₦airaland Forum

Kaliningrad:
Russia & Ukraine Exchange Dead Bodies Of Soldiers Killed (Photos)

Russia handed over 1,000 bodies of deceased Ukrainian troops in exchange for 41 bodies of Russian servicemen, a source told TASS:https://t.co/yIFi003MWN

Video: TASS/Ruptly pic.twitter.com/xruk5xJ1rH

— TASS (@tassagency_en) April 9, 2026

---

🔗 The Moscow Times || TASS

Something is not adding up here.

Either the Russian Generals and Soldiers are grossly incompetent OR Russian's are not claiming there dead soldiers corpse to prevent paying compensation to the families.

At this claimed rate, Russia should have checkmated Ukraine two years ago.





BTW:
In the last two months, Ukraine captured more lands from Russia as Russia has been on a losing streak.

honesttalk21:
You are shamelessly saying five questions, zero answers like it’s a slogan. But what you’ve actually been doing is something else entirely and it’s very obvious.

You’re not asking new questions. You’re recycling the same questions, rewording them slightly, ignoring the answers already given, then pretending nobody responded.
That’s not debate.That’s strategy by repetition. Let’s call it what it is.

Zechariah vs Mary; same argument, just repackaged. Before, you said: Both were told ‘fear not’ but Zechariah was punished, so comfort isn’t valid.
Now you’ve come back with: If Zechariah’s muteness shows ineffective comfort, why wasn’t Mary punished? Same argument. Just rearranged English. And you’re acting like it’s new. You were already told: Both of them asked questions. Not the same type of question. Zechariah’s muteness was a sign, not failed comfort.
You didn’t challenge that explanation.You simply rephrased your claim and brought it back again. That’s not pressing a point that’s dodging a response.

To shut up the mouth of the noisemaker, let the bible say WHY Zachariah was made mute
Lk 1:20:
"But behold, you shall be silent and unable to speak until the day in which these things shall take place, because you did not believe my words, which shall be fulfilled in their time.”"

Did the Angel say it was because of fear!?

honesttalk21:
Fear vs disbelief. You joined what was already separated. You were clearly shown:
Fear is normal, doubt is separate,scripture shows both happening together. Instead of engaging that, you came back with: Logically justify that his disbelief was from fear. So after it was separated for you, you’re now trying to force it back together so your argument can still stand. That’s not reasoning that’s resetting the board when you don’t like the position.

Why did the Angel say he was punishing Zechariah?

honesttalk21:
Regarding Iqra, this one is very clear. You were asked a direct question: Why did you remove “Iqra”? You didn’t answer.
Instead, you shifted to what was he given to read? Do you see what you did there?
Original issue is you left out a key word. Now you’re questioning what that word means.
That’s diversion. Iqra” means Read, Recite, Proclaim. And the content follows immediately. You didn’t deal with that.
You just changed angle and kept moving.

IQRA mean Read and Mohammed's response was "I cannot read"!

Again:
Iqra was spoken but no book was given
AND
Mohammed remained an illiterate according to you Muslims

So, what happened?
He became suicidal!

honesttalk21:
You say: He became suicidal. This one exposes the double standard fully. You brought it up like it’s some shocking evidence. But when it was shown to you that
Elijah asked to die, Jonah asked to die, Jeremiah cursed his birth. You didn’t resolve that. You just came back stronger with is that normal after an angelic encounter?!

Can you tell then what happend immediately after the squeezing personage left him up till the time he saw Waraqa?

I am waiting

honesttalk21:
So now it’s Your prophets human reaction and prophet Muhammad pbuh; proof of falsehood.

That’s not balance. That’s bias with confidence.

Angels always bring comfort you keep repeating what your own Bible breaks
You said it before. It was already dismantled.
People in your own scripture fell flat,lost strength, thought they would die.
Comfort comes after, not always before. Yet here you are again repeating Angels always come with comfort.

With several scripture I have shown every truth seeker that Angels in Judaism and Christianity ALWAYS bring comfort
Do you expect a terrifying Jinn to bring comfort to Mohammed?

honesttalk21:
You’re not arguing you’re insisting.

The Jinn claim remains a loud claim, with zero backing. You boldly said every evidence shows it was a jinn yet up till now no evidence.
Instead you recycled old points, raised your tone, claimed no answers.That’s not how proof works.

If the personage wasnt a Jinn,
1. Why did Mohammed assume it was a Jinn?
2. Why did Aisha perform her test to reassure Mohammed that this was a good Jinn/Angel
3. If the Personage IDENTIFIED himself, why the need to go to Waraqa?

honesttalk21:
Let’s be very honest now. What you’re doing follows a clear pattern:
Answer is given. You ignore it. You rephrase the same question. You present it as unanswered. Then you repeat:Five questions, zero answers! That line only works if someone hasn’t been paying attention.

You haven’t been ignored. You’ve been answered directly. What you’ve done is repackage, recycle, reintroduce and hope repetition will look like strength. It doesn’t.

Your pattern is clear!
A direct Question is asked,
You answer something else,
You then assume that your answer is a perfect response to the question.

When I remind you that you haven't answered the question, you come with a silly rhetoric that your answer was ignored.

honesttalk21:
If you really want a serious discussion, then do one simple thing. Pick one of the answers already given, and challenge it directly. Not rephrase it. Not restart it. Not rename it.Engage it.

Until then, this back-and-forth won’t move forward because you’re not building on anything, you’re just looping the same script.

I agree that with this format of yours, no moving forward can be expected . It impossible to debate a person who deny the truth.

A person who rejects the truth because it isn't palatable.
Just imagine that Christians avoid your questions by denying what the scripture actually says.

Have a good day

honesttalk21:
Your content must have been in contravention of what the bots allow so look in the mirror. There isn't religious bias. I too have had my statements rejected and removed.

