₦airaland Forum

AntiChristian:
Lah?

Did you get that from your dream or ignorance?

ILLAH is the normal name for God or deity in Arabic.

So, who is Lah according to Quran 1:1 ?

gohf:
people like creativeorbit and Antichristian, they are selective in their choice of texts and their interpretation of it is eisegesis, while the former has an intellectual base for diverting and strawmaning logical reasoning, the later is just, the less said the better.

Muslims would rather tell outright lie, feign ignorance or just repeat what they hope will get you off their backs rather than face the truth.

Qur'an 9:31
They (Jews and Christians) have taken their scholars and monks as lords besides Allah and the Messiah, the son of Mary. And they were not commanded except to worship one God; there is no deity except Him. Exalted is He above whatever they associate with Him.

Here is a classic example of a quran verse that they just must lie to themselves and to others about

gohf:
tenq what title is this one talking about?

By the way honesttalk21 I believe I have quoted you and asked you a thing or two of which you ignored before making this post which such verbosity and inconcurrent assertions that are baseless and mere accusations with an attempt to justify yourself as if you have engage in a dialogue with me that has been meaningful and constructive, without adding your personal prejudice or sentiments

Here was the Original post several months ago



https://www.nairaland.com/8169188/man-comfortably-represent-satan-lying

gohf:
I do not know if demons are physical but then one could argue that Jacob wrestled with an angel, and abraham fed angels, lot and his family were grabbed and taken away by angels. It makes one to probably assume that demons could as well make physical appearance though it could be a faulty conclusion as demons are not angels.

But I said:
How did Jibril look when he came to Mary?
This was exactly how fallen Angels looked when they came to the daughters of men to blow into their vulva.
Angels can take up Human shapes (evidence abound in the scriptures)

But Fallen Angels are NOT Demons and Demons cannot take up physical shapes.

Demons are way far inferior to Angels. They are what Jesus calls "Unclean Spirits" neither men nor angels, a cursed hybrid!

honesttalk21:
Do you not agree that the fallen angels by nature of their actions are demons? They were doing what God didn't ask them to do or did God ask them to take humans as wives?

Please tell in what form they took these women as wives?

Doesn't your Bible say that the sons of God saw that the daughters of humans were beautiful, and they married any of them they chose… The Nephilim were on the earth in those days…”

Do some Jewish and Christian traditions not see the term "sons of God" as reference to fallen angels who took on human form and had relationships with women, resulting in the birth of giant beings known as the Nephilim.

Where these "sons of God" assuming your son bearing view of your God not demonic in their actions?

Mark 5:1–20 also states that a man is possessed by many demons and shows supernatural strength. Jesus casts the demons into pigs, which then run into the sea and drown.

Does this not show that demons can inhabit both humans and animals, affecting physical behavior.

Can you or can you not comprehend?

Your lack of understanding is huge my dear
Let me point out your basic errors first.
1. Demons are NOT the same as Jinns
2. Demons are not fallen Angels
3. Demons cannot take up physical forms

How did Jibril look when he came to Mary?
This was exactly how fallen Angels looked when they came to the daughters of men to blow into their vulva.

Nephillims are a hybrid of Human and fallen angels DNA. They are neither Angels nor Human.


Please show us any demon in physical form as you believe Mohammed's words of Willing to tie it up to a physical pole.

honesttalk21:
I see you may have the ability to read but have questionable understanding.

Where did the narration say the iffrit was tied?
What you should first ask is if the Arabians at the time or now believe demons like the iffrit exist. When you do we can readdress your questions.

So, the Afreet wasn't tied up to the pole of the mosque? I thought it was! LOL!
So, Mohammed was just fabricating another story!
Yesterday before sleeping, I asked an Afreet to do frog jump till morning. But because it was crying and begging me, I let it go to its house by 5am.
This is a true story o!

honesttalk21:
You feign forgetting when you raised this topic.

Is this not proof of the malicious intent you have and certainly that your comments should not be taken seriously? ? ?

It was an old post you went to dig up. Now, you refuse to answer the small questions it came with.

Do you notice that you AVOID answering Questions that have theological implications?
It is an evidence that you abhor the truth!
You asked me why I post about Islam, but you were not ready to actually follow through
https://www.nairaland.com/8422183/dear-muslims-just-some-innocent/6#135558859

honesttalk21:
This is just one of so many. The questions you should have asked are can Jinn assume tangible physical forms?
How powerful is prophet Muhammad pbuh.

Can Jinn assume tangible physical forms?
The answer is an EMPHATIC No!
If you think they can, give me EVIDENCE!

The question is supposed to be if they are TRUTHS or LIES to defame Islam, Mohammed and Allah.

This was why I said: ,
"But was it a lie that Mohammed usually never have ANY evidence for the miraculous.
Abi!?
Al-Burak was seen only by Mohammed
Jibril was seen only by Mohammed
The Moon Splitting only by Mohammed
Journey to the farthest mosque only by Mohammed

If you can tell me a miracle that was witnessed by others with respect to Mohammed, I will recite the shahada."

honesttalk21:
Nevertheless can you prove your intent in this post is not ridicule?

You want to know my intention!?
I will tell you.

1. Early on, I have observed that it is IMPOSSIBLE that BOTH the Quran and the Bible lead to the same paradise.
Why?
a. Salvation in the Bible is based on the atonement of the Blood of Jesus Christ for those who would believe in Him. Islam vehemently rejects that Jesus was crucified. Islam rejects that Jesus Died. Islam rejects that Jesus is Salvation given as a gift to mankind. Islam bases salvation on being a good Muslim that follow Mohammed and Allah.
This is even a historical event that both Jewish historians, Roman Historians and Christian sources have detailed in their books.

The Question for you is :
i. DId Jesus die on the Cross?
ii. If he did not die, what happened to Jesus and who was crucified?
iii. In whose presence was Jesus taken to heaven because the disciples say it was in their presence?
iv. Why did the Almighty Allah deceive Mary, the Apostles of Jesus and His disciples with the Jews and Romans?

b. Allah gave a reliable way to OBJECTIVELY test and verify that the Quran was from no other than himself
Quran 4:82
Do they not consider the Qur'an (with care)? Had it been from other Than Allah, they would surely have found therein Much discrepancy.

Just a little test, what do we find? Several DISCREPANCIES, SEVERAL ERRORS, SEVERAL CONTRADICTIONS
Just a few examples:
a. Allah thinks that the sun set in some dark murky waters
Quran 18:86
Until, when he reached the setting of the sun, he found it set in a spring of murky water: Near it he found a People: We said: "O Zul-qarnain! (thou hast authority,) either to punish them, or to treat them with kindness.

Is this TRUE or FALSE?
b. Allah thinks that the sperm become a baby
Quran 23:13-14
Then We placed him as a sperm-drop in a firm lodging.
Then We made the sperm-drop into a clinging clot, and We made the clot into a lump [of flesh], and We made [from] the lump, bones, and We covered the bones with flesh; then We developed him into another creation. So blessed is Allah, the best of creators.

Is this TRUE or FALSE?

c. Allah thinks the Samaritans existed at the time of moses: He seem not to know that the Samaritans existed several centuries after ONLY after the kingdom of Israel broke into two kingdoms after king Solomon.

Quran 20:95-96
Moses then asked, “What did you think you were doing, O Samaritan?”
He said, “I saw what they did not see, so I took a handful ˹of dust˺ from the hoof-prints of ˹the horse of˺ the messenger-angel ˹Gabriel˺ then cast it ˹on the moulded calf˺. This is what my lower-self tempted me into.”

2. Allah gave some moral laws which seems inconsistent with YHWH the God of the Jews and Christians.
a. Allah allows prostitution for Muslim men
Is it UNTRUE that prostitution (Mut’ah -temporary marriage) is permitted in the Quran? (Before Umar finally abrogated it)
Quran 4:24
[Forbidden to you] are married women, except what your right hand possesses. This Allah has written for you, and all other women besides these are permitted to you, so that you may seek them out with your wealth, seeking chastity and not fornication. So, when you have contracted temporary marriage [istimt’atum] with them, then give them their wages. There is no sin on you for whatever you agree to after this. Indeed, Allah is knowing, wise.

The verse above addresses four issues
i. Muslims are prohibited from having sex with Married women.
ii. The exception to this rule is if the married women were captured forcefully during war
iii. The next category lawful for sex are those women that Muslim men use their wealth (money or possession) to acquire (by paying for the sexual services)
iv. For the hired women, Allah commands the men to PAY the agreed amount for the sexual favours. It is not a sin when they do this.

Quran 24:33
And let those who do not have the means to marry keep themselves chaste until Allah enriches them out of his bounty. And if any of those slaves in your possession desires a deed of emancipation, make it possible for them, if you find goodness in them. And give them some of Allah’s wealth which he has granted you. Do not force your slave girls into prostitution for your own worldly gains if they want to be chaste. And if someone forces them, then after such coercion Allah is certainly All-forgiving , most merciful.

The verse above addresses four issues
i. A Muslim man who cannot afford marriage (temporary or permanent) is required to keep himself chaste until he is blessed by Allah to afford it.
ii. If a slave needs freedom, Muslim men should not make it difficult especially if they are good slaves. A Muslim is actually required to help them out financially to start a new life
iii. Muslims men should NOT force their slaves who desire to be chaste into prostitution as a means of getting wealth. This supposes that only if the slaves do not object to prostitution should a Muslim use them as prostitutes.

Tafsir Ibn Katheer Quran 4:24
“There is no doubt that in the start Mutah was Halal”

Tafsir Al-Qurtubi Quran 4:24
The majority said that it refers to Nika al-Mutah which existed during the beginning of Islam.

Is this TRUE or FALSE?








These are just a tiny fraction as a problem: However,
1. By Default, Muslims believe Mohammed without question
2. By default, Muslims reject the earlier revealed Scriptures (as corrupt) by which they would have tested if Mohammed was representing the TRUE God.



My OBJECTIVE is the Make Muslims who LOVE the TRUTH to look at the Quran, the hadiths, Mohammed and Allah and ASK themselves Question based on the available FACTS: Is this certainly the WAY to paradise OR I have been deceived by the best of the Deceivers?

honesttalk21:
Didn't you get satisfactory answers when you posted this before? Your own research hasn't told you?

You don't know they responded like you?


"And if they were to see a fragment from the sky falling down, they would say, 'It is just clouds heaped up.'"
(Surah al-Ṭūr 52:44)

Fortunately you will eventually certainly know.

“It is not the eyes that are blind, but the hearts within the chests,” be reminded that true understanding goes far beyond just what you see. Your struggle to grasp a message isn’t because it’s unclear; rather, it’s about your willingness—or lack thereof—to truly open your heart to deeper meaning.

Why is it that Muslims would never answer questions that they think betray their knowledge of Islam



Mr honesttalk21,
1. Tell me, which of the followers of prophet Mohammed saw the afreet?
2. What did prophet Mohammed use to tie up the afreet?
3. Who finally untied the afreet or was it killed?
4. Can you describe a little how the afreet look like?


Note:
I am not a Muslim thus, I need reasons to believe in Islam, Mohammed, Allah and your Scholars.

honesttalk21:
You tend to ascerting Muslims are in blind belief?

These questions were asked by past and present Muslims, do you feel the older generation of Arabians wouldn't have asked. We have intellect and use it.


Very well and correctly stated in your Bible by Jesus in your Bible an ungodly people ask for a miracle.
How many miracles were you shown yet the unbelievers rather increase in disbelief.

Your following questions show gross disbelief and tend to labelling prophet Muhammad pbuh, the trustworthy one as a liar? You better check yourself.

You were the one who brought this out, so I ask as a non-muslim who usually asks questions. You said that the older generation of Arabians would have asked these questions AND you Muslims have intellect and use it. So, you must have responses to my questions

Mr honesttalk21,
1. Tell me, which of the followers of prophet Mohammed saw the afreet?
2. What did prophet Mohammed use to tie up the afreet?
3. Who finally untied the afreet or was it killed?
4. Can you describe a little how the afreet look like?


Note:
I am not a Muslim thus, I need reasons to believe in Islam, Mohammed, Allah and your Scholars.

[quote author= post=135551471]@Tenq @gohf

Your title 'Man Comfortably Represent Satan by Lying" acts as a satirical jab at certain Islamic beliefs and figures, using mockery and distortion to get its point across. When it says "comfortably represent Satan," it's making an exaggerated claim meant to belittle people while also casting a negative light on common Islamic symbols like beards and turbans.

Moreover, the sweeping generalizations about religious individuals create a caricature that suggests they have an inherent tendency toward dishonesty. The laughter and scorn found in the comments only serve to heighten this mockery, showing a lack of genuine critique. This method reinforces a narrative of disrespect instead of fostering constructive dialogue, ultimately hindering the chance for meaningful discussions on the topic.[/quote]A man mesmerised his gullible fellow arabs that a Demon (Afrit) came to the mosque to disturb his prayers AND he would have tied the demon to one of the poles of the mosque for all Muslims to see, except that everything was AUDIO.

As you know, Muslims do not ask Questions. They swallow every lie hook, line and sinker

The Question is:
Are Demons Physical Beings?
What kind of ropes can be used to tie up demons to a tree?


Sahih al-Bukhari 461
Narrated Abu Huraira:
"The Prophet (ﷺ) said, "Last night a big demon (afreet) from the Jinns came to me and wanted to interrupt my prayers (or said something similar) but Allah enabled me to overpower him. I wanted to fasten him to one of the pillars of the mosque so that all of you could See him in the morning but I remembered the statement of my brother Solomon (as stated in Quran): My Lord! Forgive me and bestow on me a kingdom such as shall not belong to anybody after me (38.35)." The sub narrator Rauh said, "He (the demon) was dismissed humiliated."

All Mohammed's miracles do not have any evidence. only he is the evidence

Since you brought up the TOPIC again, you may wish to answer the following questions supported with ANY hadith (sahih or daif) the answers to the questions
Mr honesttalk21,
1. Tell me, which of the followers of prophet Mohammed saw the afreet?
2. What did prophet Mohammed use to tie up the afreet?
3. Who finally untied the afreet or was it killed?
4. Can you describe a little how the afreet look like?

honesttalk21:
This is just one of so many. The questions you should have asked are can Jinn assume tangible physical forms?
How powerful is prophet Muhammad pbuh.

Can Jinn assume tangible physical forms?
The answer is an EMPHATIC No!
If you think they can, give me EVIDENCE!

The question is supposed to be if they are TRUTHS or LIES to defame Islam, Mohammed and Allah.

This was why I said: ,
"But was it a lie that Mohammed usually never have ANY evidence for the miraculous.
Abi!?
Al-Burak was seen only by Mohammed
Jibril was seen only by Mohammed
The Moon Splitting only by Mohammed
Journey to the farthest mosque only by Mohammed

If you can tell me a miracle that was witnessed by others with respect to Mohammed, I will recite the shahada."

honesttalk21:
Nevertheless can you prove your intent in this post is not ridicule?

You want to know my intention!?
I will tell you.

1. Early on, I have observed that it is IMPOSSIBLE that BOTH the Quran and the Bible lead to the same paradise.
Why?
a. Salvation in the Bible is based on the atonement of the Blood of Jesus Christ for those who would believe in Him. Islam vehemently rejects that Jesus was crucified. Islam rejects that Jesus Died. Islam rejects that Jesus is Salvation given as a gift to mankind. Islam bases salvation on being a good Muslim that follow Mohammed and Allah.
This is even a historical event that both Jewish historians, Roman Historians and Christian sources have detailed in their books.

The Question for you is :
i. DId Jesus die on the Cross?
ii. If he did not die, what happened to Jesus and who was crucified?
iii. In whose presence was Jesus taken to heaven because the disciples say it was in their presence?
iv. Why did the Almighty Allah deceive Mary, the Apostles of Jesus and His disciples with the Jews and Romans?

b. Allah gave a reliable way to OBJECTIVELY test and verify that the Quran was from no other than himself
Quran 4:82
Do they not consider the Qur'an (with care)? Had it been from other Than Allah, they would surely have found therein Much discrepancy.

Just a little test, what do we find? Several DISCREPANCIES, SEVERAL ERRORS, SEVERAL CONTRADICTIONS
Just a few examples:
a. Allah thinks that the sun set in some dark murky waters
Quran 18:86
Until, when he reached the setting of the sun, he found it set in a spring of murky water: Near it he found a People: We said: "O Zul-qarnain! (thou hast authority,) either to punish them, or to treat them with kindness.

Is this TRUE or FALSE?
b. Allah thinks that the sperm become a baby
Quran 23:13-14
Then We placed him as a sperm-drop in a firm lodging.
Then We made the sperm-drop into a clinging clot, and We made the clot into a lump [of flesh], and We made [from] the lump, bones, and We covered the bones with flesh; then We developed him into another creation. So blessed is Allah, the best of creators.

Is this TRUE or FALSE?

c. Allah thinks the Samaritans existed at the time of moses: He seem not to know that the Samaritans existed several centuries after ONLY after the kingdom of Israel broke into two kingdoms after king Solomon.

Quran 20:95-96
Moses then asked, “What did you think you were doing, O Samaritan?”
He said, “I saw what they did not see, so I took a handful ˹of dust˺ from the hoof-prints of ˹the horse of˺ the messenger-angel ˹Gabriel˺ then cast it ˹on the moulded calf˺. This is what my lower-self tempted me into.”

2. Allah gave some moral laws which seems inconsistent with YHWH the God of the Jews and Christians.
a. Allah allows prostitution for Muslim men
Is it UNTRUE that prostitution (Mut’ah -temporary marriage) is permitted in the Quran? (Before Umar finally abrogated it)
Quran 4:24
[Forbidden to you] are married women, except what your right hand possesses. This Allah has written for you, and all other women besides these are permitted to you, so that you may seek them out with your wealth, seeking chastity and not fornication. So, when you have contracted temporary marriage [istimt’atum] with them, then give them their wages. There is no sin on you for whatever you agree to after this. Indeed, Allah is knowing, wise.

The verse above addresses four issues
i. Muslims are prohibited from having sex with Married women.
ii. The exception to this rule is if the married women were captured forcefully during war
iii. The next category lawful for sex are those women that Muslim men use their wealth (money or possession) to acquire (by paying for the sexual services)
iv. For the hired women, Allah commands the men to PAY the agreed amount for the sexual favours. It is not a sin when they do this.

Quran 24:33
And let those who do not have the means to marry keep themselves chaste until Allah enriches them out of his bounty. And if any of those slaves in your possession desires a deed of emancipation, make it possible for them, if you find goodness in them. And give them some of Allah’s wealth which he has granted you. Do not force your slave girls into prostitution for your own worldly gains if they want to be chaste. And if someone forces them, then after such coercion Allah is certainly All-forgiving , most merciful.

The verse above addresses four issues
i. A Muslim man who cannot afford marriage (temporary or permanent) is required to keep himself chaste until he is blessed by Allah to afford it.
ii. If a slave needs freedom, Muslim men should not make it difficult especially if they are good slaves. A Muslim is actually required to help them out financially to start a new life
iii. Muslims men should NOT force their slaves who desire to be chaste into prostitution as a means of getting wealth. This supposes that only if the slaves do not object to prostitution should a Muslim use them as prostitutes.

Tafsir Ibn Katheer Quran 4:24
“There is no doubt that in the start Mutah was Halal”

Tafsir Al-Qurtubi Quran 4:24
The majority said that it refers to Nika al-Mutah which existed during the beginning of Islam.

Is this TRUE or FALSE?








These are just a tiny fraction as a problem: However,
1. By Default, Muslims believe Mohammed without question
2. By default, Muslims reject the earlier revealed Scriptures (as corrupt) by which they would have tested if Mohammed was representing the TRUE God.



My OBJECTIVE is the Make Muslims who LOVE the TRUTH to look at the Quran, the hadiths, Mohammed and Allah and ASK themselves Question based on the available FACTS: Is this certainly the WAY to paradise OR I have been deceived by the best of the Deceivers?

gohf:
so antichristian your Quran calls the Messiah lord? But you can't call the Christ Lord but honor him lesser than Muhammad?

This is confusing, and you said Adam was forgiven from going to hell yet it says they will all go to hell?

Don't mind muslims. Check all their deliberate mistranslations of Quran 9:31 . They cannot admit whether it is an error or a deep theological discuss from Allah

Qur'an 9:31
They (Jews and Christians) have taken their scholars and monks as lords besides Allah and the Messiah, the son of Mary. And they were not commanded except to worship one God; there is no deity except Him. Exalted is He above whatever they associate with Him.

The Questions still waitng for Muslims to answer:
1. Knowing that the Qur'an is clear and simple to understand, is Allah associating the Messiah as partners with him?
2. Is this Quranic verse an error or mistake OR is it exactly what Allah intend to say?
3. Does Allah truly want us to make the Messiah LORD with him?

gohf:
yes I understand, just as you can use the word "same" for singular and plural purpose. He is the same person, they are both the same.

No Hebrew scholar gives echad the sole interpretation of being a compound unity because they use it severally to mean a singular unit.

I agree with you sir. Ehad unlike Ahad could be used either for singular one or compound one. Jewish Rabbi will theologically define Echad from wholeness or completeness point of view and not even from solitary oneness point of view.
Thank you!

honesttalk21:
How can you lie to even yourself?

Speak the truth and say what your intent is in your numerous posts like:

So, you went to dig up a non recent post written to a non-muslim LOL!
But was it a lie that Mohammed usually never have ANY evidence for the miraculous.
Abi!?
Al-Burak was seen only by Mohammed
Jibril was seen only by Mohammed
The Moon Splitting only by Mohammed
Journey to the farthest mosque only by Mohammed

If you can tell me a miracle that was witnessed by others with respect to Mohammed, I will recite the shahada.

Why do you always find it convenient to avoid questions?

My Questions again:
1. When Jibril came to Mary as a perfect man, did he stop being an angel?
2. Is Jibril a man or an Angel?


You will not be able to answer the above simple questions!

CreativeOrbit:
Spare me the hypocritical moralizing. If the 'truth is bitter,' then why do your fellow Christians so often twist it into lies to suit their agendas? You want to talk about rejecting truth? Look at your own house first—fraught with corruption, cover-ups, and fabricated piety. Muslims don’t fear truth; we challenge those who weaponize hypocrisy like you. So take your sanctimonious garbage elsewhere—your own scripture warns against bearing false witness, yet here you are, doing exactly that. Pathetic.

Then why do you avoid what your early islamic historians like Ibn Al-Kalbi, Ibn Hisham or Al-Tabari in relation to Abd al-Muttalib who took Abdullah to the Kaaba for sacrifice and latter replaced his son with a sacrifice of ten Camels. You want to claim you don't know this story?

Then, is a sacrifice to Hubal not the same as a sacrifice to Allah?

gohf:
not interested in this discuss, but hope you realize that even the picture you used, stated echad is one, a number, a masculine singular usage, not in compound. And echad does mean one not one of, it can also mean united. Even Jesus taught the meaning which the teachers agree to, it means YHVh alone is God.

Adam and Eve being ONE is a compound Unity not Unitary or singular unity

CreativeOrbit:
Your intelligence and competence are nowhere near the level I expected. It's frankly disappointing. You've asked the same redundant questions repeatedly, wasting time and exposing your inability to grasp basic concepts. How many times must we go over this? It's exhausting and unacceptable. We're done here. Call it a day. Goodbye.

Instead of giving answers to the questions, you this repeatedly repeating your standard islamic narrative will sweep it out of existence.

Why is it difficult stating the names of the daughters of Hubal? Didn't Muslim historians write about Hubal?

The truth is bitter!
Muslims generally do not appreciate the truth

CreativeOrbit:
No—what’s actually "essential" here is some intellectual discipline, which you're clearly trying to sidestep with vague philosophical tap-dancing and weak rhetorical traps. Let's unpack your confusion, because it's not deep—just loud and wrong.

1. “You haven’t debunked Tenq’s guesswork properly” – You mean you ignored what I already explained.

I already dismantled Tenq’s claim about Hubal with textual, historical, and linguistic evidence. If you’re still whining about it, it’s not because it wasn’t debunked—it’s because you didn’t like that it was debunked. Big difference.

Also, let’s not pretend Tenq came with some scholarly goldmine. He brought shallow conspiracy-tier arguments fueled by 19th-century Orientalist guesswork, not facts. That’s what I buried—because nonsense doesn't need a seminar, just a shovel.

So,
1. What are the names of the daughters of Hubal?
2. Explain how both the pre-Islamic Allah and Hubal have children of the same name.
3. Have you read the biographies of your prophet by any of Ibn Al-Kalbi, Ibn Hisham or Al-Tabari in relation to Abd al-Muttalib who took Abdullah to the Kaaba for sacrifice and latter replaced by ten Camels?
Of course, you will pretend that the history does not exist so that you can continue in your self deception.

You answered NOTHING sir!

CreativeOrbit:
2. “Are you saying the interpretation of essentials is more valid than the Qur’an itself?” – That’s a deliberate distortion.

No, I’m saying the essentials (Usul)—which are derived from the Qur'an—are the structured framework used by scholars over 1400 years to interpret, understand, and apply the Qur’an correctly. They're not more valid—they are the method by which the text is honored, not butchered.

This is how mature traditions work: you don’t throw raw verses at each other like darts in a bar fight. You study the context, the language, the grammar, the Asbab al-Nuzul (reasons for revelation), and consensus (ijma) from qualified scholars—not YouTube interpretations and bad-faith guesswork.

3. “Christians say ‘the letter kills but the spirit gives life’” – That’s not a point, it’s a distraction.

Quoting a Christian theological idea in this debate is irrelevant and frankly a smoke bomb. Islam doesn’t operate on vague “spirit vs letter” binaries. The Qur’an is both a divine message and a legal-textual system that requires a rigorous methodology to understand—not poetic ambiguity that justifies personal whims.

If you want to apply Pauline Christian theology to defend misreadings of Islamic scripture, then you’re not here to discuss—you’re here to confuse. And I won’t entertain lazy analogies meant to derail with soft-sounding mysticism.

Final Reality Check:

The Qur’an stands supreme, and its correct understanding comes through the tools it commands us to use: reflection, consultation, language, history, and scholarship. That’s what the "essentials" are. They’re not in competition with the text—they are how the text is respected instead of abused.

So let’s not pretend your question is deep. It’s not. It’s a rhetorical gimmick trying to trap me into admitting something I never claimed. If you’re serious about understanding, engage with honesty. If you’re here to stir smoke with theological buzzwords, I’ll keep clearing it with fire.

TenQ AntiChristian

To you the understanding and opinion of your scholars supercede that of Allah and your prophet!
Unfortunately, manufacturing conjectures stopped working from the internet age as the truth cannot be hidden again

honesttalk21:
Call a spade a spade. You pick ridicule when you mock my religion and religious practice. If you cannot stand the heat don't get in the kitchen.

Your making fun of angels though disliked may be tolerated however you cannot ridicule Allah who is very far above all this

Allah is distinct and different from everything else. Allah is extremely far from being an angel, man or any other thing he created is

Nowhere have you seen me ridicule your religion. I have only poked at the implications of the words of Allah and his prophet Mohammad . Of course, you do not like being shown this truth, so younger angry.

Trust me, if I choose to ridicule Islam, Mohammed or Allah, I will do to your humiliation with the words of Allah and your prophet Mohammad alone.
BUT
My objective is not to make an enemy out of you. No! It is a necessary fact that it is impossible that BOTH Islam and Christianity lead to paradise.en, In have an advantage over you. I have committed myself to Islam before in search for the way to paradise before discovering that it is a journey into deception.



My Questions again:
1. When Jibril came to Mary as a perfect man, did he stop being an angel?
2. Is Jibril a man or an Angel?


You will not be able to answer the above simple questions!

CreativeOrbit:
You're not being accused of cherry-picking because you “refuse to reinterpret.” You're being accused because you deliberately extract texts out of context, twist their meanings, and ignore everything that contradicts your narrative. That’s not integrity—that’s intellectual fraud.

Let’s tear down this shallow rant:

1. The Communication Fallacy

You ask whether Allah or the Prophet Muhammad (ﷺ) are “bad communicators” as if the existence of scholarly interpretation proves some deficiency. That is a spectacularly ignorant view of how language, revelation, and law function. By your logic, legal systems, academic disciplines, and even science are flawed because experts exist to interpret them.

Do you think the U.S. Constitution is vague because Supreme Court judges interpret it? Or is it that humans need frameworks and trained minds to extract meaning in changing contexts? Your argument collapses under its own ignorance.

But you didn't answer the questions if you think (as I assume) that both Allah and Mohammed are good communicators. If they are, why do you think men who came several decades after mohammed would have better ALTERNATIVE ways to reinterpret what both have said.?

It seems you don't believe these verses or they need clear

Quran 44:58
"Verily, We have made this (Qur'an) easy, in thy tongue, in order that they may give heed."

Quran 54:17
"And We have indeed made the Qur'an easy to understand and remember: then is there any that will receive admonition?"


Quran 16:89
"...And We have sent down to thee the Book explaining all things, a Guide, a Mercy, and Glad Tidings to Muslims."

CreativeOrbit:
2. Your Strawman of Islamic Scholarship
You pretend Islamic scholarship replaces Allah and the Prophet. Wrong. It exists to preserve, transmit, and explain their words—not override them. The Prophet commanded his followers to transmit and teach. The Qur’an itself urges believers to ask those “who know” (Qur’an 16:43). So your mockery of scholarship isn't just misguided—it opposes the very system laid down in Islamic sources.

Yes, it does! Islamic scholars have replaced Allah and his Prophet.
This is why you need their reinterpretations to replace their words
Except:
1. Allah's Quran is difficult according to Quran 44:58
2. Allah's words in the Quran are difficult to understand according to Quran 54:17
3. Allah's words need to be re-explained because it is cryptic according to Quran 16:89

CreativeOrbit:
3. The Illusion of “No Consensus”

You claim there is “no consensus” among scholars even over minor issues. That’s either a lie or an admission of your ignorance. There is consensus (ijma‘) on core tenets: Tawheed, the Prophethood of Muhammad, prayer, zakat, fasting, and so on. Scholars may differ on peripheral jurisprudential rulings, and that’s not a flaw. It’s flexibility built into the system—something your binary, absolutist thinking can’t process.

Among the Sunni, you will find different re-interpretations according to the Hanafi, the Maliki, the hambali, the Shafi’i. Beyond these you also have the Salafi, the Ash'ari and the Maturidi...all interpreting the same Quran differently

-Allah say you can do Mutah, what do you do? You abrogate it!
-Allah enjoined three daily prayers for you: but hadiths say five!
-Allah gives you permission to marry and divorce pre-pubescent girls, but, it is silently ignored.
-Allah revealed the verse of Rajam; but your scholars deleted it from the Quran
-Allah says you can let an adult male breastfeed 10 times from a female breast (later abrogated to 5) but, your scholars somehow deleted it from the Quran

Is this not enough evidence?

CreativeOrbit:
4. You’re Not Defending Clarity—You’re Demanding Literalism

You act as if words should always be interpreted one-dimensionally. That’s not a defense of “clarity,” that’s a childish demand that everything sacred conform to your primitive interpretive lens. Ambiguity doesn’t mean confusion—it’s part of divine wisdom. Some verses are clear (muhkam), others are allegorical (mutashabih). This isn’t a bug—it’s a feature. But of course, that would require actual study to understand.

CreativeOrbit:
5. Your Rebellion Against Authority Is Self-Refuting

You reject scholars as “final authority” while simultaneously trying to replace them with your own interpretations. What qualifies you? Nothing. Your entire argument is one big attempt to sound profound while dodging the responsibility of engaging with real Islamic sources and traditions with humility and rigor.

Bottom line: You’re not challenging Islam—you’re fighting your own cartoon version of it. You cherry-pick, misrepresent, ignore context, and then demand answers to strawman dilemmas. This isn’t a quest for truth. It’s a performance. And not even a good one.

Do better—or stop pretending you care about honest debate.

Is the Quran contradicting itself?
Quran 44:58
"Verily, We have made this (Qur'an) easy, in thy tongue, in order that they may give heed."

Quran 54:17
"And We have indeed made the Qur'an easy to understand and remember: then is there any that will receive admonition?"


Quran 16:89
"...And We have sent down to thee the Book explaining all things, a Guide, a Mercy, and Glad Tidings to Muslims."

If these are correct, why are they ignored?

honesttalk21:
It is absolutely certain. You or those you claim share your misplaced beliefs are confused. Is your god a god, an angel or human man?

Confusion break bone o. Ye pa!

Even though I don't believe we serve the same God, I don't intentionally disrespect your prophet or Allah unless you show me your example of how low you are willing to go: then you will find me untameable!
Enough of this as I assume it's unintentional from your part. We can vehemently disagree without becoming enemies.

See your confusion:
1. When Jibril came to Mary as a perfect man, did he stop being an angel?
2. Is Jibril a man or an Angel?


You will not be able to answer the above simple questions!

honesttalk21:
It is absolutely certain. You or those you claim share your misplaced beliefs are confused. Is your god a god, an angel or human man?

Confusion break bone o. Ye pa!

Using small "g" for my God shows exactly how you value the words of Allah. Read Qur'an 29:46
Even though I don't believe we serve the same God, I don't intentionally disrespect your prophet or Allah unless you show me an example: then you will find me untameable!
Enough of this as I assume it's unintentional from your part. We can vehemently disagree without becoming enemies.

See your confusion:
1. When Jibril came to Mary as a perfect man, did he stop being an angel?
2. Is Jibril a man or an Angel?


You will not be able to answer the above simple questions!

TheJustPath:
Your entire rant is built on straw men, distortions, and a pompous attitude that assumes you're exposing contradictions, when in reality you're just exposing your own ignorance and lack of depth.

You say, “All Allah needed to say was ‘Allah is not a man’ and that would have settled the argument.”
Except He did—not in your childish wording, but with divine precision:
“There is nothing like unto Him” (Qur’an 42:11) and “No vision can grasp Him” (Qur’an 6:103).
If that’s not clear to you, it’s because you approach the Qur’an like a tabloid, not a revelation. You want divine language to bend to your terms—because your ego can’t handle language more complex than your narrow literalism.

Is there anyone like the Dajjal in the whole world?
If there is non, your argument of there is no one like Allah is at best vague.

You seem not to understand the level of your problem.
1. Allah comes to you Muslims in a Different SHAPE
2. Based on this new shape of Allah you reject him and even call him satan
3. You Muslims then had a meeting to deliberate on HOW to RECOGNISE Allah from his looks
4. Then you Muslims remember that Allah has a SHIN
5. The Allah Unveils his SHIN to you by which you now RECOGNISE him as Allah

Everything up till now is about recognition of the PHYSICAL SHAPE of Allah.
By the SHAPE of Allah, you Muslims will recognise him. Is that difficult to comprehend?

TheJustPath:
Your Dajjal vs. Messiah point is just another red herring. The Dajjal is a test—not a theological analogy to Allah. The comparison is between truth and falsehood, not between Allah and creation. You drag Allah into a “needless comparison” because you lack the most basic grasp of Islamic eschatology.

As for “TWO hands,” you’ve latched onto a metaphor like a drowning man grabs driftwood. Are you so shallow that you think the number “two” must imply physical limbs? You conveniently ignore centuries of aqeedah explaining Allah’s attributes in a way that affirms them without likening Him to creation. That’s not “falling apart”—that’s deep theological consistency. Your problem is that metaphor and majesty go over your head.

And now your “SHIN” obsession. Again, you're stuck on a hadith while completely ignoring the principles by which it’s understood. The Prophet (ﷺ) described unseen matters in ways believers would recognize their Lord—not define His form. You mock what you don’t understand, not because it's wrong, but because you’re out of your depth and can't admit it.

If the Dajjal is a REAL physical person, all Allah needed to say was "I am not physical"!
Unfortunately, Allah says that the difference between him and the Dajjal is that Allah has two eyes while the Dajjal has one eye.
This is the criteria given by your prophet.

Do you know better than Mohammed?

I think the issue of the Shin of Allah is now over flogged. As described earlier, it was about the physical recognition of Allah and the signs required.

TheJustPath:
You cry “the scholars lied!” because you can’t deal with your inability to engage Islamic thought on its own terms. Ironically, you claim to honor the Qur’an and Sunnah—but only your interpretation of them, twisted through arrogance and surface-level reading.

And this gem: “Muslims follow the consensus of scholars over the words of Allah and His Prophet.”
That’s flat-out false. The only reason you even have a Qur’an text, a hadith corpus, and preserved meanings is because of scholars—the same ones whose legacy you're trashing while using their work. You stand on the foundation they built, and spit at it like you laid the bricks.

Finally, your claim that “no Muslim can understand the Qur’an without scholars” is not an indictment of Islam—it’s a reflection of reality. The Qur’an is a deep, multi-layered text revealed in classical Arabic, across 23 years, in a specific historical and linguistic context. Just like no sane person reads legal, scientific, or philosophical works without training, you don’t approach divine revelation with YouTube-tier knowledge and expect depth.

So no, you’re not “forcing Muslims to think.” You’re just shouting contradictions based on your own shallow thinking, then blaming others when they don’t take your straw-man theology seriously.

You're not exposing Islam—you’re exposing your own inadequacy in confronting it with anything beyond arrogance and buzzwords.

1. Is Allah a good or bad communicator?
2. Is Mohammed a good or a bad communicator?
3. If both Allah and Mohammed are good communicators of doctrine, why do you think it makes sense to have hundreds of scholars who re-interprete what they both have said as if they are the worst of communicators of Islamic doctrine?

If it makes sense that Allah's words and Mohammed's words be re-interpreted. Why do you think it makes sense to even take any scholars words at their face value.

CreativeOrbit:
Let me address your tirade with the clarity and bluntness it demands—because wrapping ignorance in self-righteousness doesn’t make it profound.

First, your attempt to sound principled by claiming to follow “only the Qur’an and Hadith” is laughably disingenuous. You're not following them—you’re cherry-picking, misinterpreting, and arrogantly placing your fallible comprehension above centuries of scholarly rigor, linguistic depth, and context that you lack.

Let’s get something straight: rejecting Islamic scholarship because scholars sometimes differ is like rejecting medicine because doctors debate diagnoses. It’s intellectually lazy and convenient for someone who wants a simplified, distorted version of religion that bows to his biases. If you actually understood even a fraction of the intellectual tradition of Islam, you’d realize that differences in opinion are not flaws, but strengths—they reflect deep inquiry and a refusal to blindly dogmatize, unlike your “my way or no way” approach.

Your argument about the Messiah and Dajjal is a straw man. You seem to think you're smarter than the One who revealed the Qur’an and the Prophet who conveyed it, while ironically pretending to “submit” to them. Allah did make it clear that He is unlike anything in creation (Qur’an 42:11). So your forced suggestion that He “should’ve said Allah is not a man” is redundant to anyone with basic comprehension. That’s your failure to understand the Qur’anic style, not Allah’s failure in clarity.

Now about Allah’s “hands” and “shin”—you are walking into theological discourse like a child wielding a hammer, mistaking every subtlety for a nail. These attributes are dealt with clearly within Islamic theology: they are affirmed without likening them to creation (tanzih), as both Qur’an and hadith emphasize Allah's uniqueness. That you can’t grasp the difference between literalism and transcendental affirmation is your problem—not a “hole” in Islam.

You mock the narration about the believers recognizing Allah by His shin, yet ignore that:

The event is in the Hereafter, not this world.

It's part of the unseen (ghayb), and no scholar has ever used it to argue that Allah has a “shape” like creation.

Every narration is understood in light of the entire body of revelation, not in isolation.

You act as if you’ve uncovered some grand contradiction—when in fact, you’ve only proven your lack of intellectual depth and theological discipline.

Your entire tone drips with condescension and arrogance. You’re not searching for truth—you’re trying to score rhetorical points. You misrepresent Islamic theology, reject its tradition, then mock the very structure you refuse to understand. That’s not integrity—that’s the textbook definition of ignorance wrapped in ego.

Finally, let’s be crystal clear: no one is denying Allah and His Messenger. We’re denying your shallow and literalist misinterpretation of their words. There’s a vast difference between submission and stupidity. You’ve confused rejecting fallacies with rejecting faith.

So if you're truly committed to following Qur’an and Sunnah, then learn Arabic, study with real scholars, and grasp the usul (principles) of interpretation. Until then, don’t insult our intelligence by acting like you alone are holding onto the truth, while everyone else, including the entire Islamic intellectual tradition, is misguided.

You want to call it SIN—“Standard Islamic Narrative”? Fine. But what you’re proposing is worse: Simplistic Individual Nonsense.

I am accused of cherry picking ONLY because I refuse to follow the reinterpretation of the words of your Allah and your Mohammed. QED!


1. Is Allah a good or bad communicator?
2. Is Mohammed a good or a bad communicator?
3. If both Allah and Mohammed are good communicators of doctrine, why do you think it makes sense to have hundreds of scholars who re-interprete what they both have said as if they are the worst of communicators of Islamic doctrine?

If it makes sense that Allah's words and Mohammed's words be re-interpreted. Why do you think it makes sense to even take any scholars words at their face value.


Can you see the problem you have?
Islamic is simply the religion according to the consensus of your scholars. It is not about Allah or Mohammed as your scholars are the final authority to what Muslims are expected to believe.

Unfortunately, there exist no CONSENSUS by these scholars even over minor events.

honesttalk21:
By your Bible please tell me if the hand of your God isn't dry?

Psalm 95:5: The sea is his, for he made it,
and his hands formed the dry land.

Should I be a nincompoop like you and tell you your god is dry and boring too?

Or is it that your God has a powerless left hand since it's said in Exodus 15:6 that Your right hand, Lord,was majestic in power.
Your right hand, Lord,shattered the enemy.


If there's a right hand where is the left hand?
YOU MUST SAY PLEASE




So if by one unfortunate impossibility you and I are in the same room watching TV and you obscure my view of the screen you have clothed the TV?

Nonsensical Tenq the TV screen cloth.

Boo hoo!

Unfortunately for you, the God of the Jews and Christians does appear as an Angel or even as a Man. Thus, it still makes sense that He could have Humanoid form either in Heaven or on Earth. And thus, He could use his Hands, Eyes, Mouth etc for creation

Stop dodging and Answer my Questions about Allah.

You want to present Allah like an AMOEBA: there is nothing like Amoeba (or can you describe it's shape?)

Again:
Allah has hands. QED.
Allah stated this by himself.
AND
Allah never anywhere says how his hands look like, neither did your prophet.

This your argument of Allah's hands not being like our hands is extremely silly except Allah is an AMOEBA!

CreativeOrbit:
Your argument is a textbook case of misrepresenting religious texts through superficial reading, devoid of scholarly context or theological depth. It's not just incorrect—it's intellectually reckless.

Everything I say is misconstrued as far as you are concerned. But do you know why?
Because I chose to stick with only TWO opinions of Islam
1. The opinion of Allah found in the Qur'an
2. The opinion of your prophet found in the hadiths

But no! These opinions don't matter to you because I must submit myself to the opinion of your Scholars who often go against one another.
At best what you are saying is that Islam is a religion created by Islamic scholars who keep on changing their arguments depending on their situation.

CreativeOrbit:
1. Allah and the Dajjal: Willful Misreading
The hadith you quoted (Jami’ at-Tirmidhi 2241) is not comparing Allah to the Dajjal—it’s doing the exact opposite. The Prophet (peace be upon him) clearly stated: “Your Lord is not one-eyed” to emphasize that the Dajjal cannot be God. This was a diagnostic refutation of the Dajjal’s false claims to divinity, not a comparison. If you can’t distinguish between a negation and an analogy, then you're not in a position to critique theology.

Unfortunately, Allah should have compared the real Messiah (a man) with the Dajjal who is false Messiah (also a man).

A simple argument of Allah should have been: Allah is NOT ever a Man and this would have settled the argument wouldn't it?


Is Allah not all wise again?

CreativeOrbit:
2. “Two Hands” – Metaphor, Not Mechanism
When Allah says, “...that which I created with My two hands” (Qur’an 38:75), this is not an anatomical statement. Islamic scholars like Imam al-Ash’ari, Imam al-Ghazali, and Ibn Taymiyyah have all addressed these types of verses. Their consensus is clear: Allah has attributes befitting His majesty, but not resembling creation in any form. The Qur’an is explicit: “Laysa kamithlihi shay’un” (There is nothing like unto Him) [Qur’an 42:11]. To take "hands" literally is to ignore 1,400 years of theological reasoning and fall into anthropomorphism—something Islam categorically rejects.

It doesn't matter what you accept or reject. What matters is what Allah says and what your prophet says about your religion.

Unfortunately,
One Hand could mean the Power of Allah just as a Finger could represent the power of Allah in creating Adam
BUT
Not TWO hands my dear because you have a lot of explanations to do in explaining why ONE hand was not sufficient (if indeed it is allegorical)

CreativeOrbit:
3. “Clothes” and “Shin” – Misunderstood Metaphors
Qur’an 68:42 says “The Day the shin will be uncovered…” This is an idiom in classical Arabic. You don’t understand the language, the context, or the exegetical tradition. Scholars like Ibn Kathir, Al-Qurtubi, and Fakhr al-Din al-Razi explain that this verse symbolizes the severity and gravity of the Day of Judgment, not a literal body part. If you're going to use Qur'anic language, the bare minimum is to understand classical Arabic idioms and metaphors. Without that, you're weaponizing ignorance.

You seem not to understand the level of your problem.
1. Allah comes to you Muslims in a Different SHAPE
2. Based on this new shape of Allah you reject him and even call him satan
3. You Muslims then had a meeting to deliberate on HOW to RECOGNISE Allah from his looks
4. Then you Muslims remember that Allah has a SHIN
5. The Allah Unveils his SHIN to you by which you now RECOGNISE him as Allah

Everything up till now is about recognition of the PHYSICAL SHAPE of Allah.


Sorry to disappoint your faulty scholars standard islamic narrative

CreativeOrbit:
4. The Deeper Issue: Lazy Argumentation Disguised as Critique
This isn't sincere inquiry—it’s shallow provocation. You’re treating sacred texts like a punchline, ignoring the centuries of rigorous intellectual tradition that interpreted these verses with depth, nuance, and reverence. Your rhetoric has no scholarly lineage. It’s not philosophy, not theology—just a loud opinion built on zero credibility.

Just imagine how you deny Allah and his prophet to hold onto the opinion of scholars who came several centuries after Mohammed.

Is it difficult to trust Allah and his Messenger's words?

CreativeOrbit:
5. A Word on Integrity
If you're going to critique Islam, do so with integrity. Read the tafsir. Study kalam. Learn Arabic. Then come forward with questions—not accusations. Until then, your argument is not just flawed—it’s beneath serious engagement.

You speak like 90% of Muslims have done what you are suggesting I should do.

Like I said:
I am willing to go with what Allah and his perfect prophet said. But to you, that is a lack of integrity as integrity is to reinterpret their sayings to conform to the STANDARD ISLAMIC NARRATIVE (SIN) which has lots of Holes and falsehood!

honesttalk21:
You have problems with Allah clearly stating what he is not?

As earlier stated your reference to Qur'an 38:75 doesn't mean Allah has hands like mankind. The verse refers to the power, care and honour by which Adam was created.

Where is your claim to wearing cloth? You forget or were just up to your usual mischief. Does a shin being revealed translate to it being previously clothed?

Just listen to your meaningless rattle.

According to your prophet and Allah
Angels were created from Light
Jinns were created from smokeless fire
Humans were created from mud

Tell me of the three materials the one that is more honourable.

Allah has hands. QED.
Allah stated this by himself.
AND
Allah never anywhere says how his hands look like, neither did your prophet. This your argument of not being like our hands is extremely silly.

Is my hands like your hands?
No, in many respects but yes in some respects!


A hand is a hand sir!

TheJustPath:
Your argument reflects a fundamental misunderstanding of Islamic theology and a reckless attempt to anthropomorphize the divine. Let's be clear: quoting scripture out of context and without proper scholarly grounding is not only intellectually lazy, it's dishonest.

Lets see!
LOL!

TheJustPath:
1. The Comparison to the Dajjal
The hadith in Jami’ at-Tirmidhi does not compare Allah to the Dajjal in essence or nature. It highlights a distinguishing sign to help believers identify a deceiver. The Prophet (peace be upon him) didn’t say “Allah is like a man”; he said the Dajjal’s blindness is a clear sign he is not God. If you're going to quote scripture, at least understand the point—this isn’t Allah being likened to a man, this is Allah being distinguished from one. That’s the opposite of your claim.

So you agree that all Allah needed to say is that Allah is NOT a man or Allah doesn't look like a man AND the argument is forever settled.

The Dajjal is supposed to be the false Messiah and I think the comparison should be between the real Messiah (a man and the Dajjal). Can you explain how Allah brought himself into the needless comparison?

TheJustPath:
2. "Two Hands" in Surah Saad
When Allah says "with My two hands," it is not an anatomical statement. Islamic theology has always maintained that Allah's attributes are unique and incomparable (see Qur’an 42:11: “There is nothing like unto Him.”). Classic scholars—from Imam Malik to Ibn Taymiyyah—have made it clear: affirm the attributes without likening them to creation, imagining them, or denying them. Your interpretation is a shallow literalism with zero theological depth.

Unfortunately, if the hand of Allah is a figure of speech to speak of his power, just one hand is enough. Unfortunately, Allah says his TWO hands making it literal. Allah could have even used his FINGER as a figure of speech and we would have recognised it as a figure of speech.

Too bad, your excuse falls apart because ONE hand (one power) was not enough, so Allah had to use two.

TheJustPath:
3. "Allah’s Clothes" and "The Shin"
Again, the Day the "shin is uncovered" (Qur’an 68:42) is metaphorical, not physical. Even traditional scholars who take an apparentist approach do so with the caveat that we do not comprehend the “how” (bi la kayf). These are signs of divine power and majesty, not descriptions of human traits. You're treating divine metaphors like comic-book panels—which is not only ignorant but profoundly disrespectful.

You do not comprehend, YET you argue vehemently as if you do.

What prevented you Muslims from seeing the shin of Allah when he obviously came to you in a different shape from the one you know UNTIL he unveiled his SHIN to you?

TheJustPath:
4. The Real Issue: Intentional Misinterpretation
This kind of rhetoric isn’t about genuine inquiry. It’s a deliberate attempt to mock, provoke, and project modern materialism onto transcendent theology. You're not engaging with scripture—you're manipulating it to fit a shallow argument that doesn’t hold under scrutiny.

Conclusion
Islamic theology was developed over centuries by minds far more rigorous and intellectually honest than this cheap attack. If you're serious about challenging Islamic concepts, engage with the actual theological framework, not this cartoonish misrepresentation. Until then, this is not critique—this is clownery masquerading as insight.

All I do is to force you to think and reason out the deliberate lies of your scholars. The hadiths betray the cascade of lies islamic scholars have told over the centuries.

Whenever you see disturbing contradictions and problems, no matter how literal it is, your argument is to say "it doesn't say that..."

Like I said earlier:
Muslims believe more in the CONSENSUS of their Scholars OVER the Opinion of both Allah and his Messenger Mohammed. The consensus of your scholars overrule and override the Qur'an and the Hadiths.

It is not surprising anyways as even Mohammed overrules Allah sometimes AND you Muslims will follow Mohammed rather than Allah.

If Allah says that the Qur'an is explained in DETAIL everything, how come no Muslim can read the Qur'an by themselves to understand what Allah is saying without going with the opinion of your scholars of what they mean?

honesttalk21:
You have problems with Allah clearly stating what he is not?

As earlier stated your reference to Qur'an 38:75 doesn't mean Allah has hands like mankind. The verse refers to the power, care and honour by which Adam was created.

Where is your claim to wearing cloth? You forget or were just up to your usual mischief. Does a shin being revealed translate to it being previously clothed?

A monkey has hands different from your hand.
My wives hand is different from my hand.
An octopus hands is different from our hands

Your argument is silly as the argument isn't about whether Allah's hands is EXACTLY like our hands (because it could simply be much bigger LOL).

About the shin of Allah,
What prevented you Muslims from seeing the shin of Allah when he obviously came to you in a different shape from the one you know UNTIL he unveiled his SHIN to you?

honesttalk21:
I personally haven't come across where Allah puts on clothes and wonder what use that will be.
In Islam, the essence of Allah is incredibly important. The Qur'an and Hadith highlight attributes such as mercy, power, and wisdom, but it's vital to recognize that these shouldn't be compared directly to creation. Delving into these attributes can be unnecessary and may even contradict the scriptures, which helps maintain the integrity of one's faith.

How does your scripture explain these to you?

What do we do when it was Allah himself and his prophet Mohammad comparing himself to us men?



Allah comparing himself with the Da'jaal (a man)

The difference between Allah and the Dajjal is that Allah is not blind in one eye.

Jami` at-Tirmidhi 2241
'Ibn 'Umar narrated that the Prophet(s.a.w) was asked about the Dajjal, so he said:
"Lo! Indeed your Lord is not blind in one eye, and indeed he is blind in one eye; his right eye is as if it is a floating grape."


Allah has two hands

Quran 38:75
"O Iblis! What prevented you from prostrating to that which I created with My two hands? Are you arrogant, or were you [already] among the haughty?"




Allah's clothes!?
Qur'an 68:42:
"The Day the shin will be uncovered and they are invited to prostrate but will not be able to."

honesttalk21:
You sure have gotten confused or is there an alter ego between Tenq and NairaLTQ?

Statements showing human ability to do to some degree a few things God doesn't in anyway make God similar to the created man. Is this what your thinking tells you despite numerous verses of the Qur'an clearly stating Allah is not like man and nothing can be compare to him

You forgot that Allah has eyes, he has a shin, he put on clothes, he has two hands, face, fingers etc.

The only creatures that put on clothes is usually humans.

honesttalk21:
Very clear. Iblis is a creation while Allah isn't. Despite all Iblis does or doesn't do he is not above the power of Allah.

Iblis will be we we questioned, tell who will or can question Allah?

This is not the question? I didn't ask if Iblis was created or not . I asked about the difference between the onensss of Iblis and the oneness of Allah.

Iblis is certainly one!

Can Iblis be in two places at the same time?
Can Iblis be everywhere in space and time?
Iblis can enter a house or even a toilet: can Allah enter a toilet?


Again, I ask:
What is the difference between the onensss of Iblis and the oneness of Allah.