The Koran's Misconceptions about Christianity

3 views
Skip to first unread message

Robert Houghton

unread,
Apr 2, 2006, 10:23:17 PM4/2/06
to s...@stump.algebra.com

I have stated elsewhere that engrained Muslim misconceptions have
origins in the Koran itself. Here is a strange one:

"Allah will say, 'O Jesus, Son of Mary! Didst thou say unto men, take me
and my mother for two gods beside Allah?'" (5:116).

There are several interesting aspects to this. First, it implies that
Christian doctrine is what was taught by Jesus, when Christian doctrine
is what is taught by the Church ABOUT Jesus.

More important is the extraordinary implication that Christians believe
that Mary is one of the Trinity, that is, divine. This is as fundamental
a mistake about the Christian religion as you can make: Mary is a human
being. Christians (except Protestants) pray to Mary, but in doing this
do not accord her divine honours: they ask her to pray for them, just as
you can ask anyone to pray for you.

The Muslim commentators on this verse produce ignorant claptrap. Yusuf
Ali, in his notes to his edition of the Koran, feels the strain that
this verse puts on its credibility and tries to ease this by claiming
that some Christians have ALMOST deified her. Here he is repeating a
Protestant anti-Catholic canard, but it won't wash: never in the annals
of Christian heresy has Mary been exalted to divinity, not even by the
Gnostic fantasists.

Why the error? It will be noticed that the Holy Spirit has somehow got
lost; perhaps his place in the Trinity needs filling. And indeed it is a
common Muslim belief that the Angel Gabriel is the Holy Spirit. It's
another error that Jesus and Mary are spoken of as if, in Christian
belief, they were "two gods beside Allah". This is to attribute
tritheism to Christianity, a position which is explicitly excluded by
the creeds of the fourth century, creeds which were accepted by the
Nestorian and Monophysite dissident Churches. So again, the Koran is not
directing this verse against Christian heretics.

Can we learn anything positive from this muddle? It seems to me to
witness to the extraordinary appeal that the figures of Jesus and Mary
had for the pre-Muslim Arabs, an appeal that is answered by their
positions elsewhere in the Koran. The men who created Islam had to
accept this appeal while decisively distinguishing their new state
religion (on the model of Christianity) from that of their enemy the
Byzantines.

Abdelkarim Benoit Evans

unread,
Apr 4, 2006, 12:23:31 AM4/4/06
to s...@stump.algebra.com
In article <000101c65663$4456ad40$4101a8c0@rhdt>,
"Robert Houghton" <robe...@f2s.com> wrote:

> I have stated elsewhere that engrained Muslim misconceptions have
> origins in the Koran itself. Here is a strange one:
>
> "Allah will say, 'O Jesus, Son of Mary! Didst thou say unto men, take me
> and my mother for two gods beside Allah?'" (5:116).
>
> There are several interesting aspects to this. First, it implies that
> Christian doctrine is what was taught by Jesus, when Christian doctrine
> is what is taught by the Church ABOUT Jesus.
>

Thank you for putting it so plainly. A Muslim could not have said it
better. Indeed, one of the primary objections of Muslims to Christianity
is that in some of its aspects it does NOT in fact teach what Jesus
(peace be on him) taught but instead teaches what later Church
authorities invented.

> More important is the extraordinary implication that Christians believe
> that Mary is one of the Trinity, that is, divine. This is as fundamental
> a mistake about the Christian religion as you can make: Mary is a human
> being. Christians (except Protestants) pray to Mary, but in doing this
> do not accord her divine honours: they ask her to pray for them, just as
> you can ask anyone to pray for you.
>
> The Muslim commentators on this verse produce ignorant claptrap. Yusuf
> Ali, in his notes to his edition of the Koran, feels the strain that
> this verse puts on its credibility and tries to ease this by claiming
> that some Christians have ALMOST deified her. Here he is repeating a
> Protestant anti-Catholic canard, but it won't wash: never in the annals
> of Christian heresy has Mary been exalted to divinity, not even by the
> Gnostic fantasists.

I am sorry that you do not know that in fact there were some early
Christians (who were **later** condemned as heretics) who did in fact
teach that Mary (may God be pleased with her) was divine. They were
condemned by Epiphanius and by John Damascene.

>
> Why the error? It will be noticed that the Holy Spirit has somehow got
> lost; perhaps his place in the Trinity needs filling. And indeed it is a
> common Muslim belief that the Angel Gabriel is the Holy Spirit. It's
> another error that Jesus and Mary are spoken of as if, in Christian
> belief, they were "two gods beside Allah". This is to attribute
> tritheism to Christianity, a position which is explicitly excluded by
> the creeds of the fourth century, creeds which were accepted by the
> Nestorian and Monophysite dissident Churches. So again, the Koran is not
> directing this verse against Christian heretics.
>
> Can we learn anything positive from this muddle? It seems to me to
> witness to the extraordinary appeal that the figures of Jesus and Mary
> had for the pre-Muslim Arabs, an appeal that is answered by their
> positions elsewhere in the Koran. The men who created Islam had to
> accept this appeal while decisively distinguishing their new state
> religion (on the model of Christianity) from that of their enemy the
> Byzantines.

The Qur'an condemns, notably, three errors.

(1) the claim of some Christians in the Arabian peninsula that Jesus
(peace be on him) was a god separate from God the Father and thus that
there were in effect two or more gods.

Orthodox Christians in the Eastern and Western chuches do
not hold such a belief and like us worship a single Godhead (Godhood, to
use the original spelling).

(2) the claim of some Christians in the Arabian peninsula that Mary
(God be pleased with her) was herself a divine being. Orthodox
Christians do not believe that either. However, they are not far from
such a belief in calling Mary "coredmptrice" and creating a special
category of respect for her. "Latria" is worship reserved for God
alone. "Dulia" is the veneration of saints. "Hyperdulia" is a special
form of saintly verneration reserved for Mary alone.

(3) the Christian misunderstanding of the much older Jewish title of
"Son of God" (meaning a King of Israel or a prophet). Under the
infulence of Hellenistic pagagnism and philosophy, Son of God came to
mean something quite different. The Latin Chruch especially confunded
the matter by translating the Greek word "monogenes" as "unigenite"
(unbegotten) whereas the Greek word means "one of a kind" or in Latin
"sui generis" (unique in its category). Jesus was a "one-of-a-kind-Son
of God" because he was given pre-eminence by God over the prophet who
had come before and because he was born of a virgin--not because of any
actual filiantion (in the carnal sense) between him and God.

The idea that Christians worship three gods is certainly contrary to the
official doctrine adopted by the Council of Nicea and summarized in the
Athanasian Creed. However, there were in fact Christian groups before
and after Nicea who did not understand the idea of a Unitary Godhead
with unitary being but manifesting itself under there modes or personae
(from the Greek for the mask that Greek actors wore to identify the
character they were playing) or hypostases (the official, neo-platonic
term). Some of those heterodox Christians were in the Arabian peninsula.
Some thought that Jesus was a distinct divine being.

People are always surprised that there is a reference in the Qur'an to a
triad or a trinity made up of God, Jesus and Mary. However, there was a
Christian sect that considered Mary to be divine or at least to be a
demigod.

They were the Collyridians (also called Philomarianites). Eventually
condemned as heretics, they did indeed believe in the divinity of Mary
(God be pleased with her).

"Kollyridians or Collyridians were adorers of Mary in the 4th century
Arabia, as Epiphanius mentioned in his writing against heretics (see:
Haer. 78, 23; 79). This sect, mainly consisting of women or
at least led by woman priests, propagated what amounts to a Goddess
cult regarding Mary. Epiphanius had this warning on their behalf:
"Although Mary is the most beautiful and holy and worthy of praise, we
don't owe her adoration" (Haer. 79, 7, PG 42, 752). In a different
passage Epiphanius uses even stronger words: "Adoration must cease. For
Mary is no goddess nor has she received her body from heaven. (oute gar
theos hae Maria oute ap'ouranou exousa to soma)" (Haer. 78, 24).
Collyridians are also known and mentioned by John Damascene (PG 94,
728)." <http://www.udayton.edu/mary/questions/yq2/yq315.html> See also:
http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/1994/9410hotm.asp

According to some historians, there were even some bishops present at
the Council of Nicea who argued that Mary was divine. While those
arguments were rejected, it remains that in some regions, at some times,
there were Christians who proclaimed the divinity of Mary. Even today,
official Catholic dogma walks a tightrope on this question. Mary is set
apart from the other saints. She is called "theotokos" Mother of God
(literally God-bearer), she is to be a coredemptrice with her Son the
Redeemer and she merits a degree of verneration that no other ordinary
human being receives. The saints receive veneration (dulia); God
receives adoration (latria) and Mary receives a special form of
veneration called hyperdulia. The theologians are quick to point out
that hyperdulia is not latria (adoration), which is reserved for God
alone. In real life, however, the distinction is not always well
understood by ordinary people. The result is the elevation of Mary (in
the minds of some Christians) to a place at the right hand of Jesus, who
is seated at the right hand of God the Father. So, in the 4th century,
there were those who thought she was, with Jesus and God the Father, a
person of the triune Godhead.

