Monday, February 8, 2010

Debates in Ottawa: Thursday Feb 11th and Friday Feb 12th

Sorry for posting this at the last second - I'm covering for another Christian debater who had scheduling issues. These debates will be held at the University of Ottawa. Here's the info:


Friday February 12th - 6:30PM
Why Should I Embrace Christianity or Islam?
Tony Costa and Nabeel Qureshi vs.
Farhan Qureshi and Osama Abdallah

Saturday February 13th - 10:00AM
Did Jesus Die on the Cross for Others?
Nabeel Qureshi vs. Osama Abdallah


Saturday February 13th - 12:45PM
Is the Qur'an Divine?
Osama Abdallah vs. Nabeel Qureshi


Saturday February 13th - 3:00PM
Did Paul Distort the Christian Faith?
Farhan Qureshi vs. Tony Costa


Saturday February 13th - 5:45PM
Was Muhammad Assured of His Salvation?
Tony Costa vs. Farhan Qureshi


Saturday February 13th - 8:00PM
The Concept of God in Islam and Christianity
Osama Abdallah vs. Tony Costa


Sunday February 14th - 1:45PM
What is the Purpose of Jesus
According to the Bible or the Qur'an?
Farhan Qureshi Vs. Tony Costa

The debates will be in Marion auditorium in Marion Hall at the University of Ottawa. The website can be found here. (Caveat: it has not yet been updated to reflect the changes in debate participants and times. This blog posting is the most up-to-date and accurate.)

125 comments:

Negeen said...

I'm sad I can't make it to this!

Mike said...

Hate to be a bother but the University has no information on these debates. Where are they being held, which building?

Thank you

Unknown said...

this is what i'm waiting for..

dasize said...

Will these be taped?

Tom said...

Hi, Gang! Wherever you are, pull together a prayer group of two or three or more to support this event in prayer. Let's just COVER precious Nabeel and Tony and the whole team with prayer. Hey, let's even pray for the Muslims! LOL! Let the Holy Spirit just move right in and CLAIM THEM in Jesus name! LOL! Let's even pray that the Muslims will leave there declaring the Glory of God in Jesus Christ! Hallelujah! No, I can't be there either but I can ask God to FILL THAT PLACE with His precious Presence and I can ask Him to open hearts and change lives! I can ask God, in Jesus Name, to break the teeth of the un-clean spirit that blinds Muslim people to the Grace of the Lord Jesus Christ and I can ask the Holy One of Israel to break the bondage of Muslim people (so they can be free to WORSHIP the Only Living God)!

Let's do it y'all! Let's just try God out and just SEE what He'll do if we ask Him! Whaddya say?

akhter said...

Islam is true ,because it gives you solution to all your ills,bulldozes all isms and the word of god The Quran is the mother of all the books,read it ! you owe it to yourself and your off springs,the most positive book on earth.

Fernando said...

Oh... Osama The Great Abdallah is going to bee busy...

David Wood said...

Akhter,

You said the Qur'an is the mother of the books. Who did the Qur'an have sex with to produce these books? Did Allah have sex with the Qur'an to produce other books?

(I'm asking because Muslims often say that if Jesus is the Son of God, Christians must believe that God had sex with Mary, which no Christian believes. But since Muslims have a completely carnal and physical view of terms like "mother," "father," "son," etc., please tell us who had sex with the Qur'an so that it could produce its offspring.)

minoria said...

WOW!TONY COSTA,FARHAN,NABEEL and OSAMA debating.Great!I had thought FARHAN and OSAMA were no longer interested.As for TONY,I had thought he had left it also.

TONY COSTA

He is an astonishing speaker.He speaks very clearly.Don't believe me?Ok,go to youtube to see his 2 debates with SHABIR ALLY.

DEBATE 1

Write:"Did JESUS RISE from the DEAD?Opening Statements"
Then:"Did JESUS RISE from the DEAD?Rebuttals"
Then:"Did JESUS RISE from the DEAD?Q & A session".

DEBATE 2

Write:"Who is JESUS?Who is the LAST PROPHET?"

Chaud said...

@David :

you can't really blame Muslims who never read about the Christian faith of thinking like that since you label Jesus as "son of god" , we are not Jews and don't forget Christians over all reject the Jewish definition of son of god and claim Jesus is something higher (Allegedly God or some deity) , "son of god" is not used Islamic terminology , and "God the son" is an innovation invented later on (or perhaps taken from Paganism , who knows ? )

What I'm saying is this is not our culture , "Son of God" is a foreign term that came from christian culture and understanding , and you have to expect misunderstanding when 2 cultures collide , and Muslims don't have a completely carnal and physical view of terms like "father" since we call Abraham (pbuh) "father of the prophets" , and "mother of" in the arabic and Muslim culture used in Akhter's context has the same meaning , "Son" however is a point I give up to you , Son USUALLY has a physical meaning , it has other meanings in poetic contexts only .

but I can blame Americans like you for not understanding what Akhter was saying , this is your language man ! "Mother of X" means "Source of" (I know you know this , but I'm just killing some time here) , this is your culture , don't mix it with mine ,you really expect us to give you an answer ? my friend woke me up in the middle of the night just to see your comment and laugh at it , and I really want to go to sleep :S

Mixing 2 different cultures with different terminologies and asking a question like that ain't something I'd expect from a philosophy professor ( but it is something I'd expect from Christian apologists who had enough to time to read answering-islam and not enough time to read any writing about Islamic culture).

Regards ,

Chaud

Note : Why don't you go to Africa and tell the Pagans over there that Jesus is the "son of god" and lets see what understanding they will have right away :P .

Adam said...

Bro David

Will this debate telecast on any Christian Channel?

We all believe Christian apologetic programs should get some slots. We are bored with 365 days of same Bible teaching as the shows are on repeat mode.

Are you in talks with GOD TV, TBN etc. as these Channels have wide reach and are popular among distributors and audience.

Our group will be praying for this Debate event.

Adam

Nakdimon said...

Are you guys serious about debating Osama Abdallah again?

Nakdimon said...

About Farhan Qureshi, I must say, I really like the guy. He is very polite and you can have nice conversations with him. A very gracious guy. But his views on God and therefore Islam are quite unorthodox, even strange, although Farhan has claimed that he converted from Ahmadiyah to "orthodox Islam". Farhan believes that God is energy and that energy is God. (asked him this personally) So I’m quite interested in how he will defend the purpose of Yeshua in Islam. Since, according to every single Muslim I have asked the same question about the purpose of the Islamic Is, he came to preach the Oneness of God, given the position of Farhan that God is Energy, I wonder how Farhan will explain the significance of there being just one Energy that is absolute (i.e. the Unitarian God) instead of one Energy that is compound in unity (i.e. the Trinitarian God).

hugh watt said...

Ahkter while you're at it, explain how Abu Lahab, 'the father of a flame', became such hot stuff! (S:111). Ibn as-sabeel, 'son of the road!That had to hurt, surely! Hey, how about 'Om ul-Kitab', 'the mother of the book'.(S:13v39),Referring to the Quran.' Om ul-Qurah','the mother of towns', referring to Makkah, (S6v92). Muhammad's cousin Ali, 'Abu Turab', 'the father of dust'! A disciple called, 'Abu Hurairh','the father of a cat'.(Remember this is literalism here Muslims).What did he call the feline,'Tiger'!!?

Chaud said...

@ hugh witt

"(Remember this is literalism here Muslims).What did he call the feline,'Tiger'!!?"

I think what hurts is your brain when you try to think , because you using literalism not me :P , and it out of cultural context .

Did you read my comment ? or are you just playing dumb since this is christian a blog with tons of Christians to back you up ?

Um , Ab , Ibn , all of these have different meanings according to the context of the culture it's being presented in , all your examples come from the Arabic culture and they are acceptable .

Abu Lahab & Abu Hurayra are nicknames , even 'till this day "abu" is added to multiple nicknames.

while other names using "abu" and "um" have the physical meaning if there is actually a son/daughter , usually its the eldest , for example my mom is known as "um Abdallah" .

and "um of X" , Abu of X" can mean "source of" according to the context , just your 'Om ul-Kitab' example .

another use is "the best of" , like your ' Om ul-Qurah' example .

"Um Allah" : Mother of God
"Ibn Allah" : Son of God

These are 2 terms used by arab Christians and they never existed in the Arabic culture , they existed in christian culture and got translated into Arabic , therefore when a Muslim who never had contact with christian concepts hears "Ibn Allah" , which is totally foreign to him/her , you expect them not to be confused ?

Ibn As-Sabeel is one of the very rare uses of the term "ibn" , which means traveler , its very specific .

and where is the "literalism" in Abu Lahab and Abu Hurayra ????? and in fact any of your examples ? all you did was quote a number of uses for the terms "ibn" , "abu" & "um" WHICH NEVER WAS USED WITH ANYTHING DIVINE , therefore its a use outside the Muslim culture and it's only natural that misunderstandings happen.

again , I request you and David to learn the culture (and perhaps the language) , in the end Arabic is the most descriptive language in the world.

Regards ,

Chaud

Nabeel Qureshi said...

Mike--

These debates will be in Marion auditorium. I hope you can make it!


Nakdimon--

I'm serious about debating Osama again, but we didn't set this up. We're filling in for a friend who had his schedule change on him at the last second.

David Wood said...

Chaud says that we can't blame Muslims for misunderstanding terms like "Son of God," since they're ignorant of how we use these terms.

But that's the point exactly. The Muslim confusion comes from the Qur'an itself. This means that the author of the Qur'an was ignorant of what we mean by terms like "Son of God." But if the author of the Qur'an was ignorant of what Christians believe, the author of the Qur'an obviously wasn't God.

(And Chaud still doesn't see the issue of inconsistency. According to the Qur'an, Jesus can't be the Son of God, because this would mean that God had sex and produced an offspring. Thus, the Qur'an only allows such terms to have a physical sense. But then the Qur'an refers to the "Mother of the Books," and allows such terms to be applied in a non-physical sense. Do you still not see the inconsistency, Chaud?)

Chaud said...

@David ,

It seems like you didn't fully understand my argument , I'm saying the term "son of god" never existed in Arabic or Muslim culture , not because of the Quran , because it doesn't exist in the language & the culture , the Quran has nothing to do with it .

Why should the author of the Quran give a full understanding of what Christians believe ? is this a proof that its from God ? If god revealed a Sura contain every christian doctrine , does that prove anything ? , NO .

the Quran doesn't say in explicit words that God must have had sex , but uses rather different arguments addressing some of the heretic Christians at the time (I hope you did your homework concerning the history of religion in the middle east), and with one major argument that is God is too great to have a son , I don't see sex there .

I'm inconsistent ??? David gimme a break ! You're the one being inconsistent , as if my posts don't exist ! this is your blog you know !

Thus, the Qur'an only allows such terms to have a physical sense.

Ladies and gentlemen Arabic professor Mr.David Wood !

On what base do you conclude that ? out of thin air I'd say !

I already showed how "ibn" , "um" and "ab" have different meanings according to context , and Arabic expressionism allows this , find yourself an Arabic speaking christian and see for yourself why they don't use this argument (I think Shafsha or what's her name speaks arabic), if you took the time to read the poetry by one of your favorite "victims of Muhammad" Asma you would've known that , because she uses this kind of expression a lot !

I'd go more in detail but you don't speak arabic , and even if I translate , you wouldn't understand.

Notice how funny your argument looks like , so basically if a book uses one meaning in a certain place , then it can't mean another in another place , yeah lets throw away all the rules of linguistics ! what if I did this to the bible ? I'd come up with stupid arguments like this :

*Note : this is not what I actually think of these verses , I'm just showing how David's argument looks like .

"When the LORD your God delivers it into your hand, put to the sword all the men in it." Deuteronomy 20:13

hmmmmm , a physical sword......

"Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword."

OH!!!! the sword has to be physical over here ! there is no way it can have other meaning like every single christian commentary says !

David , if you wish to break the rules of linguistics when dealing with the most descriptive language in the world (arabic), then by all means do it in your private time , but don't embarrass yourself out here in public.

If you still insist , then here is a challenge , find me one Arabic dictionary ,grammar book , balagha book...etc that says "Um Al-X" is physical.

X = OBJECT .

Example : when the Quran uses "Um Al-Kitab"

Regards ,

Chaud .

Fernando said...

Hi Chaud...

no one is blaiming on muslims; butt I woulde defenitely blame it on the ignorance off the author off the qur'an...

misunderstandings? deffenatelyy.... butt do you not find it funny thate all these misunderstandings are based on thate precisely ignorance?

every one arounde here understood whate Akhter was talking aboutt (the self comment by professor Wood was full off understanding as his last commet inside brankets testified)... we try to understand the other point off view... it was you, my friend, thate showed no understanding on whate is our faithe...

butt whate is the normal muslim actitude when they face another culture? easy: they destroy it... thats the way you always delt withe the difference: "kill, kill, kill... rape, rape, rape... destroy, destroy, destroy... good job"

hugh watt said...

Chaud. Son of God did not come from 'Christian culture'. Proverbs 30v4, read; "Who has ascended up into Heaven or descended? Who has gathered the wind in His fists? Who has bound the waters in a garment? Who has established all the ends of the earth? What is His Name? And what is His Son's Name, if you can tell?

In Matthew 16v13-17, Jesus asks His disciples who the people were saying He was? When He asked His disciples who they said He was, Peter answered; "You are the Christ, the Son of the Living God." Jesus blessed him and told him flesh and blood (human wisdom and reasoning), did not reveal this to him, "but My Father Who is in Heaven". These were Jews speaking. Again, Muslims seem to have this one physical way of thinking, when it suits them.

Bartimaeus said...

I am riding up with Tony. Tony as a wonderful debater and will do a great job of not only exposing Islam as being totally false but will also give a very clear presentation of the Gospel. Please gontinue to prayer for us who will be talking to Muslims after each session.

This is going to be a great debate. I heel rather sorry for Farhan because he is going to owned by both Tony and Nabeel. As far as Osamam is concerned he is going once again going to exposed for what he truly is.

Chaud said...

Salam All ,

@Fernando

Now I see why you comment here ! I heard David wood had some lackeys around.

First of all you are being unrealistic when you ask God to reveal in the Quran christian culture,it has no meaning and doesn't help its case and claims of being divine,its not ignorance.

You said the misunderstanding is based off that ignorance , Heck no ,the misunderstanding happens when 2 different understandings from 2 different backgrounds collide , you know there is a whole major in college dealing with this , is every cultural misunderstanding Gods fault too ?

If you don't believe me , go to Africa and tell the Pagans there that Jesus is the son of god , and lets see what will they think.

you said

every one arounde here understood whate Akhter was talking aboutt (the self comment by professor Wood was full off understanding as his last commet inside brankets testified)... we try to understand the other point off view... it was you, my friend, thate showed no understanding on whate is our faithe...

I understand that , but I was providing a simple response showing how stupid David's question was , and by the way you can't defend him better than you can defend yourself , what he wrote in brackets and the following comment after it is enough proof he knows nothing about the Muslim culture or even the different uses of "um" , "ab" & "ibn" in the Arabic language , If I post his question on the Arabic forums , I grantee he'd get the stooge of the month award .

Regards ,
Chaud

Chaud said...

@hugh watt

I take that you have no response to my FACTS , right 'TIGER' ?

so you are trying to save some face with your last comment , usually I'd say this is 'pathetic' , but I can't blame you really.

I said in my first comment that Christians reject the Jewish definition of Son of God and claim Jesus is something higher (allegedly God or some deity) , therefore the term "son of god" which means : God the son , 2nd person in the trinity....etc , these meanings are outside of Judaism and Jewish culture there it's "Christan culture" .

Lovely ! Now you quote the bible to prove a concept in Christian culture that is foreign to Muslims ? do you read your own comments or are you playing dumb with me again ? does your quotation have anything to do with what I said ? In THIS DISCUSSION I already conseaded that in christian culture "son" means what you all believe , I Can start a whole new discussion about how in Mark the verse says "You are the Christ" , but there is no need to since it has nothing to do with the topic we are talking about.

you said :

"but My Father Who is in Heaven". These were Jews speaking. Again, Muslims seem to have this one physical way of thinking, when it suits them.

and so what ?? Jews are making statements in their own context of their understanding and culture , what does this prove ? absolutely nothing .

'When it suits them' ?????

Did you not read my comment about the different uses of "ab" , "um" , "ibn"...etc ? and I showed that "ibn Allah" is totally foreign , and its not the Quran's fault since its unreasonable to ask God to reveal such info , therefore its only natural to assume different misunderstandings on the behalf of the Muslim until you explain yourself .

If you think what you say is true then I challenge you to debunk them , and prove that in Muslim culture and Arabic expressionism , everything is physical , and by the way , save yourself the effort , you can't.

You need to join David and take Arabic linguistics for 1st graders , I'll send you guys the books if it will help you people stop embarrassing yourselves in public .

You saw your argument falling apart , and came up with this comment that has nothing to do with the subject , BRAVO !!! and concluded a bigoted statement which if you read something called a book (you know ? that thing with a cover and pages in between) dealing linguistics , history and culture , you wouldn't even have the guts to type the comments you did .

for more information (or if you want to get humiliated) , find yourself and Arabic speaking christian , show him/her your argument , and see what response you will get.

I'd pay money to see that !

Regards ,
Chaud

Fernando said...

Hi Chaud...

thanks to call me professor Wood's lackey... another fine example off whate muslims are... nevertheless: why do you call me such thing? just because I refered, in my comment, some aspects thate professor Wood also did? maybee thats because I read your comment... just because I wrote when you were adressing him? maybee that's just the same when you answer when professor Wood adressed akhter... funny no one arounde here called you his lackey...

I’m nott asking allah to reveale in the qur’an Christian culture… I’m just saying thate iff allah was the true God he woulde habe not portraited the Christian beliefs in a such erroneous way… It would be like me, being a teacher, woulde say: “trust me when I say thate 2+2 equals 4”… why shoulde any off my students truste me as a teacher after I told such thing? why shoulde any off my students truste me to be a teacher after I told such thing? That certainly as a case in proving thate the qur’an is nott divine inspired: its the proof its author was terribly ignorante…

No, Chaud, “misunderstanding” meand “a failure to understand… the author off the qur’an (muhammad, Uthman, Abdullah Sarh…) failed to understand whate was the Christian conception off God in many aspects… he, the qur’an’s author, was ignorante on thatte matters and this ignorance created his incapacities to understand Christian culture…

Oh… Chaud… I do not need to go to Africa and tell the Pagans there that Jesus is the son of god and lets see what will they think… I just need to talk to any muslim… do you meant you muslims are pagans? Ounce again: you’re comparing a supposedly divine author (that should, iff he was God, habe no difficulty in understanding the Christian culture) and a human person (thate might habe difficulty in doing so)… the problem Chaud, was not iff someone has an original problem understanding this or thate, rather when iff he’s blocked in a false assumption thate does nott him allow to progress in knowledge… that’s whate happens withe muslims: they’re blocked in the false assuptions the qur’an gibes aboutte Christian culture and do nott eben accept the possibility thate they are not understanding itt… for muslims “Son og God” will always imply “sexual intercourses” no matter whate a Christian will say… Chaud: this is not only ignorance: this is a utter unwilling to see the truth… when a religion has problems dealling with and accepting the truth, there’s a big problem with thate supposed religion… don’t you think so?

No, Chaud, professor David's question was nott stupid… he was putting the finger in the real point: why does all muslims (and I was a muslim for many years) always will understand “mother of Jesus (God)” as implying sexual intercourse, and do not do the same when talking aboutte the “mother off all books”? you might say: a book is nott a human being and it has not a body so there cannot exist sexual intercourse… great!!! God, priour to the incarnation, was not a human being and did not habe a body either… so: who is not willing to understand?

Regards and peace,

Fernando

hugh watt said...

Hi Chaud. Firstly may i say i am not in control over what can be posted nor the timing, so, if i have not addressed a matter it may be for a number of factors.
When i speak with Muslims they take the term 'Son of God' in a literal sense based upon S: 6v101; " How can he have children when he has no wife"!!? Well, how can Allah have daughters!!? S:53?!!!
When i quote the Bible i try to explain a/the meaning. When i quote the Quran i ask, where is the consistency? Saying 'Son of God' is unacceptable, but the 3 exalted daughters of Allah! Remmeber, Muhammad is supposed to be perfect!

" like that since you label Jesus as "son of god"
Christians did not 'label Jesus as son of god". He called Himself that. It's ok to say 'mother of books', father of a flame/road/cat(Tiger). Can you not see inconsistency?

"Again, Muslims seem to have this one physical way of thinking, when it suits them". I stand by that. In what sense were Al-Lat, Al-Uzza and Manat daughters/children?

"I said in my first comment that Christians reject the Jewish definition of Son of God and claim Jesus is something higher (allegedly God or some deity) , therefore the term "son of god" which means : God the son , 2nd person in the trinity....etc , these meanings are outside of Judaism and Jewish culture there it's "Christan culture" ".
So, what is the " Jewish definition of 'Son of God'?
Son of God, God the Son is no stranger than saying Almighty God, God Almighty.

When Christians say 'Son of God' we mean Jesus is 'equal' to God. It is this type of ignorance (no offence intended) that we are trying to clear up. Chaud, right now Christians are being persecuted because people misunderstand. Have you never read Isaiah 7v14; "..the Lord Himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel".(Meaning "God with us"). 9v6; " For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given:..and his name shall be called..The Mighty God". Zechariah 13v7; very interesting when you study the Hebrew. " Awake,o sword, against My shepherd and against the man who is My ASSOCIATE"..! John 5v17,18; " But Jesus answered them, My Father works here, and I work. Therefore the Jews sought the more to kill Him, because He not only had broken the sabbath, but said also that God was His Father, making Himself equal with God".

