• God is one
• He alone should be worshipped
• God has certain characteristics

oreganbagpiper,

From you, an excellent observation which can only come from a thoughtful and probing mind: "I am really, really confused about something.  Having been raised a Christian, having studied for the Catholic priesthood, and now, reflecting on many, many years of private study have left me with one thing that I would like input from Muslims on - the Christian doctrine of the Trinity.

It seems to me that for God to be God he must be unchanging (and unchangable).  If God changes, he is not God - he is a changable finite being.  If he even possesses the ability to change, he is not infinite and eternal.

Christians believe that God is infinite and eternal, and the doctrine taught in the Nicene Creed that God is to be understood in Three Divine Persons - Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.  Even IF that is the nature of God, the Christian doctrine of the Incarnation - that is, that God the Son took on himself, Human Nature - implies that God has changed and 2000 year ago became something different:  Now Father, Son/Human Being, and Holy Spirit.

It's really the doctrine of the Incarnation that troubles me.  It seems to me that the Incarnation poses a number of problems for believing in a God who is Infinite, Eternal, Unchanging, and One.

Am I missing the ball here, or is one of the beliefs of Islam that God is eternal, unchanging, immutable, beyond time - Tawhid, I believe, encompasses this term.

I would greatly appreciate any an all feedback so as to clear up this matter.  The Incarnation theology of Christianity is really the last stumbling block in my coming to Islam.

Thank you to any and all replies."

The point is that Jesus did not teach what the Nicene Creed teaches, a Creed which was not from himself but one, which was written 365 years after he was long gone.

One can see Tawhid right here in Isaiah 45:21-24

"Declare what is to be, present it - let them take counsel together. Who foretold this long ago, who declared it from the distant past?

Was it not I, the Lord? And there is no God apart from me, a righteous God and a Saviour, there is none but me.

"Turn to me and be saved, all you ends of the earth; for I am God and there is no other. By myself I have sworn, my mouth has uttered in all integrity a word that will not be revoked: Before me every knee will bow; by me every tongue will swear. They will say of me, 'In the Lord alone are righteous and strength.' " All who have raged against him will come to him and be put to shame."

oreganbagpiper, that is what Islam teaches, No other God apart from or beside the Lord Almighty.

BMZ

Cyril,

"What do the Christians say: God is one, and there are three persons or "entities" in him."

Having said, "God is One" and then by saying that there are three persons or entities in him, renders that God as not One.

Trinity can be defined by it's believers but when presented to others, it will be questioned because it is not a proven fact. Trinity is something that even God and Jesus did not ever teach and Jesus himself was not aware of. 

bmzsp wrote: Cyril,"What do the Christians say: God is one, and there are three persons or "entities" in him." Having said, "God is One" and then by saying that there are three persons or entities in him, renders that God as not One.

Your argument does not hold. One car contains a wide array of parts. Nobody will say the car is not one. A house has several rooms. Is the house one or many?

The Quran itself dissuades Christians to say "God is the third of three". Christians do not believe that. They believe that God is one and has three persons in him, each person being co-extensive to the others.

As long as they keep that belief and will not say "God is the third of three" they will remain among the People of the Book, that is monotheists.

God in the Quran also says that Christians must not believe in a Trinity composed of God, Jesus and Mary. Christians follow that ban as they believe in a Trinity composed of the Father, the Son and the Spirit.

I don't exactly know all the details of the Trinity but as a European who lives in a Christian surrounding, I heard that every person in the Trinity is at the same itself and the totality of God.

Trinity can be defined by it's believers but when presented to others, it will be questioned because it is not a proven fact.

Trinity is something that even God and Jesus did not ever teach and Jesus himself was not aware of.

The Trinity is anyway a doctrine or a dogma, laid down by the authority of the Church. A doctrine or a dogma that was an arrogant declaration laid a few hundred years after Jesus.

I don't think I can agree with your argument by comparing God with a car or a house. In that case there is no similarity between the body parts of Jesus and the parts within God.

Cyril,

I understand your concern.

However, revelations of God must come from the Prophets of God or God Himself.

If you look at the beginning of John, written many years after Jesus left, that cannot be considered a revelation from God as it was John's own view and own "beginning". That concept was not mentioned by any of the other three gospel writers and they seem to be oblivious of it. It cannot be thus considered a Revelation.

