An excellent question 



Categories: Islam

206 replies

  1. Jesus was also man, and the Divine Nature of Jesus did not die; so the answer is not a contradiction.
    Jesus rose Himself up from the dead. John 10:18; John 2:19-22 – powerful !!

    Like

    • Ken, there’s actually debate within evangelical circles as to who/what died according to their beliefs.

      It’s interesting you say the divine nature didn’t die, that means you just believe a man died.

      This is very problematic for the “Jesus-is-God-apologists” as they argue against their Unitarian opponents that the sacrifice had to be divine as a human sacrifice wouldn’t have been sufficient for all the sins of humanity.

      So you, by believing only the human nature died, open the way for Unitarians.

      [A side point I’d like to add, Jesus according to your theology was both divine and human. These natures were unified and could not be separated (As RC Sproul says, they can be distinguished but not separated) that means in reality you do not believe Jesus died. Jesus, according to your belief was divine nature and human nature. You believe a “what” died (human nature) not a “who” (Jesus)]

      I do have another point on Nestorianism, but that would bog this comment down and would be unfair on you to pile so many thoughts on you at once.

      Let me know what you think, Ken.

      Have a good day

      Peace

      Liked by 2 people

  2. Excellent observations Yahya. Do share your point on Nestorianism

    Liked by 1 person

  3. Jesus Christ was (and is) one divine person with 2 natures. The person of Jesus really died, in history, was buried, and really rose from the dead and really ascended into heaven.

    The natures are not separated (good quote by Sproul).

    It is a mystery as to how the whole person of Jesus died, without the Divine nature “dying” – it does not apply since the Divine nature cannot cease to exist. God cannot die; but Jesus the God-man did truly die.

    (but even then, the human soul / spirit still continues on after we die; all of us die, but our souls continue until the day of resurrection when the soul is re-united with the bodies and we are judged on judgement day; so that is something that Muslims seem to not remember or believe.)

    Beyond what the Scriptures say – “Christ died for our sins” and many other verses; and the fact that He was also God – john 1:1; John 1:14 –

    The constant repetition by Muslims as to why and how can He die, etc. are methods of avoiding submitting to the true God. (The Trinity: The Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit = one God in three persons.)

    “unless you believe that I am, you will die in your sins.” Jesus in John 8:24

    Like

    • Ken, let me show you how to easily refute Yahya who pretends to wax eloquent.

      First, ask him to define what he means by death. Does he mean ceasing to exist?

      Second, ask him whether he believes the Quran is Allah’s uncreated speech. If he says yes, then ask him can Allah’s speech be destroyed?

      Now I will wait for his answers to then show you how to respond to his objection and then turn it against him to show that he just buried himself in the very hole that he thought he dug for you. 😉

      Like

    • Ken Temple
      Dying” is not something restricted to humans. Plants die, bacteria, mushrooms. God is NOT subject to dying – however you want to define it. God is not a biological organism.

      “The person of Jesus really died” … Although it is useless to ask: What on earth is the “person OF Jesus”?

      To re-define irrational speculation as “mystery” is not really helpful.

      If it’s really a mystery, how do you know it’s true?

      Like

    • Burhanuddin1 – do you believe the soul / spirit lives on after we humans die? Where does the soul / spirit go?
      Is there a physical resurrection of all bodies at the end of time and judgement day?
      Where is the spirit / soul until that time?
      Is there a consciousness of the dead souls until the day of resurrection?

      Like

    • Ken Temple “do you believe the soul / spirit lives on after we humans die?”

      As usual distracting. Keep on running. God is not subject to death, you can define death however you like. God is not a biological organism.
      Your God is.

      Like

    • Wow. Amazing that you cannot answer what happens to the soul after a person dies. Does it live on in the grave or what? and how does it live on ? does it go to heaven or hell immediately or where does it go?

      Like

    • Who cares? You believe that God’s wrath is appeased by human sacrifice. How primitive.

      Liked by 1 person

    • In Islam, what happens to the soul after a person dies?

      Like

    • I think you know the answer Ken. You are border line trolling.

      Tell me, if your God does not die then why does God need a human sacrifice forgive sin? The bible condemns this idea many times

      Liked by 1 person

    • From what I understand, in Islamic theology, the soul lives on after a person dies, but it is in the grave until the day of resurrection. But is it dormant or “soul sleep” ?- I honestly don’t know. If we ask “how” this is possible?, then a Muslim may say, “we don’t know how”. Surah 3:169 says those that are killed in the way of Allah are living, so that seems to indicate that they go straight to paradise. But what happens to others and how does it happen?

      My point is that your questions about how can Jesus be both God and man, and yet die for our sins, yet God cannot die; are also questions about “how”. Nabeel Qureshi may a good point about “Bela-Keef” – بلاکیف – “without (asking) how”. My point is the hypostatic union of the 2 natures of Christ is mysterious and we don’t how God can do these things, but we do know that according to Scripture, Jesus was both God (John 1, Philippians 2:5-8; Colossians 1:15-20; Hebrews 1:3, 6, 8, 10-12; John 10:30; 5:17-18; 8:24; 8:56-58; 20:28, Romans 9:5, etc.) and man (John 4, John 1:14, etc.) and that He died on the cross; and on the third day, He rose from the dead.

      The Divine nature cannot die because death is irrelevant to God, since death means the separation of the soul from the body of humans – it does not mean “cease to exist”.

      We believe that Christ is both God and man because of the Scriptures and we believe that He died for our sins, but the human soul lives on after death, (as in Islam), but we don’t know how.

      God hinted at requiring a human sacrifice by the command of God to Abraham, which you also agree with. God substituted a ram for Abraham’s son which pointed to substitutionary atonement. (because it would have been wrong, since both Abraham and his son are both sinners.) Yes it was a test and trial (Genesis 22:1) as in Islam, but it also was a prophesy and foreshadowing of what would God would do in the future – giving up, out of love, His only unique Son of His love. Isaiah 53 is clear that the person is a human. It is not human sacrifice like what is forbidden in pagan religions because God Himself – the second person of the Trinity, the Son, voluntarily came and became human and then just lived a perfectly righteous life and yet, sinful and jealous people killed Him because He was perfect, holy, righteous, and claimed to be, and was indeed, the Messiah, Son of God, and God in the flesh – the Jewish leadership said that was blasphemy and they killed Him for it. (Mark 14:60-64)

      Like

  4. It makes perfect sense if you believe that God is all Powerful, and all Wise, which even you believe.
    He can enter into creation and history and time and space if He wants to.
    He can become a human and remain God if He wants to.
    He can die as the God-man without explaining how.
    He can rise from the dead because of His power.

    His Power and majesty is awesome and unsearchable.

    Psalm 145:3
    Great is the Lord and greatly to be praised;
    His greatness and nature is unsearchable.

    Like

    • Ken, let me show you how to easily refute Yahya who pretends to wax eloquent.

      First, ask him to define what he means by death. Does he mean ceasing to exist?

      Second, ask him whether he believes the Quran is Allah’s uncreated speech. If he says yes, then ask him can Allah’s speech be destroyed?

      Now I will wait for his answers to then show you how to respond to his objection and then turn it against him to show that he just buried himself in the very hole that he thought he dug for you. 😉

      Like

    • So Yahya,
      Does the soul / spirit of a person continue on even after the person dies?

      How does it continue on?

      If it does, where is it?

      Does it survive until resurrection day/judgment day? (and onward after connection to the body)

      Or is the soul / spirit in the grave until resurrection / judgment day?

      How do you know and what is it doing in the grave until judgement day?

      Is there consciousness in the soul until judgment day?

      Like

    • Ken you think God dies? No. So why did God require a human sacrifice to forgive your sin? Sounds remarkably like paganism to me.

      Like

    • It is interesting to me that you guys (Muslims) have not answered my questions about the soul and spirit after dead. I wonder why?

      Like

    • possibly because you are not sincere and are boring?

      Like

    • How do you know I am not sincere?

      Liked by 1 person

    • Rabbi Singer explains the fallacy in the often asked question

      If God is truly Omnipotent and All-Powerful, why couldn’t God come in the form of a man?

      Like

  5. My point on Nestorianism was just linked to the way those apologists who say Jesus’ divine did not die but his human nature died. That would have been considered an anathema at the Council of Ephesus.

    Liked by 2 people

  6. Ken, you didn’t quite interact with my point aside from appealing to it as being a mystery and speculating about the nature of death.

    The point here is, John 3:16 and 1 John 4:10 teach God sent his son to die for our sins.

    The son, is considered the second person of the Trinity – prior to the incarnation. Thus the Son is not a human nature. The son is considered divine.

    So if you believe only a human nature died that means you believe those verses and the slogan “God sent his Son to die for us” are LIES.

    The other problem here is, now if you do say the second person of the Trinity belief (The Son, i.e the “divine nature”) died then you’re in opposition to the teaching God cannot die.

    Think about it Ken, I believe you’re not really looking at this critically. You’ve started speculating to try and hold on to this belief. I understand the doctrine of vicarious atonement is an emotive one but put those emotions aside and think it about these points. You do not need to believe this. God is not the author of confusion.

    Peace

    Like

    • Ken, let me show you how to easily refute Yahya who pretends to wax eloquent.

      First, ask him to define what he means by death. Does he mean ceasing to exist?

      Second, ask him whether he believes the Quran is Allah’s uncreated speech. If he says yes, then ask him can Allah’s speech be destroyed?

      Now I will wait for his answers to then show you how to respond to his objection and then turn it against him to show that he just buried himself in the very hole that he thought he dug for you. 😉

      Like

    • Ok Yahya,
      I already alluded to the first question, . . .
      You have seen Sam’s questions:

      First, ask him to define what he means by death. Does he mean ceasing to exist?

      What do you mean by death?

      Does death mean “cease to exist”?

      In Islamic theology and thought, when people die, do their souls / spirits live on?

      If so, where are those souls / spirits until the day of resurrection; and how do they continue to live on?

      Second, ask him whether he believes the Quran is Allah’s uncreated speech. If he says yes, then ask him can Allah’s speech be destroyed?

      Answer that also.

      Like

  7. Amazing that no one has answered those questions about the soul / spirit of a person who dies.

    Like

  8. How is that diversionary, when your questions about God dying, and the 2 natures of Christ are questions about “how” ?; when it is the same principle in Islam, I am asking “how” about the soul after a person dies; and now you don’t want to answer – because you can see my point.

    From what I understand, in Islamic theology, the soul lives on after a person dies, but it is in the grave until the day of resurrection. But is it dormant or “soul sleep” ?- I honestly don’t know. If we ask “how” this is possible?, then a Muslim may say, “we don’t know how”. Surah 3:169 says those that are killed in the way of Allah are living, so that seems to indicate that they go straight to paradise. But what happens to others and how does it happen?

    My point is that your questions about how can Jesus be both God and man, and yet die for our sins, yet God cannot die; are also questions about “how”. Nabeel Qureshi may a good point about “Bela-Keef” – بلاکیف – “without (asking) how”. My point is the hypostatic union of the 2 natures of Christ is mysterious and we don’t how God can do these things, but we do know that according to Scripture, Jesus is both God and man, and He died for sins. God did it out of love and voluntarily, so it is not like pagan human sacrifice since, Jesus came voluntarily; and Jesus was sinless. All other human beings were and are sinful, so they can NEVER be a sacrifice for sins. And murder is wrong. But voluntarily allowing oneself to be killed by others, when they were just living a righteous life is not murder nor suicide.

    Like

    • You see his tap dance Ken? He knows he can’t answer the questions because he knows what will happen to him and his deen if does!

      So let’s try this again. First, define what you mean by death. Do you mean ceasing to exist?

      Second, do you believe the Quran is Allah’s uncreated speech. If so, then can Allah’s speech be destroyed?

      I prophesy that Yahya will again tap dance around these questions since he knows better than to answer them. Now watch how he ends up fulfilling my prophecy.

      Liked by 1 person

    • Ken T “.. but we do know that according to Scripture, Jesus is both God and man, …”

      No. We know your interpretation of Scripture is , “Jesus is both God and man,” …

      Confusing fact and fiction.

      Like

    • “have this attitude, that was also in Christ (Jesus the Messiah) . . . who although He existed in nature as God, did not regard that equality He had with the Father as something to hold onto as a right; but emptied Himself and became a man and became a slave . .. Philippians 2:5-8

      Both God and Man is right there together.

      The Word (John 1:1-5) became flesh/ human (John 1:14)

      Bot God and man right there.

      Like

    • Fact is there are “Christians” who understand these passages completely different from you. That’s true, even if you stand on your head preaching. So please don’t sell your own personal fiction as facts. Truth stands out clearly from falsehood.

      Liked by 1 person

    • They are not Christians by definition – Jehovahs Witnesses, etc. are not even Christians at all. Gnostics, New agers, liberal theologians, Unitarians – are not Christians by definition. “Unless you believe that I am, you will die in your sins.” John 8:24 “I am” points back to Yahweh – Isaiah 43:10-13; 41:4; Exodus 3:14; John 8:56-58 – “before Abraham was born, I am.”

      Like

    • Who are you to judge who is truly Christian or not? The spanish inquisition? That’s your opinion, nothing more. Your preaching in circles only drives people away from your hard-headed opinion. As a missionary you are a living disaster.

      Like

    • Jesus said, “you will know them by their fruits” – Matthew 7:16 and “judge with righteous judgment” – John 7:24

      Like

    • Who are you to judge that the Nation of Islam, Bahais, Ahmadiyyas, Rashad Khalifa and his followers are not Muslims? The murdering sahaba of Muhammad? That’s your opinion, nothing more. Your doing dawah in circles only drives people away from your hard-headed opinion. As a jihadi you are a living disaster much like Muhammad and his companions.

      Now you see how stupid you sound?

      Liked by 1 person

    • Paul’s Pal.” Now you see how stupid you sound?”

      No. I only see how predictable you are.

      Like

  9. Hi Ken and Sam,

    I see both of you posed the same Qs to me.

    In answer to your request to define death, this seems to be a game of semantics. However, for this purpose I think it would be great to use the NT. The opening post mentions 1 Tim 6:16 which teaches God cannot DIE (i.e. is immortal). We shall use this definition, i.e the opposite of the word immortal

    Now, the ball is in your court, do you believe the 2nd person of the Trinity died? Yes or no..

    If you only believe a human nature died then you are contradicting John 3:16 and 1 John 4:10. And if you do say the 2nd person of the Trinity (ie. what is believed to be the divine nature) died then you are contradicting 1 Tim 6:16.

    You’re in a bind here. The reason you’re in a bind is because this doctrine is something that did not come from Jesus. It’s something which came about later through church tradition (ie. philosophy agreed upon by later church Fathers).

    Jesus would not want you to believe this stuff.

    Lastly, you asked about the Quran, whther it’s created or uncreated. I think you’re going down the route of the inlibration-incarnation argument. I have an old video explaining this. Just watch this (please don’t allow it to distract you from the main point of our dialogue – the first point):

    Peace

    Liked by 3 people

    • Yahya,
      You did not answer my questions:

      In Islam, do people’s souls continue to live on in the grave after they die?

      how does that work?

      do they go straight to paradise or hell or do their souls wait in the grave until judgement day?

      Are they conscious?

      Seems that Surah 3:169 says that those that die in the way of Allah are living – so their souls are living – so they go straight to paradise?

      What about the other people who die but not “in the way of Allah” ? Where do their souls go and how does it work?

      Like

    • You see his tap dance Ken? He knows he can’t answer the questions because he knows what will happen to him and his deen if does!

      So let’s try this again. First, define what you mean by death. Do you mean ceasing to exist?

      Second, do you believe the Quran is Allah’s uncreated speech. If so, then can Allah’s speech be destroyed?

      I prophesy that Yahya will again tap dance around these questions since he knows better than to answer them. Now watch how he ends up fulfilling my prophecy.

      Liked by 1 person

    • With the name of Allah

      Silly questions if by death means not ceasing to exist  and it will make a person a god then we are all gods.

      And with regards to the Quran,  the attempt to rationalise its position as the uncreated speech of Allah like the incarnate Logos in Christianity never has a place in Islamic theological discussion because  this is something which is not defined in the Quran nor and hadith. That’s why muslims do not fall into Satan trap for believing in something like a closet polytheism such as the trinity.

      Liked by 1 person

    • Did you note how the other tap dancer Eric also ran from answering questions directly, but chose to attack straw man and deceitfully claim that the Quran as Allah’s uncreated speech has never been defined, even though this idolater knows that is a boldfaced lie?

      If he keeps running off his mouth then he leaves me know choice but to cite his own authorities to shame him for thinking he can lie and get away with it.

      Like

    • With the name of Allah

      There’s nothing in Islamic scholarships which have attempted to suggest that the Qur’an is another “Godhead”, or another person of “God” or other non sense. So you’re are the none who is full of lies or setting up strawman.

      Like

  10. Yes, Yahya is doing a tap dance and avoiding . . .

    Nabeel Qureshi had a great point in his debate with Shabir Ally about “bela-keif” بلا کیف (without asking how) – we just know it’s true, but we don’t know how and we don’t ask how; some things are mysterious.

    Like

    • Paradoxical philosophical statements are not mysterious. They are flat out contradictions.

      The Bible says unequivocally the one true living God does not die.

      Your “God”, who is/are your philosophical concept and interpretation and speculation arrived at after a lengthy century-long process of painful “discussion” about “God”, does die.

      I’d rather stick with the real thing.

      Liked by 1 person

    • I agree, the Quran being the uncreated speech of Allah is a flat out contradiction that not even Allah can understand.

      Now Ken, watch how Burhan runs away from answering my questions.

      Is the Quran identical to Allah or is it other than Allah?

      Get ready for the tap dance.

      Like

    • No muslim believe the Qur’an identical to Allah, or even another “Godhead”. This isn’t in the Qur’an nor this is in the hadiths. This is ludicrous question.

      Liked by 1 person

    • “Godhead” is the same as “Trinity” – there is only one “Godhead”, which basically means “the source of God”; “the essence of God”. There is only one being/essence/source/substance/nature of God.

      As to the Qur’an being one with Allah Himself, wasn’t that the debate that the Muslims had with each other of the Muta’ziles vs. Asherites ?

      Created speech of God vs. Uncreated eternal speech of God.

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ash%27ari

      The “logos” λογος in John 1:1; 1:14; 1 John 1:1, etc. is much deeper than just speech/word. It is the mind and thought flowing out into word and communication. It includes both the mind and the articulation of the mind, the speech that comes from thought/mind.

      Like

    • With the name of Allah
      There is no such a thing as ”Allah is God, the Qur’an is God, and yet there are not two Gods but one God.
      The  difference between the Ash‘ariyyah and the Mu’tazilitah fundamentally different with the trinity.  Both agree that God did not “speak” the Qur’ān, like human speak to each other. The first camp theorise the Qur’an is just the representation of the actual wisdom of God in Arabic inspired to Angel Gabriel and then to the Prophet while the latter suggest that the Qur’an is not linked whatsoever with God wisdom, it was through Gabriel who then express it in words.  However  both camp shared fundamental understanding that the Qur’an is not subsisting within the Divine Essence.  So that the Qur’an  is generated or originated. Moreover Muslims don’t worship the Qur’an.
      The difference is a matter of hermeneutics and it is something which  not defined in the Quran nor and hadith, it is not something fundamental which may compromise the Tauhid.  Again in Islamic theology there is never an attempt to rationalise the Qur’an position like  the incarnate Logos in Trinitarianism. Thats just shirk and blasphemous.
      God protects the muslims from falling  into the  abyss of idolatry like  trinitarianism.

      Liked by 1 person

    • The Ash’ariyyah believed the Qur’an is eternal and uncreated, right?

      Why were the Mu’tazillah’s deemed heretics (bid’aa) بدعه ??

      Like

    • With the name of Allah the Gracious the Merciful

      No! it is unwise or even wrong to say that the Qur’an is the eternal and uncreated being, we can not define something which is not defined in the Qur’an or in the hadiths. what we can say is that: Innal Qur’ana Kalamullahi min-Hu  إِنَّ الْقُرْآنَ كَلَامُ اللَّهِ مِنْهُ “The Quran is the word of Allah“. This is what is written in the Qur’an. That’s as far as we can say about the Qur’an. We can not say or defined something what is not written or defined in the Qur’an. That is foremost principle of the orthodox Sunni Islam in presenting our creed/ Aqeeedah.

      Now others likeThe Ashariyyah and  The Mu’tazillah who had attempted to elaborate what it means by Kalamullah was doing a mere hermeneutics.

      The Ashariyyah which was the proto orthodox Sunni position was the Qur’an is just the representation Ibrah  عبرة  (lit: lesson) of the actual wisdom of God in Arabic language which was inspired to Angel Gabriel and  then to the Prophet. The Mu’tazillah however reject any suggestion that this representation is somehow linked with God infinite wisdom. They proposed that the Qur’an, as it was received by the holy Prophet as an arabic speech, was a just an ordinary creation Makhluuq مَخْلُوق like any other God’s creations no matter how marvellous the Qur’an is. That’s what the division was all about.

      But both camp agree that God did not “speak”directly to human like human speak to each other and both agree that the Qur’an is outside the subsistence of the 20 Divine Essence or the Sifaatullah الصفات الله تعالى العشرين   according to Ashari creeds, thus the Qur’an  is generated or originated. The Ashariyyah did not go as far as compromising the Tauhid or ended up idolatrous like  believing the Qur’an as another Godhead worthy of worship like in trinitarianism.

      Like

    • That’s as far as we can say about the Qur’an. We can not say or defined something what is not written or defined in the Qur’an.

      See? What did I tell you? bela keif !!

      بلاکیف

      Like

    • Why would speculate more than what God tells us in the Qur’an?

      We dont want to cross the limit like trinitarianism and end up commiting idolatry. Saying something that is not supposed to be such as “Jesus is God” where there is nothing is ever said like so.

      Like

    • Philippians 2:5-8
      John 1:1-5; 1:14
      Hebrews 1:3, 6, 8, 10-12
      Colossians 1:15-20
      John 10:30
      John 20:28
      Mark 14:60-64

      Like

    • Nothing in those verses explicitly and unequivocally ever said that “Jesus is God”.

      You are making your interpretation. An erroneous one though.

      Like

    • yes they do.

      Also Jesus died.

      Like

    • Nothing, Jesus never said that He is God, neither he claimed he will die for other people sins.
      He prayed to his God asked his God for help during the crucifixion. He has God like you and me.

      Like

    • I and the Father are one.
      before Abraham was born, I am

      these and all the others are clear.

      Like

    • There is no reason to take this verse to mean that Jesus and the Father make up “one God.” Unitarian have pointed out that even when Paul wrote to the Corinthians he said, “he who plants and he who waters are one” (1 Cor. 3:8).
      Also in the gospel, Jesus uses the concept of “being one” in other places, as “one in purpose” See John John 17:11, 21 and 22, Jesus prayed to God that his followers would be “one” as he and God were “one.”

      Liked by 1 person

    • With all the other verses together, it is clear that the NT teaches that Jesus is both God and man. John 1:1-5 and 1:14 and 1:18 and all the other verses are very clear.

      Like

    • That’s a proof texting , Unitarian surely can say the same, that’s why there is unitarian christian but there is no trinitarian muslim.
      Christendom is still bitterly undivided in the crucial issue of their theology.

      Like

    • “He (the Son) is the radiance of the Father’s glory and the exact representation of His nature . . . Hebrews 1:3

      and Hebrews 1:6 – “let all the angels of God worship Him”

      “But of the Son, He says, “Your Throne, O God, is forever and ever . . . ” Hebrews 1:8

      “Are you the Messiah, the Son of God? Yes I am. ” Mark 14:60-64; Matthew 26:63-66

      You have heard the blasphemy!, etc.

      the Jewish leadership said to Pilate:
      “We have a law, and by that law He ought to die, because He made Himself out to be the Son of God!” John 19:7

      John 5:17-18
      17 But He answered them, “My Father is working until now, and I Myself am working.”

      18 For this reason therefore the Jews were seeking all the more to kill Him, because He not only was breaking the Sabbath, but also was calling God His own Father, making Himself equal with God. John 5:17-18

      Like

    • “but of the Son, it says, “Your Throne O God, is forever and ever. . . ” Hebrews 1:8

      Like

    • The Bible says:
      Jesus is man.
      Jesus is God; Jesus is both God and man.
      Jesus died for sins. His death was an atonement. We have peace with God.
      We don’t know how that works exactly since God as God cannot die; and yet Jesus the God-man did die, but we know it is true. بلاکیف

      Like

    • Jesus never said anything that he is being God. So you are exceeding the limit in religion.

      Like

    • “although He existed in the form of God . . . He became a man” Philippians 2:6-8
      Clear – Jesus is the God-man.

      Like

    • That is not a CEAR statement neither that that is the word of Jesus.

      Like

    • all the NT is the word of Jesus, as He inspired them and send the Holy Spirit to write the words.

      Like

    • How do you know, it was the *holy* spirit? Satan also a spirit who works among men and led people astray..

      Liked by 1 person

    • Because Jesus promised the Holy Spirit would come and lead them into all the truth and bring to their remembrance everything He taught them – John 14:16-17 and 14:26 and 16:12-15 and 2 Peter 1:20-21 teaches us that the Scriptures were written by men moved by the Holy Spirit.

      Whatever comes later and claims revelation and claims an angel spoke to them, yet it contradicts what the apostles taught is a false message and false “gospel” – Galatians 1:8-9

      Like

    • If the spirt contradict the teaching of the true God of Abraham and led people into idolatry of worshipping a man, believing in human sacrifice, surely it is spirit from God. That’s simple acid test.

      Like

    • Paul’s Pal

      You said;
      Did you note how the other tap dancer Eric also ran from answering questions directly, but chose to attack straw man and deceitfully claim that the Quran as Allah’s uncreated speech has never been defined, even though this idolater knows that is a boldfaced lie?

      If he keeps running off his mouth then he leaves me know choice but to cite his own authorities to shame him for thinking he can lie and get away with it.

      I say;
      Whether the Quran is the uncreated speech of God or not, NO MUSLIM BELIEVE THE QURAN IS A PERSON/DIVINE BEING OR GOD.

      The Quran never said it(Quran) is God and no one believes the Quran is God. The Quran said about itself as a recitation and it is from the God of Abraham. The Quran never said the Quran is God. The Quran never said it is the eternal uncreated or created word of God. The Quran never said what Dr. James White wants it to say i.e. created/uncreated. The word of God is the word of God. Word is not a being/person but Christians believe a word is a being or a person.

      That is a lie, a word does not have blood but it can be metaphorical and it does not mean uncreated or created. A word is a word. God’s word is a word. Jesus as a word of God is a title to denote “be” and it is. It does not mean Jesus is uncreated.

      The Quran is not God and it is not a person/being. The Quran did not become flesh and no Muslim ever believed the Quran became flesh. The Quran is created with paper and ink and so the Quran is created. Jesus was also created with blood.

      Thanks.

      Like

    • Ken, this is why I said Eric has no business discussing theology since he is either ignorant or too dishonest to represent what his deen actually teaches.

      Let me first quote his own authentic, official sources on the exact nature of the Quran. The following is taken from one of my rebuttals:

      Islam teaches that the Quran is the actual word/speech of Allah (kalamullah), not simply a reflection of his word; nor is it the same as Allah’s knowledge (al-ilmu bil-Lah). It is a revelation of the knowledge of Allah, being a scripture which reveals those aspects or parts of his knowledge and will that the Muslim deity wanted to make known to mankind. Furthermore, Islam expects its adherents to affirm that the attributes of Allah, such as his speech, are neither him nor other than him, meaning that a Muslim cannot say that Allah’s characteristics are separate from him. Nor can they deny that these attributes are other than Allah himself, since they are the very things that make up the essence and identify of the Islamic god. Moreover, to say that the Qur’an is created, or that one’s recitation of the Quran is created, places an individual outside of the hold of Islam.

      Lest we be accused of making all of this up, note what the following standard Sunni creed says:

      35. The Qur’an is the Word of God THAT EMANATED FROM HIM without modality in its expression. He sent it down to His messenger as a revelation. The believers accept it as such literally. They are certain it is, in reality, the Word of God, the Sublime and Exalted.

      36. Unlike human speech, IT IS ETERNAL AND UNCREATED. (The Creed of Imam Al-Tahawi (Al-Aqidah al-Tahawiyyah), translated, annotated and introduced by Hamza Yusuf [Zaytuna Institute, 2007], p. 54; capital emphasis ours)

      73. We do not argue about the Qur’an. Rather, we testify that it is the Word of the Lord of the universe as revealed through the Trustworthy Spirit, who taught it to the paragon of messengers, Muhammad. It is the Word of God, the Sublime and Exalted. No mortal speech compares to it, AND WE DO NOT SAY IT IS CREATED. (Ibid., p. 64; capital emphasis ours)

      Nor is this simply an isolated opinion of a solitary Muslim scholar:

      Ahlul al-Sunnah declare the following: We believe that the attribute of speech [of Allah] to be Qadim al-Naw’ Hadith al-Ahad, which means that IN ITS ESSENCE [Allah’s Speech] IS ETERNAL, and He speaks whenever He wants the way He wants.

      Saying, “Qadim al-Naw’” means that Speech is an Attribute of the Divine Essence, hence Eternal, as it exists due by His Essence, WHICH NEITHER HAS AN END NOR A BEGINNING…

      The following ayat establish clear incontrovertible proof of Allah’s Speech, in a manner that befits His Majesty and Supremacy, WHICH IS AN ETERNAL, EVERLASTING, AND PERFECT ATTRIBUTE OF HIS ESSENCE.

      Allah said…

      “And, indeed, Allah spoke to Musa with [direct] speech.” [al-Nisa’ (4):164]

      Moreover, Allah said…

      “And the word of your Lord has been fulfilled in truth and in justice. None can alter His words, and He is the Hearing, the Knowing.” [al-An’am (6):115]

      “I seek refuge in the Perfect Word from the evil of what He created”.

      “nothing would harm him until he marches from that stopping place.”

      All these are proof enough to affirm the attribute of Speech of Allah, Most High.

      The Qur’an is the Word of Allah (Kalam Allah), which He sent down to His slave and Messenger, to remain as a source of legislation for mankind, until the Day of Judgement. He described Himself with it, by adding it [as a genitive] to His Name, in the verse…

      “And if anyone of the idolaters seek thy protection, then grant him protection so that he may hear the words of Allah. Then deliver him to his place of safety. That is because they are a people who do not know.” [al-Taubah (9):6]

      THEREFORE HE WHO CLAIMS THAT THE QUR’AN IS CREATED IS A DISBELIEVER as per the evidence established by all the aforementioned ayat.

      All the scholars and exegetes specializing in Jurisprudence and hadith agree by consensus that whoever says that the Qur’an is created IS A DISBELIEVER. The majority of scholars also stated that whoever says that his utterance of the Qur’an is created is an innovator [as opposed to other scholars who declared such a person to be a disbeliever]. AS FOR THOSE WHO SIT ON THE FENCE REGARDING THIS ISSUE – they neither state that the Qur’an is created but nor do they affirm the Qur’an as being the Word of Allah – THEY ARE CLASSIFIED AS INNOVATORS AS WELL.

      Imam Ahmad [ibn Hanbal] and Ahlu’l-Sunnah wa’l-Jama’ah were firm about this issue, showing no tolerance to anyone who did not take a firm position on this matter. Moreover, they abandoned those scholars who stated their utterance of the Qur’an was created, and also discouraged and warned people from learning or taking knowledge from them. The reason for their strong reaction and firm stance against these scholars as to close the door to ill-hearted people who would exploit such a statement in order to manipulate the Qur’an. This is because the utterance in this case is a double-edged sword; on the one hand it is an action performed by a person, and from another aspect, the utterance includes the Qur’an itself, which is the Word of Allah.

      This is why Imam Ahmad ibn Hanbal told people not to visit or take knowledge from al-Husayn ibn ‘Ali al-Karabisi, and forbade Dawud al-Zahiri, who had not taken a stance in this matter, from entering upon him; he dealt similarly with Ya’qub al-Dawraqi, and other scholars who had the same attitude. This is the reason why the author stated, “[It is also required] that the Qur’an is the Speech of Allah, it is neither (makluq) created to eventually vanish nor the (sifah) attribute of something created which must therefpre come to an end (yanfadh).” (The Creed of Ibn Abi Zayd Al-Qayrawani: being a translation of Muqaddimah al-Risalah ibn Abi Zayd al-Qayrawani, by Imam Abu Muhammad ‘Abdullah Ibn Abi Zayd al-Qayrawani [310 – 389 AH], with commentary by Shaikh Ahmad ibn Yahya al-Najmi [d. 1429 AH] [Dar As-Sunnah Publishers, Birmingham, U.K.: First edition, 2012], pp. 68-73; bold emphasis ours)

      Sunni Muslim writer, GF Haddad, in addressing Shia claims to the contrary, provides a list of quotes from renowned Muslim scholars regarding the Quran’s uncreatedness, some of which include:

      Ahl al-Sunna agree one and all that the Qur’an IS THE PRE-EXISTENT, PRE-ETERNAL, UNCREATED SPEECH OF ALLAH Most High on the evidence of the Qur’an, the Sunna, and faith-guided reason.

      In a rare instance of classic kalâm reasoning, Imam Malik gave the most succint statement of this doctrine:

      “The Qur’an is the Speech of Allah, the Speech of Allah COMES FROM HIM, AND NOTHING CREATED COMES FROM ALLAH MOST HIGH.” Narrated by al-Dhahabi in Siyar A`lam al-Nubala’ (Dar al-Fikr ed. 7:416).

      Hafiz Abu al-Qasim Ibn `Asakir said in Tabyin Kadhib al-Muftari (Dar al-Jil ed. p. 150-151):

      “The Mu`tazila said: ‘the Speech of Allah Most High is created, invented, and brought into being.’ The Hashwiyya, who attribute a body to Allah the Exalted, said: ‘The alphabetical characters (al-hurûf al-muqatta`a), the materials on which they are written, the colors in which they are written, and all that is between the two covers [of the volumes of Qur’an] is beginningless and pre-existent (qadîma azaliyya). Al-Ash`ari took a middle road between them and said: The Qur’an is the beginningless speech of Allah Most High unchanged, uncreated, not of recent origin in time, nor brought into being. As for the alphabetical characters, the materials, the colors, the voices, the elements that are subject to limitations (al-mahdûdât), and all that is subject to modality (al-mukayyafât) in the world: all this is created, originated, and produced.”

      Hafiz Abu Bakr al-Bayhaqi said in al-Asma’ wa al-Sifat (al-Kawthari ed. p. 265; al-Hashidi ed. 2:18) with a sound chain:

      “Something Ibn Shaddad had written was handed to Abu Bakr al-Marwazi which containing the phrase: “My pronunciation of the Qur’an is uncreated” and the latter was asked to show it to Ahmad ibn Hanbal for corroboration. The latter crossed out the phrase and wrote instead: “The Qur’an, however used (haythu yusraf), is uncreated.”

      “In another sound narration, Abu Bakr al-Marwazi, Abu Muhammad Fawran [or Fawzan], and Salih ibn Ahmad ibn Hanbal witnessed Ahmad rebuking one of his students named Abu Talib with the words: “Are you telling people that I said: ‘My pronunciation of the Qur’an is uncreated’?” Abu Talib replied: “I only said this from my own.” Ahmad said: “Do not say this – neither from me, nor from you! I never heard any person of knowledge say it. The Qur’an is the Speech of Allah UNCREATED, whichever way it is used.” Salih said to Abu Talib: “If you told people what you said, now go and tell the same people that Abu `Abd Allah [Imam Ahmad] forbade to say it.”” End of al-Bayhaqi’s narration in al-Asma’ wa al-Sifat (Kawthari ed. p. 265-266; al-Hashidi ed. 2:18).

      This is a sound narration also found in Salih ibn Ahmad’s book al-Mihna (p. 70-71), Ibn al-Jawzi’s Manaqib al-Imam Ahmad (p. 155), and Ibn Taymiyya in Majmu` al-Fatawa (12:360, 12:425).

      The Proof of Islam and Renewer of the Fifth Hijri Century, Imam Abu Hamid al-Ghazzali said in his “Foundations of Islamic Belief” (Qawa`id al-`Aqa’id) published in his Rasa’il and his Ihya’ `Ulum al-Din and partially translated in Shaykh Nuh Keller’s Reliance of the Traveller and by Mrs. Ahmad Darwish on the Mosque of the Internet:

      “The Qur’an is read by tongues, written in books, and remembered in the heart, yet it is, nevertheless, UNCREATED AND WITHOUT BEGINNING, SUBSISTING IN THE ESSENCE OF ALLAH, not subject to division and or separation through its transmission to the heart and paper. Musa – upon him peace – heard the Speech of Allah without sound and without letter, just as the righteous see the Essence of Allah Most High in the Hereafter, without substance or its quality.” End of al-Ghazzali’s words.

      And Imam al-Tahawi said of the Qur’an in his “Creed of Abu Hanifa and his Companions”: “It is not created like the speech of creatures.” (The Uncreatedness of the divine speech the glorious Qur’an; capital emphasis ours)

      And:

      Allah says, {Verily, His Command, when He intends a thing, is only that He says to it, ‘Be!’ and it is!} -Yasîn 82

      Ibn `Uyayna explains, “Allah has differentiated his Creation from his Command. His command is “Be” (Kun).”

      Allah says, {Verily! Our Word unto a thing when We intend it, is only that We say unto it: “Be!” and it is.} – Surah An-Nahl 40

      Shaykh `AbdulQadir al-Jilani (Rahimahullah),* explaining that the word of Allah is not created says, “Allah (subhanehu Wa ta’ala) said, {Verily! to him (belongs) the creation and the Command}; (Allah) has differentiated his Creation from his Command, If His Command which is “Be” (Kun) that He creates His creation (with) is created it would be a repetition that has no benefit – as if He (Allah) said ‘Verily! to him (belongs) the creation and the creation’; Allah (subhanehu Wa ta’ala) is far removed from doing such a thing.” From the book Al-Ghunya li-Talibiy Tariq al-Haqq, volume 1 page 59 (Ibid.)

      Speaking of the attributes of Allah, Mr. Haddad quotes:

      The `Aqida of the People of Truth is:

      sifaatu-l-Laahi laysat `ayna dhaatin
      The Attributes of Allah are neither the very Essence,

      wa laa ghayran siwaahu dha-nfisaali
      NOR OTHER THAN HIMSELF, nor separate.

      sifaatu-dh-Dhaati wa-l-af`aali turran
      And all the Attributes of the Essence and of the Acts

      qadiimaatun masuunaatu-z-zawaali
      are pre-existent and without end.
      [From the poem Bad’ al-Amali by the Maturidi master, Siraj al-Din `Ali ibn `Uthman al-Ushi (d. 569).] (Ibid.; capital emphasis ours)

      More quotes in the next post.

      Like

    • Ken,

      Here is the rest of the quotations:

      Wahhabi Polemicist Jalal Abualrub writes:

      The Qur’an is the Speech of Allah, not Created

      The Qur’an is the speech of Allah, revealed, not created, regardless of how it is recited, written, and any way or anywhere it is recited. What is written from the Qur’an is just that, i.e., Quran, what is read from the Qur’an is just that, i.e., Quran, what is recited from the Qur’an is just that, i.e., Quran. The Speech of Allah is qadim, not created, regardless of the way and the form in which the Qur’an is presented. It is the Speech of Allah, not created, or new, or made, or a physical entity, or a physical reality, or a material entity. Rather, it is an attribute from the attributes of Allah’s essence. It is not similar to any created thing.

      The Attribute of Speech

      Allah is able, and will always be able to speak. (It is not permissible to separate between the two [i.e. Allah and His Speech] in a way that negates His Attributes)12. Sometimes, it is heard directly from Allah, glorified be He, sometimes from the one who hears it directly from Allah [such as Angel Jibril]. Whoever hears it directly from Allah hears it directly, without any mediator or translator, such as our Prophet Muhammad, when Allah spoke to him directly on the night of al-Miraj. Allah also spoke to Musa when he was on Mount Tur. Similarly, whoever Allah decides to speak to from among His angels, hears His speech from Him directly. Whoever is not among the categories mentioned, they hear Allah’s qadim13 speech in truth from whoever is reciting it for them [from Allah]14. Allah’s Speech consists of intelligible letters and a voice that is heard.15

      12 I could not find out precisely what the Imam meant here, but perhaps he meant that Allah’s Attribute of Speech is always present in Him, because He has been speaking SINCE ETERNITY, whenever He wills, and in any way He wills. Allah also initiates speech whenever He wills, as Allah said, “Comes not unto them an admonition (a chapter of the Qur’an) from their Lord as a recent revelation but they listen to it while they play.” [21:2] Ibn Kathir said, “‘Recent’, or, ‘New’, meaning, new in regards to its revelation.” Refer to, Tafsir al-Qur’an al-‘Adhim, 3/231, published by, Mu’assasat ar-Rayyan.

      13[T .N] This statement from the Imam has a different meaning to it, while scholars such as, Ibn Taimiyyah have clarified what, qadim, means when used in reference to Allah’s Speech. The author used this term in its literal form, and Allah knows best, to mean that, qadim, is that which was spoken previously. Qadim literally means, old, before, olden, previously etc.
      14 [T .N] Meaning, just as Prophet Muhammad was given the Revelation. Allah spoke the Qur’an to Angel Jibril, who spoke it to Prophet Muhammad. In reality, as the Imam here says, Allah’s Messenger heard it in a qadim manner, meaning that Allah already spoke before the Prophet Muhammad heard it. (Kitab al-I’tiqad (The Book of Creed), by Imam Abu al-Husain Muhammad bin al-Qadhi Abu Ya’la al-Hanbali, verification of the text and commentary by Shaikh Muhammad bin ‘Abd ar-Rahman al-Khumaiyis (Associate Professor at Muhammad bin Sa’ud University), translated by Amr bin Jalal Abualrub [Madinah Publishers and Distributors, First edition: 2012], pp. 17-18; capital emphasis ours)

      And here is what a prominent Wahhabi site states regarding the Quran being the uncreated word/speech of Allah:

      So it is known from the outset that this is the belief of Ahl al-Sunnah wa’l-Jamaa’ah. Ahl al-Sunnah wa’l-Jamaa’ah believe that the Qur’aan is the word of Allaah, and among the evidence for this belief is the aayah (interpretation of the meaning):

      “And if anyone of the Mushrikoon (polytheists, idolaters, pagans, disbelievers in the Oneness of Allaah) seeks your protection then grant him protection so that he may hear the Word of Allaah”
      [al-Tawbah 9:6]

      what is meant here is the Qur’aan, by scholarly consensus. The fact that Allaah mentions kalaam (speech, word) in idaafah (genitive or possessive construction) with Himself indicates that the Qur’aan is His Word.

      The belief of Ahl al-Sunnah wa’l-Jamaa’ah is that the Qur’aan is the word of Allaah which was revealed, NOT CREATED; IT BEGAN FROM HIM AND WILL RETURN TO HIM…

      The evidence that the Qur’aan is not created is the aayah (interpretation of the meaning):

      “Surely, His is the creation and commandment” [al-A’raaf 7:54]

      So Allaah describes creation as one thing and commandment as another. The conjunction implies that the second thing mentioned is different, and the Qur’aan is part of the commandment because of the evidence of the aayah (interpretation of the meaning):

      “And thus We have sent to you (O Muhammad) Rooh (a revelation, and a mercy) of Our Command. You knew not what is the Book, nor what is Faith? But We have made it (this Qur’aan) a light wherewith We guide whosoever of Our slaves We will”
      [al-Shoora 42:52]

      If the Qur’aan is part of the command or commandment, which is different from creation, therefore it is not created, because if it were created, this division of categories would not be correct. This is the evidence from the Qur’aan. (Islam Question and Answer,10153: The Qur’aan was revealed by Allaah, not created; capital emphasis ours)

      The foregoing citations, which are taken from Islam’s greatest scholars and theologians, plainly refute the assertion that the Quran is merely a reflection of Allah’s word. Rather, the Quran is the very eternal, uncreated speech of Allah which is not other than him. This means that, contrary to the assertions of the producers of this video, Allah has instantiated his very essential attribute, and therefore himself, all throughout his creation in multitudes of copies of the Quran, copies that are impure and corruptible. More on this point in the next part of our rebuttal.

      I have more for you Ken in my next post.

      Like

    • Brother Ken,

      Now let’s see what the scholars say about whether the Quran is not Allah and whether the Islamic view of its origin is identical to the Christian view of Jesus as the Word. The following is taken from one of my rebuttals:

      Muslim scholars went so far as to say that even though the Quran is not Allah it is not other than him!

      We confess that the Kuran is the speech of Allah, uncreated, His inspiration and revelation, NOT HE, NOT OTHER THAN HE, but His real quality, written in the copies, recited by the tongues, preserved in the breasts, yet not residing there. The ink, the paper, the writing are created, for they are the work of men. The speech of Allah on the other hand is uncreated, for the writing and the letters and the words and the verses are manifestations of the Kuran for the sake of human needs. The speech of Allah on the other hand is self-existing, and its meaning is understood by means of these things. Whoso sayeth that the speech of Allah is created, he is an infidel regarding Allah, the Exalted, whom men serve, who is eternally the same, His speech being recited or written and retained in the heart, yet never dissociated from Him. (A. J. Wensinck, The Muslim Creed (Cambridge: The University Press, 1932) p. 127; taken from the Wasiyat Abi Hanifa; capital emphasis ours)

      And:

      He has attributes from all eternity subsistent in His essence. THEY ARE NOT HE NOR ARE THEY OTHER THAN HE. And they are Knowledge and Power and Life and Might and Hearing and Seeing and Willing and Desiring and Doing and Creating and Sustaining. (Sa‘d al-Din al-Taftazani, A Commentary on the Creed of Islam, translated by E. E. Elder [Columbia University Press: New York, 1950], p. 49; bold and underline emphasis ours)

      Now Muslims are faced with a dilemma. If the Quran is not Allah then how can it be eternal? How can Allah still be one if the Quran is other than him? And if it isn’t other than Allah how then can the Muslim scripture not be a living, dynamic entity that is fully Divine? Moreover, if it isn’t other than Allah, how can it be distinct from Allah? How many Allahs are there? More importantly, how can something be and not be a specific thing at the same time, e.g. how can the Quran be Allah and not be Allah without this being a logical contradiction, being “a” and “not a” simultaneously? How can it be both eternal and created? Does this make sense? Not according to Muslims like Eric if they are going to be consistent.

      To make matters worse the Quran narrates episodes that have occurred within time and space. Since it is eternal this means that all of these events and speeches were foreordained, which means that the players in these episodes did not have free will but were programmed to say and act in accord with what Allah’s uncreated word had already predestined. After all, they had no choice to act in a manner contrary what is found in the Quran. How, then, can Muslims such as Eric affirm human free will while holding to the belief that the Quran is uncreated if they are going to be logically consistent?

      What’s more, some of the Muslim scholars likened the Muslim view of the Quran to the Christian position concerning Christ being the eternal Word!

      The problem of the nature of Christ, so central in the dogmatic development of the early church, HAS ALSO INFLUENCED, IN A CERTAIN WAY, the development of Islamic dogma. Christ’s designation as logos, as the Word of God, “born not created,” HAS MOST PROBABLY INFLUENCED ISLAMIC THEORIES ABOUT THE KORAN, which is regarded by the Muslim as the uncreated Word of God. Phenomenologically seen, the Koran has the same position in Islamic dogmatics AS HAS CHRIST IN CHRISTIANITY. Harry A. Wolfson therefore coined the term “inlibration,” the “Word become Book,” in contrast to the Christian concept of incarnation, “the Word became Flesh.” That explains why theologians emphasized the designation ummi for Muhammad; this term, first probably meaning “the prophet sent to the gentiles” was interpreted as “illiterate.” The Prophet had to be a vessel unstained by external knowledge for the Word’s inlibration, JUST AS MARY HAD TO BE A VIRGIN IN ORDER TO BE A PURE VESSEL FOR THE WORD’S INCARNATION. That is, the Koran is much more than simply a book … (Annemarie Schimmel, Islam – An Introduction [State University of New York Press, Albany 1992], pp. 74-75; capital emphasis ours)

      Muslim scholar Mahmoud M. Ayoub, in speaking of Muhammad’s relation to the Quran, writes:

      … that the words that Muhammad conveyed to his people were not his own, but were revealed to him by God. It is also understood to mean that his mind was not contaminated by human wisdom. Rather it was a pure receptacle for the divine word IN THE SAME WAY THAT MARY’S VIRGINITY MEANS FOR CHRISTIANS THAT HER BODY WAS A PURE VESSEL FIT TO RECEIVE, CHRIST, THE WORD OF GOD.

      In fact, there is an interesting parallel between Christ and the Qur’an. Christ is, for Christians, the incarnate Word of God. While the Qur’an is, LIKE CHRIST, the eternal divine word, it does not play a role in the creation of the world. It is the eternal word of God preserved for moral and spiritual guidance. It is an eternal book: “This surely is a glorious Qur’an, preserved in a well-guarded Tablet” (Q. 85:21-22). (Ayoub, Islam: Faith and History [Oneworld Publications, Oxford England, 2004], p. 41; capital emphasis ours)

      John L. Esposito, Professor of Islamic Studies at Georgetown University, stated the following concerning the Mutazila view of the Quran and God’s attributes:

      The Mutazila took issue with the majority of ulama over the doctrines of the divine attributes or names of God and the eternal, uncreated nature of the Quran. Both beliefs were seen as contradictory and as compromising God’s unity (Islam’s absolute monotheism). How could the one, transcendent God have many divine attributes (sight, hearing, power, knowledge, will)? The Mutazila maintained that the Quranic passages that affirmed God’s attributes were meant to be understood metaphorically or allegorically, not literally. Not to do so was to fall into anthropomorphism, or worse, shirk, associationism or polytheism. Similarly, the Islamic doctrine that the Quran is the speech or word of God should not be taken literally, for how could both God and His word be eternal and uncreated? The result would be two divinities. The Mutazila interpreted metaphorically those Quranic texts that spoke of the Quran preexisting in heaven. Contrary to majority opinion, they taught that the Quran is the created word of God, who is its uncreated source. The Mutazila critique of those like Ahmad ibn Hanbal, who believed in the eternity of the Quran, was ably summarized by Caliph Mamun in a letter to his governor:

      Everything apart from Him is a creature from His creation – a new thing which He has brought into existence. [This perverted opinion they hold] though the Koran speaks clearly of God’s creating all things, and proves to the exclusion of all differences of opinion. They are, thus, like the Christians when they claim that Isa bin Maryam [Jesus, the son of Mary] was not created because he was the word of God. But God says, “Verily We have made it a Koran in the Arabic language,” and the explanation of that is, “Verily, We have created it,” just as the Koran says, “And He made from it His mate that he might dwell with her.” (Esposito, Islam The Straight Path [Oxford University Press, New York Oxford: Hard cover, third edition], pp. 71-72; underline emphasis ours)

      Thus, whereas Jesus is God’s eternal Word who became flesh the Quran is the eternal Word that became a book! Since Zawadi has no problem affirming the unity of Allah while also believing that the Quran is the eternal speech of Allah that became a book on what logically consistent basis can he reject the Christian belief in the doctrines of the Holy Trinity and the blessed Incarnation as irrational?

      I have more for you Ken in the next post.

      Like

    • The Quran is a living conscious being pt. 1

      Ken, the above quotes expose Eric’s boldfaced lie that the Sunni ulema do not believe that the Quran subsists in the divine essence itself, SINCE THIS IS PRECISELY WHAT THET BELIEVED!

      Now let me obliterate Intellect’s boldfaced lie that the Quran is not a personal being according to his sources and scholars. In the following quotes you will see that the Quran is depicted as living, speaking conscious agent that appears in human form and which even prays to and worships Allah as its Lord!

      Enjoy!

      Muhammad taught his companions that the Quran actually intercedes for all of its reciters:

      Narrated by Abdullah ibn Amr:

      Allah’s Messenger said, “Fasting and the Qur’an intercede for a man. Fasting says, ‘O my Lord, I have kept him away from his food and his passions by day, so accept my intercession for him.’ The Qur’an SAYS, ‘I HAVE KEPT HIM AWAY from sleep by night, so accept my intercession for him.’ Then their intercession is accepted.”

      Bayhaqi transmitted it in Shu’ab al-Iman. (Jami‘ At-Tirmidhi, Hadith Number 1963; bold and capital emphasis ours)

      In this hadith, not only did Muhammad believe that the Quran is a conscious agent that speaks, he also thought the same of fasting!(1)

      Moreover, this hadith clearly shows that the Quran will not perform a “bulk intercession” for an anonymous group of reciters, but it will be a personal intercessor for each specific individual. [Some more traditions reinforcing this point will be quoted below. Particularly Surahs 2, 3, 32 and 67 are said to specifically intercede for those who recited them often.] This has a number of important consequences.

      The Quran must know the identity of every single person who recited it, which assumes that the Quran already possesses consciousness to be able to take note of all those who recite it throughout the centuries and remember them at the final judgment. This refutes any attempt of arguing that the Quran will only be given consciousness at the time of the resurrection.

      It must also know their motives since merely reciting the Quran is not enough, especially if it is done for fame or fortune. Rather, reciting it with the sincere intention of pleasing Allah is what makes one’s recitation of the Quran acceptable.

      Therefore, the Quran must be aware of the intentions of every reciter in order to know whether such a person’s recitation was sincerely done for the glory and pleasure of his lord.

      This fact refutes the Muslim commentary on the first cited hadith that the Quran “will be given speech,” which assumes that it did not have consciousness prior to that moment.

      This also implies that the Quran must be a divine being since it not only possesses omniscience, it must also have another specific attribute which belongs only to God. The Quran has to be omnipresent in order for it to be able to take note of every single individual that is reciting it wherever he or she may be, particularly as there are oftentimes thousands if not millions of Muslims all over the earth reciting simultaneously (e.g., during the prescribed prayer times). Otherwise, how would it be able to know who in fact has recited it and therefore intercede for that person?

      Here are a couple of other hadiths which speak of the Quran’s intercession:

      It was narrated that Ma’qil ibn Yasaar said: The Messenger of Allaah said:

      “Learn the Qur’aan, accept as permissible what it permits, regard as forbidden what it forbids, follow its guidance and do not reject anything in it. Whatever you are confused about in it, refer it to Allaah and to those who are in authority after I am gone, so that they may tell you. Believe in the Tawraat and Injeel and Zaboor, and what the Prophets brought from their Lord, but be content with the Qur’aan and what it contains of clarity, FOR IT IS AN INTERCESSOR WHOSE INTERCESSION WILL BE ACCEPTED. Each verse will have light on the Day of Resurrection. I have been given Soorat al-Baqarah among the early Revelation, and I have been given Ta-Ha and Ta-Seen-Meems and Ha-Meems from the tablets of Moosa(2) and I have been given the Opening of the Book (al-Faatihah) from beneath the Throne.

      Narrated by al-Haakim in al-Mustadrak (1/757) and he said: This hadeeth has A SAHEEH ISNAAD although they (al-Bukhaari and Mulsim) did not narrate it. Also narrated by al-Tabaraani in al-Mu’jam al-Kabeer (20/225). Classed as da’eef by al-Albaani in al-Silsilah al-Da’eefah (2826) and by Ibn Hibbaan in al-Majrooheen (2/65). (Islamqa, fatwa No. 90186. Is there any saheeh hadeeth about the virtues of Soorat Ta-Ha?; capital emphasis ours)

      The Prophet said: “The Qur’an IS AN INTERCESSOR, SOMETHING GIVEN PERMISSION TO INTERCEDE, and it is rightfully believed in. Whoever puts it in front of him, it will lead him to Paradise; whoever puts it behind him, it will steer him to the Hellfire.” [An authentic Hadith found in At-Tabaraanee, on the authority of ‘Abdullaah ibn Mas’ood] (Nine Great Benefits of Reading and Reflecting Over the Qur’an, by Abul-‘Abbas; capital emphasis ours)

      All of these ahadith raise some uncomfortable questions for the followers of Muhammad. The above citations presuppose that the Quran is a living conscious agent, much like humans and angels are. And as I already proved in my previous posts, Muslims further believe that the Quran is uncreated since it is the eternal speech of Allah. This, therefore, shows that there is another uncreated person besides Allah according to Islam!

      However, Muslims tell us that Allah is the only uncreated being and that there was a time when he existed all by himself. As the following internet dawagandist puts it:

      The narration in al-Bukhari, Bayhaqi and others shows clearly that standard Islamic belief repels the idea of another in existence together with Allah:

      روى البخارىُّ والبيهقىُّ وابنُ الجارود أن رسولَ الله صلى الله عليه وسلم قال:”كان الله ولم يَكُنْ شَىءٌ غَيْرُه

      “It is narrated by Bukhari, al-Baihaqi and ibn Al-Jarud that the Prophet said: When Allah existed nothing else existed other than Him.” (Ibn Anwar, Does Allah pray? If yes then who does He pray to?)

      In other words, before creation came into being Allah existed alone.

      Yet since Muslims tell us that the Quran is uncreated also, this means that it must have always existed as well.

      If, however, Allah existed alone and yet the Quran is uncreated as well, then the Quran must in some sense also be Allah.

      Allah must therefore be a binitarian deity, e.g. there are two distinct, conscious, divine persons who together make up the being of Allah.

      Yet the problem with this view is that no Muslim would ever dare say that the Quran is identical to Allah. After all, Allah in Islamic theology is not the name of a generic essence which can be shared by more than one entity. Rather, Allah is the actual name of the Islamic god and refers to a specific individual deity.

      Moreover, the Quran is believed to be the speech of that specific divinity whose name is Allah. As such, the Quran cannot be called Allah.

      The word which a Muslim would have to use if s/he wanted to communicated the fact that the Quran is also divine is ilah, e.g. god, deity etc., since this is a generic word which can be used for any so-called divinity.

      Yet to identify the Quran as an ilah would imply that there is another god besides Allah and that the latter did not exist alone since something other than him also existed alongside him even before creation came into being.

      This would in turn contradict the Islamic confession which states that there is no other ilah besides Allah!

      If this is the case then this means that Islam is not the monotheistic religion that Muslims make it out to be since it ends up affirming that there are two separate eternal conscious beings, thereby violating monotheism.

      Or Muslims can stop interpreting Allah as the proper name of an individual deity, but start viewing it as a term which refers to two distinct divine persons who together make up the single being of the Muslim god.

      In other words, since the god of Islam is actually multi-personal, as opposed to being uni-personal, then the name Allah refers to all of these divine persons collectively or individually, i.e. the Quran is Allah and Allah is also both the Quran and the one who uttered the Quran.

      If so then this refutes the assertion that is often made by Muslim dawagandists that Islam actually affirms unitarianism, or the belief that God is a singular consciousness or person, and not just a singular being.

      This also implies that to say that Allah existed alone really doesn’t mean anything since Allah is a multi-personal being. Therefore, he really wasn’t alone in the way that a single person would be since Allah and the Quran exist as a single being that have always been in fellowship with each other.
      Lot more references for you, Ken, in pt. 2.

      Like

    • The Quran is a living conscious being pt. 2

      In this post Ken I am going to discuss the Quran’s multiple personalities.

      Not only did Muhammad believe that the Quran is a living entity which could communicate, he even taught that the surahs themselves are independent conscious agents as well!

      In the following tradition, Muhammad is reported to have said a surah with 30 verses will act as an intercessor, but didn’t bother to say which surah he had in mind:

      Narrated AbuHurayrah:
      The Prophet said: A surah of the Qur’an containing thirty verses will intercede for its reader till he will be forgiven. That is: “Blessed is He in Whose Hand is the sovereignty” (Surah 67). (Sunan Abu Dawud, Book 6, Number 1395)

      This next one has Muhammad claiming that surahs 2 and 3 would intercede for believers who recited them:

      Abu Umama said he heard Allah’s Messenger say: Recite the Qur’an, for on the Day of Resurrection it will come as an intercessor for those who recite It. Recite the two bright ones, al-Baqara and Surah Al ‘Imran, for on the Day of Resurrection they will come as two clouds or two shades, or two flocks of birds in ranks, pleading for those who recite them. Recite Surah al-Baqara, for to take recourse to it is a blessing and to give it up is a cause of grief, and the magicians cannot confront it. (Mu’awiya said: It has been conveyed to me that here Batala means magicians.) (Sahih Muslim, Book 004, Number 1757)

      In these next hadiths, Muhammad states that surahs 2 and 3 will actually go before and/or precede the Quran in interceding for Muslims!

      Moreover, “Two flocks of birds” is an interesting image or analogy, since flocks in turn are made of multiple entities, as if each of these suras has multiple personalities in and of themselves. Perhaps this is referring to the multiple verses contained in each surah as having a conscious personality of their own? More on this point later.

      992. An-Nawwas bin Sam`an reported: I heard the Messenger of Allah saying, “The Qur’an and its people who applied it, will be brought on the Day of Resurrection preceded with Surat Al-Baqarah and Surat Al-`Imran ARGUING ON BEHALF OF THOSE who applied them.”

      [Muslim].

      Commentary: This Hadith means that on the Day of Requital, the Qur’an, with Surat Al-Baqarah and Al-`Imran IN THE FOREFRONT, WILL INTERCEDE BEFORE ALLAH for those who used to recite and act upon them in the life of the world. (Riyad-us-Saliheen, Chapter 180: The Excellence of Reciting the Qur’an; capital emphasis ours)

      And:

      2883. An-Nawwas bin Sam‘an narrated that the Prophet said: “The Qur’an SHALL COME, and its people who acted according to it in the world, Surat Al-Baqarah and Al ‘Imran SHALL BE IN FRONT OF IT.” An-Nawwas said: “The messenger of Allah stated three parables about them which I have not since forgotten, he said: ‘THEY WILL COME as if they are two shades between which there is illumination, or as if they are two shady clouds, or as if they are shadows of lines of birds ARGUING ON BEHALF OF THEIR PEOPLE.’” (Sahih)

      There is something on this topic from Buraidah and Abu Umamah.

      [Abu ‘Eisa said:] This Hadith is Hasan Gharib [from this route].

      According to the people of knowledge, the meaning of this Hadith is that the rewards of having recited them shall come. This is how some of the people of knowledge explained this Hadith and similar Ahadith regarding the coming of the rewards for reciting the Qur’an. And in the Hadith if An-Nawwas bin Sam‘an from the Prophet is what proves what they explained since the Prophet said: “And its people who acted according to it in the world.” So in this there is proof that it refers to the coming of the reward for the actions.

      Comments:

      According to this Hadith, these particular two Surah WILL ARGUE IN FAVOR of a person and DEFEND him and get their reward for reciting them; they also have the distinction and quality that on the Day of Judgement, when a person will be in extreme need of shade, the reward for reciting these two Surah will provide shade in the form of a canopy, cloud or like the wings of the birds to those who acted accordingly. (English Translation of Jami‘ At-Tirmidhi, Compiled by Imam Hafiz Abu ‘Eisa Mohammad Ibn ‘Eisa At-Tirmidhi, translated by Abu Khaliyl (USA), ahadith edited and referenced by Hafiz Tahir Zubair ‘Ali Za’i [Darussalam Publishers & Distributors, First Edition: November 2007], Volume 5, 42. The Chapters On The Virtues Of The Qur’an From The Messenger Of Allah, Chapter 5. What Has Been Related About Surat Al ‘Imran, pp. 223-224; capital emphasis ours)

      It seems that some of the Muslims were troubled with the notion of the surahs of the Quran coming to their people and therefore decided to explain this away by claiming that Muhammad really meant that their rewards would come to them. However, that is not the plain reading of the text and it is quite obvious from Muhammad’s reported words that he actually thought that the surahs themselves would come forth to defend those who recited them.

      It seems that Muhammad wanted to depict the Quran as a tribe or an army that is marching, and that these two particular suras would be at the front of the group. As such, the surahs do not have to be “separate/separated” from the rest of the group by a distance, but simply need to be walking in the front position of the army. Whatever the case, Muhammad’s statements imply some sort of “individualism,” or individual distinction among these surahs that are contained within the Quran.

      In other words, in order for surahs 2 and 3 to go ahead of the Quran they must be distinct from it in some sense. Yet for these surahs to be distinct from it, as well as from one another, implies that the Quran is a composition which consists of individual surahs that speak and intercede. In other words, this suggests there are at least 114 independent, conscious persons which make up the unity of the Quran!

      And if this is what Muhammad believed about the individual surahs then is it possible that he also believed this about the indvidual verses?

      To put it another way, is it possible that Muhammad may have actually thought that each individual ayah was also a personal consciousness agent, much like he thought of each individual surah?

      If this is the case then this means that there are over 6,000 independent personal agents which make up the unity and personhood of the Quran!

      Here is a breakdown of what Muhammad taught, and the implications of what he is reported to have said, so that the readers (specifically the Muslims) will be able to follow this more closely:

      The Quran intercedes for believers, thereby implying that it is a living, conscious personality.

      Certain individual surahs also intercede and will actually precede the Quran itself in defending believers on the Day of Judgment.

      These traditions seem to suggest that even the verses of the Quran are capable of interceding for Muslims.

      This would mean that Muhammad thought that all of the verses contained within these individual surahs have consciousness, which indicates that he considered all of them to be personal agents that could communicate with others.

      This, therefore, implies that the Quran is a conscious being consisting of over 6,000 individual personal agents!

      But now this introduces additional problems for the Muslim conception of Allah.

      If Allah is the only being who is uncreated, and yet the Quran is also uncreated, then Quran must be Allah in some sense.

      However, if the Quran is a unity of 114 surahs consisting of more than 6,000 individual conscious agents then this means that Allah is composed of over 6,000 distinct personal entities!

      At the very least this means that Allah is a being composed of 115 personal entities, e.g. the person whom Muslims typically refer to Allah and the 114 surahs together make up the being of the Islamic god.

      This leads us to our next discussion, which I will pick up in the next post.

      Like

    • Sam thanks for the comments but that’s enough for the time being. Cutting and pasting chunks of text is only useful if people have time to read them.

      Like

    • The Quran is a living conscious being pt. 3

      Ken, here I am going to show that the Quran not only appears as a man but even worships Allah as its very own Lord! Check it out:

      Muhammad further taught that on the day of resurrection the Quran would actually appear in human form to its adherents!

      It was narrated that Buraydah said: I heard the Prophet say: “The Qur’an will meet its companion on the Day of Resurrection when his grave is opened for him, IN THE FORM OF A PALE MAN. IT WILL SAY TO HIM, ‘Do you recognize me?’ He will say: ‘I do not recognize you.’ IT WILL SAY: ‘I am your companion the Qur’an, who kept you thirsty on hot days and kept you awake at night. Every merchant benefits from his business and today you will benefit from your good deeds.’ He will be given dominion in his right hand and eternity in his left, and there will be placed on his head a crown of dignity, and his parents will be clothed with priceless garments the like of which have never been seen in this world. They will say: ‘Why have we been clothed with this?’ It will be said: ‘Because your son used to recite Qur’an.’ Then it will be said to him: ‘Recite and ascend in the degrees of Paradise,’ and he will continue to ascend so long as he recites, either at a fast pace or a slow pace.”

      Narrated by Ahmad in al-Musnad (394) and Ibn Maajah in al-Sunan (3781); classed as hasan by al-Busayri in al-Zawaa’id and by al-Albaani in al-Silsilah al-Saheehah (2829).

      Here is the English translation of Ibn Majah’s version of this report:

      3781. It was narrated from Ibn Buraidah that his father told that the Messenger of Allah said: “The Qur’an will come on the Day of Resurrection, LIKE A PALE MAN, AND WILL SAY: ‘I am the one that kept you awake at night and made you thirsty during the day.’” (Hasan) (English Translation of Sunan Ibn Majah – Compiled by Imam Muhammad Bin Yazeed Ibn Majah Al-Qazwini, From Hadith No. 3657 to 4341, Ahadith edited and referenced by Hafiz Abu Tahir Zubair ‘Ali Za’i, translated by Nasiruddin al-Khattab (Canada), final review by Abu Khaliyl (USA), [Darussalam Publications and Distributors, First Edition: June 2007], Volume 5, Chapters on Etiquette, Chapter 52. The Rewards Associated With Qur’an, pp. 68-69; capital emphasis ours)

      And this is what the renowned Muslim scholar and expositor Al-Suyuti said concerning this hadith in his commentary (2/1242):

      “In the form of a pale man”.

      Al-Suyuti said: This is the one whose color has changed. It is as if he comes in this form so as to resemble his companion in this world, or to draw attention to the fact that just as his color changed in this world because of staying up at night to read Qur’an, the Qur’an will appear in a similar form because of its striving on the Day of Resurrection until its companion attains the ultimate goal in the Hereafter.

      How ironic! Muslims decry the notion of Allah either appearing or becoming a man, claiming that this is beneath his dignity and majesty, and yet Muslims (particularly Muhammad) had no problem with Allah’s uncreated speech assuming human likeness in order to communicate with its adherents!

      However, since we have already established that the Quran must also be Allah then this means that Allah does appear in human form!

      Notice the logic behind this:

      Only Allah is uncreated.

      The Quran is uncreated.

      The Quran must therefore be Allah.

      The Quran appears in human form.

      Since the Quran is Allah then this means that it is Allah who is appearing in human form!

      To top it off, Muhammad believed that the Quran prays to Allah and worships him as its Lord!

      Khalid b. Ma‘dan said: RECITE THE RESCUER, which is A.L.M. The sending down,3 for I have heard that a man who had committed many sins used to recite it and nothing else. It spread its wings over him AND SAID, ‘MY LORD, forgive him, for he often used to RECITE ME;’ so the Lord Most High MADE IT AN INTERCESSOR for him and said, ‘Record for him a good deed and raise him a degree in place of every sin.’ Khalid said: IT WILL DISPUTE on behalf of the one who RECITES IT when he is in the grave SAYING, ‘O God, if I am a part of Thy Book, make me AN INTERCESSOR for him; but if I am not a part of Thy Book, blot me out of it.’ It will be like a bird putting its wing on him, IT WILL INTERCEDE for him and will protect him from the punishment in the grave. He said the same about ‘Blessed is He.’4 Khalid did not go to sleep at night till he had recited them. Ta’us said they were given sixty virtues more than any other sura in the Qur’an. Darimi transmitted.”

      3. Qur’an, xxxii.

      4. Qur’an, lxvii. (Mishkat Al-Masabih, English Translation With Explanatory Notes by Dr. James Robson [Sh. Muhammad Ashraf Publishers, Booksellers & Exporters, Lahore-Pakistan, Reprint 1990], Volume II, Book VIII. The Excellent Qualities of the Qur’an, Chapter I, p. 459; bold and capital emphasis ours)

      Not only does this show that the Quran is personally distinct from Allah (since it even disputes with him!), it even indicates that it is a conscious being capable of praying and worshiping!(3)

      It makes perfect sense for the Quran to worship Allah as its Lord if it were in fact one of his creatures. However, since Muslims insist that the Quran cannot be created since it is eternal speech of Allah then this places them in quite a conundrum.

      This means that Islam teaches that there are actually two separate deities, Allah and the Quran, and that one of them is subordinate to the other and has a god over it/him!

      There you have it Ken! Both Muhammad and the ulema taught that the Quran is a living, conscious, speaking being that not only prays to Allah but also worships Allah as its very own Lord! The ulema further taught that the Quran is an essential part of Allah’s very own being since it is one of his uncreated attributed that is not him, and not other than him!

      Now that we got all these lies and falsehoods out of the way we can return to the questions which none of these Muslims answered. Can Allah’s speech be destroyed? Yes or no?

      Like

    • Williams, these are all quotations that I personally compiled for my articles? What do you want me to do, write them out all over again? Let’s be fair here. Anyway, I have established my case by citing Islam’s official sources, not some joe shmoe liberal. Therefore, Eric and Intellect need to come clean and admit they are either ignorant about what their deen teaches, or were simply lying.

      That’s it for me now. Thanks Williams.

      Like

    • Thanks Sam for providing lots of good information and quotes from Islamic scholars. Excellent!

      Like

    • With the name of Allah the Gracious the Merciful

       

      As usual Sam was just copy pasting from secondary sources seemingly without any intellectual capacity to comprehend it, and at the end he just gave us his skewed understanding to salvage his erroneous belief. Hilarious.

      Let me point out just one example of his twisting from the original source:

      He Cited the Attahawiyyah creed:

      //35. The Qur’an is the Word of God THAT EMANATED FROM HIM without modality in its expression. He sent it down to His messenger as a revelation. The believers accept it as such literally. They are certain it is, in reality, the Word of God, the Sublime and Exalted.

      36. Unlike human speech, IT IS ETERNAL AND UNCREATED. (The Creed of Imam Al-Tahawi (Al-Aqidah al-Tahawiyyah), translated, annotated and introduced by Hamza Yusuf [Zaytuna Institute, 2007], p. 54; capital emphasis ours)//

       

      There was nothing in the Atttawiyyah creed which says like he wrote, it also in the wrong numbers. I do not know how he copy -pasted the quote from but it is certainly not accurate.

      The closest I can get is no 33 which Imam At Tahawi wrote:

      وَإِنَّ الْقُرْآنَ كَلَامُ اللَّهِ مِنْهُ بَدَا بِلَا كَيْفِيَّةٍ قَوْلًا وَأَنْزَلَهُ عَلَى رَسُولِهِ وَحْيًا وَصَدَّقَهُ الْمُؤْمِنُونَ عَلَى ذَلِكَ حَقًّا وَأَيْقَنُوا أَنَّهُ كَلَامُ اللَّهِ تَعَالَى بِالْحَقِيقَةِ لَيْسَ بِمَخْلُوقٍ كَكَلَامِ الْبَرِيَّةِ . فَمَنْ سَمِعَهُ فَزَعَمَ أَنَّهُ كَلَامُ الْبَشَرِ فَقَدْ كَفَرَ وَقَدْ ذَمَّهُ اللَّهُ وَعَابَهُ وَأَوْعَدَهُ بِسَقَرَ حَيْثُ قَالَ تَعَالَى سَأُصْلِيهِ سَقَرَ  فَلَمَّا أَوْعَدَ اللَّهُ بِسَقَرَ لِمَنْ قَالَ إِنْ هَذَا إِلَّا قَوْلُ الْبَشَرِ عَلِمْنَا وَأَيْقَنَّا أَنَّهُ قَوْلُ خَالِقِ الْبَشَرِ وَلَا يُشْبِهُ قَوْلَ الْبَشَرِ

       

      The Quran is the word of Allah. It came from Him as speech without it being possible to say how He speaks. He sent it down on His Messenger as revelation. The believers accept it as the truth. They are certain that it is the word of Allah in truth. It is not created as is the speech of human beings, and anyone who hears it and claims that it is human speech has become an unbeliever. Allah warns him and censures him and threatens him with Hellfire when the Exalted said: I will burn him in the Fire(74:26).When Allah threatens with the Hellfire those who said: This is only human speech (74:25), we know for certain that it is the speech of the Creator of humanity and that it is completely unlike the speech of humanity.

      What Imam Tahawi really says was  the Kalamullah ie the Qur’an is not created in such a way as if it is the speech of human beings. Nothing difficult about  it , of course the Qur’an is not the product of human thus it was not the speech of prophet Muhammad, all believe accept this in sync with the Tauhid.  The way we must understand  this  Kalamullah is accroding to  Imam Tahawi as he wrote it in 33: Badaa bilaa kayfiyyati Kawlaa بَدَا بِلَا كَيْفِيَّةٍ قَوْلًا وَ this is the key ! It is not possible to define HOW the speech is spoken.  This is the as far as we can say about the Qur’an. We can not say or defined something what is not written or defined in the Qur’an. That is foremost principle of the orthodox Sunni Islam in presenting our creed/ Aqeeedah.

      So in the original text there is no mention of the word EMANATION nor ETERNAL whatsoever there. That is a deception on your part. That choice of words is standard trinitarian formula. A polytheism in disguise.

      All this issue of Kalamullah is only a matter of hermeneutics difference and it is something which  not defined in the Quran nor and hadith.

      If you want to compare Kalamullah with the trinitarianism, show us where from our source, nonsense similar to trintarian creed :

      “For there is one Person of Allah; another of the Qur’an. But the Godhead of Allah, of the Qur’an, is all one; the Glory equal, the Majesty coeternal. Such as Allah is; such is the Qur’an. Allah  uncreated; the Son uncreated. etc….”

      Glory be to Allah and His essence, we are free from that kind of idolatry as  we muslims are always the genuine monotheists; the guardian of the true faith of the God of Abraham and all Prophets till the end of days.

      Like

    • As usual Ken, Eric has to resort to lying again and making false assertions to cover over the fact that he got exposed by me. In the first place, the sources I cited came from Muslim scholars such as Hamza Yusuf and G. F. Haddad. Therefore, his claim that I quoted from secondary sources is nothing more than a vacuous claim which proves nothing.

      Second, notice his shameless, pitiful attempt to butcher the actual Arabic text of at-Tahawi to make it seem that at-Tahawi wasn’t affirming that the Quran is the uncreated speech of Allah, but rather it isn’t created in the same way that human speech is!

      Let me obliterate this lie once again. First, the translation was done by Hamza Yusuf. Therefore, unless this gentleman thinks he is a more qualified scholar than Yusuf is to accurately understand and translate the Arabic, this only goes to show just how deceitful this gentleman since has no qualms about butchering the Arabic to fit his agenda.

      Second, here is another rendition of at-Tahawi’s creed:

      36. The Qur’an is Allah’s word, emanating from Him without explanation, revealed to His Messenger as a revelation. The Believers accept it as truth in accordance with that description. Moreover, they are certain it is literally the Word of Allah, The Transcendant.

      37. IT IS ETERNAL AND UNCREATED unlike human speech…

      75. We do not argue with anyone concerning the nature of the Qur’an, but bear witness that it is the Word of Allah, revealed through the trustworthy spirit of Jibreel who brought it to the Paragon of the Messengers, Muhammad and taught by Allah.

      76. It is the Word of Allah, incomparable to human speech, NOR DO WE SAY THAT IT IS CREATED. (Pp. 7, 13: http://alghazzali.org/resources/articles/aqeedahNotes.pdf)

      Still not satisfied? Well here is another edition translated by Muhammad ‘Abdul-Haqq Ansari, which even has commentary to go along with it:

      (66) We do not dispute about the Qur’an. We bear witness that it is the speech of the Lord of the Worlds, which the faithful spirit brought down and communicated to Muhammad, the leader of the messengers. It is the speech of Allah, the Most High, which no speech of any created being can match. WE DO NOT BELIEVE THAT IT WAS CREATED, AND WE AVOID GOING AGAINST THE BELIEF OF THE MUSLIM COMMUNITY. (P. 261)

      The words, “We believe that the Qur’an is the speech of the Lord of the Worlds” need no comment. We have already discussed the point at length while commenting on the author’s words, “The Qur’an is the speech of Allah, ORIGINATING FROM HIM IN A WAY THAT TRANSCENDS DESCRIPTION.”…

      The words “We do not believe that it was created, and we avoid going against the belief of the Muslim community,” CONTAIN A REPRIMAND FOR THOSE WHO SAY THAT THE QUR’AN WAS CREATED AND THEREBY OPPOSE THE MUSLIM COMMUNITY. The Elders of the ummah agreed that the Qur’an is in reality THE UNCREATED SPEECH OF ALLAH. (P. 264)

      Now let me quote from the very online source which he lifted his translation from without bothering to mention that this is where he got his rendering of at-Tahawi. Note, once again, what he cited:

      The Quran is the word of Allah. It came from Him as speech without it being possible to say how He speaks. He sent it down on His Messenger as revelation. The believers accept it as the truth. They are certain that it is the word of Allah in truth. It is not created as is the speech of human beings, and anyone who hears it and claims that it is human speech has become an unbeliever. Allah warns him and censures him and threatens him with Hellfire when the Exalted said: I will burn him in the Fire(74:26).When Allah threatens with the Hellfire those who said: This is only human speech (74:25), we know for certain that it is the speech of the Creator of humanity and that it is completely unlike the speech of humanity.

      Eric shamelessly took this from the English translation done by sunnahonline.com, but without giving credit.

      Now had he continued reading a little further into this particular rendition of the creed he would have found the following point:

      56. We do not argue about the Qur’an and we bear witness that it is the speech of the Lord of all the Worlds which the Trustworthy Spirit came down with and taught the most honoured of all the Messengers, Muhammad, may Allah bless him and grant him peace. It is the Speech of Allah and no speech of any created being is comparable to it. WE DO NOT SAY IT WAS CREATED AND WE DO NOT GO AGAINST THE JAMA’AH OF THE MUSLIMS REGARDING IT.

      Therefore, Eric stands condemned as a kafir and munafoq for going against the ijmaa of the Sunni ulema since the official position of ahlul-sunna wa’jamah is that the Quran is the uncreated speech of Allah, and anyone who goes against this consensus is deemed a disbeliever.

      This is why I said this child shouldn’t be engaging in apologetics or polemics at all.

      Like

    • FYI Ken, here is the link to the english translation of at-Tahawi by Muhammad ‘Abdul-Haqq Ansari in case you want to read it for yourself: http://www.kalamullah.com/Books/Commentary%20on%20The%20Creed%20of%20At-Tahawi-Part%203.pdf

      Enjoy!

      Like

    • Idol worshiping and Hindusm is oldest religion. If old is true then idol worshipers and Hindus “Holy” spirit is the true “Holy” spirit than that of Christianity. Idol worshipers and Hindus believe their spirit is Holy.

      The verses you quoted is your belief. We do not believe that and Hindus and idol worshipers have their scriptures telling them their spirits is Holy.

      Rabbi Tovia said the yardstick must be the God of Abraham who is one, only and alone but not more than one persons because there is nothing in the Torah that said God is 3 persons or God is God-Man but idol worshipers have God-Man and more than one persons as Gods and it is influenced by Satan.

      Rabbis believed Muslims are worshiping the same God of Abraham who is one, only and alone.

      Thanks.

      Like

    • With the name of Allah the Gracious the Merciful

      //Second, notice his shameless, pitiful attempt to butcher the actual Arabic text of at-Tahawi to make it seem that at-Tahawi wasn’t affirming that the Quran is the uncreated speech of Allah, but rather it isn’t created in the same way that human speech is!

      Let me obliterate this lie once again. First, the translation was done by Hamza Yusuf. Therefore, unless this gentleman thinks he is a more qualified scholar than Yusuf is to accurately understand and translate the Arabic, this only goes to show just how deceitful this gentleman since has no qualms about butchering the Arabic to fit his agenda.//

      I read primary sources with regard to Islamic scholarship in Arabic, I do not rely on translation.  Also I  learn Islamic sciences under instruction from various Shaykhs.

      Let’s see the reference  Im using regarding Al-Aqeedah AtTahaawi  العقيدة الطحاوي :

      • Title:  The Creed of At Tahawiy, explanation and Commentary العقيدة الطحاوية شرح وتعليق
      • Author: Abu Jaafar At-Tahawy أبو جعفر الطحاوي
      • Commentary: Muhammad Nasiruddin Al Albani محمد ناصر الدين الألباني
      • Published year:  1394H/1974

      [gallery ids="14995,14996" type="rectangular"]

      So mine got the correct numbering and more importantly in the original text of Imam Tahawiy as it was written there is absolutely  no mention of the word EMANATION nor ETERNAL whatsoever. That is an interpolation into the original text.  What Imam Tahawi really says was  the Kalamullah ie the Qur’an is not created in such a way as if it is the speech of human beings. The context is the Qur’an  verse  74:25 when some unbeliever during the prophet time who accused the Qur’an as being “human speech” إِنْ هَٰذَا إِلَّا قَوْلُ الْبَشَرِ . At Tahawy reject this accusation and  decree that Qur’an is not the product of human thus it was not the speech of prophet Muhammad.

      At Tahawy did not suggesting that the Qur’an being a Kalamullah then makes it an eternal entity like Allah worthy of worship like Trinitarianism who exceed their religion with elevating Jesus the son of Mary into the position of God. A case of idolatry.

      Next time you want to articulate an argument from Islamic sources, bring  the original text not just the translation.

      Btw I am still waiting if you can provide any evidence from our source, where it says: something similar to trintarian creed :

      “For there is one Person of Allah; another of the Qur’an. But the Godhead of Allah, of the Qur’an, is all one; the Glory equal, the Majesty coeternal. Such as Allah is; such is the Qur’an. Allah  uncreated; the Qur’an uncreated. etc….”

       

      Like

    • With the name of Allah the Gracious the Merciful

      //Second, notice his shameless, pitiful attempt to butcher the actual Arabic text of at-Tahawi to make it seem that at-Tahawi wasn’t affirming that the Quran is the uncreated speech of Allah, but rather it isn’t created in the same way that human speech is!

      Let me obliterate this lie once again. First, the translation was done by Hamza Yusuf. Therefore, unless this gentleman thinks he is a more qualified scholar than Yusuf is to accurately understand and translate the Arabic, this only goes to show just how deceitful this gentleman since has no qualms about butchering the Arabic to fit his agenda.//

      I read primary sources with regard to Islamic scholarship in Arabic, I do not rely on translation.  Also I  learn Islamic sciences under instruction from various Shaykhs.

      Let’s see the reference  Im using regarding Al-Aqeedah AtTahaawi  العقيدة الطحاوي :

      • Title:  The Creed of At Tahawiy, explanation and Commentary العقيدة الطحاوية شرح وتعليق
      • Author: Abu Jaafar At-Tahawy أبو جعفر الطحاوي
      • Commentary: Muhammad Nasiruddin Al Albani محمد ناصر الدين الألباني
      • Published year:  1394H/1974

      Screen Shot 2016-06-19 at 23.54.59Screen Shot 2016-06-19 at 23.45.05

      So mine got the correct numbering and more importantly in the original text of Imam Tahawiy as it was written there is absolutely  no mention of the word EMANATION nor ETERNAL whatsoever. That is an interpolation into the original text.  What Imam Tahawi really says was  the Kalamullah ie the Qur’an is not created in such a way as if it is the speech of human beings. The context is the Qur’an  verse  74:25 when some unbeliever during the prophet time who accused the Qur’an as being “human speech” إِنْ هَٰذَا إِلَّا قَوْلُ الْبَشَرِ . At Tahawy reject this accusation and  decree that Qur’an is not the product of human thus it was not the speech of prophet Muhammad.

      At Tahawy did not suggesting that the Qur’an being a Kalamullah then makes it an eternal entity like Allah worthy of worship like Trinitarianism who exceed their religion with elevating Jesus the son of Mary into the position of God. A case of idolatry.

      Next time you want to articulate an argument from Islamic sources, bring  the original text not just the translation.

      Btw I am still waiting if you can provide any evidence from our source, where it says: something similar to trintarian creed :

      “For there is one Person of Allah; another of the Qur’an. But the Godhead of Allah, of the Qur’an, is all one; the Glory equal, the Majesty coeternal. Such as Allah is; such is the Qur’an. Allah  uncreated; the Qur’an uncreated. etc….”

       

      Like

    • Ericm, for the sake of being charitable I am going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you aren’t being deceitful and dishonest, but rather it is because you don’t know your own religion that well and have a hard time comprehending what you read which accounts for why you so badly distort the meaning of your own sources and the claims of your opponents.

      Note what you wrote:

      “At Tahawy did not suggesting that the Qur’an being a Kalamullah then makes it an eternal entity like Allah worthy of worship like Trinitarianism who exceed their religion with elevating Jesus the son of Mary into the position of God. A case of idolatry.”

      Can you be so kind and show me where I ever stated that at-Tahawi argued that Muslims must now worship the Quran because it is eternal like Allah?

      More importantly, do you now agree with me that at-Tahawi did proclaim that the Quran is the uncreated speech of Allah, and that this is the official position of ahlul-sunna wa’jamah just like the citations I provided from Shaykh Haddad confirmed?

      Once you answer these questions I will then proceed with some more questions for you.

      Like

    • With the name of Allah the Gracious the Merciful

       

      //Can you be so kind and show me where I ever stated that at-Tahawi argued that Muslims must now worship the Quran because it is eternal like Allah?//

      The Aqidah of Ahl AsSunnah wal Jama’ah NEVER believe that the Qur’an is “eternal like Allah”, this is silly claim.

      I cite again in  Al-Aqeedah AtTahaawi which is generally regarded as the orthodox Sunni position :

      الْقُرْآنَ كَلَامُ اللَّهِ مِنْهُ

      The Qur’an is the speech of Allah.

      بَدَا بِلَا كَيْفِيَّةٍ قَوْلًا

      It came from Him as speech without it being possible to say how He speaks.

      وَأَنْزَلَهُ عَلَى رَسُولِهِ وَحْيًا

      He sent it down on His Messenger as revelation.

      وَصَدَّقَهُ الْمُؤْمِنُونَ عَلَى ذَلِكَ حَقًّا

      The believers accept it as the truth.

      وَأَيْقَنُوا أَنَّهُ كَلَامُ اللَّهِ تَعَالَى

      They are certain that it is the word of Allah the Most High in truth.

      بِالْحَقِيقَةِ لَيْسَ بِمَخْلُوقٍ كَكَلَامِ الْبَرِيَّةِ

      It is not created as is the speech of human beings.

       

      All the scholars of ahl sunnah wal jama’ah agree that The Qur’an is the Word of God, not a creation

      الْقُرْآنَ كَلَامُ اللَّهِغير مخلوق

       

      This is the as far as we can say about the Qur’an. We can not say statement like: “ The Qur’an  is eternal like Allah”.  This is not allowed.

      We can not say or something what is not written or defined in the Qur’an. That is foremost principle of the orthodox Sunni Islam in presenting our creed/ Aqeeedah.

       

      //do you now agree with me that at-Tahawi did proclaim that the Quran is the uncreated speech of Allah, and that this is the official position of ahlul-sunna wa’jamah just like the citations I provided from Shaykh Haddad confirmed?//

      Statement “The Quran is the uncreated speech of Allah” is different from  “ The Qur’an  is eternal like Allah”

      You can never fully understand the nuance in Arabic language when conversing inf English.  Shaykh Haddad position in his rendering “the Quran is the uncreated speech of Allah” must be based on the Arabic كَلَامُ اللَّهِغير مخلوق, it literally means “Speech of Allah not a creation” like in Tahawi creed but  we are not allowed to stop on this statement alone, more qualifying statement need.

      Sh. Haddad, assuming he also belongs to ahl sunnah wal jama’ah (I believe he does), must also reject such a statement like “the Qur’an is eternal like Allah”  such as the position of Logos in trinitarianism (Tajassud al-Kalimah) which is utterly shirk.

       

      Like

    • It came from Him as speech without it being possible to say how He speaks.
      بَدَا بِلَا كَيْفِيَّةٍ قَوْلًا

      There it is, bela Keif ye بلا کیفیه = without (asking or knowing) how.

      In the same way, the Bible says:
      Jesus is both God and Man.
      Jesus truly died on the cross and was an atonement for sin; and rose from the dead.
      We don’t know how; but it is true.

      Like

    • It’s wrong comparison.

      We stop exactly right at the definition given in the Qur’an : Al Qur’an Kalamullah or “the Qur’an is the Word of God”.

      In your case nowhwere it is explicitly stated that “Jesus is God” or Jesus is God-Man”.

      So you are making an interpolated new definition of Jesus the man. That He is God Almighty. This is idolatry.

      Like

    • Eric,

      I have to be honest and say that the more you respond the more I am coming to believe that you are simply dishonest and very deceitful, which is why you choose to tap dance around the answers and/or badly misrepresent what the sources you are reading from are actually saying. Take, for instance, what you wrote:

      “The Aqidah of Ahl AsSunnah wal Jama’ah NEVER believe that the Qur’an is “eternal like Allah”, this is silly claim.”

      You then translate and say,

      “All the scholars of ahl sunnah wal jama’ah agree that “The Qur’an is the Word of God, not a creation“”

      “Statement “The Quran is the uncreated speech of Allah” is different from “ The Qur’an is eternal like Allah””

      This again illustrates why I keep saying you have no business engaging in a defense of Islam since you truly are embarrassing.

      If something is uncreated then this means it has no beginning. And if something has no beginning then this means that it has always existed. And if something has no beginning then this means that IT IS ETERNAL!

      It doesn’t matter what language is used to communicate this point, whether swahili, afrikaans you name it, since uncreated has the exact same meaning in all languages.

      With that said, let me repost some of the other authorities that I cited to expose your tap dance routine:

      Ahlul al-Sunnah declare the following: We believe that the attribute of speech [of Allah] to be Qadim al-Naw’ Hadith al-Ahad, which means that IN ITS ESSENCE [Allah’s Speech] IS ETERNAL, and He speaks whenever He wants the way He wants.

      Saying, “Qadim al-Naw’” means that Speech is an Attribute of the Divine Essence, hence Eternal, as it exists due by His Essence, WHICH NEITHER HAS AN END NOR A BEGINNING…

      The following ayat establish clear incontrovertible proof of Allah’s Speech, in a manner that befits His Majesty and Supremacy, WHICH IS AN ETERNAL, EVERLASTING, AND PERFECT ATTRIBUTE OF HIS ESSENCE.

      Allah said…

      “And, indeed, Allah spoke to Musa with [direct] speech.” [al-Nisa’ (4):164]

      Moreover, Allah said…

      “And the word of your Lord has been fulfilled in truth and in justice. None can alter His words, and He is the Hearing, the Knowing.” [al-An’am (6):115]

      “I seek refuge in the Perfect Word from the evil of what He created”.

      “nothing would harm him until he marches from that stopping place.”

      All these are proof enough to affirm the attribute of Speech of Allah, Most High.

      The Qur’an is the Word of Allah (Kalam Allah), which He sent down to His slave and Messenger, to remain as a source of legislation for mankind, until the Day of Judgement. He described Himself with it, by adding it [as a genitive] to His Name, in the verse…

      “And if anyone of the idolaters seek thy protection, then grant him protection so that he may hear the words of Allah. Then deliver him to his place of safety. That is because they are a people who do not know.” [al-Taubah (9):6]

      THEREFORE HE WHO CLAIMS THAT THE QUR’AN IS CREATED IS A DISBELIEVER as per the evidence established by all the aforementioned ayat.

      All the scholars and exegetes specializing in Jurisprudence and hadith agree by consensus that whoever says that the Qur’an is created IS A DISBELIEVER. The majority of scholars also stated that whoever says that his utterance of the Qur’an is created is an innovator [as opposed to other scholars who declared such a person to be a disbeliever]. AS FOR THOSE WHO SIT ON THE FENCE REGARDING THIS ISSUE – they neither state that the Qur’an is created but nor do they affirm the Qur’an as being the Word of Allah – THEY ARE CLASSIFIED AS INNOVATORS AS WELL.

      Imam Ahmad [ibn Hanbal] and Ahlu’l-Sunnah wa’l-Jama’ah were firm about this issue, showing no tolerance to anyone who did not take a firm position on this matter. Moreover, they abandoned those scholars who stated their utterance of the Qur’an was created, and also discouraged and warned people from learning or taking knowledge from them. The reason for their strong reaction and firm stance against these scholars as to close the door to ill-hearted people who would exploit such a statement in order to manipulate the Qur’an. This is because the utterance in this case is a double-edged sword; on the one hand it is an action performed by a person, and from another aspect, the utterance includes the Qur’an itself, which is the Word of Allah.

      This is why Imam Ahmad ibn Hanbal told people not to visit or take knowledge from al-Husayn ibn ‘Ali al-Karabisi, and forbade Dawud al-Zahiri, who had not taken a stance in this matter, from entering upon him; he dealt similarly with Ya’qub al-Dawraqi, and other scholars who had the same attitude. This is the reason why the author stated, “[It is also required] that the Qur’an is the Speech of Allah, it is neither (makluq) created to eventually vanish nor the (sifah) attribute of something created which must therefpre come to an end (yanfadh).” (The Creed of Ibn Abi Zayd Al-Qayrawani: being a translation of Muqaddimah al-Risalah ibn Abi Zayd al-Qayrawani, by Imam Abu Muhammad ‘Abdullah Ibn Abi Zayd al-Qayrawani [310 – 389 AH], with commentary by Shaikh Ahmad ibn Yahya al-Najmi [d. 1429 AH] [Dar As-Sunnah Publishers, Birmingham, U.K.: First edition, 2012], pp. 68-73; bold emphasis ours)

      Sunni Muslim writer, GF Haddad, in addressing Shia claims to the contrary, provides a list of quotes from renowned Muslim scholars regarding the Quran’s uncreatedness, some of which include:

      Ahl al-Sunna agree one and all that the Qur’an IS THE PRE-EXISTENT, PRE-ETERNAL, UNCREATED SPEECH OF ALLAH Most High on the evidence of the Qur’an, the Sunna, and faith-guided reason.

      In a rare instance of classic kalâm reasoning, Imam Malik gave the most succint statement of this doctrine:

      “The Qur’an is the Speech of Allah, the Speech of Allah COMES FROM HIM, AND NOTHING CREATED COMES FROM ALLAH MOST HIGH.” Narrated by al-Dhahabi in Siyar A`lam al-Nubala’ (Dar al-Fikr ed. 7:416).

      Hafiz Abu al-Qasim Ibn `Asakir said in Tabyin Kadhib al-Muftari (Dar al-Jil ed. p. 150-151):

      “The Mu`tazila said: ‘the Speech of Allah Most High is created, invented, and brought into being.’ The Hashwiyya, who attribute a body to Allah the Exalted, said: ‘The alphabetical characters (al-hurûf al-muqatta`a), the materials on which they are written, the colors in which they are written, and all that is between the two covers [of the volumes of Qur’an] is beginningless and pre-existent (qadîma azaliyya). Al-Ash`ari took a middle road between them and said: The Qur’an is the beginningless speech of Allah Most High unchanged, uncreated, not of recent origin in time, nor brought into being. As for the alphabetical characters, the materials, the colors, the voices, the elements that are subject to limitations (al-mahdûdât), and all that is subject to modality (al-mukayyafât) in the world: all this is created, originated, and produced.”

      Hafiz Abu Bakr al-Bayhaqi said in al-Asma’ wa al-Sifat (al-Kawthari ed. p. 265; al-Hashidi ed. 2:18) with a sound chain:

      “Something Ibn Shaddad had written was handed to Abu Bakr al-Marwazi which containing the phrase: “My pronunciation of the Qur’an is uncreated” and the latter was asked to show it to Ahmad ibn Hanbal for corroboration. The latter crossed out the phrase and wrote instead: “The Qur’an, however used (haythu yusraf), is uncreated.”

      “In another sound narration, Abu Bakr al-Marwazi, Abu Muhammad Fawran [or Fawzan], and Salih ibn Ahmad ibn Hanbal witnessed Ahmad rebuking one of his students named Abu Talib with the words: “Are you telling people that I said: ‘My pronunciation of the Qur’an is uncreated’?” Abu Talib replied: “I only said this from my own.” Ahmad said: “Do not say this – neither from me, nor from you! I never heard any person of knowledge say it. The Qur’an is the Speech of Allah UNCREATED, whichever way it is used.” Salih said to Abu Talib: “If you told people what you said, now go and tell the same people that Abu `Abd Allah [Imam Ahmad] forbade to say it.”” End of al-Bayhaqi’s narration in al-Asma’ wa al-Sifat (Kawthari ed. p. 265-266; al-Hashidi ed. 2:18).

      This is a sound narration also found in Salih ibn Ahmad’s book al-Mihna (p. 70-71), Ibn al-Jawzi’s Manaqib al-Imam Ahmad (p. 155), and Ibn Taymiyya in Majmu` al-Fatawa (12:360, 12:425).

      The Proof of Islam and Renewer of the Fifth Hijri Century, Imam Abu Hamid al-Ghazzali said in his “Foundations of Islamic Belief” (Qawa`id al-`Aqa’id) published in his Rasa’il and his Ihya’ `Ulum al-Din and partially translated in Shaykh Nuh Keller’s Reliance of the Traveller and by Mrs. Ahmad Darwish on the Mosque of the Internet:

      “The Qur’an is read by tongues, written in books, and remembered in the heart, yet it is, nevertheless, UNCREATED AND WITHOUT BEGINNING, SUBSISTING IN THE ESSENCE OF ALLAH, not subject to division and or separation through its transmission to the heart and paper. Musa – upon him peace – heard the Speech of Allah without sound and without letter, just as the righteous see the Essence of Allah Most High in the Hereafter, without substance or its quality.” End of al-Ghazzali’s words.

      And Imam al-Tahawi said of the Qur’an in his “Creed of Abu Hanifa and his Companions”: “It is not created like the speech of creatures.” (The Uncreatedness of the divine speech the glorious Qur’an; capital emphasis ours)

      Just in case you missed it, here are the specific quotes which say the Quran is eternal, without beginning:

      Ahlul al-Sunnah declare the following: We believe that the attribute of speech [of Allah] to be Qadim al-Naw’ Hadith al-Ahad, which means that IN ITS ESSENCE [Allah’s Speech] IS ETERNAL, and He speaks whenever He wants the way He wants.

      Saying, “Qadim al-Naw’” means that Speech is an Attribute of the Divine Essence, HENCE ETERNAL, as it exists due by His Essence, WHICH NEITHER HAS AN END NOR A BEGINNING…

      The following ayat establish clear incontrovertible proof of Allah’s Speech, in a manner that befits His Majesty and Supremacy, WHICH IS AN ETERNAL, EVERLASTING, AND PERFECT ATTRIBUTE OF HIS ESSENCE.

      And:

      Ahl al-Sunna agree one and all that the Qur’an IS THE PRE-EXISTENT, PRE-ETERNAL, UNCREATED SPEECH OF ALLAH Most High on the evidence of the Qur’an, the Sunna, and faith-guided reason.

      Now which part of the Quran as Allah’s speech is eternal in its essence, everlasting, being pre-existent, pre-eternal aren’t clear to you?

      This brings me to the next part of deceit. Unless you believe that there are degrees of eternality, or that Allah’s attributes are not as eternal as he is, then you have no choice but to accept that the Quran as Allah’s speech is just as eternal as Allah, and therefore is eternal just like Allah!

      Now that I demolished your smoke and mirrors tactics, I am going to ask you two questions related to this topic.

      1. How many uncreated, eternal beings/entities exist according to Islam?

      2. Is the Quran identical to Allah, or is it other than Allah?

      Liked by 1 person

    • If something is uncreated then this means it has no beginning. And if something has no beginning then this means that it has always existed. And if something has no beginning then this means that IT IS ETERNAL!
      It doesn’t matter what language is used to communicate this point, . . .

      That was very good and totally destroyed Eric’s arguments.

      “I seek refuge in the Perfect Word from the evil of what He created”.

      Where is that from?

      Allah created evil?

      Like

    • With the name of Allah the Gracious the Merciful

      You misrepresent what Ahl Sunnah wal jama’ah believe. Those long copy-paste, you don’t seem able to grasp, does not prove anything about your claim that “The Qur’an is eternal like Allah”

      1. You failed to cite me any evidence / Daleel / Hujjah from Islamic sources which says Al Qur’an is equal to Allah like the logos in trinitarianism. You failed.
      2. Next I demand you to provide / Daleel / Hujjah from Islamic sources any statement that “The Qur’an is eternal like Allah”? or in Arabic something like: Al Qur’an Al Qadiim biinahu Huwallah  “القران القديم  بأنه هو الله” ??

      I am still waiting…

      Now you deceitfully try to isolate the word “Eternal” and give  its Nisbaah to the Qur’an, That is not how Ahl Sunnah wal Jama’ah derive their conclusion.It shows your complete lack of familiarity of Islamic creed and the method in which Islamic scholars handle Islamic texts.

      Well of course Eternity is one of the quality of Allah essence but the Ahl Sunnah NEVER ever says that  “Qur’an is eternal” and stops there. It is not the Qur’an nor in the hadiths! What we know only that the “Qur’an is Kalamullah”.

      it is Divine  essence/ Sifaatullah only which is eternal. The Arabic Qur’anic recitation maybe the representation  of the actual wisdom of God in Arabic inspired to Angel Gabriel and then to the Prophet. It is not created as if it is a mere speech of man as some of the Arabs contemporary to Prophet had been accusing. it is Kalamullah.

      However  the Qur’an never claim that it is the actual Sifaatullah subsisting within the Divine Essence. Allah does not “speak” Arabic.  The recitation of the Qur’an prophet muhammad taught us  in Arabic is a mere expression in arabic. It is “ibaarah” عبارة of the actual eternal, uncreated of “Divine Speech”  that is with Allah.

      Like

  11. Ken Temple

    Whatever the death is or whatever the definition of death is, the Bible said God cannot die. So copying Dr. James White by saying “death does not mean cease to exist” is neither here or there. Come on deal with the topic and stop changing the topic.

    God does not die, so God did not die for anyone’s sin.

    Human nature died?

    Nature is not a being and it is a human being that dies but not nature. Dr. David Kemball-Cook said “it is human being that dies but “nature” does not die”.

    You are confusing nature to a human being.

    According the Rastafarians Emperor Haile Selaissie has 2 natures and Hindus have Sai Baba with 2 natures and so are many idol worshipers with their gods having 2 natures. If you force us to believe your 2 natures then their 2 nature gods must be believed as well.

    If God can do what He wants to become a man, then He can become Emperor Haile Selaissie, Sai Baba and so many God Men we have.

    You are a believer in God-Men like Hindus and Rastafarians. Unitarian Christians, Jews, Muslims and others are believers in a God who is not a man as the Bible said.

    Thanks.

    Liked by 1 person

  12. Because Holy Scripture teaches that the Messiah would be a human who would die for sins.
    Daniel 9:24-27
    the Messiah will be cut off

    Isaiah 53:1-12

    verse 6 – “the Lord caused the iniquity of us all to fall upon Him”

    verse 8 – “He was cut off (same concept as in Daniel 9, though it is a different Hebrew word) from the land of the living . . . ”

    verse 10 – “the Lord was pleased to crush Him, if He would voluntarily render Himself as a guilt offering”

    Mark 10:45
    The son of man came not to be served, but to serve (be the suffering servant of Isaiah 53, etc.) and to give His life a ransom for many.”

    The Bible prophesied of this many times, Genesis 22 is one of them; which the Qur’an affirms –

    Surah 37:107 – “we have ransomed him with a mighty sacrifice”

    وَفَدَيْنَاهُ بِذِبْحٍ عَظِيمٍ

    Like

    • With the name of Allah

      Ridiculous comment, what بِذِبْحٍ عَظِيمٍ means in 37:107 is that the prayer of Abraham is heard by God , and his son WAS SAVED and his act of obedience and the test from God become an example for later generations

      إِنَّ هَٰذَا لَهُوَ الْبَلَاءُ الْمُبِينُ
      [Quran 37:106] Indeed, this was the clear TRIAL *Al-balāul-mubīn*

      وَفَدَيْنَاهُ بِذِبْحٍ عَظِيمٍ
      [Quran 37:107] And We ransomed him with a great sacrifice.

      وَتَرَكْنَا عَلَيْهِ فِي الْآخِرِينَ
      [Quran 37:108] And we PRESERVED his history for SUBSEQUENT GENERATIONS.

      Every year muslims commemorated this obedience of Abraham as big / MIGHTY event.
      Milion upon million of animal slaughtered wordwide like we did today, and the meat are shared for the needy as acts of social justice hence what is meant by the MIGHTY sacrifice “بِذِبْحٍ عَظِيمٍ” in Q 37:107.
      Its nothing to do with God sacrifice himself by committing suicide to ransom people sin.

      God does not sacrifice the sin of His creation , and sacrifice for atoning sin is a process that must be initiated ONLY by God creation the one who commits the sin/offense/transgression, the purpose of which is to obtain forgiveness by God, the creator not….. the other way around.

      قربان‎ / קָרְבָּן – qorban (sacrifices) in Islamic/jewish terminology has very very little to do with sacrifices. Most qorban is given as an offer to God (it actually means drawing nearer to God, and has nothing to do with sin or atoning for sin.

      In hebrew bible, prayer, repentance have always been available to people in order to seek forgiveness from God. No need for human or “god” sacrifice to atone sin of human. A very silly idea.

      Liked by 1 person

    • //Daniel 9:24-27
      the Messiah will be cut off//

      Again a case of flawed translation,there is no definite article “the” in Daniel 9:25? in original hebrew text clearly there is no definite article (Hey ~ ה) before the word (משיח ~ Moshiach).

      Also the word עַד־מָשִׁ֣יחַ Ad-mashiakh or “anointed one” is translated as “Messiah” but it should not be in this case since it is not a reference to Messiah but a reference to one who is anointed.

      Deceptive.

      Liked by 2 people

    • You are correct that the definite article is not there for the word Messiah; But, even though the definite article Ha ה is not there, context determines how to understand it; it still means “Messiah” = the Messiah, because even traditional Jews recognize that the time period (from the decree to rebuilt the walls of the city to when Messiah is cut off and then the temple is destroyed) – the time still extends to the destruction of the second temple, which happened in 70 AD. Rashi tried to say “Messiah Prince” was Herod Agrippa, who was the puppet king of Israel under the Romans when the temple was destroyed in 70 AD. See Michael Brown’s lecture, and book, volume 3 of Answering Jewish Objections to Jesus.

      Like

    •  

      With the name of Allah

      Messiah in generic meaning refer to “anointed” an adjective. . Kings Agrippa could be  anointed individual as it is said in 1 Chronicles 11:3, and also was killed during this time. It could also refers to the last High priest (priests are anointed as seen in Leviticus 4) and the sacrifices (indicated in Leviticus 8:10-11). All three subjects were anointed and were cut off during the final week prior to the destruction of the Temple.

      To understand the deception by christians  in presenting Daniel 9: 24-27 in order to prove that the Jewish Messiah had to be killed before the destruction of the 2nd Temple here is Rabbi Michael Skobac lecture:

      Like

    • I watched brown lecture, it is nothing but preaching and at the end he begs for money. Boring!

      Liked by 1 person

    • preaching = Da’wa دعوی , Khutba خطبه , moezeh موعظه , e’elam اعلام ، beyan بیان

      Dr. Brown showed the time period ended with the destruction of the temple in 70 AD and even Rashi, one of the classical Rabbi’s agreed.

      Like

    • Clearly Brown misunderstood Rashi, he never mentions anything about gaps in the 70 shavuim period. And Rashi also never believe that Daniel applies to Jesus.

      Like

    • but it has to refer to Jesus, since the temple was destroyed afterward, and Jesus the Messiah did all 6 things in Daniel 9:24. atone for sin, etc.

      Like

    • There was a long gap between supposed Jesus crufixion and the temple destruction. Besides jesus does not atone for nobody’s sin, his God does.

      Like

    • desolations are decreed – decreed to happen in the future. Jesus predicted / decreed the abomination of desolation coming within that generation (matthew 23:36; 24:1-3; 24:15) – those judgements are coming upon “this generation”. A generation in Jewish thought was 40 years – 70 AD happened about 40 years later, after the atonement at the cross, around 30 AD.

      Like

    • And Jesus also said “immediately” after the destruction of the Temple the end would come. See Matthew 24

      Like

    • Different interpretations of that are within Christian orthodoxy – one is “the end” of the Old covenant sacrificial system and beginning of the New Covenant Church age. The disciples added “the end of the age” into the mix in Matthew 24:3

      Jesus answer seems to be mixing and jumping back and forth between the 70 AD events and the events that will happen at the Second Coming. “but of That day, no one knows . . . ” “that day” is the second coming, but not about 70 AD.

      Like

    • NT scholars overwhelmingly interpret Matthew 24 to say that Jesus spoke of the destruction AND the second coming within the life time of the ‘generation’ then living, even as a Christian I was forced to this conclusion.

      Like

    • Do you understand that the disciples added 2 more issues to the destruction of the temple in their question in Matthew 24:3 – “when will these things be? (destruction of the temple – verses 1-2 and 23:36-39), AND 2. What is the sign of Your coming? and 3. What is the end of the age?

      Do you see that?

      Like

    • I see that. And later in verse 34 Jesus says “this generation will not pass away until ALL THESE THINGS have taken place”

      Hence the problem.

      Liked by 1 person

    • The text in Dan 9v26 does not suggest a gap, it says after 62 shavuim there shall be destruction and desolation . Also if we have to make sense of the proceeding verse, it discusses the last one shavua. Here we see that ‘he’ (must be the same reference to the prince in the verse 26) will make a covenant for 3½ shavua, and then break it and the destruction will then follow. This means that chronologically verse 27 follows directly after 26 with no break.
      So the math does not add up between 30-70AD

      Also Jesus appear to make mistake in his judgement in Matthew because at no time he returned nor it was the end of the world during “this generations” .

      Like

    • Eric “Deceptive”.

      Indeed. Filled with spirit of truth?

      Liked by 2 people

  13. Jesus died and was both human and God by nature. 2 natures.
    the human soul / spirit lives on even after death. (which you also believe in Islam)
    and God cannot die (as you rightly say using 1 Tim. 6:16 and that power combined with the sinless humanity made Him a powerful sacrifice and substitute in our place – out of His love for us humans from all the nations (Revelation 5:9; 7:9), He redeemed people from all the nations; and offers that love, peace, and forgiveness, because He willingly came and died for us.

    We don’t know how ( بلا کیف – bela keif – without knowing or asking how?) the divine nature and human nature are in one person, but they are – the hypostatic union – as we see Jesus in the Gospels doing things only God can do and also getting tired, thirsty, hungry, crying when his friend Lazarus died, etc. – He was both God and man.

    His divine nature gave Him the power to pay for sins and overcome sin and death and then rise from the dead. His sinless human nature gave Him the right to take our place – we who deserved to die because of sin.

    Like

  14. Ken Temple

    You said;
    Jesus died and was both human and God by nature. 2 natures.

    I say;
    Oh yes. If God can be God man with 2 natures, then Emperor Haile Selaissie, Sai Baba and many God Men are the population of God-Men and Jesus has his population of God Men. Yes, because you believed in God-Man, then you are a believer in God Man like the other God Man believers.

    Jews never believed in God Man or God Men.

    You said;
    He redeemed people from all the nations; and offers that love, peace, and forgiveness, because He willingly came and died for us.

    I say;
    Jesus said he was sent. It is deceptive to say Jesus willingly came.

    Jesus never ever said he came to die for our sins. It is a lie to say Jesus died for peoples sin.

    You said;
    We don’t know how ( بلا کیف – bela keif – without knowing or asking how?) the divine nature and human nature are in one person, but they are – the hypostatic union – as we see Jesus in the Gospels doing things only God can do and also getting tired, thirsty, hungry, crying when his friend Lazarus died, etc. – He was both God and man.

    I say;
    Prophet Moses does what God does by separating the red sea. Does that make Jesus God? According to Islam, Prophet Solomon does what God does by commanding all creatures including birds, ants etc. He commands birds to come and spoke the bird and talked ants. Does that make Prophet Solomon God?

    Prophet Mohammed said to some people that, they are guaranteed heaven. Does that make Prophet Mohammed God? Muslims are smart to know that it is God who gave all these prophets the right to do what they did or delegated His power to them.

    In Islam it is not only prophet Jesus who performed wonders and miracles but all prophet did wonders and miracles by the permission of God including Jesus. So what you said is neither here nor there.

    If Prophet Jesus said “your sins are forgiven” and Prophet Mohammed said “you are guaranteed” heaven, does that make them God? No. They are prophets of God and are only saying what God asks them to say.

    Thanks.

    Liked by 1 person

  15. what بِذِبْحٍ عَظِيمٍ means in 37:107 is that the prayer of Abraham is heard by God , and his son WAS SAVED and his act of obedience and the test from God become an example for later generations

    no, there is nothing about prayer in the verse – the substitute sacrifice is what replaced Abraham’s son. (the ram, who was innocent)

    Just as Jesus was the innocent lamb in the place of us sinners.

    Like

    • dude – sorry to break the news: Jesus wasn’t a ‘lamb’, he did not have four legs and a tail. He was a man.

      God prohibited sacrificing humans for sins.

      Like

    • duh !!; he was a like an innocent sinless sacrificial lamb, like the unblemished sacrifices of Genesis 22; Exodus 12 (Passover), Leviticus chapters 1-6; 16-17 – atonement by blood sacrifice; temple sacrifices (1-2 Kings; I -2 Chronicles), prophesies of Messiah (Daniel 9:24-27; Isaiah 52:13-15 and 53:1-12) Duh !!

      Like

    • Oh no! All these sacrifices were of animals: lambs, bulls or pigeons.

      You overlook all the passages that prohibited humans from being sacrificed for sin:

      Deuteronomy 12:31
      Deuteronomy 18:9-12
      2 Kings 16:3
      Jeremiah 19:4-5

      Such pagan practices were abominations – says God!

      Like

    • except when God Himself – the 2nd person of the Trinity – the eternal Son, chooses to become human, is sinless, born of a virgin and voluntarily out of love gives His life as a ransom (when translated into Arabic and Farsi – the same root of the word in Surah 37:107 – Fedieh and Fada – فدیه و فدا ) for many. Mark 10:45

      Like

    • there are no exceptions in the Torah. An abomination is an abomination.

      Remember Jesus was not a sheep, goat or ram.

      He was a man. A full human being.

      Check out the references I listed.

      Luke disagreed with Mark and deleted 10:45 from his revision of Mark’s gospel.

      Like

    • you want to have your cake and eat it too – whenever you agree with Mark, you use Mark, but oops, Mark 10:45 and Matthew 20:28 have “the son of man came . . . to give His life a ransom for many.” oops, same root as Fedieh فدیه = ransom, in Surah 37:107; oops.

      Like

    • Luke is right on this occasion.

      Like

    • Luke didn’t delete one verse, the whole pericope is not in Luke; besides Luke has so much other teaching that proves Jesus is the Son of God and all of chapter 22-24 points to the atonement and resurrection. You cannot win that argument.

      Like

    • Besides Abraham Son was not to be sacrificed for someone’s sin but it is just a test as we are all subjected to test by God everyday.

      Thanks.

      Like

    • But why did God test Abraham with that particular test? a horrible test !! The little tests that we go through are nothing compared to that; the biggest test God ever gave to a human.

      God commanded it; and the rams/goats/lambs/sheep in the OT are substitutionary sacrifices for sin. ذبح و قربان

      Like

    • With the name of Allah

      So according to Temple’s logic the ram was greater than Ishmael. Silly. The great sacrifice of a ram cannot be greater than Ishmael. It is the religious institutionalisation of sacrifice itself during Eid-Al Adha which means the great sacrifice. Abraham’ example of obedience is forever commemorated by millions afterwards.

      Like

  16. We agree that it was a test also – Genesis 22:1 – and it came about that God tested Abraham and said, . . .

    Why did God test Abraham with such a hideous and difficult thing and something that God commanded NEVER to do?

    Like

  17. you have to ask yourself why?

    In order to show an example of substitutionary sacrifice and the love of the Father in giving up His only unique son of His love. (Genesis 22:1-18) in order to show what the Father and the Messiah would do in order to be a blessing to all nations – see verse 18. Read. Digest. Meditate, think, ask God to open your heart.

    Like

    • Ken Temple

      There is nothing like God dying for anyone’s sin in what you quoted. You have to Digest, Meditate, Think and ask God to open your heart to stop worshiping God Man like how Rastafarians, Hindus etc. are worshiping God Man.

      Prophet Moses never worshiped God Man. Do you or Paul of Tarsus or the Church Fathers know God than Moses? Do you know God than Prophet Noah? Show me where any prophet of God worshiped God Man other than idol worshipers.

      Thanks.

      Liked by 2 people

  18. Ken and Sam,

    Your questions are irrelevant. It seems as you’re using them to detract from the real issue and bog the thread down with a load of distraction.

    I understand this is difficult for you at it challenges what you have cherished to be the truth in the past. However, let’s have a meaningful and cogent discussion on this topic sans the distractions.

    We’ve defined dying as something that shows one is not immortal. We have used 1 Timothy6:16 here as the yardstick.

    This is what I wrote previously, please interact with it rather than throwing out irrelevant questions about the soul after death (the 2nd person of the Trinity belief is not considered a soul) and then claiming the other person is tap dancing when they avoid the distractions:

    The opening post mentions 1 Tim 6:16 which teaches God cannot DIE (i.e. is immortal). We shall use this definition, i.e the opposite of the word immortal

    Now, the ball is in your court, do you believe the 2nd person of the Trinity died? Yes or no..

    If you only believe a human nature died then you are contradicting John 3:16 and 1 John 4:10. And if you do say the 2nd person of the Trinity (ie. what is believed to be the divine nature) died then you are contradicting 1 Tim 6:16.

    You’re in a bind here. The reason you’re in a bind is because this doctrine is something that did not come from Jesus. It’s something which came about later through church tradition (ie. philosophy agreed upon by later church Fathers).

    Liked by 1 person

    • We are not in a bind at all. God can do all of what He said in the NT without explaining how. Jesus was the eternal Son, eternal Word, God by nature, 2nd person of Trinity, who became human, taking on a human nature also, and then died; and paid for our sins.

      He even said it many times predicting His own death – Mark 8:31; 9:31; 10:33-34 and then said “the son of Man came . . . to give His life a ransom for many” Mark 10:45 and Matthew 20:28 – same teaching in John 3:16 and 1 John 4:10 – the atonement/propitiation (satisfaction of God’s justice and anger against sin) is the same teaching as being the ransom, Fedieh, which Qur’an Surah 37:107 also mentions.

      Jesus divine nature by itself did not die; but Jesus as both God-man did die. and then He rose Himself up from the dead. His human soul and divine nature were not destroyed, rather their power defeated death, sin, and Satan.

      Only Christ and His atonement can defeat death, sin, and Satan. That is good news!

      The Son of God appeared that He might destroy the work of Satan. 1 John 3:8
      see also Colossins 2:15-16 and Hebrews 2:14 (Jesus became human, so that He might render powerless the one who had the power of death, that is the devil.)

      bela-keif بلاکیف = without (asking or knowing) how. It says it in all those verses and more; repent and believe it and stop asking how? or why?

      Like

    • Ken Temple

      You said;
      bela-keif بلاکیف = without (asking or knowing) how. It says it in all those verses and more; repent and believe it and stop asking how? or why?

      I say;
      You keep bamboozling us with bela-keif. Are you not ashamed of the liar Nabeel Quraish who said he would have gone to Syria to fight as an Ahmadi? Dr. James White has come strongly several times to advise Nabeel to stop his lies but you Ken is holding the liar Nabeel as your hero. Why?

      You said;
      Jesus divine nature by itself did not die; but Jesus as both God-man did die. and then He rose Himself up from the dead. His human soul and divine nature were not destroyed, rather their power defeated death, sin, and Satan.

      Only Christ and His atonement can defeat death, sin, and Satan. That is good news!

      I say;
      God created life and death and so God does not have to fight life and death to defeat it. God does not defeat death but God created death and cause death to happen or not happen.

      It is blaspheme to say God fought death and defeated death. God does not fight and defeat His creation.

      God forgives sin but not fight with sin and defeat it. You are a believer in God-Man like the Rastafarians and Hindus Sai Baba and Find Rabbi Tovia warning you to stop that idol worship. Rabbi praised Muslims and say we worship the same God with the Jews because Prophet Moses never worship God-Man.

      Thanks.

      Like

  19. If you use 1 Timothy 6:16 then you must submit to all of 1 Timothy and 2 Timothy and believe in all of the NT.

    Like

    • 1 Tim and 2 Tim are manifest forgeries – so say most New Testament scholars.

      Liked by 1 person

    • so why do you use 1 Tim. 6:16 ? verses 13-15 connect Jesus Christ as we know Him with verse 16

      I charge you in the presence of God, who gives life to all things, and of Christ Jesus, who testified the good confession before Pontius Pilate, 14 that you keep the commandment without stain or reproach until the appearing of our Lord Jesus Christ, 15 which He will bring about at the proper time—He who is the blessed and only Sovereign, the King of kings and Lord of lords, 16 who alone possesses immortality and dwells in unapproachable light, whom no man has seen or can see. To Him be honor and eternal dominion! Amen.

      Like

  20. Dr. James White has come strongly several times to advise Nabeel to stop his lies but you Ken is holding the liar Nabeel as your hero. Why?

    I agree with Dr. White, that Nabeel should MORE clearly and more often, say he was an Ahmadi Muslim, which he does many times, but not enough. Dr. White said, “take away their weapon (like you attacking him all the time) that they use against you” ,etc.

    I listened to Nabeel’s video of why he thinks Ahmadi’s are Muslims – because on the nature of who Allah is – they agree with Sunni Islam. The difference is the Ahmadi belief that Mirza Ghulam Ahmad was some kind of Messiah or prophet. Nabeel’s point was the doctrine of who Allah is, is the same.

    anyway, he is not my hero, but I think he makes a lot of good points, but no one is perfect. Nabeel has a different opinion, but he is not lying.

    And Nabeel is right on the bela-Keif issue. بلا کیف
    It truly confounds you cause you don’t know how to answer.

    Like

    • Who was dead on the cross then? The second person of the trinity?

      Liked by 1 person

    • Ken Temple

      You said;
      I listened to Nabeel’s video of why he thinks Ahmadi’s are Muslims – because on the nature of who Allah is – they agree with Sunni Islam. The difference is the Ahmadi belief that Mirza Ghulam Ahmad was some kind of Messiah or prophet. Nabeel’s point was the doctrine of who Allah is, is the same.

      anyway, he is not my hero, but I think he makes a lot of good points, but no one is perfect. Nabeel has a different opinion, but he is not lying.

      I say;
      Nabeel Quraish said he would have gone to Syria to fight if he had remained in his former religion(Ahmadi). Which Ahmadi can go to Syria to fight? Is he not a satanic liar? Or does Nabeel Quraish lies about his former(Ahmadi) religion?

      Ahamadis will curse Nabeel Quraish because they do not go to Syria and fight. The video is on youtube and has been posted here over and over. Such a person Ken you use him against Islam. Shame.

      Doctor White has long stopped using Nabeel Quraish against Islam but to give him honest advise to stop his blatant lies against Islam.

      You said;
      I listened to Nabeel’s video of why he thinks Ahmadi’s are Muslims – because on the nature of who Allah is – they agree with Sunni Islam. The difference is the Ahmadi belief that Mirza Ghulam Ahmad was some kind of Messiah or prophet. Nabeel’s point was the doctrine of who Allah is, is the same.

      I say;
      That is why Rastafarians are Trinitarian Christians because the believe in the deity of Jesus Christ and they believe in Trinity. The difference is the Rastafarian belief that Emperor Haile Selaissie is some kind of messiah or God-Man. Rastafarians point was the doctrine of who Jesus is, the same-God-Man.

      Thanks.

      Like

    • I have never heard of any Muslim anywhere who thinks Ahmads are muslim.

      Like

    • Burhanuddin1

      “Who was dead on the cross then? The second person of the trinity?”

      Jesus. Thought you had read the NT?

      Like

  21. Ken Temple

    “duh !!; he was a like an innocent sinless sacrificial lamb, like the unblemished sacrifices of Genesis 22; Exodus 12 (Passover), Leviticus chapters 1-6; 16-17 – atonement by blood sacrifice; temple sacrifices (1-2 Kings; I -2 Chronicles), prophesies of Messiah (Daniel 9:24-27; Isaiah 52:13-15 and 53:1-12) Duh !!”

    Passover Lamb was no sin sacrifice. No atonement by its blood.

    As I said before, please clean up your act first, before you get on people’s nerves who know what they believe. Just like the Jews in Jesus’ time. They knew their God (according to your own biblical Jesus), and it wasn’t a triune one.

    Like

    • The Passover Lamb was for sin and protection from the consequences of sin and idolatry – the wrath of God – the angel of death was God’s righteous wrath against idolatry and was the culmination of all of God’s judgements from the 10 plagues against all the gods of Egypt – against all idolatry – see Exodus 12:12-13

      “I I am executing my judgement against all the gods of Egypt . . . when I see the blood I will pass over . . . ”

      every human heart is a sinful, idolatrous heart – in order to be protected from God’s judgment, they needed the blood sacrifice. Because without it, when God judges others who make stone and pagan idols, God also judges those who make imaginary and unseens gods in their hearts. (money, sex, fame, power, work, relationships, fun, drugs, etc. – see Colossians 3:5 and

      Ezekiel 14:3, 5-7 —

      “Son of man, these men have set up their idols in their hearts and have put right before their faces the stumbling block of their iniquity. Should I be consulted by them at all?

      . . . who sets up his idols in his heart,. . .

      6 “Therefore say to the house of Israel, ‘Thus says the Lord God, “Repent and turn away from your idols and turn your faces away from all your abominations. 7 For anyone of the house of Israel or of the immigrants who stay in Israel who separates himself from Me, sets up his idols in his heart, puts right before his face the stumbling block of his iniquity, and then comes to the prophet to inquire of Me for himself, I the Lord will be brought to answer him in My own person.

      Like

    • Passover Lamb was no sin sacrifice.

      You are making this stuff up in order to justify your idolatry.

      Liked by 1 person

    • Why do Christians always say that?

      Like

    • Ken Temple “God also judges those who make imaginary and unseens gods in their hearts…”

      Like other Lords than the only one true Lord.

      ‘Thus says the Lord God, “Repent and turn away from your idols and turn your faces away from all your abominations. …ffrom Me, … I the Lord will …”

      How many Lords is your God?

      Liked by 1 person

    • Burhanuddin1

      “As I said before, please clean up your act first, before you get on people’s nerves who know what they believe. Just like the Jews in Jesus’ time. They knew their God (according to your own biblical Jesus), and it wasn’t a triune one.”

      The targums strongly hint that god’s spirit and his word are extensions of god’s presence into creation who can exist in creation whilst looking to the father above. Alan Segal points out that 1st century jews had a concept of two seats of power in heaven.

      The concept of a multi-personal god was familiar to jews at the time, and was not considered blasphemous.

      Muslims don’t know this because the quran and islam are not from the true god, but are mere obstacles of satan to mislead man from the true faith and belief in the triune god.

      Like

    • //The targums strongly hint that god’s spirit and his word are extensions of god’s presence into creation who can exist in creation whilst looking to the father above. Alan Segal points out that 1st century jews had a concept of two seats of power in heaven.//

      Early jews did many sort of things, they even worshipped golden calf , just because some of them believe in “two powers in heaven” it did mean it is the genuine belief taught by Moses and Abraham. Unless you provide us a source out of authoritative Jewish works which specifically define “two powers in heaven” as two God-heads, it could well be a heretical form of belief in Judaism held by minority or just hypothetical. Because like Islam, Judaism main foundation is always the belief that God is corporeal and He is absolute One. This is the authentic teaching from God of Abraham.

      Also “two powers in heaven” theory does not prove trinity because there is no trace that some Jews have led in the direction of binitarianism

      Like

  22. Nabeel Quraish said he would have gone to Syria to fight if he had remained in his former religion(Ahmadi). Which Ahmadi can go to Syria to fight? Is he not a satanic liar? Or does Nabeel Quraish lies about his former(Ahmadi) religion?

    That is actually a good point and he should go back and correct that statement.

    He may be convinced through study of the Hadith and Islamic history and the harsh texts (Surah 9:5, 9:29; 8:39, etc.) that that is original Islam (after Medina 622-624- onward, abrogating the peaceful verses – even 2:256 which is early Medina, 624), but what he said is a contradiction to Ahmadiyeh because one of their big believes is that they don’t believe in that kind “Jihad”, etc.

    He is not deliberately lying, because he was probably saying that in light of what he had learned since he actually read the Hadith and studied deeply about the Caliphate and Jihad, etc. His family never taught all the details of the bad stuff in Hadith and other Sunna sources, etc. ( I know you disagree with their understanding of that, but there is disagreement within the house of Islam as to how they carry out war and Jihad, etc. – the whole “restore the Caliphate movement” started with Hassan Al Banna, Sayeed Qutb, and their writings inspired Usama Ben Laden and Ayman Al Zawarhiri – Al Qaeda and ISIS is offshoot of extreme version of Al Qaeda. Boko Haram, Al Shabab, Hamas and other groups are similar, etc.

    But I think you are right that he needs to go back and at least clarify that statement.

    Like

    • Ken Temple

      You said;
      He is not deliberately lying, because he was probably saying that in light of what he had learned since he actually read the Hadith and studied deeply about the Caliphate and Jihad, etc. His family never taught all the details of the bad stuff in Hadith and other Sunna sources, etc. ( I know you disagree with their understanding of that, but there is disagreement within the house of Islam as to how they carry out war and Jihad, etc.

      I say;
      Nabeel Quraish’s former religion is Qadiani and Qadianis do not go the Syria to fight so Nabeel Quraish lied a satanic lies. He does not have the Holy Spirit in him. Accept that and it is clear. That is not the only lie. He said he dreamt of seeing crosses and David Wood leading him to heaven. David Wood? Leading someone to heaven? hmmmmm

      You said;
      He is not deliberately lying.

      I say;
      So you agreed Nabeel Quraish a liar lied. But not deliberate. It is deliberate because he goes around telling Christians he knows Islam because he was a former Muslim and he does not know his former religion Qadiani don’t go to Syria and fight?

      Nabeel and David Wood can claim to know more about Islam to Christians and they do not know Qadianis do not go to Syria and fight?

      It is satanic deliberate that lie by Nabeel Quraish supported by his Islamic teacher David Wood.

      Thanks.

      Like

    • Ken Temple

      Nabeel Quraish is foolish and stupid for not knowing if dare goes to Syria as his former religion(Qadiani) to fight he will be killed instantly by the extremist there. Some one Nabeel who keep claiming to Christians that he knows Islam because he is a former Muslim and does not know his instant death if dare goes to Syria to fight as his former religion(Qadiani).

      Such a fellow you Ken keep bamboozling us with his jargon. Nabeel knows nothing about Islam. Compare him with Imam Joe Bradford who knows classic Arabic in and out.

      If someone may Allah forbids converts from Islam, it will cause me some trouble but not Nabeel who is not a Muslim and does not know Arabic, fiq, seerah, Aqeeda etc. and no formal Arabic or Islamic training but full of lies.

      Thanks.

      Liked by 1 person

  23. That’s the thing, they keep claiming Muslims are “practicing Takkiyah” but the only people we ever see doing that are people like Nabeel.

    I would be careful if I were you Christians; one day he might come out and say that he was “takkiyaing” you all along

    Like

  24. D “The concept of a multi-personal god was familiar to jews at the time, and was not considered blasphemous.”

    What ever suits the occasion, right? How often do I have to deal with nonsensical missionaries telling me “But they picked up stones, because he was blaspheming, see?”

    You missionaries are utterly confused.

    Liked by 1 person

    • burhanuddin1

      “What ever suits the occasion, right? How often do I have to deal with nonsensical missionaries telling me “But they picked up stones, because he was blaspheming, see?”

      You missionaries are utterly confused.”

      You don’t seriously believe that your god’s 99 personalities which are finite and none of which actually reveal anything about it makes for a rational concept of a god?

      We’re not the confused ones – the blasphemy was in claiming that god could become incarnate in a man, not that there could be a multi-personal god. Don’t let the confusions of islam cloud your thinking.

      Like

    • Bla Bla changing the subject again.

      Like

    • Burhanuddin1

      “Bla Bla changing the subject again.”

      LOL!! See, muslims avoid talking about their concept of god because it makes no sense and would cause a mass apostasy if you were ever encouraged to think about it.

      I’ve been asking this same question for weeks on this blog and not a single one of you guys have any clue how to answer – which means you have no clue what or who you worship. LOL!!!

      Like

    • D says “The targums strongly hint that god’s spirit and his word are extensions of god’s presence into creation who can exist in creation whilst looking to the father above.”

      and

      “the blasphemy was in claiming that god could become incarnate in a man, not that there could be a multi-personal god.”

      Like I said. What ever suits the occasion. Unbelievable.

      Like

    • Burhanuddin1

      “D says “The targums strongly hint that god’s spirit and his word are extensions of god’s presence into creation who can exist in creation whilst looking to the father above.”

      and

      “the blasphemy was in claiming that god could become incarnate in a man, not that there could be a multi-personal god.”

      Like I said. What ever suits the occasion. Unbelievable.”

      Your lack of comprehension is becoming epic. LOL!!

      I’m not going to bother pointing out your error here, I’m just going to let it stand and refer back to it from time to time just for the lolz.

      Like

    • I understand very well that you are twisting and turning and bending over backwards like every fundamentalist missionary whenever it suits you.

      Like

    • Burhanuddin1

      “I understand very well that you are twisting and turning and bending over backwards like every fundamentalist missionary whenever it suits you.”

      Not at all – I’ve been very upfront and direct with you.

      You are the ones continually doing backflips trying to avoid answering straightforward theological questions about the nature of the “it” that you worship. Not a single one of you can explain your concept of it.

      He’s one, but only finitely, he’s merciful, but only when he wants to be regardless of what you do, he just, but he just blows off injustice when he forgives without redress of sin.

      Your god is an obvious man-made mess of what 7th century people might have thought a really awesome dude would be like. LOL!!

      Like

  25. D “Who was dead on the cross then? The second person of the trinity?”

    “Jesus. Thought you had read the NT?”

    The second person of the trinity was dead. God was dead? God cannot die. Thought you had read the NT?

    Liked by 1 person

    • Burhanuddin1

      “The second person of the trinity was dead. God was dead? God cannot die. Thought you had read the NT?”

      Human flesh can expire, and we believe that god incarnated in human flesh – no contradictions here.

      The contradictions of your own tawhid are stunningly apparent, and I can see why muslims never, ever want to talk about their concept of god and are always deflecting by focusing on their silly miscomprehensions of christian belief.

      If you ever truly thought about your theology, you would die of embarrassment. Your god’s attributes are finite, your god’s attribute of “oneness” is therefore finite, your god’s powers are finite – like human beings. You worship a created being, not an infinite one.

      Like

    • I asked WHO was dead. “Human flesh” is not a “Who”, is it? My little confused missionary friend.

      Like

    • Burhanuddin1

      “I asked WHO was dead. “Human flesh” is not a “Who”, is it? My little confused missionary friend.”

      Jesus. I told you. It’s in the NT.

      Like

    • D “Jesus. I told you. It’s in the NT.”

      WHO is Jesus? Jesus is ONE divine person in two natures. Right.

      Looks like on this occasion you are going as far as to trying to deny Jesus is the second person of the trinity. Unbelievable.

      Like

  26. Burhanuddin1

    “WHO is Jesus? Jesus is ONE divine person in two natures. Right.

    Looks like on this occasion you are going as far as to trying to deny Jesus is the second person of the trinity. Unbelievable.”

    Jesus is god’s word incarnate. Now you….how can your infinite god have a finite attribute of oneness? Is he only temporarily “one”?

    Like

    • Keep your head in the sand. Good luck to you.

      Like

    • Burhanuddin1

      “Keep your head in the sand. Good luck to you.”

      Just what I expected. Retreat when asked to talk about your concept of god.

      LOL!!

      Like

    • Do you really expect your trolling red herrings will be taken seriously? You seem not only confused but also deluded.

      My “concept” about God concerning the issue at hand is simple. God does not die. Whoever dies, is not God.

      If your “Jesus” was dead an the cross, he was not God.

      No mental gymnastics required.

      Liked by 2 people

    • Burhanuddin1

      “Do you really expect your trolling red herrings will be taken seriously? You seem not only confused but also deluded.

      My “concept” about God concerning the issue at hand is simple. God does not die. Whoever dies, is not God.

      If your “Jesus” was dead an the cross, he was not God.

      No mental gymnastics required.”

      That is a good one – a very, very good one! LOL!!

      Your god’s attributes are finite – and one of his attributes is his infiniteness, which must be finite…….

      I know, it makes no sense.

      Like

  27. Funny indeed that Mr Temple runs to hide behind dear “بلا كيف” (I’ve got Farsi too!). Predicted months ago since the Ally-Qureshi debate. How predictable our christian brothers sometimes turn out to be!
    Anyway Mr Temple, it should be brought to your attention that بلا كيف is no good dodge. While it is admittedly almost impossible to find a mystery free religion, it would be quite dishonest to attempt to paint contradictions with the mystery brush.
    The inferences drawn from a plethora of biblical verses is that Yahweh is an unchanging, ever living(does not die) and proud God. That he died in incarnation (without ceasing to be divine) is simply a contradiction for which بلا كيف does not adequately explain. Both events could not have occurred.
    I was annoyed brother Shabir did not attempt to explain away alleged quranic contradictions using the same logic. It would have blown Nabeel Swiftly out of job.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Intellect wrote:
      Nabeel Quraish said he would have gone to Syria to fight if he had remained in his former religion(Ahmadi). Which Ahmadi can go to Syria to fight? Is he not a satanic liar? Or does Nabeel Quraish lies about his former(Ahmadi) religion?

      I (Ken) wrote:

      That is actually a good point and he should go back and correct that statement.

      so, I told you that was a good point, and that he should correct and clarify that; so give me some credit for that!

      Like

    • Chocoboy,
      But it is a valid use of that phrase, because we don’t know how the God-man can die, but He did (Since holy Scripture says Jesus died and He has two natures); and was powerful to conquer sin, Satan, and death.

      Believers in Christ have guilt taken away, true peace; and ability to chose holiness and the right path now when tempted. We have the promise of God’s love and heaven. It motivates us to live holy. Those that don’t have any fruit or change or holiness were not really born again.

      We also know that death does not mean “cease to exist” because human souls even continue after the body dies.

      In fact the very definition of death, in Christian theology and western-Christian history is “the separation of the soul from the body”. The modern secularists don’t believe in a soul, or afterlife, only brain waves and chemicals and water, etc.

      But you Muslims are like us in that we both believe in the soul and afterlife. (heaven or hell)

      So for us, if God says Jesus died; and Jesus is both God and Man, it is enough for us, because Holy Scripture tells us these truths.

      So there is no contradiction between that and 1 Tim. 6:16, since also that is connected to 1 Tim. 6:13-15 also – the Father, the Son, the crucifixion and confession before Pontius Pilate, etc.

      You have to ask yourself why Shabir Ally did not attempt to answer that issue.

      So I will continue to use that – Bela Keif بلا کیف
      “Without asking or knowing how”; but knowing it to be true.

      Like

    • Ken,

      Intellect is lying about what Nabeel actually said. If you actually go back and listen to what Nabeel’s actual point was, you would see that he was basically admitting that had he known what the Islamic sources actually taught about jihad back when he was an Ahmadi he would have had no choice but to join ISIS. His point being that he would have come to the realization that his Ahmadiyya beliefs were incompatible with true Islam and would therefore have no choice but to embrace wahabbism.

      Like

  28. I find it funny that you are going over the same semantics I set out to refute in my first comment.It does speak volumes in convincing me that I was never wrong in leaving the faith.
    As I explained earlier, death in christianity has always been understood to mean soul-spirit separation. Within this context therefore, the inference is reached that God is immune from the frailty. He is God and hence could not experience that. Although he allegedly added humanity to his nature, he never changed and continued to remain divine. Our God-man sir Temple is still a divine God.
    From sermons I heard in the past, no man is clean or perfect enough to bear our sins. God hence had to send his son to accomplish just that. John 3v16 beautifully captures this. (His human nature could simply not pay).
    Christian apologists over the years have struggled for consistency while discussing this subject. James White (for example) while discussing with Zakir Hussain in 2012 said ” I can imagine a God who loved me that he gave his life that I may be saved”. His friend Jay Smith while under scrutiny during a debate with Dr Shabir said ”we christians have no problem with that. It was God that died on the cross”.

    Like

  29. Indeed sir. بلا كيف. Exactly as I thought. How brilliant it sounds!
    Wondering how many more contradictions do you dismiss using the illogical phrase? Will love to know if I consistency would allow you give me a chance to apply it.

    Like

    • using the illogical phrase?

      It is from your own scholars!!

      I cite again in Al-Aqeedah AtTahaawi which is generally regarded as the orthodox Sunni position :

      الْقُرْآنَ كَلَامُ اللَّهِ مِنْهُ
      The Qur’an is the speech of Allah.

      بَدَا بِلَا كَيْفِيَّةٍ قَوْلًا
      It came from Him as speech without it being possible to say how He speaks.

      بلا کیفیه

      bela keifiyeh

      Like

  30. Paul’s Pal

    You said;
    More importantly, do you now agree with me that at-Tahawi did proclaim that the Quran is the uncreated speech of Allah, and that this is the official position of ahlul-sunna wa’jamah just like the citations I provided from Shaykh Haddad confirmed?

    Once you answer these questions I will then proceed with some more questions for you.

    I say;
    Quran is created with ink and paper and so the Quran is created. What is your problem. The Quran did not become flesh, human, man, God, person, human being, divine being etc. The Quran did not emanate, manifest, eternally generated etc. Please, Please do not read your confusion into Islam.

    God speech did not manifest into any human being, divine being or God or man or flesh, please spare us your Trinitarian confusion.

    Speech is not a being i.e. divine being or human being. Speech is just a speech. We are created in the image of God and the speech of God is not God Himself.

    The Quran is not God please. Whether some people believe it is created or uncreated speech, it does not make it God.

    God attributes, like love, mercy, grace etc. can be said to be eternal with God but each is not God Himself as simple as that.

    Christians say God’s word, love, grace, mercy etc. are God Himself and some became flesh and manifest etc. bullshit. Muslims do not believe any became man or God Himself.

    Thanks.

    Like

  31. Paul’s Pal (Sam) wrote:
    If something is uncreated then this means it has no beginning. And if something has no beginning then this means that it has always existed. And if something has no beginning then this means that IT IS ETERNAL!
    It doesn’t matter what language is used to communicate this point, . . .

    That was very good and totally destroyed Eric’s arguments.

    “I seek refuge in the Perfect Word from the evil of what He created”.

    Where is that from?

    Allah created evil?

    Like

    • Ken Temple

      You said;
      Paul’s Pal (Sam) wrote:
      If something is uncreated then this means it has no beginning. And if something has no beginning then this means that it has always existed. And if something has no beginning then this means that IT IS ETERNAL!
      It doesn’t matter what language is used to communicate this point, . . .

      That was very good and totally destroyed Eric’s arguments.

      I say;
      -Muslims believe the Quran is created with ink and paper and so no Muslim believed the Quran is Allah or manifested into Allah or emanate into Allah or became flesh or became man or became God-Man etc.

      What is your problem?

      Some Muslims say the Quran is uncreated? And so what? I can say God’s mercy is uncreated. Does that means God’s mercy is God Himself? or became flesh? No.

      God created us in His image and so Mercy, Love, Word, Wisdom, knowledge, etc. are not persons/beings with consciousness by themselves. They are all characteristics/attributes/names/features etc. of a person/being i.e. divine being/human being/angelic being/satanic being etc.

      Each feature like word, love, speech of a person/being is not the person/being Himself. As simple as that. So Gods speech, word, love, mercy, wisdom etc. are what they are but not God Himself.

      You can say they are eternal and so what? Does that make each one of the characteristics of God, God Himself? No

      So, God word/speech/love/mercy etc. are all characteristics/features etc. of God but each is not God Himself.

      If somebody believes Gods speech, wisdom, word is eternal, it does not mean they are each God Himself unless a confused person like Paul’s Pal.

      Ken, I know you are not a confused person but sometimes you let Paul’s Pal drag you into his confusing.

      Christians believe the word became flesh but Muslims do not believe the word became flesh but it is “Be” and it is and Gods will, will prevail.

      You said;
      “I seek refuge in the Perfect Word from the evil of what He created”.

      Where is that from?

      Allah created evil?

      I say;
      Sam Shamoun is a liar like Nabeel Quraish.

      He must give as the Arabic meaning of “PERFECT WORD from the evil of what He created”.

      Ken, “from the evil of what He created” means what He created does the evil like we lie as Nabeel and Sam keep lying to Christians to get money from them. Their lies(evil) is their own creations but not God.

      Thanks.

      Liked by 1 person

    • What verse is that from?

      “I seek refuge in the Perfect Word from the evil of what He created”.

      Is that in the Qur’an or Hadith or what?

      Like

    • Ken Temple

      You said;
      What is amazing is that it says Allah created evil.

      I say;
      Where does it say Allah created evil?

      You said
      I found it in many Hadith, repeated a lot. At Sunnah.com

      أَعُوذُ بِكَلِمَاتِ اللَّهِ التَّامَّاتِ مِنْ شَرِّ مَا خَلَقَ

      “I seek refuge in the Perfect words of Allah from which He created.”

      I say;
      You lied from copying from Sam Shamoun.

      This is what you copied from Sam Shamoun.

      //////////////
      Ken Temple
      June 21, 2016 • 5:56 am

      Paul’s Pal (Sam) wrote:
      If something is uncreated then this means it has no beginning. And if something has no beginning then this means that it has always existed. And if something has no beginning then this means that IT IS ETERNAL!
      It doesn’t matter what language is used to communicate this point, . . .

      That was very good and totally destroyed Eric’s arguments.

      “I seek refuge in the Perfect Word from the evil of what He created”.

      Where is that from?

      Allah created evil?
      //////////////////

      We do not have any verse in the Islamic literature that says

      “I seek refuge in the Perfect Word from the evil of what He created”.

      Sam Shamoun made it up to deceive Christians like you and get money from you. You fell into his(Sam Shmoun’s) trap from the evil he(Sam Shamoun) created as lies to get money from you.

      Thanks.

      Like

  32. I found it in many Hadith, repeated a lot. At Sunnah.com

    أَعُوذُ بِكَلِمَاتِ اللَّهِ التَّامَّاتِ مِنْ شَرِّ مَا خَلَقَ

    “I seek refuge in the Perfect words of Allah from which He created.”

    “Perfect” =التَّامَّاتِ

    “complete”, “full”, “finished”

    We have forms of this word in Farsi and Turkish also – “to be finished, completed.”

    What is amazing is that it says Allah created evil.

    Like

    • So does the Bible.
      And it’s says God deliberately deceives people into falsehood. Shocking.

      Like

    • There is a difference God creating angels and then some of those angels fell away from God by rebellion and sinning and then they become evil spirits or demons or devils; Lucifer (the shining one) BECAME Satan or the devil.

      There is a big difference between that and what Islam seems to say that God created evil things as is, evil from the beginning.

      Like

    • Ken Temple

      You sad;
      What verse is that from?

      “I seek refuge in the Perfect Word from the evil of what He created”.

      Is that in the Qur’an or Hadith or what?

      I say

      So You do not know any verse in the Quran that say “I seek refuge in the perfect word”? Then you lied by copying from Sam Shamoun. That is the evil created by man Shamoun not God.

      Thanks.

      Like

    • It is from many Hadith narrations. See at Sunnah.com

      Like

    • //Islam seems to say that God created evil things as is, evil from the beginning.//

      Where did you get this from? Another case of twisted understanding.

      شَرِّ is better understood as “wickedness”. ALL is Allah creation “مَا خَلَقَ” and including free will ….WITHIN ALL His creation there are choose who opt for wickedness , the first one was Iblees إبليس‎‎ He is among the Jinn NOT angel who some of them choose to disobey Allah. They were know as Satan شيطان‎‎ afterwards..

      Like

  33. Ken Temple

    You said;
    What is amazing is that it says Allah created evil.

    I say;
    Where does it say Allah created evil?

    You said
    I found it in many Hadith, repeated a lot. At Sunnah.com

    أَعُوذُ بِكَلِمَاتِ اللَّهِ التَّامَّاتِ مِنْ شَرِّ مَا خَلَقَ

    “I seek refuge in the Perfect words of Allah from which He created.”

    I say;
    You lied from copying from Sam Shamoun.

    This is what you copied from Sam Shamoun.

    //////////////
    Ken Temple
    June 21, 2016 • 5:56 am

    Paul’s Pal (Sam) wrote:
    If something is uncreated then this means it has no beginning. And if something has no beginning then this means that it has always existed. And if something has no beginning then this means that IT IS ETERNAL!
    It doesn’t matter what language is used to communicate this point, . . .

    That was very good and totally destroyed Eric’s arguments.

    “I seek refuge in the Perfect Word from the evil of what He created”.

    Where is that from?

    Allah created evil?
    //////////////////

    We do not have any verse in the Islamic literature that says

    “I seek refuge in the Perfect Word from the evil of what He created”.

    Sam Shamoun made it up to deceive Christians like you and get money from you. You fell into his(Sam Shmoun’s) trap from the evil he(Sam Shamoun) created as lies to get money from you.

    Thanks.

    Like

  34. Ken Temple “So I will continue to use that – Bela Keif بلا کیف
    “Without asking or knowing how”; but knowing it to be true.”

    What’s up with this “Without asking or knowing how” – business?

    There nothing mysterious or special about a contradiction. The Bible says God cannot die – you say your God can die. That’s a flat contradiction.

    Where do Muslims justify a contradiction with “Without asking or knowing how”?

    Liked by 1 person

  35. Ken Temple

    You said;
    No I didn’t copy the Arabic of that Hadith from Sam – I found it at Sunnah.com – go there and put “I seek refuge in the Perfect Word from the evil of what He created” and you see many Hadith that say that.

    Besides Sam was just quoting from your own Islamic scholars; and Eric confirmed that. So I did not lie.

    I say;
    You lied again. I did not see any verse in the Quran that says

    “I seek refuge in the Perfect Word from the evil of what He created”

    Please give us the chapter and verse number. If you are unable, then you copied from Sam Shamoun’s lies and lied and need repentance from your lord Jesus Christ.

    Thanks.

    Like

  36. It is in the Hadith, “intellect”. You are being deliberately obtuse here. You are not using your “intellect” on this issue.

    Like

  37. Ken Temple

    You said;

    Ken Temple

    June 21, 2016 • 2:41 pm

    We do not have any verse in the Islamic literature that says
    “I seek refuge in the Perfect Word from the evil of what He created”.

    Then you don’t know the Ahadith very well. There is many Ahadith that say that. See below.

    http://sunnah.com/search/?q=I+seek+refuge+in+the+perfect+words+of+Allah+from+the+evil+He+created

    I say;
    Sam Shamoun omitted the name of Allah and said this

    “I seek refuge in the Perfect Word from the evil of what He created”

    It is there with date for anyone to see. That is Christian deception. You must repent for telling lies.

    Thanks.

    Like

  38. I found at least one of those Hadith that don’t have “of Allah” in them, but nevertheless, the meaning is the same. He quoted from your own scholars !!!

    that is just not a big deal; you are trying to find something goofy to avoid the issue.

    Amazing.

    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: