Mary:  Fornicate with you "in my mother's bed" [1].  Are virgin Mary's mother and bed also members of the barfinity ?


200 years no gospels | 24 other thrones besides Jesus' | Jesus was created | Isaiah 53 mistranslations | What's new | A-Z library (3300+ articles) | "Muslims" was the original title | Quran Search | Quran Moral Code (100s of them) | Quran: Bibles are filled with corrupt  قول  qaowl (doctrines of sayings and writings)  | "bar Allahin" in Daniel 3:25-26 means the chosen one of Allah | Jesus said he was powerless | Daniel 7:25: Christianity will change time and the Law |  Paul wasn't sure about the Holy Spirit (Romans 9:1, 1 Corinthians 7:40) |  Eesa (Quran's name for Jesus) is Iesu and Iesus in Latin and Greek for Jesus, and Eesa is also a Hebrew word that means doctor or healer; all of Jesus' Miracles were medical |  Paul was a holy barfaliphor (ΜΠαρφαλιφωρ) | Research & Blog | 9/11 Israel-lie | Youtube | |

The Romans had to fake his crucifixion due to Passover issues: [1]

A common point of disagreement between Muslims and Christians is the Christian belief that God does take on a human form and actually became man in the person of Jesus Christ without ceasing to be God (Luke 2:52: GOD forgave Jesus' sins and was "charitable" with him). Yet, Christians do not believe that God in his essential nature is man, but only became man at the Incarnation.

My response:

Not all Christians believe in this lie.  Even though most Christians would call Jesus "Son of God", but when one digs deeper and asks what does "Son of God" really mean, then he will see the contradictions and conflicts among Christians.   Some claim that "Son of God" means that Jesus is the Creater of the Universe, and others believe that Jesus was a Creation of GOD Almighty.

Please visit: The early Christians rejected trinity.

He wrote:

According to the Holy Bible God created all things from nothing:

Scripture hints to the fact that God created time also:

According to the Lexical Aids to the New Testament, compiled and edited by Spiros Zodhiates, Th.D., The Greek word aionas is derived from:

Thayer's Greek Lexicon gives the following definitions:

Hence, a plausible interpretation of Hebrews 1:3 is that God created both the universe along with time through the agency of his Son, the Lord Jesus Christ. This point is solidified by the following NT citations:

The fact that God and Christ both precede time itself strongly argues that time was created by God (Luke 2:52: GOD forgave Jesus' sins and was "charitable" with him).

Therefore, seeing that God created time implies that he is timeless. Seeing that God created matter makes him an immaterial Being. Seeing that God also created the dimensions of space implies that he is spaceless. Being spaceless implies that God must be absolutely one, since for there to be more than one God would necessitate spatial dimensions. Therefore God is one eternal, omnipresent Spirit having no type of body whatsoever. This would also make him invisible, having no visible form. This is precisely the description that the Holy Bible gives of God:

Yet, the Holy Bible also states that God would often assume visible form allowing his servants the ability to see him visibly:

My response:

So far there is nothing of substance to argue about here, except that if Jesus peace be upon him and others were created before the creation of time, this still does not make Jesus GOD Almighty, i.e., the Creater of the Universe.  The Bible did talk about people who had pre-existence before their natural birth:

"Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, before you were born I set you apart; I appointed you as a prophet to the nations.  (From the NIV Bible, Jeremiah 1:5)"

So, your points don't really prove anything about Jesus being the Creater of the Universe.

He wrote:

Furthermore, according to the NT God actually became man in the person of Jesus Christ without ceasing to be God:

Hence, God in his essential nature is immaterial, invisible and spaceless. Yet, God assumed visible form and actually took on a physical body at the Incarnation of Jesus Christ without this effecting his invisible, immaterial divine nature:

This is precisely the point that Muslims refuse to accept. Muslims think it inconceivable that their god, Allah could or would assume a visible form or actually become man.

My response:

You have yet to prove that Jesus is the Creater of the Universe.  GOD in the Old Testament said that He will put the Spirit of Fearing GOD Almighty in Jesus!  Now any person with an atom of a brain would immediately realize that Jesus can not be the Creator of the Universe:

1.  A shoot will come up from the stump of Jesse; from his roots a Branch will bear fruit.
2.  The Spirit of the LORD will rest on him (Jesus)-- the Spirit of wisdom and of understanding, the Spirit of
counsel and of power, the Spirit of knowledge and of the fear of the LORD (Jesus fearing his GOD)--
3.  and he will delight in the fear of the LORD. He will not judge by what he sees with his eyes, or
decide by what he hears with his ears;

(From the NIV Bible, Isaiah 11:1-3)

Also, please visit:  The Spirit of GOD Almighty came upon others before and after Jesus in the Bible (Luke 2:52: GOD forgave Jesus' sins and was "charitable" with him).

Now for what Jesus himself said, let us look at few quotes:

"I do nothing of myself  (From the NIV Bible, John 8:28)"

"My Father (GOD) is greater than I  (From the NIV Bible, John 14:28)"

"Father (GOD), into thy hands I commend my spirit  (From the NIV Bible, Luke 23:46)"

"And Jesus said to him, ‘Why do you call me good? No one is good but God alone.  (From the NIV Bible, Mark 10:18)"

"No one knows about that day or hour, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father.  (From the NIV Bible, Matthew 24:36)"

Do these quotes to a person with an atom of a brain suggest at all that Jesus is in the same level as the Creator of the Universe? 

As to John 1:1, here is the response to it:

From www.answering-christianity.com/john1_1.htm

Does John 1:1 prove Trinity?

Let us look at John 1:1 "In the beginning was the word, and the word was with God, and the word was God." This is often presented from the Gospel of John to prove that Jesus was God (Luke 2:52: GOD forgave Jesus' sins and was "charitable" with him). There are however several problems with this claim:  By this verse it is assumed that Jesus was the "word" and since the word was God and became flesh, Jesus is God (Luke 2:52: GOD forgave Jesus' sins and was "charitable" with him). The statement that John reproduced in his gospel however was uttered not by John but by A Philo of Alexandria, years before Jesus or John were born. It is therefore completely unlikely that Philo was even remotely referring to Jesus (Luke 2:52: GOD forgave Jesus' sins and was "charitable" with him).

There is also another reason for not capitalizing the "G" in John 1:1, considering the Greek of the above verse which disproves the assertion that Jesus is referred to as God in the verse. In the verse above, the first time the word God is used, the Greek is HOTHEOS (the same exact word given to Satan as God in 2 Corinthians 4:4. The NIV Bible Author wrote "god" for Satan instead of "God"), which means The God (Luke 2:52: GOD forgave Jesus' sins and was "charitable" with him). The second time the word God is used,"....and the word was God," the word for God is TONTHEOS, which means "a god".  Europeans have evolved a system of capital and small letters non-existent in Greek. The God, HOTHEOS is translated as God with a capital G, whereas Tontheos, which means A or ANY God is translated with a small g, god. In this case however, we see the unlawful translators trying to prove Jesus being God by putting capital G for both whereas it doesn't belong in the case of the "word".

So can we trust the current English Translations?  Given that facts above about verse John 1:1, how can we expect from an ordinary English speaking Christian who wants to spread his religion with all his heart honestly and faithfully to understand this lie of capitalizing the small "g" in John 1:1 and other verses, and not capitalizing the capital "M" in the word "mighty" in Psalm 24:8 and the "g" in 2 Corinthians 4:4 (for Satan) for instance?  Must we allow our faith to be all based on what other authors decide to insert from their own personal views into the Bible?  

Further from Muslim-SA:

1.2.2.6 John 1:1

Another verse quoted in defense of the "Trinity" is the verse of John 1:1 :

"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God."

When I first learned of this verse it appeared to me that I had finally found my elusive goal. However, after substantial research into Christian theological literature, I would later come to learn that this verse too can not be interpreted to justify a "triune" God (Luke 2:52: GOD forgave Jesus' sins and was "charitable" with him). My own experience has shown that this verse is the one most popularly quoted by most Christians in defense of the Trinity. For this reason I shall spend a little more time in it's analysis than in the analysis of the other verses.

First of all, it is quite obvious from simply reading the above verse that even in the very best case, this verse speaks only of a "Duality" not a "Trinity." Even the most resolute conservative Christian will never claim to find in this verse any mention whatsoever of a "merging" of a Holy Ghost with God and "the Word." So even if we were to accept this verse at face value and just have faith, even then, we find ourselves commanded to believe in a "Duality" and not a "Trinity." But let us see if this verse does in fact even command us to believe in a "Duality." To do this we need to notice the following points:

1) Mistranslation of the text:

In the "original" Greek manuscripts (Did the disciple John speak Greek?), "The Word" is only described as being "ton theos"(divine/a god) and not as being "ho theos" (The Divine/The God). A more faithful and correct translation of this verse would thus read: "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was divine" (If you read the New World Translation of the Bible you will find exactly this wording).

Similarly, in "The New Testament, An American Translation" this verse is honestly presented as

"In the beginning the Word existed. The Word was with God, and the Word was divine."

The New Testament, An American Translation, Edgar Goodspeed and J. M. Powis Smith, The University of Chicago Press, p. 173

And again in the dictionary of the Bible, under the heading of "God" we read

"Jn 1:1 should rigorously be translated 'the word was with the God [=the Father], and the word was a divine being.'"

The Dictionary of the Bible by John McKenzie, Collier Books, p. 317

In yet another Bible we read:

"The Logos (word) existed in the very beginning, and the Logos was with God, the Logos was divine"

The Holy Bible, Containing the Old and New Testaments, by Dr. James Moffatt

Please also see "The Authentic New Testament" by Hugh J. Schonfield and many others.

If we look at a different verse, 2 Corinthians 4:4, we find the exact same word (ho theos) that was used in John 1:1 to describe God Almighty is now used to describe the devil, however, now the system of translation has been changed:

"the god of this world (the Devil) hath blinded the minds of them which believe not."

According to the system of the previous verse and the English language, the translation of the description of the Devil should also have been written as "The God" with a capital "G." If Paul was inspired to use the exact same words to describe the Devil, then why should we change it? Why is "The God" translated as simply "the god" when referring to the devil, while "divine" is translated as the almighty "God" when referring to "The Word"? Are we now starting to get a glimpse of how the "translation" of the Bible took place?

Well, what is the difference between saying "the word was God," and between saying "the word was a god (divine)"? Are they not the same? Far from it! Let us read the Bibles:

"I have said, Ye (the Jews) are gods; and all of you are children of the most High"

Psalms 82:6:

"And the LORD said unto Moses, See, I have made you a god to Pharaoh"

Exodus 7:1

"the god of this world (the Devil) hath blinded the minds of them which believe not."

2 Corinthians 4:4

What does all of this mean? Let me explain.

In the West, it is common when one wishes to praise someone to say "You are a prince," or "You are an angel" ..etc. When someone says this do they mean that that person is the son of the King of England, or a divine spiritual being? There is a very slight grammatical difference between saying "You are a prince" and between saying "You are THE prince," however, the difference in meaning is quite dramatic.

Further, it is necessary when translating a verse to also take into account the meaning as understood by the people of that age who spoke that language. One of the biggest problems with the Bible as it stands today is that it forces us to look at ancient Hebrew and Aramaic scriptures through Greek and Latin glasses as seen by people who are neither Jews, Greeks, nor Romans. All of the so called "original" manuscripts of the NT available today are written in Greek or Latin. The Jews had no trouble reading such verses as Psalms 82:6, and Exodus 7:1, while still affirming that there is only one God in existence and vehemently denying the divinity of all but God Almighty. It is the continuous filtration of these manuscripts through different languages and cultures as well as the Roman Catholic church's extensive efforts to completely destroy all of the original Hebrew Gospels (see last quarter of this chapter) which has led to this misunderstanding of the verses.

The Americans have a saying: "Hit the road men." It means "It is time for you to leave." However, if a non-American were to receive this command without any explanation then it is quite possible that we would find him beating the road with a stick. Did he understand the words? Yes! Did he understand the meaning? No!

In the Christian church we would be hard pressed to find a single priest or nun who does not address their followers as "my children." They would say: "Come here my children", or "Be wary of evil my children" ... etc. What do they mean?

A fact that many people do not realize is that around 200AD spoken Hebrew had virtually disappeared from everyday use as a spoken language. It was not until the 1880s that a conscious effort was made by Eliezer Ben-Yehudah to revive the dead language. Only about a third of current spoken Hebrew and basic grammatical structures come from biblical and Mishnaic sources. The rest was introduced in the revival and includes elements of other languages and cultures including the Greek and Arabic languages.

Even worse than these two examples are cases when translation into a different languages can result in a reversal of the meaning. For example, in the West, when someone loves something they say "It warmed my heart." In the Middle East, the same expression of joy would be conveyed with the words: "It froze my heart." If an Mideasterner were to greet a Westerner with the words: "It froze my heart to see you," then obviously this statement would not be greeted with a whole lot of enthusiasm from that Westerner, and vice versa. This is indeed one of the major reasons why the Muslims have been so much more successful in the preservation of their holy text than the Christians or the Jews; because the language of the Qur'an has remained from the time of Muhammad (peace be upon him) to the present day a living language, the book itself has always been in the hands of the people (and not the "elite"), and the text of the book remains in the original language of Muhammad (peace be upon him). For this reason, a translator must not and should not "translate" in a vacuum while disregarding the culture and traditions of the people who wrote these words. As we have just seen, it was indeed quite common among the Jews to use the word "god" (divine) to convey a sense of supreme power or authority to human beings. This system, however, was never popularly adopted by them to mean that these individuals were in any way omnipotent, superhuman, or equal to the Almighty.

2) Basic message of John:

Now that we have seen the correct translation of the verse of John 1:1, let us go a little further in our study of the intended meaning of this verse. This verse was taken from the "Gospel of John." The very best person to ask to explain what is meant by a given statement is the author of that statement himself. So let us ask "John" what is his mental picture of God and Jesus (peace be upon him) which he wishes to convey to us:

"Verily, verily, I say unto you, The servant is not greater than his lord; neither he that is sent greater than he that sent him."

John 13:16.

So the author of John tells us that God is greater than Jesus (Luke 2:52: GOD forgave Jesus' sins and was "charitable" with him). If the author of this Gospel did indeed wish us to understand that Jesus and God are "one and the same," then can someone be greater than himself? Similarly,

"Ye have heard how I said unto you, I go away, and come [again] unto you. If ye loved me, ye would rejoice, because I said, I go unto the Father: for my Father is greater than I."

John 14:28.

Can someone "go" to himself? Can someone be "greater" than himself?

"These words spake Jesus, and lifted up his eyes to heaven, and said, Father, the hour is come; glorify thy Son, that thy Son also may glorify thee:"

John 17:1.

If John meant to tell us that "Jesus and God are one and the same" then shall we understand from this verse that God is saying to Himself "Self, glorify me so that I may glorify myself"? Does this sound like this is the message of John?

"While I (Jesus) was with them in the world, I kept them in thy (God's) name: those that thou gavest me I have kept, and none of them is lost, but the son of perdition; that the scripture might be fulfilled."

John 17:12.

If the author of John wanted us to believe that Jesus and God are one person then are we to understand from this verse that God is saying to Himself "Self, while I was in the world I kept them in your name, self. Those who I gave to myself I have kept ..."? Is this what the author intended us to understand from his writings?

"Father, I will that they also, whom thou hast given me, be with me where I am; that they may behold my glory, which thou hast given me: for thou lovedst me before the foundation of the world."

John 17:24.

Similarly, did the author intend us to interpret this as "Self, I will that they also whom I have given myself be with me where I am; that they my behold my glory which I have given myself, for I loved myself before the foundation of the world"?

So, we begin to see that in order to understand the writings of a given author, it is necessary to not take a single quotation from him in a vacuum and then interpret his whole message based upon that one sentence (and a badly mistranslated version of that sentence at that).

3) Who wrote the "Gospel of John"?:

The "Gospel of John" is popularly believed by the majority of regular church-goers to be the work of the apostle John the son of Zebedee. However, when consulting Christianity's more learned scholars of Church history, we find that this is far from the case. These scholars draw our attention to the fact that internal evidence provides serious doubt as to whether the apostle John the son of Zebedee wrote this Gospel himself. In the dictionary of the Bible by John Mckenzie we read

"A. Feuillet notes that authorship here may be taken loosely."

Such claims are based on such verses as 21:24:

"This is the disciple which testifieth of these things, and wrote these things: and we know that his testimony is true."?

Did the apostle John write this about himself? Also see 21:20, 13:23, 19:26, 20:2, 21:7, and 21:20-23. The "disciple who Jesus loved" according to the Church is John himself, but the author of this gospel speaks of him as a different person.

Further, The Gospel of John was written at or near Ephesus between the years 110 and 115 (some say 95-100) of the Christian era by this, or these, unknown author(s). According to R. H. Charles, Alfred Loisy, Robert Eisler, and other scholars of Christian history, John of Zebedee was beheaded by Agrippa I in the year 44 CE, long before the fourth Gospel was written. Did the Holy Ghost "inspire" the apostle John's ghost to write this gospel sixty years after he was killed? . In other words, what we have here is a gospel which is popularly believed to have been written by the apostle John, but which in fact was not written by him. In fact no one really knows for certain who wrote this gospel.

"Since the beginning of the period of modern critical study, however, there has been much controversy about [the Gospel of John's] authorship, place of origin, theological affiliations and background, and historical value"

The Interpreter's Dictionary of the Bible, Volume 2, Abingdon Press, p. 932

4) Who "inspired" the author of this gospel to write this verse?:

The words of John 1:1 are acknowledged by most reputable Christian scholar of the Bible as the words of another Jew, Philo of Alexandria (20BC-50AD), who claimed no divine inspiration for them and who wrote them decades before the "gospel of John" was ever conceived. Groliers encyclopedia has the following to say under the heading "Logos"("the word"):

"Heraclitus was the earliest Greek thinker to make logos a central concept ......In the New Testament, the Gospel According to Saint John gives a central place to logos; the biblical author describes the Logos as God, the Creative Word, who took on flesh in the man Jesus Christ. Many have traced John's conception to Greek origins--perhaps through the intermediacy of eclectic texts like the writings of Philo of Alexandria."

T. W. Doane says:

"The works of Plato were extensively studied by the Church Fathers, one of whom joyfully recognizes in the great teacher, the schoolmaster who, in the fullness of time, was destined to educate the heathen for Christ, as Moses did the Jews. The celebrated passage : "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word Was God" is a fragment of some Pagan treatise on the Platonic philosophy, evidently written by Irenaeus. It is quoted by Amelius, a Pagan philosopher as strictly applicable to the Logos, or Mercury, the Word, apparently as an honorable testimony borne to the Pagan deity by a barbarian........We see then that the title "Word" or "Logos," being applied to Jesus, is another piece of Pagan amalgamation with Christianity (Luke 2:52: GOD forgave Jesus' sins and was "charitable" with him). It did not receive its authorized Christian form until the middle of the second century after Christ. The ancient pagan Romans worshipped a Trinity. An oracle is said to have declared that there was 'First God, then the Word, and with them the Spirit'. Here we see the distinctly enumerated, God, the Logos, and the Holy Spirit or Holy Ghost, in ancient Rome, where the most celebrated temple of this capital - that of Jupiter Capitolinus - was dedicated to three deities, which three deities were honored with joint worship."

From Bible Myths and their parallels in other religions, pp. 375-376.

6) What was "The Word"?

"O people of the book! commit no excesses in your religion: nor say of Allah aught but the truth. Christ Jesus the son of Mary was (no more than) a messenger of Allah, and His Word, which he bestowed upon Mary, and a spirit preceding from him so believe in Allah and his messengers. Say not "Three," desist! It will be better for you, for Allah is one God (Luke 2:52: GOD forgave Jesus' sins and was "charitable" with him). Glory be to him. Far exalted is he above having a son. To him belong all things in the heavens and the earth. And enough is Allah as a disposer of affairs."

The noble Qur'an, Al-Nissa(4):171

In the Qur'an we are told that when God Almighty wills something he merely says to it "Be" and it is.

"Verily! Our (Allah's) Word unto a thing when We intend it, is only that We say unto it "Be!" - and it is"

The noble Qur'an, Al-Nahil(16):40 (please also read chapter 14)

This is the Islamic viewpoint of "The Word." "The Word" is literally God's utterance "Be." This is held out by the Bible where thirteen verses later in John 1:14 we read:

"And the Word was made flesh".

In the Qur'an, we read:

"The similitude of Jesus before Allah is as that of Adam; He created him from dust, then said to him: 'Be.' And he was."

The noble Qur'an, Aal-Umran(3):59.

Regarding what is meant by Allah by "a spirit preceding from him" I shall simply let Allah Himself explain:

"And [remember] when Allah said to the angles: 'I shall create a human (Adam) from sounding clay, from altered mud. So when I have fashioned him and have breathed into him of my spirit, then fall down in prostration before him'"

The noble Qur'an, Al-Hijr(15):29

Last modified: Sun Nov 17 01:47:14 EST 1996

He wrote:

Yet, interestingly both the Quran and hadiths affirm that Allah actually has a visible form and that Allah actually moves from place to place. Here is a sampling of Quranic passages affirming that Allah has a visible body:

The Quran Attributes Movement To Allah

My response:

Allah Almighty does have a form, but this form is not known to us.  We are taught for instance that in the Day of Judgement, Allah Almighty will seal Hell with His Holy Foot:

Narrated Abu Huraira:  "The Prophet said, 'Paradise and Hell (Fire) quarreled in the presence of their Lord. Paradise said, 'O Lord! What is wrong with me that only the poor and humble people enter me ?' Hell (Fire) said, I have been favored with the arrogant people.' So Allah said to Paradise, 'You are My Mercy,' and said to Hell, 'You are My Punishment which I inflict upon whom I wish, and I shall fill both of you.' '  The Prophet added, 'As for Paradise, (it will be filled with good people) because Allah does not wrong any of His created things, and He creates for Hell (Fire) whomever He will, and they will be thrown into it, and it will say thrice, 'Is there any more, till Allah (will put) His Foot over it and it will become full and its sides will come close to each other and it will say, 'Qat! Qat! Qat! (Enough! Enough! Enough!).'   (Translation of Sahih Bukhari, ONENESS, UNIQUENESS OF ALLAH (TAWHEED), Volume 9, Book 93, Number 541)"  

We are also taught that Allah Almighty Has a Holy Face, Holy Hands, and Holy Eyes, and possibly a Holy Body:

"All that is on earth will perish: But will abide (for ever) the Face of thy Lord,- full of Majesty, Bounty and Honour.  (The Noble Quran, 55:26)"

"Verily those who plight their fealty to thee do no less than plight their fealty to God: the Hand of God is over their hands: then any one who violates his oath, does so to the harm of his own soul, and any one who fulfils what he has covenanted with God,- God will soon grant him a great Reward.  (The Noble Quran, 48:10)"

"The Jews say: "God's hand is tied up." Be their hands tied up and be they accursed for the (blasphemy) they utter. Nay, both His hands are widely outstretched: He giveth and spendeth (of His bounty) as He pleaseth. But the revelation that cometh to thee from God increaseth in most of them their obstinate rebellion and blasphemy. Amongst them we have placed enmity and hatred till the Day of Judgment. Every time they kindle the fire of war, God doth extinguish it; but they (ever) strive to do mischief on earth. And God loveth not those who do mischief.  (The Noble Quran, 5:64)"

"'Throw (the child) into the chest, and throw (the chest) into the river: the river will cast him up on the bank, and he will be taken up by one who is an enemy to Me and an enemy to him': But I cast (the garment of) love over thee from Me: and (this) in order that thou mayest be reared under Mine eye.   (The Noble Quran, 20:39)"

Possible Holy Body of Allah Almighty that Sat on the Holy Throne: 

"It is God Who has created the heavens and the earth, and all between them, in six Days, and is firmly established on the Throne (of Authority): ye have none, besides Him, to protect or intercede (for you): will ye not then receive admonition?  (The Noble Quran, 32:4)"

"He it is Who created the heavens and the earth in Six Days, and is moreover firmly established on the Throne (of Authority). He knows what enters within the earth and what comes forth out of it, what comes down from heaven and what mounts up to it. And He is with you wheresoever ye may be. And God sees well all that ye do.  (The Noble Quran, 57:4)"

Allah Almighty's size and shape was never mentioned in the Noble Quran:

"He is God, the Creator, the Evolver, the Bestower of Forms (or Colours). To Him belong the Most Beautiful Names: whatever is in the heavens and on earth, doth declare His Praises and Glory: and He is the Exalted in Might, the Wise.  (The Noble Quran, 59:24)"

"(He is) the Creator of the heavens and the earth: He has made for you pairs from among yourselves, and pairs among cattle: by this means does He multiply you: there is nothing whatever like unto Him, and He is the One that hears and sees (all things).  (The Noble Quran, 42:11)"

"Say: He is God, the One and Only; God, the Eternal, Absolute; He begetteth not, nor is He begotten; And there is none like unto Him.  (The Noble Quran, 112:1-4)"

He wrote:

The Quran Gives A Visible Form To Allah

This passage clearly states that Muhammad saw Allah approaching him in visible form. Muslims have claimed that the person whom Muhammad saw was the Angel Gabriel. This interpretation will not work since the passage claims that the person that appeared to Muhammad was Muhammad's sovereign as indicated by the last part of the sentence, "TO HIS SERVANT." Unless Muslims want to claim that Muhammad is the servant of Gabriel, there is no avoiding the inescapable conclusion that the person whom Muhammad saw in visible form was none other than Allah himself.

My response:

No, your interpretation is all false.  Here is what the Noble Verse says:   Allah Almighty taught Angel Gabriel peace be upon him Wisdom.  Angel Gabriel "appeared (in stately form)" to Prophet Muhammad peace be upon him.  Gabriel then "approached him (Muhammad) and came closer, And was at a distance of but two bow-lengths or (even) nearer".

Noble Verse 53:10 says: "So did (God) convey the inspiration to His Servant- (conveyed) what He (meant) to convey."   Here Allah Almighty is talking about the End Result, which is sending His Holy Revelation to Prophet Muhammad peace be upon him.  It doesn't mean at all that Allah Almighty personally sent the Message to Prophet Muhammad.

He wrote:

Again, the person whom Muhammad saw is none other than the Lord of the Throne, i.e. Allah. There is no other referent in the context of the passage and therefore the burden of proof is upon the Muslims to show that Muhammad did not see Allah visibly, but rather the Angel Gabriel. Noted Islamicist, F.E. Peters comments on the preceding Suras, specifically 53:1-12:

My response:

A person's interpretation does not mean anything to us.  Is Mr. F.E. Peters a Muslim?  An "Islamicist" may not necessarily be a Muslim.  But regardless of his religious belief, his interpretation is not a clear cut evidence.   All of the real Muslim translators and commentators believe that Prophet Muhammad saw Angel Gabriel and not Allah Almighty.

Do you care to bring us one popular Muslim theologian/scholar who agrees with your theory?  Any liberal non-Muslim can interpret things his/her way.  This doesn't mean anything to us, nor does this prove anything, because this liberal most probably lacks a great deal of knowledge about the Sunnah and other famous "Tafsirs" (translations) of great Islamic scholars who back their translations and interpretations on Sayings of Prophet Muhammad and other early Islamic doctrines.

