Obeying Allah first then Muhammed!

[Sister_Amy]

I’ve quoted my sources and they are indisputably reputable and scholarly! If you choose to ignore good sense there’s nothing I can do about it, but think on people like Joseph Smith. He too came up with a book he claimed was a revelation from God, how do we discern against what he has to say? We have to listen to reason, one thing Islam is not very good at!

What’s your opinion on the Satanic verses Amy?

I would argue with you about the alleged grammatical errors, but am opting not to because of a few reasons–first, the cost to me in time. Since I’m studying Arabic full-time, and I post on here at my leisure, it might not be the best way to spend my time. Secondly, I’m not sure that you fully understand the alleged mistakes in the first place, unless you have a background in نحو that I’m not aware of. So it’s possible to post sources but without fully understanding the argument. Maybe this isn’t the case (possibly your Arabic is better than mine, I have no way of knowing this at all so pardon my hasty assumption) but for now I just assume that it is. And if you don’t fully understand the argument, it’s unlikely that you’ll understand the counter-arguments, which refute the allegations.

So it doesn’t seem worthwhile. I just wanted to point out to you that I am studying Arabic with a teacher and we review these allegations for about an hour each day (starting last week–this isn’t a lengthy part of the program.) So I am familiar with them and with the counter-arguments, which sometimes involve obscure (from pre-Islamic poetry, eg, and not part of modern usage) grammatical rules. That’s all I was trying to say.

If you’re trying to convince me of some flaw in the Qur’an, then you are barking up the wrong tree.

I think Islam is immensely reasonable, and starting with the Qur’an. I don’t know what human beings might have conjured the advice about dealing with infighting like the ayah you previously mentioned (the one whose allegations of error I did refute–49:9).

And I do believe it to be a miracle, more than just revelation but miraculous and profound.

 

[Sister_Amy]

We Catholics certainly didn’t make a man a god.

God made himself a man. We call him Jesus.

I’m impressed that you caught the allusion. But you can defend yourself as you like, it doesn’t really change the facts.

 

[dzheremi]

And the facts don’t really change your argument either, Sister.

 

[Sister_Amy]

And since you asked twice but I didn’t answer yet–about the so-called “Satanic Verses.”

First of all, that’s a hoax. Some ayaat of the Qur’an were revealed and when recited, everyone present at their recitation made sujood, that is, prostration. The non-Muslims (i.e., Quraysh) didn’t want that getting out, that they were following that religion of Muhammad, so when the story spread, they said that there had been these other verses where Muhammad approved of their idolatry.

And that was a lie.

Commentators on the Qur’an often included stories which had not been authenticated (the story of the so-called “Satanic verses” has not been authenticated, by the way.) It’s mostly an orientalist fantasy.

 

[Sister_Amy]

And the facts don’t really change your argument either, Sister.

Eh? The poster suggested that God was human.

I don’t really think there’s a place to argue with that. Do you?

 

[dzheremi]

Indeed I will not argue against the incarnation of our Lord.

 

[Miriam1947]

Eh? The poster suggested that God was human.

I don’t really think there’s a place to argue with that. Do you?

Christ was both human and divine. Since God can do anything He most certainly could become a man and still be God.

The Trinity: there is one being, which is God, yet there are there Persons: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

 

[Sister_Amy]

Christ was both human and divine. Since God can do anything He most certainly could become a man and still be God.

The Trinity: there is one being, which is God, yet there are there Persons: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

Sure. But if there can be three… can there be four? Five? Could God be a “Father” without having had a “Son?” And why only male roles, and no female?

I just wonder.

 

[Reuben_J]

Sure. But if there can be three… can there be four? Five? Could God be a “Father” without having had a “Son?” And why only male roles, and no female?

I just wonder.

We don’t know. What we know is what been revealed to us. To speculate on what is not revealed in God’s word that never change from thousand of generations is useless and serve no purpose. It is only for those who are being tricked by the Devil and not guided by the truth.

 

[Miriam1947]

Sure. But if there can be three… can there be four? Five? Could God be a “Father” without having had a “Son?” And why only male roles, and no female?

I just wonder.

Why do males in Islam have all the rights?

 

[seraphime2008]

Sure. But if there can be three… can there be four? Five? Could God be a “Father” without having had a “Son?” And why only male roles, and no female?

I just wonder.

well…say that God’s revelation can be seen in the “heart, mind and action”, that represents the 3 persons in one God, I don’t think that there should be more than 3 because those 3 is complete in explaining the essence of God for human mind, though God is indefinite.
As why we call God the father: well that doesn’t mean that we assume God is a male, it’s just a way of calling God in a parental relationship with us, anyway the Gospel says: Genesis 1: 27: So God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female he created them. So woman is also created in the image of God, then we can’t say that God is male.