The fact of the matter is that the Qur'anic passages about Christian
beliefs is consistent with what was going on at the time of the
Revelation in the Arabian Peninsula.

--
Peace to all who seek God's face.

Abdelkarim Benoit Evans

Zuiko Azumazi

unread,
Apr 4, 2006, 12:21:35 AM4/4/06
to s...@stump.algebra.com
"Robert Houghton" <robe...@f2s.com> wrote in message
news:000101c65663$4456ad40$4101a8c0@rhdt...

<snip> ...


> "Allah will say, 'O Jesus, Son of Mary! Didst thou say unto men, take me
> and my mother for two gods beside Allah?'" (5:116).

> There are several interesting aspects to this. First, it implies that
> Christian doctrine is what was taught by Jesus, when Christian doctrine
> is what is taught by the Church ABOUT Jesus.

<snip> ...

Comment:-
One of the interesting historical aspects that isn't mentioned in your
preconceived analysis is that it the debunks and demolishes the whole
"filioque" (and the Son) myth falsely taught by the Church? Isn't this acute
omission, that's fallaciously taught by the Church, then marked by
deliberate deceptiveness especially by pretending one set of feelings and
acting under the influence of another? Is this a misconception in the Qur'an
or in the minds of crooked thinking Christian commentators that blindly
follow doctrine? Can Islam be blamed for pointing out the verity of God's
revelation? Isn't this erroneous Church belief then not an insurmountable
flaw in your unwarranted attack on Islam and Muslims?

See this search link for further detail on the "filioque" duplicity:-

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&as_qdr=all&q=define+%22filioque+%22&btnG=Search

--
Peace
--
The most perfidious manner of injuring a cause is to vindicate it
intentionally with fallacious arguments. [Friedrich Nietzsche]

Zuiko Azumazi
azu...@hotmail.com

Abdalla Alothman

unread,
Apr 4, 2006, 1:53:50 AM4/4/06
to s...@stump.algebra.com

Robert Houghton wrote:

> "Allah will say, 'O Jesus, Son of Mary! Didst thou say unto men, take me
> and my mother for two gods beside Allah?'" (5:116).
>
> There are several interesting aspects to this. First, it implies that
> Christian doctrine is what was taught by Jesus, when Christian doctrine
> is what is taught by the Church ABOUT Jesus.

The Quran describes 'Eesa in surat aal-'imraan as a messenger
who came to correct the religion of Musa. He didn't come with
a new religion. Actually, the only reason that makes him a Messenger
is because he made released few prohibited laws.

What you call "Christian doctrine" that was taught by the Church
is why the Christians are considered people who went astray (thanks
to the church).

> More important is the extraordinary implication that Christians believe
> that Mary is one of the Trinity, that is, divine. This is as fundamental
> a mistake about the Christian religion as you can make: Mary is a human
> being. Christians (except Protestants) pray to Mary, but in doing this
> do not accord her divine honours: they ask her to pray for them, just as
> you can ask anyone to pray for you.

1. Evaluating the statement of the Quran is not within your
expertise. You first have to understand what is a god in Islam
and what is worship. You know neither.

2. You say "Mary is a human being." So what? Isn't 'Eesa a human
being as well? You ended up worshiping him. You worship 'Eesa with
knowledge, and you worship his mother without knowledge (until you
understand what worship and god means in Islam).

3. You ask Maryam to intercede for you in front of "God." This makes
her a god (see the beginning of surat Azzumar). The whole paragraph
above can be summed up in one word: Shirk.

4. Your religion is very confusing. The boy is a god, but the mother
who bore him is not a god? What is this! Don't you Catholics call her
"mother of god?" Why isn't she a god, if what came from her womb is
a god? Talk to me in simple logic, not substance/essence nonsense.

When I see a rabbit, I know its mother is a rabbit not a fox. The
problem
is really in the beliefs confused men made up for you. Those beliefs
are not from the Creator or any of His messengers as you have admitted
in the beginning of your message. Of course you will say that the holy
spirit guided those men, but you can't prove it. You can't prove that
the
holy spirit guided those men, and those men didn't say that the beliefs
they made up for you are from the holy spirit.

There is no criteria in your religion to test whether your desires are
from
a holy spirit or the devil.

>[...] never in the annals


> of Christian heresy has Mary been exalted to divinity, not even by the
> Gnostic fantasists.

This is an evaluation that is not for you.

You obviously did not know about Almarayima (maryamiyeen).
Their trinity is different than yours.

> Why the error? It will be noticed that the Holy Spirit has somehow got
> lost; perhaps his place in the Trinity needs filling.

That's your problem. Islam has nothing to do with it. There
is no such thing called trinity. No prophet, no messenger, no
book taught it. It's not even in your book. Your elders took
obscure ideas from your books and made of it a basic foundation
of your religion. This is as good as a house made of hay.

The trinity is referred to in the Quran as "third of three." This
is a very delicate expression.

> This is to attribute
> tritheism to Christianity, a position which is explicitly excluded by
> the creeds of the fourth century, creeds which were accepted by the
> Nestorian and Monophysite dissident Churches. So again, the Koran is not
> directing this verse against Christian heretics.

You consider them heretics, and they consider you heretics. To us,
all are "Christians." To the Protestants and the Jehova's Witnesses
you Catholics are bad news. To you those two are bad news as well.
To us, you (and those before you) are all Christians.

> Can we learn anything positive from this muddle?

Yes. You don't know what is a god and you don't know what is
worship.

A message coming from the Creator to human beings should be simple
for everybody to understand on their own. Once the message gets
complicated (like the Christian beliefs), it's not from the Creator. If
understanding things like the essence and the substance and physical
begetting and spiritual begetting and such paradoxes are required to
understand the Message, there is a problem with the Message.

When the Messenger 'Eesa (a) came, he was about to open the
entire religion of the Jews to all people. That would've ended the
tribal aspects of the Jewish religion and released the tribes from
the crimes they committed against themselves and the prophets
who were sent to them. But they didn't like that. They were waiting
for things like:

Isaiah 49:22. This is what the Sovereign LORD says: "See, I will
beckon to the Gentiles, I will lift up my banner to the peoples; they
will bring your sons in their arms and carry your daughters on their
shoulders.

Isaiah 23. Kings will be your foster fathers, and their queens your
nursing mothers. They will bow down before you with their faces to
the ground; they will lick the dust at your feet. Then you will know
that I am the LORD; those who hope in me will not be disappointed."

'Eesa 'alayhi asalam was going to put this dream to an end. The tribal
religion would've been over. The Jews wouldn't be above anyone. That
was a big threat, and so when they found out that they cannot erase
'Eesa, it was easier to change his Message. And as a result, we have
your bewildering creeds and confusing religion (along with other
mislead
sects in Islam as well!)

You will always trace the beginning of the distortion of Allah's (tt)
religion
to one of the chosen people whether it's Paul or Abdullaah bin Saba-a


Abdalla Alothman

abu_abdul...@yahoo.com

unread,
Apr 4, 2006, 1:50:11 AM4/4/06
to s...@stump.algebra.com
read what man has done to your books here :
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/NTcanon.htmlthe
authour says : In addition, thanks to Clement, we know of a Gospel
written some time in the first half of the 2nd century (if not earlier)
that did not make it into the final canon despite having been held as
canonical by Clement, and many others (including Jerome): the Gospel of
the Hebrews (M 169-170). This was used as an authority in Syria even as
late as the 4th century, and might have originally been composed in
Aramaic. Though it only survives in a few quotations, we know it was
only slightly shorter than the present Gospel of Matthew. It has some
interesting features, such as Jesus calling the Holy Spirit his
"mother." And it clearly presents James, not Peter, as the first to see
Christ risen. In fact, James is depicted as having expected and
anticipated the resurrection, even fasting until it should occur. If
true, this is an excellent starting point for possible hallucinations
of a risen Christ: deprivation and expectation. The loss of this text,
and thus our inability to assess its merit, is another fact that
greatly obscures any attempt to get at the historical truth behind the
origins of Christianity.

so we have a jesus calling his 3rd part "mother."christians didn't like
this so they decided to toss this gospel out of the cannon even though
it was as authoritative as the other gospels.you come here attacking
the Qur'an, yet you know jack about what man has done to your books.

Robert

unread,
Apr 7, 2006, 10:36:47 PM4/7/06
to s...@stump.algebra.com
I reply to Alothman April 4

Islam uses the ordinary human words "god" and "worship". If Islam did
not do this it would be impossible for Muslims to communicate about
their religion. When we talk about gods (your lower case) and worship
we understand one another, so I do know these things, contrary to your
arrogant attempt to rule me out of discussion as having no knowledge.
If I do not have sufficient understanding of verses of the Koran to
understand Muslim claims, how did the first conversions of Islam come
about? Muhammad must ahve preached in terms people understood.

When I say "Mary is a human being" you retort "So what?" I'll tell you
what: I say this to show she is not one of the Trinity, that is God;
the Koran is opposing a position that Christians did not hold: that is
it is making an ERROR.

To ask Mary to pray for us does not make her God anymore than it would
make another human whom one asked to pray for one. It's no good quoting
the Koran to me as an authority on this issue: it will have no force in
the argument.

You complain that Christianity is very confusing and certainly theology
is subtle and complex. Why should you expect it to be simple? But Jesus
was God and man (we cannot properly grasp that) and took on human
nature in Mary's womb. Why should that make her a God? She was not
mother of Jesus AS God.

All these demands for proof are a distraction. We accept religion on
the basis of testimony and authority, NOT proof. You don't accept Islam
on the basis of proof: you accept Muhammad's TESTIMONY; I don't.

You cannot show that Christian doctrine was "made up": we have it in
its earliest form in the New Testament, directly and indirectly from
those who knew Jesus and his ministry: it is testimony to Him. The
doctrine has been DEVELOPED as need to confront heresy has emerged.
There are no contradictions between the earlier and developed forms of
Christianity.

The doctrine of the Trinity IS contained explicitly and implicitly in
the Gospels. To see how look up the issue in the Catholic Encyclopedia.

Jehova's Witnesses are not Christians. Islam has its sects too.

The Christian message is not complicated; it's theology that is
complicated and most Christians do not need to be concerned with it.

There is no evidence at all that the Christian message has been
changed, by Jew or Gentile. Muslims always make these huge claims, but
never produce any evidence.

Robert

unread,
Apr 7, 2006, 10:35:06 PM4/7/06
to s...@stump.algebra.com
I reply again to Abdelkarim Benoit Evans April 4

There is a consideration which decisively disproves your contention
that the verse Koran 5:116, which refers to a belief in the divinity of
Mary, is not directed at the Christian doctrine of the Trinity but at
the Collyridians' worship of Mary. The relevant verse reads:

"Allah will say, 'O Jesus, Son of Mary! Didst thou say unto men, take
me and my mother for two gods beside Allah?'"

There is a clear reference to the Christian doctrine of the Trinity
(mistaken in several ways), and a reference (mistaken) to there being
three gods; but the Collyridians, as Christians, though in heresy,
would be reckoned to believe in four gods - the Trinity plus Mary. The
heresy of the Collyridians did not involve rejection of the Trinity,
but adding to it, so they wouldn't have been guilty of believing in two
gods beside Allah.

Koran 5:116 is a garbled attack on the doctrine of the Trinity and is
in error.

Abdalla Alothman

unread,
Apr 10, 2006, 6:48:12 AM4/10/06
to s...@stump.algebra.com
Robert wrote:
> I reply to Alothman April 4
>
> Islam uses the ordinary human words "god" and "worship". If Islam did
> not do this it would be impossible for Muslims to communicate about
> their religion.

We have to take it step by step. We ask you the following questions:

1. What is a god.

2. What is worship.

3. What is religion?

We will give you some hints from the Quran regarding all three
questions.

1. god.

25:43. Have you (O Muhammad SAW) seen him who has taken as his ilāh
(god) his own desire? Would you then be a Wakīl (a disposer of his
affairs or a watcher) over him?

2. Worship.

Pay attention to this one:

6:56. Say (O Muhammad SAW): "I have been forbidden to worship those
whom you invoke (worship) besides Allāh." Say: "I will not follow your
vain desires. If I did, I would go astray, and I would not be one of
the rightly guided."

Ibraheem 'alayhi asalam said to his father:

19:48. "And I shall turn away from you and from those whom you invoke
besides Allāh. And I shall call on my Lord; and I hope that I shall
not be unblest in my invocation to my Lord."

19:49. So when he had turned away from them and from those whom they
worshipped besides Allāh, We gave him Ishāque (Isaac) and
Ya'qūb
(Jacob), and each one of them We made a Prophet.

As the unbiased reader can see, invoking is worship. So when the
catholics invoke Maryam, they are actually worshiping her. We told
Robert that they worship her without knowledge. Now, Robert at least
will continue to worship her out of stubbornness.

3. Religion.

The common word for religion in Arabic is deen. In surat Yusuf Allah
(tt) says:

12:76. [...] Thus did We plan for Yūsuf (Joseph). He could not take
his brother by the law of the king (as a slave), except that Allāh
willed it. [...]

The word "law" is translated from the Arabic word deen.

1:4. The Only Owner (and the Only Ruling Judge) of the Day of
Recompense (i.e. the Day of Resurrection)

Recompense is translated from the word deen.

> When we talk about gods (your lower case) and worship
> we understand one another, so I do know these things, contrary to your
> arrogant attempt to rule me out of discussion as having no knowledge.

Yes, you have know knowledge of what you are talking about. This can
be extracted from your reply as we will show.

> If I do not have sufficient understanding of verses of the Koran to
> understand Muslim claims, how did the first conversions of Islam come
> about? Muhammad must ahve preached in terms people understood.

Muhammad salla Allahu 'alayhi wasallam talked to Arabs. The problem is
that the terms we are discussing have wide definitions in Arabic and
narrow definitions in Christianity and English.

When we say "religion," it is something much wider than what you have
in mind. We gave you only a few hints.

> When I say "Mary is a human being" you retort "So what?"

I also said you worship 'Eesa and he is a human being. You said he
took a human nature, so he is a human. As Shaikh Ahmad Deedat rahimahu
Allah said, "He [Jesus] used to answer a call of nature."

> I'll tell you
> what: I say this to show she is not one of the Trinity, that is God;
> the Koran is opposing a position that Christians did not hold: that is
> it is making an ERROR.

The Quran will be in error only if it provided an exclusive list of
your gods, who are many when it comes to Catholicism ('Eesa, trinity,
saints, Maryam, priests, etc.)

> To ask Mary to pray for us does not make her God anymore than it would
> make another human whom one asked to pray for one. It's no good quoting
> the Koran to me as an authority on this issue: it will have no force in
> the argument.

Allah (tt) says in surat Azzumar:

39:3. Surely, the religion (i.e. the worship and the obedience) is for
Allāh only. And those who take Auliyā' (protectors and
helpers)
besides Him (say): "We worship them only that they may bring us near
to Allāh." Verily, Allāh will judge between them concerning
that
wherein they differ. Truly, Allāh guides not him who is a liar, and a
disbeliever.

Note at the end of the aaya Allah (tt) refers to those who took
awliyaa besides Allah (tt) as liars and disbelievers. To you, Maryam
is a mediator between you and your god. You call her to pray for
you. The aaya says whoever says such things is a liar and a
disbeliever. The aaya also says that you worship the person whom you
took as a helper. You will say, "WE DON'T WORSHIP MARYAM." That's what
you say. To us, we have a different meaning of worship than what you
have. Read on.

When you ask Mary, you do so by first invoking her. This is shirk in
Islam. Your scholars say that Mary's role is to intercede between you
and the father. This is another form of shirk. You have altars in your
churches especially for her. This is another form of shirk. Shirk is
associating a god with the Creator. Whoever is associated becomes a
god. Before telling me that she is not a god, you should understand
that your goal is to prove that the Quran is in error. Therefore, you
cannot apply your definition of a god, instead you have to take what
the Quran considers a god.

What also makes Maryam unique in your religion is that some have
argued that she did not carry the so called original sin with her. So
she is not like any regular human being.

Also, some catholics (problem is that those people cannot have a clear
issue to agree on) consider her to be a partner of her son in
redemption. She has the some ability to forgive sin. Allah says:

3:135. [...] And who forgives sins but Allah?

> You complain that Christianity is very confusing and certainly theology
> is subtle and complex.

Only your religion is complex. It's because the elders of the councils
exercised their imagination. The terms you have in your theology is
worst than medical lingo.

> Why should you expect it to be simple?

Because people need to understand the message in a simple manner to
save themselves.

> But Jesus was God and man (we cannot properly grasp that)

You cannot grasp it because Allah (tt) did not give it to you directly
or through a messenger. It's a warning for the Christian that the
religion is man made.

> and took on human
> nature in Mary's womb. Why should that make her a God? She was not
> mother of Jesus AS God.

She is a god because you invoke her, ask her, and you bless yourselves
during her appearances and so on.

Islam makes it very clear that Supplication (invocation) is worship.
So when the Quran says that you took her as a good, Allah (tt) is
making this statement after clarifying that invoking the dead, and
invoking anyone besides Allah is a form of worship. In fact, the
primary form of worship is supplication:

Partial Sunan of Abu Dawood Book 8, Number 1474:

Narrated An-Nu'man ibn Bashir:

The Prophet (peace_be_upon_him) said: Supplication (du'a') is itself
the worship.

(He then recited:) "And your Lord said: Call on Me, I will answer you"
(xI.60).

Supplication (invocation) is the primary form of worship. So your
claim that the Quran made an error when it referred to Maryam as one
of your gods is false and a product of your misunderstanding of Islam.

> You cannot show that Christian doctrine was "made up": we have it in
> its earliest form in the New Testament, directly and indirectly from
> those who knew Jesus and his ministry: it is testimony to Him.

Okay, we wont talk about the trinity and son of god, and your other
beliefs. Can you show us where in the New Testament are you instructed
to invoke Maryam and ask her to intercede between you and your god?

> The doctrine of the Trinity IS contained explicitly and implicitly in
> the Gospels.

I'm interested in the explicit occurrences. Can you please give the
appropriate references?

> To see how look up the issue in the Catholic Encyclopedia.

I don't have time. I'll take your word, though.

> The Christian message is not complicated; it's theology that is
> complicated and most Christians do not need to be concerned with it.

Th message is, as you say, not complicated. Basically, you have to
believe in the following:

1. God became a human being.

2. There was an original sin.

3. God had to be crucified to conquer the original sin.

4. God is one in three. He is the father of himself and the son of
himself, and he is also a spirit.

This is not complicated as you say, but believing in it everyday is
very complicated.

When we see the beautiful nature created by Allah (tt), our hearts
freeze and can do nothing but reject the nonsense you believe in.

> There is no evidence at all that the Christian message has been
> changed, by Jew or Gentile. Muslims always make these huge claims, but
> never produce any evidence.

What's more important is that there is no evidence that your so
called
"theology" comes from Allah (tt) or any of his Messengers.


Abdalla Alothman

Robert

unread,
Apr 13, 2006, 3:28:06 AM4/13/06
to s...@stump.algebra.com
I reply to Alothman April 10

I am under no obligation to submit to your theological interrogation,
and I do not accept the authority of the Koran when it comes to
explication of the words you ask me to explain. I use these words in
their ordinary English sense. If you consult an English dictionary you
will see that "invoke" does not necessarily mean or imply "worship." To
ask Mary to pray for you is NOT to worship her, any more than to ask my
neighbour to pray for me is to worship him. The Koran does not fix the
meanings of English words.

To worship is to accord divine honours; it Islam has a concept of
worship that extends farther than this, even to "asking to pray for
one", it has bastardized the concept of worship out of all usefulness
and is intellectually corrupt.

You say that I must take the Koran's concept of 'god' if I am to show
that Mary is not a god. This is mere arrogance on your part. The Koran
does not establish our concepts and their definitions. If you take part
in discussion on a public forum, open to all, you cannot assume the
right to stipulate the definitions of our words and concepts. If you do
we will simply not discuss anything with you.

Your use of the definite article in the phrase "the original sin" shows
that you share the universal Muslim misinterpretation of 'original' -
probably deliberately circulated. It does NOT mean Adam's (first, ie
original) sin, but the 'sin' (weakness of nature) that we inherited
from him.

Mary has no ability to forgive sin; this is total error.

In talking about complexity, which for Muslims is an objection to
Christianity, you again confuse the theology (which can be complex)
with the message, which even little children can understand.

I say Jesus was God, and you say God didn't communicate that to us
through a messenger. He did: Jesus said "The Father and I are One"; he
also said "Before Abraham was I AM". He told the High Priest at his
trial that he was the Son of God (divine); the Priest had what he
wanted and immediately convicted Him for blasphemy, Jesus having
claimed divinity.

You ask where the New Testament instructs us to ask Mary to pray for
us. The New Testament is not the authoritative defining base of
Christianity; the Christian faith existed and there were thousands of
Christians before it was written. The NT gets its authority from the
Church; the Church is the final arbiter on matters of Faith: the Church
has never condemned praying to Mary. Why should it? You can ask anyone
to pray for you; my Muslim friends ask me to pray for them.

As regards the Trinity, you will not find the word "Trinity" in the NT.
Briefly, off the cuff, the texts that support my claim are those quoted
above showing Jesus's divinity, which also imply oneness of being with
the Father, and the formula "baptize in the name (singular) of the
Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit." "Name", of course, here
means more than just name, it is a euphemism for God, as in the phrase
"hallowed be thy name". You had better read the Catholic Encyclopedia
article - available online.

"there was an original sin" - again the confusing of original sin
(which is not actual sin) with AN original sin. Totally wrong.

"God had to be crucified to conquer the original sin" - garbled out of
all recognition.

"God is father of himself and also a spirit" - complete gibberish and
logically impossible. No understanding that the Holy Spirit is a
distinct person. You havent even the beginnings of an elementary
understanding of the Trinity.

Zuiko Azumazi

unread,
Apr 14, 2006, 1:47:55 AM4/14/06
to s...@stump.algebra.com
"Robert" <robe...@f2s.com> wrote in message
news:1144230937.7...@i39g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
<snip> ...
> There is a consideration which decisively disproves your contention ...

> There is a clear reference to the Christian doctrine of the Trinity
> (mistaken in several ways), and a reference (mistaken) to there being

> three gods; ...
<snip> ...

Comment:-
The only problem with this misrepresentative propaganda is factual history,
acknowledged by Catholic Church itself, because the Trinity doctrine (the
filioque - "and the Son") was only unofficially added late in seventh
century in Spain. How many times have you been told this factual history
before in SRI? Why do you continue to deny and misrepresent this well
established historical truth and make up fictitious stories about Islam and
the Quran to cover up your ill-gotten prejudices?

Notwithstanding, how can you use the Collyridians argument to validate your
cause against Islam, doesn't this extract from Wikipedia "which decisively
disproves your (specious) contention"?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collyridians

"Others point out that there is no evidence that Collyridianism still
existed in the 6th or 7th centuries A.D. (the time of Muhammad), and/or they
reject the interpretation according to which the Qur'an is said to assert
that Mary is part of the Trinity."

End extract.

But know wonder that 'misconceptions arise about Christianity' when "crooked
thinking" commentators always forget the fundamental 'rules of propaganda',
as articulated by Lindley Fraser. Which are? Can you tell us?

--
Peace
--
Propaganda does not deceive people; it merely helps them to deceive
themselves. [Eric Hoffer]

Zuiko Azumazi
azu...@hotmail.com

Robert

unread,
Apr 14, 2006, 2:32:05 AM4/14/06
to s...@stump.algebra.com
I reply to Abdelkarim Benoit Evans April 4

Your lengthy posting is devoted to your interpretations and criticisms
of Christian doctrine. In spite of this and the moderation rules it has
been published. In spite of the appearance of your being well informed
about Christianity, what you say is seriously inaccurate and indeed
downright false: it is based upon old-fashioned Liberal Protestant
ideas and Protestant anti-Catholic prejudice. I have made several
attempts to correct your mistakes, but all my articles but one have
been rejected by the moderator as irrelevant to Islam. On this forum
Muslims are allowed to attack Christianity at length and with an
appearance of authority and learning, but Christians are not allowed to
reply. This is a scandal.

Abdalla Alothman

unread,
Apr 14, 2006, 2:44:29 AM4/14/06
to s...@stump.algebra.com
Robert wrote:

> You say that I must take the Koran's concept of 'god' if I am to show
> that Mary is not a god.

I don't know if I will always have to remind you of what you post.

Your claim is that the Quran is in error because it referred
to Maryam as one of your gods. To that, we told you that
you have to understand the concept of 'god' in Islam, as
it has been highlighted in the Quran. There is no avail
from accepting what the Quran says. You can't apply
football rules in a basketball game.

> Mary has no ability to forgive sin; this is total error.

Those who made your religion for you call her a
co-redeemer. It means she is an associate with
the Forgiver. It means she is a god in Islamic
terms. Rememer, your arguments are the
Quran misconceptions about your religion.

From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fifth_Marian_Dogma
<QUOTE>
The Fifth Marian Dogma in the Roman Catholic faith refers to a
proposed dogmatic recognition of the Blessed Virgin Mary as
Co-Redemptrix (Co-operator in the Redemption).
<END>

> In talking about complexity, which for Muslims is an objection to
> Christianity, you again confuse the theology (which can be complex)
> with the message, which even little children can understand.

You also don't understand your religion (same goes
to me, BTW); see below. As for "the message," you
picked that from us at SRI. You have no message.
You don't even have the concept of a messenger.

> the Church has never condemned praying to Mary.

Interesting.

Do you ask Maryam to pray for you, or do you pray to her?

Both are not acceptable, but there's a big difference, man.

> Why should it? You can ask anyone to pray for you;

It seems you, yourself, are confused about your religion, not
just me. Well, it's not just you and I, it's everybody including
those who gathered at the council of Nicaea.

> my Muslim friends ask me to pray for them.

Is it here were we should tickle ourselves?


Abdalla Alothman

Joubin Houshyar

unread,
Apr 14, 2006, 3:01:55 AM4/14/06
to s...@stump.algebra.com
Salaam to all,

And ALLAH's Blessings and Salaam Be Upon Mohammad and his Progeny!


Robert Houghton wrote:

[snip: ref orig.]

> "Allah will say, 'O Jesus, Son of Mary! Didst thou say unto men, take me
> and my mother for two gods beside Allah?'" (5:116).
>
> There are several interesting aspects to this. First, it implies that
> Christian doctrine is what was taught by Jesus, when Christian doctrine
> is what is taught by the Church ABOUT Jesus.

It does not "imply" that at all.

Its quite simple:

GOD: My Beloved, did you say these thing?

Beloved: Certainly not I. (But do ask Saul the Pharisee. I *DID* tell
them Beloved ONE to "beware the yeast of the Pharisees", and, "beware
of false prophets who come in *my name*", but they did not hearken to
The Word.)

Now the parable of the Kingdom of Heaven is like a woman, who makes 3
loaves of Bread, and the same (Heavenly) Yeast is in them.

Now tell me:

What is Bread?
What is Yeast?

"Eat of my Body" Says The Word.

Bread -> Body -> Word

Yeast -> Raising Bread -> The Spirit by The Grace of The-GOD

3 Loaves of Bread, for those who have Ears, where delivered by Moses,
Mary, and Mohammad.

And Praise and Glory Be to HIM, Eternal and Absolute:

HE has no 'peers', nor 'partners'

For HE IS Al-Samad!

/wa Salaam!

Robert

unread,
Apr 14, 2006, 7:36:57 AM4/14/06
to s...@stump.algebra.com
I reply to Alothman April 14

The words "Didst thou say unto men, take me and my mother for two gods
beside Allah?" refers, mistakenly, to the Christian teaching of the
Trinity. Thus "gods" here has the meaning that Christians ascribe to
it. Also the phrase "beside Allah" implies that Christians ascribe
divinity to Jesus and Mary in the same way in which they ascribe it to
God the Father. In this the Koran, as a matter of fact, is in error.

Yes, the Catholic Church teaches that Mary co-operated in the work of
redemption effected by Jesus; this was not a work of forgiveness and
Jesus was not the Forgiver, to use your term. Mary co-operated in the
first place by consenting to conceive Jesus and be his mother. She also
shared in his suffering. This does not make her a god. In teaching that
to associate someone with God is to regard that person as a god Islam
again is in error; the concept "god" is not part of the concept
"associate of God". This is a conceptual point that the Koran cannot
over-rule.

Christians DO have the concept of a message: the word "euaggelion" or
gospel, means "good news"; it is precisely a message to be communicated
to all mankind. The original messengers were the Apostles who witnessed
the Resurrected Christ and were thus able to announce the Redemption.

Mary is a saint - present in Heaven - and with her, as with all saints,
Christians share spiritual solidarity and can ask favours of them and
ask them to intercede with God for them. So yes, you can pray to Mary.

Altway

unread,
Apr 14, 2006, 7:34:44 AM4/14/06
to s...@stump.algebra.com
"Robert" wrote:-

> I say Jesus was God, and you say God didn't communicate that to us
through a messenger. He did: Jesus said "The Father and I are One"; he
also said "Before Abraham was I AM". He told the High Priest at his
trial that he was the Son of God (divine);

Comment:-

The Quran says that we should not make adistinction between God and His
Messengers (Quran 4:150), but we do not, therefore, jump to the conclusion
that the Messengers are God, but that they are one in purpose with God,
obviously because they represent God on earth. Jesus made it clear that he
had been sent by the Father (who alone is God) and he taught what he heard
and could do nothing of himself - This cannot possibly define God, but it
does show that he was in submission to God - he was a true Muslim.

As for "I AM", that was what God said about himself. So the sentence reads
"Before Abraham was God".
As for the High priests who accused Jesus of saying he was the son of God,
Jesus explains that the Jewish scriptures (Psalms 82:6) use the phrase
"children of God" for those who are led by the Spirit or Word of God. This
is symbolism not literal as can be seen also in Romans 8:14 and John 1:12
and also in John 3:5-7.

I and others think it is you who have misconceptions about your own
scriptures and carry the same naive literalist attitude to the Quran. Our
Prophet pointed out: "Do not these Jews and Christians read their scriptures
and understand nothing of what it contains!"

But you can believe whatever you like. You must allow us to do the same. We
do not follow human speculations in religion, but we have greater
justification for our beliefs:-

John 1:18, 5:37, 6:29,46, 13:16 15:1-2, 4:28 17:3, 20:17
Romans 15:6
1Corinthians 1:3, 3:22-23, 8:5-6, 11:3, 12:4-6
2Corinthians 1:2-3, 11:31, 13:14
Ephesians 1:2-3, 17 6:23, 4:4-6
Galatians 4:4-6 Philippians 1:2, 4:19-20 Colossians 1:2-3
1Thessalonians 1:1 2Thessalonians 1:1-2 1John 4:12,
2John 1:3 1Timothy 1:2, 17, 2:5, 6:15-16
Titus 1:4 Philemon 1:3 James 2:19 Jude 1:1 1 Peter 1:2-3

"Now we know that God heares not sinners; but if any man be a worshipper of
God and does His will, him He hears." John 9:31

"And this is Eternal Life that they might know THEE THE ONLY TRUE GOD and
Jesus Christ whom Thou has sent." John 17:3
"While I was with them in the world I kept them in THY NAME..." John 17:12

Even Paul did not believe in Trinity:-

"For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ
Jesus" 1 Tim 2:5
"There is actually to us one God the Father,...and there is one Lord, Jesus
Christ" 1 Cor 8:6
"One God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all" Eph
4:6
"And ye are Christ's, and Christ is God's" 1 Cor 3:23
Thus John 1:1 should be "...Word was God's" [Theos=God, Theou=God's]

Hamid S. Aziz

Robert

unread,
Apr 15, 2006, 3:24:40 AM4/15/06
to s...@stump.algebra.com
I reply to Altway April 14

Yes, if you took the words "I and the Father are One" out of context
you might understand them to mean united in will with God, but if you
look at the context you will see that they are a claim to identity with
God. The Jews who heard Jesus say this understood this perfectly, for
they took up stones to stone him for blasphemy.

Regarding the words "before Abraham was I AM": Scripture scholars tell
us that these enigmatic words are God's self-revelation: He is
declaring that he is God. So when Jesus says them He is making the same
declaration; He is not saying that God was before Abraham - that would
be a futile, pointless thing to say.

You misread the account of Jesus before the High Priest. If He had
meant "son of God" in a commonplace sense, the High Priest would not
have seized upon it as blasphemy.

All the quotations that you give which you believe support the Muslim
position on the unity of God can be easily resolved if you take into
account the doctrine of the Trinity and the doctrine of the two natures
of Christ. In the quotation from Timothy for instance, the mediator is
the Son AS man, and the one God is the Trinity. In the Corinthians
quotation, to call Jesus as LORD is to call him God; there is one God
the Father who is the same God as the Son. etc

Apart from all this theology, if you can manage to read the New
Testament sensitively, putting aside Muslim preconceptions, you will
see that recognition of Jesus's divinity is pervasive.

servant

unread,
Apr 20, 2006, 3:33:24 AM4/20/06
to s...@stump.algebra.com
No, the verse does not refer to Marry as part of the Trinity, but
diefied as in the Thekotos, meaning Mother of divinity, which carries
elements from ancient Egypt MUt Ntr.

Abdalla Alothman

unread,
Apr 22, 2006, 3:53:23 AM4/22/06
to s...@stump.algebra.com
Robert wrote:

> Mary is a saint - present in Heaven - and with her, as with all saints,
> Christians share spiritual solidarity and can ask favours of them and
> ask them to intercede with God for them. So yes, you can pray to Mary.

Thanks.

So she (as well as the other saints) is a god as described by the
Quran. So the Quran is not in error. The trinity is one of many gods
which you have (god, as a concept explained in the Quran and the
Sunnah). The aaya you are talking about has nothing to do with the
trinity. The judgment will undergo Maryam, the trinity, each of the
saints, and Allah (tt) knows what else. See surat alkahf, faaTir,
an-naml, etc.

Clean your heart and close your eyes and call: "THE CREATOR OF
THE UNIVERSE" and beg Him: "PLEASE DO NOT MISLEAD A
SOUL THAT NEEDS YOUR MERCY." It's not forbidden in your
religion to call the Creator of the universe. It's the one whom "Jesus"
called "FATHER" in your holy books. Run directly to the source and
taste the honey.

Salam,
Abdalla Alothman

Message has been deleted

Robert

unread,
Apr 24, 2006, 8:37:35 AM4/24/06
to s...@stump.algebra.com
I reply to Alothman April 22

No, far from its being forbidden call God the Creator of the Universe,
that's the definition of God and how God is introduced in the Bible:
"In the beginning God created Heaven and Earth." That's where you get
your concept of God from.

Robert

unread,
Apr 24, 2006, 8:37:07 AM4/24/06
to s...@stump.algebra.com
I reply to Alothman April 22

No, it is not forbidden for a Christian to call upon God as the Creator
of the Universe; that's the fundamental concept of God, and that's how
He is introduced in the Bible: In the beginning God made Heaven and
Earth. That's where the Muslim concept of God originated.

But you suggest that I pray that God does not mislead me: a grievous
error. God does not mislead anyone: God is Truth.

Robert

unread,
Apr 24, 2006, 8:40:26 AM4/24/06
to s...@stump.algebra.com
I reply to musicmonk Apr 22

Thank you for your kind and appreciative words; I agree entirely with
what you say about Christians and Muslims discussing their differences
together.

First of all it is a matter of fact that the essential Christian Faith
- and the Good News (gospel) -is a set of beliefs ABOUT Jesus (and
God); you only have to look at the Creed to see that. That set of
beliefs was not taught, as a whole, by Jesus during His earthly
ministry; it was taught by the Apostles after the Resurrection and in
the light of the Resurrection. Of course, Christians accept what Jesus
did teach, and that is of the highest importance.

When the Koran says "did you say to the people" the "saying" is a
matter of teaching as a Prophet, and the (rejected) teaching is
presented as Christian teaching (it's an attack on the Trinity and
other things.) Thus it is implied that Christianity is what was taught
by Jesus. This is wrong as I have shown. Whatever the Koran teaches
elsewhere, here it is in error in implying that Christianity is the
teaching of Jesus, just as Islam is the teaching of (God through)
Muhammad.

Of course, God was the source of Jesus's teaching; that does not
prevent one from saying that Jesus was also the source, even
independently of the Christian teaching that the Son and the Father
were One.

Your demonstration that from the Muslim point of view Christianity is
wrong has no bearing on the argument: my argument doesn't depend upon
Christianity being true, but only on the nature of Christianity.

As regards the postulated Christian sect that set Jesus and Mary as two
gods beside Allah, the only evidence I have come across of such a sect
is of the insignificant Arabian Kollyridians, about whom there is
evidence only in the fourth century. There is no evidence that they
existed in the seventh century. They worshiped Mary, and were heretics
- that is still essentially Christians, but in error. Thus they would
have set Mary beside the Trinity, thus making a Holy Quaternity, not
the three 'Gods' that the Koran implies in keeping with Christian
teaching.

Thus my point is that the Koran was addressing itself to the doctrine
of the Trinity, which it finds polytheistic (again a mistake), and
Christian reverence for the Virgin Mary, which it finds idolatrous
(again a mistake), but not to the sect of the Kollyridians. The
omission of any reference to the Holy Spirit as a Person of the
Trinity, which occurs elsewhere in the Koran, supports this. Muslims
have generally regarded the Holy Spirit as a spirit, for example the
Angel Gabriel, or as part (!) of God. The Koran addresses itself to the
doctrine of the Trinity and gets it wrong.

Zuiko Azumazi

unread,
Apr 24, 2006, 8:41:03 AM4/24/06
to s...@stump.algebra.com
"musicmonk" <vikr...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1145322457.5...@v46g2000cwv.googlegroups.com...

<snip> ...
> As I began this post, so let me conclude it: I am always welcome to
> dialogue and discussion. Let us talk, and reason together in peace.
<snip> ...

Comment:-
I don't necessarily disagree with anything particular in your post. The only
regrettable dimension, in the on-going dialogue between Muslims and
non-Muslims, is that both sides need to consist of "reasonable" (i.e. not
excessive or extreme) polemicists. It's that conciliatory and compromising
aspect which is missing in most SRI paper controversies, is it not?

Straight thinking, any dialectical 'answer' which totally subordinates
interests to principle or vice versa is not very interesting. What is more,
because such 'answers' have not been accepted by more than a handful of
erstwhile "theologians" or "philosophers", Muslim or otherwise, they have
never had much impact on "political" behaviour in mainstream Islamic
societies or elsewhere for that matter. Much more interesting and
sophisticated are those 'answers' which occupy the middle ground and, in
refusing to sacrifice either 'principles or interests', seek a compromise
between them.

Which raises the vexing question, can Islam and Christianity be reconciled
for the sake of God? Is 'syncretism' in effect an impossible theory? Is it
conceivable, in today's climate, to even put it on the agenda for
"reasonable" discussion?


--
Peace
--
In times of profound change, the learners inherit the earth, while the
learned find themselves beautifully equipped to deal with a world that no
longer exists. [Eric Hoffer]

Zuiko Azumazi
azu...@hotmail.com

capsaicin

unread,
Apr 24, 2006, 9:59:00 PM4/24/06
to s...@stump.algebra.com
Reply to Robert

>That set of beliefs was not taught, as a whole, by Jesus during
>His earthly ministry; it was taught by the Apostles after the
>Resurrection and in the light of the Resurrection.

...


>When the Koran says "did you say to the people" the "saying" is a
>matter of teaching as a Prophet, and the (rejected) teaching is
>presented as Christian teaching (it's an attack on the Trinity and
>other things.) Thus it is implied that Christianity is what was taught
>by Jesus. This is wrong as I have shown.

Whenever the christians say that jesus called himself son of god, lord
or whatever it implies that it is the teaching of jesus. It doesn't
matter whether it was after the resurrection or before it. Even the
teachings after the resurrection as you christians believe is from
jesus (since jesus himself is the lord).
When god says to jesus "have you told men ...", he is not asking jesus
or accusing him for this, he is making it clear with that verse that
jesus have never taught such a thing and associating anything with god
is totally taught by the creed.

>As regards the postulated Christian sect that set Jesus and Mary as two
>gods beside Allah, the only evidence I have come across of such a sect
>is of the insignificant Arabian Kollyridians, about whom there is
>evidence only in the fourth century. There is no evidence that they
>existed in the seventh century. They worshiped Mary, and were heretics
>- that is still essentially Christians, but in error. Thus they would
>have set Mary beside the Trinity, thus making a Holy Quaternity, not
>the three 'Gods' that the Koran implies in keeping with Christian
>teaching.

This verse is not at all implying that Father-Jesus-Mary is the
combination of trinity, quaternity or whatever. It just asks jesus
whether he has ever taught ANY of those associations giving as an
example the association of Jesus himself and his mother mary. Which
part of this verse says that the christians believe in the
father-jesus-mary combination and calls this combination trinity? We
all know that there has been many associations with god among
christians (mostly in practice) throught history through different
sects being the combination of father-jesus-holy spirit just as the
most famous and most common. The saying "trinity" as one of these
combinations refered in the quran (such as in verse 4:171) has nothing
to do with naming mary as an associate with god in 5:116.

Message has been deleted

Robert

unread,
Apr 27, 2006, 8:06:56 AM4/27/06
to s...@stump.algebra.com
I reply to capsaicin Apr 25

Jesus didn't call himself (except to the High Priest at his trial) Son
of God or Lord; these titles were given to him by the very few people
to whom it was revealed, during his ministry and after his
resurrection, that he was Messiah, Son of God, and Lord (that is,God).
Jesus's way of referring to himself was to use the non-commital phrase
"Son of Man". Jesus did not teach people to call him "Messiah", "Son of
God", or "Lord", but he accepted the titles when he was recognized.

When the Koran says "Didst thou say unto men, take me and my mother for
two gods beside Allah?" a particular religious belief - not shirk in
general - is being attacked. It is implied that Jesus didn't teach
this, but that it is now current. The great religious institution in
Muhammad's day was Christianity and Islam is defined in part in
opposition to this. The Kollyridians don't come into it: they were
insignificant and 300 years in the past. The three gods referred to
(mistakenly) therefore are the three persons of the Trinity, which is
not understood as One God. But Mary is not one of the Trinity and is
not a 'god': more mistakes. There is also a hit at the reverence
offered to Mary, this being taken as divine worship.

Underlying all this is the belief that what Christians should believe
is what Jesus taught in his earthly ministry, and that anything that is
not such is corruption. This is to misconceive the nature of
Christianity, which is a revelation ABOUT Jesus and his actions. Again
a mistake.

Zuiko Azumazi

unread,
Apr 27, 2006, 8:10:13 AM4/27/06
to s...@stump.algebra.com
"Robert Houghton" <robe...@f2s.com> wrote in message
news:000101c65663$4456ad40$4101a8c0@rhdt...

<snip> ...


> I have stated elsewhere that engrained Muslim misconceptions have
> origins in the Koran itself. Here is a strange one:

> "Allah will say, 'O Jesus, Son of Mary! Didst thou say unto men, take me
> and my mother for two gods beside Allah?'" (5:116).
<snip> ...

Synopsis:-
As an observation, now that most subscribers, Muslim and non-Muslim, have
had a chance to contribute, what do they make of this insightful "Where
Islam and Christianity Agree and Differ on Jesus" debate between Imam
Mohamad Jawad Chirri and Dr. Wilson H. Guertin, in light of what they
previously posted in this SRI thread about "The Koran's Misconceptions about
Christianity":-

http://www.al-islam.org/inquiries/7.html

Short extract:

Wilson: The whole issue of Islamic monotheism, by your explanation, has
become clear. The Islamic teaching concerning Jesus also has been made
clear. Now I would like a summary of the points on which Islam and
Christianity agree in regard to Jesus.

Chirri: Islam agrees with Christianity, in general, on the following points:

1. Islam advocates the holiness of Jesus. As a matter of fact, it is an
essential part of the Islamic teaching to revere Jesus and to believe in his
holiness, and that he lived in this world as a pure person free of any sin.
>From the Holy Qur'an:

"When the angels said: 'O Mary! Surely God gives thee good news of a word
from Him whose name is the Messiah, Jesus, Son of Mary, worthy of regard in
this world and the hereafter, and of those who are highly accepted by God.'
" 3:45

2. Islam declares the holiness of Mary, the mother of Jesus. No Muslim can
doubt the decency and purity of Mary. She, according to the Qur'an, had been
the most noble among the women of the nations:

"And when the angels said: 'O Mary! Certainly God has chosen thee and made
thee pure and has preferred thee above the women of all nations. 'O Mary! Be
obedient to thy Lord, prostrate thyself and bow with those who bow (in
worship).'" 3:42-43

3. Islam declares that Jesus was miraculously born from a virgin mother with
no father. From the Holy Qur'an:

"And mention Mary in the book. When she withdrew to a place east of her
family. She screened herself from them; then We sent to her Our angel, and
he appeared to her as a man in all respects. She said: 'I seek refuge in God
against you if you are righteous.' He said: 'I am only a Messenger of Thy
Lord to grant to you a pure boy.' She said: 'How can I have a son, and no
mortal has yet touched me, nor have I been unchaste?' He said: 'So (it will
be). Thy Lord says: "It is easy for Me; and that We may make him a sign to
men and a mercy from Us. And it is a matter decreed. Then she conceived him;
and withdrew with him to a remote place. And the throes of childbirth drove
her to the trunk of the palm-tree. She said: 'Oh, would that I had died
before this, and had been a thing quite forgotten. So a voice came to her
from beneath her: 'Grieve not, surely thy Lord has provided a stream beneath
thee. And shake towards thee the trunk of the palm-tree, it will drop on
thee fresh ripe dates. So eat and drink and be pleased. Then if thou seest
any human, say: "Surely I have vowed a fasting for the sake of the
Beneficent, so I will not speak to any human today." 19:16-26 ...

End extract.

Is there anything that previous commentators, in hindsight, would now like
to retract? Will any poster have the honesty to admit that they were wrong?
How many "misconceptions" have been made by commentators in this thread?
Would anyone care to count?

--
Peace
--
The discovery of truth is prevented more effectively not by the false
appearance of things present and which mislead into error, not directly by
weakness of the reasoning powers, but by preconceived opinion, by
prejudice. - Schopenhauer

Zuiko Azumazi
azu...@hotmail.com

Robert

unread,
Apr 27, 2006, 1:49:56 PM4/27/06
to s...@stump.algebra.com
I reply to Azumazi April 27

I have a question to put. What does the Koran's teaching of the Virgin
Birth mean in Islam and to Muslims? As it stands, in company with the
teaching about Jesus, it seems irrelevant, anomalous. Why, according to
Islam, did Jesus have to be born to a virgin? There is a reason for
this in the doctrinal structure of Christianity: He was conceived of
the Holy Spirit, not an earthly father, and of course had two natures -
He was Man and God.

Zuiko Azumazi

unread,
Apr 28, 2006, 2:30:54 PM4/28/06
to s...@stump.algebra.com

"Robert" <robe...@f2s.com> wrote in message
news:1146157280.7...@v46g2000cwv.googlegroups.com...

<snip> ...

> He was Man and God. ...
<snip> ...

Comment:-
The simple answer to your question is there isn't one. Like most
non-Muslims, of a religious persuasion, your unconscious frame of reference
is that you are comparing Islam structurally with a monolithic,
hierarchical, "Church", that has an established clergy, and a titular head
(e.g. pope or archbishop) that can decide on matters of faith, or more
appropriately, what's dogmatically taught in the Quran. The perennial
misconception, is that in Islam there is no equivalent to "Church"
encyclicals pronounced "ex cathedra" (i.e. with the full authority of the
office). There isn't (and there unlikely to be) anyone in contemporary Islam
that is in such an official position of power that allows them to
universally declare matters of unilateral doctrine.

The second point, is that Muslims are not really interested in being caught
up in ancient "Christian" doctrinal dispute over the nature of Christ. Why
would Muslims give one jot or iota over whether the nature of Christ 'is the
same (Greek homos) as that of the Father' (the Catholic position); or 'is
like (Greek homosis) that of the Father' (the Arian position); since, either
way it makes no difference to Islam or what is taught in the Quran? But
that's another story; the subject matter of serious history books unsullied
by doctrine I would suggest.


--
Peace
--
Allah is one but Islam is a mosaic. The Muslim world is a linguistic tower
of Babel, an ethnic patchwork, a geographical puzzle and a political
kaleidoscope offering a picture of extraordinary doctrinal diversity.
[Slimane Zéghidour]

Zuiko Azumazi
azu...@hotmail.com

Zuiko Azumazi

unread,
Apr 28, 2006, 2:30:46 PM4/28/06
to s...@stump.algebra.com
"musicmonk" <vikr...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1145938249.0...@v46g2000cwv.googlegroups.com...

<snip> ...
> I don't think the religions of Islam and Christianity can ever be
> reconciled, ...
<snip> ...

Comment:-
If you say "Judge not" but then immediately proceed to "Judge" doesn't this
clearly demonstrates that the, somewhat nebulous, "Christian" principle
(dogma) is being sacrificed to "Church" interest? Isn't this the historical
problem all along, in that so-called "Christians", don't, as you indicate,
"truly practice" Christianity of the "Gospels" but blindly follow what
benefits the material interests of the "Church" (in all its
institutionalised forms)?

In the same vein, I'm not entirely sure what you mean when you say Muslims
should "apply the verses"? For instance, under what "institutionalised"
banner are the 'political ideas', contained in the Quran, going to be
pragmatically implemented in the real world of today?Are you inferring these
'political ideas' have a life of their own, and can operate as a deus ex
machina (causal agency). Doesn't human leadership (i.e. politicians) come
into play even in the Islamic world? And we all know the effect of that
famous maxim "Oh God, Islam is all politics!" in Islamic governmental
politics, don't we?

Can you explain what you exactly 'politically' mean when you say, "then
peace is possible"? For isn't "peace" the direct opposite of "war"? Then
paraphrasing, would you go on to alliterate "then war is impossible"?

I thought this synopsis might put things into a somewhat clearer
perspective:-

"In real life," Burnham wrote in 1967, "men are joined on a much less than
universal scale into a variety of groupings -- family, community, church,
business, club, party, etc. -- which on the political scale reach the
maximum significant limit in the nation. Since there is at present time no
Humanity or Mankind (socially and historically speaking), there cannot be a
World Government - though conceivably there could be a world empire."

Does the current geopolitical reality then make Burnham some kind of
"ideological" prophet?

--
Peace
--
An ideology is a body of widely held but false beliefs that has the effect
of making practice and institution that is not legitimate seem so. [T.
Eagleton - "Ideology- An Introduction"]

Zuiko Azumazi
azu...@hotmail.com

capsaicin

unread,
Apr 28, 2006, 2:30:54 PM4/28/06
to s...@stump.algebra.com
Another reply to Robert

>Underlying all this is the belief that what Christians should believe
>is what Jesus taught in his earthly ministry, and that anything that is
>not such is corruption. This is to misconceive the nature of
>Christianity, which is a revelation ABOUT Jesus and his actions. Again
>a mistake.

This very nature you mention is a corruption. How do you know that a
revelation 'about' jesus comming after his earthly ministry is truely a
revelation from god (or jesus according to your beliefs)? How can you
know that it is not a statement made by the church in their own favour?
Or do you have other prophets comming after jesus? Is this the way you
percieve Quran is not a revelation from god and deny the true prophet
who came after him?

capsaicin

unread,
Apr 28, 2006, 2:33:22 PM4/28/06
to s...@stump.algebra.com
Reply to Robert:
This is not a matter of title, it is a matter of deification of jesus
no matter who has composed this title. If jesus hasn't claimed what the
christians claim about him (on earth or in heaven or whatever) then who
is the source of this? The chrisitan appostles and the church did they
say it by themselves or through the teachings of jesus? If jesus was
not the source of the christian beliefs (directly or indirectly) then
you are getting to the point that was being said by the muslims all
these 1400 years that the christians made the deification of jesus by
themselves (corrupted christianity) not through the teachings of god
and jesus (original christianity).

>a particular religious belief - not shirk in general -
>is being attacked. It is implied that Jesus didn't teach
>this, but that it is now current.

It does not imply ONE particular belief. Suppose person A teachs B and
C something. B misunderstands and comes to conclusion P (which is
wrong). C also has a misunderstanding and says Q is true (which is also
wrong). Now someone asking person A whether he has taught P and Q
doesn't mean that P and Q are both accepted by one person. It just
means that these are two deductions no matter if they are accepted
together or seperately.
Now when the god asks jesus whether he has taught P and Q which are to
worship jesus and mary (in practice or in belief) it cannot be deduced
that these are both accepted through one particular belief and further
it not at all implies that ONLY P and Q are accepted through any
particular belief (in response to you saying that collyridians believe
in 4 not in 3).

>The Kollyridians don't come into it: they were
>insignificant and 300 years in the past. The three gods referred to
>(mistakenly) therefore are the three persons of the Trinity, which is
>not understood as One God.

A clear misconception about this verse, and quran or whatever text in
general. Does this verse bear a time stamp on it? "god asked jesus on
year #### AD have you taught ... to people living on #### AD? (and
further) this is believed altogether and is called trinity!". No matter
whether the collyridians lived 300 years before islam or 5000 years
after it or whether they lived in arabia or in kazakstan, first, in
this verse god is not asking muhammad (pbuh), he is asking jesus (pbuh)
so this is valid from the birth of christianity onward and second, not
god nor the soul are time or space bound. And EVEN if it is talking
about a belief that does not exist, to those who believe quran is the
word of god it means that this belief will come into existance in the
futher and this is a prophesy.
And no! this verse is not refering only to collyridians. What does it
mean when the christians bow down to the statue of Saint Mary? Even
many modern christians worship mary (unwantedly) in practice.

Robert

unread,
Apr 29, 2006, 10:41:02 PM4/29/06
to s...@stump.algebra.com
I reply to Azumazi April 28

So my point stands: within Islam the virgin birth of Jesus is an
anomaly and irrelevant, just evidence that some Islamic doctrine - but
not others - were taken over arbitrarily from Christianity. Can you
live with a Koran that is irrelevant and anomalous?

Robert

unread,
Apr 29, 2006, 10:40:13 PM4/29/06
to s...@stump.algebra.com
I reply to capsaicin April 28

One inevitably simplifies in debate. Jesus promised that he would not
leave his disciples orphans but would send them an Advocate, the
Paraclete, to guide them into all truth. This is the Paraclete, the
Holy Spirit, that did descend upon the early Christians and is felt to
this day in the Church by Christians. Muslims take Jesus's promise of
the Paraclete as a reference to Muhammad, but this is absurd. The Holy
Spirit does not reveal new truths; Jesus was the final revelation.

What is your evidence that orthodox Christianity is corrupt?

You can go on asking "How do you know?" forever. One has to look at the
evidence of the New Testament, and there is a great deal of that, and
look into one's heart and make a judgment.

It is quite evident to me that the Koran is not from God, and always
has been evident. For one thing it is unreadable, and unorganized. Much
of it is incomprehensible. And then it contains inconsistencies,
contradictions, factual errors, fantasy (said to be the Word of God),
and morally offensive material. Muslims don't allow themselves to see
this because they are so conditioned from an early age to worship it

Muhammad is a shadowy figure: the 'traditions' about him date from 150
- 300 years after his death; the early historians cannot agree upon his
date of birth within 85 years. The 'traditions' do not portray an
admirable man: he was responsible for 80 political assassinations
according to the early Muslim historians. Many of the ancient prophets
and disciples of Jesus were martyred for their faith: Muhammad died a
rich man, King of Arabia, with many wives, poisoned by a Jewess in
revenge for his atrocities.

klei...@astound.net

unread,
Apr 30, 2006, 10:33:59 AM4/30/06
to s...@stump.algebra.com

Zuiko Azumazi wrote:
> As an observation, now that most subscribers, Muslim and non-Muslim, have
> had a chance to contribute, what do they make of this insightful "Where
> Islam and Christianity Agree and Differ on Jesus" debate between Imam
> Mohamad Jawad Chirri and Dr. Wilson H. Guertin, in light of what they
> previously posted in this SRI thread about "The Koran's Misconceptions about
> Christianity":-

I haven't contributed anything yet, but I'll put my two-bits in now
anyway.

> Now I would like a summary of the points on which Islam and
> Christianity agree in regard to Jesus.

> 1. Islam advocates the holiness of Jesus. As a matter of fact, it is an


> essential part of the Islamic teaching to revere Jesus and to believe in his
> holiness, and that he lived in this world as a pure person free of any sin.

That over-states the area of agreement. There are a significant number
of Christians who do not believe Jesus was free of all sin or have any
such concept as a "pure person" that Jesus could be one of. Probably
the strongest statement that could be made which covers all Christians
(always excepting the lunatic fringe, of course) is something like
"Jesus was the most important religious teacher in history". But Islam
can't accept that as stated so we have to drop back to "one of the most
important religious teachers of all time".

> 2. Islam declares the holiness of Mary, the mother of Jesus.

There is little or no interest in Mary outside of the Catholic and
Orthodox churches. In fact, as a consequence of Catholic excessess,
Mary is actually slightly looked down upon in most Protestant churches.
And most Protestant Churches do not work with a concept of "holiness"
except in specific denominational ways.

> 3. Islam declares that Jesus was miraculously born from a virgin mother with
> no father.

And, of course, large number of Christians from many different churches
do not subscribe to the virgin birth of Jesus.

To be blunt about it, standard Islam puts both Jesus and Mary on a much
higher pedestal than do a large number of Christians. Such Christians,
and I offer myself as an example, believe that both the Catholic Church
and Islam have gotten carried away into fantasy about these matters
which are of no significance compared with urgent social and mystical
problems.

And, of course, we feel the Qur'an is no more infallible than the
Bible.

Personally I consider the Islamic view of Jesus a perfectly standard
Christian view, albeit that of the Ebionite "heretics", who far from
being innovators were the survivors of the original Christian Church.
So there is nothing to recouncile.

Zuiko Azumazi

unread,
Apr 30, 2006, 10:33:50 AM4/30/06
to s...@stump.algebra.com
"Robert" <robe...@f2s.com> wrote in message
news:1146250985.2...@j33g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...

<snip> ...

<snip> ...

Comment:-
Well if you wish to muddle up your ontological predicates and continue to
believe in your own one-eyed, as you say, anomalous and irrelevant
misconceptions, about Islam and Muslims then one would have to genuinely ask
whether such illusions should be taken seriously by any discerning reader.
One could argue that readers who cannot understand what discerning Muslim
respondents have clearly communicated in SRI, could be excused as early
signs of paralexia; other than deliberate casuistry of the Jesuitical kind
(i.e. argumentation that is specious or excessively subtle and intended to
be misleading).

Personally, I tend to side with the former delusional view, since I cannot
live with the idea that any ethical person could seriously respond in a
specious vein having no bearing on or connection with the subject at issue,
like in the immediately preceding thread. Why would anyone interested in
God's truth (that is Islam); bother to deviate from the general or common
order or type of responses they have received from discerning Muslims rather
than erstwhile and irrational propaganda emanating from anti-Muslim "Church"
spokesmen?

--
Peace
--
It takes a long time to acquire the art, but life is short, the crisis
rapid, experimentation dangerous, the cure uncertain. [Hippocrates: The
first Aphorism]

Zuiko Azumazi
azu...@hotmail.com

Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages