How does the Qur'an represent Christian beliefs?

[Umm AbdurRahman]

either option you choose you end up discrediting the qur'an. that said, this still does not explain the other mistakes in formulating the doctrine of the divinity of christ as "god is the messiah" when no christian would ever say this and we have clear documentary evidence of trinitarians specifically saying "the messiah is god, but god is not the messiah". nor does this explain why there is no condemnation of a trinity which consists of the father, the son, and the holy spirit anywhere in the entire qur'an.

Peace ,

What i'm understanding from your posts is that you doubt the "authenticity" of The Glorious Quran a lot!!! About all the points that you have mentioned, i too would want to see the basis of your arguments, that is, i want to know:
1) Where exactly is the Trinitarian concept mentioned in the order that you're talking about? in the Bible?are they the words of Jesus? or some disciple?
2) "Jesus is God" but "God is not Jesus"... i still don't get it!! What is the difference?

These are just my questions for which i would like to get an answer. But, if you want to stick to the topic of the thread, then ..ya ..we could just continue.

 

[Sol Invictus]

greetings, it is always a pleasure and i do mean this because so far, we have been able to maintain a conversation that has not degenerated to the use of insults.

These are just my questions for which i would like to get an answer. But, if you want to stick to the topic of the thread, then ..ya ..we could just continue.

at the moment i'd much rather stick to the topic because for the sake of the argument, we could even say that the bible does not teach the matter of the trinity at all and my points would still work. once again the following are my words but i place them in italics because they are not original to this thread:

Muslims will often claim that the Trinity was created during the Council of Nicaea in 325 A.D. instead of this having been a doctrine held by the first Christians. Even if this were true, it would still not change the fact that the Islamic prophet would have had hundreds of years to know what Christians in fact believed and there is entirely no excuse for the Qur’an to be making such glaring mistakes.

that said, if the chance comes up, i will try to give the christian basis for the trinity.

2) "Jesus is God" but "God is not Jesus"... i still don't get it!! What is the difference?

let us first say that whether or not this point is understood by muslims or not, it does not change the fact that this is a crucial matter to christians and we even have a reference from a text dated to around 550 AD which quite clearly concludes the matter of the trinity with "the messiah is god, but god is not the messiah". therefore, to claim that christians supposedly say "allah is the messiah" is actually incorrect. this is the important point and this is the error we find in the qur'an. anyway, as it relates to better understanding this, you will have to remember that christians believe that the one god is eternally existent as the father, the son, and the holy spirit. no christian creed ever states the divinity of christ as "god is jesus" because this would mean that there is only one divine person in the being of god (just as it is wrong to say that math is quantum mechanics because that would mean that math only exists as quantum mechanics. the proper way of saying this is "quantum mechanics is math"). this actually implies the heresy of sabellianism which stated that there was only one divine person who operated under the modes of the father, the son, and the holy spirit. to the sabellian, we do not have three divine persons but rather only roles that the single divine person undertakes (in the same way that a single individual can be a father to his children, a son to his father, a brother to his siblings etc.). the church condemned this doctrine hundreds of years before the advent of islam and so the very fact that the qur'an implies that christians say that "god is jesus" is factually wrong.

if the source of the qur'an really knew what it was talking about then it would have condemned christians for saying "jesus is god" and not the inversion. one does not need to believe in the divinity of christ in order to be able to condemn it properly. imagine that i wanted to condemn the concept of tawhid but my condemnation consisted of the following:

"they surely do blaspheme who say tawhid. w. fard mohammed is not god. oh muslims desist in such grave utterances, it will be better for you."

from the above, would you think that i have a proper understanding of tawhid? of course you would say no because from the context you would be able to tell that my position is in error. i am merely doing the same with the qur'an. from the context we can see that the qur'an has misunderstood the trinity, the sonship of christ, and his divinity. every time that the topic of the three divine persons whom christians worship is brought up, you see that it always refers to allah, christ and mary. it is always a father, a son, and a mother. allah repeatedly says that he cannot have a son because he does not have a wife (see how this implies the belief that the christian sonship refers to a sexual union between god and mary?). never in the qur'an will you find talk of three divine persons whom christians worship and have a list of the proper trinity. the trinity you find in the qur'an always includes mary. now if muslims wish to claim that this simply means that allah is talking about setting up partners along with god and not necessarily the trinity (which for one thing doesn't work seeing as even the muslim translators have seen that certain passages clearly refer to the trinity which is why yusuf ali had to drastically change the words of allah so that his condemnation of the trinity would be correct. yet in the pure speech of the arabic qur'an, it is still wrong) then why doesn't he condemn the worship of the holy spirit? why does allah spend his time condemning the little heresies but never speaking a word against the most prevalent christian belief during the time of muhammad and even now? where is the condemnation of the proper trinity where allah says not to worship jesus and the holy spirit along with him? this simply isn't there. there are exactly zero such passages in the qur'an.

from all of the above, one will see that the qur'an regularly misrepresents the beliefs of christians and then goes on to attack those misrepresentations instead of attacking the real thing. imagine if in my condemnations of tawhid, i only attacked the belief that w. fard muhammad was allah, would you think that i then had a proper understanding of tawhid? of course you wouldn't and it is for the same reasons that i state that the qur'an has no idea of what the trinity actually is. you'll notice that everyone at this point has ceased arguing that the representations of the trinity within the qur'an are accurate and this in itself speaks volumes. so as far as this topic is concerned, the qur'an, for various reasons, consistently portrays the most fundamental beliefs of christians (and primarily trinitarians) completely incorrectly.

not to offend, but most muslims do not see the problems with what the qur'an says because they do not have a grasp of church history and do not know that all these heresies were condemned hundreds of years before muhammad (in fact it is often the case that they do not even know that these are misformulations in the first place and that no trinitarian creed would ever say this nor has ever said this). as a christian who actually knows what the trinity teaches and how it is properly formulated and the many ways that it can be improperly stated, i am acutely aware of how incorrect the statements within the qur'an are. the fact is, that you don't even need to believe my words here, all it would take is a simple google search of the heresy i have mentioned to see what the documents dating to hundreds of years before muhammad said concerning these heresies. we are not dealing with faith here but simply history.

It also ceases to be a fruitful discussion when all of what is presented by yourself regarding the Quran are from anti-Islamic websites rather than proper unbiased research. I look forward to your replies.

what exactly did i get from anti-islamic websites? all i did was open up a qur'an. that said, everything that is not my words i had placed in quotes.

 

[Grace Seeker]

"Jesus is God" but "God is not Jesus"... i still don't get it!! What is the difference?

These are just my questions for which i would like to get an answer. But, if you want to stick to the topic of the thread, then ..ya ..we could just continue.

I actually wrote you a response to this, but I see it has disappeared. I'm too tired to re-write it all a second time tonight. but it actually makes sense. Briefly, we aren't talking math, so forget about things like the law of reciprocity where if A=B, then B=A. If you want to think symbolically, use a logic sentence: If p, then Q. But given Q does not therefore imply P.

Have you ever eaten an orange? When you did, did you eat orange peel, orange seeds, and orange flesh? Or did you just eat orange flesh? I'll bet when you did you just ate the flesh of the orange, yet you didn't say that you ate orange flesh, you said that you ate an orange. So it is correct to say that orange flesh is orange. But on the other hand, it would not be correct to say that an orange is orange flesh. For there is more to an orange than just orange flesh, there is also orange peel and orange seed.

Now the above is a metaphor, it is not a perfect representation of what we mean when we say that Jesus is God, but that we can't say that God is Jesus. Nonetheless, I hope it might give you some idea of why we would say this. I can try to speak more to this again another day, but not now.

 

[Tyrion]

I wonder where Brother Woodrow is... I feel like he'd be the best person for this discussion, since he has a lot of experience with both Christianity and Islam.

 

[Sol Invictus]

I wonder where Brother Woodrow is... I feel like he'd be the best person for this discussion, since he has a lot of experience with both Christianity and Islam.

greetings tyrion. i do agree with the sentiment displayed in your post but would extend the offer to anyone who has at some point been a christian (and of course to born muslims as well). the fact is that if you have had a proper understanding of the trinity and just briefly looked at the heresies which were condemned by the early church, you would see that the qur'an repeats these very same errors when it thinks itself to be talking about what christians actually believe. this is why in recent years muslims have moved away from saying that the qur'an actually speaks of the trinity because every reference to this effect is completely wrong. yet this is not a defense because aside from the matter of the trinity, it also gets the issue of the sonship and the divinity of christ wrong so will we at this time say that it doesn't speak of these things as well? not to mention, translators such as yusuf ali have clearly seen that certain passages do in fact refer to the trinity and as such have been forced to mistranslate them so that while they would remain incorrect in the pure arabic qur'an, they would at the very least be correct in the english translation.

once again, you will note that at this point no one is arguing that the references in the qur'an are at all correct. at this point we are all agreed on the matter that they are wrong; hence why most muslims in this thread preemptively claimed that there was no mention of the trinity in the first place.

 

[Al-manar]

peace be upon all

though I decided long ago not to participate in any thread apart of mine,though the very short time for me online , but due to one dear invitation to the thread ,I would make a fast visit to clear a point (the only point I see would merit my input) ....

I have to teach sol-invectus a second lesson in Arabic ...

They have certainly disbelieved who say, " Allah is the third of three."

the above are the proper translation.

for you and non-Arabic speakers, it can't be the proper ,yusuf Ali (and others similar) is the proper one he just should have put (trinity) in brackets ......

let's first expose the mistakes of the ignorant source which you quoted from:

the first linguistic mistake :

the ignorant source ,can’t even read the Quran properly , he placed a wrong Stress on the end of the word (three) (thalatha)....

making it ((thalaathatun) , while it isn’t


ثَالِثُ ثَلاَثَةٍ

It is ( thalithuthalathatin)



Second : the translations of M. M. Pickthall and those alike mustn't have translated ( thalithuthalathatin) into (third of three) as that would trick the readers into the meaning ( the third in order ) which (by linguestic neccesity) isn't the meaning inteded

The expression (thalithu thalathatin) would never convey for the Arab reader a meaning of order ,it simply means (one of three)

Let’s visit both the Arabic grammatical references and the tafsirs:

The comprehensive reference of Arabic grammar (the book of Alkfaaf) كتاب الكفاف فى قواعد اللغة العربية

http://www.reefnet.gov.sy/education/kafaf/Bohoth/AdadMadoud.htm

under the term numerical rules in Arabic , he wrote


الذين قالوا إنّ الله ثالث ثلاثة[ (المائدة 5/73)

الترتيب والتسلسل والتتابع غير مرادة في الآية، وإنما المراد أنهم قالوا: إنّ الله تعالى واحد من ثلاثة. ولو كان الترتيب
مراداً لقالوا: إنه ثالث اثنين. وانظر إلى ما جاء في صحيح البخاري
تجد المسألة على أوضح الوضوح. فدونك النصّ الحرفي، كما ورد فيه: [عن... خرجت رابع أربعة من بني تميم أنا أحدهم، وسفيان بن مجاشع، ويزيد بن عمرو بن ربيعة، وأسامة بن مالك بن حبيب بن العنبر، نريد ابن جفنة الغسّانيّ بالشام فنَزلنا على غدير...]. ولو أراد الترتيب لقال: [خرجت رابع ثلاثة] أي: تَقَدَّمَه الثلاثةُ، ثم خرج هو بعدهم، فكان رابعاً


By grammatical necessity ,Order,sequence in any kind is not intended in such verse ,if it denotes order, then the expression (thalithu ethnaini) (ثالث اثنين) has to be used …


Similar example of that rule from the Quran :

The expression (thaniathnaini) (ثالث اثنين) (one of two)

The Quran - 9:40 If you do not succour the Apostle, then [know that God will do so -just as] God succoured him at the time when those who were bent on denying the truth drove him away, and he was but] one of two: when these two were in the cave, [and] the Apostle said to his companion, "Grieve not: verily, God is with us.


it doesn’t denote order at all , it doesn’t denote that the companion of the prophet was expelled by the pagans and then the prophet later as his second ,but they been expelled together ..


another similar meaning in Sunna narration :

http://www.islamweb.net/hadith/display_hbook.php?hflag=1&bk_no=477&pid=588439


Muhammad ben udai said : I was one of four رَابِعَ أَرْبَعَةٍ (rabea arbaaten) who travelled to Syria etc….. (narrated Altabarani)

If he wanted to get the reader a meaning of order, he would have used ( rabea thalathaten) رابع ثلاثة

........

That linuguestic rule is found in all the Arabic grammatical references eg; The comprehensive grammatical encyclopedia


check

الموسوعة الشاملة - شرح قطر الندى

http://www.islamport.com/b/5/loqhah...1%CD%20%DE%D8%D1%20%C7%E1%E4%CF%EC%20003.html

etc etc etc………………………………..


the same linguistic note is mentioned in the classic tafsirs:



Tafsit Alqutubi

تفسير الجامع لاحكام القرآن/ القرطبي
قوله تعالى : لقد كفر الذين قالوا إن الله ثالث ثلاثة أي : أحد ثلاثة ، ولا يجوز فيه [ ص: 185 ] التنوين ; عن الزجاج وغيره ، وفيه للعرب مذهب آخر ; يقولون : رابع ثلاثة ; فعلى هذا يجوز الجر والنصب ; لأن معناه الذي صير الثلاثة أربعة بكونه منهم . وكذلك إذا قلت : ثالث اثنين ; جاز التنوين


(thalithu thalathatin) means one of three ,without intention of conveying the meaning of order ..



Tafsir al-Kabir (al-Razi)

تفسير مفاتيح الغيب

المسألة الأولى: { ثَلَـٰثَةً } كسرت بالإضافة، ولا يجوز نصبها لأن معناه: واحد ثلاثة. أما إذا قلت: رابع ثلاثة فههنا يجوز الجر والنصب، لأن معناه الذي صير الثلاثة أربعة بكونه فيهم.


(thalithu thalathatin) means one of three ....



Tafsir albaidawi

تفسير انوار التنزيل واسرار التأويل/ البيضاوي

{ لَّقَدْ كَفَرَ ٱلَّذِينَ قَالُواْ إِنَّ ٱللَّهَ ثَـٰلِثُ ثَلَـٰثَةٍ } أي أحد ثلاثة،


(thalithu thalathatin) means one of three ....


Tafsir Aljallalen:

تفسير تفسير الجلالين/ المحلي و السيوطي

{ لَّقَدْ كَفَرَ ٱلَّذِينَ قَالُواْ إِنَّ ٱللَّهَ ثَالِثُ } آلهة { ثَلَٰثَةً } أي أحدها

the same exact words are mentioned in the other classical tafsirs


Tafsir Alshawkani
Tafsir Ibn Atia
Tafsir Ibn Adel
Tafsir Altabarani
Tafsir Alaloosy
Tafsir Ibn Ashoor


sol-invectus ,you have been victimized for the second time ,by those critics who either half educated ..or know the matter in depth, but would like to trick those non-Arab readers who hardly can check such linguestic arenas ...

A sincere advice to you, at least when it comes to Arabic ,stop parroting what you get from the christian critics before you check well what would advanced Arabic learners would comment.....

 

[Umm AbdurRahman]

we could even say that the bible does not teach the matter of the trinity

If the Bible doesn't teach Trinity, then what is the basis of your belief? Is it reliable? How can the non Christians accept it if the Bible doesn't talk about it at all?!?!

there is only one divine person in the being of god

Deuteronomy 4:35,39 — Unto thee it was shown, that thou mightest know that the LORD he is God; there is none else beside him. (39) Know therefore this day, and consider it in thine heart, that the LORD he is God in heaven above, and upon the earth beneath: there is none else.

Ephesians 4:6 — One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all.

Chronicles 17:20 — O LORD, there is none like thee, neither is there any God beside thee, according to all that we have heard with our ears.

Nehemiah 9:6 — Thou, even thou, art LORD alone; thou has made heaven, the heaven of heavens, with all their host, the earth, and all things that are therein, the seas, and all that is therein, and thou preservest them all; and the host of heaven worshippeth thee.

The above references clearly negate the concept of any other God. If "Jesus is God" and "Holy Spirit is God" and so on.. Then doesn't this mean associating partners?!?!

 

[Umm AbdurRahman]

no christian creed ever states the divinity of christ as "god is jesus" because this would mean that there is only one divine person in the being of god (just as it is wrong to say that math is quantum mechanics because that would mean that math only exists as quantum mechanics. the proper way of saying this is "quantum mechanics is math"). this actually implies the heresy of sabellianism

actually wanted to quote the above^^

 

[Sol Invictus]

sol-invectus ,you have been victimized for the second time ,by those critics who either half educated ..or know the matter in depth, but would like to trick those non-Arab readers who hardly can check such linguestic arenas ...

A sincere advice to you, at least when it comes to Arabic ,stop parroting what you get from the christian critics before you check well what would advanced Arabic learners would comment.....

greetings al-manar and welcome to the dicussion (this thread seems to only be getting better and better). if what you say is indeed correct (and i do not at this point have to disagree with the above), it still does not change the fact that we have ourselves successive misformulations within the qur'an concerning the christian trinity. for the sake of honesty i can see myself agreeing with the first point (and even then this would not hurt my position seeing as we're both agreed in the fact that he should have included parentheses seeing as the word trinity is not there. at this point i am left to wonder what exactly you have proved?) but your second claim is actually quite ambiguous. if anything you are simply saying that the qur'an is not clear in it's expression of the order. i should also note that even if we take this ambiguity of order at face value, we still have ourselves a problem in the formulation of the trinity as "one of three" instead of "three in one" (or even one in three). you and i are both in agreement that this is passage speaks concerning the trinity (for i doubt you would make such a defense if you didn't at the least believe this to be so) and yet even if we look to yusuf ali's version we have ourselves a misformulation of the trinity. once again, yusuf ali (or rather, the muslim deity) is speaking of the trinity and then says "say not one of three". the trinity is not defined as such. his statement should have been "say not three in one, for there is no god except allah" etc. even if we take your position we still end up with a misformulation. if not, could you refer us to the christian creed where we find the trinity defined as one of three?

on the matter of your sincere advice, i can only say that you make such a claim as if it ends up disproving the argument. even factoring everything that you say, the argument remains unchanged and you do not succeed in vindicating the muslim deity.

now, can we begin to focus on the rest. and if we are going to get into this matter i'd first like to know how you're going to argue this. are you taking the position that the qur'an deals specifically with the trinity or that it doesn't deal with the trinity. your post has failed to vindicate the passage in question and has ignored everything else. you may perhaps not have had the time to focus on anything else but i would very much like it if in your next response you engage my other points along with this current one (seeing as it is still the case that we have ourselves a misformulation*). i must admit that i like your response and did not expect this but you have over-estimated its force for it has not at all proven its point and certainly has not refuted anything else that has been said so far. you have only shown that the qur'an is imprecise (we certainly do not need to think of imprecision in negative terms here. let us accept this as a neutral term and not a fault with your holy book) in the position of the father but this once again leaves us with an error in which the trinity is misformulated (and not an error concerning the position of the father). that said, i must say that i appreciate this first lesson in arabic even if it has not changed the discussion at all. we still have a mistake in the very passage your arabic lesson dealt with.

certain questions which are casually related to this topic are the following: do you believe that you can gain a basic understanding of the fundamental beliefs of christians (as concerns the trinity) from the qur'an? if yes, can you cite for us the passages which show this (the most basic belief would be that the triune god is the father, the son, and the holy spirit. it would be unfair to ask anything more detailed than that)? if not then would this not mean that the qur'an misrepresents what christians believe? an example of what i'm getting at with this question would be the fact that from the bible (and i suppose the qur'an) we can gain an accurate (and perhaps even more than basic) understanding of the fundamental beliefs of polytheists. they worshiped idols and the qur'an & bible are quite detailed in the regard that the idols were variously made from wood, gold, precious stones etc. and that the people would worship these as the very gods themselves. can we agree that this is an accurate portrayal of the most prevalent form of polytheism? on this point we are all in agreement. yet given that the qur'an is so proficient on this matter, is it equally as proficient as it regards the trinity? what we find in the bible and qur'an is a fairly accurate description of the practises of the polytheists and even though the polytheist would not necessarily agree with the conclusion of our holy books (i.e. that their worship is without value) they would not however deny the fact that the portrayal is accurate. can you say the same for the portrayal of the trinity? why or why not?

my belief is that an accurate portrayal is not present because the source of the qur'an simply was unaware of the actual trinity. while it is fairly easy to understand the beliefs of the polytheists simply from observing them, the islamic prophet could not do the same as it regarded the matter of the trinity for it truly can be quite complex. being unable to read or write, he would not have a proper understanding of christian doctrine and terms such as mother of god would easily lend themselves to misunderstandings. anyway, that's my take and it is all predicated on whether or not we can find an accurate portrayal of the christian trinity. to be sure, if such a thing can indeed be found within the qur'an than this point would be disproven and this thread would have largely served its use.

that said, you've so reinvigorated this discussion that i find myself almost impatient for your response (and hopefully your post will invite the other muslim brothers and sisters to participate here again).

* as i understand it, your argument on the matter of "one of three" sought to show that it was not addressing the position of god but rather simply saying that he constituted one of the members of the trinity. if this then is the case then we do not have an error on this account (though this in itself is vague and what you're basically saying is that the qur'an is not precise in its refutation but for the sake of the argument let us accept this as a proper point at present) but then an error of the formulation of the trinity.

 

[Sol Invictus]

If the Bible doesn't teach Trinity, then what is the basis of your belief? Is it reliable? How can the non Christians accept it if the Bible doesn't talk about it at all?!?!

please quote my full sentence because as is you have changed the meaning of my words. it is not the case that i said that the bible does not teach the trinity but rather a case of me not even having to defend the position that the bible does indeed teach it in order to prove my points. it's simply a means of not getting side-tracked into arguments that have no bearing on this particular discussion.

The above references clearly negate the concept of any other God. If "Jesus is God" and "Holy Spirit is God" and so on.. Then doesn't this mean associating partners?!?!

you assume unitarianism for all those references. no trinitarian argues that we have three gods and as such what you have shown above (i.e. your biblical references) does not even harm the trinitarian position. in order to make your case you have to show that oneness only refers to unitarianism (as such you would have denied any claims made by the trinitarian) but you have not and no muslim argument has ever shown this to be true because it is simply factually false. but i will indeed await your response.

 

[Umm AbdurRahman]

it is not the case that i said that the bible does not teach the trinity but rather a case of me not even having to defend the position that the bible does indeed teach it in order to prove my points. it's simply a means of not getting side-tracked into arguments that have no bearing on this particular discussion.

If the Bible teaches it, then show me where is TRINITY “characterized by full, clear expression,” in The Bible.

“For God is not the author of confusion” 1 Corinthians 14:33.
Then, why is the concept of Trinity confusing to human minds?

 

[Sol Invictus]

If the Bible teaches it, then show me where is TRINITY “characterized by full, clear expression,” in The Bible.

“For God is not the author of confusion” 1 Corinthians 14:33.
Then, why is the concept of Trinity confusing to human minds?

like i said earlier, i will not enter into a debate on the trinity because i do not need to prove this from the bible in order for my points to work and as such the issue is irrelevant. off the top of my head, i believe that at the moment i'm involved in at least 3 in depth debates and as such it is to my benefit to try to reduce my 'workload' as much as possible. once again, i'm not going to get side-tracked into discussions that will end up proving nothing as far as my point is concerned.

the fact that you find it confusing should not be troublesome at all. the trinity deals with god as he is in himself, you being merely a finite creature would it then not seem likely to be unable to perfectly understand the infinite being who is god? if simple confusion is all it would take to disprove any conception of god then could you please explain to us how exactly the concept of no beginning works? do you perfectly understand this? of course you don't so along the lines of your argument, the muslim deity fails to be the one true god as well. but once more, this conversation is neither here nor there. if you wish to discuss the matter so badly then perhaps it would be best to start a thread on the matter. as is, i'm quite preoccupied with this one here and while i'm perfectly fine with discussing anything which relates to this topic, i'll have to avoid all discussion within this thread which will not prove nor disprove my main argument. thanks.

 

[gmcbroom]

Whew! That was alot to read from the 1st page all the way to here! Suffice it to say there are over 100 hundred heresies that the Catholic Church has had to fight. Sol Invictus is correct in saying a great many heresies were dealt with a long time ago some if not most before the time of Mohammed. So in essence we can go round and round over the Trinity but it won't go anywhere. Muslims believe one thing and Christians another and that is an area that isn't going to change anytime soon as that subject is an area pits 2 different faiths against each other. This probably amuses atheists to no end.

Therefore, I believe we should get back to the original poster's question. From a different angle. How does the Qu'ran represent Christian beliefs.

Here, I'll start. Jesus gave us 2 great commandments that contain the whole of the Law. To Love your God with your whole heart, your whole mind. The second to love your neighbor as yourself.

In essence the first is to love God. The second is to love your neighbor as yourself in short don't treat your neighbor badly.

Does The Qu'ran have a similar set of commandments or hadith to these?

Peace be with you
gmcbroom

 

[UsayIsaIsayGod]

If the Bible teaches it, then show me where is TRINITY “characterized by full, clear expression,” in The Bible.

“For God is not the author of confusion” 1 Corinthians 14:33.
Then, why is the concept of Trinity confusing to human minds?

Firstly, the verse you cite is not only taken out of context, but cut short in and of itself -- and not only is it taken out of the context of the passage surrounding it, but the translation you have cited is archaic and old English so you must not simply inject the modern definition of the word 'confusion' into a text where the word carried a different meaning.

Original Word: ἀκαταστασία, ας, ἡ
Part of Speech: Noun, Feminine
Transliteration: akatastasia
Phonetic Spelling: (ak-at-as-tah-see'-ah)
Short Definition: disturbance, upheaval, revolution
Definition: disturbance, upheaval, revolution, almost anarchy, first in the political, and thence in the moral sphere.
Source: Biblos

The passage:
1 Corinthians 14
29 Two or three prophets should speak, and the others should weigh carefully what is said. 30 And if a revelation comes to someone who is sitting down, the first speaker should stop. 31 For you can all prophesy in turn so that everyone may be instructed and encouraged. 32 The spirits of prophets are subject to the control of prophets. 33 For God is not a God of disorder but of peace—as in all the congregations of the Lord’s people.

 

[Sol Invictus]

glad to see my christian brethren picking up on the points i've missed.

 

[Aprender]

Didn't read all of the posts here but I thought this video was pretty cool in outlining how Islam goes along with some of the teachings in the Bible.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8506202078297437216#

Not sure how to post Google videos here but check it out for yourself.

 

[Aprender]

33 For God is not a God of disorder but of peace—as in all the congregations of the Lord’s people.

Not trying to start a debate with you there and I'm not disagreeing with you but even disorder of the mind prevents peace. Even you have to acknowledge that the Trinity has been and continues to be very confusing to people no matter which style of diction is used in the Bibles.

But let's get back to the topic.

 

[Sol Invictus]

Not trying to start a debate with you there and I'm not disagreeing with you but even disorder of the mind prevents peace. Even you have to acknowledge that the Trinity has been and continues to be very confusing to people no matter which style of diction is used in the Bibles.

greetings aprender, the fact that it might be confusing still does not mean that that bible passage fits. in fact, you have to wrest it out of context in order to make it fit. even if we were to admit your point, then the same would apply to the muslim deity. the attribute of having no beginning, of existing when there was no space at all etc. all these things are incredibly mind-boggling and if you say that you understand these things perfectly then you are a liar. so therefore, if we go by what seems to be the muslim argument here, then islam has been equally refuted. it would seem that in a bid to find anything that could be used against the christian doctrine, we have ceased examining our own points to find out whether or not they are self-refuting. yet, at the very least discussions such as this are able to show us the errors in our logic.

but yes, let us get back to the topic. i am still awaiting responses from a couple of people.

 

[YusufNoor]

I'm confused. I thought that this thread had to do with how the Qur'an represents Christian beliefs. But what is presented here are not Christian beliefs. No Christian I know of (now or in history) has ever said "Allah is one of three in a Trinity" or, for that matter, that God is one of three.

Nor do I know of any Christian who has ever suggested that Jesus said "Worship me and my mother as gods."

Are you saying that the Qur'an asserts that these are Christian beliefs? If the Qur'an never errs, then it would seem to me that the Qur'an must be critiquing some spurious religion that grew up in the region, because it isn't critiquing Christianity in these passages as these aren't actual Christian beliefs.

i see that some of our Christians are on a little crusade here. let me take a moment or two to respond.

IN GENERAL, Christians are treated as 2 kinds: those who follow Isa ibn Marriam, Peace be upon both of them, who are treated as "believers who do righteous deeds that they will have a good reward"

and as those that reject Islamic Monotheism, "18:57And who is more unjust than one who is reminded of the verses of his Lord but turns away from them and forgets what his hands have put forth? Indeed, We have placed over their hearts coverings, lest they understand it, and in their ears deafness. And if you invite them to guidance - they will never be guided, then - ever.

And on that Day We shall present Hell to the disbelievers, plain to view,
18:101 Muhsin Khan
(To) Those whose eyes had been under a covering from My Reminder (this Quran), and who could not bear to hear (it).
18:102 Muhsin Khan
Do then those who disbelieve think that they can take My slaves [i.e., the angels, Allah's Messengers, 'Iesa (Jesus), son of Maryam (Mary), etc.] as Auliya' (lords, gods, protectors, etc.) besides Me? Verily, We have prepared Hell as an entertainment for the disbelievers (in the Oneness of Allah Islamic Monotheism).
18:103 Muhsin Khan
Say (O Muhammad SAW): "Shall We tell you the greatest losers in respect of (their) deeds?
18:104 Muhsin Khan
"Those whose efforts have been wasted in this life while they thought that they were acquiring good by their deeds!
18:105 Muhsin Khan
"They are those who deny the Ayat (proofs, evidences, verses, lessons, signs, revelations, etc.) of their Lord and the Meeting with Him (in the Hereafter). So their works are in vain, and on the Day of Resurrection, We shall not give them any weight.
18:106 Muhsin Khan
"That shall be their recompense, Hell; because they disbelieved and took My Ayat (proofs, evidences, verses, lessons, signs, revelations, etc.) and My Messengers by way of jest and mockery.
18:107 Muhsin Khan
"Verily! Those who believe (in the Oneness of Allah Islamic Monotheism) and do righteous deeds, shall have the Gardens of Al-Firdaus (the Paradise) for their entertainment.

we have this explanation also:

18:4 And to warn those (Jews, Christians, and pagans) who say, "Allah has begotten a son (or offspring or children)."
18:5 Muhsin Khan
No knowledge have they of such a thing, nor had their fathers. Mighty is the word that comes out of their mouths [i.e. He begot (took) sons and daughters]. They utter nothing but a lie.

and turning to the present here:

18:56 Muhsin Khan
And We send not the Messengers except as giver of glad tidings and warners. But those who disbelieve, dispute with false argument, in order to refute the truth thereby. And they treat My Ayat (proofs, evidences, verses, lessons, signs, revelations, etc.), and that with which they are warned, as jest and mockery!

18:57 Muhsin Khan
And who does more wrong than he who is reminded of the Ayat (proofs, evidences, verses, lessons, signs, revelations, etc.) of his Lord, but turns away from them forgetting what (deeds) his hands have sent forth. Truly, We have set veils over their hearts lest they should understand this (the Quran), and in their ears, deafness. And if you (O Muhammad SAW) call them to guidance, even then they will never be guided.

I'm confused. I thought that this thread had to do with how the Qur'an represents Christian beliefs. But what is presented here are not Christian beliefs. No Christian I know of (now or in history) has ever said "Allah is one of three in a Trinity" or, for that matter, that God is one of three.

does the Qur'an say it is quoting Christians? is that why you are confused? the Qur'an is explaining to ISLAMIC MONOTHEISTS how Christians have "devolved" Allah into the " god the father" of the New Testament, which IS one of the 3 parts of the Christian Trinity. Christians have made their Prophet, Isa ibn Marriam, Peace be upon both of them, as the "son" part of the trinity and their shirk has elevated Jibreel, Peace be upon him, into the "third" part of the triune godhead.

Christians may PRETEND it is a poor explanation, but a polytheist just can't "get it!"

Nor do I know of any Christian who has ever suggested that Jesus said "Worship me and my mother as gods."

AGAIN, does the Qur'an say it is quoting Christians? or does it say who it is quoting on Qiyama?
in ISLAMIC MONOTHEISM, if you pray to someone, you have treated them as an "associate" or "partner" of Allah!

are there Christians who pray to Isa ibn Marriam, Peace be upon both him AND Marriam Umm Isa, Peace be upon her?

ABSOLUTELY!

If the Qur'an never errs

STOP RIGHT THERE! the Qur'an NEVER errs!

La Ilaha Illallah Muhammadur Rasulullah

 

[Aprender]

greetings aprender, the fact that it might be confusing still does not mean that that bible passage fits. in fact, you have to wrest it out of context in order to make it fit. even if we were to admit your point, then the same would apply to the muslim deity. the attribute of having no beginning, of existing when there was no space at all etc. all these things are incredibly mind-boggling and if you say that you understand these things perfectly then you are a liar. so therefore, if we go by what seems to be the muslim argument here, then islam has been equally refuted. it would seem that in a bid to find anything that could be used against the christian doctrine, we have ceased examining our own points to find out whether or not they are self-refuting. yet, at the very least discussions such as this are able to show us the errors in our logic.

but yes, let us get back to the topic. i am still awaiting responses from a couple of people.

I'm so sorry brother but I honestly don't understand your logic here at all. The Qur'an and the Bible are not the autobiographical pieces of God. I don't understand how that would refute Islam or Christianity if someone thought that they understood the origins of the Creator. There would be no way to confirm their understanding as it would be based solely on their own ideas and wouldn't be up for discussion.