₦airaland Forum

honesttalk21:
He/His/Him refer to God's essence.
We/Our signify divine majesty (pluralis majestatis).
Him points to the Servant (Muhammad peace and mercy of Allah be upon him).
The Hearing/Seeing represents God.

This is standard Semitic rhetoric, mirrored in Hebrew scripture. It may be confusing for contemporary readers, but it's not incomprehensible.

honesttalk21:
The Farthest Mosque; Al-Masjid al-Aqsa, has
the name is explicitly given. Masjid means a place of prostration, not necessarily a building.

Aqsa means farthest in relation to Mecca, not the global antipode. Applying modern cartography is anachronistic.

Claiming 124,000 prophets doesn't undermine anything. Al-Aqsa is a specific site of historical significance, not just any place of prayer.

honesttalk21:
Your perception of illogicality arises from ignoring Arabic semantics, misinterpreting recitation, and applying modern expectations.

Declaring the Qur'an baseless without addressing the linguistic context, its thematic rhetorical style, or its historical placement isn't a critique it's an assertion. False at that!

Precision, context, and a full understanding of classical Arabic resolve your objections. Your insistence on modernist interpretations creates problems that don't exist within the original Semitic literary framework.

honesttalk21:
Regarding Abraham's Historical Roots,you're overlooking Ishmael, Hagar, the Arab lineage, with respect to Muhammad pbuh . Islam places Abraham in history through both Isaac and Ishmael.

Current archaeological evidence is limited, but that's true for all Abrahamic faiths. A lack of independent records doesn't negate theological continuity.

honesttalk21:
Equating this to Eckankar or the Grail Message is misleading. Those lack historical continuity, manuscripts, or a prophetic tradition.

honesttalk21:
Iqra means to recite, proclaim, convey, or gather and it's not confined to reading written words. Muhammad pbuh's response, I am not a qari,doesn't suggest a cognitive issue but rather a reluctance to immediately accept the commission.

Repeating sounds;recitation,is universal; toddlers do it all the time. Illiteracy doesn't equal an inability to recite. Interpreting Iqra as read perfectly suits an unlettered prophet being taught through revelation.

Taught by the pen enhances oral revelation, describing general human learning and not contradicting the idea of recitation.

Boomark:
No.

You can ask me the question in another place or you create a topic for it.

Boomark:
Please this is new year.

Delusion is when I quote scriptures but your mind is seeing Unquestionable old men in Brooklyn.

Go and oppose the things I wrote with the scripture let me see.

You are too afraid of the things I wrote, you dodge it because you are a victim, and you want to distract me with something else.

honesttalk21:
Dismissing Islam as baseless in the same way as something like Eckankar is a weak claim, not a real argument. Islam has clear links to Abraham historically, a consistent theological framework centered on the concept of Tawhid, well-preserved early manuscripts, and historical accounts from the time it emerged. Eckankar and the Grail Message simply don't have any of that. Scorn isn't a substitute for reasoned discussion, engage with the facts or admit you can't.

honesttalk21:
The notion that Iqra means read, not recite presents a false dichotomy.
In classical Arabic, the word iqra (ق ر أ) doesn't just mean read written text. It encompasses reciting, proclaiming, conveying, rehearsing, or gathering. This is why the word Qur'an shares the same root. Restricting iqra to mere literacy is a contemporary interpretation, not aligned with its classical usage.

The idea that Recite requires prior memorization is incorrect. Recitation does not necessitate prior memorization. It includes receiving and vocalizing speech, especially common in oral cultures. Simply saying repeat after me constitutes recitation. The Prophet's response, I am not a qariʾ, signifies I am not commissioned/trained to proclaim, rather than I am incapable of echoing sounds.

honesttalk21:
Illiteracy does not equate to cognitive deficiency.No Muslim claims Muhammad pbuh was unable to repeat words due to a mental deficit. His illiteracy (ummi) refers to his inability to read or write, not to any speech impairment. Your objection is based on a claim Islam never asserted.

honesttalk21:
The phrase Taught by the pen does not redefine iqra. Qur'an 96:4 describes God's general method of teaching humanity, not the specific mode of the first revelation. You're confusing epistemology (how knowledge exists) with the method of revelation (how it was delivered).

honesttalk21:
Qur'an 17:1 - Answered solely from the Qur'an. Who is the Servant?
The Qur'an consistently uses abdihi;His servant,to refer specifically to Muhammad pbuh in places including Q18:1, 25:1. There is no verse that uses this title for Abraham or Moses in this particular form.

honesttalk21:
What is the farthest mosque?
The verse identifies it as al-Masjid al-Aqsa. In Arabic, masjid refers to a place of prostration, not necessarily a constructed building.

honesttalk21:
The explanation of pronouns without external sources simply are He / His / He (at the end) is God's essence

We / Our is divine majesty (plural of majesty) used elsewhere in the Qur'an

Him is the Servant

The Hearing, the Seeing is explicitly God, both grammatically and contextually

honesttalk21:
This is a standard Semitic rhetorical device, not a source of confusion. Hebrew scripture employs the same technique.

honesttalk21:
Farthest does not imply antipode.
Al-Aqsa is farthest relative to Mecca, not in a global mathematical sense. You're projecting modern cartography onto 7th-century Arabic usage, which is an anachronism.

honesttalk21:
So, your argument is built upon modern English assumptions, disregards classical Arabic semantics, and repeatedly makes category errors. Simply declaring something baseless does not constitute a refutation; precision is required.

Boomark:
⛈️ TEST FOR DELUSION

⚖️ Carefully examine these scriptures and test yourself. You will also see they don't teach the most important commandment how it is written.

🗡️ II Thessalonians 2:10-12 NKJV
[10] and with all unrighteous deception among those who perish, because they did not receive the love of the truth, that they might be saved. [11] And for this reason God will send them strong delusion, that they should believe the lie, [12] that they all may be condemned who did not believe the truth but had pleasure in unrighteousness.


🗡️ John 8:40 NKJV
[40] But now you seek to kill Me, a Man who has told you the truth which I heard from God. Abraham did not do this.

⚖️ We are going to test ourselves to know if we believe the truth from God's word. Have it at the back of your mind that the reason for the delusion is refusal to accept the truth that came from God . The truth Christ heard from God and told us.

TEST 1

The Father is the God of our Lord Jesus Christ.

🗡️ John 20:17 KJV
[17] Jesus saith unto her, Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God.

🗡️ Ephesians 1:17 NIrV
[17] I pray to the God of our Lord Jesus Christ. God is the glorious Father. I keep asking him to give you the wisdom and understanding that come from the Holy Spirit. I want you to know God better.

🗡️ Revelation 1:6 NKJV
[6] and has made us kings and priests to His God and Father, to Him be glory and dominion forever and ever. Amen

🗡️ Revelation 3:12 NIrV
[12] Here is what I will do for anyone who has victory over sin. I will make that person a pillar in the temple of my God. They will never leave it again. I will write the name of my God on them. I will write the name of the city of my God on them. This is the new Jerusalem, which is coming down out of heaven from my God. I will also write my new name on them.


Question 1

Do you believe Christ and his word that he has a God, that the Father is his God?

⚖️ If you see yourself finding it difficult or refusing to accept that the Father is the God of Jesus Christ or think in your heart that Jesus doesn't know what he is saying, especially in Revelation, that he is equal to the Father, then it is delusion.

Turning away from the teachings of Jesus Christ means you don't have God and Christ (2 John 1:9, very important).


TEST 2

Jesus Christ alone is called the word of God.

🗡️ John 1:14 LSB
[14] And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory, glory as of the only begotten from the Father, full of grace and truth.*


🗡️Revelation 19:13 KJV
[13] And he was clothed with a vesture dipped in blood: and his name is called The Word of God.


🗡️ Revelation 22:18 NIrV
[18] I am warning everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book. Suppose someone adds anything to them. Then God will add to that person the plagues told about in this book.


Question 2

Do believe that Jesus Christ alone is fit to be called the word of God, without adding that the bible also is called the word of God?

⚖️ If you see yourself refusing to stick to what God himself say is called the word of God. By *adding* that the bible is also called the word of God, against the warning in Revelation 22:18, you are disobedient and deluded. You added something that does not exist anywhere in the scripture. Giving to a book the glory that God gave to Christ alone (a book is what it was called in Revelation 22:18-19). The scripture says, do not add to anything that is written in that book be it inside or outside the book.


TEST 3

Yahweh, God the Father is the one God of Israel (Jacob) and one God over us all.

🗡️Acts 3:13 NKJV
[13] The God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, the God of our fathers, glorified His Servant Jesus, whom you delivered up and denied in the presence of Pilate, when he was determined to let him go.


🔥 The most important commandment.🔥

🗡️ Deuteronomy 6:4 LSB
[4] “Hear, O Israel! Yahweh is our God, Yahweh is one!
[5] You shall love Yahweh your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your might.

🗡️Mark 12:29-30, 32 NIrV
[29] Jesus answered, “Here is the most important one. Moses said, ‘Israel, listen to me. The Lord is our God. The Lord is one. [30] Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul. Love him with all your mind and with all your strength.’ (Deuteronomy 6:4,5)[32] “You have spoken well, teacher,” the man replied. “You are right in saying that God is one. There is no other God but him.


🗡️ 1 Corinthians 8:4-6 NIrV
[4] ....We know that “there is only one God.” [5] There may be so-called gods either in heaven or on earth. In fact, there are many “gods” and many “lords.” [6] But for us there is only one God. He is the Father. All things came from him, and we live for him. And there is only one Lord. He is Jesus Christ. All things came because of him, and we live because of him.


🗡️ John 17:3 NIrV
[3] And what is eternal life? It is knowing you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent.

Question 3

Do you believe that we have only one God and he is God the Father (The only true God)?


Do you believe that whoever is the God of Jesus Christ is one God over all?

⚖️ If you see yourself refusing to acknowledge that there is one God, and that he is Father. Saying that there are three persons/personalities in one God (Trinity), then it is delusion. Delusion is when you have refused to believe the truth Christ told us but have chosen something that does not exist in the scripture. You reject the most important commandment God gave.

Antichrist means opposition to Christ (his teachings).

It is only the cunning serpent that will tell people to say the opposite of the truth God gave to Christ. Test yourself.


You can ask me any question from the scripture and I will answer all.


Boomark Of God

honesttalk21:
Islam wasn't about polishing up pagan beliefs; it was absolute cleansing of the original monotheistic faith of Abraham from the pagan influences that had crept in during the pre-Islamic era, bringing it back to the pure concept of Tawhid (as highlighted in the Qur'an 3:67).

honesttalk21:
The word Iqraʾ means to recite, not just read written text. The fact that Muhammad pbuh was unlettered (Qur'an 7:157) actually reinforces the Qur'an's claims of divine origin, rather than weakening them.

honesttalk21:
Qur'an 17:1 is quite clear within itself that the Servant mentioned is Muhammad pbuh, al-Masjid al-Aqsa is specifically named, and the use of multiple pronouns reflects a Semitic tradition of expressing majesty, not some kind of confusion much like in Genesis 1:26. Then, the phrase All-Hearing, All-Seeing is exclusively used to refer to God, not the Prophet pbuh. The verse clearly distinguishes between the servant and the Divine Actor, revealing that the accusation of deification is a misrepresentation (Qur'an 18:110).

honesttalk21:
Islam refined existing pre-Islamic practices that had become corrupted by paganism, discarding intercessory figures such as Hubal and focusing worship entirely on Allah, as highlighted in the Qur'an (25:53, 41:37).

honesttalk21:
Miracles underscore the importance of faith, not merely large gatherings.

honesttalk21:
The Qur'an possesses unmatched eloquence. Historical individuals and occurrences align consistently. Criticisms frequently overlook the necessary context, intended purpose, and semantic nuances.

honesttalk21:
Sorry, you are mixing up polytheistic practices with theological beliefs, which actually contradicts your argument. The Story of the Abdullah Sacrifice shows Abdullah's father, Abdul-Muttalib, made a vow to sacrifice one of his sons. When the lot fell on Abdullah, he was redeemed with 100 camels. This sacrifice took place at the Kaaba, which had many idols, including Hubal. However, there are key points you’re overlooking:
1. Sacrificing at the Kaaba doesn't equate all idols to the same god as the Kaaba housed 360 idols, so sacrificing there doesn’t mean Hubal is the same as Allah or Al-Lat or any other idol.

2. Even polytheists recognized Allah as the supreme being. They saw Allah as the creator while using idols as intermediaries (Quran 29:61, 39:3). This is the reason they are criticized not for denying Allah’s existence, but for associating others with Him.

3. Your reasoning is flawed if sacrificing to Hubal equals sacrificing to Allah, then why did the early Muslims' first action after taking Mecca involve destroying Hubal while declaring Allah? Why destroy an idol if it represented the same deity? The goddesses were referred to as daughters of Allah in polytheistic beliefs, not daughters of Hubal.There’s no pre-Islamic text that supports your argument.

The Quran explicitly criticizes the idols Al-Lat, Al-'Uzza, and Manat in verses 53:19-23, rejecting the polytheist belief that they were daughters of Allah. Instead, it describes them as mere names you and your fathers invented. In Quran 39:3, polytheists claimed they worshipped idols to draw closer to Allah, highlighting that Allah is the true creator and that the idols are false intermediaries. Furthermore, in Quran 29:61-63, when asked about the creation of the heavens and the earth, polytheists acknowledged Allah as the creator while still worshipping idols.

Note specifically that although the goddesses were referred to as daughters of Allah by polytheists, the Quran refutes this claim, stating they were not divine but simply fabricated names.

During the conquest of Mecca in 630 CE, Muhammad pbuh destroyed the statue of Hubal and declared, Truth has come, and falsehood has vanished (17:81). If Hubal were equivalent to Allah, there would be no reason to destroy it, which demonstrates the distinction between the false idol and the true God.

The Hanifs, a group of Arabian monotheists, worshipped Allah exclusively and rejected all idols, including Hubal.

For centuries before Islam, Christian and Jewish Arabs referred to God as Allah and did not worship Hubal.

Hubal represents a physical idol, while Allah is the Creator that polytheists recognized but disrespected by falsely attributing the title of daughters to the idols.

honesttalk21:
Wow! WHY? Your argument shoots itself in the foot with a pretty big contradiction. You're saying that a Creator proves his messengers are legit through miracles, like with Moses and Elijah, but then you dismiss Islam for supposedly not having those same signs. That move actually undermines your whole point.

Think about that verse you mentioned, Quran 17:59. It actually says that Allah did send signs, like the she-camel to Thamud, but stopped sending more because people kept rejecting them even after seeing the miracles. It's not saying Islam has no signs; it's explaining why certain signs stopped happening. So, when you claim Islam has not one sign, you're going against the very text you're quoting.

Islamic tradition is full of miracle claims with the Quran being a linguistic miracle that no one can duplicate (2:23, 10:38, 11:13), the night journey, the splitting of the moon (54:1-2), and a bunch of other stuff in the hadith. You might not believe them, but you can't honestly say Islam doesn't claim any miracles. They're all over the place in the tradition.

Here's where your logic falls apart! You weren't around when Moses' staff turned into a snake, or when the Red Sea split, or when Elijah called down fire. You believe in those events because of written accounts, texts written way later by people you've never met. That's faith based on transmitted stories, which is exactly how Muslims believe in Muhammad pbuh's signs too.

If you accept the miracles of Moses and Elijah based on ancient writings, why do you need different proof for Muhammad pbuh's signs, when they're also written down and passed down in a similar way? Muslims trust their historical accounts just like you trust yours. Both rely on the same kind of evidence in scripture, tradition, and faith.

Your demand for hard, provable evidence is the real issue. No religious tradition can offer repeatable, lab-tested miracles for its core beliefs. You can't pull out Moses' staff or make Elijah call down fire. These are historical claims accepted on faith, not scientific proof. Expecting Islam to meet some scientific standard that your own tradition doesn't is a double standard.

Your argument proves too much. If written testimony isn't good enough for Islam's miracle claims, then it's not good enough for Judaism's or Christianity's either. If some guy named Mohammed pbuh isn't credible without seeing the signs yourself, then Moses and Elijah who were also individual prophets whose miracles you didn't witness fail the same test. If you apply your standard consistently, it tears down your own beliefs, too.

All Abrahamic faiths are built on the same thing; testimony, scripture, tradition, and faith. Muslims trust their sources just like you trust yours. The question isn't whether miracles were claimed, they clearly were in all these traditions but whether you're going to judge fairly. Your argument doesn't point out Islam's weakness; it just reveals the holes in your own reasoning.

honesttalk21:
These aren't twists it's your sorry misunderstandings. The moon god? That's incorrect. Hubal was linked to moon worship, but Allah is the creator of both the moon and the sun, as stated in the Quran (41:37). The sea god? Also wrong. Allah created the seas (25:53) and is not a deity of the sea. The desert god? No, Allah is a universal creator who is worshipped by Arabs as well as by pre-Islamic Christians and Jews who used the same name. You're mixing up geographical context with restrictions.

honesttalk21:
Thanks for sharing. You should ask the sight managers to explain how or why Lumen Learning presents conflicting information by referring to Hubal as the chief god while stating that the goddesses were associated with Allah instead of Hubal? Historically, Allah was recognized as the supreme creator, while Hubal was the main idol at the Kaaba. The polytheists referred to the goddesses as the daughters of Allah, but never as the daughters of Hubal. It's ironic that assigning divine daughters to either the supreme God or a moon idol is theologically inconsistent, and the source seems to struggle with its own unclear mythology.

honesttalk21:
What's the twist? In simple English with the King Charles example tell me the difference; twisted and untwisted? I think your questions as subtly addressed in my review of the web address you shared.

honesttalk21:
Specifically answer, does Sirius have a Lord? Is Lord of Sirius the sane as Lord Sirius? Let us know If you truly understand the English language you type in.

1. Does Ahad mean one-of many? By lexicons; No, it does not. Classical Arabic dictionaries clearly differentiate Ahad from Wahid. According to Lisan al-Arab (Ibn Manzur), Ahad signifies a complete oneness that cannot be divided or viewed as plural. It is not used to refer to counted items. Taj al-ʿArus states that Ahad is only used in negation or in reference to God, indicating uniqueness and indivisibility. Lane’s Lexicon explains that Ahad represents one in essence in a way that excludes plurality in essence unlike wahid, which can mean one among many. This is why the Qur'an 112:1 uses Ahad instead of Wahid. Your assertion that Ahad always means one-of is incorrect according to lexical definitions.

honesttalk21:
2. Is the Royal We silly? Does Allah have a council? No, the plural of majesty is a feature found in various Semitic languages. In the Hebrew Bible, God says, Let us make man (Genesis 1:26), yet Judaism remains firmly monotheistic. In Arabic, kings and rulers use We without suggesting shared authority. The Qur'an makes it clear that Allah does not have a council: He has no partner in dominion (Q 25:2). The Royal We does not imply shared authority; this is a misunderstanding.

honesttalk21:
3. Does The Lord of Sirius is Allah mean Allah is Sirius? No, in Arabic, the phrase rabb al-X means master or creator of X, not that it identifies with X. If Lord of Sirius indicated identity, then Allah would also be considered the heavens (Q 37:5), mankind (Q 114:1), and everything else He is the rabb of. This interpretation contradicts fundamental Arabic grammar. I want you to detail your negation of this for your false claim regarding Sirius.

honesttalk21:
4. Did pre-Islamic Arabs worship Sirius? Yes, this is supported by evidence from pre-Islamic Arab religion. The star al-Shiʿra (Sirius) was revered by tribes like Khuzaʿah, as noted by early Muslim historians such as Ibn Kathīr and al-Tabari. The Qur'an 53:49 is addressing the practice of star-worship, not endorsing it.

Particularly Ahad does not mean one-of many (as lexicons show), the Royal We does not imply a divine council, Lord of Sirius does not mean Allah is a star, and while Sirius worship did occur, the Qur'an condemns it. Your arguments are flawed linguistically, grammatically, and historically.

honesttalk21:
This statement indicates that Allah is both the creator and the authority over Sirius, the brightest star visible at night. It highlights Allah's control over all heavenly bodies and rejects the notion of worshipping stars or other gods.

When you say King Charles is the Lord of England does it mean King Charles is England? You must make your view make sense.

mastermaestro:
You don't expect him to throw his country under the bus for Zelensky. Hungary is not a very rich country by the way. Let rich EU members and the US continue to fund the war. I totally agree with Orban.

honesttalk21:
Is there no huwa;He,before the Lord? Is He before this same as the moon god?
Or you want to translate it as he Lord of Sirius?

Use your translator to translate the transliteration wa-annahu rabb al-shi‘ra.

honesttalk21:
If that worked I wouldn't have asked for your link. Results I get clearly differs from yours.

honesttalk21:
Your answer is not supported by what you actually wrote:


The phrase Lord of Sirius (Q 53:49) criticizes the worship of stars and does not equate Allah with a star, which contradicts your interpretation. And that is he (Allah) Lord of Sirius; why you choose to misrepresent this I don't know.

In Qur'anic Arabic, "Ahad" signifies complete and indivisible oneness; your interpretation of it as one among many does not hold up in Q 112:1 or in classical dictionaries. For sake of mischief you feign amnesia about word meanings and context especially in Arabic and other Semitic language?
The use of We in royal contexts is a common Semitic expression of majesty, similar to its usage in the Bible, and does not imply plurality or dependence. Your new definition must be some new protocol and differs from the age long norm.
Regarding the Creator, the Qur'an clearly states this multiple times in example, Q 6:102; 21:30; 39:62. You can choose to refute this all you want but that remains untrue unless you want to provide same for the Christian God. Tending towards Jesus as God in the form of man will only cause you more confusion.

honesttalk21:
Qur’an 53:49 does not refer to Allah as a star deity; instead, it refutes the idea that Sirius is divine. In Semitic language, the phrase Lord of X indicates authority over X rather than being the same as X. Even the verse you quote and choose to deliberately misread or misinterprete shows this: And that it is He (Allah) who is the Lord of Sirius. By this who is the Lord of Sirius? ? ?
For instance, if Allah were called the Lord of the heavens and the earth, it wouldn’t mean He is the sky or the ground, which is clearly illogical. Historically, Sirius (al-Shiʿra) was worshipped in pre-Islamic Arabia. The verse places the star under Allah’s authority to remove its divine status, not to assign one to it. Allah is not considered the god of Sirius in a pagan context; rather, He is the Lord of (over) Sirius. The mistake lies in confusing lordship (rububiyyah) with identity (uluhiyyah). Recognizing this distinction undermines the claim.

honesttalk21:
You should send the weblink for this. Why is the phrase in betwen quotation marks? Is it fallible AI you rely on? It's making a lot of sense now.

honesttalk21:
Your demand sets an unrealistic and contradictory standard. No theistic tradition demonstrates its Creator through empirical displays of power; Judaism, Christianity, Islam, and philosophy all depend on logical reasoning, and coherence. It is arbitrary to hold Islam to a different standard. Islam's assertion of Allah as the Creator is based on a non-mythical, non-composite God without images, lineage, or a pantheon aligning with Abrahamic monotheism and supported by metaphysical reasoning rather than spectacle. You provide no counter-evidence, only dismissal. If observable power is a requirement, then all forms of theism would fail equally, not just Islam. I will expect you to show otherwise.
Your last has been previously addressed.

honesttalk21:
You are not upholding your initial argument; instead, you are rephrasing it. You claimed that Allah is a combination of pre-Islamic gods Hubal, As-Samad, and the Lord of Sirius. This is a historical claim that fails because there is no supporting evidence. As-Samad is not documented as a pre-Islamic deity,there are no inscriptions, cults, idols, or divine names associated with it. Moreover, there is no recognized Islamic translation or scholarly interpretation that describes As-Samad as the collection.That interpretation is a fabrication, not a proper analysis. Perhaps if you share your reference for this the root of your misunderstanding can be finally addressed. Tawhid does not refer to the unification of gods; it signifies the rejection of plurality entirely. Redefining it as syncretism distorts its true meaning. Similarly, Ahad in Qur’anic Arabic represents absolute, indivisible oneness, not one among several. Your interpretation is lexically incorrect. The use of plural divine pronouns We/Our does not prove anything. They represent the royal plural, which is common in Semitic scriptures, including the Hebrew Bible. Comparing this to Legion’s ontological plurality is a fundamental mistake. Legion means many actual beings merged into chaos. God's royal we is one sovereign using majestic language and is totally different. Additionally, ritual continuity does not equate to theological identity. The reuse of sites and practices does not mean that deities were absorbed, just as Christianity’s use of Jewish scripture does not make YHWH a collection. You made a claim about historical identity, were asked for evidence, and then shifted to metaphor. You need to provide concrete proof that As-Samad was a pre-Islamic deity or retract your statement your conscious attempt to retract is rejected.

honesttalk21:
Even if you appear tranced into a state of drunken confusion let me break and reply your statements one by one perharps you will gain staying clarity.

Al-Lat, al-Uzza, and Manat were goddesses in paganism, but they were not considered daughters of Hubal, and the Qur’an clearly denies that they were daughters of Allah. Specifically you know Allah does not beget nor is begotten.🤔
Even before Islam, Allah was recognized by pagans as the supreme Creator, while Hubal was simply a statue used for fortune-telling. Mixing up Allah with Hubal is a fundamental misunderstanding. The Creator cannot be compared to a stone idol. In Islam, the essence of sacrifice lies in intention, and any sacrifice made to an idol is considered shirk, not true worship of Allah. Referring to Allah while worshipping idols indicates a distortion of monotheism rather than its preservation.

honesttalk21:
Your argument is flawed due to historical and logical inaccuracies. Kun fayakun refers to a cause rather than a redefinition or mechanism; a command is not the same as a process. There is no evidence to support the idea that Allah was Hubal; Hubal was an idol, while Allah was recognized as being above idols even before Islam was finalised by prophet Muhammad pbuh, including by pagans.

honesttalk21:
The term As-Samad does not appear as a name for a deity in any pre-Islamic sources; provide a reference or retract that claim.

honesttalk21:
The phrase Lord of Sirius in the Qur'an (53:49) actually rejects star worship rather than endorsing it.

honesttalk21:
As for evidence of Allah as the Creator, Islam maintains continuity with the concept of a singular, uncreated God of Abraham, there is no image, genealogy, or pantheon involved. Your assertion of a fusion deity is more of a polemic than a substantiated argument. Simply making claims does not constitute evidence.

honesttalk21:
It's sorry you fish into your pool of misunderstood concepts when your errors are made plain. You hope to undo more accurate and appropriate description by that?

honesttalk21:
Your analogy is flawed because it mixes up cause and process. Be refers to divine command that is the cause, while clay, sperm, and clot represent stages and methods which is the process. Stating that I commanded the house to exist and that it was constructed with materials is not contradictory; it’s a more nuanced explanation. Only someone who interprets literally would see a conflict. Regarding the Spirit, the Qur’an clearly states that its nature is beyond human understanding (17:85). Limited knowledge does not equal ignorance. Lastly, I should follow your attitude from the discussion about the Trinity and indeed you only show your poiition based on misconception. The Qur’an does not provide a definition of the Trinity; it outright rejects the idea of divine plurality. Rejection is not the same as misdefinition. Having multiple descriptions does not imply contradiction, and making category errors does not demonstrate ignorance.

honesttalk21:
You are confusing the use of different descriptions with contradictions. The Qur'an doesn't present conflicting accounts of human origins; rather, it offers various levels of explanation: Be represents a divine command (the cause), clay or mud refers to our material beginnings, sperm or clot describes the biological process, and two hands signifies honor rather than anatomical details. Similarly, the mention of the Spirit is intentionally restricted in its explanation (Qur'an 17:85), which should not be interpreted as being undefined. Limiting information does not imply a lack of knowledge. The real misunderstanding comes from interpreting the layered, non-technical Semitic language as if it were a precise scientific manual.

honesttalk21:
And you expose yourself as true to type and explain why you are scared

honesttalk21:
Lame excuse. When I asked you to define trinity as you understand it so we can clearly address your claim to the Quran defining it or not have you? Persistently refusing to and deflecting to other questions is definitely not the way to go.
In any case it's no surprise to me or most who read your posts on this forum.

honesttalk21:
All in a bid to avoid answering one question. This is who you are.

honesttalk21:
Evasion as expected. To simply present your accepted definition to compare with what the Quran says makes you only garulous?

Do much better!