There is no Evidence of Surah 4:157 in the Hadith collections, nor on the Dome of the Rock !
The Dome of the Rock in Jerusalem, containing some of the earliest, if not the earliest attested inscriptions of the Qur'an in history, 691-692 AD! (aside from the claims of the Muslims of the copies of the Qur'an themselves that go back to Uthman, 650-656 AD)
You can see the Dome of the Rock inscriptions here in a very helpful article and diagram by Muslims. (the web-site, Islamic Awareness)
Surah 4:157 is the denial that Jesus was crucified and died. Because of this one verse, Islam denies the main teaching of Christianity and Islam denies undeniable history. "they did not kill him nor was he crucified; . . . for certain he was not killed"
Here is the full text of the verse, that is NOT part of the inscriptions on the Dome of the Rock:
وَقَوْلِهِمْ إِنَّا قَتَلْنَا الْمَسِيحَ عِيسَى ابْنَ مَرْيَمَ رَسُولَ اللَّهِ وَمَا قَتَلُوهُ وَمَا صَلَبُوهُ وَلَٰكِن شُبِّهَ لَهُمْ ۚ وَإِنَّ الَّذِينَ اخْتَلَفُوا فِيهِ لَفِي شَكٍّ مِّنْهُ ۚ مَا لَهُم بِهِ مِنْ عِلْمٍ إِلَّا اتِّبَاعَ الظَّنِّ ۚ وَمَا قَتَلُوهُ يَقِينًا
(Surah 4:157) That they said (in boast), "We killed Christ Jesus the son of Mary, the Messenger of Allah";- but they killed him not, nor crucified him, but so it was made to appear to them, and those who differ therein are full of doubts, with no (certain) knowledge, but only conjecture to follow, for of a surety they killed him not:-
Dr. White said in his opening in his debate on the Crucifixion with Shabir Ally:
“And what is truly amazing to me is this: when the Qur'an contradicts the Christian teaching of the deity of Christ, it does so repeatedly, and forcefully. We likewise find references to this in the hadith. But when it comes to this one single ayah, these 40 lonely Arabic words that pop into the Qur'an out of nowhere, we likewise cannot find any meaningful commentary on these words in the hadith literature. Think of it. Muslims for two hundred years could not think of any commentary by Muhammad on this ayah. And yet, I, as a Christian, am to believe these 40 Arabic words, written over half a millennium after the Christ event, in a different language from far away are to be taken to be sufficient to overthrow the entirety of the New Testament and the testimony of eye witnesses and martyrs.”
Dr. James White, introductory statement in his debate with Shabir Ally on the Crucifixion of Christ.
I wonder why there is no commentary on this verse for 200 years after the Hegira (or Hijra) (Muhammad’s flight to Medina, 622 AD) ?
Again, let it sink in: "Think of it. Muslims for two hundred years could not think of any commentary by Muhammad on this ayah."
Remember, the 6 most authoritative Sunni Hadith collections are dated in the mid to late 800s AD. (Scroll down to the end of the article on the Debate, "Can God Become a Man".)
Likewise, there is no mention of Surah 4:157 on the Dome of the Rock, build in 691-692 AD.
Why is this significant? Because it contains lots of anti-Christian polemic against the Deity of Christ and His Sonship, yet has nothing regarding the crucifixion. It seems obvious that the Dome of the Rock was built for the purpose to show the superiority and truth of Islam over the Christians in Jerusalem and surrounding areas, and the Qur’anic verses on the structure demonstrate this. It was meant to rival the church of the Holy Sepulcher, but doesn’t mention the main issue of the cross and resurrection.
It would seem only reasonable and consistent with Islam’s teachings and claims that they would put such an important verse on the Dome of the Rock, on the place where the Jewish temple stood for centuries, which was destroyed in 70 AD; and near the place where the Christians and the NT claims that Jesus was crucified. The book of Hebrews demonstrates that Christ fulfilled the sacrifices of the temple, by being the final sacrifice for sin. What better place to put the Islamic one verse that seeks to overturn that?
It makes a thinking person wonder.
It is very interesting that it has Surah 19:33, which seems to indicate that Jesus would die, as it is the same statement about John the Baptist in 19:15; and yet the Dome of the Rock does not have Surah 4:157. Because of Surah 4:157, Muslims are forced to interpret the day that Jesus’ dies in 19:33 as referring to after He returns (the second coming of Christ) and gets married and lives a full life on earth.
The Dome of the Rock has Surah 4:171, a clear denial of the Deity of Christ, the Sonship of Christ, and a denial of what the Muslims thought the Trinity was. (“Say not three”; ie, “three gods” or “the Father, the Son, and the Mother” (see Surah 5:116; 6:101 – A false understanding of the Trinity.)
The inscriptions of the Dome of the Rock has Surah 112, several verses from Surah 19 and Surah 3 (the two main Surahs that have the most information in the Qur'an about Jesus and Mary, in comparison with others) and others that deny God can have a Son. ( All of the references: 64:1 and 57:2b (twice); 17:111; 33:56; 19:33-36; 3:18-19; 3:47c; 3:51.) It also contains a few other phrases not exactly in the Qur’an ("He (Allah) has no associate" - clearly meant to be preaching to the Christians in Jerusalem), and blessings on the prophet Muhammad. Some of the grammar from the Qur'an is changed and some minor introductory phrases are left out from the Qur'anic verses. You can see the full text of the inscriptions of the Dome of the Rock with the Qur'anic references at this article by Estelle Whelan; scroll down, see under "Quranic Inscriptions". (Also at the Islamic Awareness website)
Since the Crucifixion of Jesus Christ is one of the most established facts of ancient history, confirmed by Roman historians (Tacitus, Annals XV.44) and the Jewish historian Josephus (Antiquities XVIII. 63-64) and by the New Testament writings (48-96 AD), and by many early church fathers and writers and others for 600 years, it is indeed curious that the Dome of the Rock does not have this one little verse from the Qur’an, Surah 4:157.
Indeed, it makes a thinking person wonder.
Posts
34 comments:
Hi Ken,
A very interesting post! At the end, you wrote:
==Since the Crucifixion of Jesus Christ is one of the most established facts of ancient history, confirmed by Roman historians (Tacitus, Annals XV.44) and the Jewish historian Josephus (Antiquities XVIII. 63-64) and by the New Testament writings (48-96 AD), and by many early church fathers and writers and others for 600 years, it is indeed curious that the Dome of the Rock does not have this one little verse from the Qur’an, Surah 4:157.
Indeed, it makes a thinking person wonder.==
Me: Not so "curious" if one takes seriously the data and stance provided in THIS THREAD, a thread you participated in. In the following, lies the 'solution':
==Islamic scholar, Dr. Mahmoud M. Ayoub wrote:
The Quran...does not deny the death of Christ. Rather it challenges human beings who in their folly have deluded themselves into believing that they would vanquish the divine Word, Jesus the messenger of God. The death of Christ is asserted several times and in various contexts, see for example S. 3:55; 5:117; 19:33. (“Towards an Islamic Christology II”, The Muslim World, Vol. LXX, April 1980, #2, p. 106.)
Another Islamic scholar, Neal Robinson, gleaned the following data from the Rasā’l (‘Epistles’) of the Ikhwan al-Safa (Brethren of Purity):
Jesus’ humanity (nāsut) was crucified and his hands were nailed to the cross. He was left there all day, given vinegar to drink, and pierced with a lance. He was taken down from the cross, wrapped in a shroud and laid in the tomb. Three days later he appeared to the disciples and was recognized by them. When the news spread that he had not been killed, the Jews opened up the tomb but did not find his mortal remains (nāsut). (Christ In Islam and Chritianity, pp. 56, 57.)
Abu Ya’qub Ishaq al-Sijistani wrote:
Without doubt murder and crucifixion were inflicted upon his body. The pronoun (hu) since it appeared at the end of the words ‘murdered him’ ‘qataluhu’, or crucified him is a pointing letter to the spirit (huwiyya) of Jesus. So in this exists the evidence he who suffered death and crucifixion was not the spirit (huwiyya) of Jesus. (Kitab Ithbat al-Nubuwat, Al-Matb’aa al-Kathulikiah, Bierut, Lebanon, 1966, p. 185.)==
Sincerely hope you will not find the above link as laughable as the link to the brilliant scholar, N.T. Wright, in your previous thread...
Grace and peace,
David
Hi David,
I am sincerely glad you commented; I don't get many comments when the subject is Islam and sometimes I wonder if people read these, or even care.
Thanks for the challenging thoughts; to get your ending comment out of the way at first, I did not write that N. T. Wright was laughable, but I asked you if his new work added anything new to the debate, since Piper already wrote a whole book responding to N. T. Wright's view on justification in the Pauline epistles.
Again, I wrote:
"I have not read N. T. Wright's book on Justification, but Piper (The Future of Justification) responded very adequately to Wright's writings before this.
Does it really add anything new to the debate/discussion?"
You didn't answer my question yet.
We also made some comments that were about your seemingly affinity for Mormonism and Bahai'ism; and what they might think about Justification, but those really had nothing to do with Wright's work. ( I admit that those comments were a little pejorative.)
I will try to interact with the Islamic stuff in another post.
I don't get many comments when the subject is Islam and sometimes I wonder if people read these, or even care.
Ken,
Keep in mind, many of the posts I've written have often gone without seeming interest or comments. I write them because I enjoy writing them. Some of these have taken multiple hours to put together, and have actually cost me $$ in order to check facts and sources.
As to your Islam posts, I've definitely benefited from them, and I appreciate them. I've been to at least 3 of Dr. White's debates on Islam. I think the subject is quite relevant.
I would be interested for to hear Mr. Waltz explain why Surah 4:157 happens to not be on the Dome of the Rock.
David Waltz wrote:
==Islamic scholar, Dr. Mahmoud M. Ayoub wrote:
I found the bio info on Dr. Ayoub -
http://macdonald.hartsem.edu/Ayoub.html
It seems like a modern, western attempt to deal with the embarrassing fact of the clear words, in Surah 4:157, "they did not kill him, nor was he crucified . . . for sure ( یقینا - from yaqin یقین - certainty; I know this word, we have it in Farsi.) Also, as a Shiite, he is more open to the death of the prophets/leaders, as Ali and Hussein were killed; so that may also be in a factor in his views.
The Quran...does not deny the death of Christ.
It sure seems like it does in 4:157 and yet, in recently years has been an embarrassment as Muslims are having to deal with real historical facts and research; and they are being challenged also by 19:33 and 3:55.
Rather it challenges human beings who in their folly have deluded themselves into believing that they would vanquish the divine Word, Jesus the messenger of God.
This sounds like a desire to harmonize the Islamic text of 4:157 with the death and resurrection of Jesus. Obviously, "the divine Word" - the logos, who is God, from eternity - John 1:1, the divine nature did not die; and Jesus' resurrection from the dead proved He was who He said He was, God in the flesh, the Son of God, God the Son, the Messiah, the Word, etc. Christians and the Bible also see His resurrection as a victory over sin and death and Satan; so the author uses language that reminds one of the victorious nature of the resurrection; and the fact that the divine nature of Jesus was not destroyed.
The death of Christ is asserted several times and in various contexts, see for example S. 3:55; 5:117; 19:33.
Yes, but how did early Islam see this, and how was it viewed until the last 30-50 years?
(“Towards an Islamic Christology II”, The Muslim World, Vol. LXX, April 1980, #2, p. 106.)
What ancient / classical Tafsir or commentary on Islam do you have that backs up this view?
Al Tabari ?
Al Qurtubi ?
Ibn Kathir?
Ibn Taymiyya ?
Hanafi ?
Jalalayn ?
Al Razi ?
Zamakhshari ?
Al Ghazzali ?
Thanks James -
You are right - some of yours also go without any comments or very little and some are almost like a "mini-Phd. thesis on Luther". (smile) Maybe the cumulative work you have done on Luther would qualify for a Phd.
I am amazed at the research you do on Luther and it seems like a lot of hard work -and yet many times, no comments.
Yeah, I write mine also just because I enjoy it, but it is nice to get a little interaction.
Debating helps me learn and motivates me to find answers to challenges.
I like David Waltz as a challenge, (I learn a lot by interacting with him at his blog); and as he has done a lot of research, although I disagree with a lot of his conclusions (and presuppositions probably also); and his RC and JW background is interesting; but his "affinity" / positive spirit for Mormonism and openness to Bahai'ism is really strange to me.
More from David Waltz:
Quoting modern Islamic scholars.
Do you know what the Epistles of the Brethren of Purity is? Rasā’l (‘Epistles’) of the Ikhwan al-Safa (Brethren of Purity): - that Neal Robinson mentions?
I recognize all three of these words, as we also have them in Farsi ) Epistles, Brothers, and Purity.
رساءل اخوان الصفا
Jesus’ humanity (nāsut)
David, do you know what this word, "nasut" is? Is is from Insan ( انسان = human, man) ?
was crucified and his hands were nailed to the cross. He was left there all day, given vinegar to drink, and pierced with a lance. He was taken down from the cross, wrapped in a shroud and laid in the tomb. Three days later he appeared to the disciples and was recognized by them. When the news spread that he had not been killed,
Swoon theory ?
the Jews opened up the tomb but did not find his mortal remains (nāsut). (Christ In Islam and Chritianity, pp. 56, 57.)
Abu Ya’qub Ishaq al-Sijistani wrote:
Without doubt murder and crucifixion were inflicted upon his body.
They seem to admit his body was crucified and killed and that He died; but if God, obviously, the divine nature did not die, it cannot by definition. Also, death for humans is the separation of the soul/spirit from the body; and souls continue on and will be judged and some will be in eternity in heaven and some in eternity in hell. ( in resurrected bodies at the final resurrection of the dead and judgment day.)
The pronoun (hu) since it appeared at the end of the words ‘murdered him’ ‘qataluhu’, or crucified him is a pointing letter to the spirit (huwiyya)
Do you know what this word is? - huwiyya ? - it is not the normal word for "spirit" (ruh = روح , nor does it appear to be the soul - "nafs" نفس - cognate with the Hebrew - nefesh נפש
nor does it appear to be "life" ( hayyat - حیات ) - So do you know what it is? and I don't see that word in Surah 4:157, so I don't know what he is referring to.
of Jesus. So in this exists the evidence he who suffered death and crucifixion was not the spirit (huwiyya) of Jesus. (Kitab Ithbat al-Nubuwat, Al-Matb’aa al-Kathulikiah, Bierut, Lebanon, 1966, p. 185.)==
What does he mean that the "spirit of Jesus did not suffer death and crucifixion? It seems like a very gnostic way of speaking; the soul or spirit, strictly speaking, don't suffer death, since that is a physical action. There is a lot of Gnosticism in Sufism, in fact, one of the English equivalents of Sufism is "Gnosticism"; also "mysticism" - a radical separation of body vs. spirit/soul/mind. Iranians Sufis are also really into that Gnostic/Sufi philosophy.
When I die, will my spirit suffer death? When you die David, will your "sprit suffer death" ??
It seems a moot point, since the Bible teaches that all souls actually continue - some will have eternal life in heaven and others eternal torment in hell; with resurrected bodies. (John 5:25-29)
Death is separation of the spirit/soul from the body; so this is also true for other humans(though we usually talk in terms of dichotomizing so much until death - we don't talk about separation of them until death, because that is what death does, it separates body and soul and the body dies; and more true for the God-man, who truly died - his human self/nature died; but His divine nature lived in power and He also raised Himself from the dead - John 10:18; John 2:19-22. The Father raised Jesus from the dead; the Son raised Himself from the dead; and the Spirit also was involved, "made alive by the Spirit" - I Peter 3:18 - another demonstration of the Trinity.
oops, typo -
(though we usually talk in terms of dichotomizing so much until death -
Should have been -
(though we usually don't talk in terms of dichotomizing so much until death -
Hey, James and Ken,
I think you guys would be amazed at how many lurkers there are. I for one don't typically post comments unless there's a Roman Catholic or someone making an argument in the comment sections. I can't imagine how many people read and have never commented at all.
After all, the most I can normally say is "great post, thanks!".
Keep up the good work, guys! What you're doing is very useful and important, and educational as well.
In Christ,
JL
Thanks John for your encouragement!
Good reminder about lurkers and people who just read and don't make comments.
Hi Ken,
Thanks for responding; I shall follow your lead, and address the off-topic comments first. You wrote:
=="I have not read N. T. Wright's book on Justification, but Piper (The Future of Justification) responded very adequately to Wright's writings before this.
Does it really add anything new to the debate/discussion?"
You didn't answer my question yet.==
Me: Given the later tone of the subsequent comments, it sure seemed to me that constructive dialogue was unwelcome in the thread, so I refrained from further posts in that thread.
==We also made some comments that were about your seemingly affinity for Mormonism and Bahai'ism; and what they might think about Justification, but those really had nothing to do with Wright's work. ( I admit that those comments were a little pejorative.)==
Me: If I were an apologist for either Mormonism or Baha'i-ism, I would understand the comments. The thread was on justification, more specifically, recent writings on the justification debates; I merely recommended two recent books I have read that are germane to the topic of the thread. Oh the evil (wink)...
Grace and peace,
David
Hello again Ken,
Moving on to the topic of this thread...
You wrote:
== I found the bio info on Dr. Ayoub -
http://macdonald.hartsem.edu/Ayoub.html
It seems like a modern, western attempt to deal with the embarrassing fact of the clear words, in Surah 4:157, "they did not kill him, nor was he crucified . . . for sure ( یقینا - from yaqin یقین - certainty; I know this word, we have it in Farsi.) Also, as a Shiite, he is more open to the death of the prophets/leaders, as Ali and Hussein were killed; so that may also be in a factor in his views.==
Me: I see Dr. Ayoub more as a modern day Luther; he is dealing with what the text actually says, using the Qur'an to interpret the Qur'an, without centuries of 'man-made traditions'.
== The Quran...does not deny the death of Christ.
It sure seems like it does in 4:157 and yet, in recently years has been an embarrassment as Muslims are having to deal with real historical facts and research; and they are being challenged also by 19:33 and 3:55.==
Me: Todd Lawson's book demonstrates that there existed Muslims throughout history that affirmed the crucifixion and physical death of Jesus on the cross. Further his exegesis of 4.157 sure seems solid to me, suggesting that the passage is open to more than one interpretation.
==This sounds like a desire to harmonize the Islamic text of 4:157 with the death and resurrection of Jesus. Obviously, "the divine Word" - the logos, who is God, from eternity - John 1:1, the divine nature did not die; and Jesus' resurrection from the dead proved He was who He said He was, God in the flesh, the Son of God, God the Son, the Messiah, the Word, etc. Christians and the Bible also see His resurrection as a victory over sin and death and Satan; so the author uses language that reminds one of the victorious nature of the resurrection; and the fact that the divine nature of Jesus was not destroyed.==
Me: Harmonization is a bad thing??? Personally, I find it much 'easier' to harmonize 4.157 with the rest of the Qur'an on this issue (i.e. the physical death of Jesus), than it is to harmonize Paul with James on the issue of justification.
