₦airaland Forum

Padipadi:
2 more nukes for Forest. Na 3-0 dem go chop

I'm thinking 4, make we use them wake up from our slumber

RightChannel:
For allah to have adopted the usage of Royal We as you guys said it means allah has partners or group of people in Royalty. Who are these people or partners of allah for him to have used We?

Why do you think the Arabs have to use it the same way the English monarch use it?

In Proverbs 9:10 qadosh was in plural form in Hebrew but translated as "the holy one" because they understand it is a majestic plural and not plural of number. what do you have to say about that?

RightChannel:
We all seen and read from the quran that happens to be the direct statements of allah layer mentioned and reckon with some females goddesses. For allah to have adopted Royal We as you said, don't you think allah is referring to these female deities?

No, you have not read anything. You are only deceiving yourself.
The names of those goddesses are mentioned in chapter 52 of the Qur'an.

This is the back story: the Arabs used to detest having female child to the extent that some even killed their female child but they worshiped goddesses uzza, ulat and manat and they believed these 3 goddesses were daughters of Allah.

Then Allah address this in the Qur'an

Q 53:19 Now, have you considered Lat and Uzza
Q53:20 and the third one, Manat, as well?
Q 53:21 Do you prefer to have sons while you attribute to Allah daughters?
Q 53:22 Then this is a biased distribution!
Q 53:23 These ˹idols˺ are mere names that you and your forefathers have made up—a practice Allah has never authorized. They follow nothing but assumptions and whatever their souls desire, although true guidance has already come to them from their Lord.

It is just a way of speaking sense into them.
— You hate having daughters but you believe God Almighty has daughters.

And verse 23 even make it known those names were just mere names their ancestors cooked up with no authority.

So why will the WE now be a reference to Allah and the same goddesses Allah is telling us are mere names they cooked up themselves?

AntiChristian:
Engaging you guys is a waste of time and effort.
I can't keep going in circle. You can believe whatever you want.



You don summarize how dumb he is. I wonder how his life is in reality if not in the same circles!

As in those guys reeks of dumbness and it's a common traits in all of them. I don't really know why they behave that way.

I already gave him evidence that the two scholars he brought did not believe what he is claiming they believe but he kept bringing it because he copied that from AnsweringIslam and I am supposed to swallow it.

Kukutente23:
I already gave you the name of the scholar. It is for you to disprove it with facts. Here are facts that you've not been able to disprove concerning the acclaimed use of royal we in the Qur'an:
1. There is no use of royal we in pre-Islamic Arabia
2. The southern Arab tribes had no kings or royalty so there was never any word specifically designated for royalty or majesty in those places
3. The explanation of royal we is an afterthought at best since there's no reference from the Qur'an or Hadith to support it. There's no evidence that the claim is correct.

I already told you why I think it is used in the Qur'an. My personal opinion is that it was used because that's how the pre-Islamic Arabs referred to their gods in conversations. Most polytheistic religions use the plural respect in the second and third person plural when referring to their gods. We see this in Canaanite worship, Greeks and even African religion. What is important to understand is that monotheistic religions never use this. Judaism does not. Hinduism and Zoroastrianism does not neither does Christianity. So the use of plural is a vestige of the cultural practices prevalent in Arabia among the polytheists and not any royal we as you all erroneously claim.
What detail are your saying the narrator was mistaken about. The answer is either right or wrong regardless of the satisfaction of the questioner the Hadith might even be lying that the Rabbi accepted the answers as true. But we all know the answer is wrong. And that question was meant to test Muhammad's prophethood claim. He failed.
Are you saying the camel urine drinking Hadith is a lie now?

Engaging you guys is a waste of time and effort.
I can't keep going in circle. You can believe whatever you want.

Kukutente23:
Is Allah the given name of God now in Islam? I thought Allah simple means God in Arabic. If it is the given name, then it implies that the Islamic God is totally different from the Jewish God since the Jewish God's given name is Yahweh. Also, since the name Allah has existed in Mecca before Muhammad, it means Allah is simply an Arabic idol and not the God described in the Qur'an whose prophets are majorly Jewish. That will mean the Qur'an is a lie cause an Arabic idol cannot have Jewish prophets. It just doesn't make sense.
There are Jews that accepted Jesus as saviour too such as Nicodemus. But the general view among Jews is that Jesus did not come to die for their sins nor was he a son of God. Same holds for Muhammad. It's also not true to claim Jews sabotaged Muslims in a war. That's just an excuse for the expansionist plans of Muhammad.
The Bible also uses kings to refer to rulers of Egypt. Pharaoh and king is used interchangeably. Besides, Pharaoh has been used for the king of Egypt since the time of early civilisation so there's nothing to it. The use of Pharaoh dates back much farther than you claim. It's put at 3150BCE

Qur'an 112
Say: He, Allah is one
Allah the Sustainer
He begets not nor is He begotten
And there is none comparable to Him.

The name of God in Islam is Allah with all the several names He used to describe Himself in the Qur'an.
Unfortunately u don't even know if Yahweh is the correct pronunciation of YHWH.

The Arabs always identify Allah as the supreme being before Islam and Allah was not worshiped as Idol, it is the same name Arab Christians used for God before Islam, and most likely the Jews of Medina would have used the same name for God.

If it is not true they sabotage the Muslims then tell us what actually happened.

No bro, it is a known fact that the usage of Pharaoh for kings in Egypt only dates to the New kingdom era and not 3150BCE. The kings at the time of Abraham and the time Joseph were not called Pharaohs.

The Encyclopaedia Britannica states:
“Pharaoh, (from Egyptian per ʿaa, “great house”), originally, the royal palace in ancient Egypt. The word came to be used metonymically for the Egyptian king under the New Kingdom (starting in the 18th dynasty1539–1292 BCE), and by the 22nd dynasty (c. 945–c. 730 BCE) it had been adopted as an epithet of respect. It was never the king’s formal title, though, and its modern use as a generic name for all Egyptian kings is based on the usage of the Hebrew Bible.”

Kukutente23:
The languages that made allowance for the use of risk We had historical explanation for it. In the case of the Qur'an, it was strange as such usage did not exist in pre-Islamic Arabia. I already pointed out that Islamic scholars already agreed that royal We did not exist in pre-Islamic Arabia. So if it's a creation of Islam, it should have been explained in the hadith or Qur'an just as that of Moses in Exodus 7:1 was explained.

Whether the Jewish Rabbi was satisfied does not change the fallacy in that claim. So you agree with Muhammad's answer that orgasm determines a child's facial resemblance with his parents. The simple question the Rabbi should have thought of is a situation whereby the child does not resemble both parents. Does that mean the mother automatically can be convicted for adultery? Since according to Muhammad a child must resemble either father or mother.
Where's the evidence they got cured? Are you aware the Arabian govt have actually banned the drinking of camel urine because of its health hazard? Like, I'm sure if it was not a prophet of Islam that asked people to drink camel urine, you'll probably be mocking the followers of that religion for being so gullible but here you are defending the drinking of camel urine. OK let me ask. Do you agree with those Christians who drink holy water for healing?

Guy, you don't have any proof that it was not used pre-Islam. All you are trying to do is impose how it is/was used by English monarch on the Qur'an and I don't really get why it has be the same way.

There are no Islamic scholars that agreed the rhetoric was not used pre-Islam. Stop relying on AnsweringIslam, they are going to embarrass you.
The fact that there is no evidence of anyone getting confused about its usage is also a testament to the fact that it was not new to them.

And I will like to know your own theory on why it is used in the Qur'an, do you also think it refers to Allah and his daughters like Antiislam or you have a different opinion?

Don't ask me if I agree or dont agree.
The fact is the questionnaire already had a prior knowledge to what he was asking and he was satisfied with the answer he got.
It is Hadith, the narrator of the Hadith might have been mistaken on the details. If it is Qur'an text it will be a different thing entirely.

Of cos they need to ban the drinking of camel urine because the Prophet did not say it is a cure to every ailment and there is another narration of the same Hadith that only mentioned camel milk and did not mention urine.

Kukutente23:
It's not about worshipping same God or not. It's obvious from the Qur'an that Muhammad was referring to the Israelites God YHWH in his Qur'an. Funny enough, he never used the given name of God but instead seemed to prefer the Arabic transliteration of Eloha. Maybe because that's the name he's familiar with from his tribe. The fact is that Jews don't see Muhammad as a prophet. They rejected him totally which is why he declared them unbelievers and waged wars against them. I'm not aware of any Jew who believes Islam is a fulfilment of anything.

How's it a mistake that the Egyptian kings were called Pharaoh? What should they have been called according to the Quran.

If you agree that the knowledge of the prophets was already known before Muhammad, how then is his rendition of stories that are already known a revelation?

Well, Allah is the name by wish God revealed himself to Muhammad and he did not reveal himself as YHWH to Abraham too, so there is nothing funny about that.. what is actually funny is how the correct pronunciation of YHWH became forgotten.

Guy stop making stuff up, there are Jews that accepted Islam during the life time of the Prophet and he did not declare them unbelievers. Even Christians with their many Gods were not declared unbelievers. They are called People of the book in the Qur'an
The Muslims only begin to fight the Jews when they started sabotaging the Muslims like what the banu Qurayza did.

The decipher of the Egyptian hieroglyphs in the 18th century have shown that the Qur’an’s use of the terms ‘Pharaoh’ and ‘King’ in relation to Egypt is historically accurate.

Qur'an only use Pharaoh when speaking of Moses encounter with Egyptian king and used King when talking about Abraham and Joseph encounter with Egyptian kings.

Pharaoh only started being used as a title for the king much later in Egyptian history, during the New Kingdom period (1550-1069 BCE).

But the Bible used Pharaoh for the kings Abraham and Joseph encounter in Egypt.

Dsimmer:
Because you can't debunk my fact. You can't do taqiya with me with a foreign Arab religion 😅

I reiterate, Arab pedophile Mohammad had nothing to write about the exploits of his Arab ancestors (Ishmael's ancestors) hence the reason why he had to plagiarize the Jewish history which he muddled up in his Quran without sequence 😂 The camel urine drinking dumb Pedophile.

Btw, Have you drank your own camel urine today? 😅

Pele my dear, you will be alright.

Don't worry, you won. no taqiyya today

Dsimmer:
Says the one championing the stupidity of a camel urine drinking Pedophile foreign Arab criminal Mohammad. The irony. You're wailing because I always whoop you with facts which you can't debunk. You can't do taqiya with me. Lol.

As a matter of fact, Mohammad plagiarized the Jewish history which he muddled up in Quran, even as the Jewish history had nothing to do with him to begin with, considering Jacob and Jacob descendants are not the ancestors of Mohammad. Mohammad is an Ishmael's descendant. But since he had nothing to write about the exploits of his Arab ancestors, he had to write the Jewish history but then, why muddle up the names and events of the Jewish history which had nothing to do with him to begin with? Meanwhile, you can't even find the sequence of events in the Quran which is muddled up. It's only in the Bible that people can find the sequence of the Jewish history.

Meanwhile, Have your dumb self drank your own camel urine like the dumb camel urine drinking Arab Pedophile criminal Mohammad asked dumb people like him to drink camel urine?

Na just this copy and paste every where
Sorry dear, u'll be okay.

Kukutente23:
Where does historical narrative prove the Quran narrative of Jewish history to be true? I challenge you to give just one example. Do you know why you guys are in conflict with Jews today, because they believe Muhammad was a fake prophet who came and distorted their history and books. You know nothing.
Again, nothing Muhammad wrote in his quran about Jewish narrative was unknown at the time he was born. There were Christians as well as Jews in Mecca. Even his uncle Waraqah was a Christian. Do you dispute these facts?

You are just making up a lot of stuff

U are likely to see an orthodox Jew that will tell you they worship the same God as the Muslims .

I know there are some that consider him a false prophet but there also Jews that believe he is a prophet to the Ishmealites. Infact some of them consider the advent of Islam as a fulfillment of Genesis 17:20.

For a start on the challenge
Why are the Egyptian kings at the time of Abraham and Joseph called Pharaoh in the Bible?

Qur'an does not make that mistake.

And I haven't said anywhere that the Arabs were living in isolation and they knew nothing about Jews and Christians.

Kukutente23:
Well, you are wrong. The language does not allow for that. In reality, it is like a grammatical blunder but the reason for it is well known. The reason for Allah's We is disputed because it is not known. It is not congruent with any other cultural usage of the word that is known in the pre-Islamic Arabia and you have to rely on English usage that is totally unrelated to attempt an explanation. Note that even the English royal we is grammatically inconsistent. But it is understood just as the Elohim usage is understood. That is the simple thing that we require from you guys on this thread. This is page 5 and nothing is forthcoming from you guys.




There is no such usage pre-Islam. The southern Arabian tribes of which Muhammad's Quraysh is one never had any royalty not to mention having a pronoun reserved for their royalty. The northern tribes who had Kings were never organized enough to have written texts and organization. How many things did his followers know or understand? Even the Miriam/Mary debacle was raised by the Jews not his followers. When he claimed that a child resembles who first achieved orgasm among his parents, none of his followers is known to have questioned him. Heck!! When he told them to drink camel urine, they did not question him. Questioning or doubting the prophet is viewed as unbelief not so?

I don't really care if the usage of plural for a singular being in all the languages that it is being used is a grammatical blunder or not.. the fact remains that there are languages that accomodate that.

You will have to bring evidence of how people were surprised for its usage when those verses were revealed, if you can't then abeg let this argument slide.

The Miriam/Mary was raised by Christians of najran and not Jews.

The person that asked the question about child resemblance was a Jewish Rabbi and he was satisfied with the answer he got for whatever question he asked because he became a muslim afterwards.

The people he prescribed the camel urine for indeed got cured of their ailment. So??

Kukutente23:
Let me quickly correct some ignorrance from you based on your very limited knowledge of Jewish history and culture.
David was a King. A King in biblical times is usually anointed as seen by Samuel anointing both Saul and David in his days and Nathan anointing Solomon as King. Now in Psalms, it is clearly written that "Touch not my anointed". In other words, the anointed one of God is not to be touched by the people even if they commit sin. It is for that reason that Miriam was stricken with leprosy for condemning Moses, Eli's sons were left untouched even when they offered profane sacrifices, David numbered the people and Kings led Israelites to idolatry but were never punished by the people because the general belief is that prophets, priests and Kings have immunity from Moses' laws. I hope that explains your misconception of why David was not punished for adultery by stoning.
In the case of Jesus and the harlot, Jesus did not prevent the men who were ready to stone her. He only told them to stone her if they were also without sin at which they ran away probably because they were her customers themselves and Moses' law required that both the male and female adulterers were to be stoned together. It is this awareness that made them leave the scene cause they couldn't stone her without carrying out same on themselves.
If you insist that Mary was exempted from the charge of adultery because baby Jesus spoke up, then it also implies that Jesus should have been exempted from the charge of blasphemy levied against him by the Jews since he performed many miracles in thier presence. Instead, the Jews accused Jesus of using Beelzebub to cast out demons in Matthew 12. You need to know that the Jews' grouse with Jesus was his rejection of their interpretation and practice of Moses' laws without any mercy or temperance. So it is not about being dogmatic. In every narration, you have to look at the historicity and the possible reasons. Swallowing anything told you just makes you a blind follower. Muhammad did not explain to anyone how Jews accepted Mary as an unmarried woman with child!! He simply waived it aside due to his ignorance.
I'm happy you are aware of the general conception that it was the gospel of James that Muhammad was influenced by in his narration of the life of Jesus and Mary. However, note that Muhammad did not read them himself. He only repeated the parts that are well known in oral renditions. You need to know that Jews give oral rendition of accounts and they sometimes differ based on the sect the teacher belongs to. What is obvious though is that Mary's father was not Imran. Whether you go with Luke's genealogy or James's, Imran was the father to Moses and Miriam and not Mary. If Mary's father's name was Imran, then the gospel of James would have registered it. The obvious thing is that Muhammad confused Miriam with Mary. That's why there is so much similarity between the two as it concerns the quran

All I can see here is just too much talk and no ingredient.
You guys just want to talk from every side of your mouth.

When the Qur'an confirms the Biblical narratives.
---- He copied the Bible

When the Qur'an go against the Biblical narratives.
--- He made a mistake

When historical evidence proof the Qur'an narrative to be true and the biblical narrative to be false for the same event.
--- He must have heard it somewhere else.

Kukutente23:
No. Elohim is plural of god and it is used to refer to Moses not as a sign of royalty or respect but as a distinction between Moses and the gods of Egypt. The statement there is that "I have made you like a god unto Pharaoh..". Since Pharaoh had his own gods represented by his magician, Elohim is adopted to make a distinction between the God of Israel whom Moses represents and the gods of Egypt. I have explained this to you before. Elohim is an Hebrew word and is not borrowed.

Why should I care for the reason a plural word was used for a singular Moses?

The fact is that it was used because the language allows that and for obvious reason the word is not translated into English as Gods.

Kukutente23:
Your attempt at normalizing the use of We in Arabic falls flat because Arabic existed as a language before Muhammad and there is no record of usage of such We to describe any royalty or majesty. Even in the quran and hadiths, there is no explanation for the use of "We" in referring to Allah. The explanation you're giving is simply an hypothesis put forward by scholars and there are other scholars with differing ideas about it like I showed you before.

So do you have records of it not been used pre-Islam? Or u have records of Muslims during the life time of the prophet been confused about its usage?

Why would there be explanation in Qur'an or Hadith when they knew what it meant and there are no scholar that believe or believed otherwise concerning it's usage, I am not sure u even read the copy and paste evidence you brought yesterday.

Kukutente23:
One of the problems you face is that Muhammad summarily destroyed any historical article of his Arab tribes once he obtained power in the peninsula. So accounts of the pre-Islamic Arabia is obscure. That is why you are as confused as you are today.

Hogwash.

Kukutente23:
In fact, if not for the presence of Jews, a lot of you never knew that Muhammad came in contact with a lot of Jews and Christians and was aware of their religious beliefs beofre he declared himself a prophet, copying straight from their religions

Another loads of hogwash.

Kukutente23:
You did not get my point. If Mary appeared with a child while unmarried, she is automatically an adulteress. Adultery is punishable by stoning to death in Mosaic laws. Muhammad made allowance for this by claiming in the quran that the baby spoke up for his mother by declaring himself a servant of "Allah" sent to carry out a message. In Muhammad's account, this scenario, prevented the stoning of Mary. But I am disputing that by telling you that the working of miracles does not stop Jews from carrying out the requirement of Moses' laws. I gave you an example of Jesus himself. The Jews killed him despite the many miracles he showed them. So it is totally unbelievable that they would have spared Mary and accepted her back into society just cause the fruit of her adultery spoke up. That idea does not correlate with the knowledge we have of Pharisees and Jews. They believed in the strict interpretation and implementation of Moses' laws and nothing ever stands in their way of implementing it, not even Jesus.

The miraculous birth of Mary is irrelevant. Her mother did not birth her out of wedlock. Mary and Elizabeth being relative does not automatically make Mary a Levite. Her father Joachim was reputed to be a rich man and Levites are not rich since they do not own properties.

No one is disputing the reuse of names in Jewish culture. What I am disputing is calling descendants brothers or sisters of their ancestors as is being claimed in the quran. There is no historical evidence to that ever happening.

So was every case of adultery in the Bible punished by stoning?
At least It is in your Bible that David committed adultery and murder and I can't recall him been stoned.
There is another forged story about Jesus preventing the stoning of an adulteress.

The fact that Jesus spoke in cradle was the reason Mary was believed to not have committed adultery. If you find it unbelievable so be it.

What proof do you have that Mary's father's name was Joachim and not Imran? Because I believe that only appear in Gospel of James that you guys consider apocryphal and you also believe that was the source of the story of Mary and Jesus in the Qur'an.
Are u suggesting that while Prophet Muhammad was copying the gospel of James he did not notice that the name of Mary's father is Joachim and not Imran?

Kukutente23:
It is not a problem if you seek to contend that Royal We has existed before it was codified by the English from Latin writings in the 12th century. All you have to do is to place it in history as to who used it before then and where. But it is obvious from all indications that the We in the Quran cannot be a royal We because there was no such thing as royalty in Mecca and the Southern Arabic Peninsula in the time of Muhammad. So how can they employ something that never existed in their culture? There are so many borrowed words and concept in different languages. Yorubas have no word for rice. They call it "iresi" which is an adaptation of the original English word. So if royalty was strange to the Arabs, how could they have used a royal We?
Also, for your claim on classical Arabic, it was codified from the Hajiz texts and mostly used by the Bedouin tribes which implies that it had various forms and dialects. This is important to note because the Quran was originally written in different dialects, and the royal We was obviously used in all the different reductions. What this implies as well is that the language used today in the quran is totally different from the original dialects used for its writing. The question then still remains out of which of the dialects the royal We sprang from since Muhammad's tribe had no royalty. So your story about classical Arabic adds nothing to this discourse. It does not explain where the tradition of royal We appears from in Arabic language and where it has been used before and after the Quran in those times.

Are u guys kindergarten pupils? For how long are we going to keep explaining to you guys? that kinda plural is a rhetoric in Arabic. Because u find it absurd in your language does not take away the fact that some languages used that.

I already gave you example of how Elohim a plural word was used for Moses, Hebrew language accommodate that, hence it was used that way.

Why exactly do you have a problem with its usage?

IslamVIRGINS:
Sorry about this, its really touches

The guy is a lunatic. I'm suprise you are associating with a lunatic.

Just take a look at his comments, he has been doing the copy and paste for years.

Or you both share the same ward?

AntiisIam:
Dem no born you well to answer, even sultan the number one slave in Nigeria can't answer the question, so who are you to answer

Royal WE that was first introduced in 12th century is what you're attaching allah and quran with, aswear opolo gbogbo yin ti d'ota ninu isilamu

Your dumbness is second to non. Just keep basking in your dumbness!

AntiisIam:
I asked AntiChristian and Qasim6 if quran and allah came into existence after 12th century to have make used of Royal WE

Those boys don't think before commenting, Muhammad has ruin their lives.

You did not grasp anything from all the discussion on this thread?

Why did God used Elohim for Moses in exodus 7:1?

AntiisIam:
Is allah divine to start with?

Secondly, who is that king in Pre-islam time that used royal We?

No be me go answer dumb question.

Ohyoudidnt:
Can you provide the text of this Fatwa 12713 you refer to please?

Lol.. Don't mind him.

He is AnsweringIslam merchant.

Dsimmer:
You who champion a useless camel urine drinking Arab lunatic Mohammad is the crazy one.

Like I stated, if your dumb self want to champion a dumb camel urine drinking lunatic Pedophile, then focus on the lunatic lineage which are Ishmael's descendants.

Sorry

Take good care of yourself.

Dsimmer:
Once you understand that God (Eledumare who's also known as Ayeraye) is an invisible spirit whose begotten child represent his visible manifestation, your confusion will be cured.

As a matter of fact, If anyone thinks he wants to champion the stupidity of the dumb camel urine drinking Pedophile Arab terrorist criminal Mohammad, then he should rather focus on the exploits of Ishmael's descendants who are Mohammad's ancestors. Stop using Jewish history (Jacob and Jacob's descendants) which had nothing to do with Arab Mohammad who's Ishmael's descendant. In fact, camel urine drinking Pedophile criminal Mohammad had nothing to write about the exploits of his Arab ancestors (Ishmael's descendants) thus the reason why Mohammad had to plagiarize the already written Jewish history (Jacob and Jacob's descendants) which had nothing to do with Mohammad, considering Mohammad is Ishmael's descendant.

Guy u sure say u never dey craze like this?

You should probably tell people around you to take u to a hospital..

It is not looking good for you.

Kukutente23:
So you don't know she was married to Joseph the carpenter in the bible?

Do you know how ridiculous it sounds that a woman openly committed adultery according to the Quran in the Jewish community and she was not stoned to death? How's that possible?

Why do you think he spoke in the cradle according to Qur'an narrative?

And that is exactly the same reason Mary was called sister of Aaron. They were trying to shame her because she was from the lineage of Aaron.

Kukutente23:
Was the quranic passage referring to when she became pregnant or when she gave birth? The quranic passage is telling us that she gave birth as an unmarried woman. I'm surprised you're mixing your quran up like this!!

Note that verse 22 of that chapter says she left town to a remote place after she became pregnant obviously to hide the pregnancy from her people

So did the Bible say anything about her getting married?

I know she was just betrothed when she became pregnant according to the Bible.

Kukutente23:
Check Sheikh Hamza Karamali and Ibn Taymiyyah

I don't know where you get the idea that they believed otherwise concerning the WE in the Qur'an

Kukutente23:
I don't get. Are you saying Mary mother of Jesus was married in Islam? To who? Read Quran 19:27-29

I'm sure you will agree it is only horrible when a woman who gave birth is unmarried

So was mary married when she became pregnant in the biblical narrative? Because I'm not really getting your point.

Kukutente23:
Ah!! Taqiyya!! is this not you defending the royal We explanation on the first page? What have we been debating since morning? Chai!! Islamists and taqiyya

Lol, guy just rest on this WE, the Yoruba example I brought. Is it royal plural? I was only pointing out how languages can differ and if you are not getting my point, I can't help you further.

Kukutente23:
Some scholars have argued that the We was used by Allah to refer to himself and Jibreel and is used interchangeably because Jibreel is his chief messenger. Have you not come across such?

well, I haven't come across that before, can u help with any scholar of that opinion. Or are you just making stuff up now?

Kukutente23:
Where did I lie?

This is where you lied

"Your friend qassim6 is already pointing to the reason why Muhammad used plural to refer to Allah. It is because the Israelite God whom he copied was usually referred to in plural form by the Jews."

The approach I used was to show how languages can differ

Kukutente23:
It is clearly in your quran. He called Mary mother of Jesus sister of Aaron and claimed she was unmarried!!

Can you quote the verse that claim Mary was unmarried?

Kukutente23:
But using plural to refer to a single entity is strange in Arabic ain't it. That is why there is no mainstream explanation with some scholars offering different explanations up and down

The We in quran was borrowed by Muhammad. That is pretty much clear and antiislam has not yet said it connotes the plurality of God. He is just busy exposing the ignorance of you folks who claim to follow Islam. I like that you have tactically shifted from royal we to divine majesty

Taqiyya master, can you point out where I used royal we on this thread?

And which scholars give different explanation for the WE in the Qur'an?

Kukutente23:
The Torah is as relevant in Israel as the Quran is in Saudi. As a matter of fact, the Bible is relevant to more people on the face of the earth than the Quran. But that does not mean the Quran or the Bible is brighter grammar as you sought to imply. That is taqiyya.

Your friend qassim6 is already pointing to the reason why Muhammad used plural to refer to Allah. It is because the Israelite God whom he copied was usually referred to in plural form by the Jews. The reason why, he does not know. He does not even realise that Allah which is his tribal god is gotten from the singular form of Elohim. Muhammad was ignorant on a lot of things. It is one of such that led him to mistake Mary mother of Jesus with Miriam sister of Moses!!

Dem use lie swear for Una? And you are the one shouting taqiyya every where on this thread.

And I don't understand why you guys think the prophet mistook Mary mother of Jesus with Miriam

Kukutente23:
If you choose to call it plural of superiority no problem. It can't be used in any other language because it simply does not exist as such. But in Yoruba for example. We have Oluwa (Lord) and then Olorun(Creator of Heaven or God) and then Oluwa Olorun(Lord God) which is used as an embellishment in the Bible for Elohim you complained about as a direct translation from the KJV.

So you see that it is not necessarily about the plurality but the superiority or distinction from other gods(oloruns)

Languages differ and languages use different rhetoric that some other might find absurd. That is what we need to learn and not all the nonsense Antiislam is doing looking for partners that does not exist and will never exist for Allah.

The WE in the Qur'an is a rhetoric device that connotes divine majesty and not plurality of God.

Kukutente23:
Read the passage yourself to understand why. God was saying Moses will be superior to the gods of Egypt. Again, you see that it is comparison with other gods that brought about the usage of plurality to mark a distinction and that's same thing Moses employed throughout his reference to God in relation to gods of other tribes. What makes it more obvious is that it is Eloha that leads to Allah which means Allah is not plural in name. So how come We is being used by him in Quran? If He wanted to use the plural form. the root word should have come from Elohim and not Eloha

So Elohim a plural word was used for a singular being (Moses). What kind of plural are we going to call that?

Plural of superiority?

And can that type of rhetoric be used in every languages?