Thus, anything that wasn't taught by Jesus cannot be considered Revelations.

On a matter of such a great significance that Jesus was "God", we find Jesus silent and totally unclear. The ambiguity cannot be accepted with just a few quotes from Peter or Thomas.

God can do anything but God cannot tear or split HIMSELF into three. For example, God comes down to Earth in the form of an angel or a man, a burning bush or a pillar of fire or lightning; that would not mean these are also the persons in the "Godhead" or show the plurality of God.

That is why the statement in Isaiah 45:21-24 confrims of God as One and Only One, with no others to be associated with HIM.  

Cyril wrote: My position is that it is up to the believers in a religion to decide of their definition of God, not believers from another religion. The Quran seems to give a wrong definition of the Christian Trinity. If such is the case, then the Quran is right to dissuade Christians to follow such a belief as they would be polytheists.

Peace.

Your reply has an assumption buried in it that requires discussion. You cannot assume that the idea of "trinity" has been a static notion which began with Jesus himself, or from any of his followers. Indeed, in the first three centuries of your faith, the idea of the nature of Gd and the nature of Jesus lead to the splintering of coutless groups who tried to argue that their theolgical views were the correct ones. Christianity, regardless of the multitude of denominations, hold true to the basic notions put forth by the group who did win out during the early debates.

It should also be noted that many sects did exist that were out of the control of the church and they aded their own spin to the debate. Even now, your theologians discuss and argue the material. The Quran discusses an event where the Muslims were in contact with a group who had their views.

Though you may find that there are slight nuances which seperate your idea of trinity from those of whom the QUran was debating, one may still derive a very general idea about what the oness of Gd is, and is not, and is relevant to the main notion of trinity in mainstream Christianity.  

The Trinity has to be defined by its believers and by no one else. What do the Christians say: God is one, and there are three persons or "entities" in him. Although it may be hard to understand, it does not contradict the fact that God chooses the way he is, not humans, and the way he is can be beyond human understanding.

here is the problem:

1) There is no single "explicit" verse in the OT that allows one to derive, with any real confidence, that Gd is, as you say He is.

2) every verse that Christians use from which to prove the most fundemental point of their doctrine is from "implicit" verses.

so yes, we cannot tell Gd how He is supposed to be, but we can ask for "explicit" evidence from His revelation to decide how He actually is.

Take care.

bmzsp wrote: Cyril, I understand your concern. However, revelations of God must come from the Prophets of God or God Himself.

Christians did receive their revelation from God, from two channels. One is the Holy Spirit (=God according to the Trinity), the other one is Jesus (=God incarnate).

If you look at the beginning of John, written many years after Jesus left, that cannot be considered a revelation from God as it was John's own view and own "beginning". That concept was not mentioned by any of the other three gospel writers and they seem to be oblivious of it. It cannot be thus considered a Revelation.

Thus, anything that wasn't taught by Jesus cannot be considered Revelations.

You are right, the Christian faith is based on Jesus' revelation. You only forget the other revelation from the Holy Spirit.

On a matter of such a great significance that Jesus was "God", we find Jesus silent and totally unclear. The ambiguity cannot be accepted with just a few quotes from Peter or Thomas.

God can do anything but God cannot tear or split HIMSELF into three. For example, God comes down to Earth in the form of an angel or a man, a burning bush or a pillar of fire or lightning; that would not mean these are also the persons in the "Godhead" or show the plurality of God.

That is why the statement in Isaiah 45:21-24 confrims of God as One and Only One, with no others to be associated with HIM.

You quote from the Jewish scriptures which offer the (nearly) same view of God as Islam.

I would have dismissed it as we discuss the Christian view of God from the NT.
But as Christians (and Jesus himself) say their faith is deeply rooted in the Jewish Bible so we can also address God in the OT.

The OT (=Jewish Bible) says God is one. Christians say the same. Remember they are listed as People of the Book together with the Jews.
Christians add that God in the OT reveals how he looks like from the outside (as one) but not how he looks like from the inside (as three "persons").
That final revelation from God in the NT is the Christian faith.

