Is the Qur'an wrong about the trinity?

[discipleofJesus]

“He who hears the Son of God mentioned ought not to conceive in his mind so great impiety as to think that God begat Him by marriage and union with a woman…
In what manner, then, did He beget Him? First of all, divine operations cannot be known or declared by any one; but nevertheless the sacred writings teach us, in which it is laid down that this Son of God is the speech, or even the reason of God…
With good reason, therefore, is He called the Speech and the Word of God, because God, by a certain incomprehensible energy and power of His majesty, enclosed the vocal spirit proceeding from His mouth, which he had not conceived in the womb, but in His mind…
**John also thus taught: “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by Him, and without Him was not anything made.”**But the Greeks speak of Him as the Logos, more befittingly than we do as the word, or speech: for Logos signifies both speech and reason, inasmuch as He is both the voice and the wisdom of God…”

Lactantius (260-340 A.D.), Divine Institutes, Book IV newadvent.org/fathers/07014.htm

 

[Rodrigo_Bivar]

r.gonzales:

Rodrigo:

Will some Catholic please explain the Trinity to r.gonzales?

why don’t you do them a favour and explain it yourself for me?

I’m too busy writing the parallelism stuff. Talking to you is like talking to a brick wall.

r.gonzales:

Rodrigo:

This is irrelevant . . . Irrelevant as it has nothing to do with 5:73 or 5:116.

on the contrary, it’s very relevant considering that, “the Quran,” as muhammad mohar ali so aptly put it (sirat al-nabi and the orientalists, pg. 293), “treats to the two subjects, the trinity and worship of human beings as gods or lords, as two distinct themes.” this is clearly evident in Allah’s statement in 9:31, “they took their rabbis and their monks as lords besides Allah, as well as [taking] the anointed one, son of maryam [as a lord]; while they were not ordered except to worship Allah as a single god. there is no god [worthy of worship] except He, glorified is He from what they associate with Him.”

Hmmm… that may be so, but in verse 5:116 there is no mention of these ‘rabbis and monks’. Only Jesus, Mary and Allah.

I know what you’re trying to say… that 5:116 is not talking about the Trinity but about idolatry. Bad luck.

You’ve just highlighted to us another of Mo’s mistakes. No Jew or Christian ever took any rabbi or monk as their gods. I will make sure to remember 9:31 for my conclusion to the parallelism thread. Thanks very much, r.gonzales. It’s clearly an own-goal from the Muslims.

r.gonzales:

Rodrigo:

Instead of understanding the concept of the Trinity being ONE GOD, he thought the Trinity comprised THREE gods – and Allah and two ilahs.

you would be right if 5:116 was referring to the trinity, but it’s not. as i said regarding the portion of 5:73 that states, “and there is not any god except a single god”:
this statement from Allah is His disapproval of their statement that He is the third of three; of their having taken others as objects of worship besides Allah, whichever way they have done that by—whether it be by setting up equals to Him, such as their taking their monks and priests as legislators besides Allah, their claiming divinity for jesus and mary, their claiming that jesus is Allah or part of Him, or their supplication to dead saints and righteous people.
taking their rabbis and monks as lords (and legislators) as is stated in 9:31, by obeying them when they made the forbidden lawful and the lawful forbidden (as is explained in an authentic hadeeth reported by ahmad), is a form of worshipping them; thus making them also alihah (pl. of ilah – gods, deities, objects of worship) besides Allah.

muhammad ali states in a footnote to verse 5:116 in his translation (emphasis mine):
From the description of Mary as being taken for a god by the Christians, some Christian critics of the Qur’an conclude that the doctrine of the Trinity according to the Qur’an consists of three persons – God, Jesus and Mary. But this is an absolutely unwarranted conclusion. Mary is no doubt spoken of as being taken for an object of worshipby the Christians; but the doctrine of the Trinity is not mentioned here, while the divinity of Mary is not mentioned where the Trinity is spoken of. The doctrine and practice of Mariolatry, as it is called by Protestant controversialists, is too well known. In the catechism of the Roman Church the following doctrines are to be found: “That she is truly the mother of God, and the second Eve, by whose means we have received blessing and life; that she is the mother of Pity and very specifically our advocate; that her images are of the utmost utility” (Ency. Br., 11th ed., vol. 17, p. 813). [he then goes on to mention more supporting evidence for the assertion that mary has been taken as an object of worship beside Allah, from the catechim and from other examples.]

You fail to see the difference between the Muslim belief in the Islamic monotheism and the Christian belief in their monotheism.

When Allah said do not take anyone else as a god, Allah is a single god etc… he is talking about the Islamic idea of monotheism.

But when Allah talked about Jesus, Mary min dooni Allah – he is not talking about the Islamic idea of monotheism but the Christian idea of the Trinity. You are confusing the two issues.

And thanks again for 9:31. Much appreciated. It really shows Muhammad didn’t have a clue about Christian practices. Hahahah.

cont

 

[Rodrigo_Bivar]

r.gonzales:

Rodrigo:

Two purported gods and Allah, not a trinity?

for someone who loves to point out other people’s logical fallacies, it’s amusing how you fail to see your own flawed logic here . . .

1. the Quran alludes to the trinity in certain places (“do not say three” & “Allah is the third of three”) and also mentions the christians taking jesus and mary as objects of worship in one verse
2. jesus and mary taken as objects of worship + Allah = three objects of worship, thus it must be referring to the trinity.

so what about the learned religious men that the Quran says christians took as objects of worship as well, does it now become a quadranity? or perhaps Allah is comprised of the learned men, jesus and mary?

But Christians NEVER took rabbis and monks as Gods. It was a LIE by Muhammad.

Thanks again for showing us your Muhammad made some pretty fundamental mistakes about Christian beliefs. Not only did he think the Christians worshipped Jesus, Mary min dooni Allah, but he also thought they took their rabbis and monks as lords (i.e. gods).

Sheesh. Keep it up, r.gonzales. Please. You’re doing a great job for our side.

Ciubate,
Rodrigo

PS: please name that logical fallacy I supposedly made.

 

[discipleofJesus]

r.gonzales:

strawmen, indeed . . .

no where in the Quran is it claimed that christians “believe” that there are three gods with two gods beside Allah. obviously christians “believe” that Allah is one, hence the rest of the world calling christianity one of the three monotheistic religions; with islam and judaism being the other two.

likewise, no where in the Quran is it claimed that the trinity is made up of Allah, jesus, and mary—or any other trio for that matter.

It may not be specifically stated in the Quran that christians “believe” that there are three gods with two gods (Jesus and Mary) beside Allah in the Quran,** but it is clearly implied in the Quran that christians “believe” that there are three gods with two gods (Jesus and Mary) beside Allah.**

By the way, I didn’t commit any straw men fallacies. I clearly stated (with added emphasis this time)

discipleofJesus:

This is not even close to refuting the Christian doctrine of the Trinity. **If ** these verses were attempting to refute the Christian doctrine of the Trinity, and it is highly likely that they were, these verses are classic examples of the ‘straw man’ logical fallacy.

see the post forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=93554

Which verses was I referring to?

discipleofJesus:

[Sura 4:171] O People of the Scripture! Do not exaggerate in your religion nor utter aught concerning Allah save the truth. The Messiah, Jesus son of Mary, was only a messenger of Allah, and His word which He conveyed unto Mary, and a spirit from Him. So believe in Allah and His messengers, and say not “Three” - Cease! (it is) better for you! - Allah is only One Allah. Far is it removed from His Transcendent Majesty that He should have a son. His is all that is in the heavens and all that is in the earth. And Allah is sufficient as Defender.

[Sura 5:73] They surely disbelieve who say: Lo! Allah is the third of three; when there is no Allah save the One Allah. If they desist not from so saying a painful doom will fall on those of them who disbelieve.

[Sura 5:116] And when Allah saith: O Jesus, son of Mary! Didst thou say unto mankind: Take me and my mother for two gods beside Allah? he saith: Be glorified! It was not mine to utter that to which I had no right. If I used to say it, then Thou knewest it. Thou knowest what is in my mind, and I know not what is in Thy Mind. Lo! Thou, only Thou, art the Knower of Things Hidden?

[Sura 6:101] The Originator of the heavens and the earth! How can He have a child, when there is for Him no consort, when He created all things and is Aware of all things?

[Sura 72:3] And (we believe) that He - exalted be the glory of our Lord! - hath taken neither wife nor son,

[Sura 5:17] They indeed have disbelieved who say: Lo! Allah is the Messiah, son of Mary. Say: Who then can do aught against Allah, if He had willed to destroy the Messiah son of Mary, and his mother and everyone on earth? Allah’s is the Sovereignty of the heavens and the earth and all that is between them. He createth what He will. And Allah is Able to do all things.

see the post forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=93554

 

[Joseph_Alison]

Rodrigo Bivar:

I also knocked both Joseph and gurrato already.

Salaam Rodrigo;
You disappointed me Rodrigo. Yes, I am awfully disappointed; I thought you were after an intellectual discussion, at least that what you have been bragging about across the board, but now you resort to kids’ tactics.
So you knocked Brother Gurrato and me down! Amazing!!

Why ask Jesus something Allah already knew he didn’t do? Because Muhammad, I mean Allah, already knew the answer and wanted people to hear from Jesus’s own testimony that the worship of Jesus, Mary min dooni Allah is not his teaching.
What is the worship of Jesus and Mary as ilah min dooni Allah? A Trinity. It is not the Christian Trinity. It is Muhammad’s version of the Christian Trinity.

Rodrigo, your majesty;
We explained to you that yes, Jesus (PBUH) never taught people to take him and his mother as gods apart from Allah (SWT), and we demonstrated to you that it was an accusation made against him by the people the Judgment Day.

We explained to you that yes, Allah (SWT) knew that Jesus (PBUH) never said such a thing while on earth and we brought to your majesty verse 3:55 where Allah (SWT) Himself testified to that.
In verse 3:55, Allah (SWT) told Jesus (PBUH) that He will raise him up to Him and clear him from the falsehood of those who blaspheme, If Jesus (PBUH) asked people to take him as god apart from Allah, he would have blasphemed. How would Allah (SWT) clear him from those who blaspheme if he himself blasphemed? So, up until Jesus (PBUH) was raised up he did not say such a thing and Allah (SWT) testified to that.

We explained to you that the dialog between Allah (SWT) and Jesus (PBUH) will take (took, in Allah’s foreknowledge) place the Judgment Day, when no one is allowed to speak save by Allah’s permission. Jesus (PBUH) will face his accusers and deny rightfully to have said such a thing to them.

In short, verse 5:116 does NOT speak about something which occurred and which originated with Jesus (PBUH) during his life on earth, BUT about something which will occur the Judgment Day and which will originate with the people who took Jesus and his mother as objects of adoration or worship. Jesus (PBUH) WILL be ACCUSED to have said that and he would deny.

Using 5:116 to prove that Allah (SWT) -or Muhammad (PBUH) for that matter- did not understand the trinity, is a very cheap attempt to disprove the Message of Islam by trying to show its prophet (PBUH) as being ignorant.
I think I gave enough proofs from the Qur’an to show that this attempt is baseless and devoid of any argument.

If the above is not clear to you, please let me know and I will restate it.

Salaam.
Joseph.

 

[Rodrigo_Bivar]

Joseph_Alison:

Rodrigo:

I also knocked both Joseph and gurrato already.

Salaam Rodrigo;
You disappointed me Rodrigo. Yes, I am awfully disappointed; I thought you were after an intellectual discussion, at least that what you have been bragging about across the board, but now you resort to kids’ tactics.
So you knocked Brother Gurrato and me down! Amazing!!

Hmmm… If I offended you I apologize. I’m not the most patient person around.

Joseph_Alison:

Rodrigo:

Why ask Jesus something Allah already knew he didn’t do? Because Muhammad, I mean Allah, already knew the answer and wanted people to hear from Jesus’s own testimony that the worship of Jesus, Mary min dooni Allah is not his teaching.
What is the worship of Jesus and Mary as ilah min dooni Allah? A Trinity. It is not the Christian Trinity. It is Muhammad’s version of the Christian Trinity.

Rodrigo, your majesty;
We explained to you that yes, Jesus (PBUH) never taught people to take him and his mother as gods apart from Allah (SWT), and we demonstrated to you that it was an accusation made against him by the people the Judgment Day.

We explained to you that yes, Allah (SWT) knew that Jesus (PBUH) never said such a thing while on earth and we brought to your majesty verse 3:55 where Allah (SWT) Himself testified to that.
In verse 3:55, Allah (SWT) told Jesus (PBUH) that He will raise him up to Him and clear him from the falsehood of those who blaspheme, If Jesus (PBUH) asked people to take him as god apart from Allah, he would have blasphemed. How would Allah (SWT) clear him from those who blaspheme if he himself blasphemed? So, up until Jesus (PBUH) was raised up he did not say such a thing and Allah (SWT) testified to that.

We explained to you that the dialog between Allah (SWT) and Jesus (PBUH) will take (took, in Allah’s foreknowledge) place the Judgment Day, when no one is allowed to speak save by Allah’s permission. Jesus (PBUH) will face his accusers and deny rightfully to have said such a thing to them.

In short, verse 5:116 does NOT speak about something which occurred and which originated with Jesus (PBUH) during his life on earth, BUT about something which will occur the Judgment Day and which will originate with the people who took Jesus and his mother as objects of adoration or worship. Jesus (PBUH) WILL be ACCUSED to have said that and he would deny.

I understand all that. What you haven’t understood is why the accusation on Judgment Day doesn’t matter. I know that Allah would know Jesus never told the people to worship him and his mother as gods min dooni Allah. I know that. Allah, if he exists, knows that. Jesus knows that.

Thus, the accusation on Judgment Day is irrelevant, because we are after Muhammad’s idea of the Christian Trinity. We ask why would Muhammad associate Jesus and Mary as ilah min dooni Allah? That is not Jesus’s teachings.

As for people who took Jesus and his mother as objects of adoration or worship one feels you’re meaning the Christians. Now, the Christians don’t venerate Mary as an ilah. Only the Collyridians and maybe some other minor heretical sects do that, and Jesus never taught the Collyridians and these other heretics – so why Allah should ask Jesus that question? Why should Allah accuse Jesus at all?

The most plausible explanation is that Muhammad got the Christian Trinity wrong. Your explanation defies belief. It is very convoluted thinking indeed. I think he had to reconcile the Christian Trinity with his idea of monotheism, since Islam is supposed to be the successor of Christianity. He probably really thought the Christians had erred from monotheism. Now, you can quibble but Muhammad made it clear when he took the Christian prophets as his own. You can’t say you’re the last of a line of prophets stretching back to Adam and not mean your religion is the successor of these Abrahamic religions that went before you.

Thus, I think your explanation is wrong. Forget that the accusation will take place on Judgment Day. The charge is unaltered even if the accusation took place during Jesus’s lifetime or any day in between, because Muhammad’s apparent misunderstanding of the Trinity. There is no other reason why he would make Jesus deny teaching the people to worship him and his mother as ilah min dooni Allah.

Besides, I think your explanation about how the accusation against Jesus ‘which will originate with the people who took Jesus and his mother as objects of adoration or worship’ is wrong.

cont

 

[Rodrigo_Bivar]

Read ayats 5:109 to 116.
5:109 On the day when Allah will gather together the messengers and say: What was the response you received? They will say: We have no knowledge. Surely Thou art the great Knower of the unseen.
‏5:110 When Allah will say: O Jesus, son of Mary, remember My favour to thee and to thy mother, when I strengthened thee with the Holy Spirit; thou spokest to people in the cradle and in old age, and when I taught thee the Book and the Wisdom and the Torah and the Gospel, and when thou didst determine out of clay a thing like the form of a bird by My permission, then thou didst breathe into it and it became a bird by My permission; and thou didst heal the blind and the leprous by My permission; and when thou didst raise the dead by My permission; and when I withheld the Children of Israel from thee when thou camest to them with clear arguments – but those of them who disbelieved said: This is nothing but clear enchantment.
‏5:111 And when I revealed to the disciples, saying, Believe in Me and My messenger, they said: We believe and bear witness that We submit.
‏5:112 When the disciples said: O Jesus, son of Mary, is thy Lord able to send down food to us from heaven? He said: Keep your duty to Allah if you are believers.
5:113 They said: We desire to eat of it, and that our hearts should be at rest, and that We may know that thou has indeed spoken truth to us, and that We may be witnesses thereof.
5:114 Jesus, son of Mary, said: O Allah, our Lord, send down to us food from heaven which should be to us an ever-recurring happiness to the first of us and the last of us, and a sign from Thee, and give us sustenance and Thou art the Best of the sustainers.
5:115 Allah said: Surely I will send it down to you, but whoever disbelieves afterwards from among you, I will chastise him with a chastisement with which I will not chastise any one among the nations.
‏5:116 And when Allah will say: O Jesus, son of Mary, didst thou say to men, Take me and my mother for two gods besides Allah? He will say: Glory be to Thee! it was not for me to say what I had no right to (say). If I had said it, Thou wouldst indeed have known it. Thou knowest what is in my mind, and I know not what is in Thy mind. Surely Thou art the great Knower of the unseen.

It is likely the question will be put to Jesus in the company only of prophets. No other people are mentioned in 5:109. One possible interpretation is that the people whom Jesus had to deny teaching the false Trinity to were his disciples.

The action Jesus will be accused of doing is in the PAST TENSE. You will find it impossible to convince anyone that it is in the future.

Joseph_Alison:

Using 5:116 to prove that Allah (SWT) -or Muhammad (PBUH) for that matter- did not understand the trinity, is a very cheap attempt to disprove the Message of Islam by trying to show its prophet (PBUH) as being ignorant.
I think I gave enough proofs from the Qur’an to show that this attempt is baseless and devoid of any argument.

If the above is not clear to you, please let me know and I will restate it.

None of your other evidence from the Quran disproves my proposition at all. For example 3:55:

Maulana Ali When Allah said: O Jesus, I will cause thee to die and exalt thee in My presence and clear thee of those who disbelieve and make those who follow thee above those who disbelieve to the day of Resurrection. Then to Me is your return, so I shall decide between you concerning that wherein you differ.

This is all in future tense, not past tense.

I know you’re trying to say “Allah clearing/purifying/ridding from/clean from association with/cleansing Jesus of those who disbelieve” is why Allah will accuse Jesus of teaching the people of worshipping Jesus, Mary as ilah min dooni Allah. Since Jesus NEVER taught the people to worship Jesus, Mary as ilah min dooni Allah it is pointless for Allah to make that particular accusation.

I know religion is ritualistic, but it defies belief that a false accusation and a pointless denial will absolve Jesus of the crimes committed by not himself but some other people.

Taking into consideration 5:73 where Allah is the third of the Three: isn’t Allah the third of the three in Jesus and Mary as ilah min dooni Allah?

I hope I’m making this clear. Please don’t restate anything. I fully understand what you’re trying to say. If you feel you have rebuttals to this post, please state your case. Repetition doesn’t progress a debate? Have I misunderstood you? If so, then by all means please clarify.

Muchos gracias,

Nos vemos después,
Rodrigo

 

[PPatience]

You are completely correct Joseph Alison, i’m an Arab, and i know arabic very well and the meaning of min doon من دون is the same of what you said!
http://smileys.smileycentral.com/cat/23/23_50_5.gif

Besides, Qur’an doesnt contradict itself, how Allah would say that “No God but Allah” in Qur’an then say that there are other gods BESIDES Him?! This doesnt make sense!

 

[Rodrigo_Bivar]

Let us get min dooni straight. I will turn the Muslim’s favorite ‘out of context’ explanation against them. There are various meanings depending on the context, but the context in 5:116 is clear that the meaning is ‘besides or other than or along with’ etc. It is inexplicable if Allah would ask Jesus if he had taught the people to worship Jesus and Mary in exclusion to Allah. After all, Christians wouldn’t worship any gods in exclusion to God, and neither would Muslims. No follower of Jesus would exclude God. So, if you’re asserting that, it means you’ve proven Muhammad was wrong about Christian beliefs. Thanks for helping the non-Muslim side in this debate.

Joseph_Alison:

Allah (SWT) is asking Jesus (PBUH) if he said to people to take him and his mother as gods from underneath, instead of, at the exception of Allah (SWT).

How do you explain this?

‏10:18 ويعبدون من دون الله مالا يضرهم ولاينفعهم ويقولون هؤلاء شفعاؤنا عند الله قل اتنبئون الله بما لايعلم في السماوات ولافي الارض سبحانه وتعالى عما يشركون
WayaAAbudoona min dooni Allahi ma la yadurruhum wala yanfaAAuhum wayaqooloona haola-i shufaAAaona AAinda Allahi qul atunabbi-oona Allaha bima la yaAAlamu fee alssamawati wala fee al-ardi subhanahu wataAAala AAamma yushrikoona
Literal And they worship from other than God what does not harm them and nor benefit them, and they say: “Those (are) our mediators at God.” Say: “Do you inform God with what He does not know in the skies/space and nor in the earth/Planet Earth?” His praise/glory and high, mighty, exalted and dignified from what they share/make partners (with God).
Yusuf Ali They serve, besides Allah, things that hurt them not nor profit them, and they say: “These are our intercessors with Allah.” Say: “Do ye indeed inform Allah of something He knows not, in the heavens or on earth?- Glory to Him! and far is He above the partners they ascribe (to Him)!”
Pickthal They worship beside Allah that which neither hurteth them nor profiteth them, and they say: These are our intercessors with Allah. Say: Would ye inform Allah of (something) that He knoweth not in the heavens or in the earth? Praised be He and High Exalted above all that ye associate (with Him)!
Arberry They serve, apart from God, what hurts them not neither profits them, and they say, ‘These are our intercessors with God.’ Say: ‘Will you tell God what He knows not either in the heavens or in the earth?’ Glory be to Him! High be He exalted above that they associate!
Shakir And they serve beside Allah what can neither harm them nor profit them, and they say: These are our intercessors with Allah. Say: Do you (presume to) inform Allah of what He knows not in the heavens and the earth? Glory be to Him, and supremely exalted is He above what they set up (with Him).
Sarwar (Some people) worship things other than God which harm nor benefit them. They say, “These (idols) are our intercessors before God.” (Muhammad), tell them, “Are you trying to tell God about something that He does not find in the heavens or earth? God is too Glorious to be considered equal to idols.”
Khalifa They worship beside GOD idols that possess no power to harm them or benefit them, and they say, “These are our intercessors at GOD!” Say, “Are you informing GOD of something He does not know in the heavens or the earth?” Be He glorified. He is the Most High; far above needing partners.
Hilali/Khan And they worship besides Allah things that hurt them not, nor profit them, and they say: “These are our intercessors with Allah.” Say: “Do you inform Allah of that which He knows not in the heavens and on the earth?” Glorified and Exalted be He above all that which they associate as partners with Him!

cont

 

[Rodrigo_Bivar]

Malik They worship other deities besides Allah, who can neither harm them nor benefit them, and they say: “These are our intercessors with Allah.” O Muhammad, say to them: “Are you informing Allah of what He knows to exist neither in the heavens nor on the earth? Glory to Him! He is far above from having the partners they ascribe to Him!”[18]
QXP They worship and obey besides Allah, deities that can neither harm nor benefit them. They say, “These are our intercessors with Allah.” Say, “Are you informing Allah of what He knows not in the heavens and the earth? Glory to Him! (39:3). He is High, Exalted above all that they associate with Him.”
Maulana Ali And they serve besides Allah that which can neither harm them nor profit them, and they say: These are our intercessors with Allah. Say: Would you inform Allah of what He knows not in the heavens and the earth? Glory be to Him, and supremely exalted is He above what they set up (with Him)!
Free Minds And they serve besides God what does not harm them or benefit them, and they Say: “These are our intercessors with God.” Say: “Are you informing God of what He does not know in the heavens or in the Earth?” Be He glorified and high from what they set up.

All these translations say min dooni is besides or apart from or other than – just like in 5:116.

How can min dooni mean the exclusion of Allah when the excluders are the intercessors with Allah?

Similarly you cannot exclude Allah in 5:116 because you would be introducing another error. You’re between a rock and a hard place: either way Muhammad has made an error.

Hasta Luego,
Cid

 

[r.gonzales]

Rodrigo Bivar:

I’m too busy writing the parallelism stuff.

excuses, excuses . . .
Rodrigo Bivar:

Talking to you is like talking to a brick wall.

yet you continue to do so . . . (nice ad hominem, btw).
Rodrigo Bivar:

but in verse 5:116 there is no mention of these ‘rabbis and monks’. Only Jesus, Mary and Allah.

yes, that’s why the reference to an analogous verse that mentions “rabbis and monks”, 9:31, was given.
Rodrigo Bivar:

No Jew or Christian ever took any rabbi or monk as their gods.

the explanation for this was given in my post. you choose to ignore it.
Rodrigo Bivar:

PS: please name that logical fallacy I supposedly made.

i know enough to spot a flaw in logic when i see one, though i’m not as schooled in the art of naming logical fallacies as you. so i’ll leave the name game to you and your like.

 

[Neverland]

Dear PPatience,

You said:
You are completely correct Joseph Alison, i’m an Arab, and i know arabic very well and the meaning of min doon من دون is the same of what you said!

Besides, Qur’an doesnt contradict itself, how Allah would say that “No God but Allah” in Qur’an then say that there are other gods BESIDES Him?! This doesnt make sense!

Are you sure there are no contradiction AT ALL in Quran? How if there ARE contradictions?

Neverland

P.S. By the way, the debate of Rodrigo and Gonzales is not about Arabic words, it’s more than that. It’s about the misconception of Trinity in Quran. So, talking about Arabic, with all my respect, is not relevant, unless you want to say that Arabic is impossible to translate.
Go, Rodrigo!!

 

[Joseph_Alison]

Salaam Rodrigo;

Let us get min dooni straight. I will turn the Muslim’s favorite ‘out of context’ explanation against them. There are various meanings depending on the context, but the context in 5:116 is clear that the meaning is ‘besides or other than or along with’ etc. It is inexplicable if Allah would ask Jesus if he had taught the people to worship Jesus and Mary in **exclusion **to Allah. After all, Christians wouldn’t worship any gods in **exclusion **to God, and neither would Muslims. No follower of Jesus would exclude God. So, if you’re asserting that, it means you’ve proven Muhammad was wrong about Christian beliefs. Thanks for helping the non-Muslim side in this debate.

Rodrido, you are committing a grave sin here.
Please show us where we said to you that min dooni means exclusion.
I simply say to you: please stop putting words in the mouth of people, it does not help you.

Maulana Ali "And they serve besides Allah that which can neither harm them nor profit them, and they say: These are our intercessors with Allah. Say: Would you inform Allah of what He knows not in the heavens and the earth? Glory be to Him, and supremely exalted is He above what they set up (with Him!)

All these translations say min dooni is besides or apart from or other than – just like in 5:116

.

The verse is self explanatory.
Speaking about their deities, they say: "These are our intercessors with Allah”. In other words: “we get TO Allah through our deities”. Meaning “Our deities only transmit to Allah, He is the final Authority”. Meaning, Allah is Higher up and their deities are min dooni Allah. Here the term besides denotes a lesser degree. This is idolatry not equality. They know Allah (SWT) is the Highest, but they choose to go to Him though deities of a lesser authority and power.

How can min dooni mean the exclusion of Allah when the excluders are the intercessors with Allah?

Please show me where I said that min dooni means at “the exclusion”. It could mean at the EXCEPTION but not at the exclusion. Yes, they can worship others at the exception of Allah (SWT), knowing that He is the Highest, that’s exactly what the verse you quoted means. At the EXCLUSION is paganism; at the **EXCEPTION **is idolatry, BIG difference. We Muslims, reject both. La Illaha Illa Allah.

Similarly you cannot exclude Allah in 5:116 because you would be introducing another error. You’re between a rock and a hard place: either way Muhammad has made an error

Honestly, I think that if someone is between a rock and a hard place, it is you.

Salaam.
Joseph.

 

[inJESUS]

christians adoring rabbis? again, allah is only adressing heretics; allah seems limited to 7th arabia .

 

[Rodrigo_Bivar]

r.gonzales:

Rodrigo:

I’m too busy writing the parallelism stuff.

excuses, excuses . . .

No. This forum is full of Catholics. I don’t think I should be the one to tell you.

r.gonzales:

Rodrigo:

Talking to you is like talking to a brick wall.

yet you continue to do so . . . (nice ad hominem, btw).

Yes it was an ad hominem. Aren’t you glad I give you the time of day?

r.gonzales:

Rodrigo:

but in verse 5:116 there is no mention of these ‘rabbis and monks’. Only Jesus, Mary and Allah.

yes, that’s why the reference to an analogous verse that mentions “rabbis and monks”, 9:31, was given.

My point that the rabbis and monks were not mentioned in 5:116 should be obvious to everyone. It is not there because Allah will accuse Jesus of telling the people to worship Jesus and Mary min dooni Allah – nothing about rabbis and monks.

BTW: thanks for 9:31. You really know how to kick an own goal. I put it to you it is talking about the Catholic practice of venerating saints. Saints are not deities. And Muhammad was still wrong in 9:31. Much appreciated.

r.gonzales:

Rodrigo:

No Jew or Christian ever took any rabbi or monk as their gods.

the explanation for this was given in my post. you choose to ignore it.

What I’ve said is true, isn’t it? No Jew or Christian ever took any rabbi or monk as their gods.

This is what you wrote:
this is clearly evident in Allah’s statement in 9:31, “they took their rabbis and their monks as lords besides Allah, as well as [taking] the anointed one, son of maryam [as a lord]; while they were not ordered except to worship Allah as a single god. there is no god [worthy of worship] except He, glorified is He from what they associate with Him.”

Weren’t you saying that the Jews and Christians took these rabbis and monks as:

1. Lords beside Allah – meaning they have similar status to Allah,
2. equal to Jesus – see [as a lord]

What sort of nonsense is this? Do Christians take saints to be equal to Jesus or God? No.

r.gonzales:

Rodrigo:

PS: please name that logical fallacy I supposedly made.
i know enough to spot a flaw in logic when i see one, though i’m not as schooled in the art of naming logical fallacies as you. so i’ll leave the name game to you and your like.

Thanks for your tacit admission that you made up that ‘ad hominem circumstantial’ against me. I must say that if you want to learn I will be more than happy to teach you for free. How do you expect me to have an intellectual discussion if my opponents keep making logical fallacies. It’s the least I can do to point them out so they will know to not commit the same mistakes in future.

And thanks again for 9:31. I found it quite… useful. If you have any more of these gems please don’t hesitate to let us know.

Hasta luego,
Rodrigo

 

[Rodrigo_Bivar]

Joseph_Alison:

Salaam Rodrigo;

Hola Joseph.

Joseph_Alison:

Rodrigo:

Let us get min dooni straight. I will turn the Muslim’s favorite ‘out of context’ explanation against them. There are various meanings depending on the context, but the context in 5:116 is clear that the meaning is ‘besides or other than or along with’ etc. It is inexplicable if Allah would ask Jesus if he had taught the people to worship Jesus and Mary in exclusion to Allah. After all, Christians wouldn’t worship any gods in exclusion to God, and neither would Muslims. No follower of Jesus would exclude God. So, if you’re asserting that, it means you’ve proven Muhammad was wrong about Christian beliefs. Thanks for helping the non-Muslim side in this debate.

Rodrido, you are committing a grave sin here.
Please show us where we said to you that min dooni means exclusion.
I simply say to you: please stop putting words in the mouth of people, it does not help you.

Hmmm… I was referring to this you wrote:

Nowhere in the holy Qur’an the term مِنْ دُونِ (min dooni) means, in addition to, as well as, or at the same time; it always means except, instead of, rather than, below etc.

Then you also said this:

Allah (SWT) is asking Jesus (PBUH) if he said to people to take him and his mother as gods from underneath, instead of, at the exception of Allah (SWT).

What is except, instead of, rather than – doesn’t it mean ‘in exclusion of’? Isn’t that the point you were making with 3:79? Or are you merely quibbling with my choice of words when I was paraphrasing you? Did I alter your words in quoting you? It wasn’t my intention to put words in your mouth. Isn’t that your meaning when you said, ‘except, instead of, rather than, from underneath???, at the exception of’ Allah?

Joseph_Alison:

Rodrigo:

Maulana Ali "And they serve besides Allah that which can neither harm them nor profit them, and they say: These are our intercessors with Allah. Say: Would you inform Allah of what He knows not in the heavens and the earth? Glory be to Him, and supremely exalted is He above what they set up (with Him!)

All these translations say min dooni is besides or apart from or other than – just like in 5:116

The verse is self explanatory.
Speaking about their deities, they say: "These are our intercessors with Allah”. In other words: “we get TO Allah through our deities”. Meaning “Our deities only transmit to Allah, He is the final Authority”. Meaning, Allah is Higher up and their deities are min dooni Allah. Here the term besides denotes a lesser degree. This is idolatry not equality. They know Allah (SWT) is the Highest, but they choose to go to Him though deities of a lesser authority and power.

I knew you were going to say that.
29: 17. Innama taAAbudoona min dooni Allahi awthanan watakhluqoona ifkan inna allatheena taAAbudoona min dooni Allahi la yamlikoona lakum rizqan faibtaghoo AAinda Allahi alrrizqa waoAAbudoohu waoshkuroo lahu ilayhi turjaAAoona "For ye do worship idols besides Allah, and ye invent falsehood. The things that ye worship besides Allah have no power to give you sustenance: then seek ye sustenance from Allah, serve Him, and be grateful to Him: to Him will be your return.
Here it is clear the idols are on the same level as Allah. The Pagans worshipped all manner of idols, including Allah. Of the 360 gods in the Ka’ba Allah was only one of them.
It’s a matter of interpretation what you call the idols. Muslims call the pagan deities idols – it’s a derogatory ‘putting-down’ term. I’m sure the pagans themselves would have called the deities gods.
Thus, to pagans these ‘idols’ and Allah are all gods.

Joseph_Alison:

Rodrigo:

How can min dooni mean the exclusion of Allah when the excluders are the intercessors with Allah?

Please show me where I said that min dooni means at “the exclusion”. It could mean at the EXCEPTION but not at the exclusion. Yes, they can worship others at the exception of Allah (SWT), knowing that He is the Highest, that’s exactly what the verse you quoted means. At the EXCLUSION is paganism; at the EXCEPTION is idolatry, BIG difference. We Muslims, reject both. La Illaha Illa Allah.

As explained above. I was using one word to explain the plethora of words you used. I must remember to not do this in future because you don’t seem to understand my use of synonyms. Please try to discuss the substance of the issue rather than engaging in semantics.

Joseph_Alison:

Rodrigo:

Similarly you cannot exclude Allah in 5:116 because you would be introducing another error. You’re between a rock and a hard place: either way Muhammad has made an error

Honestly, I think that if someone is between a rock and a hard place, it is you.

No. I’m thoroughly enjoying myself.

Joseph_Alison:

Salaam.

