@ mlks_baby

When do we know what kind of interpretation to give to what verse in the Bible? Some are interpreted allegorically, while others literarily. What are the yardsticks for their interpretations? The verse where Jesus (ASW) asked the person without sin to cast the first stone as you rightly said, is expected to reprove the hypocritical Jews, but still it doesn't say we should not have human Judges as you asserted. Just imagine a world without law, wouldn't that be chaotic? So saying Jesus (ASW) meant that the heart should be the judge of our afairs is definitely not entirely workable. In the past, even adherents of Judaism worked with the heart too. But the law is the collective hearts of every member of the society which rewards good and punishes evil to serve as a deterrent to other people who may just have lost their hearts. Have you ever heard of cold-blooded? It means tthe person has no conscience again. Now, assuming christianity was governing the world, how would you say society should deal with a cold-blooded killer that has no intention to stop killing? Please respond to this questions as it is very findamental if I have to understand the system christianity proposes to govern life on earth.

@ Isaho and IG
Thanks for your prayers. May God The Most High, The Most Beneficient, The Creator of The Heavens and Earth, The King of The Day of Judgement, bless you too, your families, and all others that want to establish Justice and peace on earth for the good of all of humanity.

@ syrup,
Thanks for being understanding and open-it is the hallmark of good reasoning, sound mind and wisdom.

ajia23:

@ mlks_baby
When do we know what kind of interpretation to give to what verse in the Bible? Some are interpreted allegorically, while others literarily. What are the yardsticks for their interpretations?

@ajia23,

Nice to know about your increasing interest in my write-ups. Let me make myself clear and share a few things in answer to your questions.

Interpretating the Bible is basically a matter of context on any subject. There are literal understandings as well as alllegorical connotations. Take for instance, the subject of circumcision. When we read of God establishing circumcision as a token of His covenant with Abraham in Gen. 17:10-14, we understand that in a literal sense in the context that it appears. Consequently, Abraham followed through with a literal application of that injunction, circumcising every male member of his family, as we read in Gen. 17:23 and 21:4. Consequently, this passed into the Mosaic Law in a literal sense (Exo. 12:43-44, 48; Lev. 12:3).
However, there is another sense in which circumcision is allegorically implied; and that can be understood in their proper contexts as well. The point is, in applying God's Word to our moral and spiritual lives, the focus is not simply a matter of outward, empty rituals. Rather, there's quite often an intrinsic meaning to whatever commandment is given to God's people. As in the case at hand, circumcision was given with the intrinsic intent of pointing to a condition of obedience to God's word.
Therefore, any male among the Israelites who was not circumcised was actually manifesting a rebellious spirit towards God's covenant. It is in this sense that Moses reiterated the meaning of the circumcision in such verses as the following: "Circumcise therefore the foreskin of your heart, and be no more stiffnecked. And the LORD thy God will circumcise thine heart, and the heart of thy seed, to love the LORD thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul, that thou mayest live" (Deut. 10:16 & 30:6).
We see from this that circumcision primarily pointed to obedience of heart, so that love for God could be genuine in the life of a person professing to belong to God. In this sense then, circumcision was allegorical, rather than literal; but the allegorical did not negate the literal in that context. All this was under the Law; but under the dispensation of grace, it took a deeper meaning while still pointing to basically the same thing about obedience of heart.
The key to understanding any text of the Bible is to look at the context and ask the following questions as guides:

# who is the speaker and who is the recipient

# what was being said and what did it point to

# what dispensation is it pointing to - the Old Covenant or the New Covenant

# what is the contextual application of the text

# what does it mean to you?

This is not an exhaustive guide, but one will find them useful in studying the Bible. The last one is especially important, because even Jesus Himself made it clear enough that God's Word is given only to those who sincerely seek to understand and obey it; implying that anyone not willing to seek God's blessing will not understand them and will find every reason to berate whatever he or she finds therein:
John 7:17 - "If anyone desires to do His will, he will know about the doctrine,
whether it is from God, or whether I am speaking on My own authority.

When you read the Bible with a sincere heart to seek and understand God's ways and love, the context of any passage becomes clear and unambiguous.

ajia23:

The verse where Jesus (ASW) asked the person without sin to cast the first stone as you rightly said, is expected to reprove the hypocritical Jews, but still it doesn't say we should not have human Judges as you asserted.

First, I don't think there was any assertion in my rejoinder denying human judges. I'm sorry, but it didn't seem so to me; and perhaps you could help me by quoting the line of my supposed assertion as alleged. In anycase, Christianity does not deny the recognition of civil and political governments in the world today; and we have a patriotic duty as citizens of our various countries to be law-abiding, peaceful, and paying our taxes (see Rom. 13:1-7).

ajia23:

Just imagine a world without law, wouldn't that be chaotic? So saying Jesus (ASW) meant that the heart should be the judge of our afairs is definitely not entirely workable.

Perhaps you misread me, as I don't seem to have said exactly what you're alleging. My replies did not suggest "a world without law," and the closest thing in my statements alluding to your perception of my replies would perhaps be this:

Even then, the heart of man needed a spiritual transformation that had to be wrought by God alone, not by a Law or code of religion. Only a perfect One could provide perfection for others; and that is precisely what Christ did in His vicarious death and resurrection (Heb. 10:14).

"A Law or code of religion" (if that's what informed your query) simply pointed to the Law of Moses; and you know yourself that God is not enforcing the Mosaic Law upon political and civil governments today. So, I didn't suggest a world without law; and still more, Jesus' application of God's Word to the heart of the believer is entirely workable - by the power and help of the Spirit of God.

ajia23:

In the past, even adherents of Judaism worked with the heart too.

I agree, and I've quoted Deut. 10:16 a couple of times to show that.

ajia23:

But the law is the collective hearts of every member of the society which rewards good and punishes evil to serve as a deterrent to other people who may just have lost their hearts. Have you ever heard of cold-blooded? It means tthe person has no conscience again. Now, assuming christianity was governing the world, how would you say society should deal with a cold-blooded killer that has no intention to stop killing? Please respond to this questions as it is very findamental if I have to understand the system christianity proposes to govern life on earth.

Let me refer once again to Romans 13. You should understand that Christianity does respects political and civil governments, and recognizes that cold-blooded criminals in any civil society are liable to face its political and governing laws. The various expressions of political governments in the world do not have to be religious in order to enforce a code of ethics for the proper functioning of a society respecting and adhering to the human rights of individual members of its society. That is something the Bible also calls our attention to as Christians, and you might like to consider the following:

"For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same. . . Render therefore to all their dues:tribute to whom tribute is due; custom to whom custom; fear to whom fear; honour to whom honour." (Rom. 13:3,7).

"Submit yourselves to every ordinance of man for the Lord's sake: whether it be to the king, as supreme; Or unto governors, as unto them that are sent by him for the punishment of evildoers, and for the praise of them that do well. For so is the will of God, that with well doing ye may put to silence the ignorance of foolish men" (1 Pet. 2:13-15).

Now, if member of any civil society goes about as a cold-blooded criminal and is caught (whether as a murderer, dare-devil robber, or whatever else punishable as an offence), he is liable to the civil law of that society, and the Bible clearly endorses that application.

Christianity is a very practical lifestyle, respecting the rights of people to live in mutual and peaceful co-existence in any society, and upholding the egalitarian principles of honour to human rights all over the world. Unfortunately and admittedly, its history has not been entirely spotless by the atrocities carried out by people professing to be its adherents. However, any open-minded investigation will find it true and practical as to its essential and timeless message as found in the New Testament (without divorcing it from the Old Testament prophecies of the Messiah).

Thank you once again for your calm reasoning and hope that my response will be helpful in your latest enquiry.

@ mlks_baby

Thanks for your explanations, they really helped. But you must also know that much of the law governing Western Nations, and their former colonies are Judeo-Christian in nature and thus the reason why a person convicted of killing is also liable to be put to death. Even though a lot of these laws have been modified into even forms that are presently anti-christian, their roots are still Judeo-christian. This is the same way the Sharia tries to be a judge for Muslims.

And I am happy christianity supports man's insurbudination to criminal as well as civil laws. Now, I am also sure that if there was a law to be introduced that will for instance legalise anti-christian beliefs, christianity will oppose this law. This therefore means a tacit effort to contribute to the laws that will judge mankind. So, christianity also influences how man is governed in just the same way as Islam tries to influence the laws according to it's interpretation of God's law. It's only that the latter seems to enforce it's law more than the former. If this proves to be true, then Jesus (ASW) obviously did not want people to keep on being prostitutes or adulteresses and did not abolish a punishment for adultery. He only asked the Jews what the Prophet of Islam also asked Muslims to do, use their hearts as the first Judge, and try to repent secretly between themselves and God, but also allows a public law that forbids the proliferation of that crime on the scale witnessed today. That is to say, the law should be punitive enough to serve as a deterrent to others from exhibiting their sexual profligacy and indiscretion publicly. This is what Islam seeks to do. It is wrong to interprete this to mean a blood-thirstiness on the part of Islam, but rather a control measure to ensure that crimes like that are rarely shown brazenly in public, while at the same time allowing people who fall to repent secretly.

Great to read yours. I don't confuse Islam and a blood-thirsty rule, and as long as we keep issues in perspective, misapplication will be minimised.

That most of the civil and political governments base their constitutions on Judeo-Christian values does not necessarily mean they're acting on God's behalf in a religious sense. Christianity recognizes the civil rule of nations, and if there's any verse that accentuates that, it should be Luke 20:25 - "And he said unto them, Render therefore unto Caesar the things which be Caesar's, and unto God the things which be God's." Political and religious issues are never confused in the Bible, even if many have confused them today.

The democracies of the West and elsewhere are dynamic; whereas Christianity is unchanging and does not need anyone's political vote to be enforced because it deals with individuals who believe in Jesus Christ.

The Law of Moses in the Old Testament could not apply to gentile/non-Jewish nations. The New Testament was not given as a charter to be enforced upon political nations. What Islam does with Sharia Law is a totally different thing - and that is the forceful enforcement of religious law on non-Muslims.

The heart and consciences of people are involved in all kinds of constitutional laws - religious and political. When you begin to get specific, you'll find that politically, fundamental human rights recognize certain basic features. For example, crime is counter-productive to any society, and there are punitive measures against such crimes. Civil and political governements may punish sexual crimes like rape in a different manner than what we find in the Bible or the Qur'an; in that sense, these governing principles are not based on the Mosaic Law or Christian injunctions - they are recognized democratically as crimes, and society frowns on them. The same thing applies to the example you gave: the proliferation of any crime at all is the responsibility of political governments, but that does not necessarily mean that politics and religion are misconstrued the one for the other.

Jesus did not come to establish a continuum of the Old Testament economy under the Mosaic Law. He came rather to give them their practical significance, fulfill their demands, and provide a basis for the New Covenant based on the OT prophecies. When we understand His mission in the first advent, the ambiguities begin to fade.

@ mlks_baby

I see your point.

My respects, ajia23.

Glory belong to God, only and His blessings upon His noble Messenger (SAW). For if you want to know Islam, you need to first purify yourself, inside and outside. You need to empty your soul and your mind from all kind of religious garbbage and supplicate to the Almighty to show you and give you true guidiance. If you want to know how to bake, you go to a master baker for a thorough lesson, you pay attention while the lecture is going on so that you might gain the knowledge. The differnce between goodness and evilness, even among mankind in any organized society is reward for good and punishment for evil, this is the rule of law whan the evildoes is caught. If human set this law for itself, then you have any thought that God the Almighty have make clear distinction between Paradise and Hellfire. If human being do have sex as means of enjoyment on this earth, you think it will be deprived from the list of felicities in paradise. Muhammad is a noble prophet. History have proven it, you just have to read his life history, also Michael hart's 100, go to the Brooklyn Museum or is it the Library on Eastern Parkway. You will see his name as number one, the rest followed. To judge Islam, you need to understand Qur'an, a book that has remained the same and had stood all test of times including the evil doers several attempts to corrupt its believers accepting any doctoring of it. In the Qur'an you find many scientific statements that was not possible to be made at that time even among the scientific communities of its days. Only just recently that some discoveries are been made which fit some of the profound verses. As the world remains, there will always be proofs from it, discovered by muslims and non muslims alike. Qur'an is a book that has no expiration date, it will not be revised nor updated because it is from the Lord of the world and He is protecting it. Islam is the truest monotheist religion. I know it and you see all the signs of it in the West this days. I pray for the guidians of all of mankind who truly want to receive guidiance. Do not let the evil part of modernization seduce you into Hellfire, it is an evil end, indeed.

@olabowale,

olabowale:

For if you want to know Islam, you need to first purify yourself, inside and outside. You need to empty your soul and your mind from all kind of religious garbbage and supplicate to the Almighty to show you and give you true guidiance.

Consider that applies to the Bible as well. Check this verse:

James 1:21 ~ Wherefore lay apart all filthiness and superfluity of naughtiness,
and receive with meekness the engrafted word, which is able to
save your souls.

Perhaps, you'd like to give it a try and see what Christ has for you - He is able to
save to the uttermost, those who come to Him in faith.

olabowale:

Michael hart's 100, go to the Brooklyn Museum or is it the Library on Eastern Parkway. You will see his name as number one, the rest followed.

Well there - I thought Muslims usually say that there is no comparison of prophets
in Islam? So, what have you done by saying that Muhammad's name is "number
one, the rest followed?" Besides, that's Michael Hart's subjective evaluation and
does not reflect what the Qur'an says about the prophet, does it?

olabowale:

Islam is the truest monotheist religion. I know it and you see all the signs of it in the West this days.

That is yet to be proven, as some of us are not yet satisfied with the plural pronouns
in reference to Allah in the Quran. Oh, I know that so many Muslims have tried to explain
them away, but the facts are there and still need to be proven not by the sword, but
by clear reference that Allah was not actually speaking of himself when using "We" and
"Us".

@ Gwaine

I reaffirm my earlier statement that muslims are not expected to make comparison amongst the Prophets. The Quran certainly says this in a number of verses, of which I will give one example. In Quran 2 V 136, God says

Say (O Muslims): We believe in Allah and that which is revealed unto us and that which was revealed unto Abraham, and Ishmael,
and Isaac, and Jacob, and the tribes, and that which Moses and Jesus received, and that which the Prophets received from their
Lord. We make no distinction between any of them, and unto Him we have surrendered.


Now, you may see some Muslims indulge in this, it don't make it right however. His reference to the classification made by the Time magazine is just to butress his point that people view Muhammad (SAW) as a great person as against the view held by some that he was an evil person. He is not intending to compare him with other Prophets.

As regards your other question about Allah using We when he refers to himself, I tried to explain it to mlks_baby earlier, but she wouldn't accept my explanation, but let me post this may be it might help your understanding of my previous argument that it is a majestic way of speech employed by the noble even on earth, how much more the King of the Day of Judgement Himself ( Azza wa Jalla).



Answer. The Qur’an says very clearly that there is only One God, Allah. “There is no god but Allah” is the basic principle of Islam. There is no ambiguity about this fact in the Qur’an and there are hundreds of ayat or verses of the Qur’an that make this point very clear. Belief in more than one God is Shirk (polytheism) and a major sin according to the Qur’an.

Whenever in the Qur’an Allah is mentioned in the third person there are always singular pronouns used, such as He, him (Huwa or Hu). Whenever Allah is spoken to in the second person there are also singular pronouns, such as Thou, Thine and Thee (Anta, Ka). However only in the first person some times the pronouns I, My or Mine (Ana, Iyaya, ya) are used and sometimes We, Us and Our (Nahnu, Na) are used.

This is a style of speech. Sometime the speaker says I and sometime says we. We also use that in our conversations. In the Qur’an you will see that often the first person singular such as I or My is used, when Allah speaks about His love, care and closeness and forgiveness for His servants. In a similar way the first person plural is often used when Allah speaks about His power, majesty, glory, great deeds or when He speaks about His anger and wrath for the sinners and criminals. (This is, of course, the general use. Sometime the reverse is also the case, depending on the context of the Surah.)

See for example the verses where the first person singular is used: “When My servants ask thee concerning Me, I am indeed close (to them): I listen to the prayer of every suppliant when he calleth on Me: let them also, with a will, listen to My call, and believe in Me: that they may walk in the right way.” (al-Baqarah 2:186) Or “Verily, I am Allah: there is no god but I: so serve thou Me (only), and establish regular prayer for celebrating My praise.” (Taha 20:14) or “But, without doubt, I am (also) He that forgives again and again, to those who repent, believe, and do right, who, in fine, are ready to receive true guidance.” (Taha 20:82) or see another example where both pronouns are used side by side, “Before them the People of Noah rejected (their Messenger): they rejected Our servant, and said, “Here is one possessed!” and he was driven out. Then he called on His Lord: “I am one overcome: do Thou then help (me)!” So We opened the gates of heaven, with water pouring forth. And We caused the earth to gush forth with springs. So the waters met (and rose) to the extent decreed. But We bore him on an (Ark) made of broad planks and caulked with palm-fiber: She floats under Our eyes (and care): a recompense to one who had been rejected (with scorn)! And We have left this as a Sign (for all time): then is there any that will receive admonition? But how (terrible) was My Penalty and My Warning? (al-Qamar 54:9-16)

See also some verses where the first person plural is used: “We have, without doubt, sent down the Message; and We will assuredly guard it (from corruption).” (al-Hijr 15:9) or “We created not the heavens, the earth, and all between them, but for just ends. And the Hour is surely coming” (al-Hijr 15:85) or “And among His Signs is this: thou seest the earth barren and desolate; but when We send down rain to it, it is stirred to life and yields increase. Truly, He Who gives life to the (dead) earth can surely give life to (men) who are dead. For He has power over all things.” (Fussilat 41:39). Or “Already has Our Word been passed before (this) to Our Servants sent (by Us). That they would certainly be assisted. And that Our forces, they surely must conquer. So turn thou away from them for a little while. And watch them (how they fare), and they soon shall see. Do they wish (indeed) to hurry on our Punishment? But when it descends into the open space before them, evil will be the morning for those who were warned (and heeded not) (al-Saffat 37:171-177). There are many other examples.

