Friday, March 23, 2012

James White vs. Bassam Zawadi: Does the Qur'an Misrepresent the Trinity?

According to the Qur'an, the doctrine of the Trinity teaches that God is composed of three separate gods—Allah, Jesus, and Mary. Since no Christians have ever believed this, we must wonder why the Qur'an saddles us with such a view. If the Qur'an is the work of an illiterate caravan trader, the error makes perfect sense. But if the Qur'an is the word of God, wouldn't we expect something a bit more accurate?

Qur'an 5:116—And when Allah will say: O Isa son of Marium! did you say to men, Take me and my mother for two gods besides Allah he will say: Glory be to Thee, it did not befit me that I should say what I had no right to (say); if I had said it, Thou wouldst indeed have known it; Thou knowest what is in my mind, and I do not know what is in Thy mind, surely Thou art the great Knower of the unseen things.




Kangaroo said...

Oh yes its called Shirk. Ever heard of it?

Grant Kelly said...

Zawadi did a great job of "If", "But" and "Maybe".

Derek Adams

Samatar Mohamed said...

Great job by Bassam Zawadi. I think he has proven that he is the best muslim apologist at this present point in time.

Baron Eddie said...

Off topic news
follow up with honor killing

kenmehms said...

Bassam got owned big time. Well done James, excellent as always.

Nakdimon said...

Samatar, how on earth can you claim that zawadi did agreat job when zawadi argued for a decontextualized reading of surah 5 while james white argued for a contextualized reading which leads to conclude that the Quran does refer to the Trinity and completely misrepresents the doctrine? What was so great about his defense?

Samatar Mohamed said...


"Bassam got owned big time. Well done James, excellent as always."

Lol, it does not matter how well a muslim apologist does, he will always get owned in your books. Did you even watch the debate.

Walter said...

It would have been a one sided debate, but unfortunately Zawadi showed a lot of wisdom in fleeing from the debate as fast as he could.

Perhaps one wishes to believe the all knowing Allah explicitly addressed the beliefs of a weakly attested tiny cult that had died out centuries before the Qur'an was even written. All this at the expense of explicitly addressing what would become the world's largest religion just once in the entire Qur'an. The one their prophet had to actively deal with many, many times during his lifetime... Not to mention Allah's errors concerning Judaism.

We'll have to start calling that move the Collyridian Plea.

gabriella oak said...

In breaking Bassam Zawadi news, the Quran can mean just about anything you need it to mean whenever you need it to mean it.

Яша said...

it's way past time to ban that samatar troll. If you moderate comments i don't see why you can't ban that obnoxious samatar troll.

Search 4 Truth said...

Samatar this is just more evidence of how truly delusional you are. You cannot even comprehend how Zawadi destroyed Islam!

It is just amazing!~ You think that by making any logical fallacy or saying anything for Islam is brilliant! You accept the most preposterous rationalizations for Islam! You are truly among the deceived! Fascinating how the mind works!

Zawadi destroyed Islam in order to defend it! LOL!

Cristo Te Ama said...

Wow, i'm amazed about how can a muslim twist their own scriptures to give shape to a clear mistake from Allah/Muhammad. I mean you can actually translate the quran as you wish whenever u need it to be that way.

As always great job of Dr. white, i know it's not a very educated way to say it but he OWNED Bassam.

Anonymous said...

I haven't watched but let me guess the Muslim "apologist"
,I say that since you really can't defend the indefensible,
played make believe the whole time.

Anonymous said...

"It really doesn't mean what it means" screams out the deluded Muslim.

RyanS said...

"Great job by Bassam Zawadi. I think he has proven that he is the best muslim apologist at this present point in time."

Which isnt saying much!

TPaul said...

"Inconsistency is a sign of a failed argument"
Zawadi thinks it is fair game to connect the dots in the koran only when it suits his own convenience.
He will not follow logical conclusions when it comes to the koran alluding to Mary as being a god, yet he demanded that Dr. White look at the context of 5:47 towards the end of his concluding statement. Typical Muslim hypocricy.

Although in the end you have to admit Zawadi does make an excellent case for allah not being "all knowing" and somewhat clueless as far as what the Christian really believes in.

Kudos Zawadi, you obliterated Islam in seconds, by stating that the Koran is not entirely clear, and MUST rely on external sources ('scholarly' interpretations) to explain portions that allah has left ambiguous and obviously (humiliatingly) inexplainable.

Someone once said "A lie has no legs, but scandalous wings."
Zawadi tried his level best to make his ridiculous arguments fly.
Ironically for him "The truth stood out clear from error".

Awesome presentation as always Dr. White!

TPaul said...

Kangaroo said...
"Oh yes its called Shirk. Ever heard of it?"

I think it is called Ignorance. The author of the koran was obviously possessed just that. Muslims must now concoct excuses so that their allah does not seem so human as to err....

Don't 'shirk' away from the obvious. (pun intended!)

Samatar Mohamed said...

Яша said...

"it's way past time to ban that samatar troll. If you moderate comments i don't see why you can't ban that obnoxious samatar troll."

I should get banned because I have an opinion and stated it in the blog. I did not insult anyone at all, but just stated my opinion on the debate. Is this some kind of joke.

Anonymous said...

"The hilarity of Islam"

That would be a great title for a class on Islam.

Samatar Mohamed said...

And keep in mind that the Quran is clear. It condemns a belief held by those before, while warning us muslims to avoid falling into those acts. The ambiguity or confusion is not on what the Quran is condemning. It clearly states the act or belief it is condemning. But the Quran does not explicitly say which group holds or held to that belief nor does it need to do that. Bassam Zawadi stated that it wasn't important to know who held the beliefs, but to know to avoid those beliefs. The problem James white had was that the Quran was not addressing his beliefs. But he must have read the verses that show Jesus (pbuh) is not God, and that God could destroy Jesus (pbuh) if he wanted to. The Quran denies the trinity (Do not say three), and the Noble Quran also claims that the christians went overboard by calling Jesus (pbuh) the son of God. I mean, isn't the Quran being explicit enough to condemn his beliefs?

Dk said...

Samatar I disagree, Shabir Ally is the best at the moment. We are talking about 100 times more educated and more eloquent than Deedat, Naik etc.


Traeh said...

I'm not sure how I feel about these oh-so-"friendly" debates with Muslims. Such debates seem to assume the possibility of ongoing coexistence. But Islam intends the gradual destruction of non-Muslims. So isn't it wrong to have these friendly debates in a manner as though everything were fine and we're all good fellows? Isn't it a little as if Jews today were to engage in warm debates with, say, some of the smoother, more public relations-minded neo-Nazis? Or perhaps with "moderate" Nazis who claim Hitler didn't support the destruction of the Jews? I realize that Muslims don't intend a high speed extermination of non-Muslims (the way Nazis carried out a high speed extermination), but rather that the Islamic intention is to destroy non-Muslims gradually by establishing Sharia's legal discrimination everywhere possible. Non-Muslims then gradually abandon their own cultures, in order to escape the totalitarian discrimination against non-Muslims under Islamic law.

I get it that Christians are supposed to love everyone, but I'm not sure "love" means acting as though aggressors who want to destroy you are your friends, and giving them expensive books, and patting them on the back, when according to their Islamic scriptures they are not even supposed to be your friends, except in a feigning sense. When Dr. White patted Zawadi on the back, I had the feeling that Zawadi was enduring it, like some nasty nadjis touch.

Dr. White might respond to me that these debates are converting Muslims. But in watching this debate, I wonder if the truth gets lost for most people in the thicket of argumentation, so that the ultimate message that most people take away from the whole thing is that, "wow, look at this good Muslim and this good Christian, coexisting so brilliantly. We non-Muslims have nothing to worry about, we can be friends and allies and colleagues with Muslims."

And wouldn't we love it to be so. And watching the demeanor of Dr. White, I get the feeling that he really, really wants it to be so, wants it to be true that there is a sense of perfect equality and harmony among all the participants. Many of us non-Muslims want it so badly that we refuse to face that devout, mainstream, orthodox Muslims don't want it. They want to dominate us and destroy us.

So this sort of debate troubles me. I do think Christians must love everyone. But that includes our own children, and our own society, doesn't it? Can't we mount any kind of defense? Must we pretend that we can deal with these aggressors as if they were not aggressors, but the best of friends? What of Augustine's concept of just war? I'm not saying Dr. White should stop debating and go get a gun. But perhaps it would be more loving and friendlier to somehow comport oneself in debate more in accord with the terrible reality at hand: Islam seeks to destroy us.

kenmehms said...

Samatar of course I watched. It. I think you just saw what you wanted. According to Bassam (most Muslims for that matter) the Quran can mean whatever you want it to. There was so much twisting of scripture by Bassam it went beyond funny!

Yet we are told by the Quran itself that it is a completely clear book, yet it can't even get the doctrine of the Trinity right which is believed by the vast majority of Christians and which is quite clearly laid out in the Bible.

We are supposed to work out by ourselves what the verses in the Quran means when it talks about its false meaning of the trinity! Was you watching the same debate samatar??

Nakdimon said...

Samatar, the entire problem is immediately at the beginning of your post: The Quran is NOT clear most of the time, but the times that it IS clear, it’s clearly wrong!

`When it says “Do not say three”, what does it mean? The question is “Three WHAT?”. It seems to mean “three gods” from a contextual reading, since it continues immediately after that statement by saying “Allah is only ONE GOD”. But therein lies the exact problem. WHAT Christians believed that there were “THREE GODS”? Can you explain and demonstrate which group of Christians that was?
On the other hand, if the Quran is NOT talking about “three gods” then what is it talking about?

There is another thing that the Quran does every time it talks about Christians saying “three” or mentions three persons in relation to Christianity, which is mentioning Mary. We see this in Surah 4:157 and Surah 5:73-75 and Surah 5:116. How on earth can you then read those passages consistently within their contexts and claim it does address what we believe but doesn’t “necessarily” include Mary in the Trinity, or even, as some Muslims argue, that it doesn’t address the Trinity at all? The reason is obvious: By admitting that these passages DO talk about the Trinity and therefore include Mary is admitting that the Quran is in error, which is exactly what you Muslims try to avoid. Which is why Bassam was arguing for a a-contextual reading of those passages

However the Tafasir are bluntly honest, but completely wrong at the same time, since your best scholars are arguing for a contextual reading and thus conclude that the Quran in these passages indeed refer to the Trinity and include Mary in it, as James White has concluded by a similar contextual reading.

I assure you one thing: Had Christians indeed believed that Mary was part of the Trinity, then the first thing Muslims would do was point to the above mentioned passages to prove that the Quran provides a detailed condemnation of those beliefs.

So again the question is: Why do you think Bassam did so well by arguing "MAYBE the Quran means this", completely decontextualizing those passages, while at the same time demanding a contextual reading of other passages, e.g. 5:47?

Deleting said...

Samatar said, "But the Quran does not explicitly say which group holds or held to that belief nor does it need to do that."

Yes it does. Any book that is going to condemn another groups beliefs NEEDS to state what they believe correctly.

The bible can correctly identify various people groups and their beliefs while at the same time condemning them, then the Quran, if it is God's word, should be able to do the same thing.

Deleting said...

Samatar also said, "The problem James white had was that the Quran was not addressing his beliefs. But he must have read the verses that show Jesus (pbuh) is not God, and that God could destroy Jesus (pbuh) if he wanted to."

Yes he did. That's why he has a probem with it.

Anonymous said...


Was Muhammad wrong about anything?

Fisher said...

What makes you wonder about Zawadi's assertion that Surah 5 refers to heterodox Christian sects rather than Orthodox Chalcedonian Christianity:

1) If that is the case, then why do many Muslims still quote Surah 5 as though it were a reference to us?

2) If Surah 5 does not reference mainstream Christianity, then what passages of the Qur'an do?

Assyria_Lost said...

@ Samatar Mohamed

Quran denies trinity and we get that much, but why Mary is the trinity when Bible does not support such notion anywhere. If you don’t know the answer just say you don’t know, I’m sure your fellow Muslims will not think any less of you even if your answer is deficient. You said so yourself the Quran is clear. So clarify!?

Samatar Mohamed said...

@Derek Adams

"Samatar I disagree, Shabir Ally is the best at the moment. We are talking about 100 times more educated and more eloquent than Deedat, Naik etc."

Shabir definitely has his advantages over Bassam with regard to attacking the christian faith. But Shabir does not really tackle subjects that require defending the Islamic faith, while Bassam does both. You cannot go wrong with picking either of the two ( Bassam and Shabir)at this point in time. I personally do not have Zakir Naik at the top, as he never really does debates, and when he does, he does not go against christians like William Lane Craig, Dr. James White, etc...

Fifth Monarchy Man said...

Hey Samatar Mohamed,

You said,

The Quran denies the trinity (Do not say three),

I say,

“Do not say three” is not in any way a denial of the doctrine of the Trinity. It is a command to not say a word that everyone including you says. In order to deny the Trinity you need to at least describe it. Apprently Allah can't do that.

You say,

and the Noble Quran also claims that the christians went overboard by calling Jesus (pbuh) the son of God.

I say,

I’m afraid you don’t grasp the extent of the problem.

If Bassam is correct and you concede that the Quran does not anywhere describe the what I believe and instead addresses Christians from a defacto assumption of Unitarianism then The Quran's claiming that Jesus is not God can only mean that your holy book is warning Christians not to believe that …….

1) Jesus is not the one person of the Islamic Godhead (Allah)


2) Jesus is not a separate deity that Christians worship alongside the one true God

No orthodox Christian ever believed either one of these things to do so would be Heresy from our perspective.

So if Bassam is correct in his reading of the Quran Islam is just silent and never once condemns the beleifs of the Largest religion in the world.

Quite a pickle you got there ?


Billy said...

Zawadi: Parts of the Quran are unclear and ambiguous

Allah: Quran is clear

Editorial: It would appear that Zawadi just called Allah a liar, to defend Allah.

White: If we interpret these Quranic verses contextually and consistently, Quran clearly misrepresents Christianity

Zawadi: Well, let us just decontextualize the Quran and make it unrelated random incoherent rants, that way Quran won’t be misrepresenting Christianity

Editorial: To defend Quran, Zawadi has to argue that Quran is non-contextual, disjointed, and unclear.

Zawadi: We don’t know what these verses are referring to. Some Muslim scholars say these are referring to the Trinity, others say these could be referencing heretical Christian beliefs. Therefore, it might be interpreted that way, this way, or another way. I don’t know what the heck Allah is talking about. If I don’t claim that the Quran is unclear, disjointed, non-contextual, I’ll have to admit that Allah/Mohammad misunderstood Christianity.

Editorial: Again, to defend Allah, Zawadi claims Allah is a liar and his eternal book is unclear and incoherent.

Behold the greatest Islamic apologist of the day!

Sam said...

Billy, I wrote an article on this very point, namely, how Zawadi's argument ends up condemning Allah and his Quran:

I still have several more parts which will further highlight how Zawadi's statements are contradicted by his own scripture.

The fact is that Zawadi is one of the greatest Islamic con artists who has no problem using lies and deception in order to defend the indefensible.

Billy said...

Thanks for the detailed post-debate analysis.

simple_truth said...

Samatar Mohamed said...

"Great job by Bassam Zawadi. I think he has proven that he is the best muslim apologist at this present point in time."

I am not sure what he has proven since he promotes the idea that the Qu'ran doesn't need to be clear on condemning people that it addresses but expects that any Muslim that brings the charge against the group (not clearly identified) is justified since the Qu'ran doesn't identify if the person in question is actually the one mentioned in the Qu'ran. How vague can one get and still claim that the Qu'ran condemns something that it doesn't clearly identify?

Your hero, Zadawi, could only say maybe, if, and possibly when addressing a poignant question from Dr. White. He even states that context can't be applied in 5:47 when it clearly states to anyone who subscribes to logical flow of thoughts that the Qu'ran condemns having Mary and Jesus as gods beside Allah. That alone, makes Allah ignorant of Christianity. As Dr. White repeatedly stated throughout the debate, one would think that the Qu'ran would accurately denounce those it speaks of if it were speaking to him (or me or any other orthodox Christian) contextually. We would expect that divine being to make it clear with respect to whom was being condemned and explain the problem relating to those people it condemned. Instead we see ambiguous statements that Zawadi presents and leaves it to others to decide what those passages mean. That is not acceptable as a method or argumentation. Why would you endorse such a methodology, Samatar?

As Dr. White stated several times, I do hope that you are looking for the truth instead of supporting your Islamic brother. Dr. White raised plenty of questions regarding the interpretations both Zadawi and other Muslims make regarding those disputed verses in the Qu'ran. Now, its time for you, Samatar, to honestly look at these verses and try to apply some common logical progression of thought in trying to understand in light of the immediate context presented, namely of 5:47. I am looking for honesty and consistency. I expect nothing less of you, Samatar.

Now, a few thoughts on Zawadi. He is very nice and pleasant to interact with. I give major cudos for that. I really appreciate his demeanor towards discussion. He does seem to have some sentiment towards others who disagree. But, my major issue with him is that he relies too much upon speculation to evince his position. He doesn't seem to recoginze that there are thematic representations by which scholars use to substantiate Qu'ranic exegesis. He wants to ignore this when dealing with this topic. Can you admit that he tries to deny that verses are viewed as a whole when trying to understand a particular subject? I am saying that he tries to deny that themes help scholars to rightly interpret a subject, specifically when there is no clear meaning of individual verses?

minoria said...

I agree that Zawadi is the best Muslim debater.He is more open-minded than Shabir Ally,you notice that from the way he talks,while in the case of Shabir,even though he has received new information that goes contrary to his early views,he still repeats them.

Like for example Shabir's illogical insistance that Mark,Luke and Matthew never say Jesus is God.

I used to think the same,then I studied Judaism and the new information showed that he was wrong.

Check out this article:

"Why the Assasin of Caliph Omar,Friend of Muhammad,is a National Hero in Iran"

sebsite said...

Samatar said: "...God could destroy Jesus (pbuh) if he wanted to..."
But one problem Samatar....
It a father or mother tells his/her baby "who will prevent me if I wish to kill you?" what will be your opinion on that?
I think (of course any sane person will think)that only a libertine or a whore can utter such a despicable words on his or her baby.
Then, my question, Who is allah your 'deity'?

Baron Eddie said...

In part 1 and in (minute 33) Bassam Zawadi mentioned a tradition that Mohammed said "there are 72 sects of christians and 71 will be in fire and only one will be in paradise!"

He did not mention the source!

I heard this a long time ago but I heard it as Mohammed saying this about Muslims!

Does anybody know the name of this source?

Bassam mentioned it again at the end of the debate ...

Baron Eddie said...

We Middle East Christians refuse to be called "Nasara"/نصارى ...

We are called Christians by our book ...

We don't call Muslims "Macawaka"/مكاوكة

meaning from Mecca!

Muslims need to find out where those Nasara are!

They are definitely not us ...

Baron Eddie said...

I think Mr. White needs an Arabic speaking Christian be in his team to correct a lot of errors Bassam said ...

Also I think Mr. White won the debate because Bassam did not give an answer from Quran which suppose to be clear!

Samatar Mohamed said...

@Baron Eddie

"It was reported from ‘Awf ibn Maalik who said: the Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said: “The Jews were divided into seventy-one sects, one of which is in Paradise and seventy are in the Fire. The Christians were divided into seventy-two sects, seventy-one of which are in the Fire and one is in Paradise. By the One in Whose hand is the soul of Muhammad, my Ummah will be divided into seventy-three sects, one of which will be in Paradise and seventy-two will be in the Fire.” It was said, O Messenger of Allaah, who are they? He said, “Al-Jamaa’ah.”
Sunan Ibn Maajah, no. 3982."

Here is the source you were looking for. It is in Sunan Ibn Maaja, number 3982, and sunan ibn majah is classified as one of the six major hadith book collections which are authentic.

Baron Eddie said...

Thanks Samatar Mohamed ...

Yes, this is the one ...

I was checking this online and there was an Arabic site that said it is not Sahih!

Anyway, I will read more about it

Samatar Mohamed said...


"It a father or mother tells his/her baby "who will prevent me if I wish to kill you?" what will be your opinion on that?
I think (of course any sane person will think)that only a libertine or a whore can utter such a despicable words on his or her baby.
Then, my question, Who is allah your 'deity'?"

I think your assertion is wrong here. A father and his son are both equal. But God almighty, and a man are in no terms equal in any way or form. Both a father and his son make mistakes, sin, etc.... But God never sins and he is the greatest conceivable being. Meaning that he is perfect, and you cannot in your mind conceive of a being greater than him. When Allah (swt) says that he could destroy Jesus (pbuh) if he wanted to. It was not because Allah (swt) does not love Jesus (pbuh). The point of the verse was that Allah (swt) was pointing out that Christians are elevating a mere man, to the level of almighty God. Hence, why Allah (swt) says he could destroy Jesus (pbuh) in a heartbeat if he wanted to. This is one of the many clear verses in the Quran that shows the muslim stance on Jesus (pbuh). He was a great man, prophet, model. But he was not God. Hope I helped.

Nakdimon said...

So Samatar. taking your own criterion of not sinning determining greatness, who was greater: Jesus, who never sinned, or Muhammad, who sinned and had to beg for forgiveness?

sebsite said...

Yes, Samatar, a man or woman is not equal to God in essence, because God is Holy, Perfect, Infinite and Love itself and hence God will not utter such despicable words (of a whore or a libertine). But allah, your deity, will utter. That is the problem.

Samatar Mohamed said...


"So Samatar. taking your own criterion of not sinning determining greatness, who was greater: Jesus, who never sinned, or Muhammad, who sinned and had to beg for forgiveness?"

No, I do not hold that a non sinner is greater than one who doesn't sin assuming that the sinner REPENTS. Now, a person who repents of a sin to me is equal to, if not higher than someone who does not sin. Not that the non sinner is bad, but the quality of repentance is even higher than not committing the act of sinning. Even the bible seems to agree somewhat with my position.

Luke 15:7

I tell you that in the same way there will be more rejoicing in heaven over one sinner who repents than over ninety-nine righteous persons who do not need to repent.

Nakdimon said...

@ Samatar

No the Bible doesn't agree with you on that. And you have to misrepresent the Bible AGAIN to try to justify the Islamic teaching of perverted Justice. The meaning of the parable in Luke 15 is to communicate that the rejoicing in heaven over one soul who repents and finds salvation is greater than the rejoicing in heaven over one already saved. NOT to communicate the non-existent superiority of perfect repentance over perfect obedience. Now that we have cleared that up, let’s try it again: You said in your post that one way to distinguish God’s greatness over man is that God never sins, he is perfect! I simply ask you to be consistent and apply that criterion on Jesus vs Muhammad. Who is greater of the two and who is the better example for mankind in obedience to God: Jesus, who never sinned but taught others to repent when they sinned, or Muhammad, who sinned and had to beg for forgiveness for his sins?

Now to demonstrate the utter bankruptcy of your claim that one that repents is equal if not GREATER than someone that doesn’t sin. I don’t know if you have children, but the criterion for a child that is perfect is a child that obeys his parents at all times, under all circumstances, to do what’s right. A child that rebels and has to repent, does not fall under that category. That child may be a good child, for recognizing its error and rebellion and feeling sorry for it and repenting, but it’s NOT perfect. If you have a child that rebels and repents after you have convinced him of his rebellion and you have another child that always does as you say, which child is the better example of a perfect child?

What you are in effect saying is that, since repentance is the greatest virtue, one that rebels more often than Muhammad and repents more often than Muhammad, is therefore greater than Muhammad! What you are saying is that imperfection trumps perfection! Is this what you are willing to do in order to keep yourself from recognizing the superiority of Jesus over Muhammad?

Foolster41 said...

Samatar: Why did you use that reference? Were you honestly mistaken, or are you intentionally misrepresenting the bible? You remind me of the same things Dr. White's said of muslimbychoice.

As Nakdimon pointed out, reading just the passage itself shows you are misusing it. But even disregarding that, if you look at the entirety of the new testament it contradicts your reading.

In Romans, Paul says:
"What shall we say, then? Shall we go on sinning so that grace may increase?By no means! We died to sin; how can we live in it any longer? Or don’t you know that all of us who were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? We were therefore buried with him through baptism into death in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, we too may live a new life.
If we have been united with him like this in his death, we will certainly also be united with him in his resurrection. For we know that our old self was crucified with him so that the body of sin might be done away with,[a] that we should no longer be slaves to sin— because anyone who has died has been freed from sin.

Now if we died with Christ, we believe that we will also live with him. For we know that since Christ was raised from the dead, he cannot die again; death no longer has mastery over him. The death he died, he died to sin once for all; but the life he lives, he lives to God.

In the same way, count yourselves dead to sin but alive to God in Christ Jesus. Therefore do not let sin reign in your mortal body so that you obey its evil desires. Do not offer the parts of your body to sin, as instruments of wickedness, but rather offer yourselves to God, as those who have been brought from death to life; and offer the parts of your body to him as instruments of righteousness. For sin shall not be your master, because you are not under law, but under grace." -Romans 6:1-14, NIV.

But that of course contradicts your narrow out-of context reading of Luke 15:7.

Of course, you strut like a great scholar, but this is hardly the first mistake you've made concerning Christian beliefs. Will you apologize and retract? Will you admit that perhaps you don't understand Christianity as well as you have thought or represented yourself as believing?

Samatar Mohamed said...


Thanks for clearing up luke 15. I was in the wrong for using that passage. Now, you can correct me if I am wrong, but I actually never understood Jesus (pbuh) to be sinless for his entire life. Jesus (pbuh) was a human being, which means that he must have sinned at one point ( knowingly or unknowingly). The translations of Surah 19:19 say:

Abdul Daryabadi

"He said: I am but a meenger from thy Lord that I may bestow on thee a boy pure."

Dr. Mohsin

"(The angel) said: "I am only a messenger from your Lord, (to announce) to you the gift of a righteous son."


"He said: I am only a messenger of thy Lord, that I may bestow on thee a faultless son."

Mufti Taqi Usmani

"He said, “I am but a message-bearer of your Lord (sent) to give you a boy, purified."

Yusuf Ali

"He said: "Nay, I am only a messenger from thy Lord (to announce) to thee the gift of a holy son."

From the translations, only one the pikthal says that Jesus (pbuh) was sinless. All the others say holy, righteous, etc... meaning that you would not have to be sinless in order meet those criteria. Allah (swt) prevents prophets from major sins in Islam but not necessarily from the minor sins. Prophets are humans and have their shortcomings just like us. Now, I have no interest in answering who was greater between Jesus (pbuh) and Muhammad (pbuh), because I love them both, and they are great men of Islam. Again as a muslim, I say Jesus AND Muhammad (peace be upon them both), not Jesus OR Muhammad (peace be upon them both).

Nakdimon said...


Glad I could be of any help.

Jesus is known to be sinless. No one can mention any sin which he had committed. Not even in the Quran or hadith is there any mention of Jesus sinning. In the Quran we see Adam, Noah, Abraham, Moses, Jonah, Solomon, David and even Muhammad asking forgiveness for their sins. There is also a hadith in Bukhari (Vol 9. Book 9. No. 532v) where all the prophets will be asked to intercede and they will decline because of their own sins. Even there, all prophets mention their sins, except Jesus. Jesus doesnt mention ANY sin. He just says he is not fit for intercession, which is very strange. Why would Jesus be unfit for intercession if no sin was committed? The only answer to that question is because Muhammad is supposedly the go-to-guy.

As for your assertion that prophets can only commit minor sins and not major sins. Where do you get that from? Is there some source that says this?

Lastly, Jesus was NOT a man of Islam. I can't believe that you would believe a guy that denies all of ancient history by denying the crucifixion ever happened 600 YEARS AFTER THE EVENT, while all testimony coming from the period surrounding that event say that it DID happen. Now you can credit Allah with "making it appear" it happened, but then we can go all sorts of routes with that kind of Jeddi-mind-tricks: Maybe Allah "made it appear" to Muslims that Muhammad was a prophet! That argument of Surah 4:157-158 is so lame that it is impossible to refute it for those that believe it. No matter how much evidence goes against those ayat, the claim "your eyes saw one thing, but something different happened" will always trump it. Fact is, as far as we can see, Jesus foretold his own death, burrial and resurrection. And it happened as he foretold it.

Dk said...

Samatar I haven't read the parable, so I don't know if you are wrong in the use of your quotation.

But your argument still holds weight:

"Now, a person who repents of a sin to me is equal to, if not higher than someone who does not sin. Not that the non sinner is bad, but the quality of repentance is even higher than not committing the act of sinning. "

In Islam, Muslims are considered "the best of Gods creatures", according to the Prophet even better than Angels.

Now if it's true that Angels like Mikael and Jibreel don't sin and have never sinned, Muslims are better than Mikael and Jibreel put together.

However, what you didn't recognize is your argument shot your faith in the foot and possibly the christian one too.

It is clear that your argument is correct, because while sinners have missed the mark, failed, suffered, endured pain and agony, faced the consequences of their sinful actions, and eventually with great toil triumphed in victory and glory, we cannot say the same for Allah.

Allah has not experienced any kind of imperfection, nor has he failed or sinned. And therefore according to your own words: "quality of repentance is even higher than not committing the act of sinning".

It is not consistent to say Allah is exempt from this standard, that is also known as begging the question. And even if you maintain that, it still wont work, since this means that humans have achieved a greater achievement than Allah, something he could never do as he is confined to the rules of his existance.

In fact the mere fact that Allah doesn't know what it is like to suffer or sin also means Allah is not omniscient, and we as creatures collectively have one over on Allah.

In fact how can Allah even determine justice and what is just and unjust, if he cannot experience humanity in it's fullness, then he has no real living experience or bearing to understand what is really worthy of reward or punishment. If Allah is truly not omniscient as I have argued, Allah is a distant arbitrator determining arbitrary rules that he has no experience of why someone deserves honor or damnation. Of course a being like this, also doesn't deserve worship.

You're own argument is a severe challenge to your faith.

1)Humans can achieve something Allah cannot, Allah is limited in his greatness.

2)Allah cannot experience true humanity, showing Allah is not truly omniscient.

3)Allah is not the greatest of all possible beings since he can't experience greatness in all it's forms, and therefore Allah is not worthy of worship.

4) Allah cannot experience true humanity and therefore he cannot experience the very essence of why he ought to punish some and reward others. In other words, Allah is amoral.

Derek Adams