If you're new here, you may want to get regular updates via如果你是新這裡,你可能想通過定期更新 RSS feed RSS提要 . 。 Thank you for visiting!感謝您訪問!
The missionaries in their在他們的傳教士 latest最新 alleged claim of contradictions in the Qur'an have certainly outdid themselves in their travesty of logic and idiocy.據稱索賠的矛盾在一定outdid古蘭經有自己的邏輯在他們的嘲弄和白痴。 To cite the missionary claim, word-for-word:舉傳教士宣稱,文字的字:
In the realm of the natural this is not possible, but for God it is possible; actually, it is not only possible, it is easy for God. 在自然的境界,這是不可能的,但上帝是有可能,實際上,它不僅是可能的,很容易為神。 It is rather ironic that, when discussing the identity of 這是相當諷刺的是,在討論的身份 Jesus 耶穌 , the 時, Quran 古蘭經 says that Allah cannot have a son without a consort, but Mary can have a son without a consort, because all things are easy for Allah. 真主說,不能有一個兒子沒有配偶,但瑪麗可以有一個兒子沒有配偶,因為所有的事情都容易真主。
They have quoted Qur'an 6:100-101 as follows:他們引述古蘭經 6:100-101如下:
And they make the jinn associates with Allah, while He created them, and they falsely attribute to Him sons and daughters without knowledge; glory be to Him, and highly exalted is He above what they ascribe (to Him).他們使精靈贊同真主,而他創造了他們,他們錯誤地屬性對他的兒子和女兒,沒有知識,光榮他,並高度崇高的是超乎他們歸於(他)。 Wonderful Originator of the heavens and the earth!奇妙發端的天地! How could He have a son when He has no consort, and He (Himself) created everything, and He is the Knower of all things.他怎麼能有一個兒子時,他沒有配偶,和他(自己)創造了一切,他是諾爾的一切。 S. 6:100-101 Shakir南6:100-101基爾
This, they claim, contradicts the general nature of the following verse:這一點,他們聲稱,違背了一般性質的下面的詩句:
He said: I am only a messenger of thy Lord, that I may bestow on thee a faultless son.他說:我只是一個使者你的主,我可以賜給你一個完美的兒子。 She said: How can I have a son when no mortal hath touched me, neither have I been unchaste?她說:我如何才能有一個兒子在沒有任何凡人上帝感動我,我也沒有被淫蕩? He said: So (it will be).他說:因此,(將)。 Thy Lord saith: It is easy for Me.你的主耶和華說:這是難不倒我。 And (it will be) that We may make of him a revelation for mankind and a mercy from Us, and it is a thing ordained.及(將),我們可以使他成為人類的啟示和憐憫的我們,是一件事情受戒。 Sura 19:19-21 Pickthall蘇拉 19:19-21皮克索爾
Unfortunately for the missionary, an understanding can be reached if a little more thought can be put into their argument.不幸的是傳教士,可以達成一項諒解,如果多一點想法可以被放入他們的論點。 The missionary has taken the understanding of these verses out of its intended context and is confusing Mary's nature (since she is only human, and hence procreates) as a creation of the Almighty, with God Himself who is the Uncreated.傳教士採取了理解這些經文出預期的背景和混亂瑪麗的性質(因為她是人之常情,因此繁衍)作為一個全能的創造,與上帝是誰非受造。 Certainly, God Almighty could have taken a “wife” and have “children” or have “children” without any consort whatsoever ( nau'zubillahi min zaalik ).當然,全能的神可以採取一個“妻子”和有“兒童”或“孩子”絲毫沒有任何的配偶(nau'zubillahi分鐘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.但是,如果這種情況發生,這將意味著,非受造神的性質將受到影響,因為任何東西是“盧永雪”的神(如古蘭經認為在6:100)創建。 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.換言之,期望非受造的“生育”的孩子,無論有或沒有“配偶”(這也將創造的一部分),不僅是對上帝的侮辱全能告訴我們關於自己的,但也是一荒謬的立場只舉行泛神論和偶像崇拜者。 It is certainly not in conformity with monotheism or how這當然是不符合一神教或如何 Islam伊斯蘭教 understands divine transcedence.明白神的超越。
Ismail Al-Faruqi says that:伊斯梅爾鋁 Faruqi說:
“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. “這是第一個斷言伊斯蘭信條是”有沒有上帝,但上帝“,這是穆斯林理解為拒絕任何聯營公司與神在他的統治權,並擔任法官的宇宙,以及拒絕任何生物的可能性代表,或以任何方式人格化。 express the divine Being.表達了神聖的存在。 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).古蘭經說,上帝說:“他是天地的創造者是誰創造了這個動物是指揮,這是...他是一個神,最終 ...(2:117 163)。 There is no God but He, ever-living, ever-active (3:2) May he be glorified beyond any description!沒有上帝,但他,永遠生活,不斷活躍(3:2)願他得榮耀超越任何描述! (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.” (6:100)...沒有意義可能會認為他(6:103)...讚美歸於他,誰的Transcedent大大超越了所有索賠並報告有關他(17:43)。“在履行這一觀點,所有的穆斯林都被過於謹慎決不可能以任何方式聯繫,與任何圖像或物件的神聖的存在,或用自己的意識的神聖,並在其講話和寫神只使用古蘭經語言,術語和表達,而根據他們說,上帝已經對自己在使用的古蘭經啟示。“ 1 一
Hence we say that the claim that:因此我們說,宣稱:
S. 6:101 stands not only in tension to S. 19:21, but conflicts with several other passages as well. 南站不僅在6:101至南19:21緊張,但衝突,以及其他一些段落。
is not only a premature conclusion from the missionary, but an obvious ignorance of the doctrine of tawheed and what Islam actually stands for.不僅是過早的結論來自傳教士,但一個明顯的無知的認主獨一的教義和伊斯蘭教實際上代表著什麼。
And only God knows best!而且,只有上帝知道最好的!
Jameal– > It was the critic who wrote the Qur'an who had the problem with Jameal ->這是誰寫的古蘭經評論家誰出了問題與
> language. >語言。 One is still not sure what the Qur'an means by the term一個是還不能確定什麼古蘭經手段一詞
> “Son” exceept it means someone produced in the animal way – Hence God >“兒子”exceept這意味著有人在動物生產方式 - 因此神
> not having any consort couldn't have a “son” – but this is utter >沒有任何的配偶不能有一個“兒子” - 但這是完全
> confusion. >混亂。
Asim-You don;t get it at all.阿西姆,你不要,真弄不明白的。 First of all, these arguments are primarily首先,這些論點主要是
addressed to the polytheists.給多神教徒。 Second, the polytheists acknowledged第二,多神論者承認
that God has children, but NO CONSORT.上帝有孩子,但NO的CONSORT。 The Quran is saying that YOU可蘭經是說你
KNOW that God has no consort, and YOU KNOW that God created知道上帝沒有姐,你知道,上帝創造
everything, so why is it you assert these beings as divine?一切,所以為什麼你斷言這些人作為神的?
The first verse he quoted was in surah Anaam, which explciitly states他引述的第一段歌詞是在surah安阿姆,其中explciitly州
that “How can He have a son when He has no consort?” The same verses說:“他怎麼能有一個兒子時,他沒有配偶?”同樣的詩句
discuss that Allah originated the Heavens and the Earth out of討論真主源自天地出來
nothing, of which even the polytheists recognized.什麼,其中甚至多神教徒承認。 The argument這個論點
entailed is this, and it is in this case related to the POLYTHEISTS. entailed是這樣,它是在這種情況下,有關的多神論者。
They too asserted that God had NO CONSORT.他們也說,沒有上帝的CONSORT。 Yet, they ascribed to God然而,他們歸因於上帝
children.兒童。
It is demonstrating the absurdity, that that the polytheists never它是展示荒謬,這是從來沒有的多神教徒
ascribed to God a WIFE, yet they ascribe to God children.歸因於上帝的妻子,但他們歸於神的兒女。
This particular verse, quoted above, is demonstrating the absrudity of這種特殊的詩,上面引述的,是展示absrudity的
having any chioldren based upon the Absoluteness and Transcendency of有任何chioldren依據的絕對性和超越性的
God Almighty.全能的上帝。 Thus, the notion of ownership of everything in the因此,對所有權的概念中的所有內容
heavens and the earth and the mention of everything comng before God天地和提及上帝面前的一切comng
as a slave.作為一個奴隸。 Children imply the same nature as the father, and this兒童意味著性質相同的父親,而這
strikes total root against monotheism.根系總罷工反對一神教。
First of all, the verse is directed to the POLYTHEISTS.首先,該詩被定向到多神教徒。
Secondly, they did not believe God had a CONSORT also.其次,他們不相信神的CONSORT也有。 Yet they still但他們仍
claimed God had chidlren.聲稱上帝chidlren。 Wow.哇。 Impressive theology.令人印象深刻的神學。 Why did they他們為什麼
claim God had children?聲稱上帝的孩子?
Salam.薩拉姆。 Observational Science agrees with Al-Quran in saying that Man cannot have a child without Woman.科學觀測同意與 Al -古蘭經中說,人不能有一個孩子沒有女人。 Whereas Bible is in conflict with Observational Science in saying that Man can have a child without a Woman.而聖經是在衝突與科學觀測說,男人可以有一個孩子沒有一個女人。
* I said Man because Christians believe that their god-father is an old-Man who lives in Heaven. *我說人,因為基督徒相信他們的神,父親是一個老男人誰住在天堂。
As salaamu alaykum to everyone.至於 salaamu alaykum每一個人。 I will go straight to the point.我會直接進入點。 The Holy Qur'an has refuted EVERY concept of sonship ascribed to God, whether intended as a metaphorical or metaphysical ascription.神聖的古蘭經否定了每一個概念歸因於上帝的兒子名分,是否打算作為一個隱喻或形而上學的歸屬。 Asim is right by saying that children imply the same nature as the father.阿西姆說,是對兒童意味著相同性質的父親。 A lion begets a lion,not an ox.獅子一見的獅子,而不是牛。 But in the case of God having children (God forbid!), it would be a tremendous absurdity.但在案件神生孩子(但願!),這將是一個巨大的荒謬。 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.神是人,阿哈德(一個和唯一的),也就是說,他不只是一個;他是完全獨特的,超越所有類型的限制,比較和分類。 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.即使我們的基督教兄弟中,人類將不得不同意這一點,否則他們將不得不承認,上帝在伊斯蘭教的概念遠遠優於他們的神的概念。 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.如果他是唯一的,唯一的,絕對是獨一無二的,他的案件begetting(但願!)一個兒子,那麼,他喜歡大自然否定他的唯一性。 If not a Unique God, then no better than the idols polytheists worship.如果沒有一個獨特的上帝,那麼沒有比多神教徒崇拜的偶像。 If His being Unique is negated, then the whole concept of monotheism would be destroyed.如果他是唯一被否定了,那麼整個概念一神教會被銷毀。 If He would beget one son “godling”, then there would be two Gods.如果他會生出一個兒子“戈德林”,那麼將有兩個神。 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.如果將有兩個神,我們將有兩個一文不值,無能神誰需要對方,沒有誰比偶像的先知穆罕默德(sallallahu alayhi佤薩拉姆)瓦解。 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!).此外,造物主'戈德林'既不是永恆的,也不是絕對的,因為是獨生的手段有其出處,並具有1起源不是一個屬性的神(崇拜是他對這些指控基督徒,多神論者,他們之流!)。 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.如果一個造物主的永恆,永恆的上帝不是一個永恆的,永恆的神喜歡他,那傢伙不會有造物主,我們也不能說它是上帝的兒子。 Again, a lion doesn't beget an ox.同樣,獅子不會生出一牛。 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.因此,不僅三位一體的基督徒,但所有的基督徒誰先知伊薩認為,彌賽亞(願他安息),可稱為'上帝的兒子,曾在任何意義上說,隱喻,形而上學,或文字,顯然是在錯誤的道路。 And only God knows best.而且,只有上帝知道最好的。