Christian writers in their desperate desire to prove their doctrine of Trinity have sometime interpreted some Biblical passages where first person plural is used to suggest that this means the “Divine Trinity”. For example in the Bible it is mentioned, “Then God said, “Let us make man in our image¦” (Genesis 1:26). Christian writers contend that this means that there is plurality in God (We seek Allah’s forgiveness for mentioning this blasphemy.) Sometime Christian missionaries also go to simple Muslims and try to confuse them by taking some verses from the Qur’an and tell them that the Qur’an also supports such doctrines. I tried to explain this point in some detail, because I have often heard this type of questions from some Christians.


It is a feature of literary style in Arabic that a person may refer to himself by the pronoun nahnu (we) for respect or glorification. He may also use the word ana (I), indicating one person, or the third person huwa (he). All three styles are used in the Qur’an, where Allaah addresses the Arabs in their own tongue. (Fataawa al-Lajnah al-Daa’imah, 4/143).

“Allaah, may He be glorified and exalted, sometimes refers to Himself in the singular, by name or by use of a pronoun, and sometimes by use of the plural, as in the phrase (interpretation of the meaning): ‘Verily, We have given you a manifest victory” [al-Fath 48:1], and other similar phrases. But Allaah never refers to Himself by use of the dual, because the plural refers to the respect that He deserves, and may refer to His names and attributes, whereas the dual refers to a specific number (and nothing else), and He is far above that.” (Al-‘Aqeedah al-Tadmuriyyah by Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyah, p. 75).

These words, innaa (“Verily We”) and nahnu (“We”), and other forms of the plural, may be used by one person speaking on behalf of a group, or they may be used by one person for purposes of respect or glorification, as is done by some monarchs when they issue statements or decrees in which they say “We have decided…” etc. [This is known in English as “The Royal We” – Translator]. In such cases, only one person is speaking but the plural is used for respect. The One Who is more deserving of respect than any other is Allaah, may He be glorified and exalted, so when He says in the Qur’an innaa (“Verily We”) and nahnu (“We”), it is for respect and glorification, not to indicate plurality of numbers. If an aayah of this type is causing confusion, it is essential to refer to the clear, unambiguous aayaat for clarification, and if a Christian, for example, insists on taking ayaat such as “Verily, We: it is We Who have sent down the Dhikr (i.e., the Qur’an)” [al-Hijr 15:9 – interpretation of the meaning] as proof of divine plurality, we may refute this claim by quoting such clear and unambiguous aayaat as (interpretation of the meanings): “And your god is One God, there is none who has the right to be worshipped but He, the Most Beneficent, the Most Merciful” [al-Baqarah 2:163] and “Say: He is Allaah, the One” [al-Ikhlaas 112:1] – and other aayaat which can only be interpreted in one way. Thus confusion will be dispelled for the one who is seeking the truth. Every time Allaah uses the plural to refer to Himself, it is based on the respect and honour that He deserves, and on the great number of His names and attributes, and on the great number of His troops and angels.” (Reference: Al-‘Aqeedah al-Tadmuriyyah by Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyah, p. 109). And Allaah knows best.

Islam Q&A

I hope this addresses your concerns.

@ajia23,

I appreciate your efforts at trying to douse the seeming confusion/dilemma
that Muslims are faced with concerning the issue of monotheism claimed in
Islam. The problem is that nothing convincing has been provided in the
references you quoted to help the case.

Suppose you're trying to convert a non-Muslim by persuasion of the facts in
the Qur'an that what I misconstrue as suggestive of polytheism is quite to
the contrary, what criteria would one hope to present in moving the discourse
forward? I'll attempt just one: God cannot be equalled to any being - and
that is what Islam tells the world. Granted.

Now when speaking of His glory in terms of creation, prayer and worship, do
the same rules apply, or they are simply conveniently re-arranged for sake of
conviction or a lack thereof? This is what you stated:

"In a similar way the first person plural is often used when Allah speaks about
His power, majesty, glory, great deeds or when He speaks about His anger
and wrath for the sinners and criminals." [7th paragraph]. . . and “We created
not the heavens, the earth, and all between them, but for just ends. And the
Hour is surely coming” (al-Hijr 15:85).

My question then is: who created - Allah alone, or with those to whom he
connects the plural pronouns ("We" and "Us"? If Allah alone created, why was
it not simply stated in the first person singular? And if he alone speaks of His
power, majesty, and glory, why was it necessary for him to have used these
pronouns to make it sound like those included in the "We" and "Us" texts
are iin fact sharing in the same power, majesty and glory?

This is why I find it untenable for Muslims to complain and accuse Christianity
of polytheism if they cannot provide satisfactory answers to these verses in
the Qur'an as regards the same issue in Islam. What I have read so far in your
response hasn't addressed this concern in the most essential manner, because
when you speak of what is attributed to God alone, then by your own admittance,
Allah is speaking of himself and those with him - and that in reference to works
that should be attributive to God alone (creation).

On the whole, thank you for your efforts. And may I remark that it's true not all
Muslims like to compare prophets in Islam, regardless the texts in the Qur'an
to the contrary. In olabowale's post, I was concerned that he clearly did so,
and expressed my observation thereto.

Oh well how am I going to explain this.

You see, in Arabic language, the dual is used for one purpose only-to show numbers in much the same way as the singular. However, the plural is used for two purposes, to show respect or gloryfication. Now, scholars of Arabic language have pointed out that the usage of the Plural for Allah in the Quran is for the second purpose. So, unless you have proof to the contrary, this explanation holds true. It's very similar to the Yorubas, when their king addresses the people, he uses awa, meaning us, while actually referring to himself. This is edifying and gloryfying language which none in this world deserves to use, better than God.

Any allusion to plurality of God in those verses is mischievous and designed to pick holes where there is none. Except if you have studied the Arabic language and can authoritatively say with proofs that this grandiose language or style is not used ordinarily, would I agree with you.

Thanks for sticking to the issue.

I understand the usage of such expressions in social, diplomatic and
political circles; and in almost every case that comes to mind, a sense
of collective action is in view.

My concern, however, is that in matters of divine glory and activity,
none else could share in the respect due only to God - and that's the
crux of the issue with the plural pronouns. "We created" - in reference
to Allah speaking, my question is: who created - Allah alone or some
other being/beings with him?

It's not in my place to provide "proof to the contrary", for that would
suppose that I'd be trying to defend what I cannot understand and
for which I'm seeking answers. It does not help me get closer to the
enquiry by merely explaining the use of those pronouns in Arabic or
any other language. The pivot on which this discussion turns is only
a matter of distinguishing between what is reserved for God alone,
and what could be understood without infringement in the concourse
of human experience.

"We created" is language that should be divested of any ambiguity,
and in which respect my enquiry is as stated earlier: "who created?"
- or, rephrasing that more closely, "who is the Creator?" It's easy to chorus
the solo - "God alone is Creator!" That being the case (as surely that's
my belief), what then is the meaning of the plural in the declaration in
several texts for whatever intent, that there should be a "We" in
the alone divine activity of creation? Surely, creation is not a collective
activity between God and the created - whatever other created being
there is (angels, spirits or whatever). For that understanding to ring
true, I suppose there would have to be a clear elucidation of the texts
alluding the "We" and "Us" to Allah.

Your responses so far have been much appreciated.

I gave you the example of the Yoruba people, indeed when the king takes a solitary decision, he still uses WE as against I that you would prefer him to use inspite of being a solitary decision. And providing 'proof to the contrary' simply means that you have considered the issue with an open mind, you carry out a research into Arabic language to verify whether what I stated earlier concerning the usage of Nahnu or We is correct, and if it is wrong, you provide that proof. Surely, I would assume that you are rigorous when you have a quest to know what seems to be unclear to you?

And if you refuse to accept that explanation by saying that it cannot be explained away using language, it only betrays your sense of prejudice in this matter. The Quran was revealed in Arabic language, and taking the position you currently hold about the explanation given is akin to learning a foreign language which you do not know, and the speakers of that language explain to you the usage of a word in their language, and you instead choose to reject it and enter into endless disagreement about the propriety or otherwise of that usage. Anyhow, what is a surety however, is that in many verses of the Quran, God says, I am One and Only. Now since this is unambiguously stated and emphasised, I would rather we left the matter that seems to be in conflict and settle for a very clear one. Or what would you do in a similar real life situation?

Here's what I see as prejudicial - the weakness in your inability to clearly
convey the crux of the issue to my understanding, and then levelling a
charge at me as if that settles the issue.

I don't see why the sudden turn around in a simple matter to accusations
where there ought not be one. Unless you first want to make an Arab of
me before becoming acquainted with the Qur'an, just like is suggestive of
your adumbrations in the case of the Yoruba people and language.

I didn't reject anything outright - my question was simple: If the Qur'an
alludes to a plural pronoun in the case of what belongs to God alone, who
then is actually the Creator when it says "We created"? Unless you
are asking me to take for granted that Allah and his angels are jointly the
creators, how has your analogy of the Yoruba people helped a clearer
understanding of the issue? Is there no difference between what alone
belongs to God and what is limited to human experience?

I don't see the prejudice in my enquiry, and to accuse me of one is not
helping your case. My boss sent me out a few minutes ago to deliver a very
sensitive message to a high representative. At being ushered into the oval
office of the recipient (a minister of trade and investment), I was asked:
"And who is in charge of _____?" Should I have said: "We are in charge" or
"My boss is in charge"? Do I have to become an Arab or a Yoruba to explain
my pun of the former case of "We are in charge" in reference to I and my
boss? Even then, I already know I'd have been thrown out as a fraud.

It's simple: your explanations have not helped to clarify the allusions of the
"We" and "Us" in reference to Allah. In matters of creation, worship, prayer
and service, only He who is alone God is deserving of recognition as pertains
to those; and the texts otherwise stating the plural is what I am about. I could
be accused of any and all things from prejudicial to whatever; but at least I'm a
human being seeking answers - and not just any answers will do.

The Quran was revealed in Arabic language, and taking the position you currently hold about the explanation given is akin to learning a foreign language which you do not know, and the speakers of that language explain to you the usage of a word in their language, and you instead choose to reject it and enter into endless disagreement about the propriety or otherwise of that usage. Anyhow, what is a surety however, is that in many verses of the Quran, God says, I am One and Only. Now since this is unambiguously stated and emphasised, I would rather we left the matter that seems to be in conflict and settle for a very clear one. Or what would you do in a similar real life situation?


I am tired of going round in circles.

Well then, if you feel you're going round in circles, that's your lot.

First, it's a foreign language - you admit to that. Second, I didn't
enter into "endless disagreement" about a language not my own,
- you're only supposing so as if to say I should shut up because
you're running round in circles.

I only made observations to olabowale's input, and subsequently
enquiries when you proffered your thesis about what I didn't
understand. Your aggravations haven't helped the issues at all.
What is more, it seems to me you're trying to force me to accept
your own explanations ferreted from some Arabic scholars without
recognizing my free rights to think for myself and query any issue
that begs for answers.

That you have nothing more helpful to my enquiries should not be
translated into your levelling accusations of prejudice at me. I just
wanted a clarification of issues in the text, and I hold no ill feelings
towards you for not being able to rescue the questions offered.

I have seen through your tactics, they will not work with me. You are given answers to your queries, you choose to ignore those answers, but continue to harp on your initial statements without even trying to investigate the veracity of the responses. That is not a quality I see often in people who are genuinely interested in finding out answers to their enquiries. Hold your opinion, I have no right and will not attempt to force down any explanations on you as have been demonstarted by my invitation for you to disprove my assertions. This is what informed my conclusions that you are indeed prejudicial.

I do not have all ill feelings towards you, and it's okay for you to indulge in the luxury of believing in your own false propanganda, very few people actually possess the dismaying capability to do that. Judos.

As I said before - you could accuse me of anything from prejudice to
whatever else, and I see you've added a few more to the list: tactics,
and false propaganda. Is that all you could have done in an open
enquiry? And how has that helped to present you as a gentleman
able to address issues without recourse to invectives?

If you have no answers, it would have been sufficicent to say so; not
come back with unnecessary vituperations in the attempt to force me
into your own views. All I asked is that you persuade me, not perplex
me with vitriol. It's quite a simple case as to who, what and why of
the Qur'anic texts in question. Didn't I have the freedom to ask more
questions where your analogies have not satisfactorily addressed the
issue?

I hope you can do better than confirm my suspicions that he who has
no answers will substitute reason with rascality. If you're unable to
provide simple answers, try not writing me off the way you do - it'll
only spoil your case the more. But, of course, you're entitled the right
to be even more abusive if that's all you can do.

Just like I thought- resorting to an escapists tactic to avoid the main issue. Insinuating invectives, vitroil where there was none. A perfect example of an agent provocateur. Won't work with me. Pathetic.

Are you crying out that song for yourself - the escapist tactic?
That would be more suited to your case, you know.

Open your eyes - what crimes did I commit to have merited the
'prejudice' accusations and so-called 'false propaganda' you
attributed to me? If I had used those at you, would it have been
just quite normal and you wouldn't have cried hoo-ha as you're
now doing?

I asked a simple question: Who is Creator in "We created"?

What you continue to do is accuse me - why? Don't make me
laugh. I'm not an Arab, and must I be one in order to clearly
understand the Qur'an in English translation?

The Old Testament was written in Hebrew and Aramaic, but God
doesn't make Hebrews or Jews of everyone in order to understand
the OT. So, what are you getting at?

Since you're unable to reach me with communication by persuasion,
there's no need for the escapist tactics you've been playing until
now.

I invite WestlyAna, and other impartial people to see the refutation of an argument that cannot hold water. Any other objective person, you are welcome, especially KAG, Nferyn, and Rhodalyn.

Anyone is welcome to contribute - as if that makes Arabs of anyone.
The list of your accusations is growing, and I'm glad to see that you
now ask for impartiality - hoping that you'll not shout another one of
those hoo-ha when they don't agree with you.

@ Gwain
All that are in Qur'an today wre in it when it was first compiled. Further it was which were with the muslims from the very first revelation and until revelation was completed and no more. Qur' an is not a book that can be revised or edited, etc. It stands alone and the miracle in it tenders the heart of believers. Allah, the Almighty spoke of Ka'bbah as a nonviolateable house. You know, the birds of prey and the animals they prey on circumbulate this house together and never will the preyed be prey upon in this princint. This is the only structure on earth the hearts melt and weep when you sight it. Your quote from the Bible is very interesting. However, since your heart is not able to see the deficiencies of your way at this time, I will like for you to ponder the following; Was Jesus, son of Mary the writer or the one who dictated the present Bible. Is the present Bible the words of God, word for word. If it is , then what were the old editions and presently, which present version and church denomination has the word for word God's words. Prior to 1971, the Bible I used in High school BK was different to what was used in the same BK at the same school starting from 1972. Do you really think that any of God's creations has the right to change His words, and that often as it is with the Bible. There are many writers of the Bible, each section a different writer. In the New Testament for example, the Gospels were 'according to', then a first name . Would you accept a letter that is written to you carrying a first name only. Will you take it as an official document. Do you thick you can write your first name on a document and you ask the public notary to attest it. Can any third party issue a document and write your first name and ascrube it to you and you and or your loved ones will accept it as coming from you and therefore act upon it. If all of the above is tyrue in personal case, do you think that the Bible should be treated in the same carefree manner, especially when you believe it is word of God, all of it, word for word without any of His creation addition and subtraction. The other side is the Qur'an. It is memorized completely by young and old, male and female around the world, other s memoraize from a small portion to a verying larger portions to almost its totality, inshort it is a book of life, full of past miracles, present amd future miracles and predictions. I deals with human conditions and emotions, inshort, it gives you guidiance, hope and longing for the mercies of the True Merciful.

@olabowale,

Thank you for your reply and questions. First, let me guarantee you that I don't pretend
to have all the answers to every single question about the Qur'an and the Bible - I'm
seeking answers that will bless and strengthen my understanding in the things of God.

Now to your enquiries.

I wonder if you believe that the Qur'an has always been as it appears today and that
nothing was ever missing that could not have been added to it. It's one thing to accuse
the Bible of altercations, corruption and untrustworthiness; but it's quite another thing to
ignore the fact that the Qur'an endorsed the Bible at one time until the tide turned for
Muhammad.

Further, both authentic and spurious translations and versions of the Bible abound in the
market; but this is true as well for the Qur'an, and Muslims have disagreed between
themselves as to which versions are faithful translations and which are regarded as spurious.
It goes both ways, and there's no need to think the Qur'an escapes such accusations of
untrustworthiness in translations and versions.

olabowale:

Was Jesus, son of Mary the writer or the one who dictated the present Bible. Is the present Bible the words
of God, word for word. If it is , then what were the old editions and presently, which present version and church
denomination has the word for word God's words. Prior to 1971, the Bible I used in High school BK was
different to what was used in the same BK at the same school starting from 1972.

You're really missing something here. Just because Jesus was not the writer or the
one who dictated the present or past Bible is no grounds to distrust what it says.
First, what Injil (or Injeel) was the Qur'an endorsing initially - the one written and
dictated by Jesus? And if Jesus did not dictate the Injil (Gospel) that the Qur'an endorsed,
what then is the grounds for your worry?

The Bible does not make pretenses about the fact that its writers were inspired to write
what they did; and it is only left to the reader to search its pages and ask pertinent
questions that reveal its true claims. You should have been asking the compiler and writer
of the Qur'an the same questions, most pertinent of which is: "What Injil and Torah did the
Qur'an endorse by Allah before turning against its own endorsements?"

olabowale:

Do you really think that any of God's creations has the right to change His words, and that often as it is with the Bible.

No, I don't think so - and certainly not 'often as it is with the Bible.' I've shared the
difference between a translation/version and an original document. And to even think
of it, hasn't the Qur'an suffered the same position by the spurious translations in many
languages in the market? Besides, some people argue about the fact that there are
reasons enough to believe that the Qur'an in its earliest compilation had a few verses
missing in it, and the consequences of revealing this has been dire indeed upon the
whistle blowers.

One cannot guarantee that just because a document has not been changed and has
remained word for word, therfore it "proves" ipso facto that it is the Word of God.
William Shakespear's works have not been changed from its original composition, even
though there are revised and abridged 'editions'. Similarly, the works of ancient philosophers
dating earlier than the Qur'an remain in their original composition - does that prove ipso facto
that they are necessarily the Word of God?

Personally, I think more involving questions should be asked as to what constitutes the
"inspired Word of God" - and Christianity has never claimed that God's Word cannot be
translated into languages. What it does assure us of is that its promises are true, and its
prophecies are sure and will come to pass. If by translating the Bible into other languages
the message has been changed thereby, then you would have a point. So far, there's no
essential deviation of the coherrent message that Jesus is the Son of God and the promised
Messiah; and the prophecies of both the OT and NT remain as true and essential as ever
- facts which the Qur'an ignores and Muslims refuse to consider.

olabowale:

There are many writers of the Bible, each section a different writer. In the New Testament for example, the Gospels were 'according to', then a first name . Would you accept a letter that is written to you carrying a first name only. Will you take it as an official document. Do you thick you can write your first name on a document and you ask the public notary to attest it. Can any third party issue a document and write your first name and ascrube it to you and you and or your loved ones will accept it as coming from you and therefore act upon it. If all of the above is tyrue in personal case, do you think that the Bible should be treated in the same carefree manner, especially when you believe it is word of God, all of it, word for word without any of His creation addition and subtraction.

If your responses were merely for the sake of arguments, we might never come to an
end on this topic. It is true that there are no less than 40 writers of the Bible - OT and NT;
and the crux of the matter is that we understand these writers were inspired by God's Spirit
to pen down what they did. Isaiah, Nehemiah, Ezekiel, Ezra, I Samuel & 2 Samuel are all
examples of books in the OT bearing names of individuals; and in the NT there are such as
Mark, Luke, John, James and Jude. Now, it is also true that a document even in social concourses
can be received as authentic and trustworthy when a third party (whatever you meant by that)
has issued that document - what about the writing and sealing of a will of inheritance?

The interesting thing about your concern here is that Allah in the Qur'an endorsed these "Gospels"
(the Injil) and the Old Testament (the Torah) when they bore the personal names of people who were
inspired to write them, so there's just no point in being disaffected about this issue. If you argue that
a document cannot be trusted on the mere basis of it bearing the personal names of people, then you
should apply the same rule to sections of the Qur'an that bear the personal names of some of the
prophets and stop believing whatever the Qur'an says about those sections. A few examples:

YUNUS (Jonas) - Sura 10; YUSUF (Joseph) - Sura 12 IBRAHIM (Abraham) - Sura 14

MARYAM (Mary) - Sura 19; . . . and even Sura 47 that bears MUHAMMAD's personal name.

The question for you is, why would you want to believe the 'correctness' of the Qur'an if it is affected
by the same complaints you raised about the Bible? And if you cannot apply this same rule to the
Qur'an, why lay the allegations against the Bible of sections bearing the personal names of writers?
I expected a reasoned discourse with you, not unbalanced allegations that ignore the same problems
that you're happy to conveniently ignore in the Qur'an. When the compiler of the Qur'an put the texts
together - was he not acting in the same capacity as a third party? Certainly, even when for convenience
sake (for the Muslim love of the Qur'an) you disagree that a compiler is a third party, he is as guilty
as the same "third party" writers of the Bible that the Qur'an endorsed unequivocally.

To guarantee you, the Bible is not "treated with the same carefree manner" as you alleged - not by
true Christians. And if you wonder about that, think more closely about those Muslims who have
treated the Qur'an with the same carelessness that informs your concern.

olabowale:

The other side is the Qur'an. It is memorized completely by young and old, male and female around the world, other s memoraize from a small portion to a verying larger portions to almost its totality, inshort it is a book of life, full of past miracles, present amd future miracles and predictions. I deals with human conditions and emotions, inshort, it gives you guidiance, hope and longing for the mercies of the True Merciful.

That's admirable about the Qur'an, and much more could be said about the Bible - the miracles,
the prophecies, issues about human conditions (emotions, suffering, love, interactions between
people, love for God and love for man, etc.), its sure promises for sustained hope, the practical
mercies, grace and divine love of God towards undeserving people, the reality of its convictions in
the human heart, and much, much more including the great Day of God Almighty to rout evil
and usher in everlasting righteousness. I'll urge you spend time reading the Bible with an unbiased
mindset, and then ask yourself pertinent questions about those protions which the Qur'an was
happy to endorse, and see if you've not been attacking what you've not read and also see what
blessings you have been missing.

Many thanks again for your concerns and challenges, and I hope that you'll find some benefit in
my reply.

Thanks all for keeping this thread going. I have been away to nigeria on vacation for the past 2 weeks. I should become more active on the thread now.

@ajia23

Anyhow, what is a surety however, is that in many verses of the Quran, God says, I am One and Only. Now since this is unambiguously stated and emphasised, I would rather we left the matter that seems to be in conflict and settle for a very clear one. Or what would you do in a similar real life situation?  I am tired of going round in circles.

Can we settle for the same conclusion with regards to the Bible where it is mentioned unequivocally that the God we serve is one?Mark 12:29 - And Jesus answered him, The first of all the commandments is, Hear, O Israel; The Lord our God is one Lord:  Mark 12:32 - And the scribe said unto him, Well, Master, thou hast said the truth: for there is one God; and there is none other but he:  1 Corinthians 8:6 - But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him.   Galatians 3:20 - Now a mediator is not a mediator of one, but God is one. Ephesians 4:6 - One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all.

Hey Gwaine, you made some very interesting inputs in your reply to olabowale's. What surprised me is your allusion to the possibility that the Qur'an of today is not what Muslims have always claimed it to be:

Gwaine:

I wonder if you believe that the Qur'an has always been as it appears today and that
nothing was ever missing that could not have been added to it.

Not that I question what you might be suggesting in that statement (that the Qur'an has not always been as it appears today and probably that somethings might be missing that were not added). I'm only just wondering if there's any reference you might want to share in regards to that, or perhaps I'm misreading you.

I would've liked to see a follow up on that by olabowale so that I don't keep getting the feeling that Gwaine's reply says exactly what exists in the real world - that the Muslim claim of the preservation of the Qur'an is not what it actually is. My question then would be: could the Qur'an be taken seriously in its claim about the Bible (or any part of it)?

@syrup,

Thank you for your comments. Actually, I checked to make sure that
my statements had cogent backing and references; but at the time
of my response earlier to olabowale's, I didn't think it necessary to
have used them. I just answered through and thought to leave the
references out as much as possible for another time. I'd be glad to
share on those as soon as olabowale provides counter claims to my
reply, otherwise I'll try to share my comments with you by email, if
you make your e-addr available to me.

Peace to u all. Basically, the fundamental similarity between Islam and Christianity is there focus on worshiping God. But the difference is that Islam was given through his prophet(SAW) from God but Christianity was formed to praise there beloved Prophet Isah(ASW);reffered to as Jesus. I dont think this issue should be causing problems for us. i really apreciate all d contributions from everyone. i wish to hear from u all.

Taah, how did you come about your inference that "Christianity
was formed to praise there beloved Prophet Isah(ASW);reffered
to as Jesus"? That's not what Christianity is; more than anything
it is a relationship by faith in Jesus who is the Messiah to bring
us to God so that we may enjoy His amazing grace and mercy.

ISAHO
@mlks babe,
I am touched by the death of your boyfriend, please accept my sincere condolence. I can really see from your postings that men,this lady has a passionate hatred for Islam and the Muslims. But i would like to say categorically that though your boyfriend died in the war in iraq, Islam and the muslims wouldn`t have been responsible to the untimely death.

Like i said in my earlier posting we should learn to respect other people`s views especially on religion. I wont fail to let you know that i salute your intelligence for your studies in both religions but i think you can do more than that like making people understand your view without making them look stupid for their beliefs.

Once again, may the gentle soul of your boyfriend rest in peace.

@ajia,
I enjoy your calm responses, you actually gave what you know and it`s in no where in your postings short of the Islamic teachings. My own understanding of the Quran about the world population is that there are three types of people, i) the Unbelivers, ii) the Believers and iii) the Hypocrites which constitute the larger population of the world, the Quran says alot about them and how they perpetrate their evils against the believers that is why today Islam suffers the pains of their misrepresentations.

But thanks to people like you who will come out to make the difference known to the world over.

Keep it up, May Allah reward you abundantly.

@TayoD,

I don't mean any harm, but i personally don't like your style. It is your type that can bring another Osama Bin Laden or cause another religious war. You use mlks babe as a shield to achieve your hidden motive which totally negate the motive you stated while beginning this debate. But i believe next time you will make amends because the Sky is very big to accommodate the birds to fly without touching each other.

@IG,

Your contributions actually mend the debate from derailing and retraced it back to the anticipated point of dicussion.

@nuru,

I took your silence not to be because you don't know what to say but because you had to take that bold and civilised step after you were being chickened out by the insult that your IQ was too low for the debate which nobody will tolerate.

I salute your boldness.

And to others that made their contribution. Well done all.

@ISAHO,

I find it difficult to understand how you came about your conclusions for each individual you listed here.  I am particularly confused by what you had to say about mlks_baby.  Are you implying that she hates Islam and Moslems?  If that is your assumption, then I think you need to go back and read her posts again.   

With regards to my humble self, I have no problem if you do not like my style, but at least, you can not claim I mis-represented the scriptures.  I have not hidden behind mlks_baby under any guise, her style is just different than mine.  Being born-again does not mean we all conform to one personality.  Our personalities are still maintained within the new creation that God has made us. 

I want to believe you are just joking by the Osama statement you made.  You have succesfully suggested thereby, that Osama Bin Ladin may not be responsible afterall for all the bloodshed he carried out.   Is that what Islam teaches?  That one's actions can be justified by the action or otherwise of others?  Osama Bin Ladin is a product of the teachings of Islam and Mohammed, and if you are concerned about more people becoming like him, then you need to point them to Jesus so they can learn how to deal with oppression and injustice.  If Osama and his likes have been exposed to the teachings of Jesus such as: Matthew 10:16 Behold, I send you forth as sheep in the midst of wolves: be ye therefore wise as serpents, and harmless as doves., then I believe he wouldn't be the kind of person that he is today.