruxifixion and resurrection of Jesus because that doesnt prove christianity.
So Jesus disiciples who are believers were preaching falsehood and Allah had no problem with that!!!

Passover and sacrificial system, the backbone of the torah was never mentioned in the Koran. if jews were to follow the torah as commanded by Allah, are they not suppose to be killing animals for forgiveness of sins? Muslims argue Jesus abrograted it, but same Jesus said he has not come to abolish the law but to fulfil it. and the tafsir mentioned the only thing Jesus changed in the torah was dietary laws.

We point out Quran contain stories from the jewish talmud and midrash that are not found in the torah, within the islamic paradigm what that mean is those stories were in the original torah given to Moses but later removed by corrupt scribes. this raise a serious preservation issue because how come the jews removed those stories from the torah but preserved it in their midrash. it makes no sense at all. why would they remove a story from the original torah but preserved same story in their talmud.

Then the issue of when was the torah corrupted and when did the corruption stop. since we have the dead sea scrolls dated 300bc to 70AD and they are exact copy of what we have today, that shows stability of the torah for over 2300 years. so when was the torah corrupted and why did the jews stop corrupting their text after 300bc.

and more interesting is the fact that we now know the torah that existed during the time of Jesus and its exactly like the one we have today. and in both gospel and Quran, Jesus confirmed the torah of his time as true. Allah taught him the same torah and he preached from it. How then can the torah be corrupt!!!! torah that Jesus held between his hand and announced its from Allah.
muslims got around this by saying Jesus merely did a general confirmation and not absolute confirmation.

But there's nothing like general or absolute confirmation in the Quran, nothing like that. Its an innovation- biddah. an attempt to compromise the ethics of the Quran.


anytime we bring up a theological issue with Islamic beliefs, muslims find a way to rationalise it by watering down interpretation of their Quran.

sincerely I dont know what to believe about the Quran anymore. it's like muslims are beginning to realise for Quran to be true, history must be false.
and since its impossible for history to be false, muslims are working hard on innovation and reinnovation to prop up their religion to harmonise with history.

This your machine gun approach won't work, my focus in this discussion is the black stone, we will shelve every other things you brought up till another time God willing.

Here is a quote from Umar, who was one of the closest companion of the Prophet, he was the 2nd Caliph. So he was one of the first of the first generation of Muslims, here is a perspective of a very early Muslim on the stone.
"No doubt, I know that you are a stone and can neither benefit anyone nor harm anyone. Had I not seen Allah's Messenger kissing you, I would not have kissed you."
So where is this "your theology has changed" coming from?
The irony that this is even coming from a trinitarian Christian.
Prior to the council of Constantinople in 381, a lot of "Orthodox Christians" theologians don't even know the Holy spirit is God. Na only God know how many Christians that have passed away with a deficient theology.

And no we don't believe the black stone have some magical powers to forgive sins, having such belief already violate Tawhid the bedrock of Islam.

SIRTee15:
we have so many 1st century christian text apart from Paul and outside of the bible that confirms the cornthian creed.
epistle of barnabas, 1 Clement to the corinthians all said the same thing.
The didache described Jesus as the living sacrifice thru whom the Father gives spiritual food and drink as well as eternal life.


muslims are interesting bunch. same scholars that told u of the 7 authentic letters are the same ones that told u the corinthian creed did not come from Paul but predate him.
But u know what.. unlike u muslims, scholars are consistent. The reason they gave that letters of timothy, titus and ephesians couldnt have been written by Paul is the exact same reason they gave that corinthins creed couldnt have come from Paul. The linguistic style and theological construction doesn't resemble Paul's tone of writing.


we have been thru this before and not in the mood to repeat. one of this days, I will give u guys a lecture on those jewish christians u people love so much called Judaizes and what they believe.
The way I shocked u when I brought out the ancient jewish belief on onesness of God is the way u will be shocked when I bring it up.
shebi u people love to say Judaizers were the closest early christians to Islam. don't worry he go shock u.
I will bring to u what they believed and said about Jesus, then u can compare if it fits in anyway into your rationalised and watered down Quranic narrative.
I just hope when I bring it, u wont change mouth and start condemning them like u did with ancient jews.



u wont play this nonsense game with me. I dont care what u understand about the Son of God and Father. I care about what Quran says and how it was understood when your prophet revealed it.
show me a clear verse in the Quran where Allah was fully aware it was ok in the past to call him Father. I want u to bring me a verse just like the verse where God says 'no longer call me baal but husband'. Show me where Allah said in the past it was ok to call me Ftaher but not anymore. That's what I want to see otherwise all your shalaye na innovation- biddah

The Quran clearly shows Allah as bewildered as to why people call him Father when he has no son. He even condemned christians and jews who call themselves children of God when it is pure metaphorical. so how come its ok to be called son of God metaphorically when Allah punished those who use it in such way.

even your tafsir rejected the idea that Allah can be called Father in a metaphorical manner. It took jews and christians who converted to Islam to reexplain how its used in those religions, something Allah never explained.

