₦airaland Forum

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Do much better!

honesttalk21:
This objection misses the mark in terms of methodology rather than wording. The Qur'an does not claim to represent the views of the majority of Christians, nor does it need to reference specific sects to make a valid critique. It focuses on theological assertions, their implications, and practices, rather than on how different denominations describe themselves. Requiring majority opinions or formal sect names is a contemporary apologetic standard that has been wrongly applied to a 7th-century Semitic text that is polemical in nature.

Your comparison to Shia or Akhbari beliefs is flawed as the Qur'an does not treat fringe theology as mainstream orthodoxy; it challenges claims about God, regardless of how widely accepted or formally recognized they may be. In prophetic discourse, truth and falsehood are not determined by majority consensus.

Regarding your numbered questions, points 1 to 4 are not relevant. The Qur'an's objection is not that Christians verbally deny the oneness of God, but rather that concepts like the Trinity, divine sonship, and shared divinity contradict that oneness at a conceptual level. One can assert that God is one while still violating the principle of absolute monotheism.

As for the identity of Allah in this context, it refers to anyone who attributes divinity, partners, persons, or divine mediation alongside God whether through doctrine, worship, or implication. Identifying specific sects is unnecessary because the focus is on the idea itself, not the label.

Describing this as an incomplete narrative misinterprets the genre of the text. The Qur'an is not an ethnographic study of Christian sects; it is a theological refutation. The perceived incompleteness lies not within the Qur'an but in an argument that confuses prophetic critique with a demographic survey.

To appropriately effect your arguments respond if indeed you don't ignore not to expose your lies and hypocrisy:



Rephrase in whichever manner to restate issues already answered however you wish. I will not accommodate any of that or allow diversion away from the core.

The Qur’an doesn’t misrepresent the Trinity; instead, it outright rejects the whole idea of divine plurality. Calling that clueless mixes up a denial of theology with a simple misunderstanding. Define the trinity if you really want to show how the Quran hasn't addressed it!

honesttalk21:
No, that’s precisely the mistake you’re making, not the Qur’an. Islam, similar to Christianity, differentiates between the core teachings of the religion and the claims of certain groups. The beliefs of Akhbaris or some Shia factions do not represent the entirety of Islam, just as fringe Christian sects do not define Christianity. The Qur’an addresses specific doctrines and practices rather than identities based on association. Your argument is a composition fallacy, and attributing it to Allah doesn’t make it correct.

Qasim6:
The only thing you have been exposing is ur ass

When you hold these beliefs
Father(Jesus's God) is God, Jesus is God, Holy spirit is God
Jesus is not the father, Jesus is not the holy spirit and the holy spirit is not the father
The only logical conclusion is there are 3 Gods and Jesus's God is 3rd of a three.

If that is not your conclusion, then you will have to explain to us how you reach another conclusion. If you can't, just tell us u can't and play the mystery card, don't waste my time.

If you are praying to a created being like the one I shared with you earlier, you are indirectly taking them as god besides God, I don't know you still need explanation regarding that or what's your own honest opinion about the Christians that pray to Mary?

honesttalk21:
No matter how many times you state, your analogy regarding the Akhbari perspective is flawed because the Qur’an is not simply a human document categorizing different sects; it addresses issues in a normative and polemical manner, similar to the Bible, which references groups like the Jews and “the Christians without acknowledging every minority amongst them. The lack of the word some does not mean all and that is a linguistic error, not a problem with the text itself. Regarding Q 5:116, this verse serves as a rhetorical condemnation rather than a demographic survey. It criticizes any Christian practice that places Jesus or Mary in divine positions, a practice that has historically existed and continues to function today in such forms as in prayer and intercession. Your assertion that Allah refers to all Christians is your interpretation, not what the text states. In reference to Q 4:171 and Q 5:73, the term three indeed pertains to the concept of the Trinity. The Qur’an rejects this idea without using the specific terminology, as it critiques the concept rather than validating the label. Not reflecting Christian self-definitions is not a sign of ignorance; it is a theological rejection. You did not uncover a new truth; rather, you acknowledged that the Qur’an adequately addresses the Trinity, which is precisely what Muslims have maintained from the beginning.

Qasim6:
Lol! I trust you Trinitarians to run away from explaining how your God is not 3
You are very loud mouthed about how Allah is ignorant of your man made doctrine but to explain how your God is not 3 now becomes a problem. You know if you attempt ur ass will be exposed badly.

Trust me there is nothing to understand in a false doctrine like trinity. It is just polytheism forcefully clothed in the garment of monotheism.

At some point you will have to face the truth and accept that you guys worship 3 gods
You believe the Father(Jesus's God), Jesus himself, and Holy spirit are all Gods
How is that not a belief that Jesus's God is 3rd of a three?

Qasim6:
U are probably not paying attention, you need to learn how to track argument so you won't go off track.
The prophet himself told us how the salawat reach him, so you can romance the "peace be upon you" all you want, no Muslims believe the prophet hear us directly. And we don't believe Angels carry our prayers to Allah. Lol!

And please stop repeating the argument Allah pray to Muhammad it's old and stale at this point.

honesttalk21:
Whatever simulation that has you answer for another like you now have powers to know exactly how another thinks and responds is nothing other than chronic insanity!.

Your analogy regarding the Akhbari perspective is valid and actually weakens your argument. The Qur'an, similar to the Bible, critiques beliefs as they are understood, practiced, and logically derived, rather than just addressing refined theological statements. For instance, Q 5:73 (third of three) challenges the implications of the Trinity. If the Father, Son, and Spirit are all fully God, then that implies there are three distinct Gods, regardless of how Christians prefer to phrase it. The Qur'an is addressing the nature of being, not merely quoting a doctrine.

honesttalk21:
Furthermore, Q 5:116 does not claim that all Christians worship Mary; it condemns the practice of elevating humans to divine roles, such as in prayer, intercession, or divine titles, which has historically occurred and continues to exist. Referring to Jesus as God beside God is a valid critique, suggesting the existence of a second divine figure alongside the Father. Q 4:171 (do not say three) clearly rejects the idea of a tri-personal God. While saying God is one essence is true, it does not negate the Christian teaching of three distinct divine persons, a concept that was not taught by any prophet prior to Jesus or even Jesus himself.

In conclusion, this is not a matter of ignorance or hearsay; it is a significant rejection of the metaphysical views that developed after the biblical texts. You may disagree with the critique, but labeling it as a straw man is flawed both logically and historically.

honesttalk21:
In all this irrelevance you don't show where Allah in the Quran defines the trinity as you claim as God, Jesus and Mary. The credibility of your statements is at stake here.

Qasim6:
What exactly do you mean by no Christian group believe God is the third of 3 when that's exactly what you Trinitarians believe

There are several places in the NT where Jesus identifies Father as his God, And according to the trinity the Father is not the Son and the son is not the Father.

We know you guys worship 3 gods so you can just quit this hide and seek. because I don't understand if the Father is God, the son is God and the spirit is God and they are not each other that is solid three Gods. You will have to explain to us how that is not 3 Gods before you start accusing Allah of not knowing your doctrine.

Qasim6:
Maybe you are not aware, we don't believe the prophet is all hearing in such a way that he would hear all our salawat directly.

The Prophet is reported to have said:
​"Indeed, Allah has angels who travel around the earth, conveying to me the Salaam of my Ummah."

In another authentic hadith:
"Your blessings will be conveyed to me." When asked how this is possible after death, he explained that Allah has forbidden the earth from consuming the bodies of the Prophets."

This implies the Prophet does not have the attributes of all hearing where he would hear every voice in the world like a god or something but relies on angels sent by Allah to bring the blessings to him.

Qasim6:
Now compare that to this elaborate prayer offer to Mary

O Mary, you shine continuously on our journey as a sign of salvation and hope.
We entrust ourselves to you, Health of the Sick.
At the foot of the Cross you participated in Jesus’ pain, with steadfast faith. You, Salvation of the Roman People, know what we need.
We are certain that you will provide, so that,
as you did at Cana of Galilee, joy and feasting might return after this moment of trial.
Help us, Mother of Divine Love,
to conform ourselves to the Father’s will
and to do what Jesus tells us:
He who took our sufferings upon Himself, and bore our sorrows to bring us through the Cross, to the joy of the Resurrection. Amen.

We seek refuge under your protection, O Holy Mother of God. Do not despise our pleas – we who are put to the test – and deliver us from every danger, O glorious and blessed Virgin.

Is this comparable to sending salawat to the Prophet? Or what exactly are you talking about?

honesttalk21:
Happy that you continue to show your ignorance and incapacity to comprehend?

I put a closure which you deliberately ignore or feign blind to. Address it even for just your person good and use.