Since the thread the discusssion began in has no relevance to the topic subject, I decided to create a new one for it.



You have proven nothing. The only thing you have proven, in this entire time, is that for someone who is uninformed, you sure consider yourself to be worthy of understanding the Qur'an, its history, or its language.

Also, look at chapter 33 again. You quoted the wrong chapter. Hint: It starts out speaking of the hypocrites and disbelievers and not whatever you were speaking of earlier.

Do you know the Qur'an beyond what you see in the translated copy you have sitting at home? Have you studied it? You say the content of the Qur'an is "out of the blue", but is it really out of the blue or are you so misguided by your ignorance that you judge the verses purely based on what little resources you've managed to scrape together? As I stated, learning things on your own is no substitute for a real classroom experience, with a teacher there to teach you. The Qur'an is a literary work of art and anyone who studies it (especially those who do it in its true language) can clearly see this for an undisputed fact.

Your failure to understand the Qur'an and keep up with its refreshing pace is so glaringly evident in your attempts to critique its content. How is it that a layman (which is exactly what you are in this situation) could possibly ever consider himself to be qualified to speak of things that he has no idea about?

Here's the message I'm getting from you: "I know my Bible so I'm going to judge the style of the Qur'an exactly according to its standards!" Yeah, you're definitely someone we should be listening to!



Not to worry, I got it covered.



How I wish we had a Jew in this debate. I'd love to hear what he thinks of this.

Salam.

Nakdimon,



You have to ask why??! Because, the verses are found IN THE QURAN, so we take the definition of the words ACCORDING TO ISLAM. This should be obvious. When I interpret a verse from the Bible, I use the Christian definition of the terms used! The concept of a god in Islam is obviously a bit different than the concept of a god in Christianity. Therefore when the Quran says "a god/gods" we use the Islamic definition. What you are attempting to do is like taking a word in English, then using a French dictionary to define it, which is absurd: just use the English dictionary!



Let's take a look at the verses in which some people have translated "three" as "trinity":


The first verse says, "... and say not, Three ...," and the second verse says "... they disbelieve who say: Surely Allah is the third (person) of the three ... ." Nowhere are Mary nor Jesus mentioned as being two parts of the "three". All it says is that God is taken as a part of the three. If you want to translate "three" as "trinity", I don't see how that is a contradiction. Isn't God a part of the Trinity? That's what these verses say if you take "three" to mean "trinity".

Then there is this verse:

This verse does not mention "three" or "trinity" at all. It says that Mary and Jesus were taken as gods aside from God. Among the Christians of the East and, in fact, in and near Arabia were those called the Collyridians, who explicitly worshipped Mary. However, even without this explicit worship of Mary by admission of the Christians themselves, what some Christians do today would still be considered worship by Islamic standards. And since we are talking about the Quran, we should stick to Islamic definitions of terms. (Remember, English language, use English dictionary, so, Islamic scripture, use Islamic definitions.)



Actually the fact that things like "Mariology", "Mother of God", the "Marianum", and "Marian apparitions" exist in Christian theology is a testament to the fact that Mary is considered very important in Christianity - much more so that the Saints. And yes, if these Saints are prayed to by people asking them for mercy, blessing, etc, then they are taking the Saints as gods as well (according to the Islamic definition of god, which is appropriate here, since we are talking about the Quran, and it is an Islamic scripture).



Actually, it seems that you do not know Christianity well enough. Perhaps you do not pray to Mary to the extent she becomes a god, but certainly there have been and today are Christians (specially Roman Catholics) who do that.



No, if you read carefully, what Ibn Kathir says is that "As-Suddi and others said that ... ." That simply means "As-Suddi and others" were probably wrong about their conclusion that Mary is part of the Trinity, and has nothing to do with the accuracy of the Quran.

Aren't we speaking of the Qur'an itself? Isn't that the subject of debate here?



You claim that Allah had no right to accuse Christians of worshipping Mary. I stated that the things people do and have done when it comes to Mary is worship in the face of Allah.



If I murder a man and claim that I was simply sparing him of experiencing the agonies and despairs of life, does that make it any less of murder? Christians like yourself might claim that Mary has never been worshipped. You might claim that prayers that ask for her intercession and mercy, statues and drawings depicting her holiness, people praying to those statues, and people calling her the "Mother of God" are not forms of worship, but as I've said, they are. The rules of worship are created by Allah, and by his standards anyone who has done any of the four things above and more is guilty of worshipping Mary.



Then show me any place in which they specifically state "This is referring to the concept of trinity in Christianity". Nothing you've quoted so far has stated thus, you are pulling at straws and trying to make things sound like something they don't.



In other words, let's twist the words of not only the Qur'an, but the "bigshots" of Islam. Great plan.



In your die-hard quest against the Qur'an, you will overlook the most minor of details and twist anything to make it sound like whatever your agenda is.




Illogic. Let me summarize my point in easy-to-follow steps.

1) The "holy spirit" is not mentioned because the reputation and status of Mary takes priority over it.
2) Saints aren't mentioned because the reputation and status of Mary take priority over them.
3) Why? Because she birthed a messenger of Allah without being touched by a man and not only that, but she is one of Allah's most pious and devoted servants.

Stay with me here! People worship thousands upon thousands of things. They worshipped a messenger of Allah and his mother. Both play incredibly big roles in humanity. Allah makes it clear that treating them as gods is a bigger issue than the treatment of saints, the holy spirit, or anything else that people decide to worship.



Your conclusions are horrible because the premise is always illogical. You should refrain from arriving at conclusions.

You have no idea about the teachings of Islam or the Qur'an.



And because of your biased background, you believe that it was intended to speak of "three in one".



“Hail, holy Queen, Mother of Mercy! Our life, our sweetness and our hope! To thee do we cry, poor banished children of Eve. To thee do we send up our sighs, mourning and weeping, in this valley of tears. Turn, then, most gracious Advocate, thine eyes of mercy toward us; and after this our exile show unto us the blessed fruit of thy womb, Jesus. O clement, O loving, O sweet Virgin Mary.”

Pope Pius IX: “Our salvation is based upon the holy Virgin... so that if there is any hope and spiritual healing for us we receive it solely and uniquely from her.” [Essentials of Evangelical Theology, Volume 1, Page 196]

As brother cefarix stated, look at the page on "Sub tuum praesidium". This is English translated from Greek:

Beneath your compassion,
We take refuge, O Theotokos:
do not despise our petitions in time of trouble:
but rescue us from dangers,
only pure, only blessed one.

People call her the Mother of God and the Queen of Heaven. There were and still are those who believe that she is the figure of "the Goddess" which existed as Isis, Artemis, Demeter and other powerful female deities. She has shrines and temples built to her and people make pilgrimage to such places and pray to her. Look for hymns and prayers dedicated to Mary, they are prevalent on the internet and there is nothing to suggest that this is a new phenomena.



How predictable of you to assume that they did not simply substitute the literal word "three" for a word that is more fitting for the description of a group of three. Refer to the dictionary; the word "trinity" is not used in Christianity alone.

The Arabic word used is "Thalatatu" which means three. Just as Ibn Kathir intrepreted it as such:

(Say not: "Three!") do not elevate `Isa and his mother to be gods with Allah. Allah is far holier than what they attribute to Him. In Surat Al-Ma'idah (chapter 5), Allah said,

Let me mention something that you probably never considered. The work of Ibn Kathir was done in Arabic. Everything we see is a translation of what he has written. The same goes for Qurtubi and Tabari (though I trust Tabari to a lesser extent, which isn't any fault of his). Keep that in mind the next time you nitpick at a word; it doesn't necessarily mean that the word used in Arabic is identical to it. So give credit to the translator of his work, and not Ibn Kathir himself.



I notice you failed to answer the question. If Allah were to have a biological son and He neither fathers nor births the child, then how can you call such a child the begotten of Allah? If He simply creates a human being, then that human being would be His creation, wouldn't it? In our understanding of the study of reproduction, yes it would. Predictably, you would attempt to answer this in your Christian concept of the birth of Jesus but if we were to use beget or procreate as they really mean, you would be stumped.

Perhaps there is a mysterious answer to this question, one that defies all logic and turns our human cognition and intellectual capabilities upside down. Such a paradox is similar to that of "If God can do everything, can He create a rock that He cannot lift?".

Whether or not Allah is able to achieve such a thing is not our concern. Our concern is that since offsprings come from mothers and fathers and Allah has no partner or anyone anywhere near His level, then He has not fathered any children. In human perspective, it is illogical to claim He has begotten children and neglect to mention who the mother is. Because all offsprings come from a mother.

Go ahead and try answering those paradoxes. It will be interesting, to say the least.



You are oblivious to the wisdom of Allah's words and actions. What you see as "obvious" is nothing but a failure to understand the deeper meanings and contexts.



Insulting Islam, the Qur'an, prophet Muhammad, any of the prophets, or Allah is not tolerated on the forum.



Tell me that you can't possibly be this neglectful.

Your words: It clearly says that Jesus Mary and Allah are the Trinity according to christians.

Ibn Kathir: Mujahid and several others said that this Ayah was revealed about the Christians in particular. As-Suddi and others said that this Ayah was revealed about taking `Isa and his mother as gods besides Allah, thus making Allah the third in a trinity.

The person who translated Ibn Kathir's work (let's not neglect this little factor, I don't want to say Ibn Kathir used the word "trinity" since He wrote his work in Arabic) wrote "a trinity". Grammatically, "the Trinity" =/= "a trinity". According to my Merriam-webster dictionary, trinity means "a group of three". A triad. It is when you capitalize the first letter that it becomes a proper noun and therefore refers only to a specific thing.

Let's not overlook details.

According to who? To your own definition of the word "son"? Show me where it says in any dictionary that "son" or even "grandson" means "direct descendant".

In any case, this is a side-issue and is irrelevant. I have no interest in disproving the Bible, as I've said before. I was only showing you that words being used non-literally happens even in your book, not implying that the Bible had erred.



According to the Qur'an? Or the Bible? Are you using the Bible's storyline to back up your claims again?



Absolutely no interest in the Bible, and any consequent debates about it. We began these discussions because you claimed that the Qur'an contradicts itself. You keep straying off the subject. If you believe that the Qur'an contradicts the Bible, such a discussion is of no interest to me. Because it would mean that I would have to go out of my way to attack the religion of another person and I don't work in such ways.

I'll gladly debate the Qur'an. On the condition that we focus only on its content and the relevance it has to Islam.



I read every word you say, reply to every word that I feel deserves attention, and discard what doesn't. If you start off speaking of the Bible and then the rest of your paragraph is stories from the Bible, I have no reason to quote anything beyond the premise or conclusion.

If you don't like it, I really can't help you there.



Then neither of us shall bring it up from this moment forth. Any interest I show in learning about the Bible will be negative and I don't consider it good form to learn about a religion purely for the sake of trying to disprove it to its followers.



Logically speaking, when two religious people are engaged in these types of debates, neither will concede an argument not because of pride or anything of the sort, but because they don't see eye to eye.

In any case, prove that what you say is truth. Because you certainly haven't.



Before you do, go over the forum rules and try to keep them in mind when you make posts.

Salam.

Thanks for mentioning that also. This means that Nakdimon is wrong on three accounts.

1) He assumes that Ibn Kathir accepted the explanation given on the page. Obviously not, that segment was narrated from As-Suddi and others. Ibn Kathir was simply noting their opinions.
2) Did As-Suddi SAY "Trinity"? No, he didn't. He spoke Arabic and so did Ibn Kathir.
3) Did the translator of Ibn Kathir's tafsir say "Trinity" or "the Trinity"? No, he said "a trinity" which is an English word that means a group of three.

Salam.

Yes, Allah probably thought it necessary to jump into the affair of Zaynab bint Jash and Zayd bin Muhammad, who, after this aya, was re-named bin Haritha, because people probably were speaking against Muhammad for marrying Zayd’s (at that time his adopted son) wife. In retaliation, Allah turns against those people and call them hypocrites. That’s the prologue of the real issue; marriage of the spouses of adopted children. In case you unjustly attack me again and call me ignorant, I have the backing of the tafsirs of Jalalayn and Ibn Kathir. Unless you think they are as ignorant as I am, you simply are going to have to admit that you are in error.




You attacking me like this says more about you then it does about me. I always try to take caution not to misrepresent the Islamic position, since that will always do more damage then it does any good. So I check with the ahadith and the tafsirs before I make a claim against Islam. As must be pretty obvious by now, I have done just that in all instances. But apparently that is not appreciated either. So instead of refuting my claims, you start to attack my persona. However, these are your sources I am quoting. If you don’t like them, then deal with them and don’t attack me.



Request granted. You are debating one. I happen to be a Messianic Jew and have debated Orthodox Jews on numerous occasions about the atonement system in the Torah. Even the biblical calendar points to the sacrificial atonement and all the events that are depicted in the New Testament. If you wish to have an Orthodox Jew about this topic I suggest you go to the Messiah Truth forum. They know me very well there.



This way you can come up with any accusation and blame people for anything. The best way to know how people think about things is to ask them themselves. Not to accuse people of things because you feel that this is so. Even if Mary has been worshipped, she was never a god besides the God of the Bible and therefore, this question of Allah is totally irrelevant. Or are you going to claim that Islam determines the terms of a “god” too?



The text says “one of three”. Three what? Three sticks, stones or gods? If three sticks, then it doesn’t make sense, if three stones then it doesn’t make sense. If three gods then it still doesn’t make any sense, since followers of Yeshua never believed in three gods! They believe in ONE God, ONE Being with THREE Persons/Forms of revelations. (just like the human being is soul, body and spirit, only with God it is infinitely more complex) So no matter how you slice it, the Quran is in error, since a) if this is NOT about the Trinity it must be pointed out that we don’t believe in three gods b) we don’t believe Mary is a god and c) if it IS about the Trinity, then Mary is not a part of the Trinity. Again, are you saying that Jalalayn, Ibn Kathir, the translators of the Noble Qur’an (who claim that they speak in the authority of Tabari, Kathir, Qurtubi and Bukhari), Yusuf Ali and Khalifa, which all understand this referring to the Trinity, are all ignorant of what the text of the Quran is trying to convey? If so, then based on what do you draw that conclusion?



I guess that this is supposed to be your escape clause? Even if “God” is part of the Trinity, then Mary still isn’t and thus the Quran is in error.




I guess you didn’t notice that this sect was considered a heretical sect? That this wasn’t a widespread teaching in either Christian or quasi-Christian groups? And that there is no evidence that this group even still existed in the sixth or seventh century? Let me ask you this question in contrast: Would it be accurate if I would say that muslims believe that Abu Bakr usurped the authority when Ali should have been Muhammad’s successor? Or attribute a list of beliefs of small insignificant Islamic sects to Muslims in general? (Remember, if word of French origin is used in an English dictionary, the original meaning of the word in French is also applied in the English language, so, if Islam claims to be the perpetuation of true Judaism/Christianity, the concept of worship in Islam should not deviate from the concept previously held)




Let me put it up for you again:
(Surely, they have disbelieved who say: "Allah is the third of three.") Mujahid and several others said that this Ayah was revealed about the Christians in particular. As-Suddi and others said that this Ayah was revealed about taking `Isa and his mother as gods besides Allah, thus making Allah the third in a trinity. As-Suddi said, "This is similar to Allah's statement towards the end of the Surah,

Ibn Kathir is speaking in the authority of As-Suddi and clearly endorsing this claim of As-Suddi. He does this all the time. He even uses As-Suddi’s reference “to Allah’s statement towards the end of the Surah.” For why would Ibn Kathir repeat what As-Suddi said, think his claim is incorrect and not correct him? Obviously, you don’t like what is being said here and you try hard not to admit error.



Redeem, you first accused me of being ignorant of what the Quran says, then you accuse me of misapplying the texts and when I give you the most revered scholars and leading Islamic English sources, proving you wrong, then you switch tactic and demand something that you know I will not find. I don’t have to show you where it says "This is referring to the concept of trinity in Christianity". The only faith with the doctrine of the Trinity is found in Christianity and since the Quran is addressing the very people that are prominent in Christianity, one doesn’t have to be a rocket scientist to know that this is about the Trinity in Christianity. You are obviously denying the obvious. Your sources simply point to the Christian teaching of the Trinity and therefore there is no need to look for your demanded quote. What you are trying to make me believe is that the Quran mentions Yeshua and Miryam, your commentators and translations mention the Trinity, but yet this has nothing to do with the “concept of trinity in Christianity.” Sure.

I have shown I haven’t twisted anything and I have dealt with the so-called “minor details” and they show that you don’t want to acknowledge what they say. They clearly point to the Trinity, in fact they mention it. With all the references to “Three”, “Isa”, “Maryam”, “Trinity”, “Christians”, you still claim that I am the one twisting the meaning of the Quran. That’s really the world upside down.



This I don’t agree on. Worship is worship. If worshipping anything but Allah is grievous in his sight, then the worship of any saint should be an abomination and therefore mentionable, whether it is Mary or Peter or Paul. Of course, my assertion still remain. Mary was chosen because the author thought that in the family of Father and Son, the Mother is lacking and therefore Surah 6:101 proclaims that Allah can’t have a son because he doesn’t have a wife. The evidence is abundantly clear.




So where is the reference of her being god? And doesn’t Allah mind the Holy Spirit being worshipped as God? Since this is the utterance of Allah in the end times and he doesn’t mention the Spirit.



So now it’s the translators’ fault? And they don’t have a clue what Ibn Kathir, Qurtubi and Tabari were saying, do they? But you do, don’t you? Again, With all the references to “Three”, “Isa”, “Maryam”, “Trinity”, “Christians”, you still claim that I am the one twisting the meaning of the Quran. Maybe you should credit those translators with the compliments you have appointed to me. Don’t blame me, blame your translators. If claim that they don’t give us the proper Islamic understanding, then you're basically saying their work is useless.




Since when does God have to abide by the laws of biology? Which is exactly my point. If Allah wants a woman to conceive a child which he chooses for himself to elevate him to the status of son-ship, then he would need a wife. This is how the Biblical teaching of the Son of God goes. But, of course, since the author of the Quran demonstrably had no clue about that entire concept, it gets it all wrong and thinks that Christians teach that the Son in Christianity is conceived through sexual intercourse between God and Mary. This is nothing like “Can He make a ####tail so big he can’t drink it?”



Oh, now the wisdom of Allah’s words are too deep for me. Well, maybe it’s too deep for the Islamic commentators as well. I have been falsely accused of being ignorant long enough now. I think I have the right to bite back a little. So let's take a closer look at how deep his wisdom goes:

Surah 5:20 says And (remember) when Mûsa (Moses) said to his people: "O my people! Remember the Favour of Allâh to you, when He made Prophets among you, made you kings, and gave you what He had not given to any other among the 'Alamîn (mankind and jinns, in the past)."
But since Moses was the first prophet that came to Israel and the first king (Saul) wouldn’t reign for generations after Moses, this is historically impossible and therefore couldn’t have been Moses’ words, could it? Or am I being too shallow?

How about Surah 4:157 which says And because of their saying (in boast), "We killed Messiah 'Iesa (Jesus), son of Maryam (Mary), the Messenger of Allâh," - but they killed him not, nor crucified him, …
But that would be like claiming that Muslims say “Isa, the Son of Allah, didn’t die on the cross”. That would be a false claim. This couldn’t be the saying of the mouths of the Muslims, since they detest the idea that Isa was the son of Allah. Likewise, the Jews that rejected him as the Messiah detest the idea that Yeshua was ever a prophet of God let alone the Messiah of Israel, they could have never said “We have killed the Messiah, Jesus, son of Mary, the messenger of Allah”, could they? And the verse goes on to say that we, who believe Yeshua did die are “full of doubts,” and have “no (certain) knowledge,” and follow nothing but “conjecture”. Yet, we unanimously declare what happened and it is the Muslims who don’t agree about it. Some Muslims say that Yehudah (Judas) was made in the likeness of Yeshua and captured and crucified, some say that it was someone else that was crucified than Yeshua or Yehudah, some even say that he was captured and put on the cross but kept alive by Allah and didn’t die. So who is “full of doubts,” and have “no (certain) knowledge,” and follow nothing but “conjecture”. Also, if this is talking about Jewish believers in Yeshua, it’s still untrue since they would never boast about it. Or does this analysis those my ignorance of facts?

There once was a Jewish rabbi who invented a story about the giving of the Covenant on Mt Sinai and he based this fable on, what he considered, the true account he found in the Bible. The fable is recorded in the Babylonian Talmud as such: "And they stood in the bottom of the mountain"-- This teaches that God overturned the mountain on them like a tub and said to them: "If you accept the Torah, fine. But if you don't, then here shall be your burial!" In the original story from the Bible, we don’t find any reference of a mountain lifted over the children of Israel.This is just something the rabbi made up. Ironically, we find this repeated as Allahs revelation in the Quran, Surah 2:63
And (O Children of Israel, remember) when We took your covenant and We raised above you the Mount (saying): "Hold fast to that which We have given you, and remember that which is therein so that you may become Al-Muttaqûn (the pious - see V.2:2). [Noble Quran]
Lest I be accused, again, of misrepresenting the Quran, here is Ibn Kathir’s exegesis on the verses from Al-Baqarah:
(And (remember) when We raised the mountain over them as if it had been a canopy, and they thought that it was going to fall on them. (We said): "Hold firmly to what We have given you (Tawrah), and remember that which is therein (act on its commandments), so that you may fear Allah and obey Him.'') (7:171).
The mount mentioned here is At-Tur, just as it was explained in Surat Al-A`raf, according to the Tafsir of Ibn `Abbas, Mujahid, `Ata', `Ikrimah, Al-Hasan, Ad-Dahhak, Ar-Rabi` bin Anas and others. This is more obvious. There is another report from Ibn `Abbas saying; `The Tur is a type of mountain that vegetation grows on, if no vegetation grows on it, it is not called Tur.' And in the Hadith about the trials, Ibn `Abbas said; "When they (the Jews) refused to obey, Allah raised the mountain above their heads so that they would listen.''

Here is Jalalayn:
And, mention, when We made a covenant with you, your pledge to act according to what is in the Torah, and We, had, raised above you the Mount, which We uprooted from the earth [and placed] above you when you refused to accept it [sc. the Torah], and We said, ‘Take forcefully, seriously and with effort, what We have given you, and remember what is in it, acting in accordance with it, so that you might preserve yourselves’, from the Fire or acts of disobedience.

Likewise, here is Ibn Abbas:
Allah then mentions the covenant He undertook with them, saying (And when We made a covenant with you) took your consent (and caused the Mount to tower above you) pulled out and fixed high above your heads the mountain for taking the covenant: (Hold fast that which We have given you) comply with what We have given of the scripture in earnestness and diligence, (and remember that which is therein) of reward and chastisement, and recollect what is in it of the lawful and unlawful, (that ye may ward off (evil)) in order that you may ward off Allah's wrath and torment and so that you may obey Him.

And there are much more examples like these. So how does the inventions of a rabbi parallel “Allah’s wisdom” and end up in the Qur’an? If you are going to claim that Allah inspired the rabbi, then you not only have to claim that each and every rabbi, whose quotes can be found in the Quran, was inspired by Allah, but you will have to claim that the Biblical accounts, upon which these rabbinic fairy tales are based, are uninspired texts, since they give us totally different accounts. Which would mean that the prophets mentioned in the Quran were uninspired and the rabbis were.

But since your prophet vindicates the Bible of any allegation of corruption, this position is untenable. Here are the vindications of your prophet from the ahadith:

Sunan Abu-Dawud, Book 38, Number 4434:
Narrated Abdullah Ibn Umar:
A group of Jews came and invited the Apostle of Allah (peace_be_upon_him) to Quff. So he visited them in their school.
They said: AbulQasim, one of our men has committed fornication with a woman; so pronounce judgment upon them. They placed a cushion for the Apostle of Allah (peace_be_upon_him) who sat on it and said: Bring the Torah. It was then brought. He then withdrew the cushion from beneath him and placed the Torah on it saying: I believed in thee and in Him Who revealed thee.

"Rafi b. Haritha and Sallam b. Mishkam and Malik b. al-Sayf and Rafi b. Huraymila came to him [Muhammad] and said: ‘Do you not allege that you follow the religion of Abraham and believe in the Torah which we have and testify that it is the truth from God?’ He replied, ‘CERTAINLY, but you have sinned and broken the covenant contained therein and concealed what you were ordered to make plain to men, and I dissociate myself from your sin.’ They said, ‘We hold by what we have. We live according to the guidance and the truth and we do not believe in you and we will not follow you.’ So God sent down concerning them: ‘Say, O Scripture folk, you have no standing until you observe the Torah and the Gospel and what has been sent down from your Lord. What has been sent down to thee from they Lord will assuredly increase many of them in error and unbelief. But be not sad because of the unbelieving people.’" (Ibid., p. 268)

"The Messenger married Umm Salamah. In this year also, the Prophet commanded Zayd bin Thabit to study the Book of the Jews, saying, 'I fear that they may change my Book.' In this year the polytheists were in charge of the Meccan Pilgrimage." Tabari VII:167

The first says that your prophet believed in the Torah they had there and then, no mention of corruption.
The second confirms that your prophet believed that the Torah that the Jews had there and then was the truth from God, again, no mention of corruption.
The third establishes that the Torah the Jews had back then was authentic, since the phrase “I fear they may change my Book” only makes sense if the Book wasn’t changed in the first place.

This poses a serious problem for the Muslims, since the Dead Sea Scrolls (dating from 200 BC) prove beyond a shadow of doubt that the Torah we have today is the same as Muhammad told Zayd to study in the seventh century, since the DSS almost matches the Masoretic Text verbatim. And one also has to ask himself that, if the Jewish people were accustomed to change their sacred texts whenever they saw fit, why there is not a plethora of difference between the Masoretic Text and the Dead Sea Scrolls? We have all these thousands of documents spread all over the world in almost every meaningful language from ancient history and the Muslims want to make everybody believe that all those documents have been changed almost simultaneously and collectively without missing a single document that would be able to serve as evidence that the Muslim claim of bible corruption is in any way valid.




Tell me that you can’t possibly be as much in denial as you are now. Tell me, if this is addressed to the followers of Yeshua, then what “trinity” is it referring to? What other “trinity” is there besides “the Trinity” in Christianity? If this is talking about another trinity then that of Christianity, then the Quran is still wrong, because there simply is no other trinity then “the Trinity”. And if it’s talking about “three gods” then it’s still wrong, since there is no such concept in Christianity. Surely Allah would know what Christians believe? Please explain yourself.

Nakdimon

Firstly, it is incredibly low of you to defend people who are condemned in the Qur'an as hypocrites and imply that Allah unjustly retaliated against them. Of course, judging purely based on how you've been acting thus far, I wouldn't be surprised if you decided that Allah was unfair even to Satan in your ill-begotten mission against Islam. This is the last warning I'm giving you: Spread any more lies and insults about the Qur'an, the Hadiths, Allah, or Muslims and I will report you.

Read the Surah again. You claim that the Surah starts off speaking of Zaynab. No, it doesn't.

Allow me to begin it for you:

Surah Al-Ahzab:

1. O Prophet! Have Taqwa of Allah, and obey not the disbelievers and the hypocrites. Verily, Allah is Ever All-Knower, All-Wise.
2. And follow that which is revealed to you from your Lord. Verily, Allah is Well-Acquainted with what you do.
3. And put your trust in Allah, and sufficient is Allah as a Trustee.

Does the beginning of the Surah contain anything about Zaynab?

You are also very wrong for claiming that Zayd's name was changed purely because people were "speaking out against Muhammad" for marrying Zayd's ex-wife. The verses themselves make it obvious why this was done.

4. Allah has not made for any man two hearts inside his body. Neither has He made your wives whom you declare to be like your mothers' backs, your real mothers nor has He made your adopted sons your real sons. That is but your saying with your mouths. But Allah says the truth, and He guides to the way.
5. Call them by their fathers, that is more just with Allah. But if you know not their father's, your brothers in faith and Mawalikum (your freed servants). And there is no sin on you concerning that in which you made a mistake, except in regard to what your hearts deliberately intend. And Allah is Ever Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful.

As it clearly says, Allah told them to call Zayd by his rightful name because it is more just. It is just to Zayd and it is just to the biological father of Zayd. Allah abrogated the pre-Islamic tradition of naming a child by its adoptive parent, because no child can have two fathers and the naming rights belong to the biological parent. An adopted child will continue the bloodline of his biological father, not that of the man who raised him.

Allah also made it clear that there are no rules prohibiting a man from marrying the divorced or widowed wife of the man he raises. He made an example of prophet Muhammad, which was the whole reason for the marriage between him and Zaynab.

37. And (remember) when you said to him on whom Allah has bestowed grace and you have done a favor: "Keep your wife to yourself, and have Taqwa of Allah.'' But you did hide in yourself that which Allah will make manifest, you did fear the people whereas Allah had a better right that you should fear Him. So, when Zayd had completed his aim with her, We gave her to you in marriage, so that there may be no difficulty to the believers in respect of the wives of their adopted sons when the latter have no desire to keep them. And Allah's command must be fulfilled.

Allah tells him that he was commanded to marry Zaynab so that other believers would know without a doubt that it is lawful. It was done with the intent of completely eradicating the tradition of adoption. Prophet Muhammad was preparing for a war against Al-Ahzab and was afraid that the hypocrites and the disbelievers would spread propoganda about this and he advised Zayd not to divorce Zaynab. Allah admonishes prophet Muhammad and tells him not to fear the people, regardless of what they claimed.

Now, did Allah call the so-called Muslims who were spreading these propogandas "hypocrites' purely because of this situation? No, he didn't. I'm betting you don't know who the hypocrites were, or you wouldn't be claiming such things.

They were those who openly claimed to follow Islam, but wished to do nothing but make sure that Allah's religion did not succeed. They are the worst of people, even worse than disbelievers because unlike disbelievers, they attempt to destroy Islam from the inside-out.

There are many instances in which the hypocrites are mentioned in the Qur'an. In fact, if you look at the beginning of verse 4, it says "Allah has not made for any man two hearts inside his body". Why did Allah say this? Because on one occassion prophet Muhammad was leading the prayer and he trembled. The hypocrites among the Muslims said "He trembles because he has two hearts; one of his hearts is with you and the other with the disbelievers".

There were many known hypocrites within the Muslims of Arabia and there were reasons why prophet Muhammad did not wage war against them. In fact in this very Surah, Allah tells him not to harm them or the disbelievers, regardless of what claims they make concerning the issue. But for you to say that Allah called them "hypocrites" PURELY because they were "speaking out against his actions", you would have to be the most hateful and obtuse person that I've ever met. I find your ploys to be sickening.



Oh, really? This coming from someone who says:



Nothing could be more untrue. Considering the mess I just went through to correct, you expect me to believe that you make any attempts not to misrepresent the Qur'an or anything concerning Islam? I'll believe it when I actually see it.



Here's one problem you hadn't counted on; when you know nothing about Islam, no amount of tafsirs will help you. You are still your own teacher, and you happen to come from background in which you know absolutely nothing about Islam.



What a transparent attempt to redirect some of the criticism heading your way. I've found nothing, absolutely nothing wrong with any tafsir you have given thus far. The only problem I see here, is you.



Well, well. What have we here. A Jew masquerading as a Christian, are you now? I have nothing against Jews. I do, however, see you in an entirely new and interesting light.

You say you've debated Orthodox Jews. Do you represent them? Do you also represent Christians? In order for us to have a Jewish-Christian-Muslim dialogue, you'd have to play two parts, wouldn't you?



Firstly, what you quoted was said by brother cefarix, not me. Secondly, you claim that the Qur'an is wrong, but if through our eyes and through the eyes of Allah, Mary is taken as a god, then who are you trying to disprove here? You will have to prove me wrong through my own eyes, not by attempting to make me look through yours.

Mary is a god judging purely based on how people have treated her for centuries.



See above.



If I murder someone and believe that I was simply putting them out of their misery, does that make it any less of murder in the eyes of God? You claim that people "simply worshipped Mary". That makes her a god, regardless of however way you try to spin it.

Why do you keep ignoring the English language? "Trinity" means "group of three". "Tri" is a prefix placed in front of anything referring to the number three. That is why "tricycle" has three wheel.

"Trinity" is synonymous with "triad". "Trinity" is used by these men as an English word, because "thalatha" means "Three" in Arabic, not "concept of Trinity according to Christianity". Any "trinity" they would use would be seen as a synonym for "three".



Again, I'm not the one who you should put in the quote. I didn't write that, you should take up your arguments with brother cefarix.



Why would I "admit error" when you are the one who keeps dodging and dancing around a very important point, which is that neither As-Suddi nor Ibn Kathir used the phrase "a trinity" and that "a trinity" is not "the Trinity"? You need to learn about proper nouns instead of chasing after wild geese.



Nakdimon, you are a very confused individual. You are trying to claim that all of my accusations are attempts at finding fault in your flawless arguments, when your points have been riddled with illogic, misrepresentation, and assumptions. I switched tactic? What a pathetic tactic you are trying to use; claiming that my accusations about how you have absolutely zero proof is done because I'm exhausting all of my options.

If you had proof, you would have shown me this proof instead of trying to distract us with your accusations. Where ARE these scholars who claim what you do? You show us so many scholars and none of them back up any of your points.



Translation: I can't show you where it says "This is referring to the concept of Trinity in Christianity".



What is the Tawheed of Islam based on? Is it based on Islam, or is it based on Christianity? It matters not if worshipping Mary is considered a form of showing appreciation or respect, according to Islam it is representative of god-hood. And that's the end of that argument.



And what you're attempting to tell me is that the word "trinity" has no other meanings in the English language, and that translating "thalatha" (which is "three" in Arabic) as "a trinity" means that it refers only to the concept of Trinity.

Your argument doesn't fly. You can do better than to leap to conclusions based off of assumptions. Hence why I suggest, yet again, that you study Arabic and the Qur'an instead of grossly misinterpreting the Qur'an and its translation, as well as the tafsir.



Three important weaknesses that I've seen in your arguments:

1) You pay absolutely no heed to literal Arabic words. But of course, we all know why. The Arabic words do not back up your claims, therefore you easily dismiss them.
2) You latch onto the word "Trinity" and ignore the fact that trinity is used as a synonym for "thalatha" (three). In other words, you dismiss the English language just as easily as you dismiss the Arabic.
3) Ibn Kathir's tafsir clearly says "a trinity". Another example of how you ignore the rules of the English language, especially when it comes to proper nouns and the like.

Until you acknowledge all three and refute them, your argument is void.

Says who? You? Is the Qur'an based on your opinions, or on Allah's?



"god" is decided by action, not by declaration. If I worship that rock in the distance, then as far as Islam goes, it is my god regardless of whether or not I agree. And that is the point of this whole discussion. People have taken Mary as a person to worship and for that, she is a god to them.



Did Allah say He doesn't mind the worship of His word? Absence of disapproval is approval of occurence, is that your logic?



Once again, you assume. When did I say that I blame the translators? I said give credit where it's due. That was the reason I mentioned it. You are butchering my words even as I say them.



I use this little thing called "logic" and it tells me that "Trinity" is an English word, which is a language that Qurtubi, Tabari and Ibn Kathir did not write their work in.



Instead of, again, putting words in my mouth, do me two little favors. Show me where I blame translators, and where I claim that they don't give us proper understanding of the Qur'an. The only reason I clearly pointed out who wrote what is because you seem to keep saying "Ibn Kathir said trinity!", which is factually incorrect. Attribute things to the right people instead of muddling things up.



Another point sails directly over your head. Since when did I say that Allah has to abide by any laws, be it biological or otherwise?

There's no nice way of putting things; your brain seems to be unable to understand the point. Instead, you are stuck on your earlier assumptions and that is an ugly thing.



Are we speaking of Allah's capabilities or the human logic? Allah admonishes these people for their illogic. He is telling them that they have no right to claim that He has children if they are unable to understand how. The verse speaks of their claims, not of Allah's abilities as you seem to keep on insisting..

It's unbelievable that you are unable to comprehend something this simple, and you wonder why I keep calling you a presumptous and narrow-minded individual?




That is the biggest understatement I've heard all week.

Allah has sent over a hundred thousand prophets and every nation that has ever lived has had a prophet sent to it. Prophet Musa was not the first to be sent to that specific group of people.



They said this in a way of mocking him, not as a way of acknowledging the truth behind his words. It is like someone saying "You are a genius" to someone who is dumb.



Are you absolutely sure the Rabbi made it up? After all, Allah has had many followers since the beginning of time and they were inspired by Allah.

If your point is that the story is false because it is not recorded in the Bible, then way to drag in the Bible yet again. If not, prove to me that the Rabbi's words were not from Allah.



Why are you quick to believe they are inventions and not God inspired wisdom? Your words do nothing to show error in the Qur'an, the only thing I see here is another case of Allah revealing wisdom before the Qur'an.

As for so-called contradictions in the Hadiths; if you have any arguments against Bukhari and Muslim, I will try to clear them up (though I'm not so arrogant as to claim that my knowledge about Hadiths is good. I'm better with the Qur'an). I don't rely on Abu Dawood for resources and quote At-Tirmidhi only when I'm absolutely sure, and I have no reason to try to argue over Hadiths which I'm unsure of. If anyone else wishes to respond, they are free to do so.



"Trinity" is an English word. Go look in the dictionary. "One in a trinity" linguistically means "One in a group of three". It would be like saying "One in a triad" or "One in a triplet".

Again, proper nouns. "Trinity" does not mean "a trinity". "Trinity" is a proper noun that refers to a specific thing, "a trinity" could mean anything and anyone. Quit thinking with your faith and use your logic.

Salam.

Hi all



This is not an attack but to the untrained layman ( Me ) could you explain this like in reference to the way i ( my personal opinion ) see Muslims as treating Mohammad differently ( a form a worship? ) from all the other prophets/messengers? I mean he is looked upon as more special than the other prophets/messengers, even if not said in so many words as it is said in the Koran that all prophets/messengers are of the same importance.
To someone who has never worshiped anyone/thing ( ok except maybe my Mother (IMG:style_emoticons/default/wink.gif) ) the awe Muslims feel for Mohammad ( to me ) is akin to a "type" of worship.

Please im not trying to provoke just maybe as we have already established point out that maybe we all define "worship" differently, what one may fell as correct, maybe another feels as incorrect and vice versa.

Peace all