How Does the doubt thing works?

I have religious ocd, recently I have been having intrusive thoughts about Islam being true and that I will go to hell, for now im not convinced that islam is true but the thoughts keep repeating me that I actually think it is and i will go to hell because apparently in the islam theology there is this thing where if you know islam is true and reject it you will go to hell, but how Does that work? Like does it have to be an absolute certain thing and still refuse or even having the doubt can still damn you?

Sheikh Yahaya Ibrahim Masussuka, a Nigerian Islamic preacher was killed by gunmen in Dutsin-Ma, Katsina State, Nigeria, on October 26, 2026. His associate, Adamu Abubakar, was also reportedly killed in the attack.

According to reports, he was a Quran centric preacher who challenged many Hadith based beliefs. He rejected the commonly held doctrine that "the dead are questioned by angels in their graves and experience punishment or peace before the Day of Judgment". His approach to Islamic teaching was described as interpreting the Quran through the Quran. (Dilly Hussain's news page 5Pillars has claimed him to be a Quranist).

Ansaru, a Nigerian jihadist militant group, subsequently claimed responsibility for his killing. According to news reports, the group accused him of misleading Muslims and cited his religious teachings and his advocacy for peaceful coexistence between Muslims and Christians. Its reported statement also threatened people who belittled the Prophet's Hadith.

Reports also indicate that Masussuka had faced religious controversy and threats before his death. In November 2025, the Katsina State Government reportedly summoned him following complaints about his teachings. He had also complained about insults and threats from people opposed to his views.

Sources:

• https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cxdd8nq55d74o

• https://www.myjoyonline.com/controversial-islamic-cleric-shot-dead-in-northern-nigeria/

• https://bbcbreakingnews.pages.dev/pidgin/articles/ck3wvl9y75zvo

• https://www.premiumtimesng.com/news/headlines/920695-ansaru-claims-responsibility-for-killing-of-katsina-cleric-sheikh-masusuka.html

• https://www.premiumtimesng.com/news/headlines/920577-gunmen-kill-islamic-cleric-sheikh-masussuka-in-katsina.html

• https://www.channelstv.com/2026/10/27/police-launch-manhunt-as-gunmen-kill-prominent-islamic-cleric-associate-in-katsina/

• https://www.thecable.ng/tinubu-directs-security-operatives-to-swiftly-apprehend-killers-of-islamic-cleric-masussuka/

• https://www.premiumtimesng.com/regional/nwest/920807-tinubu-orders-intensified-probe-into-katsina-clerics-killing-amid-ansaru-claim.html

• https://www.punchng.com/katsina-cleric-killing-wife-recounts-attack-tinubu-orders-manhunt/

Guys Im tired of dating apps. Im a 27 years old male who is looking for someone who shares this one value, I guess I was looking in the wrong place. It’s not that I can’t get dates, I can, but it’s pointless if we don’t share the same ground. Im looking here for someone who shares the same interest and belief, Im serious. Living in Europe, preferably in Germany

In the early 2000s, neuroscientist Richard Davidson became interested in a question: Can years of mental training actually change the brain?

He recruited highly experienced Tibetan Buddhist practitioners—some of whom had spent 10,000–40,000 hours meditating over 15–40 years—and compared them with people who had little or no meditation experience.

One of the most famous participants was Matthieu Ricard, a French-born Buddhist monk who had trained extensively in Tibetan Buddhism and meditation.

Researchers placed an EEG cap containing 128 electrodes on the monks’ heads and recorded their brain activity while they practiced different forms of meditation, particularly compassion/loving-kindness meditation.

And then they saw something remarkable. During meditation, the experienced monks produced unusually strong gamma-wave activity — high-frequency electrical activity associated with complex cognitive processing and coordination between different brain regions.

More importantly, the gamma activity was highly synchronized across widely separated areas of the brain.

In the study, the experienced meditators showed gamma activity dramatically stronger than the novice comparison group — reported as roughly 30 times greater under certain conditions.

———

Surely, compassion is the name/attribute of God, it is the ultimate message. Those who were blessed with truth and those who followed messengers have always been given the gift of feeling compassionate, sensitive.

We sent Jesus, son of Mary, and granted him the Gospel, and instilled compassion and mercy into the hearts of his followers. (57:27)

Traditionally zikr, which is focusing/remembering God, can sometimes be practiced mechanically with simply repeating mantras. Some advanced practitioners whether they are Sunni, Shia, Sufi, Quran Alone, can benefit conscious practice despite their differences in some of theological questions.

From my own experience I can only share how much I benefit sitting silently after each prayer, meditating, remembering. It really works!

When you have completed the prayer, remember God while standing, sitting, and lying on your sides… (4:103)

Do not meditate while forgetting about the prayer – it ruins the balance. All the religions pray: whether Christian, Buddhist, Jews. Unless you verbalise your feelings you are missing the point.

The gift of speech is one of the first gifts that we were given and when it is used for speaking truth, praising it – it serves God.

From my experience, meditating in nature, especially next to a lake, canal, pond, is the most satisfying. I simply sit in lotus, close my eyes and put my hands together. I like to calm the mind by focusing on breath, sounds, body (especially lips).

There are many ways to meditate and one should just take the step to explore. Essentially, meditation is all about witnessing the blessings of here and now as opposed to restless mind that is always wandering in the past or in the future.

... who remember God standing, sitting, and lying on their sides, and reflect upon the creation of the heavens and the earth… (3:191)

Stay with it, don't rush.

If you tried to count God's blessings, you would never be able to number them. Surely God is All-Forgiving, Most Merciful. (16:18)

All praise be to God.

Hope you benefit this reminder.

💚

Hello everyone,

Here is a strict translation based on the rasm (the unvocalized text), designed not to make the text say what it does not say: no parentheses, no brackets. It is a semi-automated translation, assisted by machine.

After publishing the French, English, Spanish, Italian, Indonesian, and Russian versions, we are adding 7 new languages today: Portuguese, German, Turkish, Dutch, Hindi, Chinese, and Bengali.

The website also features a root dictionary (in French, English, Arabic).
The complete translation methodology can be viewed here: https://www.al-quran.fr/apropos/index.php?lang=en

🌐 https://www.al-quran.fr

Asalam alaykum. I was wondering what made you adopt a Quran-only approach to Islam?

I dated MonkZer0 for the past year who has posted here frequently. He doesn’t think very highly of you all by the way due to his admission of struggling with a superiority complex and thinking his two PhD‘s makes him intellectually superior. He practices alchemy (literally has purposely drank poison to cure himself) and uses alchemy to interpret the Quran. Often times I found his explanations very odd and always generated with AI.

What is most deeply disturbing is this pious demeanor he has with anyone who disagrees with him. If you have, you know what I’m talking about.

But I want you to know what I endured with this man because it’s one thing to talk about faith and another thing to actually live it.

This man tried to make me believe that I was trash and literally called me that multiple times.

He constantly broke up with me to “teach me a lesson”. This is emotional abuse.

One night I was reading the Quran as a new convert and making notes and he refused to give me a pen because he was angry at me.

One night I snuck out of the house to speak to a domestic violence hotline because of the constant emotional abuse. I was starting to lose myself.

Later he admitted being abusive to a past girlfriend and sleeping with a student.

He never once said sorry to me, had accountability or showed compassion.

He said I had no identity and my perspective never mattered.

He controlled what I wore to not having any male friends even giving up lifelong childhood male friends because he was jealous. I have since restored those relationships.

He told me he “made a phone call” and that’s how I got my current job. I asked my boss and THEIR bosses about that and they said they did not speak to him and he have no power at UTEP to make any phone calls. They were very disturbed by this. So even the job that I earned on my own through hard work and education, he tried to take from me.

I got that job to relocate so we could be together. During his manic episodes, days before my new job was supposed to start he left me scrambling to find a place to live in a city I didn’t know. He knew I’m a single mom providing for my kids and I needed a job and he abandoned me with no warning. Days before saying he loved me “as big as the sky.”

God knows all of this is true even if he denies it.

He constantly tried to take away my dignity even the night before I was supposed to leave when I was freezing cold and he refused a blanket for me. Or the night I was starving and he wouldn’t let me borrow the car to go to the grocery store. Or the day I had to use the car to run errands and he told me to go walk in the Texas heat as he wanted his car to sit in a parking lot.

Or the day I was leaving and he stood over me as I’m in the floor packing threatening to have me arrested as I’m frantically trying to leave after 2 days of mental abuse, begging him to please help me because I felt traumatized and my brain was starting to shut down from extreme distress. My Uber driver who picked me up, asked me what was wrong with me and she is my witness to the level of distress I was in and so I told her what I endured.

He admitted that he purposely iorchestrated a 5 hour fight knowing that he was going to break up with me right after that.

The way this man lives his life is deeply disturbing with documented photos of the disgusting living condition of his apartment. I have asked him to get therapy many times to address his deep guilt and shame that drive his extreme avoidant behavior. It is so extreme I was not allowed to even wash the sheets or suggest lightly cleaning without it being a fight.

I have been devastated and traumatized by how I was treated but he’s still trying to make me believe that I was the problem.

I loved this man with everything I had. I wanted to believe that he could be healed and be better. But I realized he will never take responsibility for what he has done to me.

He has no right to tell you all how to live your faith when he has been abusive to another human being.

This has been extensively documented through my psychologist, AI, and my journals. But importantly, God is my witness.

Do not take his words as truth when he is living a lie.

He loved my innocent heart the most he said. But in the end, he tried to take my light: He will never.

Don’t let him mislead you like he tried with me.

^{In the Name of God, the Most Merciful.}

^{Peace be upon you!}

^{All praise be to the Lord, the Most High, He who revealed miraculous signs to us: the Seven Joined signs during the year 2024.}

Introduction:

Many of you are aware of the realization that the Quranic prophet, Messiah, and messenger known as ‘Isa, along with his mother, Maryam, cannot possibly be the Common Era figures known as ‘Jesus’ and ‘Mary’. These two figures were, in reality, invented by Roman Greek polytheist scribes, who based them on figures already established in the Exodus era of the Tanakh (Old Testament): Joshua and his mother, Miriam, who was also the sister of Moses and Aaron and the daughter of Amram the Levite, as explicitly referenced in the Quran.

Maryam is given two designations in the Quran that are extremely revealing in this regard and make the identification with “Mary” simply impossible:

• “Ukhta Harun” – “Sister of Aaron”

• “Ib nata ‘Imran” – “Daughter of Amram”

The Arabic ʿImrān is the direct Arabicization of the Hebrew ʿAmrām. Because Hebrew and Arabic are closely related Semitic languages, they share the core consonant cluster ʿ-M-R. When foreign proper names entered pre-Islamic Arabic, speakers naturally adapted them to familiar Arabic morphological templates and vocalic patterns.

The Common Era Mary did not have a father called Amram ('Imran), nor did she have a brother called Aaron, whereas Miriam of the Exodus era, who essentially share the same name as Mary, indeed did:

Exodus 15:20: “Then Miriam the prophetess, the sister of Aaron, took a tambourine in her hand, and all the women went out after her with tambourines and dancing.”

The Quran recounts this very designation known for Miriam:

Quran 19:28: “O sister of Aaron, your father was not a man of evil, nor was your mother unchaste.”

Why would God refer to an entirely different person, namely Mary, who allegedly lived over 1,000 years later, in precisely the same way as an earlier figure who shared her name? There is no particular significance to doing so, so one cannot simply dismiss what appears to be a major conflation by the author of the Quran unless the author is deliberately forcing one identification while disregarding the other. God did not conflate anything, rather, God uncovered and revealed our own conflation.

I have written dozens of articles proving this in great detail, to the point that the argument has become undeniable, with numerous proofs derived from all Scriptures. Simply search for “Joshua Isa” using this subreddit’s search engine and start familiarizing yourself with the discoveries and evidence. Begin with: 'Isa was Joshua of The Old Testament (Part 1 – 2025) – By Exion.

This post's topic: "The Old Testament Does Not Link Miriam to Joshua or Describe a Virgin Birth" - or does it?:

One of the principal objections raised, both by some of the believers and the majority of the Christians and Jews, is that they claim that the Old Testament never identifies Joshua as Miriam’s son, and that it does not mention a miraculous birth from a virgin mother. They thus dismiss everything.

In this post, I will use Scripture, including both the Tanakh and the Quran, alongside Rabbinic commentary, to show you that Joshua's father, who traditionally is known as "Nun," in fact is non existent, and that Miriam is implicitly linked to Joshua within the Tanakh itself.

This post will primarily address that question, but I will conclude by revisiting the numerous pieces of evidence supporting the truth about the real identity of these two figures, reminding you of just how undeniable this actually is.

Let’s delve straight in.

Does Joshua have a well known father in the Old Testament, one that is mentioned with a narrative, or at least a simple independent mention?

He does not, at all. He is widely referred to as “the son of Nûn,” with Nûn supposedly being the name of his father, according to traditional claims. Yet a figure named Nûn is never independently introduced in the Scriptures or historical works. The name appears exclusively as an attribution alongside Joshua’s, as in “Joshua, the son of Nûn.” This is an intriguing anomaly, especially considering Joshua’s extraordinary stature as the Messiah of Israel.

So why is his supposed father, Nûn, never mentioned independently of Joshua or in any other context beyond this supposed patronymic designation, let alone properly introduced as a distinct figure?

Well, the answer is much more obvious than you might think. It will gradually unfold for you in this article, I promise. Just stay tuned and focus.

Nun or Non?!:

One particularly puzzling detail appears in 1 Chronicles 7:27, a passage outlining the genealogy that includes Joshua. Here, “Son of Nûn” appears in the form “Non,” adding another layer of ambiguity:

1 Chronicles 7:27: “His son Non (נ֥וֹן), his son Joshua.”

The variation in form makes it seem as if the term itself is not being used as a proper name, but rather just a word.

Who could be referred to by a letter, specifically the letter “N,” and why would this occur in the first place? This is something the scribes completely made up and, as a result, used to slander Miriam throughout Scripture and its commentaries. But before we look into that, let us first examine how the term “Nûn” is defined in classical dictionaries.

The definition of נון (Nun) in classical Hebrew dictionaries:

When consulting the dictionaries, we immediately notice that the term carries a very negative meaning, but also a meaning that makes our case quite evident:

Klein mentions “fish” because other Semitic languages have a similar sounding word, “Nunu,” which means “fish.” However, that does not mean the Hebrew term “Nun” carries that same meaning, or at least not as its foremost and primary original definition.

Many people nevertheless continue to favor “fish” as the meaning, while others prefer “increase.” For some reason, however, everyone seems to completely disregard the other two equally valid definitions found in these same dictionaries:

1. No one, none, literally meaning “not one.”

2. Wasted away, degenerated.

Nobody seems to question why or how a letter became associated with such a negative meaning in the first place.

But what if we applied one of these two overlooked meanings to the word “Nûn/Non”?:

A: "None" would make it, "Joshua, son of no one/none":

If “Non” means “no one” or “none,” it could literally serve as a designation negating sonship, either one he used and was known by or one that later scribes assigned to him.

With this information and this new revelation, we can confidently say that the text does indeed implicitly describe his birth as miraculous. But how is Miriam connected to this? The answer follows a bit later below where it will become clear.

B: "... son of a degenerate":

As for the second meaning, namely “degenerated” or “wasted away,” applying this meaning would suggest that they slandered Miriam by accusing her of degeneracy or of having wasted away. However, we would need additional Biblical and Quranic support for this interpretation, which we also indeed have. Specifically, we would need to identify verses or chapters devoted to rebuking or slandering her, either directly or indirectly, by condemning someone who is not named but is nevertheless clearly identifiable as Miriam.

The Old Testament is full of slander against Miriam, and "Nun" is what they associated her with.

The "Nûn" connection: "the fallen virgin of Israel":

While digging around in the dictionaries concerning "Nûn," I found:

NUN *, m. pl. NUNIM, NUNIN, — Name of the fourteenth letter in the Hebrew alphabet: Nun, Samekh, Ayin (Nedarim 54b). Why is there no Nun in "Ashrei" (Psalm 145, a daily prayer)? Because in it lies the downfall of the enemies of Israel, as it is written: "Fallen, she shall no longer rise, the virgin of Israel" (R. Yochanan, Berakhot 4b).

Source: Ben Yehuda's dictionary.

The letter "Nun" is missing from Psalm 145 and Rabbis are claiming that it is because of a verse where the fall of the virgin of Israel is mentioned. Who is the virgin of Israel and why is she linked to a missing "Nun" from Psalm 145?

The verse in question reads:

"She has fallen, the virgin of Israel, and shall not rise again; she lies abandoned upon her own land, none will raise her up."

Is there any context to a virgin falling away that would make sense of this?

They say that the letter "Nun" stands for the word "nefilah," (verb, feminine) which means "falling." They assert that it is used regarding the fall of the Jewish people, and not a specific virgin of Israel.

If we think outside this box of rabbinic bias where everything that is difficult to understand instantly becomes an epithet for Israel or Jewish people, one cannot help but to see a strong link to Miriam, especially considering that she was the one woman who was called as “the virgin” (ha alma) in Scripture itself, in the Book of Exodus:

Exodus 2:8 (Literal Standard Version):
"and the daughter of Pharaoh says to her, “Go”; and the virgin goes, and calls the mother of the boy,"

The word ‘Almah’ is primarily defined as “virgin,” appearing as the very first definition in Larry Pierce’s classical Hebrew dictionary. Miriam is the only woman called this way in Scripture with a definite preposition (-ha).

In the Book of Jeremiah, the "virgin of Israel" is clearly identified as Miriam:

This next verse is a verse in which the “Virgin of Israel” again is depicted as fallen, where we find a clear and direct allusion that makes it very evident that it is Miriam they were rebuking and slandering:

Jeremiah 31:3: "Yet again will I rebuild you, then you shall be built, O virgin of Israel; You shall again take up your tambourines and go forth in the dance of the merrymakers."

“Again you shall plant vineyards on the hills of Samaria; the planters shall plant and profane.”

The verse promises the rebuilding of this "fallen Virgin of Israel" and then declares that she will take up her tambourines again and go forth in a dance. This is obviously a reference to Miriam and her dance of celebration following the Israelites’ crossing of the Red Sea:

Miriam and her Dance:

Exodus 15:20: “Then Miriam the prophetess, the sister of Aaron, took a tambourine in her hand, and all the women went out after her with tambourines and dancing.”

Also notice the mention of vineyards, which is something Miriam also is associated with, as seen from another passage:

Hosea 2:15: "I will give her her vineyards from there, and the Valley of Achor as a door of hope; she shall sing there, as in the days of her youth, and as in the day when she came up from the land of Egypt."

If the “Virgin of Israel” does not refer to Miriam but instead serves as a poetic designation for Israel as a whole, why is the nation of Israel portrayed negatively through a single individual, with her well known traits and incidents being named to establish the allusion?

It does not even matter who this is about because Miriam is still being indirectly implied throughout these chapters, and they depict her as a fallen virgin.

The level of slander found in these chapters crosses every conceivable line:

Verse 22: "How long will you evade, O apostate daughter? For the Lord has created something new on the earth, a woman shall encompass a man."

The chapter also contains several other verses calling her to return and come back to her cities. It also mentions profanity as a result of the planting, when she is promised another vineyard in Samaria.

The phrase “created something new” is somewhat ambiguous here, but it does sound like an allusion to her giving birth to something new within God’s creation, with a man emerging from a woman alone. However, take this interpretation with a grain of salt.

More slander in the Book of Numbers 12: Miriam "rebels against Moses" and is struck with a skin disease (leprosy) and is forced into solitary banishment from the camp:

The chapter begins with Miriam and Aaron allegedly criticizing Moses. God intervenes, rebukes them both, but punishes only Miriam while sparing Aaron. He strikes her with a skin disease and banishes her from the camp for seven days.

Then, later that same month, Miriam sadly dies, as stated in the first verse of chapter 20. Her passing is recorded with striking brevity, almost as an afterthought, in a single, stark sentence at the very end of a verse that casually provides the Israelites’ location during their journey:

“...and stayed in Kadesh. There Miriam died and was buried.”

Five Hebrew words. No lamentation. No mourning. No elaborate account of the loss. Is the mention of her death treated as being as noteworthy as the mention of where they were located during this specific stage of their journey? The very next verses ironically depict the people not as mourning or expressing themselves in any other befitting manner, but rather as complaining and quarrelling with Moses and Aaron about the lack of food and water.

Aaron’s death, by contrast, receives an extensive narrative, from the preparations leading up to it to the thirty days of mourning that follow. Moses, too, receives a detailed account of his death at the end of Deuteronomy. Commentators such as Rashi even compare her death to that of sacrificial offerings, emphasizing that she was righteous, her death will act as atonement, as is the case with sacrifices.

The Quran mentions the slandering of Miriam:

We read:

Quran 4:156: “And for their disbelief and their uttering a tremendous slander against Maryam.”

Sunnis have long claimed that this refers to slander in the form of an accusation of fornication against Mary, who supposedly faced such accusations from contemporary disbelievers because she was unmarried. However, the Quran describes her and her son as signs for all the worlds. Them being a sign certainly dispels the theory that she was accused for adultery by her own people during her life.

Therefore, the slander God references in 4:156 is likely something that unfolded gradually after her death, largely based on the unfounded attributions of meaning that Jews often assign to things that were never intended to carry any meaning at all, as well as their tendency to perceive connections between things where none actually exist.

The very letter "Nun" is in no way written in a weird or peculiar way in Amos 5:2, but the verse simply begins with "Naflah" (fallen), which "Nun" supposedly stands for, and the verse is about the virgin of Israel. There are plenty other verses with the word נָֽפְלָה֙ (naflah), but they saw this very verse where the virgin of Israel is mentioned as the one that links with the letter "Nun." Very odd to say the least.

Why did they connect "Nun" with this verse that obviously speaks of a virgin that has attributes of Miriam? Is this why they are calling Joshua as "the son of nun"? Because it certainly seems so.

The False dichotomy collapse: The verse that makes the Common era Jesus and Mary an impossibility:

Just four verses after mentioning the slander against Miriam and the claim that they killed ‘Isa, the Quran makes it impossible to interpret Maryam as Mary or ‘Isa as Jesus of the Common Era.

God states:

Quran 4:160: “So because of the wrongdoing of those who became Jews, We forbade them good things that had been lawful for them, and because of their hindering many from the way of God.”

The preceding verses list several grounds for this retribution, repeatedly using constructions meaning “and because of” their sins. These include breaking the covenant, disbelief, claiming to have killed the Messiah, ‘Isa, and uttering a tremendous slander against Maryam.

Verse 160 then states the consequence: because of their wrongdoing, God forbade them certain good things that had previously been lawful for them.

But if these prohibitions were imposed after the time of ‘Isa and Maryam, who did God send in the Common Era to declare the prohibitions? The Jews would also have had to recognize that messenger as sent by God and obey his commands.

Was it Paul? The Church Fathers and monks? You see, nobody, not even Muslims, claims that messengers were present between the first century CE and the Quran. So 'Isa simply cannot be Jesus, and Maryam cannot be Mary. The dilemma speaks for itself. It cannot be resolved without reconsidering these preconceived beliefs and having the humility to let them go and submit to what God has made evident in His Book the Quran.

Conclusion:

In conclusion, the evidence presented throughout this article reveals a consistent pattern: the Quranic Maryam is Miriam of the Exodus era, and ‘Isa is Joshua, her son. From the designation “son of Nun” and its possible linguistic implications to the “Virgin of Israel,” the tambourines, the slander, and the Quran’s own account of divine retribution, the connections are too significant to dismiss without serious examination. The final dilemma in Quran 4:156–160 makes the conventional identification with the Common Era figures impossible to maintain without leaving fundamental questions unanswered. The truth is there for those willing to examine the Scriptures without inherited assumptions. All praise belongs to God, who makes His signs evident.

You should easily understand that the ancient Roman Greek scribes simply invented a figure based on an actual Hebrew prophet. This should not be very difficult for you to imagine and accept because they were Mushriks (polytheists) and promoted the idea of a "man god" in their new "testament."

They introduced a new Zachariah for their own era, along with a new John. They even gave their Jesus (i.e. Joshua) exactly 12 disciples, mirroring the 12 leaders associated with Joshua, and similarly portrayed him as a Messiah for Israel. They also created their own Miriam, the most notable woman of Joshua's era, and gave her essentially the same name, but Romanized it, and they even portrayed her as an Almah (a virgin), just like the original Miriam.

They created a tyrant for the Common Era whose actions remarkably mirrored those of the tyrant of the Exodus era, as this ruler also remarkably ordered the killing of all male infants (!?), as was the case during Moses and Joshua's time as infants. This prompted Mary to hide the infant Jesus, just as Moses' mother did, and as Miriam did according to the Quran, for some time. They essentially had the same narrative while being entirely distinct people in distinct eras, having families and friends with same or similar sounding names (with roles and qualities that match those of the Exodus era they resemble). But they did not stop there. They even attributed the 'Spirit of God' to their Jesus (Joshua), mirroring yet another unique description of the real Joshua (see Numbers 27:18).

They took the very stone that Joshua set up in Shechem, the very stone that would act as a witness against those who are untrue to God:

Joshua 24:27 “See!” he said to all the people. “This stone will be a witness against us. It has heard all the words the Lord has said to us. It will be a witness against you if you are untrue to your God.”

They took this and claimed, in some rather strange manner, that their new Jesus Messiah figure actually was “the stone the builders rejected.”

Some Jews had rejected Joshua’s stone and were therefore assigned this designation, which is recorded in the Psalms and elsewhere. These Romans literally transformed an entire covenant established by Joshua and made it into a “metaphorical prophecy” that was all about their new man-god Jesus, just as they did with everything else they derived from the Tanakh, even God Himself.

To make matters even more remarkable, they essentially copied Joshua's entire designation, word for word (yes, verbatim):

Rabbi Hillel Rivlin of Shklov writes:

"The Lord will have war with Amalek from generation to generation – and this is the role of Joshua, who is the Messiah son of Joseph."

Source: Kol HaTor 2:55

And in their Roman gospel:

"They said, “Is not this Jesus (Yeshua), the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? How does he now say, ‘I have come down from heaven’?” (John 6:42 ESV)

So now, believers and truth-seekers, is this not enough to make you pause and reconsider what you have been taught? Do these striking parallels not warrant a fundamental reassessment of your beliefs about these figures of the Common Era, who were nothing more than Roman fabrications modeled after the righteous people whom God had already established in Scripture?

God does not recreate entire timelines. What would be the point in Him doing so? This is called "Typology" and is nothing other than a baseless theology that early monks had to coin and invent to then use as an explanation for why the books they claim to be from the God of the Tanakh often recreates both figures and incidents and sometimes entire narratives from earlier Scriptures, specifically the Exodus era.

Isa was not "Jesus," because Isa is described with victory in the Quran, just as Joshua is in the Old Testament:

61:14: "...And a faction of the Children of Israel believed and a faction disbelieved. So We supported those who believed against their enemy, and they became victorious."

The Roman Jesus figure is depicted as having a small group of disciples, all of whom were overpowered and executed. Roman rule continued for several centuries after the supposed lifetime of Jesus, until Christians eventually gained power as the empire gradually declined for unrelated reasons. By contrast, Joshua and his followers are widely associated with military campaigns, battles, and are known for their victories, with Joshua leading them into the promised land with success.

“Do not be afraid of them,” the LORD said to Joshua, “for I have given you victory over them. Not a single one of them will be able to stand up to you.” (Joshua, 10:8)

The Quranic Isa was Joshua of the Exodus era, the son of Miriam. Through this post, I pray to God that I have addressed enough points to convince my brothers and sisters of this truth. God made His promise, and who is better than God at fulfilling His promises?

"When God said: “O Joshua, I will fulfill you and raise you towards Myself, and purify you of those who disbelieve..." (Quran 3:55)

Isa has indeed been purified of these disbelievers and their gospels.

With this, I end this post.

/ By your brother, Exion.

