VOTE for PROPHET MUHAMMAD (pbuh) .....
Jochen Katz
bu...@brain.net.pk writes:
} > They're asking for the most inf. man/woman this century.
} >
} > Rasulullah SAW would qualify for this but the implication is that the person
} > must have LIVED in this century.
} >
} > Hence I didn't vote.
} Had they been asking for the most inf. person in human history
inf. = infamous?
I went again and the page only asks for "the person of the century",
look again: http://cgi.pathfinder.com/time/time100/poc/century.html
} then surely
} the holy prophet Muhammad p.b.u.h has no equal.
Some things are sure for some and not so sure for others.
} Actually Muslims are wise
} enough not to vote for the prophet p.b.u.h as I havent seen his name any
} where in the list so far. The christians on the other hand have heavily voted
} for Jesus p.b.u.h which is more surprising becuause to the best of my
} knowedge they dont beleive he was human. You cant put God or son of God in
} competition with ordinary human souls, can you ?? :)
}
} Mansoor Butt
I am astounded. I have seen you do a lot of "Muslim Christian debate"
about the Trinity and other issues on various mailing lists. I would
suggest you go back to Muslim / Christian dialog 101. First step:
Try to learn and understand the teachings of the other side. Don't
just assume.
In the Jewish scriptures (including the Torah, which is endorsed
by the Qur'an) there are many theophanies (see e.g. Genesis 18),
i.e. God appears to some people in the form of a human being.
Genesis 18 it is Abraham to whom God comes that way.
In the Qur'an God appears to Moses in form of a burning bush.
If God can do that, why would he not be able to appear in form
of a human being? No reason why he could not.
But these theophanies (pre-incarnate appearances of Christ) are
NOT the same as what we think about Jesus. These appearances were
limited in time and "disappared" afterwards.
Jesus, being divine from eternity, became not an appearance,
but in his incarnation, via conception and birth, became a true
human being, taking on human nature with all that entails except
that he was without sin.
Therefore, Christians agree with Muslims fully when we say that
Jesus was a human being. We do not agree with the particle that
Muslims like to inject. He was not "only a human being". He was
much more. It is the limitation of God in the Muslim mind, the
claim that God is not able to become man, which separates
the Muslim understanding of God from the Christian understanding.
Warm regards,
Jochen Katz
mgho...@my-dejanews.com
Greetings Jochen,
In article <6v07cn$66u$1...@usenet01.srv.cis.pitt.edu>,
Jochen Katz <jk...@math.gatech.edu> wrote:
[...]
> In the Qur'an God appears to Moses in form of a burning bush.
> If God can do that, why would he not be able to appear in form
> of a human being? No reason why he could not.
I am always delighted to correct your mistakes concerning Quran and Islam as
this may help you understand Islam correctly.
Concerning teh above passage, your claim that God appeared in the form of a
burning bush has no evidence from the Quran. In the story of Moses, we read
that Moses saw a burning bush and when he got near to it God spoke to him. We
cannot conclude that God was the burning bush or that He was in the bush. Do
you get my point. There no such things as theophanies in Islam.
Moreover, I am always astonished by the question: "why would he not be able to
appear in form of a human being?" It sounds like a hindu asking: "why would he
not be able to appear in form of a cow?" or any sacred creature whatsoever.
Nothing is beyond God's ability but there are things that are below His due
respect and His perfect attributes. In the human condition, there are things
that do not fit God. It is not that He wouldn't be able to appear like a human
[astaghfirullah for even stating this hypothesis] but the idea is that it does
not agree with His beautiful attributes.
I hope this could help.
Best regards,
wassalaamu 3alaykom wa raHmatollaahi wa barakaatoh.
Mohammad Ghoniem.
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
Stdnt65432
>Date: 10/3/98 6:59 AM Pacific Daylight Time
>Message-id: <6v5aj8$lnb$1...@usenet01.srv.cis.pitt.edu>
>
Wrote:
>"why would he not be able to
>appear in form of a human being?
Good question .I am waiting for your answer.
>Nothing is beyond God's ability
true . I still waiting for your answer
.>Nothing is beyond God's ability but there are things that are
below His due
>respect and His perfect attributes.
True. eg: God would not lie. I am holding my breath . Your inswer is???
> In the human
condition, there are things
>that do not fit God
What are these conditions ? And how do you know? Your answer!!!
>. It is not that He
wouldn't be able to appear like a human
Yes, yes, yes ,astaghferollah el azeem , you do agree that God can appear as a
man, albeit ,> the idea is that it does
>not agree with His beautiful attributes.
>
Whatever " His beautiful attributes" are !!
Ghoniem you fell in the trap . This is logic and reason 101 . You get an "F"
Jochen Katz
"Dr. M S M Saifullah" <sa...@aecl.ntt.co.jp> writes:
} 'Abdullah Ibn Mas'ud, the well known Companion, is reported to have said:
}
} Do not ask the ahl al-kitab about anything (in tafsir), for they cannot
} guide you and are themselves in error....
}
} [Ahmad von Denffer, 'Ulum al-Qur'an, 1994, The Islamic Foundation, pp. 134.]
}
} I hope that it is quite clear what the status of the scripture of People of
} the Book.
I wonder whether this hadith overrules the Qur'an where we find
in Sura 10:94 the the admonition:
And if you are in doubt concerning that which we reveal unto you,
then ask those who read the Scripture [that was] before you.
} > In the Qur'an God appears to Moses in form of a burning bush.
} > If God can do that, why would he not be able to appear in form
} > of a human being? No reason why he could not.
}
} Where does the Qur'an endorses that God appeared to Moses(P) in the form of
} burning bush, if the Qur'an according to you, endorses the Torah.
Sura 27:7-9
Behold! Moses said to his family: "I perceive a fire;
soon will I bring you from there some information, or
I will bring you a burning brand to light our fuel,
that ye may warn yourselves.
But when he came to the (fire), a voice was heard:
"Blessed are those in the fire and those around:
and glory to Allah, the Lord of the worlds.
"O Moses! verily, I am Allah, the exalted in might,
the wise!....
What Moses SAW was a fire (the burning bush, as the Torah
explains in more detail). What Moses HEARD was a voice
saying "I AM ALLAH".
Therefore, we have a physical/visible manifestation of God.
That is all I said. Maybe let me reformulate it a bit more
precise. I don't say that fire was God. Nor do I say that
Jesus was God in the sense that he was all of God and no
God left outside Jesus. That would be very false. If you
want to read more about this issue what we mean when saying
that "Jesus is God" then have a look at the article
http://answering-islam.org/Who/theos.html
In short:
Based on this Qur'an verse Muslims would usually believe that
the glory of God appeared in the fire, so I ask in response,
"Isn't it more worthy for His glory to be manifested in the
person of Christ? If it appeared in the fire, why can't it
appear in the person of the Word of Allah?"
Obviously, the human body of Jesus did not display the omnipresence
of God. But in the person (personality, character of Jesus) we saw
God reflected in the utmost, as much as humans can perceive God
at all. Let me give you another analogy. First let me ask these
questions:
1. "Do you agree that God is Almighty and can do anything He wills?"
2. "Do you agree that God is a Spirit and can take any shape he wills?"
3. "Do you agree that God is infinite and beyond human comprehension
except that He chose to reveal Himself to us?"
Compare the vastness of the ocean with that of God. We can not
possibly explore the entire ocean. But what if I took a glass and
filled it with water from the Ocean and brought it to you? Now you
can taste it, touch it and smell it. You could put it under a
microscope and you would see that in essence it is the same as the
ocean. It is separate from the ocean but it is in essence the same
as the ocean. This is as we understand the statemet "Jesus is God".
Against this analogy, read John 1:1, 14 and Colossians 1:15. It
shows how God emptied Himself and became a human being so that we
could taste and see who He is. At the same time, he remains God
on high, infinite in his power, wisdom, authority....
More along these lines can be found at
http://answering-islam.org/Trinity/t0illustr.html
[by the famous theologian Alister McGrath]
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Delphi/8449/forus.html
[by John Piper]
} Katz said: "If God can do that, why would he not be able to appear in form
} of a human being? No reason why he could not."
}
} Yes, why not human being?
I am glad we agree. It is good that you admit that God could
do it. Then, the next question is, what is the evidence that
he indeed came to us in human form. Sadly, you do not go on
to inquire, but to ridicule. But ridicule is not an answer to
this foundational question.
} Why not a monkey? or a pig? or an elephant? or a
} lion? Surely Hindus believe in incarnation of God in many form ranging from
} man to lion. Why can not one God be two (di-unity), three (tri-unity), four
} (quadra-unity), five (penta-unity) or ten (deca-unity) or a million? Why
} limit God's omnipotence?
We are not limiting him by philosophy. Philosophy is not the issue
at all. This is not a philosophical but a historical-theological
question. As C.S. Lewis wrote:
If Christianity was something we were making up, of course
we could make it easier. But it is not. We cannot compete
in simplicity with people who are inventing religions.
How could we? We are dealing with Fact. Of course anyone
can be simple if he has no facts to bother about.
("Mere Christianity," p. 145).
And even if those facts (Biblical teachings, revelation) are
difficult, we have to deal with them and not brush them away
with the philosophical remarks like "what if he were a million?"
There is much evidence in the words and deeds of Jesus and the
prophetic books of the Old Testament which led the Church to this
understanding. We are not philosophizing in empty space, but we
try to understand and then formulate what the revelation of God
says.
Philosophically, a quaternity would be just as viable as a trinity.
I agree, but God did not tell about himself as quaternity, but he
spoke of himself as one God, yet there seem to be three persons
representing this one God. Your approach is mockery in order to
avoid the need to grapple with God's revelation, but your reaction
does nothing to answer the issue. It is escapism.
It seems that all of the Muslim (philosophical) argument for
a unitarian monotheism boils down to, is the one reason already
given in the Qur'an: If there are more than one, then they
would fight against each other, ... The Qur'an formulates it
this way:
Allah never begot or adopted a son. Never did He have an associate.
Otherwise, every god would have sought exclusive dominion over his
part of creation as well as dominion over the others. But Allah is
beyond all their description. (Surah 23:91)
And because two gods would necessarily end up in fighting each
other we also read:
If there were other gods beside Allah, heaven and earth would
collapse in disorder and chaos. Praised therefore be Allah,
Lord of the Throne, Transcendent beyond all their descriptions
of Him. (Surah 21:22)
Quotations as found in "Al-Tawhid" by Isma`il Raji al-Faruqi,
page 19.
This seems to be the one and only actual argument against
"several gods" (which doesn't even address the trinity
because we do not believe in several gods). All other
attacks on polytheism or the Christians are of a emotional
nature, i.e. denoucing it as "not fitting for God" (who are
we to define what is fitting for his glory?), as degradation,
etc. or just saying "it is not so". But that is obviously
not an argument of substance. The above is the only logical
argument against several gods that I have seen so far from
the Muslim side.
But I have answered this charge a long time ago, if you would
like to look it up in the DejaNews archives under
http://www.dejanews.com/getdoc.xp?AN=160395931
The essence why it is obviously weak, is because it presupposes
that these gods would be at odds with each other. It seemingly
cannot image unity and harmony between two parties, but the
governing thought as soon as "two" are in view is: Who is the
stronger one? Who will dominate? That is why Islam is the
religion of power.
But the Bible does reveal another image of God. We read that
"God is love". (without diminishing his holiness and his
sovereign power). This is acompletely different paradigm.
If two are in full agreement, and can sustain this agreement
because they are all loving and not marred by sin (which is
the reason people fight, they are selfish), then there is
no logical reason why "two" would automatically lead to
chaos.
That is the basic flaw of this Qur'anic argument.
More will be said about this in due time.
This is just something to ponder about for now.
} > Jesus, being divine from eternity, became not an appearance,
} > but in his incarnation, via conception and birth, became a true
} > human being, taking on human nature with all that entails except
} > that he was without sin.
}
} Sorry, preach it in the Church!
Petty indignation, again, is not the same as an answer.
} > Therefore, Christians agree with Muslims fully when we say that
} > Jesus was a human being. We do not agree with the particle that
} > Muslims like to inject. He was not "only a human being". He was
} > much more. It is the limitation of God in the Muslim mind, the
} > claim that God is not able to become man, which separates
} > the Muslim understanding of God from the Christian understanding.
}
} At least Katz would find hindus less limiting than Muslims
Sorry, but the Hindu understanding is not comparable, because
Hinduism is not monotheistic, but monistic / pantheistic or
even polytheistic. It is a very different issue.
} when it comes to
} understanding the concept of Jesus(P) being god. Jews and Muslims are very
} hard to convince of Trinity.
Some truths are difficult. I know. But that doesn't mean it is
false because it is difficult.
} The talk about di-unityor tri-unity or
} penta-unity is a talk which basically is self-contradictory and means
} nothing.
That is something you have not shown, you only tried to ridicule
it without attempt to understand it and to respond to the actual
arguments.
} After reading all the above stuff I am happy and thankful to God that I am
} a Muslim. I do not have to make-up stories and construct theological
} 'arguments' to support my point of view.
To each his own approach. Some think "this is too difficult (for me)",
so I will only mock it and pretend it is nonsense. That makes life
so much easier.
} We believe in what God has revealed about himself and we submit.
That is what all true Christians do. We grapple to understand
God's revelation and to submit our wills and works to it.
But the issue is always the same. How do you know what of the
claimed revelations is indeed from God?
I am afraid, this is not answered so easily.
May the Lord God open us heart and mind for His truth.
Jochen Katz
Jochen Katz
In article <6v5aj8$lnb$1...@usenet01.srv.cis.pitt.edu>,
mgho...@my-dejanews.com writes:
} I am always delighted to correct your mistakes concerning Quran and Islam as
} this may help you understand Islam correctly.
I am sure. :-) And I am gratefully acknowledging the clarifications
that you bring ever so often.
} Concerning teh above passage, your claim that God appeared in the form of a
} burning bush has no evidence from the Quran.
I also responded in regard to this topic in more detail to
Saifullah's posting. Please have a look at my response to
him. I might have expressed myself not clear enough, and
have formulated it now more carefully. I hope it answers
your objections as well und you can understand better what
I meant with my original remark.
Warm regards,
Jochen Katz
Dr. M S M Saifullah
Assalamu-alaikum wa rahamatullahi wa barakatuhu:
> } Do not ask the ahl al-kitab about anything (in tafsir), for they cannot
> } guide you and are themselves in error....
>
> I wonder whether this hadith overrules the Qur'an where we find
> in Sura 10:94 the the admonition:
>
> And if you are in doubt concerning that which we reveal unto you,
> then ask those who read the Scripture [that was] before you.
Katz, do us a favour. Please get a the opinions of the Muslim exegetes
concerning the above verse and then tell us whether what you are trying to
push down our throats is correct. By the way, why not quote the verse in
full context. A few verses above this verse are talking about sone story,
right?
Secondly, the Qur'an also talks about various issues concerning the status
of the scriptures of People of the Book and there are other expositions of
it in the hadith literature. Please bother to quote them too.
Thirdly, the OT and NT lack the chain of narration. 'Abdullah b. al-Mubarak
(d. 181 AH), one of the illustrious teachers of Imam al-Bukhari, said,
"The isnad is part of the religion: whatever he liked." The NT is composed
of matn (text) but no isnad (chain of narration). Without isnad, as
'Abdullah b. al-Mubarak said, anyone can claim anything saying that it is
coming from the authority. And this is another reason why Muslim exegetes
have rejected the use of the previous scriptures.
> What Moses SAW was a fire (the burning bush, as the Torah
> explains in more detail). What Moses HEARD was a voice
> saying "I AM ALLAH".
>
> Therefore, we have a physical/visible manifestation of God.
That is a strange reasoning. Nowhere in the Qur'an Allah says that he
physically manifested himself as fire. Why not again quote use some Muslim
exegete who shares your point of view?
> Based on this Qur'an verse Muslims would usually believe that
> the glory of God appeared in the fire, so I ask in response,
> "Isn't it more worthy for His glory to be manifested in the
> person of Christ? If it appeared in the fire, why can't it
> appear in the person of the Word of Allah?"
Katz, I am sorry to say that unless you show "the glory of God appeared in
the fire" in the Muslim exegesis there is no reason of proceeding further
with the extra dose of Jesus(P) manifesting as His manifestation. It is
clear from the Qur'an that creation can not be the Creator. Jesus(P) was
created by God and hence can not be God. That is as simple and as blunt I
can put it.
> Obviously, the human body of Jesus did not display the omnipresence
> of God. But in the person (personality, character of Jesus) we saw
> God reflected in the utmost, as much as humans can perceive God
> at all. Let me give you another analogy. First let me ask these
> questions:
If some things are so obvious then why is the foolishness associated with
it to believe that Jesus(P) was God? Since in his human form Jesus(P) was
not omniscience, leave alone the 'omnipresence', there is no point pushing
through the concept of divinity of Jesus(P).
> 1. "Do you agree that God is Almighty and can do anything He wills?"
God does things which suits His majesty.
> 2. "Do you agree that God is a Spirit and can take any shape he wills?"
Sorry, Muslims do not believe that God is a spirit and can take any shape
he wills. If latter is the case then God can take the shape of a lion or an
elephant or monkey or cow or even the form of cow-dung. Welcome to Hinduism!
> 3. "Do you agree that God is infinite and beyond human comprehension
> except that He chose to reveal Himself to us?"
Well, God, if he is the ultimate truth, can only reveal His will not himself.
< irrelevent philosophical trash deleted>
> We are not limiting him by philosophy. Philosophy is not the issue
> at all. This is not a philosophical but a historical-theological
> question. As C.S. Lewis wrote:
If that is the historical-theological question then why not go back to the
history and theological history of Christianity? Bart Ehrman in the
beginning of his book "The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture" says:
"Christianity in the second and third centuries was in a remarkable state
of flux. To be sure, at no point in its history has the religion
constituted a monolith. But the diverse manifestations of its first three
hundred years - whether in terms of social structures, religious practices,
or ideologies - have never been replicated. Nowhere is this seen more
clearly than in the realm of theology. In the second and third centuries
there were, of course, Christians who believed in only one God; others,
however, claimed that there were two Gods; yet others subscribed to 30, or
365, or more. Some Christians accepted the Hebrew Scriptures as a
revelation of the one true God, the sacred possession of all believers;
others claimed that the scriptures had been inspired by an evil deity. Some
Christians believed that God had created the world and was soon going to
redeem it; others said that God neither had created the world nor had ever
had any dealings with it. Some Christians believed that Christ was somehow
both a man and God; others said that he was a man, but not God; others
claimed that he was God but not a man; others insisted that he was a man
who had been temporarily inhabited by God. Some Christians believed that
Christ's death had brought about the salvation of the world; others claimed
that his death had no bearing on salvation; yet others alleged that he had
never even died. Few of these variant theologies went uncontested, and the
controversies that ensued impacted the surviving literature on virtually
every level."
I suppose there is no need to prop the above issue further with more
references.
> Philosophically, a quaternity would be just as viable as a trinity.
> I agree, but God did not tell about himself as quaternity, but he
> spoke of himself as one God, yet there seem to be three persons
> representing this one God. Your approach is mockery in order to
> avoid the need to grapple with God's revelation, but your reaction
> does nothing to answer the issue. It is escapism.
Well, Katz's "there seem to be three persons" is telling quite a lot.
Anyway, it is not a mockery but dealing with the issues as they unfold. The
first argument of Katz was that Muslims are limiting God. And when that was
dealt rather well, alhamdulillah, then we have the argument from a
philosophical-historical-theological point of view. Now the early Christian
history does not say what Katz wants us to believe. Since philosophically
everything can be constructed, i.e., deca-unity but still giving
lip-service to monotheism, we now fall back to the scriptural sources. At
least there is no escapism here. Two issues down and one more to go.
Now what the Scriptures of the People of the Book and Muslims say is that
the God is one. The Biblical Prophets as well as Jesus (P) said that. There
was no Trinity nor the nonsense talk of Tri-unity in the Bible. It is a
theological construct which came about after a long debate among the Church
fathers about the nature of Jesus(P). The Bible does not mention the name
'Trinity' anywhere. Further, did anyone at all, anywhere in the Bible, from
one end to the other, ever say that God is triune, a trinity, three, or
three-in-one?"
"There is also the closely parallel recognition on the part of historians
of dogma and systematic theologians that when one does speak of an
unqualified Trinitarianism, one has moved from the period of Christian
origins to, say, the last quadrant of the 4th century. It was only then
that what might be called the definitive Trinitarian dogma 'One God in
three Persons' became thoroughly assimilated into Christian life and
thought ." says The New Catholic Encyclopedia.
> Allah never begot or adopted a son. Never did He have an associate.
> Otherwise, every god would have sought exclusive dominion over his
> part of creation as well as dominion over the others. But Allah is
> beyond all their description. (Surah 23:91)
So fire is not the physical/visible manifestation of God. We all agree there.
> And because two gods would necessarily end up in fighting each
> other we also read:
>
> If there were other gods beside Allah, heaven and earth would
> collapse in disorder and chaos. Praised therefore be Allah,
> Lord of the Throne, Transcendent beyond all their descriptions
> of Him. (Surah 21:22)
If someone reads the Hindu mythology and its pantheons of gods fighting
each other, (s)he will definitely appreciate what the Qur'an says. The
pantheon of Hindu gods is a *big* mess.
> But I have answered this charge a long time ago, if you would
> like to look it up in the DejaNews archives under
>
> http://www.dejanews.com/getdoc.xp?AN=160395931
Well, Katz can only convince himself.
> The essence why it is obviously weak, is because it presupposes
> that these gods would be at odds with each other. It seemingly
> cannot image unity and harmony between two parties, but the
> governing thought as soon as "two" are in view is: Who is the
> stronger one? Who will dominate? That is why Islam is the
> religion of power.
The concept of tri-unity itself is pretty oxymoronic. When some one says
tri then there is no question of one. This is because one can not be three
and three cannot be one. So, where is the magnificent harmony or unity in
tri-unity?
> But the Bible does reveal another image of God. We read that
> "God is love". (without diminishing his holiness and his
> sovereign power). This is acompletely different paradigm.
> If two are in full agreement, and can sustain this agreement
> because they are all loving and not marred by sin (which is
> the reason people fight, they are selfish), then there is
> no logical reason why "two" would automatically lead to
> chaos.
"God is love" is grammatically incorrect. It should be God is loving. If
"God is love" in the Bible exists, then we can also see "God is punish" in
the OT. How about the murderous adventurous of Yahweh? I wonder why Katz
would not bother to quote the OT which talks about "God is punish".
Afterall Jesus(P) was Yahweh incarnate! What is there is hide, Katz?
> That is what all true Christians do. We grapple to understand
> God's revelation and to submit our wills and works to it.
> But the issue is always the same. How do you know what of the
> claimed revelations is indeed from God?
The Islamic view is that the Christians are kuffar. I think that is pretty
much clear.
How do you know which books in the Bible are revealed? You have the Bibles
from Catholic, Protestant, Greek Orthodox, Syriac, Ethiopic, Coptic
churchs? Please tell us which books are 'inspired'? If the status of the
Bible is unclear there is no point talking about Islamic claims about the
revelation. Ever heard of pot calling the kettle black.
Wassalam
Saifullah
Jochen Katz
} > } Do not ask the ahl al-kitab about anything (in tafsir), for they cannot
} > } guide you and are themselves in error....
} >
} > I wonder whether this hadith overrules the Qur'an where we find
} > in Sura 10:94 the the admonition:
} >
} > And if you are in doubt concerning that which we reveal unto you,
} > then ask those who read the Scripture [that was] before you.
}
} Katz, do us a favour. Please get a the opinions of the Muslim exegetes
} concerning the above verse and then tell us whether what you are trying to
} push down our throats is correct.
I am suffering under memory loss regarding English vocabulary... maybe
you can help me out in this. What do you call that again when you demand
from others to do what you don't do yourself?
To be more clear: How often have you consulted the commentaries of
Biblical exegetes before you make your comments on Bible passages?
And then I have one problem too: Which commentary should I choose?
Don't tell me the Muslims are all of unanimous opinion. I am obviously
supposed to choose the interpretation that YOU like most. Are you going
to do me the same favor with respect to the Bible commentaries? I think
that is rather doubtful. How then do you call those kinds of demands
on others?
Basically, you make an "argument from orthodoxy", I am supposed to
understand the Qur'an "according to conservative Muslim thought",
but you are les than willing to understand the Bible according to
conservative Christian scholarship.
Why should I be impressed?
} By the way, why not quote the verse in
} full context. A few verses above this verse are talking about sone story,
} right?
What is "sone" story?
Anyway, I read the verse in context (as if the Qur'an would provide
much of that...) and found nothing that would contradict the following:
1. It is about interpretation of the Qur'an
2. It is about the case when things are not clear in the Qur'an
3. It says to consult those about it, who have/read the earlier
scriptures, no doubt, the Christians and Jews.
Your hadith says "do NOT ask the people of the book about interpretation"
and the Qur'an says "DO ask them about that you are in doubt so to better
understand it". Saifullah choses the hadith because of his personal taste
on the matter.
I even read Y. Ali's comment on it. It didn't make it say anything
else, even though it obfuscated it a bit.
"what we revealed to you" refers certainly to the Qur'an, not something
else, because it is speaking "about the scripture".
If you disagree, please make your argument yourself and don't refer
me to some undefined and elusive "commentary". You write what you think
it means. And then we can discuss it.
} Secondly, the Qur'an also talks about various issues concerning the status
} of the scriptures of People of the Book and there are other expositions of
} it in the hadith literature. Please bother to quote them too.
Again, I suggest YOU quote what you want us to read and discuss.
But yes, more is said about it, not just that verse. But that verse 10:94
is there, and there to stay (or do you want to take it out?). Do you think
it is abrogated. Why?
} Thirdly, the OT and NT lack the chain of narration. 'Abdullah b. al-Mubarak
} (d. 181 AH), one of the illustrious teachers of Imam al-Bukhari, said,
} "The isnad is part of the religion: whatever he liked." The NT is composed
} of matn (text) but no isnad (chain of narration). Without isnad, as
} 'Abdullah b. al-Mubarak said, anyone can claim anything saying that it is
} coming from the authority. And this is another reason why Muslim exegetes
} have rejected the use of the previous scriptures.
That is a bogus argument from an Islamic point of view. The scriptures
are demonstrably the same today as in Muhammad's time. Muhammad/Qur'an
approved of them as genuine. That is certainly more than you can say
about any Hadith.
Those who want to see a complete list and discussion of Qur'an verses
and hadith about the Jewish and Christian scriptures may consult
the articles
http://answering-islam.org/Hahn/integrity.html
http://answering-islam.org/Campbell/s2c1.html
} It is
} clear from the Qur'an that creation can not be the Creator. Jesus(P) was
} created by God and hence can not be God. That is as simple and as blunt I
} can put it.
Oh silly me. I wonder whether you carry a picture of your wife in your
wallet (because fundamentalists of your type might take those hadiths
against pictures very seriously and not do that). But I am sure you
have seen pictures of people at some time in your life. Have you
ever heard people say: That is my wife, pointing to the picture?
Certainly people are not made of paper? Is it your wife or is it not?
Well, in one sense it is, in another it isn't. So, the main issue
is: In what sense is Jesus God? You have so far not made any effort
to understand what Christians mean by this statement. You assume they
mean what you mean in an Islamic frame of mind. But you forget that
we have not conditioned our mind by the Qur'an. We might actually
think a bit differently.
For those who want to make an effort to understand, I would recommend
http://answering-islam.org/Who/theos.html
Here two verses (out of many) that speak on the topic:
[The Son] is the image of the invisible God,
the firstborn over all creation. (Colossians 1:15)
The Son is the radiance of God's glory
and the exact representation of his being,
sustaining all things by his powerful word.
(Hebrews 1:3)
} > Obviously, the human body of Jesus did not display the omnipresence
} > of God. But in the person (personality, character of Jesus) we saw
} > God reflected in the utmost, as much as humans can perceive God
} > at all. Let me give you another analogy. First let me ask these
} > questions:
}
} If some things are so obvious then why is the foolishness associated with
} it to believe that Jesus(P) was God?
Why would I have to justify it when you associate foolishness to it?
If I assign foolishness to some issues in the Qur'an does that mean
you can no longer believe them to be obvious?
} Since in his human form Jesus(P) was
} not omniscience, leave alone the 'omnipresence', there is no point pushing
} through the concept of divinity of Jesus(P).
Only for the person who has never understood the doctrine. Can you
tell me if you ever read ONE systematic theology book? If not, why
should I even take you ramble about Christian doctrine seriously
when it is based on ignorance pure?
} > 1. "Do you agree that God is Almighty and can do anything He wills?"
}
} God does things which suits His majesty.
And obvioulsy, God will have to ask Saifullah
what he may approve as suitable for him.
} > 2. "Do you agree that God is a Spirit and can take any shape he wills?"
}
} Sorry, Muslims do not believe that God is a spirit and can take any shape
} he wills. If latter is the case then God can take the shape of a lion or an
} elephant or monkey or cow or even the form of cow-dung. Welcome to Hinduism!
You insist that God cannot do what he wills?
We agree that God is not a material being. It is always good to
affirm what we agree on. :-) But if you say he is not a spiritual
being either, then I would ask you: What is God?
I am sure Saifullah has again the final answer, authoritative far
above anything Jesus said. But just in case you are interested
to consult his opinion before you answer:
Yet a time is coming and has now come when the true worshipers
will worship the Father in spirit and truth, for they are the
kind of worshipers the Father seeks. God is spirit, and his
worshipers must worship in spirit and in truth. (Jesus, John 4:23-24)
Does the Qur'an say God is not spirit? What does the Qur'an say
that God is?
} > 3. "Do you agree that God is infinite and beyond human comprehension
} > except that He chose to reveal Himself to us?"
}
} Well, God, if he is the ultimate truth, can only reveal His will not himself.
That is the Islamic understanding, but not the Biblical one.
And by the way, I hope that Jeremiah reads this. Because he reacted
rather violently to to this understanding when he saw it discussed
in Norman Geisler and Abdul Saleeb's book.
You can read all about it at
http://answering-islam.org/Debates/abd1.3.html
At least Saifullah agrees with al-Faruqi and Abdul Saleeb that this
is so IN ISLAM. That doesn't mean it is therefore the absolute truth.
But Saifullah commits the error to conclude from the Islamic fact
that God does not reveal himself that is means that he CANNOT reveal
himself. These are two different issues. I hope we can at least agree
that we can only know specifics about God as far as he reveals them
to us. Whether he did or not is another issue.
} < irrelevent philosophical trash deleted>
Being his usual polite self again today...
} > We are not limiting him by philosophy. Philosophy is not the issue
} > at all. This is not a philosophical but a historical-theological
} > question. As C.S. Lewis wrote:
}
} If that is the historical-theological question then why not go back to the
} history and theological history of Christianity? Bart Ehrman in the
} beginning of his book "The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture" says:
}
} "Christianity in the second and third centuries was in a remarkable state
} of flux. To be sure, at no point in its history has the religion
} constituted a monolith.
...
Good grief. Shall we dig up the Mutazilite vs. Asharites controversy
and various other conflicts in Muslim theology to show some flux and
then conclude that everything was unclear?
Yes. there was quite some discussion over various issue. But that
doesn't mean that there were certain things which were quite clear
as well, and those very clear things don't square with the Qur'an.
} > Philosophically, a quaternity would be just as viable as a trinity.
} > I agree, but God did not tell about himself as quaternity, but he
} > spoke of himself as one God, yet there seem to be three persons
} > representing this one God. Your approach is mockery in order to
} > avoid the need to grapple with God's revelation, but your reaction
} > does nothing to answer the issue. It is escapism.
}
} Well, Katz's "there seem to be three persons" is telling quite a lot.
} Anyway, it is not a mockery but dealing with the issues as they unfold. The
} first argument of Katz was that Muslims are limiting God. And when that was
} dealt rather well, alhamdulillah, then we have the argument from a
} philosophical-historical-theological point of view. Now the early Christian
} history does not say what Katz wants us to believe. Since philosophically
} everything can be constructed, i.e., deca-unity but still giving
} lip-service to monotheism, we now fall back to the scriptural sources. At
} least there is no escapism here. Two issues down and one more to go.
What is "down"?
I don't see that you said anything that answered my point.
I can see that you declared some kind of victory for yourself,
but I don't see anything you actually positively established.
} Now what the Scriptures of the People of the Book and Muslims say is that
} the God is one.
Amen. I agree.
} The Biblical Prophets as well as Jesus (P) said that.
Amen.
} There was no Trinity nor the nonsense talk of Tri-unity in the Bible.
I agree. there is no nonsense talk in the Bible. Not about
any topic. But if you want to read about some of the sense-talk
you might consult
http://answering-islam.org/Trinity/
and in particular this article responding to your non-argument:
http://str.org/free/commentaries/apologetics/other/ignorant.htm
Oh, and some interesting quotes about the Trinity:
http://www.xs4all.nl/~ahein/t02.html
} It is a
} theological construct which came about after a long debate among the Church
} fathers about the nature of Jesus(P).
I agree. But does it make that false therefore?
Is everything false that you don't find verbatim stated in the Qur'an?
Your logic is just overwhelming these days.
} The Bible does not mention the name 'Trinity' anywhere.
I agree. Same question: If it isn't mentioned, is it therefore
false?
} "There is also the closely parallel recognition on the part of historians
} of dogma and systematic theologians that when one does speak of an
} unqualified Trinitarianism, one has moved from the period of Christian
} origins to, say, the last quadrant of the 4th century. It was only then
} that what might be called the definitive Trinitarian dogma 'One God in
} three Persons' became thoroughly assimilated into Christian life and
} thought ." says The New Catholic Encyclopedia.
I would agree.
So what? Are we forbidden to further reflect on the revelation and
come to a deeper understanding and a better way of expressing it?
Are you forbidden to use the word "tawheed" because it is not
mentioned in the Qur'an?
} > Allah never begot or adopted a son. Never did He have an associate.
} > Otherwise, every god would have sought exclusive dominion over his
} > part of creation as well as dominion over the others. But Allah is
} > beyond all their description. (Surah 23:91)
}
} So fire is not the physical/visible manifestation of God. We all agree there.
Did I say "the"?
What is your point? Deal with the passage I quoted instead of
diverting the discussion.
} > And because two gods would necessarily end up in fighting each
} > other we also read:
} >
} > If there were other gods beside Allah, heaven and earth would
} > collapse in disorder and chaos. Praised therefore be Allah,
} > Lord of the Throne, Transcendent beyond all their descriptions
} > of Him. (Surah 21:22)
}
} If someone reads the Hindu mythology and its pantheons of gods fighting
} each other, (s)he will definitely appreciate what the Qur'an says. The
} pantheon of Hindu gods is a *big* mess.
I agree, but that doesn't mean you can claim that because the Hindu
pantheon is a mess, therefore necessarily two parties will end
up fighting.
Where is your logic gone?
} > But I have answered this charge a long time ago, if you would
} > like to look it up in the DejaNews archives under
} >
} > http://www.dejanews.com/getdoc.xp?AN=160395931
}
} Well, Katz can only convince himself.
You fail to give any statistics to confirm this.
I only see that you personally cannot be convinced which is nothing
new for me. I am not writing for you, but for the many people reading
our exchange of postings.
..,. some sniping snipped ...
} > That is what all true Christians do. We grapple to understand
} > God's revelation and to submit our wills and works to it.
} > But the issue is always the same. How do you know what of the
} > claimed revelations is indeed from God?
}
} The Islamic view is that the Christians are kuffar. I think that is pretty
} much clear.
So what? That is the classical ad hominem argument.
Your opinion doesn't count, you are a disbeliever.
But no argument is too low to be employed.
May the Lord open some eyes through this discussion,
even if you have decided to keep yours firmly shut.
Jochen Katz