Modern Science Finds God
-
Greetings cathedral,
Thanks for your reply?
Please, give the links to where I copied that. Please do. It comes from a book, not a webpage.
Thanks for not denying that you are interjecting redd Herrings into this conversation?
In addition?is it book?.or books?.?
'Does it not strike you as odd that nowhere in the entire Koran does it even once mention that the written word of God (i.e. the Holy Bible)"
The Qur'an refers to the Taurat, the Zabur, and the Injeel(singular). The Qur'an never even references all the other books which are in the modern Christian Bible. I should say Bibles, since there are varying versions. I'm not even referring to simple variants here, but complete books. Eastern Orthodox have their own Bible, Catholics have their Own, Protestans have their own, the various Oriental Orthodox groups have their version. . Which is the real Bible? Among all 10 qiraat, all have the same amount of suras, and there is not even a single verse in one that is not in another. As for pasting, no my friend, I'm not like you. It's Qur'an btw, with a qaaf, not a kaaf. There is a difference.
Well?thanks for taking my comment totally out of context and completely ignoring my friendly challenge for you to Koranically backup your assertion that the Holy Bible isn?t what it aught to be.
Here is my statement in full context, once more for you?
Does it not strike you as odd that nowhere in the entire Koran does it even once mention that the written word of God (i.e. the Holy Bible) to be in error in any way, shape, form, or fashion?.?
You will quickly discover that your assertion is one hailing from the Islamic machine?.and not from the Koran itself?
Furthermore, if you truly believe the Koran does not reference Biblical material to the extent that I have claimed?then feel completely free to bring forth any portion of the Koran that you feel is completely free from Jewish and Christian influence?
Oh?.and don?t forget to comment on the theme of this thread?.remember what it is?..?
Thanks?
-
Well?thanks for taking my comment totally out of context and completely ignoring my friendly challenge for you to Koranically backup your assertion that the Holy Bible isn?t what it aught to be.
Again, What is the Holy Bible?????????? There are numerous versions. Please, which one is is correct?????????Catholic? Eastern Orthodox? Varying Oriental Orthodox Bibles? Protestant? Your question doesn't even make sense as it is. The only one who ignores others posts is you, which is ok. You've showed your ignorance many times. Btw, what is the Koran???????? You seem to imply you know Arabic. Just a question, for tasreef, how many patterns are there?
You will quickly discover that your assertion is one hailing from the Islamic machine?.and not from the Koran itself?
I'm sorry, what is the Islamic machine? does the Islamic machine have any similarities with the Christian machine? You know, the one that says that a certain Surah is actually discussing the resurrection of Jesus? If it does, I agree, we should all steer clear of such madness.
Furthermore, if you truly believe the Koran does not reference Biblical material to the extent that I have claimed?then feel completely free to bring forth any portion of the Koran that you feel is completely free from Jewish and Christian influence?
Are you stating that since the Qur'an has certain similarities with 'the Bible" that the Qur'an is therefore proved to be a forgery? If so,please say, since I have other interesting things to post about texts before the Bible, which speak of Adam, Eve,Garden Of Eden,etc.
-
I posted this on another thread, but I'll bring it up here too.
1 And/by the dawn.
.2 And three nights.
.3 And/by the two days after the sacrifice and the third day.
.4 And/by the night when it goes away; when one journeys in it.
See the pattern emerging?.?
No, and neither do you. It can't be translated as " and three nights" Do you know why? Do you even know why sometimes the wow is translated as "by"???????? It isn't up to the translator, there is a change in the structure of the sentence. You can easily tell if you know grammar. Please tell us, how do we tell???????????
-
I find it strange that Apple Pie translates a language he doesn't even understand. He also does a translation that no other orientalist has ever done, even the most critical of Islam.. Apple, please tell us your qualifications, and why we should have trust in your translation? It would be greatly appreciated if you gave us the University in which you studied Arabic. I then could email their Arabic department, and see what they think of your translation. In fact, I should do that anyway. I assume the U of Chicago, Cambridge, and Harvard are sufficient? I'll post their opinions when I get responses back.
-
Greetings cathedral,
Thanks for more of your Redd herring replies?
Again, What is the Holy Bible?????????? There are numerous versions. Please, which one is is correct?????????Catholic? Eastern Orthodox? Varying Oriental Orthodox Bibles? Protestant? Your question doesn't even make sense as it is. The only one who ignores others posts is you, which is ok. You've showed your ignorance many times. Btw, what is the Koran???????? You seem to imply you know Arabic. Just a question, for tasreef, how many patterns are there?
The operative question is what did the authors of the Koran claim the Holy Bible to be?.?
I'm sorry, what is the Islamic machine? does the Islamic machine have any similarities with the Christian machine? You know, the one that says that a certain Surah is actually discussing the resurrection of Jesus? If it does, I agree, we should all steer clear of such madness.
Again?thanks for not taking up my friendly challenge for you to Koranically back up your assertion?
Your lack of a response tells us all we need to know?
Quote
Furthermore, if you truly believe the Koran does not reference Biblical material to the extent that I have claimed?then feel completely free to bring forth any portion of the Koran that you feel is completely free from Jewish and Christian influence?Are you stating that since the Qur'an has certain similarities with 'the Bible" that the Qur'an is therefore proved to be a forgery? If so,please say, since I have other interesting things to post about texts before the Bible, which speak of Adam, Eve,Garden Of Eden,etc.
Forgery would be your words?not mine?.but?you are free to call the Koran whatever you wish?
The authors of the Koran were quite clear that they referenced Biblical material in the construction of their opus?
It is time for Modern Muslims to acknowledge this fact?
I have already made the offer for you to choose any portion that you like...just to test my assertion...how much simpler can I make it for you...?
Now?.if you insist on constantly interjecting redd herrings into this thread, then please have the common courtesy to start dedicated threads that address your insecurities.
This thread pertains to Idris?s article on Cosmology?
Remember?.?
Thanks?
-
Here is a discourse in Al mizan, one of the greatest works of theology. It refutes the very base of Christian theology.
Al-Mizan Discourses
In The Name of Allah, the Beneficent and the Most Merciful
Section Qur'anic Discourses
Topic 'Isa (Jesus) is an intercessor and not a redeemer
It is not meet for a man that Allah should give him the Book and the Judgment and Prophethood, then he should say to men "Be my servants rather than Allah's;" but rather (he would say) "Be worshippers of the Lord because of your teaching the Book and your reading (it yourselves)". Or that he should enjoin you that you should take the angels and the prophets for lords; what! would he enjoin you with unbelief after you are Muslims (Submitting Ones)? (Qur'an, 379-80)
The Christians believe that Jesus Christ atoned for their sins with his blood; and that is why they call him the Redeemer, the Savior. They explain this belief as follows
"Adam disobeyed Allah by partaking of the forbidden tree; it was a sin which remained with Adam, and it is inherited by his progeny who came into this world burdened by that original sin; and the recompense of sin is punishment in the next world, the eternal perdition, the everlasting ruin ? which cannot be warded off. And Allah is Merciful and Just ? both at the same time.
"This situation created a knotty problem which defied all solutions If Allah were to punish Adam and his progeny for their sin, it would have been against the mercy for which He had created them; and if He were to forgive them, it would have been against His Justice. Justice demands that a sinner should be punished for his sins and errors, just as a good-doer and obedient person should be rewarded for his good deeds.*
"This problem remained unsolved until Allah solved it through Christ. Christ ? the Son of God who was Himself God ? entered the womb of a descendent of Adam, that is the Virgin Maryam, and was born from her as a human being is born. In this way, he was a complete man, because he was a son of man; and at the same time, was complete God, because he was the Son of God.
"And the Son of God, being God Himself, was sinless and protected from every sin and error.
"He lived among his people for sometime, mixing and dealing with them; he joined them in eating and drinking, talked and walked with them and befriended them. Thereafter he surrendered to his enemies enabling them to kill him the worst killing ? killing by crucifixion, because one who is crucified is, according to the Divine Scriptures, cursed by God.
"He took upon Himself the Divine curse and crucifixion, with all the condemnations, sufferings and chastisement which it entails. In this way he redeemed the people through his sacrifice, in order that they might be saved from the chastisement of the hereafter and the eternal perdition. Thus, he is the atonement for the sin of the believers, nay, for the sins of the whole world." **
This is what the Christians believe.
The Christians have made this theory (i.e. the crucifixion and atonement) the foundation of their religion. It is the Alpha and Omega of their call and mission ? in the same manner as the Qur?an has founded the Islam and its mission on monotheism; as Allah says addressing His Messenger (s.a.w.a.) Say "This is my way I invite (you) unto Allah with clear sight (are) I and he who follows me; and glory be to Allah; and I am not of the polytheists" (1210.
It is the Christians? belief in spite of the fact that Christ (as the Gospels clearly say, and we have mentioned earlier) used to admonish them first of all to believe in one God and to love Him.
The Muslims as well as many non-Muslims have shown the Christians the defects and invalidity of the above-mentioned belief of Christianity. Countless books and booklets have been written and numerous pamphlets and articles published, showing that this theory is not only contrary to logic and reason, but it also contradictory to the Books of the Old and the New Testaments. What we are concerned with here ? and what comes within the purview of this book of ours ? is to show how this idea is opposed to the basic Qur?anic teachings, and to explain the difference between intercession (as confirmed by the Qur?an) and atonement (as claimed by the Christians).
Moreover, the Qur?an clearly says that it talks with the people explaining the things in such a way as to bring it to the level of their understanding, to make it easier for them to grasp its realities. It explains what helps them to distinguish the truth from falsehood, so that they may accept that and reject this. It enables him to differentiate between virtue and evil, between beneficial and harmful, so that he may take the one and leave the other. The fact that the Qur?an keeps in view the level of the healthy reason and understanding is abundantly clear to all who study the Divine Book.
Now let us have a critical look at the above-mentioned Christian theory of atonement.
First They say that Adam committed a sin by eating from the forbidden tree. But the Qur?an refutes this idea in two ways
The said prohibition was not like a binding order given by a master to his slave; it was only an advisory counsel aiming at the good of the person so advised ? in order that he may live more comfortably. Such an advice does not bring any judicial reward or punishment whether one acts upon it or ignores it. It is not different from the order or prohibition of an advisor to the one who seeks his advice, or the directions given by a physician to his patient. What happens in such situations is this If the person concerned acts upon the advice, he achieves what is good and beneficial to him in this life; and if he neglects such advice, he may come to harm in this world. When Adam ate from the forbidden tree, the only harm he suffered was his removal from the Garden, and thus he lost the comfort and happiness he had been enjoying there. But there was no question at all of any punishment of hereafter, because he had not disobeyed any compulsory legislative order, which could have resulted in "punishment". (For detail see the Commentary of the verses 235 ? 39)
Adam (a.s.) was a prophet. The Qur?an clearly says that the prophets were sinless; they were protected by Allah from committing sins and transgressing the "orders" of Allah. Logical reasons supports this belief and the Qur?an proves it. (See our discourse on sinlessness of the prophets)
Second They say that the said sin remained with Adam. But the Qur?an rejects this idea when it says Then his (Adams) Lord chose him, so He turned to him (with mercy) and guided (him) (20122); Then Adam received (some) words from his Lord, so He turned to him mercifully; surely He is Oft-returning (to mercy), the Merciful (237). The reason also supports, nay, proves it. Retribution of sin is a frightening and formidable thing which the reason - or the master - thinks necessary for him who disobeys the command or shows obstinacy; it is from fear of punishment that legislations and laws are obeyed. Had there been no reward and punishment, the mastership could not be enforced and no order or prohibition would be obeyed. The master has the right and power to punish the sinners for their sins as well as to give rewards to the obedient ones for their obedience. Likewise, it lies within his power to exercise his discretion in a way he thinks fit, within the jurisdiction of his mastership. He has every right to pass over and overlook the disobedience and mistakes of wrong-doers by forgiving and pardoning them their sins and wrongs. This power of forgiveness is a part of management and rule as much as is the authority to mete out punishment. There is no doubt in any mind that forgiveness and pardon, in certain cases, is good and commendable when the forgiver has full power to punish; even today reasonable persons practice it and put it into effect. In this background, there is no reason why a wrong done by a man should remain attached to him forever. Otherwise, forgiveness and pardon would have no meaning at all. One forgives and pardons for erasing a mistake, for nullifying the effect of a sin; and if we say that the mistake and sin remains attached and cannot be removed, then forgiveness and pardon are meaningless.
Moreover, the Divine Revelation is full of descriptions of forgiveness and pardon; also the Old and New Testaments speak of it. Not only that, even the afore-mentioned "Christian dogma" speaks about it. In short, the claim that a certain sin or mistake had been attached to a man, which could not be erased or forgiven even after repentance and expression of sorrow, even after returning to the Lord with sincerity, is a thing which no reason would accept, nor would any straight thinking person agree with.
Third They say that the sin of Adam has remained attached not only to him but even to his progeny up to the Day of Resurrection. It means that the punishment of a crime of one person was extended to the others too who had no hand in that sin. In other words, a slave commits a sin and the master widens the circle of punishment to include even those who were in no way connected with that sin! (We are not speaking about a situation where someone had committed a sin and his descendants were pleased with his action; because in that case all would be counted as sinners.) What the Christians say puts the burden of sin on those who had nothing to do with that supposed sin. And the Qur'an rejects it when it says That no bearer of burden shall bear the burden of another.- and that there is not for man (aught) except what he strives for (5338-39). Sound reason supports this dictum, because it is an evil to penalize someone for a sin he has not committed. (vide the discourse on the "Deeds", under the verses 2 216 - 218.) *
Fourth Their argument is based on a misconception that every mistake and sin without any exception - throws the man into eternal perdition. In other words, sins do not differ in size and magnitude - all are great and capital. But the Qur'an teaches us that the sins and errors are of various categories some are great, others small; some may be forgiven, others like polytheism shall not be forgiven except after repentance. Allah says If you avoid the great sins which you are forbidden, We will expiate from you your (small) sins and cause you to enter an honorable (place of) entering (431 ); Surely Allah does not forgive that anything should be associated with Him, and forgives what is besides that to whomsoever He pleases (44. Thus Allah has taught us that some of the forbidden things, that is, sins and mistakes, are great, and others are, by implication, small; some are not forgivable while others are forgiven. In any case, sins vary in their seriousness, and not every sin puts the sinner in eternal perdition or ever burning fire.
Reason also refuses to lump all sins together, to put all mistakes in one category. A slap on face is different from murder; a lustful eye and fornication are not one; and so on. Never in the long human history have people treated all sins and errors alike. Sane persons in every age have prescribed different punishments for different crimes. How can it be possible to bracket all sins together without any discrimination, when there is so clear difference among them? In view of this-.accepted difference, only a few of them may cause eternal perdition, never-ending chastisement (for example) associating others with Allah, as the Qur'an has said Obviously going against the prohibition of partaking of a tree cannot be put in the category of disbelief in Allah or polytheism or things like that. Thus there is no reason why it should cause an eternal punishment. (vide the above-mentioned discourse on Deeds).
Fifth Let us look at what they have said about the problem of the conflict between the Divine attributes of mercy and justice; how a plan was devised to overcome that difficulty; and how Christ came down and then ascended to heaven to effect that scheme - with all the ramifications they have mentioned.
Ponder on this statement and its concomitants, and see what type of god they believe in. Here you will find a Creator God Who is the beginning and the end of this created universe and all its components. But all His actions emanate from a will and a knowledge which are found in Him; and His will depends on an academic preference - in the same way as a man opts for a course of action after weighing its pros and cons according to his knowledge. Likewise, God ponders on the positive and negative sides of a thing and then decides whether to do it or not. Sometimes He makes a wrong choice and repents for it*; at other times He meditates upon a problem without finding its correct solution; often He remains unaware of many affairs. In short, in their eyes, God in His attributes and actions is not different from a man. Whatever He does, He does it after thinking and meditating over it, directing His endeavors to the advantages of that action. His decision is thus governed and controlled by some extraneous factors, that is, the said advantages. He may find His way to the correct decision, also He may take a wrong decision; there may be error, misunderstanding or forgetfulness in the course He has taken. Sometimes He knows, at other times He does not; often He overpowers, and frequently is Himself overpowered. His power, like His knowledge, is limited. When all this is believed about Him, then it should be equally possible for Him to be subjected to all the conditions which prevail in a human being who decides to do a work after pondering on its pros and cons God will thus experience joy and grief, vainglory and shame, happiness and sorrow - and things like that. Needless to say that such a being would be a physical and material one, governed by the laws of movement, change and gradual completion. A thing having these attributes must be a transient being, a created thing; it cannot be the Self-existing God Who is the Creator of all things.
If you study the Old and New Testaments, you will know that all that we have said above is true; and that they believe in a god who has a body and has all the attributes found in a body, and especially in a man.
As for the Qur'an, it declares the Lord's glory in all these matters, showing that He is far above such myths and superstitions, as it says Glory be to Allah (for freedom) from what they describe (37159). We have many incontestable rational proofs to show that Allah is One in Whom all the attributes of perfection are united. His are the existence without any hint of inexistence, absolute power without any shade of weakness, all-encompassing knowledge without any taint of ignorance, absolute life without any possibility of death or destruction. This being the case, there can never come any change in His existence, power, knowledge or life.
