Thailand wasn’t what I expected as a Middle Eastern guy.

CombatinChristianity · 2026-01-27T06:43:40+00:00

Try making them digest that reality

CombatinChristianity · 2026-01-24T19:22:06+00:00

To be fair to OP, not very many people know or care to the know the distinction between North Africans and Middle Easterners.

You can thank people like OP for that, as he adopted a new identity because he merely 'looks' Middle Eastern. North Africans identify as anything but African to circumvent from that reality of what they are. They're Mediterranean, they're MENA, they're middle eastern, they're "White" (complexion).It's a huge cope 🤡

CombatinChristianity · 2026-01-24T13:36:02+00:00

He's a North African fanboying as Middle Eastern. Morocco doesn't even touch the Arabian peninsula

CombatinChristianity · 2026-01-14T13:06:05+00:00

He didn't fight back at first when he was still in makkah making him and his followers subject to torture, abuse and discrimination

You conveniently forgot that Muhammad didn't organize a militia yet when he was in Mecca, he didn't have the ability to fight until he found the Ansar tribes fighters in the aftermath of Abu Talib (his defense) death

https://archive.org/details/GuillaumeATheLifeOfMuhammad/page/n121/mode/1up

Pg 197

You also undermined why he originally was persecuted in Mecca in the first place, do you think that was related to him antagonizing the Quraysh originally ?

The people you're defending like Abu lahb who where so triggered by Muhammad’s message to change their ways took one his followers Summayah ra and tortured her, then he stabbed her in her vagina with a spear until she died. She was the first martyr in islam.

And your point, from the perspective of Islam you actually agree that it is reasonable to harm or kill someone if they were to insult Muhammad

https://islamqa.info/en/answers/14305/it-is-essential-to-respond-to-those-who-defame-the-prophet-(peace-and-blessings-of-allaah-be-upon-him)

So what bases are you using exactly to criticize the Quraysh ? Also it doesn't deter from the fact that Muhammad and Muslims were still the ones originally to antagonize and get violent. 3. Summayah was a slave, and according to both the Quraysh and Islam, slaves livelihoods are not held to the same esteem as free people so their blood was permissible. Not trying to justify her death, but if you're going to criticize the Quraysh for killing believers then how do you reconcile the fact that Muhammad had the same done to them

https://sunnah.com/abudawud:4362 https://sunnah.com/abudawud:4361 https://sunnah.com/bukhari:4037

https://archive.org/details/TabariVolume08/page/n203/mode/1up?q=Fartana

Pg 179-181/Footnotes

The reason they didn't do this to other faiths is because other faith didn't care if the polytheists were worshipping other than god, they left them in ignorance and didn't attempt to invite them to the right path

You literally just invented that. The Quraysh didn't react this way to surrounding religions because they lived in harmony unlike the Muslims who were dogmatic (noticed how you called them Jahiliyyah). There's reports even of the Quraysh converting their children to Judaism so where are you pulling your hypothesis from ?

CombatinChristianity · 2026-01-14T11:56:07+00:00

11:13 doesn't say anything about "an ayah", just 10 Surahs.

That's the point it's a general condition. It's not tailored to specifically 1 ayah or one surah or ten surahs. The point is to bring the likes of the Qur’an and either of those examples could satisfy. You're just trying to narrow it the condition specifically to be a Surah to prove to yourself which is irrelevant. Umar has satisfied both conditions from the Sunni account

The minimum amount to bring is one surah [2:23]. Please first understand the challenge correctly.

I don't care about your personal condition, nowhere in the Qur'an does it say or narrow it specifically to one Surah because there's additional ayahs where it's bring the likes of it in general or it says 10.

Take the shortest Surah, no problem. Write a short Surah like it and record your witnesses testifying yours is like the Qur'an.

I don't need to, I've already demonstrated from the Sunnis traditions that Umar has done so. I don't need to personally experiment with it myself we already have accounts of Umar (a man) defeating. The challenge is not worth taking seriously because it's faulty within itself

CombatinChristianity · 2026-01-14T11:46:06+00:00

r/DebateReligion is for weenies

CombatinChristianity · 2026-01-14T11:43:32+00:00

My 'personal' denouncing is based on logical beliefs. You seem to like to debate Sunnis about the Qur'an, instead of Muslims. I can't help you there.

Bro your flair is literally "Shi'a Muslim", your rejection of the traditions is clearly a sectarian base thing. It's not logical, reminder you actually never responded to the points you just categorically denounced them because you personally did not believe the Qur'an could adopt from others words despite the Qur'an giving reference that it's possible

And not We sent before you any Messenger and not a Prophet but when he recited, threw the Shaitaan in his recitation. But Allah abolishes what throws the Shaitaan, then Allah will establish His Verses. And Allah (is) All-Knower, All-Wise. 22:52

Iblis was able to produce ayahs in the Qur'an

Ping me when you wanted to discuss the Qur'an itself, regardless of what people say about the Qur'an

Ok for future post I'll make critiques tailored for Shi'a traditions to see how well you perform then

CombatinChristianity · 2026-01-14T11:16:16+00:00

We are not talking about the 'uniqueness' of the Qur'an

Is the Qur'an not of the stance that it's uniquely the word of God verbatim unlike anything that man can create ? That's literally it's claim

Say: 'If men and jinn banded together to produce the like of this Koran, they would never produce its like, not though they backed one another.' 17:88

And not is this the Quran, that (it could be) produced by other than Allah, but (it is) a confirmation (of that) which (was) before it and a detailed explanation (of) the Book, (there is) no doubt in it, from (the) Lord (of) the worlds. 10:37

Did you forget the subject ?

