Some more links to share!
What Does Semper Reformanda Mean? from Ligonier Ministries - Pretty much what the title says; it's an explanation of the historical background for the phrase Semper Reformanda.
Moses Was Not Abraham from The Heidelbog - A good explanation of baptism in regards to the covenants in church history. Namely, between the distinction of the Abrahamic covenant (which became a spiritual one under Christ, but not undone) and the Mosaic covenant (from which we were freed by Christ).
Seven Reasons Why We Should Not Accept Millions of Years from Answers in Genesis - A simple, brief explanation on why taking a position of millions of years is not a biblical one.
If the Quran Is True, Then It’s False from Stand to Reason - A brief discussion on the Quran's teaching regarding Allah's sending down the Law and the Gospel, and how, if the Quran is correct in that Allah sent them down, then it's untrue, as the Quran contradicts the Law and Gospel
What is moral relativism and how can Christians respond? from Coffeehouse Questions - We've all heard people say "That's true for you, but not for me," and similar statements. What's so fallacious about that reasoning, and how do you respond to it? This blog post gives some answers.
New Atheism’s Undead Arguments from Saints and Sceptics - An analysis of Richard Dawkins' argument that God can't exist because the universe is too complex, and that would require a super-complex creator, which is improbable. As the article points out, this philosophical contention has been refuted by theists and atheists, and for good reason.
You’re Not as Dumb as You Think You Are: Five Reasons to Put Down that Devotional and Pick Up the Actual Bible from Michelle Lesley - Ms. Lesley gives encouragement to women on how to get spiritual nutrition, not candy. My wife read this post and was very encouraged by it - and I found it to be on the level, so...
Don't Get Your Theology from the Movies from Michelle Lesley - A brief explanation on why movies can be detrimental to your understanding of theological matters or biblical stories.
Parents Are the First Apologists Your Child Should Ever Meet from Southern By His Grace - A warning to parents that you shouldn't rely on a pastor or the church in general to teach your kids how to handle the conflicts within our culture - it's up to you to prepare them, just as it was commanded in scripture.
Motherhood–You Are Not Enough from Reform Like a Woman - Good discussion on how feminism, and indeed modern society, looks down on motherhood, as well as how our sinful nature can affect our motherhood.
And in the humor corner...
Cecile Richards Thanks Ancient God Molech For Continued Government Funding Of Planned Parenthood from The Babylon Bee - I seriously thought this was a real story for a moment. Talk about Poe's Law...
Showing posts with label Quran. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Quran. Show all posts
Friday, March 31, 2017
Friday, August 6, 2010
For Muslims: Why Christians Do Not Believe
The following is a repost of something I had on my old blog.
I often cringe when I read attacks by Christians against Islam. They seem intent on insult rather than love, and ad hominems rather than reason. Simplified arguments or outright dismissal are often employed so much so that I begin to think the Christians writing are worse off than the Muslims. Sometime ago, while discussing this very subject on a forum, I created an explanation of the Christian point of view using both the Bible, the hadith sources, and the Koran to explain my point. I thought I would present it here for the benefit of both Muslims and Christians, and help explain just why so many Christians are quick to reject (and feel repulsed by) Islam.
First, let us review one important fact of Islam: it was begun when Mohammad was visited by a supposed angel.
This supposed angel then gives Mohammad a revelation that, over time, becomes the Koran. What does this revelation teach? Many things, including the following:
One notable trait of the New Testament is that it continually quotes the Old Testament. For example, in Acts 2 alone you find Joel 2:28-32, Psalm 16:8-11, and Psalm 110:1 quoted. Move on to Acts 3 and you'll find Deuteronomy 18:15, 18-19 quoted along with Genesis 22:18 and 26:4. Moving away from Acts, Romans 9 has twelve Old Testament citations from five different books. It goes on and on from here. Find a copy of the UBS Greek New Testament, which has Old Testament citations in bold print, and you'll find an alarming number of pages lit up.
The point is the early apostles, right or wrong, knew their Old Testament scripture. Furthermore, they used that scripture to confirm the teachings of Christ. They did not argue that the Jews had corrupted their scripture, hid scripture, or tarnished it in any way. Rather, they argued with the scripture and kept it intact. The Old Testament confirmed the New Testament, rather than the New Testament confirming the Old Testament.
Now I recognize that it is common for Islamic apologetics to immediately jump to the argument that the Bible was tarnished. Nevertheless, the Koran itself states that the Torat and Injil were the books sent down to God's people.
What we have here, then, is not only a revelation that contradicts what came before, but seems to completely ignore it. It mentions the Jewish and Christian scripture as books sent from God, but refuses to quote them. It states that the Jewish and Christian scriptures confirm Islam and Mohammad, but can't even quote one passage to prove their point. The question that every Christian must then ask is: why did God change His method of revelation? Why must we suddenly abandon what we knew and believed simply because a man 600 years later claims prophethood without engaging in meaningful exegesis? It is very ironic that the devil, when tempting Christ, quoted scripture more often than the Koran did.
This is a brief but I hope helpful explanation on the topic. Any questions or concerns, feel free to respond to the post.
I often cringe when I read attacks by Christians against Islam. They seem intent on insult rather than love, and ad hominems rather than reason. Simplified arguments or outright dismissal are often employed so much so that I begin to think the Christians writing are worse off than the Muslims. Sometime ago, while discussing this very subject on a forum, I created an explanation of the Christian point of view using both the Bible, the hadith sources, and the Koran to explain my point. I thought I would present it here for the benefit of both Muslims and Christians, and help explain just why so many Christians are quick to reject (and feel repulsed by) Islam.
First, let us review one important fact of Islam: it was begun when Mohammad was visited by a supposed angel.
Narrated 'Aisha:An angel physically attacks Mohammad, barks orders, terrifies him - all of which no angel has ever done. One can only wonder if the Gabriel of the New Testament had been the Gabriel of Islam, would he have physically attacked the Virgin Mary after her exclamation, "How can this be, since I do not know a man?" (Luke 1:34)
He used to go in seclusion in the cave of Hira where he used to worship (Allah alone) continuously for many days before his desire to see his family...The angel came to him and asked him to read. The Prophet replied, "I do not know how to read."
The Prophet added, "The angel caught me (forcefully) and pressed me so hard that I could not bear it any more. He then released me and again asked me to read and I replied, 'I do not know how to read.' Thereupon he caught me again and pressed me a second time till I could not bear it any more. He then released me and again asked me to read but again I replied, 'I do not know how to read (or what shall I read)?' Thereupon he caught me for the third time and pressed me, and then released me and said, 'Read in the name of your Lord, who has created (all that exists) has created man from a clot. Read! And your Lord is the Most Generous." Then Allah's Apostle returned with the Inspiration and with his heart beating severely. Then he went to Khadija bint Khuwailid and said, "Cover me! Cover me!" They covered him till his fear was over and after that he told her everything that had happened and said, "I fear that something may happen to me." [Sahih al-Bukhari, Volume 1, Book 1, Number 3]
This supposed angel then gives Mohammad a revelation that, over time, becomes the Koran. What does this revelation teach? Many things, including the following:
- Christ is not divine (S. 5:116)
- Christ was not crucified, let alone died on the cross or was resurrected (S. 4:157)
- The Trinity is a lie (S. 5:73)
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made...And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth. [John 1:1-3, 14]So Islam is begun by a message from a supposed angel that presents a new gospel that does not come from the Church, and one that preaches against what is taught in the New Testament. To Christians this is a major sign that the Koran is not of God. As Paul warns, even demons can appear as "angels of light" to deceive mankind.
I marvel that you are turning away so soon from Him who called you in the grace of Christ, to a different gospel, which is not another; but there are some who trouble you and want to pervert the gospel of Christ. But even if we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel to you than what we have preached to you, let him be accursed. [Galatians 1:6-8]
For such are false apostles, deceitful workers, transforming themselves into apostles of Christ. And no wonder! For Satan himself transforms himself into an angel of light. [2 Corinthians 11:13-14]
For many deceivers have gone out into the world who do not confess Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh. This is a deceiver and an antichrist. [2 John 1:7]
One notable trait of the New Testament is that it continually quotes the Old Testament. For example, in Acts 2 alone you find Joel 2:28-32, Psalm 16:8-11, and Psalm 110:1 quoted. Move on to Acts 3 and you'll find Deuteronomy 18:15, 18-19 quoted along with Genesis 22:18 and 26:4. Moving away from Acts, Romans 9 has twelve Old Testament citations from five different books. It goes on and on from here. Find a copy of the UBS Greek New Testament, which has Old Testament citations in bold print, and you'll find an alarming number of pages lit up.
The point is the early apostles, right or wrong, knew their Old Testament scripture. Furthermore, they used that scripture to confirm the teachings of Christ. They did not argue that the Jews had corrupted their scripture, hid scripture, or tarnished it in any way. Rather, they argued with the scripture and kept it intact. The Old Testament confirmed the New Testament, rather than the New Testament confirming the Old Testament.
Now I recognize that it is common for Islamic apologetics to immediately jump to the argument that the Bible was tarnished. Nevertheless, the Koran itself states that the Torat and Injil were the books sent down to God's people.
It is He Who sent down to thee (step by step), in truth, the Book, confirming what went before it; and He sent down the Law (of Moses) and the Gospel (of Jesus) before this, as a guide to mankind, and He sent down the criterion (of judgment between right and wrong). [S. 3:3]And yet we find something very different in the Koran than we do in the New Testament: no direct citations or quotes. Instead, what we have is the name-dropping of various Biblical prophets and vague references to certain events like the flood. Nowhere in the Koran is the Old Testament or the New Testament directly cited. The question is...if Allah did indeed send down the Torat and Injil, why couldn't He quote it at least once? If Mohammad really is foretold in the Old and New Testaments as the Koran claims (S. 7:157), why couldn't the Koran cite relevant passages to confirm Mohammad, like the apostles did in the New Testament to confirm Jesus Christ?
What we have here, then, is not only a revelation that contradicts what came before, but seems to completely ignore it. It mentions the Jewish and Christian scripture as books sent from God, but refuses to quote them. It states that the Jewish and Christian scriptures confirm Islam and Mohammad, but can't even quote one passage to prove their point. The question that every Christian must then ask is: why did God change His method of revelation? Why must we suddenly abandon what we knew and believed simply because a man 600 years later claims prophethood without engaging in meaningful exegesis? It is very ironic that the devil, when tempting Christ, quoted scripture more often than the Koran did.
This is a brief but I hope helpful explanation on the topic. Any questions or concerns, feel free to respond to the post.
Monday, June 7, 2010
Ezra, the Son of God?
Did you know Jews worshiped Ezra as the Son of God? It seems they do...or at least, that seems to be the presentation given in much of Islam. Although most Muslims may not believe this, one of the most curious passages in the Quran is the one which states that Jews believe Ezra to be the Son of God. This statement is found in S. 9:30. Some translations of the verse are as follows (all emphasis is mine):
Ibn Kathir, famous 14th century Muslim scholar and commentary writer, doesn't seem to argue whether Jews believed Ezra was the Son of God or not - in fact, he seems to accept it as fact. As written in the Tafsir Ibn Kathir:
Also problematic for this explanation is the fact that Mohammad himself said Jews (in a general, not specific, sense) worshiped Ezra as the Son of God, as found in valid ahadith discussing what will happen to unbelievers in hell:
We have several facts to deal with: 1) the Quran states that Jews believe Ezra is the Son of God in the same way that Christians believe Jesus is the Son of God; 2) it is believed that only a certain amount of those, at least those that confronted Mohammad, believed Ezra was the Son of God; 3) Mohammad states regarding the Last Day that Jews will be condemned for worshiping Ezra as the Son of God; 4) even more horrifying, S. 9:30 wishes for Allah to "curse," "fight" or "destroy" the Jews for this belief, despite the fact that only a small number held it. If you look at the previous verse (S. 9:29), it becomes apparent that Muslims are even told to make war with Jews for it. This is not solely my exegesis, but that of classical Quranic commentary as well:
Humorously enough, one finds the classic "Don't use ahadith/Use ahadith" fallacy so common in Islamic apologetics coming into play here as well. While in discussion with a Muslim, I brought forward the sahih ahadith by Bukhari which cited Mohammad saying that "the Jews" will say they worshiped Ezra as the Son of God. As per classic strategy, the Muslim gentleman said you couldn't trust all hadith sources. He then stated that the passage referred to only a small number of Jews in Medina. I pointed out that he could only come across such a conclusion by turning to the ahadith, as such clarification was not found in the Quran. I then asked him to present some common standard which could be used to verify what hadith source could be trusted and which could not. Either out of willful ignorance or lack of experience giving this point any serious thought, the gentleman proceeded to argue in a circle of, "You can't trust any hadith...oh no wait, trust the hadith I'm giving." My point in bringing this up is that, in trying to go to the ahadith to defend their understanding of S. 9:30, a Muslim is forced to address other strange passages in valid hadith sources which contradict their point or make it problematic. In denying one over the other, however, they merely present a double standards...and truth does not stand easy on double standards.
It would seem that Mohammad was guilty of either one of two things: 1) a logical fallacy known as a hasty generalization, which seeks to draw an erroneous opinion on many because of a small sample; 2) a poor grasp on the differentiation between veneration and worship, as he seems to confuse the worship of Christ as God to the veneration of prophets as godly men. If either were true, it would still mean one thing: because of this fault, Muslims are today given a book which has a strange and imperfect theological statement about another faith which they are forced to defend.
Let me present an example that can be understand from the opposite mindset, so that any Muslim readers coming across this can understand how Jews and Christians feel. Suppose there exists a prophet after the time of Mohammad, and this prophet grows up in the India/Pakistan area where a lot of Ahmadi Muslims live. He has limited meeting with Muslims, and most of the ones he meets are the Ahmadi (who are not considered orthodox by most Muslim groups). From his experiences with them, he puts into his scripture: "The Muslims say that Jesus is not buried in India." Skip ahead 1400 years later: the followers of this prophet are forced to explain to orthodox Muslims why such a strange verse exists in their scripture. It would be a flawed belief based on a flawed theology - it would therefore make it a man-made scripture and religion.
If we were to believe that the Quran was simply God inspiring man, one could perhaps be somewhat forgiving - but we are told by Islam that the Quran is the literal word of God, as if God were there in the room speaking to us and telling us what to do. It is venerated by Muslims and treated with greater respect than any other item in the household or mosque. Yet this book is full of theological errors which could only come from man. I already touched on this blog regarding Mohammad's errors regarding the Trinity - so too did Mohammad err in the belief of orthodox Judaism. As I asked in that post for the thinking reader to ponder, so I ask it here: if Allah's word is flawed, and Allah has no understanding of a religion's basic doctrine, and cannot differentiate between veneration and worship, and condemns an entire group for the beliefs of a few...is that the God of Gods, or is that a man-made doctrine based on man-made understanding? Is the error of S. 9:30 an error on the part of Judaism, or is it an error on the part of Mohammad?
The Jews call 'Uzair a son of Allah, and the Christians call Christ the son of Allah. That is a saying from their mouth; (in this) they but imitate what the unbelievers of old used to say. Allah's curse be on them: how they are deluded away from the Truth! [Yusuf Ali]This is a curious passage because it is well known that Jews do not believe Ezra as the Son of God, especially in the same context as Christians with Jesus as the Son of God. Not even within the book of Ezra in the Bible do we find any such worship.
And the Jews say: Ezra is the son of Allah, and the Christians say: The Messiah is the son of Allah. That is their saying with their mouths. They imitate the saying of those who disbelieved of old. Allah (Himself) fighteth against them. How perverse are they! [M. Pickthall]
And the Jews say: Uzair is the son of Allah; and the Christians say: The Messiah is the son of Allah; these are the words of their mouths; they imitate the saying of those who disbelieved before; may Allah destroy them; how they are turned away! [M.H. Shakir]
The Jews say: Ezra is the son of God; and the Christians say: The Messiah is the son of God. That is the utterance of their mouths, imitating the utterances of those who disbelieved before [them]. God assail them! How they are deviated! [Royal Aal al-Bayt Institute Translation]
The Jews say, ’Ezra is the Son of God’; the Christians say, ’The Messiah is the Son of God.’ That is the utterance of their mouths, conforming with the unbelievers before them. God assail them! How they are perverted! [Arthur J. Arberry]
AND THE JEWS say, "Ezra is God’s son," while the Christians say, "The Christ is God’s son." Such are the sayings which they utter with their mouths, following in spirit assertions made in earlier times by people who denied the truth! [They deserve the imprecation:] "May God destroy them!" How perverted are their minds! [Muhammad Asad]
Ibn Kathir, famous 14th century Muslim scholar and commentary writer, doesn't seem to argue whether Jews believed Ezra was the Son of God or not - in fact, he seems to accept it as fact. As written in the Tafsir Ibn Kathir:
As for the Jews, they claimed that `Uzayr was the son of God, Allah is free of what they attribute to Him. As for the misguidance of Christians over `Isa, it is obvious. This is why Allah declared both groups to be liars [source; emphasis mine]The same with Tafsir al-Jalalayn:
The Jews say: Ezra is the son of God; and the Christians say: The Messiah, Jesus, is the son of God. That is the utterance of their mouths, for which they have no support, nay, imitating the utterances of those who disbelieved before [them], from among their forefathers, mimicking them. God assail, curse, them! How they are deviated!, turned away from the truth, despite the proofs having been established. [source; emphasis mine]Where did this idea that Jews worship Ezra as the Son of God come from? Some scholars and translators, such as E.H. Palmer and Rodwell, claim it to be Mohammad's imagination. However, this odd belief appears to be sourced to a small sect of Jews in Medina who accosted Mohammad for not believing that Ezra was a Son of God. The ahadith report on this:
According to a Tradition on the authority of Ibn ‘Abbās – quoted by Tabarī in his commentary on this verse – some of the Jews of Medina once said to Muhammad, “How could we follow thee when thou hast forsaken our qiblah and dost not consider Ezra a son of God?” [From Muhammad Asad's commentary on S. 9:30, source]I am aware that, because of this fact, many Muslims argue that this passage is not referring to all Jews, but a select few. Yet when we look at the original Arabic, and go to the specific parts regarding the Jews and Christians, we find no differentiation:
wa qalati al-yahoodu: The Jews say...The grammar is practically the same for both. We know that the Quran consistently charges the Christians with false beliefs concerning Christ. Therefore just as this must refer to all Christians, so it must also refer to all Jews. The Quranic text itself (as well as the majority of translations) is very clear: the Jews and the Christians worship men as the Son of God. If it is indeed referring to only a small number of Jews, why the use of such language in this passage? Also, why is there no further differentiation between Judaism and its sects in the previous and following verses? The language of the Quran (just as in S. 9:30) is not specific but broad. S. 9:31, in fact, continues the charge against all Christians and keeps the same language.
wa qalati al-nnasara: The Christians say... [source]
Also problematic for this explanation is the fact that Mohammad himself said Jews (in a general, not specific, sense) worshiped Ezra as the Son of God, as found in valid ahadith discussing what will happen to unbelievers in hell:
"...Then the Jews will be called upon and it will be said to them, 'Who do you use to worship?' They will say, 'We used to worship Ezra, the son of Allah.' It will be said to them, 'You are liars, for Allah has never taken anyone as a wife or a son'..." [Sahih Bukhari Volume 6, Book 60, Number 105; emphasis mine]And again:
"...Then it will be said to the Jews, 'What did you use to worship?' They will reply, 'We used to worship Ezra, the son of Allah.' It will be said to them, 'You are liars, for Allah has neither a wife nor a son'..." [Sahih Bukhari Volume 9, Book 93, Number 532s; emphasis mine]And again:
"...Then the Jews would be summoned, and it would be said to them: What did you worship? They will say: We worshipped 'Uzair, son of Allah. It would be said to them: You tell a lie; Allah had never had a spouse or a son..." [Sahih Muslim Book 001, Number 0352; emphasis mine]Note the language. The Jews will be summoned (no specific language used), and they will be asked who they worshiped. They will say, "We worshiped Ezra, Son of God." Therefore, it will be said to them exactly what is said to the Christians: God has no spouse and no son. Therefore, according to Mohammad, Jews will be cursed in hell and called liars because they worshiped Ezra as the literal Son of God...again, something which Jews do not do.
We have several facts to deal with: 1) the Quran states that Jews believe Ezra is the Son of God in the same way that Christians believe Jesus is the Son of God; 2) it is believed that only a certain amount of those, at least those that confronted Mohammad, believed Ezra was the Son of God; 3) Mohammad states regarding the Last Day that Jews will be condemned for worshiping Ezra as the Son of God; 4) even more horrifying, S. 9:30 wishes for Allah to "curse," "fight" or "destroy" the Jews for this belief, despite the fact that only a small number held it. If you look at the previous verse (S. 9:29), it becomes apparent that Muslims are even told to make war with Jews for it. This is not solely my exegesis, but that of classical Quranic commentary as well:
[In relation to S. 9:29] Allah the Exalted encourages the believers to fight the polytheists, disbelieving Jews and Christians, who uttered this terrible statement and utter lies against Allah, the Exalted. [Continuing to S. 9:30] As for the Jews, they claimed that `Uzayr was the son of God, Allah is free of what they attribute to Him. As for the misguidance of Christians over `Isa, it is obvious. This is why Allah declared both groups to be liars [Tafsir Ibn Kathir, source]One common argument is that the Jews of Medina referred to Ezra as a metaphorical Son of God - in other words, they venerated Ezra into a Jewish version of sainthood. Some Muslims have pointed me to Shia ahadith that verify this point of view with an exchange between Mohammad and the Medina Jews clarifying this manner. Of course, the first and most immediate problem with this argumentation is Islamic apologetics itself. Whenever Christ refers to Himself as "Son of God" in the New Testament, it is argued by many Muslims that it is used in simply a metaphorical sense. Yet if we are to believe that Mohammad (and indeed, Allah himself) condemned such a title for a man, then Jesus was at fault for using that very name for Himself. Therefore, Muslims cannot argue this in regards to S. 9:30 without becoming inconsistent in their apologetics.
Humorously enough, one finds the classic "Don't use ahadith/Use ahadith" fallacy so common in Islamic apologetics coming into play here as well. While in discussion with a Muslim, I brought forward the sahih ahadith by Bukhari which cited Mohammad saying that "the Jews" will say they worshiped Ezra as the Son of God. As per classic strategy, the Muslim gentleman said you couldn't trust all hadith sources. He then stated that the passage referred to only a small number of Jews in Medina. I pointed out that he could only come across such a conclusion by turning to the ahadith, as such clarification was not found in the Quran. I then asked him to present some common standard which could be used to verify what hadith source could be trusted and which could not. Either out of willful ignorance or lack of experience giving this point any serious thought, the gentleman proceeded to argue in a circle of, "You can't trust any hadith...oh no wait, trust the hadith I'm giving." My point in bringing this up is that, in trying to go to the ahadith to defend their understanding of S. 9:30, a Muslim is forced to address other strange passages in valid hadith sources which contradict their point or make it problematic. In denying one over the other, however, they merely present a double standards...and truth does not stand easy on double standards.
It would seem that Mohammad was guilty of either one of two things: 1) a logical fallacy known as a hasty generalization, which seeks to draw an erroneous opinion on many because of a small sample; 2) a poor grasp on the differentiation between veneration and worship, as he seems to confuse the worship of Christ as God to the veneration of prophets as godly men. If either were true, it would still mean one thing: because of this fault, Muslims are today given a book which has a strange and imperfect theological statement about another faith which they are forced to defend.
Let me present an example that can be understand from the opposite mindset, so that any Muslim readers coming across this can understand how Jews and Christians feel. Suppose there exists a prophet after the time of Mohammad, and this prophet grows up in the India/Pakistan area where a lot of Ahmadi Muslims live. He has limited meeting with Muslims, and most of the ones he meets are the Ahmadi (who are not considered orthodox by most Muslim groups). From his experiences with them, he puts into his scripture: "The Muslims say that Jesus is not buried in India." Skip ahead 1400 years later: the followers of this prophet are forced to explain to orthodox Muslims why such a strange verse exists in their scripture. It would be a flawed belief based on a flawed theology - it would therefore make it a man-made scripture and religion.
If we were to believe that the Quran was simply God inspiring man, one could perhaps be somewhat forgiving - but we are told by Islam that the Quran is the literal word of God, as if God were there in the room speaking to us and telling us what to do. It is venerated by Muslims and treated with greater respect than any other item in the household or mosque. Yet this book is full of theological errors which could only come from man. I already touched on this blog regarding Mohammad's errors regarding the Trinity - so too did Mohammad err in the belief of orthodox Judaism. As I asked in that post for the thinking reader to ponder, so I ask it here: if Allah's word is flawed, and Allah has no understanding of a religion's basic doctrine, and cannot differentiate between veneration and worship, and condemns an entire group for the beliefs of a few...is that the God of Gods, or is that a man-made doctrine based on man-made understanding? Is the error of S. 9:30 an error on the part of Judaism, or is it an error on the part of Mohammad?
Tuesday, March 23, 2010
Mohammad and the Trinity
One of the greatest weaknesses in Islamic theology, especially in regards to Christianity and her understanding of it, is how Islam defines the Trinity. The language of the Trinity is distinct and important, and while I will admit that even some Christians are unable to fully understand it, it is still a fully understood concept within the greater realm of orthodox Christianity. One honest question should be: was there, at the time of Mohammad, a question of what the Trinity was? Would he have a right to misunderstand the Trinity? Was true understanding of the Trinity only a recent thing, or something Christians had to develop in the face of Islamic attacks? Such problems seem possible, except when we review the history of orthodox Christian thought from the time of Islam down.
A good start would be with John of Damascus, who lived in the 8th century during the time of Islam's rise to power in the Middle East. He wrote regarding the Trinity:
Yet we can go even further back, to the fourth century some 300 years before the time of Mohammad, to Basil the Great, who also wrote on the Trinitarian God.
Still we can go further back to the time of the original apostles of Christ, and the writings of Ignatius of Antioch and his genuine epistles.
Therefore we know that up to the time of Mohammad there was a clear understanding of what the Trinity was: one Being of God revealed in three distinct but united Persons, who are united in their Essence. It is not three gods, yet those Persons are distinguished from one another - the Father is not the Son, the Son is not the Father, and the Holy Spirit is not the Son, etc. Again, this is not three gods, nor are the Father, Son and Holy Spirit separate entirely from one another. These are not three Beings but Persons, and they are all one in Essence and act accordingly to their means.
With the doctrine of the Trinity properly define and discussed, let us now ask the question: did Mohammad fully understand this Christian belief? Let's begin with two samples from the Quran:
The Trinity is not three gods - that contradicts the very term trinity, which is a combination of the words "tri" (meaning three) and "unity" (which is self-explanatory) to form the concept of "unity in three." The Trinity, as we already defined earlier, is one Being of God revealed in three Divine Persons. Within the one Being of God coexists the coeternal Father, Son and Holy Spirit, who are distinguished from one another both in scripture and within this very definition. Therefore, for one to argue that Christians believe God is one in three is simply incorrect.
It's interesting to note that while the Quran admits at times that Christians believe Christ is God, it does not seem to understand what this means. It seems to still believe that it is a pagan form of deity worship. To view those passages in context:
I have heard some Muslim objections to this argumentation, in an attempt to make the Quran seem orthodox in its Trinitarian understanding. It is argued that the Quran is not wrong, since Christians believe Christ is God, or "Allah," and that the "joining other gods" refers to the Persons in the Trinity - in other words, "Allah" refers to God the Father. The problem with this argument is that it is self defeating for three reasons: 1) the Persons in the Trinity are not "ascribing partners" or "joining other gods" because the individual Persons are not individual Beings, and therefore not gods - in fact, the Persons are all one in Essence with each another, and when one acts independently the other two act according to their individual means; 2) nowhere does the Quran say "Persons," nor does it distinguish terminology that could be applicable to the definition of "Person" as it is used in the Trinity; 3) if "Allah" refers to God the Father, then the Quran is still in error, because it therefore claims that Christians believe Jesus is the Father, which is completely incorrect - only the Father is the Father; Jesus is the Son. To suggest Jesus is the Father is to suggest Modalism, which would be a heresy even to Christians.
It would indeed seem that Mohammad still believed that the Trinity was three gods, and Jesus was merely one besides Allah.
There are also hadith sources that display this misunderstanding of the Trinity. One example:
One final note as I close my post: many Muslims, when this subject comes up, seem to present a kind of willful ignorance. They simply refuse to understand the Trinity as Christians have understood it. No matter how many times you may explain it in detail and as patiently as possible, they seem unable or unwilling to listen. Hence my use of the phraseology "willful ignorance": they have the explanation in front of them, but they seem unwilling to acknowledge it. I cannot be the judge of every Muslim's heart as only God is aware of the nature of their being, however I am certain this is sometimes out of stubbornness, if not many times out of a gross unwillingness to review their own beliefs.
I know many Muslims will object to my constant usage of "Mohammad's opinion" or "Mohammad said this" when I am quoting only the Quran. Muslims, after all, believe that the Quran is the product of God. However, if a book or revelation is given to you that grossly distorts the belief system of another belief...can you really call such a revelation to have come from God? One of the 99 names of Allah is Al Haqq or "The Truth," therefore why would something dishonest - intentional or unintentional - be in the words of God? If a book came along that claimed to be a revelation in line with Islam, yet it claimed that Muslims worshiped Mohammad when this is not the case, would Muslims not question the authenticity of that book and whether or not it came from God? One can continue to accuse Christians of paganism, but if you are being forced to ignore argumentation because of your religion, then isn't your religion forcing you to lie?
Therefore, one must ask themselves honestly and openly: if the Quran is wrong on the doctrine of another faith, is that the fault of that other faith...or is that the fault of the Quran? If the Quran is found at fault and yet is believed to have come from God, can that claim therefore be substantial, or can we assume that God is in error? Since we know God cannot be in error, does that mean the Quran is man-made or God-made? And if it is man-made, is Mohammad receiving his source from God...or something else? I would ask that the discerning mind ponder on this and all we have discussed.
A good start would be with John of Damascus, who lived in the 8th century during the time of Islam's rise to power in the Middle East. He wrote regarding the Trinity:
We believe, then, in One God...one essence, one divinity, one power, one will, one energy, one beginning, one authority, one dominion, one sovereignty, made known in three perfect subsistences and adored with one adoration...John Damascene outlines several key realities of the Trinity: 1) Christians are monotheists who believe in one God who exists in a Trinity; 2) the Trinity is made up of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit; 3) these three Persons are distinguished yet separate from one another, but are still equal in Essence.
The holy catholic and apostolic Church, then, teaches the existence at once of a Father: and of His Only-begotten Son, born of Him without time and flux and passion, in a manner incomprehensible and perceived by the God of the universe alone...the Only-begotten Son of God, begotten of the Father without separation and difference and ever abiding in Him, has a proper subsistence of its own distinct from that of the Father...Likewise we believe also in one Holy Spirit, the Lord and Giver of Life: Who proceeds from the Father and rests in the Son: the object of equal adoration and glorification with the Father and Son, since He is co-essential and co-eternal... [John Damascene, An Exposition of the Orthodox Faith, Book I, Chapter 8]
Yet we can go even further back, to the fourth century some 300 years before the time of Mohammad, to Basil the Great, who also wrote on the Trinitarian God.
They have abandoned what they professed when they entered God's household. What did they profess? Faith in the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit...I swear to every man who confesses Christ but denies the Father: Christ will profit him nothing. If a man calls upon God, but rejects the Son, his faith is empty. If someone rejects the Spirit, his faith in the Father and the Son is made useless; it is impossible to believe in the Father and the Son without the presence of the Spirit. He who rejects the Spirit rejects the Son, and he who rejects the Son rejects the Father. [Basil the Great, On the Holy Spirit, 27]Basil was writing against those who denied the divinity of the Holy Spirit, and speaks of the unity of the Persons within the Trinity. Those who deny the Son deny the Father, and those who deny the Spirit deny the Father and the Son, for all are equal and represent the fullness of God. The Father, Son and Holy Spirit are not separate gods, but are Persons within the Trinitarian God, of whom there is only one.
Still we can go further back to the time of the original apostles of Christ, and the writings of Ignatius of Antioch and his genuine epistles.
Since, also, there is but one unbegotten Being, God, even the Father; and one only-begotten Son, God, the Word and man; and one Comforter, the Spirit of truth... [Ignatius, Epistle to the Philadelphians, Chapter 4]Ignatius, disciple to the beloved apostle John and writing in the first century, does something important here: he identifies one Being of God, and then identifies the Father, Son and Holy Spirit within that Being of God.
Therefore we know that up to the time of Mohammad there was a clear understanding of what the Trinity was: one Being of God revealed in three distinct but united Persons, who are united in their Essence. It is not three gods, yet those Persons are distinguished from one another - the Father is not the Son, the Son is not the Father, and the Holy Spirit is not the Son, etc. Again, this is not three gods, nor are the Father, Son and Holy Spirit separate entirely from one another. These are not three Beings but Persons, and they are all one in Essence and act accordingly to their means.
With the doctrine of the Trinity properly define and discussed, let us now ask the question: did Mohammad fully understand this Christian belief? Let's begin with two samples from the Quran:
...Say not "Trinity" : desist: it will be better for you: for Allah is one Allah: Glory be to Him: (far exalted is He) above having a son. To Him belong all things in the heavens and on earth. And enough is Allah as a Disposer of affairs. [S. 4:171; Yusuf Ali]Note the phraseology here: do not say "Allah is one of three in a Trinity...there is no god except One Allah." The assumption here seems to be that the Trinity is three gods, a common battle cry by many Muslims against Christians. Many times I've been on Christian forums where a Muslim signs on and asks the Christians, "Why do you worship three gods?", which results in their being laughed at. Why? They are laughed at because this is not what the Trinity is. It makes about as much sense as going to a Muslim forum and asking, "Why do you worship Mohammad as God?"
They do blaspheme who say: Allah is one of three in a Trinity: for there is no god except One Allah. If they desist not from their word (of blasphemy), verily a grievous penalty will befall the blasphemers among them. [S. 5:73; Yusuf Ali]
The Trinity is not three gods - that contradicts the very term trinity, which is a combination of the words "tri" (meaning three) and "unity" (which is self-explanatory) to form the concept of "unity in three." The Trinity, as we already defined earlier, is one Being of God revealed in three Divine Persons. Within the one Being of God coexists the coeternal Father, Son and Holy Spirit, who are distinguished from one another both in scripture and within this very definition. Therefore, for one to argue that Christians believe God is one in three is simply incorrect.
It's interesting to note that while the Quran admits at times that Christians believe Christ is God, it does not seem to understand what this means. It seems to still believe that it is a pagan form of deity worship. To view those passages in context:
In blasphemy indeed are those that say that Allah is Christ the son of Mary. Say: "Who then hath the least power against Allah, if His will were to destroy Christ the son of Mary, his mother, and all every - one that is on the earth? For to Allah belongeth the dominion of the heavens and the earth, and all that is between. He createth what He pleaseth. For Allah hath power over all things." [S. 5:17; Yusuf Ali]These passages seem to suggest that Mohammad believed that Christ and God were one and the same, hence the phraseology "Allah is Christ," or at the very least that Christ was put on equal with God in a bitheism, hence the follow up warning against "whoever joins other gods with Allah."
They do blaspheme who say: "Allah is Christ the son of Mary." But said Christ: "O Children of Israel! worship Allah, my Lord and your Lord." Whoever joins other gods with Allah,- Allah will forbid him the garden, and the Fire will be his abode. There will for the wrong-doers be no one to help. [S. 5:72; Yusuf Ali]
I have heard some Muslim objections to this argumentation, in an attempt to make the Quran seem orthodox in its Trinitarian understanding. It is argued that the Quran is not wrong, since Christians believe Christ is God, or "Allah," and that the "joining other gods" refers to the Persons in the Trinity - in other words, "Allah" refers to God the Father. The problem with this argument is that it is self defeating for three reasons: 1) the Persons in the Trinity are not "ascribing partners" or "joining other gods" because the individual Persons are not individual Beings, and therefore not gods - in fact, the Persons are all one in Essence with each another, and when one acts independently the other two act according to their individual means; 2) nowhere does the Quran say "Persons," nor does it distinguish terminology that could be applicable to the definition of "Person" as it is used in the Trinity; 3) if "Allah" refers to God the Father, then the Quran is still in error, because it therefore claims that Christians believe Jesus is the Father, which is completely incorrect - only the Father is the Father; Jesus is the Son. To suggest Jesus is the Father is to suggest Modalism, which would be a heresy even to Christians.
It would indeed seem that Mohammad still believed that the Trinity was three gods, and Jesus was merely one besides Allah.
And when Allah saith: O Jesus, son of Mary! Didst thou say unto mankind: Take me and my mother for two gods beside Allah? he saith: Be glorified! It was not mine to utter that to which I had no right. If I used to say it, then Thou knewest it. Thou knowest what is in my mind, and I know not what is in Thy Mind. Lo! Thou, only Thou, art the Knower of Things Hidden? [S. 5:116; M. Pickthall; emphasis mine]Jesus here tells God that He never told people to take Him or His mother as gods besides Allah. This has led some to claim that Mohammad believed the Trinity was God, Jesus and Mary, but I don't think there is substantial evidence besides this passage to prove that. In any case, the assumption here is two-fold: 1) Jesus is placed as another god besides Allah; 2) even the Virgin Mary is made a god besides Allah. As already stated, Christ is not another god placed alongside God. Furthermore, no one except extreme Marian sects worship the Virgin Mary as a separate deity, which goes into the issue of veneration versus worship which Islam seems incapable of discerning.
There are also hadith sources that display this misunderstanding of the Trinity. One example:
Narrated Nafi':Again, it is described that Christians are placing partners besides Allah. It is even stated that Muslim men cannot marry Christian women simply because of this. A pity that such a ban is placed on Christian women for something that Christian women do not even do!
Whenever Ibn 'Umar was asked about marrying a Christian lady or a Jewess, he would say: "Allah has made it unlawful for the believers to marry ladies who ascribe partners in worship to Allah, and I do not know of a greater thing, as regards to ascribing partners in worship, etc. to Allah, than that a lady should say that Jesus is her Lord although he is just one of Allah's slaves." [Sahih Bukhari Volume 7, Book 63, Number 209]
One final note as I close my post: many Muslims, when this subject comes up, seem to present a kind of willful ignorance. They simply refuse to understand the Trinity as Christians have understood it. No matter how many times you may explain it in detail and as patiently as possible, they seem unable or unwilling to listen. Hence my use of the phraseology "willful ignorance": they have the explanation in front of them, but they seem unwilling to acknowledge it. I cannot be the judge of every Muslim's heart as only God is aware of the nature of their being, however I am certain this is sometimes out of stubbornness, if not many times out of a gross unwillingness to review their own beliefs.
I know many Muslims will object to my constant usage of "Mohammad's opinion" or "Mohammad said this" when I am quoting only the Quran. Muslims, after all, believe that the Quran is the product of God. However, if a book or revelation is given to you that grossly distorts the belief system of another belief...can you really call such a revelation to have come from God? One of the 99 names of Allah is Al Haqq or "The Truth," therefore why would something dishonest - intentional or unintentional - be in the words of God? If a book came along that claimed to be a revelation in line with Islam, yet it claimed that Muslims worshiped Mohammad when this is not the case, would Muslims not question the authenticity of that book and whether or not it came from God? One can continue to accuse Christians of paganism, but if you are being forced to ignore argumentation because of your religion, then isn't your religion forcing you to lie?
Therefore, one must ask themselves honestly and openly: if the Quran is wrong on the doctrine of another faith, is that the fault of that other faith...or is that the fault of the Quran? If the Quran is found at fault and yet is believed to have come from God, can that claim therefore be substantial, or can we assume that God is in error? Since we know God cannot be in error, does that mean the Quran is man-made or God-made? And if it is man-made, is Mohammad receiving his source from God...or something else? I would ask that the discerning mind ponder on this and all we have discussed.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)