 

[cthulhubryan]

The Qur’an itself is a miracle, a proof that Muhammad is a Messenger of God.

How so?

 

[cthulhubryan]

Too bad (for your argument) that the Qur’an says over and over that he’s just a man. It’s not Muslims who made a man a god.

This is somewhat of a straw man. The only religions I can think of that ever did make a man a god are some flavors of Buddhism and Mormonism, but neither are germane to the subject at hand.

 

[Sister_Amy]

We don’t know. What we know is what been revealed to us. To **speculate on what is not revealed in God’s word that never change from thousand of generations is useless and serve no purpose. It is only for those who are being tricked by the Devil **and not guided by the truth.

Funny you should say that.

 

[Sister_Amy]

Why do males in Islam have all the rights?

They don’t.

I should’ve stopped with that but I can’t help but add:

Muslim women get rights that women don’t get in other religions. Including Catholicism.

 

[Sister_Amy]

well…say that God’s revelation can be seen in the “heart, mind and action”, that represents the 3 persons in one God, I don’t think that there should be more than 3 because those 3 is complete in explaining the essence of God for human mind, though God is indefinite.
As why we call God the father: well that doesn’t mean that we assume God is a male, it’s just a way of calling God in a parental relationship with us, anyway the Gospel says: Genesis 1: 27: So God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female he created them. So woman is also created in the image of God, then we can’t say that God is male.

If God is in a parental relationship, there must be two parents, right? Who is the Mother? Can we call God “mother” instead of “father?” And if God is everyone’s parent, then is everyone the same status as Jesus, his alleged “son?”

I met a woman who rejected the notion of male divinity–to her the divine could only be represented by the female. I think it had to do with some abuse, but even so–what about someone like her who can’t accept a male god?

And you’re misreading your book. If “He” created “him” that refers to Adam. The only one supposedly said to be in “God’s image.” How can a human be in the image of God? Does that mean God looks human?

 

[Sister_Amy]

This is somewhat of a straw man. The only religions I can think of that ever did make a man a god are some flavors of Buddhism and Mormonism, but neither are germane to the subject at hand.

There’s a post from Miriam on a previous page which you might want to look at.

(Which doesn’t stop it from being a straw man, incidentally, or at least a diversion. I stated my point and didn’t intend to argue further, just kind of left something hanging. She caught it. You didn’t.)

 

[Reuben_J]

"Reuben J:

We don’t know. What we know is what been revealed to us. To speculate on what is not revealed in God’s word that never change from thousand of generations is useless and serve no purpose. It is only for those who are being **tricked by the Devil **and not guided by the truth.

Funny you should say that.

What is revealed is what in the Scripture written by people who had firsthand knowledge or eye-witnesses or what was already in their culture and belief. That is how we know what and who God is. Other than that we do not know and therefore it is useless to further speculate.

Citing God to have a wife, a mother or sister is a cynical remark from the Quran. To do this to the holy name of God is blasphemous and people who do that are God’s enemy. That’s why when we start to do that we can only be influenced by the enemy, a.k.a the Devil.

Mohammad had no credibility to talk or to author the story about Jesus. He did not know Jesus and never had seen him. His source was not entirely correct which explains why the Quran is what it is – full of error in the Biblical context.

 

[Sister_Amy]

What is revealed is what in the Scripture by people who had firsthand knowledge or eye-witnesses or what was already in their culture and belief. That is how we know what and who God is. Other than that we do not know and therefore it is useless to further speculate.

Citing God to have a wife, a mother or sister is a cynical remark from the Quran. To do this to the holy name of God is blasphemous and people who do that are God’s enemy. That’s why when we start to do that we can only be influenced by the enemy, a.k.a the Devil.

Mohammad had no credibility to talk or to author the story about Jesus. He did not know Jesus and never had seen him. His source was not entirely correct which explains why the Quran is what it is – full of error in the Biblical context.

I would actually argue that the fact that Muhammad didn’t know Jesus, didn’t know anything about Jesus, is an amazing part of the Qur’an. What you call errors I consider to be divine corrections and clarification after humans had been speculating in error themselves.

Muhammad’s source for the Qur’an was God Himself, the One Who actually did witness and does know the truth of these matters.

 

[Reuben_J]

I would actually argue that the fact that Muhammad didn’t know Jesus, didn’t know anything about Jesus, is an amazing part of the Qur’an. What you call errors I consider to be divine corrections and clarification after humans had been speculating in error themselves.

Muhammad’s source for the Qur’an was God Himself, the One Who actually did witness and does know the truth of these matters.

You wouldn’t know that it is divine. In the same vein, the Bible is divine correction too. So that does not settle the matter in an interfaith discussion.

So it has to be accompanied by some practical logic. Was he there when it happened? Was the old Scripture being used as a reference?