Trinitarian Monotheism?

[Gxg (G²)]

There are many commentaries on the Quran. One commentator said that each aya has seven meanings.

Of course there are many commentaries on the Quran - one of the reasons why there are different schools of thought within Islam that have been present for centuries as opposed to one school of thought for all.

You are saying that your interpretation or reading of the Quran is objective and correct to the exclusion of the other readings.

Claiming that a view of the Quran is not objective isn't the same as showing from the Quran where something is not objective - and on the issue, it was never said that other views weren't focused on the text nor was it the case that others said that people never had other readings. That was your own assumption - what was noted was that others have read the other commentaries, but that many views occurred later on that were not originally present - one of the things others have noted when the imams have brought up how much resistance to certain schools of thought in Islam today did so based on commentary from LATER eras rather than the time frames that Islam developed in. No different than commentary on Christianity itself from a current perspective - and assuming that others saying views on it today are always what was present even though they were progressive.

That is objectively something no one can avoid when actually dealing with Islam and the Quran.

I respect your knowledge, but I think your view represents a strong Christian bias, and that's fine. It's good to concentrate on the Quranic passages about Jesus. Whatever can be found in common between the Quran and the biblical testimony is very positive.

No one ever has issue with focusing on Quranic passages about Jesus - nonetheless, I think your view really isn't one based in the Quran or history of what has occurred with Muslims for centuries when assuming that focusing on Jesus in the Quran is automatically a matter of strong Christian bias. That is not consistent with what other Muslims/sects of Islam have said since the formation of Islam - and I respect the fact that you wish to go there with it. Nonetheless, it is not what Islam has always held to nor is it a matter of being "Christian" in leaning simply because of noting where other Muslims already said things plainly in the formative years of Islam that had zero to do with identifying as Christians and everything to do with noting things that happened to already be in line with what Christians were saying.

 

[Gxg (G²)]

The Trinity is a unique form of monotheism. E

There was a very good book by N.T Wright on the issue that has been insightful - which a video on the issue was made:

Does monotheism=Unitarianism? What say you, N.T. Wright? - YouTube​

 

[steve_bakr]

Of course there are many commentaries on the Quran - one of the reasons why there are different schools of thought within Islam that have been present for centuries as opposed to one school of thought for all.
Claiming that a view of the Quran is not objective isn't the same as showing from the Quran where something is not objective - and on the issue, it was never said that other views weren't focused on the text nor was it the case that others said that people never had other readings. That was your own assumption - what was noted was that others have read the other commentaries, but that many views occurred later on that were not originally present - one of the things others have noted when the imams have brought up how much resistance to certain schools of thought in Islam today did so based on commentary from LATER eras rather than the time frames that Islam developed in. No different than commentary on Christianity itself from a current perspective - and assuming that others saying views on it today are always what was present even though they were progressive.

That is objectively something no one can avoid when actually dealing with Islam and the Quran.
No one ever has issue with focusing on Quranic passages about Jesus - nonetheless, I think your view really isn't one based in the Quran or history of what has occurred with Muslims for centuries when assuming that focusing on Jesus in the Quran is automatically a matter of strong Christian bias. That is not consistent with what other Muslims/sects of Islam have said since the formation of Islam - and I respect the fact that you wish to go there with it. Nonetheless, it is not what Islam has always held to nor is it a matter of being "Christian" in leaning simply because of noting where other Muslims already said things plainly in the formative years of Islam that had zero to do with identifying as Christians and everything to do with noting things that happened to already be in line with what Christians were saying.

The Quran has passages in it that are similar to Scripture, such as Jesus is a Word from God, that he performed miracles, that he was born of a virgin. On the other hand, the Quran has elements that do not agree with the Christian view of Jesus. It does not view Jesus as being crucified as an atonement for sins. It disagrees strongly with Trinitarianism. And it specifically denies incarnationism: It says there is nothing keeping Allah from even killing Jesus had he wanted to. Jesus is treated as a Prophet of God in the Quran. It uses the word "messiah," but gives no indication--none whatsoever--what is meant by that. Muslims give the phrase, "Peace be upon him," which is reserved for Prophets, when mentioning his name. There is also an apocryphal story about Jesus giving life to a clay pigeon. The Quran also names Mary as being worshipped by Christians as part of a Trinity. That is why it says explicitly that Allah has no wife. By no stretch does the Quran suggest that Jesus is God's Son; that would be kufr. The Surah Iklas says that God neither begets nor is he begotten, so that kind of language is forbidden. Etc.

I am attracted to syncretism in some ways. I personally think that the meeting point between Christianity and Islam may be found in mysticism rather than in doctrine. Some Sufi poets have exclaimed during ecstatic inspiration that there is no longer a distinction between Church and Mosque, etc. But orthodox Islam would object to that rather strongly.

Despite the noted similarities, the Quran strongly disagrees with Christianity in terms of its theology about who Jesus is, that is, fundamentally speaking. The Quran uses the word "messiah" largely as an honorific. But the Quran does suggest that Jesus, on Judgement Day, will disavow the worship that Christians have given him.

There is no exoteric Muslim school of thought--none--that has agreed, or would agree, for example, that Jesus Christ is the Savior of Mankind. If so, Islam and Christianity would not be distinctly different religions. That is why I look to Islamic mysticism as a meeting point between Christianity and Islam. At some level, mystics of all religions speak the same language.

What precisely does the Muslim believer in Jesus profess in the second Shahada?

 

[Gxg (G²)]

The Quran has passages in it that are similar to Scripture, such as Jesus is a Word from God, that he performed miracles, that he was born of a virgin. On the other hand, the Quran has elements that do not agree with the Christian view of Jesus. It does not view Jesus as being crucified as an atonement for sins.

The Quran actually has passages in it which were directly from scripture (seeing the context that the author of the Quran grew up in) - and of course, the Quran has elements in it that were not in line with how Christians saw Christ - the entire concept of partial revelation and knowing what Muhammad was actually facing in the time/era he grew up in.

It is NOT in the Quran at any point (nor was the early thought of Muslims in the development of Islam) that Christ was not the atonement for sins - seeing it note plainly that Christ (Isa) WAS and IS the Messiah to save all of mankind/deliver judgement. Anyone speaking past that already goes counter to the Quran in its original text....and that is a common error that has been addressed for centuries by Muslims in Islam (which is why it was noted that you cannot make claims without actual validation or addresment of where the text differed from you). And the Quran did not note that in no sense was Christ crucified - the context was always that men could never have killed Christ fully since death has no ultimate control over life and that Jesus laid DOWN His life - no man could kill Him without permission.

This is why it was noted that one can't merely make claims on what the Quran says and then deny what it actually says - or avoid how others understood/proclaimed what was said on it in the time/era it began. And as you've not grown up Muslim, it is a bit evident you don't really address the Quran.

As it is, Islamic textual content(The Qur'an) primarily consist of Gnostic Gospels from the Syrian orders as is evident since Syrian Arabic and its dialect occurs in many places in the Qur'an. There were things present IN the Syrian orders since there were various forms of Christian thought which tended to get included as well (Based on forms of Christian ideas Mohommad was exposed to).

Moreover, Most, if not ALL of Islam is based on non-canonical Jewish sources that existed amongst the illiterate Jews of western Arabia and which were told by storytellers in the public market places of mainly Mecca. And the same goes for stories told by many of the Christians who were exiled from the Eastern empire due to their views being herectical/not accepted by the Orthodoxy of the day.

It disagrees strongly with Trinitarianism.

Incorrect - and this is what was noted earlier when it came to the issue of people reading the Quran, assuming the wording means one thing and yet having little understanding of what the cultural background was behind it. What the Quran is against is the concept of there being MULTIPLE Gods (polytheism) to be worshiped....and this is the issue that was happening in the Early Church when others coming into Muhammad's territory were exiled from the Church (Byzantine Empire) due to their proclaiming that Christ was one god among many and that Christ was akin to the Greek Gods who were born of sexual unions. Christians long noted the same things and Muhammad saw that directly.


Again, in the context that Muhammad lived in, his influences were Arab polytheists, "heretic" Christians, Jews, and Abrahamic monotheists called Hanifs. The Qur’an addresses a number of heresies that had already been dealt with 300 years earlier during the age of great Christian councils, and we should learn to read it through the cultural lens of its time. Some examples of heresies it addressed were ones like saying that Jesus/God the Father and the Holy Spirit were "3 different gods" (as many Muslims often say "CHristians" say when failing to understand that Muhammad said not to support the ideology of 3 gods since other Christians were condeming such).

One cannot ignore the actual background of the Quran and simply harp on claims of what it says - yet show no verification within the Quran on those stances.

And it specifically denies incarnationism: It says there is nothing keeping Allah from even killing Jesus had he wanted to.

Nowhere in scripture does it ever note that Jesus Himself would not have fallen into the Judgement of God if He ever sinned against the Lord - the entire reason why the Incarnation itself was very real, as it was truly a temptation of the Lord that occurred in Matthew 4 and Luke 4 and the stakes were high in light of how Christ was also a man subject to the Law of God that mankind was commanded to live out.

Jesus is treated as a Prophet of God in the Quran. It uses the word "messiah," but gives no indication--none whatsoever--what is meant by that

Incorrect (again), in light of where the Quran later noted directly that His being the Messiah was in regards to bringing JUDGEMENT on the world for its sins and being the One Allah Himself exalted over mankind, as well as the one who would cleanse man of his sins.

As noted before, people not actually reading the Quran and going on stereotypes actually tend to note the claims of "Jesus is just treated as a Prophet in the Quran" without actually reading the rest. And this has happened predominately with Christians who have a bent AGAINST anything pertaining to Islam - as well as Muslims who don't actually read the Quran.

. Muslims give the phrase, "Peace be upon him," which is reserved for Prophets, when mentioning his name. There is also an apocryphal story about Jesus giving life to a clay pigeon.

"Peace Be Upon Him" was NEVER the only phrase used for Prophets - as it's an everyday phrase also used to other Muslims....one of the basics that are understood if actually growing up MUSLIM (which is rather evident you haven't ). And the distinct phrase used of Isa was radically different than what was given of Muhammad.

And with the Clay Pigeon story, it's not a radical thing that's new when dealing with context.


To give a different perspective on why so much within the Qur'an is similar to what is found in Christianity and why Mohommad knew that, it was once noted that what was noted in the Qura'an on Christ was indeed the same Yeshua but with a newly decorated biography---with the essentially looking to the right person but with an incomplete understanding that could lead to bad consequences.

Seeing how Muhammad himself was not really a scholar on all points and was heavily influenced by the accounts of Christ he may've heard from other believers in Christ, it is not surprising to me to see the many ways in which some of the things he notes are not fully accurate..or as well expounded upon as in the very Bible which the Quran encourages all to actually study. Its always interesting to see the many accounts of believers in Christ who noted that they grew up studying the Quran--and yet, grew from that into reading the scriptures when they noticed how the Quran instructed them to do so...and thus, they ended up reading the scriptures/gaining a fuller view of what the Quran only saw to a limited degree...

Some of it's akin to the dynamic of folk or tale tales and real biographies, as the former deal with unbelievable elements, related as if it were true and factual, even thoug there are many true aspects it was built around while other things are exaggerations. Some stories are exaggerations of actual historical/biographical eventS (i.e. Davey Crocket and the Alamo, John Henry, etc), for example fish stories ('the fish that got away') such as, "that fish was so big, why I tell ya', it nearly sank the boat when I pulled it in!"---but compared to an actual biography, one will get fuller details that describe an event in its fullness and give clarity on one aspect that wasn't understood as fully.

