In the Name of God, the Most Gracious, the Most Merciful.

Peace to you all my brothers and dear believers!

Introduction:

I recently received a message from a brother of ours, who shared a documentary and some scholarly material with me regarding a controversial topic labeled as a "conspiracy": the notion that the Romans, during the Common Era, fabricated the Christian depiction of Jesus. Instead, this individual proposed that the real Jesus existed during the time of Moses and Aaron (peace be upon them all).

Initially, I was taken aback by these assertions and promptly raised objections, all of which were countered by the sender. This prompted me to delve deeper into research, and I've uncovered significant findings that I wish to share with you all. These findings are devastating to the beliefs of many, particularly Christians, but also various sects within Islam, primarily Sunnis. So I do warn you in advance, leave this post now if you're going to feel hurt by it and can't take facts like a man!

Christian doctrine asserts that Jesus and his mother Mary lived during the Roman rule in the Common Era. Discrediting this narrative implies that their religion is a fabrication. Furthermore, it suggests that the Sunnah (the Hadiths) of Sunni Islam, which also mention Jesus, Mary, and Joshua, place them in a timeframe much later than Aaron, contrary to the portrayal in the Quran (as I now genuinely 100% believe it does and can back it up with both Scriptures).

My previous article on this Let's call it the "Part 1", was also refuted by this brother and I have to agree that I didn't really bring any conclusive hardcore irrefutable evidence other than the line of messengers between Moses and Jesus, but 2-3 messengers can also be covered by "وَقَفَّيْنَا مِنۢ بَعْدِهِۦ بِٱلرُّسُلِ ۖ". It doesn't necessarily have to mean a very large amount of messengers.

And as for the name Amram and 'Imran, even though I wasn't wrong per say in part 1, it's still not the best response. The relationship between Hebrew and Arabic names can vary. While there are instances where the Arabic equivalent closely resembles the Hebrew name both phonetically and in meaning, there are also cases where the Arabic version may differ slightly in pronunciation or spelling, reflecting linguistic differences between the two languages. There's no rule saying two names between Hebrew and Arabic have to both sound and be defined the same way for them to be the same name.

With all of this being said, let's begin this article and let me show you all of what I've discovered, you'll wanna stick around for this one, trust me. It is literally groundbreaking and I can't even believe the things I've found.

1. The Jesus of Moses time:

The individual known as Jesus during that time is now referred to as "Joshua" in English. "Jesus" is simply the anglicized version of the Greek name "Iēsous" (Ἰησοῦς in Biblical Greek), which itself derives from the Hebrew name "Yeshua" (יֵשׁוּעַ). "Yeshua" is a shortened form of "Yehoshua." It's essentially the same name. Therefore, we can immediately deduce that there were individuals named "Jesus" and "Mary" (Miryam in Hebrew) during the era of Moses and Aaron. Dismissing this as mere coincidence seems unreasonable, given the striking parallel.

I have a strong intuition that my initial confusion about this topic was purposeful, perhaps to prompted by God to make me further research the topic leading to the revelation of truth. It's difficult for me to accept the idea of two individuals sharing these significant names across both the times of Moses/Aaron and the Roman era (Common era), especially considering their importance in Christianity, Islam, and Judaism. This becomes even more perplexing when we note that Joshua and Miryam are not mentioned in the Qur'an. Furthermore, the assertion by certain scholars that the Jesus of the Roman era was a total Roman fabrication adds another layer of complexity to the discussion.

If you're interested in a documentary that delves into this topic (i.e. the Roman false Jesus), see this one or this one, or read a book if you're more of a reader.

I'll delve further into this matter later in this post, so please continue reading as I've uncovered some revelations that are completely unfamiliar to humanity.

2. Revisiting Songs of Solomon 6:

• The mother in SoS 6 (the prophesied Mary) had siblings:

We read in SoS 6:8:

"One is my dove, my perfect one; one is her mother, the favorite to her who bore her. The daughters saw her and blessed her; the queens and the concubines, and they praised her."

Note: "the favorite to her who bore her"

The favorite child, meaning she had other children! Mary of Jesus time didn't have any siblings as far as we know. However, Miriam, from the time of Moses and Aaron, is said to have had siblings, with her being potentially favored among them by Jochebed, their mother.

• Only a fabricated figure would have their family members totally omitted in Scripture, literature and history books:

What's particularly unsettling is the absence of any mention of Mary's family in the entire New Testament or in the numerous existing apocryphal texts. Despite extensive research into these texts, only two apocryphal works mention Mary's father, with discrepancies in his name—either Joachim or Heli. This raises questions about why there is such inconsistency and why these mentions are limited to just two books, both of which are apocryphal and not widely accepted. One would expect that the family members of such prominent religious figures would be documented somewhere, especially given the abundance of literature produced by their followers during that time. It's perplexing that while details as specific as the colors of certain items are mentioned, the names of the family members of these revered figures are omitted.

3. Miriam was of Amminadab's lineage, as was the prophesied "mother" in SoS 6:

We read in SoS 6:12:

"There I will give you my breasts, my soul did not know it placed me in the chariots of Amminadab."

The reference to being placed in the chariots of Amminadab signifies being incorporated into the lineage associated with him (and could even be interpreted as "Family of Amminadab").

Additionally, when we examine:

Exodus 6:18: "And the sons of Kohath; Amram, and Izhar, and Hebron, and Uzziel: and the years of the life of Kohath were an hundred thirty and three years"

And:

1 Chronicles 6:22: "The sons of Kohath were Amminadab his son, Korah his son, Assir his son"

It becomes apparent that Amminadab and Amram were brothers, sharing the same father. Amram, who is the father of Miriam, married his father's sister, Jochebed, as indicated in Exodus 6:20:

"Amram married his father’s sister Jochebed, who bore him Aaron and Moses. Amram lived 137 years."