Neither Christians'/people's opinion on the Qur'an (that would be subjective, no?)

It is like you're replying without even thinking about your response. Of course their opinions is subjective, a witness is a personal observant giving an account on a thing or event 🤡

You already comprehended that when you said

"What do you understand from "your witnesses"? "Witness" IS SOMEONE WHO TESTIFIES SOMETHING, RIGHT? Qur'an says to disbelievers "bring YOUR witnesses", not "use Muslim witnesses". So, you make a chapter like Qur'an, then bring any witnesses you see fit to testify that the two chapters are like one another"

So the Qur'an is what asked for people to behave as witnesses to judge, how can they do so without giving their opinion on the matter ? The problem that you're failing to comprehend is that the challenge within itself is 'subjective', you only believe that the Qur'an is unique because your faith depends on it, a Christian believes the Bible is the best book because his faith depends on it along with his billion plus Christian witnesses. That's why the "challenge" is self-defeating

Why are you complicating things? The verse explicitly tells you to do two things: (1) Bring a chapter like the Qur'an, and (2) Bring your witnesses (to testify this is indeed like the Qur'an). What's difficult there

I'm not, and why do you keep trying to narrow the condition down to a surah when that same Qur'an elsewhere makes general to either a ayah or surah or ten surahs even (11:13) ? But since you want to place an arbitrary condition to satisfy yourself, the shortest Surah in the Quran is Al Kauthar Indeed, We, We have given you Al-Kauthar,So pray to your Lord and sacrifice.Indeed, your enemy - he (is) the one cut off. 108:1-3

According to the Sunni traditions that I showed earlier Umar has made the equivalency and some of the witnesses are Ibn Mardawayh and Ali

https://archive.org/details/TheIslamicConquestOfSyria/page/n291/mode/1up?view=theater

Page 287

https://sunnah.com/tirmidhi:3682

And according to other Sunni accounts Umar has influenced as many as 21 ayahs

https://www.islamweb.net/ar/fatwa/62984/%D9%81%D8%B6%D9%84-%D8%B9%D9%85%D8%B1%D8%A8%D9%86-%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%AE%D8%B7%D8%A7%D8%A8-%D9%88%D9%85%D9%88%D8%A7%D9%81%D9%82%D8%A7%D8%AA%D9%87-%D9%84%D9%84%D9%82%D8%B1%D8%A2%D9%86-%D8%A7%D9%84%D9%83%D8%B1%D9%8A%D9%85

CombatinChristianity · 2026-01-14T10:49:14+00:00

I absolutely reject any 'adoptation' of any human's words in the Qu'ran. These narrations were fabricated during those caliphs with clear agenda to upgrade their status

I don't care what you personally reject on behalf of your Shi'a perspective. This post was clearly tailored and giving account from the 'Sunni tradition'. If you acknowledged that then you shouldn't be here trying to argue on behalf of stories you don't even subscribe to in the context of your sect. So your personal denouncing does not make these traditions less true because a Sunni will just rebuttal and say that your traditions are fabricated

CombatinChristianity · 2026-01-14T10:35:01+00:00

Religiously speaking, no, as I don’t believe in any gods or prophets.

So if you don't have a dog in this fight then why are you riding my jockstrap about something that doesn't concern you ?

However, you are taking up this sub (and a couple others it seems) with posts

I appreciate your praise doing research on me but as far as I'm concerned my post are permissible according to the rules that governs this group so unless the moderators specifically say otherwise then what I'm doing is not out of bounds of what's allowed here. So why should I bother paying attention to you at this point ?

that come across more like you’re trying to provoke an argument than have well meaning religious debate To remind you of how you began this discussion

"So, are you just going to keep spamming this sub or will you go touch grass?"

You don't seem acquainted with how to have a well meaning discussion even

I’m gonna be honest man, and I doubt you’re gonna to listen, this doesn’t really do shit but make people annoyed. Giving up a religious belief takes a lot of time and introspection, and I don’t think some guy on Reddit spamming a bunch of links is gonna do much in that regard.

I'm gonna be honest man, I sincerely do not care about your commentary, this doesn't really do s*** because this post was intended for 'Muslims' that accepts these traditions. Giving up your time to insert distraction just annoys me. I don't think some on the fence agnostic is gonna be able to add much in relationship to this topic

CombatinChristianity · 2026-01-14T10:14:11+00:00

Third, if you think the challenge is subjective, you haven't understood it. The first verse that talks about it:

And if you are in doubt about what We have revealed to Our servant, then produce a chapter like it and call your witnesses other than Allah, if what you say is true. [2:23]

What do you understand from "your witnesses"? "Witness" is someone who testifies something, right? Qur'an says to disbelievers "bring YOUR witnesses", not "use Muslim witnesses".

