₦airaland Forum

honesttalk21:
No
There is no contradiction between applying isnad to prophetic narrations and not applying it to general history. These are two separate categories with different consequences, so they require different standards.

Before we go further, let me ask you something simple:
Do you believe all knowledge must be verified in exactly the same way, regardless of what is at stake?

Your question is silly because the way mathematics is verified is different from the way history is verified and is different from the way Artifacts are verified.

Islam false under RELIGIOUS HISTORY thus, Academic historians use a rigorous process known as historical methodology to verify accounts. This process is divided into two primary stages: external criticism, which tests the authenticity of a Original SOURCE doucument, and internal criticism, which evaluates its reliability and content.

Even for the BIBLE this is the Method used by Academic Historians.
Academic Historians NEVER use chain of Reference or ISNAD to accept or reject a history.

Can Islamic History PASS when subjected to Academic Historical Methodology?

honesttalk21:
If you say yes, that position is not defensible.
If you say no, then the distinction I’m making already stands.

General history is reconstructed from multiple sources and carries no legal or theological authority. Prophetic narrations, however, shape belief and law. The standard must match the weight of the claim. That is not inconsistency,it is precision.

The Prophet peace be upon him's name, lineage, and major life events are not based on isolated reports. They are transmitted through tawatur; mass transmission across generations. That gives them a stronger historical foundation than many figures people accept without question. So let me ask you directly:

Are you rejecting mass transmission as a valid way of knowing?

Because if you are, then you are not just challenging Islam, you are undermining a large portion of human history.

Academic Historians dont reject ANY History based on chains of naration. They follow rigorous methodologies as detailed be3low

1. External Criticism (Authenticity)
Before analyzing what a document says, historians determine if the document itself is a genuine artifact from the time it claims to be.
• Provenance and Chain of Custody: Historians trace the physical history of a document—who owned it and where it was stored—to ensure it hasn't been planted or forged.
• Technical Analysis: They examine physical materials like paper, ink, parchment, and handwriting. For example, they check if the chemical composition of the ink was available during that era.
• Philological Analysis: They look at the language, vocabulary, and grammar to see if it matches the period. Anachronistic words (words not yet invented) are a major red flag.
• Scientific Dating: Techniques like radiocarbon dating or dendrochronology (tree-ring dating) are used for physical artifacts and older documents.

2. Internal Criticism (Credibility)
Once a source is proven authentic, historians examine the "truthfulness" of its contents.
• Bias and Perspective: They identify the author’s background, intent, and potential prejudices. They ask: Does the author have a reason to lie or exaggerate (e.g., propaganda)?.
• Proximity to Event: Accounts from eyewitnesses (primary sources) are generally preferred over hearsay (secondary sources). The closer the report is to the actual time of the event, the more reliable it is considered.
• Internal Consistency: Historians check for contradictions within the text itself. If a witness tells a story that doesn't "hang together," its credibility drops.
• Plausibility: They weigh claims against "common sense" and known human nature. For instance, if an ancient text claims a tiny city sent an army of millions, historians flag this as literary license or hyperbole.

3. Corroboration and Triangulation
A single source is rarely accepted as absolute truth. Historians verify accounts by comparing multiple independent pieces of evidence.
• Cross-Referencing: If two or more independent sources (authors who did not consult each other) agree on a detail, the likelihood of it being true increases significantly.
• Archaeological Evidence: Written accounts are often tested against physical remains. For example, a chronicler’s claim of a great fire can be verified by finding a burn layer in the soil of that city.
• Incidental Evidence: Historians often trust "unintentional" details—things the author mentioned in passing without trying to prove a point—more than the main argument the author is trying to sell.

4. Specialized Disciplines
For complex or ancient texts, historians use specific technical fields:
• Diplomatics: The study of the formal structure of official records (e.g., is the seal in the right place?).
• Sigillography: The study of seals to verify the authority of a document.
• Paleography: The study of ancient handwriting styles to date a text.

BUT
Here is ISLAM, rejecting these proven methods to focus on chain of Narration that cannot even be trusted based on BIAS from the Islamic Scholars

honesttalk21:
About, the Gharaniq story, it was examined using the correct method and found to be weak. The chains are broken, the narrators are problematic, and the content contradicts the Qur’an:
“He does not speak from desire” (53:3–4)

As for Qur’an 22:52–53, it does not confirm that story. It gives a general principle that Allah nullifies satanic interference not a specific historical endorsement.

Using that verse to prove the story requires assuming the story inside the proof itself. That is circular reasoning. Ibn Kathīr explicitly rejected that approach. So the question remains:
Can you produce a single sound, fully connected chain for the Gharaniq report?

If not, then by any serious standard of historical reliability, the claim does not stand.

I do not use chains of Reference to determine the veracity of any historical fact. I prefer the Academic historians' use of the rigorous process known as historical methodology to verify any history.

Early biographers (like Ibn Ishaq and al-Tabari) recorded that Muhammad was initially tricked by Satan into praising the goddesses of Mecca. According to these accounts, verses 22:52–53 were later revealed to abrogate (cancel) the error, explaining that all prophets are subject to such "Satanic suggestions."

Is it TRUE that Ibn Ishaq wrote in the 8th Century the collection of the earliest comprehensive oral traditions for the Prophet's biography (Sira).

Is it TRUE that Al-Tabari wrote in the 9th Century, The "Great Synthesizer"; writing ~150 years after Ibn Ishaq, where he preserved Ibn Ishaq's lost original works by quoting them extensively in his massive chronicles.

BUT, ISLAMIC SCIENCE OF THE HADITH THINK THAT IBN KATHIR's RECORD should overide that of Ibn Ishaq and Al-Tabari
Is it TRUE that Ibn Kathir wrote in the 14th Century ~450 years after al-Tabari and ~600 years after Ibn Ishaq, where he rejected these Islamic Histories by applying chains of reference excuse?

You said:
“He does not speak from desire” (53:3–4)
Tell me, if this is TRUE,
1. Why did Mohammed divorced his wife Hafsa bint Umar (RA) once, but later took her back. Did Allah make a mistake in his inspiration to him?
2. Why did Mohammed swore not to sic "eat honey" again but Allah corrected him in Quran 66:1-2. Did Allah make a mistake in his inspiration to him?
3. Why did Mohammed swore an oath to his wife Hafsa that he would not have sex with his slave-girl, Mariyah al-Qibtiyyah, again to please Hafsa. Did Allah make a mistake in his inspiration to him? because Mohammed went back on his words.

You said:
As for Qur’an 22:52–53, it does not confirm that story. It gives a general principle that Allah nullifies satanic interference not a specific historical endorsement.

If this is TRUE:
1. Did satan put any words in Mohammed mouth?
2. Is it True that Gabriel later informed the Prophet that these words were not from Allah and Allah then "abolished" (revoked) those false verses and replaced them with the correct revelation
3. Can you be kind enough to post what the Asbab al-Nuzul of Quran 53:19-20 says

honesttalk21:
Regarding Ibn Majah 1944, the chain is not as strong as claimed. It includes Muhammad ibn Ishaq, who is known for tadlis (the habit of omitting his teacher [as opposed to merely changing his name], then his narrations will only be accepted if he reports the narration using words that denote him acquiring the narration directly from the source he quotes. If he uses the word ‘an when reporting, the chain will be considered weak.. , and the narration lacks explicit confirmation of direct transmission).

Hafs Quran should be rejected based on this because the isnt it that the Quran is the best Hadith?
Isnad is a silly method of verification of history

honesttalk21:
More importantly, the Qur’an is preserved through tawatur; mass transmission, not isolated reports. A single narration about a written sheet cannot override what was memorized and transmitted by large numbers of companions and
standardized under ʿUthman, may Allah be pleased with him.

Why is it that the written Quran of Uthman disappeared?
There are supposed to be 7-8 copies.
Was it because it is easier to manipulate recitations rather than texts?

honesttalk21:
As for the breastfeeding issue:, abrogation (naskh) includes cases where recitation is removed while the ruling remains. This is a recognized category in Islamic legal theory. It is not “lost Qur’an.”

You avoided my question
I said: BUT when we ask you Muslims the simple question of YES or NO, you begin to bring EXCUSES
1. Is it TRUE that Allah revealed in his Qur'an the verse of Breastfeeding an adult man 10 times ?
2. Is it TRUE that Allah abrogated the 10 times breastfeeding command and REPLACED it in his Qur'an the verse of Breastfeeding an adult man 5 times?

honesttalk21:
The hadith about the 73 sects is also misunderstood. It does not mean a 1-in-73 chance of salvation. It identifies a criterion. Following the Qur’an and Sunnah as understood by the companions. Deviation does not automatically equal disbelief.
So let me ask:
Where does the hadith say that all other groups are eternally damned?
If it doesn’t say that, then the “lottery” framing is rhetorical not textual.

You agree that only ONE out of 73 sects of Islam will enter paradise?

Note also that Mohammed NEVER said that being in hell was temporary for the remaining 72 sects.

Come to think of it:
According to Quran 19:71-72 even the true Muslims (1/73) will enter the Fire TEMPORARILY.
The remaining Muslims should be the EVIL DOERS according to Quran 19:71-72

Will the EVIDOERS also Temporarily be in Hell?

Prove this from the Quran or Hadith please?

honesttalk21:
On the ransom issue, the Qur’an is clear:
“No soul bears the burden of another” (6:164)
Fikak means release, not substitution. No one carries another person’s sins.

If we go with your theory of substitution, then it LOGICALLY imply that these Christians and Jews were NOT originally in the FIRE?

Will the evildoers in Quran 19:71-72 be used as substitution for Muslims

honesttalk21:
Note that this reply tackles all twenty questions packed into a single post Honest questioning doesnt follow that path If any point here deserves a serious challenge, bring it forward one at a time with supporting evidence and it will be met directly. Spreading out arguments doesnt make you stronger its just trying to look like youve got unanswered questions when you dont.

Let’s be honest about what is really happening here. You are not rejecting isnād because it is illogical.
You are rejecting it because it filters out the reports you want to use.
It forces claims to stand up to scrutiny.
Without isnad, any report;no matter how weak, can be treated as history.
With isnad, only what is reliable survives.
So the real question is:
Do you want a method that distinguishes truth from error,
or one that allows any narrative to be used as long as it serves an argument?
Because once you remove isnad, the Gharaniq story is no longer evidence; it becomes speculation among many competing claims. And that is not truth. That is confusion.

LOL!

Evaluate the sense in these four conclusions
1. There is no chain of reference for Alexander the Great therefore his story is weak and untrustworthy
2. There exists no reliable chain of reference for Emperors like Julius Caesar of Rome, therefore his story is weak and untrustworthy
3. There is no known chain of Reference for Mary Slessor of Calabar therefore this her story is weak and untrustworthy
4. Apart from newspaper stories about Anini and Osunbo the Armed Robbers, no chain of reference exists therefore his story is weak and untrustworthy
Ask yourself: Do you think these conclusions above make sense? This is how the Islamic LOGIC work!

Why didnt you examine how logical islamic position is wrt isnad
1. What is the Isnad that proves that the original name of your prophet is Mohammed?
2. What is the isnad that proves that Jibril commanded Mohammed to Read (IQRA) three times in the cave?
3. What is the isnad that show that Mohammed's father's name is Abdullah?
4. What is the isnad that shows the sequence of revelation of the Qur'an and time?

You will see clearly that yours is a selective insistence of ISNAD to validate or reject plain history whenever convenient.

honesttalk21:
The isnad wasn't really built to be a complete historical record. It was more about checking specific claims, the ones that carried actual legal weight. And you accept that kind of sifting, right? It weeds out weak reports about Alexander the Great, for instance. That Gharaniq story? It got looked at and tossed out the same way.

So, really, it's not the method itself that's the issue now. You've already signed off on how it works. The question is why you're not sticking to it all the time.

I gave you four similar real life historical situations and even you know deep down that the islamic methodology of using the isnad determine valid history is nonsense!

Unfortunately, this illogical nonsense is a life saver in rejecting MAINLY uncomfortable truths about Islam.

Let me prove this to you.

1. What is the Isnad that proves that the original name of your prophet is Mohammed?
2. What is the isnad that proves that Jibril commanded Mohammed to Read (IQRA) three times in the cave?
3. What is the isnad that show that Mohammed's father's name is Abdullah?
4. What is the isnad that shows the sequence of revelation of the Qur'an and time?

You will see clearly that yours is a selective insistence of ISNAD to validate or reject plain history whenever convenient.

Secondly
The hadith Sunan Ibn Majah 1944, narrated by Aisha states that verses on stoning (rajm) and adult breastfeeding 10 times were revealed, written on paper under her pillow, and eaten by a tame sheep after the Prophet's death.

The ISNAD is very strong and reliable
Chain Analysis
Narrators: Aisha → Amrah bint Abdur-Rahman → Abdullah ibn Abi Bakr → Muhammad ibn Ishaq → Abd al-A'la → Yahya ibn Khalaf Abu Salamah.

BUT when we ask you Muslims the simple question of YES or NO, you begin to bring EXCUSES
1. Is it TRUE that Allah revealed in his Qur'an the verse of Breastfeeding an adult man 10 times ?
2. Is it TRUE that Allah abrogated the 10 times breastfeeding command and REPLACED it in his Qur'an the verse of Breastfeeding an adult man 5 times?

I put it to you that even though logically ISNAD as a means of checking historical validity is silly, it is an attempt to delete unwanted history.

honesttalk21:
And you brought up that hadith about the 73 sects to back up your point. Just stop and think about that one for a sec.

You're pushing back against the same old arguments. It doesn't hold water to dismiss hadith standards when they don't fit your point, then suddenly rely on them when it suits you. That's not principled; it's just cherry-picking.

Plus, about that saved group? The hadith doesn't slap a modern label on them. It just describes folks who stick to the Qur'an and the authenticated Sunnah. That's really about their actions, not what they call themselves.

Figuring out which present-day group best fits that description sparks a debate scholars often have. It's not some built-in contradiction, either. On the ransom issue, that's already been severally clarified. Fikak means release, not swapping one person for another. The individuals mentioned are accountable for their own actions. Nothing's being transferred. Trying to merge separate hadiths into one combined claim they were never making just creates a problem that was never there.

A lame excuse as it doesn't answer my questions.

1. Is this hadith TRUE?
2. Is the ransom of Muslims with Christians and Jews for the One group of true Muslims or the 72 sects of false Muslims?
3. There are Many sects of Islam even now: which sect (Shia, Sunni, Ahmadiyah, Sufi, Ibadi etc) will enter paradise or you are in the dark?

Except if all you are saying is that the probability of a Muslim entering paradise is 1/73.
Yours is a lost battle if your prophet is correct with this hadith.

honesttalk21:
Concerning the background reports for 53:19–20, those narrations have already been evaluated and deemed weak. Reiterating them does not strengthen their validity. Ultimately, all points have been covered. What remains absent is a credible chain that supports the Gharaniq narration and that void has not been addressed, as there simply isn’t one. A stronger chain for the Gharaniq narration has never appeared in this entire exchange. Not because it hasn't been asked for; it has with you ignoring it because it simply does not exist.

You will note how you carefully avoided the Asbab al-Nuzul of Quran 53:19-20 for the satanic verses

Tell me, what exactly did Gabriel corrected by abrogating the satanic addition via Quran 22:52-53 ?

Note how Islam can be described as a Religion of DENIAL of TRUTH.

Islam does EVERYTHING to minimise the DAMAGE of Truth to the Religion.
You should ask yourself if your objective is to know the TRUTH and ADOPT is
Is this A whitewashed sepulchre from the Al-Makr! ?
Is this Food laced with Poison from the Al-Makr! ?
Is this A deception projected as truth from the Al-Makr! ?


Otherwise, why is Islam a denial of historical events?

You will agree with me that a statistical probability of 1/73 is a lottery of certain DEATH!


Why don't you Pause and think?

honesttalk21:
You make an analogy with:



You then say:

To which I ask:

Is this absolutely your stance? Yes or No and if you like elucidate if you need to.

I agree with this stance as it applies to you. I do not rely on chains of reference for validating common historical events.

BUT

You dodge Questions like your life depends on it. Its your trademark as a Muslim.

1. Is this hadith TRUE?
2. Is the ransom of Muslims with Christians and Jews for the One group of true Muslims or the 72 sects of false Muslims?
3. There are Many sects of Islam even now: which sect (Shia, Sunni, Ahmadiyah, Sufi, Ibadi etc) will enter paradise or you are in the dark?

honesttalk21:
Are you absolutely certain and agree to stand by this stance on this particular matter?

At least, I am happy that It is good you saw the illogicality and senselessness of the logic of Islamic scholars in determining what is real and what is not.

I asked you questions you dodged as usual

1. Is this hadith TRUE?
2. Is the ransom of Muslims with Christians and Jews for the One group of true Muslims or the 72 sects of false Muslims?
3. There are Many sects of Islam even now: which sect (Shia, Sunni, Ahmadiyah, Sufi, Ibadi etc) will enter paradise or you are in the dark?

honesttalk21:
Why ask me to evaluate?

This only shows you no longer know what you are proposing at. Do what you need to do then come back with meaningful points to address.

It is good you saw the illogicality and senselessness of the logic of Islamic scholars in determining what is real and what is not.

The plain truth if you can handle it is that it doesn't make any sense.

Simple questions, you cannot answer simply because it betrays the LIES you chose to believe. Why dont you just hold on to the Truth?
Why must you convince yourself to adopt a lie?

Is it because you think you have gone too far?


Let me ask you a question (to expose the loads of contradictions within your religion)

Mohammed says that Islam will break into 73 Sects and only ONE of them is authentic and the rest to hell.


Sunan Ibn Majah (Book 36, Hadith 3992)
It was narrated from 'Awf bin Malik that the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) said: “The Jews split into seventy-one sects, one of which will be in Paradise and seventy in Hell. The Christians split into seventy-two sects, seventy-one of which will be in Hell and one in Paradise. I swear by the One Whose Hand is the soul of Muhammad, my nation will split into seventy-three sects, one of which will be in Paradise and seventy-two in Hell.”
It was said: “O Messenger of Allah, who are they?”
He said: “The main body.”


1. Is this hadith TRUE?
2. Is the ransom of Muslims with Christians and Jews for the One group of true Muslims or the 72 sects of false Muslims?
3. There are Many sects of Islam even now: which sect (Shia, Sunni, Ahmadiyah, Sufi, Ibadi etc) will enter paradise or you are in the dark?

honesttalk21:
The report on 53:19–20 was preserved so scholars could examine and evaluate it. It was rejected because its chain is weak and it contradicts Quran 53:3–4, which makes clear that the Prophet does not speak from personal desire. This is not scholars lying; it is scholars doing their duty. To overturn their conclusion, a stronger chain must be provided; assertion alone is not evidence.
Early scholars documented weak reports to examine and refute them. This was not fabrication; it was intellectual honesty. Preserving history while distinguishing authentic guidance from unreliable reports is the core of hadith scholarship.
Regarding Statement B, it is often misunderstood. The burden of those they misled does not mean the misled person’s punishment is transferred. The misled remain fully accountable for their own actions. The Prophet confirmed in Sahih Muslim 2674 that the misleader bears an additional burden for the harm caused, without reducing the follower’s responsibility in the slightest. The misleader’s liability is earned for their act of misleading, not someone else’s sin.
Statement A: no unjust transfer of punishment remains fully intact.
Statement B: misleaders earn extra accountability for causing harm also stands fully intact. They address two separate realities. This is not contradiction; it is precision.
Calling scholars or those who explain this liars is not a rebuttal. It is what is said when the explanation lands and no counterargument remains.

Evaluate the sense in these four conclusions
1. There is no chain of reference for Alexander the Great therefore his story is weak and untrustworthy
2. There exists no reliable chain of reference for Emperors like Julius Caesar of Rome, therefore his story is weak and untrustworthy
3. There is no known chain of Reference for Mary Slessor of Calabar therefore this her story is weak and untrustworthy
4. Apart from newspaper stories about Anini and Osunbo the Armed Robbers, no chain of reference exists therefore his story is weak and untrustworthy

Ask yourself: Do you think these conclusions above make sense? This is how the Islamic LOGIC work!

You still have not answered the question
Why did your early Muslim scholars tell such kind of lies against your prophet if they were not true?
AND
Why are you afraid of quoting the Asbab al-Nuzul of Quran 53:19-20

You have consistently refused to answer these questions!

You are Bent on misrepresenting Allah with your Statement B which incompletely UNTRUE

Allah says
Quran 16:25
those who fabricate lies against Allah will bear their own burdens fully on the Day of Resurrection, along with some of the burdens of those they mislead without knowledge. Evil indeed is what they bear

Did Allah say that the Misleader will carry SOME OF THE BURDENS OF THOSE THEY MISLED or NOT?

Since you are AI specialist, check if LOGICALLY and SYNTACTICALLY Qur'an 16:25 is the same in MEANING to your misrepresentation of my statement B.

Statement B: misleaders earn extra accountability for causing harm also stands fully intact.

Ghostagain:
Minsk 1 and Minsk 2 and NATO getting closer and saving russians of Ukraine and stopping Ukraine from getting nukes were the reasons given by Russia.

You must acknowledge those reasons if you want to claim neutrality.

What concerns nukes with annexing Ukrainian lands?

Nukes were never part of the claim of Russia: this is your own invention!

Russia broke both Minsk1 and 2 agreements otherwise, what was Russia doing in donbas before this war?

honesttalk21:
Denying a report doesn’t erase it. The narrations about Surah 53:19–20 were recorded and graded weak by the very scholars who transmitted them. Recording is not endorsement,that’s a core principle of hadith.

Denying an event takes more than talk, it takes serious EVIDENCE non of which you have provided except you said people who were not witnesses rejected the primary event as weak.

Why did your early Muslim scholars tell such kind of lies against your prophet if they were not true?

Why are you afraid of quoting the Asbab al-Nuzul of Quran 53:19-20

You have consistently refused to answer these questions!

honesttalk21:
Statement A,yes; no soul bears another’s burden.

This is UNTRUE statement and notnwhat Allah said

Statement B,yes; those who mislead carry extra burden

THIS your statement above IS WRONG SIR. WHY TWIST THE STATEMENT B?

Is it UNTRUE that Allah says
Statement B:
Allah says, some people will bear SOME OF the Burdens of the sin of those they Misled

honesttalk21:
Both are true. No contradiction,no burden is transferred, only added. The Prophet clarified this (Sahih Muslim 2674), not opposed it.
Allah forgives by mercy, not by shifting punishment. No innocent soul pays for another. The Prophet explains the Qur’an,he does not compete with it.

NO ONE bears the burden of sin of others and SOME PEOPLE will bear the burden of sin of others are contradictory sir!

Only LIARS will claim that this is NO contradiction

WriteerNg:

---

Botragelad Tonididdy Lawag3 BlackViper TenQ don't want us to see this.

Iran has destroyed more US aircrafts, oil tankers, radars, bases, refineries and factories in one month than Ukraine has in 4 whole years.

You think that like you blindly support Russia everyone in opposition to the Russia-Ukraine war must be a slave to USA?

TenQ hates injustice!
Why will Russia wake up one day and think they should kill Ukrainians in order to take their land and enslave them.

Unlike you, I don't go about drooling on Trump like you do with your god Putin. I dont even like Trump for many things as he wants to be like Putin, Kim Jong-un and Xi Jinpin


Better begin to report how for the last two months Ukraine had been DAILY dealing with Russia on the battlefield!

honesttalk21:
The issue starts with a basic confusion. Yes, al-Tabari and Ibn Kathir wrote later but that only matters if you mix up when something was compiled with where it comes from. Islamic scholarship is built on chains of transmission, not just books. So criticizing the compiler while ignoring the isnad is like rejecting a history book without checking its sources. By that logic, most ancient history would fall apart. The difference is that Islamic tradition did not just preserve reports,it rigorously tested them.

As for Surah 53:19–20, the narrations linked to it have already been examined and deemed weak or disconnected by major scholars, including Ibn Kathir. That is not dodging the issue that is applying methodology. Repeating a weak claim does not make it stronger.

Denying an event doesn't make you correct. Every Thief that is caught DENY events that hap

Again, Why did your early Muslim scholars tell such kind of lies against your prophet if they were not true?

Why are you afraid of quoting the Asbab al-Nuzul of Quran 53:19-20

honesttalk21:
Your A–B–C framework only seems contradictory if you assume punishment is transferred. It is not. The hadith in Sahih Muslim (2674) makes that clear: the misled keep their full burden, while the misleader takes on additional sin for influencing them. No transfer, no injustice, no contradiction.

Is it UNTRUE that Allah says
Statement A:
Allah says no one will bear the burdens of the sins of another

Is it UNTRUE that Allah says
Statement B:
Allah says, some people will bear SOME OF the Burdens of the sin of those they Misled


These two questions above are YES or NO questions. Will you be kind to answer them?

honesttalk21:
On the Prophet, peace and blessings of Allah be upon him, the Quran itself states he does not speak from desire and that what he gives should be followed. The Sunnah does not override the Quran, it explains it from within the same revelation.

Allah contradicted Himself with two statements
But you want everyone to believe the claim of Mohammed!

Is Allah your Authority for Islam or Mohammed?

honesttalk21:
And fikak does not just mean substitution it means release. The hadith specifies Jews and Christians not because they absorb Muslim sins, but because they fill places in Hell already earned by their own rejection and deeds. Forgiveness comes from divine mercy, while punishment remains tied to individual responsibility.

So there is no theological inconsistency here just a misreading of how the system works.

These were not my questions.
I said:
If the hadith Muslim 2674 is not a contradiction or an error, tell me
1. Will Muslims be punished in hell for their sins since you have to bear your own burden of sin?
2. Why then would Allah uses Christians and Jews as a RANSOM for you Muslims from the Fire.
3. Can Mohammad override the plain edict of Allah in the Qur'an?

Is a ransom not a form of exchange of VALUE?

honesttalk21:
You’re treating transmission as endorsement, and that’s where the confusion starts.

The reports around Surah 53:19–20 were already cited and answered. Early scholars like Ibn Kathir and al-Tabari didn’t lie, they recorded everything and then graded it. That’s how hadith science works. Quoting a weak report to critique it isn’t fabrication, it’s method. You can’t lean on those scholars when it suits you, then dismiss their methodology when it doesn’t.

It seems you are not aware that your witness At-Tabari wrote his book 280+ years after the death of Mohammed
It is even worse for Ibn Kathir who wrote 700+ years after the death of Mohammed.

Again, Why did your early Muslim scholars tell such kind of lies against your prophet if they were not true?

Why are you afraid of quoting the Asbab al-Nuzul of Quran 53:19-20

honesttalk21:
Now the core issue.

Yes, Qur’an 16:25 says misleaders carry from the burdens of those they mislead but you’re reading that as transfer.

Exactly, contradicting

Quran 6:164
Say, "Is it other than Allah I should desire as a lord while He is the Lord of all things? And every soul earns not [blame] except against itself, and no bearer of burdens will bear the burden of another . Then to your Lord is your return, and He will inform you concerning that over which you used to differ."

Allah says NO ONE will bear the Burden of sin of another
BUT
You just agreed that Qur'an 16:25 says that SOME PEOPLE (misleaders) will carry from the burden of those they Misled.

honesttalk21:
The Prophet himself closed that door in Sahih Muslim 2674. The one who misguides carries a burden like theirs without reducing theirs at all. That’s not shared punishment, it’s added liability for causing harm.

If the hadith Muslim 2674 is not a contradiction or an error, tell me
1. Will Muslims be punished in hell for their sins since you have to bear your own burden of sin?
2. Why then would Allah uses Christians and Jews as a RANSOM for you Muslims from the Fire.
3. Can Mohammad override the plain edict of Allah in the Qur'an?

honesttalk21:
So 6:164 and 16:25 are not in contrast. One denies transfer. The other affirms responsibility for consequences. Both stand exactly as they are.

The contradiction only appears when you strip the verse from the explanation that was given with it. Once you put them back together, it resolves cleanly and stays resolved.

Quran 6:164 and Qur'an 16:25 contradict each other except if Mohammed is your FINAL Authority on this case.

Statement A:
Allah says no one will bear the burdens of the sins of another

Statement B:
Allah says, some people will bear SOME OF the Burdens of the sin of those they Misled

Statement C:
Mohammed says the Misleader will be punished in addition to his sins the punishment the misled would bear without lessing the punishment of the Misled.


Unfortunately, all you have said is that
Statement A = Statement C
BUT
Statement B CONTRADICTS both Statements A and C

Allah contradicts himself and Mohammed

honesttalk21:
Nobody deleted your post because of its content. Posts get removed when they break forum rules, you already know that from being here. There isn’t some hidden group of Muslims amongst the moderators or programmed into the system targeting you; it’s the same moderation applied across the board.

When your point was marked as addressed, that wasn’t agreement, it simply meant a response had been given. That’s procedural, not validation. The reports about the so-called Satanic Verses linked to Surah 53:19–20 have been scrutinized for centuries and are consistently graded weak or fabricated in the tafsir tradition, including by Ibn Kathir. If there’s a specific part you think wasn’t answered, isolate it and bring it forward. Repeating the same point across threads without narrowing it just diffuses the discussion.

On burden and responsibility, there isn’t a contradiction to resolve. Quran 6:164 sets the principle: no one is punished for another’s sin. Quran 16:25 addresses a different issue: those who actively mislead others are accountable for the consequences they cause. That’s not transfer, it’s responsibility.

Denial of damning Evidence is not synonymous with satisfactory answers sir.
Isn't it true that EVERY fraudster when caught deny evidence and hope that such evidences be treated as circumstancial?

Why did your early Muslim scholars tell such kind of lies against your prophet if they were not true?

Why are you afraid of quoting the Asbab al-Nuzul of Quran 53:19-20

honesttalk21:
This isn’t a later patch. The Prophet pbuh spells it out in Sahih Muslim 2674: whoever leads others astray carries a burden equal to what results from that misguidance, without reducing what those people themselves carry. Everyone answers for their own actions, and the one who caused the harm answers for causing it. Quran 29:13 reinforces the same framework independently.

You have to treat Allah as being incoherent for Islam to make sense. What exactly did Allah say without your interpolations and re-interpretations?

honesttalk21:
The confusion only comes in when burden is read as if sins are being shifted from one person to another, which the text itself denies. Keep that distinction clear, and the supposed contradiction disappears.

Read my post as I never assumed sin was transferred: this wasn't what Allah said.

It is the BURDEN of SIN that is carried NOT the SIN

The burden of sin is the PUNISHMENT for SIN!

So Allah's error again
1. No one will bear the Punishment of the sin of another
2. People who mislead others will carry in adding SOME of the Punishment of the sin of the Misled person.
3. The Hadith was even very specific of Christians and Jews bearing the Punishment of the Muslims.

honesttalk21:
Saying something is wrong doesn’t establish that it is. If there’s a real issue, it has to be shown through the language and structure of the texts not just asserted.

Unfortunately, Allah's words meaning NOTHING to you as Muslims because you have to reinterpret it for Islam to make any sense

Is is UNTRUE that the misleader commits two sins:
1. His own original sin (say, fabricating against Allah).
2. The act of misleading others (which is just another thing he does).

Then the punishment for both is his own burden, because both sins are committed by him.
So there is no “extra” burden from another’s sin; there is only more sins of his own, and thus more punishment for himself.

BUT Allah says
Quran 16:25
those who fabricate lies against Allah will bear their own burdens fully on the Day of Resurrection, along with some of the burdens of those they mislead without knowledge. Evil indeed is what they bear

Did Allah say that the Misleader will carry SOME OF THE BURDENS OF THOSE THEY MISLED or NOT?

Islamic agents deleted my post after hours after posting. What are you guys afraid of?

honesttalk21:
Yes, the satanic verses and Asbab al-Nuzul point is now addressed satisfactorily and can be crossed off.

These verses do not clash.

Aren't you ashamed, from your claim that

3. “Satanic verses”
Not found in any sahih (reliable) sources, rejected by the scholarly tradition.
Building an argument on weak reports is like constructing doctrine from apocrypha. Methodologically inconsistent.

Suddenly, you said:
Yes, the satanic verses and Asbab al-Nuzul point is now addressed satisfactorily and can be crossed off.

So, you admit that the Satanic Verse exist but you answered it satisfactorily!?
SMH!

Why are you afraid of quoting the Asbab al-Nuzul Quran 53:19-20

honesttalk21:
6:164 sets a rule. No one carries another person’s sin. Each soul owns its deeds.

16:25 adds a detail. People who mislead others carry extra responsibility. Their own actions create that burden.

Sorry Allah was wrong! It seems you are not aware that
The misleader commits two sins:
1. His own original sin (say, fabricating against Allah).
2. The act of misleading others (which is just another thing he does).

Then the punishment for both is his own burden, because both sins are committed by him.
So there is no “extra” burden from another’s sin; there is only more sins of his own, and thus more punishment for himself.

Checkmate!
Tell me, do you think the misleader will not carry his burden of sin for misleading another person?

honesttalk21:
No transfer happens between souls. Only personal accountability expands through influence.

Sahih Muslim 2767 uses “fikak.” Classical Arabic usage points to release or relief. Not transfer of sins. Scholars like an-Nawawi read it within intercession and mercy, not substitution of guilt.

The key issue sits in method, not text.

One rule applied across all sources avoids tension. Each person answers for their deeds. Influence changes weight of responsibility, not ownership of sin.
The misleader commits two sins:
His own original sin (say, fabricating against Allah).
The act of misleading others (which is just another thing he does).
Then the punishment for both is his own burden, because both sins are committed by him.
So there is no “extra” burden from another’s sin; there is only more sins of his own, and thus more punishment for himself.

All these are your new additions! Was this the reason my post was deleted?

Yes, there is a logical tension with Qur’an 6:164 (and 35:18, 53:38), which say:
“No bearer of burdens will bear the burden of another.”

Because if “burden” = punishment for an offense, then:
Qur'an 6:164 says: Punishment‑A belongs only to Person‑A.
Qur'an 16:25 then says: Person‑B (misleader) also bears some of Punishment‑A (from Person‑A).


See what your Allah said if you think that there is no “extra” burden from another’s sin; there is only more sins of his own, and thus more punishment for himself.

Quran 16:25
those who fabricate lies against Allah will bear their own burdens fully on the Day of Resurrection, along with some of the burdens of those they mislead without knowledge. Evil indeed is what they bear


The MISLEADER takes ALONG SOME OF THE BURDENS OF THOSE THEY MISLED and not the burden of his own sins.

BUT as usual, you don't believe in Allah nor his words. You believe more in your Lying scholars.

Allah was explicit:
those who fabricate lies against Allah will bear their own burdens fully on the Day of Resurrection, along with some of the burdens of those they mislead without knowledge. Evil indeed is what they bear

Another logical contradiction!
No one bears the burden of the sins of another
BUT
some people will bear SOME of the burden of Sin of those they Misled!


Tell them to delete this again!
Islam is the only religion where the words of their God is disrespected by his worshippers


Sahih Muslim 2767 makes it worse.

honesttalk21:
You can’t use a report while dismissing the sources that preserve it. Saying you didn’t ask about al-Tabari is a deflection, not a rebuttal.

You are yet to show a single clearly authenticated truth that Islam denies. Until you do, your claim remains unsupported.

Too easy but you will deny it as usual

Allah says no one will bear the burden of sin of another

Quran 6:164
Say, "Is it other than Allah I should desire as a lord while He is the Lord of all things? And every soul earns not [blame] except against itself, and no bearer of burdens will bear the burden of another. Then to your Lord is your return, and He will inform you concerning that over which you used to differ."

Allah says some people will in addition to their own burden carry the burdens of thise they have deceived

Quran 16:25
those who fabricate lies against Allah will bear their own burdens fully on the Day of Resurrection, along with some of the burdens of those they mislead without knowledge. Evil indeed is what they bear


Your Hadith says categorically that the sins of Muslims will be put on the head of Jews and Christians

Sahih Muslim 2767d:
Abu Burda reported: The Prophet said, "There would come people amongst the Muslims on the Day of Resurrection with as heavy sins as a mountain, and Allah would forgive them and He would place in their stead the Jews and the Christians."


Quran contradicted Qur'an
Hadith Contradicted Qur'an

See your life outside. How you can hold on to this self delusion is a wonder!




Is it true that Allah says no one will bear the burden of sin of another

honesttalk21:
Asbab al-Nuzul is Hadith and Sirah. You cannot cite it "before" the sources it is literally built from. That is not a challenge — that is a circular trap you set for yourself.

Al-Tabari records weak, strong and disputed narrations alike. Appearing in his tafsir proves nothing about authenticity. Your own tradition's scholars rejected these specific narrations on that basis. That is not denial — that is Islamic scholarship doing exactly what it does.

Did I ask you about al-tabari!?
So, you have. no answer!?

honesttalk21:
And even if every disputed narration were true, they describe an interference that was *caught and rejected*. You are presenting a failed attempt as evidence of a successful corruption. That is not logic.

Where you can no longer defend your stance you revert to calling disagreement "denial of truth" which is not an argument. It is what someone says when their evidence has run out.

Rejecting what is TRUE doesn't make it untrue.


Why is Islam a religion of Denial of the Truth?

honesttalk21:
You keep dodging the core issue. Your individual arguments are weak, so you bundle them instead of proving any one of them.

You lean on claims already disputed like the “Satanic verses” and misread how the Qur’an addresses the People of the Book. None of this shows corruption or contradiction; it reflects confusion between revelation, its transmission, and later interpretations.

You speak like the satanic verses doesn't exist and its a fabrication however, I asked

Can you quote what the Asbab al-Nuzul of Quran 53:19-20 said before even before we look at your Hadiths and Sirah?

Are you bold enough for this?

honesttalk21:
Your method fails at the basic level. Stacking claims isn’t proof. Demonstrating textual corruption requires clear evidence; altered finalized texts, manuscript variation, or early documented disputes. You provide none. What you offer are scattered, often weak reports paired with interpretive leaps. That’s not evidence; it’s misreading. Bottom line: the claim that Islam distorts or denies truth isn’t supported it rests on misrepresentation and inconsistent standards.

Showing you evidences from your sources is proof and necessary evidence.
This I did very well with no response other than denial of events.

I ask again:
Why is Islam a religion of Denial of the Truth?

honesttalk21:
Now it’s confirmed. You are acting like you got lost in the discussion?
Two separate submissions were already answered, the first with fourteen direct numbered responses, the second with twelve. Merging them into one new post doesn’t create new questions. It just reorganizes what was already addressed.

You didn’t engage; true to type, you multiplied claims. Jumping from one point to another doesn’t strengthen a case. It avoids scrutiny.

Flooding an exchange with unconnected angles has a name;gish gallop, and it works by creating the impression of weight rather than the substance of it.

The audience sees it even when the one doing it doesn’t.

When ten arguments are thrown at once, none of them get properly examined. That is the point of the technique. But it also reveals something: a position that needs that many diversions to survive is a position that cannot stand still long enough to be tested.

Fourteen points were answered directly and numbered. Then twelve more. The response was to merge both into one new submission as if the answers hadn’t been given. That is not pursuit of truth. That is the hope that reorganizing questions substitutes for engaging answers. Patheticc.
Every point has been addressed. Twice in some cases. The answers are sitting above this post in the thread. If any single one of those points holds, isolate it. Stand on it. Defend it without borrowing from the others. You can do this for each single one if you like, but not a flood unless you feign being too busy to or actually don’t want to face the truth in each.

Right now, the volume is doing what the substance cannot. Pick one. Let’s examine it properly.

All I did was to poke deep HOLES in your narratives parroted as answers to my questions. Those holes remain unplugged with your feeble responses feigning to be answers to the questions.

You avoid answering questions that betray the feebleness of your claims.

If the Qur'an is truely eternal, then Abrogation is a LIE!

The Asbab al-Nuzul of Quran 53:19-20 is the first evidence that the Satanic verse was real even before we look at your sirah

Allah enjoined the people of the book to judge from their corrupt scripture is a clear prove that the author of the Qur'an is aka Mohammed as he doesn't know.

You think speaking your defense is the same as speaking the truth and answer!? You are mistaken!
This is why the one who passes an exam is not the one who wrote the most but the one who wrote according to the truth of the marking scheme.

Unfortunately, here you failed terribly!




Why is Islam a religion of Denial of Truth?

Gabrielshow24:
Are you minding aitalk?
All what he wrote were completely generated!

Even his AI agent is unaware that each book is responsible for substantiating its own claims! The Quran can't substantiate such claims against an Eternal tablet😂—Abrogation clearly shows it was man-made!

The bible doesn't have such claims so his Ai's appeal is totally irrelevant 🥱. The irony of trying to play down "abrogation" and incomplete surahs😂.

I still wonder why the people cried out to Uthman if "differences" were mainly 'dialectal'😂👀. There were big theological differences which Uthman sought to 'trim'. Even at this, he still failed🤨. We have over 20+ variants of the Quran👀, Eternal immutable🤕 speech of Allah😔, with over thousands of differences.

His agent even entangled itself by mentioning "apocrypha". It failed to realize that the religion was built on apocryphal books😂. It bears remarkable similarities with the Talmuds, which leads to the Talmudic dilemma👀. It also has several stories plagiarized from the protoevangelium of James among others😂.

Imagine an infinite, all powerful👀, supposedly omnipresent and omnipotent God calling Alexander, the great, a Muslim😂. Someone who was a certified pagan🤦🏾‍♂️! Should I apply principles of equivocation👀?...fallacies Muslims employ everyday... Dare I posit that being "Muslim", based on this, means "being pagan"😂.

Job well done, brother. He can only hide behind generative ai😂 which just spews out old rehashed scripts🥱.

I am well aware that he may be mostly using AI to generate answers unfortunately, the AI he uses are dumb probably because he deletes any answer he feels incriminating and posts only the incoherent and unrelated answers. Only God know how much the Muslim world have paid the owners of AI companies to help them in getting out their preferred narrative.

The major weakness of him and his AI is that they routinely discard the words of Allah AND Mohammed with narratives from SELECTIVE Islamic scholars. Unfortunately, the proper way should be that the Islamic scholars should actually go in line with what Allah and Mohammed had spoken in the Qur'an and Hadiths and not contradict or modify it.

Islam indeed is a Religion of DENIAL of Truth for preferred selected Narrative of men!

honesttalk21:
Direct answers. Final submission. 📢

1. Q2:79 – fabrication vs transmission
This verse condemns knowingly inventing scripture and attributing it to God. It doesn’t describe a publicly recited, widely memorized text.
Your own Bible makes the same distinction: Jesus criticizes those who had scripture but distorted its meaning (Mark 7:8–9).
Different category so your argument doesn’t land.

You wrote a book with your hands called the Qur'an and claimed it is from Allah!

honesttalk21:
2. “No evidence of Jibril”
You’re applying a standard your own tradition doesn’t meet.
At Sinai, people explicitly avoid direct encounter and rely on Moses (Exodus 20:19). Revelation is not “video evidence”; it’s evaluated through consistency,transmission, and impact.
If you reject that standard, you undercut your own foundation.

It seems tou are not aware that they were TERRIFIED of God's presence that they asked Moses to represent them. Unfortunately, you also didn't know that Moses appointed 70 Elders of Israel who witnessed the God of Israel.

As per Jibril, who was the evidence?
Was it Waraqa!?

honesttalk21:
3. “Satanic verses”
Not found in any sahih (reliable) sources, rejected by the scholarly tradition.
Building an argument on weak reports is like constructing doctrine from apocrypha. Methodologically inconsistent.

Do you want us to start from the Asbab al-Nuzul of (Quran 53:19-20 to checkout the weakness of my claim and proceed from there.
SMH!

Why is Islam a religion of Denial of Truth?

honesttalk21:
4. Abrogation (Q2:106)
Yes some rulings are replaced. That’s not a flaw; it’s a feature of a law-giving system over time.
Your Bible does the same (e.g., Acts 10:15; shifts in legal codes).
So either both are invalid or neither is.

And verses were deleted, removed and forgotten from the Bible?

Are the words of your Quran eternal as claimed by you or not?
Are the so-called abrogated verses in the Qur'an of Allah in paradise or not?
Only Liars will not be able to answer this question truthfully!

honesttalk21:
5. “Jew = only ethnicity”
Your own text expands the term: “a Jew is one inwardly” (Romans 2:28–29).
So it’s not strictly ethnic in your own framework. You can’t restrict what your scripture broadens.

The only religion Allah knows is ETHNICITY of a group called Jews!

How cool os it to justify Ignorance of a supposed knowledgeable VIP!

honesttalk21:
6. "Where is Muhammad named?”
Prophecy doesn’t require explicit naming.
Isaiah 53 is understood as referring to Jesus without naming him.
Description-based recognition is already part of your interpretive method.

Except you are admitting that Allah is untrustworthy. If Allah says something, can we find it as said?

Why is it that Mohammed's name or description is not found anywhere in the Torah or Injeel?

honesttalk21:
7. Mary (Q21:91)
“Breathing” is metaphorical language for divine command same pattern as Adam (Genesis 2:7).
No biology implied just creative will. Taking it literally creates problems you don’t apply elsewhere.

Breathing into her vulva!?
I didn't ask you what it meant as Allah did not explain in DETAIL as he claimed: so, its not in your position to manufacture excuses for Allah.


The question was:
So, do you agree that the one who blew into Mary's vulva is the one who made Mary pregnant?

honesttalk21:
8. Incarnation and contradiction
Numbers 23:19: God is not a man.
If God is infinite, timeless, and unbounded how does He become limited, located, and dependent without contradiction?
This isn’t dismissed it’s an unresolved tension.

Is God a nan that he should tell Lies!?
No!
My God can be somewhere and everywhere at the same time without

Since Allah cannot become Incarnated without ceasing to be unlimited, then Allah cannot be Almighty!

The God of Moses, Abraham, Jews and Christians can Incarnate without ceasing to be Unlimited and evidences abound in the Torah and Injeel

Allah cannot because he is LIMITED!

honesttalk21:
9. Seen / carried proves limitation
Anything seen, carried, or physically constrained is by definition limited in space and time.
Saying “incarnation solves it” isn’t an explanation; it’s a label. The mechanism still needs to be made coherent.

Good!
You have just confirmed that Allah is LIMITED!
1. Eight limited angels carry the throne of Allah, meaning that Allah is limited
2. You Muslims will use your eyes to see Allah on the day of judgment, meaning that Allah is LIMITED!

See your life on the outside!

honesttalk21:
10. Q19:71–72 (Hell passage)
Quoting half the verse misleads.
All pass by; only the wrongdoers remain.
Same structure as judgment passages in the Bible (e.g., Matthew 25:46): exposure not identical outcome.

I agree with you only the evildoers remain after you have spent your time of eternity in hell.

What a smart trick to get you into the fire thinking that AFTER a long while, you will be released WITH the Christians removed from Paradise and used in exchange for you.
LOL!

You will wait taya!!

honesttalk21:
11. Uthman and preservation
Standardization of recitation form, not invention of content.
No competing Qur’anic corpus survived as a rival text.
Compare that with multiple manuscript traditions in biblical history this is actually a point for preservation.

Allah validated our scriptures with its corruption because he was ignorant of its content.

No wonder he commands us to judge by a book that says God is our Father and that Jesus died on the Cross andd Resurrected on the third day.

This is gross irreparable IGNORANCE!

honesttalk21:
12. “Missing verses”
What you’re referring to are reports about abrogated recitations, not lost scripture.
Textual history exists in every tradition (see Jeremiah 8:.
History of transmission isn't corruption.

Were the abrogated verses part of the eternal Qur'an of Allah on the tablet in paradise?

honesttalk21:
Repeating the same objections doesn’t strengthen them. Each point either applies equally to your own scripture or relies on a double standard.

If you want to go deeper, we can isolate just one issue like incarnation or revelation and analyze it step by step using consistent logic.

Avoiding sensible answers for my questions weaken your case and position!

honesttalk21:
Are you acting like you got lost in discussion?🤔.

Here are direct answers only, matching your questions:

1. Does Quran 2:79 apply to Qur’an writers?
No. It condemns false authorship attributed to Allah. The companions were transmitters of publicly known revelation, not independent authors.

And it applies directly to those who wrote a book called the Qur'an and said that it is from Allah!

honesttalk21:
2. Did they claim it was from Allah via Jibril?
Yes. As transmission of revelation, not as personal composition.

What was the claim of Mohammed with respect to the Qur'an?
Was there ANY evidence by Anyone that they witnessed Jibril giving the Qur'an to Mohammed?

Even Mohammed wasn't sure of who Jibril is!
Didn't Iblis come to Mohammed in the shape of Jibril to dictate the so-called satanic verses to Mohammed?

How come Mohammed did not know that this wasn't Jibril but Iblis?

Mohammed said the Quran is from Allah with ZERO evidence and Muslims wrote it down with their hands and believed it.

honesttalk21:
3. Do scholars say verses are lost?
No. What is cited is abrogation of recitation (naskh al-tilawa) during the Prophet’s lifetime not post-compilation loss.

Were the abrogated verses revealed as Quran or not?
Isn't the Qur'an eternal according to Islam?

honesttalk21:
4. Is "Jew” only an ethnic term?
No. Both Qur’an and Bible use it as religious and communal identity.

The Bible does not use "Jew" exclusively as a term for religion; it primarily denotes ethnic or tribal identity from Judah.
The Bible does not explicitly name the religion of the Jews with a single term like "Judaism," as that word emerged later in history.

honesttalk21:
5. Where is the Prophet in Torah/Injeel and how verified?
By description, not necessarily name. Verified through prophetic characteristics,
continuity of message (monotheism), scriptural indicators

WHERE ARE they in the Torah and Injeel is the Question!

honesttalk21:
6. Who made Mary pregnant?
Allah. (Quran 21:91)

Ashamed to quote the verse!?

[b]Quran 21:91
"And the one who guarded her vulva, so We breathed into it from Our Spirit, and We made her and her son a sign for the worlds."[/b]

So, do you agree that the one who blew into Mary's vulva is the one who made Mary pregnant?

honesttalk21:
7. Can Allah do what Jibril does (incarnation)?
Yes to ability.
No to incarnation as becoming creation that is a logical contradiction, not a limitation.

See how you fell into your logical quagmire!
LOL! Didn't you say that this kind of answers are contradictory?

Going with your response,
Since Allah cannot become Incarnated without ceasing to be unlimited, then Allah cannot be Almighty!

The God of Moses, Abraham, Jews and Christians can Incarnate without ceasing to be Unlimited and evidences abound in the Torah and Injeel.

honesttalk21:
8. Can Allah be finite and infinite at the same time?
No. Contradiction, not power.

Alright, lets test it out.
a. Do you agree that ANY Being that can be carried is LIMITED unless he is incarnated?
b. Do you agree that ANY Being that can be seen is LIMITED unless he is Incarnated?

honesttalk21:
9. Can Allah be somewhere and everywhere simultaneously?
No (in created spatial terms). Allah is not bound by space the premise is invalid.

Thanks for your answer of NO because:
Only an Omnipresent Being can be somewhere and everywhere at the same time.

honesttalk21:
10. Do Quran 19:71–Quran 19:72 say all Muslims enter Hell temporarily?
No. They describe approach/passing, not all believers remaining in Hell.

Why don't you quote exactly what Allah said from the Arabic and not spoon-feed him with what you'd like him to say!

There is not one of you but must get into the fire of hell

honesttalk21:
11. Why did Uthman burn manuscripts?
To standardize written dialect/orthography, not remove content.

Are you concurring that the Qur'an was not perfectly memorised?
How may dialects did Mohammed dictate?

honesttalk21:
12. Where is the stoning verse?
Abrogated in recitation, ruling preserved in Sunnah/tradition.

Was the verse of stoning in the eternal Qur'an on the tablet in Heaven?

honesttalk21:
13. Breastfeeding verse?
Same. Abrogation of recitation, not lost later.

Was the verse of breastfeeding in the eternal Qur'an on the tablet in Heaven?

honesttalk21:
14. Abu Musa “forgotten surah”?
Refers to abrogated/withdrawn recitation, not corruption.

Was this forgotten surah in the eternal Qur'an on the Tablet in Heaven?

honesttalk21:
You are repeating claims already answered and treating repetition as proof.🔥

It isn’t. 🎯

When you wouldn't reply a direct question, the question get repeated or rephrased: not even as an evidence but to bring you back from changing the subject!

Ohyoudidnt:
Seems you get a lot of my meaning but a few things missed or misunderstood.

You will be astonished to know we actually have capacity if you excuse the scarcity of advanced level equipment and inability of the indigenous worker to meet the bureaucratic requirements to handle these projects.

I Understand except that Capacity is measured in terms of
1. Intellectual Capacity which we have
2. Specialty Capacity (Experts in the field) we may have
3. Infrastructural capacity which we mostly lack

Ohyoudidnt:
Regardless of the presence or absence of the promises however stated and misunderstood there's no scape goating here. This guy has eyes on gubernatorial power.

I think I reacted like this based on the way you phrased it. The minster had not performed and I think we agree on that. I feel that the President of Nigeria is too powerful for him to fail in this area EXCEPT IF he isn't too Interested

Ohyoudidnt:
The laws governing power in Nigeria are changing but we need better commercial law implementation and efficiency for us to hit reasonable electric power satisfaction. No private individual wants to waste money outside the BIG boys that are governing outside government that currently own all these big power generating stations. 🥴

I perfectly agree with you here

Ohyoudidnt:
Another reflection where a supposedly simple fix is too far cry for Nigeria challenges or opportunities. Even the insufficient gas pipeline isn't adequately managed for faults, vandalism or expected wear. Repeated cycles of no easy fixes to multidimensional problems encompassing corruption, ethnic/religious conflicts, and infrastructure failure

Then the one promising is likely to resign by month end unless...

Part of the problem of Nigeria is that we NEGLECT our human resources for availability of cash to spend.

Humans repair pipelines, but this is difficult for us because we have not developed our human capacity to do this. We will rather throw money at expatriates to solve the problem. Unfortunately, we are no longer as rich as we used to be, thus this problem becomes major.

The minister of power is just a scapegoat if he is made to resign at the end of the month for the botched promise about power supply. Unfortunately the main person behind the promise is Mr President: will he resign?

The President of Nigeria within Nigeria is next only in power to God. ANYTHING he wants will be done and achieved. The President has many priorities and he has achieved his topmost: unfortunately, the power situation seems not to be part of them. If it is a priority to Mr President, trust me, the problem is long solved!

honesttalk21:
These questions have already been answered. What follows isn't new it's where your claims keep collapsing once the distinctions you keep removing are put back in place 📢

On Qur'an 2:79, the tafsir is explicit: a group of Jews and later Christians altered, wrote, and falsely attributed to God. Not all, not original revelation a subset corrupting what existed. Your argument only works by erasing that distinction 📖

Your comparison to Qur'anic scribes fails immediately: they didn't author content they transmitted under direct prophetic oversight, memorized publicly, and cross-checked collectively. That's preservation, not fabrication 🔍🤔

Then answer my question according to your Qur'an.
I insist that Quran 2:79 refers to you
1. Is it true that Your Quran was written by the hands of Zayd ibn Thabit , Ubayy ibn Ka'b, Ali ibn Abi Talib , Uthman ibn Affan etc
2. Is it TRUE that they claimed that what they wrote was from Allah through an Angel Jibril Mohammed?

Is it true that some islamic scholars say that many verses of your Qur'an are lost?

honesttalk21:
On Jew strictly equals just ethnicity, both scripture and usage show it's religious, communal, and historical. That's standard language, not an error.

It is a WRONG and ERRONEOUS usage to Call Ethnic Description Religious IDENTITY.

A Jew is a person from the Tribe of Judah in Israel not a Religious Identity BUT it is disgraceful that the one who claims to be all-knowing doesn't know.

An error is an error however it is used.
Can we replace the word Muslim with Arab and still claim correctness?

honesttalk21:
On where is Muhammad pbuh named, you're imposing a condition the text never sets. Recognition in tafsir is by description and traits, not forced name-matching. You added the rule, then judged the text by it ✋

Let me go with you:
Can you explicitly tell us what the text is then saying with respect to your prophet found in both the Torah and the Injeel AND how to verify the truth of the statement?

The ball is in your court!

honesttalk21:
Jibril appearing as a man doesn't make God a man. Created form is not the Creator's nature. You're collapsing categories again ⚖️

That wasn't what I said: you are avoiding the question
The question was
Does Allah have the power of incarnation like Jibril?

It is a YES or NO question sir!

honesttalk21:
On incarnation this hasn't moved. It requires the infinite becoming finite and dependent simultaneously. That's not power it's contradiction, and calling it possible doesn't resolve it 💡🤔🫥🥵🔥

Okay , Let me rephrase

As a human being, I am not infinitely powerful and I can not do seemingly contradictory things like making something out of nothing. Even Angels, Jinn and Demons are not infinite in oower and cannot know things and events before they happen nor raise up the decayed and rotten corpse of many years.

Now, the Question is:
Can Allah be finite and infinite at the same time without ceasing to be Almighty?

Again as an example
Can Allah be SOMEWHERE and EVERYWHERE at the same time without ceasing to be almighty?

This is another YES or NO question before you go at tangent again!

honesttalk21:
On Mary tafsir is clear: Allah is the cause, the angel is the means. No confusion there. You're asking what's already defined 📚

You always manage to avoid answering a question by answering a DIFFERENT question while assuming that your answer has perfectly answered the original question

Check the question and your answer again!
I said(according to Allah in the Qur'an)
Who is the One who made Mary pregnant!?
Is it a Joseph or Mohamed?

I didn't ask for the cause or means but who made Mary pregnant.

honesttalk21:
On Q19:71-72, this has been answered repeatedly: yes, all reach it; only wrongdoers remain. They are left in it, others are saved. The everyone burns claim only appears when you split the verse and ignore its conclusion. 🤔🔥

I have said this several times about Qur'an 71-72
Is there an ERROR in my claim below: YES or NO?
Is it UNTRUE that Qur'an 19:71-72 says that
You MUSLIMS along with Evildoers will be in the FIRE of HELL for an UNSPECIFIED duration of Time AFTER WHICH you will be removed



Why are you afraid to say EXPLICITLY that you concur that you will be in the FIRE of HELL for an UNSPECIFIED duration of Time AFTER WHICH you will be removed

honesttalk21:
On Uthman, what was standardized was writing form, not revelation. No companion dispute over content exists. If there were real differences, history would record conflict it doesn't 📖

See how you answered a different question
Why did Uthman BURN variant manuscripts of the Qur'an when Muslims who had perfectly memorized the Qur'an wrote it down?


If no companions disputed over the content of the Qur'an, then tell us
1. where is the verse of Rajam: they used to RECITE it as Qur'an isn't it?
2. where is the verse of breastfeeding adult man 10 times or the 5 times after initial abrogation?
3. that in In Sahih Muslim and other early books, Abu Musa al‑Ash‘ari reports something like:
“We used to recite a surah which we likened in length and severity to Surah at‑Tawbah (al‑Barā’ah), but I have forgotten it except this much: ‘ O you who believe, why do you say that which you do not do…’”

honesttalk21:
At this point the pattern is obvious: you keep merging what the text separates revelation vs handling, approach vs remaining, cause vs means and then calling the result a contradiction.

But the contradiction was never in the text. It was introduced by removing the distinctions the text itself maintains.

Put them back, and there is nothing left to answer 🎯

So, over to you to continue to deny occurrence with evidences in your islamic sources!

honesttalk21:
These questions have already been answered directly.

What follows is simply the clarification of where your reading continues to collapse under its own assumptions.

You ask where the Qur'an distinguishes between possession and preservation yet the distinction is already explicit in the text itself. Quran 2:79 condemns those who write scripture with their own hands and attribute it to God, while Quran 5:13 states that words were distorted from their places. At the same time, the Qur'an still refers to revelation being with them. That is not confusion it is a clear separation: possession of revelation on one hand, and corruption or mishandling on the other. The distinction you claim is missing is already embedded in the text. It is your reading that collapses it 📌

Quran 2:79 refers to you
1. Is it true that Your Quran was written by the hands of Zayd ibn Thabit , Ubayy ibn Ka'b, Ali ibn Abi Talib , Uthman ibn Affan etc
2. Is it TRUE that they claimed that what they wrote was from Allah through an Angel Jibril Mohammed?

honesttalk21:
The accusation that understanding requires reinterpretation misrepresents what is actually happening. Context, grammar and occasion of revelation are not distortions they are the basic tools of reading any text. The same principle exists within your own scripture. Deuteronomy 21:18-21 commands that a stubborn and rebellious son be brought to the elders of the city and stoned to death by all the men of his town. That is canonical. You do not practice it. That is not rejection of your text it is recognition that interpretation governs application. The same principle applies here 📖

As a Christian, I am NOT under the mosaic law. The law of Moses is the basis for my faith and I follow Jesus: this is why I am a Christian not a "Jew"!

How come Allah doesn't know that being a Jew is NOT a Religion but an ethnic identity?

Did not the Quran say that:

Quran 3:50
‘(I have come to you), to attest the Law which was before me. And to make lawful to you part of what was (Before) forbidden to you; I have come to you with a Sign from your Lord. So fear Allah, and obey me.

honesttalk21:
When you appeal to Quran 7:157 you impose a condition the verse never states. It says the Prophet is found written with them, which speaks to recognition, not to the presence of a specific Arabic name. Turning that into a requirement for explicit naming is an external standard introduced into the text then used to judge it. The absence of that imposed condition is not a failure of the verse 🎯

And I asked where your Prophet'swas name or described in our scripture!

honesttalk21:
The argument about Jibril reflects the same category confusion. A created being appearing in human form does not define the nature of the Creator. Form belongs to the messenger, not the sender. A doctor's uniform doesn't make the hospital board administrator a doctor. A general's insignia on a soldier doesn't make the commander a foot soldier. The sender is never reduced by the form of what is sent that is not limitation, that is the distinction between authority and its expression. The act of sending is not limitation. It is the exercise of will ✋

Its a simple question:
Does Allah have the power of incarnation like Jibril?

honesttalk21:
Your reading of Quran 1:1-7 isolates condemnation while ignoring qualification elsewhere. The same Qur'an explicitly affirms in Quran 2:62 and Quran 5:69 that righteous Jews and Christians who believe in God and the Last Day and act righteously are eligible for salvation. The categories in the opening chapter describe spiritual states, not blanket condemnation of entire identities. Reading one without the other produces the distortion you are attributing to the text ⚖️

You will explain taya like a witch!
Five times a day you curse and revile us as only Iblis can.
Continue!

honesttalk21:
Your statement about Jesus not being from Adam is the clearest internal break in your position. Ezekiel 18:20 establishes that each soul bears its own burden. If Jesus is not from Adam not fully within the human lineage then he does not stand within the same moral category as those he is said to represent. A non-human cannot function as a human substitute under the very framework you are invoking. That removes the foundation of the substitution claim rather than supporting it 💡

Who is the One who made Mary pregnant!?
Is it a Joseph or Mohamed?

honesttalk21:
On pre-existence the appeal to Quran 7:172 does not isolate Jesus it universalizes the concept. The verse describes a pre-temporal covenant involving all human souls. Classical tafsir including that of Ibn Kathir explains this as a collective testimony of humanity before earthly existence. That makes pre-existence a shared human condition, not a unique marker of divinity. Treating it as proof of divinity would extend that status to all humans which defeats the argument entirely 🤔

How you are comfortable with misinformation is amazing!
Quote the Tafsir directly

honesttalk21:
Your reading of Quran 19:71 only appears problematic because it is being isolated from its completion. The moment it is read together with Quran 19:72, the structure resolves itself.

The passage is not describing identical outcomes for all people it is describing a sequence followed by a distinction. First, there is a universal approach (or passing over), then an immediate separation of outcomes: the righteous are delivered, and the wrongdoers remain. The decree encompasses both stages, not just the first half.

In other words, 19:71 without 19:72 creates a false impression of uniform entry, but 19:72 clarifies that the experience is not the same for all. The righteous are not described as dwelling or being punished they are explicitly saved from it, while the wrongdoers are left within it.

So the problem only exists if the passage is artificially split and the qualifying verse is ignored. Read as a continuous statement, the text is internally coherent: universal encounter, immediate distinction, divergent outcomes. 👀

Tell me what is wrong in

Qur'an 19:71 says that
+ALL Muslims will enter the Hell Fire
+It is a DECREE of Allah to first put you in Hell
Qur'an 19:72 says that
+Allah will eventually remove you pius Muslims after an undetermined TIME period
+Allah will leave the evildoers in Hell fire

honesttalk21:
The broader claim of corruption collapses under historical reality. If the Qur'an had undergone the kind of alteration being suggested we would expect divergent manuscript traditions, competing structures, varying chapter counts and regional textual conflicts. Instead what exists is a uniform text of 114 surahs in consistent order across vast geography and centuries. That is not the pattern of corruption. That is the pattern of preservation 📚

So, why did Uthman burn divergent Qur'ans id they don't exist?

honesttalk21:
At this point the pattern in your argument is no longer difficult to see. It consistently merges categories the text keeps distinct: possession with preservation, recognition with explicit naming, origin with essence and power with contradiction. Once those distinctions are restored the conclusions being asserted no longer follow.

