The Discussion Continues
Between Shubbiha Lahum and Trinity 2 (C)
By Jalal Abualrub
The Discussion Continues
Between Shubbiha Lahum and Trinity 2 (C)
By Jalal Abualrub
The questioner wrote:
9) v) Is the teaching of Allah’s Oneness responsible for unbalanced Islamic societies? In the Zabur God says that people will become like the god they worship. (Psalm 135: 15-18) The idea we have of God will influence the society we will create. In Islam God is a lone despot who does what He pleases, consulting no one. Consequently, the Muslim individual is swallowed up in the ummah. We find Islamic, totalitarian states that oppress individual creativity. As a result Muslim states are economically weak, human rights are not followed and freedom of expression is not encouraged. Sadly, in the idolatrous Western Nations of the 21st century where many people worship their idols, we find the other extreme. Community is swallowed up in individualism. The Biblical, Trinitarian description of God, when truly believed and practiced, produces a balanced society where both the individual and the community are equally important. Both are respecting and benefiting each other, leading to peace and progress. (See the late British theologian Colin Gunton addressing the problem of one and many in his book “The One, the Three and the Many”, 1993)
Answer 9:
We agreed not to debate Muslims, but to debate Islam. Do you want me to write an essay on Christian societies and the violence and bloodshed that they filled the earth with? What about the multiplicity of deities that Christians have and its relation to the continuing conflict, division, injustice and worship of the individual that Christian societies suffer from? What about the Christian religious wars that caused the death of millions? When Trinity was forced on Christians and became the law of the land, life itself was stifled and Christians fought each other and almost destroyed each other. To preserve its very existence, Europe had to literally fight its way out of Christianity.
Popes were emperors. They forced everyone to follow their ideas, and the economy and sciences suffered under their tyranny. Until the Crusades that is, the Crusades that witnessed Christians commit some of the most horrible crimes man ever committed, even killing Christians who took refuge in churches in Jerusalem. Yet, through the Crusades, Christians were exposed to the Islamic civilization that Muslims enjoyed under the mercy of Islam and because of it. The Christians copied the Islamic civilization, which is a direct result of Islam itself and due to the encouragement Islam gives to social harmony and strength, whether military, scientific or economic. The Christians copied the Islamic civilization, never thanked Muslims for it and then attacked almost every Muslim country on the face of the earth.
What about the Inquisitions? What happened to the Muslims and Jews who lived in Spain prior to the Christians occupying it? What about the Americas? European Christians stole two entire continents from their true owners, almost led them to virtual extinction and forced the rest of them, as well as, millions of African Muslims whom they enslaved after kidnapping and then shipping them to the Americas, to become Christian. What about the Philippines, which was mostly Muslim before the Dutch came, but is now mostly Christian after the Dutch and Spaniards left? The Dutch were among the worst and most violent, corrupt, bloody and fanatical of occupiers of other peoples lands that Europe could come up with. Do you know about the economic and social misery that the Philippines live in, and they are indeed, extreme Trinitarian fanatics? I know about their Christianity and about their misery; I lived there.
There are Muslim societies who are –today- far better off than many Christian societies. Do you remember Mexico, Central and South America and the misery, social and economic, that they live in? They have to flee their countries to the US to escape the miserable life they live in, in their own Christian utopia? What about Christian Africa and the civil wars and misery they live in? Rwanda was not Muslim when Christian on Christian violence led to the death of about a million people.
IN ADDITION: just like the Zabur says, that people will become like the god they worship (Psalm 135: 15-18), Christian societies are as they have mostly been, rampant with violence and instability. Only a few decades ago, three major Christian nations of Europe were led by two Catholics and one Orthodox, who led the world into a disaster of untold proportions by causing –among them- the death of at least 120 million human-beings. These three Christian men were not Muslim by any means, nor were they quoting the Quran when they did what they did. In fact, Hitler often quoted the Bible against the Jews, and often said that he always was, and will always be, a catholic. Stalin was sent by his mother to a covenant school to study Christianity, before he led the Soviet Union and caused the death of one quarter of his own population before WWII. Mussolini often met with and sought blessing from Catholic Popes, who were at least silent, but surely did not object to the extermination of Jews.
