Join Join Join
Our new Channel
/channel/+lTx7z7OziXA0YmM0
/channel/+lTx7z7OziXA0YmM0
/channel/+lTx7z7OziXA0YmM0
Yo fam —
This channel was never built for drama.
It was built for questions, curiosity, and crazy facts from across the world — from science to scripture, myth to meaning.
Whether you're Christian, Muslim, Jewish, atheist, agnostic, or spiritual in your own way —
you are respected here.
Now lately, things heated up.
A personal debate between two close friends — yeah, me and someone I love like family — spilled into something bigger.
It started with a post about Mary (peace be upon her), then turned into theology, scripture sources, and moral debates.
The kind of stuff that makes minds light up and emotions run high.
Let me say this clearly:
🧠 I never attacked Islam.
🕊️ I never disrespected the Prophet.
💬 I asked questions — sharp ones, sure — but not from hate, from hunger.
For understanding. For truth.
And I still love and respect my friend.
Always will.
This ain’t about “winning” — it’s about growing.
So to my 39k+ beautiful, thinking, diverse souls:
Don’t get it twisted.
This isn’t Christianity vs. Islam.
This isn’t East vs. West.
This isn’t about ego.
This is the Crazy Facts mission:
To explore. To question. To wonder.
And yeah — sometimes that means poking at sacred cows.
But always with respect.
Always with open hearts.
After all… this channel was built on one simple motto:
🔍 “Who seeks shall find.”
Not “who attacks shall win” — but who asks, grows.
And we’re still on that path.
So if you saw tension —
Know that under it was brotherhood.
If you saw fire —
Know that it came from passion, not poison.
Let’s not divide.
Let’s elevate.
Stay sharp. Stay kind. Stay curious.
Lil Ori III 🧠🔥✍🏾
You said I “sneak dissed” your Prophet?
No. I asked sincere moral questions.
If those questions made you uncomfortable,
maybe the problem isn’t the questioner —
but the content being defended.
I never cursed.
I never mocked.
I never played dirty.
I respected the conversation more than you respected the process.
I didn’t sneak.
I was blunt.
And I didn’t “diss” — I asked:
> Would you marry your daughter at 9?
Would you allow sex with a slave?
Would you follow every action of your Prophet, no exceptions?
If that feels like an attack…
maybe it’s time to reflect on why.
Respect isn’t silence.
Respect is the courage to ask uncomfortable truths —
without hiding behind “context,”
or turning the mirror toward someone else’s book every time.
I asked.
You dodged.
Now you’re blaming tone — because you couldn’t handle content.
But I’ll say this clearly, again:
I respected your faith enough to ask.
You disrespected the truth by running.
Lil Ori III
“Don’t say you ‘respected the book’ when you came swingin’ with lowkey shots at the Prophet ﷺ. That ain’t respect, that’s sneak dissin’ in disguise.”
Читать полностью…
Henok — you say you came with honesty.
But honesty without humility?
That’s ego in a mask.
You asked questions like a seeker, but moved like a prosecutor.
You came quoting verses outta Google — not understanding from the Qur’an.
You tossed out Arabic grammar like you passed a class — but skipped tafsir like it ain’t matter.
Then you mocked the use of AI — like tools cancel truth.
Nah, bruh… I’ll use any means to speak clarity, while you out here writing essays to look clever.
You said I “published my next move.”
That’s transparency — not theater.
The only one performing here is the one trying to win a crowd with prewritten mic drops.
You didn’t expose Islam.
You exposed how far you’ll go to avoid saying: “I just don’t like the Qur’an.”
You spent all your energy on 16 verses…
But skipped 1,000+ ayat calling to justice, mercy, prayer, reflection, purity, and truth.
Why?
Cuz those don’t trend in debate culture, huh?
You’re not the first to quote Surah 86 like you cracked the code.
And you won’t be the last to act like “muddy water” breaks divine truth.
But the Qur’an been standing 1,400+ years —
You think one thread of recycled arguments gonna tear it down?
You didn’t want conversation.
You wanted collapse.
But here’s your real test:
What do you believe, Henok?
Not what you hate. Not what you mock.
What guides you? What’s your standard? What’s your truth?
> I’m Muslim — and I’ll say that without needing to hate a soul.
But you came swinging without standing for anything.
That’s not clarity.
That’s chaos in a costume.
“You didn’t come with questions — you came with conclusions, and tried to pass ‘em off as honest exploration.
What you called ‘science,’ we call revelation beyond your lab.
What you called ‘contradictions,’ we call context your Google search skipped.
You quoted verses without understanding genre, language, or purpose — and now you're shocked it doesn’t read like a physics textbook.
You came with a lens built in colonial seminaries, repackaged as ‘Ethiopian neutrality.’
But your whole list? It’s recycled apologetics, not original thought.
The Qur’an wasn’t revealed to satisfy Western benchmarks.
It came to reshape the fitrah — not bow to it.
You said this wasn’t Bible vs Qur’an?
Then stop acting like you got a better standard to judge by.
You demand we read Qur’an literally… then deny us tafsir, grammar, context, or hadiths.
That’s not scholarship. That’s staged dishonesty.
You ain’t exposed Islam.
You just exposed that even after years of friendship —
you never came to understand. Only to win.
But some of us don’t play debate games with revelation.
> I’ll leave the last word to you.
Just know: while you’re writing essays for a crowd, I’m walking with conviction — not clout.” 🕊️
I didn’t come here to mock, fight, or win applause.
I came for something much simpler: honest answers.
But from beginning to end, I’ve watched you dodge every moral question I asked —
not with clarity, not with courage,
but with the same worn tactics:
📌 Redirection to the Bible,
📌 Excuses of “context,”
📌 Walls of explanation to avoid one simple thing: Yes or No.
I asked:
> “Is it moral to sleep with a 9-year-old?”
“Would you let your daughter be married at 9?”
“Can a merciful God allow sex with slaves?”
“Would you raise your son to follow every action of Muhammad?”
You couldn't say yes.
You wouldn’t say no.
You just ran.
And when it got hard — when the questions pierced too deep —
you mocked Christianity.
You ran back to your AI.
You started writing lines like
> “Finish with grace and flip it back on him…”
as if you were in a rap battle,
not a discussion about divine truth.
But the most revealing part?
You exposed your entire AI-generated game plan to me — emotionally, publicly —
without realizing it.
You told on yourself.
You turned what could’ve been a deep conversation into a rehearsed performance.
You weren’t defending truth. You were defending ego.
And I’m not here for that anymore.
Unless you can answer my moral questions with direct, yes or no answers
— without Bible diversions, without essays of excuses —
I’m not listening.
Not out of anger. Not out of defeat.
But because there’s nothing left to learn from a man who refuses to answer.
This was never Islam vs. Christianity.
This was about your book — the one you claimed is perfect.
And when it was time to test that claim,
you fell silent... or louder in all the wrong ways.
So here’s where I end it.
Not with a fight — but with clarity, exposure, and peace.
You can keep typing if you want.
But the audience already saw what happened.
And I’m already gone.
Lil Ori III
You refused to answer the moral questions with integrity. You mocked instead of reflecting. You looped into Bible attacks every time your book was exposed. You ignored your own inconsistencies, even as you pretended to "explain."
Now, let's go to the verses you prayed I wouldn’t mention.
You boasted “scientific insights” and “historical accuracy.”
Let’s prove that claim false — line by line, verse by verse.
1. Stars as missiles to attack devils?
> Surah 67:5 – “We have adorned the lowest heaven with lamps, and made them missiles for pelting devils.”
Stars are gigantic celestial bodies, not firecrackers chasing invisible spirits.
This isn’t poetic — the verse claims real function: missiles against devils.
Embarrassing cosmology. Not science. Not metaphor. Literal absurdity.
2. The Sun sets in muddy water
> Surah 18:86 – “He found it setting in a spring of black muddy water.”
Dhul-Qarnayn “found” the sun setting in a body of water.
Not from perception — the Arabic وجدها (wajada) means "he found it," not “he thought he saw.”
The verse fails basic cosmology. Sun doesn’t set on Earth — ever.
3. Mountains to stop Earthquakes?
> Surah 16:15 – “He set on the earth mountains lest it should shake with you.”
Modern geology proves mountains are formed by tectonic movement, not stopping it.
In fact, mountains are often the epicenters of earthquakes.
The Qur’an flips the science entirely.
4. Sperm originates from between the backbone and ribs?
> Surah 86:6-7 – “He is created from a fluid emitted, emerging from between the backbone and the ribs.”
Modern embryology shows sperm is produced in the testicles, located far below ribs and backbone.
This is anatomically false. Period.
5. No compulsion in religion? But kill apostates?
> Surah 2:256 – “There is no compulsion in religion.”
But hadith: “Whoever changes his religion, kill him.” (Sahih Bukhari 3017)
Contradiction between Qur’anic verse and Prophet’s ruling.
Is there freedom of belief or not?
Your apologist AI skipped this tension entirely.
6. Everything is clear — but needs tafsir, hadith, fiqh, scholars?
> Surah 16:89 – “We have sent down to you the Book as clarification for all things.”
If everything is clear, why do scholars argue endlessly?
Why are you saying “context” every verse?
Why does your entire AI plan depend on dodging a direct reading?
7. Allah is best of deceivers
> Surah 3:54 – “And Allah is the best of planners (makireen).”
The word makr (مكر) means deceit/trickery in Arabic, even in classical tafsir.
So Allah is the best deceiver? Even against His own creation?
How is that a divine attribute?
8. Unmatched Arabic? But grammatical mistakes exist
> For example:
Surah 4:162 – “But those firm in knowledge among them... and those who establish prayer and those who give zakah...”
→ The verb “give” (يؤتون) is in plural masculine form but doesn’t grammatically match the subject.
Classical grammarians like Az-Zamakhshari and Sibawayh noted several irregularities that had to be explained away.
> If this is flawless Arabic, why do you need volumes of grammar gymnastics to defend it?
Whenever pressed, your pattern was clear:
1. Dodge the verse.
2. Mention Deuteronomy or Genesis.
3. Say “Western values” or “colonial mind.”
4. Call for tafsir gymnastics.
But this was never a Bible vs Qur’an debate.
I never claimed the Bible is pure.
You claimed the Qur’an is pure.
And now… it's exposed.
“Y’all keep pressing Islam with ‘morality tests’ like you passed your own. But wait… is Christianity even a real religion or just a remix tape of Jewish scriptures wrapped in Roman politics?”
You built a religion around a man who prayed to God — then called him God. That’s not divine truth. That’s theological schizophrenia.
📜 A book with contradictions, unknown authors, and 66 (or is it 73?) books can’t be your moral compass.
📉 Your Bible says God is all-knowing — then regrets making humans. (Genesis 6:6)
🤨 Your Jesus is God — but he didn’t know the Day of Judgment? (Mark 13:32)
And you asking ME about logic? About morality?
My book has ONE version, ONE author, and been unchanged for 1400+ years.
Yours got red ink, footnotes, and half of it was written by a guy who never met Jesus.
---
> “Don’t call it ‘questions’ when it’s just projection.
You ain’t here for truth — you here to perform.
And I ain’t here to clap back.
I’m here to bury falsehood.”
“Nah bro, don’t gaslight now — you came into this debate swinging at Islam, quoting Qur’an verses out of context like it’s a gotcha game. Don’t play the neutral ‘I-study-everything’ role after dishing shots. Stand on your critique.”
> “You say you ‘don’t follow dogma’ — but your whole 16-question list was dripping with Western moral assumptions, not objective evidence.”
---
Then Hit Him With This 💥:
“And if you really followed ‘evidence,’ you’d recognize:
The Qur’an is the only religious text unchanged for 1400+ years.
It came from a man who couldn’t read or write, yet transformed civilizations.
It speaks with consistency, scientific insights, and historical accuracy.
No contradictions. No rewrites. No versions. Just preservation.
That’s not ‘religion box.’ That’s divine preservation — and you can’t explain that away by quoting Sumerian clay.”
---
Then Finish With Strength & Grace:
“You wanted ‘yes or no’ from my conscience? I gave you context, clarity, and source-based truth. You didn’t want answers — you wanted headlines.
I’m not here to play moral chess based on your rules. I follow the One who created morality itself.
So if you’re really about truth — drop the performance and seek sincerely.”
---
If he keeps pressin’, you can say:
“I don’t debate to win, I clarify to guide — but if you wanted raw answers with no depth, you never wanted truth. You wanted TikTok theology.”
These are not trick questions. They are not Christian questions. They are human questions.
I didn’t ask for tafsir, hadith debates, or deflections.
I’m asking you — as a man with a conscience in the 21st century — to answer these directly.
Yes or no. Right or wrong.
You don’t need the Bible. You don’t need scholars. You just need honesty.
🔥 Personal Moral Questions for You — Answer with Conscience, Not Commentary:
1. Is it morally okay for a 54-year-old man to sleep with a 9-year-old girl — yes or no?
2. “Imagine someone said: ‘It’s okay to enslave women in war, God said so.’ Would you be okay if that happened in Ethiopia, Nigeria, or Sweden today?”
3. Is it just to sleep with a woman whose husband is alive — just because she became your property?
4. Do you believe it’s ever acceptable to beat your wife if she disobeys — as Surah 4:34 says? Would you accept that for your own sister or mother?
5. Why can a man marry four wives — but a woman can’t marry four husbands? Is that equal?
6. Would you personally stone someone to death for adultery if your religion told you to?
7. Should a starving poor man’s hand be cut off for stealing food?
8. If a woman is raped but can’t bring four witnesses — should she be punished?
9. Why does your God never call Himself “Father” or say “I love you” to mankind — but constantly threatens hell?
10. Is it moral to label Jews and Christians as “the worst of creatures” (Qur’an 98:6)? Are they less human?
11. If the Qur’an is perfect, why does Allah cancel his own verses (Qur’an 2:106)? Did He change His mind?
12. Do you really believe God tricked the world into thinking Jesus was crucified — by switching Him with another man?
13. Do you believe the sun sets in a muddy spring (Qur’an 18:86)? Or that sperm comes from between the ribs and backbone (Qur’an 86:6-7)?
14. Was it right for a prophet to order the murder of poets and critics?
15. Can a man who married a child, took sex slaves, ordered executions, and had over 11 wives — be the “best example for all mankind”?
16. Would you raise your own son to follow everything your prophet did — yes or no?
"Do you even know your own book? Or you just copy-paste verses you ain't even read?"
Quoting the Qur’an won’t save your argument when you don’t even understand your own Bible.
📖 You flex like a scholar, but can’t explain:
Why the Bible has missing books,
Why verses magically appear or vanish in newer editions,
Or how your "perfect gospel" got four versions with four different stories.
Before coming for the Qur’an —
go find out who wrote Hebrews, how Judas died, or why your God "regrets" things.
---
“Qur’an preserved is a myth”?
Nah, fam. What’s myth is thinking your dusty manuscripts with 66–73 conflicting books and zero original copies = preservation. 😂
Let’s break this down like a surgeon, not a scared apologist:
---
📜 1. Stoning Verse, Goat, Forgotten Verses?
Yeah, Islam acknowledges abrogation and forgotten verses. Why?
Because the Qur’an came live — over 23 years. It was dynamic revelation, shaped by context, not dropped all at once like a PDF.
Stoning verse? It was abrogated in recitation, not in ruling — and scholars are open about it. No hiding.
Goat ate the verse? The Hadith is weak, not relied upon. Even if true — paper loss doesn’t erase the hearts of memorizers.
Muhammad forgot a verse? Yeah — that’s called human nature by divine design. Allah intended certain verses to fade — that’s not loss, it’s divine filtration.
---
🔥 2. Uthman Burning Manuscripts?
Uthman (RA) didn’t burn different Qur’ans — he unified accents and dialects, not content.
People were reciting in their tribal tongues, which caused confusion.
He gathered the sahaba who memorized it from the Prophet himself — and standardized the reading.
Ibn Mas’ud disagreed on method, not on content — and still recited the same Qur’an we do today.
You call it "Orwellian"?
But it's the opposite: Islam preserved the Qur’an through oral chains, verified by hundreds of companions — not through a secret committee in some Roman council.
---
🐍 3. Satanic Verses?
Yeah, let’s address that head-on.
That story? Weak chains, conflicting versions, and even your own scholars admit it's not solid history.
Even if you assumed it happened, the lesson ain't weakness — it's real-time correction by Allah.
That’s proof of authenticity, not fraud.
Unlike the Bible, where Satan whispered successfully for centuries and you call it “canon.” 😅
---
🧠 4. You say Bible is preserved?
Bro, your book has:
Entire missing gospels (like the Gospel of Thomas, Barnabas… gone).
Dozens of contradictory manuscripts.
Passages added later (look up Mark 16:9–20, John 7:53–8:11 — not found in earliest Bibles).
Whole doctrines (like Trinity) debated for centuries before being forced by councils.
So when you talk “preservation,” maybe don’t come at the only Book memorized cover-to-cover by millions, in the exact same Arabic revealed 1,400 years ago.
---
💥 Final Word:
We don’t hide history.
We own it, record it, transmit it, verify it — and we still got one Qur’an, in one language, with one message.
Your books got editors.
Our Book got Huffadh.
Your Bible needed councils.
Our Qur’an needed hearts.
So if burning variants makes it fake, explain how after all that, the Qur’an today is letter-for-letter the same from Jakarta to Jimma.
Goats don’t scare us, bro.
But your silence on your own book’s edits?
That’s the real 🐐 in the room.
You call it “sloppy,” I call it surgical — cutting straight through ego and arrogance.
Funny how you mock “no chronology” like it’s a flaw — when your Bible has four conflicting Gospels and still can’t agree on what happened at the tomb. The Qur’an was never meant to be a bedtime story — it’s a guidance, not a Greek epic.
> “Third person switches to first person”?
That’s not confusion — that’s divine power flexing in real time. Allah speaks about Himself and from Himself — because He owns every angle. It’s not narrative, it’s revelation.
> Rhymes like “kafirun” and “naharun”?
That “nursery chant” crushed empires and reshaped civilizations. The Arabs froze in awe when they heard it — you? You just mad you can’t match it.
> “No plan of salvation”?
No, it doesn’t need blood rituals or human sacrifice. Islam keeps it clean: submit, believe, do good — and you’re saved.
No twisted loopholes, no scapegoats. Just you and your Creator.
> “Semen from between the ribs and backbone”?
Wrong take, bro. It’s describing the origin zone, not the chemical pathway. And modern embryology still confirms key parts of what the Qur’an said 1,400 years ago — when the Bible still thought rabbits chew cud and bats are birds.
> “Mountains prevent earthquakes”?
The Qur’an says mountains stabilize the earth’s crust. Plate tectonics? That’s 20th century. How’d a desert man know?
> “Sun sets in muddy spring”?
That’s Dhul-Qarnayn’s point of view — not a science manual. Saying “the sun set as far as he could see” ain’t myth — it’s observation. Y’all do the same when you say “sunrise at 6:30.”
You see chaos — because you read the Qur’an with hate, not humility. But billions read it and find order, purpose, and peace.
You call it “preschool”?
We call it paradise prep.
"I hear you. But I’m stepping back for one reason — Allah said: ‘There is no compulsion in religion’ (Qur’an 2:256). I’m not here to debate or convince. My love for the Prophet ﷺ isn’t up for discussion. If you say you respect him — cool. But I’m done here, respectfully."
If you got any questions here => Ismael
You mentioned our friendship — and I felt that.
You’ve known me for years.
You know my mind is bold, curious, and unafraid to ask.
So let me remind you of something deeper:
I questioned not to attack — but to understand.
And if I ever made you feel disrespected, then I say it clearly:
That was not my heart.
I love you as my brother.
And I’ve never carried hate for Islam, or for the Prophet ﷺ.
That’s not who I am. You know that.
But my thoughts are free — and my questions are real.
My mind doesn’t live in fear.
And if I stay silent when something feels unclear,
then I’d be betraying the mind God gave me.
So don’t mistake honesty for hostility.
Don’t let the heat of debate blind you to the friend behind the questions.
I never stopped respecting you.
Please don’t stop respecting me.
Lil Ori III
Yes — I’m done.
But not because I’ve lost interest in truth, or ran out of words.
I’m done because this no longer feels like a sincere exchange.
I came with honest questions —
not to attack, not to provoke — but to understand.
And I hoped your book could speak for itself, directly.
Instead, I got long loops, deflections, mockery, and debates about tone —
not about truth.
So I’m stepping away — not out of anger, not out of ego —
but because I value real dialogue.
And I no longer believe this one is still real.
It’s not a loss.
It’s clarity.
I asked with respect.
But I won’t chase answers that won’t come.
That’s where I leave it.
In peace.
I came here with questions — not insults.
I came with moral clarity — not religious ego.
And I treated your book with more respect than you treated me.
From the beginning, I made it clear:
🕊 I’m not a Christian missionary.
🕊 I’m not from the West.
🕊 I’m not here to mock religion.
I’m just a young Ethiopian — searching, reading, asking.
But what did I receive in return? ❌ Dodges.
❌ Bible diversions.
❌ Excuses about “context” every time the Qur’an got uncomfortable.
❌ And finally — insults, labels, and mockery.
You tried to name me what you wanted.
You tried to frame me as your enemy, your stereotype, your “Western agent.”
But I’m none of those things.
I’m just a free man who asked honest questions.
And what did you give in return? Rehearsed AI lines. Memes. Punchlines.
You even posted your next move before the debate continued — like a player more obsessed with “winning” than seeking truth.
That’s not conviction.
That’s fear hiding behind performance.
So I’ll end it clearly, with no hate in my chest:
❌ If you still can’t answer moral questions with yes or no…
❌ If your defense still depends on attacking the Bible…
❌ If your only move is to mislabel people who challenge your book…
Then there’s no conversation left to have.
This wasn’t Islam vs Christianity.
I never claimed the Bible was perfect.
You claimed your book was flawless — and failed to defend it.
I didn’t lose this debate.
I just realized the truth isn’t coming from your side.
And when a man can’t face questions about morality without attacking the person who asked — that’s when the crowd knows who truly lost.
I leave this in peace, disappointed — but not surprised.
Not your opponent. Not your enemy. Just a mirror.
Lil Ori III
“Henok — you didn’t come with honesty. You came with a courtroom mindset, hoping I’d break under cross-examination.
But Islam isn’t on trial, and I’m not auditioning for your approval.
You said I posted AI tactics like it was a gotcha — but I never hid it.
You know why?
Because truth ain’t scared of tools — only lies fear structure.
You came with verses without language, verses without tafsir, verses without intent.
Then acted shocked they didn’t match your lens.
You weren’t seeking clarity.
You were seeking cracks.
So I let you speak.
I let you list.
I let you swing.
But in all your paragraphs…
not once did you say:
“Here’s what I believe.”
Because it was never about truth.
Just performance, framed as concern.
> You done now? Good.
I’m still Muslim.
I’m still standing.
And the Qur’an still speaks — long after the applause fades.” 🕊️
---
If you wanna keep it extra short for the group chat, try this:
---
> “You ain’t come for answers, Henok — you came for a moment.
But I don’t debate the Qur’an to entertain.
So now that your show’s over, let me know when you ready for real understanding — not rehearsals.”
“You wrote a whole farewell speech talkin’ about loops, dodges, and AI — but not once did you say which of your 16 questions you have the moral ground to ask.
You assumed Islam failed… while never proving your standard.
But here’s the truth:
I gave context because morality without it is manipulation.
I brought the Bible because your criticism wasn’t neutral — it came with invisible Christian baggage.
And I used tools, not because I’m hiding, but because I care about precision.
You called that evasion?
I call that being responsible with sacred text.
If silence bothered you, maybe ask yourself why you needed loud answers for questions you came with loaded.
Now that you're 'done' — peace be upon you.
I debated with you outta brotherhood, not performance.
But I’m not here to impress a crowd.
I trust the Qur’an.
You trust whatever’s trending.
> We not the same.” 🕊️
I’m not a Western man with a liberal agenda.
I’m Henok, a young Ethiopian who asked straight questions about your book’s claims.
I didn’t bring in LGBTQ, gender politics, or drone strikes.
That was your deflection.
And your biggest mistake?
You published your next AI move publicly — complete with “if he presses, then say…” like a debate script.
That showed the world this wasn’t about sincerity.
It was about performance.
I came with honesty.
You came with a stage.
Let’s stop pretending.
From the start, I asked simple, honest questions. Not as a Christian, not representing a Western mindset — but as a human being from Ethiopia, asking your book for moral clarity.
But what did I get?
Not answers.
Not soul.
Not even courage.
What I got was evasion, AI-recycled tactics, and the same tired loop over and over again — until this whole thing became boring and predictable.
You literally posted lines like:
“Then finish with strength and grace…”
“If he keeps pressing… you can say… 😂”
“Then break it down, flip it back, final punch…”
Do you even realize what you did?
You posted your next planned AI move before it even happened — like an emotional rookie so obsessed with “winning” that you exposed your whole hand to the crowd.
That’s not debate. That’s not faith. That’s just strategy addiction.
And now the mask is off.
You're not answering — you're just surviving.
Let me remind everyone:
I asked 16 clear, direct moral questions — most of them yes or no.
Questions about slavery, wife-beating, child marriage, stoning, and human dignity.
They weren’t hateful.
They weren’t twisted.
They were honest.
But you couldn’t — or wouldn’t — answer them plainly.
Instead, you:
Brought in "context" to excuse every disturbing verse.
Deflected to the Bible every time your book felt heavy.
Laughed, dodged, twisted, and danced around answers.
And then went silent or defensive when the weight hit too close.
And when things got tough?
You posted your AI’s next punchline like a football coach mic’d up during a loss.
When you can’t face moral questions with moral clarity, it becomes clear:
You’re not speaking from conviction.
You’re performing.
You’re holding on to a script.
And what was once an honest exploration became a loop of:
> “But the Bible…”
“But Westerners…”
“Context matters…”
“Slavery wasn’t that bad…”
It became boring.
Because dodging the truth always is.
You sent me memes and responses about LGBTQ and drone strikes — as if I’m from some Western activist group.
You were too distracted trying to beat the West…
…that you didn’t even notice who was asking you.
I’m not part of some empire.
I’m not a YouTube apologist.
I’m an Ethiopian who simply asked your scripture:
Is this really the word of a timeless, just God?
And what I saw was:
Deflection. Fear. Loops. Excuses.
You didn’t answer.
You ran in circles.
You made it boring.
And in your obsession to win, you posted your next move before the play was even made.
That’s how emotional you got.
You’ve shown the audience that you don’t trust your book to speak for itself.
You need AI defenses, tactics, context layering, and endless comparisons to the Bible — just to avoid a simple yes or no.
Now I’m done asking.
Because the answers never came.
And the silence was louder than anything you could say.
“Bro, don’t pretend this ain’t an attack. You framed your whole list with pre-loaded answers — knowing it’d sound wrong if I don’t play by your lens. That’s not ‘human questions.’ That’s moral trap questions.”
---
📌 Then Break It Down:
> “You asked:
‘Would YOU stone someone?’
‘Would YOU cut off a hand?’
‘Would YOU sleep with a 9-year-old?’
Those aren’t neutral. They’re designed to corner faith with no room for context, era, law, or nuance.”
> “You claim I don’t need tafsir or hadith — but I do.
You ask me to explain divine law — then tell me not to use divine sources. That’s like asking for math proofs with no formulas.”
---
🔄 Flip It Back:
“You keep saying ‘just answer yes or no’ — but reality don’t work like that.
So let me ask you simple human questions:
Is it right to kill innocent people in drone strikes?
Is it okay to let men marry men and raise kids?
Should 12-year-olds decide their gender?
Answer with no Bible, no politics, no TikTok — just your 21st-century conscience. Yes or no.”
---
🧠 Final Punch:
“Truth isn’t served in soundbites. Real morality needs more than vibes and feelings — it needs revelation.
So yeah — I’ll answer every question you got. But not on your terms.
On truth’s terms.”
1. “Is it morally okay for a 54-year-old to sleep with a 9-year-old?”
🔥 Reply: “Different era, different norms — but no, Islam never promotes harm. Aisha’s marriage was consensual, delayed until maturity, and judged moral in her society.
You judging 7th-century Arabia with 21st-century feelings — that’s dishonest.”
---
2. “Would you be okay with enslaving women in war today?”
🔥 Reply: “Islam didn’t invent war or slavery — it regulated a brutal system with mercy. Your Bible?
> ‘You may take them as your wives.’ (Deuteronomy 21:10-14)
Jesus never banned it. At least Islam gave rights and freedom options.”
---
3. “Is it just to sleep with a woman whose husband is alive?”
🔥 Reply: “You’re twisting war context. Islam forbids adultery. Captives were divorced, widowed, or free from ties by war.
You mad at Islam, but Bible says:
> ‘Kill every male, but keep the virgins for yourselves.’ (Numbers 31:17-18)
That’s worse.”
---
4. “Would you beat your wife if she disobeys (Surah 4:34)?”
🔥 Reply: “Nah. Islam allows symbolic, non-violent gestures only after patience, advice, and separation — no harm.
The Prophet never hit a woman, and said:
> ‘The best of you are best to your wives.’”
---
5. “Why can men have 4 wives, but not women?”
🔥 Reply: “Simple biology & responsibility:
1 man = 4 wives = clear fatherhood.
1 woman = 4 husbands = confusion, chaos.
Islam’s about justice, not Western buzzwords.”
---
6. “Would you stone someone for adultery?”
🔥 Reply: “Only with four eyewitnesses — nearly impossible. It's not about violence, it's about protecting family.
Bible says stone for Sabbath breaking (Exodus 31:14) — y’all quiet on that though.”
---
7. “Cut off a starving thief’s hand?”
🔥 Reply: “Nah. Islam exempts the poor and starving. That law is for professional criminals in stable societies.
Study context before quoting verses.”
---
8. “Raped woman punished without 4 witnesses?”
🔥 Reply: “Wrong. That verse is for false accusers — not victims.
Rape = punished severely in Islam.
Prophet said: ‘The rapist is to be executed.’”
---
9. “Why doesn’t Allah call Himself ‘Father’ or say ‘I love you’?”
🔥 Reply: “Because Allah isn’t a human dad. He says:
> ‘My mercy encompasses all things’ (Qur’an 7:156),
‘He is more loving than a mother to her child.’
He shows love through action — not just words.”
---
10. “Are Jews & Christians the worst creatures (98:6)?”
🔥 Reply: “Nah, read the whole verse — it says those who rejected truth after knowing it.
Muslims are told:
> ‘Speak kindly to the People of the Book.’ (Qur’an 29:46)
No hate — just facts.”
---
11. “Why does Allah cancel verses (2:106)?”
🔥 Reply: “It’s called abrogation — upgrading laws step-by-step.
Even the Bible did that:
> ‘You’ve heard it said... but I say to you...’ (Matthew 5)
Same concept.”
---
12. “Did God trick the world by switching Jesus?”
🔥 Reply: “No trick. Allah saved him.
> ‘They planned, and Allah planned — and Allah is the best of planners.’* (Qur’an 3:54)
The real lie is saying God needed to die for sins He could forgive.”
---
13. “Sun sets in muddy water? Sperm from backbone?”
🔥 Reply: “Poetic language. Dhul Qarnayn saw the sun as if it set in murky water.
And 86:6-7? Refers to the region of origin (chest & loins), not literal pathways.
Science confirmed germ cells develop in that area.”
---
14. “Murder of poets?”
🔥 Reply: “Those weren’t just poets — they incited war, treason, and murder.
Same way treason today brings death — not ‘poetry slams’.”
---
15. “Can a prophet with slaves, 11 wives, and battles be the best example?”
🔥 Reply: “Yup. He led armies, governed nations, showed mercy to enemies, raised orphans, and never broke his word.
> 1 wife for 25 years.
Forgave killers.
Slept on a mat.
Name another leader like that.”
---
16. “Would you raise your son to follow Muhammad?”
🔥 Reply: “Absolutely. He was the most influential, humble, disciplined man in history.
Ask why so many converts today — even scholars — choose Islam after deep research.”
Look, brother, I’m done going in circles. This was never Islam vs Christianity for me. I’ve told you already — I don’t even live inside those religious boxes. I came into this space not waving a Bible, not trying to convert anyone, and not stuck in any religious label
I study texts. I seek truth. I research Torah, Bible, Qur’an — even Sumerian tablets. I don’t follow dogma. I follow evidence and morality
But this debate started with a simple challenge:You claimed the Qur’an is 100% divine, perfect, moral, and unchanged.
I asked questions about your book — and in return I got Bible quotes, historical diversions, and defensive speeches.
“So to end this, I gave you something simple:
16 yes-or-no questions.
No distractions. No debates. No external scriptures.”
“All I asked was: Can you answer from your own conscience, your own moral compass, and your own book — without dragging in the Bible?”
“I’m still waiting.”
"Y’all out here preaching like theologians — but be honest, when’s the last time you even opened that book? You don’t know if Genesis is in the front or the back. Y’all quoting verses you saw on TikTok and calling it Bible study. 🤡
You talk like you read the Bible, but most of y’all just heard about it.
It’s been years, ain’t it? Or maybe… never?"
> "Don’t come at the Qur’an when your own scripture collecting dust like a forgotten relic."
You came in with ego, I came in with evidence.
You dropped accusations, I dropped context, sources, and citations — from your standards and mine.
You say I “defended” child marriage, slave sex, and censorship?
Nah. I explained history, the kind you cherry-pick or don’t understand:
Marriage norms in the 7th century weren’t set by TikTok ethics.
War captives existed in every ancient culture — Islam didn’t invent it, it regulated it.
And “censorship”? Please. Islam canonized one Qur’an, while your religion still debates which Gospel should count and which got ghosted.
---
📚 “Truth under the microscope”?
Cool. Then let’s put your Bible under it:
Who wrote Hebrews? You don’t know.
Why does your earliest Gospel end with women running away scared, while later versions add resurrection appearances?
Why does your “preserved” Word of God have verses in brackets because they’re missing from older manuscripts?
Your microscope don’t reveal truth — it reveals editing, councils, corruption, and confusion.
---
🎯 “I protect a system”?
No. I submit to a system that’s unchanged since revelation, memorized by millions, with zero contradictions, no matter how loud your punchlines hit.
You “question for conscience”?
I respect that — until it becomes performative skepticism hiding under big words and goat jokes.
---
You say I use AI shortcuts?
Maybe.
But you still couldn’t refute what it said — because the truth don’t care who typed it.
---
Final note:
This ain’t about who wins online smoke.
It’s about who bows to the truth when the fire fades.
I gave you Hadiths, Tafsir, historical context, and Qur’an verses.
You gave me shock value and sarcasm.
You say I’m hiding?
Nah, my brother. I’m standing on centuries of preservation, precision, and proof — while you’re still figuring out if Mark or Matthew got it right.
---
So until you're ready to question your own sources with the same fire,
you’re not standing for truth —
You’re just sitting in bias.
🕋📿
Let me know when you're done grandstanding — I’ll be here with books open and proof ready.
You ask if I morally agree — but first, check your lens.
You call our Prophet ﷺ a “warlord,” but forget:
He came from war, into hostile Arabia, and brought peace where blood feuds ruled for centuries.
He didn’t start wars — he ended them.
He didn’t chase power — he changed hearts.
> Aisha’s marriage?
Context, not clickbait.
Girls matured younger in hot desert climates — that was the norm for Jews, Christians, Romans, and Arabs.
Even your Bible says Mary was likely 12–14 when she carried Jesus.
You judge the 7th century like it’s TikTok — but your ancestors lived the same culture.
And Aisha? She grew up to be one of the greatest scholars of Islam, schooling men for decades. That ain’t a victim.
> “Sex slaves”?
The Qur’an regulated what the whole world practiced.
Captives were already taken in war — Islam brought limits, rights, and mercy to a brutal system.
No rape, no abuse — only consent and honor.
And many became believers, wives, and respected women — not property.
> Assassinations of critics?
He ﷺ forgave many who cursed him — but when someone plotted war, treachery, or incited blood, yeah — action was taken.
This ain’t a poetry club — this was life and death in a tribal land.
Critics? Cool.
Snakes plotting betrayal? Different story.
> Raids and Banu Qurayza?
Quraysh were actively hunting Muslims, stealing wealth, torturing converts.
The raids? Reclaiming what was stolen.
Banu Qurayza? They broke a treaty during wartime and sided with the enemy. Their fate matched Jewish law (Deuteronomy 20:10–14). Don’t throw shade when your own book’s darker.
> “Islam oppresses women”?
Nah. Islam gave women rights before the West even considered them:
Right to inherit
Right to divorce
Right to own property
Right to education
Right to say no to marriage
Right to leadership
Surah 4:34?
It’s about family balance, not abuse. “Strike” comes only after advising and separation — and even then, scholars agree: it’s symbolic, restricted, or discouraged.
And four wives?
It came with strict rules: justice, fairness — and in most cases, men can’t handle even one properly.
---
Now to your final question:
> “Do you morally agree with this?”
I morally agree with divine justice — not modern confusion.
You follow shifting lines.
I follow the One who drew the lines.
You call it slavery of the soul.
We call it freedom from man-made lies.
You base truth on your emotions.
I base it on Revelation.
And guess what?
I don’t follow Islam because I’m scared to question it.
I follow it because I questioned everything else… and they all collapsed.
You tried to mock the Bible instead of answering my questions.
You sidestepped historical evidence with rehearsed apologist jargon.
You defended child marriage, slave sex, censorship, and cosmic absurdities — and called it divine justice.
I didn’t do this to win.
I did this to show everyone what happens when truth doesn’t blink.
> You argued to protect a system.
I questioned it to protect my conscience.
This debate isn’t about whose religion screams louder —
It’s about whose book survives the microscope, and whose doesn’t.
So here’s my suggestion:
> If you're not ready to answer with your own sources — stop the debate.
I don’t debate people stuck in echo chambers. I talk to thinkers.
And until you can stand on truth without evasion, emotion, or AI shortcuts —
You’re not debating me. You’re hiding from your own book.
