Quran, Surah Al-Haqgah, v. 44-46

Quran, Surah Al-Haqgah, v. 44-46
>Had the Messenger made up something in Our Name, We would have certainly seized him by his right hand, then severed his aorta.

Hadith Sahih al-Bukhari 4428
>-Narrated Aisha: The Prophet (H) in his ailment in which he died, used to say, "O Aisha! I still feel the pain caused by the food I ate at Khaybar, and at this time, I feel as if my aorta is being cut from that poison."

This is insane. The “prophet” Muhammad died in the same oddly specific way he prophesied that he would die if he were a false prophet.

How have so many Muslims throughout history read these verses and not come to the conclusion that he was a false prophet?

Thalidomide Vintage Ad Shirt $22.14

Black Rifle Cuck Company, Conservative Humor Shirt $21.68

Thalidomide Vintage Ad Shirt $22.14

  1. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    or it's mentioned twice because arabs are insecure about it, forsooth

  2. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    Muslims are stupid and don't read the quran.
    The few that do are moronic.
    That's it, no great mistery.
    Now, you also need to understand Muhammad was poisoned by that israeliteess in 629. He only died in 632. He suffered from aortic stenosis for 2 years and a half and then finally died, not from that poisoned lamb tho. That's a myth.
    He composed the Al-Haqqa in mecca, thus before 622. Aisha narrated that Hadith before the 660s, and so, not only did Muhammed not bother to take down the quran verse proving he's by his own definition a false prophet during the 2 years he agonized with vascular pain, BUT ALSO some companion was dumb enough to include Aisha's comment. Not only that, but all major quranic censorships from the first 8 caliphs kept these verses contradicting Muhammed's prophethood.
    It's hilarious, isn't it? Lol.

    • 5 months ago
      Anonymous

      >Aisha narrated that Hadith
      *Someone wrote a hadith as narrated by "Aisha" at least one century after the real Aisha died.

      Hadiths are made up stories

      Hadiths are bullshit, almost all of them. Why do Christians insist on believing the "authentic" hadiths about Muhammad dying by poisoning, and marrying a child bride, but ignore the "authenitc" hadiths of Muhammad ascending to heaven on a flying horse. The only people who believe in hadiths are Christians and the most moronic of Muslims. No one else in their right mind can accept "sayings" compiled 150 years after the Quran as scripture. It's not scripture, and never will be.

      Hadith absolutists don't follow the Quran, and thus are not real Muslims. Christians also conveniently believe in hadiths when it suits their narrative.

      • 5 months ago
        Anonymous

        Hadiths are bullshit, almost all of them. Why do Christians insist on believing the "authentic" hadiths about Muhammad dying by poisoning, and marrying a child bride, but ignore the "authenitc" hadiths of Muhammad ascending to heaven on a flying horse. The only people who believe in hadiths are Christians and the most moronic of Muslims. No one else in their right mind can accept "sayings" compiled 150 years after the Quran as scripture. It's not scripture, and never will be.

        Whatever, the point is, the moron agonized for 2 years in the very oddly specific manner he predicted would indicate he would die off, had he been a false prophet. AND he didn't bother to shrug his own self depreciating prediction under the rug.

        • 5 months ago
          Anonymous

          >Whatever, the point is, the moron agonized for 2 years in the very oddly specific manner he predicted would indicate he would die off, had he been a false prophet.

          According to what? A hadith? Hadiths are not trustworthy in any way, and I already explained why.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            You're a pathetic weak homosexual that buckles at any slight opposition from kufar because you lack the knowledge to defend the deen so you generalize and reject islamic sources, I know your types, you are the type to adapt the quran to modern western liberal values and reinterpret ayas the kufar have an issue with. You are a closet libtard apostate and probably a homosexual as well.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            Unlike you, I don't need to defend obvious falsehood since my authority is not the words of men (hadiths), it's the word of God alone (Quran).

            >muh liberalism
            Keep crying terrorist.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            Gay progressive muslims are more respectable people than actual muslims.

