Quran

[Niblo]

Consider this:

'When Allāh says: 'Jesus, son of Mary, did you say to people, ''Take me and my mother as two gods alongside God''?' he will say: ''May You be exalted! I would never say what I had no right to say – if I had said such a thing You would have known it: You know all that is within me, though I do not know what is within You, You alone have full knowledge of things unseen – I told them only what You commanded me to: ''Worship Allāh, my Lord and your Lord.'' I was a witness over them during my time among them.  Ever since You took my soul, You alone have been the watcher over them: You are witness to all things and if You punish them, they are Your servants; if You forgive them, You are the Almighty, the Wise.''' (Al-Ma'ida: 16-118).

These verses are prophetic.  The conversation between the Beloved and Yeshua (ʿalayhi as-salām) takes place on the Day of Judgement; when the prophets are asked give an account of their lives; and of the behaviour of their followers.

Yeshua is asked to account for the fact that certain Christians have exaggerated his spiritual station, and attributed divinity to him.  Yeshua denies ever giving permission for this.

Seyyed Hossein Nasr writes:

'Jesus indicates that he bears no responsibility for such exaggerations of his or his mother's status, but rather than directly denying that he commanded his followers to take him and his mother as gods apart from God, he demonstrates an attitude of proper comportment before God by offering a response of perfect humility, saying he had no right to utter such a thing.' ('The Study Quran: A New Translation and Commentary').

You may argue that Christians do not – and never have – attributed divinity to Mary.  I agree.

Geoffrey Parrinder writes:

'In Arabia there were in the early centuries some (called Antidicomarianites) who protested against the idea of the perpetual virginity of Mary.  But there were cults, some semi-pagan, which exalted Mary in unseemly fashion. 

‘The Collyridians, an Arabian female sect of the fourth century, offered to Mary cakes of bread (collyrida), as they had done to the great earth mother in pagan times.  Epiphanius, who opposed this heresy, said that the Trinity must be worshipped, but Mary must not be worshipped.  The Qur'ān may well be directed against this heresy.  It gives its support against Mariolatry, while at the same time it recognizes the importance of Mary as the vessel chosen by God for the birth of his Christ.' ('Jesus in the Qur'an - Makers of the Muslim World').  It would seem that Parrinder trusted Epiphanius. 

The whole of sūrah Al-Ma'ida was revealed after the city of Mecca had been taken by the Muslims. 

Among the Ka’ba’s three hundred and sixty (or so) idols was a statue (or perhaps an icon) of Mary and her son; placed there by a Christian visitor to the city (in the days before Islam).  Every year thereafter, for at least twenty-three years, these idols were made accessible for public worship.  During the pilgrimage season people from all over Arabia (and beyond) would flock to the Ka’ba to pay homage to their gods.

It is not unreasonable to conclude that – over time – Mary and her son came to be regarded by the polytheistic Arabs as gods, alongside their Ka’ba companions.  It is not unreasonable to conclude (as I do) that the sūrah is addressing these same Arabs; is correcting their false belief. 

Louay Fatoohi writes:

'I should stress another important point.  A common mistake in studying the Qur’an’s discussion of Christian beliefs, including the doctrine of the Trinity, is to suggest that the Qur'an talks about the New Testament only, or simply misunderstands it.  The Qur'an rejects particular Christian beliefs, regardless of whether they are found in the New Testament or not.  For instance, the Qur'an rejects the worship of Mary, even though Mariolatry is not a New Testament doctrine.  The New Testament does not have any special scriptural value outside mainstream Christianity, which was itself defined in the first few centuries after Jesus.  The Qur'an is interested in clarifying its positions on doctrines that Christians hold, regardless of the origin of those doctrines.  The Messiah, son of Mary, was no other than a messenger before whom similar messengers passed away, and his mother was a saintly woman.' ('Jesus The Muslim Prophet: History Speaks of a Human Messiah Not a Divine Christ').

The Qur’an (Muhammad, you prefer) is quite clear: Yeshua (ʿalayhi as-salām) never gave permission to be worshipped as God; never claimed to be divine.

Continued:

[Niblo]

There is broad agreement among New Testament scholars that Yeshua (ʿalayhi as-salām) did not consider himself to be God.

Consider the following examples:

'Any case for a "high" Christology that depended on the authenticity of the alleged claims of Jesus about himself, especially in the Fourth Gospel, would indeed be precarious.' (C.F.D Moule: ‘The Origin of Christology’). 

'Jesus did not claim deity for himself' (Archbishop Michael Ramsey: ‘Jesus and the Living Past’). 

‘There (is) no real evidence in the earliest Jesus tradition of what could fairly he called a consciousness of divinity' (James Dunn: ‘Christology in the Making’).

‘It is no longer possible to defend the divinity of Jesus by reference to the claims of Jesus' (Brian Hebblethwaite:  ‘The Incarnation’).

‘There is good evidence to suggest that (Jesus) never saw himself as a suitable object of worship' and that it is 'impossible to base any claim for Christ's divinity on his consciousness once we abandon the traditional portrait as reflected in a literal understanding of St. John's Gospel' (David Brown: ‘The Divine Trinity’)

Each of these scholars taught that Yeshua was both ‘wholly God’ and ‘wholly man’, but that he was not conscious of his divinity.

The Council of Basel (1431-45 A.D.) decreed: ‘Also it holds, professes and teaches that one and the same Son of God and of man, our lord Jesus Christ, is perfect in divinity and perfect in humanity; true God and true man, of a rational soul and a body; consubstantial with the Father as regards his divinity, consubstantial with us as regards his humanity; like us in all respects except for sin; begotten before the ages from the Father, and in the last days the same born according to his humanity for us and our salvation from Mary the virgin mother of God.’ (Session 13). 

In short, the Church teaches that Yeshua possessed two natures (one human, one divine united hypostatically in one divine Person.  In what way could he not know that he was God?

No.  Yeshua did not claim deity for himself – did not give permission to be worshipped as God – because he was not God.

The Prophet (sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam) understood this perfectly well.

Who am I talking about here:

This man was the very incarnation of God; a messianic figure who was prophesied in the Old Testament; whose birth was marked by miracles; who – even as a child – exhibited profound, divinely given, wisdom; who performed miracles in public; who continues to live on, in spite of evidence of his death; who is worshipped by his followers, and who communicates with them in prayer; a saviour who will return, someday, to gather his chosen people and take them to live with him in God’s kingdom? 

No, not Yeshua (ʿalayhi as-salām), but Emperor Haile Selassie, as described by the Rastafarians.

Trinitarians are not alone in making a god of their hero.  Easily done, when truth is not permitted to stand in the way of pious imagination, born of exaggerated devotion.

Blessings.

[Niblo]

On 4/8/2023 at 7:44 PM, Hamilton Porter said:

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

I suspect this was done so that Hindus could be granted dhimmi status; and their young men, of military age, taxed accordingly!

Allāh (subḥānahu ūta'āla) knows best.

Blessings.

[Hamilton Porter]

On 4/10/2023 at 8:45 AM, Niblo said:

There is broad agreement among New Testament scholars that Yeshua (ʿalayhi as-salām) did not consider himself to be God.

Consider the following examples:

'Any case for a "high" Christology that depended on the authenticity of the alleged claims of Jesus about himself, especially in the Fourth Gospel, would indeed be precarious.' (C.F.D Moule: ‘The Origin of Christology’). 

'Jesus did not claim deity for himself' (Archbishop Michael Ramsey: ‘Jesus and the Living Past’). 

‘There (is) no real evidence in the earliest Jesus tradition of what could fairly he called a consciousness of divinity' (James Dunn: ‘Christology in the Making’).

‘It is no longer possible to defend the divinity of Jesus by reference to the claims of Jesus' (Brian Hebblethwaite:  ‘The Incarnation’).

‘There is good evidence to suggest that (Jesus) never saw himself as a suitable object of worship' and that it is 'impossible to base any claim for Christ's divinity on his consciousness once we abandon the traditional portrait as reflected in a literal understanding of St. John's Gospel' (David Brown: ‘The Divine Trinity’)

Each of these scholars taught that Yeshua was both ‘wholly God’ and ‘wholly man’, but that he was not conscious of his divinity.

The Council of Basel (1431-45 A.D.) decreed: ‘Also it holds, professes and teaches that one and the same Son of God and of man, our lord Jesus Christ, is perfect in divinity and perfect in humanity; true God and true man, of a rational soul and a body; consubstantial with the Father as regards his divinity, consubstantial with us as regards his humanity; like us in all respects except for sin; begotten before the ages from the Father, and in the last days the same born according to his humanity for us and our salvation from Mary the virgin mother of God.’ (Session 13). 

In short, the Church teaches that Yeshua possessed two natures (one human, one divine united hypostatically in one divine Person.  In what way could he not know that he was God?

No.  Yeshua did not claim deity for himself – did not give permission to be worshipped as God – because he was not God.

The Prophet (sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam) understood this perfectly well.

Who am I talking about here:

This man was the very incarnation of God; a messianic figure who was prophesied in the Old Testament; whose birth was marked by miracles; who – even as a child – exhibited profound, divinely given, wisdom; who performed miracles in public; who continues to live on, in spite of evidence of his death; who is worshipped by his followers, and who communicates with them in prayer; a saviour who will return, someday, to gather his chosen people and take them to live with him in God’s kingdom? 

No, not Yeshua (ʿalayhi as-salām), but Emperor Haile Selassie, as described by the Rastafarians.

Trinitarians are not alone in making a god of their hero.  Easily done, when truth is not permitted to stand in the way of pious imagination, born of exaggerated devotion.

Blessings.

I understand a substantial number of New Testament scholars, if not the majority, believe Jesus as documented by the synoptic gospels didn't consider himself divine.

You also show how Arabia was monotheistic even before the advent of Islam.

[theplains]

On 4/10/2023 at 8:38 AM, Niblo said:

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.’

Isaac is the promised miraculous son to Abraham.  The ayat you quote does not infer Ishmael.
The only way you can put Ishmael in your place of sacrifice is to claim that the Old Testament
has been corrupted.

[theplains]

On 4/8/2023 at 2:44 PM, Hamilton Porter said:

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

I don't know.

[Niblo]

47 minutes ago, theplains said:

Isaac is the promised miraculous son to Abraham.  The ayat you quote does not infer Ishmael.
The only way you can put Ishmael in your place of sacrifice is to claim that the Old Testament
has been corrupted.

Abraham sired how many sons?

What were their names?

What are the age differences between them?

Which son was born first?

 

[Hamilton Porter]

What do you think about the word Quran being derived from the Aramaic word Keriana which means lectionary, the liturgy read by Syriac Christians on Sunday?

 

[Niblo]

On 4/12/2023 at 9:47 AM, Hamilton Porter said:

I understand a substantial number of New Testament scholars, if not the majority, believe Jesus as documented by the synoptic gospels didn't consider himself divine.

Yes.

John Hick writes:

‘A further point of broad agreement among New Testament scholars is even more important for understanding the development of christology. This is that the historical Jesus did not make the claim to deity that later Christian thought was to make for him: he did not understand himself to be God, or God the Son, incarnate. Divine incarnation, in the sense in which Christian theology has used the idea, requires that an eternally pre-existent element of the Godhead, head, God the Son or the divine Logos, became incarnate as a human being. But it is extremely unlikely that the historical Jesus thought of himself in any such way. Indeed he would probably have rejected the idea as blasphemous; one of the sayings attributed to him is, 'Why do you call me good? No one is good but God alone' (Mark 1(1.1x).’ (‘The Metaphor of God Incarnate, Second Edition: Christology in a Pluralistic Age’).

Scholars who believe in the divinity of Yeshua (ʿalayhi as-salām) look to what is called the ‘Christ Event’.  As you know, this is defined as the incarnation, ministry, death, resurrection and ascension of Yeshua, as described in the Gospels and other NT writings.

It is said that the Church – ‘guided by the Holy Spirit’ – came to know of Yeshua’s divinity through these events.  The fact that Yeshua made no claim to divinity is deemed irrelevant.

Make of this what you will.

Blessings.

[Niblo]

On 4/14/2023 at 1:11 AM, Hamilton Porter said:

What do you think about the word Quran being derived from the Aramaic word Keriana which means lectionary, the liturgy read by Syriac Christians on Sunday?

 

Consider this statement:

‘Ar ôl coleg, aeth y brodyr Dafydd a Gwilym draw i'w caffi lleol, ac yna cerdded i'w byngalo.’

The language, of course, is Welsh.  No one who has any knowledge of that language would disagree.

This eighteen word statement (in English: ‘After college, the brothers Dafydd and Gwilym visited their local café, and then walked to their bungalow’) contains five loanwords:

Gwilym: from the Anglo-Norman.

Dafydd: from Koine Greek.

Caffi (café): from the French.

Coleg (college): from Late Latin

Byngalo: from the English ‘bungalow’ (itself derived from the Hindi baṅglā (‘Bengali’), referring to the Bengali style of house.

Only an idiot would suggest that, because of these loanwords, we can no longer consider Welsh to be the language of this statement.

I have not found the word ‘Keriana’ in any Aramaic lectionary (although the word does exist as a girl’s name in Gaelic (meaning ‘Black’; from the boy’s name ‘Ciaran’; often anglicised as ‘Kieran’).

Orientalists claim that the word ‘Qur’an’ is derived from the Syriac word ‘qeryānā’ (قريانا) which means ‘reading’; used for the recitation of scriptural verses during church services (see Encyclopaedia Britannica).

In the Qur’an, the triliteral root qāf rā hamza (ق ر أ) occurs eighty-eight times; sixteen times as the form I verb qara-a (قَرَأَ) where is means ‘to recite’, or ‘to read’; once as the form IV verb nuq'ri-u (نُقْرِئُ); meaning: ‘to make (one) recite’; and seventy times as the proper noun qur'ān (قُرْءَان).

W.A. Clouston writes:

‘The principal dialects spoken by the Arab tribes were those of Himyar (or Yaman) and of the Quraysh. The language of Himyar seems to have been but little cultivated; that of the Quraysh, called the pure, and styled in the Qur’an, "the perspicuous and clear Arabic," ultimately became the language of all Arabia.

‘The Quraysh were the most learned and refined of all the Western Arabs: carrying on an extensive trade with every neighbouring state, and being, for many generations before the time of Muhammad, the custodians of the Ka‘ba, to which a vast number of pilgrims flocked once a year from all parts of Arabia, and from every country where the Sabian religion prevailed, refinement and learning were a natural consequence of their intercourse with strangers of the best classes.

‘According to Arab tradition, Abraham built the first Ka‘ba on the same spot where the present building stands. Muslim writers go farther, and say that Adam himself erected a temple there, and that it was built and rebuilt ten times. (For a full description and history of the Ka‘ba, see Burton's Pilgrimage to el-Medinah and Meccah, vol. iii., chapter xxvi.).

‘Putting idle legends aside, the antiquity of the Ka‘ba reaches far beyond the Christian era: we learn from Greek writers that the Temple at Makka had been visited by pilgrims time out of mind.’ (‘Arabian Poetry’)

The presence of loanwords is to be expected in the language of folk who interact with folk of other nations.

The Qur’an was revealed in the dialect of the Quraysh who – as you can see – traded with neighbouring states over many centuries.

The fact that words of non-Arab origin are found in pre-Islamic poetry clearly shows that Arabs, like all cultures, took specific phrases from other languages and incorporated them into their own.

Poetry is meant to be recited, and it is likely – at the very least – that the words qara-a (قَرَأَ) and nuq'ri-u (نُقْرِئُ) were in use in Arabia for generations before Christianity; and certainly before the coming of Islam. 

To affirm – without supporting evidence – that the Syriac came before the Arabic (or vice versa), and therefore was the cause of the other is to fall into the post hoc fallacy (‘after this therefore because of this’).

In his book ‘Exploring the Qur’an – Context and Impact’ Muhammad Abdel Haleem, OBE, King Fahd Professor of Islamic Studies at the School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London, and one of the world’s leading authorities in Qur’anic studies, quotes Abū ‘Ubayda, an early Muslim scholar of Arabic philology:

‘Since the Qur’an was revealed in the language of the people of the Prophet, the early generations and those who were present at the time of the Prophet did not ask about its meanings because they were Arabs and Arabic was their language and their knowledge gave them no need to ask about its meanings. The ways of expression and conciseness were similar to what the Arabs had in their tongue.’

Professor Haleem goes on to say: 

‘So, the Qur’an conformed to Arabic speech: it provided the reason for codifying Arabic grammar and stylistics and was used as a criterion for these disciplines. It was in order to make sure that all Muslims, especially non-Arabs, could read the Qur’an accurately that Muslims began to think of writing down a grammar of their language, based on the text of the Qur’an, on Arabic poetry and speech.

‘Arabic phonetics originated in the quest to describe exactly the proper pronunciation and articulation of the Qur’an and developed into the science of tajwīd and the art of reciting the Qur’an.  Similarly, the study of Arabic rhetoric flourished for the service of the Qur’an, culminating in the works of the outstanding scholar ‘Abd al-Qāhir al-Jurjānī, particularly his Dalā’il al-i‘jāz and Asrār al-balāgha, which investigate the style and rhetoric of the Qur’an in an attempt to identify the reasons for the inimitability (i‘jāz) of its language.

‘The central issue of Arabic grammar is ta‘līq or ‘syntactic relations’, which is closely bound up with stylistics.  In fact, (according to ‘Abd al-Qāhir al-Jurjānī) it is only by studying these two disciplines together in the Qur’an that one gains a true understanding of how they work.’

Blessings.

[Hamilton Porter]

21 hours ago, Niblo said:

Consider this statement:

‘Ar ôl coleg, aeth y brodyr Dafydd a Gwilym draw i'w caffi lleol, ac yna cerdded i'w byngalo.’

The language, of course, is Welsh.  No one who has any knowledge of that language would disagree.

This eighteen word statement (in English: ‘After college, the brothers Dafydd and Gwilym visited their local café, and then walked to their bungalow’) contains five loanwords:

Gwilym: from the Anglo-Norman.

Dafydd: from Koine Greek.

Caffi (café): from the French.

Coleg (college): from Late Latin

Byngalo: from the English ‘bungalow’ (itself derived from the Hindi baṅglā (‘Bengali’), referring to the Bengali style of house.

Only an idiot would suggest that, because of these loanwords, we can no longer consider Welsh to be the language of this statement.

I have not found the word ‘Keriana’ in any Aramaic lectionary (although the word does exist as a girl’s name in Gaelic (meaning ‘Black’; from the boy’s name ‘Ciaran’; often anglicised as ‘Kieran’).

Orientalists claim that the word ‘Qur’an’ is derived from the Syriac word ‘qeryānā’ (قريانا) which means ‘reading’; used for the recitation of scriptural verses during church services (see Encyclopaedia Britannica).

In the Qur’an, the triliteral root qāf rā hamza (ق ر أ) occurs eighty-eight times; sixteen times as the form I verb qara-a (قَرَأَ) where is means ‘to recite’, or ‘to read’; once as the form IV verb nuq'ri-u (نُقْرِئُ); meaning: ‘to make (one) recite’; and seventy times as the proper noun qur'ān (قُرْءَان).

W.A. Clouston writes:

‘The principal dialects spoken by the Arab tribes were those of Himyar (or Yaman) and of the Quraysh. The language of Himyar seems to have been but little cultivated; that of the Quraysh, called the pure, and styled in the Qur’an, "the perspicuous and clear Arabic," ultimately became the language of all Arabia.

‘The Quraysh were the most learned and refined of all the Western Arabs: carrying on an extensive trade with every neighbouring state, and being, for many generations before the time of Muhammad, the custodians of the Ka‘ba, to which a vast number of pilgrims flocked once a year from all parts of Arabia, and from every country where the Sabian religion prevailed, refinement and learning were a natural consequence of their intercourse with strangers of the best classes.

‘According to Arab tradition, Abraham built the first Ka‘ba on the same spot where the present building stands. Muslim writers go farther, and say that Adam himself erected a temple there, and that it was built and rebuilt ten times. (For a full description and history of the Ka‘ba, see Burton's Pilgrimage to el-Medinah and Meccah, vol. iii., chapter xxvi.).

‘Putting idle legends aside, the antiquity of the Ka‘ba reaches far beyond the Christian era: we learn from Greek writers that the Temple at Makka had been visited by pilgrims time out of mind.’ (‘Arabian Poetry’)

The presence of loanwords is to be expected in the language of folk who interact with folk of other nations.

The Qur’an was revealed in the dialect of the Quraysh who – as you can see – traded with neighbouring states over many centuries.

The fact that words of non-Arab origin are found in pre-Islamic poetry clearly shows that Arabs, like all cultures, took specific phrases from other languages and incorporated them into their own.

Poetry is meant to be recited, and it is likely – at the very least – that the words qara-a (قَرَأَ) and nuq'ri-u (نُقْرِئُ) were in use in Arabia for generations before Christianity; and certainly before the coming of Islam. 

To affirm – without supporting evidence – that the Syriac came before the Arabic (or vice versa), and therefore was the cause of the other is to fall into the post hoc fallacy (‘after this therefore because of this’).

In his book ‘Exploring the Qur’an – Context and Impact’ Muhammad Abdel Haleem, OBE, King Fahd Professor of Islamic Studies at the School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London, and one of the world’s leading authorities in Qur’anic studies, quotes Abū ‘Ubayda, an early Muslim scholar of Arabic philology:

‘Since the Qur’an was revealed in the language of the people of the Prophet, the early generations and those who were present at the time of the Prophet did not ask about its meanings because they were Arabs and Arabic was their language and their knowledge gave them no need to ask about its meanings. The ways of expression and conciseness were similar to what the Arabs had in their tongue.’

Professor Haleem goes on to say: 

‘So, the Qur’an conformed to Arabic speech: it provided the reason for codifying Arabic grammar and stylistics and was used as a criterion for these disciplines. It was in order to make sure that all Muslims, especially non-Arabs, could read the Qur’an accurately that Muslims began to think of writing down a grammar of their language, based on the text of the Qur’an, on Arabic poetry and speech.

‘Arabic phonetics originated in the quest to describe exactly the proper pronunciation and articulation of the Qur’an and developed into the science of tajwīd and the art of reciting the Qur’an.  Similarly, the study of Arabic rhetoric flourished for the service of the Qur’an, culminating in the works of the outstanding scholar ‘Abd al-Qāhir al-Jurjānī, particularly his Dalā’il al-i‘jāz and Asrār al-balāgha, which investigate the style and rhetoric of the Qur’an in an attempt to identify the reasons for the inimitability (i‘jāz) of its language.

‘The central issue of Arabic grammar is ta‘līq or ‘syntactic relations’, which is closely bound up with stylistics.  In fact, (according to ‘Abd al-Qāhir al-Jurjānī) it is only by studying these two disciplines together in the Qur’an that one gains a true understanding of how they work.’

Blessings.

By keriana I meant qeryana I took liberty to romanize it myself.

Kof-resh-ayin in Hebrew also means call or recite. But Reynolds is saying that the -n ending in this situation is unusual for Arabic.

So you agree Quran is a loan word?

You said Quran is a proper noun. Does that mean it doesn't mean anything?

I know sometimes secular scholars like to play games, but in the Syriac qeryana means reciting scripture, so semantically it fits. 

 

[theplains]

On 4/13/2023 at 10:04 AM, Niblo said:

Abraham sired how many sons?

What were their names?

What are the age differences between them?

Which son was born first?

 

Abraham has 8 sons. Oldest Ishmael (to Hagar), Isaac to Sarah. After the death of Sarah, Abraham took
another wife, a concubine named Keturah, by whom he had six sons: Zimran, Jokshan, Medan, Midian,
Ishbak, and Shuah.  I don't know about the last 6 sons, but the difference between Ishmael and Isaac was
about 14 years.

Genesis 17:15-21 - "And God said to Abraham, “As for Sarai your wife, you shall not call 
her name Sarai, but Sarah shall be her name. 16 I will bless her, and moreover, I will 
give you a son by her. I will bless her, and she shall become nations; kings of peoples 
shall come from her.” 17 Then Abraham fell on his face and laughed and said to himself, 
“Shall a child be born to a man who is a hundred years old? Shall Sarah, who is ninety 
years old, bear a child?” 18 And Abraham said to God, “Oh that Ishmael might live before 
you!” 19 God said, “No, but Sarah your wife shall bear you a son, and you shall call his 
name Isaac. I will establish my covenant with him as an everlasting covenant for his 
offspring after him. 20 As for Ishmael, I have heard you; behold, I have blessed him and 
will make him fruitful and multiply him greatly. He shall father twelve princes, and I 
will make him into a great nation. 21 But I will establish my covenant with Isaac, whom 
Sarah shall bear to you at this time next year.”

Genesis 22:1-2 - "After these things God tested Abraham and said to him, “Abraham!” And 
he said, “Here I am.” 2 He said, “Take your son, your only son Isaac, whom you love, and 
go to the land of Moriah, and offer him there as a burnt offering on one of the mountains 
of which I shall tell you.

Genesis 22:2 and Hebrews 11:17 both refer to Isaac as Abraham’s “only son” because those 
passages concern God’s promise and covenant.

[Hamilton Porter]

On 4/16/2023 at 5:31 AM, Niblo said:

Yes.

John Hick writes:

‘A further point of broad agreement among New Testament scholars is even more important for understanding the development of christology. This is that the historical Jesus did not make the claim to deity that later Christian thought was to make for him: he did not understand himself to be God, or God the Son, incarnate. Divine incarnation, in the sense in which Christian theology has used the idea, requires that an eternally pre-existent element of the Godhead, head, God the Son or the divine Logos, became incarnate as a human being. But it is extremely unlikely that the historical Jesus thought of himself in any such way. Indeed he would probably have rejected the idea as blasphemous; one of the sayings attributed to him is, 'Why do you call me good? No one is good but God alone' (Mark 1(1.1x).’ (‘The Metaphor of God Incarnate, Second Edition: Christology in a Pluralistic Age’).

Scholars who believe in the divinity of Yeshua (ʿalayhi as-salām) look to what is called the ‘Christ Event’.  As you know, this is defined as the incarnation, ministry, death, resurrection and ascension of Yeshua, as described in the Gospels and other NT writings.

It is said that the Church – ‘guided by the Holy Spirit’ – came to know of Yeshua’s divinity through these events.  The fact that Yeshua made no claim to divinity is deemed irrelevant.

Make of this what you will.

Blessings.

You have a Catholic background, but how would Muslims understand half the Quran if they haven't read the Bible?

The surahs assume you're familiar with Bible stories.

[Niblo]

On 4/17/2023 at 8:36 AM, Hamilton Porter said:

....

 

On the 17^th April you wrote:

 'I know sometimes secular scholars like to play games, but in the Syriac qeryana means reciting scripture, so semantically it fits.’

 Indeed. 

 Consider this:

 ‘(Prophet), your Lord is well aware that you sometimes spend nearly two-thirds of the night at prayer –– sometimes half, sometimes a third –– as do some of your followers. Allāh determines the division of night and day. He knows that you will not be able to keep a measure of it and He has relented towards all of you, so recite as much of the Qur’an (fa-iq'raū mā tayassara mina l-qur'āni) as is easy for you.’ (Al-Muzzammil:20; my emphases).

 After the first sentence, this ʾāyah changes from addressing the Prophet (sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam) in the second-person singular, to addressing both he and his Companions in the second-person plural.

 Note the words ‘fa-iq'raū mā tayassara mina l-qur'āni.’

 You will see that the verb is not ‘qul’ (‘to say’ or ‘to speak’); but ‘iq'ra’; which, when translated into English is (usually) rendered ‘recite’; a word derived (ultimately) from the Latin ‘recitare’; and defined as the act of repeating aloud – of declaiming – a poem or passage from memory before an audience.  In the context of the Qur’an, a most appropriate definition.

 Muhammad Abdel Haleem, King Fahd Professor of Islamic Studies at the School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London, writes:

 ‘The Qur’an was recited first to Arabs whose paramount gift lay in eloquence of speech and who had a rich and elaborate literature, especially poetry. Both followers and opponents of the Prophet recognised its literary supremacy and inimitability. Believers hearing it uttered on the spot by the Prophet, and recognising how different it was from the Prophet’s day-to-day speech, saw in this a further proof of its divine origin. One of his opponents, who was in awe of the power of the Qur’an’s language, described it by saying, ‘It ascends to the heights and nothing ascends above it, and it crushes what is beneath it.’ Thus, the Qur’an has a distinct style and noble grandeur that immediately sets it apart from other speech, and which Arabs, Muslims and non-Muslims, recognise.’ (‘Understanding the Qur'an: Themes and Style’).

 

On that same day you wrote:

‘You said (that the) Quran is a proper noun. Does that mean it doesn't mean anything?’

No.

The Merriam-Webster Dictionary defines a ‘proper noun’ as one that ‘designates a particular being or thing.’

In English, such nouns are always capitalised, in order to distinguish them from common nouns (which are normally capitalised only at the start of a sentence).

An example of a proper noun is, of course, ‘Porter’ (when used as a surname).

In the Valleys of South Wales, folk are often identified according to their occupation.  In my day, for example, we had Daniels the milk; Evans the tailor; Thomas the butcher.  Had you lived in Treherbert at that time, and had you worked at the local hospital – ferrying patients around – you would have been known as Porter the porter.

You also wrote:

‘So (I) agree that Qur’an is a loan word?’

Orientalists are fond of claiming that the word ‘Qur’an’ is derived from the Syriac verb ‘qeryānā’, which – as you have rightly said – means the act of reading (proclaiming) scriptural verses during church services.

The majority of Muslim scholars hold that the proper noun ‘Qur’an’ (قُرْءَان) comes from the Arabic form I verb qara-a (قَرَأَ); and denotes that which is to be proclaimed.  The uncreated Revelation itself.  I agree with this.

The Standing Committee for Scholarly Research and Issuing Fatwas declared: 

‘What we are required to believe concerning the Qur’an, which is the view of Ahl as-Sunnah wa’l-Jama‘ah, as indicated by the Qur’an and Sunnah, is that the Qur’an is the word of Allah in a true sense. Its letters and meanings were sent down, not created. It came from Him and will return to Him. It is the word of Allah, may He be exalted, when it is recited and when it is written.’ (‘Fatawa al-Lajnah ad-Da’imah’).

Continued:

[Niblo]

On the 18^th April you wrote:

‘You have a Catholic background, but how would Muslims understand half the Quran if they haven't read the Bible?

The surahs assume you're familiar with Bible stories.’

You have provided no examples of that (supposed) half of the Qur’an that cannot be understood without reference to the Bible.  This is unfortunate, since I have absolutely no idea where this incomprehensible portion of the Qurʾan happens to be.

Professor Haleem writes:

‘Reflecting on the text, one is constantly struck by its freshness of expression, and yet such is its nature that ordinary Arabs from all walks of life can easily understand and appreciate its powerful effects. The message of the Qur’an was originally, after all, directly addressed to these people without distinction as to class, gender or age, without any officiating priesthood. This is a language that is still in constant use in almost all social and cultural contexts.’

‘A most relevant and fruitful approach to understanding the text of the Qur’an is by means of two key concepts developed by Muslim scholars in the Classical period: context and internal relationships. The importance of context (maqām) was recognised and formulated for the study of the text of the Qur’an by Muslim linguists whose work in this respect anticipated by many centuries modern linguistic thinking about the crucial importance of context in understanding discourse.

‘A key tool of Qur’anic exegesis is the internal relationships between material in different parts of the Qur’an, expressed by Qur’anic scholars as: al-Qur’an yufassir ba‘ḍuhu ba‘ḍa (some parts of the Qur’an explain others) – in modern linguistic terms ‘intertextuality’ – which, given the structure of Qur’anic material, was argued to provide the most correct method of understanding the Qur’an.’ (Understanding the Qur'an: Themes and Style’).

In short, Muslims can – and do – understand the Qur’an perfectly well, without needing to read even a single word of the Bible. 

Blessings.

[Niblo]

On 4/17/2023 at 4:25 PM, theplains said:

Abraham has 8 sons. Oldest Ishmael (to Hagar), Isaac to Sarah. After the death of Sarah, Abraham took
another wife, a concubine named Keturah, by whom he had six sons: Zimran, Jokshan, Medan, Midian,
Ishbak, and Shuah.  I don't know about the last 6 sons, but the difference between Ishmael and Isaac was
about 14 years.

Genesis 17:15-21 - "And God said to Abraham, “As for Sarai your wife, you shall not call 
her name Sarai, but Sarah shall be her name. 16 I will bless her, and moreover, I will 
give you a son by her. I will bless her, and she shall become nations; kings of peoples 
shall come from her.” 17 Then Abraham fell on his face and laughed and said to himself, 
“Shall a child be born to a man who is a hundred years old? Shall Sarah, who is ninety 
years old, bear a child?” 18 And Abraham said to God, “Oh that Ishmael might live before 
you!” 19 God said, “No, but Sarah your wife shall bear you a son, and you shall call his 
name Isaac. I will establish my covenant with him as an everlasting covenant for his 
offspring after him. 20 As for Ishmael, I have heard you; behold, I have blessed him and 
will make him fruitful and multiply him greatly. He shall father twelve princes, and I 
will make him into a great nation. 21 But I will establish my covenant with Isaac, whom 
Sarah shall bear to you at this time next year.”

Genesis 22:1-2 - "After these things God tested Abraham and said to him, “Abraham!” And 
he said, “Here I am.” 2 He said, “Take your son, your only son Isaac, whom you love, and 
go to the land of Moriah, and offer him there as a burnt offering on one of the mountains 
of which I shall tell you.

Genesis 22:2 and Hebrews 11:17 both refer to Isaac as Abraham’s “only son” because those 
passages concern God’s promise and covenant.

Many thanks for your answer.  I apologise for the delayed reply.

We both know, of course, that there is a lie in your narrative; a lie placed upon the lips of One who does not lie. 

Three times in Genesis 22:1-18, Isaac is referred to as Abraham’s ‘only son’.

We are agreed that the first born son of Abraham was Ishmael; and that for some 14 years he was the only son.  Isaac, on the other hand, could not have been called an ‘only son’ at any stage of his life. 

Consider Genesis 22:2:

‘After these things God tested Abraham and said to him, “Abraham!” And he said, “Here I am.” He said, “Take your son, your only son Isaac, whom you love, and go to the land of Moriah, and offer him there as a burnt offering on one of the mountains of which I shall tell you.”’

Abdus Sattar Ghauri writes:

‘Any reader, having a little bit of literary taste together with objective, unprejudiced and independent thinking, can appreciate that the word ‘Isaac’ is quite superfluous, irrelevant, and out of place here. Had it been Isaac, who was required to be sacrificed, it had been sufficient to say: ‘Take now your son Isaac’. God would not have used the phrase ‘thine only son’, because it was, by all means, a false statement in favor of Isaac and it is unbecoming that God may have made a false statement. ‘Thine only son’ and ‘Isaac’ cannot stand together for a single entity, and could in no case have been used simultaneously, because, circumstantially, they are quite contradictory to each other.

‘The structure and use of the words make it quite clear that originally it was the ‘only son’ who was required for offering; and it was the distinctive trait of ‘singularity’, which was conspicuously a prerequisite for the son to be offered. That’s why ‘Thine only son’, which has been used for three times in the passage, has been used twice without ‘Isaac’ independently and only once with ‘Isaac.’’ (‘The Only Son Offered for Sacrifice: Isaac or Ishmael?).

Continued:

[Niblo]

On the 13^th April you wrote (in response to my comments on Sūrah ‘Al-Saffat:99-111, made on April 10^th):

‘Isaac is the promised miraculous son to Abraham.  The ayat you quote does not infer Ishmael. The only way you can put Ishmael in your place of sacrifice is to claim that the Old Testament has been corrupted.’

Emil G Hirsh and Joseph Jacobs write:

‘Ancient Jewish tradition attributed the authorship of the Pentateuch (with the exception of the last eight verses describing Moses' death) to Moses himself.  But the many inconsistencies and seeming contradictions contained in it attracted the attention of the Rabbis, who exercised their ingenuity in reconciling them.’  (Jewish Encyclopaedia; my emphasis).

The Encyclopaedia Biblica has this to say concerning the story of Isaac:

‘The narrators found comparatively little to say about Isaac; but some of their traditions are of great interest.

‘First in importance is that of Abraham's sacrifice of his ‘only son,' accomplished in will, but not in act, (Gen. 22 1-19). Few of the early narratives have received more light than this from analytic and historical criticism.

‘It has become certain that the story has been considerably altered since E wrote it. The editor or compiler of JE not only appended vv. 14b-18 (an unoriginal passage, full of reminiscences), but also introduced several alterations into vv. 1-14a.

‘The most remarkable of the editorial changes concerns the locality of the sacrifice. It is obvious that such a sentence as ' Go into the land of the Moriah (so in the Hebrew) and offer him . . . on one of the mountains which I will tell thee of,' is no longer in its original form, and most critics have thought that ' the Moriah ' was inserted (together with the divine name Yahweh in vv. II 14) by the editor of JE. This writer was probably a Judahite, and it is supposed that he wished to do honour to the temple of Jerusalem by localising on the hill where it was built one of the 'greatest events in the life of Abraham.

‘So far, however, as an opinion is possible, the form of the Elohist’s story is, apart from the detail about the ram, all his own.  It was suggested, indeed, by circumstances already related in the traditional narratives; but it was moulded by himself, and it is bathed throughout in an ideal light.  Evidently this pious writer felt that for the higher religious conceptions no traditional story would be an adequate vehicle.’ (‘Encyclopaedia Biblica, ed. Rev. T. K. Cheyne; London: Watts and Co.; 2:2175).

In short, the story has been corrupted.

You reference Hebrews 11:17:

‘By faith Abraham, when God tested him, offered Isaac as a sacrifice. He who had embraced the promises was about to sacrifice his one and only son.’ (NIV: my emphasis).

The anonymous author of this verse perpetuates the lie.  Isaac was not, and never could have been, Abraham’s ‘one and only son’.  That distinction belongs only to Ishmael (and only then for the first 14 years of his life.

It is not true, by the way, that Ishmael’s mother – Hagar – was a slave-girl of Sarah.

Hagar was a princess, being the daughter of the Egyptian king.  The reason she has been reduced to the status of a slave – by the redactors of the Taurât – can be seen from the following:

‘That Hagar appears as a slave-woman is a necessary consequence of the theory on which the Hebrew myth is based, the notion being that Ishma‘el was of inferior origin.’ (‘Encyclopaedia Biblica; page 1933’; my emphasis).

Blessings.

 

[Hamilton Porter]

3 hours ago, Niblo said:

On the 18^th April you wrote:

‘You have a Catholic background, but how would Muslims understand half the Quran if they haven't read the Bible?

The surahs assume you're familiar with Bible stories.’

You have provided no examples of that (supposed) half of the Qur’an that cannot be understood without reference to the Bible.  This is unfortunate, since I have absolutely no idea where this incomprehensible portion of the Qurʾan happens to be.

Professor Haleem writes:

‘Reflecting on the text, one is constantly struck by its freshness of expression, and yet such is its nature that ordinary Arabs from all walks of life can easily understand and appreciate its powerful effects. The message of the Qur’an was originally, after all, directly addressed to these people without distinction as to class, gender or age, without any officiating priesthood. This is a language that is still in constant use in almost all social and cultural contexts.’

‘A most relevant and fruitful approach to understanding the text of the Qur’an is by means of two key concepts developed by Muslim scholars in the Classical period: context and internal relationships. The importance of context (maqām) was recognised and formulated for the study of the text of the Qur’an by Muslim linguists whose work in this respect anticipated by many centuries modern linguistic thinking about the crucial importance of context in understanding discourse.

‘A key tool of Qur’anic exegesis is the internal relationships between material in different parts of the Qur’an, expressed by Qur’anic scholars as: al-Qur’an yufassir ba‘ḍuhu ba‘ḍa (some parts of the Qur’an explain others) – in modern linguistic terms ‘intertextuality’ – which, given the structure of Qur’anic material, was argued to provide the most correct method of understanding the Qur’an.’ (Understanding the Qur'an: Themes and Style’).

In short, Muslims can – and do – understand the Qur’an perfectly well, without needing to read even a single word of the Bible. 

Blessings.

If you've read the Bible, you'd know that Abel's offering was accepted, Cain's wasn't. The Qur'an doesn't mention mention their names. I see that one version of the Qur'an actually fills in their names. 

Quote

Q5:27 Relate to them truly the account of Adam’s two sons. When the two of them offered an offering, it was accepted from one of them and not accepted from the other. [One of them] said, ‘Surely I will kill you.’ [The other one] said, ‘Allah accepts only from the Godwary.

I don't know why this is so controversial. As I mentioned in mentioned in a story under the other topic, I met a Turkish woman who said that after she started attending church with her husband, she understood the Qur'an better.

[theplains]

On 5/1/2023 at 8:53 AM, Niblo said:

Many thanks for your answer.  I apologise for the delayed reply.

Three times in Genesis 22:1-18, Isaac is referred to as Abraham’s ‘only son’.

We are agreed that the first born son of Abraham was Ishmael; and that for some 14 years he was the only son.  Isaac, on the other hand, could not have been called an ‘only son’ at any stage of his life. 

Hi Niblo,  no need to apologize for the delay.

Isaac is regarded as the only son of Abraham that God would establish the covenant with. God had
promised Abraham a son but he grew impatient and thought he could speed up the process by mating
with Hagar.  The promised son would come through Sarah. Abraham sought to lift up Ishmael, his first
born, but God overruled him.  God still blessed Ishmael and his descendants but the covenant would be
with Isaac and his seed.

Genesis 17:17-21

Then Abraham fell upon his face, and laughed, and said in his heart, Shall a child be born unto him
that is an hundred years old? and shall Sarah, that is ninety years old, bear?  And Abraham said unto
God, O that Ishmael might live before thee!  And God said, Sarah thy wife shall bear thee a son indeed;
and thou shalt call his name Isaac: and I will establish my covenant with him for an everlasting covenant,
and with his seed after him. And as for Ishmael, I have heard thee: Behold, I have blessed him, and will
make him fruitful, and will multiply him exceedingly; twelve princes shall he beget, and I will make him
a great nation.  But my covenant will I establish with Isaac, which Sarah shall bear unto thee at this set
time in the next year.

Edited May 2, 2023 by theplains

[Stargazer]

Oops. Dupe.

Edited May 7, 2023 by Stargazer

[Stargazer]

On 4/6/2023 at 7:26 PM, theplains said:

God does not need a heavenly wife to have children.

How do you know what God needs for this? As far as I know, Biblical scripture is totally silent on the mechanism or principle God uses to create his creatures. We see the evidence of the mechanism God has put in motion to propagate his creations here on earth (biological reproduction). But how does God create, for example, you? As opposed to the body your parents provided for you?

On 4/6/2023 at 7:26 PM, theplains said:

Adam and Eve were created without the involvement of a woman. 

And how do you know this? I'll grant you that there was no involvement of a mortal woman! But could there not have been involvement of an eternal woman? I realize I'm asking you to speculate, but your assertions above are just as speculatory, in that you are claiming God didn't need a heavenly wife, or this or that. How can you know what God needs, or doesn't need, to do a thing?

Actually, there is adequate scriptural evidence to support the idea that the creation of man was a joint, perhaps a collaborative, effort between at least two personages or individuals. Here's one bit of evidence (Genesis 1:26-27):

26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion ...
27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

Is this a translational error, that God refers to himself in both the plural and the singular? 

It seems quite clear to me that in these verses God is proposing to create a dual being of both male and female parts, and creates them as such because that is what he himself is, or, what they themselves are. 

[Calm]

42 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

How do you know what God needs for this?

Or maybe God just desires it to be that way even if he doesn’t need it,

[theplains]

On 5/7/2023 at 2:04 PM, Stargazer said:

How do you know what God needs for this? As far as I know, Biblical scripture is totally silent on the mechanism or principle God uses to create his creatures. We see the evidence of the mechanism God has put in motion to propagate his creations here on earth (biological reproduction). But how does God create, for example, you? As opposed to the body your parents provided for you?

A heavenly wife is not required to have children. LDS teachings also says that we become the children
of Christ. https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/ensign/2017/04/becoming-children-of-christ?lang=eng

How does God create Adam?  From the dust of the earth.  No heavenly wife is involved.  How does God
create Eve? From a rib of Adam.  No heavenly wife is involved.  How does he create me?  Through a
miraculous conception and then he sustains my growth in the womb and beyond.

I don't believe I was an eternal / uncreated spirit (Abraham 3:18) before becoming a spirit child of heavenly
parents.
  

On 5/7/2023 at 2:04 PM, Stargazer said:

And how do you know this? I'll grant you that there was no involvement of a mortal woman! But could there not have been involvement of an eternal woman? I realize I'm asking you to speculate, but your assertions above are just as speculatory, in that you are claiming God didn't need a heavenly wife, or this or that. How can you know what God needs, or doesn't need, to do a thing?

Actually, there is adequate scriptural evidence to support the idea that the creation of man was a joint, perhaps a collaborative, effort between at least two personages or individuals. Here's one bit of evidence (Genesis 1:26-27):

26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion ...
27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

Is this a translational error, that God refers to himself in both the plural and the singular? 

It seems quite clear to me that in these verses God is proposing to create a dual being of both male and female parts, and creates them as such because that is what he himself is, or, what they themselves are. 

The plurality of God here could be seen in the sense of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit; which is revealed in
scripture.  There is no scriptural support for any of Heavenly Father's wives being involved in the creation of
the world or in Adam and Eve.

Being created in the image of God does not involve body parts - for many animals have two arms, two legs,
and a head - and they were not created in his image.

[Hamilton Porter]

On 5/7/2023 at 2:04 PM, Stargazer said:

Actually, there is adequate scriptural evidence to support the idea that the creation of man was a joint, perhaps a collaborative, effort between at least two personages or individuals. Here's one bit of evidence (Genesis 1:26-27):

God's speaking to his divine council. It's not heavenly mother or the Trinity.

[Stargazer]

On 5/7/2023 at 7:47 PM, Calm said:

Or maybe God just desires it to be that way even if he doesn’t need it,

Perhaps. I do get tired of those folks who are all sola scriptura, but then they insist upon things that scriptura is silent about. And then they suddenly resort to reading between the lines, or insisting their own opinions are the equivalent of scripture.

Which is also not an unknown situation among Latter-day Saints.