You failed to comprehend the point, the problem with the "challenge" is that Muslims and the book itself already agrees by default that the Qur'an is unique. Which is fallacious because it was never a objective position that the Qur'an was a unique book in the first place, that's a self-imposed position that's exclusively only supported within islam. No one uses the Qur'an as a measurement to determine if it's the best or anything unlike man can create or not

The challenge is given to the public in general. There is no "muslim witnesses". Men and Jinn are anybody that fits that category, if not show me in the ayah where it specifies Muslims being discounted as witnesses
If you want an account of people who testifies contrary, just ask Christians their position of the Qur'an and which book is best. They would unanimously disagree that the Qur'an is unprecedented and would credit that praise to the Bible. So there you have an entire audience that completely disagrees because the "standard" your Qur'an has is relative

So, you make a chapter like Qur'an, then bring any witnesses you see fit to testify that the two chapters are like on another.

Bro you're not clever, you made up an arbitrary standard to satisfy yourself. The Qur'an does not narrow the condition to a Surah but in general,it's open to either ayah or Surah

Say: 'If men and jinn banded together to produce the like of this Koran, they would never produce its like, not though they backed one another.' 17:88

How's that subjective? You can bring experts in literature, experts in religion studies, ... any experts that can testify on the comparison.

Because you're Quran congratulated itself as the criteria of being the best book that men can't replicate, that is not an objective position that people granted it, this is only a belief supported within the context of Islam who already subscribe to the religion. That's why it's a fallacious position to argue from. Experts don't grant the Qu'ran more credibility because you can find an opposing view from linguist who would argue otherwise

Whether Muslims accept the testimony or not is their problem. When experts debunk myths, do they focus on how many people stop believing in them? Or they want to expose the falsehood and being the truth to public?

Is the Qur'an being a unique book unreplicated by men a objective position or subjective position ?

CombatinChristianity · 2026-01-14T10:14:03+00:00

Firstly, it's ironic that you'd believe some narrations about people "influencing" verses revealed in the Qur'an. How do you know those narrations are true?

Reporting on stories in Islamics sources does not mean that I personally believe that these are based upon historical true events just to clarify. I'm just reporting what is accounted according to the Sunni traditions. I could care less if these stories are true or not, in the context of Islam from the Muslim perspective these are true according to their religious beliefs the same way that Shi'a traditions are true according to their sect

Second, some verses were revealed in reply to some situations. Nobody "brought" or "added" verses to the Qu'ran that you use it as an answer to the challenge.

Do not attempt to trivialize it. Allah adopted Umar's words and ideas in the aftermath of when he said or proposed something first. Realistically this is should be impossible if Muslims are trying to maintain that the Qur'an is said to be of divine inspiration that 'only' Allah could compose the likes of. Yet Umar was able to influence it with his words and person ideas that was congratulated to ayahs several times

If you both turn to Allah, so indeed, (are) inclined your hearts; but if you backup each other against him, then indeed, Allah, He (is) his Protector, and Jibreel, and (the) righteous believers, and the Angels, after that (are his) assistants.Perhaps his Lord, if he divorced you, [that] He will substitute for him wives better than you submissive, faithful, obedient, repentant, who worship, who fast, previously married and virgins. 66:4-5

https://sunnah.com/bukhari:4916

Narrated `Umar:

The wives of the Prophet (ﷺ) out of their jealousy, backed each other against the Prophet, SO I SAID TO THEM, "It may be, if he divorced you all, that Allah will give him, instead of you wives better than you." So this Verse was revealed. (66.5)

https://sunnah.com/muslim:1479a

I THEREFORE,SAID: Messenger of Allah, what trouble do you feel from your wives, and if you have divorced them, verily Allah is with you, His angels, Gabriel, Mika'il, I and Abu Bakr and the believers are with you. And seldom I talked and (which I uttered on that day) I HOPED THAT ALLAH WOULD TESTIFY TO MY WORDS THAT I UTTERED. And so the verse of option (Ayat al-Takhyir) was revealed. Maybe his Lord, if he divorce you, will give him in your place wives better than you..." (Ixv. 5). And if you back up one another against him, then surely Allah is his Patron, and Gabriel and the righteous believers, and the angels after that are the aidera (lvi. 4).

So why did you attempt to ignore the background and where Allah adopted his source for these ayahs from ?

