Understanding the Qurʾan’s creative use of rhetorical strategies against orthodox Christianity and a refutation of ‘Do Christians Believe Allah is really Jesus?’ by Sam Shamoun

(Part 2)

This article is the second of a series of articles (the first can be read here) 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 Shamoun before going on: Do Christians Believe Allah is really Jesus?

My response to Shamoun’s article focuses on recent research by Sidney H. Griffith (published 2013):

k10018The 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.

A typical endorsement of this work:

“The Bible in Arabic represents the work of a scholar at the height of his powers. Griffith demonstrates widespread mastery of his subject: his expertise spans not only Christian Arabic translation and interpretation of the Bible, but also Jewish and Islamic Arabic literature as well. The result is a book that fills a conspicuous gap in our knowledge: it will surely become a standard in the field.”–Stephen Davis, Yale University

In his article Shamoun complains that,

‘The Quran is in gross error concerning what Christians actually believe, and the contributors to The Study Quran are absolutely correct when stating that the Islamic scripture does not address, let alone censure, the orthodox Christian understanding of the Trinity and the divinity of Christ.’

There are two passages where the Quran censures Christians for believing that Allah is the Messiah:

Surely, in disbelief are they who say that Allah is the Messiah, son of Maryam (Mary). Say (O Muhammad): “Who then has the least power against Allah, if He were to destroy the Messiah, son of Maryam (Mary), his mother, and all those who are on the earth together?” And to Allah belongs the dominion of the heavens and the earth, and all that is between them. He creates what He wills. And Allah is Able to do all things. S. 5:17 Hilali-Khan

They surely disbelieve who say: Lo! Allah is the Messiah, son of Mary. The Messiah (himself) said: O Children of Israel, worship Allah, my Lord and your Lord. Lo! whoso ascribeth partners unto Allah, for him Allah hath forbidden paradise. His abode is the Fire. For evil-doers there will be no helpers. S. 5:72 Pickthall

The problem with this assertion is that no informed Christian believes this, since historically Christianity has never taught that God is the Messiah. Rather, the orthodox historic position has been that the Messiah is God, not the other way around.

So let us explore Griffith’s discussion of this popular criticism of the Quran’s presentation of Christian belief and doctrine.

In the Introduction we are told, 

‘The Bible is at the same time everywhere and nowhere in the Arabic Qur’an; there are but one to two instances of actual quotation. The second chapter of the present study advances the hypothesis that the recollections and reminiscences in the Qur’an of the biblical and para-biblical narratives of the patriarchs and prophets are not random, but that they are selected according to Islam’s distinctive ‘prophetology’. It envisions a series of ‘messengers’ and ‘prophets’ sent by God to warn human communities, which ‘messengers’ and ‘prophets’ God protects from the machinations of there adversaries.  The Quran recalls only such biblical stories as fit the paradigm of its prophetology, and it edits the narratives where necessary to fit the pattern.’

The Bible in Arabic p.3

Griffith proposes as a working hypothesis for his book concerning the collection of the Quran into its ‘canonical form’  the following view by Patricia Crone, one of the most prominent historians of Islamic origins, who has most vigorously questioned the accuracy of the traditional Islamic sources. She says:

‘The evidence that a prophet was active among the Arabs in the early decades of the 7th century, on the eve of the Arab conquest of the Middle East, must be said to be exceptionally good…Most importantly, we can be reasonably sure that the Qur’an is a collection of utterances that he made in the belief that they had been revealed to him by God. The book may not preserve all the messages he claimed to have received, and he is not responsible for the arrangements in which we have them. They were collected after his death – how long is controversial. But that he uttered all or most of them is difficult to doubt.’ 

Patricia Crone, “What Do We Actually Know about Mohammad?” OpenDemocracy June 10, 2008 

Griffiths notes that the Quran seems to presume extensive knowledge of Jewish and Christian themes and stories. Nevertheless, he notes, 

‘It is a polemic stance, critiquing the faith and practice of both communities. One is left to determine the identities of the Christians whom the Qur’an criticises from the distinctive traces one can discern in the language with which the Islamic scripture censures them. This is a dimension of the Qur’an’s rhetoric that many commentators on the Quran’s Christians and their beliefs have missed, thereby making a hermeneutical mistake. Instead of attempting to discern the Christians through the Qur’an’s rhetoric, they have looked from the other way around for Christian influences on what the Qur’an has to say about Christians, as if the Qur’an had no agenda of its own and were borrowing words, phrases, themes, and narratives rather than commentating on them from its own point of view. The scholars who adopted this latter approach, ignoring the Qur’an’s rhetoric, often supposed that Muhammad and the Qur’an had only a rudimentary or distorted view of the Bible and of Christianity.’         

The Bible in Arabic p. 24

Griffiths suggests that the Qur’an’s criticism of Christian doctrines and practices indicate its polemical engagement with mainstream types of Christianity and not heretical Christians (see examples on page 27). 

He explains as follows (page 32)

‘In passages critical of Christian doctrines and practices, the Qur’an is referring to contemporary Christians, who, in its view, have gone beyond the bounds of their religion unjustly and have followed the fancies of earlier peoples who went astray. (cf. surah 5:77) And the principal way they have gone astray, in the Qur’an’s judgement, is in what they say of the Messiah, Jesus, the son of Mary. The most comprehensively critical passage in the Qur’an addressed to Christians is the following.         

O Scripture People, do not go beyond the bounds of your religion, and do not say about God anything but the truth. The Messiah, Jesus, the son of Mary, is God’s messenger and His word He cast into Mary, and a spirit from Him. So believe in God and His messengers and do not say ‘three’; stop it, it will be better for you. God is only one God. Glory be to Him, He has no child. His are whatever is in the heavens and whatever is on the earth. God suffices as one in whom to put one’s trust. (surah 4:171)       

That Christians are the ‘Scripture People’ addressed here is evident from the nature of the critique level against them. That what they say about the Messiah, Jesus, Mary’s son, is what leads them to speak of ‘three’ in reference to the one God seems equally clear. Similarly, that the Qur’an here and consistently elsewhere speaks of Jesus as ‘Mary’s son’, is most evidently to be taken rhetorically as a polemical corrective to the usual Melkite [i.e. Chalcedonian], Jacobite, or Nestorian habit of speaking of Jesus as ‘the Son of God’. The passage furthermore, as Muslim commentators have consistently claimed, presents God’s word and spirit as they are evoked here in connection with Jesus, as referring to God’s action in His messenger Jesus. 

[Griffiths adds a footnote here: ‘Elsewhere God speaks in the Qur’an of how “Our word (kalimatuna) had previously come to our servants, the messengers” (surah 37:171), and of “our spirit whom We sent to her (i.e. Mary) and he seemed to her to resemble a well-shaped man” (surah 19:17)’.] 

Griffiths continues (page 33):

‘Word and spirit bespeak God’s creative action and do not imply the ‘association’ (ash-shirk) with God that the Qur’an thinks is meant by conventional Christian talk of God’s Word and Spirit. Again, the Qur’an’s rhetoric is seen to be polemically corrective.

This point is made crystal clear in other passages. For example, in the following two verses, among several that Muhammad is commanded to addresses to the ‘Scripture People’ (surah 5:68), the Qur’an speaks directly to current Christian usage.

They have disbelieved who say that God is the Messiah, Mary’s son. The Messiah said, ‘O sons of  Israel, serve God, my Lord and your Lord. God has certainly forbidden the Garden to one who gives God an associate; his abode is the fire and wrongdoers have no helpers (ansar). They have surely disbelieved who say God is one of three (thalithu thalathatin). There is no God save one God. If they do not stop what they are saying, a sore punishment will certainly touch those of them who have disbelieved. (surah 5: 72-73) 

‘Rhetorically speaking, the two identical phrases at the beginning of the two successive verses, “They have disbelieved who say,” are clearly critical of the following quotations attributed to those who say, “God is the Messiah, Mary’s son,” (vs. 72) and those who say, “God is one of three” (vs.73). But the quotations, while clearly meaning to censure Christian belief, do not in fact quote actual Christian usage of the era. Rather, the Christians in the Qur’an’s milieu would have said, ‘the Messiah is God, the Son of God’, and they would also have said, ‘the Treble One, the One of Three, is God’. But for reasons of orthodoxy they would never have said that God is Jesus; rather, they would have said Jesus is God. It seems clear, therefore, that here the Qur’an, aware of actual Christian usage, has for its own rhetorical polemical reasons, reversed the customary Christian order of words in these formulaic phrases in order the more effectively to highlight what it considers wrong about Christian faith in Jesus, and to criticise what it regards as the objectionable Christian doctrine that God has a Son and that He is the Messiah, Jesus of Nazareth. The Quran consistently and persistently teaches in varying phrases that God has no offspring; e.g. “How would He have offspring, not having a female consort” (6:101). “It is not for God to take a child; Glory be to Him, when He determines a matter He but says to it, ‘Be’, and it comes to be” (surah 19:35).  “God is one….He has not begotten, nor is He begotten” (surah al-Ikhlas, 1-3)’         

[Griffiths adds a footnote here: ‘Some half a dozen times in contexts of inter-religious controversy the Qur’an repudiates those who say that God has taken, or adopted, a child, a son (walad).  See surahs, 2:116; 10:68; 18:4; 19:88; 21:26; 23:91. The adversaries are either pagans or Christians, highlighting the Qur’an likening what Christians say about Jesus to the errors of the pagans before them. See the passage addressed to the ‘Scripture People’ in surah 5:77: “Do not follow the fancies of a people who went astray in the past and led others astray and strayed from the Right Path.”]

to be continued…



Categories: Bible, History, Islam, Judaism, Recommended Reading

152 replies

  1. Thanks for Paul for these series of articles. They are very interesting areas of study to follow.

    Griifith makes an interesting point here. The particular christians that Muhammad would’ve known of, did not formulate their beliefs the way the quran does. That makes the case quite strong for suggesting that the quran then despite the author’s awareness of how these groups express their belief, formulate it in a way that draws the implications of those doctrinal statements rather than just misunderstanding it.

    Suppose Muhammed knew that christians said : “The treble one, then one of three, is God” yet expressed it differently. For what possible reason would one do that other than perhaps to show its absurdity

    Liked by 1 person

  2. I had a hard time finding some of your quotes; it seems you left off some of the page numbers. I have the book and I could not find the long quotes, especially the last quote, you didn’t give page number. (after “He explains as follows”.

    Correct me if I am wrong.

    It seems clear, therefore, that here the Qur’an, aware of actual Christian usage, has for its own rhetorical polemical reasons, reversed the customary Christian order of words in these formulaic phrases in order the more effectively to highlight what it considers wrong about Christian faith in Jesus, and to criticise what it regards as the objectionable Christian doctrine that God has a Son and that He is the Messiah, Jesus of Nazareth.

    This point that Griffiths is trying to make is about as clear as mud. It is just an assertion. How could it be “more effective” if it is inaccurate? “God is the Messiah” is inaccurate, as Griffiths admits. “God is one of three” is inaccurate, he also admits. And seeing Mary as part of the Trinity is inaccurate (Surah 5:116). It seems to me the easiest explanation is the right one, since you admit that Muhammad was illiterate (Surah 7:157), he is just hearing things and seeing the popular piety around Mary (but ignorant of doctrinal creeds and the Scriptures) – Muhammad is seeing the icons, statues and emphasis on Mary, and prayers to Mary (all man-made traditions that were becoming some of the main heresies and problems that Protestantism has with Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodox – they have exalted Mary too much. Praying should only be to God. It seems clear that Muhammad got things mixed up and garbled, and got info from heretical groups and apocryphal gospels and Jewish Midrash and Talmudic writings, all non inspired sources. Muhammad and the early Muslims may also have come across the Collyridians in N. Arabia (today’s Jordan), who worshipped Mary.

    To have credibility in apologetics and intellectual arguments, the opposing side should accurately understand and communicate what it is critiquing. This is basic logic and courtesy. The Qur’an fails at that big time.

    Like

  3. Ken Temple: To have credibility in apologetics and intellectual arguments

    Considering how glibly you reject the majority scholarship position the Quran confirms textual corruption of the bible, are you really the one to talk about credibility and intellectual arguments? You’re a funny old man, Ken.

    Like

    • That’s what he does. He selectively quotes scholars and all but ignores the consensus view, whether it is regarding the Quran or his own Bible. When you show him the scholarly consensus on the corruption of the Bible, he will reject it because they are “liberal” scholars, while quoting extensively from “conservative” scholars (many of whom ironically agree with the “liberal” scholars in many cases). He really has no “credibility” in my eyes because every time he is cornered by the scholarly evidence, he resorts to the exact opposite of “intellectual” arguments.

      Like

    • You are not dealing with the specific issue here at this post; and divert the subject matter to the issue of the Tahreef Al Nass تحریف النصّ / Tahreef Al Matn تحریف المتن (Textual Corruption of the Bible).

      Surah 5:47 and 10:94 are clear – given those verses, there cannot be corruption of the text in Muhammad’s day; which proves the Bible is not corrupted, since we have basically the same text today. (the textual variants that we freely admit and publish do not affect doctrinal matters, since the doctrinal matters are repeated in other firm texts)

      Like

  4. “You are not dealing with the specific issue here at this post; and divert the subject matter to the issue of the Tahreef Al Nass تحریف النصّ / Tahreef Al Matn تحریف المتن (Textual Corruption of the Bible).

    Surah 5:47 and 10:94 are clear – given those verses, there cannot be corruption of the text in Muhammad’s day; which proves the Bible is not corrupted, since we have basically the same text today. (the textual variants that we freely admit and publish do not affect doctrinal matters, since the doctrinal matters are repeated in other firm texts)”

    This issue has been laid to rest already and you have been refuted on numerous occasions. Scholars generally agree that the Quran teaches that the Bible has been corrupted.

    The Bible has more than just “textual variants”. There are instances of wholesale forgeries. Not only that, but the authors of many of the NT books are not even known! At best, we can be certain that Paul wrote most of the letters that are ascribed to him. Other than that, authorship for none of the other books is certain. And it is likely that the fourth gospel was actually a Gnostic production.

    Like

    • No; the issue has not been laid to rest. Shabir Ally, arguable the best debater for Islam, could not do much in the debate on this issue – David Wood fried his arguments.

      The Gospel of John is not Gnostic, since the Gnostics did not believe Jesus was human.
      But Jesus got tired and thirsty and hungry in the Gospel of John – John chapter 4, and He wept with compassion and sadness over sin and death at the death of Lazarus in John chapter 11; so it is not Gnostic. Massive fail on your part there.

      Nope. no forgeries.
      Early church history confirms for us the Gospel writers – Papias, Ignatius, Irenaeus, Terfullian, Origen, Athanasius, Augustine, Jerome, etc. Many centuries before Islam.

      we have good evidence that Matthew wrote Matthew and John wrote John and Mark wrote for Peter and Luke wrote Luke and Acts; and Paul wrote 13 letters, and Peter wrote 1 Peter (or dictated it to Silvanus) and dictated 2 Peter to Jude.

      Like

    • Ken, are you really going to give more weight to a debate you saw online rather than academic scholarship? As I said before, fundamentalism rots the brain, and this applies to both Muslims and Christians.

      Liked by 1 person

  5. Paul Williams

    Good Job. You are doing the Job of Allah. Someone who has no basic education in Islam or has not set his foot in any academic Institution like Sam Shamoun to write article and tell Muslims and Christians what the Quran says without any knowledge in Arabic.

    Sam Shamoun should learn Islam and memorize Quran and some Hadith like Imam John before he can be credible.

    These guys did not spend years for nothing for Sam Shamoun who has zero knowledge in academic Islam to teach them.

    Thanks

    Liked by 1 person

    • Listening.
      He spent a lot of time at the beginning quoting Arabic –

      Yes we have these words he mentions at 3:25 – غرور ، مغرور = pride, arrogance, self-conceit

      The Bible says “watch over your heart with all diligence, for from it flows the springs of life.” Proverbs 4:23

      and “the heart is deceitful, desparately wicked above all else” – Jeremiah 17:9

      “For from the heart the mouth speaks . . . ” Matthew 12:34

      20 And he said, “What comes out of a person is what defiles him.
      21 For from within, out of the heart of man, come evil thoughts, sexual immorality, theft, murder, adultery, 22 coveting, wickedness, deceit, sensuality, envy, slander, pride, foolishness.
      23 All these evil things come from within, and they defile a person.”
      Mark 7:20-23

      Like

  6. Ken Temple

    You said;
    Surah 5:47 and 10:94 are clear – given those verses, there cannot be corruption of the text in Muhammad’s day; which proves the Bible is not corrupted, since we have basically the same text today. (the textual variants that we freely admit and publish do not affect doctrinal matters, since the doctrinal matters are repeated in other firm texts)”

    I say;
    The Quran did not say “Bible” and the scriptures of the people of the Book includes many they rejected and did not canonize. The Quran is not talking about the canonized Bible by the Church Fathers alone. The Quran is talking about any scripture they possess including the Gospel of Thomas, Judas, Epistle of Banabas, Shephered hermas, gospel of Judas, Infancy Gospel of Thomas and many more we do not know.

    THE QURAN IS NOT TALKING ABOUT THE BIBLE WE HAVE TODAY ALONE BUT ANY SCRIPTURE THAT DID NOT FIND ITS WAY INTO THE CANONIZED BIBLE AND THE ONES WE DO NOT KNOW.

    SOME WERE DISCOVERED RECENTLY.

    Thanks.

    Like

  7. “Intellect” – you need to use your intellect. 😉

    There was no other true Bible at the time other than the one we have today. Athanasius wrote of the same 27 book NT – “In these alone are the doctrine of godliness” (Festal Letter 39) in 367 AD.

    Irenaeus and Tertullian quoted from and referenced most all of the 27 books from around 180-200 AD.

    Muhammad didn’t know, but he knew the Christians had a book, and called it “Al Kitab” الکتاب and the Christians, Ahl Al Kitab اهل الکتاب – the people of the book. There was no other true book of the Christians. (Melkites (Byzantine Chalcedonians), Coptic Egyptians, Jacobite Syrians and Nestorians agreed on the NT books. (and they all agreed on the Trinity and first two councils of Nicea (325 AD) and Constantinople (381 AD). they only disagreed on the 2 natures of Christ vs. believe in only one nature – Council of Ephesus in 431 and Chalcedon in 451 AD.

    Most of the ones you mentioned were heretical and Gnostic. (except Shepherd of Hermas, which is not canonical, and the Epistle of Barnabas, which was not written by Barnabas – and is not canonical – that one was a forgery. Also the gospels of Thomas and Infancy gospel of Thomas are forgeries truly and yet the Qur’an gets stuff from them. The so called “gospel of Judas” is a complete forgery and Gnostic and you don’t want to defend that, since that is saying Judas, the one who betrayed Jesus, is good.

    So, another major fail.

    Like

    • ‘Athanasius wrote of the same 27 book NT’

      And was his OT the same as yours?

      Like

    • almost; he seemed to include the Letter of Baruch, but left out Esther.

      Like

    • almost lol. Athanasius was an Eastern Orthodox theologian. This was/is their canon:

      The Eastern Orthodox receive as their canon the books found in their Septuagintal, Patristic, Byzantine, and liturgical tradition. As of the Synod of Jerusalem, convened in 1672, the Orthodox Church considers as canonical the following:

      specifically, “The Wisdom of Solomon,” “Judith,” “Tobit,” “The History of the Dragon” [Bel and the Dragon], “The History of Susanna,” “The Maccabees,” and “The Wisdom of Sirach.” For we judge these also to be with the other genuine Books of Divine Scripture genuine parts of Scripture. For ancient custom, or rather the Catholic Church, which has delivered to us as genuine the Sacred Gospels and the other Books of Scripture, has undoubtedly delivered these also as parts of Scripture, and the denial of these is the rejection of those. And if, perhaps, it seems that not always have all of these been considered on the same level as the others, yet nevertheless these also have been counted and reckoned with the rest of Scripture, both by Synods and by many of the most ancient and eminent Theologians of the Catholic Church. All of these we also judge to be Canonical Books, and confess them to be Sacred Scripture.

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Development_of_the_Old_Testament_canon#Eastern_Orthodox_Canon

      Augustine also had a different OT canon to you.

      So which is the Word of God?

      Liked by 1 person

    • No; you are quoting the Eastern Orthodox article at Wikipedia; that is not Athanasius’ view in 367 AD. See his Festal Letter 39:

      4. There are, then, of the Old Testament, twenty-two books in number; for, as I have heard, it is handed down that this is the number of the letters among the Hebrews; their respective order and names being as follows. The first is Genesis, then Exodus, next Leviticus, after that Numbers, and then Deuteronomy. Following these there is Joshua, the son of Nun, then Judges, then Ruth. And again, after these four books of Kings, the first and second being reckoned as one book, and so likewise the third and fourth as one book. And again, the first and second of the Chronicles are reckoned as one book. Again Ezra, the first and second are similarly one book. After these there is the book of Psalms, then the Proverbs, next Ecclesiastes, and the Song of Songs. Job follows, then the Prophets, the twelve being reckoned as one book. Then Isaiah, one book, then Jeremiah with Baruch, Lamentations, and the epistle, one book; afterwards, Ezekiel and Daniel, each one book. Thus far constitutes the Old Testament.

      “Baruch and the epistle of Jeremiah” are there; but Esther is not.

      http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf204.xxv.iii.iii.xxv.html

      See also: after listing NT 27 books in paragraph 5.

      6. These are fountains of salvation, that they who thirst may be satisfied with the living words they contain. In these alone is proclaimed the doctrine of godliness. Let no man add to these, neither let him take ought from these. For concerning these the Lord put to shame the Sadducees, and said, ‘Ye do err, not knowing the Scriptures.’ And He reproved the Jews, saying, ‘Search the Scriptures, for these are they that testify of Me

      You are refuted.

      Besides, there was no “Eastern Orthodoxy” at that time as known later when the east split from the western church, in 1054 AD, becoming the “Eastern Orthodox” vs. the Roman Catholic (in the west).

      Like

    • Confess your mistake on Athanasius.

      Like

    • LOL, Ken the mule continues to bray about other people’s “failures” but cannot recognize his own!

      “There was no other true Bible at the time other than the one we have today. Athanasius wrote of the same 27 book NT – “In these alone are the doctrine of godliness” (Festal Letter 39) in 367 AD.

      Irenaeus and Tertullian quoted from and referenced most all of the 27 books from around 180-200 AD.”

      LOL!!! So what if Irenaeus and Tertullian referenced MOST (in other words, not all) of the 27 books around 180-200 AD? FAIL!! That is hardly impressive.

      Not only that, but it has been proven by modern Biblical studies that many of the 27 books are in fact FORGERIES. The Gnostics were not the only ones who were forging books. Christians did it all the time.

      Regarding Judas, this is an example of the risk Christians take by referring to so-called “early” church historians, like Papias, is that there is inevitably a case where these sources disagree with the NT! Papias disagrees with the gospels as to how Judas died!

      So, another major fail for Ken.

      Liked by 1 person

  8. and Muhammad called them Ahl al Injeel اهل الانجیل – – Surah 5:47

    and included the Jews in Ahl al Kitab اهل الکتاب

    Like

  9. the Imam later speaks about envy and jealousy, حسد hesed; yes we have this word in Farsi also, with the same meaning. we agree that we have to fight against jealousy and envy and pride and arrogance in our hearts. The Bible speaks a lot about this. See James 3:13-18

    “For where there is jealousy and selfish ambition, there is disorder and every evil thing.” James 3:16

    Like

  10. “The Quran recalls only such biblical stories as fit the paradigm of its prophetology, and it edits the narratives where necessary to fit the pattern.’”

    Why would you accept a position that claims that the Quran has changed the former words of Allah?

    Like

    • It doesn’t. The NT for example cannot be the injeel that was given to Jesus. The NT was written after Jesus.

      The Quran teaches:

      And We sent, following in their footsteps, Jesus, the son of Mary, confirming that which came before him in the Torah; and We gave him the Gospel, in which was guidance and light and confirming that which preceded it of the Torah as guidance and instruction for the righteous.[5:46]

      Liked by 1 person

    • the author says the Quran “edits” biblical narratives. What do you think he means?

      Like

    • hmm now what does the word “edit” mean? I’ll need to look it up…

      Like

    • Also, the context of the quote was related to his second chapter where he discusses the patriarchs and prophets. It has nothing to do with the I heel debate.

      So it seems to me that he is claiming the Quran edits the Old Testament prophet narratives this altering the words of Allah

      Like

    • What Griffith proposed is by advancing its own distinctive prophetology, making reference to biblical patriarch narratives, the Qur’an thus sets itself forth as a correction to both Jewish Christian readings. it can not be established that what Jewish and Christian have in possession are the original Taurat or Injil , …and this is certainly not what the Qur’an tells us.

      Liked by 1 person

  11. Injeel debate*

    Like

  12. you assume that the Bible as we have it is the Word of God. Clearly it is not.

    Are you aware that the Bible (unlike the Quran) does not claim to be the Word of God?

    Like

    • Not at all. He says the Quran edits the patriarch and prophet narratives. That seems like a strange thing for a Muslim to promote, unless you are saying that all those narratives were corrupted to begin with?

      Like

    • What Griffith proposed is by advancing its own distinctive prophetology, making reference to biblical patriarch narratives, the Qur’an thus sets itself forth as a correction to both Jewish Christian readings. it can not be established that what Jewish and Christian have in possession are the original Taurat or Injil , …and this is certainly not what the Qur’an tells us.

      Liked by 1 person

  13. It doesn’t. The NT for example cannot be the injeel that was given to Jesus. The NT was written after Jesus.

    The Quran teaches:

    And We sent, following in their footsteps, Jesus, the son of Mary, confirming that which came before him in the Torah; and We gave him the Gospel, in which was guidance and light and confirming that which preceded it of the Torah as guidance and instruction for the righteous.[5:46]

    Yes, it does. Yes the Father gave Him the gospel, the words of truth

    John 17:8
    praying to the Father:

    “The words which You gave to Me I have given to them (the disciples) . . . ”

    John 17:17 – “Your Word is truth”

    Then they wrote it down later.

    The Spirit guided them to write God-breathed Scripture.
    John 14:26 – “all things” and “will bring to your remembrance all that I said to you”
    John 16:13 – “all the truth”

    Like

  14. I listened to the whole lecture by Imam John about envy.
    It was good; most of the same content about fighting against envy and hatred and pride in our own hearts, is also talked about in the previous Scriptures. it is greatly emphasized in the Bible.

    He quoted a lot from the AHadith, a lot from scholars and commentators and dictionaries.

    I could only find one or two mention of verses from the Qur’an. The verse about “wealth will not help you on the day of judgment, but only a clean heart”

    we have that in Farsi also – qalb e salim قلب سلیم = a sound or healthy heart

    I recognized Akhlaq = اخلاق = character, morals, ethics

    and Qiyam قیام – resurrection – about the day of resurrection/judgement

    What he said about “entitlement” was very good. “I have the right to have my way or my needs!” – bad attitude.

    Like

  15. “No; the issue has not been laid to rest. Shabir Ally, arguable the best debater for Islam, could not do much in the debate on this issue – David Wood fried his arguments”

    LOL, yes you can keep telling yourself that. You sound like you are trying to persuade yourself more than anyone else, like a stubborn mule. Reasonable people know that Wood is a pseudo-scholar with no expertise in Arabic or the Quran.

    “The Gospel of John is not Gnostic, since the Gnostics did not believe Jesus was human.
    But Jesus got tired and thirsty and hungry in the Gospel of John – John chapter 4, and He wept with compassion and sadness over sin and death at the death of Lazarus in John chapter 11; so it is not Gnostic. Massive fail on your part there. ”

    LOL, then why did Gnostics use the gospel of John? And why did Christians like Gaius condemn the gospel as a Gnostic heresy? Epic fail on your part here!

    “Nope. no forgeries.
    Early church history confirms for us the Gospel writers – Papias, Ignatius, Irenaeus, Terfullian, Origen, Athanasius, Augustine, Jerome, etc. Many centuries before Islam.”

    There goes the mule again. Your “early church history” refers to LATER people who associated anonymous gospels with the disciples of Jesus. And even then, there were disagreements, as in the example of the gospel of John. Epic fail again, Ken!

    “we have good evidence that Matthew wrote Matthew and John wrote John and Mark wrote for Peter and Luke wrote Luke and Acts; and Paul wrote 13 letters, and Peter wrote 1 Peter (or dictated it to Silvanus) and dictated 2 Peter to Jude.”

    No, we have conjecture and assumptions from LATER Christians. Reasonable people know that these documents are anonymous and cannot be linked to the disciples in any reasonable way. Some of them are even outright forgeries, such as 2 Peter. You can deny it all you want like a mule, but facts are facts.

    Like

  16. Augustine also had a different OT canon to you.

    That’s true; but he was mistaken.

    Jerome was more correct than Augustine on that issue. Jerome went to Jerusalem, learned Hebrew and studied the Jewish view of the Tanakh (OT) and had the same view as Protestants do today.

    Jerome rejected the Apocrypha books of the between the Testaments period.

    Like

    • Jerome did not carry the day. The Church had a different canon to you. Yours only came into existence 1000 years later with Luther

      Like

    • Jerome’s view held until the Council of Trent. Even Gregory the Great in 601 Ad and Cardinal Cajetan in 1520 s (he examined Luther before the Diet of Worms. Even Cajetan agreed with Jerome’s view.

      Only in response to Luther and other Reformers did the RCC recognize officially the Apocrypha OT books as “canon”.

      Augustine’s view was at provincial local councils in North Africa in the 390s Ad, but they continued to debate the issue until the Council of Trent. (1545-1563)

      Like

    • no Ken. The canon of Scripture that was accepted by the Christian Church up to the Reformation included all those books you dismiss.

      You don’t know the history

      Liked by 1 person

    • No; the apocrypha books were not dogmatic until Trent in 1545-1563.

      Like

    • No Ken. Augustine lists the same books endorsed at Trent as the canon of Scripture used by the universal church of his time (ie 4/5 century). See his On Christian Doctrine.

      Liked by 1 person

    • Augustine and the councils of North Africa in Hippo and Carthage in 393 AD and 397 AD – these were provincial, local councils. Yes, people quoted from the Apocrypha books from that time onward, but they were not DOGMATICALLY defined by the Roman Catholic Church until the Council of Trent in 1545-1563. Many continued to debate the issue, and even Gregory the Great, bishop of Rome, in 601 AD, by many considered to the first real formal “Pope” with jurisdictional claims over all Christendom, agreed with Jerome and wrote that Macabbees was not canonical. Cardinal Cajetan, who Luther had to appear before, before the Diet of Worms in 1521, also wrote that “the view of Jerome is the right view of these books”.

      It is you who don’t know the history of this with complete accuracy.

      Like

  17. LOL!!! So what if Irenaeus and Tertullian referenced MOST (in other words, not all) of the 27 books around 180-200 AD? FAIL!! That is hardly impressive.

    They are the first two writers who wrote enough to really have the content from most all NT books. Remember they are individual scrolls written to different areas of the Mediterranean World – scattered about. No one could have them all at one time because of their nature in being separate scrolls and sent to different areas and from different areas by different human authors.

    Everything before Irenaeus and Tertullian are very small works and short letters:

    The Didache (but it quotes Matthew 28:19)
    Clement of Rome
    Shepherd of Hermas
    Ignatius
    Polycarp
    Justin Martyr

    They all quoted from some of the NT books, but they did not write much in volume.

    Irenaeus and Tertullian are the first two writers where we have a large extant portion of their corpus of works.

    Like

    • “They are the first two writers who wrote enough to really have the content from most all NT books. Remember they are individual scrolls written to different areas of the Mediterranean World – scattered about. No one could have them all at one time because of their nature in being separate scrolls and sent to different areas and from different areas by different human authors. ”

      So what? They came along almost 100 years after! It is hardly impressive.

      “Everything before Irenaeus and Tertullian are very small works and short letters:

      The Didache (but it quotes Matthew 28:19)
      Clement of Rome
      Shepherd of Hermas
      Ignatius
      Polycarp
      Justin Martyr”

      Yes, exactly. In other words, they are FRAGMENTS, and they don’t prove anything. In fact, some of the examples you give actually backfire. The Didache fails to mention the resurrection, the central tenet of Christianity. Justin Martyr mentions some variant versions of the gospels. As I wrote in one of my articles:

      “Another example of a famous Christian leader who had differing views of
      “scripture” is Justin Martyr. He may have been familiar with the Gospel of John (and some of its theology) and the Synoptic Gospels, but he also used non-canonical sources as well. As Metzger observed:

      “In addition to echoes and quotations from the Memoirs of the apostles, Justin also makes use of various extraneous traditions, probably oral, about the life of Jesus. It perhaps was noticed…that in quoting [Matthew] Justin says the Magi came from Arabia (Dial. lxxxviii. 1). Likewise he states that Jesus was born in a cave near Bethlehem (Dial. lxxxviii. 5); that the ass colt used in the Palm Sunday entry was found ‘bound to a vine at the entrance of the village’ (1 Apol. xxxiii. 6); and that at the crucifixion mocking bystanders not only shook their heads and shot out their lips (1 Apol. xxxviii. 8) but ‘twisted their noses to each other’ (Dial. ci. 3) and cried, ‘Let him who raised the dead deliver himself’ (1 Apol. xxxviii. 8)”[32]

      Furthermore, in summarizing Justin Martyr’s use of different sources, Metzger stated:

      “He makes use of the Synoptics much more frequently than the Fourth Gospel. Justin also alludes to various traditions bearing on the life of Jesus that came to be incorporated in apocryphal gospels. […] In any case, he does not generally attribute to them an authority comparable to that of the Memoirs of the apostles. […] Justin does not appeal to the authority of Paul, but he considers the Apocalypse of John as both a prophetic and an apostolic work.”[33]” (http://quranandbible.blogspot.com/2014/02/the-history-of-bible-and-quran.html).

      So, your appeal to these sources only serves to prove further that the Bible was constantly evolving.

      “Irenaeus and Tertullian are the first two writers where we have a large extant portion of their corpus of works.”

      Which is hardly impressive…

      Liked by 2 people

  18. Back to the point: anyone care to explain why the Quran would edit and change the words of Allah in the patriarch narratives?

    Like

    • we have not established what the ‘Words of Allah’ are. Care to explain?

      Like

    • Well the tawrat contains the patriarch narratives and as far as I know, the Quran teaches that the tawrat was allah’s revelation.

      Your argument is claiming the Quran edits these narratives i.e edits the tawrat/Allah’s words. Worse still, the author of the Quran edits the narratives to fit his/her agenda.

      “The Quran recalls only such biblical stories as fit the paradigm of its prophetology, and it edits the narratives where necessary to fit the pattern.”

      Like

    • With the name of Allah

      What Griffith proposed is by advancing its own distinctive prophetology, making reference to biblical  patriarch narratives, the Qur’an thus sets itself forth as a correction to both Jewish Christian readings. it can not be established that  what Jewish and Christian have in possession are the original Taurat or Injil , …and this is certainly not what the Qur’an tells us.

      Liked by 1 person

    • Met Pagi pak Eric.

      That’s not what the quote says. It seems like your Islamic theology is encroaching now.

      Can you demonstrate which patriarch narratives require correction? An edit is a change, so why would the Quran change/edit allah’s previous revelation.

      Sampai jumpa

      Like

    • you have not established that OT was the original Torah have you?

      Like

    • I find that a weak position, Paul. You can’t just claim curruption for any discussion that you don’t like. The scholar under discussion did not argue this way, so why are you? He simply said the Quran edited patriarch narratives. I’m asking how that is ok?

      If you think the patriarch narratives are corrupt, then you should have some evidence to show this? Do you?

      Like

    • Paulus you have repeatedly claimed that the OT is “God’s revelation”. You may not be aware but Islam teaches that the OT & NT in existence today are not identical to the Torah and Injeel given to Moses & Jesus

      Objective scholarship tends to affirm this view. Just read any standard Introduction to the Bible. I can recommend some if you like, written by top scholars in the field.

      Like

    • With the name of Allah

      met pagi mas Paulus,

      Here the relevant quote from Sydney H. Griffith The Bible in Arabic , Introduction p17 Google Play Books , to help you understand more what Griffith contends.

      Furthermore, given the wide range of biblical lore recollected in the Qurʾān, and the critique the Qurʾān makes of the religious beliefs and practices of the Jews and Christians, along with the actual historical evidences in hand of the communities on the Arabian periphery, the conclusion emerges that the Arabic-speaking Jews and Christians in the Qurʾān’s audience were the mainstream communities of the first third of the seventh century in the Middle East in Late Antiquity and not representatives of lost or dissident groups.

      [.. ..]

      The second chapter of the present study advances the hypothesis that the recollections and reminiscences in the Qurʾān of the biblical and para-biblical narratives of the patriarchs and prophets are not random, but that they are selected according to Islam’s distinctive ‘prophetology’. It envisions a series of ‘messengers’ and ‘prophets’ sent by God to warn human communities, which ‘messengers’ and ‘prophets’ God protects from the machinations of their adversaries. The Qurʾān recalls only such biblical stories as fit the paradigm of its prophetology, and it edits the narratives where necessary to fit the pattern.

      No it is not me as a muslim saying, it is clear that Griffith proposed his hypothesis that the Qur’anic narrative  of biblical  patriarch narratives by way of  advancing its own distinctive prophetology, is in itself a critique. (Merriam-Webster give simple definition of  “critique”: as a careful judgment in which you give your opinion about the good and bad parts of something (such as a piece of writing or a work of art) )

      So yes, the Qur’an thus sets itself forth as a correction to both Jewish Christian readings of of biblical  patriarch narratives. I dont have access to this book so I am not sure if Griffith has demonstrated his point in this book but if you ask me which part ofpatriarch narratives require correction, the most obvious one is the status of prophet Isa (peace be upon him) which most christians consider him as God. A blasphemous notion definitely require correction.

      Like

    • Hi Paul.

      “Paulus you have repeatedly claimed that the OT is “God’s revelation”

      Actually I said no such thing. I said the Torah is God’s revelation, which is precisely what the Quran teaches if I’m not mistaken?

      Eric,

      By patriarch narratives I assume the author is referring to the standard understanding- the lineage ofAbraham in the Torah. Isa is irrelevant to the current discussion. Perhaps you could provide evidence where these narratives required changing/editing?

      Like

  19. This point that Griffiths is trying to make is about as clear as mud. It is just an assertion. How could it be “more effective” if it is inaccurate?

    “God is the Messiah” is inaccurate, as Griffiths admits. “God is one of three” is inaccurate, he also admits. And seeing Mary as part of the Trinity is inaccurate (Surah 5:116). It seems to me the easiest explanation is the right one, since you admit that Muhammad was illiterate (Surah 7:157), he is just hearing things and seeing the popular piety around Mary (but ignorant of doctrinal creeds and the Scriptures) – Muhammad is seeing the icons, statues and emphasis on Mary, and prayers to Mary (all man-made traditions that were becoming some of the main heresies and problems that Protestantism has with Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodox – they have exalted Mary too much. Praying should only be to God. It seems clear that Muhammad got things mixed up and garbled, and got info from heretical groups and apocryphal gospels and Jewish Midrash and Talmudic writings, all non inspired sources. Muhammad and the early Muslims may also have come across the Collyridians in N. Arabia (today’s Jordan), who worshipped Mary.

    To have credibility in apologetics and intellectual arguments, the opposing side should accurately understand and communicate what it is critiquing. This is basic logic and courtesy. The Qur’an fails at that big time.

    Like

    • “God is the Messiah” is inaccurate,”

      ken pagan temple,

      so you see jeezer leave the tomb naked.
      you run to him and you say, “my….” ?

      fill in the blank temple
      what would you say to the naked jesus who left the tomb?

      what would you say?

      when pete poked jeezer (no side gashes in luke even though he tells them to look at his hands and feet) , what did he say to him, according to john?

      “God is one of three” is inaccurate”

      jeezer is “one of ” from a group of 3

      how much “who” and how much “what” is jeezer?

      Like

    • ” It seems clear that Muhammad got things mixed up and garbled, and got info from heretical groups and apocryphal gospels and Jewish Midrash and Talmudic writings, all non inspired sources. Muhammad and the early Muslims may also have come across the Collyridians in N. Arabia (today’s Jordan), who worshipped Mary.”

      you are a shameless piece of christian , temple

      can you tell me why john changed “hukmah” /wisdom to male incarnate logos?

      did he not want to make christ female?

      Like

  20. With the name of Allah

    Salam Paul,

    Thank you for sharing the study of Sidney H. Griffith.

    For what I can grasp, Griffith contends, in contrast to Islamophobes charges,” the Christians to whom the Qur’an engages were in fact among the contemporary  mainline Christianity  from churches of the east among whom the Melkites, Jacobites, and Nestorians  during prophet Muhammad’s milieu rather than “heretical” factions.

    And Griffith also believe that the Qurʾan deliberately advance its own distinctive prophetology, while making reference to biblical  figures, in order to set itself forth as a corrective to Christian readings some sort of creative use of rhetorical strategies against orthodox Christianity.

    Very Interesting. This is actually what we Muslims believe.

    Liked by 2 people

    • but since all the accusations of the Qur’an against what Melkites (those that agreed with the Chalcedonian Creed – the Orthodox – “correct doctrine”), the Jacobites (Monosphysites in Syria), and Nestorians – they are all inaccurate – and all the charges are closer to the heretics or misunderstandings (Tri-theism , Mary as part of the Trinity (5:116), God having a wife and sex in order to have a son (6:101), saying “they say “God is the Messiah”- these three groups did not say any of those . . .

      since those accusations of the Qur’an are inaccurate, the argument fails big time.

      “creative” and “rhetorical strategies” is itself a strategy to avoid embarrassment of inaccuracy.

      Like

    • //since those accusations of the Qur’an are inaccurate//

      Not accurate ? so you don’t consider Nabi Isa as God? Alleluia!

      Liked by 2 people

  21. Monophysites or Mia-physites. (also the Coptic and Armenian Church are Mia-physite. ( one nature; that Christ’s human nature was swallowed up in His divine nature.)

    All three groups agreed with the Nicene Creed of 325 AD and the Council of Constantinople of 381 AD – in the Trinity, the homo-ousias (same substance) of the Son and the Holy Spirit with the Father.

    So, the Qur’an fails to argue against Christianity, because it cannot even describe what they believe accurately. (in those issues)

    Like

  22. Griffiths suggests that the Qur’an’s criticism of Christian doctrines and practices indicate its polemical engagement with mainstream types of Christianity and not heretical Christians (see examples on page 27).

    Griffiths mentions the Gospel according to Luke, the Proto-evangelium of James, the Diatessaron (Harmony of the Four Gospels) of Tatian, and in a footnote on page 27, (footnote 63), the Gospel of Pseudo-Matthew ( a real forgery, that has the Palm tree story of Mary that is repeated in the Qur’an in Surah 19.)

    Well, since the Qur’an changes the details of Luke (Luke 1:34-35 – “how can this be, since I am a virgin? . . . the Holy Spirit, and the Power of the Most High, for this reason the holy offspring will be called the Son of God”) , and argues against inaccuracies, that is a fail.

    The Proto-evangelium of James is a non-canonical work, and has elements of Gnosticism in it – Jesus is not born in the normal way from Mary as a human through the birth canal, but just “beams out” with light. That, and the vow of perpetual virginity from Mary, became part of the basic of the Roman Catholic later dogma that Mary remained a virgin even while Jesus was born and ever after He was born. “virgin before, during and after giving birth” – this is a contradiction to the Bible, which only says that Mary was a virgin until after Jesus was born (Matthew 1:25) and that since Jesus had “brothers and sisters” (Matthew 12:46-47; 13:55-56; Mark 3:31-32, Mark 6:3; Luke 8:19-21; John 7:3-5, 10) and since Greek has the word for “cousin” (Colossians 4:10), this is a false doctrine, and Protestants don’t agree with the Roman Catholic or Eastern Orthodox on this issue. Roman Catholics use Revelation 12 to try and say that is Mary, but the woman had great pain in childbirth there (Rev. 12:2), and that is a Gnostic idea that Jesus and Mary did not experience pain or suffering or hunger or thirst or fatigue, etc.

    This shows further that the Qur’an is getting most of its information from heretical and Gnostic sources.

    This article gives the details on all the other heretical, legendary, myths, Jewish Midrash, and non-inspired works that the Qur’an draws from.

    http://www.reformedapologeticsministries.com/2015/10/original-sources-koran-stole-its.html

    Like

    • With the name of Allah

      //Well, since the Qur’an changes the details of Luke (Luke 1:34-35 – “how can this be, since I am a virgin? . . . the Holy Spirit, and the Power of the Most High, for this reason the holy offspring will be called the Son of God”) , and argues against inaccuracies, that is a fail.//

      The problem is you make an assumption that narration in Luke  is the correct conception narrative. I don’t think you can convince any muslims with that assertion. We believe  that God revealed His message directly to Prophet Muhammad , He did not misunderstand anything as we believe he did not have access to any of the text of any christian groups in his milieu.

      From what I have studied the Quran makes more sense with regard to how Jesus (p) made into being

      إِذْ قَالَتِ الْمَلَائِكَةُ يَا مَرْيَمُ إِنَّ اللَّهَ يُبَشِّرُكِ بِكَلِمَةٍ مِّنْهُ اسْمُهُ الْمَسِيحُ عِيسَى ابْنُ مَرْيَمَ وَجِيهًا فِي الدُّنْيَا وَالْآخِرَةِ وَمِنَ الْمُقَرَّبِينَ

      Behold! the angels said: “O Mary! Allah giveth thee glad tidings of a Word from Him: his name will be Christ Jesus, the son of Mary, held in honour in this world and the Hereafter and of (the company of) those nearest to Allah; ”He shall speak to the people in childhood and in maturity. And he shall be (of the company) of the righteous.”

      وَيُكَلِّمُ النَّاسَ فِي الْمَهْدِ وَكَهْلًا وَمِنَ الصَّالِحِينَ قَالَتْ رَبِّ أَنَّىٰ يَكُونُ لِي وَلَدٌ وَلَمْ يَمْسَسْنِي بَشَرٌ ۖ قَالَ كَذَٰلِكِ اللَّهُ يَخْلُقُ مَا يَشَاءُ ۚ إِذَا قَضَىٰ أَمْرًا فَإِنَّمَا يَقُولُ لَهُ كُن فَيَكُونُ

      She said: “O my Lord! How shall I have a son when no man hath touched me?” He said: “Even so: Allah createth what He willeth: When He hath decreed a plan, He but saith to it, ‘Be,’ and it is! (Q 3:45-47)

      Now compare this parallel narrative found in Luke :

      34 And Mary said to the angel, “How will this be, since I am a virgin?”[d]

      35 And the angel answered her, “The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; therefore the child to be born[e] will be called holy—the Son of God.

      See how the Angel explicitly explained to Mary how shall she be impregnated: that the holy spirit (a *god* to trinitarian) will overshadow ( Strong’s Greek 1982) you.

      Thayer’s Greek Lexicon Strong’s Greek 1982
      1) to throw a shadow upon, to envelop in a shadow, to overshadow

      This seems like Mary was “raped” by holy spirit.

      I stick with the Qur’an . Thank you

      Liked by 1 person

    • A shadow or spirit cannot rape, since He – the Holy Spirit is God and is incapible of sin – there is no force or physicality to this at all. the Holy Spirit is a spirit, unseen, invisible. Luke was written around 61-62 AD, centuries before the Qur’an, and it was already God-breathed centuries before the Qur’an. The Qur’an is the one that comes some 600 years later and changes things and corrupts things.

      Like

    • Nobody knows who wrote any of the four Gospels including Luke, so this God-breathed is only conjecture. That’s why the Qur’an came to correct it.

      Like

    • Yes, let’s compare the way the Holy Bible describes the birth of Christ with the filth of the Quran.

      A common Muslim accusation leveled against the Holy Bible is the supposedly unacceptable language used by Luke in describing the virginal conception of the Lord Jesus. For instance, statements such as the Holy Spirit “overshadowing” Mary are claimed to contain sexual overtones. The Muslim polemicist Ahmad Deedat was one of the first Muslims to bring this accusation against the Holy Bible. Noted Christian Apologist John Gilchrist ably responded to this false charge:

      Deedat’s prejudices against the Christian Bible find further expression in his treatment of the conception and birth of Jesus. He quotes Luke 1:35 which records the words of the angel Gabriel to Mary to the effect that the Holy Spirit would “come upon” her and that the power of the Most High would “overshadow” her. He comments on these words:

      The language used here is distasteful – gutter language – you agree!? (Deedat, Christ in Islam, p. 24)

      In his booklet the words “gutter language” are emphasised in bold print. Someone has said, “Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.” It seems the converse is equally true. Deedat implies that there is something immoral about the Biblical account of the conception of Jesus. He very significantly omits the rest of the verse: “therefore the child to be born of you will be called holy, the Son of God” (Luke 1:35). The whole verse is set in an awesome context of holiness. Because this child was to be conceived, not by the medium of impure flesh, but by the power of the Holy Spirit, therefore the child would not be impure and sinful like all other men, but would be holy, even the Son of God. How anyone can see anything distasteful in this is beyond understanding. The Qur’an itself teaches that the reason for the conception of Jesus by divine power alone was his unique holiness (Surah Maryam 19:19). These words apply

      To the pure all things are pure, but to the corrupt and unbelieving, nothing is pure; their very minds and consciences are corrupted. Titus 1:15

      In Luke’s Gospel one often reads of their Holy Spirit coming upon people and in every case the expression implies an anointing of his holy influence. Simeon was a man “righteous and devout” and the “Holy Spirit was upon him” (Luke 2:25) and when Jesus was baptised and was praying, the “Holy Spirit descended upon him” (Luke 3:22). Likewise we read that when the glory of God appeared above Jesus when he was transfigured, “a cloud came and overshadowed them” (Luke 9:34). How can anyone say, when similar expressions are used of the conception of Jesus (i.e. that the Holy Spirit “came upon” Mary and that the power of God “overshadowed” her), that this is “distasteful – gutter language”?

      It is quite clear that the words used to describe the manner in which the Christ-child would be conceived are generally used in the Bible to describe any occasion where a very real anointing of the power and holiness of God might come upon a person. We really cannot see what the basis of Deedat’s argument is and are once again led to the impression that he must be prejudiced against the Christian faith to make such unwarranted charges against it. … (Gilchrist, Christ in Islam and Christianity)

      It is surprising that Muslims would raise this as an issue, since it is actually the Qur’an that describes Jesus’ virginal conception and birth in very graphic language:

      And (remember) her who guarded her SEXUAL ORGAN (Arabic- farjahaa): We breathed into her from Our Spirit, and We made her and her son a Sign for all people. S. 21:91

      And Mary the daughter of ‘Imran, who guarded her SEXUAL ORGAN (Arabic- farjahaa) and We breathed INTO IT of Our spirit; and she testified to the truth of the words of her Lord and of His revelations, and was one of the devout (servants). S. 66:12

      The word farjahaa, from farj, refers to a person’s private area, to their private parts. Here are some verses which use this word in this connection:

      Prosperous are the believers who in their prayers are humble … and guard their private parts (lifuroojihim). S. 23:1-2,5 Arberry

      Say to the believers, that they cast down their eyes and guard their private parts (furoojahum); that is purer for them. God is aware of the things they work. And say to the believing women, that they cast down their eyes’ and guard their private parts (furoojahunna), and reveal not their adornment save such as is outward; and let them cast their veils over their bosoms, and not reveal their adornment save to their husbands, or their fathers, or their husbands’ fathers, or their sons, or their husbands’ sons, or their brothers, or their brothers’ sons, or their sisters’ sons, or their women, or what their right hands own, or such men as attend them, not having sexual desire, or children who have not yet attained knowledge of women’s private parts; nor let them stamp their feet, so that their hidden ornament may be known. And turn all together to God, O you believers; haply so you will prosper. S. 24:30-31 Arberry

      Men and women who have surrendered, believing men and believing women, obedient men and obedient women, truthful men and truthful women, enduring men and enduring women, humble men and humble women, men and women who give in charity, men who fast and women who fast, men and women who guard their private parts (furoojahum), men and women who remember God oft — for them God has prepared forgiveness and a mighty wage. S. 33:35 Arberry

      and guard their private parts (lifuroojihim). S. 70:29 Arberry

      In the above references which speak of Christ’s conception, this word is used to describe Allah penetrating Mary’s private area by breathing his Spirit into it.

      Mahmoud M. Ayoub contrasts the birth narratives of the Gospel of Luke with that mentioned in the Quran. All capital emphasis is ours:

      “The language of this verse (author- Luke 1:35) is clearly circumspect. It implies no sexual union or divine generation of any kind. Furthermore, while Luke’s description agrees both in form and spirit with the Qur’anic idea of the conception of Christ, the language of the Qur’an IS FAR MORE GRAPHIC AND OPEN TO INTERPRETATION.” (Christian-Muslim Encounters, ed. Yvonne Yazbeck Haddad & Wadi Z. Haddad [University Press of Florida, 1995], p. 67)

      He goes on to say:

      “… Then of Mary He (author-allegedly God) continues: ‘And she who guarded well [lit. fortified] her chastity [lit. GENERATIVE ORGAN], and thus We breathed INTO HER of our spirit, and We made her and her son a sign [or miracle, ‘Aya] for all beings’ (S. 21:90-91) …

      “In the second instance the Qur’an speaks of Mary as a righteous woman who lived in strict chastity and obedience to God: ‘And Mary daughter of ‘Imran who guarded well her GENERATIVE ORGAN farjaha, and thus We breathed INTO HER of our spirit’ (S. 66:12). THE BOLD AND GRAPHIC STATEMENT APPEARS TO HAVE SHOCKED TRADITIONISTS AND COMMENTATORS, so that most of them tried to cover it up with different and FARFETCHED significations or glossed over it with out comment…

      “Ibn Kathir interprets the phrase ‘guarded well her generative organ’ to mean: ‘safeguarded and protected it. Guarding well ihsan signifies chastity and high birth.’ He comments on the phrase, ‘and thus We breathed into it of our spirit’ thus ‘that is, through the angel Gabriel. This is because God sent him to her, and he took for her the form of a man of good stature (S. 19:17). God commanded him to breathe INTO THE BREAST OF HER CHEMISE. HIS BREATH WENT DOWN AND PENETRATED HER GENERATIVE ORGAN, AND THUS CAUSED HER TO CONCEIVE JESUS …’” (Ibid.)

      Finally:

      “Abu Ja’far al-Tusi, the jurist doctor of the Shi’i community, as well as his well known disciple al-Tabarsi, read the words, ‘We breathed INTO IT’ literally. Al-Tusi says: ‘It has been held that Gabriel BREATHED INTO MARY’S GENERATIVE ORGAN then God created Christ in it’ …” (Ibid., p. 68)

      Ibn Kathir provides additional evidence for the very graphic and distasteful nature of the Quranic birth narratives. In his comments on S. 66:12, Ibn Kathir writes:

      meaning who protected and purified her honor, by being chaste and free of immorality,

      meaning, through the angel Jibril. Allah sent the angel Jibril to Maryam, and he came to her in the shape of a man in every respect. Allah commanded him TO BLOW into a gap of her garment and that breath went into her womb THROUGH HER PRIVATE PART; this is how ‘Isa was conceived. This is why Allah said here,

      meaning His decree and His legislation. (Tafsir Ibn Kathir – Abridged, Volume 10, Surat At-Tagabun to the end of the Qur’an, pp. 75-76; capital emphasis ours)

      Ibn Kathir makes the following comments in reference to S. 19:22-23:

      “Allah, the Exalted, informs about Maryam that when Jibril had spoken to her about what Allah said, she accepted the decree of Allah. Many scholars of the predecessors (Salaf) have mentioned that at this point the angel (who was Jibril) blew into the opening of her garment that she was wearing. Then the breath descended until it entered INTO HER VAGINA and she conceived by the leave of Allah.” (Tafsir Ibn Kathir, Abridged, Volume 6, Surat Al-Isra’, Verse 39 To the end of Surat Al-Mu’minun, first edition July 2000, p. 244; bold and capital emphasis ours)

      Ibn Kathir’s notes on S. 2:223 also help us to see the very graphic nature of the term farj:

      this refers to Al-Farj (THE VAGINA), as Ibn ‘Abbas, Mujahid and other scholars have stated. Therefore, anal sex is prohibited, as we will further emphasize afterwards, Allah willing …

      Ibn Jurayj (one of the reporters of the Hadith) said that Allah’s Messengers said …

      ((From the front or from behind, as long as it occurs IN THE FARJ (VAGINA).)) …

      Abu Bakr bin Ziyad Naysaburi reported that Isma’il bin Ruh said that he asked Malik bin Anas, “What do you say about having sex with women in the anus?” He said, “You are not an Arab? Does sex occur but in the place of pregnancy? Do it only IN THE FARJ (VAGINA).” (Tafsir Ibn Kathir (Abridged), Volume 1, Parts 1 and 2 (Surat Al-Fatihah to Verse 252 of Surat Al-Baqarah), first edition January 2000, pp. 618, 619, 622; bold and capital emphasis ours)

      In responding to the Shia position regarding the permissibility of temporary marriages (mutah), this Sunni writer defines farj as:

      I’arat al-Furuj (Loaning of Vaginas)

      The Shi’ah books of fiqh carry a separate chapter entitled “I’arat al-Furuj.” This could literally be translated as “The Loaning of Vaginas.” … (Dr. Ahmad ‘Abdullah Salamah, Shi’ah Concept of Temporary Marriage (Mut’ah); online edition)

      Here is the final Muslim example showing that farj refers to the female organ:

      Narrated Basrah:
      A man from the Ansar called Basrah said: I married a virgin woman in her veil. When I entered upon her, I found her pregnant. (I mentioned this to the Prophet). The Prophet said: She will get the dower, for you made her VAGINA (farj) lawful for you. The child will be your slave. When she has begotten (a child), flog her (according to the version of al-Hasan). The version of Ibn AbusSari has: You people, flog her, or said: inflict hard punishment on him. (Sunan of Abu Dawud, Book 11, Number 2126)

      And here is how one lexical source defines the term:

      Fa-Ra-Jiim = To open, separate, cleave, split, enlarge, part, let a space between, make a room, comfort anything in, dispel cares. An opening, intervening space [gap or breach] between two things. Ex: Parting hind legs or intervening spaces between fingers.
      He opened, made room, ample space.
      Furijat – Cloven, split, rent, opened.
      Farjun (Pl. Furuj) – PUDENDA (SEX ORGAN); chastity, space between legs (of horse or mare), part/s of a person (male/female) INDECENT TO EXPOSE, EXTERNAL PORTIONS OF THE ORGANS OF GENERATION [OF A MALE/FEMALE]. ALSO THE POSTERIOR OF PUDENDUM because it is a place of opening, of between the legs.

      faraja vb. (1) perf. pass. 77:9

      farj n.m. (pl. furuj) 21:91, 23:5, 24:30, 24:31, 33:35, 50:6, 66:12, 70:29

      LL, V6, p: 143, 144, 145 (Project Root List; capital emphasis ours)

      Christian writer Abd al-Masih helps to put this in perspective. Commenting on S. 21:91, al-Masih notes:

      “Whoever reads verse 91 of Sura al-Anbiya’ 21 carefully could be embarrassed. It is scandalous how Muhammad and his spirit of revelation lift Mary up as the most important of all women, and at the same time tear away her veil of chastity. Her self-protection is not described in a euphemism, but is calculated brutally, as in a business deal:

      And she guraded her vagina [farj] so we breathed into her of our spirit. (Sura al-Anbiya’ 21:91)

      This revelation is not an honour, but an exposition. Maybe it was customary among Bedouins to speak contemptuously and carelessly about women. But this only shows the rule of Arabic men and their contempt for women. If the best of women is spoken about like this, what about others! The men are never written about like this. They remain covered, holier-than-thou and self-righteous.” (Abd al-Masih, Who Is The Spirit From Allah In Islam? [Light of Life, P.O. Box 13, A-9503, VILLACH AUSTRIA], pp. 46-47)

      He notes regarding S. 66:12:

      “The second problem is caused by the Arabic language. In Arabic, Allah does not say: ‘so we breathed into her of our spirit’, but ‘into him’. Who is it, into whom the spirit was breathed? The embryo ‘Isa? That is difficult to accept, for then ‘Isa would have existed in Mary’s womb already before the spirit was breathed into her. That would mean that Allah created ‘Isa beforehand or that he existed before he was conceived. Both options are out of the question for Islamic scholars.

      Who is it then, into whom the Spirit from Allah was breathed? IT IS ALMOST UNSPEAKABLE, but the last expression in the previous sentence, which is masculine in Arabic, IS THE EXPRESSION FOR MARY’S GENITALS.[43] The literal meaning of Allah’s statement in Arabic is then, ‘so we breathed into her vagina [farj] of our spirit.’ This turns the stomachs of some of our readers.

      Rudi Paret, the best translator of the Qur’an into German, confirms the meaning of this phrase in a footnote. This seems not only to us, but also to many Islamic scholars to be a blasphemy. Ibn Mas’ud went so far as to suggest that the Qur’anic text should be changed to read ‘so we breathed into her [Mary] of our spirit.’ It is comforting to see that there are Muslims who prefer the possibility of a fallible Qur’an to a blasphemy like this.

      Other commentators explain the expression into him as Mary’s heart or body, which are masculine in Arabic, but not mentioned in the text. These are nothing but attempts to cover up the problem, but the problem itself remains. The assumption that it was an unclean spirit that spoke through Muhammad is obvious. It is almost impossible to imagine that Muslims claim that Jibril himself did this. Here the false statement of an unclean spirit stands against the noble Holy Spirit.” (Ibid., pp. 53-54; capital emphasis ours)

      In the above indicated footnote, the author states:

      43. According to al-Nasafi: “in her vagina” (Madarik al-Tanzil, vol. 4, p. 272). (Ibid., p. 53)

      What is the conclusion? Would not this argument that has originally been constructed as an attack against the Holy Bible rather apply to the Quran and then discredit the Quran as a text of divine origin?

      SOURCE: http://answeringislam.net/Shamoun/virginalconception.htm

      This is why I consider Eric and Intellect a great blessing to Christianity since every time they open their mouths to attack the Bible they give us an opportunity to use that same point to obliterate their religion. They make great Christian apologists. 😉

      Like

    • Sam, given that you are uneducated whereas the average Islamic studies program requires more than a GED, what makes you think your writings are of any value?

      Like

    • KGETSMACKED, given that you boast that your prophet was an illiterate ignoramus that means you should trash his Quran since why would anyone take seriously an illiterate stone kissing pagan who went around having women treated as prostitutes in the guise of muta, and had captive women raped and sold off as chattel, in contrast to the Holy Bible? So here is an area that we both can agree on.

      And now enjoy!

      According to the Muslim expositors, the following passage:

      O you who believe! Make not unlawful the Taiyibat (all that is good as regards foods, things, deeds, beliefs, persons, etc.) which Allah has made lawful to you, and transgress not. Verily, Allah does not like the transgressors. S. 5:87 Hilali-Khan

      Was “revealed” to condone the practice of marrying women for a short period of time:

      Narrated Abdullah:
      We used to participate in the holy wars carried on by the Prophet and we had no women (wives) with us. So we said (to the Prophet). “Shall we castrate ourselves?” But the Prophet forbade us to do that and thenceforth he allowed us to marry a woman (temporarily) by giving her even a garment, and then he recited: “O you who believe! Do not make unlawful the good things which Allah has made lawful for you.” (Sahih al-Bukhari, Volume 6, Book 60, Number 139)

      Narrated Abdullah:
      We used to participate in the holy battles led by Allah’s Apostle and we had nothing (no wives) with us. So we said, “Shall we get ourselves castrated?” He forbade us that and then allowed us to marry women with a temporary contract and recited to us: — ‘O you who believe! Make not unlawful the good things which Allah has made lawful for you, but commit no transgression.’ (5.87) (Sahih al-Bukhari, Volume 7, Book 62, Number 13o)

      Do notice that instead of teaching his men abstinence and self-control Muhammad is the one who is actually telling his band of murdering thugs to find women to have sex with!

      Such a practice is nothing more than prostitution and it is an outright shame to label this as marriage.

      Sadly, there were instances in which women actually got pregnant through such unions:

      Yahya related to me from Malik from Ibn Shihab from Urwa ibn az-Zubayr that Khawla ibn Hakim came to Umar ibn al-Khattab and said, “Rabia ibn Umayya made a temporary marriage with a woman and she is pregnant by him.” Umar ibn al-Khattab went out in dismay dragging his cloak, saying, “This temporary marriage, had I come across it, I would have ordered stoning and done away with it!” (Malik’s Muwatta, Book 28, Number 28.18.42)

      Certain traditions claim that Muhammad abrogated this form of prostitution:

      Narrated Jabir bin ‘Abdullah and Salama bin Al-Akwa’: While we were in an army, Allah’s Apostle came to us and said, “You have been allowed to do the Mut’a (marriage), so do it.” Salama bin Al-Akwa’ said: Allah’s Apostle’s said, “If a man and a woman agree (to marry temporarily), their marriage should last for three nights, and if they like to continue, they can do so; and if they want to separate, they can do so.” I do not know whether that was only for us or for all the people in general. Abu Abdullah (Al-Bukhari) said: ‘Ali made it clear that the Prophet said, “The Mut’a marriage has been cancelled (made unlawful).” (Sahih al-Bukhari, Volume 7, Book 62, Number 52)

      However, there are other narrations which claim that Muslims continued to observe temporary marriages until the caliphate of Umar b. al-Khattab:

      Ibn Uraij reported: ‘Ati’ reported that Jabir b. Abdullah came to perform ‘Umra, and we came to his abode, and the people asked him about different things, and then they made a mention of temporary marriage, whereupon he said: Yes, we had been benefiting ourselves by this temporary marriage during the lifetime of the Holy Prophet and during the time of Abu Bakr and ‘Umar. (Sahih Muslim, Book 008, Number 3248)

      AND:

      Also (prohibited are) women already married, except those whom your right hands possess: Thus hath God ordained (Prohibitions) against you: Except for these, all others are lawful, provided ye seek (them in marriage) with gifts from your property, – desiring chastity, not lust, seeing that ye derive benefit from them, give them their dowers (at least) as prescribed; but if, after a dower is prescribed, agree Mutually (to vary it), there is no blame on you, and God is All-knowing, All-wise. S. 4:24 Y. Ali

      Tragically, this did not remain a mere abstraction but was readily put into practice by Muhammad’s sexually craved jihadists:

      Abu Sirma said to Abu Sa’id al Khadri: O Abu Sa’id, did you hear Allah’s Messenger mentioning al-‘azl? He said: Yes, and added: We went out with Allah’s Messenger on the expedition to the Bi’l-Mustaliq and took captive some excellent Arab women; and we desired them, for we were suffering from the absence of our wives, (but at the same time) we also desired ransom for them. So we decided to have sexual intercourse with them but by observing ‘azl (Withdrawing the male sexual organ before emission of semen to avoid conception). But we said: We are doing an act whereas Allah’s Messenger is amongst us; why not ask him? So we asked Allah’s Messenger, and he said: It does not matter if you do not do it, for every soul that is to be born up to the Day of Resurrection will be born. (Sahih Muslim, Book 008, Number 3371: http://searchtruth.com/book_display.php…)

      And:

      Abu Said al-Khudri said: The apostle of Allah sent a military expedition to Awtas on the occasion of the battle of Hunain. They met their enemy and fought with them. They defeated them and took them captives. Some of the Companions of the Apostle of Allah were reluctant to have intercourse with the female captives in the presence of their husbands who were unbelievers. So Allah, the Exalted, sent down the Quranic verse, ‘And all married women (are forbidden) unto you save those (captives) whom your right hands possess’. That is to say, they are lawful for them when they complete their waiting period. (Sunan Abu Dawud, Volume 2, Number 2150 http://sunnah.com/abudawud/12/110)

      Thus, Muhammad and his deity condoned and encouraged men to virtually rape their female captives whether they were married or not. Now unless this taqiyyist wants us to believe that such women whose families had just been murdered and (in some cases) whose husbands were still alive would actually consent to having sex with their captors, it should be apparent that the Islamic deity is actually permitting, and even encouraging, rape and adultery in his so-called holy book!

      How truly sad and tragic for these women that Muhammad and his god did not share the shame and concern of the jihadists regarding the highly unethical nature of raping captives whose husbands were still alive. Instead, Allah and his messenger rushed to justify such a perverted and heinous crime!

      Contrast this filth with what Deuteronomy teaches concerning the issue of female captives:

      “When you go to war against your enemies and the LORD your God delivers them into your hands and you take captives, if you notice among the captives a beautiful woman and are attracted to her, you may take her AS YOUR WIFE. Bring her into your home and have her shave her head, trim her nails and put aside the clothes she was wearing when captured. After she has lived in your house and mourned her father and mother for a full month, then you may go to her and be her husband and she shall be your wife. If you are not pleased with her, let her go wherever she wishes. You must not sell her or treat her as a slave, since you have dishonored her.” Deuteronomy 21:10-14

      Here we see that, instead of permitting men to rape captive women, the Holy Bible forces the Israelites to marry them if they wanted to have sex with them, and then letting them go free in case of a divorce. This means that the Holy Bible is actually dignifying these women by not allowing them to be treated the way Allah and his “messenger” had them treated, namely like animals. Now this is a command which predates the Quran by approximately 2200 years!

      To say that such an injunction was truly shocking and revolutionary for that time period would be a wild understatement, just as the following commentaries illustrate:

      “The law focuses on the rights of the woman by stating that the man who marries a female prisoner of war and subsequently becomes dissatisfied with her, for whatever reasons, is not permitted to reduce her to slavery. Such a woman had legal rights in ancient Israel, and moral obligations ensue from the fact that the man initiated a sexual relationship with her. Perhaps the most significant conclusion to draw from this text is the respect for the personhood of a captured woman. A primary concern in the laws of Deut 21–25 is for protecting the poor and vulnerable in society from exploitation on the part of the powerful.” (Duane L. Christensen, Word Biblical Commentary: Deuteronomy 21:10–34:12 [Thomas Nelson Publishers, Nashville, TN 2002], Volume 6b, p. 475)

      “Throughout the ancient Mediterranean world, captive women of vanquished peoples were assumed to be the due sexual prerogative of the victors. This law exceptionally seeks to provide for the human rights of the woman who falls into this predicament… the verb ‘inah is also sometimes used for rape, and its employment here astringently suggests that the sexual exploitation of a captive woman, even in a legally sanctioned arrangement of concubinage, is equivalent to rape.” (Robert Alter, The Five Books of Moses: A Translation with Commentary [W. W. Norton & Company, 2008], p. 982)

      “The instructions given for the treatment of female captives in Deuteronomy 21:10-14 take it for granted that a conquering army have the right to dispose of the conquered population in any way that it wishes. It is hard for those coming from a different cultural context to see this as anything other than appalling, but this approach would have been unquestioned within the ancient Near East, and we have to see these instructions within that setting. What is remarkable is that although the woman may have had no choice in the matter–the soldier who fancied her has every right to make her this wife–nevertheless her identity as a human being is at least to some extent recognized. She is not to be thrown into the new situation but must be allowed time to mourn for her parents and her past life… Within these oppressive situations the laws are geared to provide at least a level of protection for the women involved… Women who were bought as wives or captured in war and taken as wives could not be sold as slaves or even neglected (Ex 21.11; Deut 21.14).” (The IVP Women’s Bible Commentary, eds. Catherine Clark Kroeger & Mary J. Evans [InterVarsity Press, Downers Grove, IL 2002], pp. 100, 102)

      “The space given for weeping is not primarily a period of mourning (though it is perhaps to be assumed that the woman’s father has died in the herem; 20:13, 15). Rather, it is given in compassionate consideration of the large adjustment she must make, and the accompanying trauma. It is an acknowledgment, too, that her former life is ended and a new life is to begin (cf. Ps. 45:10). The hints of compassion breaking through the brutality of the age reflect an awareness of divine compassion, however limited by the thought climate of the times.” (Ian Cairns, Word and Presence: A Commentary on the book of Deuteronomy (International Theological Commentary), [William B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., Grand Rapids, MI 1992], p. 189)

      For more on the humanitarian nature of this OT passage we recommend the following article: A note on the humanitarian character of Deut 21.10-14: http://christianthinktank.com/remarkable.html.

      Like

    • In fact KGOTSMACKED, it is filthy, immoral teaching such as what I just posted that has led countless Muslims to leave your deen and see your prophet for what he truly was (all glory to Jesus!). Your prophet’s immorality has even caused many of them to become bold in speaking out against him publicly in order to show the world what kind of evil man he truly was, knowing full well that it may cost them their very lives. Case in point: https://www.youtube.com/user/JajaborTheNomad

      Like I said, enjoy! 😉

      Like

    • Shamoun, there is no comparison between the Prophet(saw)’s illiteracy and yours. For instance, I don’t see “Sam Shamoun” departments in universities that are dedicated to studying your achievements (you don’t have any) or your works (which are just cheap polemics and suck). Can I ask why your parents didn’t invest in your education?

      Like

    • KGOTSMACKDOWN, the reason why you don’t see any universities devoted to me is because, unlike your profit, I didn’t go around massing hordes of jihadi thugs to spread a message of hate all over the world, motivating them to murder and enslave human beings, go around raping women (even married ones), and treating them as prostitutes in the name of a false god. Had I done so then I too would be as (in)famous as your profit. 😉

      Like

    • KGOTSMACKEDDOWN, the reason why my parents didn’t invest in my education is because they wanted to prove to the Muslim world that you can be illiterate and still turn out to be a decent human being. You don’t have to become an evil immoral monster who has women raped or treated as prostitutes, giving license to grown men to engage in pederasty, or going around murdering and/or enslaving human beings. They wanted to show that a person doesn’t have turn into another Muhammad just because they happen to be illiterate. 😉

      Like

    • With the name of Allah

      Shame-on, when the holy  Qir’an 3:45-47   narrate how  prophet Jesus (p) made into being compared to Luke narrative, nothing remotely mention “vagina”. You simply lie.

      btw Farj mean “opening” or “gap” it does not mean vagina  the appropriate arabic word is “mahbal”  and when the Quran uses it, it is a symbolic term with regard to woman chastity, and besides it is nothing to do with the  conception of Prophet Jesus (p).

      I don’t know how you get this dirty imagination, too much reading of Ezekiel?

      Like

    • Shamoun:KGOTSMACKDOWN, the reason why you don’t see any universities devoted to me is because, unlike your profit, I didn’t go around…

      Or maybe you’re just a piece of shit so that no one cares about what you have to say?

      Shamoun: KGOTSMACKEDDOWN, the reason why my parents didn’t invest in my education is because they wanted to prove to the Muslim world that you can be illiterate and still turn out to be a decent human being.

      Too bad they failed miserably.

      Like

    • Speaking of Ezekiel, let us see what your god has to say about the swelling breasted whores that jihadis will be busy deflowering with their eternal erections. Here is some of the Quran’s filthy, disgusting descriptions of Allah’s whorehouse that you guys call paradise:

      Wherein both will be those (maidens) restraining their glances upon their husbands, whom no man or jinn yatmithhunna (HAS OPENED THEIR HYMENS WITH SEXUAL INTERCOURSE) before them… Houris (beautiful, fair females) restrained in pavilions; Then which of the Blessings of your Lord will you both (jinns and men) deny? Whom no man or jinn yatmithhunna (HAS OPENED THEIR HYMENS WITH SEXUAL INTERCOURSE) before them. S. 55:56, 72-74 Hilali-Khan

      Surely for the godfearing awaits a place of security, gardens and vineyards and maidens WITH SWELLING BREASTS, like of age, and a cup overflowing. S. 78:31-34 Arberry

      Thus, the Quran speaks of heavenly creatures who have swelling breasts and who shall be physically penetrated, or deflowered, by both men and jinn!

      Lest this child of Lucifer deny that the Quran describes Allah’s abode as a whore house we will cite some of Islam’s premier scholars to refute him:

      meaning, wide-eyed maidens WITH FULLY DEVELOPED BREASTS. Ibn ‘Abbas, Mujahid and others have said, …

      “This means ROUND BREASTS. They meant by this THAT THE BREASTS OF THESE GIRLS WILL BE FULLY ROUNDED AND NOT SAGGING, because they will be virgins, equal in age…” (Tafsir Ibn Kathir (Abridged), (Surat At-Tagabun to the end of the Qur’an), First Edition: September 2000, Volume 10, pp. 333-334; capital emphasis ours)

      Interestingly, there is one Sunni Muslim writer that quotes certain Muslim authorities who admit that the Quran’s language here is quite erotic and that this particular reference even causes persons to get aroused. In response to the unfairness of men having up to 70 wives whereas women will only have one husband in paradise, Shaykh G.F. Haddad states:

      We do not know with certainty that there will be such a restriction on women even if the reverse would hardly be mentionable to a decent woman. A woman in the traditional world would and does consider it a horrible thing to say to her that “You can have all the men you want”! The Qur’an would never use inappropriate language. However, the Qur’an does mention that for the inhabitants of Paradise – male and female – {There wait on them immortal youths} (56:17), {There serve them youths of everlasting youth, whom, when you see them, you would take for scattered pearls} (76:19). If this does not make a believing woman happy then, as Imam al-Shafi`i said to the one WHO IS NOT MOVED BY EROTIC POETRY, “You have no feelings.” As for the believing men, as one of the Awliya said, some of them will need GHUSL just FOR HEARING THE VERSE {Same-age young-bosomed girls} (78:33). As for us hard-hearted analphabets we may read it and read it without effect. (Haddad, Sex with slaves and women’s rights; capital emphasis ours)

      Ghusl refers, in this specific context, to the ritual bathing of the body that a Muslim must perform after sexual intercourse or because of a seminal discharge. What the author is essentially saying is that Surah 78:33 can cause a person to be aroused to such an extent that he ends up having an emission!

      Another famous commentator, ar-Razi, stated in his Tafsir (Volume 8, p. 311) that:

      “The kawa`ib are the buxom girls (nawahid) whose breasts have become FULL (taka“abat) and ROUND (tafallakat).” (Capital emphasis ours)

      This accounts for why the following translations all read breasts in Q. 78:33:

      And young full-breasted (mature) maidens of equal age; Hilali-Khan

      maidens with pears-shaped breasts who are of equal age (to their spouses) Muhammad Sarwar

      and girls with swelling breasts of the same age as themselves, Palmer

      And damsels with swelling breasts, their peers in age, Rodwell

      and [damsels] with swelling breasts, of equal age [with themselves], Sale

      Ibn Kathir said of Q. 55:56 that:

      chaste females, wives restraining their glances, desiring none except their husbands, seeing them as the most beautiful men in Paradise. This was said by Ibn `Abbas, Qatadah, `Ata’ Al-Khurasani and Ibn Zayd. It was reported that one of these wives will say to her husband, “By Allah! I neither see anything in Paradise more handsome than you nor more beloved to me than you. So praise be to Allah Who made you for me and made me for you.” Allah said, …

      meaning they are delightful virgins of comparable age who never had sexual intercourse with anyone, whether from mankind or Jinns, before their husbands. This is also a proof that the believers among the Jinns will enter Paradise. Artat bin Al-Mundhir said, “Damrah bin Habib was asked if the Jinns will enter Paradise and he said, `Yes, and they will get married. The Jinns will have Jinn women and the humans will have female humans.’” Allah’s statement, …

      Then Allah describes these women for the proposed…

      Mujahid, Al-Hasan, Ibn Zayd and others said, “They are as pure as rubies and white as Marjan.” So here they described Marjan as pearls… (Tafsir Ibn Kathir (Abridged), (Surat Al-Jathiyah to the end of Surat Al-Munafiqun), First Edition: September 2000, Volume 9, pp. 400-401; capital emphasis ours)

      He also wrote the following regarding Q. 56:35-37:

      Abu Dawud At-Tayalisi recorded that Anas said that the Messenger of Allah said…

      Anas said, “I asked, ‘O Allah’s Messenger! Will one be able to do that? He said,

      ((He will be given the strength OF A HUNDRED (MEN).))

      At-Tirmidhi also recorded it and said, “Sahih Gharib.” Abu Al-Qasim At-Tabarani recorded that Abu Hurayrah said that the Messenger of Allah was asked, “O Allah’s Messenger! Will we have sexual intercourse with our wives in Paradise?” He said…

      ((The man will be able to have sexual intercourse WITH A HUNDRED VIRGINS IN ONE DAY.))

      Al-Hafiz Abu ‘Abdullah Al-Maqisi said, “In my view, the Hadith meets the criteria of the Sahih, and Allah knows best.” (Ibid., pp. 429-430; capital emphasis ours)

      The two Jalals noted in reference to Q. 56:36 that,

      and made them virgins, immaculate – every time their spouses enter them they find them virgins, nor is there any pain [of defloration] – (Tafsir al-Jalalayn; source; bold and underline emphasis ours)

      And regarding Q. 36:55 they say:

      Indeed today the inhabitants of Paradise are busy (read fi shughlin or fi shughulin), [oblivious] to what the inhabitants of the Fire are suffering, [busy] delighting in pleasures SUCH AS DEFLOWERING VIRGINS – not busy with anything wearisome, as there is no toil in Paradise – rejoicing, blissful (fakihuna is a second predicate of inna, the first being fi shugulin, ‘busy’); (Tafsir al-Jalalayn; capital underline emphasis ours)

      And here is what the hadith compiler Ibn Majah stated about the sexual organs of the men and the maidens of paradise:

      4337. Abu ‘Umama (Allah be pleased with him) reported that Allah’s Messenger (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) said, “Allah will not admit anyone in the Paradise but Allah, the Mighty and Glorious, will marry him with seventy two wives: two will be from virgins (haurine) with big eyes and seventy will be his inheritance from the people of the Hell-Fire (1). Everyone of them will have A PLEASANT VAGINA and HE (the man) WILL HAVE A SEXUAL ORGAN THAT DOES NOT BEND DOWN (during sexual intercourse).”

      Hisham b. Khalid says, “The words ‘out of his inheritance (due) from the denizens of the Fire’, many men who will enter the Fire and the inmates of the Paradise will inherit their wives just as Faraoh’s[sic] wife will be inherited (by the believer).”

      According to al-Zawa’id, its isnad has some controversy. Al-‘Ajali has declared Khalid b. Yazid b. Abi Malik reliable while Imam Ahmad, Ibn Mu’in, Abu Dawud, Nasa’i, Ibn Jarud Sahi, ‘Uqail etc., have declare[sic] Ahmad b. Salih al-Misri da’if. (Sunan Ibn-I-Majah (Imam Abu Abdullah Muhammad b. Yazid Ibn-I-Maja Al-Qazwini), English version by Muhammad Tufail Ansari [Kazi Publications, Lahore (Pakistan), 1st edition 1995], Chapter NO. XXXIX, “The Description of the Paradise”, Volume V, p. 546; capital emphasis ours)

      So what was that about Ezekiel? 😉

      Like

    • With the name of Allah

      Oh well the Ezekiel effect come into play again, pathetic argument, the word kawaa’ib in 78:33 is also a symbolic term for mature and splendid looking women in paradise (they should be)  nothing imply profanity like in Ezekiel. Its root word is K’B means full or cube like in the Ka’ba

      Sorry shame-on only those with filthy mind imagine that  the holy Quran contains obscene language like in the bible.

      Liked by 1 person

    • “Oh well the Ezekiel effect come into play again, pathetic argument, the word kawaa’ib in 78:33 is also a symbolic term for mature and splendid looking women in paradise (they should be) nothing imply profanity like in Ezekiel. Its root word is K’B means full or cube like in the Ka’ba.”

      Your arguments go from bad to pathetic. So let’s get this straight. Your god whom you believe is all knowing and who is perfectly eloquently couldn’t find any other way to describe these whores of paradise as being mature than to speak of how big and firm their boobs are! And I guess he couldn’t find a better way to say that they are virgins than to highlight the fact that no man or jinn has penetrated or ruptured their hymens either! 😉

      No wonder you believe in Muhammad!

      Like I said, what was that about Ezekiel?

      Like

    • With the name of Allah

      Shame-on, here is a little education for you , arabic for breast is “shadiy”ثدي ,

      I can say:

      شمون يريد أن يشتري له ثدي الكبيرة

      shame-on wants to buy him big breast implants. 🙂

      well  this corresponding hebrew  cognate is used that is שְׁדֵי shedey, in book of Ezekiel 23:3

      They became prostitutes in Egypt, engaging in prostitution from their youth. In that land their breasts שְׁדֵיהֶ֔ן shedey-hen were fondled and their virgin bosoms caressed.

      there is no such a filthy thing in the holy Qur’an, no such word is used.

      Filthy imagination comes from filthy book, the Ezekiel effect.

      Liked by 1 person

    • The pagan strikes again and misses every time!

      Here goes:

      Kaaf-Ayn-Ba = SWELLING/PROMINENT/PROTUBERANT/PROJECTION/BUDDING (common examples include A WOMAN’S BREASTS), jointed-stem, fold, went away, joint/juncture/division of bones (more commonly the ankle bone), tarsus (in animals), swift, eminence/nobility/glory, anything elevated, square/cubic house/chamber, square-form, to hasten, to go away paying no regard to anything

      Quote from Lane’s lexicon: “a house or temple belonging to the tribe of Rabee’ah, who used to compass it, or perform circuits round it (as is done round the Kabbeh of Mekkeh)”. (Project Root List)

      k’ub breasts, bosom…

      ka’ab having swelling breasts, buxom (girl) (Hans Wehr, 4th edition: http://ejtaal.net/aa/#hw4=986,ll=2710,ls=23,la=3888,sg=907,ha=669,pr=134,vi=328,mgf=752,mr=596,mn=1214,aan=572,kz=2308,uqq=336,ulq=1492,uqa=375,uqw=1413,umr=947,ums=792,umj=718,bdw=772,amr=557,asb=857,auh=1389,dhq=488,mht=788,msb=211,tla=89,amj=709,ens=411,mis=1901)

      Still not satisfied? Well here is some more for you:

      meaning, wide-eyed maidens WITH FULLY DEVELOPED BREASTS. Ibn ‘Abbas, Mujahid and others have said, …

      “This means ROUND BREASTS. They meant by this THAT THE BREASTS OF THESE GIRLS WILL BE FULLY ROUNDED AND NOT SAGGING, because they will be virgins, equal in age…” (Tafsir Ibn Kathir (Abridged), (Surat At-Tagabun to the end of the Qur’an), First Edition: September 2000, Volume 10, pp. 333-334; capital emphasis ours)

      Interestingly, there is one Sunni Muslim writer that quotes certain Muslim authorities who admit that the Quran’s language here is quite erotic and that this particular reference even causes persons to get aroused. In response to the unfairness of men having up to 70 wives whereas women will only have one husband in paradise, Shaykh G.F. Haddad states:

      We do not know with certainty that there will be such a restriction on women even if the reverse would hardly be mentionable to a decent woman. A woman in the traditional world would and does consider it a horrible thing to say to her that “You can have all the men you want”! The Qur’an would never use inappropriate language. However, the Qur’an does mention that for the inhabitants of Paradise – male and female – {There wait on them immortal youths} (56:17), {There serve them youths of everlasting youth, whom, when you see them, you would take for scattered pearls} (76:19). If this does not make a believing woman happy then, as Imam al-Shafi`i said to the one WHO IS NOT MOVED BY EROTIC POETRY, “You have no feelings.” As for the believing men, as one of the Awliya said, some of them will need GHUSL just FOR HEARING THE VERSE {Same-age young-bosomed girls} (78:33). As for us hard-hearted analphabets we may read it and read it without effect. (Haddad, Sex with slaves and women’s rights; capital emphasis ours)

      Ghusl refers, in this specific context, to the ritual bathing of the body that a Muslim must perform after sexual intercourse or because of a seminal discharge. What the author is essentially saying is that Surah 78:33 can cause a person to be aroused to such an extent that he ends up having an emission!

      Another famous commentator, ar-Razi, stated in his Tafsir (Volume 8, p. 311) that:

      “The kawa`ib are the buxom girls (nawahid) whose breasts have become FULL (taka“abat) and ROUND (tafallakat).” (Capital emphasis ours)

      This accounts for why the following translations all read breasts in Q. 78:33:

      And young full-breasted (mature) maidens of equal age; Hilali-Khan

      maidens with pears-shaped breasts who are of equal age (to their spouses) Muhammad Sarwar

      and girls with swelling breasts of the same age as themselves, Palmer

      And damsels with swelling breasts, their peers in age, Rodwell

      and [damsels] with swelling breasts, of equal age [with themselves], Sale

      Now unlike Ezekiel which depicts idolatry as sexual perversion and is therefore not referring to actual physical breasts, your god is giving you a literal description of just how big and firm the boobs of those whores whom jihadis like you will spend all eternity deflowering happen to be.

      Like I said, what was that about Ezekiel? 🙂

      Like

    • With the name of Allah

      Shame,

      I have all access to all arabic dictionary I am aware of all the possible meaning of the word  kawaa’ib , those are all symbolic meaning, which denote splendour mature woman. I can understand that since you have litle education to learn anything about  Qur’anic balagha.

      Because this allegorical arabs use the word kawaa’ib in order to convey the meaning of “breast” not in general arabic not in technical nor in medical term , the correct word is shadiy the one which is used your book 🙂 . This is a literal meaning of breast or boob or whatever dirty term you love to play with.

      Like

    • With the name of Allah

      correction:

      Shame,

      I have all access to all arabic dictionary I am aware of all the possible meaning of the word  kawaa’ib , those are all symbolic meaning, which denote splendour mature woman. I can understand that since you have litle education to learn anything about  Qur’anic balagha.

      Because this allegorical meaning, no arabs use the word kawaa’ib in order to convey the meaning of “breast” not in general arabic not in technical nor in medical term , the correct word is shadiy the one which is used your book 🙂 . This is a literal meaning of breast or boob or whatever dirty term you love to play with.

      Liked by 1 person

    • ” the Holy Spirit is a spirit, unseen, invisible. Luke was written around 61-62 AD, centuries before the Qur’an, and it was already God-breathed centuries before the Qur’an. The Qur’an is the one that comes some 600 years later and changes things and corrupts things.”

      “The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; therefore the child to be born[e] will be called holy—the Son of God.”

      but it cast out jesus into the wilderness. your god cast your god into the wilderness and the casting must have some kind of force. so your god was casting “the mother of god” vagina.
      it is rape in a sense.

      Like

    • no; that is ridiculous and blasphemous and ugly to accuse the Holy (Pure) Spirit of God of “rape”. “overshadow” by a Spirit has NO physical implication. God put His nature in the womb of Mary, combined with a human nature, without any physical harm or force, etc.

      The Spirit led or guided Jesus to go into the desert for a purpose, which He agreed to. Matthew 4; Luke 4; Mark 1:12 does not mean “force” or “cast out”, rather internally motivated and impelled – a strong conviction of guidance and of course Jesus Himself knew He must go to the dessert to be tempted by the devil so that He could be a model for us humans on how to resist the devil.

      Like

  23. basis

    not

    basic

    became part of the basis of the Roman Catholic later dogma that Mary . . .

    Like

  24. should have been:

    and most Protestants today don’t agree with the Roman Catholic or Eastern Orthodox on this issue.

    At the time of Reformation, Luther still held to that; and Calvin said no one should make a big deal out of it either way; and later, in the 1700s, John Wesley held to it.

    Like

  25. But the quotations, while clearly meaning to censure Christian belief, do not in fact quote actual Christian usage of the era.

    Yes, this shows the failure of the Qur’an to know and understand what Christians believed at the time, and the inaccuracy of the Qur’an.

    Rather, the Christians in the Qur’an’s milieu would have said, ‘the Messiah is God, the Son of God’, and they would also have said, ‘the Treble One, the One of Three, is God’. But for reasons of orthodoxy they would never have said that God is Jesus; rather, they would have said Jesus is God.

    ok, except that word “treble” is kind of a strange English word to use here. They said “Trinitas Unitas” (three in one) in Latin.

    It seems clear, therefore, . . .

    No, it is not clear. This is just a bold assertion of his in order to avoid the fact that the Qur’an does not know – it is ignorant of the doctrines.

    . . . that here the Qur’an, aware of actual Christian usage,

    no; the Qur’an is not aware, which shows it is not from God.

    . . . has for its own rhetorical polemical reasons, reversed the customary Christian order of words in these formulaic phrases in order the more effectively to highlight what it considers wrong about Christian faith in Jesus, and to criticise what it regards as the objectionable Christian doctrine that God has a Son and that He is the Messiah, Jesus of Nazareth.

    The Qur’an seems to have picked up on some pious popular beliefs and practices of Christians – icons and statues of Mary, exalting Mary, praying to Mary, calling Mary, “the Mother of God” (Theotokos) – Nestorius objected to that, and he was right in one sense; calling Mary the Mother of God will lead to people misunderstanding the original intent of the phrase. the original intent was to say that Jesus was God by nature / substance from His conception in the womb of Mary, that when He was born He was God, not that He became God later at His baptism (which some heretics taught = Adoptionism). The Muslims sincerely thought that the Christians had three gods – the Father, the Son, and the Mother, but even the Orthodox Chalcedonians and the Latin Church, which later became both Eastern Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism, did not beleive that. They exalted and emphasized Mary too much, and prayed to her, but they never thought she was part of the Trinity or a “goddess”.

    Like

  26. Ken Temple

    It is Christians who are ignorant of the doctrine of Trinity, hence forming councils upon councils to figure it out. Quran is here to correct Any Trinity including Rastafarian and other Trinities but not your Trinity alone Ken. Do not say 3. Including any Trinity of Emperor Haile Selaissie but not the Trinity of Dr. James White and Ken Temple alone.

    The Quran is here just to correct but not define doctrines. Voodoo priest who worships snakes and believes God has manifested himself into snake will follow your argument and say the Quran does not understand he the voodoo believe by not defining his doctrine of idol worship of snakes and other things.

    Rastafarians will say God did not define and understand their Trinity as well.

    You said;
    The Muslims sincerely thought that the Christians had three gods – the Father, the Son, and the Mother, but even the Orthodox Chalcedonians and the Latin Church, which later became both Eastern Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism, did not beleive that. They exalted and emphasized Mary too much, and prayed to her, but they never thought she was part of the Trinity or a “goddess”.

    I say;
    That is your wishful thinking. Which Muslim ever wrote that Christians Trinity is God, Son and Mother of Jesus? Evidence please. Do not draw Muslims in your councils upon councils to define Trinity. Defining Trinity is your problem and not our problem.

    You have problem in that and why force Muslims into defining your Trinity that Christians kill themselves about it.

    THE QURAN NEVER DEFINE TRINITY. THE QURAN CORRECTS ALL TRINITIES, WORSHIP OF MAN AND WORSHIP OF WOMAN SUCH AS PROPHET JESUS AND HIS MOTHER MARY.

    NO BODY KNOWS THE HOLY SPIRIT BUT THAT SPIRIT COMES IN ALL HUMAN BEINGS AND CAN BE EVIL SPIRIT OR GODLY BUT NOT GOD HIMSELF.

    VODOO, SIKH, IDOL WORSHIPERS, JEWS, MUSLIMS, BUDDHIST, ETC EXPERIENCE SOME SORT OF SPIRIT IF THEY MEDITATE.

    CHRISTIANITY CAN NOT BULLY US TO SAY WHAT SPIRIT IT EXPERIENCE IS BETTER THAN OTHERS WITHOUT PROOF LIKE HOW THEY ARE LYING THAT THEY HAVE TICKET TO HEAVEN.

    If you worship the God of Abraham and Moses who did not say he is “3 persons” or “limited to 3 persons” then you spiritual experience is from God of Abraham and Moses because they never worshiped Jesus or 3 persons.

    Thanks.

    Like

  27. Ken Temple

    You said;
    A shadow or spirit cannot rape, since He – the Holy Spirit is God and is incapible of sin – there is no force or physicality to this at all. the Holy Spirit is a spirit, unseen, invisible. Luke was written around 61-62 AD, centuries before the Qur’an, and it was already God-breathed centuries before the Qur’an. The Qur’an is the one that comes some 600 years later and changes things and corrupts things.

    I say;
    But the Holy Spirit had a vaginal birth. How can that be so, if the Holy Spirit is not physical and had to overshadow Mary. God(God-Man) had to come through the physical birth process and had to stay in Mary’s womb for many months and that is physical but you are saying spirit has nothing physical but according to the God(God-Man) birth the spirit undergoes physical process.

    Thanks.

    Like

  28. Paul’s Pal

    You said;
    In fact KGOTSMACKED, it is filthy, immoral teaching such as what I just posted that has led countless Muslims to leave your deen and see your prophet for what he truly was (all glory to Jesus!). Your prophet’s immorality has even caused many of them to become bold in speaking out against him publicly in order to show the world what kind of evil man he truly was, knowing full well that it may cost them their very lives. Case in point: https://www.youtube.com/user/JajaborTheNomad

    Like I said, enjoy!😉

    I say;
    Paul Williams, Abdullah Kunde, Yusuf Estes, Dr. Gerald Dirks(Masters of Divinity), Dr. Lawrence Brown(Christian Masters of Divinity), Hamza Yusuf, Dr. Ingrid Matson, Susan Carland, Dr. Gary Miller, Dr. Jeffrey Laing, Imam John, Imam Tim Humble, Imam Shuaib Webb, etc. are all from Christian background and most of them have become Islamic scholars. Most former Christians like Paul Williams are pointing the errors in Christian faith, especially Trinity.

    You brought a youtube person without specifying his Islamic or Christian qualification like you to think you can convince anyone. It is your wishful thinking.

    Islam is the fastest growing religion and it is evidence who convert takes it serious and become Islamic scholars like the above.

    You only have Nabeel Quraish as a former fake Muslim(Qadiani) who lies that he is a sunni Muslim and will go to Syria to fight. Ahmadiyas are passive and will not go to Syria to fight but Nabeel Quraish, the only ex-Muslim you have lied on this one.

    Thanks.

    Liked by 1 person

  29. Intellect wrote:
    But the Holy Spirit had a vaginal birth.

    What kind of goof-ball are you?

    You don’t understanding anything it seems, with such a nutty comment.

    the Holy Spirit was not born, the Holy Spirit is a spirit.

    jesus was born 9 months later.

    The conception of the Son in the womb of Mary is spiritual, unseen, non-physical.

    once the human Jesus is conceived, the human physical Jesus was born in the normal way, but that is not sin.

    God created sex and He created the birth process. There is absolutely nothing wrong with the birth of Jesus.

    But the Holy Spirit conceiving the nature/substance of God in the womb of Mary with the human nature is purely spiritual and had nothing to do with sex or the vagina, etc.

    it is similar to the command “be, and it is”, except it is God putting His spiritual nature in there without any violation of Mary.

    Like

    • “What kind of goof-ball are you?

      You don’t understanding anything it seems, with such a nutty comment.

      the Holy Spirit was not born, the Holy Spirit is a spirit.

      jesus was born 9 months later.

      The conception of the Son in the womb of Mary is spiritual, unseen, non-physical.”

      what kind of a gipsy are you?
      your god ——————-invisible ————————-to visible

      so what in your god BECAME visible?
      so “holy spirit” even in invisible nature thrashing and bashing flesh.
      satan thrashing and bashing jesus in the wild, satan = invisible.
      yhwh requires human senses /physical flesh to smell, taste, touch, see , hear

      all physical
      all flesh
      all physical raping , fondling and touching

      “yhwh” was being nursed by his mother and sucking her off

      if mary was seen giving jesus milk , you christians would say “yhwh, the divine being, is physically drinking milk and seeing himself gulp his mums milk”

      physical + visible + touching + feeling + sexual.

      its all physical and sexual.

      Like

    • Robert2016 – you are so nutty that I just ignore most of your statements. You use dirty language and are bombastic, so I just ignore you.

      Like

  30. Intellect wrote:
    But the Holy Spirit had a vaginal birth.

    What kind of goof-ball are you?

    You don’t understanding anything it seems, with such a nutty comment.

    the Holy Spirit was not born, the Holy Spirit is a spirit.

    jesus was born 9 months later.

    The conception of the Son in the womb of Mary is spiritual, unseen, non-physical.

    once the human Jesus is conceived, the human physical Jesus was born in the normal way, but that is not sin.

    God created sex and He created the birth process. There is absolutely nothing wrong with the birth of Jesus.

    But the Holy Spirit conceiving the nature/substance of God in the womb of Mary with the human nature is purely spiritual and had nothing to do with sex or the vagina, etc.

    it is similar to the command “be, and it is”, except it is God putting His spiritual nature in there without any violation of Mary.

    Like

    • Ken Temple

      You said;
      it is similar to the command “be, and it is”, except it is God putting His spiritual nature in there without any violation of Mary.

      I say;
      “Be and it is” does not mean God putting His nature/Himself/part of Himself(Holy Spirit) in to Mary’s womb but His spirit that He created. We all have our spirit that God created put into our mothers womb like Jesus. Jesus Mother did not have sex according to Islam and so there is no overshadow.

      “Be and it is” is spiritual but not overshadow. Overshadow is not spiritual but physical like in vitro fertilization.

      Overshadow defined

      verb

      1. tower above and cast a shadow over.
      “an enormous oak tree stood overshadowing the cottage”

      synonyms: cast a shadow over, shade, darken, conceal, obscure, screen; dominate, overlook
      “a massive hill overshadows the town”

      •cast a gloom over.
      “it is easy to let this feeling of tragedy overshadow his story”

      synonyms: cast gloom over, blight, take the edge off, mar, spoil, ruin
      “this feeling of tragedy overshadowed his story”

      2. appear much more prominent or important than.
      “his competitive nature often overshadows the other qualities

      OVERSHADOW MEANS TO CAST, DOMINATE etc.

      Source: https://www.google.ca/?gfe_rd=cr&ei=djQ6V53wKIPF8ge-v56AAQ&gws_rd=ssl#q=what+is+overshadow

      dom·i·na·trix

      /ˌdäməˈnātriks/

      a dominating woman, especially one who takes the sadistic role in sadomasochistic sexual activities.

      Source: https://www.google.ca/?gfe_rd=cr&ei=djQ6V53wKIPF8ge-v56AAQ&gws_rd=ssl#q=dominatrix

      Mr. Ken and other Christians friends. We are not using these filthy words for God i.e. God died for your sins, God is begotten, God who is Holy Spirit overshadow/dominate a woman, One God generating/creating another God, 3 Persons/persons 1 God, Son i.e. Jesus is God, God is not immortal, God is whole and Jesus is whole but separated his persons and one died for your sins etc.

      You Christians are saying all these things and some are not in the Bible and we are saying and the Quran is saying stop saying that. The Quran did not define Trinity anyway because there are several Trinities like Emperor Haile Selaissie Trinity.

      Thanks.

      Like

    • overshadow does not mean “to dominate”. these comments are ridiculous

      Like

    • the idea of physical contact is not EXCLUDED from the greek luke has used in his description of the event.

      Like

    • Yes it is; there is nothing physical in “power of the Most High” and “the Holy Spirit will over-shadow you” – it is all spiritual unseen power, non-physical, non-corporeal

      Like

    • Ken Temple

      You said;
      overshadow does not mean “to dominate”. these comments are ridiculous

      I say;
      May be your Trinity did not allow you to read the dictionary I provided. I always provide links so that it will not appear I am making words up.

      Begotten means begotten, son means son, dead means dead, man means man, generates means create, etc. and all is not good words to use for God no matter how you understands it. The Quran says do not use such words for God no matter how you understands it. It is not about your understanding but about the words being impure for the Almighty God.

      According to you God is physically present in the womb of Mary, so there is physical contact there, that is why Jesus became a hybrid God Man.

      Islam says no. God created his spirit and used His word BE and Jesus was created and Jesus is not God.

      Thanks.

      Like

    • It does not matter what some definitons of words are given as possibilities in a dictionary. words have meaning in context and sentence and the way the author uses a word.

      The way Luke uses the word does not mean “dominate” and then you brought in the word “dominatrix” (you should be ashamed of yourself)

      So, No; in Luke 1:34-35 it does not mean “to dominate”; a spirit that overshadows – like a shadow is non-physical, that is why Mary was a virgin. Verse 26 and Matthew 1:18-25 says she was a virgin. Begotten was the wrong English translation for monogenes – it is “unique one” or “one of a kind”. the only unique son of God from all eternity. No sex.

      It was a spiritual thing.

      The son became a human/physical in the womb of Mary later; just like in Islam, “be, and it became”.

      Like

  31. شمون يريد أن يشتري له ثدي الكبيرة

    with the arabic i have bro kissam

    laysa darooriy lahu akhee eric . lakad ladayhu taditayn kabeeratayn.

    Like

  32. “no; that is ridiculous and blasphemous and ugly to accuse the Holy (Pure) Spirit of God of “rape”. “overshadow” by a Spirit has NO physical implication. God put His nature in the womb of Mary, combined with a human nature, without any physical harm or force, etc.”

    Phonetic Spelling: (ek-bal’-lo)
    Short Definition: I throw, cast, put out, banish, bring forth, produce
    Definition: I throw (cast, put) out; I banish; I bring forth, produce.

    bring forth, cast forth, drive out, expel.

    jesus entered into the temple and the author has him USE the same word to throw and cast things out.

    since jesus = physical and was physically casted out by the “ruh” then mary “mother of god” must have received some kind of physical insertion by “ruh” or “holy spirit”
    since both “yhwh” and spirit” had to overshadow and come UPON then these act is clearly cornering and inserting in “mother of god”

    yhwh, your god raped his mother and then sucked her off for 2 years
    yhwh was sucking off his mother for 2 years

    if you are not shameful christian , you would see mary nursing yhwh and admit yhwh was sucking off his mum.

    “The Spirit led or guided Jesus to go into the desert for a purpose, which He agreed to. Matthew 4; Luke 4; Mark 1:12 does not mean “force” or “cast out”

    BULLSHIT

    you are a liar!

    it literally means to cast out
    same word is used when jesus tries to strike a deal with beelzebub and cast out the devils

    you are a filthy original sin stained germ


    , rather internally motivated and impelled – a strong conviction of guidance and of course Jesus Himself knew He must go to the dessert to be tempted by the devil so that He could be a model for us humans on how to resist the devil.”

    so satan , unseen spirit, was entering jesus and throwing him about /casting him. and making him think evil things. surprise surprise, mark just selects few bits of temptations but doesn’t tell us all the sins jesus thought of and did to himself.

    Like

    • the point was just like jesus FELT the pushing and shoving by “the holy spirit”
      and “satan”
      the vagina or insides of virgin mary must’ve experienced some kind fondling or physical feeling which when she was jumped on by the “holy spirit”
      there has do be physical/spiritual sex between yhwh and his mother
      there has to be
      all throughout the ot yhwh has to become physical to speak to the jews, right?
      so think about it
      physical activities of touching, fondling and feeling up
      all i am asking you to do is think about it.

      you don’t deny that it exited the vagina, why do you deny that it didn’t enter the vagina?

      Like

  33. here is the literal translation

    http://biblehub.com/interlinear/mark/1-12.htm

    christians like ken are trying to avoid the force and explicitness of how invisible “ruh” done over “jesus” by casting him out

    Like

  34. “well this corresponding hebrew cognate is used that is שְׁדֵי shedey, in book of Ezekiel 23:3

    They became prostitutes in Egypt, engaging in prostitution from their youth. In that land their breasts שְׁדֵיהֶ֔ן shedey-hen were fondled and their virgin bosoms caressed.

    there is no such a filthy thing in the holy Qur’an, no such word is used.

    Filthy imagination comes from filthy book, the Ezekiel effect.”

    eric, yhwh used to take on physical flesh to smell, taste, touch, feel jewish men and women
    in the gospels he was nursed by his mum

    bro eric
    ezekiel verse 23:3

    3وزنتا بمصر. في صباهما زنتا. هناك دغدغت ثديّهما

    hunaak daghatghat tadayhuma LOL lol

    LOL

    man there book is dirty as porn

    you can actually see the filth in the arabic

    woah!

    Like

  35. it is interesting to note that the words luke has used for yhwh overshadowing and pinning mary do not EXCLUDE PHYSICAL contact

    the greek supports the idea of PHYSICAL contact

    “over powering vitality”
    “on rushing”

    so the idea of physical contact is present in the text of luke. according to christians yhwh requires sense of touch, smell, taste etc etc to make “contact” with human beings

    “the power of the most high will overshadow you”

    physical contact is not ruled out from these texts

    mary, the mother of “yhwh” did receive something physical from “yhwh”

    since yhwh also “hovers” then birds also “hover” and spread there seed

    “yhwh” spreads his wind

    the idea of physical contact is there

    jesus is handled by an unseen spirit and before that he is cast out into the wilderness by “holy spirit”

    physical contact cannot be ruled out.

    Like

  36. To all.

    If the Trinitarian God is not physically present in Mary’s womb, then what does He want in her womb? Jesus the man has a physical contact with Jesus the God because he is both God and Man at the same time. It means God has physical contact with Man Jesus and make it a whole 2 Persons/persons God with other 2 Persons the Father and the Holy Spirit. It becomes 4 Persons in 1.

    Christians like Dr. James White will say “That is not what we believe”. My dear Doctor, it is not about what you believe but what things mean.

    3 means 3

    dead means dead

    begotten means begotten

    Son/son means Son/son

    Overshadow means overshadow

    Dominate a woman means dominate a woman etc.

    The Quran says stop using all those words be it literal or metaphorical that does not befit God. The Quran is not defining you Trinity, I am afraid. There are so many Trinities.

    Thanks.

    Like


  37. If the Trinitarian God is not physically present in Mary’s womb, then what does He want in her womb? ”

    like i said before bro, the christians are forced to make invisible physical and created otherwise they are placing god in time and location without him actually being there

    meaning he isnt being held and isnt connected to the developing embryo.

    they must accept that the “overshadowing ” and “pinning” of “mother of god” has something physical within it otherwise the whole “god becoming weak man” makes no sense

    how can they have a god do an unphysical act yet he himself becomes physical and visible?
    does that make sense?

    Like

  38. when they say “god became man”

    “god” obviously would mean an unseen invisible being which would become visible.

    their theology teaches them that god must take on form to communicate with humans

    so it makes logical sense that “yhwh” had some kind of sexual act with “mother of god”

    the pagan greeko language luke uses does not EXCLUDE physical contact

    1 2 3 4
    invisible ——-> weak ——–> visible ——- man.

    obviously 4 is derived from 1

    invisible changes into visible or becomes weak and created

    it was not unphysical rape

    it was physical rape and luke used language which does not EXCLUDE physical rape.

    Like

  39. it cannot logically be an UNPHYSICAL “overshadowing” because it produced human soul confined to human body ALL DERIVED FROM invisible god

    so the act /or seed yhwh overshadowed mary with must have something measurable and physical otherwise it makes no sense that invisible act by invisible being, yet no physical interaction which produced a physical and measurable yhwh in the womb of mary.

    once you have your god “overshadowing ” an earthly girl make sure you christians have him as a physical incarnate being.

    that’s the point.

    Like

  40. or are christians happy to believe that they have a “womb god” which is detached from an “outside god” ??

    the “outside god” must become “womb god” by becoming “one” with object of “overshadowing” through some type of physical act.

    yhwh did an act of overshadowing in but nothing in that act was physical, then how did it produce a physical and measurable yhwh in the womb of mary?

    and this same physical and measurable yhwh is derived from the invisible yhwh ?

    yhwh did the practice of physical act of overshadowing and through physical coitus he impregnated his mother.

    this is the truth and it cannot be denied

    Like

  41. “Yes it is; there is nothing physical in “power of the Most High” and “the Holy Spirit will over-shadow you” – it is all spiritual unseen power, non-physical, non-corporeal”

    1. did your god enter mary?

    2. how much of him entered mary?

    3. when pagan gods “over shadow” and “come upon” why do we understand it as physical union?

    4. has yhwh become seen, physical and corporeal in the past?

    5. can unseen spirit cause flesh to feel things?

    6. did mary, when she was overshadowed , feel physical insemination?

    7. why has your god used language which imply an over powering of human being ?

    8. how did is it unseen, non-physical and non corporeal when it’ spirit nature becomes seen, physical and corporpeal in the womb of mary?

    Like

  42. “So, No; in Luke 1:34-35 it does not mean “to dominate”; a spirit that overshadows – like a shadow is non-physical, that is why Mary was a virgin. Verse 26 and Matthew 1:18-25 says she was a virgin. Begotten was the wrong English translation for monogenes – it is “unique one” or “one of a kind”. the only unique son of God from all eternity. No sex.

    It was a spiritual thing.

    The son became a human/physical in the womb of Mary later; just like in Islam, “be, and it became”.

    ken, have you ever spoken to people who have experienced shadowy ghosts? what makes you think mary did not experience the shadowy ghost?

    if you use your brains, why didn’t yhwh simply say , “let there be baby, and there was baby ” ???

    so logically yhwh did the act of mounting and coming on mary .

    did mary get mounted on ON earth?

    this means your god was on earth

    when your god is on earth , he becomes CORPOREAL ,so why do you not accept that shadowy figure physically make over mary?

    Like

  43. since God the Father and the Holy Spirit are spirits (non-physical, non-corporeal), all of your arguments are completely stupid, foolish, and ugly and blasphemous.

    Like

    • “since God the Father and the Holy Spirit are spirits (non-physical, non-corporeal),”

      when the evil spirits were in the bodies of men ,were they controlling the body? when the evil spirits went into pigs were they controlling the pig body?

      yes or no?

      yes or no?

      yes or no????

      Like

    • But God the Father and the Holy Spirit are holy, pure, good, and gentle, and without any sin.

      The evil spirits in the pig are violent and impure and sinful.

      Like

  44. “since God the Father and the Holy Spirit are spirits (non-physical, non-corporeal), all of your arguments are completely stupid, foolish, and ugly and blasphemous.”

    why are you identifying each one as “father ” and “holy s” when each = “spirits” ?

    you really have spirits with same powers, right?

    spirit 1
    2
    3

    why do you say “non-physical” when god BECAME physical in the body of mary?

    the spirit CHANGED into physical otherwise “became” does not mean CHANGE

    you then believe the spirit of god did not CHANGE into man which means “man” and “spirit” are two SEPARATE things.

    if you agree god became BODY in mary’s body and has experienced things as a man in the ancient days of israel , then from all this information spirit 1 + 2 + 3 over shadow mary in some kind of physical way.

    yhwh became CORPOREAL in earth

    yhwh over shadow mary on EARTH

    why do christians argue about non-physicality of god when they are at pains to prove god BECAME MAN?

    why now are you DISTANCING your god FROM physically overshadowing mary?

    why

    why why ?????

    Like

  45. Once conception took place, the joining of the divine nature with a human nature in the womb of Mary, THEN, yes Jesus is a physical embryo who will grow for 9 months and be born as a baby in the normal way. There is nothing sinful or wrong with that.

    This is not as hard as you guys are making this out to me.

    Like

  46. “But God the Father and the Holy Spirit are holy, pure, good, and gentle, and without any sin.

    The evil spirits in the pig are violent and impure and sinful.”

    do you know what straw man is?

    “Once conception took place, the joining of the divine nature with a human nature in the womb of Mary, THEN, yes Jesus is a physical embryo who will grow for 9 months and be born as a baby in the normal way. There is nothing sinful or wrong with that.”

    is the SPIRIT A PHYSICAL EMBRYO? i am asking about “the word”
    not “jesus”

    “the word”

    did “the word” have sense of touch, taste, sight, hearing and smell?

    remember “the spirit” does not start of as flesh, but as spirit

    or was it simply DISABLED and unfeeling

    if yhwh entered EARTH And over shadowed mother mary “holy mother of god”

    it must have experiencies CORPOREALITY, right?

    Like

    • The Word of God (John 1:1-5), the eternal Son (John 17:5) did not have physicality before the conception in the womb of Mary.

      This is just that hard.

      You guys are being deliberately obtuse and ugly and obstinate.

      Like

  47. it would be undeniable that some sort of physical overshadowing was taking place. yhwh becomes forms on planet earth. remember what “d” said?

    Like

  48. “Once conception took place, the joining of the divine nature with a human nature in the womb of Mary, THEN, yes Jesus is a physical embryo who will grow for 9 months and be born as a baby in the normal way. There is nothing sinful or wrong with that.”

    you are using “joining” but you are now dropping the word “becoming”
    didn’t anyone tell you that

    “joining”

    and “becoming”

    are two different words?

    if yhwh joined embryo to himself then was “the spirit” shrunk to embryo size?

    was it in blastocyst?

    did the spirit have any type of BECOMING /physicality to it?

    Like

  49. For Paul Williams on the issue of the apocrypha books of the Jews:

    from the Roman Catholic Cardinal Cajetan, a contemporary of Martin Luther:

    “Here we close our commentaries on the historical books of the Old Testament. For the rest (that is, Judith, Tobit, and the books of Maccabees) are counted by St. Jerome out of the canonical books, and are placed amongst the apocrypha, along with Wisdom and Ecciesiasticus, as is plain from the Protogus Galeatus. Nor be thou disturbed, like a raw scholar, if thou shouldest find anywhere, either in the sacred councils or the sacred doctors, these books reckoned as canonical. For the words as well of councils as of doctors are to be reduced to the correction of Jerome.

    see full article here:

    https://beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/2016/05/cajetans-quote-on-apocrypha-is.html

    This shows the issue was still debated in 1518-1521, and only at the Council of Trent (1545-1563) did the Roman Catholic Church dogmatically declare the Apocrypha books as “deutero-canonical” – “secondarily received into the canon.”

    Like

    • was “the word” shrunk to the size of embryo
      or did “the word” BECOME embryo?

      Like

    • this is quite misleading. The opinion of one churchman does not effect the fact that the canon of scripture as attested by Augustine as universally accepted by the Church at his time continued to be the accepted canon by the Christian Church all the way to Trent.

      Like

    • No read the whole article and the quotes from scholars and RC priests, even who came to Trent. You must not know about the Roman Catholic method of something that is “pious belief” vs. “dogmatic belief”.

      Like

    • Gregory 1, the bishop of Rome in 590-604 AD, also agreed. Research the issue. It is more than just “one churchman” – Jerome, Gregory 1, Cardinal Cajetan, other Cardinals, priests, scholars at Trent, etc.

      Like

  50. The Word of God (John 1:1-5), the eternal Son (John 17:5) did not have physicality before the conception in the womb of Mary.

    This is just NOT that hard.

    You guys are being deliberately obtuse and ugly and obstinate.

    Like

  51. the Word – does not have size. A spirit does have size.
    The case is closed.

    Like

    • “the Word – does not have size. A spirit does have size.
      The case is closed.”

      so did “the word” become a spirit in embryo?

      Like

  52. if it hurt you saying ugly thing about god, how much hurt do you cause people when you tell them god pass flatulence?

    Like

    • God Himself thought of the bowel system and digestion process and gases, and created the process, etc.

      come on; you guys are being so childish.

      Jesus as a human (a divine person with 2 natures) – it is not a problem.

      Like

  53. “the Word – does not have size. A spirit does have size.
    The case is closed.”

    it didn’t close since the birth of pauline christianity.

    if “word” does not have “size” then human embryo did not contain it.

    thanks

    oblige.

    Like


  54. No; not before the Incarnation in Luke 1:34-35; John 1:14, no.”

    yhwh did not become man in ot times?
    can you repeat your answer again

    Like

  55. manifestations or “the angel of the LORD” are not incarnations.

    not the same thing.

    Like


  56. God Himself thought of the bowel system and digestion process and gases, and created the process, etc.

    come on; you guys are being so childish.

    Jesus as a human (a divine person with 2 natures) – it is not a problem.”

    so he created the process of digestion in his spirit, right?

    Like

  57. “manifestations or “the angel of the LORD” are not incarnations.

    not the same thing.”

    yhwh is an angel?

    Like

  58. “in his spirit” = ?

    the process of digestion is in the physical body, the human nature.

    Like

    • i did’nt mention the “human nature” did i?

      i keep on repeating for a thousand times

      what did “the spirit ” become????????????

      what in “the spirit” BECAME something weak?

      Like

  59. when yhwh overshadowed mary , was he on planet earth?

    Like

  60. yhwh “the spirit” over shadows human body

    after yhwh “the spirit” finds himself in the womb of a human female.

    was “the spirit” in embryo?

    yes or no ?

    Like

  61. are you agreed that if yhwh became an embryo and did overshadowing on human body on earth then physicality must be involved because it cause a yhwh in the womb?

    Like

  62. ken, was your god in embryo?

    you keep avoiding answering the question
    was yhwh in the embryo of mary and did it shrink to go in embryo?

    did yhwh become embryo?

    look how you are answering

    “Once conception took place, the joining of the divine nature with a human nature in the womb of Mary, THEN, yes Jesus is a physical embryo who will grow for 9 months and be born as a baby in the normal way. There is nothing sinful or wrong with that.”

    you said “joining”

    does that mean yhwh joined embryo to himself without going in the body of mary?

    you are deliberately not answering questions

    why?

    was it yhwh + embryo and yhwh was not in the body?

    Like

  63. ken , can the human baby experience some levels of divinity?
    can the divine person experience some levels of human nature?

    Like

  64. christian theology teaches that god made everyone “born in sin” and adam seem to have been given a will which would have EASILY corrupted him.

    1. god made easy to reach tree
    2. put in will and desire in adam which would easily corrupt him
    3. showed no lee way
    4. one sin DOOMED adam

    when the christian is asked

    “why can’t God punish me in this life or why can’t He have enough mercy in his heart to understand that He made human weak?”

    christian will say

    “because one sin is enough and god need innocent virgin to shed”

    which then mean that even an INFANT born this minute is not innocent enough for this god.
    this god
    need shedding of his innocent virgin lamb
    (although he don’t shed himself because he never really BECAME animal/lamb/human)

    so god’s “justice” require “innocent virgin” and then virgin blood is used as detergent to calm this god every time christian step out of line

    people

    is this really justice?

    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: