NewStats: 3,261,772 , 8,175,091 topics. Date: Friday, 30 May 2025 at 01:14 PM 26436k

TenQ:

It seems you don't know that the Jewish scholars used to believe in the duality of God known as "the two powers of heaven" which was entirely rejected at the advent of Christianity?

Let me show you just one scripture in the Torah that explains it.

Gen 19:24:
"and YHWH (on earth) rained upon Sodom and upon Gomorrah brimstone and fire from YHWH, from the heavens;"

They saw YHWH who comes to the earth either as a Man or an Angel or as Pillar of Cloud and Fire who is also Simultaneously on His Throne in Heaven.

Because of the Christians teaching Trinity, they rejected any of their doctrine that suggests the Triune nature of God.

Again,
Let me show you what Echad means. God says that Adam and Eve are ONE (Echad) for it means COMPOUND UNITY

Gen 2:24:
"Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall to his wife: and they shall be one (ECHAD) flesh."

Of course it is a contradiction to a monotheist unitary God. The belief in the duality of God, articulated as "the two powers of heaven," presents a fascinating yet contentious aspect of early Jewish theology. This concept posited a division of divine authority. Why divide?

This belief undermines the strict monotheism central to Judaism, it reflects Hellenistic influence rather than authentic Jewish theology. Bring another!


Genesis 19:24 plays out Hebrew Grammar and style showing the literary device called repetition for emphasis or agent-subject distinction in narrative form.

It illustrates a relational bond among people, while in relation to God, it signifies a fundamental unity essential to monotheistic faith. Echad is a profound term that encomes diverse meanings, vital for comprehending both interpersonal connections and religious teachings.

Keep finding evidence for your unfounded trinity.

honesttalk21:


Of course it is a contradiction to a monotheist unitary God. The belief in the duality of God, articulated as "the two powers of heaven," presents a fascinating yet contentious aspect of early Jewish theology. This concept posited a division of divine authority. Why divide?

This belief undermines the strict monotheism central to Judaism, it reflects Hellenistic influence rather than authentic Jewish theology. Bring another!


Genesis 19:24 plays out Hebrew Grammar and style showing the literary device called repetition for emphasis or agent-subject distinction in narrative form.

It illustrates a relational bond among people, while in relation to God, it signifies a fundamental unity essential to monotheistic faith. Echad is a profound term that encomes diverse meanings, vital for comprehending both interpersonal connections and religious teachings.

Keep finding evidence for your unfounded trinity.

Meaning that God is unlike ANYTHING or ANYONE in creation as He can be in Everywhere and in Heaven on His Throne and on the Earth at the same time.
The fact that your feeble mind cannot comprehend this is not a surprise because just as idol worshippers, you want a Deity that you can comprehend as simple to comprehend in a location in space and time. This is Islam's strict monotheism: fixing God within their own box.

This is the reason why even Allah and all islamic theology seems not to understand what a Spirit is.
Is Islam even a spiritual?

Until your God is not bound by space or time, he is just another deity out of billions. Don't forget that Iblis is ONE so, I ask.

What is the difference between the onensss of Iblis and the onensss of Allah?

honesttalk21:




Allah isn't in anyway like just a physical being.
Allah goes beyond space, time, form, and dimension. He is the Creator of all these things, which are separate from Him. This idea is central to understanding Allah's transcendence and uniqueness.

The Qur’an and Sunnah describe Allah's attributes in a way that honors His greatness, but they don’t try to pin down His "size," "height," or "form" in any measurable way. So, why is that?

Height implies physicality — being tall or short only applies to beings that occupy space. But Allah is:

As-Samad
"Allah, the Self-Sufficient, the Eternal Refuge." (Surah al-Ikhlāṣ 112:2)

Ādam was created with an impressive height of 60 cubits, symbolizing his significant role as the first human.

You can see that you did NOT answer any of my questions. You were just repeating what you have been programmed to say about Allah.

TenQ:

Is this a literal statement that Allah's face would burn all his creations or allegorical statement.

Because it has implications.
If truely Mohammed went to the LOCATION where Allah is and spoke to him behind the veil, THEN Allah is surely NOT Omnipresent

Several ways to prove the same thing.


1. Tell us the relationship of Adam's height to Allah's attributes
AND
Tell us the relationship of Adam's Face to Allah's attributes

Why did your prophet emphasized Adam's Face and Height?

2. Mohammed said that Allah created Adam in his image and then goes on to describe Adams image in the physical of face and height.
Can you thus explain in clear how Adam is created in Allah's image?

Why did your prophet compare Adam's physical features to Allah's?

It seems your prophet believes that Allah is a physical being from every description he gives about him

NairaLTQ:


You can see that you did NOT answer any of my questions. You were just repeating what you have been programmed to say about Allah.



Why did your prophet compare Adam's physical features to Allah's?

It seems your prophet believes that Allah is a physical being from every description he gives about him

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

NairaLTQ:

Meaning that God is unlike ANYTHING or ANYONE in creation as He can be in Everywhere and in Heaven on His Throne and on the Earth at the same time.
The fact that your feeble mind cannot comprehend this is not a surprise because just as idol worshippers, you want a Deity that you can comprehend as simple to comprehend in a location in space and time. This is Islam's strict monotheism: fixing God within their own box.

This is the reason why even Allah and all islamic theology seems not to understand what a Spirit is.
Is Islam even a spiritual?

Until your God is not bound by space or time, he is just another deity out of billions. Don't forget that Iblis is ONE so, I ask.

What is the difference between the onensss of Iblis and the onensss of Allah?

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?

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.

TenQ:

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.

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?

Rich4god:


Now judging by your response, you guys are making it mandatory for everyone to fast. Why should there be compulsion in religion.

Allah prescribed fasting to only Muslims. Not eating outside during daytime in Ramadan period is not the same as forcing them to fast. No one has ever being arrested for eating indoors or at night time during Ramadan!

Go look at what is happening in UK and other European countries that accepted migrant Muslims. Infact it's because of the Muslims that UK indigenes are clamouring for migrants to be deported.

The UK and other European countries contributed a lot to the terrorism going on in most Arab nations. So they are in no position to say anything. And their constitutions permit freedom of worship. So the migrants only want to be ruled by Islam.

The vast majority of Muslims are silent on the actions of terrorist who commit crime against humanity using the name of Islam...

Since the reputation of your religion is at stake, the out cry against such should have been high to dissociate islam from terrorism. But no... Majority are just silent.

Why do everyone need to talk about terrorism? How may people in the SE is preaching terrorism in the church or Shrine? We teach Islam as it is. Islam already condemns suicide bombing as a ticket to hell. Also killing people is of the greatest sins that can also make one laible to hell. Reputation of Islam is not at state at any given point in time. People will enter hell and Paradise for sure!

Am trying to understand why should there be a death penalty on someone for insulting your prophet.

Can you also tell me why Elisha cursed 42 kids to death and God ed him in 2 Kings 2:23-25? Just because the boys called him baldhead.

When we ask, you all will say that it's not in your holy book, that those doing it don't follow the teachings.

But the body language of virtually all Muslims s death penalty for insults of your prophet.

Anyone who insults the Prophet should face the law. And the Shariah is clear on that. And yes, i death penalty for insults on Allah or His messenger! This is the law of Allah!

gohf:
I wish you are on clubhouse. I wonder what creativeorbit and Antichristian answers to these questions are

What questions?

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."

TenQ:

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."

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

TenQ:

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."

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?

TenQ:

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."

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.

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.

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.

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 s—which is not only ignorant but profoundly disrespectful.

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.

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?

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 s—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?

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!

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 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!

TenQ:

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!

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

TenQ:

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?

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.

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!

TenQ:

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.




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?


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)


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 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


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?


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!

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.

TenQ:

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!

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!

TenQ:

Lets see!
LOL!


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?


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.



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?



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?

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 —because your ego can’t handle language more complex than your narrow literalism.

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 it it.

You cry “the scholars lied!” because you can’t deal with your inability to engage Islamic thought on its own . 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.

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.

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 —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 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 it 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 . 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.

TenQ:

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 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?


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.



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.

Your argument is a shallow attempt at theological mockery disguised as critique, riddled with logical fallacies, strawman assumptions, and a profound ignorance of Islamic theology. Let's dismantle this nonsense step by step.

1. False Equivalence Fallacy: You compare Allah to the Dajjal and use that to undermine the uniqueness of Allah. That’s absurd. The argument "there’s no one like the Dajjal, so your claim about Allah’s uniqueness is vague" is a category error. The Dajjal is a created being. Allah is the uncreated Creator. Comparing the two is intellectually dishonest and shows you don’t understand the basic ontological distinction in Islamic theology. Or worse—you do, but you ignore it to push your agenda.

2. Misrepresentation of the Hadith: You cherry-pick and distort narrations about the recognition of Allah. The Hadith about the "Shin" is mutashabih (ambiguous in meaning) and is part of eschatological descriptions. It is not meant to be a literal anatomical of Allah. You strip context, scholarly consensus, and linguistic nuance just to create a laughable strawman. Either you're grossly uninformed, or you're deliberately misrepresenting Islamic texts to provoke rather than understand.

3. Your caricature of Islamic scholarship is not clever—it’s lazy: The idea that scholars reinterpret everything because Allah and the Prophet are “bad communicators” is a childish misrepresentation of how religious exegesis works. Interpretation exists not because revelation is unclear, but because human contexts change, languages evolve, and comprehension levels vary. Scholarship refines understanding—it doesn’t override it.

4. Mocking the need for scholars is ironic coming from someone who’s clearly not read any: You demand absolute clarity while rejecting the very process of clarification. Scholars exist to guard orthodoxy, not to invent it. You wouldn't discard physicists because Newton's laws exist. But when it comes to religion, you suddenly pretend interpretive traditions are a problem.

5. You oversimplify complex theological issues to score points—not seek truth: Your summary of Islamic beliefs reduces nuanced metaphysical doctrine into a comic-book level rant about “shape,” “eyes,” and “meetings.” If you spent more time studying and less time trolling, you might realize Islam has robust theological schools that deal precisely with anthropomorphic descriptions—without absurdities like yours.

6. Final question to you: Are you trying to argue or are you just here to ridicule? Because if it’s the latter, at least be honest about your intent. Intellectual cowardice hides behind mockery. If you want a real discussion, bring arguments with philosophical rigor and at least a surface-level understanding of Islamic epistemology.

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!

TenQ:

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.

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.

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.

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 ission 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.

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.

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.

AntiChristian:


What questions?

read the post I quoted and you will see the questions

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.


gohf AntiChristian TenQ honesttalk21

Allah means the God, so you are saying that the God was the name of the supreme creator God?

Now I want you to read something;
In pre-Islamic Arabia, the Kaaba housed a statue of Hubal, a deity revered by the Quraysh tribe. Hubal was a prominent god, with his idol placed inside the Kaaba, sometimes above the dry well, and his position near the Black Stone suggests a connection between the two, according to Answering Islam. Some scholars, like Julius Wellhausen, suggest the idea that Hubal may have originally been the Black Stone itself, or even an early form of Allah.


Is this historically a lie, because even till date Muslims venerate the black stone and kabba, to you it maybe for a different reason, but are both structures not man made and the same

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!

CreativeOrbit:

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.


Your final claim—that Muslims marginalize others—is sheer hypocrisy.
gohf AntiChristian TenQ

Creative I know I am cutting out from your words to tenq but it is mind-blowing what you have written here.

Putting this into the Nigerian context, a Muslim could rightly say they have the right to be unkind towards the igbos who fought them in the civil war.

I think I am beginning to understand why some igbos in the north are wary of the Muslims, such reaction isn't one you expect from those who are welcomed. I have not experienced such marginalization and I have had some "good" Muslim friends but don't you think it's wrong to call those who have or may have faced such hypocritical?

JimRohn:
Your

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.

are you now saying that the same idol worshippers who say that Hubal is the highest God and who say that Allah created them, are confused if it is said that Hubal and Allah are the same to them. Because frankly Allah means the god and it's not a name like how Hubal is.

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!

so are you equating the Holy Spirit mentioned in the bible to Tafsirs, Asbāb al-Nuzūl, Hadiths, and other islamic books?