Question about Jesus عبد الله 04/19/17 (Wed) 02:52:07 3dd0c0 No. 20357
Christian dropping by with a friendly question.
I'm curious about a bit of Islamic doctrine concerning Jesus. I'm aware that Islam does not view Jesus as The Son of God, and I've read the Quran passages on the subject, as well as a few commentaries.
So while I can accept that the Quran says what it says, it's the seeming lack of justification. What I'm having trouble with is this:
- The Quran in and of itself seems to simply say that it is not true that God has a son.
- The commentaries I've seen simply write off the idea as absurd, or skirt over the issue.
Can anyone help explain the 'why not' in greater detail? I'd be happy to clarify the question if necessary.
عبد الله 04/19/17 (Wed) 05:19:04 3dd0c0 No. 20359
عبد الله 04/19/17 (Wed) 15:45:26 3dd0c0 No. 20360
>>20357
>seeming lack of justification
Well, the NT has no justification for there being a son of God. It is its only source. So, I suppose we're even.
عبد الله 04/19/17 (Wed) 22:53:01 3dd0c0 No. 20361
Depends on what you'd expect a son of God to be.
The son can't be another god, because of the idea that there's only one God. He can't be similar to God, because of the idea that there is nothing like God. We have no understanding of the biology of God, or whether biology as a concept can apply to him, so we can't tackle it from that angle either. The Quran says that God is self-sufficient, so it's not like there's any need for him to have a son.
If God had a son I don't think we'd be able to recognize him as such without God spelling it out for us. Without any more knowledge of the nature of God, we really can't say on our own. The Quran explicitly states he doesn't, so we don't have to worry too much about it. If it didn't close the question we'd probably have people running around claiming to be sons of God.
I'm just going by Surah Ikhlas. Someone more learned would have a better answer
عبد الله 04/20/17 (Thu) 00:26:14 3dd0c0 No. 20362
>>20359
Interesting videos, the first one's title is misleading, however. Jay Smith is not a priest. His theology seems a little muddled. Protestant or something? That might explain it.
>>20360
Maybe I was unclear. In several Gospel passages Jesus refers to to God as his father, in others he refers to having been sent by his father, and in others still he refers to his having come from heaven. The Quran has passages that say otherwise. That in either book these passages say one thing or another is not what I seek to inquire about.
The key thing for me is that in many of those Gospel passages Jesus states WHY he came from heaven. It's the 'why nots' that I'm curious about. Perhaps there are Quran passages that I missed?
>>20361
>The Quran says that God is self-sufficient, so it's not like there's any need for him to have a son.
This is what I find intriguing as I think about it. There being no reason for God to NEED to have a son, the question is really about why God would CHOOSE to have a son. Any thoughts on that?
>If God had a son I don't think we'd be able to recognize him as such without God spelling it out for us.
Which is kind of how it works out in Christianity. If Jesus is God incarnate, then his command over the natural and supernatural, his ability to forgive sins, his resurrection after death, and his claim of divinity before the Sanhedrin is precisely the kind of 'spelling it out' that we would be looking for, would it not?
Thanks for the replies so far, guys. Good stuff.
عبد الله 04/20/17 (Thu) 07:21:41 3dd0c0 No. 20364
>>20362
Seems that god choosing to have a son and taking the human species as an image does not make sense to me.
Also the concept of original sin, how can we inherit sin from Adam (a.s)?
Also why wouldn't God make himself more accessible to anyone even those with no resources (isolated people). Salvation based on a guy from nazareth is too precise and does not serve a universal purpose.
In islam, each person will be judged according to their ability. I dont see that in Christianity, its dependent on humans to bring the complex message of trinity. Which is not at all intuitive or part of human nature.
Any child, has a tendency to believe in 1 God. That is the natural state. And it makes sense.
For us its not if he CAN have a son, its why would God do that?
عبد الله 04/20/17 (Thu) 14:43:30 3dd0c0 No. 20365
>>20362
> the question is really about why God would CHOOSE to have a son
He wouldn't. He didn't. Seems pretty clear to me.
>It's the 'why nots' that I'm curious about.
Well, first of all, I don't believe Jesus ever said he was God made flesh. Yes, some folks wrote that he did long after he was dead, but that doesn't exactly make it true. It can't be confirmed. I could write in a book right now that Jesus said he liked stuffing instead of potatoes, but it can't be confirmed.
If a statement can't be sourced, then we can pretty much disregard the statement. I understand that there is faith involved, but when you have faith that Jesus said he was the "Son of God", you're not putting faith in Jesus or God, rather you're putting faith in the person who wrote that Jesus said such things.
عبد الله 04/20/17 (Thu) 21:42:38 3dd0c0 No. 20368
>‘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.’…
عبد الله 04/20/17 (Thu) 23:39:38 3dd0c0 No. 20372
>>20364
>Seems that god choosing to have a son and taking the human species as an image does not make sense to me.
Part of our understanding is that through the incarnation God was displaying and demonstrating humility. Satan was cast out of heaven for the sin of pride, thus God's humility helps to prove his goodness. (In Islam, Satan/Shaitan was also cast out of paradise for pride, right? My understanding may be a bit weak.)
>Also the concept of original sin, how can we inherit sin from Adam (a.s)?
Our understanding is that we inherit an inclination towards selfish ends which leads us to away from God. Think of it as genetic instinct. As all creatures of the earth inherit instincts and genes from their predecessors, so too does mankind from the first man. Does that make sense?
>Also why wouldn't God make himself more accessible to anyone even those with no resources (isolated people). Salvation based on a guy from nazareth is too precise and does not serve a universal purpose.
But wouldn't salvation based on a guy from Mecca kinda fall under the same category?
No disrespect intended.
>In islam, each person will be judged according to their ability. I dont see that in Christianity
That is actually something we share in common. Christians also believe that God will judge us. The distinction is that at our judgement, Jesus, having taken part in our humanity, will be our intercessor. (I understand the Islamic view is that he will instead condemn us, is that correct?)
>…the complex message of trinity. Which is not at all intuitive or part of human nature.
"As the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways and my thoughts than your thoughts." Isaiah 55:9
(I figure Christian scripture pulls no weight here, but it says it better than I could.)
>Any child, has a tendency to believe in 1 God. That is the natural state. And it makes sense.
I agree completely. Though the definition of God in trinity falls under the same category. Jesus commanded us Christians to baptize in the NAME (singular) of The Father, The Son, and The Holy Spirit. In that instance he was either he was telling us about the triune nature of God, or he was making a major grammatical error.
>For us its not if he CAN have a son, its why would God do that?
I understand. I'm seeking to hear reasons why he wouldn't.
>>20365
>He wouldn't. He didn't. Seems pretty clear to me.
But it's not so clear to me. Please help me understand your perspective.
>Well, first of all, I don't believe Jesus ever said he was God made flesh. Yes, some folks wrote that he did long after he was dead
I was under the impression that he did not die and dwells bodily in heaven, even in Islamic theology, right?
>It can't be confirmed. I could write in a book right now that Jesus said he liked stuffing instead of potatoes, but it can't be confirmed. If a statement can't be sourced, then we can pretty much disregard the statement. I understand that there is faith involved, but when you have faith that Jesus said he was the "Son of God", you're not putting faith in Jesus or God, rather you're putting faith in the person who wrote that Jesus said such things.
This is why I'm seeking answers beyond our respective scriptures. The discussion would go nowhere because as easily as you say the Gospel can't be sourced, I can turn around and say the Quran can't be sourced.
Then we would start arguing, each saying "Yes it can be sourced!', and so on. I'm not looking to argue, I'm not expecting to be convinced, I'm just seeking answers.
>>20368
Beautiful.
Thanks again for the replies so far.
عبد الله 04/21/17 (Fri) 00:34:03 3dd0c0 No. 20374
>>20372
>I was under the impression that he did not die and dwells bodily in heaven
Pretty much, yep. But that doesn't make him worthy of worship nor does it make him an intercessor.
> I can turn around and say the Quran can't be sourced.
Yes, you can. And it's not an argument. See, the entire Christian faith relies on Jesus being virgin born, ministering to the Jews, being betrayed, crucified, and conquering death. Jesus is not required for Islam to exist. He was a great prophet and brought a beautiful message of love and hope and brotherhood, but Islam would still exist without Jesus. Islam requires no man to exist, but is Allah's perfect faith.
So, it's not really an argument. You have your ways and we have ours, but Allah guides whom He wills. So, it's more a discussion of the differences in our faiths. I don't seek to argue with you and do not require you to be wrong in order for me to be right.
عبد الله 04/21/17 (Fri) 00:58:42 3dd0c0 No. 20376
>>20374
>it's not an argument.
Exactly why I didn't pursue that. No further elaboration is necessary.
>Jesus is not required for Islam to exist. He was a great prophet and brought a beautiful message of love and hope and brotherhood, but Islam would still exist without Jesus. Islam requires no man to exist, but is Allah's perfect faith.
As far as I understand Islamic doctrine, Jesus is the only man ever born of a virgin, granted a miraculous existence by an act of God. And you tell me his existence is not necessary, Islam would exist without him. What would be the point of such a display of God's power if it was of no consequence? Do not God's action serve an ultimate purpose? And if so, is not every act of God necessary?
عبد الله 04/21/17 (Fri) 01:23:10 3dd0c0 No. 20377
>>20376
Islam requires only Allah. The prophets came to deliver messages to the people, but even the prophets mean nothing when compared to Allah.
Allah guides whom He wills and leads astray whom He wills. We have the choice whether or not to listen to the prophets and Jesus was no more than a prophet and, like all prophets, unworthy of worship. Allah does not need to display His power to us. We are commanded to believe whether or not He is in our sight.
عبد الله 04/21/17 (Fri) 07:11:03 3dd0c0 No. 20378
>>20377
>Allah does not need to display His power to us.
Once again, we have arrived at what I have not been asking. Good doesn't NEED to do anything. I was asking a WHY question.
Seeing as how we've gotten off-topic, I will restate the original question:
Why is Jesus not seen as the Son Of God?
What, considering God is infinitely capable, is so absurd about this concept?
What 'why not' reasons are given, either in the Quran itself, or commentaries, or apologetics?
Thanks again.
عبد الله 04/21/17 (Fri) 15:16:22 3dd0c0 No. 20379
>>20378
>Why is Jesus not seen as the Son Of God?
All) praise is due to Allah, Who has not taken a son and Who has not a partner in the kingdom, and Who has not a helper to save Him from disgrace Quran 17:111
Jesus is not seen as the "Son of God" because God has no son. If God had a son, then Qur'an would say so. There is no more to it than that.
عبد الله 04/22/17 (Sat) 01:31:19 3dd0c0 No. 20382
File: 8747c0a53c8fcde⋯.jpg (Spoiler Image, 146.62 KB, 758x892, 379:446, Trinity_-_Coecke_van_Aelst.jpg )
>>20379
>All praise is due to Allah, Who has not taken a son and Who has not a partner in the kingdom, and Who has not a helper to save Him from disgrace
Quran 17:111
>For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.
John 3:16
This is an interesting parallel of perspectives on God.
One sounds lonely, unwilling to share, and is implied to be in a state of disgrace, and will not find help.
The other sounds loving, outreaching, and generous, who is actively seeking to help his creatures.
No disrespect intended. Is there some missing context to that section that implies God has no helper in disgrace?
عبد الله 04/22/17 (Sat) 14:39:33 3dd0c0 No. 20386
>>20382
It just means Allah is in no need of a protector.
عبد الله 04/22/17 (Sat) 20:31:12 3dd0c0 No. 20391
>>20382
How would his son be a valid sacrifice? Did god truly die? Feel pain? For Him it should be nothing, since nothing can harm Him.
Help me understand the FULLY man and FULLY God concept. It just does not make sense to me.
Also, why not avoid all that bloodshed and killing an innocent holy man (Jesus pbuh) for the actions of ungrateful sinners? Let the sinners seek repentance and be forgiven or pay fully for their crimes.
God sharing NO part of his kingdom is simple and straight to the point.
Need help? Call upon God.
Need guidance? Call upon God.
Need patience? Call upon God.
Post last edited at 04/22/17 (Sat) 20:46:52
عبد الله 04/22/17 (Sat) 23:21:22 3dd0c0 No. 20393
>>20391
>How would his son be a valid sacrifice?
In a greater manner to the sacrifice of the spotless Passover lamb saved the Israelites in Egypt, so does the perfect sacrifice of the perfect sinless man save all people.
The book of Hebrews covers this subject extensively:
"For by one sacrifice he has made perfect forever those who are being made holy." Hebrews 10:14
>Did god truly die? Feel pain? For Him it should be nothing, since nothing can harm Him.
Jesus suffered and died, being fully man. Being fully God, death was nothing and he rose from the grave.
Neither The Father (beyond time and creation) nor The Holy Spirit (incorporeal) died, as death is a physical phenomena.
Think of it this way:
If God is omnipotent (able to do anything), but cannot die (because he lacks physical attributes), then there is something he is unable to do, meaning he is not omnipotent.
The Trinity, and Jesus' death resolves this paradox.
>Help me understand the FULLY man and FULLY God concept. It just does not make sense to me.
Because it sounds like we're saying he's half man and half God, right?
If we were to say that Jesus is 50 percent man and 50 percent God, that would imply that he is lacking in either human or divine attributes. Being fully man and fully God means he shares fully, completely, and totally in both natures.
>Also, why not avoid all that bloodshed and killing an innocent holy man (Jesus pbuh) for the actions of ungrateful sinners? Let the sinners seek repentance and be forgiven or pay fully for their crimes.
God's love moved him to compassion for his lost children. But we must ask for forgiveness first to receive it. The difference is gratitude for what he has done.
Grateful: accepting God's sacrifice, right action, and receiving forgiveness for falling short of his standards.
Ungrateful: rejecting God's sacrifice, wrong action, and being given what one deserves.
>God sharing NO part of his kingdom is simple and straight to the point.
This we agree upon, it is only the formulation of God (Singular in one person / Singular in three persons) that we find distinct from each other.
>Need help? Call upon God.
>Need guidance? Call upon God.
>Need patience? Call upon God.
How serendipitous that you should refer to God three times. :3
عبد الله ## Board Owner 04/23/17 (Sun) 01:18:13 3dd0c0 No. 20394
This is getting dangerously close to "my religion is better than yours" territory. Tread lightly.
عبد الله 04/23/17 (Sun) 01:23:46 3dd0c0 No. 20395
>>20393
>>20393
>Neither The Father (beyond time and creation) nor The Holy Spirit (incorporeal) died, as death is a physical phenomena.
but you said Jesus is FULLY God
how can god die?
but if the father didnt die, then whats the point?
its like using cheatcodes in a game
"dying" without really losing anything
عبد الله 04/23/17 (Sun) 05:07:44 3dd0c0 No. 20396
>>20394
>This is getting dangerously close to "my religion is better than yours" territory.
No offense intended. I'm just trying to answer questions as best I can. And I thank your board members for extending to me the same courtesy.
We are however talking about two different beliefs, and where there is difference, there is a qualitative distinction. Surely, we cannot both be correct?
May The Lord guide us in deeper understanding of His mysteries!
>>20395
>but you said Jesus is FULLY God. how can god die?
Physically. The only way anyone or anything could die. The difference is that God can return from death, otherwise there's another "God cannot" paradox on our hands.
>but if the father didnt die, then whats the point?
The Father can't die though. Death results from physical decay, decay from the passage of time. Death is beneath him unless he descends into his creation, but how does he go about doing that?
>its like using cheatcodes in a game.
That's kind of like saying God is limited by our rules though, isn't it?
Think of the classic atheist question: can God create a stone so heavy he cannot lift it? I would answer yes. God CAN create a stone so heavy he couldn't lift it. Then he would lift it. It doesn't matter if we think that's illogical. He's God. He can do what he wants.
>"dying" without really losing anything.
Seeing His beloved suffer at the hands of sinners who took his love for granted?
This is an act of pure love and humility. It demonstrates that God is not limited by pride.
>>20386
That is a reasonable explanation. Thank you.
عبد الله 04/23/17 (Sun) 10:29:02 3dd0c0 No. 20397
>>20396
>Seeing His beloved suffer
But this was temporary suffering, surely a small feat for the lord of the worlds?
عبد الله 04/23/17 (Sun) 15:10:16 3dd0c0 No. 20398
File: 8fae72d5b3061c2⋯.jpg (Spoiler Image, 45.44 KB, 466x639, 466:639, b23c66a99eca31c4f0cae6f5c4….jpg )
>>20397
>But this was temporary suffering, surely a small feat for the lord of the worlds?
It could be said there really are no great feats as far as an omnipotent being is concerned. But it could therefore be said that there are no small feats either. We can only measure the worth of God's actions from our perspective. Who knows?
Concerning temporary suffering:
Temporary (lasting for only a limited period of time; not permanent) refers to the passage of time. The Father exists beyond time. Nothing is temporary to him. That suffering was, is now, and will ever be.
Thank you for your questions so far, I'm learning a lot.
عبد الله 04/23/17 (Sun) 21:32:11 3dd0c0 No. 20401
>>20398
The entire disagreement boils down to the wages of sin.
For Christians, some sacrifice has to be given in order to forgive mankind.
(sin = death)
For Muslims, God can simply forgive out of his own mercy.
(sin = judgement)
In islam, different sins carry different consequence, but ALL sins can be forgiven. Since Allah is the most merciful.
53:38 That no bearer of burdens shall be made to bear another’s burden.
53:39 And that nothing shall be accounted unto man except what he is striving for.
53:40 And that in time all his striving will be shown [to him in its true light].
53:41 Whereupon he shall be requited for it with the fullest requital.
عبد الله 04/23/17 (Sun) 21:35:04 3dd0c0 No. 20402
>>20398
>But it could therefore be said that there are no small feats either.
In my opinion everything is a small feat for Allah the omnipotent.
>>20398
>The Father exists beyond time. Nothing is temporary to him. That suffering was, is now, and will ever be.
Yes but I am talking about the son, his suffering in human form is over as far as he's concerned. He payed the fee. And so it was a relatively small sacrifice compared to eternity.
عبد الله 04/23/17 (Sun) 21:59:00 3dd0c0 No. 20403
>>20402
>I am talking about the son
Since there is no son, I suppose you could make up whatever you wanted.
عبد الله 04/24/17 (Mon) 00:08:23 3dd0c0 No. 20404
>>20403
For the sake of argument akhi
عبد الله 04/25/17 (Tue) 05:57:15 3dd0c0 No. 20415
>>20402
>Yes but I am talking about the son, his suffering in human form is over as far as he's concerned. He payed the fee. And so it was a relatively small sacrifice compared to eternity.
The Son and The Father are one in the same divine nature. (John 14:8-11) Recall the 'fully man, fully God' concept. What Jesus does within time is part of His eternal being as well.
>In my opinion everything is a small feat for Allah the omnipotent.
By which you mean His feats are truly great, just small in terms of effort or exertion, right?
>The entire disagreement boils down to the wages of sin. For Christians, some sacrifice has to be given in order to forgive mankind. For Muslims, God can simply forgive out of his own mercy.
One major aspect of the incarnation is the sanctification of death itself. I'm a little rusty on this, but I will do my bit:
God is Holy. All he does is Holy.
Man is in a state fallen from Holiness. Regardless of his efforts, death awaits him.
God grieves over this, and saves Man by dying himself, sanctifying death. Now death is a path to eternal life.
As the hymn goes,
"Christ is risen from the dead, trampling down death by death, and upon those in the tombs bestowing life."
I don't think there's any disagreement to as to God's ability or willingness to forgive simply out of his own mercy. In Christian theology the means are enacted through Jesus Christ.
What means are enacted in Islamic theology? Through God's word?
(Apologies for not spoilering the representational art beforehand. Didn't occur to me.)
عبد الله 04/25/17 (Tue) 11:03:58 3dd0c0 No. 20417
>>20415
>By which you mean His feats are truly great, just small in terms of effort or exertion, right?
yes
>What means are enacted in Islamic theology? Through God's word?
his will to forgive is enough
عبد الله ## Board Owner 04/25/17 (Tue) 15:00:56 3dd0c0 No. 20419
>>20415
>Apologies for not spoilering the representational art beforehand.
Don't worry about it. I'll tend to spoiler them because we don't allow depictions of the Prophets (Jesus included), but it's not a ban-worthy thing unless it's deliberately crass, profane, or insulting. A Christian posting an image of Jesus(pbuh) isn't being deliberately profane, so it's no big deal for me to just hit the [S] button.
Christanon 04/27/17 (Thu) 21:09:16 3dd0c0 No. 20467
>>20419
Curious question: do you guys also forbid posting pictures of uncovered women (I'm not talking about nudity, but if their face or hair is showing)?
I've seen some Muslim forums do that.
عبد الله ## Board Owner 04/27/17 (Thu) 23:07:35 3dd0c0 No. 20469
>>20467
Depends on why it's being posted. I mean, like if your post is about the economic regression of OPEC in the 1970s or about the Sadr uprising in the 1980s, then why would you post a pic of a woman at all?
I understand the concept of "pic unrelated", but using an image with the intent of annoying the board's users isn't permitted.
عبد الله 04/28/17 (Fri) 01:18:46 3dd0c0 No. 20470
>>20417
>yes
I figured as much. Though to be honest it seems a little odd to describe or even think of God's acts in terms of "effort". Maybe it's a limitation of language.
>his will to forgive is enough
Will, as in thought, yes?
Thinking on it, it sounds like a major distinction in our conception of God is action compared to will.
For us, God speaks the physical world into existence, creates us and maintains all for our sake. Following this, he descends into the physical plane to interact with us directly, finally saving us through a physical act.
Islam is of a different take I'm guessing, from what I've understood so far. How would you describe God's relation to man in similar terms?
عبد الله 04/28/17 (Fri) 07:26:09 3dd0c0 No. 20471
>>20470
>Maybe it's a limitation of language.
it very much is, but I think both of us agree God is omnipotent :)
>For us, God speaks the physical world into existence, creates us and maintains all for our sake.
yup I agree with you on that
>Following this, he descends into the physical plane to interact with us directly, finally saving us through a physical act.
Here is where we disagree, God does not take our form to know us or interact with us. He can interact with whom he wills from his servants. Usually chooses select humans as prophets to spread his message and for us to follow as role models. Going into our plain of limited existence is seen as a dishonor and does not befit his eternal majesty.
He knows us more than we know ourselves, its normal he created us after all. All he does is say "be" and it is. And he forgives who he wills through his infinite mercy. That is if you come to him with a sincere heart.
عبد الله 04/29/17 (Sat) 21:38:10 3dd0c0 No. 20489
عبد الله 04/29/17 (Sat) 21:48:31 3dd0c0 No. 20490
>>20489
Hamza Tzortzis is a pretty good speaker.
عبد الله 04/30/17 (Sun) 16:16:29 3dd0c0 No. 20509
>>20470
The point of Islam as far as Christians are concerned is that it claims the original Christian religion is a part of Islam and that the Christian teachings today are a misrepresentation of the original teachings.
Thinking itself can be considered to be an act. If god speaks the physical world into existence, does he have a mouth to speak with? He speaks with his… will. In Islam Allah is said to have a will; there can be a worthy discussion on whether this will is the same as the human attribute of will or an analogy to explain the attribute of God (we can assume the latter is what most would agree on) but either way when humans will something they say it in their minds.
To say that God wills something or says something "into existence" sounds the exact same and may be more a matter of ambiguous semantics.
The other thing you mention, descending into the physical plane. Are you sure about that? Christianity is about the trinity. Does the Father descend to become the Son? That doesn't sound right.
The trinity refers to three separate but distinct… mechanisms of God. We don't believe that the Son is any single person, but a more comparable concept is Christ consciousness. In Islam there is much discourse in the "intellect" and I would say, based on how the Holy Spirit is described, that the intellect and the Holy Spirit are one and the same. According to some Islamic discourse, Allah created the intellect from a primordial 'knowledge' from himself or in other words the intellect as a direct connection to God, and the human 'self' has a direct connection to intellect (though it is often closed off when they are (led) astray). Furthermore, the "Son" as "Christ Consciousness" may be when the self is completely aligned with the intellect or "The Spirit" allowing a direct connection to the "Father"
IMO prophets are divinely chosen as insurance for humanity to have a guaranteed direct connection to God. And Muhammad was the last one with a guaranteed direct connection because the Quran is the last and only insurance we need. That being said one can increase intuitive connection to intellect and allow a closer connection to God allowing many great things to happen like attaining Christ Consciousness. But I digress.
Basically the Quran was a contingency in case Christianity failed, which it kind of did (though the scriptures were never really the intention of Jesus just a bonus that got corrupted. The scriptures for Muhammad actually was one of the main goals)
Anyways, don't trust anything I or anyone says and look it up for yourself. But the point of Islam is that it's not a different take. All the Abrahamic religions are suppose to be the same, but with developments and extensions. No changes, no differences per se. What relations between God and man were you interested in?
عبد الله 04/30/17 (Sun) 23:20:53 3dd0c0 No. 20540
>>20471
>>20489
You know, I still don't feel like my original question has been answered, but this has been a wonderful digression. It's nice to meet on some common ground. :)
عبد الله 04/30/17 (Sun) 23:26:02 3dd0c0 No. 20541
>>20540
What was the answer you were looking for?
عبد الله 05/01/17 (Mon) 00:09:41 3dd0c0 No. 20547
>The point of Islam as far as Christians are concerned is that it claims the original Christian religion is a part of Islam and that the Christian teachings today are a misrepresentation of the original teachings.
"Part of Islam" meaning "Islam in part" and not "Islam in full" would have to be the case, since there isn't, to my knowledge, any historical proof to the claim that the original Christians (or the Israelites for that matter) practiced Islam as we know of it.
This is a digression though, it's not so necessary to get into it. Maybe another time.
>Thinking itself can be considered to be an act. If god speaks the physical world into existence, does he have a mouth to speak with? He speaks with his… will. In Islam Allah is said to have a will; there can be a worthy discussion on whether this will is the same as the human attribute of will or an analogy to explain the attribute of God (we can assume the latter is what most would agree on) but either way when humans will something they say it in their minds.
This is where The Trinity gets interesting. Thomas Aquinas goes over this in Summa Theologica, and I will paraphrase as best I can:
The act of speaking requires that the speech is first willed internally, the speech given the form of a word externally, and the speech given breath in order to produce a sound in the first place.
When God speaks the world into existence,
The Father wills it.
The Son is The Word. (John 1:1, quoted above)
The Holy Spirit is the breath. (Look up the roots of the word "spirit" in Latin and Greek)
>To say that God wills something or says something "into existence" sounds the exact same and may be more a matter of ambiguous semantics.
It really does seem like semantics since obviously neither of us denies God's omnipotence, nor our inability to fully express his nature.
>The other thing you mention, descending into the physical plane. Are you sure about that? Christianity is about the trinity. Does the Father descend to become the Son? That doesn't sound right.
In John 6:38 (quoted in pic) Jesus says that He (The Son) descended, not The Father, indicating two distinct persons. So there is no change from one person to another.
>The trinity refers to three separate but distinct… mechanisms of God. We don't believe that the Son is any single person, but a more comparable concept is Christ consciousness. In Islam there is much discourse in the "intellect" and I would say, based on how the Holy Spirit is described, that the intellect and the Holy Spirit are one and the same. According to some Islamic discourse, Allah created the intellect from a primordial 'knowledge' from himself or in other words the intellect as a direct connection to God, and the human 'self' has a direct connection to intellect (though it is often closed off when they are (led) astray). Furthermore, the "Son" as "Christ Consciousness" may be when the self is completely aligned with the intellect or "The Spirit" allowing a direct connection to the "Father"
It sounds like you're reading The Trinity in an earlier, less fully understood form called Modalism. Modalism holds that The Trinity is not "One God, Three Persons", but rather "One God, Three Modes", what you would call mechanisms or consciousness.
The issue Modalism has is that, for example, when Jesus prays to The Father (Matthew 26:39, quoted above), we have a problem. How does God pray to himself? By merging the concept of "Personhood" with "Mode" the issue is resolved; the persons function in capacity to different modes, but are not separate "gods".
An aside to prevent derailing: when Jesus refers to "mine own will / I will" he is referring to his human will (Fully Man) as opposed to his divine will (Fully God) which is shared with The Father, "the will of Him that sent me / you will".
At this point, I'd like to ask you all: from our discussion would you say Christians are polytheistic? Or maybe we just overcomplicate things?
Thanks again.
عبد الله 05/01/17 (Mon) 00:39:10 3dd0c0 No. 20548
>>20547
Well by all accounts humans do not have a unified consciousness. There are higher parts and lower parts, and arguably the parts in the middle. In Islam the higher and lower parts are called Rue and Nafs, respectively.
I would argue that this so called Modalism is perfectly compatible with Personhood. I'm not sure what part to delve in, because as you said delving in all these would be so long and would probably derail discussoins.
But I feel the need to say that according to Islam all the prophets were Muslim. It's just that this is a dynamic thing that wasn't done yet. Like developing a program. Moses came with patch 0.7, Jesus 0.9 and Muhammad 1.0 and the program was released in it's final infallible state. heh
I'm not saying you should just become Muslim or anything but instead find the Christian ideology that is prevalent or compatible elsewhere.
Anyways, your OP did asked the 'why not' of the Quran saying it's not true that God as a son.
I shared my theological understanding of how there's no reason to say that specifically Jesus is the son of god and that the rest of man are not sons. Now I can go into conjectural theology that, as far as my research goes is not at all explicit in Islam as I sure haven't found it. But I think it makes the most sense for what the trinity can mean through cursory research into Neoplatonism and Gnosticism.
But if you want more explanation for the 'why not' then sure ask away
OR don't. I keep getting banned here for trying to talk about the problems of ISIS (incredibly alarming that this board refuses to discuss something so important). I've already found the christian board so find me there.
عبد الله 05/01/17 (Mon) 01:11:39 3dd0c0 No. 20551
>>20547
Also Coptic Christians and apparently even Orthodox Jews bow and prostate when they pray, even touching the ground with their face. It's incredibly similar.
عبد الله 05/01/17 (Mon) 01:34:19 3dd0c0 No. 20553
>>20541
I suppose an answer referring to Islamic scripture, but more formulated around a logical argument or conclusion a little more complex than "it says no, therefore no".
In case you hadn't noticed, I like getting into complicated theological discussion. It's more about learning than being convinced.
عبد الله 05/01/17 (Mon) 01:39:48 3dd0c0 No. 20554
>>20553
Islam is not meant to be complicated.
“Allah intends for you ease and does not intend for you hardship.” (Qur’an, 2:185)
عبد الله 05/01/17 (Mon) 02:04:22 3dd0c0 No. 20555
>>20554
>Islam is not meant to be complicated.
See, this is exactly the kind of dismissive reply I wasn't looking for.
I've found Christian theology to be both shallow enough to splash around in, or deep enough to dive in. It all depends on what the person's needs are. God provides it in abundance as far as anyone will ask.
Can Islam provide some depth?
عبد الله 05/01/17 (Mon) 02:13:19 3dd0c0 No. 20556
>>20555
"It is God who has sent down to you the book: In it are verses clear (muhkamat), they are the foundation of the book, others are unspecific (mutashabihat)."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Esoteric_interpretation_of_the_Quran>>20555
عبد الله 05/01/17 (Mon) 03:28:03 3dd0c0 No. 20558
>>20555
You're looking for something that isn't there. You're looking for an answer that doesn't exist. Complaining about it doesn't change that.
It's like asking if one can be Christian without believing in the resurrection. The answer is "no". There is nothing more to it than that.
عبد الله 05/01/17 (Mon) 05:48:49 3dd0c0 No. 20559
>>20548
>It's just that this is a dynamic thing that wasn't done yet. Like developing a program. Moses came with patch 0.7, Jesus 0.9 and Muhammad 1.0 and the program was released in it's final infallible state.
Haha, that is an interesting way of putting it. I suppose from our perspective Jesus' teachings and the apostles' exegesis is our 1.0 version. (Besides John 1:17, St Paul's letter to the Romans covers this in greater detail.)
So you visit /christian/? The ongoing Christianity & Islam thread, yes?
>>20556
Hey! Now here's something interesting. It reminds me of the four methods of Biblical interpretation. Thank you!
>>20558
Brother, look at that picture. I would figure any religious philosophy that would inspire such complex beauty would have some manner of depth to it. I believe you can give me a better explanation.
عبد الله 05/01/17 (Mon) 15:46:34 3dd0c0 No. 20561
>>20559
It literally says in Qur'an "don't overthink it". Trying to read into something that isn't there is why there are 30,000 different version of the Bible. Keep it simple, don't overthink it, and realize that it is absolutely perfect without some mystical deeper meaning.
عبد الله 05/01/17 (Mon) 16:53:00 3dd0c0 No. 20562
>>20561
Brother, it seems less like you're following God and more like you're following orders.
عبد الله 05/01/17 (Mon) 17:01:26 3dd0c0 No. 20563
>>20562
God orders obedience. Islam is a religion of submission. We submit to Allah in mind, body, and soul. We follow His will without question.
عبد الله 05/02/17 (Tue) 01:28:06 3dd0c0 No. 20564
>>20561
>It literally says in Qur'an "don't overthink it"
No it doesn't!
> Trying to read into something that isn't there is why there are 30,000 different version of the Bible.
There isn't anything that "isn't there" in the Qur'an. "We have neglected NOTHING in the book."
>Keep it simple, don't overthink it, and realize that it is absolutely perfect without some mystical deeper meaning.
The Qur'an is the uncreated and eternal word of Allah. Denying it has depth and mystical meaning is kufr. The Qur'an is a ocean without a shore and without a bottom. It contains infinite wonders.
عبد الله 05/02/17 (Tue) 02:01:31 3dd0c0 No. 20567
>>20564
And strive for Allah with the striving due to Him. He has chosen you and has not placed upon you in the religion any difficulty. [22:78]
عبد الله 05/02/17 (Tue) 02:21:19 3dd0c0 No. 20571
>>20564
>Qur'an is the uncreated
Also, on that we disagree. Allah predates the Word. Allah existed before He spoke the Universe into being.
عبد الله 05/02/17 (Tue) 02:30:53 3dd0c0 No. 20572
>>20567
>And strive for Allah with the striving due to Him. He has chosen you and has not placed upon you in the religion any difficulty. [22:78]
There is nothing in that verse about the Qur'an lacking depth or mystical content.
Imam as-Suyuti in Tafsir al-Jalalayn glossed this as such:
> That is, any constraint for you, He has facilitated adherence to it during times of difficulty such as His permitting you to shorten prayers to seek ritual purification from earth to eat of carrion and to break the fast during illness or travel
In other words, Allah is Merciful to the believers and doesn't ask the impossible of you.
>Also, on that we disagree.
Then you aren't Sunni. Read any Sunni creed by any Sunni scholar. They all say, unequivocally, THE QUR'AN IS UNCREATED.
Imam Ahmad Hanbal was tortured by people like you.
>Allah predates the Word.
Allah's word is Allah's knowledge, and His knowledge is one of His attributes.
>Allah existed before He spoke the Universe into being.
You seem to think that Allah has emergent qualities and that his actions are temporally measurable.
عبد الله 05/02/17 (Tue) 02:39:50 3dd0c0 No. 20573
>>20572
>Then you aren't Sunni.
You're right. I'm not.
>tortured by people like you
I didn't know I was that old.
عبد الله 05/02/17 (Tue) 02:49:59 3dd0c0 No. 20574
>>20573
>You're right. I'm not.
Which heresy do you adhere to?
عبد الله 05/02/17 (Tue) 02:53:12 3dd0c0 No. 20575
>>20574
I'm Ibadi … and watch yourself with throwing around accusations of heresy.
عبد الله 05/02/17 (Tue) 03:00:24 3dd0c0 No. 20576
>>20575
>I'm Ibadi … and watch yourself with throwing around accusations of heresy.
Oh, you're that guy.
Even though I definitely consider Ibadism to be misguided, I don't have any animosity toward you or a desire to debate theology.
But even you'd have to agree that my view is more "mainstream" than yours and that a Christian may get a mistaken impression from you as yo what *the majority* of Muslims believe.
عبد الله 05/02/17 (Tue) 03:22:57 3dd0c0 No. 20578
>>20576
Mainstream doesn't always mean right. I'm also not going to silence my opinions simply because a Christian may get the idea that there's more than one way to be Muslim. We have many schools of thought and sects in Islam; but we're all branches of the same tree.
عبد الله 05/02/17 (Tue) 03:41:47 3dd0c0 No. 20579
>>20578
I'm not asking you to silence yourself, but we have a social responsibility when dealing with non-Muslims. He make get the mistaken impression that your views are common to all Muslims.
When speaking to non-Muslims I have a tendency to point out the differences of opinions that exist within Islam because I know I'll be held accountable by Allah if I mis-state something.
عبد الله 05/02/17 (Tue) 06:28:48 3dd0c0 No. 20581
>>20564
>uncreated
Only Allah is uncreated. And save your arguments ive heard them all. Dont turn this into a debate. Just throwing my opinion out there.
عبد الله 05/02/17 (Tue) 09:13:00 3dd0c0 No. 20582
>>20581
Are Allah's attributes created, yes or no?
عبد الله 05/02/17 (Tue) 13:07:31 3dd0c0 No. 20583
>>20579
>He make get the mistaken impression that your views are common to all Muslims.
People are generally smart enough to know that one person's views are not the views of the whole. If asked my opinion, I will give it. That's it.
عبد الله 05/02/17 (Tue) 13:08:44 3dd0c0 No. 20584
>>20579
>I have a tendency to point out the differences of opinions that exist
Actually, it seems to me that you're quick to call anyone else's view "heresy".
عبد الله 05/02/17 (Tue) 21:38:49 3dd0c0 No. 20585
>>20582
Jesus (a.s) is the created word of God.
So is the quran.
see 4:171
Now don't turn this into a debate or im afraid you will derail the thread. :)
عبد الله 05/02/17 (Tue) 23:50:38 3dd0c0 No. 20586
>>20564
>>20572
>The Qur'an is the uncreated and eternal word of Allah.
>Allah's word is Allah's knowledge, and His knowledge is one of His attributes.
>>20571
>Allah predates the Word. Allah existed before He spoke the Universe into being.
>>20581
>>20585
>Only Allah is uncreated.
>Jesus (a.s) is the created word of God.
This is a fascinating digression. It's like you guys are each just a few different degrees off from our understanding.
>In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
>The same was in the beginning with God.
>All things were made by him: and without him was made nothing that was made.
>In him was life, and the life was the light of men.
>And the light shineth in darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it.
>That was the true light, which enlighteneth every man that cometh into this world.
>He was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not.
>He came unto his own, and his own received him not.
>But as many as received him, he gave them power to be made the sons of God, to them that believe in his name.
>Who are born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.
>And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we saw his glory, the glory as it were of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.
>And of his fulness we all have received, and grace for grace.
>For the law was given by Moses; grace and truth came by Jesus Christ.
>No man hath seen God at any time: the only begotten Son who is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.
John 1:1-5,9-14,16-18
It seems that each of you would find some different problems with this passage. I would love to discuss them.
عبد الله 05/03/17 (Wed) 00:02:57 3dd0c0 No. 20587
>>20586
>find some different problems with this passage
Yeah. It's from the "New Testament". Not from Allah. That makes it basically meaningless. You may as well be quoting from a comic book.
عبد الله 05/03/17 (Wed) 00:16:19 3dd0c0 No. 20588
>>20587
Look, you can contribute something useful, or I'll just have to ignore you. Your call.
عبد الله 05/03/17 (Wed) 00:55:06 3dd0c0 No. 20589
>>20588
You can ignore me all you want, but then why come to a Muslim board and ask Muslim opinions? Are you seeking validation for your Christianity? Are you hoping we'll have some epiphany and renounce Islam? Are you hoping to earn your Jesus stripes by "enlightening the savages"?
You came here. You came to us. If you don't want our opinions, don't ask the questions.
عبد الله 05/06/17 (Sat) 02:30:22 906867 No. 20594
>>20587
>Yeah. It's from the "New Testament". Not from Allah. That makes it basically meaningless. You may as well be quoting from a comic book.
My Great Grand-Shaykh, Sidi Ahmad al-;Alawi referred to the NT numerous times in his Tafsir and lent credence to a great deal of it.
Don't speak disrespectfully. The Injil has been corrupted by the hands of men and their interpretations, but to compare it to a comic book is kufr.
عبد الله 05/06/17 (Sat) 20:03:57 3df502 No. 20595
>>20594
>My Great Grand-Shaykh, Sidi Ahmad al-;Alawi referred to the NT numerous times in his Tafsir and lent credence to a great deal of it.
Fascinating. And what were his impressions regarding the introduction of John's gospel?
I'm really curious as well as to what Muslim scholars consider to salvageable genuine teaching from the NT. But that's secondary to my initial question.
عبد الله 05/06/17 (Sat) 20:46:11 aff010 No. 20596
>>20594
A so-called 20th Century "Saint" is not the example I would use.
عبد الله 05/06/17 (Sat) 20:46:46 aff010 No. 20597
>>20595
So you ARE seeking validation. That's just sad.
عبد الله 05/06/17 (Sat) 21:50:56 bcbece No. 20600
>>20586
Before even engaging in Non Islamic scripture, the presumption is that all contradictions and incompatibilities indicate a lack of truth.
In the case of scriptures of the other Abrahamic faiths, it indicates a corruption from the original teachings of the messengers.
That being said, personally speaking (as a Muslim) I don't see any problem with that verse from 'John' except maybe the last line which sounds really ambiguous and could mean anything.
What a coincidence, possibly the corruption is not present here. lol
عبد الله 05/06/17 (Sat) 22:02:33 906867 No. 20602
>>20596
Shaykh al-'Alawi was a major Maliki scholar and was the teacher of Emir Abdelkrim al-Khattabi (great mujahid of Morocco) and Shaykh Muhammad al-Hashimi (mujahid of Syria).
And what is wrong with being a "saint"? That's just how some people render the Arabic word "wali Allah" (friend of Allah). There is a Hadith Qudsi in Sahih al-Bukhari where Allah says that He makes war with those who oppose his saints.
عبد الله 05/06/17 (Sat) 22:10:53 f37e75 No. 20603
>>20600
>and the Word was God
is the problem here
>>20602
>muh saints
عبد الله 05/06/17 (Sat) 22:14:48 906867 No. 20604
>>20595
I do not know what he made of the Prologue of John. I have not read the entirety of his written works, so I do not know whether he commented on that or not.
Later tonight I will post his mystical comments on the statement "I and the Father are one."
عبد الله 05/06/17 (Sat) 22:21:26 bcbece No. 20606
>>20603
>>and the Word was God
>>is the problem here
What is the problem?
عبد الله 05/06/17 (Sat) 22:21:50 906867 No. 20607
>>20603
You are mocking Allah's words in a Sahih Hadith, and not even presenting an argument. You've adopted the /pol/ tactic of putting "muh" before a word and thinking that suffices in place of evidence or reason.
What is your actual beef with Shaykh al-'Alawi?The entire basis of your opposition so far is that someone referred to him as a saint in a book title once. Shaykh al-'Alawi was loved and supported throughout the Muslim world during his lifetime and was a pioneer of da'wah in the west, as well as a dedicated enemy of secularism, modernism, and the westernization of the Muslim world. What have you done that compares to him?
عبد الله 05/06/17 (Sat) 22:29:54 aff010 No. 20608
>>20602
Alawites are Twelvers + Christians. Barely Muslim. They are to Muslims what Jehovah's Witnesses are to Christians.
عبد الله 05/06/17 (Sat) 22:31:29 90ddba No. 20609
>>20602
The only people on 8chan who claim to be Alawite are LARPers from /pol/ who worship Assad. You're not fooling anyone.
عبد الله 05/06/17 (Sat) 22:52:24 906867 No. 20610
>>20608
Good Lord, I didn't know anyone was this stupid.
I'm not a Nusayri ("Alawite"), nor was Shaykh al-'Alawi. The Shaykh was an Algerian Sunni scholar. You clearly don't know Arabic.
'Alawi is an Arabic word that means "From 'Ali." Shaykh al-'Alawi was known as this because he was descended from an Ottoman qadi (Islamic courts judge) named Hajj 'Ali. He had nothing to do with the Syrian Nusayris. That sect doesn't even exist in Algeria. Shaykh al-'Alawi was a Sunni and a Maliki.
In fact, many of the leaders of the Syrian Revolution are from Shaykh al-'Alawi (most significant, Shaykh Muhammad al-Yaqoubi).
عبد الله 05/06/17 (Sat) 23:05:47 aff010 No. 20611
>>20610
You're talking about the Sufi mystic who incorporated Twelver beliefs with New Testament Christian beliefs. I'm quite familiar with it.
What are you going to claim next, that the American Nation of Islam is Muslim?
عبد الله 05/06/17 (Sat) 23:13:59 3df502 No. 20612
>>20600
>I don't see any problem with that verse from 'John' except maybe the last line which sounds really ambiguous and could mean anything.
Interesting. From our perspective it's obviously about Jesus and his pre-incarnate relationship to the Father. Does it have a similar meaning to you? I understand Jesus is called "Kameta Allah" in the Quran.
I've kinda lost track of who's been posting what, so I'm not sure what your perspective is here.
>What a coincidence, possibly the corruption is not present here.
I would highly recommend reading John's gospel. Very rich, theologically speaking.
عبد الله 05/06/17 (Sat) 23:20:13 906867 No. 20613
>>20611
>You're talking about the Sufi mystic who incorporated Twelver beliefs with New Testament Christian beliefs. I'm quite familiar with it.
LMFAO, Shaykh al-'Alawi didn't incorporate 12er or Christian ideas in anything. You know *nothing* of what you speak. Shaykh al-'Alawi was one of the most significant Sunni scholars in early 20th century Algeria. Upon his death, he had followers in Morocco, Syria, the Hjiaz, Palestine, Yemen, France, and the UK (his followers started the first Masjid in Wales, and Shaykh al-'Alawi himself led the first jumu'ah prayer in the Grand Mosque of Paris). He is universally known as a Sunni scholar, and you are the very first person in human history to accuse him of Shi'ism. Congratulations on your unprecedented stupidity.
You seem to have based this solely on his surname being "al-'Alawi." On this logic, you must conclude that the ruling family of Morocco is Shi'ite, the Ba 'Alawi family of Yemen is Shi'ite, and Shaykh Muhmmad al-'Alawi al-Maliki (one of the most famous Sunni scholars of 20th century Saudi Arabia) was a Shi'ite.
عبد الله 05/06/17 (Sat) 23:45:03 bcbece No. 20614
>>20607
What does it matter what any saint or what anyone said about anything? The only thing that matters are primarily verses from the Quran, and hadiths as supplementary to these verses.
What a saint says doesn't matter unless it's to explain a verse in the quran.
>>20594
Please provide the verses regarding the existence of the genuine teachings that the NT is intended to be
عبد الله 05/06/17 (Sat) 23:47:00 bcbece No. 20615
>>20612
Well I was only responding with any possible problem I could see regarding what was said here
>It seems that each of you would find some different problems with this passage. I would love to discuss them.
What exactly are the problems you perceive that Muslims would have with that passage in John's gospel?
عبد الله 05/07/17 (Sun) 00:07:59 aff010 No. 20616
>>20613
You specified >>20594
Sidi Ahmad al-;Alawi
There is only one and he was a Sufi mystic, a Twelver, and a pseudo-Christian. We're not fallin' for your crap.
عبد الله 05/07/17 (Sun) 00:14:43 906867 No. 20617
>>20616
>There is only one and he was a Sufi mystic, a Twelver, and a pseudo-Christian. We're not fallin' for your crap.
BRING YOUR PROOF IF YOU ARE TRUTHFUL.
عبد الله 05/07/17 (Sun) 00:15:43 3df502 No. 20618
>>20615
>What exactly are the problems you perceive that Muslims would have with that passage in John's gospel?
Problems stemming from the various interpretations of "word" in reference to God, as referenced in this post:
>>20586
عبد الله 05/07/17 (Sun) 00:18:31 aff010 No. 20619
>>20617
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ahmad_al-Alawi
Now bring your proof that the modern New Testament is the word of Allah.
عبد الله 05/07/17 (Sun) 00:18:46 906867 No. 20620
>>20616
Shaykh Ahmad al-'Alawi was a Maliki in fiqh, an Ash'ari in aqidah, and a Shadhili-Darqawi in sulook. He was as Sunni as they come. Bring a single Twelver or Christian statement from his writings.
عبد الله 05/07/17 (Sun) 00:20:22 906867 No. 20621
>>20619
Thanks, but I've read on the Shaykh's life in multiple languages.
Where does this say he was a Shi'ite or a Christian, you dunce?
عبد الله 05/07/17 (Sun) 00:21:59 aff010 No. 20622
>>20620
>>20621
>replied twice
Forget to switch IPs to create false consensus?
I'm not going to teach you how to research.
Now bring your proof that the modern New Testament is the word of Allah.
عبد الله 05/07/17 (Sun) 00:22:14 906867 No. 20623
>>20619
>Now bring your proof that the modern New Testament is the word of Allah.
The modern New Testament is a corrupted text, but it contains true words and prophecies of the coming of Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wa sallam).
عبد الله 05/07/17 (Sun) 01:27:20 906867 No. 20624
>>20622
>Forget to switch IPs to create false consensus?
More like I didn't read >>20619 until after I'd already posted >>20620 . I'm not computer savvy and I don't even know how to switch IPs.
>I'm not going to teach you how to research.
I've researched Shaykh Ahmad al-'Alawi's life and works in English, French, and Arabic. No one has ever said that he was a Twelver Shi'ite. He taught his followers the Matnu Ibn Ashir (a classic Sunni text of fiqh and creed) and frequently spoke of the righteousness of Abu Bakr, 'Umar, and 'Uthman (radiallahu anhum), and referred to the rulings of Abu Bakr and 'Umar in his fatawa. His books quote only from other Sunni scholars, like Ibn Hajar, an-Nawawi, as-Suyuti, ash-Sha'rani, etc., and from Sunni collections of hadith, never from Shi'a sources.
Shi'ism was unheard of in the Maghrib in Shaykh al-'Alawi's day. He was a pure Sunni.
I just think you don't want to admit that you were wrong.
Itaqullah! Repent from your slander and have shame toward Allah. Do not allow this to be weighed against you on Judgement Day.
عبد الله 05/07/17 (Sun) 02:03:15 8a7363 No. 20625
>>20624
>Shi'ism was unheard of in the Maghrib in Shaykh al-'Alawi's day.
How is that possible? Shi'a have been around since the 8th Century. Surely they must have known about it in the early 20th.
عبد الله 05/07/17 (Sun) 02:05:55 aff010 No. 20626
>>20624
Look, I'm obviously not going to change your mind or make you actually look into this person you're putting on a pedestal; but you do at least need to bring your proof that the modern New Testament is the word of Allah.
>Repent from your slander
If questioning some random "sheik's" manifesto is slander, then so be it. I will not repent for questioning or demanding proof of one's claims. A beard does not a wise man make and ALL men are unworthy of worship.
عبد الله 05/07/17 (Sun) 02:10:32 906867 No. 20627
>>20626
>If questioning some random "sheik's" manifesto is slander, then so be it.
Calling a Sunni a Twelver Shi'a is slander.
عبد الله 05/07/17 (Sun) 02:13:57 906867 No. 20628
>>20625
>How is that possible? Shi'a have been around since the 8th Century. Surely they must have known about it in the early 20th.
They were aware of the existence of the Shi'a, but Algerians were all Sunni (with the exception of some Ibadi bedouins).
>but you do at least need to bring your proof that the modern New Testament is the word of Allah.
The modern NT is a corrupted text, but there are truthful and uncorrupted parts, some of which contain prophecies of the coming of Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wa sallam).
Shaykh al-'Alawi never said that the NT is the untampered word of Allah and neither did I. Stop putting words in peoples mouths.
عبد الله 05/07/17 (Sun) 03:11:10 aff010 No. 20629
>>20624
>Shi'ism was unheard of
>>20628
>They were aware of the existence of the Shi'a
Moving the goal posts.
عبد الله 05/07/17 (Sun) 03:16:42 906867 No. 20630
>>20629
Not a moving of the goalposts.
When I said "Shi'ism was unheard of," I meant "The actual presence of Shi'ites was unheard of." Scholars knew of the existence of the Shi'a from (negative, refutational) references to them in theological literature, but they were not physically present anywhere in Algeria.
Your average person would likely have no idea what a Shi'ite even was.
In any case, I'm waiting for you to back up your slanderous claim that Shaykh al-'Alawi was a Twelver. As it stands now, you are simply a slanderer of scholars and a person who refuses to admit that he was wrong.
Every book I've ever read on Shaykh al-'Alawi (INCLUDING HIS OWN) refer to him as a Sunni, Maliki, Ash'ari. This is a known fact. Calling him Shi'ite is like calling Ibn Taymiyya a Druze.
عبد الله 05/07/17 (Sun) 03:25:50 906867 No. 20631
I only have twos huyukh between myself and Shaykh al-'Alawi. One of my shuyukh is a direct student of 'Ali Budailami, who was one of Shaykh al-'Alawi's most senior students. My knowledge of the Shaykh comes not only from books, but from personal experience with his followers.
It frustrates me to no end that someone is debating known facts that I have intimate knowledge of, simply because he refuses to admit he didn't know what "al-'Alawi" means in Arabic.
Please just admit that Shaykh al-'Alawi was not Shi'a and that you made a mistake. You don't need to take this to Yawm al-Qiyamah with you.
عبد الله 05/07/17 (Sun) 03:36:36 906867 No. 20632
OK, since you posted a wikipedia link on Shaykh al-'Alawi as a source a little earlier, please explain the categories they placed him under.
YOUR OWN SOURCE SAYS HE WAS SUNNI!
Give this nonsense game up.
عبد الله 05/07/17 (Sun) 04:16:07 aff010 No. 20633
>>20630
He's a Sufi mystic who mixes Twelver ideology with Christianity. If you'd ever actually read his books, you'd know that. Maybe you're not familiar with Twelver ideology, but I suggest you study it before claiming someone isn't using it.
عبد الله 05/07/17 (Sun) 04:33:11 906867 No. 20634
>>20633
>He's a Sufi mystic who mixes Twelver ideology with Christianity.
He has been dead since 1934. Why are you using the present tense?
>If you'd ever actually read his books, you'd know that.
I've read many of his books, including Minah al-Quddusiyya, several of his books on tafseer, and much of his poetry and letters. What books of his have YOU read? Name them.
>Maybe you're not familiar with Twelver ideology, but I suggest you study it before claiming someone isn't using it.
I'm very familiar with it. Shaylh al-'Alawi never said anything about 14 Infallibles, 12 Imams, 'Ali being usurped, never speaks ill of the sahabah, never speaks of a hidden Imam, or any other hallmark of Rafidhi belief. He was Sunni and Maliki. He makes this very clear.
عبد الله 05/07/17 (Sun) 14:47:17 e34ac6 No. 20635
>>20634
You sure are defending this man really hard. He was just a man and, being dead, doesn't need your defense. You're starting to sound like you're in a cult and someone insulted your Dear Leader. You haven't even posted any of his works (pdf upload). You've just defended a man. That's strange behavior.
عبد الله 05/07/17 (Sun) 20:33:09 906867 No. 20636
>>20635
He was a Muslim, and a Muslim has a duty to defend another Muslim from slander and false accusations. The burden of proof is upon the accuser and you have provided no evidence for your claims.
http://al.alawi.1934.free.fr/index.php/livres-du-cheikh-al-alawi-pdf.html
Very few of the shaykh's writings have been translated into English. Most only exist in Arabic original or French translation.
PS. You still haven't told me what books by the shaykh you've read. I'll keep asking until you answer.
عبد الله 05/07/17 (Sun) 20:40:50 e34ac6 No. 20637
>>20636
>haven't told me what books by the shaykh you've read
What are IDs?
عبد الله 05/07/17 (Sun) 21:03:48 906867 No. 20638
>>20637
I assumed you'd switched IPs. Still not convinced you didn't.
In any case, you must admit that defending a Muslim's honor from slander is not strange.
عبد الله 05/07/17 (Sun) 23:05:33 aff010 No. 20639
>>20638
I never change my ID, but your paranoia is hilarious.
>if you don't agree with me, you're just hopping IPs!
The stink of /pol/ surrounds you.
عبد الله ## Board Owner 05/07/17 (Sun) 23:07:21 02f580 No. 20640
Alright. It appears there will be no more questions about Jesus, so bumplock.
عبد الله 05/08/17 (Mon) 02:39:58 637f41 No. 20647
>>20618
This was the last relevant post in this thread
And for those slinging verbal diarrhea at each other, I already said this
>>20614
>What does it matter what any saint or what anyone said about anything? The only thing that matters are primarily verses from the Quran, and hadiths as supplementary to these verses.
>What a saint says doesn't matter unless it's to explain a verse in the quran.
It doesn't matter who was what. Even a Christian can have something to say about explain a verse in the Quran.
I can't believe one of you even know something about logical fallacies like moving the goal post when the entire discussion spanning dozens of posts was AD HOMINEM FALLACY
عبد الله ## Board Volunteer 05/09/17 (Tue) 08:30:20 decef6 No. 20656
>>20357
OP if you want to create another Christianity thread you're welcomed to, but it seems this one is dead.
عبد الله 05/11/17 (Thu) 04:35:00 9bc3f1 No. 20668
>>20656
Thanks, I just might.
I think a Q & A for Christian doctrine thread would be interesting, mostly because I had a blast answering questions in this thread.
I figure if I can aid in anyone's understanding that we Christians are as monotheistic as you, then I'm doing the Lord's work.