Muslim & Christian Discussion ForumCurrently responding to>>> Quran vs. ChristAre you serious? Or is just that you haven’t been reading my posts. 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 the eternal speech of God manifest in a book, the Quran is considered a created non-divine expression of the eternal and purely divine. And you keep asking me to avoid using words like “straw men” etc. What do you expect bro? Here lets reiterate: “... Ibn Hanbal went further, and declared that the Koran was uncreated from 'cover to cover', that is, also in its letters and its sounds. In this he was certainly not intending to imitate the Monophysites, but he was flogged for his beliefs.” Mahmoud Ayoub: ”Muslims have also for the most part affirmed that the Qur'an IN ITS ESSENCE IS THE ETERNAL AND UNCREATED WORD OF GOD.” Cyril Glassé continues: "It is a fundamental doctrine of Islam that the Koran, as the speech of God, is eternal and uncreated in its essence and sense, created in its letters and sounds (harf wa jarh). Muhammad ‘Abduh, plainly states that the Qur'an recognizes itself to be the Word of God, "ETERNALLY OF HIS ESSENCE".[21] On the other hand the Qur'an is created in the sense that it is manifest in the world of creation through writings and sounds.[22] Fazlur Rahman: ”... the moral law and religious values are God's command, and although they are not identical with God entirely, they are part of Him. The Qur'an is, therefore, PURELY DIVINE. ... [T]he Word was given with the inspiration itself. The Qur'an IS THUS THE PURE DIVINE WORD "The Qur'an IS God's speech, which he uttered, AND IT IS UNCREATED. Who holds the opposite is a Jahmit, an unbeliever. ….Also, who maintains our sounds, our Qur'an recitation would be created, the Qur'an itself, however, God's speech, is a Jahmit, too. (according to Ibn Abu Ya'la, Tabaqat al-Hanabila, ed. Muhammad Hamid al Fiqh, Cairo 1952) Lets also remind ourselves of the following: The great theological controversy over the Qur'an, a controversy which remains unresolved to this day, concerns the relationship of the Qur'an, as the Word of God, to God Himself. To my knowledge no one has asserted that the Qur'an is God.[26]....He continues a few pages later: Many have written that what is analogous in the Islamic tradition to the Trinity in Christianity are the divine attributes. From the theological point of view this may be true, because, as al-Ash'ari reminded us, they are "neither he NOR ARE THEY OTHER THAN HE." Therefore, divine attributes share in that aspect of ministry ....[27] In response to Mahmoud's denial oft he Divinit of the Quran, Dr. Ernest Hahn rightly notes in his footnote: 26 Mahmoud Mustafa Ayoub, "The Word of God in Islam", Greek Orthodox Theological Review 31.1-2 (1986): 73. One would like to ask Ayoub why he considers the controversy to be still unresolved. Would orthodox Muslims agree? Further, when he notes that he knows no Muslim who states that the Qur'an is God, WHY DOES HE (CONVENIENTLY?) OMIT THE SECOND PART OF THE CLASSICAL ORTHODOX DEFINITION OF GOD'S ATTRIBUTE: "NOR IS IT OTHER THAN HE (God)"? That is not the basis of the Quran’s eternality, and to answer this would be to repeat absolutely everything ive said (read just the above - its pretty well summarised), because you asserted this statement 50 times in different wordings and expressions in your previous post! As I said, your scholars drew an EXCLUSIVE comparison between Christ and the Quran, based on the EXISTING religious principals of orthodox Islam concerning the Quran, and orthodox Christianity concerning Christ. IF the Quran was eternal because it represents what you claim is the eternal TRUTH, i.e. the truth of GOD, then they could EASILY and without any hesitation or obstacles, have drawn the comparison between the Quran and the Bible. In Christianity, The Bible represents the word of God, it represents God’s eternal TRUTH that he revealed to the prophets and apostles. Amen. Let me also repeat a summary of orthodox Islamic (Ashari and Hanbali) thought: The Attributes of God are separate identities; they are eternal and uncreated, subsisting in God's eternal essence. God's attributes "are not He, nor are they other than He. The Word of God (the Quran) is the uncreated eternal attribute of God subsisting within God's essence as a separate identity. The descent of the Quran, its piecemeal revelation, its presence in Arabic and the composition and arrangement of its words and letters are created. Created contexts only express the real thing. Remember this in my previous post which you conveniantly avoided for the second time?: You said: . The latter part of that statement (concerning the "portion" argument) was refuted, and its obvious you have no problem with that since you didnt even address my responses concerning it - so concerning the first half - look how you conveniantly fell in the trap your Islamic scholars are trying hard to avoid, but logically cannot: I said:
Come on man please…does this change the fact Gabriel is an angel??? The term “angel” denotes a particular “nature of being” i.e. the spirit is distinguished with the angels, it is distinguised with thse beings on the basis of their angelic nature, logically implying that the spirit is NOT an angel. Lets discuss the following verse further. [78] The day will come when the Spirit AND THE ANGELS will stand in a row. None will speak except those permitted by the Most Gracious, and they will utter only what is right. If the Spirit was indeed an angel, and the fact it is distinguished is on the basis of hierarchy, then the verse would logically be rendered “the Spirit and the REST of the angels”. Here lets consider an example: the president of the USA is higher in “rank” (in terms of political authority ofcourse) than everyone else in the USA, yet he is equally a human like everyone else. How would it sound if I said (assuming I possess a different nature than that of a human) “the day will come when the president and the humans will….” It obviously implies that the president is not a human. Frankly speaking man, this verse alone logically proves that the spirit is not the angel Gabriel. In evading almost 70% of my entire post, you also missed the rest of the verses and hadith literature which emphasise my point concerning the identity of the spirit for other various different reasons. But that’s ok, selective argument has been a noticeable attribute of yours, pick out what you can manipulate and respond to that, leave out the rest and charge me with blindly accusing you of “red herrings/ straw men/ etc etc”. So here is my challenge to you for the fourth time. PLEASE PRODUCE A SINGLE PASSAGE WHICH IDENTIFIES GABRIEL AS THE HOLY SPIRIT. I should have said “I never meant to imply he was greater”, which im sure you knew is what I meant to say…I assumed the expression translated to “Christ is great”, because of the famous “Allah huwa akbar” which my memory told me translates to “God is great”. But that’s okay brother, you found something trivial in my post that you could jump on, and spent more time talking about it then you did with the 70% of my last post which you evaded, and which were actually related to the theological arguments at hand. I’ll let you have this victory if it makes you happy. Haha yeah man I was counting on it with my life…it was a vital point to my argument, thanks for refuting me and showing my deception and lies. El-Maseeh Huwa'kabeer! My complaint concerning the use of the word “may”, was not based on the possible definitions the ENGLISH word may convey, but rather the specific definition that the arabic itself implies, the specific definition that caused the word to be translated into "may". It is the definition implying uncertainty which is obviously the implication the arabic gives, otheriwse your Islamic scholars would have no problem with the issue at all. However it is clear that they ARE having trouble trying to deal with it, and have not yet come up with a reasonable explanation for it. Ok, you say: And: Let us reason my brother. The English word “may” as we both acknowledge, has a few “definitions” in the ENGLISH language. Now the original Arabic version of this word, may not (and probably will not) necessarily have the same range of implications i.e. the Arabic word would have been translated to “may” for ONE of the specific implications/definitions that the English version of the word conveys. For EXAMPLE (and forgive me for this example I know it’s a bit “farout” but it serves my point exactly): you told me that KABEER translates to GREAT. Now I looked up the word great in my dictionary, and I got 9 defintions, and interestingly enough the 9th definition of the word “great” in my particular dictionary is “In an advanced stage of pregnancy”. Now it is obvious that when you say “Allah huwa akbar” you are saying God is great on a COMPLETELY different level and with a completely different implication to what the 9th definition in my English dictionary of the English translation implies. So it would indeed be ridiculous if I came to you and tried to say that there is a problem in the Muslim expression “Allah huwa akbar” because it may be implying God is in an advanced stage of pregnancy. BUT lets change the situation around and assume for arguments sake, that Muslim scholars are perplexed over this Arabic expression, and are trying hard to find a resolution for why the Quran implies that Allah is in an advanced stage of pregnancy, I could then LOGICALLY DEDUCE that the 9th definition in my English dictionary of the English translation of kabeer - “great” is the definition and implication of the corresponding Arabic word “kabeer” because this is creating a problem for Muslim scholars, a problem that would not exist, if the Arabic word “kabeer” in its Arabic context could never imply such an absurd definition. SO, what I am asserting to you is, that the very implication of the English word “may” for which it was used, as a translation of its Arabic counterpart, was indeed for the definition that implies uncertainity. What is the basis of this assertion? The basis of my assertion is the fact it is this problem of “uncertainty” that your scholars are having trouble dealing with (and it is obvious that Muslim scholars aren’t going to be perplexed over the implication of a verse based on its ENGLISH translation), and as far as I know, they have not found a suitable resolution for this problem. Let me remind you that Osama Obdallah (whose opinions and work I assume you respect and regard, considering the fact you pasted his article) could NOT answer this question himself, let me quote: “I HONESTLY DON'T HAVE AN ANSWER” and “I am not certain if that's what it really means”, and lets not forget, “ITS REALLY DIFFICULT TO EXPLAIN”. And now let me also reiterate the argument that the word “may” was used as the English translation for its Arabic counterpart, on the basis of the specific definition of the English word which implies uncertainity – and that this is evident in the fact your scholars are perplexed by the issue and have not come to a logical conclusion for it. Here please address the issues below which I am pasting for the second time: And now let us turn to your Muslim shcolars to see how these Quranic passages were used by some Muslim groups to show that Allah was an ignorant deity: Interestingly, much like we find certain Christian groups using biblical passages to deny God's omniscience, some Muslims have used these Quranic passages to prove that Allah doesn't know the future. And much like orthodox Christians have responded to these erring Christians, we find certain Muslims also responding to the attacks on Allah's omniscience. Mahmoud M. Ayoub lists Ar-Razi's response to those who used S. 3:140 as proof that Allah does not know the future: "Razi is interested in the theological problems raised by the phrase ‘in order that God may know.’ He argues that ‘the literal sense of God's saying, "in order that God may know" would suggest that God alternated [the days] in order to acquire knowledge. Obviously, this is impossible of God.’ Razi cites verse 143, and a number of other verses where this phrase, or one like it, occurs. He alleges that Hisham b. al-Hakkam, a well-known disciple of the Sixth Imam Ja’far al-Sadiq, used such verses to argue that God does not know incidents until they occur. ‘The answer of the theologians to this argument," Razi says, "is that rational proofs have conclusively established that no change ever occurs in God's knowledge. The linguistic usage of calling something that is known with the metaphor "knowledge," or something that is subject to power with the metaphor "power" is well known. Thus any Qur'anic verse the literal sense of which indicates acquisition of knowledge [by God] actually means the occurrence of a known. Razi then presents several possible interpretations of this phrase. ‘First that sincerity may be distinguished from hypocrisy and the person of faith from the rejecter of faith. Secondly, that the friends (awliya’) of God may know, though He attributes this knowledge to Himself by way of exalting them. Thirdly, that God may judge in accordance with this distinction, but such judgment cannot happen except with knowledge. Finally, that God may know this [i.e., faith and patience] to have actually occurred from them, although He knew that it would occur. This is because recompense must be accorded for something which actually is, and not for something which is known to occur in the future.’ Razi seems to prefer the first of these interpretations (Razi, IX, pp. 14-1 " (Ayoub, The Qur'an and Its Interpreters, Volume II, The House of Imran [State University of New York Press, Albany, 1992], p. 330; bold emphasis ours) http://answering-islam.org/Shamoun/allahs_ignorance.htm So now enough of your rabbit trails AND DEAL with these passages which show that Allah doesn't know everything, since you used ignorance as a basis to reject Jesus' Deity. Let me also remind you of the fact, that I used various other examples from your Quran to portray your Allah’s ignorance, which are not even based on the word “may” and which you conveniently evaded with your selective style of argument. I skipped the repititive arguments, which were simply paraphrased arguments of what I had already answered…and I answered absolutely every issue you brought up. You did not even give a valid justification as to why almost 70% of my post has been left unanswered and why you selectively pick arguments you feel you can manipulate, misrepresent and then provide an answer for. This is one argument which I would dismisss and declare: “omitting straw men”. WHY would I be justified in doing so?? Because I have already given you, a whole page summary as to why it is IRRELVANT to the Bible being the “word of GOD” whether or not we consider our scripture (THE word of GOD) to be the expression of the ETERNAL DIVINE LOGOS (represented through Christ and Him alone. Amen.) and why it is irrelevant that the speech used to convey God’s eternal truth is the created speech and expression of human authors. So since you'd obviously feel more comfortable with the presence of a response, I will continue repeating the same responses, until you deal directly with the answer: The divine inspiration of Scripture starts with God. The words of the Bible were not self-initiated by the writers. Peter wrote: “Concerning this salvation, the prophets, who spoke of the grace that was to come to you, searched intently and with the greatest care, trying to find out the time and circumstances to which the Spirit of God in them was pointing when he predicted the sufferings of Christ and the glories that would follow.” (1 Peter 1:10,11). In 2 Peter 1:20-21, the apostle writes: ‘But know this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture is a matter of one’s own interpretation, for no prophecy was ever made by an act of human will, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God.’ Peter is unequivocally claiming that the prophetic Scriptures are not a human but a divine work, that the authors wrote under the control of the Holy Spirit, and therefore that the Scriptures come from God. The fullest statement on the divine inspiration of Scripture, however, is found in Paul’s second letter to Timothy (3:15-17): “From childhood you have known the sacred writings which are able to give you the wisdom that leads to salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work.” Paul clearly states here that all Scripture is inspired by God. The apostles were confident to make such claims for their own writings because Jesus had promised them that the Holy Spirit would guide them in all truth, thereby enabling them to write the New Testament Scriptures (John 16:13). “Inspiration” is a translation of the Greek word theopneustos. Theopneustos literally means “God-breathed.” This translation was derived from the Latin Vulgate Bible where the word inspiro is used in 2 Timothy 3:16 to translate the word theopneustos. The emphasis is that Scripture has been breathed-out by God. Though men wrote the Old and New Testaments, it is God who worked through them to write exactly what he wanted. By their own testimony the Scriptures are not merely the product of man, but are authored by God himself. This does not mean that men are not intimately involved in the process but rather that God, working through the personalities of the authors, so controlled the process and the individuals that the final product was exactly what he wanted said. The author was guided to go where God wanted him to go, not where he wanted to go. Thus the Spirit of God guaranteed the accuracy of every thing that was written. This process extended until the time the document was written. The divine author of Scripture is God the Holy Spirit. Exactly how this process worked is a mystery. Scripture asserts that this did happen without explaining exactly how it happened. And therefore, the Scriptures are infallible and inerrant because they are given by God and are an authoritative expression of his will and truth. In addition, the Lord divinely selected the writers of Scripture – there was no volunteering for the job. The ultimate source of scripture is God the Holy Spirit, yet God used human instruments to compose the books. When one reads the Scriptures, it immediately becomes apparent that the various authors employed different writing styles and different vocabularies. This gives evidence of the human side of Scripture. The writers of the Old and New Testament were not merely stenographers who mindlessly wrote what God dictated to them. Their own experiences and personalities were involved when the various books were being composed. Ultimately, however, the final result was supernaturally guided by God. Therefore, it is proper to say that the divine inspiration of the Bible has its source in God but that human instruments were used in writing and recording God’s Word. This is the biblical teaching on the subject. Christ’s attitude to the Scriptures is also supremely important. Since he is God, then all that he teaches must be true and authoritative. Jesus clearly taught that Scripture is inspired by God. He regarded it as truth—infallible, inerrant, historically reliable, authoritative for living, and an all-sufficient rule of faith. He could say, for example, when speaking with the Pharisees or Sadducees, ‘Have you not read what God said?’ and then quote from Scripture (Matt. 22:31-32). In Matthew 4:4-10, Jesus repeatedly answers Satan by using the Old Testament as the Word of God, saying, ‘It is written.’ He maintained that not one jot or tittle would pass from the law until all was accomplished (Matt. 5:17) and that the Scriptures cannot be broken (John 10:35). In the prayer to his Father on the night before he was crucified, Jesus declared that ‘Thy word is truth’ (John 17:17). Jesus also used the Word of God as an ultimate standard of authority when he came into conflict with other people. He rebuked men with Scripture; correcting their false concepts, teaching and misinterpretations of Scripture by using scriptural proofs. Matthew 22:23-33, for example, describes how Jesus told the Sadducees that they were greatly mistaken in their denial of the resurrection because they did not know the Scriptures or the power of God. Then he quoted a passage from the book of Genesis as an authoritative declaration from God to correct them. It is highly significant that Christ never appealed to tradition as a standard of authority; instead he used Scripture to correct the errors of tradition. His entire life was submitted to the authority of Scripture. In quoting passages from the Old Testament during his conflict with Satan in the wilderness, Christ was applying them to his own life and thereby demonstrating that he was under the authority of Scripture. His victory was accomplished through obedience to the Scriptures, as he used them as the ultimate authority for every area of his life. At another time, speaking of his relationship with his Father, Jesus said, ‘I know him and keep his word’ (John 8:55). From beginning to end, Christ’s life and ministry were governed by the authority of Scripture. As well as testifying to the truth of the Scriptures by submitting himself to their authority, Christ also declared their inspiration as he fulfilled in his life, death and resurrection the Messianic prophecies they contained. Over and over again he said, ‘This is being done in order that that which is written might be fulfilled.’ Christ’s perfect fulfilment of the Old Testament Scriptures can be seen in any cursory examination of some of the more prominent Messianic prophecies: I HOPE WE CAN UNDERSTAND THIS. Now you say comments, basically implying the same arguments such as: And: And: Now the arguments you make (although irrelevant to the discussion) are indeed ridiculous because you keep imposing your Islamic idea of divine revelation to invalidate the Biblical scriptures claim of divine revelation. It is only necessary for YOU as a Muslim according to YOUR Islamic theology, that Christ himself personally authenticate what was written in the scriptures, because according to your ISLAMIC theology, Christ was a mere messenger who had the injeel revealed to him, and who in effect supposedly or somehow wrote some text or authenticated some text which then became corrupt. This is the Islamic claim which you are presupposing in this argument to be valid, and thus your invalidating the Jewish/Christian Scriptures claim of divine revelation on your Islamic understanding of what the Bible is and how it was divinely revealed. This is the main error underlying your whole argument. Let me ask you, can we trace Christ’s words in the Quran back to Jesus????? Certainly not. What are you going to say in response, you’re going to tell me that Muhammed who claimed divine revelation, had revealed to him what Christ said. Well I will tell you that the apostles who claimed divine revelation, had revealed to them (more like reminded to them, since the gospel writers and many others were witnesses and disciples of the historical Christ) by the Spirit of God what Christ said. To go deeper into this, we would in effect then start analyzing the VALIDITY of the claims of scripture, which would then start going off topic. The issue we are concerned with is the claim of scripture itself, and both the Quran and Bible CLAIM to be the word of God, for different reasons, and via different forms of revelation, NONETHELESS, both make the claim to be authored by God and ultimately claim to reveal the truth of God. If I may recall why we even got into the discussion of the divine revelation of scripture, it was concerning certain comments my good friend made in ignorance, such as: And: And: Obviously you saw the fallacy in your statements, and decided to turn the topic of discussion to the textual integrity and authenticity of scripture. Yes, and my theological belief is based on supreme evidence supporting the scriptures connection to the disciples and apostles appointed by Christ - The Lord, and inspired by the Holy Spirit - The Lord, just as your theological belief goes back to Muhammed who you believe was inspired by “the spirit” (whose identity is being questioned) acting on behalf of your Allah. Boy do I have the burning desire and urge to deal with those specific accusations…but i repeat that this is going off to a completely different issue now isn’t it, one that is totally unrelated to the issue at hand which has nothing to do with authenticating or validating the claim of divine revelation…and you get frustrated when I accuse you of using “red herrings”?? Peace bro |
🌈Pride🌈 goeth before Destruction
When 🌈Pride🌈 cometh, then cometh Shame