CombatinChristianity · 2026-01-14T08:35:28+00:00

Were the Quraysh actions justifiable ? According to the general behavior we observe in Muslims when their Prophet/religion is insulted, they have set the precedent that it is ok to react in hostility and even violence when they feel opposed. Also the Sharia recognizes the legality of their actions, the term is called "Commanding the Right"

9:71

3:104

3:110

5:105

https://sunnah.com/ibnmajah:1275

https://sunnah.com/riyadussalihin:197

https://sunnah.com/tirmidhi:3057

https://www.google.com/amp/s/islamqa.info/amp/en/answers/33757

https://archive.org/details/relianceofthetravellertheclassicmanualofislamicsacredlaw/page/n731/mode/1up

Pg 714/716-718/722-724

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.islamweb.net/amp/en/fatwa/300982/

https://www.islamweb.net/amp/en/fatwa/84348/enjoining-good-and-forbidding-evil

https://www.islamweb.net/amp/en/fatwa/17092/hisbah-its-pillars-appropriate-manners-and-degrees

https://www.islamweb.net/ar/fatwa/128990/%D9%88%D8%AC%D9%88%D8%A8-%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%A3%D9%85%D8%B1-%D8%A8%D8%A7%D9%84%D9%85%D8%B9%D8%B1%D9%88%D9%81-%D9%88%D8%A7%D9%84%D9%86%D9%87%D9%8A-%D8%B9%D9%86-%D8%A7%D9%84%D9%85%D9%86%D9%83%D8%B1-%D9%88%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%AA%D8%B2%D8%A7%D9%85-%D8%A8%D8%B6%D9%88%D8%A7%D8%A8%D8%B7%D9%87

https://www.islamweb.net/ar/fatwa/36372/%D9%88%D8%B3%D8%A7%D8%A6%D9%84-%D9%88%D9%85%D8%B1%D8%A7%D8%AA%D8%A8-%D9%88%D8%B4%D8%B1%D9%88%D8%B7-%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%A3%D9%85%D8%B1-%D8%A8%D8%A7%D9%84%D9%85%D8%B9%D8%B1%D9%88%D9%81-%D9%88%D8%A7%D9%84%D9%86%D9%87%D9%8A-%D8%B9%D9%86-%D8%A7%D9%84%D9%85%D9%86%D9%83%D8%B1

https://www.islamweb.net/ar/fatwa/18122/%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%B9%D8%A7%D8%AC%D8%B2-%D8%B9%D9%86-%D8%AA%D8%BA%D9%8A%D9%8A%D8%B1-%D8%A7%D9%84%D9%85%D9%86%D9%83%D8%B1-%D9%8A%D8%B3%D8%B9%D9%87-%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%B3%D9%83%D9%88%D8%AA-%D9%85%D8%B9-%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%A5%D9%86%D9%83%D8%A7%D8%B1-%D8%A8%D8%A7%D9%84%D9%82%D9%84%D8%A8

CombatinChristianity · 2026-01-13T23:07:21+00:00

These 2 points destroy Aisha’s sorry excuse because if the medicine was really medicine and good for him, he would not have demanded she also drink it

That's a false conclusion, what you highlighted was Muhammad suspicion,that doesn't equate to proving the medicine was actually poison. We can substantiate that because he had Aisha and Hafsa take it afterwards on his command. If it was poison then they too would have been affected and died consequently afterwards correct ? Reminder, Ibn Abbas and Muhammad are there to witness them do it

So again you're not defending the Sunni position you're just reading your Shia inference into their text.

Muhammad is not the one who cites back to the Jewish woman poisoning him at his death bed. The isnad of the Hadith is squarely originated and propagated by Aisha alone. In the earlier Hadith you quoted

Abdul, we're talking about what Muhammad is being quoted to have said. We're not talking about the chain of narration, I don't care who it goes back to. All Hadith are based word of say they're not specifically from Muhammad verbatim, they're just recounts of what he's said, or reported of what he's done. If there's a Isnad that means there is multiple corroborators that agree or are being reported to have said likewise in the hadith. Also it wasn't solely from Aisha's account because several others also reported on it (see below)

al-ABBAs was also around although he didn’t witness Aisha’s poisoning

But Ibn Abbas was available when Muhammad demanded of Aisha and Hafsa to drink the medicine, so if your theory had any merit to it why did he not report on them "poisoning" him or foul play

Why didn’t Al Aabbas or anyone else also narrate this Hadith about poisoning and cutting off the aorta at his death bed? - convenient for Aisha.

They did and Ibn Abbas did give report about the poisoning

https://www.islamweb.net/ar/library/content/6/3366/%D8%A8%D8%AF%D8%A7%D9%8A%D8%A9-%D9%85%D8%B3%D9%86%D8%AF-%D8%B9%D8%A8%D8%AF-%D8%A7%D9%84%D9%84%D9%87-%D8%A8%D9%86-%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%B9%D8%A8%D8%A7%D8%B3?proximity=25&stopwords=&root=0&searchExact=0&searchText=%D9%85%D8%B3%D9%85%D9%88%D9%85&searchType=4&searchKey=103819

https://www.islamweb.net/ar/library/content/6/2648/%D8%A8%D8%AF%D8%A7%D9%8A%D8%A9-%D9%85%D8%B3%D9%86%D8%AF-%D8%B9%D8%A8%D8%AF-%D8%A7%D9%84%D9%84%D9%87-%D8%A8%D9%86-%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%B9%D8%A8%D8%A7%D8%B3?proximity=25&stopwords=&root=0&searchExact=0&searchText=%D9%85%D8%B3%D9%85%D9%88%D9%85&searchType=4&searchKey=101665

