| FrontPageMag.com | Articles By Robert Spencer | Articles By Hugh Fitzgerald | Books | Islam 101 | Qur'an Blog | Robert Spencer Bio |  |
|
|
|||||||||
|
|
According to Muhammad’s first biographer, Ibn Ishaq, the first eighty verses of Sura 3 were revealed after a delegation of Christians came from the Yemeni city of Najran. One of the leaders of this delegation was a bishop, Abu Haritha ibn ‘Alqama, who received money, servants, and other favors from “the Christian kings of Byzantium.” Abu Haritha, says Ibn Ishaq, knew that Muhammad was a prophet, but refused to accept him for fear of losing the loot that the Byzantines were lavishing upon him.
Ibn Ishaq records that the delegation “differed among themselves in some points, saying [Jesus] is God; and He is the son of God; and He is the third person of the Trinity, which is the doctrine of Christianity.” They presented arguments defending these propositions to Muhammad, but he would have none of it. When they told him that they had submitted to God, he responded: “You lie. Your assertion that God has a son, your worship of the cross, and your eating pork hold you back from submission.” Allah then revealed much of sura 3, refuting their assertions and giving the world the truth about Jesus and Christianity.
He begins by telling the story of Mary’s birth and early life, telling us in v. 35 that her mother was the “wife of Imran” – that is, Amram, the father of Moses and Aaron. This verse, along with 19:28, in which Mary is called “sister of Aaron,” has given rise to the charge that Muhammad confused Miriam the sister of Moses with Mary the Mother of Jesus, since the names are identical in Arabic: Maryam (مَرْيَمُ). When confronted about this, Muhammad had a ready answer: “The (people of the old age) used to give names (to their persons) after the names of Apostles and pious persons who had gone before them.” However, while this may explain why Mary is called “Sister of Aaron,” it doesn’t explain why she is clearly depicted here as the daughter of Imran.
In any case, Imran’s wife dedicates the child in her womb to the service of Allah (v. 35); when she gives birth, she says of Mary, “I crave Thy protection for her and for her offspring from Satan the outcast” (v. 36). Every child, said Muhammad, is “pricked by the Satan” after he is born – that’s why babies cry when they’re born. However, Mary and Jesus were preserved from this touch of Satan. Although the child is a female and “the female is not like the male” (v. 36), the wife of Imran fulfills her vow: Mary is dedicated to Allah’s service. Bulandshahri says that she went to live in the Temple in Jerusalem, which he calls the Baitul Muqaddas (“Holy House”) and, in keeping with the Islamic idea that the original message of all the Jewish prophets was Islam, identifies as a mosque. There Mary is fed miraculously (v. 37).
This story recalls one told in the Protoevangelium of James, a second-century Christian document: in it, Mary’s parents, Joachim and Anne, prayed to God for an end to their childlessness, and dedicated the child they subsequently conceived to the Lord in thanksgiving. When Mary was three, she went to live in the Temple, where she was fed by an angel. This is the sort of thing that earned Muhammad the charge that he was just retailing “fables of the men of old” (6:25, 8:31, 16:24, 23:83, 25:5, 27:68, 46:17, 68:15, 83:13), not divine revelation. But Muslims respond that the Qur’an is sorting out the true from the false about Christianity among the revelations that were corrupted by the followers of Jesus.
Vv. 38-41 recount the birth of John the Baptist, hitting the highlights of Luke 1:5-80: angels tell Zechariah he will have a son, he asks how this can be since he is old, and he is rendered unable to speak. Then the Qur’an begins to tell the story of the birth of Jesus, beginning with a reaffirmation of Muhammad’s prophethood (v. 44): Ibn Kathir explains that even though Muhammad wasn’t present at these events, “Allah disclosed these facts” to him as if he had been an eyewitness.
The angels’ announcement of Jesus’ birth (vv. 45-6) differs from Gabriel’s annunciation in Luke 1:30-35 in several key particulars: in the Qur’an, Jesus is identified as a “word” from Allah and is called “Messiah,” but not “Son of the Most High.” Muslim exegetes explain that Jesus is Allah’s word not in the sense of being divine, as in John 1:1, but because he was created without a human father by Allah’s word, as was Adam — as v. 59 explains. In v. 48, we’re told that Allah will teach Jesus “the Scripture and wisdom, and the Torah and the Gospel”: in the Qur’an, the Gospel is not the news about Jesus, but a book that he is given by Allah. V. 49 recounts several miracles Jesus performed, each one “by Allah’s leave.” Bulandshahri explains that this clause is repeated in order to emphasize that only by Allah’s permission does Jesus perform miracles – since “after witnessing these miracles, especially the raising of the dead, it is possible that a person may consider Sayyidina Isa [Master Jesus] to be Allah himself.” One of these miracles involves bringing clay birds to life, which appears in the second-century Infancy Gospel of Thomas.
When the Jews reject Jesus, he gathers disciples who say, “do thou bear witness that we are Muslims” (اشْهَدْ بِأَنَّا مُسْلِمُونَ) (v. 52). And while Jesus’ enemies plotted against him, Allah, “the best of schemers” (v. 54), plotted also, revealing that he would cause Jesus “to ascend to Me.” This, says Ibn Ishaq, refuted “what they assert of the Jews in regard to his crucifixion” – to which we will return in sura 4, which says that “they slew him not nor crucified” (v. 157).
“This,” says v. 62, “is the true account: There is no god except Allah…” – in other words, Jesus is not divine. Allah tells Muhammad in v. 61 to challenge those who believe otherwise: since “knowledge hath come to thee” he should say to dissenters: “Come! Let us gather together, our sons and your sons, our women and your women, ourselves and yourselves. Then let us earnestly pray, and invoke the curse of Allah on those who lie!” According to Ibn Ishaq, when the Christian delegation from Najran heard this, they asked Muhammad for time to confer among themselves. Then one of their leaders told the rest: “O Christians, you know right well that Muhammad is a prophet sent (by God) and he has brought a decisive declaration about the nature of your master. You know too that a people has never invoked a curse on a prophet and seen its elders live and its youth grow up. If you do this you will be exterminated. But if you decide to adhere to your religion and to maintain your doctrine about your master, then take your leave of the man and go home.” So they went to Muhammad, declined his challenge, and went home, obstinate renegades confirmed in their rebellion against Allah.
Next week: Why the People of the Book (Jews and Christians) are covered with shame.
(Here you can find links to all the earlier "Blogging the Qur'an" segments. Here is a good Arabic Qur’an, with English translations available; here are two popular Muslim translations, those of Abdullah Yusuf Ali and Mohammed Marmaduke Pickthall, along with a third by M. H. Shakir. Here is another popular translation, that of Muhammad Asad. And here is an omnibus of ten Qur’an translations.)
Posted by Robert at July 30, 2007 7:20 AM
Print this entry
| Email this entry
| Digg this
| del.icio.us
|
You know, the more i read things like this the more it makes me think - is mohammad really the prophet of Satan? everything he did and said really looks like it. That entire book, Qur'an, is quite obviously lies, anything he didn't like about Christianity, the jews etc he has made up some lies in order to bend things into how he wants it to be perceived.
Really does make you think more about it.
Posted by: Demvaril![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.jihadwatch.org/nav-commenters.gif)
at July 30, 2007 9:44 AM
Those remarks of Mohammed's prove that Islam is nothing but a heresy of Christianity.
As early 20th Century English writer/intellectual and devout Catholic Hilaire Belloc says in his book "The Great Heresies" (1938) in Chapter 4, "The Great and Enduring Heresy of Mohammed":
"Mohammedanism was a heresy - that is the essential point to grasp before going any further. It began as a heresy, not as a new religion. It was not a pagan contrast with the Church; it was not an alien enemy. It was a perversion of Christian doctrine...not a denial, but an adaptation and a misuse of the Christian thing."
Belloc refers to Mohammed as a "heresiarch!" Don't you love it? Mohammed the Heresiarch, along with the usual Warlord, Murderer, Rapist, Thief, Slave-Owner, Polygamist, Pedophile character descriptions!
Mohammed, as Belloc says, "sprang from pagans." Mohammed was not a "man of Catholic birth and doctrine to begin with. But, that which he taught was in the main Catholic doctrine, oversimplified. It was the great Catholic world on the frontiers of which he lived and whose influence was all around him which inspired his convictions."
To Belloc here's where Mohammedanism first deviates and becomes a heresy - denying the divinity of Jesus, or "Denial of the Incarnation," the union of divine and human natures in Jesus Christ. And, "He eliminated the Trinity altogether."
I could go on and on - this chapter is great! Belloc has really got this "Islam as Christian heresy" down cold. And I agree with him.
I ordered his book "The Great Heresies" from Amazon this morning, along with his book, "The Crusades" (1937).
Posted by: darcy at July 30, 2007 10:05 AM
"Abu Haritha, says Ibn Ishaq, knew that Muhammad was a prophet, but refused to accept him for fear of losing the loot that the Byzantines were lavishing upon him."
Besides bowdlerizing the Scriptures, notice the preoccupation with "loot".
Posted by: jay at July 30, 2007 10:05 AM
"Abu Haritha, says Ibn Ishaq, knew that Muhammad was a prophet, but refused to accept him for fear of losing the loot that the Byzantines were lavishing upon him."
Besides bowdlerizing the Scriptures, notice the preoccupation with "loot".
Posted by: jay at July 30, 2007 10:06 AM
I have to agree with Demvaril. Was it really Gabriel? Or was it the Devil, the best of all deceivers???
Posted by: VAF158 at July 30, 2007 11:00 AM
Hot Air registration seems to be closed, so Robert invited me to post my comments on this page:
(A) These verses refer to Jesus as the 'Maseeh', which many Muslims and nonMuslims interpret as 'Messiah'. However the tafsirs (commentary) say it can mean several things, mainly what it literally means in Arabic: being 'wiped', e.g. wiped with Allah's blessings.
(B) Regarding Muhammad cursing match with Najran Christians in 3:61. This occurred around Year 9 in the Hijra calendar, or 630 AD. This means Muhammad wanted his grandchildren, Hasan and Husayn, to take part in the cursing match although they were only around 6 and 4 years old, respectively. That's child abuse.
(C) Those Christians from Najran ended up agreeing to pay the jizya. In fact it is believed they and the Jews of Khaybar are among the first to pay it.
Posted by: War On Hate at July 30, 2007 11:41 AM
If this is a book of lies and from Satan then why would Satan himself keep cursing himself in the Quran?
Is teaching people to worship 1 God evil? Wouldn;t the devil want people to worship many gods or lead the people astray by telling them to worship him i.e the devil.
How was this a perversion of Christian teachings? The message is the message of all the Prophets and Messengers of God. It is more correct to say Christian teachings are a heresy of God's teachings because it follows the way of the Pagans.
1 God= natural, logical belief i.e Monotheism
3 in 1 1 in 3 =confusion, confusion, confusion= Paganism i.e the trinity
Posted by: eessaa at July 30, 2007 12:27 PM
But Muslims respond that the Qur’an is sorting out the true from the false about Christianity among the revelations that were corrupted by the followers of Jesus
Mufti Rob...Its talking about the false doctrines of Christianity not stories that have nothing to do with core beliefs. I love your tafsir sheikh rob.
Posted by: eessaa at July 30, 2007 12:33 PM
“the best of schemers”
Beautiful translation. It really shows the depth of knowledge you have of the Quran and the Arabic language. Truly amazing, I really think you need to publish your tafsir Sheikh Rob so you can uplift the ignorant masses of Muslims because..... Thanks Mufti.
Posted by: eessaa at July 30, 2007 12:58 PM
Eessaa:
“the best of schemers”Beautiful translation. It really shows the depth of knowledge you have of the Quran and the Arabic language. Truly amazing, I really think you need to publish your tafsir Sheikh Rob so you can uplift the ignorant masses of Muslims because..... Thanks Mufti.
Jazakallah khairan, habibi, but the translation isn't mine. It is the translation of Muhammad Marmaduke Pickthall, who was a...Muslim. Whoops!
http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/003.qmt.html#003.054
Also, you don't seem to have noticed that I am not interpreting the Qur'an myself; I am reporting on Muslim interpretations. Whoops again.
Cordially
Robert Spencer
at July 30, 2007 1:28 PM
"eessaa" and other Muslims keep trying to falsely portray the idea that Christians believe in polytheism, more than one God. That's absolutely incorrect. Christians believe in one God, not three. As a Christian, I should know. Can "eessaa" break free from the chains that require him to think otherwise, despite the facts? That remains to be seen. I expect his need to parrot the party line, however, will beat out any attempts to demonstrate the truth to him.
Posted by: Skaught at July 30, 2007 2:55 PM
eessaa said:
1 God= natural, logical belief i.e Monotheism3 in 1 1 in 3 =confusion, confusion, confusion= Paganism i.e the trinity
3 in 1 is not a particularly confusing concept.
Consider yourself -- you are three in one: thought, feeling, will. Or seen from without, you are head, heart, limbs, as one. Also body, soul, spirit, as one. Your finger is three segments in one digit. Events involve creation, preservation, destruction. Every phenomenon, or many phenomena at least, involve two opposite poles and some kind of middle term, between them, uniting them.
One can of course find four-in-one phenomena, five-in-one phenomena, six-in-one, etc., but three-in-one may be the simplest form of all phenomena, since there is arguably always a middle term between two poles, even if the middle term is not obvious.
With the above I'm not claiming to have proved that God is 3 in 1. I'm merely showing you that the idea is not confusing: it's evident in many parts of our experience. Certainly many-in-one and one-in-many is commonplace. Just think of the rainbow. All the colors flow without break into each other, so the rainbow is truly one, and yet at the same time the colors are truly different from each other, so the rainbow is truly many. It is irreducibly both one and many.
On the other hand, something that is simply "1" and not also many, we only know of through artificial symbol systems. Mathematicians and logicians must start from a set of unproven simplifying assumptions, in order to carry out logical operations. The notion of a "one" that is in no sense also a "many" is an example of such a simplifying assumption. Leaving aside such simplifying assumptions, and looking at actual experience, spiritual and physical realities are always many-in-one or one-in-many, and are unlike perfect logical entities that the mathematician by a kind of arbitrary fiat has created for purposes of doing mathematical work.
Your form of monotheism, in other words, is an abstraction, not a reality. Or more precisely, it is real only in the limited sense in which an artificial abstraction is real.
Though parts of the natural world approximately conform to the artificial logical entities created by the mathematician, the conformity is never exact. There are no straight, one-dimensional, lines in the natural world, just approximations to them. I say this to underline the semi-illusory quality of artificial symbol systems, vs. the reality of spiritual and physical experience. Actual experience always involves some kind of an overlap or interpenetration of different realities: a many-in-one or a one-in-many. As in the rainbow. And actual experience suggests that one-in-many realities, such as a rainbow, are more likely to have been born of an original three-in-one, than from the abstraction you call Allah.
Posted by: traeh at July 30, 2007 4:11 PM
eessaa said:
If this is a book of lies and from Satan then why
would Satan himself keep cursing himself in the
Quran?
Satan doesn't care if he is cursed. His hatred for the Free Will that YHWH gave man is one of the things that drive him. As long as man does not worship The Lord God Almighty, he doesn't care a whit.
He is more concerned about destroying man - and hurting God in the process - than about what various holy books have to say about him.
Posted by: Canadian Christian at July 30, 2007 4:20 PM
"eessaa" is just another brainwashed Mohammedan among millions. Pay no attention. There were a lot of brainwashed Germans, too.
My God, the Judeo-Christian God, the ONLY GOD (no pagan allah allowed), it is amazing the gullibility of these people for an obvious heresy manufactured by johnny-come-lately psycho Mo.
Posted by: darcy at July 30, 2007 6:10 PM
Traeh -
thank you so much for your beautiful exposition of the principle of three-in-one, many-in-one! I fully concur. (By the way - Traeh, do please look up David Bentley Hart, "The Beauty of the Infinite: The Aesthetics of Christian Truth". I think you would enjoy it very much - especially the section titled 'Divine Counterpoint', from page 282. Hart says much that relates directly to what you have said here, today, on the many-in-one, the questions of unity and difference.)
Islam rejects Jesus as Son of God, because it is obsessed with the idea of the abstract, featureless and transcendent Unity of 'Allah'.
And what follows is psychological, social and political disaster. Islam's conception of the 'unity' of allah - a unity which Jacques Ellul describes as "equivalent to the empty interior of the number 'one'" - can be seen as the root of all its problems: its inhuman worship of death, the slay-or-be-slain mentality, the dar al harb/ dar al islam dichotomy whose logic demands the annihilation/absorption of dar al harb, the refusal of equality to non-Muslims, its persistent exaltation of destruction over creation, its denigration of women, the oscillation between despotism (Saddam Hussein, the Ottoman emperors) and violent chaos (Gaza, Somalia, Afghanistan).
Islam rejects the loving, faithful God-With-Us who is affirmed by the Jews, the God who creates humanity in his own image and likeness, enters into covenant, and calls Israel to 'be holy, as I am holy'. Then, as seen in the passage Robert has blogged for us above, Islam rejects the Christian reading of Israel's God as Three-in-One/ One-in-Three, and the Christian affirmation that Rabbi Jesus the Jew from Nazareth IS God-With-Us, the Servant-King, "the image of the invisible God". Islam cannot understand St John: 'in the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God'.
Islam rejects both Judaism and Christianity in the name of an absolute divine transcendence. Thus Islam categorically excludes reciprocity in relationship, whether within Godself or between God and humanity. And so Islam denies the principle of reciprocity everywhere else. We know what THAT means...
Even an atheist who sees all religions as fictions should be able to see that it matters what kind of god a society worships. Because islam imagines Allah as supreme tyrant, it truly cannot grasp any relationship that does not involve domination-submission, tyranny-slavery. Obsessed with Unity, with the Same, Islam cannot endure Difference or the Other. Thus, whenever it encounters 'the other' it perceives it as a threat, as an abomination, and instinctively seeks to destroy and devour. Glorifying tyrannical power, Islam rejects the Suffering Servant (Israel) that Isaiah described, whom Christians recognise as Jesus-in-Israel/ Israel-in-Jesus.
The Muslim practice of slavery; the Muslim preservation of certain destructive pre-Islamic customs such as the very early marriage of girl-children or, in some regions, female genital mutilation; the burqa and the niqab - all, all flow from Islam's metaphysical/ theological core, its visceral rejection of Difference.
Some time ago, a poster at this site mentioned a scandalous proverb attributed to the Arabs, according to which women are for sons, boys are for fun, but a melon is ecstasy. That proverb sums up the mindset produced by Islam - a perverse mindset where supreme pleasure is defined not by the sharing of one's being with another in mutual recognition, equality and delight, but by the assertion of Total Domination. A melon can't talk back. Nor, for that matter, can a goat or a sheep...The prevalence of certain perversions within Village Islam is no accident. It follows precisely from Islam's metaphysics and its theology! Ironic, isn't it? Start with an obsessive affirmation of despotic divine purity, a god whose dignity would be sullied by any 'associate', who incarnates absolute Power without love, and you end up with men who would rather f*** a goat or a melon, than their wife!
The philosophy, the theology of Islam is anti-life. Reality defies it every day - not just spiritual reality, but the ordinary realities of the earth. But instead of giving up, recognising that its assumptions might be WRONG, Islam frantically redoubles its efforts to erase these resistant realities in the name of the abstract and annihilating oneness of allah. It rages against the irreducible complexities of the world, trying to force them into the Procrustean bed of a seductive - but wholly illusory - simplicity.
It's a testament to humanity or to the common grace of the Living God [NOT 'allah'!] that remnants of human love and creativity have persisted among Muslims down the centuries - that they have never been able to continuously sustain the murderous Ground Zero standards of Taliban Afghanistan.
Islam has frequently achieved great temporal power because it answers to, and feeds, certain ugly elements in human nature. But it is also weak...because there is so much else in humanity that it ignores or actively destroys - conscious altruism, creative and independent thinking, co-operation, the keeping of promises.
"There is no good and evil, there is only Power, and those too weak to seek it", says Voldemort's possessed servant in the first Harry Potter book. Nietzsche, yes. But also, at heart, Islam, for Allah is raw Power absolutised, brooking no associate, ruling over a world of slaves. (I only just realized that Quirrell, Voldemort's slave, conceals the parasitical face of Voldemort on the back of his own head, underneath an elaborate TURBAN...).
Posted by: dumbledoresarmy at July 30, 2007 9:49 PM
dumbledoresarmy:
Glad you liked it. Nice how you took off from it with your own post as well. I don't think I had quite recognized the link you make between the despotism of Islam and the fact that Allah has no associates. But of course it's fairly obvious, now that I see it. What you said made me think of the contrast with the typical Mycenaean Greek king, who as I recall was usually merely a first among equals, a mere head man among associates. Islam on the other hand seems to continue a Near Eastern despotic social tradition going far back in time. When I read the Qur'an, it seems to me as if it might have been spoken by one of those awesome, terrifying, stiff, formal, despotic, inscrutable chimera statues from ancient Assyria or ancient Persia.
Interesting about the turban concealing Voldemort's parasite face on the back of Quirrel's head.
I've made a note of David Bentley Hart, "The Beauty of the Infinite: The Aesthetics of Christian Truth". 'Divine Counterpoint', page 282. Sounds fascinating.
Posted by: traeh at July 31, 2007 12:11 AM
Jazakallah khairan, habibi, but the translation isn't mine. It is the translation of Muhammad Marmaduke Pickthall, who was a...Muslim.
Wa yak Sheikh Rob. It interests me that you with all your knowledge and resources could not figure out the meaning in its context. But you have your agenda and I know this is why you used this translation.
As for the tafsir Mufti saab, you know what I meant. You mentioned
"This story recalls one told in the Protoevangelium of James, a second-century Christian document: in it, Mary’s parents, Joachim and Anne, prayed to God for an end to their childlessness, and dedicated the child they subsequently conceived to the Lord in thanksgiving. When Mary was three, she went to live in the Temple, where she was fed by an angel. This is the sort of thing that earned Muhammad the charge that he was just retailing “fables of the men of old” (6:25, 8:31, 16:24, 23:83, 25:5, 27:68, 46:17, 68:15, 83:13), not divine revelation. But Muslims respond that the Qur’an is sorting out the true from the false about Christianity among the revelations that were corrupted by the followers of Jesus."
Once again this has nothing to do with their stories that have nothing to do with core beliefs that the Christians went astray in. You put your "tafsir" in there for your agenda.
Dont worry about Sheikh,you have enough blind followers who will follow you because....your the Sheikh.
Posted by: eessaa
at July 31, 2007 1:53 AM
eessaa -
I have some questions for you.
Can you tell me which prayer many Christians say at least once a day (I say it every night before I go to sleep)? How does it address God?
Have you read the Gospels? Get a copy of the New Testament - you can find it in any bookshop - and read the Gospels - Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. Four writers, all recording the direct personal experience of people who were Jesus' closest friends and companions, in Judea and Galilee in the first century - people who saw his miracles being worked, people who saw him being killed on the Cross (his own mother was right there, watching, and his best friend, John, saw him die), people who saw him buried, people who met him after he rose from the dead.