5.18 Abbas - Tanwîr al-Miqbâs min Tafsîr Ibn ‘Abbâs
(The Jews) the Jews of Medina (and Christians) the Christians of Najran (say: We are sons of Allah) we are the sons and prophets of Allah (and His loved ones) who follow His religion; it is also said that this means: we follow Allah's religion as if we were His sons and loved ones; and it is said that this means: we are to Allah like His sons and we are followers of His religion. (Say) to the Jews, O Muhammad; (Why then doth He chastise you for your sins) due to worshipping the calf for 40 days, if you are like sons to Him; have you ever seen a father torturing his sons with fire? (Nay, ye are but mortals) created servants (of His creating) like all His other created beings.

5.18 Jalal - Al-Jalalayn
The Jews and Christians both of them say ‘We are the sons of God that is we are like his sons in terms of closeness and rank and He is like a father to us in terms of compassion and care and His beloved ones’. Say to them O Muhammad (s) ‘Why then does He chastise you for your sins? if what you say is true . For the father does not punish his son nor the loving his beloved; but He has punished you and therefore you are saying lies. Nay; you are mortals from among all those mortals He created you shall be rewarded as they are rewarded and you shall be requited as they are requited. He forgives him for whom He wills forgiveness and He chastises him for whom He wills’ chastisement and there can be no objection thereto. For to God belongs the kingdom of the heavens and of the earth and all that is between them; to Him is the journey’s end the final return.

Epistle of Barnabas is another forgery, Even if we are to grant it, it's still another Pauline, Barnabas was Paul's companion?
The didache does not describe Jesus as a living sacrifice, I don't know where you get that from.

I just don't understand why anyone would suggest Paul got the Creed from anyone when he categorically made it clear he got it from no man.
Is Galatians 1:11-12, 1 Corinth 11:23-26 not clear enough?
​"For I would have you know, brothers, that the gospel that was preached by me is not man's gospel. For I did not receive it from any man, nor was I taught it, but I received it through a revelation of Jesus Christ."
How clearer can that be?
And that perfectly explains why the Jerusalem church was constantly sending people to the places he had preached to correct his teachings because whatever he was preaching was alien to them, it's a perversion of Jesus's gospel. And that also explains why he had no teaching license, Paul was a freelancer.

So Judaizers is now the name you guys call Jesus disciples? Is ok. Whenever you are ready for your lecture I'm ready and I will gladly send it to the bin where it belongs.

You did not shock me or anyone on Jewish ancient believe on onenes of God, you are only deceiving yourself. You'll have to admit trinitarian Christianity is built on Jewish heresy of 2 powers in heaven, a belief that was held at a time when there were no prophets and hellenistic period for that matter. I don't know of any Prophet that preached the 2 powers in heaven.

The tafsir of Qur'an 5:18 you are quoting is about Jews and Christians taunting the Muslims – how they the Jews/Christians are the most beloved, which some Christians still do to this day, making fun of the fact that we call ourselves slaves of our God as against them children of their God. Q5:18 is Allah putting them in their place.

Qur'an 21 25-26 alludes to the fact previous Prophets used the term 'son of God' before it got bastardised.

Q21-​25
​"And We sent not before you any messenger except that We revealed to him that, 'There is no deity except Me, so worship Me.'"
​Q21-26
​"And they say, 'The Most Merciful has taken a son.' Exalted is He! Rather, they are his honored servants."

SIRTee15:
we will discuss further in the future.

But u conveniently ignore the most important - veneration of the stone.

I believe your theology has been heavily influenced by judeo christian tradition. I serioulst doubt someone like u will travel to pilgrimage and kiss the stone in return for remission of sin.

and this brings me to the bigger question, why do u muslims rejects God can forgive sin thru Jesus when u believe a mere stone can be a medium of expiation of sin.
it makes absolute no sense. I am beginning to think islam has no independent theology of its own but just antagonise any christian theology even if it contradicts islam

You think kissing or touching the stone is like a doctrine of Islam or what? It is not even a core ritual/rites of Hajj pilgrimage not to talk of doctrine of Islam. Abi what makes u think every Muslims that goes to hajj must want to touch or kiss the stone? I don't know why you want to make us stone worshippers so bad. The stone is a relic, the stone has been stolen in the past for over 2 decades, that did not stop Muslims from praying or going for pilgrimage.

And what do you mean by our theology has been influenced by Judeo-Christian traditions.
There is no religion that comes close to Islam in having retained the practices of its first-generation adherents. I want you to prove me wrong if there is any.

Shey the same Judeo that see mainstream trinitarian Christianity as avodah zarah, abi the Christianity that see the Judaism as anti-Christ and LIAR by your own submission. And both of you are actually correct, Judeo-Christian una.

Abeg nothing from Una two influence us.

Kobojunkie:
Let's assume this were indeed the case... that another Gospel and another Jesus Christ was preached during the days of Paul, that still does not change the fact that the Quran and its numerous Hadiths directly contradict and contravene not only the Gospel of Jesus Christ of Israel -- the Constitution and Law in the nation referred to as the Kingdom of God -- but also the entire Torah- the Constitution and Law of the ancient nation of Israel in the land of Canaan. The details of each law contained in the Torah are directly contradicted by the rules given by Mohammed to his followers. The Quran and Hadiths also directly contradict every teaching and commandment of Jesus Christ's Law to His followers. 😒😒

I don't know why you need to assume when that is the case, you have not read Paul's letters?

Which gospel is gospel of Jesus Christ of Israel?

The synoptics? Or John with its high Christology? Or the another gospel in Galatia that seems to contradicts Pauls gospel of dying and rising man-god?

SIRTee15:
No apostle of Jesus preached another gospel. I repeat noone who saw Jesus and spoke with him preached another gospel message from what Paul preached.
No Peter, not James the brother of Jesus or John.

The only person who preached a different gospel is Muhammed.

1 Corinthian 15 also called Corinthian creed has been shown to be a message that predate Paul.

Now, brothers and sisters, I want to remind you of the gospel I preached to you, which you received and on which you have taken your stand. 2 By this gospel you are saved, if you hold firmly to the word I preached to you. Otherwise, you have believed in vain.

3 For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, 4 that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, 5 and that he appeared to Cephas,[b] and then to the Twelve.

Peter also preached the same message with Paul.

1 Peter
3 Praise be to the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ! In his great mercy he has given us new birth into a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead, 4 and into an inheritance that can never perish, spoil or fade. This inheritance is kept in heaven for you,

The disciples of Jesus approved Paul message and even called it scripture.

Galatians 2
7 On the contrary, the disciples recognized that I had been entrusted with the task of preaching the gospel to the uncircumcised, just as Peter had been to the circumcised 8 For God, who was at work in Peter as an apostle to the circumcised, was also at work in me as an apostle to the Gentiles. 9 [b] James, Cephas and John, those esteemed as pillars, gave me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship when they recognized the grace given to me. [/b]They agreed that we should go to the Gentiles, and they to the circumcised. 10 All they asked was that we should continue to remember the poor, the very thing I had been eager to do all along.

2 Peter 3
. 15 Bear in mind that our Lord’s patience means salvation, just as our dear brother Paul also wrote you with the wisdom that God gave him. 16 He writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters. His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction.


Instead another apostle of Jesus Christ testified and prophesied against Muhammed

1 John 2
22 Who is the liar? It is whoever denies that Jesus is the Christ. Such a person is the antichrist—denying the Father and the Son. 23 No one who denies the Son has the Father; whoever acknowledges the Son has the Father also.

So did Muhammed tell people that Jesus is not the son of God and God is not a father.
Well the disciples of Jesus called him a LIAR.

What is the evidence that the first creed of corinth predates Paul? Is there any external genuine document that is not Pauline that corroborate the creed predating paul?
As far as I know it's just Paul telling us he received a creed.

This is what you probably don't know or you know you just don't give a damn.

The 7 genuine letters of paul are the only genuine documents we have to know what went down with the first generation of Christians. You can quote all those forged documents from now till tomorrow it changes nothing. when you are done quoting them you can go warm your eba.

Now let's go to Paul's letters
Paul made sure to let us know in his letters the gospel he's preaching was his personal property that he received it from no one other than the resurrected Christ.
From Pauls letters we can see there are some teachers from Jerusalem, at another time "men from James" always in his wake to correct his teachings. these teachers even had teaching license which Paul did not have. He refers to their gospel as "another gospel which is no gospel at all"
My point is there has always been another gospel floating around since the days of Paul, which Paul was addressing with his anathema and I don't understand why the Op is making Paul's anathema about prophet Muhammad that lived 600yrs later when he was not the one in Galatia correcting Paul's teachings. I know you guys are uncomfortable with the fact that Paul's curse was directed towards Jerusalem, towards Jesus own disciples, but we know who Paul was throwing jabs at and it's definitely not prophet Muhammad.

Unfortunately for you and the author of 1 john, Islam does not deny Jesus as the Messiah, the honour of denying Jesus is exclusively reserved for your Judeo brothers.
If by Father and son you mean the Jewish understanding, God as a provider, and son a righteous/honoured servant of God, yeah we acknowledge that even though it's now abrogated for us some people already bastardised the term, it's the pagan Greco Roman understanding which Christianity adopt we reject all together.

truthman2012:
Jesus said "And this GOSPEL of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world for a witness unto all nations; and then shall the end come".

That means it is the Gospel that Jesus expected to be preached till the end of the world. Who then sent Muhammad to bring Islam?


Galatians 1:8-9
But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.

As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.


After about 650 years later, a man named Muhammad came with a message different from the Gospel. What were people supposed to do to him? Curse him as it was foretold.


1 Corinthians 3: 11
For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ.

Muhammad came to lay another foundation, which was not Jesus Christ, which means the foundation laid by him is not of God.


Acts 4:12
Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved.

That verse makes us to understand that there is no salvation through any other man of which Muhammad is one.


Please note that all the Biblical references above were said long before the birth of Muhammad, so they were not said in opposition or rivary to him, but the Spirit of God knew it would happen, hence the warnings.


If anyone decides not to heed the warnings, he will surely blame himself in Hellfire.

Na only God know how Una dey read this Una Bible.

Because if you read carefully, you'll know they have been preaching another gospel, another Jesus since the days of Paul.

Galatians 1 8-9 u quoted is about some people from Jerusalem, there are good indications to suggest they are from James and the original disciples preaching another gospel that is not Paul's gospel. Or was Prophet Muhammad in Galatia in the days of Paul?

SIRTee15:
Pls spare us the gymnastics.
The bible did not restrict abomination related to stone to only worship. The instruction from God didn't even mention worship.

It says do not bow to stone. Simple as that. Obedience is better than sacrifice. All this excuse that we don't worship stone we only honour it makes no sense.
God clearly said don't associate my name with any sacred stone because I hate it.
What's there not to understand!!!!

Deuteronomy 16
22and do not erect a sacred stone, for these the Lord your God hates.

Why do Muslims do what the Lord God hates Why

How did the Jews reconcile Leveticus 16:1, Deuteronomy 16:22 with bowing towards the Holy of Holies? Which was also built as a cube by the way and contained objects they considered relics by the way.

SIRTee15:
Let me ask u a genuine question.

If a man known to have unusual association with omode obinrin opens a church, what will u think of me if I tell u I attend his church.

Let me ask you a genuine question

If a man that sees people around him marrying "omode obinrin" and was dead silence about it when he could have spoken up against it opens a church, will you attend that church?

SIRTee15:
Shadows bawo. Abi no be u carry tafsir come help Quran.

Yeah, Muslims interpreted as a female fluid driping from the rib.
Say the truth, if u be lecturer, u no go fail those Muslims??
Well I want to know who removed my topic from Islamic question?
Are u guys now saying criticism of Quran devoid of insult will not be entertained here anymore ?

I don't think we should be arguing/having discussion in bad faith, looking for unnecessary gotcha.
when I'm using tafsir, I want to know what source the mufassir is using in explaining a particular verse.
They use the Qur'an to explain Qur'an
They use sayings of the prophet
They use sayings of the prophet companions and their students.
They use Jews and Christians narratives( things like Paul is the messanger mentioned in Qur'an 36:13-14)
They use personal opinions (things like zhul qurnayn is Alexandra the great)

The first 2 are the ones I hold as absolute truth.
Whenever they are using the latter 2, I have every right to accept or reject, and I don't think I need to explain further on why I hold that position.
And whenever I'm approaching religious text(Hebrew Bible and the new testament inclusive) I want to know the meaning of words, I don't just follow translations blindly.
The reason I'm able to debunk things like Waraqa was the one that identify the being in the cave as Jibril.

In the case of the verses you brought to indicate the Qur'an author think it's only sperm that is needed for fetal development, I understand some translation use sperm for nutfah, some use seeds, and some other use the literal meaning small fluid/liquid.
Qur'an 76:2 uses (nutfah amshaj) mixed fluid, which the Muslims(companions, students of companions) have always understood as a mixture of both the male and female fluids, there are sayings of the prophet that clearly indicates both the male and female fluids are needed for fetal development.
That is end of discussion!


If there is just 1 person on this earth, that more than 100% believe that the creator of everything that exist is the author of the Qur'an, I am that 1 person. We are not like you that believe everything in the Bible is divinely inspired and at the same time can have errors and mistakes. I don't know how you guys are able to square that, God inspirations with errors.

There is difference between Najm(stars) Kawakib(planetary bodies) and shuhub (meteors, shooting stars) seems you are conflating them.
What is believed to be use as missles in pelting shayatin are shuhub(shooting stars) not Najm(stars)
The Qur'an described what is been use as missles as musabih(luminaries) not Najm(stars).

There are narrations where the prophet use shuhub (shooting stars) to describe what is been use in pelting shayatin. Except what you have problem with is the supernatural claim of pelting devils with shooting stars or the supernatural claim of devils eavesdropping.

SIRTee15:
No, the author of the Quran NEVER MENTIONED the fluid comes from woman. Instead it gives a detailed explanation of fetus being from FROM ONLY THE SPERM. NO MENTION OF THE WOMAN.

Then We made the sperm into a clot of congealed blood (alaqah: clot of blood or leech) ; then of that clot We made a (foetus) lump (mudghah: chewed like substance/piece of meat); then we made out of that lump bones and clothed the bones with flesh; then we developed out of it another creature. So blessed be Allah, the best to create!
Qur'an 23:14

We created you out of dust, then out of sperm, then out of a leech-like clot (alaqah), then out of a morsel of flesh (mudghah), partly formed and partly unformed, in order that We may manifest (our power) to you; and We cause whom We will to rest in the wombs for an appointed term, then do We bring you out as babes......
Qur'an 22:5


THIS IS WHAT THE AUTHOR OF THE QURAN MENTIONED HIMSELF WITHOUT ANY ADDITIVE. HE MADE NO MENTION OF ANY CONTRIBUTION FROM THE WOMAN- THIS IS THE ARISTOTLE THEORY!!!

As we can see, the author of the Quran is telling us how he forms the fetus and for strange reasons, didn't mention the ovum. The ovum is absent. According to the quran, SPERM BECOMES EMBRYO WITHOUT THE OVUM!!!!!

The verse u brought made no mention of any fluid coming from the woman. It only mentions mixed of fluid which of course is an ambiguous statement



BUT ACCORDING TO U GUYS HE WAS DESCRIBING COMPLEX COSMOLOGY AND GEOLOGICAL CONCEPT IN THE QURAN to 7th century arabs, IS IT NOT THE SAME BUNCH OF ILLITERATE.
don't u think mentioning the more important female egg will help arabs understand infertility issues better. What's their business with constellation of stars billions of miles away compared to telling arabs about the female egg.



yes u are.
According to u guys, the author of the Quran is different from the tafsir, and u confirmed this with me in the past when u reject a tafsir narration as false.
and even the explanation in the tafsir is the 2 seed theory of Galen when he said its the fluid from the woman and the man that makes the fetus. He described the fluid as thin and yellow secreted by the body not from the ovary.

And let's pretend as if we don't know the same tafsir mentioned the so called female fluid comes from the sternum
u go fear mental gymnastics.
Galen was wrong and so is the tafsir.

tafsir of Quran 86.5-7
Let people then consider what they were created from! They were˺ created from a spurting fluid, stemming from between the backbone and the ribcage.

Asrar - Kashf Al-Asrar tafsir
He was created of gushing water, emerging from between the loins and the chest.
When the human individual was created, he was created from water thrown and spilled, a water that came forth from the back of the man and from the bones within the woman's breast.


Kathir - Ibn Al Kathir tafsir
(He is created from a water gushing forth.) meaning, the sexual fluid that comes out bursting forth from the man and the woman. Thus, the child is produced from both of them by the permission of Allah.

Due to this Allah says, (Proceeding from between the backbone and the ribs.) meaning, the backbone (or loins) of the man and the ribs of the woman, which is referring to her chest.

Shabib bin Bishr reported from `Ikrimah who narrated from Ibn `Abbas that he said,
(Proceeding from between the backbone and the ribs.) "The backbone of the man and the ribs of the woman. It (the fluid) is yellow and fine in texture. The child will not be born except from both of them (i.e., their sexual fluids).'' Concerning Allah's statement.


So according to the "coming to the rescue tafsir", the yellow and thin female fluid is from the rib!!!!!!
attempting to rescue the author of the quran with the tafsir will only make things worse for him not better.
I repeat, allow the author of the Quran speak for himself, don't make things worse for him.

Why is the ovary or female egg not mentioned in the Quran, pls fellow muslims answer the question.

Bro, I'm sorry to burst your bubble, but you have been chasing shadows. The word that is being translated as sperm in those verses does not literally mean sperm. The word is nutfah, nataph in Hebrew; it literally means just a tiny quantity of liquid/fluid.

Yes, He was describing complex cosmological and geological concepts using language and observable phenomena that could be understood by 7th-century Arabs, and not Einstein's theory or Newton's laws.

Qur'an 76:2 uses mixed fluids which the Muslims have always understood as mixture of both the male and female fluids, there are narrations where the prophet himself said the male and the female fluids determine the sex and physical traits of a child, so I don't understand why you are hell bent on forcing the Aristotle theory of only the sperm is responsible for fetal development on the Qur'an.

SIRTee15:
Quran 76.2
˹For˺ indeed, We ˹alone˺ created humans from a drop of mixed fluids, ˹in order˺ to test them, so We made them hear and see.

My friend, ovum is not a fluid and its not thin. its a spherical structure with a firm to solid exterior and a jelly interior.


Your tafsir scholars were reproducing what ancient physicians like Galen believe to be the female semen- yellow and thin fluid while the man is thicker and white.

This should not be difficult, let's stop speaking for the author of the quran. semen and ovary contribute 50:50 to the creation of a fetus. we don't need all this cryptic interpretation for something that is sooo common knowledge.

Your initial submission was that the author assumes only sperm initiates life and begins the process of fetal development, but you are wrong. The author is very much aware that both the man and the woman bring forth substances that mix together to begin the process of fetal development (Qur'an 76:2), unlike Aristotelian embryology, which opines that the father's semen contains the entire seed of the child while the mother's womb only acts as a vessel.

The content of the ovum is still cytoplasm, which is best described as a semi-fluid, jelly-like substance. You wouldn't expect the Qur'an, whose immediate recipients were 7th-century Arabs, to be using microscopic terms rather than observable phenomena.

And no, we are not speaking for the author of the Qur'an. There are narrations where the Prophet himself mentioned that both the man's and the woman's fluids are responsible for the sex of the child and even the physical traits of the child. Even Abdullah ibn Abbas, who was the cousin of the Prophet and the greatest mufassir, explained nutfah amshaj in Q 76:2 as a mixture of both the man's and the woman's fluid.

SIRTee15:
Quran is known to cover details about embryology and fetal development. It confirms the process starts with a drop of semen becoming a lump (zygote) multiple times.

He created you (all) from a single Person: then created, of like nature, his mate; and he sent down for you eight head of cattle in pairs: He makes you, in the wombs of your mothers, in stages, one after another, in three veils of darkness. such is Allah, your Lord and Cherisher: to Him belongs (all) dominion. There is no god but He: then how are ye turned away (from your true Centre)?
Qur'an 39:6

O mankind! if ye have a doubt about the Resurrection, (consider) that We created you out of dust, then out of sperm, then out of a leech-like clot (alaqah), then out of a morsel of flesh (mudghah), partly formed and partly unformed, in order that We may manifest (our power) to you; and We cause whom We will to rest in the wombs for an appointed term, then do We bring you out as babes, then (foster you) that ye may reach your age of full strength; and some of you are called to die, and some are sent back to the feeblest old age, so that they know nothing after having known (much). And (further), thou seest the earth barren and lifeless, but when We pour down rain on it, it is stirred (to life), it swells, and it puts forth every kind of beautiful growth (in pairs).
Qur'an 22:5

Then We made the sperm into a clot of congealed blood (alaqah: clot of blood or leech) ; then of that clot We made a (foetus) lump (mudghah: chewed like substance/piece of meat); then we made out of that lump bones and clothed the bones with flesh; then we developed out of it another creature. So blessed be Allah, the best to create!
Qur'an 23:14


But what is alarmingly missing in the Quranic embryology lecture is the absence of the female egg called ovum. Quran never mentioned the ovary or the female egg in its entire embryology lecture.
This is not something that should be swept under the carpet but critically examined to know why such crucial detail is missing from a book written by an all knowing God.

A fetus is only formed when the sperm unites with the ovum- that is the beginning of Life and fetal formation. The sperm alone cannot achieve it. The koran assumes the only sperm initiates Life and begins the process of fetal development, this is definitely wrong.

This throws up the question does the author of the Quran has serious knowledge gap? Is he actually omniscient as Muslims claim.

Maybe the answer is not as difficult as we think. In the 7th century ancient world when the Quran was written, nobody knew anything about the ovary or ovum. Ancient physicians believe the sperm from the man is the only thing needed to form a fetus. The womb is only considered an incubator. They knew nothing about the female egg.

Maybe the author of the Quran didn't know because people around him didn't know too. Quran after all is simply a reflection of the obvious knowledge gap around it.

N.B- I do not consider this a reason to believe Islam a false religion, it only shows the author of the Quran is not all knowing.

You missed Qur'an 76:2 that uses (نُّطْفَةٍ أَمْشَاجٍ) mixed fluid to describe what man is made from.

And there are narrations where the prophet described the woman fluid as thin and yellow.

SIRTeee15:
Then answer the question. Prove to us u are not a stone worshipper.

If the kabba is moved to Medina but the black stone remained in mecca. Which direction will u face when u bow- the black stone or the kabba

Defeat my argument by answering my question.

We will continue to face where we are facing now. if the reverse is the case, a situation where the black stone is moved to Medina, Muslims will continue to face where we are facing. In fact a situation where both the Kaaba and the stone are moved sef, we will continue to face where we are facing.

And in fact something similar already happened, the black stone was stolen by Qarmatians a radical Shia sect for over two decades, they were foolishly hoping they could direct the centre of worship to their capital, they failed woefully.

Let's f*cking go to Budapest

COYG!!!

I medal for David Moyes.

We are winning this league

COYG!!!!

Na from dressing room Chelsea dey concede now??

May we see more of it..

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.

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?

dofman:
You are begging for my attention right ? 🤣🥷

Ask your fellow defeated guys here o , na only one question I will use to finish you o .

If I answer you , you will also answer my question , are you ready ! .

If I answer you , I will never repeat myself and you must answer my own question in return ?

Are you in ?

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.

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

.

[quote author=BlackfireX post=139009438][/quote]Instead of you to quietly crawl into one hole u still get audacity to dey call me.

U sha wan embarrass yourself?

I go end that your career of jumping from thread to thread shouting Al zutt.

TenQ:
But you trust Mohammed, dont you?
Whatever he tells you is TRUE!

Is it UNTRUE that Allah and Mohammed seems to believe in. my scripture: you are alone in your disbelief bro

This is the beginning of your errors!
Did Jibril ever introduce himself to Mohammed?

Again:
When Mohammed was in the cave at Hira, Did he see Jibril as Dihyah al-Kalbi a man or as an Angel called Jibril?

Guy, you need to stop asking all these nonsense redundant questions.

Did Jibril ever introduce himself? Really??

How did he get to know the being was Jibril if he never introduce himself as Jibril to the prophet?

Do you just ask questions for the sake of asking question?

TenQ:
So, the unknown man just happened to be Jibril and he never introduced himself!?



Unfortunately, this cock and bull story only succeeded in reinforcing the notion that Jibril doesn't exist at all. Otherwise,
When Mohammed was in the cave at Hira, Did he see Jibril as Dihyah al-Kalbi a man or as an Angel called Jibril?

If he had introduced himself by himself like that would suddenly make the hadith believable for you

He said cuck and bull, calling a mutawatir hadith cuck and bull. But believe the canonical gospels when we don't even know the authors and they don't even tell us their sources.

Keep fooling.

TenQ:
One will expect them to be AFRAID of seeing such a sight unfortunately, the storyteller forgot to account for their emotions. Is this a NORMAL occurrence?

My evidence:
You forgot that your scholars tell so many lies and evidences abound for them
al-Bukhari 4980
Narrated Abu `Uthman:
I was informed that Gabriel came to the Prophet (ﷺ) while Um Salama was with him. Gabriel started talking (to the Prophet). Then the Prophet (ﷺ) asked Um Salama, "Who is this?" She replied, "He is Dihya (al-Kalbi)." When Gabriel had left, Um Salama said, "By Allah, I did not take him for anybody other than him (i.e. Dihya) till I heard the sermon of the Prophet (ﷺ) wherein he informed about the news of Gabriel." The subnarrator asked Abu `Uthman: From whom have you heard that? Abu `Uthman said: From Usama bin Zaid.

Is Jibril a shape-shifter?

You said that it was for the companions to learn!?

Are you saying that Jibril came to the companions and didn't introduce himself and you are now manufacturing excuses for why he came!?


Again:
8. When Mohammed was in the cave at Hira, Did he see Jibril as Dihyah al-Kalbi a man or as an Angel called Jibril?


See how you avoid answering direct questions!

They were looking at a man, they only just found it strange that someone unknown will appear from no where with no sign of travel. were they supposed to run away?
If you want to know what their emotion was so bad you can travel back to 7th century Arabia to find out.

A Christian talking about Islamic scholars telling so many lies, lack of self awareness ni abi wetin?

What does the hadith you quoted have to do with the event of hadith Jibril. You think the companions suddenly didnt recognise Dihya Al kalbi to have described the visitor as unknown?

TenQ:
Dont worry, I will quote the source of Hadith Jibril for you. LOL
Whatever narrations Muslims love must be Sahih and the embarrassing ones will develop ISNAD problems

A strange man came to learn Islam from Mohammad and this man happened to be Jibril!?
Riyad as-Salihin 60.
Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī, Beliefs (Book 2), Ḥadīth 43


It is easy exposing fraudulent narratives even when the liar have a consensus agreement to adopt it
1. Tell me is Mohammed the the teacher of Jibril?
2. Did Jibril teach ANYONE anything in this encounter or was it Mohammed?
3. Is this man the same as Mohammed's man-friend Dihyah al-Kalbi
4. Did this man introduce himself to Mohammed or his companions.
5. Was this appearance of this man from Allah and what was its purpose as Mohammed already knew the answers to the questions he asked.
6. Did Mohammed offer any special greetings to this man as Jibril in the presence of his companions?
7. Were the companions afraid when they saw this strange man or not?


Only Mohammad met or saw Jibril and only Mohammad can introduce any stranger as Jibril.

Unfortunately, this cock and bull story only succeeded in reinforcing the notion that Jibril doesn't exist at all. Otherwise,
8. When Mohammed was in the cave at Hira, Did he see Jibril as Dihyah al-Kalbi a man or as an Angel called Jibril?



There was an argument between a Muslim and a skeptic and the debate was : Is it untrue that without Lies and further lies the religion of Muslims cannot exist?

You have no idea what you are talking about.
Do you have any source that said Jibril took the semblance of Dihya Al kalbi during the event of hadith Jibril?

Non of the companions knew the man, his cloth was extremely white, and his hair extremely dark with NO SIGN OF TRAVEL in the hot desert of Arabia. emphasis on no sign of travel.

If you read the hadith well, u will know the purpose of the visitation is for the companions to learn and not for Jibril to learn.

BlackfireX:
I can see uou are still sleeping or maybe drinking camel urine.

Ok wake up don't sleep

Everyone did you hear when he said he will bring proof that the Quran is the word of Allah?

Did you hear him say this?
And I ask for just 2 short evidences...

What did he do?

He wrote some Arabic words with some fantasy numbers... abdul no one understood what you wrote... can you simplify it in English language for everyone to understand in English?

Now this time calm down don't panic


Give me ( us ) one or two proofs that Quran is the word of the Almighty, that it is true and credible? And if I find 3 or 4 evidences to counter it from the original Quran and sahih hadiths will you stop following Qutham?

So let's go ...

I will slap you around with evidence so bad holy communion will start tasting sour in your mouth. You think our religion is like yours with nothing as proof, no evidence, no reliable scripture, only I saw Jesus in my dream and in sha Allah. You must be kidding!

You suddenly don't understand Arabic? When you have been jumping from thread to thread shouting Al-zutt and analysing Qur'anic arabic.

When you provide response to the one gave you, I'll give you another.

And I'll also want you to respond to my refutation of your Qur'an contain apocryphal stories hence it is false. Why do you think the canonised books contain absolute truth and the non canonised books contain absolute falsehood, such that if the Qur'an contains anything from apocryphal then it automatically make it false.

For now, I'm outta here

TenQ:
You said:
There are mutawatir hadith where the companions see Jibril :
can you quote such hadiths and their chain of reference? How can you prove these


You said:
And the prophet indeed spoke with Allah on the night of Isra wal-miraj.
Unfortunately, if this is true, it brings up several problems within Islam.

Did Mohammed literally go to paradise cause you must answer my questions if indeed he went to paradise.

The hadith is a common Hadith, it's known as 'hadith Jibril'. I don't have time to be quoting hadith for you.

Na u know whatever problem of Christianity you are trying to project on Islam.
He was shown Paradise.

BlackfireX:
How are you ?
Today our Lord YASUA AL MASSAIH ROSE FROM THE DEAD.

Concerning what you wrote you made several claims..

But let's start from the first one
Prove to me ( us) that Quran is the word of Allah?

Please just 2 short evidence
Please don't panic
Just 2 short evidence


....waiting

I'm good bro

I thought your God died on Friday? Is it 3 days and 3 night already? Well, you can believe whatever lies you want to believe, that's non of my problem any way.

You claimed prophet Muhammad was only making up the text of Qur'an as he go

Let me share with you a feature of the Qur'an, maybe, just maybe it will make you think deeply and free yourself from lies.

The Qur'an was revealed over 23 yrs, there are verses that are answers to questions asked in real time, there are verses that are prophecies, all kind of verses...
Now in modern time, we discover opposite words tend to have same count, it's something you can easily verify, so don't come back here with your foolishness.

Al-dunya - Al akhira–115 times
Al-Hayat - Al Mawt – 145 times
Al-salihat - Al-sayyiat – 167 times
Al bard - Al Harr – 4 times
And so much more....

The occurrences are so profound that you can't call it coincidence but the author intended it even before the first word of the Qur'an 'Read' was revealed.

Is this what a book where the author is only just making it up as he go supposed to look like?
You think the Qur'an is a copy and paste job like your synoptics? You must be a joke.

BlackfireX:
And as usual no reply

Claims without evidence

Making up stories as it goes... how did Christain and Jews apocryphal end up in rhe Quran

Protoevangellum becomes Al fathia
Gospel of Adam, folklore, monk quotes and so on

I can prove the Qur'an is the word of the creator of this universe, but I'm not in the mood to grant you d*nce blasphemers that now because your foolishness is comic to me.

If you are not slow, you will know those books you are calling apocryphal they are no better off or worst off from the ones they canonised for you. They all books written by anonymous authors, written years after the events they narrate. So on what ground do you believe the canonised books contain absolute truth and the un canonised contain absolute false?

You are just slow and you have no one to tell you.

TenQ:
It definitely wasn't Mohammed because you Muslims say that he was illiterate!

Was it Jibril?: as no one other than Mohammed know of his existence.

Was it Allah?: Even Mohammed never once heard directly from Allah!

So, back to you: who wrote or authored the Qur'an?

You guys think our religion is just "trust me bro" like yours?

There are mutawatir hadith where the companions see Jibril.

And the prophet indeed spoke with Allah on the night of Isra wal-miraj.

If you are going to call it a lie, you will tell me on what basis you believe the miraculous events in your scripture but believe ours is a lie.

Gabrielshow26:
The last time I commented on a Muslim thread, I was sentenced to 10 years of silence👀, a decade long ban. It's quite amusing the length some will go to just to silence the truth.

Qasim6 seems to be oblivious to the fact that the Qooran's challenge has been fulfilled even within their own narrations. 😂

Or has he forgotten that Satan brought a like revelation that even got the better of the prophet? Thus, Satan can produce likewise🥱

Or should I remind him that Allah agreed with Umar three times? Or did he fail to realize that an 'human' 'suggestion'👀 was able to make it into the divine immutable word of Allah? Thus, an human can produce likewise🤨

As usual, claims without substance🥱.
Well done, brother! You are doing a great job.

Gabriel! Gabriel!! Gabriel!!!

How many times did I call you? You guys are only making fools of yourselves.

What's all these nonsense you put together?

All you guys do is look for a story then adorn it with a lot of falsehood.

But I no really get your time now..