Exposing the Muslim Propagandist's Obfuscation
MENJ has now again tried to offer a response, but has only managed to further expose his inability to interact with our refutation. [First read our last response to know what this discussion is all about.] In his latest smokescreen, he "responds" to our observation that Yahyas "explanation" is no more than an assumption:
If that is the best that the missionaries can bring up with in their "rebuttal", then there is nothing else to "rebut" except for their obstinate refusal to accept the proposed solution to the so-called "contradiction".
It is quite evident that MENJ is completely incapable of offering a meaningful response. This is perhaps the reason he chose to focus on our minor comment regarding Yahyas proposed explanation, and then concluded that we have a moral defect (our "obstinate refusal") for not accepting that suggested explanation. Anyone who has read our original article as well as our response to MENJ's first reply will have seen that we have carefully discussed this proposed solution. We have not simply ignored it, or refused to accept it without reason. We have presented many carefully reasoned arguments consisting of (a) common sense observations, and (b) quotations of further references from (i) the Quran, (ii) the ahadith and (iii) the early Muslim commentators providing substantial evidence why we consider this proposed solution to be incorrect.
In any meaningful academic intercourse, the next step after proposing a solution is the discussion of the suggested explanation, not an expectation that the other party will just accept it, and calling those obstinate who dare to question the proposition. That MENJ now chooses the ad hominem approach, questioning our character instead of discussing even one of the reasons we have given for our rejection of the proposed solution, implies his intellectual bankruptcy. Would he have resorted to such a desperate measure if he had left even one real argument in this discussion?
MENJ then turns to Yusuf Ali and simply requotes his footnote, despite the fact that Yusuf Alis comments have already been quoted and addressed in our original article!
As Yusuf Ali duly notes in footnote 4470:
The Commentators understand the "four Days" in verse 10 to include the two Days in verse 9, so that the total for the universe comes to six Days. This is reasonable, because the processes described in verses 9 and 10 form really one series. In one case it is the creation of the formless matter of the earth; in the other case it is the gradual evolution of the from of the earth, its mountains and seas, and its animal and vegetable life, with the "nourishment in due proportion", proper to each.
We have no problems accepting this explanation, so there is indeed nothing further to discuss if the missionary refuses to accept this explanation. If the major commentators of the Qur'ân had understood the verses in question as noted by A. Yusuf Ali, there is nothing left for the missionary use as an objection tool.
It may well be that MENJ has no problem accepting this interpretation, but that doesn't mean that others are not allowed to think for themselves and discover valid reasons contradicting this particular explanation. MENJ's whole response is simply the fallacy of appeal to authority: "Yusuf Ali (or Harun Yahya, or the majority of classical commentators, or whoever else) says so, therefore it is so." We reserve the right to think independently and to express our opinion about what is logical and what is not logical. Whether our arguments are, in the final analysis, correct or not, it remains a fact that MENJ has so far not addressed any of the arguments we have presented as speaking against this proposed solution, neither in his first response nor in the current one. History is filled with majority opinions that turned out to be wrong. "The majority believes that ..." is no argument in serious academic discussion.
It is not only true in mathematics that a proposition is accepted as indisputable only after the proof has been provided. Proposition AND proof are necessary. MENJ seems to demand that simply proposing an explanation is good enough. No way! Every proposition is up for debate as long as no decisive proof has been provided. As the English saying goes, "The proof is in the pudding." MENJ has only been serving us an empty bowl, with the claim that this should be satisfying enough. We are, however, still hungry. After we have been served some pudding, we'll examine whether the servings are indeed nutritious food, or may even be poison. But so far, we are waiting for the bowl to be filled the first time.
