Free Abd⚔️

@NedryCon @USMNTjjbn @korrathetaymi 2/2“Centuries later” confuses compilation date with origin: hadiths preserve named chains, and Sahifat Hamam predates Bukhari. You lied about Qadhi, he later post praised isnad as one of history’s most precise verification tools. Also, academics like Motzki take Hadiths seriously

@freeabd111 @USMNTjjbn @korrathetaymi Don’t need that, we have books written by the equivalent of Sahabas and tabi’un (the Gospel accounts, church fathers, etc.); you rely on hearsay on who said what centuries after Muhammad. Your own scholars, eg Yasir Qadhi, admit that no one in academia takes Hadith seriously

The word in Arabic, “وَجَدَهَا,” means to appear, meaning he saw the sun as if it were setting in the ocean. This is something everyone who goes to the coast can see: it looks as if the sun is setting into the sea, but in fact, it never leaves its path in which it is fixed. - Ibn Kathir But we are still waiting on the insects on all four legs (Leviticus 11:20–23). Modern science shows us insects have 6 legs. 😂

@NedryCon @USMNTjjbn @korrathetaymi 1/2- That is exactly why you need isnad. The Gospels do not name their authors in the text, give no chains for reports, and Luke distinguishes himself from the eyewitnesses. Calling later church fathers “equivalent to the companions” simply assumes what you need to prove.

@USMNTjjbn @NedryCon @korrathetaymi Yes, I quoted that to him. And he literally disappeared. Now he’s trying to cope. The earliest clear quote on the matter (whether it’s literal or not) actually says it’s not literal. He’s trying to shift the goalpost to: no one before 276 said it was not literal.

@NedryCon @freeabd111 @korrathetaymi You also have earlier scholars than Tabari from the Ahl-Hadith school saying it’s not literal

@NedryCon Here:

@freeabd111 Post a screenshot or link for Ibn Qutayba’s Al Anwa

The Quran (S. 18:83–90) states that the sun sets in a muddy spring, and all of the earliest mufassirūn interpreted this as a literal event.

@NedryCon @USMNTjjbn @korrathetaymi You’re simply too illiterate to understand it. It’s far beyond the low standards of Christianity. Being able to identify weaker wording through multiple chains of narration, compare what each reported, and reconstruct the original is something you could only dream of having.

@USMNTjjbn @freeabd111 @korrathetaymi Thanks for pointing out that your Hadith science is junk

@USMNTjjbn @NedryCon @korrathetaymi Islamqa says it’s not authentic. A Da’if hadith can have authentic narrators and even have them connected, but it could be shadh شاذ anomalous:

@NedryCon @freeabd111 @korrathetaymi Incorrect. It’s Sahih in Chain but the it set under the spring of water isn’t anywhere else but this one narration

@NedryCon @AALordson @korrathetaymi It is Da’if. And you’re unable to refute it again:

@AALordson @freeabd111 @korrathetaymi he's also just lying about there not being sahih hadith on this x.com/NedryCon/statu…

@NedryCon 2- The rest shifts the goalposts. Just because no one before 250 said it’s not literal doesn’t mean it’s literal! “Permissible” means linguistically valid. Al-Ṭabarī’s reports mostly gloss ḥamiʾah/ḥāmiyah as muddy/hot; that does not itself prove physical solar immersion.

a) Al-Baghawi died 500+ years after Muhammad and 250+ years after Ibn Qutayba. By your own standard, you would need a chain of transmission from Ibn Qutayba to Al-Baghawi demonstrating that this second-hand report is accurate and reliable. Find evidence from Ibn Qutayba's extant works b) Even assuming the report is genuine, it still comes more than 250 years after Muhammad's death. You would still lack evidence from the preceding centuries that this was the original interpretation. Ibn Qutayba would have been familiar with Ptolemaic astronomy, having lived under the Abbasids. A reinterpretation emerging from scientific concerns two and a half centuries later does not establish the verse's original meaning c) Your own wording betrays the argument, since you concede that this is merely a "permissible" viewpoint. You are attempting to harmonise a Quranic error d) The video is citing material from al-Ṭabarī. His works preserve earlier interpretations of the verse, which is the data the video is drawing upon

@AALordson @NedryCon @korrathetaymi I already refuted him. And no, I’m not claiming any is inauthentic without evidence. It’s actually the contrary. You can’t open a book and claim it’s authentic without proving it is. I don’t think you believe everything in every Christian book is authentic, do you?

