₦airaland Forum

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..

TenQ:
We shall continue to pray for them as well as exposing the foundations of lies they have adopted

Lol!

U better pray for your own soul

So you can free yourself from the shackles of Paul lies of someone dying for sin.

SIRTee15:
I'm yet to reply u in the previous thread because I want us to look at a specific challenge to understand what ancient Jews believe about the nature of God in the Torah. Do they Believe God is ONE OR ONE IN UNITY. WHAT DO THEY UNDERSTAND BY ECHAD.
when I have time I will reply.

Alright, I'll be looking forward to that.

SIRTee15:
I never said waraqah told Muhammed Jibril spoke to him, follow the line of argument. The bone of contention is did Waraqah tell Muhammed he spoke to an angel.

back to the argument
so the hadith Bukhari was wrong to say Waraqah told Muhammed he spoke to an angel? is that what u are saying?

Aisha also said: "The Prophet returned to Khadija while his heart was beating rapidly. She took him to Waraqah bin Naufal who was a Christian convert and used to read the Gospel in Arabic. Waraqah asked (the Prophet), 'What do you see?' When he told him, Waraqah said, 'That is the same angel whom Allah sent to the Prophet Moses. Should I live till you receive the Divine Message, I will support you strongly.'"

so are u saying waraqah never mentioned angel? I thought namus meant angel of revelation? but u are now saying namus meant divine law.
when the word namus is used in ancient times, how is used? is it used for angels or divine law
if waraqah never mentioned angel and namus doesn't mean angel, then u are right that he did not mislead Muhammed into believing he spoke to an angel.

Your argument before is as though Waraqa did not have adequate knowledge of the scripture, he erroneously told the prophet he saw Angel Gabriel and the prophet just ran with it.

We will never be able to tell what Waraqa meant by Namus because the word is not Arabic, it's a loan word. the word for angel in Arabic is malak but looking at how the word was understood by Syriac Christians as the divine law given to Moses, one can say maybe he meant same law that was sent to Moses or bringer of divine law sent to Moses. My point is Prophet Muhammad did not get to know the being was Gabriel through Waraqa, he knew that from subsequent visitation. So Aisha, Ibn Hisham, Ibn Ishaq equating Namus as Gabriel were only doing that because of the benefit of hindsight. Even if you want to argue Malak YHWH or what Moses experienced by the burning bush is different from Gabriel it still proves nothing.

SIRTee15:
If Muhammed actually spoke to Jibril, Quran should state it explicitly just like in the bible.

Luke 1
26 In the sixth month of Elizabeth’s pregnancy, God sent the angel Gabriel to Nazareth, a town in Galilee, 27 to a virgin pledged to be married to a man named Joseph, a descendant of David. The virgin’s name was Mary. 28 The angel went to her and said, “Greetings, you who are highly favored! The Lord is with you.”

why is something like this too hard to find in the Quran- angel Gabriel spoke to Muhammed. why??

You are making a mistake comparing Qur'an with the reported narrations we have in the gospels; the gospels are best compared with the hadith and they don't even come close to mutawatir hadith in the methodology used in compilation.
If you want verses in the Qur'an that indicates the Qur'an was brought by angel Gabriel these are all you will get

Say, "Whoever is an enemy to Gabriel - it is he who has brought it [Qur'an] down upon your heart by permission of Allah, confirming that which was before it and as guidance and good tidings for the believers." Qur'an 2:97


And when We substitute a verse in place of a verse - and Allah is most knowing of what He sends down - they say, "You are but an inventor." But most of them do not know.

Say, "The Holy Spirit (Gabriel) has brought it down from your Lord in truth to make firm those who believe and as guidance and good tidings to the Muslims." Qur'an 16 101-2

If you want reported speech you can only get that from hadith, like the example I gave but apparently that is not good enough for you but Luke or whosoever that wrote Luke that we don't know from whom he collected his information, the methodology he used to sieve truth from falsehood 'wow the effing standard'. Na why una matter dey tire me most times. You Christians would want to hold the validity, preservation of our scripture to an unreasonable standard when you can only hope and dream your new testament have the standard we have.

SIRTee15:
failure to produce this points to evidence of Quran being a composite book that was developed over time with progressive development of the stories as it passed hands and minds of theologians.
It shows the idea that Muhammed physically spoke to angel Gabriel was a later development, it was added later on to elevate the relevance of the revelation. That is why Quran which is one of the very early source of knowledge about Islamic faith didn't mention it explicitly. And that's why the hadiths couldnt get an ancient narration stating anyone could independently confirm Muhammed spoke to angel Jibril.

Lol! O ga ju, Ibo la tun jasi bayi!!
If you are going to push the agenda "progressive development of the Qur'an" after the prophet passed away, then you will have to demonstrate that early Muslims believed something otherwise about the source of the Qur'an.
We can assemble the whole of Qur'an in manuscript from within the first century of Islam, and the manuscripts are not coming from a single location but from all over Islamic world—Yemen, Egypt, Damascus... unlike some people that can only produce something in the size of a credit card within their own first century.

SIRTee15:
no problem, but I sha know that I will rather believe someone who said he received a revelation and submitted the revelation b4 the apostles for scrutiny and approval b4 preaching it, rather than someone who said he received a revelation and nobody could actually confirm he spoke to this divine person yet refused to have his revelation scrutinised.

Your favourite apostle telling us he received revelation, that he submitted the revelation to the apostles, and still him telling us the apostles approved the revelation and with that scuffle we can see between him and the Jerusalem church in his letters is good enough as independent attestation—Yeah, I got you bro.
And what exactly do you mean by the prophet refused to have his revelation scrutinised?

SIRTee15:
Waraqah was never a Muslim, he died a unitarian christian. His understanding of the scripture is based on interpretation of the torah and gospel NOT islam.
The torah made it clear angel of the LORD is divine. angel gabriel is NOT. ANGEL GABRIEL IS NOT THE ANGEL OF THE LORD.
waraqah got it wrong and gave the wrong impression to your P. that an angel spoke to him.


Moses did not speak to Jibril in the torah, torah identified the angel that spoke to Moses as the Angel of the LORD- a theophany in the old testament.



ok so jibril revealed the quran to the heart of your P. it wasn't a physical encounter.
because that's what I can understand from the 1st verse. no where did it say angel jibril spoke to Muhammed.
revelation can be by trance, vision, dreams, trance, hallucinations, whatever.
Paul also received revelation but u guys rejected it claiming he never saw Jesus.

my question is clear, was there a physical encounter btw Muhammed and angel Jibril, did they speak to each other.
where is the evidence of such physical encounter.
show me where it's written that angel jibril spoke to Muhammed or Muhammed spoke to angel Jibril in the Quran.
I need a correct independent attestation that confirmed angel Gabriel spoke to Muhammed.

I thought we've been through this 'Angel of the Lord is divine'? Well, that's your own trinitarian opinion. A being—God placed his name on for a purpose and a task, that doesn't own the divine name inherently will never be God to me, not to any Muslims, not to unitarian Christians nor rightly guided Jews.

Whether Angel of the Lord is Gabriel or not is not the bone of contention here, I'm not even going to go into that argument because I know there is no connection there in the torah and I'm not reaching that conclusion based on Waraqah statement, Waraqah was a Christian with understanding of the torah and the gospel so he definitely would not have believed the being the prophet saw was Gabriel, he did not call the being Gabriel, he used the word Namus which comes from the Greek word Nomos, Syriac Namosa, it's a term Syriac Christians used to refer specifically to the divine law given to Moses, Waraqa was probably just identifying the being as a messanger that brings divine messages to previous prophets. So I don't understand where this Waraqa misled prophet Muhammad into believing the being was Gabriel coming from. The prophet did not know the name of the being as Gabriel through Waraqa.

There are parallels where the Angel of the Lord in the torah becomes Jibril in our tradition, like Hagar and the Angel of the Lord in the wilderness becomes Hajar and Jibril in our tradition. So I'm not drawing the conclusion that Angel of the Lord is Jibril from Waraqa statement.

The revelation of the Qur'an comes in different from, there are times it comes as inspiration into the heart, there are times the prophet had physical contact with Jibril like at the cave of hira, and why do you think I brought you first 5 verses of Sura 97, the prophet received those verses while in physical contact with Jibril.

U know it's actually funny that you as a Christian you are asking for independent attestation, but don't worry I'll give you one mutawatir hadith, the hadith is known as hadith of Jibril. A mutawatir hadith is a narration that's narrated by so many people at every level of chain of transmission such that it becomes illogical to believe they have all agreed on lie.
—Some companions were sitting with the prophet and unknown man just walked in with a physical characteristics that defied the logic of a desert traveler, his clothes all white, no sweat, and his hair all black, he sat across the prophet and started asking the prophet series of questions, after he left the prophet told the companions he was Jibril and he was asking the questions in other to teach the companions about their faith. The unknown man appeared out of nowhere, not member of the community, with no sign of travel and never to be seen again.

And on why we don't believe Paul—extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. You can not start preaching substitutional atonement doctrine of blood sacrifice for salvation such that the disciples Jesus handpicked himself that walked with him, ate with him were in disagreement. Why should I that's living over 2000yrs after believe him?

Gabrielshow24:
Wait—so your grand defense is that the very scholars who defined your religion were 'spoon-feeding🤨' us a lie by 'equating' Namus to Gabriel? 😂

That is a bold strategy! You’re essentially calling Ibn Ishaq, Ibn Hisham, and Al-Tabari historically illiterate. If they were just 'guessing' based on hindsight, then your entire Seerah (biography of the Prophet) is just a collection of educated guesses😂. Is that really the hill you want to 'rest' on? 🤨

You said: 'The Torah does not identify the being Moses saw as Gabriel.' Exactly. That’s the point!😂

In the Torah, Moses spoke to God (the I AM) at the burning bush. He didn’t speak to a 'Namus' or an angel who squeezed👀 him until he couldn't breathe. So, if Waraqah was 'familiar with the Torah,' why did he identify a being (Gabriel) that wasn't in the Moses story?🤨

If Waraqah was strictly following the Torah, he would have said, 'This is the God of Abraham!' Instead, he used a term ('Namus') that Islamic tradition insists means Gabriel👀.

You admit Waraqah was 'trying to make meaning' of the experience. Thank you! That’s my entire point. Your prophet didn't know who it was😂 (he thought he was possessed), and he had to go to a human Christian to get a diagnosis😂—the irony.

You claim the being identified himself as Gabriel on the second visit? Cool😮‍💨. So for the most important moment in Islamic history—the first revelation—the 'Prophet' was clueless until a man who wasn't even there 'identified' a being from a story (Moses) where that being doesn't even appear. 🤦🏾‍♂️

You’re trying to have it both ways: You want the 'benefit of hindsight' when it suits your doctrine, but you want to claim 'it’s only natural' for Waraqah to be wrong about the Torah when it doesn't.

If Waraqah was 'likening' it to Moses, he failed, because the stories don't match. If he was identifying Gabriel, he was using 'Christian Juju😂' to name a spirit he never saw🤦🏾‍♂️. Either way, your foundation is a human guess, not a divine certainty. 🥱

Maybe 'work on your thought process' before you accidentally debunk the reliability of your own scholars again. It’s getting painful to watch. 👀

Christians and being disingenuous - a marriage unbreakable. Once they see you squashed their nonsense argument against Islam they will just pretend to be slow rather than accept they are wrong. It's ok to be wrong at times, I will rather just move away from the argument than continue to throw tantrum that's the honourable thing to do.

Till we meet again to burst your next lie🥷.
Ire oo! 🤠

SIRTee15:
This is already thrashed in previous thread. ask honesttalk your friend.

The angel that spoke to Moses is not angel gabriel but Angel of the LORD. and we all know The Angel of the LORD isn't angel gabriel.
so waraqah misled your beloved P.

Waraqah said, "This was the same one who keeps the secrets whom Allah had sent to Moses (Angel Gabriel). I wish I were young and could live up to the time when your people would turn you out." God's Apostle asked, "Will they drive me out?"

So how then do we know that angel jibril spoke to Muhammed. u said it's in the Quran, show me
show me where Quran state angel jibril SPOKE to Muhammed. that's all I'm asking
a simple verse will be sufficient.

It doesn't even matter if it's the Angel of the lord or Jibril that spoke with Moses even though from Islamic perspective Jibril/Angel of the lord/Holy spirit(Ruach Hakodesh) is the same being but that's not what we discussing here.

Waraqa did not identify the being as Jibril because the Torah did not identify the being Moses saw as Jibril so how could he have misled prophet Muhammad? Prophet Muhammad only got to know the name of the being as Jibril on his 2nd visit.

Say, "Whoever is an enemy to Gabriel - it is he who has brought it(Qur'an) down upon your heart by permission of Allah, confirming that which was before it and as guidance and good tidings for the believers. Q 2:97

The first 5 verses of Qur'an 96 were revealed on the first encounter.

Read! in the name of your Lord who created.
Created man from a clinging substance.
Read, and your Lord is the most Generous.
Who taught by the pen
Taught man that which he knew not Q 96 1-5

Gabrielshow24:
Is this the "eagle" antichristian was dependent on? 😂😂😂

Well, It’s cute that you discovered a dictionary today, but you clearly didn't read the whole entry. 😂

You’re trying to use Nomos/Namosa (meaning 'Law' or 'Torah') to distance the event from Gabriel? That’s a massive self-own. In the Syriac Christian tradition—which Waraqah, a Ebionite/Nestorian-leaning Christian, would have followed—the 'Namosa' was the revelatory force that brought the Law to Moses🤨.

Here is why your 'research' just backfired:

->Your own greatest scholars (Ibn Ishaq, Ibn Hisham, and Al-Tabari) all explicitly identify the 'Namus' in this Hadith as Gabriel. Are you saying you’re more 'perspicacious' than the fathers of Islamic Historiography? 🤨 I know it's convenient for you guys to throw everyone 'under the bus' anytime it suits you👀. Your comrades, in times past, have done this consistently.

->If Waraqah meant 'The Law' and not a person/angel, why did he say the Namus was 'sent' to Moses just as it was being 'sent' to your prophet? You don't 'send' an abstract noun to have a conversation in a cave👀.

-> Sahih Bukhari 1:3: The context is clear. Waraqah is identifying the supernatural intermediary. In Islamic theology, who is the intermediary of revelation? Gabriel. Putting it in brackets isn't a straw man; it's called 'context for the confused.'😂 You are probably in that category at the moment🤧.

You’re playing word games with 'Nomos' to avoid the fact that your 'prophet' was diagnosed by a guy using Christian terminology for an angel he never saw🤦🏾‍♂️😮‍💨. Calling it a 'straw man' when I quote your own Sahih sources is just a desperate 'theatrical' move to hide your lack of a real rebuttal🤨.

Next time you give an 'assignment,' make sure you aren't the one who needs the remedial class. 🥱 Stay in 'deliria’s hold😂' if you like, but the facts don't lie. 👀

You sound intelligent and at the same time very slow and I don't know how you manage to pull that but I guess it's a Christian thingy. You need to work on your thought process it will help you going forward, else your arguments are always just going to be plenty talk, zero substance.

Even if Ibn Ishaq, Ibn Hisham and Al-Tabari later identified Namus to be Jibril does that mean Jibril is what Waraqa had in mind? You should know Ibn Ishaq, Ibn Hisham and even us today are only equating Namus to Jibril because of the benefit of hindsight. Must you be spoon feed like a toddler? there are Qur'an verses that identify the being that brought revelation to the prophet as Jibril, infact in the sirah of the prophet written by Ibn ishaq we get to know the being identified himself as Jibril on his 2nd visit.

Waraqa was only trying to make meaning of the being, as someone familiar with the Torah and story of Moses and the burning bush it's only natural for him to liken the prophet Muhammad experience to that of Moses. The Torah does not identify the being Moses saw as Gabriel so why would you think Waraqa using Namus he was referring to Gabriel?

Come on guy, you can do better.

Gabrielshow24:
Oh, look, it's a plane, it's a bird, it's Qasim😂—the supposed cavalry here to 'rescue' a failing argument with even more ignorance. 🍿

You’re asking where Waraqah identified the being? That’s bold. Are you calling Sahih Bukhari (1:1:3) a straw man now? Because that 'established fact' says Waraqah specifically told your prophet: 'This is the same Namus (Gabriel) whom Allah had sent to Moses.'🤧

So, either your most authentic Hadith is 'scoring cheap points' against Islam, or you haven't actually read your own sources. Which is it? 🤨

As for your 'loudest mouth' comment—projection is a funny thing😅. You’re calling my points empty while your friend is still trying to explain why his stomach is 'empty' at noon but his waistline is expanding😂.

If you can manage an intellectually honest reply that doesn't involve ignoring your own Sahih narrations, I might stay. If not, I’ll leave you both to your shared delusions. It's crowded enough in there already. 🥱

Lol
So Namus is another name for Gabriel now? Or why did u put Gabriel in bracket?

Your Assignment: Go and research Nomos(Greek)/Namosa(Syriac) before you display your ignorance here.

You guys can do better when arguing against Islam, y'all need to stop all these strawmanning, it doesn't look good on you.

Gabrielshow24:
They are trusting Waraqah’s 'expert' testimony. 😂😂

That’s pure comedy. It’s exactly like me sitting in a windowless basement, having my friend tell me he saw a tall Caucasian man, and me immediately shouting: 'That was definitely Donald Trump! I just know it!' 🤨

No be juju be that?🤦🏾‍♂️

Imagine 'identifying' a supernatural being you weren't even in the room with. It’s no wonder he’s nicknamed 'The Ear' (Surah 9:61)—apparently, if you whisper it, he’ll believe it.😂

It's always the empty ones with the loudest mouth. and it's a common traits among you Christians. You guys will straw-man anything and everything about Islam to score cheap points.

Where did Waraqa identify the being as Jibril/Gabriel?

SIRTee15:
abeg, fasting for islam no be am. How can u eat breakfast, skip lunch, eat dinner and then claim he's fasting.
anyway to each his own.

Maybe because it's a command from our Lord and not hunger competition with Christians. If Una own is not to eat and drink anything for 100 days or whatever then you should keep to it. Eating sahur is a blessing from our Lord and we will gladly take it.
To each his own.

SIRTee15:
My own is how did Muhammed know he's a prophet. Who told Muhammed he's a prophet.

Can someone tell me how Muhammed got to know the person speaking to him is Angel Jirbil

This is a joke right?
There are several verses of the Qur'an that identifies the angel as Gabriel/Ruh al-Qudus.

Kobojunkie:
So, your particular problem is that the Catholics are explicit in their worship of Mary, while Mohammedans do their under-g? is that it?

Reading through the Quran, you learn a lot about Mohammed. You also learn the real reason why Mohammedans worship Mohammed, and those reasons are no different from those explicitly expressed by the Catholics in words when they beseech their Mary. When Mohammedans say "O Prophet, May peace be upon you," they do see believing that those words(you could regard them as code even) would
(a) grant them forgiveness of sins so that they might enter into the Islamic heaven with Mohammed at the end
(b) grant them blessings of Allah through Mohammed
(c) draw them closer to the Prophet in the Hereafter. Basically, the closer a Mohammedan is to Mohammed, the closer said individual is to Mohammed's Allah.
(d) grant them receive favor and blessings from Allah in return(those who do not invoke blessings will not receive favor and blessings from Allah)
(e) ensure that their prayers and supplications will be answered by Allah
(f) cause Mohammed to also pray for and purify them since Mohammed literally gatekeeps salvation from whatever it is they are to be saved from for all Mohammedans

These are explicitly stated in both the Quran and Haddiths as reasons why Mohammed should be praised and worshipped regularly by every Mohammedan. So, how can you sensibly condemn the Catholics who do pretty much the same things, only they use different words to express their worship? 🥱🥱🥱

Lol!
You guys are just insufferable.
The amount of mental gymnastics you did to come to these conclusions is mind boggling.

Be calming down!

BlackfireX:
oponu feelimg relevant

venerating muhamed is not a sin

but Christains venerating mary is a shirk because allah is cofused


all my replies were banned that is what saved you


peace be upon you oh muhamed ... is muhamed dead or alive?

eru arabu

You can't be help
How are you even coping with life with this kind of brain?
"We seek refuge under your protection, O Holy Mother of God. Do not despise our pleas – we who are put to the test – and deliver us from every danger, O glorious and blessed Virgin."

This a prayer to Mary, if you asked them why pray to Mary in such manner, they will say is veneration not worship.

In your own sense, shey this one never pass veneration like this? Are you not getting my point or you are just going to keep pretending to be slow?