" you said :
but My Father Who is in Heaven". These were Jews speaking. Again, Muslims seem to have this one physical way of thinking, when it suits them".

" and so what ?? Jews are making statements in their own context of their understanding and culture , what does this prove ? absolutely nothing".
What is 'their own context of their understanding and culture'? You need to explain this because you're statements are confused.

Explain this if you can. In S:5v116; it reads, " And (remember) when Allah will say (on the day of resurrection):" O, 'Isa(Jesus), son of Maryam! Did you say unto men; ' worship me and my mother as 2 gods besides Allah?..". See, we never ever claimed Mary to be Deity. This is a man's reasoning based upon wrong understanding. Allah is not God!

Jesus told His disciples they were blessed by His Heavenly Father when they gave the correct answer to who He was, because flesh and blood.(human wisdom/understanding) will not help but hinder.

Finally. Islam calls Isa(Jesus) 'Kalimatullah', The Word of Allah'. What does that mean Chaud? Don't play dumb now.

Chaud said...

@ Fernando [1]

I called you a lackey because you just repeated the same over all statement David was making and to a degree still doing,and I really love how you tried to compose a smart remark,try again.

you said
I’m just saying thate iff allah was the true God he woulde habe not portraited the Christian beliefs in a such erroneous way…

Perhaps the current existing christian beliefs are erroneously portrayed since they changed a lot through out time,but if you take the time to read books about the history of religious beliefs in Arabia,the Christians there were believing in some crazy doctrines !
The problem is I don't know any of these books are translated to English , but I recommend "Tareekh Al-Messeheya fe ash-shrq al-awst" (the history of Christianity in the middle east) by Pastor Khdr Ibrahim,he's a well known christian historian and minister around here.
and I recommend the writings of John of Damascus in which he lists the history of heretic Christians and their beliefs.

So please sir,read history and stop claiming Allah is ignorant,because you are the ignorant one.

Now I have to say these next arguments are good,now you don't sound like a lackey.

you said
iff someone has an original problem understanding this or thate, rather when iff he’s blocked in a false assumption thate does nott him allow to progress in knowledge…that’s whate happens withe muslims: they’re blocked in the false assuptions the qur’an gibes aboutte Christian culture and do nott eben accept the possibility thate they are not understanding itt…

and now its seems like you fail to realize how the human brain functions.
Now I'll be speaking about myself,before I took time to check out Christianity,when a christian would tell me "jesus is the son of god",sex would jump into mind,but not from the Quran,because "ibn allah" is absent from my culture , so the first thing I'd do is cross reference it with everything I know,but then I'd take time to listen to what the christain is saying,and then see what happens,during the time you lay down "son of god" and until you explain,why are you so surprised that sex is on someones mind ?

Even Shk Al-Islam Ibn Taymiya in his book "the correct answer to those who distorted the religion of christ" (love this book!) conceads the term "son of god" if it means the same meaning as in Jewish culture , then Islam has no objection.

Some of the classical scholars of Islam said (if you want references let me know , I don't necessarily agree with all of them) that Allah in some verses was answering the word "begotten" and condemning that word (along others) even if it had another meaning to avoid future confusion .

you said
Chaud: this is not only ignorance: this is a utter unwilling to see the truth… when a religion has problems dealling with and accepting the truth, there’s a big problem with thate supposed religion… don’t you think so?


No this is not ignorance , in fact you are showings tons of ignorance right now,if Muslims were unwilling to accept another meaning for the word "son of god",then why do I find Ibn Taymiyah and MANY other scholars conceading it ? perhaps this is a case of "utter unwillingness to see the truth".

Excuse me ? are you trying to tell me Christianity is true ?

Chaud said...

@Fernando [2]

"No, Chaud, professor David's question was nott stupid… he was putting the finger in the real point...etc"

His question was 100% pure stupidity!there is no real point , you both don't know Arabic therefore you have knowledge of Arabic expressionism or linguistics to evaluate the words.

You said

why does all muslims (and I was a muslim for many years) always will understand “mother of Jesus (God)” as implying sexual intercourse, and do not do the same when talking aboutte the “mother off all books”?

and now you're back to being a lackey,how shameful,and nice play of words ,No Muslim objects to "Mother of Jesus",we object to "Mother Of God" (Um Allah),and I gave the reasons why.

you said
you might say: a book is nott a human being and it has not a body so there cannot exist sexual intercourse… great!!!
I based my argument on Arabic linguistics if you didn't notice.

you said
God, priour to the incarnation, was not a human being and did not habe a body either…

and do Muslims accept incarnation ?you see how foreign these terminologies are to Muslims who never read about Christianity ? you expect them not to be confused ?

In the end you ask who doesn't understand , its still you !

Chaud said...

@hugh [1]

Apologies my friend,I didn't notice the comment control.

Now as for S: 6v101; "How can he have children when he has no wife" , i ain't gonna be a hypocrite ,some Muslims take even this verse out of context and do not read commentaries,all the major commentaries agree that this was a response a number of Pagans who told the prophet God can have children in a sexual manner , see in Ibn kathir along others.

If you read verse 99 & 100 , you'd clearly see that verse 101 is answering pagans since they add in worship of plants , jinns , along with sons of god , not Christians , the main argument against Christianity is that Allah is too great to have a son .

now what does Allah "having daughters" have to do with this ? does this reference even help your case ? Did allah attribute these "daughters" to himself and endorsed them or did he criticize them in verse 21 afterward ?? These verses are in answering to Pagans , 'till now I see no argument.

I'm sorry to say this , but asking a ludicrous question like"where is the consistency?" when you clearly don't know what the verses are talking about is a mistake on your behalf.

you said (again)
Christians did not 'label Jesus as son of god". He called Himself that. It's ok to say 'mother of books', father of a flame/road/cat(Tiger). Can you not see inconsistency?

Jesus was a jew , he called himself son of god in the jewish meaning (has no divinity) no objection , but Jesus never called himself "son of god" to mean "I am divine".

NO I SEE NO INCONSISTENCY , GIMME A BREAK !

yeah its ok to say everything you said its in context with arabic expressionism, and its not ok to say "ibn allah",I explained that if you still want to bring this REFUTED point,then I challenge you to prove it using Arabic linguistics,or even find me one book that helps your case , and believe me , your case is so weak, even Arabic speaking Christians who know our language don't use this argument.
I'm completely lost here , what are you trying to portray ? gimme more details so I can refute.

you said
"Again, Muslims seem to have this one physical way of thinking, when it suits them". I stand by that. In what sense were Al-Lat, Al-Uzza and Manat daughters/children?

you can stand by that weak , cracked up wall of an argument as must as you want,it still doesn't help , if you wanna know in what sense were the false idols daughters of allah , go ask the pagans of mekka , or better yet , read a book !

Are you telling me that in Jewish culture Son of God, God the Son is no stranger than saying Almighty God, God Almighty. ? I'd love to see some evidence for that,its been a long time since I asked my Jewish friends a few question.

When Christians say 'Son of God' we mean Jesus is 'equal' to God. It is this type of ignorance (no offence intended) that we are trying to clear up.

and I have no problem with that , but claims that break the rules of linguistics,logic, cultural conext along with calling Allah "ignorant" is where I draw the line.

I'll deal with your verses from the OT in a later post since this will take a LONG TIME , its getting late I wanna finish these few points and hit the sack .

Chaud said...

@hugh [2]

LOL ! dude you are asking me not to play dumb when you started this game of nonsense ?

S:5v116 , Allah asks Jesus if he told ,men to worship Mary and Himself besides Allah , Jesus says No.

You bring up evidence for Jesus saying no,That is great ! you just proved the quranic verse, congrads !

does the Quran say you (or Christians in general) claimed Mary is a deity ? this is response to certain people who did make the claim , and historically they existed ,if you never made the claim then you don't fall under this verse , not every verse in the Quran is about christains you know (seems like this is your misunderstanding) .

In the different sciences of the Quran (which most of you are not familiar with , hey ?? isn't there supposed to be an ex-ahmadiyah lurking around here ? perhaps he can help you) there is Tameem (generality of argument) and Takhsees (specific in argument) , this verse is specific .

This is a man's reasoning based upon wrong understanding.
Wrong , this is your false reasoning based upon wring understanding .
I hope you were holding a mirror when you said that !

Allah is not God!
Then what the hell is word in my bible ? and could you tell the Arab Christians to stop confusing me then ?

and finally , Jesus is A WORD OF GOD (not "the" word of god , the Quran never said that) , the quran never used the definitive article "al" that means "specific and only" with 'Kalimah' when speaking about Jesus, therefore Jesus a word of God that was bestowed on to Mary .

"a word of god" holds different meanings like sign , miracle and others , but according to Islam Jesus was a miracle of Allah , and that is what it means .

Regards ,
Chaud

Fernando said...

So, Chaud, you called me «a lackey because you just repeated the same over all statement David was making»… my dear friend… so, you’re a lackey off Ahmed Dedat and Nadir Ahmed juste because you are repettings the same old muslims arguments off the difficulty off understanding the true meaning off “Son off God”?… Try again… I placed my comment withoute reading professor Wood’s comment… Iff I wanted to support his wordsa I woulde, as in other threads, say “Professor Wood saide”… Try again Chaud, try again… I’m not trying to compose anythingue: I was transparent from the satart aboutte my words…
Then you started opposing the “current existing Christian beliefs” and the “Christian believes in Ancient Arabia” as iff there were nott in Ancient Arabia orthodox Christians… there were... or as iff the current Christian believe did not existen in Ancient times… it existed… Try again… more: no were in time the Holy Trinity was eber portraited as God, Jesus and Mary as the qur’an, withoutte naming the “Trinity”, expresses in full ignorance… more: more: no were in time Jesus was eber portraited by Christians as the Son off a sexual intercourse off God with Mary… did non-Christians sects did so? I’ll waitte for your answer, butt the qur’an’s author (muahhamed, Uthams or any other) seemed not to understand this last difference… another example off it’s ignorance… more: I thought te qur’an was for everytime… so: why this false claims presented in the qur’an iff its no more sustained by anyone nowadays?... perhaps that’s why you muslims still insist to say Christians do beliebe in such thingue when never eber any Christian beliebed in them… and do nott call me ignorante justte because I do know a lot off more aboutte Christian and muslims history than you: thate is ugly from you… did you know thate John off Damascus considered islam a Christian heresy? I do beliebe so… so: iff you tell me to read his works, do you mean he’s right about this claime? Try again… Try again…
No my friend… I do undestarnd how a brain works… you faille to understand thate the problem here is nott how the brain works, rather on how someone does educate, or not (as in muslims culture), its brain nott to see everything, eben fatherhood, on a sexual perspective…

(end part 1)

Fernando said...

(part 2)

more: the problem is not tiff someone gets a wrongue false assumption, rather on iff he does nott the slightes efford to understand the other point off view… this woulde not imply thate the other’s opinion shoulde be believed, butt, at least, someone woulde nott seam as an ignorante and contumacious one… more: the problem is nott wether jewish and muslim notion off “Son off God” are analougous, rather on wether jewish eber portraited thate notion as the consequence off a sexual intercourse beween a women and God: they did not… eber!!! So: either you’re lyieng, or you’re ignorante… this is the tipical pagan notion: the notian off hierogamies… strange tahte when I turn to everyplace in muslim conception I found pagan roots… Try again… Try again…
So… the problem is not iff Ibn Taymiyah tryied to consider (and he was so devious in his words as you know) thate the Christian notion off “Son off God” is nott whate the qur’an implies it to bee (and I habe dealt with thate above), rather on why the majority off muslims in the world still instist on this last one… why do you, muslims, do not teach your brothers to see and understand the truth aboutte others’ religion? Perhaps because from its start islam distorted Christianity…
And yes… I’m claiming thate Christianity is true… do you habe doubts?

How do you not know I do not know Arabic? بيان آخر جاهل تماما
No lackey here… Jesus is not an human person, He’s, according to the Bible and Chriastian theology, an divine persone… a mother do not gibe birth to a nature, rather to a person… so: Mary is the Mother off a divine person: she’s, accordingly, Mother off God since a divine person his God… iff muslims do nott understand this is because you cannot satnd the truth… “Mother off God” woulde be a problem only iff muslims did accept thate Jesus was God… you do not… so: are you claiming thate your problem in saying thate, since we Christians call Jesus “Son of God”, this, for almost ebery muslim, means a sexual intercourse between Mary and God, is nott placed onn the maternity rather onn the divine or human nature off Jesus? butt the problem persists… this is utter ignorance about Christian believes… shoulde nott the author off the qur’an know better? Eben Hulk Hogan and his daughter knows better…

So: wahte is, again, the problem with the Arabic linguistic tahte I do not understand? You can eben place your answer in Arabic… thanks…

I saide: «God, priour to the incarnation, was not a human being and did not habe a body either»… whate about the incarnation in this statement… are you just playing the ignorante here? The key poin is thate God do nott habe a body, so: how coulde he habe sexual intercourse? Try again Chaud… Try again Chaud… more: you do nott nedd to beliebe in incarnation to understand its meaning… you jusy need to be a small intelligent… butt the author off the qur’an was not… until know you failed every try to make cleaber statements… want to try again Chaud?

minoria said...

Hello Chaud:

You argue against misunderstanding the use of the Arabic.Now what is bad is what you hear said from the most famous Muslim apologists like SHABIR ALLY and AHMED DEEDAT.I have heard them.They always say Jesus does NOT say he is GOD in the Synoptics.Over and over.But he does,when you know BASIC JUDAISM.

Just only one of SEVERAL examples:he said the SON of MAN is the LORD of the SABBATH.Any Jew would have understood that right away as saying one is God.

QUESTION

How can Muslims,when they know this,and knowing AHMED DEEDAT and SHABIR ALLY CERTAINLY knew this,then really trust them as RELIABLE?They are fooling their own Muslim people.

Chaud said...

@Fernando [1]

so you know Arabic AND YOU STILL THINK DAVID'S QUESTION IS VALID ? You're worst than a lackey!and dumber than I thought,I'm disappointed,for real,you have a chance to redeem yourself since you know arabic,how about you explain to me using Arabic linguistics how David's question is valid,and prove that I'm a lackey.

Fernando,does desperation make you write like that?you are throwing argument after argument in rage,clam down exposure can hurt I know that,you don't have imitate the way I write,now when did I repeat what Nadir Ahmad and Ahmed deedat say ? in fact I didn't use any one their arguments yet.

you said
the “Christian believes in Ancient Arabia” as iff there were nott in Ancient Arabia orthodox Christians… there were... or as iff the current Christian believe did not existen in Ancient times… it existed…

Did I mention ancient arabia? don't put words in my mouth , I'm not denying that what you call orthodox Christians lived there , I'm saying there were other heretic christian groups that were larger or equal to their numbers , for more check out the references I mentioned last post.

I have no idea what makes the trinity holy,its shirk at its best,and who told you the Quran says there is a trinity with Jesus and mary in it ? (although the maryiamites of arabia had it), you know this answer that's why you added "withoutte naming the “Trinity”" that verse in question doesn't even say trinity,so how can you assume it ? most likely this is referring either to the maryiamites or THE ACTION OF TAKING JESUS AND MARY AS GODS IN THE FIRST PLACE , for more details see any commentary on the quran or Muhammad Mohar Ali's book "The biography of the prophet and the orientalists" pages 291-295 which deals with Mary and that verse , you say no where in history ? even John of Damascus was complaining about them in his writings.

I pity Christians who actually think this is an argument , because either they have to impose their own beliefs on the quran inorder to create what they think is an error,or make a historical error.

you said
no were in time Jesus was eber portraited by Christians as the Son off a sexual intercourse off God with Mary… did non-Christians sects did so? I’ll waitte for your answer, butt the qur’an’s author (muahhamed, Uthams or any other) seemed not to understand this last difference…
and I'm not denying that MAINSTREAM Christianity never believed that , what do you mean by "non-christian" sects ? you mean heretic sects or other religions ?
Now how did the Quran understand it to be a sexual relation? any evidence or is this just pissed off christian blabber ? I just finished explaining that to Hugh,read it if you have time , and take a cold shower too cool off a bit.

the Quran address beliefs from that time and all times,if what existed in the past seized to exist anymore,how is this an argument against the Quran? I don't understand your logic , perhaps since you know arabic you watch Rachid too much,by the way I'm setting up have a whole blog dedicated to refuting him.

Muslims don't insist that Christians believe in such a thing,but to be fair the terminology of the bible doesn't really help.

I'm sorry Fernando,but you expect me to not call you ignorant when you are calling Allah ignorant? what kind of double standards is this?

If you know about Muslim-Christian history more than I do (I doubt it)then good for you.

Yes I know John of Damascus had some ugly views about Islam , but that doesn't mean I can't use his documents to examine what kind of christian sects existed , and I'm telling you examine his writings to see what kind of sects existed , not because his claims on Islam were true , the scholars who lived in his time refuted his claims.

Chaud said...

@Fernando [2]

It seems like you are going back to the basics.

I'll give that point because I agree it is wrong for a Muslim not to try and understand the christian view, the whole time I was arguing that you can not blame a Muslim for thinking about sex between the time you lay down "son of god" and explain , based on the background culture of the Muslim.

you said something that made my day !
the problem is nott wether jewish and muslim notion off “Son off God” are analougous, rather on wether jewish eber portraited thate notion as the consequence off a sexual intercourse beween a women and God: they did not… eber!!!

and I agree,it was never portrayed like that in Jewish culture, Jewish culture is not Muslim culture and most of the time its foreign to a Muslim,so what is your point?

So: either you’re lyieng, or you’re ignorante… this is the tipical pagan notion: the notian off hierogamies… strange tahte when I turn to everyplace in muslim conception I found pagan roots…

I'm not either one of them , once they release my comment to Hugh,read it , see for yourself that the Quran does address "son of god" as defined in paganism , and addresses "son of god" as defined in Christianity by saying Allah is too great to have a son, is this hard to understand ?

There is no such thing as "the Muslim concept of son of god" , "son of god" weather Pagan or christian it all equals SHIRK.

you said
So… the problem is not iff Ibn Taymiyah tryied to consider (and he was so devious in his words as you know) thate the Christian notion off “Son off God” is nott whate the qur’an implies it to bee (and I habe dealt with thate above), rather on why the majority off muslims in the world still instist on this last one… why do you, muslims, do not teach your brothers to see and understand the truth aboutte others’ religion? Perhaps because from its start islam distorted Christianity…
And yes… I’m claiming thate Christianity is true… do you habe doubts?


I dont know if the majority of Muslims insists that son of god = sex with mary , you mind showing me a study ?
Ibn Taymiyah didn't "try" , he "did" .
and I quoted him for his son of god position,not for what he said about the Quran, the Quran has its commentators you can check them up.
Why dont we teach others the truth about other religions ? gimme a break ! as for me personally I try to convey the best understanding I can reach to my fellow Muslims, now If I go to christian theological seminary and a take a course on Islam , will they teach everything correctly ? Fernando , this is called double standards , In my whole life I only saw 3 Christians who represented Islam correctly in their discussions.

excuse me ? not educating ? well I'd say both sides are guilty and responsible of that , and why should Muslims be walking around teaching other Muslims christian concepts ? Christians should be doing that and Muslims should help out , it doesn't work the other way around.
If Christians have certain terminologies that are foreign to Muslims and have a problem conveying them , its more of a communication problem on the christian side , you make no sense and you are asking too much which you can't deliverer.

you said
Jesus is not an human person, He’s, according to the Bible and Chriastian theology, an divine persone…etc

you know this has nothing to do with what we are talking about,I am arguing that these definitions , terms , ideas are foreign to the Muslim therefore misunderstandings can happen , how does explaining it to me help you out ? I could reply but it aint worth it.

Chaud said...

@ Fernando [3]

you said
iff muslims do nott understand this is because you cannot satnd the truth… etc

Class A comedy right here!now Fernando is RANTING instead of arguing.
I'm not denying that "son of god" might mean sex in the Muslim mind until it's explained.
i know this is ignorance of christian beliefs,that's why I'm saying this a cultural misunderstanding,nothing more nothing less.
Now you go into the natures of Jesus,do Muslims know this? No , that's why a misunderstanding happens , and expect the Quran to teach all these concepts ? this is unrealistic ,illogical , makes no sense since a sura that contains Ecumenical Council results (aka modern day Christianity),doesn't help.

again I will say,to ask Allah to include christain culture explanations in the Quran is unrealistic,stupid,and it doesn't help.

LOL ! now you want the Quran to teach incarnation ? Muslims do understand what incarnation is , but do not accept it to begin with , therefore do not accept it as a loophole to explain "son of god" unless the christian explains what he/she believes in.

Long story short , you have no case if you want to blame the Quran.

Chaud said...

@minora

Hi Minora , Nice to meet you
I saw the other day your comment on bloggingtheology about the west and Islam,I think its a very intelligent one.

First of all I based my argument on cultural differences mainly which includes language differences , that's why I had to go to language.

Now I have to be honest and say I didn't do much reading on the lord of the sabbath claim , 'till now I didn't find a satisfying answer,so I will give you that point for now.

I'll email Shabir and see what he has to say.

Muslims fooling their own people, Minora I think you are smarter than Fernando , I do agree there is some deception going on on both sides , there are Christians who fool their people (like inventing a fictive 4th stage of Jihad for example , The Abrogation myth [sura 9;29 abrogating sura 2:256]...etc , fictive stories about Muhammad..etc AND THEY KNOW ITS FALSE) , and there are Muslims who fool their own people , I'm just gonna have to investigate your claim against Shabir and Deedat and see for myself , who knows ? I might become a christian .

I just want to shed some light no why Muslims demand Jesus to say "I am god" , its because Jesus himself said in John 18:20

"I have spoken openly to the world," Jesus replied. "I always taught in synagogues or at the temple, where all the Jews come together. I said nothing in secret.

Therefore Jesus spoke in public , he had no secret teachings or teachings that need to be interpreted to imply what is now called christain doctrines .

If Jesus was speaking openly and had so secret teachings, then can you please show me the definition of "original sin" from the mouth of jesus ? "i am god"...etc

This is reason why Muslims like myself demand explicit teachings from jesus , because he said he never spoke in secret and taught (what is supposed to be Christianity) openly .

Regards ,
Chaud

Fernando said...

Hi Chaud...

Yes… I still think David’s question is validd… can you explain us all, here and publiquelly, why it is, in your opinion, nott valid? Don’t just behave like a off the sitte knowledger, or as a childe, as saying: “I habe a secret… I habe a secret… buut I won’t tell you, so: you can’t refute me”

Thanks, ouce again, for calling me a lackey and dumb… about you being disappointed… welll… that’s a problem with you: iff you think thate your childish behaviour described abbove is nott a clear example off whate muslims typically do best (building arguments in the clouds), then It’s me thate is disappointed with you…

It’s nott me thate has to explain why professor’s David’s question is valid: it’s you thate from the started saide it was nott and neber gabe us a clear reason why… so: it’s you thate habe here, a reall chance off redeeming yourself publiquely since it was you thate, in first place, made an unsubstanciated affirmation… so: show us all, also, thate you’re nott simply a lackey off Ahmmedd Dedat and Nadir Ahmed who made analougous statements… go ahead: I’ll follow after you…

So: I’m neber dispared… I’m naber in rage… I’m justa answering and refutting logiquelly all your emotional and unsubstantiated arguments… It’s you, my dear friend, thate from the start started throwing, in clear nervousness after starting insulting people, pseudo-claims withoutte eber providing a single evidence for itt… so: cal down, Chaud, take a deep breath, and start using your mind, nott your gutts… go ahead: itt will do you good…

So: when you saide: «the history of religious beliefs in Arabia,the Christians there were believing in some crazy doctrines», you were nott referring ancient Arabia? Another escape try from you… your use off Arabia and were believing denounce, clearly, thate you were not talking about present day Arabia…

No, Johin, herectic Christians are no Christians whatsoever: why does the qur’an author (muhammad, Uthman or any other), as I stated before, did not know this? Why did he presented the Christian believe as iff those non-Christian sects (and no matter their number) were the true Christianity? No need to check your references… I know, better than you, the history off Christianity, including in Arabia… more: why did the qur’an author (muhammad, Uthman or any other) did nott understood thate these non-Christian sects thate borrowed some Christian believes and mixtured with Gnostic believes were nott following the true Christian Gospel?...

(end part 1)

Fernando said...

(part 2)

Yes… the Holy Trinity is Holy (by the way… this is a another jump from you… and who’s throwing arguments in desesparation? hummm?)… I also do nott know whu you muslims call the qur’an (thate barbarous and literally deficient book) “holy”… nevertheless, the Holy Trinity is nott shirk: nowhere one is claiming the existence off 3 gods or aggregating a creature to God (as muslims do soteriologiquely – soteriologequely, I repeat!!! – in the shahada)… The qur’an clearly states thate people (thate it assumes, with total ignorance, thate they were Christians) were makin “three” from the reunion off God, Jesus and Mary (and the marionites, thate were nott Christians, neber stated thate the Trinity was thate… they simply assumed thate Mary was later made as iff she was God… do you’re homework Chaud…)… the qur’an’s author clearly assumes, from the context off the text, thate this “three” was the Christian Trinity… he was wrongue… ounce again: the problem is nott weather the marionites (thate were neber Christians since they did nott followed the N.T.’s texts and were rejected from the Church…) were making this or thate claim (butt they neber, eber, claimed thate the Trinity was the Father, Jesus and Mary… they, before they embraced some Christian believes, worshipped the goddess off the sky, Venus, and then claimed thate Mary was like her – not her – ans so neber onthologiquelly God…) reather on why the qur’an author (muhammad, Uthman or any other) thought thate:

1) they were Christians;
2) the Christian Trinity was whate they claimed…

Ounce again: iff you quote John off Damascus when he says the marionites were Christians when he says they were a Christian heresy, do you want uss to beliebe thate muslims are Christians because he also claim Islam to be a Christian heresy? Ok…

It’s not Christians thate make an error… it was the qur’ans author thate made so… butt iff you think thate Christian believe is not whatte the qur’an’s author believe to be, why do muslims around the world say, until today (as I was taught in Indonesia), thate made an historical an theological error…

No… Chaud: neber, eber, one Christian follower portraited Jesus as the Son off a sexual intercourse off God with Mary… non-Christian sects are like the marionites: a sectarian movement (movements thate apparted from the major core off a religion) thate assumed only partial elements off the Christian and mixted them with non Christian believes (making themselves another religion), portraitting themselfs, for pragmatic reasons, as Christians…

(end part 2)

Fernando said...

(part 3)

I’m nott reading your comments to Hugh… sorry… I’m debating you… dear Chaud: do you know whate is a syllogism? I hope so… then we habe:

1) the author off the qur’an says thate God had not a Son;
2) the author off the qur’an assumes thate Jesus is the Son off Mary;
3) the author off the qur’an wants to say thate Jesus is nott the Son off a relationship (sexual) off Mary and God… easy to understand… thsis is the tippical muslim claim… are they wrongue? Then teach them, my friend… theach them…

The point is, dear Chaud, thate the qur’an presents Chrsitians like whate those non-Christians were… so: when you meat a muslim he still believes thate those non-Christian claims are the typicall Christian believe and start shouting thate we are misportratting the true Christian believe since the qur’an, (they believe) is correct… So, Chaud, they really believe so… eebn you: whu else woulde you say the Holy Trinity is shirk? Why do muslims all the time in this bloog claim thate they want to see debats on the Trinity versus Monotheism? More: here is one list off people arounde here thate claimed here thate Jesus is, since we Christians call Him the Son off God, the consequence off a sexual relation between God and Mary: Ethessmag Gulam; Ali; Ibn; Islam2000; Osama Abdallah; Krishnaraj; t_a_s; brianman; ashraf…

so: you can call me whatever you want… am I showing myself to bee trullu ignoirant? Call me so a,d explain why is thate so… I’m still calling the author off the qur’an (thate I neber claimed to bee allah, thate arabian moon-god) ignorante:

a) he portraited, wrongly, non-Christians as Christians;
b) he portraited theire believes and Chrsitian believes…
c) and so on…

aboute John off Damascus: the problem is nott using his works, rather on why do you use itt (thate were never satisfactorily refuted…) to say the marionies was a Christian-heresy (by the way: iff they were an heresy, by the definition, they were not Christians),a nd do not call islam an Chrsitian-heresy… ok? Fine…

I hoppe this might be my last words on this topic… thanks…

your friend in the path off the truth,

Fernando

Nabeel Qureshi said...

Although I like Chaud's spirit and intellect, I just wish for a change that a Muslim with these qualities would be polite. That would be nice.

And dasize, i wont have my camera, but hopefully someone else will.

-Nabeel

Chaud said...

@Nabeel

Hey Nabeel , thanks for acknowledgment , most appreciated , although I don't see how I'm being un polite , I just called everything in its place , David's question along with some comments are stupid and I do not expect such absurd questions and answers from a philosophy professor and who are supposed to be intelligent individuals commenting on this blog .

@COMMENT ADMIN

Where are my others posts responding to Fernando , Hugh and Minora ?

minoria said...

Part 1:

Hello Chaud:

Fernando has a point.Look at SURA 9:30:"CHRISTIANS say:MESSIAH is the SON of ALLAH...may Allah destroy them."

What is wrong with saying Son of God?If you mean a SPIRITUAL son(HOLY MAN) then,for Allah, what's wrong with that?You yourself have said MOTHER of BOOK means SOURCE of BOOK,correct?Why should Allah not understand METAPHOR,after all,he uses it in "MOTHER of the BOOK"?

ERROR IN KORAN

You don't believe in Christianity and never will but it has errors(so by that you see it is a HUMAN book).In SURAS 20:85/20:87/20:95 say MOSES spoke with a SAMARITAN.They did NOT exist then (1,400 BC but later in 700 BC).And the CITY of SAMARIA did NOT exist then but centuries later.

minoria said...

Part 2:

ALLAH,BEST OF PLANNERS

SURAS 3:54/8:30 say it.

EXAMPLE 1

Yet all the evidence(like EBIONITE beliefs/PAUL's letters) shows the first dsiciples believed Jesus had died/physically resurrected.Allah never told them Jesus had NOT died.There was belief in a LIE for 600 years(for no good reason).You and I can be BETTER planners,alot more.By logic,Allah is NOT the BEST of planners.

EXAMPLE 2

The Koran says to "beat/strike/hit" wives.Some Muslims say the word really means "to leave".Ok.Why didn't Allah use an ARABIC word that 100% left no doubt?We are BETTER planners than that.For 1,4000 YEARS Muslim wives have been BEATEN and all the time it was a linguistic error.

minoria said...

Part 3:

EXAMPLE 3:

"ENTER ISLAM COMPLETELY"

So says SURA 2:208.For 1,400 YEARS Muslim women have been beaten based on a linguistic misunderstanding in the Koran because Allah was not clear enough.They have accepted it and the men have done it believing by doing it they were obeying and "entering Islam completely".WE can be BETTER planners.

EXAMPLE 4

SURAS 33:43/33:56 says ALLAN PRAYS UPON MOHAMMED.To who will Allah pray to?He can't pray to anybody else,if he is the greatest there is.Muslims says in Arabic it should be understood as BLESSES.A special exception is made for him.

It would have been a BETTER plan to use an ARABIC word that left NO possibility for misunderstanding.We can be better planners than that.

hugh watt said...

Hello Chaud.You raised a few points that were interesting. There are a number that i'd like to touch on.
You said," the terminology of the Bible does not help". The same could be said of the Quran. "Tawheed". Hey, Islamic misunderstanding about " Trinity" is rife. " , the main argument against Christianity is that Allah is too great to have a son ". When misunderstood in a physical sense, yes. This is my point about seeing things in a 7th century human way. Chaud, before i became a Christian i was just a regular person who beleived there was a God but that was about it. I asked God for some time to show me the Truth. Ihad the Bible at hand and even though i read it, i did not see the Truth until some time later. It came as a revelation to find out who Christ really was. That came from God showing me, not being born into a religious family where i was influenced to beleive what elders said. Just as i need to have humility and listen to others, because that's a good way to learn. It could help to have a bit more humility yourself.

" and I have no problem with that , but claims that break the rules of linguistics,logic, cultural conext along with calling Allah "ignorant" is where I draw the line". The rules (human) of 'linguistics, logic and cultural context do not apply where God brought creation from nothing! No earthly system/culture can explain this rationally. Does the Bible anywhere state God and Mary had a physical union to bring forth Christ? NO! So where does Islam/ Muslims get this from? Do you agree that father/son do not have to be literal? If so, why accept it in the Quran but not the Bible?

" Are you telling me that in Jewish culture Son of God, God the Son is no stranger than saying Almighty God, God Almighty. ? I'd love to see some evidence for that,its been a long time since I asked my Jewish friends a few question". You put words into my mouth here. Read what i said again.

" Jesus was a jew , he called himself son of god in the jewish meaning (has no divinity) no objection , but Jesus never called himself "son of god" to mean "I am divine". Explain this statement Chaud. I'd really like to hear it.



" and finally , Jesus is A WORD OF GOD (not "the" word of god , the Quran never said that) , the quran never used the definitive article "al" that means "specific and only" with 'Kalimah' when speaking about Jesus, therefore Jesus a word of God that was bestowed on to Mary .
"a word of god" holds different meanings like sign , miracle and others , but according to Islam Jesus was a miracle of Allah , and that is what it means". S:4v171, " ..was only a messenger of Allah, AND HIS WORD.." S:6v73, " His Word is the Truth". How many Words, not words but, WORDS, does Allah have then?

I will deal with some other points you raised in my next post. For now Grant Jeffrey will be talking on end time issues and i'd like to catch it. As Arnie said, " I'll be back".

Hogan Elijah Hagbard said...

Nabeel and Tony,

God bless

Give them double

ben malik said...

Chaud is another Osama groupie who is so repulsive that he will cause people to despise Islam.
Chaud hides behind the Arabic linguistics and culture game maybe because he thinks that people will be mesmerized by his bold rhetoric when it is nothing more than stupidity and deception disguised as intelligent discourse.

Chaud didn't mention that there were MANY ARABS who converted to Judaism and Christianity, and that there were plenty of Jewish tribes who spoke Arabic before that Arabian mad man was born. Why the Quran itself testifies to this fact!

This means that ibn Allah would have been adopted within the Arabic language LONG BEFORE THAT DESPICABLE ARAB WAR MONGER AND HUMAN CANCER HAD BEEN BORN much like the words ibn sabil, umm al-kitab, umm al-qurra. So Muhammad would have known by his interactions with the Jews and Christians what terms such ibn Allah or walad Allah meant. Just check out sura 5:18.

My advice, ignore this little pup since he is no smarter than Osama and Nadir. He is another pest who is bound to disappear in a short matter of time.

ben malik said...

My final comment to Chaud the little puppy. He is a liar for saying that Jesus is A Word of God since, as this deceiver himself knows fully well seeing that he mentioned the verse, Jesus is called His Word (kalimatuhu) in sura 4:171, which means Allah's Word. This is simply another way of saying that Jesus is the Word of Allah.

This is why the human cancer named Muhammad and his followers called Jesus THE WORD OF ALLAH!

This comes from Aisha Bewley's translation of al-Bukhari.

4206. It is related from Anas that the Prophet, "On the Day of Rising people will be gathered and they will say, 'If only we could ask someone to intercede for us with our Lord!' ... He will say, 'Go to 'Isa, the slave of Allah and His Messenger, THE WORD OF ALLAH and His Spirit.'

God here to read it for yourself -
http://bewley.virtualave.net/bukhari30.html

And this is taken from a Muslim book.

Allah says: "Confirming a word from Allah." (3:39)

Yahya confirmed ‘Isa when he was three years old. He testified that he was THE WORD OF ALLAH and His Spirit. It is said that he confirmed him when he was in his mother’s womb. Yahya’s mother said to Maryam, "I feel what is in my womb bowing to what is in your womb to greet him." (Qadi 'Iyad Ibn Musa al-Yahsubi, Kitab Ash-shifa bi ta'rif huquq al-Mustafa (Healing by the recognition of the Rights of the Chosen One), translated by Aisha Abdarrahman Bewley [Madinah Press, Inverness, Scotland, U.K.; third reprint 1991, paperback], p. 51; capital and underline emphasis ours)

Now watch Chaud run back to his idols Shabir Ally and Osama Abdallah like a good little groupie to find a way to get himself out of this mess.

Chaud said...

O great ! Now I have to debate 4 at the same time , I'll give it a shot.

@Fernando [1]

The reason why David's question is not valid is because it breaks the rules of linguistics and experssionism and has nothing to do the confusion that might occur when a christian tries to explain 'son of god' to a Muslim.

I agree , I have explain why David's question is not valid , and guess what ? I did that in my first comment.

If I'm a lackey of Ahmed deedat and Nader Ahmad then please show me which argument I took from them.

you didn't answer and refute anything I said logically , rather its your desire to blame the quran someway somehow , and my posts are full of evidence , read them carefully .

Aren't you supposed to know arabic and history better than me ? "Ancient Arabia" is the Era of Hud & Saleh and backwards according to scholars , so no it doesn't include the time of Muhammad.

Fernando , I'm gonna start regretting ever coming here soon , why are what you call heretic beliefs in the Quran , because LIKE I SAID the Quran not only addresses you Christians of this time, but address several other beliefs from that time as well , along with some future beliefs , if the past beliefs seize to exist now , HOW IS THIS AN ARGUMENT AGAINST THE QURAN ?
Please answer .

Chaud said...

@Fernando [2]

what does "soteriologequely" mean ???

Ummm dude , They heretics in Arabia who made Mary God are are called "Maryamites" not "Maronites" , the "Maronites" are a major christian sect in Lebanon , I do most of my study about them , and frankly if I ever become a christian I'd become one of them.

Yeah , but the trinity claims 3 personalities of God , one is not the other , each one of the 3 is full god , yet they are one god working in unity , bla bla bla , its shirk , and the worst form of shirk ever known to man kind , its basically tri-theism under the mask of monotheism.

you said

"the qur’an’s author clearly assumes, from the context off the text, thate this “three” was the Christian Trinity"

Where is the word "three" ? where is the trinity in that verse or that context to begin with ? when a verse is not meant for you and you still want to speak about you , I think you have a problem .

you said
...were making this or thate claim (butt they neber, eber, claimed thate the Trinity was the Father, Jesus and Mary… they, before they embraced some Christian believes, worshipped the goddess off the sky, Venus, and then claimed thate Mary was like her – not her – ans so neber onthologiquelly God…)

Look , rant as much as you want , read any history book about the maryiamites and see for yourself what kind of trinity they had , if in your little world you want keep on saying "never ever" , fine , out here the reality is something else.

you said
reather on why the qur’an author (muhammad, Uthman or any other) thought thate:

1) they were Christians;
2) the Christian Trinity was whate they claimed…


That's what you want to the verse to say , not what it actually says.

It’s not Christians thate make an error… it was the qur’ans author thate made so…

Nope , I'm saying that the christian concepts are foreign therefore misunderstandings can happen , you on the other hand what to make it as if its the Quran's fault , and that is why I am here.

Well I don't know about the Muslim in Indonesia , but you can't generalize that statement on Muslims around the world with no evidence.

Chaud said...

@Minora

Hi Minora ,

I don't think Fernando has a point in the light of anything he said.

I'd like to make a small clarification that's irreverent to the topic about Sura 9:30 if you don't mind , the words "may Allah destroy them" is " قَاتَلَهُمُ اللَّهُ" and all commentators say this "Allah's curse is on them" meaning that they are deprived from Allah's blessing.

now back to the topic , I agree with you , if it has a spiritual meaning then it's really no problem , but the christian concept of son of god is shirk at its best , your colleague just said "son of god" means equal to god.

If "son of god" means we are from god , his creation , or messenger of god...etc then Islam has no problem , but it has a problem with the pagan and christian definition of son of god.

Now to your errors :

1- That info was refuted a LONG time ago , it has always been believed that Samaritans existed in 700 BC , but they have a tradition going back to the time of Joseph , so yes its a possibility .

2- Best of planners ?

a - So according to Paul's letter (which showed that he opposed the disciples) and other beliefs , the disciples of Jesus believed in resurrection , nice myth.
There is more to it , and if that is what you call evidence then I'm not convinced.
Assuming that what you said is true , that Allah never told the disciples , then Jesus would've mean a messenger of allah and a martyr , how does resurrection , god incarnate , 2nd person of the trinity...etc fit in ?

b- I have no idea which Muslims says it means "to leave" , I have to agree with you the Muslim who says this is in error , according to my knowledge the reason of revelation is that a woman came to the prophet because her husband beat her , the prophet said "beat him back" , so gabrial revealed that verse , and the prophet then explained that you do it lightly that doesn't bruise , or with a toothbrush.

3- enter Islam completely .

actually the word there is not Islam , its "silm" which means peace , the verse explicitly means that Muslims must try their best to achieve peace with others , I don't know how wife beating fits in .

4- Allah "praying" on Muhammad

There is not one single Muslim that understood "Salah" to mean pray , everyone (even the authors of a dictionary of you own one) understands it as Allah exhorting his mercy on Muhammad .

Actually its not a special exception , if you read some of pre Islamic Mualakat poetry , they use such expressions.

Ummmm , Minora , I understand you are trying to prove the Quran is a human book , but these are not good arguments.

Chaud said...

@hugh

I'll be waiting.

Islam doesn't "misunderstand" the trinity , it condemns it .

you said
" , the main argument against Christianity is that Allah is too great to have a son ". When misunderstood in a physical sense, yes. This is my point about seeing things in a 7th century human way

and I agree with you that Allah is too great to have a physical son , but what about "son of god" meaning "equal to god" as you said ? in that light I'd definitely say Allah is too great to have an equal , how ever you want to understand it , its condemned .

I don't see this verse as a 7th century human mistake , rather its a 21 century misunderstanding by you .

Well Hugh if you understood any arrogance on my side then I apologize , but you have to understand that crappy questions like the one David and you were asking Akhtar is IGNORANCE at its best.

Humility to listen to others is something I hope the whole world can have some day.

The rules (human) of 'linguistics, logic and cultural context do not apply where God brought creation from nothing! No earthly system/culture can explain this rationally. Does the Bible anywhere state God and Mary had a physical union to bring forth Christ? NO! So where does Islam/ Muslims get this from? Do you agree that father/son do not have to be literal? If so, why accept it in the Quran but not the Bible?

and I agree to a certain degree.

So if God was revealing in a certain language and reveals gibberish because his revelations don't have to be in context , why should anyone think this is the word of god ? the Quran says every messenger was sent in the tongue of his people , so its not odd for me.

Hugh , Father/son = physical relation was in response to Pagans , not Christians , unless you want to tell me Christians fall under pagans but I don't believe that.

Where do Muslims get it ? what have we been discussing the whole time ? their background culture which is foreign to Jewish and christian terminology , therefore a Muslim might understand a physical relationship until you explain it.
Notice the whole I've been arguing if the Muslim never read the bible , so using the bible doesn't help your case.
If a number of Muslims understand the pagan related verses and confuse them with Christians , then its the Muslim's fault , NOT ALLAH'S FAULT , I have to honest and admit that at least.

