The Trinity and Islam: What does Mohommed Say?

[M.I.A.]

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

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

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

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

 

[Traditio]

To the OP,

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Traditio]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Sojourn]

Peace be with you tearose,

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

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

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

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

Pax et bonum

 

[Sojourn]

Peace be with you h-n,

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

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

Pax

 

[Sojourn]

Peace be with you BlueOwl,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

No wonder some people believe Jesus went to Kashmir.

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


Peace be with you

 

[tearose]

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

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

None of those practises constitutes worshipping her as a God.

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

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

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

 

[tearose]

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

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

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

 

[Sojourn]

Peace be with you Tearose,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Traditio]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Traditio]

In the previous post, I wrote the following:

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

The bolded should instead be read as "her."

 

[Futuwwa]

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

 

[Sojourn]

Peace be with you Futuwwa,

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

Pax

 

[greenhill]

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

Father, Son and the Holy Ghost?


eace:

 

[greenhill]

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

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

 

[YusufNoor]

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

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

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

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

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

#112 Al Ikhlas:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

let me know if you are interested in this discussion.

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

ma salama

 

[Scimitar]

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

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

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

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

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

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

Scimi

 

[Sojourn]

Peace be with you Yusuf,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

ma salama

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

 

[Sojourn]

Peace Scimi,

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

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

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

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

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

Quite different indeed!


Pax et bonum

 

[Zafran]

Peace Scimi,



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

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

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

Quite different indeed!


Pax et bonum

Salaam

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

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

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

Just to add there are 2 types of prophets

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

Hope that helps.