Thursday, June 16, 2011

Special Announcement: Acts 17 is Branching Into a New Ministry, Creed 2:6

Hello everyone, Nabeel here.

This announcement has been in the works for a couple months now. To give some background, while David and I were ministering together at NYU a few weeks ago, we came to a realization. On account of Dearborn's actions and injustices, much of what Acts 17 is now focused on is combatting the loss of free speech in our nation and the ignorance about Sharia's impact on the West.

David and I both agree that these are extremely important matters that need to be addressed, but we also agree that it doesn't require both of us focusing our efforts on this issue. Our ability to share the Gospel, the primary purpose for the creation of Acts 17, was waning amidst all the attention we were both giving to free speech and Sharia issues. For this reason, we have decided that we need to branch into a new ministry which will be removed from the political discussions while Acts 17 continues on its current trajectory. In this manner, between the two of us, we will be able to focus on our entire mission, not letting one aspect dominate.

Starting with Arabfest 2011 (that's tomorrow!) David will take over sole leadership of Acts 17. I have created a new ministry called Creed 2:6 Ministries. In accordance with the aims of the new ministry, I will not be at Arabfest this year.

I would like to reiterate that David and I both see this as the best strategic course of action for our ministry. There is no division between us, and Creed 2:6 is affiliated with Acts 17. I will continue to blog on AnsweringMuslims.com on occasion, and David and I will continue to minister together as opportunities arise.

Your support has been very important to us over these years, and I would appreciate your support of Creed 2:6 ministries as it gets off the ground. Please visit the website, Creed26.com, and follow our ministry via YouTube, Facebook, Blogger, and Twitter. I look forward to seeing some of you on these sites in the near future! Below are some videos to get you started :-)

Creed 2:6 Mission Statement

Islam 101 -- An Introduction

Investigating the Question "Is Jesus God?" -- An Introduction

119 comments:

Radical Moderate said...

GOOD GOOD, sounds great. I hope you guys will still be collaborating together on video projects.

1MoreMuslim said...

Nabeel:
You still consider yourself officially "Former devout Muslim". If an Ahmadi is a devout Muslim, what should we call those who believe in Muhammad as the last messenger? The super extra devout Muslims? Very good start!

Nabeel Qureshi said...

Hello 1MM,

Yes, I certainly do consider myself a former devout Muslim. In no way do I assert that all Ahmadis are devout, mind you - I suggest you look up the definition of the term in case you're confused.

Khatam-an-Nabiyeen is a peripheral doctrine in Islam. It's not like Ahmadis disagree with it, they just interpret it differently. Far more divisive interpretations have transpired in Islamic history.

But I'll probably do a video on this topic in my new blog. Thanks for the idea, friend :-)

Sincerely,
-Nabeel

David Wood said...

1MM,

As we saw in a previous thread, Muhammad told his followers that Jesus would return and institute legal changes.

Hence, anyone who truly believes in Muhammad must believe in another messenger after Muhammad.

If, then, someone believes that Muhammad is the final messenger, he has to reject Muhammad's claims about Jesus.

But if someone rejects Muhammad's claims about Jesus, he must reject Muhammad as a prophet.

Thus, if someone believes that Muhammad is the last messenger, he doesn't really believe in Muhammad, and therefore isn't a Muslim.

It seems that Ahmadis, then, are more devout than "orthodox" Muslims.

Fisher said...

But in the end, Ahmadis are just as lost and in need of the Gospel as orthodox Sunni and Shi'a Muslims are. ;-)

goethechosemercy said...

I refuse to insult the Ahmadis in any way. They have suffered far more than any sect should for their differences with "orthodox" Islam.
They don't deserve the spleen.
They never did.

1MoreMuslim said...

David,

We , Muslims, differentiate between, an old prophet born 2000 years ago coming back, and a new unknown false prophet born after Muhammad PBUH. You don't want to make that difference, you are free.

99.99% of Muslims believe that Ahamadis are not Muslims. Would you consider those who believe in a false messiah Christians?
Mirza Ghulam AHMAD is a central figure in Nabeel's former religion, that 's why they call themselves AHMADIS.
I find it deceptive from Nabeel, that he has never spoke about Mirza Ghulam in his conversion stories, or any other debates or speeches.


Nabeel, don't try to downplay the difference between Muslims and Ahmadi, believing in Muhammad as the last Messenger to mankind is not peripheral in Islam, denying it is to deny many of Ahadeeth.

What do you think if I say, the Jehova's witnesses are like you guys, except that they interpret John 1:1 differently, that's it.
What about Montanus ( founder of Mountanism) is he Christian also?

Nabeel Qureshi said...

1MM,

You said: "99.99% of Muslims believe that Ahamadis are not Muslims." Well, that's pretty circular, isn't it? You can only get that number if you determine that Ahmadis aren't Muslims before concluding that very thing!

But I wonder if I know anyone in the .01% that you're referring to... oh wait, Muhammad!

Sunan Abu Daud #2526: "Narrated Anas ibn Malik: The Prophet (peace_be_upon_him) said: Three things are the roots of faith: to refrain from (killing) a person who utters, "There is no god but Allah" and not to declare him unbeliever whatever sin he commits, and not to excommunicate him from Islam for his any action"...

So you're telling me that your number (systematically and objectively ascertained, of course) of 99.99% overrules what Muhammad said?

Or do you reject the hadith, like what you're accusing Ahmadis of?

You're getting swept up into propaganda and rhetoric, my friend. Muslims have been notorious for declaring each other kaafir from the outset of Islam; that's why Muhammad had to say what he said. He was trying to protect his ummah, i.e. all the people who were following him. You go against his desires. Doesn't bother met at all, but if I were you I'd be ashamed.

Regardless, you accuse me of not talking about MGA at all. But the fact remains, MGA in my mind was far inferior and secondary to Muhammad... why should I talk about him when his life and teachings were not as important to me as were Muhammad's life and teachings?

I've spent enough time on this distraction. Thanks for the detour, I'll make sure to make my position public so that I wont keep having to have these mini-discussions. Cheers,
-Nabeel

Fernando said...

This is an historical moment, a moment where we see history in the making... my deepeste prayers are, of course, with the Qureshi familie and theirs evangelical quest...

TobyG said...

David Wood to Nabeel's rescue as usual, I see. Nothing much has changed. *yawn*

TobyG said...

Big Daddy David Wood to Nabeel's rescue as usual. Nothing much has changed, I see. *yawn*

1MoreMuslim said...

Nabeel:
"But the fact remains, MGA in my mind was far inferior and secondary to Muhammad"

You just admitted , that you were not even a good Ahmadi. MGA is the Messiah, the Mahdi. For a "devout Ahmadi" , MGA is no less than Jesus , moses and others.
You accuse Muslims of making others kaffir, do you know a denomination in Christianity that was not declared heretic? Even the orthodox Christianity, in one time was considered marginal and heretic during Arianism, and their leader ex-communicated and put to exile.

Again , Is montanus and his followers Christians, yes or no.

minoria said...

Things are ok at avraidire.com.There are a few Muslims who read the articles,that has always surprised me.As Ali Sina said,the main objective is too educate non-Muslims.That is more constructive.

Antoine Martin has even been accused a few times by Muslims of...you guessed it,being a JEW.

French Muslims are utterly unused to hearing Christians defend the Jews as the Chosen People.

Most in France dont believe in Christianity and Catholic priests never say the Jews are still God's Chosen People.

I wrote a short,historical article that the Popes have always condemned the Ritual Murder accusation against the Jews and in the comment section we were called "sales menteurs"(dirty liars).

minoria said...

I think Montanus was essentially Christian,he seems to have had "Jesus in his Heart".

You dont have to "believe the Bible is 100% error-free" to be saved.

You dont have even have to believe in every correct doctrine to be saved.I dont believe in the transubstantiation doctrine of the Eucharist yet I beleive millions of Catholics who do are saved.

minoria said...

Guys,
Read these 3 articles:

About the SALAFIS,how they dominate Saudi Arabia,they promote terrorism,they are bad:

http://www.antisharia.com/2011/05/27/the-famous-salafisthe-sunni-group-that-literally-believes-allah-has-a-facehandseyesetc/

THEN READ ABOUT THE AHMADIYAS

They have rejected violent jihad,and their slogan is LOVE FOR ALL,HATRED FOR NONE

http://www.antisharia.com/2011/06/02/the-ahmadiyasthe-only-truly-peaceful-and-progressive-group-in-the-muslim-worldthat-is-rejected-as-being-muslim-by-the-sunnis-and-shias/

THEN READ

Why the GREATER JIHAD and LESSER JIHAD hadith is 100% false,detremined by the Koran

http://www.antisharia.com/2011/05/21/the-story-that-the-historical-muhammad-talked-of-a-greaterspiritual-jihadstruggle-and-a-lessermilitary-jihad-is-false/

Anthony Rogers said...

TobyG said: "Big Daddy David Wood to Nabeel's rescue as usual. Nothing much has changed, I see. *yawn*"

What do you have against fatherhood? Oooops. Nevermind.

Radical Moderate said...

@1moreMuslim

You wrote...

"You just admitted , that you were not even a good Ahmadi. MGA is the Messiah, the Mahdi. For a "devout Ahmadi" , MGA is no less than Jesus , moses and others."

So since Nabeel viewed MGA as a lesser figure then Mohamed, and since MGA was the Mahdi to Ahmadi you accuse Nabeel of not being a good Ahmadi.

So does that mean that you view the Mahdi or Jesus as greater then Mohamed?

You also wrote...

"Even the orthodox Christianity, in one time was considered marginal and heretic during Arianism, and their leader ex-communicated and put to exile."

Where do you get your information from. Wikie is a nice site for getting quick facts like dates and such, or even for getting idea's on topics, however not a good source for serious information.

If "Orthodox was the minority position in the world at the time of Nicea, then why did all but 2 Bishops vote in favor of the Nicean creed?

You really need to pick up a book man.

1MoreMuslim said...

Out of curiosity Nabeel, do Ahamadi consider Sunnis as Muslims?

Álf said...

The life and teaching of Christ are the best mirror . . . for it is evident that every man who in life and teaching is contrary to Christ and only such a man is a heretic: and every Christian who in life and teaching is conformed to Christ and only such a Christian is removed from heresy.

Anthony Rogers said...

Out of curiosity 1moremuslim, do mainstream Sunnis consider Salafis to be Muslims?

If not, why not? If so, why so? Thanks.

1MoreMuslim said...

Anthony Rogers:

Being Salafi is not exclusive of being Sunni. Those who follow Salaf are following the Sunna, because the Salaf themselves follow the Sunna.
The most distant Muslims group from sunnis are some sects of Shia, But still the differences between Extreme Muslim Shia and the mainstream are NOTHING compared to the differences between you and catholics. beside that, differences between Mainstream Islam and Shias are not based on textual issues but started as political issue over Khilafa, then shia belief was fashioned to dissociate themselves from sunni and evolved trough the ages. If you see their old scholars and their new , you see clearly an evolution in theology, something similar to the evolution of Christology through the Gospels.


I still want to know if Nabeel , as a former "devout" Ahmadi believe that Sunnis are Muslims or not.

Radical Moderate said...

@1moreMuslim.

Out of Curiosity can you tell us where we can find the Umm Al Kitab verses in the Quran?

Nabeel Qureshi said...

@1MM,

Of course sunnis are Muslim. Anyone who confesses the Shahada is a Muslim. That's what Muhammad defined as a Muslim, and I agree.

Feel free to ignore the hadith I quoted above and disagree with Muhammad all you like. Please stop consuming my time on this issue.

Cheers,
-Nabeel

1MoreMuslim said...

Nabeel:

Ahmadis consider Sunnis as true Muslims , can you explain to me why Ahmadis make an official ceremony for Sunnis who convert to Ahmadya, during which Sunnis are asked to recite Shahada?

ex-Sunni reverting to Islam Ahmadiyya

1MoreMuslim said...

ex-Sunni reverting to Islam Ahmadiyya

Anthony Rogers said...

1moremuslim,

So Ahmadis aren't Muslim because they believe in another prophet after Muhammad, but Salafis are Muslims even though they believe differently about Allah, affirming for him eyes, ears, shin, feet, etc? Very interesting. Might I ask where Muslims get their priorities?

Funny thing is, it is just the reverse in Christianity. Christians believe Jesus sent apostles and prophets after him, and don't reject those who hearkened to the message he gave to them, but we would reject as non-Christians those who say that God the Father by nature has anthropomorphic features or that Jesus does apart from the incarnation, i.e. from the perspective of His deity (and apart from some voluntary and temporary condescension on his part, as is the case in Old Testament theophanies). In short, we give priority to God in our thinking.

By the way, thanks to Ahmad Ibn Hanbal and a significant continget of his followers, certain notions that more appropriately fall in with an anthropomorphic conception of Allah even became widely acceptable outside his school of thought, and they still find their place today in the belief of mainstream (i.e. non-Salafi) Islam. I am speaking here of certain traditions regarding the fact that Allah will be seen in the hereafter by Muslims.

And since you brought up the Sunni/Shia divide and suggested that there is not a radical disparity between how the two see things, I would simply point out right now that Shia do not believe it is possible to ever see Allah, not even in the hereafter. In fact, they put down the Sunni view as irrational nonsense and blatant anthropomorphism.

Here is a little snippet from an article showing just what Shia think of the above idea:

"If you want to see God, you should either see the whole God (i.e. your eyes should catch the whole God) which means you have limited God, or you should see a part of God (i.e. your eyes has captured a part of Him) which means you have partitioned God.

Both cases are in contradiction with Islamic belief that Allah, Exalted, is unlimited and has no part and organ. Moreover your belief in seeing God is in contradiction with clear text of Quran, in which Allah says that:

'Sight cannot catch Him' (Quran 6:103). The verse does not exclude Hereafter from this rule, therefore it covers everywhere.

There is no doubt that Sunni scholars believe that Allah can be seen (at least in Hereafter). To prove that it is logically wrong, I was using A COUNTER ARGUMANT [sic]. That was: If Sunnis believe that Allah can be seen, then they have to admit that Allah has [a] body. They have to admit that either He is limited or He has parts and organs.

Shia believes that Allah does not have any body. Also He can not be seen anywhere. He has no part, no organ. He is unlimited." (Source)

So while you guys are soft on Salafi anthropmorphism, which detracts from a more robust view of Allah's transcendent glory and limits him, and hard on Ahmadis for belief in another prophet after Muhammad, which detracts from the glory of Muhammad as "the seal of prophethood", all the while flirting with anthropomorphsim yourself (as seen in the expectation of seeing Allah in the hereafter), please pardon the rest of us for thinking your priorities and ability to evaluate these issues are off kilter and less than satisfactory.

1MoreMuslim said...

Anthony Rogers:
The definition that you gave about salafis is news to me. Salafi are just those who try to go back to the guidance of Salaf, nothing more nothing less. Salafis are part of Sunni.
Even if a Muslim say that God has limbs, that's just an abuse of language: The Quran clearly states "nothing like unto him", since all Muslims believe in the above verse, their understanding of God should be understood in that context. If one says that God is just like a man, or he has an image of God in his mind, then he is fallen in idolatry.
The core of religion is the part which pertains to what to do and believe to go to heaven. What picture you have of heaven, are there green grapes or black grapes, has nothing to do with the core of Islam.
Any argument that you give related to the reality of the hereafter is useless. You don't know what world will be, and we don't know what is "sight" in heaven. All Muslims agree, no one can see God in this world.

you say you don't know how muslims view priority: I give you an example to help you see it.
Imagine a group of people believing in all tenets of your reformed theology, except they believe that a man named Ghulam Ahmad is in fact the messiah in his 2nd coming, and he came with revelation then ascended to heaven again, and all Christians should believe in him. Would you consider that group christians? Why not? they believe in the same doctrine of salvation, the same god-man.

We are not hard on Ahmadis because they detract from the Glory of Muhammad being the seal of prophets, (we are ordered not make difference between prophets). you have a quite bias selection of your words, we don't call that detraction , it's called denying.

Radical Moderate said...

@1moreMuslim

You wrote...

"We are not hard on Ahmadis because they detract from the Glory of Muhammad"


I think that sums up Islam. Its all about the Glory of Mohamed.

Anthony Rogers said...

part 1 of 2

1mm said: "The definition that you gave about salafis is news to me."

It is not just news. It is bad news.

1mm said: "Salafi are just those who try to go back to the guidance of Salaf, nothing more nothing less."

And Salafis argue that going back to the Salaf means going back to affirming that Allah has a face, hands, ears, eyes, feet, etc., and not engaging in ta'wil (interpretation), which means they do not believe in giving these words a figurative meaning.

1mm said: "Even if a Muslim say that God has limbs, that's just an abuse of language: The Quran clearly states "nothing like unto him", since all Muslims believe in the above verse, their understanding of God should be understood in that context."

Suppose I said Ahmadis then are still Muslims by such standards, because when they affirm Ahmad Ghulam, it is just an abuse of language: the Qur'an states that Muhammad is the seal of prophethood, and since all Muslims believe in this teaching, their understanding of Ahmad Ghulam should be understood in that context."

By the way, it is interesting to observe that the group of people who first appealed to the phrase "there is nothing like unto him" (S. 42:11; cf. 112:4) to justify their view were anthropomorphists. Since I am writing an article on this at this time, I won't develop that here.


1mm said: "If one says that God is just like a man, or he has an image of God in his mind, then he is fallen in idolatry."

Well anthropomorphists would not say Allah is exactly like a man, but they would argue that their are points of correspondence and one should not negate the meaning of those verses that ascribe parts to him. They would say that no one is absolutely like Allah or like Allah in every respect, but Allah does have a likeness and there are points of continuity or correspondence between the two even if they are not exactly alike.

Since we have already seen that some Muslims do believe that God has limbs, even though Allah's limbs are not "just like" our limbs, and since we have seen that all Sunnis, whether of the more openly anthropomorphic variety (e.g. Salafis) or the tacitly anthropomorphic kind who believe Allah will be seen in the hereafter, which itself became part of Sunni doctrine in general under the influence of Ahmad Ibn Hanbal who was an anthropomorphist, now allow me to show you how you have just dealt a death blow to your entire religion.

Anthony Rogers said...

Part 2 of 2

You admitted that it is idolatry to either believe that God is exactly like a man, which raises the question if you reject anthropomorphism yourself since no anthropomorphist believes Allah is EXACTLY like a man, only that he is like man in many respects, as in having a face (which face is more resplendent than our faces they would say), and then you went on to say, if "he has an image of God in his mind, then he is fallen in idolatry."

Well thank you very much. That proves not only that Salafis are idolators but all Muslims are idolators, as the following hadith from Sahih Bukhari demonstrates:

"Narrated Abu Said Al-Khudri: During the lifetime of the Prophet some people said, : O Allah's Apostle! Shall we see our Lord on the Day of Resurrection?" The Prophet said, "Yes; do you have any difficulty in seeing the sun at midday when it is bright and there is no cloud in the sky?" They replied, "No." He said, "Do you have any difficulty in seeing the moon on a full moon night when it is bright and there is no cloud in the sky?" They replied, "No." The Prophet said, "(Similarly) you will have no difficulty in seeing ALLAH on the Day of Resurrection as you have no difficulty in seeing either of them. On the Day of Resurrection, a call-maker will announce, "Let every nation follow that which they used to worship." Then none of those who used to worship anything other than Allah like idols and other deities but will fall in Hell (Fire), till there will remain none but those who used to worship Allah, both those who were obedient (i.e. good) and those who were disobedient (i.e. bad) and the remaining party of the people of the Scripture. Then the Jews will be called upon and it will be said to them, 'Who do you use to worship?' They will say, 'We used to worship Ezra, the son of Allah.' It will be said to them, 'You are liars, for Allah has never taken anyone as a wife or a son. What do you want now?' They will say, 'O our Lord! We are thirsty, so give us something to drink.' They will be directed and addressed thus, 'Will you drink,' whereupon they will be gathered unto Hell (Fire) which will look like a mirage whose different sides will be destroying each other. Then they will fall into the Fire. Afterwards the Christians will be called upon and it will be said to them, 'Who do you use to worship?' They will say, 'We used to worship Jesus, the son of Allah.' It will be said to them, 'You are liars, for Allah has never taken anyone as a wife or a son,' Then it will be said to them, 'What do you want?' They will say what the former people have said. Then, when there remain (in the gathering) none but those who used to worship Allah (Alone, the real Lord of the Worlds) whether they were obedient or disobedient. Then (Allah) the Lord of the worlds will come to them IN A SHAPE NEAREST TO THE PICTURE THEY HAD IN THEIR MINDS ABOUT HIM. It will be said, 'What are you waiting for?' Every nation have followed what they used to worship.' They will reply, 'We left the people in the world when we were in great need of them and we did not take them as friends. Now we are waiting for our Lord Whom we used to worship.' Allah will say, 'I am your Lord.' They will say twice or thrice, 'We do not worship any besides Allah.'" (Bukhari, 6.60.105)

Hopefully that clears everything up for you and shows you why you should stop worrying about whether Ahmadis are Muslims and that you guys clearly have warped standards that puts a low priority on what people believe about Allah and a high priority on what they believe about Muhammad. What you should be worrying about is whether any of your guys will escape the wrath of God that will be poured out on all unrepentant idolators who refuse to come to Him in faith through the Lord Jesus Christ.

1MoreMuslim said...

Anthony Rogers:

You 2 part post is an intellectual insult.

" Well anthropomorphists would not say Allah is exactly like a man, but they would argue that their are points of correspondence and one should not negate the meaning of those verses that ascribe parts to him. They would say that no one is absolutely like Allah or like Allah in every respect, but Allah does have a likeness and there are points of continuity or correspondence between the two even if they are not exactly alike."

I think your theology affects your writing.
Jesus is fully God , who emptied himself, but he is still the emptied fullness of God. He is omniscient except when he doesn't know. Yahweh cannot be fully contained in space, but he entered Space with his fullness. God is the uncaused cause but he is caused by the Father, so Jesus is the uncaused but caused God. Jesus is co-equal with the father, the father is unbegotten but Jesus is begotten, generated by the father. God begets the Son but the son does't beget but still God. Yahweh is triune, Jesus is not triune, but Jesus is Yahweh, so Yahweh is triune and not triune. Yahweh is so Holy , that he became a curse. Yahweh so much he cannot stand sin, he took all sin upon himself.

If you hold the above theology, and it makes sense to you, then everything is possible.

Anthony Rogers said...

1mm,

Your above comments are a mixture of error and ignorance, showing at points that you don't understand my theology, and at other points that you are (willfully?) ignorant of the Christian answer to the "problems" you raise. But as far as I can tell, we weren't discussing my theology. Your desperation is all too apparent. Thanks for stopping by. Please see your way out.

TPaul said...

Nabeel,
Congratulations on Creed 2:6. I liked your videos and look forward to more from you.

BTW,the "Snowman" has made this ridiculous contradictory claim on his website about this venture.

quote "He(Nabeel)has distanced himself from the bigotry of Acts 17, though it must be stated, Qureshi is still associated with Acts 17."

Imagine, you have distanced yourself, yet you are still associated with Acts 17... Really?How exactly?

quote "IF Nabeel has actually turned a new leaf and is interested in love and truth then it is a positive sign. Perhaps, the Muslims who have prayed for him are seeing their prayers being answered somewhat in that Nabeel is moving away from the nefarious."

It is apparent that Snowman needs to distance himself from the nefarious religion of Islam himself in order to see the light of Christ...

Radical Moderate said...

1 Milometer

Anthony Rogers really must of walloped you good with his response, since you seem to have a head injury.

You wrote...
"God is the uncaused cause but he is caused by the Father, so Jesus is the uncaused but caused God."

Are you Okay, did you have a brain aneurysm, or a stroke. This is word salad. Total gibberish.

You also wrote...

"If you hold the above theology, and it makes sense to you, then everything is possible."

We don't hold to what ever it is that you typed, you made absolutely no sense.

1MoreMuslim said...

Anthony
Show me one single sentence that I wrote, that does not pertain to your theology.
May be the Son is not begotten? The Son didn't become a curse, as Paul said?
Please, I need to know because if ,after all my research , I make mistakes in the basic of Christian belief, then you have to correct me.

Anthony Rogers said...

You asked me to supply a single sentence from you that does not pertain to my theology, but you should have been asking how any of what you wrote pertains to the topic we have been discussing and that you are now desperately running from. I have addressed you on my theology before. It wasn't pretty for you then, what makes you think it will be any prettier for you now?

As I said, you have spectacularly failed on the point you came here to make. You are an idolator according to your own standards. You not only take differences between Muslims about Muhammad more seriously than you do differences about Allah, but you have even supplied a definition of idolatry that condemns what is found in your own sources.

Do you think there is any question in our minds why you are now speaking gibberish and pretending it has anything to do with what we believe?

Like I said before: Thanks for coming. Please show yourself the door. Go spend some time working on that "mental picture" of Allah that you are going to need to verify who he is at the great asize.

1MoreMuslim said...

Anthony Rogers:

"But as far as I can tell, we weren't discussing my theology. Your desperation is all too apparent. "

Yes , we were talking about Ahamdya. You are right.

The one who should work on the picture of God is you, When Jesus will come back, he will say I am your God-man, go figure if he is really God-man who emptied himself , or just a man, who is already Empty. You are Idolater with the universal standards, even Atheist's standards.
I refuted your argument before even you make you 2 part post:

"Any argument that you give related to the reality of the hereafter is useless. You don't know what world will be, and we don't know what is "sight" in heaven. All Muslims agree, no one can see God in this world."
You did exactly what I expected, you are projecting the realm of this world to the realm of hereafter with your own imagination.
But since you are dumb, It's useless to make my point 2 or 3 times again. It seems like you have 2 brains, one to deal with Muslims, another to deal with your theology. Why is it when Jesus Says ONLY the Father knows the Hour, it doesn't effect the omniscience of the Holy Spirit? Why when Yahweh repented from creating Humans, that doesn't mean that he failed to know the outcome of his creation.

Anthony Rogers said...

The argument I supplied above from a shia source already anticipates your would-be response about "projecting the realm of this world to the realm of [the]hereafter." Read it again. With your eyes open this time.

And once again you are way off topic and obviously desperate. I have answered you on such things before. How many times should I answer you on the same questions or the same sort of questions? At what point do I say this guy is incorrigible? Fortunately I don't have to really ask that question right now because none of what you brought up pertains to the issue you are ducking. You are a Muhammadan. Muhammad is more important to you than your "god". That is painfully obvious. Ahmadis aren't Muslims according to you but Salafi anthropomorphists are. That's the topic. Learn it. Live it. Love it.

By the way, since you are tucking tail and trying to head for the hills where you won't have to deal with how your theology leads to idolatry both by elevating Muhammad above all bounds and by lowering Allah, would you like me to show you how your Qur'an teaches that Allah is not all knowing and learns and changes his mind, etcetera?

In fact, you balk at the fact that the incarnation resolves the issues that concern you about Christ being omniscient as God while yet he grew in wisdom as a man, but for all that you have NO such solution to appeal to in order to explain why your "god" is ignorant and changes his mind.

Would you like to return to the topic, or shall I write you off again and let you sit in the corner for a few more months?

1MoreMuslim said...

Anthony Rogers:
Said :

In fact, you balk at the fact that the incarnation resolves the issues that concern you about Christ being omniscient as God while yet he grew in wisdom as a man

The Golden Calf, worshiped by the Jews, is Omniscient as God, but immobile and cold as a statue. Prove me wrong. The same could also be said to every human being on earth. The incarnation doesn't solve the problem of the Christian God who appears as a man, but also solves the problem of Gods appearing as a stone. If Jesus appears as man, then your theology appears as Idol worship and polytheism. Christians resolved the problem by redefining monotheism, making every Idol a possible candidate to be a True God, kind of cutting the foot to fit the shoe. There was a time, when false Gods were debunked simply by pointing out their Human nature, or limited nature: the need to sleep, to eat. Christians had made that argument void, hence making the commandment of God obsolete and inapplicable. Every creeping and walking thing on the Planet is a possible God appearing as not-God.

The Incarnation does not solve problems, that is why every Christian theologian who tried to define what it means, falls into heresy. For that reason Christians appealed to Councils, to excommunicate those Christians in quest for truth ( Apollinarius, Nestorius..) The Chalcedon creed offered nothing but negation of heresies, things that the incarnation is NOT. Against Nestorius it states that the 2 natures are NOT SEPARATE, against Monophysites it states that the two natures are NOT CONFUSED. Sounds like my door is not open and not closed, go figure.
Until today, Christian self-proclaimed defenders of the faith, reading the Bible on their own, they still fall into the same heresy without even noticing it.
Here is venomfangX with over 35000 subscribers falls into heresy, and still not repenting.

Finally, You should know the meaning of the words you are uttering: "unrepentant idolator"
Idol :from Late Latin īdōlum, from Latin: image, from Greek eidōlon, from eidos shape, form.
According to the definition of the word, Anthony you are literally an Idolator. But the Christians claim that Jesus only appears an Idol, that makes your religion appears as Idolatry, and you have the burden to prove the hidden Divinity of your Idol. Which demonstrably an impossible task.
If Jesus appears Ignorant, In order for you , to prove his omniscience, you have to show that he knows Everything, but since we already know that he doesn't know ONE thing, all what you can do is to show he is less ignorant. So you have to rely only on faith without any reasonable argument. What the Idolaters do? The same thing: They worship an Idol, having a blind faith that the Idol has a divinity.

What is frustrating with Anthony Rogers, that he wants to redefine Islam after 14 centuries, and he wants us to believe in his "true" Islam. Those who revered Muhammad as God, are condemned as deviants and Mushriks. Ok , let's say that our sources tells us to worship shapes, but we, against these texts we don't. What does that prove? That only proves that we are not Idolaters, going against our scripture.

I can do easily the same thing with the Bible. It says clearly without a dot of ambiguity only the Father knows the Hour That means that the Holy Spirit doesn't know. But the Christians go : Oh ONLY doesn't mean Only, the Bible doesn't mean what it says, as usual.
Or where the bible says : Blaspheming the Holy Spirit is the only unforgivable Sin. That means the Holy spirit is superior in some way to the Son and the Father.

Royal Son said...

1MoreMuslim: Why do you keep talking about the Christian concept of Christ instead of dealing with the subject of Sunni vs Ahmadi theology? It seems that Anthony is being more than patient with you and has given you ample opportunity to return to the topic.

1MoreMuslim said...

Royal Son:

Anthony Rogers whas fled Ahmadya issue for while now. Open your eyes and read. He was arguing about Salafis, and how Muslims rejecting Idol worship ( worship of images) "against their scriptures". If it's true, that is something we should be proud of, not ashamed.

Sam said...

Here are all the references which cite this hadith of Allah appearing as a man:

76 Al-Suyuti, Tafsir al-Durr al-manthur, 7:203, sura Sad.
77 Al-Lalika’i, Sharh usul 2:520; al-Suyuti, Tafsir al-Durr al-manthur, 7:203.
78 Al-Suyuti, Tafsir al-Durr al-manthur, 7:204.
79 Al-Suyuti, Tafsir al-Durr al-manthur, 7:204; Nur al-Din al-Haythami, Kitab majma‘ al-bahrayn fi zawa’id al-mu‘jamayn (Riyad: Maktabat al-Rushd, 1992), 370; Ibn Abi ‘Asim, Al-Sunna, 1:326, #475.
80 Khatib al-Baghdadi, Ta’rikh Baghdad, 14 vols. (Cairo, 1931), 8:151; Al-Suyuti, Tafsir al-Durr al-manthur, 7:205.
81 Ibn Hanbal, Musnad2, 27:171, #16621; ‘Abd Allah b. ‘Abd al-Rahman al-Darimi, Sunan al-Darimi, 2 vols. (Cairo: Dar al-Hadith, 2000), 1:660f; Al-Lalika’i, Sharh usul 2:514; Al-Bayhaqi, Al-Asma’ wa al-Sifat, 2:63; Ibn Abi ‘Asim, al-Ahad wa al-mathani (Riyad, 1991), 5:48; al-Haythami, Kitab majma‘, 366.
82 Ibn Abi ‘Asim, Al-Sunna, 1:328, #479; Al-Suyuti, Tafsir al-Durr al-manthur, 7:205; al-Haythami, Kitab majma‘, 367.
83 Al-Haythami, Kitab majma‘, 369, #11743.
84 Al-Tabarani, Al-Mu‘jam al-kabir (Baghdad: al-Dar al- ‘Arabiyah lil-Tiba‘ah, 1978) (hereafter Al-Mu‘jam1), 1:296, #938.
85 Ibn Abi Shaybah, al-Kitab al-musannaf fi al-ahadith wa-al-athar (Beirut: Dar al-Kutub al-‘Ilmiya, 1989), 7:424.
86 Ibn Hanbal, Musnad1, 3:437, #3483; Al-Tirmidhi, Jami‘ al-Sahih, apud al-Mubarakpuri, Tuhfa, 9:101ff, #3286; Abu Ya‘la al-Mawsili, Musnad Abi Ya‘la al-Mawsili, ed. Husayn Salim Asad (Damascus: Dar al-Ma’mun lil-Turath), 4:475, #281.
87 Al-Darimi, Naqd, 2:733ff.
88 Khaldun Ahdab, Zawa’id Tarikh Baghdad ‘ala al-kutub al-sittah (Damascus: Dar al-Qalam, 1996), 6:253.
89 Apud Al-Darimi, Naqd, 2:734.
90 Al-Tirmidhi, Jami‘ al-Sahih, apud al-Mubarakpuri, Tuhfa, 9:106ff, #3288.
91 ‘Abd Allah b. ‘Abi, Al-Kamil fi du‘afa’ al-rijal, 7 vols. (Beirut: Dar al-Fikr, 1984) 6:2344.
92 See Al-Bayhaqi, Al-Asma’ wa al-Sifat, 2:74.
93 Al-Bayhaqi, Al-Asma’ wa al-Sifat, 2:73ff.
94 Al-Baghawi, Tafsir, 4:69; Ibn Abi ‘Asim, Al-Sunna, 1:326.
95 Ibn Abi ‘Asim, Al-Sunna, 1:328, #479; Al-Suyuti, Tafsir al-Durr al-manthur, 7:205. (Ibid.; bold and capital emphasis ours)

Sam said...

1more then mentioned stones. Again, by his own criterion Muhammad is a blatant idolatry since he would kiss and smother a black stone, something which the God of Abraham condemned:

It is Sunnah to perform certain acts in tawaf as given below:

Facing the Black Stone at the start of the tawaf while uttering a takbir (Allahu-Akbar), and a tahlil (La ilaha illahlah), and raising one's hands as they are raised in prayers, and if possible touching it with both hands and kissing it quietly, or placing one's cheek on it. Otherwise, one may touch it with one's hand and kiss the hand, or touch it with something, and then kiss it, or if even that is not possible, one may just point to it with a stick, etc. as is mentioned in some of the ahadith given below.

Ibn 'Umar said: “Allah's Messenger faced the Black Stone, touched it, AND THEN PLACED HIS LIPS ON IT and wept for a long time.” 'Umar also wept for a long time. The Prophet said: 'O 'Umar, this is the place where one should shed tears.” (Reported by Al-Hakim, who considers it a sound hadith with a sound chain of authorities)

It is reported by Ibn 'Abbas that 'Umar BENT DOWN TOWARDS THE BLACK STONE and said: "By Allah! I know that you are A MERE STONE, and if I had not seen my beloved Prophet kissing you and touching you I would have never done so." The Qur'an says: "You have indeed in the Messenger of Allah a beautiful pattern (of conduct)."' (Qur'an 33.32) This was reported by Ahmad and others in slightly different words.

Nafi' said, “I have seen Ibn 'Umar touching the Black Stone with his hand, and then kissing his hand and saying: 'Ever since I saw the Prophet doing this, I have never failed to do that.''' (Reported by Bukhari and Muslim)

Sowayd bin Ghaflah said: "I have seen 'Umar kissing the Black Stone and touching it." He further said: "I know that the Prophet was especially very particular about it.'' (Muslim)

Ibn 'Umar reported that Allah's Messenger used to come to Ka'bah, touch the Black Stone and then say: Bismillahi wallahu akbar (In the name of Allah, Allah is the Greatest.)" (Ahmad)

Muslim has reported on the authority of Abu Tufail that he said: "I have seen the Prophet making tawaf around the Ka'bah and touching it with a stick and then kissing the stick."

Bukhari, Muslim and Abu Daw'ud reported that 'Umar approached the Black Stone and kissed it. Then he said: "I know that you are A MERE STONE that can neither harm nor do any good. If I had not seen the Prophet kissing you, I would have never kissed you."

Al-Khatabi said: "This shows that abiding by the Sunnah of the Prophet is binding, REGARDLESS OF WHETHER OR NOT WE UNDERSTAND ITS REASON OR THE WISDOM BEHIND IT."


Continued in next post.

Sam said...

Here is the rest of the quote on kissing the black stone:

Such information devolves obligation on all those whom it reaches, even if they may not fully comprehend its significance. It is known, however, that kissing the Black Stone signifies respect for it, recognition of our obligation toward it, and using it as a means of seeking Allah's blessings. Indeed Allah has preferred some stones over others, as He preferred some countries and cities, days and nights, and months over others. The underlying spirit of all this is unquestioning submission to Allah.

In some ahadith which say that "the Black Stone is Allah's right hand on earth," we do find, however, a plausible rationale and justification for this statement. In other words whosoever touches the Black Stone he pledges allegiance to Allah, as it were, by giving his hand into the hand of Allah, just as some followers do pledge their fealty to their kings and masters, by kissing and shaking hands with them.

Al-Muhallib said: “The hadith of 'Umar refutes the assertions of those who say that ‘The Black Stone is Allah's right hand on earth wherewith He shakes the hands of His slaves.’” God forbid that we should ascribe any physical organs to Allah [sic]. The commandment to kiss the Black Stone is meant to test and to demonstrate palpably as to who obeys and submits. It may be compared with the command to Iblis to bow to Adam.

We have no definite evidence, however, to believe that any of the stones used in building the Ka'bah originally (by Ibrahim and Isma'il), is still in existence today excepting the Black Stone. (Fiqh-Us-Sunnah, Volume 5, Number 74b – ALIM CD-ROM Version)

Sam said...

Muhammad's worhip of the black stone is simply a carryover of the paganism of his people who were steeped in stone worship:

Narrated Abu Raja Al-Utaridi:
We used to worship stones, and when we found a better stone than the first one, we would throw the first one and take the latter, but if we could not get a stone then we would collect some earth (i.e. soil) and then bring a sheep and milk that sheep over it, and perform the Tawaf around it. When the month of Rajab came, we used (to stop the military actions), calling this month the iron remover, for we used to remove and throw away the iron parts of every spear and arrow in the month of Rajab. Abu Raja' added: When the Prophet sent with (Allah's) Message, I was a boy working as a shepherd of my family camels. When we heard the news about the appearance of the Prophet, we ran to the fire, i.e. to Musailima al-Kadhdhab. (Sahih al-Bukhari, Volume 5, Book 59, Number 661: http://www.usc.edu/schools/college/crcc/engagement/resources/texts/muslim/hadith/bukhari/059.sbt.html#005.059.661)


Now if 1moremuslim has a problem with God becoming and appearing as a man, and likens that to golden calf worship, then surely he must condemn Muhammad for smothering a black stone which even his followers didn't understand the logic behind kissing something that neither hurts or benefits anyone. He must also condemn Muhammad for thinking that he actually saw his lord appear to him as a man.

He must also condemn Muhammad for believing that his god appeared in and as fire:

When Moses said to his people 'I observe a fire, and will bring you news of it, or I will bring you a flaming brand, that haply you shall warm yourselves.' So, when he came to it, he was called: 'Blessed is HE WHO IS IN THE FIRE, and he who is about it. Glory be to God, the Lord of all Being! Moses, behold, it is I, God, the All-mighty, the All-wise. S. 27:7-9

Since 1moremuslim's god appeared in and as fire the logical thing for him to do is to start worshiping fire. After all, his prophet did kiss and smooch a black stone which some Muslims took as representing Allah's right hand on earth. Therefore, why not worship fire seeing that it was able to actually contain Allah?

Now, instead of condemning Muhammad for idolatry, watch and see 1more go out of his way to defend the idolatrous actions of his prophet.

"Inconsistency, thy name is 1moremuslim, a.k.a. 1moreblackstonekisser!"

Sam said...

1More brings up the dead of issue of the Holy Spirit not knowing the day or hour, which only exposes his ignorance, if not his outright distortion, of the Holy Bible. He thinks that the Holy Bible is like the Quran, an incoherent piece of babble.

In the first place, 1more erroneously assumes that the phrase "no one" in Matt. 24:36 and Mark 13:32 is inclusive, that it necessarily includes every single entity with the exception of God the Father. However, if he had simply taken the time to actually read the passage he would see that such is not the case at all.

The fact that Jesus goes on to mention that neither the angels nor the Son know clearly indicates that Christ wasn’t referring to every single entity but to a more restricted group. After all, if the phrase "no one knows" meant everyone then there was no need for Christ to mention the angels and himself since they would have naturally been included already. Thus, Christ’s statement regarding angels and the Son not knowing demonstrates that Jesus was referring to a specific class of individuals, namely human beings, when he said that no one knows. In other words, Jesus was saying that no human being knows the day he would come to bring judgment upon the inhabitants of Jerusalem for rejecting him, neither the angels, not even himself. This explains why the King James Version rendered the Greek in the following manner:

"But of that day and that hour knoweth NO MAN, no, not the angels which are in heaven, neither the Son, but the Father." Mark 13:32

he Holy Bible clearly teaches that the Holy Spirit knows everything that God knows and fully comprehends the very mind of God!

"God has revealed to us through the Spirit. For the Spirit searches everything, even the depths of God. For what person knows a man's thoughts except the spirit of the man which is in him? So also no one comprehends the thoughts of God EXCEPT THE SPIRIT OF GOD. Now we have received not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit which is from God, that we might understand the gifts bestowed on us by God." 1 Corinthians 2:10-12

The Holy Scriptures explicitly state that God’s thoughts, his ways, his knowledge are infinite and beyond comprehension:

"O the depth of the riches and wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are his judgments and how inscrutable his ways! ‘For who has known the mind of the Lord, or who has been his counselor?’ ‘Or who has given a gift to him that he might be repaid?’ For from him and through him and to him are all things. To him be glory for ever. Amen." Romans 11:33-36

"O LORD, you have searched me and known me! You know when I sit down and when I rise up; you discern my thoughts from afar. You search out my path and my lying down and are acquainted with all my ways. Even before a word is on my tongue, behold, O LORD, you know it altogether. You hem me in, behind and before, and lay your hand upon me. Such knowledge is too wonderful for me; it is high; I cannot attain it." Psalm 139:1-6 ESV


Hopefully, this will put his desperate tirade against the Holy Spirit to rest. Perhaps now 1moremuslim will be able to focus on answering the objections of Anthony, instead of bringing up all these red herrings which is nothing more than his desperate attempt of avoiding the challenges to his false beliefs.

1MoreMuslim said...

Sam :

Sam cannot begin his reply without derogatory terms "ignorant" "distorted", that is because the core of his reply is not convincing, so he catch up by slander.
I have read your article about the Omniscience of the Holy Spirit before I even write anything about the matter, and I find it weak and convoluted. If we suppose you are right, that simply show that the writer of the Bible is very poor in communication techniques. He says Only the Father, but he doesn't mean only the Father.

You copied from your old article, which I have already examined. You keep beating a dead horse. The key phrase is " ONLY THE FATHER". you say it speaks about Humans, fine, is the Father Human, are the Angels human? No humans, no Angels, only the FATHER. By the way, Dr W L Craig, uses this passage to prove that the Son is superior than human and Angels, he argues that Jesus mentions entities in crescendo : Humans, Angels, SON and Father. W L Craig agrees with us the Son there is not just the human nature, but also the Divine, but he deals away with the omniscience problem with the sub-conscience theory, which another Christian fiction.

The verse that you mentioned about the Holy spirit peoves that the Muslim view is true. There are 2 Spirits not to be confused , the first is the Spirit of god, which is an attribute of God , like the spirit of man, and cannot be considered an independent person. The second is an agent of God, who is a creature. Of course , Christians confuse those 2, for the sake of making an obscure trinitarian Doctrine.

" For what person knows a man's thoughts except the spirit of the man which is in him? So also no one comprehends the thoughts of God EXCEPT THE SPIRIT OF GOD.

Royal Son said...

1MoreMuslim: Sam already responded to you but I will just add a few little points. The gospel of Mark clearly portrays Jesus in two statuses. According to Mark 10:45 He comes as the slave savior. This agrees with the manner of his earthly ministry (john 13:4-5) and yet Mark also presents Christ as the Master of His household in Mark 13:35 - "Therefore, be on the alert--for you do not know when the master of the house is coming, whether in the evening, at midnight, or when the rooster crows, or in the morning--

Notice in His 1st coming, He is in the position of a Slave. In His second coming, He comes in the position of a Master.

This idea that Christ comes back as the Master is supported by verses such as Matthew 24:45-46, Matt 25:19, Luke 12:36-37.

Furthermore, again in Mark chapter 13, the very same chapter that speaks of the Son not knowing the day nor the hour, has Him portray Himself as the Son of Man who will return on the clouds with great power and glory with HIS ANGELS, gathering HIS ELECT (Mark 13:26-27).

This agrees with the prophetic verses concerning the Son of Man in Daniel chapter 7 who will come on the clouds be served by men of all nations, having an eternal kingdom that never fades.

Thus we can see that Jesus has an awareness of His status and position in His earthly ministry compared with that in His second coming.

Royal Son said...

In John 14:12-14 we see Jesus' awareness of His position that He anticipates following the pending resurrection:

12 "Truly, truly, I say to you, he who believes in Me, the works that I do, he will do also; and greater works than these he will do; because I go to the Father.

13 "Whatever you ask in My name, that will I do, so that the Father may be glorified in the Son.

14 "If you ask Me anything in My name, I will do it.

Notice that speaking of His going to the Father, in that context, His disciples are to ask Him anything in His name and He will do it. This shows omniscience as He is aware of the prayers of the Saints. It demonstrates His omnipotence to do that which the disciples ask of Him in prayer. It demonstrates a call for His disciples to worship Him as prayer is most certainly a form of worship.

We see therefore that the matter of the Son not knowing the day nor hour is not evidence that Jesus is not God. It simply adds to the evidence that He took on human nature, that He came in the form of a slave.

Royal Son said...

According to His humanity, He grew in strength and wisdom (Luke 2:40)

According to His Divinity, He knew all things and was all powerful (John 5:19 - The Son does everything in Harmony with the Father by seeing everything the Father does and doing that same in like manner just as the Father does)

According to His humanity and position of a slave He came to serve and not be served (Mark 10:45) yet according to His divinity He recognised that He is worthy of worship (John 5:23, Matthew 28:16:19)

According to His humanity, He was subject to death on the cross (Mark 15:25) according to His prediction (Matt 20:19) and confirmed as a fulfillment of scripture following His resurrection (Luke 24:44-46), yet according to His divinity death could not even hold him (John 2:19).

In summary, the problem is not with Mark 13:32). The problem is your refusal to accept the hypostatic union. It's not a problem of evidence because the them of the two natures of Christ saturate the pages of the New Testament. It is your own underlying presuppositions as a Muslim. God is above taking flesh you say and he would never do such a thing. Well, I guess 1MM if your God does not love sinners then there'd be no reason for Him to demonstrate His love to them.

Royal Son said...

Let me however just say a closing word: According to Sahih Bukhari vol 9 book 93 number 532s Allah will come on the day of resurrection in a form other than that which He has come before, and His people will reject Him because they do not recognise Him. That presupposes that He has already come in a form such that they will recognise Him. What is that form?

According to Sahih Bukhari vol 6 book 60 number 105, this form that Allah will come in will be the one closest to the picture in their minds. Again I ask, what is that form?

Finally, if you do not believe as we Christians do, that God is capable of entering into His creation (i.e. flesh) then how is it that every last third part of the night Allah descends to the nearest heaven? Since Allah resides outside of creation, above the throne and yet descends to the nearest heaven every last third part of the night, then it would seem that Allah does enter into His creation, namely, the nearest heaven.

1MoreMuslim said...

Roayl Son:
You have said:

"According to His humanity, He grew in strength and wisdom (Luke 2:40)"

Why should you add your own words? It would be beautiful if the Bible sais that, it would spare 400 years + of debates and persecution of heresies. The Bible is not as clear as you portray it. Here is the verse:
And the child grew and became strong, filled with wisdom. And the favor of God was upon him.
There is no "According to his Humanity". Don't let Sam Shamoun fool you and lead you to heresy, Chalcedon tells you not to separate between human nature and Divine nature.

Radical Moderate said...

1milimeter

Your response to Royalson has to be the dumbest thing you have said to date.

"And the child grew and became strong, filled with wisdom."

Do you know any child that is not a human-being? Or are you saying that Muslim children are not Human beings?

1MoreMuslim said...

@ Radical Moderate:

Yes , to believe that a child grew in knowledge is not a human is the dumbest thing. But unfortunately Radical, you should follow your Creeds. As soon as you say Jesus has done this or that, just in his human nature, or done that only in his divine nature, you are a heretic. The human is not separated from the divine, nor he confused. The God-man grew in knowledge, the God-man died ... Does that make sense ? No. Id that your religion ? YES. So believe it. ask learned Christians if you don't know. Call the dividing line or send W L Craig your question. The Chalcedon creed is designed not to explain the incarnation, but to keep its mystery, and shut heretics once for all, in other words , don't try to explain, just swallow it as a whole peace.

Royal Son said...

1MoreMuslim - The God man grew in wisdom in His HUMANITY.

The God man required food in His HUMANITY.

The God man required rest in His HUMANITY.

The God man required water in His HUMANITY.

The God man died on the cross in His HUMANITY.

Not because He as God needs food, rest and water for as God He requires NONE of these things. Simply the flesh He took upon Himself required it because it was true genuine flesh. It wasn't an illusion.

Likewise God in Himself cannot die for He is invincible, on the contrary the human FLESH he took upon Himself was weak and susceptible to death.

Now, please do explain the poitns regarding Allah entering into His creation and taking a form prior to the day of resurrection in a form that is closest to the picture in the minds of Muslims, as well as the other points I raised.

By the way I'm not a Catholic and thus do not consider councils to be infallible. Nice try.

1MoreMuslim said...

Royal Son:

You really need to repent , if Jesus died just in his humanity, you are not saved. REapeat after me : God died on the cross. What a confusion, I have to teach you your religion, then show you it's wrong.

Royal Son said...

By the way 1MoreMuslim, while the council of Chalcedon makes the confession that the two natures were not separate, it did make it clear that they were distinct. Thus, any limitation such as the need for food, rest, water, or the susceptibility to death pertains to the human nature which they recognized as distinct from the Divine nature. Basically they did not separate the Divine and Human nature into two persons, nor did the believe as you seem to want to believe that the two natures were one nature. They were not. They were united in the one person of Jesus Christ.

Royal Son said...

1MoreMuslim - Yes God(the Son) died on the cross - In the human flesh that He took upon Himself.

Not sure why you're asking me to repent:)

And still waiting for you to respond to my points...

1MoreMuslim said...

Again Royal Son , read your creed.
The 2 natures of Jesus are NOT Separated and NOT CONFUSED. That sounds like the door is not open and not closed. What is left ? NOTHING. In other words , don't try to figure out. Not separate means confused, and not confused means separate. try to put 2 liquids in one cup, and try to make them not confused and not separated. Since this doesn't make a wit of sense, Christians put the label God-man on Jesus, so he can do all things like human and like God at the same time. Since the God-man has no definition, he can grew in knowledge and be omniscient at the same time. You should not deny that God died on the cross, repent!

Royal Son said...

1MoreMuslim - You said: "The 2 natures of Jesus are NOT Separated and NOT CONFUSED"

Right, and the only one who is trying to confuse them is you :)

Are you contending that two things cannot be united and yet distinct at the same time?

There are many things that exhibit unity and distinction in the world around us. Here are three simple examples:

An eye and the optic nerve
Bones and cartilage
The Stalk and leaf of a plant

Thus an insistence that distinction necessitates separation is a fallacy on your part.

You keep calling me to repent, and I'm not too sure why. But sir, I would call you to repentence for denying the death of Christ, God the Son for the remission of sins.

Sam said...

It seems I am going to need to turn the tables on 1MoreMuslim's false god. Since it is obvious he has no interested in allowing the Holy bible to speak for itself, or allowing it to affirm that Christ is both Deity and humanity, i.e. the God-man, let us not waste time trying to convince someone who insists on remaining persist in his perversion of God's truth. Instead, let us turn the tables on his god to show how Allah is an ignoramus.

Now this will be more damaging to 1MoreMuslim since his god remains disincarnate, whereas the Bible teaches that Jesus as the eternal divine Logos became incarnate and therefore took on an additional nature, namely a human one. As such, Christ fully possessed a human consciousness.

Thus, even though it makes sense to speak of an incarnate Deity who possesses a human consciousness not knowing certain things, such should not be the case with a disincarnate deity as Allah is supposed to be.

Lord willing, in the next posts I will be quoting the Quran to prove that Allah is an impotent, ignorant deity.

In the meantime, I am going to ask 1MoreMuslim to read the post which was recently published to expose his inconsistency and deliberate perversion of both the Holy Bible and Islam: http://www.answeringmuslims.com/2011/06/sam-shamoun-responds-to-1moremuslim.html

He seems to want to avoid this post like the plague since it contains too much truth and facts which he cannot adequately deal with.

Sam said...

First Post- Allah's Guessing Game

Here are some passages where Allah clearly doesn't know the future and therefore places people in certain situations in order to know something about them:

If a wound has afflicted you (at Ohud), a wound like it has also afflicted the (unbelieving) people; and We bring these days to men by turns, and that Allah MAY KNOW those who believe and take witnesses from among you; and Allah does not love the unjust. And that He may purge those who believe and deprive the unbelievers of blessings. Do you think that you will enter the garden while Allah has NOT YET KNOWN those who strive hard from among you, and (He has not) known the patient. S. 3:140-142 Shakir

That which befell you, on the day when the two armies met, was by permission of Allah; that He MIGHT KNOW the true believers; And that He MIGHT KNOW the hypocrites, unto whom it was said: Come, fight in the way of Allah, or defend yourselves. They answered: If we knew aught of fighting we would follow you. On that day they were nearer disbelief than faith. They utter with their mouths a thing which is not in their hearts. Allah is Best Aware of what they hide. S. 3:166-167 Pickthall

O you who believe! Allah will certainly try you in respect of some game which your hands and your lances can reach, that Allah MIGHT KNOW who fears Him in secret; but whoever exceeds the limit after this, he shall have a painful punishment. S. 5:94 Shakir

Sam said...

Second Post- Allah's Guessing Game

Then, it MAY BE that you will give up part of what is revealed to you and your breast will become straitened by it because they say: Why has not a treasure been sent down upon him or an angel come with him? You are only a warner; and Allah is custodian over all things. S. 11:12 Shakir

Yet it may be, IF they believe not in this statement, that thou (Muhammad) wilt torment thy soul with grief over their footsteps. S. 18:6 Pickthall

It may be thou will kill thy self with grief, that they do not become Believers. S. 26:3

Do men think that they will be left alone on saying, "We believe", and that they will not be tested? We did test those before them, and Allah WILL CERTAINLY KNOW those who are true from those who are false. S. 29:2-3


And most certainly We will try you until WE HAVE KNOWN those among you who exert themselves hard, and the patient, and made your case manifest. S. 47:31 Shakir

He Who created Death and Life, that He may try which of you is best in deed: and He is the Exalted in Might, Oft-Forgiving;- S. 67:2

Say: "I know not whether the (Punishment) which ye are promised is near, or whether my Lord will appoint for it a distant term. He (alone) knows the Unseen, nor does He make any one acquainted with His Secrets.- Except an messenger whom He has chosen: and then He makes a band of watchers march before him and behind him, That He MAY KNOW that they have (truly) brought and delivered the Messages of their Lord: and He encompasses all that is with them, and takes account of every single thing." S. 72:25-28

He frowned and turned away. Because the blind man came unto him. What could inform thee but that he MIGHT grow (in grace) Or take heed and so the reminder might avail him? S. 80:1-4 Pickthall

Sam said...

Third Post - Allah's Guessing Game

Here is one more:

Allâh said: "You are granted your request, O Mûsa (Moses)! And indeed We conferred a favour on you another time (before). When We inspired your mother with that which We inspired. Saying: ‘Put him (the child) into the Tabût (a box or a case or a chest) and put it into the river (Nile), then the river shall cast it up on the bank, and there, an enemy of Mine and an enemy of his shall take him.’ And I endued you with love from Me, in order that you may be brought up under My Eye, When your sister went and said: ‘Shall I show you one who will nurse him?’ So We restored you to your mother, that she might cool her eyes and she should not grieve. Then you did kill a man, but We saved you from great distress and tried you with a heavy trial. Then you stayed a number of years with the people of Madyan (Midian). Then you came here according to the fixed term which I ordained (for you), O Mûsa (Moses)! And I have Istana'tuka, for Myself. Go you and your brother with My Ayât (proofs, evidences, verses, lessons, signs, revelations, etc.), and do not, you both, slacken and become weak in My Remembrance. Go, both of you, to Fir'aun (Pharaoh), verily, he has transgressed (all bounds in disbelief and disobedience and behaved as an arrogant and as a tyrant). And speak to him mildly, PERHAPS he may accept admonition or fear Allâh." They said: "Our Lord! Verily! We fear lest he should hasten to punish us or lest he should transgress (all bounds against us)." He (Allâh) said: "Fear not, verily! I am with you both, hearing and seeing." S. 20:36-46 Hilali-Khan

Notice how in all these verses the not so eloquent Quran has Allah guessing or being unsure of the future, e.g. "perhaps," "it may be," "that Allah may know" etc.

Now for a discarnate deity to be so ignorant and uncertain is a major problem for Muhammadans like 1MoreMuslim.

However, I am not through yet and still have more to share.

Sam said...

Fourth Post - Allah's Guessing Game

According to Muslim scholar Mahmoud M. Ayub, there were certain Muslim groups who actually used these texts to prove that Allah is ignorant and doesn't know the future. See next post.

Sam said...

"Razi is interested in the theological problems raised by the phrase ‘in order that God may know.’ He argues that ‘the literal sense of God's saying, "in order that God may know" would suggest that God alternated [the days] in order to acquire knowledge. Obviously, this is impossible of God.’ Razi cites verse 143, and a number of other verses where this phrase, or one like it, occurs. He alleges that Hisham b. al-Hakkam, a well-known disciple of the Sixth Imam Ja’far al-Sadiq, used such verses to argue that God does not know incidents until they occur. ‘The answer of the theologians to this argument," Razi says, "is that rational proofs have conclusively established that no change ever occurs in God's knowledge. The linguistic usage of calling something that is known with the metaphor "knowledge," or something that is subject to power with the metaphor "power" is well known. Thus any Qur'anic verse the literal sense of which indicates acquisition of knowledge [by God] actually means the occurrence of a known.

Razi then presents several possible interpretations of this phrase. ‘First that sincerity may be distinguished from hypocrisy and the person of faith from the rejecter of faith. Secondly, that the friends (awliya’) of God may know, though He attributes this knowledge to Himself by way of exalting them. Thirdly, that God may judge in accordance with this distinction, but such judgment cannot happen except with knowledge. Finally, that God may know this [i.e., faith and patience] to have actually occurred from them, although He knew that it would occur. This is because recompense must be accorded for something which actually is, and not for something which is known to occur in the future.’ Razi seems to prefer the first of these interpretations (Razi, IX, pp. 14-18)" (Ayoub, The Qur'an and Its Interpreters, Volume II, The House of Imran [State University of New York Press, Albany, 1992], p. 330)

Sam said...

Fifth Post - Allah's Guessing Game

To make matters worse, in some of the passages the Quran actually uses the Arabic word laallahum to describe Allah's ignorance. Here is how the lexical sources define this term:


= Lam-Ayn-Lam = Perhaps; may be that; it is hoped; to be happy. It is used to denote either a state of hope or fear, whether that state pertains to the speaker or to the addressee or to someone else, expectation.
LL, V8, p: 265 (Project Root List: http://www.studyquran.co.uk/13_LAM.htm)
 
Read the next post for some examples where the Quran uses this term to describe Allah's uncertainty and ignorance.

Sam said...

Indeed We sent to nations before thee, and We seized them with misery and hardship that PERHAPS (laallahum) they might be humble; S. 6:42
 
And warn therewith those who fear they shall be mustered to their Lord; they have, apart from Allah, no protector and no intercessor; PERHAPS (laallahum) they will fear. S. 6:51
 
Say, 'He is able to send torment on you from above you and from beneath your feet, and to confuse you in sects, and to make some of you taste the violence of others.' See how we turn about the signs, that PERHAPS (laallahum) they may understand. S. 6:65
 
The righteous are not responsible for the utterances of those people, but it may help to remind them; PERHAPS (laallahum) they may be saved. S. 6:69 Khalifa
 
And We cut them up into nations in the earth, some of them righteous, and some of them otherwise; and We tried them with good things and evil, that PERHAPS (laallahum) they should return. S. 7:168

We provided them with the proofs and the scriptures. And we sent down to you this message, to proclaim for the people everything that is sent down to them, Perhaps (laallahum) they will reflect. S. 16:44 Khalifa
  
And now verily We have caused the Word to reach them, that PERHAPS (laallahum) they may give heed. S. 28:51
 
Every sign we showed them was bigger than the one before it. We afflicted them with the plagues, PERHAPS (laallahum) they repent. S. 43:48 Khalifa
 
Cf. - Q. 2:186-187, 221; 6:154; 7:26, 94, 130, 164, 176; 8:57; 9:12, 122; 14:25; 20:113; 21:31, 58; 23:49; 28:43, 46; 30:41; 32:3, 21; 39:27-28; 43:28; 44:58; 46:27; 59:21
 

Sam said...

Sixth Post- Allah's Guessing Game

to make matters worse for 1MoreMuslim, in certain places of the Quran Allah uses the expression in shaa Allah, meaning "if Allah wills," when he refers to something he plans to do in the future:

They said, "Call upon your Lord for us to make plain to us what it is. Verily to us all cows are alike, And surely, if Allah wills (in shaa Allahu), we will be guided." S. 2:70 Hilali-Khan

And when they came in before Joseph, he took his parents unto him, and said: Come into Egypt safe, if Allah will (in shaa Allahu)! S. 12:99 Pickthall

Indeed Allah shall fulfil the true vision which He showed to His Messenger [i.e. the Prophet saw a dream that he has entered Makkah along with his companions, having their (head) hair shaved and cut short] in very truth. Certainly, you shall enter Al-Masjid al-Haram; if Allah wills (in shaa Allahu), secure, (some) having your heads shaved, and (some) having your head hair cut short, having no fear. He knew what you knew not, and He granted besides that a near victory. S. 48:27 Hilali-Khan – cf. Q. 11:33; 18:69; 28:27

Now as even 1More will tell you, this is the expression which Muslims use whenever they speak of doing something in the future and yet are uncertain whether their plans will come to pass.

With that said, why in the world would Allah need to say "if Allah wills" when he not only supposedly knows the future but has also decreed everything that will come to pass? Is Allah ignorant of what he has decreed? Doe he know what he has predestined to take place?

Sam said...

Seventh Post - Concluding Remarks

As the citations which I provided from the Quran conclusively prove, Allah is an ignorant deity who does not know the future. He therefore has to a guess about what the future will unfold and qualify his statement by saying "if Allah wills," since his guesses may prove wrong and things do not pan out as he has stated. Allah also has to place people in certain predicaments in order to know whether they truly believe or not.

Now this places 1MoreMuslim in a difficult position. he denies that Allah is an incarnate deity, which means that he denies that his god possesses a human consciousness which causes him to be ignorant of certain things.

This means that 1MoreMuslim must accept the fact that the ignorance displayed by Allah is not due to any sort of hypostatic union since Allah remains disincarnate.

Hence, Allah's ignorance is solely due to his Deity, e.g. Allah is a god who has imperfect knowledge and therefore has a major defect and deficiency in his divine essence.

After all, 1MoreMuslim has been attacking the Deity of the Lord Jesus due to the limitations in his knowledge which he assumed by becoming incarnate, which means that 1More presupposes that an essential attribute of Deity is omniscience, something which his own god lacks.

Therefore, seeing that 1More's god is imperfect in his knolwedge he needs to be consistent and condemn Allah for being an impotent and ignorant deity who is not worthy to be worshiped since he is not fully or truly god.

Now watch and see how 1More squirms his way out of this dilemma by seeking to interpret the Quranic verses in such a way as to agree with his theological assumptions concerning Allah. In other words, 1More is going to do the very thing he condemns Christians for doing when they seek to reconcile what the Holy bible says concerning Jesus' Deity and humanity.

"Inconsistency thy name is 1MoreMuslim."

1MoreMuslim said...

@ Royal Son:
You have said:
" according to His divinity He recognised that He is worthy of worship ..
According to His humanity, He was subject to death on the cross


You are clearly making the Divine not taking part in the crucifixion, for that I told you to repent.
One have no choice, either to confuse them or separate them. Since both positions are problematic, Chalcedon denied both. In other words, believe it and shut up your brain.
I am not contrasting Unity VS separation, they are not exclusive. I am contrasting Separated VS confused, these are exclusive of each other.
An advise to you, go ask a theologian, you will see no Serious theologian would give you Shamounian answer to the problem of knowing the Hour. believe me.
So much Sam is concentrated on distorting Islam, he became ignorant about his own theology.

1MoreMuslim said...

Sam Shamoun:
I am not kind of proud like you, but your 7 part reply is pulverized in one single sentence:
The word لَعَلَّهُمْ operates exactly like the word May in English.

May: Used to express purpose, or result : I am explaining Arabic words so that the average Christians MAY understand.
لَعَلَّهُمْ = In order to.

Example:
Surah Anbiaa v61 : , They said: Then bring him (hither) before the people's eyes that they MAY ( لَعَلَّهُمْ ) testify.

Sam is making all his effort to prove that Allah and Yahweh are all ignorant. Then what? Try to defend your Bible and leave this Childish : You too.

Good bye Sam. try 8 part reply may be you can make your point. lol.

Sam said...

As I suspected, 1MoreMuslim has chosen not to provide a serious response to the objections that I raised, but has decided to tap dance around them with his smoke and mirrors tactics.

What makes this truly ironic is that 1Moremuslim actually thinks that he is refuting my argument.

Notice what he wrote:

Sam Shamoun:
I am not kind of proud like you, but your 7 part reply is pulverized in one single sentence:
The word لَعَلَّهُمْ operates exactly like the word May in English.

May: Used to express purpose, or result : I am explaining Arabic words so that the average Christians MAY understand.
لَعَلَّهُمْ = In order to.

Example:
Surah Anbiaa v61 : , They said: Then bring him (hither) before the people's eyes that they MAY ( لَعَلَّهُمْ ) testify.


Not only do you have the bad habit of perverting God's Word, the Holy Bible, you also have the temerity to distort your own religious sources.

In the first, the Arabic word laallahum DOES NOT CORRESPOND to the English word "may." Let me repost the lexical definition:

= Lam-Ayn-Lam = PERHAPS; MAY BE THAT; IT IS HOPED; to be happy. It is used to denote either A STATE OF HOPE OR FEAR, whether that state pertains to the speaker or to the addressee or to someone else, expectation.
LL, V8, p: 265 (Project Root List: http://www.studyquran.co.uk/13_LAM.htm)

Di you even bother to read this?

What makes this all the more laughable is that the example you used ACTUALLY PROVES MY POINT! Here it is again, this time using a different translation:

Said they: Then bring him before the eyes of the people, PERHAPS they may bear witness. Shakir

As Shakir could see from the context, the use of the word laallahum indicates that these individuals did not know for certain whether the people would testify or not.

Thus, this passage is simply further confirmation of my point since it shows that the word uncertainty, something that is hoped for.

Moreover, you conveniently ignored all the other verses and citations where the Quran uses other expressions to denote Allah's ignorance and uncertainty of people's actions and future events.

Let me finally correct another of your blatant distortions:

Sam is making all his effort to prove that Allah and Yahweh are all ignorant. Then what? Try to defend your Bible and leave this Childish : You too.

Correction. I am proving that Allah is an ignorant, impotent deity. I said absolutely nothing about Yahweh disincarnate being ignorant. You have erroneously assumed that by attacking Allah I am attacking Yahweh since you mistakenly believe they are one and the same. However, such is not the case since the Allah of Islam is the spirit of antichrist, thereby making Muhammad an antichrist (cf. 1 John 2:22-23, 5:9-13; Q. 9:30).

And this is what 1MoreMuslim thought was a pulverization. Now that is truly hilarious!

Sam said...

Correction to the following:

Thus, this passage is simply further confirmation of my point since it shows that the word uncertainty, something that is hoped for.

I meant to say that Q. 21;61 further proves that laallahum denotes uncertainty, something that is hoped for.

1MoreMuslim said...

Sam, I begin to doubt your capacity of understanding, or it's just open dishonesty.
Al Anbiaa 61 people are called to be present when Abraham is brought before them, so that they may witness what Abraham will say. There is no shred of doubt or uncertainty. The people will certainly see what Abraham will say, and witness his punishment, or would they become dumb and blind?
You should be busy correcting your theology, rather than teaching me about my language. And allah is not yahweh, Allah created human being knowing they will be wicked, so he felt no regrets, unlike Yahweh.

1MoreMuslim said...

Now I have a certainty that Sam doesn't understand what he reads:


= Lam-Ayn-Lam = Perhaps; may be that; it is hoped; to be happy. It is used to denote either a state of hope or fear, whether that state pertains to the speaker or to the addressee or to someone else, expectation.

Sam said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Sam said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Sam said...

1More keeps digging his own whole deeper and deeper with every attempt to salvage his god's reputation. Notice the part of the lexicon he highlighted:

= Lam-Ayn-Lam = Perhaps; may be that; it is hoped; to be happy. It is used to denote either a state of hope or fear, whether that state pertains to the speaker or to the addressee or to someone else, expectation.

It is obvious to anyone who reads THE CONTEXT that the point of the lexical source is that the word laallahum denotes the expectation that a person has that things will take place as hoped for. In other words, the lexicon is defining expectation in the sense of the hope that someone has that something will go his/her way or as planned.

Now let me highlight one again the portions of the lexical source which 1More conveniently brushes aside with the HOPE AND EXPECTATION (pun intended) that he will finally get it (however, I won't be holding my breath):

= Lam-Ayn-Lam = PERHAPS; MAY BE THAT; IT IS HOPED; to be happy. It is used to denote either A STATE OF HOPE OR FEAR, whether that state pertains to the speaker or to the addressee or to someone else, EXPECTATION.

You really have to feel sorry for someone who has such a hard time comprehending context.

Further notice how 1More has yet to address all the verses which speak of Allah placing people in certain situations in order to learn something about them, or the passages where Allah uses the expression "if Allah wills," showing that even Allah isn't certain whether his own plans will come to pass as he has decreed.

Finally, I do want to thank 1More for doing exactly what I said he would do, and which he decries Christians for doing, namely, trying to harmonize the Quran with his theological presuppositions concerning Allah.

Inconsistency thy name is 1MoreMuslim!

Sam said...

1More, I never doubted your inability to comprehend anything you read, or your inability to honestly and consistently deal with anything you read, be it the Holy Bible or the teachings of your false prophet.

Let me repeat. Q. 21:61 DOES NOT SUPPORT YOUR CASE since it is obvious from the context that the individuals are hoping that the people who heard Abraham supposedly speaking out against the idols which his people were worshiping, and which he subsequently smashed, will come forward and testify that he is the guilty culprit. In other words, it is something that they HOPE will happen, but are not absolutely certain it will.

The fact that you keep insisting on your interpretation of the passage simply shows how utterly desperate you are to avoid admitting the obvious, i.e. your god is an imperfect, ignorant deity according to the testimony of your own book.

Now since you opened your mouth about Yahweh regretting things it seems I am going to have bombard you again with what your own false prophet said about Allah repenting and changing his mind.

And to correct your blatant lie about Islamic theology, Allah didn't simply create men knowing they would be wicked. According to your false prophet Allah actually created them to be wicked and to commit heinous sins. More on this in my next posts.

So keep looking for those series of posts where I will document that your god repents and changes his mind, and creates people to do evil and act wickedly. This is what you get for opening your mouth.

Royal Son said...

1MoreMuslim - Again, you fail to comprehend the most basic of points.

"The natures are not separated and are not confused"

You believe that this is logically impossible.

Since you are insisting on this perhaps you could explain how this is so when I provided 3 simple examples of situations where distinction yet unity exists. Scroll up and re-read them.

Secondly, you call me a heretic and say that no scholar would agree with me. Thus far I have not seen any quotations from scholars on your part. Feel free however to quote these scholars who believe that God's divine nature died on the cross.

And I'm still waiting for you to address the other points I brought up about Allah entering into His creation and coming in a form prior to the day of resurrection that will be recognized on the day of resurrection.

Keep avoiding and I'll keep asking you.

1MoreMuslim said...

Sam doesn't know the meaning of Adressee.

1MoreMuslim said...

Sam Samson:
"The fact that you keep insisting on your interpretation of the passage simply shows how utterly desperate you are to avoid admitting the obvious"
My false interpretation is also the interpretations of Tabari, Zamakhchari , Arrazi, Ashaukani, Baydhawi, Al Jawzi about this verse. The Word "Yachhadoun" mean literally to SEE, to bear witness is a secondary meaning.

1MoreMuslim said...

Sam , Now you are going to pull a verse claiming that Allah blinds the unbelievers, something also stated in 2 Corr 4:4
The God of this age has blinded the minds of unbelievers.

Sam said...

1MoreMuslim, it is obvious you are scared about what about to unleash on you from your own Islamic sources concerning Allah making people evil and repenting. I assure you that I have no plans on using passages where Allah blinds people. The passages I will be presenting will make Satan look righteous in comparison. :-)

1MoreMuslim said...

Sam:
'1MoreMuslim, it is obvious you are scared.'
I begin to doubt the meaning of the word 'obvious'.

" from your own Islamic sources concerning Allah making people evil and repenting"
I have your articles about the subject, unfortunately the only God who repents is the God of the bible, perhaps you can find other Greek Gods who do so.

Sam said...

I have your articles about the subject, unfortunately the only God who repents is the God of the bible, perhaps you can find other Greek Gods who do so.

Actually it is the pagan god Allah, whom Muhammad duped you into thinking is the true God, that repents. So at least your god has that in common with the Greek gods.

Like I said, it is obvious you are scared. But don't worry, I am about to make your fears come true.

1MoreMuslim said...

Sam:
You are like a child who makes poo in his pants, when it smells all over the place, he accuses the guy next to him:
Genesis 6:6 in Arabic says literally : God had his heart full of sorrow and regrets for making man. In Islam it's called blasphemy.
repenting an action in the past= Ignorance.
Christians are literally Idol worshipers, and I can back my claim with any dictionary you want, about the word "Idolatry". The best you can do is to say : Well, Jesus just took the nature of an idol, Then you will have the burden to show his miracles that no one can prove.

Royal Son said...

1MoreMuslim said:

"The best you can do is to say : Well, Jesus just took the nature of an idol, Then you will have the burden to show his miracles that no one can prove."

My response:
Are you actually doubting the claims of the Qur'an that speak of Jesus' miracles? You have just conceded that you as a muslim have no evidence for these things taking place. I guess that happens when you deny history and deny the writings that are placed much closer to the events.

It seems to me that we are dealing with a Muslim Agnostic here.

I'm predicting that by the time this post hits the 2nd page on the blog, 1MoreMuslim still would not have addressed my points or answered my questions.

1MoreMuslim said:
"Genesis 6:6 in Arabic says literally : God had his heart full of sorrow and regrets for making man. In Islam it's called blasphemy.repenting an action in the past= Ignorance."

My response:

Unlike Allah, Yahweh is perfectly Holy and righteous and cannot tolerate sin. Muslims themselves basically tell us that Allah simply forgives without a sacrifice. In essence He winks at sin. My God is deeply grieved by sin because it is in direct conflict with His Holy and righteous nature.

The grief in God's heart that He made man was not an indication that God was ignorant. Rather it portrays the depth of feeling that God has regarding sin itself. And yet, He demonstrates His glory by showing justice upon objects of His wrath and abounding grace upon objects of His mercy.

Please do let me know when you are going to address my previous points by the way. You seem to be fizzling out, perhaps in the hope that all will be forgotten when this goes to the next page.

Álf said...

1MoreMuslim: your scatelogical references are a little disgusting.

Why do you use this anthropopathism as some type of argument while you have no problem with the Qur'an's many anthropomorphism's, such as Allah's "shin," "eyes," "legs," etc?

You attribute hands and eyes to God and it does not bother you but when human passions are ascribed to God you take it literally! Double standards? In both cases you are ascribing human charecteristics to a non human God. Same principal here. Unless of course you believe your allah is an emotive god with sense organs, human passions, even legs and eyes - and reading earlier posts this is exactly what some salafis and other orthodox sects believed - it is a surprise you raise this issue.

Sam said...

Royalson, I have already sent in my reply to David showing that Allah himself repents and changes his mind. I am waiting for David to post it. So look for it.

Royal Son said...

Looking forward to it Sam. I wonder if 1MoreMuslim will actually heed the truth on these matters. It seems that he is very quick to change topics but not very quick to back up His statements or respond to questions from the other side.

1MoreMuslim, I pray that you will become 1LessMuslim.

Foolster41 said...

1MM:
"The God of this age has blinded the minds of unbelievers."
I'm no bible scholar and I know this is false. This verse absolutely does not mean what you say it means. You accidently(?!) capitalized God. It should be lower case. the "god of this age" is materialism, or Satan.

For supporting refrences see also Romans 12:2 ("Do not be conformed to this world"), 1 Chor 2:6,8 ("None of the rulers of this age or world perceived and recognized and understood this [Christ's Deity Crucified], for if they had, they would never have crucified the Lord of glory."), 1 Chor 3:8 ("If anyone among you supposes that he is wise in this age, let him become a fool")
And of course Jesus' own words in Luke 17:25 ("But first He must suffer many things and be disapproved and repudiated and rejected by this age and generation.")
As you can see, this world is associated with deception. The other scriptures show that the "god of this age" is not God, and according to Jesus and his followers, foolishness. Also, the plain fact that it is not capitalized further supports this. Why would they call God foolishness? Hopefully after making such a major mistake (amongst the others already mentioned of course) you will examine the fact that perhaps you don't understand Christianity as well as you think or pretend to.

1MoreMuslim said...

Foolster41:
You confessed that you are not a scholar of the Bible, and I believe you said the truth. However, I am stunned by the fact that Christians butchering the Bible, in a christian blog and no one corrects him. We see Sam Shamoun going in details of Muslim sources, in the other hand he keeps watching when a Christian like RoyalSon and Foolster14 makes a blunder concerning the faith and the scripture. I hope Sam steps in and corrects you.

Foolster41 said...

1MM: Hahahaha. Your a funny guy. That was a joke, right? I reeeeally hope that was a joke.

I gave my sources why what you said was absolutely wrong (disagrees with context of the rest of the bible, wrongly capitalized what isn't actually capitalized.). Please show how I "blundered" because you seem to forget to actually present proof in your above post.

1MoreMuslim said...

Foolster14

I will give you a lesson about 2 Corr 4:4 , But first I would give Sam Shamoun or David Wood a chance to correct you.

Radical Moderate said...

@1milimeter

LOL it's so funny to hear a Muslim praise Sam Shamoun for his scholarly and " detailed use of Islamic sources"

@Folster just to let you know, 1milimeter read on Snowmans blog that James White believes that the reading of the text denotes God, and not Satan as the god of this age.

Foolster41 said...

1MM: Is what RM says true, that you believe that Mr. White believes that 2 Cor 4:4 should be read this way? And that you arrived at this from a Muslim blogger? (I assume you mean by "snowman" is Yaha Snow?).

Could you please link to the article, I can't seem to find it.

I'm curious to hear how such a reading of 2 Cor 4:4 can be reached by a believer, regardless of the evidence I presented to the contrary (The most compelling of which is that no English translation I know of capitalizes God).

And your silly belittling ("I can see you are not a scholar", "butchering") are useless considering you present NO facts to back up what you seem to claim is clear as day. (Contrary to how I presented facts that show the contrary of your thesis).

I too would like to hear Sam respond to this. I suspect you'll be disappointed though.

David Wood said...

It wouldn't surprise me if James White held that view of 2 Cor. 4:4. It's a fairly common reading (especially among Reformed scholars). I think Sam interprets it that way as well.

Most of the commentaries I have, however, support Foolster's reading (and so do I). At the end of the day, 1MoreMuslim is going to have to say, "Well, such and such Christians say this verse is referring to God; therefore, you have to accept their view."

That's what I've been waiting for. Because as soon as 1MM lays down the "I can quote a Christian who interprets it this way" rule, I've got some lovely Muslim commentaries on the Qur'an to ask him about. Following his method, he'll have to agree with them, even if he disagrees with them! (Don't expect consistency on his part, though.)

Foolster41 said...

1MM, Matthew Henry, a Christian Theologian who wrote the popular commentaries disagrees with your reading:

"But the design of the devil is, to keep men in ignorance; and when he cannot keep the light of the gospel of Christ out of the world, he spares no pains to keep men from the gospel, or to set them against it."

As does the IVP commentaries,.

"The fault lies, third, with the source of the blindness. Unbelievers cannot see the gospel's light because their minds have been blinded by the god of this age (v. 4). This is the only place where Paul refers to the adversary of God's people as a god. He is usually called Satan or the devil--although in Ephesians 2:2 he is named "the ruler of the kingdom of the air.""

(I had forgotten the link in Eph. 2:2 to this "god"). Both Commentaries can be found here: http://www.biblegateway.com/resources/commentaries/

Foolster41 said...

(Oop, I didn't see David's post until I posted :D)

Sam: I had no idea that reading was all that common. And I agree that consistency from 1MM (or for that matter other Muslim apologists) is too much to expect).

1MoreMuslim said...

David Wood
thank for intervening at last, and correcting your fellow Christian brother. I have no problem with different interpretations of one verse within the christian community, but I don't like when Foolster14 was laughing at me, when in fact this view is held by reformed Christians. So in essence he was laughing on Christian scholars like James White.
But what we should conclude is that the holy Spirit is not assisting Christians in understanding the Bible. The Holy Spirit cannot make a believer think that Satan is in 2 Corr 4:4, when in fact it's God. The difference between God and Satan is no joke.
I think the only scripture I know, where you cannot make the difference between God and Satan in a verse, is the Bible. The Quran is right when it says that Christians are in state of loss.

1MoreMuslim said...

Foolster14

" Hopefully after making such a major mistake (amongst the others already mentioned of course) you will examine the fact that perhaps you don't understand Christianity as well as you think or pretend to.

So you understand Christianity more than reformed theologians?

David Wood said...

1MM, let me see if I’ve got this straight. Foolster disagrees with the interpretation of certain scholars, and your response is to ask him, rhetorically, whether he understands Christianity better than they do?

Since I know you’d never dream of being completely, utterly, totally inconsistent, I just wanted to make sure you’re willing to apply the same standard to yourself. That is, if I quote some Muslim scholars for you, and you disagree with their interpretation, all I have to do is say, “Are you telling us you know more about the Qur’an than Ibn Kathir, Ibn Abbas, etc.,” and you’re going to immediately agree with their interpretation, right?

You also criticized Christianity because scholars disagree on the interpretation on an important verse. So if I point to some extremely important verses in the Qur’an, along with radically different Muslim interpretations of these verses, you’re going to acknowledge that this is a massive problem for Islam, right? Since we know you don't want to be inconsistent, I assume you'll be willing to acknowledge any and all difficulties in the Qur'an.

1MoreMuslim said...

David Wood :
I thought you have read my comment carefully, I would ask you to read it again. There are different interpretations of every book on earth. I might disagree with Muslim scholar, but I would not laugh at you if you quote a scholar whom I disagree with. I would not call you ignorant about Islam. The Issue is Foolster14 blamed me of having poor understanding of the Bible, so please address the issue.
As for Muslims disagreeing in interpretation, again, you skip the point (intentionally?) , I have said that The Christian claim that the Holy Spirit is guiding Christians in reading the Bible cannot be true, or else, the reformed Christians are mislead by the Holy spirit.
I don't think you can show me a verse where Muslims don't agree if the subject is God or Satan. May be we can confuse God with God's agent acting on behalf of God. But we don't have such confusion like in 2 Corr 4:4.

Foolster41 said...

Yep. 1MM does exactly what you said he'd do.

1MM: David "corrected" me by saying my view was held by most Christians?

"So in essence he was laughing on Christian scholars like James White."

This argument is hypocritical and dishonest.

You say I'm "laughing at" those scholars (which is false) by simply saying their wrong, but aren't you, the same way dismissing the FAR MORE scholars who disagree with your view?

I, in no way mocked or "laughed" at those scholars. You are projecting your own belligerent attitude on me.
I asked for citations from these scholars that contradict my evidence, but you present none.

David Wood said...

1MM,

What would you think about a prophet who couldn't tell the difference between a revelation from God and a revelation from Satan?

Radical Moderate said...

WOW I have heard it all now. Firs 1milimeter praises Sam on his detailed use of Islamic sources, now he calls James white a Christian scholar.

He wrote...
"So in essence he was laughing on Christian scholars like James White."

On Snowmans blog he slandered and lied about Sam saying he said that Muslims are a cancer. After he was exposed for his LIE, he then moved onto Slander and mis represent Pastor Joseph.

He also said on snowmans blog that Dr White is only a scholar to retards.

Oh this just keeps getting better and better.

Radical Moderate said...

@1milimeter

you accused foster of laughing at you. I never saw any indication of that. But let me be clear I DO LAUGH AT YOU, I"M LAUGHING RIGHT NOW.

I find it amazing that Muslims have this bizar understanding of the Holy Spirit, that some how the holy spirit gives us this download of all of Gods knowledge like we can read minds, like we become perfect in understanding.

1MILIMETER let me be clear, we Christians do not worship "THE SCHOLARS" as you Muslims do. You can not even go to the bathroom with out a FATWAH from a scholar.

Radical Moderate said...

@1milmeter one more thing.

You wrote...
" I don't think you can show me a verse where Muslims don't agree if the subject is God or Satan. "

According to surah 3:7 there is a part of the Quran that is clear it is the Um Al Kitab, and there is a part that is not clear it is alogorical, and if you try to understand the clear verses you have a disiese in your heart.

So 1mm, my question to you is can you show me what verses of the Quran are UM AL KITAB, and please site your scholar, and what verses are allegorical.

The fact is that you Muslims can not even understand 99.9 percent of your Quran and if you do then you have a disiese in your heart. Where we Christians might differ over a few verses you Muslims can not understand the majority of your own book because it is gibberish.

Epic fail

Radical Moderate said...

@1mm correction

I wrote "According to surah 3:7 there is a part of the Quran that is clear it is the Um Al Kitab, and there is a part that is not clear it is alogorical, and if you try to understand the clear verses you have a disiese in your heart."

Where I should of wrote...

"According to surah 3:7 there is a part of the Quran that is clear it is the Um Al Kitab, and there is a part that is not clear it is alogorical, and if you try to understand the un clear allegorical verses you have a disiese in your heart.

1MoreMuslim said...

David Wood:
"What would you think about a prophet who couldn't tell the difference between a revelation from God and a revelation from Satan?"
He would be a false prophet.

Since you and I know what are the "Satanic verses", and those which are not, that means that Muhammad PBUH knew which are which.

Muslims don't believe the story of the Satanic revelation, while Christians can't dismiss the writing of Solomon the Idolater. You would never know if Solomon wrote Proverbs while being a believer or when he turned to Idols.

But the real problem is when a "Prophet" Says that I have NO commandment from the lord, but Christians insist that his negation of Inspiration is inspiration itself.

Ridicule Moderate:
Pastor Joseph did say that Muslim baby sitters are like spies, Ergun Caner is a liar, Kamal Saleem and Walid Shoebat are frauds, as long as you don't see the obvious you won't see the light. get over it.

Radical Moderate said...

@1Milimeter

You changed it now, first it was Pastor Joseph said "Muslim woman are spies and infiltrators when they enter western homes."

You wrote...

"Pastor Joseph did say that Muslim baby sitters are like spies,"

Can you keep your lies straight.

Again I ask you where, he didn't say that in the video you shared with me, he responded to a woman calling in expressing a vallid concern that Muslim woman are raising Christian children as nanny's and he said "Like a Dunya a Spie a infiltrator"

That is a far cry from Muslim woman who enter Western homes are spies or infiltrators, or Muslim baby sitters are spies.

Tell me would you allow a bible believing Christian woman to be a nanny to your children?

David Wood said...

1MM said: "Since you and I know what are the 'Satanic verses', and those which are not, that means that Muhammad PBUH knew which are which.

No, Muhammad couldn't tell the difference between inspiration from Allah and inspiration from Satan. According to the story, Gabriel came by later and told him (after Muhammad had delivered the revelation to the entire city, causing them to rejoice), but Muhammad couldn't tell based on the revelations. Why would Allah wait until Muhammad had thoroughly embarrassed himself before correcting him?

You would admit, wouldn't you, that if the story is correct, Muhammad is guilty of shirk? Would you also admit that, according to Deuteronomy 18:20, Muhammad would have been executed as a false prophet by Moses?

1MM said: "Muslims don't believe the story of the Satanic revelation . . ."

You mean Muslims today? What about the first few generations of Muslims, who took the story of the Satanic Verses for granted? (I'm referring to people like Ibn Abbas, etc.) The story was later rejected based on developments in Islamic theology, but that has nothing to do with historical evidence.

At the very least, you've already agreed that you wouldn't laugh at the view of Islamic scholars. Check out some of the early Muslims who reported versions of the Satanic Verses:

Ka’b al-Qurazi
Urwah ibn al-Zubayr  
Abu Bakr ibn Abd al-Rahman ibn al-Harith
Abu al-Aliyah al-Basri
al-Suddi
Muhammad ibn al-Sa’ib al-Kalbi 
Qatadah ibn Di’amah
al-Dahhak ibn Muzahim al-Balkhi 
Ikrimah

How about putting together a list of the early Muslims who denied the Satanic Verses? Good luck finding one.

Anthony Rogers said...

Foolster said: "1MM, Matthew Henry, a Christian Theologian who wrote the popular commentaries disagrees with your reading:..."

1moremuslim said: "So you understand Christianity more than reformed theologians?"

I say: Matthew Henry was a Reformed Theologian and commentator.

:p

Foolster41 said...

Of course, 1MM doesn't answer my problems with his dishonest and illogical answer. It also brings up another problem, or relativity.

One can look at his answer as one of two ways. Either:

1.)1MM believes that only one way is right, and he is choosing the one not as well supported by facts as "true" because it happens to be the one he agrees with.

2.)1MM believes that there are many viewpoints all equally true and both mine and his are equally true. This is called Moral relativism. The problem with this is Islam allows no relativity. Moral reletivity is like a snowball, collecting more and more ideas that you have to accept as true as you travel. First you'd have to accept that Allah had daughters, then that perhaps Bhudda was also a prophet, or that maybe one can obtain salvation through sacrafices to Malak.
Once you go down this path, then you commit shirk, blasphemy and finally kufr (unbelief).

Thus, 1MM you are either a dishonest hypocrite, or a fellow kufr.

1MoreMuslim said...

Foolster14
A dishonest is one who would never admit he was wrong. I don't expect from you to apologize for saying that I have poor understanding of the Bible and that I made a "Major mistake" concerning 2 Corr 4:4. If you show even a shred of susceptibility to change your mind on clear evidence, I will discuss with you all the day. But I don't think in this blog, I can find such a person.

Foolster41 said...

1MM: "Clear evidence"?! You didn't present ANY scriptural evidence, all you did was say "well, some reformed Christians agree with me". Then you arrogantly proceeded to act like I was shown to be wrong.

This ignores the MANY more (including some reformed like Henry) Christians who disagree with you, and the scriptural evidence that I mentioned above.

This also fails logically internally, as I pointed out above. You are either saying evidence doesn't matter, and one can pick and choose truth, or you are saying everything's true, and that somehow your view is true with mine, even if it contradicts. As I said before, in this case you are according to Islam a blasphemer and shirker who has to accept Thor as God, and a Kufr.

No, I'm not going to apollogize for saying you don't understand the bible or that you made a major mistake, because I beleive I am RIGHT, considering you don't present any evidence to the contrary, but try to shame me into agreeing.
Disgusting.

Foolster41 said...

1MM: Not only that, but if you look a the full verse it says "The god of this age has blinded the minds of unbelievers, so that they cannot see the light of the gospel that displays the glory of Christ, who is the image of God."
So, look, the word "God" is used twice in the same verse, once uppercase and once lowercase. Is this a typo, or could it be, just maybe that "god" is not the same as "God"?

Also Phil 3:19 says "Their god is their Stomach." Using your logic where "god" means "God", the bible says my god is my stomach! Interesting theology!

Also, I did more researching, looking at my theology books in my library.

"indeed, the whole world is under control of the evil one (1 John 5:19) who is the "prince of the power of the air" (Eph 2:2) and "the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which beleive not" (2 Cor 4:3-4)"
(-Decker's Encylopia of Christian Apollogetics, P. 473)

"god of this world - the worldly makes him thier god (Phil 3:19). He is in fact the prince of power of the air" - Jamerson, Fauccett & Groun commentary on the whole bible, p. 1237)

So two more sources that agree with me and disagree with you. You mock me for saying I'm not a theologian, but my point is you don't even have a beginner's understanding of Christian theology, and I think you yourself has shown how that is true.