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

[جوري]

Can God become Man?

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



What does the word 'thing' mean anyways?



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



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


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


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



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


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


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

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


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

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


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



- What is north of the North Pole?

- I know someone who is a married bachelor.

- Can you draw me a triangle with four sides?

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

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

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



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

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

We say this is logically incoherent for one cannot be

- Infinite and finite at the same time.

- All powerful and not all powerful at the same time

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

- Independent but dependent at the same time.


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

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

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

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

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

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


The incarnation is AGAINST reason.

http://www.islamic-life.com/forums/christianity-judaism/god-man-677

 

[Sol Invictus]

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

all the best

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

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

 

[جوري]

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

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

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

all the best

 

[Sol Invictus]

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

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

all the best

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

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

i'll be waiting.

 

[جوري]

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

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

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

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

i'll be waiting.

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

all the best

 

[جوري]

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

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

Volume 8, Book 76, Number 577:

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



​

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

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

all the best

 

[MustafaMc]

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

 

[Woodrow]

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

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

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

 

[Grace Seeker]

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

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

 

[Ramadhan]

proof from your very own qur'an

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

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

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

 

[Grace Seeker]

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

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

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

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

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

Enough of the allegory.

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


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

 

[Woodrow]

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

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

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

 

[Grace Seeker]

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

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

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

 

[MustafaMc]

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

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

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

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

Enough of the allegory.

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


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

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

 

[Sol Invictus]

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

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

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

all the best

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

We say this is logically incoherent for one cannot be

- Infinite and finite at the same time.

- All powerful and not all powerful at the same time

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

- Independent but dependent at the same time.


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

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

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

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

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

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


The incarnation is AGAINST reason.

http://www.islamic-life.com/forums/christianity-judaism/god-man-677

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

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

Can you draw me a triangle with four sides?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Sol Invictus]

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

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

 

[Ramadhan]

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

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

please begin to engage my argument.

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

But still one thing missing:

Where's the Qur'an ayah?

Let me remind you of your claim:

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

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

 

[Sol Invictus]

Where's the Qur'an ayah?

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

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

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

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

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

i'll be waiting.

 

[Ramadhan]

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

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

i'll be waiting.

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

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

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

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

See, I have engaged in your argument.

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

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

 

[Sol Invictus]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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