    • 5 months ago
      Anonymous

      Street shitter poojecting itself

      • 5 months ago
        Anonymous

        I'm not a pajeet.

        >Whatever, the point is, the moron agonized for 2 years in the very oddly specific manner he predicted would indicate he would die off, had he been a false prophet.

        According to what? A hadith? Hadiths are not trustworthy in any way, and I already explained why.

        I'm talking about the Al-Haqqa verse, dumbass.

        • 5 months ago
          Anonymous

          >I'm talking about the Al-Haqqa verse
          What about it? That verse has nothing to do with your false hadith. The prophet lived, he recited God's word, and then he died. Nowhere outside of your nonsensical hadiths does it state that he was poisoned.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            I don't think he was poisoned, I believe he suffered from vascular pain for some years and died of some other cause.
            Why would the supposed fabricators of the hadiths go out of their way to put a narration of Aisha about Muhammed complaining about pain above the aorta? How would that be useful?

      • 5 months ago
        Anonymous

        that's literally not reddit spacing, you're so new and so fresh from reddit you don't even know what this meme is. You just regurgitate it and here you are calling proper spacing, as in not double spacing because Oyish doesn't require two new lines to display as one, reddit spacing. Congrats and kys

    • 5 months ago
      Anonymous

      Come to think of it, could it be possible that Aisha deliberately invented that quote to discredit the prophet Muhammad? I can imagine countless reasons as to why she would secretly harbour a grudge against the so-called “prophet”, but I don’t I haven’t read enough about her life to determine whether she actually had any love for him (I did read however that she had been accused of adultery)

    • 5 months ago
      Anonymous

      How could the prophet die in 632 when he was still busy in 634 "proclaiming the advent of the anointed one, the Christ who was to come"?

  3. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    Hadiths are bullshit, almost all of them. Why do Christians insist on believing the "authentic" hadiths about Muhammad dying by poisoning, and marrying a child bride, but ignore the "authenitc" hadiths of Muhammad ascending to heaven on a flying horse. The only people who believe in hadiths are Christians and the most moronic of Muslims. No one else in their right mind can accept "sayings" compiled 150 years after the Quran as scripture. It's not scripture, and never will be.

    • 5 months ago
      Anonymous

      >Muzzie thinks it's Christians bringing up the hadiths

    • 5 months ago
      Anonymous

      Authentic means it's authentically from the prophet not it authentically happened, lmao.

      • 5 months ago
        Anonymous

        No, "authentic" means there is a strong chain of narration.

        Let's say I make up a lie, then that lie is passed down by ten other people, it's still a lie. Authentic does not mean true.

        • 5 months ago
          Anonymous

          Yeah, that's exactly what I said, you smartass.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            No, it's not. An authentic chain of narration, does not mean "authentically" from the prophet.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            Yeah could also mean it's authentical from one of the sahaba. You happy now?

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            Most hadiths are not "authentically" from anyone who knew the prophet, they're fan fiction.

            I don't think he was poisoned, I believe he suffered from vascular pain for some years and died of some other cause.
            Why would the supposed fabricators of the hadiths go out of their way to put a narration of Aisha about Muhammed complaining about pain above the aorta? How would that be useful?

            Why would the non canonical gospels describe Jesus as a child who literally cursed and murdered the other children in his village with his god-powers? Because Satan inspires stories in men to slander the prophets. At least the Church was smart enough to separate was divinely inspired by God (the canon), and what was not (the non-canon).

    • 5 months ago
      Anonymous

      We do not believe any hadiths, we just like to rub them in the faces of muslims.

      • 5 months ago
        Anonymous

        >we just like to rub them in the faces of muslims
        The only "Muslims" you're going to offend with your fictional hadiths are hadith following heretics in the first place. A Quranist views a hadith in the same way a Christian views the non-canonical gospels, as absolute nonsense, and not scripture.

        • 5 months ago
          Anonymous

          What's a quranist?
          quran only?
          the quran is useless without the hadih and the sirah.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            >the quran is useless without the hadih and the sirah
            The Quran is a complete book, all truth is derived from the Quran alone. No one needs your hadiths.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            There are hundreds of contradictions in the quran - the muslims invented the concept of abrogation and the hadith and the sirah to explain these contradictions.
            There are also over a dozen different qurans. Again the muslims invented the ahruf [in the hadith] to explain the quran variants.
            The quran is a moronic book - even with the hadith and the sirah it's a mess. Without the hadith and the sirah the quran is only useful as toilet paper.
            If you insist that the quran is a complete book, then go ahead and explain who this muhammad was. The word muhammad appears only four times in the quran.
            The quran does not mention the 5 pillars of islam, the 5 daily prayers, or the shahada.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            >The quran does not mention the 5 pillars of islam, the 5 daily prayers, or the shahada.
            It's almost as if they're not important at all, and it's three daily prayers not five.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            lol shia dog detected

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            >does not mention the 5 pillars of islam, the 5 daily prayers, or the shahada
            it does thobeit

            Yes, 99% of Muslims are moronic hadith followers, and 99% of Christians are moronic idolatrous trinitarians while only 1% are Biblical unitarians as God intended. The masses are deceived, and only the most intelligent minority know the truth.

            >only the most intelligent
            *tips fedora
            homosexual i know your iq is like 70

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            So what do we make of the inheritance sum in 4:33 not adding up? Cooperate wants you to solve this.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            liar

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            God's will and Muhammad's will are one in the Quran. What God commands in the Quran is how Muhammad himself lives his life. Anything written by men that came afterward that contradicts the Quran is not God's will and we should not submit to it. Take your lies elsewhere. The Quran is the ultimate authority.

    • 5 months ago
      Anonymous

      >Hadiths are bullshit, almost all of them
      Quranism is a crime punishable by imprisonment if not death in every Islamic country on the planet.

      • 5 months ago
        Anonymous

        >Quranism is a crime punishable by imprisonment if not death in every Islamic country on the planet.

        The followers of God's word are persecuted? That only strengthens my faith, hadith followers will be punished by almighty God for attempting to change his word.

        • 5 months ago
          Anonymous

          Isn't it quite a telling sign, each time God reveals an important message to humanity, bad actors infiltrate the budding spiritual movements and turn them into totalitarian cults? Every single time.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            Almost as if that's what they are supposed to turn into.

    • 5 months ago
      Anonymous

      >the most moronic of muslims are 99,9% of muslims
      Not a nice way to speak about your brazzers.

      • 5 months ago
        Anonymous

        Yes, 99% of Muslims are moronic hadith followers, and 99% of Christians are moronic idolatrous trinitarians while only 1% are Biblical unitarians as God intended. The masses are deceived, and only the most intelligent minority know the truth.

        • 5 months ago
          Anonymous

          I went through your coping phase. I bet you still believe the Quran has been perfectly preserved.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            >I bet you still believe the Quran has been perfectly preserved.
            Why does something need to be perfectly preserved? The Torah clearly wasn't perfectly preserved, and is filled with slander of the prophets, and yet israelites view it as the verbatim word of God.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            >is filled with slander of the prophets
            So you believe prophets must be perfect immaculate otherworldly creatures? Not very relatable.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            >So you believe prophets must be perfect immaculate otherworldly creatures?
            Who ever said that? Isn't that what Christians say about Jesus anyway? I just don't believe a prophet (Aaron) built the golden calf when my Quran says it was an evil man named Samiri. I don't believe David committed adultery when my Quran says he was only tempted by the sin, but did not actually sin. I don't believe Abraham tricked his son Isaac, and was going to kill him without hesitation against his will when my Quran says Abraham asked God for reassurance that his son would be able to be resurrected, and that the son himself (Ishmael) agreed to be killed for the will of God.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            >I just don't believe a prophet (Aaron) built the golden calf
            Who's to say Aaron didn't agree to build it because he saw the people was abandoning monotheism and he was trying to gently bring them back toward monotheism even if they worshipped an idol? The Quran doesn't say the samiri built it, it just implies he did sorcery with it.
            >my Quran says he was only tempted by the sin, but did not actually sin
            Nowhere does the Quran say he was tempted by adultery and resisted it.
            >my Quran says Abraham asked God for reassurance that his son would be able to be resurrected
            No it doesn't.
            >that the son himself (Ishmael)
            Nowhere does the Quran say it was Ishmael.
            >I also don't believe Moses was a child-murderer, and a genocidal warlord. I don't believe that God himself ordered for the genocide of the children and infants of Amalek.
            So you don't believe the one who is called Al Khidr killed a child?
            Also, it's not "your" Quran.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            the people were*

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            The Quran says "take your son", and then later after the incident of Abraham almost sacrificing his son God informs him that Isaac will be born. It was obviously Ishmael.

            First of all, your "Al Khidr" is from a hadith. Not the Quran. The Quran states a "servant of God". The servants of God are either prophets or angels. In this case it is very likely that this servant was an angel, and angels are allowed to take the lives of children such as the angel of death who took the lives of the Egyptian newborns. You also picked the perfect verse to show how Moses was not a child-murderer since he was sickened when the angel killed in an innocent child in front of him. So, even in this story, the character of Moses does not match up with the genocidal character of the Biblical Moses.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            > And We gave him good news of Isaac, a prophet, one of the righteous
            Simply means he learned Isaac would become a prophet, not that he was yet to be born.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            That's a weird way to phrase. Your son will become a prophet. Obviously he was referring to a new son who would come now that he obeyed God by almost sacrificing his first son.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Obviously
            When someone uses the word "obviously" when discussing theology and holy texts, you can be sure he's bullshitting you and trying to convince himself.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            Even in the Bible the israelites didn't bother to remove, the "your only son" part.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            Newsflash: even traditional islamic scholars believed it was Isaac.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            >islamic scholars
            What makes you think I care what the scholars think? Did you already forget that I don't obey scholars or hadiths? I purely obey the Quran, and what I can plainly read in it, nothing more.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Did you already forget that I don't obey scholars or hadiths?
            In truth, you follow quranist scholars and quranist hadiths.
            >what I can plainly read in it,
            You've already shown you go beyond what can be "plainly read" from it

            >So you believe prophets must be perfect immaculate otherworldly creatures?
            Who ever said that? Isn't that what Christians say about Jesus anyway? I just don't believe a prophet (Aaron) built the golden calf when my Quran says it was an evil man named Samiri. I don't believe David committed adultery when my Quran says he was only tempted by the sin, but did not actually sin. I don't believe Abraham tricked his son Isaac, and was going to kill him without hesitation against his will when my Quran says Abraham asked God for reassurance that his son would be able to be resurrected, and that the son himself (Ishmael) agreed to be killed for the will of God.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            You're the one trying to change the text of the Quran to fit in more with your Biblical interpretations. I'm not. I believe the Bible is an important reference, and that the Quran oftentimes does not need to directly contradict, but sometimes it does need to contradict, especially when it comes to erasing the slander of the prophets.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            You're the one trying to change the text of the Bible to fit in more with your preconceived notions of what is proper for God to say. Show me where the Quran says the prophets were slandered.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            >You're the one trying to change the text of the Bible
            No, not me. The Quran does that. You're assuming that the Quran does not change any of the Bible stories? In the Bible lot's wife turned into a pillar of salt after looking back while Sodom and Gomorrah were being destroyed. In the Quran she was left behind, because she was wicked and died in the destruction. (A lot more realistic than being turned into salt by the way).

            So yes, the Quran can contradict. Sometimes it does not need to, but sometimes it directly does.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            Show me where the Quran says the prophets were slandered.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            Since you ignored all the examples I posted already, and misinterpreted those verses to suit your Biblical narrative then look at Solomon, who allowed idolatry and who's fate is uncertain in the Bible. Solomon in the Quran is praised as one of the great prophets by God. The Quran should at least be used as a reference when something is not clear in the Bible (like Solomon's salvation).

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            Still no answer to a very simple question. Since you have no objective criteria to decide which verses are "bad" and which are ok, you're left with you subjective tastes and opinions, and you don't even realize how weak and precarious such a position is, and at the first difficulty you give up on the biblical text just because you don't know any better. 38:34 shows Solomon repented.
            >Since you ignored all the examples I posted already, and misinterpreted
            Stop projecting.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            >38:34 shows Solomon repented
            Doesn't matter. That's only from the Quran. If you accept only the Bible as an authority, Solomon may as well be in hell for all you know.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            >If you accept only the Bible as an authority
            Good thing I don't do that.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            Then if you insist on the Quran not contradicting the Bible, who told David the story of the 99 sheep. Was it the Nathan or the two angels?

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            You seem to conflate several passages. The 100 sheep and one missing is a parabole from Jesus.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            2 Samuel 12
            or
            Quran 38:23

            Which version happened? This is not the Jesus parable. It's about David's sin.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            It doesn't actually tell the same story, so it can be two different stories told by different people.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            So you're saying two angels appeared in front of David and tell him the exact same (or very similar) story as Nathan for some reason either before or after Nathan rebuked David for his sin. That makes no sense.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            Yes it does. At first he understands the story, then he doesn't because he sins. The only other way of interpreting these differences is to literally make up your own narrative based on your opinion, and in all likelihood you're a lot less wise than you assume. You give up at the first difficulty when more difficult topics have been reconciled inside the Bible or inside the Quran.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            >The only other way of interpreting these differences is to literally make up your own narrative based on your opinion
            It's unanimously agreed upon among Muslims that David did not sin, and the Quran verses does not even imply that he sinned. It only implies with the story of the two angels that he was tempted to sin, and steal Bathsheba from her husband.

            My "own narrative" is that David wanted Bathsheba, since that is implied in the Quran, but God sent him the two angels to warn him not to sin. So he did not commit adultery. Then Bathsheba's husband died in battle, and David having secretly wanted Bathsheba the entire time married her only when she was widowed. Then they had Solomon together. Unless you just want to stick with the Biblical narrative which could very well have been israelites gossiping about David, and claiming he had a man killed in order to steal his wife.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            >the Quran verses does not even imply that he sinned.
            They do not imply he did not sin.
            >It's unanimously agreed upon among Muslims
            Muslims are some of the most uneducated, delusional morons on this planet, whatever they agree on is not a valid argument.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Muslims are some of the most uneducated, delusional morons on this planet, whatever they agree on is not a valid argument.

            Then why are you larping as one?

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            Because I'm not? Why do you think I say the Bible is as valid as the Quran? The term "muslim" has lost all positive meaning and use because of muslims, and it wouldn't make sense to use it.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            Yeah, to be fair I don't refer to myself as a Muslim either since I don't want to be associated with a certain crowd of morons, but I also don't go around saying I'm a Christian since I don't want to be associated with the trinity believers. I'm just a guy who believes in God, and the scriptures.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            I don't really call myself anything because I'm busy trying to make sense of the giant mess we've inherited.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            >You're assuming that the Quran does not change any of the Bible stories?

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            I just posted the example of Lot's wife, and that was an undeniable change.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            It's actually a very desperate example, way more difficult questions found their answers already.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            >First of all, your "Al Khidr" is from a hadith
            That's why I said "the one who is called" you pretentious gay.
            >The servants of God are either prophets or angels
            >source: I made it up
            >the character of Moses does not match up with the genocidal character of the Biblical Moses.
            You simply assume the Bible's meaning is always literal. Perhaps it isn't, or perhaps you're wrong and not only angels are allowed to kill children. Besides, the reasoning for killing him implies he wasn't innocent. Furthermore, "killing" in this story does not need to be literal. You're too literal-minded which is why you'll keep bumping into problems and contradictions. Have fun.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            >when my Quran says Abraham asked God for reassurance that his son would be able to be resurrected
            Post the ayah that says this? You just made that up like a israelite

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            I also don't believe Moses was a child-murderer, and a genocidal warlord. I don't believe that God himself ordered for the genocide of the children and infants of Amalek.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            So you as a quranist does not believe the Quran has been perfectly preserved? shia dog detected

    • 5 months ago
      Anonymous

      Are you an actual moron? 2:221 means the opposite of that, no where does it say israelite or christian he added that, it is a ban on both muslim men and muslim women in marrying pagans until they become believers in islam

      And if you "quranists" ever read the quran completely in arabic you would know that aya Clearly bans muslim women from marrying kafir men.

      And aya 5:5 allows muslim men to marry ahlu kitab women.

      I know you morons will use 2:62 out of context to claim israelites and christians are mumin, but ayah 48:13 debunks that by Allah saying all non muslims are kufar who are destined to hell.

      >angel gabriel
      Theres plenty of evidence the ruh qudus is jibril but this will suffice
      >“Which the trustworthy Ruh has brought down upon your heart .” [al-Shu’ara’ 26:193]
      >“Whoever is an enemy to Gabriel , for indeed he has brought it (this Quran) down to your heart.” [al-Baqarah 2:97]

      surah nisa says they did not kill or crucify jesus pbuh, which makes his theory make no sense if he was put on the cross and his soul separated

      Absolute state of quranist kufar who dont know arabic and are probably pajeets

      • 5 months ago
        Anonymous

        *aya 60:10

      • 5 months ago
        Anonymous

        The holy spirit is not, nor will ever be an angel. Nowhere in the Bible is the holy spirit described as being an angel, but all of a sudden hadith followers like yourself think they know better than the people of the book who studied the formerly revealed scriptures? https://www.answering-christianity.com/holy_spirit.htm

        The Quran is a revelation that is supposed to complete the other revelations. NOT replace them. Jesus was crucified in the gospels, and the only proper way to interpret that Quran verse is that his soul was raised, but his body was not. Keep your hadiths about substitution theory away from my scripture.

        • 5 months ago
          Anonymous

          >nor will ever be an angel
          So you deny Quran 2:97?
          So you believe the bible but not the hadith? Even tho the hadith is thousands of times more historically reliable?
          >NOT replace them
          yes it came to abrogate them and be a criteria over it
          >Jesus was crucified in the gospels
          doesn't matter its a corrupt book

          Unlike you, I don't need to defend obvious falsehood since my authority is not the words of men (hadiths), it's the word of God alone (Quran).

          >muh liberalism
          Keep crying terrorist.

          You twist the quran so it aligns with liberalism thoughbeit

          Gay progressive muslims are more respectable people than actual muslims.

          They are qarm lut and are going to hell

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            >They are qarm lut and are going to hell
            Muslims are also qawm lut. Sodomy and child rape are rampant in your shitholes. This is one of many reasons why God hates your guts and never favors you in any matter, despite your delusion that he would support people like you who corrupt and destroy everything good.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            >So you deny Quran 2:97?
            Read the page I linked or stop replying. The holy spirit is the force that God uses to influence angels and prophets. The holy spirit itself is not a person in a trinity or an angel, it's a part of God. Don't even think of replying again with your hadiths, and yes the Bible is more reliable than hadiths. The Torah, Psalms, and Gospels are mentioned by name in the Quran.

            >doesn't matter its a corrupt book
            The Gospels are probably the least corrupted of any of the Biblical scriptures, also nowhere in the Quran is your "theory" mentioned. It says Jesus appeared to be crucified, nowhere does it say he was replaced. I don't know how you can take a verse about God raising Jesus himself so that he would not experience any pain to mean that he wasn't even placed on the cross.

  4. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    >died in the same oddly specific way
    He didn't tho, the word used is not even the same, and it's describing the feeling, not a literal cut.

  5. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    That's implying they at all care

    • 5 months ago
      Anonymous
      • 5 months ago
        Anonymous

        Where is that in the quran?
        That's a shit explanation that came two centuries later.

  6. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    it sounds like he died of a heart attack from eating too many spicy foods.

    • 5 months ago
      Anonymous

      Like what? Chilis are native to the americas. They only became available in eurasia after columbus

  7. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    there is an aorta valve in your heart as well as your neck.

  8. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    >believing hadith in 2023
    Ngmi

  9. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    Islam was created by God to deceive the Arabs

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *