Christianity is monotheist.

[Zafran]

Just to be clear, I am not an expert on Arabic Grammar that is why I quoted from St. Clair-Tisdal's book who was both an expert on the Qu'ran and Arabic grammar. I know the argument you present and so did St Clait-Tisdal and although I am happy to listen to it I suspect that St Clair-Tisdal was more expert than you or me. But as I said, it's just a point and you can take it or leave it as you please.

Arabic grammar as it is known today was not perfected until the middle of the 9th century according to Prof Farid Esack (the Prince Al-Waleed Bib Talal visiting professor of Contemporary Islam and Harvard University) in his recent book "Qu'ran" ISBN 978-1-85168-624-7. So the grammatical niceties you speak of were one assumes not known in the prophets time.

PS I have noted the site but for some reason on my machine I can see the video but not hear the sounds. When I get that fixed I will come back to you but I guess this thread is not the place to discuss the transmission of the Qu'ran so perhaps you would like to open a new thread on that issue. In passing I might say I have read widely on this issue and would be happy to enter into a debate if there are points which you or others feel are at issue.

My friend Hamza Yusuf is a scholar - watch the video and then we'll talk further - maybe you need to turn the volume up the video sound is low but it clearly explains royal we well - We ae not talking about perfected arabic grammer but THE ROYAL WE in arabic - that was known in pre Islamic arabia. It seems to me you dont want to see the video..........

 

[xxxx2]

ONE more suggestion to christian members of LI A BOOK Describing The Status of Jesus in Islaam
Quotes from the Book:

“The story of Mary begins with this great connection of mentioning those whom God chose over mankind, which included the family of ‘Imraan, who were the parents of Mary. This is done in order to make it clear that Mary came from a righteous and noble family, and that she was part of the offspring of chosen prophets, and that her mother was a pious woman. An example of her piety and righteousness was that she vowed to offer what was in her womb to the services of God. She was hoping that it would be a boy, but instead she gave birth to a girl. So she returned this matter back to God, seeking His pardon and asking Him to protect her daughter and her offspring from the outcast Devil. So her Lord answered her supplication and warmly accepted Mary, causing her to be raised in a good manner and placing a righteous and merciful prophet, Zachariah, in charge of caring for her. This shows that the mother of Jesus had a tremendous upbringing.”

“God is not in need of begetting a son. Attributing a child to Him is from the greatest forms of disbelief and misguidance, since it constitutes the highest level of insult and deficiency being ascribed to His Honor, Greatness and Lordship. This is since everything apart from God (the Creator) can only be one of His creations, and all of His creations submit themselves to His Honor and Grandness and are mandated to worship Him, whereas God is divine and free of begetting a child. This is why Allaah says to those who ascribe a child to Him, and His speech is the truth: ‘You have indeed brought forth something very terrible (i.e. an evil statement) – due to which the heavens are ready to tear apart, the earth split asunder, and the mountains fall in ruins. It is that they ascribe a child to the Most Merciful (i.e. God). However, it is not befitting for the (Majesty of the) Most Merciful that he should beget a child. There is none in the heavens and the earth except that he comes unto the Most Merciful as a servant. Verily, He knows each one of them, and has counted them a full counting. And each one of them will come to Him on the Day of Resurrection alone (and without any helpers).’”

“6. In Chapter 21 of the Gospel of Matthew, verse 46, it states: ‘But when they tried to arrest him, they feared the multitudes, since they held him to be a prophet.’There is proof in this verse that the masses of people who believed in God and in Jesus were monotheists with pure and sincere faith, and that they believed that Jesus was a messenger and a prophet. This proves that their prophet, Jesus, had taught them this and cultivated them to believe in that. So they did not used to believe that he was God or the son of God, since he would not teach the people these things.”

“Has not the time come for the Christians, after hearing all of this, to hasten and rush to Islaam, especially the intellectual, educated and free thinking ones amongst them? We call them again to stand up before God in pairs and individually, then to reflect on this tremendous matter – of which there is no matter greater than it – with firm determination and impartiality and earnestly seeking to attain the truth and the reality, for it is indeed a crucial matter, which can either lead one to Paradise, the size of which spans the heavens and the earth, or to the Hellfire, whose fuel will be men and stones and which is prepared for those who disbelieve to reside therein forever. This is a matter that all of the messengers agreed on and which is contained in their revealed books, including Jesus, the servant and messenger of God. At this point, it is appropriate for us to honestly tell you: ‘O People of the Scripture! Come to a word that is just between us and you – that we worship none but God alone and that we associate no partners with Him, and that none of us shall take others as lords besides God.’ Then if they turn away, say: ‘Bear witness that we are Muslims.’

http://www.al-ibaanah.com/ebooks.php?EID=56

The Status of Jesus in Islaam
AUTHOR: Shaikh Rabee' bin H
aadee Al-Madkhalee
TRANSLATED: Al-Ibaanah Book Publishing
PRODUCED BY: Al-Ibaanah.com
DOWNLOAD http://www.al-ibaanah.com/cms/pdf_files/56.pdf

 

[جوري]

colonialism and demoralization of Muslims -- paved way for onslaught of orientalist to ravage the empire from within and marginalize the 'Ulema' . A decree which effectively thrust entire nations into institutional illiteracy. Orientalism wasn't interested in debating with the Ulema, however much less nothing their criticisms; their soul resources in partnership with foreign ministers to influence the new breed of Muslim elites by casting these elites into secularist mould and convincing them the adherence to the Quran and Sunna futile.

Proving all manner of vice in Muhammad and all manner of theft from the scriptures in the Quran, Geiger, Tisdall and others helped cement this scheme, all eyes turned to the prophet's sunna, and the honor of demolishing this went to Goldzihr (1850-1921) ( excerpted) from The History of Quranic text, which I'd urge Muslims to read, so they can see how malice was worked from within and with help of secular turks..

To answer the question if there ever was one. Tisdall was no scholar least of which as pertains to Arabic/Islamic/ Quranic text. He is but a paid operative with one goal in mind, and truth doesn't bear his name..
If he did he'd have had a viable debate with actual Islamic scholars, in lieu of delegating the task to his very creative psyche!

 

[Zafran]

colonialism and demoralization of Muslims -- paved way for onslaught of orientalist to ravage the empire from within and marginalize the 'Ulema' . A decree which effectively thrust entire nations into institutional illiteracy. Orientalism wasn't interested in debating with the Ulema, however much less nothing their criticisms; their soul resources in partnership with foreign ministers to influence the new breed of Muslim elites by casting these elites into secularist mould and convincing them the adherence to the Quran and Sunna futile.

Proving all manner of vice in Muhammad and all manner of theft from the scriptures in the Quran, Geiger, Tisdall and others helped cement this scheme, all eyes turned to the prophet's sunna, and the honor of demolishing this went to Goldzihr (1850-1921) ( excerpted) from The History of Quranic text, which I'd urge Muslims to read, so they can see how malice was worked from within and with help of secular turks..

To answer the question if there ever was one. Tisdall was no scholar least of which as pertains to Arabic/Islamic/ Quranic text. He is but a paid operative with one goal in mind, and truth doesn't bear his name..
If he did he'd have had a viable debate with actual Islamic scholars, in lieu of delegating the task to his very creative psyche!

salaam

Yeah his sources especially this one clearly is from orientalist bias. Thats what Hugos using. People that are trying to re write the true understanding of the Quran for political gains.

an intresting article about the change of prespective in the Quran below

http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Quran/Text/Grammar/robinson.html

 

[Hugo]

The scriptures declare that the human soul is made of the body (the dust of the ground) and the spirit from God that gives us life. (Genesis 2:7) 1 Thessalonians 5:23 is often presented to support the idea that a human being is a "trinity", but in actuality, Paul is speaking figuratively of the body, soul and spirit, not of individuals, but rather the church. However, even if he was speaking of individuals, are we to think of ourselves as one person as a spirit being, and another person as a soul being, and another person as a body being, and yet there are not three sentient beings, but one sentient being, all of whom equally are fully and totally the one sentient being?

Love in Jesus,
Ronald
ResLight
Restoration Light Bible Study Services
http://godandson.reslight.net

Just need to be clear on these postings by ResLight because as far as I can see no Bible translation (although I may have missed it) has been stated and we need to know that to accurately asses what has been said and the arguments that are contained in this post as they do not represent orthodox Christian beliefs. The postings are entirely copied from the site listed without any comment. The site says it is not affiliated to the Jehovah's Witnesses and I could not quite work out why it should say that.

 

[memories]

In lieu

''Au lieu'' sorry couldnt resist that one

This is what we must do, lets say we take into account the concept of trinity is true (wich it is) then what would be the problem of accepting god is a 3 in 1?

Regards.

 

[جوري]

salaam

Yeah his sources especially this one clearly is from orientalist bias. Thats what Hugos using. People that are trying to re write the true understanding of the Quran for political gains.

an intresting article about the change of prespective in the Quran below

http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Quran/Text/Grammar/robinson.html

With all their futile efforts Islam has maintained its moral soundness and textual integrity.
You bring one of these turds and let him debate with a Muslim scholar and see how fast they defecate in their pants!

 

[جوري]

''Au lieu'' sorry couldnt resist that one

This is what we must do, lets say we take into account the concept of trinity is true (wich it is) then what would be the problem of accepting god is a 3 in 1?

Regards.

I rather think you should enroll in some basic vocational training to foster self-esteem before you play with the big guns..

you bounce rather fast from having a foot or two in your mouth.. got to love that!


In lieu: adverb = In place of, or as an alternative to

look it up learned one!

 

[Zafran]

With all their futile efforts Islam has maintained its moral soundness and textual integrity.
You bring one of these turds and let him debate with a Muslim scholar and see how fast they defecate in their pants!

Salaam

Yep they wouldnt last a second lol.

peace

 

[جوري]

Salaam

Yep they wouldnt last a second lol.

peace

Got to run I am running late.. don't even know what the debate is about here anymore-- short of folks trying to convince themselves of something that has no basis whatsoever, save in their own psyche and mind...

But admittedly, love seeing Christian sects against one another.. it brings me pleasure how they see each other as heretics..
shouldn't they unite before evangelizing others? :rollseyes

 

[memories]

I rather think you should enroll in some basic vocational training to foster self-esteem before you play with the big guns..

you bounce rather fast from having a foot or two in your mouth.. got to love that!


In lieu: adverb = In place of, or as an alternative to

look it up learned one!

I take it you were trying to introduce some french tournure de phrase in your post, then its ''Au lieu de'' l'on dit: au lieu de faire ceci ou cela et non pas à la place de.

''in lieu of delegating the task to his very creative psyche''

''Au lieu de déléguer la tache....''

Please restrain from using french... my eyes are bleeding.

Unless you meant the english in lieu of
Definition
Instead of, in place of.

Regards.

 

[doorster]

''Au lieu'' sorry couldnt resist that one

This is what we must do, lets say we take into account the concept of trinity is true (wich it is) then what would be the problem of accepting god is a 3 in 1?

Regards.

if "we" (you) want to show yourself as being retarded then I could not resist telling you that English adaptation of ''Au lieu'' is "In lieu of"

I've been studying English for 3 years now but it seem your knowledge of English is nearly as bad as your knowledge of the Bible!

in lieu of

Definition
Instead of, in place of.

 

[Zafran]

Got to run I am running late.. don't even know what the debate is about here anymore-- short of folks trying to convince themselves of something that has no basis whatsoever, save in their own psyche and mind...

But admittedly, love seeing Christian sects against one another.. it brings me pleasure how they see each other as heretics..
shouldn't they unite before evangelizing others? :rollseyes

Salaam


see ya later

May Allah bless you
peace

 

[memories]

if we want to show yourself as being retarded then I could not resist telling you that English adaptation of that is "In lieu of"

I've been studying English for 3 years now but it seem your knowledge of English is nearly as bad as your knowledge of the Bible!

in lieu of

Definition
Instead of, in place of.

Read my previous post.

 

[Hugo]

salaam Yeah his sources especially this one clearly is from orientalist bias. Thats what Hugos using. People that are trying to re write the true understanding of the Quran for political gains.

an intresting article about the change of prespective in the Quran below

http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Quran/Text/Grammar/robinson.html

This is just perverse and not related much to the tread. I quoted two sources one legitimately would be called and Orientalist but the other, professor Esack is an internationally respected Islamic scholar.

It is simply nonsense to even suggest that because someone might be described as an Orientalist their work is therefore suspect. I might as well argue that all the early Islamic scholars were biased. I suggest you read more that just Edward Said's work which is now discredited and find out the debt we all own to the Orientalist. For example the hugely respected Arabic-English Lexicon by Edward William Lane, valued by all scholars, Islamic or otherwise.

I suggest you get and read Ibn Warraqa's Defending the West - A critique of Edward Said's Orientalism ISBN 978-1-59102-484-2

I suggest also you look with honesty at you own Islamic history and a good start there might be to use Professor Efraim Karsh's (King's College London) book called "Islamic Imperialism - A History" ISBN 978-8-300-12263-3

If we are to meet on a level playing field let;s stop this sniping and get on with the subject at hand

 

[ResLight]

On the other hand, the Essenes, an early Christian unitarian community, endured torture and persecution because they refused to exchange Jesus’ monotheistic teachings for the Pauline innovation of the trinity.

Actually, despite the claims of our trinitarian brothers, Paul never presented any idea at all that the God of Jesus was three persons, and that Jesus was a person of the God of Jesus, thus, in reality, there was no Pauline innovation of the trinity.

Paul proclaimed Jesus concerning the God and Father of Jesus (World English Bible translation):

Romans 15:6 - that with one accord you may with one mouth glorify the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ.

2 Corinthians 1:3 - Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of mercies and God of all comfort.

2 Corinthians 11:31 - The God and Father of the Lord Jesus Christ, he who is blessed forevermore, knows that I don’t lie.

Ephesians 1:3 - Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord, Jesus Christ, who has blessed us with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places in Christ

Ephesians 1:17 - that the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of glory, may give to you a spirit of wisdom and revelation in the knowledge of him.

Hebrews 1:9 - You have loved righteousness, and hated iniquity; Therefore God, your God, has anointed you With the oil of gladness above your fellows.”

Thus, Paul was in agreement the prophets of Bible concerning the Messiah that was sent by the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. (Psalm 45:7; Micah 5:4), and with Jesus himself (Matthew 27:46; Mark 15:34; John 20:17; Revelation 1:6; 2:7; 3:2,12), and also with Peter. -- 1 Peter 1:3

The scriptures reveal that Jesus was sent by Yahweh, speaks for Yahweh, represents Yahweh, and was raised and glorified by the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. Jesus never claimed to be, nor do the scriptures present Jesus as, the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, whom Jesus represents and speaks for. — Deuteronomy 18:15-19; Matthew 22:32; 23:39; Mark 11:9,10; 12:26; Luke 13:35; 20:37; John 3:2,17,32-35; 4:34; 5:19,30,36,43; 6:57; 7:16,28; 8:26,28,38; 10:25; 12:49,50; 14:10; 15:15; 17:8,26; 20:17; Acts 2:22,34-36; 3:13,22; 5:30; Romans 15:6; 2 Corinthians 1:3; 8:6; 11:31; Colossians 1:3,15; 2:9-12; Hebrews 1:1-3; Revelation 1:1.

God, by means of his holy spirit, reveals through the scriptures that Yahweh (Jehovah) is the only true God, the God and Father of the Lord Jesus. Jesus has One who is the Supreme Being over him; Jesus is not his Supreme Being whom he worships, prays to, and who sent him, and whose will he carried out in willful obedience. — Deuteronomy 18:15-19; Matthew 4:4 (Deuteronomy 8:3; Luke 4:4); Matthew 4:7 (Deuteronomy 6:16); Matthew 4:10 (Exodus 20:3-5; 34:14; Deuteronomy 6:13,14; 10:20; Luke 4:8); Matthew 22:29-40; Matthew 26:42; Matthew 27:46; Mark 10:6 (Genesis 1:27; Genesis 2:7,20-23); Mark 14:36; 15:34; Luke 22:42; John 4:3; 5:30; 6:38; 17:1,3; 20:17; Romans 15:6; 2 Corinthians 1:3; 11:31; Ephesians 1:3,17; Hebrews 1:9; 10:7; 1 Peter 1:3; Revelation 2:7; 3:2,12.

God, by means of his holy spirit, reveals through the scriptures that Jesus is son of the only Most High, Yahweh. Jesus is never spoken of as the “Most High”; he is not the only Most High Yahweh of whom he is the son. — Genesis 14:22; Psalm 7:17; 83:18; 92:1; Luke 1:32; John 13:16.

The Supreme Being does not have another Supreme Being who is his Supreme Being. There is no Supreme Being who is over the Supreme Being.

On the other hand, for each and every scripture that the trinitarians present from Paul's writings as alleged proof of trinity, the trinitarian has imagine, assume, add to, and read the trinitarian assumptions into those scriptures. Additionally, each and every scripture that the trinitarians cite as supporting their alleged trinity can be seen in harmony with the rest of the scriptures without adding the trinitarian assumptions to those scriptures.

Christian love,
Ronald
ResLight
Restoration Light Bible Study Services
http://godandson.reslight.net

 

[Hugo]

Salaam

May Allah bless you
peace

One might suppose from Gossamer's post that Islam has no sects (shall I list them?) and there is no infighting - should that make anyone happy? It's a sad person that find joy in such situations

 

[memories]

One might suppose from Gossamer's post that Islam has no sects (shall I list them?) and there is no infighting - should that make anyone happy? It's a sad person that find joy in such situations

the Tariqah are one and they use shamanistic rituals, how's that for starters?
According to some modern proponents, such as Idries Shah, the Sufi philosophy is universal in nature, its roots predating the arising of Islam and the other modern-day religions; likewise, some Muslims feel that Sufism is outside the sphere of Islam

Talking about different interpretations.

 

[doorster]

Read my previous post.

you've changed it between the time I read your OP and the time I decided to finally press submit button!

It took me that long to decide because many of LI staff here are on your side and censor us when we dare to point out your ignorance and stupidity etc.

They keep telling me that when you are spitting venom against Islam you are actually showing your curiosity and/or contributing to "debate" but reality is that insolent Kufaar scare and impress them in equal measure, methinks!

 

[Zafran]

One might suppose from Gossamer's post that Islam has no sects (shall I list them?) and there is no infighting - should that make anyone happy? It's a sad person that find joy in such situations

I find it sad you took her post seriously. Nobody is telling you to suppose anything anyway.

peace