==The death of Christ is asserted several times and in various contexts, see for example S. 3:55; 5:117; 19:33.
--Yes, but how did early Islam see this, and how was it viewed until the last 30-50 years?==
Me: You are missing the point of the very topic of this thread: "The Dome of the Rock Inscriptions - Why no mention of the denial of the crucifixion in Surah 4:157?"; there is no mention of the denial of the crucifixion in earliest Islam because that understanding of the passage is a LATER DEVELOPMENT.
As for the Tasfirs that you listed, to attempt to find the earliest/correct interpretation of 4.157 in them would be analogous to trying to find justification by imputation (rather than infusion) in the Bible commentaries produced between 200 AD and 1517 AD...
Grace and peace,
David
P.S. This will have to be my last comment for today; it is a gorgeous day here, and I have outdoor projects that need to be tended to.
David,
I would still appreciate some kind of answer to the justification issue - does Wright's book add anything new, since Piper already responded to him and his writings on the issue?
You could go to the Justification thread and answer there; I sincerely do appreciate your interaction; - I disagree with you on many things, and with your musings on Islam here, which I will address later; and I do appreciate that you have read so many books on justification, even though I do think your openness to Bahai'ism is really weird and non-Christian and I urge you to trust in Christ alone by faith alone.
Me: I see Dr. Ayoub more as a modern day Luther; he is dealing with what the text actually says, using the Qur'an to interpret the Qur'an, without centuries of 'man-made traditions'.
To me he is ignoring what the text of Surah 4:157 actually says. He is trying to save Islam from embarrassment over the obvious contradiction to
1. history
2. Christianity, which is historical, and came before Islam
3. the contradiction to Surah 19:33 and 3:55
and he does seem to want to find a way to make more friendliness to Christian thought, it does seem that way.
David,
You didn't deal with the emphatic statement of 4:157 and the word "for certain" or "for sure" - Yaqhinan / یقینا
- they did not kill him, nor was he crucified . . . they did not kill for certain."
and you didn't explain what the word "huwiyya" is, that these writers are claiming is referring to "the Spirit" of Jesus.
So, you do agree with Luther ? that he re-discovered the gospel, faith alone, and imputation as from the text of Scripture that had been lost by the man-made traditions?
At one point, you affirm what Luther did; but then later trash the ability to harmonize the Protestant view of justification in Romans chapters 3-5 / Galatians/Philippians 3:9/2 Cor. 5:21 with James 2.
You wrote:
Me: Todd Lawson's book demonstrates that there existed Muslims throughout history that affirmed the crucifixion and physical death of Jesus on the cross. Further his exegesis of 4.157 sure seems solid to me, suggesting that the passage is open to more than one interpretation.
His exegesis of 4:157 was strange; - his main point is that Jesus did not die, because no one really dies - their spirits/souls are alive in paradise/heaven - "do not consider those who are slain in the cause of Allah (Jihad / Qatal / harm) as dead, for they are alive and with their Lord they have provision." 3:169
"they were slain" in 3:169
Jesus was not killed, not crucified, they did Not kill him for sure. in 4:157 - big difference!
"Do not consider them who are slain in the way of Allah, as dead, for they are alive and with their Lord they have provision." (from Surah 3:169) It is talking about paradise for those who are slain. They are alive in paradise. The context is fighters who really did die in battle for Islam, and rebuking the hypocrites who stayed at home and did not fight - 3:167-168. this is a strange way to try and deal with the grammar of 4:157 that says "they did not kill him, nor did they crucify Him . . . for sure they did not kill him."
yet, in the 3:167-169 context, the Qur'an admits that they were killed, he just encourages them to think of them as alive in paradise.
David Waltz wrote:
Me: You are missing the point of the very topic of this thread: "The Dome of the Rock Inscriptions -
How am I missing the point, when I am the one who wrote the article; when I am the one who is making the point?
David wrote:
Why no mention of the denial of the crucifixion in Surah 4:157?"; there is no mention of the denial of the crucifixion in earliest Islam because that understanding of the passage is a LATER DEVELOPMENT.
I agree only that it looks like 4:157 was created/written later - redactors/editors came later and added it in to the Qur'an (that is what it looks like to me) after the Dome of the Rock and after the Hadiths are collected; but 4:157 taught clearly that Jesus was not crucified nor killed.
They seemed to need to deny the other main teaching of Christianity, in order to be the superior religion that 'completes all monotheistic religions before it."
Since you have read Lawson and these all these books, I was hoping you would show more evidence of early Islam affirming the crucifixion and killing of Jesus, etc.; but you don't - most of the commentary from what I have seen is just saying, "even though they did kill his body, they could not kill his spirit/soul and he is alive in heaven, like the martyrs of Islam who really die, but they are alive in heaven now."
You could say that about anybody, not just Christ; it seems like a massive simplistic dismissal. ( of a very embarrassing contradiciton)
Since you do believe in the death of Christ, and supposedly you believe in His atonement for sin, and resurrection, how could you entertain this Islamic view, when it overthrows the significance of the real atonement for sin (I John 2:2, Rom. 3:25-26; Mark 10:45; Isaiah 53, 1 Peter 2:24; Hebrews chapters 8-10, Romans 5; Heb. 2:17; etc.) ? - even though they are trying to deal with history, they don't interpret Jesus' death as atonement. Theses modern Muslims know they have to deal with the facts of history, but they don't admit the meaning of atonement.
وَلَا تَحْسَبَنَّ الَّذِينَ قُتِلُوا فِي سَبِيلِ اللَّهِ أَمْوَاتًا ۚ بَلْ أَحْيَاءٌ عِندَ رَبِّهِمْ يُرْزَقُونَ
(169) Think not of those who are slain [my comment: they really were killed physically in battle] in Allah´s way as dead. Nay, they live, finding their sustenance in the presence of their Lord; [paradise, heaven]
This is Surah 3:169 - the main verse that I remember that Lawson used (in your article and what you cited).
قُتِلُوا - this word, from the root Qatal قتل is used for premeditated murder in the 10 commandments in the Farsi translations of the Bible and is the main verb used for all the verses in the Qur'an for physical fighting against unbelievers.
Glad you have good weather out there in Washington State - it is rainy and terrible here in Atlanta.
http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Quran/Text/Mss/samarqand.html
If I am understanding everything right here -
It is interesting to me that according to this Muslim source, even the Samarqand manuscript does not contain Surah 4:157. Folios 98 – 112 contain Surah 4:92 to 4:145 and Folios 113-189 start with Surah 5:85. So from Surah 4:145 to 5:85 are missing. And the Muslim author here admits the Samarqand manuscript probably does not go back to Uthman.
But many Muslims claim that the Samarkand /Samarqand manuscript goes back to Uthman.
Hi Ken,
I see that you were very busy yesterday! I have about 2 hours to spend on your comments (have a friend coming over afternoon to help me with some NEEDED roof repair). I want to address Surah 4.157 before moving on to Wright and justification; given my time restraints, I doubt I will get to the latter.
You posted:
==Me: I see Dr. Ayoub more as a modern day Luther; he is dealing with what the text actually says, using the Qur'an to interpret the Qur'an, without centuries of 'man-made traditions'.
To me he is ignoring what the text of Surah 4:157 actually says. He is trying to save Islam from embarrassment over the obvious contradiction to
1. history
2. Christianity, which is historical, and came before Islam
3. the contradiction to Surah 19:33 and 3:55
and he does seem to want to find a way to make more friendliness to Christian thought, it does seem that way.==
Me: Dr. Ayoub is not, "ignoring what the text of Surah 4:157 actually says"; for some reason unknown to me, you are ignoring the fact that Surah 4.157 can legitimately be read in more than one way. Note the following from an essay hosted by the Reformed site, Contra Mundum:
"From the Arabic terms used in this verse (“subbiha lahum”; “mâ qatalûhu yaqînan”), it is obvious, that it is quite difficult to prefer a certain translation, since translation means at the same time interpretation. From the wording alone, one can either think, that the Qur'ân defends the crucufixion and death of Jesus Christ or that it rejects both because of the Arabic expression “subbiha lahum” (which means, “it” or “he” “seemed to them as if” or “he was made similar for them”). Several different interpretations have been given by Muslim Qur'ân commentators:
1. Nobody was crucified: Then Sure 4,157-158 means: it remains uncertain, what happened at the time of the crucifixion. The Jews aimed at crucifiying Jesus, but “it seemed to them only as if” the crucifixion of Jesus had taken place. The Jews thought thatthey had crucified Jesus, but because of the darkness and the earthquake, which the Bible also reports, he escaped his execution and was in time raised to heaven by God. Only a minority of Muslim theologians advocate this opinion, that nobody was crucified.
2. Jesus was crucified, but because of God's decree: With the expression “subbihalahum” could also be emphasized, that Jesus was crucified, but not because the Jews intended to do so, but because of God's own decree. The emphasis then lies on the first word “they slew him not” (but God caused his death and the Romans did the job). This opinion is today more an outsider's position in Muslim theology.
3. Another person was crucified instead of Jesus: A further interpretation of the expression “subbiha lahum” could be: It seemed to them as if Jesus was crucified. Then the verse would mean that Jesus was not crucified himself, but someone else; Jesus was either unintentionally mistaken for another person (this is today the opion of the wellknown Muhammad Taufîq Sidqî or of the great Si'îte theologian Muhammad Husain Tabâtabâ'î) or God transformed intentionally another person into the image of Jesus, so that he looked similar to Jesus and was crucified in his place.6 Jesus was risen to heaven alive, but everybody thought, that Jesus was crucified himself (this opionion is for example defended in the classical Qur'ân commentary of at-Tabarî). This interpretation of Sura 4,157-158 is today in the Muslim world the most frequent one. But there are also many different opinions when it comes to the question, who was crucified in Jesus' place?" (Dr. Christine Schirrmacher, "The Crucifixion of Jesus in View of of Muslim Theology", 1997 - accessed online LINK - bold emphasis in the first paragraph mine.)
cont'd
cont'd
At a Christian apologetic site that you have used many times in the past, I found the following:
"Part 4: Strike The Truth In The Cross
Chapter 2: Did Jesus Die?
It is a fact that the vast majority of Muslims believe in the substitution theory. Though modern thinkers like Dr. Ayoub and Dr. Hussein tell us that the theory of substitution makes mockery of divine justice, and belongs to the uncultured [1], the Muslim masses have been led to believe it and zealously defend it.
Not only do the masses believe in the substitution theory but they also believe that Jesus did not die.
However, modern thinkers insist that Jesus did die. Dr. Ayoub said that 'the verb, tawaffa, in general usage, means in its passive form, tuwuffi, to die.' [2] He then added, 'It was early reported on the authority of Ibn 'Abbas that the word mutawaffika means 'causing you to die', i.e. 'mumituka. ' Then in a footnote he said, 'Most commentators mention this as an alternative. Modern thinkers generally insist on it.' [3] (For example see 'abd al-Karim 'abd Allah al-Aniazi in his book, Elaykum Ya 'Ulama' al-Gharb, 1985, p. 27.)
It is amazing to know also that even Wahb spoke of the death of Jesus amongst the many versions of the stories he told. Suyuti relates that,
Ibn Garir and Ibn Abi Hatem on the authority of Wahb said, 'God caused Jesus Son of Mary to die three hours then lifted him up.'' Ibn 'Asaker said on the authority of Wahb that 'God caused Jesus son of Mary to die for three days then God resurrected and lifted him up.' And al-Hakem said on the authority of Wahb 'God caused Jesus son of Mary to die for seven hours then restored his life.' [4] [emphasis added]
That was rejected by Tabari. It is fascinating to note that Wahb even said that Jesus died for three days and God resurrected him and lifted him up. Again Dr. Ayoub found no difficulty in stating that the Qur'an plainly asserts that Jesus did die:
The Qur'an ... does not deny the death of Christ. Rather it challenges human beings who in their folly have deluded themselves into believing that they would vanquish the divine Word, Jesus the messenger of God. The death of Christ is asserted several times and in various contexts, see for example, S.3:55; 5:117; 19:33. [5]
According to Dr. Ayoub the Qur'an asserts the death of Christ several times and in various contexts. He does not appeal to any clever exegetical exercise, but to the clear passages of the Qur'an." (M. Anderson, Jesus The Light and Fragrance of God - accessed online LINK) - bold emphasis in final paragraph mine.)
To be continued...
Ooops...looks like I left out the site address in the link to Anderson's book--here it is:
http://www.answering-islam.org/Mna/frag4_2.html
LINK
Back to reading and writing...
http://www.answering-islam.org/Mna/frag4_1.html
David, your link didn't work, but I found it.
The problem with what you are doing and what those modern Muslim scholars are doing is that they are coming up with vastly different conclusions and have vastly different presuppositions than the authors at www.answering-islam.org
You wrote:
"However, modern thinkers insist that Jesus did die. Dr. Ayoub said that 'the verb, tawaffa, in general usage, means in its passive form, tuwuffi, to die.' [2] He then added, 'It was early reported on the authority of Ibn 'Abbas that the word mutawaffika means 'causing you to die', i.e. 'mumituka. ' Then in a footnote he said, 'Most commentators mention this as an alternative. Modern thinkers generally insist on it.' [3] (For example see 'abd al-Karim 'abd Allah al-Aniazi in his book, Elaykum Ya 'Ulama' al-Gharb, 1985, p. 27.) "
Yes, the words tawaffa and mutawaffika are used to speak of death, in 3:55 (It is like the English, "he passed away" ( we understand that as "he died; but there are other clearer words for death, as in 19:33) and several Arabic speakers have confirmed that for me. The problem is those words are NOT used in Surah 4:157. That is from 3:55. The way you organized your answer, you seemed to be focused on 4:157, but stuck that word from 3:55 in.
مُتَوَفِّيكَ - mutawaffika - 3:55
Behold! Allah said: "O Jesus! I will take thee and raise thee to Myself and clear thee (of the falsehoods) of those who blaspheme; I will make those who follow thee superior to those who reject faith, to the Day of Resurrection: Then shall ye all return unto me, and I will judge between you of the matters wherein ye dispute.
19:33 is even more clear; it uses a word for death that we have in Farsi - amot or amut - اموت
In Farsi, the word is "mot" موت
وَالسَّلَامُ عَلَيَّ يَوْمَ وُلِدتُّ وَيَوْمَ أَمُوتُ وَيَوْمَ أُبْعَثُ حَيًّا
"So peace is on me the day I was born, the day that I die, and the day that I shall be raised up to life (again)"! Surah 19:33
I see you corrected the link before I put up my post.
“subbiha lahum"
the transliteration should be "shubbiha" not "subbiha" شُبِّهَ
ش = "sh" sound
is not as complicated as these writers are trying to make it. We have a lot of this in Farsi also.
وَلَٰكِن شُبِّهَ لَهُمْ ۚ
"but, it appeared to them"
this phrase "it appeared to them" is not that complicated
We have "valiken" ولکن = "but" or "however"
شبه = "Shabiha" or "shubiha" = "like" "looks like", "appears". Used for metaphors with "like"
ل = to or towards, like the Hebrew, ל - "L"
هم - them
لهم = to them
Ken posted:
==You wrote:
Me: Todd Lawson's book demonstrates that there existed Muslims throughout history that affirmed the crucifixion and physical death of Jesus on the cross. Further his exegesis of 4.157 sure seems solid to me, suggesting that the passage is open to more than one interpretation.
His exegesis of 4:157 was strange; - his main point is that Jesus did not die, because no one really dies - their spirits/souls are alive in paradise/heaven - "do not consider those who are slain in the cause of Allah (Jihad / Qatal / harm) as dead, for they are alive and with their Lord they have provision." 3:169
"they were slain" in 3:169
Jesus was not killed, not crucified, they did Not kill him for sure. in 4:157 - big difference!
"Do not consider them who are slain in the way of Allah, as dead, for they are alive and with their Lord they have provision." (from Surah 3:169) It is talking about paradise for those who are slain. They are alive in paradise. The context is fighters who really did die in battle for Islam, and rebuking the hypocrites who stayed at home and did not fight - 3:167-168. this is a strange way to try and deal with the grammar of 4:157 that says "they did not kill him, nor did they crucify Him . . . for sure they did not kill him."
yet, in the 3:167-169 context, the Qur'an admits that they were killed, he just encourages them to think of them as alive in paradise.==
Me: First, I do not agree with you at all that Dr. Lawson's , "exegesis of 4:157 was strange". (LINK TO FIRST 37 PAGES, which includes all of chapter 1, wherein his exegesis of 4.157 lies.)
Further, one cannot ignore the fact that context of Surah 4.157 is THE BOASTING OF THE JEWS! Did the Jews kill Jesus? Did the Jesus crucify Jesus? And most importantly, did the Jews triumph over the Messiah they rejected?
cont'd
I found the following blog post to be 'spot-on':
"The Crucifixion and the Quran
SATURDAY, JULY 21, 2007
It is commonly held in Islam that the crucifixion of Jesus Christ did not occur.
It is stated in the Quran, That they said (in their boast), "We killed Christ Jesus The son of Mary, The Messenger of Allah"- but they killed him not, nor crucified him, but so it was made to appear to them, and those who differ therein are full of doubts, with no (certain) knowledge, but only conjecture to follow, for of a surety They killed him not-Nay, Allah raised him up unto Himself; and Allah is Exalted in Power, Wise- Q 4:157-158.
Most Moslems believe this to mean that Jesus Christ never died, but simply ascended up to heaven. Yet the Quran quotes Jesus as saying, "So Peace is on me the day I was born, the day that I die, and the day that I shall be raised up to life (again)"- Q 19:33. What an awesome presentation of the Gospel in that verse! Clearly the Gospels were well known to Mohamed as he received the Quranic revelation. Did he really intend to say that Jesus would not be killed? Or that He would not be crucified? Doubtful.
In fact, I don't see in Q 4:157-158 a denial of Christ's death, nor yet a denial of His crucifixion. Actually, I see a harmony between the text of that Surah, and John's gospel, when Jesus said, Therefore doth my Father love me, because I lay down my life, that I might take it again. No man taketh it from me, but I lay it down of myself. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again. This commandment have I received of my Father.- Jn 10.17-18.
It is so then that Jesus was not actually killed by the Jews, but it only appeared to them that they crucified Him, when in fact, He laid His own life down for us on the cross. It is not that He simply appeared to die on the cross as a docetic type of epiphany, with someone else being the actual victim (as portrayed in the apocryphal gospel of Barnabas). This need to have Jesus "trick" the Jews is not necessary if we realize that the Quran is not actually denying His crucifixion, nor yet His death. And to consider that He was raised up to life, and subsequently raised up to Allah, as is also in harmony with Christian Scripture (Jn 20.9-17; Acts 1.2-3, 9). Thus the Quran tells us, And there is none of the People of the Book but must believe in him before his death; and on the Day of Judgement He will be a witness against them- Q 4:159. To this Jesus also said of Himself, I said therefore unto you, that ye shall die in your sins: for if ye believe not that I am he, ye shall die in your sins.- Jn 8.24, and again Scripture says, ...that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name.- Jn 20.31." (LINK - bold and color emphasis in the original post not included.)
To be continued...the Lord willing
Grace and peace,
David
http://religiousroundtable.blogspot.com/2007/07/crucifixion-and-quran.html
The blog you got that from is someone who goes by this description:
LEON
I've been a follower of Jesus Christ since I was 18 years of age. And am deeply interested in the mystical applications of all religions.
It is hard to tell if the person is a kind of emergent-type or universalist or "new ager".
This is also the problem with dealing with some of your beliefs; they seem to have similar kinds of thinking - more of a post-modern Universalist, new age type of the underlying thinking.
Ken,
Have more reading of your comments to do, and may not be able to post again before I start my roof repair work. However, I would like to respond to the following that you said right now before I move on:
== At one point, you affirm what Luther did; but then later trash the ability to harmonize the Protestant view of justification in Romans chapters 3-5 / Galatians/Philippians 3:9 /2 Cor. 5:21 with James 2.==
..."trash the ability to harmonize the Protestant view of justification..."??? My goodness Ken, talk about an inflammatory, over-the-top, re-statement of what I actually wrote; here is what I penned:
== Harmonization is a bad thing??? Personally, I find it much 'easier' to harmonize 4.157 with the rest of the Qur'an on this issue (i.e. the physical death of Jesus), than it is to harmonize Paul with James on the issue of justification.==
Sure seems you are implying to your readers that I believe that Paul's and James' views on justification CANNOT be harmonized—for the record: I maintain that they CAN (and have been), be harmonized (even though a number of contemporary New Testament scholars believe that they cannot).
However, I know for a FACT that the harmonization carried out by competent New Testament scholars is not accomplished in a mere few pages; rather, we are historically talking about hundreds of pages!
Competent Quranic scholars can harmonize the passages dealing with the death of Jesus in just a few pages.
Since when is stating the truth to be construed as "trash"?
Grace and peace,
David
Glad to hear that you affirm that Romans 3, 4, 5 and Galatians are in harmony with James 2 - that Paul is speaking of justification by faith alone apart from works (when a person repents and trusts Christ) ; whereas James is speaking of the inevitable fruit and good works that result from true faith in Christ alone.
I honestly didn't realize you agreed with that.
Good.
However, that is much much easier to harmonize than what the Muslims are trying to do.
I don't buy it. It doesn't pass the smell test -
"they did not kill him nor crucified him, . . . for sure they did not kill him." is just too clear.
Hi Ken,
Forgive my somewhat tardy response, but I spent 8 1/2 hours repairing a roof yesterday; and though I am in excellent shape, all the extended bending over, walking up and down ladders, hefting heavy, awkward materials, etc. proved to be too much—my back is killing me!!! Anyway, enough whining; in your last post, you wrote:
==However, that is much much easier to harmonize than what the Muslims are trying to do.
I don't buy it. It doesn't pass the smell test -
"they did not kill him nor crucified him, . . . for sure they did not kill him." is just too clear.==
I have heard the same cry from many non-Evangelicals concerning James 2:24 vs. "justification by faith alone, via imputation alone". And as you know, the non-Evangelical approach to James 2:24 has dozens of verses to draw upon for 'support'. It took the esteemed John Gill no less than 328 pages to harmonize the germane passages in his book, The Cause of God and Truth. Just to refresh memory, here a few of the passages that needed to be harmonized, beginning with James (all quotes shall be from the KJV):
James 2:21 Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he had offered Isaac his son upon the altar?
James 2:24 Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only. (As you know, this is the ONLY verse in the entire Bible that uses the phrase, "by faith alone", and it is in the negative.)
Acts 10:35 But in every nation he that feareth him, and worketh righteousness, is accepted with him.
Rom. 2:5-8 But after thy hardness and impenitent heart treasurest up unto thyself wrath against the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God; Who will render to every man according to his deeds: To them who by patient continuance in well doing seek for glory and honour and immortality, eternal life: But unto them that are contentious, and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, indignation and wrath...
Matthew 5:20 For I say unto you, That except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven.
Matthew 16:27 For the Son of man shall come in the glory of his Father with his angels; and then he shall reward every man according to his works.
Matthew 19:17 And he said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God: but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments.
1 Peter 1:17 And if ye call on the Father, who without respect of persons judgeth according to every man's work, pass the time of your sojourning here in fear:
1 John 3:7 Little children, let no man deceive you: he that doeth righteousness is righteous, even as he is righteous.
Revelation 20:12 And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the books were opened: and another book was opened, which is the book of life: and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works.
Revelation 22:11 He that is unjust, let him be unjust still: and he which is filthy, let him be filthy still: and he that is righteous, let him be righteous still: and he that is holy, let him be holy still.
As you know, there are dozens more, but I want to stay under the Blogger 4,096 character per post limit.
Ken, with all due respect and sincerity, I must question your conclusion. I have provided a number of individuals who have been able to harmonize Surah 1.157 with the other Qur'anic passages that mention the death of Jesus (and those of the Bible), and they have been able to do so in a fraction of the pages that it took John Gill to accomplish his task. I cannot help but conclude that something has severely clouded your assessment.
Grace and peace,
David
I understand about having to work on your roof. No problem at all.
I don't expect your life to stop for this. I commend you for that kind of work that you did, and all the reading you do - you not just a book geek.
I know it's just a typo; but Surah 4:157. (you have 1:157 at the end of your last post)
Are you saying that it took John Gill 328 pages to harmonize all of those verses you listed (+ more) or James 2:24 by itself with Justification by faith alone (with Romans and Galatians, etc.?
If you include all of those verses, well of course; that is a lot of material.
But focusing on just James 2:14-26 and the context, the way he uses dikaiow, (δικαιοω) and the way he quotes from Genesis 15:6 and alluded to Genesis 22, it is not that hard to see that James means the nature of true faith and that works result from true faith.
Luke 7:35 and Matthew 11:19 show clearly enough the way James uses the word, meaning "to prove", "to vindicate", "to demonstrate", "to show".
Furthermore, the RC vs. Protestant division is big within Christiandom - but the little group of modern scholars within Islam are very, very minor and small; I would not be surprised if they were condemned by the other Muslims. There is not one orthodox Muslim debater who takes that position. see all the different debates at www.answeringmuslims.com, etc.
Even the swoon theory of the Ahmadiyyas and Ahmed Deedat seemed to also take that, is a very, very minority view.
there is no such division within Islam - both Sunnis and Shias and Sufis all believe that Isa Al Masih was not crucified and He was not killed, and He did not die.
Those you are citing are a small minority and modern phenomenon, and it is a very Gnostic / New Age - ish / postmodern way of trying to say "even though the Qur'an says "he was not crucified, nor was he killed, for certain he was not killed", he really was, in that the Qur'an is only talking about his spirit, not his body. "even though his body was killed", the Qur'an is just saying His spirit was not killed". This is really desperate and for lack of a better word, goofy.
Do you honestly think that is what Surah 4:157 originally meant?
And you left out responding to a lot of other material - what is the Arabic word that the author you quote uses for "spirit" ??
I know the Arabic words for "spirit", "soul" and "life" and the one he says is not it. (see the earlier com boxes)
Hi Ken,
In your 12-09 comment, you posted:
==Those you are citing are a small minority and modern phenomenon, and it is a very Gnostic / New Age - ish / postmodern way of trying to say "even though the Qur'an says "he was not crucified, nor was he killed, for certain he was not killed", he really was, in that the Qur'an is only talking about his spirit, not his body. "even though his body was killed", the Qur'an is just saying His spirit was not killed". This is really desperate and for lack of a better word, goofy.==
Me: I shall suggest that it is only "goofy" to those who are stepped in 'traditions' (i.e. Tasfirs). If one let's the text speak for itself, the inherent uniqueness and complexity of 4.157 cries out for a different interpretation than those given in the 'traditions'.
==Do you honestly think that is what Surah 4:157 originally meant?==
Me: Yes I do, for it is the only interpretation that harmonizes ALL of complexities.
==And you left out responding to a lot of other material - what is the Arabic word that the author you quote uses for "spirit" ??
I know the Arabic words for "spirit", "soul" and "life" and the one he says is not it. (see the earlier com boxes)==
Me: I think you are referring to the following that you posted earlier (12-05):
==Abu Ya’qub Ishaq al-Sijistani wrote:
Without doubt murder and crucifixion were inflicted upon his body.
They seem to admit his body was crucified and killed and that He died; but if God, obviously, the divine nature did not die, it cannot by definition. Also, death for humans is the separation of the soul/spirit from the body; and souls continue on and will be judged and some will be in eternity in heaven and some in eternity in hell. ( in resurrected bodies at the final resurrection of the dead and judgment day.)
The pronoun (hu) since it appeared at the end of the words ‘murdered him’ ‘qataluhu’, or crucified him is a pointing letter to the spirit (huwiyya)
Do you know what this word is? - huwiyya ? - it is not the normal word for "spirit" (ruh = روح , nor does it appear to be the soul - "nafs" نفس - cognate with the Hebrew - nefesh נפש
nor does it appear to be "life" ( hayyat - حیات ) - So do you know what it is? and I don't see that word in Surah 4:157, so I don't know what he is referring to.
of Jesus. So in this exists the evidence he who suffered death and crucifixion was not the spirit (huwiyya) of Jesus. (Kitab Ithbat al-Nubuwat, Al-Matb’aa al-Kathulikiah, Bierut, Lebanon, 1966, p. 185.)==
Me: The huwa points to the true self, the 'he' of man that is the image of God. Huwiyya is a termed used primarily by Sufis, and seems (I could be wrong on this, but I think this is probably the most correct understanding) to be a combination of huwa and hayy; both of which point to the true 'self', that which in man is the very image of God.
While writing this response, and couple of verses from the Bible came to mind:
John 11:26 And whosoever liveth and believeth in me shall never die. Believest thou this?
Matthew 10:28a And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul...
Grace and peace,
David
David Waltz wrote:
"Me: The huwa points to the true self, the 'he' of man that is the image of God. Huwiyya is a termed used primarily by Sufis, and seems (I could be wrong on this, but I think this is probably the most correct understanding) to be a combination of huwa and hayy; both of which point to the true 'self', that which in man is the very image of God."
David,
It is hard to know what the exact Arabic word is,(for Huwiyya and Huwa) in English letters, since there are two "h"s.
Is it هوا ؟
or
حوا ؟
The first one means "air" or "weather" - is not usually used for breath - although sometimes it is used for "desire" and "want".
The Second one is the word used for "Eve" - the wife of Adam.
I recognize "Hayy" as حی which means "living".
All three of these words, we have in Farsi - yet they are not used in the text of the Qur'an in 4:157.
And I have never heard them used of "the true self" - usually they use "Ruh" روح or نفس (self or breath) for that kind of speaking, the inner self.
There is a form of "Hayy" (living") in Surah 3:169, (they are alive) and we also have this in Farsi to mean "make alive".
أَحْيَاءٌ
Using 3:169 to interpret 4:157 seems very creative and inventive to me and still, which 4:157 is unique, it is not that complicated.
It is strange, because in the sense that 3:169 is speaking, all human beings are considered "alive" - especially the "righteous", (whether in an Islamic context or Biblical context) - that is the believers are alive in heaven with God/ or in paradise, etc.
So, it does not really make sense, because one could argue everybody is that way after they die.
It still does not deal with the clear grammar and clear declarative statement:
"they did not kill him, nor was he crucified, . . . for sure they did not kill him."
David,
Have you watched any or read any of the debates -
Do any of these Muslims make those arguments?
Bassam Zawadi
Sami Zaatari
Shabir Ally
Abdullah Kunde
Osama Abdullah
Abdullah Al Andolusi
Nader Ahmad
Adnan Rashid
others?
Even the late Ahmad Deedat, though he used the swoon theory, he did not take 4:157 the way you or Lawson are trying to take it.
or any of the others at
www.answeringmuslims.com
or
www.answering-islam.org
Do any of them even come close to that belief of Lawson (and the other ones you quoted from?)
Would the Grandverbalizer19 agree with you or Lawson's interpretation?
Hi Ken,
Since this thread is getting a bit 'old', and given that you posted your last 2 above comments (along with a 3rd) in this new thread , I have responded over there.
Grace and peace,
David
Post a Comment