Help me to answer Muslim Apologetics!

[Masihi]

The book of Revelation’s authorship is pretty easier to track then most other books of the Bible like the Gospels, for three major reasons, one is that it’s author identifies himself as John of Zebedee and speaks in a way as if he personally knew Jesus. Two the early Church Fathers frequently quoted from it which shows they accepted its canonicity before the present Biblical canon was formed. And third the Early Church identifies the writer as John son of Zebedee or John the Apostle.

 

[Masihi]

Correction Uthman burnt any rivaling codex’s and standardized the Quran into a single codex, which shows the differences must have been quite substantially large. The Quran alsowas revealed in seven different dialects, under whose authority did Uthman change this?

 

[UglierThanThou]

It is possible the Book of Revelation is pseudopigraphical, which was common for that time.

 

[SalamKhan]

Very nice job taking the verses of the Bible out of context to show that God didn’t speak to Moses

Not at all. This is a common occurence throughout the Bible. See for example, Genesis 32:22-30 where it says Jacob (A) wrestled God, yet Hosea 12:3-4 clarifies that he overcame an Angel. See also Exodus 13:21, which is then clarified by Exodus 14:19-20.

And no it’s not detestable and damnable for God…

I was referring to the corrupted human nature as being detestable and damnable.

its the ultimate expression of love which the Islamic god lacks

We do not believe anyone bears the sin of another, we do not believe that God will punish us for the sins of our first parents. And contrary to popular belief, it is not dogma in Islam that Hell is eternal, scholars of the past such as Ibn Qayyim al Jawziyyah (a very conservative Hanbali) demonstrated that there is no clear indication that Hell is eternal in the Qur’an or in Hadith.

 

[Chaldean]

Muslims don’t believe God appeared in the burning bush, and I didn’t think Catholics did either because it would contradict the doctrine of Divine simplicity. Eastern Orthodox may believe that due to their theory of theophanies. But the Bible is clarifies that it was an Angel (Exodus 3:2).

This is from the Quran- Sahih International
Al-A’raf -143 "And when Moses arrived at Our appointed time and his Lord spoke to him, he said, “My Lord, show me [Yourself] that I may look at You.” [ Allah ] said, “You will not see Me, but look at the mountain; if it should remain in place, then you will see Me.” But when his Lord appeared to the mountain, He rendered it level, and Moses fell unconscious. And when he awoke, he said, “Exalted are You! I have repented to You, and I am the first of the believers.”

Al Qasas 29 "And when Moses had completed the term and was traveling with his family, he perceived from the direction of the mount a fire. He said to his family, “Stay here; indeed, I have perceived a fire. Perhaps I will bring you from there [some] information or burning wood from the fire that you may warm yourselves.”
Al Qasas 30 "But when he came to it, he was called from the right side of the valley in a blessed spot - from the tree, “O Moses, indeed I am Allah, Lord of the worlds.”

AN-Naml 7 "[Mention] when Moses said to his family, “Indeed, I have perceived a fire. I will bring you from there information or will bring you a burning torch that you may warm yourselves.”
AN-Naml 8 "But when he came to it, he was called, “Blessed is whoever is at the fire and whoever is around it. And exalted is Allah, Lord of the worlds.”
AN-Naml 9 “O Moses, indeed it is I - Allah, the Exalted in Might, the Wise.”

I cited all these verses from the Quran from Sahih International. It clearly states that God appeared in the mountain and in the tree with fire surrounding. It also states that it was God appearing and not an Angel.

Hasn’t the nature of man been corrupted due to original sin, according to Catholic doctrine? Are you not attributing to God, that which is detestable and damnable, by asserting He added to Himself the nature of man? It doesn’t seem very consistent to me, making Mary and Jesus the exceptions to this corruption.

In the Quran itself it mentions that Jesus and Mary were not touched by Satan. Therefore, they were both without sin. Therefore Jesus’ nature of man does not fall under the corruptible standard nature. This shows that he was special and divine.

 

[SalamKhan]

This is from the Quran- Sahih International
Al-A’raf -143

That refutes your assertion that God appeared in the burning bush. The mountain could not withstand His presence, not could Moses (A) see Him.

Al Qasas 30

AN-Naml 8

Does not at all say that God appeared in the burning bush. God spoke to Moses (A), of course, we refrain from saying what manner God spoke to Moses (A). But do you understand what speech is in common usage? What does it have to do with appearance?

 

[SalamKhan]

In the Quran itself it mentions that Jesus and Mary were not touched by Satan

This is not in the Qur’an, it’s in a weak Hadith. Also, we Muslims do not believe in original sin in the first place. But you do, yet give exception to Mary and Jesus.

 

[Chaldean]

This is not in the Qur’an, it’s in a weak Hadith. Also, we Muslims do not believe in original sin in the first place. But you do, yet give exception to Mary and Jesus.

It is in the Quran- Here is the exact verse in English-
Al Araf 143- "And when Moses came to Our appointment, and his Lord spoke to him, he said, “My Lord, allow me to look and see You.” He said, “You will not see Me, but look at the mountain; if it stays in its place, you will see Me.” But when his Lord manifested Himself to the mountain, He turned it into dust, and Moses fell down unconscious. Then, when he recovered, he said, “Glory be to you, I repent to you, and I am the first of the believers.”

Al Qasas 29. When Moses had completed the term, and departed with his family, he noticed a fire by the side of the Mount. He said to his family, “Stay here, I have glimpsed a fire. Perhaps I can bring you some information from there, or an ember from the fire, that you may warm yourselves.” 30. When he reached it, he was called from the right side of the valley, at the Blessed Spot, from the bush: “O Moses, it is I, God, the Lord of the Worlds.

Al Naml 8. Then, when he reached it, he was called: “Blessed is He who is within the fire, and He who is around it, and glorified be God, Lord of the Worlds. 9. O Moses, it is I, God, the Almighty, the Wise.

This is clear as day. Anyone could look up these verses in English and read. God even asked Moses to take off his shoes because the area was sacred and holy.

And how is Sahih weak? He is adopted by al Azhar in Egypt and also in Saudi Arabia.

 

[SalamKhan]

You don’t actually read my posts, do you? You asserted that the Qur’an says Mary and Jesus were not touched by Satan, and I denied this was in the Qur’an. I have already answered the verses you cited regarding Moses (A) and the burning bush above:

Help me to answer Muslim Apologetics! Non-Catholic Religions

That refutes your assertion that God appeared in the burning bush. The mountain could not withstand His presence, not could Moses (A) see Him. Does not at all say that God appeared in the burning bush. God spoke to Moses (A), of course, we refrain from saying what manner God spoke to Moses (A). But do you understand what speech is in common usage? What does it have to do with appearance?

 

[Chaldean]

You say that God does not manifest himself. I can read and this is clearly what it says in the Quran-

But when his Lord manifested Himself to the mountain, He turned it into dust, and Moses fell down unconscious.

Blessed is He who is within the fire, and He who is around it, and glorified be God, Lord of the Worlds. 9. O Moses, it is I, God, the Almighty, the Wise

When he reached it, he was called from the right side of the valley, at the Blessed Spot, from the bush: “O Moses, it is I, God, the Lord of the Worlds.

In regards to being touched by Satan- Muhammad himself said that Jesus and Mary were not touched by Satan-
Sahih Al-Bukhari Hadith, Hadith 4.506, narrated by Abu HurairaThe Prophet said, “When any human being is born, Satan touches him at both sides of the body with his two fingers, except Jesus, the son of Mary, whom Satan tried to touch but failed, for he touched the placenta-cover instead.”

Sahih Al-Bukhari Hadith, Hadith 4.641 Narrated by Said bin Al Musaiyab: Abu Huraira said, “I heard Allah’s Apostle saying, 'There is none born among the off-spring of Adam, but Satan touches it. A child therefore, cries loudly at the time of birth because of the touch of Satan, except Mary and her child.”

When the angel appeared to Mary to announce the birth of Jesus, he said in Sura 19:19 (Mariam) - “‘I am the messenger of your Lord,’ he replied, ‘and have come to give you a holy son.’”

Abu Huraira reported Allah’s messenger as saying, “There is none among the sons of Adam who is born but not touched by Satan at the time of his birth. So he cried loudly because of Satan’s touch. But this is not the case with Mary and her son.” (Agreed upon)

Remember in Sura 19:19 Jesus is called the holy son, without sin, faultless, pure and righteous by his own nature.

All of my citations are from Islamic books. If you want to deny or say that have no merit this is up to you.

 

[SalamKhan]

You say that God does not manifest himself. I can read and this is clearly what it says in the Quran

If you can read what it says, then you can also read that the mountain could not withstand God’s presence, nor could Moses (A) see God. Could a burning bush then withstand God’s presence, and Moses (A) see Him there?

You are adding your own assumptions to the verses.

Say: 'My Lord has only forbidden indecencies, the inward and the outward, and sin, and unjust insolence, and that you associate with God that for which He sent down never authority, and that you say concerning God such as you know not.

• Surah 7:33

In regards to being touched by Satan- Muhammad himself said that Jesus and Mary were not touched by Satan-

That is not the Qur’an. It’s not obligated for any Muslims to accept ahad (singular/isolated) Hadith in matters of doctrine.

Remember in Sura 19:19 Jesus is called the holy son, without sin, faultless, pure and righteous by his own nature.

It does not say that, and we do not believe in original sin anyway.

 

[Chaldean]

If you can read what it says, then you can also read that the mountain could not withstand God’s presence, nor could Moses (A) see God.

This is true. But it does not deny the fact that God manifested himself in the mountain. Which proves that God is able of manifestation. He even continued to speak to Moses after the mountain was rendered level.

In Al Naml- It says that Moses saw a fire and he told his people that he is going up there to bring them information or burning wood from the fire. Don’t you think this correlates with the Jewish version of the burning bush? The verse continues to say that Moses went up there, he was called to the right side of the valley in a blessed spot. God spoke to Moses from a tree. He told him I am God. God of the worlds. To me this clearly indicates that God manifested in a tree. Many of your Hadith’s will agree with what I am saying. If God can manifest in a mountain and in a tree, why can’t he manifest in Jesus? Do you think Jesus born without sin is coincidental? God can not manifest in anything sinful. Jesus being born without sin was part of God’s plan.

I am paying attention to what you are saying. But what you’re telling me does not correlate with what I am reading in the verses I’ve cited from the Quran. And when I cited the hadith from Sahih, you called it weak. Even though Sahih is one of the Major 6 Islamic Hadith writers. His Hadith’s are taught by Al Azhar University.

 

[Chaldean]

That is not the Qur’an. It’s not obligated for any Muslims to accept ahad (singular/isolated) Hadith in matters of doctrine.

Here goes two Sources: Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī 3248, Ṣaḥīḥ Muslim 2366

 

[Chaldean]

It does not say that, and we do not believe in original sin anyway.

You do not believe in original sin, but you do believe that Satan enters the woman’s body and touches the baby. Not sure where he enters from, but you do believe so.

 

[SalamKhan]

This is true. But it does not deny the fact that God manifested himself in the mountain. Which proves that God is able of manifestation. He even continued to speak to Moses after the mountain was rendered level.

What you insist is “manifestation” in that verse, which I’m assuming you think means incarnation or indwelling; it doesn’t mean that. The Qur’an uses the Arabic word ‘tajalla’:
http://corpus.quran.com/qurandictionary.jsp?q=jlw#(7:143:25)

https://www.almaany.com/en/dict/ar-en/%D8%AA%D8%AC%D9%84%D9%89/

The theologians have related this verse to the doctrine of the beatific vision (seeing God in the afterlife), some saying it proves the possibility, whilst others say it proves the impossibility; but none of them discuss any possibility of incarnation or indwelling, because that’s not what the Arabic of the Qur’an indicates.

And when I cited the hadith from Sahih, you called it weak. Even though Sahih is one of the Major 6 Islamic Hadith writers. His Hadith’s are taught by Al Azhar University.

You don’t know anything about Hadith. Sahih isn’t a person, the word means authentic, the collection of Imam Bukhari (this is the person) is considered ‘Sahih’, because later Hadith scholars like Ibn Hajar al Asqalani (d. 15th century) believed the chains of transmission for every Hadith contained in it are authentic; this is according to their testing principles which is more concerned with the chains of transmission rather than the actual content of the Hadith, or secret hypocrites.

Here goes two Sources: Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī 3248, Ṣaḥīḥ Muslim 2366

An ahad (singular/isolated) Hadith, refers to a Hadith that has one, two, or three chains of transmission. Because ahad Hadith does not impart certainty, they are not required to be accepted in matters of doctrine, and the vast majority of Hadith are ahad. Really they are only useful in matters of jurisprudence, where there is much more room for difference of opinion. Only Hadith which are Mutawatir (mass transmitted) in wording (rather than meaning) impart certainty.

You do not believe in original sin, but you do believe that Satan enters the woman’s body and touches the baby. Not sure where he enters from, but you do believe so.

No I don’t.

 

[Niblo]

The word We is usually used to indicate plurality in the kingdom, as for why God would use the royal we in regards to himself would make no sense unless he does exist in plurality.

So you are suggesting that when monarchs…such as Queen Victoria…use the ‘We’ of majesty they do so because they are several beings in one? The ‘Royal We’ is nothing more than a declaration of majesty. God, as the Supreme Monarch, uses this term very often in the Qur’an. At no time does it mean plurality of being.

In addition to the 'Royal We, the Exalted uses ‘He’, ‘I’ and ‘Me’ also, according to context; for example: ‘Say: “He, Allah, is One”’ (112:1); and again: ‘I, Allah, am the best Knower’ (2:1); and yet again: ‘Surely, I am Allah, there is no god but I, so serve Me and keep up prayer for My remembrance.’ (20:14).

Like it or lump it…as far as the Qur’an is concerned, the Exalted is but One Being…not three-in-one. This is why no Muslim is a Trinitarian!

 

[Chaldean]

What you insist is “manifestation” in that verse, which I’m assuming you think means incarnation or indwelling; it doesn’t mean that. The Qur’an uses the Arabic word ‘tajalla’:

You clearly do not speak Arabic. Tajalli has a few meanings, but in Arabic it mainly translates to manifest. This is why Tajalla was translated to manifested in the English version of the Quran. Manifestation could be temporary. So God did not have to incarnate into the mountain which I def did not say.

https://www.almaany.com/ar/dict/ar-en/%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%AA%D8%AC%D9%84%D9%8A/

The theologians have related this verse to the doctrine of the beatific vision (seeing God in the afterlife), some saying it proves the possibility, whilst others say it proves the impossibility; but none of them discuss any possibility of incarnation or indwelling, because that’s not what the Arabic of the Qur’an indicates.

Your interpretation seems way off. Al Bukhari’s interpretation seems more logical based on what I read. You said Theologians share your opinion on the matter. I beg to differ. Maybe some, but not all. We can all agree that you have 1 Quran, but many different interpretations Hadiths that do not align with each other. Again, I never said that God incarnated in the mountain. He simply manifested into the mountain to appear to Moses. Which is exactly what it says in the Quran.

You don’t know anything about Hadith. Sahih isn’t a person, the word means authentic, the collection of Imam Bukhari (this is the person) is considered ‘Sahih’, because later Hadith scholars like Ibn Hajar al Asqalani (d. 15th century) believed the chains of transmission for every Hadith contained in it are authentic; this is according to their testing principles which is more concerned with the chains of transmission rather than the actual content of the Hadith, or secret hypocrites.

I know that Sahih isn’t a person. I just made a typo and only wrote Sahih. Look at my other reply when I gave you the two sources, I clearly stated Sahih Muslim and Sahih bukhari. Didn’t I? I also find it funny how you consider Sahih Al Bukhari to not have much merit yet in Islam its considered the most Authentic book after the Quran.

An ahad (singular/isolated) Hadith, refers to a Hadith that has one, two, or three chains of transmission. Because ahad Hadith does not impart certainty, they are not required to be accepted in matters of doctrine, and the vast majority of Hadith are ahad. Really they are only useful in matters of jurisprudence, where there is much more room for difference of opinion. Only Hadith which are Mutawatir (mass transmitted) in wording (rather than meaning) impart certainty.

Is this the opinion of all Muslims? Or only some? I would love for an honest answer.

 

[SalamKhan]

You clearly do not speak Arabic.

Yep, you got me. But it’s not like I ever claimed to do so, right? I merely asserted that you do not understand the Qur’anic Arabic. Also, thanks for reposting one of links I posted.

So God did not have to incarnate into the mountain which I def did not say.

You did not say it, but you are attempting to prove the possibility of incarnation from this. Otherwise, what exactly is your point?

Al Bukhari’s interpretation seems more logical based on what I read

Imam Bukhari’s interpretation? What is it and where did you read that?

Which is exactly what it says in the Quran.

Let us intepret the verse using the Qur’an, and any Hadith that actually supplement the verse.

God is the Light of the heavens and the earth…

• Surah 24:35

It belongs not to any mortal that God should speak to him, except by revelation, or from behind a veil, or that He should send a messenger and he reveal whatsoever He will, by His leave; surely He is All-high, All-wise.

• Surah 42:51

Here are some Hadiths which actually supplement these verses:

Verily the Exalted and Mighty God does not sleep, and it does not befit Him to sleep. He lowers the scale and lifts it. The deeds in the night are taken up to Him before the deeds of the day, and the deeds of the day before the deeds of the night. His veil is the light. In the hadith narrated by Abu Bakr (instead of the word" light" ) it is fire. If he withdraws it (the veil), the splendour of His countenance would consume His creation so far as His sight reaches.

• Collection of Imam Muslim, Book 1, Hadith 343

God has seventy thousand veils of light and darkness; if He were to remove them, the radiant splendors of His Face would burn up whoever (or ‘whatever creature’) was reached by His Gaze

• Famous Hadith cited by various sources

It is fitting for God to be described in this manner, as the intensity of His essence is reminiscent of the intensity of the sun; the closer you are to it, the closer you are to perishing (this concept is also in the Bible). This is sufficient for the explanation of the verse where God reveals Himself before the mountain.

 

[SalamKhan]

I know that Sahih isn’t a person. I just made a typo and only wrote Sahih

Fair enough, but you did do this more than once.

I also find it funny how you consider Sahih Al Bukhari to not have much merit yet in Islam its considered the most Authentic book after the Quran.

And as I have already explained, this is due to later Hadith scholars like Ibn Hajar al Asqalani (d. 15th century). The Asharis and Hanbalis today hold the collection of Imam Bukhari in very high esteem. However, Imam Bukhari was actually shunned and condemned by his contemporaries. By the Hanbalis of Baghdad, because they believed him to be a heretic, and by the Hanafis of Bukhara, because Imam Bukhari criticised Imam Abu Hanifa. In the end, Imam Bukhari died with very few friends and allies, one of whom was Imam Muslim (compiler of the Hadith collection named after him). The collections of Bukhari and Muslim started to be held in high esteem due to Imam Hakim al Naysaburi (d. 11th century). The aforementioned Imams Bukhari, Muslim, and Hakim, were great and respectable scholars in their own right, but however many Sunni Muslim scholars eventually became complacent and started to become over-reliant on Hadith. No Hadith collection should be considered the “most authentic book after the Qur’an”, and there should be no “six canonical books”.

Is this the opinion of all Muslims? Or only some? I would love for an honest answer.

It is the position of the Ashari, Maturidi, and Mutazilite schools that ahad Hadith can never impart certainty, and so do not have to be accepted in matters of doctrine; although Asharis and Maturidis today seem to ignore this sometimes. The Hanbali school (and today’s Salafis) holds the position of khabar al ahad, which means they believe ahad Hadith can impart certainty, which is absurd, because their own scholars have proven that an ahad Hadith which was considered authentic by past authorities, can be re-evaluated to find that it is not authentic.

 

[Masihi]

After Jacob wrestles with the angel, he names the place Peniel, “because I have seen God face to face.” (Gen 32:30). There’s no actual word for Angel in Hebrew, the word translated in Hosea literally means Divine messenger, which is also used to refer to the forms God revealed himself to certain messengers such as Abraham or Moses. The text clarifies that Jacob saw God in the form of a divine messenger. Exodus 14:19 also uses the word Malak which literally means divine messenger translated to English as Angel. Even if it was an Angel in both cases the first verse say that God visited the messenger which means God to the form of a Malak to appear to the prophets. Christians don’t believe God punishes people for their fathers sins, people choose to sin and the consequences of that sin continue in the Son, there’s no personal responsibility in the sins of the father carried to his offspring. Hell is eternal for Kuffar, while it is temporary for certain sinful Muslims, the Quran, Hadith, and Tafsir say many times he’ll is the eternal abode of Kuffar.