Answering "answering-islam.org"
Part 6
Objections (Continued)
Critic:-
And exactly here is one of the philosophical problems with Islam. Muslims claim that Muhammad is a prophet with a universal message and expect everybody to believe this. But the authentication for the message is claimed to be the "literary miracle" of the Qur'an, which supposedly nobody can appreciate who has not reached a highly sophisticated knowledge of the (classical) Arabic language. If anybody else finds that these claims don't make sense then the answer is all too often: "Well, if only you could understand Arabic, then you would see the miracle and you too would believe." It is impossible to reach a high proficiency in any foreign language without investing several years of hard work in it. Essentially Muslims demand that we believe that Islam is true without being presented with the authentication for the message. We are supposed to believe blindly. The message is "universal" but the "proof" is provincial or local. This does contradict all reasonability. It demands gullibility to a considerable extent.
Answer:-
The Prophethood of Muhammad is authenticated for Muslims by (a) the teaching he brings, (b) the fact that he devoted his life to the establishment of Islam, (c) to his various abilities and achievements, and (d) his impact on the course of world history. (e) The early converts followed him because they recognized his extra-ordinary charisma and sincerity. These are the same features as those that made Moses and Jesus into Prophets. Many people are converted after reading the translation of the Quran because the spiritual effects come through. Some are converted by seeing the spiritual practices of Muslims. There are also many books and teachers who can explain the Quran to them. Did those who followed Jesus require the kind of philosophical proofs the critic is speaking about? Did not Paul tell Christians that though Jews require signs and Greeks want wisdom, these are stumbling blocks and God can destroy the wisdom of the wise? (1 Corinthians 1:19-22).
Critic:-
The miracles of all the earlier prophets in the Bible were an authentication, which was the same for everybody. Healing people, prophecies about historical events, parting the Red Sea, the raising of dead people, etc. ... all these authenticating evidences stay the same in whatever language they are translated.
Answer:-
All this applies also to the Quran. Miracles, prophecies and teachings are in there also. Islam requires people to accept the teachings of Islam by understanding and applying them and not through things which are irrelevant. Miracles, healing and other such wonders do not prove the truth of the doctrines, but appeal to sensationalism, gullibility, selfish desires and so on and as the story of Moses and Pharaoh show, can be simulated by magicians, or rationalized away. This is still the case today.
Critic:-
Interestingly, so Muslims seem to claim, all these miracles were to authenticate an only temporary and locally significant message, while this same God then issued his universal message for which he gave an authentication which hardly anybody can verify for himself! This whole approach does not "ring true" and is philosophically not defensible in my eyes. Just one more example to illustrate to you why this isn't viable.
Answer:-
The Universality of the message of Muhammad (saw) lies in the fact that the Quran teaches that Prophets and Messengers were sent to all peoples all over the world in the languages they were able to understand and with practices suitable to them. There are, therefore, a number of genuine religions, all of which are valid (until corrupted), and they belong as parts to a single Universal phenomena. The teachings in the Quran though also specific, refer also to this Universal religion. This is not what Hebrewism or Christianity teach. Christianity teaches exclusive salvation through Jesus.
Critic:-
A further remark: I have even seen one more stage of this, used for those who indeed know sufficient Arabic [there are after all a good number of Arab Christians, either from Christian families or converts from Islam]. Then the reasoning includes that "you are reading it with the wrong attitude" and the beauty and truth of the Qur'an only discloses itself to those which approach it in humble acceptance. With that, every critique is "successfully" countered. The problem is that this argument works for each and every religion, is hence useless, and clearly is the descent into utter subjectivity.
Answer:-
Yes, things can only be understood by those with a receptive mind. All who approach anything with a hostile mind will not understand it. This, of course, works for every religion. All religions are validated by the same approach. But the same receptive mind cannot abide contradictions and gets rid of them. Contradictions can exist only when the conflicts between the factors in contradiction are kept separate in the mind. This implies that part of the mind is closed and not receptive.
Critic:-
The evidence for the truth of the Bible is visible just as much in any good translation as it is in the original, because it is a test of content and not of form, a test of the message itself and not of some elusive quality of "eloquence" which is lost in a translation. Why - IF this is THE most important revelation of God - did He make it so incredibly hard to verify for a seeker whether it is indeed true? Especially since God seems to have already had better methods during the time of his earlier revelation. It doesn't make much sense.
Answer:-
The critic is judging the Quran from the Bible and dictating what God should do. And yet there are many different interpretations of the Bible and many sects in Christianity. The New Testament consists of Gospels and letters written by third parties about the doings and sayings of Jesus and their implications. The Quran is regarded as a record of direct revelation. Its message is in the words as well as in the rhythms. Most of us know that spoken language conveys meaning not merely through words but also intonation, gestures and expressions. We also know that much more can be learnt from a knowledgeable teacher than any book by itself. Why then is it so difficult for this critic to understand that there may be more to the Scriptures than he gathers from the words alone? Do not different sects obtain different ideas from them? Does he really believe that he understand everything Jesus was teaching? Did not Jesus say that many things he said were not understood by the people and not even by his apostles? (Matthew 13:13-15, 23, 15:16,17, 16:11, John 16:12-13)
Critic:-
But there is another logical blunder in the Muslim reasoning since they themselves apply their own argument very selectively. You say, you need to be able to read the revelation in its original language, otherwise you are not qualified to even criticize anything in it. And hardly any Muslim knows the Hebrew or Greek language well enough to be called 'fluent'. Nevertheless AGAINST his own standards the Muslim still rejects the Old and New Testament of the Bible without ever having read it in its original language [and most of them not even in a translation into their mother tongue].
Answer:-
Yes I think Muslims ought to read other scriptures because they are mentioned in the Quran. No, Muslims do not reject the Torah and Injil, which refer to the revelations given to Moses and Jesus. The Quran confirms them. Muslims reject those teachings or interpretations that contradict these scriptures. Muslims also believe that the Quran contains everything contained in previous scriptures, which Allah wants us to know and that it supersedes them in bringing a new formulation and new practices. There is no argument about the truth. From this point of view there is no need to read the other scriptures. But I do think that reading them can help expand understanding.
Critic:-
It makes NO sense to claim a UNIVERSAL message for ALL mankind and then to say, but you have to trust us and we are sorry, you can't understand it for yourself and any critical thought on it is invalid because you don't understand Arabic (well enough). This is plain fallacious reasoning in any logical category. This approach looks to me like Muslims do have something to hide.
Yes, understanding the original language of the Bible is useful and we do have good commentaries that are a wonderful help for growing in understanding of God's word. But any Christian would be comfortable and hand you a Bible in your mother tongue and say, just read and pray that God will speak through His word to you and give you understanding. Because the Word of God is alive. He uses the feeble attempts of the translators and then gives His Holy Spirit's support and guidance to anyone who seeks Him with all His heart and God is not hampered in any way by a maybe less than perfect translation.
Answer:-
This is also the Muslim approach. They do ask seekers to read the Quran. Why else translate it. But as with the Bible seekers might have difficulties understanding and that is why teachers are required from among those understand it.
Critic:-
Let me summarize my main points again: Islam has the claim to be the universal message from God to all mankind. But it does not provide evidence for this claim that is appropriate. Universality claims have to provide "universally" testable evidence if they should be reasonable.
Forcing "7th century Arabism" on all believers seems to be a step back from the flexible and open approach God has taken for the spreading of the Gospel in which the value of all cultures and languages was affirmed.
Answer:-
These points are based on ignorance and they have been refuted above. Do you reject the 2000 year old Middle-eastern Hebrewism or Christianity? This objection seems rather hypocritical for a Christian when the Christian belief is that salvation can be obtained only by accepting Jesus as one's saviour, i.e. by becoming a Christian and all others are damned no matter how virtuous. But did not Jesus tell the Roman Centurion:-
"Verily I say unto you, I have not found so great faith, no, not in Israel. And I say unto you, That many shall come from the east and west, and shall sit down with Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, in the kingdom of heaven. But the children of the kingdom shall be cast out into outer darkness: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth. And Jesus said unto the centurion, Go thy way; and as thou hast believed, so be it done unto thee. And his servant was healed in the selfsame hour." Matthew 8:10-13
The Centurion was not required to believe in the crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus. He was required only to have faith and not what this critic calls evidence.
Critic:-
A telling silence. Sometimes observing which things are omitted is as important as understanding correctly the things that are mentioned. There is a strange omission in the Qur'an. We read in the Quran:-
"Those who deny Allah and His Messengers, and wish to separate between Allah and His Messengers, saying: We believe in some but reject others: ... They are in truth unbelievers; and We have prepared for Unbelievers a humiliating punishment." Sura 4:150-151
"... the men of faith, each one believes in Allah, His angels, His books, and His Messengers. We make no distinction (they say) between one and another of His Messengers." ... Sura 2:285
No prophet could (ever) act dishonestly ... Sura 3:161
The statement that "we believe in all the prophets" is very strong and often repeated in Islam. There is one concept though which is very frequent in the word of God, the Holy Scriptures of Jews and Christians, that seems to be completely missing in the Qur'an. It is the issue how to recognize a "false prophet". The Bible contains several passages discussing the criteria for a true prophet and how to recognize a false prophet. God warns repeatedly that false prophets will come, that it is not easy to recognize them immediately, and the Bible reports of many different false prophets that have come during the history of Israel. [Some of these passages are Deuteronomy 13, 18:20-22, Jeremiah 5:31, 14:14ff, Jer. 23:9-40, Jer. 28, Ezekiel 13, Matthew 24:11, 1 Corinthians 14:29, 2 Timothy 4:3, 2 Peter 2:1, Revelation 2:20, 16:13 etc.] Given that this warning is very common in the earlier revelations of God, and repeated again and again, especially in regard to the end times (which are still to come), it is very strange indeed that the Qur'an is completely silent on this issue. One could become suspicious that this issue is avoided deliberately so that the reader of the Qur'an doesn't get the dangerous idea to think about criteria for true and for false prophets or even starts looking at Muhammad in order to evaluate him in regard to these criteria. Instead it is repeated over and over again that we have to believe in all messengers, and that Muhammad is a messenger, which - in an easy logical step - leads to the conclusion that we have to believe in Muhammad as the messenger of God. But anybody who is familiar with the Bible, will know that we are admonished to be cautious and carefully evaluate any claim for Prophethood because we are strongly warned that false prophets will come. And it is clearly a reality. Yet the Qur'an seemingly wants to make sure the reader will not even start to explore this concept.
Answer:-
The criterion for recognizing a true Prophet does exist in the Quran. In fact they are described in considerable detail. Prophets receive revelations, are guided by the Spirit, teach the Unity of God and devote their lives to the service of God in spite of persecution. The nature of false Prophets can be deduced from this.
But despite the description of false Prophets the Jews rejected Jesus. So are we to believe that Jesus was a false Prophet? Christians might reject Muhammad for the same misinterpretations or prejudices.
Critic:-
Muslims will have to agree, there have been many people since Muhammad, who have claimed to be messengers from God. And they are rejected as impostors. But Muslims do not reject them because they have objective criteria for true and false prophets, but on the one and only basis that Muhammad is claimed to be the last prophet.
The rejection of others is based on the claim of Muhammad to be true and to be last without subjecting Muhammad himself to the test of a prophet.
Answer:-
Muslims believe the Quran with greater justification than Christians believe the Bible. They also, like Christians, interpret what they read. Muslims accept Muhammad as a Prophet because of the Quran and his life of surrender and service to God. Muslims accept Muhammad just as Christians accept Jesus.
Critic:-
Remark: There is one verse, Sura 6:93, asking the rhetorical question: "Who can be more wicked than one ... who says, `I have received inspiration,' when he has received none, ..." This verse declares pretense to be evil, (and it is only one remark inside a general list of wicked deeds), but it does not give any criterion of discernment to the listener (reader) on the basis of which we could decide which claim for inspiration is right and which is wrong. As such, this verse does not change anything in regard to the above observation.
Answer:-
The answer is similar to that which Jesus gave:- "If I do not the works of my Father, believe me not. But if I do, though ye believe not me, believe the works: that ye may know, and believe, that the Father is in me, and I in him." John 10:37-38
Critic:-
The most dangerous lie is that which most closely resembles the truth. Deception only works because it looks like it is true. The Qur'an does call itself "al-Furqan", the "discerner", but it fails to give criteria for discernment in this most crucial area of testing the claims of Prophethood.
Answer:-
It can be and is said about Christianity that it is corruption, which resembles the truth and this makes it dangerous. The Quran is the discerner and the criterion by which Muslims judge what is true or false. But it has to be studied and understood and applied in order that the person becomes a discerner.
Critic:-
The cultural straight jacket. This picks up something I talked about already, but I want to mention a few more thoughts. Earlier I mentioned that the uniformity does not go along with the claim of universality. Here I want to point out that this "uniformity model" is against the revelation how God has given it in the earlier scriptures.
Islam seems to impose a cultural straight jacket on all nations under its rule. At least that is the impression I get from observing the talk of Muslims. And this focus on the Sunna - you have to do things exactly as Muhammad did them even up to the question with which foot you step into the bathroom or out of bed. [Is that right?]
Answer:-
This question has already been answered above. It is a mistake and dishonest to present an impression as a fact. Even if it is presented as a question the answer to which has not been investigated, this is done to mislead readers. If there is a good practice that has some kind of physical, mental or spiritual value, then even if it is not recommended, it is a good thing to adopt it. Human beings are wholeness such that all parts of them affect each other to various degrees. This means that it is good idea to ensure that all aspects of life are inter-related and directed towards the goal we wish to reach. Otherwise some parts or aspects of life will affect other parts in a negative or obstructive and an uncontrolled and unpredictable manner. The goal will then not be reached, or progress will be retarded or become static, or the person will go astray and become bewildered, or the direction of development will even become reversed. All this is quite well known to religious persons and others.
Critic:-
The Biblical view affirms that God has created us in wonderful diversity. Revelation 7:9 (describing a heavenly scenery of the redeemed people): "After this I looked and there before me was a great multitude that no one could count, from every nation, tribe, people and language, standing before the throne and in front of the Lamb."
And the text goes on to describe how they all sing the praises of God together. But this does not obliterate their diversity. They are still identifiable as "from different tribes and languages"... While the Bible highly values the diversity of culture, Islam seems to be opposed to a diversity of expression in worship and of different ways to express the eternal moral values.
Answer:-
The Quran says:- "And of His sign is the creation of the heavens and the earth, and the difference of your languages and colours. Lo! Herein indeed are portents for men of knowledge." 30:22
"And each one has a goal towards which he turns; so vie with one another in good works. Wheresoever ye may be Allah will bring you together. Lo! Allah is Able to do all things." 2:148
"Verily, your efforts are diverse! But as for him who gives alms and fears Allah, and believes in goodness.." 92:4-6
What is more:- "Hast thou not seen that Allah, He it is whom praise all who are in the heavens and the earth, and the birds in their flight? Each one knows its worship and its praise, and Allah is aware of what they do?" 24:41
"The seven heavens and the earth, and all that is therein praises Him (declares His Glory), and there is naught but hymns (celebrates, expresses) His praise: but ye understand not their praise. Verily, He is Clement and Forgiving." 17:44
Critic:-
Not uniformity, but unity in diversity is glorifying to God, who has given many different riches to different people so that they may enrich each other and in harmony and unity bring glory to God.
Answer:-
Correct. This is the Islamic position. But we see that Christianity damns everyone who is not Christian. But the path to God is straight and those who stray from it will not reach the destination. Diversity does not extend to perversity. There are certain absolute standards that must not be eroded. Christians appear not to understand this.
"Verily, whether it be of those who believe, or those who are Jews or Christians or Sabaeans, whosoever believes in Allah and the Last Day and acts aright, they have their reward with their Lord, and there is no fear for them, nor shall they grieve." 2:62
Critic:-
Simplicity. Quite a number of Muslims argue that the Islamic concept of God is true [and the Christian faith wrong] *because* the concept of God in Islam is "simpler".
Most maps of certain areas of our world are very accurate because they are only representing a very small part of this earth's surface, like maps of a city or maps of just one country. Since the earth's surface is 'locally' more or less flat, it is possible to represent even relatively big surface patches of the earth quite accurately on flat paper.....But, although the earth is indeed 'locally' flat, it is NOT flat at all if taken in its entirety. ....In any case, all of you will agree that only a globe, i.e. a 3-dimensional representation of the earth can faithfully represent what the proportions of different countries are in the relationship to each other. ...But this does not at all distract from the immense usefulness of flat maps for 'local concerns' like for my shopping trip to the next town, a vacation travel to the neighboring countries or for my holiday hiking going up some mountain. ...But if I - based on my good experience with flat local maps - believe that my flat map of the whole earth will be just as trustworthy. And if I, for example fill my airplane with fuel according to the distance I read off from a distorted piece of my earth map. I might be badly surprised that I suddenly run out of fuel in the middle over some ocean, am taking a dive, and will never reach my destination. If I survive at all, that for sure should be the end of my faith in flat earth maps....
This illustration came to my mind when so many reacted to my explanation of the Trinity with the argument: The concept of God in Islam is simpler and that is as it should be. Well, for centuries most of the world's population believed in a flat earth based on their experience that the earth is flat around them and sort of flat as far as they have ever gone. So, based on this lifelong experience, the theory of a flat earth was for sure the obvious truth and certainly simpler than the thought of a round ball. ...Well, time has proven that this ridiculous theory is the truth and most every Muslim just as most every non-Muslim believes today that the earth is quite accurately a ball and that a globe is a good model of it. And they believe that either because people whom they trust have told them so, or because they have read a good scientific book about it, or for some other reason. But nobody, if you are not an astronaut and have the privilege that other people pay millions so that you can go into outer space, can really verify that for himself.
Staying in the language of my above analogy, I have the impression from Muslim arguments, that they are arguing a 'flat' theory of God and a 'flat' theory of mankind, while I pretty unsuccessfully try to introduce to you the improved "round version" of the understanding of God and mankind. Because the thought of a round 'Trinitarian model' of God sounds ridiculous, you dismiss it and rather stick to your time honored 'flat' model of God.
Answer:-
The opposite seems to be the truer case. This Critic, and Christians in general, appear to have narrow view of Religion. They identify it with Christianity and do not see the larger picture. That is why they are unable to understand any other religion, and expect the others to have exactly the same wording and practices as theirs, otherwise they are regarded as false. Whereas God is the Absolute, the One, they have become fixated on the relative, which requires more than one.
The closer you are to something the more details do you see and the less can you see the over all picture. The further you get the more do you see the unity of the whole but lose the details. In the same way those who form mental attachments to the multiple things and cannot see the Unity beyond them. To approach God one must detach and distance oneself from the created world. Existence can be represented as a pyramid (or circle), which has Unity at the Apex (or centre) and maximum multiplicity at the base (or circumference. The creative force radiates from the Apex (or centre) downwards to the base (or outwards to the circumference). The Christian view of God seems to be somewhere away from the Apex (or centre). Islam sees Allah as One, at the Apex (or centre), but He has many attributes, which are not independent of each other, but determine the nature of the created world. The Islamic view is both simpler and more comprehensive. But if the Christian position had been that Religion, not God, is presented by a Trinity of God, The Messenger (who connects God with man) and the Spirit which informs both the Messenger and his followers, then this would be understandable.
Surely this critic, given the evidence that Islam has spread throughout the world to all races, cannot pretend to himself that Islam is not universal (even in his definition).
Critic:-
I admit that even many Christians have problems to really comprehend the doctrine of the Trinity and it will definitely remain a mystery and there is nothing we can do against it, nor should we. God is so much bigger than our little intellect can fathom.
Answer:-
Having admitted this, the critic need only be self-consistent and admit that (a) He cannot know God except by His self-revelation. (b) The doctrine of Trinity is not a revelation by God, but man-made. (c) His intellect cannot understand all that God reveals. This could apply to his understanding of Islam and the Unity of God.
Critic:-
It would be actually a reason against the truth of a certain model of God, if the model is 'simple'. Because then it is in great danger of simplifying God to the point that "in order to make it humanly easy" it was made *simplistic* rather than *simple* and becomes false BECAUSE of the urge to make it simple. Just as the people who prefer flat maps to round globes will have to be very aware that they have huge distortions on their flat maps.
Answer:-
The critic appears to think of God as a "thing" like other things about which he can make images or maps. But Allah, from the Islamic point of view is not like anything. It is not, therefore, possible to make any distinctions within Him. To say he has parts is like saying He has organs as created things do. One would have to ask:- Who created these parts?
Critic:-
My impression is, that the Qur'an is like this flat map of the whole earth. I agree, Islam is a religion that encompasses all of life just as every other religion does. But is it a "realistic" or "true" guide for ALL of life? Or does it have areas of huge distortions, which might indicate that maybe the whole model isn't really fitting reality?
Answer:-
Has the critic considered that his impression could depend on looking at Islam through distorted glasses, caused by adherence to a false doctrine? His view of reality depends on his belief and not the other way around. Polytheism and Tritheism have in fact been absorbed and transcended in Islam. Instead of the multiple gods which limit and exclude each other, they are seen as aspects of the One God.
"But Allah belong the most beautiful names; call on Him then thereby, and leave those who pervert (profane or blaspheme against) His names. They shall be rewarded for that which they have done." 7:180
"Say: Call upon Allah, or call upon the Beneficent, unto whatever name you call it is well. To Him belong the most beautiful names." 17:110
" Surely pure religion is for Allah only, and those who chose protecting friends besides Him say: We worship them only that they might bring us near unto Allah. Lo, Allah will judge between them concerning that wherein they differ. Allah guides not him who is a liar, an ingrate.. Lo, I am commanded to worship Allah, making religion pure for Him only." 39:3,11
Critic:-
Although the countries of Europe and North-America are by now also pretty corrupt in many respects, but they nevertheless have a history of Judeo-Christian i.e. Biblical values and that is still an important backbone of the way the society is organized.
Answer:-
The critic does not appear to know that though Western Civilization owes much to Christian values and to Greek and Roman civilizations (which also contributed a number of harmful and perverse factors) it also owes much to Islam. It is the impact of Islam on the West, which brought it out of the Dark Ages and brought Renaissance, Reformation and Enlightenment. Whereas works of compassion, charity and social responsibility arise from Christianity, Islam brought interest in truth, awareness of nature, knowledge, science and understanding. It is Islamic influence that also brought religious tolerance and respect for the autonomy of the person on which democracy is based. To a large extent it is the erosion of Christianity that allowed progress to occur.
Critic:-
Many millions of Muslims leave their 'Muslim lands' having many reasons for not wanting to live there any longer. But then they come to the countries which are of more or less "Christian orientation" and where many things still work much better [freedom from much oppression for one and a working market economy providing jobs]. And they have the desire to introduce here also a "flat theory of society and mankind" after it already doesn't work over there.
Answer:-
Islam had a high civilization when the people adhered to their faith. But civilizations and people decline owing to many causes - population congestion, climatic changes, running out of resources, exhaustion owing to constant attacks by barbarians, conquests by foreign powers, loss of faith and direction, onset of complacency, succumbing to tradition, habit and convention. All these factors have weakened and impoverished the people and caused a struggle for existence which also bring political problems. Some of them migrate for economic or political reasons. This has nothing to do with the validity of the Islamic Teaching.
Critic:-
Let me give you two examples where I think the theology of Islam is simplistic. The first one is connected directly with our earthly realities the second one is more philosophical.
Let me just mention one reason why I think the Islamic theory of "man" is flat. Islam is not able to deal with or even understand the evil in this world because Islam [just as communists did] believes that human beings are basically good. But the problem is, as the Bible says, that we are utterly corrupted by sin. And looking at our world, who can seriously believe that man is basically good? I think the Biblical understanding gives us the explanation that is nearer to the (observable) truth (of our reality) AND also gives us the only way out. But that must be part of another article.
Answer:-
Does the critic believe that God created a defective human being? The Bible, like the Quran, says that God made all things good. The critic has not understood this. The Quran tells us:- "Surely, We have created man in the best of moulds. Then We reduced him to the lowest of the low; Save those who believe and act right; for theirs is a reward unfailing." 95:4-6
Man was made perfect in his capacities, but he still had to learn. Owing to sin he was reduced to a low position. But he still has the potentiality for ascent. How else could he climb back? The Christianity focuses the mind on sin which was not the original state of man, whereas Islam focuses it on his original perfection, and, therefore on his potentialities. This makes a great difference between the religions. Christianity seems to be based on despair and, therefore, requires a Saviour as the only hope. This Saviour is expected to do all the work, not the person. Islam, in contrast, thinks of the Messenger as one who brings the techniques and powers from God which man must apply in order to be saved. The Messenger, is, therefore, a saviour in quite a different sense. In fact it is Allah alone that is the Saviour.
"O ye who believe! Respond unto Allah and His Messenger when He calls you to that which quickens you; and know that Allah comes in between a man and his own heart; and that He it is unto Whom ye shall be gathered." 8:24
Critic:-
Since I said above that I feel the Islamic understanding of God to be "flat" I think I have to give at least a small glimpse of the issues and questions pertinent to it. So, the second example is the issue of Unitarian or Trinitarian monotheism. Muslims often argue for the unity of God from the viewpoint that more than one God would bring chaos and fighting between the gods.
There is some truth to it if we think of many separate and power hungry gods, but Christians only believe in ONE God, not many gods and the character of God is not power hungry but he is a loving and even a humble God. As such this whole scenario wouldn't even apply. In any case there is only one God. But we believe that there is more "inner structure" to the Godhead that a unitary one.
Answer:-
This is the problem. You have a Godhead, a kind of committee. The Islamic concept of Allah is that He is One, indivisible and unique. If Christians claim that Muslims and even Christians have misunderstood the Trinitarian concept of God, then this is also a sufficient reason to abandon it. It causes confusion and falsification.
(Continued in next article)
----------<O>----------
Answering-AIorg-07..........Contents