For a practical example of this within the Quran, one can consider the example of where it was noted that the Lord made clay pigeons come to life. In the Quran, it notes that "Jesus could make birds out of clay and create life for the amusement of his playmates with "Allah's" permission. He would make clay birds into which he breathed and they were transformed, by the Lord's permission into real birds that could fly. i.e. duplication of the process of CREATION, by God's permission. Seeing that, one must ask 'what purpose was there in allowing 'Jesus' to make birds out of clay what could fly (with Allah's permission) further God's purpose? For God doesn't do things without a purpose.

That fact that 'Jesus' could do this tells us that as a child 'Jesus' could create life. And who creates life, but God Himself? In the final analysis, perhaps the Qur'an is demonstrating that 'Jesus' is the Creator. For notice according to the Qur'an "Allah" creates through His Word---and Jesus/Isa is considered the Word and Spirit of God. Perhaps the author of the Qur'an didn't realize what this all meant...as he repeated Christian folklore and made a huge mistake in repeating it without understanding the full implications.

From an historical perspective, some of the stories in the Quran must have been circulating around Arabian caravan routes where Muhammad may have heard them when he was in the employ of his wife Khadija. If interested, the following 7-minute video explains a few of them.

Is the Quran Corrupted? Biblical Characters in the Quran​

With Eastern Christianity (in some circles), similar things have often come up...as there's one account somewhere I remember learning of where the 18yrs of the life was Christ (between when he was 12 and when he went into ministry) involved Him traveling to India, making playful miracles and learning. In the Quran itself, those specific folklore stories are from the second century and older. Some of the material in the Ahadith is actually taken verbatim from the Gospel of Thomas. The story of Jesus talking to Mary in the Cradle, as it appears in the Quran in Surah 3:38-48, has always interested me. For the story was most likely being told in the times of Muhammad when considering the pseudepigrapha accounts of the same. --and for more, one can go here or here, in light of how many other scholars have been noting the same for sometime now. Apparently Muhammad heard them told verbally and thought they were true, when in fact, they are folklore. He couldn't tell the difference, as one who wasn't educated. They include Jesus talking as an infant and making clay birds that could fly, plus others.

On the issue of folklore within the Quran, something else that may be worth noting is that many of the things that could be folk stories learned from other Christians still have much they can convey. In example, concerning the clay pigeon example, Christ did some pretty radical miracles that may've been VERY CRAZY to see---such as spitting in mud/placing it in someone's eyes ( John 9:5-7 ) or touching one's tongue and spitting before they were healed--as in Mark 7:32-34 --and the same with Mark 8:22-24 where he spit in a man's eyes. John 2 where he turned water into wine and helped keep a party going is another famous (and hilarious ) instance that I'm reminded of. ...and much of it seems odd. Nonetheless, that doesn't mean that because it seems odd to us automatically makes it something to suspect would not further God's purpose. In the wilderness experience in Matthew 4, if God commanded Jesus to turn stones into bread, that would have not been a problem. For God made food and Jesus being God could have done so. But his purpose in the wilderness was to fast...and had He turned stones to bread without first being One with the Father in reflecting His Will, He would have been acting without proper authority. What Satan tried to do with Jesus was to get Him to use His powers to satisfy His own desires rather than trusting God to supply all that He needed during His temptation...which Jesus responded to by reminding the enemy what the people of Israel should have learned in the wilderness (Deuteronomy 8:3).

Likewise, with clay pigeons, I don't think it'd be a good example for one to use if trying to show where Islam may miss it with stories of Christ. For even if/when it may not be a true story, it still does show the dynamic of what Scripture testifies to when saying that Jesus obeyed as a man, as the representive for all who believe so as to "fulfill all righteousness" ( Matthew 3:15, Hebrews 2:5-18, Hebrews 5:1-10, etc).

The same dynamics, IMHO, would also apply to things such as the Talmud and Rabbinical sources which are often quoted as authoritative, even if many weren't expressely mentioned in the Torah--for although some have aspects to them which are not really accurate according to the Torah and some things can be speculative, they can still offer valuable insights which can be benefical when having a Hebraic perspective on who the Messiah is.

 

[Gxg (G²)]

The Quran also names Mary as being worshipped by Christians as part of a Trinity.
That is why it says explicitly that Allah has no wife.

When one understands the history of idolatry of Mary that occurred in the Early Church (especially prior to the Council of Ephesus ), of course it is NO surprise that the Quran notes what it did with Mary being worshipped - that actually occurred often.

And when seeing the concept of the Queen of Heaven/Female Goddesses that were worshiped in the time of the Church as well as the beginnings of Islam - one reason why the Church stood against the concepts of God having a wife (as the Gnostics refused to acknowledge), there is no real surprise or issue with what Muhammad noted.

By no stretch does the Quran suggest that Jesus is God's Son; that would be kufr. The Surah Iklas says that God neither begets nor is he begotten, so that kind of language is forbidden. Etc.

And when it comes to the bottom line reality that God NEVER said he had any sexual union with mankind to produce Christ or anyone else, of course there's no logical sense at anyone ever suggesting that Jesus is the Son of God in that sense. THere's no way around the background of what Muslims have often said on that issue and what the EArly Church noted in agreement with that - but again, you've not really dealt with or addressed the Quran at all on the matter outside of assertions.

And others have already done an excellent job on addressing the issue when it comes to ministry with Muslims worldwide - more said, as said before, in Jesus the Messiah

I am attracted to syncretism in some ways. I personally think that the meeting point between Christianity and Islam may be found in mysticism rather than in doctrine. Some Sufi poets have exclaimed during ecstatic inspiration that there is no longer a distinction between Church and Mosque, etc. But orthodox Islam would object to that rather strongly.

Orthodox Islam is not nor was it ever the only variation of Islam to begin with - and even the Sufis themselves have gotten in trouble with them, despite where they were in line with the Desert Fathers and often referenced.

People generally have to assume syncretism in order to conclude that noting accuracy in the Quran or Islam itself (if it disagrees with a view they hold in Christianity.).

Despite the noted similarities, the Quran strongly disagrees with Christianity in terms of its theology about who Jesus is, that is, fundamentally speaking. The Quran uses the word "messiah" largely as an honorific. But the Quran does suggest that Jesus, on Judgement Day, will disavow the worship that Christians have given him.

And nowhere in the Quran does it ever say anything on that issue - seeing where it already noted Christ was the Savior - this is again why one cannot merely claim what the Quran says without actually either verifying it or seeing what was said in the time Islam began.

What the Bible reveals that is that the Lord Jesus will be seated in the center of God’s throne, as both Savior and Judge (Matthew 25, Revelation 7:16-17) - whereas the one Qur'an passage, which mentions Jesus on Judgment Day, pictures him on trial being questioned by Allah and Allah asking Jesus whether or not he claimed that he and his mother were two gods besides Allah to which Jesus replies that he would never have said such a thing (Surah 5:115-117). Never at ANY point does Jesus say He was not to be worshipped...

And of course, Jesus is the Divine Judge - more in Jesus as Divine Judge: Rebuttal to the “Do Not Say Trinity” Mohammedans

It doesn't take realizing where the Quran has strong disagreements in certain places within Christianity in order to see where others often fail to deal with the Quran on what it says when it actually deals with Christ.

There is no exoteric Muslim school of thought--none--that has agreed, or would agree, for example, that Jesus Christ is the Savior of Mankind.

Incorrect (Again) - and this is what was already noted when it came to the bottom line issue of how people who never grew up in Islam (and yet wish to speak against it) tend to speak without real awareness of what has already been said....in the same manner that others assume all camps of Islam are inherently violent and then ignore what the Sufis and other camps have been about (more discussed here). This has already been discussed earlier in #77, #81 , #84,#85, #86 and #87


If one's aware of those who are Muslim Background Believers (MBB), some of what is shared may make more sense. For more, one can go online here and here to An Interview with an Imam - Secret Believers - Podbean where Al Janssen talks with a MBB from Indonesia. ..with the Imam sharing his heart on how he came to know the Messiah and how he now shares Christ/Isa with other Muslims.

The ministry of "Answering Islam" is one of the most amazing ministries I've ever come across - been very helpful in showing the many ways Islam itself was always incomplete when it comes to the Gospel because of the background Mohammad came from their article entitled The Quran and the Unlettered Prophet: Jesus or Muhammad? and The Quran on Jesus as the Preexistent Spirit of Allah and Is Muhammad the Last Prophet?


As said before, Having grown up with family who were in a sect/camp of Islam and seeing it in action (more in #207/#208 and #210 ), you had to address the Quran directly - so it'll always be taken seriously with what it says. And it will always be a matter of addressing the Quran for what it actually says....and seeing what Muslims actually do.

There are numerous schools of Muslim thought that have long noted that Jesus Christ is the SAVIOR of Mankind...that Al-Masihu Isa is God's Anointed Messiah - Denying that will never change the facts of what has actually occurred in the world - although it is evident of where one really has no full interaction with the scope of the worldwide Muslim community ...

If so, Islam and Christianity would not be distinctly different religions. That is why I look to Islamic mysticism as a meeting point between Christianity and Islam. At some level, mystics of all religions speak the same language.

Assuming that there are 2 different religions is NOT the same as noting that those religions are NOT the same at certain points - it is an issue of a false scenario you have to impose BEFORE actually dealing with the facts since believing that Jesus is the Savior of Mankind or that He died for the sins of the world is not the main thing that makes Christianity distinct from all other religions. Other religions have had their own concept of a Messiah - just as other religions have believed in a resurrection and other concepts..

And other scholars in the Christian world have noted this simple point well - some of which are people like N.T Wright in His book The Resurrection of the Son of God and "The Challenge of Jesus: Rediscovering Who Jesus Was & Is"

​

Noting where there is more fullness in one and COMPLETION (Christianity) is not the same as saying there are not already pointers/incomplete thought in the other


And this is a basic when it comes to understanding that Islamic Mysticism is not the main meeting point between Islam and Christianity.

 

[Gxg (G²)]

Just because he was humble and he did teach that common sense is intelligence that does not make him a 'common" man and not a philosopher either.

Great points...

 

[steve_bakr]

The Quran actually has passages in it which were directly from scripture (seeing the context that the author of the Quran grew up in) - and of course, the Quran has elements in it that were not in line with how Christians saw Christ - the entire concept of partial revelation and knowing what Muhammad was actually facing in the time/era he grew up in.

It is NOT in the Quran at any point (nor was the early thought of Muslims in the development of Islam) that Christ was not the atonement for sins....and that is a common error that has been addressed for centuries by Muslims in Islam (which is why it was noted that you cannot make claims without actual validation or addressment of where the text differed from you). And the Quran did not note that in no sense was Christ crucified - the context was always that men could never have killed Christ fully since death has no ultimate control over life. This is why it was noted that one can't merely make claims on what the Quran says and then deny what it actually says - or avoid how others understood/proclaimed what was said on it in the time/era it began.

But wait, you are a little vague. What exactly have centuries of Muslims cleared up about Christ's atonement? Who exactly made atonement clear and what exactly has been said about it?

I said that the Quran does not contain the concept of atonement and your answer is that it does not deny atonement. That is your evidence? "The Day (of Judgement is) when a soul will have no power at all for another soul [i.e. atonement] and the Command that day will be entirely with Allah." (Q. 82:19)

I would like to know the name of a prominent Islamic theologian or thinker who has put forward the concept of Christ's atonement. Al-Ghazzali? Ibn-Arabi? Muhammad Iqbal? Who?

 

[steve_bakr]

When one understands the history of idolatry of Mary that occurred in the Early Church (especially prior to the Council of Ephesus ), of course it is NO surprise that the Quran notes what it did with Mary being worshipped - that actually occurred often.

And when seeing the concept of the Queen of Heaven/Female Goddesses that were worshiped in the time of the Church as well as the beginnings of Islam - one reason why the Church stood against the concepts of God having a wife (as the Gnostics refused to acknowledge), there is no real surprise or issue with what Muhammad noted.

And when it comes to the bottom line reality that God NEVER said he had any sexual union with mankind to produce Christ or anyone else, of course there's no logical sense at anyone ever suggesting that Jesus is the Son of God in that sense. THere's no way around the background of what Muslims have often said on that issue and what the EArly Church noted in agreement with that - but again, you've not really dealt with or addressed the Quran at all on the matter outside of assertions.

And others have already done an excellent job on addressing the issue when it comes to ministry with Muslims worldwide - more said, as said before, in Jesus the Messiah
Orthodox Islam is not nor was it ever the only variation of Islam to begin with - and even the Sufis themselves have gotten in trouble with them, despite where they were in line with the Desert Fathers and often referenced.

People generally have to assume syncretism in order to conclude that noting accuracy in the Quran or Islam itself (if it disagrees with a view they hold in Christianity.).
And nowhere in the Quran does it ever say anything on that issue - seeing where it already noted Christ was the Savior - this is again why one cannot merely claim what the Quran says without actually either verifying it or seeing what was said in the time Islam began.

What the Bible reveals that is that the Lord Jesus will be seated in the center of God's throne, as both Savior and Judge (Matthew 25, Revelation 7:16-17) - whereas the one Qur'an passage, which mentions Jesus on Judgment Day, pictures him on trial being questioned by Allah and Allah asking Jesus whether or not he claimed that he and his mother were two gods besides Allah to which Jesus replies that he would never have said such a thing (Surah 5:115-117). Never at ANY point does Jesus say He was not to be worshipped...

And of course, Jesus is the Divine Judge - more in Jesus as Divine Judge: Rebuttal to the âEURoeDo Not Say TrinityâEUR Mohammedans

It doesn't take realizing where the Quran has strong disagreements in certain places within Christianity in order to see where others often fail to deal with the Quran on what it says when it actually deals with Christ.
Incorrect (Again) - and this is what was already noted when it came to the bottom line issue of how people who never grew up in Islam (and yet wish to speak against it) tend to speak without real awareness of what has already been said....in the same manner that others assume all camps of Islam are inherently violent and then ignore what the Sufis and other camps have been about (more discussed here). This has already been discussed earlier in #77, #81 , #84,#85, #86 and #87

If one's aware of those who are Muslim Background Believers (MBB), some of what is shared may make more sense. For more, one can go online here and here to An Interview with an Imam - Secret Believers - Podbean where Al Janssen talks with a MBB from Indonesia. ..with the Imam sharing his heart on how he came to know the Messiah and how he now shares Christ/Isa with other Muslims.

The ministry of "Answering Islam" is one of the most amazing ministries I've ever come across - been very helpful in showing the many ways Islam itself was always incomplete when it comes to the Gospel because of the background Mohammad came from their article entitled The Quran and the Unlettered Prophet: Jesus or Muhammad? and The Quran on Jesus as the Preexistent Spirit of Allah and Is Muhammad the Last Prophet?

As said before, Having grown up with family who were in a sect/camp of Islam and seeing it in action (more in #207/#208 and #210 ), you had to address the Quran directly - so it'll always be taken seriously with what it says. And it will always be a matter of addressing the Quran for what it actually says....and seeing what Muslims actually do.

There are numerous schools of Muslim thought that have long noted that Jesus Christ is the SAVIOR of Mankind...that Al-Masihu Isa is God's Anointed Messiah - Denying that will never change the facts of what has actually occurred in the world - although it is evident of where one really has no full interaction with the scope of the worldwide Muslim community ...

Assuming that there are 2 different religions is NOT the same as noting that those religions are NOT the same at certain points - it is an issue of a false scenario you have to impose BEFORE actually dealing with the facts since believing that Jesus is the Savior of Mankind or that He died for the sins of the world is not the main thing that makes Christianity distinct from all other religions. Other religions have had their own concept of a Messiah - just as other religions have believed in a resurrection and other concepts..

And other scholars in the Christian world have noted this simple point well - some of which are people like N.T Wright in His book The Resurrection of the Son of God and "The Challenge of Jesus: Rediscovering Who Jesus Was & Is"





Noting where there is more fullness in one and COMPLETION (Christianity) is not the same as saying there are not already pointers/incomplete thought in the other

And this is a basic when it comes to understanding that Islamic Mysticism is not the main meeting point between Islam and Christianity.

Your source site of "Answering Islam" is not a credible source, as it has an agenda which incorrectly interprets the Quran for its own specific purposes. For exampe, it defines "messiah" in a Christian way and imposes that definition onto the Quran, when the Quran does no such thing. It doesn't go to the tafsirs or Muslim scholars or major Quranic commentaries. It is only synthesizing an artificial case, which no credible Islamic scholar would take seriously.

I'm looking for names of known scholars that support this view. Annemarie Schimmel? Martin Lings? William C. Chittick? Seyyed Hossein Nasr? Frithjoff Schuon? Titus Birkhardt? Reynold A. Nicholson? Arthur J. Arberry? These are notable Islamic scholars that a serious student of Islam would recognize. Do any of these support this erroneous position? No, not one. Why not?

 

[Gxg (G²)]

But wait, you are a little vague. What exactly have centuries of Muslims cleared up about Christ's atonement? Who exactly made atonement clear and what exactly has been said about it?
I said that the Quran does not contain the concept of atonement and your answer is that it does not deny atonement. That is your evidence? "The Day (of Judgement is) when a soul will have no power at all for another soul [i.e. atonement] and the Command that day will be entirely with Allah." (Q. 82:19)

I would like to know the name of a prominent Islamic theologian or thinker who has put forward the concept of Christ's atonement. Al-Ghazzali? Ibn-Arabi? Muhammad Iqbal? Who?

Most of this was already noted earlier - and as said before, most of the response (on your part) was an argument in personal incredulity. It was already noted what was cleared up - and what was said on it. Not repeating it if and when it was not addressed - and on where it was discussed, [/URL] one can go here or #77, #81 , #84,#85, #86 and #87.

As said before, claiming the Quran does not contain the concept of atonement isn't the same as showing - point for point - in the Quran where atonement was not discussed. And I never said at any point that the Quran did not deny atonement - that was again another assertion (without verification) on your part...and to be frank, evidence that you did not actually read in context what was said and instead have been arguing based on what you felt someone was saying rather than dealing with what was actually said. Your best - if quoting "The Day (of Judgement is) when a soul will have no power at all for another soul [i.e. atonement] and the Command that day will be entirely with Allah." (Q. 82:19)" - is insufficent when dealing with the entirety of what the Quran says on salvation as well as addressing the bottom line aspect of what even scripture notes when it comes to the fact that a man cannot in his own power atone for another's sins....

Dt. 24:16
Fathers shall not be put to death for their children, nor children put to death for their fathers; each is to die for his own sin.


Jer. 31:29-31
"In those days people will no longer say, 'The fathers have eaten sour grapes, and the children's teeth are set on edge.' Instead, everyone will die for his own sin; whoever eats sour grapes--his own teeth will be set on edge. "The time is coming," declares the LORD, "when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah."

Ezekiel 18:20
The soul who sins is the one who will die. The son will not share the guilt of the father, nor will the father share the guilt of the son. The righteousness of the righteous man will be credited to him, and the wickedness of the wicked will be charged against him.​

Ezekiel 18:4 and other such verses are key to remember, as Jesus is neither the father of any earthly person nor does he have an earthly father - and strictly speaking even if he does bear the sin of the whole world, he does not violate this verse since the meaning of this verse [against the complaints of the Jews that they are unjustly punished for the sins of their forefathers] is that God does clarify that nobody will be punished for the sins of other people, and everybody will be responsible his own sins.


It's not the same as saying Christ in His sacrifice could not save all - but nowhere was it the case that having to give an account for your OWN Sins was ever counter to a Messiah dying for salvation to occur.

Surah 6:164
Say: Shall I seek another than Allah for Lord, when He is Lord of all things? Each soul earneth only on its own account, nor doth any laden bear another's load. Then unto your Lord is your return and He will tell you that wherein ye differed.

Surah 17:15
Whosoever goeth right, it is only for (the good of) his own soul that he goeth right, and whosoever erreth, erreth only to its hurt. No laden soul can bear another's load, We never punish until we have sent a messenger.

Surah 35:18
And no burdened soul can bear another's burden, and if one heavy laden crieth for (help with) his load, naught of it will be lifted even though he (unto whom he crieth) be of kin. Thou warnest only those who fear their Lord in secret, and have established worship. He who groweth (in goodness), groweth only for himself, (he cannot by his merit redeem others). Unto Allah is the journeying.​

What the Quran denies is the possibility of an individual who himself is burdened with sins carrying the transgressions of someone else. For the Qur'an teaches clearly, "Every soul will taste of death. And ye will be paid on the Day of Resurrection only that which ye have fairly earned. Whoso is removed from the Fire and is also made to enter Paradise, he indeed is triumphant," (Surah 3, al-i-Imran, the Family of Imran: 185). On the Judgment Day God will judge each individual with a set of just balances.

And on the subject, for scholarly addresment, one can investigate How can one man pay for the sins of another? or the following:

• Salvation in the Qur'an

As said before, it is rather evident you neither grew up in Islam - nor really dealt with the whole of it. Neither is beneficial if trying to confront others on the issue

I would like to know the name of a prominent Islamic theologian or thinker who has put forward the concept of Christ's atonement. Al-Ghazzali? Ibn-Arabi? Muhammad Iqbal? Who?

Again, that was already addressed and noted. No need asking questions on things others already took the time to lay out in detail as well as give reference for more discussion (and on the issue, the topic itself is already a bit of a side topic that the OP was never focused on - so if one wants to continue it, one can make another thread about it).

 

[Gxg (G²)]

Your source site of "Answering Islam" is not a credible source, as it has an agenda which incorrectly interprets the Quran for its own specific purposes. F?or exampe, it defines "messiah" in a Christian way and imposes that definition onto the Quran, when the Quran does no such thing. It doesn't go to the tafsirs or Muslim scholars or major Quranic commentaries. It is only synthesizing an artificial case, which no credible Islamic scholar would take seriously.

I'm looking for names of known scholars that support this view. Annemarie Schimmel? Martin Lings? William C. Chittick? Seyyed Hossein Nasr? Frithjoff Schuon? Titus Birkhardt? Reynold A. Nicholson? Arthur J. Arberry? These are notable Islamic scholars that a serious student of Islam would recognize. Do any of these support this erroneous position? No, not one. Why not

Arguing via assertion isn't the same as actually dealing with the Quran (seeing that there were several other sources BESIDES that - including others by former Muslims) - it is an argument that is effectively centered on attempting to poison the well and begging the question. Whether you feel something is "incorrectly interpreting the Quran" is NOT the same as showing that you actually (1) GREW UP in Islam/read the entirety of the Quran or (2) actually deal with Muslims in Islamic Nations noting that Isa is the Messiah/Savior and (3) actually addressing the Quran point for point to show your assertions are true.

There can be no escaping the fact that the Quran calls Jesus, without exception in every case where the title appears, al-Masih - the Messiah. As it is, the definite article positively distinguishes him from all the other prophets - and not only is it the case that no other prophet in the Qur'an called Messiah, but by describing Jesus as the Messiah, the Qur'an declares that the application of this title to anyone else would be quite inappropriate.

Not only does the Qur'an attempt no explanation of the meaning of this title but even great scholars in Muslim history like Zamakhshari and Baidawi admitted that it was not an original Arabic word.

The entirety of your argument already presupposes you don't have a bias and have not interpreted the Quran for your own purposes - despite several claims you've made which many Muslims have long noted they DON'T hold to and despite several points it was never in the Quran what you claimed without evidence. Thus, the argument was not consistent on your part. The list you gave was never the whole of the Islamic world and it'd be disingenious to even try arguing such when other Muslim scholars have shared on the issue - no need for specious arguments when you didn't deal comprehensively on the issue.....

And as said before, IMHO, you already showed a bias with the false assertion that anything in the Quran that already lines up with what Christians say MUST have a "Christian bias/slant" - something you have to assume going INTO reading the Quran rather than actually dealing with it and the people who support it.

It is essentially a matter of already having a conclusion (i.e. "I want to believe nothing in Islam is already in line with a Christian view - therefore, anything I see in it must be off") and then going from there. That will never be sufficient - and as it is, the source "Answering Islam" (alongside several other sources ) already noted the tafsirs or Muslim scholars or major Quranic commentaries - you avoided them directly repeatedly and it's not a problem to cppy/paste them extensively....but for the casual reader, that's not even necessary.

As said before, you really don't show any real awareness or dealing with Islam - and that's fine if you wish to do so. It's simply not dealing with others who actually grew up within Islam - very much different than studying Islam /the Quran for over two years and having no real interaction with Muslims
(and long before you even chose to make a comment initially on a posting I made to another, I was aware of where you are passionate for the Quran - as discussed in Should Christians study Al-Qur'an and The Qur'an and others. At the end of the day, arguing without verifying your claims isn't dealing with the text - nor something other Islam scholars (or Christian, for that matter) take seriously if all that can be done is making claims rather than actually dealing with what other Muslims have lived out...and continue to live out daily in regards to worship of Isa Al Masih. It has already been addressed - including the multiple times dialogues have occurred between Muslims and Christians on the issue - so to claim "Well no one takes that seriously" is only a reflection that you don't take it seriously. It is what it is.

And there are already plenty of Muslims who've spoken on the issue in the community with regards to http://journeytoorthodoxy.com/2013/01/15/worshipping-jesus-at-a-mosque/ and trusting Isa for salvation.

Crucifixion - Does Qur'an Deny It? (4.1) - YouTube

Jesus in the Qur'an - 'Word of God' (3.4) - YouTube

Crucifixion - Jesus' Predictions (4.5) - YouTube
​

We can start with St. John of Damascus, Griffith, S.H, Abdul Saleeb, Tafsir Ibn 'Abbas, Brother Andrew & Al Janssen / Revell , Abd al-Masih, Paul-Gordan Chandler, Farhan Qureshi

We can also address Abdullah Saeed (as it concerns comparing the modern trend of Muslim followers of Isa to the first-century Jews who also put their trust in the Messiah) from “The Charge of Distortion of Jewish and Christian Scriptures.” (The Muslim World, vol. 92:3-4 Fall, 419-436)...or *Arberry A.J. of The Koran Interpreted – A Translation. New York: Touchstone –....as well as Fouad Elias Accad of Building Bridges – Christianity and Islam.

“First-Century Jews and Twentieth-Century Muslims.” (International Journal of Frontier Missions, vol. 17:1 Spring, 33-39)...as well as Keith E. Swartley (of the book "Building Bridges").....and, of course,
Kenneth Cragg of "Jesus & the Muslim—An Exploration" ( investigation of the relationship between Islam and Christianity as seen through the examples of the life of Syrian novelist Mazhar Mallouhi, a self-described “Sufi Muslim follower of Christ.” )....and Nabeel Qureshi (who has worked with other scholars such as Ravi Zacharias and others who grew up in the Muslim world in the Orthodox camps of Islam) - and "The Moslem Christ – An Essay on the Life, Character, and Teachings of Jesus Christ According to the Koran and Orthodox Traditions" by Samuel M. Zwemer (made in 1912)

but until you can deal with it and the Quran, there's really nothing more to say. If you want to support an erroneous position on the Quran without actually dealing with the Quran, that is your own choice - but it is by no means the view held for centuries in the development of Islam.

And unless you have anything significant to say in the next post or so, I'm pretty much done with the discussion.

 

[Gxg (G²)]

the persons of the Godhead are distinct but relational and one thus "God is love" as John states. This is not the case with the Olympians (or other gods that I know of). Further, in discussing this issue, a list was made of the abilities etc. of the persons of the Holy Trinity in Scripture, and were found to have the same attributes with the exception that the Father originates, the Son is begotten, and the Holy Spirit proceeds. This is again not the case with the Olympians, etc.

One can be relational and yet distinct...

 

[steve_bakr]

Arguing via assertion isn't the same as actually dealing with the Quran (seeing that there were several other sources BESIDES that - including others by former Muslims) - it is an argument that is effectively centered on attempting to poison the well and begging the question. Whether you feel something is "incorrectly interpreting the Quran" is NOT the same as showing that you actually (1) GREW UP in Islam/read the entirety of the Quran or (2) actually deal with Muslims in Islamic Nations noting that Isa is the Messiah/Savior and (3) actually addressing the Quran point for point to show your assertions are true.

The entirety of your argument already presupposes you don't have a bias and have not interpreted the Quran for your own purposes - despite several claims you've made which many Muslims have long noted they DON'T hold to and despite several points it was never in the Quran what you claimed without evidence. Thus, the argument was not consistent on your part. The list you gave was never the whole of the Islamic world and it'd be disingenious to even try arguing such when other Muslim scholars have shared on the issue - no need for specious arguments when you didn't deal comprehensively on the issue.....

And as said before, you already showed a bias with the false assertion that anything in the Quran that already lines up with what Christians say MUST have a "Christian bias/slant" - something you have to assume going INTO reading the Quran rather than actually dealing with it and the people who support it.

It is essentially a matter of already having a conclusion (i.e. "I want to believe nothing in Islam is already in line with a Christian view - therefore, anything I see in it must be off") and then going from there. That will never be sufficient - and as it is, the source "Answering Islam" (alongside several other sources ) already noted the tafsirs or Muslim scholars or major Quranic commentaries - you avoided them directly repeatedly and it's not a problem to cppy/paste them extensively....but for the casual reader, that's not even necessary.

As said before, you really don't show any real awareness or dealing with Islam - and that's fine if you wish to do so. But arguing without verifying your claims isn't dealing with the text - nor something other Islam scholars (or Christian, for that matter) take seriously if all that can be done is making claims. It has already been addressed - including the multiple times dialogues have occurred between Muslims and Christians on the issue - so to claim "Well no one takes that seriously" is only a reflection that you don't take it seriously. It is what it is.

Crucifixion - Does Qur'an Deny It? (4.1) - YouTube

Jesus in the Qur'an - 'Word of God' (3.4) - YouTube

Crucifixion - Jesus' Predictions (4.5) - YouTube


We can start with Griffith, S.H, Abdul Saleeb, Tafsir Ibn 'Abbas and several others - but until you can deal with it and the Quran, there's really nothing more to say. If you want to support an erroneous position on the Quran without actually dealing with the Quran, that is your own choice - but it is by no means the view held for centuries in the development of Islam.

And unless you have anything significant to say in the next post or so, I'm pretty much done with the discussion.

I did not say that there are no similarities between the Quran and what Christianity believes to be true, but that they are fundamentally dissimilar as to the paradigm of who Jesus was and is.

I gave you a somewhat long list of noted scholars of Islam. These are the main scholars of our era who have written in Western languages, and also recognized in the Islamic world. Several of them are Muslims.

Among these were Annamarie Schimmel, Seyyed Hossein Nasr, Martin Lings, William C. Chittick, Frithjoff Schuon, Titus Burkardt, and others. I also left out Muhammad Yusuf Ali. I have read works by all of these scholars and have not come across the view that you hold. You cannot really study Islam thoroughly without knowing their work. But you did not address why they don't put forward your view.

Also, your view does not come up in Muhammad Yusuf Ali's 1800+ page translation and commentary of the Quran. Yusuf Ali was a Muslim by birth and memorized the Quran as a child. He was both Eastern and Western educated.

There is also Abdel Haleem, who teaches advanced Quran and Arabic translation at Cambridge University. He also memorized the entire Quran in Arabic as a boy. He has produced both a translation and commentary of the Quran. But I don't find your view in his work either.

I don't claim to be an expert, but I do have a bookcase of Islamic books, including works like Fiqh Al-Akbar. I am not an expert in Quranic Arabic either, but I do study it to the best of my ability. I have several Arabic Qurans.

I have read the Quran perhaps two dozen times, including in the original Arabic. Since the Quran is primarily a recitation, I have listened to Quranic recitation by famous Qaris like Mishary Rashid Al-Afasy, Abu Bakr Shatri, Said Ghamadi, Mauquly, and others.

In short, I am not a "casual reader" of the Quran the way that you are implying. I honestly find your view to be, not common, but more or less a fringe view. I simply don't find your interpretation of the Quran to be consistent with my experience of it.

I don't paste walls of quotatioos. I use Forum Runner on my Android, and that has its limitations. But if you are familiar with the Quran, you would recognize what I have referred to from memory and pasting shouldn't be necessary anyway. Because I refer to the Quran from memory doesn't make it an "assertion."

I am not talking about getting information from You-Tube or websites but from the bonafide scholars I mentioned, who have been properly vetted in scholarly journals and by their peers. I have read several Quran translations and my favorite is the lesser known A. J. Arberry translation, but I believe every student of Islam and the Quran needs to study Quranic Arabic, and read the original text as well as study its recitation.

You did not address the scholars I mentioned and perhaps you have not read works by these scholars. All of them are experts in Middle Eastern languages and read and translate original material. Annamarie Schimmel, a professor at Havard University, received her first Ph.D at the young age of 19. She traveled extensively and had friends all over the Muslim world. She was an expert, a prodigy rather, in the languages of the Middle East and the Muslim world.

This is the level of scholarship I am referring to, not websites with a mission and talks on You-Tube. You should read all of the scholars that I mentioned. In fact, they are required reading for the serious student. I think their works would give you a more accurate view of Islam and the Quran.

I don't know what you know about Islamic mysticism, but having studied both Christian and Islamic mysticism, I continue to believe that the best hope for a meeting point between Christianity and Islam lies in mysticism. Although Sufism has degenerated in some ways and can be the subject of abuses and excess, I believe that it represents the best of Islam. Also, thinkers and poets like Muhammad Iqbal are interesting.

You may dismiss me as a "casual reader" of the Quran if you like. All of us can learn more about the subject. I am not opposed to creative interpretations of the Quran. The Sufis specialized in esoteric interpretations of the Quran. But to represent your view as one being typically held through history by Muslim thinkers is simply incorrect. The Quranic word for "messiah," for example, does not carry the Christian meaning of "savior." But it can be interpreted as such in a creative way, so to speak.

I am happy if Muslim believers find peace in Jesus. And it is in fact held by the Catholic Church that Islam represents a partial truth, so I am very aware of that view.

BTW, You might want to start a thread about your viewpoint in the Christianity and World Religions subforum and ask for feedback from the Muslims there.

 

[FredVB]

Would you say that Christian Trinitarianism is more like Pagan Polytheism (e.g. the Greek Twelve Olympians Pantheon) or more like Islamic Monotheism (Tawheed)?

The Trinity is a unique form of monotheism. Each side, or hypotenuse, of the triangle represents the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, altogether being a single logic or principle of the cosmos.

Yes, from my perspective, the Trinity shown from biblical passages is unlike anything seen from other beliefs that are not Christian. The Trinity shown, though not with that name for it in the Bible, is all one Being alone. There is no true God other than this Being, Yahweh. The heavenly Father, Logos the Word with him, who in the incarnation is the Son, Jesus Christ, and his Spirit, are together the one Being, the Supreme Being. Each is distinct but all together are in full unity, they are with distinct wills, necessary in distinct offices determined with necessity in eternity, but with these wills always in agreement. No other belief has such a concept, but this monotheism is what is shown with considering all the Bible.

 

[Gxg (G²)]

I did not say that there are no similarities between the Quran and what Christianity believes to be true, but that they are fundamentally dissimilar as to the paradigm of who Jesus was and is.

I gave you a somewhat long list of noted scholars of Islam. These are the main scholars of our era who have written in Western languages, and also recognized in the Islamic world. Several of them are Muslims.
Among these were Annamarie Schimmel, Seyyed Hossein Nasr, Martin Lings, William C. Chittick, Frithjoff Schuon, Titus Burkardt, and others. I also left out Muhammad Yusuf Ali. I have read works by all of these scholars and have not come across the view that you hold. You cannot really study Islam thoroughly without knowing their work. But you did not address why they don't put forward your view.

As said before, IMHO, you really don't show any real awareness or dealing with Islam - and that's fine if you wish to do so. It's simply not dealing with others who actually grew up within Islam - very much different than studying Islam /the Quran for over two years and having no real interaction with Muslims
(and long before you even chose to make a comment initially on a posting I made to another, I was aware of where you are passionate for the Quran - as discussed in Should Christians study Al-Qur'an and The Qur'an and others (and I've been there/participated often so the threads AREN'T new nor really radical).

The list of scholars you gave out were NEVER the fullness of what occurs in the Islamic world (nor was the list longer since there dozens more who disagree with those you placed up and they have been noted) - or the only ones working in regards to Western Languages/Arabic and the Muslim world. There were others I already provided who were either Muslims or Non-Muslims working with them - and at multiple points, you already made claims of "Well, they're not scholars" - that's an example of a No True Scotsman fallacy where one assumes something differing from them is not a valid interpretation because they already had a pre-conceived idea of how it looked like.

And that is not the same as dealing with the reality of c what other Muslims have lived out...and continue to live out daily in regards to worship of Isa Al Masih. It has already been addressed - including the multiple times dialogues have occurred between Muslims and Christians on the issue


And there are already plenty of Muslims who've spoken on the issue in the community with regards to Worshipping Jesus At A Mosque and trusting Isa for salvation. The scholars you noted are not in any way remotely new nor the sole standard that has been within Islam and that has been noted by Muslims for some time.

If you chose to ONLY read their works, that's your choice - but it is not the comprehensive addressment of all camps/sects within Islam - and studying Islam solely on the ones you chose to bring up without dealing with the numerous other scholars/teachers and imams who've differed with them is not the same as addressing Islam in its entirety.

If one has only seen swans that look white, they cannot make a logical leap in saying all swans either HAVE to be white or that there have never been non-white swans - as it going based on what you've seen rather than on what has actually occurred. And you didn't address in any way where others disagreeing with their views said so plainly - and you also ignored why others supporting the views of the scholars you hold did so...that was already addressed, even though you chose to ignore it. And we're not going back to deal with something you chose to avoid.

Again, we can start with the Imams around the world who serve the Lord - as noted in Secret Believers: An Interview with an Imam or other places noting what Islamic scholars/imams have noted as it concerns trusting in Isa Al Masih for salvation and living life within the Islamic community.

And again, if you want to discuss scholars, we can start with St. John of Damascus, Griffith, S.H, Abdul Saleeb, Tafsir Ibn 'Abbas, Brother Andrew & Al Janssen / Revell , Abd al-Masih, Paul-Gordan Chandler, Farhan Qureshi

We can also address Abdullah Saeed (as it concerns comparing the modern trend of Muslim followers of Isa to the first-century Jews who also put their trust in the Messiah) from “The Charge of Distortion of Jewish and Christian Scriptures.” (The Muslim World, vol. 92:3-4 Fall, 419-436)...or *Arberry A.J. of The Koran Interpreted – A Translation. New York: Touchstone –....as well as Fouad Elias Accad of Building Bridges – Christianity and Islam.

There's also “First-Century Jews and Twentieth-Century Muslims.” (International Journal of Frontier Missions, vol. 17:1 Spring, 33-39)...as well as Keith E. Swartley (of the book "Building Bridges").....and, of course,
Kenneth Cragg of "Jesus & the Muslim—An Exploration" ( investigation of the relationship between Islam and Christianity as seen through the examples of the life of Syrian novelist Mazhar Mallouhi, a self-described “Sufi Muslim follower of Christ.” )....and Nabeel Qureshi (who has worked with other scholars such as Ravi Zacharias and others who grew up in the Muslim world in the Orthodox camps of Islam) - and "The Moslem Christ – An Essay on the Life, Character, and Teachings of Jesus Christ According to the Koran and Orthodox Traditions" by Samuel M. Zwemer (made in 1912)

But until you can deal with it and the Quran, there's really nothing more to say.

As it is, the discussion was already something that I noted earlier could be discussed elsewhere since it really isn't centered on the OP if wanting to debate your view of the Quran - and the only reason I responded thus far is because you made a comment on a posting I made to another. If you want to continue, MAKE another thread on the matter to do so - but outside of that, there's really nothing more to say on the matter.

Also, your view does not come up in Muhammad Yusuf Ali's 1800+ page translation and commentary of the Quran. Yusuf Ali was a Muslim by birth and memorized the Quran as a child. He was both Eastern and Western educated.

There is also Abdel Haleem, who teaches advanced Quran and Arabic translation at Cambridge University. He also memorized the entire Quran in Arabic as a boy. He has produced both a translation and commentary of the Quran. But I don't find your view in his work either.

Seeing that Muhammad Yusif was never the only commentary on the Quran, it is again a specious argument to even claim "Well, your view doesn't come up!!" - of course not all camps of Islam EVER Agreed, otherwise you'd not have differing sects in Islam and others either ignoring a view not in line with what THEY support - or saying something erroneous of a view they don't hold to.

This is a very basic principle when it comes to the debate of "Who Are The Orthodox Muslims?" and why there's Shia/Sunni Dialogue...as well as dialogue with those who are Sufi and other camps all debating with each other in their commentary...even down to other camps such as Kharawaj (radical for both Sunnis and Shia -and best discussed by Valerie J. Hoffman, Professor of Islamic Studies at the University of Illinois) Isma'ilite or Bahai or Ahmadiyya Islam (or even Nation of Islam and differing camps outside of that). There is also the Isawa Isa al-Masih (ee-sah ahl-mah-seeh) – Jesus the Messiah. ... (disciples of Isa) – a sect of Islam in northern Nigeria which exalts Jesus (Isa)...also called the Hausa Muslims - more discussed on them by scholar Mallam Ibrahim in the Encyclopedia of Islamic Civilization and Religion (by Ian Richard Netton ).

There are other camps as well who note the same reality - even with the Sufis who noted Christ showing the way to walk on the Straight Path/be in Love with the Divine (as God is Love) - Others such as Ibn al-‟Arabi fleshed out his philosophy of the "Perfect Man‟ (insan al-kamil) based on his reading of Hadith Qudsi - more shared in "Representations of Jesus in Islamic
Mysticism: Defining the Sufi Jesus‟ by Milad Milani .
​

Even other scholars in Islam noted the same even further - as Rumi presented the idea of the "Perfect Man‟ as a personal means to reach God...and Rumi‟s portrayal of Jesus moved “well beyond the literal message” of his Muslim and Christian sources and well “into the realms of mystical experience, of which he was such a master"...showing Jesus as “the perfection of humanity,” making a direct link with Ibn al-‟Arabi‟s use of insan al-kamil.

Noting "Well, they all memorized the Quran" doesn't show any dealing with what the Quran actually shows when it comes to views - and had one actually dealt with the references of other scholars who addressed the work of others you posited (who aren't new), that would have been understood. There are other Muslim scholars at universities who disagree with the views of others you placed forth - and noted why. Reference was given directly.

If using an argument of "They're born Muslim", all were born Muslim and memorized the Quran - so trying to use that in argument doesn't cut it when it comes to noting what has actually been shared/discussed in Islamic camps for centuries....and seeing why camps differ in their view, just as there are camps within Christianity that differ. Even with those who are Muslims serving Christ/Isa, this has been discussed by other scholars as seen in Christology in Dialogue with Muslims: A Critical Analysis of Christian Presentations of Christ for Muslims from the Ninth and Twentieth Centuries

I don't claim to be an expert, but I do have a bookcase of Islamic books, including works like Fiqh Al-Akbar. I am not an expert in Quranic Arabic either, but I do study it to the best of my ability. I have several Arabic Qurans.

Good to know the works you've studied - I have other Islamic books as well on the subject, as well as ones on the subject of Arabic within the Quran and of course do the best with study as well as seeing what other Islamic scholars have noted. If one has a view on the issue based on the scholars they have studied, that is never a problem.

 

[Gxg (G²)]

I have read the Quran perhaps two dozen times, including in the original Arabic. Since the Quran is primarily a recitation, I have listened to Quranic recitation by famous Qaris like Mishary Rashid Al-Afasy, Abu Bakr Shatri, Said Ghamadi, Mauquly, and others.

Cool to know - others have as well (and I've gone through the Quran as well - just as others have multiple times who disagree with you).

In short, I am not a "casual reader" of the Quran the way that you are implying. I honestly find your view to be, not common, but more or less a fringe view. I simply don't find your interpretation of the Quran to be consistent with my experience of it.

If you wish to have that mindset, of course - but as said before, much of the things you noted don't really address Islam in how it was in its beginnings...and as said before, I find your view to be far from actually dealing with how Islam was seen in its beginnings. Thus, your view is akin to radical new interpretation rather than actually dealing with the older camps - and it's why I noted it's not really something I take seriously if/when it is already on a bit of the extreme side of things

Islam is what it is... A copy of a copy of a copy that just takes inspiration from some heretical groups(like Gnostics) and others that aligned themselves to Judaism or Christianity and reformed a new theology from this and went further

And as said before, talking on whether you find the view of others to be consistent with the Quran really has little to do with actually dealing with the Quran - as well as little to do with where it is rather obvious you've not really interacted with Muslims of all walks of life nor show real awareness outside of what you chose to study - be it in regards to Allah or Arabic Translation of the Quran and how other Muslims have actually lived.

Some (in their study - as is the case with you) feel that Islamic tradition normatively denies that Christ was crucified...and of course, there are certainly exceptions - to every single rule (just as others feel that Islam was monotheist and yet still know there are one or two Muslims out there who disagree with them in their own vicinity).

Nonetheless, while Islamic tradition - as it concerns what's often seen today in many places - does deny Christ was crucified.... the time period makes a difference in light of how tradition will vary based on the age one lives in.....and what's understood based on a tradition will vary as well. How others understood a majority view to be in the times of the Early Body of Christ when Islam was developing (as in the time of St. John of Damascus) is different than how many in the majority understand a text/concept to be - and in the time of the Early Church, it was never the case that Islamic tradition was understood in the majority to mean that Christ was never crucified. They knew what the language of the Quran was about and didn't respond as many camps today do...

This was noted earlier, as seen in The Crucifixion in Shi'a Isma'ili Islam - The Matheson Trust |.

If speaking on Islamic Tradition of a certain group, one should state that plainly - as opposed to speaking overall with regards to Islamic tradition. For many who are believers and yet growing up within Islamic systems have long noted that many Islamic traditions are already in line with the Bible...

I don't paste walls of quotatioos. I use Forum Runner on my Android, and that has its limitations. But if you are familiar with the Quran, you would recognize what I have referred to from memory and pasting shouldn't be necessary anyway. Because I refer to the Quran from memory doesn't make it an "assertion."

Nothing you said here (as said before) has anything to do with actually dealing with the Quran as it is - anyone can make a claim. Dealing with the text is another thing entirely - and as said before, nothing you said was either radically new or substantial as it concerns addressing the Quran.

You didn't even quote the Quran acurately at several points -and thus, it was an argument via assertion rather than dealing with the text. One cannot claim they quoted from memory and yet they don't even get the quotes from the text correct...and yet still speak in generalities. Other Muslim scholars have called that out often when it comes to dealing with the issue for what ti is.

I am not talking about getting information from You-Tube or websites but from the bonafide scholars I mentioned,
who have been properly vetted in scholarly journals and by their peers.

That's an incomplete argument, seeing that there's no basis in saying something from a website is NOT from a scholar...nor does your argument address where other scholars already were noted in their books/resources and where they taught.

Additionally, it is making argument via assertion talking on "Well I have bonafide scholars!" since claiming such doesn't deal with where other Islamic scholars already disagreed with them - and your default argument was "Well that's what I studied - therefore, that's all that is true!"...that doesn't show information to be correct because you have a preference. It is inconsequential harping on people you feel were vetted in scholarly journals and by their peers - it is still directly avoiding the fact that other scholars I already noted have had the SAME THING..and discussed with those scholars...yet you avoided it because you already had a pre-existing bent to what you wanted to hear.

That's selective argumentation and will never address the whole of what's found within Islam.

I have read several Quran translations and my favorite is the lesser known A. J. Arberry translation, but I believe every student of Islam and the Quran needs to study Quranic Arabic, and read the original text as well as study its recitation.
You did not address the scholars I mentioned and perhaps you have not read works by these scholars. All of them are experts in Middle Eastern languages and read and translate original material. Annamarie Schimmel, a professor at Havard University, received her first Ph.D at the young age of 19. She traveled extensively and had friends all over the Muslim world. She was an expert, a prodigy rather, in the languages of the Middle East and the Muslim world.

Argument via assertiona again, seeing that others disagreeing with you have never claimed that there's no need to study the Quranic Arabic nor has it been the case they didn't read the original text and its recitation. There's no need making arguments against what no one was saying - and trying to do so is akin to trying to argue on the basis of finding high ground to make it out as if no one but you (and who you prefer) wishes to do those basics.

If you disagree, you disagree - that's the end of it. But there are hundreds of scholars that can be brought up who have already disagreed with you - growing up Muslim, raised in Muslim communities and having differing views....as well as Ph.Ds and doing other work in communities all around the Muslim world. None of that has anything, however, to do with actually addressing the Quran since that's essentially arguments of "Look at what my side does!!!" and ignoring they aren't the only ones.

One needs to deal with the Quran if you want to discuss it.

This is the level of scholarship I am referring to, not websites with a mission and talks on You-Tube. You should read all of the scholars that I mentioned. In fact, they are required reading for the serious student. I think their works would give you a more accurate view of Islam and the Quran.

The level of scholarship you discussed is already something you made plain you don't really address equally since you already ignored other scholars who did the things you preferred (even though you disagreed with their claims) - their works already studied by students who also studied the works you gave (prior to assuming that others disagreeing with your experience DIDN'T study those sources) - other works that have been mentioned/referenced by other scholars will be of benefit as they note to anyone actually wanting to deal with the full scope of Islam.

However, when ignoring that for favor of only addressing what you wish.... as said before, it's selective argumentastion. The same goes for actually ignoring what other Muslims in countires where Islam is dominant have actually said when it comes to their lives/mosque - and trying to make a claim of "Well, I didn't read that in the books I read so it's not true!!"

By that logic, one can assume that talking to Christians who note their experiences in church or with other believers are not to be taken seriously (including yourself in this online forum) because another scholar someone read didn't agree with that - that ignores the basics of Anecdotal evidence in communities/seeing what's actually PRACTICED...and what's said when it comes to how others interpreted a passage/teaching. And as you didn't deal at all with real life for what Muslims dealt with, it's really no different than one harping on what those in the Black Church are like - and pointing to other scholars writing on the issue even as they disagree with other Black Christians in their experiences/everday life in the Church - it will always be an OUTSIDER view someone does with that logic.

With your claims, IMHO, It's also not really consistent with the argument to talk on being against websites or You-Tube and then ignore where the scholars you already noted have both WEBSITEs and YOU-Tube (as well as their own online articles). Thus, if one doesn't address that while trying to make triumphant argument as if what they have is either the SOLE represenation or superior, they simply speak outside both sides of their mouth and do equivocation - and the same goes with claiming things disagreeing with YOUR view have an agenda.....that is an argument of emotional appeal rather than objectively dealing with the argument and seeing what the Quran says since the same can be argued by anyone disagreeing with you.

None of those things are actually argued by actual scholars who never focus on doing those types of arguments which can be done by anyone not familar with the Quran and not wishing to deal with camps disagreeing with them.

I don't know what you know about Islamic mysticism, but having studied both Christian and Islamic mysticism, I continue to believe that the best hope for a meeting point between Christianity and Islam lies in mysticism. Although Sufism has degenerated in some ways and can be the subject of abuses and excess, I believe that it represents the best of Islam. Also, thinkers and poets like Muhammad Iqbal are interesting.

Already discussed the issue of Islamic Mysticism and the ways it is not understood ......in the same manner that others assume all camps of Islam are inherently violent and then ignore what the Sufis and other camps have been about (more discussed here).

Be that as it may, it really has nothing to do with the discussion on the Quran - nor does it address where others disagreed and noted why.

You may dismiss me as a "casual reader" of the Quran if you like. All of us can learn more about the subject. I am not opposed to creative interpretations of the Quran. The Sufis specialized in esoteric interpretations of the Quran. But to represent your view as one being typically held through history by Muslim thinkers is simply incorrect. The Quranic word for "messiah," for example, does not carry the Christian meaning of "savior." But it can be interpreted as such in a creative way, so to speak.


I am happy if Muslim believers find peace in Jesus. And it is in fact held by the Catholic Church that Islam represents a partial truth, so I am very aware of that view.

And as noted before, an argument via assertion or emotional appeal is not the same as actually dealing with the Quran and addressing others in the Islamic community).

BTW, You might want to start a thread about your viewpoint in the Christianity and World Religions subforum and ask for feedback from the Muslims there.

Already did so - as I've been involved in many discussions there with Muslims before in that forum and others who noted the SAME things I am noting now. That you were not aware of it is not the same as keeping up with what has happened over there

And as said before, if you want to continue talking on the Quran, you can make other threads over there on the issue if you'd like - or make another thread here. But at this point, as the OP isn't focused on the issue, there's really nothing more to say. Again, the only reason I addressed your postings is because you chose to comment on something you disagreed with in #80 - but there are other threads for it.

 

[Gxg (G²)]

Each is distinct but all together are in full unity, they are with distinct wills, necessary in distinct offices determined with necessity in eternity, but with these wills always in agreement. No other belief has such a concept, but this monotheism is what is shown with considering all the Bible.

Monotheism has a way of often changing when considering the background behind how much things shifted.

When you consider the ways that Monotheism developed in the Hebrew worldview, it is interesting to consider the ways that the concept evolved over time - especially if examining the Exodus Account of how God addressed the other gods/goddesses and arose to demolish the Egyptian gods/goddesses in order to prove who the real God is. The concept of ethnical momotheism has to be considered when it comes the reality that many cultures believed in monotheism - except they felt that the being they worshipped was the sole one whom all should worship - and if not doing things on their terms, there'd be issue. For them, it was never about having many deities (even though things could easily be placed within the realm of Monolatry and Henotheism - #36 #86 /#89 - when seeing how one being was Supreme even as other beings existed AND the Hebrews often spoke of the Lord being "God of gods" and "Among the gods there is none like you - Psalm 82 and Psalm 86)....and each camp holding to ethnical monotheism would inevitably have battles centered around showing whose monotheism was truly the "right" way - by defaulting making all other forms of monotheism "wrong" - leading to many battles for dominance so as to ensure others were interacting on the right basis even if others differed while having the same principle (i.e. believing in monotheism/all needing to interact by the same rules and yet not thinking that monotheism practiced by one group would lead to playing the same as other monotheists in whom they worshipped).

AS said elsewhere:

monontheism has made a lot of impact on the world economically:

• Monotheism (From a Sociopolitical and Economic Perspective)

V

But with Monotheism, it does seem that one cannot truly understand the fullness of why the Hebrews went that route unless one addresses how Monotheism and Polytheism had differing aspects present in Ancient Israel..

Dr. Michael Heiser discussed the issue best in his work entitled Monotheism, Polytheism, Monolatry, or. Henotheism? Toward an Assessment of Divine. Plurality in the Hebrew Bible. and another work By Martin Parsons called Unveiling God: Contextualising Christology

 

[steve_bakr]

As said before, IMHO, you really don't show any real awareness or dealing with Islam - and that's fine if you wish to do so. It's simply not dealing with others who actually grew up within Islam - very much different than studying Islam /the Quran for over two years and having no real interaction with Muslims
(and long before you even chose to make a comment initially on a posting I made to another, I was aware of where you are passionate for the Quran - as discussed in Should Christians study Al-Qur'an and The Qur'an and others (and I've been there/participated often so the threads AREN'T new nor really radical).

The list of scholars you gave out were NEVER the fullness of what occurs in the Islamic world (nor was the list longer since there dozens more who disagree with those you placed up and they have been noted) - or the only ones working in regards to Western Languages/Arabic and the Muslim world. There were others I already provided who were either Muslims or Non-Muslims working with them - and at multiple points, you already made claims of "Well, they're not scholars" - that's an example of a No True Scotsman fallacy where one assumes something differing from them is not a valid interpretation because they already had a pre-conceived idea of how it looked like.

And that is not the same as dealing with the reality of c what other Muslims have lived out...and continue to live out daily in regards to worship of Isa Al Masih. It has already been addressed - including the multiple times dialogues have occurred between Muslims and Christians on the issue

And there are already plenty of Muslims who've spoken on the issue in the community with regards to Worshipping Jesus At A Mosque and trusting Isa for salvation. The scholars you noted are not in any way remotely new nor the sole standard that has been within Islam and that has been noted by Muslims for some time.

If you chose to ONLY read their works, that's your choice - but it is not the comprehensive addressment of all camps/sects within Islam - and studying Islam solely on the ones you chose to bring up without dealing with the numerous other scholars/teachers and imams who've differed with them is not the same as addressing Islam in its entirety.

If one has only seen swans that look white, they cannot make a logical leap in saying all swans either HAVE to be white or that there have never been non-white swans - as it going based on what you've seen rather than on what has actually occurred. And you didn't address in any way where others disagreeing with their views said so plainly - and you also ignored why others supporting the views of the scholars you hold did so...that was already addressed, even though you chose to ignore it. And we're not going back to deal with something you chose to avoid.

Again, we can start with the Imams around the world who serve the Lord - as noted in Secret Believers: An Interview with an Imam or other places noting what Islamic scholars/imams have noted as it concerns trusting in Isa Al Masih for salvation and living life within the Islamic community.

And again, if you want to discuss scholars, we can start with St. John of Damascus, Griffith, S.H, Abdul Saleeb, Tafsir Ibn 'Abbas, Brother Andrew & Al Janssen / Revell , Abd al-Masih, Paul-Gordan Chandler, Farhan Qureshi

We can also address Abdullah Saeed (as it concerns comparing the modern trend of Muslim followers of Isa to the first-century Jews who also put their trust in the Messiah) from “The Charge of Distortion of Jewish and Christian Scriptures.” (The Muslim World, vol. 92:3-4 Fall, 419-436)...or *Arberry A.J. of The Koran Interpreted – A Translation. New York: Touchstone –....as well as Fouad Elias Accad of Building Bridges – Christianity and Islam.

“First-Century Jews and Twentieth-Century Muslims.” (International Journal of Frontier Missions, vol. 17:1 Spring, 33-39)...as well as Keith E. Swartley (of the book "Building Bridges").....and, of course,
Kenneth Cragg of "Jesus & the Muslim—An Exploration" ( investigation of the relationship between Islam and Christianity as seen through the examples of the life of Syrian novelist Mazhar Mallouhi, a self-described “Sufi Muslim follower of Christ.” )....and Nabeel Qureshi (who has worked with other scholars such as Ravi Zacharias and others who grew up in the Muslim world in the Orthodox camps of Islam) - and "The Moslem Christ – An Essay on the Life, Character, and Teachings of Jesus Christ According to the Koran and Orthodox Traditions" by Samuel M. Zwemer (made in 1912)

But until you can deal with it and the Quran, there's really nothing more to say.

As it is, the discussion was already something that I noted earlier could be discussed elsewhere since it really isn't centered on the OP if wanting to debate your view of the Quran - and the only reason I responded thus far is because you made a comment on a posting I made to another. If you want to continue, MAKE another thread on the matter to do so - but outside of that, there's really nothing more to say on the matter.

Seeing that Muhammad Yusif was never the only commentary on the Quran, it is again a specious argument to even claim "Well, your view doesn't come up!!" - of course not all camps of Islam EVER Agreed, otherwise you'd not have differing sects in Islam and others either ignoring a view not in line with what THEY support - or saying something erroneous of a view they don't hold to.

This is a very basic principle when it comes to the debate of "Who Are The Orthodox Muslims?" and why there's Shia/Sunni Dialogue...as well as dialogue with those who are Sufi and other camps all debating with each other in their commentary...even down to other camps such as Kharawaj (radical for both Sunnis and Shia -and best discussed by Valerie J. Hoffman, Professor of Islamic Studies at the University of Illinois) Isma'ilite or Bahai or Ahmadiyya Islam (or even Nation of Islam and differing camps outside of that). There is also the Isawa Isa al-Masih (ee-sah ahl-mah-seeh) – Jesus the Messiah. ... (disciples of Isa) – a sect of Islam in northern Nigeria which exalts Jesus (Isa)...also called the Hausa Muslims - more discussed on them by scholar Mallam Ibrahim in the Encyclopedia of Islamic Civilization and Religion (by Ian Richard Netton ).

There are other camps as well who note the same reality - even with the Sufis who noted Christ showing the way to walk on the Straight Path/be in Love with the Divine (as God is Love) - Others such as Ibn al-"Arabi fleshed out his philosophy of the "Perfect Man" (insan al-kamil) based on his reading of Hadith Qudsi - more shared in "Representations of Jesus in Islamic
Mysticism: Defining the Sufi Jesus" by Milad Milani .


Even other scholars in Islam noted the same even further - as Rumi presented the idea of the "Perfect Man" as a personal means to reach God...and Rumi"s portrayal of Jesus moved “well beyond the literal message” of his Muslim and Christian sources and well “into the realms of mystical experience, of which he was such a master"...showing Jesus as “the perfection of humanity,” making a direct link with Ibn al-"Arabi"s use of insan al-kamil.

Noting "Well, they all memorized the Quran" doesn't show any dealing with what the Quran actually shows when it comes to views - and had one actually dealt with the references of other scholars who addressed the work of others you posited (who aren't new), that would have been understood. There are other Muslim scholars at universities who disagree with the views of others you placed forth - and noted why. Reference was given directly.

If using an argument of "They're born Muslim", all were born Muslim and memorized the Quran - so trying to use that in argument doesn't cut it when it comes to noting what has actually been shared/discussed in Islamic camps for centuries....and seeing why camps differ in their view, just as there are camps within Christianity that differ. Even with those who are Muslims serving Christ/Isa, this has been discussed by other scholars as seen in Christology in Dialogue with Muslims: A Critical Analysis of Christian Presentations of Christ for Muslims from the Ninth and Twentieth Centuries


Good to know the works you've studied - I have other Islamic books as well on the subject, as well as ones on the subject of Arabic within the Quran and of course do the best with study as well as seeing what other Islamic scholars have noted. If one has a view on the issue based on the scholars they have studied, that is never a problem.

That is quite a text wall and wall of links. I noticed that the theme of many seems to be Muslims who have converted to Christianity and are now in a debate with Islamic "propaganda." That sounds more like what "Answering Islam" is about, that is, countering Islam in a kind of debate pushing the Christian message.

I was not talking about "scholars" with an agenda. That is not really scholarship but more akin to polemics. I am talking about those scholars whose studies are made from a neutral or Islamic POV.

You mention Ravi Zacharias as a scholar? I don't know him, but he sounds like an evangelical Christian with an agenda. His association with Dennis Prager doesn't put him in scholarly company.

So, it seems like my first observation is correct. Your approach to Islam is with the agenda of converting Muslims to Christianity. That is not necessarily scholarly because it gives you a bias from which to interpret the material. It selectively engages the material and forces it into an already predetermined conclusion. IOW, you are doing what you accuse me of.

A word about the Perfect Man. He is invariably identified as Muhammad. There is an entire Sufi theosophy that centers on the "Muhammadan Light." In a hadith, Allah says, "Were it not for you, I would not have created the world." In another hadith, Muhammad says, "I was a Prophet before Adam was made of clay." Muhammad is identified as the Logos. Some Sufis sought "annihalation in the Prophet" before reaching "annihalation in Allah." So I'm not sure what your point about the Perfect Man was supposed to be.

But you are right that this discussion should be discontinued here. I forgot that this is GT. So I am ending it here.

 

[Gxg (G²)]

That is quite a text wall and wall of links.

Respectfully, in light of where you already gave a wall of scholars and other things, it is rather inconsequential.

And it's always for reference as others have done (and quite more extensively) - outside of that, it'd be noting bibliographies and the names of the books other Islamic Scholars have made and the places their lectures/teachings and books (as well as comments from the Islamic community ) are present.

I noticed that the theme of many seems to be Muslims who have converted to Christianity and are now in a debate with Islamic "propaganda." That sounds more like what "Answering Islam" is about, that is, countering Islam in a kind of debate pushing the Christian message.

I was not talking about "scholars" with an agenda. That is not really scholarship but more akin to polemics. I am talking about those scholars whose studies are made from a neutral or Islamic POV.

Actually, for many - it was never a matter of Muslims converting to Christianity (seeing that the actual term "Christianity" was NOT something mentioned in the scriptures at any point and others were followers of God/Messiah even outside of being called Christians). The focus was on Muslims who chose to follow Isa and live everyday life within an Islamic culture - there are others, of course, who say they want nothing to do with Islam whatsoever ....but plenty who are of the mindset that being a follower of the Lord isn't about whether or not you're called "Christian."

This is why other Muslim scholars have long noted why there have always been others who chose to follow Jesus within the system of Islam and honor Him above Mohammad in light of what's present within the Quran....

They don't work backward assuming that anything lining up with what's said in traditional Christianity by Muslims within Islam is a matter of pushing a Christian message since many have noted they never had any concern with ceasing to be Muslim at all - it was about dealing with the ways Muslim identity was never about denying Isa Al Masih as Messiah and that the Quran was always centered on Isa being ABOVE and GREATER than Mohammad. This is why there have been debates on what was present in the Quran and why others interpreted it differently over the years.

Nonetheless, as said before, it is still an argument of assertion when it comes to the issue of claiming that one is not talking about "scholars" with an agenda - anytime there is a text in mind and others have a bias they are leaning toward with it and advocating, there's always an aspect of an "agenda" that one can argue if they wanted to. Others reading the same text and yet coming to differing conclusions - each seeking to be as objective as possible (yet not realizing where they may have leanings) and then saying the other side had an "Agenda"...but that doesn't go anywhere if claiming the people you chose to favor/the scholars you chose to bring up are not scholars with agenda because you agree with them.

That's not being consistent in argumentation. And if you cannot square with that directly (or the fact that other schools of Islam have noted directly where they all compete with one another and have often said of the other that they are not True Islam), then speaking about anything regarding bias is irrelevant and not really a valid argument that one can show they believe in.

It will always come back to the True Scotsman fallacy of someone saying "All Scottish people love Hagus" and then say of another Scottish person "Well you're just not Scotish and have an agenda against the Scotts!!" because of them not liking Hagus or having family members/neighbors in Scotland who didn't like Hagus. That doesn't prove anything if you disagree....it simply shows your bent toward your assertion.

You mention Ravi Zacharias as a scholar? I don't know him, but he sounds like an evangelical Christian with an agenda. His association with Dennis Prager doesn't put him in scholarly company.

Ravi Zacharias - if you don't know on who He is - is not someone you can claim isn't in scholarly company when he has already worked with and talked to Muslims in scholarly circles.

And the "Dennis Prager" claim is an old one (really attempt at Guilt by association - without verification of context) that doesn't go well in addressment.

Ravi as with many others grew up in Eastern culture and around Islam (more discussed in his book "Walking from East to West: God in the Shadows" and Beyond Opinion: Living the Faith We Defend)- being one of the most respected scholars in the world and knowing intimately on Islamic culture since his family (As well as several other Indian communities ) were a part of it. One dismissing that is akin to one who's Non-Black trying to say that a Black person no longer a part of the R&B culture is someone who doesn't know "black culture" because it disagrees with their bent - the credibility for it simply isn't there.

There are other scholars besides Ravi who've done a rather stellar job at addressing Islam - such as one already mentioned being Dr. Nabeel Qureshi ( medical doctor by training with two master’s degrees in religious studies, growing up in a devout Muslim family and one who read the entire Quran in Arabic by age five, memorized more than a dozen chapters by his teens and boldly proclaimed Islam to his friends of other religions)....

Nabeel Qureshi: Islam Through the Eyes of Muslims - Apologetics to Islam - YouTube

Muslim And Christian Debate, "Who Is Jesus?" - Nabeel Qureshi Response - YouTube


But Ravi has long interacted with Islam and debated with other Islamic scholars on multiple occassions.

Is the Quran Accurate? Ravi Zacharias explains:settled! - YouTube

Best Christian Muslim Debate ever !!! - YouTube​

Outside of that, one cannot be consistent really in your argumentation with Ravi Zacharias (if attempting guilt by association) when ignoring that it goes both ways in regards to noting other Muslims disagreeing with those not agreeing with Ravi...as is the case with Dr. Safwat Bishara of "TWO DIFFERENT RELIGIONS: HOW ISLAM PERCEIVES CHRISTIANITY AND WHAT IS THE TRUTH" The entire claim of "That's not scholarly!" is a loaded term that doesn't really verify or show anything other than what sources one either does or doesn't deem to be worthy.

So, it seems like my first observation is correct. Your approach to Islam is with the agenda of converting Muslims to Christianity . That is not necessarily scholarly because it gives you a bias from which to interpret the material. It selectively engages the material and forces it into an already predetermined conclusion. IOW, you are doing what you accuse me of.

Actually, what is apparent is that you never understood what was said to begin with (and thus, are arguing false scenarios that no one supported since there was never ANY point whatsoever where it was said Muslims had to convert to Christianity in order to be saved/follow God) - and that was noted by several scholars on the issue already addressed.

This has already been discussed in other threads over in the Christianity/World Religions section - places for such being in Zen Buddhist vs Christianity or Zen Buddhist Christian ??? and other places. As another noted best:

we worship the same God as the Jews. The difference is they knew Him before us, and so didn't know Him fully, whereas the Muslims met Him after the Incarnation, where He was fully revealed to us, and then rejected the original and changed Him further. To take my "Harry" example up there, Jews knew Harry before we did, but didn't know he lives with his father and brother. They still assert he lives alone, but their friendship with him isn't as close as it would be if they accepted this new information about him. Muslims met Harry after it was common knowledge that he lives with his relatives, but are still refusing to accept it.

It's one thing to doubt a new truth about something when you already knew it. To be introduced to something, then assert you know more about it than what was known by the experts who introduced you to it, is another.

God used people in imperfect ways to show who He was ..all the way to the Finished work of Christ.

And as the early church had no problem talking on the ways God was inclusive, it was not a problem when we talked on the ways things bridge together. With regards to Muslims, it's significant enough to see how many Muslims have noted Isa as the Messiah - one of the reasons why it really wasn't a huge jump for her seeing how Isa has been appearing all over the world to Muslims in dreams/drawing others to himself.

More Than Dreams 5/5 - Mohammed (Christian Documentary) - YouTube​

More Than Dreams 1/5 - Ali (Christian Documentary)
More Than Dreams 2/5 - Dini (Christian Documentary)
More Than Dreams 3/5 - Khalil (Christian Documentary)​

More Than Dreams 4/5 - Khosrow (Christian Documentary) ​

The Kingdom of God is expansive - and thus, when I see Muslims coming to faith in Christ and yet still appreciating their Muslim background, it's why I don't see any real issue with where my grandmother is at in her experience in seeing the life-changing teaching of Christ. This is the concept behind the Kigndom and how we come in thru various places

In John 4, the Samaritan woman at the well recognized Jesus as a prophet and immediately wanted to ask Jesus a religious question: “Where should we worship God? At Jerusalem as the Jews believe? At Mt. Gerizim as the Samaritans believe?” It’s the classic setup for a debate. Whose religion is right? As it concerns the question, Jesus refuses to enter the discussion and elevates the conversation to another plane altogether: “The hour is coming, and is now here, when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and in truth.” For 1400 years, the debate has looked like this: Christianity v. Islam. Jesus v. Muhammad. Bible v. Qur’an. I know of many missionaries who tell Muslims that they need to become Christians. And many Muslims telling Christians how they'd be a great Muslim and that they should convert.

​

But there was something far bigger than “Christianity v. Islam”... for interestingly, Jesus never asked a single person to become a “Christian.” Paul was a Jew until the day he died. Both Jesus and Paul had a concern greater than religious identity since they spoke of the Kingdom of God. Jesus said, “The time is fulfilled and the Kingdom of God is at hand. Change the way you think and believe in the Good News” (Mark 1.15)

​

And the Kingdom is the conversation.

​

What I try to say to every Muslim I meet is that I am aware that there’s been a lot of bad blood and misunderstanding between Christians and Muslims over the years. ..and yet we actually have quite a bit in common - and I believe that both they and I desire to love and honor the one true God, so while I don't make it a factor of demanding that they become a Christian in order for me to fellowship with them (just as I ask that they please don’t ask me to become a Muslim), I promise that I will do all that I can to help us both discover the true straight path into the Kingdom of God....and I believe that the true access to that Kingdom is through the sacrifice of Jesus the Messiah.

How does an individual move into the Kingdom of God? How does he or she find meaningful answers to life’s questions? The answer is found through embracing the teachings of Jesus Christ. And included in this is placing one’s trust and faith in Him since out of an affection for Jesus, devotion to His teachings, and adoration of Him, will one grow all the beauty and comfort of life, the transformation of one’s character, and the regeneration of the soul.
[URL="http://www.qideas.org/video/engaging-islam.aspx"]

​

​

​

[/URL]​

/URL][URL="http://vimeo.com/22577748"]​

http://vimeo.com/22577748​

http://vimeo.com/22577748​

http://vimeo.com/22577748​

 

[Gxg (G²)]

So, it seems like my first observation is correct. Your approach to Islam is with the agenda of converting Muslims to Christianity. That is not necessarily scholarly because it gives you a bias from which to interpret the material. It selectively engages the material and forces it into an already predetermined conclusion. IOW, you are doing what you accuse me of.

As noted before, when you speak on what is or isn't "scholarly" and yet cannot square with the simple reality that you already have a bias interpreting the material and have noted such in ignoring where other Islamic scholars disagreed with your own view, then it isn't taken seriously with regards to addressing the text - and the same goes for already having a predetermined conclusion...and yet not really tackling where the conclusion you made isn't present in the text itself or with the views you advocate of "No Muslims in history have ever held that view!!" - it is pulling the cart before the horse.

Doesn't take much to accuse without actually asking questions/getting the facts BEFORE speaking - but it is never wise (Proverbs 18:15, Proverbs 18:17, etc.) - for again, at no point was it ever claimed by myself that I felt Muslims HAD to leave Islam in order to be followers of Jesus.

Speaking past that simple point is a further demonstration of promoting a falsehood without really dealing with what's said - ad hominem - and thus, more evidence one really doesn't understand Islam outside of what they'd prefer it to be. Not an issue at the end of the day since people will only see what they wish to see....but if you keep misrepresenting what others say, I'd advise you to stop ahead of time before it goes further.

A word about the Perfect Man. He is invariably identified as Muhammad. There is an entire Sufi theosophy that centers on the "Muhammadan Light." In a hadith, Allah says, "Were it not for you, I would not have created the world." In another hadith, Muhammad says, "I was a Prophet before Adam was made of clay." Muhammad is identified as the Logos. Some Sufis sought "annihalation in the Prophet" before reaching "annihalation in Allah." So I'm not sure what your point about the Perfect Man was supposed to be.

None of that is according to what the Sufis actually noted when it comes to the Perfect Man - as it was never Muhammad who was identified as such and the Sufis noted that repeatedly. For to the Sufis, Jesus is the greatest and highest ranking of all the prophets in the succession of the prophets up to his person - it being noted that 'No previous prophet, however graced with virtues of perfection, ever quite attained his degree" and "Jesus is the paragon of a perfect human being and the example par excellence of a true master"..

This is something that has been noted for sometime when it comes to how those who are true Sufis feel that the name Jesus stands for "love" (and thus, the representative of God who is Love by Nature) and they 'won't be content with anything less than to be pure like Jesus, as in the words of the poet 'Attar.

Cleanse me, O Lord, of this filthy soul,
So I may claim immortal purity for myself, like Jesus.​

More was noted on that in "Jesus in the Eyes of the Sufis" by Dr. Javad Nurbakhsh.

But the Quran never says Muhammad was ever the perfect man at any place....

This is why it was noted that trying to quote the Quran by memory rather than dealing textually with what's within it can be problematic since it is again speaking in generalities divorced from context.....for Muhammad speaking was NEVER saying He was the Logos (as that was reserved for Isa Al Masih alone - the Word from God) and being a prophet ordained by the Lord before Adam is in the same vein of what God noted to Jeremiah in Jeremiah 1 when saying "Before I knit you in the womb, I ordained you a prophet" and Ephesians 1:3-5 on God preparing us for our callings BEFORE the world itself (including Adam and Eve being born) began.

Of course Muhammad knew he was ordained a prophet before Adam was made - the same language was used of other things where the Lord ordained roles before others came on the scene. And the Quran also states that Isa Al-Masih was sinless..as seen when. Qs 19:19 says, “I will give you (Mary) a pure boy.” Moreover, Qs 2:253 (Shakir) notes "We have made some of these messengers to excel the others among them are they to whom Allah spoke, and some of them He exalted by many degrees of rank; and We gave clear miracles to Isa son of Miriam, and strengthened him with the holy spirit. . . ." - in this scripture no other prophet is mentioned but Isa Al-Masih as He enjoys exceptional prestige and honor in the Quran, even though it was written 600 years after He lived.

There can be no avoiding how Isa was referred to as the “Messenger” and the “Prophet” and the “Word” and the “Spirit” of God - for no other prophet in the Quran, not even Muhammad, is given this particular honour.

All the prophets had sinned, and their sins were mentioned in the Quran and Torat - but only Isa was the only sinless one (Sura al Imran 45). Even the Arab prophet (Al-Bukhari) taught about the perfection of Prophet Isa when noting "Satan pokes with his finger the side of every human at birth, except Jesus, son of Mary; when he went to poke Him, he poked the curtain."
(Hadith of Sahih Bukhari Vol 4, Book 54). Moreover, Isa was a Sign and Mercy from Allah -as noted when the Quran says "Unto men who fell under the burden and the shackles of sin; for which, Allah’s justice and holiness condemned them to eternal perdition. For this reason the only Savior, who can offer eternal salvation to men came to be a Mercy from Allah."

While Sufism treats Jesus, the prophet, as subordinate to Muhammad, it notes plainly for others to see Jesus, the holy man, as greater than the example given by Muhammad (and other human beings).

There is actually an excellent book on the issue called The Muslim Jesus, the former Cambridge professor of Arabic and Islamic studies Tarif Khalidi brings together, from a vast range of sources, 303 stories, sayings and traditions of Jesus that can be found in Muslim literature, from the earliest centuries of Islamic history..painting "a picture of Christ not dissimilar to the Christ of the Gospels" since "The Muslim Jesus is the patron saint of asceticism, the lord of nature, a miracle worker, a healer, a moral, spiritual and social role model."

​

The Quran must always be done in context...

But you are right that this discussion should be discontinued here. I forgot that this is GT. So I am ending it here.

Don't know how one could forget this is GT rather than another forum - lest they choose to ignore the settings they're in.

Nonetheless, there are thankfully there are other places to take conversation on the matter - Shalom.

 

[Gxg (G²)]

.

It's interesting, I think, that as Christians we are so accustomed to concepts like "the Holy Spirit is in us" that we don't pause to think about what that really means, and when we approach the same subject from a different angle, we draw completely different, if not contradictory conclusions (though understandably so, given the magnitude of what's being said). If God lives in you and you in God, just as Jesus Christ was one with the Father (John 17:22), then the conclusions we may draw about what is or is not possible for us, has consequences on what was or was not possible for Jesus Christ.

Very excellent points as it concerns the ways that we often do not consider the ramifications of the Holy Spirit being present in us and what our language conveys when we note certain realities...