@freeabd111 @NedryCon @korrathetaymi But Mohammed's story of Jesus and Moses after 600yrs and 1200+ years, respectively, is authentic. When it goes against ur prophet, then it's either not authentic or its corrupt. He only quoted from ur own sources, including the quran. We are waiting for ur rebuttal.

@NedryCon @korrathetaymi No it’s not Sahih. And there’s no such thing as “graded Sahih,” by itself. There are scholars who grade narrations. I gave you a diagram on why it’s not authentic. You just have to read and use your mind:

@freeabd111 @korrathetaymi The hadith are graded sahih, and the Quran describes itself as a clear book, there is no reason to interpret the passage idiomatically. answering-islam.org/authors/shamou…

@AlpArslan_9yyx @NedryCon The video is filled with errors, and logical assumptions. I commented on some of it above.

@NedryCon i saw the video but where does mujahid say its literaly ??? sun dive into lake? he talks about the meaning of words like what does عين حمئه mean? and he give a synonm idk what does this video mean

@NedryCon As for the Hadith you quoted, it’s not authentic it’s inauthentic (Da’eef). The authentic one narrates the prophet saying the sun prostrating under Allah’s throne not sets in a muddy puddle!!!

There is also a hadith in Musnad Aḥmad (20948) etc. in which Muhammad appears to describe the sun as setting in a muddy spring, consistent with a literal reading of Quran 18:86. answering-islam.org/authors/shamou…

@NedryCon A scholar coming 400+ years later and quoting a poem of pre-Islamic period just like that, and he is somehow accepting it as authentic? What kind of joke is that?

@NedryCon Your video doesn’t even claim that those tafsirs understood it literally. It shows they stayed silent on the matter. Also, this guy in the video doesn’t understand the difference between an authentic (sahih) quote and an inauthentic (da’if) one.

@NedryCon This video is filled with errors. None of those early Tafsir mention it’s literal. The fact that they don’t mention either one doesn’t mean we’re wrong today. Many in the early generations didn’t find the need to mention whether it was literal or not. That’s all.

@NedryCon @korrathetaymi This narration for example is not even authentic. It’s a quotation written 400-500+ years after the death of the ones present it. That’s unacceptable. We are not Christians to accept stuff like that. I’m sure you’re illiterate when it comes to Islam and now you’re lost.

@korrathetaymi Your earliest mufassireen interpreted it literally btw. answering-islam.org/authors/cornel…

@NedryCon @pomnchi @korrathetaymi Unfortunately when you’re illiterate about Islam that’s how low one becomes. You need to do two things to prove your claim: 1- Bring where each tafsir shows it’s literal. 2- Prove the chain of narration is authentic if the one who is quoted lived time before.

@pomnchi @korrathetaymi Not just him! x.com/NedryCon/statu…

@hieronymusPL @dmontetheno1 Islam’s view is that God sent many prophets, not all of whom are recorded in the Bible, and that earlier communities preserved some truths while mixing them with error. The Quran then comes as muhaymin over previous tradition. So parallels are exactly what we would expect.

@dmontetheno1 The issue is should we take all these things as historical? Was it divine revelation given to all these previous stories that the Quran affirms (with its adaptations)?

All this talk about how the Qur’an is derivative of its milieu, I have yet to see anything even remotely similar in its style, or even down to the very types of tools and ink that were used to write it. To think that a man with no known formal training or connections created it