As usual, five direct questions and zero answers. It is difficult debating such attitude

honesttalk21:
Let's start with the omission that breaks your case. You quoted the squeezing but skipped the first word Iqra (Read); why exactly please? Direct command. Clear commission. Once that is restored, your entire framing collapses. This wasn’t confusion, it was instruction from the first moment.

Zachariah and Mary Both Recieved an Angel
Zachariah and Mary Both were bot comforted by the Angel
Mary Believed the Angel
Zachariah Disbelieved the Angel

This was the only difference.

My Question:
If Zechariah’s muteness proves "ineffective comfort," why was Mary’s instant belief accepted without discipline after her "fear not" moment (Luke 1:38)?

honesttalk21:
Mary and Zechariah from your own standard defeats you. Both were told fear not. Yet Zechariah still received discipline after doubting. That ends your argument. Comfort was present and judgment still followed. So comfort cannot be the authenticating sign as your own text disproves it.

Logically Justify that Zachariah's disbelief was a function of fear?

honesttalk21:
Apply it properly. At Hira, the command came, and the Prophet pbuh accepted and remained consistent for 23 years. By your own framework, that validates the encounter.
Jacob's experience compared to the squeezing in Hira, one standard please!
Jacob wrestled all night and walked away with a permanently dislocated hip. That is far more intense than a brief pressing with no lasting harm. If Jacob stands, your objection collapses.
Then your own prophets broke down too. Elijah asked to die. Jonah wished for death. Jeremiah cursed his birth. Job despaired. You cannot weaponise that against Hira when your own scripture normalises it.

What was the result after pressing Mohammed three times at Hira?
Mohammed was commanded to READ, what was given to him to Read?
Mohammed became suicidal after hus encounter, is this a normal behaviour after having an angelic encounter?

Show me where Elijah saw any Angel?
Or better still,
Show exactly why Elijah asked to die!
Show I xactly why Jonah asked to be thrown into the sea

honesttalk21:
On Jibril’s form, you merged what the text separates. Surah 53 describes a separate vision of Jibril in his full form. Not Hira. Two different events. You fused them, created a contradiction, then argued against it. Yet your own Gabriel appears as a man, then arrives in flight, then fully human again. You accept layered description there. Denying it here is inconsistency.

Angels of God always come with words COMFORT to the recipient of the message except if it is for judgment.

In the case of Mohammed, a Jinn visited him and every evidence show that this cannot be an Angel.

honesttalk21:
The silent God claim has your own scripture refute you. Exodus 33:11 says God spoke face to face with Moses but in the same chapter, 33:20 says no one can see Him and live. That tension sits inside your own text.

Only God can interact face to face with a person and tye person will not die because God shows a suitable form of Himself to such.

Let me ask you a question!
Do you think Allah is so feebe that humans can see him face to face?

honesttalk21:
At Sinai, the people begged for mediation because direct encounter was unbearable. So mediation isn’t inferior, it’s necessary.

So, tell me.
Which Angel was sent to the people and what was his message ?

honesttalk21:
At Hira, it wasn’t silent. Iqra was spoken, and Waraqah,a Christian scholar,identified the messenger. That’s recognition, not ambiguity.
Regarding the satanic verses,method, not emotion should be employed. Something recorded does not mean accepted. Weak chain, rejected narrator, conflicting content. Classical scholars dismissed it on method.

Iqra was spoken but no book was given
AND
Mohammed remained an illiterate according to you Muslims

So, what happened?
He became suicidal!

honesttalk21:
Your canon was built by councils that excluded texts early Christians circulated. You do not call that corruption. Apply one standard or surrender the argument.

Unfortunately, you seem smarter than Allah and Mohammed as they both disagreed with you.

honesttalk21:
Everything you argued depends on removing Iqra and merging what the texts keep separate. Put it back. Separate the events. Apply one standard. And the entire case collapses. Five questions raised. Every one answered above. The concession you threatened has no ground left to stand on.

Five questions, not one single answer always speaking but never addressing the core issues.

Because this is the second time I am responding to this (thanks to the Islamic bots), I will not segment my rebuttals as usual

honesttalk21:
Interesting you feel satisfied with your response when you fail to build a case or present reasonable material for one. What you’ve done is stack claims which have no basis in the sources you rely on. Let's read them carefully so you see each one steeped up against your conclusions.

You say that angels must always comfort but that doesn’t hold up within your own scripture. In Daniel, people encounter the unseen and others flee in fear without reassurance recorded. Lot is rushed out with urgency, not soothed. John falls overwhelmed and is corrected, not comforted. Manoah only becomes afraid after the angel has already departed so there was no opportunity for reassurance in the first place. Even your strongest example in Luke 1 doesn’t carry the weight you want it to. Do not be afraid is said but when doubt follows, the outcome is not calm, it is discipline. The angel strikes Zechariah mute. So the pattern you’re trying to enforce was never consistent to begin with. How come the comfort was ineffective to produce the assuring calm?

Then the squeezing objection shows worse in Genesis 32. Jacob wrestles a divine being through the night and walks away permanently injured at his hip. That is a prolonged, physical, and long lasting effect. Compared to that, a brief, intense moment at Hira is not extraordinary. If one stands as genuine within your framework, the other cannot suddenly be treated as suspect. One standard should be uniformly applied properly.

On Jibril’s forms, the sources are clear where they speak and silent where they don’t. We have confirmed appearances of his true form, the form of Dihyah al-Kalbi, and the unknown man in the well-known hadith. As for the cave, there is no specification. That is not contradiction; it is simply absence of detail. You’re asking the text to answer what it never set out to define, then turning that silence into a problem. That’s not analysis it’s forcing a gap.

And if we’re being consistent, your own angelology isn’t fixed either. Gabriel appears as a man in Daniel, described in motion between realms, and again as fully human in Luke. Elsewhere, angels are described with multiple faces, wings, even bodies covered in eyes. So the idea of a single fixed form isn’t something your own texts maintain.

Now on revelation and angels you tried to separate things, but your own sources don’t support that division. Acts 7:53 is Stephen addressing the Law specifically not the promise. That distinction you tried to draw isn’t in the text Stephen was speaking. He says plainly that the Law was received through angels. Galatians and Hebrews reinforce the same idea from different angles. At the same time, Exodus says God wrote the tablets and the Qur’an says the same. That’s not contradiction; that’s a layered process. Divine origin, angelic conveyance, human reception. What you presented as a refutation ends up describing the very model you’re trying to deny.

As for prophets receiving scripture among Israel Moses, David and Jesus settle this. There’s no unresolved challenge there.

On al-Tabari and al-Waqid, both are known figures. But this is where your argument misses the methodological foundation. In Islam, recording a report is not the same as authenticating it. Every narration is tested through two independent lenses; the chain and the content. If the chain is weak, it is rejected. If the content contradicts established revelation, it is also rejected.

And precisely al-Waqidi was specifically declared unreliable for hadith transmission by classical scholars Imam Ahmad ibn Hanbal and Imam al-Shafii, not modern apologists. That verdict predates this conversation by over a thousand years. So when a report depends on him, it already fails at the level of transmission. "His reputation as a historian of early Islamic events and his reliability as a hadith transmitter are assessed separately by the tradition itself. The classical verdict concerns his transmission, not his existence as a historical figure.

The so-called satanic verses narration does not meet accepted standards of chain, and its content clashes directly with the established principle of protected revelation. It fails on both fronts independently. That’s why it is rejected.

So why was it recorded at all? Because Islamic scholarship preserves reports for scrutiny, not blind acceptance. Nothing is hidden but everything is tested. Preservation is not endorsement. In fact, the ability to record something and still reject it through a clear, consistent method. That’s intellectual discipline.

Then your appeal to the idea that Satan can appear as an angel of light; that establishes possibility. But possibility is not proof. Moving from it can happen to it happened here requires evidence, reliable transmission and sound content. You don’t have that but can prove me wrong by sharing a verifiable narrative.

And the hadith you cited about the Prophet Muhammad pbuh having a jinn attached actually works against your point. It states that Allah restrained it so that it only commands good. That’s not vulnerability, that’s protection. The very source you used closes the argument you were trying to build.

Strip everything down and what remains is simple. The comfort rule collapses within your own texts. The physical objection is answered by your own example of Jacob. The question of forms rests on silence, not contradiction. The angelic mediation argument is affirmed within your own scripture. The historical claim you relied on fails under established criteria. And your supporting texts either don’t prove your point or directly weaken it.

This is no longer a matter of perspective. The standard you applied doesn’t survive consistent use byeven within your own framework.

Honesttalk21
Your defense relies on a series of misreadings of Biblical precedent to shield Islamic ambiguities. By applying a uniform standard of scrutiny to your primary sources (Sahih Bukhari, Muslim, and the Quran), your arguments collapse under their own weight.

Contention 1: The Pattern of Divine Comfort
You claim that angelic encounters in the Bible lack a consistent pattern of comfort.

This is empirically false.
The Evidence:
From Zechariah and Mary to the shepherds and the women at the tomb, every instance of fear is immediately met with "Fear not" (Luke 1:13, 1:30, 2:10; Matt 28:5). Even Daniel was explicitly told, "Peace be unto thee, be strong" (Dan 10:19).
The Contrast: In the cave of Hira, there is no recorded comfort—only physical terror and a "squeezing" to the point of exhaustion (Bukhari 9:87:111).

My Question:
If Zechariah’s muteness proves "ineffective comfort," why was Mary’s instant belief accepted without discipline after her "fear not" moment (Luke 1:38)?


Contention 2: Validation vs. Trauma (Jacob vs. Muhammad)
You equate Jacob’s wrestling with the Hira encounter. This ignores the outcome.

The Evidence:
Jacob received a blessing and a new identity (Israel) that validated his commission (Gen 32:28-30). Muhammad’s encounter resulted in suicidal ideation and no clear commission or "renaming" until years later.
My Question:
If Jacob’s injury proves authenticity, where is the Hira equivalent to the naming of "Israel"?


Contention 3: The Problem of Angelic Form and Identity
You argue that Jibril’s silence or lack of identity in the cave is standard.

The Evidence:
Your own sources (Aisha in Bukhari 3:50:891 ) state Jibril appeared "in the form of a man." Yet, the Quran (53:5) only retroactively attempts to describe a majestic form 13 years later to quell doubters.
My Question:
If the initial silence and form were sufficient, why did the Quran later need to describe Jibril’s "mighty power" to convince skeptics?


Contention 4: Mediated Law vs. Audible Voice
You cite Acts 7:53 to suggest angels—not God—delivered the Law, implying Hira’s mediation is the same.
The Evidence: While angels mediated, the Bible is explicit that God spoke directly to the people ( Ex 20:1 ) and to Moses "face-to-face" ( Ex 33:11 ).
Hira lacks any audible divine voice; it is strictly an unnamed, unidentified intermediary.

My Question:
If God was audible at Sinai despite the presence of angels, why was the Hira encounter characterized by a silent God and an unnamed spirit?

Contention 5: The Reliability of Al-Waqidi and Preservation
You dismiss Al-Waqidi as unreliable to distance Islam from the "Satanic Verses."
The Evidence:
This is a selective dismissal. Al-Waqidi is a cornerstone of Sira (biography) used extensively by Tabari (Tarikh v6 p123).
Furthermore, the burning of variant Qurans by Uthman ( Bukhari 6:61:510 ) proves that "preservation" was an administrative act of suppression, not a lack of original error.

My Question:
If Al-Waqidi "fails transmission," why does the standard biography of Muhammad used by classical scholars rely so heavily on his work?



Conclusion:
The Failure of the Uniform Standard
The Biblical record provides reassurance, immediate identity, and clear divine commission.

The Hira narrative provides ambiguity, physical assault, and a decade-long gap in validation.

Your defense does not bridge these gaps; it merely highlights them.


I await your specific answers to my FIVE Questions, or I shall take your avoidance of the questions to say other things as a concession.

BlackfireX:
There is nothing like weak hadiths

If rejected Jewish and christian apocryphal and fables can find there way into the Quran and hadith

To me it is right and just that all hadiths are SAHIH to me a christain



Church Agbasa

Dont mind them. They think by classifying embarrassing history as weak will make it UNTRUE!

When adherents of any religion write embarrassing history about their founder, such is most likely very very TRUE.

Christians could have said that Jesus wasn't killed on the cross but he disappeared to heaven: end of story. BUT the fact that they portrayed Jesus in a weak form reinforces the fact that the event was very TRUE!

honesttalk21:
Adhere to facts, your own scripture doesn’t support the standard you’re pushing. The pattern isn’t uniform. Your own scripture breaks the rule you’re defending. Manoah receives no comfort. Zechariah gets struck mute for doubt, not reassured for fear. The pattern isn’t consistent, so instant comfort was never a valid test in the first place. That standard collapses inside your own Bible before it reaches Islam.

Repeating yourself doesn't make what you are saying true. Manoah saw an angel as a Man only when he disappeared did he get afraid. Was that what happened to Mohammed?

Was there anywhere in scriptural history where an Angel squeezed anyone?

The problem is that you have no standard to judge with except what you find in my scripture that you reject anyways

honesttalk21:
On Hira, the most reliable narration in Bukhari reports ʿthat Aishah stating exactly what it says. The angel came, spoke, physically engaged the Prophet pbuh, and the experience was intense. That’s all. No form described, no cave filled, no introduction, no instant reassurance. You’re not analysing the text; you’re imposing expectations and blaming the text for not meeting them.

I only repeated your earliest ISLAMIC history which to you is embarrassing.

You have mentioned two forms
1. Jibril in his true form
2. Jibril the well proportioned man (Dihyah al-Kalbi)

So, tell me the other forms Jibril transformed into AND which form appeared in the cave of Hira?

honesttalk21:
On revelation, your own New Testament is clear. Galatians 3:19, Acts 7:53, Hebrews 2:2 all state the law was delivered through angels. That’s not indirect or symbolic it’s explicit. Either address it properly or accept it.

So, can you give me examples of prophets who recieved scriptures for Israel

Gal 3:19:
"Why then the law? It was placed alongside the promises for the purpose of defining transgressions, until the Seed should come to whom the promise was made, having been ordained through angels in the hand of a mediator."

The promise was ordained through Angels not the law otherwise, give examples of how the law or the scripture was given by any angel to a prophet.

Heb 2:1-2:
"For this reason, it is imperative that we give much greater attention to the things which we have heard, lest at any time we should slip away. For if the word spoken by angels was enforced without fail, and every transgression and disobedience received just recompense,"

Only a blind person will think this mean that words by angels (plural) mean scripture given to any prophet.


Act 7:53:
"Who received the law by the disposition of angels, but have not kept it.”"

Angels mediated or ordained the law by serving as heavenly agents or witnesses during the transmission transmitted of God's words to Moses at Sinai.

Before you start braying , God Himself wrote the law for Moses at Sinai and NOT Angels
Exod 31:18:
"And He gave to Moses, when He had made an end of speaking with him upon Mount Sinai, two tablets of the testimony, tablets of stone, written by the finger of God."

Qur'an 7:145
"And We wrote for him on the tablets [something] of all things - instruction and explanation for all things, [saying], 'Take them with determination and order your people to take the best of it. I will show you the home of the defiantly disobedient.

So, shut up and stop commenting on things you are ignorant of.

My challenge still remains,
Can you give me examples of prophets who recieved scriptures for Israel?

honesttalk21:
Now to Asbab al-Nuzul. Be clear what you’re claiming. If you’re saying the satanic verses occurred, then produce a sound chain. You can’t. Al-Tabari records it without a complete chain of transmission, and al-Waqidi was already declared unreliable by Ahmad ibn Hanbal and al-Shafi‘i long before today. That’s the tradition’s standard, not a modern excuse.
If you’re saying the story circulated, that proves nothing. Weak and fabricated reports circulated too. That is exactly why isnad criticism exists. Circulation is not authentication.
If you’re leaning on Shahab Ahmed, he documents discussion, not proof. Debate has never equalled authentication in any Islamic school. Not one.
So all paths end the same way. No solid evidence, just repetition.

1. Are these two men al-Tabari and al-Waqidi reputable Islamic scholars?

2. Are these two men al-Tabari and al-Waqidi reputable Muslims

3. Is it TRUE or UNTRUE that early Islamic Historians such as al-Tabari and al-Waqidi wrote about the satanic verses recited by Mohammed?

4. Is this story of the satanic verses are UNTRUE , can you justify WHY these scholars will put it in their books?

honesttalk21:
On 2 Corinthians 11:14, Paul states capability that Satan can appear as an angel of light. That is possibility, not proof of any specific event. You cannot jump from it can happen to it did happen here without evidence. That standard wouldn’t even hold inside your own scripture.
A report existing is not the same as a report being authentic. That distinction is the backbone of hadith science. You don’t get to rely on that system when it suits you and ignore it when it doesn’t.

Is it untrue according to your Islamic tradition that satan can appear to be good?

Sahih Muslim 2814 a
Abdullah b. Mas'ud reported that Allah's Messenger said: There is none amongst you with whom is not an attache from amongst the jinn (devil). They (the Companions) said: Allah's Messenger, with you too? Thereupon he said: Yes, but Allah helps me against him and so I am safe from his hand and he does not command me but for good.

Some demons actually are good and the COMMAND some prophets to do good!

honesttalk21:
Stop the charades. The idea that angels must always comfort fear isn’t scriptural, it’s a rule you invented, and your own Bible demolishes it repeatedly. Daniel 10:7 shows Daniel’s companions fleeing in terror with no comfort.

Dan 10:11-12:
"And he said to me, “O Daniel, a man greatly beloved, give heed to the words that I speak to you and stand upright, for to you I am now sent.” And when he had spoken these words to me, I stood up trembling. Then he said to me, “Do not fear, Daniel, for from the first day that you set your heart to understand and to humble yourself before your God, your words were heard. And I have come because of your words."

honesttalk21:
Revelation 19:10 and 22:8–9 have John falling before an angel, corrected, not soothed.

Rev 19:10:
"And I fell at his feet to worship him. Then he said to me, “See that you do not do this! I am a fellow servant of yours, and of your brethren, who have the testimony of Jesus. Worship God. For the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy.”"

Rev 22:8-9:
"Now I, John, was the one who saw and heard these things. And when I heard and saw, I fell down to worship before the feet of the angel who was showing me these things. But he said to me, “See that you do not do this! For I am a fellow servant of yours, and of your brethren the prophets, and of those who keep the words of this book. Worship God.”"

honesttalk21:
Genesis 19 shows Lot is dragged out urgently, no reassurance.

Amazing you didn't know that these Angels appeared as MEN to Lot

Gen 19:3:
"But he urgently pressed upon them, and they turned in to him and entered into his house. And he made them a feast, and baked unleavened bread, and they ate."

honesttalk21:
Judges 13:22: how Manoah fears death, no comfort follows. Even your strongest example backfires.

Common sense didn't tell you that they saw a MAN and until he disappeared before they became afraid that they had seen God and thus should die.

Judg 13:6,8,10-11:
"And the woman came and told her husband, saying, “A man of God came to me, and his face was like the face of an angel of God, very terrifying. But I did not ask him where he came from, neither did he tell me his name. … And Manoah prayed to the LORD and said, “O, my LORD, let the man of God whom You sent come again to us and teach us what we shall do to the boy that shall be born.” … And the woman hurried and ran, and told her husband, and said to him, “Behold, the man has appeared to me, the one who came to me the other day.” And Manoah arose and went after his wife, and came to the man, and said to him, “ Are you the man who spoke to this woman?” And he said, “I am.”"

honesttalk21:
In Luke 1, Gabriel says Do not be afraid, but when Zechariah doubts, he is struck mute. Comfort is not guaranteed; it is not the defining feature of every encounter.

Did the angel say "Do jot be Afraid!?"
Was any reason given for why Zachariah was struck dumb?

honesttalk21:
At Hira, reassurance came through revelation Surah Ad-Duha and Ash-Sharh delivered in sequence. Same pattern, different timing. The timing rule is yours, not the text’s.

Waraqa said it was Jibril!
Khadija said it was an angel!

Then the apparition who never once mentioned his name was called Jibril.

Indeed, this was the reassurance! SMH!!

honesttalk21:
Jibril’s multiple forms are well established. Qur’an 19:17 shows him as a well-proportioned man; 81:23 shows his overwhelming horizon form.

You have mentioned two forms
1. Jibril in his true form
2. Jibril the well proportioned man (Dihyah al-Kalbi)

So, tell me the other forms Jibril transformed into AND which form appeared in the cave of Hira?

honesttalk21:
Hadith records both, context-dependent. Your Gabriel shifts the same way: Daniel 8–9, man and flying; Luke 1, fully human. Beyond Gabriel, Ezekiel’s cherubim, Isaiah’s seraphim, Revelation’s creatures are composite, multi-faced, far from a fixed human form. Variation is already biblical. Denying it in Islam is a double standard.
The cave argument collapses on a reading error you introduced. No authentic source places Jibril’s full form in a two-metre cave. Hira was direct, transformative interaction which involved speaking, engaging, delivering a real experience. The horizon sighting in 81:23 is a separate event. You merged them, judged it physically impossible, and declared a contradiction. That error is yours, not the Islamic tradition’s.

Did Jibril appeared to Mohammed as a well proportioned man or as an Angel in hus true form?

honesttalk21:
On revelation through angels, your own apostles settle this. Galatians 3:19 states that the law was given through angels. Acts 7:53 says the law is received by man delivered by angels. Hebrews 2:2 states the word spoken through angels proved steadfast. That is revelation mediated by angels, stated explicitly by Paul and Stephen. Rejecting angelic mediation in Islam while accepting it for Moses is not principled it’s selective.

All I ask is that you show how or when an Angel dictated the scriptures to Moses or David or Jesus.

honesttalk21:
The Khadija narration isn’t in Bukhari or Muslim; its chain is disputed. You cannot demand high transmission standards selectively and then anchor a key objection on a weak report.

I trust stories by Muslim scholars the closer they are to Mohammad. You reject the stories only because they embarrass your senses.
Why would Christians claim that Jesus was crucified when they could have said he disappeared to heaven when he was to be arrested? Only because it is TRUE!

honesttalk21:
Recognition and impersonation regarding your testing spirits? Luke 24 shows the disciples fail to recognise the risen Jesus immediately.

Jesus was not an angel!
He appeared to them at night like any normal man.
Sorry!

honesttalk21:
Recognition isn’t instant, even in your tradition. And 2 Corinthians 11:14 says Satan appears as an angel of light. This is not hypothetical; it’s Paul’s statement. Pick one: you cannot use 2 Corinthians 11:14 to sleep at night and then target Islam for impersonation in the morning.
It either applies universally or it applies nowhere.

It is universal that satan can appear as an angel of Light and true to 2Cor 11, Satan appeared to Mohammed as Jibril.

Otherwise, why did he reveal the satanic verses to Mohammed as Jibril

honesttalk21:
Satanic Verses? Not in the Qur’an, not in authenticated hadith. Discussed openly by scholars, critically examined. Qur’an 22:52 confirms divine correction of interference. Transparency, not concealment. If historical debate counts against Islam, then centuries of Christian councils deciding the canon count against yours; apply the same standard.
Strip away the invented comfort rule, the conflated cave and horizon events, the selective rejection of angelic mediation, the weak narration, and the impersonation objection your own Paul disarms and nothing of your case survives. Scrutiny is valid only when applied evenly. Anything less is bias masquerading as analysis.

Then kindly quote the Asbab al-Nuzul for

1. Qur'an 53:19-20
abrogated with
2. Qur'an 22:52

Tell me that the Tafsir of al-Tabari and the works of al-Waqidi are both fabrications.

Tell me that Scholars like Shahab Ahmed did NOT note that for the first two centuries of Islam (approx. 632–800 CE), these were not disputed?

Bring out your Asbab al-Nuzul for these two verses and lets analyse

honesttalk21:
Let’s calmly, point by point address your concerns since some of what you say needs proper grounding, and one part really turns back on your own position.

Fear not is a familiar angelic phrase. Fair enough. But making it a rule that comfort must come instantly, from the angel, is something you’ve added. In the Prophet’s case, reassurance came through revelation shortly after. That’s still the same pattern just not on your preferred timing. Even in the Bible, comfort isn’t always immediate. Do you turn blind to where it isn't and why?

All you needed to do was to find a single instant where any Angel did NOT COMFORT a person having fears due to Fear Induced Angelic encounters.
If there is NONE, then you have no case and it is certainly a problem for Islam that an apparition who doesn't act like any known angel became an Angel in Islam

honesttalk21:
On the Khadija story, that report isn’t in the strongest hadith collections. It comes through weaker historical sources. You can’t demand strict standards and then build a key point on something that doesn’t meet them.

Too bad, the story was from early Muslim scholars and not Christians or Jews so, you have no excuse. The story became weak only because of exposure to the bible causing it to be incredibly nonsensical.

honesttalk21:
On the cave you’ve merged two separate moments into one. The first encounter was intense and overwhelming. The later sighting described in Surah 53 is different. Two events, not one. The contradiction only appears because you combined them. On the cave the earlier phrasing wasn't particularly clear enough. What happened at Hira was an overwhelming presence that commanded; not a man, not the full horizon-filling form. Intensity doesn’t equal full manifestation. The horizon vision in Surah 53 is a separate event. You merged two moments, then called it a contradiction.

With suitable evidences, Do Jibril have many forms? Is he a transformer?

You said that Jibril appeared to Mohammed in his TRUE FORM, didn't you?

Explain how Jibril's true form can enter a cave that is 2m high

honesttalk21:
On Waraqa his identification wasn’t random. In the Abrahamic tradition, Gabriel is consistently linked to revelation. That’s in your own scripture as well. He recognised a pattern he already knew.

Gabriel is linked with INFORMATION not Revelation. God Himself gives Revelation.

Tell me,
With evidence, Did Moses, David and Isa recieved Revelations from any Angel?

honesttalk21:
On the what if it was Satan argument your own Bible says Satan can appear as an angel of light. If you use that logic, it doesn’t just question Islam it puts every prophetic experience in your tradition under the same doubt. You can’t apply it selectively.

We as Christians are commanded to TEST all spirits wether they are the from God or satan.
1John 4:1:
"Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits, whether they are from God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world."

As we know, Khadija did a striptease on Mohammed to test if the apparition was Jibril or a Jinn.

Meaning that Satan could have well passed for Jibril and he successfully did that in Islam.

Is it true that Angels will NOT view the bodies of naked women?
Is it true that Angels CANNOT enter a room wherein their are dogs?

honesttalk21:
On the so-called satanic verses the report doesn’t pass scholarly standards. Even where it’s discussed, it’s framed as something corrected immediately, which the Qur’an itself addresses. Show specifically otherwise. The report doesn't survive scrutiny and the Qur'an itself addressed the underlying concern in 22:52 before you raised it. That's not weakness that's the tradition anticipating the objection.

The fact that you find the Satanic Verses and the story behind it embarrassing makes it even more credible as YOUR early Muslim Islamic scholars reported it.

Till tomorrow, you have refused to give me the reason for the verse.

honesttalk21:
So when you strip it back, your case rests on: a timing condition you introduced, a weak report, a merged narrative, and an argument that ends up undermining your own sources.
That’s not a stable critique.

No sir.
My case rest on Islamic writings written by your early Muslim scholars. Your only argument is to deny their claims.

honesttalk21:
Alright, let’s put this clearly and calmly without exaggeration, just straight reasoning.

The idea that an angel must say peace and introduce himself immediately is your own rule, not something found in any scripture. Check your Bible particularly in Luke 1, Daniel 10, Matthew 28 and you see the same pattern. No formal intro, no salam/peace greeting. Gabriel speaks first, identity comes later or isn’t the focus. So the standard you’re using here isn’t consistent with your own texts.

Unfortunately for you, in every scripture you quoted, the common theme was FEAR NOT

"Peace to you" is NOT a greeting sir. It means DO NOT BE AFRAID or I COME IN PEACE.

So, check again the scriptures you chose has condemned you (Luke 1, Daniel 10, Matthew 28)

So, WHY THE ANGEL NOT COMFORT MOHAMMED

honesttalk21:
Now about the cave. Jibrīl didn’t introduce himself by name in that first moment. The Prophet pbuh was overwhelmed and that’s exactly what the hadith says. The angel came and said, ‘Read’ (Bukhari 3). No identity mentioned there. Recognition came step by step. Waraqah identified the pattern (Bukhari 3392), and later the Qur’an confirmed it was Jibril (Q81:23 & 53:5). That’s not confusion, that’s gradual clarity. And that same pattern shows up in your own tradition too.

In other words, the personage was given a name by WARAQA and slowly, Mohammed called him bt that name.

honesttalk21:
The claim that he thought it was a demon is simply not in the authentic sources. What you have is fear. And fear is normal in these encounters. Daniel collapsed. Zechariah was struck silent. Mary was afraid. That reaction is consistent across the board; it points to a real experience, not a made-up one.

So, why all the drama about Khadija doing striptease upon Mohammed to prove that the ghostly personage was an Angel and not a Jinn.

Fear is NORMAL when one first encounters an Angel and it is thus NORMAL for the Angel to Proclaim PEACE or FEAR NOT to the person.

This never happened to Mohammed, instead he apparition continued to SCARE the life out of Mohammed.

Did the apparition proclaim PEACE or FEAR NOT to Mohammed as their normal practice?

honesttalk21:
Waraqah wasn’t guessing either. He was a knowledgeable man who recognised the pattern of revelation. You don’t have to be present to identify what something is. Then the Qur’an itself later confirms it directly. Jibril is named. So it’s recognition followed by confirmation.

So, what pattern did Waraqa see and from where did he learn it?
Please answer my direct questions

It took Waraqa a man who NEVER was part of what Mohammed saw to tell him definitely that the apparition was an Angel

1. How did Waraqa know it was Angel Gabriel and not Angel Michael?
2. Since Waraqa himself wasn't a prophet, on what authority did he use to be sure that the apparition was Angel Gabriel (was it from the Bible)?
3. What evidences can we use to verify that it was an Angel sent to Moses that was sent to Mohammed?
4. How can the Quran confirm the Angel sent by Moses?

honesttalk21:
Now on the angel’s form; this is where the confusion is coming from. You’ve merged two separate events. The intense cave encounter doesn’t mean it was the full angelic form. The Qur’an describes that full form being seen at the horizon (Q81:23 and 53:5) and that’s a different moment entirely. You moved that scene into the cave, then said it doesn’t fit. Of course it won’t you forced it there.

So in simple terms:

Cave: direct, overwhelming encounter

Horizon: full angelic form

Two different occasions. No contradiction.

At the end of the day, your argument rests on three things. A rule you created, a claim not found in the sources, and a contradiction you built by mixing events. Take those away, and there’s really nothing left to stand on.

Note my question again:

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

Your response was:
The angel's appearance in Hira was in his true angelic form


Except if Jibril a shape-shifter his true form extends over the horizon: meaning that you are wrong!

If Jibril is a shape shifter,
No wonder Iblis could successfully pass for the apparition called Jibril and dictate a new Qur'an to Mohammed.

The disguise was so perfect that Mohammed couldn't detect that Iblis had impersonated the apparition called Jibril

The Qur'an was so perfect that Mohammed couldn't distinguish between the Qur'an of Allah and the Quran of Iblis.



Did Mohammed recite the satanic verses as Qur'an before Allah removed it?

honesttalk21:
Jibril (Angel Gabriel) didn’t introduce himself by name in the first moment at the Hira cave. The Prophet Muhammad peace and blessings of Allah be upon him was overwhelmed and didn’t immediately know who it was. That’s clear in the hadith and seerah. The angel came and said Read (Bukhari 3). No identity was stated there.

You will notice three striking things
1. The Angel never said "Peace be to you"!
2. The Angel never introduced himself
3. Mohammed felt what he saw was a Demon

honesttalk21:
The prophet pbuh came to know shortly after through Waraqah’s confirmation and continued revelation. Waraqah said this is the same one sent to Moses (Bukhari 3392). The Qur’an then confirms it was Jibril in (Q81:23 & 53:5).

It took Waraqa a man who NEVER was part of what Mohammed saw to tell him definitely that the apparition was an Angel

1. How did Waraqa know it was Angel Gabriel and not Angel Michael?
2. Since Waraqa himself wasn't a prophet, on what authority did he use to be sure that the apparition was Angel Gabriel (was it from the Bible)?
3. What evidences can we use to verify that it was an Angel sent to Moses that was sent to Mohammed?
4. How can the Quran confirm the Angel sent by Moses?

honesttalk21:
The angel's appearance in Hira was in his true angelic form that’s why it was intense. At other times, he appeared in human form. There's no contradiction. The sequence is simple,no immediate identification then confirmation followed by clear recognition.
That’s not confusion but clarity built step by step.

This is where the Standard Islamic Narrative breaks down again because of falsehood.

You know quite well that if Jibril came to Mohammed as a man like Dihyah al-Kalbi, then speculations will arise that what Mohammed saw was a mere man and not an angel as he wouldn't have to be scared of a man.

Unfortunately, Mohammed said that Jibril in his true form filled the Horizon creating a serious problem for you.

Mohammed in his true form CANNOT fit into the cave of Hira


Are you aware that
The Cave of Hira can is about 2m high and can contain a maximum of 6 people.

So, if Jibril appeared as Dihyah al-Kalbi, all the narration of Mohammed about IQRA are pure fables.
If Jibril appeared in his true form, all the narration of Mohammed about IQRA are pure fables


Either way, someone is composing FICTION as religion

BlackfireX:


They messed with the wrong people
I used to fear arabic language based on what I was told but today ...I love that language like kilode... God in heaven made sure he gave loopholes for us to see that this pseudo occultic religion is exposed.

Everything they tell you about Islam...just ask a simple follow up question and watch centuries of lies fall yakata

Quran is a clear word of God that came to correct Abraham , torah(moses) , zabur ( psalms) injeel ( gospel) but it needs Hadiths and tasfir written by men to correct the Quran to correct the bible?

See madness

Angel appear to muhamed and his 1st
impression is that it was an evil spirit or Devil..

.did the angel introduce himself? No idea
Did Muhammed spoke to God directly?... No
When the angel ask Qutham to read( ikra) was there a book? No...then what was he reading? No idea.
Ok when the unknown entity ask him to read was there a book ? NO ....SO what was he reading? No idea



I thought the islamic section is filled with knowledgeable ummah ...
Ko
Ko
Ko

Who is there ? Who wrote the Quran?

That is why with simple questions the religion based on falsehood scatter like a disaster falling on packs of cards.

Qasim6:
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?

So, you tell me.

When and how did Jibril introduce himself to Mohammed?

I ask questions to force you admitting the truths you avoid.

hat 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, why avoid my questions:
When Mohammed was in the cave at Hira, Did he see Jibril as looking like (Dihyah al-Kalbi) a man or as an Angel called Jibril?

Qasim6:
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.

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?

Qasim6:
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?

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?

Qasim6:
You have no idea what you are talking about.
What is your source that Jibril took the semblance of Dihya Al kalbi during the event of hadith Jibril? You just made that up right?

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.

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!

Qasim6:
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.

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?

Qasim6:
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.

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.

Qasim6:
Lol!

U better pray for your own soul

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

Did Paul teach that Jesus was crucified and rose from the dead?


Who do you think authored the Qur'an
Educate us.


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?

BlackfireX:
While growing up and seeking knowledge...I somehow hate the CRUSADERS courtesy of Muslim lies

Till I understood who first started it and thank God those noble men arose.

Now it Is paul the apostle they are attacking

They fought that the first person to destroy 2 kabaas was Qutham a.k.a Muhammad and nowhere was he told by his Allah to destroy it.

The first person to burn the Qur'an was a Muslim caliph Uthman and standardised it hence the Quran of today.. infact the ones burnt contain the divinity of Christ, his death on the cross, blessings and victory of his followers till Christ coming back, Qutham as a false prophet that will be killed by God if he fabricate lies against God, forbidden to attack the Jews and christians who protected him and so on, those vital words were removed and filled with Christain and Jewish apocryphal.

Who wrote the Quran? A very interesting question

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

BlackfireX:
How have you been?

The best deceiver = father of lies

They worship Iblis disguised as an Angel of light. Their job is to market him with more LIES

WriterrNg:

---

You killed their leaders and their civilians including children but you're not at war with them?

You bombed their banks, hospitals, schools, factories,, refineries, bridges, mosques, historical sites but you're not at war with them?

So when will the US be at war with Iran?

The US is weak plain and simple. Can't even finish off small Iran in 48 hours like they promised.

Botragelad

I wonder how you have the moral justification to post exactly what Russia had done to Ukraine by a wannabe Putin at the Whitehouse. If this is evil, Putin must be evil too

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

Don't mind them.
A religion based on lies for people who love lies.

Qasim6:
Who do you think authored the Qur'an

Educate us.

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?

Ohyoudidnt:
Alas:

Ouch I didn't independently verify
Power supply when available lately comes in under 200V

True news. He resigned for gubernatorial election reasons

modified:
https://www.nairaland.com/8645624/adelabu-abandons-governorship-ambition-says

They said its fake news

honesttalk21:
You didn't show anything its same reiterating the claims, getting some response and moving on when responses landed. If anyone cared to read through the thread at all, you will find a pattern from page 2 till about halfway of page 8.

All the things you brought up, isnad, manuscripts, abrogation,Quran 19:71-72 , 73 sects were answered to your face . You didn't pounce on the answers; they sped by you.

That is not a valid argument by saying it ends with light and darkness. It is the exhaust of an argument.

The Qur’an is mass-transmitted and anchored to its earliest period; manuscripts, memorization, and cross-verification all converge. The New Testament comes through later authors who never met Jesus, compiled into a canon centuries afterward, with no original copies surviving.
Apply the same standard consistently, and the harder questions aren’t on our side.

So this isn’t about conscience. It’s about consistency.

You walk not because there are no answers, but due to the fact that those answers were'nt what you wanted.

Question from TenQ:
Is it TRUE that President Bola Ahmed Tinubu is the President of Nigeria?

Answer from honesttalk21
By definition president is the leader of a country. Whether a president is good or not is a matter of if he does his work well or not.

The problem is not lack of response BUT wrong response. This is your favourite way of answering questions. The bad thing is that you begin to claim how wonderful your response was.

So, ignorance is bliss especially when it is self induced and wilful.


Again, I say
‎Listen to your Conscience!

honesttalk21:
‎
If you critically examine the evidence, you will ask yourself a question:
Is this MAN you adore so much seemingly or apparently just a business man who created a Taoheed of deities and religions and called it Islam?
‎
You will need to answer this question by yourself.

‎

honesttalk21:
‎
‎There are no pleasant words to call the mess you park up feigning to be proper logical argument.
‎
‎Youre not sticking to one approach, you're flipping the script during the debate. If you dont trust isnad, youre left with Ibn ishaq and Tabari, who are known only through isnad. You're asking for academic feedback, but then you disregard the fact that its challenging the very reports youre citing Thats not methodology; its more about selection.
‎
‎The lost source argument falls apart. Tabari preserves reports with chains, not endorsements. Ibn Kathir dismisses them using the same internal critique you hold in high regard; it clashes with the main text Q53:3–4 stands on. The report doesnt hold up In missing verses, youre always talking about abrogation as if its a loss when It isn’t.
‎
‎The revelation led to naskh, not following the compilation. Its mentioned in Quran 2:106 You're basically twisting a well-established category to create an issue In Uthmans time, there wasnt a single competing version of the quran not one. If the contents were different, you'd end up with a competing text You don’t.
‎
‎On 19:71– 72, same pattern. You pick out a single line, skip the one after it, and then draw a conclusion from whats left. Lets all get together, but only the ones who've done wrong stay. And the biggest contradiction is yours you demand strict historical standards, then abandon them the moment they undermine your claim. This isn’t a critique. It’s inconsistency dressed as one.

‎You repeat accusations and claims with no evidence.
‎
‎You dodge and avoid answering questions when the answers betray your religion.
‎
‎Then you give yourself a hefty pass mark for answering logically and coherently to issues raised
‎
‎Jesus said:
‎People prefer Darkness to Light simply because this is who they are (its just a revelation of the works of their hands)
‎
‎Of many Muslims on nairaland, you have had your conscience disturbed many times when you engage with me BUT you think God should understand that you tried your best to serve him on the day of judgement and overlook your adoption of Islam.
‎
‎I honestly wish this will bail you out except that UNFORTUNATELY, it wouldn't. God gave you His solution in Jesus that you REJECTED but you accepted the testimony of one man called Mohammed without any verifiable evidence.


‎On this note, on this topic I rest my pen.
‎God is always Guiding us!
‎Listen to your Conscience!