Muslim & Christian Discussion ForumCurrently responding to>>> Quran vs. ChristHow did I not? “They are considered eternal in their very essence, eternal in their very expression, the Quran is eternal from cover to cover, the sounds and letters are even uncreated, the Quran represents in Islam the eternal speech of God manifest in a book, the Quran is considered a created non-divine expression of the eternal and purely divine.” This is a summary of what your scholars have been saying. Now being eternal in its “very essence” may seem like pretty vague language, but defining the essence of God is not something you expect me to do is it? The fact is, your scholars assert that the eternal divine speech of Allah united with the created finite and non-divine, just as Christ who being eternally existent as the divine will of God united with the created finite and non-divine. Your scholars concede that since the Quran represents an attribute of Allah, that it is not He, however it is not other than he. And therefore what is not other than He has combined with creation. Yes bro they certainly do, but it would be ridiculous to try and convince me that the basis of the Qurans eternality in orthodox Islam is on the “truth” you claim it speaks. If that was the case, it would be no conundrum, there would be no exclusive comparison of the Quran made to Christ, there would be no theological dilemma trying to describe the Qurans relation to Allah, considering the nature of the Quran asserts that it is not Allah yet not other than Allah, there would be happy and healthy Mutazillahs living today, having no problem with proclaiming the eternal truth of the Quran. Man what are you on about?? Their analogy is not based on any assumption at all. The entire analogy (and they made this very clear) is based on finding a comparison between the orthodox belief in the Quran, with the Christian belief in Christ. IT IS BASED ON DOCTRINE, NOT THE SOURCE OF THAT DOCTRINE. Read what they say again man. They say THE ONLY THING IN CHRISTIANITY (according to the Christian belief) that compares to the orthodox belief concerning the Quran is Christ. They are comparing a concept between two belief systems: Professor Yusuf K. Ibish, in an article entitled "The Muslim Lives by the Quran," writes: I have not yet come across a western man who understands what the Quran is. It is not a book in the ordinary sense, nor is it comparable to the Bible, either the Old or New Testaments. It is an expression of Divine Will. If you want to compare it with anything in Christianity, you must compare it with Christ Himself. Christ was an expression of the Divine among men, the revelation of the Divine Will. That is what the Quran i. In his Ideals and Realities of Islam, Seyyed Hossain Nasr writes, The Word of God (the expression “word of God” is not a general expression, it is referring to that active principle/agent which represents God’s own wisdom/will) in Islam is the Quran; in Christianity it is Christ... To carry this analogy further one can point to the fact that the Quran, being the Word of God therefore corresponds to Christ in Christianity and the form of this book, which like the contents is determined by the dictum in heaven, corresponds in a sense to the body of Christ. The form of the Quran is the Arabic language which religiously speaking is as inseparable from the Quran as the body of Christ is from Christ Himself. (My comment is in the brackets above). It doesn’t grant us any assumption concerning scripture. In fact the analogy would be absoplutely ridiculous if it was based on the assumption you assert it grants. Scripture the eternal word, attesting to Christ as the eternal word???? The eternal word cant be manifest in both bro, there is only One eternal word, and that was manifest through Christ, and that manifestation was confirmed by scripture which represents the word of God in a different, yet equally authoritative sense. It was the Spirit of God, the Holy Spirit who is coequal with “The Word” in essence and authority which was responsible for what was written in scripture. That is NOT what i said. Please be careful with your wording, because your arguments are now coming across very deceptively. I will reword your comment so that it complies with EXACTLY what i "admitted", and then i will answer you. Corrections in bold: Now i can respond: Whats this got to do with the truth it holds bro?? The truth it contains is eternal and DIRECTLY REVEALED by the SPIRIT of God (which emanates from God just as The Word does, thus sharing in the divine eternal essence – they are both hypostasis of the One God), the expression of that truth is created, the words expressing the eternal truth are created, yet ultimately guided by and under control of the Holy Spirit – It is God-breathed scripture as it claims, and unless you wish to convince me that there is a possibility the Spirit of God can err concerning the truth of God (as absurd as that sounds), or that the Spirit of God is less authoritative than “The Word” or conveys a different message of truth from that of The Word (which would imply God is a self-contradictory being) then there is no denying its claim to the eternal truth. That’s your Islamic understanding and conjecture. Our belief concerning Christ as the Logos The eternal word of God has nothing to do with him speaking scripture (which is not eternal). He was/IS the Word of God, because he eternally existed in the form of the Logos, who became man at the incarnation. The Logos is an active agent/principle – an explicitly distinct hypostasis - A “person” within the Godhead, subsisting in God’s essence sharing all His attributes of deity, and ultimately IS God. When we Say Jesus IS God, the copula is indicative of Christ being God in a sense of predication rather than identity. The Word is God in a sense of predication, and Christ is The Word in a sense of identity. You must understand that when we speak of Christ as THE Word, that this is a very specific Word, not God's word in general. Be careful with your words! The Bible is a direct revelation – God directly revealed his thoughts, wisdom, and truth to the apostles and prophets and ultimately guided and controlled what they wrote down through His Holy Spirit (which is not an angel, but rather His own eternal Spirit) using them as intermediaries. What it ISNT, is a direct manifestation/expression of the “person” within the Godhead known as the Eternal Logos who was manifest through Christ and Christ alone. And again I emphasise, the analogy was not based on any assumption at all, it is very clear. Yes, which as my one page summarized article emphasizes – is completely irrelevant to the authority of scripture as God’s word in general. That’s what you believe. So on the basis of the “truth of the message” both scriptures claim to hold such truth, and the truth of Gods message is obviously eternal no matter how it is expressed, and therefore I again reiterate that if the comparison your scholars were drawing was based on the “eternal truth” they would have no problem comparing the Muslim Quran to the Christian Bible. Whats this tablet? Is it a physical thing? If it records God’s will, does this mean it too is eternal? Or did it only start recording God’s will at a certain point in time? My sources tell me Hanbali and Ashari thought are both considered Orthodox, what have I said exactly regarding Hanbali thought that you disagree with?? You said: and: and: and: Bro your speaking of God’s will as if it’s a physical thing, otherwise whether or not a “65 kilogram person” was used to express the eternal Logos would not be an issue. This is simply because it doesn’t limit God’s will, since the finiteness of a human body is based on spatial dimensions and God's will is obviously not a material object. God’s not a space-time body bro, His infiniteness, and ultimately the infiniteness/eternality of His will is in an absolute sense, and therefore can easily exist within a finite physical body. .......... Now, Back to what I was saying, this time I will put numbers inside [] to identify the statement, and you tell me which statements are causing you problems. [1] The “form of creation” expressing/manifesting the eternal divine will is INSEPARABLE from this divine will itself. [2] So here is how it goes according to your Islamic scholars: 1) Creation expressing the eternal divine will – is inseparable from the eternal divine will. [3] Combining this premise with the premise YOU YOURSELF established, that “the will of God is not separate from God Himself” – and we draw the conclusion:[4] “the ‘form of creation’ directly expressing the eternal divine will, is inseparable from the eternal divine will itself, [5] and is therefore inseparable from God himself”. (And that my friend is the logic behind why we worship Christ - the Lord and Creator of heaven and earth) Logically speaking, If the Quran teaches that The Spirit is an angel, but wishes to distinguish it from the other angels because its an “archangel” i.e. of a higher rank - then yes that is EXACTLY what the Quran WOULD/SHOULD have said. However, the author of the Quran clearly sees this spirit as being distinct in nature from angels, and thus it is distinguished from “the angels”. You’re only being intellectually dishonest with yourself if you wish to convince yourself otherwise. That’s irrelevant. They play different roles, they have different hierarchies, nonetheless in the end they all share the same angelic nature, they all share the same essence, they are all "angels" and thus to distinguish something from “the angels” implies that this something is not an angel no matter what role or what rank it is. My analogy was PERFECT. I had X being distinguished with Y. Where Y is defined by nature of being (human) – therefore implying that X (the president) is not a human. This is PERFECTLY analogous to the quranic verse, where Y is also defined by nature of being (angel) – therefore implying X (the Spirit) is not an angel. What? Man that’s ridiculous. We’re talking about the nature of a being. Here a Commander is distinguished with the infantry. Neither the word “commander” nor the word “infantry” denote the nature of a being. You’ve distinguished between two separate ranks, yet nonetheless they are both HUMAN. Being an “ANGEL” is not a rank, it denotes a nature of being, just as being a “human” is not a rank, but denotes a nature of being. Therefore if I were to distinguish between the commander and the humans, I would be implying the commander is not a human. However if I distinguish between the commander and the infantry, im distinguishing between two ranks of humans. If I wanted to highlight the commanders’ supremacy over other humans, I would say “the commander and the rest of the humans”, because this includes the commanders identity as a human, but the fact I specifically named him in distinction, implies his supremacy. Im sorry man that’s not concrete. In context of the verses that PROVE the Spirit is not Gabriel, the logical conclusion is that both Gabriel and the Holy Spirit are assigned to carry out the same roles interchangeable. There is no solid reason why we should conclude the holy spirit and Gabriel are one and the same. Here consider the rest of the arguments I used to emphasize why the Spirit is not Gabriel: "Thou wilt not find any people who believe in Allah and the Last Day, loving those who resist Allah and His Messenger, even though they were their fathers or their sons, or their brothers, or their kindred. For such He has written Faith in their hearts, and strengthened them with a spirit from Himself. And He will admit them to Gardens beneath which Rivers flow, to dwell therein (forever). Allah will be well pleased with them, and they with Him. They are the Party of Allah. Truly it is the Party of Allah that will achieve Felicity." S. 58:22 The above passage demonstrates that this Spirit from God is divine, having all of God’s omni-attributes. That the Spirit strengthens all believers demonstrates his omnipresence and omnipotence since this is the only way that the Spirit can be with all the Muslim believers at the same time. The late Abdullah Yusuf Ali agrees since he writes in relation to this passage: "Cf. ii 87 and 253, where it is said that God strengthened the Prophet Jesus with the holy spirit. Here we learn that all good and righteous men are strengthened by God with the holy spirit. If anything, the phrase used here is stronger, ‘a spirit from Himself'. Whenever any one offers his heart in faith and purity to God, God accepts it, engraves that faith on the seeker's heart, and further fortifies him with the Divine Spirit, which we can no more define adequately than we can define in human language the nature of God." (Ali, The Meaning of the Holy Quran, p. 1518, fn. 5365; bold emphasis ours) The next passage lends further support to Ali’s assessment: They ask thee concerning the Spirit (of inspiration). Say: "The Spirit (cometh) by command of my Lord: of knowledge it is only a little that is communicated to you, (O men)!" S. 17:85 According to the hadith literature this verse "came down" when the Jews questioned Muhammad on the Spirit's identity: Narrated Ibn Mas'ud: While I was walking in company with the Prophet in one of the fields of Medina, the Prophet was reclining on a palm leave stalk which he carried with him. We passed by a group of Jews. Some of them said to the others, "Ask him about the spirit." The others said, "Do not ask him, lest he would say something that you hate." Some of them said, "We will ask him." So a man from among them stood up and said, 'O Abal-Qasim! What is the spirit?" The Prophet kept quiet and I knew that he was being divinely inspired. Then he said: "They ask you concerning the Spirit, Say: The Spirit; its knowledge is with my Lord. And of knowledge you (mankind) have been given only a little." (17.85) (Sahih Al-Bukhari, Volume 9, Book 93, Number 554) Here was a golden opportunity for Muhammad to explain that the Spirit was Gabriel, but instead he speaks of it as something mysterious which little is known. Muhammad’s assessment is essentially in agreement with what Yusuf Ali said in his footnote above. So here is my challenge to you for the FOURTH time. PLEASE PRODUCE A SINGLE PASSAGE WHICH IDENTIFIES GABRIEL AS THE HOLY SPIRIT. First of all, you keep erroneously asserting what this major difference is. Let me repeat for you: (also note how I make my statement in an objective manner – emphasis on the caps bro) “…the major difference, is that the Muslims believe because they find it in what CLAIMS to be divine revelation as a result of being the direct expression/manifestation of the eternal word (the quran), whereas the Christians believe because they find it in what CLAIMS to be divine revelation as a result of direct revelation through God’s Spirit indwelling the authors of scripture, literally breathing through them the very truth and word of God, being conveyed through the expression and personality of its human authors.” PROBLEM: This wonderful little story implies there is only cake (“this cake”) and that this one cake was brought to one place – (“here”). From my understanding Muhammed received numerous separate revelations over a period of time in different places, so logically speaking we have the possibility of both the Spirit and Gabriel being used to bring down revelation. I think i made this point already, but no worries bro I’ll keep repeating arguments until the Holy Spirit enlightens your heart. Here is my challenge to you for the FIFTH time. PLEASE PRODUCE A SINGLE PASSAGE WHICH IDENTIFIES GABRIEL AS THE HOLY SPIRIT. Because as far as I’m concerned you attacked neither the roots nor the leaves, but decided to go and attack something that has nothing to do with the tree itself. You’ve got me talking about the canonicity, validity and reliability of scripture – tell me what that has to do with the logic of the incarnation or the logic of the nature of the Quran? Sorry bud, I need more than your "guarantee". It seems rather absurd that Osamma Obdallah (who although has shown to be inept at times – Heres an interesting read: http://www.answering-islam.org/Response ... joints.htm make sure your sitting down when your reading through it) would find it soooo damn hard to explain. Surely he could have said “Well guys, the Arabic indicates certainty, so there really is no problem, except if you choose to take it at face value in English and read the uncertain implication into the word”. But no bro, he finds this very difficult to explain, in fact he assures us that he honestly does not know. Now if the way out of this problem is as easy as you say, then why would he be so perplexed (unless he is ignorant in the linguistics of his own Arabic, the Arabic of his own quran, the quran of the religion he made an entire website to defend). Furthermore, why is there debate about this as a theological issue in the first place, if the answer is as simple as you state?? I mean its not just the word “may” which is implying Allah’s ignorance, but I did give you many other examples which showed his ignorance for different reasons. Shall i paste them?? My Logic in relation to my analogy was as follows: Upon reading the verse in English (and assuming I only know English) I come across a word, which according to my dictionary defines this word in ways that are suitable, and other ways which would be very problematic. If I then see Muslim scholars perplexed over this verse (and understanding that Muslim scholars are only concerned with the Arabic reading), then I can logically deduce that the Arabic counterpart of this English word in question, is implying the same problematic definition I found in my English dictionary. Im sorry bro, you’re reallllly going to have to do better than shed your personal opinion on this issue. I have given you facts, reply with facts. It is not only the word “may” which has caused all the trouble, there’s things Allah “MIGHT” do (in contrast the the Bible that says God WILL do), and things Allah shall “PERHAPS” (in contrast to the Bible that asserts God WILL do once again) do, Allah makes numerical estimations at times (concerning events which are already mentioned in the Bible, events which the God of the Bible made gave definite numerical facts for)…and boy did I give you many many many other examples where the controversy doesn’t even lie in the specific word used, but the actual context which explicitly reveals your allah’s ignorance. I have given you examples that show Muslim scholars/commentators such as Razi, and Tabarsi trying to solve this problem, I showed you excerpts from Mahmoud M. Ayoub's "The Qur'an and Its Interpreters", to reinforce the problems such passages caused Muslim exegetes. Here, for the 5th time: http://answering-islam.org/Shamoun/allahs_ignorance.htm Deal with all the passages in question, or would you like me to paste them? Tell me bro. Do you think his credentials include knowledge of the Arabic language?? Because this is really the only thing relevant to me right now man. Does he??? Sure he does. If so, and the Arabic speaks of Allah’s certainty sooo clearly, and the Arabic counterparts of the word “may” in particular, expressed so clearly this implication of certaint. Then WHY, for heavens sake, WHY would he be so perplexed?? Why does it seem so impossible for him to explain these conundrums?? WHY did Razi and Tabarsi among others try to deal with this issue, if the complication itself was only the result of us stupid people, ignorant in the Arabic language, taking English translations at face value??? NO! He’s having trouble understanding how to compromise the belief in an omniscient God, with verses in the Quran which CLEARLY emphasise his ignorance. “in order that X might know” – This implies that there is a step X must take in order to know something. God cannot be X. But your Quran applies the exact same phrase, where Allah = X. This is just ONE of the many phrases and expressions and passages that show Allah’s ignorance. Or do you want to tell me that Razi, a man quoted by Muhammed M. Ayoub, the author of a book titled: “The Qur'an and Its Interpreters, Volume II, The House of Imran”, was ignorant in his Arabic and perplexed by his Yusuf Ali English translation of the Quran? Please, and IM being very serious - quit this intellectual dishonesty, and stop trying to squirm your way around this one, because you will only look worse as each post goes by. Either find me a reasonable explanation for these conundrums or admit you can’t answer it, and we can leave this issue out for now and get this exhaustive discussion to an end. To cut it short – it emphasizes that the author of the quran was a fallible human being, who wasn’t careful with his use of language, and therefore carelessly and unconsciously fell into such errors. But lets forget that, and go back to the purpose of this whole discussion. I didn’t evoke these theological issues concerning Islam, in order to prove Islam false or to expose problems in Islamic doctrine, but rather to give you your own issues that you must first deal with, before hypocritically accusing Christian doctrine of anything concerning any of these concepts which are similar in a sense (and might I add resolved and easily explained according to our doctrine). This whole topic is about substantiating the logical consistency of the beliefs themselves, not the sources of those beliefs!!! Please stop evading the issue. You’ve gone from “is the incarnation logical” to “how do you know what you believe” – your basically asking me “Is the Bible true” - "is Christianity the right religion", a completely unrelated and gigantic (to say the least) topic to deal with. Please stop with your red herrings, and concentrate on dealing with the issues directly related to the topic which initiated this discussion. *omits irrelevancy* You know what, this discussion is exhaustive enough already, im telling you now, I will not discuss anything else which is not direclt related to this issue, UNTIL you deal with the issues at hand. If I may recall why we even got into the discussion of scripture, it was concerning certain comments my good friend made in ignorance, such as: What your problem is bro, is you cannot admit error. If you were man enough, you would admit that your comments regarding the claim of Biblical scripture were made in ignorance, and that your assumptions were baseless and ultimately false. But what you have done, is tried to divert the topic, and instead you start questioning me concerning the validity, of the claim which you made erroenous assertions on in the first place. It really frustrates me bro and I hope you understand why. Deal with the issues in this post, and God-willing once this discussion hopefully and according to His almighty Will comes to some sort of a resolution, we can start a new thread and we can go through allll these questions, from canonicity of scripture, to the apostleship of Paul, to Biblical archaeology and historicity, the whole shebang my brother. Peace bro |
🌈Pride🌈 goeth before Destruction
When 🌈Pride🌈 cometh, then cometh Shame