Understanding the Qurʾan’s creative use of rhetorical strategies against orthodox Christianity and a refutation of ‘Let The Study Quran Speak! Pt. 1’ by Sam Shamoun.

(Part 1)

This article, inshallah, will be the first of a series of articles that are in part a refutation of Christian polemics, and in part a discussion of recent academic articles by top experts in the field of Quranic exegesis and pre-Islamic Arabia. The two objectives are in fact two sides of the same coin as I hope to demonstrate. 

Readers may wish to read the article by Sam Shaman before going on: Let The Study Quran Speak! Pt. 1

Now before we go any further I want to clear up a question that may occur to the reader: by what right do I – an evident non-scholar – have the gall to disagree with the distinguished Editors of the recently published work The Study Quran (hereafter ‘SQ’)?

In mitigation for my hubris I plead that I do read the scholarly literature and I would like to promote an alternative interpretation and reading of the Quranic text to that of the Editors of the SQ based on recent research undertaken by specialist scholars that makes much better sense (in my humble view) of the Quran’s compelling message and provides a sound and effective basis for Islamic dawah going forward.   

It has been observed in reviews of the SQ that all the authors share a particular philosophical and theological outlook known as the Perennialist school of thought. This world-view is not shared by many other Islamic scholars and is even considered heretical by some. In a recent devastating review of the SQ Shaykh Dr Gibril Haddad (an influential Islamic scholar) wrote,

‘The Perennialist leitmotiv of the universal validity of all religions is perhaps the chief original message of The Study Quran which readers will not get anywhere else, because it is as alien to the Qur’ān and Sunna as it is alien to Islam and all other religions. This novel theme creeps in and out unsourced; it is part of what the introduction innocuously describes as “providing in some places our own commentary, which is not found… in the earlier sources” (xliv), in comments such as “most Muslims believe that these women [Mary, Fāṭima and Āsiya] lead the soul [sic] of blessed women to Paradise” (p. 143) and “Some might argue, therefore, that Jesus, by virtue of being identified as God’s Word, somehow participates (uniquely) in the Divine Creative Command” (p. 267). The latter co-Creator comment suffices to describe the effect of The Study Quran on the Perennialist School in the same terms Abū Muḥammad al-Tamīmī described the effect of Abu Yaʿlā al-Farrā’s anthropomorphist book Ibṭāl al-ta’wīlāt on the Ḥanbalī School: “He has beshat them with filth even water cannot wash away” (Ibn al-Athīr, al-Kāmil, obituaries for the year 458).’

Read the full review here. While I agree with the Shaykh’s justifiable dislike of Perennialism, I do not condone his intemperate attack on the authors of the SQ, which has provoked an outraged response from SQ Editor Professor Caner Dagli here.

Mr Sam Shamoun (the mild-mannered Christian apologist from the Answering Islam website) in a recent article has gleefully pounced on the SQ commentary as a “weapon” to bash Islam and Muslims. (See article already cited above here).

Shamoun recommends the SQ:

“this study Quran is a must have for any Christian evangelist and/or apologist who seeks to share the Gospel with Muslims, since this is a resource that shall prove to be a great tool and weapon against the Muslim assault and distortion of the Christian faith. The commentary will also help refute the distortion and misinterpretation of the very Quranic texts that Muslim apologists often cite to convince Christians and others that their respective scripture denies core, essential Christian doctrines such as the Trinity.”  From ‘Let The Study Quran Speak! Pt. 1’

In conclusion Shamoun claims:

‘The Quran nowhere condemns (at least not explicitly) the orthodox doctrine of the Trinity, but seems to be censuring some heretical misunderstandings of the faith, such as the mistaken notion that there are three gods consisting of Allah, Mary, and Jesus their offspring. We will have more to say about the Quran’s condemnation of those who say that Allah is the Messiah in the next part of our discussion.’

‘These comments by some of Islam’s most qualified scholars and philosophers confirm what we have been saying all along, namely, the Quran nowhere defines or condemns the historic orthodox understanding of the Trinity or the Deity of the Lord Jesus Christ. Therefore, it is nigh time that ‘Muslim polemicists such as Shabir Ally pay careful heed to what these learned men of Islam are saying, and stop misusing the Muslim scripture to mislead people into thinking that it addresses subjects which in fact it does not even touch upon.’

I will demonstrate, inshallah, why Shamoun’s conclusion is premature by an examination of the arguments of two eminent experts in the field of Quranic exegesis and the Christianity of pre-Islamic Arabia.    

I refer the reader to two recent publications:

1) The Journal of Qurʾan and Ḥadith Studies 12 (2014) 42-54, article On the Presentation of Christianity in the Qurʾān and the Many Aspects of Qur’anic Rhetoric by Gabriel Said Reynolds, University of Notre Dame, USA. Reynolds is Professor of Islamic Studies and Theology and the History of Christianity.

2) The Bible in Arabic: The Scriptures of the ‘People of the Book’ in the Language of Islam by Sidney H. Griffith who is Professor in the Department of Semitic and Egyptian Languages and Literatures at the Catholic University of America.

——-o0o——-

The Abstract of On the Presentation of Christianity in the Qurʾān and the Many Aspects of Qur’anic Rhetoric summaries Reynolds’s argument:

‘Many important western works on the Qurʾān are focused on the question of religious influences. The prototypical work of this genre is concerned with Judaism and the Qurʾān: Abraham’s Geiger’s 1833 Was hat Mohammed aus dem Judenthume aufgenommen, or “What Did Muhammad Acquire from Judaism?” In Geiger’s work – and the works of many who followed him – material in the Qurʾān is compared to similar material in Jewish or Christian literature in the hope of arriving at a better understanding of the Qurʾān’s origins.

In the present article I argue that these sorts of studies often include a simplistic perspective on Qur’anic rhetoric. In order to pursue this argument I focus on a common feature of these works, namely a comparison between material in the Qurʾān on Christ and Christianity with reports on the teachings of Christian heretical groups. Behind this feature is a conviction that heretical Christian groups existed in the Arabian peninsula at the time of Islam’s origins and that these groups influenced the Prophet. I will argue that once the Qurʾān’s creative use of rhetorical strategies such as hyperbole is appreciated, the need to search for Christian heretics disappears entirely.’

   

This last sentence (here in bold) is the meat of his paper and I find it persuasive and compellingly argued and documented.

I will argue that once the Qurʾān’s creative use of rhetorical strategies such as hyperbole is appreciated, the need to search for Christian heretics disappears entirely.’

The complete article is available in PDF format here. I hope the reader will forgive my extended quotations from the paper. I wish to reproduce the meat of his argument and the textual evidences he so well deploys.

Reynolds sets the historical context for Western scholarship to date:   

‘Western scholars have long attempted to explain the Qurʾān’s material on Christianity with reference to the views of Christian heretics. They often begin by connecting some turn of phrase in the Qurʾān’s statements on Jesus, Mary or Christians with a certain Christian heresy, and continue by looking through historical chronicles, or heresiographies, for that heresy in Muhammad’s Arabia. This strategy is employed both for passages which express the Qurʾān’s own teaching and for passages which condemn Christian teaching. In both cases Christian heresies are imagined to have influenced or informed – or better, misinformed – the Prophet Muhammad.

The common recourse of scholars to Christian heresies is connected to the traditional idea that Muhammad preached the Qurʾān in a remote outpost in Arabia, a spot beyond the borders of the Byzantine Empire and thus safely beyond the reach of the imperial enforcers of Chalcedonian orthodoxy. In this vein scholars not infrequently refer to a statement that is (falsely) attributed to Theodoret of Cyrrhus (d. 458 or 466) by which Arabia is “haeresium ferax,” the “bearer” (or “mother”) or heresies. To my knowledge this phrase is not found with Theodoret or any other classical Christian author; even if it were there, the reference to “Arabia” would presumably mean Arabia Petraea – an area well to the north of the Ḥijāz.

Yet none of this has dissuaded scholars much. It is often assumed that the Prophet Muhammad was influenced by Monophysites and “Nestorians” (that is, East Syrian Christians) or by still more exotic heresies, but not by Melkite (that is, Chalcedonian) Christians. Writing in 1900, the American Protestant missionary Samuel Zwemer emphasizes the presence of heretics in his milieu:

“Not only was religious life at a low level in all parts of Christendom but heresies were continually springing up to disturb the peace or to introduce gigantic errors. Arabia was at one time called “the mother of heresies.”

A second Protestant missionary, Robert Speer, argues that the reason why Muhammad did not convert to Christianity is because he never met true Christians:

“When we inquire into Muhammad’s rejection of Christianity, we find that he never had anything but the most perverted idea of what Christianity really was. The Christianity which he rejected was of a very debased type, half polytheistic in its theology, superstitious in its worship, and with a sacred history encrusted with puerile legends. He had evidently never read the New Testament, and his conception of Christ is largely derived from the Apocryphal Gospels. It is not, therefore, historically just to say that Muhammad rejected Christ.”

After citing other examples of the same type Reynolds continues..

The point of the present paper is not to prove such arguments right or wrong; indeed, I can think of no way to prove that Muhammad did not overhear the preaching of Quss as he strolled through the fair of ʿUkāẓ one day. I mean instead to say something here about the nature of such arguments. I mean to criticize the tendency of scholars to seek out Christian heretics whom Muhammad might have met as a way of explaining Qur’anic material on Christianity. The problem with this habit is not that any particular theory is demonstrably wrong. The problem is that it keeps us from recognizing the rhetorical creativity of the Qurʾān.

Scholars who explain the Christian material of the Qurʾān with reference to heresies seem to assume that the Qurʾān is nothing more than a transcript, or record, of the conversations which took place in its historical milieu. Yet the nature of the Qurʾān’s rhetoric suggests that it is nothing of the sort. Instead the Qurʾān is a creative work, a work which purposefully exaggerates and satirizes the views of its opponents in order to refute them more effectively.

Qur’anic Hyperbole

A similar perspective on the Qurʾān’s rhetoric is suggested by Sidney Griffith in his article, “Al-Naṣārā in the Qurʾān: A Hermeneutical Reflection.” Griffith’s article is in part a response to a common argument in western scholarship on the Qurʾān, namely that the Qurʾān’s use of the term naṣārā to designate Christians (as opposed to some calque of the Greek kristianoi, such as masīḥiyya, the term with which Arabic-speaking Christians label themselves) reflects the influence of some sort of Jewish-Christian sect. This argument rests in part on the use of the term “Nazarenes” (nazōraioi in Greek; nāsrāyē in Syriac) in early Christian heresiographies for (supposedly) Judaizing Christian sects. Griffith, however, insists convincingly that the Qurʾān gives us no reason for recourse to early Christian heresiographies in our efforts to understand this term:

“Hermeneutically speaking, an important corollary of the recognition of the Qurʾān’s intention polemically to criticize Christian belief and practice is the further recognition that in the service of this purpose the Qurʾān rhetorically does not simply report or repeat what Christians say; it reproves what they say, corrects it, or caricatures it.”

By “caricature” here Griffith means the description of an opponent’s views in a way that makes them appear less reasonable. This caricaturing can be found, for example, with the wording, “those who say ‘God is the Messiah, son of Mary’ ” in Q 5:17 and 5:72. Griffith notes that “Christians in the Qurʾān’s time did not normally say that ‘God is the Messiah.” However, by describing Christian doctrine in this way the Qurʾān means to make it easier to refute:

“The Qurʾān’s seeming misstatement, rhetorically speaking, should therefore not be thought to be a mistake, but rather a polemically inspired caricature, the purpose of which is to highlight in Islamic terms the absurdity, and therefore the wrongness, of the Christian belief, from an Islamic perspective.”

Indeed it seems to me that even the appellation “Son of Mary” is a product of the Qurʾān’s creative rhetoric.15 Christians refer to Christ as the son of God, and the Qurʾān explicitly rejects this appelation (Q 9:30); yet it also insists (against the Jews) that Christ had no father at all (Q 3:59), and so it cannot refer to him as “Son of his father”. Thus the Qurʾān refers to Jesus as the son of his mother, and thereby encapsulates its argument against both Christians and Jews.

Another case of the Qurʾān’s creative rhetoric is found in al-Tawba (Q: 9) 31a: “They have taken their scribes and their monks as lords besides Allah, and also Christ, Mary’s son.”16 Now if we were to examine this verse with a concern to find historical communities that influenced the Qurʾān’s material on Christianity we should begin to search for some Christian heretics who worshipped their scribes and monks as gods. We might call them Sacerdolators. Perhaps the Sacerdolators had fled into the Arabian desert where they could worship their monks in peace, far away from the cruel and rigid Byzantine keepers of orthodoxy. Or, alternatively, we could recognize here a case of hyperbole, that in the Qurʾān’s milieu no heretical sect of monk-worshippers existed. We could thus recognize that the Qurʾān has a rather skillful way of painting caricatures of its opponents. It is this same recognition that should shape our understanding of those passages which are often assumed to be closely related to Christian heresies.

For example, the Qurʾān repeatedly declares that God would not “take a son.”17 Behind the verb “take” (ittakhadha) scholars have not infrequently found a connection with some heresy. Parrinder suggests Adoptionists and Arians:

“But for our present purpose the key words are “take to himself any offspring.” “Take to himself” means literally to “acquire” ( yattakhidha), and so this verse denies that God acquires a son in the course of time. This had been said by Adoptionist and Arian heretics in Christianity, who said that Jesus became or was adopted Son of God at his baptism or some other moment. But the orthodox rejected this in teaching that the Son is eternal.”

For his part Basetti-Sani suggests instead “Nestorians,” commenting: “The Koran rejects the Nestorian formulation of the Incarnation (‘to take a son to oneself’).”19 Yet we might instead understand the Qurʾān’s use of the verb “to take” not as a perfectly preserved record of some Christian group’s doctrinal articulation, but rather as a feature of the Qurʾān’s creative rhetoric. In Yūsuf (12) 21 Potiphar’s wife says (regarding Joseph), “Maybe he will be useful to us, or we may take him as a son (nattakhidhahu waladan).” In al-Qaṣaṣ (28) 9, the Qurʾān has Pharaoh’s wife say (regarding Moses), “Maybe he will benefit us, or we will take him as a son (nattakhidhahu waladan).”20 In light of these verses it seems less likely that the language which the Qurʾān employs is a reflection of the Christology of some heretical sect which Muhammad encountered.21 Instead this language seems to be part of the Qurʾān’s creative rhetoric. By using the expression “take a son” the Qurʾān implies that the Christians think of God as a woman – such as the wives of Potiphar and Pharaoh – who desired to adopt a child. Christians accordingly appear to be ridiculous, and the Qurʾān’s position on Christ appears to be a more reasonable alternative.

With this we might turn to the case of al-Māʾida (5) 116:

“And when Allah will say, ‘O Jesus son of Mary! Was it you who said to the people, ‘‘Take me and my mother for gods besides Allah’’?’ He will say, ‘Immaculate are You! It does not behoove me to say what I have no right to [say]. Had I said it, You would certainly have known it: You know whatever is in myself, and I do not know what is in Your Self. Indeed You are knower of all that is Unseen.”

The manner in which the Qurʾān has Jesus deny that he ever told people, “Take me and my mother for gods besides Allah” has long led western scholars to imagine that the Prophet had a mistaken idea of the Trinity, that he imagined the Christian Trinity to be a family: Father, Mother, Son.26 Some scholars justify this idea with reference to the Panarion of Epiphanius’ (d. 403), a Christian heresiography which includes a sect named the “Collyridians,” so called – according to Epiphanius – because they liked to baked cakes (kollurida) for the Virgin Mary. The Collyridians, Epiphanius explains, were made up of women in “Arabia” who “decorate a barber’s chair or a square seat, spread cloth on it, set out bread and offer it in Mary’s name on a certain day of the year” (VII:1,6).27 Somehow, according to the scholars who rely on such reports, Muhammad met or heard of these Collyridians and gotthe idea that Christians generally worship Mary. This led him to imagine that they think of Mary as the third member of the Trinity.28 On the Collyridians Bell comments:

“In later times we hear of other kinds of heretics, the Collyridians, and a class of idolatrous worshippers of the Virgin Mary. Our information about these is very meagre, if indeed what we have is not due to Epiphanius’ imagination. It is possible, however, that some of the heretical movements persecuted in the Empire may have sought refuge in Arabia and helped to form the soil out of which Islam grew.”

Francois de Blois resists the temptation to explain al-Māʾida (5)116 in light of the Collyridians, yet he does so not because of any methodological problem with the notion of seeking out heretical sources for the Christian material in the Qurʾān. He does so because he is not satisfied that he has found the right heresy, and he goes on to look for another. Scholars like de Blois who would take us on a quest for heretical Christian sects seem to neglect the possibility that the Qurʾān has the ability to produce creative rhetoric, to satirize the views of its opponents, or to employ particular turns of phrase which are something more than simple recordings of its sources or its doctrine. In the case of al-Māʾida (5) 116, for example, could it be that the Qurʾān is taunting Christians by intentionally exaggerating their devotion to Mary? Could this verse be more about the Qurʾān’s creative rhetoric and less about the Collyridians?

That the Qurʾān has a penchant for such creative rhetoric is evident in certain passages on divine judgment. In al-Tawba (9) 34, for example, the Qurʾān asks its prophet to “Give the ‘good’ news of a painful punishment” to the unbelievers. In al-Dukhān (44) 49, the Qurʾān has God say to a damned soul in hell, “You are indeed the powerful and noble one!”31 The Qurʾān here is not reporting that the condemned – who after all suffer humiliating punishments – are powerful and noble. Instead the Qurʾān is employing irony. One might find irony, too, in the description of hell as a “bed” (mihād) for the unbelievers in al-Aʿrāf (7): 41.

In reading the Qurʾān we should generally be sensitive to its creative use of rhetorical tools such as irony and hyperbole. The Qur’anic material on Christianity is a testament to this creativity, and not to the influence of Christian heretics.

——-o0o——-

I will leave the last word to Shaykh Dr Gibril Haddad,

‘Their [Editors of SQ] reduction of the Quranic condemnation of Christian doctrines as addressing only “a local sect of Christians with beliefs different from mainstream Chalcedonian Christianity” (p. 31), “those who assert the existence of three distinct gods” (p. 267), “certain sects among the Christians… such as the Jacobites and the Nestorians” (p. 316), is a revision of the Qur’ān and a woeful justification of Orthodox and Catholic Trinitarianisms. As pointed out by an earlier review […], “in the formative period, Chalcedonian Christology was not being treated any differently than other forms of Christology, and the earliest Muslims regarded it as constituting the very Trinity which the Qur’ān rebukes.” The comments from al-Rāzī to that effect cited on all the above pages show that the editors are fully aware of the fact.’

source

——

In Part 2 I will discuss the significance of The Bible in Arabic: The Scriptures of the ‘People of the Book’ in the Language of Islam by Sidney H. Griffith and how it refutes Christian polemics about the Quran with particular reference to this article: Do Christians Believe Allah is really Jesus?



Categories: Christianity, History, Islam, Quran

268 replies

  1. Williams, I already beat you to it since I am going to address your appeal to Q. 4:171 and shows you how it backfires against Muhammad. This will also expose Griffith’s comments as desperate.

    Like

  2. BTW, I too will be using Griffith to show that even he admits in that very book you plan to use that the Quran DOES NOT accurately reflect the Trinitarian beliefs of the Christians of that time. OUCH!

    And thanks for blogging my article since that will draw more traffic to them so that people will come to see the truth by the grace of the Lord Jesus.

    Like

  3. I hope you will actually address the refutation of your arguments.

    Like

  4. Speaking of Parrinder and the rest, I actually quote them to prove that your Quran is wrong and nowhere condemns the orthodox views of Christianity. Enjoy:

    http://answeringislam.net/Shamoun/quran_trinity.htm

    Like

  5. Williams, I made it clear that I will be refuting your article in my upcoming reply to you where I will even use Griffith against you, Lord willing. So be patient since there are only so many rebuttals a man can write. 😉

    Like

  6. Williams, you just mentioned Griffith several times in this very article. So what in the world are you talking about that you didn’t mention him? You ok friend?

    Moreover, your claim that the Quran is being rhetorical was lifted from Griffith’s book which I have in my possession, and which I will put holes in by God’s grace.

    Like

    • Sam,

      I mentioned his work in passing but I did not discuss it.

      I am saving his book for part 2.

      Now will you actually respond to my article which discusses Reynolds paper?

      Like

  7. Funny how sam the sham and his cronies (particularly james white), cry like babies if Muslims use ‘liberal’ christian scholars, yet here is king of the cry babies (sam), using what
    Muslims would consider ‘liberal’ scholarship (the study Quran)!! Double Standards! Unequal Scales!

    Liked by 1 person

  8. Baarak Allahu feek ya Paul, I don’t have anything to add other than it was a very well written article.

    Liked by 2 people

  9. Sam, you need to give up writing your hate-filled, incoherent nonsense against Islam. It don’t work, mate! Your only preaching to you Islamaphobic choir!! I know, i tried your articles in my evangelical days. Muslims I was trying to convince just laughed at me and told me not to get my info from answering islam!

    Like

    • That’s what I don’t understand, his style of rhetoric clearly doesn’t work, it doesn’t evangelize to Muslims nor does it bring back any of the converts from Christianity to Islam. You would think he would try a different approach, and the fact that he continues with the same style just boggles the mind.

      Of course, now I expect him to respond to this by insulting the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم and Yaha Snow…

      Like

    • Yes brother, thats why I consider shameoun and AI is blessing in disguise, it actually helps people to discover Islam.

      Liked by 1 person

  10. BTW Paul, very good article. Well done.

    Liked by 1 person

  11. Here goes the Muslims with their love fest! Guys, stop focusing on me and get back to your prayers. Really, I am not that important.

    Williams, it is sad that you are not patient since, like I said, I am going to end up using your own authorities against you, Lord Jesus willing.

    In the meantime, Reynolds says things which actually agree with me over against you. For instance, do you agree with Reynolds that Q. 4:157 DOES NOT DENY that Jesus died?

    “… There is, then, NO REASON TO ASSUME that the Qurʾān DENIES THE DEATH OF JESUS, and a fortiori to imag- ine that the Qurʾān was influenced by Christian Docetists on the question of the Crucifixion.”

    Yes or no? I want to quote your answer in my up-coming rebuttal, Lord willing.

    Like

    • Don’t forget this part:

      “In fact there is no reason for recourse to Docetism at all, as the Qurʾān never denies (either in al-Nisāʾ (4)157 or elsewhere) that Jesus was crucified or that he died. It states only that the Jews did not kill him (wa-mā qatalūhu wa-mā ṣalabūhu), and nothing more… Yet what the Qurʾān says elsewhere about Jesus seems to affirm his death, mak- ing God – and not the Israelites – responsible for it. In Āl ʿImrān (3) the Qurʾān has God say to Jesus, “O Jesus, I shall make you pass away (inni mutawaffīka), and I shall raise you up toward Myself” (Q 3:55). In al-Māʾida (5), the Qurʾān has Jesus (now after his death and ascension into heaven) declare to God, “But when You made me pass away (lammā tawaffaytanī), You Yourself were watch- ful over them” (Q 5:117).24 In the light of these verses al-Nisāʾ (4)157 no longer seems to deny the death of Jesus, either explicitly or implicitly. Instead this verse seems to reflect the Qur’anic teaching that God alone has the power to take someone’s soul from his body: “Allah gives life and brings death.”25”

      Again, do you agree with Reynolds?

      Like

    • I do not have a view. He may be correct…

      Like

    • Good to know Williams since your candid admission of not knowing whether he is right or wrong will come back to implode on your so called rebuttals. So much for your appeal to the supposed rhetorical device of the Quran! 😉

      So please hurry up finishing the second part of your reply so I can use your own sources against you.

      Like

    • sam, are you still asking the holy spirit to help you go on diet?
      few questions sam

      how come the many saints appeared to many in jerusalem, but the gardner/ghost/face changer/ satan/ jesus of nazareth did not show his face ?

      why weren’t the christian able to produce flesh and bone jesus after jesus was JUDGED and terminated by human authorities?

      before he was TERMINATED , he begged his god on his knees to remove the cup.

      humans brought your god down to his knees.

      Like

  12. Sam can’t help it Khaled, as he’s full of irrational hatred towards Muslims. I don’t think he got enough hugs as a little boy!
    Sam, for your own state of mind stop the rage against Muslims and take up fishing or something, spend more time with your family.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Jacob, I don’t hate Muslims. Rather, I despise vile, slandering, blaspheming Muhammadans who think they can insult people and get away with it, like you. So pretend you believe in your Quran and return to your prayers and stop insulting and harassing me.

      Like

    • FYI Jacob, here are some Muslims I have tons of respect for and love to listen to: Shaykh Muhammad al-Yaqoubi, Shaikh al-Ninowy, Hamza Yusuf to name a few. These guys are truly amazing, and should be the example for folk like you to emulate.

      Like

    • “I despise vile, slandering, blaspheming Muhammadans who think they can insult people and get away with it..”

      You must be full of self-hatred Sam for that is exactly what you are famous for doing:

      ‘I despise vile, slandering, blaspheming Christians who think they can insult people and get away with it..’

      Liked by 1 person

  13. Sam, the very term ‘mohammadan’ is insulting towards Muslims. We do not worship the Prophet Mohammad, we follow his example.
    And yes Sam you hate All Muslims, simply because they don’t believe what you do!

    Like

    • Jacob, in one of the very posts published by Williams a Muslim scholar used the title Muhammadans for fellow Muslims. Lord willing, I will find it for you and quote it. Moreover, what do you do with these narrations:

      Narrated ‘Aisha : … The Prophet then said, “O followers of Muhammad! By Allah! There is none who has more ghaira (self-respect) than Allah as He has forbidden that His slaves, male or female commit adultery. O followers of Muhammad! By Allah! If you knew that which I know you would laugh little and weep much.” (Sahih Bukhari 2.154)

      What is a Muhammadan if not a follower of Muhammad?

      As I noted, the term is actually even used by Muslims. Hughes’ Dictionary of Islam, published 1886, states:

      MUHAMMADAN. Arabic Muhammadi. A name seldom used in Muhammadan works for the followers of Muhammad, who call themselves either Mu’mins, Muslims, or Musalmans. It is, however, sometimes used in Indian papers and other popular publications, and it is not, as many European scholars suppose, an offensive term to Muslims.

      This is even confirmed by a recent Muslim (online) publication, elaborating on “the greatness of al-Haqiqa al-Muhammadiyya, the ‘Muhammadan Reality’”: http://www.masud.co.uk/ISLAM/nuh/masudq7.htm

      Like

  14. And absolutely sam, you really are not important at all. And your so called arguments against Islam are not worthy of a response. The ramblings of a hate filled little boy who never got any love! Grow up, move on. Spend some time with your family, you might get some love there!

    Like

    • Thank you Jacob. Now convince yourself that I not important by ignoring me instead of spending most of your time talking about/to me, and return to your prayers and your chores.

      Like

    • BTW, thank you for also confirming that I was right when I said that you are one of those very vile, slandering Muhammadans. Thank you for not not proving me wrong. Much appreciated.

      Like

  15. Does anyone know anyone that knows Sam personally? Maybe if we reach out to his family he can finally get some help.

    Like

    • Why not ask your jinn to help you to discover who may friends are. After all, they proved quite helpful to your prophet since they inspired him to compose another surah for his Quran, one named in their honor. Try reading it sometime.

      Like

  16. No wonder you guys have been spewing all that hate about the study quran – it puts you trinity-hating-wannabes out of a job.

    LOL!!

    Your own scholars admit that the orthodox concept of the trinity is not condemned by your god in his book – he only condemns views of the trinity that christians consider heretical.

    Like

    • LOL!!

      D, you are truly a simpleton! “Your own scholars”? How many are they? A few? So what? What about the vast MAJORITY that do not agree with the editors of the Study Quran?

      Do you agree with the views of Dr. Craig Considine or Dr. Ian Mevorach? 😉

      Like

    • Fail

      “Your own scholars”? How many are they? ”

      that’s a great insight – I don’t submit and believe what I’m told to believe because an authority told me.

      It’s clear from reading the quran that your god was clueless about the trinity and the incarnation – you shouldn’t need the work of scholars to tell you that. It is obvious – but only if you think about what you read and don’t blindly follow whatever cleric you are kow-towing to tells you to think. Use your brain man.

      So, in this case, the number of the scholars who tell the truth is irrelevant – it is the content of their claims that is important because their conclusions match what anyone who doesn’t think using their brain is haram would naturally conclude by reading the text.

      Your god does not agree with your condemnatioıns of the orthodox trinity. LOL!!!

      Like

    • if you actually read my article you would find answers to the questions you raise.

      Like

    • Paul Williams

      “if you actually read my article you would find answers to the questions you raise.”

      I have read your article – top marks for being well-written, low marks for content.

      I would agree with Reynold’s article more if he did not dismiss the white elephant of coincidences that just “happen” to align with heretical Christian beliefs.

      If there was not such a wealth of heretical christian beliefs floating around the region that resemble the characterizations in the quran, then I would find your article more compelling.

      Regardless, though, if the quran is using rhetoric to mis-characterize christian beliefs and present strawmen representations of it it is still devastating for islam for a couple of reasons.

      One, islam teaches that your god caused jesus’ followers to believe that jesus had died which makes your god exceedingly cruel to mislead god-fearing people and then condemn them for it.

      Two, if your god used this kind of sarcastic rhetoric, then it makes him sound like a douchey british muslim apologist and not the creator of the universe. Does your god really need to resort to mockery and ridicule to get his point across like a common polemicist preacher?

      Plus, even if I accept that the quran utilizes man-made rhetorical flourishes to caricature christian belief, that does not mean that it actually did understand the orthodox beliefs about the trinity or jesus’ divinity.

      Reynolds example of the “Sacerdolators” is an example of one logical leap too far. Just because he can find examples where there is no apparent analogous christian or jewish sect, it doesn’t discount the possibility that other references in the quran are derived from heretical sects.

      The oral tradition of islam makes the situation more complicated. For example this in relation to the “Sacerdolators”….

      “They have taken their scribes and their monks as lords besides Allah, and also Christ, Mary’s son.”

      In an oral tradition – particularly one that is rhetorical, hostile to christianity, and polemic – a simple historical story like jesus condemning the scribes and pahrisees as interlopers between god and his revelation, could easily evolve into an exaggerated polemical rhetoric that changes this story into a more damning fable of christians or jews worshipping or elevating their “scribes and monks” to lords. The oral tradition works against you – especially in light of Bart Ehrman’s recent work.

      This shows that the quran is far from being the divine word, and is more likely to be a human construct, made by men who didn’t understand christian doctrines.

      Like

  17. William do you also agree that the Quran deliberately misrepresents Christian beliefs in order to caricature them?

    By “caricature” here Griffith means the description of an opponent’s views in a way that makes them appear less reasonable. This caricaturing can be found, for example, with the wording, “those who say ‘God is the Messiah, son of Mary’ ” in Q 5:17 and 5:72. Griffith notes that “Christians in the Qurʾān’s time did not normally say that ‘God is the Messiah.” However, by describing Christian doctrine in this way the Qurʾān means to make it easier to refute:

    Yes or no? Moreover, can you cite any of the mufassirun who interpreted it in this manner, namely, what the Quran is doing here is to merely caricature the beliefs of Christians?

    Like

    • Yes, I agree with the article’s general view concerning the Qurʾan’s creative use of rhetorical strategies against orthodox Christianity.

      Jesus used hyperbole routinely in the gospels. So did Muhammad.

      Jesus is said to have taught his disciples to “hate” their father and mother; to cut off their hands if they sinned; and so on..

      All three Scriptures use rhetoric to convey truth.

      Like

    • How do you know that Jesus used hyperbole when you don’t believe in the historical reliability of the Gospels? More inconsistent and circular argumentation from you I see, i.e., appeal to the Gospels when its convenient but then throw them under the bus when they refute you.

      Moreover, the Gospels are not the same kind of literature as the Quran, nor are they written in the same style. So you are comparing apples and pineapples at this point.

      More importantly, can you be so kind a quote from the Muslim scholars of the past who mastered the Arabic Quran, and knew of its linguistic features, where any of them claimed that Q. 5:17, 72-75, and 116 are hyperbolic rhetoric aimed, not at accurately reflecting Christian beliefs, but of caricaturing them?

      I will be eagerly awaiting your proofs.

      Like

    • Sam

      is this your response to my article? It is very bitty, piece-meal and off the subject.

      My essay is based on the paper by On the Presentation of Christianity in the Qurʾān and the Many Aspects of Qur’anic Rhetoric by Gabriel Said Reynolds.

      It does not discuss (because it is not concerned with) ‘the Muslim scholars of the past who mastered the Arabic Quran…’

      Not that it is relevant but I think considerable portions of the synoptic tradition are reliable especially the idiomatic Aramaic hyperbole apparently used by Jesus.

      Now will you actually deal with my article and the arguments advanced by Reynolds?

      Like

    • Well you need to first answer my question before you can pass the test. Any answer to my challenge to cite from one of the mufassirun like al-Tabari etc.?

      Like

    • Let’s try this for a final time Williams. You write:

      “is this your response to my article? It is very bitty, piece-meal and off the subject.”

      Don’t flatter yourself Williams, since this is nothing in comparison to what I have in store for you.

      “My essay is based on the paper by On the Presentation of Christianity in the Qurʾān and the Many Aspects of Qur’anic Rhetoric by Gabriel Said Reynolds.”

      You mean the same paper that I have been citing from and using against you? That same one?

      “It does not discuss (because it is not concerned with) ‘the Muslim scholars of the past who mastered the Arabic Quran…’”

      Please quote where I even said anything about Reynolds quoting Muslim scholars of the past. So stop with the straw man. My challenge was simple so let me repeat. Since the Quran’s linguistic was well know and perfectly understood my the Muslim scholars of the past, long before either Reynolds or Griffith ever appeared on the scene, and therefore were much more qualified to know whether texts such as Q. 4:157, 5:17, 72-75, and 116 are employing hyperbolic rhetoric or caricaturing the beliefs of Christians. As such, please cite any of them that interpreted these verses in the same fashion that Reynolds and Griffith, two 21st century scholars, do. I eagerly await your reply.

      “Not that it is relevant but I think considerable portions of the synoptic tradition are reliable especially the idiomatic Aramaic hyperbole apparently used by Jesus.”

      Like I said, you appeal to the Gospels when it is convenient but then toss them under the bus when they end up refuting you. So thank you for proving my point. And just to highlight the question begging inherent in your statement, how do you know that the historical Jesus went around espousing Aramaic hyperbole? How can you be certain that this wasn’t the creative imagination of Aramaic speaking Christians who put such rhetoric into the mouth of Jesus?

      Moreover, instead of begging the question by assuming that Quranic verses such as Q. 5:17, 72-75 and 116 are employing hyperbolic rhetoric, you need to first prove this to be the case Therefore, let me repeat my challenge to you. Since the Quran’s linguistic was well know and perfectly understood my the Muslim scholars of the past, long before either Reynolds or Griffith ever appeared on the scene, and therefore were much more qualified to know whether texts such as Q. 4:157, 5:17, 72-75, and 116 are employing hyperbolic rhetoric or caricaturing the beliefs of Christians. As such, please cite any of them that interpreted these verses in the same fashion that Reynolds and Griffith, two 21st century scholars, do. I eagerly await your reply.

      Now will you actually answer my questions?

      Like

    • Sorry Sam I will not be subject to your aggressive cross-examinations and demands for answers.

      The article is not concerned with the Islamic understanding of the Quran’s use of rhetoric over the centuries.

      That is a completely different subject and is thus irrelevant to the discussion.

      The essential thesis is this:

      Many important western works on the Qurʾān are focused on the question of religious influences. In these works material in the Qurʾān is compared to similar material in Jewish or Christian literature in the hope of arriving at a better understanding of the Qurʾān’s origins

      In the present article it is argued that these sorts of studies often include a simplistic perspective on Qur’anic rhetoric. In order to pursue this argument I focus on a common feature of these works, namely a comparison between material in the Qurʾān on Christ and Christianity with reports on the teachings of Christian heretical groups. Behind this feature is a conviction that heretical Christian groups existed in the Arabian peninsula at the time of Islam’s origins and that these groups influenced the Prophet. I will argue that once the Qurʾān’s creative use of rhetorical strategies such as hyperbole is appreciated, the need to search for Christian heretics disappears entirely.

      Like

  18. Btw Sam

    I trust you read this paper. My article is based on it:

    The Journal of Qurʾan and Ḥadith Studies 12 (2014) 42-54, article On the Presentation of Christianity in the Qurʾān and the Many Aspects of Qur’anic Rhetoric by Gabriel Said Reynolds, University of Notre Dame, USA. Reynolds is Professor of Islamic Studies and Theology and the History of Christianity.

    Read it here

    Like

  19. I will demonstrate, inshallah, why Shamoun’s conclusion is premature by an examination of the arguments of two eminent experts in the field of Quranic exegesis and the Christianity of pre-Islamic Arabia.

    So, it’s ok for you to use “inshallah”, but not me?

    😉 😉

    Like

    • because I am not being a pretentious know-it-all

      Like

    • How do you judge my heart and motives that way? How do I know you are not being a pretentious know it all with your arrogance of all the liberal and moderate scholars that you quote and promote, with a tone that just oozes the very thing you are objecting to.

      Like

    • Don’t you believe that Allah is not God? Or am I mistaken in that regard? 😉

      Like

    • “Allah” is just the Arabic word for “God” and it is still the best word in Arabic to use for Elohim in the OT and Theos in the NT. The word is ok, and Christians understand Allah to be the Trinitarian God, so the doctrine of who Allah is in Islam is wrong, but the word is fine. The theology and doctrine of who the true Allah is, is the issue. Christianity and the NT say He is the Triune God – One God in three persons. (the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit – Matthew 28:19; 2 Corinthians 13:14)

      Like

  20. “Your own scholars”? How many are they? ”

    that’s a great insight – I don’t submit and believe what I’m told to believe because an authority told me.

    It’s clear from reading the quran that your god was clueless about the trinity and the incarnation – you shouldn’t need the work of scholars to tell you that. It is obvious – but only if you think about what you read and don’t blindly follow whatever cleric you are kow-towing to tells you to think. Use your brain man.

    So, in this case, the number of the scholars who tell the truth is irrelevant – it is the content of their claims that is important because their conclusions match what anyone who doesn’t think using their brain is haram would naturally conclude by reading the text.

    Your god does not agree with your condemnatioıns of the orthodox trinity. LOL!!!”

    Oh so now, the views of the SQ editors is not that important? Now, “it’s clear from the Quran…”. Flip-flopping, are we?

    The “content of their claims” is exactly the point. The editors of the SQ are Perennialists. They believe that all religions are essentially true. That is problematic, because it dictates all of their interpretations. The vast majority of Islamic scholars come to the exact opposite conclusion when reading the Quran. They don’t emphasize one or a few verses out of context. Rather, they look at the all-encompassing message of the Quran. And the conclusion is that the previous scriptures have been corrupted to an extent.

    So, once again, we see what a simpleton you are. LOL!!!

    And I noticed you didn’t answer my question ONCE AGAIN:

    Do you agree with the views of Dr. Craig Considine and Dr. Ian Mevorach? Answer the question! Don’t run away! LOL!!!

    Like

  21. This, “Since the Quran’s linguistic was well know and perfectly understood my the Muslim scholars of the past, long before either Reynolds or Griffith ever appeared on the scene, and therefore were much more qualified to know whether texts such as Q. 4:157, 5:17, 72-75, and 116 are employing hyperbolic rhetoric or caricaturing the beliefs of Christians. As such, please cite any of them that interpreted these verses in the same fashion that Reynolds and Griffith, two 21st century scholars, do. I eagerly await your reply.”

    Needs to be corrected to read this way:

    The Quran’s linguistic features were well known and perfectly understood my the Muslim scholars of the past, long before either Reynolds or Griffith ever appeared on the scene, and therefore were much more qualified to know whether texts such as Q. 4:157, 5:17, 72-75, and 116 are employing hyperbolic rhetoric or caricaturing the beliefs of Christians. Therefore, can you please cite any of them that interpreted these verses in the same fashion that Reynolds and Griffith, two 21st century scholars, do. I eagerly await your reply.

    Sorry for all the typos.

    Like

    • Sorry Sam I will not be subject to your aggressive cross-examinations and demands for answers.

      The article is not concerned with the Islamic understanding of the Quran’s use of rhetoric over the centuries.

      That is a completely different subject and is thus irrelevant to the discussion.

      The essential thesis is this:

      Many important western works on the Qurʾān are focused on the question of religious influences. In these works material in the Qurʾān is compared to similar material in Jewish or Christian literature in the hope of arriving at a better understanding of the Qurʾān’s origins

      In the present article it is argued that these sorts of studies often include a simplistic perspective on Qur’anic rhetoric. In order to pursue this argument I focus on a common feature of these works, namely a comparison between material in the Qurʾān on Christ and Christianity with reports on the teachings of Christian heretical groups. Behind this feature is a conviction that heretical Christian groups existed in the Arabian peninsula at the time of Islam’s origins and that these groups influenced the Prophet. I will argue that once the Qurʾān’s creative use of rhetorical strategies such as hyperbole is appreciated, the need to search for Christian heretics disappears entirely.

      Like

  22. Fail

    “The editors of the SQ are Perennialists. They believe that all religions are essentially true. That is problematic, because it dictates all of their interpretations.”

    That’s classic well poisoning and irrelevant since you can’t possibly know if their work was biased – you think so because you don’t like their conclusions. But your being sad because your god doesn’t hate the trinity as much as you have been led to believe is not my problem.

    “Oh so now, the views of the SQ editors is not that important?”

    This is just dumb and delusional. No wonder you are so easily led – you don’t read carefully. I said the exact opposite of what you comprehended! LOL!!!

    Their views are important – you know, the part of my comment that you quoted where I said “it is the content of their claims that are important” NOT the number of people making the claim. LOL!! You don’t read too good my friend.

    Learn to read more carefully and then go back through and re-read your holy book – you’ll find that your god makes no condemnation of the trinity of father, son and holy spirit. And don’t listen to your clerics – you don’t need them if you use your brain and don’t corrupt the text to suit your biases.

    Like

  23. ““Allah” is just the Arabic word for “God” and it is still the best word in Arabic to use for Elohim in the OT and Theos in the NT. The word is ok, and Christians understand Allah to be the Trinitarian God, so the doctrine of who Allah is in Islam is wrong, but the word is fine. The theology and doctrine of who the true Allah is, is the issue. Christianity and the NT say He is the Triune God – One God in three persons. (the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit – Matthew 28:19; 2 Corinthians 13:14)”

    Perhaps, but “Elohim” was clearly a word with a wide range of meanings. The Bible refers to Moses as “Elohim”. It also refers to pagan gods as “Elohim”. So, to say that “Allah” is “still the best word in Arabic to use for Elohim” is a stretch. Allah was only used by the Arabs to refer to the Supreme Being, whom they also knew as “Al-Rahman”, “Al-Rahim”, etc. It was never used to refer to other beings, in the way “Elohim” has been used in Hebrew.

    Liked by 1 person

  24. “Fail

    “The editors of the SQ are Perennialists. They believe that all religions are essentially true. That is problematic, because it dictates all of their interpretations.”

    That’s classic well poisoning and irrelevant since you can’t possibly know if their work was biased – you think so because you don’t like their conclusions. But your being sad because your god doesn’t hate the trinity as much as you have been led to believe is not my problem.

    “Oh so now, the views of the SQ editors is not that important?”

    This is just dumb and delusional. No wonder you are so easily led – you don’t read carefully. I said the exact opposite of what you comprehended! LOL!!!

    Their views are important – you know, the part of my comment that you quoted where I said “it is the content of their claims that are important” NOT the number of people making the claim. LOL!! You don’t read too good my friend.

    Learn to read more carefully and then go back through and re-read your holy book – you’ll find that your god makes no condemnation of the trinity of father, son and holy spirit. And don’t listen to your clerics – you don’t need them if you use your brain and don’t corrupt the text to suit your biases.”

    LOL, still not answering my question. Before I proceed, answer my question:

    Do you agree with the views of Dr. Craig Considine and Dr. Ian Mevorach?

    LOL!!!

    By the way, I know for a fact that the editors of the SQ were biased by their Perennialist views because they even interpreted verses in which the Quran clearly states that no other religion will be accepted by God as somehow saying that all religions are still accepted. I will get you the exact reference later.

    Speaking of “reading”, have you even read The Study Quran or are you just jumping on the bandwagon because you have nothing better to do? LOL!!!

    Liked by 2 people

    • Now, since you have answered the first question, I can proceed.

      As I have stated previously, the Quran condemns ALL heretical Christian beliefs. It refers to trinitarian beliefs in general and condemns them as heresy. It also condemns the deification of Jesus as a heresy. Obviously, you cannot be a trinitarian and yet believe that Jesus was not “God”. Get it, D? I know it can be difficult for your to process too much information all at once, but do try dear. LOL!!!

      Liked by 1 person

    • Fail

      “It refers to trinitarian beliefs in general and condemns them as heresy. It also condemns the deification of Jesus as a heresy.”

      LOL!! It does not condemn “trinitarian beliefs in general” at all you brainwashed hagarene – there is no reference to “trinity” anywhere because your god (i.e. the men who made up the quran) didn’t understand the concept. He condemns at best, the concept of three gods not a triune god.

      As for jesus’ deity, your god (i.e. the men who made up the quran) seemed to be conflicted about it. On the one hand your god thinks that jesus was literally the son of god in which god has a baby mama, on the other he is a “spirit of god” blown into Mary, yet again, he is the word of god (you know, the eternal uncreated word of god), yet on the other hand he shouldn’t be worshipped, yet again he has powers that only god can have, like raising the dead and creating life.

      Of course, you guys claim that jesus’ ability to create life as told by your god was done “with god’s permission”, but that puts you in a bind. If god is so transcendent that he cannot enter creation, how can his power be restrained enough to be unleashed through a mere human being. Your god is not logical or rational. Your god is simply confused about jesus so I have to take what he says about him with a boulder of salt.

      This is no surprise since your god has 99 personalities, all vying for the attentions of his one brain that is evidently overloaded and incapable of telling a logical narrative. LOL!

      So please tell me, where in the old or new testaments does the god of abraham say that he has 99 personalities? In fact where does your god’s book say that he has 99 personalities?

      Like

    • “you brainwashed hagarene” lol

      Like

  25. “Fail

    I forgot….

    “Do you agree with the views of Dr. Craig Considine and Dr. Ian Mevorach?”

    No.

    LOL!!!”

    Ah, but why? Is it because of the “content” of their arguments or because they threaten your a priori Christian exceptionalism? LOL!!! Let’s see if the standard Christian use of double standards comes out again! LOL!!!

    Like

  26. The Arabic Bible translates the Hebrew Elohim אלוהים and El אל into Allah (except when the context is false gods, plural. the one about Moses means “as God”, not literally “God”; and the NT theos θεος into Allah الله

    Like

    • But again, the very fact that “Elohim” is used in such cases means it is a very different concept/word than the Arabic “Allah”. The former can be used in various contexts. The latter can ONLY be used when referring to the Supreme Being.

      Like

    • But they were previous revelations, which the Qur’an affirms ;

      the previous revelations were only in Hebrew, some small texts in Aramaic (about 1/2 of Daniel and and some in Ezra); and Greek, and so their words in their languages were used for the one true creator sovereign invisible eternal God.

      Like

  27. Paul, does Griffith refer to Surah 43:61, which describes Jesus as a “sign of the hour”? I don’t have the book yet, but it is on my reading list. I am interested in what Griffith said, if anything, on the Islamic belief of Jesus’ return during the end times because that has an important bearing on the matter of the crucifixion. The ahadith describe that Jesus will return, live for around 40 years and then die. Obviously, if he already died, then he wouldn’t be returning.

    Liked by 1 person

  28. Fail

    “By the way, I know for a fact that the editors of the SQ were biased by their Perennialist views because they even interpreted verses in which the Quran clearly states that no other religion will be accepted by God as somehow saying that all religions are still accepted.”

    Those are just your feelings – if you used your brain you might also conclude that they reached their conclusions because that is what the text told them. Plus, I don’t agree that there is too much in the quran that is clear.

    “Ah, but why? Is it because of the “content” of their arguments or because they threaten your a priori Christian exceptionalism? ”

    LOL!! Now that is a different question than the one you asked first and which I answered – and this is turning into an inquisition!! I expect you will spend the next week obsessively repeating the claims that I didn’t answer your question!

    Your questions are off topic – this isn’t about considine, it’s about your god’s inability to understand basic christian trinitarian doctrine.

    Like

    • Dingbat,

      “Those are just your feelings – if you used your brain you might also conclude that they reached their conclusions because that is what the text told them. Plus, I don’t agree that there is too much in the quran that is clear.”

      LOL!!! This is coming from a Christian joker who selectively accepts the views of some authorities while rejecting others, based purely on an a priori assumption!

      The Quran is crystal clear that only Islam will be accepted by God. The Perennialist fools twisted that verse as saying that all religions are actually accepted! WOW!!

      You didn’t answer my questions (I know, what a shock!). Have you actually read the Study Quran or are you just jumping on the bandwagon because you have nothing better to do?

      “LOL!! Now that is a different question than the one you asked first and which I answered – and this is turning into an inquisition!! I expect you will spend the next week obsessively repeating the claims that I didn’t answer your question!

      Your questions are off topic – this isn’t about considine, it’s about your god’s inability to understand basic christian trinitarian doctrine.”

      LOL, running away again? SHOCKING! LOL!!!

      Since you “nobly” (LOL!) claimed that it is the “content” of one’s arguments and not their authority that determines if one’s arguments are right or wrong, naturally it is logical to ask why you don’t agree with Considine or Mevorach’s views. I have a feeling that even if you do eventually answer my question, you will expose yourself as the pathetic apologist you are, who uses double standards in his arguments with Muslims. You can run, but you can’t hide! LOL!!!

      Like

  29. “Ouch! You’re murdering Fail! I thought Christians were supposed to be gentle?😉”

    Sam, obviously not! 😉

    Like

  30. Sam Shamoun.

    Unless your comments are actually to do with the article above they will be deleted – as a number of them already have been.

    Lets see if you have the focus and ability to deal with the issues at hand, namely:

    Many important western works on the Qurʾān are focused on the question of religious influences. In these works material in the Qurʾān is compared to similar material in Jewish or Christian literature in the hope of arriving at a better understanding of the Qurʾān’s origins

    In the present article it is argued that these sorts of studies often include a simplistic perspective on Qur’anic rhetoric. In order to pursue this argument I focus on a common feature of these works, namely a comparison between material in the Qurʾān on Christ and Christianity with reports on the teachings of Christian heretical groups. Behind this feature is a conviction that heretical Christian groups existed in the Arabian peninsula at the time of Islam’s origins and that these groups influenced the Prophet. I will argue that once the Qurʾān’s creative use of rhetorical strategies such as hyperbole is appreciated, the need to search for Christian heretics disappears entirely.

    Like

    • That is the irony of this thread. After 60+ posts going back and forth, neither Sam nor D have addressed the central point of the post! And yet D (the only one here who hasn’t done ANY research) has been clamoring about not sticking to the topic! Go figure! At the very least, Sam has done the prerequisite reading, even if he is not addressing the central point of this thread.

      Liked by 2 people

  31. This part of the Study Quran is particularly damaging to the credibility of the editors:

    “Some might argue, therefore, that Jesus, by virtue of being identified as God’s Word, somehow participates (uniquely) in the Divine Creative Command”…

    This is nonsense and goes completely against the central message of the Quran, which is that God is without partners in any way, shape or form!

    Like

  32. “But they were previous revelations, which the Qur’an affirms ;

    the previous revelations were only in Hebrew, some small texts in Aramaic (about 1/2 of Daniel and and some in Ezra); and Greek, and so their words in their languages were used for the one true creator sovereign invisible eternal God.”

    Oh for God’s sake, we are not talking about your ridiculous assertion that the Quran “affirms” the previous revelations. It does not.

    But back to the issue. Do you agree that “Elohim” in Hebrew is a completely different concept/word from “Allah” in Arabic?

    Like

    • No; the concept of the one true God is the same (Monotheism, only one God – Deut. 6:4, Isaiah chapters 40-48); as in the OT.

      The Trinity is not clearly revealed in the OT, but hidden. (there are hints)

      The Deity of Christ and the Trinity become clear in the great events of the Incarnation (Luke 1:34-35; John 1:1-5, 14; Philippians 2:5-8) and the Outpouring of the Holy Spirit on the day of Pentecost (Acts 1-2), which is fulfillment of Jesus’ promise (John 7:37-39; chapters 14, 15, 16)

      Human language is adequate to convey the concept, the Hebrew Elohim (and Yahweh) and the Greek Theos.

      It does not matter that Islam came 600 years later and created a unique word, Allah; as the concept is the same in Hebrew and Greek.

      Like

    • God does not have a god. Jesus said he had a god ergo he was not God.

      Like

    • While on earth, Jesus looked to the Father “as God”, but He is also God by nature/substance (John 8:24; John 1:1-5, 14, 20:28, etc. ), and Jesus is also human. We believe in all the verses at one time. (Just like Shabir said about his belief in the Qur’an.)

      Like

    • So you believe God had a god. You have gone badly astray.

      Like

    • Where does the Bible teach the Trinity: three co equal persons each sharing the same substance?

      Like

    • Already answered. The concept is not in one verse in the Bible, but the theology of many verses put together. Just as Shabir Ally says about the Qur’an” “I have to look at all of the Qur’an in what it teaches”, so we also “look at all of the Bible as to what it teaches about God”. One has to see 1. Monotheism AND 2. The Deity of Christ and the Deity of the Holy Spirit AND 3. The personal relationships between the Father, Son, and Spirit as persons, yet at the same time, they are all called God and Yahweh. Matthew 28:19; 2 Cor. 13:14; Matthew 3:13-17; John 17:1-5; John 1:1-5, 14; John 5:17-18; John 8:24; 8:56-58; 10:27-39; 19:6-7; 20:28; Philippians 2:5-8; Colossians 1:15-20; Hebrews 1:3, 6, 8, 10-12; Romans 9:5

      Like

    • But that doesn’t work. You say the idea of three co equal persons sharing the substance is there but I do not see it. It is not taught clearly.

      Like

    • Did you see it when you were an Evangelical going to that Baptist Church? Did you meditate on all those passages? Did you study the issue and understand why the verses forced the church to see one substance, three personal relationships (the Father loves the Son, the Son prays to the Father, the Father and the Son send the Spirit, the Spirit testifies of the Son, etc. ?

      Like

    • Forced? But now I see clearly the absence of co equal persons who are all God. Just not there dude – and you know it!

      Like

    • Did you even study the historical theology of the Trinity? See Robert Letham’s book, The Holy Trinity. See also Augustine’s massive work. James White, The Forgotten Trinity; Robert Bowman, “Why You Should Believe in the Trinity” and Timothy George, “Is the Father of Jesus the God of Muhammad?” and Michael Reeves, “Delighting in the Trinity”

      Like

    • The doctrine of the trinity is not found in the Bible – yet you believe it. You are not consistent believing in Catholic doctrines

      Like

    • Jesus said, “I and the Father are one” John 10:30

      and

      In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God (2 persons relating to one another) and the Word was God. (by nature/substance, the same) John 1:1

      Like

    • Jesus and the father are one in purpose and will, just as Jesus prayed to God that he and his disciples may be one just as he is one with God.

      Like

  33. Great article brother, MasyaAllah. Barakallahu fiik.

    This is the view I held all along, using Professor El-Badawi terminolgy: the Qur’an employs  a “dogmatic re-articulation” of elements from pre-Islamic Arabian oral tradition ie the Aramaic Gospel Traditions the late antique lingua franca of the Near East.

    As El-Badawi put it:

    The point is that these qur’ānic verses demonstrate a long process of cultural exchange, theological debate, and morphological adjustment—not mere borrowing. There was therefore no process of “cut and paste.” Having absorbed and localized aspects of the Aramaic Gospel Traditions, the Qur’ān transformed pre-Islamic Arabian oral tradition into a dogmatic, pious religious repository.  The Qur’ān’s complex manipulation of the Aramaic Gospel Traditions is, furthermore, neither accidental nor haphazard. It is rather, quite deliberate and sophisticated. It wood behoove readers to realize a basic fact concerning dogmatic re-articulation as we have laid it out herein, namely that the Qur’ān excercises complete control over its challenging or re-appropriation of passages from the Aramaic Gospels—not vice versa.  El Badawi, E. (2014). p9 Qur’ān and the Aramaic Gospel Traditions. Routledge studies in the Qur’an.

    No way the Qur’an borrows Judeo-Christian scriptures rather the Qur’an deliberately address in the Christological constructs  related imagery in which the person of Jesus or individuals in relation to him were granted divine or saintly status, and then  removed Christological constructs from the that tradition and replace them with constructs centered upon God alone.

    A Divine theological corrective measure we Muslims believe.

    Liked by 1 person

  34. Yes it does; the Qur’an affirms the previous revelations, the Torah and Zobur in Hebrew and Injeel in Greek.

    Like

  35. looking through my files to derive two articles, where i have counter refuted Sam few years ago regarding his false postulations that the Quran misunderstands the doctrine of thevTrinity. Ill forward them to you inshallah

    Like

  36. Ken Temple: But they were previous revelations, which the Qur’an affirms

    Actually, the position of the overwhelming majority of traditional Muslim scholars and secular academics is that the Quran regards earlier scriptures textually corrupted. You are already aware of Walid Saleh’s article. Let me point you to a different article by Gabriel Said Reynolds wherein he writes the following regarding what mainstream, secular academic scholarship says about the Quran’s attitude towards previous scriptures: According to most Western scholarship, the Quran is referring to textual alteration with the verb Yuharrifuna (p.193; On the Quranic accusation of scriptural falsification).

    Like

    • Sam we are still waiting for your reply to my article. Try and keep it focused on the issues discussed there. Let’s see if you can avoid foul language as the NT says you should…

      Like

    • David Wood proved that wrong in his debate with Shabir Ally.

      The word in Surah 2:75 (that you say یحرفونه (verb Yuharrifuna ) is about changing the meaning of the written words, not about the text itself. The context in verses 76 – 79 shows this – they go apart and speak and interpret it wrongly, and then when in the presence of others they don’t. Verse 78 says that they are illiterate and don’t know the Scriptures, ie, they don’t know the text and don’t know the truth of the text. The wrote down other stuff and claimed it is from Allah, but it doesn’t corrupt the real and true text that is all over everywhere. It cannot change it or corrupt the text. It is obvious that 2:75-79 is not about corruption of the text.

      https://apologeticsandagape.wordpress.com/2016/05/02/3976/

      Like

    • Ken Temple, if it is so obvious that yuharrifuna doesn’t refer to textual corruption, why do the majority Western scholars say otheriwse?

      Like

  37. “David Wood proved that wrong in his debate with Shabir Ally.”

    LOL, is this the same David Wood who DOESN’T speak Arabic, who is NOT a scholar of Islam? Oh well, that settles it then!

    Like

  38. “LOL!! It does not condemn “trinitarian beliefs in general” at all you brainwashed hagarene – there is no reference to “trinity” anywhere because your god (i.e. the men who made up the quran) didn’t understand the concept. He condemns at best, the concept of three gods not a triune god.”

    “Brain-washed hagarene”, LOL!!! This is coming from the brain-washed pagan trinitarian, whose own Bible calls a “dog” because he is a Gentile! This is coming from a Gentile dog with no background knowledge either on the Quran or the history of his own pagan religion! LOL!!

    I’d rather be a “Hagarene” than a Gentile dog! LOL!!

    “As for jesus’ deity, your god (i.e. the men who made up the quran) seemed to be conflicted about it. On the one hand your god thinks that jesus was literally the son of god in which god has a baby mama, on the other he is a “spirit of god” blown into Mary, yet again, he is the word of god (you know, the eternal uncreated word of god), yet on the other hand he shouldn’t be worshipped, yet again he has powers that only god can have, like raising the dead and creating life.”

    LOL!! The Gentile dog is a little confused, it seems. All men have the “Spirit” of God in them. That was part of the creative process. In that regard, Adam (pbuh) was also the “Spirit of God”:

    “Behold! thy Lord said to the angels: “I am about to create man, from sounding clay from mud moulded into shape; “When I have fashioned him (in due proportion) and breathed into him of My spirit, fall ye down in obeisance unto him”” (15:28-29).

    The same applies to the “Word” as well:

    “The similitude of Jesus before Allah is as that of Adam; He created him from dust, then said to him: “Be”. And he was” (3:59).

    Did you get that, Fido? 😉

    “Of course, you guys claim that jesus’ ability to create life as told by your god was done “with god’s permission”, but that puts you in a bind. If god is so transcendent that he cannot enter creation, how can his power be restrained enough to be unleashed through a mere human being. Your god is not logical or rational. Your god is simply confused about jesus so I have to take what he says about him with a boulder of salt.”

    LOL!! God can do whatever He wants, Fido! I never said that He “cannot enter creation”. I said that He chooses not to. See the difference?

    Even in your own Bible, Jesus says that he cannot do anything on his own accord! LOL!! Some god, right? 😉

    “This is no surprise since your god has 99 personalities, all vying for the attentions of his one brain that is evidently overloaded and incapable of telling a logical narrative. LOL!”

    LOL!! The Gentile dog is still confused! God’s attributes are not “personalities”. For example, He is “Al-Rahman”, something even Arab Christian and Jews referred to Him as. “Al-Rahman” means “The Beneficent”. He is also “Al-Rahim”, which means “The Merciful” (i.e. He doesn’t require blood atonement like your capricious, pagan god). He is also “Al-Hakam”, which means “The Judge” as He alone judges all souls, and decrees whether they will go to Paradise or Hell. Get it now, Fido?

    “So please tell me, where in the old or new testaments does the god of abraham say that he has 99 personalities? In fact where does your god’s book say that he has 99 personalities?”

    What do I care? I don’t regard the Tanakh and NT as “scripture”. Only a brain-washed Gentile dog would believe such a book was “inspired”. LOL!!!

    Does your god have 4 eyes and feet like bronze? 🙂

    Like

    • Fail

      “When I have fashioned him (in due proportion) and breathed into him of My spirit, fall ye down in obeisance unto him”

      LOL!!!

      Your god told the angels to worship a man like pagans?

      “The similitude of Jesus before Allah is as that of Adam; He created him from dust, then said to him: “Be”. And he was”

      More evidence that your god’s 99 personalities have him confused like an old lady with dementia. LOL!! Elsewhere in your man-made “book of god” it says that jesus was god’s spirit breathed into Mary – which is it? Was he fashioned from dust or god’s spirit breathed into human flesh? Did your god sand-blast Isa into some poor woman’s womb thinking that would make a baby?

      “God’s attributes are not “personalities”. For example, He is “Al-Rahman”, something even Arab Christian and Jews referred to Him as. “Al-Rahman” means “The Beneficent”. He is also “Al-Rahim”, which means “The Merciful” (i.e. He doesn’t require blood atonement like your capricious, pagan god). He is also “Al-Hakam”, which means “The Judge” as He alone judges all souls, and decrees whether they will go to Paradise or Hell.”

      Finally, we get an attempt to (badly) explain tawhid. LOL!!!

      Your god “is” none of those things – because you cannot know “who” or “what” your god “is”. That’s basic tawhid my friend and you are a heretic for writing what you did. At best you can say that your god has “acted” in a beneficent way, or a “merciful” way, but that is not his essence, not his “is-ness” – to say so sets limits on him. Fail!!!

      In other words, you worship a being that acts in certain ways, but this gives no inkling of his intent, essence or nature – much like conmen who “act” in certain ways that don’t reveal their intent or nature. That is the definition of capricious – unpredictable, given to whim, and generally unreliable.

      Like

  39. “Majority of western scholars” = ?

    if it = Majority of Islamic western scholars, can anyone prove that?

    And so what if they do?

    Most of the early and medieval Muslim scholars seem to disagree with you all on that.

    David Wood proved you all wrong, even without Arabic, and I can see it too.

    the whole thing about “creative rhetoric” and “exaggeration” seems to be a strategy to try and save the Qur’an from ambarressment, since it got the doctrines of the Deity of Christ and the Trinity wrong.

    The Christians never said “Allah is the Messiah”, rather they said, “The Messiah is Allah by nature/substance/essence, but the Father and the Son are distinct persons.”

    and the christians never said Mary was part of the Trinity (Surah 5:116). It is obviously a combination of the Collyridians in N. Arabia/Jordan and the fact that Muhammad and the early Arabs saw icons and statues of Mary and saw some Christians praying to Mary and her icon and statue, and they noticed that the Madonna (Virgin Mother) was big and emphasized in eastern Christianity at that time.

    Another interesting point is that this scholar of the first article, Gabriel Said Reynolds, wrote an article that shows that the Qur’an got the info on the Cave of the seven sleepers of Ephesus from earlier pious and religions and heretical works.

    In his article on the Seven Sleepers, in The Medieval Islamic Civilization: An Encyclopedia, page 720.

    https://books.google.com/books?id=H-k9oc9xsuAC&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q=seven%20sleepers&f=false

    Like

    • You are so full of crap, it’s not even funny. We can all see that! You and your mentor, David Wood, are pseudo-scholars who masquerade as knowledgeable people. REAL experts understand what Muslims have always said about the Bible, that it is a corrupted mish-mash of man-made nonsense and some hints of the pristine revelations. This has been the view of early scholars and later scholars. Dr. Walid Saleh refuted the ludicrous claims of Wood and his cronies (not to say that Saleh DIRECTLY responded to Wood as the latter is not a real scholar, LOL).

      You guys seem to think that if we refer to a particular scholar’s views, then we have to accept ALL of their views, but that is just an attempt to deflect from your failure to refute the simple fact that the Quran regards the Bible as a corrupted book. Reynolds’ views on the Seven Sleepers is irrelevant here. The Seven Sleepers story would obviously have been circulated in various circles, and the Quran refers to these legends itself. But what it was doing was to clarify some of the misconceptions that had arisen over time. Reynolds obviously cannot prove that the story is just a legend, and that is not his prerogative anyway!

      The fact is that as a scholar, he is in agreement with Muslims that the Quran regards the Bible as corrupted. That is the view of most scholars. The only ones who disagree are pseudo-scholars like you and your mentor Wood! Guess who wins? 😉

      By the way, did you know that the so-called “vision” of the “woman clothed with the sun” in Revelation was most likely taken from pagan mythology? Yeah, it’s true! As I wrote in my article on the Book of Revelation:

      Many scholars point to the similarities between the imagery of Revelation 12 and the myth of the birth of the pagan god Apollo. As Professor Pheme Perkins of Boston College explains:

      “The ‘woman clothed with the sun’ would easily remind the audience of the Roman use of the story of the sun god, Apollo. […] The Apollo myth said that Python was seeking to kill Leto, who was pregnant with Apollo, Zeus’ son. Zeus has the north wind rescue Leto by carrying her off to an island. Poseidon, the sea god, then contributes to rescuing the woman by covering the island with waves.”

      http://quranandbible.blogspot.com/2015/05/the-book-of-revelation.html

      Liked by 1 person

  40. Ken Temple: “Majority of western scholars” = ? if it = Majority of Islamic western scholars, can anyone prove that?

    In the Islamic studies field, references to Western scholarship imply secular academic scholarship. This is basic knowledge.

    Ken Temple: And so what if they do?

    Intuitively, if a random nobody like Wood who has absolutely no training in Arabic or Islamic studies says Yuhariffuna doesn’t mean textual corruption but academic scholars say it does then it is highly unlikely that Wood is right.

    Like

  41. Who are the secular western scholars that say it does mean textual corruption? تحریف النص – tahreef an-nass
    Show me the list and that it is longer than all the other scholars who agree that the Qur’an never accuses the Injeel Al kitab of Tahreef An-Nass.

    Like

  42. no Faiz,
    David Wood showed that even those scholars are wrong.

    And I knew this before David Wood’s debate. He nuked Shabir’s attempt.

    We at least deal with context and the flow of the text from Surah 2:75-79; you don’t and neither did Waleed Salih – all he did was assert, “majority of western scholars say such and such”.

    Like

  43. I studied Islam and read the Qur’an a long time ago, in 1983-1988, and I knew back then from my own study that the Qur’an did not teach that the text of the Bible was corrupt. (before David Wood became a believer and an apologist)

    But he did an excellent job in that debate vs. Shabir Ally. Ally lost.

    Like

    • With the name of Allah

       

      فويل للذين يكتبون الكتاب بايديهم ثم يقولون هذا من عند الله ليشتروا به ثمنا قليلا فويل لهم مما كتبت ايديهم وويل لهم مما يكسبون

      Therefore woe be unto those who write the Book with their hands and then say, “This is from Allah,” that they may purchase a small gain therewith. Woe unto them for that their hands have written, and woe unto them for that they earn thereby. So God Himself has stated that the الْكِتَابَ  (the written scripture in the possession of people of the book ie. jews and christians)  had been written with their own hands meaning textually corrupted. [Q 2:70]

      What is more explicit than this this ?

      Like

    • Writing something new and claiming it is from God does not textually change the other copies all over the world and that are older. Massive fail.

      Like

    • The term al-kitāb الْكِتَابَ  in this context  mean the  written scripture in the possession of people of the book ie. jews and christians hence the Qur’anic title أَهْل اَلْكِتَاب ʾahl al-kitāb, not “Writing something new” , I dont understand how you get this idea from, another delusion made by ken.

      Liked by 1 person

    • “among them” = some of them, a party of them; not all the people of the book. So you are wrong.

      Like

    • Surah 2:75 – “a party/sect/group from among them” ( the Jews) ” فریق منهم , who used to hear the words of Allah and distort / change (the Torah) after they had understood it.
      This goes with Surah 3:78 – منهم لفریقا – “from among them there is a party/group” – a party among them who distort the Scriptures with their tongues

      Like

    • it’s not 2:70, rather your quote is Surah 2:79; but the context from 2:75 to 2:79 shows that they were people who “go aside” and change the meanings, and then 2:78 says that they were a party of them who were illiterate, did not know the Scriptures, and just go by hearsay.

      Like

    • With the name of Allah

      2:70 was a typo.

      Of course not all the People of the Book were misled and alltogether made systematic effort to alter their scripture. “some of them” mentioned in v75 are the same with those The People of the Book being spoken about in Surah 3:199 ie. those that believed in the Prophethood of Muhammad (p) (Tafsir ibn Kathir and Tafsir Jalalayn)

      The Quran dont say wholesale corruption of previous scriptures nor it say that the righteous people of the People of the Book ever participated in the alteration of the of written scriptures. Also d no way to assume that the People of the Book who did the alteration of the text  had the complete correct text of written scriptures with them exactly the same canonised collection we have now.

      Like

  44. Ken, you are one deluded troll.

    Liked by 1 person

  45. Dingbat said:

    “Your god told the angels to worship a man like pagans?”

    LOL!! More ignorance from the Gentile dog! Prostrating does not imply worship, you idiot! Even your own Bible says so:

    “Then Saul knew it was Samuel, and he bowed down and prostrated himself with his face to the ground” (1 Samuel, 28:14).

    “More evidence that your god’s 99 personalities have him confused like an old lady with dementia. LOL!! Elsewhere in your man-made “book of god” it says that jesus was god’s spirit breathed into Mary – which is it? Was he fashioned from dust or god’s spirit breathed into human flesh? Did your god sand-blast Isa into some poor woman’s womb thinking that would make a baby?”

    Oh dear…Fido is really confused! Jesus was created in a unique way, just as Adam was. What is important is that God’s Spirit is breathed into ever man, including you (the Gentile dog) and me, as stated in a hadith.

    In contrast, you would have us believe that your god came into this world after developing in the womb of his mother for 9 months, like some pagan god of old! Hallelujah, our savior is born! LOL!!!

    “Finally, we get an attempt to (badly) explain tawhid. LOL!!!”

    LOL!!! Where have you been, Fido? I have said this before or is your Gentile brain only capable of limited memory? LOL!!!

    “Your god “is” none of those things – because you cannot know “who” or “what” your god “is”. That’s basic tawhid my friend and you are a heretic for writing what you did. At best you can say that your god has “acted” in a beneficent way, or a “merciful” way, but that is not his essence, not his “is-ness” – to say so sets limits on him. Fail!!!”

    LOL!!! “Basic Tawhid”…don’t make me laugh, Fido! You have no knowledge of Tawhid, just like you have no knowledge of your trinity. I think your dog brain is confusing your pathetic trinity with Tawhid. I know it can be hard, since they both start with “T”, so it’s okay, Fido. I won’t hold it against you! LOL!!

    “In other words, you worship a being that acts in certain ways, but this gives no inkling of his intent, essence or nature – much like conmen who “act” in certain ways that don’t reveal their intent or nature. That is the definition of capricious – unpredictable, given to whim, and generally unreliable.”

    LOL!!! God does what He wills. He will be merciful to some and reward them, while He will punish others. Everyone will get what he/she deserves. This is unlike your god who needs a blood atonement to satiate him before he will forgive, like a pagan god! Only a Gentile dog would worship such a deity! While you are it, why don’t you worship Chemosh or Zeus also? LOL!!!

    Your god also says that he “loves” everyone, but he will burn anyone who doesn’t believe in him for eternity! HA, some “love”, right? Only a Gentile dog would fall for such nonsense!

    Epic fail, Fido the Dingbat! When will you pull your head out of your rear-end? Think like a human, not like a dog. Break free of your Biblical, Gentile mentality! 😉

    Like

    • Fido,

      Does your dog…I mean god (sorry I got confused since you are Gentile d-o-g who worships a capricious g-o-d, LOL) have 4 eyes and feet like bronze? Be a dear and answer, will you? There’s a good boy!

      Like

    • Fail

      “Oh dear…Fido is really confused! Jesus was created in a unique way, just as Adam was. What is important is that God’s Spirit is breathed into ever man, including you (the Gentile dog) and me, as stated in a hadith.”

      Sigh.

      Your god is confused and can’t remember how he brought jesus into the world – was he sandblasted into some poor woman, was he merely spirit entering into flesh, or was he molded from dust – specifically like adam, not like the rest of us who have parents. Did your mom tell you that you came from dust for some reason? LOL!!!

      And your hadith are mostly forgeries written decades and centuries after the facts they are supposed to describe – they are useless works of men who recorded claims by who knows who that they had memorized the exact words of the supposed companions as past down via generations of anonymous ancestors. That’s also known as hearsay.

      “You have no knowledge of Tawhid, just like you have no knowledge of your trinity. I think your dog brain is confusing your pathetic trinity with Tawhid.”

      Your tawhid makes no sense – you have an indivisible god who has 99 personalities, none of which describe his essence. Methinks this emperor has no clothes.LOL!!

      “God does what He wills. He will be merciful to some and reward them, while He will punish others. Everyone will get what he/she deserves. This is unlike your god who needs a blood atonement to satiate him before he will forgive, like a pagan god! Only a Gentile dog would worship such a deity! While you are it, why don’t you worship Chemosh or Zeus also?”

      LOL!! for all you know, you DO worship Zeus – your god is unknowable, so he may well be zeus for all you know!!! How do you know that you aren’t worshipping zeus? None of his attributes tell you who your god is – including his attribute of “oneness”. Your own doctrine of tawhid contradicts itself, LOL!! His attributes are not his essence, his oneness is an attribute and so – LOL!!! – it follows that oneness is not his nature. Then again, you could just be worshipping zeus but can’t know it until the day of your judgement.

      And no, your god is limited my heretical friend, because he cannot enter his own creation and so he absolutely does not do what he wills. Your god’s will has limits.

      “Your god also says that he “loves” everyone, but he will burn anyone who doesn’t believe in him for eternity!”

      This makes me sad – you sound like an atheist. The true god’s punishment is the unveiling of his full glory – no soul that has not been touched by god incarnate can stand in his presence. Do they burn for eternity? Don’t know. Do they lose out on being able to bask in god’s glory in eternal adoration of him? Seems so. Do they cease to exist? Possibly. No one knows – except maybe for your charlatan clerics and forged traditions.

      On the other hand, at best, you have 72 stank virgins to look forward to or at worst a sadistic hell that can only have been created by a twisted mind. And for what? Do you actually know what your god wants or intends for you? Our god wants us in his glorious presence because that would be the best thing ever, yours wants a bunch of hairy dudes running around in the lower levels of heaven with permanent erections.

      Come to jesus, son, turn away from the darkness.

      Like

    • Utter Fail

      You need to upgrade your taqiya training – you keep stumbling over your own lies. LOL!!

      YOu said this…

      “What is important is that God’s Spirit is breathed into ever man, including you (the Gentile dog) and me, as stated in a hadith.”

      Now you are saying this….

      “As I said, Jesus was created in a unique way. The Spirit of God was blown directly into Mary (as).”

      Is god’s spirit blown into every man or is it unique to jesus? Make up your mind or are you just too dumb to get your taqiya grrove on? LOL!!

      ” So now Fido is an expert on the history of the ahadith?”

      Who’s Fido? I don’t claim to be an expert on the hadith, I just know that the earliest manuscript for bukhari dates from centuries after the 7th century. And that – in accordance with Bart ehrman’s recent work – the oral tradition that “recorded” the events would have been subject to immense corruption over such a long period of time and distances. Show me a full, 7,000 hadith compilation from the life of mohammed, and I’ ll be happy to reconsider. You don’t need expertise to undrstand this – just a brain, mr scarecrow. Just ask your god – the wizard of oz – to grant you one. LOL!!!

      Fido might be an expert though.

      ” Tawhid makes perfect sense: there is only One God”

      Trinity makes more sense – god is triune!!! See, simple. LOL!! Don’t forget oneness is one of your god’s attributes – which are not his essence, so your tawhid is simplistic, not simple, but also contradictory.

      “Actually, I think it’s YOU who worships Zeus! Your god requires blood sacrifices to satiate him, just like Zeus and the other pagan gods!”

      I know that my god is not zeus because he has revealed who he is – yours wants you to guess like a coy schoolgirl flirting with the teenage boys. Or is one of his 99 personalities actually a coy schoolgirl? How do you know you are not worshiping zeus? His attributes do not tell you who he is? So who is he?

      “Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels”

      What is your point here? DO you have one?

      “What’s wrong with sex in Paradise?”

      You have to ask? Your god allows animalistic behaviour in his paradise? WHo exactly are you worshiping? HUgh Hefner? Sex is better than the glory of your god? Sigh, poor Fail, the best you have to look forward to is sex in paradise.

      Like

  46. I could see a long time ago, in 1983-1988,

    that Surah 5:47; 5:68; 10:94 and others (3:84; 2:136; 29:46) showed that the Bible at the time of Muhammad was not considered corrupted in its text.

    and “no one can change the words of Allah” – 6:34; 6:116; 10:65; 18:27

    Like

    • Sure, sure…We’ll all VERY impressed, I’m sure!

      Ignorance breeds more ignorance. When you started out as an ignoramus in the 1980s, your ignorance deluded you further.

      Like

    • or truth never changes

      Like

    • With the name of Allah

      God Himself has stated clearly  in Q 2:79  that الْكِتَابَ  (the written scripture in the possession of people of the book ie. jews and christians)  had been written with their own hands يكتبون الكتاب بايديهم meaning textually corrupted. [Q 2:70]

      So you are deluded.

      Liked by 1 person

    • But they are those who 1. are illiterate 2. don’t know the Scriptures, and 3. just go by hearsay (2:78) – writing something and saying it is from Allah is not the same thing as changing the text. As Wood said, he could write something with his own hand, and claim it is from God, but it does not corrupt the book all over the world, because there are too many other copies of the true book from many years ago.

      Like

    • With the name of Allah

      Nowhere it indicates those are illiterate nor  know the Scriptures, not just go by hearsay. Mufassirin like Tabari and Tha’labi explains this to refer to Jews who  altered  the prophecies foretelling the coming of Muhammad (in Q 7: 157), so that meaning the descriptions of Prophet Muhammad in their book were altered so that they would describe something else.

      This evidence with the term פֶּ֣רֶא pere “wild ass” which was wiely assumed as the title for  prophet Ishmael while the same root with the word פָּרָא para meaning “fruit”. I have discussed this evidence of tampering in this blog here.

      Like

    • Yes it does – Surah 2:78 -Among them are unlettered folk who know the Scripture not except from hearsay. They but guess.

      Like

    • With the name of Allah

      The term ‘Ummiyyuun أُمِّيُّونَ in v78 does not talk about those who were altering the text by their hands yaktubuunal kitaaba bi;aydihim (يَكْتُبُونَ الْكِتَابَ بِأَيْدِيهِمْ) How can an illiterate were able to write nor read anyway….Nowhere the Qur’an does not mention the connection with v79 unless who believe assume that the Jews nor the Arabs of Arabia were wholly illiterate; which is impossible.  In fact the jews were among the most literate people at that time (meaning could read and write well) compared to the Arabs.

      So you are deluded.

      Like

  47. Well if Ken says the Quran doesn’t say the bible is corrupted, the only rational conclusion is that the scholarly consensus is wrong. Someone give Ken a igNoble Prize.

    Like

  48. therefore, I am not deluded on this issue, since the Qur’an itself agrees with me, and all of Christianity. (on that issue)

    and I am not a troll, since a troll is someone who just comes in and posts something irrelevant and provocative and leaves, and does not interact with the blog’s article or the commenters. I take seriously what you guys write and seek to interact intelligently with it, and refute it; therefore I am not a troll.

    Like

    • Yes, you are deluded. REAL scholars disagree with you yet you keep patting yourself on the back. Therefore, you are deluded. It’s not that difficult to understand. LOL…

      You are not a troll, but you are certainly an ignoramus as has been shown MANY times.

      By the way, did you see my post about the Book of Revelation and the “woman clothed with the sun”?

      Like

    • some real scholars agree with my position.

      Thanks for saying I am not a troll.

      No; I have not had time to look at your charge against the book of Revelation.

      Like

    • Yuharrifuna is related to the word harf in arabic, جرف, meaning letter as as in alphabetic letter. If there was any dispute that Yuharrifuna denote textual corruption this should link the word to something denoting corruption related to the text.

      Forgive me if i’m misrepresenting things now, i read through the comments in a rush, but Ken i think you made a point saying that Yuharrifuna is about changing the word but not the text. I wonder, in that case, whether you mean word as in قول, meaning utterance or the above حرف?

      Like

    • there are several words for “change” in Arabic, تحریف
      مبدل
      تغییر

      it does seem like Tahreef and Yuharrifuna یحرفونه comes from حرف which means letter in Arabic (and in Farsi, and it also means oral speech.)

      But words have meanings in the context also. the context of Surah 2:75-79 shows that the change is about oral meanings, since “the go apart” and secretly tell each other wrong meanings. the classical Muslim scholars distinquished between Tahreef an ma’ana تحریف المعانی = changing the meaning; vs. Tahreef an-Nass تحریف النص or Tahreef An-matn تحریف المتن = changing the text.

      Like

    • In the name of Allah

      It is funny how temple try to portray himself as arabic scholar while he does not know or speak arabic

      Yuharrifuuna” comes from the word stem is حرف while its general modern meaning is “deviating“ but its orignal meaning especially in classical arabic  always denotes “altering words or language”  deliberately to distort  from its original meaning (check: Lane’s Lexicon, page 552, Lisan al-Arab (Arabic), page 837 , Verbal Idoms of Quran  page 61 under HRF)

      for example in sentence

      الغربية الكتب التاريخ تحرف تاريخ العدوان  كما لو كانتاريخاللتنميةوالتعاون

      Western history textbooks distort the history of aggression as if it were a “history of development and assistance”.

      Like

    • “deviating” is right; you are right; that is another meaning, in Farsi, the word, “a deviation” or “perversion” is Enherof, انحراف which comes from that root of harf حرف . I agree with you for the range of meaning of the word.

      Like

    • So there is no way to escape the actual meaning for the word Yuharrifuuna that is changing the letters (حرف) in the written text كِتَابَ

      Liked by 1 person

    • KT://the classical Muslim scholars distinquished between Tahreef an ma’ana تحریف المعانی = changing the meaning; vs. Tahreef an-Nass تحریف النص or Tahreef An-matn تحریف المتن = changing the text.//

      This is embarrassing, temple can not transliterate what he wrote,تحریف المعانی is written as Tahreef an ma’ana and تحریف المتن is written as Tahreef An-matn… LOL… , clearly he just copy paste materials from rubbish islamophobes site.

      btw Can you kindly show me any the original text where classical mufassirin says anyting about this تحریف المعانی , تحریف المتن ?

      Liked by 1 person

    • I did not copy and paste anything – I know the Arabic words, since we have them in Farsi, which may be written a little different. We have matn متن , which means text or context, and we have معانی and معنی and یعنی which are forms of “meaning”. نص is not used as much in Farsi, but متن is. So I did not copy and paste. I just added the ال (Definite article “the”), since Farsi does not have that, as Arabic does. Dr. White references Ibn Abbas, Al Tabari, Al Razi, and Ibn Taymiyya, (page 175, see below)

      and Ibn Kathir (page 176-177, White, quotes Tafsir, Ibn Kathir, 2:196), took the view of Tahreef al ma’na (changing the meaning); but “Ibn Hazm was the first to systematize the stronger view of textual corruption (Tahrif al nass)”. (page 175, What Every Christian Needs to Know about the Qur’an.)

      Like

    • It’s irrelevant if you know farsi or urdu or turkic , the point is you made it to appear you know arabic while in fact you can not properly transliterate it. better not to show off your “arabic”. it only make bad on you.

      Btw, I am waiting for your quotation in arabic which classical mufassirin says anyting about this تحریف المعانی , تحریف المتن so I can understand it myself. Dont rely on white as he knows no arabic as well.

      Liked by 1 person

    • Ken is a big guy who likes to show off his knowledge of Farsi even though it is irrelevant to any of the posts on this blog.

      I guess he thinks it will impress Muslims.

      Like

    • That really annoys me the way he think he can impress muslims with his “arabic”. Typical missionary

      Liked by 1 person

    • exactly right. He thinks we will be taken in lol

      Like

    • indeed, even arabic speaking christian I know prefer to speak english when interacting online with me.

      Like

    • there are different ways of Transliterating something. For example, I prefer “ee” instead of “i” for ی as in Tahreef تحریف – instead of Tahrif, because in English, long e is usually rendered “ee”. (or sometimes “ea”. But I don’t know about the Al ال – sometimes it is transliterated Al and sometimes An, depending on what letter or sound that comes after it.

      I don’t have time to type the large quote from Ibn Kathir, but it is there on pages 176-177, and he affirms the existence of both views, “Tahreef Al Matn” (Corruption of the Text) and “Tahreef Al Ma’ana” (corruption of the meaning). I use my own system of transliteration.

      Like

    • Ken as you don’t know Arabic why are you pretending you can?

      Liked by 2 people

    • I am not pretending; I was fully upfront that I know the Farsi words, which come from Arabic, and when I know that the have the same meaning and same script, I don’t see a problem with recognizing that reality. It is satisfying to see something in Arabic, and I recognize it and know the meaning of it, because I learned the same word in Farsi. (though pronounced differently, and some have different endings and Farsi doesn’t have the Al ال definite article, “the”. But many phrases we have in Farsi that retain the “Al” from Arabic such as “Ruh ul Qodos” روح القدس (Holy Spirit) and ابد الاباد (abad ul abad) = into eternity. There are others.

      Like

    • but your so-called Arabic has been exposed by Eric as seriously deficient. So I say you are pretending to knowledge you do not possess

      Like

    • No, he did not; he just did not like my transliteration in English transliteration.

      Like

    • He didn’t expose any misunderstanding of my comprehension of the Arabic words’ meanings, as we have these in Farsi, since the Arabs did Jihads against the Persian Empire and forced them to Islam and changed their alphabet script to the Arabic script.

      Again, he only didn’t like my transliteration into English letters.

      Like

    • more bloody Farsi!! LOL.

      No one cares about the language here.

      Like

    • more bloody Farsi!! LOL.

      Ken i’m now starting to delete your comments about Farsi. They are off topic and boring.

      No one cares about the language here.

      Like

    • You dont even know what is your mistake, forget it. Now Im waiting for your quote.

      Like

    • probably the An nass vs. Al nass النص and An ma’ana vs. Al ma’ana المعنا – since Farsi does not have Al, and we usually pronounce the Al, but I noticed sometimes the Arabic transliteration changes like Ar Rahman in stead of Al Rahman الرحمن

      Like

    • Ken this is not a blog about Farsi and I bet no one here is remotely interested in your musings about Farsi.

      Like

  49. It is amusing that these Christian polemicists will go all metaphorical with respect to the word “Yuharrifuna” (despite scholarly agreement that it denotes textual corruption) and yet take very literally when the Quran says that Dhul Qarnayn found the sun setting in a murky pool. Fundamentalism rots the brain.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Good point! That’s what happens though when non-Arabic speaking ignoramuses persuade themselves that they know better.

      Like

    • As in Islamic fundamentalism rots the brain, since everyone knows Jesus the Messiah of Nazareth was crucified and died on the cross, under Pontius Pilate, as confirmed by all of historical research and the true Injeel.

      Like

    • Yes, thats what the Quran call people like you: “they follow nothing but CONJECTURE”.

      Jesus call for his God help on the cross and God saved him. That what happened. God is full of grace.

      Like

  50. Let me bring some Bayesian reasoning into this. Let A be the event, “The Quran doesn’t teach the bible is textually corrupted”; let B be the event, “Scholars believe the Quran teaches textual corruption of the bible”. Let P(A)= 0.5 and P(B)=0.7 where P(.) denotes a probability function. So I’m assuming there’s a 50% chance event A is true. I’m also assuming that 7 out of 10 scholars support event B. Assume P(B|A)=0.3 so there’s only a 30% chance scholars would believe the Quran teaches textual corruption of the bible if the Quran actually says otherwise.

    What is the probability that the Quran doesn’t actually teach textual corruption of the bible given that scholars believe the Quran does teach textual corruption of the bible i.e. what is P(A|B)?

    P(A|B)= P(B|A). P(A)/P(B) = 0.3*0.5/0.7 = 21%

    So there’s only a 21% chance that the Quran does not actually teach something that scholars say the Quran teaches!

    Case closed.

    Liked by 1 person

    • too many assumptions to be credible.

      Like

    • Ken, you are embarrassing yourself. Admit it. You have no idea how Bayesian probabilities work. “Too many assumptions” is simply your way of saying “I can’t engage you on maths so I’ll write something fancy in order to save face”.

      Like

    • Anyone else interested in engaging my Bayesian argument, D? Shamoun?

      Like

    • Kmak

      Why have you assumed those variables for P(A) and P(B)? The first makes some sense – although it is simplistic to reduce the possibility to 50% given that the total number of verses/statements for or against the probability will not be distributed 50-50. So that 50% seems arbitrary.

      Why do you assume a variable of 0.7 for the other?

      Ken is right – there are too many assumptions.

      Liked by 1 person

    • D: Why do you assume a variable of 0.7 for the other?

      I assume P(B)=0.7 based on the fact that the vast majority of Western scholarship believes the Quran teaches textual corruption of the bible, as pointed out by Walid Saleh and Gabriel Said Reynolds. I defined majority as 70 out of 100.

      Like

    • kmak

      “I assume P(B)=0.7 based on the fact that the vast majority of Western scholarship believes the Quran teaches textual corruption of the bible, as pointed out by Walid Saleh and Gabriel Said Reynolds. I defined majority as 70 out of 100.”

      Huh? 0.7 is an arbitrary number then, based vaguely on an unspecified consensus? What about the 0.5 figure? Which dark place did you pull that from?

      Like

    • D: Huh? 0.7 is an arbitrary number then, based vaguely on an unspecified consensus? What about the 0.5 figure? Which dark place did you pull that from?

      If it is a consensus, then 90% or more is a better value for the probability of B. I chose a smaller value indicating “majority” rather than “consensus”. Let’s assume P(B)=0.6 so only 60% of the scholars believe the Quran teaches biblical textual corruption. This implies P(A|B)= 0.25 which doesn’t work out any better for the likes of Wood. If I assume P(B)=0.50, which goes against the data, you still get a very low value of P(A|B).

      The 0.5 figure for P(A) is an impartial one. It simply means that in the absence of any conditioning information(data), there’s a 50% chance that the statement “The Quran doesn’t teach the biblical textual corruption” is true or false. Anything less or small would be too presumptuous.

      Like

  51. But words have meanings in the context also. the context of Surah 2:75-79 shows that the change is about oral meanings, since “they go apart” and meet secretly, and secretly tell each other wrong meanings. the classical Muslim scholars distinquished between Tahreef an ma’ana تحریف المعانی = changing the meaning; vs. Tahreef an-Nass تحریف النص or Tahreef An-matn تحریف المتن = changing the text.

    Like

  52. “As in Islamic fundamentalism rots the brain, since everyone knows Jesus the Messiah of Nazareth was crucified and died on the cross, under Pontius Pilate, as confirmed by all of historical research and the true Injeel.”

    LOL, no, no Ken. We meant Christian fundamentalism rots the brain, as seen in this latest remark by you, which has been refuted many times. How adorable!

    Historical research on the Gospels shows that they are a bunch of man-made documents written by and for different audiences, and all were based on contradictory oral traditions. Historical research of the Gospels shows that the Jesus of the Bible was an apocalyptic Prophet who believed he would return within the lifetimes of his disciples. That never happened. Hence, either Jesus was wrong or the Gospels are wrong. I’ll take the latter.

    Like

  53. Also 3:78 says that they “twist the meaning with their tongues”, which shows they are doing that orally, not textually.

    Also 2:75-79 speaks about illiterate ones who don’t know the Scriptures, and only go by what they hear. They don’t know the text; they cannot read, therefore it cannot be about people who actually change the text.

    they are just hearing things; like Muhammad.
    They are illiterate, which Islam teaches that Muhammad was. Surah 7:157
    They don’t know the content of the previous Scriptures, which it is obvious Muhammad was ignorant of the New Testament, the true Injeel.

    He just heard about the Messiah, and the phrases “son of Mary” and that He did miracles, and that Jesus is the Word of God – kalimat Allah کلمه الله and a spirit from Allah = روح من الله .

    He showed no other familiarity with the new Testament.

    Like

  54. Fido said:

    “Your god is confused and can’t remember how he brought jesus into the world – was he sandblasted into some poor woman, was he merely spirit entering into flesh, or was he molded from dust – specifically like adam, not like the rest of us who have parents. Did your mom tell you that you came from dust for some reason? LOL!!!”

    Sigh. Some dogs just don’t get it.

    As I said, Jesus was created in a unique way. The Spirit of God was blown directly into Mary (as). That is how Jesus was created. Get it, Fido? Speak boy! LOL!!!

    “And your hadith are mostly forgeries written decades and centuries after the facts they are supposed to describe – they are useless works of men who recorded claims by who knows who that they had memorized the exact words of the supposed companions as past down via generations of anonymous ancestors. That’s also known as hearsay.”

    LOL!! So now Fido is an expert on the history of the ahadith? Real scholars disagree with you, Fido. Look up Harald Motzki and Fuat Sezgin. LOL!!!

    “Your tawhid makes no sense – you have an indivisible god who has 99 personalities, none of which describe his essence. Methinks this emperor has no clothes.LOL!!”

    There, there Fido. You’re confusing your trinity with Tawhid. Tawhid makes perfect sense: there is only One God. Your trinity makes no sense: 1+1+1 = 1. Methinks your 4-eyed god with bronze-like feet has no clothes! LOL!!

    “LOL!! for all you know, you DO worship Zeus – your god is unknowable, so he may well be zeus for all you know!!! How do you know that you aren’t worshipping zeus? None of his attributes tell you who your god is – including his attribute of “oneness”. Your own doctrine of tawhid contradicts itself, LOL!! His attributes are not his essence, his oneness is an attribute and so – LOL!!! – it follows that oneness is not his nature. Then again, you could just be worshipping zeus but can’t know it until the day of your judgement.”

    LOL!!! Actually, I think it’s YOU who worships Zeus! Your god requires blood sacrifices to satiate him, just like Zeus and the other pagan gods! Your god is the god of brainless Gentile dogs! Woof, woof!

    “And no, your god is limited my heretical friend, because he cannot enter his own creation and so he absolutely does not do what he wills. Your god’s will has limits.”

    LOL!! The brainless barking of a Gentile dog doesn’t prove anything! My God can do as He pleases and knows all, unlike your pagan god which couldn’t inspire poor “Matthew” to know that the earth is round, not flat! LOL!!

    “This makes me sad – you sound like an atheist. The true god’s punishment is the unveiling of his full glory – no soul that has not been touched by god incarnate can stand in his presence. Do they burn for eternity? Don’t know. Do they lose out on being able to bask in god’s glory in eternal adoration of him? Seems so. Do they cease to exist? Possibly. No one knows – except maybe for your charlatan clerics and forged traditions.”

    LOL!! The Gentile dog is now contradicting his own Bible and your “lord and savior”!

    “Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels” (Matthew 25:41).

    Furthermore, your predecessors also believed that hell is eternal. As the Catholic Encyclopedia states:

    “…the Fathers, from the very earliest times, are unanimous in teaching that the wicked will be punished after death. And in proof of their doctrine they appeal both to Scripture and to reason (cf. Ignatius, “Ad Eph.”, v, 16; “Martyrium s. Polycarpi”, ii, n, 3; xi, n.2; Justin, “Apol.”, II, n. 8 in P.G., VI, 458; Athenagoras, “De resurr. mort.”, c. xix, in P.G., VI, 1011; Irenaeus, Against Heresies V.27.2; Tertullian, “Adv. Marc.”, I, c. xxvi, in P.L., IV, 277)” (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07207a.htm).

    Also, the Athanasian Creed states:

    “They that have done good shall go into life everlasting, and they that have done evil into everlasting fire…”

    So, if you want to deny that hell is eternal, then you are a heretic because you are denying the Athanasian Creed! Fido the Heretic!

    “On the other hand, at best, you have 72 stank virgins to look forward to or at worst a sadistic hell that can only have been created by a twisted mind. And for what? Do you actually know what your god wants or intends for you? Our god wants us in his glorious presence because that would be the best thing ever, yours wants a bunch of hairy dudes running around in the lower levels of heaven with permanent erections.”

    LOL!!! It seems like Fido has some sexual problems!

    What’s wrong with sex in Paradise? The Christian version of Paradise seems like the most boring place in Creation! What will you be doing there? Sitting around yapping…or barking? Well, you know, all dogs go to Heaven (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0096787/)! LOL!!!

    “Come to jesus, son, turn away from the darkness.”

    LOL!!! No thanks, Fido. I don’t want to enter your contradictory canine world of fantasies and delusions. Only a Gentile dog would want to join your pathetic cult! LOL!!!

    Does your god have 4 eyes and feet like bronze? Still waiting for an answer from Fido the Dingbat!

    Liked by 1 person

  55. Man, internet debates are tiresome and lead to nowhere especially when you are engaging random idiots.

    Liked by 2 people

  56. Ken,

    In addition to the above about the “woman clothed with the sun” in Revelation, consider also that other pagan myths also had similar symbolism. As Robert Mounce regarding the woman and the “twleve stars”:

    “Apuleis (a second-century-AD novelist and philosopher) describes the goddess Isis in somewhat similar terms (Met. 11.3-4)” (“The Book of Revelation”, p. 232).

    Regarding the “dragon”, Mounce states:

    “Ancient mythology is replete with references to dragons. In Canaanitish lore the great monster of the deep was known as Leviathan. Closely associated with Rahab (alias Tiamat?), the female monster of chaos” (Ibid.).

    He then also describes references to “Leviathan” in the Tanakh. So, it appears that much of the imagery of monsters in both the Tanakh and New Testament are simply borrowed from pagan mythology.

    Like

  57. Ken Temple “… since everyone knows Jesus the Messiah of Nazareth was crucified and died on the cross, under Pontius Pilate, as confirmed by all of historical research and the true Injeel.”

    Temple, what’s a matter con you? Why do get on everybody’s nerves? Have you lost your job? Did they kick you out? Deservedly so by judging your abysmal performance.

    You can be a Muslim and believe Jesus died on the cross and was raised by God.

    You cannot be a Trinitarian and believe Jesus did not die on the cross.

    Liked by 2 people

  58. Paul Williams quotes…

    “By “caricature” here Griffith means the description of an opponent’s views in a way that makes them appear less reasonable.”

    My response: So who ever wrote the quran misrepresents what Christians believe because that misrepresentation “appear less reasonable”? LOL That’s called a STRAWMAN or in Muslim lingo “a good argument”.

    It’s clear that who ever wrote the Qur’an had no idea what Christians believe so instead of owning up to that fact you try to explain it away and make who ever wrote the Qur’an sound much worse.

    This is pathetic.

    Like

    • Hey “Yah Right”.

      I myself was for a long time of the view that the author of the quran was influenced by oral stories from gnostic texts and group in or around the vicinity of the arabian peninsula. Those would probably be the stories that author heard and knew about and it would influence his thinking about christians, Jesus etc.

      With these new studies by Reynolds and griffith however, i hold that view in suspense for further reasearch. One reason is that, i agree with the authors that the Quran is a highly sophisticated and complex work in the arabic language. You can start reading some of the shorter essays in the Study Quran that deals with the Quranic arabic, how it uses different terms, sentence construction etc to appreciate this fact.

      It is therefore worth to consider the reasearch by these two authors.

      Liked by 1 person

    • poitierfrance

      “With these new studies by Reynolds and griffith however, ”

      Is reynolds’ work a study, or an essay? I don’t think it can be called a “research study” per se.

      It simply doesn’t follow that because we the quran utilizes rhetoric and hyperbole that it follows that there was any kind of comprehension of christian doctrine.

      Like

    • The Quran understands Christian doctrine perfectly well. God is its author after all.

      Like

    • Paul

      “The Quran understands Christian doctrine perfectly well. God is its author after all.”

      I disagree with both points.

      Like

  59. poitierfrance wrote…” One reason is that, i agree with the authors that the Quran is a highly sophisticated and complex work in the arabic language.”

    How is deliberately misrepresenting what Christians believe because that misrepresentation is easeir to refute then what Christians really believe “sophisticated and complex”?

    Straw man arguments are not only logical fallacies but they are neither “sophisticated” nor are they “complex”. Logical fallacies are primitive and simple.

    Like

    • The arabic language in the Quran is sophisticated in general, regardless of subject of every verse.

      Once we appreciate this fact it becomes more interesting to follow the studies by these two scholars. Again as i stated in my previous comment, i merely hold my previous views in suspense and waiting for more reasearch.

      Now even though christians did not specifically state that God is the messiah, son of Mary, that is nontheless the implication of higher christology. If Jesus is God incarnate, then that is to say that God is the messiah.

      Liked by 2 people

    • Yah Right

      I think its important to point out the Qur’an according to the prior mentioned research papers is not trying to misrepresent but over exaggerate in order to show the overt flaws in those Christians’ beliefs.

      For example there is a passage in the Qur’an wherein Allah asks Jesus about whether he had ever told people to worship himself and his mother Mary as Gods, Jesus responds in the negative. Christians may respond by saying that they don’t worship Mary or Jesus as seperate Gods and therefore the Qur’an is mistaken.

      The interpretation of this and other passages taking Griffiths and Reynolds views into account would be that the Qur’an is making the point that Jesus never taught that he was God and that the practice of Marian devotion is idolatry and therefore those who worship Jesus and venerate Mary should cease and instead return to the original message of Jesus which is submission to God alone.

      In short there is no strawman.

      Liked by 3 people

    • poitierfrance

      “Now even though christians did not specifically state that God is the messiah, son of Mary, that is nontheless the implication of higher christology. If Jesus is God incarnate, then that is to say that God is the messiah.”

      That is only true for those who are unable to reason correctly. It does not follow that god is the messiah if jesus is god incarnate – that is simply logically fallacious and shows a misunderstanding or mis-comprehension of the doctrine.

      Like

    • So you say that Jesus the Christ was not God? Such confusion!

      Liked by 1 person

    • Patrice

      “I think its important to point out the Qur’an according to the prior mentioned research papers is not trying to misrepresent but over exaggerate in order to show the overt flaws in those Christians’ beliefs.

      The interpretation of this and other passages taking Griffiths and Reynolds views into account would be that the Qur’an is making the point that Jesus never taught that he was God and that the practice of Marian devotion is idolatry and therefore those who worship Jesus and venerate Mary should cease and instead return to the original message of Jesus which is submission to God alone.”

      That shows a profound mis-comprehension of christian belief – the incarnation was about forgiveness of sin, not about jesus demanding that people worship him. Yet, teh quran does not mention atonement, incarnation, forgiveness of sin, or any other of the doctrines associated with jesus.

      It really is irrelevant that the early muslims were using hyperbole and strawmen to mis-characterize christian belief – it in no way follows that they understood christian doctrines.

      To illustrate, we have religious texts readily available to anyone who wants to read them, yet often we find that those beliefs are being misrepresented by people who don’t actually understand them.

      Frankly I’m not seeing why you guys are makings such a big fuss about these studies – all they show is that christian belief was mischaracterized to make them seem less reasonable and so make them easier to discredit – that is by definition a strawman. These are not proofs that the men who made up the quran understood christian belief.

      Like

    • Paul

      “So you say that Jesus the Christ was not God? Such confusion”

      This is a great example of what I’m talking about. Even in this day and age, muslims are unable to understand christian belief – how much more difficult would it have been back in the day when most people did not read, and were generally superstitious and ignorant?

      I rest my case – hyperbole and strawmen is no proof that whoever wrote the quran understood christianity.

      Like

    • i understand Christian believe perfectly well thank you. I was a committed Christian for many years. The Quran very effectively deconstructs the idea of Trinity and the belief in Jesus’s deity.

      Liked by 1 person

    • Whether it is a study or an essay i think it is a good paper and an interesting area of reasearch.

      Whether the author of the quran had any comprehension of christian doctrine is a matter of speculation if you don’t already accept it as divinely inspired. The Byzantine Empire had some major arab tribes like the Banu Ghassania as vassals and allies. It might be possible that muhammad could have known something about basic orthodox belief. If he met any arians or had any information regarding them it might be possible he also must have known something about what they opposed, i.e orthodox belief in the full deity of Jesus.

      Like

    • @D
      “That is only true for those who are unable to reason correctly. It does not follow that god is the messiah if jesus is god incarnate – that is simply logically fallacious and shows a misunderstanding or mis-comprehension of the doctrine.”

      Like many others in this comment seceoon, i am confused. The hypostatic union states that Christ is one person with two natures. Or are you a nestorian?

      Like

  60. ” It does not follow that god is the messiah if jesus is god incarnate …” Unbelievable

    Liked by 1 person

    • Not so. If christian doctrine of the incarnation was understood by the men who wrote your holy book, then they would have understood why this is the case.

      Like

  61. D

    Your most recent comment comes across as rather confused. If Jesus is God incarnate how then does that not make him God? Incarnate after all literally means ‘made flesh’ or ‘into flesh’.

    If Christ was incarnate then by definition he would have to have been something else prior to that wasn’t flesh.

    “It does not follow that god is the messiah if jesus is god incarnate – that is simply logically fallacious”

    How so?

    Like

    • Patrice

      ” If Jesus is God incarnate how then does that not make him God? Incarnate after all literally means ‘made flesh’ or ‘into flesh’.”

      Jesus is god’s word made flesh, just like the quran is suposedly your god’s word made into a book, but your book is not your god any more than god is the messiah.

      Like

    • so Jesus the Christ is not God? ?! You guys seriously are confused!

      Like

  62. D

    You seemed to have completely missed the point entirely. One being the meaning of the text i cited and the second with regards to what Qur’an is trying to achieve with these stories.

    The story i mentioned says nothing about the atonement, incarnation, or forgiveness of sins but rather on worshipping Jesus as God. Speifically that Jesus never taught this and that those who claim to follow Jesus should harken to his actual message.

    On to another point you made about the Qur’an mischaracterizing Christian beliefs. How exactly? Do Christians not believe that Jesus is God and that he taught as such? I don’t think the Qur’an is trying to lay out a set of arguments, just as the Bible doesn’t try to set out a set of arguments as to why the Prophets of Baal were idolaters and worshipping false Gods. Retoric in this instance sets out to demonstrate falsehoods through an over exposure of them.

    Like

    • An intelligent post by Patrice!

      Liked by 1 person

    • Patrice

      “The story i mentioned says nothing about the atonement, incarnation, or forgiveness of sins but rather on worshipping Jesus as God.”

      I don’t think I missed the point at all – and I think you are wrong about this. Regardless, what reynolds and paul are trying to say is that quranic hyperbole negates the argument that its writers did not comprehend christian doctrine – that is not a reasonable conclusion.

      “On to another point you made about the Qur’an mischaracterizing Christian beliefs. How exactly? ”

      What?

      This post is about the quran mischaracterizing christian belief – that is what paul has written in support of.

      Like

  63. “Not so. If christian doctrine of the incarnation was understood by the men who wrote your holy book, then they would have understood why this is the case.”

    There is nothing to understand. It’s utter nonsense. Your incarnated “God” is a walking contradiction.

    Like

  64. Hey D…

    Still waiting for an answer on whether your god has 4 eyes and feet like bronze. Also, why were you contradicting what the Bible says about the eternal suffering of unbelievers in Hell?

    Like

  65. “Jesus is god’s word made flesh, just like the quran is suposedly your god’s word made into a book, but your book is not your god any more than god is the messiah.”

    Heretic! Christians worship Jesus as “God”. He is “God” to them, even as “God’s word made flesh”. It seems you don’t even understand your own theology! LOL!!

    Liked by 1 person

  66. D

    What part of the Qur’anic passage i referred to fails to comprehend what Christians believe? Do you not believe that Jesus is ‘God from God, Light from light, true God from true God…”? If so then the Qur’an is saying that Jesus never taught that and you should follow what he did teach. Many of the historical reconstructions of Jesus seem to be in eery agreement with what the Qur’an is saying. That he claimed to be a Prophet and Israels’ Messiah.

    The post has nothing to do with claiming the Qur’an is micharacterizing as that would mean that the Qur’an is incorrect in saying that Christians believe that Jesus is God and that he taught that he was God. Many Christians also offer prayers to Mary (just check out a recent statement from Pope Francis wherein he says that one should pray to Mary). Secondly in order for the Qur’an to mischaracterize it would have be misleading as well however what part of this statement misleads anyone?

    I think you need to address this question of what the Qur’an is supposedly mischaracterizing and therefore what you think is the correct understanding. If not we will just continue to go around in circles.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Patrice

      I think we will continue to go around in circles but not because I haven’t addressed your concerns.

      By ignoring the christian view of jesus’ mission and life – incarnation, atonement, forgiveness of sins – the quran ignores the reasons for christian worship of jesus. A more meaningful refutation of the worship of jesus would – or should if the quran was truly of divine origin – say something along the lines of “I (fake god allah) never incarnated as jesus so you should not worship him”.

      If, however, jesus is god incarnate – as christians believe – then you are obliged to worship him regardless of whether he tells you to or not. If jesus is capable of being the vehicle for the forgiveness of sin and atonement then he is divine and we are obliged to worship him.

      So, clearly, by failing to address jesus’ mission of incarnation etc, the quran’s human authors have mis-characterized christian belief through omission.

      “The post has nothing to do with claiming the Qur’an is micharacterizing as that would mean that the Qur’an is incorrect in saying that Christians believe that Jesus is God and that he taught that he was God.”

      You must be reading the post backwards then. The following appears in Paul’s article….

      the Qurʾān rhetorically does not simply report or repeat what Christians say; it reproves what they say, corrects it, or caricatures it.”

      By “caricature” here Griffith means the description of an opponent’s views in a way that makes them appear less reasonable This caricaturing can be found, for example, with the wording, “those who say ‘God is the Messiah, son of Mary’ ” in Q 5:17 and 5:72. Griffith notes that “Christians in the Qurʾān’s time did not normally say that ‘God is the Messiah.” .However, by describing Christian doctrine in this way the Qurʾān means to make it easier to refute:

      “The Qurʾān’s seeming misstatement, rhetorically speaking, should therefore not be thought to be a mistake, but rather a polemically inspired caricature, the purpose of which is to highlight in Islamic terms the absurdity, and therefore the wrongness, of the Christian belief, from an Islamic perspective.

      What about that makes you think this post is not about the quran’s mis-representation of christian belief? That is clearer than the quran could ever hope to be.

      the mistake in the above quote is in the presumption that the quran’s writers were using caricature and strawmen from a place of understanding – I see no reason to make that presumption at all. Many of these quranic mistakes match christian heresy that were likely present in the region, so it is simply more reasonable to presume the people who compiled the book were responding to (and maybe caricaturing) these heretical groups and not orthodox views.

      Like

  67. D

    Your response begins by suggesting that since the Qur’an is not addressing the incarnation, atonement etc.. then it is somehow missing what is at the heart of why Christians worship Jesus as God. However the point that the Qur’an is making is far more simple and yet addresses all of these doctrines at once, it does this by stating that Jesus is not God and never claimed to be God. Therefore there is no need to address any of those other points as they all rest on the belief that Jesus is God.

    I believe you confirm as much when you say “If, however, Jesus is God incarnate – as Christians believe – then you are obliged to worship him…”. Would you not agree if the Qur’an is correct in what it is saying about Jesus the incarnation would be a pointless discussion? And how could Christ atone for anyone elses’ sins by himself without reference to a higher authority than himself? ditto for forgiveness of sins.

    How does the Qur’an misrepresent/micharacterize Christians belief about the deity of Christ?

    Secondly I feel that you do not understand the difference between caricature and misrepresentation are two different things:

    caricature is “A picture, description, or imitation of a person in which certain striking characteristics are exaggerated in order to create a comic or grotesque effect:”

    misrepresent is “Give a false or misleading account of the nature of:”

    Like

    • Patrice

      If the quran is right, it would have produced a better line of reasoning than simple assertions to the contrary. Why shouldn’t I take the quran at face value and ask why jesus is required to state explicitly that he should be worshiped, in those precise words, in orderto show his divinity? That is not a simple statement, that is a simplistic statement bordering on childish.

      The answer to this is the incarnation, atonement and forgiveness of sin – you have it backwards. If the quran knew about these doctrines it could have made a better case than assertion.

      It’s really not that difficult, patrice. The unasked question in the verse is “why do they worship you? – [when you did not tell them to]”. Well, because of the doctrines of…………that’s why they worship him.

      You see? There is an implicit ignorance in the verse – hence the unasked question of “why?” If the men who wrote the quran knew “why”, they would not have phrased their polemic in such a way to leave the implicit question there. They did not know the doctrines (the “whys”) of jesus’ divinity.

      Hope that helps.

      “I believe you confirm as much when you say “If, however, Jesus is God incarnate – as Christians believe – then you are obliged to worship him…”. Would you not agree if the Qur’an is correct in what it is saying about Jesus the incarnation would be a pointless discussion? ”

      Not sure what you are getting at here – these are moot points. See above. The doctrines of the incarnation fill in the gaps of knowledge in the quran’s view. CHristian doctrine is the answer to the quran’s apparent ignorance.

      “Secondly I feel that you do not understand the difference between caricature and misrepresentation are two different things”

      Hmm. I think you are incorrect. Use the thesaurus – it gives a more rounded and expanded notion of word usages and how their meanings intersect……

      http://www.thesaurus.com/browse/distortion

      http://www.thesaurus.com/browse/caricature

      http://www.thesaurus.com/browse/misrepresent?s=t

      Like

  68. So Fido,

    Is Jesus “God” or not?

    Like

  69. “Did you not read my last post?”

    Which one, Fido? Speak boy!

    You said in one post:

    “Jesus is god’s word made flesh, just like the quran is suposedly your god’s word made into a book, but your book is not your god any more than god is the messiah.”

    To which I responded that you are a heretic, according to mainstream Christianity. You never responded.

    If you are referring to responses to Patrice, who has refuted your ridiculous claims, you seem to say that Christians worship Jesus. So, my question still stands. Is Jesus “God” or not? Your posts are contradictory, so I am seeking clarification. You seem to be a little confused as to your theology.

    Like

    • Fail

      None of my claims are ridiculous and I can’t for the life of me see where patrice has refuted anything I’ve said.

      Patrice seems to think that the quran displays some intimate acquaintance with christian scriptures because it makes sweeping dismissals of jesus’ deity and this makes any reference to actual christian doctrine unnecessary. I find that unpersuasive and logically unacceptable.

      Nowhere does your man-made-up book come even close to describing the most basic concepts of christian belief – but that is not all.

      The quran gives no indication that it was aware that jesus lived 600 years in the past, it makes no mention of his birthplace – an important part of christian lore, the names of important characters are not jewish names from 1st century palestine (not even jesus’ quran name is not 1st century jewish palestine), there are no mentions of places where jesus went, and shows absolutely no intimate details of scripture.

      Yet, patrice claims that a sweeping dismissal of deity somehow not only negates the need for more specificity about christian belief, but somehow implies intimate knowledge of scripture. I shouldn’t be surprised that you find that convincing. LOL!!

      What the men who made up the quran probably were acquainted with was heretical christian sects who probably had little written material, and who instead adopted the oral tradition of arabia at the time. These guys probably heard stories about a jewish prophet that evolved over time whilst keeping some important fundamentals in place.

      What you guys seem too brainwashed to see is that even after 600 years, a group of isolated heretical christians would still have kept an oral tradition of jesus’ deity and crucifixion – suggesting that this particular christian doctrine would have been early and transmitted accurately, reinforcing the truth of the gospels. LOL!!

      Even when you try your best to contort your bizarre claims as facts the truth of jesus cannot be escaped!!!

      The fact remains – the quran’s rhetoric, caricature, mis-representations and outright falsities, in no way hide the fact that it was ignorant of actual christian belief – if anything it speaks to the possibility that they used these strategies to disguise their ignorance. It certainly does not indicate that the men who wrote the book had any intimate knowledge of christianity as some seem strangely and irrationally inclined to believe. LOL!!

      Like

  70. Ken, any comment on the points I raised about the book of Revelation?

    Like

  71. sorry, I meant

    I have NOT HAD time to read your article on Revelation.

    Like

    • I didn’t ask if you read the article. I asked if you had looked into the points I raised above about the book of Revelation, specifically with regard to the “woman clothed with the sun” and the myths of Apollo and Isis as well as the “dragon” and the myths of the “Leviathan” in Canaanite culture.

      The article is definitely worth reading as it proves that Revelation was written for the Christian community in the Roman empire and all of the predictions were supposed to come true in that time. Therefore, Revelation is just a man-made book.

      Like

  72. No; you have no point at all against the book of Revelation.
    Besides, that is not the subject of this post. It seems like a distraction from the subject of this post.

    Some remote similarity does not mean a necessary connection.

    Like

    • Oh silly boy! You were the one who distracted from the topic by referring to the Seven Sleepers story! Remember? I refuted you on that and then pointed out that the only borrowing that has been done is by your Bible. You can run away all you want, but the truth remains. Just saying “no, you have no point at all” doesn’t prove anything except that you act like a braying mule! LOL!

      Like

  73. The book of Revelation is God-breathed Scripture. Even though chapters 6-18 are difficult to understand, the basic message of chapters 1-5 and 19-22 is clear and spiritual and deep.

    Like

    • Yes, blah, blah, blah. It doesn’t explain the borrowing of pagan myths, nor does it explain the historical context in which all of the alleged “prophecies” were supposed to come true.

      Like

    • Fail

      Speaking of prophecies – why didn’t your prophet have any? And why didn’t he know jesus lived hundreds of years in the past? And was born in bethlehem?

      Like

  74. LOL, Fido! After that long rant, you still didn’t answer my question! To repeat:

    You said in one post:

    “Jesus is god’s word made flesh, just like the quran is suposedly your god’s word made into a book, but your book is not your god any more than god is the messiah.”

    To which I responded that you are a heretic, according to mainstream Christianity. You never responded.

    If you are referring to responses to Patrice, who has refuted your ridiculous claims, you seem to say that Christians worship Jesus. So, my question still stands. Is Jesus “God” or not? Your posts are contradictory, so I am seeking clarification. You seem to be a little confused as to your theology.

    The intricate details of your discussion with Patrice are not what I was asking about. When Patrice has the time, he will respond to your rants. You have been refuted time and again, yet like the Gentile dog you are, you actually think the opposite! LOL!!!

    Oh by the way, since you have worked up the courage to bark again:

    1. Does your god have 4 eyes and feet like bronze?

    2. Will your “loving” god burn people in hell forever?

    Speak boy! LOL!!

    Like

    • Fail

      That wasn’t a rant – I was stating facts. the men who created your book knew nothing about the truth they were claiming to speak authoritatively about.

      “To which I responded that you are a heretic, according to mainstream Christianity. You never responded.”

      Okay. I’m not a heretic. LOL!!

      “If you are referring to responses to Patrice, who has refuted your ridiculous claims, you seem to say that Christians worship Jesus.”

      Where did this happen?

      Like

  75. “Speaking of prophecies – why didn’t your prophet have any? And why didn’t he know jesus lived hundreds of years in the past? And was born in bethlehem?”

    LOL! Nice attempt at deflecting once again! That’s a bad dog! Bad dog!

    If you weren’t an ignorant Gentile dog and had instead done an honest study of Islam, you would know that Muhammad (pbuh) made many prophecies, some of which have already come true and others which are yet to come true. I have actually discussed some of these prophecies on my blog (as well as the many false prophecies in your Bible). Take a gander if you dare:

    Prophecies in the Quran – http://quranandbible.blogspot.com/2015/01/prophecies-in-holy-scriptures-word-of_24.html

    Prophecies in the Ahadith – http://quranandbible.blogspot.com/2015/02/prophecies-in-holy-scriptures-word-of.html

    False Prophecies in the Bible – http://quranandbible.blogspot.com/2015/01/prophecies-in-holy-scriptures-word-of.html

    http://quranandbible.blogspot.com/2015/01/prophecies-in-holy-scriptures-word-of_15.html

    Muhammad (pbuh) didn’t know that Jesus lived in the past? That’s a new one! A hadith in Sahih Bukhari states:

    “Narrated Salman: The interval between Jesus and Muhammad was six hundred years.”

    Now, back to the book of Revelation. Since Ken is running away (again), perhaps you can try to respond to my points about the “woman clothed with the sun” and the myths of Apollo and Isisi. Speak boy!

    Like

    • Utter Fail

      “Muhammad (pbuh) didn’t know that Jesus lived in the past? That’s a new one! A hadith in Sahih Bukhari states:

      “Narrated Salman: The interval between Jesus and Muhammad was six hundred years.””

      LOL!! Nice bait and switch a co artist would be proud of.

      Hadith is not quran and the earliest you have date from centuries after the 7th century. LOL!!

      This is an admission that the quran had no clue when jesus lived! Just quit already and come back to the truth. Your god did not know basic geographical and histıorical facts about jesus.

      I’M looking up those “prophecies”. Will respond later, maybe.

      Like

    • Fail

      the hadith are man-made and heavily corrupted according to the requirements of various rulers – so if there are prophecies contained therein, it most likely came from someone other than mohammed which merely casts doubt on your religion’s claim to have had the last prophet. The shia may have a point.

      That first prophecy from the quran link is not very promising – we know that there are thousands of textual differences between the earliest extant qurans and your own sources state that the quran is incomplete.

      Prophecy status: FAIL.

      Like

  76. D: Speaking of prophecies – why didn’t your prophet have any?

    The early Meccan Surahs are replete with assurances to Muammad(saw) that, despite the rejection and persecution by the polytheists, he and his followers would be made victorious over their enemies, just as previous prophets and their followers were made victorious over their enemies. This, of course, came true.

    Like

    • That’s not really all that impressive – anyone can make a statement along the lines of “I’ll get the better of my enemies” and there is a fair chance that might come true.

      friends of mine have said similar things themselves – when a pal failed her driving test the first time, she said “I’m going to pass this test one day” and lo, she did!

      Is she a prophet? Or did she simply make a general statement that had decent chances of coming true?

      Like

    • D, it is hard to take you seriously when you think that a persecuted random person in the 7th century from humble origins and with no formal military experience has as much chance as uniting all the tribes and dominating the Arabian peninsula, something which even the Byzantine and Sassanian empires couldn’t do, as someone in the 21st century passing her effing driving test. Wtf?

      Like

    • Kmak

      That is an incredibly weak line of reasoning. There are other examples of unlikely leaders emerging and leading people to victory.

      Ghengis khan comes to mind. Was he a prophet because he was illiterate, had no formal military training and united tribes into a vast empire?

      Like

    • D, what is the probability that a random guy claiming to be a prophet who will overcome his enemies actually overcome his enemies? What is the probability the the guy will overcome his enemies given that he is poor, illiterate, has no military experience, is followed by slaves and other insignificant members of society, heavily persecuted; and his enemies are far, far more powerful than him?

      What is the probability the a poor, illiterate, militarily inexperienced, heavily persecuted guy with insignificant followers overcome his enemies who are far, far more powerful than him and unite Arabia under his authority IN JUST 23 YEARS given the mighty empires of Byzantine and Sassania tried but couldn’t even so much as penetrate Arabia?

      What made Muhammad (saw) believe even as he was persecuted that he would be victorious just as Moses(as) was made victorious over Pharaoh? Was it a hunch?

      Keep your head buried in the ground, kid.

      Liked by 1 person

    • Kmak

      “what is the probability that a random guy claiming to be a prophet who will overcome his enemies actually overcome his enemies? What is the probability the the guy will overcome his enemies given that he is poor, illiterate, has no military experience, is followed by slaves and other insignificant members of society, heavily persecuted; and his enemies are far, far more powerful than him?”

      Are those serious questions or are you being ironic? There is no archaeological for the battles described in the quran, there is no reason to think that the enemies who fought mohammed in the early days had any superior military experience than him or were any more literate, and mosr armies are made up of “insignificant members of a society.

      Furthermore, the real expansion of islam began after his death and the two “powers” (Byzantine and Persian) they defeated were extremely weak after a century of fighting each other. There was very little military might left for the arabs to conquer – no miracles required here.

      “What made Muhammad (saw) believe even as he was persecuted that he would be victorious just as Moses(as) was made victorious over Pharaoh? Was it a hunch?”

      What made Hitler believe that he would become who he became even as he was persecuted, weak, and counted amongst the lowest? Stalin came from a lowly background, what made him believe that he would become the leader of one of the most powerful countries in history? Chairman Mao? Lowly beginnings, he believed he would lead china to greatness.

      Sound familiar? I’m not the one burying my head in the ground – as you can see, there are lots of examples from history of men who believed in their destiny to become world leaders, and who did exactly as they said they would do. Are these guys prophets? Are their stories miracles? By your criteria they are.

      Like

    • D, first you ask for prophecies and when I show you one you discount the events surrounding the Prophet’s life saying there’s no reason to believe any of the battles took place. Funny because modern scholarship doesn’t doubt Muhammad’s achievements.Walid Saleh admits, “Muhammad was able to pacify Arabia a domain so vast and so ungovernable that we tend to forget how improbable this achievement was and to exert his influence over it after less than 10 years…”

      As for the spread of Islam after his death, since I never pointed to that as a proof of the prophecy of him overcoming his enemies it is, therefore, irrelevant.

      As for Hitler and Stalin, it is stupid and anachronistic to use Western figures from the 20th century to judge the likelihood of a 7th century Arab’s achievements, nevemind the fact that even if they shared similar origins Muhammad(saw) was actually successful in his mission whereas Hitler and Stalin were not!

      Try again D.

      Like

    • kmak

      Don’t you think it is important that the events you are claiming prove prophecy have some external evidence to show that they actually took place? If you can’t show that the events happened – and you can’t, how can you expect me to believe that they fulfilled prophecies? Surely even you can see the problems with that way of thinking?

      Sure the unification of Arabia was a good achievement, but that doesn’t prove his claims are prophecies – Hitler and Stalin and Mao all believed they would become powerful and they did. It doesn’t matter the degree to which they eventually succeeded or failed – the point is that it is common for people to have a sense of destiny and fulfill it. It doesn’T mean there was any prophecy involved. That’s why I find this example of yours unconvincing.

      This is why the external evidence is important – for all we know, the other tribes that mohammed defeated may have been led by illiterate military novices which makes the claim of prophecy even more dubious.

      Like

    • It’s also worth pointing out that after mohammed’s death and the subsequent arab expansion, the arab peninsular went back to being a kind of primitive, chaotic backwater for centuries, so did mohammed really “succeed” in turning the peninsular into the center of a great civilization?

      I think not – even though meccca and medina were always spiritual homes for muslims, the peninsula offered the subsequent empires little else.

      Like

    • D, I’m no longer interested in your personal observations. If you have papers to back up your claim I’d like to read them.

      Like

    • kmak

      “I’m no longer interested in your personal observations. If you have papers to back up your claim I’d like to read them.”

      Which claim? Do you have papers that back up your claim that these events were supernaturally predicted prophecies?

      Like

  77. Fido barked…I mean, said:

    “That wasn’t a rant – I was stating facts. the men who created your book knew nothing about the truth they were claiming to speak authoritatively about.

    “To which I responded that you are a heretic, according to mainstream Christianity. You never responded.”

    Okay. I’m not a heretic. LOL!!

    “If you are referring to responses to Patrice, who has refuted your ridiculous claims, you seem to say that Christians worship Jesus.”

    Where did this happen?”

    LOL!! You are heretic if you don’t believe that Jesus was not God. You contradicted yourself later on when you said the following to Patrice:

    “If, however, jesus is god incarnate – as christians believe – then you are obliged to worship him regardless of whether he tells you to or not. If jesus is capable of being the vehicle for the forgiveness of sin and atonement then he is divine and we are obliged to worship him.”

    So, I ask again:

    Is Jesus “God” or not? Your posts are contradictory, so I am seeking clarification. You seem to be a little confused as to your theology.

    And also:

    1. Does your god have 4 eyes and feet like bronze?

    2. Will your “loving” god burn people in hell forever?

    Speak boy!

    Like

    • Fail

      “You are heretic if you don’t believe that Jesus was not God. You contradicted yourself later on when you said the following to Patrice:”

      Don’t be bloody stupid. I have not contradicted myself at all – you are imagining the whole thing.

      Like

  78. Fido barked…I mean, said:

    “Utter Fail

    “Muhammad (pbuh) didn’t know that Jesus lived in the past? That’s a new one! A hadith in Sahih Bukhari states:

    “Narrated Salman: The interval between Jesus and Muhammad was six hundred years.””

    LOL!! Nice bait and switch a co artist would be proud of.

    Hadith is not quran and the earliest you have date from centuries after the 7th century. LOL!!

    This is an admission that the quran had no clue when jesus lived! Just quit already and come back to the truth. Your god did not know basic geographical and histıorical facts about jesus.

    I’M looking up those “prophecies”. Will respond later, maybe.”

    LOL!!! Whether you like it or not, Muslims believe in BOTH the Quran and Ahadith! You are not an expert on either one. I told you previously to look up the work of two scholars who have done extensive studies on the reliability of the Ahadith: Harald Motzki and Fuat Sezgin. Be a good boy now and do some research before opening your dog mouth!

    The Quran is not a history book, you idiot! It didn’t have to say when Jesus lived. It was already known that Jesus came before Muhammad. Is this the best you can do, silly boy? Man, you guys must be getting really desperate! LOL!!!

    Liked by 1 person

    • Failing to make sense

      “The Quran is not a history book, you idiot! It didn’t have to say when Jesus lived. It was already known that Jesus came before Muhammad”

      The quran is a man-made mish-mash of fables, other religion’s apocrypha, and some orally transmitted slivers of truth from the bible – so I agree it is not history book, but if it is claiming to correct christian belief it should show some basic knowledge of christian belief, doctrines, and history. It doesn’t.

      There is no indication whatsoever that the men who created the quran knew that jesus “came” before in any meaningful chronological sense. “Came before” might have meant 1 year previously, or 1 month. There’s very little indication that they did not think that jesus did not preach in some village 5 miles down the road.

      The hadith are man-made – only admittedly so and they carry little weight since there are no early manuscripts. You are simply gullible and are willing to believe anything to desperately hold on to your religion.

      Your book has no knowledge to impart about christianity – this is obvious for anyone with common sense. LOL!!!

      Like

  79. Fido barked:

    “Fail

    the hadith are man-made and heavily corrupted according to the requirements of various rulers – so if there are prophecies contained therein, it most likely came from someone other than mohammed which merely casts doubt on your religion’s claim to have had the last prophet. The shia may have a point.

    That first prophecy from the quran link is not very promising – we know that there are thousands of textual differences between the earliest extant qurans and your own sources state that the quran is incomplete.

    Prophecy status: FAIL.”

    LOL!!! A typical response from a Gentile dog! No actual response, just vague rants which no scholar would take seriously!

    It seems you are acknowledging that the ahadith have true prophecies, but you are claiming that someone else made them. Who was it, pray tell? LOL!!!

    As for the Quran, what we ACTUALLY know is that there are NUMEROUS manuscripts from the 1st century of the Islamic calendar. In contrast, your Bible does not have even ONE manuscript from the 1st century CE!

    Also, real scholars know that the Quran has been preserved from the start. I know it’s hard for Gentile dogs to comprehend, but the fact is that the Quran is well-preserved.

    What I find hilarious is that you initially asked if Muhammad (pbuh) made any prophecies. Since you know that Muslims rely on the Quran and Ahadith, you had to know that I would refer to both. But then, when I did, you simply rejected them due to alleged “corruption”! LOL!!! Me thinks Fido is just grasping for straws!

    And lastly:

    Now, back to the book of Revelation. Since Ken is running away (again), perhaps you can try to respond to my points about the “woman clothed with the sun” and the myths of Apollo and Isisi. Speak boy!

    Like

    • I am not running away; I just don’t time to delve into that issue right now.

      Like

    • Fail

      “It seems you are acknowledging that the ahadith have true prophecies, but you are claiming that someone else made them. Who was it, pray tell? ”

      Err, no. LOL!! I don’t acknowledge that at all.

      “As for the Quran, what we ACTUALLY know is that there are NUMEROUS manuscripts from the 1st century of the Islamic calendar.”

      You prophet was so good at prophecy that his “revelations” as outlined in some of the earliest manuscripts actually predate him and were written in a different order to the corrupt quran you have today.

      Doesn’t it bother you that there is mounting evidence that some of your earliest manuscripts likely date from before mohammed?

      He was a prophet before he was even born. LOL!!!

      “Since you know that Muslims rely on the Quran and Ahadith, you had to know that I would refer to both.”

      Muslim apologists throw their scriptures under the bus at will, corrupt the english translations to trick unsuspecting converts, and generally manipulate their “holy writings” to suit whatever need arises. If you do all that, why should I take your writings seriously?

      Like

  80. Sadly, I think many of the comments are detracting from the information in the post and the scholarly level of it.

    I would like to add something from Ali Ataie’s FB concerning Surah Ikhlas (Chapter 112), perhaps this will help a serious-minded researcher too. NOTE: The second to last paragraph is the part which talks about how the names we use for God refute the idead of a Trinity (both Tritheism and Tri-personalism):

    Quran’ic Exegesis of al-Ikhlas as a Corrective of Trinitarian Theo-Christology

    (v. 1) As stated earlier, the word Allah is the proper Name of God that shares an etymology with the Hebrew (in pluralis majestatis) Elohim (אֱלֹהִים), probably from the root a-li-ha (ألِهَ) meaning “to go to and fro in fear and perplexity” or from aleph-waw-lamed (אול), meaning “strength and power” and related to the Arabic Form II awwala (أول), “to interpret” or “find the origin of.” Ash’arite theologians offer the following brief definition of Allah: “A proper name denoting the Essence (which is) the Necessary Existent; the one deserving of all perfection and transcendent above all deficiencies” (علم على ذات الواجب الوجود، المستحق لجميع الكمالات المتنزه عن جميع النقاءص).

    The Qur’an is confirming in principle that the God of Muhammad is the same God of the biblical prophets, including Abraham, Moses, and Jesus. The word Ahad (أحد) is taken by Suyuti as either a permutative (بدل) or a second predicate (خبر ثان), with Huwa as subject and the Exalted Expression (لفظ الجلالة), i.e. Allah, as first predicate.

    Tantawi says that the Exalted Expression as predicate indicates the occasion of the surah’s Revelation (سبب النزول) in which a group of Jews approached the Prophet asking about the identity of his God – “Who is He (Huwa)?” This is described in detail by al-Wahidi. As discussed in chapter two, the pronoun Huwa, spelled ha-waw and meaning “He (is),” is close to the meaning of the enigmatic tetragrammaton (Shem HaMeforash) spelled yod-he-waw-he (יהוה), if we consider this to be the imperfect tense of the verb hawah (הוה), meaning to “to be,” thus “He is” (yihweh), and translated as ὁ ὤν ([“I am] He who is”) in the LXX (from the 1p sing. Ehyeh [Exo. 3:14]). According to the Mishnah, the Shem HaMeforash was only articulated in the Temple by the High Priest (HaCohen HaGadol) and was believed to be the most exalted Name of God, the actual Name of His Essence in distinction to “Allah/Elohim” which indicated His Essence. Thus Huwa, or Hahut (هاهوت) according to Ibn al-’Arabi, is believed to be al-Ism al-’Azam (الإسم الأعظم), the very Name of God’s Essence according to al-Razi.

    To put it in Philonic terms, Allah (الله)/Elohim (אֱלֹהִים) = Ho Theos (ο θεος) while Huwa (هو)/Yihweh (יהוה) = Ho On (ὁ ὤν).

    The usage of Ahad as opposed to Wahid (واحد) is intended to confirm the fundamental creedal statement of the Children of Israel (بني إسرائيل), i.e. the Shema of Deut. 6:4: “Hear O Israel! The Lord our God, the Lord is One (Echad)” (שְׁמַע יִשְׂרָאֵל יְהוָה אֱלֹהֵינוּ יְהוָה אֶחָֽד); and confirmed by Christ in Mark 12:29 (ἀπεκρίθη ὁ Ἰησοῦς ὅτι πρώτη ἐστίν ἄκουε Ἰσραήλ κύριος ὁ θεὸς ἡμῶν κύριος εἷς ἐστιν).

    Also, while wahid denotes one numerically and thus does not negate the existence of other “ones,” ahad, being also anarthrous, denotes utter uniqueness, one of a genus. In addition, Ahad negates the henotheism of the pre-Islamic Arabs who certainly affirmed that Allah was Wahid, but also acknowledged the existence of lesser deities.

    With respect to Christianity, the Qur’an repudiates the belief that God has a “Son” (ولد) in the Trinitarian sense by stating that “Allah is only One (واحد) God” (Q 4:171.5). Thus while Allah is numerically one (واحد), the term wahid also denotes His “internal oneness,” i.e. He is only one person (hypostasis; Arab. nafs; Heb. nefesh); there is no multiplicity in the godhead and He shares His Essence with no one and nothing else.

    This is the heart of the Qur’an’s critique of Trinitarianism. There are not multiple hypostatic (personal) pre-eternals; the attributes (sifat) of God are not separate and distinct hypostatic entities. The usage of Ahad in this ayah (112:1), however, denotes God’s “external oneness” thus not allowing any creature to be the incarnation of that indivisible Essence (ousia) since He is transcendent of space, time, and materiality, contra both Incarnational Modalism (Monarchism) and Trinitarianism. In this vein, Hosea (11:9) says: “Indeed I am God and not man” (כִּי אֵל אָֽנֹכִי וְלֹא־אִישׁ).

    Like

  81. Fido barked:

    “Don’t be bloody stupid. I have not contradicted myself at all – you are imagining the whole thing.”

    LOL, yes keep telling yourself that! Gentile dogs can’t do much more than that.

    Like

  82. LOL, Fido! So it seems you are desperately trying to avoid admitting the fact that both the Quran and Ahadith have prophecies. Your pseudo-scholarly rants about their reliability does nothing to disprove this fact. Now, will you be a good boy and actually talk about the prophecies? Or will you run away?

    Also, what about the false prophecies in your so-called “inspired” Bible? Will you have the courage to respond to my challenge or are you like “Courage, the Cowardly Dog”? 😉

    Like

    • Fail

      ” So it seems you are desperately trying to avoid admitting the fact that both the Quran and Ahadith have prophecies.”

      Still to dense to get it. LOL!!!

      The hadith were man-made, corrupted and made up centuries after mohammed died to support political or religious expediency. They have as much historical credibility gospels written in the 4th century and beyond.

      I’l spell it out for you. This means that if there are prophecies in these made up accounts they were made b some anonymous scribes and not by mohammed. This means that your prophet is not the last prophet and your quran is wrong. LOL!!

      Of course, it’s a moot point since I see find these claims of prophecy to lack credibility.

      Like

  83. I have a feeling D is a teenager. No reason to take ignorant kids seriously.

    Liked by 1 person

  84. Fido barked:

    “Err, no. LOL!! I don’t acknowledge that at all.”

    LOL! You asked me if Muhammad made any prophecies. I gave you a list and that seemed to shut you up! Since then, you have been harping about manuscripts, thereby exposing how pathetic you really are!

    Will you dare look at the prophecies? And also the false prophecies in your Bible? Or will you run away with your tail between your legs? LOL!!!

    “You prophet was so good at prophecy that his “revelations” as outlined in some of the earliest manuscripts actually predate him and were written in a different order to the corrupt quran you have today.”

    LOL!!! How ignorant are you? What manuscripts are you talking about that “actually predate him”?

    Silly boy, even if the “order” was different (which it’s not), how does that prove that it’s “corrupted”? Your Gentile dog brain seems to be losing brain cells at an alarming rate! LOL!!!

    “Doesn’t it bother you that there is mounting evidence that some of your earliest manuscripts likely date from before mohammed? ”

    LOL, you are such an idiot! What “mounting evidence” are you referring to? Scholars actually agree that we have Quranic manuscripts from the time of Muhammad (pbuh) and afterwards, nothing before it.

    “Muslim apologists throw their scriptures under the bus at will, corrupt the english translations to trick unsuspecting converts, and generally manipulate their “holy writings” to suit whatever need arises. If you do all that, why should I take your writings seriously?”

    LOL!! I see you are desperately trying to deflect from the evidence! Your vague ramblings don’t prove anything except that you are afraid of the truth.

    Care to provide any evidence of “corrupting the English translations” or “generally manipulating” the scripture? Go ahead. Do your Google search. I’ll wait here. LOL!!

    And lastly:

    Now, back to the book of Revelation. Since Ken is running away (again), perhaps you can try to respond to my points about the “woman clothed with the sun” and the myths of Apollo and Isis. Speak boy!

    Liked by 1 person

  85. Fido barked:

    “Still to dense to get it. LOL!!!

    The hadith were man-made, corrupted and made up centuries after mohammed died to support political or religious expediency. They have as much historical credibility gospels written in the 4th century and beyond.

    I’l spell it out for you. This means that if there are prophecies in these made up accounts they were made b some anonymous scribes and not by mohammed. This means that your prophet is not the last prophet and your quran is wrong. LOL!!

    Of course, it’s a moot point since I see find these claims of prophecy to lack credibility.”

    Still too dense to get it. LOL!!! The Gentile dog is cornered, so he lashes out regarding the reliability of the Ahadith. I see you still haven’t looked into the works of Harald Motzki and Fuat Sezgin. These scholars have shown that the Ahadith are reliable. Your barking won’t change anything!

    The prophecies in the Ahadith were made by Muhammad (pbuh). Even if they weren’t, you still have to explain how the Ahadith have these prophecies. How did they get there? And if there was some other “scribe” making these prophecies, who was he? The fact would still remain that there are prophecies attributed to Muhammad (pbuh). In contrast, your Bible has many FALSE prophecies! I have noticed that you haven’t dared discuss those! LOL!!! Running away, huh? There, there boy. Yes, your Bible is false. But it’s okay. You can come into the light by taking your head out of your rear-end and ditching your false book. Embrace the truth and your Gentile dog brain will be liberated!

    Like

  86. I am going to take up D on his claim that there’s mounting evidence of manuscripts predating Muhammad (saw). Name one paper which supports this claim.

    Liked by 1 person

    • You will have to wait until he Google searches it! LOL!!!

      Like

    • Fido is probably talking about the Birmingham manuscript, but since he is too ignorant, he doesn’t realize that this manuscript actually confirms the reliability of the Quran. According to the University of Birmingham:

      “The tests carried out on the parchment of the Birmingham folios yield the strong probability that the animal from which it was taken was alive during the lifetime of the Prophet Muhammad or shortly afterwards. This means that the parts of the Qur’an that are written on this parchment can, with a degree of confidence, be dated to less than two decades after Muhammad’s death. These portions must have been in a form that is very close to the form of the Qur’an read today, supporting the view that the text has undergone little or no alteration and that it can be dated to a point very close to the time it was believed to be revealed” (http://www.birmingham.ac.uk/news/latest/2015/07/quran-manuscript-22-07-15.aspx).

      Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: