This resumes our discussion
of Zawadis claim that the Trinity is logically incoherent.
After articulating the Christian position concerning the Trinity Zawadi provides
an example which he thinks illustrates why the Trinity is irrational:
Do the above statements make any sense? What do they mean when they say that there is
one being who is God, but three different persons who share that one being's essence?
That is as illogical as me saying:
- Ahmed is a human being.
- Khalid is a human being.
- Ayman is a human being.
- These are not three human beings,
but three different persons who share ONE essence, which is human.
Obviously no one says that one essence "human" is being shared by seven
billion people on Earth today. Rather, we say that there are seven billion human
beingson Earth today.
Similarly, we can't say that there are three different persons sharing the one essence
of God, but that there are three different Gods in light of what the Trinity
teaches.
He basically repeats this point later in his discussion,
However, an irrational statement would be:
- Ahmed is the only human being.
- Khalid is the only human being.
- Ayman is the only human being.
Now this is definitely irrational. How is it possible for Ahmed and Khalid at the
same time to be the only human being? Anyone could clearly see that these two
beliefs are mutually exclusive and it cannot logically be possible bothof
them tobe true at the same time.
And further adds:
According to Christians:
- The Father is truly God.
- The Son is truly God.
- The Holy Spirit is truly God.
There is nothing irrational about the above statement (if we were to assume that it
teaches three different Gods). Similarly, the following statement is also logical:
- Ahmed is a human being.
- Khalid is a human being.
- Ayman is a human being.
The readers can immediately spot the problems with Zawadis argumentation. He
presupposes unitarianism, e.g. God is only one Person, and also assumes that Gods
Being is identical to mans state of existence.
Zawadi is correct that the three men in his comparison cannot all be the only human
being without this being a contradiction since they are all different and distinct beings,
not just different persons. We know that humans are by nature uni-personal and therefore a
man cannot be more than one person and yet still one being at the same time. But the only
way for Zawadis analogy to be a valid comparison to refute what Trinitarians believe
concerning the nature of God is if he can prove that God is uni-Personal, i.e. he is not
just one Divine Being but one Divine Person as well. He must further prove that Gods
existence is identical to the being of man so that God cannot exist as a single Being who
is more than one Person.
The problem is that Zawadi cannot prove his case by appealing to the Holy Bible since
Gods true Word emphatically proclaims the utter uniqueness of God, that there is no
creature that can be likened to him:
"For who in the skies above can compare with the LORD?Who is like the LORD
among the heavenly beings? In the council of the holy ones God is greatly feared; he is
more awesome than all who surround him. O LORD God Almighty, who is like you? You are
mighty, O LORD, and your faithfulness surrounds you." Psalm 89:6-8
"Who is like the LORD our God, the One who sits enthroned on high, who stoops down
to look on the heavens and the earth?" Psalm 113:5-6
"To whom will you compare me? Or who is my equal? says the Holy One.
Lift your eyes and look to the heavens: Who created all these? He who brings out the
starry host one by one, and calls them each by name. Because of his great power and mighty
strength, not one of them is missing." Isaiah 40:25-26
"No one is like you, O LORD; you are great, and your name is mighty in power
But the LORD is the true God; he is the living God, the eternal King. When he is angry,
the earth trembles; the nations cannot endure his wrath. Tell them this: These gods,
who did not make the heavens and the earth, will perish from the earth and from under the
heavens. But God made the earth by his power; he founded the world by his wisdom
and stretched out the heavens by his understanding." Jeremiah 10:6, 10-12
In fact, the Lord even rebuked the Israelites for thinking that he was like them:
"These things you have done and I kept silent; you thought the I AM was altogether
like you. But I will rebuke you and accuse you to your face." Psalm 50:21
And what is more unique and unlike creation than the Biblical teaching that the one
true God exists as three eternally distinct, yet inseparable, Persons at the same time?
After all, is there anything in creation that is identical to the Triune God in his mode
of existence, in his Being?
Furthermore, we have clearly documented in many of our discussions and rebuttals (much
like we did in the first part of our reply to Zawadi) that the inspired Bible writers
believed that there is only one God while also affirming that the Father, the Son and the
Holy Spirit are distinct Persons who happen to be fully God in nature since all of them
have all the essential Divine attributes.
Moreover, Zawadi is unfaithful to his own religious book for basically likening God to
his creation, which is an implicit form of shirk, since he assumes that the Being of God
is identical to the way man exists. Yet in assuming this he is only denying what his own
false scripture says concerning the uniqueness of God:
The Creator of the heavens and the earth. He has made for you mates from yourselves,
and for the cattle (also) mates. By this means He creates you (in the wombs). There
is nothing like unto Him, and He is the All-Hearer, the All-Seer. S. 42:11 Hilali-Khan
And there is none comparable unto Him. S. 112:4 Pickthall
And to repeat there is nothing logically inconsistent with saying that God is
one in a certain sense but more than one in another sense, e.g. he is one eternal Being
who exists as a plurality of Divine Persons having a multiplicity of attributes. It would
be logically inconsistent to say that God is one Being and three Beings at the same time,
or one Person and three Persons simultaneously, but this is NOT what the doctrine of the
Holy Trinity teaches.
Zawadi needs to spend some more time studying logic in order to avoid making such
basic blunders in argumentation.
With that said it is now time to turn the tables on Zawadi.
The Quran as the Uncreated Speech of Allah
Zawadi, along with the orthodox Sunni Muslim community, believes that the Quran is
the uncreated speech of Allah. This means that the Muslim scripture is both eternal and
temporal, uncreated and created at the same time, i.e. the book that contains it, the ink
used to write it, the voices that recite it, the hearts that memorize it are all created
whereas the words themselves are not.
Muslim scholars went so far as to say that even though the Quran is not Allah
it is not other than him!
We confess that the Kuran is the speech of Allah, uncreated, His inspiration and
revelation, not He, yet not other than He, but His real quality, written in the
copies, recited by the tongues, preserved in the breasts, yet not residing there.
The ink, the paper, the writing are created, for they are the work of men. The speech of
Allah on the other hand is uncreated, for the writing and the letters and the words and
the verses are manifestations of the Kuran for the sake of human needs. The speech of
Allah on the other hand is self-existing, and its meaning is understood by means of these
things. Whoso sayeth that the speech of Allah is created, he is an infidel regarding
Allah, the Exalted, whom men serve, who is eternally the same, His speech being recited or
written and retained in the heart, yet never dissociated from Him. (A. J. Wensinck, The
Muslim Creed (Cambridge: The University Press, 1932) p. 127; taken from the Wasiyat
Abi Hanifa; bold and underline emphasis ours)
And:
He has attributes from all eternity subsistent in His essence. They are not He
nor are they other than He. And they are Knowledge and Power and Life and Might
and Hearing and Seeing and Willing and Desiring and Doing and Creating and Sustaining.
(Sad al-Din al-Taftazani, A Commentary on the Creed of Islam, translated
by E. E. Elder [Columbia University Press: New York, 1950], p. 49; bold and underline
emphasis ours)
Now Zawadi is faced with a dilemma. If the Quran is not Allah then how can it be
eternal? How can Allah still be one if the Quran is other than him? And if it isnt
other than Allah how then can the Muslim scripture not be a living, dynamic entity that
is fully Divine? Moreover, if it isnt other than Allah, how can it be distinct from
Allah? How many Allahs are there? More importantly, how can something be and not be
a specific thing at the same time, e.g. how can the Quran be Allah and not be Allah
without this being a logical contradiction, being "a" and "not a"
simultaneously? How can it be both eternal and created? Does this make sense?
Not according to Zawadi if he is going to be consistent.
To make matters worse the Quran narrates episodes that have occurred within time
and space. Since it is eternal this means that all of these events and speeches were
foreordained, which means that the players in these episodes did not have free will but
were programmed to say and act in accord with what Allahs uncreated word had already
predestined. After all, they had no choice to act in a manner contrary what is found in
the Quran. How, then, can Zawadi affirm human free will while holding to the belief that
the Quran is uncreated if he is going to be logically consistent?
Whats more, some of the Muslim scholars likened the Muslim view of the Quran
to the Christian position concerning Christ being the eternal Word!
The problem of the nature of Christ, so central in the dogmatic development of the
early church, has also influenced, in a certain way, the development of Islamic dogma.
Christ's designation as logos, as the Word of God, "born not created,"
has most probably influenced Islamic theories about the Koran, which is regarded by the
Muslim as the uncreated Word of God. Phenomenologically seen, the Koran has the same
position in Islamic dogmatics as has Christ in Christianity. Harry A. Wolfson
therefore coined the term "inlibration," the "Word become Book," in
contrast to the Christian concept of incarnation, "the Word became Flesh."
That explains why theologians emphasized the designation ummi for Muhammad; this
term, first probably meaning "the prophet sent to the gentiles" was interpreted
as "illiterate." The Prophet had to be a vessel unstained by external knowledge
for the Word's inlibration, just as Mary had to be a virgin in order to be a pure vessel
for the Word's incarnation. That is, the Koran is much more than simply a book ...
(Annemarie Schimmel, Islam - An Introduction [State University of New York Press,
Albany 1992], pp. 74-75; bold emphasis ours)
Muslim scholar Mahmoud M. Ayoub, in speaking of Muhammads relation to the Quran, writes:
that the words that Muhammad conveyed to his people were not his own, but were
revealed to him by God. It is also understood to mean that his mind was not contaminated
by human wisdom. Rather it was a pure receptacle for the divine word in the same way
that Mary's virginity means for Christians that her body was a pure vessel fit to receive
Christ, the Word of God.
In fact, there is an interesting parallel between Christ and the Qur'an. Christ is, for
Christians, the incarnate Word of God. While the Qur'an is, like Christ, the eternal
divine word, it does not play a role in the creation of the world. It is the eternal
word of God preserved for moral and spiritual guidance. It is an eternal book: "This
surely is a glorious Qur'an, preserved in a well-guarded Tablet" (Q. 85:21-22).
(Ayoub, Islam: Faith and History [Oneworld Publications, Oxford England, 2004],
p. 41; underline emphasis ours)
John L. Esposito, Professor of Islamic Studies at Georgetown University, stated
the following concerning the Mutazila view of the Quran and God's attributes:
The Mutazila took issue with the majority of ulama over the doctrines of the
divine attributes or names of God and the eternal, uncreated nature of the Quran. Both
beliefs were seen as contradictory and as compromising God's unity (Islam's absolute
monotheism). How could the one, transcendent God have many divine attributes (sight,
hearing, power, knowledge, will)? The Mutazila maintained that the Quranic passages that
affirmed God's attributes were meant to be understood metaphorically or allegorically, not
literally. Not to do so was to fall into anthropomorphism, or worse, shirk,
associationism or polytheism. Similarly, the Islamic doctrine that the Quran is the speech
or word of God should not be taken literally, for how could both God and His word be
eternal and uncreated? The result would be two divinities. The Mutazila interpreted
metaphorically those Quranic texts that spoke of the Quran preexisting in heaven. Contrary
to majority opinion, they taught that the Quran is the created word of God, who is
its uncreated source. The Mutazila critique of those like Ahmad ibn Hanbal, who believed
in the eternity of the Quran, was ably summarized by Caliph Mamun in a letter to his
governor:
Everything apart from Him is a creature from His creation - a new thing which He has
brought into existence. [This perverted opinion they hold] though the Koran speaks clearly
of God's creating all things, and proves to the exclusion of all differences of opinion.
They are, thus, like the Christians when they claim that Isa bin Maryam [Jesus, the son
of Mary] was not created because he was the word of God. But God says, "Verily
We have made it a Koran in the Arabic language," and the explanation of that is,
"Verily, We have created it," just as the Koran says, "And He made from it
His mate that he might dwell with her." (Esposito, Islam The Straight Path
[Oxford University Press, New York Oxford: Hard cover, third edition], pp. 71-72;
underline emphasis ours)
Thus, whereas Jesus is Gods eternal Word who became flesh the Quran is the
eternal Word that became a book! Since Zawadi has no problem affirming the unity of Allah
while also believing that the Quran is the eternal speech of Allah that became a book on
what logically consistent basis can he reject the Christian belief in the doctrines of
the Holy Trinity and the blessed Incarnation as irrational?
The following articles and rebuttals provide a more thorough discussion of these
specific issues: 1,
2, 3,
4
Exposing More of Zawadis Double Standards
And now its time to document more of Zawadis inconsistencies.
Zawadi stated that,
Now this argument probably won't convince Christians, since they would probably
go on and reply back saying "Our logic is too limited to grasp the paradox
of the Trinity".
Is this the same Zawadi who tries to defend and justify his irrational belief that
Allah has bodyparts, e.g. Allah literally has eyes, hands, shins, feet, a waist, and
literally ascends and descends even though these traits are supposed to be unlike
anything in creation? The same Zawadi who also believes that Allah created
time/space/matter, which is a contradiction to his belief that Allah literally has
specific body parts? After all, Allah can only have eyes, hands, feet etc. is if he has
a form of some kind and occupies space and time, which means that time/space/matter are
eternal as well.
And is this the same gent who associates with Jalal Abualrub who censured those who
would try to use human reasoning to refute the Salafi position concerning Allahs
bodily "attributes" being literal, and not simply metaphorical?
K Wahhabis Literally Explain Texts Regarding
Allahs Hands and His Istiwaa,
Leading them to Tajseem
Samuel Zwemer said that Wahhabis commit Tajseem: they literally
explain Texts of the Quran about Allahs Hands and Istiwaa (rising
above His Throne).
Comments: Believing in Allahs Names and Attributes does not mean that one
is attributing a specific nature for them (sic).
First:
In, Sharh al-Aqeedah at-Tahawiyyah (Pg., 518), Imam Abu Jafar
at-Tahawi said, "Islam is in the middle, between extremism and shortcomings,
and between Tashbeeh and Tateel"
On page 520, Imam Ibn Abi al-Izz al-Hanafi commented on Imam Abu
Jafars statement that Islam is, between Tashbeeh and Tateel,
by saying, "We previously stated that Allah, the Exalted, the Honored, should be
described by what He described Himself with and by what His Prophet described Him with,
without Tashbeeh. Consequently, it should not be said that Allahs Hearing is
similar to our hearing, or His Sight is similar to our sight. Also, Tateel
should be avoided, and thus what He described Himself with and what the most knowledgeable
person in Him (Prophet Muhammad [sic]) described Him with should not be denied,
because this constitutes Tateel (circumventing the Text) These meanings
are found in Allahs Statement,
{There is nothing like Him, and He is the All-Hearer, the
All-Seer}; [42:11]"
Second:
Christians are told in the Bible to recite this prayer; Matthew 6:7-13,
Centuries before Prophet Muhammad came, Prophet Jesus attested to Allah being in
(above) heaven. Also, Psalm 11:4 states,
" the Lords throne is in heaven:"
Also, Numbers 11:23 affirms Allahs Hand and the fact that He spoke to
Prophet Moses,
"And the Lord said to Moses, Is the Lords hand waxed short? Thou shalt
see now whether my word shall come to pass unto thee or not."
Of course, People of the Scriptures, especially Christians, have become experts at
altering and circumventing their Word of God, explaining it by other than its apparent
meaning and wishing that Muslims follow suit.
Genesis 3:8-10 contains the following astonishing statement about Adam and Eve
These verses claim that God was walking in the garden, in the cool of the day, and
not knowing where Adam was [sic], calling him, saying, Where are you, Adam?
This is the exact Tashbeeh that Islam rejects. The only part of Genesis 3:8-10 that Islam
upholds, is that stating that Allah speaks with whatever He will whenever He will.
(Abualrub, Biography and Mission of Muhammad Ibn Abdul Wahhab, edited by Alaa
Mencke [Madinah Publishers and Distributors, First Edition, June 2003], Chapter Nine:
Popular Perceptions About the Wahhabi Movement, pp. 620-622)
And:
L Wahhabis Believe that Texts of the Quran and Sunna
Take Precedence Over the Mind
Samalley said that, Wahhabis, do not allow freedom for the mind to
answer religious questions, because human mind is incapable of finding correct solutions
for matters pertaining to life and religion; they say that the answer to all this is found
in the Quran and Sunna.
Comments:
Imam Ibn Abi al-Izz al-Hanafi said, "People of Sunna do not
deviate from authentic Texts, or contradict them WITH THE MIND or anyones
statementAllah, the exalted, said
{It is not for a believer, man or woman, when Allah and His
Messenger have decreed a matter that they should have any option in their decision};
[33:36]."
One should ask: whose mind should be the judge over the Texts of the Quran and Sunnah?
It is a fact that no two persons agree on everything. Thus, if the mind is made a judge
over the Text, then the Text would be explained in as many ways as there are minds. This
might be profitable for Sufis, since they proclaim that the number of paths leading
to Allah is as many as there are creation. However, this method means the total
destruction of Islam.
Imam Ibn Taimiyyah said, "Prophet are sent with aspects that THE MIND IS INCAPABLE
OF UNDERSTANDING. They were not sent with what the mind knows for certainty is untrue [sic]."
It should be noted that Ibn Taimiyyahs statement pertains to the original messages
of Allahs Prophets and Messengers [sic], peace be upon them. (Ibid., pp.
622-624; capital emphasis ours)
That same Zawadi? Truly amazing.
In light of such irrational beliefs we would like to apply Zawadis closing
comments to his own logically incoherent religious views:
Sure, Muslims can redefine language in order to deny that Allah has an actual body with
body-parts so that it can make sense, but the problem with this would be that their
anthropomorphic understanding is not Quranically based. It is simply the product of a
hyper-literal reading of a text which is already brimming with contradictions and
incoherent statements. However, in light of the fact that there are many Sunni Muslims who
do not adopt such a hyper-literal reading of their false scripture we can definitely say
that the Salafi insistence that Allah has a body is not just logically incoherent
but also contrary to the correct exegesis of the Quran. It is not simply a matter of
this doctrine being beyond our logic, but it emphatically goes AGAINST our
logic. If it is AGAINST our logic then that means that it is a false belief, and
that Muhammad is a false prophet.
Moreover, Zawadi and his fellow dawagandists may argue that, despite the fact that the
Quran is not Allah and yet uncreated, this still doesnt prove that Muslims have two
gods, even though logically they do.
Christians, praise the Lord Jesus Christ Almighty that you are blessed to be following
a faith that, although paradoxical, doesnt conflict with sound reasoning.
For a thorough refutation of Zawadis irrational position concerning Allahs
bodyparts we suggest the following rebuttals and articles:
1,
2, 3,
4, 5,
6,
7,
8,
9
And for a defense of the logical coherence of the Trinity and Incarnation we recommend
reading the following materials:
1, 2,
3,
4,
5,
6,
7,
8,
9,
10
What makes this rather amusing is that Zawadi thought that his response was a sufficient
reply to some of the above articles! Thats what happens when you live in a fantasy
world where you believe in things such as the Easter bunny, Santa Claus, and that Muhammad
is a prophet and Allah is actually god.
In this post I will share some of the biblical evidences, which led the first Christians to the conclusion that the one true God is Triune by nature.
One True God
The Bible is clear that there is only one uncreated God who created and sustains all creation. The name
”Accepting James White’s Challenge to Provide an Exegesis of 1 John 5:1"
The following is Dr. David W. Allen's refutation to internet reformed apologist James R. White's butchering of 1 John 5:1 for the purpose of forcing his calvinistic misreading into it.
