I missionari in loro il più in ritardo il reclamo presunto delle contraddizioni nel Qur' un certamente outdid nel loro travesty di logica e di idiocy. Per citare il reclamo di missionario, letterale: Nel regno del naturale questo non è possibile, ma per il dio è possibile; realmente, è non solo possibile, esso è facile per il dio. È piuttosto ironico che quando discute l'identità di Jesus, il Quran dice che Allah non può avere un figlio senza un consort, ma Mary può avere un figlio senza un consort, perché tutte le cose sono facili per Allah. Hanno citato Qur' 6:100 - 101 come segue: E fanno i soci dei jinn con Allah, mentre li ha generati ed attribuiscono erroneamente a lui i figli e le figlie senza conoscenza; glory è a lui ed altamente exalted è sopra che cosa attribuiscono (a lui). Creatore meraviglioso del cielo e della terra! Come potrebbe avere un figlio quando non lo ha consort e (egli stesso) lo ha generato tutto ed è il Knower di tutte le cose. S. 6:100 - 101 Shakir Ciò, esigono, contraddicono la natura generale di seguente verse: Ha detto: Sono soltanto un messaggero del signore thy, quello che posso conced sul thee un figlio faultless. Ha detto: Come posso avere un figlio quando nessun hath mortale lo ha toccato, nessuno ho I stata unchaste? Ha detto: Così (sarà). Saith del signore di Thy: È facile per me. E (sarà) quel possiamo fare di lui una rivelazione per l'umanità e una misericordia da noi ed è una cosa ordained. Sura 19:19 - 21 Pickthall Purtroppo per il missionario, una comprensione può essere raggiunta se un poco più pensiero può essere messo nella loro discussione. Il missionario ha preso la comprensione di questi verses dal relativo contesto progettato
e sta confondendo la natura della Mary (poiché è soltanto umana e quindi procreates) come creazione del onnipotente, con il dio egli stesso che è il Uncreated. Certainly, God Almighty could have taken a “wife” and have “children” or have “children” without any consort whatsoever (nau’zubillahi min zaalik). However, if this were to happen, it would mean that the Uncreated nature of God would be affected, as anything that is “procreated” by God (as the Qur’an argues in 6:100) is created. In other words, to expect the Uncreated to “procreate” children, whether with or without a “consort” (which would also be part of Creation) is not only an affront against what God Almighty has told us about Himself, but is also a preposterous position only held by pantheists and the idolators. It is certainly not in conformity with monotheism or how Islam understands divine transcedence.
Ismail Al-Faruqi says that: “This is the first assertion of the Islamic creed that “There is no god but God” which the Muslim understands as denial of any associates with God in His rulership and judgeship of the universe, as well as a denial of the possibility for any creature to represent, personify or in any way. express the divine Being. The Qur’an says of God that “He is the Creator of heaven and earth Who creates by commanding the creature to be and it is…He is the One God, the ultimate… (2:117, 163). There is no God but He, ever-living, ever-active (3:2) May he be glorified beyond any description! (6:100)…No sense may perceive Him (6:103)…Praised be He, the Transcedent Who greatly transcends all claims and reports about Him (17:43).” In fulfilment of this view, the Muslims have been all too careful never to associate in any manner possible, any image or thing with the presence of the divine, or with their consciousness of the divine; and in their speech and writing about the divine to use only Quranic language, terms and expressions which, according to them, God has used about Himself in the Quranic revelation.”1 Hence we say that the claim that: S. 6:101 stands not only in tension to S. 19:21, but conflicts with several other passages as well. is not only a premature conclusion from the missionary, but an obvious ignorance of the doctrine of tawheed and what Islam actually stands for. And only God knows best!
Subscribe
Subscribe Articles With
Bloglines, Google Reader, My MSN, Netvibes, Newsburst
Newsgator, Odeo, Pluck, Podnova, Rojo, My Yahoo!, Desktop Reader
Asim said on 27 October 2005:
Jameal– > It was the critic who wrote the Qur’an who had the problem with
> language. One is still not sure what the Qur’an means by the term
> “Son” exceept it means someone produced in the animal way - Hence God
> not having any consort couldn’t have a “son” - but this is utter
> confusion.
Asim-You don;t get it at all. First of all, these arguments are primarily
addressed to the polytheists. Second, the polytheists acknowledged
that God has children, but NO CONSORT. The Quran is saying that YOU
KNOW that God has no consort, and YOU KNOW that God created
everything, so why is it you assert these beings as divine?
The first verse he quoted was in surah Anaam, which explciitly states
that “How can He have a son when He has no consort?” The same verses
discuss that Allah originated the Heavens and the Earth out of
nothing, of which even the polytheists recognized. The argument
entailed is this, and it is in this case related to the POLYTHEISTS.
They too asserted that God had NO CONSORT. Yet, they ascribed to God
children.
It is demonstrating the absurdity, that that the polytheists never
ascribed to God a WIFE, yet they ascribe to God children.
This particular verse, quoted above, is demonstrating the absrudity of
having any chioldren based upon the Absoluteness and Transcendency of
God Almighty. Thus, the notion of ownership of everything in the
heavens and the earth and the mention of everything comng before God
as a slave. Children imply the same nature as the father, and this
strikes total root against monotheism.
First of all, the verse is directed to the POLYTHEISTS.
Secondly, they did not believe God had a CONSORT also. Yet they still
claimed God had chidlren. Wow. Impressive theology. Why did they
claim God had children?
Mehroz said on 6 November 2005:
Salam. Observational Science agrees with Al-Quran in saying that Man cannot have a child without Woman. Whereas Bible is in conflict with Observational Science in saying that Man can have a child without a Woman.
* I said Man because Christians believe that their god-father is an old-Man who lives in Heaven.
kursi2255 said on 16 November 2005:
As salaamu alaykum to everyone. I will go straight to the point. The Holy Qur’an has refuted EVERY concept of sonship ascribed to God, whether intended as a metaphorical or metaphysical ascription. Asim is right by saying that children imply the same nature as the father. A lion begets a lion,not an ox. But in the case of God having children (God forbid!), it would be a tremendous absurdity. God is al-Ahad (The One and The Only), that is, He is not just One; He is entirely Unique, transcending all kinds of limitations, comparisons, and categories. Even our Christian brothers-in-humanity would have to agree to this, otherwise they would have to concede that the concept of God in Islam is far superior to their concept of God. If He is One, Sole, Absolutely Unique, the case of Him begetting (God forbid!) a son of like nature to Him would negate His Uniqueness. If not a Unique God, then no better than the idols polytheists worship. If His being Unique is negated, then the whole concept of monotheism would be destroyed. If He would beget one son “godling”, then there would be two Gods. If there would be two gods, we will have two worthless, impotent gods who need each other, and who are no better than the idols the Prophet Muhammad (sallallahu alayhi wa sallam) smashed. Besides, the begotten ‘godling’ would neither be eternal nor absolute, since being begotten means having an origin, and having an origin is not an attribute of God (Exalted is He against such allegations by Christians, polytheists, and their ilk!). If the one begotten by the Eternal, Everlasting God is not an Eternal, Everlasting God like Him, then that creature wouldn’t have been begotten, neither can we call it a son of God. Again, a lion doesn’t beget an ox. Thus, not only the Trinitarian Christians, but all Christians who believe that Prophet Isa the Messiah (peace be upon him) can be called ’son of God’ in any sense, metaphorical, metaphysical, or literal, are clearly in the wrong path. And only God knows best.