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?
It's a very, very simple question I'm asking you.
Now you said:
“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.”
Ok, and what is the eternality in the essence of the words of the Qur'an. You don't seriously expect to paste a sentence without explaining what you mean by it, do you?
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.
Actually, that's not what they say. The reason this "debate" has gone on for as long as it has, is because you paste around 6 quotes from Muslims regarding descriptions of the Qur'an which are NOT found in either the Qur'an or Sunnah, which means this is Kalam, or theology, and then you step back and say "resolve!". So I say fine, I WILL resolve, but derive a single coherent position from what the Muslims are saying. Then you say something like "but they said it was eternal!" and I ask you what that means for a word to be eternal.
But let's get back to your statement here:
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.
Let's take it step by step. God's words are eternal and divine because they came from the divine, yes. United with the created, finite, and non-divine? When was there a union exactly? From where did you pull this out of? You consider God's words written on a piece of paper a union? Or wait, a hypostatic union is it? From where do you get this theological point about unionized essences, and if you claim my Islamic scholars are saying this, bring me their evidence from the Qur'an itself and Sunnah.
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.
Actually, no they didn't. They said God's Word represents an attribute of God, and God's word represents all of God's Will, this is NOT equivalent to the Qur'an, because the Qur'an is a part of God's Word, and the part is not synonymous with the whole.
Your entire argument is based around the fact that the Qur'an claims to have inside it recorded All of God's Will, that's where your points on infinity come in. However, the Qur'an is NOT God's Word Manifest, it is only a part thereof. It's eternality is it Truth and exact expression of 600 pages of God's Will.
So the Qur'an is NOT an attribute of God and it IS other than He. You are trying to make the Qur'an equivalent to "God's Word" as a whole, and you use the words interchangeably, when this is absolutely incorrect. All of God's word is an attribute of God, the Qur'an is not all of God's Word, and it is NOT He.
Whether the Quran is a PORTION of the Divine Will still makes it a part of that Will, and therefore must be Divine.
Ok and we said that's TRUE. So define what is "divine". Divine doesn't mean God, divine also means emanating from God.
From now on you should never use a word without defining it. Have you ever heard of the expressions "divine revelation" or "divine guidance"? Is the adjective telling you to worship these things? No, the adjective is telling you that divine means this:
Of, relating to, emanating from, or being the expression of a deity
Unless you want to argue that God's Will is ONLY divine in its entirety, and that its individual parts are not (which would be a non-sensical statement) then you are really not denying anything I am saying.
I'm very much denying what you're saying but I'm not denying that God's word or a portion of it are divine, because the whole or the part both emanate from or are expressions of God. That's a fundamental definition of divine, man. Flip open your dictionary, go look at when divine is used as an adjective in your OWN FAITH. Do they mean the thing is divine because it should be worshipped, or do they mean it's divine because it came from God? How about "divine laws?" Is it starting to register?
Furthermore, as I stated, the Quran is not simply a portion of the Diivne Will, it is also believed to be the very Speech of God, and as such is fully divine.
Yes it's fully divine, it's completely from God, but it is merely a recorded portion of the infinite Divine Will that has sustained the entire Universe since its creation and is perpetually occurring and manifesting itself. All of that Will CAN'T be contained in 600 pages.
So in that sense, Jesus (according to Christians) and the Quran (according to Muslims) do not exhaustively reveal God, since God has also revealed himself in other ways. But this does nothing to refute the claim that Christ (according to Christians) and the Quran (according to Muslims) are the eternal Word/Speech of God and fully divine in essence.
Something is either God or it is not. The Qur'an is not God nor does it cover all of God's Will. If you sincerely believe the same about Jesus then how can you deify him? And for the hundredth time, YES, the Qur'an is eternally True and eternally the Word of God, it is forever True and shall forever be recorded as a portion of the Will of God, it will never change nor will it ever be negated, for eternity. Is it fully divine in essence? What does it mean to be divine in essence. If now by divine you mean possessing all the attributes of the deity, then no, the Qur'an is not fully divine in essence, though it is divine in essence in the sense that it was revealed by God.
Considering the fact that the metaphor is solely based upon the fact Christ and the Quran in their respective religions are considered what is eternally divine in essence, manifest through creation – then the only way the metaphor no longer holds is if you wish to go against the view of 4-5 of your scholars and declare the Quran to be created and only eternal in the sense it “represents the eternal truth” (which im still laughing about by the way).
Haha, yeah it is pretty funny when you bring together quotes from Muslims giving their theological explanations about the Qur'an, and while admitting that for ages people have had different views on it, claim that they are all saying the same thing. I'll tell you EXACTLY what you need to know about the Qur'an which any of those scholars would agree about:
The Qur'an is not created
The Qur'an is eternally True
Now you forgot to answer my question. Since you disagree that the Qur'an's words are JUST eternally True, tell me what about else about them is eternal? What else could be eternal about direct divine revelation? Compose yourself and let me know when you're ready.
Haha no comment…seriously, I love you bro. Hang in there!
Haha, I love you to bro, take a look in a dictionary:
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=divine
as I said " From now on you should never use a word without defining it. Have you ever heard of the expressions "divine revelation" or "divine guidance"? Is the adjective telling you to worship these things? No, the adjective is telling you that divine means this:
Of, relating to, emanating from, or being the expression of a deity"
Let me repeat, according to Muslims the VERY ESSENCE of the Quran is divine, eternal, not just the message it conveys.
Ok stop right here. Run me through EXACTLY what you mean. The VERY ESSENCE of the words of the Qur'an are divine and eternal. WHAT ABOUT THE WORDS COULD BE ETERNAL OR DIVINE besides their Truth and the undisputed fact that they came from the Lord? Say it very clearly.
Likewise, the VERY ESSENCE OF Christ is eternal, divine, not just the words which he spoke. Stop misrepresenting my points.
I'm still waiting for you to dare to make a point, you keep backing away from explaining what you mean. And now you're saying that the "very essence of Christ is eternal, divine" when I have you quoted as saying that Christ didn't have one essence, he had two, separate and never mingling, how on earth do you claim that this hypostatic union concept is even remotely close to the definition of "divine revelation" which is exactly embodied by the Qur'an?
" Christian/Biblical theology does not entail that God compromised his divine nature for a human nature nor imposed the characteristics of one upon the other, but rather He allowed for both natures to co-exist in a perfect hypostatic union."
" His divinity parted not from his humanity for a single moment nor a twinkle of an eye, they were united without mingling, without confusion and without alteration."
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.
Yes, that's exactly my point, there IS no conundrum because the analogy is based on the notion that both beliefs in the analogy have justification in divine revelation, which they DON'T, because in Christianity the entire notion that Christ is God's Complete Word is built upon the Bible. Even Muslims believe that Jesus (pbuh) was God's Word, but not ALL of God's Will in its infinity.
Second of all, the descriptions were made of God's Word in relation to God, not specifically the Qur'an (you use the two interchangeably to make your points)
And there would STILL be no healthy Mutazillahs living today because they claim that God's Word in the Qur'an is created and not eternal and therefore not eternally True, as in there was a time directly before the Qur'an was revealed on Earth when the Qur'an wasn't true (because they don't believe in Al Laoh Al Mahfuz) from which the text of the Qur'an is a part).
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:
Which is why the analogy is FAULTY. He's saying if you had to compare this belief, which is based on divine revelation itself, with another belief, it would have to be the Christian concept of Jesus. And if you gave the gentleman 20 more seconds, he would have extended the analogy to the Sikh's Adi Granth as well: the Guru/Word. That doesn't extend the legitimacy of the beliefs in any sense, that's why it's an analogy.
Scripture the eternal word, attesting to Christ as the eternal word????
That's right, otherwise on what do you base that belief? Every belief about God should stem from divine revelation.
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.
So how can anything be equally authoritative as God's eternal word? From where do you personally get the idea that Jesus is God's word manifest if not from your Scripture which is NOT God's eternal Word? Exactly how DO you make sense of that when you say things like " Scripture the eternal word, attesting to Christ as the eternal word?" From your perspective, the Scriptures "confirmed" Jesus' status for those who had lived to witness both, but for people like YOU, you don't have the actual fact to have it confirmed, you base EVERYTHING on Scripture, even the information that the Scripture CONFIRMED what "actually was true" according to the SCRIPTURE. Do you not see how circular that is? And if it was circular because it revolved around divine revelation that would be one thing, except it's not even.
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.
Very fancy, but my question is on what do you base the belief that it is God-breathed? Were its writers Messengers of God? If so, why did their gospels even have to be chosen over others if the writers were Prophets?
He was/IS the Word of God, because he eternally existed in the form of the Logos, who became man at the incarnation.
From what divine revelation do you derive this belief?
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.
Oh I see! So do you regard the authors of the Bible as you regard Moses (pbuh) ?
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.
But the reason they don't is because the Bible is NOT the exact word of God, the Qur'an was not even phrased by men. Though probably they would have made the analogy with the ten commandments as a simplified version.
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?
Ahhh, NOW we're talking brother, now we're talking. The real theological debates revolve around the preserved tablet from which the Qur'an comes and not the Qur'an itself. I'm going to find you a link on some info asap.
My sources tell me Hanbali and Ashari thought are both considered Orthodox, what have I said exactly regarding Hanbali thought that you disagree with??
Well you have to understand the subtle distinctions.
Ashari is a school of Islamic theology, and theology really has no place in Islam in terms of what someone needs to do and believe, do you get what I'm saying? Islamic philosophy includes the rationalists and the anti-rationalists like Asharis and to an extent Al Ghazzali, but a Muslim could have never heard about any of their opinions and still be an excellent Muslim. These theological schools emerged to explain things for themselves, but few base their rationale on the Qur'an and Prophetic tradition.
Hanbalis are part of the four main madhabs, or schools of jurisprudential thought, including Shaf'ii, Hanafi, Hanbali, Malki. These bros differed on deriving jurisprudential rulings from the Qur'an and Hadith, all their jurisprudence is considered on an equal basis, you just have to choose between them. However, the Hanbalis are notorious for taking some hadiths about God literally, especially anthropomorphizing hadiths, not that imam Hanbal was an anthromorphist, but this is what became of his school of thought, here read these, VERY interesting stuff, and stuff you can compare to Christianity:
http://homepage.ntlworld.com/masud/ISLA ... thesky.htm
http://homepage.ntlworld.com/masud/ISLA ... asudq5.htm
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.
I'm not speaking of it as if it is physical, but as if it is quantifiable, and apparently it is because that's what divine revelation is, it's a portion of the divine will.
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.
I have a problem with this statement because of the sheer fact that God existing within one of His creations makes him dependent thereon.
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)
I disagree with (1) and the conclusion (4). You make it seem that anything God plays a part in creating becomes a part of Him. Exactly how divine do you believe Adam (pbuh) was? God's spirit was breathed into him.
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.
Wow man, and this?
I mean seriously be honest, you STILL can't see that the "Trusted Spirit" is an angel and NOT God?
78:37 (From) the Lord of the heavens and the earth, and all between, (God) Most Gracious: None shall have power to argue with Him.
78:38 The Day that the Spirit and the angels will stand forth in ranks, none shall speak except any who is permitted by (God) Most Gracious, and He will say what is right.
78:39 That Day will be the sure Reality: Therefore, whoso will, let him take a (straight) return to his Lord!
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.
The whole point of distinguishing Gabriel from the other angels is to show the difference in rank, never does it say Gabriel has a difference essence.
We’re talking about the nature of a being.
Yes we are, so take a clear look:
78:38 The Day that the Spirit and the angels will stand forth in ranks, none shall speak except any who is permitted by (God) Most Gracious, and He will say what is right.
It's like my infantry example, or even better yet, "That day the general and his men will stand forth…" Same analogy.
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
ohhhhhhhhhhhh hahaha, no bro, every time you read the word "spirit" in the Qur'an it's not always talking about Gabriel! If that's what you've been saying this whole time then I agree with you. But it's good that I figured out what you're trying to say. Sometimes spirit means soul, sometimes spirit means God's spirit (which was used to create Adam and Jesus for example) and sometimes, especially when used as "Trusted Spirit" and referenced with the angels or transmitted the Qur'an, it means Jibreel.
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)
Yeah I completely agree here that this "spirit" is not Gabriel, the "spirit" is not ALWAYS Gabriel in the Qur'an, everyone agrees with that.
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.
Yes bro, and here the spirit isn't Gabriel either, it's the actual spirit of man, the soul.
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
Not at all, because now you're deconstructing the analogy from an atheists' perspective, who thinks they're BOTH wrong. Since the Muslim is talking, and you're asking me to resolve what the Muslims scholars are saying and why they made that analogy, there is no "claim" on their part.
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.
hahaha, ok bro, ok. So you're saying sometimes Gabriel brought down revelation and sometimes God Himself did? The revelation is a single revelation, yes it was revealed in different places over time, but bring ONE proof that the revelation is discontinuous in style or meaning or that it is EVER distinguished by who brought it at each place.
I think i made this point already, but no worries bro I’ll keep repeating arguments until the Holy Spirit enlightens your heart.
Haha, that's nice of you bro, I'm feeling very comforted already!
Here is my challenge to you for the FIFTH time. PLEASE PRODUCE A SINGLE PASSAGE WHICH IDENTIFIES GABRIEL AS THE HOLY SPIRIT.
Here's my favorite
78:38 The Day that the Spirit and the angels will stand forth in ranks, none shall speak except any who is permitted by (God) Most Gracious, and He will say what is right.
"No but wait, here it's God's spirit standing along with the angels not talking except when God tells his spirit not to talk…" I can't wait to here the explanation.
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?
That's only one part of it, the fact that the analogy is qualified with the fact that the very belief that makes the analogy hold is itself not validated by divine revelation, or as you indicated one with somehow variable authenticity but equal authority. The other part is that God's Word is distinguished in its entirety from the Qur'an, which is not done with Jesus (pbuh). Now if the analogy was about the "Preserved Tablet" and Jesus (pbuh), that would be a more interesting and in my opinion a more cogent analogy.
It seems rather absurd that Osamma Obdallah (who although has shown to be inept at times make sure your sitting down when your reading through it) would find it soooo damn hard to explain.
Um, do you know who Osamma Obdallah is? Neither do I. I've even emailed the guy to make suggestions on his website to tone it down a bit, he's NOT a scholar, not even close. In fact, I think he's just someone like you or me who decided to make a website.
But no bro, he finds this very difficult to explain, in fact he assures us that he honestly does not know.
And I don't have a doubt in my mind that he's being very honest here, he may in fact 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).
It's not like that at all bro, you can't take the Qur'an to an Arabic person and get them to give you an indepth exegesis of it, that takes an INCREDIBLE amount of knowledge in classical Arabic grammer and vocabulary which is not spoken often today. I don't even claim to have the knowledge really, so there's no shame at all in Osama's ignorance. It would be like me hitting you with questions about why the Aramiac quotes of Jesus were translated the way they were, or why the Greek and Latin because English the way it did. You'd have NO idea.
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??
Yes please, paste what I said about them as well so we can start from there, it was in the last thread.
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.