Hasta luego,
Rodrigo

 

[r.gonzales]

Rodrigo Bivar:

Aren’t you glad I give you the time of day?

you really think too highly of yourself.
Rodrigo Bivar:

It is not there because Allah will accuse Jesus of telling the people to worship Jesus and Mary min dooni Allah – nothing about rabbis and monks.

so a question now turns into an accusation?
Rodrigo Bivar:

I put it to you it is talking about the Catholic practice of venerating saints. Saints are not deities.

wrong. see the explanation given for how the people of the Book took their rabbis and monks as deities above. it’s obviously clear you missed it.
Rodrigo Bivar:

Thanks for your tacit admission that you made up that ‘ad hominem circumstantial’ against me.

there’s no such admission in my post, tacit or otherwise. like i said, i know how to spot a flaw in logic when i see one. you don’t need to be schooled in the art of fallacy naming to do so either. your inference that because there are a total of three objects of worship mentioned in 5:116, this circumstancial mention necessitates a reference to the trinity is flawed logic, especially when elsewhere in the Quran it mentions the people of the Book taking others as objects of worship as well—regardless of whether you believe the Quran was wrong in that assertion or not.

 

[Neverland]

Dear Gonzales,

You said:
you really think too highly of yourself.

At least Rodrigo never tells us again and again about his knowledge of English.

You also said:
so a question now turns into an accusation?

The question happens in the LAST JUDGEMENT. In front of many, I believe. So if we say that it’s an accusation, it makes sense to me.
Analogy:
If I ask you in front of others: Gonzales, do you let yourself being praised as the best arabic speaker in all forum?"
This is a question. But can you also say that is an accusation?

Then you said:
wrong. see the explanation given for how the people of the Book took their rabbis and monks as deities above. it’s obviously clear you missed it.

Wrong. They listened to them but never praise them. Explanation from what? Quran? You should ask the jews themselves. Don’t you think you must use your own golden rule: When you learn about Islam, ask moslems. When you want to comment anything about Yiddish, ask the Jews.

Neverland

 

[r.gonzales]

Neverland:

At least Rodrigo never tells us again and again about his knowledge of English.

well, deExupry . . . oops, i mean boa . . . oops, i really mean neverland, one thing he does quite often is flaunt his ability to name fallacies. and that occurs far more often than my mentioning that i can understand arabic. (nice ad hominem, btw ).

Neverland:

The question happens in the LAST JUDGEMENT. In front of many, I believe. So if we say that it’s an accusation, it makes sense to me.
Analogy:
If I ask you in front of others: Gonzales, do you let yourself being praised as the best arabic speaker in all forum?"
This is a question. But can you also say that is an accusation?

no. here are some english definitions for you (emphasis mine):
accusation
n 1: a formal charge of wrongdoing brought against a person; the act of imputing blame or guilt [syn: accusal] 2: an assertion that someone is guilty of a fault or offence; “the newspaper published charges that Jones was guilty of drunken driving” [syn: charge]

charge
2 a : to make an accusation against esp. in order to bring to trial —see also ACCUSE, INDICT b : to allege esp. as an accusation

assertion
n.
2. Something declared or stated positively, often with no support or attempt at proof.

accusations are not made in the form of a question. look up “question” in a thesaurus and you will not find “accusation” as one of its synonyms.

Neverland:

Wrong. They listened to them but never praise them. Explanation from what? Quran?

it’s obviously clear that you missed it as well. perhaps you should go reread my posts as well.

 

[Neverland]

Dear Gonzales,

You said:
well, deExupry . . . oops, i mean boa . . . oops, i really mean neverland, one thing he does quite often is flaunt his ability to name fallacies. and that occurs far more often than my mentioning that i can understand arabic. (nice ad hominem, btw ).

Wondering what you mean by that. The only BOA I know is a Korean sensational FEMALE band. deExupry? Sound strange. Are you sure you are ok? Please check to the doctor. But in pararellism, I notice you did a lot of fallacies. You accuse me of ad hominem? but you did that before I did to you. You ATTACK Rodrigo personally.

Let me repeat what you said:
you really think too highly of yourself.

THIS is Ad Hominem.

You also said:
no. here are some english definitions for you (emphasis mine):
accusation
n 1: a formal charge of wrongdoing brought against a person; the act of imputing blame or guilt [syn: accusal] 2: an assertion that someone is guilty of a fault or offence; “the newspaper published charges that Jones was guilty of drunken driving” [syn: charge]

charge
2 a : to make an accusation against esp. in order to bring to trial —see also ACCUSE, INDICT b : to allege esp. as an accusation

etc.

Let us see the situation:
A formal charge of wrong doing:
Allah asks Isa IN THE LAST JUDGEMENT
He asked if ISA WANTED the people to worship Him as Allah. This is wrongdoing in Allah’s point of view.

brought against a person:
Isa is a person.

So what is wrong that I say that in the situation, Allah’s Question is an accusation.
In addition, Allah is all knowing. If He is all knowing, HE knows that Isa is innocent. Yet He questions Isa’s innocence IN FRONT OF PEOPLE.

You then said:
it’s obviously clear that you missed it as well. perhaps you should go reread my posts as well.

You didn’t comment anything about my question of your Golden Rule. You judge that the Jews worship their Rabbis not from the source of the Jews. And I call it dishonesty, because I read somehow that you believe to learn about Islam you MUST ask moslems (or at least you believe so).

Neverland