The Trinity and Islam: What does Mohommed Say?

[Traditio]

I notice that Muslims seem to have a prejudice about what Christians believe about the Trinity and about Jesus. Note, I don't mean "prejudice" in any negative sense. I merely mean this in the sense that you seem already to have a judgment about our beliefs. Here is my question:

What does the Quran or the hadiths or whatever the relevent Islamic religious texts say about Christianity and their belief in the Trinity and in Jesus?

For example, in the Quran and in the hadiths, does Mohommed say "Christians believe in x, y and z"?

[h-n]

I merely mean this in the sense that you seem already to have a judgment about our beliefs.

I think that you need to have a reality check, do you think that your going to teach us something that we don't already know?? Your statement sounds as if we don't know about Christianity. Its amazing, Muslims have been around for so long and Traditio thinks he is going to teach us about Christianity as we have not heard about it before.

Nevertheless here are the verses from the Quran;-

4:157 And because of their saying: We slew the Messiah, Jesus son of Mary, Allah's messenger - they slew him not nor crucified him, but it appeared so unto them; and lo! those who disagree concerning it are in doubt thereof; they have no knowledge thereof save pursuit of a conjecture; they slew him not for certain.

4:158 But Allah took him up unto Himself. Allah was ever Mighty, Wise.

4:171 O People of the Scripture! Do not exaggerate in your religion nor utter aught concerning Allah save the truth. The Messiah, Jesus son of Mary, was only a messenger of Allah, and His word which He conveyed unto Mary, and a spirit from Him. So believe in Allah and His messengers, and say not "Three" - Cease! (it is) better for you! - Allah is only One Allah. Far is it removed from His Transcendent Majesty that He should have a son. His is all that is in the heavens and all that is in the earth. And Allah is sufficient as Defender.

4:172 The Messiah will never scorn to be a slave unto Allah, nor will the favoured angels. Whoso scorneth His service and is proud, all such will He assemble unto Him;

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.

5:116 And when Allah saith: O Jesus, son of Mary! Didst thou say unto mankind: Take me and my mother for two gods beside Allah? he saith: Be glorified! It was not mine to utter that to which I had no right. If I used to say it, then Thou knewest it. Thou knowest what is in my mind, and I know not what is in Thy Mind. Lo! Thou, only Thou, art the Knower of Things Hidden?

5:117 I spake unto them only that which Thou commandedst me, (saying): Worship Allah, my Lord and your Lord. I was a witness of them while I dwelt among them, and when Thou tookest me Thou wast the Watcher over them. Thou art Witness over all things

5:118 If Thou punish them, lo! they are Thy slaves, and if Thou forgive them (lo! they are Thy slaves). Lo! Thou, only Thou, art the Mighty, the Wise.

5:119 Allah saith: This is a day in which their truthfulness profiteth the truthful, for theirs are Gardens underneath which rivers flow, wherein they are secure for ever, Allah taking pleasure in them and they in Him. That is the great triumph.

Also I have heard that some Christians say that what we have in the Quran of our understanding of Christianity is wrong, please don't bother going down this route on an Islamic forum. We know well enough and anyone who treats Prophet Jesus peace be upon him as a saviour is wrong. To say that God All-Mighty is wrong about their beliefs is uttering a huge lie, so avoid it or face it on the Day of Judgement.

[Scimitar]

For example, in the Quran and in the hadiths, does Mohommed say "Christians believe in x, y and z"?

the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) is not the author of the Quran, he is the messenger of it - the Quran is revealed to him by The God (in Arabic - Allah) through the medium of the archangel Gabriel, pbuh.

The Quran mentions Christians in many places, would you like to see what is written about Christians? you may be surprised.

this is what we have in common:

"Surely those who believe, and those who are Jews, and the Christians, and the Sabians -- whoever believes in God and the Last Day and does good, they shall have their reward from their Lord. And there will be no fear for them, nor shall they grieve" (2:62, 5:69, and many other verses).
"...and nearest among them in love to the believers will you find those who say, 'We are Christians,' because amongst these are men devoted to learning and men who have renounced the world, and they are not arrogant" (5:82).
"O you who believe! Be helpers of God -- as Jesus the son of Mary said to the Disciples, 'Who will be my helpers in (the work of) God?' Said the disciples, 'We are God's helpers!' Then a portion of the Children of Israel believed, and a portion disbelieved. But We gave power to those who believed, against their enemies, and they became the ones that prevailed" (61:14).


The following are warnings to those who worship anything but God - meaning if you worship or pray to the holy ghost or to Jesus (pbuh) :

"If only they [i.e. Christians] had stood fast by the Law, the Gospel, and all the revelation that was sent to them from their Lord, they would have enjoyed happiness from every side. There is from among them a party on the right course, but many of them follow a course that is evil" (5:66).
"Oh People of the Book! Commit no excesses in your religion, nor say of God anything but the truth. Christ Jesus, the son of Mary, was (no more than) a messenger of God, and His Word which He bestowed on Mary, and a spirit proceeding from Him. So believe in God and His messengers. Say not, 'Trinity.' Desist! It will be better for you, for God is One God, Glory be to Him! (Far exalted is He) above having a son. To Him belong all things in the heavens and on earth. And enough is God as a Disposer of affairs" (4:171).
"The Jews call 'Uzair (Ezra) a son of God, and the Christians call Christ the son of God. That is but a saying from their mouth; (in this) they but imitate what the unbelievers of old used to say. God's curse be on them; how they are deluded away from the Truth! They take their priests and their anchorites to be their lords in derogation of God, and (they take as their Lord) Christ the son of Mary. Yet they were commanded to worship but One God: there is no god but He. Praise and glory to Him! (Far is He) from having the partners they associate (with Him)" (9:30-31).

pay close attention to the accuracy and the subtlety of divine speech - "...(in this - they but imitate what the unbelievers of old used to say..." enter Mithras, ISIS and Osiris, and all those pagan pantheon gods of the romans, greeks and egyptians, and what you find is that constantine was reviving a cult by hijacking your faith... and the history of this world attests to it.

Basically in answer to your question, trinity is a pagan concept which Constantine, the infamous pragmatist and leader of the Sol Invictus cult (sun worship) adopted into Christianity... the rest is plain sailing as they say.

If you have any questions, either myself or others will take you up on those God willing.

I pray to The God, that he enlightens you to the truth and guides you to it also, Amen.

Scimi

[greenhill]

This matter has been covered in previous threads.

For us Muslims, it is not a prejudice. It is a firm belief that Jesus is a prophet of Allah, just as Noah, Abraham, Moses and others as well as Muhammad (peace be upon them all).


:peace:

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

[Traditio]

I think that you need to have a reality check, do you think that your going to teach us something that we don't already know?? Your statement sounds as if we don't know about Christianity. Its amazing, Muslims have been around for so long and Traditio thinks he is going to teach us about Christianity as we have not heard about it before.

Ms. h-n: with all due respect, Islam has been around for roughly 1400 years, no? I'll admit that I'm no expert on what you believe. I am not a Muslim. I was not raised in an Islamic family or in a predominately Islamic culture, and I haven't taken the time to become learned about it. Ditto for Buddhism, Confuscianism, Hinduism, etc. There are a ton of Protestant sects (errant branches of Christianity that started popping up around the 1500s), about which I don't claim to be an expert, nor do I claim to be an expert on Eastern Orthodoxy. I am not a member of that sect.

Why should I assume that Muslims are experts on Christianity?

Nevertheless here are the verses from the Quran;-

I thank you! :) I'll omit the verses from the Quran about which I have no questions, but I will have read the things that you put up, for which, again, you have my gratitude for going to the trouble of searching for them and posting them.

4:171 O People of the Scripture! Do not exaggerate in your religion nor utter aught concerning Allah save the truth. The Messiah, Jesus son of Mary, was only a messenger of Allah, and His word which He conveyed unto Mary, and a spirit from Him. So believe in Allah and His messengers, and say not "Three" - Cease! (it is) better for you! - Allah is only One Allah. Far is it removed from His Transcendent Majesty that He should have a son. His is all that is in the heavens and all that is in the earth. And Allah is sufficient as Defender.

What does Mohommed mean by this, when he says "say not three"? What is he saying that Christians believe? Are there hadiths or commentary that explain this at greater length?

5:116 And when Allah saith: O Jesus, son of Mary! Didst thou say unto mankind: Take me and my mother for two gods beside Allah? he saith: Be glorified! It was not mine to utter that to which I had no right. If I used to say it, then Thou knewest it. Thou knowest what is in my mind, and I know not what is in Thy Mind. Lo! Thou, only Thou, art the Knower of Things Hidden?

Is Mohommed claiming that Christians believe that Mary and Jesus are two gods, in addition to your "Allah," who is a third god?

Also I have heard that some Christians say that what we have in the Quran of our understanding of Christianity is wrong, please don't bother going down this route on an Islamic forum. We know well enough and anyone who treats Prophet Jesus peace be upon him as a saviour is wrong. To say that God All-Mighty is wrong about their beliefs is uttering a huge lie, so avoid it or face it on the Day of Judgement.

Actually, these are the questions that I have:

1. When Mohommed says the above, does he put these supposedly errant doctrines into the mouth of the Christians?

2. If he is doing that, do you think that he is expressing himself as a prophet of God, and therefore inerrantly/infallibly?

3. If Christians don't believe that (and didn't believe that at the time of Mohommed), and, therefore, Mohommed is putting doctrines into the mouths of the Christians which they didn't hold, wouldn't that prove that Mohommed was not God's prophet?

[Scimitar]

are you suggesting that the Christians living at the time of the Prophet Muhammad pbuh were monotheists? :D because history suggests otherwise.

One word: constantine

Scimi

[Traditio]

are you suggesting that the Christians living at the time of the Prophet Muhammad pbuh were monotheists? :D because history suggests otherwise.

One word: constantine

Scimi

Mohommed lived from 570-632 A.D. At the time, the Christianity would have been the Latin and Greek rites of Christianity. I mean, this is even before the East-West Schism (11th century), but long after St. Augustine died. There's simply no question of 6th-7th century Christians (at least, non-heretic, mainstream Christians) being polytheists in any serious sense.

When I read the passage about exalting the Most Blessed Mother to the status of a god, what comes to mind is the Greek Orthodoxy's title of the Mother of God as theotokos (the God-bearer), and how protestants are constantly criticizing Catholics (and, by extension, Greek/Eastern Orthodoxy) for deifying and worshipping the Virgin Mary.

It's just not true.

But first, I want to get agreement on this precise point: when Mohommed criticizes these alleged errors, what is he intending to do? Is it his intention to assert that Christians of the time widely believed this?

[Sojourn]

Peace of the Lord be with you my dear brother,

But first, I want to get agreement on this precise point: when Mohommed criticizes these alleged errors, what is he intending to do? Is it his intention to assert that Christians of the time widely believed this?

I hope you are well and am glad to see another brother of the Latin rite here, especially someone as versed with philosophy as you are. I myself have wondered about some of the verses you mention and am curious to see what our Muslims friends will have to say.

Oremus pro invicem!

Pax tecum frater,

Sojourn

[Sojourn]

Peace be with you sister h-n,

I think that you need to have a reality check, do you think that your going to teach us something that we don't already know?? Your statement sounds as if we don't know about Christianity.[B] Its amazing, Muslims have been around for so long and Traditio thinks he is going to teach us about Christianity as we have not heard about it before.

I think there are many misconceptions on both sides, and personally I can't tell you how many errors about Christianity are stated here by Muslims as the volume is so high. If you don't mind dear sister, you yourself proposed in another thread that Christians believe a father is his son. This of course is not true as the Father is distinct from the Son. So there are many misconceptions and we should encourage having an accurate understanding of eachother, as that will only further our dialogue with one another.

Pax et bonum

[Scimitar]

please do clarify for us, these misconceptions within your faith - from your various denominations which conflict in core theological principles.

we thank you in advance.

*grabs popcorn

Scimi

[greenhill]

But first, I want to get agreement on this precise point: when Mohommed criticizes these alleged errors, what is he intending to do? Is it his intention to assert that Christians of the time widely believed this?

You see, Prophet Muhammad (saw) was a servant of Allah and was doing His (Allah's) bidding. And he claimed that he only knows what Allah gives him by way of 'knowledge'. If he was told to jump, he would and I am sure he would jump to the best of his ability without even asking 'how high?' Seeing as Allah narrated via the verses in the Quran on prophet Jesus, stating that Jesus was not put to the cross, why would prophet Muhammad want to say otherwise? Hence we should not read his intentions behind these claims but merely to forward Allah's words and deliver the message that he was commanded to do. Whether the Christians widely believed this at the time is not for me to judge, but the message is for all time. Still, the belief of the Trinity exists today. The Quran's message remains the same. There is no Trinity. Jesus remains a true prophet of Allah.

If very few people believed in the Trinity way back then and not totally relevant at the time, it makes it pretty relevant now and the message of the Quran is a guide for those who want to be guided. Either way, the message addresses the pertinent point as far as the ONE GOD is concern. Then or now, Trinity is not true. Why do we know so? Because the Quran says so. The prophet was just a messenger that conveyed the 'glad tidings' and 'truth'. It then rests with us individually to either accept or reject.


:peace:

[Sojourn]

Peace be with you Scimi,

please do clarify for us, these misconceptions within your faith - from your various denominations which conflict in core theological principles.

we thank you in advance.

*grabs popcorn

Scimi

We had a discussion where you used the example of Unitarian Universalists (a relatively new and small minority) as proof that Christians are in conflict over theological doctrines. By that strand of thinking I can equally argue that Sufis and Ahmadis prove the same for Islam, but I think you would agree that simply finding a disagreement doesn't tell us much, we have to consider where it's coming from.

When it comes to the Trinity there is unity among all Christian churches of Apostolic origin, namely the Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, and Oriental Churches, and these alone comprise the majority of Christians worldwide. To this I would add agreement among protestant groups such as the Anglicans, Lutherans, Calvinists, etc. In the end there overwhelming agreement on the doctrine of the Trinity.

And what is that doctrine? Well, it's surprisingly straightforward: three Persons in one Divine Being. The "trinity" refers to the unity of the three Persons because they possess the same divine essence, and this is why Christianity is a monotheistic and not polytheistic religion. Muslims may claim that we attribute divinity to creatures and at the same time affirm the Trinity as doctrine is monotheism. I don't understand the particular insistence some Muslims have on saying that it's polytheism. For it to be polytheism the three Persons would have to be three separate divine beings, and then there would be no unity of persons and therefore no trinity!

Anyway, hope this helps to elucidate the issue.


Pax

[Scimitar]

Bro I'm very confused.

How can 3 be 1? Logic please?

There has never been a case in the abrahamic traditions of having more than one divine being - namely The God... until consrantine got his hands on your faith and twisted it to incorporate pagan theology into it.... you KNOW this but dodge the issue all the time.

Doesn't it strike you as odd how your trinity mirrora that of the followers of mithras / sol invictus / Egyptian pagan pantheon ????

Can't you with an ounce of logic deduce that your faith qaa hijacked by Constantine and pragmatically molested to the point where your place in monotheism is contested not just by Muslims but proponents of your own faith?

Further you gave the example of the ahamdiyahs and sufis as those who have compromised the core theology of islam? How did they do that? Please explain because the core theology of islam is in the 5 pillars and every Muslim adheres to these, be they sufi or otherwise... whereas in your faith, the actual core theology ia compromised and I cited one group within your faith (unitarians) only to prove you a point which you've still not managed to reconcile.

The trinity doesn't make sense. To date, no two christians have ever given me the same response in relation to it.

3 persons in one divine being you say... I ask if that is true then who was jesus praying to when he asked for the cup to be passed? Himself?

Man I got a whole load of these trump questions for you here... but hey, one thing at a time yes?

Scimi

[greenhill]

Muslims believe One God - Allah is His name. We can learn more about Him from His 99 names (each with a distinct meaning). That Allah has sent down to every nation a prophet to guide the people to the path of Allah. Jesus was one of them. However, the followers have somehow found a way to break up the Singular Being into multiple parts. All the Quran (via the messenger - prophet Muhammad) is saying is the claim is a false one. Yet it persists until today.

O followers of the Book! do not exceed the limits in your religion, and do not speak (lies) against Allah, but (speak) the truth; the Messiah, Isa son of Marium is only a messenger of Allah and His Word which He communicated to Marium and a spirit from Him; believe therefore in Allah and His messengers, and say not, Three. Desist, it is better for you; Allah is only one Allah; far be It from His glory that He should have a son, whatever is in the heavens and whatever is in the earth is His, and Allah is sufficient for a Protector. (Surah 4:171 – Shakir)


:peace:

[Sojourn]

Peace be with you Scimi,

(Btw, please tell me if you prefer I call you Scimitar)

Bro I'm very confused.

How can 3 be 1? Logic please?

I never said the number 3 equals the number 1 :) I said the trinity is a unit of Persons: three Persons in one divine being. Just like saying 1 coin has 2 faces doesn't mean 1 equals 2!

There has never been a case in the abrahamic traditions of having more than one divine being - namely The God... until consrantine got his hands on your faith and twisted it to incorporate pagan theology into it.... you KNOW this but dodge the issue all the time.

I agree with you, there is no case for more than one divine being, but I never claimed there was. In theology precision counts, and there is a distinction between "person" and "divine being." As for the one divine being existing in three persons there is a multiplicity of evidence from the Old Testament, here is one example:

"Then the LORD (Yahweh) rained down burning sulfur on Sodom and Gomorrah--from the LORD (Yahweh) out of the heavens." Genesis 19:24

Such passages reveal a shadow of the reality that Jesus would unveil in his time.

Doesn't it strike you as odd how your trinity mirrora that of the followers of mithras / sol invictus / Egyptian pagan pantheon ????

Show me that the followers of Mithras believed in a trinity, let alone that it's anything like what Christians believe. The same goes for Egyptian paganism. Your statement here is simply fictitious.

Can't you with an ounce of logic deduce that your faith qaa hijacked by Constantine and pragmatically molested to the point where your place in monotheism is contested not just by Muslims but proponents of your own faith?

The trinity is expressed in the New Testament and was expounded by many early Christians thus disproving your allegation that Constantine somehow invented a doctrine that predates his existence.

Further you gave the example of the ahamdiyahs and sufis as those who have compromised the core theology of islam? How did they do that? Please explain because the core theology of islam is in the 5 pillars and every Muslim adheres to these, be they sufi or otherwise... whereas in your faith, the actual core theology ia compromised and I cited one group within your faith (unitarians) only to prove you a point which you've still not managed to reconcile.

Every Muslim adheres to the five pillars? Do you accept the Shia are Muslim? Because from what I read their core (the ten Furu al-Din) differs from yours.

Regarding the Unitarians, as mentioned earlier they are a relatively new group and a small minority. There views are about as different from ours as the views of Sufis are to yours, yet the existence of sufis doesn't seem to affect your perception of unity. Perhaps you will suggest that some Sufis are non-Muslim? And by that same token we may say Unitarians are out of the fold. The point is, using small divergent groups to prove a point is not very helpful.

The trinity doesn't make sense. To date, no two christians have ever given me the same response in relation to it.

My experience is different. Perhaps you can share what some Christians have told you?

3 persons in one divine being you say... I ask if that is true then who was jesus praying to when he asked for the cup to be passed? Himself?

Jesus prayed to the Father.

Man I got a whole load of these trump questions for you here... but hey, one thing at a time yes?

Hopefully something more challenging than 3 = 1 and Constantine, eh? :-P


Pax tecum brother,

Sojourn

[tearose]

Further you gave the example of the ahamdiyahs and sufis as those who have compromised the core theology of islam? How did they do that? Please explain because the core theology of islam is in the 5 pillars and every Muslim adheres to these, be they sufi or otherwise...

As-salaamu 3laikum,

The Ahmadiyah are not Muslims. They are out of Islam entirely.

[tearose]

To the OP,

It has already been explained to you that the Qur'an is the Word of Allah, not the word of Prophet Muhammad (salla Allahu 3laihi wa salam). So your questions about his intentions do not make sense.

Secondly, many Christians even today direct acts of worship towards Mary the mother of Jesus. They pray to her with a prayer called the 'Hail Mary'. They light candles for her in the church and believe that she can help them and prevent harm from coming to them. I saw some Spanish Christians in a town I used to live in who made a statue of her and threw it into the sea in the belief that she would protect sailors from harm for the rest of that year. They also used to sell stickers for their cars that said 'I drive - she guides me'.

These kinds of belief and acts of worship constitute taking her as a god.

[h-n]

Ms. h-n: with all due respect, Islam has been around for roughly 1400 years, no? I'll admit that I'm no expert on what you believe. I am not a Muslim. I was not raised in an Islamic family or in a predominately Islamic culture, and I haven't taken the time to become learned about it. Ditto for Buddhism, Confuscianism, Hinduism, etc. There are a ton of Protestant sects (errant branches of Christianity that started popping up around the 1500s), about which I don't claim to be an expert, nor do I claim to be an expert on Eastern Orthodoxy. I am not a member of that sect.

Why should I assume that Muslims are experts on Christianity?
I thank you! :) I'll omit the verses from the Quran about which I have no questions, but I will have read the things that you put up, for which, again, you have my gratitude for going to the trouble of searching for them and posting them.



What does Mohommed mean by this, when he says "say not three"? What is he saying that Christians believe? Are there hadiths or commentary that explain this at greater length?



Is Mohommed claiming that Christians believe that Mary and Jesus are two gods, in addition to your "Allah," who is a third god?



Actually, these are the questions that I have:

1. When Mohommed says the above, does he put these supposedly errant doctrines into the mouth of the Christians?

2. If he is doing that, do you think that he is expressing himself as a prophet of God, and therefore inerrantly/infallibly?

3. If Christians don't believe that (and didn't believe that at the time of Mohommed), and, therefore, Mohommed is putting doctrines into the mouths of the Christians which they didn't hold, wouldn't that prove that Mohommed was not God's prophet?

You have really shown yourself to be an idiot-there are no other words. Even on your previous thread which the title was "Diverse problems for Islam" at the top of my head. Here is why you have no sense;-

1. People viewing your posts here can simply read that you don't know much about Islam-which you agree to, so what position are you in to write a thread about Islam saying that we have problems???

Now in this thread, your asking what we believe on Christianity because you yourself say you don't know- you get the info in under 1 day and are already attacking Islam ^o)

2. On your previous thread, you talked of Plato, Aristotle who are not Prophets of God. You LIE about your own religion by making up stories ie that there will be no Garden of Paradise-where does that say in the bible?? Now here you are saying that your going to speak from a Christian perspective.

It has already made mention to you about Islam-so why are you saying that its only 1400 years old???? On your previous thread.

Did Prophet David peace be upon him create a different religion from Prophet Solomon peace be upon him?? No he did not.

Did Prophet Moses peace be upon him create a different religion from Prophet Noah peace be upon him? No he did not.

The message from God has always been the same to;-

-worship the one God,
-remember the Day of Judgement,
-accept the existance of Paradise and Hell

If people were doing well on the above, then God wouldn't need to send another Prophet, as they are there to help people heed and warn them-hence them being known as "warners".

Prophet Muhammad peace be upon him is the last Prophet chosen by God-the bible has nothing to suggest there will be another. The Christians and the Jews were not a good help, and thus God sent the Prophet Muhammad peace be upon him.

God gave the revelations to the Prophet, where he has given us accurate quotes on what will be even said on the Day of Judgement.

Your working on the premise that people did not say such a thing, there are plenty of Christians making up such a things, as in the past even taking Mary as a God, do not people even pray to her today.

Why are you asking us of not of three?-That clearly is reference to the trinity. Here your basically insulting our intelligence.

Your going around in circles and just claiming that we don't understand. And avoiding the valid points, which you have not answered;-

Do you not accept Prophet Jesus peace be upon him as your saviour? Yes/No
Do you not say that Prophet Jesus peace be upon him is going to judge everyone on the Day of Judgement? Yes/No.
Do you not say that Prophet Jesus peace be upon him is a "son" of God?? Yes/No
Do you not say that the son is the father, the father is the son etc? Yes/No?

Well the Muslims answer no we don't accept the above and never will.

[h-n]

Peace be with you sister h-n,



I think there are many misconceptions on both sides, and personally I can't tell you how many errors about Christianity are stated here by Muslims as the volume is so high. If you don't mind dear sister, you yourself proposed in another thread that Christians believe a father is his son. This of course is not true as the Father is distinct from the Son. So there are many misconceptions and we should encourage having an accurate understanding of eachother, as that will only further our dialogue with one another.

Pax et bonum

WE don't have any misconceptions we have heard about the trinity and even the above being asked by Traditio what we mean my one of three-your both frankly insulting people's intelligence.

[BlueOwl358]

Even a coin, if it has a soul, can either have 2 consciousnesses or one, it can either have two speeches that are different, and think different, or have one central hive mind. Either one soul, but the body is abnormal, or two souls with two faces stuck together, but the two cannot be taken as one persona, not anymore then siamese twins. Twins have different brains, thoughts, and souls, and cannot be referred to as one entity. So I fail to see how a coin can be one entity and two, for a being, or what you call a person is no different. There can be one individual or two or three of even a million but not all at the same time. One body can have one being in it, or two souls stuck in one body, but not be three persons, and be called one persona at the same time.

Either Jesus, the Ghost, and the Father can have different chains of thought, and be different, or have one chain of thought, and be one being, but they can't be three minds and the mind of God at the same time.

The Trinity is a belief found in Pagan Hinduism as much as Christianity. The Trimurti, the Ayyavazhi Trinity, and even the Trikaya in Mahayana Buddhism. Shiva, Brahma, and Vishnu, three different persons with different thoughts, all who have sprung from the ultimate truth of Brahman. Brahman is said to be infinite, with all knowledge in Hinduism and anyone who has attained perfection of mind is said to be part of Brahman. No different then Christianity.

Because of My affection for Thee I shall speak to Thee of that Supreme Brahman, Who is ever Existent, Intelligent, and Who is dearer to Me than life itself. O Maheshvari! the eternal, intelligent, infinite Brahman may be known in Its real Self or by Its external signs. That Which is changeless, existent only, and beyond both mind and speech, Which shines as the Truth amidst the illusion of the three worlds, is the Brahman according to Its real nature. That Brahman is known in samadhi-yoga by those who look upon all things alike, who are above all contraries, devoid of doubt, free of all illusion regarding body and soul. That same Brahman is known from His external signs, from Whom the whole universe has sprung, in Whom when so sprung It exists, and into Whom all things return. That which is known by intuition may also be perceived from these external signs. For those who would know Him through these external signs, for them sadhana is enjoined. Mahanirvana Tantra: Tantra of the Great Liberation, as translated by Arthur Avalon (1913)

Hey, the following quote can describe the Christian thought of God and Jesus more so then their own scriptures.

Brahman and Śakti are identical. If you accept the one, you must accept the other. It is like fire and its power to burn. If you see the fire, you must recognize its power to burn also. You cannot think of fire without its power to burn, nor can you think of the power to burn without fire. You cannot conceive of the sun's rays without the sun, nor can you conceive of the sun without its rays. You cannot think of the milk without the whiteness, and again, you cannot think of the whiteness without the milk. Thus one cannot think of Brahman without Śakti, or of Śakti without Brahman. One cannot think of the Absolute without the Relative, or of the Relative without the Absolute. Ramakrishna, in The Gospel of Sri Ramakrishna (1942), p. 134

See that, that is Hindu, and it describes Trinitarian Christianianity as much as it does Hinduism. Yet one is called Pagan and the other Monothiest. Ramakrishna and Paul would have been great buddies, I think. There, then the Trinity is not any more Monothiest then Hinduism.

If the Christian version of Jesus ever existed, he may as well come from India and came to Judea. You can see the influences.

Jesus answered: "Don't you know me, Philip, even after I have been among you such a long time? Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father. How can you say, 'Show us the Father'? (John 14:9)

... and the Buddha comforts him, "Enough, Vakkali. Why do you want to see this filthy body? Whoever sees the Dhamma sees me; whoever sees me sees the Dhamma." (Samyutta Nikaya (SN 22.87))

No wonder some people believe Jesus went to Kashmir.
2


2

[M.I.A.]

IMO, its very hard to accept discrepancies within the knowledge we have of our religions.

...they do exist though in both, its simply the passage of time and an inability to retain truth. Different rulers, divisions, sects and governments have seen to it.

Its something very hard to accept although it does not detract from eithers core beliefs or the nature of god.

I'm not saying we are the modern equivalent of sabiens but most would consider it an insult anyway.

[Traditio]

To the OP,

It has already been explained to you that the Qur'an is the Word of Allah, not the word of Prophet Muhammad (salla Allahu 3laihi wa salam). So your questions about his intentions do not make sense.

Fair point. If the Quran is what Muslims say that it is, then I suppose that it doesn't make sense to ask what Mohommed intended by x, y or z, since he basically just claimed to be acting as God's secretary. Right? Note that in Christianity, it makes perfect sense to ask "What did Moses intend" or "What did St. John mean?" But this doesn't apply to the Muslim understanding of the Quran. Fair enough.

Nonetheless, you can feel free to reword or rephrase my question in a way that does make sense. So, h-n was kind enough to post a number of verses from the Quran, and there were a couple about which I had questions. What do those verses mean? What did either Mohommed (if Muslims are not correct) or Allah (if the Muslims are correct) intend to convey? Are the passages saying that Christians believe those things? What does the "Do not say that there are 3" passage mean? What is the sense of the passage?

Secondly, many Christians even today direct acts of worship towards Mary the mother of Jesus. They pray to her with a prayer called the 'Hail Mary'. They light candles for her in the church and believe that she can help them and prevent harm from coming to them. I saw some Spanish Christians in a town I used to live in who made a statue of her and threw it into the sea in the belief that she would protect sailors from harm for the rest of that year. They also used to sell stickers for their cars that said 'I drive - she guides me'.

These kinds of belief and acts of worship constitute taking her as a god.[/QUOTE]

[Traditio]

My bad! I forgot to reply to the second half of your post, Tearose, thus my messed up post above, and I can't edit it. This part:

"Secondly, many Christians even today direct acts of worship towards Mary the mother of Jesus. They pray to her with a prayer called the 'Hail Mary'. They light candles for her in the church and believe that she can help them and prevent harm from coming to them. I saw some Spanish Christians in a town I used to live in who made a statue of her and threw it into the sea in the belief that she would protect sailors from harm for the rest of that year. They also used to sell stickers for their cars that said 'I drive - she guides me'.

These kinds of belief and acts of worship constitute taking her as a god.[/QUOTE]"

None of those practises constitutes worshipping her as a God. It's true that we venerate her as Mother of God, Queen of Heaven, Queen of Angels, Star of the Sea, Mother of Wisdom, Immaculate Conception, etc., and I'll even go so far as to say that it is impossible to be saved without her intercession, but we don't hold that she is God. She is a human being who has been given extraordinary priveledges by her Divine Son. Her glorious estate is a miracle of divine grace.

You can really see this in our practise of praying the Rosary (which consists primarily of Hail Maries), and in the Hail Mary prayer itself:

"Hail Mary, full of grace, the Lord is with thee. Blessed art thou among women, and blessed is the fruit of thy womb, Jesus. Holy Mary, Mother of God, pray for us sinners now and at the hour of our death. Amen."

Note that if you examine the prayer itself, we don't exalt her to the status of God. We praise her as blessed among women, as full of grace, as being particularly close to God, as Mother of God (she is the mother of Jesus, who both is true God and true man), etc. But we don't say that she is God.

Rather, being the Mother of God, through whom Christ came into the world, she is the mediatrix of all graces. All salvation, all blessings and all graces come through the Most Blessed Mother. My proof of this? Salvation, blessings and graces come from Christ alone, and Christ came into the world through Mary.

[Sojourn]

Peace be with you tearose,

Secondly, many Christians even today direct acts of worship towards Mary the mother of Jesus. They pray to her with a prayer called the 'Hail Mary'. They light candles for her in the church and believe that she can help them and prevent harm from coming to them. I saw some Spanish Christians in a town I used to live in who made a statue of her and threw it into the sea in the belief that she would protect sailors from harm for the rest of that year. They also used to sell stickers for their cars that said 'I drive - she guides me'.

These kinds of belief and acts of worship constitute taking her as a god.

Suggesting we believe Mary is god is a misconception as she is unequivocally a creature, and you will not find a Christian now or present claiming otherwise. Compared to God she is absolutely nothing, but compared to us she is like all the oceans of the earth amassed, and we nothing but beads of water, as she holds the highest station any human can hold in heaven and is a powerful intercessor. Now I know some folks have a problem with intercession but it is only possible with God, who first conveys to Mary or other Saints in heaven that we invoke their assistance, and then has to grant the request of the intercessor. The power is wholly in God's hands, and God is pleased by it! We don't see an animosity between God and His Saints as He himself honors them, and is pleased when we honor holy men and women who honored Him exceptionally. Furthermore it pleases God when we pray for another and appeal to each-other for assistance, and also shows a sign of humility. So this is one the issues that shows how different our worldviews really are.

And just as an aside, I recall how a Muslim friend once told me that the fine black linen with golden that adorns the Ka'ba is bad because it constitutes "worship." I remember feeling how odd of a statement that was since the Kaba by it's connection to Allah and Muhammad is a sacred object, and personally felt that from an Islamic perspective it's absolutely appropriate for humans' to respect and honor the sacred. I understand that even among Muslims this person's opinion would be seen as extreme.

Pax et bonum

[Sojourn]

Peace be with you h-n,

WE don't have any misconceptions we have heard about the trinity and even the above being asked by Traditio what we mean my one of three-your both frankly insulting people's intelligence.

It was not my intent to insult anyone, I'm simply acknowledge there are misconceptions on both sides. There are many intelligent Westerners who hold misconceptions of Islam but that doesn't make them less intelligent, it just means they are less informed. Likewise, I can't fault a Muslim for not knowing something about another religion, so intelligence really has no play here. You yourself accused us Christians of believing that the Father is the Son, and went on further to attack his belief. This "belief" however is not ours, it's your misconception of what we believe as we hold the Father to be distinct from the Son.

Pax

[Sojourn]

Peace be with you BlueOwl,

Even a coin, if it has a soul, can either have 2 consciousnesses or one, it can either have two speeches that are different, and think different, or have one central hive mind. Either one soul, but the body is abnormal, or two souls with two faces stuck together, but the two cannot be taken as one persona, not anymore then siamese twins. Twins have different brains, thoughts, and souls, and cannot be referred to as one entity. So I fail to see how a coin can be one entity and two, for a being, or what you call a person is no different. There can be one individual or two or three of even a million but not all at the same time. One body can have one being in it, or two souls stuck in one body, but not be three persons, and be called one persona at the same time.

I have to apologize because I never intended to use an example of a coin as an analogy for the Trinity. There is nothing in the world that exists as a Trinity and so every analogy will fall short. I mentioned the coin to emphasize that Christians are not dabbling in a numerical paradox here. No one has said that the number 1 equals the number 3, instead it has been affirmed that in one Divine being there are three Persons. When the numbers are qualified and the distinction between being (or nature/essence) and person are maintained, then questions like "how does 1 equal 3?" become misnomers.

Either Jesus, the Ghost, and the Father can have different chains of thought, and be different, or have one chain of thought, and be one being, but they can't be three minds and the mind of God at the same time.

It depends what you mean by "mind." The Persons of the Trinity possess the same Divine Intellect, Will, and Nature.

The Trinity is a belief found in Pagan Hinduism as much as Christianity. The Trimurti, the Ayyavazhi Trinity, and even the Trikaya in Mahayana Buddhism. Shiva, Brahma, and Vishnu, three different persons with different thoughts, all who have sprung from the ultimate truth of Brahman. Brahman is said to be infinite, with all knowledge in Hinduism and anyone who has attained perfection of mind is said to be part of Brahman. No different then Christianity.

Actually that is a very different concept. The Hindu Triad is of three deities associated with complementary roles (creation, destruction, and maintenance), they can only be said to be one in a pantheistic sense, since in Hindu philosophy everything, whether it be the gods, human beings, or animals, is ultimately a mirage that can be reduced to a supreme divine reality (brahma). There is nothing particular here since everything sprouts from brahma and is brahma.

With the Trinity as it has been revealed to us, the Members are Persons and not mere "manifestations" or "avatars" that can collapse into divinity. Furthermore we're not talking about "parts" here, as if the Divine being can be divided into three pieces like a pie, since each Person possesses the fullness of divinity.

Hey, the following quote can describe the Christian thought of God and Jesus more so then their own scriptures.

Brahman and Śakti are identical. If you accept the one, you must accept the other. It is like fire and its power to burn. If you see the fire, you must recognize its power to burn also. You cannot think of fire without its power to burn, nor can you think of the power to burn without fire. You cannot conceive of the sun's rays without the sun, nor can you conceive of the sun without its rays. You cannot think of the milk without the whiteness, and again, you cannot think of the whiteness without the milk. Thus one cannot think of Brahman without Śakti, or of Śakti without Brahman. One cannot think of the Absolute without the Relative, or of the Relative without the Absolute. Ramakrishna, in The Gospel of Sri Ramakrishna (1942), p. 134

The above here relates Brahman to Sakti as if the latter is an attribute of the other, but again the Persons of the Trinity are not "attributes", nor can the relationship between Father and Son be described as "Sun and it's rays," rather, Light from Light, true God from true God, unified in one divine being, would be accurate.

See that, that is Hindu, and it describes Trinitarian Christianianity as much as it does Hinduism. Yet one is called Pagan and the other Monothiest. Ramakrishna and Paul would have been great buddies, I think. There, then the Trinity is not any more Monothiest then Hinduism.

For the reasons mentioned above, they are not the same. The Hindu deities are separate divine beings manifesting from an ultimate supreme divine reality. The manifestations themselves are only illusory, as everything reduces to Brahma. This is very far from what Christians believe, despite there being an association between three complementary deities among many others.

If the Christian version of Jesus ever existed, he may as well come from India and came to Judea. You can see the influences.

Jesus answered: "Don't you know me, Philip, even after I have been among you such a long time? Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father. How can you say, 'Show us the Father'? (John 14:9)

... and the Buddha comforts him, "Enough, Vakkali. Why do you want to see this filthy body? Whoever sees the Dhamma sees me; whoever sees me sees the Dhamma." (Samyutta Nikaya (SN 22.87))

No wonder some people believe Jesus went to Kashmir.

There is no influence here as we're dealing with two different concepts.


Peace be with you

[tearose]

Note that if you examine the prayer itself, we don't exalt her to the status of God.

In the prayer, you call on her by asking her to pray for you now and in the future.

None of those practises constitutes worshipping her as a God.

Suggesting we believe Mary is god is a misconception as she is unequivocally a creature, and you will not find a Christian now or present claiming otherwise.

I was expecting this type of response as I have seen it many times from Christians. Even if you state that you do not believe Mary is a god, you have directed acts of worship towards her. By your actions you are taking her as a god, regardless of how you explain it afterwards.
Calling on the dead and believing they can grant our requests is totally forbidden and is in fact directing worship to other than Allah.

Claiming that these acts are mere honouring or respecting of Mary is not an excuse. As humans, we do not have the right to decide for ourselves what is an act of worship and what is not.
We have to follow what has been revealed to us only.
The Qur'an is unchanged and the Message which Allah (subhanahu wa taala) revealed to the Prophet Muhammad (salla Allahu 3laihi wa salam) abrogates the previous religions.
It is clear from the Qur'an and the Sunnah that invocations are an act of worship and that invoking other than Allah for help, believing that those called upon can hear and have the power to bring benefit or ward off harm, is clear polytheism.

[tearose]

The Prophet Muhammad (salla Allahu 3laihi wa salam) said ' Du'aa is worship'. Du'aa means invocation.

This is from a translation of the meaning of the Qur'an relating to this point:

“Such is Allaah, your Lord; His is the kingdom. And those, whom you invoke or call upon instead of Him, own not even a Qitmeer (the thin membrane over the date stone).If you invoke (or call upon) them, they hear not your call; and if (in case) they were to hear, they could not grant it (your request) to you. And on the Day of Resurrection, they will disown your worshipping them. And none can inform you (O Muhammad) like Him Who is the All-Knower (of everything)”
[Faatir 35:13-14 – interpretation of the meaning]

[Sojourn]

Peace be with you Tearose,

I was expecting this type of response as I have seen it many times from Christians. Even if you state that you do not believe Mary is a god, you have directed acts of worship towards her. By your actions you are taking her as a god, regardless of how you explain it afterwards.
Calling on the dead and believing they can grant our requests is totally forbidden and is in fact directing worship to other than Allah.

I think we have to define "worship" here since we only worship God. We do respect and honor the Saints in heaven, but we do so because of their exceptional faith and heroic virtue, and the great extent they are a reflection of some aspect of Jesus. Do you take this respect and honor given as "worshiping" them?

You say that calling on the dead is forbidden and reflects direct worship. First, the Saints in heaven are not "dead," they are alive, even more alive than you or me. Secondly, it's been explained that if they can hear our prayer it's because God reveals it to them, and not because they possess some attribute of omniscience. Likewise, if any prayer for their intercession is effective, it is because God has granted it, and not because the Saint possesses some extraordinary power similar to God's omnipotence. Whether it be Mary, who holds the highest station, or any other Saint in heaven, they are entirely dependent on God and are nothing without Him.

Now you can try to argue that God does not grant the Saints in heaven knowledge of our petition, or that He does not answer their requests of intercession, but I don't see how you can continue to say that we attribute divinity to an Saint in heaven after explaining their utter dependence on God in every aspect of our intercession.

Claiming that these acts are mere honouring or respecting of Mary is not an excuse. As humans, we do not have the right to decide for ourselves what is an act of worship and what is not.
We have to follow what has been revealed to us only.
The Qur'an is unchanged and the Message which Allah (subhanahu wa taala) revealed to the Prophet Muhammad (salla Allahu 3laihi wa salam) abrogates the previous religions.
It is clear from the Qur'an and the Sunnah that invocations are an act of worship and that invoking other than Allah for help, believing that those called upon can hear and have the power to bring benefit or ward off harm, is clear polytheism.

Yes, I agree we must go by what is revealed. What has been revealed to us is that the Saints can hear our prayers on earth and their intercession is efficacious. There are numerous miracles associated with Saints, and it's one of the ways we can recognize that a soul is actually with God in heaven.

Furthermore, that we are to honor and respect those that are close to God in heaven, whether they be Saints or Angels is also evident. Prior to the work of Jesus heaven was closed to all people, and yet when an Angel of God appeared to Joshua in the Old Testament, this is how the holy prophet responded:

"And he said, “No; but I am the commander of the army of the Lord. Now I have come.” And Joshua fell on his face to the earth and worshiped and said to him, “What does my lord say to his servant?” 15 And the commander of the Lord's army said to Joshua, “Take off your sandals from your feet, for the place where you are standing is holy.” And Joshua did so."
Joshua 5:14-15

Note that the Angel requested that Joshua take off his sandals as a sign of respect to the ground that is now sacred, just as God commanded Moses via the burning bush. The Angel was only worthy of veneration because of his nearness to God, such that the Divine holiness radiated from him. Since the work of Jesus heaven is opened, men once again enjoy heaven with God, and we give them the honor that is due to them as Saints of the Lord.

[Traditio]

Tearose: Lest it be forgotten in the following discourse, do you have any commentary on the passages that I asked about from the Quran, and what they mean (whether they be the words of Mohommed or your Allah)?

In the prayer, you call on her by asking her to pray for you now and in the future.

Exactly. Pray for us to whom? It is unfitting to ask God to pray. Prayer indicates dependence upon a higher reality and thus subordination and inferiority. It indicates that you don't immediately have the power to give what is being requested. I daresay that it would be downright blasphemous to ask or expect God to pray, at least, qua God.

It is true that it infallibly will happen that whatever the Most Blessed Mother asks for, that will be done. Yet, she will have asked for it from Her Divine Son. Note that when Christians address the Sacred Heart of Jesus, we do not say "pray for us," but "have mercy on us." When we address the Immaculate Heart of Mary, we do not say "have mercy on us," but "pray for us."

Note that this is where protestants also become confused. They accuse us Catholics of multiplying intercessors between God and man by saying that both Jesus and Mary intercede for us. What they don't understand is that they intercede for us in different ways. Jesus intercedes for us before the Father by offering up to the Father the infinite merits that He, the Son, won for us on the Cross, in order to repay the infinite debt of justice that we have merited for ourselves by sinning against Him. The Blessed Mother intercedes for us by praying to God for us and constantly reminding Him of the passion of Our Lord.

I was expecting this type of response as I have seen it many times from Christians. Even if you state that you do not believe Mary is a god, you have directed acts of worship towards her.

"Worship" in what sense? It is true that we revere the Blessed Mother. It is, in fact, true that we offer to the Blessed Mother a reverence and veneration which far exceeds that which we offer to all of the other angels and saints, and that we rely on her intercession more than that of any of the other saints or angels. But for all that, we don't worship her. If you doubt this, then seriously consider what "worship" means. For a moment, set aside the Quran, set aside the Bible, and use your reason. Let us reason together as rational men. What does "worship" mean? It means to adore as God. Properly speaking, worship entails actions whereby we recognize our utter, absolute, final, and unqualified dependence on the object of our worship. We do not do this in the case of the Blessed Mother: our dependence on the intercession of the Blessed Mother is qualified: we depend on our intercession only insofar as it is related to the God who can grant her what she asks from Him.

By your actions you are taking her as a god, regardless of how you explain it afterwards.
Calling on the dead and believing they can grant our requests is totally forbidden and is in fact directing worship to other than Allah.

Do you call on the living to pray for you? Of the living that you call upon to pray for you, do you prefer some more than others (namely, do you rely more on the prayers of pious and just people)? If it be granted that at least some of the faithful departed can hear our prayers and are exceptionally close and pleasing to God, why should it be unfitting to ask them to pray for us?

[Traditio]

In the previous post, I wrote the following:

"We do not do this in the case of the Blessed Mother: our dependence on the intercession of the Blessed Mother is qualified: we depend on our intercession only insofar as it is related to the God who can grant her what she asks from Him."

The bolded should instead be read as "her."

[Futuwwa]

The true nature of things is not affected by how we choose to define concepts. God is the arbiter of whether what Christians do to Mary constitutes idolatry. If God deems it idolatrous, it does not stop being so simply because someone invents a concept like "veneration" to describe it and defines it to not count as worship.

[Sojourn]

Peace be with you Futuwwa,

But do you believe that Allah has declared our actions as idolatrous? I take this to be more of Muslim private interpretation than anything else.

Pax

[greenhill]

What does the "Do not say that there are 3" passage mean? What is the sense of the passage?

Father, Son and the Holy Ghost?


:peace:

[greenhill]

But do you believe that Allah has declared our actions as idolatrous? I take this to be more of Muslim private interpretation than anything else.

If it has anything to do with the Trinity, it totally counters the that He Is One!, Neither begets nor begotten. . . . There is no way we can justify that He is a Single Being if He was three.

[YusufNoor]

I notice that Muslims seem to have a prejudice about what Christians believe about the Trinity and about Jesus. Note, I don't mean "prejudice" in any negative sense. I merely mean this in the sense that you seem already to have a judgment about our beliefs. Here is my question:

What does the Quran or the hadiths or whatever the relevent Islamic religious texts say about Christianity and their belief in the Trinity and in Jesus?

For example, in the Quran and in the hadiths, does Mohommed say "Christians believe in x, y and z"?

actually, it is a prejudice, in the negative sense. shirk, or the "associating of partners with Allah", is the 1 unforgivable sin (unless, of course, you repent). shirk could be called polytheism, or polytheistic behavior or beliefs.

Al Fatihah and Al Ikhlas have a few defining statements that further clarify, what is called, Tawhid, the Oneness of Allah. early Makkan surah's dealt with belief issues, so what the Qur'an says is the absolute in these matters.

#112 Al Ikhlas:

Say, "He is Allah , [who is] One,
Allah , the Eternal Refuge.
He neither begets nor is born,
Nor is there to Him any equivalent."

simply put, there is only One God. this is one of the first surahs that people learn. so every time a Muslim hears "trinity", it is something that they know is vile, untrue and a grave sin. hence, the anger and prejudice to the statement and/or idea, or any attempt at rationalizing it.

#1 Al Fatihah
In the name of Allah , the Entirely Merciful, the Especially Merciful.
[All] praise is [due] to Allah , Lord of the worlds -
The Entirely Merciful, the Especially Merciful,
Sovereign of the Day of Judgment,
It is You we worship and You we ask for help.
Guide us to the straight path -
The path of those upon whom You have bestowed favor, not of those who have evoked [Your] anger or of those who are astray.

Al Fatihah is the most important surah in the Qur'an. it is also referred to as the Mother of the Qur'an. that is not a thorough translation, but it serves as a starting point and is extremely relevant, when discussing with Catholics.

to keep it simple (not to mention that i haven't read the whole thread), we start with the verse: iyyaka na'budu wa iyyaka nesta'eem, meaning "in Allah, Alone we worship and in Allah, Alone we seek guidance". prayer is an act of worship. defining tawhid, and thus it's opposite shirk, explain this, but that can be another post. to keep it simple, we can only worship "Allah, Alone", and guidance must also come from "Allah, Alone".

in order to maintain the worship of "Allah Alone", every idea and act of worship must come straight from Allah. we are informed on how to this by " those upon whom You have bestowed favor", that is, the Prophets, pbut. thus, the Prophets are held in the highest of esteem. speaking lies about Jesus (Isa ibn Marriam, may Allah's peace and blessings be on the both of them). is very offensive to Muslims. it is shirk AND an insult to Jesus (Isa ibn Marriam, may Allah's peace and blessings be on the both of them).

in order for guidance to be from "Allah Alone", one must determine what is authentic guidance and what is not. hence, the study of authentic ahadeeth.

so, "what Muhhamad, pbuh, says (taught)" was Tawheed. all the answers lie there. that is what the discussion should be about and that falls into the category of "clarifications about Islam" and can be a justification for having this discussion, rather than a foray into comparative religion. this could help us keep the thread open as well.

let me know if you are interested in this discussion.

Sojourn: i owe you a PM. bear with me, i'm busy and ill, but i'll stop by when i can.

ma salama

[Scimitar]

Fair point. If the Quran is what Muslims say that it is, then I suppose that it doesn't make sense to ask what Mohommed intended by x, y or z, since he basically just claimed to be acting as God's secretary. Right? Note that in Christianity, it makes perfect sense to ask "What did Moses intend" or "What did St. John mean?" But this doesn't apply to the Muslim understanding of the Quran. Fair enough.

It applies to the Muslim understanding of ahadeeth, not the Quran.

See, as a Christian, it's natural for you to assume that Muhammad pbuh was referring to this that and the other in the Quran because you holy book, the NT is a book of second hand information written by anon authors who the church cannot identify with certainty, so naturally whenever Jesus pbuh is mentioned within your text, your natural response will be "what did Jesus (pbuh) mean when he said this, or that"...

...the difference is, your New Testament is a book of narrations that are attributed to Jesus pbuh "according to" 4 authors whose backgrounds could not be verified - thus, as a book of Christian ahadeeth, the New Testament is largely a book classified by Muslims as a boook of weak, fabricated and intrerpolated ahadeeth - and to us, that just spells trouble because when it comes to hadeeth classifications, we've trumped the Christians holy book with our ahadeeth science alone... the Quran is not even comparable to your New Testament in that sense because it is "divine speech", whereas the ahadeeth from your holy book and the ahadeeth from our prophet pbuh are simply the words of men.

The difference between the ahadeeth of the Muslims and the NT is that the ahadeeth are more reliable because we know the full chains of narrations, the personalities behind them, their truthfulness and integrity and a whole host of other things... whereas matthew, Mark, Luke and John remain mysteries to not just us Muslims, but to you Christians also.

A simple acid test, I wouldn't trust any book written by an anonymous author, who I knew nothing about - would you? Ah but wait, before you answer, don't you refer to your NT because you trust it?

Scimi

[Sojourn]

Peace be with you Yusuf,

actually, it is a prejudice, in the negative sense. shirk, or the "associating of partners with Allah", is the 1 unforgivable sin (unless, of course, you repent). shirk could be called polytheism, or polytheistic behavior or beliefs.

Al Fatihah and Al Ikhlas have a few defining statements that further clarify, what is called, Tawhid, the Oneness of Allah. early Makkan surah's dealt with belief issues, so what the Qur'an says is the absolute in these matters.

simply put, there is only One God. this is one of the first surahs that people learn. so every time a Muslim hears "trinity", it is something that they know is vile, untrue and a grave sin. hence, the anger and prejudice to the statement and/or idea, or any attempt at rationalizing it.

And yet Muslims have no problem with saying the Quran is uncreated and eternal, two characteristics that properly speaking can only be attributed to God. Explain to me why it's not shirk to attribute Divine qualities to a book and I'll give you the same reasons why it's not shirk to attribute them to a man. For in the end we're not that different, you believe the Speech of Allah was made kitab and we believe the Word of God was made flesh. In neither case is the oneness of God somehow altered since the Speech of Allah is of Allah and the Word of God is of God.

Al Fatihah is the most important surah in the Qur'an. it is also referred to as the Mother of the Qur'an. that is not a thorough translation, but it serves as a starting point and is extremely relevant, when discussing with Catholics.

to keep it simple (not to mention that i haven't read the whole thread), we start with the verse: iyyaka na'budu wa iyyaka nesta'eem, meaning "in Allah, Alone we worship and in Allah, Alone we seek guidance". prayer is an act of worship. defining tawhid, and thus it's opposite shirk, explain this, but that can be another post. to keep it simple, we can only worship "Allah, Alone", and guidance must also come from "Allah, Alone".

in order to maintain the worship of "Allah Alone", every idea and act of worship must come straight from Allah. we are informed on how to this by " those upon whom You have bestowed favor", that is, the Prophets, pbut. thus, the Prophets are held in the highest of esteem. speaking lies about Jesus (Isa ibn Marriam, may Allah's peace and blessings be on the both of them). is very offensive to Muslims. it is shirk AND an insult to Jesus (Isa ibn Marriam, may Allah's peace and blessings be on the both of them).

Is it wrong for a Muslim to ask an older devout man or woman for example, to make du'a and pray for them? Do you believe Allah would prefer you pray to him directly instead? Why or why not?

We of course have no issues with such practices on earth, and neither do we have issue seeking assistance from brothers and sisters in Heaven.

Whether on earth or in heaven, seeking intercession is permissible. Problems arise if one believes in a "soul sleep" or starts asking how it is that the "dead" can hear. The answer of course is that the Saints are not dead, they are alive with God in heaven, and they can "hear" because God reveals our petitions to them.

Sojourn: i owe you a PM. bear with me, i'm busy and ill, but i'll stop by when i can.

ma salama

Take your time my friend, and peace be with you as well

[Sojourn]

Peace Scimi,

It applies to the Muslim understanding of ahadeeth, not the Quran.

See, as a Christian, it's natural for you to assume that Muhammad pbuh was referring to this that and the other in the Quran because you holy book, the NT is a book of second hand information written by anon authors who the church cannot identify with certainty, so naturally whenever Jesus pbuh is mentioned within your text, your natural response will be "what did Jesus (pbuh) mean when he said this, or that"...

Our understanding of revelation is very different. Muslims take it to mean that God dictated passages verbatim to a prophet through an Angel. This is a very unique understanding of the process, and I wonder if Muslims also believe the Tawrah, Psalms, and Injeel was also revealed the same way, perhaps a knowledgeable Muslim could clarify?

As for the Gospels they were written by two apostles and two disciples of Apostles. St Matthew was an apostle who first wrote the oracles of Jesus in Hebrew and then translated them into Greek. St Mark was a disciple and interpreted of St Peter the Apostle, who in Rome composed a gospel according to what St Peter taught him although not everything he wrote is in chronological order. St Luke was a disciple of St Paul, he was the most educated of the evangelists, himself being a physician who lived a celibate and holy life. Lastly St John composed a gospel late in life after long prayer and the confirmation by St Andrew the Apostle. The same gospels have the same names attached to them, and the witness of the early Church is unanimous in this matter.

The difference in our understanding in the nature of revelation is that we believe the evangelists were inspired. Rather than God dictating to them, which would render them completely passive, the Holy Spirit inspired them to write according to their particular style, so in this sense God and man work together in a sense, with nothing being added or subtracted that God did not will.

Quite different indeed!


Pax et bonum

[Zafran]

Peace Scimi,



Our understanding of revelation is very different. Muslims take it to mean that God dictated passages verbatim to a prophet through an Angel. This is a very unique understanding of the process, and I wonder if Muslims also believe the Tawrah, Psalms, and Injeel was also revealed the same way, perhaps a knowledgeable Muslim could clarify?

As for the Gospels they were written by two apostles and two disciples of Apostles. St Matthew was an apostle who first wrote the oracles of Jesus in Hebrew and then translated them into Greek. St Mark was a disciple and interpreted of St Peter the Apostle, who in Rome composed a gospel according to what St Peter taught him although not everything he wrote is in chronological order. St Luke was a disciple of St Paul, he was the most educated of the evangelists, himself being a physician who lived a celibate and holy life. Lastly St John composed a gospel late in life after long prayer and the confirmation by St Andrew the Apostle. The same gospels have the same names attached to them, and the witness of the early Church is unanimous in this matter.

The difference in our understanding in the nature of revelation is that we believe the evangelists were inspired. Rather than God dictating to them, which would render them completely passive, the Holy Spirit inspired them to write according to their particular style, so in this sense God and man work together in a sense, with nothing being added or subtracted that God did not will.

Quite different indeed!


Pax et bonum

Salaam

I believe that the the great Books (injeel torah etc) were indeed revelation given to prophets.

Yes the NT is like a very weak hadith of Jesus pbuh but not really the revelation he bought with him.

Only prophets receive revelations like Moses , Abraham, Jesus pbuta. Normal humans like Paul, John or companions of prophets do not.

Just to add there are 2 types of prophets

Rasul - the ones that bring revelation or new laws eg Moses, Jesus, Muhammad etc etc pbuta
Nabi - Prophets that come with no new law but are there to guide the people with the revelation already sent by God eg Zachariah, John the baptist pbuta etc etc.

Hope that helps.

[Sojourn]

Salaam

And peace be with you, Zafran

I believe that the the great Books (injeel torah etc) were indeed revelation given to prophets.

In your view were these books revealed the same way the Quran was revealed?

Yes the NT is like a very weak hadith of Jesus pbuh but not really the revelation he bought with him.

If the NT is taken as hadith and the evangelists were either apostles or disciples of apostles, that would be a very strong chain of narration, would it not?

Pax et bonum

[Zafran]

And peace be with you, Zafran



In your view were these books revealed the same way the Quran was revealed?



If the NT is taken as hadith and the evangelists were either apostles or disciples of apostles, that would be a very strong chain of narration, would it not?

Pax et bonum

Salaam

Yes if you mean by direct revelation from God.

About the NT no not exactly because most of these guys never met Jesus pbuh. If they had a chain going back to Christ directly then yes but they don't or do they? Instead they were inspired rather then transmitting what Christ said like student to teacher they instead write about what they think happened or what they have been "inspired" by.

[Sojourn]

Peace be with you Zafran,

Salaam

Yes if you mean by direct revelation from God.

Do you believe that Allah spoke the Injeel and that it was then dictated to Isa via an angel, who then dictated it to his disciples verbatim?

About the NT no not exactly because most of these guys never met Jesus pbuh. If they had a chain going back to Christ directly then yes but they don't or do they? Instead they were inspired rather then transmitting what Christ said like student to teacher they instead write about what they think happened or what they have been "inspired" by.

Sts Matthew and John were both Apostles, so they knew Jesus directly. Sts Mark and Luke were disciples of apostles, so between them and Jesus was one person.

Inspiration doesn't negate historical experience in anyway, it's simply how we believe God produced the NT, as opposed to Him dictating what to write the evangelists the way the Quran was said to have been dictated to Muhammad.


Pax

[Scimitar]

Uh no... you're trying to say that matthew and john who were alive at the time of jesus pbuh were 2 of the authors of the bible, but this is contested amongst scholarly circles AND you know this, so please, don't try to spread a little "white lie" here, thank you.

Scimi

[Sojourn]

Peace be with you Scimi,

Uh no... you're trying to say that matthew and john who were alive at the time of jesus pbuh were 2 of the authors of the bible, but this is contested amongst scholarly circles AND you know this, so please, don't try to spread a little "white lie" here, thank you.

There is a consensus of scholars in Iran that Ali was the first rightfully guided Khalif, but what value does this consensus have? If atheist and agnostic Biblical scholars are skeptical of the Bible it's because a priori they reject the miraculous. It's simply impossible that Jesus could have been of a Virgin Birth, as it is impossible that he miraculously cured the sick. Therefore these can't be eye-witness accounts and must be a later invention. This is the thought process of secular scholars, and I don't share their materialist worldview, nor do I discount the data of the early Church identifying four gospels and their authors. The earliest extant witness is that of Sts Papias and Polycarp, both of whom personally knew St John the Apostle and both affirmed that he wrote the fourth gospel. This was affirmed again by their disciple St Irenaeus, who although did not know the Apostles personally could vividly recall St Polycarp teachings of the Apostles. The witness of these early Bishops is first century evidence, it's unanimous, there has never been any doubt or disagreement about it until atheists started probing the Gospels. I will side with the holy men that knew the Apostles and their successors, the Salaf of the Christian faith, who had access to data and information that the modern scholars don't even have a single percentage of.

Pax et bonum

[M.I.A.]

So given your view of modern historians, what will Christianity be like in 100 years.. Know of any churches in your area that have stood for the last hundred?

To be fair the Quranic viewpoint and I'm probably liberally paraphrasing here.. Is that the teachings of Jesus pbuh were a warning rather than a way of life.

I may be wrong but would have to read a lot just to find my mistake.

I guess that is the difference here, the Quran is preserved in its entirety. Although 1400 years have lead to many interpretations on it STILL!

Its the nature of man really.

You write about inspiration and its been mentioned a lot, reminds me of Moses pbuh.

It still drives every one of us to our own ends.

I mean the Quran often says not to talk on religion when not certain or to speculate on matters we are not privvy too..

And yet its the nature of man.

The nature of god is very hard to explain without condemning yourself apparently.

And what do we know except by what inspires us? It is the difference really.

Miracle workers are a rare thing.


To be fair I have already said that Islam faces the same problems as Christianity has done in general.. Its a shame you still argue on the differences.


The nature of god does not change really.. But now we are islamically servants.

Often preaching and working are very different

[Sojourn]

Peace be with you M.I.A.,

So given your view of modern historians, what will Christianity be like in 100 years.. Know of any churches in your area that have stood for the last hundred?

You'll have to forgive me as I don't quite understand your question. Many Churches in my area have stood for a hundred or more years. And regarding modern historians, not all approach the Gospels with extreme skepticism, naturally though, those with an atheistic background will find it hard to swallow it's presentation as eye witness testimony for supernatural events.

To be fair the Quranic viewpoint and I'm probably liberally paraphrasing here.. Is that the teachings of Jesus pbuh were a warning rather than a way of life.

I may be wrong but would have to read a lot just to find my mistake.

If I'm not mistaken Jesus is regarded as a high prophet in the Islam rather than a minor one. You're probably aware to some degree what we hold his mission to have been, but what do you believe his mission was?

I guess that is the difference here, the Quran is preserved in its entirety. Although 1400 years have lead to many interpretations on it STILL!

How do you know it's preserved in it's entirety? There are Western scholars that could challenge that.

To be fair I have already said that Islam faces the same problems as Christianity has done in general.. Its a shame you still argue on the differences.

The nature of god does not change really.. But now we are islamically servants.

Often preaching and working are very different

Many of the problems we face are the same, and there is much similarity between us. We ought to treat each other as friends rather than opponents.

Peace be with you

Sojourn

[M.I.A.]

OK let's rephrase my question, how the pope doing? His views may still represent that of the masses but they probably vary a little from before. Simply because of the questions that are asked.

I guess that's what I was getting at about the churches. Anyway, not to cast doubt but to give a little of my perspective of why things are not always as simple as text on a page.

To be fair I don't know how accurately the Quran is preserved, it is beyond reproach and questioning for most people.

The question still stands though, even if the words are the same for 1400 years, division has still appeared.

I can't even speculate what the mission was. Its not like its written in stone or something.

I would guess it was to bring the true form of monotheism back to the people or at least in part.

But each of the prophets pbut probably had a specific job to do.. And were built accordingly.

Truth is that opponents are not a bad thing, transgression is a bad thing.

Its like a knight and a dragon, shows over if the dragons dead.

You talk about the supernatural, wrestling with angels but all there is..is a world of death.

[Insaanah]

Holy Mary, Mother of God, pray for us sinners now and at the hour of our death. Amen."

Rather, being the Mother of God, through whom Christ came into the world

In Islam, God has no mother. Any "God" that has a mother, is not God. God is far exalted above having a mother, father, or begetting a son, or a daughter, or having siblings, cousins, grandparents, nephews, nieces, uncles, aunts or relatives of any sort.

There is only One God. He alone should be worshipped. He is our Creator, Sustainer, and Lord.

He does not beget, nor is He begotten. He has no mothers, fathers, sons, daughters, spouses, siblings, parents, cousins, or relatives of any sort.

He is eternal and does not die. He does not depend on anyone/anything yet we all depend on Him. He is free of all want and need.

There is nothing like Him. He is all Hearing, all Seeing, all Knowing, all Powerful, Incomparable, the Creator of the Universe.

He did not/does not, become flesh, dwell in human or animal bodies, nor are there any incarnations of Him. He is not mixed up in His creation in any way.

He is not composed of persons, nor a trinity. There are no secondary, lesser, greater, equal, or multiple gods, nor any intermediaries. And no denying of God's existence either.

There are no sharers, associates, persons or parts whatsoever in His exclusive Divinity. Simply, He is One, in every sense.

And we invite you, to come to that belief in the oneness of God. No sons, no 3-in-1s, no mothers, no persons, no trinities, just unadulterated belief in, and worship of, the One True God. While loving and honouring both Jesus and Mary (peace be on them both) as the noblest and purest of human beings that they were, but not ascribing any type of divinity to them, nor did they claim it, a right which belongs to God alone. Indeed, the Qur'an goes so far as to have an entire chapter called Mary, and she is honoured in the Qur'an and there are hadeeth of the Prophet Muhammad (may the peace, blessings, grace, mercy and salutations of Allah be upon him) honouring the noble virgin Mary (peace be on her).

"And [mention] when the angels said, "O Mary, indeed Allah has chosen you and purified you and chosen you above the women of the worlds." (Qur'an 3:42)

However, worshipping, or praying to or through someone, be that anyone, is not a way of honouring, but of the gravest sin of all, associating others in God's exclusive divinity. Indeed, that is how polytheism and idolatry started, by good intentions to honour righteous people. Intentions, which were against God's law that prayer and worship be directed directly to Him, not through anyone, and not to anyone else.

This is why Allah said:

And We certainly sent Noah to his people, and he said, "O my people, worship Allah; you have no deity other than Him; then will you not fear Him?" (23:23)
We certainly sent Noah to his people, and he said, "O my people, worship Allah; you have no deity other than Him. Indeed, I fear for you the punishment of a tremendous Day. (7:59)

Also note well the following verse translations. It is your God, your Creator, speaking directly and personally, to you, a message you cannot say you didn't receive:

The revelation of the Qur'an is from Allah, the Exalted in Might, the Wise.
Indeed, We have sent down to you the Book, [O Muhammad], in truth. So worship Allah, [being] sincere to Him in religion.
Unquestionably, for Allah is the pure religion. And those who take protectors besides Him [say], "We only worship them that they may bring us nearer to Allah. Indeed, Allah will judge between them concerning that over which they differ. Indeed, Allah does not guide he who is a liar and [confirmed] disbeliever. (39:1-3)

And if you asked them, "Who created the heavens and the earth?" they would surely say, "Allah." Say, "Then have you considered what you invoke besides Allah? If Allah intended me harm, are they removers of His harm; or if He intended me mercy, are they withholders of His mercy?" Say, "Sufficient for me is Allah ; upon Him [alone] rely the [wise] reliers." (39:38)

And those you call upon besides Him are unable to help you, nor can they help themselves." (7:197)

Say: "Call on those - besides Him - whom ye assume (to be gods) beside Him: they have neither the power to remove your troubles from you nor to change them." (17:56)

And they worship other than Allah that which neither harms them nor benefits them, and they say, "These are our intercessors with Allah " Say, "Do you inform Allah of something He does not know in the heavens or on the earth?" Exalted is He and high above what they associate with Him (10:18)

Say, "Who is Lord of the heavens and earth?" Say, "Allah." Say, "Have you then taken besides Him protectors not possessing [even] for themselves any benefit or any harm?" Say, "Is the blind equivalent to the seeing? Or is darkness equivalent to light? Or have they attributed to Allah partners who created like His creation so that the creation [of each] seemed similar to them?" Say, "Allah is the Creator of all things, and He is the One, the Prevailing." (13:16)

Blessed is He who sent down the Criterion upon His Servant that he may be to the worlds a warner -
He to whom belongs the dominion of the heavens and the earth and who has not taken a son and does not have a partner in dominion and has created each thing and determined it with [precise] determination.
But they have taken besides Him gods which create nothing, while they are created, and possess not for themselves any harm or benefit and possess not [power to cause] death or life or resurrection. (25:1-3)

He causes the night to enter the day, and He causes the day to enter the night and has subjected the sun and the moon - each running [its course] for a specified term. That is Allah , your Lord; to Him belongs sovereignty. And those whom you invoke other than Him do not possess [as much as] the membrane of a date seed.
If you invoke them, they do not hear your supplication; and if they heard, they could not respond to you. And on the Day of Resurrection they will deny your association. And none can inform you like [one] Acquainted [with all matters]. (35:13-14)

“And who is more astray than one who calls on (invokes) besides Allah, such as will not answer him till the Day of Resurrection, and who are (even) unaware of their calls (invocations) to them?
And when mankind are gathered (on the Day of Resurrection), they (false deities) will become their enemies and will deny their worshipping”[al-Ahqaaf 46:5-6]

And [mention] the Day He will gather them and that which they worship besides Allah and will say, "Did you mislead these, My servants, or did they [themselves] stray from the way?" (25:17)

They will say while they dispute therein,
"By Allah , we were indeed in manifest error,
When We held you (false gods) as equals (in worship) with the Lord of the worlds.
It was but the guilty who misled us.
So now we have no intercessors
Nor a close friend (to help us).
(Alas!) If we only had a chance to return (to the world), we would truly be of the believers!" (26:96-102)

Set not up with Allah any other god (O man) lest you sit down reproved, forsaken. (17:22)

That is from what your Lord has revealed to you, [O Muhammad], of wisdom. And, [O mankind], set not up with Allah any other god, lest you be cast into hell, reproved, abandoned. (17:39)

Say, [O Muhammad], "I only invoke my Lord and do not associate with Him anyone." (72:20)

Say, " Allah [alone] do I worship, sincere to Him in my religion, (39:14)

The Messiah, son of Mary, was not but a messenger; [other] messengers have passed on before him. And his mother was a supporter of truth. They both used to eat food. Look how We make clear to them the signs; then look how they are deluded away from the truth.
Say, "Do you worship besides Allah that which holds for you no [power of] harm or benefit while it is Allah who is the Hearing, the Knowing?" (5:75-76)

And Allah judges with truth, while those they invoke besides Him judge not with anything. Indeed, Allah - He is the Hearing, the Seeing. (40:20)

That is because Allah, He is the True, and that whereon they call instead of Him, it is the false, and because Allah, He is the High, the Great. (22:62)

Say: O People of the Scripture! Come to an agreement between us and you: that we shall worship none but Allah, and that we shall ascribe no partner unto Him, and that none of us shall take others for lords beside Allah. And if they turn away, then say: Bear witness that we are they who have surrendered (unto Him). (3:64)

Asking the living to pray for you is not like asking the dead. If I was to ask a person near me, to pass me a glass of water, that is perfectly acceptable and normal. If I was to ask a dead person in their grave to pass me a glass of water, that is not normal and would be viewed as losing the plot, which it is. Same goes for making any request of a dead person.

You can ask a living person, to pray for you, because it is something they can do. A dead person cannot. In Islam, we believe that martyrs are alive in their graves, in a manner God chooses. But we are still not allowed to ask from or through people who have passed on, whatever the situation in their graves. That is the root of diverting worship away from God, a right which belongs exclusively to Him.

All the messengers of God came to warn against this.

[Sojourn]

Peace be with you Insaanah,

In Islam, God has no mother. Any "God" that has a mother, is not God. God is far exalted above having a mother, father, or begetting a son, or a daughter, or having siblings, cousins, grandparents, nephews, nieces, uncles, aunts or relatives of any sort.

This is where we Christians can do a better job informing our Muslim friends exactly what it is we believe. The Son is eternally "begotten" of the Father the same way Allah's Speech is eternally generated from Allah. Because the Son took on human flesh and was born of a woman, he has a mother, her name is Mary. Obviously only the Son's assumed human nature is from Mary, and not his divine nature.

And we invite you, to come to that belief in the oneness of God. No sons, no 3-in-1s, no mothers, no persons, no trinities, just unadulterated belief in, and worship of, the One True God. While loving and honouring both Jesus and Mary (peace be on them both) as the noblest and purest of human beings that they were, but not ascribing any type of divinity to them, nor did they claim it, a right which belongs to God alone. Indeed, the Qur'an goes so far as to have an entire chapter called Mary, and she is honoured in the Qur'an and there are hadeeth of the Prophet Muhammad (may the peace, blessings, grace, mercy and salutations of Allah be upon him) honouring the noble virgin Mary (peace be on her).

We thank you for the invitation, and we know you ask us to do only that which you sincerely believe is good for us. But we would be dishonoring Jesus if we sough to alter what he revealed to us. It is He who revealed himself to be the eternal and uncreated Word of God that assumed flesh. He likewise taught us that He will be the judge at the end of the world.

"For as the Father raises the dead and gives them life, so also the Son gives life to whom he will. The Father judges no one, but has given all judgment to the Son, that all may honor the Son, just as they honor the Father. Whoever does not honor the Son does not honor the Father who sent him." John 5:21-23

However, worshipping, or praying to or through someone, be that anyone, is not a way of honouring, but of the gravest sin of all, associating others in God's exclusive divinity. Indeed, that is how polytheism and idolatry started, by good intentions to honour righteous people. Intentions, which were against God's law that prayer and worship be directed directly to Him, not through anyone, and not to anyone else.

God honors his Saints in heaven, and we honor them on earth because they reflect an aspect of Jesus in one way or another. We ask our heavenly brothers and sisters reigning with God and the angels to pray for us, just as we ask devout souls on earth to intercede for us. God is pleased by our humility and fraternal love, and this is proven by the fact that millions of miracles have been granted by God through the intercession of a saint.

If you invoke them, they do not hear your supplication; and if they heard, they could not respond to you. And on the Day of Resurrection they will deny your association. And none can inform you like [one] Acquainted [with all matters]. (35:13-14)

Clearly God makes his saints aware of our petitions and their prayers on our behalf are answered because they work. Other than lives of heroic virtue and faithfulness to God, the Church recognizes a soul is in heaven when at least three miracles are attest to their intercession.

Asking the living to pray for you is not like asking the dead. If I was to ask a person near me, to pass me a glass of water, that is perfectly acceptable and normal. If I was to ask a dead person in their grave to pass me a glass of water, that is not normal and would be viewed as losing the plot, which it is. Same goes for making any request of a dead person.

The Saints are not dead, they are alive with God.

You can ask a living person, to pray for you, because it is something they can do. A dead person cannot. In Islam, we believe that martyrs are alive in their graves, in a manner God chooses. But we are still not allowed to ask from or through people who have passed on, whatever the situation in their graves. That is the root of diverting worship away from God, a right which belongs exclusively to Him.

We have millions upon millions of cases proving that intercession is something Saints in heaven can do for us.

All the Prophets of God came to warn against such behaviour.

I understand this is believed from an Islamic point of view, but the inspired books of prophets don't support this.


Peace and blessings

[Muhammad]

Greetings Sojourn,

The Son is eternally "begotten" of the Father the same way Allah's Speech is eternally generated from Allah. Because the Son took on human flesh and was born of a woman, he has a mother, her name is Mary. Obviously only the Son's assumed human nature is from Mary, and not his divine nature.

There is no need to clutch at straws by distorting the teachings of other religions to justify your own deviation. Where do you find Muslims claiming that God came to earth in any form to redeem our sins, or making statues in our places of worship, or deifying the creation of God or believing in a trinity? The Qur'an is regarded as the Speech of Allaah :swt:, sent down as a mercy and guidance for those who believe. Prophet Isa :as: was one of His noblest Messengers and servants. There can be no similarity between this pure belief and the false ascriptions to Allaah :swt: having a 'son' and claims He was humiliated amongst His own creation. Christians like to create confusion by playing on the statement that Jesus is 'God's Word'. In reality, they are themselves confused as regards the truth:

In the Qur'an Jesus is called "Kalimatullah," a word FROM God. The Qur'an is called "Kallamullah," the Word OF God. (Ali Ataie, Voice for Islam)

As for "RuhAllah" the Qur'an actually says that Jesus is a ruhun minhu a soul from God. Before you jump to conclusions, read verse 38:72 where the same phrase is used for Prophet Adam and verse 32:9 where it is used for every human being! Now read verse 66:12 and you will see that it is used the same way for Prophet Jesus pbuh.

As for your flawed conclusion (or technically the source from which you plagiarised), then both Jesus pbuh and Muhammad pbuh had the same message: Worship one God (Matthew 22:37, Qur'an 112:1) and do righteous deeds (Matthew 19:17, Qur'an 2:277). Divinity and atonement were never the teachings of Christ, nor any of the other Prophets.

1. With regard to the misinterpretation of the genitive (or possessive) construction [idaafah] in the aayah (interpretation of the meaning):
   
   
   

“So when I have fashioned him and breathed into him (his) soul created by Me [min roohi, lit. ‘of My spirit’]” [Saad 38:72] – it should be known that when this construction appears in conjunction with the name of Allaah, may He be glorified, it may be one of two types:

(The first) is qualities that cannot stand alone, such as knowledge, power, words, hearing, sight. Here the attribute is attached in a genitive construction (idaafah) to the One Who is described in this manner. So His knowledge, His words, His will, His power, His life are all attributes or qualities which are not created (because this refers to His Essence); the same applies to His Face and His Hand, may He be glorified.

The second kind are things which exist separately and are mentioned in idaafah (genitive construction), such as (His) house, (His) she-camel, (His) slave, (His) Messenger, (His) spirit. Here the created thing is connected by the genitive construction to its Creator, but in this case the idaafah implies that the thing mentioned is special and is honoured, and is thus distinguished from other things. For example, the House of Allaah [meaning the Ka’bah] – although all houses belong to Allaah – and the she-camel of Allaah – although all camels belong to Allaah and are created by Him. This idaafah is connected to the idea of His Divinity (uloohiyah), which implies that he loves and honours the thing so described. In contrast, idaafah in the general sense has to do with His Lordship (ruboobiyyah), which implies that He created and formed it. So the general kind of idaafah implies that He is the Creator of that thing, whilst the specific kind of idaafah implies that Allaah has chosen that thing. Allaah creates what He wills and chooses some of His creation, as He says (interpretation of the meaning):

“And your Lord creates whatsoever He wills and chooses” [al-Qasas 28:68]

So in this case – the phrase min roohi (lit. ‘of My spirit’), the idaafah (genitive construction) is of the specific type, not the general type, and it does not refer to the attributes of Allaah. Think about this matter, for it will save you from the many errors into which people have fallen by the will of Allaah.
(al-Rooh, p. 154, 155)

In conclusion, the description of ‘Eesaa (peace be upon him) as the spirit (rooh) of Allaah is by way of honouring him. This idaafah (whereby the word rooh (spirit) is connected in a genitive construction to the Name of Allaah) does not serve to ascribe an attribute to the One Who is so described, as is the case in the phrases “the hand of Allaah”, “the Face of Allaah.” On the contrary, it connects the created being in a genitive construction to the Creator, as the Ka’bah is described as the House of Allaah, and the she-camel – which was the miracle that Allaah gave to His Prophet Saalih (peace be upon him) – was described as the she-camel of Allaah.

And Allaah knows best.

You also said earlier:

There is a consensus of scholars in Iran that Ali was the first rightfully guided Khalif, but what value does this consensus have? If atheist and agnostic Biblical scholars are skeptical of the Bible it's because a priori they reject the miraculous.

We are not talking about heretical groups or non-Christians here. We are talking about Bible scholars themselves of the highest eminence, backed by numerous cooperating denominations, who cannot agree with regards to the contents of the Bible and admit the Bible has 'grave defects'. You have different versions of the Bible, and you also have verses being thrown out and then re-inserted to suit the needs of the people, done by Christian scholars themselves:

[Futuwwa]

Peace be with you Futuwwa,

But do you believe that Allah has declared our actions as idolatrous? I take this to be more of Muslim private interpretation than anything else.

Pax

Well, in the Quran, God accuses you of having raised Jesus and Mary to be worshiped alongside God. It should be said though that Islamic standards for what constitutes idolatry are far stricter than Christian standards. The proper Islamic word for it is shirq, and it covers anything that compromises absolute monotheism, or gives any other entity that which is due to God alone.

[Sojourn]

Peace be with you Muhammad,

Greetings Sojourn,

There is no need to clutch at straws by distorting the teachings of other religions to justify your own deviation. Where do you find Muslims claiming that God came to earth in any form to redeem our sins, or making statues in our places of worship, or deifying the creation of God or believing in a trinity? The Qur'an is regarded as the Speech of Allaah :swt:, sent down as a mercy and guidance for those who believe. Prophet Isa :as: was one of His noblest Messengers and servants. There can be no similarity between this pure belief and the false ascriptions to Allaah :swt: having a 'son' and claims He was humiliated amongst His own creation. Christians like to create confusion by playing on the statement that Jesus is 'God's Word'. In reality, they are themselves confused as regards the truth:

I see a great deal of similarity in you believing that a book is uncreated and eternal, these are qualities that can only be applied to God. The only difference is that we believe the Word became flesh whereas you believe it became kitab.

You also said earlier:

We are not talking about heretical groups or non-Christians here. We are talking about Bible scholars themselves of the highest eminence, backed by numerous cooperating denominations, who cannot agree with regards to the contents of the Bible and admit the Bible has 'grave defects'. You have different versions of the Bible, and you also have verses being thrown out and then re-inserted to suit the needs of the people, done by Christian scholars themselves:

The New Testament is the most studied book in the world, a variety of scholars from different backgrounds have approached it, and this includes atheists, agnostics, and liberal 'Christians.' It's very convenient simply labelling them non-Christian and disregarding their opinions, but I have actually studied some of their positions and I don't find them convincing. Have you ever wondered how these scholars are able to date the gospels before or after 70AD? I think you as a Muslim who believes in God and the supernatural will find there line of thinking rather amusing.

The problem from a Muslim perspective is that textual scholarship of the Bible undermines the Quran as well. One of the clearest examples of this is the crucifixion, which even the most skeptical scholars agree is historically certain. J.P. Sanders who rejects great portions of the NT admits that this one (among other) issues that scholars are certain about, yet the Quran says that the crucifixion did not occur and that there is debate among us. This is the one time that I refer to a consensus among scholars to show Muslims that there is no debate about this issue.

Secondly, sometimes these scholars vehemently reject portions of the bible that even you as a Muslim would have to agree is true, such as the virgin birth. The Quaranic passage on the angelic visition to John the Baptist's father and Mary has remarkable similarities to Luke's account. The structure of the events, there connection with one another, it's just amazing that such a passage is even found int he Quran. And yet, many secular scholars as well as liberal Christian scholars believe this is a fabricated story! Obviously though, from a Muslim perspective it must be accurate, and this is why I can't take Muslim appeals to textual scholarship as serious. You're not looking at the data, you're simply appealing to one authority or another that suits you in that particular situation. I don't see you quoting Bart Ehrman on either the crucifixion or virgin birth, because he doesn't support your position.

And lastly, the Quran has many strange stories, of tables descending from heaven for the apostles, of Jesus turning clay birds into living ones, what is the source for these? Do you suppose the scholars find these narrations in the Quran as historical? Can any Muslim find evidence outside of the Quran to support them? The answer is no.

The Salaf of Christianity got it right, their isnad is sound, four gospels were made and the names attached to them are the same ones we have today. You can said with the atheists and liberals, I'll side with the saints.

Pax et bonu,=m

[Daris]

From the very first post in this thread, I've smelled a rat.

Traditio is incapable of properly spelling Prophet Muhammad's name, but he is aware of the hadiths, and to spell that word? But by Post #7, Traditio is already identifying the years of the Prophet's birth and death. Curious, isn't it?

Traditio, your very first sentence, in Post #1 misses the mark. Muslims do not have a prejudice about the Constantine concept of a trinity, as prejudice is a preconceived opinion not based on reason. Muslims have a perfectly acceptable reason for rejecting the concept of trinity - the Holy Qur'an.

And your support for the existence of a triune godhead would be...?

And whilst I recognize Sojourn is at least putting a good foot forward, I see the small things that he slips into his posts, things that are going overlooked. Let's look at some examples (and I am perfectly willing to hear your explanations, Sojourn) -

And what is that doctrine? Well, it's surprisingly straightforward: three Persons in one Divine Being.

Ahh, but is it really so straightforward? As the concept of trinity is also explained as God being three persons, which I prefer to identify as God being three entities. God is not a 'person', nor is a spirit a 'person'. So which shall it be, three entities in one god, or God being three entities? Oh, wait, it works both ways, doesn't it? Hmmm, wasn't 'straightforward' the word you used?

Scimitar, the concept doesn't make sense to anyone. As a United Methodist minister, I regularly asked my mentors for clarification on the concept of trinity, and the most common explanation was that "it is a mystery." The mystery deepens, when we realize the only passages in the entire Bible that ever suggested a trinity (1 John 5:7-8) have been edited to say something completely different in subsequent versions.

Who amongst us genuinely believes God would have shrouded what ends up being a major tenet of Christianity in mists of mystery? What, no takers on that one?

The trinity is expressed in the New Testament and was expounded by many early Christians...

Actually, it would be more accurate to say the trinity is expressed in some versions of the New Testament, but not in all. As for the concept being expounded by many early Christians, might I trouble you to cite your sources?

Also, Sojourn, you suggest the concept of trinity is generally agreed upon by all Christian sects, but if this is the case, why is it that Roman Catholics believe the spirit proceeds from the father and the son, whereas Eastern Orthodox churches believe the spirit proceeds from just the father?

You yourself accused us Christians of believing that the Father is the Son, and went on further to attack his belief.

I make no accusations, but there are Christians who believe Jesus was God stepped down from Heaven. If you do not believe that, I applaud you, but let's not pretend that are not those who do believe it.

The Persons of the Trinity possess the same Divine Intellect, Will, and Nature.

So let's be very clear about this. You are saying Jesus possesses the same intellect as God? If that is what you suggest, then you are in error.

"But of that day and hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels of heaven, but my Father only." Matthew 24:36 KJV

If Jesus possesses the intellect of God, then why would Jesus say only God possessed this knowledge?

The earliest extant witness is that of Sts Papias and Polycarp, both of whom personally knew St John the Apostle and both affirmed that he wrote the fourth gospel.

Once again, I wonder if I might trouble you to explain John 21:24, which clearly shows 'the disciple' was not the sole author of the Gospel According to John.

I admire the faith you demonstrate that the disciples known as Matthew and John were the actual authors of the gospel accounts bearing their names, but the facts are still the facts. The preponderance of Biblical scholars simply do not agree with you. Saying that is what happened does not make it so.

[Traditio]

My apologies to all for not posting more frequently. I've been rather busy.

From the very first post in this thread, I've smelled a rat.

Traditio is incapable of properly spelling Prophet Muhammad's name

A genuine spelling mistake. If I've caused any offense by it, I do hope that you all will pardon the error. "Mohommad," at least when spoken and heard by my English-speaking ears, sounds like "Mohommed." Thus the error.

but he is aware of the hadiths

I've seen Muslim posters on this and another forum talking about them.

Traditio is already identifying the years of the Prophet's birth and death. Curious, isn't it?

I looked it up on wikipedia.

Traditio, your very first sentence, in Post #1 misses the mark. Muslims do not have a prejudice about the Constantine concept of a trinity, as prejudice is a preconceived opinion not based on reason. Muslims have a perfectly acceptable reason for rejecting the concept of trinity - the Holy Qur'an.

Two points:

1. In the OP, I made it quite clear that I was using "prejudice" in an extended use of the term. I didn't mean it to have any negative connotations. I meant it merely in the sense of "forming an opinion prior to firsthand investigation into Christian teaching." For example, I'll freely admit that I have a prejudice about pagan religions even prior to researching their teachings: they worship devils, as per the teachings of St. Paul, whether or not they realize that they're doing it.

2. My question is not whether there is a Trinity or not. My question is what Mohommed (or Allah, if, per impossibile, the Quran actually were from a deity) says about the Trinity. According to the Quran, what do Christians believe?

And your support for the existence of a triune godhead would be...?

It is a mystery of faith which cannot be proven, although, of course, I can give credible, probable reasons why it is fitting that God be, at least in some way, triune. St. Augustine does this in De Trinitate (On the Trinity), St. Anselm in the Monologium, St. Bonaventure in chapter 6 of Itinerarium Mentis in Deum (Journey of the Mind into God), etc.

But that's not my question. My question is: "What does the Quran, Mohommad, etc" say about what Christians believe? That is, how does they understand our doctrine? One way to "smell a rat," so to speak, when it comes to these things, is by recognizing that they are mis-reporting the facts. For example, there was an alleged apparition of the Blessed Mother, and it was claimed that she protested vehemently against communion being received from the hands of anyone else other than a "lawfully ordained priest." How can we be sure that the Blessed Mother didn't appear and say such things? That's not the way that the Church talks. "Validly ordained," not "lawfully ordained." Surely, the Blessed Mother would have known that.

If the Quran ascribes to Christians views that we don't hold, then the Quran is not revelation from God. If the Quran actually was divinely revealed, surely, God would have known what Christians believe, and he would have been able to make even subtler distinctions about it than the Church's most learned doctors. But this appears not to be the case, doesn't it?

Ahh, but is it really so straightforward? As the concept of trinity is also explained as God being three persons, which I prefer to identify as God being three entities.

We don't assert that there are three entities (beings) in God. The persons of the Trinity are subsisting relations.

God is not a 'person', nor is a spirit a 'person'. So which shall it be, three entities in one god, or God being three entities?

Neither. There is a single God in whom we can distinguish, somehow, three different subsisting real relationships, which, nonetheless, do not divide the divine unity/being.

So let's be very clear about this. You are saying Jesus possesses the same intellect as God? If that is what you suggest, then you are in error.

Jesus had two wills and two intellects (one divine, one human). St. Augustine explains these sorts of passages in De Trinitate. We must constantly ask ourselves: "Is Jesus speaking as God, or as man? He was both, after all."

[Traditio]

Uh no... you're trying to say that matthew and john who were alive at the time of jesus pbuh were 2 of the authors of the bible, but this is contested amongst scholarly circles AND you know this, so please, don't try to spread a little "white lie" here, thank you.

Scimi

The mode of argumentation that seeks to discredit the authorship of the gospels only works against protestants. [Let us pass over the fact, I suppose, that Mohommad was far more removed from the time, place and life of Jesus than you would ever claim about any of the evangelists.] The Bible did not fall out of the sky. The books of the New Testament were not chosen at random.

Ultimately, our faith both in Jesus Christ and in the Bible as inerrant must rest on the authority of the Catholic Church and her unbroken succession of biships, which stretches from the present day even to the very life of Christ Himself. It is on this basis (namely, the authority of the bishops) that we rightfully believe in the doctrines of the Catholic Church. There is, as I said, an unbroken succession from Christ's apostles and their successors (to whom they passed on their doctrines) to the bishops of the Catholic Church today.

You can claim nothing of the sort about Mohommad.

So, what's my point? You can attack the authorship of the gospels, if you want, but that's not particularly persuasive. Why do I believe in those particular texts? Because the bishops of the Catholic Church, in virtue of their teaching authority, command me to believe them. Why do I believe in Jesus? Because the bishops of the Catholic Church, in virtue of their teaching authority, command me to believe in Him.

St. Augustine makes this point in De Utilitate Credendi (On the Usefulness of Belief).

[M.I.A.]

Traditional wrote...

I looked it up on wikipedia


...I think taking that into the context of the thread and the situation regarding the prophets birthday pbuh.

You have literally thrown all out the window. End of thread for most people.

I rest me case me lord. 1400 years is a long time, 2000 years is even longer

[Traditio]

Traditional wrote...

I looked it up on wikipedia


...I think taking that into the context of the thread and the situation regarding the prophets birthday pbuh.

You have literally thrown all out the window. End of thread for most people.

I rest me case me lord. 1400 years is a long time, 2000 years is even longer

What's wrong with using wikipedia as a quick and easy reference for birth and death dates? Do you dispute the dates that I gave? The only point that I wanted to make was that Mohommed was alive and died: 1. after St. Augustine flourished and 2. prior to the East-West Schism.

[Traditio]

I just realized I mispelled "Mohommad" again. Mea culpa.

[Daris]

My apologies to all for not posting more frequently. I've been rather busy.

No apologies necessary, as we all have our own lives to live.

A genuine spelling mistake. If I've caused any offense by it, I do hope that you all will pardon the error. "Mohommad," at least when spoken and heard by my English-speaking ears, sounds like "Mohommed." Thus the error.

A mistake, you say? Really? So you move from your earlier misspelling (Mohommed) to an entirely different one (Mohommad)? After myself and several others have provided you with the proper spelling, which is Muhammad?

I've seen Muslim posters on this and another forum talking about them.

Oh, I see, But you've never "seen Muslim posters on this and another forum" using the name Muhammad?

I looked it up on wikipedia.

You did? Well, let's take a closer look at that explanation, shall we?

I just visited Wikipedia and performed a search for the word you were initially using, "Mohommed". And Wikipedia says that page does not exist. It does show some alternative pages, but none for the Prophet Muhammad (saw).

So then, I tried looking up "Mohommad", also on Wikipedia. And you know, Traditio, I got the same results.

So I am left thinking if you did look this information up on Wikipedia, you must have used the correct spelling, which is (again, for your personal edification) Muhammad. M-u-h-a-m-m-a-d.

1. In the OP, I made it quite clear that I was using "prejudice" in an extended use of the term. I didn't mean it to have any negative connotations. I meant it merely in the sense of "forming an opinion prior to firsthand investigation into Christian teaching."

1. At no point did I suggest you were making negative connotations, so why mention it?

2. Assuming anyone here has formed an opinion prior to firsthand investigation into Christian teaching is making a really huge assumption, yes? Speaking entirely for myself, I am a former United Methodist minister, so I have made more than just a cursory investigation into Christian teachings. Why would you assume others here have not done the same? Speaking from my personal experiences, I have found that the percentage of Muslims with more than a passing knowledge of Christianity far outweighs the percentage of Christians with any knowledge of Islam. As an example, take a look around - do you see Muslim members of this forum misspelling the name Jesus?

2. My question is not whether there is a Trinity or not.

Sorry, to laugh, but that response is downright silly, and everyone knows it. I understand you to be a member of the Romish Church, yet you are asking this question of Muslims who do not believe in the existence of trinity? Seriously?

My question is what Mohommed (or Allah, if, per impossibile, the Quran actually were from a deity) says about the Trinity. According to the Quran, what do Christians believe?

According to the Bible, what do Hindus believe? According to the Vedas, what do Buddhists believe? According to the Tipitaka, what does anyone believe?

According to the Holy Qur'an, Muslims believe Sura 112 -

"Say: He is Allah, the One and Only; Allah, the Eternal, Absolute; He begetteth not, nor is He begotten; And there is none like unto Him."

Muslims study the Holy Qur'an to understand the blueprint for their own lives, not to understand that of other faiths.

It is a mystery of faith which cannot be proven, although, of course, I can give credible, probable reasons why it is fitting that God be, at least in some way, triune.

I think you are ladling into questions I was putting to Sojourn, but let's examine what you have said, here.

Why do Christians believe that God would allow them to live within a mystery?

And pardon my splitting of the hair here, but you offering 'probable reason' is a far, far cry from presenting reasonable proof. I can give credible, probable reasons that you are here to pick a fight, but I have no proof, so why mention it?

St. Augustine does this in De Trinitate (On the Trinity),

OK, let's do this the hard way. Council of Nicaea, 20 May through 19 June 325 C.E. Augustine of Hippo, born 13 November 354, died 28 August 430. (I looked it up on Wikipedia) The point of my questioning Sojourn to please name early Christians who taught the concept of trinity was to show where this concept pre-existed the First Council of Nicaea. Augustine of Hippo was born 29 years after the First Council. Strike One.

St. Anselm in the Monologium,

]
Born c. 1033, died 21 April 1109. Strike Two.

St. Bonaventure in chapter 6 of Itinerarium Mentis in Deum (Journey of the Mind into God), etc.

Born c. 1221, died c. 1274. Strike 3. And you're out.

Show me Biblical evidence and Biblical teaching to support the existence of trinity. Don't quote the First Council of Nicaea, because Sojourn would have me believe Christians accepted trinity prior to 325 C.E. Show me, in the pages of the Holy Bible, where God taught man the concept of trinity. Show me where Jesus (pbuh) taught trinity. Biblical proof, man, that is what I demand. Show me Biblical proof showing the trinity is divine and not a man-made innovation and I will go on national television with you, to state how wrong my reverting to Islam was.

Of course, we both know that will never happen, will it? Because you have no proof. You talk a good talk, but what you fail to realize is you are not saying anything new. We Muslims have all heard this same-old dog and pony show, time and again, from Christians who are bent over backwards trying to prove us wrong. And this I know for certain - you will fail, just as those who came before you have failed. Because my roots were within Christianity, yet I still found my way to the truth of Islam. I was baptized in a United Methodist church, 18 September 1954, and I reverted to Islam in late 2006, so including the years I preached from a UMC pulpit, I have 50+ years of Christian doctrine under my belt. If you have anything new under the sun, then bring it. If you are just another Christian teakettle that is boiling over and making noise, please do not waste my time, which is all you have accomplished to date.

But that's not my question. My question is: "What does the Quran, Mohommad, etc" say about what Christians believe? That is, how does they understand our doctrine?

Ooops, I bet this misspelling of the Prophet's name was just another minor error, yes?

If you truly seek an answer to this question, my suggestion to you is to obtain a copy of the Holy Qur'an, and to read it. You can read it online, you can listen to it online, you can request a free copy of it online, you can borrow a copy from a student, or you could <horror or horrors> visit a local book store and purchase a copy. Stop asking members of this Islamic forum to do your research for you, because as you noted earlier, all of us have lives to live.

I'm sorry, to sound short, or curt with you, Traditio, but your agenda is plain to see. Your insistence upon demeaning the Prophet Muhammad (saw), by continuing to misspell his name, even after being corrected on it is evidence of what you are really here to do. Maybe I am giving you far too much credit for your capacity to learn?

Bring us Biblical proof of your trinity, Traditio, and we'll talk.

[M.I.A.]

What's wrong with using wikipedia as a quick and easy reference for birth and death dates? Do you dispute the dates that I gave? The only point that I wanted to make was that Mohommed was alive and died: 1. after St. Augustine flourished and 2. prior to the East-West Schism.

Ahh seriously most people do better by ignoring me apparently.

I can only say of my own experience, I'm not full of knowledge so I'm probably as disrespectful as you.

But recently I read the prophets birthday pbuh could be on any number of days..3-4-5 can't remember the numbers exactly.

So I didn't even ask you how accurate wikipedia was.. Or who wrote it.

I expected to carry on from a previous post in which I mentioned how Islam faces the same problems as Christianity.. By looking at one you can figure out what the other one should avoid... Or not.

But its obviously not easy to make the link.

I have very little historical knowledge, I am a scientist.. Which makes my approach unorthodox for sure.

Although I'm not a scientist.. I'm a sceptical scientist. Outcasts are often full of it.

Unfortunately I can tell you we are the monsters we create.. So if your views change for better or worse during this thread only god knows.

But scepticism does not negate truth.. In religion or science.

You can argue all day and not learn anything if you want. Agendas or character lol.

Either way, good news and glad tidings are things that have to be worked towards

[YusufNoor]

Peace be with you Yusuf,

And yet Muslims have no problem with saying the Quran is uncreated and eternal, two characteristics that properly speaking can only be attributed to God. Explain to me why it's not shirk to attribute Divine qualities to a book and I'll give you the same reasons why it's not shirk to attribute them to a man. For in the end we're not that different, you believe the Speech of Allah was made kitab and we believe the Word of God was made flesh. In neither case is the oneness of God somehow altered since the Speech of Allah is of Allah and the Word of God is of God.

excellent point! i do not say that the Qur'an is "uncreated and eternal". i know it was one of the Imams that fought for the issue, but i haven't looked at it. seems like a case of making a statement that there is no need for. uncreated and eternal are attributes of Allah. the Prophet, pbuh, never made that direct statement. it definitely sounds like shirk, but i haven't looked at it. no need, too. it would be interesting to see the arguments, though.

Is it wrong for a Muslim to ask an older devout man or woman for example, to make du'a and pray for them? Do you believe Allah would prefer you pray to him directly instead? Why or why not?

you can ask anyone. anyone that you can actually ask.

We of course have no issues with such practices on earth, and neither do we have issue seeking assistance from brothers and sisters in Heaven.

there is no Biblical reference to people being in heaven, after they die.

Whether on earth or in heaven, seeking intercession is permissible. Problems arise if one believes in a "soul sleep" or starts asking how it is that the "dead" can hear. The answer of course is that the Saints are not dead, they are alive with God in heaven, and they can "hear" because God reveals our petitions to them.

Take your time my friend, and peace be with you as well

so, here, you're making statements that are not supported by your scriptures. then you make a circular argument, again, not found in your scriptures. you said:

The answer of course is that the Saints are not dead, they are alive with God in heaven, and they can "hear" because God reveals our petitions to them.

then why do people pray to saints? shouldn't they be prayer to God to "reveal our petitions to them?" and you'd be asking God to tell the dead people to pray to Him? that would be praying to God though. if you pray to a dead Mary, she's still dead.

the Bible says in Ecclesiastes 9:5:

For the living know that they shall die: but the dead know not any thing, neither have they any more a reward; for the memory of them is forgotten.

that settles it. according to your Bible, the dead know nothing. so you're praying to someone that has no knowledge of anything, and that would include your prayer!

no, i saw a comment that i need to rebut.

ma salama

[OmAbdullah]

Alhamdulillah, the Muslim brothers and sisters have put beautiful posts with very clear verses from the Holy Quraan which make the things very clear. But sad to see that the Christian friends don't show any satisfaction. They put forward vague questions again and again proving that they don't want to accept the reality. One of them using the name of Muhammad salla Allaho alaihi wa sallam very lightly and accusing him to be the writer of the Holy Quraan, is showing his internal hate against the great Prophet and Messenger of Allah Almighty.


O Christian fellows, Allah Almighty God has given you great minds and according to a hadeeth ( saying of the Prophet Muhammad salla Allaho alaihi wa sallam), Allah has sworn by Allah's HONOR and Jalaal that among Allah' creation, the most honorable in the Sight of Allah is intellect/mind and Allah shall give Reward and Paradise as well as punishment and Hell on the bases of one's mind/intellect. (Allah knows best the words of Allah's Prophet salla Allaho alaihi wasallam, may Allah forgive me any mistake concerning the hadeeth shareef, aameen).
I sincerely advise the Christian fellows to sit alone and sincerely ask your minds. Then don't reject the opinion/advice of your minds. Remember that Allah is watching your inside, and your internal fighting and conflict against your wisdom and conscience are not hidden from Allah Who is the Creator, The Lord and the God of all creation, Who begetted not, nor was HE begotten.


Right at the time of death you will cry and regret saying, "O God how we wasted our precious life in useless conjectures and useless arguments, now we have no way of escape from the grievous punishment.

Alas! regretting after death will be useless. This is the only time to think seriously and choose the correct religion. Surely your wisdom will guide you correctly. But the condition is that you must become sincere to yourself and consider this matter seriously.

Even in your own Bible you will find the statements of Jesus that he worships his Lord. Surely you find numerous contradictory statements in Bible. If you give a little attention to your Bible or Gospel, you will find some sensible statements scattered among many senseless contradictory statements. If you think seriously and sincerely, you will clearly understand that the Book seems to be originally Divine but surely some human hands have added false statements to it. This happened because God did not preserve it. So the friends of Satan changed it. God did not preserve it because it was not Final Revelation. God had the plan to send another Prophet and reveal the Final Book to him. So you must search a Divine Book which is preserved by God. That Book is the Holy Quraan, and God Allah preserved it because it is Final. Allah doesn't give chance to mankind to plea on the Day of Judgment that they had no source of guidance. So please read the meaning of Quraan and you will surely see that Quraan is a SELF WITNESS Book that it cannot be written by any human being. So it is definitely Divine and it is a proof of the Prophet hood of Muhammad salla Allaho alaihi wasallam.


I have a question. I am greatly surprised that why can't the Christians believe that Jesus (Eisa alaihi salaam ) could be created without father??? Don't they see that Almighty God created Adam (alaihi salaam) without father and mother? Then how do they think that the Almighty God who created heavens and the earth, cannot create a son from a virgin? The creation of numerous human beings by the union of father and mother is also by the great creative abilities of Almighty God Allah. Can any man or any being claim that he can create a child by the union of father and mother? No! No! So it is only Allah who can create in any way. Therefore accepting Jesus to be the son of Mary (Maryam) only, is according to our wisdom and not accepting it is against our wisdom.

Almighty God wants from mankind, that we must believe in the absolute oneness of God and we must obey HIM and worship HIM only. For that purpose God sent prophets to guide us by the Divine knowledge revealed to them. Muhammad salla Allaho alaihi wa sallam is the Final of the Prophets. Whoever doesn't believe in him or doesn't follow him, will be punished in the Hell-Fire forever. Please protect yourselves from the everlasting punishment.

[OmAbdullah]

To be fair I don't know how accurately the Quran is preserved, it is beyond reproach and questioning for most people.

The question still stands though, even if the words are the same for 1400 years, division has still appeared.

I can't even speculate what the mission was. Its not like its written in stone or something.

I would guess it was to bring the true form of monotheism back to the people or at least in part.

But each of the prophets pbut probably had a specific job to do.. And were built accordingl

The Holy Quraan is preserved in its entirety so much so that the enemies couldn't change even a single letter. Yes, Check the letters ,ن, ص,ق these are the letters at the beginning of surah Qaaf, surah Sad and surah Al Qalam respectively. In the last 1435 years these letters couldn't be changed. Allah has promised to preserve the Quraan as we can see in the verse 9 of surah Al Hijar: Allah said:

Surely WE sent down this admonition and WE will preserve it.

This is the miracle of the Holy Quraan that no one could change it and it shall remain preserved in its entirety till the end of this world.

If you don't read the Holy Quraan to get its thorough understanding, then please don't discuss it because you are misleading those readers of your posts that are ignorant from the Quraan.

To be fair the Quranic viewpoint and I'm probably liberally paraphrasing here.. Is that the teachings of Jesus pbuh were a warning rather than a way of life.
I may be wrong but would have to read a lot just to find my mistake

I guess that is the difference here, the Quran is preserved in its entirety. Although 1400 years have lead to many interpretations on it STILL!.

What do you mean by this statement? Explain the "viewpoint" with evidence.

That is true. You have to read a lot to protect yourself from misleading people.


There is difference between the text of the Holy Quraan and its interpretations. Quraanic text is fully preserved, In its translation the translators can choose different words with the same meanings. The interpretations may be many even for the same verse, this is because the verses of Quraan are very deep, they may have more than one applications. and they are all correct.