It is also worth noting that the missionary tradition relies on character assasination, made apparent by the description of the cited author Harun Yahya as a "contemporary Muslim propagandist". Whether he is a "propagandist" or otherwise as per the missionary claim, it is the argument that really matters and the missionaries has failed to respond to the solution proposed apart from their "reluctance" to do so. This behaviour is no different from the attitude of the so-called "apostle", Paul of Tarsus, when he made several venomous attacks and character assasinations in his epistles on those who recognise his teachings for what it is and opposed him. This is a topic that we will, insha'allah, discuss in the near future.
This is a rather obvious attempt to distract the attention of the reader away from the issue of the contradiction in the Quran towards a discussion of the proper terminology to be used regarding the job description of Harun Yahya, or pushing us into a debate on "the attitude of the apostle Paul", which has no relevancy for our topic whatsoever.
Though somewhat surprised at the turn of events in the second sentence of the above quoted portion, we are glad to see that MENJ at least in theory recognizes that it is the argument that really matters. There may actually be hope that he will eventually provide something like an argument. It is, however, a lie, and a very obvious one, when he claims that the missionaries has failed to respond to the solution proposed apart from their "reluctance" to do so. It seems that MENJ is reading our articles with his eyes tightly shut, if he reads them at all. In an attempt to prevent similar oversights for his next reply, we restate here what we already wrote some paragraphs earlier, but this time in a font size that even a blind man should be able to read, and with further added emphasis:
Anyone who has read our original article as well as our response to MENJ's first reply will have seen that we have carefully discussed this proposed solution. We have not simply ignored it, or refused to accept it without reason. We have presented many carefully reasoned arguments consisting of (a) common sense observations, and (b) quotations of further references from (i) the Quran, (ii) the ahadith and (iii) the early Muslim commentators providing substantial evidence why we consider this proposed solution to be incorrect.
Furthermore, the use of the term "propagandist" is no more an insult than MENJs use of the term "missionaries" (an issue we have already discussed at some length in this article). Harun Yahya seeks to propagate Islam, and in that sense is a Muslim propagandist. This is originally a neutral term but today - MENJ is right here - it has usually negative connotations. Given, however, that deliberate character assassination is a common feature in a large number of articles throughout MENJ's Bismikaallahuma website, including the expressions "missionary", "obstinate refusal", and the insults against the beloved Apostle Paul in the current article which have exactly this intention, we wonder what kind of moral higher ground MENJ imagined to be standing on when he issued his complaint.
Following the MENJ Destraction Detour just a couple of steps ...
Since MENJ insists on discussing the term propagandist as applied to Harun Yahya, and is not content to just view it as an objective description, here is one of many possible observations regarding his writings: Harun Yahya spends much time and effort in order to make Islam palatable to Western audiences. To this end he does not mind to distort and misrepresent the true teaching of the Quran. For example, in his article "People of The Book" & The Muslims : The Natural Alliance Between Christianity, Judaism and Islam, he makes the following ridiculous statement in his introductory paragraph: "... some circles have been presenting a false image of Islam, as if there were conflict between Islam and the adherents of the two other monotheistic religions." By distortion and omission of the relevant data from the Quran, this article gives the misleading impression that Islam only says good things about Jews and Christians. This is blatantly false propaganda. Read, for example, these articles for a more realistic picture: The Koran and Fighting Unbelievers, Tolerance and the Qur'an, and our dictionary entry on UNBELIEVERS.
This example should be sufficient to establish our claim that Harun Yahya is saying many nice things to paint a favorable image of Islam, but does so as a propagandist in the worst sense, because his message is not truthful. Since, however, our topic of discussion is not the person of Harun Yahya or a general evaluation of his writings, but the "six or eight days creation" contradiction in the Quran, we will not debate MENJ's chosen topic of distraction any further.
As anyone reading our first response can see, we took Yahyas explanation into consideration, we extensively discussed it, and we demonstrated why it was thoroughly inadequate. That MENJ failed to see this is not our fault. It simply exposes his inability to understand our arguments and/or interact with them.
Finally, for a thorough refutation of MENJs lies regarding Paul please consult our responses in these two articles:
The second one of these articles also exposes Muhammads lies and hypocrisy, as well as demonstrating that he cant hold a candlestick next to Paul.
Seemingly aware of his inability to refute our response, MENJ seeks to "poison the well" with his insults against the missionaries in order to prevent his readers from seriously considering our response. MENJ is apparently aware that our responses expose his shoddy rebuttals and seriously call into question his ability to interact with our arguments.
After this, MENJ now attempts to respond to our exegesis of the word thumma with more of his smokescreens:
The next argument of the missionaries is that they had purposely distorted the context of Qur'ân, 41:9-12 by translating thumma as "then". The following is the distorted translation belonging to the missionaries:
THEN (thumma) He turned to the heaven, and it had been smoke: He said to it and to the earth: "Come ye together, willingly or unwillingly." They said: "We do come (together), in willing obedience." So He completed them as seven firmaments in two Days, and He assigned to each heaven its duty and command. And We adorned the lower heaven with lights, and (provided it) with guard. Such is the Decree of (Him) the Exalted in Might, Full of Knowledge.
In his translation Yusuf Ali has translated thumma as "moreover", which is more suited for the context of the verse in question. This is further confirmed by The Hans Wehr Dictionary of Modern Written Arabic. Therefore this certainly lends support to the earlier contention, that "...the processes described in verses 9 and 10 form really one series".
In light of the above explanation, we have duly followed the principles of the Qur'ân explains the Qur'ân, in accordance to how tafsir is performed, i.e., al-Qur'ân yufassiru ba'duhu ba'dan (different parts of the Qur'ân explain each other). What is given in a general way in one place is discussed in detail in some other place in the Qur'ân. What is dealt with briefly at one place is expanded in some other place.and hence there is little to add from here.
MENJ completely ignores our appeal to the comments OF THE VERY MUSLIMS WHOM HE CLAIMED WERE ESSENTIAL in trying to resolve errors within the Quran! MENJ is obviously trying to obfuscate the issues by appealing to Yusuf Ali and Hans Wehr, since their comments do nothing to refute our initial rebuttal.
As we had stated, the term thumma can mean different things in different contexts. As such, thumma may refer to parallel acts or may be referring to sequential acts and/or events. In order to know what thumma means in 41:11 we turned to the very sources that MENJ suggested, namely the Sunnah of Muhammad and the comments of his Companions. Since MENJ was evidently incapable of dealing with our citations and therefore chose to ignore the evidence, we will now quote Ibn Kathir for further support of our exegesis of S. 2:29 and 41:11-12:
Before Allah mentioned proof of the creation to the disbelievers and what they witness in themselves. In this verse, He mentions another proof of the creation of the heavens and the earth: <He created for you all that there is on earth; then He turned to the sky and fashioned it into seven heavens.>
Mujahid said that Allah created the earth BEFORE THE HEAVENS, and when He did, smoke evolved and rose - by the will of Allah - <then He turned to the sky>. The action of turning to the sky involves movement because the verb is followed by the preposition (to). <and fashioned it into seven heavens.> that is created seven heavens. The interpreters do not agree as to whether Allah created the earth before the heavens or vice versa. Each has evidence although the evidence of those supporting the opinion that the creation of the earth preceded the heavens IS STRONGER BECAUSE ALLAH SAID: <He created for you all that there is on the earth; then he turned to the sky> USING THE ADVERB "THEN", WHICH IMPLIES SEQUENCE, that is Allah created the earth and what is in it, then He moved to the sky and fashioned it into seven heavens. On the other hand, those who support the opinion that the creation of the heavens was before the earth refer to the verse <What! Are you harder to create than the heaven which He has built? He raised it high and fashioned it. He made dark its night and brought out its light. And after that He spread the earth, And then drew its water and its pastures. Then the mountains he fixed:> (79:27-32) This was narrated by Ibn Jarir who quoted Qatadah. However, this opinion is not sound; in fact, the truth is the reverse. Al-Bukhari mentions in his Sahih that when IBN ABBAS was asked about this very issue HIS REPLY WAS THAT EARTH WAS CREATED BEFORE THE HEAVENS, and that it was spread out after the creation of the heavens. The phrase spread out was further explained in the verse <And after that he spread the earth, And then drew from it water and pastures. Then the mountains He fixed:> (79:31-32) whereby the action of spreading is explained by drawing out the water stored in it and thus causing plants to flourish in their myriad types, forms, kinds, colours and shapes. (Tafsir Ibn Kathir - Part 1, Surah Al-Fatiah Surah Al-Baqara, ayat 1 to 141, abridged by Shaikh Muhammad Nasib Ar-Rafai'i [Al-Firdous Ltd., London, 1998 second edition], pp. 92-93; bold italic and capital emphasis ours)
<Who created the heavens and the earth in Six Days> (7:54),
is explained in more detail; the creation of the earth and the creation of the heaven are discussed separately. Allah says that He created the earth FIRST, because it is the foundation, and the foundation should be built first, then the roof. Allah says elsewhere:
<He it is Who created for you all that is on the earth. Then He rose over (Istawa ila) the heaven and made them seven heavens>
With regard to the Ayat ...
<Are you more difficult to create or is the heaven that He constructed? He raised its height, and has perfected it. Its night He covers with darkness and its forenoon He brings out (with light). And after that He spread the earth, And brought forth its water and its pasture; And the mountains He has fixed firmly, (to be) a provision and benefit for you and your cattle.> (79:27-33)
This Ayah states that the spreading of the earth came after the creation of the heavens, but the earth itself was created BEFORE the heavens according to some texts. THIS WAS THE RESPONSE OF IBN 'ABBAS, may Allah be pleased with him, as recorded by Al-Bukhari in his Tafsir of this Ayah in his Sahih. He recorded that Sa'id bin Jubayr said: "A man said to Ibn 'Abbas, may Allah be pleased with him, saying: I find some things in the Qur'an which confuse me: ...
... And Allah says:
<Are you more difficult to create or is the heaven that He constructed?> until; ...
<And after that He spread the earth.> (79:27-32)
So He mentioned the creation of the heavens before the earth, then He said:
<Say: "Do you verily disbelieve in Him who created the earth in two Days?" ...> until; ...
<We come willingly.> Here He mentioned the creation of the earth before the creation of the heavens ...
Ibn Abbas, may Allah be pleased with Him, replied: ...
Allah created the earth in two days, THEN He created the heavens, THEN He (Istawa ila) the heaven and gave it its shape in two more days. THEN He spread the earth, which means that He brought forth there from its water and its pasture. And he created the mountains, sands, inanimate things, rocks and hills and everything in between, in two more days. This is what Allah says:
<(He) spread (the earth)> (79:30)
And Allah saying:
<(He) created the earth in two Days> So He created the earth and everything in it in four days, and He created the heavens in two days ..." (Tafsir Ibn Kathir - Abridged Volume 8 Surat Al-Ahzab, verse 51 to the end of Surat Ad-Dukhan, pp. 517-521; bold and capital emphasis ours)
The following is al-Zamakhsharis commentary on S. 41:11:
Then He lifted Himself to heaven when it was smoke ...: The meaning is: Then, AFTER he created the earth AND WHAT WAS ON IT, his wisdom LED him to the creation of heaven without there being anything that could have dissuaded him from it. Some say that Gods Throne (arshuhu) was on the water before the creation of heaven and earth, and that God then caused a (pillar of) smoke to rise up out of the water, which arose over the water and remained (suspended) over it. Then God caused the water to dry up and made from it (the various) regions of the earth (aradun); and FINALLY God created heaven out of the smoke which had risen up ...
One may now ask: Why does God mention the earth together with heaven and place them together in the command to come into being? Was the earth not already created in two days BEFORE HEAVEN (WAS CREATED)? To this I answer: God had created the material earth only after the creation of heaven, for God says: And after that (THAT IS, AFTER THE CREATION OF HEAVEN) He spread out the earth (Sura 79:30). Thus the meaning is: Come forth in the form and condition in which you are to be made. Earth, come forth spread out as the resting-place and dwelling-place for your inhabitants! Heaven, come forth arched as a roof for her! By coming forth is meant that something originates and appears, as when one says: His work had come forth in a satisfactory and welcome manner. ... (Helmut Gätje, The Qur'an and its Exegesis [Oneworld Publications, Oxford 1996], pp. 150-151; bold and capita emphasis ours)
Zamakhshari concurs with us that the use of thumma implies that heaven was created after the earth. And like Ibn Kathir and others before him, he tries to reconcile the contradiction with S. 79:30 by assuming that God created the earth before the heaven, and then only later fashioned the earth. Yet, as we had explained in our response to Zakir Naik, these explanations do not work since S. 41:10 clearly states that God fashioned the earth by creating its nourishment before the creation of heaven. This glaring contradiction has posed major problems for Muslim expositors.
Furthermore, here is a list of translations made by Muslims which disagree with Yusuf Alis "moreover":
Pickthall: Then turned He to the heaven when it was smoke, and said unto it and unto the earth: Come both of you, willingly or loth. They said: We come, obedient.
Hilali-Khan: Then He Istawâ (rose over) towards the heaven when it was smoke, and said to it and to the earth: "Come both of you willingly or unwillingly." They both said: "We come, willingly."
T.B. Irving: Then He soared up to Heaven while it was still a haze, and told both it and the earth: "Come, either obediently or reluctantly." They both said: "We shall come willingly!"
Shakir: Then He directed Himself to the heaven and it is a vapor, so He said to it and to the earth: Come both, willingly or unwillingly. They both said: We come willingly.
Maulvi Sher Ali: Then HE turned the heaven, while it was something like smoke, and said to it and the earth; Come ye both of you in obedience, willingly or unwillingly. They said, We come willingly.
Rashad Khalifa: Then He turned to the sky, when it was still gas, and said to it, and to the earth, "Come into existence, willingly or unwillingly." They said, "We come willingly."
Abdul Majid Daryabadi: He thereafter turned to the heaven, and it was as smoke, and said to it and to the earth: Do you twain come willingly or loth?, they said, we come willingly.
Saheeh International Translation: Then he directed Himself to the heaven while it was smoke and said to it and to the earth, "Come [into being], willingly or by compulsion." They said, "We have come willingly."
Evidently, these Muslims didnt agree with Ali since they didnt feel that "moreover" better suited the context!
The most interesting part about MENJ's so-called resolution is that he ends up stumbling from one contradiction into the next. He first proposed Harun Yahya's (and Yusuf Ali's) solution that the two days of 41:9 are concurrent with the first two of the four days of 41:10. [For easier references, let's call this Theory 1.]
Amazingly, he now tries to propose also the view that thumma in 41:11 doesn't imply sequence, but refers to a parallel act of creation. This means that the creation of the heavens (41:11) took place alongside the first two days of the creation of the earth (41:9). [Let's call this suggestion Theory 2.]
There is, however, a serious problem with subscribing to both of these proposed "solutions" at the same time. To argue that 41:11 is parallel with 41:9 leaves us with only four days of creation. Let us break it down for all to see:
This now leaves us with a total of only four days!
By arguing both of these two propositions at the same time, MENJ ends up contradicting the passages of the Quran which state that the heavens and the earth were created in six days, not four!
Both of these theories were cited and then discussed in detail in our original article and the further discussion of a Muslim response. Both articles have been available on our site for at least six years. After quoting the second theory, we even stated explicitly that it "is interesting to note that this second theory is sharply contradictory to the (usual) one given by Yusuf Ali," but, as already noted a number of times, MENJ did apparently not consider it necessary to actually read our articles and our discussion of this Quran contradiction before attempting to write a response.
Furthermore, the proposed double theory leaves us with an additional problem. Even if we were to accept that the four days of 41:10 include the first two days of 41:9, we are then left with the heavens being created during the same time that God was forming the provisions of the earth! Let us quote Surah 41:(9-)10 in a number of translations and highlight the relevant part of ayah 10 of Surah 41.
We first quote a transliteration of the Arabic:
Qul 'A'innakum Latakfurūna Bial-Ladhī Khalaqa Al-'Arđa FI Yawmayni Wa Taj`alūna Lahu 'Andādāan Dhālika Rabbu Al-`Ālamīna (Fuşşilat: 9). Wa Ja`ala Fīhā Rawāsiya Min Fawqihā Wa Bāraka Fīhā Wa Qaddara Fīhā 'Aqwātahā FI 'Arba`ati 'Ayyāmin Sawā'an Lilssā'ilīna (Fuşşilat: 10).
Rashad Khalifa translates (somewhat freely):
9. Say, "You disbelieve in the One who created the earth in two days,*
and you set up idols to rank with Him, though He is Lord of the universe."
10. He placed on it stabilizers (mountains), made it productive, and He calculated its provisions IN FOUR DAYS, to satisfy the needs of all its inhabitants.
Rashad Khalifah's translation is interesting mainly because of his footnote:
*41:9-10 The "days" of creation represent a yardstick. Thus, the physical universe was created in two days, WHILE the calculation of provisions for all the creatures on earth REQUIRED FOUR. This also teaches us that there is life only on this planet Earth. (Source)
To avoid too much repetition, we quote only verse 10 of the other translations:
He placed therein firm hills rising above it, and blessed it and measured therein its sustenance IN FOUR DAYS, alike for (all) who ask. (Pickthall)
And He made in it mountains above its surface, and He blessed therein and made therein its foods, IN FOUR PERIODS: alike for the seekers. (Shakir)
IN FOUR DAYS He placed the mountains on it, blessed it, and equally measured out sustenance for those who seek sustenance. (Muhammad Sarwar)
He placed therein (i.e. the earth) firm mountains from above it, and He blessed it, and measured therein its sustenance (for its dwellers) IN FOUR DAYS EQUAL (i.e. ALL THESE FOUR 'DAYS' WERE EQUAL IN THE LENGTH OF TIME), for all those who ask (about its creation). (Hilali-Khan)
He has placed headlands towering above it and blessed [whatever is] on it, and measured out its types of nourishment for it IN FOUR SEASONS, EQUALLY [within reach] for those who ask for it. (T.B. Irving)
He set upon it mountains towering high above its surface, He bestowed blessings upon it and IN FOUR PERIODS provided it with sustenance according to the needs of all those who live in and ask for it. (F. Malik)
Even though the translators are not agreed what to do with Arabic word Sawā'a, variously translated as "alike" or "equal" or "equally" or "alike for all", they all agree that the creation of mountains, blessings and food described in verse ten covers the whole of the four days.
This means that, according to the double theory of our present Muslim authors, we would have to translate the passage in the following manner:
Say: What! do you indeed disbelieve in Him Who created the heaven and turned it into seven heavens, as well as creating the earth and some of its provisions all in two days? He then took an additional two days after that to complete the provisions of the earth.
This is obviously complete nonsense, and only demonstrates the desperate measures some Muslims will take to try and save the Quran from its gross errors.
In light of the foregoing, MENJ has utterly failed to follow the very principles he prescribes for others and in accordance with his own claims of how tafsir should be performed. It is rather unfortunate that Christian "missionaries" need to teach MENJ how to perform exegesis on his own book.
General advise: FIRST decide what solution you believe in and want to defend, before you start to write a rebuttal. Carefully take aim, and then make a clean shot. MENJ, however, is wildy shooting in every direction, at whatever seems to move and could potentially be an enemy. The manner of his response shows his desparation. He ends up contradicting himself, because he doesn't know what to believe in the first place, nor what to do to escape the dilemma.
Finally, this discussion reveals another somewhat surprising insight. Those Muslims who want to argue the above described "Theory 2" usually point to Yusuf Ali's translation to support their case because this version uses "moreover" to render the Arabic "thumma" in 41:11 instead of the usual "then" used by nearly all other translators. However, the footnotes of Yusuf Ali on this verse make it clear that he obviously interprets S. 41:9-12 according to "Theory 1" and he understands thumma to mean "then, after that" just as the other translators do. We may never know the reason why Yusuf Ali decided for this unusual translation of thumma, but we do know Yusuf Ali intended it to be understood as temporal sequence as proven by the commentary in his footnote. This shows once again, how ridiculous the above quoted protest by MENJ was against our clarification of Yusuf Ali's translation by substituting "moreover" by "then". It was not at all distorting but instead clarifying the meaning that Yusuf Ali wanted to convey. This again shows that MENJ has not even understood his own tools and resources.
MENJ concludes with:
To conclude this short response, our prescribed methodology as explained by "contemporary Muslim propagandist" Harun Yahya is consistent with the majority of the Qur'ânic commentators and has indeed resolved this imagined "contradiction" that exists within the purid mind of the missionaries. It leaves us with a conclusive explanation of the Qur'ân, and hence refuting the missionaries fantasy that "the Qur'ân is not Gods word". And only God knows best.
All praise is due to God, the Lord of the Worlds. He has no Son and has no need for a Son. For they are among those who disbelieve when they say "God has a Son!" and yet He is free from all the attributes the missionaries have ascribed to Him. And it is to Him alone we submit in total obedience, even though the disbelievers may dislike it.
To summarize our response, MENJs proposed resolution ignores the majority of the earliest Muslim commentators, the majority of translators, the statements of the Companions, the Sunnah of Muhammad and the overall context of the Quran. Our response has shown that a true contradiction exists in the Quran, one which MENJ and his sources have failed to refute thus far. The only resolution is that which MENJ has imagined in his mind, one which does not exist in reality.
All praise is due to the only true and eternal Triune God of Father, Son and Holy Spirit, the only true Lord of the Worlds. Since Allah of the Quran is not the true God, it doesnt matter what he thinks or says. This is why all praises are due to the Father of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. Since Christ is his eternal Son and Word, the Father is complete in and of Himself, needing nothing or no one besides His own Word and His own Holy Spirit for intimate fellowship and love. This is unlike Allah of the Quran, the nonexistent sterile monad. The true God is free from all the attributes that the Muslim Propagandists falsely ascribe to Him. For they are Antichrists and liars who disbelieve God when he says that Christ is his Son. (Cf. 1 John 2:22-23; 5:9-13)
It is to the true triune God alone that the true believers submit to in total obedience, even though the disbelievers like the Muslims may dislike it.
Amen. Come Lord Jesus. You are truly the eternal Son and beloved of the Father. We love you risen Lord of eternal splendor, for ever and ever. Amen.
Update: MENJ has just added to his article one quotation from Al-Baidawi, supposedly in support of his claim about thumma (i.e. Theory 2), and has furthermore written an appendix consisting of quotations from several classical commentators, supporting the claim of Yusuf Ali (Theory 1). Since not one of all these quotations provides any new substance, the update has only added more names to the same claims that were already known and have been discussed before. Repeating claims is not the same as proving them. There is, therefore, no immediate need to respond to these additions at this time. It is just more of the same appeal to authority and still failing to respond to our arguments.
Responses to Bismikaallahuma
Contradictions in the Qur'an
Answering Islam Home Page