Unless you have yourself read the Gospels, YOU DO NOT KNOW WHAT WE BELIEVE.
I have read the Quran, in two translations, including Pickthall's.
But: have YOU read the Gospels? All the way through?
at July 31, 2007 4:22 AM
Eessaa:
It interests me that you with all your knowledge and resources could not figure out the meaning in its context. But you have your agenda and I know this is why you used this translation.
Asad uses the same word in his translation. Funny how so many Muslims got this wrong. But in any case, why don't you explain how I got the context and meaning wrong? Spell it out for us.
Dont worry about Sheikh,you have enough blind followers who will follow you because....your the Sheikh.
Don't be shy, old man! Enlighten all these poor blind folks! Explain how what I'm saying is inaccurate. I'm afraid name-calling won't be quite enough, but I give you points for trying!
Cordially
Robert Spencer
at July 31, 2007 5:58 AM
All the makings of a false prophet Mohammed. The truth is that Jesus is the Son of God, the Gospel of John proves it. Jesus warned his followers against false prophets.
Posted by: bigcatgirl13106 at July 31, 2007 7:15 AM
Also proof that Mohammed used gnostic gospels, books that were rightly condemmed as being not inspired by the Holy Spirit.
Posted by: bigcatgirl13106 at July 31, 2007 7:22 AM
The only Gospels that have been inspired by the Holy Spirit are what I call the big 4, Mathew, Mark, Luke, and John.
Posted by: bigcatgirl13106 at July 31, 2007 7:29 AM
eessaa,
"If this is a book of lies and from Satan then why would Satan himself keep cursing himself in the Quran?
Is teaching people to worship 1 God evil? Wouldn;t the devil want people to worship many gods or lead the people astray by telling them to worship him i.e the devil.
How was this a perversion of Christian teachings? The message is the message of all the Prophets and Messengers of God. It is more correct to say Christian teachings are a heresy of God's teachings because it follows the way of the Pagans.
1 God= natural, logical belief i.e Monotheism
3 in 1 1 in 3 =confusion, confusion, confusion= Paganism i.e the trinity"
As a Christian, I worship the one God in 3 person, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, which at the end of the Gospel of Mathew in the "Great Commision to go out and proclaim the Gospel" Jesus commands His followers to baptize them all in same "Father, Son, and Holy Spirit" ( Mathew 28:19 ). There is no confussion here, just a great unity, it is still the one true God.
Also I leave you with this question, if you call Christian teachings pagan heresy, why is the Holy Bible the greatest bestseller book of all time and forever #1, at the top?
Thank-you for your response.
Posted by: bigcatgirl13106 at July 31, 2007 7:43 AM
First i wanna thank Robert for his excellent knowledge of the Quran, and helping ordinary people to understand at least to some degree what the book teaches.
I remember in the discussion about chapter 2,"the Cow" ,the use of naskh was mentioned.
And that this principple meant that the early peaceful verses of the Quran was overwritten by the later more violent ones, since they were revealed to Mohammed at a later point.
The concept of naskh seems essential to understand the Quran, and a western reader who reads the whole book without being aware of this, will basicly never "get it(understand the book)".
My question to Robert is if ordinary muslims are aware of this concept,or if naskh are more something muslims scholars
and fundamentalists adhere to? Is it general knowledge among ordianry muslims?
at July 31, 2007 10:10 AM
(Note: The Comments section is provided in the interests of free speech only. It is mostly unmoderated, but comments that are off-topic, offensive, slanderous, or otherwise annoying stand a chance of being deleted. The fact that any comment remains on the site IN NO WAY constitutes an endorsement by Jihad Watch or Dhimmi Watch, or by Robert Spencer or any other Jihad Watch or Dhimmi Watch writer, of any view expressed, fact alleged, or link provided in that comment.)