Allahs Omnipotence and the Incarnation Revisited

Addressing the Concerns of a Muslim Propagandist

Sam Shamoun

The following is a response to Bassam Zawadis attempt (*) of addressing my paper concerning the possibility of Allah becoming man (*).

Islamic Theology 101

Zawadi tries to wax philosophical in order to impress his readers by giving the impression that he really has a clue concerning the subject at hand. He focuses on the meaning of "thing":

Zawadi has a pungent for false analogies, thinking that this somehow will establish his position. After giving a list of contradictory propositions Zawadi then makes the following leap in logic:

First, what does Zawadi mean by the terms infinite or finite? Does he mean something that is physically infinite versus that which is physically limited? If so then he is correct since something that is physically unlimited cannot then become limited at the same time. But seeing that this is not what Christians mean when they say God is infinite this argument doesnt apply to the Incarnation. God by nature is Spirit which basically means that he is immaterial, non-corporeal, spaceless etc. (cf. John 4:24; 1 Timothy 1:17). In other words, we do not understand the term "infinite" in a material or physical sense as if God is spatially or materially infinite, and to speak of Gods infinitude in material or physical terms therefore misses the point.

We mean that God is infinite in an absolute sense, in a qualitative sense. In other words, infinity in reference to God means that his essential attributes are absolute, lacking nothing, and he is completely self-sufficient.

With the foregoing in mind it is quite reasonable and possible for the infinite God to take on a finite human body without this affecting his essential Divine attributes since we are using the terms infinite and finite in two completely different senses. Jesus as God is infinite not in a material or spatial sense, but in the absolute sense, whereas he is finite in the sense that he took a physical body that is spatially and materially limited.

For more on this topic we suggest reading this article.

I understand that Zawadi god is a physical being, even though he tries hard to deny that he is despite the fact that he believes that his deity has arms, legs, shins, a face etc.

Thus, it may be that Zawadi actually believes that Allah is physically or spatially infinite, a position which goes against reason. But this is not to be confused with the Christian position.

Again, what does Zawadi mean here by all-powerful? Does he mean that his god can do whatever he wants, and whenever he wants since he has all power? Obviously not, since he cited the following comments to establish the fact that something impossible cannot be a thing and therefore doesnt exist:

This paragraph is brimming with errors. If Allah is indeed all-powerful then why isnt he powerful enough to create an impossible situation? Why should the impossible be nothing if Allah is so powerful? Surely, someone with unlimited power is capable to make the impossible into something that actually exists, unless of course his power is limited and hindered by impossibilities.(1)

Moreover, how does the writer know for certain that the Qurans statement concerning Allah having power over all things excludes the inherently impossible? Where does the Quran ever say that? We challenge Zawadi to produce a statement from his scripture where it explicitly says that Allah cannot do certain things and is therefore limited by his nature.

Zawadi cannot appeal to the Holy Bible to support his position, much like he tried to do here in his "rebuttal":

These same Scriptures speak of God appearing and eventually becoming a man in the Person of Jesus which emphatically dismisses the assertion that the Incarnation is one of those acts which God cannot perform. If Zawadi is to remain consistent in his appeal to Gods true Word he must then concede the possibility that Allah can also appear and even become a man if he so chooses. Yet Zawadi denies that it is possible for Allah to become a man and isnt certain whether he can even appear as one:

His comments are basically a denial of the reliability of the Holy Bible, especially in regard to its position concerning this very issue, just as his later statements concerning my appeal to the Qurans witness to the Judeo-Christian Scriptures indicate:

Thus, if Zawadi rejects and does not trust what the Holy Bible says concerning the issue of God appearing and becoming a man he cannot then turn around and appeal to these same Scriptures to prove that God cannot do certain things. He must prove his case by citing verses from his own scripture that expressly say that Muhammads deity is incapable of doing specific acts, such as creating the impossible. After all, if the Holy Bibles witness in regard to the issue of God appearing and eventually becoming a human being cannot be trusted then its testimony concerning God not being able to do certain things must also be called into question. Im afraid that Zawadi wants to have his cake and eat it too, and unfortunately for him that is not going to happen.

More importantly, Zawadi seriously begs the question here since he assumes without ever bothering to prove from his book that becoming a man is one of those acts which creatures such as angels may be able to do but which Allah definitely cannot. Again, we challenge Zawadi to prove, not just assume and therefore beg the question, that Allah cannot become man by producing a quote from his own religious texts stating this explicitly. Furthermore, if Allah has the power to grant specific creatures the ability to appear in human form, thereby opening up the possibility that they could also potentially become human, then doesnt Zawadis deity also have the power to become one himself without ceasing to be divine?

Hopefully, Zawadi will provide a coherent and logically consistent response this time as opposed to skirting the issues.

Once again, what does Zawadi mean by all-knowing? Does he mean that his god knows everything personally, experientially? So does his deity personally know what it is to lust after a woman? Has he felt physical pain? Does he experience sicknesses? Does he know what it is like to be lonely and has he ever endured the anguish of abandonment and depression?

If the answer to all of the above is no then Zawadi is forced to admit that his god doesnt really know everything, since there are many things that he has no firsthand experience of. In light of this we challenge Zawadi to explain to us what does he mean by all-knowing. We want him to start defining his terms as opposed to simply throwing out words in order to sound intelligent.

This is a rather curious contrast since it comes from a person whose god is clearly dependant upon creation:

Moreover, we once again need to ask Zawadi what he means by independent. Does he mean that Allah is independent of everything and is free of all needs? If so is Allah free from and independent of his own attributes? Can he be what he is if he didnt have the attribute of speech, if he lacked wisdom and knowledge? Zawadi would obviously say no since this is what he says a little later:

And:

In light of this candid admission he must therefore concede that Allah does depend on his own essential attributes in order to be what he is.

But this introduces an additional problem. Since Allah isnt composed of any one specific attribute, but exists with a plurality of characteristics, this means that no one attribute exhausts the entire being or existence of Allah. This further implies that no single attribute can be called Allah and yet it cannot be other than Allah, since if it were to be something other than Allah then this would imply that there is something besides him which is eternal. In other words, this view would imply that there are a host of things besides Zawadis deity that are eternal, thereby destroying the unity of Allah.

In fact, we are not the first to see this dilemma since there were Muslim groups such as the Mutazilites who denied the existence of Allahs attributes altogether, believing instead that they were identical to his essence. The reason they held that the attributes are none other than the essence itself is because they saw the problem in affirming Allahs absolute unity with believing that he has a plurality of divine characteristics which are eternal as well.

In light of this how does Zawadi reconcile these problems with his conception of Allahs unity and his so-called self- sufficiency, his independence?

Interestingly, Zawadis admission that Allahs attributes make him god will cause him more problems as we shall shortly see.

Uneducated and uninformed Christians may say this, but educated conservative Christians would never say that Jesus gave up certain Divine attributes. What the Holy Bible actually teaches is that Jesus became man without ceasing to be God and therefore did not relinquish any of his own essential Divine attributes. Rather, the Lord Jesus chose not to exercise some of them during his earthly sojourn but allowed the Holy Spirit to empower him in order to carry out the will of his blessed and Holy Father.

Several comments are in order. First, how does Zawadi know that qualities such as omnipotence and omniscience are necessary attributes of his deity? Can he produce a citation from the Quran which says that Allah is by necessity all-powerful and all-knowing? Note that we are not asking for passages which say that Allah is all-powerful, rather we are asking for statements which say that Allah must necessarily be omnipotent in order for him to be divine.

Second, how does Zawadi know for certain that if Allah relinquishes one of his essential attributes he will cease to be divine? Where does the Quran ever make such an assertion?

This leads us to the third problem with Zawadis assertions. The so-called authentic narratives claim that Allah didnt always exist with the attribute of mercy but that this was something which he later created:

These reports conclusively refute Zawadis claims since they show that a), Allahs qualities are not necessarily essential to his existence since at some point in time he lacked certain attributes, and that b) Allah could exist without specific characteristics without ceasing to be divine.

For more on this topic please consult the following articles:

And on the issue and problems of the relationship of Allah and his attributes we recommend these two articles:

Zawadi engages in more question begging.

How does Zawadi know that his god can only do things which do not go against reason? Where does his scripture say this? Zawadi needs to stop interpreting his religion in light of the Christian worldview, or with Greek philosophical lenses, and must start proving his case by quoting his own religious texts. And by texts we do not mean Muslim scholars or philosophers who were heavily influenced by Greek, Jewish and Christian writers and sources. Rather, he needs to quote verses from the Quran and the so-called authentic Sunna to establish his position.

To illustrate our point note what the following narration says concerning Allah being time:

If Allah is time then does this mean Allah created himself and experiences changes? After all, time is a measurement of change. Change can only happen when matter exists, so before creation, without matter existing, there cannot be time. Physicists never extend the time line backwards from the Big Bang because it would not have any meaning to speak of time before there was anything else (space and matter). Therefore, if Allah is time and time is part of creation doesnt this mean that Allah brought himself into existence? Or does this mean that time is eternal since it is Allah, and if so doesnt this go against science and reason which states that time hasnt always existed? And if it is eternal then does this mean that space and matter are eternal as well seeing that time is a measurement of change which only occurs with the existence of matter and space? And would this further imply that Allah experiences change in light of his being time itself? How will Zawadi answer?

Perhaps he may agree that space and matter are both eternal seeing that Zawadi does believe that his deity has a shape, a body of some kind with eyes, legs, shins, torso etc., which presupposes that Allah is a material and spatial being, even though Zawadi claims that these body parts (or attributes as he likes to call them) are unlike anything in creation.

The Incarnation may be contrary to Zawadis own limited, imperfect mind, but it doesnt go against sound reason in the least: http://socrates58.blogspot.com/2005/03/reply-to-muslim-apologist-concerning.html

And contrary to Zawadis assertions, Christians have been able to differentiate between that which is beyond reason with that which goes against it. It is Muslim neophytes like Zawadi who have failed to properly do so, pretending to be logical when in reality they have no clue what rational thinking truly is.

The issue of Allah being in (fee) the Fire and on Appearing versus Becoming

Zawadi tries to address the quotes I provided showing that Allah appeared as fire.

Even if? There are no ifs, ands or buts about it. The Quran clearly says that Allah called from within the fire and from the tree:

Besides, the Quran here is merely echoing the Biblical story which expressly says that the Divine Angel of God appeared as fire which did not consume the bush:

No wonder the Quran says that the one who was IN the fire is blessed since the author obviously believed that Allah had appeared in the tree as fire without consuming it.

Moreover, Zawadi misses the point since if Allah can assume the appearance of fire why cant he then become fire without ceasing to be God? In other words, once you admit that Allah is able to take on any visible form then this opens the door for Allah actually becoming that very thing whose form he assumes.

Zawadi quotes certain scholars which say that the fire was actually Allahs light and concludes:

Allah literally has a veil which is light? The veil is not part of his essence nor is it an attribute? The question that Zawadi should have asked is if Allahs veil is light, and this light is not an essential attribute of Allahs essence which then makes it part of creation, then wouldnt this actually prove that Allah can and does manifest in various forms seeing that this light is something visible? And if Allah can clothe himself as/with light why cant he clothe himself with/in human form?

In other words, doesnt Zawadis statement actually establish our case that Allah has the ability to take on any form that he chooses, even one that is in the likeness of man? And, once again, if Zawadis god can assume or appear in various ways why cant he actually take on the very nature of these forms or objects and still retain his Divine attributes at the same time?

More importantly, does Zawadi even understand how his own points refute his position or does he simply throw out any argument which he can find without bothering to see whether such responses actually backfire against him? Does he even care?

Several problems with the above assertions. First, we invite the readers to consult Zawadis "response" to see if he was able to produce a single example to show that the preposition fee can mean "above" or "over" as opposed to "in" or "(up)on". In every single one of his cases the preposition can only be translated as "in" or "(up)on," never "above" or "over," i.e. people travel IN/ON the earth not ABOVE/OVER it, the pharaoh will crucify criminals ON the cross not ABOVE/OVER it. Thus, the most that Zawadi has shown by these verses is that we are to translate the preposition in Q. 27:7-9 as Allah being either in or on the fire, not above/over it. If the author(s) of the Quran wanted his/her/their readers to know that Allah was above/over the fire s/he/they could have used the term ala which, unfortunately for Zawadi, s/he/they didnt.

Secondly, even if we assume for arguments sake that fee can mean above/over this still doesnt tell us whether this is its specific meaning within this particular context. All indications suggest that the preposition should be rendered as "in" since the passages expressly say that Allah spoke from the fire and the tree. It would have been correct to translate fee as "above" had the references stated that Allah spoke from heaven. Yet, unfortunately for Zawadi, the verses do not say that the voice came from above but rather came from within the fire and tree.

Third, Moses could not be the blessed one since the citation speaks of the one who was both in and around the fire at the same time:

And unless Zawadi believes that Moses could be in more than one place, or that he was both ABOVE (his preferred interpretation of fee) and around the fire, then it should be obvious that this must be referring to Allah.

However, it is also possible that there are two distinct entities being addressed, the one who was in the fire (i.e. Allah) and the other who was around it (i.e. Moses). Whatever the case may be it is clear that Moses could not be both in/above and around the fire, and establishes the fact that Allah must have been the one in the fire who is called blessed.

The issue of Allahs Image

Zawadi chooses to throw out red herrings since he obviously couldnt address my point. He responds to my comments concerning Allah creating man in his image by providing a lengthy quote from a Salafi scholar who denies that Allahs form is identical to Adams shape. After attacking this straw man Zawadi then asks:

The readers can see that Zawadi is evading the issue and failing to address my reason in mentioning Adam being created in the image of Allah. Note, carefully, what I said:

My point wasnt that Allah is identical to Adam; rather my point was that Allah creating Adam in his image shows that man has greater dignity and value than the other creatures that Allah made. And since Allah didnt hesitate to assume the form or shape of things that are less than man why then should it be hard for a Muslim like Zawadi to accept the possibility of Allah appearing as and even becoming a human being?

Moreover, sorry for sounding like a broken record, but how does Zawadi know that Allahs shape isnt identical to Adams form? Where do the hadiths ever state this? We know that this is the assertion of Muslim scholars but that doesnt mean that their views are necessarily accurate or that they are interpreting these reports correctly.

Besides, doesnt this assume that Muhammad was a true prophet and would have known better than to assume that Adam was identical to Allah in shape? Yet where is the proof that Muhammad was a prophet and would have a correct view of the deity? All the evidence proves that he was a false prophet who held to many erroneous views of God.

For instance, why shouldnt we assume that when Muhammad taught that Allah made Adam in his image and approximately 90 feet tall:

That Muhammad erroneously thought that Adams height was a reflection of Allahs size since Zawadis prophet really believed that his deity was literally that big? After all, seeing that Muhammad mistakenly believed that humans could be 90 feet tall whats to say that he didnt also erroneously think that God could be that size as well?

Here are some articles which address this particular point more in-depth:

Finally, will Zawadi ever stop attacking straw man arguments and bringing up irrelevant issues?

Endnotes

(1) Lest the readers misunderstand the point, we do not believe that Gods power extends to the logically impossible. What the Holy Bible means that "everything is possible with God" is that he can do things that are impossible for human beings to do, e.g. raising the dead, giving sight to the blind, predict the future, not that he can do what is logically impossible. The Holy Scriptures clearly attest that God cannot do certain things which go against his nature, such as lying or denying himself (cf. Titus 1:2; 2 Timothy 2:13; Hebrews 6:17-18; James 1:13, 17). Our point is that Zawadi assumes that this is what Muhammad believed and what the Quran teaches, e.g. by saying that Allah has power over all things and is all-powerful the Quran does not mean that Allah can do everything such as doing what is logically impossible. The problem is that Zawadi hasnt provided a single reference from his sources to substantiate that this is in fact the Islamic conception of God. Until he is able to prove his case it is patently obvious that Zawadi and his Islamic scholars have adopted and borrowed from the Judeo-Christian conception and/or a Greek philosophical understanding of the nature of Deity and have imposed this upon their own religious texts.

Rebuttals to Answering-Christianity
Articles by Sam Shamoun
Answering Islam Home Page