“True Singularity” (توحيد حقيقي)

beautiful and profound

StandingUnder

image

Flakes of snow falling.
Each the first and last of its
kind. All just water.

Unique landscapes of
ridges meander like streams.
All just flesh and blood.

One map for one land.
Coiled strands of information –
all just the same four.

Existing outside
existence – before before.
None like unto Him.

View original post

Advertisements


Categories: Islam

140 replies

  1. Abu Talhah,
    Nice poem. I visited your site and you have many more nice poems there which I enjoyed reading as well. I liked your explanation of the Site Name “Standingunder” on the about page. My favorite poem was the one which starts, “You dreamt of days of cavaliers upon…..” Very good!! I encourage you to keep up the good work!!

    I enjoy reading many of your comments on this blog. I thank Allah that you were guided to Islam, and I pray that Allah will bless and reward you and keep you firm on the straight path.

    Salaam ya akhi!!

    Liked by 2 people

  2. A new trinity analogy perhaps?

    Like

    • only for a confused mind that wonders in a maze of error Paulus

      Liked by 4 people

    • “You really can’t imagine the absolute, perfect uniqueness that is Allāh”

      AT, so you only know what or who Allah is by what he isn’t? Is that your point?

      How can you be so confident that he doesn’t have literal hands if you can’t imagine who he is?

      It seems a bit absurd to worship a “thing” only by knowing what this thing is not.

      Like

    • Paulus,
      Your oversimplification is not fooling anyone. We know much about who and what Allah is through reading Qur’an. Abu Talhah’s position is supported in Qur’an as well as are other nuanced understandings.

      What is MOST absurd is that you worship that which we know without a doubt was fully Human, and physically speaking, no more, no less.

      Liked by 3 people

    • Ok. Is Allah literally merciful then?

      Like

    • Paulus

      Ouch!

      Like

    • Paulus,
      Again with the oversimplification. There is no equivalency between saying and believing that Allah is the All-Merciful One which is an attribute vs. saying he has literal appendage (hand).

      Allah is the Most Merciful, Most Compassionate, and He is the Most Merciful of those who show mercy. Allah says, “… and My Mercy embraces all things.” (7:156) And the Prophet said, “Allah has one hundred parts of mercy, of which He sent down one…” into creation, and that “Allah has kept back ninety-nine parts of mercy with which to be merciful to His servants on the Day of Resurrection.” (Muslim, al-Tawbah, 6908). Given this, we can understand that Allah is literally merciful, BUT only in the sense that his mercy is far greater and far beyond the mercy that any human can fathom, exhibit, or experience in the life of this world.

      Now, was your God literally a human (with all the related limbs and bodily functions) who had to eat, drink, and therefore answer the call of nature?

      Double Ouch!

      Liked by 2 people

    • “Given this, we can understand that Allah is literally merciful, BUT only in the sense that his mercy is far greater and far beyond the mercy that any human can fathom, exhibit, or experience in the life of this world.”

      So your hermeneutics is inconsistent then? And why exactly do you only understand Allah’s mercy by what it isn’t humanly speaking? Don’t you see what you are saying- Allah’s mercy can only be understood by appeal and comparison to humanity- the thing you worship is unknowable in and of itself.

      Since you introduced the incarnation, it is a good example of how the faiths deviate paths- you can only understand Allah’s mercy but what it isn’t- I understand God’s mercy by his direct interaction and historically irrefutable demonstration of love in the death of Jesus. Very different don’t you think?

      Like

    • “I understand God’s mercy by his direct interaction and historically irrefutable demonstration of love in the death of Jesus.”

      so are you saying that your pagan gods invisible love became embodied in meat, bones and blood?

      did it become embodied in anything other than the actions of a finite created human being ?

      direct “interaction”

      people weren’t experiencing a god, they were experiencing another humanoid which was walking around and cursing fig trees when they were not designed to produce figs in the wrong season.

      as for “historically irrefutable”
      try to refute this

      http://www.patheos.com/blogs/secularoutpost/2015/11/20/response-to-william-lane-craig-index/

      quote :

      In Part 8 of this series, I make a final point about how Luke Johnson’s skepticism about the details in the Gospels undermines the view that it is highly probable that Jesus died on the same day he was crucified.

      These are all details concerning the alleged crucifixion of Jesus:

      How many hours was Jesus on the cross?
      How was Jesus attached to the cross?
      If nails were used, were they used only for his hands or only for his feet or for both hands and feet?
      Was Jesus stabbed with a spear while he was on the cross?
      If so, where on his body did the spear penetrate?

      If Jesus was stabbed with a spear, how deep and how wide was the spear wound?
      If Jesus was stabbed with a spear, were any vital organs seriously damaged by this?
      None of these details are known. We can only formulate educated guesses in order to answer these questions. But the probability that Jesus would have died on the cross on the same day he was crucified depends to a large degree on the answers to these questions about the details of Jesus’ alleged crucifixion.

      Like

    • your “historically irrefutable ”

      quote :
      In nearly all discussions of Jesus’s life and death, including “How Jesus Became God” (Great Courses lecture version), there seems to be an automatic assertion that Jesus died on the cross. But I question this assertion. This goes back to the very basic assumption that if someone was thought to be dead but is later found to be alive (“resurrected” in Jesus’s case), then the most logical conclusion is that the person was not actually dead. So why is this very simple and logical line of reasoning not applied to Jesus?

      People being prematurely labeled as dead undoubtedly happened innumerable times in the past. It can still happen in our modern times with heart monitors and all that. I’m sure in the past it was considered not that remarkable to have someone alive who was previously thought dead. Why so remarkable with Jesus?

      I’ve had discussions on this topic before. The “he must have been dead” arguments typically involve John 19:34, but the whole spear-piercing shows up only in one Gospel making it rather dubious. Or the assertion that “the Romans would never allow someone to be taken down from the cross unless they were sure he was dead”. Really? The Romans had better knowledge of when someone was dead than we do today? They would never mistake someone passing out for death? I don’t think Roman centurions were quite that perfect. Besides, historical records seem to indicate that Romans would not take someone down from a cross at all after just a few hours, certainly not to honor the Jewish Sabbath. If the one were true, that Jesus was taken down from the cross in honor of the Sabbath, the other assertion, that Jesus was still alive, could also be true.
      And I doubt that Roman soldiers were completely efficient either. Did they really have a 24/7 watch on all crucifixions they ever performed? Sounds like a poor use of manpower. Besides, even if orders were for a continuous watch, how many soldiers would be derelict in their duty? Prison guards of today are not supposed to let any drugs or other contraband into their prisons, but how much contraband does get in? Quite a bit. I doubt that the Roman soldiers were a more disciplined bunch than modern prison guards.
      I expect that quite a few crucified prisoners survived the ordeal, Jesus being one of them. He, and any others, would be carried away by loved ones, cared for but kept in hiding and in disguise as long as necessary, eventually moved out of the area to someplace safe. Survival may not be very long though with trauma and infections resulting from the crucifixion. Contact with former friends or followers would necessarily kept to a minimum in a necessary attempt to avoid the authorities.

      Anyway, the possible scenarios of what happened to Jesus after crucifixion are quite numerous, but only a matter for speculation. That gets back to my original point. Why is it accepted by just about everyone that Jesus died on the day of his crucifixion? Am I missing some important piece of historical information?

      quote :

      There are several other reasons for considering that Jesus may have been alive when removed from the cross, apart from the records of people surviving terrible injuries:
      1. Josephus mentions cases of survival of crucifixion.
      2. Death by crucifixion sometimes took several days.
      3. When Jesus was taken down from the cross, the two people crucified alongside him had their legs broken to hasten death, so they were still alive.
      4. Mark reports that Pilate was surprised to hear that Jesus was already dead when Joseph of Arimathaea asked for the body, so Mark considered that survival was possible or he would not have included this line in his gospel.
      5. The disciples claimed that they saw Jesus alive after crucifixion. If this is true then he did not die on the cross, but he may well have succumbed to his injuries a few days later.
      As for Jesus predicting his own death and resurrection, there is no way to know what he actually said. The gospels just record what the authors, with hindsight, thought he might have said.
      Similarly for his treatment before crucifixion. It is reasonable to suppose that he was beaten but there are many accounts in the gospels which seem to be exaggerated.
      If Jesus did not die on the cross, then what happened to him?
      The gospels all say that his body was put in a nearby tomb by Joseph of Arimathaea, a wealthy member of the Temple Council, and that it then disappeared. There are several oddities about Joseph’s reported actions:
      1. Why would a respected member of society have anything to do with someone executed as a criminal (On the pretext that he claimed to be king, no less!)?
      2. Why place the body in such a vulnerable location, with public access? Only an idiot would consider this to be a suitable permanent resting place.
      3. When the body disappeared, why did he not complain?
      4. Why did he not contact the disciples or pursue them? Why does he completely disappear from the record?
      One possibility is that Joseph of Arimathaea took custody of Jesus’s body knowing that he was still alive and put it in a temporary shelter until he could be moved a few hours later after dark to a secure and secret location where care could be provided.
      The real question then is not who took the body, but why did Joseph of Arimathaea take it?

      Like

    • ” I understand God’s mercy by his direct interaction and historically irrefutable demonstration of love in the death of Jesus. ”

      jesus did not need to die at all . daniel approached his god directly without jesus. he (daniel) used a contrite heart

      god gave the dr the knowledge to fix the heart, god can’t repair the heart with a bloody death ?

      Like

    • ” I understand God’s mercy by his direct interaction and historically irrefutable demonstration of love in the death of Jesus. ”

      because your god is a human being. your god got inspired by the pagan aztecs, greeks, hebrews and developed a thing for human sacrifice. humans willingly gave up their loved ones to make relationship with their gods.

      there is nothing beautiful or amazing about a god committing suicide to cool himself down. can you tell me how does the cross or the opening of jesus STILL exist within the INFINITY of god ?

      why does merciful GOd need to become FINITE and get nailed , when HIS infinite mercy can “pay” for any sins?

      Like

    • Paulus,
      I do not think there is any inconsistency in Islamic hermeneutics. Allah himself in Surat Ali’ Imran acknowledges that there are Mukham and Mutashabihat verses in Qur’an. Islamic scholars have consistently applied this knowledge in their hermeneutics.

      Why exactly do we only understand Allah’s mercy by what it isn’t humanly speaking? Because, unlike your understanding, we believe in the absolute unique and transcendent divine nature of God. But this does not mean that Allah is unknowable, or that we cannot have a relationship with God, we absolutely can and do. We can understand Allah through the Qur’an and we can make assertions based on that, but we are honest enough to admit that we cannot fully know some of those things which are from the mutashabihat due to our own human limitations.

      Yes, I agree with you that your belief is very different. The supposed incarnation of God in the human figure of Christ, whether in one mode of His existence or through one person of His Godhead, are crystal clear cases of corporealism and anthropomorphism, which limit his unique nature and transcendence, as well as cause numerous theological complications in regard to his absolute Unitarian Divinity. To say that you completely understand the fullness of God’s mercy based on one event, (which may or may not have actually occurred as you believe) seems arrogant, overconfident, imprudent, and presumptuous to me. With all respect, although I understand Christians like you appreciate the human nature of the Trinitarian God, I could never accept such a deficient theology.

      Here is a good link which discusses the matter further:
      Concept of God in Judaic, Christian and Islamic Traditions
      http://www.fiqhcouncil.org/node/6

      Liked by 1 person

    • how does god become known by manifesting himself in creation and taking on human ATTRIBUTES?

      Like

    • paulus, are you a hindu?

      quote :
      Christians have committed themselves to divine non-transcendence so resolutely that it had become with them an idee fixe, enabling Paul Tillich to declare sub specie eternitatis that the transcendent God is UNKNOWN and UNKNOWABLE UNLESS he is concretized in an object of nature and history.” This actually leads down the road to pantheism, and is similar to Hinduism. Christians are so confused on this point of transcendence and that is why their language is improper in theology. They continue to claim God is transcendent and at the same time he manifested himself in human form, carrying human attributes and did all the things normal men do demonstrating the obvious psychological tension that plagues their minds. The trinity is a human attempt to try and reconcile the transcendent with immanent and is actually a deviation of monotheism and it leads to full blown polytheism or athetism. That is why one finds an obvious tension in the Christian mind of trying to reconcile trinitarianism with monotheism.

      Like

    • Ibn

      “Again with the oversimplification. There is no equivalency between saying and believing that Allah is the All-Merciful One which is an attribute vs. saying he has literal appendage (hand).”

      Non-sequitur. These are both things that allah says about himself – you are changing the holy word to avoid the obvious contradiction necessary in exegesis.

      “Given this, we can understand that Allah is literally merciful, BUT only in the sense that his mercy is far greater and far beyond the mercy that any human can fathom, exhibit, or experience in the life of this world.”

      Nonsense. The moment I forgive my enemy I have equaled your god’s mercy because I have acted in mercy, not because I am intrinsically merciful – just like allah.

      Worse still, apply that same argument to allah’s oneness and you end up with what? A being that is one in a way that we can’t understand? That’s just absurd.

      The only way that allah’s oneness can be unlike anything “any human can fathom” would be if he was plural in his unity.

      Like

    • Ibn

      “The supposed incarnation of God in the human figure of Christ, whether in one mode of His existence or through one person of His Godhead, are crystal clear cases of corporealism and anthropomorphism, which limit his unique nature and transcendence, as well as cause numerous theological complications in regard to his absolute Unitarian Divinity.”

      The doctrine of the incarnation demands that any being powerful enough to create creation would be powerful enough to exist simultaneously in any given state.

      The muslim position boils down to an absurd notion – allah can cause the universe to exist but he is excluded from it. In other words, your theology is premised on what amounts to the omnipotence paradox – can god build a stone too heavy for him to lift?

      For muslims the answer is “yes” god can create a mode of existence from which he is excluded and a stone which he cannot lift.

      Like

    • ken

      how does god become known by manifesting himself in creation and taking on human ATTRIBUTES?

      when your god was passing wind, crying, praying , sleeping, eating , being carried by pagans , preaching about his high god who is greater than him

      how was this guy becoming knowable as yhwh

      ??

      Like

    • mr heathcliff

      The incarnation demonstrates god’s power and absolute sovereignty over all existence, time, and space. He is not – cannot be – excluded from creation no matter how much you whine. How absurd that muslims believe that god can create something and not be able to exist within it.

      Like

    • “The incarnation demonstrates god’s power and absolute sovereignty over all existence, time, and space”

      so you boxed your pagan god into time and space . why don’t you worship time and space? why don’t you worship that which CARRIED your god?

      god’s “power” by god DETACHING himself from his POWERS?
      what kind of filth and blasphemous lie is it to say that a god who BECOMES human attributes

      “demonstrates god’s power and absolute sovereignty over all existence”
      ????

      this is how bad man worship has done over your brain that you derive aw and wonder from finite humanoid ?

      Like

    • “How absurd that muslims believe that god can create something and not be able to exist within it.”

      you believe that your god has to become DEFORMED and disabled to get HELD by finite time and space and you keep the dad of jesus SEPARATE from creation .
      so you don’t get all the team/ group/godlings roaming the earth

      the absurdity is your god who becomes subject to his own powers to survive as an EARTHLING

      your entire religion is pagan .

      when god CREATES, he did not CREATE himself

      before the sun existed , god did not need to go into the suns position in the universe and start building from that position, he just needs to speak it to existence

      maybe your god is actually the sun incarnate?

      maybe the pagans got it right when they say the celestial bodies = gods

      Like

    • Kev,
      The idea that Allah’s mercy is far greater and far beyond the mercy that any human can fathom, exhibit, or experience in the life of this world is only nonsense in your own mind. Your argument can be used against your position as well, for the moment I forgive MY enemy I am not only equal to your understanding of God, I am greater, because in your understanding, God is limited by requiring a paganistic human blood sacrifice of an innocent person in order to forgive, while I can easily forgive another who has wronged me without such a barbaric requirement. If my forgiveness and mercy is greater than your understanding of Jesus atonement, then imagine how much greater is the forgiveness and mercy of Allah, The Most Merciful who has no limitations in his mercy.

      A divine being that is transcendently unique in its oneness is not absurd at all, what is absurd is to say that three equals one. The Trinity violates the rational nature and eternal logic of God, while the Unity does not.

      In regard to the Omnipotence paradox, your own scholars Norman Geisler and William Lane Craig point out that the paradox assumes a wrong definition of omnipotence. Omnipotence, they say, does not mean that God can do anything at all but, rather, that he can do anything that’s possible according to his nature. So therefore, according to this line of thought as God is by nature logical he would then be unable to violate the laws of logic, and cannot make a boulder so heavy he cannot lift it because that would violate the law of non-contradiction by creating an immovable object and an unstoppable force.

      More importantly in making such an argument using the omnipotence fallacy you have ignored other evidence from within Islamic belief itself, which may indicate that God is not entirely excluded from his creation, Allah is nearer to us than our own jugular vein 50:16, and Inna allaha ala kulli shay’in qadeer, verily Allah is capable of doing all things. Therefore, according to Islamic thought, He could possibly make a rock (or anything else for that matter) so large or heavy that nothing in the entire universe can move it. However, in regard to Allah “moving” it, He is not limited by the universe and He does not resemble His creation. Therefore, Allah is never subject to the Laws of the Creation because He is both the Creator and the Law Giver. Whenever He wants anything done, He merely says “Kun! Fayakun!” (Be! And so it will be!) 16:40. Likewise, similar to Geisler and Craigs point, Allah never wills to do anything that would violate the law of non-contradiction and cause himself to cease being the all-powerful eternal One God. Allah cannot be limited by anything that the human mind can ascribe to him, as he is greater than anything we can fully imagine…. and that is the meaning of “Allahu Akbar.”

      Liked by 1 person

    • Ibn

      “God is limited by requiring a paganistic human blood sacrifice of an innocent person in order to forgive,”

      More nonsense. God requires sacrifice because he gave laws that required sacrifice for the remission of sin. God is trustworthy and keeps his word – to not keep his word makes him arbitrary and untrustworthy. The taking of human sin onto himself is proof of God’s trustworthiness, not the absurd nonsense that it limits him.

      The issue is that muslims are comfortable with the idea that an eternal allah with an eternal word changes his mind – allah abrogates and somehow making his eternal word inapplicable. Thos means that allah is arbitrary, capricious and cannot be trusted. Not so the God of Abraham – he keeps his word because he is trustworthy.

      “The Most Merciful who has no limitations in his mercy.”

      So allah’s attribute of mercy is eternal? That’s the only way it can be unlike my own mercy.

      “A divine being that is transcendently unique in its oneness is not absurd at all, what is absurd is to say that three equals one.”

      Explain how allah’s oneness is unfathomable. The answer is that it isn’t because oneness is the natural order for created beings so we all know what it is like.

      “More importantly in making such an argument using the omnipotence fallacy you have ignored other evidence from within Islamic belief itself, which may indicate that God is not entirely excluded from his creation, Allah is nearer to us than our own jugular vein 50:16, and Inna allaha ala kulli shay’in qadeer, verily Allah is capable of doing all things. “

      The contradictions in islamic theology are not my problem. If allah says that he can enter creation,then that completely demolishes islamic problems with the incarnation. But, wait, let me guess….allah can enter creation only in ways “we cannot fathom”?

      And my point about the omnipotence paradox has completely flown over your head. Muslims use the paradox when arguing that allah can create a mode of existence that excludes him – in other words allah can create a stone that he cannot lift.

      The ramification of this highlights further the absurdity of allah – he has created creatures (even lowly insects like dung beetles) who have the capability to exist within creation when he is not. In other words, on earth we have capabilities that allah does not have.

      Absurd.

      Thus, the incarnation shows God’s power and capability, not limits them. He can enter creation and remain transcendent and apart at the same time.

      Like

    • The belief that God must take human sin onto himself, through the mechanism of a brutal, violent, and utterly disgusting display of Human Blood sacrifice for the remission of sins entirely absurd.
      The Jews and their Rabbi’s have agreed that blood sacrifice is the LOWEST form of atonement, because it is an easy act to perform, whereas it take more psychological effort, to humble oneself and knowingly turn toward God in actual repentance asking forgiveness of him for one’s own sin’s. Human sacrifice is also described by God himself as an abomination (Deut 12:30-31). How can we trust a God, who says he hates the abomination of Human sacrifice, and then later condemns an innocent Jesus to suffer the very same hateful abomination, and tells us we are to believe in that as an article of salvation? According to the Bible, God held the Jews accountable to the Law, and punished them for not adhering to the law, only to change his mind later, and say the law is not really required. How can we then trust a God who says we can be justified by the law and repentance, and then later arbitrarily says we are justified only by the Atonement on the cross? That is not only cruel and hateful toward the Jews, it is untrustworthy as well.

      Allah’s mercy is unlike ours, because it is greater than, and far exceeds our own. Trying to compare the mercy of Allah to your own mercy is foolish and impossible. Similarly God’s Oneness, cannot be encompassed by our own limited human understandings. True there are other things that are One in number, just as there are things that a three in number. But the singularity of God’s existence is beyond anything that any human has ever known or experienced. The same cannot be said for the Triune God, since all people have known and experienced humanity.

      Allah is the Creator, law giver, all-Powerful, and all-knowing, director of everything in the universe. Therefore, given this there is absolutely NO NEED for God to incarnate and enter into his creation in order to “experience” it. Likewise, there is absolutely NO NEED for Allah to have the same capability to exist within creation in the same way as the creatures (including lowly insects) which exist within his creation. In regard to Omnipotence paradox, there is none more capable than God, who can accomplish any task. However, in regard to entering creation, the Qur’an makes clear that the creation cannot contain the awesome might, power and fullness of God’s majestic being:

      And when Musa (Moses) came at the time and place appointed by Us, and his Lord spoke to him, he said: “O my Lord! Show me (Yourself), that I may look upon You.” Allah said: “You cannot see Me, but look upon the mountain if it stands still in its place then you shall see Me.” So when his Lord appeared to the mountain, He made it collapse to dust, and Musa (Moses) fell down unconscious. Then when he recovered his senses he said: “Glory be to You, I turn to You in repentance and I am the first of the believers.” 7:143

      One of many indications that Jesus cannot possibly have been God himself is that his presence in creation did not cause any physical disturbance in creation i.e. mountains to collapse, or creation itself to implode. God is incomparable, like unto none other with no co-equal 112:4. If creation could contain the being of Jesus, then it means he is comparable to many others who have also, like him, existed within creation and therefore he is automatically ruled out as being God himself. Otherwise, it seems that the omnipotence paradox can be argued either way. So, par for the course.

      The doctrine of Atonement limits the power of God, and makes him unable to forgive anyone without first killing an innocent human being, through the paganistic ritual of blood sacrifice. The incarnation, and doctrine of Atonement limits Gods power and capability, and highlights the incoherence, and irrationality and absurdity of Christian thought. Conversely, the absolute unique Oneness of Almighty God Allah, makes more rational sense, is easier to defend, agrees with OT and Jewish belief, and does not limit the power, capability or unique transcendent nature of God who can forgive by a single word, through the mechanism of Repentance (Tawbah) which is the highest form of atonement.

      Like

    • Yes so God allowed his “son” to be tortured and murderd by his enemies out of love…

      Makes perfect sense…if your a sociopath

      Like

    • “Yes so God allowed his “son” to be tortured and murderd by his enemies out of love…

      Makes perfect sense…if your a sociopath”

      1. god is not helpless
      2.god is not limited to two choices , punish or get punished
      3.god himself has and will punish people on earth and in hell

      one echad is killing another echad from “one divine nature” echad because sacrificial ritual is too powerful even for their false echads

      their god is CONSUMED by SELF abuse.

      the act is a stabilizer in the trinity . an infinite being cannot use his infinite mercy to “pay” for sinners because becoming human fixes PROBLEMS with in the trinity.

      what is even funny is god remains alive and POWERFUL throughout the act of killing meat body.

      Like

    • we know it fixes problems in the trinity because when their god(father) looks down upon fully god and fully man(son), he says that he(trinity) kept true faith in himself(trinity) as fully god and fully man(son)

      quote :
      The “law” says somebody has to be “dead,” but everyone is alive, but all the sins are magically gone. Where did they go? I don’t know. It’s magic. No, actually it isn’t magic. It’s saying that god can break his own rules because he’s god, which teaches kids that god approves of double-standards.

      Xianity is like a pinball game where there’s only two types of things in the gameboard: “Sin,” which earns you negative points, and “Communion” which brings your score back to zero. It is possible to earn a positive score, but only if you cheat. But in order to cheat, you have to be a god. If you don’t happen to be a god, forget it. Why would anyone in an arcade waste a quarter playing this silly game?

      Like

  3. All human beings are singular therefore Allah can not be singular.

    since when does 99 = 1?

    How many hands does Allah have?

    Like

    • How many brain cells do you have Paul?

      Liked by 1 person

    • You really are mad 😂 I need a telescope to see how far over your head the point flew!

      Are you trying to equate attributes with individual persons? That’s rather a stupid proposition.

      Allāh doesn’t have “hands,” despite what some members of a currently-popular and well-funded, hyper-literal corporealist sect of heretics might insist on. If you wanna go down this road, be prepared to look even more stupid than you already do.

      Liked by 2 people

    • The Quran says God has hands.

      Like

    • I urge you to take more care with what you say and how you say it. There is absolutely no verse of the Qur’ān that means “Allāh has hands” in English.

      Like

    • But is there a verse in Arabic that says God has hands?

      Like

    • Bro AT Allah has two Hands akhi:

      Chapter on the verse in which Allah, may He be glorified and exalted, says : “(Allah) said: ‘O Iblees (Satan)! What prevents you from prostrating yourself to one whom I have created with **Both My Hands’”** [Saad 38:75].

      Liked by 1 person

    • They aren’t “literal hands.” The word “hands” in that context is part of a figure of speech.

      If the “hands” are literal, then the whole thing is literal, and basically we have Allāh ﷻ literally playing with mud with His literal hands… na`ūdhu bIllāh!

      Liked by 1 person

    • Where does it say in the Quran or sunnah that his hands are not real hands just figures of speech?

      Like

    • The verse

      ليس كمثله شيء

      Textually gates the possibility of Allāh’s having “real hands” (which are, in fact, physical limbs). No amount of “but not like ours,” gets someone who insists on that corporealist heresy out of the hole.

      A real hand is a limb. Exalted is He above that with which they ascribe Him.

      Liked by 2 people

    • “Gates” in what way – what do you mean?

      Like

    • Madman: “since when does 99 = 1?”

      Who said 99 = 1?

      Liked by 2 people

    • are you mental?

      since you can see, hear and speak at the same time does that mean you are 3 separate existences ?
      does your seeing chat with your speaking?
      you trinitarians are nut cases

      look at this one here

      when jesus sees and chats with his father , does that mean we are seeing separate existences within the 1 person?

      what about all those additional abilities?

      Liked by 2 people

    • man thing, can you tell me how do you know 1 person means simple SINGLE one person and not multiple persons in 1 person?

      if one can mean more than 1 , then single one can mean more than one too

      for each 1 person, how many separate existences are there ?

      Like

    • madmanna

      “All human beings are singular therefore Allah can not be singular.”

      That’s a great point. All creatures are singular – that makes allah like his creatures.

      Like

    • Abu

      “Allāh doesn’t have “hands,” despite what some members of a currently-popular and well-funded, hyper-literal corporealist sect of heretics might insist on. If you wanna go down this road, be prepared to look even more stupid than you already do.”

      https://quran.com/5:64

      The Jews say: “Allah’s Hand is tied up (i.e. He does not give and spend of His Bounty).” Be their hands tied up and be they accursed for what they uttered. Nay, both His Hands are widely outstretched.

      Liked by 1 person

    • You don’t know what you’re on about 😂

      Like

    • Ok fair enough. I’m pretty ignorant on many things to do with Islam,

      Like

    • Abu

      “Textually gates the possibility of Allāh’s having “real hands” (which are, in fact, physical limbs). No amount of “but not like ours,” gets someone who insists on that corporealist heresy out of the hole.”

      Your argument is that the quran contradicts itself so you are right.

      Apply your reasoning to allah’s oneness and you shoot yourself in the nuts. We can envision and imagine “oneness” because that is the nature of creatures, but try to envision triunity and you can’t.

      The Trinity describes the transcendence of god and his personal interaction with his creation.

      Like

    • No, kiddo, we can’t envision triunity because it’s a literal impossility. I bet you think a perfectly round square is “transcendent” too. Listen up: three different things can’t be the same thing – no matter what semantic games you play (maladroitly). God is Necessary (wājib); created things are possible; the Trinity and that perfectly round square are impossible (mustahil). Stringing words together to make a grammatically correct sentence about something doesn’t mean it can actually exist.

      My argument isn’t that the Qur’ān contradicts itself, kiddo. The *fact* is that the Qur’ān *explains* itself. See in this case, something with a generally wide range of meanings has that range narrowed down. Simpleton.

      You can envision one of something, but that isn’t the theological, technical tawhīd we Muslims are always banging on about. You really can’t imagine the absolute, perfect uniqueness that is Allāh – as my Shaykh put it, “Allāh isn’t colored, but He isn’t colorless.”

      All human beings are individuals, yes, but they all have in common that they’re human beings; that was the point of my poem.

      The only logical way you whackos can claim to worship “one God,” is by saying that “God” is a genus, to which belong the species of “Father,” “Son,” and “Holy Spirit.”

      Liked by 2 people

    • Abu

      “Stringing words together to make a grammatically correct sentence about something doesn’t mean it can actually exist.”

      Ironically, your response is exactly what you have described.

      I told hold the quran to be the word of god, to be coherent, nor to even be true – so arguing that the trinity is wrong because the quran says so is simpletons logic. The circularity is dizzying.

      Speaking of stinging words together to make grammatically correct sentences, the quran (word of god, you might claim) says that allah has hands, and then says that he (or it) is unlike anything – that’s a clear contradiction. Worse for you, the logical exegesis from this mind-spinning superstition is that your god has hands unlike anything else we can imagine.

      What I can imagine is oneness, because that is the nature of creatures, not an unimaginably different entity. Trinuty meets that requirement so the claims of your own book denies your theology.

      Since you like to throw around the word “logical” – a concept you haven’t exhibited in your replies – please show me where allah explains – logically 😉 – the impossibility of triunity.

      As for tawhid – muslims don’t understand what they worship. They simply don’t know what kind of being they submit to because – as you agree – there’s nothing about your god that can possibly be apprehended.

      Like

    • When did I appeal to the Qur’ān to argue the impossibility of the Trinity? Silly rabbit, strawmen are for crows!

      Maybe read what I said a few dozen more times – slowly.

      Liked by 1 person

    • greyhum

      can you tell me how many is each person in the trinity

      you have “the father” is he that bearded anthropomorphic guy who used to chill in his temple ?

      how many is he? 1 person? what and who is 1 person?

      Like

    • greyhum,

      note my words carefully before you answer

      WHAT and WHO is the person called “the father”

      ??

      Like

    • kev, i’m trying to understand why aren’t you a polytheist

      jesus (who) uses powers (what) to do love to another person (who)

      the same person (who) loves jesus (who)

      is it like mary, steve and andrew using one human body to love each other.

      so we hear steve say :

      “i love you”

      mary says “i love you too”

      andrew says ” i also”

      external observers will see one body LOVING itself

      is the 4th WHO in trinity loving itself?

      they are sharing the same body (god) and to us it is appearing as 1 person loving itself

      what is going on kev?

      is god loving himself ?

      who + who + who

      using SAME what

      that seems like SAME person is loving the SAME person

      if each is co equal , the same person is simply loving itself

      it is using an ABILITY which is COMING from itself

      external observers will not see 3 lovers but one person loving itself

      or do you imagine the father using what on the son and son using what on the father ?

      it is kind of funny when you think about it.

      Like

    • kev, your disabled and deformed god doesn’t make any sense

      if each person is not FULLY god, then how can it give FULL love to the other persons?
      each is less than god

      each is not 100 % what

      where does your god get his ability to love, be kind, merciful etc etc? from his powers. without powers he is deformed.

      how is your deformed god giving love to the other when the love itself will be deformed?

      Liked by 1 person

    • Abu

      “The quran explains itself”

      Nice try at backflipping, but your point is clear – the quran makes the trinity impossible. Sadly, allah never tells us why that is.

      Maybe you can reveal something that allah doesn’t know by logically explaining the impossibility of the trinity?

      Good luck, though, the way you guys go on there is absolutely nothing you can say to describe allah – hence you have no idea what he is…except that he is one, just like all the creatures in his creation. Ironically, that means that allah’s oneness is not like the oneness of creatures, the same point you argue against of those who say his hands aren’t like the hands of his creatures. That’s special pleading – logically speaking.

      Like

    • Kev

      You said;
      Good luck, though, the way you guys go on there is absolutely nothing you can say to describe allah – hence you have no idea what he is…except that he is one, just like all the creatures in his creation. Ironically, that means that allah’s oneness is not like the oneness of creatures, the same point you argue against of those who say his hands aren’t like the hands of his creatures. That’s special pleading – logically speaking.

      I say;
      The singularity of God is unlike the singularity of man. God’s singularity means He(God) alone is the One being who is alone. That’s what the Bible said and Jesus said;

      John 17:3
      Verses
      New International Version
      Now this is eternal life: that they know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent.
      New Living Translation
      And this is the way to have eternal life–to know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, the one you sent to earth.
      ———–

      The Father who is God and is a being/person is only one and alone. So, God is one, alone and only true God according to Jesus. If God is One, Only and Alone, there is no individual God again except Him(Father), the only one God of Jesus and our God and Father too. Obviously you cannot count this God and at any individual to Him and that is why adding anything to the God of Jesus and our God is considered idolatry, polytheism and punishable by hot hell fire.

      It does not matter if add Jesus or the Holy Spirit to that one God, you are still going to hell fire. Now compare the individual God who is one to the individual man who is not only and alone but many individual men and we have billions and billions of individual men.

      Allah is only one and only and there is no any individual Allah(God) except that individual, but there are many individual men. So the individual God is not like individual man. Do you get it now?

      Thanks.

      Like

    • The mercy of Allah seems to be more like the mercy of the school bully. As long as you don’t get on his wrong side and he beats you up you are enjoying his “mercy”.

      It is very partisan.

      Like

    • Intellect

      “The singularity of God is unlike the singularity of man. God’s singularity means He(God) alone is the One being who is alone. ”

      That describes uniqueness not oneness. His uniqueness and aloneness don’t preclude plurality within his unity.

      Like

    • Kev

      January 6, 2017 • 11:26 pm
      Intellect
      “The singularity of God is unlike the singularity of man. God’s singularity means He(God) alone is the One being who is alone. ”
      That describes uniqueness not oneness. His uniqueness and aloneness don’t preclude plurality within his unity.

      I say;
      Listen to what Jesus said;

      ◄ Mark 12:29 ►

      New International Version
      “The most important one,” answered Jesus, “is this: ‘Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one.

      And this is what Yahweh said;

      Deuteronomy 6:4 ►

      New International Version
      Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God, the LORD is one

      A kindergarten child will see One but no one will see two, tree, four etc. This is the time God is supposed to say “the Lords are three” or the Lords are plural but God stressed on one.

      If your father sent you to observe swimming ducks and saw only one that is alone. Will it be appropriate to tell your father based on the one duck you saw, you have seen plural ducks swimming in the water that day? It would be a lie and stubbornness to insist one means plural. It is two and more things that are plural and one thing is singular. This what we were taught at kindergarten and it is the truth, logical and rational. One thing is not plural but singular and more than 2 things are plural. God said He is One, Only and Alone.

      Proof:
      “there is no one like Yahweh our God.” Exodus 8:10
      “Yahweh, He is God; there is no other besides Him.” Deuteronomy 4:35
      “Yahweh, He is God in heaven above and on the earth below; there is no other.” Deuteronomy 4:39
      “See now that I, I am He, And there is no god besides Me” Deuteronomy 32:39
      “Hear, O Israel! Yahweh is our God, Yahweh is one [echad]!” Deuteronomy 6:4
      “You are great, O Lord God; for there is none like You, and there is no God besides You” 2 Samuel 7:22
      “For who is God, besides Yahweh? And who is a rock, besides our God?” 2 Samuel 22:32
      “Yahweh is God; there is no one else.” 1 Kings 8:60
      “You are the God, You alone [bad], of all the kingdoms of the earth.” 2 Kings 19:15
      “O Lord, there is none like You, nor is there any God besides You” 1 Chronicles 17:20
      “You alone [bad] are Yahweh.” Nehemiah 9:6
      “For who is God, but Yahweh? And who is a rock, except our God” Psalm 18:31
      “You alone [bad], Lord, are God.” Isaiah 37:20
      “Before Me there was no God formed, And there will be none after Me.” Isaiah 43:10

      We can all see the Bible is clearly saying God is one, alone, and only. There is no single God is 2 or more persons mentioned in the whole Bible. Kev, why sell your life to satan and keep continue to argue the opposite of what God and His prophet Jesus said that the only true God of Abraham is one, only and alone?

      Thanks.

      Like

    • Intellect

      “Listen to what Jesus said;

      ◄ Mark 12:29 ►

      New International Version
      “The most important one,” answered Jesus, “is this: ‘Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one.

      And this is what Yahweh said;

      Deuteronomy 6:4 ►

      New International Version
      Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God, the LORD is one”

      Listen to what Christians say……”we know God is One – his oneness is unlike anything we can imagine.”

      Like

    • Kev

      Counting 3 Persons/persons as one being is like counting 3 persons(people) as one being(humans). The Bible said God is One, Only and Alone, so God cannot be counted whatsoever like the Trinitarian counting God into 3 Persons/persons that cannot be found in the Bible counting God into 3 Persons/persons.

      You do not believe the above clear verses from the Bible that clearly said God is One, Only and Alone but you believe men defining God into Hypostasis, 3 Persons, dead God etc. and it is all inspired by satan. It is only satan that can convince one to accept God died or God had a Son and that son they say it is not metaphorical or adopted like us.

      Thanks.

      Like

    • Intellect

      “The Bible said God is One, Only and Alone, so God cannot be counted whatsoever like the Trinitarian counting God into 3 Persons/persons that cannot be found in the Bible counting God into 3 Persons/persons.”

      Absurd lack o comprehension on your part. So calling allah “one” is not counting? Do you even think about what you write?

      Like

    • Kev “That describes uniqueness not oneness. His uniqueness and aloneness don’t preclude plurality within his unity.”

      Kev you have used the pronoun “His” in reference to the One God here… can you kindly reference biblical scripture where “His” or “Him” contextually refers to 3 distinct divine persons that comprise The One God as articulated and conceptualized according to trinitarian christology?… substantiate according to biblical scripture where the ‘oneness’ of God is made up of three distinct persons to form one being…. show “His” = 3 persons lol..

      Like

    • no christ tian is telling how many is EACH person in the trinity

      how many is jesus
      the father

      the ghost

      is it plural unity within 1 person?

      is it single one ?

      is it “joined to the hip” unity?

      Like

    • is “one” in “one person” refer to a single person or plural unity?

      Like

    • Omer

      That would be like asking a muslim where in the quran allah states explicitly that he has only 99 attributes or where he states explicitly that he has created a universe that he is excluded from, or even where he states explicitly that he is not plural in his oneness. You won’t be able to.

      In the New Testament, on the other hand, jesus makes multiple references to his own deity – in all four gospels – the rest of the NT books and letters make references to his being divine, and the Holy Spirit is god’s spirit that has clear autonomy. The concept of triunity is clear from the scriptures, the concept of allah’s 99 attributes are not – for example, are his attributes eternal? Some muslims say yes, some say no – the quran doesn’t tell us.

      Also, there are more than 99 names that allah gives to himself in the quran and there is some disagreement about what the 99 names are since no specifics are given for which of the descriptions that are applied to allah should be included in the 99. No list is given anywhere.

      I would refer you to this interesting podcast by Dr Benjamin Sommer in which he admits that based on an objective reading of the scriptures, there can be no theological objections to the trinity. This is because the Old Testament is loaded with descriptions of Yahweh as a plural oneness…….

      http://podcast.foundjs.org/the-bodies-of-god-and-the-world-of-ancient-israel-part-iv

      What all of this means is that god’s plurality is well attested to in the both testaments and that the claims of jesus were made with this context in mind – he was claiming to be one of the persons of Yahweh described in the OT. It is not a new invention of christianity, but is deeply rooted in the jewish scriptures and thought of the time as scholars like Alan Segal and Michael Heiser have demonstrated.

      But none of this addresses the problem of islam’s god who creates a stone that he cannot lift. Reason alone makes such a being absurd.

      Like

  4. https://islamqa.info/en/151794

    Correct belief should be based on what is proven in the Qur’an and Sunnah, as understood by the early generations (salaf) of this ummah, namely the Sahaabah, Taabi‘een and leading scholars. They were unanimously agreed that the divine attributes mentioned in the Qur’an and Sunnah are to be affirmed without discussing how or likening Him to His creation, and without denying any of His attributes or interpreting them in a way different from the apparent meaning. We do not differentiate between any of the divine attributes, no matter what category they come under. Every divine attribute that is mentioned in a saheeh text must be affirmed.

    The Qur’an and Sunnah came to teach people about the attributes of their God, and this can only be done by understanding the words in a real sense; this is the basic principle with regard to statements. The Prophet (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) conveyed the Holy Qur’an in both wording and meaning; not a single letter was narrated from him to suggest that any of the divine attributes should be interpreted in a way different from its apparent meaning, or that its apparent meaning is not intended, or that it means likening Him to His creation, or other phrases used by those who deny the divine attributes or interpret them in a way other than their apparent meaning. This is casting aspersions upon the Qur’an or upon the Messenger who was enjoined to convey and explain it. If anything of what they had mentioned was essential, then the Qur’an and the Prophet would have explained it and not concealed it. How could it be otherwise when it is proven in a number of saheeh hadeeths, the authenticity of which is agreed upon, that these attributes are to be affirmed, and there are other attributes mentioned in other hadeeths, such as His descending, His foot, His smiling, and His rejoicing, without any word to suggest that they should be understood in a way different from the apparent meaning, and without any Sahaabi having found it problematic to take them as they appear to be and according to what may be understood from them. If there was anything in the apparent meaning that could be regarded as not befitting to the divine or as likening the divine to any created being – and it is not possible for there to be any such thing in the Qur’an or Sunnah – then the infallible Prophet would have pointed it out and highlighted it to people, and the people of reason at that time would have questioned it, for they were more eager to attain good and adhere to it.

    When innovations appeared, and people emerged who said that these attributes were to be understood in a metaphorical, rather than a real, sense – as was the view of the Jahamis and Mu‘tazilah and those who agreed with them – the early generations and leading scholars responded by stating that these attributes are to be understood in a real sense, not in a metaphorical sense. Their comments on this matter are abundant and well-known. We will quote some of their comments here:

    -1-

    ‘Uthmaan ibn Sa‘eed ad-Daarimi (d. 280 – may Allah have mercy on him) said:

    Praise be to Allah, may He be exalted, we know about the concept of metaphors from the language of the Arabs, which you have taken and used to confuse and mislead the ignorant. By means of this concept you denied the reality of the divine attributes, on the basis of the metaphor argument. But we say: It is wrong to judge the most common style in the Arabic language on the basis of its rarest style; rather we should understand the statements of the Arabs on the basis of the most common style, unless you can produce proof that what is meant here is the rarer style (namely metaphor). This is the approach that is most fair, and it is not right to approach the divine attributes that are well known and understood as they appear to be by people of common sense, and twist the meaning on the grounds that these are metaphors.

    End quote from Naqd ad-Raadirmi ‘ala Bishr al-Mireesi, 2/755

    -2-

    Imam Abu Ja‘far Muhammad ibn Jareer at-Tabari (d. 310 – may Allah have mercy on him) said:

    If someone were to say: What is the proper approach with regard to the meaning of these attributes that you have mentioned, some of which are mentioned in the Book and revelation of Allah, may He be glorified and exalted, and some were mentioned by the Messenger of Allah (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him)? Our response is: The correct approach in our view is to affirm the meaning in a real sense, without likening Him to His creation, as Allah said of Himself in the Qur’an (interpretation of the meaning): “There is nothing like unto Him, and He is the All-Hearer, the All-Seer” [ash-Shoora 42:11]. … So we affirm all of the meanings that we said are mentioned in the reports and the Qur’an and the revelation according to their apparent meaning, and we reject any likening of Him to His creation. Hence we say: He, may He be glorified and exalted, hears all sounds, but not through a hole in an ear or through any physical faculty like those of the sons of Adam. Similarly, He sees all people with vision that is not like the vision of the sons of Adam, which is a physical faculty of theirs. He has two hands, a right hand, and fingers, but not in a physical sense; rather His two hands are outstretched, bestowing blessings upon creation, not withholding good. And He has a countenance or face, but it is not like the physical faces of the sons of Adam that are made of flesh and blood. We say that He smiles upon whomever He will of His creation, but we do not say that this is showing teeth (like a human smile); and He descends every night to the lowest heaven.

    End quote from Tabseer fi Ma‘aalim ad-Deen, p. 141-145

    -3-

    Imam Abu Ahmad Muhammad ibn ‘Ali ibn Muhammad al-Karji who is known as al-Qassaab (d. 360 AH) said concerning the Qaadari belief in a letter that he wrote for the caliph al-Qaadir bi Amr-Allah in 433 AH, which was signed by the scholars of that time to confirm its content, which was sent to the various regions:

    Allah is not to be described except as He has described Himself or as His Prophet has described Him. Any attribute that He has ascribed to Himself or that His Prophet has ascribed to Him, is an attribute in a real sense, and is not metaphorical. If it was metaphorical, then it would have been necessary to explain it in a manner different from the apparent meaning, so it would have been said: What is meant by vision is such and such, what is meant by hearing is such and such, and so on; it would have been explained in a way different from what one would understand from the apparent meaning. As the approach of the salaf is to affirm the attributes without interpreting them in a way different from the apparent meaning, this proves that they are not to be understood in a metaphorical sense; rather they are plain facts.

    End quote from al-Muntazam by Ibn al-Jawzi, speaking of the events of 433 AH; Siyar A‘laam an-Nubala’, 16/213

    -4-

    Imam al-Haafiz Abu ‘Abdullah Muhammad ibn Ishaaq ibn Mandah (d. 395) said, affirming the divine attribute of the two hands:

    Chapter on the verse in which Allah, may He be glorified and exalted, says (interpretation of the meaning): “(Allah) said: ‘O Iblees (Satan)! What prevents you from prostrating yourself to one whom I have created with Both My Hands’” [Saad 38:75]. And he quoted words of the Prophet (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) that could prove that Allah, may He be glorified and exalted, created Adam (peace be upon him) with His two hands in a real sense.

    And he said, affirming the divine attribute of the countenance or face:

    Chapter on the verse in which Allah, may He be glorified and exalted, says (interpretation of the meaning): “Everything will perish save His Face” [al-Qasas 28:88]. And Allah, may He be glorified and exalted, says (interpretation of the meaning): “And the Face of your Lord full of Majesty and Honour will abide forever” [ar-Rahmaan 55:27]. And he quoted proven reports from the Prophet which indicate that this is to be understood in a real sense.

    End quote from ar-Radd ‘ala al-Jahamiyyah, p. 68, 94

    -5-

    Imam Haafiz al-Maghrib Abu ‘Umar Yoosuf ibn ‘Abdullah ibn ‘Abd al-Barr al-Andalusi al-Qurtubi al-Maaliki (d. 463) said:

    In principle, words are to be understood in a real sense, unless the ummah is unanimously agreed that something is not to be understood in a real sense, and is rather a metaphor, because there is no way to follow what has been revealed to us from our Lord except on that basis. Rather we should understand the words of Allah, may He be glorified and exalted, on the basis of the most apparent and clearest meaning, unless there is a strong reason to do otherwise. If it were justifiable for anyone to claim that something is a metaphor, then no statement would mean anything. Allah, may He be glorified and exalted, is far above saying anything in the Qur’an except that which is said in a manner that may be understood by the Arabs on the basis of their style of speech. Istiwa’ (rising above (the Throne)) is well known and understood in Arabic; it means rising above something and becoming settled and established.

    He said, narrating that there was consensus among Ahl as-Sunnah concerning this matter: Ahl as-Sunnah are unanimously agreed that all the divine attributes mentioned in the Qur’an and Sunnah are to be affirmed, and we are to believe in them and understand them in a real sense, not as metaphorical. But they do not discuss the nature of any of them. As for the followers of innovation, the Jahamis, all the Mu‘tazilah and the Khaarijis, all of them deny the divine attributes and do not understand them in a true sense; they claimed that the one who affirms them is likening Him to His creation. According to those who do affirm the divine attributes, these people are denying God. The truth is on the side of those who base their understanding on the wording of the Book of Allah and the Sunnah of His Messengers, and they are the leaders of al-jamaa‘ah, praise be to Allah.

    End quote from at-Tamheed, 7/131, 145

    -6-

    Imam al-Haafiz adh-Dhahabi said, after quoting the words of al-Qassaab referred to above:

    As Allah exists in a real sense, not metaphorically, His attributes cannot be taken as metaphorical, because in that case they could not be divine attributes, because the attributes are connected to the one who possesses those attributes. As He exists in a real sense, not in a metaphorical sense, His attributes cannot be metaphorical. As there is nothing equal or similar to Him, there can be nothing like His attributes.

    He said, commenting on the words of Ibn ‘Abd al-Barr mentioned above:

    He spoke the truth, by Allah. Whoever interprets all the divine attributes in a manner other than their apparent meaning, and regards the words as metaphorical, that will inevitably lead him to denying the Lord and likening Him to something non-existent. It was narrated from Hammaad ibn Zayd that he said: The likeness of the Jahamis is that of people who said: On our land there is a palm tree. It was said: Does it have leaves? They said: No. It was said: Does it have branches? They said: No. It was said: Does it have bunches of dates? They said: No. It was said: Does it have a trunk? They said: No. It was said: Then you do not have a palm tree on your land!

    End quote from al-‘Uluw, p. 239, 250

    There are many similar reports. See: al-Ashaa‘irah fi Mizaan Ahl as-Sunnah by Shaykh Faisal ibn Qazzaaz al-Jaasim, in which there are many more such quotations from the early generations and the leading scholars.

    This is the basic principle with regard to the texts that speak of the divine attributes, including the two verses mentioned (in the question). The leading imams of the earlier and later generations quoted them to affirm the divine attributes of the hand and eye, among other evidence, yet they interpreted the verses in a manner that is appropriate to the context, as we shall see below.

    Ibn ‘Uthaymeen (may Allah have mercy on him) said, explaining this concept:

    The words of Allah (interpretation of the meaning), “The Hand of Allah is over their hands” [al-Fath 48:10], are to be understood according to their apparent meaning. The hand of Allah, may He be exalted, is over the hands of those who are swearing allegiance, because His hand is one of His attributes, yet He is above them, above His Throne. So His hand is above their hands. This is the apparent meaning of the words and is the real meaning, which is to affirm that allegiance to the Prophet (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) is as if it were allegiance to Allah, may He be glorified and exalted. It does not mean that the hand of Allah, may He be glorified and exalted, is directly on top of their hands. Do you not see that we say that the sky is above us, even though it is distant from us? So the hand of Allah, may He be glorified and exalted, is above the hands of those who swore allegiance to His Messenger (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him), even though He is far above His creation.

    End quote from al-Qawaa‘id al-Muthla, in Majmoo‘ Fataawa ash-Shaykh, 3/331

    The words of Allah (interpretation of the meaning), “for verily, you are under Our Eyes” [at-Toor 52:48], were interpreted by some of the early generations as meaning “within Our vision or sight”; this is an explanation as dictated by the context, hence this verse confirms two things, the vision and eye of Allah.

    Shaykh Ibn ‘Uthaymeen (may Allah have mercy on him) said in Sharh al-Waasitiyyah: If it is asked: how do you explain the preposition bi in the phrase bi a‘yunina (translated above as “under Our eyes”, lit. “in our eyes”)? Our response is: we explain it as meaning that the eye is with or accompanying them. If you say “you are under my eye” it means my eye is accompanying you or, in other words, I am watching you and my gaze never shifts away from you. Hence what is meant is that Allah, may He be glorified and exalted, is saying to His Prophet: Be patient with the decree of Allah, for you are surrounded with Our care and We are watching you so that no one can harm you.

    It does not refer to location (being “in” or “inside”), because that would imply that the Messenger of Allah (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) was inside the eye of Allah! – which is impossible.

    Moreover, this was addressed to the Messenger of Allah (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) when he was on earth, so if you were to say that he was in the eye of Allah, this interpretation of this verse of the Qur’an is not correct.

    Prior to that he said: If it were to be said that among the salaf there were those who interpreted the words of Allah “under Our eyes” as meaning in Our vision; it was interpreted thus by well-known, leading scholars among the early generations, but you say that interpreting it in a manner other than the apparent meaning is haraam, so what is the answer? Our response is that they interpreted it according to the context, whilst still affirming the basic meaning, which is the attribute of the divine eye. Those who distort the meanings say that it means “in Our vision” without affirming the divine eye, whereas Ahl as-Sunnah wa’l-Jamaa‘ah say that “under Our eyes” means in Our vision, whilst affirming the divine eye.

    End quote from Majmoo‘ Fataawa ash-Shaykh, 8/264

    Shaykh Saalih Aal ash-Shaykh (may Allah preserve him) said: “for verily, you are under Our Eyes” [at-Toor 52:48] means you are in Our vision and sight, and under Our care and protection.

    This interpretation is the interpretation of the salaf for this phrase, because the Prophet (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) was not in the eye of Allah (in the singular) which is His attribute; rather he (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) was “under the eyes” of Allah (in the plural); that is because Allah has the attribute of two eyes. Hence Ahl as-Sunnah wa’l-Jamaa‘ah interpreted this as coming under the heading of what is implied by the verse, and implication is one of the ways in which the phrase may be interpreted. A phrase may be interpreted according to its exact meaning, or according to what it implies, or according to what is indicated by the context.

    Hence they said: What it means is that the Prophet (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) was in (or under) the vision and sight of Allah, may He be glorified and exalted, and under His care and protection. This is what is implied by the words “under Our Eyes” [at-Toor 52:48].

    Therefore this does not come under the heading of interpretation in a manner other than the apparent meaning, as was claimed by those who did not understand. Rather it comes under the heading of what is implied, and implication – i.e., understanding the implications of a word – is a clear part of the Arabic language.

    Even though the early generations affirmed the divine attribute of the two eyes, they could interpret something- as in the case of this verse – on the basis of what it implies, or they could interpret it on the basis of what the context indicates, and some may think that this comes under the heading of interpretation in a manner other than the apparent meaning, but that is wrong.

    Implication is one thing and context is something else; these are two ways of understanding the wording of a phrase.

    As for interpreting something in a manner other than the apparent meaning, this is ignoring what the wording indicates.

    End quote from Sharh al-Waasitiyyah

    From the above it is clear that these two verses are to be understood in a real sense, and that in them is an affirmation of the divine attributes of the hand and eye, and there is nothing wrong with interpreting the verse as dictated by its context or what it implies, without denying the divine attributes mentioned in it. Perhaps this is what you sensed by your linguistic perceptivity, i.e., the general meaning that is implied or dictated by the context, but it is wrong to think that this comes under the heading of metaphor, which would lead to denying one of the divine attributes or to denying the apparent meaning of the text.

    And Allah knows best.

    Liked by 1 person

    • ^ Those are the well-funded, currently-popular, hyper-literalist corporealists I was talking about… didn’t take long for a dodgy islamqa fatwa to pop up! Affirming the intended meaning is VERY different from affirming the “literal” or “apparent” meaning.

      Here is the actual position of actual Ahl as-Sunnah:

      Q&A: hand versus hearing and tafweed – http://wp.me/pfcNY-5T

      I urge anyone to have a good long browse around this Shaykh’s site for the authentic Sunni position on such things.

      Like

    • Do you accept now that God is described as having a hand in the Quran? You asked for evidence and it was forthcoming.

      Like

    • I’m not new to all this, you know… the “evidences” presented don’t prove the assertions made.

      Like

    • But if God says in his Word that he has a “hand” is it up to us to interpreted it as meaning something else?

      Like

    • He negated the literal meaning Himself, Paul.

      Like

    • By saying his hand is unlike anything in creation yes, but that is what Salafis have argued all along.

      Like

    • Salafis insist on affirmation of the literal apparent meaning, and they’re not clever enough to understand how figurative language works. And stop translating it as “hand” without any context. In English that gives the meaning of a physical limb.

      Like

    • Also, in God’s Word, the actual word is يد

      Like

    • Hands. In the verse,
      “And the sky We built with hands; verily We outspread [it]” (Qur’an 51:47),
      al-Tabari ascribes the figurative explanation (ta’wil) of with hands as meaning “with power (bi quwwa)” through five chains of transmission to Ibn ‘Abbas, who died 68 years after the Hijra, Mujahid who died 104 years after the Hijra, Qatada [ibn Da‘ama] who died 118 years after the Hijra, Mansur [ibn Zadhan al-Thaqafi] who died 131 years after the Hijra, and Sufyan al-Thawri who died 161 years after the Hijra (Jami‘ al-bayan, 27.7–8). I mention these dates to show just how early they were.

      http://www.masud.co.uk/ISLAM/nuh/littlk.htm

      Like

  5. Listen, there’s no debate because I’m never going to say “God has hands” because that’s an absurd sentence in English. And I won’t say it in Arabic because there’s no revealed text that says that exact thing. Brother Paul, if you want to discuss it with me further, I sent you an e-mail I think yesterday (about an unrelated topic), so you have my contact information.

    I’m just disappointed to see one group of people who insist that God literally has appendages and sits on (or above lol) a chair debate another group of people who insist that God is a suicidal MPD-sufferer with a self-son…-thing. Both positions are absurd.

    Liked by 1 person

  6. Anybody who denies the attributes of Allah, can not be a Muslim. Anybody who denies the Qur’an is not a Muslim. Anybody who says ” Those who deny the attributes of Allah are Muslim” is also not a Muslim.

    Hope this clears the confusion.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Is that directed at me? If so…

      Hope you’re not trying to spread more confusion by likening the authentic position of Ahl as-Sunnah to that of the Jahmiyyah. Because if you think I’ve “denied the attributes of Allāh,” then you really need to step up your `aqīdah game.

      Like

    • Brothers as salaam o alaikum

      One hadeeth is as follows [not exact wording], just follow it : tafakkuru fil khalaqillah, was la tafakkuru dhatillah

      Meaning, ponder on creation of Allah not in dhaat of Allah. So this debate between ashari vs salafi is non nonsensical for me. We should just affirm what Allah has revealed and leave rest to Allah. If we can’t understand something we should simply say that . for example when allah uses word hand in a verse, we should say we believe in the verse but the real meaning of the word” yad” is only known to allah.

      We humans are not capable to understand certain things includes dhaat of Allah is one such thing. These are among “mutashabihaat”. Now lets look at salafi vs ashari position on this

      Salafis insist that we must believe Allah has hands , however :hands” that befits his majesty

      Some Ashaaris do tafweed: by saying we don;t know the true meaning of it, while others give figurative meaning to it ( e,g taweel) . I tend to go with 1st option of Asharis, e.g do tafweed. Imam Nawawi seems to be of that opinion as well but sometimes he does taweel too.

      Now my question is. What is the essential difference between Salafi and Ashari ( who do tafweed) on this?

      Salafis affirm the verse, affirm apparent meaning but add ” that befits His majesty”

      Tafweedi: Affirm the verse and that “allah knows”

      So essentially the difference boils down to “affirming apparent meaning” but also adding that only Allah knows ( that which befits His majesty). Which is actually not a difference IMHO.

      Salafis deny tafweed but they don’t have any textual evidence for it. Their rejection is based on logic of Ibn Taymiyyah. Also their complete rejection of Taweel is also non tenable as there are cases in Quran, where taweel is permissible based on authentic ahadeeth and context of the verse.

      However Asharis often cross the limit and they actually “deny” that Allah can have attributes mentioned in Quran or Sunnah as opposed to saying they don;t know or Allah knows. Why deny something that you have no clue about? On what basis? If you don’t know, say don’t know.

      Liked by 1 person

    • Asharis have been the dominant group in the history of traditional Islam. Just saying.

      Abu Talha’s interpretation of God’s ‘Hands’ isn’t heretical. Imam Ghazali shares the same view.

      I find it kind of corny to say God has a literal hand that is unlike anything in creation. Does He also have fingers and nails that are unlike anything in creation?

      Like

    • Asharis were not the first orthodox school in traditional Islam. The athari’s were earlier and they held the same views as Salafis today.

      Like

    • According to the mujassims, yes, fingers. And shins. And a face with eyes. And two right hands.

      What people like Paul, who have fallen for Salafis’ cop-out lie, fail to realize (because they haven’t had enough training in the field of `aqīdah to know better) is that affirming the *literal apparent meaning* of something is a far cry from the Athari position of affirming the *intended meaning* of something and refusing to delve into interpretation.

      For all the railing against interpretation that Salafis do (because they have to at least keep up the appearance of orthodoxy), their “literal apparent meaning” song and dance is not only interpretation, it’s full-blown corporealism.

      Like

    • As i said there is no REAL difference between tafweedi (ashaari) and Salafi. It is just play of words.

      Liked by 1 person

    • Brothers, I suggest to avoid these kind of discussion for many reasons. Most muslims are not aware of these things. Also,scholars of Islam have been warning to expose ordinary muslims who have not good background & knowledge to these discussions, especially that Salaf themselves didn’t go beyond what’s mentioned in Quran and Sunnah.
      Asharites got it wrong for many reasons, and It’s enough to know that Abu al Hasan Al Sahrity retreated to sayings of Salaf.

      Liked by 1 person

    • Abu Talha,
      I think that we all understand your reasoning and position on this as well as appreciate the conviction of your pure belief. I admire anyone who defends his belief in Qur’an and the unique incomparable nature of the One True God Allah.

      I think Rational Muslim, gave a good explanation and clarification on the issue. Personally, I prefer the position of Imaam Nawawi who generally takes the Ashari position that we don’t know the true meaning of the word or verse in question. But at other times I also agree with him that it may be beneficial to be able to understand the word or verse in a figurative way. I like the flexibility this allows in interpreting the Qur’an and I see it as a strength in Islamic Tafsir.

      We Muslims may not always have the same exact understanding, and our own understanding may change over time as we increase in knowledge, but in regard to minor interpretive differences based on nuance, we should not focus too much on these things as it may lead to unnecessary fitna and confusion amongst Muslims. Therefore, we can believe as we like, according to our own madhab or school of thought, but in the end of the day we should all say and agree that we don’t really know for sure, or Allahu Alim.

      Importantly, we all agree on the more major issues and beliefs and that is what we should always focus on, as that is what unites us in this deen.

      Alhamdulillah, our differences are a far length away from the Christians who actually believe that God became a man with all the faults and issues that involves.

      Like

    • Abdullah: Asharites got it wrong for many reasons

      Did the Atharis get wrong anything?

      Like

  7. Kev, you wrote the following:

    <>

    Oneness of God, was preached and believed by Jesus, according to Trinitarian Scholars, Non-Trinitarian Scholars and all Historians. Jesus was not a Trinitarian, according to Trinitarian Scholars. Since ”Oneness of God i.e Unitarian Belief” is false, according to your faith, this means Jesus worshipped a False God and deceived his people by accepting Unitarian beliefs and promoting them in 2 Major Ways:

    1) Number 1 by Accepting the Worship of the Father Alone as God, since he was a Jew, born under the Law. There is no evidence whatsoever, where Jesus introduced other deities, himself or other ”persons” alongside the worship of the Father. There is nothing.

    2) In addition to the absence of evidence, where Jesus modified the concept of God, we have plenty of evidence of what Jesus DID SAY that proves Jesus was certainly no Trinitarian.

    One of the scribes came and heard them arguing, and recognizing that he had answered them well, asked him, “What commandment is the foremost of all?” Jesus answered, “The foremost is, ‘Hear, O Israel! The Lord our God is one Lord; and you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind, and with all your strength.’ The second is this, ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’ There is no other commandment greater than these.” The scribe said to Him, “Right, Teacher; You have truly stated that [He] is ONE, and there is no one else besides [Him]; and to love [Him] with all the heart and with all the understanding and with all the strength, and to love one’s neighbor as himself, is much more than all burnt offerings and sacrifices.” When Jesus saw that he had answered intelligently, he said to him, “You are not far from the kingdom of God.” Mark 12:28-34.

    You see Kev? Jesus has introduced his concept of God, and revealed everything. Jesus identifies and INTERPRETS the Concept of God for us, through his STATEMENTS, and ACKNOWLEDGMENT.

    THRE SINGULAR PERSONAL PRONOUNS USED TO DESCRIBE GOD. This clearly means a singular person-A SINGLE WHO. Additionally, ONE PERSON OF THE TRINITY IS IDENTIFIED and it is said

    ”[HE] is ONE, and there is no one else besides [HIM].” This is referring to ONE PERSON, THE FATHER not ONE NATURE. How do we know that? BECAUSE IT SAYS ”HIM”, PERSONAL PRONOUN, NOT ”THE OUSIA OR WHAT”! Understand? Its a WHO, not a WHAT. VERY CLEAR.

    Trinity has THREE WHOS and ONE WHAT. Jesus and the Scribe did not identify THREE WHOS and DID NOT SAY ANYTHING ABOUT AN OUSIA, A WHAT ETC. AND THEY CERTAINLY DID NOT MODIFY THE SHEMA TO INCLUDE THREE WHOS AND EXPLAIN THE ONE WHAT ETC. THEY INTERPRETED AS MUSLIMS DO, ONE WHAT, ONE WHO. How do we know that? READ THE DAMN THANG!!

    <>

    Nothing about God[s], multiple persons, one what three whos–nothing. Just One God, clearly assuming one Person.

    Lets continue:

    <>

    ”HE IS ONE, AND THERE IS NO ONE ELSE BESIDES HIM” Double Personal SINGULAR Pronouns in one sentence, identifying A SINGLE PERSON, the FATHER always regarded as the GOD! Nothing Trinity, Tri-unity, Multiples Persons, God[s] etc NOTHING. No OUSIA, PERSONS, HYPOSTATIC UNION NOTHING.

    Lets continue:

    <>

    ”and to love [HIM]” Again, another SINGULAR PERSONAL PRONOUN identfying a SINGLE PERSON, one identity, not one OUSIA a Nature but a ”WHO” since the singular personal pronoun ”HIM/HE” are used.

    Why the Hell is Jesus Talking Like This if he knows there ARE 3 Persons in ONE OUSIA?? IS HE A DECEIVER? Did he deceive the scribe and others, by pretending to to be Unitarian when he was a Trinitarian? HE IS STILL A DECEIVER IF HE KNEW THE TRINITY BUT DID NOT SAY ANYTHING. FAILURE TO INFORM, WHEN YOU KNOW UNITARIAN BELIEFS ARE INCORRECT IS DECEPTION SINCE IT IS HIS JOB TO LET PEOPLE WHO GOD IS!

    Jesus must have been the WORST COMMUNICATOR ON EARTH for not explaining the Trinity in Mark 12: 28-32!!! Unless he was a not a Trinitarian, then everything makes PERFECT sense!

    Liked by 1 person

  8. ”HEAR OH ISRAEL: THE LORD THY GOD, IS ONE BEING AND THREE PERSONS” Jesus Christ, son of Mary.

    This sentence would have devastated Unitarian beliefs, and proven the Trinity. Why did Jesus not say these words? What did he say instead? Here we go:

    ” I AM THE SECOND PERSON OF THE TRINITY”

    ”I AM GOD. NO SERIOUSLY, I AM GOD. YAHWEH, JUST ASK NABEEL”

    ” WORSHIP ME. LIKE NOW.”

    ”I AM GOD. I AM MAN. I AM BOTH”

    ” I AM FULLY GOD.”

    ” I AM FULLY HUMAN”

    ” TRI-UNITY, SAY IT WIH ME NOW GUYS. TRY-UUNITY”

    ” THE SHEMA IS REFERRING TO ONENESS OF NATURE. OUSIA. SO ONE OUSIA. BUT THREE PERSONS. GOT IT?”

    ”SAY ALL OF THE ABOVE IN KOINE GREEK AND NOT IN ARAMAIC”

    Infinite ways Jesus could have informed people of the Trinity, and he did not. That says alot.

    Like

  9. trinity does not have 3 who’s

    trinity says that when god is complete, he is ANOTHER who which is at the same time a what.

    i.e 4 persons.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Trinitarians believe in a singular what, which they believe the Shema addresses when it states explicitly that God is One. So in Mark 12:29 they believe Jesus is addressing the OUSIA as ONE, not the Father as being the only one who is truly God. But the context of Mark 12: 29 become clear when we look at the response of the scribe. His response decisively clears up any Trinitarian misconceptions when three singular personal pronouns are used to refer to God the Father, and declaring that ”He is One, and there is no one else besides Him”. I would like to challenge all Trinitarians at this point to prove me wrong. In this passage:

      Why does Jesus not modify the Ancient Shema, to purge it of its *associated* Unitarian Monotheism?

      Why does Jesus not correct the Scribe, if his understanding is deficient/incomplete?

      If Jesus was truly God, would he not be able to know, that this exact passage would be used to deny his Deity by millions, possibly billions of people his alleged Divinity? So he should have cleared it up right? Then why did he not?

      In any case, Jesus remaining silent at this point or at any, and not declaring the truth about God (i.e the Trinity), would make him a deceiving serpent and a worshipper of a false god. If he knew God was Triune, he sure did a great job of hiding it and misleading others that he was a Unitarian. This would make him a deceiver and the worst prophet/human/god in the history, which make him untrustworthy in all matters, even for Christians. If he genuinely was NOT A Trinitarian, then everything makes perfect sense. I need a response from Christians. If Jesus was not a Trinitarian, then why are you, Mr Shamoun, James White , Ken etc?

      Like

  10. mr liar for jesus ken temple

    can you tell me which ayah of the quran attributes “dhulm” to the anbiya?

    which ayah calls a prophet “DHAALIM” ?

    Sahih International: For those who do not believe in the Hereafter is the description of evil; and for Allah is the highest attribute. And He is Exalted in Might, the Wise.

    Sahih International: And if Allah were to impose blame on the people for their wrongdoing, He would not have left upon the earth any creature, but He defers them for a specified term. And when their term has come, they will not remain behind an hour, nor will they precede [it].

    Yusuf Ali: If Allah were to punish men for their wrong-doing, He would not leave, on the (earth), a single living creature: but He gives them respite for a stated Term: When their Term expires, they would not be able to delay (the punishment) for a single hour, just as they would not be able to anticipate it (for a single hour).

    Sahih International: And they attribute to Allah that which they dislike, and their tongues assert the lie that they will have the best [from Him]. Assuredly, they will have the Fire, and they will be [therein] neglected.

    Sahih International: By Allah , We did certainly send [messengers] to nations before you, but Satan made their deeds attractive to them. And he is the disbelievers’ ally today [as well], and they will have a painful punishment.

    //////////

    ken, can you tell me that according to the quran what was the DHULM of the prophets .

    since you think that verse includes prophets, infants, unborn, believers, disbelivers etc etc

    can you tell me what was the DHULM of the prophets and if the quran has ever used the word dhulm for the prophets of God

    Like

    • ken, can you admit in front of everyone here that you like to misuse other peoples religious texts because you are a liar for jesus of nazareth

      can you tell me which verse in the quran attributes dhulm to the prophets?

      Like

  11. Kev
    January 5, 2017 • 1:28 pm

    madmanna

    “All human beings are singular therefore Allah can not be singular.”
    That’s a great point. All creatures are singular – that makes allah like his creatures.

    I say;
    It is just like saying pigs shits and human beings shits, so human beings are pigs. Are you are pig because you shit like pig?

    Allah being a singular being does not mean He is like human beings. Jesus is a singular being as he said;

    John 17:3
    Verses
    New International Version
    Now this is eternal life: that they know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent.

    New Living Translation
    And this is the way to have eternal life–to know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, the one you sent to earth.
    ———–

    Here Jesus is talking about another being/person, his Father who is the Father of everyone and not the Father of Jesus alone because of the Lords prayer;

    Our Father who is in heaven………….

    Are you telling me our Father(God) who is not Jesus, is not singular? The Father who is the God of Jesus and God of us all is the only true God and Jesus is not that Father according to Jesus himself. This God said He is alone and the only God. It means the God of the Bible is also a singular God.

    Does singularity means God is like us? No. because humans are created many but God said He is one, only and alone. Human beings are many but God is one and cannot be more than one or many and that is why the Bible said worshiping more than one God or adding anything in worship to the one God is idolatry and polytheism punishable by hell fire.

    God is One, Only and Alone.

    Human beings are many and not alone. Sam Shamoun, you are not the only human being but we have many human beings. But God said in the Bible and the Quran that He is One, Only and Alone, so saying Allah is not like human beings stand despite your distortions and spinning of facts.

    Abu Talhan. Thanks. Hands have blood, finger, bones, etc. in them and I do not think God has blood. We need deeper interpretations and certainly not a literal hand.

    Thanks.

    Like

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

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

      Like

    • that was atai’s interesting explanation

      Like

    • mr heathcliff

      Don’t know why I’m bothering wasting my time on you but here goes.

      “With respect to Christianity, the Qur’an repudiates the belief that God has a “Son” (ولد) in the Trinitarian sense by stating that “Allah is only One (واحد) God” (Q 4:171.5).”

      Rubbish.

      Allah seems to think in the quran that christians believe god has a literal “son” by claiming that god can’t have a son because he has no consort. That is a kind of “logical” argument, although not a very compelling one. Sadly, the quran corrects very little about specific christian doctrines.

      Since Abu Talhah has backflipped away, maybe you can show where in the quran your god explains the impossibility of the trinity?

      Like

    • What you call backflipping away, I call not not considering it worth the time and effort engaging further with someone who keeps insisting on misrepresenting my arguments and completely failing to comprehend anything I say.

      I’m not in the habit of kicking dead horses (which is a figure of speech, for all the literalists out there).

      Like

    • Kev

      You said;
      Rubbish.
      Allah seems to think in the quran that christians believe god has a literal “son” by claiming that god can’t have a son because he has no consort. That is a kind of “logical” argument, although not a very compelling one. Sadly, the quran corrects very little about specific christian doctrines.
      Since Abu Talhah has backflipped away, maybe you can show where in the quran your god explains the impossibility of the trinity?

      I say;
      There is nothing rubbish here. Allah or God is not Son/son to anyone and any one who is a Son/son, whether metaphorical or literal is not God. Jesus Christ is a Son/son, said by some Christians and so Jesus Christ is not God. That is what Allah is telling you in the Quran. What explanation do you want again?

      You want Allah to mention Hypostasis, Trinity, 3 Persons/persons 1 God, God-Man, etc. which are not in the Bible but defined by men at councils upon councils?

      Allah has other things to mention in the Quran to mankind than waste time defining deferent Christians. Do not say 3, desist it is better for you, God is one, Jesus the son of Mary is only the messenger of Allah etc. should be clear to you Mr. Kev.

      You do not need any more definition again except to stubbornly reject the corrections made by your Almighty God in favour of what men or human beings defined at councils upon councils.

      If Allah is going to keep defining each idol, then the Quran will be very big and cannot be studied. The Quran only make corrections so that the reader can simply understands it.

      A Son/son can only be literal or metaphorical. If Jesus is literal Son/son then it is blaspheme because God does not have sex to produce Son/son. The other option for the Sonship of Jesus is adoption, and that is metaphorical and we are all metaphorical sons of God and not Jesus alone and so it does not make Jesus God.

      You do not need all these logic in the Quran because Allah has given you the brain like me and all human beings to know this simple facts without repeating it in the Quran.

      Will you be happy if someone comes and say his scripture said God has a daughter? brother? or uncle from eternity past? You accuse Mormons of having multiple gods like you and accuse the Rastafarians of having God Man like you and list goes on.

      Thanks.

      Like

    • Intelect

      “There is nothing rubbish here. Allah or God is not Son/son to anyone and any one who is a Son/son, whether metaphorical or literal is not God. Jesus Christ is a Son/son, said by some Christians and so Jesus Christ is not God. That is what Allah is telling you in the Quran. What explanation do you want again?

      You want Allah to mention Hypostasis, Trinity, 3 Persons/persons 1 God, God-Man, etc. which are not in the Bible but defined by men at councils upon councils?”

      Christians don’t say that god has a son – we say that god became incarnate. Big difference that allah doesn’t know about.

      As for hypostasis and god existing in multiple states at the same time – where in the quran does allah say that he cannot do this? The bible shows clearly that god can do this.

      Like

    • Kev

      You said;
      Christians don’t say that god has a son – we say that god became incarnate. Big difference that allah doesn’t know about.

      As for hypostasis and god existing in multiple states at the same time – where in the quran does allah say that he cannot do this? The bible shows clearly that god can do this.

      I say;
      Christians do not say Jesus is the Son/son of God? Christians do not call Jesus the Son/son of God? Is Jesus not the Son/son of God? Is God the Son/son not the second Person/person of Trinity? etc.

      Son/son is to have sex and produce a child and or adopting a Son/son metaphorically, no matter how you say it above. That is what it means and you cannot change the meaning you would have done so, considering how you are struggling to change facts.

      A Son/son is a Son/son if you use it on someone. Allah is telling you in the Quran, no matter how you say it or mean it, God is not a Son/son to anyone and those saying that have cause a very big blaspheme and without repenting will be burned in hot hell fire. You will not like to be called the Son/son of the doll you have created and God will not want to be called the Son/son of anyone if say “God The Son” the Son is still there.

      Allah is telling you there is not “God the Son” and it is the same as “God has a son” and it is simple fact and logic.

      May be you do not read the Bible and the Quran very well. Allah said He is One, Only and Alone and He is not like any thing that you can think of. If God has consciousness because He is commanding us, then it means He is a being/person and One being/person is not 3 beings/persons.

      1 being/persons cannot be 3 beings/persons. This is simple and it is clear in both Quran and the Bible. The Mormons will ask you where in the Bible does God say He cannot be multi person they are worshiping? Hindus, voodoo idol worshipers, and any idol worshiper will ask you where in the Bible does God said He cannot be multiple persons they are worshiping? It means you have the same stubborn ideas like idol worshipers who will always have something to ask and blame God for saying He is the only to be worshiped. The idol worshipers like you will say this and that and it is in the Quran, that idol worshiper will always look for something to blame God, so that he can go on and worship his idols.

      You stubbornness of not accepting the truth is like a man telling a court of law that, the cannot put him to jail for beating his second son because he does not say he has a son.

      If you say someone is the son of another person, it means that person has a son. It is a common English language, logic, truth and rational to accept rather than be stubborn and go the hell fire and burn by not accepting this truth and trying to twist and spin it. That person can either have literal or metaphorical son and the Quran is telling a Son/son is not used for God. Any one who is called a Son/son like Jesus Christ is not God. What truth do you want again to convert to Islam from worhiping a man Jesus Christ?

      Thanks.

      Like

    • Abu

      Your arguments aren’t being misrepresented, your arguments are just bad, sunshine. As for comprehending your points – you’re right they are incomprehensible. No surprise since you hold the absurd position of defending a god that you can’t possibly know anything about.

      Like

    • Intellect

      “Christians do not say Jesus is the Son/son of God? ”

      Not in the way your inaccurate holy book seems to think christians say jesus is the son of god. We say he is god incarnate – I suspect you can’t grasp that simple idea but there it is.

      Allah thinks christians are saying he has an literal son with a literal consort – that is ignorant.

      Like

    • the trinity has god being fathered and parented .

      the son is sent and is not the sender

      the holy ghost is the mother who loves the father and then this creates mother, father and son relationship within the trinity.

      then a human woman births two natures.

      it is the same polytheistic language of the old

      carrier said :

      In other words, the idea of a virgin born, sexlessly conceived god already widely existed in paganism before Christianity arose. And Hera isn’t the only example. If you really insist on the idea being gods born of women who never had sex at all, the pagans had those, too. Perseus was most famously conceived by golden rain falling from the ceiling into the womb of the virgin Danaë, who remained a true virgin, never penetrated by any sexual organ anywhere, all the way to the god’s birth. One might
      still quibble and say gold coins counts as sex (as later painters imagined the myth to imply), but that’s a stretch, and in any case, it’s neither how the notion was conceived in antiquity (ancient iconography showed the gold falling in droplets, like a literal rain, more evocative of a ubiquitous urban myth of parthenogenesis: semen entering a womb without any organ penetrating the hymen) nor how it was universally understood by pagans: as even Justin Martyr had to admit, this counted as a virgin birth, and everyone said so.

      end quote

      so a woman does not necessarily need to get impregnated naturally to birth ANOTHER nature from her body even in pagan religions

      quote:

      1- The term that is translated as son is WALAD. WALAD in Arabic actually means a “product of birth”. So, in this Aya it covers that Allah does not give birth, nor does he have a consort to give birth for Him.

      2- The Aya does not actually say “When ” he
      has no consort. It Says “And” He has no consort. So, the absence of the consort is one of many reasons why Allah does not have a son and not the only reason. The other reasons are “innovator of the heavens and Earth”. “Creator of everything” and so on. For Mary, the only reason she could not give birth is the absence of the man and nothing else.

      3- The word ANNA that was translated as How, carries many other connotations as well as in How and why together? So, it is not only how, it carries the other meaning of why should He?! There is no reason for Him to have a son.

      The ‘ana’ is also expressed in the fact that God has not taken a consort, because He has no need to, which the disbeliever’s themselves acknowledged. Companionship and ‘children’
      fulfill needs of the human being, meaning they are a ‘weakness’. Such a thing finds no place for the Eternal One, who is beyond all needs. If the disbeliever’s acknowledge that God has no consort because it is against his majesty, than the very notion that He would have children is rendered absurd on the same premise.

      Wonderful Originator of the heavens and the earth! How could He have a son when He has no consort, and He (Himself) created everything, and He is the Knower of all things.

      ////////////

      Like

    • kev, how many natures exited the mother of your god?

      1 or 2?

      Like

    • “Not in the way your inaccurate holy book seems to think christians say jesus is the son of god. We say he is god incarnate – I suspect you can’t grasp that simple idea but there it is.”

      yes, the pagans also said gods popped out of women/birthed.

      a god need not mate with a woman to produce a godling .

      the father and ghost overshadowed mary (where was the son?) to produce 1 person, 2 natures in her womb.
      then paradoxically 2 natures came out of mary .

      what is this?

      the godling mary gave birth to was an “empty god” which lacked powers .

      the godling thought his higher god was his dad .

      so you have godling on earth thinking to himself he has a father in heaven .

      two separate beings/gods.

      whatever blasphemous language you use, it all boils down to the same idea.

      Like

    • “Christians do not say Jesus is the Son/son of God? Christians do not call Jesus the Son/son of God? Is Jesus not the Son/son of God? Is God the Son/son not the second Person/person of Trinity? etc.”

      one can call god “father”
      “mother”

      “twins”

      but what sense does any of these titles make when each persons in the trinity has access to the SAME powers?

      what sense does it make?

      the only way to have the father father the son and son get parented by the father is to have the son controlled by his parent.

      commanded by his parent

      instructed by his parent

      how can the same powers from 1 nature allow one to be a parent and the same powers allow another to be parented?

      does any of this make any sense?

      when the son wants to be parented by being commanded does he have to disable the power which gives the father the power to command and lead?

      does the son have access to the power which gives the father the power to command ?

      how in todays day and age can one believe these people worship 1 god?

      Like

    • Kev

      January 6, 2017 • 1:55 pm

      Intellect

      “Christians do not say Jesus is the Son/son of God? ”

      Not in the way your inaccurate holy book seems to think christians say jesus is the son of god. We say he is god incarnate – I suspect you can’t grasp that simple idea but there it is.

      Allah thinks christians are saying he has an literal son with a literal consort – that is ignorant

      I say;
      What way do want again? Christians will not agree with you. If you do not believe Jesus is the Son/son of God you are not a Christians. You can become a Muslim and we will accept you and I will be obliged to conduct your Shahada on live on blogging theology. You agreed Jesus is not the Son/son of God because it is the same as God having a Son/son.

      You are blaming a father who said he has a son who is his second born for not saying “Kev is the son of the father”.

      If you are the second son of your father, it means your father has a son. Don’t you know this? You do not need to be taught this again by the Quran because you are not a kindergarten child and those children knew this simple fact and truth. It is idol worshipers who want to continue worshiping the idols, then keep debating on this simple truth.

      It is like Mormons saying to other Christians like you that, you think they are worshiping more gods and they will say you are ignorant. Anyone can blame another religion but that is not what we are doing here, but telling the truth and picking the truth.

      The truth from the Quran is that, anyone who has a Son/son who is not a literal son like all of us, then has a literal son and it is blaspheme punishable by hell fire. Is Jesus a metaphorical Son of God? that will make him not God? he has to be a literal Son/son to be God, otherwise he will be a metaphorical son like us all and that will prevent him from being God.

      Thanks.

      Like

  12. mr.heathcliff, where did Ali Ataie explain/write this explaination? I want to read his articles!!

    Like

    • Ali Ataie
      May 9, 2016 ·
      Quran’ic Exegesis of al-Ikhlas as a Corrective of Trinitarian Theo-Christology
      (v. 1) As stated earlier, the word Allah is the proper Name of God that shares an etymology with the Hebrew (in pluralis majestatis) Elohim (אֱלֹהִים), probably from the root a-li-ha (ألِهَ) meaning “to go to and fro in fear and perplexity” or from aleph-waw-lamed (אול), meaning “strength and power” and related to the Arabic Form II awwala (أول), “to interpret” or “find the origin of.” Ash’arite theologians offer the following brief definition of Allah: “A proper name denoting the Essence (which is) the Necessary Existent; the one deserving of all perfection and transcendent above all deficiencies” (علم على ذات الواجب الوجود، المستحق لجميع الكمالات المتنزه عن جميع النقاءص). The Qur’an is confirming in principle that the God of Muhammad is the same God of the biblical prophets, including Abraham, Moses, and Jesus. The word Ahad (أحد) is taken by Suyuti as either a permutative (بدل) or a second predicate (خبر ثان), with Huwa as subject and the Exalted Expression (لفظ الجلالة), i.e. Allah, as first predicate. Tantawi says that the Exalted Expression as predicate indicates the occasion of the surah’s Revelation (سبب النزول) in which a group of Jews approached the Prophet asking about the identity of his God – “Who is He (Huwa)?” This is described in detail by al-Wahidi. As discussed in chapter two, the pronoun Huwa, spelled ha-waw and meaning “He (is),” is close to the meaning of the enigmatic tetragrammaton (Shem HaMeforash) spelled yod-he-waw-he (יהוה), if we consider this to be the imperfect tense of the verb hawah (הוה), meaning to “to be,” thus “He is” (yihweh), and translated as ὁ ὤν ([“I am] He who is”) in the LXX (from the 1p sing. Ehyeh [Exo. 3:14]). According to the Mishnah, the Shem HaMeforash was only articulated in the Temple by the High Priest (HaCohen HaGadol) and was believed to be the most exalted Name of God, the actual Name of His Essence in distinction to “Allah/Elohim” which indicated His Essence. Thus Huwa, or Hahut (هاهوت) according to Ibn al-’Arabi, is believed to be al-Ism al-’Azam (الإسم الأعظم), the very Name of God’s Essence according to al-Razi. To put it in Philonic terms, Allah (الله)/Elohim (אֱלֹהִים) = Ho Theos (ο θεος) while Huwa (هو)/Yihweh (יהוה) = Ho On (ὁ ὤν). The usage of Ahad as opposed to Wahid (واحد) is intended to confirm the fundamental creedal statement of the Children of Israel (بني إسرائيل), i.e. the Shema of Deut. 6:4: “Hear O Israel! The Lord our God, the Lord is One (Echad)” (שְׁמַע יִשְׂרָאֵל יְהוָה אֱלֹהֵינוּ יְהוָה אֶחָֽד); and confirmed by Christ in Mark 12:29 (ἀπεκρίθη ὁ Ἰησοῦς ὅτι πρώτη ἐστίν ἄκουε Ἰσραήλ κύριος ὁ θεὸς ἡμῶν κύριος εἷς ἐστιν). Also, while wahid denotes one numerically and thus does not negate the existence of other “ones,” ahad, being also anarthrous, denotes utter uniqueness, one of a genus. In addition, Ahad negates the henotheism of the pre-Islamic Arabs who certainly affirmed that Allah was Wahid, but also acknowledged the existence of lesser deities. With respect to Christianity, the Qur’an repudiates the belief that God has a “Son” (ولد) in the Trinitarian sense by stating that “Allah is only One (واحد) God” (Q 4:171.5). Thus while Allah is numerically one (واحد), the term wahid also denotes His “internal oneness,” i.e. He is only one person (hypostasis; Arab. nafs; Heb. nefesh); there is no multiplicity in the godhead and He shares His Essence with no one and nothing else. This is the heart of the Qur’an’s critique of Trinitarianism. There are not multiple hypostatic (personal) pre-eternals; the attributes (sifat) of God are not separate and distinct hypostatic entities. The usage of Ahad in this ayah (112:1), however, denotes God’s “external oneness” thus not allowing any creature to be the incarnation of that indivisible Essence (ousia) since He is transcendent of space, time, and materiality, contra both Incarnational Modalism (Monarchism) and Trinitarianism. In this vein, Hosea (11:9) says: “Indeed I am God and not man” (כִּי אֵל אָֽנֹכִי וְלֹא־אִישׁ).

      Liked by 1 person

  13. @Abdullah “Brothers, I suggest to avoid these kind of discussion for many reasons. Most Muslims are not aware of these things. Also,scholars of Islam have been warning to expose ordinary Muslims who have not good background & knowledge to these discussions, especially that Salaf themselves didn’t go beyond what’s mentioned in Quran and Sunnah.”

    I for ones agree totally. This is the correct attitude. The salaf didn’t focus on these matters much, and if they did, they discouraged the questioner in general. Our religion mandates us to focus on building taqwa and not indulge in unproductive arguments that is beyond our capacity to understand. The “essence” of Allah is beyond human capacity to grasp. There is nothing like it in the creation and our mind/aql has been designed to only understand what is in creation. So how can we possibly understand Allah’s nature/esense/ Forget us, if that was something possible for Prophets of Allah, He would have shown himself to them.But he didn’t. But we know that he will show himself to righteous in akhirah. So lets make dua that we are among those who will have the opportunity to see him and worship him there.

    If Allah wanted us to know more than what He has revealed, He would have revealed more and His messenger would have taught us those things. Nations have gone astray ( like Christianity) when tried to “understand” nature or essence of God. Look where has that led them to ? We don’t want to go there. We leave matters of “mutashabihat” to knowledge of Allah.

    We simply say “samena wa ata’ana , ghufranaka rabbana wa ila-kal-maseer”

    “We hear and we obey. [We seek] Your forgiveness, our Lord, and to You is the [final] destination.” (al baqarah 2:285)

    Like

    • I totally disagree. This blog is called “Blogging Theology,” not “Blogging Obstinate Blind Literalism Cuz Somebody With a PhD Said It’s the Same Thing as Atharism.”

      No, SOME of the Salaf didn’t delve into these things. But the ones who NEEDED to, did (or else they wouldn’t much deserve the title, would they). When do you think all the heretical deviations in creed, like Kharijism and Mu`tazilism, started popping up? AFTER the Salaf, with their warm and cuddly “pure” `aqīdah, had all died? Nope! Sure, greats like Imām Mālik (based in Madīnah) discouraged questioners. But other greats like Imām Abū Hanīfah, who was a tābi`ī by the way (in `Irāq with all the deviants) were undeniably mutakallimūn.

      And we NEED to as well if we’re going to be debating Christians and Atheists on things like God’s very essence. Literalism, which I’ll repeat and keep saying is NOT the same thing as textualism, is – aside from being heterodoxy – just not good enough.

      Like

    • @AbuTalha

      So what do you make of the hadeeth ” tafakkaruhu fil khalaqillah wa la tafakkaru fil dhatillah”

      and verse of quran “(It is He Who has sent down to you the Book. In it are verses that are entirely clear, they are the foundations of the Book; and others not entirely clear,”

      And on aqli level can you even fathom essence of Allah? do you believe we even have the capacity to understand this? So why didn’t Allah reveal himself to his prophets?

      Like

    • I love that hadīth; I think it’s absolutely beautiful and something to be borne in mind constantly by any serious student of kalām (as I have been for the past several years) to safeguard against deviation. No orthodox mutakallim has ever acted contrary to it either; such would be an exercise in futility.

      On no level whatsoever can ذات الله be encompassed, and we can only *affirm* what He ﷻ has revealed. But negating all of the disgusting things ignorant humans *attribute* to Allāh is, I think, one of the main aims of kalām science; and simple textualism (“Athari” thought) just isn’t enough in our intellectual environment, because the assaults on our creed are carried out by means not limited to scripture.

      Now, I mentioned before that I’ve been a serious student of kalām; if you require clarification on my personal beliefs, just know that I generally follow the Māturīdī madhhab.

      Like

  14. 42 v 11 The Originator of the heavens and the earth; He made mates for you from among yourselves, and mates of the cattle too, multiplying you thereby;

    nothing like a likeness of Him; and He is the Hearing, the Seeing.

    If we are personal beings who have emotions like love and hate then Allah must be a non-personal being according to 42 v 11. Otherwise he would be have relational attributes just like we do and he would be like us.

    But then Allah contradicts himself and says he loves obedient Muslims, e.g. :

    [2.195] And spend in the way of Allah and cast not yourselves to perdition with your own hands, and do good (to others); surely Allah loves the doers of good.

    If a mouse pushes the right button and gets a tit bit does the switch love that mouse? If the mouse pushes the wrong button and gets an electric shock does the switch hate that mouse?

    Is Allah just a switch in the sky according to the Koran?

    It would seem to me that the writer of the Koran was not a very good philosopher or theologian. He seemed to have misunderstood both Christianity and Judaism.

    [5.18] And the Jews and the Christians say: We are the sons of Allah and His beloved ones. Say: Why does He then chastise you for your faults? Nay, you are mortals from among those whom He has created, He forgives whom He pleases and chastises whom He pleases; and Allah’s is the kingdom of the heavens and the earth and what is between them, and to Him is the eventual coming.

    Sons of God are all over the bible.

    Like

  15. “The doctrine of the incarnation demands that any being powerful enough to create creation would be powerful enough to exist simultaneously in any given state.”

    so are you saying that god can exist as omniscient one and a blind person i.e any given state?

    if he becomes blind, how is he still powerful enough or the ultimate one?

    or the omniscient one ? how are these two contradictory states befitting god?


    The muslim position boils down to an absurd notion – allah can cause the universe to exist but he is excluded from it. ”

    if the universe is brought into existence ,then it was caused by god, if god is in finite creation and is existing as a man, then who is causing him ?

    how is god the ultimate one when he becomes human attributes and how is god knowable when he becomes human attributes?


    In other words, your theology is premised on what amounts to the omnipotence paradox – can god build a stone too heavy for him to lift?”

    can you tell me that when your god becomes human attributes , how is that not similar to the atheist argument

    can god build a stone too heavy for him to lift?

    your god is carried in creation
    your god becomes created
    your god becomes weak and pathetic

    Like

    • mr heathcliff

      Did your head just explode when you realized that I am right?

      Islamic theological opposition to the triune god is basically the Omnipotence fallacy. Allah creates universes he is exclude from and presumably stones he cannot lift.

      Like

  16. Anyway… back to Poetry…

    Does anyone know if the context is true here in regards to the storey? Also can this be used as a Dua?

    Like

  17. crosstian god is “god of love” but he can’t forgive

    he needs to KILL someone (himself) before he release /let go

    this means this deficient and powerless pathetic thing can’t even do something simple as simply letting go REPENTANT sinner who has CONTRITE heart

    “god is POWERFUL” they say

    Like

    • the christian god is CONSUMED by wrath
      we know this because each member in trinity was punishing “divine logos” because god was unable to forgive repentant person.

      it is not “god is love” but god who is consumed by wrath which means he needs to taste his own wrath.

      “god is POWERFUL” they say

      what do we say about a powerless god who needs to PUNISH himself before he “saves” ?

      we call this a god who is consumed by wrath

      how then, on the true Gods earth, do you call this “intrinsically loving god” ?

      Like

  18. “More nonsense. God requires sacrifice because he gave laws that required sacrifice for the remission of sin.”

    was god made for his own punishment laws or were the laws made for men?

    when god gave his laws to humans did he say:

    1. you must be an angel
    2. you must be god
    3. you must be perfect LIKE me

    is your god bound by what comes out of his mind? does he ever give himself leeway or is he pathetically bound by it?

    is the law of sacrifice GREATER than god???

    when did your god discover that blood has atoning magic in it?

    where did god say in the jewish bible that he must satisfy his own death sentence so that you gentile DOGS do not have to practice his eternal laws?

    where does god say in his jewish bible that his PUNISHMENT needs to CONSUME him before he lets you into his presence?

    where does god say in the jewish bible that the LAW (punishment law) requires the LIFE taken out of god, before he forgives sins?

    where does the jewish bible say that god CANNOT escape the MANDATES of the laws which come out of his own mind ?

    where does the jewish bible BOX god in like the christian god is BOXED in ????


    God is trustworthy and keeps his word – to not keep his word makes him arbitrary and untrustworthy.”

    since when did “trustworthy” god writes for himself that punishment of him is the only way he can have relationship with a people ?

    god have to ABUSE himself for past , present and future sins?

    The taking of human sin onto himself is proof of God’s trustworthiness, not the absurd nonsense that it limits him.”

    no you dumb christian, if a god has only two choices, punish or PUNISH himself, then he is LIMITED and must do one or the other and he has no OTHER way out even though he has INFINITE powers.
    your god is PATHETICALLY limited even though he has words describing him like kind, merciful, loving etc etc

    i quote

    God the Father is re-directing his wrath away from us and turning it instead against god the son.

    This is ‘absorption’ only in the sense in which a self-abuser ‘absorbs’ the knife blade with which he is slicing his own flesh!

    So what do we conclude?

    Well, it looks like jesus did not die on the cross so that God could forgive us.

    Forgiveness had nothing to do with it.

    Instead, he died so that god could let off some steam.

    …next time, it might be easier if you just booked in to see a therapist.

    Like

  19. quote :
    Kev you have used the pronoun “His” in reference to the One God here… can you kindly reference biblical scripture where “His” or “Him” contextually refers to 3 distinct divine persons that comprise The One God as articulated and conceptualized according to trinitarian christology?… substantiate according to biblical scripture where the ‘oneness’ of God is made up of three distinct persons to form one being…. show “His” = 3 persons lol..

    omar, what you wrote reminds me of something i read nearly 2 years ago. these pagans really do have a DIY lego god bro. definitions are changed to confuse a people. if there was an evil and satanic religion, then its name must be christianity.

    quote:

    James identifies the “being”(which is a nature) as YHWH. That’s no different than saying the “being” is named YHWH. I am identified(named) as Sean. That’s who I am. James is giving an identity(WHO), to a nature, a WHAT. This is fallacious. It’s mixing the WHOs and the WHATs(see pg. 27 of his book).

    James wants the one YHWH in his doctrine to refer to both a WHO and a WHAT, just like you do. This is nonsense. It’s equivocation. Either the Father is the only true God or the Father, Son and Spirit are the only true God. It’s not the same God, clearly.
    James clearly states:

    1) “That YHWH is trinitarian” (that YHWH is three persons)

    2)”There is one being identified as YHWH”

    3)”And the Father is identified as YHWH”

    4)”The Son is identified as YHWH”

    5)”And the Spirit is the spirit of YHWH”

    Tell me how those 5 definitions of YHWH(because they’re clearly not each other), make 1 YHWH? Don’t you see all the unnecessary confusion in this? The only way it works is if James is giving fallaciously that “nature” the name of YHWH and then slipping it to each Person underhandedly. Then somehow, the #1 YHWH, ends up as a single person(WHO) which represents all 3 speaking in unison. It’s a mess.

    The statement ” he (what or WHO( NOTE it is a SINGULAR pronoun ) is revealed through three(he’s) ” reveals you have another definition of God there… that’s more of a oneness view to claim 1 person(he) is revealed through 3 persons. Even if you change it to 2, you’re still getting back to the same issue I speak about in the Michael Brown video–you have 2 other persons who are the one person. This is the ambiguity you’re sitting on. Jesus is clearly a separate person from the Father. This is what the normal definition of “person” means. They are each independently God sharing the same nature—or you’ve got oneness or some form of it.(which is what you’re seeming to espouse now).

    The video still stands as a clear proof, it’s illogical to identify or name a nature. I never saw anything against this… there’s nothing in those texts which you listed which allow or make necessity of “God” even being defined as a ‘nature’ in the first place. “Theos” is not the same as “theotes” or the “form of God.”

    So to start making Him(or It rather) now 3…. which no text ever has the words “3” and “God/YHWH” together anywhere… is highly suspect. I am not just quibbling about small comments of yours either. For you to claim 1 person is also 2 other persons, is fallacious. God did not give me basic reasoning, grammar, and logic to throw it aside when dialoguing with others, just as He did not for you.

    To call the one God a “He”(a singular personal pronoun) and say “He” is also 3 others(or 2 others) is to directly say in English grammar, 1 person is 3 other persons(or 2 other persons). It’s either a contradiction or a form of oneness. It’s illogical. This is part of the main issues with this video also, the equivocation committed in explaining the trinity. If the ontological trinity says the 1 God is a WHAT, it’s not a person… so to give it a person pronoun would be to equivocate.

    When god said HE Spoke , is it 1 WHAT (nature) which Spoke or is it 1 PERSON which SPOKE or is it 1 HE = 3 he’s/3 persons WHICH SPOKE(how is 1 PERSON (he) 3 he’s (personS?))?

    There are actually five or more definitions of the word “God” in Trinitarian doctrine.

    1. God – a divine nature/essence of three persons
    2. God – a person who is the Father of Jesus
    3. God – another person who is the Father’s son
    4. God – yet another person who is the Holy Spirit
    5. God – and yet another identity who is the Triune Being

    end quote

    you see bro omar, do you see?

    Like

  20. @ Intellect,

    who said: “The truth from the Quran is that, anyone who has a Son/son who is not a literal son like all of us, then has a literal son and it is blaspheme punishable by hell fire. Is Jesus a metaphorical Son of God? that will make him not God? he has to be a literal Son/son to be God, otherwise he will be a metaphorical son like us all and that will prevent him from being God.”

    The bible doesn’t distinguish between literal and metaphorical sons. It just says that Jesus is the only begotten Son of God.

    We believe his deity marks him out.

    Isaac is the only begotten son of Abraham:

    Hebrews 11 v 17: By faith Abraham, when he was tried, offered up Isaac: and he that had received the promises offered up his only begotten son.

    Was Isaac a literal or metaphorical son? He is also an only begotten son according to the writer of Hebrews.

    Interesting that the writer of Hebrews adds the word begotten whereas the OT only says “only son” in ref to Isaac.

    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: