Quran

[Niblo]

On 3/12/2023 at 7:52 PM, Hamilton Porter said:

Ok. So it seems like the fact that we believe in prophets after Muhammad is a deal breaker.

 

It would seem so.

You write:

‘That we're less monotheistic than historical Christianity is an issue as well, although that fits the Bible better. Our non-monotheistic interpretation of the Bible jibes with Biblical scholarship but not with Christian theology.’

I smiled as I read these words: Our non-monotheistic interpretation of the Bible jibes with Biblical scholarship but not with Christian theology.

Allāh (subḥānahu ūta'āla) says:

‘There are some who twist the Scripture with their tongues to make you (people] think that what they say is part of the Scripture when it is not; they say it is from Allāh when it is not; they attribute lies to Allāh and they know it……………….Allāh took a pledge from those who were given the Scripture – “Make it known to people; do not conceal it” – but they tossed the pledge over their shoulders, they bartered it for a small price: what a bad bargain they made!’ (Al‘Imran: 78 and 187).

Some forty-five years ago – just before I became a culture missionary to the English in Yorkshire – I had an older friend who was a Biblical Unitarian (I was then a Catholic, having been raised as a Baptist).  We discussed (often) both the trinity and incarnation.  On one occasion I became angry with him (I was fiery in those days!).  I grabbed my Bible and thrust it under his nose. ‘This is my Book’, I hissed. ‘What’s yours?’

He smiled, and gently removed the Bible from my hand. ‘This!’, he replied.  I was stunned.  How could this man read the very same Book as I, and yet reach conclusions so opposed to my own?  He was no fool; neither was he perverse.  He was both genuine and honest; a decent man who lived his faith according to his conscience. And yet, he did not, could not, believe what I believed.  A seed was planted then; one that remained dormant for many years 

At that time, I was a professed member of the Carmelite Third Order – with a love of biblical and dogmatic theology; hermeneutics; biblical criticism; canon law, and so on.  I had excellent teachers.  I was a Thomist, and still have a very high regard for the methodology of Aquinas; although I can no longer agree with all his notions. 

After coming to Yorkshire, I spent a year with the Carmelite Friars at Hazlewood Castle in Yorkshire (now a hotel); and over a year with the Cistercians (Trappists) at Mount Saint Bernard Abbey in Leicester, testing a vocation (I first visited the Abbey in my early twenties, and knew the community very well).  It became clear that life in a religious order was not my calling, and so I became a husband and father (as the Abbey Secretary said to me: ‘Our novitiate is a seedbed of good Catholic marriages!’).  I look back at my time with the Carmelites and Cistercians with great affection.  Even though I no longer share all their doctrinal beliefs, I admire their spirituality, and their honest convictions; and their way of life – especially that of the Cistercians. 

In due time, the question I had asked of my Unitarian friend years before (‘How could this man read the very same Book as I, and yet reach conclusions so opposed to my own?) returned.

That was the start of my journey away from Christianity.  At that time, I knew nothing of Islam.

My question to you: Who is to decide which interpretation of the Bible is correct?

Continued:

 

[Niblo]

You write:

‘The Quran doesn't identify the son Abraham sacrificed’.

And then quote Meir M. Bar-Asher:

'Contrary to a widely held belief, the Qur'an does not specify the son's identity, merely mentioning "the good news of a prudent son" (Q. 37:101). It is revealing in this connection that the "official" Saudi translation by Muhammad Hamildullah feels obliged to parenthetically specify "Ishmael"! It was the exegetes who subsequently attempted to respond to this question. The great Qur'an commentator Tabari reports a number of opinions, most of which (including his own) favor Isaac on the grounds that it was Isaac and not Ishmael who was the object of a divine announcement. Several other exegetes come down on the side of Ishmael, and this is now the most widespread opinion in Islam. It is far from being a matter of consensus, however, and has not always enjoyed majority support.’ ‘Jews and the Qur'an’.

The Jewish Encyclopaedia reminds us that:

‘As the firstling among the cattle, so the first-fruits of the field, of corn, of wine, and of oil belonged to Yhwh.

‘According to Ex. xxii. 28 (A. V. 29), the Israelite was not to delay to offer "of his abundance," a phrase that is explained in Ex. xxiii. 19 and xxxiv. 26 as meaning the choicest products, the first-fruits of the land.

‘These first-fruits, as in the case of the first-born, were used for a feast-offering, even at the time of the compilation of the Deuteronomic code, according to which the offering had to take place at Jerusalem.’ (My emphasis).

HaShem is to be honoured by the sacrificial offering of the First Fruits; for they belong only to Him. 

As you know, the ‘First Fruit’ (first born) of Abraham was Ishmael.

In the Qur’an, Abraham prays:

‘Lord, grant me a righteous son,’ so We gave him the good news that he would have a patient son.  When the boy was old enough to work with his father, Abraham said, ‘My son, I have seen myself sacrificing you in a dream. What do you think?’ He said, ‘Father, do as you are commanded and, Allāh willing, you will find me steadfast.’  

When they had both submitted to Allāh, and he had laid his son down on the side of his face, We called out to him, ‘Abraham, you have fulfilled the dream.’ This is how We reward those who do good – it was a test to prove (their true characters) – We ransomed his son with a momentous sacrifice, and We let him be praised by succeeding generations:  ‘Peace be upon Abraham!’ This is how We reward those who do good: truly he was one of Our faithful servants.’ (Al-Saffat:100-111).

Shaykh Seyyed Hossein Nasr writes:

‘Commentators are divided as to whether the son to be slain was Isaac or Ishmael.  While many earlier commentators, such as al-Ṭabarī, take Isaac to be the son in question, several later commentators, such as al-Rāzī and Ibn Kathīr, favor Ishmael, some of whom go so far as to assert that the attribution to Isaac derived from a corruption of the Bible.’ (‘The Study Qur’an’).

The claim that the Al-Saffat ʾāyāt are a reference to Ishmael is supported by sūrah Maryam:54-55:

‘Mention too, in the Qur’an, the story of Ishmael. He was true to his promise, a messenger and a prophet.  He commanded his household to pray and give alms, and his Lord was well pleased with him.’

Ishmael’s promise was to remain ‘steadfast’ in obedience to Allāh (subḥānahu ūta'āla) wishes; even to permitting himself to be sacrificed (Al-Saffat:103).

It is worth noting that Maryam was revealed before Al-Saffat. 

In ʾāyah of  112 of Al-Saffat we are told that Abraham was given ‘the good news of Isaac – a prophet and a righteous man.’

Having been given news of one son, Abraham is given news of another.  If Isaac is the only son referred to in these ʾāyāt,  why give Abraham good news twice?

Writing of the story itself, Shaykh Seyyed Hossein Nasr says:

‘Although this story may appear to be similar to the Biblical account, it differs in several significant details. Abraham does not act immediately upon his dream, but asks the potential “sacrifice,” his son, for his opinion. His son then becomes a willing participant in the sacrifice, surrendering himself to the Will of God when he says, You will find me, God willing, among those who are patient. Some say that it was the son who suggested he be laid upon his forehead (v. 103) and that he told his father to use his garment as a shroud when the sacrifice was complete. Thus Abraham’s son is not a passive participant, as in the Biblical account, where he remains unaware of the Divine Command and asks, “Where is the lamb for a burnt offering?” (Genesis 22:7). Rather, he is a free and active participant who chooses complete obedience to God at the greatest personal sacrifice.’ (‘The Study Qur’an).

Blessings.

Edited March 19, 2023 by Niblo

[Benjamin McGuire]

4 hours ago, Niblo said:

‘These first-fruits, as in the case of the first-born, were used for a feast-offering, even at the time of the compilation of the Deuteronomic code, according to which the offering had to take place at Jerusalem.’ (My emphasis).

Two points -

First, at the time of the compilation of the Deuteronomic code, Abraham had been dead a long time. In fact, Abraham had been dead for quite some time when Moses was born. The idea that the Deuteronomic code should have applied to Abraham is a problematic claim. Even by definition, Abraham as an Israelite is a problematic claim.

Second, we should recognize that at the time of the compilation of the Deuteronomic code, the tradition of the binding of Isaac was already old - it predates that compilation. And the Qur'an wouldn't appropriate the narrative for another millennium after that. The Qur'anic version isn't an independent alternative history. It is a dependent alternative history - and that is an important detail. It has re-written the text in a context which is quite alien from the original.

This isn't merely an interpretation of the Bible that you suggest here (just as Mormons who interpret the Biblical text through the lens of the Book of Mormon aren't merely reinterpreting the Bible) - it is an interpretation of the Bible given a huge set of assumptions. This doesn't, of course, make it wrong. The idea of discovering "which interpretation of the Bible is correct" contains a much larger problem - not because of the fact that we can compare many different interpretations (no one would argue this point) but rather because there doesn't seem to be any valid reason for suggesting that the text has only one correct interpretation, or even (assuming that it does) that we should have some moral or ethical obligation to chase it down if it did exist. And there is an absurdity in thinking that, of all of the various interpretations that exist, that one might be correct rather than that they are all equally incorrect. When people privilege a reading of the text as correct, they aren't simply privileging a reading of the text, they are privileging an entire experience and a virtually innumerable set of background assumptions required to hold that interpretation as not merely one possible interpretation, but the only correct interpretation.

As Nephi in the Book of Mormon suggested - the correct interpretation of the text is the one that happens when we both liken the text unto ourselves (fit it into our own experience and create a unique interpretation) and then receive the confirmation of the Holy Spirit. And this suggests that rather than a single correct meaning, we have potentially as many correct meanings as we do interpreters.

[Niblo]

2 hours ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

As Nephi in the Book of Mormon suggested - the correct interpretation of the text is the one that happens when we both liken the text unto ourselves (fit it into our own experience and create a unique interpretation) and then receive the confirmation of the Holy Spirit. And this suggests that rather than a single correct meaning, we have potentially as many correct meanings as we do

Noted. Thank you. 👍

Edited March 19, 2023 by Niblo

[Hamilton Porter]

7 hours ago, Niblo said:

These first-fruits, as in the case of the first-born, were used for a feast-offering, even at the time of the compilation of the Deuteronomic code, according to which the offering had to take place at Jerusalem.’ (My emphasis).

That's kinda iffy. Ishmael was the firstborn but his mother was a concubine. But Isaac was the firstborn to the woman Abraham loved.

[Hamilton Porter]

7 hours ago, Niblo said:

My question to you: Who is to decide which interpretation of the Bible is correct?

Well the majority of Bible scholars believe, for example, the Bible teaches that God has a body, even though Christians don't. 

In the Quran, God doesn't have a body, although he does have a throne (maybe you can explain to me why he has a throne when he doesn't have a body; maybe a metaphorical throne).

[Hamilton Porter]

2 hours ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

First, at the time of the compilation of the Deuteronomic code, Abraham had been dead a long time. In fact, Abraham had been dead for quite some time when Moses was born. The idea that the Deuteronomic code should have applied to Abraham is a problematic claim. Even by definition, Abraham as an Israelite is a problematic claim.

I don't think this matters. Since we believe Abraham sacrificing Isaac and sacrificing the firstlings of your flock are both types of the Father's sacrifice of Jesus.

[Benjamin McGuire]

5 hours ago, Hamilton Porter said:

I don't think this matters. Since we believe Abraham sacrificing Isaac and sacrificing the firstlings of your flock are both types of the Father's sacrifice of Jesus.

It matters a great deal in the context of the argument provided.

You want to suggest that both are types of the Father's sacrifice of Jesus, but this is problematic in a number of ways - particularly within the current views of the Abrahamic religions.

The explanation above references Exodus 22:29 - "Thou shalt not delay to offer the first of thy ripe fruits, and of thy liquors: the firstborn of thy sons shalt thou give unto me." This isn't particularly clear what this means here. It is much clearer in Exodus 13 (which is why Exodus 13 isn't used frequently in these arguments). Here are verses 1-2 and 12-16:

Quote

And the Lord spake unto Moses, saying, Sanctify unto me all the firstborn, whatsoever openeth the womb among the children of Israel, both of man and of beast: it is mine. ... That thou shalt set apart unto the Lord all that openeth the matrix, and every firstling that cometh of a beast which thou hast; the males shall be the Lord’s. And every firstling of an *** thou shalt redeem with a lamb; and if thou wilt not redeem it, then thou shalt break his neck: and all the firstborn of man among thy children shalt thou redeem. And it shall be when thy son asketh thee in time to come, saying, What is this? that thou shalt say unto him, By strength of hand the Lord brought us out from Egypt, from the house of bondage: And it came to pass, when Pharaoh would hardly let us go, that the Lord slew all the firstborn in the land of Egypt, both the firstborn of man, and the firstborn of beast: therefore I sacrifice to the Lord all that openeth the matrix, being males; but all the firstborn of my children I redeem. And it shall be for a token upon thine hand, and for frontlets between thine eyes: for by strength of hand the Lord brought us forth out of Egypt.

There are two important things in this text. First, the practice of offering the first born to God is connected to the Exodus from Egypt (and not to some earlier practice). Second, and this is just as important, the firstborn designation is never associated with the father. It is the firstborn of a woman that must be redeemed. And only sons (of course). If a woman's first child was a daughter, or was stillborn, then no redemption was ever necessary. It was only when a woman's firstborn was a son that the commandment applied. Numbers 18:15-17 reiterates this and sets the redemption cost:

Quote

Every thing that openeth the matrix in all flesh, which they bring unto the Lord, whether it be of men or beasts, shall be thine: nevertheless the firstborn of man shalt thou surely redeem, and the firstling of unclean beasts shalt thou redeem. And those that are to be redeemed from a month old shalt thou redeem, according to thine estimation, for the money of five shekels, after the shekel of the sanctuary, which is twenty gerahs. But the firstling of a cow, or the firstling of a sheep, or the firstling of a goat, thou shalt not redeem; they are holy: thou shalt sprinkle their blood upon the altar, and shalt burn their fat for an offering made by fire, for a sweet savour unto the Lord.

Whether or not the attempted sacrifice of Isaac by Abraham was supposed to be a type of Jesus Christ, that wouldn't be based on the commandments in Exodus, which are explicit for the reasons (and the typology) of the sacrifices they command. And Abraham has nothing to do with it - it isn't his firstborn that matters in Exodus, its the firstborn of his wives. Further, the Mosaic law in Exodus is explicit in that human sacrifice is not to be a part of this practice - the redemption is an absolute requirement.

So yes, it is a problem.

Edited March 19, 2023 by Benjamin McGuire

[Calm]

13 hours ago, Niblo said:

Would you, as a Mormon, seek true knowledge of your religion from

Just an fyi, there are a number of non Mormons and former Mormons who post on this board. The Catholics are mostly pretty easy to identify by their aliases.  I believe in this thread theplains and telnetd are not LDS, though they reference our writings quite a bit, asking questions.  It is best not to assume someone is a believing Latter-day Saint unless they say it.  I am a devout Saint, btw.

Edited March 19, 2023 by Calm

[Hamilton Porter]

2 hours ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

You want to suggest that both are types of the Father's sacrifice of Jesus, but this is problematic in a number of ways - particularly within the current views of the Abrahamic religions.

That's what it says in every friggin LDS Old Testament manual. And that's the first thing that pops up when you mention the Abraham Isaac story in Sunday School. If you don't believe that personally, that's fine. But it's kinda odd for a Latter-daySaint to be making that kind of argument.

Edited March 20, 2023 by Hamilton Porter

[Niblo]

7 hours ago, Calm said:

Just an fyi, there are a number of non Mormons and former Mormons who post on this board. The Catholics are mostly pretty easy to identify by their aliases.  I believe in this thread theplains and telnetd are not LDS, though they reference our writings quite a bit, asking questions.  It is best not to assume someone is a believing Latter-day Saint unless they say it.  I am a devout Saint, btw.

Thank you. I'll bear that in mind.

Blessings.

[Benjamin McGuire]

11 hours ago, Hamilton Porter said:

That's what it says in every friggin LDS Old Testament manual. And that's the first thing that pops up when you mention the Abraham Isaac story in Sunday School. If you don't believe that personally, that's fine. But it's kinda odd for a Latter-daySaint to be making that kind of argument.

I don't disagree with you that Mormonism uses interpretations that developed in the Christian tradition. I am simply pointing out that these traditions are themselves a process of likening scripture (as Nephi describes it). Frequently, the Old Testament is invoked in ways that expose heavy interpretation that has become inconsistent with its original context.

The challenge is that we need to recognize this idea - that we have adopted interpretations of the text rather than adopting the text itself - and this is an important recognition any time we start engaging the idea that one interpretation is better than another.

[Hamilton Porter]

On 3/19/2023 at 12:10 PM, Niblo said:

Noted. Thank you. 👍

Can you breakdown the Arabic for this verse? (21:72)

Quote

And we bestowed upon him [Abraham] Isaac, and Jacob as an added gift.

I'm wondering if there's wordplay here. In Hebrew Yosef is related to asap which means "add." I wonder if there's a similar pun in Arabic.

[Niblo]

On 3/20/2023 at 8:38 PM, Hamilton Porter said:

Can you breakdown the Arabic for this verse? (21:72)

I'm wondering if there's wordplay here. In Hebrew Yosef is related to asap which means "add." I wonder if there's a similar pun in Arabic.

‘And We gave him (wawahabnā) Isaac (is'ḥāqa), and Jacob (wayaʿqūba) as an additional gift (nāfilatan), and made (jaʿalnā) each of them (wakullan) righteous (ṣāliḥīna).’  (Sūrah ‘Al-Anbiya’ – ‘The Prophets’)

‘Al-Anbiya’ is a Meccan sūrah that takes its name from the list of prophets mentioned in ʾāyāt 48 to 91.

Abraham’s first-born son (Ishmael) is remembered in ʾāyah 85. 

ʾĀyah 72 recalls Abraham’s second son (Isaac – is'ḥāqa) and his son (Jacob – ʿqūba). 

I know of no pun in this ʾāyah.

Blessings.

Edited March 26, 2023 by Niblo

[Niblo]

On 3/19/2023 at 5:48 PM, Hamilton Porter said:

Well the majority of Bible scholars believe, for example, the Bible teaches that God has a body, even though Christians don't. 

In the Quran, God doesn't have a body, although he does have a throne (maybe you can explain to me why he has a throne when he doesn't have a body; maybe a metaphorical throne).

In sūrah ‘Al-Baqara:255’ we read:

‘Allāh: there is no god but He, the Ever Living, the Ever Watchful.  Neither slumber nor sleep overtakes Him.  All that is in the heavens and in the earth belongs to Him.  Who is there that can intercede with Him except by His leave?  He knows what is before them and what is behind them, but they do not comprehend any of His knowledge except what He wills.  His throne extends over the heavens and the earth; and the preservation of both does not weary Him.  He is the Most High, the Most Great.’

This ʾāyah is known as ‘ʾĀyah al-Kursi’ (‘The Verse of the Throne’). 

Sayyid 'Ibrāhīm Ḥusayn Quṭb writes:

‘“His throne extends over the heavens and the earth, and the preservation of both does not weary Him. He is the Most High, the Most Great.”.  Here we have another example of the unique style of the Qur’ān in expressing an abstract idea by means of a visual image, in order to make the meaning clear and accessible. The word kursī, meaning ‘seat’ or ‘chair’ and translated here as “throne”, is usually used to denote realm or sovereignty. The idea here is that God’s sovereignty and authority extend over the entire cosmos, and the image makes it clear, easy to grasp and comprehend.

‘Likewise, the phrase, “the preservation of both does not weary Him,” is an expression of God’s omnipotence, depicting in simple but powerful terms how easy it is for God to sustain and preserve the heavens and the earth.

 ‘Qur’ānic expressions of this kind have provoked a great deal of controversy, largely because commentators ignored the Qur’ānic syntax and leaned heavily on alien and absurd philosophies which distorted much of the clarity and simplicity of the Qur’ān.

‘I would also add here that I have not come across any authentic statements of the Prophet that explain precisely the meanings of ‘seat, chair or throne’ as used in the Qur’ān, and I would, therefore, rather not speculate further on their meaning.’ (‘In the Shade of the Qur’an: Volume 1).

Agreed!

Imam Abu Hamid al-Ghazali writes:

‘Whosoever thinks that Allāh has a body made of organs is an idol-worshipper… Whosoever worships a body is considered a disbeliever by the consensus of all the scholars – both the early scholars (salaf) as well as the late ones (muta’akhirun).’ (‘Iljam al-Anam an ilm al-Kalam’).

Blessings.

[Hamilton Porter]

Ugh freaking Christians.

https://youtu.be/vnwh2H6hbtM

[Niblo]

3 hours ago, Hamilton Porter said:

Ugh freaking Christians.

https://youtu.be/vnwh2H6hbtM

Noted! 

Edited March 30, 2023 by Niblo

[Niblo]

17 hours ago, Hamilton Porter said:

Ugh freaking Christians.

 

Permit me to tell you a little of my paternal grandfather:

Born and raised in the Rhondda Valley, South Wales, he was taken out of school at the age of ten, and set to work in the coal-mines (unlawful by that time, but who cared?).

Using the local Miners’ Institute – centres of learning at that time (and being a book-worm) – he studied (among many other things) both Hebrew and Greek.  His second great passion – Faith and Family together being his first – was music.  Able to play both violin and piano – and to transpose written music into tonic-solfa for those who could not read music – he was appointed Musical Director of the Glanselsig Amateur Operatic Society.  His favourite work was Handel’s Messiah.  I can see him now, dressed in his black evening suit, white shirt, black ****ie-bow, conducting a full chorus and orchestra, with his white baton; with every word, every note engraved in his heart.  I have his baton, but none of his talent!

In the 1920’s, a number of Italian families moved into Glamorgan and set up shops and cafes.  One of these families (the Bassini’s) settled in Tynewydd (my home town).

When Italy declared war, and joined with Germany, the UK government issued an internment order against those it deemed to be ‘enemy civilians’.  This included the Bassini’s.  The husband (I knew him as Jack) was taken away, but his wife and children were allowed to remain in their home (they had a café and a fish and chip shop, located side-by-side).

One day, my grandfather was returning from work, only to discover a mob hurling abuse (and stones) at the Bassini’s and their home; at people they had once called friends.  My grandfather stood before the mob, and told them to stop, and to leave.  This they did.

Many years later the family’s eldest daughter (Maria) was accepted as a Carmelite nun; and my grandfather and grandmother were invited to attend the ceremony.  A great honour.

My grandfather was an Elder at Blaencwm Chapel (Welsh Baptist).  The Elders employed the Minister.

When I was a teenager, one Minister visited my grandfather’s house, and was treated like royalty.  My grandfather called him ‘Sir’.  Later, I asked my grandfather why he had called this man ‘Sir’ after all, he was the Minister’s boss!

My grandfather smiled, and said: ‘I’m just an Elder.  The Minister speaks the Word!’

When my grandfather died, several hundred men – of all ages – attended his funeral (women did not do so in those days).  They filled the cemetery chapel, and many were weeping openly.

My grandfather was able to calm a howling mob – and move the hearts of many – not because of any legal authority (he had none), but because of his character; because of the person he was.  He lived his Faith as it was meant to be lived.  A Christian would say that he reflected the love of Jesus; and that it was this that made him a shining beacon to others.  I would say that he reflected the love of God.  He led by example rather than by argument.

He is, by far, the finest man I ever knew.

By the way..he would never have referred to anyone as a 'Freaking so-and-so!'

Edited March 31, 2023 by Niblo

[theplains]

On 3/19/2023 at 5:55 AM, Niblo said:

Having been given news of one son, Abraham is given news of another.  If Isaac is the only son referred to in these ʾāyāt,  why give Abraham good news twice?

Muslim misunderstanding of who was really sacrificed stems from a misunderstanding 
of the phrase "only son". A careful reading of the Holy Bible shows that the phrase 
is used to affirm Isaac's unique status.

- Isaac was the only promised child of Abraham, a fact which the Quran agrees with 
  (Genesis 17:15-21; Surah 11:69-73, 37:112-113, 51:24-30). Ishmael was never a 
  promised child.
- Isaac was conceived miraculously to a barren mother and a very aged father, with the 
  Quran likewise agreeing (Genesis 17:15-17, 18:9-15, 21:1-7; Galatians 4:28-29; 
  Surah 11:69-73, 51:24-30). Ishmael was conceived normally without the need of any 
  miraculous intervention.
- God promised that it would be Isaac's descendants who would inherit the land given 
  to Abraham. (Genesis 13:14-18, 15:18-21, 28:13-14). Ishmael had no part in the inheritance 
  and promise given to Isaac through Abraham.
- The Quran even shows the elevation of Isaac's descendants over those of Ishmael. "Indeed, 
  We gave the Children of Israel the Scripture, wisdom, and prophethood; granted them good, 
  lawful provisions; and favoured them above the others" (sura 45:16).
- There are two times that the Quran records Ishmael being with his father.  The context is 
  prayer, not sacrifice (sura 2,125,127).

It is for these reasons that Isaac is called Abraham's only son since God himself reckoned 
him as the child of promise and blessings, an honor never bestowed upon Ishmael.

Regarding Jesus as the Son of God.

Muhammad did hear the Christians proclaim Jesus as God's Son, but he did not understand what 
this meant.

He said in the Quran,

Sura 2:116 - They say: God has begotten a son. Glory be to Him. No, to Him belongs all 
that is in the heavens and on earth: everything renders worship to Him.

and,

Sura 9:30 - The Christians say the Messiah is the Son of God, that is a saying from their 
mouths. 

Muhammad was unable to distinguish between the Christian belief in Jesus as the Son of
God and the pagan Arab belief in idols as offspring of God, i.e., Al-Lat, Al-Uzza, and Manat). These
were idols worshipped around Mecca as daughters of Allah. Muhammad misunderstood that 
Christians in no way consider Jesus - the Son of God, in the same way the Arab Pagans understood 
their idols.  His misconception of the Sonship of Christ is another proof that the Quran was 
not revealed to him by God, but rather it was built upon Muhammad's own concepts and ideology.

Edited April 3, 2023 by theplains

[Hamilton Porter]

On 4/3/2023 at 12:07 PM, theplains said:

Muhammad was unable to distinguish between the Christian belief in Jesus as the Son of
God and the pagan Arab belief in idols as offspring of God, i.e., Al-Lat, Al-Uzza, and Manat). These
were idols worshipped around Mecca as daughters of Allah. Muhammad misunderstood that 
Christians in no way consider Jesus - the Son of God, in the same way the Arab Pagans understood 
their idols.  His misconception of the Sonship of Christ is another proof that the Quran was 
not revealed

How's it different? And how is it not God still having sons?

[theplains]

On 4/5/2023 at 10:21 AM, Hamilton Porter said:

How's it different? And how is it not God still having sons?

God does not need a heavenly wife to have children. Adam and Eve were created
without the involvement of a woman. 

Edited April 6, 2023 by theplains

[Hamilton Porter]

48 minutes ago, theplains said:

God does not need a heavenly wife to have children. Adam and Eve were created
without the involvement of a woman. 

He still has children, which is what the Quran is railing on. Quran says Adam and eve were created without the involvement of a woman.

That Yahweh had a wife is well-attested by archaeology.

Edited April 6, 2023 by Hamilton Porter

[Hamilton Porter]

How did Hindus become ahl-l-kitab during Mughal rule? For sure those guys are more polytheistic than Mormons.

Edited April 8, 2023 by Hamilton Porter

[Niblo]

On 4/3/2023 at 5:07 PM, theplains said:

...

 

Concerning Isaac:

You write:

‘Isaac was the only promised child of Abraham, a fact which the Quran agrees with’

In an attempt to justify this (false) notion, you reference three sūrahs:

In sūrah ‘Hud:71-73’ we read:

‘His wife was standing (nearby) and laughed. We gave her good news of Isaac and, after him, of Jacob. She said, ‘Alas for me! How am I to bear a child when I am an old woman, and my husband here is an old man? That would be a strange thing!’ They said, ‘Are you astonished at what Allāh ordains? The grace of Allāh and His blessings be upon you, people of this house! For He is worthy of all praise and glory.’

As you can see, the promise of Isaac – and after him of Jacob – is given to Abraham’s wife (Sarah; who is not named).

Where in these ʾāyāt does it teach that Isaac was the ‘only promised child of Abraham’?

In sūrah ‘Al-Dhariyat:24-30 we read:

‘(Muhammad(, have you heard the story of the honoured guests of Abraham? They went in to see him and said, ‘Peace.’ ‘Peace,’ he said, (adding  to  himself)  ‘These  people  are strangers.’  He turned quickly to his household,  brought  out a fat calf, and placed it before them. ‘Will you not eat?’ he said, beginning to be afraid of them, but they said, ‘Do not be afraid.’ They gave him good news of a son who would be gifted with knowledge. His wife then entered with a loud cry, struck her face, and said, ‘A barren old woman?’ but they said, ‘It will be so. This is what your Lord said, and He is the Wise, the All Knowing.’

As you can see, this time the promise of Isaac is given to Abraham. 

There is no doubt that Isaac was conceived miraculously, to a barren mother; but where in these ʾāyāt does it teach that Isaac was the ‘only promised child of Abraham’?

Finally, you reference ‘Al-Saffat:112-113’:

‘We gave Abraham the good news of Isaac – a prophet and a righteous man – and blessed him and Isaac too: some of their offspring were good, but some clearly wronged themselves.’

Where in these ʾāyāt does it teach that Isaac was the ‘only promised child of Abraham’?

You chose to ignore ʾāyāt 99-111:

‘He (Abraham) said, ‘I will go to my Lord: He is sure to guide me.  Lord, grant me a righteous son,’ so We gave him the good news that he would have a patient son.  When the boy was old enough to work with his father, Abraham said, ‘My son, I have seen myself sacrificing you in a dream. What do you think?’ He said, ‘Father, do as you are commanded and, Allāh willing, you will find me steadfast.’  When they had both submitted to Allāh, and he had laid his son down on the side of his face, We called out to him, ‘Abraham, you have fulfilled the dream.’ This is how We reward those who do good – it was a test to prove (their true characters) – We ransomed his son with a momentous sacrifice, and We let him be praised by succeeding generations: ‘Peace be upon Abraham!’ This is how We reward those who do good: truly he was one of Our faithful servants.’

Sayyid 'Ibrāhīm Ḥusayn Quṭb writes:

‘The sūrah gives brief accounts of Noah, Abraham, Ishmael and Isaac, Moses and Aaron, Elijah, Lot and Jonah. It dwells more on Abraham’s and Ishmael’s story as it puts before us an example of supreme faith and sacrifice showing us the nature of true surrender to God’s will. This particular episode is not mentioned anywhere else in the Qur’ān.’ (‘In the Shade of the Qur’an: Volume 14’).

Abraham abandons everything – father, family, home and land – in order to follow his Lord; and he does so in total surrender to the Beloved’s will.

Devoid of children, Abraham – in his old age – calls upon his Lord: ‘Lord, grant me a righteous son.’ The promise is given; and the result is Ishmael; Abraham’s firstborn son.

Abraham was 86 when Ishmael was born (Genesis 16:16), and aged a 100 at the birth of Isaac.  This makes Ishmael the older son by 14 years.  A boy ‘old enough to work with his father’; a model son; a son willing to accept death at the hands of his father, in obedience to the will of Allāh (subḥānahu ūta'āla).

Sayyid 'Ibrāhīm Ḥusayn Quṭb writes:

‘We see in Ishmael’s response proper manners with his Lord, and recognition of the limits of his ability in the face of hardship. Therefore, he seeks his Lord’s help to overcome his weakness. He attributes to God the grace of helping him to obey and make the sacrifice.  He does not press the matter as a heroic act on his part. Nor does he describe it as facing the danger and caring little for the consequences. He does not give himself any credit in the matter; he simply attributes it all to God who has helped him in carrying out His orders with patience in adversity. This is an example of perfect of perfect humility before God, trust in Him, combined with complete obedience and submission to His will.

‘It is to commemorate this great event which serves as a symbol of true faith and submission to God that Muslims celebrate the `Īd of Sacrifice, or al-Adĥā. This event serves as a reference point for the Muslim community to know their first father, Abraham, whose faith it follows and to whom it traces its ancestry. It thus understands the nature of its faith, based on submission to God’s will with perfect acceptance and reassurance God’s grace is bestowed once more on Abraham, as He gave him Isaac in his old age. He further blesses him and his son, making Isaac a prophet.’ (‘In the Shade of the Qur’an: Volume 14’).

Continued:

[Niblo]

You write:

 ‘His (the Prophet’s) misconception of the Sonship of Christ is another proof that the Quran was not revealed to him by God, but rather it was built upon Muhammad's own concepts and ideology.’

You will be familiar with the ‘Gloria’; an ancient doxology; the Latin translation of which is attributed to Hilary of Poiters – a Bishop and Doctor of the Church, who is said to have learned of the doxology while visiting the East; at around 359-360 CE. 

The ‘Gloria’ is associated with the ‘Vetus Latina’ – a collection of Latin manuscripts that existed before the Vulgate – and it would have been known to the Christians of Arabia.  It is very probable that it formed part of their liturgy, or private devotions; as it does in the Church today.  

Here is it:

‘Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace to people of good will.  We praise you, we bless you, we adore you, we glorify you, we give you thanks for your great glory; Lord God, heavenly King; O God, almighty Father.

‘Lord Jesus Christ, Only Begotten Son, Lord God, Lamb of God, Son of the Father, you take away the sins of the world, have mercy on us; you take away the sins of the world, receive our prayer.  You are seated at the right hand of the Father, have mercy on us.  For you alone are the Holy One, you alone are the Lord, you alone are the Most High, Jesus Christ, with the Holy Spirit, in the glory of God the Father.  Amen.’ 
 

Allāh (subḥānahu ūta'āla) says this:

 ‘People of the Book, do not go to excess in your religion, and do not say anything about Allāh except the truth: the Messiah, Jesus, son of Mary, was nothing more than a messenger of Allāh, His word (‘wakalimatuhu’), directed to Mary, a spirit (‘warūḥun’) from Him.  So believe in Allāh and His messengers and do not speak of three – stop (this), that is better for you – Allāh is only one God, He is far above having a son, everything in the heavens and earth belongs to Him and He is the best one to trust.’ (Al-Nisa: 171; my emphasis).

The word ‘wakalimatuhu’ is derived from the root ‘kāf lām mīm’; and refers – not to the Logos (the Second Person of the Trinity, as understood by Trinitarians – but to speech; to a spoken word – to any spoken word.

The word ‘warūḥun’ is derived from the root ‘rā wāw ḥā’; and comes from the form ‘rūḥ’; meaning ‘soul’; ‘spirit’; and ‘inspiration’.  When applied to Yeshua (ʿalayhi as-salām) it refers to his spirit soul.  We all possess  such a soul.

According to the Qur’an (to Muhammad, if you prefer), the Yeshua who never existed, in reality, is the one portrayed in the second paragraph of the ‘Gloria’; the so-called ‘Only Begotten Son, Lord God, Lamb of God, Son of the Father.’

Trinitarians, of course, disagree.  That’s fine.  After all, they are not Muslims!

Continued: