bülent armagan

[bülent armagan @isikpinar2000]

Hakikatten tiksinmek! Grup taassubu, parti taassubu,ideoloji taassubu,Allah belası hangi taassupsa.....Hakikat yakar.Ya onu elinde tutar yanarsın ya da atar yanarsın. Hakikat birgün kendini kabul ettirir biz tiksinsek de.Esas tiksinilecek şeyin ta kendisi ona kayıtsız kalmaktır!

[bülent armagan @isikpinar2000]

I think there are far more fundamental and pressing questions that should be asked first:

Christians frequently present the claim that "God became visible, lived among people, and spoke to them directly" as one of Christianity's greatest advantages. If that is truly the case, then the natural consequence would be that the clearest, most complete, and most indisputable revelation in human history should consist of the direct words of the visible God Himself.

Yet, interestingly, the opposite is true.

At the heart of Christianity, there is no miraculous and divinely preserved book left directly by Jesus Himself. What we possess is not Jesus' own revelation, but biographies about Him, letters, and writings composed by later generations.

Every kind of miracle is claimed: walking on water, raising the dead, healing the sick, and above all, rising from the dead Himself. Yet when it comes to preserving Jesus' teachings for all generations, there is no divinely authored book left directly by Jesus.

Moreover, according to the Christian narrative, the risen Jesus remained with His disciples for forty days. If the doctrines said to be indispensable for salvation are truly that fundamental, why were they not entrusted to humanity by the risen Jesus Himself in a clear, systematic, and unambiguous manner during those forty days? Why, whenever these doctrines are discussed, is the appeal consistently made to later authors, to Paul's epistles, or to the guidance of the INVISIBLE Holy Spirit after Pentecost?

Here a serious inconsistency emerges. You present the concept of a "visible God" as Christianity's greatest advantage. Yet when it comes to establishing Christianity's most fundamental doctrines, you do not rely primarily on the words of the visible God Himself, but on the later guidance of the INVISIBLE Holy Spirit and the interpretations of the apostles—or especially Paul.

If the visible God truly represents the greatest advantage in human history, then its greatest fruit should have been a divine and miraculous book left directly by the visible God Himself.

If humanity never needed a divinely revealed book, then no sacred scripture should have been necessary in the first place. But if humanity does require divine revelation in the form of a book, then one would naturally expect Jesus who is claimed to be God incarnate to have left behind a miraculous and divinely preserved book bearing His own authority: one that explains, with unmistakable clarity and in systematic detail, the meaning of the crucifixion, the doctrine of atonement, Christ's divinity, justification by faith, and the other foundational doctrines of Christianity in a way that leaves no room for interpretive uncertainty.

If your response is, "Such a book would eliminate the test of faith," then you must first explain how that principle is consistent with your own theology. According to your own belief, God already became visible, lived among humanity, spoke directly to people, performed miracles, raised the dead, and ultimately rose from the dead Himself. From an epistemological standpoint, the presence of the visible God walking among people and performing miracles constitutes a far greater disclosure and a far stronger form of evidence than a miraculous book ever could. If that did not abolish the test of faith, then neither would a miraculous book bearing His own authority. Such a book would not represent an additional disclosure beyond the incarnation; it would simply be the natural and coherent continuation of it.

Yet today, at the center of Christianity stands not a book left directly by the visible God, but books written about the visible God. The foundational doctrines of Christian theology are likewise constructed largely upon these later writings and their interpretations.

The real question, therefore, is this: If God truly became flesh and lived among humanity, why did He not leave mankind a divine, miraculous, and perfectly preserved book bearing His own authority—one that presents Christianity's foundational doctrines with unmistakable clarity and beyond reasonable dispute?

[bülent armagan @isikpinar2000]

@GodLogic_GL "If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it." Joseph Goebbels

Especially if your followers believe everything you say without question.

FalseGodFalseLogic or GoebbelsLogic 😂

[bülent armagan @isikpinar2000]

Āl ʿImrān 3:3

نَزَّلَ عَلَيْكَ الْكِتَابَ بِالْحَقِّ مُصَدِّقًا لِّمَا بَيْنَ يَدَيْهِ وَأَنزَلَ التَّوْرَاةَ وَالْإِنجِيلَ

"He has sent down to you the Book in truth, confirming what came before it. And He sent down the Torah and the Gospel before."

Here the verb أَنزَلَ (anzala) means "sent down" or "revealed."

Āl ʿImrān 3:48

وَيُعَلِّمُهُ الْكِتَابَ وَالْحِكْمَةَ وَالتَّوْرَاةَ وَالْإِنجِيلَ

"And He will teach him the Book, wisdom, the Torah, and the Gospel."

Here the Gospel is described as something taught to Jesus.

Al-Mā'idah 5:46

وَآتَيْنَاهُ الْإِنجِيلَ فِيهِ هُدًى وَنُورٌ

"And We gave him the Gospel, in which there was guidance and light."

The verb آتَيْنَاهُ (ātaynāhu) means "We gave him."

Al-Ḥadīd 57:27

وَآتَيْنَاهُ الْإِنجِيلَ

"And We gave him the Gospel."

Again, the verb آتَيْنَا means "We gave."

These verses make it abundantly clear that, according to the Qur'an, the Gospel is a divine revelation and scripture that was given or sent down to Jesus, just as revelation was given to Moses, Muhammad (peace be upon them all), and the other prophets.

The New Testament, however, is not a single revealed book sent down from heaven. It is a collection consisting of the four Gospels attributed to Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John (and it is not even historically certain that these works were written by those individuals), together with Acts, the Epistles, and Revelation. The Gospel of John, moreover, differs significantly from the Synoptic Gospels, reflects a later stage of development, contains a much higher Christology, and bears clear traces of Philonic and Stoic influence. The books eventually accepted into the canon were selected by the Church from within the theological tradition that came to align with Pauline theology.

Furthermore, 1 John 5:7 (the Comma Johanneum), one of the passages commonly cited in support of the Trinity, is absent from the earliest Greek manuscripts. It was added to the text later.

Āl ʿImrān 3:50

وَمُصَدِّقًا لِّمَا بَيْنَ يَدَيَّ مِنَ التَّوْرَاةِ وَلِأُحِلَّ لَكُم بَعْضَ الَّذِي حُرِّمَ عَلَيْكُمْ ۚ وَجِئْتُكُم بِآيَةٍ مِّن رَّبِّكُمْ ۖ فَاتَّقُوا اللَّهَ وَأَطِيعُونِ

"I have come confirming the Torah that came before me, and to make lawful for you some of what had been forbidden to you. I have also come to you with a sign from your Lord. So fear Allah and obey me."

As this verse clearly shows, according to the Qur'an, the Gospel contains revelations that made lawful some of the things previously forbidden to the Jews.

If you claim that the Gospel mentioned in the Qur'an is identical with the New Testament we possess today, then you must be able to point out these rulings within the New Testament itself.

We do not find them there. On the contrary, Paul's letters present a theological framework regarding the continuing authority of the Mosaic Law that differs substantially from the mission of Jesus as described in Qur'an 3:50.

"And when Jesus, the son of Mary, said: 'O Children of Israel! I am the Messenger of Allah to you, confirming the Torah that came before me and giving glad tidings of a Messenger who will come after me, whose name is Ahmad.'" (Ṣaff 61:6)

According to the Qur'an, the Gospel given to Jesus contained the glad tidings of Ahmad.

If you insist that the Gospel referred to by the Qur'an is today's New Testament, then you must also produce the passage that explicitly announces Ahmad by name.

"And from those who said, 'We are Christians (Naṣārā),' We took a covenant, but they forgot a portion of what they had been reminded of... O People of the Book! Our Messenger has come to you making clear much of what you used to conceal from the Scripture..." (Al-Mā'idah 5:14-15)

These verses explicitly state that those who called themselves Naṣārā concealed certain things from the Scripture.

The Qur'an does not affirm that the existing scriptures in the possession of the People of the Book represent the divine revelation in its complete and unaltered form. Rather, it explicitly states that they concealed certain parts of it.

Therefore, the Gospel spoken of in the Qur'an is not the same thing as what is today called the New Testament.

The Qur'an describes the Gospel as a divine revelation given directly to Jesus, whereas the New Testament is a collection of biographies, letters, and other writings composed by different authors after Jesus.

Moreover, there is no academic consensus regarding which sayings recorded in the New Testament can be established with certainty as authentic words of the historical Jesus. A substantial portion of the New Testament also consists of the letters of Paul, who claimed to have received his authority directly from Jesus. Indeed, the theological framework of Christianity has been shaped largely by these Pauline writings.

The Qur'an confirms the Gospel given to Jesus—not the writings of someone who claimed to have received his authority directly from Jesus.

Had the Qur'an categorically and literally confirmed the New Testament as it exists today, it would never have rejected the Trinity in such explicit and severe terms. Likewise, it would have affirmed the salvific and atoning significance attributed to the crucifixion in Christian theology.

This is because, within mainstream Christian theology, the crucifixion, atonement, resurrection, and the divinity of Christ are inseparable parts of one and the same theological system.

The Qur'an rejects that theological system at its very foundation.

The Qur'an fully confirms the original scriptures that were revealed by Allah before it.

It does so in order to invite the People of the Book by saying, in effect:

"Look, this Book and this Messenger come from the very same divine source that you already know. Fulfil the covenant referred to in Qur'an 3:81."

Had the Qur'an instead begun by declaring,

"Your scriptures are corrupt. Throw them away. From now on there is only this Book and this Messenger,"

there would have been no common ground for dialogue whatsoever.

Moreover, although this Book and this Messenger emerged from among a pagan people, the Qur'an does not repeat the pagan accusation that these are merely "the tales of the ancients."

Instead, it affirms that the original Torah and the original Gospel truly came from Allah, and that Noah, Abraham, Moses, Jesus, the revelations given to them, and the miracles they performed were all true.

Unlike the Jews who slandered Jesus and Mary, and unlike Christians who elevated Jesus and his mother to a status approaching divinity, the Qur'an honours Jesus as a mighty prophet supported by miracles and Mary as a pure and blessed woman chosen above all other women.

"We have not sent down the Book to you except that you may clarify for them that over which they differ, and as guidance and mercy for a people who believe." (An-Naḥl 16:64)

According to the Qur'an itself, one of its purposes is to clarify the matters over which the People of the Book had fallen into disagreement.

As for the issue of Hadith

In Islam, the only primary source whose authenticity is absolutely certain is the Qur'an.

The next most reliable source is the mutawātir Sunnah—the practices publicly performed by the Messenger of Allah before large numbers of people and transmitted continuously by the Muslim community from generation to generation. The times of the daily prayers, the adhān, the rites of Hajj, the two Eids, and similar acts of worship belong to this category.

All other narrations are always open to scholarly criticism and are not absolutely binding upon Muslims in the same way as the Qur'an.

In Islam, religion is not the monopoly of any individual.

The opinions of the classical exegetes are not the religion, nor are they the Qur'an; they are interpretations. They are respected, but they do not possess the same unquestionable authority as revelation itself.

Otherwise, Muslims would fall into the very error for which the Qur'an criticizes the People of the Book.

One of the major reasons why the previous two religious traditions drifted away from their original teachings was the accumulation of unfounded religious interpretations and the corruption of oral tradition.

The Qur'an states in Sūrat al-Zukhruf (43:44):

"Indeed, it is a reminder for you and your people, and you will all be questioned concerning it."

This verse makes it clear that Muslims will ultimately be held accountable for what is contained in the Qur'an.

Therefore, the entire hadith tradition must always remain subject to the authority and judgment of the Qur'an.

At the same time, the Qur'an commands believers to obey Allah and His Messenger, thereby granting the Messenger authority in explaining and teaching the practical application of the religion. This refers to the publicly transmitted and universally preserved mutawātir Sunnah mentioned above.

By contrast, in Christianity, a substantial portion of the New Testament consists of writings attributed directly to the apostles or to Paul and has itself been incorporated into the canon as sacred Scripture.

In Islam, however, no hadith is regarded as revelation or as sacred scripture on the same level as the Qur'an.

This is one of the fundamental methodological differences between the two religions.

[bülent armagan @isikpinar2000]

@Fuckurviews1130 @belle_liuu Stop dodging the question and answer it. According to the Qur'an, what kind of book is the Gospel (Injīl)?

[bülent armagan @isikpinar2000]

@Fuckurviews1130 @belle_liuu According to the Qur'an, what kind of book is the Gospel (Injīl)? Since you've started lecturing us about the Qur'an, why don't you explain that to us as well?

[bülent armagan @isikpinar2000]

No one calls the Hadiths "the Book of Allah" or a "holy scripture." But I have to give you credit for one thing: comparing your so-called sacred writings with the Hadith was quite revealing. It's a good sign that you're finally starting to understand the difference between historical reports and revealed scripture.

[bülent armagan @isikpinar2000]

@Fuckurviews1130 @belle_liuu Tell me how the Qur'an describes the Gospel (Injīl). What kind of book does the Qur'an portray it as?

[bülent armagan @isikpinar2000]

@jan34591 @Gwani_bukhari The criterion for confirming a sacred scripture is that it does not attribute contradictions or impossibilities to God. The doctrines of the Trinity and Kenosis, however, presuppose contradictory and logically impossible propositions about God's nature.

[bülent armagan @isikpinar2000]

@SamuelAyodele_T https://t.co/CHyyp7J5QG

[bülent armagan @isikpinar2000]

https://t.co/y6mUiQYfka

[bülent armagan @isikpinar2000]

@GodLogic_GL When Muslims greet each other, they say the exact same thing—just like a prayer—you devil's apprentice. You’ve really been making a fool of yourself lately.

[bülent armagan @isikpinar2000]

Does the Qur'an Say That Noah Lived 950 Years?
1. The Wording of the Verse: The Qur'an Does Not Say "950 Years"
Qur'an 29:14 (Al-'Ankabūt)

وَلَقَدْ أَرْسَلْنَا نُوحًا إِلَىٰ قَوْمِهِ فَلَبِثَ فِيهِمْ أَلْفَ سَنَةٍ إِلَّا خَمْسِينَ عَامًا فَأَخَذَهُمُ الطُّوفَانُ وَهُمْ ظَالِمُونَ

"Indeed, We sent Noah to his people, and he remained among them for a thousand years minus fifty years. Then the Flood overtook them while they were wrongdoers."

The first point that deserves careful attention is this:

The Qur'an does not say:

950 years.

Instead, it deliberately chooses the expression:

"A thousand years minus fifty years."

Moreover, the verse employs two different Arabic words for "year":

سنة (sanah)
عام ('ām)

Had the sole purpose been to convey a mathematical figure, the Qur'an could simply have said:

تِسْعَ مِائَةٍ وَخَمْسِينَ سَنَةً

"Nine hundred and fifty years."

That wording would have been both shorter and more straightforward.

Therefore, the question naturally arises: why does the Qur'an deliberately avoid saying "950 years" and instead say "a thousand years minus fifty years"?

Many classical exegetes (mufassirūn) regarded this wording as a deliberate rhetorical (balāghī) choice rather than a stylistic coincidence.

2. The Rhetorical Significance of Sanah and 'Ām

In the Qur'an, both سنة (sanah) and عام ('ām) mean "year." Nevertheless, many exegetes have pointed out that the two terms often carry subtle differences in usage.

A well-known example appears in Sūrat Yūsuf, where the years of famine are followed by a year of relief:

ثُمَّ يَأْتِي مِن بَعْدِ ذَٰلِكَ عَامٌ فِيهِ يُغَاثُ النَّاسُ وَفِيهِ يَعْصِرُونَ

"Then, after that, there will come a year ('ām) in which the people will receive abundant rain and in which they will press (their grapes and olives)." (Qur'an 12:49)

Here, after years of hardship and famine, the Qur'an specifically uses the word 'ām for a year characterized by abundance, relief, and prosperity.

For this reason, a number of mufassirūn considered it significant that Qur'an 29:14 does not simply say "950 years," but instead says:

ألف سنة إلا خمسين عامًا

while intentionally employing both sanah and 'ām within the same sentence.

According to this interpretation, sanah aptly describes Noah's long and arduous period among his people, whereas 'ām, with its more positive connotations, may allude to the more peaceful and prosperous period that followed the Flood, after Noah had been delivered from the oppression of his people.

The Qur'an does not explicitly state how long Noah lived after the Flood. Nevertheless, its choice of words is far from arbitrary. Rather than simply saying "950 years," it deliberately says "a thousand years minus fifty years" and intentionally combines sanah and 'ām in the same verse—a rhetorical subtlety that has attracted the attention of numerous exegetes.

Accordingly, the lafẓ (the actual wording of the verse) strongly lends itself to the interpretation that the fifty 'ām may refer to the more peaceful and prosperous period following Noah's long and difficult mission among his people. Although the Qur'an does not explicitly state this, its wording and lexical choices provide substantial support for such a reading. Thus, understanding the fifty 'ām as referring to Noah's post-Flood years of peace and relief represents a strong interpretive possibility, both from the perspective of Qur'anic rhetoric (balāgha) and from the wording of the verse itself.

3. Why the Criticism Is Invalid

Some Christian apologists claim that the Qur'an took the 120-year period of Noah's preaching found in the Midrash and expanded it into 950 years. However, this assertion is not supported by any textual evidence whatsoever.

There is not a single expression in the Qur'an that supports such a reading. The verse merely states that Noah "remained among his people for a thousand years minus fifty years." Nowhere does the Qur'an indicate whether this period began with Noah's birth or with his prophetic mission, whether it refers to his total lifespan, or whether it represents an expanded version of the 120-year period of preaching found in the Midrash.

Moreover, the claim is internally inconsistent. On the one hand, it takes the Midrashic tradition of 120 years of preaching as its starting point; on the other hand, it argues that the Qur'an transformed this into 950 years. Yet the Qur'an contains not the slightest indication of 120 years, 600 years, or even 720 years, which would be the combined result of those two figures. If the Qur'an had truly been reproducing the Midrashic chronology, one would at least expect some textual element pointing toward that chronology. Instead, the Qur'an employs an entirely different formulation and simply states that Noah "remained among his people for a thousand years minus fifty years."

More importantly, this criticism does not read the Qur'an on its own terms; rather, it reads the Qur'an through the chronological framework of Genesis and the Midrash. It first adopts Genesis' statement that Noah's total lifespan was 950 years, then adds the biblical statement that the Flood came when Noah was 600 years old, and finally incorporates the Midrashic tradition of 120 years of preaching. After constructing this external chronology, it then claims that the Qur'an is referring to it when it speaks of "a thousand years minus fifty years." As a result, what the Qur'an actually says is completely overlooked. Assumptions derived from external sources are imposed upon the Qur'anic text, and an artificial contradiction is then manufactured on the basis of those very assumptions.

Consequently, this interpretation is not a conclusion drawn from the Qur'anic text itself but a speculative assumption imposed upon it from the outside. It can hardly be regarded as a scholarly argument, for any scholarly claim must rest upon at least a textual or historical foundation, or upon a valid logical inference. In this case, however, not a single textual proof nor even a coherent logical argument can be produced from the explicit wording of the Qur'an to support such a conclusion.

Ultimately, this argument attempts to make the Qur'an say something it simply does not say. It therefore constitutes a clear distortion of the text and an unfounded attribution to the Qur'an.

[bülent armagan @isikpinar2000]

You don't even know what you're saying or what you're trying to argue.

If you're going to argue from the Qur'an, then stay within the Qur'an and support your claims from it. Otherwise, you're just making empty assertions.

And if you want to discuss the Trinity or Kenosis, I suggest you first read the three articles on my profile: "Questions for Christians I, II, and III."

[bülent armagan @isikpinar2000]

@Fuckurviews1130 @belle_liuu https://t.co/HebrVQswy6

[bülent armagan @isikpinar2000]

Stop twisting what the Qur'an actually says!

What Ma'idah 5:42–50 says is crystal clear: either you believe in the Qur'an and submit to its law, or you follow the legal rulings that Allah revealed in your own Scriptures. But you do neither.

Whenever you dislike a ruling in your own Book, you come to Muhammad (peace be upon him) seeking his judgment. Then, when his judgment does not suit your desires, you reject that as well. What a hypocritical and rebellious attitude! (The Qur'an describes such people as fāsiqūn—those who rebel against Allah's judgment.)

Either believe in the Qur'an and Muhammad (peace be upon him) and follow his Sharī'ah, or remain committed to the legal rulings contained in your own Scripture. Instead, you shop around for whichever ruling best serves your interests. Worse still, even after asking Muhammad (peace be upon him) to judge between you, you reject his verdict when it goes against your desires. As the Qur'an itself says:

"Those are not believers." (Qur'an 5:43)

The very same hypocrisy and inconsistency is condemned again in Qur'an 2:85. This time, however, the situation is slightly different: you accept the parts of the Torah that suit you while ignoring the parts that do not. That is precisely why the Qur'an confronts you with the question:

"Do you believe in part of the Scripture and disbelieve in another part?" (Qur'an 2:85)

It really is that simple.

"They eagerly listen to falsehood and greedily consume illicit gain (suḥt). If they come to you for judgment, then judge between them or turn away from them. If you turn away from them, they cannot harm you in the least. But if you judge, judge between them with justice. Indeed, Allah loves those who judge justly." (Qur'an 5:42)

Then the Qur'an corners them even further:

"But how is it that they come to you for judgment while they have the Torah, in which is Allah's judgment? Then, after that, they turn away. Those are not believers." (Qur'an 5:43)

Now let's come to Qur'an 5:47.

Since you constantly quote this verse, tell us: where exactly are the legal rulings of the Gospel?

Paul effectively rendered them obsolete, and the Gospels canonized by the Church contain no functioning legal code to govern a community.

Then Allah commands His Messenger:

"Judge between them by what Allah has revealed to you. Do not follow their desires, and beware lest they tempt you away from part of what Allah has revealed to you..." (Qur'an 5:49)

Scholars have understood this command in two ways:

Judge them according to the Sharī'ah revealed in the Qur'an.
Judge them according to the principles laid out in Qur'an 5:42–47. If they refuse to submit to your Sharī'ah, then require them to implement the rulings that Allah revealed in their own Scripture.

The incident of the adulterous Jewish woman perfectly illustrates this principle.

They refused to apply the Torah's ruling of stoning. Instead, they humiliated the offenders by blackening their faces and claimed, "This is our law."

So the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him), in accordance with Qur'an 5:49, ordered that the Torah be brought. He confronted their scholars until Allah's ruling in the Torah was finally revealed. In the end, the verse prescribing stoning—the ruling they had concealed—was exposed.

The passage continues:

"...But if they turn away from your judgment, then know that Allah intends to afflict them for some of their sins. Indeed, many people are defiantly disobedient." (Qur'an 5:49)

Then comes the devastating question:

"Is it the judgment of the Age of Ignorance (Jāhiliyyah) that they seek? And who is better than Allah in judgment for a people who have certainty?" (Qur'an 5:50)

So what exactly do you want?

You reject Allah's judgment.

You reject Allah's judgment contained in the Torah.

You reject Allah's judgment revealed in the Qur'an.

Then what is it that you actually want?

The pagan laws of Pharaoh under whom your forefathers once lived in Egypt? Or the idolatrous legal systems of the other pagan societies of Jāhiliyyah?

Because the Qur'an leaves you with only one alternative:

"Is it the judgment of Jāhiliyyah that they seek?"

Allah had already taken a covenant from you:

"Allah took the covenant of the prophets, saying: 'Whatever I have given you of Scripture and wisdom, then there comes to you a Messenger confirming what is with you, you must believe in him and support him.'" (Qur'an 3:81)

Yet you broke that covenant.

You refuse to believe in Muhammad and the Qur'an.

But whenever you dislike Allah's ruling in your own Scripture, you come to Muhammad seeking a verdict.

Wasn't your claim that "Our Scripture is sufficient for us"?

Then why don't you implement Allah's rulings in your own Book? Why do you appoint as your judge a Messenger in whom you claim not to believe? And when he gives you a ruling, why do you reject that as well?

How utterly hypocritical and rebellious!

You follow neither the Torah nor the Qur'an.

Then you quote Qur'an 5:47 as though it proves that the Qur'an grants perpetual and independent authority to the previous Scriptures.

In reality, this entire passage condemns you.

Because the very behavior the Qur'an denounces is precisely what you are doing: choosing whichever ruling serves your desires instead of submitting to Allah's judgment.

The Qur'an has a name for that:

"The judgment of Jāhiliyyah."

[bülent armagan @isikpinar2000]

@fidelianave @dawahxdialogues Visit my profile and read my articles.

[bülent armagan @isikpinar2000]

A striking pattern can be observed in the Old Testament: certain nations and individuals with whom the Israelites were involved in political or religious conflicts throughout their history are portrayed in an extremely negative light. This raises the question of whether at least some of these narratives served a polemical purpose.

For example, the Torah's portrayal of Prophet Lot (peace be upon him) as becoming drunk, followed by the account that the Moabites and Ammonites descended from his two daughters (Genesis 19), can be read against the backdrop of Israel's historical hostility toward those two nations. Later biblical texts frequently depict the Moabites and Ammonites as adversaries of Israel. For this reason, some modern scholars have suggested that this narrative may function as an etiological (origin-explaining) account designed to discredit these peoples and legitimize negative attitudes toward them.

A similar observation may be made regarding Genesis 9, where Prophet Noah (peace be upon him) is portrayed as becoming drunk and Canaan—who is not directly involved in the incident—is placed under a curse. In light of the later conflicts between the Israelites and the Canaanites, some scholars argue that this narrative serves to provide a theological justification for the subjugation of the Canaanites.

The account of Bathsheba attributed to Prophet David (peace be upon him) has likewise been the subject of scholarly discussion. Some researchers argue that the political struggles surrounding the Davidic dynasty and the later composition and editing of Israel's royal history may have influenced the development of traditions portraying David in a critical light. This is by no means a settled conclusion, but it remains one of the interpretations advanced in academic scholarship.

Likewise, the accusation that Prophet Solomon (peace be upon him) married hundreds of foreign women and, under their influence, turned to idolatry (1 Kings 11) is widely understood within scholarship as part of a theological framework explaining the division of the united monarchy. According to the biblical narrative, Solomon's alleged apostasy is presented as the reason for the kingdom's subsequent division. Consequently, many scholars view this account not merely as biographical history, but as part of the Deuteronomistic History, which interprets the separation of the northern and southern kingdoms as a form of divine judgment.

By contrast, the Qur'an unequivocally exonerates all of these prophets from such grave moral accusations. It presents Lot as a chaste and righteous prophet, Noah as one of Allah's chosen messengers, David as a just and devoted servant of God, and Solomon as a prophet who never fell into disbelief or idolatry. In this respect, the Qur'anic portrayal of the prophets differs fundamentally from certain narratives found in the Old Testament.

[bülent armagan @isikpinar2000]

You have access to the Qur'an, yet your reasoning is so flawed that you lack the capacity to understand it.

You have no real grasp of the Qur'an's concepts of God, prophethood, revelation, scripture, or the nature of the human being. Your goal is not to understand—it is simply to attack.

When it comes to philosophical and logical discussions on the Trinity and Kenosis, you are unable to engage with the arguments. Instead, you resort to absurd and irrelevant objections in an attempt to prevent those discussions from taking place.

That's the only thing you are capable of doing.

https://t.co/yB8bCrt4yr

[GodLogic_GL @GodLogic_GL]

In Islam:

Allah CAN'T have a son without a spouse❌

Mary CAN have a son without a spouse ✅

Mary is more powerful than Allah in Islam.

[bülent armagan @isikpinar2000]

Your entire argument rests on a false premise.

Surah 17:101 is not listing Jewish feasts or retelling the Book of Exodus chapter by chapter. It simply states that Allah gave Moses nine clear signs in his confrontation with Pharaoh. The passage is about Moses, Pharaoh, and the divine signs—not about Israel's liturgical calendar.

More importantly, Passover is not one of the signs given to Moses. It is neither a miracle shown to Pharaoh nor one of the divine signs mentioned in the verse. Passover is an ordinance given to the Israelites to commemorate their deliverance. You're confusing a religious festival with the miracles themselves.

The Qur'an already recounts the Exodus: Pharaoh, the parting of the sea, the salvation of the Israelites, and Pharaoh's destruction. What it does not do is reproduce every ritual, festival, and legal ordinance found in the Torah. That isn't its purpose.

And here's the irony that completely destroys your argument.

The Qur'an never mentions Eid al-Fitr by name.

It never mentions Eid al-Adha by name either.

So should I conclude that Muslims invented both festivals later because the Qur'an doesn't explicitly name them? Of course not.

The Qur'an mentions Ramadan, fasting, Hajj, and sacrifice, but not the names of the festivals that commemorate them. Likewise, it tells the story of Moses' deliverance without stopping to enumerate every Jewish festival that developed around it.

By your logic, the Qur'an should also mention Hanukkah, the Feast of Weeks, the Feast of Booths, and every other major Jewish observance. It doesn't—because the Qur'an is not a Jewish liturgical manual.

Your final point is no better.

"Passover points to Jesus."

That's a Christian theological interpretation, not a historical fact. Jews have celebrated Passover for over three millennia without believing it points to Jesus. You're simply assuming your own typology and then criticizing the Qur'an for not adopting it.

So no, the absence of the word "Passover" proves absolutely nothing. It only proves that the Qur'an isn't trying to reproduce the Torah's festival calendar—which it never claims to do in the first place.

[bülent armagan @isikpinar2000]

Stop twisting what the Qur'an actually says!

What Ma'idah 5:42–50 says is crystal clear: either you believe in the Qur'an and submit to its law, or you follow the legal rulings that Allah revealed in your own Scriptures. But you do neither.

Whenever you dislike a ruling in your own Book, you come to Muhammad (peace be upon him) seeking his judgment. Then, when his judgment does not suit your desires, you reject that as well. What a hypocritical and rebellious attitude! (The Qur'an describes such people as fāsiqūn—those who rebel against Allah's judgment.)

Either believe in the Qur'an and Muhammad (peace be upon him) and follow his Sharī'ah, or remain committed to the legal rulings contained in your own Scripture. Instead, you shop around for whichever ruling best serves your interests. Worse still, even after asking Muhammad (peace be upon him) to judge between you, you reject his verdict when it goes against your desires. As the Qur'an itself says:

"Those are not believers." (Qur'an 5:43)

The very same hypocrisy and inconsistency is condemned again in Qur'an 2:85. This time, however, the situation is slightly different: you accept the parts of the Torah that suit you while ignoring the parts that do not. That is precisely why the Qur'an confronts you with the question:

"Do you believe in part of the Scripture and disbelieve in another part?" (Qur'an 2:85)

It really is that simple.

"They eagerly listen to falsehood and greedily consume illicit gain (suḥt). If they come to you for judgment, then judge between them or turn away from them. If you turn away from them, they cannot harm you in the least. But if you judge, judge between them with justice. Indeed, Allah loves those who judge justly." (Qur'an 5:42)

Then the Qur'an corners them even further:

"But how is it that they come to you for judgment while they have the Torah, in which is Allah's judgment? Then, after that, they turn away. Those are not believers." (Qur'an 5:43)

Now let's come to Qur'an 5:47.

Since you constantly quote this verse, tell us: where exactly are the legal rulings of the Gospel?

Paul effectively rendered them obsolete, and the Gospels canonized by the Church contain no functioning legal code to govern a community.

Then Allah commands His Messenger:

"Judge between them by what Allah has revealed to you. Do not follow their desires, and beware lest they tempt you away from part of what Allah has revealed to you..." (Qur'an 5:49)

Scholars have understood this command in two ways:

Judge them according to the Sharī'ah revealed in the Qur'an.
Judge them according to the principles laid out in Qur'an 5:42–47. If they refuse to submit to your Sharī'ah, then require them to implement the rulings that Allah revealed in their own Scripture.

The incident of the adulterous Jewish woman perfectly illustrates this principle.

They refused to apply the Torah's ruling of stoning. Instead, they humiliated the offenders by blackening their faces and claimed, "This is our law."

So the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him), in accordance with Qur'an 5:49, ordered that the Torah be brought. He confronted their scholars until Allah's ruling in the Torah was finally revealed. In the end, the verse prescribing stoning—the ruling they had concealed—was exposed.

The passage continues:

"...But if they turn away from your judgment, then know that Allah intends to afflict them for some of their sins. Indeed, many people are defiantly disobedient." (Qur'an 5:49)

Then comes the devastating question:

"Is it the judgment of the Age of Ignorance (Jāhiliyyah) that they seek? And who is better than Allah in judgment for a people who have certainty?" (Qur'an 5:50)

So what exactly do you want?

You reject Allah's judgment.

You reject Allah's judgment contained in the Torah.

You reject Allah's judgment revealed in the Qur'an.

Then what is it that you actually want?

The pagan laws of Pharaoh under whom your forefathers once lived in Egypt? Or the idolatrous legal systems of the other pagan societies of Jāhiliyyah?

Because the Qur'an leaves you with only one alternative:

"Is it the judgment of Jāhiliyyah that they seek?"

Allah had already taken a covenant from you:

"Allah took the covenant of the prophets, saying: 'Whatever I have given you of Scripture and wisdom, then there comes to you a Messenger confirming what is with you, you must believe in him and support him.'" (Qur'an 3:81)

Yet you broke that covenant.

You refuse to believe in Muhammad and the Qur'an.

But whenever you dislike Allah's ruling in your own Scripture, you come to Muhammad seeking a verdict.

Wasn't your claim that "Our Scripture is sufficient for us"?

Then why don't you implement Allah's rulings in your own Book? Why do you appoint as your judge a Messenger in whom you claim not to believe? And when he gives you a ruling, why do you reject that as well?

How utterly hypocritical and rebellious!

You follow neither the Torah nor the Qur'an.

Then you quote Qur'an 5:47 as though it proves that the Qur'an grants perpetual and independent authority to the previous Scriptures.

In reality, this entire passage condemns you.

Because the very behavior the Qur'an denounces is precisely what you are doing: choosing whichever ruling serves your desires instead of submitting to Allah's judgment.

The Qur'an has a name for that:

"The judgment of Jāhiliyyah."