Answering Christianity Research Center

The following is from my own understanding and knowledge which could be faulty.

Natural disasters are because of God's will, or to put it in different words, they are included in the natural system of the world that God has created.

According to Islamic doctrine, from a spiritual point of view, they serve as either expiation of a people's sins (so that they don't have to pay for these sins in the afterlife) OR a test for them (passing which will increase their rewards in the afterlife).

As far as I know, the Prophet never taught that all the natural disasters are because of human sins (some can be, but definitely not necessarily); this particular interpretation can be regarded as an innovation in Islam.

A particular event from the life of the Prophet is somewhat relevant here: After the death of one of Prophet Muhammad's sons, their was an eclipse; people started saying that the eclipse is because of the son's death, but the Prophet corrected them and told them that such things are natural phenomena and they don't occur on the death of any person.

Regards,

If "need" is defined as something the absence of which decreases a person in some way, then God does not have a "need" for anything.

God likes people who worship Him and dislikes those who don't, possibly because such persons are going to face harsh penalties for such actions, but there is no reason or evidence to attribute this as a "need" by God.

Apparently his e-mail account is filled with spam, so he doesn't keep track of it.

He usually keeps a lookout for the new posts, so hopefully he may come across this one and reply on his own.

Regards,

Regarding the spirit, Brother Osama Bdullah's article is linked here:

http://www.answering-christianity.com/spirit.htm

Also, an exegesis on Qur'an 4:171 is linked here, (will have to scroll down for the particular verse)

https://ia802707.us.archive.org/2/items/maarifulquran-english-pdf/MaarifulquranEnglishPdf-Vol2-Page616-672ByMuftiShafiUsmaniRah.pdf

Regards,

If I'm not mistaken about the discussion here, it is pertinent to point out that the Qur'an claims that Jesus was never God. It isn't like he was first God then became completely human and that today he remains a human; he has, from the moment of his creation by God, always remained human.

Regards,

I am definitely out of my depth here, but don't Christians (at-least one group of them) believe in the "hypostatic union" - a term used to describe how "God the Son, Jesus Christ, took on a human nature, yet remained fully God at the same time"? "... Jesus Christ, one Person, fully God and fully man. (...) Jesus' actions were from His one Person. Jesus had two natures, but only one personality. (...) When Jesus was conceived, He became a human being in addition to being God (...) In summary, the hypostatic union teaches that Jesus is both fully human and fully divine, that there is no mixture or dilution of either nature, and that He is one united Person, forever."
Source: http://www.gotquestions.org/hypostatic-union.html

Also, if Jesus is the Messiah and if "the son, the father and the spirit" are one, then doesn't it mean that "the son, the father and the spirit" all "three" can be called the Messiah?

Regards,

@Shabeer1,

Your reply reminded me of one of the accusations made by an atheist of how no non-Muslim men are attracted to paedophilia. I replied with the following:

A worldwide list of known pederast and pedophile advocacy groups that promote sexual contact between adults and children:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_pedophile_and_pederast_advocacy_organizations

“A Dutch appeals court has lifted a ban on an organisation which lobbies for the legalisation of sex between adults and children, after finding that the group was not breaking any laws in The Netherlands.”
“And while a number of its members have been jailed on child pornography charges, the court found that the words and photographs on the organisation’s website did not break any laws.”

Source: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/ban-lifted-on-pro-paedophilia-group-in-the-netherlands-8559000.html

“Jürgen Trittin was listed as “legally responsible” for a 1981 election pamphlet, which called for the decriminalisation of sex acts between adults and children “that occur without the use or threat of force.”
Mr Trittin, the co-leader of the party and a former German environment minister, told a press conference in Berlin on Monday: “It was also my fault and my responsibility that these mistaken demands endured for so long.” He added: “This position is false, was false and lasted too long.””

Source: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/germany/10312930/Germanys-Green-Party-leader-regrets-campaign-to-legalise-paedophilia.html

On the matter of the Judea-Christian and Hinduism references you quoted, I wanted to ask if you have any direct online links to them thta you can post?

The following is according to my own understanding, which could be faulty.

First Prophet

There is a difference between a “Messenger” and a “Prophet”.

Praise be to Allaah.
Adam (peace be upon him) was the first of the Prophets, as it says in the hadeeth narrated by Ibn Hibbaan in his Saheeh, that the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) was asked about Adam – was he a Prophet? He said, “Yes, a Prophet to whom Allaah spoke.” But he was not a Messenger, because of the hadeeth about intercession in which it says that the people will go to Nooh and say to him, “You are the first Messenger whom Allaah sent to the earth.”
This text clearly indicates that Nooh was the first of the Messengers. And Allaah knows best.
Majmoo’ Fataawa Ibn ‘Uthaymeen, 1/317.
Adam the father of mankind was a Prophet, so he was the first of the Prophets.

Source: https://islamqa.info/en/10551

First Muslim

These different people were the first Muslims among their people. For example, Person A was first in a race held in 2011 and Person B was first in a race held in 2012. They both are “first”, just for a different time and place.

What this basically and simply means that Muhammad is commanded to be the first Muslim AMONG HIS PEOPLE. That is all it means, it means that Muhammad is the first Muslim among his people, and is commanded to be the first Muslim among his people. So it does not contradict the other verses, Muhammad is not the first Muslim on theplanet, it just means the first Muslim among his people. Note what one of the verses also say:
 Say: Shall I choose for a protecting friend other than Allah, the Originator of the heavens and the earth, Who feedeth and is never fed? Say: I am ordered to be the first to surrender [aslama] (unto Him). And be not thou (O Muhammad) of the idolaters. S. 6:14 Pickthall
 It tells Muhammad to be not of the idolaters, who were the idolaters? The idolaters were the Quraysh, they were Muhammad's people, so hence it is crystal clear when it is said for Muhammad to be the first Muslim it just basically means among his people.

Source: http://www.answering-christianity.com/sami_zaatri/rebuttaltosamshamoun40.htm

Last Prophet

Prophet Muhammad.
No references are given for the other claims to be able to make any refutation.

No. of Prophets

Muslims don’t believe that the earlier scriptures have been protected from corruption so it doesn’t really matter what the Talmud says.

Messenger sent to his own nation and Tongue

Don’t know about this one, maybe someone else can answer this.

-   “Explain this contradiction:
Surah 10:47; surah 16:35-36; surah 22:34,67; Surah 35:24 and
Surah 40:5-6, which state that Allah has sent to every nation a Messenger before the time of Muhammad
contradicts the second set of verses: Surah 28:46; Surah 32:3 and Surah 36:6,
which state that a Messenger was never sent to the people Muhammad was sent to.”

Either I’m missing something or there actually is no contradiction, not even an apparent one. To the people that lived before Prophet Muhammad’s time, messengers were sent to them and to Prophet Muhammad’s people, only Prophet Muhammad was sent. Where is the contradiction?
Also, “people Muhammad was sent to” should not mean all the ancestors of the Arabs during Prophet Muhammad's times, because that would make all the people of the world up-to Prophet Adam, “Arabs”.
Additionally, “Surah 36:6” doesn’t say what the statement is claiming it to be saying (i.e. “a Messenger was never sent to the people Muhammad was sent to”).

Regards,