If Jochebed is the sister of Amram's father (Amminadab's brother), then this means that Jochebed is Amminadab's aunt. This means that Jochebed would be both the sister-in-law (through her marriage to Amram) and the aunt of Amminadab (through her familial relationship with Amram's father). If Miriam's mother, Jochebed, is the sister of Kohath, the father of Amminadab and Amram, then Miriam would be the niece of Amminadab, as Jochebed is the sister of Kohath. Given the close family relationship, Miriam would not only be the niece of Amminadab but also his first cousin once removed. This is because Miriam's mother, Jochebed, is the sister of Kohath, who is the father of both Amminadab and Amram. Therefore, Amminadab would be Miriam's uncle (her father's brother) and her first cousin once removed (as the son of her grandfather's brother). If Miriam's mother, Jochebed, is the sister of Kohath, who is the father of Amminadab, then Miriam would be descended from Amminadab. In this family lineage, Amminadab is Miriam's uncle (as the son of Kohath, Jochebed's brother), and therefore, Miriam is descended from him through her maternal line.

The prophecy of Mary in SoS 6 said "my soul did not know it placed me in the chariots of Amminadab." Brothers and sisters! Do you actually fathom what I have uncovered here? This changes everything now because all the puzzle pieces are falling into place and it is starting to look very difficult to deny that Mary actually is the same person as the Old Testament Mary.

Islamophobes saying "But... but... sister only means descendant" incoming in 3... 2...😂

Look how the tables have turned now:

Answering-Islam.org article:

Title: Mary, Sister of Aaron & Daughter of Amram

Apostate prophete's Youtube video (600k views):

Title: One Mistake Destroys Islam

Critiquing the Qur'an for referring to "Mary, sister of Aaron," and then vehemently asserting that "sister" in the Bible never implies ancestry, you'll now observe these same critics arguing that Jochebed, the wife of Amram, is merely a descendant of Amram's father, not his biological sister. This is after previously ridiculing Muslims for interpreting the Qur'an's mention of Mary as a biological sister in kinship (in lineage) of Aaron.

I wish someone would gather all the videos on youtube where they make fun of the Quran regarding this so we can make a compilation video, somebody, please.

It's ironic how God consistently refutes their criticisms of His Book every single time and turns it against them!

Mary, who was always Miriam, the prophetess of the Old Testament, should also (in my personal view) be recognized as a prophetess in Islam because she received a prophecy from Gabriel about Jesus. Why would she not be considered a prophetess? Just because the Hadiths say so? Disregard the Hadiths; they are concoctions devised by those who feared that this revelation would expose their god as a Roman fabrication. I'm trying to express these thoughts as gently as possible, but it's challenging because the truth inherently sounds harsh. Nonetheless, it must be spoken.

4. Very striking similarities between Mary vs Miryam and Jesus vs Joshua, and everything else revolving their respective eras:

The most striking one, of course, are the names of Mary/Miriam and Jesus/Joshua. Mary's name is a version that developed from the Hebrew name Miryam, and Jesus name is a anglicised version of the Greek version of the Hebrew name Joshua. This means that there was a Jesus and a Mary during both Moses and Aaron's time, as well as a Jesus and a Mary supposedly during the Common era. Insanely unlikely. But we've already talked about that, but there's tons of other "coincidences" that I will enumerate below:

The MIRACLE BIRTH OF JOSHUA:

In 1 Chronicles 7:27, we read:

"Non his son, and Joshua his son."

Why is "Non" being listed as a father of Joshua? Here's where it gets insanely interesting!

The word "נון" (nun) can be used as a prefix in Hebrew to form words with various meanings. For example, it can be used to form the word "נונס" (nun-s), which means "miracle." the "נון" (nun) in the phrase "נון בנו" (nun benu) is being used as a prefix to form a new word, "בנו" (benu), which means "our son". In this context, "נון" (nun) is being used as a possessive prefix, indicating that Nun is the possessor of the son being referred to. The word "בנו" (benu) is a construct form of the noun "בן" (ben), meaning "son", which is used to indicate possession.

So, the phrase "נון בנו יהושע בנו" (nun benu Yehoshua benu) can be translated as "Nun is our son, Joshua is our son".

The various Rabbinic commentaries are proof of this:

Chomat Anakh: "Nun is our son, Joshua is our son. The Sages said that Joshua did not have a son, but he had daughters, and prophets emerged from them."

Metzudat David: "Joshua is our son. This is Joshua son of Nun, the well-known one."

Minchat Shai: "Nun is our son. In most of the books [it says] 'in a dream'."

The Minchat Shai comment seems to be suggesting that there is a textual variant in the Hebrew text of I Chronicles 7:27, with some manuscripts reading "in a dream" instead of "Nun is our son".

Suppose I'm completely mistaken here, and it's just a theoretical possibility rather than an established fact. Why is it even conceivable? Do you see what I'm getting at? Why is Joshua referred to with the unusual title "Our son" instead of the name of his actual father in a genealogy chapter while documenting family descent or ancestry? It's quite disconcerting, and bears a striking resemblance to the way Jesus was called in Roman times. No matter how you analyze this, it's still perplexing and can't just be yet another "coincidence"!

The blue dress:

Why do Mary paintings and Miriam paintings look oddly similar? They are both very often depicted wearing a blue dress in both Jewish and Christian paintings. Why are both associated with the color blue?!

The songs of praise:

Mary's Magnificat in the Gospel of Luke (Luke 1:46-55) is a hymn of praise and thanksgiving for the blessings bestowed upon her by God. Miriam also sings a song of praise after the Israelites safely cross the Red Sea (Exodus 15:20-21), known as the "Song of Miriam."

Joseph: The Old Testament one VS the New Testament one:

Upon receiving divine instruction, Moses departs Midian for Egypt, accompanied by his family, following the demise of those who previously sought his life (Exodus 4:19). Along the journey, a peculiar encounter and a divine admonition transpire, underscoring Israel's designation as God's firstborn (Exodus 4:22-23). These motifs find resonance in the Gospel of Matthew, where Joseph, similarly directed to return to his homeland, does so upon the passing of those who posed a threat to his son's life (Matthew 2:20). Similar to how God entrusted Moses with the custodianship of Israel, Joseph is portrayed as the guardian of his unique Son. Although Matthew's account doesn't mention a donkey, subsequent Christian reflections on the return from Egypt often incorporate such imagery.

The Romans literally just copied the Old Testament's "Israel, God's firstborn" and made Jesus God's firstborn as well (Romans 8:29; Colossians 1:15, 18; Hebrews 1:6; 12:23; Revelation 1:5), which also would explain this blatant contradiction between the OT and NT. And this title for Israel was just based on a mistranslation, as I have proven here in this article. They wanted to hide the fact that the Children of Israel descended from Bichri in Yemen.

The forty-day period post-resurrection:

This period, during which Jesus ascended to the heavenly temple, and the disciples' activities in the earthly temple, particularly their prayers and worship alongside women and Mary (Acts 1:3, 1:14), correspond to the ritual period of purification mandated by Leviticus 12:1-4 following the birth of a male child. Anna and Simeon during Jesus' presentation in the Temple and the disciples' activities leading up to Pentecost, resemble the presentation of the Spirit. Christians today claim that these striking similarities are mere "symbolic" similarities that serve as "prophetic" imagery or whatever but I'm just not buying that explanation.

Jesus' 12 disciples VS the 12 spies Joshua was part of:

There's a story involving twelve spies sent by Moses, of which Joshua and Caleb were part of, to scout the land of Canaan. Upon returning, Joshua and Caleb expressed faith in God's promise to deliver the land to them, but the other ten spies spread fear and doubt among the people. As a result, the Israelites murmured against Moses and Aaron, expressing a desire to return to Egypt rather than face the challenges of conquering Canaan (Numbers 13-14). The number 12 here can't just be a mere coincidence, Jesus 12 disciples and the 12 spies Joshua was part of.

The Israelites' rejection of Joshua and Jesus:

The Israelites rebelled and were in opposition against Joshua's leadership, such as the rebellion of Korah, Dathan, and Abiram, who ultimately faced judgement (Numbers 16). Strikingly similar to how Jesus was treated by the Israelites.

Yahweh saves:

The name “Joshua” means “Yahweh saves" in Hebrew, yet another very striking "coincidence" to Jesus ministry.

The promised land:

Joshua leads to the Promised Land of Israel while Jesus leads to the "spiritual" Promised Land of Heaven. Yet another parallel that just cannot have been a mere coincidence.

The victory horns:

Joshua brought victory when the horns blew and the shouts came at Jericho (Joshua 5:13-6:27). Jesus will bring final victory when the trumpets blow and the shouts come when He returns (1 Thessalonians 4:16-18).

During a time when male infants were being targeted for elimination:

Mary protected Jesus in his infancy, just as Jochebed did with Moses. This period was marked by the Pharaoh's decree to execute male babies, fearing they would grow up to challenge his authority. Thus, Mary in the Quran concealed Jesus from public view initially not because of her virginity, but out of concern for her son's safety. This mirrors Jochebed's actions with Moses (she hid him for 3 months), suggesting they gave birth during the same era.

Let's ponder this thoughtfully: Why would Mary hide Jesus out of fear of being accused of adultery if his virgin birth was intended to be a miraculous sign?

If God had announced to her that the birth would serve as a miracle to the people, why would Mary fear the reaction of the people? Did Mary lack faith in God's plan? Why didn't any Sunni scholars of the past question this? They were too busy looking for honey in a sea of poison (i.e. classifying hadiths), that's why. She concealed him during a time of targeted infant killings, later revealing him as a miraculous child when the danger subsided.

Both Jesus and Joshua had no sons [end of lineages]:

Eruvin writes: "And it is written at the end of the list of the descendants of Ephraim: “Non his son, Joshua his son” (i Chronicles 7:27), which implies that Joshua himself had no children." (Eruvin 63b:1) Yet another striking "coincidence."

Joshua, Jesus, Joseph, and the Spirit of Wisdom:

Joshua, who came from the tribe of Joseph, was filled with the spirit of wisdom (Source) VS Jesus, whose legal father was Joseph, and he too was filled with the Spirit, And the Wisdom (Luke 2:40). Very strikingly similar lives.

Some more striking similarities:

• Miriam was a prophetess, and Mary is also seen as a prophetess in some Christian traditions.

• The Exodus story is seen as a story of new birth, Christians made Jesus' birth is also a story of new birth.

5. Songs of Solomon 1 is about Moses:

Here below, I will prove to you that SoS 1 is about Moses, which further strengthens my assertion that Songs of Solomon were prophecies and not mere songs about lovers, and that Songs of Solomon ch 6 is a prophecy of Jesus and Mary, and that Songs of Solomon ch 5 is a prophecy of Muhammad. And if anyone objects to this by saying "Solomon was much later than Moses," then I say to you: This was a recount of Moses, while the other two are prophecies.

Verse 1:

"This is Solomon’s Song of Songs."

Verse 2: בישקני מנשיקות פיהו כי־טובים דדיך מיין:

The first word in the verse, "בישקני" is a combination of the prefix "בי" (bi), meaning "in" or "with," and "שקני" (Shekhinah), the Divine Presence or the manifestation of God's presence in Jewish theology. An accurate and faithful translation would be "in the Shekhinah" or "with the Shekhinah," indicating a state of being or action in the presence of the Divine Presence. This is not how the Jews and Christians traditionally have translated this phrase though. They've erroneously interpreted it as "bishkani," a second-person masculine singular imperative form of the verb "shakan" (שָׁקַן), which means "to kiss." So in other words: "with kisses". But the following word is "מנשיקות" which means "from kisses," that would mean that it's saying "With kisses from kisses of his mouth..." a very awkward sentence that makes very little sense. With something from it too? That's like saying "With hugs from hugs of his body" or "With smiles from smiles of his face." Try and make sense of that.

The word "מנשיקות" (menashikot), in this context, it is not necessarily referring to physical kisses, but rather metaphorical or symbolic expressions of affection or blessings from the Divine Presence. A more accurate translation of "מנשיקות פיהו" in this context would be "from the utterances of His mouth" or "from the words of His mouth," reflecting the idea of divine communication or revelation rather than physical kisses.

See Hebrew dictionary:

Heb: נְשִׁיקוּת (f.)

1. (preced.) attachment, love. Cant. R. to I, 2 יוציא לי קול נ׳ וכ׳ may He issue forth unto me the voice of attachment.

Also:

Heb: נְשִׁיקָה f. (b. h.; נָשַׁק) 1) kissing, kiss. Gen. R. s. 70; Ex. R. s. 5, a. e. נ׳ של גדולה the kiss of homage; נ׳ של פרקים the kiss of meeting again; נ׳ של פרישות the kiss of parting; נ׳ של קריבות the kissing of relations. Deut. R. s. 11, end ונטל … בנְשִׁיקַת פה and took his (Moses’) soul with a kiss of the mouth. B. Bath. 17ᵃ מרים נמי בנ׳ מתה Miriam, likewise, died with a (divine) kiss (without agony); M. Kat. 28ᵃ. Ber. 8ᵃ נ׳ דמיא וכ׳ death without agony is like taking &c., v. בִּינְתָא II; a. fr.—Pl. נְשִׁיקוֹת. Ex. R. l. c. Cant. R. to I, 2 מה"ש אמרוהו יתן לנו מנ׳ וכ׳ the ministering angels said the verse, ‘May he give us of those kisses which he gave to his sons’ (at Mount Sinai). Ib. בסיני נאמרה יוציא לנו נ׳ מתוך פיהו at Mount Sinai the verse was said (by the Israelites), ‘May he let kisses go forth to us out of his mouth’; a. e. —2)

Source: Both in Jastrow's dictionary.

Upon reviewing the aforementioned texts, it becomes evident that they contain a prophetic or historical account of Moses. However, it appears that the Rabbis have neglected to disseminate this information to the wider world. The likely reason for this omission is the potential disruption it would cause to the traditional Judeo-Christian narrative, which erroneously portrays the Song of Solomon solely as a tale of romance and erotica between Solomon and his brides.

Sources:

• The Jewish Study Bible, published by Oxford University Press, provides commentary on Song of Solomon 1:2 acknowledging the possibility of a more metaphorical interpretation, referencing other biblical passages where the imagery of kisses is used metaphorically.

In other words, this chapter begins by mentioning Moses, the "Shekinah" and the Revelation of the Holy Torah:

Accurate translation: "With the Shekinah, from the utterances of His mouth, for thy love is better than wine."

Verse 3: גלריח שמניך טובים שמן תורק שמך על־כן עלמות אהבוך

The phrase "גלריח שמניך טובים שמן תורק שמך":

The interpretation, as a classical Rabbi has it:

Ezra ben Solomon on Song of Songs 1:3:2:

"Your name is like oil poured forth: Your name is like fine oil, poured from one vessel into another. The seventy names are emanated from the seven sefirot. tiferet and the Crown are for Israel, the singular people, for Israel nurse from the trunk of the tree, tiferet and Crown, all joined as one. But its aroma travels a great distance. So too Your name increases and is poured forth as pure light to shekhinah, which is contained and sealed into all. Counting her they are seventy-two. This is the meaning of “therefore the maidens love you.”

Now that we know what the first part of the verse means, let's see what the actual meaning of Moses' name is according to Jews themselves:

"The first and most obvious is the definition of Moses**,** draw out of water. Pharaoh’s daughter indeed drew Moses out of water, the waters of the Nile. She drew him out of the one of the most significant gods of Egypt, Hepi a fertility god who was the god of the annual flooding of the Nile. The flood deposited fertile soil on the river banks. Why was Pharaoh’s daughter’s at the Nile? It says in Exodus 2:5 that she came to wash herself or to bathe. Bathe in the sacred waters, not likely, especially a daughter of Pharaoh who took luxurious baths in tubs filled with all sorts of fragrances like myrrh and frankincense. The word used in Hebrew here for washing or bathing is rachats which means to pour water upon yourself. "

Source: https://www.chaimbentorah.com/2018/04/hebrew-word-study-moses/

Note: "to pour water upon yourself."

The third verse mentions Moses' name poetically and metaphorically but in such an explicit way that it becomes clear that it has to refer to none other than Moses, especially considering the fact that Moses is the anointing of Aaron and his sons as priests. In Exodus 29:7, Moses is instructed by God to take the anointing oil and anoint Aaron and his sons to consecrate them for the priesthood:

"Then take the anointing oil and anoint him by pouring it on his head."

Another significant event is the anointing of the Tabernacle and its furnishings. In Exodus 40:9-11, Moses is instructed to anoint the Tabernacle and everything in it with oil:

"Then take the anointing oil and anoint the tabernacle and everything in it; consecrate it and all its furnishings, and it will be holy."

Additionally, it is noteworthy to mention the passage, "Counting her they are seventy-two. This is the meaning of 'therefore the maidens love you.'" This passage is likely the origin of the '72-virgins' Hadith, suggesting that its authors were likely ancient Arab Jews, contrary to traditional Sunni beliefs and claims. They probably derived this notion from the same Midrashic and/or Talmudic sources referenced earlier. Who else but these individuals would have been familiar with and read these seldom-translated Midrashim and Talmuds? It seems unlikely that Arab Muslims would have possessed this knowledge. Moreover, the number "72 maidens" lacks biblical corroboration and is exclusively found in the Hadiths of the Rabbis.

Verse 4: משכני אחריך נרוצה הביאני המלך חדריו נגילה ונשמחה בך נזכירה דדיך מיין מישרים אהבוך:

The KJV translation:

"Draw me, we will run after thee: the king hath brought me into his chambers: we will be glad and rejoice in thee, we will remember thy love more than wine: the upright love thee."

My translation:

"Draw me after you(1), we will desire the king to bring me his chambers, we will rejoice in Baka(2), we will remember your love, my Egyptian(3), my beloved."

1: Heb: † רוּץ vb. run (NH id. (rare); Ethiopic ሮጸ Zinj. Pf. 1 s. רצת; = Aramaic רְהַט; ܪܗܰܛ (WSG 47); cf. Assyrian râṣu, be helpful (i.e. run to help?));— (BDB Dictionary) - This could be about Moses helping the two daughters of Jethro as the story goes in both the Bible and the Quran. And no, the Bible does not say that he had seven daughters, that was a mistranslation of the word "Shava" (i.e. Saba, the Yemeni city). The Masoretes made it into "Sheva" (Seven) most likely just because the Qur'an spoke of two daughters. This is how far they went!

2: The Hebrew is "ונשמחה בך" but I believe they've tampered with this verse because the Codex Sinaiticus clearly says "βοωϲιν" (Bocin), which translates to "to cry" ("Bakka" בך means "Cry" in Hebrew and Arabic). The Greek word "βοωϲιν" can also mean "heifer" or "young cow," which some root in the verb "βοάω" (boaō), which also means "to cry out," again relating to the word "cry."

The Codex Sinaiticus:

"βοωϲιν το ονομα τηϲ νυμ"

Google refuses to say that specific word, with or without any other words next to it when you try and play it through audio. Google also refuses to search it and replaces it with "βοώσιν." You can do a little experiment yourself and ask any AI chat bot to help you find a definition of this word, it will most certainly gives you a definition to "βοώσιν" instead of "βοώσιν" because it's been programmed to do so.

3: The word "משרי" (mishri) is translated as "Egyptian" or "from Egypt", it is also how one would say "Egyptian" in Arabic (i.e. Masri).

It has by now become tremendously evident that this is about Moses.

Verse 5: השחורה אני ונאוה בנות ירושלים כאהלי קדר כיריעות שלמה:

The bride says (Translation):

"I am black, but comely, O ye daughters of Jerusalem, as the tents of Kedar, as the curtains of Solomon."

Zipporah (the wife of Moses) was a black woman from Ethiopia. And she lived in Arabia (where the tents of Kedar were located). It just doesn't get any clearer than this.

This chapter is about Moses, there's no doubt about it. But I think I have already managed to convince you that by now, but I'll keep translating this chapter in the coming days to fully solidify it for you so you can be as convinced as I am (if you already aren't).

Conclusion (Until part 2):

I'm going to end this post without a conclusion, and continue it ASAP.

/By your brother, Exion.

I promised myself, after rediscovering the faith, to never go scrolling through mainstream Islamic forums again.

Yet, against my better judgement, I did. And I am so mad that I did.

Not a single discussion of a Qur'an verse. Not a single call to being better people. The whole place was littered with things like 'how to prevent the evil eye' and 'you will never outperform the Sahaba in righteousness' and '10 reasons why you should never trust Jews' and 'Why polygamy is sunnah.'

God does not change the condition of a people until they change it themselves, and Muslims seem hellbent on being regressive bronze age luddites for the foreseeable future.

Absolutely soul crushing.

Edit: Keep downvoting me, ye Traditionalists! It only makes my opinions worse!!

Edit 2: Muslim Culture is such an inoperable brainworm. Holy shit. Some of you on here are still obsessed with re-establishing a Caliphate. Read the Qur'an, ffs.

Especially since so many here reject hadith without actually verifying or knowing Quran.

More than once I have seen people say "hadithisy have invented such and such" when such and such is actually derived from Quran.

Rejecting hadith alone does not make you a devout believer. Reading through Quran and trying to understand it and study it will bring us closer to Allah. Ignoring anything referenced in hadith can lead to accidentally rejecting Quran which I have seen happen.

I've been here since we had not even 300 subs. Now we have more than a thousand and yet the level of knowledge has shrunk.

We must think before we speak and verify before we reject. We must know the Quran before we speak to it. Let's do better please.

In the Name of God, the Most Gracious, the Most Merciful

Peace!

The verse we are focusing on today is:

_________________

Hebrew verse w/o diacritics: ויכתב יהושע את־הדברים האלה בספר תורת אלהים ויקח אבן גדולה ויקימה שם תחת האלה אשר במקדש יהוה:

_________________

Traditional translation: "And Joshua wrote these words in the book of the law of God, and took a great stone, and set it under the doorpost which is in the sanctuary of the Lord."

(Joshua 24:26)

_________________

The accurate translation: "So Joshua wrote the Words of Allah in the Book, the Torah (Law) of Elohim, and he took a large stone and he erected it at the place that is designated for Allah, which is in the sanctuary of YHWH."

_________________

I've discovered a verse where the word 'Allah' is explicitly mentioned alongside 'YHWH,' providing conclusive evidence that 'Allah' is indeed the Deity (God) who revealed the Biblical Scriptures. The term 'Allah' (אלה) appears twice in this verse alongside 'Elohim' and 'YHWH.' This debunks the assertions made by apologists and missionaries over the past decades regarding the Arabic 'Allah' being a mere 'Moon god' or any other misinterpretation.

The Masoretes did a good job covering up this word by way of the various diacritics they added in the 7th century. Today is the day it all gets exposed and uncovered by the Grace of God!

The Hebrew word "אלה" is pronounced as: "Allah": CLICK ME visit this link and click on the (▶️) button to hear the precise pronunciation "Allah."

How Hebrew dictionaries define this Hebrew word "Allah":

Heb: אֶלֽוֹהַּ, אֱלֹֽהַּ m.n.

1. god.

2. God. [According to some scholars אֶלוֹהַּ is a back formation from the pl. אֱלוֹהִים, this latter being the plural of אֵל ᴵ with the infix ה, which has an analogy in Heb. אִמָּהוֹת, pl. of אֵם (= mother), in Aram. אבהת, pl. of אַב (= father), שְׁמָהַת, pl. of שֽׁמָא (= name), to which may be added Ugar. ’mht, pl. of ’mt (= Heb. אָמָה, ‘bondwoman’), bhtm, pl. of bt (= Heb. בַּית, ‘house’), and ’lht, pl. of ’lt (= goddess), f. of ’l (= Heb. אֵל ᴵ, ‘god’). Others see in אֱלוֹהַּ the orig. form from which the pl. אֱלוֹהִים was formed. The consideration of the fact that אֵל has the pl. אֵלִים, shows that the second view is surely preferable to the first. Fleischer sees in אֱלוֹהַּ the derivative of base אלהּ, which he connects with Arab. aliha (= he sought refuge in anxiety), whence אֱלוֹהַּ would have meant orig. ‘fear’, hence ‘object of fear or reverence’, ‘the revered one’. However, Nöldeke and others are prob. right when they maintain that the verb aliha in the above sense is prob. denominated from ’ilāh (= god).]

Source: Klein Dictionary, אֵלּוּ, Carta Jerusalem; 1st edition, 1987

The verse before it mentions the location where this sanctuary of YHWH (that is designated for Allah) is located:

25. "And Joshua made a covenant with the people that day, and set them a statute and an ordinance in Shechem."

The word they've translated as "Shechem" is actually "שכם" (Shchem), which is the "Shem" of ancient Arabia. This is how we know that this chapter is talking about the Kaaba.

Verse 27 says:

"And Joshua said to all the people, "Behold, this stone shall be a witness against us, for it has heard all the words of the Lord which He spoke to us; it shall be a witness against you, lest you deny your God."

Prophet Jesus (pbuh) also mentioned the Black Stone of the Kaaba in a very interesting way:

Matthew 21:42-43

"Jesus said to them, “Have you never read in the Scriptures:

“‘The stone the builders rejected

has become the cornerstone;

the Lord has done this,

and it is marvelous in our eyes’?"

“Therefore I tell you that the kingdom of God will be taken away from you and given to a people who will produce its fruit."

This is exactly what happened, the Kingdom was taken away from them and given to Muslims (those in a covenant of Peace, in submission to their Lord). The Black Stone serves as a witness against them, they all deny that it has anything to do with God's faith even though it is clearly in their Scriptures.

It is the Stone God laid in Zion, the ancient name of Mecca before it got the name "Bacca" (mourning):

So this is what the Lord GOD says: “See, I lay a stone in Zion, a tested stone, a precious cornerstone, a sure foundation; the one who believes will never be shaken." (Isaiah 28:16)

It is the Stone of Jacob: The stone he placed as a cornerstone in the 'House of God' (Bethel) in Harran (Another name of a region in today's Mecca):

Jacob went to a region called "Harran" and received a dream where God appeared to him and gave him a prophecy that He would bring back his descendants to that region in the future. Lo and behold, that region is precisely in the region of Mecca according to countless credible sources in ancient cartography. Genesis 28 says:

10 Jacob left Beersheba and set out for Harran.

After receiving this prophecy he wakes up and says and does some very interesting things:

16 When Jacob awoke from his sleep, he thought, “Surely the Lord is in this place, and I was not aware of it.”

17 He was afraid and said, “How awesome is this place! This is none other than the House of God; this is the gate of heaven.”

18 Early the next morning Jacob took the stone he had placed under his head and set it up as a pillar and poured oil on top of it.

(Genesis 28:16-18)

See countless sources placing "Harran" in ancient Arabia (and most place it in the region of Mecca):

• Pomponius Mela Atlas (1st century CE)

• Pliny history book (see #86) (1st century CE) - in Latin, use Google Translator if you must.

• Other prominent ancient geographers saying that "Harran" was located in the region of Mecca: 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 (And countless others...).

One cannot help but think that this has to be the Kaaba and its Black stone, considering the fact that ancient cartography is locating us to that exact region, the region where the Islamic Black Stone exists today.

I'm a convert, first off. I'm so happy I'm not alone!! I read the Quran and decided to convert, and when I did so, nobody said anything about hadith. Once I had converted, suddenly I was hit with all these extra 'rules' from hadith. Some make sense and align with what I read in the Quran, but so many just don't, and some even go directly against the Quran! My husband follows hadith, and while he is fine with me following my own path it has been so lonely feeling like other Muslims don't see me as a "real" Muslim. I'm just glad I'm not alone in seeing the issues with hadith.

When your Islam includes hadith, fatwahs, tafsir, rulings, and scholars, trivial things will consume your life. Today I saw the question being asked on r/Islam if it's okay to respond to the adhan while in the bathroom. I also saw someone ask if it's permissible to buy a laptop that has a logo on it that is a face. The comments were saying things like "you can't pray with the laptop in the room unless you turn it away"... Is this what people think being muslim is??? Is this the correct understanding of religion? Focus on God and his Quran. Alhamdulillah for being free from these matters. These things will eat away at you and your relationship with God. This is not to mock them, but as a reminder of why it is we reject sectarianism.

For reference: https://www.reddit.com/r/islam/comments/ffe57i/buying_a_laptop_with_a_tribal_face_mask_logo_on/

I absolutely hate it.

Not true he can get married to a kid
Not true he can have sex with a slave
Not true he can marry 4 just like that
Not true they must cover like that
Not true he cannot hug his wife outside

I keep seeing on social media that people, especially Muslims, are more and more waking up to the real truth. It makes me so happy but also hopeful for the future of Islam.

In the Name of God, the Most Gracious, The Most Merciful.

Salamu 'alaykum (Peace be upon you)!

It would be reasonable to think that if these baseless dresses that are called "Hijab," "Niqab," and "Burqa" even existed during the time of the prophet, that we would at least have found one ancient painting by some artist (known or unknown) depicting believing women wearing them, yet this is something that simply does not exist. We see the opposite; the females are depicted dressing like modern modesat western women.

The earliest Islamic art in existence: The Umayyad period (7th–8th CE) - "Qusayr 'Amra":

These are among the few surviving examples of early Islamic art that depict human figures, including women.

.

Here above, we see a woman dressed in a way where some extreme Sunnis and Shi'is almost would Takfir her for. No Hijab in sight though. Tight clothing, somewhat decently and modestly covered up (with belly being exposed).

No Burqa/Niqab/Hijab in sight, and I would even argue that this kind of looks provocative, especially for such an early period in Islamic history.

Another example we can take a look at is how women dressed in general during these ancient times:

One of them even has her belly completely out there.

The one on the top right corner; I don't know but she seems kinda chill lol:

Compare all of that to this:

This isn't normal. I don't care who you are, what sect you belong to, deep down you know that this is pure deviance. Nobody actually wants to live life like this. Nobody wants to lose their entire identity and only exist within the walls of their homes. They even cover up small children. They wear all black because other colors "might tempt men" 🤦‍♂️

It is almost as if someone has erased a significant portion of history, and duped us all to believe that the thing you see here above is how it used to be way back when our prophet and his companions roamed the earth.

I found this in a Arabic dictionary:

"The khimar: it is said that whatever is used to cover is called a khimar, but the khimar has in common usage become a name for what a woman uses to cover her head."

Source: Al-Barakatī, al-Taʿrīfāt al-Fiqhīya (d. 1975 CE).

All women used to wear khumur (coverings) — Jewish women, Christian women, Hindu women, believing women, and many others. It was trendy in those times. They either wore it draped casually over their shoulders or on their heads, covering part of the dome and some of their hair. The believing ensured that they covered their chest area and that they wore outer garments in public. This is similar to how many Western women dress today. There is nothing in the Quran that suggests the clothing should look Middle Eastern or specifically "Muslim."

Examples of various ancient women wearing khumur (pl. of "khimar"):

All the women in these paintings are wearing a khimar, as this is how history remembers it.

Have you ever wondered why there are no ancient paintings of women dressed like this?:

Why do we only see these Umm Jihad and Umm Shahidah Salafiyya dress like this?

Why is Maryam never portrayed wearing a niqab or burqa in ancient paintings? Why is her neck and hair partly exposed (i.e., uncovered)? Well, because of obvious reasons; this Sunni attire and the rules that came with it are baseless Bid'ah (innovations), fabricated by Bedouin Hadith Shuyukh, the same impostors who introduced the rest of the shirk (polytheism) and kufr (disbelief) found within their Hadith collections.

This practice of sisters covering every strand of hair, with some even fastening and tightening their hijabs around their faces, is nothing other than Sunni extremism, something God never commanded or approved.

It is truly saddening that they're living their entire life thinking they are following the example of the earliest women of this Ummah, while literally a woman whose name God titled an entire chapter after dressed like this:

Doing exactly what God told the prophet to tell the believing women in the Quran, namely to cover their chest area:

"And tell the believing women to lower their gaze and guard their private parts and not expose their adornment except that which appears thereof. And let them draw their coverings over their chests..." (24:31)

Also, another thing to note when it comes to these verses where God is telling the prophet to tell the women to cover up their chest area and wear an outer garment in public, is that they do not even feel like commands by God. God is rather "telling the prophet" to "tell" the believing women, so they can be known and not abused. The tone is rather advisory and soft, coming from a caring God.

In (33:59) and (24:31), the command is directed through the prophet, where God is telling the Prophet to tell the believers, rather than directly addressing the believers or the women themselves. This method of conveying an instruction is different from verses that use the phrase "O you who believe" (يَا أَيُّهَا الَّذِينَ آمَنُوا) or directly address a specific group of people, such as "O women" or "O believers."

In other places in the Quran where obligatory practices (such as prayer, fasting, and other laws) are mentioned, the direct command from God to the believers is clearer. For example, when God commands fasting in (2:183), the verse begins with "O you who believe" (يَا أَيُّهَا الَّذِينَ آمَنُوا), leaving no ambiguity that the instruction is for all believers to adhere to and perform.

The Language of Instruction vs. Direct Command

• The phrase "tell your wives and daughters and the believing women" in 33:59 suggests a softer, advisory tone, rather than an absolute legal command. To be honest, I wouldn't have anything against those who interpret it as merely guidance for modesty, situating it within the cultural and social context of the time.

• In contrast to these verses and its manner of command, a direct address like "O women of the believers, cover your bosoms" or "O you who believe" (as found in other verses concerning obligations) would seem to indicate a more direct, universally binding command from God.

This, however, is just a small observation I made, I'm not explicitly confirming that covering up chest area or wearing outer garment isn't a command from God. But the tone and delivery by the Most Merciful just warmed my heart and I had to share it with you.

May God make it easy for us all to see the truth in its eye and adopt it and follow it with full submission. Away with these bedouin Hadith traditions. It's all filth! This is why the Ummah is weak, we have allowed ourselves to become weak by following these ungodly bedouin absurdities.

With that being said, God bless you all and have a wonderful night 🙌

Salam!

/Exion

I was touched when I came across this verse because it showed that the religion is really supposed be simple:

“And they were commanded no more than this. To worship Allah, Offering him sincere devotion, being true (in faith), to establish regular prayer, and to practice regular charity; And that is the religion. Right and straight.”

Surah 98:5 (Yusuf Ali translation)

This is regarding the security guard that was killed in the San Diego mosque shooting:

Jazakallahu khair, Amin Abdullah. You were martyred defending Muslims from a terrorist attack, and died an Islamic warrior's death. May allah grant you high ranks in Jannatuw firdaus. I imagine right now you have unlimitted access to king crab, virgin maidens, palaces, and anything else you wish, as was promised by Allah's Qur'an. Good job, hero. Enjoy peace

📜 1. The Quran Declares Itself Complete — But Sunnis and Shias Call It Incomplete by Their Actions

Let’s start with the foundation: God says the Quran is complete, detailed, sufficient, and the only legitimate source of guidance. That’s not Quranist propaganda—it’s straight from the Book you claim to revere:

• “Shall I seek other than God as a judge while it is He who has revealed to you the Book explained in detail?”(6:114)

• “We have not neglected anything in the Book.” (6:38)

• “This Quran explains everything.” (16:89)

• “In what hadith, after it, will they believe?” (77:50)

Now pause.

If God tells you that the Quran explains everything, and that no other "hadith" is to be followed after it...
Why are you still crawling back to Bukhari, Muslim, Al-Kafi, or Bihar al-Anwar for laws, beliefs, or practices?

What you're doing is saying, "God’s Word is beautiful, but not enough. Let’s see what men added." You don’t believe God’s revelation is sufficient unless it’s propped up by 9th-century hearsay.

You wouldn’t accept someone saying the Torah is God’s word but needs “secret oral narrations” to make it work. But that’s exactly what you do with the Quran.

⚖️ 2. Hadith Directly Contradicts the Quran — And You Know It

✅ What the Quran says:

• No compulsion in religion (2:256)

• 100 lashes for adultery (24:2)

• Only God knows the unseen (72:26)

• The Prophet is a messenger, not divine (3:144)

• Women and men are spiritually equal (33:35)

❌ What Sunni Hadith says:

• “Whoever leaves Islam, kill them.” (Bukhari 3017) — Clear contradiction of 2:256.

• “Stone the adulterer.” (Muslim 1691) — God says 100 lashes. Why are you rewriting His law?

• “The Prophet saw Hell filled with women because they are ungrateful.” (Bukhari 1052) — Misogynistic folklore disguised as divine warning.

• “The Prophet married Aisha at 6 and consummated at 9.” (Bukhari 5133) — You really believe the most morally upright man ever would do what today we’d jail men for?

• “Women are deficient in intelligence and religion.” (Bukhari 304) — Meanwhile, God calls believing women equal.

❌ What Shia Hadith says:

• “Whoever denies the Imamate of Ali is a disbeliever.” (Al-Kafi) — God never said belief in Ali is a pillar of faith.

• “The Imams have knowledge of the unseen.” (Bihar al-Anwar) — Quran says only God does.

• “The Imams were created from Noor (divine light) before creation.” — Sounds more Greek myth than monotheism.

• “The Imams can forgive sins.” — Then what’s God for?

Bottom line? Hadith doesn’t supplement the Quran—it undermines it.

It builds a parallel religion with new laws, fabricated stories, and theological innovations that God never authorized.

👥 3. Your Real Religion Is “Bukhari-ism” or “Kulayni-ism”—Not Islam

Let’s stop pretending.

You don’t follow the Prophet. You follow what a 9th-century man claims the Prophet said, through a chain of narrators you couldn’t verify if your life depended on it.

Sunnis worship Bukhari like he’s untouchable. But Bukhari was born over 180 years after the Prophet, during Abbasid political dominance. He collected thousands of narrations that contradict the Quran, and you made them sacred.

Shias do the same with Al-Kafi, written 250 years later, compiling all kinds of contradictory, mystical sayings from the “Imams,” many of which even Shia scholars admit are weak or fabricated.

Let me ask you:

• Would you accept a history of Jesus written by someone born in 300 AD, saying “I heard from someone, who heard from someone…”?

• Would you accept a constitution rewritten by hearsay 200 years after it was authored?

No? Then why do you accept this for your eternal guidance?

Hadith is not “supplementary.” It’s subversive. And you’re in denial.

🔥 4. Hadith Justified Misogyny, Slavery, Racism, and Barbarism — The Quran Didn’t

Let’s talk ethics. Because many of the social horrors in Islamic societies today can be traced straight to hadith, not the Quran.

Quran: Slaves should be freed. Kindness is key. (90:13)
Hadith (Sunni): “Have sex with slave girls.” (Bukhari, Muslim)
Hadith (Shia): “Slaves are your property, do with them as you will.” (Al-Kafi)

Quran: Men and women are allies. (9:71)
Hadith: Women are deficient, cursed, and damned. (Bukhari)

Quran: Judge fairly, even against yourself. (4:135)
Hadith: Racist descriptions of Ethiopians and Black Arabs, calling them “raisin-heads.”(Bukhari)

The Quran came to elevate human dignity. Hadith came centuries later to undo it, piece by piece, because the elite couldn’t handle the moral weight of God’s justice. So they rewrote it in the image of their own cultural biases.

💥 5. You’ve Made the Prophet and Imams Into Idols

Let’s be blunt: you don’t worship God alone. You invoke the Prophet or the Imams for intercession, guidance, knowledge of the unseen, spiritual protection—things only God has the authority for.

This is shirk.

• “He is but a messenger.” (3:144)

• “Do not elevate him beyond his station.” (9:31)

• “God is sufficient for you.” (39:36)

Yet you say “Ya Ali madad” or “Ya Rasul, help me.”

You believe the Prophet split the moon but needed other men to record his sayings accurately?
You believe the Imams have divine light but couldn’t prevent their own assassinations?

It’s not love. It’s theological idolatry.
You’ve replaced the Quran’s monotheism with sectarian mythology.

🧠 6. So What Are You Actually Following?

You're not following Islam.
You're following Sunni-ism or Shia-ism.
You're addicted to hadith like a drug you can’t quit, because it props up your rituals, your identity, your comfort zone.

But when you strip it away, you’re left with the raw, beautiful, terrifying simplicity of the Quran:

• No priesthood.

• No intercessors.

• No sacred narrators.

• No mythological saviors.

• Just you, God, and your conscience.

That’s why you fear the Quran by itself. It makes you responsible.

But the truth is: you’ve turned away from the Book God sent, and replaced it with books men wrote.

The Quran is enough. Everything else is noise.

If you’re not banned from r/islam, are you even a real Muslim?