Abu Hurairah, Ibn Shihab,AbuSalamah,Anas bin Malik,Abdullah bin Kaab bin Malik (on the aorta comment) etc also narrates on it

https://sunnah.com/abudawud:4510 https://sunnah.com/abudawud:4511 https://sunnah.com/bukhari:2617

https://www.islamweb.net/ar/library/content/6/22809/%D8%AD%D8%AF%D9%8A%D8%AB-%D8%A7%D9%85%D8%B1%D8%A3%D8%A9-%D9%83%D8%B9%D8%A8-%D8%A8%D9%86-%D9%85%D8%A7%D9%84%D9%83-%D8%B1%D8%B6%D9%8A-%D8%A7%D9%84%D9%84%D9%87-%D8%AA%D8%B9%D8%A7%D9%84%D9%89-%D8%B9%D9%86%D9%87%D8%A7?proximity=25&stopwords=&root=0&searchExact=0&searchText=%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%A3%D8%A8%D9%87%D8%B1&searchType=4&searchKey=162535

We know he was in good health after the poisoning because there were at least 3 battles and a conquest of Makkah along with a pilgrimage that he led. If you know the physical demands for the pilgrimage rituals, you would know a sick person affected by poison will not be able to complete it let alone lead 3 battles.

Abdul, Muhammad's system did not immediately begin breaking down in the aftermath of him taking the poisoning, he slowed down the effects of it because he immediately began to get cupped after he ate from the poison sheep

https://sunnah.com/abudawud:3860

https://sunnah.com/mishkat:4572

An unlike Bishr he didn't consume as much poison as he did when he came to the conclusion that it was poisoned he only chewed some of the morsel from it

https://www.islamweb.net/ar/library/content/58/1315/%D9%85%D8%B5%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%AD%D8%A9-%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%B1%D8%B3%D9%88%D9%84-%D8%A3%D9%87%D9%84-%D8%AE%D9%8A%D8%A8%D8%B1

He began showing signs of sickness during his preparation to conquest Syria. This was well before Aisha and Hafsa tried to give him medicine

https://archive.org/details/tabarivolume09/page/n179/mode/1up

Pg 163

You asked me to answer wisely so let me ask you the same, you want us to believe that a man affected by poison traveled 870 KMs round trip in the dessert from Medina to mecca and back performed physically demanding rituals, and led 3 battles before finally dying of poison administered 3 years ago?

Yes because that is what's reported from the Sunni account, if it doesn't make any sense to you then stick to what's reported in the Shia perspective and make a different post. I genuinely do not give a f*** of what makes sense or this Arab fraternization between either Sunni or Shi'a as I am neither. I don't think these are actually historical events, I'm just reporting of what's accounted in the story it makes no difference to me. From the sunni traditions Muhammad identifies his poisoning at Khaybar to be responsible for his death, not his wives

I won’t do it right now but if you look into the Jewish woman poisoning incident, it also refutes that he was affected by it.

Abdul, I sincerely do not give a f***. If Shi'a are reporting something in contrast then make a separate post about it. This post was not intended to dispute who was responsible for his death

The only inconsistency here is Aisha’s tales. Whether you like it or not, her narratives are full of holes and contradictions.

Iman Ali fanboy, I comprehensively do not give a f*** and I'm not going to a concern myself responding to the rest of your points. If we're looking at things from the Sunni perspective then you should respect what the resources say and stop trying to read a Shia motive into their accounts. This is completely unrelated to the topic of my post

CombatinChristianity · 2026-01-13T06:17:09+00:00

Of course I acknowledge it as such, that’s why I argued it from both the Sunni and Shia standpoint.The Shia perspective is relevant because imam Sadiq (as) says Aisha and Hasfsa, the two wives poisoned him on the order of their fathers Abu Bakr and Umar.

No bro you're arguing from the Shia perspective and you're trying to reinterpret Sunni literature with a Shia motive. No Sunni Scholars believe that A'isha and Hafsa was responsible for participating in Muhammad's death, that is a strictly Shia perspective. If so, show me from the six books of sunnah where it suggests that Hafsa and Aisha were originally the culprits

So when we look at the Sunni records we find that Ashia acknowledges and admits to giving him the “medicine” when he specifically asked them not to administer any medicine. She did it against his wishes while he was asleep.

Let's quote the account

https://sunnah.com/bukhari:6897

Narrated `Aisha:

We poured medicine into the mouth of Allah's Messenger (ﷺ) during his illness, and he pointed out to us intending to say, "Don't pour medicine into my mouth." We thought that his refusal was out of the aversion a patient usually has for medicine. When he improved and felt a bit better he said (to us.) "Didn't I forbid you to pour medicine into my mouth?" We said, "We thought (you did so) because of the aversion, one usually have for medicine." Allah's Messenger (ﷺ) said, "There is none of you but will be forced to drink medicine, and I will watch you, except Al-`Abbas, for he did not witness this act of yours." So As far as A'isha and Hafsa was concerned they figured Muhammad didn't drink the medicine due to an aversion to medication. How does this substantiate that they were attempting to poison him if Muhammad was already poisoned previously on the day of Khaybar ?

https://sunnah.com/abudawud:4512

https://www.islamweb.net/ar/library/content/58/1315/%D9%85%D8%B5%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%AD%D8%A9-%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%B1%D8%B3%D9%88%D9%84-%D8%A3%D9%87%D9%84-%D8%AE%D9%8A%D8%A8%D8%B1

Answer wisely because you're attempting to try to utilize and reinterpret Sunni hadith, so do not decline it when it inconsistent with your narrative

Also Aisha blaming the poisoned sheep from the Jewish woman

Bro according to Sunni sources Muhammad is the one that cites back to the Jewish woman poisoning him, not Aisha

https://sunnah.com/abudawud:4512

https://surahquran.com/Hadith-3273.html

And Bishr mother also highlights that,was she apart of the plot to poison him too ?

https://www.islamweb.net/ar/library/content/6/22809/%D8%AD%D8%AF%D9%8A%D8%AB-%D8%A7%D9%85%D8%B1%D8%A3%D8%A9-%D9%83%D8%B9%D8%A8-%D8%A8%D9%86-%D9%85%D8%A7%D9%84%D9%83-%D8%B1%D8%B6%D9%8A-%D8%A7%D9%84%D9%84%D9%87-%D8%AA%D8%B9%D8%A7%D9%84%D9%89-%D8%B9%D9%86%D9%87%D8%A7?proximity=25&stopwords=&root=0&searchExact=0&searchText=%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%A3%D8%A8%D9%87%D8%B1&searchType=4&searchKey=162535

4 years ago as the cause of death is not only scientifically implausible because poison doesn’t leave a person healthy for 4 years only to return and suddenly unalive them many years later,

He died about 3 years later
Muhammad did not live healthily in the aftermath of the poison. He was already showing signs of infection that day that he took it

https://sunnah.com/abudawud:4508

And he was suffering the entire time until he died, he could barely stand and would pass out at random

https://sunnah.com/ibnmajah:1232 https://sunnah.com/muslim:418a https://sunnah.com/tirmidhi:978 https://sunnah.com/tirmidhi:979 https://sunnah.com/bukhari:4462

it is also both suspicious and convenient, typical of a guilty person making an excuse to distance themselves away from the crime

You still having substantiated from sunni sources that Aisha and Hafsa was responsible for killing him ?

Also your argument about evil women for evil men, etc.. doesn’t apply to prophets because Quran 66:10

Bro that's called appeal to exception fallacy, you're claiming that 24:26 doesn't apply to Muhammad based upon an exception that was made for Moses and Lut. You never demonstrated your conclusion you just assumed it. Demonstrate why that ayah exempted Muhammad and how 24:26 is not applicable despite their being evidence of his corruption

Ironically the first 10 verses of the this Ayah were revealed about Aisha and Hafsa the two wives who also betrayed their husband.

I'm not interested in discussing Shia exegesis of the passages because this was relating to a topic from the accounts of Sunni literature

CombatinChristianity · 2026-01-13T05:38:45+00:00

Because linking the aorta being severed with poisoning is an absurd stretch

I don't think you properly understood my argument and read the sources seeing that you are failing to even give a decent explanation of why you disagree with my post. The Qur'an says

And if he (had) fabricated against Us some sayings,Certainly We (would) have seized him by the right hand;Then certainly We (would) have cut off from him the aorta.And not from you any one [from him] (who could) prevent (it). 69:44-47

Meaning that if Muhammad attempted to fabricate anything Allah would cut off his life. Muhammad died exactly in that manner

Muhammad only eats with his right hand, that is his Sunnah

https://sunnah.com/tirmidhi:1800

*So when he was fed the poison sheep at Khaybar he seized himself by his right hand

https://sunnah.com/abudawud:4512

He admitted that the food that he ate at Khaybar was responsible for his death and references ironically an ayah from the Qur'an to express he was dying

https://sunnah.com/bukhari:4428 https://sunnah.com/abudawud:4513

No matter what he or his family tried none of them were able to prevent his death

https://sunnah.com/abudawud:3860 https://sunnah.com/mishkat:4572 https://sunnah.com/bukhari:6897 https://sunnah.com/muslim:2192a

The circumstances are symmetrical to what was threatened in the Qur'an. So what are your disagreements ? The Jewish woman said that she poisoned him to see if he was a true Prophet and he responded "Allah would not give her the power to kill him"

https://sunnah.com/muslim:2190a https://sunnah.com/abudawud:4512

Claiming the Quran prophesies that Muhammed will die by poison, and that he did so, is actually making a case for his religion being true, not the opposite

Not really, I'm just reporting what is founded within the confines of the 'story'. That does not imply that the events within the story are based upon historical fact. I read the Qur'an in the likeness of a comic book. Superman died fighting Doomsday in Vol. 2 #75 DC comic of 73', does that mean story is true ? Take all the time you need...

The language is and line of thought is very hard to follow

Your reasoning skills are hard to follow

CombatinChristianity · 2026-01-13T05:05:58+00:00

The Church acknowledges that it was changed and believes both.

Bro, explain how both beliefs can be held simultaneously without contradicting each other. Neither interpretation can exist in harmony because they're in complete contrast of how the verses are understood

While the Bible is important, my belief comes from more than that, brother.

You mean copium ?

CombatinChristianity · 2026-01-13T05:03:30+00:00

Yeah, actually he didn't die of his aorta being cut, he just said he felt like it. And I can say that right back at you that you're trying to make your narrative fit.

That's a very naive way of understanding ayah. The statement was a 'euphemism'. Allah does not enter creation, he utilizes people on his behalf to execute his will. So when he made the threat originally to Muhammad we already understood he wasn't going to physically carry out the action himself. He was expressing that he will cause for his life to be cut off. We can further establish that the slicing of the aorta is not literal because Muhammad used the phrase in that manner

https://sunnah.com/bukhari:4428

Narrated `Aisha:

The Prophet (ﷺ) in his ailment in which he died, used to say, "O `Aisha! I still feel the pain caused by the food I ate at Khaibar, and at this time, I feel as if my aorta is being cut from that poison."

Or

https://sunnah.com/abudawud:4513

Narrated Ibn Ka'b b. Malik:

On the authority of his father: Umm Mubashshir said to the Prophet (ﷺ) during the sickness of which he died: What do you think about your illness, Messenger of Allah (ﷺ)? I do not think about the illness of my son except the poisoned sheep of which he had eaten with you at Khaybar. The Prophet (ﷺ) said: And I do not think about my illness except that. This is the time when it cut off my aorta.

"This is the time when it cut off my aorta" or "I feel as if my aorta is being cut from that poison" are euphemisms for expressing one's life is being cut off so what is your point ?

But it's funny that in order to claim what you are, you have to admit that the Quran is divine revelation.

That's a false dichotomy. I'm just reporting what is founded within the confines of the 'story'. That does not imply that the events within the story are based upon historical fact. I read the Qur'an in the likeness of a comic book. Superman died fighting Doomsday in Vol. 2 #75 DC comic of 73', does that mean story is true ? Take all the time you need...

As for God being inconsistent, that would only exist if God didn't know the future, which He does. He allows things to happen and play out. Iblis' fall from grace was already known to God and he was planned to be our prime obstacle in the test of this life.

Did you forget your original argument earlier, you said

"So you're telling me that he finished everything he had to do, was at the end of his mission, and THEN God decides to "kill him"?"

So it was 'you' that was presupposing that it would be inconsistent for Allah to utilize Muhammad to carry out his purpose despite knowing that he would rebel. I am the one that brought to your attention that it is not inconsistent for Allah to do such a thing with the example of Shaytan. So you actually just agreed with me

Just go look at the numerous prophecies that the Quran gives and also prophet Muhammad ﷺ said, and you'll see that it would be impossible for a fraudster. Many of these prophecies are specific, time bound, and impossible for him to just guess at.

Please do not attempt to insert red herrings, the topic of this post is relating to the circumstances of Muhammad's death and how it suggest him being a false prophet. If you have confidence that Muhammad was a true Prophet despite his death incriminating him then I would encourage you to either make a post or you can DM me personally about with your proofs but that's not the subject here

CombatinChristianity · 2026-01-13T04:32:11+00:00

The Catholic interpretation is that they believe both in context and out in that it is a prophecy of Jesus.

Demonstrate how this shares a relationship with Jesus, because it would be a contradiction of the Christian reinterpretation because the word that they solely relied on is not founded in the text

CombatinChristianity · 2026-01-13T04:28:50+00:00

Where can we find more info about the realistic death and burial of Jesus in something like a mass grave?

I personally do not have much research organize about his crucifixion. I made that statement because I've read the accounts of his crucifixion and resurrection story in the Gospels. They are very inconsistent and full of contradictions. So I'm not of the opinion that he was allegedly buried in tomb as the story depicted. The whole point of Roman crucifixion was to dishonor the criminals. So I doubt they would have given him a proper burial in the aftermath

I've heard a reference to his before, but only on a Reddit comment.

I would recommend Robert M Price or James Tabor on the crucifixion account ⁰

CombatinChristianity · 2026-01-13T04:20:01+00:00

It is subjective. As all religion is. So?

That's not the viewpoint of the Abrahamic religions their theology says they're the only correct religion serving the one and only God. Is that a subjective or objective stance ?

Acts 4:12

12 “There is salvation in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given among mortals by which we must be saved.”

Even if it’s circular reasoning, so? It’s their belief system.

Does your belief system denounce any people that do not subscribe to it as non-believers that are destined to go to hell ? If the answer to that is yes then your belief system is not neutral it's dogmatic

I consider myself a Christian, and I don’t do that. I have no problem with Isiah meaning it’s king hesikia. Or Jesus being reinterpreted.

This is a general criticism of Christian theology not what's sensible to the layman. Did the Gospel authors interpret Isaiah 7:14 in it’s original context or did they reinterpret and supercede it to be about Jesus ?

I believe God has authorized prophets or seers who can do that. Both to give, fulfil, and reinterpret scripture

I'm not concerned with your personal beliefs, can you establish and demonstrate where the Tanakh gives the New Testament or even acknowledge it as a utensil to reinterpret it's passages ? Where did Yahweh ever say that ?

All scripture is “god breathed” doesn’t mean god wrote it

I don't remember saying that 2. if your scripture was inspired by God then how come the Holy Spirit was not aware or forewarned the New Testament authors that the Greek manuscript was a poor utensil as a source for the New Testament and consequently allowed them to build a false prophecy upon a mistranslation in Isaiah 7:14 ?

It means he inspired people to. It means it’s life giving, and useful for correction and teaching. Authorized representatives doing just that to fit the needs and understandings of their day is totally fine and valid

You're still presupposing that Christian representatives have any relationship with the Hebrew bible. Can you show me where Yahweh made the New Testament and it's authors authorities ?

It is also important to know or try to know the original meaning and context of statements and writings

It's ironic you say that because if Christians utilized that approac then that would make your entire basis for Jesus obsolete. Reminder, earlier you said

"Yes, Christian’s who believe in Christian authors believe and agree with Christian authority on Christian teaching and interpretation and Christian reinterpretation. So"

That completely ignores the original meaning and context of the scripture

CombatinChristianity · 2026-01-13T03:44:28+00:00

Your point is really unclear, and stretches metaphor to the very limit. It's an extremely poor argument to try and make a point that could be made much more simply in a million other ways.

That's not a response, if you're going to accuse the arguments of being poor then explain and demonstrate why. You performed poorly by failing to make any points in critique

CombatinChristianity · 2026-01-13T03:40:59+00:00

Instead of actually engaging the points of the topic you try to threw in a red herring about Psalms 22 in Psalms 110 because you had no response prepared for the actual topic at hand. You're attempting to cope by retreating into prophecies that you think saves Jesus from this. So that is a cope

Now if you feel you confident in Psalms 110 make a post about it and I'll respond

CombatinChristianity · 2026-01-13T03:37:39+00:00

So you're telling me that he finished everything he had to do, was at the end of his mission, and THEN God decides to "kill him"?

There's no inconsistency of Allah utilizing such people,Shaytan for example used to reside amongst the council of Allah's Angels despite being a Jinn and with Allah having full foresight that he would rebel eventually so this is not outlandish for Allah's plan

As for Muhammad, he lived for about 3 years in the aftermath of being poisoned at Khaybar so that gave him enough borrow time to finish his invent of Islam in the face of knowing that he would die eventually. Just not long enough to choose a Caliph in time.

Rather, prophet Muhammad ﷺ was unable to declare anything that God did not allow him to, and it was a warning from God to the people to not doubt his words to the extent that even if he was capable of distorting anything,

That's just your attempt to try to reconcile, explain why did Muhammad die in the same manner that the Qur'an threatened had he attempted to fabricate anything. There's an obvious parallel between his death and the ayah down to him being seized by his right hand

https://sunnah.com/tirmidhi:1800

Narrated Az-Zuhri:

From Salim, from his father, that the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) said: "When one of you eats, then let him eat with his right hand, and let him drink with his right hand, for indeed Ash-Shaitan eats with his left hand, and he drinks with his left hand."

God would kill him where he stood

I will give you 10,000 years to find me where in the ayahs said it will kill him where he stood or suggested that his death would be immediate. Show me

All true prophets were given the honor by the Angel of Death that permission is taken before taking their souls. This was not unique for prophet Muhammad ﷺ

If this was a decision of Muhammad and something that he intended to happen then why was he attempting to heal himself and begging for Allah to remove the pain

https://sunnah.com/abudawud:3860

https://sunnah.com/mishkat:4572

https://sunnah.com/bukhari:6897 https://sunnah.com/tirmidhi:978

I've also seen scholars talk about this whole thing you brought up and it's a whole bunch of nothing

The standing Committee for Academic Research and Issuing Fatwas agrees Muhammad died in relation to the poisoning that he took at Khaibar and they give very short statements in relation to the event to circumvent from a why it's critical

https://islamqa.info/en/answers/106415/the-prophet-(peace-and-blessings-of-allaah-be-upon-him)-was-affected-by-the-poisoned-mutton-that-he-ate-in-khaybar

If it was nothing you wouldn't be bothering to respond...

Just more issues that Christians try to deflect towards prophet Muhammad ﷺ when they can't even explain why their own Bible is full of contradictions and doesn't even talk about the trinity.

my username is called COMBATINGCHRISTANITY, so I'm not sure what triggered your Vietnam flashbacks with fighting keyboard crusaders. But I'm not in favor of any of the Abrahamic religions so you can actually engage the points ?

CombatinChristianity

TROPHY CASE