Isa (Jesus), a prophet of Allah the Sovereign Lord the Holy One, the Majestic

T-1111111111111

Allah SWT made it clear that His slave and His servant Jesus, peace upon him, was merely His servant and messenger and His word.

Surah/Chapter 004 - An-Nisâ. Verse 171.

English Translation (The Noble Qur'an)
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 God. 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.

Hobbes

You are expected to comment on posts and not just post verbatim. If there is no comments forthcoming the post will be locked.

T-1111111111111

Hobbes wrote:

You are expected to comment on posts and not just post verbatim. If there is no comments forthcoming the post will be locked.

Hobbes, what is the problem here?
I did comment, and so did you?

Why are you so eager so lock the thread? Can you explain?

Now about the post.

I wonder why people simply cannot see that Almighty Allah is independent and far above and beyond any such thing like having a son or a daughter or a wife or anything, which He actually created?

When Jesus, peace upon him, on the Judgement Day, did he say to people that they should worship him, he will clearly deny it. His life began with a miracle (note: began, meaning he was created and never he is eternal nor he will be) and all the miracles he performed, like bringing the daed man back from death, were not his miracles, he of himself could do nothing, but by Allah's Permission and Power.

Personally, I think a human cannot say something that would be more blasphmeous that to say that Almighty God has a son. The most unbelievable statement ever.

Hobbes

T-1111111111111 wrote:

Hobbes, what is the problem here?
I did comment, and so did you?

Why are you so eager so lock the thread? Can you explain?

Read the charter. The forum isn't for verbatim posting without comments and I wouldn't class your post as a valid comment as it is more a statement of fact rather then trying to get conversation going.

If we didn't have this rule then the forum would be full of parts of the Quran from various people.

The point of the forum is to help people understand Islam and just posting parts of the Quran will generally not achive this.

What I am saying is your post is preaching to the choir as they say.

Your second post was more along of the lines of stirring debate.

T-1111111111111

Hobbes wrote:

If we didn't have this rule then the forum would be full of parts of the Quran from various people.

Your second post was more along of the lines of stirring debate.

It's the way I understand the Qur'an. Not the details, cos I'm not a scholar, but the ultimate facts about Oneness of Almighty.

And regarding the way of posting - c'mon Hobbes, I'm still learning.

BTW, somebody closed one of my favourite threads on Christianity, so I had to move. :cool:

Sinister

T-1111111111111 wrote:

but the ultimate facts about Oneness of Almighty. :cool:

i'm a bit lost by your rant.

what exactly are the facts, are they facts or just an opinion.

if i took the bible as being a factual work would i not be just a little gullible.

Hobbes

Sinister takes a weeks holiday.

DinoBot

T-1111111111111 wrote:

Personally, I think a human cannot say something that would be more blasphmeous that to say that Almighty God has a son. The most unbelievable statement ever.

when you say you think a human cannot say something that would be more blasphemous, do you not mean a Muslim. Because for a non-muslim to say it (like a christian) they are simply expressing their religion. Their intention is not to be blasphemous.

Because one mans sin is another mans Law.

The General Laws of Massachusetts:
Whoever wilfully blasphemes the holy name of God by denying....the holy word of God contained in the holy scriptures shall be punished by imprisonment in jail for not more than one year or by a fine of not more than three hundred dollars, and may also be bound to good behavior.

http://mass.gov/legis/laws/mgl/272-36.htm


So in some cultures other than Islam, to DENY Jesus as the son of God is blasphemous.

T-1111111111111

DinoBot wrote:

when you say you think a human cannot say something that would be more blasphemous, do you not mean a Muslim. Because for a non-muslim to say it (like a christian) they are simply expressing their religion. Their intention is not to be blasphemous.

Because one mans sin is another mans Law.

The General Laws of Massachusetts:
Whoever wilfully blasphemes the holy name of God by denying....the holy word of God contained in the holy scriptures shall be punished by imprisonment in jail for not more than one year or by a fine of not more than three hundred dollars, and may also be bound to good behavior.

http://mass.gov/legis/laws/mgl/272-36.htm


So in some cultures other than Islam, to DENY Jesus as the son of God is blasphemous.

I understand what you're saying but this is Islam subforum so here it is blasphemous

Hobart

T-1111111111111 wrote:

Personally, I think a human cannot say something that would be more blasphmeous that to say that Almighty God has a son. The most unbelievable statement ever.

By this statement, do you mean that Jesus (if he existed as the Son of God) was actually mistaken in believeing that he was the son of God?

Schuhart

T-1111111111111 wrote:

BTW, somebody closed one of my favourite threads on Christianity, so I had to move.

Just to clarify, some threads were closed and a new one opened here, to allow a coherent discussion. It is still open.

T-1111111111111 wrote:

Personally, I think a human cannot say something that would be more blasphmeous that to say that Almighty God has a son. The most unbelievable statement ever.

If you accept the Quran is the word of God, then indeed a consequence of that is the belief that Jesus is not divine.

However, given that the Quran seems to offer salvation to Christians who honesty follow their faith, it hardly makes sense to see belief in the divinity of Jesus as an enormous blasphemy.

DinoBot

T-1111111111111 wrote:

I understand what you're saying but this is Islam subforum so here it is blasphemous

Eh, I dont think so. Are you saying from an Islamic point of view that all christians are blasphemous ? If so, how could you possible have any respect for such people ? And surly there is a punishment for being blasphemous in Islam ? What is this punishment ?

T-1111111111111

DinoBot wrote:

Eh, I dont think so. Are you saying from an Islamic point of view that all christians are blasphemous ? If so, how could you possible have any respect for such people ? And surly there is a punishment for being blasphemous in Islam ? What is this punishment ?

You didn't get me DinoBot - forget about Islamic point of view - Im talking about how the Creator of the Universe explained attributing partners to Him.

Jesus didnt err. Jesus, peace upon him, will deny that he ever claimed what some of you claim in his name for him. So, again, he wasnt wrong, but your claims are (attributed divinity to Isa, son of Mary, who had no father).

Also, its not about me having respect or not - Il explain this: people can believe what they want - I respect that, however I do not respect people's view if they believe that God is some kind of a triple being, or similar. So, again, I respect that everybody has a choice, but not necesseraly I respect that choice. I hope you can see the difference?

Schuhart wrote:

However, given that the Quran seems to offer salvation to Christians who honesty follow their faith, it hardly makes sense to see belief in the divinity of Jesus as an enormous blasphemy.

Not exactly as you said. Qur'an does offer a salvation to Christians, but only to those who leave the belief that Isa, peace upon him, was a divine person. And those Christians lived in his time, however, pure monotheism was changed to triple god a few centuries later, and it seems that also the Bible was modified then to support this new view, which does not offer salvation.
Also, the Qur'an makes it very clear that those who attributed a son to Almighty Allah became disbelieved - they became nonbelievers, and for this there is no salvation unless they repent and then follow the Right Path. If they die as nonbelievers then there is not salvation offered. You didn't quote the verse to support your claim, so I can only guess that this refers to the verse(s) talking about people from Saba, and Christians, etc. but all those mentioned there are those who believed in Oneness of Almighty (not in trinity or similar).

BTW, that Spirit that some people are/were wrong about is not the holy spirit, but only angel Jibril (Gabriel), peace upon him. Isa (as) was helped by him as ordered by Almighty Allah (swt). And an angel is never Almighty Himself and never will be.

Hobart wrote:

By this statement, do you mean that Jesus (if he existed as the Son of God) was actually mistaken in believeing that he was the son of God?

No, Isa wasnt mistaken, but some Christians were cos somebody forced a new "man made faith" towards them. Trinity is a man made invention which was never revealed by Almighty cos it simply is not true and does not exist in reality.

T-1111111111111

Sinister wrote:

i'm a bit lost by your rant.

what exactly are the facts, are they facts or just an opinion.

if i took the bible as being a factual work would i not be just a little gullible.

See, in the end its very simple. Those who believe in the Qur'an also believe in previous Revelations of Allah swt: the Psalms (given to David as), the Torah (given to Moses as), the Gospel (given to Isa/Jesus as) and a script given to Abraham as. However, the Qur'an is the watcher over those Books. How you might ask? Well Qur'an make clear statement what was revealed to the people of the Scripture (Jews and Christians) was (the core message) the same as in the Qur'an: that there is no god but Allah, Who has no partners or a son or similar. The Qur'an being the watcher over previous Revelation simply means that if what's in the Qur'an (this core message) matches to the current remnants of these previous Revelations (there aren't any originals available today as a whole), then it's considered to be valid, if it doesn't, then it's considered to be modified - simple as that.

If book A is claiming ABC and book B is claiming XYZ about the same thing then one of them has to be wrong. I hope you can guess which one is wrong in real life (in those things which can be called the core about the belief or its definition).

Hobart

Ok. First things first. You seem to contradict yourself. You say:

T-1111111111111 wrote:

Jesus didnt err. Jesus, peace upon him, will deny that he ever claimed what some of you claim in his name for him

and yet he is quoted on the cross, and many other places, refeering to God as his Father. Below is an example:
Father, all things are possible unto thee; take away this cup from me: nevertheless not what I will, but what thou wilt
You then go on to say that the concept of the Trinity is in some way a "man made" concept and that there is actually no theological backlup for this. You say you that "people can believe what they want" and that you "respect this". And yet, if people believe in the holy Trinity you suddenly "do not respect people's view"?? How can somebody believe "whatever they want" with your respect, and yet, if they believe in the Trinity you show them no respect?

As for the concept of the Trinity being in some way man made, below are 2 quotes from the Bible which clearly state the belief in the concept of a holy Trinity.
"Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptising them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit." (Matthew 28:19)

"Those who testify in heaven are three, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit and these three are one." (I John 5:8)

Maybe it is the concept of the Trinity that you find confusing. You should try and not put your human "weaknesess of the mind" when you think about this concept. While the Trinity is a central tenet of the RC faith, there is no belief that God is actually 3 people (or there should not be). The Father, The Son and the Holy Spirit are 1. 1 God and 1 God only.

T-1111111111111

Hobart wrote:

Ok. First things first. You seem to contradict yourself. You say: and yet he is quoted on the cross, and many other places, refeering to God as his Father. Below is an example:
Father, all things are possible unto thee; take away this cup from me: nevertheless not what I will, but what thou wilt
You then go on to say that the concept of the Trinity is in some way a "man made" concept and that there is actually no theological backlup for this. You say you that "people can believe what they want" and that you "respect this". And yet, if people believe in the holy Trinity you suddenly "do not respect people's view"?? How can somebody believe "whatever they want" with your respect, and yet, if they believe in the Trinity you show them no respect?

As for the concept of the Trinity being in some way man made, below are 2 quotes from the Bible which clearly state the belief in the concept of a holy Trinity.
"Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptising them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit." (Matthew 28:19)

"Those who testify in heaven are three, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit and these three are one." (I John 5:8)

Maybe it is the concept of the Trinity that you find confusing. You should try and not put your human "weaknesess of the mind" when you think about this concept. While the Trinity is a central tenet of the RC faith, there is no belief that God is actually 3 people (or there should not be). The Father, The Son and the Holy Spirit are 1. 1 God and 1 God only.

I didn't contradict myself. I do not claim that Jesus was on the cross at all, you claim that. I also do not claim that Jesus said those words (when he was supposedly on the cross), but you do.

PS I'm sorry, but three divine persons as people say cannot be one. What is the difference between a person and a being? Cos some people say, well, in trinity, there are 3 persons and yet there is 1 divine being. Am I missing something here?

I'll repeat myself to make it clear, cos obviously you did not read what I said - maybe you did, but you did not want to understand what I said. So here it goes again, only for you:

1. I do respect that everybody has a choice in what to believe
2. But I do not respect some of these "beliefs" and I never will (Almighty God is One and is not the trinity and never was and never will be)
3. Read 1 & 2 again & again until you understand what I'm trying to say.

Hobart

T-1111111111111 wrote:

I didn't contradict myself.

1. I do respect that everybody has a choice in what to believe
2. But I do not respect some of these "beliefs"
3. Read 1 & 2 again & again until you understand what I'm trying to say.

I appreciate what you are trying to say. I emphasise the trying. This is what you actually said:

people can believe what they want - I respect that

and then you say

however I do not respect people's view if they believe that God is some kind of a triple being, or similar.

Now you also go on to say that you respect that everybody has a choice, buit you then go on to say that once that choice is made that you reserve your respect. Ok, it's not exactly a contradiction, but it's hardly respsct (as I would define it)

You also go on to describe the Trinity as some sort of "triple being" of some sort. That is not at all what the bible teaches us. The Bible teaches us that God is "the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit" (a direct quote from the bible) but yet God is 1. He is never mentioned or described as 3 different beings.

Does not the Koran recognise the existence of the Trinity? "But Jesus Christ, son of Mary is the messenger of God and His word and spirit of Him that He gave to Mary." (Sura al-Nisa 4:171) Is there not mention of a

personality - "messenger of God"

a word - "and His word"

a spirit - "and a spirit from Him"

I do not claim that Jesus was on the cross at all, you claim that. I also do not claim that Jesus said those words (when he was supposedly on the cross), but you do.

PS I'm sorry, but three divine persons as people say cannot be one. What is the difference between a person and a being? Cos some people say, well, in trinity, there are 3 persons and yet there is 1 divine being. Am I missing something here?

I'll repeat myself to make it clear, cos obviously you did not read what I said - maybe you did, but you did not want to understand what I said. So here it goes again, only for you:

Firstly, I understand what you were trying to say. Secondly, this is a public forum, you cannot really post something "only for you" as others are free to comment on your typings.

Thirdly, it is about faith. Faith is what keeps the Church going and why Christians do not need an explanation for or even a true understanding of what the Holy Trinity is. They believe, as you do, as therfore they accept. Wether you understand it, when you try to break it down into the blocks and cement that a human mind can interpret, or not. It does not actually matter. What matters is, that Christians believe. It is not "man made" as it is written in the bible, and they believe in the word of god.

Finally, if you wish to deny or debate the crucifixon, please do so, but I would advise you not to do so in this thread, as it will meerley confuse an already confusing subject.

P.S. I am not a christian.

Hobbes

If you want to discuss the trinity please do so here -> http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2054976754I

Thanks.

Hobart

Hobbes wrote:

If you want to discuss the trinity please do so here -> http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2054976754I

Thanks.

Hi Hobbes,

firstly, I am actually banned from the Christianity forum.

Secondly, the discussion I am debating with T-111111111111111 involves Jesus. A person/god recognised both is islamic and christian beliefs. Jesus is part of the Trinity, if you are a christian, and in fact that trinity is refeered too in the Koran (I have quoted as much on thread). How do you expect people to have a debate surrounding the position of Jesus in the Islamic belief, if you cannot debate his position as part of the Trinity?

Thanks.

T-1111111111111

Hobart wrote:

I appreciate what you are trying to say. I emphasise the trying. This is what you actually said: and then you say Now you also go on to say that you respect that everybody has a choice, buit you then go on to say that once that choice is made that you reserve your respect. Ok, it's not exactly a contradiction, but it's hardly respsct (as I would define it)

You also go on to describe the Trinity as some sort of "triple being" of some sort. That is not at all what the bible teaches us. The Bible teaches us that God is "the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit" (a direct quote from the bible) but yet God is 1. He is never mentioned or described as 3 different beings.

Does not the Koran recognise the existence of the Trinity? "But Jesus Christ, son of Mary is the messenger of God and His word and spirit of Him that He gave to Mary." (Sura al-Nisa 4:171) Is there not mention of a

personality - "messenger of God"

a word - "and His word"

a spirit - "and a spirit from Him"


Firstly, I understand what you were trying to say. Secondly, this is a public forum, you cannot really post something "only for you" as others are free to comment on your typings.

Thirdly, it is about faith. Faith is what keeps the Church going and why Christians do not need an explanation for or even a true understanding of what the Holy Trinity is. They believe, as you do, as therfore they accept. Wether you understand it, when you try to break it down into the blocks and cement that a human mind can interpret, or not. It does not actually matter. What matters is, that Christians believe. It is not "man made" as it is written in the bible, and they believe in the word of god.

Finally, if you wish to deny or debate the crucifixon, please do so, but I would advise you not to do so in this thread, as it will meerley confuse an already confusing subject.

P.S. I am not a christian.

Qur'an does not recognise the trinity. It never did. Read my signature (that sura is the answer to the people when they asked about the Lord)

Hobart

T-1111111111111 wrote:

Qur'an does not recognise the trinity. It never did. Read my signature (that sura is the answer to the people when they asked about the Lord)

I'll wait on a reply from Hobbes before I reply to your typings.

T-1111111111111

Hobart wrote:

Hi Hobbes,

firstly, I am actually banned from the Christianity forum.

Secondly, the discussion I am debating with T-111111111111111 involves Jesus. A person/god recognised both is islamic and christian beliefs. Jesus is part of the Trinity, if you are a christian, and in fact that trinity is refeered too in the Koran (I have quoted as much on thread). How do you expect people to have a debate surrounding the position of Jesus in the Islamic belief, if you cannot debate his position as part of the Trinity?

Thanks.

Hobart, the Qur'an clearly denies the trinity in many verses, here's a good example:


Surah/Chapter 004 - An-Nisâ. Verse 171.

English Translation (The Noble Qur'an)
O People of the Scripture (Jews and Christians)! 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 God. 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.

Surah/Chapter 003 - Al-Imrân. Verse 59.

English Translation (The Noble Qur'an)
Lo! the likeness of Jesus with Allah is as the likeness of Adam. He created him of dust, then He said unto him: Be! and he is.

Surah/Chapter 061 - As-Saff. Verse 6.

English Translation (The Noble Qur'an)
And when Jesus son of Mary said: O Children of Israel! Lo! I am the messenger of Allah unto you, confirming that which was (revealed) before me in the Torah, and bringing good tidings of a messenger who cometh after me, whose name is the Praised One. Yet when be hath come unto them with clear proofs, they say: This is mere magic.


Jesus, peace upon him, was only Allah's messenger/prophet, there is absolutely no proof in the Qur'an the Jesus was divine. The Qur'an is clear about the fact the God is One and that He is not one of the three from the trinity.

Now where is here trinity? Now at least I can he how people invented trinity, by wrongly interpreting the Bible, but the trinity is not even in the Bible, and especially not in the Qur'an.

PS How do you think you can interpret the Qur'an? Just like that? Knowing no arabic language? etc.

T-1111111111111

Hobart wrote:

I'll wait on a reply from Hobbes before I reply to your typings.

BTW Hobart, by my knowledge, you are the only person in the whole universe who is claiming that the Qur'an supports the trinity, I'm sorry man, but I have to laugh to that particular post of yours LOOOOOL

Hobart

Ok. While you claim that the Koran denies the existence of a Trinity, it would not be beyond the bounds of possibility for a collection of Scriptures to contradict itself now, would it.

The sura I quoted ""But Jesus Christ, son of Mary is the messenger of God and His word and spirit of Him that He gave to Mary." (Sura al-Nisa 4:171) Recognises the existence of "the word of God", "The messenger of God" and the "Spirit of God".

If you delve further into the Koran you also see that the existence of a Holy Spirit is recognised in Sura al-Ma'ida 5:110, "Allah said to Jesus, 'Jesus, son of Mary, remember the favour I had bestowed on you and your mother, how I strengthened you with the Holy Spirit, so that you preached to men in your cradle and in the prime of manhood."

While you claim that the Sura al-Nisa 4:171 is a response to a question, who is the Lord? You cannot deny that there is a recognition "the Trinity" within that sura.

You may laugh and loool all you want, personally I find such a reaction to be one from a person with a closed mind, but just because I am the only one who might believe this, it does not directly follow that this is untrue.

T-1111111111111

Hobart wrote:

Ok. While you claim that the Koran denies the existence of a Trinity, it would not be beyond the bounds of possibility for a collection of Scriptures to contradict itself now, would it.

The sura I quoted ""But Jesus Christ, son of Mary is the messenger of God and His word and spirit of Him that He gave to Mary." (Sura al-Nisa 4:171) Recognises the existence of "the word of God", "The messenger of God" and the "Spirit of God".

If you delve further into the Koran you also see that the existence of a Holy Spirit is recognised in Sura al-Ma'ida 5:110, "Allah said to Jesus, 'Jesus, son of Mary, remember the favour I had bestowed on you and your mother, how I strengthened you with the Holy Spirit, so that you preached to men in your cradle and in the prime of manhood."

While you claim that the Sura al-Nisa 4:171 is a response to a question, who is the Lord? You cannot deny that there is a recognition "the Trinity" within that sura.

You may laugh and loool all you want, personally I find such a reaction to be one from a person with a closed mind, but just because I am the only one who might believe this, it does not directly follow that this is untrue.

However, you're missing a huge point here - it is obvious to me that you do not have the tafseer of the Qur'an (the official interpretation) and that this Spirit there is no one else but angel Gabriel, peace upon him.
Furthermore, you can also find translation of the Qur'an by non-Muslims where they have a remark that that was indeed angel Gabriel - so God's creature and there's nothing divine about him. BTW, on this fact is agreed upon all the scholars/translators/etc. Only you see it differently, but that's because you do not have enough knowledge about the subject, which I can understand and there's nothing bad about it.

T-1111111111111

PS I did not laugh at you, but the claim you made made me laugh. So no bad intentions there. I'm not an evil person. However, I know that one cannot simply interpret the Qur'an just like that, with no necessary knowledge, Muslims agree on that. There are in fact verses which clearly point into that direction.

And yes, mathematically, there's always a chance that one person could be right and billions wrong, but math is not a real world.

Hobart

You have actually made my point tbh. Your use of the word "interpretation" is evidence of this. To interpret something is a process of explaining the meaning of something, but according to your definitions.

There are many definitions and interpretations of sura and passages of scriptures from different books. They can mean many things, given what context you may take them in. Most of us would recognise that confusion abounds when it comes down to interpreting one "meaning" or another. It does not necessarily follow that you or I are correct. Merely that we both have our own interpretation of what is meant by the writings and that we should respect each others beliefs, and not say that this is the one and only belief and everything else in rubbish.

Look at the current rubbish and mis-information in the press of late surrounding the whole "72 ?Virgins" claim that some "Muslims" claim is in the Koran and others claim, "eh hang on, it could actually be 72 beers"...Interpretation...meh tbh.

T-1111111111111

Hobart wrote:

You have actually made my point tbh. Your use of the word "interpretation" is evidence of this. To interpret something is a process of explaining the meaning of something, but according to your definitions.

There are many definitions and interpretations of sura and passages of scriptures from different books. They can mean many things, given what context you may take them in. Most of us would recognise that confusion abounds when it comes down to interpreting one "meaning" or another. It does not necessarily follow that you or I are correct. Merely that we both have our own interpretation of what is meant by the writings and that we should respect each others beliefs, and not say that this is the one and only belief and everything else in rubbish.

Look at the current rubbish and mis-information in the press of late surrounding the whole "72 ?Virgins" claim that some "Muslims" claim is in the Koran and others claim, "eh hang on, it could actually be 72 beers"...Interpretation...meh tbh.

Sorry to disappoint you there, but the interpretation is not my own. I use Ibn Kathir's Tafsir for example. And I also have the whole 6 collections of the Hadith. And several translations of the Qur'an and not all of them are in English BTW, however I do not make my own conclusions for public, only for myself. What I do say in public is what it is said by the scholars / the interpretators of the Qur'an and the Hadith.

Allah (swt) knows best. The Noble Qur'an is His Word, Glory be to Him and only to Him.

Schuhart

T-1111111111111 wrote:

You didn't quote the verse to support your claim, so I can only guess that this refers to the verse(s) talking about people from Saba, and Christians, etc. but all those mentioned there are those who believed in Oneness of Almighty (not in trinity or similar).

That would be the verse - but is the interpretation that you suggest universally held, as some individual Muslims seem to take this as meaning, in conjunction with the idea that ultimately God judges and not man, that Christians deemed to be be fit are in.

In general, the Quran does contain strong language in decrying the idea of a divine son. But it also recongnises a strong affinity to Christianity and Judaism. Hence, singling out the divinity of Jesus as an enormous blasphemy seems out of place - idolatry would surely be a greater concern, given that the initial challenge to Islam would have been to prevent backsliding into tribal cults.

Hobart

T-1111111111111 wrote:

Sorry to disappoint you there, but the interpretation is not my own. I use Ibn Kathir's Tafsir for example. And I also have the whole 6 collections of the Hadith. And several translations of the Qur'an and not all of them are in English BTW, however I do not make my own conclusions for public, only for myself. What I do say in public is what it is said by the scholars / the interpretators of the Qur'an and the Hadith.

Allah (swt) knows best. The Noble Qur'an is His Word, Glory be to Him and only to Him.

You do not dissapoint me, at least not on this point. I never intimated that this was your interpretation, nor did I mean it. I have many copies of diaries in my office, some not in English. It does not necessarily follow that I am a scholar or English words or German as a matter of fact. Meerely that I have read, and in some cases, studied peoples interpretation of words.

Again, you do make your own conclusions in public. You say that such and such is blasphemy, and yet you do not back this up with any sort of evidence. You claim that not to believe such and such is wrong and in some cases laughable. You conclude that "a human cannot say something that would be more blasphmeous that to say that Almighty God has a son. The most unbelievable statement ever" and yet you claim not make these conclusions for the public.

Glory be to your God, and whomever else's God is out there. Personally if you are happy in your cocoon of beliefs, I respect you for that. No matter what your beliefs are.

T-1111111111111

Hobart wrote:

You do not dissapoint me, at least not on this point. I never intimated that this was your interpretation, nor did I mean it. I have many copies of diaries in my office, some not in English. It does not necessarily follow that I am a scholar or English words or German as a matter of fact. Meerely that I have read, and in some cases, studied peoples interpretation of words.

Again, you do make your own conclusions in public. You say that such and such is blasphemy, and yet you do not back this up with any sort of evidence. You claim that not to believe such and such is wrong and in some cases laughable. You conclude that "a human cannot say something that would be more blasphmeous that to say that Almighty God has a son. The most unbelievable statement ever" and yet you claim not make these conclusions for the public.

Glory be to your God, and whomever else's God is out there. Personally if you are happy in your cocoon of beliefs, I respect you for that. No matter what your beliefs are.

It seems that whatever I say it will be turned upside down. So I'm saying no more. In the end - my signature says it all.