Consequently, He cannot be a body or a thing related to body, because body and the things connected to it are surrounded by change and alteration, subdued by incorporeality, neediness and shortcomings. As He is not a body, nor related to body, He is not subjected to varying circumstances or changing conditions; He is far above forgetfulness or obliviousness, mistake or repentance, undecidedness or uncertainty, reaction or despondency, weakness or defeat - and things like that. We have fully explained the rational arguments (related) to these topics in this book in relevant places- those who want a thorough study should look for them under relevant verses.
A discerning reader may easily judge between the two beliefs Here is the Qur?an, declaring the glory of the Lord of the universe; it affirms for Him every attribute of perfection, and asserts His freedom from every imperfection; and declares that He is too great to be comprehended by our understanding - beset as it is by limitations and imperfections. And there are the Old and New Testaments describing God in terms which can only be found in the Greek, Indian and Chinese mythologies of the ancient times; and ascribing to Him such things which primitive man imagined and which his superstition Jed him to believe.
Sixth They say that Allah sent His Son, Christ, and told him to enter into the womb of a woman - in order that he could be born a man while he was a god. It is the same unintelligible theory which has been strongly refuted by the Qur?an; there is no need to repeat here the earlier-explained Qur?anic arguments against it. Also the reason does not support this theory. First look at the attributes which are essential for the Self-existing Being. His existence is eternal, without beginning or end; there can be no change in Him; His existence knows no limit; He encompasses everything, but Himself is above the limits of time, space and their concomitants. Then think over the creation of man from the time he was a sperm to the stage when it is a fetus in a womb - no matter which interpretation you accept for this human birth of god that of the Melchites, or the Nestorians, or the Jacobites or some other groups. In the end you will have to admit that there is no relationship between a thing that has a physical body with all its accidents and concomitants and a Being that has neither a body nor any of its concomitants or accidents (like time, space, movement etc.). How can one even think of unity between the two in any way?
The fact is that this theory does not agree with self-evident rational propositions. That is why St. Paul and other leaders of Christianity hold philosophy in contempt and spurn and disdain rational arguments. St. Paul writes "For it is written, I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and will bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent. Where is the wise? where is the scribe? where is the disputer of this world? hath not God made foolish the wisdom of this world? . . . For the Jews require a sign, and the Greeks seek after wisdom. But we preach Christ crucified." (Epistle of Paul, ch. 1 ) **
We find a lot of pronouncements - in similar vein - in his as well as in others' writings. This line was adopted only for propagation of their ideas and missionary activities. Anyone pondering on these epistles and books and studying the way they address the people may easily understand the motive behind it.
The above discourse also exposes the flaw in their statement that "God is sinless and protected from sins and errors." The God they have imagined is not safe from errors at all,- He errs in His perceptions and He errs in His actions. Of course, He does not disobey anyone because none is superior to Him. That is why the question of sin and disobedience does not arise at all, so far as God is concerned. Consequently, it is irrelevant, nay, unimaginable, to say that He is "protected from sins".
Seventh They say that God became man and then lived with his people as a man lives in society until he surrendered to his enemies. It means that the Self-existent God may acquire for Himself some properties especially reserved for transient and incorporeal creatures - only then He can be God and man all at the same time. If so, then He can also become any of His other creatures; He may acquire for Himself the reality of any of the species created by Him. One day He may appear as a man, the next day as a horse; sometimes as a bird, at other times as an insect, and so on. He may even acquire more than one reality at a time, that is, He may come to this world as a combination of several species, for example, He may appear as perfect man and perfect horse and perfect insect, all at the same time.
Likewise, He may do any action done by His creatures because He may appear as a certain species and then would do the actions reserved for that species. Going a step further, it would be possible for Him to do two opposite things together like justice and injustice, or to acquire opposite attributes for Himself, for example, knowledge and ignorance, power and lack of power, life and death, want and freedom from want. Glory be to Allah Who is far above such absurdities! (This snag is different from the one explained in the Sixth Objection.)
Eighth They say that he suffered until he was crucified and took upon himself the curse, because a crucified person is cursed. What do they really mean when they say that he took the curse upon himself? What is the meaning of curse? In common usage and language curse means removal from Divine Mercy and Honor. Does that supposed curse imply the same meaning? Or is it something else? If it has the same meaning which is known to the language and common usage, then how can God remove Himself from His own mercy? Or, how can anyone else remove Him away from His own mercy? What is mercy? It is a positive bestowal, a grant of favors and bounties, a bequeathal of specialties of existence. When one is cursed - taken away from Divine Mercy - it results in poverty, disgrace or effects like that - in this world or the next or in both. This being the case, what is the sense of saying that God was effected by curse? Choose any meaning for curse, it cannot apply to God - the God Who is Self-sufficient and fulfils the needs of everything. The Qur'anic teaching is diametrically opposed to this truly amazing theory of the New Testament. Allah says O men! you are the ones who stand in need of Allah, and Allah is He Who is Self-sufficient, the Praised One (3515). Also the names and attributes of Allah mentioned in the Qur'an make it clear that it is impossible for any type of need or want, shortcoming or defect, loss or extinction, evil or abomination, disgrace or stigma to reach the sublime majesty of Allah.
Poser God suffered disgrace and took the curse upon Himself only because He became one with man. Otherwise, He in His own Self is too high to be affected by such things.
Reply Did God, by becoming one with man, take upon Himself that curse and those sufferings in real sense of the word? Or, was it all just a metaphor, only an allegory? If it was in real sense, our objection stands. And if it was only in a metaphorical sense, then the original "problem" would remain unsolved-, the birth of Christ would not solve the conflict between Divine Mercy and Divine Justice. If it was not God - but someone else - who suffered all those indignities and curse - the so-called scheme of atonement would remain unfulfilled. Obviously, the said plan was based on the idea that God Himself should be the ransom for human beings.
Ninth They say that 'Isa (Jesus) atoned for the sins of the believers, nay, for the sins of the whole world. This talk shows that they do not understand the real meaning of sin and error, nor do they comprehend how the sins bring the next world's punishment, or how that punishment is affected. Also, they have not grasped the relationship between sins and errors on one side and Divine Legislation on the other, nor do they know the stand of the shari'ah about it. But the Qur'an clearly describes all these things and teaches us these realities - as we have explained in the Commentaries of verses 226 (Surely Allah is not ashamed to set forth any parable . . .) and 2 213 (Mankind was but one nation . . . ). We have described there that the orders and laws (which might be the subject of disobedience) and the sins and errors all are mentally posited things based on subjective consideration. They have been made for the protection of society's welfare; and the punishment of its disobedience is the unpleasant result which has been prescribed with a single aim in view - to discourage and prevent a responsible man from indulging into sin, from disobeying the law. This is the view of the sages who have laid the foundation of human society.
But the Qur'anic teaching leads us to a still higher level in this respect (and the rational reasoning supports it, as we have explained). It says that when a man obeys the shari'ah prescribed for him by Allah, his psyche acquires some noble and praiseworthy inner traits; and if he disobeys the said shari'ah, he acquires unworthy-, hideous and evil traits. It is these deeply ingrained traits and characteristics which prepare for him the rewards or punishments of the next life, respectively. That reward and punishment is represented by the Paradise and the Hell, respectively - and their respective reality is nearness to Allah or distance from Him. Thus the merit and demerit of deeds are based on things which actually exist and have a system. Unlike our social laws they are not based on any imaginary thing emanating from subjective consideration.
Also it is not a secret that the Divine Legislation perfects and completes the Divine Creation. It brings the creative guidance to its final destination. In other words, Allah brings every thing to the perfection of its existence, to the final goal of its being. And among the perfection of human existence are a good social system in this world, and a happy, bounteous life in the hereafter. The way to that perfection is religion, which enacts and promulgates laws for society's reform and development, and contains directions for reaching nearer to Allah (and these directives are called acts of worship). When a man follows the laws of religion, his life and livelihood are improved, and his soul becomes ready to receive Allah's bounties; and he is qualified - in his self and in his actions - for the Divine Honor in the hereafter. All of this emanates from the light put in his heart, and the purity that is found in his self. This in short is the reality.
Man gets nearer to Allah or goes far away from Him. This nearness and distance are the foundations of his eternal happiness and unhappiness, respectively - and also for his social development (or otherwise) in this life. And religion is the only factor that brings about his nearness and distance. All these are real things, not based on imaginary assumptions or subjective considerations.
Now suppose that one putative sin of Adam - his partaking of the forbidden tree - brought eternal perdition on him, and not only on him, but on all his descendants also; and that there was no remedy for it, no relief from that ruination - except atonement through Christ. Then what was the use of sending religion - any religion - before Christ? And what was the use of ordaining it with Christ? And what is the use of promulgating it after Christ?
Let us put it this way Eternal perdition and punishment in hereafter was a firmly -decreed fate of man - because of the said sin; it could not be removed or averted from him either through good deeds or through repentance; the only effective remedy was the atonement through Christ's suffering and crucifixion. Then why did Allah promulgate the laws, revealed the books, and sent the prophets and messengers? What was the sense behind all this exercise? Were not all those promises and threats, all those good tidings and warnings devoid of truth? What could all those endeavors avail mankind when the whole species was doomed to perdition, and when eternal punishment was their firmly-decreed fate?
Also, suppose there were people who perfected themselves by sincerely following the previous shari'ah (and there were countless prophets and also men of God in previous ummah who were like that, for example, the honored prophets lbrahim, Musa and others); they lived perfectly and died before the time of atonement. Now what would you say about them? Did they end their life in infelicity and perdition? Or in felicity and happiness? What did they face when they met death and went to the next world? Did death bring them to chastisement and ruination? Or to Divine bounties and happy life?
Moreover, Christ clearly says that he was sent only to save the sinners and wrong-doers, and that good-doers and righteous have no need of such help.***
Frankly speaking, no valid reason can be given for promulgating the Divine Laws, for ordaining the religious values - before the supposed atonement was affected through Christ; it was but a vain, senseless and aimless exercise. Nor can any good and correct reason be advanced for this "strange" action of God. The only thing that can be said is this
God knew very well that, unless the problem of Adam's sin was solved, no law promulgated by Him would do any good. Yet He went on promulgating those laws just to be on safe side, hoping that one of these days He would get a chance to solve this problem and then He would be able to harvest the fruits of those legislation! Thus He legislated the laws and promulgated them through the prophets - hiding the truth from the prophets and their people alike. He did not tell them that there was a big problem which - if it remained unsolved - would nullify all the efforts of the whole group of the prophets and the believers, and which would render all the laws ineffective and useless. On the contrary, He pretended that the legislation and the prophetic missions were very serious, very important and very real things.
Thus God deceived the people, and deceived Himself too. He deceived the people by promising that their safety and happiness was guaranteed if they faithfully followed the shari'ah. And He deceived Himself because, once the atonement was affected, legislation of the shari'ah would become irrelevant, without having any effect on the people's felicity - in the same way as it was without any effect as long as the problem of Adam's sin was not solved. This was the case before affectation of the said atonement.
Corning to the time when atonement was affected, and to the later days, ineffectiveness and futility of the shari'ah, of prophetic mission and of Divine Guidance is much more self-evident. What is the use or benefit of believing in divinely-sent realities and doing good deeds now that the problem of the original sin has been solved, and the atonement has brought forgiveness and mercy to all men, believers and unbelievers, righteous and unrighteous, all alike, without any difference between the most impeccable righteous one and the most incorrigible impious one Both were to suffer eternal perdition when the original sin was not redeemed and both are to share in the Divine Mercy now that it has been redeemed through the said atonement. (Remember that no good deed could remove that stigma, if there were no atonement.)
Objection The atonement would benefit only those who believe in Christ. Therefore, the prophetic mission did have its use and benefit, as Christ has said in the Gospel.****
Reply First of all, it contradicts the saying of St. John referred to earlier. Secondly, it destroys all the edifice built so far, because nobody - right from Adam to the Last Day - would enter the sanctuary of safety and deliverance except a very small group, that is, those who believe in Christ and the Holy Ghost; and not even all the Christians but only a certain group among all those widely differing denominations - all other denominations would be thrown into eternal perdition. I wish I knew what would happen to the honored prophets (who came) before Christ, and to the believers of their ummah! What would be the status of their mission, of the books they brought and of the wisdom they taught? Was it true? Or just a lie? The Gospels verify the Torah and its mission, and there is no mention at all of the Ghost and the atonement in the Torah. Does the Gospel verify a true book? Or does it verify a pack of lies?
Poser As we know, the previously revealed books give the good tidings of Christ. This was a sort of a general call by them towards Christ, although they did not give any detail about his coming and atoning the sin. God was always telling His prophets about the advent of Christ in order that they might believe in him and be happy with what he would do.
Reply First To make such claims for the prophets before Musa is to shoot in the dark, to venture into terra incognito. Moreover, if there was any good news, it was not an invitation to believe in, and follow, him. Secondly, that good tiding does not solve the problem of futility of the shari'ah; if Christ delivered all those who believed in him, then was it not useless and futile to invite people to follow the laws of the shari'ah and to practice good ethics and morality? Even Christ exhorted people to follow the rules of religion and be of good conduct; and the Gospels are full of his sermons to this effect. Thirdly, the basic problem still remains. They had talked about the original sin and the unfulfilment of the Divine Purpose, and that purpose is still unfulfilled. God had created mankind to bestow His mercy on all of them, to cover all of them with His favor and bounties, felicity and happiness. But what is the result? Almost all of them - with the exception of a small group - are going to be punished, suffering under the wrath of God, thrown into eternal perdition.
These are just a few of the rational reasons showing the absurdity and invalidity of this theory. The Qur'an too supports these reasons. Allah says Our Lord is He Who gave to everything its creation, then guided it (to its goal) (2050). He has made it clear that everything is guided to its goal and to what its existence demands. The guidance is of two kinds creative and legislative. It is the established way of Allah to bestow every relevant guidance on everything, and it includes the religious guidance bestowed on man.
Then Allah says - and it is the first religious guidance given to Adam and those who were sent down with him from the Garden We said "Get down you there from all together; if there comes to you a guidance from Me, then whoever follows My guidance, no fear shall come upon them, nor shall they grieve, And (as to) those who disbelieve in and belie our signs, they are the inmates of the fire, in it they shall abide" (238-39). It gives in a nut-shell what various laws were to promulgate in detail up to the Day of Resurrection; it contains legislation as well as promise and threat - all in clear terms without ambiguity. Again He says . . . and the truth do I speak (3884); The word is not changed with Me, nor am I in the least unjust to the servants (5029). Allah declares that He has no hesitation or misgiving about what He decides, He does not break what He has joined; whatever He decides, He enforces; and what He says, He enacts; His action does not deviate from the line He has prescribed for it. He does not waver or hesitate when He wills; nor is it befitting to His knowledge that He should intend a thing and then some demerit should appear in that course of action which He did not know before and thus He should decide not to do it. Nor can anyone else hinder His plan It is not that He should will a thing, deciding to do it and then some rational defect should prevent Him from doing it, or some snag should appear in its execution and He should abandon the plan - because all such things, if they ever happened, would show helplessness of God. Allah says and Allah is predominant over His affairs (1221); surely Allah attains His purpose (653); and Musa is reported as saying The knowledge thereof is with my Lord in a book errs not my Lord, nor does He forget (20 52); and Allah says about the Day of Judgment This day every soul shall be rewarded for what it has earned; no injustice (shall be done) this day; surely Allah is quick in reckoning (4017).
These and similar other verses clearly show that Allah, after creating His creatures, has not neglected to look after their affairs, nor is He ignorant of what they would do, nor is He sorry for what He has done. As He is constantly looking after their welfare, He has ordained for them His laws - a serious and important legislation which He has ordained not because He is afraid of something or expects to gain something through it. He shall reward every doer for his action - if good, then good- and if evil, then evil. In all these affairs nobody can overpower Him, nor can anyone impose his will on Him -- because He has no partner or colleague.
There will be neither any ransom nor any redemption to save anyone; nor can anyone intercede for someone without Allah's permission. Because all such propositions are against His absolute ownership which He has over His creatures.
Tenth Let us look at the story of atonement. What is atonement or ransom? A man - or a thing related to him - is involved in some crimes or sin, as a result of which he faces the possibilities of harm or destruction of life or valuable property; and therefore he offers something less important in order to save his life or the more valuable property. A man taken prisoner redeems himself with offer of some money; crimes are redeemed with money paid as fine. The thing given for this purpose is called ransom, fine or redemption. Atonement, in short, is a deal, which transfers the right of the claimant from the person so redeemed to the thing given in ransom or redemption - and thus the redeemed one is saved from captivity or from the evil consequences of the crime he had committed.
This description shows that atonement and redemption is simply unimaginable in the matters related to Allah. The Divine Authority - unlike human authority, which is merely an abstracted idea, a subjective consideration - is the real authority, which cannot be changed or transferred. Things, in their species and with their effects, actions and reactions, have been created by Allah and continue to exist because of Him. It is a reality, a fact; and reality and fact cannot change into non-reality, non-fact. Such a proposition cannot be imagined - let alone its ever coming into being. Allah's ownership, authority and rights are not like those of us human beings. We are bound with social norms and laws. Our social rights, authority and ownership are merely subjective considerations, abstracted ideas based on our imaginations; their status and worth is in our own hands; we may establish a right today and abolish it tomorrow - as our interest and outlook change concerning our life and livelihood. For details see Commentaries of the verses 1 4 (the Master of the Day of Judgment)*, and 326 (Say'O Allah, Master of the Kingdom...')*****.
Allah has specifically refuted the idea of atonement in the following verse So today ransom shall not be accepted from you nor from those who disbelieved; your abode is the fire (5715). And as explained earlier, the same is the import of the words of the Messiah quoted by Allah in the Qur'an And when Allah will say "O 'Isa son of Maryam! 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); ... I did not say to them save that what Thou didst enjoin me with 'That worship Allah, my Lord and your Lord', and I was a witness of them so long as I was among them, but when Thou didst take me (away) completely, Thou wert the watcher over them, and Thou art witness of all things. If Thou shouldst chastise them, then surely they are The servants; and if Thou shouldst forgive them, then surely Thou art the Mighty, the Wise" (5116-11. His words "and I was a witness of them so long as I was among them. . . ", have the following import 'I had nothing to do with them except what Thou hadst entrusted me to do, that is, conveying Thy message to them and being a witness over them - as long as I was among them; whether Thou shouldst chastise them or shouldst forgive them, entirely depends on Thy discretion; I have nothing to do with it. I do not have any authority on Thy will, with which I could save them from Thy chastisement or sentence them to punishment.'
It clearly refutes the idea of ransom and atonement. Had there been any ransoming or redeeming, it would have been wrong for him to wash his hands of the fate of his ummah, telling Allah that it was His (Allah's) discretion whether to punish them or forgive them, and that he ('Isa - a. s.) had nothing to do with it.
Of similar connotation are the following verses
And be on your guard against the Day when one soul shall not avail another in the least, neither shall intercession on its behalf be accepted, nor shall any compensation be taken from it, nor shall they be helped (24.
... before the day comes in which there is no bargaining, neither any friendship nor intercession . . . (2 254).
The day on which you will turn back retreating; there shall be no savior for you from Allah . . . (4033).
Obviously, the "compensation" (in the first verse), the "bargaining" (of the second) and the "savior" (of the third) all apply to the idea of atonement and redemption; the verses in refuting these things refute the belief of atonement.
Of course, the Qur'an accepts the Messiah as one of the intercessors - but not as an atonement. We have explained about "Intercession" under the verse 248 (And be on your guard against the day when one soul shall not avail another . . . ) ******. We have explained there that intercession shows the nearness of the intercessor and his good standing with the master, without there being any transfer of authority from the master to the intercessors; without affecting in any way the ownership or power of the master; without nullifying or abrogating the, master's commandment which the sinner had disobeyed; and without negating the system of recompense, reward and punishment. Intercession is but a sort of prayer and request by the intercessor that the master - in this case, the Lord - should manage the affairs of His creature with mercy. The intercessor accepts the Master's right to punish the sinner (because he had sinned and the law of recompense makes him liable to punishment), but asks the Master to exercise His power of forgiveness - because He has the right to forgive as He has the right to punish.
The intercessor thus requests the Master to exercise His right of pardon and forgiveness, when the sinner has become liable for punishment, without in any way affecting the Master's ownership or authority. But atonement is something else; it is a deal, a bargain, which transfers the Master's authority from the sinner to the ransom given in his place, and removes the sinner from the Master's power as soon as the Master accepts the ransom in his place.
That the Messiah is an intercessor is proved by the following verse And those whom they call upon besides Him have no authority for intercession, but he who bears witness of the truth and they know (43 86). It clearly says that the people excepted would have the authority to intercede. 'Isa (a.s.) is among those whom they call besides Allah. But he has the authority of intercession because he is included in the exception Allah confirms in the Qur'an that He had taught him ('Isa) the Book and the Wisdom, and that he ('Isa) shall be among the witnesses on the Day of Judgment. Allah says And He will teach him the Book and the Wisdom (34, and (quotes him as saying and I was a witness of them so long as I was among them (5117). He also says-. and on the Day of' Resurrection he shall be a witness against them (4159).
All these verses read together prove that 'Isa (a.s.) is one of the intercessors. We have described it in detail under the following verse-. And be on your guard against the day when one soul shall not a ail another in the least ... (24.
- "And it repented the Lord that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart,." (Gen., 6 6). (Author's Note)
** "But their scribes and Pharisees murmured against his disciples, saying, Why do ye eat and drink with publicans and sinners? And Jesus answering said unto them, They that are whole need not a physician; but they that are sick. I came not to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance. (Luke, 530-32) (Author's Note)
*** "Also I say unto you, whosoever shall confess me before men, him shall the Son of man also confess before the angels of God But he that denieth me before men shall be denied before the angels of God." (Luke, 128-9) (Author's Note)
**** Vide al-Mizan [Engl. transl. 1, vol. 1, pp. 29 -- 31. (pub.)
***** ibid., vol. 5, pp. 193 - 202. (pub.)
****** ibid., vol. 1, pp. 221 - 265. (pub.)
Shari'ah = Law
Ummah = Community
Musa = Moses
-
Another wonderful discourse in Al-Mizan.
Al-Mizan Discourses
In The Name of Allah, the Beneficent and the Most Merciful
Section Qur'anic Discourses
Topic What 'Isa (Jesus) said and what was said about him
It is not meet for a man that Allah should give him the Book and the Judgment and Prophethood, then he should say to men "Be my servants rather than Allah's;" but rather (he would say) "Be worshippers of the Lord because of your teaching the Book and your reading (it yourselves)". Or that he should enjoin you that you should take the angels and the prophets for lords; what! would he enjoin you with unbelief after you are Muslims (Submitting Ones)? (Qur'an, 379-80)
The Qur?an says that 'Isa (Jesus) was Allah?s servant and messenger; and that he did not claim for himself what the Christians ascribe to him, nor did he tell them anything other than conveying the Divine Message. Allah says
And when Allah will say "O 'Isa (Jesus) son of Mary! Did you say to men, ?Take me and my mother for two Allahs 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. I did not say to them aught save what Thou didst enjoin me with That worship Allah, my Lord and your Lord, and I was a witness of them so long as I was among them, but when Thou didst take me completely, Thou wert the watcher over them, and Thou art witness of all things. If Thou shouldst chastise them, then surely they are Thy servants; and if Thou shouldst forgive them, then surely Thou art the Mighty, the Wise." Allah will say "This is the day when their truth shall benefit the truthful ones" (5116-119).
This wonderful reply contains the essence of servitude and shows outstanding manner; it is a mirror of 'Isa (Jesus)? attitude and behavior towards his Lord; it shows how he looked at himself in relation to his Creator and what he thought of the people and their deeds. He says that he looked himself just as a servant of his Lord, who had nothing to do other than obeying the Lord; he does not proceed except when directed to, and does not stop unless told to. And he was not ordered except to call people to the worship of Allah and he did not tell them except what he was enjoined with That worship Allah, my Lord and your Lord.
And as far as his relationship with his people is concerned he shall be the witness for their deeds, and that is that; it is none of his business what Allah does with them about them ? whether He forgives them or chastises them.
Question If so, then how would you justify what you had written in the topic of intercession, that 'Isa (Jesus) shall be among the intercessors on the Day of Resurrection, he shall intercede and his intercession shall be honored and accepted?
Answer The Qur?an says expressly ? or almost expressly ? that he is an intercessor. Allah says And those whom they call upon besides Him have no authority for intercession, but he who bears witness of the truth and they know (4386); and on the Day of Resurrection he ('Isa (Jesus)) shall be a witness against them (4159); and when I taught you the Book and the Wisdom and Torah and the Gospel (5110).
This intercession is something quite different from the atonement which the Christians believe in. The theory of atonement invalidates the system of reward and punishment, and consequently negates the absolute sovereignty of Allah ? as we shall explain later on. It is the idea of atonement which the above mentioned talk of 'Isa (Jesus) refutes. But this verse has nothing to do with intercession ? it neither confirms it nor rejects it. Had it wanted to confirm it ? inspite of its inconsistency (because the situation demands self-abasement, not relaxedness) with context ? it should have said If Thou shouldst forgive them, then surely Thou art the Forgiving, the Merciful. And if it wanted to refute it, it should not have mentioned his being a witness for the people.
Looking at what the people have said about 'Isa (Jesus), we find that they are divided after him into various sects, and disintegrated to perhaps more than seventy denominations. This number looks at fundamental and major divisions only, because minor differences are too numerous to count.
Nevertheless, The Qur?an concerns itself only with what they say about 'Isa (Jesus) and his mother, because it affects the foundation of monotheism which is the only goal to which the Qur?an calls and the natural straight religion leads. The Book of Allah is not concerned with other relatively minor points, e.g., the problem of alteration of the Book and that of atonement.
The beliefs which the Qur?an ascribes to them (or quotes them) are as follows
and the Christian say "The Messiah is the son of Allah" (930); And they
say "The Beneficent Allah has taken to Himself a son" (2126);
Certainly they disbelieve who say "Surely Allah, is the Messiah, son of
Mary" (572);
Certainly they disbelieve who say "Surely Allah is the third of the three"
(573);
and say not, Three (4171). (4171).
Apparently, these verses contain different phrases, describe different beliefs. (That is why some people* apply various verses to various sects, for example, the Melkites** who believe in real sonship; the Nestorians*** who explain descendence and sonship as radiance of light on a transparent body like crystal; and the Jacobites**** who explain it in terms of change and transformation, that is, the Allah was transformed into flesh and blood.)
But evidently the Qur?an does not look at the peculiarities of their diverse sects. It is concerned only with one belief which is common between all of them ? that 'Isa (Jesus) is the son of Allah and of one substance with Allah, with the resulting belief of trinity ? although they differ very much in its explanation (which has led to extreme conflicts and discords). That this explanation is correct is supported by the fact that the Qur?an brings one and the same argument to refute the views of all of them.
It may be explained as follows
The present Torah and Gospels all together clearly mention the Oneness of Allah; on the other hand the Gospel clearly mentions the sonship declaring that the Son is the Father and none else.
They do not interpret the postulated sonship in the terms of distinction, honor and excellence, although many verses of the Gospels clearly give this meaning. For example
"But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and prosecute you. That you may be the children of your Father which is in heaven for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and the unjust. For if ye love them which love you, what reward have ye? do not even the publicans the same? And if ye salute your brethren only, what do ye more than others? do not even the publicans so? Be ye therefore perfect , even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect." (Matthew, 544 - 4*****
"Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father which is in heaven." (Matthew, 516)
"Take heed that ye do not your alms before men, to be seen of them otherwise ye have no reward of your Father which art in heaven." (Matthew, 61)
"After this manner therefore pray ye Our Father which art in heaven, Hallowed by thy name." (Matthew, 69)
"For if ye forgive men their trespasses, your heavenly Father will also forgive you." (Matthew, 614)
"Be ye therefore merciful, as your Father also is merciful." (Luke, 636)
Also, he said to Mary Magdalene "go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God and your God." (John, 2017)
These and other similar sentences of the Gospels refer to Allah as the Father of 'Isa (Jesus) as well as others, all in the sense of distinction and honor.
There are some sayings in the Gospels which allude to the union of the Son with the Father. For example
"These words spake Jesus, and lifted up his eyes to heaven, and said, Father, the hour is come; glorify thy Son, that thy Son also may glorify thee." (John, 171)
Then he went on praying for his disciples and finally said
"Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also, which shall believe on me through their word. That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us; that the world may believe that thou hast sent me. And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one; I in them, and thou in me, that they may be made perfect in one; and that the world may know that thou hast sent me, and hast loved them, as thou hast loved me." (John, 1720 - 23)
However, there are other verses which apparently cannot be explained in the terms of distinction and honor. For example
"Thomas saith unto him (i.e. Jesus), Lord, we know not whither thou goest ; and how can we know the way? Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth and the life; no man cometh unto the Father but by me. If ye had known me, ye should have known my Father also and from henceforth ye know him, and have seen him. Philip saith unto him, Lord, show us the Father, and it sufficeth us. Jesus saith unto him, Have I been so long time with you, and ye hast thou not known me, Philip? he that hath seen me hath seen the Father; and how sayest thou then, Show us thy Father? Believest thou not that I am in the Father, and the Father in me? the words that I speak unto you I speak not of myself but the Father that dwelleth in me, he doeth the works. Believe me that I am in the Father, and the Father in me." (John, 511)
"For I proceeded forth and came from God; neither came I of myself, but he sent me." (John, 842)
"I and my Father are one." (John, 1030)
"Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost." (Matthew, 2819)
"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by Him and without Him was not anything made that was made. In Him was life; and the life was the light of men." (John, 11 - 4)
These and other similar statements of the Gospels have led the Christians to the belief of trinity in unity. The belief of trinity is an attempt to reconcile the belief that the Christ is the Son of God with the belief in one God which the Christ himself had taught. For example, Mark, 1229 quotes him as saying "The first of all the commandments is, Hear, O Israel The Lord our God is one Lord."
The believers in the trinity say (although it does not impart any intelligible meaning) God is one substance with three Persons. The word person denotes an attribute with which a thing appears to others; and the attribute is none other than the thing itself. The three Persons are The Person of existence, the Person of knowledge, i.e. the Word, and the Person of life, i.e. the Spirit.
These three Persons are the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost. The first is the Person of existence; the second, the Person of knowledge (the Word); and the third, the Person of Life. The Son who is the Word and the Person of Knowledge descended from his Father (i.e. the Person of existence) accompanied by the Holy Ghost (i.e. the Person of Life) that gives light to all things.
Then they differ among themselves in explanation of this vague statement; and ever-occurring conflicts have divided them to more than seventy sects and denominations. We shall mention some of them to the extent that is necessary in the framework of this book.
Think over the above description; then look at what the Qur'an ascribes to the Christians, or quotes them as saying and the Christians say, "The Messiah is the son of Allah" (930); Certainly they disbelieve who say "Surely Allah, He is the Messiah, son of Maryam (572) Certainly they disbelieve who say "Surely Allah is the third (Person) of the three" (573); and say not, "three"; Desist (4171). Then you will realize that all these statements point to a single idea, i.e. the trinity in unity which is the common factor of all the sects which sprang up in the Christianity (as we have said above).
Why did the Qur'an concentrate on this common factor? It was because the same objections apply to all their beliefs regarding 'Isa (Jesus) - in spite of their diversity and numerousness. The arguments put by the Qur'an are applicable to all their interpretations with equal force, as will be explained later.
-
This is from another thread
Well?I?m still waiting for you to back up your assertion with a verifiable reference?
I?m sure that you understand how debate works?.
Your assertion, your proof?not that you can produce any?of course?
Thanks?
The wow for "by" puts the word following it in the state of nasb. That's how you can tell. The wow is therefore majroor there. For tasreef, how many patterns?
-
This is from another thread
Well?I?m still waiting for you to back up your assertion with a verifiable reference?
I?m sure that you understand how debate works?.
Your assertion, your proof?not that you can produce any?of course?
Thanks?
The wow for "by" puts the word following it in the state of nasb. That's how you can tell. The wow is therefore majroor there. For tasreef, how many patterns?
-
And?.where is your reference??
How many times do I have to ask for you to reference your objections??
It is not beyond Muslims to just make one up?when they obviously don?t have one to buttress their position?
What?s it going to be??
You just continue to show your ignorance. Do you even know what nasb is? Or how it's reflected? For references,
Hidayat an nahw
A grammar of the Arabic Language-wright
sharh ibn iqeel
Tasreef, how many patterns???????? Also, give me one scholar in any prominent university who agrees with your translation. Everyone should email Kristen Brustad at Emory to get her opinion. She's a noted scholar of Arabic, and has authored books on learning Arabic. There's another reference.You could email Fred Donner at U of Chicago as well
-
And?.where is your reference??
How many times do I have to ask for you to reference your objections??
It is not beyond Muslims to just make one up?when they obviously don?t have one to buttress their position?
What?s it going to be??
You don't seem to have any knowledge of Arabic. You don't even need a reference to see this. Ism's in Arabic have certain endings which describe which grammatical state they are in. The state of nasb is caused only by majroors, and mudaf ilayhi. The argument can be reversed too. This is how we know that the wow in that verse is a majroor. This is all very simple.
-
Greetings cathedral,
Thanks for your multiple replies to my single question.
Since you answered the same question twice?which one would you like for me to address?or both, as you apparently wanted to change your answer?perhaps in your obvious haste...
Wrong, both are valid.
Is this a book that you own, or is it one that you ?googled? off the web??
Classical, or Modern Arabic??
The fact that you don't know only shows your ignorance more.
Here is my understanding of ?wa??
= ?wa?
?wa? definition
An inseparable prefixed conjunction; and; also; but; whilst, at; together; with; together with. It is used as a conjunction, unrestricted conjunction, and is expressive of concomitance, particle used for swearing (by God).
Again, you simply ignore everything I said, and you do not know Arabic. Let's do this slowly. What is nasb? What does majroor mean? How is the state of nasb reflected? Another big problem is that none of the authors of the various dictionaries you quote would agree with your translation.
Thus, rendering as I did is completely in keeping with proper exegesis
Again, you do not even know the basics of Arabic. Tasreef, how many patterns? What is a majroor?????? How is nasb reflected? How many grammatical states exist in Arabic?
Furthermore?I can?t wait for you to tell us how this in any way, shape, or form, negates the message contained in my exegesis of sura 89?
Again, you do not know Arabic, so there is no exegesis. To go further, this
Here is my understanding of ?wa??
= ?wa?
?wa? definition
An inseparable prefixed conjunction; and; also; but; whilst, at; together; with; together with. It is used as a conjunction, unrestricted conjunction, and is expressive of concomitance, particle used for swearing (by God).
That only shows your ignorance more. It states that wa can be a particle used for swearing. Guess what particles do in Arabic? They cause the following word to enter the state of nasb, and again, this is how we know the wow there is not a conjunction, but a particle. The word following it is in the state of nasb. Please tell us how we know that.
-
If you take the time to review Khalifa, Pickthal, & Shakir, they all render ?wa? as ?and??
So?right from the start, you have no reference to stand on.
Interesting stance. Here's 3 translations of the first few verses of surah 89
PICKTHAL By the Dawn
SHAKIR I swear by the daybreak,089.002
YUSUFALI By the Nights twice five;
PICKTHAL And ten nights,
SHAKIR And the ten nights,089.003
YUSUFALI By the even and odd (contrasted);
PICKTHAL And the Even and the Odd,
SHAKIR And the even and the odd,089.004
YUSUFALI And by the Night when it passeth away;-
PICKTHAL And the night when it departeth,
SHAKIR And the night when it departs.Here's Khalifa's translation
891] By the dawn.
And the ten nights.*
By the even and the odd.*
By the night as it passes.
So I guess by your logic your whole translation has no "reference" to stand on?
-
Here's another translation, by Muhammad Asad
V1) CONSIDER the daybreak
(2) and the ten nights!*
- The "daybreak" (fajr) apparently symbolizes man's spiritual awakening; hence, the "ten nights" is an allusion to the last third of the month of Ramadan, in the year 13 before the hijrah, during which Muhammad received his first revelation (see introductory note to surah 96) and was thus enabled to contribute to mankind's spiritual awakening.
(3) Consider the multiple and the One!*
- Lit., "the even and the odd" or "the one" i.e., the multiplicity of creation as contrasted with the oneness and uniqueness of the Creator (Baghawi, on the authority of Sa?id ibn al-Khudri, as well as Tabari in one of his alternative interpretations of the above phrase). The concept of the "even number" implies the existence of more than one of the same kind in other words, it signifies every thing that has a counterpart or counterparts and, hence, a definite relationship with other things (cf. the term azwaj in 3636, referring to the polarity evident in all creation), As against this, the term al-watr - or, in the more common (Najdi) spelling, al-witr - primarily denotes "that which is single" or "one" and is, hence, one of the designations given to God - since "there is nothing that could be compared with Him" (1124) and "nothing like unto Him" (4211).
(4) Consider the night as it runs its course!*
Here is another one, by Hilal, and Khan
89.1 . By the Dawn
89.2 . And ten nights ,
89.3 . And the Even and the Odd ,
89.4 . And the night when it departeth
The translations by Arberry, Rodwell and Palmer all translate the verses similarly. In fact, other than you, who else translates surah 89 like you do? I'm pretty sure the answer is zero.
-
Well?you are the one wanting to pigeon-hole your whole argument on the definition of a prefixed conjunction.
Showing your ignorance again. The wow is not prefixed, as the wow cannot connect to letters coming after it.
All the while, and after repeated requests to reference your objection, you still decline?preferring to continue on lambasting numerous redd herrings.
Maybe you can be more specific. As it is now, what you've stated is incomprehensible.
Are you going to admit that ?wa? can be rendered as ?and??as I amply demonstrated to you?or do you now want to turn to other ?authors?..?
I never said wow can't mean "and". I said when the word coming after it is in the state of nasb, then wow is majroor. How does an ism reflect nasb???????
Amazing?you cannot even get off the definition of a prefixed conjunction?.nor can you even reference it?much less refute any other part of my exegesis?
It's very simple. You have zero grasp of Arabic, and that's why you are not to be taken seriously.
Wait?so now my references are valid?.?
When did I say they weren't? I stated that you were ignorant of Arabic, which is simply a fact.
Quote
Guess what particles do in Arabic? They cause the following word to enter the state of nasb, and again, this is how we know the wow there is not a conjunction, but a particle. The word following it is in the state of nasb. Please tell us how we know that.So?now you want ?wa? to be swearing by the three nights?.?
Talk about a moving target?.
Huh??????? Please, from the quote that you gave, tell me how you came to the that conclusion. I stated that wow when used as a particle causes the next word to enter the state of nasb, very simple. I'll be posting what recognized scholars think of your translation soon.
-
Another wonderful discourse in Al- Mizan, this one discussing the absurdity of the trinity.
Al-Mizan Discourses
In The Name of Allah, the Beneficent and the Most Merciful
Section Qur'anic Discourses
Topic Arguments of the Qur'an against the belief of Trinity
It is not meet for a man that Allah should give him the Book and the Judgment and Prophethood, then he should say to men "Be my servants rather than Allah's;" but rather (he would say) "Be worshippers of the Lord because of your teaching the Book and your reading (it yourselves)". Or that he should enjoin you that you should take the angels and the prophets for lords; what! would he enjoin you with unbelief after you are Muslims (Submitting Ones)? (Qur'an, 379-80)
Coming to the belief of trinity, the Qur'an refutes it in two ways
First The general method, i.e. showing that it is impossible for Allah to take a son for Himself, no matter whether the presumed son be 'Isa (a.s.) or someone else.
Second The particular method, i.e. describing that 'Isa (a.s.) son of Maryam was neither a son of God nor God; that he was but a servant created by Allah.
First Method What is the quiddity of sonship and birth? What do these words really mean? A living material thing (like man, animal or vegetable) separates from itself a portion of its own matter, then gradually develops it until it becomes another individual of the same species similar to its parent; the offspring has the same characteristics and traits as the parent body had. An animal separates semen from its body, or a plant removes a seed from from itself, then it preserves and grows the semen or seed gradually until it becomes another animal or plant similar to its parent. This is what sonship and birth mean. It is no secret that such a thing is impossible for Allah
First Because it needs a physical material body; and Allah is far above matter and its concomitants without which matter cannot exist like motion, time, space and other such things.
Second To Allah belongs absolute Divinity and Lordship; consequently, He has absolute authority over, and total management of, all things in His hand. Every thing is in need of Him to bring it into existence, and depends on Him for its continuity. It is just impossible to imagine a thing similar to Allah in "species" - a thing having the identity, attributes and characteristics similar to those of Allah and independent of Him.
Third If Allah could beget or give birth to a son, it would entail graduality of action for Allah. In other words, He would be governed by the laws of matter and movement; and it is contradiction in term, because whatever takes place by His Will comes into being at once without delay, without graduality.
The above explanations are inferred from the words of Allah And they say ''Allah has taken to Himself a son." Glory be to Him; rather, whatever is in the heavens and the earth is HIs; all are obedient to Him. The Originator of the heavens and the earth; and when He decrees an affair, He only says to it, "Be", and it is (2116-117).
As we have explained above, the words, Glory be to Him, are a complete proof; the clause, whatever is in the heavens and the earth is His; all are obedient to Him, is another proof; and the verse, The Originator of the heavens and the earth; and when He decrees an affair, He only says to it "Be", and it is, is a third proof.
It is also possible to take the clause, The Originator of the heavens and the earth, as a allegorical expression in which the attribute of the object has been transferred to the subject. In other words, the clause may denote that the heavens and the earth are original in their creation and design; Allah has created them without any previous model. Therefore, He cannot beget anyone, otherwise it would be a creation on His own model. (After all the Christians believe that the Son is one with the Father). In that case this clause would be an independent proof by itself.
The Christians generally use the sentence, 'the Messiah is the Son of God', in a somewhat allegorical sense, and not in its literal meaning. They expand the meaning of sonship. Probably, it means separation of a thing from another of similar quiddity without physical and material division and without graduality. This interpretation may remove the problems of body, materiality and graduality. Yet, the problem of similarity will remain unsolved.
The problem of similarity may be described thus Evidently, to believe in God the Father and God the Son is to believe in number, in real plurality, even if we suppose that the Father and the Son are one in "species" or quiddity, both belong to the homosapien species; but they are in fact more than one because they are two individual human beings. Now, if we suppose that God is one, then all other things (including the Son) would be "no-God"; they would be owned by God and dependent on Him; consequently the putative son would not be a God like Him. On the other hand, if we suppose a son similar to God, free of, not dependent on, Him, then it would invalidate and negate the Oneness of God.
This exposition is found in the following words of Allah and say not, "Three". Desist, it is better for you; Allah is only one God; far be it from His glory that He should have a son; whatever is in the heavens and whatever is in the earth is His; and Allah is sufficient for a Protector (4171).
Second Method 'Isa (a.s.) son of Maryam could not be a son of God sharing Godhead with Him, because he was a human being having all the concomitants of humanity.
The Messiah (a.s.) was conceived by Maryam and grew up in her womb; then she brought him forth as women give birth to their children, and brought him up, as a child is brought up by his mother. He grew up proceeding through normal stages from infancy to childhood, from youth to middle age. All this time, his condition was like any other normal human being in march of life. He was governed by all normal accidents and conditions undergone by other men. He was hungry and satiated; felt joy and sorrow; was pleased and displeased; affected by delight and pain, comfort and discomfort; he ate and drank, slept and woke up, was tired and rested etc.
This was the condition of ?Isa (a.s.) when he was among the people. Doubtlessly a person having such characteristics is just like a mortal man like any other member of his species. As such he, like all other human beings, was a creature made by Allah.
Now, let us look at the miracles and supernatural things that happened on his hand, like giving life to dead bodies, creating the birds and healing the blind and leper. Also, there are extraordinary signs related to his birth, that is, his conception without father. All these things are supernatural, against the normal custom which people are familiar with; yet they are unfamiliar because of their rarity, not because they are impossible. There was Adam who by evidence of the heavenly Books was created from dust and had no father. And here are the prophets, for example Salih, Ibrahim and Musa (peace be upon them) on whose hand so many miraculous signs had appeared (which are mentioned in revealed scriptures). But nobody thinks that those miracles negated their humanity or proved their divinity.
This method has been used in the verses Certainly they disbelieve who say "Surely Allah is the third (Person) of the three"; and there is no god but One God,?. The Messiah, son of Maryam is but an apostle; apostles before him have indeed passed away; and his mother was a truthful woman, they both used to eat food. See how We make the signs clear to them, then behold how they are turned away (573 ? 75).
Eating food has been specially selected for mention in preference to other activities, because it rather more forcefully proves his materiality and shows his neediness and wants, which cannot be combined with Godhead. Obviously a person who by his nature feels hunger and thirst and satisfies it with a morsel of food and a cup of water, is nothing but an embodiment of poverty and need ? a need that cannot be removed without help of some extraneous agent. How can such a man be God? What is the meaning of such divinity? A man surrounded by needs, depending for their fulfillment on something outside his own being, is deficient in himself, and managed by some other than himself. He cannot be self-sufficient god; rather he shall be a creature who is looked after by the Lord ? the Lord Who has His creatures? affairs in His Own Hand. The verse 517 may possibly be explained in this light Certainly they disbelieve who say "Surely Allah ? He is the Messiah, son of Maryam". Say "Who then could control any thing as against Allah when He wished to destroy the Messiah, son of Maryam and his mother and all those on the earth?" And Allah?s is the kingdom of the heavens and the earth and what is between them; He creates what He pleases; and Allah has power over all things.
The same is the case with the verse (coming after 575 quoted above) addressing the Christians Say "Do you worship besides Allah that which does not control for you any harm, or any profit?" And Allah ? He is the Hearing, the Knowing (576).
The basis and theme of such arguments is this ?Isa (a.s.), as is seen from his condition and affairs, lived according to, and was governed by, the natural law which permeates a man?s life. He had all the attributes, did all the deeds, and underwent all the conditions which a human being does; like eating, drinking, fulfilling all other human needs, showing all the characteristics of the human race. Also this material involvement, these physical attributes were real; not an illusion or imagination. ?Isa (a.s.), was a real man who had those natural attributes, conditions and actions. The Gospels contain many verses in which he calls himself man and son of man; are full of the stories of his eating, drinking, sleeping, walking, travelling, tiring, speaking and many such things, which cannot be explained away, nor can they be interpreted otherwise. This being the case, the position of the Messiah would be the same as that of other human beings; he did not own or control any affair of the others, and he could be destroyed like others.
The same is the implication of his prayers and invocations; no doubt that he worshipped Allah, his intention being to reach nearer to Allah; with humbleness and humility to the sublimity and majesty of Allah; certainly it was not for the purpose of teaching others how to pray or for any other such aim.
The verse 4172 arguing against ?Isa?s supposed divinity points to his prayer Allah says The Messiah by no means disdain that he should be a servant of Allah, nor do the angels who are near to Him, and whoever disdains His worship and is proud, He will gather them all together to Himself. ?Isa?s service and worship is the first and foremost proof that he was not God and that he no share in Godhead which is reserved for the One other than him. How can a man put himself in the position of servitude to himself? How can he be the slave of himself? How can a thing be self-sufficient in the same framework in which it is dependent on someone else? The answer is clear In no way.
Likewise, the worship of the angels clearly shows that they are not Allah?s daughters. Nor is the Holy Ghost a God, because they are all worshippers of Allah and obedient to Him. Allah says And they say "The Beneficent God has taken to Himself a son." Glory be to Him. Nay! They are honored servants; they do not precede Him in speech and (only) according to His commandment do they act. He knows what is before them and what is behind them, and they do not intercede except for him whom He approves, and for fear of Him they tremble (2126 ? 2.
Moreover, the Gospels contain verses showing that the Spirit or Ghost is obedient to Allah and His messengers, following their commands, acting on their orders. There is no sense in saying that a thing orders itself or obeys itself, or that it accepts and acts on the orders of its own creatures (i.e., messengers).
In the same way as ?Isa?s worship of Allah proves that ?Isa was not Allah, his call to the people to worship Allah proves it; as the verse points to it Certainly they disbelieve who say "Surely Allah, He is the Messiah, son of Maryam". And the Messiah said "O Children of Israel! Worship Allah, my Lord and your Lord, surely whoever associates (others) with Allah, then Allah has forbidden to him the garden, and his abode is the fire; and there shall be no helpers for the unjust" (572). The method of argument used in this verse is self-evident.
Although the Gospels do not contain such comprehensive sentence as, "worship Allah, my Lord and your Lord", they are full of sayings calling people to Allah and to His worship; he repeatedly declares that Allah is his Lord in Whose Hand is the management of his affairs; he openly says that Allah is the Lord of the people; and never invites them to his own worship ? in spite of his reported saying "I and my Father are one" (John 1030). If we accept that it is a correct reporting, then, all things taken together, it must mean my obedience is Allah?s obedience; thus, it shall have the same connotation as the verse of the Qur?an Whoever obeys the Messenger, he indeed obeys Allah (480).
-
Greetings cathedral,
Remember that double posting is against forum rules.
Furthermore, you cannot seem to stick to the theme of any thread...another violation...
Thanks...
-
Translation
You will continue to slavishly post redd herring webpaste?.
What does nasb mean?????????? Also, tasreef, how many patterns? Your translation, who else agrees with it? Out of the translations of the Qur'an I've ever seen, I've never seen one remotely similar to yours. I suggest everyone email scholars of Arabic at recognized universities for their opinions of Apple's translation. Here are some passages of the Bible. I'll also quote from various sites.
Deuteronomy 22
28 If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered, 29 he shall pay the girl's father fifty shekels of silver. He must marry the girl, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives.
The following passage shows that slaves are clearly property to be bought and sold like livestock.
However, you may purchase male or female slaves from among the foreigners who live among you. You may also purchase the children of such resident foreigners, including those who have been born in your land. You may treat them as your property, passing them on to your children as a permanent inheritance. You may treat your slaves like this, but the people of Israel, your relatives, must never be treated this way. (Leviticus 2544-46 NLT)
The following passage describes how the Hebrew slaves are to be treated.
If you buy a Hebrew slave, he is to serve for only six years. Set him free in the seventh year, and he will owe you nothing for his freedom. If he was single when he became your slave and then married afterward, only he will go free in the seventh year. But if he was married before he became a slave, then his wife will be freed with him. If his master gave him a wife while he was a slave, and they had sons or daughters, then the man will be free in the seventh year, but his wife and children will still belong to his master. But the slave may plainly declare, 'I love my master, my wife, and my children. I would rather not go free.' If he does this, his master must present him before God. Then his master must take him to the door and publicly pierce his ear with an awl. After that, the slave will belong to his master forever. (Exodus 212-6 NLT)
The following passage describes the sickening practice of sex slavery. How can anyone think it is moral to sell your own daughter as a sex slave?
When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she will not be freed at the end of six years as the men are. If she does not please the man who bought her, he may allow her to be bought back again. But he is not allowed to sell her to foreigners, since he is the one who broke the contract with her. And if the slave girl's owner arranges for her to marry his son, he may no longer treat her as a slave girl, but he must treat her as his daughter. If he himself marries her and then takes another wife, he may not reduce her food or clothing or fail to sleep with her as his wife. If he fails in any of these three ways, she may leave as a free woman without making any payment. (Exodus 217-11 NLT)
What does the Bible say about beating slaves? It says you can beat both male and female slaves with a rod so hard that as long as they don't die right away you are cleared of any wrong doing.
When a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod so hard that the slave dies under his hand, he shall be punished. If, however, the slave survives for a day or two, he is not to be punished, since the slave is his own property. (Exodus 2120-21 NAB)
Christians who are slaves should give their masters full respect so that the name of God and his teaching will not be shamed. If your master is a Christian, that is no excuse for being disrespectful. You should work all the harder because you are helping another believer by your efforts. Teach these truths, Timothy, and encourage everyone to obey them. (1 Timothy 61-2 NLT)
I hope you found this post informative.
Thanks
-
Double posts are ignored...
Be an adult and start a new thread with your insecurities...
This is a Cosmology thread.
Thanks...