Germany, Italy, France, Poland, Romania, etc., are not Muslim, but Christian nations. They did not quote the Quran when they helped the Nazis exterminate the Jews. These countries paid for their crimes against Jews by evicting the Palestinians from their land and then granting it to the Jews. They learned from Trinity that someone else died for their sins, so why not make the Palestinians pay for the sins of Europe against the Jews. The holocaust was not Muslim-on-Jew violence; it was Christian-on-Jew violence. The Vatican had to apologize to the Jews for its silence, which in fact was active participation in some aspects, during and before WWII.
What these three did is consistent with what Christian societies before them did to each other and especially to the Jews and Muslims. The Papal Wars; the 30-Year War; the Inquisitions, which were based on the St. Augustine Principal; the Crusades; etc.! Do these bloody wars portray the multiple-personality gods the Christians worship? Are Christians torn between a violent triune-personality portrayed in the OT and a peaceful triune-personality portrayed in the NT?
Which triune-personality do Christians immolate? Is it the peaceful personality that calls upon them to show the other cheek to those who strike them on their cheek? Or is it the personality of aggression that ordered them to, “Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass” (I Samuel 15:3)”? It cannot be the other-cheek personality, or else, they would need such a long cheek that extends all the way from Washington and London to Iraq, a country that never invaded any Christian society or struck any of them on the cheek?
Is not dropping bombs that weigh more than a ton on civilian neighbourhoods in the pretext that a terrorist is hiding in that neighbourhood, is not this crime consistent with I Samuel 15:3? And why are the self-described religious men and women of the West at the forefront of calls to commit armed aggression against Islam and Muslims? Does not claiming that someone else died for Christian sins act like a word of encouragement that, no matter the sins Christians commit, love of Jesus Christ will assure forgiveness and eternal life for them in heaven? Those who have a house made of glass should not throw stones at passer-byes.
The Islamic description of God, when truly believed and practiced, produces a balanced society where both the individual and the community are equally important. Whenever Islam was strong in the hearts of Muslims, their state was on top of the world, including scientifically and economically. Both, society and the individuals who live in the Islamic Society, are respecting and benefiting each other, leading to peace and progress. This can only be achieved through fulfilling the unity in creation, which represents unity in the Creator, i.e., He is One and Only One. Multiplicity leads to conflict, while unity is the essence of harmony and the enemy of division.
Today’s Muslim societies do not represent Islam. They only represent the degree to which they apply Islam in their lives. This is why there is a strong Muslim movement to call Islamic societies to refer to Islam for judgment and to fully apply its creed and law. Muslims are weak today not because of Islam, but because they do not apply it fully in their lives. They lost the means of unity and strength because they are divided in spite of the clear Islamic commandments that enjoin unity and harmony on them. This is why the West strives so hard to prevent Muslims from holding fast to their only means of power, strength, unity and righteousness, the only means that can bind them together; it is Islam that the West fears. If they can keep Islam far away from Muslims and keep Muslim far away from Islam, even by using military force if necessary, then Muslims will remain weak, divided, dependent and miserable.
This is a taste of your own medicine, except that my medicine is better. The truth is a medicine that no man can create, it comes from within and if applied correctly it heals, by Allah’s Will.
10) Is it not the case that if a Hadith contradicts the Quran it is not valid? Does that not mean that the Quran is more important than the Hadith. Please tell me exactly what kind of Muslim you are. If you are a Sunni, to what sect do you belong and how do you know it is the right one? According to tradition Muhammad (p.b.u.h.) is quoted as having prophesied that his followers will be divided into 73 sects (Arabic, firac). Every one of them would go to hell, except the one professed by him and his companions. (Mishkat, book 1, ch vi. pt.2). 'The number has, however, far exceeded the Prophets predictions for the sects of Islam, even exceeding in number and variety those of the Christian religion.' (Dictionary of Islam, by T. P. Hughes, Asia Publishing House, London, 1998, p. 567) So is this Hadith authentic even though the prophet predictions have been exceeded?
Answer 10:
Of course I am a Sunni; is not that obvious even to you? The Sunni people include the entire Muslim generation of the Prophet, the generation that transferred Islam, Quran and Sunnah, to mankind. There were no sects during the Prophet’s time; there were few individuals who were misguided. The sects developed after the Prophet’s death. He, peace be upon him, warned against sectarian ways beforehand, because division is a sign of contradicting the Islamic way and because it is a sin to divide in the religion. So what I follow is the very generation that learned Islam with its Prophet. They are not a sect. They are the best people as the Prophet called them; they are his companions, friends, supporters, in-laws, relatives and the best believers of all times after Allah’s Prophets and Messengers.
What about you? What Christian sect do you belong to? You, Christians, are as much divided as Muslims are. So what is the point you are making here?
Be fair! First, you should acknowledge the prophecy of the Prophet, who said that Muslims will divide AFTER HIM. That happened. The Hadeeth is authentic, of course. However, since you did not list those sects that, according to you and the person you quoted, exceeded seventy-three, then, how can I explain the truth to you? The problem is that the person you quoted may have come up with sects that he decided are distinct and different from each other. Does he know what a sect means according to the Hadeeth, or does he classify sects according to his own judgment? Are you aware that the Mu’tazilah still exist today, but under various different names? Thus, the man you quoted may have listed three or four sects as being different sects, even though they may actually be just one sect. You do not have a point here at all. Where are the examples? Quote the man’s specific list. If you do, then, I am ready to tear apart his argument, because he is making up lists based on his own desire. Where is the PROOF?
Every Prophetic Hadeeth is valid and authentic. There is not a single Hadeeth that the Prophet said that contradicts the Quran in any way or form. You are confused between narrations that are ascribed to the Prophet which have problems in the chains of narration transmitting them, and between what has been established as authentic Hadeeths that the Prophet uttered. The same word, Hadeeth, is used to describe statements that are valid and authentic, and statements that are false or weak.
‘Hadeeth’ pertains to speech. If a Hadeeth narration comes to us through authentic chains of narration, then it is accepted, because then we know the Prophet said it. If a Hadeeth comes to us through weak or rejected chains of narration, then it is not accepted, because the Prophet did not say it. THIS IS HOW IMPORTANT THE PROPHET’S HADEETH IS: an entire community of scholars dedicate their life to preserving the Prophet’s Hadeeth. As a terminology, both types of Hadeeth are still called Hadeeth’, i.e., speech, i.e., ascribed to the Prophet or others besides him.
A sign of weak or rejected Hadeeths, along with the deficiency in the chains of narration transmitting them, is that the text contradicts the Quran. This is when Hadeeth scholars know that the Prophet did not say the weak or fabricated Hadeeth. You seem to think that Hadeeth Scholars would reject an established Prophetic Hadeeth which they know the Prophet uttered, by claiming that the established Hadeeth contradicts the Quran. Not true. Hadeeth narrations must have chains of narration that transmit them, or else they are automatically rejected. Next, every Hadeeth’s authenticity, or lack of it, is decided through a scientific analysis of every chain of narration transmitting the Hadeeth, before a Hadeeth is accepted or rejected. This includes studying the chain of narration and evaluating its validity, as well as, studying the text to look for any hidden or apparent defect, such as contradicting the Quran.
To prove that what you understood is not valid, I should state here that if a Hadeeth is found to contradict a more established Hadeeth, not only the Quran, then the Hadeeth is also rejected. Using your logic, the Hadeeth of the Prophet must be less important than the Hadeeth of the Prophet, since if a Hadeeth of the Prophet is found to contradict a Hadeeth of the Prophet, then the Hadeeth of the Prophet is rejected. Better yet, do you know that Allah called the Quran itself ‘Hadeeth’, {81. Is it such a Hadeeth (talk; this Qur’ân) that you (disbelievers) deny?} [56:81]? How would your logic apply here?
We, the Muslims, have a precise scientific method with which to verify every statement that is ascribed to Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him. It is called the method of Isnad, a method that you do not have, and will never have. You have no idea who really narrated any statement in the Bible or through whom. My amazement never ends at the Christian world. They follow a creed given to them by complete unknowns, then, they build an entire complex religion based on guesswork based on things written by Authors-Anonymous. Then they claim Allah deceived them.
11) About the resemblance of Jesus be thrown on a man who volunteered (where is your proof for that he volunteered?)
Answer 11:
Judaism and Christendom have lost all chains of narration leading to the authors of their Holy Books many centuries ago, almost from the beginning. Christians cannot produce a single Biblical statement supported by even a hint of a chain of narration that includes trustworthy narrators whose biography, teachers and students can be verified and attested to. Thus, your long list of NT verses about the crucifixion of Jesus is not valid to begin with. Who wrote the Four Gospels, really? Who are their witnesses; whom from did they hear these stories? Unlike Christians and Jews, Muslims have a method with which they can verify the authenticity of every single statement that is part of the Quran or Sunnah. As I stated earlier, Christians and Jews found books written by complete unknowns and based their religion on books written by Authors-Anonymous.
I ask you for your witnesses, especially when all four Gospels state that the disciples all fled and abandoned Jesus when he was supposedly led to be crucified. Instead of doing that, you bring all these verses written by unknowns, collected from unknowns. How can you prove that a single statement in what you quoted is true? The witnesses you claim reported these stories are the same people who led Jesus to his death, as is claimed.
Here is what I mean by ‘witnesses’. In my book, Holy Wars...Crusades...Jihad, Pg., 196, I said this, “It is not surprising that the Jews conspired to kill the Prophet, peace be upon him. The Bible states that the Jews killed Prophets, like Prophet John, (Matthew 14:1-12), and tried to kill Jesus, and succeeded, so it is claimed, Matthew: chapters 26-27. However, Allah, the Exalted, said in the Quran, {And because of their saying (in boast), “We killed Messiah ‘Îsâ (Jesus), son of Maryam (Mary), the Messenger of Allâh,” — but they killed him not, nor crucified him, but it appeared so to them [the resemblance of ‘Îsâ (Jesus) was put over another man (and they killed that man)], and those who differ therein are full of doubts. They have no (certain) knowledge, they follow nothing but conjecture. For surely; they killed him not [i.e. ‘Îsâ (Jesus), son of Maryam (Mary), peace be upon him]. But Allâh raised him [‘Îsâ (Jesus)] up (with his body and soul) unto Himself (and he, peace be upon him, is in the heavens)} [4:157-158]. Imam Ibn Kathir reported, using an authentic chain of narration from the Sahih grade, that Abdullah Ibn `Abbas said that Jesus asked his disciples for a volunteer whom Allah would make look like Jesus, be killed in his place and join him in his grade in Paradise. A young man volunteered two times, each time Jesus, peace be upon him, turning him down, due to his young age. When the young man volunteered a third time, Jesus, peace be upon him, accepted. Allah made the young man look like Jesus, and it was he who was killed then crucified in his place; refer to, Tafsir Ibn Kathir, Vol. 1, Pg., 763-766.”
12) You dictionary quotations above are taken out of context. It is no problem that the word ‘Trinity’ is not found in the Bible (neither is the Kalima). The doctrine only had to be fully developed in the fourth century by the church as a reaction to false teachers. The church did this based on Bible passages which I sent you above. In the first three centuries there was not need for spelling out explicitly what the Bible said implicitly all along. The main stream of Christianity throughout all the world believes in one God, the Holy Trinity. It is indeed a mystery, as God Himself is. The incomprehensibility of God is confirmed in the Quran and the Bible. (Job 11:7, 1 Cor 2:11, Surah Al-Anaam 6:103 ). Many attributes of Him are accepted by both Muslims and Christians, yet are simply not fully comprehensible to the human mind. We all accept that God has no beginning, yet do we understand this? The common question asked by children, 'If God made everything, who made God?' is just as puzzling to adults. Muslims and Christians believe that God is independent of space and time, yet how on earth can we satisfactorily explain how this might be? How is it that God can be nearer to us than our most secret thought, yet be this for the billions of other people on earth just as much simultaneously? These confusing facts apply also to all people in history and the times to come. 'Impossible!' the sceptic cries out, yet true. Then why should it be such a problem if there is some aspect of God's essential nature (his Trinitarian existence) which is difficult for us to grasp? Someone said, 'if you can understand it then be sure it is not God.' Both, the Bible and the Quran speak about God anthropomorphically (human terms are used to describe him). Orthodox Muslims do not explain the 'how'. Similarly, it is a fact that God's word was revealed in a book, but how the infinite can be expressed in the finite is not clarified. Let us now set the basic framework for our study.
Answer 12:
The encyclopedias I quoted state that the doctrine of Trinity does not exist in the Bible. They concluded what you concluded, that the doctrine was ‘developed’ in the 4th century. You agreed. Thanks. This is precisely my point. The doctrine was introduced centuries after the supposed fact. It had to be developed, because it did not exist in the Bible to begin with. The Roman Emperor, an essentially pagan man, forced his opinion and followed his desire. By cutting the number of gods down to three, he may have thought that it would be more comforting to pagan Europeans rather than making the many gods into only one god. He did not develop the doctrine himself, so it seems. He forced it on the empire, because it appealed to his pagan origins and pagan subjects. Jesus was not his main concern, peace and harmony in his kingdom was.
Had there been texts from the Bible that answer the question of Trinity, do you think the empire would have needed councils to develop what is not developed? I am amazed at you. You agree to this basic fact, that the doctrine was developed in the 4th century. By doing so, you also agreed that before the 4th century, the doctrine was NOT developed. This is because it did not exist, as these encylopedias assert,
The New Encyclopedia Britannica: ‘Neither the word Trinity nor the explicit doctrine appears in the New Testament, nor did Jesus and his followers intend to contradict the Shema in the Old Testament: ‘Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God is one Lord’ (Deuteronomy 6:4).’
The Encyclopedia Americana: ‘Christianity derived from Judaism and Judaism was strictly Unitarian [believing that God is one person] ... Fourth century Trinitarianism did not reflect accurately early Christian teaching regarding the nature of God; it was, on the contrary, a deviation from this teaching.’
The New Catholic Encyclopedia: ‘The formulation ‘one God in three Persons’ was not solidly established, certainly not fully assimilated into Christian life and its profession of faith, prior to the end of the 4th century...Among the Apostolic Fathers, there had been nothing even remotely approaching such a mentality or perspective.’
Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics: ‘In the New Testament we do not find the doctrine of the Trinity in anything like its developed form, not even in the Pauline and Johannine theology.’
Encyclopedia International: ‘The doctrine of the Trinity did not form part of the apostles’ preaching, as this is reported in the New Testament.’
Dictionary of the Bible: ‘The belief as so defined was reached only in the 4th and 5th centuries AD and hence is not explicitly and formally a biblical belief.’
The Oxford Companion to the Bible: ‘...the developed concept of three coequal partners in the Godhead found in later creedal formulations cannot be clearly detected within the confines of the canon ... no New Testament writer expounds on the relationship among the three in the detail that later Christian writers do.’
These people are not talking about a doctrine that is otherwise founded on Biblical texts but was being challenged by heretics, and therefore, councils were needed to reaffirm and reassert the age-old doctrine, the original faith. They speak of a doctrine that mostly did not exist before the 4th century. ‘Developed’, is the key word; you agreed to it. You said the truth, can you abide by it?
You are equating the description of Allah that is plain, clear and simple and is found in the Quran, the OT and the NT to the Trinitarian creed that does not exist in the Bible. Where Allah is described as the Omnipotent, the Creator of everything, the Eternal, there are texts that support these concepts that are plain, abundant and simple. Unlike Trinity, there are ample texts that describe Allah throughout the OT, the NT and the Quran. To explain these texts, that already exist as stated, as to ‘how’ is an error, because creation cannot fully comprehend the Creator, His Attributes or His Actions.
If asked, “Why do you, Muslims, Jews and Christians, believe that Allah is All-Knowledgeable”, there would be numerous Texts found in the OT, the NT and the Quran that confirm this quality of Allah. There is ample proof to assert many qualities of Allah found in the OT, the NT and the Quran. These qualities exist as texts, were preached by the prophets and conform to the general theme that has always prevailed in all three books, that God is One, the One and Only.
In contrast, Trinity DOES NOT EXIST either in the OT or the NT. Christians pieced together a creed that was never preached by any prophet nor is found in any text in the Bible. They invented a creed that Jesus and even Paul never spoke of. Because of this massive shortcoming, Christians always needed to ‘glue together’ texts that were corrupted and spoiled and made to mean what they do not mean. How can this be compared to texts that describe Allah by His Eternal Qualities, qualities that are directly and explicitly supported by plain texts in the OT, NT and the Quran? Note that the quotes I collected from major encycolpeidas state that the doctrine of Trinity does not exist in the NT. Therefore, my challenge to you to bring a shred of evidence to support Trinity still stands unmet.
13) You are saying that only those were deceived by Allah who wanted to kill Jesus. How comes then that all four Gospels clearly say Jesus died for our sins and rose again on the third day? Does that not mean they were deceived by Allah too and along with them the 1.3 billion who believe them today? There were many witnesses to this event, according to the following passage from the Gospel of Luke..................
Lu 23:24 And Pilate gave his decision for their desire to be put into effect.
25 And in answer to their request, he let that man go free who had been in prison for acting against the government and causing death, and Jesus he gave up to their pleasure.
26 And while they were taking him away, they put their hands on Simon of Cyrene, who was coming from the country, and made him take the cross after Jesus.
27 And a great band of people went after him, and of women making signs of grief and weeping for him.
28 But Jesus, turning to them, said, Daughters of Jerusalem, let not your weeping be for me, but for yourselves and for your children.
29 For the days are coming in which they will say, Happy are those who have had no children, whose bodies have never given birth, whose breasts have never given milk.
30 And they will say to the mountains, Come down on us, and to the hills, Be a cover over us.
31 For if they do these things when the tree is green, what will they do when it is dry?
32 And two others, evil-doers, were taken with him to be put to death.
33 And when they came to the place which is named Golgotha, they put him on the cross, and the evil-doers, one on the right side, and the other on the left.
34 And Jesus said, Father, let them have forgiveness, for they have no knowledge of what they are doing. And they made division of his clothing among them by the decision of chance.
35 And the people were looking on. And the rulers made sport of him, saying, He was a saviour of others; let him do something for himself, if he is the Christ, the man of God's selection.
36 And the men of the army made sport of him, coming to him and giving him bitter wine,
37 And saying, If you are the King of the Jews, get yourself free.
38 And these words were put in writing over him, THIS IS THE KING OF THE JEWS.
39 And one of the evil-doers on the cross, with bitter feeling, said to him, Are you not the Christ? Get yourself and us out of this.
40 But the other, protesting, said, Have you no fear of God? for you have a part in the same punishment,
41 And with reason; for we have the right reward of our acts, but this man has done nothing wrong.
42 And he said, Jesus, keep me in mind when you come in your kingdom.
43 And he said to him, Truly I say to you, Today you will be with me in Paradise.
44 And it was now about the sixth hour; and all the land was dark till the ninth hour;
45 The light of the sun went out, and the curtain in the Temple was parted in two.
46 And Jesus gave a loud cry and said, Father, into your hands I give my spirit: and when he had said this, he gave up his spirit.
47 And when the captain saw what was done, he gave praise to God, saying, Without doubt this was an upright man.
48 And all the people who had come together to see it, when they saw the things which were done, went back again making signs of grief.
49 And all his friends and the women who came with him from Galilee, were waiting at a distance, watching these things.
50 Now there was a man named Joseph, a man of authority and a good and upright man
51 (He had not given his approval to their decision or their acts), of Arimathaea, a town of the Jews, who was waiting for the kingdom of God:
52 This man went to Pilate and made a request for the body of Jesus.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Gospel of John gives us additional information of eye witnesses:
Joh 19:25 Now by the side of the cross of Jesus were his mother, and his mother's sister Mary, the wife of Cleopas, and Mary Magdalene.
26 So when Jesus saw his mother and the disciple who was dear to him, he said to his mother, Mother, there is your son!
27 Then he said to the disciple, There is your mother! And from that hour the disciple took her to his house.
28 After this, being conscious that all things had now been done so that the Writings might come true, Jesus said, Give me water.
29 Now there was a vessel ready, full of bitter wine, and they put a sponge full of it on a stick and put it to his mouth.
30 So when Jesus had taken the wine he said, All is done. And with his head bent he gave up his spirit.
31 Now it was the day of getting ready for the Passover, and so that the bodies might not be on the cross on the Sabbath (because the day of that Sabbath was a great day), the Jews made a request to Pilate that their legs might be broken, and that they might be taken away.
32 So the men of the army came, and the legs of the first were broken and then of the other who was put to death on the cross with Jesus:
33 But when they came to Jesus, they saw that he was dead by this time, and so his legs were not broken;
34 But one of the men made a wound in his side with a spear, and straight away there came out blood and water.
35 And he who saw it has given witness (and his witness is true; he is certain that what he says is true) so that you may have belief.
36 These things came about so that the Writings might be true, No bone of his body will be broken.
37 And again another verse says, They will see him who was wounded by their spears.
38 After these things, Joseph of Arimathaea, who was a disciple of Jesus, but secretly for fear of the Jews, made a request to Pilate to let him take away the body of Jesus: and Pilate said he might do so. So he went and took away his body.
