NewStats: 3,262,364 , 8,176,937 topics. Date: Monday, 02 June 2025 at 12:57 AM 1j3t2h

CreativeOrbit:
Thank you for sharing your concerns. I understand that your views stem from personal experiences and certain interpretations of Islamic texts, and I appreciate the opportunity to clarify and respond.

Firstly, regarding marginalisation, I do not deny that individuals can experience mistreatment at the hands of people from any group—including Muslims. However, it is important to distinguish between the actions of individuals and the teachings of a faith. Islam, like other major religions, is not immune to misrepresentation or abuse by its followers. If you were wronged by Muslims, I sincerely regret that and pray for justice and healing. However, this should not serve as a blanket judgment on the religion itself or on Muslims who strive to live ethically and peacefully.

Now, regarding your interpretation of specific Qur’anic verses and historical events, I would like to address them one by one:

1. Qur’an 9:29

This verse is often quoted without historical and textual context. It was revealed in a time of war and political tension between the early Muslim community and the Byzantine Empire. It is not a blanket command to kill non-Muslims. The term "jizyah" refers to a historical tax that exempted non-Muslims from military service, while Muslims were obligated to fight in defense of the state and pay zakat. The verse addresses hostile combatants, not peaceful coexistence. Islam has a long record of religious tolerance—as demonstrated in Muslim-ruled Spain and the Ottoman Empire.

2. Prophet Muhammad’s actions

You cited the execution of individuals like Abdullah ibn Khatal. These individuals were not targeted simply for being non-Muslims but were guilty of severe crimes, such as treason, murder, and inciting violence against Muslims during wartime. Even modern legal systems prescribe capital punishment for treason in times of war.

As for Banu Qurayza, historical sources, including non-Muslim historians, confirm that their leadership broke a critical treaty during a time of existential threat to the Muslim community (Battle of the Trench). The punishment—carried out by a Jewish arbitrator chosen by the Banu Qurayza themselves (Sa’d ibn Mu’adh)—was consistent with the Jewish law of the Torah (Deuteronomy 20:10-14), which they abided by.

3. Al-Fatiha and "those who have gone astray"

This is a common misunderstanding. Al-Fatiha is a supplication to be guided on the straight path—not a condemnation of any particular group. Classical Islamic scholars interpreted “those who have earned anger” and “those who went astray” as types of behavior, not ethnic or religious identities. Moreover, the Qur’an explicitly affirms the validity of previous scriptures (e.g., Qur’an 2:62), and Prophet Muhammad lived peacefully with Christians and Jews in Medina.

4. Qur’an 5:51 – 'Do not take Jews and Christians as awliyaa'

The word awliyaa has various meanings: protectors, political allies, guardians. It is not a blanket prohibition on friendship. Many scholars agree that this verse refers specifically to political alliances in contexts of conflict, where loyalty to justice and ethical conduct must not be compromised. The Qur’an elsewhere encourages kindness and justice toward non-Muslims who are not hostile (Qur’an 60::

"Allah does not forbid you from being kind and just toward those who have not fought you because of your religion..."

Conclusion

Islam does not ask Muslims to hate or harm non-Muslims. It calls for justice, comion, and peaceful coexistence. Any verse or historical event must be interpreted in its proper context—linguistically, historically, and ethically. A true Muslim is not torn between loving his neighbor and being faithful to God; rather, loving and respecting others is a part of his faith.

If peaceful Muslims are the "problem" in your view, then I respectfully suggest that perhaps the issue lies not with Islam itself, but with how it is being misunderstood.

gohf AntiChristian TenQ

I honestly understand the dilemma of peaceful Muslims especially because of interpretations of verses like

Qur'an 9:29
"Fight those who do not believe in Allah or in the Last Day and who do not forbid what Allah and His Messenger have forbidden and who do not adopt the religion of truth from those who were given the Scripture- [fight] until they give the jizyah willingly while they are humbled."

Qur'an 5:51
"O you who believe! Do not take the Jews and the Christians as friends (awliyaa). They are [in fact] friends of one another. And whoever among you takes them as friends, then indeed, he is one of them. Indeed, Allah does not guide the wrongdoing people."
AND

Qur'an 1:6-7
Guide us to the straight path –
The path of those upon whom You have bestowed favor, not of those who have evoked [Your] anger or of those who are astray

Because,
1. Your Tafsirs explained them clearly to mean exactly what the verses reads on the surface
2. As long as there are many Muslims who see it as a command to dominate and humiliate non Muslims, no explanation or reinterpretation avails much
3. Those who need re-education are actually Muslims and not Christians and Jews who are on the recieving side when Muslims are either in power or are a majority
4. The fact that even though you deny the apparent direct meanings, Christians (especially) experience marginalisation and injustice as a result of not being Muslims doesn't help your case.


Finally,
The Qur'an is supposed to be simple and clear to understand because Allah explains things in detail

Qur'an 11:1
This is a Book whose verses are perfected and then presented in detail from [one who is] Wise and Acquainted"

Qur'an 41:3
"[A Book] whose verses have been detailed, an Arabic Qur'an for a people who know."

Qur'an 12:1
"These are the verses of the clear Book"


BUT
It seems that no one including Muslims can understand the plain words of Allah in the Qur'an.
Instead, We need
1. Loads of Tafsirs which sometimes even disagree with each other
2. Asbāb al-Nuzūl
3. Lots of Hadiths and we then begin to argue over the chains of narrations
4. Reinterpretation by modern Muslims.


So, we can only say
We hear you as it is just your opinion and not a consensus of Islam or Muslims.

AntiChristian:


The truth is clear from error!

Tell us what the holy spirit inspired you regarding Hubal?

Allah's daughters are exactly Hubal's daughters: and you are the Muslim.

Explain how and why?

CreativeOrbit:
Thank you for sharing your perspective. However, your argument contains several misunderstandings—both historical and linguistic—that need clarification.

1. Pre-Islamic Deities and Islamic Rejection

Yes, the pre-Islamic Arabs worshipped al-Lāt, al-‘Uzzā, and Manāt. They were considered daughters of their chief deity. However, Islam did not inherit or accept this belief—it explicitly rejected it. The Qur’an directly confronts this myth in Surah An-Najm (53:19–23):

“Have you considered al-Lāt and al-‘Uzzā, and Manāt, the third, the other? Are you to have the males and He the females? That is indeed an unfair division. These are but names you have named…”

Far from adopting these deities, Islam denounced them as human fabrications. The existence of these names before Islam is not evidence of continuity; it's the very error Islam came to correct.

Of course Islam later rejected the notion of Allah having three daughters. that even your prophet accidentally received the "satanic verses" and even prostrated as he recited the verses before it was abrogated by Jibril.

The problem is that it is a historical truth Muslims have to reject.

CreativeOrbit:

2. Hubal and Allah Are Not the Same

The claim that Hubal is another name for Allah is historically inaccurate. Hubal was a pagan idol placed in the Kaaba by the Quraysh. In contrast, "Allah" was known before Islam as the name of the supreme Creator God—even among pagan Arabs.

The Qur’an acknowledges this in several places:

“If you ask them who created the heavens and the earth, they will surely say ‘Allah.’” (Qur’an 31:25)

Islam rejected the idols besides Allah—not Allah Himself. Abdul Muttalib, the Prophet’s grandfather, may have acknowledged Allah, but like many pre-Islamic Arabs, he practiced shirk (association of partners). Islam came to correct that deviation—not to continue it.

It is historically accurate my brother. All you need to do is to read up the story of Abdul Mutalib and his sacrifice to Allah/Hubal. It seems that the difference is that Hubal is the visible form of Allah as Allah doesn't have an image/idol but Hubal does. A sacrifice to Hubal is a sacrifice to Allah. This was the history according to Muslims about the pre-Islamic Arabs.

Have you ever wondered why the names of the three daughters of Hubal is the exact names of the three daughters of Allah according to the pre-Islamic Arabs?

As Muslims,you may reject the idea that Hubal is aka Allah BUT the pre-Islamic Muslims see otherwise. Unfortunately, you do not have any pre-Islamic history contradicting this.

CreativeOrbit:

3. Daughters of Allah? A Refuted Claim

The Qur’an is clear: Allah has no offspring. Associating daughters (or sons) with Him is categorically rejected:

“He neither begets nor is born.” (Qur’an 112:3)
“And they attribute to Allah daughters—exalted is He!—and to themselves what they desire.” (Qur’an 16:57)

The resemblance of names (al-Lāt, etc.) does not imply equivalence or continuity. These were the names of pagan goddesses—Islam denounced both their names and their worship.

Yes, Islam refutes this BUT history remains that the pre-Islamic Arabs knew this to be that Allah has three daughters and Hubal has three daughters and the names of the daughters are al-Lāt, al-‘Uzzā, and Manāt.

CreativeOrbit:

4. Tawheed and Ahad

Your linguistic claim is mistaken.

"Ahad" (أَحَد) in Qur’an 112:1 means “One and Only”—a unique singularity that excludes all plurality, unlike the ordinary word "Wāhid" (واحد), which can be used in numerals.

No sir!
Check your Qur'an and you will see that EVERY instance of the word AHAD means "One of" or "One out of a group" etc. Waheed is One but not Ahad. Ahad is Echad (Hebrew) and it means a compound Unity and not Singular Unity.

If you deny this, just form ten Arabic sentences with Ahad and let us see if it would be used as singular ONE.

CreativeOrbit:

"Tawheed" (توحيد) means affirming oneness—derived from the verb waḥḥada, “to unify” or “declare one.” In theology, it refers not to combining many gods into one, but to declaring that only one God exists, with no partners, equals, or intermediaries.

Tawheed is not about merging objects of worship—it is about eliminating all others and affirming only Allah as the true God.

Conclusion

Islam did not evolve from paganism; it came to erase it. Islam affirms pure monotheism, not by inheriting pre-Islamic concepts, but by purifying them. Associating Allah with Hubal or claiming Islam adopted pagan goddesses is not only incorrect—it contradicts the Qur’an’s explicit rejection of such beliefs.

I welcome further dialogue, but it must be grounded in accurate historical, theological, and linguistic understanding.

gohf AntiChristian TenQ honesttalk21

Can one UNIFY what is inherently uniquely just ONE?

TenQ:

Allah's daughters are exactly Hubal's daughters: and you are the Muslim.

Explain how and why?

Is that what the spirit inspired you this morning?

AntiChristian:


Is that what the spirit inspired you this morning?

Can you just explain why Allah's daughters are exactly Hubal's daughters!?

TenQ:

I honestly understand the dilemma of peaceful Muslims especially because of interpretations of verses like

Qur'an 9:29
"Fight those who do not believe in Allah or in the Last Day and who do not forbid what Allah and His Messenger have forbidden and who do not adopt the religion of truth from those who were given the Scripture- [fight] until they give the jizyah willingly while they are humbled."

Qur'an 5:51
"O you who believe! Do not take the Jews and the Christians as friends (awliyaa). They are [in fact] friends of one another. And whoever among you takes them as friends, then indeed, he is one of them. Indeed, Allah does not guide the wrongdoing people."
AND

Qur'an 1:6-7
Guide us to the straight path –
The path of those upon whom You have bestowed favor, not of those who have evoked [Your] anger or of those who are astray

Because,
1. Your Tafsirs explained them clearly to mean exactly what the verses reads on the surface
2. As long as there are many Muslims who see it as a command to dominate and humiliate non Muslims, no explanation or reinterpretation avails much
3. Those who need re-education are actually Muslims and not Christians and Jews who are on the recieving side when Muslims are either in power or are a majority
4. The fact that even though you deny the apparent direct meanings, Christians (especially) experience marginalisation and injustice as a result of not being Muslims doesn't help your case.


Finally,
The Qur'an is supposed to be simple and clear to understand because Allah explains things in detail

Qur'an 11:1
This is a Book whose verses are perfected and then presented in detail from [one who is] Wise and Acquainted"

Qur'an 41:3
"[A Book] whose verses have been detailed, an Arabic Qur'an for a people who know."

Qur'an 12:1
"These are the verses of the clear Book"


BUT
It seems that no one including Muslims can understand the plain words of Allah in the Qur'an.
Instead, We need
1. Loads of Tafsirs which sometimes even disagree with each other
2. Asbāb al-Nuzūl
3. Lots of Hadiths and we then begin to argue over the chains of narrations
4. Reinterpretation by modern Muslims.


So, we can only say
We hear you as it is just your opinion and not a consensus of Islam or Muslims.

Stop Pretending to “Understand” Islam While You Weaponize Its Texts

Let’s cut through the pretense. You begin with, “I understand the dilemma of peaceful Muslims,” then proceed to butcher context, flatten centuries of scholarship, and throw out cherry-picked verses to paint Islam as inherently violent or incoherent. You’re not here to understand—you’re here to accuse, and badly at that.

On Qur’an 9:29
This verse was revealed during the Tabuk campaign—a specific military context where treaties had been violated, and the Byzantine threat loomed. It is not a standing order to fight anyone who isn’t Muslim. The command is legally and historically grounded. And jizyah? It was a tax that exempted non-Muslims from military service. Nothing humiliating about it—unless you want to argue that modern taxes are humiliation too.

On Qur’an 5:51
You mistranslate “awliyaa” as simply “friends” to your narrative. That’s dishonest. The term refers to political allegiance and protection—particularly during wartime treachery. If you actually cared about the Qur’an in its totality, you’d cite Qur’an 60:8:
"Allah does not forbid you from being kind and just to those who have not fought you or driven you from your homes."
But that verse doesn’t serve your agenda, so of course you skip it.

On Qur’an 1:6–7
Your claim that this is some kind of hidden insult to Jews and Christians is based on a polemical misreading. Classical scholars who mention Jews and Christians here are referring to types of spiritual error—not blanket condemnation. You’re either grossly uninformed or willfully distorting.

On Interpretation and Clarity
You mock Muslims for using tafsir, asbab al-nuzul, hadith, etc.—as if deep scholarship is a flaw. That logic is laughable. Should we abandon constitutional law because it needs judges, context, and precedent? Should we throw out Christianity because the Bible is interpreted through councils, Church Fathers, and centuries of exegesis?

The Qur’an is clear in its message, but like any serious body of revelation, it requires study. It’s not a Twitter thread. Your frustration that it’s not simplistic enough for you is your problem—not Islam’s.

On Alleged Muslim Oppression
You mention that Christians experience marginalization under Muslim-majority rule. Even if that were true in some modern cases, it is intellectually dishonest to generalize that across time and geography. Historically, Muslims upheld religious pluralism—from Andalusian Spain to Ottoman millet systems—while Christian empires often enforced conversion, committed genocide, and launched crusades.

So, let’s be clear:

You’re not confused. You’re not seeking clarity.
You’re deploying shallow apologetics and pretending it's an honest inquiry.
You ignore context, cherry-pick verses, and sidestep Qur’anic principles of justice and mercy—because those don’t serve your agenda.

Your understanding of Islam isn’t flawed. It’s fabricated.

TenQ:

I honestly understand the dilemma of peaceful Muslims especially because of interpretations of verses like

Qur'an 9:29
"Fight those who do not believe in Allah or in the Last Day and who do not forbid what Allah and His Messenger have forbidden and who do not adopt the religion of truth from those who were given the Scripture- [fight] until they give the jizyah willingly while they are humbled."

Qur'an 5:51
"O you who believe! Do not take the Jews and the Christians as friends (awliyaa). They are [in fact] friends of one another. And whoever among you takes them as friends, then indeed, he is one of them. Indeed, Allah does not guide the wrongdoing people."
AND

Qur'an 1:6-7
Guide us to the straight path –
The path of those upon whom You have bestowed favor, not of those who have evoked [Your] anger or of those who are astray

Because,
1. Your Tafsirs explained them clearly to mean exactly what the verses reads on the surface
2. As long as there are many Muslims who see it as a command to dominate and humiliate non Muslims, no explanation or reinterpretation avails much
3. Those who need re-education are actually Muslims and not Christians and Jews who are on the recieving side when Muslims are either in power or are a majority
4. The fact that even though you deny the apparent direct meanings, Christians (especially) experience marginalisation and injustice as a result of not being Muslims doesn't help your case.


Finally,
The Qur'an is supposed to be simple and clear to understand because Allah explains things in detail

Qur'an 11:1
This is a Book whose verses are perfected and then presented in detail from [one who is] Wise and Acquainted"

Qur'an 41:3
"[A Book] whose verses have been detailed, an Arabic Qur'an for a people who know."

Qur'an 12:1
"These are the verses of the clear Book"


BUT
It seems that no one including Muslims can understand the plain words of Allah in the Qur'an.
Instead, We need
1. Loads of Tafsirs which sometimes even disagree with each other
2. Asbāb al-Nuzūl
3. Lots of Hadiths and we then begin to argue over the chains of narrations
4. Reinterpretation by modern Muslims.


So, we can only say
We hear you as it is just your opinion and not a consensus of Islam or Muslims.

You claim to “understand” peaceful Muslims, yet you proceed to weaponize verses, strip them of context, and parade your ignorance as if it’s insight. Your entire argument is a predictable patchwork of cherry-picked verses, void of nuance, historical context, and intellectual honesty.

Let’s dismantle your facade piece by piece.

1. Qur’an 9:29 – You quote it like a slogan but deliberately omit the context of war and treaties being violated. This was revealed during an active conflict, not as a universal mandate. You're not quoting scripture to understand—it’s a hit job, and you know it.

2. Qur’an 5:51 – “Awliyaa” means allies, protectors, patrons—not mere “friends” as you claim. Again, context: it was a time of political tension, not Sunday brunch. But you ignore scholarly consensus and linguistic depth because it suits your agenda to oversimplify.

3. Qur’an 1:6–7 – You're stretching now. That verse is a prayer, not a doctrine of exclusion. Interpreting "those who earned wrath" as all Jews and "those who are astray" as all Christians is your own projection, not a universally held or mandated interpretation.

You accuse Muslims of needing tafsir, hadith, and asbab al-nuzul—as if complex systems of thought and context invalidate a religion. What a laughable standard. By that logic, every field from law to medicine to theology should be rejected because they require scholarly tools to understand.

You scoff at disagreement between scholars—yet that’s the very sign of a dynamic, intellectually honest tradition. Unlike the echo chamber you clearly prefer, Islamic scholarship values debate and depth.

You say Muslims marginalize others when in power, as if injustice is exclusive to Islam. Shall we list centuries of colonization, genocide, and forced conversion committed in the name of Christ? Or is your moral outrage conveniently one-directional?

Finally, you pretend that disagreement among Muslims weakens the message. No, it reflects reality: truth is often complex, layered, and demands effort. Your fixation on surface-level readings doesn’t make you insightful—it exposes a lazy, agenda-driven mindset.

So no, you don’t “understand the dilemma.” You exploit it. And your faux-objectivity isn’t fooling anyone.

TenQ:

I honestly understand the dilemma of peaceful Muslims especially because of interpretations of verses like

Qur'an 9:29
"Fight those who do not believe in Allah or in the Last Day and who do not forbid what Allah and His Messenger have forbidden and who do not adopt the religion of truth from those who were given the Scripture- [fight] until they give the jizyah willingly while they are humbled."

Qur'an 5:51
"O you who believe! Do not take the Jews and the Christians as friends (awliyaa). They are [in fact] friends of one another. And whoever among you takes them as friends, then indeed, he is one of them. Indeed, Allah does not guide the wrongdoing people."
AND

Qur'an 1:6-7
Guide us to the straight path –
The path of those upon whom You have bestowed favor, not of those who have evoked [Your] anger or of those who are astray

Because,
1. Your Tafsirs explained them clearly to mean exactly what the verses reads on the surface
2. As long as there are many Muslims who see it as a command to dominate and humiliate non Muslims, no explanation or reinterpretation avails much
3. Those who need re-education are actually Muslims and not Christians and Jews who are on the recieving side when Muslims are either in power or are a majority
4. The fact that even though you deny the apparent direct meanings, Christians (especially) experience marginalisation and injustice as a result of not being Muslims doesn't help your case.


Finally,
The Qur'an is supposed to be simple and clear to understand because Allah explains things in detail

Qur'an 11:1
This is a Book whose verses are perfected and then presented in detail from [one who is] Wise and Acquainted"

Qur'an 41:3
"[A Book] whose verses have been detailed, an Arabic Qur'an for a people who know."

Qur'an 12:1
"These are the verses of the clear Book"


BUT
It seems that no one including Muslims can understand the plain words of Allah in the Qur'an.
Instead, We need
1. Loads of Tafsirs which sometimes even disagree with each other
2. Asbāb al-Nuzūl
3. Lots of Hadiths and we then begin to argue over the chains of narrations
4. Reinterpretation by modern Muslims.


So, we can only say
We hear you as it is just your opinion and not a consensus of Islam or Muslims.

You begin with “I understand,” but everything that follows makes it abundantly clear you don’t. You’re not here to understand—you’re here to indict. You parade a series of verses divorced from context, history, and scholarly interpretation, and then pretend confusion when Muslims rely on the very scholarly tradition that has always accompanied the Qur’an since its revelation.

1. Qur’an 9:29 – This verse was revealed in the context of the Tabuk expedition—a time of military threat and betrayal by the Byzantine-backed tribes. It’s not a blanket command for perpetual war, but a legal instruction during a specific historical conflict. Do you even know what “jizyah” meant in practice? It was a form of tax exemption from military service, not a mechanism of humiliation—unless you think modern taxes are also “humiliation.”

2. Qur’an 5:51 – The word “awliyaa” in Arabic has a range of meanings: allies, guardians, political protectors—not casual friendships. The context was the betrayal by some Jewish and Christian tribes during the Prophet’s time, not a ban on coexistence or friendship. Qur’an 60:8 literally states: “Allah does not forbid you from being kind and just toward those who have not fought you.” But of course, you left that out—because your argument falls apart when the full picture is presented.

3. Qur’an 1:6–7 – This is a supplication for guidance. The classical tafsir that mentions Jews and Christians in connection with this verse refers to specific types of people who rejected truth knowingly or were misguided—not wholesale condemnation of entire faith groups. Your interpretation reflects polemics, not Islamic theology.

Then you list how Muslims need tafsir, asbab al-nuzul, hadith, etc., as if the presence of scholarly tools somehow makes the Qur’an less divine. That’s a childish point. No religious or philosophical tradition can be understood properly without context and scholarship—not Christianity, not Judaism, not even secular law.

You complain about diversity in interpretation—as if that invalidates the faith. Should we discard democracy because people debate its form? Should we abandon science because scholars disagree on theories? No, disagreement is a sign of intellectual vitality—not weakness.

Your final claim—that Muslims marginalize others—is sheer hypocrisy. Shall we go through the centuries of systemic oppression, forced conversions, inquisitions, and colonization committed by Christian empires? Islam, in contrast, maintained coexistence for centuries—from Andalusia to the Ottoman millet system—far more than can be said of most historical Christian powers.

So no, you’re not presenting facts. You’re reciting selective, decontextualized verses with polemical intent. You ignore the Qur’an’s clear call to justice, mercy, and coexistence because you’re not here for truth. You’re here to accuse and pretend it’s insight.

gohf AntiChristian TenQ

TheJustPath:
Stop Pretending to “Understand” Islam While You Weaponize Its Texts

Let’s cut through the pretense. You begin with, “I understand the dilemma of peaceful Muslims,” then proceed to butcher context, flatten centuries of scholarship, and throw out cherry-picked verses to paint Islam as inherently violent or incoherent. You’re not here to understand—you’re here to accuse, and badly at that.

On Qur’an 9:29
This verse was revealed during the Tabuk campaign—a specific military context where treaties had been violated, and the Byzantine threat loomed. It is not a standing order to fight anyone who isn’t Muslim. The command is legally and historically grounded. And jizyah? It was a tax that exempted non-Muslims from military service. Nothing humiliating about it—unless you want to argue that modern taxes are humiliation too.

On Qur’an 5:51
You mistranslate “awliyaa” as simply “friends” to your narrative. That’s dishonest. The term refers to political allegiance and protection—particularly during wartime treachery. If you actually cared about the Qur’an in its totality, you’d cite Qur’an 60:8:
"Allah does not forbid you from being kind and just to those who have not fought you or driven you from your homes."
But that verse doesn’t serve your agenda, so of course you skip it.

On Qur’an 1:6–7
Your claim that this is some kind of hidden insult to Jews and Christians is based on a polemical misreading. Classical scholars who mention Jews and Christians here are referring to types of spiritual error—not blanket condemnation. You’re either grossly uninformed or willfully distorting.

On Interpretation and Clarity
You mock Muslims for using tafsir, asbab al-nuzul, hadith, etc.—as if deep scholarship is a flaw. That logic is laughable. Should we abandon constitutional law because it needs judges, context, and precedent? Should we throw out Christianity because the Bible is interpreted through councils, Church Fathers, and centuries of exegesis?

The Qur’an is clear in its message, but like any serious body of revelation, it requires study. It’s not a Twitter thread. Your frustration that it’s not simplistic enough for you is your problem—not Islam’s.

On Alleged Muslim Oppression
You mention that Christians experience marginalization under Muslim-majority rule. Even if that were true in some modern cases, it is intellectually dishonest to generalize that across time and geography. Historically, Muslims upheld religious pluralism—from Andalusian Spain to Ottoman millet systems—while Christian empires often enforced conversion, committed genocide, and launched crusades.

So, let’s be clear:
^[/sup][sup]
You’re not confused. You’re not seeking clarity.
You’re deploying shallow apologetics and pretending it's an honest inquiry.
You ignore context, cherry-pick verses, and sidestep Qur’anic principles of justice and mercy—because those don’t serve your agenda.

Your understanding of Islam isn’t flawed. It’s fabricated.

Which one is inflaming you here

1. Your Tafsirs explained them clearly to mean exactly what the verses reads on the surface
2. As long as there are many Muslims who see it as a command to dominate and humiliate non Muslims, no explanation or reinterpretation avails much
3. Those who need re-education are actually Muslims and not Christians and Jews who are on the recieving side when Muslims are either in power or are a majority
4. The fact that even though you deny the apparent direct meanings, Christians (especially) experience marginalisation and injustice as a result of not being Muslims doesn't help your case.



As long as a sizable number of Muslims take different opinions other than yours, do you think we should close our eyes and relax?


If I buttress each of these verses with Tafsirs, do you promise not to say I am doing selective cherry picking?

TenQ:

Can you just explain why Allah's daughters are exactly Hubal's daughters!?

Are you inspired by the Holy Spirit with this rants?

TenQ:

Of course Islam later rejected the notion of Allah having three daughters. that even your prophet accidentally received the "satanic verses" and even prostrated as he recited the verses before it was abrogated by Jibril.

The problem is that it is a historical truth Muslims have to reject.




It is historically accurate my brother. All you need to do is to read up the story of Abdul Mutalib and his sacrifice to Allah/Hubal. It seems that the difference is that Hubal is the visible form of Allah as Allah doesn't have an image/idol but Hubal does. A sacrifice to Hubal is a sacrifice to Allah. This was the history according to Muslims about the pre-Islamic Arabs.

Have you ever wondered why the names of the three daughters of Hubal is the exact names of the three daughters of Allah according to the pre-Islamic Arabs?

As Muslims,you may reject the idea that Hubal is aka Allah BUT the pre-Islamic Muslims see otherwise. Unfortunately, you do not have any pre-Islamic history contradicting this.



Yes, Islam refutes this BUT history remains that the pre-Islamic Arabs knew this to be that Allah has three daughters and Hubal has three daughters and the names of the daughters are al-Lāt, al-‘Uzzā, and Manāt.




No sir!
Check your Qur'an and you will see that EVERY instance of the word AHAD means "One of" or "One out of a group" etc. Waheed is One but not Ahad. Ahad is Echad (Hebrew) and it means a compound Unity and not Singular Unity.

If you deny this, just form ten Arabic sentences with Ahad and let us see if it would be used as singular ONE.




Can one UNIFY what is inherently uniquely just ONE?

Your Argument Is a Mashup of Ignorance, Fabrication, and Arrogance

Let’s not sugarcoat it: your claims are riddled with distortion, shallow research, and a desperate attempt to equate polemic with truth.

1. The “Satanic Verses” Lie
Stop pretending this rejected, unauthenticated tale is a “historical fact.” It has no reliable chain, contradicts stronger hadiths, and has been dismissed by mainstream Islamic scholarship for centuries. If your argument hinges on a discredited myth, that tells us everything about your credibility.

2. Hubal = Allah? Absolute Nonsense.
Hubal was just one of 300+ idols placed around the Kaaba. Allah had no image, no idol, and no association with Hubal. Even pre-Islamic Arabs distinguished between Allah (the supreme creator) and lesser gods like Hubal. Qur’an 31:25 literally states: “They will surely say, ‘Allah created them.’” Hubal was a local idol—not a “visible form” of Allah. You clearly don't understand the religion you're trying to criticize.

3. Al-Lāt, al-‘Uzzā, Manāt? Islam Destroyed That Belief.
Yes, pagan Arabs believed these were Allah’s daughters. Islam called it what it was: a lie and blind conjecture. Qur’an 53:19-23 obliterates that notion. The fact that Islam confronted and crushed that false belief is proof of its mission, not an endorsement of pre-Islamic nonsense. You’re quoting the very disease and acting like it discredits the cure.

4. No “Pre-Islamic Record” Denying It? Laughable.
Why would pre-Islamic Arabs reject their own myths? That’s what Islam came to do. Your logic is like blaming medicine for not existing before the illness. Islam didn't evolve from idolatry—it confronted it and demolished it.

5. Ahad vs Wahid – Your Linguistic Gymnastics Are Embarrassing.
In Arabic, “Ahad” denotes absolute uniqueness, especially when used in theology. That’s why “Qul Huwa Allahu Ahad” is the foundation of Tawhid—it rules out all forms of composition, partnership, or plurality. “Wahid” just means “one (of something),” while “Ahad” is One like none other.
You're confusing Arabic with Hebrew “Echad” to force a Christian idea into Islamic monotheism. It doesn’t work—linguistically or theologically. Form ten Arabic sentences? Sure. Just look at every time “Ahad” is used in Qur’anic negation: “lam yakun lahu kufuwan ahad”—no one, no equal, no second.

6. “Can You Unify What Is One?”
Exactly—you can’t. That’s why Allah is not a composition or trinity. You’ve accidentally summarized Islamic monotheism perfectly. Islam doesn’t unify God. It affirms His eternal, indivisible unity. Try keeping up.

In conclusion:
You’re not delivering history. You’re pushing tired apologetics, dressed up with bad linguistics and worse theology. You twist myths, misunderstand Arabic, and ignore the very core of what Islam teaches—because truth isn’t your goal. Polemics are.

If you actually studied the religion with sincerity instead of Googling attack material, you’d realize just how shallow your arguments are.

JimRohn:
You claim to “understand” peaceful Muslims, yet you proceed to weaponize verses, strip them of context, and parade your ignorance as if it’s insight. Your entire argument is a predictable patchwork of cherry-picked verses, void of nuance, historical context, and intellectual honesty.

Let’s dismantle your facade piece by piece.

1. Qur’an 9:29 – You quote it like a slogan but deliberately omit the context of war and treaties being violated. This was revealed during an active conflict, not as a universal mandate. You're not quoting scripture to understand—it’s a hit job, and you know it.

2. Qur’an 5:51 – “Awliyaa” means allies, protectors, patrons—not mere “friends” as you claim. Again, context: it was a time of political tension, not Sunday brunch. But you ignore scholarly consensus and linguistic depth because it suits your agenda to oversimplify.

3. Qur’an 1:6–7 – You're stretching now. That verse is a prayer, not a doctrine of exclusion. Interpreting "those who earned wrath" as all Jews and "those who are astray" as all Christians is your own projection, not a universally held or mandated interpretation.

You accuse Muslims of needing tafsir, hadith, and asbab al-nuzul—as if complex systems of thought and context invalidate a religion. What a laughable standard. By that logic, every field from law to medicine to theology should be rejected because they require scholarly tools to understand.

You scoff at disagreement between scholars—yet that’s the very sign of a dynamic, intellectually honest tradition. Unlike the echo chamber you clearly prefer, Islamic scholarship values debate and depth.

You say Muslims marginalize others when in power, as if injustice is exclusive to Islam. Shall we list centuries of colonization, genocide, and forced conversion committed in the name of Christ? Or is your moral outrage conveniently one-directional?

Finally, you pretend that disagreement among Muslims weakens the message. No, it reflects reality: truth is often complex, layered, and demands effort. Your fixation on surface-level readings doesn’t make you insightful—it exposes a lazy, agenda-driven mindset.

So no, you don’t “understand the dilemma.” You exploit it. And your faux-objectivity isn’t fooling anyone.

I only quoted the Qur'an as you can see, and I didn't even explain it beyond the obvious face value meaning.

Please check!

CreativeOrbit:
You begin with “I understand,” but everything that follows makes it abundantly clear you don’t. You’re not here to understand—you’re here to indict. You parade a series of verses divorced from context, history, and scholarly interpretation, and then pretend confusion when Muslims rely on the very scholarly tradition that has always accompanied the Qur’an since its revelation.

1. Qur’an 9:29 – This verse was revealed in the context of the Tabuk expedition—a time of military threat and betrayal by the Byzantine-backed tribes. It’s not a blanket command for perpetual war, but a legal instruction during a specific historical conflict. Do you even know what “jizyah” meant in practice? It was a form of tax exemption from military service, not a mechanism of humiliation—unless you think modern taxes are also “humiliation.”

2. Qur’an 5:51 – The word “awliyaa” in Arabic has a range of meanings: allies, guardians, political protectors—not casual friendships. The context was the betrayal by some Jewish and Christian tribes during the Prophet’s time, not a ban on coexistence or friendship. Qur’an 60:8 literally states: “Allah does not forbid you from being kind and just toward those who have not fought you.” But of course, you left that out—because your argument falls apart when the full picture is presented.

3. Qur’an 1:6–7 – This is a supplication for guidance. The classical tafsir that mentions Jews and Christians in connection with this verse refers to specific types of people who rejected truth knowingly or were misguided—not wholesale condemnation of entire faith groups. Your interpretation reflects polemics, not Islamic theology.

Then you list how Muslims need tafsir, asbab al-nuzul, hadith, etc., as if the presence of scholarly tools somehow makes the Qur’an less divine. That’s a childish point. No religious or philosophical tradition can be understood properly without context and scholarship—not Christianity, not Judaism, not even secular law.

You complain about diversity in interpretation—as if that invalidates the faith. Should we discard democracy because people debate its form? Should we abandon science because scholars disagree on theories? No, disagreement is a sign of intellectual vitality—not weakness.

Your final claim—that Muslims marginalize others—is sheer hypocrisy. Shall we go through the centuries of systemic oppression, forced conversions, inquisitions, and colonization committed by Christian empires? Islam, in contrast, maintained coexistence for centuries—from Andalusia to the Ottoman millet system—far more than can be said of most historical Christian powers.

So no, you’re not presenting facts. You’re reciting selective, decontextualized verses with polemical intent. You ignore the Qur’an’s clear call to justice, mercy, and coexistence because you’re not here for truth. You’re here to accuse and pretend it’s insight.

gohf AntiChristian TenQ

What you are saying is that it is impossible to understand the clear Qur'an without using Tafsirs, Asbāb al-Nuzūl, Hadiths, and other islamic books

TenQ:

What you are saying is that it is impossible to understand the clear Qur'an without using Tafsirs, Asbāb al-Nuzūl, Hadiths, and other islamic books

Same way you need the the HOLY SPIRIT (that was absent when the Bible was written) to interprete the Bible that was written independenly then later selected and approved by some trinitarians!

CreativeOrbit, you sabi waste your time o!

TenQ no be person you fit reason with on an intellectual level!

TenQ:

What you are saying is that it is impossible to understand the clear Qur'an without using Tafsirs, Asbāb al-Nuzūl, Hadiths, and other islamic books

So let me get this straight—you believe you can grasp the full depth of the Qur'an while ignoring the very tools that have been used for over 1,400 years to preserve, explain, and contextualize it? That’s not insight, that’s delusion wrapped in arrogance.

Tafsirs, Hadiths, and Asbāb al-Nuzūl aren’t optional—they're essential to understanding the intended meanings, not just what your uninformed ego projects onto the text.

Your approach strips the Qur'an of its divine precision and replaces it with reckless guesswork. If anything, your stance proves why unqualified interpretation does more harm than good.

AntiChristian:


Same way you need the the HOLY SPIRIT (that was absent when the Bible was written) to interprete the Bible that was written independenly then later selected and approved by some trinitarians!

CreativeOrbit, you sabi waste your time o!

TenQ no be person you fit reason with on an intellectual level!

It is evident that TenQ is not capable of engaging in meaningful or intellectually grounded discourse.

Nonetheless, the matter cannot be disregarded or left unaddressed, as it requires a clear and principled response to prevent the spread of misinformation and confusion.

Thanks,
Bro. AntiChristian

CreativeOrbit:
So let me get this straight—you believe you can grasp the full depth of the Qur'an while ignoring the very tools that have been used for over 1,400 years to preserve, explain, and contextualize it? That’s not insight, that’s delusion wrapped in arrogance.

Tafsirs, Hadiths, and Asbāb al-Nuzūl aren’t optional—they're essential to understanding the intended meanings, not just what your uninformed ego projects onto the text.

Your approach strips the Qur'an of its divine precision and replaces it with reckless guesswork. If anything, your stance proves why unqualified interpretation does more harm than good.

You see that I didn't even interpret any of the scriptures I quoted, I only stated them. But the plain English meaning has already put you on the defensive.
If you ask me, what I see is Muslims rewriting history as they go. The story they like is Authentic and the one they don't like is Fabricated

Yes, Tafsirs, Hadiths, and Asbāb al-Nuzūl aren’t optional but they sometimes conflict with each other.

My issue is not even this:
My problem with Muslims is that Allah says that the Quran is simple to understand and the Quran is clear yet what I see Muslims do is the exact opposite: They need the consensus of their scholars to reinterpret the Quran to speak exactly what they want the Quran to say.

Examples:
Quran 9:31 is a place where what Allah says is different from what your scholars arrive at
Another is
Quran 19:71-72 what Allah says is different from what your scholars arrive at

AntiChristian:


Same way you need the the HOLY SPIRIT (that was absent when the Bible was written) to interprete the Bible that was written independenly then later selected and approved by some trinitarians!

CreativeOrbit, you sabi waste your time o!

TenQ no be person you fit reason with on an intellectual level!

How do you explain the fact that Allah himself said:
Qur'an 11:1
This is a Book whose verses are perfected and then presented in detail from [one who is] Wise and Acquainted"

Qur'an 41:3
"[A Book] whose verses have been detailed, an Arabic Qur'an for a people who know."

Qur'an 12:1
"These are the verses of the clear Book"

CreativeOrbit:
It is evident that TenQ is not capable of engaging in meaningful or intellectually grounded discourse.

Nonetheless, the matter cannot be disregarded or left unaddressed, as it requires a clear and principled response to prevent the spread of misinformation and confusion.

Thanks,
Bro. AntiChristian

I know that Antichristian is your brother and both of you are sympathetic to Islam and the Quran. But trust me on this. Muslims on the average hate the truth. Muslims will resist the truth strongly in other that Islam might be correct.

All I do is to show you what your religious books say: unfortunately, they are not usually what you want to hear.
I understand Islam because I almost became a Muslim (thanks to Ahmed Deedat). Before reciting the shahada, I decided to read the Quran. It was eventually reading the Quran by myself that snapped me out of my delusion. I decided to search for the truth by asking Questions. Here I am.

Muslims don't ask Questions: they just believe whatever their scholars have told them.
Unfortunately,
Most of what your scholars are telling you are lies upon lies upon more lies. I am sure, even you probably believe in many these lies

1. Allah is the same God of the Jews and the Christians
2. The Quran is the Exact Verbatim words of Allah
3. The Quran is Perfectly Preserved
4. There is only ONE Quran unlike the bible that has KJV, NIV, GNT etc
5. Christians worship three Gods
6. Jesus was given a book called Injeel
7. Jesus was not Crucified and neither did He die on the Cross
8. Jesus is coming back to convert every Christian to Islam
9. All prophets and Patriarchs of old are Muslims
10. Mohammed is a Prophet and Servant of God
11. Mohammed is the greatest of all Messengers and Prophets of God
12. Jubril is the same as Angel Gabriel
13. Islam has come to Replace Christianity and Judaism.
14. Mohammed couldn’t read nor write
15. All the Prophets of God from Adam to Moses to Jesus are Muslims.
16. All Muslims will enter Paradise
17. Scientific Miracles in the Quran


Until you ask requisite questions and you are willing to swallow the painful pill of truth, you will remain in darkness thinking that you are in the light.





Suppose I invite you to my religion NUDINITY, where in our paradise, our reward are
1. Nothing we do in paradise is a sin
2. We will have eternal erections
3. We shall be deflowering a new girl every day
4. We shall drink all we want and we shall not be intoxicated
5. We even have a 3D market with images of mean and women (like a brothel) that we can pick our choices form
What will you say about the source of such a religion?

Is this a Reward or a Temptation?

TenQ:

Of course Islam later rejected the notion of Allah having three daughters. that even your prophet accidentally received the "satanic verses" and even prostrated as he recited the verses before it was abrogated by Jibril.

The problem is that it is a historical truth Muslims have to reject.




It is historically accurate my brother. All you need to do is to read up the story of Abdul Mutalib and his sacrifice to Allah/Hubal. It seems that the difference is that Hubal is the visible form of Allah as Allah doesn't have an image/idol but Hubal does. A sacrifice to Hubal is a sacrifice to Allah. This was the history according to Muslims about the pre-Islamic Arabs.

Have you ever wondered why the names of the three daughters of Hubal is the exact names of the three daughters of Allah according to the pre-Islamic Arabs?

As Muslims,you may reject the idea that Hubal is aka Allah BUT the pre-Islamic Muslims see otherwise. Unfortunately, you do not have any pre-Islamic history contradicting this.



Yes, Islam refutes this BUT history remains that the pre-Islamic Arabs knew this to be that Allah has three daughters and Hubal has three daughters and the names of the daughters are al-Lāt, al-‘Uzzā, and Manāt.




No sir!
Check your Qur'an and you will see that EVERY instance of the word AHAD means "One of" or "One out of a group" etc. Waheed is One but not Ahad. Ahad is Echad (Hebrew) and it means a compound Unity and not Singular Unity.

If you deny this, just form ten Arabic sentences with Ahad and let us see if it would be used as singular ONE.




Can one UNIFY what is inherently uniquely just ONE?

Allah is not a unification or amalgamation of multiple gods.

Tawheed goes beyond just being a mix of different deities; it truly represents a deep commitment to the uniqueness and sovereignty of the divine. At its core, Tawheed asserts that Allah has no partner or rival in His Lordship, highlighting His unmatched power to oversee every facet of existence.

honesttalk21:


Allah is not a unification or amalgamation of multiple gods.

Tawheed goes beyond just being a mix of different deities; it truly represents a deep commitment to the uniqueness and sovereignty of the divine. At its core, Tawheed asserts that Allah has no partner or rival in His Lordship, highlighting His unmatched power to oversee every facet of existence.

I understand your view:
I just was looking at the meaning of Ahad and Taoheed and the meanings suggest that.

TenQ:

You see that I didn't even interpret any of the scriptures I quoted, I only stated them. But the plain English meaning has already put you on the defensive.
If you ask me, what I see is Muslims rewriting history as they go. The story they like is Authentic and the one they don't like is Fabricated

Yes, Tafsirs, Hadiths, and Asbāb al-Nuzūl aren’t optional but they sometimes conflict with each other.

My issue is not even this:
My problem with Muslims is that Allah says that the Quran is simple to understand and the Quran is clear yet what I see Muslims do is the exact opposite: They need the consensus of their scholars to reinterpret the Quran to speak exactly what they want the Quran to say.

Examples:
Quran 9:31 is a place where what Allah says is different from what your scholars arrive at
Another is
Quran 19:71-72 what Allah says is different from what your scholars arrive at

Let me make a few things very clear, since you’ve decided to take the condescending route while pretending you’re just “quoting plainly.”

You claim you “only stated” verses without interpreting them, but that’s disingenuous. Anyone who cherry-picks verses without understanding context, background, or language nuances is already interpreting—poorly, at that. You’re not some neutral reader; you’re projecting your own bias while pretending it's objective reading.

Now to your lazy accusation of “Muslims rewriting history”: that’s rich coming from someone dismissing an entire scholarly tradition because it doesn’t serve your polemical agenda. Muslims preserved millennia of intellectual tradition—linguistic, contextual, and historical analysis—while you flip through a translation and assume divine-level insight.

Yes, Tafsir, Hadith, and Asbāb al-Nuzūl can have tensions, but they are meant to grapple with complexity, not give you a spoon-fed soundbite. Real texts, real traditions, real histories are not comic strips.

Your central gripe—“the Quran says it’s simple but Muslims make it complex”—betrays a fundamental misunderstanding of what “mubeen” and “yassarna” mean. Simple doesn’t mean reductionist. The Quran is accessible, yes—but only to those who engage sincerely, not to those playing semantic games from their armchair.

Now let’s deal with your examples:

Quran 9:31 – Your whole “gotcha” is based on ignoring grammar, context, and tafsir. The verse condemns those who gave divine authority to rabbis and monks—not in mere obedience, but in placing them above revelation. Muslim scholars actually clarify this, not contradict it.

Quran 19:71-72 – Again, you ignore context and try to twist a verse to fit your narrative. Scholars interpret this in light of other verses, prophetic traditions, and linguistic constructs. That’s not rewriting; that’s understanding the Quran holistically—something you conveniently avoid.

What you call “reinterpreting” is actually deep reading. You don’t get to throw away centuries of scholarly consensus because you’re uncomfortable with the idea that the Quran requires thought, not Twitter-length takes.

You can’t attack from a place of ignorance and then act shocked when you're corrected by those who actually study.

Either argue in good faith or it you're just here to provoke. But don’t expect Muslims to dumb down their faith for the sake of your shallow reading.

gohf AntiChristian TenQ

TenQ:

I only quoted the Qur'an as you can see, and I didn't even explain it beyond the obvious face value meaning.

Please check!

Stop hiding behind this weak excuse of “I only quoted the Qur’an at face value.” That’s not some virtue — that’s intellectual laziness parading as honesty.

You’re quoting translated verses — ripped from context, without linguistic insight, historical awareness, or scholarly methodology — and then pretending you're just reading it “as it is.” That’s not neutral. That’s manipulative. That’s like grabbing Shakespeare in Mandarin and claiming you’ve unlocked hidden meanings.

You want to pretend that “face value” is the standard? The Qur’an itself condemns those who read without reflection, context, or sincerity. So don’t act like you're doing anything noble — you're just cherry-picking lines while ignoring the surrounding verses, the occasion of revelation (asbāb al-nuzūl), and the interconnected textual structure the Qur’an constantly uses.

It’s like quoting a chemistry textbook without understanding the formulas, then saying “I’m just reading what it says.” No — you’re misreading, oversimplifying, and weaponizing text with zero qualification.

If you’re serious about truth, stop pretending that shallow readings make you a scholar. They don’t. They just make you loud and wrong — confidently so.

So yes, we did check. And you’re not quoting the Qur’an. You’re mutilating it with your ignorance.

TenQ:

I understand your view:
I just was looking at the meaning of Ahad and Taoheed and the meanings suggest that.

And ignoring contextual meaning?

TenQ:


No sir!
Check your Qur'an and you will see that EVERY instance of the word AHAD means "One of" or "One out of a group" etc. Waheed is One but not Ahad. Ahad is Echad (Hebrew) and it means a compound Unity and not Singular Unity.

If you deny this, just form ten Arabic sentences with Ahad and let us see if it would be used as singular ONE.

Aḥad in general usage means “anyone” in negated statements.

Aḥad in reference to Allah and in Surah al-Ikhlāṣ is an unparalleled, divine term, affirming tawḥīd in the highest metaphysical sense.

honesttalk21:


And ignoring contextual meaning?




Aḥad in general usage means “anyone” in negated statements.

Aḥad in reference to Allah and in Surah al-Ikhlāṣ is an unparalleled, divine term, affirming tawḥīd in the highest metaphysical sense.

My issue is that
1. Ahad (Arabic) and Echad (Hebrew) are linguistically the same in meaning: meaning "Compound ONE or Union" or Unity or "One Of"
2. Everywhere in the Qur'an it means exactly this UNTIL we show you the inconsistency of having Allah as Ahad.

It is then you redefine Ahad specifically to suit your doctrine of Ahad.

It becomes worse when instead of Waheed for Allah, you still use the word Taoheed (Unification or Unity): another major problem unless you redefine the term specifically for Allah.


I understand that this is atopic you will rather want to debate within the circles of Islamic scholars rather than with a Christian because we will ask further questions that may not be acceptable to you. Like:
Is Allah one of many?

So, this is food for thought for you: Muslims don't ask questions. They depend on the consensus of their Scholars even for what is clearly stated in the Qur'an!

CreativeOrbit:
Let me make a few things very clear, since you’ve decided to take the condescending route while pretending you’re just “quoting plainly.”

You claim you “only stated” verses without interpreting them, but that’s disingenuous. Anyone who cherry-picks verses without understanding context, background, or language nuances is already interpreting—poorly, at that. You’re not some neutral reader; you’re projecting your own bias while pretending it's objective reading.

Now to your lazy accusation of “Muslims rewriting history”: that’s rich coming from someone dismissing an entire scholarly tradition because it doesn’t serve your polemical agenda. Muslims preserved millennia of intellectual tradition—linguistic, contextual, and historical analysis—while you flip through a translation and assume divine-level insight.

Yes, Tafsir, Hadith, and Asbāb al-Nuzūl can have tensions, but they are meant to grapple with complexity, not give you a spoon-fed soundbite. Real texts, real traditions, real histories are not comic strips.

Your central gripe—“the Quran says it’s simple but Muslims make it complex”—betrays a fundamental misunderstanding of what “mubeen” and “yassarna” mean. Simple doesn’t mean reductionist. The Quran is accessible, yes—but only to those who engage sincerely, not to those playing semantic games from their armchair.

You seem to be unaware that the same thing you accuse me of in cherry-picking verses seem to be what many Muslims who oppose your peaceful disposition do.

It seems it is too easy to have ing verses to do anything with islam.
Eg. Boko Haram see themselves as the good muslims who follow the sunnah of your prophet as commanded by Allah: of course you disagree!
However , the fact that they can get ing Aya of the Quran, Hadiths, Tafsirs etc says a lot.

It is like having a colony of snakes in a pot with 90% non venomous and only 10% venomous with instruction that I should put my hands in the pot because the snakes are not venomous. If you were me, what will you do? Is it to trust the 90% argument or see the 10% as dangerous enough not to attempt it?

CreativeOrbit:

Now let’s deal with your examples:

Quran 9:31 – Your whole “gotcha” is based on ignoring grammar, context, and tafsir. The verse condemns those who gave divine authority to rabbis and monks—not in mere obedience, but in placing them above revelation. Muslim scholars actually clarify this, not contradict it.

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.

Questions:
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?

OR
Do we need to twist Arabic Grammar to make the verse consistent with what Allah says?

CreativeOrbit:

Quran 19:71-72 – Again, you ignore context and try to twist a verse to fit your narrative. Scholars interpret this in light of other verses, prophetic traditions, and linguistic constructs. That’s not rewriting; that’s understanding the Quran holistically—something you conveniently avoid.

Quran 19:71
There is not one of you who will not go down to it (the Fire), that is a fixed Decree of your Lord

Meaning that ALL Muslims will at least first be in Hell Fire.

Quran 19:72
Then, We will save those who were cautious of Us, but the harmdoers shall be left there hobbling on their knees

After ALL you Muslims enter the Fire, THEN Allah will THEREAFTER remove the good Muslims and leave other people in the Fire

1. I am sure the first thing you will say is that, "the verse doesn't say that" . So, strictly from the Arabic , what does it say?
2. Why do you think you will first have to go into hell fire before you are freed by Allah?
3. How long do you think you will be in the fire before Allah comes to free you: 1000 years!?

CreativeOrbit:

What you call “reinterpreting” is actually deep reading. You don’t get to throw away centuries of scholarly consensus because you’re uncomfortable with the idea that the Quran requires thought, not Twitter-length takes.

You can’t attack from a place of ignorance and then act shocked when you're corrected by those who actually study.

Either argue in good faith or it you're just here to provoke. But don’t expect Muslims to dumb down their faith for the sake of your shallow reading.

gohf AntiChristian TenQ

I am not even making any arguments: I am presenting may case based on reasons.
What you seem to want to do is to give me your own views without answering for my reasons AND you want me to take it as the final testament.
I am not here to provoke you o!
You will note that anything I say, I justify it from your own books: Is my offence is selective cherry-picking!?