"Christians did receive their revelation from God, from two channels. One is the Holy Spirit (=God according to the Trinity), the other one is Jesus (=God incarnate)."

The above still confirms that God reigns supreme and the two channels come under the direction and Command of God, whether one names the two channels as gods or Gods. Holy Spirit proceeds from God, which means it is the Command and the Will of God. Anything that proceeds from God cannot be God.

Of course, what John wrote was his own opinion and so do I have mine and I gave reason for that.

"Nearly all writings of the NT have been written after Jesus. Each author has added its contribution to the Christian faith. They are all considered as inspired by God. What you say about John can also be said about Paul."

Agreed that all writings of NT have been written by others, but there is a huge difference between being inspired and what is revealed by God. I am inspired to write what I am writing here but it cannot be considered a revelation. 

"As the Quran has been revealed not in one day, but in 23 years (some revelations have even been abrogated), the same way the Christian faith has been revealed at different times. A common occurence in religions."

Qur'aan was revealed to the same man over a period of 23 years. There was no change in the prophet or the messenger during the period, whereas different authors wrote the gospels with different audience in mind.

Of course, I am expressing my views as a Muslim. Even other non-Muslims such as Buddhists, Jews, Hindus, many others and even some Christians have similar views. I don't see Jesus speaking clearly about being a God or the God, anywhere in the NT. He maintained being a subject to God. I would not say that he was ambiguous but I would say that he spoke in parables and figurative language, which his own disciples could not understand. He had to explain what he spoke in parables, to them in private. 

"Peter and Thomas belong to the men inspired by the Christian God, as the Prophets mentioned in the Quran belong to the revelation from Allah."

I am sorry to write that I cannot accept this argument. Peter denied Jesus three times till the cock crowed and Thomas doubted him. Can we say they did that under inspiration? Certainly not! Both of them are weak witnesses.

"First of all, God (in the Christian faith) does not tear or split himself in three. He IS in three from eternity. Please try not to change the wording of concepts."

We do not see God as "He IS three from eternity" in any of the past Scriptures. We do NOT see God as a triune God even in the NT. We do NOT see Jesus declaring a trinity or a triune God. What we are saying is that a triune God was "created" by human minds after Jesus was long gone and the Nicean Council is a witness to that. The entire reason to call for that Council was to discuss and establish the nature of Christ, who he was, what he was, etc and that is how the Creed was developed after 365 years.

"Even if he would tear himself in three, how you as a mere mortal dare say what God should do or be like?"

Then how dared the mere mortals who declared that the Lord Almighty is three instead of One.

"You quote from the Jewish scriptures which offer the (nearly) same view of God as Islam."

Then, what are the Jewish Holy Scriptures doing in the Bible under the name the Old Testament? What is the need to have that book attached to the New Testament. You can't believe in the Second Part of a Book by discounting the prime First part of the Book, which is not even the exact reproduction of the Original Jewish Holy Scriptures?

"I would have dismissed it as we discuss the Christian view of God from the NT.
But as Christians (and Jesus himself) say their faith is deeply rooted in the Jewish Bible so we can also address God in the OT."

I don't think that is correct. Jesus taught from the Jewish Holy Scriptures. He taught,"You shall worship only your Lord God with all your hearts, all your minds and all your souls."

Jesus never said,"You shall worship Father, Son and the Holy Spirit with all your hearts, all your minds and all your souls." Here is the biggest problem I see with our Christian friends and that is they love Jesus with all their hearts, all their minds and all their souls instead of God Almighty but God and the Holy Spirit DO NOT receive the same attention.

"Christians add that God in the OT reveals how he looks like from the outside (as one) but not how he looks like from the inside (as three "persons")."

Cyril, I am not prepared to call God an Egg as if someone saw Him from outside and others saw Him through a laproscope.

BMZ 

Andalus wrote: Your reply has an assumption buried in it that requires discussion. You cannot assume that the idea of "trinity" has been a static notion which began with Jesus himself, or from any of his followers.

First of all Christianity is not "my faith", although as a Frenchman it belongs to my cultural background.
I said the Trinity "was only rationalized and given its name in a long process that started right after Jesus resurrection."

It should also be noted that many sects did exist that were out of the control of the church and they aded their own spin to the debate. Even now, your theologians discuss and argue the material. The Quran discusses an event where the Muslims were in contact with a group who had their views.

You are right. I know all that.

Here is the problem: 1) There is no single "explicit" verse in the OT that allows one to derive, with any real confidence, that Gd is, as you say He is. 2) every verse that Christians use from which to prove the most fundemental point of their doctrine is from "implicit" verses.

so yes, we cannot tell Gd how He is supposed to be, but we can ask for "explicit" evidence from His revelation to decide how He actually is.

Any evidence will be welcome.

Cyril and Andalus,

May I save your latest posts in my personal file? These were excellent.

Best Regards

BMZ

BMZ wrote: "Even if he would tear himself in three, how you as a mere mortal dare say what God should do or be like?" Then how dared the mere mortals who declared that the Lord Almighty is three instead of One. "You quote from the Jewish scriptures which offer the (nearly) same view of God as Islam." Then, what are the Jewish Holy Scriptures doing in the Bible under the name the Old Testament? What is the need to have that book attached to the New Testament. You can't believe in the Second Part of a Book by discounting the prime First part of the Book, which is not even the exact reproduction of the Original Jewish Holy Scriptures?

BMZ: Absolutely great points!

As a matter of fact without OT the Christianity  does not have any foundation tospeak of; like it or not  due to this symbiosis alone the Christian world has been  so subservient to the Jewish causes right, wrong  or indifferent.

 Cyril: please don't confuse oregonbagpiper any more, when you are not a Christian yourself.

Cyril wrote: Andalus Andalus wrote: Your reply has an assumption buried in it that requires discussion. You cannot assume that the idea of "trinity" has been a static notion which began with Jesus himself, or from any of his followers. First of all Christianity is not "my faith", although as a Frenchman it belongs to my cultural background. I said the Trinity "was only rationalized and given its name in a long process that started right after Jesus resurrection." It should also be noted that many sects did exist that were out of the control of the church and they aded their own spin to the debate. Even now, your theologians discuss and argue the material. The Quran discusses an event where the Muslims were in contact with a group who had their views. You are right. I know all that. Here is the problem: 1) There is no single "explicit" verse in the OT that allows one to derive, with any real confidence, that Gd is, as you say He is. 2) every verse that Christians use from which to prove the most fundemental point of their doctrine is from "implicit" verses. I thought this discussion was only about the definition of the Trinity in the NT. You are right and you pinpoint the weakest aspect of Christianity. Instead of cutting off all ties with Judaism and start as a new religion, Christianity says it is rooted in Judaism and is its continuation.

My bad, I made reference to the NT in my point two.

Correct. 

Christianity is based upon "replacement" theolgy, which is why the church has staked its claim on showing how the OT validates them, and now they have replaced the children of Israel.

As Muslims have to somewhat twist the Jewish and Christian scriptures to make them fit with their doctrine, the Christians do a similar task with quotes from the OT, or a specific re-reading of whole chapters in the light of their assumptions.

Actually I would disagree. Islam is not a "replacement theology", and odes not need validation from the OT or the Christian NT. It (Islam) clearly states its theological points from its revelation, which in and of itself validates previous scripture, not the other way around.

so yes, we cannot tell Gd how He is supposed to be, but we can ask for "explicit" evidence from His revelation to decide how He actually is. Any evidence will be welcome.

agreed!

Kindest Regards

I glady share anything that I have found and contribute, and gladly correct where I have been in error.

regards!

bmzsp wrote: Cyril and Andalus, May I save your latest posts in my personal file? These were excellent. Best Regards BMZ

bmzsp wrote: "Christians did receive their revelation from God, from two channels. One is the Holy Spirit (=God according to the Trinity), the other one is Jesus (=God incarnate)." The above still confirms that God reigns supreme and the two channels come under the direction and Command of God, whether one names the two channels as gods or Gods. Holy Spirit proceeds from God, which means it is the Command and the Will of God. Anything that proceeds from God cannot be God.

The proceeding of the Spirit from the Father takes place inside God. Father and Spirit are intimate parts of God and the proceeding is an interaction inside God. It is not a creation by God.

Agreed that all writings of NT have been written by others, but there is a huge difference between being inspired and what is revealed by God. I am inspired to write what I am writing here but it cannot be considered a revelation.

I don't see Jesus speaking clearly about being a God or the God, anywhere in the NT. He maintained being a subject to God. I would not say that he was ambiguous but I would say that he spoke in parables and figurative language, which his own disciples could not understand. He had to explain what he spoke in parables, to them in private.

You may not see Jesus speaking clearly about being God (where do you get the idea of "a God", from J.Witnesses I guess?) but billions of Christians did and still do.
The "being a subject to God" has been explained by the fact that God being incarnate as a man Jesus, he took over the human condition in such a way that during his sojourn on earth he was temporarily subjected to the Father. Everything was restored to divine order after his  coming back to heaven.

We do not see God as "He IS three from eternity" in any of the past Scriptures. We do NOT see God as a triune God even in the NT. We do NOT see Jesus declaring a trinity or a triune God. What we are saying is that a triune God was "created" by human minds after Jesus was long gone and the Nicean Council is a witness to that. The entire reason to call for that Council was to discuss and establish the nature of Christ, who he was, what he was, etc and that is how the Creed was developed after 365 years.

I took part in that discussion not as a Christian which I am not, but to correct the Muslim misconceptions about the Trinity.

"Even if he would tear himself in three, how you as a mere mortal dare say what God should do or be like?" Then how dared the mere mortals who declared that the Lord Almighty is three instead of One.

I don't know about those people who declared that God is three instead of One.
They are mentioned in the Quran and must be some heretical sect of Christian origin. I'll let you find out who they are as it is a matter from the Quran.
The Mormons of today believe that God is three but I doubt that it relates to them.

"You quote from the Jewish scriptures which offer the (nearly) same view of God as Islam." Then, what are the Jewish Holy Scriptures doing in the Bible under the name the Old Testament? What is the need to have that book attached to the New Testament. You can't believe in the Second Part of a Book by discounting the prime First part of the Book, which is not even the exact reproduction of the Original Jewish Holy Scriptures?

I answered about that. The Christian decided that they were rooted in the OT and that Christianity was the final revelation of God about himself.

Don't Muslims do the same when they state that the Quran is the continuation of the Bible and final revelation of God?

I don't think that is correct. Jesus taught from the Jewish Holy Scriptures. He taught,"You shall worship only your Lord God with all your hearts, all your minds and all your souls."

Christianity is not only that verse. If you want to expound the Christian doctrine you will have to quote half the NT. I don't think this is the place to do that.

Here is the biggest problem I see with our Christian friends and that is they love Jesus with all their hearts, all their minds and all their souls instead of God Almighty but God and the Holy Spirit DO NOT receive the same attention.

I have the same feeling and I criticize Christians for giving the impression that they have two Gods, Jesus and the Father, the Holy Spirit seeming to be forgotten.

Of course Christians instantly answer that Jesus being God, their worship of him is also the worship of the other persons.

Cyril

I have seen that you have indepth knowledge about Christianity and Islam as well.But as I understand you are niether a Christain nor a Muslim.

Do you come to a conclusion or you still need some time before finding the truth? or this is only your hobby to discuss the religion with others?

Cyril wrote: Bismarck Christians base their faith on the New Testament not on a Tertullian. You can forget the name "trinity" if it bothers you, but then you'll have to replace it by a whole paragraph. The word Trinity was coined to name the new concept of God that emerges from the NT. Not the other way around.

Excellent point!

Well, Usmani

Cyril really discusses well and all seem to enjoy that. It is hard to get people like Cyril on such boards, who discuss so well.

In fact, Cyril teaches us more about the weak points of Christianity.

BMZ

Hello

I am new to the forum, I have read with intrest all the debate.

My question to Cyril is, how can Christianity explains Trinity when they believe that Jesus died on the cross, if he were God, than God can not die(  as he was dead for at least three days according to your belief), if God in heaven was looking after the universe than how can one part or entity of God die and other dont. So my question is, based on christian theology--------WHO died on cross?????

muslimdoc wrote:

> how can one part or entity of God die

When a human being dies, it is only the physical body which dies.  The important part of the human (the soul) continues to exist elsewhere.

Likewise, when Jesus died, only his physical body died.  The real "non physical" Jesus continued to exist elsewhere.  So, then, it can be said that although the physical body of God (Jesus) died, Jesus did not cease to exist.

Dear bmzsp

I am sorry if I have done any thing wrong here.I only intent to advised Cyril an important point for his benefit.Nothing stops him to carry on with the discussion.I hope he will carry on with this and people here will keep benefited from him.

Dear Usmani,

Please do not be sorry. In fact, I appreciated your point but put it in a different way.

Best Regards & Salaam Alaikum

BMZ

Reepicheep wrote:

(when Jesus died, only his physical body died.  The real "non physical" Jesus continued to exist elsewhere.  So, then, it can be said that although the physical body of God (Jesus) died, Jesus did not cease to exist.)

If Jesus was like us, human being, than why do you call him God.

You are making argument that he was in fact human

muslimdoc wrote:

> You are making argument that he was in fact human

Yes, you are correct.  Christians believe that Jesus was human.  But we also believe that Jesus was God.

Than what is the big deal about his death that it washes away all your sins if just a human being died. Humans die everyday.

Remember God can not die.

I'm a bit confused as well.  The guy who started this thread off says he trained as a Catholic priest - if so he should have been aware of the Athenasian Creed:

"Thus the Father is God; the Son is God; the Holy Spirit is God:

And yet there are not three gods, but one God."

Likewise he should surely have known that Muslims totally reject the notion of incarnation because they don't believe Jesus was divine.  It's one of those 'you believe one thing and I believe another' situations - isn't it?

Is the original poster still around?  What does he think now?

oregonbagpiper wrote: I am really, really confused about something.  Having been raised a Christian, having studied for the Catholic priesthood, and now, reflecting on many, many years of private study have left me with one thing that I would like input from Muslims on - the Christian doctrine of the Trinity. It seems to me that for God to be God he must be unchanging (and unchangable).  If God changes, he is not God - he is a changable finite being.  If he even possesses the ability to change, he is not infinite and eternal. Christians believe that God is infinite and eternal, and the doctrine taught in the Nicene Creed that God is to be understood in Three Divine Persons - Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.  Even IF that is the nature of God, the Christian doctrine of the Incarnation - that is, that God the Son took on himself, Human Nature - implies that God has changed and 2000 year ago became something different:  Now Father, Son/Human Being, and Holy Spirit. It's really the doctrine of the Incarnation that troubles me.  It seems to me that the Incarnation poses a number of problems for believing in a God who is Infinite, Eternal, Unchanging, and One. Am I missing the ball here, or is one of the beliefs of Islam that God is eternal, unchanging, immutable, beyond time - Tawhid, I believe, encompasses this term. I would greatly appreciate any an all feedback so as to clear up this matter.  The Incarnation theology of Christianity is really the last stumbling block in my coming to Islam. Thank you to any and all replies.

Peace to you,

 It seems Im locked out of most of the topics hear and the trinity and issues that go with it are not my strong area of knowledge so I will give a comment on it just so I can begin posting on this wonderful forum.

I will be as honest as I can and try not to run rough-shot over any body's beliefs. 

 To be straight with you, Im not so sure the concept of the holy trinity can be fully understood.

   All the time us Muslims are told that we have no understanding of the trinity. There are many definitions of the trinity. Two of them that come to mind are hypostatic union and kinesis.

For this post I will stick with the hypostatic union theory as used by most protestants. It is this:

�In the incarnation of the Son of God, a human nature was inseparably united forever with the divine nature in the one person of Jesus Christ, yet with the two natures remaining distinct, whole, and unchanged, without mixture or confusion so that the one person, Jesus Christ, is truly God and truly man� (taken from Elwells's Evangelical Dictionary)

Now that we have a working definition we can proceed. Right away I can see a problem with this. This claims that Jesus(sallahu alayhe wassalam) was both 100% man and 100% God at the same time.

 What makes God God and what makes man a man? Their attributes. God is Merciful, Jesus(sallahu alayhe wassalam) was also Merciful. God Performs miracles, Jesus (sallahu alayhe wassalam) also did miracles.

 So far so good. A person can make a long list of these. But God is unseen. Jesus (sallahu alayhe wassalam) was seen by many. A human being can not be seen and unseen at the same time. God is all knowing. But Jesus (sallahu alayhe wassalam) by his own admission was not all knowing. A person can not be all knowing and yet suffer from any form of ignorance. Some claim that his godly attributes would have covered up his human attributes. Now dont get me wrong hear. Jesus (sallahu alayhe wassalam) had more spiritual wisdom that perhaps any person that has ever walked planet earth but He was not all knowing as we see in this bible verse:

Mark 13:32 "But of that day or that hour no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father.

 At one point in my Christian studies I asked myself this question:

 Did God All-Mighty the Creator of Heaven and Earth ever claim that he was Jesus (sallahu alayhe wassalam)? No. Did God All-Mighty ever claim he was in the form of a human being? What about Zeus? No. He never said he was Zeus. Or Buhada? No. He never said he was Buddah.

 Now the Christians will argue John 1:1 "The word was God" Well are these the words of God? No. This was a person's personal philosophy. Christians will answer in the affirmative. John was led by the Spirit. How to argue with them?  I think it is best not to. I have debated with Christians and the "Holy Spirit" is their life line. When you get them in a corner they say "but the spirit leads me." To them I say OK. Go be with your Spirit and have a nice life. Because it is impossible to reason with such a person.

 To accept the trinity I think a person must meet this requirement:

Martian Luther the reformer wrote:

 "Faith must trample under foot all reason, seance, and understanding and whatever it sees it must put out of sight"

"The Greatest proof against the trinity comes from observing Christians , seeing them stumble blunder while they attempt to argue its validity". (me) They even argue amongst themselves and can not reach a unified conclusion.

 I could go on but this will suffice for now.

 Tauheed on the other hand is an explanation or way of explaining the Oneness of God. Linguistically it means "to assert Oneness"

 God is One in every way. In His attributes like being the sole Creator of everything. He is One in every way. In short He is the only One there is one of. Since He is only One this implies that all our worship should be directed to Him as He is the only one worthy of worship. God is One in His attributes. This means that we only say about God waht He says about Himself and do not overstep the boundaries of what He has told us to say.

 Hear is a Quran verse to this effect:

Surah 112.                                               

 Qulhu allahu ahad Allahu alssamadu Lam yalid walam yooladu Walam yakun lahu kufuwan ahadun

  Say: He is Allah, the One and Only;
 Allah, the Eternal, Absolute;
 He begetteth not, nor is He begotten;
 And there is none like unto Him.

 More later if necessary...........

 Peace be to you.

Can Luther be cited as an authority for all Christians?  I think the Pope might have something to say about that, but lets follow up that thought anyway.

"Faith must trample under foot all reason..."  So that's what Luther said?

Of course, that is what atheists today would say all people who believe in God are doing, whether they identify themselves as Muslim, Christian or Jew or whatever.  They could use it as an attack upon people of all the major faiths, Islam included.

There are many people who will claim that there is no place for religion in a modern world. There are many people who describe themselves as Muslim, Christian, Jew who fail to follow the teachings of their own holy books.  The Christian gospels do not provide any justification for starting wars.  The Koran does not provide any justification for suicide bombers.

Christians don't agree on the concept of the trinity - to be honest I don't think that they give it a lot of thought these days.  By and large they tend to focus on things that I'd hope we can all agree upon, God's message of peace and love.  Do all Muslims understand and agree on every aspect of Islam?   Does any living person have a perfect understanding of their faith?  I have never met any member of any religion who would claim to have that.  What they all have had in common is a belief that God has a purpose for them and that there is a message of peace respect and compassion that we all should follow.  Anyone, including atheists can read such a message, but it takes faith to accept it.  It surely does not take perfect understanding to believe in God, but without faith there would be no religions, that is the difference between believers and atheists. 

I'm still hoping that the guy who started this thread is going to come back and comment on his position now he's seen all these postings.

"I'm still hoping that the guy who started this thread is going to come back and comment on his position now he's seen all these postings."

Greetings, Matt

I hope that oreganbagpiper comes back beofore this topic goes haywire.  It is his/her topic and he/she should comment.

BR

BMZ

aa,

 He started another thread in the introduction section wanting to know how to convert to Islam and looking for help with it. I think he went off to take his shahadah insha'allah.