The issue is not that the questions remain unanswered. It is that the answers depend on distinctions your argument continues to erase. And without those distinctions the argument cannot sustain itself 🎯

That you convinced yourself about is a guaranteed path to Hell Fire!
Think and be free

honesttalk21:
These arguments sound forceful until they’re examined.

“Scripture being with them” only works if possession equals preservation but the Qur’an itself breaks that link. It affirms access while exposing distortion (2:79, 5:13). That’s not tension it’s a distinction. You’re the one collapsing it.

Its amazing that Muslims treat Allah as if he is a toddler with incoherent speech. Muslims make it seem like Allah cannot be understood unless the Mothers of Allah tells us what he means.

Can you show anywhere in your Quran where Allah distinguishes between possession and preservation?

honesttalk21:
The same flaw runs through the Gospel argument. You’re treating every layer of the current text as revelation an assumption your own scholarship doesn’t support. The Qur’an calls back to what was revealed, not everything later attached to it. That’s internally consistent. Your premise isn’t.

How can I help you when you clearly disrespect the clear words of Allah in the Qur'an?
Do you concur that Allahs words must be reinterpreted to make sense?

honesttalk21:
On Muhammad not being named you’ve turned recognition into a demand for a specific label. The verse never does that. You imposed the condition, then blamed the text for not meeting it.

Lets see what your Allah said wrt to this

Quran 7:157
"the Messenger, the Prophet who can neither read nor write (Ummi), whom they find written with them in the Torah and the Gospel."

So, where in the Torah AND Injeel is this Unlettered Prophet WRITTEN in our corrupted scripture?

honesttalk21:
Your dilemma only exists because you keep merging revelation with transmission. The Qur’an separates them clearly holding people to truth within what they have while exposing where it was altered. Your argument survives only by erasing that line.

As for lies name one and prove it. Repetition isn’t evidence. Without a defined contradiction, it’s just noise.

Your dilemma exists because Allah aka Mohammed appeared to have seriously goofed in the Qur'an.
Only men willing to tell lies can bail out the Harbinger of errors!

honesttalk21:
On God entering creation this is where the logic collapses. You’ve redefined power as the ability to contradict. Infinite and finite at once isn’t power it’s incoherence. Even your own text says God is not a man (Numbers 23:19). That doesn’t switch on and off when convenient.

Infinite and Finite is ONLY a power wielded by the Almighty God. It is a flaw in the Taoheed that your God is Finite as he is a subset of the Universe.
Indeed the statement God is not a man that he should lie is forever valid.
BUT Is Jibril man?
You will insist no: but how come he appeared to Mary as a perfect man?
You are dumbfounded!

Jibril is not a man but he came as a man is an islamic contradiction according to your insinuation. SMH

honesttalk21:
On Jibril the logic reverses on you. The one who sends is above the one sent. Claiming the sender lacks the capacity of the messenger isn’t theology it’s confusion.

Notice how you have to change the narrative from Ability to an answer for Hierarchy in other to escape your noose!

the question remains:
Does Allah have the power to do what Jibril can do without ceasing to be almighty!?

honesttalk21:
On hate the same Qur’an you cite includes righteous Jews and Christians in salvation (2:62, 5:69). A text that does that cannot be reduced to blanket hostility. That conclusion only survives selective reading.

So, according to Islamic doctrine, who are those Allah has cursed and who are those mislead according to Qur'an 1:1-7

honesttalk21:
On Jesus this is your breaking point. You say he isn’t human, yet assign him a human role. That removes the basis of substitution entirely. And your own scripture (Ezekiel 18:20) rejects transferred guilt outright. You’ve stepped outside your own foundation to keep the claim alive.

Ezekiel is correct!
Every human has his sin, thus no human can take up the sins of another. This doesn't apply to Jesus because He isn't a son of Adam!

honesttalk21:
On pre-existence this is where it fully unravels. Qur’an 7:172 makes pre-existence universal to all souls. That doesn’t prove divinity it cancels it as a unique claim. By your logic, everyone becomes divine.

Please shamelessly provide the Tafsir for Qur'an 7:172 and show where it says pre-existence is universal?

honesttalk21:
On Qur’an 19:71 the argument only works if you cut the passage in half. Read 71 with 72: all approach, not all remain. The problem is created, not discovered.

At this point, the pattern is obvious:

possession is being treated as preservation

confirmation as certification

later theology read back into earlier texts

omnipotence redefined as contradiction

Remove those assumptions, and nothing is left standing.

And when an argument falls back on calling everything else darkness, it isn’t exposing error.

It’s exposing that it has nothing left. 🎯

Qur'an 19:71 says that
+ALL Muslims will enter the Hell Fire
+It is a DECREE of Allah to first put you in Hell
Qur'an 19:72 says that
+Allah will eventually remove you pius Muslims after an undetermined TIME period
+Allah will leave the evildoers in Hell fire



Is this not straightforward enough?

honesttalk21:
Your argument sounds convincing right up until it's tested.

The Qur'anic verses you cited don't prove what you think they do. Saying what is with them or what was revealed affirms origin, not flawless preservation of every manuscript. That conclusion is being read into the text, not drawn from it.
More decisively, Qur'an 2:101 explicitly describes people mishandling and discarding scripture which directly undercuts any claim that the text itself guarantees perfect transmission.

Only in Islamic compression that a scripture with us mean that the scripture is NOT with us!

Tell me why Allah asked the People of the Gospel judge by what Allah has revealed therein when the book says Jesus was crucified?

Tell me why Allah commands the Jews to judge from their corrupt book rather than come to Mohammed?

Why did Allah say that Mohammed's name is FOUND by us written in what we have of the Torah and the Gospel is books that do not contain his name?

But, Islamic Language is not dependable as it requires reinterpretation to make any sense.

honesttalk21:
The same applies to 5:43 and 5:47. These verses aren't certifying textual purity they're exposing inconsistency. People are told to judge by revelation while being criticized for not doing so. That's a moral critique, not a preservation claim. Confirmation refers to alignment in message, not validation of every later copy. Your argument depends on collapsing those categories and that collapse doesn't hold.

Again, the Logic and Syntax of Islamic language says
When a people are criticised, it means their scripture is criticised!
People=Scripture!

Yet islamic wisdom says that a flawed people are enjoined by Allah to follow and obey a flawed scripture!

This is what is called the ISLAMIC DILEMMA!

honesttalk21:
As for the repeated claim of lies, name one and prove it. Repetition isn't evidence. The Islamic position clearly distinguishes between original revelation and later transmission. That's not deception it's a defined framework. Refute it or drop the charge.

Of course, the Islamic position is superior to the position of Allah except you can show us without Allah contradicting himself where Allah says transmission is different from Revelation.

This is self deception at best! Sorry!

honesttalk21:
On whether Allah can enter creation the question assumes contradiction is power. It isn't. Being created and uncreated at the same time isn't omnipotence it's incoherence. Even in your own theology, God cannot lie, not from weakness but because it contradicts His nature.
On Jesus as Word and Spirit, Qur'an 3:59 is explicit: Jesus is like Adam, brought into existence by divine command. Word describes how he was created, not what he is. From Him indicates origin, not shared essence otherwise everything created by God becomes divine, which collapses monotheism entirely.

The God of Abraham, Jacob, Isaiah and Moses could enter His creation how come Allah doesn't have that power?

Does Allah have the power to do what Jibril can do without ceasing to be almighty!?

honesttalk21:
Jibril doesn't introduce a limitation either. Sending a messenger reflects order, not inability. The sender is not diminished by what He sends. He is distinguished from it.

Is your claim is that Jibril can you what Allah does NOT have the power to do!?

At least Angels are sinless according to Islam! LOL!!

honesttalk21:
The claim that Allah hates Jews and Christians fails against the text itself. Qur'an 2:62 and 5:69 explicitly include the righteous among them under clear conditions. That's not hatred it's moral accountability. Even your own citation of Matthew 7:21 affirms that principle.

Do you want the islamic interpretation of Qur'an 1:1-7. The Jews cursed by Allah and the Christians mislead!? Five times a day, you repeat this hate speech in prayers: why!??
Only Iblis hate the Jews and Christians this much!

honesttalk21:
And here's the central contradiction in your argument: you claim Jesus is not human, yet also a substitute for humans. If he isn't human, he cannot bear human responsibility. What you're left with is a divine being absorbing punishment for others which raises deeper problems about justice, not fewer.

If Jesus existed even in Islam before He was born, how could He be human?
But at the same time, If Jesus was born by a Human and ate food, slept and walked amongst us, isn't He human!?

Thus as not a non-Human Spirit from Allah, Jesus could be sinless and He could as Human legally take upon himself the sins of men?

honesttalk21:
Suggesting Allah is Iblis isn't theology it's another point where the argument collapses. As for the Hamas comparison, every question raised here received a direct answer. Announcing that questions went unanswered while the answers sit in the post directly above isn't debate. It's the same jubilation you described, celebrating after a different question while the original stands answered. That's not a win. That's avoidance with confidence. Everyone reading can see the difference.

Strip away the accusations and assumptions, and your case reduces to this: equating possession with perfect preservation, treating confirmation as certification, reading later theology into terms like Word, redefining omnipotence as the ability to contradict.

Remove those, and the argument doesn't weaken. It disappears. 🎯

Your problem is that even when Islam becomes Illogical, False and an Error, your choice is to follow it. Then your destination is according to Allah in Quran 19:71 in Hell for an undetermined TIME period.

Many People hate Light but love Darkness
Many People hate Truth but love Falsehood