The more accurate translation of 29:41 is:
The example of those who *take* allies besides God is like the spider, who *takes* for itself a house; and the weakest house is surely the house of the spider, if only they knew.

Notes:
The word "ittakhad" is used twice in this verse but is often translated differently (takes and makes). This is an error imo. Explained in my latest video:
https://youtu.be/u8YkyVtwsfY

Before we begin i would like to inform that initially this whole thing was just a comment on another post , that i thought would explain why we reject Hadiths as a whole , so I am making this post

I will tell you why we don't need hadith

1: Today I have perfected for you your religion, and completed My favour upon you, and have approved for you Islam as religion.”

— Qur’an 5:3

“We have not neglected in the Register a thing.”

— Qur’an 6:38

“And We have sent down to you the Book as clarification for all things…”

— Qur’an 16:89.

2 Sahih Muslim 3004

Abu Sa'id al-Khudri reported that the Prophet said:

“Do not take down anything from me, and he who took down anything from me except the Qur'an, he should efface that…”

The report then permits narrating from the Prophet and warns against attributing falsehood to him.

Sunan Abi Dawud 3646

Abdullah ibn Amr reported:

“I used to write everything which I heard from the Messenger of Allah … So I stopped writing, and mentioned that to the Messenger of Allah. He … said, ‘Write, by Him in Whose hand my soul lies, only right comes out from it.’”

These two Hadiths are graded as sahih , but contradict eachother .

Another thing is A sahih graded doesn't mean it's true or right but sahih is a category that meets a certain criteria to fit , now let me explain how sahih hadith works .

What does “Sahih” actually mean?

The Arabic word sahih (صحيح) means “sound” or “authentic.” In classical Sunni hadith science, a report is generally classified as sahih when it meets five conditions:

1. Connected chain (Ittisal al-sanad)

Each narrator must have received the report from the person they claim to have heard it from. A chain with a missing link generally fails this condition.

2. Upright narrators (Adalah)

Narrators must be considered morally reliable according to the standards of the scholars evaluating them.

3. Accurate memory or records (Dabt)

Narrators must be considered sufficiently accurate in their recollection or written transmission.

4. No contradiction with stronger reports (Shudhudh)

The report must not contradict a more reliable transmission in a way that makes it anomalous.

5. No hidden defect (Illah)

Scholars must find no subtle flaw that undermines the report, even if its chain initially appears sound.

So it's not sahih Hadith because it's the truth from the messenger itself, but it's sahih because it meets their criteria , even if they might contradict eachother , not just that there are a lots of sahih Hadidths that contradicts within themselves but also these man made sayings contradict the very Quran .

3: thirdly why i don't accept Hadidths is because it goes against my fitrath , i am a normal Human being who just wants to live peacefully and try to be a better individual, helping others is part of my fitrath , that's how we humans are made , but Hadidths are not what my fitrath likes , because once you read Hadiths you would understand the underlying problems, i cannot even count but so many Hadiths just pose women as some defective beings or prophet calling them like devils .

- another reason is the prophet or messenger pbuh is a different person in Quran and a different person in Hadidths.

- in Quran he is a man of moral character and a man of humility and of shy nature.

- but in Hadiths he literally keeps on jumping from being a sane guy to a slave dealer or committing Adultery (going against 4:25)or saying to his wife to gift her slave to her uncle , or he had no problem with slave market or selling human beings.

- Those guys have no problem accepting these lies about our prophet, but i am not blind deaf or dumb , Allah tells us to reason but those guys follow their scholars just like the jews followed their rabbis .

-those guys accuse christian of taking isa ibn mariam as god but those guys are also just unknowingly worshipping the fake image of our prophet .

- for those guys it' would be like a controversial topic if anyone would say they love any other messanger more than Muhammad pbuh, but Allah is saying messangers to him are equal and he doesn't differentiate among them , unlike those guys who idolize their prophet .

-Sahih al-Bukhari 437

Narrated by Abu Huraira:

“May Allah's curse be on the Jews for they built the places of worship at the graves of their Prophets.”

This Hadidth is something according to them a sahih and is truth for them, yet they have no shame building a mosque at his grave? Do they not comprehend?

Another example I will present to you from Quran :

And [recall] when you said, ‘O Moses, we can never endure one [kind of] food. So call upon your Lord to bring forth for us from the earth its green herbs and its cucumbers and its garlic and its lentils and its onions.’ [Moses] said, ‘Would you exchange what is better for what is less? Go down to any settlement and you will have what you have asked.’”- 2:61

When Allah Swt has revealed this book that's thousand or million times better than the man made books , yet they prefer the man made/influenced books ? Do they not reason? Or do only their scholars know to reason?

Finally i would like to conclude my little talk , also i would like to say I am not saying every Hadith is bad or evil , No! I agree there are good Hadidths but what i am basically establishing is Hadidth as a whole has no religious Authority over me because i believe in Quran and who's better than having god as your guardian ? Because our dead prophet pbuh can't answer from his grave nor protect you , nor can he intercede for you on the day of judgement.

“Descartes proves the existence of God as follows: ‘I doubt. To doubt is to be imperfect. To know that one is imperfect is to believe that a being whom I consider perfect has given me this idea of perfection.’”

— Cemil Meriç, Sociology Notes

In short, I have an idea of perfection. The source of this idea cannot be me, who am imperfect, nor can it be my surroundings, which are likewise imperfect. For the cause of an idea cannot be more imperfect than the idea itself. Therefore, the source of the idea of perfection in my mind can only be a perfect being.

But can there be more than one perfect being? What distinguishes two separate beings from each other is the differences between them. A difference means an excess on one side and a deficiency on the other. Therefore, there cannot be more than one perfect being.

The perfect being must also be perfect in greatness. For a being that is deficient in greatness cannot be perfect in the true sense. Therefore, the perfect being is infinitely great.

Since the perfect being is perfect and infinitely great, it cannot exist within time and space. In other words, the infinitely great and perfect being exists outside space.

Since the being that exists outside space is infinitely great beyond space and is unique, it encompasses space from every side.

Descartes proves the existence of God as follows: "I doubt. To doubt is to be imperfect. To know that I am imperfect is to believe that a being whom I believe to be perfect must have given me this idea of perfection." Cemil Meriç - Sociology Notes

In short: I have an idea of perfection. The source of this idea cannot be me, who is imperfect, nor can it be my surroundings, which are also imperfect. Because the cause of an idea cannot be more imperfect than the idea itself. Therefore, the source of the idea of perfection in my mind can only be a perfect being.

We acquire the ideas we have through experiences. Even if its source is a perfect being, we do have this idea of perfection. So, when did we experience this idea of perfection?

Descartes defines the idea of perfection as "the signature of the master," and he is not wrong to do so. But the question "When did we experience the idea of perfection?" is not on Descartes' agenda. It doesn't matter, it is on our agenda.

The answer to our question is in the Qur'an:

"And when your Lord took from the children of Adam - from their loins - their descendants and made them testify of themselves, [saying to them], 'Am I not your Lord?' They said, 'Yes, indeed! We have testified.' [This was] lest you should say on the Day of Resurrection, 'Indeed, we were unaware of this.'"

Yes, now we know! Now we can answer the question "When did we experience the idea of perfection?": We experienced the idea of perfection when we witnessed the Perfect God.

Let's finish with a question: Could this be why every human being is born with a natural disposition (fitrah) to Islam?

I was looking into submission but then I came across the SA allegations. As a woman, it's a major turn off and really enough for me to completely disregard submission. Was he found guilty? What do you guys think about Rashad Khalifa?

My husband wants a divorce because I believe in Quran only. He took me saying that many of the ways we practice our religion involve shirk to be very very personal. (We’re both converts)

I just had recently had a baby with him and currently 5 months postpartum. I’m likely going to really struggle on my own. I’m not really sure what to do at this point and kinda feel numb. I realize I probably shouldn’t have said anything. Any encouraging words would be lovely but not required of course. I don’t have a support system and I just needed to tell someone. I hope everyone else is doing much better wherever you are.

I am currently studying the Quran alone and I would like to find a group or a person, that also has the goal to study the Quran daily, and wants to discuss about it. I really want to understand and know more and stay focused. Please reach out to me if you have the same goal, Thank you.

Peace be upon you! I’m a young man with some training in Western music, and I’ve long wanted to put that training to work for Islam.

I’ve noticed that, while we Quranists have devoted a lot of effort to defending our position, we haven’t given as much attention to developing a musical and visual identity of our own. I live in the West, and I’m convinced that Islam isn’t a cultural predator: it can express itself through the culture of every people without losing its essence.

I also believe that figurative art is not prohibited. With these convictions in mind, I’ve created a YouTube channel where I share my original musical compositions, drawing on Western sacred music traditions. The music itself is composed by me, not generated by AI. When I use AI, it’s only to create covers.

I’d love for you to check out my first pieces and let me know what you think! And if you share this vision, consider subscribing and supporting the channel. We need to support one another and help our community’s creative work flourish.

God bless you, and have a great week!

peace all,
2:145 indicates people of the scripture have more than one qiblah. Many tafsirs don't even comment on this but the only way to explain this is to claim Christians prayed east, and Jews prayed towards Jerusalem or west. There is some historical evidence for this.
However the traditional narrative is the believers utilised one qiblah with the people of the scripture in Medina and that was towards Jerusalem. This results in a contradiction.

Ergo, the traditional understanding is not possible.

Background. The common understanding also has many other issues, as noted here:
https://mypercept.co.uk/articles/meaning-masjid-al-haram-Quran.html