Anybody who's read the Quran knows this makes literally no sense of the book.
Alyasa' retweeted
This why academics shouldn’t engage in apologetics
Apologetics aren’t their to grapple with the evidence or genuine conversation, their there for edited “hype moments” to post on tiktok for their 14 yr audience
Alyasa' retweeted
I’ll unblock you to give you a fair chance to respond. But Mike, why skip mins 30–34 in your review? I’m happy to walk back anything I got wrong. My claims were largely accurate and directed more toward Jay. Considering we haven’t copyright-struck you, I figured that was obvious.
Since this guy decided to block me and misrepresent me, I’ll point out we did say in the review that we agreed Sinai said the Quran would be claiming to be an authority on how to interpret the previous scriptures. We’ve never denied that.
The problem is that doesn’t mean the Quran is claiming to consciously edit the scriptures, or that parts of them are corrupted. But one cannot just reinterpret the Bible to fit with the Quran. There are clear contradictions, which is why modern Muslims have to pretend parts of our scriptures are corrupted. So the Islamic Dilemma stands. @JaiNDoC_RL @SCApologia
Alyasa' retweeted
It's funny that people read Surah al-Kahf and come out of it with an epistemic anxiety of the identity of Dhul-Qarnayn, when the entire overarching message of the Surah, which each story in it emphasises, is to be humble in the face of ilm al-ghayb
Alyasa' retweeted
This is a disgusting use of our video and I’m considering even copyright striking. Anyways here’s Nicolai Sinai signing a witness statement (lol) that Muhayman is more likely to mean authority.
🚨 NICOLAI SINAI IS MAD AT MUSLIM SCHOLARSHIP: STOP MISREPRESENTING WHAT I SAID!
Muslim scholars and others @DrJavadHashmi | @KhalilAndani | @IraniRoxanna & Dawahghandist | @Deenresponds | @muslimorthodoxy| @korrathetaymi invoke Oxford scholar Nicolai Sinai to defend their claims about MUHAYMIN (Quran 5:48).
Then we play SINAI HIMSELF. 💥 Credit: @InspiringPhilos , @SCApologia @JaiNDoC_RL
🔥 Stop borrowing a scholar's credentials while ignoring what he actually argues.
WATCH THE VIDEO.
Alyasa' retweeted
Replying to @lucamarcelino
It’s not an account of Jesus rising from the dead, it’s just a misleading repackaging of Josephus’ testimonium flavianum.
Alyasa' retweeted
🔹Does the Qur'an make a mistake in its two retellings of the good news of Yahya?🔹
An analysis by Dr Fadel Samarrai ... 🧵
✅ Challenge accepted.
The Quran, considered “perfect, divine, and free of contradictions” by Muslims, is nevertheless a contradictory work containing glaring human errors. Here is just ONE SINGLE EXAMPLE (which, incidentally, involves no fewer than three contradictions!), a more in-depth analysis of which can be found in my book 100 Contradictions and Scientific Errors in the Quran.
In the Quran, Allah sometimes recounts the same historical event twice, in two different surahs, as when He describes, in two different places in the Quran (Surah 3 and Surah 19), the moment when He has His angels announce to Zechariah that he will have a son: John. However, the human author hiding behind Allah's pen made the mistake, in each of these two surahs, of describing this event using verbatim quotations, that is, dialogues, and more specifically, statements made in the first person. Indeed, a perfect God who knows everything—and therefore knows the exact words spoken during a specific historical event—should not present TWO CONTRADICTORY VERSIONS OF ONE AND THE SAME FIRST-PERSON STATEMENT, which He should quote identically whenever He reproduces it in different surahs of the Quran.
So, what did Zechariah reply when Allah conveyed to him the announcement of John's birth? According to verse 40 of Surah 3, Allah states that Zechariah, surprised, replied: “My Lord, how will I have a boy when I have reached old age and my wife is barren?” Yet, in verse 8 of Surah 19, Allah states that Zechariah, at that very same moment, said: “My Lord, how will I have a boy when my wife is barren and I have reached extreme old age?” These two Quranic quotations, from Surahs 3 and 19, supposedly reproduce the same words spoken by Zechariah during one single, specific historical event. They should therefore have been identical, word for word. Yet these two quotations reverse the order of the two arguments, while also differing by an adjective that appears in one version but is absent from the other.
You must answer these three simple and binary questions to demonstrate that Allah does not contradict Himself in the Quran:
➜ 1. When Zechariah, surprised by the announcement Allah had conveyed to him, replied, did he say “I have reached old age” or “I have reached EXTREME old age”?
➜ 2. And did Zechariah mention his old age BEFORE or AFTER mentioning his wife's barrenness?
The factual and historical account presented in Surah 3 contradicts and invalidates the one presented in Surah 19, even though both are supposedly equally divine and truthful.
Furthermore, what answer did Zechariah receive to his request? Here again, there is a contradiction! The divine response that follows is not quite the same in the two accounts. For while, in verse 41 of Surah 3, Allah indicates that the response begins with “Your sign is that you will not be able to speak to the people for three days” (أَيَّامٍ / ayyāmin), the version of the beginning of the response in verse 10 of Surah 19 is “Your sign is that you will not be able to speak to the people for three nights” (لَيَالٍ / layālin). Did Allah therefore have two different recollections of the dialogue with Zechariah recorded in Surahs 3 and 19 of the Quran?
➜ 3. So which was the correct expression addressed to Zechariah: “three days” or “three nights”?
The issue is not whether “three days” and “three nights” are equivalent in duration. These are supposed to be verbatim quotations describing one and the same specific statement. We should therefore find exactly the same words in both versions, in Surah 3 and Surah 19. The human author of the Quran made the mistake of recounting the same historical event multiple times while including first-person dialogue. And I have found other contradictions of the same kind in the Quran: involving Moses, Abraham, Mary the mother of Jesus, and others. I analyze them all in the chapter of my book 100 Contradictions and Scientific Errors in the Quran devoted to narrative contradictions.
Allah, who “neither errs nor forgets” (Surah 20, verse 52), should be capable of remembering His exact words, word for word, and therefore reproducing them word for word. Allah should not be imprecise or have two different recollections of the exact words He heard or spoke during one and the same event.
Alyasa' retweeted
🚨Nov. 12th @iwiltrytobegood’s article on The Muhammadan Reality, exploring how creation reflects God’s Most Beautiful Names, how worship fulfills our purpose, and how the Prophet ﷺ represents the highest realization of what humanity was created to be.
Alyasa' retweeted
Replying to @orthodox22790
This is a gross misunderstanding. I think you should hold yourself accountable to the same standard you expect for Islamic theologians in dealing with Christianity and you should go learn about the distinction a bit more teapawt.org/orthodox22790/status/2…
Even when I was Muslim a couple of years ago, and my heart was gradually being drawn, by the Grace of God, towards the truth of Christianity, I was always astonished by the inherent ignorance displayed by the ʿUlamāʾ (Islamic scholars) regarding Orthodox Christian theology, an ignorance arguably rooted, at least in part, in the Qur’ān itself, particularly Sūrat al-Nisāʾ 4:171.
In their ignorant slander because of our belief as Christians in the Creator’s threeness [tathlīth], which with it preserves the doctrine of true unity [tawḥīd], falsely declare that the Christians profess three separate gods [thalāth āliha mutafarraqa] and three different lords [thalāthat arbāb mukhtalifa], or that we believe in more than one cause for creation [akthar min ʿilla wāḥida], & also falsely state that we believe they're multiple essences [kathīrat al-dhawāt] in God, without careful consideration, examination, & accuracy of their speculation & enquiry, & without reflecting on whether the argument given from their scholars is indeed correct or not, and then also not assuring themselves to care about going back to the people of the book to be informed of its contents, meaning & philosophical soundness.
It reminds me of a saying by "Shaykh Al Islam", & the so-called "proof of Islam" named "Uṣūl al-dīn" (Principles of Religion) by Shaykh Al-Ghazali written as thus :
"condemning doctrines before comprehending them is absurd, and finding fault with their proponents without expertise in their intentions is a sin and error."
It's because of such decietful arrogance that I decided to learn more-so in-depth what the Christians themselves actually believed, read their Church Fathers, to decide if it was true or not, & then became a Christian because of its soundness.
“"And declare, 'The truth has come and falsehood has vanished. Indeed, falsehood is bound to vanish” (Surah Al-Isra, 17:81).
Replying to @ReginaldOD54088
Again, you're missing the point, we don't need any data on this. To add on, the Quran itself indicates that historically Jesus would've appeared to be killed (probably alike the other prophets that were killed).
Alyasa' retweeted
"The Machine" has been activated ... a sophisticated cyborg sent back in time to ruin the lives of whose who have mis-transliterated measurement units and/or gotten narrators who shared every single name in common but who are actually different people mixed up...
You'll notice less hateful comments under descriptive posts like this one because Islamaphobes struggle to identify who the Prophet ﷺ truly is.






