My apologies , it seems like I wasn't focusing when I put words in your mouth , I'm sorry.

what I meant by Jesus calling himself "son of god" in the Jewish sense is exactly what it meant , so when Christians come to me saying "Jesus claimed to be the son of god!!!" , I'd say "so what ? that doesn't make him divine since he was a jew".

i hope you are understanding my point , if not I'll elaborate more in my next post .

PEACE

Chaud

Chaud said...

@ben [1]

Now look what we have here ! for a while now I was trying to stay polite for Nabeel's sake , but you had to come crawling from the sewers didn't you ? , where's my bug spray when I need it ?

lets get down to your non-sense :

Osama groupie ?? I dont even know Osama nor do i like his website.

you said
Chaud hides behind the Arabic linguistics and culture game maybe because he thinks that people will be mesmerized by his bold rhetoric when it is nothing more than stupidity and deception disguised as intelligent discourse.

My rhetoric sucks , I'm surprised someone could actually think I'm mesmerizing people.

and I'm not playing games here , David's question can only be answered the way I did by backing it up with linguistics and culture , if you got a better methodology for me as a Muslim to use then by all means , what is it ?

I'm showing stupidity and deception ? lets see what's really going on .

you said after bring up a well known fact that many Arabs (a minority in Arabia) converted the Judaism and Christianity.
This means that ibn Allah would have been adopted within the Arabic language LONG BEFORE THAT DESPICABLE ARAB WAR MONGER AND HUMAN CANCER HAD BEEN BORN much like the words ibn sabil, umm al-kitab, umm al-qurra. So Muhammad would have known by his interactions with the Jews and Christians what terms such ibn Allah or walad Allah meant.

Well it was not unfortunately for you , its a good thing you said "would have" , i argued they translated it and used it among themselves , but the language never adapted it.

Now do you have any evidence that the Arabic language adopted the jewish and christain term and meaning of son of god ? because if you read any book on the evolution of the Arabic language , there is no evidence it was EVER adopted , and words like "um-al kitab" , "ibn as-sabeel" are traced by to Kahtan and Jocktan , some of earliest speakers of the arabic language , you want references let me know.

OMG ! another idiot ! are you all really that desperate to find an error you just have to create one ?

Sura 5:18 , Now if you think Muhammad or any Muslim understood that Christians and Jews are physical sons of god , then you are DEAD WRONG.
Christains and Jews were claiming they are the true believes from the decedents of the prophets therefore Allah cares for them and loves them the most , see Ibn Kathir .

All this time I've been proving that its not that the Quran misunderstood your beliefs , its Christians that misunderstand the Quran and think it misunderstand their beliefs .

My advise to you , as Lemme (Motorhead) says "GET DOWN FROM YOUR HIGH HORSE , WHO DO YOU THINK YOU ARE ??" and I ain't planning to stay a long time anyway , I'm afraid the stupidity might be infect me and end up become a christian.

Chaud said...

@ben [2]

Now let me see who the real deceiver is :

First of all according to the Quran , Allah has lots of words ,Sura [31:27] along others , so is Jesus all of them ???

I know "kalimatuhu" means "Allah's word" , and I it doesn't effect my argument one bit , so what I'm a word by Allah's too , but it does not use the definitive article "al" , there Jesus is not "THE WORD OF ALLAH" according to the Quran .

So NO , When the Quran calls Jesus "A word of of god" or "Allah's word" , its means his miracle , don't try to twist this around unless you back it up.

Ben was attacking my method of using linguistics since its a well known fact that EVERYONE'S argument falls apart when its applied , along with the topic.

That's it ! I'm gonna start blowing chugs soon .

Thanks for the epic fail of hadith , its a faulty translation , the arabic hadith DOESN'T HAVE A DEFINITE ARTICLE "AL" , If it doesn't exist before "kalimah" , then Jesus is not THE word of God , but A word of God just like any other miracle by god .

and does taking quotes from a Muslim book (that's not even a major commentary) enough evidence ? I thought we were discussing the Quran , stick to how things go, I wonder if finding a christian book to pawn off as desperate evidence like you did ? I actually have some , but I don't sink that low.

OHHH !!! The bowing down story , hahahahahahahaaaaa !!! I haven't seen this in a long time ! this story was traced back to a book called "As-siyar w An-Nihal" which is a collection of Muslim FORGERIES AND HERICCIES , we got a missionary over here that pawns this same evidence and got humiliated big time .

last comment "Confirming a word from Allah" , according to the MAJOR commentators it means confirming through his message that he was born by the word of allah "Be" and it becomes , basically Yahya (pbuh) is confirming the virgin birth and Isa's prophet hood (see Al-Qurtubi .

LET ME SEE YOU GET OUT OF THIS MESS .

hugh watt said...

Pt2,Chaud. Since Ben Malik (hi Ben) brought out a few more points before your reply to my latest post, I figure your only option will be to argue against 'translations'. I wait to see. Oh, if it will help you, in one of the Qurans i have it says this; S:3v39, " confirming a Word from Allah". 381. footnote." notice: "a Word from Allah" not "the Word of Allah", the epithet that mystical Christianity uses for Jesus. As stated in 3v59 below, Jesus was created by a miracle by Allah's word " Be", and he was". Looks like this was written as an Islamic apologist/propagandist/deperate attempt to deny Christ's Deity. What do you say?

" Ibn Allah". I will approach this from another angle answering why 'Allah' is found in Arabic Bibles. When the church was being persecuted by Islam unfortunately it gave in to pressure and added 'Allah'. (If i am wrong i am willing to be corrected on this). However, just because 'Allah' appears there it does not mean it is the same God. Why? Firstly, it is a general assumption by Islam that Allah and GOD are the same. NO!NO!NO! You see, just by calling someone/thing 'God' does not make it God. Study the character of the 2 in Bible and Quran. I will not go into too much detail here, but let's consider a few things. Was Allah unknown before Muhammad? If not, what was known (widely) about Allah? The pagans in S:53 as you know said things that lets the researcher in on some things. Allah was known and worshipped by the idolatrous Arabs in the Arabian Peninsula before Muhammad was born. Muhammad's father's name was Abdullah which means 'servant of Allah', and he worshipped Allah at the Ka'ba. The Ka'ba was a center of worship and there were said to be 360 idols there. Allah was the chief god of the Ka'ba at that time. See Sura 105 where it is said that Allah protected the Ka'ba from the army of Abraha Ashram about the time of Muhammad's birth. It should be known too that Muhammad while in Makkah directed his followers to turn away from the pagan Ka,ba in Makkah toward Jerusalem in prayer. Then, about 2 years after the Higra he commanded them to turn again toward the Ka'ba to worship Allah and it was still a center of idolatry with hundreds of idols! Allah was the god of Abdullah's Qureish tribe which was pagan. Allah was the moon god who, according to the pagans, married the sun and knocked-out 3 daughters, Al-Lat, Al-Uzza, and Manat! Jews and Christians have never accepted this about God!
" Al-Ilah". This is what Muslims should say, it means 'the god'. Allah is a contraction of this. This is not a name! We do not go around calling people 'the man'. Neither do we contract this to 'thman'. Give me some references in the Quran where 'Allah' came from so i can check, you seem to know a bit.
In S:5v116 why did Allah need to ask Isa if he made that statement about Mary? Did allah not know what Christians beleived? Yes, there were heretical 'christians' around then, as is the case today. But, why would Allah need to ask this? Shouldn't Allah know?

You said something to Fernando that is relevant to my post.

" you said

"the qur’an’s author clearly assumes, from the context off the text, thate this “three” was the Christian Trinity"

Where is the word "three" ? where is the trinity in that verse or that context to begin with ? when a verse is not meant for you and you still want to speak about you , I think you have a problem ".

S:4v171; " Say not: "three (trinity)!" Cease! It is better for you". Looks like " three" and " trinity" crept in there.

Chaud said...

@hugh [1]

Hi hugh , nice points , I like them , definitely worth answering.

you said
" confirming a Word from Allah". 381. footnote." notice: "a Word from Allah" not "the Word of Allah", the epithet that mystical Christianity uses for Jesus. As stated in 3v59 below, Jesus was created by a miracle by Allah's word " Be", and he was". Looks like this was written as an Islamic apologist/propagandist/deperate attempt to deny Christ's Deity. What do you say?

Although I can go into linguistics again , but I won't do that since I'm kinda sick of it.

I don't see it as a desperate attempt , in fact I don't even see how according to the Quran Jesus is "THE word of God" , the Quran clearly denies what you all call the deity of Jesus , and since this is a translation not the original arabic (which CLEARLY makes Jesus "A word of god" ) , I'd expect a footnote like that , in the end Arabic is tough language , it took me years to learn it.

This is a drastic shift from the topic , but I'll answer.

you said:
When the church was being persecuted by Islam unfortunately it gave in to pressure and added 'Allah'. (If i am wrong i am willing to be corrected on this).

Specify when and where the church was being persecuted to add the word Allah and I will check history and oldest known Arabic christian text to confirm,but the reasons I know of radically different.

you said:
You see, just by calling someone/thing 'God' does not make it God.

I agree , that's why as much as you want to call Jesus god , he ain't god.

you said:
Study the character of the 2 in Bible and Quran

This is exactly why I reject Christianity (and Judaism) the bible contains the most inconsistent deity ever known to man kind.

Chaud said...

@hugh [2]

you said:
Allah was known and worshipped by the idolatrous Arabs in the Arabian Peninsula before Muhammad was born. Muhammad's father's name was Abdullah which means 'servant of Allah', and he worshiped Allah at the Ka'ba.

Notice how you contradict yourself , you just said just because you call something god doesn't make it god , "Allah" means the one true god , now if the Pagans worshiped an idol and decided to call that idol "Allah" , that doesn't make that idol Allah as known in Islam , in fact if you read some of the Pagan texts which recorded what they believed was the teachings of "allah" , you'd see clearly it has nothing to do with the concept of Allah in Islam.

So do you have any proof that the concept of Allah as depicted in Paganism is the exact Allah as depicted in Islam ?

you said
See Sura 105 where it is said that Allah protected the Ka'ba from the army of Abraha Ashram about the time of Muhammad's birth.

True,whats the big deal?

you said
It should be known too that Muhammad while in Makkah directed his followers to turn away from the pagan Ka,ba in Makkah toward Jerusalem in prayer. Then, about 2 years after the Higra he commanded them to turn again toward the Ka'ba to worship Allah and it was still a center of idolatry with hundreds of idols!

You don't need to go far for the answer,read the Quran itself and see what it says,even if you read one single tafseer you wouldn't post this.

one of the reasons (there are many) was because there were too many idols but that's not the main reason ,the main reason was because many of the new muslims hearts were attached to their idols,and allah wanted to TEST THEM,the Quran says in Sura 2:143

and We appointed the Qiblah to which thou was used, only to test those who followed the Messenger from those who would turn on their heels (From the Faith).

you said :
Allah was the god of Abdullah's Qureish tribe which was pagan. Allah was the moon god who, according to the pagans, married the sun and knocked-out 3 daughters, Al-Lat, Al-Uzza, and Manat! Jews and Christians have never accepted this about God!

And I'm not denying that, I'd like some proof that the Allah of the Pagans is the same Allah of Islam.
btw : there were even differences among the pagans on who allah is , some pagans believed allah is the sky god.

" Al-Ilah". This is what Muslims should say, it means 'the god'. Allah is a contraction of this. This is not a name!

That's what you think,it is actually a name,contractions like this are allowed in Arabic,and scholars of the Arabic language trace back the or origins of the word "Allah" to a different source than "Al-Illah" as a NAME of a deity,Allah is way more ancient,but I'm sure you are not familiar with this science.

you said:
Give me some references in the Quran where 'Allah' came from so i can check, you seem to know a bit.

The Quran makes it clear that Allah is the one true eternal god , and distinguish the term Allah as a name from Illah , for example sura 2:255 known as ayat al-kursi :

"Allah (ٱللَّهُ) ! there is no deity (Illah إِلَـٰهَ) but He―the living, the Self-subsisting, Eternal."

among others , but I think is is hopefully sificiant,if you want more let me know.

Allah also is the highest and most appropriate name for the one true god (as he calls himself) in the Arabic language.

Chaud said...

@hugh [3]

In S:5v116 why did Allah need to ask Isa if he made that statement about Mary? Did allah not know what Christians beleived? Yes, there were heretical 'christians' around then, as is the case today. But, why would Allah need to ask this? Shouldn't Allah know?

Because people on the day of judgment will come forth terrified from the truth they rejected and will be coming up with all kinds of excuses , So Allah(swt) as the judge on the day of judgment will make Jesus testify against all those who worshiped him and Mary , Now Allah's claim is no where to doubted by anyone , since the same Prophet they were appealing to and attributing their falsehood to rejected them.

you said
Where is the word "three" ? where is the trinity in that verse or that context to begin with ? when a verse is not meant for you and you still want to speak about you , I think you have a problem ".

S:4v171; " Say not: "three (trinity)!" Cease! It is better for you". Looks like " three" and " trinity" crept in there.


I was asking Fernando to find me in the context of the same sura (sura 5) how he can deduce that Mary , God and Jesus are in a trinity , and I said the trinity is condemned somewhere else in the Quran , and that is Sura 4 like you quoted.

Regards ,
Chaud

PS : Where's David or Nabeel ? I'd like to know what they have to say , and does David still think his question was valid ?

ben malik said...

I told you that this guy is repulsive. If I came out of the sewer it was only because I wanted to know what it feels like for Muhammad.

I am staring to think that when this guy acts stupid he really isn't acting. He says,

Now do you have any evidence that the Arabic language adopted the jewish and christain term and meaning of son of god ? because if you read any book on the evolution of the Arabic language , there is no evidence it was EVER adopted , and words like "um-al kitab" , "ibn as-sabeel" are traced by to Kahtan and Jocktan , some of earliest speakers of the arabic language , you want references let me know.

Yes I do have proof. It is called your Quran and your sira literature which says that there was a Jewish and Christian presence LONG before the ibn al-Shaitan was born in 570 AD. Since these groups had settled there this means that they would have expressed their beliefs and traditions in the language of the Arabs and communicated to them the differences between their beliefs in regards to Allah having sons and daughters with their own which means that Shaitan's favorite son had no excuse for misrepresentation their beliefs.

Now to call out your lie. QUOTE A PRE-ISLAMIC SOURCE, ONE WRITTEN BEFORE THE HUMAN CANCER WAS BORN, PROVING THAT UMM AL-KITAB AND IBN SABEEL WERE IN USE. I am not asking for forged poetry composed or quoted by ibn al-Shaitan's followers in order to justify the grammatical errors of Shaitan's inspired writing.

You guys should just ignore this sewer rat since he is a waste.

ben malik said...

I told you that this guy was going to expose himself. Look at the following stupidity,

OMG ! another idiot ! are you all really that desperate to find an error you just have to create one ?

Sura 5:18 , Now if you think Muhammad or any Muslim understood that Christians and Jews are physical sons of god , then you are DEAD WRONG.
Christains and Jews were claiming they are the true believes from the decedents of the prophets therefore Allah cares for them and loves them the most , see Ibn Kathir .


Are you deliberately trying to be illiterate in imitation of ibn al-Shaitan? I didn't use this to prove that al-Shaitan incarnate thought that the Jews and Christians were physical sons of Allah. I actually used this to prove the exact opposite. I used this to show that words such as ibn Allah had long been part of the Arab culture and language due to the Jews and Christians who were there before ibn himyar was born. This means that the human cancer knew what these terms meant but still decided to reject it while inconsistently using similar terms such as umm al-kitab, ibn sabeel, which he knew did not connote sexual relations whatsoever.

And I want the folks to see what Chaud the Fraud did here. Chaud, you just said that when they said they were children of Allah the Jews and Christians simply meant that Allah loved and cared them and you even went to Ibn Kathir to prove this! It is funny how you couldn't see that your explanation actually proves that Muhammad knew that words such as ibn Allah do not have a physical, sexual connotation. And here you were thinking that you were actually refuting us! What a joke.

I know that following khayru al-makireen makes it impossible for you not to lie and deceive but next time try a little harder not to twist what your opponent is saying.

ben malik said...

Ok, now I know Chaud the Fraud isn't playing stupid. Chaud, you said,

I know "kalimatuhu" means "Allah's word" , and I it doesn't effect my argument one bit , so what I'm a word by Allah's too , but it does not use the definitive article "al" , there Jesus is not "THE WORD OF ALLAH" according to the Quran .

So NO , When the Quran calls Jesus "A word of of god" or "Allah's word" , its means his miracle , don't try to twist this around unless you back it up.


And you also say,

Thanks for the epic fail of hadith , its a faulty translation , the arabic hadith DOESN'T HAVE A DEFINITE ARTICLE "AL" , If it doesn't exist before "kalimah" , then Jesus is not THE word of God , but A word of God just like any other miracle by god .

Before I show why you are not playing stupid can you tell me how you would say that the Quran is the Word of Allah by transliterating the Arabic for all of us so we can see?

When you do answer we will see that you are not acting. Islam has done great damage to your brain and to your integrity.

ben malik said...

Chaud the Fraud, while you are at it please translate the following for me.

ruhullah

rahmatullah

kalimatullah

beitullah

Thank you.

Chaud said...

@Ben Malik [1]

For Nabeel's sake I'll try to turn the other cheek , lets get down again with your crap :

you said
Are you deliberately trying to be illiterate in imitation of ibn al-Shaitan? I didn't use this to prove that al-Shaitan incarnate thought that the Jews and Christians were physical sons of Allah. I actually used this to prove the exact opposite.

what the hell are you talking about ? we weren't talking about the devil incarnate , nor does the verse or tafsir of ibn kathir which I linked you to says anything near that.

I used this to show that words such as ibn Allah had long been part of the Arab culture and language due to the Jews and Christians who were there before ibn himyar was born.

and I explicitly asked you to provide evidence that Ibn Allah as the Christians and jews were using was "integrated" into the arabic culture and "not translated" into like I said , did you comply ? hell no , this is too much for you.

By "integrated" I mean that the christian and Jewish concept became a well known Arabic term and meaning that had to be included in the language , from the Quran I can give you foreign words like "Injeel" and "Sirat" , these 2 words were INTEGRATED and became part of the Arabic standard terminology in Arabic culture.

but unfortunately for you all the evidence shows it was never integrated.

what I'm challenging you is this , prove that according to the arabic culture at the time of Muhammad (or now) :

Ibn Allah = "whatever Christians and Jews believed".

This means that the human cancer knew what these terms meant but still decided to reject it while inconsistently using similar terms such as umm al-kitab, ibn sabeel, which he knew did not connote sexual relations whatsoever.

Dear Jesus , I feel for you , I can't believe this idiot claims to be your follower.

Now did I ever argue that Muhammad never understood Christianity ? In fact I was writing an article proving that he did , thanks a lot .

OMG !!!!! when will the stupidity end ?? Do you know how to read english ? then read my verse first comments , HOW MANY TIMES DO I HAVE TO SAY "IBN" , "UM" & "AB" HAVE DIFFERENT MEANINGS ?
BUT NONE OF METAPHORIC MEANINGS WERE EVER GIVEN TO THE TERM "IBN ALLAH" IN ARABIC CULTURE .

There is no inconstancy , this is how the language works , rather there is a sever case of brain damage on your side .

Ibn As-sabeel is a very rare case which means traveler , and mother of X , X=object usually means source of (um al-kitab)

Question : IS ALLAH AN OBJECT ? IS GOD AN OBJECT ?

Let me make it clear,this argument is refuted and if you still want to argue about it , then take on my challenge,SHOW ME ONE ARABIC GRAMMAR BOOK,LINGUISTIC BOOK,BALAGA BOOK THAT SUPPORTS YOUR CASE.

Chaud said...

@ Ben Malik

And I want the folks to see what Chaud the Fraud did here. Chaud, you just said that when they said they were children of Allah the Jews and Christians simply meant that Allah loved and cared them and you even went to Ibn Kathir to prove this! It is funny how you couldn't see that your explanation actually proves that Muhammad knew that words such as ibn Allah do not have a physical, sexual connotation. And here you were thinking that you were actually refuting us! What a joke.

WHAT A JOKE YOU ARE BEN MALIK ! the joke is on you , hahahahahaaaa !!! you brought this verse up and I explained it , have you noticed what is going so far ?

through this whole debate , I'm arguing that the Quran doesn't teach that Christians believe that Allah had sex and produced a child , while the others are trying to prove that the Quran misrepresents Christianity by saying that , I was still defending my case and refuting you all , unless you had another intention in mind .

Now I'm not denying that Muhammad understood Christianity , in fact this is what I'm arguing for not against .

Now explain to me how did you deduce that "ibn allah" is a part of arabic culture since Muhammad knew the term and what it meant ? myself and many arabic speaking muslims , know what the term "ibn allah" means to jews and christains , does that mean its a part of our arabic culture ? heck no.

I know that following khayru al-makireen makes it impossible for you not to lie and deceive but next time try a little harder not to twist what your opponent is saying.

Any proof of your accusations so far ? all talk , no proof , no BRAINS , typical christian missionary , when did I lie ? I think your implementing Paul's teachings of lying perfectly so far !

again , WHAT A JOKE !

Chaud said...

@Ben Malik [2]

It seems like anti-islamism did too much damage to your brains and integrity not mine , to the point you can't even understand Islamic theology to begin with , and publicly embarrassing yourself , I hope you are not an arabic speaker , because if you are......aaaaahahahahahahahahaaaaaa !!!

Now I know you are playing dumb with me ! notice that I have been arguing this whole time from the original arabic , not from the english translations .

Bring 2 different concepts of the term "word of god" hoping to deceive everyone , bravo ! I have to say among all the missionaries I meant , non have sunk this low , even Rachid.

Folks , witness the deception :

When dealing with divine books , "word of god" (singular and in some cases plural with no definitive article) means "revelation" , see any arabic Mu'jam (dictionary) and see for yourself , I assume you own one , and I challenge you to find ONE PROPER ARABIC DICTIONARY THAT DOESN'T HAVE THIS MEANING.

Now when dealing with Jesus , Jesus is a word from god , like the many words he has , Jesus is a sign and miracle .

The limitations on the English language are preventing you from seeing this , i don't blame you really , English is too limited against the most descriptive language of all time .

Now with your smoke screens cleared off , to translating any of your terms (along with limitations of the English language) :

1-Quran is the word of Allah : "Al-Quran Kalamu Allah" or "Al-Quran Kalimatu Allah"

Meaning : Revelation .

2-ruhullah : Allah's Spirit , in MANY cases it means someone send from Allah.

3-rahmatullah : Allah's mercy , in some cases The Mercy of Allah.

4-kalimatullah : Allah's word , in some cases The Word of Allah.

5-beitullah : Alla's house , in some cases the house allah.

Which meaning to use is according to context.

I see the case you are trying to build , bring it up so I can prove how lame this is getting, and I hope it revolves around the lack of the definitive article ;) , because this is will a blast ! I'll give a small taste of it and hopefully you and the folks here will get the message.

example :

"This is Chaud's house"

it can be expressed IN ENGLISH NOT ARABIC like this :

"This is THE house of Chaud"

You know we have a whole science in Arabic called "Mutaradifat" that deals with this , because words can have dozens of meanings, and this is my favorite arabic science , so bring it on.

hugh watt said...

Hi Chaud. We got global warming going on here.
S:3v39; " allah gives you glad tidings of yahya, confirming (believing in) the word (lower case 'w'), from allah (i.e creation of isa,the Word (upper case 'W')from allah"! You used S:31v27 to make out there's no distinction, but. S:31v27; " and if all the trees on earth were pens and the sea (were ink wherewith to write), with 7 seas behind it to add to its (supply), yet the Words(upper case 'W') of allah would not be exhausted". Just to prove the 2 'words' spoken of are distinct, footnote 3616; " Words of allah": his wonderful signs and commandments are infinite and cannot be expressed if all the trees were made into pens, and all the wide ocean, multiplied 7 times, were made into ink. Any book of his revelation would deal with matters which man can understand and use in his life: there are things that man can never fathom. Nor would any praise that we could write with infinite resources be adequate to describe his power,.." You have denied Jesus is 'The Word', when the Quran says He is! The 2 'words' ARE distinct. You're making false statements! If Jesus is also 'a' Word that needs explaining too.
Shirk. If " sons of god" is not considered 'shirk' in S:5v18 and understood in a 'spiritual way', and if the Quran doesn't understand 'Son of God' in a 'physical way', why the problem with Jesus being 'Son of God'? " Sons of allah" is ok, but " Son of God " is not, WHY? How can Muslims accept " sons" in one place but, " Son" is 'shirk'! S:6v102; " How can he have a son when he hath no consort"? This has to be misunderstood in a physical way. If not, explain. But look, S:72v3; " And he, exalted be the majesty of our lord, has taken neither a wife nor a son ( or offspring or children"). Is this a 'physical wife' or 'spiritual' one? It also contradicts S:5v18 about 'children'.

ben malik said...

Yeah, now I am convinced this guy is stupid. He said.

and I explicitly asked you to provide evidence that Ibn Allah as the Christians and jews were using was "integrated" into the arabic culture and "not translated" into like I said , did you comply ? hell no , this is too much for you.

I thought I made it clear but I guess you don't believe the Quran is clear enough. I said that the same sources you appeal to to prove that umm al-kitab, ibn sabeel were part and parcel of the Arab culture also prove that terms such as ibn Allah were also known and included within that same culture. The Quran, sirah, hadiths all affirm this fact.

But since now I see that you weren't acting but do suffer from illiteracy let me at least try to make this easier for you. Can you explain to me where the Arabic got the words Taurat and Injil from? Are these original Arabic words? Or are they words adapted and borrowed from the Jews and Christians?

If you are honest (which being a mohammadan means that you are not) then you are going to have to admit that the Arabic language took these words over from the Jews and Christians since these groups had made Arabic their language thereby influencing and molding the Arabic language.

This means that words such as Ibn Allah would have also been adopted into the culture long before ibn Shaitan was born (and this further showed just how stupid you are since I wasn't asking you to disucss the origin of the words of ibn Shaitan).

So did you finally get it? I doubt it since if you did you would have rejected the greatest human disease that mankind has ever experienced, the one that was born in 570 in Arabia.

To further mask your stupidity you ask the question,

Question : IS ALLAH AN OBJECT ? IS GOD AN OBJECT ?

First, this is irrelevant to the point of whether ibn can have a metaphorical meaning. I have proven from your own religious books that it can and does.

Second, according to the Quran Allah is an object.

By the heaven and THAT WHICH built it. S. 91:5

Arabic: Was-samaaa-i wa MAA ba-naahaa.

And the earth and THAT WHICH spread it, S. 91:6

Arabic: Waal-ardi wa MAA tahaha

And a soul and THAT WHICH perfected it S. 91:7

Arabic: Wanafsin wa MAA sawwaha

And THAT WHICH hath created male and female, S. 92:3

Arabic: Wa MAA khalaqa alththakara waal-ontha

In these verses ibn Shaitan used maa for Allah, which according to the following apologists refers to things and objects.

The word "mâ" translated as "what" (and underlined with red) in verse 21:98 IS USED TO REFER TO THINGS/OBJECTS and seldom would it refer to people. Otherwise, it would be "man" (i.e. who or whom). Thus Jesus(P) is not referred to in that verse. This verse would rather refer to idols worshipped by the pagan Arabs who lived in the time of Prophet Muhammad(P). More details are available in the section Grammatical considerations & tafsîr. http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Quran/Contrad/Internal/qi032.html#3

This means ibn himyar thought that Allah was a thing, an object!!!!

So since I smoked you on this point can you now answer my questions regarding how would you say that the Quran is the word of Allah in Arabic and how you would translate terms such as ruhullah.

Poor little puppy. He really thought that he was intelligent enough to reply.

Sepher Shalom said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
minoria said...

Hello Chaud:

SALAH

You said SALAH does NOT mean PRAYER.But merely writing Salah on google you find it refers in many articles about the 5X Muslims pray to Allah in 1 day.Specifically to the bowing and prostrating acts praying to Allah.It involves prayer.

ORIGINAL SIN

It means all are born with the ability to SIN.Not that ALL actually sin(those who die as children NEVER sinned).You agree to that,it's observable.Given the chance and being past the age of innocence,given enough incentive,all will sin.

SAMARITANS

I know the Joseph argument.The SAMARITANS were PART-JEWISH.So of course they descended from Joseph.But the NAME ITSELF did NOT even exist in 1,400 BC(Moses' time).Nobody then would have known who the name referred to.NOBODY would have used it to refer to any person of the 12 tribes.

minoria said...

Hello Chaud:

ALLAH AS A PLANNER

The point given is whether the best planner uses or NOT the clearest language in a message so no doubt remains.The word that can certainly be translated as "Allahs prays" is NOT the one the best planner should have used.He should have used an ARABIC word that would NOT lend itself to such a situation.

WHAT HAPPENED TO JESUS?

The Koran says he did NOT die.2 things are possible:
1.The FIRST followers knew he did NOT die,yet that VITAL knowledge got lost very soon(the DEVIL won the day),or:
2.They thought he did and had HALLUCINATIONS(the DEVIL won the day).
So Allah waited 600 years till he revealed the truth.The best plan was to PREVENT such vital info from getting lost from the beginning.

minoria said...

Hello:

In JUDAISM,and the statement "LORD of the SABBATH" has to be understood as it was understood by the Jews then and now,the only LORD of the SABBATH is God.

LEVITICUS 23:1-3:

"The LORD said to Moses,"Speak to the Israelites and say to them: 'These are MY(God's) appointed feasts, the appointed feasts of the LORD, which you are to proclaim as SACRED assemblies.

" 'There are six days when you may work, but the seventh day is a SABBATH of rest, a day of SACRED assembly. You are not to do any work; wherever you live, it is a SABBATH to the LORD."

SON OF MAN is LORD OF SABBATH

The gospel says that Jesus' disciples were working on the sabbath because they were hungry. Jesus was rebuked and he said:"The Sabbath was made for man and not man for the Sabbath and the SON of MAN is LORD of the SABBATH",referring to himself(MARK 2:27-28)

SON OF MAN=HUMAN BEING

SON of MAN was an expression that meant human.EZEKIEL is called "Son of Man" by God some 50X.But NO JEW would ever say a mere man/woman/child was Lord of the Sabbath.It was blasphemy.

SON OF MAN TITLE
On top of that,notice Jesus does NOT say:

"The sabbath was made for man and not man for the sabbath and MAN is the LORD of the SABBATH."He uses the SON of MAN title found in DANIEL 7:14:"and I saw one LIKE a SON of MAN(like a human)."

"I SAY TO YOU" SAYINGS

There are alot of instances where Jesus uses that expression(like the SERMON on the MOUNT).It means "I tell you on MY AUTHORITY".The way a Jewish teacher would speak was "It is WRITTEN",not "I say to you."It shows Jesus was very confident of his authority.

Chaud said...

@Ben [1]

Thanks for giving me something to think about (and laugh at) , for now I'd appreciate it if you tune your insults down a bit , Muhammad has a name so call him with it , I'm not a Muhammadian , and Muslims don't lie (but apparently your islamophobia takes over when dealing with points you can't refute) , I know for a fact you aint gonna tune down nor are you going to accept the fact you got refuted , so here we go again :

you said
I thought I made it clear but I guess you don't believe the Quran is clear enough. I said that the same sources you appeal to to prove that umm al-kitab, ibn sabeel were part and parcel of the Arab culture also prove that terms such as ibn Allah were also known and included within that same culture. The Quran, sirah, hadiths all affirm this fact.

No I do not believe the Quran is clear enough to make anyone deduce that Ibn Allah became a part of the arabic culture , since not one arabic scholar says so.

The same sources I appealed to is a TAFSIR , not a book dealing with arabic language , and I was still making my point that Muhammad understood Christianity .

Let me make it clear AGAIN , Words like Ibn As-Sabeel and Um Al-Kitab and others are traced by to Joktan one of the earliest speakers of the arabic lanuage , while IBN ALLAH is no more than a translation that stayed in the circles of pagans , Christians and jews and NEVER became integrated with the arabic culture .

I asked you to explain who does Muhammad knowing it means its a part of the culture ? No answer just like I expected.

All you did was repeated what you said in your last post , you happy now ? i was seriously hopping for a reply , but all I got was insults.

Can you explain to me where the Arabic got the words Taurat and Injil from? Are these original Arabic words? Or are they words adapted and borrowed from the Jews and Christians?

This is correct and I got no problem with it , Injeel is a greek word meaning "good news" and taurat is a hebrew word meaning "law and regulations" , they were adapted from the christians and jews BUT does that mean IBN ALLAH got integrated ? heck no.

One of reasons why some words get integrated into the language is its popularity among the general arabic speaking people,and no scholar would dare say that IBN ALLAH as christains and jews understand it was EVER a popular meaning among the arabs during the time of Muhammad.

This means that words such as Ibn Allah would have also been adopted into the culture long before ibn Shaitan was born (and this further showed just how stupid you are since I wasn't asking you to disucss the origin of the words of ibn Shaitan).

I'm sorry back then I thought you were a decent human being before I noticed you were insulting Muhammad , you have to excuse me for that , i usually think the best of people until they bring out their worse.

its easy to say "would have been" , I know there was a possibility that it could have been adopted , the question is , WAS IT ADOPTED ? all the evidence says no , and you didn't bring up evidence to refute this.

minoria said...

Hello Chaud:

Regarding the translation of "to hit" as "to leave/depart" it comes from LALEH BAKHTIAR,a half-Iranian convert to Islam(she was a Catholic before).She has been a Muslim for 30 years.In 2007 she was the first woman to translate the Koran(I don't know if they mean into English or in all history).Her translation was condemned by ISNA(Islamic Society of North America).They didn't allow her translation to be sold in their building.She's in wikipedia.

Chaud said...

@Ben [2]

OMG ! this again ! ok lets get down to the next Arabic linguistics lesson :

Mr.desperate here just like David Wood takes the meaning of a word from one verses and applies to the other as of there are no words before and after it determining context and meaning , lets see how shallow and frankly funny this argument is (this is sooooo going on the arabic forums , we'll have a good laugh at this)

it is true that in Sura Qur'ân 21:98 , "Maa" is used to mean "what" , and its a correct translation because after it is a verb in one of its "Afaal al-khamsa" form (the 5 verbal structures which refers to someone else) , this is one of the rules of "Maa" , as you can in sura 21:98

"Surely you and what you worship (*) besides Allah are the firewood of hell; to it you shall come."

* Tabodoon ( تَعْبُدُونَ) , from the verb (عبد) in the 3rd shape of the Ifaal al-khmasa form , referring to others , which means Maa here does mean "what" .

Now Sura 91 (hehehehehheheeehahahahahaa)

The "maa" here has a total different meaning , there is no Afaal Khamsa to make the meaning "what" , this time the verbs are referring to the "Fa'el" (Doer of the action) , in this case 'Maa' becomes "WHO" .

after "maa" there BANAHA (بَنَاهَا) , this is a verb that refers to its doer , which is not an object but a being.

Even pickthall gets it right !

091.005 And the heaven and Him Who built it
091.006 And the earth and Him Who spread it
091.007 And a soul and Him Who perfected it

Buddy , take a break from this , you are losing .

and I have to correct myself , THIS is the most desperate argument I've ever seen in my life.

i guess Muhammad did not think of Allah as an object ! EPIC FAIL FOR YOU !

now since all you managed to do was to smoke my co .... O wait this is religious forum I shouldn't use such profanities .

Now since you got refuted , you got any better arguments or should I just wait for your next post full of insults ad stupidity , because we are wasting time here .

So please , if you want to continue arguing from linguistics , then answer my challenges first because you can't keep appealing to Ibn Al-Sabeel and Um Al-Kitab if you don't answer them , these 2 words and their rules have existed way longer than Christianity and Judaism ever came to this earth.

Chaud said...

@Sepher Shalom

The way I constructed the sentence does give this impression although it wasn't what I had in mind , its seems like I was typing in a hurry , I apologize and thanks for the correction , but I have to correct you on one point , Judaism and Christianity predating Islam (by Islam I mean what was revealed to Muhammad , I think you all know what Muslims believe concerning this) then YES .

BUT Christianity and Judaism does not predate the arabic culture , in fact it predates them both.

you said

Now you are conflating the various meanings of the word "object". The linguistic and grammatical reality of words functioning as subjects and object in sentence construction should not be conflated with theological positions about the nature of your deity.

I'm not sure how you expect to have a logical and factual discourse that bears any sort of real meaning on higher matters, when you can't avoid conflating these simple concepts?


The reason I asked that question is because I am already presuming I'm not speaking to Pagans , but to Christians that believe that God is living God not an object .

The theological position of God in Islam and Christianity is that he is the supreme being and he his a living god...etc , and if you attribute all this to an object , then what you have is an idol , Christians don't believe they worship idols , Muslims don't believe they worship idols either.

I think you get my point now .

Again thank you for the correction .

Regards ,

Chaud

Chaud said...

@Minora

Hello ,

Thanks for the info about the Lord of the Sabbath , I'll take my time looking into christian and Jewish sources to understand its full meaning , and see it actually applies to Jesus , thank you again.

but I do have a comment on the authority of a prophet of god , in Islam has that authority to abrogate if Allah commands him to , so its not surprising for me that Jesus was so doing that.

about Salah , I do agree that it means prayer I never denied this , but I was saying that IT ALSO MEANS exulting blessings , now what we Muslims do is prayer , what Allah does is exulting blessings to the prophet .

WOW ! This is the first time I've ever seen someone define original sin this way , this is a definition I have no problem with , when Islam denies original sin , its denying the notion that we are all born sinners , not your definition.

Well I'm not going into details with the Samaritan issue , Islam Awareness has a great article here.

I'll just add one thing , if you ever visit eygpt , ask the professors in the museum about the Samaritans , you'd be amazed .

as for Allah the planner , I wouldn't expect the Quran to be 100% explicit , then it won't be a miracle like it claims to be.

But since the Quran uses the highest literary style ever known to man-kind , using the word "Salah" is better than would be in arabic "exulting mercy and blessings" .

Its a big issue.

Now about Jesus

1-The FIRST followers knew he did NOT die,yet that VITAL knowledge got lost very soon(the DEVIL won the day)

According to you the devil won the day.

Perhaps this happened , but this doesn't explain the existence of Christianity since the followers of Jesus would've understood that he was a martyr prophet of god , the things you all believe in came later .

Now this is an argument used a lot by David and Nabeel , "got lost very soon" indicating that this knowledge , or the religion of Jesus got (what David said in his radio show with Bassam) totally destroyed by Paul and his religion.

THIS IS 100% HISTORICALLY FALSE , I'm writing an article about this , I'll post it here soon if anyone wants to see it , but long story short check the history of religion in the middle east ACCORDING TO CHRISTIAN HISTORIANS , and get amazed.

2- They thought he did and had HALLUCINATIONS(the DEVIL won the day)

i'd say this fits is the christian case more than it does with the quranic case , but NO they did not have hallucinations , in fact some commentators of the Quran concluded that Allah gave the followers of Jesus a vision of him after he was transfigured in the sky since they were very sad , but I'm not a follower of this opinion.

3-So Allah waited 600 years till he revealed the truth.The best plan was to PREVENT such vital info from getting lost from the beginning.

this truth has been available ever since the beginning of this whole mess until Islam came , its hard to go into details , I'd ask you to please wait until I publish my article because I will deal with this .

Regards ,
Chaud

Chaud said...

@hugh

Hi Hugh , I almost forgot about your comment, sorry for late response .

The one raising the heat here is BEN and his deception , arguing from a language he doesn't understand along with insults , of course we got global warming over here ,all talk no proof , shameful.

now to your points , now most of comment can be answered by one sentence :

There is no such thing as "lower case" and "upper case" in Arabic , there is definite and non-definite (muarraf and nakirah) , I am arguing that Jesus is A WORD with a non-definite article , not THE word with a definite article the way Christians claim .

you said
You have denied Jesus is 'The Word', when the Quran says He is! The 2 'words' ARE distinct. You're making false statements! If Jesus is also 'a' Word that needs explaining too.

No the Quran does not say he is "THE WORD" and I explained why .

The definition you gave of what is a word of allah is true , and Jesus falls under that category perfectly , you see what I and the Quran deny is that Jesus is THE WORD of Allah as christian define it to be a part of Allah.

Did you read the totality of Sura S:5v18 and its commentary ? it CONDEMNS Jews and Christians for saying that.

you said
if the Quran doesn't understand 'Son of God' in a 'physical way', why the problem with Jesus being 'Son of God'?

If by "son of god" you mean , "from god" meaning his creation .
or by "son of god" you mean a religious person.
or by "son of god" you mean prophet of god.

Islam has no problem with these meaning with their cultural context , like I said even Ibn Taymiya had no problem with the term if it meant what I just said

but what Islam does have a problem with is this :

1-Son of god meaning equal to god .
2-Son of god meaning 2nd person in the trinity.
3-Son of god meaning divine .
4-Son of god meaning the only begotten son.

This is shirk at its best.

you said
" Sons of allah" is ok, but " Son of God " is not, WHY?

When was "sons of allah" allowed in the quran to begin with ?

How can Muslims accept " sons" in one place but, " Son" is 'shirk'! S:6v102; "

When did Muslims accept sons to begin with ?

Sura 6:102 has nothing to do with anything , I think you mean 101 , and we already dealt with that if you don't remember , this verse was answering PAGANS and their definition of son of god.

This has to be misunderstood in a physical way.

and I agree , but its not a misunderstanding since it has nothing to do with Christians , now if a Muslim relates this to Christians then he/she is in error , I will give you that point.

If not, explain. But look, S:72v3; " And he, exalted be the majesty of our lord, has taken neither a wife nor a son ( or offspring or children"). Is this a 'physical wife' or 'spiritual' one? It also contradicts S:5v18 about 'children'.
so you have a problem with sura 72:3 well if you read sura 72:4 it might help you out a bit .

Sura 72:4
There were some foolish ones among us, who used to utter extravagant lies against Allah.

The verse denies anyone who said God has a son or wife , and its addressing anyone actually says that , do you say that Allah has a wife or son in the physical sense ? if no then this has nothing to do with you.

and this is what I meant by "21 century misunderstanding by you" if you remember , not every verse in the Quran that touches son ship is dealing with Christians and Jews , all the tafsirs say this is dealing with pagans again.

ben malik said...

I see that Chaud the Fraud answered my other questions but I missed it.

1-Quran is the word of Allah : "Al-Quran Kalamu Allah" or "Al-Quran Kalimatu Allah"

Meaning : Revelation .


So "THE word of Allah" would be translated in Arabic as Kalam/Kalimatullah WITHOUT A DEFINITE ARTICLE IN ARABIC! WOW! What was ytour pathetic reason why Jesus WAS NOT THE WORD OF ALLAH, BUT A WORD? Let me remind you.

I know "kalimatuhu" means "Allah's word" , and I it doesn't effect my argument one bit , so what I'm a word by Allah's too , BUT IT DOES USE THE DEFINITIVE ARTICLE "al" , there Jesus is not "THE WORD OF ALLAH" according to the Quran .

Thanks for the epic fail of hadith , its a faulty translation , the arabic hadith DOESN'T HAVE A DEFINITE ARTICLE "AL" , If it doesn't exist before "kalimah" , then Jesus is not THE word of God , but A word of God just like any other miracle by god .

But wait a minute. Didn't you say that Allah has LOTS OF WORDS? If so why are you saying that the Quran is THE Word of Allah?

And since the Arabic doesn't use the definite article for the Quran why then did you agree that the Quran is called THE Word of Allah. Why didn't you say that the Quran is A Word from Allah? We know why.

2-ruhullah : Allah's Spirit , in MANY cases it means someone send from Allah.

Apart from the last line which is in error you agree then that ruhullah can be translated THE Spirit of Allah since this is what you said next.

3-rahmatullah : Allah's mercy , in some cases The Mercy of Allah.

So Allah's Mercy is the same thing as saying the Mercy of Allah, which means that when Jesus is said to be His Word, meaning Allah's Word, this is the same thing as saying that he is the Word of Allah!

Even though there is no definite article you still translated it with a definite article in English! What was that about the hadith and it's translating kalimatullah as THE Word of Allah?

Again, why didn't you translate rahmatullah as A Mercy of Allah? We know why.

This next one was grand.

4-kalimatullah : Allah's word , in some cases The Word of Allah.

So kalimatullah DOES MEAN THE WORD OF ALLAH? So how dare you say that Jesus is A Word from Allah when the same exact expression kalimatullah is used for him?

5-beitullah : Alla's house

And then you say:

"This is Chaud's house"

it can be expressed IN ENGLISH NOT ARABIC like this :

"This is THE house of Chaud"


This is why I say you are liar and a fraud. You admit that even though the Arabic doesn't use the definite article that doesn't mean that the words should be translated with an indefinite article in english. In every case I gave you where there was no definite article in the Arabic you translated them WITH THE DEFINITE ARTICLE THE!

Only when it comes to Jesus did you use the stupid and ignorant comment that Jesus can't be the Word of Allah because the Arabic lacks the definite article!

What a fraud and clown you are!

Like I said guys time to put Chaud on your ignore list. He is a deceiver like khayru al-makireen his daddy.

hugh watt said...

Chaud, you said; " what I meant by Jesus calling himself "son of god" in the Jewish sense is exactly what it meant , so when Christians come to me saying "Jesus claimed to be the son of god!!!" , I'd say "so what? that doesn't make him divine since he was a jew".
i hope you are understanding my point , if not I'll elaborate more in my next post". Still waiting.

You said, " Islam doesn't "misunderstand" the trinity, it condemns it".
You also said;" Hugh, Father/son = physical relation was in response to Pagans, not Christians, unless you want to tell me Christians fall under pagans but I don't believe that.
Where do Muslims get it ? what have we been discussing the whole time ? their background culture which is foreign to Jewish and christian terminology , therefore a Muslim might understand a physical relationship until you explain it.
Notice the whole I've been arguing if the Muslim never read the bible , so using the bible doesn't help your case.
If a number of Muslims understand the pagan related verses and confuse them with Christians , then its the Muslim's fault , NOT ALLAH'S FAULT , I have to honest and admit that at least.

If the confusion is not allah's then explain these. S:4v171; " Say not: "3 (trinity)!" Cease! (it is) better for you. For allah is (the only) one..". And, S:5v73; " They surely disbelieve who say: lo! allah is the third of 3..". This is not Muslim confusion Chaud. This is allah misunderstanding 'Trinity'=3! You just gotta explain this.
Islam says, 1+1+1=3. Now explain Wudu! How many times do you do Wudu for ONE to be complete? Christianity has never said Trinity =3. This proves allah is not God! This is human reasoning. The Quran is not of divine origin.

Chaud said...

@Ben

Your new epic fail just got released so sorry for the late response .

So "THE word of Allah" would be translated in Arabic as Kalam/Kalimatullah WITHOUT A DEFINITE ARTICLE IN ARABIC! WOW! What was ytour pathetic reason why Jesus WAS NOT THE WORD OF ALLAH, BUT A WORD? Let me remind you.

and your even more pathetic reasoning allows you to bend arguments how you like :P

I said "The Word Of Allah" meaning revelation & sign / miracle , the problem with you is that are trying to find an opening for to promote your God by using the same word using a different context and meaning .

Paul's method of lying and deceit at its best !

If Jesus is "THE WORD" , I would expect the same word in the Arabic bibles

AL-KALIMAH

you said (I pity you)

Didn't you say that Allah has LOTS OF WORDS? If so why are you saying that the Quran is THE Word of Allah?

Because Allah has MANY SIGNS (Kalimat) , and the Quran is a REVELATION (Kalimah) .

and when dealing with SIGNS , you noticed it was in plural , so if you deal with one sign like Jesus , it becomes Kalimah .

And since the Arabic doesn't use the definite article for the Quran why then did you agree that the Quran is called THE Word of Allah.

Because that's what the English langugae offers , very limited words and a slight different usage of the definite article .
In Arabic there is no problem.

Why didn't you say that the Quran is A Word from Allah? We know why.

Because word of allah here has a different meaning.
and again the limitations of the English language.

Apart from the last line which is in error
Show me the error

which means that when Jesus is said to be His Word, meaning Allah's Word, this is the same thing as saying that he is the Word of Allah!
Even though there is no definite article you still translated it with a definite article in English! What was that about the hadith and it's translating kalimatullah as THE Word of Allah?
Again, why didn't you translate rahmatullah as A Mercy of Allah? We know why.


Actually no , I posted the different meanings , but not in the contexts (because I already explained some of them) since I assumed you know them , you me to go into more detail , I'll add one point.

Jesus is referred in the Quran as "Kalimatin MINHU" when giving the good news to Mary , now I think you know this wrecks your whole argument .

Chaud said...

So kalimatullah DOES MEAN THE WORD OF ALLAH? So how dare you say that Jesus is A Word from Allah when the same exact expression kalimatullah is used for him?

because Jesus is A word from allah , and yes arabic expressionism uses the same word that's translated "the word" when meaning revelation , what's your problem ?
Because the expression under that context means sign.

This is why I say you are liar and a fraud. You admit that even though the Arabic doesn't use the definite article that doesn't mean that the words should be translated with an indefinite article in english. In every case I gave you where there was no definite article in the Arabic you translated them WITH THE DEFINITE ARTICLE THE!

Actually I gave 2 translations with and without and without their meanings since English is too limited , in every case with and the article has meaning and without it has another , I knew you'd fall for it ! as if English can actually give accurate contextual translations.

hehehehhahahahahahahhahaaaaa !!!

Dude , did you notice the whole time I wasn't arguing from the English ? I couldn't care less what the english says , the arabic context JESUS IS A WORD OF ALLAH . period .

Now there are meanings that can not be achieved in English unless you add the "THE" , go argue with your scholars about that , don't come blaming how the arabic uses same expressions with different meanings , its called "mutaradifat"

What's next ? If I show you Japanese bible that uses "sama" next Jesus , and uses the same expression "sama" next to Allah , that means he's god ?

Because this is exactly what's goin' on .

Chaud said...

@Ben

and where is your response to my challenges and rest of my arguments ???

Chaud said...

@Ben

You are as desperate as were before , 'till now all I'm seeing is taking one word , taking one context and applying it too all .

If you are soooo sure that Jesus is THE WORD OF GOD according to the Quran , then prove it from the Quran using the context.

Because these "Sam Shomoun" like games are ridicules .

So let me say it again , Yes because of the limitation of the english language , to bring out some meanings the ENGLISH definitive article is added TO THE TRANSLATION , and it not really a point you can exploit .

JESUS IS A WORD OF ALLAH ! meaning a sign and miracle from him .

Now its my time for a question , if Jesus is "THE WORD" , then why doesn't the Quran use the same expression as the bible does ?

John 1:1

In the beginning was the word ,and the word was with god , and the word was god

فِي الْبَدْءِ كَانَ الْكَلِمَةُ، وَالْكَلِمَةُ كَانَ عِنْدَ اللهِ. وَكَانَ الْكَلِمَةُ هُوَ اللهُ .

If "Kamimat Allah" means "The Word of God" the way the Christians want the Quran to say , why does EVERY SINGLE ARABIC BIBLE ADD A DEFINITIVE ARTICLE TO "KALIMAH" IN THE CONTEXT OF JESUS ?

Because they know for a fact everything I just told you , and for Jesus to become "the word" the way Christians understand it , a definitive article is necessary , they don't want people to understand that Jesus is A word just like all the other signs and miracles in the bible.

Unless you have a better answer (I almost sure you don't have one).

and why does the Quran not give a definitive article to the word "kalimah" in the context of Jesus ?

To make Jesus a wonder and sign from Allah.

Stop struggling with the Quran , you're embarrassing yourself , I really hoped I didn't have to sink so low to the level I have to use the bible.

I could've sunk low to your level and started saying "see ? the word is AL-Kalimah !!! " in the same way you did with the word "MAA" (and got exposed badly) , but there is no need to.

PEACE !

Chaud

Chaud said...

@Hugh

you said
If the confusion is not allah's then explain these. S:4v171; " Say not: "3 (trinity)!" Cease! (it is) better for you. For allah is (the only) one..". And, S:5v73; " They surely disbelieve who say: lo! allah is the third of 3..". This is not Muslim confusion Chaud. This is allah misunderstanding 'Trinity'=3! You just gotta explain this.

No , I don't have to explain anything , in fact you need to explain to me how the trinity makes sense and the Quranic verse doesn't .

Trinity = 3 , well I'm gonna have to agree with the Quran on this one because the trinity is no more than tri-theism with a mask of monotheism , and the worst form of shirk ever !

I wouldn't say the Quran is misunderstanding the trinity (since it doesn't make sense to begin with) , I'd say its exposing the trinity as false.

If you want to prove to me that the Quran is wrong and it misunderstands the trinity when it says the trinity=3 , then lets have a trinity debate .

I don't care if Christianity never said trinity = 3 (in the case of trinity only) , does that make the christian concept of 3=1 true ?

No , I wouldn't say the Quran is human reasoning , I'd say trinity is human reasoning and the Quran came to correct the christian claim but saying trinity=3 , condemning it , and calling the Christians back to Abrahamic monotheism .

for something to be misunderstood , first it has to be logically explained , and there is no logical explanation to the trinity.

you said:
Now explain Wudu! How many times do you do Wudu for ONE to be complete?

HUH ? How many times do I do Wudu for one to be complete ?

ONCE.

Wudu has a series of actions in it (wash face , wash hands...etc) , each action is not the whole wudu.

So it doesn't help the case for trinity.

Chaud said...

@BEN MALIK

POST CORRECTION

I posted this statement

'What's next ? If I show you Japanese bible that uses "sama" next Jesus , and uses the same expression "sama" next to Allah , that means he's god ?"


WHAT I MEANT TO SAY WAS


'What's next ? If I show you Japanese QURAN that uses "sama" next Jesus , and uses the same expression "sama" next to Allah , that means he's god ?"

Thank you and sorry for trouble.

Chaud said...

@BEN MALIK

Another post correction

"I said "The Word Of Allah" meaning revelation & sign / miracle"

"Sign and miracle" are not supposed to be there , seems like I had too much on my mind while typing.

Sorry again for trouble.

Fernando said...

My dear friends in Christ... habe you noticed whate our friend in humanity Chaud wrotte?

"Trinity = 3 , well I'm gonna have to agree with the qur'an on this one because the trinity is no more than tri-theism with a mask of monotheism , and the worst form of shirk ever!"...

another enourmous example off ignorance:

a) from him;
b) from the qur'an (eben according to him)...

so: first, on aprevious post, he saide the qur'an did not speek aboutte the Holy Trinity rather aboutte whate supposedely the marionites believed, butt now he says thate the qur'an sais the Holy Trinity is 3...

so: the qur'an's author (muhammad, Uthman or any other) believed, as our good friend Chaud does, tahte the Holy Trinity is a forme of tri-teísm... hummm... I thought thate tri-teísm was sinonimous off 3 goods... hummm... where, eber, Christians beliebed in 3 gods?... as I saide enumerous times:

a) the qu'an's authors are utterly ignorante;
b) due to tahte fact, eben present days muslims are totally ignorantes;

more: no where, as I stated before, a Christian associates a creature in a soteriological manifestation off faithe... on the other hand, thats, precisely, whate muslims do when they associate muhammad withe allah in the shahadda...

when in Indonesia we had a book thate showedd a picture off the Holy Trinity and below there were a question: «how many beings do you see represented there?»... this is the kinde off ignorance thate is spreed around the muslim world aboutt Christianity...

Islam is based on the ignorance off its creator and only sustaines itself due to 2 structures basedd uppon ignorance:

1) from its true nature (v.g., 90% off muslims do nott eben habe access to a qur'an thate they can understand: they only know whate theire leaders say...)
2) from the true nature off the "world outside islam" tahte is countinously degradated, insulted, charicaturated in order to creatte in maometanans psychological defenses in order to: habe fear in leaving islam (the penalties due to apostasy) and habe a false sensation off being following a true realigion tahte, as a amtter off fact, is the most untruth idiology thate eber existed in the world...

as a muslim convert to Christianity (aftter being an iman for more than 30 years) saide in his book لطريق إلى الحقيقة

محمد كان يجهل أنه اخترع دين زائف يقوم على اساس الجهل وعلى الأكاذيب

so... my dear friends in Christ: do habe patience withe Chaud: he, as a typical maometan, is living in an ignorance: he has been fooled by other ignorante persons as I was ounce in my liffe... the pathe to the truth is hard and many fear it... he saide he bacome a muslim after seeing Tele-evangelisms... hummm... thate says it all...

let's pray for him, his family and friends...

ben malik said...

I told you Chaud is history. After embarrassing him for his ignorance of Arabic he now starts signing a different tune to cover up his ineptitude. Let me briefly touch on some of his points. He says.

Because Allah has MANY SIGNS (Kalimat) , and the Quran is a REVELATION (Kalimah) .

and when dealing with SIGNS , you noticed it was in plural , so if you deal with one sign like Jesus , it becomes Kalimah .


This again shows that this guys is a fraud since the word for sign in the Arabic jokebook is not kalimah but ayah, the plural of which being ayat. Now let us see what Jesus is called in the Quran.

He said: "So shall it be. Thy Lord hath said: 'Easy is this with me;' and we will make him A SIGN (ayatan) to mankind, and a mercy from us. For it is a thing decreed." [Quran 19:21]

And she who guarded her private parts, and we breathed into her of our Spirit, and we made her and her son A SIGN (ayatan) unto the worlds. [Quran 21:91]

And we made the son of Mary and his mother A SIGN (ayatan); and we lodged them both on a high place, furnished with security and a spring. [Quran 23:50]

The other problem is that the Quran DOESN'T CALL JESUS KALIMAH BUT KALIMAT, PLURAL, WHICH CHAUD SAYS IS USED FOR SIGNS (MANY), NOT SIGN (SINGULAR):

Behold! the angels said: "O Mary! Allah giveth thee glad tidings of a Word from Him (biKALIMATin minhu) whose name will be Christ Jesus, the son of Mary, held in honour in this world and the Hereafter and of (the company of) those nearest to Allah; [Quran 3:45]

ye who have received the scriptures, exceed not the just bounds in your religion, neither say of God [any other] than the truth. Verily Christ Jesus the son of Mary [is] the apostle of God, and his word (KALIMATuhu), which he conveyed into Mary, and a spirit [proceeding] from him. Believe therefore in God, and his apostles, and say not, [there are] three [Gods]; forbear [this]; it will be better for you. God is but one God. Far be it from him that he should have a son! Unto him [belongeth] whatsoever [is] in heaven and on earth; and God is a sufficient protector. [Quran 4:171]

This means that according to the Fraud khayru al-makireen didn't know Arabic since he called Jesus his kalimat when he should have called him his kalimah. However, since the lying spirit and the father of the arab cancer who was born in 570 called Jesus kalimat this must mean that Jesus is not just a sign but must be the totality of the signs of khayru al-makireen. Again, this is all thanks to Chaud the Fraud's reasoning.

Because Chaud is controlled by the same lying spirit that spoke through ibn shaitan, the Arab madman, he had to lie and twist my words.

More to come in the next post.

ben malik said...

Chaud can't help but expose Muhammad as an illiterate who didn't know Arabic since this is what he writes.

it is true that in Sura Qur'ân 21:98 , "Maa" is used to mean "what" , and its a correct translation because after it is a verb in one of its "Afaal al-khamsa" form (the 5 verbal structures which refers to someone else) , this is one of the rules of "Maa" , as you can in sura 21:98

"Surely you and what you worship (*) besides Allah are the firewood of hell; to it you shall come."

* Tabodoon ( تَعْبُدُونَ) , from the verb (عبد) in the 3rd shape of the Ifaal al-khmasa form , referring to others , which means Maa here does mean "what" .

Now Sura 91 (hehehehehheheeehahahahahaa)

The "maa" here has a total different meaning , there is no Afaal Khamsa to make the meaning "what" , this time the verbs are referring to the "Fa'el" (Doer of the action) , in this case 'Maa' becomes "WHO" .

after "maa" there BANAHA (بَنَاهَا) , this is a verb that refers to its doer , which is not an object but a being.


Poor Fraud, he doesn't see how he just destroyed his entire claim since here is what Muhammad says about his god in Quran 109.

I worship not THAT WHICH ye worship (MA taAAbudoona), nor will ye worship THAT WHICH I worship (MA aAAbudu ). And I will not worship THAT WHICH ye have been wont to worship (MA AAabadtum), nor will ye worship THAT WHICH I worship (MA aAAbudu ). [Quran 109]

The Arabian antichrist tells the meccans that he will not worship their gods and idols and they won't worship his god. What makes this interesting is that he uses the impersonal maa, which refers to things and objects, for Allah his lying spirit and for the idols of the meccans in the context of worship and even uses the same expression that is found in Quran 21:98!

Lo! ye (idolaters) and THAT WHICH ye worship (waMA taAAbudoona) beside Allah are fuel of hell. Thereunto ye will come.

And nice try, btw, with your attempt of avoiding having to admit that Allah is classified as an object by appealing to banaha which only means that you erroneously thought that this establishes that ma in this context cannot refer to an object but a doer as if objects can't perform actions. This only confirms that you don't share Muhammad's beliefs since Muhammad thought that objects could perform actions which is why he chose to call his god a what in these verses.

Too bad Muhammad didn't share your beliefs or didn't know Arabic as well as you think you do!

Chaud, time to give it up because you are fraud like Muhammad was. I know your pride won't let you do so which is why you will be constantly embarrassing yourself along with discrediting the Arabian cancer that has brought suffering and misery to billions of people throughout the centuries.

ben malik said...

Time to answer the Fraud's question.

JESUS IS A WORD OF ALLAH ! meaning a sign and miracle from him .

Now its my time for a question , if Jesus is "THE WORD" , then why doesn't the Quran use the same expression as the bible does ?

John 1:1

In the beginning was the word ,and the word was with god , and the word was god

If "Kamimat Allah" means "The Word of God" the way the Christians want the Quran to say , why does EVERY SINGLE ARABIC BIBLE ADD A DEFINITIVE ARTICLE TO "KALIMAH" IN THE CONTEXT OF JESUS ?

Because they know for a fact everything I just told you , and for Jesus to become "the word" the way Christians understand it , a definitive article is necessary , they don't want people to understand that Jesus is A word just like all the other signs and miracles in the bible.

Unless you have a better answer (I almost sure you don't have one).


Poor Fraud he doesn't see how this will now establish my case.

Number 1. Jesus is not called the Word of God in John 1:1, but the Word.

Number 2. We shall now see how kalimatullah has the same exact meaning as al-kalimah since this is what Revelation calls Jesus:

“He is dressed in a robe dipped in blood, and his name is THE Word of God (HO logos tou theou).” Revelation 19:13

Does everyone notice the definite article preceding the Greek word Logos? Jesus is called THE Word of God, not A Word of God.

Now why is this important? Because the Arabic Bible translates the Greek AS KALIMATULLAH WITHOUT THE DEFINITE ARTICLE!!!!

The Arabic translates the words “his name is the Word of God” as ismahu kalimatullah, NOT AS ismahu AL-kalimatullah.

This means that kalimatullah has the same force and meaning as when Jesus is called AL-Kalimah!

So Fraud has again exposed himself as a liar who doesn't know Arabic well enough to be commenting on it.

Anyway I am done wasting my time on this child. He can have the last say since it is obvious to everyone here that this Fraud is like Muhammad who will never admit he is wrong but lie through his teeth to cover up all his mistakes.

Fernando said...

My dear Christian brothers... habe you noticed thate our good friend in humanitry called Chaud has problem in graspping thate according to the Christian theology 3=1?...

well... this one I habe to grant hime... I neber understood that myself... then I realized thate nowhere Christians were adding persons like you and me, rather "upostasis"... it took me a big efford to leave the net off islamic ignorance and stupidity in which I ounce lived and understand the true...

may us pray for our beloved friend in humanity Vhaud...

Chaud said...

@Ben Malik [1]

I told you Chaud is history. After embarrassing him for his ignorance of Arabic he now starts signing a different tune to cover up his ineptitude.

Whatever makes you sleep the night , How's fairytale land ?

you honestly expect me to cover every single detail in a word ? words can have dozens (and in some cases hundreds) of contexts and meanings , I ain't gonna become a high school arabic teacher for you , just accept the fact that arabic is not were you can argue .

This again shows that this guys is a fraud since the word for sign in the Arabic jokebook is not kalimah but ayah, the plural of which being ayat. Now let us see what Jesus is called in the Quran.

OH ! and what is this meaning here is my dictionary ???
Kalimah in several contexts can mean sign moron , aya is just the most popular usage.
Jesus indeed is a miracle and sign from Allah.

OMG !!!!! this is classic , this is definitly going on my blog !! hahahahahaaa !!

dude you honestly think Jesus was called "KALIMAT" , the plural ???? desperation at its best !

Ok,another lesson,this is kindergarten level,nothing advanced like I was saying.

you used this verse :

behold! the angels said: "O Mary! Allah giveth thee glad tidings of a Word from Him (biKALIMATin minhu)

In arabic there is something called "HARAKAT" this doesn't exist in English , but the closest I can get to your understanding is that its a short version of the vowels ,

1-there is the short Alif (fatha) which looks like a small dash up the letter.
2- there is the short Waw (damma)which looks like a small waw in arabic up letter.
3- there is a short Yaa' (kasra) which looks like a small dash under the letter.

another form is TANWEEN , which is basically the same categories but has a double emphasis and it makes the reader make a "nun" sound at the end.

YOUR STUPID MISTAKE WAS MIXING BETWEEN THE HARAKAT AND THE VOWELS

Dude this is kindergarten level arabic.

here is the word KALAMAT : كلمات

here is KALIMAH : كلمة

They don't look alike now don't they ?? thats because after the first 3 letters , the plural uses a long ALIF.

now this is the verse with its HARAKAT .

إِذْ قَالَتِ الْمَلَائِكَةُ يَا مَرْيَمُ إِنَّ اللَّهَ يُبَشِّرُكِ بِكَلِمَةٍ مِنْهُ اسْمُهُ الْمَسِيحُ.

Do you see the bold italic word ? does it look like KALIMAT(كلمات) ? No , its seems to look exactly like KALIMAH .

but its pronounced using the short vowels , its still singular , and there are no short vowels in English and that is why you got exposed.

I really demonstrate the HUGE DIFFERENCE between the long and short vowels to you , may I suggest Arabic 101 for dummies ???

This means that according to the Fraud khayru al-makireen didn't know Arabic since he called Jesus his kalimat when he should have called him his kalimah.......Again, this is all thanks to Chaud the Fraud's reasoning.

The Quran did not call him Kalimat , you did all because you don't know what a 4 year old arabic speaking boy knows !!! hahahahahahaaaaa !!! my fiance is gonna love this story....

This is you reasoning !!!! and I gotta say this is classic !!!

So my appeal for some decency got denied , hmmm Personally I don't know where your anger comes from man , but may I suggest that you saw your buddies get exposed so you got pissed off ? and dude for the love of god update your sources (whatever they are , they are HORRIBLE) .

Chaud said...

@Ben Malik [2]

Well thanks for the greek lesson , you see unlike you I ain't gonna run away behind theatrics (like you did some many of my points and my challenges , gone unresponded).

Well you are the first christain to tell me Jesus is "the word" not "the word of god" , If this is what you think I have to give you that point then.

Dude , I am already conceding that IN THIS DISCUSSION that according to the bible context linguistically he is the word which can mean "kalimatullah" , so I will give this point to you since I already conceaded it for this discussion , so congrats , you finally win a point.

We were discussing weather the Quran has it or not.

and btw "ismahu AL-kalimatullah" is grammatically wrong , no wonder they will never put it.

The main reason why the Quran can never endorse "Kalimatuallah" when speaking of Jesus meaning "THE word of god" is because :
1- Allah has many Kalimat according to the Quran.
2- jesus is not the Kalimah (Kun fa yakoon) , in fact he was created USING THE WORD OF GOD meaning his power.

Since all of your previous points got destroyed , refute those 2 if you can.

This means that kalimatullah has the same force and meaning as when Jesus is called AL-Kalimah!

I wouldn't be surprised if this exists in the bible , try to prove it from the Quran .

Notice I never denied this possibility , throughout this whole thing I was arguing from the context and stand point of the Quran , which clearly denies this.

So Fraud has again exposed himself as a liar who doesn't know Arabic well enough to be commenting on it.

Perhaps . but I know enough to not make kindergarten level mistakes !!! ahahahahahaaaaa !!! i hope you don't mind if I post this on my blog , O'wait why am I asking you ? I'm doing it anyway (once all this is done).
Plus tonight is Valentine's day , my fiance will love this story !

Chaud said...

@Ben Malik [3]

Welcome to school ladies and gentlemen , My Name is Professor Chaud and i will be Ben's exposer this evening.

Ben appeals yet again to a translation instead of giving my hardcore linguistic facts (like I do)

now I have a question , how does this destroy my argument ?

The verse can be understood as "you don't worship who I am worship....etc" , according to what I said (and frankly this is how I understand it) , the verse doesn't change its meaning at all , how does this effect my argument one bit ?

Notice that you didn't read comment very well , I understand , the "Maa" meanings is something I had to take in college level arabic and you bearly know kindergarden level .

I said ( and you copied it without even closely reading it)

Tabodoon ( تَعْبُدُونَ) , from the verb (عبد) in the 3rd shape of the Ifaal al-khmasa form , referring to others , which means Maa here does mean "what"

Emphasis on OTHERS.

Now I don't expect anyone here to understand what I'm about to say because this is too advanced , this is called "Balagah" , and there few scholars of this in our times because its almost like Nuke physics , and with no familiarity of arabic , there is not a chance anyone can understand it , so I'm just gonna leave it here.

your question (and absurd answer) has been dealt with By Shk.Ash-Sharawi , one of the most brilliant Balagah scholars of all time , now if you are serious , answer this , and show me what are you appealing to , which sciences , which dictionaries , which everything , this is a chance for you , if you can prove Muhammad actually though Allah was object Im leaving Islam .

Now examine the verses :

verse 2

لَا أَعْبُدُ مَا تَعْبُدُونَ

Since this sura is using the style of "Mukaranah" [comparison] (a type of arabic sentence , WITH ITS OWN SET OF RULES)

Allah here is telling Muhammad to tell the pagans that he will not worship their god , and their god is "ANOTHER" according to the view point of a Muslim .

verse 3

وَلَا أَنْتُمْ عَابِدُونَ مَا أَعْبُدُ

Now this shifts to the express the view point and response of a pagan , since according to him , Allah is "another"

Therefore according to the view points expressed , each group sees the other god as another , which can be translated as "what" or "which" or whatever .

Mashalla , Now I see why the Quran is the highest form of literature ever to exist , and why arabic is regarded one of the toughest languages in the world (2nd after Chinese in terms of speaking , 1st in terms of grammar )

So where is your argument and how did you link it with Sura 21:98 ? frankly I don't know.....in fact I can integrate Balagah with Sura 21:98 and affirm my stance even more.

In conclusion , Allah in Islam is not an object according to Muhammad or Muslims.

Your other points are just a waste of my time , my appeal to BANAHA is totally valid , you can't determine the meaning without seeing what kind verb exists , ask Fernando , he speaks arabic :D .

Now if you don't like what one of the most brilliant balagah scholars of all time say , then show me which one of your scholars is going to refute him , or show me which arabic rule did he break....etc , because appealing to other verses in hope to find something similar that helps your case is almost impossible , take a better road of honesty if you can.

and if you want to be stubborn and deny the answer since you can't understand it , then quit this debate , you already embarrassed yourself when you made a kindergarden level mistake , which proves you don't know the basics , let along Balagah or grammer.

Me giving up ? the only way I will give up is if I leave Islam .

PEACE !

Chaud

Chaud said...

@Fernando [1]

So you are back for some more ? ok , I have a question , what kind of post is this ?

another enourmous example off ignorance:

a) from him;
b) from the qur'an (eben according to him)...

so: first, on aprevious post, he saide the qur'an did not speek aboutte the Holy Trinity rather aboutte whate supposedely the marionites believed, butt now he says thate the qur'an sais the Holy Trinity is 3...


I said the Quran IN THE VERSE ABOUT MARY , JESUS AND GOD does not say trinity but condemns it somewhere else , that somewhere else is the verse now in question .

and Fernando , for God's sake , they are called "MARYAMITES" not "MARONITES" , Maronite are a major christian sect here in the middle east , mostly known in Lebanon and they don't have Mary in a trinity , some of my Maronite friends are following this debate , and they didn't have good things to say about you and your confusion.

so: the qur'an's author (muhammad, Uthman or any other) believed, as our good friend Chaud does, tahte the Holy Trinity is a forme of tri-teísm... hummm... I thought thate tri-teísm was sinonimous off 3 goods... hummm... where, eber, Christians beliebed in 3 gods?... as I saide enumerous times:


i said I don't care weather the christains say they worship 3 gods or not , I said the Quran exposed the trinity for what it really is , tri-thiesm with a mask of monotheism , and I challenge you to prove me wrong.

no where, as I stated before, a Christian associates a creature in a soteriological manifestation off faithe... on the other hand, thats, precisely, whate muslims do when they associate muhammad withe allah in the shahadda...

this is one of the most ridicules arguments that is used by arabic missionaries to prove Muslims are Mushriks , I don't know if this is your intention but I will give a short response .

First of all the Muslims dont "associate" Muhammad and Allah together in the shahada , we clearly say Allah is god and Muhammad is a messenger .

Now why is this important ? because believing in monotheism for anyone to become anything .

To become a Muslim you must accept the one god and his final messenger .

many people claim monotheism , for example christains .

Now if I confessed that there is no God but YHWE , but deny the deity of Jesus , am I a christian ? this is how stupid your argument is.

when in Indonesia we had a book thate showedd a picture off the Holy Trinity and below there were a question: «how many beings do you see represented there?»... this is the kinde off ignorance thate is spreed around the muslim world aboutt Christianity...

Then do you mind telling the churches and missionary Tv channels over here to stop spreading ignorant lies about islam ?

I don't see what you saw in Indonesia as ignorance , the trinity is what it is , tri thiesm with a mask of monotheism , they book you saw didn't get it wrong.

from its true nature (v.g., 90% off muslims do nott eben habe access to a qur'an thate they can understand: they only know whate theire leaders say...)

and this is a 100% LIE , 90 % of Muslims dont have qurans ???? LOL !

actually I'd say this is how christian live over here , listening to thier leaders and priests with close minds.

if there are Muslims who don't think and only listen to their leaders , then they are not following Islam since it teaches rationality and objective thinking in the Quran.

I think you were one of those stupid Muslims.

I didn't understand your 2nd point , do you mind writing it in NORMAL ENGLISH , i've been meaning to ask you what the hell do you write ?

Chaud said...

@Fernando [2]

as a muslim convert to Christianity (aftter being an iman for more than 30 years) saide in his book لطريق إلى الحقيقة

محمد كان يجهل أنه اخترع دين زائف يقوم على اساس الجهل وعلى الأكاذيب


Of course he said that ! he converted to Christianity ! he has to do some ranting , now what is his case if you don't mind ?

so... my dear friends in Christ: do habe patience withe Chaud: he, as a typical maometan, is living in an ignorance: he has been fooled by other ignorante persons as I was ounce in my liffe... the pathe to the truth is hard and many fear it... he saide he bacome a muslim after seeing Tele-evangelisms... hummm... thate says it all...

let's pray for him, his family and friends...


Patience with Chaud ...heh ! how many times I heard that ? I'm quote sick of it , being called ignorant and fooled just because I keep winning , no wonder I'm not a christian yet , Mr.Fernando you are talking big for someone who didn't land a single argument against me yet.

i agree , you were fooled , that's why you are a christian.

and I said I became a practicing Muslim after seeing Tele evanglism , I was already a Muslim back then.

Yeah keep praying to your fake man-god , he won't do anything.

Nabeel Qureshi said...

Hello everyone--

The debates went quite well -- I unfortunately was unable to take my camera, so I don't have recordings, but perhaps someone else will post theirs (there were at least 4 video cameras set up to record the event).

Osama took his usual approach against the death of Jesus on the cross: trying to refer to Psalm 91 as reason enough to believe that Jesus was not crucified, and advancing the idea that Barabbas was crucified instead of Jesus.

In defending the divine nature of the Qur'an, he proposed his many alleged scientific miracles in the Qur'an, with a surprise debut of one numerical miracle at the very end.

The audience was not very pleased with him. Even the Muslims in the audience were critical towards him, although I have to say it was because of his demeanour moreso than his arguments.

The Thursday night panel discussion was quite interesting; I would say about 200 were present, and it was a rapid fire set of questions and answers. Tony Costa and I were the Christians on the panel, and Osama and Farhan Qureshi were the Muslims. We were not able to explore any topics in depth that night, but good points were made on both sides.

The shocker for that discussion was that both Muslims said they were assured of their salvation. When asked the question, Osama said "absolutely". He then had the opportunity to exposit this response, but he gave no details.

All in all, quite a positive experience in Ottawa. Would love to go back and do it again. Also, Tony Costa is an amazing apologist and will be a force to watch out for in the upcoming years.

God bless you all, and thank you so much for your interest and support! Sincerely,
-Nabeel

Fernando said...

Hi Chaud…

It looks you are reding the posts I wrote to other persons rather than you… why are you interfearing with my dialogue? Nevertheless here are some thoughtes…

1) the problem is nott whether you are talking about two, rather on iff those two places are from the same book… thay are… so: I stand by my affirmation: you first stated thate “the qur'an did not speek aboutte the Holy Trinity”, and then you stated thate “the qur'an sais the Holy Trinity is 3”… then you say: «the qur’an exposed the trinity for what it really is , tri-thiesm»… in whate do you stande? Are you scyzhofrenic or whate?

2) I neber talked about the maronite Christians; I called them marionites -- as they are called in my language – and they, as you can clearly see from my previous posts, are whate you call “maryamites”… you can reassure all your supposed maronites friends thate I was not talking about them… and perhaps you can invite them to poste whate they think about you calling them a “sect”… I bet they are confused by thate offensive claime you made… please: ask them to writte in here…

3) my dear friend were is there thate 3 “upostasis” make three gods? This is another example off bothe your ignorance and the ignorance off the qur’an’s author… whwn you have the trhree sates off water in a closed space, how many elements do you habe? 3?... where is there 3 gods in the Trinity? Can you explain us?

4) whate does a muslim habe to do to be saved? Does he not habe, for ounce, to recite the shahada? Then it’s clear thate they, as I saide, associate a creature in a soteriological manifestation off faithe… to believe in one God, as the Holy Trinity, is not enough to muslims (as you admitte): they have accept muhammad… so: the point is nott aboutte being monotheistic or not, rather on giving one’s faithe (trust) upon a man… this is sheer shirk… On the other Jesus is nott a creature different from YHWH… the N.T. clearly sates thate He’s YHWH… another example off your ignorance…

(end part 1)

Fernando said...

(part 2)

5) I did not say muslims habe not acces to qur’ans, I sated thate 90% off muslims 90% off muslims do nott eben habe access to a qur'an thate they can understand… I thought you knew the realitty aboutte your people… I’ll be more pricese : 90% off muslims do nott habe a qur’an in a language they can read… I, for instance, although learned how to recite the qur’an in arabic, from start to end, neber, eber, before I left islam, managed to read anything in arabic… on the other hand, Christians can always read its Bibles in theire own languages…

6) how is thate the qur’an teaches rationality and objective thinking in the qur’an when it is full off stuff off contradiction and warnings like: « Ask not of things which, if they were made unto you, would trouble you.» (this is: honest answers will make them to loose their faithe)?

7) now, now… whate will those muslims brothers off yours, tahte are kept in utter ignorance by theire religious leaders all arounde the world, and how can this be in place when, think about your words calling them as “stupid”… Iff they, as I ounce, are stupid, the responsibility is upon muslim religious leaders thate are utterly afraid off allowing them to know whate the true face off islam truly is…

8) I try to do my best writing in my 4th language (english)… do you want me to write in other language? Perhaps thate language is among the 12 I manage to understand and write in…

9) Chaud: I neber called you ignorante and fooled because you won anythingue (and where was thate?), rather because you showed (as in the comment thate motivated this one…) utter ignorance about whate you were talking… how can you deny this evidence… the ignorance off someone is something upon which we, Christians, must pray because Jesus called himself the truth… only those who, at least, try to cease being ignorante will see the truthe…

10) Jesus is not a man-god (another example off utter ignorance), rather God thate made Himself Man without ceasing off being God: God and Man… the difference is all…

11) no Chaud: it’s you thate refused always to eben try to engage in a logic debate with me; it has been me thate, from the start, denounced your lake off knowledge based on the ignorance off the qur’an’s author… everyone can see thate…

Sepher Shalom said...

Thanks for the update Nabeel!

No doubt, many of us were keeping you and Tony in our prayers. I just want to take a moment to thank you and David for all the considerable effort and time you put into reaching the Muslim people, and edifying those of us that dialogue with Muslims.

Nabeel said: "The shocker for that discussion was that both Muslims said they were assured of their salvation."

That is a shocker. I have never seen a Muslim debater publicly claim assured salvation. I am interested in hearing their textual basis for this claim.

Nabeel said: "The audience was not very pleased with him. Even the Muslims in the audience were critical towards him, although I have to say it was because of his demeanour moreso than his arguments."

Sounds about right with what I have seen from Osama in debates in the past. I can't figure out why Farhan debates with him? Farhan conducts himself in an extremely respectful and professional manner. Frankly, it seems beneath Farhan's level of maturity professionalism to share a stage with Osama.

Looking forward to seeing the debates! If anyone has or knows where to view the recordings, please give me a heads up. These look like very interesting topics!

Chaud said...

@Fernando [1]

Oh ! I'm sorry , you posted a comment with some allegations along with mentioning me and you expect me not to jump in ?

you said
I stand by my affirmation: you first stated thate “the qur'an did not speek aboutte the Holy Trinity”, and then you stated thate “the qur'an sais the Holy Trinity is 3”… then you say: «the qur’an exposed the trinity for what it really is , tri-thiesm»… in whate do you stande? Are you scyzhofrenic or whate?


I stand just like I said my comments , stop your cut and paste methodology please , its disgusting its bad enough people do this to the Quran or a regular basis , now they are doing it with my posts.

I called them marionites -- as they are called in my language

Oh ! ok.

where is there 3 gods in the Trinity? Can you explain us?

I have dozens of answers to that but I would like you to being explain how its not 3 gods and I will respond since every single christian has some unique idea about the trinity.

whate does a muslim habe to do to be saved?

My favorite Sura answers this question:

Surah 103. The Declining Day, Eventide, The Epoch

1. By (the Token of) Time (through the ages),

2. Verily Man is in loss,

3. Except such as have Faith, and do righteous deeds, and (join together) in the mutual teaching of Truth, and of Patience and Constancy.

and that is how you get saved.

associate a creature in a soteriological manifestation off faithe

I have no idea what this sentence means , so I'm gonna skip it.

so: the point is nott aboutte being monotheistic or not, rather on giving one’s faithe (trust) upon a man… this is sheer shirk…

Oh God ! Now the Mushrik is trying to tell me that I'm a mushrik but twisting what shirk is .

Shirk is associating anything with god's divinity ,attributes,and right to be worshiped .

In the Shahada one accepts Muhammad's prophethood and Allah as the one true god , I don't see the shirk.

Notice the Shahada again , if you want to talk trust , then you trust Allah then his messenger.

Jesus is nott a creature different from YHWH… the N.T. clearly sates thate He’s YHWH… another example off your ignorance…

and they say they are not Mushriks !

Ok let me assume Jesus is Yhwe as you said , who's the father and the holy spirit ? remember the father is not the son , the son is the spirit , the spirit is not the father...etc , so the father and holy spirit can't be the son , so they are not YHWE , who's the father and holy spirit ?

No the NT doesn't really state that , can you show it to me ?

By the end of the day the trinity is 3 persons SHARING the essence of the one true god , SHIRK AT ITS BEST , TRITHIESM WITH THE MASK OF MONOTHEISM.

Chaud said...

@Fernando [2]

I thought you knew the realitty aboutte your people… I’ll be more pricese : 90% off muslims do nott habe a qur’an in a language they can read… I, for instance, although learned how to recite the qur’an in arabic, from start to end, neber, eber, before I left islam, managed to read anything in arabic… on the other hand, Christians can always read its Bibles in theire own languages…

As if translations and commentaries don't exist !

Don't you read ? all of the major scholars agreed that if a muslim who has trouble with arabic wishes to read the Quran in his language there is no fault in that , nor it compulsory in prayer , what every muslim has to know in arabic is Al-Fatiha , other sections of the prayer can be recited in any other language.

how is thate the qur’an teaches rationality and objective thinking in the qur’an when it is full off stuff off contradiction and warnings like: « Ask not of things which, if they were made unto you, would trouble you.» (this is: honest answers will make them to loose their faithe)?

You speak arabic as you said , watch this , it's a lecture by Eng.Fadel Soliman about this subject , click here.

Contradictions , NO ! you are confusing the Quran with the bible .

Yes the Quran does have warnings , but it also contains other things if you noticed , like promises , and rewards.

Heck no , read a commentary for god's sake , its not because it will make them lose faith , if you know the reason of revelation and what type of questions some people were asking , its a infinite loop , and some of them were absurd .

whate will those muslims brothers off yours, tahte are kept in utter ignorance by theire religious leaders all arounde the world

They need to read the Quran and realize that what some of their leaders preach is not Islam.

Iff they, as I ounce, are stupid, the responsibility is upon muslim religious leaders thate are utterly afraid off allowing them to know whate the true face off islam truly is…

Fernando , I truly believe you were a stupid Muslim .

If you knew anything about Islam , and if you were a practicing Muslim , you would've known the greatest type of Jihad , which is a word of truth in the presence of a tyrant (in this case its the "leader" ), if you never took a stand against these "leaders" then you are guilty just like them.

What Islam really is , I have to agree with you on that , I wouldn't have stopped practicing a long time ago if one shk showed me how beautiful Islam is without me discovering it myself.

I try to do my best writing in my 4th language (english)… do you want me to write in other language? Perhaps thate language is among the 12 I manage to understand and write in…

its ok , if you can just tell me what the word I can't understand is so I can respond , write it in Arabic or Japanese (I speak those 2).

Chaud: I neber called you ignorante and fooled because you won anythingue (and where was thate?), rather because you showed (as in the comment thate motivated this one…) utter ignorance about whate you were talking… how can you deny this evidence… the ignorance off someone is something upon which we, Christians, must pray because Jesus called himself the truth… only those who, at least, try to cease being ignorante will see the truthe…

I didn't show any ignorance of what I was talking about , you expect me to just give in and say the quran is wrong when its clearly not just to make you , your buddies and your ignorance happy ?

and once you seize being ignorant , you will leave Christianity .

Chaud said...

@fernando [3]

Jesus is not a man-god (another example off utter ignorance), rather God thate made Himself Man without ceasing off being God: God and Man… the difference is all…

I'm sorry , but all these book are confusing me a bit , every christian is unique and that's a problem.

Ok answer this , If jesus is a man that never seized to be god , why doesn't he know that last hour ?

Ps: if you want to appeal to Philippians like David did in his debate with Abdullah , by all means do it and get exposed.

and How does god (the infinite) becomes man (finite) , while staying infinite and no changing his nature ?

no Chaud: it’s you thate refused always to eben try to engage in a logic debate with me; it has been me thate, from the start, denounced your lake off knowledge based on the ignorance off the qur’an’s author… everyone can see thate…

Whatever makes you sleep the night .

Ps: are you Ben's roommate in fairytale land ?

PEACE !

Chaud

Sepher Shalom said...

Chaud said: "My favorite Sura answers this question:

Surah 103. The Declining Day, Eventide, The Epoch

1. By (the Token of) Time (through the ages),

2. Verily Man is in loss,

3. Except such as have Faith, and do righteous deeds, and (join together) in the mutual teaching of Truth, and of Patience and Constancy.

and that is how you get saved."


What you have described above is instruction for how to save yourself. Details do matter Chaud, and words do have meanings.

On another note, you are not giving a full and complete picture of 'salvation' in Islam. There is also the call upon the Muslim to kill and be killed in Jihad, with the corresponding promise of admittance into 'paradise':

3:169 (Y. Ali) Think not of those who are slain in Allah's way as dead. Nay, they live, finding their sustenance in the presence of their Lord;

9:111 (Y. Ali) Allah hath purchased of the believers their persons and their goods; for theirs (in return) is the garden (of Paradise): they fight in His cause, and slay and are slain: a promise binding on Him in truth, through the Law, the Gospel, and the Qur'an: and who is more faithful to his covenant than Allah. then rejoice in the bargain which ye have concluded: that is the achievement supreme.


Specifically useful to note is 9:111, which describes an economic exchange whereby Allah has purchased the believers persons and goods, and given them in exchange 'the garden' if they are willing to kill and be killed. It is described as a "binding promise" a "covenant" and a "bargain" which is concluded by the believer upon killing others or being killed for Allah.

We can also clearly see the Quran tells us that killing and being killed for Allah falls under the "and do righteous deeds" clause you posted from Surah 103:3.

Fernando said...

Hi Chaud…

1) You saide: «you expect me not to jump in»… precisely… I was not talking too you, I was talking about you… whate you did is a reall lack off respect…

2) You saide: «I stand just like I said my comments»… no problem with thate… I was not expecting anythingue else from someone like you… this is the typical action off someone who clearly admitis the arguments off his opponente and gibes up on trying to refutte them… and, my dear Chaud, I use the debate methodology I wish: I’m not your dhimmy to do whate you tell me to do… iff you can deal with thate, you habe a choice: hit the road Chaud…

3) You saide: «I have dozens of answers to that»… Ok… can you presentte a single one? It was you thate started saying, withoute gibing any argument to thate saying, thate the Holy Trinity is a form of tri-theísm…

4) You saide: «but I would like you to being explain how its not 3 gods»… I habe done thate in two previous occasions… using the methodology you hatte, here are them again: «nowhere Christians were adding persons like you and me, rather "upostasis"»; and «were is there thate 3 “upostasis” make three gods? This is another example off bothe your ignorance and the ignorance off the qur’an’s author… whwn you have the trhree sates off water in a closed space, how many elements do you habe? 3?»

5) you can quote any surah you wich… butt the fact is thate iff no muslim says the shahada he cannot be saved… eben the one you quotted implies thate in it’s reference to “habe faithe” and “do righteous deads” and “teaching of the Truth”… or you are implying thate in “habe faithe” and “do righteous deads” and “teaching of the Truth” there is not implied the profession of muslim faithe expressed in the shahada?

(end part 1)

Fernando said...

(part 2)

6) You saide: «I have no idea what this sentence means»… you were talking aboutte this sentence off mine: «associate a creature in a soteriological manifestation off faithe»

a) “associate” means: get together;
b) “creature” means: some sort of entity thate is not the Creator;
c) “soteriological” means: in connection with salvation: from “soter”;
d) “manifestation” means: expression;
e) “faithe” means: objective content of believe…

so we habe: get together some sort of entity thate is not the Creator in a salvation dimention in a manifestation off the (muslim) objective content of believe;

7) You saide: «Shirk is associating anything with god's divinity, attributes, and right to be worshiped»… I agree… that’s precisely my point, dear Chaud… one only worships those entities or beings thate habe a clear participation in one’s salvation… as I showed, Muhammad, being presented in the muslim “objective content of believe” because he’s presented together with allah in the major Islamic expression off salvation”, is implicitely presented as being due to be worshipped…

8) You saide: «who's the Father and the Holy Spirit?… They are YHHW also… were is your doubt? YHWH is the name off the personal God off the Bible, and the Bible states tahte this God, YHWH, is Father, Son and Holy Spirit… Using my previous analogy: these 3 are as the three states off water (solid, liquid, gas) tahte are a single element (water): “solid” is not “liquid” and these are not “gas”, butt they are only one element… Jesus is nott a creature: Jesus is an eternal divine “upostasis”…

9) You saide: «No the NT doesn't really state that, can you show it to me?… sure… everytime thate the N.T.’s authors, when talking aboutte Jesus, presents quotes from the O.T. referring to YHWH, they make litteral quotes sying clearly thate they identify Jesus withe YHWH… one example? See, v.g., John. 12,41 and Isaiah 6,3 and Isaiah 42,8…

Chaud… I’ll continue to answer you as soon I habe more time… can you, please, waitte untill I do so to present your comments? Thanks… I know you’ll dispise this offer off mine, butt it’s the best I habe to gibe to you: my prayers are with you and your entire family…

Fernando

Bartimaeus said...

Report from Ottawa Depates

We got back to Toronto from Ottawa around 1 A.M. this morning. I agree with Nabeel that the debates went very well. The only real negative was listening to Osama. As Nabeel said Osama's behavior was so outrageous that he was an embarassment to many of the Muslims who attended. Farhan was truly embarassed by Osama's behaviour and rebuked him publically. And though I don't agree with Farhan I respect him as an apologist.
Also I agree with Nabeel about Tony Costa he is an amazinhg apologist. I have seen him debate Shabir Ali and Shabir winds up on the losing end of the debate.

I am going to post some more comments on the debates on own blog later and in the comment section of this blog after I have collected my thoughts about how best to respond to Osama

Chaud said...

@Fernando [1]

my dear Chaud, I use the debate methodology I wish: I’m not your dhimmy to do whate you tell me to do… iff you can deal with thate, you habe a choice: hit the road Chaud…

Totally David Wood ! ahahahahaaa !!!

You wish to be a dhimmi , a dhimmi in a legit Islamic state has way better rights than what exists these days.

Fine , use whatever methodology you want , I challenge to not play double standards AND CONDEMN THE POSTS BY DAVID CRITICIZING MUSLIM DEBATERS METHODOLOGIES.

… Ok… can you presentte a single one? It was you thate started saying, withoute gibing any argument to thate saying, thate the Holy Trinity is a form of tri-theísm…

I asked you to begin the argument since you are the one on the positive side , the burden of proof is that trinity is true is on you

No , I would like you to examine the doctrine itself , not weather Christians added persons or not , although the holy spirit was added in some counsel .

Trinity = 3 gods until you prove it wrong.

you can quote any surah you wich… butt the fact is thate iff no muslim says the shahada he cannot be saved…

Did I deny that ???

....is not implied the profession of muslim faithe expressed in the shahada?

The confession of the faith is one of the conditions of salvation , not the other way around .

Chaud said...

@Fernando [2]

thanks for the explanation , Now how does confessing that Muhammad is a messenger and including that in the shahada equals shirk ? the same shirk christians commit over and over over...etc

You saide: «Shirk is associating anything with god's divinity, attributes, and right to be worshiped»… I agree… that’s precisely my point, dear Chaud… one only worships those entities or beings thate habe a clear participation in one’s salvation… as I showed, Muhammad, being presented in the muslim “objective content of believe” because he’s presented together with allah in the major Islamic expression off salvation”, is implicitely presented as being due to be worshipped…

Ehhhhhh !!! that is ignorance at its best.

Now notice that in the definition of shirk brings up nothing about salvation ? this is your interpretation.

Yes Muhammad's prophet hood is a necessary belief to be saved , now who worships the prophet hood of Muhammad ?

he’s presented together with allah in the major Islamic expression off salvation”,

Not really , the expression of salvation includes faith , and faith in god and faith in prophet hood are 2 different things.

and you explain the father and the holy spirit by saying they are YHWE , and lovely admission of shirk , "ALSO".

Ok so the bible says YHWE is a father son and holy spirit , verse please.

Ok , Now using your analogy and combining it with shirk , Allah's attributes and divinity is the water , and its SHARED by gas , solid and liquid , therefore its shirk .

and why are you comparing God to finite creation like water ? god is not like water , there is nothing like god in this world.

Ok what about the misquotations of the NT authors when quoting the OT ?

Oh ! sorry i didn't see the end of your comment asking me to wait , sorry man , take your time I won't respond

Fernando said...

Hi Chaud... this thread is getting to big and to low in the original blogg... I'll place my answers in the latest thread: My Suggestion to Yahya Snow (Monday, February 15, 2010)...

thanks...

hugh watt said...

Chaud,You said, " Islam doesn't "misunderstand" the trinity, it condemns it".
You also said," No, I don't have to explain anything , in fact you need to explain to me how the trinity makes sense and the Quranic verse doesn't".
In a court of law accusations must be explained! You just can not say what the Quran does without proving it ask any lawyer.
" Tri-Theism!? Where does the Bible say "3 Gods"?
" for something to be misunderstood , first it has to be logically explained , and there is no logical explanation to the trinity".S:18v86;" Until, when he reached the setting place of the sun, he found it setting in a spring of black muddy (or hot) water. And he found near it a people".!Explain this logically then. Let's not have double standards. While you're at it, logically explain how God simply spoke, and creation came to be!
When the Quran says "3(Trinity") it must prove where the Bible say s this, otherwise you end up believing what people say instead of what the text says. The burden of proof is on Islam since it makes the charge.I know your problem. Islam has to defend the indefensible.
So, if Islam teaches rationality and objective thinking in the Quran, explain S:18v86.
God bless you (and your family).

Sepher Shalom said...

Chaud said: "I asked you to begin the argument since you are the one on the positive side , the burden of proof is that trinity is true is on you"

Don't be ridiculous Chaud. Fernando is simply affirming what Christianity has always said about monotheism. Stop trying to shift the burden of proof. The fact that it is monotheism is simply an affirmation of the Biblical revelation, and nearly 2,000 years of Biblical theology. The corpus of all the historical writings of the Messianic message says there is no correct belief in God outside of monotheism.

You are the one making the claim Chaud. Your claim is that trinitarianism cannot be monotheism. Either prove your claim, or move on.

Chaud said: "Ok so the bible says YHWE is a father son and holy spirit , verse please."

Upon what basis do you limit the discussion of the nature of the Biblical God to a citation of one verse that must explain it all? This is absurd Chaud. Stop playing these stupid games.

Chaud said: "You wish to be a dhimmi , a dhimmi in a legit Islamic state has way better rights than what exists these days."

And you are accusing others of living in "fairy tale land"? I don't think anyone with an accurate understanding of historical reality would see that claim as anything other than a joke.

Please back this claim with evidence Chaud. Please tell me which of the rights I enjoy by living in a western democracy would be improved if I were a dhimmi in an Islamic state? I can show you a number of very basic rights I currently enjoy which I would completely lose as dhimmi. Let's look a few of them which I feel to be most important:

Freedom of speech (Such as the right to openly criticize and denounce Islam)

Full political participation

Equality before the civil law

Free practice and manifestation of my religious beliefs

The right to keep and bear arms

I'm supposed to believe that institution of a system that is designed to subjugate, and humiliate me is somehow going to uplift my rights? How is this even possible? Chaud, can you tell me what rights I would supposedly gain as a dhimmi in a Sharia run Islamic state that are superior to the rights I enjoy now?

Chaud said...

Hello all ,

I have a couple of exams to study for , so I'll be back in 3 days - 1 week tops.

Chaud

Sepher Shalom said...

Hi Chaud,

As I have been going through a study of At-Taubah, the 9th Surah of the Quran, I happened to notice another one of those "good deeds" enjoined upon the Muslim by Allah, that can help them get into "paradise" under the verse you cited earlier from S.103:

At-Taubah 9:123 - "O ye who believe! Fight those of the disbelievers who are near to you, and let them find harshness in you, and know that Allah is with those who keep their duty"

Here is interesting Tafsir from Ibn Kathir on the meaning of this verse. In this Tafsir we also read how: 1) Abu Bakr forcibly extorted the Zakah from unwilling people; 2) forced people back into Islam; and 3) Umar and Uthman systematically attacked the Romans and Persians by the order found in At-Taubah 9:123.

I would also like to draw your attention to some of the other Ayat that Ibn Kathir references in 9:123 to help understand how the Muslims are to treat the so-called kuffar. He cites:

(O Prophet! Strive hard against the disbelievers and the hypocrites, and be harsh against them.)[9:73]

(Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah. And those who are with him are severe against the disbelievers, and merciful among themselves.)[48:29]

In Ibn Kathir's Tafsir on 9:73 we find: Ibn `Abbas said, "Allah commanded the Prophet to fight the disbelievers with the sword, to strive against the hypocrites with the tongue and annulled lenient treatment of them.'' Ad-Dahhak commented, "Perform Jihad against the disbelievers with the sword and be harsh with the hypocrites with words, and this is the Jihad performed against them.''

The Tafsir on 48:29 is ominously titled "The Good News that Muslims will conquer the Known World, and ultimately the Entire World".

You see Chaud, doing "good deeds" can either be magnanimous or a curse upon the earth the likes of which is reminiscent of the pits of hell, depending on what constitutes "good deeds" in your belief system.

hannah said...

did anyone post the debates on the net???

Sepher Shalom said...

Chaud,

You quoted Ibn Kathir as a valid source to justify your position on Surah 6, so now let's see what he has to say about your assertion that Al-Maidah 5:116 is about some supposed "heretic Christians".

In this Tafsir from Ibn Kathir we read:

(Surely, they have disbelieved who say: "Allah is the third of three.") Mujahid and several others said that this Ayah was revealed about the Christians in particular. As-Suddi and others said that this Ayah was revealed about taking `Isa and his mother as gods besides Allah, thus making Allah the third in a trinity. As-Suddi said, "This is similar to Allah's statement towards the end of the Surah, (And (remember) when Allah will say: "O `Isa, son of Maryam! Did you say unto men: `Worship me and my mother as two gods besides Allah' He will say, "Glory be to You!")[5:116].

Notice Ibn Kathir says the Christians take Isa and his mother as gods, thus making Allah part of a Trinity. Ibn Kathir makes absolutely no mention that this refers to only certain "heretic Christians" as you claim. Rather, he presents that the Quran's message is that the Trinity is Allah, Mary and Isa.

Now to make this even worse for your anachronistic claims, notice what Ibn Kathir states earlier in this particular Tafsir:

Allah states that the Christians such sects as Monarchite, Jacobite and Nestorite are disbelievers, those among them who say that `Isa is Allah.

So Ibn Kathir is naming specific Christian sects in this very Tafsir, but for some reason can't name a specific group who take Mary as god, or who make her part of the Trinity. The reason is that, as Ibn Kathir says later in his own words in that same Tafsir, the Quran is speaking of Christians proper not some "heretics" as you claim.

The ignorance of the author of the Quran continues all throughout this Surah. Just look at this Tafsir where Ibn Kathir quotes Al-Bukhari and further substantiates the Quranic ignorance of the Trinity being Allah, his wife, and his son:

Al-Bukhari also recorded this Hadith in the explanation of this Ayah. Allah said; (If You punish them, they are Your servants, and if You forgive them, verily You, only You are the Almighty, the All-Wise.) All matters refer back to Allah, for He does what He Wills and none can question Him about what He does, while He will question them. This Ayah also shows the crime of the Christians who invented a lie against Allah and His Messenger, thus making a rival, wife and son for Allah. Allah is glorified in that He is far above what they attribute to Him. So this Ayah [5:118] has tremendous value and delivers unique news.

No mention of "heretics" anywhere. It seems Al-Bukhari read the Quran, and all the Islamic materials of his day, and as one of your greatest scholars of all time, he came to the conclusion that the Trinity is Allah, his wife, and his son, and that this is what Christians believe. It is also apparent that Ibn Kathir, one of your greatest commentators of all time, whom you cited as an authority to prove your point earlier, read the Quran and Ahadith and came to the understanding that the Trinity is Allah, Mary and Isa, and that Christian take Mary as a god. Now somehow you read the Quran, Al-Bukhari, and Ibn Kathir, and you come to the conclusion that what the Quran is really saying is that some heretical groups believed Mary was a god of some sort.

You are working hard to cover the ignorance of the author of your book, but I'm afraid your rouse is transparent for anyone that looks into your sources.

hugh watt said...

And not only that Sepher (Shalom to you),referring to S:5v116, but when you check what Chaud says about 'sons of allah' in a spiritual sense that he has no problem with this meaning, S:72v3, S:2v116, S:6v101 however,does.
Wudu. There are 10 steps to complete 1 Wudu. Yet they do not say it's '10', but '1'! Of the 10 steps only 1 is singularly performed the others are repeated 3X. Do they say 1+1+1=3? No. It's 1+1+1=ONE! So, when it suits Islam 3 can =1, unless it's in a Biblical setting. This is the inconsistency i see time and again.

Sepher Shalom said...

hugh said: "but when you check what Chaud says about 'sons of allah' in a spiritual sense that he has no problem with this meaning, S:72v3, S:2v116, S:6v101 however,does."

Agreed. Even in a metaphorical or spiritual sense, Muslims do not call Allah as their father, and the Quran never says even once that their god is a father to anyone. Rather, anytime the topic is mentioned, it is the context of denying fatherhood. Such a notion is completely contrary to the Quran and foreign to Islam.

I'm not sure why Chaud is so comfortable stepping outside the bounds of the teachings of Islam.

Chaud: Do not trangress limits! ;)

Sepher Shalom said...

I don't think Chaud has a response. Well, maybe his exams are running longer than expected.....

hugh watt said...

Or maybe he just can not defend the indefensible.

Chaud said...

Actually my exams had to take a day extra and I'm scheduled for surgery tonight (I'm at the hospital right now) , so apologies to all for not responding , I had massive headaches for that last few days , I couldn't focus nor could I walk , and turns out to be a tumor ! how unlucky is that ?

See ya'll after the surgery ,chemo therapy and make up exams.

Regards ,

Chaud

hugh watt said...

Will be praying for your good health.

Sepher Shalom said...

Chaud,

That is really serious. I can't think of much of a better reason to be delayed in responding.

I too will be praying for you and your family.

Speedy recovery, Chaud.

Chaud said...

@EVERYONE

Salam ,

Thanks to all those who wished me a good health.

Surgery and first round of Chemo-therapy was a success so far , although the docs still say I might kick the bucket in a couple of months, however Inshalla I'll be back on Thursday to address as much as I can of what I missed.

Don't get me wrong here , I ain't trying to appeal to emotion , but I enjoyed the dialog I had over here so I felt that you guys should know , some were honest people like Minora , Fernando , Hugh and Shalom while some got exposed like Ben Malik , in the end I'd like to thank you all for a good discussion.

Kinest Regards ,
Chaud

Note : If something happens to me , my friend will take over my name and blog.

hugh watt said...

Hi Chaud. Good that you're back in touch. That's quite serious what you say. If you are (perhaps) about to embark on that long journey from which you'll not return ask, do you have peace with your maker? 2Peter3v9; "(God) is not willing for anyone to perish, but that all should come to repentance." The 'prodigal son' went so far away from his father and sunk so low. Only when he swallowed his pride did he come to his senses and went back in sincere repentance to his father. His fathher loved him so much he forgave him as he confessed and asked forgiveness. On what basis are you hoping to be forgiven? All arguments will cease when you're told God's about to call 'time Chaud'.
Acts 17:26-27
"From one man he made every nation of men, that they should inhabit the whole earth; and he determined the times set for them and the exact places where they should live. 27God did this so that men would seek him and perhaps reach out for him and find him, though he is not far from each one of us."
I don't need to go through it all, you know by now.
I called out to him some years ago, He was there for me, and will be for all who put their hope on and in Him.