Muslim & Christian Discussion ForumCurrently responding to>>> Quran vs. ChristWhat exactly is there to explain? Muhammad ‘Abduh, plainly states that "the Qur'an recognizes itself to be the Word of God, 'ETERNALLY OF HIS ESSENCE'". On the other hand the Qur'an is considered created in the sense that it is manifest in the world of creation through writings and sounds. Al-Ghazali says, 'The Qur'an ... is subsisting in the essence of God.'" Your Quran is considered to be of God’s own eternal divine essence. Do you expect me to explain the essence of God for you? I don’t even think the concept of God’s essence in Islam corresponds to the concept of God’s essence in Christianity according to the way you have been talking about God’s “infiniteness” (or the infiniteness of His “entire” will) being incompatible with the physical finiteness of a human body – anyways I discuss this later. The only thing we need to know is that God’s essence, is unique to God alone obviously – 'The Word' is divine because it emanates from God is of His essence (You've made it clear now that ‘The Word’ in Islam is different from the Christian concept – because in Christianity it is not merely an infinite number of uttered words and thoughts etc. anyways I discuss this later), thus sharing in his divine nature and eternality. So this is one aspect of your hypocrisy that is cleared up – according to orthodox Islam what is eternally existent i.e. UNCREATED (which is a definite attribute of God alone) can combine with creation, and what is divine (of the essence of God) is compatible with what is non-divine, and what is not other than God can be expressed through the creation of God – all these things Christ Himself represents. The reason this “discussion” (it’s a much nicer word isn’t it) has gone on for as long as it has, is because you cant accept that ive pasted around 6 quotes from Muslim scholars describing the nature of the Quran – descriptions and analogies utilizing accepted religious principles within orthodox Islam – descriptions and analogies which I have not asked you to “resolve” because the unresolvable aspect of these descriptions (trying to relate the Quran to Allah in light of the famous Ashari statement) is irrelevant to our original objective, its simply an issue I thought id point out, because it is an issue Christians have resolved quite simply. What I am asking you, is to reconsider aspects of your attacks on the logic of incarnation in light of these statements as far as they are concerned with logical consistency of doctrine itself. If the Quran is divine in one sense subsisting in the very essence of God, and non-divine in another sense, eternal/uncreated in one sense temporal/created in another, then in effect there is this “union”, because one “thing” (The Quran) claims to represent these “paradoxes” according to Islam. This “union” would have occurred as soon as creation started to express what you claim is a “portion” of the divine will. That’s a question you cant answer yet, it involves this “unresolvable” aspect of your religion. Is what you consider the divine will of God a hypostasis of your God? According to everything ive pasted from your scholars, technically speaking yes it is. Did this “hypostasis” become expressed through creation, in effect forming a “union”, well this is where you assert your “oh, but only a portion” – you divide your hypostasis as if He’s (I personify “THE Word” to emphasise His distinctness from God’s word in general) some numerical infinity that you can take “portions” from - this may be the case in your religion but not in mine - anyways I’ll discuss this further on because its obvious there’s a big misconception on your behalf on what “The Word” in Christianity is exactly. In any event what’s important, is that before being expressed through creation, this particular “portion” is claimed to have eternally existed as some sort of “essence” - an essence co-equal to that of God’s essence since it is considered to be emanating from God Himself and whilst you claim this “portion” became expressed through the quran, your scholars maintain that the quran retains the eternal divine essence it had from eternity. Now I cant define what this essence is, nor do I think your scholars can define any further what they believe to be subsisting in allahs essence. The attributes of God, that this “portion” still holds claim to according to everything your scholars have said – is divinity and eternal existence (uncreatedness). Eternal existence and divinity are attributes of God alone. So since you say “no they didn’t” regarding what your scholars have said, let me quickly remind you what they say, using their exact statements as premises upon which I will draw the comment I made, which you outright rejected: Premise 1: “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.” Things to note: The form of the Quran, and the Quran itself are distinguished. The “form” of the Quran is obviously denoting that created/finite aspect of it, therefore the “Quran” denotes that eternally existent, divine “portion” (I will continue to assert this portion word because I want to make you happy). Premise 2: 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]” Things to note: Uncreatedness/eternality are attributes of God alone. Therefore the divine Quran is considered to be “neither he NOR…OTHER THAN HE”. Conclusion: Exactly what I said - Your scholars concede that since the Quran represents attributes 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. It never was the basis of my argument, it is quite irrelevant to my argument. The point I emphasized over and over again, is that this “portion” of the divine will, is still considered to be divine and eternal in the sense it is uncreated (in all the aspects ive already mentioned repeatedly). Uncreatedness is an attribute of God alone, uncreatedness of something would suggest it emanates from God, and is not other than God (if you want to keep hold of your monotheism). My points on infinity come in, when your underlying objection to Christ’s nature, which is based on fallacious presuppositions concerning the nature of THE Word/Logos in Christianity, finally become clear to me. The adjective divine can take on many implications as an adjective depending on how its used bro. Obviously then, the expression “divine revelation” takes on different implications also. In Islam’s claim of divine revelation, the expression indicates that the revelation itself (The Quran) is “emanating from, or being the (DIRECT) expression of a deity”. So yes, logically speaking you should be worshipping your quran. In Christianity divine revelation indicates revelation “Resulting from divine providence”. So in this sense no, we don’t worship our Bible nor is there any reason to. Worship is due to the divine providence responsible for the revelation given to the holy prophets and holy apostles, who in this case is the Holy Spirit – the eternal Spirit who is Lord. The only source of confusion here which we are trying to clear up is the definition of ‘THE Word’. ‘THE Word’ in Christianity is a distinct “person” within the Godhead. HE represents many of God’s attributes from God’s will, to God’s wisdom and logic, even to God’s power. If I were to make a very risky analogy, I would say that what the mind is to a human being, is what “The Word” is to God (don’t go into this man, its not an argument im just trying to provoke some helpful thoughts). I stress its distinctness from God, and stress that It is God in a sense of predication rather than identity, because the identity of God includes both The Spirit and The Word (note my emphasis on the use of definite articles). So from my perspective, discussing a portion of “THE WORD” sounds ridiculous, because “The Word” is not quantifiable, its infiniteness is in an absolute sense that cannot be limited through something that is physically finite (i.e. a human body). ‘The Word’ is not merely an infinite amount of possible words that can be expressed through a book as you seem to portray it, nor is it literally ‘words’ uttered by God, no – In Christianity ‘The Word’ is a translation of the Greek ‘Logos’ which means logic/rationale/divine plan/reason – Christ is also the Wisdom and the Power of God. So what I want to emphasize is, try your best to understand what exactly ‘THE WORD’ is in Christianity, this very specific “person” a very specific Word, and understand the difference between this and scripture as the word of God (God’s word in general) – divine revelation in a very different sense to your understanding of the expression. Once you understand THE Word of Christianity, and what and who He is exactly, separate this from your own Islamic understanding of God’s will and its interaction with the world, and discuss the concept I present to you. Because I see you constantly confusing your Islamic understanding of scripture, and THE Word, and God’s will etc. with Christianity and it is this confusion which is leading this “discussion” to go on forever. Take that up with Ashari bro. I could fit my own theology into his nice little statement, by allowing some conditions within parenthesis: “Christ is not God (in the sense of identity) yet he is not other than God (since he is God in the sense of predication)” Ashari: It is not other than God Well obviously your Islamic concept (as I understand from your arguments) of “The Word” which is simply an infinite expression of ‘words’ and ‘thoughts’ from God, would be impossible to express through a finite book, unless you want to claim that the creation representing it is infinite itself, infinite pages recording God’s infinite thoughts and words. Which comes back to this “preserved tablet”, must be a pretty infinite tablet ay? ‘The Word’ in Christianity was not expressed through letters and words, nor does it exist as a potentially infinite expression of ‘words’. The essence that is ‘The Word’ (which represents the wisdom/logic/rationale/power of God), united with a human body, and was manifest in the person of Christ – it obviously gets deeper than this, but the mysteries of God are endless, so we can only explain it as far as God revealed to His appointed men through scripture. First of all. Remember what I said: When speaking of the Christian Christ – think of the Christian LOGOS/WORD and shut all Islamic understanding of ‘The Word’ out of your system. How can we deify Christ? Simple, he IS God in a sense of predication, he shares God’s divine essence, he represents God’s will, thoughts, wisdom, logic, power (list goes on), he thus posses all the attributes of deity, and all praise and glory is due to Him. Amen. What I was saying, is that Christ during his earthly ministry, obviously did not express to us through his teachings and sayings, all God’s wisdom, and thoughts etc. He gave His disciples and followers, 33 years worth of sermons and teachings, and The Holy Spirit selectively revealed and reminded the apostles of those teachings and sayings God wants us to act upon and base our beliefs upon according to Scripture. But this person – ‘THE Word’, was expressed through Christ, he was not divided, it wasn’t a portion of Him that came down, he wasn’t halved or anything – He is not a physical being, his infiniteness is in an absolute sense, and he was not limited by taking upon himself a physical human body. 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. ... Muhammad ‘Abduh, plainly states that the Qur'an recognizes itself to be the Word of God, "ETERNALLY OF HIS (ALLAH’S) ESSENCE (WHICH IS ‘FULLY DIVINE’)".[21] – my words in brackets. It is claimed to be divine in essence because you consider that portion to have emanated directly from God subsisting in the essence of God. Truth once again is not the basis of any analogy and it is not the basis of what orthodox Islam claims to be the Quran’s eternality. Scripture in Christianity represents the eternal truth, it describes events that were known to have occurred from eternity, scripture guides us to live a lifestyle that God intended us to live from eternity – it clearly represents the truth of God which is eternally existent. The truth of the Bible is eternal. Amen. If this was the underlying point on which to base an analogy, the Quran could be compared to the Gospels, could be compared to the epistles, the Torah, the Psalms etc etc etc. Yes but I was obviously referring to Christs’ identity as the Logos the pre-incarnate eternal word, this was/is his essence from eternity. His human essence was something he “added” at the incarnation and it is not eternal. How is it not?? The divine eternal Word/Logos was revealed through a man. What exactly about the definition of “divine revelation” does this not come “even remotely close to”. Amen. Amen, I believe and confess to the last breath. “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.” Mahmoud Mustafa Ayoub, "The Word of God in Islam" For the second (and I hope FINAL) time, the analogy is based on the nature of the beliefs themselves and not the source of those beliefs! I seriously don’t understand where you get these arguments from. If Christians believed Christ was the expression of the eternal divine Word, because we simply felt like it without deriving it from anything, then that analogy would still hold. If Christians believe Christ is an expression of the eternal divine Word because we found it written inside some cave, and thought that was good enough, then the analogy would STILL hold. The analogy doesn’t presuppose anything, it doesn’t grant any assumptions, its simply an analogy, a comparison between two doctrines OK? And it is the doctrine we are discussing - the logical consistency of doctrine itself, so please CONCENTRATE and stick with the issues at hand. The Bible which is divine revelation in the sense that it is the result of a divine providence - namely the Holy Spirit the eternal Spirit of God, who DIVINELY and DIRECTLY revealed to the Holy Apostles (may their blessings be with us all amen) the truth of God, using their personalities, and form of expression, declaring that The Christ The Son of the Living God who was born, and walked among them, who was crucified and rose from the dead on the third day, was The Eternal Word (remember to chuck out your Islamic understanding of ‘The Word’ when im speaking of it from a Christian perspective) The Glorious Logos who is being since eternity, and remains forevermore. Amen Yes well it seems Islam has a very very different understanding of “THE Word” – which in Christianity is far more, and much different then simply an infinite expression of words concerning the truth of God – which is clearly how you’ve portrayed the existence of “the Word” in Islam. In any event I don’t want to go off topic, but im curious how does this compare with Muhammed? “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.” Mahmoud Mustafa Ayoub, "The Word of God in Islam" Haha how do you define truth bro? Any form of truth is eternal in absolute sense. If I say “the grass is green” I speak a fact – a statement of truth. This did not just become truth the moment God created grass. Before grass even existed, it was the divine plan of God that grass would be green, thus when it came into existence that is how it appeared – and everything from the perspective of God is already done. So how can the truth of God be created? Mutazillahs still regarded the Quran to be the word of God did they not? Did they doubt the truth it holds? If they therefore acknowledge the Quran to be truth. Then how exactly does the “truth of God” become created? It doesn’t and this was not there problem. Unless you wish to convince me thousands (or whatever) of Mutazillahs were put to an early sleep, because they were such an inept people who thought the truth can be created. Come on bro PLEASE. Did I miss something, or are you now telling me that the Mutazillahs actually thought God spoke lies at one stage? ANY analogy is only FAULTY if it errs with respect to the connections and premises that it is based upon – that is the DOCTRINES THEMSELVES. Haha who said it was?? Did I try to convince you that a MUSLIM making an analogy was in turn legitimizing a Christian belief that directly contradicts his own belief??? Come on man please. Personally, I am going to start using this analogy myself. Next time a Muslim wants to understand what Christ is in Christianity I will tell him that his belief in the Quran is the closest thing. I am in NO WAY legitimizing his belief, nor am I granting him an assumption that Muhammed was really a prophet to in turn validate that the Quran truly does represent even a “portion” of the eternal word, im simply drawing a parallel between two doctrines.
And my belief in God stems from the divine revelation of The Holy Spirit to the Holy Apostles and prophets that were before them. How can you tell me, that the Spirit of God and The Eternal Word differ in authority? They both come from ONE authority – the authority of God. They are both co-equal persons within the Godhead, hypostasis of the one true God, acting in unison. I get it from scripture which was divinely revealed, inspired, instigated, guided, and ultimately authored in that sense, by God’s own eternal Spirit – one hypostasis of God attesting to the other – The eternal Word. The Spirit was sent by “THE Word” (again I remind you think Christian idea of ‘The Word’) specifically to the apostles, to carry out the mission assigned to them. Revelation of the New Testament truths John 16.12:"I have many more things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now. But when He, the Spirit of truth, comes, He will guide you into all the truth; for He will not speak on His own initiative, but whatever He hears, He will speak; and He will disclose to you what is to come. He shall glorify Me; for He shall take of Mine, and shall disclose it to you. All things that the Father has are Mine; therefore I said, that He takes of Mine, and will disclose it to you.” I could go on about this forever bro, but It is off-topic, and all you need to acknowledge is that the claim of scripture is indeed a claim to the divine eternal truth, it is claim to be the word of God (generally speaking), it is a claim of divine revelation. In addition you can Read Acts 2:1-5, Read Luke 10:1-20, I mean the list is endless really. That’s right, it MAKES NO SENSE. That was my point. Christ was the eternal Logos, and the only way you see fit to confirm that Christ was the eternal word is if scripture itself also claimed to be the eternal word – but according to the Christian concept of ‘The Word’ this is absolutely ridiculous. He (THE Word) didn’t become incarnate as a man, then come back later sending a “portion” of HIMSELF as scripture – the whole idea is absolutely absurd, there is no way that the Biblical/Christian concept of “The Logos” could be incarnated through a text so to speak – he is not simply an infinite expression of words of God’s truth as I have emphasized. The SPIRIT OF GOD – The Holy and Glorious Spirit came down upon the apostles attesting to Christ The Living Word, teaching them all things and bringing to their remembrance all things said: “"If you love me (Christ speaking), you will obey what I command. And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another Counselor to be with you forever-- the Spirit of truth. The world cannot accept him, because it neither sees him nor knows him. But you know him, for he lives with you and will be in you….All this I have spoken while still with you. 26But the Counselor, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have said to you.” John 14 Sorry bro, your coherence broke up there. But it IS my friend. IT IS. The scriptures make a claim just as powerful as the CLAIM made by the quran, just as powerful as the CLAIM made by the book of the mormons. VALIDATING THIS CLAIM IS NOT RELEVANT TO THIS DISCUSSION, IT IS ANOTHER ISSUE, an issue much broader an issue so RICH I will gladly take it up with you as soon as the LOGICAL CONSISTENCY OF DOCTRINE ISSUE IS RESOLVED. YES OFCOURSE BRO. Did you just realize this or something???????????? Canonicity of scripture: IRRELVANT. Write these questions down on a notepad or something and get back to me later. I could bombard you with website links and books to go buy if you just want a quickie, but I really want to discuss it with you AS SOON as we finish what we started. Don’t try bite off more than you can chew mate. Hip-hip hooray!! All the prophets (authors of the OT) and apostles/prophets (authors of the NT) were messengers of God – appointed for different purposes, different missions, and had different accomplishments. The objective given to the Apostles was made clear when Jesus chose them to be his disciples. They were fishermen, and when Christ called them from their boats he said to them “Come, and I will make you fishers of men”. And then in Acts 1:7-9 we read: “He (Christ) said to them: "It is not for you to know the times or dates the Father has set by his own authority. But you will receive power when the Holy Spirit comes on you; and you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the ends of the earth." God did not personally write the Bible, it is still however God’s word (in general, not ‘The Word/Logos’), because what is being expressed and taught in the Bible is the EXACT truth and wisdom of God given to the prophets and apostles through direct divine revelation by the Holy Spirit – the eternal Spirit of God Himself. So for example the Spirit of God revealed to John (probably more like reminded/reinforced to John) the apostle and disciple of Christ that Christ was the eternal word. Now John could have expressed this a number of ways – however, the way he chose to express it would still be ultimately guided so as to reveal the very truth of God. If John was a simple man, he could have merely started his gospel by saying “Christ, who walked among us, was a manifestation of the eternal Logos”. But he expressed this truth divinely revealed to Him in an expression that corresponds with his personality and that gives us more theological insight: “In the beginning was The Logos, and the The Logos was with God, and The Logos was God” – I could write a whole page essay just on that one verse. Yeah, and the eternal pen? Interesting bro, really. But you didn’t answer my question, which was: My sources tell me Hanbali and Ashari thought are both considered Orthodox, what have I said exactly regarding Hanbali thought that you disagree with??
Bro do you see how you just enforced your Islamic beliefs on Christian doctrine to make your arguments? The Word in Christianity is NOT quantifiable at all, ‘a portion’ of it was never expressed through creation, and our concept of divine revelation has nothing to do with the Logos/Word. Christ is labeled ‘The Word’ because he represents ‘the mind’ of God. He is an incarnation of Gods ‘mind’ so to speak (we’re not talking this literally obviously) because he represents the logic/rationale/wisdom/power/will of God. We say God is ‘The Wise’ and Christ is ‘The Wisdom’, God is ‘The Powerful’ and Christ is ‘The Power’. Therefore in this sense we don’t have a potentially infinite expression of words being literally expressed through the finite, we have a ‘person’ within the Godhead who is infinite in an absolute sense, being manifest through creation which is physically finite, which does NOT limit God since God is not a space-time body.
My statement proves that there is no reason to assume this. The infiniteness of God cannot be limited by physical finiteness, because the words ‘finite’ and ‘infinite’ are used in different senses and therefore there is no contradiction. Dont forget you are trying to prove to me that my CHRISTIAN doctrine concerning the incarnation of 'The Word' according to Christian/Biblical principles is logically incoherent for an omnipotent being, so far you have proved nothing of the sort. [1] & [4] = The “form of creation” expressing/manifesting the eternal divine will is INSEPARABLE from this divine will itself. Compare with what your scholar said: “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.” How am I bro? What I said was pretty self explanatory: “form of creation expressing ‘The divine word’” Adam was not the expression of the divine will, nor was he anything that represented any sort of an attribute or hypostasis of God. Honestly, I don’t see how ANY intellectually honest person can conclude that the Spirit is an angel, considering the Spirit is explicitly distinguished from “the angels”. Let me reiterate the significance this holds: Please just read it again man, for the sake of the Spirit. “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.” Oh brother… The Spirit is distinguished from other beings in terms of their essence. The word ANGEL does not denote rank, it denotes ESSENCE of being. There is a specific essence that angels possess, that is not human, and it is not divine (in terms of God’s divine essence that is). There is GOD, there is ANGELS, and there is HUMANS (and in your case there is these Jinns). These are the main classes of beings/essences. If I were to distinguish X from anyone of these, I would be making it clear that X is not apart of these. So I reiterate: “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.” Again you have fallen into the same error making this new “updated” example no better and no worse than your original one. “MEN” does not denote nature of being as “ANGELS” does! So your example is not analogous. If you want to make your example analogous it would read “That day the general and THE HUMANS will stand forth” - If you want to tell me, that you can read this and say with a straight face, that we can still consider this “general” a human being, then you are only being intellectually dishonest with yourself. Awesome! But that’s not what ive been saying this whole time at all, I take it a step further and assert there is nothing concrete that indicates that the Spirit is EVER Gabriel. 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. Spirit = NOT GABRIEL. Do we agree? With your previous admission you can at least get yourself out of this little mess. But im not. Acknowledging the nature of a claim, and accepting this claim are two different things. Our whole discussion revolves around the claim itself, not the truth of the claim – which is something I don’t want this discussion to delve into at all, because we still have way too much unresolved issues on our hands. Just as you find it necessary that I validate the truth of the claim of my scripture, well I obviously find it necessary on your behalf also – but im trying to make you understand the nature of this claim first, you don’t seem to be taking it very seriously. Im saying, that logically speaking, in light of the fact no passage ever asserts Gabriel is the Spirit, and that the spirit is distinguished from the angels in terms of their being, then that’s how a Muslim must concede. Now on a sidenote, your question asked concerning whether I believe that your Quran claims Gabriel or GOD HIMSELF brings down revelation – what you did was interchange “the spirit” with God. Im just curious: So there’s Allah…and there’s the Spirit from Allah…which is also Allah…do we have a binatarian belief on our hands? First of all, I have clearly proven with an honest and simple/amateur/babyish grammatical analysis, that the Spirit is not an angel. Now why your allah commands his own spirit to stand in line and not speak until allah speaks is your problem not mine - the quran can talk about flying pigs as far as im concerned. In the Holy Bible the Holy Spirit (the spirit of God) is distinguished from God and is said not to speak or act on its own initiative, except when the Father commands. So maybe you could employ this Christian line of thinking and conclude that the Spirit of God is in submission to God, which does not compromise the fact it is an essential part of God, but rather emphasizes that it is interdependent with God rather than independent. Bro that’s not the point. I find it very absurd, and cannot in my sound mind reject as a plausible argument, that Osama, a man who wrote thousands of articles that go to counter Christian claims against Islam (many of which would recquire knowledge of the classical Arabic), cannot explain this issue off away with simply explaining that the Arabic counterpart of the word “may” implies certainity. In fact im pretty sure that the basis of a lot of his articles, are dependent on and stress the implications of the classical Arabic of the quran, to interpret problematic verses in their classical Arabic context. If you really want me to, I could go through his website and pick out at least 10 articles that show him using his knowledge of classical Arabic to make a certain point or argument. In the light of all this, do you think the Arabic counterpart of the word “may” really got him stumped? No it didn’t. I think the context of the usage of the word, implying uncertainty is what got him stumped. For the record, if its concerning Greek I would have a decent idea, because I am a Coptic Christian, and Coptic is derived from the greek language. But anyways, that’s OBVIOUSLY besides the point ofcourse, the fact of the matter is, if there was problematic verses and you asked me why at face value the English translation is problematic, I could easily find you the answer which would lie in the original language of the text. For example, the creation account describes God resting on the seventh day. The word “rest” seems very problematic, if you take it at face value, because it implies God needed to rest as if he was tired or something. But if I went back to the original language, we would see that it is actually implying that he simply abstained from work on the seventh day. NOW here’s the crunch, the only people I’ve heard and ever will hear, being perplexed over why God rested on the seventh day, are people who read the Bible in English and are ignorant of the ancient Hebrew. I’m not going to open up a book titled “The Hebrew scriptures and its interpreters” and find a paragraph written by a Rabbi trying to deal with the issue of God resting on the seventh day – because it is simply NO issue in the Hebrew scriptures. Yep, human beings are fallible we are not perfect and we make mistakes, that is my whole point. My ignorance of the classical Arabic is irrelevant as I see it. Muslim scholars are discussing it, and I honestly and logically cannot see how this controversy is so simply explained just by considering the Arabic implication of the word. It would be like me opening a book named “The Hebrew scriptures and their interpreters” and seeing a Jewish Rabbi trying to explain why God would need to rest on the seventh day – absurd – I mean obviously there is a possibility that this Jewish Rabbi writing a book about “the Hebrew scriptures and their interpreters” does not even know Hebrew…I mean maybe I just cant prove it as fact, but I can make a sound and logical deduction on the issue. Well it was translated to ONE of those 20 possible words, because that ONE word had closer implications than the other 19 obviously. That’s when my line of logic on the situation so far comes in: 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. I wasn’t asserting that in relation to a specific event accounted for in both the Bible and the Quran, that the Bible uses “Will” and the Quran uses “May” (I’ll look further into that out of curiosity). What I was asserting is that the Bible never uses “may” in relation to God at all, it says God “Will” do everything. However despite the usage of the word “may” and “will”, there are certain accounts of the same event in both the Bible and the quran, where the Bible uses definite numerical quantities in relation to certain facts of the event, whilst all the Quran can do in relation to its own account of the same event, is merely estimate. Here lets see: “The (Brethren) sold him for a miserable price, for a FEW dirhams counted out: in such low estimation did they hold him!” S. 12:20 Allah can only guess that Joseph was sold for a few dirhams. Contrast this with the biblical account: "So when the Midianite merchants came by, his brothers pulled Joseph up out of the cistern and sold him for twenty shekels of silver to the Ishmaelites, who took him to Egypt." Genesis 37:28 Here check out this comparison, its an interesting one: Not only does this following account show the God of the Bible to be definite and certain in His words, compared to the allah of the quran who continues to use uncertain language of estimation, but it shows how with regards to the death of the baker, the Quran makes a gross historical error concerning the style of his execution, whilst the Bible avoids this. “….The command is for none but Allâh. He has commanded that you worship none but Him, that is the straight religion, but most men know not. O two companions of the prison! As for one of you, he will pour out wine for….But Satan made him forget to mention it to his Lord. So (Joseph) stayed in prison a few (more) years. The king said: "I do see (in a vision) seven fat kine, whom seven lean ones devour, and seven green ears of corn, and seven (others) withered...But the man who had been released, one of the two (who had been in prison) and who now remembered him after (so long) a space of time, said: "I will tell you the truth of its interpretation: send ye me (therefore)." Read S. 12:36-45 for context. Not only is Allah uncertain regarding the length of Joseph's stay in prison, but also erroneously claims that the baker was crucified. Ibn Kathir comments: <But Shaytan made him forget to mention it to his master.> As was said by Mujahid, Muhammad bin Ishaq and several others. As for ‘a few years’, or, Bida‘ in Arabic, it means three to nine, according to Mujahid and Qatadah. Wahb bin Munabbih said, "Ayub suffered from the illness for seven years, Yusuf remained in prison for seven years and Bukhtanassar (Nebuchadnezzar- Chaldean king of Babylon) was tormented for seven years." (Tafsir Ibn Kathir (Abridged) Volume 5, Surah Hud to Surat Al-Isra', Verse 38, abridged by a group of scholars under the supervision of Shaykh Safiur-Rahman Al-Mubarakpuri [Darussalam Publishers & Distributors, Rihadh, Houston, New York, Lahore; First Edition, July 2000], pp. 170-171; bold emphasis ours) Note what the following secular references state regarding the implementation of crucifixion: "Crucifixion, an important method of capital punishment, particularly among the Persians, Seleucids, Jews, Carthaginians, and Romans [was practiced] from about the 6th century BC to the 4th century AD. Constantine the Great, the first Christian emperor, abolished it in the Roman Empire in AD 337, out of veneration for Jesus Christ, the most famous victim of crucifixion. ... [The earliest recording of a crucifixion was] in 519 BC [when] Darius I, king of Persia, crucified 3,000 political opponents in Babylon." (Encylopaedia Britannica, 1993, Vol. 3, p. 762) CROSS ... Crucifixion is first attested among the Persians (cf. Herodotus, Hist. i.128.2; iii.132.2, 159.1), perhaps derived from the Assyrian impalement. It was later employed by the Greeks, especially Alexander the Great, and by the Carthaginians, from whom the Romans adapted the practice as a punishment for slaves and non-citizens, and occasionally for citizens guilty of treason. Although in the Old Testament the corpses of blasphemers or idolaters punished by stoning might be hanged "on a tree" as further humiliation (Deut. 21:23), actual crucifixion was not introduced in Palestine until Hellenistic times. The Seleucid Antiochus IV Epiphanes crucified those Jews who would not accept hellenization (Josephus Ant. xii.240-41; cf 1 Macc. 1:44-50), ... (The Eerdman's Bible Dictionary, Rev. Ed., 1975) Now contrast this with the more detailed, genuine biblical account: "….‘This is what it means,’ Joseph said. ‘The three baskets are three days. Within three days Pharaoh will lift off your head and hang you on a tree. And the birds will eat away your flesh.’ Now the third day was Pharaoh's birthday, and he gave a feast for all his officials. He lifted up the heads of the chief cupbearer and the chief baker in the presence of his officials: He restored the chief cupbearer to his position, so that he once again put the cup into Pharaoh's hand, but he hanged the chief baker, just as Joseph had said to them in his interpretation. The chief cupbearer, however, did not remember Joseph; he forgot him. When two full years had passed, Pharaoh had a dream: He was standing by the Nile ... Then the chief cupbearer said to Pharaoh, ‘Today I am reminded of my shortcomings. Pharaoh was once angry with his servants, and he imprisoned me and the chief baker in the house of the captain of the guard. Each of us had a dream the same night, and each dream had a meaning of its own. Now a young Hebrew was there with us, a servant of the captain of the guard. We told him our dreams, and he interpreted them for us, giving each man the interpretation of his dream. And things turned out exactly as he interpreted them to us: I was restored to my position, and the other man was hanged. So Pharaoh sent for Joseph, and he was quickly brought from the dungeon. When he had shaved and changed his clothes, he came before Pharaoh." Read Genesis 40:1-15; 41:1, 9-14 for context. Bro, first of all, your replies did not answer my question at all. You basically gave me a commentary on the verses, but you didn’t explain the justification for the use of a word which clearly implies uncertainty, thus making it a topic of discussion for your Islamic scholars. Your desperation is showing man. I find it hard to swallow that he cant explain a simple WORD, making a big deal about how difficult it is to tackle.
It is obvious, I have not fallen into such a fallacy. First of all, I didn’t appeal to his conclusion on a certain issue, I am simply making a logical deduction from the observation that a man quoted by the author of a book entitled “The Qur'an and Its Interpreters, Volume II, The House of Imran”, is trying to tackle the problem of certain verses which indicate allah’s ignorance. Secondly, if you read the link, you would see that the only way you can prove that my logical deduction is baseless is if you Show that either (i) the person cited is not an authority in the field, (what we are concerned with, is their mere knowledge of classical Arabic, because it simply comes down to that according to you) or that (ii) there is general disagreement among the experts in the field on this point. (This one does not apply to my circumstance, because I am not using their conclusion on any issue, im logically deducing something from simply observing the fact that this is an issue being discussed). So lets see. I asked you this question in obvious sarcasm: 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? And you answered: Um, yes I could very well do that and there not be a problem. Well I think any sound minded person sees a problem with this logically speaking…its hard to buy im afraid. The issue we are dealing with here, is not concerning alternative interpretations. We are questioning whether or not the quran in its classical Arabic implies Allah’s ignorance, I say yes it does due to the fact its an issue actually being discussed by your scholars, one they have not resolved conclusively yet. I mean the issue of Christs ignorance in certain aspects, is definitely issue – I acknowledge this, I cant deny it, but the fact its an issue does not mean its unresolvable and there’s an obvious factor to why its an issue, and that is due to the fact Christ had a complete human nature. Many heretical sects have tried to use this to deny his divinity, but for each source you bring forth concluding Christ was not God on the basis of this, I could paste you 10 that show why it is easily resolved within context. Now you come along after these scholars find no answer, and after Osama finds no answer, and say, “well its really very easy, the word in its original Arabic implies certainty” – I find this very hard to swallow in the light of all this. If you came to me and quoted a Rabbi from a source titled “The Hebrew scriptures and its interpreters”, who is being perplexed over why God rested on the seventh day and tries to explain it in vain– this would be an obvious issue that I don’t think I could simply explain away by saying “well the ancient Hebrew word implies abstinence”. Well I have a far serious problem, even worse than your quran’s textual integrity, and that is its validity as any sort of a divine scripture from God at all. But we started a discussion concerning logical consistency of doctrine itself. Once this is resolved we can start looking at validating the sources of these doctrines. Well similarities include the fact that they were all men appointed by God, they had the power to do miracles, and they had the power to prophesy through the Holy Spirit. Differences lie in their ministry. Moses was appointed as a leader for the Jews, whilst the apostles were appointed by Christ to minister to the world and establish His church, from Asia to Africa to Rome to the Middle east to the ends of the world. They were given the gift of speaking in tongues, they also had the power to forgive sins through the Holy Spirit, and the result of their ministry can be seen in the dominance of Christianity in terms of a religion in the world today, which was spread without any violence, without the sword, they never needed to fight to defend the truth they were preaching - they never established an earthly kingdom of Christianity trying to conquer countries and spread the word in such a manner, they were poor simple men who had worked with the power of the Holy Spirit. They had the power of the Holy Spirit and the Spirit alone, all of them ended up being martyred for the truth they witnessed and preached – when I say martyred I don’t mean they died in battle – because they never fought even in defense, yet they were brought before pagan rulers and emperors, confessing the truth of Christ, and when their time was due, they were killed. St Peter according to tradition is actually believed to have been crucified upside down (he wouldn’t let them crucify him like Christ because he didn’t feel worthy). Anyways i will repeat, that we srtarted this discussion concerning the logical consistency of doctrine itself, once this issue is resolved, then we can start discussing validity of the Bible's claims vs the claims of the quran. Peace |
🌈Pride🌈 goeth before Destruction
When 🌈Pride🌈 cometh, then cometh Shame