39 And Nicodemus came (he who had first come to Jesus by night) with a roll of myrrh and aloes mixed, about a hundred pounds.
40 Then they took the body of Jesus, folding linen about it with the spices, as is the way of the Jews when they put the dead to rest.
41 Now there was a garden near the cross, and in the garden a new place for the dead in which no man had ever been put.
42 So they put Jesus there, because it was the Jews' day of getting ready for the Passover, and the place was near.
Answer 13:
Obviously, not all generations of Christians and Jews were present when Jesus was supposedly led to crucifixion. Only those who were present related the story of what they thought they saw. Ayah 4:157 speaks about those who said, “WE KILLED MESSIAH”. Allah says that they did not kill Jesus, but the matter was confused for them. They were the ones deceived with regards to the claimed crucifixion of Jesus on account of the horrible crime they intended to commit. Also, ALL FOUR GOSPELS CLAIM THAT THOSE WHO SUPPORTED JESUS, THE DISCIPLES, FLED. I did not report that; your Four Gospels did. Thus, I go back to my original question, which I now clarify:
a. Who is that believer in Jesus who reported his crucifixion being an eye witness to what he or she saw?
b. Where is any chain of narration to any of these testimonies you listed?
c. Those whom the Gospels report as being eye witnesses: WHO WERE THE EAR WITNESSES REPORTING THESE STPRIES FROM THE EYE WITNESSES?
d. Those who wrote these stories: who are they, what evidence you have they met these so-called eye-witnesses?
e. NONE of those who wrote the Four Gospels was an eye witness to Jesus or to his crucifixion.
f. Christians did not do their job. They followed an idea their hearts liked and adopted it without verifiable evidence.
g. Christians do not have a single exact replica of any page in the NT. They do not know most of those who wrote these things; they do not know in what original language or time-frame they were written.
h. Therefore, even if you bring hundreds of passages, how do you know these passages are true?
i. What happened to the hundreds of other Gospels that Christians cast away and claimed are not true Gospels? Do not these Gospels contradict what the Four Gospels narrate, and this is why they were rejected? What proof do you have that these other Gospels do not contain more accurate information about Jesus and his fate than the Four Gospels?
j. A crucial part of our debate is that the Four Gospels are not authentic books to begin with. Therefore, your listing their passages, no matter how numerous, is futile because you are using disputed evidence to prove what needs unequivocal evidence and proof.
I already stated to you that the generation that sought the death of Jesus was deceived into thinking that they crucified Jesus, because of their aggression and criminal intent towards one of Allah’s honourable Prophets. As for those who came after them, they followed guesswork, suspicion, desire, doubt and unsubstantiated stories told by the same people who wanted to kill Jesus, who disbelieved in him, who claimed to have crucified him. Thus, the latter generations are the ones who deceived themselves by relying on what has no proof to support it.
Suppose that Jesus was killed as you falsely claim, what does his death prove? It does not prove Trinity. All what his death would prove is that he was killed as Prophet John was killed before him, also by the Jews. Yet, no Trinitarian creed was started about John’s death. Jesus’ death, even if it compensated for the sins of Christians, and his claimed resurrection after three days, as well as, the rest of the stories you quoted, do not prove Trinity. Trinity was not discussed in these passages to begin with.
Thus, modern day Christians deceived themselves, by using texts that do not support Trinity, to prove Trinity. Allah did not deceive them. It is they who ‘developed’ a creed never before preached in their Book. They ascribed divinity to a man who never claimed it. They called him the Son of God, in capital letters. But Jesus did not speak or write in capital letters. It is Christians who developed their faith, not Allah. How can Allah have deceived them then?
Allah did not tell Christians to invent a new religion that worships three gods and then call this utter polytheism, monotheism. Allah did not tell Christians to hang their entire religion on vague statements reported by unknowns. Christian did all this, not Allah. Allah did not write the NT, either. Allah did not report what you listed from Luke. Luke is your book, not Allah’s. The Quran does not list your stories. So how can you claim Allah deceived Christians, when ALLAH DID NOT REPORT YOUR STORIES TO BEGIN WITH?
I ask you again to read the Quran with care. Peace be upon those who follow the true guidance sent to all of Allah’s Prophets, from Adam to Muhammad, including Noah, Moses, Jesus and Muhammad.
Jalal Abualrub
| Comments |
|
in News & views by Arwa, 31-07-10 13:24