What was the nature of Jesus' (alayhi salam) birth?

[MustafaMc]

Martinz, from a rational point of view, I agree with you that a virgin birth is not reasonable as people aren't parthenogenic - Greek origin (virgin + birth). I have actually thought about the birth of Jesus (as) due to my scientific background as a plant geneticist and breeder.

Theoretically, there are 2 cases where a mammalian mother could produce offspring without a male partner.

The first case is where a primary oocyte (diploid = 2n) does not undergo the reductionary cellular division (meiosis) to form eggs (haploid = 1N) which would then descend into the uterus and 'somehow' begin embryogenesis. In this case the offspring would be genetically identical to the mother, hence female. We know that humans originate from the mating of 2 different individuals with the combining of genetic material from both. This mating gives rise to individuals that are 'heterozygous' (Aa vs AA or aa) for a large number of genes.

The second case is where the unfertilized haploid (1n) egg would 'somehow' attach to the uterine wall and begin mitotic division, but undergo an initial cellular division failure after the first nuclear division had occurred. In this case, the cells would have 2 copies of the same set of chromosomes and the progeny would be what is called a doubled haploid. The progeny would be 'homozygous' (AA or aa) for every gene and, therefore, again female.

Now human parthenogensis has been induced in the lab to create human stem cells from unfertilized human eggs; however, we know that the mating of closely related people often results in children with genetic birth defects. This is because we are carriers of an undefined number of deleterious genes (a) that are masked by the presence of a functional gene (A) on the other chromosome. A human embryo resulting from a doubled haploid would most likely be lethal due to an excess of these deleterious genes in a homozygous (aa) state.

Since both of these cases would result in a female progeny if they occurred, Jesus could not have been formed by an explainable 'freak of nature' parthenogenesis. Therefore, there are 3 more alternatives.

The easiest to explain is that Mary had either consensual or forced intercourse with a man. In the first case, she would be a fornicator which is unacceptable to my understanding of Mary's high moral standing. In the second case, Mary would not to be blamed, but as in the first case it would make Jesus an illegitimate son which is the Jewish view of Jesus. I reject both of these because they are disrespectful of Mary and Jesus and because it is contrary to what Allah (swt) said in the Quran.

The second alternative is that Allah (swt) miraculously created sperm that fertilized one of Mary's eggs and the third alternative is that Allah (swt) miraculously created an embryo in Mary's uterus that subsequently went through normal embryogenesis resulting in Jesus' natural birth as a human. I believe in the last choice because it is consistent with the Quran, "Lo! the likeness of Jesus with Allah is as the likeness of Adam. He created him of dust, then He said unto him: Be! and he is." 3:59

[Grace Seeker]

I believe in the last choice because it is consistent with the Quran, "Lo! the likeness of Jesus with Allah is as the likeness of Adam. He created him of dust, then He said unto him: Be! and he is." 3:59

This last choice you describe is also how I understand the meaning of

Matthew 1

18 This is how the birth of Jesus the Messiah came about: His mother Mary was pledged to be married to Joseph, but before they came together, she was found to be pregnant through the Holy Spirit.

20 But after he had considered this, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream and said, “Joseph son of David, do not be afraid to take Mary home as your wife, because what is conceived in her is from the Holy Spirit.

or

Luke 1

31 You will conceive and give birth to a son, and you are to call him Jesus.

35 The angel answered, “The Holy Spirit will come on you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you. So the holy one to be born will be called the Son of God.

There are many differences between the Quran and the Bible with regard to Jesus' nature, and some things are specified in one account that are not in the other, but still I don't believe that there is any essential difference in our understanding of the actual cause or nature of Jesus' birth, only what that birth means.

Also, despite what others (not you Mustafa) have tried to put into the mouths of many Christians, I see nothing in the Bible, the writings of the early church fathers, nor any catechism produced by succeeding generations of Christians ascribing to the historical understanding of orthodox Christian faith that the should lead one to conclude that Christian theology teaches Jesus to be the result of any sort of biological procreation any more than Islam does.

[MustafaMc]

This last choice you describe is also how I understand the meaning

Do I understand you correctly that you agree with the "third alternative is that Allah (swt) miraculously created an embryo in Mary's uterus that subsequently went through normal embryogenesis resulting in Jesus' natural birth as a human"? If so, do you also agree with the Quran 3:59, "Lo! the likeness of Jesus with Allah is as the likeness of Adam. He created him of dust, then He said unto him: Be! and he is." For Allah (swt) to have created Jesus it must mean that he did not exist prior to being created. At what point did Jesus become divine?

[Grace Seeker]

Do I understand you correctly that you agree with the "third alternative is that Allah (swt) miraculously created an embryo in Mary's uterus that subsequently went through normal embryogenesis resulting in Jesus' natural birth as a human"?

I do believe that God miraculously created an embryo in Mary's uterus and that this embryo matured just as every human embryo matures and when born was named Jesus.

If so, do you also agree with the Quran 3:59, "Lo! the likeness of Jesus with Allah is as the likeness of Adam. He created him of dust, then He said unto him: Be! and he is."

I don't know that God spoke at all in the creating of the embryo in question. The Qur'an reports this, the Bible does not. Considering that I accept the Bible as my authority, my knowledge of this particular embryo's creation is that I cannot say one way or another about any declaration such as "Be!" But I will certainly not exclude it from the realm of possibility, as it does parallel how God spoke the world into being.

For Allah (swt) to have created Jesus it must mean that he did not exist prior to being created. At what point did Jesus become divine?

Now, this is a conclusion that your reach from your interpretation of the Qur'an. It is not something that (at least in this passage) is specifically stated by the Qur'an. However, my reading/interpretation of the Bible leads me to a different conclusion. My understanding is that in Jesus God is with us (Matthew 1:23). My understanding is that in Jesus God becomes flesh and dwells with us (John 1:14). Logic does not say that a uncreated spiritual being who is all powerful and able to conform nature to do as he wills cannot embody created matter. Thus I affirm the creation of the embryo, and that is the beginning of the person we know as the man Jesus. But that point of creation is not the beginning of the God who from before all time and all creation has always existed as one triune being.

You ask at what point did Jesus become divine? Jesus didn't become divine. The divine became Jesus.

My understanding of Islam is that Muslims believe God places our human spirits (al-ruh) within the embryo, but that they are actually previously created in heaven. (I may need to be corrected on that point.) So, does that make each one of us pre-existent beings? Rumi says in his book, Masnavi, that the reason why a child cries the first moment after it is born on earth is because it realizes its exile from the higher place. Yet, Islam does not understand the human being to be an uncreated being, even though our spirits are.

This is where Islam and Christianity differ with regard to Jesus. Christianity teaches that the human body (embryo) is indeed created, but that embryo was the flesh in which dwells the pre-existant and eternal second person of the Trinity, God the Son. So it is that Jesus is born with two complete natures, a human nature and a divine nature, in his one body.

You might rightly ask how two natures can inhabit one being, the answer is I don't know. I only know that this is the conclusion I draw from my understanding of what the scriptures teach with regard to Jesus, that he is both fully human and fully divine at the same time. Likewise, I don't know how it is that God places our human spirits within our human bodies, but I do believe that he does this, completely aside from my own lack of understanding as to how he does so.

(Of course, another difference between Christians and Muslims is that Christians don't believe that our spirits are pre-existant and that only God is. So, our spirits are created along with the creation of our physical bodies. But that's a rabbit trail for another thread.)

So, to restate my answer to your above question in slightly different words that I hope are understood as still saying the same thing-- it was at the very moment when the divine became Jesus and the body (embryo) of Jesus was created in which the divine would dwell, only then did Jesus begin to exist, and the eternally existing God was from that point in time incarnated as Jesus.



I don't expect those answers to satisfy you in the sense of creating agreement. But I do hope it helps to comprehend better how it is that Christians understand the divine/human nature to co-exist in the person of Jesus.

Now, important though your questions are, and because I believe you asked them sincerely seeking to understand I wanted to answer. However, still I feel we have strayed far from the topic of this thread and have ventured into discussion that more appropriately belongs in a discussion of the Trinity. So, unless you have something specific to ask in order to clarify my initial statement related to agreeing with you regarding the creation of the embryo Jesus. Let's wrap up this part of our discussion. Any follow-up questions created by this post should probably be moved to another thread.

Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.

When you create an account, you can participate in the discussions and share your thoughts. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and make new friends.
Sign Up

[MustafaMc]

I feel we have strayed far from the topic of this thread and have ventured into discussion that more appropriately belongs in a discussion of the Trinity. So, unless you have something specific to ask in order to clarify my initial statement related to agreeing with you regarding the creation of the embryo Jesus. Let's wrap up this part of our discussion. Any follow-up questions created by this post should probably be moved to another thread.

I would like to pursue this train of discussion as you raise some interesting points. To that end, I have requested a new thread, "What is the nature of Jesus' (as) birth?"

[Ramadhan]

My understanding of Islam is that Muslims believe God places our human spirits (al-ruh) within the embryo, but that they are actually previously created in heaven. (I may need to be corrected on that point.) So, does that make each one of us pre-existent beings? Rumi says in his book, Masnavi, that the reason why a child cries the first moment after it is born on earth is because it realizes its exile from the higher place. Yet, Islam does not understand the human being to be an uncreated being, even though our spirits are

You baffle me with the rest of your sentences.

But the underlined words caught my attention. Did you actually say that in Islam we believe that spirits are uncreated?

Is that one of you stealth, sly lies that you attribute to Islam?

(I'm, not surprised if it is the case)

[MustafaMc]

But the underlined words caught my attention. Did you actually say that in Islam we believe that spirits are uncreated?

My understanding of what he said was that our souls existed before we were conceived and that the soul joined our bodies during pregnancy. I believe that he was implying that our souls are not created. Allah (subhana wa ta ala) knows best the nature of our souls.

[Ramadhan]

My understanding of what he said was that our souls existed before we were conceived and that the soul joined our bodies during pregnancy. I believe that he was implying that our souls are not created. Allah (subhana wa ta ala) knows best the nature of our souls.

Even if the soul is not created in this world and it was pre-existed, they are still created, right?


But GS charged that muslims believe that soul is not created, even though everything in the qur'an and ahadeeth tell equivocally that everything is created but Allah SWT.
hence, my suspicion that he purposefully inserted that, in the middle of his usual long-winded sentences.

[MustafaMc]

Even if the soul is not created in this world and it was pre-existed, they are still created, right?

GraceSeeker actually brought forward something that I had previously thought about as well.

I remember the hadith about seeking intercession and it says of Adam, "So they will go to Adam and say to him. 'You are the father of mankind; Allah created you with His Own Hand, and breathed into you of His Spirit (meaning the spirit which he created for you); and ordered the angels to prostrate before you; so (please) intercede for us with your Lord." The part in parenthesis is an interpretation of the meaning and not part of the hadith. This also brings to mind the ayat 66:12 "And Mary, daughter of 'Imran, whose body was chaste, therefor We breathed therein something of Our Spirit. And she put faith in the words of her Lord and His scriptures, and was of the obedient." and ayat 21:91 "And she who was chaste, therefore We breathed into her (something) of Our Spirit and made her and her son a token for (all) peoples."

Allah knows best the meaning of these hadith and ayat and the nature of our souls. However, my understanding is that the nature of Jesus is as the likeness of Adam. As for myself, I am a creature that was created by the Creator to worship Him.

[MustafaMc]

I cannot say one way or another about any declaration such as "Be!" But I will certainly not exclude it from the realm of possibility, as it does parallel how God spoke the world into being.

In the Bible Jesus (alayhi salam) is referred as the "Word" John 1:1 as he is in the Quran 3:45 "(And remember) when the angels said: O Mary! Lo! Allah gives you glad tidings of a word from Him, whose name is the Messiah, Jesus, son of Mary, illustrious in the world and the Hereafter, and one of those brought near (unto Allah)." I believe in the truth of the Quran and that Allah (subhana wa ta ala) has speech that is befitting of his Majesty.

Now, this is a conclusion that your reach from your interpretation of the Qur'an. It is not something that (at least in this passage) is specifically stated by the Qur'an.

No, it is from my understanding of the word "create" which is "to bring into existence". The Quran clearly states that Allah (swt) created (brought into existence) Jesus (as).

Logic does not say that a uncreated spiritual being who is all powerful and able to conform nature to do as he wills cannot embody created matter.

Perhaps, your logic allows for this, but mine does not. As I have stated previously I don't know the nature of the human soul, but I have trouble understanding that God can enter a human body and at the same time exist outside of that body and have a conversation with Himself. So also I don't see how He can sit at the right hand of Himself. Those things are illogical in anyone's book.

Thus I affirm the creation of the embryo, and that is the beginning of the person we know as the man Jesus. But that point of creation is not the beginning of the God who from before all time and all creation has always existed as one triune being.

You ask at what point did Jesus become divine? Jesus didn't become divine. The divine became Jesus.

Herein lies the difficulty of Christianity being able to explain how Jesus (as) is fully human and fully divine. This is another illogical doctrine.

My understanding of Islam is that Muslims believe God places our human spirits (al-ruh) within the embryo, but that they are actually previously created in heaven. (I may need to be corrected on that point.)

This is not different from what I believe, but again I am unclear as to the nature of the soul prior to our birth.

Yet, Islam does not understand the human being to be an uncreated being, even though our spirits are.

Well, above you said, "God places our human spirits (al-ruh) within the embryo, but that they are actually previously created in heaven" which denies that we believe the soul is not created. Perhaps, this is something that you believe and I misunderstood that you see it as what Islam teaches.

Christianity teaches that the human body (embryo) is indeed created, but that embryo was the flesh in which dwells the pre-existant and eternal second person of the Trinity, God the Son. So it is that Jesus is born with two complete natures, a human nature and a divine nature, in his one body.

I don't see how the spirit or soul of Jesus being existent prior to his birth is different from that of Adam.

You might rightly ask how two natures can inhabit one being, the answer is I don't know. I only know that this is the conclusion I draw from my understanding of what the scriptures teach with regard to Jesus, that he is both fully human and fully divine at the same time. Likewise, I don't know how it is that God places our human spirits within our human bodies, but I do believe that he does this, completely aside from my own lack of understanding as to how he does so.

You see a distinction between the first part of what you said and the last sentence. I see they are one and the same.

(Of course, another difference between Christians and Muslims is that Christians don't believe that our spirits are pre-existant and that only God is. So, our spirits are created along with the creation of our physical bodies. But that's a rabbit trail for another thread.)

This explains the distinction I made above.

So, to restate my answer to your above question in slightly different words that I hope are understood as still saying the same thing-- it was at the very moment when the divine became Jesus and the body (embryo) of Jesus was created in which the divine would dwell, only then did Jesus begin to exist, and the eternally existing God was from that point in time incarnated as Jesus.

In what form does Jesus now exist relative to the Father?

I don't expect those answers to satisfy you in the sense of creating agreement. But I do hope it helps to comprehend better how it is that Christians understand the divine/human nature to co-exist in the person of Jesus.

Your explanation was actually quite helpful to my understanding and I see more agreement with what you wrote than usual.

[truthseeker63]

I view the virgin birth miracle as as a miracle like Jesus spoke in the cradle as a baby or infant am I right that Jesus was the only Prophet who spoke in the cradle as a infant the virgin birth and speaking in the cradle and the other miracles are not proofs of Jesus being God.

[Grace Seeker]

Your explanation was actually quite helpful to my understanding and I see more agreement with what you wrote than usual.

I'm glad for both. I suspect that there are many more things on which we are, if not in total agreement, more aligned than not by virtue of having complimentary understandings. Unfortunately (at least in my opinion) far too many of the threads in "Comparative Religion" seem to focus on contrasting our differences rather than comparing our similiarities.

In what form does Jesus now exist relative to the Father?

This really is, in my opinion, one of the big overlooked questions of Christian theology. I'll not be able to do it justice here, but out of respect for your openness try to at least float a few ideas.</p>

It is good that you asked the question, "In what form does Jesus now exist relative to the Father?" That is quite a different question than if you had asked the question "relative to God?" for that would have muddied the waters from the start. And the distinction between the two questions shows that from a Christian perspective we are talking about the nature of the Trinity.

Not sure if this is what you are getting at (so let me know if I misunderstand), but the question might also have been asked, "Is Jesus still in his physical body at present?"

And not trying to be evasive, but I don't know. I can only speculate. So, what follows is just that, the result of me processing thoughts and not final conclusions that I would necessarily reaffirm even a few days from now.

Clearly the Christian scriptures speak of Jesus ascending to heaven in bodily form, of him sitting on a throne and reigning from there, and of his glorious return. All of these have led many Christians to have a picture in their mind of some sort of throne room in heaven where Jesus presently sits in discrete bodily form just as he occupied here on earth....many, but not all.

There is another group that views this language and even the witnessed and prophecied events themselves as being metaphorical. Yes, the disciples may have seen Jesus rise into heaven, "taken up before their very eyes." But that doesn't mean that Jesus is "up there" any more than heaven itself is.

Heaven, after all, so this group would argue (and in my mind convincingly so) isn't a physical realm that one could get into their spaceship and with enough fuel fly to. Heaven is where God reigns, it is the spiritual realm where all that occurs is in accordance with his will. Our concrete and finite minds have trouble conceiving of such abstractions and so we create images that we are familiar with to add shape and form to our image of heaven. But heaven is not so much about these projections of material things as it is about the projection of the will of God.

And if this is true of heaven, where Christ is, then would it not be true of Christ himself?

Now, I just caught myself having made a change from answering your question about Jesus, to talking about Christ. I didn't make that change intentionally, but unconsciously, and yet it too speaks to your question more than those who prefer short and simplistic answers might realize.

Those gospel passages that have Jesus himself speak of this heavenly reign are:

Jesus said to them, “Truly I tell you, at the renewal of all things, when the Son of Man sits on his glorious throne, you who have followed me will also sit on twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel. (Matthew 19:28)

Jesus replied, “But I say to all of you: From now on you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of Power, and coming on the clouds of heaven.” (Matthew 26:64)

“I am,” said Jesus. “And you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of Power and coming on the clouds of heaven.”

You will note that the prophecy is with regard to "the Son of Man" and alludes to a scene from Daniel:

Daniel 7:
13 “In my vision at night I looked, and there before me was one like a son of man, coming with the clouds of heaven. He approached the Ancient of Days and was led into his presence. 14 He was given authority, glory and sovereign power; all nations and peoples of every language worshiped him. His dominion is an everlasting dominion that will not pass away, and his kingdom is one that will never be destroyed.

Even before the advent of Christianity, the Jews understood this passage to be a Messianic prophecy. And I believe that the way Jesus uses this image from Daniel that he is applying the prophecy to himself. But is it a literal and historical event that is to unfold? Given that the image comes from Daniel's dream, and the interpreation of that dream, provided in the extended passage itself, shows that the images of the beasts are to be taken not as literal beasts, but more as representative of other powers, it seems appropriate to understand this image of the son of man the same way. If so, then it is saying that all of this "authority, glory and sovereign power", and even being worshipped by "peoples of every language" is due him, and the image of him sitting at a literal and physical throne is just another way, a symbolic way of saying this.

Yet, all of that said, I still can't exclude it from the realm of possibility. After all, I also believe that the spiritual realm is every bit as real as the physical realm. I don't think that references to spiritual entities are just allusions to an abstract idea, but to real beings. And though they aren't concrete physical beings, they are nonetheless still very much real. But do these spiritual beings have form and substance? None that my physical senses are able to discern. Yet since they are real, perhaps if I had better developed spiritual senses I might actually perceive form and substance in the spritiual world the same way that I do in the physical world?

We know that when Jesus was transfigured before the disciples they saw him in a way that they had never seen him before. We know that in his vision of the end times, John describes Jesus in a way that resembles a human being, but is unlike any human I have ever seen:

Revelation 1:
13and among the lampstands was someone like a son of man, dressed in a robe reaching down to his feet and with a golden sash around his chest. 14 The hair on his head was white like wool, as white as snow, and his eyes were like blazing fire. 15 His feet were like bronze glowing in a furnace, and his voice was like the sound of rushing waters. 16 In his right hand he held seven stars, and coming out of his mouth was a sharp, double-edged sword. His face was like the sun shining in all its brilliance.

But, this too is yet another vision. So, what does all of this mean? It leads me inconclusive as to the form in which Jesus is found today.

If one were to read the writings of George Elerick you would see that he conceives of the second coming of Christ (Jesus' return if you will) as already taking place whenever followers of Jesus live out their faith in relationships with others in ways which exhibit the presence of the kingdom of God (and hence his will being done) in the world today. To some Jesus is present wherever and in whatever form his people are present as "the body of Christ" and there is no other presence to look for or anticipate. At the other end are those who think that Jesus is simply hanging out in heaven listening to harp music, perhaps playing a game of checkers with the Father in the throne room. Personally, I find both of those views too extreme and too limiting. And I'm not even sure that those views are on some sort of continuim, but if they are I would definitely be inbetween.

Until then, as to Jesus' specfic form right now, I don't know. Let me think on this another day, and I'm sure I'll have some more thoughts, though I don't promise them to be any more helpful than what I've already shared.

[MustafaMc]

I'm glad for both. I suspect that there are many more things on which we are, if not in total agreement, more aligned than not by virtue of having complimentary understandings.

Yes, it seems there is some agreement at least in understanding to other's beliefs. Do you care to comment on what I wrote concerning the soul?

It is good that you asked the question, "In what form does Jesus now exist relative to the Father?" That is quite a different question than if you had asked the question "relative to God?" for that would have muddied the waters from the start. And the distinction between the two questions shows that from a Christian perspective we are talking about the nature of the Trinity.

...

But, this too is yet another vision. So, what does all of this mean? It leads me inconclusive as to the form in which Jesus is found today.

...

To some Jesus is present wherever and in whatever form his people are present as "the body of Christ" and there is no other presence to look for or anticipate. At the other end are those who think that Jesus is simply hanging out in heaven listening to harp music, perhaps playing a game of checkers with the Father in the throne room. Personally, I find both of those views too extreme and too limiting. And I'm not even sure that those views are on some sort of continuim, but if they are I would definitely be inbetween.

This gets at the gist of my question. In your first example in blue font, Jesus (as) now exists in a figurative sense as embodied by the Church and in the second example, in teal font, he exists in a literal sense as a being quite distinct from the Father. My point is that if Jesus (or Christ) and the Father are both the same One God then how can one play checkers with the other or be 'the Church' which again is distinct from the Father? I am confused about how this can ultimately all tie in with the concept of the Unity of God.

[Grace Seeker]

Do you care to comment on what I wrote concerning the soul?

Do you refer to your comment in post #7, #9, or somewhere else? Perhaps you could do me the favor of re-highlighting that portion which you would like me to comment on. Thanks.

My point is that if Jesus (or Christ) and the Father are both the same One God then how can one play checkers with the other or be 'the Church' which again is distinct from the Father? I am confused about how this can ultimately all tie in with the concept of the Unity of God.

I don't blame you for being confused. One of my points is that when Christians (or others) use such an image, that it doesn't actually very well convey the nature of the relationship between the Father and the Son that I understand is being expressed in scripture.

[siam]

@MustafaMc

It is my opinion that our use of language sometimes distorts our capacity to understand. When we think of "virgin birth" of Prophet Jesus(pbuh), we describe it as a miracle. However, we rarely contemplate the big bang as a miracle. Yet, God has a hand in the creation of both the birth of the universe and the birth of humans. Just because some things work according to principles/law of science/nature and others don't ---does not mean that God does not have a hand in those that work according to principles/law. The very principles/laws of nature/science are made by God and work according to his will.

soul---my understanding may be inadequate, but from what I know, the Quran mentions "nafs" (Judaism=nefesh, Indian=atman) this is the self, or consciousness. Apart from soul, there is also mention of spirit or "ruh" (Judaism=ruach, Chineese=Qi,Chi, Indian=Prana)

(note---some things maybe different between the Quran and other religions)

The Quran mentions 3 levels of "nafs"
nafs ammara (Judaism=Yetzer hara)
nafs lawwama (Judaism=Yetzer hatov)
nafs mutmainna (Judaism=Neshama)

[MustafaMc]

Do you refer to your comment in post #7, #9, or somewhere else? Perhaps you could do me the favor of re-highlighting that portion which you would like me to comment on. Thanks.

Yes, my posts #7 and #9 are what I was referring to. In the first case, I was wondering if what I wrote was a reflection of what you were trying to say. The second post gave 2 examples of an interpretation of what I said in post #7. Specifically, the hadith and the ayat used similar language in the creation of Adam and of Jesus (pbut). If both of these are accurate what is the distinction between Adam and Jesus regarding their natures? Brother Naidamar made a point about even if our souls were pre-existent to our births that they were still not created because the only thing not created is God. I am interested in hearing you perspective.

I don't blame you for being confused. One of my points is that when Christians (or others) use such an image, that it doesn't actually very well convey the nature of the relationship between the Father and the Son that I understand is being expressed in scripture.

The point is that I can see the distinction between the Son and the Father, but I fail to see the unity of the two. How can one pray to the other or one sit on the right hand of the other and yet both be One God?

[MustafaMc]

@MustafaMc

It is my opinion that our use of language sometimes distorts our capacity to understand. When we think of "virgin birth" of Prophet Jesus(pbuh), we describe it as a miracle. However, we rarely contemplate the big bang as a miracle. Yet, God has a hand in the creation of both the birth of the universe and the birth of humans. Just because some things work according to principles/law of science/nature and others don't ---does not mean that God does not have a hand in those that work according to principles/law. The very principles/laws of nature/science are made by God and work according to his will.

I agree that we often don't appreciate the miraculous nature of the creation. I am a scientist and knowledgeable about genetics. I am utterly amazed at how the union of sets of chromosomes in a sperm and an egg can result in a single human being. All I can say is, "Subhan'Allah".

soul---my understanding may be inadequate, but from what I know, the Quran mentions "nafs" this is the self, or consciousness. Apart from soul, there is also mention of spirit or "ruh"

I think that I can relate to the 'nafs' which I understand from what you wrote to be our soul which is what makes us unique. Perhaps it is the 'ruh' that I am confused about. Are we comprised of body, soul and spirit?

[siam]

Are we comprised of body, soul and spirit? ----my understanding, from reading the Quran, is Yes. However, there are times in Islamic philosophical discourse that some scholars use "nafs" and "ruh" interchangeably.

I will try to find the Quranic verses if you are interested---however, roughly, this is what I understand......

The "nafs"(soul) is our self/consiousness. Therefore it is part of our body only when we are conscious and leaves when we are not. The ruh on the other hand, (understood as "the force that animates) remains with us until the death of the physical body. At the time of death our "nafs" experiences the death of the physical body.

(I am most familiar with the Yusuf Ali translation of the Quran)

[MustafaMc]

I will try to find the Quranic verses if you are interested---however, roughly, this is what I understand......

Yes, I would like to see evidences if possible. I don't know if you know about this search engine, but it helps me find things on my mind. http://www.searchtruth.com/

The "nafs"(soul) is our self/consiousness. Therefore it is part of our body only when we are conscious and leaves when we are not. The ruh on the other hand, (understood as "the force that animates) remains with us until the death of the physical body. At the time of death our "nafs" experiences the death of the physical body.

Would you also say that animals don't have souls?

[Hiroshi]

Are we comprised of body, soul and spirit? ----my understanding, from reading the Quran, is Yes. However, there are times in Islamic philosophical discourse that some scholars use "nafs" and "ruh" interchangeably.

I will try to find the Quranic verses if you are interested---however, roughly, this is what I understand......

The "nafs"(soul) is our self/consiousness. Therefore it is part of our body only when we are conscious and leaves when we are not. The ruh on the other hand, (understood as "the force that animates) remains with us until the death of the physical body. At the time of death our "nafs" experiences the death of the physical body.

(I am most familiar with the Yusuf Ali translation of the Quran)

Is Surah 29:57 relevant here? "Every soul (nafs) shall have a taste of death:"

The soul dies when the body dies. And the spirit, the force that animates the body, does not continue conscious existence after death. Surah 2:259 contains an account of someone who was dead for 100 years and then came back to life. For all of that 100 years the resurrected man had been conscious of nothing and so when he returned to life he thought that only a short time had passed.

[Hiroshi]

Would you also say that animals don't have souls?

I would not say that animals have souls. Rather, I would say that animals are souls.

[- Qatada -]

:salamext:

نفس - Nafs - the 'Self'. [plural نُّفُوسُ - Nufoos.]

Nafs has many derivatives;
Anfaas أنفاس - breaths.
Nafas نفس - take a breath.

mutaNafisoon متنفسون - competing in the spirit of healthy competition.


All these derivatives have the basic idea of 'back and forth'.

I.e. In a competition, you compete one against the other. When you breathe - you breathe in and out. Etc.


The Nafs is always going back and forth in different states, so once it is in a state of desire, if it fulfills that desire it might move into a state of embarrassment, then it might repent, then it might go back to a righteous character, then it might incline to a false desire once more.


www.linguisticmiracle.com/noon.html

The Nafs is usually associated with the Soul in the Body, and it going through altering states of emotion and desire.

The Ruh [soul] is an individual entity which Allah created, and once made - it would live forever. Either in Paradise, or Hell as it's final destination. The Ruh/soul lives in different body forms, i.e. we live with bodies of this world in this life, but we will have new body forms in Paradise or Hell. But the Ruh [soul] will be our same soul.



Allah knows best.


Peace.

[- Qatada -]

:salamext:


Animals have souls, but they will be ressurected on Judgment Day for the Justice to be settled between all creation. After that, they will turn to dust. And the disbeliever will wish, if only I was dust.

http://www.islamicboard.com/miscella...tml#post414876

[siam]

nafs----Do animals have it?---It is an interesting question---because we also have to take into consideration how the level of "free-will" effects our understanding of nafs. For example, in the Quran, it is mentioned that the birds pray to God, though humans cannot understand/see it. However, the level of free-will that a bird has is vastly lower than that of humans. Birds are bound by (God-given) instincts and so the role that nafs were to play in birds would be different than that of humans. So,.... do I think animals have nafs?---I don't know, but I feel it is very possible that animals have nafs.

Surah 3, verse 185, and Surah 21, verse 35 speak of the nafs experiencing death. I will look up the other verses---such as the one that speaks of the nafs leaving the body when we are alseep.

ruh----The Quran mentions "ruh" (spirit) and it also mentions "Ruh-al Qudus" (holy spirit) (Judaism=Ruach hakodesh). In Judeo-Islam, the ruh al-qudus/ruach hakodesh refers to the "spirit of prophesy/prophethood" and in Islam, this is understood as the angel Gabriel. However, some scholars use the words "ruh" and "ruh-al-qudus" interchangeably, as a reference to the Angel Gabriel. --but in my opinion, this can cause a bit of confusion.....a note of interest----apparently, in the Quran, nafs has a gramatical plural form but ruh/ruh al-Qudus does not. With this in mind---it is interesting to speculate on Surah 78, verse 38. "ruh" mentioned here could be Angel Gabriel, or the "spirit that animates"........
another concept of ruh/spirit is that it is the (God-given) instinct that turns us to the One God. Because all living things have ruh---all have the capacity to turn to God. In the case of humans, the gift of free-will makes this a decision we can choose or reject.

With regards to discussion about ruh, I want to mention Surah 17, verse 85
"they ask thee concerning the spirit. Say: The spirit is by command of my lord, and of knowledge you have been given but little"
apparently, God, in his wisdom, may feel that details of "ruh" other than what is already mentioned in the Quran, are of no benefit to human knowledge........

[siam]

the verse referring to nafs and sleep is Surah 39, verse 42

@ hiroshi
Is Surah 29:57 relevant here? "Every soul (nafs) shall have a taste of death:"

The soul dies when the body dies. ----Yes surah 29 verse 57 also refers to the soul experiencing death----It is my understanding, from the Quran, that the soul does not die at the death of the physical body.(refer to surah 39, verse 42---for further discussion) At judgement, our physical bodies will be resurrected......

[MustafaMc]

Could it be that the soul (nafs) is the unseen innate part of us that tends toward the enjoyment by the body of this dunya and therefore leads to our attachment to it? This brings to mind the part of surah At-Takathur where we will be questioned about the delights we enjoyed. Could the spirit (ruh) be the part of us that seeks out the Divine and strives to control the unlimited desires of the nafs for physical pleasures to only that which has been allowed by Allah (subhana wa ta ala)? Could the ruh be the part that also leads us to worship Allah (swt)? If that was the case, then Brother Qatada's "back and forth" makes sense in the struggle between the nafs and the ruh for control over the mind and body of the human. Could the enjoyment of this dunya as induced by the nafs lead to a strong attachment to this dunya such that the angel needs to rip the nafs out of the body? Likewise, if the ruh is able to control the nafs and enabling the person to see that these pleasures are mere illusion of the moment, then he is less attached to this dunya and the angel easily slips the nafs out of the body? Or, could the ruh be that inner 'Voice of God' that gives us an innate sense of right and wrong consciousness and gives us the ability to submit to Allah (swt) and do what is right through controlling the nafs?

I hope that I have not mis-spoken as I fear that I am approaching the limits of my ability to understand per ayat 17:85 that Brother Siam so kindly pointed out. Allah (swt) knows best!

[MustafaMc]

The discussion of nafs and ruh is relevant to the thread in the creation of Adam and Jesus (pbut) the Quran tells us that Allah (swt) breathed of His spirit into Adam and then into Mary. Christians see Jesus as the embodiment of Allah (swt) in human form and what I am seeing is that the likeness of Jesus is that of Adam. I still come back to our existence being that of our nafs and ruh dwelling within the body with one leading the body toward enjoying this world and the other leading toward worshiping Allah (swt). The submission or lack thereof of our nafs to the ruh in controlling the body according to the direction of Allah (swt) as revealed in the Quran and the Sunnah determines if we tread on the Straight Way that leads to Paradise or not. Again Allah (swt) knows best.

[siam]

"Could the spirit (ruh) be the part of us that seeks out the Divine and strives to control the unlimited desires of the nafs for physical pleasures to only that which has been allowed by Allah (subhana wa ta ala)? Could the ruh be the part that also leads us to worship Allah (swt)? If that was the case, then Brother Qatada's "back and forth" makes sense in the struggle between the nafs and the ruh for control over the mind and body of the human."

----This would be the Judeo-Islamic view, however, if I could add some nuance..........

Think of the "ruh" as the spirit or force of life----our body is made of the same elements as that of the earth (carbon-based, what the Quran calls clay). One could say, our body functions according to our biochemical and electrical interactions (you could explain this part a lot better than I could). What makes this heap of biochemistry alive is "ruh"-- a pure force of good from God (that's a personal understanding). God made all creation in Goodness. Someone explained this aspect of ruh as the likeness of a compass that points north, likewise the ruh is a compass that points us towards the One God.

nafs on the other hand is fascinating complicated.......

I mentioned the 3 levels of nafs according to the Quran (Sufis have more levels)

The first level is the egoic level or the "animal self" ---it is about desires and it is neccessary for humans to feel "desire' such as hunger, sleep, etc in order to intereact with, and survive in the world. However, "desires" can become excessive----and therefore they need to be managed.

The Second level is the transegoic level or the higher self.----interestingly, it is translated as the self doubting/self reproaching soul. This is when we move beyond the level of desires and contemplate on our "self", its existence and purpose. Descartes said something like---"I think therefore I am". Al-Ghazzali explains it better...."doubt is to find truth---those who do not have doubt, cannot think and those who cannot think cannot find truth" In Judaism, we fluctuate between these two levels of soul (Yetzer hara and Yetzer hatov), and I think we can apply this to our nafs as well. (nafs ammara and nafs lawwama)

The Third level of soul is nafs mutmainna, the highest level---it may be similar to what Buddhists call Nirvana (Judaism=Neshama). It refers to a state of peace achieved through submission to God's will. ----from what I understand, this is a state some of us might be able to achieve on earth, but if not, our nafs ("we") will be in this state in paradise.

(any clarifications, additions and/or corrections on this issue will be appreciated)

[siam]

"could the ruh be that inner 'Voice of God' that gives us an innate sense of right and wrong consciousness and gives us the ability to submit to Allah (swt) and do what is right ".---

----I would agree with that---interestingly "ruh", "ruach (Judaism), Qi (Chineese), prana (Indian) is understood as "wind", "breath", or "God's breath"....... makes for an interesting image......

[MustafaMc]

Brother Siam, what you wrote is very interesting. Could the level of the nafs that a person achieves in his life be related to how he is judged with those who receive their books in the left hand (nafs ammara), in the right hand (nafs lawwama), and those brought near to Allah (swt) (nafs mutmainna)? Are we born with that level of nafs or do we achieve it through our life experiences and choices?

Why do you think that Christians see Jesus (alayhi salam) as the embodiment of Allah (subhana wa ta ala)? Surely he was different from us (virgin birth, speaking as a baby, creating a bird, raising the dead, healing the sick), but he is still a human. They make up a complicated and unintelligible formula of Jesus (as) being fully human and fully God. Is it a part of human nature to want to worship others who attain that highest level of nafs that they see is so far above their level is seen as being "God-like"?

[- Qatada -]

:salamext:


The Nafs -according to my understanding- is not an Individual Entity. It is just the Soul while in the body.

The Ruh is an Individual Entity. The physical body is also an individual entity, which comes to life when a Soul is breathed into it.


Now to the 'breathing of the soul' into the body.

Anyone who says that 'God literally breathed a soul into Adam's body from in His ownself.' They will have to prove that this is what really happened.

We know according to Islamic texts that Allah/God creates the soul, and Angels then breathe the souls into the human embryo. And scholars have clearly commented that an Angel came to give Mary the good news of a son, and then the Angel breathed into her [Mary] the Spirit which Allah created for Jesus.

[MustafaMc]

Brother Qatada perhaps you can comment on these two ayat. The Pickthall translation of 15:29 is, "So, when I have made him (Adam) and have breathed into him of My Spirit, do ye fall down, prostrating yourselves unto him." and 21:91 "And she who was chaste, therefore We breathed into her (Mary)(something) of Our Spirit and made her and her son a token for (all) peoples." However, Muhsin Khan did not interpret ruh in either case as spirit, but rather as soul.

[- Qatada -]

Yeh i meant Ruh is soul.


This is what scholars of IslamQA said;

The fact that ‘Eesa (peace be upon him) is a Word from Allaah and a spirit created by Him, as is indicated in the texts of the clear Revelation, does not mean that he is part of Allaah who emerged from Him and is connected to His essence: glorified and exalted be Allaah far about what the wrongdoers say.

(...)

The phrase “a spirit created by Him (or from Him)” is used only of the Messiah because he was breathed into his mother by Angel Jibreel/Gabriel – peace be upon, and she became pregnant with him from that breath.... He is distinguished from them by the fact that his mother became pregnant with him from this breathing in of the spirit, hence he is called a spirit from Him. See Daqaa’iq al-Tafseer, 1/324 ff.

http://islamqa.com/en/ref/10683/

The example of Adam is similar to Jesus. How did the Ruh [soul] enter Adam? I'm not fully sure. However, we're certain that it isn't a 'part' of Allah. Rather, the Ruh [soul] is a creation of Allah.

[Grace Seeker]

Yes, my posts #7 and #9 are what I was referring to. In the first case, I was wondering if what I wrote was a reflection of what you were trying to say. The second post gave 2 examples of an interpretation of what I said in post #7. Specifically, the hadith and the ayat used similar language in the creation of Adam and of Jesus (pbut). If both of these are accurate what is the distinction between Adam and Jesus regarding their natures? Brother Naidamar made a point about even if our souls were pre-existent to our births that they were still not created because the only thing not created is God. I am interested in hearing you perspective.

Yes, I was saying what you thought I said in post #7: That my understanding of the teaching of Islam with regard to the soul is that "our souls existed before we were conceived and that the soul joined our bodies during pregnancy." I wasn't necessarily trying to imply in my statement that said souls were themselves eternal and uncreated in nature, only that they pre-existed the body. I believe that I have read both views expressed by different Muslim writers. As to what the Qur'an and hadith actually teach on the topic, I haven't done a personal study to ascertain what my view of which of those two Islamic views seems to me to align itself with what the Prophet (pbuh) taught. I doubt if very many Muslims would care how a non-Muslim interprets Islamic scriptures.

What I have found written by Muslims on this topic may be of interest to you:
Soul In Islamic Philosophy
The Nature of Soul: Islamic and Scientific Views
Mind, Self, Soul, Spirit, and Happiness from an Islamic Perspective
The Journey of the Soul

Perhaps the article that spoke most clearly to me was ISLAMIC CONCEPT OF HUMAN NATURE. The author does clarify that among Muslim theologians there is not agreement whether nafs and ruh signify the same or different things. But as I read the article, I believe it more strongly supports the idea that there is a difference between nafs and ruh and qalb. On the whole I understand a picture where human nature is compositionally the almagam of these disparate AND created elements. Nevertheless, when speaking of the ruh he writes:

According to Muslim scholars, Ruh is the reflection of the Divine presence in man. The Holy Qur’an declares that Allah (SWT) has blown His spirit into human body:“When I have made him and have breathed into him of My spirit, (I ordered the angles to) bow down, prostrating yourself before him. (15:29 also see 38:72 and 32:8)

If it is indeed Allah's own spirit that is breathed into the human body, is that not saying that there is something of the divine in each human being? As a Christian, I have no problem with this idea, but I wonder how that is received and understood in Islam?

I can see the distinction between the Son and the Father, but I fail to see the unity of the two. How can one pray to the other or one sit on the right hand of the other and yet both be One God?

Sure. If there is no unity between them, then the matter is settled. Jesus is just a teacher, a servant of God, and nothing more.

Of course, that is not the Christian understanding. It is the incarnation that makes the situation different.

Remember, for the Christian, even though most Muslims don't recognize this next statement, we begin with a belief that God is one. That is where we begin, we don't actually begin with a preconceived idea that Jesus is God, but that God is one. So, when God ultimately reveals that he does come to dwell among us by taking on flesh and incarnating himself in the world, we've got to wrestle with how that meshes with our basic understanding that there is only one God. Did God leave the world, as some Muslims like to question Christian views, unattended while he was on earth? Did God humiliate himself by becoming a human being? Is this just another theophany, a manifestation of a God who is really somewhere else?

All these, and many more questions, were what the early church had to wrestle with. They had a faith that began with its foundation surely rooted in the Jewish Shema: "Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God, the LORD is one" (Deuteronomy 6:4). But then they had an experience where they believe that God had also come to dwell with them in the person of Jesus. (Of course, Muslims don't believe that the original followers of Jesus actually felt this way, and that it was only later Christians that made this change.) And so, somehow, even if it is hard for the human mind to understand how, these two truths had to be reconciled to each other.

Now, some of have said that there is only the one truth (God is one) and not two (that God also incarnated himself in the person of Jesus). If that is the position that one takes, then the discussion is closed right there. But for those who did hold that both were true, and I believe that the original disciples did indeed reach and teach that conclusion, then one finds themselves wrestling with the how question. Since you fail to see that it could be true, you don't have to wrestle with it, you can simply reject it. But the Church did have to wrestle with it. The how is not made clear in scripture, only that it was so. The next 300 years of church history focused on how those two contrasting truths could be held at the same time. The end result of that discussion was the Nicene creed. But, in reality, we see that the discussion still goes on.

Now, if I understand your question correctly, you've also asked how it is that I myself am able to reconcile those two truths that I hold in tension. In answering, I'm not saying that my way of understanding is THE right or best way, only that it works for me. I doubt that it would even work for all others who in the end hold the same beliefs as I do. It is just my way of processing these thoughts and I don't present it as anything more than that.

1) I find that God is bigger than anything that I can possibly imagine. His ways are not my ways. So, just because something is excluded from my experience, does not allow me to exclude it from the realm of God's.
2) I don't believe that I can, or should even attempt, to put God in a box. Now, I have to be careful, because any thought about God, any attempt to define him, is actually me doing just that -- saying what size, shape, form of a box that God fits into. Therefore, I have to hold in tension already, that I am both trying to understand the God who cannot be defined, but my very attempts at understanding him are to define the undefinable. So, I learn to live with paradox.
3) A part of the revelation of God to humankind does indeed include paradox as well. He is almighty and wills certain things for our lives, but he limits himself by granting us free will to make decisions for ourselves even in opposition to his own will for us. He is all-loving, but his love sometimes manifests itself in chastisement. He is omniprescent, but his holiness means that he cannot abide sin and will not allow it in his presence. These are cases where I find two different truths about to be true, and though they are oppositional to each other, I nonetheless hold both of them to be true. How can they both be true at the same time? I don't know. But I believe they are. So, I learn to live with the tension of what I know to be true with regard to God are sometimes oppositional to each other and are yet both true; even if I don't fully understand how it can be so, it can still be that it is.
4) God is known to me to be one. There is no God but God. All other gods are but illusions. No other god, no other being is able to create or to forgive sins or to do anything more than mimic that which God himself is able to do. And yet, Jesus is shown to be able to do these things. Is this because Jesus is acting by virtue of the power of God flowing through his life? In cases of healings and other miracles, probably exactly this -- God makes his power available to Jesus, just as he would sometimes work through others. But in other areas, such as the forgiving of sins, this is something that I understand only God can do, and to make such a statement if one is not God is commit blasphemy. As I understand that Jesus did indeed do make such a statement, then Jesus was declaring himself to be God. His statement was either that of a blasphemer or, if he was not committing blasphemy, he truly was God.
5) And while no where in the Gospel record does Jesus explicity say, "I am God."; it contains many instances where Jesus either says or by his actions does things that are the equivalent to making that very statement.
6) Additionally, virtually all other first century Christian writings (both canonical and non-canonical materials) declare Jesus to be God.
7) So, I am left with two declarative truths, that there is only one God and that Jesus is God. If I am going to accept the other teachings of the church, and especially the other teachings of Jesus himself as being true, then I believe that I cannot seperate out from them that which I don't understand and declare it to be untrue. Rather, though it may not understand how it is true, I accept that it is. As is often said to me, "Allah knows best."

Now, I may have misunderstood your statement. Rather than asking how it was that I arrived at being able to accept two oppostiional truths as true, perhaps you were asking how, having accepted them as both true, I was able to reconcile them both at the same time within my own mind. If so, I apologize for the unnecessary long-winded response above. But, I'll save entering into a second one until I know that is what you are seeking.

[Grace Seeker]

Looking back quickly at what others have written, I think I may be closer to the Islamic understanding of the soul than that expressed by Hiroshi. However, I would probably want to discriminate between soul and spirit and not use them as being identical in meaning, even though I recognize that this is not always the case with certain Christian writers.

[MustafaMc]

Sure. If there is no unity between them, then the matter is settled. Jesus is just a teacher, a servant of God, and nothing more. ... So, I am left with two declarative truths, that there is only one God and that Jesus is God.

How do you reconcile this view with Acts 3:13, "The God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, the God of our fathers, has glorified His servant Jesus. You handed him over to be killed, and you disowned him before Pilate, though he had decided to let him go."? This verse distinguishes between God and Jesus as His servant.

"Allah knows best."

I personally say that when I am not 100% sure that what I said is correct and if I erred, then "Allah knows best." The point is that I have used logic and Biblical verses to make distinctions between God and Jesus, but I haven't read a reply where logic is used to show they are one and the same.

[MustafaMc]

The example of Adam is similar to Jesus. How did the Ruh [soul] enter Adam? I'm not fully sure. However, we're certain that it isn't a 'part' of Allah. Rather, the Ruh [soul] is a creation of Allah.

Yes, I agree as it doesn't make sense that Allah (swt) can be divisible with a part, even the tiniest part, residing in Adam, or Jesus, or any other created thing. We don't believe that Allah (swt) is present every where at once except in His knowledge.

[siam]

I would like to clarify my position on certain points.....

From my understandiing, "ruh" IS NOT part of God---my suspicion is that it is for this reason the Quran does not eleborate on the "ruh" in case we make this mistake. It is a FORCE created by God for a purpose. That, this "force" may contain aspects/properties of the creative force of God, does not make "ruh" God or part of God----We must be careful not to fall into shirk. All creation comes from God and will go back to God.

It is also my understanding that the "ruh" is a singularity-----that is, the Quran does not have a plural for it. This makes for interesting speculation, as your "ruh" could be the same singularity as mine......?.......or some such. Nafs on the other hand has a plural---and so, each of us has an individual nafs. This is our "identity"--what we understand as the "I". (self-awareness). My understanding of nafs is that our spiritual progress is in our hands---we decide our spiritual destiny. This choice is a gift from God.(see surah 91 verses 7 to 10)

nafs ammara (Surah 12, verse 53), nafs lawwama (surah 75, verse 2), nafs mutmainna (surah 89 verse 27)

These levels of nafs also correspond to the levels of spirituality-----that is Islam (first level) Iman (second level) and Ihsan (third level)
Islam=submission to God's will, which translates into following the 5 pillars and obeying his laws
Iman=when faith enters the soul---faith=the use of one's intellect and reason to arrive at conviction.
Ihsan=when we understand that we are in God's presence, that he sees and knows all that we do as if he is standing besides us at all times. (strong God-awareness)

Though it is correct that many scholars use "ruh" and "nafs' interchangeably---it is my opinion that they have different roles/functions.

Qalb---Al Gazzali has some intersting ideas on this. "we" are the nafs. "we" interract with the world through processing input from the world through our body. Al-Gazzali divides this into two aspects the Aql (intellect) and the Qalb(heart)----(---not biological). The heart deals with instinctive/intuitive understanding, while the intellect deals with understanding through reason and logic. Both are important in our attempts to understand the Divine.

Prophet Jesus(pbuh)----Christians have misunderstood because they cannot see beyond the "phenomenon"----to the Divine power/force that created the "phenomenon". They have also misunderstood the Torah.
1) why virgin birth?----In Judaism, a child is considered a Jew only if the mother is Jewish. Without a Jewish mother, Prophet Jesus (pbuh) would not have been considered a Jew and the Quran promises that the prophets will be from among the people so they will be recognized.
2) Why no father?----because Prophet Jesus (pbuh) was an unmistakable sign from God. Therefore, though a mother was necessary in order to prove his Jewishness, a father was not---and thus his birth could not be rejected by the Jews on some pretense...(though some did anyway)
3) Further as a sign from God, he strenghtened Prophet Jesus (pbuh) with the "Ruh al-Qudus" (Holy spirit) from birth, thus Prophet Jesus(pbuh) was able to speak and make birds out of clay and breathe into them, and they would become alive....etc....etc
4) why is he called "masih" in the Quran instead of rasul/nabi?----because he was to be the last Prophet to the Jews.

In order to force the man-made concept of "son of God" onto the bible----they have re-interpreted the old testament with "prophesies" and other doctrines such as "original sin" etc to make the bible force-fit into their trinity doctrine. From the perspective of Judaism, Masih (Moshiac) is a human being---not "son of God." There is no "original sin" doctrine in Judeo-Islam, making the whole (Christian) reason for the crucifixion obsolete.

Why is it important that the crucifixion not happen?----because the Torah promises that God wil not allow a true Prophet to be killed, but a false prophet must be killed/stoned(?) by the Jews (Deuteronomy---I think). Therefore, the claim by the Christians that Prophet Jesus(pbuh) was crucified/killed---makes him into a "false Prophet" and to get around that---they needed to make him a "son of God".

[MustafaMc]

Brother Siam, that makes a lot of sense to me. I have gained more understanding than I had before. You and Brother Qatada clarified as much as one can about the soul and the spirit of human beings.

[Grace Seeker]

Yes, I agree as it doesn't make sense that Allah (swt) can be divisible with a part, even the tiniest part, residing in Adam, or Jesus, or any other created thing. We don't believe that Allah (swt) is present every where at once except in His knowledge.

Actually, this is the best argument that I have heard given by a Muslim against the Trinity. But, it begins with an assumption that I don't make, namely that Allah is not present everywhere.

Psalm 139

7 Where can I go from your Spirit? Where can I flee from your presence? 8 If I go up to the heavens, you are there; if I make my bed in the depths, you are there. 9 If I rise on the wings of the dawn, if I settle on the far side of the sea, 10 even there your hand will guide me, your right hand will hold me fast. 11 If I say, “Surely the darkness will hide me and the light become night around me,” 12 even the darkness will not be dark to you; the night will shine like the day, for darkness is as light to you.

I'll have to get back to you on the other comments and questions later.

[PouringRain]

I have not read this entire thread, so if I am duplicating anything already said then forgive me.....

Since part of this thread turned to a discussion of Ruh and Nafs, I came across this link about a year ago: http://www.qtafsir.com/index.php?id=...tent&task=view

[MustafaMc]

Actually, this is the best argument that I have heard given by a Muslim against the Trinity. But, it begins with an assumption that I don't make, namely that Allah is not present everywhere.

There is a difference in belief here. We believe that Allah (swt) is aware and knowledgeable about everything at all times even the inner most secrets of every person as indicated by 50:16 "And indeed We have created man, and We know what his own self whispers to him. And We are nearer to him than his jugular vein (by Our Knowledge)." We believe that Allah (swt) exists outside of His creation, but He is fully aware of everything within the creation by His Knowledge. If one believes that God literally exists every at once then that must include His being present within despicable things that are so far beneath His Dignity and Majesty to even mention. His Existence is incomprehensible to us because it is outside the confines of space and time that we exist within.

Let me give you an example. How far across is the universe? I came across a site that says the radius of the universe is 14 billion light years from the center? Since the speed of light is almost 6 trillion miles/year, that means the universe is 14 billion X 2 (diameter is 2X radius) X 6 trillion miles. That comes to 1.6 followed by 23 zeros miles across the universe, a number that for all practical purposes to my mind is infinity. Which brings to mind a quote from Buzz Lightyear, "To infinity and beyond!" Honestly, what is only 1 cm beyond infinity or what is just outside the outer limits of the universe. Well, if you have read to this point your brain is probably flippin' out like mine is. My understanding is that Allah (swt) exists outside the confines of even this unimaginably great distance across the universe. With all of that said, I can't imagine Allah (swt) existing within the confines of a single human body. That blows my mind even more than the distance across the universe does. And Allah (swt) knows best His existence while we comprehend but very little.

[MustafaMc]

Since part of this thread turned to a discussion of Ruh and Nafs, I came across this link about a year ago: http://www.qtafsir.com/index.php?id=...tent&task=view

Thank you, although the explanation was short, it does make sense.

[Grace Seeker]

With all of that said, I can't imagine Allah (swt) existing within the confines of a single human body. That blows my mind even more than the distance across the universe does. And Allah (swt) knows best His existence while we comprehend but very little.

Agreed. I can't imagine it either. It blows my mind as well. And in some cases I also agree it would seem to be beneath him. But revelation tells me that it is nonetheless true. (Though I don't mean to imply any sort of pantheism or panthenism by these statements.) This is one of the things that the incarnation in particular makes known to us about God. Given God's utter greatness, and our utter baseness, the depth of his humiliation to come in the form of human being and live lives on par with us is a testimony to an even greater love that the Creator has for his creation and his desire to restor it to proper relationship with himself that he would stoop so low as the incarnation implies for him to do so. These are distinctions betweeon the attributes of God in our two faiths. It seems that in Islam, Allah's magnificients will not allow him to so humiliate himself. But this willingness to do so out of love is his greatest attribute to the Christian understanding, so much so that it is often enough for us when describe God to simply say, "God is love."

[Sol Invictus]

We believe that Allah (swt) exists outside of His creation

i would ask if you could explain to me what this means? as i understand it, allah seems to reside in heaven and is not heaven a creation of allah, or do muslims believe that allah did not create heaven? i know that muslims say that allah cannot enter into his creation but that is contradictory to him residing in the same sphere as adam when he created him and blew into his nostrils. or the fact that numerous angels encircle his throne. so i think that on this point, what muslims say and what islam teaches are two different things. let us not forget that time, space, matter, length, width, height are all also his creation and given everything that has been said so far, it would seem to me that allah does in fact enter into his creation contrary to what i am told by most muslims. now that is merely my opinion, i would very much like a more detailed explanation of this concept.

[M.I.A.]

thats easy sol, imagine a marble between two fingertips..
assuming god has fingertips lol.. angels are made of light so i think any anology that we may be able to imagine is not respective enough of the nature of god.. which is nothing comparable to anything we can compare it to.

as for heaven being a creation of god.. i cant understand what heaven even is, you might tell me its the garden but where the garden is, what sphere of reality is not understood.

its like the whole universe being a blade of grass and expecting to learn the nature of god whiles living on this blade of grass.

what that meant was for all intents and purposes you cant leave this universe(creation) no matter how hard you try other than one way... guess how?
and when you go there is no coming back.. untill god brings you back to life and judges you and then puts you where ever you need to be.

so when he says outside of creation.. it should be easy to understand.

as for the matter, gravity etc etc.. just further shows an enclosed system.. a created system with universal laws. hard to imagine clouds of electrons being the basis of life but it probably isnt.

lol the blowing into adam is probably more indicative of the nature of man but more and more so the nature of sol is apparent.

[Sol Invictus]

thats easy sol, imagine a marble between two fingertips..
assuming god has fingertips lol.. angels are made of light so i think any anology that we may be able to imagine is not respective enough of the nature of god.. which is nothing comparable to anything we can compare it to.

as for heaven being a creation of god.. i cant understand what heaven even is, you might tell me its the garden but where the garden is, what sphere of reality is not understood.

its like the whole universe being a blade of grass and expecting to learn the nature of god whiles living on this blade of grass.

what that meant was for all intents and purposes you cant leave this universe(creation) no matter how hard you try other than one way... guess how?
and when you go there is no coming back.. untill god brings you back to life and judges you and then puts you where ever you need to be.

so when he says outside of creation.. it should be easy to understand.

as for the matter, gravity etc etc.. just further shows an enclosed system.. a created system with universal laws. hard to imagine clouds of electrons being the basis of life but it probably isnt.

lol the blowing into adam is probably more indicative of the nature of man but more and more so the nature of sol is apparent.

i don't know if it's just me but i do not understand what you are getting at with the above...it might be a language barrier or something of the sort but i simply don't understand. but i do appreciate you having taken the time to type out a response to my question and sorry that our inability to communicate properly with one another is keeping your post from fulfilling its use.

[Grace Seeker]

originally by MustataMC
I can see the distinction between the Son and the Father, but I fail to see the unity of the two. How can one pray to the other or one sit on the right hand of the other and yet both be One God?

Sure. If there is no unity between them, then the matter is settled. Jesus is just a teacher, a servant of God, and nothing more.

How do you reconcile this view with Acts 3:13, "The God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, the God of our fathers, has glorified His servant Jesus. You handed him over to be killed, and you disowned him before Pilate, though he had decided to let him go."? This verse distinguishes between God and Jesus as His servant.

Point being that if one only sees the distinction between the Son and the Father, and not also the unity, then verses like Acts 3:13 which speak of Jesus as God's servant become the last word with regard to Jesus. However, because of other passages (e.g. John 1:18 "No one has ever seen God, but the one and only Son, who is himself God and is in closest relationship with the Father, has made him known." and John 14:9 "Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father." -- among many others) I do see that a unity does exist.

Therefore, we Christians must have a theology that holds in tension two seeming unresolvable ideas that the Father and the Son are distinct and at the same time the the Father and the Son are one. Thus, Jesus is a teacher, but not just a teacher. Jesus is a servant of God, but not just a servant of God. Jesus is, in fact, as best I understand the Bible, God every bit as much as the Father is God. However, I fear any further exploration of this subject will simply lead us back to the never ending discussion of the Trinity. Do you want to go there? Or do you want to keep the focus on the nature of Jesus' birth?

[MustafaMc]

i would ask if you could explain to me what this means? as i understand it, allah seems to reside in heaven

Perhaps, I have already spoken more than I know, but I believe that there are other planes of existence that are beyond our capacity to understand. My understanding is that Allah's (swt) existence is not something that we can comprehend. My body is 98% comprised of the elements oxygen, carbon, hydrogen, nitrogen and calcium. I have a hypothetical question for you: "What do you suppose is the elemental composition of Allah (swt)?" Do you not see the absurdity of such a question? Now another question: "Where do you suppose Heaven is and what is the best way to get there?" The point is that we speak about things for which we have so little knowledge, and Allah (swt) knows best.

[M.I.A.]

i don't know if it's just me but i do not understand what you are getting at with the above...it might be a language barrier or something of the sort but i simply don't understand. but i do appreciate you having taken the time to type out a response to my question and sorry that our inability to communicate properly with one another is keeping your post from fulfilling its use.

go watch the matrix lol

disrigard all the shooting, the underlying concept is the same.

1 a created universe.. (the material and subjugating world)

2 within a created universe.. (the actual universe)

people who can understand why point one and two exist..

when you can learn to disrigard both, you can finally start learning about the other.

that is the test apparently.. does god reside in 1 or 2? the answer is that god is external to both and yet nothing occurs in either without permission.

someone could convince you they had a hand in fate, but for every person who has lead others.. when something occurs that they cannot control.. then they are shown to themselves in error manifest.

i dont know if any of you have seen the film constantine but i remember that bit when the devil tries to take him and he cannot be moved, the devil turns around and shoves his hands into his chest and removes cancer.. saying he will live.
at this point you could probably understand that he was going to live anyway.

the quran is truely the path without any deviation in bringing belief to yourself.. not in any other than god.


the analogies i have made are of little consequence, but as sure as all physical laws of the universe are set.. the laws of god are also set.

im a film buff so forgive the analogies...i doubt you will get them anyway, im a daydreamer and those are only the tip of the iceberg

lol i doubt hollywood was expecting that.

[Sol Invictus]

Perhaps, I have already spoken more than I know, but I believe that there are other planes of existence that are beyond our capacity to understand. My understanding is that Allah's (swt) existence is not something that we can comprehend. My body is 98% comprised of the elements oxygen, carbon, hydrogen, nitrogen and calcium. I have a hypothetical question for you: "What do you suppose is the elemental composition of Allah (swt)?" Do you not see the absurdity of such a question? Now another question: "Where do you suppose Heaven is and what is the best way to get there?" The point is that we speak about things for which we have so little knowledge, and Allah (swt) knows best.

maybe we are broaching a topic that our finite minds cannot comprehend but let me try again. science tells us that among other things, space (the dimensions of length, width, height etc.) were created at the moment of the big bang. we theists believe that this was done by god. as such, before the big bang, these properties did not exist. now the muslim understanding is that god is in heaven (a creation of his), is surrounded by angels (creation of his), sits on a throne and as such indwells the spheres of length, width, height (a creation of his). these simple things establish that allah has indeed entered his creation. in entering the sphere of space and in allowing himself to be localized on a throne in heaven, he exhibits the dimensions of space (something he would not exhibit before he had created space) and as such he has indeed entered his creation. now my question to you is whether or not this is the case. i am merely asking what muslims mean by the statement, "allah does not enter into his creation" when from the above it is quite clear these he does. more than anything, i just want to know how islamic scholars have explained the matter and what exactly they mean by this.

[M.I.A.]

maybe we are broaching a topic that our finite minds cannot comprehend but let me try again. science tells us that among other things, space (the dimensions of length, width, height etc.) were created at the moment of the big bang. we theists believe that this was done by god. as such, before the big bang, these properties did not exist. now the muslim understanding is that god is in heaven (a creation of his), is surrounded by angels (creation of his), sits on a throne and as such indwells the spheres of length, width, height (a creation of his). these simple things establish that allah has indeed entered his creation. in entering the sphere of space and in allowing himself to be localized on a throne in heaven, he exhibits the dimensions of space (something he would not exhibit before he had created space) and as such he has indeed entered his creation. now my question to you is whether or not this is the case. i am merely asking what muslims mean by the statement, "allah does not enter into his creation" when from the above it is quite clear these he does. more than anything, i just want to know how islamic scholars have explained the matter and what exactly they mean by this.

you misrepresent the point to such an extent that your own sillyness shows, its a question of understanding rather than grammer... something most of your arguments are based on time and time again lol.

as trolling goes its a logical argument, unfortuately read my posts again and again... the answer is the same.
if you can get from where you are now to heaven and back... then it is in creation.

..so who was it created for?

lol

anyhoo, what you are actually asking is what was there before god made anything... before he made the throne and the angels and then all sorts of other odds and ends?

[Sol Invictus]

you misrepresent the point to such an extent that your own sillyness shows, its a question of understanding rather than grammer... something most of your arguments are based on time and time again lol.

as trolling goes its a logical argument, unfortuately read my posts again and again... the answer is the same.
if you can get from where you are now to heaven and back... then it is in creation.

..so who was it created for?

lol

anyhoo, what you are actually asking is what was there before god made anything... before he made the throne and the angels and then all sorts of other odds and ends?

the above shows nothing but your own ignorance. i have not nor have i ever asked what existed before god made anything. you would do well to read my posts again.

[MustafaMc]

This is one of the things that the incarnation in particular makes known to us about God.

The act of 'incarnation' (embodiment of a deity or spirit in some earthly form) is something I fail to comprehend. According to your faith, when God 'became flesh' in Jesus' (as) body, did all of Him become incarnate or was it only only a piece of Him? Could the Word be along the same lines as what we believe regarding the Quran as being the Word of Allah (swt)?

These are distinctions between the attributes of God in our two faiths. It seems that in Islam, Allah's magnificients will not allow him to so humiliate himself. But this willingness to do so out of love is his greatest attribute to the Christian understanding, so much so that it is often enough for us when describe God to simply say, "God is love."

No, I can't imagine God needing to eat, drink and relieve Himself of bodily waste. Glory to Allah (swt) in the highest that He is above such baseness!

That illustrates again the difference in our understanding of God, I see Allah (swt) as magnificent, majestic, glorious and worthy of worship simply because of those attributes. From what I can tell about the Christian faith, God (Jesus) is worthy of worship because in spite of God's majesty, He chose to lower Himself to become flesh so that humans may be cleansed of their sins by suffering a humiliating death on the cross. Hence, their adoration is not so much because of who he is, but rather what he did on the cross.

Now the question remains, "If God became flesh during the embryology/birth of Jesus (as) was it all of Him or just a part?"

[M.I.A.]

the above shows nothing but your own ignorance. i have not nor have i ever asked what existed before god made anything. you would do well to read my posts again.

im sorry about that,

the concept of length, width and height may be just as alien to god as time.

anyway, iv contributed too much drivel to this thread so im of to bed.

[MustafaMc]

maybe we are broaching a topic that our finite minds cannot comprehend but let me try again.

How specifically does your questions relate to the topic at hand?

BTW I have run out of words for other ways to say, "Allah (swt) exists beyond our capacity to comprehend." He has revealed to us some of His attributes to give us some understanding of Who it is that we worship. However, you keep trying to put God into a box by trying to wrap your mind around a comprehensible concept of His existence. I am sorry to tell you, but it ain't gonna happen at least during this lifetime, anyway.

[Grace Seeker]

Now the question remains, "If God became flesh during the embryology/birth of Jesus (as) was it all of Him or just a part?"

The very question presupposes something with regard to God that I do not presuppose, namely that God can be quantified. Now, I saw something in Sol Invictus' post that may (I repeat) help me to get a handle on where you are coming from with this question, but I do not know if he accurately represented either your own thinking or the overall understanding of Islam with regard to Allah. So, forgive me for going back to it before I try to better address your question, but I need to better understand your own thinking with regard to the nature Allah before I can help you to understand how your question doesn't even sound like a reasonable question to me, when I am sure it is quite reasonable to you.

now the muslim understanding is that god is in heaven (a creation of his), is surrounded by angels (creation of his), sits on a throne and as such indwells the spheres of length, width, height (a creation of his). these simple things establish that allah has indeed entered his creation. in entering the sphere of space and in allowing himself to be localized on a throne in heaven, he exhibits the dimensions of space (something he would not exhibit before he had created space) and as such he has indeed entered his creation.

Does Sol Invictus represent either your or Islam accurately when he concludes that Allah exhibits the dimensions of space? You see, I see this behind your question as it asks about God as if he were a being bound by space (i.e. "all of him" or "just a part"). So, I want to be sure I understand any axiomatic understandings you have about God that we may or may not share before I try to address your question in order that I am responding to your actuial question and not something else.

[Grace Seeker]

That illustrates again the difference in our understanding of God, I see Allah (swt) as magnificent, majestic, glorious and worthy of worship simply because of those attributes. From what I can tell about the Christian faith, God (Jesus) is worthy of worship because in spite of God's majesty, He chose to lower Himself to become flesh so that humans may be cleansed of their sins by suffering a humiliating death on the cross. Hence, their adoration is not so much because of who he is, but rather what he did on the cross.

No doubt some Christians may worship simply out of thanksgiving for his gift of salvation, but I agree that is a rather selfish reason to worship. I suspect that some Muslims worship simply in hope of being offered admittance to Jannah or not being thrown into the firey pit. Both groups of people seem to me to miss the point that God should be worshipped simply for who he is -- God. We may of course express thanks for his other gifts of light and life and love and, yes, also salvation. If Jesus was merely an instrument by which God effected grace in our lives, he would still be a pretty important figure (as Muhammad is for you in being a willing, submissive instrument of Allah), but we would not worship him. We worship him because we do indeed believe him to be God, the very God who made covenant with Abraham and with Moses and who now makes covenant with all who trust in the his work on the cross as providing a new way for us to be in fellowship with God.

[MustafaMc]

The very question presupposes something with regard to God that I do not presuppose, namely that God can be quantified.

The point of my rhetorical question is that God can't be fully or even partially embodied within Jesus' (as) body as it is an absurdity.

Does Sol Invictus represent either your or Islam accurately when he concludes that Allah exhibits the dimensions of space? You see, I see this behind your question as it asks about God as if he were a being bound by space (i.e. "all of him" or "just a part"). So, I want to be sure I understand any axiomatic understandings you have about God that we may or may not share before I try to address your question in order that I am responding to your actuial question and not something else.

Sol Invictus did not speak the truth with what he wrote and neither do you in repeating it. I see it as a vain attempt to misdirect the attention away from the questions that I asked regarding the incarnation of God within the body of Jesus (astaghfir'Allah) which are pertinent to this thread.

Rather than my writing without knowledge, I will quote from this site: sunnah . org/aqida/aqida1.htm

A man asked Imam Malik: "How did Allah make istiwa' on the throne?" Imam Malik inclined his head and was silent until the sweat of fever covered his brow, then he looked up and said: "Istiwa' (establishment over the Throne) is not unknown, the modality of it is inconceivable in the mind; but belief in it is obligatory, and inquiring about it is a heretical innovation. You are an innovator." And he gave orders for him to be taken out.

Imam Shafi`i in his small treatise entitled al-Fiqh al-akbar said: "Whoever says: al-Rahmanu `ala al-`arsh istawa, it is said to him: This verse is one of the ambiguous matter concerning which one is perplexed to give an answer, and the same is said regarding similar verses."

Imam Abu Mansur `Abd al-Qahir al-Baghdadi in Usul al-Din says: "The correct position according to us is the interpretation of the Throne in this verse to mean the sovereignty, as if He meant that the sovereignty has not been established for any but Him. This interpretation is taken from the saying of the Arabs: "So-and-so's Throne has toppled" if he lost his power." He then cites three examples from poetry illustrating this. He says about the characteristics of Ahl al-Sunna wa al-Jama`a in his al-Farq bayn al-firaq (The differences between the sects): "Ahl al-Sunna are in consensus that Allah, the Flawless, the Exalted, is not bounded by location." He then reports the saying of Sayidina `Ali: "Allah created the Throne as an indication of His power, not for taking it as a place for Himself."

Imam Nawawi said in Sharh al-muhadhdhab: "It is said: We believe that the Merciful is established over the Throne, and we do not know the reality of the meaning of this nor what is meant by it, while we do believe that "There is nothing like Him whatsoever" and that He is exalted far above the most elevated of created things. That is the way of the Salaf or at least their vast majority, and it is the safest because one is not required to probe into such matters."

Shaykh `Abd al-Ghani al-Nabulusi's statement already quoted: "Whoever believes that Allah permeates the Heavens and the Earth, or that He is a body sitting on His Throne, is a disbeliever, even if he thinks he is a Muslim."

Even Sulayman ibn `Abd Allah ibn Muhammad ibn `Abd al-Wahhab, the Wahhabi founder's grandson, declared as unbeliever anyone who used the term "in person" in relation to Allah being in a place, whether one place or an infinite number: "Whoever believes or says: Allah is in person in every place, or in one place: he is a disbeliever. It is obligatory to declare that Allah is distinct from His creation, established over His throne without modality or likeness or examplarity. Allah was and there was no place, then He created place and He is exalted as He was before He created place."

[MustafaMc]

We worship him (Jesus) because we do indeed believe him to be God, the very God who made covenant with Abraham and with Moses and who now makes covenant with all who trust in the his work on the cross as providing a new way for us to be in fellowship with God.

This clearly and unequivocally illustrates that the god you worship is different from Allah (swt) whom I worship.

[Ramadhan]

Does Sol Invictus represent either your or Islam accurately when he concludes that Allah exhibits the dimensions of space?

Sol Invictus' argument is flawed because it already made presumption that Allah is inside heavens. Time and space is inherent nature of the heavens, while Allah is outside the heavens.
Bring me an ayah where it says Allah is inside the heavens.

[Grace Seeker]

This clearly and unequivocally illustrates that the god you worship is different from Allah (swt) whom I worship.

Or at least that we have a different understanding of God's nature and the way he relates to humankind.

The point of my rhetorical question is that God can't be fully or even partially embodied within Jesus' (as) body as it is an absurdity.

OK. Glad you clarified. I truly wasn't aware that it was a rhetorical question. I thought it was one in which you were honestly seeking to understand where as a Christian I was coming from. Sorry for wasting our mutual time in a discussion that you weren't really having with me.

Sol Invictus did not speak the truth with what he wrote and neither do you in repeating it. I see it as a vain attempt to misdirect the attention away from the questions that I asked regarding the incarnation of God within the body of Jesus (astaghfir'Allah) which are pertinent to this thread.

Well, I didn't make any ascertion of what was or was not truth. I asked a question in order to understand what Islam understood to be truth with regard to the "space" that Allah occupies or if that idea is even consonant within Islam. Your rhetorical question made it seem as if it was. I see now that it was only an attempt at deceiving me. I'm trusting that the material you provided from *********** can be better trusted to speak to Islam's understanding of "where" Allah is to be found. Now, for your information, my own view with regard to heaven as a "place" actually is not far from what is reflected by one of those quotes:

Imam Abu Mansur `Abd al-Qahir al-Baghdadi in Usul al-Din says: "The correct position according to us is the interpretation of the Throne in this verse to mean the sovereignty, as if He meant that the sovereignty has not been established for any but Him. This interpretation is taken from the saying of the Arabs: "So-and-so's Throne has toppled" if he lost his power." He then cites three examples from poetry illustrating this. He says about the characteristics of Ahl al-Sunna wa al-Jama`a in his al-Farq bayn al-firaq (The differences between the sects): "Ahl al-Sunna are in consensus that Allah, the Flawless, the Exalted, is not bounded by location." He then reports the saying of Sayidina `Ali: "Allah created the Throne as an indication of His power, not for taking it as a place for Himself."

Despite references made to "looking up" or "going up" into heaven, I see the location of heaven (and thrones and thronerooms) to be a metaphor refering not to a place as much as a concept. That concept being the sovereignty of God. Thus heaven is more where God reigns and his will is done than any particular space that could be identified on a map, even if it were a map of the entire created universe. As said above, God is not bounded by location. But that he is not bounded, does not mean that he cannot dwell in a particular space if he so chooses. I can go into this more if you are really interested in understanding how I can say both at the same time, but there is no need to bother if you are just rhetorically asking questions.

I did find another of the quotes your provided interesting:

Shaykh `Abd al-Ghani al-Nabulusi's statement already quoted: "Whoever believes that Allah permeates the Heavens and the Earth, or that He is a body sitting on His Throne, is a disbeliever, even if he thinks he is a Muslim."

If I understand this correctly, Shaykh 'Abd al-Ghani al-Nabulusi would be saying that those passages which speak of Allah sitting on his throne should NOT be taken literally. It would also seem, that he is implying that since Allah is not to be found in a particular place like his throne, nor permeating the heavens and the earth, that one should not think of Allah as occupying space at all. Would you agree that this is a fair understanding of what he has here said? If so, then it seems that like Christianity, Islam is affirming that God is a spirit. True or untrue?

[Grace Seeker]

Bring me an ayah where it says Allah is inside the heavens.

4:158 "But Allah raised him ['Îsa (Jesus)] up (with his body and soul) unto Himself (and he عليه السلام is in the heavens). And Allah is Ever All-Powerful, All-Wise."

Also 56:78 seems to imply that Allah is in heaven: "in a Book well-guarded (with Allah in the heaven i.e. Al-Lauh Al-Mahfuz )."


Perhaps you could provide the translation (san commentary or parenthetical comments) for this passage: وَهُوَ اللَّهُ فِي السَّمَاوَاتِ وَفِي الْأَرْضِ ۖ يَعْلَمُ سِرَّكُمْ وَجَهْرَكُمْ وَيَعْلَمُ مَا تَكْسِبُونَ

Now, I've already expressed that I accept this is meant to be understood as figurative language and not taken literally. But you asked for said ayats and they do exist.

[Ramadhan]

4:158 "But Allah raised him ['Îsa (Jesus)] up (with his body and soul) unto Himself (and he عليه السلام is in the heavens). And Allah is Ever All-Powerful, All-Wise."

This is the translation of the verse without the addition in the bracket:

Sahih International
Rather, Allah raised him to Himself. And ever is Allah Exalted in Might and Wise.

no mention of "heavens". Also, Eesa (is raised) on to جنّة (paradise), not heavens (سماوات). In any case, this verse also does not say that Eesa is in the realm as Allah SWT.

Also 56:78 seems to imply that Allah is in heaven: "in a Book well-guarded (with Allah in the heaven i.e. Al-Lauh Al-Mahfuz )."

And this is also a translation without the added comment:

Sahih International
In a Register well-protected;

again, without the mention of heavens. And again, it does not say that the Lauh mahfudz is in the same realm as Allah SWT.

Now, I've already expressed that I accept this is meant to be understood as figurative language and not taken literally. But you asked for said ayats and they do exist.

umm...no.
As I have predicted, you (and sol) have confused between Jannah (جنّة) with Heavens ((سماوات . (سماوات is our universe and everything beyond, while جنّة is nothing like we have ever seen or imagine before (this is repeated many times in the qur'an), hence free from space-time. And even then, Allah SWT is not mentioned in the Qur'an as in جنّة.
Don't worry your mistake is common (and basic) among critiques of Islam.

This latest episode reminds all of us how absolutely necessary that scriptures is 100% preserved. Can you imagine if we don't have the Qur'an but rely on so many translations? after a while heavens can be substituted for paradise, and vice versa without ability to check what is the true word being used, and hence the meanings will be changed irrevocable.
There will be millions of different interpretations, just like what happened to bible (and the use of lord, god, servant, son, etc)

[MustafaMc]

Or at least that we have a different understanding of God's nature and the way he relates to humankind.

Perhaps you are right, but you worship Jesus (as) while I do not. Would you agree that the emphasis in Christianity is on Jesus (as) as opposed to the Father aspect of the Trinity?

OK. Glad you clarified. I truly wasn't aware that it was a rhetorical question. I thought it was one in which you were honestly seeking to understand where as a Christian I was coming from. Sorry for wasting our mutual time in a discussion that you weren't really having with me.

I am truly sorry, but I absolutely used the wrong word. I looked up rhetorical this AM and found that it meant a question for which an answer is not expected. I definitely want an answer, but I thought they were questions for which there are no answers possible. What English word would indicate that kind of question?

Well, I didn't make any ascertion of what was or was not truth. I asked a question in order to understand what Islam understood to be truth with regard to the "space" that Allah occupies or if that idea is even consonant within Islam. Your rhetorical question made it seem as if it was. I see now that it was only an attempt at deceiving me. I'm trusting that the material you provided from *********** can be better trusted to speak to Islam's understanding of "where" Allah is to be found. Now, for your information, my own view with regard to heaven as a "place" actually is not far from what is reflected by one of those quotes:

I understand your position and could see where you would think I was trying to deceive you. I have over and over again tried to show how Allah (swt) is outside of our realm of understanding with the illustration of the size of the universe and how it does not contain Allah (swt) and that He is not comprised of elements like we are. I don't know how else to say that as I felt those were pretty good explanations. Conversely, I have over and over again asked how God could be the Father and at the same time be Jesus. In other words I can see the duality, but I can't see the unity in this concept. My questions are directed to trying to understand how you see that Jesus (as) and God are the same.

Despite references made to "looking up" or "going up" into heaven, I see the location of heaven (and thrones and thronerooms) to be a metaphor refering not to a place as much as a concept. That concept being the sovereignty of God. Thus heaven is more where God reigns and his will is done than any particular space that could be identified on a map, even if it were a map of the entire created universe. As said above, God is not bounded by location. But that he is not bounded, does not mean that he cannot dwell in a particular space if he so chooses. I can go into this more if you are really interested in understanding how I can say both at the same time, but there is no need to bother if you are just rhetorically asking questions.

This is getting closer to what I understand from the quotes I provided earlier; however, Allah (swt) reigns over the earth too which is different from the Christian belief that Satan rules the world. I don't see heaven as a place we can physically travel to or merely a concept, but rather a different dimension of existence that we can't comprehend this side of death.

I did find another of the quotes your provided interesting:If I understand this correctly, Shaykh 'Abd al-Ghani al-Nabulusi would be saying that those passages which speak of Allah sitting on his throne should NOT be taken literally. It would also seem, that he is implying that since Allah is not to be found in a particular place like his throne, nor permeating the heavens and the earth, that one should not think of Allah as occupying space at all. Would you agree that this is a fair understanding of what he has here said? If so, then it seems that like Christianity, Islam is affirming that God is a spirit. True or untrue?

I would say that you are close. I agree that "one should not think of Allah as occupying space at all" or for that matter having a shape that we can comprehend. Allah's (swt) existence is beyond what we can put into words. I believe that angels are what we understand to be spirits, which are created beings from light. Angels can become manifest as human beings like to Abraham, Lot, Mary, and Muhammad (Jibrael hadith) (pbut). Could this be a possibility for Jesus' (as) nature that he was the embodiment of an angel? This is not what I understand from Islam as his likeness is that of Adam, but I was wondering what you and others thought about that concept.

[Sol Invictus]

alright, it's now more than obvious that my post has been misunderstood. the only flaw so far is in those individuals who assume that my point rests on allah being located in heaven. it has nothing to do with this and we can exclude the concept of heaven from the equation and still my argument would stand. so on that note, let us try again. what does the claim that allah cannot enter into his creation mean? it would seem to me that what muslims say and what islam teaches are two different things on this matter.

Translation of Sahih Bukhari, Volume 9, Book 93, Number 532s:
Narrated Abu Sa’id Al-Khudri:
When there remain only those who used to worship Allah (Alone), both the obedient ones and the mischievous ones, it will be said to them, ‘What keeps you here when all the people have gone?’ They will say, ‘We parted with them (in the world) when we were in greater need of them than we are today, we heard the call of one proclaiming, ‘Let every nation follow what they used to worship,’ and now we are waiting for our Lord.’ Then the Almighty will come to them in a shape other than the one which they saw the first time, and He will say, ‘I am your Lord,’ and they will say, ‘You are not our Lord.’

Translation of Sahih Bukhari, Volume 6, Book 60, Number 105:
Narrated Abu Said Al-Khudri:
Then (Allah) the Lord of the worlds will come to them in a shape nearest to the picture they had in their minds about Him. It will be said, ‘What are you waiting for?’ Every nation have followed what they used to worship.’ They will reply, ‘We left the people in the world when we were in great need of them and we did not take them as friends. Now we are waiting for our Lord Whom we used to worship.’ Allah will say, ‘I am your Lord.’ They will say twice or thrice, ‘We do not worship any besides Allah.’ “

Translation of Sahih Bukhari, Volume 8, Book 76, Number 577:
Narrated Abu Huraira:
and then only this nation (i.e., Muslims) will remain, including their hypocrites. Allah will come to them in a shape other than they know and will say, ‘I am your Lord.‘ They will say, ‘We seek refuge with Allah from you. This is our place; (we will not follow you) till our Lord comes to us, and when our Lord comes to us, we will recognize Him.

Then Allah will come to them in a shape they know and will say, “I am your Lord.‘ They will say, ‘(No doubt) You are our Lord,’ and they will follow Him.

now from the above it would seem that allah does in fact take on a shape. if he takes on a shape then he exhibits certain dimensions which are the property of space (length, width, height). these very dimensions have not always existed and came into being during the big bang and as such are a creation of allah. yet the fact that allah takes on these very properties goes to show that he does indeed enter his own creation. so once again i must reiterate the fact that unlike what many muslims claim, allah does indeed enter his creation. now in light of the clear evidence above, i would still not be surprised if the claim was made that i have somehow been deceiving in my argument so let's suppose that contrary to evidence, i was in fact wrong and when these texts say that allah will take on a shape they really mean "allah will not take on a shape". let us suppose this is true, it would still not hurt the argument that allah does indeed enter his creation.

that is, we all understand that time is a creation of allah, right? yet allah acts within time in order to fulfill his purpose. the very fact that he acts presupposes the entering of time for there can be no act that does not involve temporality (if one disagrees, they are welcome to give an example of an act that does not take place within time). the very fact of creating everything in existence means that (while he simultaneously created time in doing so) he also entered time to do so. before creation, allah existed in a state of no time where nothing happened. the fact that at some point he chose to create everything in existence means that he took action and action can only happen within the realm of time. so once more, allah entered and repeatedly enters time in order to fulfill his purpose and given that time is a creation of his it becomes obvious that allah does in fact enter into his creation.

now i can already see how i could be misunderstood and as such i will say that i'm not saying that allah is bound to time. i'm only saying that allah did indeed enter time and that contrary to what muslims say, in claiming that allah created everything that exists, islam teaches that allah does in fact enter his creation.

@mustafa: must you believe that i really harbour such dark motives? the fact of the matter is that i saw this claim within your post and merely wanted an explanation.

[Grace Seeker]

Folks, from what I know of Mustafa and Sol, I don't think either of you are seeking to be intentionally deceptive or argumentative simply for arguments sake. Not that you aren't capable of it if pushed, but that isn't what I would think is motivating this discussion (especially with Mustafa's telling us that he didn't mean to use the word "rhetorical"). So, if we can assume that we are alike in seeking truth and better understanding of one another's views, I think that this conversation might be able to continue productively.

However, as we do come from different faiths, it is likely that we are going to have some different apriori assumptions about the meaning behind certain words, for instance understanding the difference between heaven, paradise, and Jannah; or how some statements about Jesus being Lord of heaven and earth and God being Lord of all, and Satan being Lord of this world may be confusing, but aren't the slightest bit contradictory. Some people are willing to quickly bypass such things as being "mere semantics", but they forgot the semantics is the discussion of the meaning of words and language. And while on some occassion the nature of one's discussion may not require that we quibble about whether we are talking about a person's soul or spirit, for many people mean the same thing by either term and use the interchangeably; in other circumstances the difference can be immensely important. When that becomes apparent, I think it is time to slow down, take the time to be clear on our semantics, the imbedded connotation of words that we may not either realize or share, and be sure that we are all talking about the same thing. We have had some mis-communication in the last page, but not enough to derail the thread.

So, before I go on, I want to slow down, and give us a a chance for a breather. And while we're doing that, let me also ask: Is there any concept that I have expressed that anyone feels I may not fully or properly understand what is meant by the term(s)?

[siam]

Maybe, it might be easier to imagine that the universe exists IN God?....instead of God existing in the universe......
....sort of like, the universe as a small grain of sand floating in a vast ocean......?.......

[Sol Invictus]

Maybe, it might be easier to imagine that the universe exists IN God?....instead of God existing in the universe......
....sort of like, the universe as a small grain of sand floating in a vast ocean......?.......

certainly that might be easier, but that is not what christianity nor islam teach. that sounds like pantheism and/or it's cousin, panentheism.

[M.I.A.]

allah does not need to enter his creation,

an all knowing, all powerfull god.. knew of every moment and every thought and every intent even before our creation.

but we do not, so freedom of choice still exists.

im not sure of the validity of those hadith,

gods nature never changes, his ways never change.. paraphrased something like.. and you will find no change in his ways.. cant remember exactly where it says in the quran, so somebody that knows it proper correct me please.

also we understand that the antichrist will claim to be god, what he claims to be heaven is hell and visa versa.. the people who reject him will be few in number.. but ultimately those that represent the god.

anyway judgement day will be the day that you will see god.. and by then your very soul shall testify, your tongue, your skin.. everything that he created.
no rejection on that day.. not on our part anyway.

[Sol Invictus]

allah does not need to enter his creation,

an all knowing, all powerfull god.. knew of every moment and every thought and every intent even before our creation.

but we do not, so freedom of choice still exists.

im not sure of the validity of those hadith,

gods nature never changes, his ways never change.. paraphrased something like.. and you will find no change in his ways.. cant remember exactly where it says in the quran, so somebody that knows it proper correct me please.

also we understand that the antichrist will claim to be god, what he claims to be heaven is hell and visa versa.. the people who reject him will be few in number.. but ultimately those that represent the god.

anyway judgement day will be the day that you will see god.. and by then your very soul shall testify, your tongue, your skin.. everything that he created.
no rejection on that day.. not on our part anyway.

the above is all well and good except it doesn't deal with my argument at all. even if we were to discount those hadiths, it would still not change the fact that allah does indeed enter into his creation. i am not asking for what you believe but merely for a logical rebuttal to what i have posted.

i'll be waiting.

[Woodrow]

alright, it's now more than obvious that my post has been misunderstood. the only flaw so far is in those individuals who assume that my point rests on allah being located in heaven. it has nothing to do with this and we can exclude the concept of heaven from the equation and still my argument would stand. so on that note, let us try again. what does the claim that allah cannot enter into his creation mean? it would seem to me that what muslims say and what islam teaches are two different things on this matter.

Translation of Sahih Bukhari, Volume 9, Book 93, Number 532s:
Narrated Abu Sa’id Al-Khudri:
When there remain only those who used to worship Allah (Alone), both the obedient ones and the mischievous ones, it will be said to them, ‘What keeps you here when all the people have gone?’ They will say, ‘We parted with them (in the world) when we were in greater need of them than we are today, we heard the call of one proclaiming, ‘Let every nation follow what they used to worship,’ and now we are waiting for our Lord.’ Then the Almighty will come to them in a shape other than the one which they saw the first time, and He will say, ‘I am your Lord,’ and they will say, ‘You are not our Lord.’

The ahadith are often very difficult to understand. Especially when taken out of context. The AHadith you mentioned above do not pertain to the past, but rather refer to judgment day. Let us look at a few more parts of Book 93 Number 532, which is quite lengthy.

Volumn 009, Book 093, Hadith Number 532A.
------------------------------------------
Narated By 'Ata' bin Yazid Al-Laithi : On the authority of Abu Huraira: The people said, "O Allah's Apostle! Shall
we see our Lord on the Day of Resurrection?" The Prophet said, "Do you have any difficulty in seeing the moon
on a full moon night?" They said, "No, O Allah's Apostle." He said, "Do you have any difficulty in seeing the sun
when there are no clouds?" They said, "No, O Allah's Apostle." He said, "So you will see Him, like that. Allah will
gather all the people on the Day of Resurrection, and say, 'Whoever worshipped something (in the world) should
follow (that thing),' so, whoever worshipped the sun will follow the sun, and whoever worshiped the moon will follow
the moon, and whoever used to worship certain (other false) deities, he will follow those deities. And there will
remain only this nation with its good people (or its hypocrites). (The sub-narrator, Ibrahim is in doubt.) Allah will
come to them and say, 'I am your Lord.' They will (deny Him and) say, 'We will stay here till our Lord comes, for
when our Lord comes, we will recognize Him.' So Allah will come to them in His appearance which they know, and
will say, 'I am your Lord.' They will say, 'You are our Lord,' so they will follow Him.

Then a bridge will be laid across Hell (Fire)' I and my followers will be the first ones to go across it and none will
speak on that Day except the Apostles. And the invocation of the Apostles on that Day will be, 'O Allah, save!
Save!' In Hell (or over The Bridge) there will be hooks like the thorns of As-Sa'dan (thorny plant). Have you seen
As-Sa'dan? " They replied, "Yes, O Allah's Apostle!" He said, "So those hooks look like the thorns of As-Sa'dan,
but none knows how big they are except Allah. Those hooks will snap the people away according to their deeds.
Some of the people will stay in Hell (be destroyed) because of their (evil) deeds, and some will be cut or torn by
the hooks (and fall into Hell) and some will be punished and then relieved. When Allah has finished His Judgments
among the people, He will take whomever He will out of Hell through His Mercy. He will then order the angels to
take out of the Fire all those who used to worship none but Allah from among those whom Allah wanted to be
merciful to and those who testified (in the world) that none has the right to be worshipped but Allah. The angels
will recognize them in the Fire by the marks of prostration (on their foreheads), for the Fire will eat up all the
human body except the mark caused by prostration as Allah has forbidden the Fire to eat the mark of prostration.
They will come out of the (Hell) Fire, completely burnt and then the water of life will be poured over them and they
will grow under it as does a seed that comes in the mud of the torrent.

Then Allah will finish the judgments among the people, and there will remain one man facing the (Hell) Fire and he
will be the last person among the people of Hell to enter Paradise. He will say, 'O my Lord! Please turn my face
away from the fire because its air has hurt me and its severe heat has burnt me.' So he will invoke Allah in the way
Allah will wish him to invoke, and then Allah will say to him, 'If I grant you that, will you then ask for anything else?'
He will reply, 'No, by Your Power, (Honour) I will not ask You for anything else.' He will give his Lord whatever
promises and covenants Allah will demand.

So Allah will turn his face away from Hell (Fire). When he will face Paradise and will see it, he will remain quiet for
as long as Allah will wish him to remain quiet, then he will say, 'O my Lord! Bring me near to the gate of Paradise.'
Allah will say to him, 'Didn't you give your promises and covenants that you would never ask for anything more
than what you had been given? Woe on you, O Adam's son! How treacherous you are!' He will say, 'O my lord,'
and will keep on invoking Allah till He says to him, 'If I give what you are asking, will you then ask for anything
else?' He will reply, 'No, by Your (Honour) Power, I will not ask for anything else.'

Then he will give covenants and promises to Allah and then Allah will bring him near to the gate of Paradise.
When he stands at the gate of Paradise, Paradise will be opened and spread before him, and he will see its
splendour and pleasures whereupon he will remain quiet as long as Allah will wish him to remain quiet, and then
he will say, O my Lord! Admit me into Paradise.' Allah will say, 'Didn't you give your covenants and promises that
you would not ask for anything more than what you had been given?' Allah will say, 'Woe on you, O Adam's son!
How treacherous you are!'

The man will say, 'O my Lord! Do not make me the most miserable of Your creation,' and he will keep on invoking
Allah till Allah will laugh because of his sayings, and when Allah will laugh because of him, He will say to him,
'Enter Paradise,' and when he will enter it, Allah will say to him, 'Wish for anything.' So he will ask his Lord, and he
will wish for a great number of things, for Allah Himself will remind him to wish for certain things by saying, '(Wish
for) so-and-so.' When there is nothing more to wish for, Allah will say, 'This is for you, and its equal (is for you) as
well."

'Ata' bin Yazid added: Abu Sa'id Al-Khudri who was present with Abu Huraira, did not deny whatever the latter
said, but when Abu Huraira said that Allah had said, "That is for you and its equal as well," Abu Sa'id Al-Khudri
said, "And ten times as much, O Abu Huraira!" Abu Huraira said, "I do not remember, except his saying, 'That is
for you and its equal as well.'" Abu Sa'id Al-Khudri then said, "I testify that I remember the Prophet saying, 'That is
for you, and ten times as much.' ' Abu Huraira then added, "That man will be the last person of the people of
Paradise to enter Paradise."


Volumn 009, Book 093, Hadith Number 532B.
------------------------------------------
Narated By Abu Sa'id Al-Khudri : We said, "O Allah's Apostle! Shall we see our Lord on the Day of Resurrection?"
He said, "Do you have any difficulty in seeing the sun and the moon when the sky is clear?" We said, "No." He
said, "So you will have no difficulty in seeing your Lord on that Day as you have no difficulty in seeing the sun and
the moon (in a clear sky)." The Prophet then said, "Somebody will then announce, 'Let every nation follow what
they used to worship.' So the companions of the cross will go with their cross, and the idolaters (will go) with their
idols, and the companions of every god (false deities) (will go) with their god, till there remain those who used to
worship Allah, both the obedient ones and the mischievous ones, and some of the people of the Scripture. Then
Hell will be presented to them as if it were a mirage. Then it will be said to the Jews, "What did you use to worship?'

They will reply, 'We used to worship Ezra, the son of Allah.' It will be said to them, 'You are liars, for Allah has
neither a wife nor a son. What do you want (now)?' They will reply, 'We want You to provide us with water.' Then it
will be said to them 'Drink,' and they will fall down in Hell (instead). Then it will be said to the Christians, 'What did
you use to worship?' They will reply, 'We used to worship Messiah, the son of Allah.' It will be said, 'You are liars,
for Allah has neither a wife nor a son. What: do you want (now)?' They will say, 'We want You to provide us with
water.' It will be said to them, 'Drink,' and they will fall down in Hell (instead). When there remain only those who
used to worship Allah (Alone), both the obedient ones and the mischievous ones, it will be said to them, 'What
keeps you here when all the people have gone?' They will say, 'We parted with them (in the world) when we were
in greater need of them than we are today, we heard the call of one proclaiming, 'Let every nation follow what they
used to worship,' and now we are waiting for our Lord.' Then the Almighty will come to them in a shape other than
the one which they saw the first time, and He will say, 'I am your Lord,' and they will say, 'You are not our Lord.'
And none will speak: to Him then but the Prophets, and then it will be said to them, 'Do you know any sign by
which you can recognize Him?' They will say. 'The Shin,' and so Allah will then uncover His Shin whereupon every
believer will prostrate before Him and there will remain those who used to prostrate before Him just for showing off
and for gaining good reputation. These people will try to prostrate but their backs will be rigid like one piece of a
wood (and they will not be able to prostrate). Then the bridge will be laid across Hell." We, the companions of the
Prophet said, "O Allah's Apostle! What is the bridge?'

He said, "It is a slippery (bridge) on which there are clamps and (Hooks like) a thorny seed that is wide at one side
and narrow at the other and has thorns with bent ends. Such a thorny seed is found in Najd and is called
As-Sa'dan. Some of the believers will cross the bridge as quickly as the wink of an eye, some others as quick as
lightning, a strong wind, fast horses or she-camels. So some will be safe without any harm; some will be safe after
receiving some scratches, and some will fall down into Hell (Fire). The last person will cross by being dragged
(over the bridge)." The Prophet said, "You (Muslims) cannot be more pressing in claiming from me a right that has
been clearly proved to be yours than the believers in interceding with Almighty for their (Muslim) brothers on that
Day, when they see themselves safe.

They will say, 'O Allah! (Save) our brothers (for they) used to pray with us, fast with us and also do good deeds
with us.' Allah will say, 'Go and take out (of Hell) anyone in whose heart you find faith equal to the weight of one
(gold) Dinar.' Allah will forbid the Fire to burn the faces of those sinners. They will go to them and find some of
them in Hell (Fire) up to their feet, and some up to the middle of their legs. So they will take out those whom they
will recognize and then they will return, and Allah will say (to them), 'Go and take out (of Hell) anyone in whose
heart you find faith equal to the weight of one half Dinar.' They will take out whomever they will recognize and
return, and then Allah will say, 'Go and take out (of Hell) anyone in whose heart you find faith equal to the weight
of an atom (or a smallest ant), and so they will take out all those whom they will recognize." Abu Sa'id said: If you
do not believe me then read the Holy Verse:

'Surely! Allah wrongs not even of the weight of an atom (or a smallest ant) but if there is any good (done) He
doubles it.' (4.40) The Prophet added, "Then the prophets and Angels and the believers will intercede, and (last
of all) the Almighty (Allah) will say, 'Now remains My Intercession. He will then hold a handful of the Fire from which
He will take out some people whose bodies have been burnt, and they will be thrown into a river at the entrance of
Paradise, called the water of life.

They will grow on its banks, as a seed carried by the torrent grows. You have noticed how it grows beside a rock
or beside a tree, and how the side facing the sun is usually green while the side facing the shade is white. Those
people will come out (of the River of Life) like pearls, and they will have (golden) necklaces, and then they will
enter Paradise whereupon the people of Paradise will say, 'These are the people emancipated by the Beneficent.
He has admitted them into Paradise without them having done any good deeds and without sending forth any
good (for themselves).' Then it will be said to them, 'For you is what you have seen and its equivalent as well.'"


Volumn 009, Book 093, Hadith Number 532C.
------------------------------------------
Narated By Anas : The Prophet said, "The believers will be kept (waiting) on the Day of Resurrection so long that
they will become worried and say, "Let us ask somebody to intercede far us with our Lord so that He may relieve
us from our place.

Then they will go to Adam and say, 'You are Adam, the father of the people. Allah created you with His Own Hand
and made you reside in His Paradise and ordered His angels to prostrate before you, and taught you the names
of all things will you intercede for us with your Lord so that He may relieve us from this place of ours? Adam will
say, 'I am not fit for this undertaking.' He will mention his mistakes he had committed, i.e., his eating off the tree
though he had been forbidden to do so. He will add, 'Go to Noah, the first prophet sent by Allah to the people of
the Earth.' The people will go to Noah who will say, 'I am not fit for this undertaking' He will mention his mistake
which he had done, i.e., his asking his Lord without knowledge.' He will say (to them), 'Go to Abraham, Khalil
Ar-Rahman.' They will go to Abraham who will say, 'I am not fit for this undertaking. He would mention three words
by which he told a lie, and say (to them). 'Go to Moses, a slave whom Allah gave the Torah and spoke to, directly
and brought near Him, for conversation.'

They will go to Moses who will say, 'I am not fit for this undertaking. He will mention his mistake he made, i.e.,
killing a person, and will say (to them), 'Go to Jesus, Allah's slave and His Apostle, and a soul created by Him and
His Word.' (Be: And it was.) They will go to Jesus who will say, 'I am not fit for this undertaking but you'd better go
to Muhammad the slave whose past and future sins have been forgiven by Allah.' So they will come to me, and I
will ask my Lord's permission to enter His House and then I will be permitted. When I see Him I will fall down in
prostration before Him, and He will leave me (in prostration) as long as He will, and then He will say, 'O
Muhammad, lift up your head and speak, for you will be listened to, and intercede, for your intercession will be
accepted, and ask (for anything) for it will be granted:' Then I will raise my head and glorify my Lord with certain
praises which He has taught me. Allah will put a limit for me (to intercede for a certain type of people) I will take
them out and make them enter Paradise." (Qatada said: I heard Anas saying that), the Prophet said, "I will go out
and take them out of Hell (Fire) and let them enter Paradise, and then I will return and ask my Lord for permission
to enter His House and I will be permitted.

When I will see Him I will fall down in prostration before Him and He will leave me in prostration as long as He will
let me (in that state), and then He will say, 'O Muhammad, raise your head and speak, for you will be listened to,
and intercede, for your intercession will be accepted, and ask, your request will be granted.' " The Prophet added,
"So I will raise my head and glorify and praise Him as He has taught me. Then I will intercede and He will put a limit
for me (to intercede for a certain type of people). I will take them out and let them enter Paradise." (Qatada
added: I heard Anas saying that) the Prophet said, 'I will go out and take them out of Hell (Fire) and let them enter
Paradise, and I will return for the third time and will ask my Lord for permission to enter His house, and I will be
allowed to enter.

When I see Him, I will fall down in prostration before Him, and will remain in prostration as long as He will, and then
He will say, 'Raise your head, O Muhammad, and speak, for you will be listened to, and intercede, for your
intercession will be accepted, and ask, for your request will be granted.' So I will raise my head and praise Allah
as He has taught me and then I will intercede and He will put a limit for me (to intercede for a certain type of
people). I will take them out and let them enter Paradise." (Qatada said: I heard Anas saying that) the Prophet
said, "So I will go out and take them out of Hell (Fire) and let them enter Paradise, till none will remain in the Fire
except those whom Qur'an will imprison (i.e., those who are destined for eternal life in the fire)." The narrator then
recited the Verse: "It may be that your Lord will raise you to a Station of Praise and Glory.' (17.79) The narrator
added: This is the Station of Praise and Glory which Allah has promised to your Prophet.

Just my opinion but I can not see where it states this final judgment will occur on Earth or even within the creation. Somebody more knowledge in the Science of Ahadith, may explain this better than my attempt. The Ahadith are not the words of Allaah(swt) they are quotes of things that were said by men. There is some leeway that some may be metaphoric or analogous not necessarily intended to be taken literal.

It actually takes a well studied Scholar to properly explain many of the Ahadith. But from reading this in context with all of 532 I do not understand it as saying Allaah(swt) will actually enter the world.

[Sol Invictus]

The ahadith are often very difficult to understand. Especially when taken out of context. The AHadith you mentioned above do not pertain to the past, but rather refer to judgment day. Let us look at a few more parts of Book 93 Number 532, which is quite lengthy.



Just my opinion but I can not see where it states this final judgment will occur on Earth or even within the creation. Somebody more knowledge in the Science of Ahadith, may explain this better than my attempt. The Ahadith are not the words of Allaah(swt) they are quotes of things that were said by men. There is some leeway that some may be metaphoric or analogous not necessarily intended to be taken literal.

It actually takes a well studied Scholar to properly explain many of the Ahadith. But from reading this in context with all of 532 I do not understand it as saying Allaah(swt) will actually enter the world.

my point does not rest on those hadiths taking place in the past. rather they illustrate that allah does in fact enter into his creation by taking on dimensions (length, width, height). it doesn't even matter where this purported discussion will take place because anywhere that it will, will be a place that which allah has created so the problem is not in fact resolved. you seem to only understand creation as this world, that is incorrect. creation is everything else that exists outside of allah and therefore any other place that this conversation could take place at would be a creation of allah and therefore, allah does indeed enter his creation. but let's go even one step further and completely discount those hadiths. let's suppose that they are completely wrong, even then it would not hurt my point because the very fact that allah acts means that he enters time to do so seeing as action cannot exist outside of time. this in itself proves my point but given that we are so quick to discount hadiths when the situation calls for it (i say this because these very same hadiths have been used by muslims to show that they will in fact one day meet with and see allah and as such i had assumed that their authenticity were generally agreed to be true), i will quote from the muslim holy book:

But when he came to it, he was called: "Blessed is whosoever is in the fire, and whosoever is round about it! And glorified be Allah, the Lord of the 'Alamin (mankind, jinns and all that exists). "O Musa (Moses)! Verily! It is I, Allah, the All-Mighty, the All-Wise. "And throw down your stick!" But when he saw it moving as if it were a snake, he turned in flight, and did not look back. (It was said): "O Musa (Moses)! Fear not, verily! The Messengers fear not in front of Me. --- S. 27:8-10

now as muslims explain it, allah is in his abode and is speaking to moses. in this way they assume that they'll stay clear of the accusation that allah has entered his creation by being in the fire. we can go with this explanation if you would like but even then it still shows that allah has entered his creation. notice that allah is speaking. speech can only take place within the realm of time and time itself is a thing that has not always existed and was in fact created by allah. as such it is his creation. in order to speak allah must enter within the realm of time and as such allah does indeed enter his creation. therefore, what muslims say and what islam teaches on this point are two contradictory things. the only way this problem can be resolved is if we assume that allah did not in fact create time yet this would conversely show that he didn't truly create all things. now, i'm not trying to tell muslims that they must believe that allah does indeed enter his creation but merely that the qur'an attests to the fact that he does and as such the claim that he does not is patently false and illogical. illogical because it betrays a lack of understanding of the nature of time and creation.

[Woodrow]

Now that is a very large loaf of bread to try eating at one sitting. I will begin with just what I see as the easiest concept. The concept that Allaah(swt) exists within his creation as he exists in time and time is his creation.

. the only way this problem can be resolved is if we assume that allah did not in fact create time yet this would conversely show that he didn't truly create all things. now, i'm not trying to tell muslims that they must believe that allah does indeed enter his creation but merely that the qur'an attests to the fact that he does and as such the claim that he does not is patently false and illogical. illogical because it betrays a lack of understanding of the nature of time and creation.

I agree you make a very good and logical argument. The only resolution is to show Allaah(swt) did not create time. But that seems to bring up other issues.

Actually it is very simple. Allaah(swt) did not create time. Time is not a creation and is not a thing. Time is a measurement, but it itself is non existent. Time is a human concept and mathematical function to enable predictability of motion. Time is not a part of creation, it is a means to measure creation.

[Sol Invictus]

I agree you make a very good and logical argument. The only resolution is to show Allaah(swt) did not create time. But that seems to bring up other issues.

Actually it is very simple. Allaah(swt) did not create time. Time is not a creation and is not a thing. Time is a measurement, but it itself is non existent. Time is a human concept and mathematical function to enable predictability of motion. Time is not a part of creation, it is a means to measure creation.

the above is in stark contrast to the accepted theory of cosmology. the fact is that time is not merely a mathematical function, but rather what has been shown is that time itself had a beginning. like space it has not always existed but came into being at that point we call the big bang. at this point in our understanding of science, to say that time is merely a mathematical function (and as such to say that it does not really exist) is akin to saying that area does not really exist or gravity does not really exist. it has been shown rather conclusively that time is in fact real (hence why we speak of the space-time continuum etc.) by the fact that it came into being at some point and so the problem of allah entering his own creation is not resolved. it strikes me as odd that muslims would claim that islam conforms to the accepted theory of cosmology while if your words and opinion is to be taken as the general muslim understanding on the matter, it is more than evident that it does not. time is as real as height or any other fundamental part of this universe and to deny this is to be in error. so once again, i must restate the fact that while the qur'an quite clearly teaches that allah does actually enter his own creation, many muslims deny this in contradiction to the qur'an.

p.s. the philosophy of time is quite fascinating and one of my interests, especially how it relates to the concept of an eternal god.

[Sol Invictus]

sol, your a stubburn bugger and i am in no doubt that if you cannot see people answering your question then you are a higher caliber of troll than normal.
if god wants to enter creation to rescue you, im sure he will.
hopefully.

if he sends you an angel, take suit measurements.

if its bird droppings...S@@@ happens.

god does not have to enter creation if he is creation.. you sir... missed the point entirely.

he technically does not even have to judge you, your own hands will be your undoing(goes for six billion..give or take the history of the world)

you can troll people all you like but mostly if any damage is done then its your own soul you wrong..

if you are genuinly trying to find answers and are able to quote hadith and quran... and are yet in doubt of god.. then i am sorry for you.

in fact every post you make really leads me to believe that you cannot be serious in anything other than trying to confuse people or bringing tumult of the mind.

god really does not need to be here, you will do a good enough job of doing what you were suppose to do without knowing what you were doing until he lets you know what you were doing.. in fact not long ago someone posted that the greatest reward is the countenance of allah..

i see myself everday, when i see something i dont recognise il be sure to be thankfull for finally getting close to god and leaving the coveting of my own soul behind..

and do not covet your own soul... paraphrased by the quran.

have a nice day, im out

now now, calling me names does not constitute an argument. neither does it make your case to become angry because of not being able to answer questions that deal with mere logic. that said the rest of your post is baseless and i'm sorry that you will cease participating but perhaps this in itself was for the best. i must say though, that it is not the case that i do not believe in god, rather i do and his name is Yahweh. this is not a question of whether it is logical for god to exist or not but whether the statement that he does not enter his creation is logical. in light of science, logic, and the qur'an itself, it is quite evident that he does and as such the claim to the contrary as baseless, incorrect, and illogical. for what it's worth this conversation was enjoyable, thank you.

[MustafaMc]

I would like to know how this recent discussion pertains to the nature of Jesus' (as) birth.

[جوري]

I would like to know how this recent discussion pertains to the nature of Jesus' (as) birth.

He can't validate his christian argument from christian sources and has no education whatsoever about Islam (the other thread closed before he can counter my argument) Good luck getting him to steer the discussion to be in concert with the topic or common sense for that matter!

:w:

[Sol Invictus]

I would like to know how this recent discussion pertains to the nature of Jesus' (as) birth.

it doesn't particularly pertain to the topic yet like i said, it was mentioned in your post and so i thought i'd ask. yet i suppose that we can put the topic to rest now given that it has become more than obvious that allah does indeed enter his creation.

[جوري]

it doesn't particularly pertain to the topic yet like i said, it was mentioned in your post and so i thought i'd ask. yet i suppose that we can put the topic to rest now given that it has become more than obvious that allah does indeed enter his creation.

No such conclusion is drawn and is certainly not in concert with Islamic teaching, there is a science to hadiths which you're certainly not equipped to interpret or present as an argument to suit your christian position.
The topic stays open and if you can't handle it and it is clear that you can't then try to concoct a graceful exit and let some other magod worshiping fellow take the heat spinning tall tales of christian nonsense to our amusement!

all the best

[جوري]

Can God become Man?

The Qur'an says that God has power over all things, but is the concept of a 'Godman' even considered a thing in the first place?



What does the word 'thing' mean anyways?



It is any attribute or quality considered as having its own existence. (www.hyperdictionary.com)



Now there are certain concepts that make no sense and cannot even be classified as a 'thing'...


The same applies to the creation of an object so heavy that Allah could not lift it. It is impossible, because Allah is the One who creates it, and He is able to destroy it at any moment, so how can He be unable to lift it?


The atheist only wants to cast aspersions on the general meaning of the words of Allah, "Allah has power over all things" [al-Talaq 65:12]. So he says, if He has power over all things, why does He not have the power to do this?



The answer is: Because it is impossible, it is nothing.


That which is impossible does not exist, because it cannot exist, so it is nothing, even if the mind can imagine it. It is known that the mind can assume and imagine the impossible; the mind can imagine two opposites, such as something existing and not existing, at the same time.


The verse states that Allah has power over "things" but that does not include things that are inherently impossible, because they are not things, rather they do not exist and they cannot be brought into existence.

Hence more than one of the scholars have stated that the power of Allah has to do with that which is possible, for the reason that we have mentioned, which is that that which is non-existent and impossible is not a "thing".


Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyah (may Allah have mercy on him) said: As for Ahl al-Sunnah, in their view Allah, may He be exalted, has power over all things, and everything that is possible is included in that. As for that which is inherently impossible, such as a thing both existing and being non-existent, there is no reality in it and its existence cannot be imagined, so it cannot be called a "thing" according to the consensus of the wise. This includes the idea of creating another like Himself, and so on. End quote from Manhaj al-Sunnah (2/294).

Ibn al-Qayyim (may Allah have mercy on him) said in Shifa' al-'Aleel (p. 374): Because that which is impossible is not a "thing", so His Power has nothing to do with it. Allah has power over all things and no possible thing is beyond His power. End quote. Source: http://www.islam-qa.com/index.php?ref=87677&ln=eng


Concepts that are self contradictory and inherently incoherent cannot be classified as things. They are only words. For example...



- What is north of the North Pole?

- I know someone who is a married bachelor.

- Can you draw me a triangle with four sides?

- Write out a number for me that is odd and even at the same time.

- Meet me on Tuesday when it is noon and midnight at the same time.

- God created an uncreated and eternal God just like Himself.



All of these don't make sense. They are only words; they are not 'things'.

The same is said regarding someone being God and man at the same time.

We say this is logically incoherent for one cannot be

- Infinite and finite at the same time.

- All powerful and not all powerful at the same time

- All knowing and not all knowing at the same time.

- Independent but dependent at the same time.


Christians may want to argue back that Jesus gave up his divine attributes temporarily and then became a man. However, there is still a problem with that.

For it is God's divine attributes that make God, GOD.

Imagine you have a cheeseburger. Then you take away the cheese. Is it still a cheeseburger? Of course not. The attribute of cheese is essential in order for the burger to be a cheeseburger. You can't have a cheeseburger with out cheese.

Similarly, God's essential attributes are those of omnipotence, omniscience, etc. Once they are put aside, that person ceases to be God.

We only believe that Allah can do things that are reasonable and beyond our reason (e.g. knowing what everyone is thinking about at the same time) but we do not believe that He does that which is AGAINST reason.

Christians fail to differentiate between God doing things BEYOND our reason and AGAINST reason.


The incarnation is AGAINST reason.

http://www.islamic-life.com/forums/c...sm/god-man-677

[Sol Invictus]

No such conclusion is drawn and is certainly not in concert with Islamic teaching, there is a science to hadiths which you're certainly not equipped to interpret or present as an argument to suit your christian position.
The topic stays open and if you can't handle it and it is clear that you can't then try to concoct a graceful exit and let some other magod worshiping fellow take the heat spinning tall tales of christian nonsense to our amusement!

all the best

oh dear, i have given logical proofs, proofs from hadiths, and proof from your very own qur'an and the above is all you can speak of? i'm perfectly fine with discounting those hadiths and i repeatedly said that we could in fact do so, this still would not refute my point. this subject can be talked about for as long as you would like, i certainly don't have any problems with that but i would ask that you would perhaps deal with my argument in your next post. please do take me to task as it regards my argument.

(sorry mustafa but it would seem like this subject has not said its last hurrah just yet.)

[جوري]

oh dear, i have given logical proofs, proofs from hadiths, and proof from your very own qur'an and the above is all you can speak of? i'm perfectly fine with discounting those hadiths and i repeatedly said that we could in fact do so, this still would not refute my point. this subject can be talked about for as long as you would like, i certainly don't have any problems with that but i would ask that you would perhaps deal with my argument in your next post. please do take me to task as it regards my argument. (sorry mustafa but it would seem like this subject has not said its last hurrah just yet.)

You've provided clear proof to your very ailing mental status and inability to make a logical cohesive argument, but I find it quite laughable that you venture into uncharted categories discussing Islam when you can barely sustain your beliefs as a christian!

and I have already countered your argument in post number 82!

all the best

[Sol Invictus]

You've provided clear proof to your very ailing mental status and inability to make a logical cohesive argument, but I find it quite laughable that you venture into uncharted categories discussing Islam when you can barely sustain your beliefs as a christian!

and I have already countered your argument in post number 82!

all the best

it's wonderful that you believe that you have countered my post but mere belief does not make it so. in fact that post has nothing to do with what i had said. have you read my post? if so could you please tell me how the matter relates to the argument i laid out repeatedly in my previous posts? it would seem that you are now seeking to argue against the christian conception of christ's divinity and i am more than pleased to speak on the matter as well given that the above only shows that you and everyone else who believes in what you have posted commits an error of categories (but i'll speak more of this in my next reply to you when i'll deal with the argument properly).

yet once more i must ask you how your post relates to the fact that allah indeed enters his creation? forgive my oh so ailing mind but would you care to develop this argument? you bring about supposed proofs that jesus can't be god and that's all well and good (we will get to showing how those are incorrect quite soon, so don't worry) but the claim that allah does enter into his creation does not necessarily have to do with christ being god. you had claimed that my arguments were illogical so please demonstrate this claim of yours to be true.

i'll be waiting.

[جوري]

it's wonderful that you believe that you have countered my post but mere belief does not make it so. in fact that post has nothing to do with what i had said. have you read my post? if so could you please tell me how the matter relates to the argument i laid out repeatedly in my previous posts? it would seem that you are now seeking to argue against the christian conception of christ's divinity and i am more than pleased to speak on the matter as well given that the above only shows that you and everyone else who believes in what you have posted commits an error of categories (but i'll speak more of this in my next reply to you when i'll deal with the argument properly).

Again with the logorrheaic verbiage.. Look at the thread title and try to stick with it. Don't bring Islamic writings into this and be under the impression that you've made an argument. It is tedious and unamusing. I understand that seems to be your only ammo in lieu of making a cohesive argument (as pertains to the thread) but boring people into having the last statement doesn't equate with a debate!

yet once more i must ask you how your post relates to the fact that allah indeed enters his creation? forgive my oh so ailing mind but would you care to develop this argument? you bring about supposed proofs that jesus can't be god and that's all well and good (we will get to showing how those are incorrect quite soon, so don't worry) but the claim that allah does enter into his creation does not necessarily have to do with christ being god. you had claimed that my arguments were illogical so please demonstrate this claim of yours to be true.

Where in Islam does it say God enters into the creation?

i'll be waiting.

While you do try to cut down on the crap with your next post!

all the best

[جوري]

Translation of Sahih Bukhari, Volume 8, Book 76, Number 577: Narrated Abu Huraira: and then only this nation (i.e., Muslims) will remain, including their hypocrites. Allah will come to them in a shape other than they know and will say, ‘I am your Lord.‘ They will say, ‘We seek refuge with Allah from you. This is our place; (we will not follow you) till our Lord comes to us, and when our Lord comes to us, we will recognize Him. Then Allah will come to them in a shape they know and will say, “I am your Lord.‘ They will say, ‘(No doubt) You are our Lord,’ and they will follow Him.

Let's show the people how dishonest you're when you copy the ahadiths from orientalists sites with the disparity in just one hadith since I don't have all day to clean your crap!

Volume 8, Book 76, Number 577:

Narrated Abu Huraira:
Some people said, "O Allah's Apostle! Shall we see our Lord on the Day of Resurrection?" He said, "Do you crowd and squeeze each other on looking at the sun when it is not hidden by clouds?" They replied, "No, Allah's Apostle." He said, "Do you crowd and squeeze each other on looking at the moon when it is full and not hidden by clouds?" They replied, No, O Allah's Apostle!" He said, "So you will see Him (your Lord) on the Day of Resurrection similarly Allah will gather all the people and say, 'Whoever used to worship anything should follow that thing. 'So, he who used to worship the sun, will follow it, and he who used to worship the moon will follow it, and he who used to worship false deities will follow them; and then only this nation (i.e., Muslims) will remain, including their hypocrites. Allah will come to them in a shape other than they know and will say, 'I am your Lord.' They will say, 'We seek refuge with Allah from you. This is our place; (we will not follow you) till our Lord comes to us, and when our Lord comes to us, we will recognize Him.
Then Allah will come to then in a shape they know and will say, "I am your Lord.' They will say, '(No doubt) You are our Lord,' and they will follow Him. Then a bridge will be laid over the (Hell) Fire." Allah's Apostle added, "I will be the first to cross it. And the invocation of the Apostles on that Day, will be 'Allahukka Sallim, Sallim (O Allah, save us, save us!),' and over that bridge there will be hooks Similar to the thorns of As Sa'dan (a thorny tree). Didn't you see the thorns of As-Sa'dan?" The companions said, "Yes, O Allah's Apostle." He added, "So the hooks over that bridge will be like the thorns of As-Sa-dan except that their greatness in size is only known to Allah. These hooks will snatch the people according to their deeds. Some people will be ruined because of their evil deeds, and some will be cut into pieces and fall down in Hell, but will be saved afterwards, when Allah has finished the judgments among His slaves, and intends to take out of the Fire whoever He wishes to take out from among those who used to testify that none had the right to be worshipped but Allah.
We will order the angels to take them out and the angels will know them by the mark of the traces of prostration (on their foreheads) for Allah banned the f ire to consume the traces of prostration on the body of Adam's son. So they will take them out, and by then they would have burnt (as coal), and then water, called Maul Hayat (water of life) will be poured on them, and they will spring out like a seed springs out on the bank of a rainwater stream, and there will remain one man who will be facing the (Hell) Fire and will say, 'O Lord! It's (Hell's) vapor has Poisoned and smoked me and its flame has burnt me; please turn my face away from the Fire.' He will keep on invoking Allah till Allah says, 'Perhaps, if I give you what you want), you will ask for another thing?' The man will say, 'No, by Your Power, I will not ask You for anything else.'
Then Allah will turn his face away from the Fire. The man will say after that, 'O Lord, bring me near the gate of Paradise.' Allah will say (to him), 'Didn't you promise not to ask for anything else? Woe to you, O son of Adam ! How treacherous you are!' The man will keep on invoking Allah till Allah will say, 'But if I give you that, you may ask me for something else.' The man will say, 'No, by Your Power. I will not ask for anything else.' He will give Allah his covenant and promise not to ask for anything else after that. So Allah will bring him near to the gate of Paradise, and when he sees what is in it, he will remain silent as long as Allah will, and then he will say, 'O Lord! Let me enter Paradise.' Allah will say, 'Didn't you promise that you would not ask Me for anything other than that? Woe to you, O son of Adam ! How treacherous you are!' On that, the man will say, 'O Lord! Do not make me the most wretched of Your creation,' and will keep on invoking Allah till Allah will smile and when Allah will smile because of him, then He will allow him to enter Paradise, and when he will enter Paradise, he will be addressed, 'Wish from so-and-so.' He will wish till all his wishes will be fulfilled, then Allah will say, All this (i.e. what you have wished for) and as much again therewith are for you.' "
Abu Huraira added: That man will be the last of the people of Paradise to enter (Paradise).
Narrated 'Ata (while Abu Huraira was narrating): Abu Said was sitting in the company of Abu Huraira and he did not deny anything of his narration till he reached his saying: "All this and as much again therewith are for you." Then Abu Sa'id said, "I heard Allah's Apostle saying, 'This is for you and ten times as much.' " Abu Huraira said, "In my memory it is 'as much again therewith.' "

Aside from the fact that you misquote and misapply meaning.. the hadith clearly speaks of events to occur in the hereafter (upon resurrection) and nothing to do with God entering into creation!

Where do you come up with the crap you come up with?
next time for your own credibility double check with an Islamic website what you quote.. and triple check it in Arabic, and quadruple check it with Isnad and quintet check it with a scholar for meaning. That is how the Muslims do it so we don't end up taking men for gods!

all the best

[MustafaMc]

I believe that the greatest pleasure for believers in Paradise will be to see or otherwise to perceive Allah (swt). I am not going to pretend that I understand the means or the how that this will be, but I believe we worship a God that exists and we will one day perceive this Divine Being. The closest image or mental perception I have of Allah (swt) is that given in the Quran 24:35 Allah is the Light of the heavens and the earth. The similitude of His light is as a niche wherein is a lamp. The lamp is in a glass. The glass is as it were a shining star. (This lamp is) kindled from a blessed tree, an olive neither of the East nor of the West, whose oil would almost glow forth (of itself) though no fire touched it. Light upon light. Allah guides unto His light whom He will. And Allah speaks to mankind in allegories, for Allah is Knower of all things. And yet I believe that this ayat is allegorical that will be meaningful to believers on that Day. I see that the discussion about Allah (swt) entering His creation is being irreverent to His majesty and I fear Allah (swt) to discuss this matter further as it would be speculating and speaking without knowledge. As Brother Yusuf and Sister Insaana have said on another thread, and Allah (swt) knows best.

[Woodrow]

the above is in stark contrast to the accepted theory of cosmology. the fact is that time is not merely a mathematical function, but rather what has been shown is that time itself had a beginning. like space it has not always existed but came into being at that point we call the big bang. at this point in our understanding of science, to say that time is merely a mathematical function (and as such to say that it does not really exist) is akin to saying that area does not really exist or gravity does not really exist. it has been shown rather conclusively that time is in fact real (hence why we speak of the space-time continuum etc.) by the fact that it came into being at some point and so the problem of allah entering his own creation is not resolved. it strikes me as odd that muslims would claim that islam conforms to the accepted theory of cosmology while if your words and opinion is to be taken as the general muslim understanding on the matter, it is more than evident that it does not. time is as real as height or any other fundamental part of this universe and to deny this is to be in error. so once again, i must restate the fact that while the qur'an quite clearly teaches that allah does actually enter his own creation, many muslims deny this in contradiction to the qur'an.

p.s. the philosophy of time is quite fascinating and one of my interests, especially how it relates to the concept of an eternal god.

Actually I was going back to my old university years and attempting to work my answer in accordance with Einstein's General theory of relativity. The concept of time is quite an interesting field. In a general overview of what I have gathered from Dr. Einstein is that there is only existence or non-existence. time is essentially a concept and not a thing. Helpful as a math function and form of measurement.

[Grace Seeker]

Actually I was going back to my old university years and attempting to work my answer in accordance with Einstein's General theory of relativity. The concept of time is quite an interesting field. In a general overview of what I have gathered from Dr. Einstein is that there is only existence or non-existence. time is essentially a concept and not a thing. Helpful as a math function and form of measurement.

Woodrow, the same that you have said about time could be said of the measurements we use of space -- length, width, depth. Are you suggesting that these are not "things" either, and that they were not created in the same way you suggest that time is not created? You are the first person in the fields of either religion or science to ever suggest to me that time does not exist as a part of creation. I understand that ideas of a Euclidean universe of 3 dimensions of space and one dimension of time have been repostulated in which space and time are combined into a single manifold, but I have yet to see it argued as I understand you to suggest that time itself does not exist, other than that it could not have existed prior to the creation of the universe in which we do indeed (as you yourself say) measure it. How is that not the same as saying that time was created in the act of creating the universe? (And, relative to Mustafa's question, what does this rabbit trail have to do with the actual topic of this thread?)

[Ramadhan]

proof from your very own qur'an

where?
where in the Qur'an that says Allah is inside creation?

also, did you read my explanation in post #64?

I am fine that you believe that God suckled, cried, peed and pooped, but PLEASE do not even try to drag us down to your level.

[Grace Seeker]

I believe that the greatest pleasure for believers in Paradise will be to see or otherwise to perceive Allah (swt). I am not going to pretend that I understand the means or the how that this will be, but I believe we worship a God that exists and we will one day perceive this Divine Being. The closest image or mental perception I have of Allah (swt) is that given in the Quran 24:35 Allah is the Light of the heavens and the earth. The similitude of His light is as a niche wherein is a lamp. The lamp is in a glass. The glass is as it were a shining star. (This lamp is) kindled from a blessed tree, an olive neither of the East nor of the West, whose oil would almost glow forth (of itself) though no fire touched it. Light upon light. Allah guides unto His light whom He will. And Allah speaks to mankind in allegories, for Allah is Knower of all things. And yet I believe that this ayat is allegorical that will be meaningful to believers on that Day. I see that the discussion about Allah (swt) entering His creation is being irreverent to His majesty and I fear Allah (swt) to discuss this matter further as it would be speculating and speaking without knowledge. As Brother Yusuf and Sister Insaana have said on another thread, and Allah (swt) knows best.

And (throwing a big switch that just might bring this thread back to its original topic) still speaking allegorically, I believe that this light you speak of didn't just shine down from heaven to illumine the world from outside, but actually manifested itself in the world.

In him was life, and that life was the light of all mankind. The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it.... The true light that gives light to everyone was coming into the world. He was in the world, and though the world was made through him, the world did not recognize him.... The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the one and only Son, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth.... This is the verdict: Light has come into the world, but people loved darkness instead of light because their deeds were evil. Everyone who does evil hates the light, and will not come into the light for fear that their deeds will be exposed. But whoever lives by the truth comes into the light, so that it may be seen plainly that what they have done has been done in the sight of God.

Just as quantum physics are beyond the capacity of most of us to understand, and those who understand them find that they are still not able to adequately explain all that is observable in the world, so too I think that we who seek to understand how this allegorical light has made itself shown in the world often find ourselves unable to articulate adequately how it works but only that we observe it to nonetheless be true.

You and I both agree that God is light. And not only that he is light but that he reveals himself to humankind in a way that shines light into our world. What we disagree on is the nature of that revelation. You see it here and I see it there. But then, we are both limited by the light that we personally see by. If we quit being followers of a particular religion for a moment, and stay within the allegory of science, one thing of which any competent scientist must always be aware is that the very act of observation and point of view of that observation can itself change the outcome of an experiment. If we apply that principle to our present discussion, my view of Christ as God incarnate is most likely colored by that revelation (or that light) which I have accepted and that which I have not. I would suggest the same is true for non-Christians as well. Which one of us stands in better light? Well, you are the only one who has stood in both. But I'm not sure whether such information answers the question or begs the question.

Enough of the allegory.

How could God enter into the world?
If one presupposes that it is an impossibility, then he can't. But who are we humans to exclude something as being impossible for God.
If one presupposes that it is beneath him, then he wouldn't. But who are we to decide what the sovereign Lord will or will not do?
If we allow for its possibility, but say that in so doing that he is no longer God, then we have said that God is not God even before we allowed for the possibility. Rather, we have determined that God must act in accordance with our way of understanding and thinking of him in order for him to be God, and that makes not God, but our way of thinking supreme.


I find none of those answers acceptable, when I truly think of God as being supreme and able to do what he wills with regard to his creation, then that includes entering into it. This possibility must be so, even if I can't explain exactly how he could.

[Woodrow]

Woodrow, the same that you have said about time could be said of the measurements we use of space -- length, width, depth. Are you suggesting that these are not "things" either, and that they were not created in the same way you suggest that time is not created? You are the first person in the fields of either religion or science to ever suggest to me that time does not exist as a part of creation. I understand that ideas of a Euclidean universe of 3 dimensions of space and one dimension of time have been repostulated in which space and time are combined into a single manifold, but I have yet to see it argued as I understand you to suggest that time itself does not exist, other than that it could not have existed prior to the creation of the universe in which we do indeed (as you yourself say) measure it. How is that not the same as saying that time was created in the act of creating the universe? (And, relative to Mustafa's question, what does this rabbit trail have to do with the actual topic of this thread?)

Peace Gene.
First I apologize for running down the rabbit hole and dragging the thread with me. Without going into specifics and if one wants to know more about the view of the non existence of time I suggest they do a study of Einstein's general and special theories of relativity.

Outside of that the best option is to find some practical way to find a magic switch to get this thread back on topic. As everyone seems to have had good intentions any mass deletions would be unfair. I'll just do my part and agree to keep my future replies on on the original topic.

[Grace Seeker]

First I apologize for running down the rabbit hole and dragging the thread with me. .

When one takes a giant step and changes the topic in one fell swoop, it is easy to notice. This thread got of one seemingly related by slightly divergent point at a time, till it was going in a completely different direction.

Though I don't know why we should think it would be any easier to discuss the nature of Jesus' birth, the birth of the one of whom his own nature would be described as a hypostatic union of him being both God and man at the same time without ever comingling those two natures, and expect it to be any easier to discuss than that of the nature of light which when observed appears to behave as both a particle and a wave at the same time.

[MustafaMc]

You and I both agree that God is light. And not only that he is light but that he reveals himself to humankind in a way that shines light into our world. What we disagree on is the nature of that revelation. You see it here and I see it there. But then, we are both limited by the light that we personally see by.

I take it that your quote was comprised from piecemeal passages from the Gospel according to John. I am not sure that I agree that God is literally light any more than He is spirit in the sense that we understand them. I understand the Quranic passage as a metaphor and as a deep mystery. Although I can understand light to some extent, I haven't observed light in the manner described and can't imagine an actual vision that could result from that descriptive passage.

... my view of Christ as God incarnate is most likely colored by that revelation (or that light) which I have accepted and that which I have not. I would suggest the same is true for non-Christians as well. Which one of us stands in better light? Well, you are the only one who has stood in both. But I'm not sure whether such information answers the question or begs the question.

If God is light and Jesus is God, then in what respect is Jesus light? From what I can tell in all aspects of Jesus' life on earth (with the except of the Transfiguration), Jesus appeared as a human and not any more light-like than Peter or John was. My transition from Christianity to Islam was like "throwing a big switch" which I call a paradigm shift. Flipping that switch from one to the other was not something that I strove to do, nor do I even see that I "did it", rather the switch was flipped from outside of myself such that I saw things in a completely different light. Which brings to mind the last part of the ayat I quoted, Allah guides unto His light whom He will. And Allah speaks to mankind in allegories, for Allah is Knower of all things.

Enough of the allegory.

How could God enter into the world?
If one presupposes that it is an impossibility, then he can't. But who are we humans to exclude something as being impossible for God.
If one presupposes that it is beneath him, then he wouldn't. But who are we to decide what the sovereign Lord will or will not do?
If we allow for its possibility, but say that in so doing that he is no longer God, then we have said that God is not God even before we allowed for the possibility. Rather, we have determined that God must act in accordance with our way of understanding and thinking of him in order for him to be God, and that makes not God, but our way of thinking supreme.


I find none of those answers acceptable, when I truly think of God as being supreme and able to do what he wills with regard to his creation, then that includes entering into it. This possibility must be so, even if I can't explain exactly how he could.

I see that the Christian belief about God can be equated to saying that someone can be in Egypt and at the same time in New York, or that someone can be 100% African and 100% Caucasian, or 100% female and 100% male. I believe that God is One and that in and of itself precludes Him from being divisible into different persons with the first person saying to the second, "This is my Son, whom I love; with him I am well pleased", or the second praying in Gethsemane to the first, "not my will, but yours be done", or the first sending the third in the name of the second (John 14:26). My mind can't comprehend how these examples illustrate Unity. I suspect that your mind can't either and that you accept it on faith with your saying the 3 are one makes it so.

[Sol Invictus]

Let's show the people how dishonest you're when you copy the ahadiths from orientalists sites with the disparity in just one hadith since I don't have all day to clean your crap!
[/INDENT]Aside from the fact that you misquote and misapply meaning.. the hadith clearly speaks of events to occur in the hereafter (upon resurrection) and nothing to do with God entering into creation!

Where do you come up with the crap you come up with?
next time for your own credibility double check with an Islamic website what you quote.. and triple check it in Arabic, and quadruple check it with Isnad and quintet check it with a scholar for meaning. That is how the Muslims do it so we don't end up taking men for gods!

all the best

listen, i'm perfectly fine with teaching you about christianity, but i'm certainly disenheartened to have to also teach you about islam. let us not even mention that all your points were responded to in my answer towards woodrow. that said, let me try again. the fact that the hadiths take place in the hereafter does not save you nor the muslim deity from the consequences of my argument. even if they take place somewhere in the hereafter, they would still place in some place that allah himself created for creation is everything outside of allah. so yes, even in those very hadiths, allah enters into his creation unless of course you will now claim that allah didn't create this future meeting place either (which would then add to the seemingly growing list of things which allah has not in fact created). yet as i have mentioned numerous times already, i'm perfectly fine with discounting those hadiths. let's do so and i would be more than happy. it still would not change my argument from the qur'an nor my argument from logic. please, start on focusing on these because as is, you have only repeated things to which i have already provided an answer.

I believe that the greatest pleasure for believers in Paradise will be to see or otherwise to perceive Allah (swt). I am not going to pretend that I understand the means or the how that this will be, but I believe we worship a God that exists and we will one day perceive this Divine Being. The closest image or mental perception I have of Allah (swt) is that given in the Quran 24:35 Allah is the Light of the heavens and the earth. The similitude of His light is as a niche wherein is a lamp. The lamp is in a glass. The glass is as it were a shining star. (This lamp is) kindled from a blessed tree, an olive neither of the East nor of the West, whose oil would almost glow forth (of itself) though no fire touched it. Light upon light. Allah guides unto His light whom He will. And Allah speaks to mankind in allegories, for Allah is Knower of all things. And yet I believe that this ayat is allegorical that will be meaningful to believers on that Day. I see that the discussion about Allah (swt) entering His creation is being irreverent to His majesty and I fear Allah (swt) to discuss this matter further as it would be speculating and speaking without knowledge. As Brother Yusuf and Sister Insaana have said on another thread, and Allah (swt) knows best.

the above is all well and good yet it still does not deal with my argument. it's rather clear that allah does indeed enter into his creation and if you disagree with this please engage my argument. as is, no one has yet to engage my full argument (i believe that woodrow did come quite close though. let us give credit where credit is due.) instead what has happened is that individuals have only focused on small portions of it. don't like the hadiths? then no problem, we can completely discount them, it still would not hurt my argument. that said, please engage my argument. the claim that allah does not enter his creation is illogical and is contradictory to the claims that the qur'an makes about allah. once again, please engage the argument.

Actually I was going back to my old university years and attempting to work my answer in accordance with Einstein's General theory of relativity. The concept of time is quite an interesting field. In a general overview of what I have gathered from Dr. Einstein is that there is only existence or non-existence. time is essentially a concept and not a thing. Helpful as a math function and form of measurement.

thank you for the background information woodrow, i can see now what led you to claim that time does not really exist. what should be noted though is that when stephen hawking, george ellis, and roger penrose extended the equations for general relativity to include space and time, the results showed that time has a beginning. that being the big bang (the moment of creation).
"The conclusion of this lecture is that the universe has not existed forever. Rather, the universe, and time itself, had a beginning in the Big Bang, about 15 billion years ago." http://www.hawking.org.uk/index.php/...liclectures/62

the following speak more on the subject:
Penrose, R. 1966. An analysis of the structure of space-time. Adams Prize Essay, Cambridge University.
Hawking, S.W. 1966. Singularities and the Geometry of space-time. Adams Prize Essay, Cambridge University.
Hawking, S.W. and G.F.R. Ellis. 1968. The cosmic black-body radiation and the existence of singularities in our universe. Astrophysical Journal 152: 25-36.
Hawking, S.W. and R. Penrose. 1970. The singularities of gravitational collapse and cosmology. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series A: 529-548.

so in conclusion, the answer is that time did have a beginning and as such it is a real entity. given that you admit that the reality of time would be detrimental to your counter-argument then not much else needs to be said on the subject. it is now clearly evident that allah does indeed enter into his creation.

where?
where in the Qur'an that says Allah is inside creation?

also, did you read my explanation in post #64?

I am fine that you believe that God suckled, cried, peed and pooped, but PLEASE do not even try to drag us down to your level.

i've read your post #64 and it clearly did not even understand what i was talking about. as such, i've clarified it repeatedly and would very much like it if you could actually engage my argument. you ask me where the qur'an states that allah enters creation. that is a good step but you seem to ignore the contents of my post. please go back and start taking me to task about that which i have written. once more, please begin to engage my argument.

The same is said regarding someone being God and man at the same time.

We say this is logically incoherent for one cannot be

- Infinite and finite at the same time.

- All powerful and not all powerful at the same time

- All knowing and not all knowing at the same time.

- Independent but dependent at the same time.


Christians may want to argue back that Jesus gave up his divine attributes temporarily and then became a man. However, there is still a problem with that.

For it is God's divine attributes that make God, GOD.

Imagine you have a cheeseburger. Then you take away the cheese. Is it still a cheeseburger? Of course not. The attribute of cheese is essential in order for the burger to be a cheeseburger. You can't have a cheeseburger with out cheese.

Similarly, God's essential attributes are those of omnipotence, omniscience, etc. Once they are put aside, that person ceases to be God.

We only believe that Allah can do things that are reasonable and beyond our reason (e.g. knowing what everyone is thinking about at the same time) but we do not believe that He does that which is AGAINST reason.

Christians fail to differentiate between God doing things BEYOND our reason and AGAINST reason.


The incarnation is AGAINST reason.

http://www.islamic-life.com/forums/c...sm/god-man-677

now i must begin with congratulating you (or rather your source) on wording the matter perfectly. that is perhaps the best case against the belief that jesus can be god and it is precisely how i would have worded it, were i a muslim. yet i must say that the matter is pretty much already settled given that we are talking in terms of logic and the above source seems to possess no knowledge of the hypostatic union. without further ado, let us begin.

it must be acknowledged that the above points rest on the individual nature of the thing in question being transformed into something that is contradictory to it. hence why the following can be said (and quit correctly that is):

Can you draw me a triangle with four sides?

as we can all see, the nature of a triangle is that it has 3 sides so the triangle can not be made to have 4 sides and suddenly remain a triangle. if we can all agree on this matter then i must move on to say that that is not what the christian says in claiming that god became man. we do not say that the divine essence was converted into a human essence so that the divine would cease to be divine. rather we say that god took on a human nature and not that he transformed the divine nature into a human one.

The Divine and human natures cannot alternate, so that the Divine should become human or the human Divine; nor can they be so commingled as that a third should be produced from the two which is neither wholly Divine nor wholly human. For, granting that it were possible for either to be changed into the other, it would in that case be only God and not man, or man only and not God. Or, if they were so commingled that a third nature sprung from the combination of the two (as from two animals, a male and a female of different species, a third is produced, which does not preserve entire the species of either parent, but has a mixed nature derived from both), it would neither be God nor man. Therefore the God-man, whom we require to be of a nature both human and Divine, cannot be produced by a change from one into the other, nor by an imperfect commingling of both in a third; since these things cannot be, or, if they could be, would avail nothing to our purpose. Moreover, if these two complete natures are said to be joined somehow, in such a way that one may be Divine while the other is human, and yet that which is God not be the same with that which is man, it is impossible for both to do the work necessary to be accomplished. For God will not do it, because he has no debt to pay; and man will not do it, because he cannot. Therefore, in order that the God-man may perform this, it is necessary that the same being should [be] perfect God and perfect man, in order to make this atonement. For he cannot and ought not to do it, unless he be very God and very man. Since, then, it is necessary that the God-man preserve the completeness of each nature, it is no less necessary that these two natures be united entire in one person, just as a body and a reasonable soul exist together in every human being; for otherwise it is impossible that the same being should be very God and very man. - Cur Deus Homo, Chapter VII

the above is a word on the matter by saint anselm of canterbury. while at this point, the above does not quite explain everything, once you have continued to read what i write, it will certainly begin to make sense.

the question now becomes whether it is logical for a person to be both god and man at the same time seeing as to be god means to be infinite and to be man is to be finite. in keeping with your simple example of a triangle and a square here is an example of the christian conception of christ (the following is what i have written on the subject for another person but i'll simply copy and paste it here):

Let us imagine a triangle. Now we all know the nature of a triangle i.e. it’s attributes, the things that make a triangle a triangle as opposed to a rectangle or circle. Good. Now let us at this point imagine a box. Once more we know what is the nature of a box and furthermore, we are also aware that the nature of a box is in direct contradiction to the nature of a triangle. Now suppose that we were to place the triangle within the box, would we then have a confusion, a mixing, an intermingling of the two essences/natures? No, we would possess one unit (the Triangle-Box if you would like) with the essences of both objects intact. The triangle would not cease to be a triangle and neither would the box cease to be a box—on the contrary we would now have a unit that possesses in its being the very attributes of both in that it is not half a box and half a triangle but rather a full (perfect) triangle and a full (perfect) box. A veritable Triangle-Box, wherein the unit is one but the essences are two. In just the same manner does the Christian speak of God becoming man. God did not cease being God, he did not convert the divine essence into a human essence; instead he took on a second nature aside from his divine nature. As such in the unit that is the individual, Christ Jesus, there are two natures with contradicting attributes simultaneously present. As with the Triangle-Box, Jesus can claim the otherwise mutually exclusive prerogatives that come with each nature because of them being simultaneously existent in his being. Such that he can increase in knowledge as man, but always have known all things as God. Such that he can pray to the father as man, yet have no need to do so as God. Such that should he will it, he is able to give his life unto death as man, and yet death never having any power or hold over him as God. He does everything as the God-Man—mystery upon mystery. In short, He is both three-sided and four-sided at the same time.

let us remember that the your point rested on the single nature being converted into its opposite yet simultaneously remaining that which makes it whatever it is (the nature of triangle being converted into that of a square yet somehow also remaining a triangle). this whole argument is blown completely out of the water when the muslim understands that christians speak of god taken on, for the purpose of salvation a second nature and not converting the divine nature into a human one. in light of this understanding by christians, the muslim objections are put to rest because they become untenable when christians are allowed to explain the matter of the hypostatic union. i must confess that given that the muslim argument was made on the premise of logic, the argument was more than easy to refute seeing as your source never even understood what christians meant by christ becoming man. his whole argument relies on the single premise that the one nature was converted into the other while the christian claim is that a second nature was taken on. this explanation averts the problem of any change to the being of god whatsoever and furthermore, is logically robust. i do not ask you to believe this but it is more than evident that the christian claim cannot be attacked in terms of logic.

now, i have answered and refuted all the above arguments. to those who would still claim that allah does not enter into his creation, can you please begin to engage my argument?

[Sol Invictus]

I see that the Christian belief about God can be equated to saying that someone can be in Egypt and at the same time in New York, or that someone can be 100% African and 100% Caucasian, or 100% female and 100% male. I believe that God is One and that in and of itself precludes Him from being divisible into different persons with the first person saying to the second, "This is my Son, whom I love; with him I am well pleased", or the second praying in Gethsemane to the first, "not my will, but yours be done", or the first sending the third in the name of the second (John 14:26). My mind can't comprehend how these examples illustrate Unity. I suspect that your mind can't either and that you accept it on faith with your saying the 3 are one makes it so.

no, that is not the christian belief. it once again misunderstands the claim as if christians claimed that the single nature could be converted into its opposite and simultaneously remain that which makes it itself and its opposite. concerning the matter of 3 in one, i spoke of it at length in the trinity thread and yet no one brought forth a logical rebuttal. is it that you perhaps missed the discussion?

[Ramadhan]

you ask me where the qur'an states that allah enters creation. that is a good step but you seem to ignore the contents of my post

I have read your posts, and no where did I find you give an ayah from the Quran that states clearly Allah enters the creation. If I missed it, please let me know where.

please begin to engage my argument.

what argument?
You gave hadiths which have been dealt and explained by others. And I am in agreement with their explanations.

But still one thing missing:

Where's the Qur'an ayah?

Let me remind you of your claim:

so once again, i must restate the fact that while the qur'an quite clearly teaches that allah does actually enter his own creation, many muslims deny this in contradiction to the qur'an.

so once again, I must restate the fact: where's the Qur'an ayahs?

[Sol Invictus]

Where's the Qur'an ayah?

so once again, I must restate the fact: where's the Qur'an ayahs?

and the above is why i asked you to reread the posts because clearly you seem to be ignoring my posts. anyway here it is:

But when he came to it, he was called: "Blessed is whosoever is in the fire, and whosoever is round about it! And glorified be Allah, the Lord of the 'Alamin (mankind, jinns and all that exists). "O Musa (Moses)! Verily! It is I, Allah, the All-Mighty, the All-Wise. "And throw down your stick!" But when he saw it moving as if it were a snake, he turned in flight, and did not look back. (It was said): "O Musa (Moses)! Fear not, verily! The Messengers fear not in front of Me. --- S. 27:8-10

now as muslims explain it, allah is in his abode and is speaking to moses. in this way they assume that they'll stay clear of the accusation that allah has entered his creation by being in the fire. we can go with this explanation if you would like but even then it still shows that allah has entered his creation. notice that allah is speaking. speech can only take place within the realm of time and time itself is a thing that has not always existed and was in fact created by allah. as such it is his creation. in order to speak allah must enter within the realm of time and as such allah does indeed enter his creation. therefore, what muslims say and what islam teaches on this point are two contradictory things. the only way this problem can be resolved is if we assume that allah did not in fact create time yet this would conversely show that he didn't truly create all things. now, i'm not trying to tell muslims that they must believe that allah does indeed enter his creation but merely that the qur'an attests to the fact that he does and as such the claim that he does not is patently false and illogical. illogical because it betrays a lack of understanding of the nature of time and creation.

now i anticipate that you will try to respond with something along the lines of the qur'an doesn't explicitly state that allah enters into his creation yet explicit as well as implicit statements teach truths. in fact, this is the very same discussion that we got into in the trinity thread and as i recall i called this line of reasoning faulty and you have yet to refute the argument. that said, the above is my argument as it relates to the qur'an and logic, i would very much like it if you could begin to engage the argument.

i'll be waiting.

[Ramadhan]

and the above is why i asked you to reread the posts because clearly you seem to be ignoring my posts. anyway here it is:

now i anticipate that you will try to respond with something along the lines of the qur'an doesn't explicitly state that allah enters into his creation yet explicit as well as implicit statements teach truths. in fact, this is the very same discussion that we got into in the trinity thread and as i recall i called this line of reasoning faulty and you have yet to refute the argument. that said, the above is my argument as it relates to the qur'an and logic, i would very much like it if you could begin to engage the argument.

i'll be waiting.

First off, I just find it funny to hear christian mixing "logic" and scripture.

That aside, the explanation is easy (if you believe in logic).

Allah caused the soundwaves in the burning bush to vibrate and emit sound to Musa (as) to listen.

Let me make things simpler for you:
You've heard of a telephone, right?
Now, say your mother make a telephone call to you and you heard the voice coming out from the speakers. Is the voice your mother?

See, I have engaged in your argument.

Now please answer my question (which is about the nature of Jesus as):

When Jesus (as) suckled milk, cried, peed and pooped, was he a human or god?

[Sol Invictus]

First off, I just find it funny to hear christian mixing "logic" and scripture.

That aside, the explanation is easy (if you believe in logic).

Allah caused the soundwaves in the burning bush to vibrate and emit sound to Musa (as) to listen.

Let me make things simpler for you:
You've heard of a telephone, right?
( a ) Now, say your mother make a telephone call to you and you heard the voice coming out from the speakers. Is the voice your mother? See, I have engaged in your argument.

Now please answer my question (which is about the nature of Jesus as):

( b ) When Jesus (as) suckled milk, cried, peed and pooped, was he a human or god?

( a ) your logic is faulty because even in your very own example the voice from the telephone stems from your mother. it is still an act she undertakes and one that can only be done from within the realm of time. all you've done is to prove my point once again and i suppose that it is only right of me to thank you for doing so. thank you naidamar, it would seem that for once we are in agreement.

suddenly it isn't allah that is speaking? how much of islam are you willing to deny? but that's alright, let's say that contrary to what the qur'an claims, allah was not actually speaking. it still does not change the fact that at a given moment he acted to have the sound waves to vibrate etc. action in itself can only happen within time (think about it, there is a moment before, during, and after the act) and as such this displays to us once again that allah does indeed enter his creation. thank you once again naidamar, you are far too kind.

( B ) it merely the human body which does these things. god as he is in himself does not and as such it doesn't hurt the argument that jesus is god. what one nature does cannot be predicated on the other and so your point cannot hurt the christian understanding of things. and it is not an either or question, christ is still god because the divine nature is not that which does these things but rather the human. and as has been demonstrated, it is not illogical and therefore contrary to reason that such a thing be possible. so christ was both god and man. you have yet to refute the logic of my post.

[Ramadhan]

( a ) your logic is faulty because even in your very own example the voice from the telephone stems from your mother. it is still an act she undertakes and one that can only be done from within the realm of time. all you've done is to prove my point once again and i suppose that it is only right of me to thank you for doing so. thank you naidamar, it would seem that for once we are in agreement.

I knew you were baiting me with this one.

It seems i gave the example too difficult for you to understand. Of course your mother is within realm of time and of course your time need a telephone to call you.
a human needs to act within the realm of time, God does not have to act within the realm of time.
Dude, your logic is pretty screwed up, I guess from believing that God couldn't do anything on earth unless he embodied a human being.

suddenly it isn't allah that is speaking? how much of islam are you willing to deny? but that's alright, let's say that contrary to what the qur'an claims, allah was not actually speaking. it still does not change the fact that at a given moment he acted to have the sound waves to vibrate etc. action in itself can only happen within time (think about it, there is a moment before, during, and after the act) and as such this displays to us once again that allah does indeed enter his creation. thank you once again naidamar, you are far too kind.

who said Allah was not speaking? My explanation does not negate that Allah was speaking to Musa (as).
Unless you claim that speech is actual part of a person, this verse taken as is does not show that Allah enter creation.

( B ) it merely the human body which does these things. god as he is in himself does not and as such it doesn't hurt the argument that jesus is god. what one nature does cannot be predicated on the other and so your point cannot hurt the christian understanding of things. and it is not an either or question, christ is still god because the divine nature is not that which does these things but rather the human. and as has been demonstrated, it is not illogical and therefore contrary to reason that such a thing be possible. so christ was both god and man. you have yet to refute the logic of my post.

You are really disingenuous, to say the least.

you keep saying logic, but it is obvious for everyone to see that it is so meaningless.

let's say jesus was both human and god. Jesus suckled breast, cried, peed, pooped and half naked on cross. so human and god suckled breast, cried, peed, pooped and half naked on cross.

you have yet to refute the logic of my post.

[Grace Seeker]

When Jesus (as) suckled milk, cried, peed and pooped, was he a human or god?

Yes, he was. He was human. He was God. That's the whole meaning of the word incarnation -- "in the flesh". It isn't either/or. It is both/and. Yet without his two natures being confused or comingled.

You don't have to buy it, believe it, teach it, or even understand it. We just ask that you don't misrepresent it.





Sol Invictus, the discussion has become so tangled I'm not sure any longer what your original point was with regard to trying to place Allah within creation. Of course we Christians place God within creation in speaking of the incarnation. But even though I speak of God interacting with people prior to the incarnation, even showing himself in theophanies to Abraham, Moses, and Elijah. I would not have spoken of God as having entered creation or being a part of creation. In that regard, I can see from a Christian perspective even, why a person who held to the Islamic understanding of the nature of God would not want to say that Allah was in creation either. I think there is a difference between interacting with it and entering into it. But maybe I misunderstand what it was you were originally trying to say.

[Sol Invictus]

a human needs to act within the realm of time, ( a ) God does not have to act within the realm of time.
Dude, your logic is pretty screwed up, I guess from believing that God couldn't do anything on earth unless he embodied a human being.

who said Allah was not speaking? My explanation does not negate that Allah was speaking to Musa (as).
Unless you claim that speech is actual part of a person, ( b ) this verse taken as is does not show that Allah enter creation.



You are really disingenuous, to say the least.

( c ) you keep saying logic, but it is obvious for everyone to see that it is so meaningless.

( d ) let's say jesus was both human and god. Jesus suckled breast, cried, peed, pooped and half naked on cross. so human and god suckled breast, cried, peed, pooped and half naked on cross.

you have yet to refute the logic of my post.

( a ) action by its very definition evokes the realm of time. can you name me a single action that does not have to do with temporality?

( b ) the very fact that allah acts shows that he does enter into his creation. all you do is merely claim that this is not the case.

( c ) i would have to disagree. i seem to recall the following being said as it regards my argument:

I agree you make a very good and logical argument. The only resolution is to show Allaah(swt) did not create time. But that seems to bring up other issues.

( d ) yes we could in fact say this, but this would not make it so. it is the same as when christians say that god died. they do not mean that god as he is in himself died but rather that the human body he occupied underwent the experience known as death. the body is not god, and while, should he will it, the body can die, god as he is cannot. now contrary to this, if you still disagree you can make the case for why the properties of one nature must be predicated on the other. after having done so, you can explain to us how, if what you claim is true, allah himself would not also become a creation seeing as he exhibits the properties of space (length, width, height), acts within time etc. and as such he exhibits the properties of his creation.

[Ramadhan]

( a ) action by its very definition evokes the realm of time. can you name me a single action that does not have to do with temporality?

As God is omnitemporal, then the actions of God has nothing to do with temporality.
Unless you believe that God is not omnitemporal.
Oh wait, of course you do. You are a christian after all.

( b ) the very fact that allah acts shows that he does enter into his creation. all you do is merely claim that this is not the case.

You have not asnwered my question: is speech part of a person?

( d ) yes we could in fact say this, but this would not make it so.

So it's a yes but no?

'mmkkayy....

nice logic you have there.

[Sol Invictus]

Sol Invictus, the discussion has become so tangled I'm not sure any longer what your original point was with regard to trying to place Allah within creation. Of course we Christians place God within creation in speaking of the incarnation. But even though I speak of God interacting with people prior to the incarnation, even showing himself in theophanies to Abraham, Moses, and Elijah. I would not have spoken of God as having entered creation or being a part of creation. In that regard, I can see from a Christian perspective even, why a person who held to the Islamic understanding of the nature of God would not want to say that Allah was in creation either. I think there is a difference between interacting with it and entering into it. But maybe I misunderstand what it was you were originally trying to say.

initially it wasn't so much a point as it was a question. the fact that there was so much resistance to it only made me explain my position further. i think that both the bible and qur'an are quite clear that god enters into creation without it detracting from his majesty or glory. the means by which god interacts with creation are all mediated through time and time itself is a creation of his and as such god does indeed enter into his creation. i am not claiming that god is bound to it (yet even then it would not matter seeing as we all believe that god is bound by logic, goodness etc.) but merely that interaction with his creation cannot be had without the realm of time. examples of this include sending the angel gabriel down with a revelation for muhammad, ushering the day of judgement etc. all these things involve temporality and time itself is one of his creations. as such it is fairly evident that he does indeed enter into that which he has made. if one believes that this robs god of his glory then it is their own understanding that must be realigned with what god's actions say about himself and not the other way around.

[Ramadhan]

Yes, he was. He was human. He was God. That's the whole meaning of the word incarnation -- "in the flesh". It isn't either/or. It is both/and. Yet without his two natures being confused or comingled.

so human and god pooped.

Unless, you're claiming that god was abstain momentarily from jesus when he pooped?

[Sol Invictus]

As God is omnitemporal, then the actions of God has nothing to do with temporality.
Unless you believe that God is not omnitemporal.
Oh wait, of course you do. You are a christian after all.

even this would not prove your point. the fact that god is omnitemporal still shows that he acts within time and as such my argument still stands.

You have not asnwered my question: is speech part of a person?

speech doesn't even need to be part of the person for my argument to be true. even in humans speech is not part of the person but the act of speaking is still one that involves time. in allah's case, even the decision to make the sound waves produce sound at some particular moment involves the realm of time.

let me tell you how you could escape the consequences of this argument. you must either show that time is not real (yet science tells us that it is) or you must show that an action does not involve temporality (yet this also cannot be done seeing as an act by its very definition involves time).

[Grace Seeker]

Mustafa, et, al.,

I'm going on short sleep here, so I reserve the right to correct, even contradict, myself later. That said, I think that all of us, Christian and Muslim (and any other person who speaks about God) must head the advice of a fellow dabbler in quantum physic who wrote regarding the origin of space/time:

I think the problem lies in that our brains are limited in that we can only visualize 3d space and time. Some ppl can conceptualize 1 or 2 more dimensions max. But to take it any further than that, you need to use math. But even with math its like trying to find a needle in the haystack in that its a hit-miss proposition from the get-go. Its one thing to be able to use real world scenario's to work out theories such as considering what a beam of light shining down from a light fixture in a train looks like to a passenger in that train versus what it looks like to an observer standing on the platform outside as the train is blowing by, but its an entirely different proposition to try to conceptualize scenarios in other dimensions in order to help focus your thoughts. Our brains just arent built that way.

Now, I do believe we were built to know God, even to live in relationship with God. But I don't think we were built to understand God. That is quite a different thing. Rather, God makes himself known to us in small bite-sized bits of revelation: the beauty of creation, our innate longing for something outside ourselves, the inspiration given to prophets. I submit that relative to God himself even the most sublime scripture is bite-sized. And further, because of our limitations in understanding, we translate even that into ways of thinking that harmonize with our pre-existing way of thinking and expressing things. So it is that I speak of God in terms in which I express God as being big and us and our knowledge of him as being small.

But why? Why do I speak of God as big and me as small? What makes that comparison more appropriate than to say it the other way around? I submit to you that it isn't the actual nature of God which drives this way of thinking, but my own human nature which views big as greater.

For most of us here (I realize it isn't 100%) would argue that God doesn't actually occupy space in the sense of being able to be meausured in inches or pounds, so comparisons of size are more because they help me to talk about God's greatness than because they really identify anything measurable about God. Our language about God is, as you said Mustafa, allegorical. It is metaphor. Even the Bible's own statement about light and dark is a metaphor.

Now, I don't find it surprising, or in anyway troubling that the Bible would speak in metaphor or that the Qur'an would speak in allegory. Indeed, I would be most surprised if they didn't. In fact, I expect the use of allegroy, metaphor, and other figurative language is present more than we give it credit for being. For example, we read in both our sacred scriptures of God speaking of Allah seeing. And, because you and I do these things via the mechanisms of eyes and ears we project these constructs onto God as well. And though our different scriptures themselves may each speak of the hand of God, I believe that we humans would be wiser to understand such statements to be constructed so that we might relate to the action of the passage than to be informative as to God's form, and even less to convey the idea of a physical body.

Indeed, one of my basic understandings with regard to God that I believe is conveyed in the Christian scriptures (and I had thought was similarly held to be true in Islam, though you've said previously that I was wrong on this point) is that God is not bound by space or time in any way. I don't just mean that he has it within himself to miraculously transport himself from one place or point of time to another, but that he doesn't need to, for he exists outside of time and space and does not inhabit it. Indeed, I personally like the suggest that they reside within him.

And, I know however close our beliefs may (or perhaps may not) be up to that point, it is at this point they most definitely diverge. For, with respect to the original focus of this thread, we do claim that Jesus was God incarante, and we claim that to say this is not to say that the above was no longer true, but that it remained true even as God placed himself within his creation. I understand it does not make sense to you. I understand that the more I describe it the less it seems even plausible or consistent with the nature of God as you now know him. But this is the Christian understanding of what it means to say, as our scriptures do indeed affirm, that God became flesh and dwelled among us, even that God was pleased to have all his fulness dwell in the Christ. However, even as you vehemently disagree with what we say is true with regard to the nature of Jesus, I would hope that you might be able to see why it is that we assert that even as we worship Jesus, that we are not worship someone who is a partner of God, but of none other than God himself. Such a statement is shirk to you, but it is Gospel to us.

[Ramadhan]

even this would not prove your point. the fact that god is omnitemporal still shows that he acts within time and as such my argument still stands.

You already made presumption that because the speech (effect) happened in real time then the act must also have occurred in the realm of time.
You cannot God who is omnipotent and omnitemporal could cause the speech (effect) to materialize at one point in time.

I understand your position. I believed Allah said "kun faya kun", and then jesus was borne inside maryam ra tummy.
But you cannot get around that and believe that God must actually get inside maryam (ra)'s tummy.

speech doesn't even need to be part of the person for my argument to be true

you made assumption that Allah acted at that point in time in burning bush (I understand that christians actually believe moses saw God Himself in the fire LOL).

even in humans speech is not part of the person but the act of speaking is still one that involves time. in allah's case, even the decision to make the sound waves produce sound at some particular moment involves the realm of time.

Yup. This is confrimation that you actually believe God is not omnitemporal.

Thank you sol.

let me tell you how you could escape the consequences of this argument. you must either show that time is not real (yet science tells us that it is) or you must show that an action does not involve temporality (yet this also cannot be done seeing as an act by its very definition involves time).

You have to show me how God is not omnitemporal, using your logic and scripture if necessary.

now back to Jesus as:

So, when Jesus pooped, was god still with him or abstain?

[Grace Seeker]

initially it wasn't so much a point as it was a question. the fact that there was so much resistance to it only made me explain my position further. i think that both the bible and qur'an are quite clear that god enters into creation without it detracting from his majesty or glory. the means by which god interacts with creation are all mediated through time and time itself is a creation of his and as such god does indeed enter into his creation. i am not claiming that god is bound to it (yet even then it would not matter seeing as we all believe that god is bound by logic, goodness etc.) but merely that interaction with his creation cannot be had without the realm of time. examples of this include sending the angel gabriel down with a revelation for muhammad, ushering the day of judgement etc. all these things involve temporality and time itself is one of his creations. as such it is fairly evident that he does indeed enter into that which he has made. if one believes that this robs god of his glory then it is their own understanding that must be realigned with what god's actions say about himself and not the other way around.

For me, what you describe still is no more than God interacting with his creation, as a child interacts with his toys. It doesn't mean that God actually enters into his creation. I see a greater distinction between those two constructs than you appear to acknowledge. For example, I disagree with your statement:

we all believe that god is bound by logic, goodness etc

I do not actually believe that God is bound by these things. I don't believe a sovereign God is bound by anything, unless he so binds himself. Just because I cannot myself conceive of it, does not mean that God could not have created a world in which the laws of phyics or the rules of logic were different than I experience them. It only means that he created this world, this universe with the particular set of laws and rules that are axiomatic to our experience, but that they are axiomatic to us does not mean that they bind God thusly. Only that this is the universe in which we live and experience God. But, as I have already said, I believe the illustration of our universe existing within God is a good one. So, I don't hold that those construction which I observe and experience as being even universally true, have any binding hold on God himself.

[Ramadhan]

And, I know however close our beliefs may (or perhaps may not) be up to that point, it is at this point they most definitely diverge. For, with respect to the original focus of this thread, we do claim that Jesus was God incarante, and we claim that to say this is not to say that the above was no longer true, but that it remained true even as God placed himself within his creation. I understand it does not make sense to you. I understand that the more I describe it the less it seems even plausible or consistent with the nature of God as you now know him. But this is the Christian understanding of what it means to say, as our scriptures do indeed affirm, that God became flesh and dwelled among us, even that God was pleased to have all his fulness dwell in the Christ. However, even as you vehemently disagree with what we say is true with regard to the nature of Jesus, I would hope that you might be able to see why it is that we assert that even as we worship Jesus, that we are not worship someone who is a partner of God, but of none other than God himself. Such a statement is shirk to you, but it is Gospel to us.

I like this honesty better, that your understanding of God works on faith, and not on logic.

[Grace Seeker]

I like this honesty better, that your understanding of God works on faith, and not on logic.

I think that there is logic in the Christian expression as well, but there is a point for each of us when that which separates us comes as a result of that which we believe to be propostionally true. I accept as true the teachings of scriptures with regard to Jesus' incarnation. You accept as true that such an event would be a humiliation of Allah that is beneath him. I don't think that such a position is logical. I think it is every bit as much a faith statement as mine is. There is nothing in logic that says for instance that God cannot poop. But it is not acceptable to even consider in your eyes, and so therefore must be rejected. The logic follows only after one accepts the initial premise as true:1) God is great.2) That which is great would never be humiliated.3) Pooping is humiliating.4) Therefore, God would never poop.If one accepts each of the initial three premies, then you construction is perfectly logical.

But, if even one of those premises is not true, then it is no longer logical to make the final conclusion. Indeed, such a statement would be as much of a statement of faith, sans logic, as what you cite to be the case with my view. And the only one of these premises with which I can concur as true is the first, that God is great. Hence, to my view, and the very logic you so ascribe, your conclusion is equally one of faith and not logic.

[Hamza Asadullah]

alright, it's now more than obvious that my post has been misunderstood. the only flaw so far is in those individuals who assume that my point rests on allah being located in heaven. it has nothing to do with this and we can exclude the concept of heaven from the equation and still my argument would stand. so on that note, let us try again. what does the claim that allah cannot enter into his creation mean? it would seem to me that what muslims say and what islam teaches are two different things on this matter.

Translation of Sahih Bukhari, Volume 9, Book 93, Number 532s:
Narrated Abu Sa’id Al-Khudri:
When there remain only those who used to worship Allah (Alone), both the obedient ones and the mischievous ones, it will be said to them, ‘What keeps you here when all the people have gone?’ They will say, ‘We parted with them (in the world) when we were in greater need of them than we are today, we heard the call of one proclaiming, ‘Let every nation follow what they used to worship,’ and now we are waiting for our Lord.’ Then the Almighty will come to them in a shape other than the one which they saw the first time, and He will say, ‘I am your Lord,’ and they will say, ‘You are not our Lord.’

Translation of Sahih Bukhari, Volume 6, Book 60, Number 105:
Narrated Abu Said Al-Khudri:
Then (Allah) the Lord of the worlds will come to them in a shape nearest to the picture they had in their minds about Him. It will be said, ‘What are you waiting for?’ Every nation have followed what they used to worship.’ They will reply, ‘We left the people in the world when we were in great need of them and we did not take them as friends. Now we are waiting for our Lord Whom we used to worship.’ Allah will say, ‘I am your Lord.’ They will say twice or thrice, ‘We do not worship any besides Allah.’ “

Translation of Sahih Bukhari, Volume 8, Book 76, Number 577:
Narrated Abu Huraira:
and then only this nation (i.e., Muslims) will remain, including their hypocrites. Allah will come to them in a shape other than they know and will say, ‘I am your Lord.‘ They will say, ‘We seek refuge with Allah from you. This is our place; (we will not follow you) till our Lord comes to us, and when our Lord comes to us, we will recognize Him.

Then Allah will come to them in a shape they know and will say, “I am your Lord.‘ They will say, ‘(No doubt) You are our Lord,’ and they will follow Him.

now from the above it would seem that allah does in fact take on a shape. if he takes on a shape then he exhibits certain dimensions which are the property of space (length, width, height). these very dimensions have not always existed and came into being during the big bang and as such are a creation of allah. yet the fact that allah takes on these very properties goes to show that he does indeed enter his own creation. so once again i must reiterate the fact that unlike what many muslims claim, allah does indeed enter his creation. now in light of the clear evidence above, i would still not be surprised if the claim was made that i have somehow been deceiving in my argument so let's suppose that contrary to evidence, i was in fact wrong and when these texts say that allah will take on a shape they really mean "allah will not take on a shape". let us suppose this is true, it would still not hurt the argument that allah does indeed enter his creation.

that is, we all understand that time is a creation of allah, right? yet allah acts within time in order to fulfill his purpose. the very fact that he acts presupposes the entering of time for there can be no act that does not involve temporality (if one disagrees, they are welcome to give an example of an act that does not take place within time). the very fact of creating everything in existence means that (while he simultaneously created time in doing so) he also entered time to do so. before creation, allah existed in a state of no time where nothing happened. the fact that at some point he chose to create everything in existence means that he took action and action can only happen within the realm of time. so once more, allah entered and repeatedly enters time in order to fulfill his purpose and given that time is a creation of his it becomes obvious that allah does in fact enter into his creation.

now i can already see how i could be misunderstood and as such i will say that i'm not saying that allah is bound to time. i'm only saying that allah did indeed enter time and that contrary to what muslims say, in claiming that allah created everything that exists, islam teaches that allah does in fact enter his creation.

@mustafa: must you believe that i really harbour such dark motives? the fact of the matter is that i saw this claim within your post and merely wanted an explanation.

The hadith you have picked out to try and prove your false beliefs above talk about the day of judgement when Allah will test the people by seeing if they will turn away from Allah and worship other than him. It does not refer to what you are implying that he has "entered" a human for he has entered no one. You must not try and use lies and deception to try and convince people of your beliefs for this has always been the practice of the missionarys.

[Hamza Asadullah]

The hadith “Allah created Adam in His/his image (`ala suratihi)” was narrated from Abu Hurayrah by both Bukhari and Muslim. To understand this narration, one must first recall a fundamental aspect of Islamic belief, namely the transcendence of Allah Most High and His complete dissimilitude from created things. This is decisively conveyed within the Qur’an itself when it states, “There is nothing whatsoever like Him,” (42: 11) and also by the foremost theological texts of our tradition.

Therefore, the scholars looked at the Qur’anic verses and prophetic traditions that outwardly indicated similitude between Allah and created things in the backdrop of this principle. In respect to the narrative in question, as well as similar narratives, the scholars had two approaches:

1. Confining the meaning to Allah Most High,

2. Interpreting the outwardly problematic part of the text in a suitable and methodologically sound manner.

Among the interpretations that the scholars gave for this narrative were:

1. That the word “image” here refers to “attributes”, such as hearing, seeing, knowledge, and so forth. Thus, Adam (Allah bless him) was created possessing attributes that Allah has also described Himself with, although the attributes of the former, as is evident, are contingent and relative while the attributes of Allah are eternal and absolute.

2. That the word “image” is understood based on another variant of this narration, narrated by Imam Muslim, whereby the Prophet (Allah bless him and grant him peace) said, “When one of you attacks [or “strikes” as per another narration] his brother then avoid his face for Allah created Adam in his image.” The attached particle “his” is interpreted as referring back to “brother” and not to “Allah”.

3. That what is meant by Adam (Allah bless him) being created in “his image” is a direct creation that did not take place through the passage of embryological stages. Further, it indicates that Adam (Allah bless him) was characterized by the same “image” or form on earth as he was in paradise, without any change until his death.

[Bajuri, Tuhfat al-Murid; Bayhaqi, Kitab al-Asma’ wa’l Sifat]

And Allah alone knows best

[Hamza Asadullah]

Surah Al-Shura, 42: 11 There is nothing like Him; and He is the All-Hearer, the All-Seer.

[Hamza Asadullah]

Indeed one of the most illogical doctrines to have been invented is non other than the trinity, and no it is not a mystery, it just an illogical doctrine, not a mystery of God. Trinity is three persons, yet they say these three persons are one, that is not a mystery, that is simply bad math and bad logic and made up logic! Three is three, four is four, and one is one, three persons are three persons, three persons are not person, I, Umar, and Bassam are three different persons, we are not one person! If you saw three of us standing outside a shop would you say we are one person or three? Three off course! So the same thing with the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, they are three persons and not one.



To further show how illogical the Trinity is, Jesus the Son dies, and as you know Jesus is God, but if God does then logically who runs the universe and the universal affairs? Now since Trinity believes in three persons they will say the Father does, but that is very illogical indeed! So when Jesus dies the Father starts running things, so therefore part of God dies?! One God dies, and the other one continues to run the affairs of the universe while the other one is dead?! So while the Father runs the universe, you have the son Jesus laying dead and buried! Let us make it simple:



Muslim: Is Jesus God?



Christian: Yes



Muslim: Did Jesus die?



Christian: Yes



Muslim: And Jesus is God?



Christian: Yes



Muslim: So Jesus died and Jesus is God so this mean God died



Christian: erm



Muslim: So who ran the world when Jesus died?



Christian: I believe in Trinity



Muslim: And?



Christian: Well I believe in three persons, the Father, the Son, and Holy Spirit



Muslim: And Jesus is the Son right?



Christian: Correct



Muslim: And the Son died



Christian: Yes, and while the son was dead the Father and Holy Spirit were still alive and so they continued to run the affairs of the world



Muslim: So Jesus who is God is lying dead and buried, while the Father and Holy Spirit who are also God are running the universe?



Christian: Yes



Muslim: So one God is dead, and the other 2 run the affairs of the universe, may I know how this is all one God?



Christian: It is a mystery!



And that basically sums it up! While one God is dead, the other 2 run the universe! What an illogical insulting doctrine against the true monotheistic God! This is no different than pagans who had many different Gods for many different purposes, one God was for rain, one for sun, one for night etc etc, here we have the same thing, one God (Jesus) dies and the other 2 Gods carry on running the universe while the Son God is dead.



And Allah Knows Best!


Source: http://muslim-responses.com/Illogica...gical_Trinity_

[Sol Invictus]

You already made presumption that because the speech (effect) happened in real time then the act must also have occurred in the realm of time.
You cannot God who is omnipotent and omnitemporal could cause the speech (effect) to materialize at one point in time

i have no problem with believing the above yet it still does not change the fact that allah decides to act at some point. there is a time before, during, and after he makes the effect materialize. let us remember that allah knows from all eternity what he is going to do and when he is going to do so but this does not change the fact that at the appropriate moment, he wills that his purpose be accomplished. in this case, at the appropriate moment, he wills that the effect of speech be materialized to moses. that once again is an action and action takes place within the realm of time. time was created by allah and as such he does indeed enter hid creation.

I understand your position. I believed Allah said "kun faya kun", and then jesus was borne inside maryam ra tummy.
But you cannot get around that and believe that God must actually get inside maryam (ra)'s tummy.

once again the above shows that at some point in time, allah wills that jesus be created within the womb of mary. this is once again an act on his part that happens within time and as such he does indeed enter into his creation.

You have to show me how God is not omnitemporal, using your logic and scripture if necessary.

now back to Jesus as:

So, when Jesus pooped, was god still with him or abstain?

clearly you do not understand what omnitemporal even means. omnitemporal is defined as god existing at every point within time. yet it also includes the fact that he is pretemporal, supertemporal, and postemporal. the very fact that you're going around saying words like omnitemporal shows that you are ignorant on the subject itself seeing as omnitemporal means that god is within time (and outside of it, before it, after it, etc.) and as such he has entered his creation. yet if i recall correctly, aren't you the individual who is arguing that god does not enter into his creation?

@gene: we will have to disagree on this. for one thing, i firmly believe that you believe god to be bound by goodness, or is it that you disagree with the statement that god cannot lie? do you suppose that he could make a square-circle? do you believe that god can make himself to cease to exist? clearly we should be in agreement on these so it is not that a sovereign god is not bound by anything but rather he is not bound by anything outside of himself. logic, goodness etc. find their source in him and as such he could not deny himself.

furthermore, what is your understanding of "interacting with creation" and "entering creation"?

The hadith you have picked out to try and prove your false beliefs above talk about the day of judgement when Allah will test the people by seeing if they will turn away from Allah and worship other than him. It does not refer to what you are implying that he has "entered" a human for he has entered no one. You must not try and use lies and deception to try and convince people of your beliefs for this has always been the practice of the missionarys.

to be quite sure, all you've shown is your own ignorance on the subject. i have not used the fact that allah does indeed enter into his creation in order to imply that he entered a human. if what you say is true, please provide us with this quote? it's almost ironic that you would enter this thread and be so quick to label others as deceivers and liars when at this point, it is only you who has said something which is false. that said, it does not even matter if these hadiths refer to the day of judgement etc. (and could you also provide us with the quote where i claimed that they didn't?), they still show that allah enters into his creation. please try to engage my argument. we can have this discussion if you would like but let us not abandon civility or the proper rules of debate.

btw, this thread has nothing to do with the trinity. i spoke of it at length during the other thread and it would seem that you failed to participate. that however is not my problem.

[Grace Seeker]

Let us make it simple:

Muslim: Is Jesus God?
Christian: Yes

Muslim: Did Jesus die?
Christian: Yes

Muslim: And Jesus is God?
Christian: Yes

Muslim: So Jesus died and Jesus is God so this mean God died
Christian: erm

Muslim: So who ran the world when Jesus died?
Christian: I believe in Trinity

Muslim: And?
Christian: Well I believe in three persons, the Father, the Son, and Holy Spirit

Muslim: And Jesus is the Son right?
Christian: Correct

Muslim: And the Son died
Christian: Yes, and while the son was dead the Father and Holy Spirit were still alive and so they continued to run the affairs of the world

Muslim: So Jesus who is God is lying dead and buried, while the Father and Holy Spirit who are also God are running the universe?
Christian: Yes

Muslim: So one God is dead, and the other 2 run the affairs of the universe, may I know how this is all one God?
Christian: It is a mystery!


And that basically sums it up!

Source: http://muslim-responses.com/Illogica...gical_Trinity_

Not all Muslim-Christian conversation go that way. Allow me to share another one. Not a fictionalized account designed to misrepresent one side or the other, but an actual conversation that took place in the fall of 2008 between Sheikh Habib Ali al-Jifri and professor Miroslav Volf.

Volf: Do you think that Muslims and Christians worship the same God?
al-Jifri: Yes, they do. In the Qur'an it is written: "Our God and your God is One."

Volf: But Christians believe that God is the Holy Trinity, and Muslims disagree. How do you then still affirm that the two worship the same God?
al-Jifri: What the archbishop of Canterbury wrote about the Trinity in his response to the "Common Word" was very helpful.

Background note: In July of 2008 Dr. Rowan Willams, the archbishop of Canterbury, had published a response to the Muslim "A Common Word." He titled the letter, "A Common Word for the Common Good." "God exists in a threefold pattern of interdependent action," he wrote there, refering to the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. But Christians, he insisted, uncompromisingly affirm that "there is only one divine nature and reality."

Volf: The archbishop is a great and creative theologian, but he said nothing new in his comments on God as the Holy Trinity.
al-Jifri: Yes?

Volf: After the early centuries of intense debates, Christians have come to affirm what some theologians have described as "the numerical identity of the divine substance. For us, the divine "three" are one single and undivided divine essence, not three divine essences next to each other comprising some kind of divine troika.


The ultimate key to answering the question which began this conversation, if Muslims and Christians worship the same God is to determine if the claim a Muslim makes that God is the Holy One is compatible with the claim a Christian makes that God is the Holy Trinity. If they are incompatible, then we worship different gods. The only way that the answer can be Yes is if, despite our different ways of speaking of the oneness of God, is if ultimately we are affirming the same truth that there is just one God. Muslims may not follow Christian reasoning, or they may follow and not agree with it. But, in the end, at least one prominent Muslim cleric hears what Christians are saying, and when asked if we worship the same God, without equivocation says, "Yes!"


(source: Allah: A Christian Response, by Miroslav Volf, HarperCollings Publishers, c. 2011, p. 128)

[Hamza Asadullah]

to be quite sure, all you've shown is your own ignorance on the subject. i have not used the fact that allah does indeed enter into his creation in order to imply that he entered a human. if what you say is true, please provide us with this quote? it's almost ironic that you would enter this thread and be so quick to label others as deceivers and liars when at this point, it is only you who has said something which is false. that said, it does not even matter if these hadiths refer to the day of judgement etc. (and could you also provide us with the quote where i claimed that they didn't?), they still show that allah enters into his creation. please try to engage my argument. we can have this discussion if you would like but let us not abandon civility or the proper rules of debate.

btw, this thread has nothing to do with the trinity. i spoke of it at length during the other thread and it would seem that you failed to participate. that however is not my problem.

Define in more detail when you say "enters into creation".

[جوري]

listen, i'm perfectly fine with teaching you about christianity, but i'm certainly disenheartened to have to also teach you about islam.

You're utterly inept at teaching anything at all and along with that ineptitude you have a most appalling attitude that I can smell the stench of your kuffr!

let us not even mention that all your points were responded to in my answer towards woodrow. that said, let me try again. the fact that the hadiths take place in the hereafter does not save you nor the muslim deity from the consequences of my argument.

You have no argument. We all know that God is a being.. that doesn't mean he is part of creation nor entered into it!

even if they take place somewhere in the hereafter, they would still place in some place that allah himself created for creation is everything outside of allah.

what the hell does this drivel mean?

so yes, even in those very hadiths, allah enters into his creation unless of course you will now claim that allah didn't create this future meeting place either (which would then add to the seemingly growing list of things which allah has not in fact created).

You haven't proven that Allah enters into creation.. I make no claims based on your faulty premises-- I wouldn't give it the dignify of coherent thought let alone an argument!

yet as i have mentioned numerous times already, i'm perfectly fine with discounting those hadiths. let's do so and i would be more than happy. it still would not change my argument from the qur'an nor my argument from logic. please, start on focusing on these because as is, you have only repeated things to which i have already provided an answer.

And I have said whether or not you discount them is utterly inconsequential, you have no knowledge whatsoever of Islam and do more than elicit a hearty guffaw with your illogical drivel, you seem alone convinced of your inane arguments.. well you and our forum fundie seeing how he's repped you in solidarity..

all the best

[Ramadhan]

i have no problem with believing the above yet it still does not change the fact that allah decides to act at some point. there is a time before, during, and after he makes the effect materialize. let us remember that allah knows from all eternity what he is going to do and when he is going to do so but this does not change the fact that at the appropriate moment, he wills that his purpose be accomplished. in this case, at the appropriate moment, he wills that the effect of speech be materialized to moses. that once again is an action and action takes place within the realm of time. time was created by allah and as such he does indeed enter hid creation.

What is flawed and inconsistent is you logic.
You assume that an atemporal omnitemporal omnipotent being cannot cause an effect at a certain point of time inside the temporal while still being outside it.
If He is ever inside and bound by the temporal, he would not be atemporal, isnt he?
That is, unless you don't believe that he is atemporal,omnipotent and omnitemporal, which I completely understand because as a christian you are bound by the believe that he is neither, otherwise how can you ever reconcile the fact about God being on earth and doing mundane human things such as washing himself after doing his business. By your own logic, God has to be inside the creation all the time because, unless you believe otherwise, the universe is always sustained by him, meaning he is dispensing affairs at all times.

Most hilarious is, you are speaking here as if you understand the details of relationships between outside creation-inside creation (time-space), while even the best theoretical physicists do not even yet the scratched the surface of time-space understanding.
You only work on assumptions and logic and I have proven as above that you failed spectacularly.

It is also transparent to see that this is yet another of yet desperate attempt, thinking you can deceive us by plastering the word "logic" here and there to try to deceive

btw, this thread has nothing to do with the trinity. i spoke of it at length during the other thread and it would seem that you failed to participate. that however is not my problem.

All you were doing in the trinity thread was giving two biblical verses in which a third person was talking abut Jesus and holy spirit as proof of trinity . no direct references by jesus, badly interpreted and badly translated, and I have pointed out to you.
And when in turn GS (with your cheerleading) asked me about the similar proof about direct references from Allah that Jesus is not God, I gave you several qur'an verses and I dont have to add that they are in its original forms, so you cant accuse me for bad translations and interpretations), and when I insisted, again to provide me with similar biblical verses, all you could do was that my argument was flawed. unlike the concept of time-space, there's nothing too difficult here, evidences are contained in the scriptures.

Slyly, here you are speaking and claiming as if I was the one who did not back up my arguments.

[Ramadhan]

The ultimate key to answering the question which began this conversation, if Muslims and Christians worship the same God is to determine if the claim a Muslim makes that God is the Holy One is compatible with the claim a Christian makes that God is the Holy Trinity. If they are incompatible, then we worship different gods. The only way that the answer can be Yes is if, despite our different ways of speaking of the oneness of God, is if ultimately we are affirming the same truth that there is just one God. Muslims may not follow Christian reasoning, or they may follow and not agree with it. But, in the end, at least one prominent Muslim cleric hears what Christians are saying, and when asked if we worship the same God, without equivocation says, "Yes!"

From the text alone, it does not appear that the sheiks affirm that muslims and christians worship the same God.
the editing of the conversation was done slyly (I dont expect oterwise from a missionary) to make it appear as if the sheikh agreed the notion that muslims and christians worship the same God.


We only worship Allah, and by what I know of trinity, that means The Father.
So , sorry to burst your bubble, but we dont worship the same God.

[Sol Invictus]

What is flawed and inconsistent is you logic.
You assume that an atemporal omnitemporal omnipotent being cannot cause an effect at a certain point of time inside the temporal while still being outside it.
If He is ever inside and bound by the temporal, he would not be atemporal, isnt he?
That is, unless you don't believe that he is atemporal,omnipotent and omnitemporal, which I completely understand because as a christian you are bound by the believe that he is neither, otherwise how can you ever reconcile the fact about God being on earth and doing mundane human things such as washing himself after doing his business. By your own logic, God has to be inside the creation all the time because, unless you believe otherwise, the universe is always sustained by him, meaning he is dispensing affairs at all times.

omnitemporal simply means that god is within every point of time. it literally means that he is inside his creation. i would like for you to answer how you can use a concept that means "god is within his creation" and then try to claim that god does not enter his creation. sticking the word "atemporal" before the concept doesn't help your position one bit. clearly you don't understand what either omnitemporal or atemporal mean. there is no such thing as "atemporal omnitemporal" etc. it is either that a being is atemporal or omnitemporal---never the two of them together because they are opposed to one another. you have consistently used words that you do not know the meaning of. at this point it is more than obvious that you have yet to grasp the content of this discussion.

Define in more detail when you say "enters into creation".

alright it seems that we're getting somewhere here. have you read all my posts? because i do speak of this concept at length. is there any particular section wherein it seems that i haven't particularly explained myself properly? if you quote it then i will be more than happy to try to do so once more. i'd very much like to continue this discussion.

[Ramadhan]

omnitemporal simply means that god is within every point of time. it literally means that he is inside his creation.

I meant to replace omnitemporal with atemporal. I'd misunderstood the meaning of omnitemporal.
As Allah created time, so he is outside it and not affected by it.

If He is ever inside and bound by the temporal, he would not be atemporal, isnt he?
My argument still holds, and your logic failed.

[Sol Invictus]

I meant to replace omnitemporal with atemporal. I'd misunderstood the meaning of omnitemporal.
As Allah created time, so he is outside it and not affected by it.

we are still at square one. can you explain to us how action can at all occur outside of the realm of time? the fact that at some point there was nothing and then allah subsequently acted (i.e. created) shows that he did indeed enter time to do so. when time did not exist allah had done nothing for no action could occur without the realm of time yet once time came into being your holy book attests to many successive actions on the part of allah. can you explain how action can at all occur without the realm of time? how can he at all be in conversation with iblis concerning man, how can he send gabriel with revelations for muhammad, etc. how can action at all take place without the realm of time when action by its very definition presupposes time?

( a ) If He is ever inside and bound by the temporal, he would not be atemporal, isnt he?
( b ) My argument still holds, and your logic failed.

( a ) it would seem that here we're about to veer off slightly into a different discussion but since you seem to be so sure of yourself on this matter, i have no problem. whether god is atemporal, casually temporal, or really temporal does not provide me with any difficulties for there are theologians on all sides of the issue yet this is different than the question i was asking you. i asked you how allah could take on dimensions and as such enter into his creation (space). i asked you how he could act without entering the realm of time when action by its very definition involves time. do you understand why it is said that god created time when he created everything else in existence? it is because that was the first moment of action that he took and the very fact that he acted brought about the reality and the beginning of time. prior to this there was no action on the part of god. even the statement that god created time when he created everything else admits that action can't exist outside the realm of time. in light of this, how then do you claim that god does not enter time when he acts seeing as there are moments before, during and after these acts?

it's all nice that you say that god is atemporal but you still have not answered the argument, you merely state your opinion. please begin to engage my argument. furthermore you seem to claim atemporality without understanding it so can you please justify this opinion of yours and how an atemporal god can know tensed facts?

( b ) it's wonderful that you seem to think so but please get to proving this.

as far as what happened in the trinity thread is concerned, it is a good thing that the thread is still there so that anyone with doubts may view it and see what really transpired.

[MustafaMc]

Now, I do believe we were built to know God, even to live in relationship with God. But I don't think we were built to understand God. That is quite a different thing. Rather, God makes himself known to us in small bite-sized bits of revelation: the beauty of creation, our innate longing for something outside ourselves, the inspiration given to prophets. I submit that relative to God himself even the most sublime scripture is bite-sized. And further, because of our limitations in understanding, we translate even that into ways of thinking that harmonize with our pre-existing way of thinking and expressing things.

Yes, I agree that what has been revealed of Allah's (swt) nature has been in 'small bite-sized bits of revelation'. From my perspective the revelation of Allah's (swt) attributes in the Quran are 100% compatible with each other and are not self-contradictory. However, to say that the Father is fully God and that Jesus is fully the same God yet fully human are contradictory statements Father=God=Jesus and Jesus=God=human. It is completely and irrefutably illogical to say that Jesus praying to the Father is an illustration of the Unity of God.

For example, we read in both our sacred scriptures of God speaking of Allah seeing. And, because you and I do these things via the mechanisms of eyes and ears we project these constructs onto God as well. And though our different scriptures themselves may each speak of the hand of God, I believe that we humans would be wiser to understand such statements to be constructed so that we might relate to the action of the passage than to be informative as to God's form, and even less to convey the idea of a physical body.

I don't deny the attributes of Allah (swt) that have been revealed in the Quran, nor do I try to explain away as 'allegorical' that which I can't comprehend. The nature of Allah's (swt) hands, His speech or His seeing is known only to Him.

Indeed, one of my basic understandings with regard to God that I believe is conveyed in the Christian scriptures (and I had thought was similarly held to be true in Islam, though you've said previously that I was wrong on this point) is that God is not bound by space or time in any way. I don't just mean that he has it within himself to miraculously transport himself from one place or point of time to another, but that he doesn't need to, for he exists outside of time and space and does not inhabit it. Indeed, I personally like the suggest that they reside within him.

Perhaps, we have a misunderstanding because I agree with what is in bold and I understand that you are saying I disagree????

And, I know however close our beliefs may (or perhaps may not) be up to that point, it is at this point they most definitely diverge. For, with respect to the original focus of this thread, we do claim that Jesus was God incarante, and we claim that to say this is not to say that the above was no longer true, but that it remained true even as God placed himself within his creation. I understand it does not make sense to you. I understand that the more I describe it the less it seems even plausible or consistent with the nature of God as you now know him. But this is the Christian understanding of what it means to say, as our scriptures do indeed affirm, that God became flesh and dwelled among us, even that God was pleased to have all his fulness dwell in the Christ. However, even as you vehemently disagree with what we say is true with regard to the nature of Jesus, I would hope that you might be able to see why it is that we assert that even as we worship Jesus, that we are not worship someone who is a partner of God, but of none other than God himself. Such a statement is shirk to you, but it is Gospel to us.

However, I don't think that you understand that I see the Father and Jesus as being distinct and separate beings. I see that the 'Father' is the term that the NT uses to refer to the Divine Being that Jesus (as) prayed to and worshiped as exemplified by the Lord's Prayer and at Gethsemane. I equate the Being that Jesus (as) prayed to as being one and the same as Allah (swt) without implying any 'fatherhood' to Him. If the 'Father' is Allah (swt) and Jesus is distinct from the Father, then Jesus (as) is distinct and separate from Allah (swt). Since Jesus (as) is distinct from Allah (swt), to worship him as a god is indeed shirk from the perspective of any Muslim.

My main issue with the Trinity is not that it is beneath the dignity of Allah (swt) to do the things that humans do (even though it certainly is not befitting of His majesty), but rather my primary issue is in not being able to see how distinct and separate beings or persons can be an illustration of the Unity of God.

Quoting from an earlier post:
"I see that the Christian belief about God can be equated to saying that someone can be in Egypt and at the same time in New York, or that someone can be 100% African and 100% Caucasian, or 100% female and 100% male. I believe that God is One and that in and of itself precludes Him from being divisible into different persons with the first person saying to the second, "This is my Son, whom I love; with him I am well pleased", or the second praying in Gethsemane to the first, "not my will, but yours be done", or the first sending the third in the name of the second (John 14:26). My mind can't comprehend how these examples illustrate Unity. I suspect that your mind can't either and that you accept it on faith with your saying the 3 are one makes it so."

With your knowledge of the Bible and of Christianity, surely you can explain how Christian theology is monotheistic and without shirk.

[YieldedOne]

I don't know if it's been said or not, but I think the main "nature" of Jesus' birth is by the will of God Himself.

Regardless if it was parthogenesis, creation of a sperm or a whole embryo...whatever the particular methedology was...the human Jesus emergene into human history was DIRECTLY by the will of God as faithfully accepted by Mary. The Will of God antedated Mary's acceptance of God's Will...making the two (the Will of God and human faithful reception and acceptance of that Will) undeniably linked in the Jesus' human conception and birth.

Now, if it's genuinely believed that God HIMSELF brought Jesus into being (though synergistically through bestowing "Grace" upon the faithful, obedient, humble Mary), then it seems doubtless that anyone can be called the "Father" of Jesus but God Himself.

Right?

Does this make sense?

[YieldedOne]

I mean, really think about it, y'all. If the Will, Power, and Love of Allah is the ultimate ground for Jesus' emergence into human history through Mary as his mother...not any type of human machination or intentionality...

what else COULD Allah be but the "begetter" of Mary's baby by having Grace upon Mary, who was WILLING to be the mother of Allah's "word."

Allah being Jesus' "Father"...while Mary was his Mother.

Doesn't this just make sense? Maybe I'm just crazy here...

[YieldedOne]

MustafaMc:
However, I don't think that you understand that I see the Father and Jesus as being distinct and separate beings. I see that the 'Father' is the term that the NT uses to refer to the Divine Being that Jesus (as) prayed to and worshiped as exemplified by the Lord's Prayer and at Gethsemane. I equate the Being that Jesus (as) prayed to as being one and the same as Allah (swt) without implying any 'fatherhood' to Him. If the 'Father' is Allah (swt) and Jesus is distinct from the Father, then Jesus (as) is distinct and separate from Allah (swt). Since Jesus (as) is distinct from Allah (swt), to worship him as a god is indeed shirk from the perspective of any Muslim.

YieldedOne:
To be sure the Father and Jesus are distinct and separate beings. The Father is Unbegotten and Jesus is the "begotten" of God...a "word" spoken by God. And it seems patently obvious, biblically speaking, that Jesus felt himself distinct from God his Father.

The main disagreement, as I see it, is this:
Both Christians and Muslims believe that Jesus's human emergence is primarily by the Will, Power, and Love of God. Without Allah's previous intentionality, Jesus simply wouldn't have been who he was as Mary's Baby with no earthly father. Jesus was "begotten" of God...a "word" spoken by God who reveals and reflects God.
Muslims don't believe the Allah-spoken "word" that is the "begetting" of Jesus is an ETERNAL word. Christians do believe that.

I think that's what it really comes down to, theologically speaking.

[YieldedOne]

If there can be reason to believe that Jesus/Isa is an eternal "word" of Allah that was temporally manifesting in and through human history by the will and gracious activity of Allah...

then what are the implications of how one sees the PERSON of Jesus, Allah's "word."

[Grace Seeker]

I mean, really think about it, y'all. If the Will, Power, and Love of Allah is the ultimate ground for Jesus' emergence into human history through Mary as his mother...not any type of human machination or intentionality...

what else COULD Allah be but the "begetter" of Mary's baby by having Grace upon Mary, who was WILLING to be the mother of Allah's "word."

Allah being Jesus' "Father"...while Mary was his Mother.

Doesn't this just make sense? Maybe I'm just crazy here...

Perhaps it does make sense to you, but the way you describe this here is NOT what I would hold as the way in which God brought about the conception of Jesus. It sounds too much like procreation, and theology of the incarnation does not reset on (in fact I believe is contrary to) the idea that God is producing a biological offspring. Here we once again have a problem with language. Hebrew, Greek, and Aramaic terms when translated into todays English vernacular often have different connotations for today's reader than they would have for the original writers and audience. For, while to our way of thinking to say someone is another's son is to also say that they are the other's offspring, that is not what was being said when the biblical writers spoke of Jesus as the "Son of God". Unless one can leave behind these ideas of procreation and biology, the message of the Bible with regard to the nature of Jesus' birth and his relationship with the Father within the Godhead will never be understood.

Plainly put, Allah was NOT Jesus father in the same way that Mary was his mother. It is the phrase '"n the same way" that must be emphasized. For while it is true to say Jesus is the son of God. And while it is true to say Jesus is the son of Mary. He was so in different ways. Let us also remember that he was the son of Joseph as well, and this too in a different way than either of the other meanings we have just used, and none of those ways of speaking of Jesus' sonship being the same as when saying that I am the son of my father or mother.

Muslims don't believe the Allah-spoken "word" that is the "begetting" of Jesus is an ETERNAL word. Christians do believe that.

I think that's what it really comes down to, theologically speaking.

This relates to the above. Why Jesus is the Son of God isn't not rooted in his humanity, but his divinity. It is because Jesus is the incarnation of the Word who isn't just begotten as the ETERNAL word, but he is being ETERNALLY BEGOTTEN of the Father.

In other words, it is within the very nature of God himself there is an eternal Father and an eternally begotten Son, and an eternally existing Spirit. In the course of time this already begotten Son would incarnate himself (by means of creating an embryo in which he would dwell and grow and be born) as the person we know as Jesus. In a sense then, Jesus didn't exist into the creation of the embryo which was placed in Mary's womb, but the Son has existed for all of eternity for the very nature of God is that he as has always existed in community within himself.

[Ramadhan]

what else COULD Allah be but the "begetter" of Mary's baby by having Grace upon Mary, who was WILLING to be the mother of Allah's "word."

If that's your definition, then Allah is also the "begetter" of Adam (p)

Allah being Jesus' "Father"...while Mary was his Mother.

That means you also believe that Allah is the "father" of Adam (p)

Doesn't this just make sense? Maybe I'm just crazy here...

you are making as much sense as the next christian.

[Ramadhan]

we are still at square one. can you explain to us how action can at all occur outside of the realm of time?

I cannot claim how action occur outside the realm of time. But muslims agree, as per Qur'an and ahadeeth, that Allah is outside creation.
You, however claim that it is not possible, so you must show us why is it not possible while the definition of God is clear that He could cause anything at anytime without having affected by time.

I understand that you feel the need to force muslims to stoop down to your level of belief where God is not atemporal, not omniscient (God who didnt know what was going to happen), and not omnipotent (God who was so weak, overcome by two oafish romans and hung on the cross).
I feel pity that you have such concept of God.

Your subsequent drivel is mere repetetions that shows you lack logical capacity.

Now, since you seemed to know so much about what happen inside and outside of creation, answer this questions:

1. How can god be dead and alive at the same time?
You are talking big about "logic", now prove to me logically
was the lesser god truly dead?
2. you havent answered my question before: Why do christians think that God needed to scuckle breast, peed, cried, pooped, washed after himself?
was a human or god?
if he was a human, how can he be god?

it's not logical!

oh, I am having fun here.

and if god really died, who ran the universe?
and if he did not really die, why is it called sacrifice?

the mind boggles.

[truthseeker63]

I agree with the starter of this thread.

[YieldedOne]

Naidamar:
If that's your definition, then Allah is also the "begetter" of Adam.

Sure, Allah did "beget" Adam by his direct will. Again, the question is simply: Is any dimension of Jesus' personal being ETERNALLY "begotten" by Allah.

[YieldedOne]

Graceseeker:
Why Jesus is the Son of God isn't not rooted in his humanity, but his divinity. It is because Jesus is the incarnation of the Word who isn't just begotten as the ETERNAL word, but he is being ETERNALLY BEGOTTEN of the Father. In other words, it is within the very nature of God himself there is an eternal Father and an eternally begotten Son, and an eternally existing Spirit. In the course of time this already begotten Son would incarnate himself (by means of creating an embryo in which he would dwell and grow and be born) as the person we know as Jesus. In a sense then, Jesus didn't exist into the creation of the embryo which was placed in Mary's womb, but the Son has existed for all of eternity for the very nature of God is that he as has always existed in community within himself.

I don't see myself disagreeing with you. I'm just thinking that Muslims and Christians essentially AGREE about the nature of Jesus' birth being based ultimately on God's creative Power and Will.

[YieldedOne]

naidamar:
But muslims agree, as per Qur'an and ahadeeth, that Allah is outside creation.

Christians agree that Allah is "outside" of Creation, meaning that there is an infinite difference and distinction between the Uncreated and the Created. Allah is totally transcendent from Creation. At the same time, Christians believe that God Himself personally sustains all creation immanently. It's not that Creation IS God (that would be pantheism). More that there is a continuous relationship of sustanance of the Created by Allah such that Allah's personal activity is the direct "ground of being" for the Created.

In short, God is "outside" Creation, but also the deepest "inside" of any aspect of Creation is filled with Divine Presence.

[Ramadhan]

Sure, Allah did "beget" Adam by his direct will. Again, the question is simply: Is any dimension of Jesus' personal being ETERNALLY "begotten" by Allah.

simple answer: no.

unless you also want to consider that any dimension of Adam's personal being ETERNALLY "begotten" by Allah.

[Grace Seeker]

Yes, I agree that what has been revealed of Allah's (swt) nature has been in 'small bite-sized bits of revelation'. From my perspective the revelation of Allah's (swt) attributes in the Quran are 100% compatible with each other and are not self-contradictory.

OK. I affirm that this is your persepctive.

However, to say that the Father is fully God and that Jesus is fully the same God yet fully human are contradictory statements Father=God=Jesus and Jesus=God=human.

I cannot affirm that this even represents what I am saying from my perspective.

It is completely and irrefutably illogical to say that Jesus praying to the Father is an illustration of the Unity of God.

I quite agree. Jesus praying to the Father is NOT an illustration of the Unity of God. It is an illustration of the distinctions between the persons within the greater and larger unity of God.

Christianity never argues that there are no distinctions between the person of the Son and the Father and the Spirit. Indeed, if there were no distinctions, I doubt that you would think that we were ascribing partners to God. The problem is that you think of God as only referring to the Father. And is that when speaking of the Father separate from the Son and the Spirit we are no more fully speaking of God than when speaking of the Son separate from the Father and the Spirit. If you think speaking of the Son is to ascribe partners to God, then understand that when we Christians speak of the Father we would be doing the same. One does not have an eternal Father without an eternal Son. If, to your understnading, the Son cannot be Allah, please don't equate the Father with Allah then either. For what you mean by Allah is what we mean not by the Father, but by God who is all three in one. (I will try to cover this more at the end or perhaps with a follow-up post.)

I don't deny the attributes of Allah (swt) that have been revealed in the Quran, nor do I try to explain away as 'allegorical' that which I can't comprehend. The nature of Allah's (swt) hands, His speech or His seeing is known only to Him.

I wasn't trying to &quot;explain away&quot; anything as allegorical. I was simply explaining that I understand the intent in the writing itself was to use allegory in order to better convey understanding to the original audience.

Perhaps, we have a misunderstanding because I agree with what is in bold and I understand that you are saying I disagree????

I shall have to go back to find what it was that led me to think you were saying this. But perhaps I don't need to. If I understand you correctly now we are in agreement: &quot;God is not bound by space or time in any way.&quot; So, God indeed can be omnipresent (i.e., in every place and in every time all at the same time)?

However, I don't think that you understand that I see the Father and Jesus as being distinct and separate beings.

Actually I do understand that this is how you see them. And I too see them as distinct persons, but I do not see them as separate beings. And I understand that for you those two statements reek of illogic. Yet for me they are simply revealed truth.

I see that the 'Father' is the term that the NT uses to refer to the Divine Being that Jesus (as) prayed to and worshiped as exemplified by the Lord's Prayer and at Gethsemane. I equate the Being that Jesus (as) prayed to as being one and the same as Allah (swt) without implying any 'fatherhood' to Him. If the 'Father' is Allah (swt) and Jesus is distinct from the Father, then Jesus (as) is distinct and separate from Allah (swt). Since Jesus (as) is distinct from Allah (swt), to worship him as a god is indeed shirk from the perspective of any Muslim.

If in the first sentence you were to substitute the term "person" for "being", I would agree with you. However, as I stated above, one should not equate Allah with the Father alone separate from the Son and the Spirit, for to do so divides God into multiple beings which we Christians would never do. And we would not do so, specifically because we do indeed believe that there is just one God -- a single divine being who in his nature exists in community within himself as three distinct persons, but who is nevertheless wholly one being.

My main issue with the Trinity is not that it is beneath the dignity of Allah (swt) to do the things that humans do (even though it certainly is not befitting of His majesty), but rather my primary issue is in not being able to see how distinct and separate beings or persons can be an illustration of the Unity of God.

Yes, your problem with this issue is rather obvious. Even the way you misrepresent what it is makes it clear that you have a problem with it. (And I don't mean that you do so with malice or even intent, but you just don't speak of the Trinity meaning by it what we mean by it.)

Quoting from an earlier post:
"I see that the Christian belief about God can be equated to saying that someone can be in Egypt and at the same time in New York, or that someone can be 100% African and 100% Caucasian, or 100% female and 100% male. I believe that God is One and that in and of itself precludes Him from being divisible into different persons with the first person saying to the second, "This is my Son, whom I love; with him I am well pleased", or the second praying in Gethsemane to the first, "not my will, but yours be done", or the first sending the third in the name of the second (John 14:26). My mind can't comprehend how these examples illustrate Unity. I suspect that your mind can't either and that you accept it on faith with your saying the 3 are one makes it so."

Well, the omnipresence of God, not the Trinity, would be the reason for speaking of God as being in Egypt and New York and for that matter Mississippi all at the same time. And when God is present, then of course it is all of him that is present. To say that God cannot do this is to say that God is limited with regard to space and time. And I don't believe God to be so bound. And according to what you said above you don't either. Or do you? I'm still unclear.

I don't know how to your comment about God being 100% of different races or different genders at the same time. I don't recall anyone every saying any such thing. I would argue that God has neither race nor gender. That even the use of the personal pronoun &quot;he&quot; is a convention and not meant to be description of the gender of one who in his image creates us both male and female. That doesn't sound like one to whom a specific gender should be ascribed.

Again, the passages you reference indeed do point to a distinction between the persons of the Father and of the Son, or between the Son and the Spirit. There are many more besides these that you have named. We Christian don't deny, rather we affirm that there are distinctions between the persons of the Trinity. But we would also point out that there are passages that point to oneness as well. And whether we are comfortable doing it or not might be questions, but most certainly we do hold these passages in tension affirming both to be revealed truth. It is out of that affirmation that the doctrine which you know as an articulation of the Trinity developed.

You say that I accept this as a statement of faith. Well, of course it is. It is an affirmation of what I believe to be the revealed truth. And it then gives expression to those beliefs as a synthesis of our best understanding of the totallit of all those passages.

Your expression of the oneness of Allah is similary not something that you arrived at by logic, but by declaring your faith in the truth as you best understand it revealed. Now, having arrived at that belief, I am sure that is seems logical to you. But what I observe of human nature is that we arrive at our beliefs first by faith, and then find those beliefs to be logical, not the other way around. Though surely there is someone who with me having now made such a statement will tell their personal story and prove me wrong. C'est le vie!

With your knowledge of the Bible and of Christianity, surely you can explain how Christian theology is monotheistic and without shirk.

[/quote]Well, I have written already a great deal on how it is that we Christians see the nature of God. How though we see a distinction between three persons, that we still understand that we are speaking of one divine Being, one singluar essence. I have written in other posts how we Christians begin with the concept that God is one and that there are no other gods. And yet, in the course of time how we came to believe that God had revealed himself in the person of Jesus Christ. Yet, since we affirm that there is just the one God, if Jesus was God revealed in the flesh then it followed that within our understanding of the one God we had to allow for the possibility that this one God existed within himself in community. Holding these two concepts to both be true and yet seeming running contrary to each other, the early church church wrestled with what this revelation meant. And in the end, the present Nicene formulation is what emerged.

Now, I don't expect that such an explanation in the single paragraph I provided above is going to be sufficient to answer all the questions that are raised. I would very much like to try to be more complete if afforded the opportunity. Indeed, I had considered during the time that I was away from the forum earlier this year to devote myself to an intensive study of the Trinity and to bring my own thoughts back to here to share. I don't know if that would be acceptable given the rules of the forum. But if so, I would like to discuss how it is that monotheistic Jews, as the disciples of Jesus all were, should nontheless find it necessary to express their conviction that Jesus was himself God incarnate. I would like to show how the ideas that we eventually find articulated as the doctrine of the Trinity, are actually rooted in the Jewish understanding of God, and how the Christian understanding of the Trinity is as much a statement about the oneness of God as it is about the distinctiveness of the three persons. But such a project thus far has been beyond my time to initiate, and I fear might be beyond the tolerance of this forum to allow posting.

[YieldedOne]

naidamar:
unless you also want to consider that any dimension of Adam's personal being ETERNALLY "begotten" by Allah.

"Lo! the likeness of Jesus with Allah is as the likeness of Adam. He created him of dust, then He said unto him: Be! and he is."
Surah 3:59

The likeness of Adam and Jesus is obvious and just what I've been saying: Both Adam and Jesus are ultimately brought into human existence via Allah's Will and both are emergent from created material (4 elements, etc).

But this says nothing about Adam and Jesus being alike in EVERY respect. Isn't that right?

[Grace Seeker]

and both are emergent from created material

From the Christian perspective Adam emerges from the dust of the ground. But, to use your terms, from what created material is Jesus emergent?

[YieldedOne]

Grace Seeker:
From the Christian perspective Adam emerges from the dust of the ground. But, to use your terms, from what created material is Jesus emergent?

The "created material" is the same: the "star-stuff" of the cosmic "dust" that all visible matter is composed of, including all life on earth. Both Adam and Jesus emerge from that same "star-stuff" that God uses by his Will. No embryo or Adam without created matter/energy.

Is this not accurate?

[Grace Seeker]

Grace Seeker:
From the Christian perspective Adam emerges from the dust of the ground. But, to use your terms, from what created material is Jesus emergent?

The &quot;created material&quot; is the same: the &quot;star-stuff&quot; of the cosmic &quot;dust&quot; that all visible matter is composed of, including all life on earth. Both Adam and Jesus emerge from that same &quot;star-stuff&quot; that God uses by his Will. No embryo or Adam without created matter/energy.

Is this not accurate?

I'm not going to tell you want to believe. My thoughts lean more toward the idea that in the same way God spoke the star-stuff itself into being, that God spoke the embyo which was born and named Jesus into being.

All the rest of humanity, Adam included, is made from star-stuff in one form or another. But in the incarnation, I don't think that Jesus' embryo was formed by those means, but is itself the spoken Word of God appearing in the flesh.

[YieldedOne]

GraceSeeker:
My thoughts lean more toward the idea that in the same way God spoke the star-stuff itself into being, that God spoke the embyo which was born and named Jesus into being.
All the rest of humanity, Adam included, is made from star-stuff in one form or another. But in the incarnation, I don't think that Jesus' embryo was formed by those means, but is itself the spoken Word of God appearing in the flesh.

Hmmm. Maybe I need to get some understanding here. You don't believe that the human flesh of Jesus' embryo was composed of created matter/energy at all? I can understand the word of God being "enfleshed" in created matter/energy...but not that the human flesh of that "word" being something OTHER THAN created matter/energy.

Is that what you are saying?

There is a difference in that Adam was composed from "dust" already there whereas Jesus' "dust"(via divinely-empowered embryogenesis) would ITSELF exist by divine fiat. But it would STILL be composed of created matter/energy. Feel me?

[YieldedOne]

naidamar:
if god really died, who ran the universe?

This question basically deals with the idea of two realms of consciousness in God's self-perception: Is there any way that a divine Person can experience divinity and createdness at the same time within one self-understanding? There really is a decent analogy within human experience that could go some way to explaining this...but there'd have to be some serious openmindedness to accept.

First of all, do you know what "lucid dreaming" is? Further, "wake-induced" lucid dreaming? I know the question seems far afield, but it will make sense to you easier if you already understand those phenomena.

[Sol Invictus]

( a ) I cannot claim how action occur outside the realm of time. But muslims agree, as per Qur'an and ahadeeth, that Allah is outside creation.
( b )You, however claim that it is not possible, so you must show us why is it not possible while the definition of God is clear that He could cause anything at anytime without having affected by time.

( a ) good, i didn't think so either because actions do not occur outside of time. so in the end after all your claims of logic and whatnot, it turns out that you cannot make your case though reason and rather uphold it based on mere belief. like i said, there's nothing wrong with that but the fact of the matter is that you cannot disprove my argument.

( b ) it doesn't matter how god is defined (as i recall, polytheists defined their gods as literally being born and yet we would agree that that is illogical), what matters is if it makes sense. you have consistently been unable to counter my argument and now would expect me agree to your position based on mere belief and what the qur'an and hadith supposedly say. well if they do make this claim then i have shown you that they also contradict themselves on this matter and as you've noted, you cannot prove this claim of mine wrong through reason.

i find it quite strange that you would ask me to show you proof for the claims that i'm making when i've been doing so since my very first post in this thread. have you at all been reading what i have written? if you had then you wouldn't be asking this of me but here is my argument again:

whether god is atemporal, casually temporal, or really temporal does not provide me with any difficulties for there are theologians on all sides of the issue yet this is different than the question i was asking you. i asked you how allah could take on dimensions and as such enter into his creation (space). i asked you how he could act without entering the realm of time when action by its very definition involves time. do you understand why it is said that god created time when he created everything else in existence? it is because that was the first moment of action that he took and the very fact that he acted brought about the reality and the beginning of time. prior to this there was no action on the part of god. even the statement that god created time when he created everything else admits that action can't exist outside the realm of time. in light of this, how then do you claim that god does not enter time when he acts seeing as there are moments before, during and after these acts?

you have consistently claimed that christianity can't be true because it is not logical and yet now you're making your case not on logic but on mere belief and that is rather hypocritical and inconsistent of you. anyway, there's my argument and i await for your logical rebuttal and not merely the assertion of your opinion or beliefs.

I understand that you feel the need to force muslims to stoop down to your level of belief where God is not atemporal, not omniscient (God who didnt know what was going to happen), and not omnipotent (God who was so weak, overcome by two oafish romans and hung on the cross).
I feel pity that you have such concept of God.

Your subsequent drivel is mere repetetions that shows you lack logical capacity.[/U]

do note that insults cannot make up for the lack of an argument and in fact are rather childish. let us keep to a civil debate or is this too hard a task?

Now, since you seemed to know so much about what happen inside and outside of creation, answer this questions:

1. How can god be dead and alive at the same time?
You are talking big about "logic", now prove to me logically
was the lesser god truly dead?
2. you havent answered my question before: Why do christians think that God needed to scuckle breast, peed, cried, pooped, washed after himself?
was a human or god?
( c ) if he was a human, how can he be god?

it's not logical!

oh, I am having fun here.

( d ) and if god really died, who ran the universe?
( e ) and if he did not really die, why is it called sacrifice?

the mind boggles.

1. death happens to the body and as such if god wills it, the human body can experience death, this would not mean that god as he is in himself would experience death. when christians say that god died, they do not say that the being of god died because god as he is in himself cannot die, rather they say that the body he occupied experienced death. you seem to have trouble with the phrase god as he is in himself" and as such you would do well to look up this term and avoid further elementary mistakes as has already occured with the concept of omnitemporal and atemporal.

2. christians do not believe that god needed to do any of that, rather he chose to let the human body function as it should. even then it would not be the being of god which would need to function as such but rather the human body. you seem to wish to predicate the properties of one nature unto the other and there is no warrant for that. once again this stems from your lack of understanding of the hypostatic union and the concept of god as he is in himself.

( c ) i suppose that you failed to read my post #95. it was a response to the best muslim argument for why jesus could not be god and it is exactly how i would have written it if i were a muslim yet still it was rather simple to prove wrong given that we're talking in terms of logic. please do get to reading it.

( d ) i must say that i get this question a lot even though there is not much sense in it. you seem to think that death entails the ceasing of existence. even when humans die you believe that they do not cease to exist. so in the case of christ, if his body were to experience death, he would not cease to exist either and he would still have a will etc. as such the universe would still run smoothly. your question fails to make a point because it misunderstands death as oblivion where the individual and their will is no more. yet that is not what death is in either christianity or islam and as such it is rather easy to show how incorrect the question is.

( e ) he did die. death is experienced by the body and it is as such that in such a state the body ceases to function. whether a resurrection happens later is beside the point. once one is dead they are dead and if it is god's will to raise them back to life, it would still not change the fact that they were dead at some point. given that they were truly dead, it qualifies as a sacrifice.

the above are logical responses. the trouble you have with all your questions is that you predicate the properties of one nature unto the other and that is completely unjustified. better yet, could you please give us an argument for why the properties of one nature should be predicated on the other? you also don't understand the concept of god as he is in himself nor the matter of the hypostatic union (and in my experience, few muslims have heard of this concept) and so it is rather disheartening to converse with an individual on these matters when this very same person does not actually know what christianity teaches on these matters? if you wish to continue with such discussions in the future it would be good for you to look up the matter of the hypostatic union. this not only will edify you but it will make our discussions more productive if you can understand christian doctrine and attack it from there without making such elementary mistakes. that may have been a bit too harsh on my part but it needed to have been said. the fact that all your points relied on inaccurate knowledge of the concept of essences and christian doctrine is a tad aggravating to have to respond to. learn these things and it will become a pleasure to discuss the supposed faults of the christian belief with you.

[Grace Seeker]

GraceSeeker:
My thoughts lean more toward the idea that in the same way God spoke the star-stuff itself into being, that God spoke the embyo which was born and named Jesus into being.
All the rest of humanity, Adam included, is made from star-stuff in one form or another. But in the incarnation, I don't think that Jesus' embryo was formed by those means, but is itself the spoken Word of God appearing in the flesh.

Hmmm. Maybe I need to get some understanding here. You don't believe that the human flesh of Jesus' embryo was composed of created matter/energy at all? I can understand the word of God being "enfleshed" in created matter/energy...but not that the human flesh of that "word" being something OTHER THAN created matter/energy.

Is that what you are saying?

NO. That's not what I am saying.

Jesus' body was certainly matter. It was every bit as human as that of Adam and vice versa. But the means by which each was generated do not have to be the same. Just as the matter of which the stars themselves were made was "spoken" into being, and the matter of which Adam was made was formed of the dust of the ground, and the matter of which you and I were made was the result of procreation. No two material beings have to have been generated by the same means. I believe that the means by which the piece of matter, the embryo, that eventually was born and came to be known by us as Jesus was not formed of the dust like Adam nor procreated like you and me, but like the stars themselves was simply spoken into being by the very Word who incarnated himself in that matter. I don't have any particular verse that I can hang my hat on for that belief, but as the gospel of John tells us that the Word was with God in the beginning and was himself God and that then this Word became flesh, it seems to me to rule out the other two modes of producing humans. The Word pre-existed the body in which he would eventually dwell. And the body came into being quite apart from the ordinary means of biological procreation, and pretty obviously was not formed from the dust of the ground within Mary's womb, and spontaneous development of a human egg apart from sperm would produce a clone of the mother. So, lacking all of the above in the case of Jesus and theorizing on other mechanism by which a human embryo might occur in Mary's womb that would produce a male child, it seems to me that a miraculous creation of the embryo itself is the best answer that I can arrive at given my present understanding of the facts.

There is a difference in that Adam was composed from "dust" already there whereas Jesus' "dust"(via divinely-empowered embryogenesis) would ITSELF exist by divine fiat.

What is different between saying divinely-empowered embryogenesis existing by divine fiat and saying God spoke the star-stuff that was the embyro that became Jesus into being?

[YieldedOne]

Yo, GraceSeeker.

I don't think we're disagreeing much at all here. I would agree that the human embryo of Jesus did not come about by human procreation or formed of earth dirt, but was "spoken" into being in the womb of Mary. I don't think we're disagreeing at all. I suppose you're saying that God's being Adam into being is not totally equivalent to God's bringing the human embryo of Jesus into being at all points. I'm fine with that. There is likeness in the ways that the Quran suggests: 1) Will of God ultimate source of individual existence and 2) the natural link to the "earth", being a material, carbon-based lifeform. Both Adam and Jesus were fully human, therefore "of the earth"...and they both emerged in human history by divine will.

[Grace Seeker]

Yo, GraceSeeker.

I don't think we're disagreeing much at all here.

:thumbs_up



(I have no purpose for this parenthetical comment other than that, in order to please the computer, I am also adding the required 12 characters -- and then some -- need to submit a post.)

[جوري]

This question basically deals with the idea of two realms of consciousness in God's self-perception: Is there any way that a divine Person can experience divinity and createdness at the same time within one self-understanding? There really is a decent analogy within human experience that could go some way to explaining this...but there'd have to be some serious openmindedness to accept. First of all, do you know what "lucid dreaming" is? Further, "wake-induced" lucid dreaming? I know the question seems far afield, but it will make sense to you easier if you already understand those phenomena.

:haha: open mindedness or hogwash? what about those years when god was suckling or taking bathroom breaks? did he have an intelligent thought and creative design in his infant mind? The stuff you guys write is always worthy of such a hearty guffaw..

[Hamza Asadullah]

Both the Noble Quran and the Bible claim that GOD Almighty is an Absolute One and only One:

"Say: He is God, the One and Only; God, the Eternal, Absolute; He begetteth not, nor is He begotten; And there is none like unto Him. (The Noble Quran, 112:1-4)"

"Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God, the LORD is one. (From the NIV Bible, Deuteronomy 6:4)"

"The most important one," answered Jesus, "is this: 'Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is one. (From the NIV Bible, Mark 12:29)"

Notice also how Jesus said "our God", which included him to be under GOD Almighty's creation and Divine Authority, and not someone or an entity that is equal to GOD Almighty.

The Bible's New Testament also records Jesus saying: ""Why do you call me good?" Jesus answered. "No one is good–except God alone." (From the NIV Bible, Mark 10:18)"

If Jesus doesn't consider himself as "good", then how can any sane person put him on the same level as GOD Almighty?

I have yet to seen a good answer to this one by any polytheist trinitarian.

Also, another important point to notice in Mark 10:18 is the word "alone": ""Why do you call me good?" Jesus answered. "No one is good–except God alone." (From the NIV Bible, Mark 10:18)"

Jesus in this verse is clearly giving exclusivity to GOD Almighty when he said "alone". If Jesus was truly part of GOD Almighty and/or the trinity lie was true, then Jesus, to say the least, would not have said that.

[YieldedOne]

Hey there, Hamza81!
Let's start at the beginning here. It is conceded that Jesus believed that there was only One God, His Father (and the Father of the Children of Israel). That seems fairly obvious from his Jewish background and steady belief in the Shema. He would have had that belief as a full human being raised by the Torah. In short, he was a good "child of Israel." Moreover, it's clear from biblical testimony that Jesus saw himself as "nothing" or "empty" before God such that he (Jesus) did nothing on his own but only by the power and will of God the Father. Paul talks about how Christians are supposed to imitate just this type of humility in their own lives.

All that's given...ok? That's why it's natural that Jesus would have made the statement you quote.

Now...

The question that we need to ponder is whether or not it is even CONCEIVABLE that the "word" of Allah that Isa is...is not only creaturely, but an eternal self-disclosure of God enfleshed. Is that even possible?
Is that fair?

[YieldedOne]

Two things:

1) Jesus is ALREADY considered to be a "word" of Allah, quranically speaking. Allah's says "Be" and Jesus is. This is what happened in Mary's womb, yes? The question is whether or not it is CONCEIVABLE that a creaturely reality can "incarnate" eternal reality. Can Jesus can an ETERNALLY SPOKEN "word" of Allah manifested into human history through Mary?

2) If it is conceivable for the Quran itself to be creaturely manifestation of uncreated, eternal reality being the very "word" of Allah...I don't see how it can be said to be INconceivable that Allah could do the very same thing through a human being.

[جوري]

Two things:

1) Jesus is ALREADY considered to be a "word" of Allah, quranically speaking. Allah's says "Be" and Jesus is. This is what happened in Mary's womb, yes? The question is whether or not it is CONCEIVABLE that a creaturely reality can "incarnate" eternal reality. Can Jesus can an ETERNALLY SPOKEN "word" of Allah manifested into human history through Mary?

2) If it is conceivable for the Quran itself to be creaturely manifestation of uncreated, eternal reality being the very "word" of Allah...I don't see how it can be said to be INconceivable that Allah could do the very same thing through a human being.

word acrobatics still doesn't make gods of men. The creation of Jesus is the like the creation of Adam. both were the command be.. God is completely outside of creation, the laws of physics and the universe. We don't define God by the stretch of your imagination or other christian rhetoric.
If you're happy worshiping a man and the messenger instead of focusing on the message, then by all means be my guest, but if God intends a religion for all mankind, it would be easily understood by idiots and theologians alike.. if you find yourself working with complicated numbers on a math exam I guarantee you're going to get the answer incorrect.. and if you have to likewise do the same convolutions with religion then by the same token you'll be taking yourself down a very dangerous path..

I don't understand why it is Christians have such difficulty with logic?

[YieldedOne]

Surah 4:171
O People of the Scripture, do not commit excess in your religion or say about Allah except the truth. The Messiah, Jesus, the son of Mary, was but a messenger of Allah and His word which He directed to Mary and a soul [created at a command] from Him. So believe in Allah and His messengers. And do not say, "Three"; desist - it is better for you. Indeed, Allah is but one God. Exalted is He above having a son. To Him belongs whatever is in the heavens and whatever is on the earth. And sufficient is Allah as Disposer of affairs.


I already see the anti-Trinitarian sentiment in the passage. So I'll grant that up front, 'kay? Allah doesn't need a son to be Allah. Got it.

But check out the concept that Jesus, son of Mary, was Allah's "word which He directed to Mary" as well as a created soul. (Christians believe that Jesus has a created human soul, too, by the way.)

Here's the thing: is there anything, Quranically speaking, that renders INCONCEIVABLE that the "word" spoken by Allah to Mary was simultaneously an eternal, uncreated word of self-disclosure temporally manifested like unto what is claimed about the Quran itself?

If so, please state those concepts with the accompanying Quranic material, if you would. That would be very helpful. If not, then...

[جوري]

Christian philosophers and apologists have spent a great deal of time trying to make sense out of the Trinity. Below are some of the several attempts that Christians have taken while tackling the issue of the Trinity's logical incoherence:


http://www.reasonablefaith.org/site/...rticle&id=5909
http://www.********************/Auth...nity_brief.htm
http://www.dtl.org/trinity/article/contradiction.htm
http://www.bible.ca/trinity/trinity-false-dilemmas.htm
http://www.carm.org/islam/obj_trinity.htm


However, after reading all of the above mentioned articles you would realize that what these Christians are doing is redefining or putting forth the notion of Trinity in a way that could be possible for it to be logically comprehended. They don't come up with the concept of the Trinity in light of the Bible and then see if it is logically coherent. Rather, they do the exact opposite. They try to formulate the Trinity in a way that it is logical and then say that this is what the Bible teaches.

However, what we should be interested in knowing is whether the concept of Trinity is logically coherent in light of what the Bible teaches.

What do Christians mean when they say that they believe in one God? They will say that they believe that God is one being (not one person) and this one being is manifested in three different persons. They will say that God is one being with three centers of consciousness, souls, personhoods, etc.

So it can be understood as follows:

- God is one being.
- This one being is manifested in three different persons.
- So when we Christians say that God is one, we are not emphasizing his oneness of personhood, rather we are emphasizing his oneness of being.

Furthermore they will say:

- The Father is truly God.
- The Son is truly God.
- The Holy Spirit is truly God.
- These are not three Gods, but three different persons who share the essence of that one being who is God.


Do the above statements make any sense? What do they mean when they say that there is one being who is God, but three different persons who share that one being's essence?

That is as illogical as me saying:


- Ahmed is a human being.
- Khalid is a human being.
- Ayman is a human being.
- These are not three human beings, but three different persons who share ONE essence, which is human.

Obviously no one says that one essence "human" is being shared by seven billion people on Earth today. Rather, we say that there are seven billion human beings on Earth today.

Similarly, we can't say that there are three different persons sharing the one essence of God, but that there are three different Gods in light of what the Trinity teaches.

Now this argument probably won't convince Christians, since they would probably go on and reply back saying "Our logic is too limited to grasp the paradox of the Trinity".

Well, if philosophical objections won't work then let us try to pose a theological objection to the concept of Trinity by taking a look at what the Bible says.

According to Christians:

- The Father is truly God.
- The Son is truly God.
- The Holy Spirit is truly God.

There is nothing irrational about the above statement (if we were to assume that it teaches three different Gods). Similarly, the following statement is also logical:

- Ahmed is a human being.
- Khalid is a human being.
- Ayman is a human being.


However, an irrational statement would be:

- Ahmed is the only human being.
- Khalid is the only human being.
- Ayman is the only human being.

Now this is definitely irrational. How is it possible for Ahmed and Khalid at the same time to be the only human being? Anyone could clearly see that these two beliefs are mutually exclusive and it cannot logically be possible for both of them tobe true at the same time.

What does the Bible say about God the Father (first person in the Trinitarian God head)?

It says this:

John 17:3

Now this is eternal life: that they know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent.


Notice how the Father is being referred to as THE ONLY TRUE GOD. Thus, we are required to restate the formulation of the Trinity as follows:


- The Father is the only true God.
- The Son is truly God.
- The Holy Spirit is truly God.


But just as we saw with the previous example, this is logically impossible. How is it possible for the Father to be the ONLY trueGod, while at the same time the Son and Holy Spirit are God as well? If the Son and Holy Spirit are God as well, then it is false to say that the Father is the ONLY trueGod. Similarly, if we say that the Father is the ONLY trueGod(how clearer can it get for someone to express Unitarianism?) then we can't say that anyone else (i.e. Son and Holy Spirit) is God as well.

It would also be ludicrous for someone to reformulate the Trinity as follows:

- The Father is the only true God.
- The Son is the only true God.
- The Holy Spirit is the only true God.


Since it would be necessary for atleast two of the above three statements to be false. It is not possible for any one of the persons (Father, Son or Holy Spirit) to be the ONLY trueGod at the same time when the other two are God as well.

Thus, in light of John 17:3 we see that the concept of Trinity is logically incoherent.

Sure, Christians can redefine the Trinity in a way that it could be make sense, but the problem with this would be that their understanding of the Trinity is not scripturally based. It would only be the product of their human thoughts. However, in light of the Bible (with it being authoritative to most Christians) we can safely say that the Trinity is logically incoherent. It is not simply a matter of it being beyond our logic, but AGAINST our logic. If it is AGAINST our logic then that means that it is a false belief.

Muslims, thank Allah Almighty that you are blessed to be following a rational religion.

http://www.call-to-monotheism.com/is...cal_teachings_

[YieldedOne]

τhε ṿαlε'ṡ lïlÿ :
word acrobatics still doesn't make gods of men. The creation of Jesus is the like the creation of Adam. both were the command be.. God is completely outside of creation, the laws of physics and the universe. We don't define God by the stretch of your imagination. If you're happy worshiping a man and the messenger instead of focusing on the message, then by all means be my guest, but if God intends a religion for all mankind, it would be easily understood by idiots and theologians alike.. if you find yourself working with complicated numbers on a math exam I guarantee you're going to get the answer incorrect.. and if you have to likewise do the same convolutions with religion then by the same token you'll be taking yourself down a very dangerous path.. I don't understand why it is Christians have such difficulty with logic?

Yo, sister. How about you give me the benefit of the doubt that maybe I'm trying to be as logically consistent and honest with myself and others as possible. I don't think you have bad faith. Why would you think that I do? Please give me grace on that, ok? ;)

Please remember. THIS is what I follow as I believe in Jesus/Isa...this is honestly what I believe his teaching was/is...

Human beings are to express singular worship of and submission to the One Uncreated Creator by a) thanksgiving, adoration and glorification to the Creator and b) works of loving-kindness and compassion to others and ourselves. In this, we are also to consecrate ourselves and be holy, compassionate, merciful, and loving because our Creator is holy, compassionate, merciful and loving.

I believe that, Quranically speaking, if I believe that the God of Abraham, Moses, and Jesus is the One Uncreated Creator to whom all submission should take place...I'll be ok.

:)

[جوري]

Yo, sister. How about you give me the benefit of the doubt that maybe I'm trying to be as logically consistent and honest with myself and others as possible. I don't think you have bad faith. Why would you think that I do? Please give me grace on that, ok? ;)

I don't see what Grace has to do with what you put forth?

Please remember. THIS is what I follow as I believe in Jesus/Isa...this is honestly what I believe his teaching was/is...

I don't see how this concerns me personally?
Every soul is held in pledge by its own deeds!

Human beings are to express singular worship of and submission to the One Uncreated Creator by a) thanksgiving, adoration and glorification to the Creator and b) works of loving-kindness and compassion to others and ourselves. In this, we are also to consecrate ourselves and be holy, compassionate, merciful, and loving because our Creator is holy, compassionate, merciful and loving.

Irrelevant to '' What was the nature of Jesus' (alayhi salam) birth?''

I believe that, Quranically speaking, if I believe that the God of Abraham, Moses, and Jesus is the One Uncreated Creator to whom all submission should take place...I'll be ok.

Ok good for you

:)

All the best

[YieldedOne]

Let this be said. I personally am not arguing for God as Trinity per se. I really ain't doing that.

I am asking THIS question:
Is there anything, Quranically speaking, that renders INCONCEIVABLE that the "word" spoken by Allah to Mary was simultaneously an eternal, uncreated "word" of divine self-disclosure that was temporally manifested like unto what is claimed about the Quran itself being eternal and uncreated but temporally manifested?

[YieldedOne]

I honestly don't see anything in the Quran...or any discussion that I've ever seen...that eliminates the possibility of what I'm talking about. I'd like to see some, if I could.

Help? ;)

[YieldedOne]

Let me say it this way:

If the Quran, which human beings can touch, hold, and read...can faithfully be said to be uncreated and eternal in nature as Allah's word...I don't see how it can be seen as completely inconceivable that Allah could do the same self-disclosing activity through a living, breathing HUMAN BEING who can be touched, held, and observed.

I'm seriously not seeing it. Wowzers.

[جوري]

Let this be said. I personally am not arguing for God as Trinity per se. I really ain't doing that.

I am asking THIS question:
Is there anything, Quranically speaking, that renders INCONCEIVABLE that the "word" spoken by Allah to Mary was simultaneously an eternal, uncreated "word" of divine self-disclosure that was temporally manifested like unto what is claimed about the Quran itself being eternal and uncreated but temporally manifested?

I honestly don't see anything in the Quran...or any discussion that I've ever seen...that eliminates the possibility of what I'm talking about. I'd like to see some, if I could.

Help? ;)

Dr. Deedat sums it best



Somethings are very obvious, you don't need to conjure up absurdities and demand that they be acknowledged!

all the best

[YieldedOne]

Wanna tie all this back to the thread. I believe that the nature of Jesus' birth is divine fiat, whatever the actual mechanism may have been. God's willed and spoken "word" is what ultimately brings forth Jesus' emergence into human history. In this way, it IS like Adam, though there are distinctions. God says "Be!" and it is.

My thought is this: Is it conceivable that the "word" of Allah spoken by God causing Jesus to "Be!" actually ANTEDATED Mary's faithful, humble acceptance of that "word" to her? If it is conceivable, such that the "word" to Mary precedes the encounter with Mary, who is to say that the same "word" could not have been an ETERNAL one, spoken from before Creation began?

Take me logically step by step how it's inconceivable...anyone.

[YieldedOne]

Um...I listened to Dr. Deedat and he was really cool! But I didn't get anything that would help answer my question. I really listened...and I didn't get anything.

Help, again? :)

[YieldedOne]

τhε ṿαlε'ṡ lïlÿ:
Somethings are very obvious, you don't need to conjure up absurdities and demand that they be acknowledged!

I'm sorry. What does this sentence mean, lily? That any conceptualization of a triune subject is absurd? Interesting.

[جوري]

Wanna tie all this back to the thread. I believe that the nature of Jesus' birth is divine fiat, whatever the actual mechanism may have been. God's willed and spoken "word" is what ultimately brings forth Jesus' emergence into human history. In this way, it IS like Adam, though there are distinctions. God says "Be!" and it is. My thought is this: Is it conceivable that the "word" of Allah spoken by God causing Jesus to "Be!" actually ANTEDATED Mary's faithful, humble acceptance of that "word" to her? If it is conceivable, such that the "word" to Mary precedes the encounter with Mary, who is to say that the same "word" could not have been an ETERNAL one, spoken from before Creation began? Take me logically step by step how it's inconceivable...anyone.

You're not using logical tools for a debate, so how can I make a logical conclusion out of an absurdity?
It is to say the ingredients for apple pie (as is universally known by definition of the terms themselves to be) apples, dough, sugar, cinnamon, yet you bring chicken legs buttermilk and crumbs and expect me to walk you through the process to prove that those can't be the ingredients of apple pies, furthermore expect me to find you in cook books a refutation to your proposed ingredients as the foundation of apple pies, and using rearwards logic.

This is the portion where we either do an MMSE on you to check your mental status for a serious condition or ignore you all together as a malingering troll!

all the best

[YieldedOne]

τhε ṿαlε'ṡ lïlÿ:
You're not using logical tools for a debate, so how can I make a logical conclusion out of an absurdity? It is to say the ingredients for apple pie (as is universally known by definition of the terms themselves to be) apples, dough, sugar, cinnamon, yet you bring chicken legs buttermilk and crumbs and expect me to walk you through the process to prove that those can't be the ingredients of apple pies, furthermore expect me to find you in cook books a refutation to your proposed ingredients as the foundation of apple pies, and using rearwards logic. This is the portion where we either do an MMSE on you to check your mental status for a serious condition or ignore you all together as a malingering troll!

Ok. All I can assume is that I must be saying something super offensive right now. I'm sorry if that's what's happening. I'm definitely not trying to be a "malingering troll." (Wow. Never been called THAT before. Hmm.) Am I going to fast...or what? I'm trying to be clear. Could you help me sot that I can be more clear for communicating what I'm trying to ask?

[جوري]

Ok. All I can assume is that I must be saying something super offensive right now. I'm sorry if that's what's happening. I'm definitely not trying to be a "malingering troll." (Wow. Never been called THAT before. Hmm.) Am I going to fast...or what? I'm trying to be clear. Could you help me sot that I can be more clear for communicating what I'm trying to ask?

I can't help you formulate questions out of non-questions, create logic out of being illogical.. see previous replies and analogies on the subject matter..

all the best

[YieldedOne]

I'm thinking about Surah 4:171...

O People of the Scripture, do not commit excess in your religion or say about Allah except the truth. The Messiah, Jesus, the son of Mary, was but a messenger of Allah and His word which He directed to Mary and a soul [created at a command] from Him.

It says clearly that Jesus, son of Mary, was a "word" of Allah directed to Mary and a soul created by divine fiat or command.

I don't see anything that limits this "word" of Allah being solely and exhaustively temporal in nature.

I'm really trying to ask this simply...

[جوري]

I'm thinking about Surah 4:171... O People of the Scripture, do not commit excess in your religion or say about Allah except the truth. The Messiah, Jesus, the son of Mary, was but a messenger of Allah and His word which He directed to Mary and a soul [created at a command] from Him. It says clearly that Jesus, son of Mary, was a "word" of Allah directed to Mary and a soul created by divine fiat or command. I don't see anything that limits this "word" of Allah being solely and exhaustively temporal in nature. I'm really trying to ask this simply...

Everything that is created is the word of God.

• 2:117- The Initiator of the heavens and the earth: to have anything done, He simply says to it, "Be," and it is.

• 3:47- She said, "My Lord, how can I have a son, when no man has touched me?" He said, "God thus creates whatever He wills. To have anything done, He simply says to it, 'Be,' and it is."

• 6:73- He is the One who created the heavens and the earth, truthfully. Whenever He says, "Be," it is. His word is the absolute truth. All sovereignty belongs to Him the day the trumpet is blown. Knower of all secrets and declarations, He is the Most Wise, the Cognizant.

• 16:40- To have anything done, we simply say to it, "Be," and it is.

• 19:35- It does not befit God that He begets a son, be He glorified. To have anything done, He simply says to it, "Be," and it is."

• 36:82- All He needs to do to carry out any command is say to it, "Be," and it is.

• 40:68- He is the only One who controls life and death. To have anything done, He simply says to it, "Be," and it is.

hope that helps..

all the best

[YieldedOne]

[And mention] when the angels said, "O Mary, indeed Allah gives you good tidings of a word from Him, whose name will be the Messiah, Jesus, the son of Mary - distinguished in this world and the Hereafter and among those brought near [to Allah ]. He will speak to the people in the cradle and in maturity and will be of the righteous."

She said, "My Lord, how will I have a child when no man has touched me?" [The angel] said, "Such is Allah ; He creates what He wills. When He decrees a matter, He only says to it, 'Be,' and it is.

[YieldedOne]

So....everything that exists is "spoken" into existence by Allah. Interesting. Christians have that same belief, except that believe that Jesus is the Eternal Word through whom Creation was/is "spoken" into existence by Allah.

Interesting. ;)

So, Allah spoke the Quran into existence as well, right?

[YieldedOne]

It's like this, I think. Jesus' emergence in human history is of specific divine will and intention, not mere human social convention or biological propagation. Christians AND Muslims will agree on that score. Where they will disagree is whether or not Allah's specific divine will and intention for Jesus' existence as revelatory "word" antedates Allah's encounter with Mary.

I think. Heh. ;)

[YieldedOne]

I know I can't post links. So, I'll just mention this. There was a pretty good article online called "THE UNCREATEDNESS OF THE DIVINE SPEECH: THE GLORIOUS QUR'AN" by Sh. G. F. Haddad. It talks specifically about the idea of the Quran being the "Speech of Allah" which is uncreated.

[M.I.A.]

Woodrow, the same that you have said about time could be said of the measurements we use of space -- length, width, depth. Are you suggesting that these are not "things" either, and that they were not created in the same way you suggest that time is not created? You are the first person in the fields of either religion or science to ever suggest to me that time does not exist as a part of creation. I understand that ideas of a Euclidean universe of 3 dimensions of space and one dimension of time have been repostulated in which space and time are combined into a single manifold, but I have yet to see it argued as I understand you to suggest that time itself does not exist, other than that it could not have existed prior to the creation of the universe in which we do indeed (as you yourself say) measure it. How is that not the same as saying that time was created in the act of creating the universe? (And, relative to Mustafa's question, what does this rabbit trail have to do with the actual topic of this thread?)

time does not exist for god only for creation... god would be bored silly by now.. especially if he knew what was going to happen.

actually the concept of time being subjective.. i would say relative but not in the sense it was first termed.. is in the quran.

[M.I.A.]

i have no problem with believing the above yet it still does not change the fact that allah decides to act at some point. there is a time before, during, and after he makes the effect materialize. let us remember that allah knows from all eternity what he is going to do and when he is going to do so but this does not change the fact that at the appropriate moment, he wills that his purpose be accomplished. in this case, at the appropriate moment, he wills that the effect of speech be materialized to moses. that once again is an action and action takes place within the realm of time. time was created by allah and as such he does indeed enter hid creation.


once again the above shows that at some point in time, allah wills that jesus be created within the womb of mary. this is once again an act on his part that happens within time and as such he does indeed enter into his creation.


clearly you do not understand what omnitemporal even means. omnitemporal is defined as god existing at every point within time. yet it also includes the fact that he is pretemporal, supertemporal, and postemporal. the very fact that you're going around saying words like omnitemporal shows that you are ignorant on the subject itself seeing as omnitemporal means that god is within time (and outside of it, before it, after it, etc.) and as such he has entered his creation. yet if i recall correctly, aren't you the individual who is arguing that god does not enter into his creation?

@gene: we will have to disagree on this. for one thing, i firmly believe that you believe god to be bound by goodness, or is it that you disagree with the statement that god cannot lie? do you suppose that he could make a square-circle? do you believe that god can make himself to cease to exist? clearly we should be in agreement on these so it is not that a sovereign god is not bound by anything but rather he is not bound by anything outside of himself. logic, goodness etc. find their source in him and as such he could not deny himself.

furthermore, what is your understanding of "interacting with creation" and "entering creation"?


to be quite sure, all you've shown is your own ignorance on the subject. i have not used the fact that allah does indeed enter into his creation in order to imply that he entered a human. if what you say is true, please provide us with this quote? it's almost ironic that you would enter this thread and be so quick to label others as deceivers and liars when at this point, it is only you who has said something which is false. that said, it does not even matter if these hadiths refer to the day of judgement etc. (and could you also provide us with the quote where i claimed that they didn't?), they still show that allah enters into his creation. please try to engage my argument. we can have this discussion if you would like but let us not abandon civility or the proper rules of debate.

btw, this thread has nothing to do with the trinity. i spoke of it at length during the other thread and it would seem that you failed to participate. that however is not my problem.

you must understand the light from the most distant of stars takes very long to reach earth. in the same way just because you understand that god is only to say be and it is.. the nature of the creation is not restricted to any time constraint.
to think god is at any moment constantly saying be would be quite frustrating no doubt.

i dont know if that is what you implied but im just saying

...dont bother replying, i know most certainly that allah swt is not bound to any restriction of time.

if the angels are made of light, the fastest they can travel is the speed of light... and they still turn up on time? lol at the very least we are on a eight minute delay.. no im kidding, light is almost a constant.

actually the concept of angels taking human form and remaining made of light would lead a person to question the very nature of reality, the boundaries of creation and what is external.

another thing.. putting a angel(for the sake of example) into a situation would require a "be" aswell. angels only do what they are commanded.. but it did exist before the "be" didnt it?

[Sol Invictus]

( a ) you must understand the light from the most distant of stars takes very long to reach earth. in the same way just because you understand that god is only to say be and it is.. the nature of the creation is not restricted to any time constraint.
( b ) to think god is at any moment constantly saying be would be quite frustrating no doubt.

i dont know if that is what you implied but im just saying

( c ) ...dont bother replying, i know most certainly that allah swt is not bound to any restriction of time.

if the angels are made of light, the fastest they can travel is the speed of light... and they still turn up on time? lol at the very least we are on a eight minute delay.. no im kidding, light is almost a constant.

actually the concept of angels taking human form and remaining made of light would lead a person to question the very nature of reality, the boundaries of creation and what is external.

another thing.. putting a angel(for the sake of example) into a situation would require a "be" aswell. angels only do what they are commanded.. but it did exist before the "be" didnt it?

( a ) that is a wonderful point and in fact goes a long way in trying to resolve the issue of time and action as it relates to god. in fact it almost manages to do so. yet the very fact that for something to come into existence at some point, requires allah to have called it to exist at some point prior to which he did not call it to exist, once again shows that the actions of allah are accomplished within time (or else there could be no before, during, or after to these actions) and as such he does indeed enter his creation.

( b ) that is not what i am saying and i'm glad that we can be in agreement on this.

( c ) that is a subtly different point then what i seek to prove with my argument.

[MustafaMc]

I cannot affirm that this even represents what I am saying from my perspective.

Do I misunderstand? I thought that you believe that Jesus is fully human and yet fully God while also the Father is fully God. Please, correct my misunderstanding.

One does not have an eternal Father without an eternal Son. If, to your understnading, the Son cannot be Allah, please don't equate the Father with Allah then either. For what you mean by Allah is what we mean not by the Father, but by God who is all three in one.

Well the Quran clearly says that the Messiah is not Allah and when one reads the Quran one comes away with exactly the understanding I conveyed. If you remember, I used the term 'Father' for what Jesus was quoted in the NT as referring to God and I also said "without implying any 'fatherhood' to Him."

If I understand you correctly now we are in agreement: &quot;God is not bound by space or time in any way.&quot; So, God indeed can be omnipresent (i.e., in every place and in every time all at the same time)?

I am unclear as to how not being bound by space and time means that God is omnipresent. Perhaps, it is semantics in the difference between being aware of everything with His knowledge as opposed to physically being present everywhere at once. However, I am afraid we will not get anywhere with further discussion on this point.

Actually I do understand that this is how you see them. And I too see them as distinct persons, but I do not see them as separate beings. And I understand that for you those two statements reek of illogic. Yet for me they are simply revealed truth.

Yes, it is illogical, but we all know that we can't put God inside a box so we can understand Him. Our understanding of God is quite different, but yet He remains the same eternally. Is the Trinity concept found in the OT? Did Moses or Abraham have an understanding of Jesus?

If in the first sentence you were to substitute the term "person" for "being", I would agree with you. However, as I stated above, one should not equate Allah with the Father alone separate from the Son and the Spirit, for to do so divides God into multiple beings which we Christians would never do. And we would not do so, specifically because we do indeed believe that there is just one God -- a single divine being who in his nature exists in community within himself as three distinct persons, but who is nevertheless wholly one being. Yes, your problem with this issue is rather obvious.

...but still you haven't explained how Jesus praying to the Father is 'just one God'.

Even the way you misrepresent what it is makes it clear that you have a problem with it. (And I don't mean that you do so with malice or even intent, but you just don't speak of the Trinity meaning by it what we mean by it.)

Perhaps you could explain it in a way where I will understand.

Well, the omnipresence of God, not the Trinity, would be the reason for speaking of God as being in Egypt and New York and for that matter Mississippi all at the same time. And when God is present, then of course it is all of him that is present. To say that God cannot do this is to say that God is limited with regard to space and time. And I don't believe God to be so bound. And according to what you said above you don't either. Or do you? I'm still unclear.

There remains the distinction between being present in His knowledge (what I believe) and being actually physically present (what you believe).

I don't know how to your comment about God being 100% of different races or different genders at the same time. I don't recall anyone every saying any such thing. I would argue that God has neither race nor gender. That even the use of the personal pronoun &quot;he&quot; is a convention and not meant to be description of the gender of one who in his image creates us both male and female. That doesn't sound like one to whom a specific gender should be ascribed.

My use of that was merely an analogy for how you see Jesus as 100% human and 100% God or is it a 50/50 kind of thing - I am yet unclear.

Again, the passages you reference indeed do point to a distinction between the persons of the Father and of the Son, or between the Son and the Spirit. There are many more besides these that you have named. We Christian don't deny, rather we affirm that there are distinctions between the persons of the Trinity. But we would also point out that there are passages that point to oneness as well. And whether we are comfortable doing it or not might be questions, but most certainly we do hold these passages in tension affirming both to be revealed truth. It is out of that affirmation that the doctrine which you know as an articulation of the Trinity developed.

I can understand how it is difficult to explain. This is the very point about why I may say, "And Allah knows best" as I try not to speak about Allah (swt) in a way that is not correct. I fear that I may actually go too far in this respect some times and should 'hold my tongue' more.

Your expression of the oneness of Allah is similary not something that you arrived at by logic, but by declaring your faith in the truth as you best understand it revealed. Now, having arrived at that belief, I am sure that is seems logical to you. But what I observe of human nature is that we arrive at our beliefs first by faith, and then find those beliefs to be logical, not the other way around. Though surely there is someone who with me having now made such a statement will tell their personal story and prove me wrong. C'est le vie!

No, I agree with you. Even now there are things I don't understand, but I accept them as true anyway because I accept the Quran as the Word of God. I am sure that you are the same way about the Bible.

Well, I have written already a great deal on how it is that we Christians see the nature of God. How though we see a distinction between three persons, that we still understand that we are speaking of one divine Being, one singluar essence. I have written in other posts how we Christians begin with the concept that God is one and that there are no other gods. And yet, in the course of time how we came to believe that God had revealed himself in the person of Jesus Christ. Yet, since we affirm that there is just the one God, if Jesus was God revealed in the flesh then it followed that within our understanding of the one God we had to allow for the possibility that this one God existed within himself in community. Holding these two concepts to both be true and yet seeming running contrary to each other, the early church church wrestled with what this revelation meant. And in the end, the present Nicene formulation is what emerged.

Now, I don't expect that such an explanation in the single paragraph I provided above is going to be sufficient to answer all the questions that are raised. I would very much like to try to be more complete if afforded the opportunity. Indeed, I had considered during the time that I was away from the forum earlier this year to devote myself to an intensive study of the Trinity and to bring my own thoughts back to here to share. I don't know if that would be acceptable given the rules of the forum. But if so, I would like to discuss how it is that monotheistic Jews, as the disciples of Jesus all were, should nontheless find it necessary to express their conviction that Jesus was himself God incarnate. I would like to show how the ideas that we eventually find articulated as the doctrine of the Trinity, are actually rooted in the Jewish understanding of God, and how the Christian understanding of the Trinity is as much a statement about the oneness of God as it is about the distinctiveness of the three persons. But such a project thus far has been beyond my time to initiate, and I fear might be beyond the tolerance of this forum to allow posting.

Well, the previous paragraph made more sense than the last one. My understanding of Jewish theology is that it is strictly monotheistic and I fail to see how the Trinity doctrine has Jewish roots.

[MustafaMc]

Two things:

1) Jesus is ALREADY considered to be a "word" of Allah, quranically speaking. Allah's says "Be" and Jesus is. This is what happened in Mary's womb, yes? The question is whether or not it is CONCEIVABLE that a creaturely reality can "incarnate" eternal reality. Can Jesus can an ETERNALLY SPOKEN "word" of Allah manifested into human history through Mary?

2) If it is conceivable for the Quran itself to be creaturely manifestation of uncreated, eternal reality being the very "word" of Allah...I don't see how it can be said to be INconceivable that Allah could do the very same thing through a human being.

Conceptually, I can understand how you possibly could come to this conclusion.

An analogy for Jesus' (as) creation could be a person blowing up a balloon. The balloon is not the person and yet the air inside the balloon is not even the breath of that person anymore despite being derived from him blowing up the balloon with his breath. The air inside the balloon is simply 'air' even though it has less oxygen and more carbon dioxide than the surrounding air.

Likewise, Jesus (as) was created by Allah (swt) by His speaking (in a way befitting of His majesty) the word, "Be!" without this Word in any way comprising His Being.

I personally don't believe that God would literally become incarnate within human flesh for the very reason that people would focus on that mental image as the entity they worship. I know that when I was a Christian the mental image I had was of Jesus on the cross illustrating that God so loved me that He would come down to earth and die a horrible death so that I could be cleansed of my sins. Even though I had prayed to the 'Father' 'in the name of Jesus' the focus for nearly all of the songs was on Jesus and his crucifixion. In contrast, the Lord's Prayer illustrates how Jesus had instructed his disciples to pray and to worship the One God. Now when I pray as a Muslim, I have absolutely no mental image of the One I worship. Even though I can't see Him, I know that He sees me and hears my prayer.

[YieldedOne]

Thanks for the great interaction, MustafaMC! Here we goooo...:shade:

Yielded One: 1) Jesus is ALREADY considered to be a "word" of Allah, quranically speaking. Allah's says "Be" and Jesus is. This is what happened in Mary's womb, yes? The question is whether or not it is CONCEIVABLE that a creaturely reality can "incarnate" eternal reality. Can Jesus can an ETERNALLY SPOKEN "word" of Allah manifested into human history through Mary?
2) If it is conceivable for the Quran itself to be creaturely manifestation of uncreated, eternal reality being the very "word" of Allah...I don't see how it can be said to be INconceivable that Allah could do the very same thing through a human being.

MustafaMc: Conceptually, I can understand how you possibly could come to this conclusion.

I'm glad to see that it's not a conceptual inconceivability. That's very, very important. Glad we could get that out the way. Thanks. ;)

************************

MustafaMc:
An analogy for Jesus' (as) creation could be a person blowing up a balloon. The balloon is not the person and yet the air inside the balloon is not even the breath of that person anymore despite being derived from him blowing up the balloon with his breath. The air inside the balloon is simply 'air' even though it has less oxygen and more carbon dioxide than the surrounding air.

Likewise, Jesus (as) was created by Allah (swt) by His speaking (in a way befitting of His majesty) the word, "Be!" without this Word in any way comprising His Being.

Hmmm...I don't know if the analogy works all the way, but I get the main assertion: Allah can create without His creation necessarily being pantheistic. That is to say, metaphysically speaking, created reality is actually distinct from Allah's personal being. I'd agree with that. And I would even say that the human mind, soul, and body that Jesus has falls directly into the created category. No doubt.

At the same time, there doesn't seem to be anything in that belief of Jesus' human createdness that necessarily ELIMINATES the possibility of being a manifestation of uncreated, eternal reality. Especially when that very thing is claimed for the Quran.

And let me be very clear: I am NOT arguing for the Trinity per se...nor am I arguing for the eternal SONSHIP of Jesus. Not at all. I am arguing that there is nothing in Islam (that I've seen) that completely removes the possibility of Jesus being Allah's "word" eternally spoken and temporally manifested into human history through Mary "in the fulness of time."
Unless there is something in the Quran or Islamic metaphysics that makes it absolutely impossible for Jesus to be an eternally-spoken, uncreated "word" of Allah...then I don't see how a Muslim could fault a thinking person for conceiving and believing such about Jesus.

****************************

MustafaMc:
I personally don't believe that God would literally become incarnate within human flesh for the very reason that people would focus on that mental image as the entity they worship. I know that when I was a Christian the mental image I had was of Jesus on the cross illustrating that God so loved me that He would come down to earth and die a horrible death so that I could be cleansed of my sins. Even though I had prayed to the 'Father' 'in the name of Jesus' the focus for nearly all of the songs was on Jesus and his crucifixion. In contrast, the Lord's Prayer illustrates how Jesus had instructed his disciples to pray and to worship the One God. Now when I pray as a Muslim, I have absolutely no mental image of the One I worship. Even though I can't see Him, I know that He sees me and hears my prayer.

Some thoughts:
1) Christian prayer and worship can be (and is) "imageless". Especially prayer like hesychasm. That is to say, a Christian is not bound to always think in "icons" to worship the Transcendent God.

2) Can a Muslim think about the physically-ascendant Jesus (who is now in the presence of God) without being an idolater? In other words, can a Muslim think about Jesus' physically-ascendent BODY without remembering the absolute transcendence of God? If the answer is "yes" to both questions, then I'd wonder if the very same thing couldn't be applicable to Christians.

3) I'd say that God could manifest eternal, uncreated reality in human existence for the same reason that it's claimed he did so in the Quran: a greater degree of self-revelation.

[YieldedOne]

Oops. On #2 above I meant..."In other words, can a Muslim think about Jesus' physically-ascendent BODY without forgetting the absolute transcendence of God?"

[MustafaMc]

MustafaMc: Conceptually, I can understand how you possibly could come to this conclusion.

I'm glad to see that it's not a conceptual inconceivability. That's very, very important. Glad we could get that out the way. Thanks. ;)

...but that does not make Jesus God incarnate anymore than the Quran encapsulates Allah's (swt) Essence.

Hmmm...I don't know if the analogy works all the way, but I get the main assertion: Allah can create without His creation necessarily being pantheistic. That is to say, metaphysically speaking, created reality is actually distinct from Allah's personal being. I'd agree with that. And I would even say that the human mind, soul, and body that Jesus has falls directly into the created category. No doubt.

At the same time, there doesn't seem to be anything in that belief of Jesus' human createdness that necessarily ELIMINATES the possibility of being a manifestation of uncreated, eternal reality. Especially when that very thing is claimed for the Quran.

No, you err in equating a Word, 'Be!' with a 'manifestation of Allah (swt). You are twisting the Quran around to say what you want it to say.

And let me be very clear: I am NOT arguing for the Trinity per se...nor am I arguing for the eternal SONSHIP of Jesus. Not at all. I am arguing that there is nothing in Islam (that I've seen) that completely removes the possibility of Jesus being Allah's "word" eternally spoken and temporally manifested into human history through Mary "in the fulness of time."
Unless there is something in the Quran or Islamic metaphysics that makes it absolutely impossible for Jesus to be an eternally-spoken, uncreated "word" of Allah...then I don't see how a Muslim could fault a thinking person for conceiving and believing such about Jesus.

Even if that is so, it does not mean that we were intended to worship Jesus (as). We believe that the Quran is the very Word of Allah (swt) but I as a Muslim do not worship the Book. The Book points me toward the worship of the Creator, just like Jesus (as) did.

Some thoughts:
1) Christian prayer and worship can be (and is) "imageless". Especially prayer like hesychasm. That is to say, a Christian is not bound to always think in "icons" to worship the Transcendent God.

Thank you I learned something.

2) Can a Muslim think about the physically-ascendant Jesus (who is now in the presence of God) without being an idolater? In other words, can a Muslim think about Jesus' physically-ascendent BODY without forgetting the absolute transcendence of God? (corrected) If the answer is "yes" to both questions, then I'd wonder if the very same thing couldn't be applicable to Christians.

Sorry, but you lost me there. We think of Jesus (as) as one of those who are or will be brought near to Allah (as), but I believe this means after Judgment Day. No, that does not indicate that Jesus (as) is any more God than when he was on earth.

3) I'd say that God could manifest eternal, uncreated reality in human existence for the same reason that it's claimed he did so in the Quran: a greater degree of self-revelation.

No, again I see that you are twisting the meaning. I don't see that Allah (swt) needs to reveal Himself to me more than has been done in the Quran. That is sufficient for me to have some, albeit limited, understanding of the One God that I worship as it so also reveals to me what not to worship, including the human, Jesus (as), who is often referred to as the 'Son of Mary'.

[PouringRain]

1) Christian prayer and worship can be (and is) "imageless".

This is a good point. The churches I have attended my whole life do not have iconography, images, crucifixes, etc. within the church. There was never a time when we thought of an image during prayer, nor prayed before an image, etc.

[MustafaMc]

This is a good point. The churches I have attended my whole life do not have iconography, images, crucifixes, etc. within the church. There was never a time when we thought of an image during prayer, nor prayed before an image, etc.

Do you partake of communion in your worship service? When I was attending the Church of Christ, we took communion every Sunday. I often thought (mental image) of Jesus on the cross during that time as we "participated symbolically in the blood and body of Christ". Perhaps, that is not a common Christian experience. Whether or not there were physical images in church (there were not) of the crucifixion, nevertheless the images in my mind during communion and in singing certain songs were real to me.

[PouringRain]

Do you partake of communion in your worship service? When I was attending the Church of Christ, we took communion every Sunday. I often thought (mental image) of Jesus on the cross during that time as we "participated symbolically in the blood and body of Christ". Perhaps, that is not a common Christian experience. Whether or not there were physical images in church (there were not) of the crucifixion, nevertheless the images in my mind during communion and in singing certain songs were real to me.

We do partake of communion-- probably about once a month or less. (I know of Christians who do it daily!) I can't say that I have ever conjured up a mental image of Jesus on the cross during that time. If I have any image that pops to mind when I think of communion it is of the "last supper." Usually, while partaking of communion, there is no image in mind. The focus at that time is of reflection and repentance. The Bible says that he who takes of it unworthily is drinking d amnation upon himself. (Minus the space in that one word. LOL) Communion is a time to examine oneself. Many of the churches I have been in also put importance in the sharing aspect of it-- as occurs at the passover supper. Communion is open to all believers, regardless of denomination or church affiliation, and is also a time for togetherness in the body of believers.

[YieldedOne]

YO: I'm glad to see that it's not a conceptual inconceivability. That's very, very important. Glad we could get that out the way.

MustafaMc: Thanks. ;)...but that does not make Jesus God incarnate anymore than the Quran encapsulates Allah's (swt) Essence.

Ok. If you notice, I am not talking about Jesus being God incarnate. THAT would be a trinitarian assertion. The only thing I'm working with right now is that it is logically conceivable and theologically viable that Jesus is an eternally-spoken, uncreated "word" of Allah temporally manifested into human history through Mary. That's it.

So far, it seems as if the claim is both logically conceivable and theological viable.

***************************************

YO:At the same time, there doesn't seem to be anything in that belief of Jesus' human createdness that necessarily ELIMINATES the possibility of being a manifestation of uncreated, eternal reality. Especially when that very thing is claimed for the Quran.

MustafaMc: No, you err in equating a Word, 'Be!' with a 'manifestation of Allah (swt). You are twisting the Quran around to say what you want it to say.

It seems like you are taking my statement "manifestation of uncreated, eternal reality" as something like unto manifestation of Allah's essence itself. I don't see where I've said that anywhere.

*******************************************

YO: And let me be very clear: I am NOT arguing for the Trinity per se...nor am I arguing for the eternal SONSHIP of Jesus. Not at all. I am arguing that there is nothing in Islam (that I've seen) that completely removes the possibility of Jesus being Allah's "word" eternally spoken and temporally manifested into human history through Mary "in the fulness of time." Unless there is something in the Quran or Islamic metaphysics that makes it absolutely impossible for Jesus to be an eternally-spoken, uncreated "word" of Allah...then I don't see how a Muslim could fault a thinking person for conceiving and believing such about Jesus.

MustafaMc: Even if that is so, it does not mean that we were intended to worship Jesus (as). We believe that the Quran is the very Word of Allah (swt) but I as a Muslim do not worship the Book. The Book points me toward the worship of the Creator, just like Jesus (as) did.

Hmmm. I'm not talking about worshipping Jesus. Again, the only thing I'm talking about right now is entertaining the idea that the Word of Allah spoken to Mary is just as paradoxically eternal and temporal as the Quran is said to be. That's it.

*******************************************

YO: Christian prayer and worship can be (and is) "imageless". Especially prayer like hesychasm. That is to say, a Christian is not bound to always think in "icons" to worship the Transcendent God.

MustafaMc: Thank you I learned something.

Not a problem. Glad to be helpful. :shade:

************************************************

YO: Can a Muslim think about the physically-ascendant Jesus (who is now in the presence of God) without being an idolater? In other words, can a Muslim think about Jesus' physically-ascendent BODY without forgetting the absolute transcendence of God? (corrected) If the answer is "yes" to both questions, then I'd wonder if the very same thing couldn't be applicable to Christians.

MustafaMc: Sorry, but you lost me there. We think of Jesus (as) as one of those who are or will be brought near to Allah (as), but I believe this means after Judgment Day. No, that does not indicate that Jesus (as) is any more God than when he was on earth.

What I'm saying is this: merely focusing on the locality of the Ascendant Jesus's body does not take away from the ability to believe in the absolute Transcendence of Allah. The "image" of Jesus' risen humanity need not be a hindrance to this understanding. That's what I'm saying.

**********************************************

YO: I'd say that God could manifest eternal, uncreated reality in human existence for the same reason that it's claimed he did so in the Quran: a greater degree of self-revelation.

MustafaMc: No, again I see that you are twisting the meaning. I don't see that Allah (swt) needs to reveal Himself to me more than has been done in the Quran. That is sufficient for me to have some, albeit limited, understanding of the One God that I worship as it so also reveals to me what not to worship, including the human, Jesus (as), who is often referred to as the 'Son of Mary'.

How is the meaning being twisted? It seems like you are directly relating the idea of "manifestation of eternal, uncreated reality" with "incarnation of divine essence". Those are two different things. I'm talking about the former, not the latter. No Muslim would say that the Quran is an incarnation of divine essence, but many WOULD and DO say that the Quran is UNCREATED and ETERNAL even as it is temporally revealed in human history.

[MustafaMc]

PouringRain, your reply reflects a different personal experience of the same act. There was an inscription, "Do This in Remembrance of Me", on the small table that held the tiny cups of grape juice and plates of unleavened bread. Quoting from a Church of Christ website, "The Lord's Supper is a commemorative ordinance, a memorial of Christ's atoning sacrifice on the cross. It is a feast of living union of believers with the Saviour, whereby they truly, that is spiritually and by faith, receive Christ with all His benefits, and are nourished with His life unto eternal life. The Supper is a personal fellowship with Christ. Partaking of one bread creates fellowship between the members too; it merges them into one body, the church." So for me, partaking of the bread was a remembrance of Jesus' suffering and the grape juice reminded me of the blood that was shed so that I may have everlasting life.

I rather enjoyed my time spent as a member of this church as I perceived they were closer than the Baptist in adhering to Biblical teaching. An elder in the Church of Christ (also my Sunday school teacher) was later my PhD major professor after I became a Muslim. I actually had the opportunity to discuss Islam with him several years after I graduated.

[MustafaMc]

YieldedOne, that was an interesting post and I have actually pondered over the meaning of the ayat 3:45 "(And remember) when the angels said: O Mary! Lo! Allah gives you glad tidings of a Word from Him, whose name is the Messiah, Jesus, son of Mary, illustrious in the world and the Hereafter, and one of those brought near (unto Allah)." I can see the point that you are trying to make and I can't say that I disagree with you. This is where I need to say Allah (swt) knows best the full meaning and I should not speculate beyond what is apparent.

[YieldedOne]

MustafaMc:
YieldedOne, that was an interesting post and I have actually pondered over the meaning of the ayat 3:45 "(And remember) when the angels said: O Mary! Lo! Allah gives you glad tidings of a Word from Him, whose name is the Messiah, Jesus, son of Mary, illustrious in the world and the Hereafter, and one of those brought near (unto Allah)." I can see the point that you are trying to make and I can't say that I disagree with you. This is where I need to say Allah (swt) knows best the full meaning and I should not speculate beyond what is apparent.

SuhWEEET! :statisfie Thanks for engaging this stuff, MustafaMc. Kudos, homie.

Here's a quote from "The Uncreatedness of the Divine Speech: The Glorious Qur'an" by Sh. G. F. Haddad. Again, you can easily Google it online...

---------------------------------------------

This posting sums up the doctrine of the massive majority of the Muslims, namely the People of the Sunna and the Congregation, concerning the pre-existent, pre-eternal, beginningless, and uncreated nature of the Divine Speech Allah Most High has named al-Qur'an, as held by the Salaf al-Salihun and as formulated by the two Masters, Imam Abu al-Hasan al-Ash`ari and Imam Abu Mansur al-Maturidi and their respective schools.

The position of Ahl al-Sunna wa al-Jama`a differs fundamentally on this matter with that of the rest of the Muslim sects, especially with that of the now defunct Mu`tazila. The position of the Shi`a is indentical with that of the Mu`tazila, who denied not only the Pre-existent status of the Divine Speech, but of all the Divine Attributes for they considered that they are the same as the Essence.

Ahl al-Sunna agree one and all that the Qur'an is the pre-existent, pre-eternal, uncreated Speech of Allah Most High on the evidence of the Qur'an, the Sunna, and faith-guided reason.

In a rare instance of classic kalâm reasoning, Imam Malik gave the most succint statement of this doctrine:
"The Qur'an is the Speech of Allah, the Speech of Allah comes from Him, and nothing created comes from Allah Most High." Narrated by al-Dhahabi in Siyar A`lam al-Nubala' (Dar al-Fikr ed. 7:416).

Hafiz Abu al-Qasim Ibn `Asakir said in Tabyin Kadhib al-Muftari (Dar al-Jil ed. p. 150-151):
"The Mu`tazila said: 'the Speech of Allah Most High is created, invented, and brought into being.' The Hashwiyya, who attribute a body to Allah the Exalted, said: 'The alphabetical characters (al-hurûf al-muqatta`a), the materials on which they are written, the colors in which they are written, and all that is between the two covers [of the volumes of Qur'an] is beginningless and pre-existent (qadîma azaliyya). Al-Ash`ari took a middle road between them and said: The Qur'an is the beginningless speech of Allah Most High unchanged, uncreated, not of recent origin in time, nor brought into being. As for the alphabetical characters, the materials, the colors, the voices, the elements that are subject to limitations (al-mahdûdât), and all that is subject to modality (al-mukayyafât) in the0 world: all this is created, originated, and produced."

-------------------------------------------

I think about the bolded quote a lot. If "nothing created comes from Allah Most High"...and the Quran says that Jesus is a Word from Allah Himself...then, it seems to me that we have all we need to say what I'm saying without too much speculation at all. :shade:

[YieldedOne]

Succinctly:
If Muslims believe the Quran to be the beginningless, uncreated, pre-existent "speech of Allah" while being manifested in things that are "created, originated, and produced"...then there is absolutely no theological or metaphysical reason at all for those same Muslims to deny the possibility that Jesus, specifically noted in the Quran as a "Word" from Allah Himself, could ALSO be the beginningless, uncreated, pre-existent "speech of Allah" while being manifested in creaturely existence. All of this is possible because of the nature of Jesus' birth as direct "Word" from Allah.

Make sense, y'all?

:aboo:

[MustafaMc]

...and the point of your supposition is....

[YieldedOne]

Heh. :statisfie

The point of the "supposition" is that even if Muslims and Christians disagree on whether or not God is trinity (and they must surely do)...there is metaphysical and theological "ROOM FOR AGREEMENT" on Jesus being an uncreated, eternal "kalimat" of God to humanity through Mary. I'm big on interfaith dialogue and I believe that this is another platform by which healthy, respectful, honest, rigorous dialogue can take place. It says NOTHING about worshipping Jesus as second member of the Trinity, Jesus being the Son of God, or any of that stuff.

Actually, I bet it would knock some Christians down a peg or two to recognize that Islam considered Jesus' very being as a "Word" from God to humanity. Yeah. :shade:

[YieldedOne]

Surely there's nothing wrong with THAT...now, is there? :D

[MustafaMc]

...there is metaphysical and theological "ROOM FOR AGREEMENT" on Jesus being an uncreated, eternal "kalimat" of God to humanity through Mary. I'm big on interfaith dialogue and I believe that this is another platform by which healthy, respectful, honest, rigorous dialogue can take place. It says NOTHING about worshipping Jesus as second member of the Trinity, Jesus being the Son of God, or any of that stuff.

There is room in my understanding of the Quran to entertain what you are saying. Likewise, some may have a tendency to extrapolate on what you are saying to worship Jesus (as) as God incarnate. I believe that I understand you to say that is not your intention.

[YieldedOne]

MustafaMc:
There is room in my understanding of the Quran to entertain what you are saying.

Excellent. I'm hoping that many more share your understanding of the Quran!

****************************
MustafaMc:
Likewise, some may have a tendency to extrapolate on what you are saying to worship Jesus (as) as God incarnate. I believe that I understand you to say that is not your intention.

My intention is to try to find as much authentic "common ground" as possible between Islam and Christianity for the sake of interfaith dialogue. Space for both Christians and Muslims to "live in the question." And I believe that there's lots more then both sides think there is, specifically with the "common word" that both Christians and Muslims share: Isa/Jesus, Messenger and Prophet of Allah.

[Sol Invictus]

Succinctly:
If Muslims believe the Quran to be the beginningless, uncreated, pre-existent "speech of Allah" while being manifested in things that are "created, originated, and produced"...
:aboo:

that is a pretty interesting thought. it would seem then, that if the qur'an itself is eternal then the arabic language would be eternal as well? so then we would not only have an eternal god, but an eternal book, and now an eternal language. could i also request hadiths or verses which talk about this eternal qur'an? if it is indeed a book then would the paper it was written on be eternal as well? and now wouldn't this just add to our list of things which allah has not created (eternal book, eternal language, eternal paper etc.)? but more importantly, if the qur'an is indeed eternal, and one cannot practise islam without the sunnah and the relevant hadiths, does that mean that from the beginning of time to the advent of muhammad the qur'an was itself incomplete for its purpose?

[جوري]

My intention is to try to find as much authentic "common ground" as possible between Islam and Christianity for the sake of interfaith dialogue. Space for both Christians and Muslims to "live in the question." And I believe that there's lots more then both sides think there is, specifically with the "common word" that both Christians and Muslims share: Isa/Jesus, Messenger and Prophet of Allah.

There are no commonalities between Islam and Christianity.. 'modern Christians' can't even be called 'people of the book'
Israa (21) And say: "Truth has (now) arrived, and falsehood perished: for falsehood is (by its nature) bound to perish."

As far as beliefs are concerned there is absolutely no compromise: any belief that contradicts Islam is false, and must be criticized. But those who adhere to such false beliefs are to be tolerated, nicely treated and invited to the truth in the best of ways!

beyond that, there is no common ground.. nor should any Muslim seek such common grounds with you.. They should find the concept of idolatry, and man worship patently appalling and not befitting of God's magistrate.

At the end of the day you worship a middle eastern man, and we worship the one who created him, so what common ground do you seek?

all the best

[Insaanah]

there is metaphysical and theological "ROOM FOR AGREEMENT" on Jesus being an uncreated, eternal "kalimat" of God to humanity through Mary.

No. Jesus (peace be upon him), like Adam (peace be upon him), was a creation.

"Indeed, the example of Jesus to Allah is like that of Adam. He created him from dust; then He said to him, "Be," and he was." (Qur'an 3:59)

And not eternal.

"Peace on me the day I was born, and the day I die, and the day I shall be raised alive." (Qur'an 19:33)

Peace.

[MustafaMc]

No. Jesus (peace be upon him), like Adam (peace be upon him), was a creation.

"Indeed, the example of Jesus to Allah is like that of Adam. He created him from dust; then He said to him, "Be," and he was." (Qur'an 3:59)

And not eternal.

"Peace on me the day I was born, and the day I die, and the day I am raised alive." (Qur'an 19:33)

You are correct in pointing this out that there is a danger in reading too much into a word (Be!) and going beyond what is apparent in the meaning. Allah (swt) had a reason for creating Jesus (as) in Mary's womb independent of a human father and Allah (swt) knows best what that reason was.

I believe the Quran when it says, "They indeed have disbelieved who say: Lo! Allah is the Messiah, son of Mary." We know that to die as a disbeliever is not a good thing. We know the relationship of Jesus (as) to Allah (swt) is that of a servant to his Master as shown by, "The Messiah will never scorn to be a slave unto Allah." Note also that Jesus (as) is referred to as the servant of God twice in the Book of Acts.

[YieldedOne]

Alright! ;D

Insaanah:
No. Jesus (peace be upon him), like Adam (peace be upon him), was a creation.
"Indeed, the example of Jesus to Allah is like that of Adam. He created him from dust; then He said to him, "Be," and he was." (Qur'an 3:59)

Please note something. (You too, MustafaMc) All that the 3:59 text says is that like Adam he was 1) directly originated from God's will and purpose and 2) bodily created. Basically, God-willed embryogenesis...which Christians can believe in too. No problem there, bud. I fully state that Jesus was a full HUMAN BEING, with a created immaterial and material aspect to his reality. I've done that on this thread, actually.

But just because that createdness had an origination point doesn't eliminate the possibility we've been talking about. If it did, then the Quran couldn't be uncreated and eternal because it had an earthly origination point. But Muslims don't say that. So, then...


**********************************

Insaanah:
And not eternal.
"Peace on me the day I was born, and the day I die, and the day I am raised alive." (Qur'an 19:33)

Same argument as above. No Muslim would say that just because a Quran is capable of being destroyed/annihilated that is is NOT uncreated or eternal for that reason.

[YieldedOne]

MustafaMc:
You are correct in pointing this out that there is a danger in reading too much into a word (Be!) and going beyond what is apparent in the meaning. Allah (swt) had a reason for creating Jesus (as) in Mary's womb independent of a human father and Allah (swt) knows best what that reason was.

What danger are you seeing, exactly, MustafaMc? I'm wondering.

[YieldedOne]

Lily:
As far as beliefs are concerned there is absolutely no compromise: any belief that contradicts Islam is false, and must be criticized. But those who adhere to such false beliefs are to be tolerated, nicely treated and invited to the truth in the best of ways!

Well, thank goodness! I'll be holding my Muslim brothers and sisters to that more often! :D


************************************

Lily:
Beyond that, there is no common ground.. nor should any Muslim seek such common grounds with you.. They should find the concept of idolatry, and man worship patently appalling and not befitting of God's magistrate.

You must really disdain the 138 Muslim clerics and authorities who wrote up "A Common Word Between Us and You" then. That was their WHOLE PREMISE of the work! At any rate, I'll just have to disagree with you, sister. Lovingly, of course. :statisfie

We have Jesus' "Great Commandments" in common. Don't believe me? Well, there IS this thread you can check out...

[Insaanah]

Edit. Double post. Please delete.

[Insaanah]

Please note something. (You too, MustafaMc) All that the 3:59 text says is that like Adam he was 1) directly originated from God's will and purpose and 2) bodily created.

Nice try, but the text says neither.

When one attempts to have an honest discussion, it's best to try not to impart your own desired meanings to verses of the Qur'an to try to make it look as though the Qu'ran justifies what you are trying to say. Christian theologians have done similar to this with the bible and applied their own personal understandings of verses throughout the early years, until we have ended up with what is today called Christianity, which would be completely alien to Jesus (peace be upon him). I hope you will refrain from this.

Originator of the heavens and the earth. When He decrees a matter, He only says to it, "Be," and it is. (2:117)

She said, "My Lord, how will I have a child when no man has touched me?" He said: So (it will be). Allah creates what He wills. When He decrees a matter, He only says to it, 'Be,' and it is. (3:47)

Indeed, Our word to a thing when We intend it is but that We say to it, "Be," and it is. (16:40)

It befits not (the Majesty of) Allah to take a son; Glory be to Him! When He decrees an affair, He only says to it, "Be," and it is. (19:35)

Verily, His Command, when He intends a thing, is only that He says to it, "Be!" and it is! (36:82)

He it is who gives life and causes death; and when He decrees a matter, He but says to it, "Be," and it is. (40:68)

Same argument as above. No Muslim would say that just because a Quran is capable of being destroyed/annihilated that is is NOT uncreated or eternal for that reason.

Correction. Only a mus'haf (a printed copy of the Qur'an) can be destroyed. The Qur'an itself can never be destroyed.

As for your argument in your second sentence, it is a very desperate one. Don't go applying that to Jesus (peace be upon him) and his body. Islam is clear that ALL humans (including Jesus, peace be upon him) are created and mortal.

No matter how hard you try, what renditions of your own you attempt to give to verses, and what analogies you try to use, it won't work. We will never consider Jesus (peace be upon him) to be uncreated or eternal, only as he actually was.

My intention is to try to find as much authentic "common ground" as possible between Islam and Christianity for the sake of interfaith dialogue.

I see. In that case, you are barking up the wrong tree. Let me save you lots of time and effort. These are our beliefs regarding Jesus (peace be upon him):

We believe that Jesus (peace be upon him) was one of the mightiest messengers of Allah.
We believe that he was the messiah.
We believe he was born miraculously without any male intervention.
We believe that he gave life to the dead with Allah's permission.
We believe he healed those born blind and lepers with Allah's permission.

We neither reject him like the Jews, nor elevate his status to divine or son of God, like the Christians. We believe in him as he was, one of the noblest and purest of humanity to ever walk the face of the earth.

However we do not believe that Jesus (peace be upon him) ever claimed divinity, was divine, or that he was God, son of God, or that worship should be directed at him, or that he asked for it to be. We do not believe that he was uncreated, or that he was eternal. We also do not believe that he died, nor that he was crucified, bore the burden of anyones' sins, was cursed, was a curse himself, expressed displeasure at Allah, or was rude to his mother (peace be upon her).

Glorified and Exalted be the Majesty of Allah, and peace be upon all the prophets and messengers He sent, without exception.

Peace.

[MustafaMc]

What danger are you seeing, exactly, MustafaMc? I'm wondering.

The danger is in speaking a lie against Allah (swt) even unintentionally or by being trapped into doing so. Muslims take this seriously and is the reason for our frequent reply, "And Allah knows best."

[YieldedOne]

Ok. More fun...

Insaanah:
When one attempts to have an honest discussion, it's best to try not to impart your own desired meanings to verses of the Qur'an to try to make it look as though the Qu'ran justifies what you are trying to say. Christian theologians have done similar to this with the bible and applied their own personal understandings of verses throughout the early years, until we have ended up with what is today called Christianity, which would be completely alien to Jesus (peace be upon him). I hope you will refrain from this.

Sister Insaanah, I would ask that you try to give me the benefit of the doubt that I am not trying merely trying to co-opt Islam with Christian ideas. I would hope that you would give me more credit than that. I am honestly looking at the texts, authoritative sources, and all that...and seeing what I can see. I can't change what other Christians have done...and I guess to some extent, I'm going to vicariously experience some of the flak from what has happened before. All I can do is be as honest as I can, sister. I hope that you can appreciate and respect that.

Moving on...

*************************************
Texts:
Originator of the heavens and the earth. When He decrees a matter, He only says to it, "Be," and it is. (2:117)

She said, "My Lord, how will I have a child when no man has touched me?" He said: So (it will be). Allah creates what He wills. When He decrees a matter, He only says to it, 'Be,' and it is. (3:47)

Indeed, Our word to a thing when We intend it is but that We say to it, "Be," and it is. (16:40)

It befits not (the Majesty of) Allah to take a son; Glory be to Him! When He decrees an affair, He only says to it, "Be," and it is. (19:35)

Verily, His Command, when He intends a thing, is only that He says to it, "Be!" and it is! (36:82)

He it is who gives life and causes death; and when He decrees a matter, He but says to it, "Be," and it is. (40:68)

Ok. Here's my honest take from looking at the texts: They articulate that God's will grounds everything. Of course, the texts are not saying that God has to be the word "Be!" before he does everything; they do not limit Allah's sovereignty to using words. God commands something to be done...and it's done. Divine sovereignty.
Now, if I've totally mistaken these passages, please let me know. But they seem pretty obvious on this score. And for the record, even as a Christian, I would agree with the statements: God is sovereign such that all he needs to do is will something to be--to proverbially "speak" something into being--and it is. I believe God does that with Creation at every moment.

At the same time, I don't understand how this detracts from my main line of argument. My argument does not dispute God's creative sovereignty in any way. Nor does it deny that the human embryo of Jesus was created by the "Be!" of God. It doesn't do any of that. It just states that, LIKE THE QURAN, it is conceivable that something more is there. So I don't understand your point, dear sister. Please help me see how these texts completely eliminate the possibility I'm talking about.

*********************************
Insaanah:
Correction. Only a mus'haf (a printed copy of the Qur'an) can be destroyed. The Qur'an itself can never be destroyed.

Speaking in terms of Creation, the Quran exists either as social knowledge (oral traditions, etc.) or encoded language (printed page, online, etc). If, for some reason, neither of those were to exist anymore, the Quran would effectively cease to exist in Creation. I think this is just logic, Insaanah.

When you say that the Quran itself can never be destroyed, are you saying that because you believe it's uncreated and eternal, like I've stated before. I Maybe that's what I should understand: Do you believe in the uncreated, eternal nature of the Quran? If you do, then I don't understand your reticence to admit this possibility for Jesus, who is also a "word" from Allah. It can't be philosophical in nature, I don't think...

**********************************

Insaanah:
As for your argument in your second sentence, it is a very desperate one. Don't go applying that to Jesus (peace be upon him) and his body. Islam is clear that ALL humans (including Jesus, peace be upon him) are created and mortal.

No matter how hard you try, what renditions of your own you attempt to give to verses, and what analogies you try to use, it won't work. We will never consider Jesus (peace be upon him) to be uncreated or eternal, only as he actually was.

1) Frankly, I don't feel my argument is "desperate" at all. Namely, because there is no "desperation" in why I'm doing what I'm doing. I'm reading texts and sources, talking to Muslims (like you)...and putting things together.

2) I have never once said that Jesus, as human, wasn't created and mortal. As a matter of fact, I'm saying that Jesus' humanity was as "created and mortal" as every other human being...AND as every earthly version of the Quran that we have. What I've been saying is this, sister: There is no metaphysical or theological reason I've seen that shows the impossibility of what I've been saying here, SPECIFICALLY because of 1) Jesus' being a word from Allah himself and 2) the claimed uncreated, pre-existent, eternal nature of a very TANGIBLE, CREATED Quran.

If you choose not to accept the argument, that's completely your choice. But there is no "desperation" about what I'm saying. And you haven't provided me with anything to eliminate the possibility I'm advocating.

**********************************

Insaanah:
We believe that Jesus (peace be upon him) was one of the mightiest messengers of Allah.

We believe that he was the messiah.

We believe he was born miraculously without any male intervention.

We believe that he gave life to the dead with Allah's permission.

We believe he healed those born blind and lepers with Allah's permission.

We neither reject him like the Jews, nor elevate his status to divine or son of God, like the Christians. We believe in him as he was, one of the noblest and purest of humanity to ever walk the face of the earth.

However we do not believe that Jesus (peace be upon him) ever claimed divinity, was divine, or that he was God, son of God, or that worship should be directed at him, or that he asked for it to be. We do not believe that he was uncreated, or that he was eternal. We also do not believe that he died, nor that he was crucified, bore the burden of anyones' sins, was cursed, was a curse himself, expressed displeasure at Allah, or was rude to his mother (peace be upon her).

Hey. Don't forget that he taught about the "Great Commandments" in the Torah of Moses! :shade:

Anyways...

I understand all that. Really. Islam 101, right? The only thing that I take exception to is your underlined part. I've been asking for evidence of some type that will demonstrate the inconceivability and/or impossibility of Jesus as direct "word" from Allah to humanity through Mary being LIKE UNTO the paradoxically uncreated, pre-existent, eternal AND created, produced, temporal nature of Allah's "word" , the Quran. To this point, I've not seen that. All I keep getting is assertions about how the Quran talks about Jesus coming to "be" at some point in time in human history by divine fiat. But again, I don't deny that. So, I don't see the problem. Honestly.

***********************************

My genuine HOPE, my brothers and sisters, is that all parties can assume GOOD FAITH on all parts of the conversation. I'm having that. I'm hoping the same can be said for me. :D

[YieldedOne]

Since Sister Insaanah put a list of things of what Muslims believe...let me put of list of things that I'm NOT saying with my thinking here...

I am not saying that Jesus should be worshipped as God.
I am not saying that Jesus is the Son of God.
I am not saying that Jesus was any more or less of a prophet than all.
I am not saying that Jesus actually died and was resurrected following death.
I am not saying that Jesus died for human sin.
I am not saying that Jesus lacked human createdness.

I really, really, really want this clear. Yes, I am a Christian...and as such, I believe Jesus is the Crucified and Resurrected Son of God. But (and this is a big "but", brothers and sisters)...absolutely none of that...NONE...applies to the specific line of thinking I'm using right now. I am JUST focusing on the two Islamic beliefs that 1) the Quran as uncreated, pre-existent, eternal nature of a created/produced "word" of Allah and 2) Jesus as direct spoken "word" from Allah to humanity through Mary. That's it and that's all.

Either my brothers and sisters can trust me on that or not. I hope that you do.

Peace out,
YO

***************************

Re-quoting...

Ahl al-Sunna agree one and all that the Qur'an is the pre-existent, pre-eternal, uncreated Speech of Allah Most High on the evidence of the Qur'an, the Sunna, and faith-guided reason.

In a rare instance of classic kalâm reasoning, Imam Malik gave the most succint statement of this doctrine:
"The Qur'an is the Speech of Allah, the Speech of Allah comes from Him, and nothing created comes from Allah Most High." Narrated by al-Dhahabi in Siyar A`lam al-Nubala' (Dar al-Fikr ed. 7:416).

Hafiz Abu al-Qasim Ibn `Asakir said in Tabyin Kadhib al-Muftari (Dar al-Jil ed. p. 150-151):
"The Mu`tazila said: 'the Speech of Allah Most High is created, invented, and brought into being.' The Hashwiyya, who attribute a body to Allah the Exalted, said: 'The alphabetical characters (al-hurûf al-muqatta`a), the materials on which they are written, the colors in which they are written, and all that is between the two covers [of the volumes of Qur'an] is beginningless and pre-existent (qadîma azaliyya). Al-Ash`ari took a middle road between them and said: The Qur'an is the beginningless speech of Allah Most High unchanged, uncreated, not of recent origin in time, nor brought into being. As for the alphabetical characters, the materials, the colors, the voices, the elements that are subject to limitations (al-mahdûdât), and all that is subject to modality (al-mukayyafât) in the0 world: all this is created, originated, and produced."


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Torah-asserted, Jesus-affirmed Criteria for "Loving Your Neighbor As Yourself"(Leviticus 19:9-18)
1) When you gain from your work, don't just think about yourself. Think of the poor and the wayfarer.
2) Don't steal.
3) Don't operate by false pretenses or motives.
4) Don't lie to each other.
5) Don't oppress or rob your neighbor.
6) Don't mistreat the physically (or mentally) challenged.
7) Don't promote injustice or partiality. Judge righteously.
8) Don't slander others.
9) Don’t threaten the life of your neighbors.
10) Don't hate your brother (or sister) "in your heart."
11) Don't take vengeance for yourself.
12) Don't hold a grudge against your neighbor.

[Insaanah]

it is conceivable that something more is there

And this is exactly how early Christianity faltered. It seemed conceivable to them, that something more was there, that God was three in one, that God begot a son who died for their sins, Jesus was God etc. We Muslims will never conceive of anything more being there other than what is said in the Qur'an by Allah, and explanations given by the Prophet (peace be upon him) and righteous scholars. We will never conceive of anything else being there. We are not open to anything else and we do not interpret our Scriptures according to our fancies or to mere "possibilities".

If you do, then I don't understand your reticence to admit this possibility for Jesus, who is also a "word" from Allah.

You do understand now, from the above. I repeat, all humans are created and mortal.

What I've been saying is this, sister: There is no metaphysical or theological reason I've seen that shows the impossibility of what I've been saying here,

As I've explained above, Islam and Muslims don't work on that basis. We go by the words of our Creator, not the suppositions of a Christian.

And you haven't provided me with anything to eliminate the possibility I'm advocating.

I don't need to. See above again. The text is crystal clear. Take it or leave it, nobody is forcing you to accept it. But please do not try to impose the idea you would like us to have of Jesus (peace be upon him) on us. It is not welcome. We will never even consider something we are clearly told otherwise. And I emphasise that again.

I've been asking for evidence of some type that will demonstrate the inconceivability and/or impossibility of Jesus as direct "word" from Allah to humanity through Mary being LIKE UNTO the paradoxically uncreated, pre-existent, eternal AND created, produced, temporal nature of Allah's "word" , the Quran. To this point, I've not seen that.

No. You've chosen not to see it.

All I keep getting is assertions about how the Quran talks about Jesus coming to "be" at some point in time in human history by divine fiat.

The Qur'anic text is crystal clear on Jesus's (peace be upon him) creation and mortality. All humans including Jesus (peace be upon him), whether they are the word of Allah or not, are created mortals.

I'm sorry you can't see what's written in front of you I really am. And I hope someday Allah guides you to the truth.

Peace.

[YieldedOne]

Total sidebar:

One of the things that I loved about this discussion board when I first came was the gender section. The whole "Brother in Christianity", "Sister in Islam", "Brother in Humanity" stuff. I felt like it really keep central that, at base, we are all ONE HUMAN FAMILY on planet. As such, the "neighbors" that we are supposed to love as ourselves are truly united with us on some level as family. I really appreciated the concept...and kudos to whoever laid it out like that.

Just thought I should mention. :D

[Insaanah]

The other reason we will never agree, is that you are approaching it from the point of view that Jesus's body was just a created shell that did die, to hold his "eternal, divine, uncreated nature". To us, he is a human being, created and mortal, like other humans. There is no more to him than that. Therefore to try to say to us that he existed before his creation is absurd to us.

What is meant by sending the 'word' or 'command' to Mary is that God ordered Mary's womb to become impregnated without coming into contact with sperm. In the beginning the Christians were told that this was the secret of the fatherless birth of Jesus. Later on, under the misleading influence of Greek philosophy, they equated this with the 'Logos', which was subsequently interpreted as the Divine attribute of speech. The next step in this connection was the development of the notion that this Divine attribute entered into the womb of Mary and assumed the physical form of Jesus. Thus there developed among the Christians the false doctrine of the godhead of Jesus, and the false notion that out of His attributes God caused that of speech to appear in the form of Jesus.

Footnote 4:171 from The Meaning of the Qur'an, by S. A Maududi http://www.islamicstudies.info/tafhe...rse=163&to=171

Biblical verses relevant to the above, are below.

John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

John 1:14 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.

Now I see where you are coming from, and where this could be heading.

Peace.

[YieldedOne]

Insaanah:
The other reason we will never agree, is that you are approaching it from the point of view that Jesus's body was just a created shell that did die, to hold his "eternal, divine, uncreated nature". To us, he is a human being, created and mortal, like other humans. There is no more to him than that. Therefore to try to say to us that he existed before his creation is absurd to us.

If I said "To try to say to me that the Quran existed before it's earthly origination (by way of Muhammad) is absurd to me"...how would you respond?

[جوري]

Well, thank goodness! I'll be holding my Muslim brothers and sisters to that more often!

There is also something to be said of wasting ones time non constructively on folks who are hell bent on taking men for gods!

You must really disdain the 138 Muslim clerics and authorities who wrote up "A Common Word Between Us and You" then. That was their WHOLE PREMISE of the work! At any rate, I'll just have to disagree with you, sister. Lovingly, of course. We have Jesus' "Great Commandments" in common. Don't believe me? Well, there IS this thread you can check out...

The great thing about Islam is that no cleric is responsible for the beliefs nor behavior of Muslims at large.. be that as it may.. I am pretty sure what was said (if at all) was so in the context of humanness and not religiosity. Every religion has a bit of truth in it.. like a USMLE question, but a somewhat correct answer will not score you a point, not on a test nor in the hereafter.. therefore commonalities are meaningless in the scheme of things since anything not being an absolute truth is simply false!

all the best

[YieldedOne]

Insaanah quoting Maududi:
What is meant by sending the 'word' or 'command' to Mary is that God ordered Mary's womb to become impregnated without coming into contact with sperm. In the beginning the Christians were told that this was the secret of the fatherless birth of Jesus. Later on, under the misleading influence of Greek philosophy, they equated this with the 'Logos', which was subsequently interpreted as the Divine attribute of speech. The next step in this connection was the development of the notion that this Divine attribute entered into the womb of Mary and assumed the physical form of Jesus. Thus there developed among the Christians the false doctrine of the godhead of Jesus, and the false notion that out of His attributes God caused that of speech to appear in the form of Jesus.

Ah, Mr. Maududi! Yeah. I've seen some of his commentaries. Good stuff. I used one for my thread on the Great Commandments. Anyways...it seems here that Mr. Maududi affirms that the "word" from God is the divine fiat by which Mary's conception of the human Jesus took place. No problems there. And he mentions Hellenistic influence on Judeo-Christian thought, which makes sense. (See Philo of Alexandria).

At the same time, I didn't see him mention Judeo-Christian interpretation of Psalm 33:6 or Proverbs 8:22-36. If you look carefully at the texts, it introduces the idea of the creative "word" of the Lord (Psalms)...and the idea of a pre-existent Wisdom by which God created all things (Proverbs). These have nothing to do with the later Hellenistic influences...and it was these Scriptures that grounded the emergence of the Logos concept in later times. In short, the seeds of a creative "word" being pre-existent was NOT merely a Greek origination.

22The Lord possessed me at the beginning of his work,
the first of his acts of old.
23 Ages ago I was set up,
at the first, before the beginning of the earth.
24 When there were no depths I was brought forth,
when there were no springs abounding with water.
25 Before the mountains had been shaped,
before the hills, I was brought forth,
26 before he had made the earth with its fields,
or the first of the dust of the world.
27 When he established the heavens, I was there;
when he drew a circle on the face of the deep,
28 when he made firm the skies above,
when he established the fountains of the deep,
29 when he assigned to the sea its limit,
so that the waters might not transgress his command,
when he marked out the foundations of the earth,
30 then I was beside him, like a master workman,
and I was daily his delight,
rejoicing before him always,
31 rejoicing in his inhabited world
and delighting in the children of man.
32 “And now, O sons, listen to me:
blessed are those who keep my ways.
33 Hear instruction and be wise,
and do not neglect it.
34 Blessed is the one who listens to me,
watching daily at my gates,
waiting beside my doors.
35 For whoever finds me finds life
and obtains favor from the Lord,
36 but he who fails to find me injures himself;
all who hate me love death.”

[Insaanah]

If I said "To try to say to me that the Quran existed before it's earthly origination (by way of Muhammad) is absurd to me"...how would you respond?

I knew that was coming. Which is why I said in my earlier posts that no analogy that you try to make will work.

We do not and cannot compare the Qur'an to a created mortal human being. And as I also said earlier, we do not base our main beliefs on suppositions, possibilities, analogies and the desires of others for us to follow their misguidance. That is why Islam has not become corrupted. We follow the unchanged words of our Lord, Glorified and Exalted be He. That is how I would and do respond.

I repeat, yet again, that Jesus peace be upon him, is a created, mortal human being. You do not seem to be here to learn or understand, but seem to be hellbent on trying to convince us that we believe the same as you, which we will never do. There is no common ground here at all, and no scope for it whatsoever.

I will not waste any more time on this, but will pray that you are guided.

Peace.

[YieldedOne]

Lily:
There is also something to be said of wasting ones time non constructively on folks who are hell bent on taking men for gods!

Wow. Sure feel warm fuzzy feelings from that one. Sheesh. Did you see the list of things I'm NOT TRYING TO DO with my stuff. Let me put it again...

I am not saying that Jesus should be worshipped as God.
I am not saying that Jesus is the Son of God.
I am not saying that Jesus was any more or less of a prophet than all.
I am not saying that Jesus actually died and was resurrected following death.
I am not saying that Jesus died for human sin.
I am not saying that Jesus lacked human createdness.

Whew. Maybe THAT'll work. Hopefully...

*******************************************

Lily:
The great thing about Islam is that no cleric is responsible for the beliefs nor behavior of Muslims at large.. be that as it may.. I am pretty sure what was said (if at all) was so in the context of humanness and not religiosity. Every religion has a bit of truth in it.. like a USMLE question, but a somewhat correct answer will not score you a point, not on a test nor in the hereafter.. therefore commonalities are meaningless in the scheme of things since anything not being an absolute truth is simply false!

You know, Lily, that you can easily read the document for yourself. Right here.

"A Common Word Between Us and You"

It's right there. Check it out. Here's a snippet...

------------------------------

In the Name of God, the Compassionate, the Merciful

A Common Word between Us and You

(Summary and Abridgement)

Muslims and Christians together make up well over half of the world’s population. Without peace and justice between these two religious communities, there can be no meaningful peace in the world. The future of the world depends on peace between Muslims and Christians.

The basis for this peace and understanding already exists. It is part of the very foundational principles of both faiths: love of the One God, and love of the neighbour. These principles are found over and over again in the sacred texts of Islam and Christianity. The Unity of God, the necessity of love for Him, and the necessity of love of the neighbour is thus the common ground between Islam and Christianity. The following are only a few examples:

Of God’s Unity, God says in the Holy Qur’an: Say: He is God, the One! / God, the Self-Sufficient Besought of all! (Al-Ikhlas, 112:1-2). Of the necessity of love for God, God says in the Holy Qur’an: So invoke the Name of thy Lord and devote thyself to Him with a complete devotion (Al-Muzzammil, 73:8). Of the necessity of love for the neighbour, the Prophet Muhammad r said: “None of you has faith until you love for your neighbour what you love for yourself.”

In the New Testament, Jesus Christ u said: ‘Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is One. / And you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, with all your mind, and with all your strength.’ This is the first commandment. / And the second, like it, is this: ‘You shall love your neighbour as yourself.’ There is no other commandment greater than these.” (Mark 12:29-31)

In the Holy Qur’an, God Most High enjoins Muslims to issue the following call to Christians (and Jews—the People of the Scripture):
Say: O People of the Scripture! Come to a common word between us and you: that we shall worship none but God, and that we shall ascribe no partner unto Him, and that none of us shall take others for lords beside God. And if they turn away, then say: Bear witness that we are they who have surrendered (unto Him). (Aal ‘Imran 3:64)

The words: we shall ascribe no partner unto Him relate to the Unity of God, and the words: worship none but God, relate to being totally devoted to God. Hence they all relate to the First and Greatest Commandment. According to one of the oldest and most authoritative commentaries on the Holy Qur’an the words: that none of us shall take others for lords beside God, mean ‘that none of us should obey the other in disobedience to what God has commanded’. This relates to the Second Commandment because justice and freedom of religion are a crucial part of love of the neighbour.

Thus in obedience to the Holy Qur’an, we as Muslims invite Christians to come together with us on the basis of what is common to us, which is also what is most essential to our faith and practice: the Two Commandments of love.

In the Name of God, the Compassionate, the Merciful,

And may peace and blessings be upon the Prophet Muhammad

[YieldedOne]

Honestly, reading the sheer beautiful intention of "A Common Word Between Us and You" extended FROM Muslims TO the Christian world is what has fed my recent passion for Muslim/Christian interfaith dialogue. It's basically inspired people throughout the world. A whole DEPARTMENT in Yale University was innovated from it's sensibilities. It's one numerous awards for it's scope and intent.

[YieldedOne]

Insaanah:
I knew that was coming. Which is why I said in my earlier posts that no analogy that you try to make will work.
We do not and cannot compare the Qur'an to a created mortal human being. And as I also said earlier, we do not base our main beliefs on suppositions, possibilities, analogies and the desires of others for us to follow their misguidance. That is why Islam has not become corrupted. We follow the words of our Lord, Glorified and Exalted be He. That is how I would and do respond.

I repeat, Jesus peace be upon him, is a created, mortal human being.

Wow, this is getting difficult. :hmm:

Sister, it seems like you are getting a bit defensive here. I asked you the question I asked you because I want to know that answer. If someone were to say that to you, how would you respond? I felt like it could give me a handle here. But wow...I don't understand all this energy I'm getting from you. Really.

**********************
Insaanah:
I will not waste any more time on this, only pray that you are guided.

Please feel free to leave the conversation any time you wish. Be at peace, sis. Continue to pray to the All Loving, All Compassionate One for me. I think I'll be cool, then.

Blessings be to you always!!! :statisfie

[YieldedOne]

Insaanah:
I repeat, yet again, that Jesus peace be upon him, is a created, mortal human being. It is clear now that you are not here to learn or understand, but to try your level best to convince us that we believe the same as you, which we will never do. There is no common ground here at all, and no scope for it whatsoever.

Um, sister? It seems that you are directly questioning my motives here. I came to this board really just talking about the Great Commandments. Seriously. I saw this thread, thought about it, and started interacting with what I've been reading and thinking about. I'm not trying to proselytize or anything like that. Like I said to MustafaMc, I wanted to see if it was metaphysically and theological impossible that what I'm saying could be the case. Maybe I should have just left the thread alone. Oh, well. Just trying to dialogue.

Tell you what, sister. Let's just you and me call it a day, ok? I'm really sorry to have bothered you as it seems I have. Many blessings to you and yours! :shade:

[MustafaMc]

Biblical verses relevant to the above, are below.

John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

John 1:14 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.

Now I see where you are coming from, and where this could be heading.

Peace.

Jazak Allahu khair, Sister Insaanah for pointing out the danger of entering the slippery slope of saying that Jesus (as) was more than a Messenger and Servant of Allah (swt). Quoting from your link: (4:171) People of the Book! Do not exceed the limits in your religion, and attribute to Allah nothing except the truth. The Messiah, Jesus, son of Mary, was only a Messenger of Allah, and His command 212 that He conveyed unto Mary, and a spirit from Him (which led to Mary's conception). So believe in Allah and in His Messengers, and do not say: (Allah is a) trinity. Give up this assertion; it would be better for you. Allah is indeed just one God. Far be it from His glory that He should have a son. To Him belongs all that is in the heavens and in the earth. Allah is sufficient for a guardian.

Tafsir:
212. What is meant by sending the 'command' to Mary is that God ordered Mary's womb to become impregnated without coming into contact with sperm. In the beginning the Christians were told that this was the secret of the fatherless birth of Jesus. Later on, under the misleading influence of Greek philosophy, they equated this with the 'Logos', which was subsequently interpreted as the Divine attribute of speech. The next step in this connection was the development of the notion that this Divine attribute entered into the womb of Mary and assumed the physical form of Jesus. Thus there developed among the Christians the false doctrine of the godhead of Jesus, and the false notion that out of His attributes God caused that of speech to appear in the form of Jesus.

This translation has the word kalima translated as 'command' which gives the true meaning of the word in this case. Once a person admits that "there is metaphysical and theological "ROOM FOR AGREEMENT" on Jesus being an uncreated, eternal "kalimat" of God to humanity through Mary" (YieldedOne) then it is not a far stretch (despite what some may say) to say that Jesus was God, because the only uncreated being is God.

It seems to me that the proponents for 'interfaith dialog' want to dilute the differences between religions as the first step toward the establishment of a universal hybrid religion that accommodates all faiths as equally viable and legitimate. I had attended an interfaith dialog dinner and noticed there was no mention of differences between Christianity and Islam - only the similarities were discussed. We should not compromise our religion and let shirk slip in on us undetected.

[YieldedOne]

This is absolutely surreal to me. Wow.

MustafaMc:
This translation has the word kalima translated as 'command' which gives the true meaning of the word in this case. Once a person admits that "there is metaphysical and theological "ROOM FOR AGREEMENT" on Jesus being an uncreated, eternal "kalimat" of God to humanity through Mary" (YieldedOne) then it is not a far stretch (despite what some may say) to say that Jesus was God, because the only uncreated being is God.

It seems to me that the proponents for 'interfaith dialog' want to dilute the differences between religions as the first step toward the establishment of a universal hybrid religion that accommodates all faiths as equally viable and legitimate. I had attended an interfaith dialog dinner and noticed there was no mention of differences between Christianity and Islam - only the similarities were discussed. We should not compromise our religion and let shirk slip in on us undetected.

I've seen this type of "slippery slope" argument used by some Christians about why Christians shouldn't even read the Quran. I always thought that was bogus. But it seems I'm hearing the same type of reasoning here in a different form. Honest, civil, irenic, open discussion between Muslims and Christians on this issue cannot take place...because of a concern (fear?) of letting shirk "slip in" on Muslims undetected? Or for concern of the promotion of a "universal hybrid religion"?

Is this the way Muslim/Christian dialogues of this type always go down? I'm new to this...and MAN. It seems like a straight uphill road if this is the way it goes.

Maybe I oughta just cut my losses...:phew

Livin' in Love till I Die,
YO

[MustafaMc]

If I said "To try to say to me that the Quran existed before it's earthly origination (by way of Muhammad) is absurd to me"...how would you respond?

Could this not be your true belief and attitude toward the Quran and Islam that it is an earthly creation of (made up by) Muhammad (saaws)...and how is that different from what is written in the Quran:

15:6 And they say: O thou unto whom the Reminder (Quran) is revealed, lo! thou art indeed a madman!

44:13-14 How can there be remembrance for them, when a messenger making plain (the Truth) had already come unto them, and they had turned away from him and said: One taught (by others), a madman?

[YieldedOne]

I just want to say this lil' bit before I wrap it up for myself on this particular thread. I don't want any misunderstanding and I want to bow out on a good note.

I never have said, and never will say, that Muhammad was a madman.

Regardless of my being a Christian, I would not disrespect Muhammad in that way.

He is a human being, blessed by Allah...like all of us. Even in memory, he is a "neighbor."

Ok. Peace out, brothers and sisters.

May Allah show you his Love and Compassion in every way today! :D

[MustafaMc]

I've seen this type of "slippery slope" argument used by some Christians about why Christians shouldn't even read the Quran. I always thought that was bogus. But it seems I'm hearing the same type of reasoning here in a different form. Honest, civil, irenic, open discussion between Muslims and Christians on this issue cannot take place...because of a concern (fear?) of letting shirk "slip in" on Muslims undetected? Or for concern of the promotion of a "universal hybrid religion"?

Is this the way Muslim/Christian dialogues of this type always go down? I'm new to this...and MAN. It seems like a straight uphill road if this is the way it goes.

I have already said that, "There is room in my understanding of the Quran to entertain what you are saying." However, I am uncomfortable with pursuing this concept beyond what is apparent in meaning. What comes to my mind is Quran 3:7 "He it is Who has revealed unto you (Muhammad) the Scripture wherein are clear revelations - they are the substance of the Book - and others (which are) allegorical. But those in whose hearts is doubt pursue, indeed, that which is allegorical seeking (to cause) dissension by seeking to explain it. None knows its explanation save Allah. And those who are of sound instruction say: We believe therein; the whole is from our Lord; but only men of understanding really heed."

I am also reminded of Matthew 7:15 "Watch out for false prophets. They come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ferocious wolves." I am not calling you a 'false prophet' nor do I doubt your sincerity, but I am cautious about reading too much between the lines in interpreting the Quran.

Again I believe that Jesus (as) was the Son of the chaste woman Mary, fully human and in no sense of the word was he God. I believe that he was a prophet, messenger and servant of Allah, and that he will be among those brought near to Allah. I believe that he pointed toward the exclusive worship of Allah (swt) as did Muhammad (saaws) and all other prophets.

[جوري]

Wow. Sure feel warm fuzzy feelings from that one. Sheesh. Did you see the list of things I'm NOT TRYING TO DO with my stuff. Let me put it again... I am not saying that Jesus should be worshipped as God. I am not saying that Jesus is the Son of God. I am not saying that Jesus was any more or less of a prophet than all. I am not saying that Jesus actually died and was resurrected following death. I am not saying that Jesus died for human sin. I am not saying that Jesus lacked human createdness. Whew. Maybe THAT'll work. Hopefully...

Work on what exactly? I have advocated living peacefully with Christians and inviting them to the truth in those words, outside of that and when comes to religion, there is nothing more to be said.
[Pickthal 2:256] There is no compulsion in religion. The right direction is henceforth distinct from error. And he who rejecteth false deities and believeth in Allah hath grasped a firm handhold which will never break. Allah is Hearer, Knower.

a gentle reminder that we're discussing the 'nature of Jesus' not co-existence!

You know, Lily, that you can easily read the document for yourself. Right here. "A Common Word Between Us and You" It's right there. Check it out. Here's a snippet...

Indeed and?

Thus in obedience to the Holy Qur’an, we as Muslims invite Christians to come together with us on the basis of what is common to us, which is also what is most essential to our faith and practice: the Two Commandments of love.

I have said so in many words, however that doesn't change the thread subject from 'what was the nature of Jesus' nor the fact of the matter that we view your religion as the very definition of falsehood!

all the best

[MustafaMc]

I never have said, and never will say, that Muhammad was a madman.

Regardless of my being a Christian, I would not disrespect Muhammad in that way.

He is a human being, blessed by Allah...like all of us. Even in memory, he is a "neighbor."

I agree that you have not said so, but you implied that he made up the Quran as I understood, "To try to say to me that the Quran existed before it's earthly origination (by way of Muhammad) is absurd to me". I don't doubt that you see Muhammad (saaws) as a good man with good intentions; however, I do doubt that you see him as a Prophet of Allah (swt) and that he was the Messenger through which the Quran, as the Word of Allah, was revealed to mankind. We accept what the Quran says about Jesus (as) is the Truth.

[YieldedOne]

Maybe I'm glutten for punishment :skeleton: but, just for clarity's sake...

MustafaMc:
I agree that you have not said so, but you implied that he made up the Quran as I understood, "To try to say to me that the Quran existed before it's earthly origination (by way of Muhammad) is absurd to me".

This was the context of the statement...

Insaanah:
The other reason we will never agree, is that you are approaching it from the point of view that Jesus's body was just a created shell that did die, to hold his "eternal, divine, uncreated nature". To us, he is a human being, created and mortal, like other humans. There is no more to him than that. Therefore to try to say to us that he (Jesus) existed before his creation is absurd to us.

YO:
If I said "To try to say to me that the Quran existed before it's earthly origination (by way of Muhammad) is absurd to me"...how would you respond?


Literally, what I did was try to reframe what Insaanah said in terms of the asserted pre-existence of the Quran before it's "earthly origination"...meaning it's actually being brought forth on Earth. That's really and truly what I meant. It was in no way to bring Muhammad himself or his prophethood into question at all. It seemed that Insaanah "knew that was coming", basically anticipating the line of thought I was taking.

And MustafaMc, again I agree with your first post's perspective on Jesus' human origination (ie by divine fiat, God saying "Be.", etc) Just to round that off.

Again, just for clarity. Ok...back under...:hiding:

[MustafaMc]

Literally, what I did was try to reframe what Insaanah said in terms of the asserted pre-existence of the Quran before it's "earthly origination"...meaning it's actually being brought forth on Earth. That's really and truly what I meant. It was in no way to bring Muhammad himself or his prophethood into question at all.

I see how you were making an analogy between the preexistence of the Quran before its revelation with that of Jesus (as) before his birth. There is a distinction though. We have asserted that Allah (swt) exists outside the realm of space and time. Therefore, His knowledge encompasses all and He knows the future before it comes to pass. For the Quran to talk about the Battle of Badr, the Battle of Uhud, or about Muhammad (saaws) frowning and turning away after these things happened doesn't mean that those very words did not exist prior to being revealed. Quran 43:2-4 By the Book that makes things clear,-We have made it a Qur'an in Arabic, that you may be able to understand (and learn wisdom). And verily, it is in the Mother of the Book, in Our Presence, high (in dignity), full of wisdom. The difference is that Jesus (as) was a human and we do not believe that he existed prior to Allah (swt) creating him when He said "Be!" any more than each and every human who has ever lived existed prior to their birth.

Other Muslims correct me if I am wrong, but I believe that the Quran is a subset of the all inclusive "Mother of the Book" in the sense that the Taurat and the Injeel were subsets of it.

[جوري]

Other Muslims correct me if I am wrong, but I believe that the Quran is a subset of the all inclusive "Mother of the Book" in the sense that the Taurat and the Injeel were subsets of it.

I like what you wrote there.. the Quran is also know as Al-furqan, the criterion the go to reference over what ails the previous scriptures..

:w:

[siam]

@ YO and MMc

this conversation seems to be going in an interesting direction........

In my opinion, every single human birth requires the "will of God"('Be"), regardless of the process involved. The new technologies may give the impression that human birth is under our control---but this illusion of "control" only exists because God allows it. It is also my opinion that "We" are made up of Body, Soul(nafs), and Spirit(ruh). Though Muslim scholars vary on when nafs enters the human body, it is generally accepted that it is not at the time of conception. This puts an interesting theory of the pre-existence of the soul........That is, the created soul exists before it enters the body. (This would be the case for all human beings including Prophet Jesus(pbuh)). There also may exist a holding place for the soul after death ---until Judgement day. (At Judgement, ALL the souls will be Judged).......

YO, are you familiar with Judaism?----apparently, these ideas of the soul also exist in Judaism? I was told that the soul exists in a "creative world" like that of a cosmic womb, before comming to earth....etc.... Also, Judaism does not have as fully developed a concept of hell/paradise as Islam does....and it is my understanding that they believe the soul will sleep after death until Judgement?

As to the created(existing after space/time) or uncreated (existing before space/time)Quran, I think it is irrelevant to the value of the Quran as Guidance to all mankind. It is only a matter of those who have the intelligence to take the benefits offered.

[MustafaMc]

Brother Siam, can you comment on the pre-existence of the human soul? I believe that I read somewhere about every descendant of Adam being questioned before their birth about the unity of Allah (swt) and then making the promise to worship none but Allah (swt). Can you or someone else help me out on this one?

[MustafaMc]

I like what you wrote there.. the Quran is also know as Al-furqan, the criterion the go to reference over what ails the previous scriptures..

:w:

Masha'Allah, thank you, Sister. Please, correct me when I err.

[siam]

pre-existence of the human soul----I would also appreciate knowledge on this matter.....I tend to read the Quran with the focus on the Guidance it offers for this (earthly) life and so tend to miss out on some of the other stuff........

MMc---you are probably referring to Sura 7, verses 172--174? apparently it is used in debates/interpretations of the pre-existence of the soul.......however, I personally find other passages more fascinating such as Surah 7, verse 184 which refers to "nafs"or Surah 4 verse 1 (also refers to nafs) whereas Sura 7 verses 172-174 refers to the "Children of Adam"
and his decendents.......

It is interesting to note that in the Quran, "nafs"(singular) has a plural (anfus---I think) and apparently is also a grammatical feminine gender. (I think "soul" itself is genderless)---this puts an interesting facet to interpretations of 7:184 and 4:1, which mentions that our souls were one/single (singularity) and from that was created a mate from which were made many.....

.....and, as I mentioned, Judaism also has some interesting ideas on this subject......

Here is what a Chineese sage, Lao Tzu, says about war, -----but it might add to our discussion of the pre-existence of the soul?----
"unevolved people are eager to act out of strength,
but a person of Tao values peace and quiet
he knows that every being is born out of the womb of Tao
this means that his enemies are his enemies second
his own brothers and sisters first".....


I look forward to hearing your thoughts on all this.......

[MustafaMc]

Brother Siam, thank you for your reply. Yes, that passage is what I was referring to. I couldn't find it because I was searching in hadith. It shows us that we have no excuse of ignorance before Allah (swt) on Judgment Day. These ayah are pertinent to the discussion about the pre-existence of Jesus (as) before his birth as being similar to the rest of humanity. I believe in this passage without fully understanding it.

I did not see 'nafs' in 7:184; whereas, I did see 'anfusihim' in 7:172. Did you mean another ayat?

That was an interesting quote from Lao Tzu, I assume it was from "The Art of War". This reminded me of a passage from the Bible Matthew 25:37-40 “Then the King will say to those on his right, ‘Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world.For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.’ “Then the righteous will answer him, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink?When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you?When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?’ “The King will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me.’

I believe there is a very similar hadith, but I couldn't find it. The point that you made is that humans are ultimately brothers and sisters of each other.

[siam]

MMc thankyou for pointing out the error---Yes, the verse was supposed to be 189 not 184----my apologies.

One way to think of "brotherhood" is that we are all "Children of Adam" ---that is, genetically speaking, one individual is not much different from another.....however, there is also a spiritual brotherhood---as you mentioned. I think the concept is called fitrah, that is we(nafs) have an instinctive/intuitive, God-given knowledge of tawheed and all human beings are born with this knowledge. And, I think that some Atheists make good examples of this point---though they may reject a particular notion of God, many of them are spiritual seekers. (Therefore, to reject tawheed is to go against the embedded spiritual nature of man.)

However, when we consider our "spiritual brotherhood"---it implies connection/connectedness. Therefore the idea that we(soul) may have been connected at some point may have merit? ....Which makes the Jewish idea of a "Creative world"/Cosmic womb interesting in reference to soul. This adds an interesting facet to Surah 39, verse 42, in my translation speaks of souls being taken during sleep and returned (Yusuf Ali)----and this "space" or "creative world" may be the same place we will be held after death?....Surah 6 verse 98 which mentions a resting place/repository? There are verses in the Quran that speak of the temporary nature of our earthly existence (Buddhism also has the idea of the earthly existence as illusion)
---these are thought-provoking ideas.......I would be interested in what you and others think on this matter......

(In Surah 6, our creation is beautifully put in context within the larger creation, verses 95-99......as we discuss this, it will be good to keep in mind that we are only a part of all of God's creation and all of his creation is important......)

[MustafaMc]

Brother Siam, you have brought some interesting ideas. What comes to my mind is the closeness we feel for others who share our faith. Perhaps our souls can recognize to some extent that another person is walking on the Straight Way and we feel a love and an affinity for them (brothers and sisters spiritually). Likewise we feel a distance between our hearts for those who have gone astray (distant cousins spiritually). Relative to this thread could it be that we also recognize those who are the chosen messengers, prophets, saints and pious as being at a higher level in closeness to Allah (swt) than we are (fathers and mothers spiritually). If we recognize the very best as being closest to Allah (swt) such as Prophets Jesus and Muhammad (peace be upon them), is it not in our nature to want to show utmost respect to them to an extent that it may progress to their being worshiped as "God with us"? I believe that Prophet Muhammad (saaws) saw this tendency, hence his warning to us not revere him too much like the Christians did Jesus.

[siam]

There are several claims made about Prophet Jesus (pbuh) such as his unusual birth, that he forgives, performs "miracles", existence prior to birth and/or after death....etc. The Quran also makes some of these claims, yet, Christians and Muslims differ in their understanding of the nature of Jesus Christ (pbuh)......
so....this is my opinion........

Previously we discussed about ruh/spirit, the compass that points us to goodness because God creates everything in Goodness (Also mentioned in Torah) . The concept of fitrah says the souls (nafs) are also created in goodness---that, is they have the intuitive knowledge of tawheed irrespective of the religion or non-religion of their birth. Human beings(including Prophets) are made up of these components along with the human body as a package. Prophets are given further help through the ruh-al-qudus (holy spirit). For human beings to exist, requires God's will, irrespective of the process of conception,----technological, virgin birth, or sexual intimacy. For all human beings, our genetic makeup is similar----yet, within this is great diversity also. This diversity does not mean that some human beings are superior or inferior to others. Thus, the concept of "brotherhood in humanity" helps us transcend (not eliminate) our differences to find unity. All souls are also created in goodness with tawheed. This spiritual brotherhood means that one soul is not superior or inferior in value to another though there may be great diversity. Both saints and sinners are brothers of each other. Epictetus, a Greek Stoic had this to say...
"We are born into essential goodness, endowed with natural intuitions about what is good and worthy and what is not. The appropriate response to bad deeds is pity for the perpetrators, since they have adopted unsound beliefs and are deprived of the most valuable human capacity, the ability to differentiate what is truly good and bad for them...." As Lao Tzu also explains, highly evolved people understand that "every being is born of the womb of Tao". Therefore, a "highly evolved" Prophet such as Prophet Jesus (pbuh) to understand about our spiritual brotherhood and act from compassion and mercy /forgiveness towards his brothers and sisters would be appropriate. This also implies that all human beings have the potential (with God's will) to "evolve" to this level of spirituality. All natural laws and life processes happen because of God's will. Thomas Paine said of science "Man cannot make principles, only discover them". The Quran speaks of the "signs" of Prophet Jesus(pbuh) in Surah 3 verses 45-51, in particular, verse 49 speaks of breathing into a clay bird and making it live by God's leave(God's will).....and other things....these gifts were not unique to Prophet Jesus(pbuh), other prophets also had special gifts/signs. Why?---the immedeate purpose would be that these signs would help create conviction/faith in people. But there may also be another purpose which is hinted at in Surah 5 verse 32, which is also mentioned in the Talmud Sanhedrin (Judaism) "On that account: We ordained for the children of Isreal that if anyone slew a soul.....it would be as if he slew the whole people: and if anyone saved a life. It would be as if he saved the life of the whole people...." (partial quote--pls look up the whole verse---and to put in context read from verse 27). This idea of our connectedness of the soul effecting each other is explained by a Jewish Rabbi --Moses Maimonides...
"One should see the world, and see himself as a scale---with an equal balance of good and evil.
When he does one good deed, the scale is tipped to the good----He and the world are saved.
When he does one evil deed, the scale is tipped to the bad----He and the world are destroyed."
In the greater scheme of things----Prophets "tip the scale to the good". Their highly evolved spiritual souls(nafs) effect other souls/nafs spreading wisdom and goodness. Their teachings, which endure long after them, remind people of their embeded tawheed. In this context, Prophets "save the world" through their existence, their teachings and their actions. Within this greater scheme, we (souls) come to this earth for a short period of time as God wills and each of us decides in which direction to 'tip the scale"---for good or bad---we have been given the freedom to shape our own desitny. Therefore, our time on earth is only a temprorary abode, a place of spiritual growth or spiritual degradation......all souls will leave this temporary abode. All the Prophets, because of the special blessings they recieved, also had a larger burden of responsibilites and for this they will have a special closeness to God.

From this perspective, the humanity of Prophets, including Prophet Jesus (pbuh) seems evident to me. That God, in his wisdom, would use human agents (Prophets) as examples to Guide us also seems reasonable and logical...for it shows the potential that each and every one of us could be capable of with God's help. But there is also another thought---Our Prophets were all individuals, thus when we think of spirituality, we tend to think of an individual spiritual journey----but what if we thought of this as a collective enterprise/brotherhood?----if one individual has the potential to "tip the scale to the good'---what could a group accomplish?.........

[FS123]

The second alternative is that Allah (swt) miraculously created sperm that fertilized one of Mary's eggs and the third alternative is that Allah (swt) miraculously created an embryo in Mary's uterus that subsequently went through normal embryogenesis resulting in Jesus' natural birth as a human. I believe in the last choice because it is consistent with the Quran, "Lo! the likeness of Jesus with Allah is as the likeness of Adam. He created him of dust, then He said unto him: Be! and he is." 3:59

That's what I believe too. Furthermore, we cannot know everything, hence, part of Islamic faith, and most other faiths of course, is to believe in the unseen. But Islamic perspective is slightly different since it sees this world as having signs to look at just beyond the surface of this world (it requires more intelligence, no offence to atheists ;D), but I'm going into another topic. Actually Islam is the middle path, not too much mythical but not entirely limited to material view of this world and life.

This is the Book; in it is guidance sure, without doubt, to those who fear Allah.
Who believe in the Unseen, are steadfast in prayer, and spend out of what We have provided for them;
And who believe in the Revelation sent to thee, and sent before thy time, and (in their hearts) have the assurance of the Hereafter.
They are on (true) guidance, from their Lord, and it is these who will prosper.
[Quran 2:2-5]

Regarding, the middle path (or balanced view of life), Dr. Iqbal explained it beautifully:

When thy Lord said to the Angels, “Verily I am about to place one in my stead on earth”, they said, “Wilt Thou place there one who will do ill and shed blood, when we celebrate Thy praise and extol Thy holiness?” God said, “Verily I know what ye know not!” And He taught Adam the names of all things, and then set them before the Angels, and said, “Tell me the names of these if ye are endowed with wisdom”. They said, “Praise be to Thee! We have no knowledge but what Thou hast given us to know. Thou art the Knowing, the Wise”. He said, “O Adam, inform them of the names”. And when he had informed them of the names, God said, “Did I not say to you that I know the hidden things of the Heavens and of the earth, and that I know what ye bring to light and what ye hide?” (2: 30-33).

The point of these verses is that man is endowed with the faculty of naming things, that is to say, forming concepts of them, and forming concepts of them is capturing them. Thus the character of man’s knowledge is conceptual, and it is with the weapon of this conceptual knowledge that man approaches the observable aspect of Reality. The one noteworthy feature of the Qur’an is the emphasis that it lays on this observable aspect of Reality. Let me quote here a few verses:

Assuredly, in the creation of the Heavens and of the earth; and in the alternation of night and day; and in the ships which pass through the sea with what is useful to man; and in the rain which God sendeth down from Heaven, giving life to the earth after its death, and scattering over it all kinds of cattle; and in the change of the winds, and in the clouds that are made to do service between the Heavens and the earth– are signs for those who “understand” (2:164).And it is He Who hath ordained for you that ye may be guided thereby in the darkness of the land and of the sea! Clear have We made Our signs to “men of knowledge”. And it is He Who hath created you of one breath, and hath provided you an abode and resting place (in the womb). Clear have We made Our signs for “men of insight”! And it is He Who sendeth down rain from Heaven: and We bring forth by it the buds of all the plants and from them bring We forth the green foliage, and the close-growing grain, and palm trees with sheaths of clustering dates, and gardens of grapes, and the olive, and the pomegranate, like and unlike. Look you on their fruits when they ripen. Truly herein are signs unto people who believe (6: 97-99).Hast thou not seen how thy Lord lengthens out the shadow? Had He pleased He had made it motionless. But We made the sun to be its guide; then draw it in unto Us with easy in drawing (25: 45-46).Can they not look up to the clouds, how they are created; and to the Heaven how it is upraised; and to the mountains how they are rooted, and to the earth how it is outspread? (88: 17-20).And among His signs are the creation of the Heavens and of the earth, and your variety of tongues and colours. Herein truly are signs for all men (30: 22).

No doubt, the immediate purpose of the Qur’an in this reflective observation of Nature is to awaken in man the consciousness of that of which Nature is regarded a symbol. But the point to note is the general empirical attitude of the Qur’an which engendered in its followers a feeling of reverence for the actual and ultimately made them the founders of modern science. It was a great point to awaken the empirical spirit in an age which renounced the visible as of no value in men’s search after God. According to the Qur’an, as we have seen before, the universe has a serious end. Its shifting actualities force our being into fresh formations. The intellectual effort to overcome the obstruction offered by it, besides enriching and amplifying our life, sharpens our insight, and thus prepares us for a more masterful insertion into subtler aspects of human experience. It is our reflective contact with the temporal flux of things which trains us for an intellectual vision of the non-temporal. Reality lives in its own appearances; and such a being as man, who has to maintain his life in an obstructing environment, cannot afford to ignore the visible. The Qur’an opens our eyes to the great fact of change, through the appreciation and control of which alone it is possible to build a durable civilization.

Source: http://www.allamaiqbal.com/works/pro...ruction/01.htm

[Amigo]

The nature of Jesus'conception is that Time touched Eternity and that which is Eternal and invisible was visible in Time.
Mary had reached perfect integrity:
Integration of spiritual nature and physical nature
Integration of temporal nature and eternal nature.
And perfect grounding in God who is the source of all perfection.

Because of this integration, she was made capable to magnify in Time the perfection invisible and hidden in Eternity. As she says: "my soul magnify the Lord", that which her soul magnifies, her body presents, for her soul is perfectly integrated into her body.

Regular women magnify what is hidden in the sperm they receive. But Mary magnify the Logos in whom she is created and sustained, and which due to her perfect integrity. In her, the human capacity to look back and reflect back on his creator is made perfect. She conceives him perfectly not only in her mind and heart, but fully in her whole being.

[Grace Seeker]

With respect for your very involved hypothesis (I don't know, maybe some denomination even teaches it) all that the scriptures have to say about the how of Jesus conception is “The Holy Spirit will come on you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you. So the holy one to be born will be called the Son of God." (Luke 1:35) To me that sounds like creation ex nihlo as MustafaMc described above. Your suggestion that Jesus is the expression of Mary's giving glory to God is also ex nihlo I suppose, but the details of it depend on assuming more than the scriptures themselves set forth.

[MustafaMc]

We both agree on the miraculous birth of Jesus as there is no biological explanation for a man to be born of a woman without sexual intercourse or in vitro fertilization. Both Christians and Muslims uniquely share this belief and we absolutely reject the most obvious explanation of an egg from Mary being fertilized by a sperm from Joseph.

I am sure you have read the Quranic story about Mary, but here it is again:

Behold! the angel said: "O Mary! God has chosen you and purified you - chosen you above the women of all nations. O Mary! Be obedient to your Lord, prostrate yourself and bow with those who bow (in worship)."

(And remember) when the angel said: "O Mary! Lo! God gives you glad tidings of a word from Him, whose name is the Messiah, Jesus, son of Mary, illustrious in the world and the Hereafter, and one of those brought near (unto God). He will speak unto mankind in his cradle and in his manhood, and he is of the righteous."

She said: "My Lord! How can I have a child when no mortal has touched me?"

He (the angel) said: "So (it will be). God creates what He will. If He decrees a thing, He says unto it only: 'Be!' and it is." Quran 3:42-47

[MustafaMc]

That's what I believe too. Furthermore, we cannot know everything, hence, part of Islamic faith, and most other faiths of course, is to believe in the unseen. But Islamic perspective is slightly different since it sees this world as having signs to look at just beyond the surface of this world

I agree that the Islamic view is much more receptive to scientific discussions as opposed to the Christian one, the traditional view anyway.

Regarding, the middle path (or balanced view of life), Dr. Iqbal explained it beautifully:

That was a nice quote and I see the relevance of Allah (swt) teaching Adam (as) the 'names' of creatures as regarding their nature that carries up to the present as man learns more about the universe through legitimate science.

[Predator]

GraceSeeker, with respect to our long term friendship, let me take the opportunity to wish you a Merry Christmas.

Merry Birth of the Roman Sun God - Sol invictus . 25th December wasnt the date on which Jesus(PBUH) was born

[MustafaMc]

Merry Birth of the Roman Sun God - Sol invictus . 25th December wasnt the date on which Jesus(PBUH) was born

Thank you for pointing out my error. I have removed that sentence from my post that you quoted. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FFW3Z...eature=related

[Burninglight]

You ask at what point did Jesus become divine? Jesus didn't become divine. The divine became Jesus.

Well put. Muslims see Christians as commiting shirk, but I look in the Bible and see stories when people tried to worship the apostles, and they were reproved for it. Even in the OT when men of God wanted to worship and angel because they were awe struck; the angle reproved them saying I am a fellow servant like you do not such a thing.

They weren't even sharply rebuked for it. The were just corrected. Yet, when people fell at the feet of Jesus worshipping Him, He never reproved them; He let them do it. So Muslims think God will judge us so severly because we worship Jesus? Why they don't feel that we might just be corrected I don't know, but when Jesus comes as the Lord of lords, I would never want to face Him saying you are not the Lord you are just a prophet you are not devine; you are just a slave of Allah nothing more special than any other prophet you are not even the son of God like God said in the Bible, and you cannot save us and you didn't die and rise from the dead. Paul is a liar, and the Bible is corrupted. I cannot imagine standing in those shoes before the Prince of Peace; The Everlasting Father; The Mighty God as prophecied in the Bible Immanuel God with us!!!!!!.

[MustafaMc]

So Muslims think God will judge us so severly because we worship Jesus? Why they don't feel that we might just be corrected I don't know,

We are not judge and jury, but we have the Quran which we believe is the Word of Allah. The Quran says that ascribing partners with Allah (swt) in worship is the most serious sin of all and we believe that Christians worship the human, Jesus, as only Allah (swt) should be worshipped. Quran 19:88-93 And they say: 'The Beneficent has taken unto Himself a son.' Assuredly you utter a disastrous (or most monstrous) thing whereby almost the heavens are torn, and the earth is split asunder and the mountains fall in ruins, that you ascribe unto the Beneficent a son, when it is not meet (doesn't behoove) for (the Majesty of) the Beneficent that He should choose a son. There is none in the heavens and the earth but comes unto the Beneficent as a slave.

but when Jesus comes as the Lord of lords, I would never want to face Him saying you are not the Lord you are just a prophet you are not devine; you are just a slave of Allah nothing more special than any other prophet you are not even the son of God like God said in the Bible, and you cannot save us and you didn't die and rise from the dead. Paul is a liar, and the Bible is corrupted.

You captured pretty well what we believe about Jesus except that his likeness is that of Adam and that he will return as the Messiah which means “anointed” or a leader anointed by God.

I cannot imagine standing in those shoes before the Prince of Peace; The Everlasting Father; The Mighty God as prophecied in the Bible Immanuel God with us!!!!!!.

We will each stand before our Creator and we will be judged according to our faith and our deeds. You tenaciously hold to your Christian faith as I do to mine. I have appreciated the opportunity to discuss our respective faiths in an open and frank manner. Our responsibility is not to guide one another as guidance comes only from Allah (swt), but we have the responsibility to share what we hold as the Truth in as kind and considerate manner as possible without holding back on what may be feared as being offensive to the other if we consider it to be the Truth.

I am sure you have read the passage where Allah (swt) questions Jesus in Quran 5:116-18 And when Allah saith: O Jesus, son of Mary! Did thou say unto mankind: Take me and my mother for two gods beside Allah? he said: Be glorified! It was not mine to utter that to which I had no right. If I used to say it, then You knew it. You know what is in my mind, and I know not what is in Your Mind. Lo! You, only You, are the Knower of Things Hidden? I spoke unto them only that which You commanded me, (saying): Worship Allah, my Lord and your Lord. I was a witness of them while I dwelt among them, and when You took me You were the Watcher over them. You are Witness over all things. If You punish them, lo! they are Your slaves, and if You forgive them (lo! they are Your slaves). Lo! You, only You, are the Mighty, the Wise.

[Muhaba]

even though jews reject Jesus's miraculous birth and accuse him of being an illegitimate son, still the old tetament contain stories of miraculous births of other children without a father. i believe that all those stories point of Jesus's births but the names of the mother and chld have been changed.

[Burninglight]

And when Allah saith: O Jesus, son of Mary! Did thou say unto mankind: Take me and my mother for two gods beside Allah? he said: Be glorified! It was not mine to utter that to which I had no right. If I used to say it, then You knew it. You know what is in my mind, and I know not what is in Your Mind. Lo! You, only You, are the Knower of Things Hidden? I spoke unto them only that which You commanded me, (saying): Worship Allah, my Lord and your Lord. I was a witness of them while I dwelt among them, and when You took me You were the Watcher over them. You are Witness over all things. If You punish them, lo! they are Your slaves, and if You forgive them (lo! they are Your slaves). Lo! You, only You, are the Mighty, the Wise.

Okay, I will have to trust that Allah will let me slide, because I am having trouble seeing Muhammad as my prophet just as you do with Paul the apostle. There seems to be a possible allowance to were it can go either way for the Christian like myself - either punishment or forgiveness. On that day, when Jesus tells me face to face, I was wrong, I will repent. At least I have never denied God's existence like the atheistic beliefs. There is that slight chance Allah may choose to let me slide from hell (Get out hell free), but I wish I could say the same for the Muslim being wrong. There is no such allowances I can find in the Bible. I wish there were and that I was wrong about that.

[MustafaMc]

Okay, I will have to trust that Allah will let me slide, because I am having trouble seeing Muhammad as my prophet just as you do with Paul the apostle. There seems to be a possible allowance to were it can go either way for the Christian like myself - either punishment or forgiveness. On that day, when Jesus tells me face to face, I was wrong, I will repent. At least I have never denied God's existence like the atheistic beliefs. There is that slight chance Allah may choose to let me slide from hell (Get out hell free), but I wish I could say the same for the Muslim being wrong. There is no such allowances I can find in the Bible. I wish there were and that I was wrong about that.

If you could read the book 'The Sealed Nectar' biography of Muhammad, perhaps you would see him in a different light. This book does a good job of showing why Muslims love him.

Yes, the verse noted holds out a slim hope for the Christian, but that is a tenuous stance in light of Quran 3:85 And whoso seeks as religion other than the Surrender (to Allah) it will not be accepted from him, and he will be a loser in the Hereafter.

I don't know if you realize it, but Muslims consider that wey are adhering to the religion of Abraham as in Quran 3:95 Say: "(Allah) speaks the Truth: follow the religion of Abraham, the sane in faith; he was not of the Pagans." and Quran 4:125 Who can be better in religion than one who submits his whole self to Allah, does good, and follows the way of Abraham the true in Faith? For Allah did take Abraham for a friend. and Quran 6:161 Say: "Verily, my Lord hath guided me to a way that is straight,- a religion of right,- the path (trod) by Abraham the true in Faith, and he (certainly) joined not gods with Allah." and Quran 42:13 He has ordained for you that religion which He commended unto Noah, and that which We inspire in thee (Muhammad), and that which We commended unto Abraham and Moses and Jesus, saying: Establish the religion, and be not divided therein. Dreadful for the idolaters is that unto which you call them. Allah chooses for Himself whom He will, and guides unto Himself him who turns (toward Him).

I admit that I could have been wrong when I left Christianity 30 years ago, but my innermost belief system changed over a few days of reading the Quran and I can't envision ever going back. It is like growing up believing the earth is flat and then coming to the realization that it is round, or believing that the sun revolved around the earth and then realizing it is actually the other way around. Any which way I go I know that I am at the mercy of Allah (swt).

[Burninglight]

Yes, the verse noted holds out a slim hope for the Christian, but that is a tenuous stance in light of Quran 3:85 And whoso seeks as religion other than the Surrender (to Allah) it will not be accepted from him, and he will be a loser in the Hereafter.

Well I am a Christians muslim then because I believe in total surrender to God.

I admit that I could have been wrong when I left Christianity 30 years ago, but my innermost belief system changed over a few days of reading the Quran and I can't envision ever going back. It is like growing up believing the earth is flat and then coming to the realization that it is round, or believing that the sun revolved around the earth and then realizing it is actually the other way around. Any which way I go I know that I am at the mercy of Allah (swt).

What did you read that made you so sure; what verses where they? The more I look into Islam, the more convinced I am that Jesus is the way; It is strengthen my faith. Muslims believe that the lastest prophet supercedes all others. Am I right? Well, since Jesus is coming back, He will supercede what all have said for He will truly be the last prophet

[MustafaMc]

Well I am a Christians muslim then because I believe in total surrender to God.

I have come to believe that you are sincere in your faith and I don't presume to be able to judge your heart as I am incapable of judging even my own. I have lived on both sides of the Islamic-Christian divide and I have come to believe that Islam is the way of life prescibed by Allah (swt) and that Christianity is a belief system that was not sanctioned by Allah (swt) even though He has allowed it to become the preeminent religion on earth. I don't understand why the Muslims were defeated at the Battle of Tours in 732, but it is as Allah (swt) has willed it to be.

What did you read that made you so sure; what verses where they? The more I look into Islam, the more convinced I am that Jesus is the way; It is strengthen my faith. Muslims believe that the lastest prophet supercedes all others. Am I right? Well, since Jesus is coming back, He will supercede what all have said for He will truly be the last prophet

It was no particular verse, but I remember looking in the index and reading every reference to Jesus in the Quran. As I have said, these verses touched me when others have read the same thing and came away untouched. I was either led astray by reading the Quran, or the scales were lifted from my eyes such that I was able to see and the plugs were removed from my ears such as that I was able to hear with the end result that my heart became enlightened albeit not from my own desire or will for it to have happened. I read the Quran merely to see firsthand what my college room mate from Iran beleived. I do not believe that I was any more sincere than what you seem to be and I don't understand why I was chosen to see what I now believe is the Truth while you yet remain astray (in my opinion). I can only say alhamdulillah (praise and thanks be to Allah) that I was guided to Islam.

Yes, we believe that Muhammad (saaws) superceded Jesus and that Islam is the approved way of life designated for all people of the world since then and until the end of time. Yes, I believe that Jesus (as) will return as Messiah, or the Anointed King, who will return during the Last Days to establish Islamic rule over the earth. I believe that Jesus (as) will not return with a religion other than Islam.