Mr. F.E. Peters didn't back his claims on any early Islamic doctrine, and I am assuming that he doesn't even speak Arabic!  So how can he give himself the liberty to interpret the Noble Quran his way (going against all Arabic-speaking Muslim scholars' interpretations) if he doesn't even speak Arabic?!

He wrote:

The Quran also applies human qualities and characteristics to Allah:

The Quran Gives Allah A Face

The Quran Gives Allah A Hand

The Quran Gives Allah An Eye

The Quran Seats Allah On The Throne

The fact that Allah mounts the throne implies movement. To say that mounting the throne is a metaphorical term indicating that Allah assumed sovereign control over the creation leaves more problems. If it is only after creation that Allah assumed sovereign rulership then this implies that previous to this specific point in time Allah was not sovereign. Yet, if he was not sovereign prior to this point then this implies a change in the nature and experience of Allah. Yet, if Allah can change and experience new events this implies that he is not omniscient. We leave it to the Muslims to solve this paradox.

The Quran provides proof that the throne is actually literal:

That eight angels bear Allah's throne above affirms that Allah literally sits on an actual throne.

The Quran gives Allah A Shin

According to the Ahadith the Shin refers to Allah's Shin:

The Hadith also attributes bodyparts and movement to Allah.

Allah Actually Moves

Allah Has A Face

Allah Has A Hand and Fingers

Allah Actually Writes

The following is taken from the Forty Hadith Qudsi:

The following hadiths are taken from Al-Ahadith Al-Qudsiyyah - Divine Narratives translated by Dr. Abdul Khaliq Kazi & Dr. Alan B. Day, published by Dar Al Kitab Arabi - USA, 1995:

Allah Has A Waist

My response:

Again, as I showed above, Allah Almighty does have a Form, but no one knows the size and shape of His Holy Form, because it was never mentioned in the Noble Quran:

"He is God, the Creator, the Evolver, the Bestower of Forms (or Colours). To Him belong the Most Beautiful Names: whatever is in the heavens and on earth, doth declare His Praises and Glory: and He is the Exalted in Might, the Wise.  (The Noble Quran, 59:24)"

"(He is) the Creator of the heavens and the earth: He has made for you pairs from among yourselves, and pairs among cattle: by this means does He multiply you: there is nothing whatever like unto Him, and He is the One that hears and sees (all things).  (The Noble Quran, 42:11)"

"Say: He is God, the One and Only; God, the Eternal, Absolute; He begetteth not, nor is He begotten; And there is none like unto Him.  (The Noble Quran, 112:1-4)"

He wrote:

Allah Has A Visible Form

Interestingly, this hadith indicates that Allah is not visibly present in Paradise. Only his light and blessings are present with believers (Luke 2:52: GOD forgave Jesus' sins and was "charitable" with him). The fact that Allah appears to Paradise dwellers and then disappears from their sight implies that Allah is also not omnipresent.

According to this hadith Allah has a form in which Muslims are expected to know and recognize on the Day of Judgment. Furthermore, Allah is said to have laughed, which implies that he either assumes a form where he gives off the impression that he is actually laughing or Allah in fact has a mouth! In fact, one hadith claims that Muhammad laughed at Allah laughing:

What is most disturbing is not that Allah laughed, but that someone could actually stand before the Holy God and accuse him of mockery.

My response:

If Allah Almighty decides to Show His Holy Face to the Winners of Paradise, then be it.   He, the Almighty, Wills what He Wills.  As to the man accusing GOD Almighty of mockery, he is not accusing Allah Almighty, but rather degrading himself even more before Allah Almighty.  That is why the man will be surprised by Allah Almighty toying a little bit with him, and told Allah Almighty: You are the LORD of the Universe Who Has Power over everything, and you are taking a time to play with me?

Anyway, this is only a Hadith; a narration that is believed to be from Prophet Muhammad peace be upon him.  But many of the Hadiths are false, because Hadiths are like the Bible, they were written in a long period of time (see also Luke 2:52: GOD forgave Jesus).  The Hadiths were documented on paper from 1 year to 200 years.  The Bible took 3,500 years.  So not every Hadith is truthful.

Please visit: Muslims beware of the corruption in the Hadiths and the Bible

He wrote:

Note what the following Muslim translator states in relation to Allah having a face, hands etc.:

This next quote is quite interesting. After mentioning those who seek the face of Allah, the author writes:

Therefore, according to these Islamic sources a Muslim cannot just claim that the Qualities of Allah, His Face, Hands etc. are simply metaphorical. A Muslim must affirm that these things are actual. Yet, at the same time a Muslim must not assume that Allah's Face, Hands, Feet etc. are anything like what we see and find in creation.

My response:

Again, as I showed above, Allah Almighty does have a Form, but no one knows the size and shape of His Holy Form, because it was never mentioned in the Noble Quran:

"He is God, the Creator, the Evolver, the Bestower of Forms (or Colours). To Him belong the Most Beautiful Names: whatever is in the heavens and on earth, doth declare His Praises and Glory: and He is the Exalted in Might, the Wise.  (The Noble Quran, 59:24)"

"(He is) the Creator of the heavens and the earth: He has made for you pairs from among yourselves, and pairs among cattle: by this means does He multiply you: there is nothing whatever like unto Him, and He is the One that hears and sees (all things).  (The Noble Quran, 42:11)"

"Say: He is God, the One and Only; God, the Eternal, Absolute; He begetteth not, nor is He begotten; And there is none like unto Him.  (The Noble Quran, 112:1-4)"

He wrote:

In light of these preceding factors we are left with two possibilities:

1. Allah has an actual body. If so, this either makes Allah an exalted and glorified man. Or, Allah's body is spiritual not material. If so, then this implies that Allah cannot be omnipresent, spaceless or timeless. Hence, the dimensions of time, space and matter become binding upon Allah. This being the case we end up with a Greek pagan concept where both God and matter are eternal!
2. Allah assumes a visible body without this actually being his form. If so, then Muslims have no basis to reject the OT theophanies of God and the Incarnation of God in Christ Jesus our Lord. If Allah can appear visibly, then the God of the Bible can appear as a man and actually take on human nature at the Incarnation without Muslims having a legitimate basis to argue against this fact.

In either case, Muslims have no valid objection against the doctrine of the Trinity and the Deity of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.

My response:

You are very ludicrous to assume that since Allah Almighty Has a Holy Form in Islam, which I agreed with you and further proved for you above, that He is a triune god, or He has anything to do with your polytheist pagan trinity dogma.  Since you're discussing Islam, why didn't you give us the Noble Verses in the Noble Quran that condemn your trinity lie Mr. deceitful?

Let us see what Allah Almighty said about the polytheist trinity paganism in the Noble Quran:

"They do blaspheme who say: 'God is Christ the son of Mary.' But said Christ: 'O Children of Israel ! worship God, my Lord and your Lord.'  (The Noble Quran, 5:72)"

"They do blaspheme who say God is one of three in a Trinity:  for there is no god except One God (Luke 2:52: GOD forgave Jesus' sins and was "charitable" with him).  If they desist not from their word (of blasphemy), verily a grievous penalty will befall the blasphemers among them.  (The Noble Quran, 5:73)"

"O People of the Book!  Commit no excesses in your religion:  Nor say of God aught but the truth.  Christ Jesus the son of Mary was (no more than) an apostle of God,  (The Noble Quran, 4:171)"

Please visit:  What is the Wisdom of Islam?

Answering Trinity - Proofs from the Bible about Jesus not being the Creater of the Universe.

He wrote:

Seeing that Islam poses more problems than solutions we invite Muslims to embrace the truth of God as recorded in the Holy Bible (Luke 2:52: GOD forgave Jesus' sins and was "charitable" with him).

My response:

No kidding!

He wrote:

The Holy Bible is the only inspired and inerrant Word of God for all times and for all men, leading everyone to the knowledge of God's complete truth.

My response:

Your holy bible is full of man's errors, alterations and corruptions.  Ironically, the Bible itself admits that:

"`How can you say, "We [the Jews] are wise, for we have the law of the LORD," when actually the lying pen of the scribes has handled it falsely?' (From the NIV Bible, Jeremiah 8:8)"

The Revised Standard Version makes it even clearer: "How can you say, 'We are wise, and the law of the LORD is with us'? But, behold, the false pen of the scribes has made it into a lie.  (From the RSV Bible, Jeremiah 8:8)"

Please visit: Just who were the original authors of the Bible? to see the book's bibliography to the above quotes.

In this link, you will see historical evidence that most of the books and gospels of the bible were written by MYSTERIOUS men who were not anointed by GOD Almighty:

"Serious doubts exists as to whether these verses belong to the Gospel of Mark.  They are absent from important early manuscripts and display certain peculiarities of vocabulary, style and theological content that are unlike the rest of Mark.  His Gospel probably ended at 16:8, or its original ending has been lost.  (From the NIV Bible Foot Notes, page 1528)"

"Although the author does not name himself, evidence outside the Scriptures and inferences from the book itself lead to the conclusion that the author was Luke.  (From the NIV Bible Commentary, page 1643)"

"The writer of this letter does not identify himself, but he was obviously well known to the original recipients.  (From the NIV Bible Commentary, page 1856)"

"The letter is difficult to date with precision....(From the NIV Bible Commentary, page 1905)"

"It seems safe to conclude that the book, at least in its early form, dates from the beginning of the monarchy. Some think that Samuel may have had a hand in shaping or compiling the materials of the book, but in fact we are unsure who the final author or editor was.  (From the NIV Bible Commentary, page 286)"

"Although, according to tradition, Samuel wrote the book, authorship is actually uncertain.  (From the NIV Bible Commentary, page 322)"

"The date of the composition is also unknown, but it was undoubtedly during the monarchy.  (From the NIV Bible Commentary, page 322)"

"The author is unknown. Jewish tradition points to Samuel, but it is unlikely that he is the author because the mention of David (4:17,22) implies a later date.  (From the NIV Bible Commentary, page 360)"

"Who the author was cannot be known with certainty since the book itself gives no indication of his identity.  (From the NIV Bible Commentary, page 368)"

"There is little conclusive evidence as to the identity of the author of 1,2 Kings.  (From the NIV Bible Commentary, page 459)"

"Whoever the author was, it is clear that he was familiar with the book of Deuteronomy.  (From the NIV Bible Commentary, page 459)"

"According to ancient Jewish tradition, Ezra wrote Chronicles, Ezra and Nehemiah (see Introduction to Ezra: Literary Form and Authorship), but this cannot be established with certainty.  (From the NIV Bible Commentary, page 569)"

"Although we do not know who wrote the book of Esther, from internal evidence it is possible to make some inferences about the author and the date of composition.  (From the NIV Bible Commentary, page 707)"

"The unknown author probably had access to oral and/or written sources....(From the NIV Bible commentary, page 722)"

"Regarding authorship, opinions are even more divided....(From the NIV Bible Commentary, page 773)"

etc...

How do you respond to this Mr. Shamoun?

Again, please visit: Just who were the original authors of the Bible? to see the book's bibliography to the above quotes.

Also, why don't you visit: Contradictions and proofs of Historical Corruptions in the Bible, and see exactly what I mean, instead of acting like a total fool and saying things that even the Bible refutes in it!

He wrote:

Jesus Christ is Lord to the glory of God the Father. Amen. Come Lord Jesus (Luke 2:52: GOD forgave Jesus' sins and was "charitable" with him).

NOTE -

Muslims might object at our uncritical use of certain hadiths in this article, which they may feel are not sound. In case such an argument is presented we simply would like to point out that the reliability of the Hadith is not the issue. The issue is that both the Quran and early Islamic scholarship affirm the visible and bodily nature of Allah. Hence, even if some of the hadiths were questionable this still would not refute our arguments. This is due to the fact that it is Muslims who wrote down even these weaker hadiths, affirming that these Muslims had no problem in attributing a body to Allah. Hence, no matter from what angle one looks at it the conclusion that Allah has a body becomes inescapable.

My response:

I am not accusing any of the Hadiths here of being written by hypocrites from the Jews and Christians, but many of the Hadiths are false and were proven to have been written by Jews and Christians who falsely embraced Islam and intentionally tried to inject corruptions in it as they did with their corrupted bible to make the Muslims believe that Islam is a religion not worth adopting:

"A section of the People of the Book (Jews and Christians) say:  Believe in the morning what is revealed to the believers ( Muslims), but reject it at the end of the day; perchance they may (themselves) turn back (from Islam).  (The Noble Quran, 3:72)"

So to respond to your point, no, not all of the "weak" hadiths were written by Muslims.  Many of them were written by the hypocrites from the Jews and Christians.

As to the Holy Form of Allah Almighty, you have proven absolutely nothing about your polytheist trinity pagan dogma.  All you did was bring Hadiths and Noble Verses that prove that Allah Almighty has a Holy Form, and so ridiculously jumped to the conclusion that your polytheist trinity dogma is justified in Islam, while Allah Almighty Himself condemned trinity in the Noble Quran as I showed above:

"They do blaspheme who say: 'God is Christ the son of Mary.' But said Christ: 'O Children of Israel ! worship God, my Lord and your Lord.'  (The Noble Quran, 5:72)"

"They do blaspheme who say God is one of three in a Trinity:  for there is no god except One God (Luke 2:52: GOD forgave Jesus' sins and was "charitable" with him).  If they desist not from their word (of blasphemy), verily a grievous penalty will befall the blasphemers among them.  (The Noble Quran, 5:73)"

"O People of the Book!  Commit no excesses in your religion:  Nor say of God aught but the truth.  Christ Jesus the son of Mary was (no more than) an apostle of God,  (The Noble Quran, 4:171)"

Please visit:  What is the Wisdom of Islam?

Answering Trinity - Proofs from the Bible about Jesus not being the Creater of the Universe.

Back to My Rebuttals, and exposing the lies of the Answering Islam team section.

Rebuttals to Sam Shamoun's Articles section.

Answering Trinity.

Contradictions and History of Corruption in the Bible (Luke 2:52: GOD forgave Jesus' sins and was "charitable" with him).

Questions about Jesus that trinitarian Christians don't have logical answers for.

What parts of the Bible do Muslims believe are closest to the Truth? and Why?

"Allah" was GOD Almighty's original Name in the Bible according to the Hebrew and Aramaic sources.

Scientific Miracles in Islam and the Noble Quran.

Most of the Bible's books and gospels were written by mysterious people!

Jesus mentioned Muhammad by the name in the Bible (Luke 2:52: GOD forgave Jesus' sins and was "charitable" with him).

Did Isaiah 53 really prophesies about the crucifixion of Jesus? It supports Islam's claims about Jesus peace be upon him never died on the cross.  I also addressed John 19:36-37 from the Bible and proved that Jesus never got crucified, since GOD Almighty promised that he will protect Jesus' body and not let even a single bone be broken.  My question to all Christians is: How in the world is it possible for the feet to get nailed on the cross without any penetration to the bones by the nails, hence breaking part of the feet's bones?! I also added refutations to Exodus 12:46, Numbers 9:12, Zechariah 12:10 and Psalm 34:20, which supposedly prove the Christians' belief about Jesus crucifixion.  I proved that this dogma has no truth what so ever and exposed the wrong Trinitarian English translation of Zechariah 12:10.

Send your comments.

Back to Main Page.

|

The Romans had to fake his crucifixion due to Passover issues: [1]

Mary:  Fornicate with you "in my mother's bed" [1].  Are virgin Mary's mother and bed also members of the barfinity ?


200 years no gospels | 24 other thrones besides Jesus' | Jesus was created | Isaiah 53 mistranslations | What's new | A-Z library (3300+ articles) | "Muslims" was the original title | Quran Search | Quran Moral Code (100s of them) | Quran: Bibles are filled with corrupt  قول  qaowl (doctrines of sayings and writings)  | "bar Allahin" in Daniel 3:25-26 means the chosen one of Allah | Jesus said he was powerless | Daniel 7:25: Christianity will change time and the Law |  Paul wasn't sure about the Holy Spirit (Romans 9:1, 1 Corinthians 7:40) |  Eesa (Quran's name for Jesus) is Iesu and Iesus in Latin and Greek for Jesus, and Eesa is also a Hebrew word that means doctor or healer; all of Jesus' Miracles were medical |  Paul was a holy barfaliphor (ΜΠαρφαλιφωρ) | Research & Blog | 9/11 Israel-lie | Youtube