But that's not logical because you have a word in Arabic, and you have some 20 words in English you can replace it with, each of these words in English, when defined in an English dictionary, will themselves branch out and further corrupt the meaning of the original word.
And that's one of the great parts of the Qur'an. To this day people pay especially close attention to why God chose the words He did to convey certain messages, and quite often they aren't just words that fit the meter of the Qur'an, they are the most powerful word available in the language to complete the thought.
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.
Bring them here and we'll take a look. In fact, bring the passage that says God shall Perhaps do something and the Biblical passage that says that God WILL do the same thing. I'd like to see concerning what events this happens.
And these were my replies to those same passages, remember? Where did you disagree exactly?
Here's my reply:
May, from dictionary.com
Used to express contingency, purpose, or result in clauses introduced by that or so that: expressing ideas so that the average person may understand.
This applies to these quotes
"If a wound hath touched you, be sure a similar wound hath touched the others. Such days (of varying fortunes) We give to men and men by turns: that Allah MAY KNOW THOSE that believe, and that He may take to Himself from your ranks martyr-witnesses (to truth). And Allah loveth not those that do wrong. Allah's object also is to purge those that are true in Faith and to deprive of blessing those that resist Faith. Did ye think that ye would enter Heaven without Allah testing those of you who fought hard (In His Cause) and remained steadfast? S. 3:140-142
Say: "I know not whether the (Punishment) which ye are promised is near, or whether my Lord will appoint for it a distant term. He (alone) knows the Unseen, nor does He make any one acquainted with His Secrets.- Except an messenger whom He has chosen: and then He makes a band of watchers march before him and behind him, That He MAY KNOW that they have (truly) brought and delivered the Messages of their Lord: and He encompasses all that is with them, and takes account of every single thing." S. 72:25-28
He Who created Death and Life, that He may try which of you is best in deed: and He is the Exalted in Might, Oft-Forgiving;- S. 67:2
In this quote, God is directly addressing Muhammad (pbuh), asking Muhammad how he (Muhammad) could know whether or not the blind man would take heed of the reminder. More than one of the scholars of Tafsir mentioned that one day the Messenger of Allah was addressing one of the great leaders of the Quraysh while hoping that he would accept Islam. While he was speaking in direct conversation with him, Ibn Umm Maktum came to him, and he was of those who had accepted Islam in its earliest days. He (Ibn Umm Maktum) then began asking the Messenger of Allah about something, urgently beseeching him. The Prophet hoped that the man would be guided, so he asked Ibn Umm Maktum to wait for a moment so he could complete his conversation. He frowned in the face of Ibn Umm Maktum and turned away from him in order to face the other man.
(He frowned and turned away. Because there came to him the blind man. And how can you know that he might become pure) meaning, he may attain purification and cleanliness in his soul.
(Or he might receive admonition, and the admonition might profit him) meaning, he may receive admonition and abstain from the forbidden.
He frowned and turned away. Because the blind man came unto him. What could inform thee but that he MIGHT grow (in grace) Or take heed and so the reminder might avail him? S. 80:1-4 Pickthall
And this:
Then, it may be that you will give up part of what is revealed to you and your breast will become straitened by it because they say: Why has not a treasure been sent down upon him or an angel come with him? You are only a warner; and Allah is custodian over all things. S. 11:14 Shakir
(So perchance you may give up a part of what is revealed unto you, and that your breast feels straitened for it because they say...) The meaning here is that he (the Prophet ) may be compelled to give up the Message due to what they (the polytheists) say about him. However, Allah goes on to explain: "You (Muhammad) are only a warner and you have an example in your brothers of the Messengers who came before you. For verily, the previous Messengers were rejected and harmed, yet they were patient until the help of Allah came to them.''
Yet it may be, if they believe not in this statement, that thou (Muhammad) wilt torment thy soul with grief over their footsteps. S. 18:6 Pickthall
(It may be that you are going to kill yourself with grief, that they do not become believers.) [26] meaning, maybe you will destroy yourself with your grief over them. Allah says:
(Perhaps, you would kill yourself in grief, over their footsteps, because they believe not in this narration.) meaning the Qur'an.
