Answering "answering-islam.org"

Part 7 

Objections (Continued)

 

Critic:-

The following explanation of the Trinity is actually a very classical one used by St. Augustine in his book "On the Trinity" [De Trinitate] in the 5th century. We read in the Word of God, in 1 John 4:8 that "God is Love". What are the necessary conditions that this can be a true statement?

For any event of "love" we do need the *subject* who loves, we need a *counterpart* (object) who is loved, and we need an expression of this love in some way, i.e. an interaction between the first two. These are necessary conditions. If any of the three is missing then it cannot be love. I cannot love when I am "just by myself". Focusing only on myself is egotism, not love.

Now, how can God *BE* Love if he was solitary in "unitary aloneness" from eternity past? None of the attributes of God can be dependent on his creation. If God could only start loving after he had created us then his attribute of love would be dependent on us. He would not be self-sufficient in his attributes. He would be deficient in himself. But if he is unitary as Muslims believe, then love necessarily cannot be an attribute of his [nor can justice or mercy or any other relational attribute] because he is not in any relationship for eternity before he creates.

Answer:-

This seems like mere intellectual sophistry and cannot impress Muslims. The love of God is a revelation by God both in concept and actuality. It connects the creator with the creature. It is an attribute recognized by this relationship.

If we are to use reason instead of revelation, then the notion of Trinity can be dismissed on the grounds that logically neither Jesus nor the Holy Spirit can be God. The Gospels make clear that:- (a) Only the Father is called God by Jesus and both are distinguished from God. (b) They were both sent by God - those who are sent are not the senders. (c) They do not speak for themselves, but speak as they are taught or hear. In John 16:14 Jesus says: "God is He that giveth all things to all". He that receives from another is not God. (d) The Spirit is the gift of God, not the giver. (e) They are not all pervasive but have limits in place and time and come or go.

For Muslims Allah is the one Jesus calls Father. Jesus said: - "And he said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God: but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments." Mt 19:17 And:- "While I was with them in the world I kept them in THY NAME..." John 17:12. Jesus was in perfect surrender to God, i.e. he was a Muslim. He was at one with God and did as he was commanded and said as he heard:- "I can of mine own self do nothing: As I hear, I judge; and my judgement is just because I SEEK NOT MINE OWN WILL, but the WILL OF THE FATHER which hath sent me." John 6:30 See also John 6:38, 57, 7:16, 8:28, 10:37-38, 12:49.

Even Paul wrote:- "For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus" 1 Tim 2:5. And:- "There is actually to us one God the Father,...and there is one Lord, Jesus Christ" 1 Corinthians 8:6

Critic:-

Would Muslims say that God only acts loving or merciful etc. at some times but it is only how we perceive his action one time or the other, or would you affirm that those are attributes of his nature? But how can they are attributes of his (eternal) nature how can God have attributes he is unable to exercise apart from his creation?

But if God is not relational, how would he come to the idea to create anything ? How would he come to the desire to have an extension of his relationality beyond the Godhead if relationality is not part of his nature/attributes?

Muslims and Christians both believe that God created mankind and that he communicates with his creation. God is a communicator. And the Bible goes further: God is love. But this can only be if he is Love from eternity and hence there must be some relationally and expression and exchange of love within God himself. If you don't like the word love, then take the word justice and mercy, which are more part of the Muslim vocabulary but which also are relational terms, and it is impossible to talk of God as merciful as long as nothing is created and he is all by himself.

That is where the trinity [or some kind of internal plurality] becomes philosophically necessary for God. Yes, there is only one God but this God is love and he is relational. And hence there needs to be "interaction of giving and receiving within the Godhead". That is why we need something like the Trinity.

Answer:-

Sorry, all this sounds like non-sense, desperate human rationalizations. Are you implying that Creation is part of God and so God, His Love and Creation form the trinity?

The Islamic position is given in the formula "There is no god but Allah. And Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah." The first part separates God from Creation and the second relates them. This is because Muhammad stands for the created world and the term "Messenger" refers to the Word of God and His mercy and benevolence.

Critic:-

Augustine then says that Father and Son are eternally in love with each other, giving and receiving, and that the Spirit is something like the personalization of this 'dynamic relationship', the transporting the love of the one to the other. The "act" of God in love. And that is what Christians understand the Holy Spirit to be, the dynamic action and guidance of God in our life with is personal.

Answer:-

All very interesting. But Augustine is not God and not the Messenger either. He is rationalizing, finding an excuse for Trinity.

The Quran tells us that Allah prescribed Mercy for himself (6:12) and that the Spirit is by His command (17:85). As Love is relational it cannot exist before creation - there is nothing to which it relates. Sorry, it is an absurd argument.

To confine God to Love is also to limit Him. He has many attributes, including Justice, Truth and Wisdom. Though Benevolent and Merciful, He is also severe in punishment. We can look around the world and see these attributes manifest in it.

Critic:-

Note: This is a model, an analogy. No analogy is perfect. But think about it, and let me know how you think God can have relational attributes if he was a solitary unity from eternity past. And the second question would be what would prompt God to create anything? I think Islam has little explanation for the "why" of creation itself.

Answer:-

The Quran tells us that there is nothing like Allah and that we should make no similitudes for Allah. The Jewish position is the same and that is why they did not utter His name. The word "Allah" is not a name either but means "that which alone is worthy of worship".

Critic:-

My Questions to Muslims - I wasn't sure how to title this one really.

* What is God's price tag in Islam?

* What is the faith of a Muslim worth?

* My problem with the Islamic "value of truth"

are all equally valid headers for a problem I want to talk about here.

A statement from the soc.religion.islam Newsgroup: The HOLY QURAN *CLEARLY* permits believers to conceal their faith if practicing or declaring their Islam openly will be detrimental to the Islamic cause. (I.e. by concealing one's faith and escaping danger today, the Islamic movement will grow tomorrow, in which case, to not conceal one's faith would actually cause the Islamic movement to DIE.)

Let me present you two more quotes from the Islamic Newsgroup written by two of the more respected Muslim participants there:

A Shia Muslim wrote: Once you claim that Shias are permitted to lie, then obviously *nothing* said by a Shia can be trusted. Then, what use is it to search the books of Shias "and see ... for yourself" what Shia beliefs are? After all, they can always be lying! Right? The fact is that Shias consider lying to be a grave sin. It is permissible only under very exceptional circumstances: only if one's life is put in danger. Throughout history, many rulers have tried to eradicate Shias by killing them off and other means. If it were not for religious dissimulation (taqiyya) Shias would not have survived. In some stages in history, it became a *duty* for Shias to conceal their beliefs, for otherwise they would be killed. However, at times when religious freedom prevails, it becomes a sin to lie about one's beliefs (or anything else).

A Sunni Muslim answered him: To my understanding, this is also permitted in Sunni understanding of Islam. If saying you are "Muslim" or "Sunni" or whatever will put your life in danger, it is permissible to lie about it. I think many Sunni Muslims may not be aware of this because, since Sunnis are the majority in the Muslim world, perhaps persecution of Sunni Muslims has been less compared to historically persecution of Shi`a - I don't know, I am just guessing (regarding historical persecution). To my understanding, this issue came up when the Prophet (s) was still based in Mecca - before the Hijra - and the Meccan people where severely persecuting Muslims, even killing them if they found out someone was a Muslim.

The Quran says:- "Any one who, after accepting Faith in Allah, utters unbelief, EXCEPT UNDER COMPULSION, his heart remaining firm in faith -- but such as open their breast to unbelief, -- on them is Wrath from Allah, and theirs will be a dreadful Chastisement [16:106]."

It has been narrated by Abd al-Razak, Ibn Sa'd, Ibn Jarir, Ibn Abi Hatim, Ibn Mardawayh, al-Bayhaqi in his book "al- Dala-il," and it was corrected by al-Hakim in his book "al- Mustadrak" that: "The nonbelievers arrested `Ammar Ibn Yasir (RA) and (tortured him until) he (RA) uttered foul words about the Prophet (PBUH&HF), and praised their gods (idols); and when they released him (RA), he (RA) went straight to the Prophet (PBUH&HF). The Prophet (PBUH&HF) said: "Is there something on your mind?" `Ammar Ibn Yasir (RA) said: "Bad (news)! They would not release me until I defamed you (PBUH&HF) and praised their gods!" The Prophet (PBUH&HF) said: "How do you find your heart to be?" `Ammar (RA) answered: "Comfortable with faith." So the Prophet (PBUH&HF) said: "Then if they come back for you, then do the same thing all over again." Allah (SWT) at that moment revealed the verse: ".except under compulsion, his heart remaining firm in faith...[16:106]"

Another explanation of the above verse is provided by Jalal al-Din al-

Suyuti in his book, "al-Durr al-Manthoor Fi al- Tafsir al-Ma-athoor," vol.2, p178; he says: "Ibn Abi Shaybah, Ibn Jarir, Ibn Munzir, and Ibn Abi Hatim narrated on the authority of Mujtahid (a man's name) that this verse was revealed in relation to the following event: A group of people from Mecca accepted Islam and professed their belief; as a result, the companions in Medina wrote to them requesting that they emigrate to Medina; for if they don't do so, they shall not be considered as those who are among the believers. In compliance, the group left Mecca, but were soon ambushed by the nonbelievers (Quraish) before reaching their destination; they were coerced into disbelief, and they professed it. As a result, the verse "...except under compulsion, his heart remaining firm in faith [16:106]..." was revealed."

Ibn Sa'd in his book, "al-Tabaqat al-Kubra," narrates on the authority of Ibn Sirin that: The Prophet (PBUH&HF) saw `Ammar Ibn Yasir (RA) crying, so he (PBUH&HF) wiped off his (RA) tears, and said: "The nonbelievers arrested you and immersed you in water until you said such and such (i.e., bad-mouthing the Prophet (PBUH&HF) and praising the pagan gods to escape persecution); if they come back, then say it again."

It is narrated in al-Sirah al-Halabiyyah, v3, p61, that: After the conquest of the city of Khaybar by the Muslims, the Prophet (PBUH&HF) was approached by Hajaj Ibn `Aalat and told: "O Prophet of Allah: I have in Mecca some excess wealth and some relatives, and I would like to have them back; am I excused if I bad-mouth you (to escape persecution)?" The Prophet (PBUH&HF) excused him and said: "Say whatever you have to say."

In the contrary, I have a very different conviction and do agree with the following saying: A God not worth dying for is not worth living for. You may also read "conviction" or "faith" instead of "God".

Answer:-

That which Allah permits is permissible no matter what people may invent. He is the Wise. The verse from the Quran and the Hadith make it clear that there are conditions for this permission:- The Quran says: "under compulsion, his heart remaining firm in faith.". The prophet asked: How do you find your heart to be?" `Ammar (RA) answered: "Comfortable with faith.".

Circumstances dictate what is appropriate or not. The critic must have heard the saying about running away in order to return to fight another day. Muslims were certainly required to fight and sacrifice their lives in the cause of Islam - martyrdom is honored. But not in an unwise, ineffective or futile manner. What would be the point. Folly is not a virtue in Islam. In any case it is the inner state that counts rather than the outer show.

The critic speaks as if there is no precedence for this in the Old and New Testaments. The critic should know that ultimately it is not for man to judge but it is God who determines what is good and right. When Peter (in his dream) refused to eat unclean things he was told by God:- "What God hath cleansed that call not thou common." Acts 10:15

Islam is realistic and takes circumstances into consideration. We even read: "This day have I perfected for you your religion, and completed My favour unto you, and have chosen for you as religion Al-Islam. But he who is forced by need, not inclined willfully to sin, verily, Allah is Forgiving and Merciful." 5:3

Critic:-

Even though I find it strange that the same verse could be revealed several times at different occasions [when something is already revealed, the next time one could at most be reminded again, but "to reveal" means it is unknown until this point of time] and the stories above looks sufficiently different that it seems there are several conflicting events for the revelation of the same verse. Furthermore, `Ammar Ibn Yasir seems to have a far more sensitive conscience than Muhammad in one story, while in the other story he doesn't seem to be as distressed. There are numerous disparities between these stories. But this is only a side remark. They do agree in the permission of denying the faith. Not only in the case of danger for life but even in order to get some material possessions back.

Answer:-

Different Hadith are reliable to different degrees. They are reports by third parties like the Gospels, and different people see and report things differently as we all know. They are also liable to be misunderstood. It is, for instance, perfectly possible that a revealed verse refers to a type of event which has several instances. It is not necessary to suppose that a revelation though connected with a particular event refers only to that event or that it cannot be connected with many events. If "revelation" refers to verses in the Quran, then the fact that some verses resemble each other in meaning does not imply that only one is a revelation. They all have a function.

Critic:-

My real problem is in regard to the instruction itself. This permission to lie and deny God in order to save your life is clearly foreign to the message of God in the Holy Bible.

Let me give you some of many instances that illustrate the teaching of the Bible on this topic. It is illuminating to observe the contrast. Jesus says: "Then he called the crowd to him along with his disciples and said: "If anyone would come after me, he must deny himself and take up his cross and follow me. For whoever wants to save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for me and for the gospel will save it. What good is it for a man to gain the whole world, yet forfeit his soul? Or what can a man give in exchange for his soul? If anyone is ashamed of me and my words in this adulterous and sinful generation, the Son of Man will be ashamed of him when he comes in his Father's glory with the holy angels." Mark 8:34-38

And Jesus also says in Matthew 10:28 "Do not be afraid of those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather, be afraid of the One who can destroy both soul and body in hell. And when the disciples of Jesus after the resurrection and ascension are threatened by the authorities to not speak about Jesus, they answer: "But Peter and John replied: Judge for yourselves whether it is right in God's sight to obey you rather than God. For we cannot help speaking about what we have seen and heard. After further threats they let them go." Acts 5:19-21 ...etc.

Answer:-

Answer as above. The critic has been very selective.

Did not the Apostles desert Jesus and did not Peter deny him three times before the cock crew and was he not forgiven? (Matthew 26:56-75) Should the Apostles not have run away but defied the Romans and all been crucified? Would this not have brought Christianity to an end?

Critic:-

In the Bible it is very clear that the honor and glory of God has supremacy over everything in a true believer's life. It seems that in Islam the survival and well-being of Muslim is more important than the honor of God.

Answer:-

This is untrue. The honour of God cannot be affected by man's actions. Christianity has forgotten God, the Father ("THE ONLY TRUE GOD - John 17:3) and worships Jesus, though Jesus condemns this (Matthew 7:21-23) And Paul says "For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus" 1 Tim 2:5

Islam on the other hand IS "Surrender to God" and we read:- "Say: Verily, my worship and my sacrifice, and my living and my dying belong to Allah, the Lord of the Worlds. He has no partner. This I am commanded, and I am foremost of those who surrender (unto Him)" 6:163-164

It cannot be denied that Muslims have certainly sacrificed themselves and lived and died for God.

Critic:-

One more observation: There seems to be some sort of reversal here. In Christianity, the believers are NOT allowed to kill others who might insult God or the prophets. We are called to testify even with the price of our own life to the truth of God, but if somebody mocks God or Jesus, it is not our job to punish him. God is the one who will judge and we are not allowed to usurp this position.

Many (though not all) Muslims seem to be just of the opposite opinion. Though they would justify that it is okay to rather deny God than die for him (see the above references on concealing the faith), they don't think it is wrong to kill somebody else if he acts hostile towards Allah or Muhammad. And "blaspheming the name of Muhammad" is worthy of the death sentence by the official state law of Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and maybe more countries where Muslims are in the majority. The same holds for the death penalty of apostasy even if one does not openly propagate against Islam, and only privately converts.

Answer:-

Muslims are allowed to defend themselves against aggression and persecution. The Quran itself prescribes no punishment for apostasy or blasphemy.

But blasphemy might cause social disorder, riots and deaths and, if not controlled, might lead to erosion of faith and morality, which will lead to dire consequences for the society. There was punishment for blasphemy in Christianity in the days when people still cared. The fact that people no longer care is not a sign of increased virtue.

Critic:-

I do not deny that Islam has had heroic martyrs. But it appears that those were better and more honorable in their actions and loyalty than Muhammad himself for whom the honor of God was seemingly not supreme. Those heroes of faith have risen above the quality of their religion itself. The value and truth of the religion of Islam has to be judged by Qur'an and Hadith-Sunnah.

Answer:-

What nonsense. The Prophet devoted his entire life to the service of God, was persecuted and fought battles. There is no indication that he ever faltered or denied God. Could people follow him if they thought he was a coward?

Critic:-

Let me present one more account in the Bible which speaks directly on this issue. When Jesus tells the disciples that they will all fall away from him and deny him, Peter emphatically states that he will rather die with him than deny him. And sure enough, when the soldiers come to arrest Jesus, Peter draws his sword to defend him (ready to enter jihad! Peter is a good Muslim). But Jesus forbids him to use the sword, he is arrested, tried and condemned to death. Peter on the other hand, now "on his own", first flees the scene but later comes back to watch from a distance. Some people recognize him (among them a "slave girl") and ask if he isn't also one of this Jesus' disciples. When Peter is this way "discovered" by them he is so afraid (to also be arrested and probably killed) that he denies to even know Jesus. And he does so three times this night, i.e. he conceals his true identity as a follower of Jesus [taqiyyah].

According to the quotes I presented above, I have the impression that many a Muslim would call this a "smart move". After all, what use is it to also get arrested and maybe killed? Isn't it better to save your life now, hide your faith so that you can be of use later on, even if it means to deny Jesus, God's Messiah?

Jesus had told Peter before the event, that he would deny him three times before the rooster crows, and when Peter hears the rooster crow after his third denial, he remembers Jesus word's [and his own promises] and breaking down weeps bitterly. Obviously, Peter was not of the impression that what he did was "commendable" or "smart". Jesus forbids the jihad [which Peter would have entered in for him] and the taqiyyah he committed out of fear and to save his skin is clearly described as weakness and failure.

Answer:-

Each Prophet has to deal with the circumstances in which he is placed. Had Jesus recommended armed struggle against the Romans as many wanted, his followers would have been destroyed as those Jews who did so were destroyed. The critic must know that in the Old Testament the people of God were required to fight. Is he trying to tell us that God was wrong in the past?

The critics opinions and objections are irrelevant. It is the instructions of God that count for Muslims.

It is the problem with the adherents of most religions, specially Christianity, that they have no conception of "circumstantial appropriateness" and, therefore, allow their religion itself to be eroded as circumstances change. There is really no excuse for this in Islam because the Quran tells us how the Prophets dealt with different conditions and affirms that each community was given rites and teachings appropriate for it.

Critic:-

All but one of the disciples of Jesus were martyred for their faith. Peter himself was crucified about 67 AD for confessing Jesus to be his Lord and for not worshipping the emperor. That is one reason why I do believe the testimony of the disciples. They authenticated their message with their life. That speaks of integrity to the uttermost degree. That has a much higher value in regard to authentication of their message than the memorization of the Qur'an by people who will abandon their faith when their life is in danger.

For the first 300 years thousands of Christians have paid for their faith with their life. Don't tell me they would tamper with the scriptures, invent their own stories and then die for what they know to be a lie. Certainly they made sure they have based their life on the truth before they died for the confession of Jesus as their Lord.

Answer:-

They might have believed what they died for. They might have understood things differently from what this critic thinks they believed.

Thousands of Muslims died for their faith during the time of Muhammad and millions since then. It is admirable that Christians sacrificed their lives for the faith, but only if it was not a foolish futile sacrifice. If it was admirable in Christians then it was admirable in Muslims and in any other people who make self-sacrifices. But self-sacrifice itself does not prove the truth of what they sacrifice themselves for. Many sacrificed themselves for Communism or Patriotism. On the contrary, Islam requires people to make the self-sacrifice not just for anything but for God. Some people are provoked into hysterical self-sacrifice by charismatic leaders or organizations such as the Church. For a long time the people could not themselves read the teachings of Jesus and were merely required to obey the Church, which created or adapted doctrines and practices in order to consolidate its power over people.

Critic:-

My Questions to Muslims regarding Pressure and Pretense.

What would you think if your professor, or your employer said to you: "Please be completely honest with me, but don't dare to disagree!" ? In the last article on the issue of "taqiyya" we have seen how Muhammad made it cheap to be a Muslim. As one might expect, there is also the other side of the same coin, i.e. Islam makes it expensive to those who are not Muslims. According to the Sharia, wherever Islam takes power the choice for the pagans is conversion to Islam or death. The choice for the people of the book is conversion or oppression in various forms.

In any case, refusing to convert to Islam means to pay dearly for this decision. The Sharia law is not executed in full anywhere today. But, as every religion, we can't judge Islam for the positive effect coming from the failure of its adherents as well as we do not condemn Islam itself for the negative consequences stemming from the failure of its followers to live up to its positive aspects. We have to evaluate any religion foremost by looking at its teachings.

Answer:-

There is greater justification for saying that the Christian Church has made it cheap to be a Christian - you have to do nothing, just accept that Jesus died for you. The Muslim must strive for Allah.

According to the Quran there is to be no compulsion in Religion. In a war of self-defense against attackers, it is only a matter of common intelligence that either (a) a peace treaty is agreed on or the enemy is neutralized by (b) death, (c) enslavement and imprisonment or (d) conversion. It was also possible for communities to (e) live under Islamic rule in return for a tax. This ensured them protection, allowed them to practice their faith freely, but also freed them from the obligation to fight but required them to respect the Islamic faith. This is not an unfair agreement. Many religious communities, including Jewish and Christian sought protection under Islamic rule and for centuries these communities enjoyed full religious tolerance, living amicably with Muslims and flourished. Religious intolerance and conflicts have arisen only recently owing mostly to Christian provocation. Compare life in Spain under Muslim rule with what happened after Christians took over. Consider also the events in the former Yugoslavia after the collapse of communism there.

Critic:-

I agree that the Qur'an speaks out against hypocrisy in various passages. Very few people have a desire to suffer. Nearly all will try to avoid suffering as much as possible. If resisting Islam means suffering and they have no great positive motivation to not be a Muslim the threat of oppression and disadvantage will easily convince them to confess Islam with their lips even though they couldn't care less about it in their hearts. Even if they have reservations and don't believe Islam to be true but have no other loyalty to God [as those who are truly Jews or Christians] or to another religion or conviction that is of great meaning to them, they will become Muslims if refusal to convert brings as many disadvantages as any non-Muslim in an Islamic state has.

Even though the Qur'an seems to speak out against hypocrisy, the fact that Islam applies pressure on all people in its realm of power to profess faith in Muhammad automatically creates many hypocrites. Islam recognizes that hypocrisy is a problem, the Qur'an condemns hypocrisy, but the actual Sharia laws drive people to become hypocrites because it rewards any profession of faith and punishes honest unbelief.

Answer:-

The Quran does not teach compulsory conversion. People have limitations and do all kinds of futile and evil things. The critic speaks as if there was no compulsory conversion under Christians - e.g. in Spain after Christians had defeated the Muslims under whom there had been religious tolerance for centuries. Do not missionaries bribe their flocks with medical aid and other incentives?

Critic:-

Hypocrisy is only condemned verbally, apostasy is punished by death. It is for you to guess how many apostates choose to be apostates in their heart only and will continue to be Muslims with their lips as consequence... The death penalty for the apostate, the dhimmi laws, etc. have been discussed here before and if need be I can back this up with references. In the interest of shortness they are omitted for this article.

Answer:-

I am sure the critic knows that there is no punishment for apostasy in the Quran. It is not apostasy but treachery or treason that is punished. When Muslims are under attack, a person who leaves Islam may well become a traitor and commit treason. All communities punish traitors. However, Christianity does accept the Old Testament as did Jesus. There we read that when Moses returned from Mount Sinai he found that the Israelites had deserted their faith and taken to worship the Golden Calf. What did God order him to do? He ordered him to kill them and 3000 were killed (Exodus 32:27-28). Could Hebrewism have survived had this deviation not been nipped in the bud? Purposes and circumstances dictate what is appropriate and wise, and wisdom is not the same as dogma or principle.

(Continued in next article)

----------<O>----------

Answering-AIorg-08.........Contents