(in grief) Allah is saying, `do not destroy yourself with regret.' Qatadah said: "killing yourself with anger and grief over them.'' Mujahid said: "with anxiety.'' These are synonymous, so the meaning is: `Do not feel sorry for them, just convey the Message of Allah to them. Whoever goes the right way, then he goes the right way only for the benefit of himself. And whoever goes astray, then he strays at his own loss, so do not destroy yourself in sorrow for them.'
And this:
Allâh said: "You are granted your request, O Mûsa (Moses)! And indeed We conferred a favour on you another time (before). When We inspired your mother with that which We inspired. Saying: ‘Put him (the child) into the Tabût (a box or a case or a chest) and put it into the river (Nile), then the river shall cast it up on the bank, and there, an enemy of Mine and an enemy of his shall take him.’ And I endued you with love from Me, in order that you may be brought up under My Eye, When your sister went and said: ‘Shall I show you one who will nurse him?’ So We restored you to your mother, that she might cool her eyes and she should not grieve. Then you did kill a man, but We saved you from great distress and tried you with a heavy trial. Then you stayed a number of years with the people of Madyan (Midian). Then you came here according to the fixed term which I ordained (for you), O Mûsa (Moses)! And I have Istana'tuka, for Myself. Go you and your brother with My Ayât (proofs, evidences, verses, lessons, signs, revelations, etc.), and do not, you both, slacken and become weak in My Remembrance. Go, both of you, to Fir'aun (Pharaoh), verily, he has transgressed (all bounds in disbelief and disobedience and behaved as an arrogant and as a tyrant). And speak to him mildly, PERHAPS he may accept admonition or fear Allâh." They said: "Our Lord! Verily! We fear lest he should hasten to punish us or lest he should transgress (all bounds against us)." He (Allâh) said: "Fear not, verily! I am with you both, hearing and seeing." S. 20:36-46 Hilali-Khan
Much in the same way that Muhammad (pbuh) was told to speak to the blind man and not pre-judge whom will accept the message or delay in giving it to them.
And this
It may be thou will kill thy self with grief, that they do not become Believers. S. 26:3
(It may be that you are going Bakhi` yourself,) means, destroy yourself -- because of your keenness that they should be guided and your grief for them.
(that they do not become believers.) Here Allah is consoling His Messenger for the lack of faith of those among the disbelievers who do not believe in him. This is like the Ayat:
(So destroy not yourself in sorrow for them) (35:8 ).
(Perhaps, you would Bakhi` yourself, over their footsteps, because they believe not in this narration) (18:6). Mujahid, `Ikrimah, Qatadah, `Atiyyah, Ad-Dahhak, Al-Hasan and others said that:
(It may be that you are going Bakhi` yourself,) means, `kill yourself.' Then Allah says:
(If We will, We could send down to them from the heaven a sign, to which they would bend their necks in humility.) meaning, `if We so willed, We could send down a sign that would force them to believe, but We will not do that because We do not want anyone to believe except by choice.' Allah says:
(And had your Lord willed, those on earth would have believed, all of them together. So, will you then compel mankind, until they become believers.) (10:99)
(And if your Lord had so willed, He could surely, have made mankind one Ummah...) (11:118 ) But Allah's will has acted, His decree has come to pass, and His proof has been conveyed to mankind by mission of Messengers and the revelation of Books to them. Then Allah says:
(And never comes there unto them a Reminder as a recent revelation from the Most Gracious, but they turn away therefrom.) meaning, every time a Scripture comes from heaven to them, most of the people turn away from it. As Allah says:
(And most of mankind will not believe even if you desire it eagerly.) (12:103)
(Alas for mankind! There never came a Messenger to them but they used to mock at him.) (36:30)
(Then We sent Our Messengers in succession. Every time there came to a nation their Messenger, they denied him...) (23:44). Allah says here:
(So, they have indeed denied, then the news of what they mocked at will come to them.) meaning, they denied the truth that came to them, so they will come to know the news of the consequences of this denial after a while.
Tell me bro. Do you think his credentials include knowledge of the Arabic language??
The Qur'an is written in classical Arabic, not just "Arabic", and no not any Arab off the street is certified to talk about Classical Arabic, some wouldn't even be able to understand a sentence of the stuff, I would know.
Because this is really the only thing relevant to me right now man. Does he??? Sure he does.
No, he doesn't. He knows Arabic though, he can get the general gist I'm sure, but he can't go in depth as to the roots of words.
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??
Because he doesn't have the knowledge to counter that argument?
It's like if I took your younger sibling and dumped on them Jewish intellectual attacks on Christianity, they would run away crying because they just don't have either the information or the logic to counter the claims. It's a logic fallacy to assume that there is no explanation just because SOMEONE could not come up with one. It's like if someone said "somebody tried to convert my grandfather but failed, therefore that other religion is FALSE". No, that's not what it means at all.
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???
This is an important point. Because Razi and Tabarsi aren't just dealing with those passages, they are wondering about the concept of predestination in general and trying to find a middle ground between it and free will. The difficulty in understanding knowable information and freedom of choice is a theological debate in all faiths, though even I disagree with Razi and Tabarsi on certain points, and that's the nature of theology.
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.
No, because as you recall the may is following a "that". In arabic the construct is almost identical with the verb follow a "L dash".
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?
Um, yes I could very well do that and there not be a problem. Do you even hear yourself? "Are you telling me that a man quoted as an authority in a book by another man could be wrong?!" I even think there's a logical fallacy dedicated to that, bro, let me find it:
http://www.datanation.com/fallacies/aa.htm
Please, you KNOW what you're doing here. I wouldn't even do the same to you with a straight face, "are you saying that there's an alternative explanation to what THAT Christian man here said when quoted in THIS Christian man's book".
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.
I already answered it but you refuse to accept my answer. Why? Because THAT OTHER GUY couldn't answer that. So I'm telling you to go ask an authority if you don't believe the kid in the forum.
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.
Haha, mmhm, someone accidentally forgot that God was omniscient and slipped a "may" clause in? Considering sheer internal consistency of the Qur'an over a 23 period revelation, THIS is what your famed "author" slipped up on? And the funny part is that you don't even entertain the possibility that you as someone ignorant of classical Arabic could be wrong. It's either you don't understand what was said because you Ctrl-F'd "may" into the Yusuf Ali OR the Qur'an was written by a man who stressed God's omniscience hundreds of times yet forgot it in those verses. But if that's what you want to believe, it's seriously up to you, if that's where you choose to draw the line and decide is what happened, I mean that's an integral part of faith as well, when you choose to stop asking questions.
concepts which are similar in a sense (and might I add resolved and easily explained according to our doctrine).
I still think the authenticity of your very Scripture is a sticking point, before we even move on to theological debates.
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.
It's both and I've been very patient with your red-herring away arguments that strictly derail the validity of the analogy. Not only do I say the analogy is qualified (because not both beliefs are based on authenticated texts) but the very comparison of the Qur'an as a limited portion of God's Will and Jesus (pbuh) as God's Will manifest is not sound.
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.
And that's exactly what we've been doing, except you swat everything away and then complain that you have nothing left to argue against.
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.
Actually I've consistently answered your questions AND asked you the most important question of all: do you consider the authors of the Bible divinely guided as you would consider Moses (pbuh) was guided?
If you seriously want to start a new debate or end this one, all you need to do is answer that question, your answer may certainly change the tide of the conversation, and I want to know what you think.
What's the difference between the authors of the Bible in their inspiration and Moses' (pbuh) according to you?
Peace bro