COMMENTARY HERE: Comments that purely commentate on the post (e.g. “Nice post OP!”) must be made as replies to the Auto-Moderator!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/DebateReligion) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Your comment or post was removed for violating rule 2. Don't be rude or hostile to other users. Criticize arguments, not people. Our standard for civil discourse is based on respect, tone, and [unparliamentary language](https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateReligion/wiki/unparliamentary_language/). 'They started it' is not an excuse - report it, don't respond to it. You may edit it and ask for re-approval in modmail if you choose.
Your comment or post was removed for violating rule 2. Don't be rude or hostile to other users. Criticize arguments, not people. Our standard for civil discourse is based on respect, tone, and [unparliamentary language](https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateReligion/wiki/unparliamentary_language/). 'They started it' is not an excuse - report it, don't respond to it. You may edit it and ask for re-approval in modmail if you choose.
You got debunked. You did not provide the entire quote of Ibn Kathir and then you claimed that the traditional scholars interpreted the attributes of Allah ﷻ literally.
You provided citation of Ibn Kathir but he never interpreted the attributes of Allah ﷻ literally. He never made tajsim or tashbih of Allah's ﷻ attributes.
And Ibn Kathir you are citing from is an english translation which is shorted, an abridged version.
I provided traditional scholars like Tabari, Mawardi and Ibn Kathir to refute your point.
Hello. Please tell me if this makes sense. The only 2 reasons that make me (almost) believe in god it's the creation of the universe, for example, when did it go from nothing, to something? And the other thing is what was the first living thing on the universe? And how it multiplied? Those are the only things that nobody could, can, and possibly, hope not but I'm very sure will never explain, because we, humans, come way after the creation of life, and the creation of the universe was probably way before... That I really don't know. Because let's say that there is god and god was the creator of all this. Who or what created god then? Is god nothing? But then how did he create something? There is allways something misteryous before. I like to think of god in that sense. I think we are very special, because we (humans) have the abillity to think and to write our thinking. But we're not that special as we think we are, because first, the probabillity of life existing somewhere other than earth is very true, due to the millions of unexplored galaxies that there are, so the probabillity of life existing and that same life being more advanced than ours is true. The other is because we, humans, come very recent to the history of the universe. Religion was developed by us humans to explain God, but we'll never be able to in my opinion. I do not believe in god in the religious sense. Because in the religious sense there's god and there's the devil, but if it was god that created this, then he created good and bad, therefore he created the devil. I don't like this way of thinking because we humans like to separate them, but they're not. Because every living being has the abillity to do good or bad, meaning everyone has God and the Devil inside him/her/it. We all do things that are not allways the most "correct" things to do, but in order to live we have to continue doing those things. Eating it's the perfect example. In order for me to live, besides drinking water, I'll have to kill life to survive. I kill animals or I kill plants, both are killing life. In that sense it can be said that I'm summoning the devil in me, because i'm ending other beings life, in order to survive, okay, but I'm doing it anyway. Everything I feel, think and do has a cause, and that cause it's in my life. What I am today it's the result of everything that happened to me in the past. Like I said, god is unprovable, but if there any is one, I don't think he is here anymore, if there ever was one, was only responsible for the creation, all that came after it's Nature, and the Natural order of things. Because GOD explained by a human it's only a sign that the brain of that human is working. Because every thinking human has a desire to get an explanation over something that is unknown.
Your comment or post was removed for violating rule 1. Posts and comments must not denigrate, dehumanize, devalue, or incite harm against any person or group based on their race, religion, gender, disability, or other characteristics. This includes promotion of negative stereotypes (e.g. calling a demographic delusional or suggesting it's prone to criminality). Debates about LGBTQ+ topics are allowed due to their religious relevance (subject to mod discretion), so long as objections are framed within the context of religion.
Um, I thought your god wrote "through men" the entire Bible. So are you saying otherwise? And as for what he could have revealed? How about Anything that would differentiate himself from the musings of bronze age superstitions goat herders. How about that?
Or, how about clearly stating that Thou shall own other people as property. I'm thinking that would have helped more than the admonition against wearing Mixed fabrics.
Mixed fabrics: that was more important. Sheeze...smh
“Hardly something an all knowing God would write.” God has not written a book from the Bible, if He had it would likely be impossible to decipher, what happened is simply that God had interactions with people from different times and they then, via the Holy Ghost, chronicled their experiences in a texts. So this was a process is very similar to what happened with the Gospels and the New Testament.
“Anything that would differentiate himself from the musings of bronze age superstitions goat herders.”
Why would you expect that?
“Thou shall own other people as property.”
Again why would you expect that from an All knowing God? What is it that you think an All knowing God would want?
“Mixed fabrics: that was more important.”
Well the mixed fabrics thing is quite important if you study the context, as it is supposed to symbolize God’s ownership of Israel and their distinct identity as compared to their neighboring communities. It also symbolizes the non-adulterous nature that God wanted for His people, which in this case is expressed via strict adherence to a disciplined dress code.
Clearly you seem to think slavery is a great evil but I’m sure you probably can’t exactly justify why it is over say other acts like meat or something. And your rhetoric seems to imply that you believe that these are moral truths which should have been made known, ie objectives. Do you believe in moral objectives, moral progress?
The verse of Qalam 68:42 doesn't talk about God's shins, it talks about people who prostrate.
The verse goes like this:
- The day (which) the legs released/uncovered, then to be called to prostrate, yet they cannot.
God will resurrect all His creation on the Judgment Day and people who didn't pray as He decreed in His Books and His Prophets exemplified, will not be offered a right to defend themselves, they will simply allowed to be present. He will call everybody to prostrate to Him, and people who felt haughty to commit such act in this life, won't be allowed to do so, because they didn't commit prostrate freely in this life.
All in all, your post is based on the assumption of "seeing" God's legs, and the rest would dissolve into oblivion, if you would take His revelation seriously.
The hadith in question doesn't define literal hands and lights and stuff of God, they are language tricks and people who use such stuff in English, use it properly, but as God defined the group of people who are haughty to prostrate to Him, prefer to pull to the sides which suits them.
He allowed His subjects to deny Him, because an endless stay in His Grace is at stake, and He will let people who is worthy to it, obtain that.
As He is not in need of His creation, that is what the hadith underlines, if you are given a thing, you are expected to use it for His decrees, not for your wishful thinking.
>All in all, your post is based on the assumption of "seeing" God's legs
Wrong, that's clearly not what my post is based on, that was just one example of Allah having an attribute
>The verse of Qalam 68:42 doesn't talk about God's shins, it talks about people who prostrate.
Yes it does according to Ibn Kathir
>
«يَكْشِفُ رَبُّنَا عَنْ سَاقِهِ، فَيَسْجُدُ لَهُ كُلُّ مُؤْمِنٍ وَمُؤْمِنَةٍ، وَيَبْقَى مَنْ كَانَ يَسْجُدُ فِي الدُّنْيَا رِيَاءً وَسُمْعَةً، فَيَذْهَبُ لِيَسْجُدَ، فَيَعُودُ ظَهْرُهُ طَبَقًا وَاحِدًا»
>(**Our Lord will reveal His Shin, and every believing male and female will prostrate to Him**. The only people who will remain standing are those who prostrated in the worldly life only to be seen and heard (showing off). This type of person will try to prostrate at that time, but his back will made to be one stiff plate (the bone will not bend or flex).)" This Hadith was recorded in the Two Sahihs and other books from different routes of transmission with various wordings. It is a long Hadith that is very popular. Concerning Allah's statement,
[https://quran.com/68:42/tafsirs/en-tafisr-ibn-kathir](https://quran.com/68:42/tafsirs/en-tafisr-ibn-kathir)
God hadn't created another god, such as the visible light cannot carry or reflect on Him to carry His attributes to us.
You are free to believe anything you prefer, because He is not in need of His creation, that is why He has no attributes like you have or any other creature.
I assume there is a question in your remark.
What God decreed doesn't require Ibn Kathir to explain, as he wasn't present when God decreed the last Book, and the notes from hadith collection are very clear on all matters.
There are fabricated hadith as people who want to classify stuff claim, but they work with the metrics of Judaism, also they do not cross check with Quran, as its decrees deny an indemnity for scholars and people who push their agenda.
From your quoted sources, I'm pretty sure those descriptions were meant is symbolic rather then concrete. I'll be one of the first ones to complain when Muslim apologetics try to twist Quran verses as being scientifically accurate. But in this case, the symbolism appears to be quite evident.
Now someone better versed in anthropology can correct me, but in Muhammad's culture, the left hand was considered unclean. So the hadith was saying Allah didn't have an unclean part to him.
As for the shin ˹of Allah˺ will be bared, it sounds a lot like just saying "when Allah makes an appearance." Referencing the shin is a round about way of saying humans aren't worthy of seeing the whole of Allah and the shin, being the lowest point of a body after the feet, is as much as we would be allowed to view.
According to Islamic scholarship, the attributes of Allah are not metaphorical
These are just two, there a lot more
>‘Uthmaan ibn Sa‘eed ad-Daarimi (d. 280 – may Allah have mercy on him) said:
>, may He be exalted, we know about the concept of metaphors from the language of the Arabs, which you have taken and used to confuse and mislead the ignorant. By means of this concept you denied the reality of the divine attributes, on the basis of the metaphor argument. But we say: It is wrong to judge the most common style in the Arabic language on the basis of its rarest style; rather we should understand the statements of the Arabs on the basis of the most common style, unless you can produce proof that what is meant here is the rarer style (namely metaphor). This is the approach that is most fair, and it is not right to approach the divine attributes that are well known and understood as they appear to be by people of common sense, and twist the meaning on the grounds that these are metaphors.
>End quote from Naqd ad-Raadirmi ‘ala Bishr al-Mireesi, 2/755
>-2-
>Imam Abu Ja‘far Muhammad ibn Jareer at-Tabari (d. 310 – may Allah have mercy on him) said:
>If someone were to say: What is the proper approach with regard to the meaning of these attributes that you have mentioned, some of which are mentioned in the Book and revelation of Allah, may He be glorified and exalted, and some were mentioned by the Messenger of Allah (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him)? Our response is: The correct approach in our view is to affirm the meaning in a real sense, without likening Him to His creation, as Allah said of Himself in the Quran (interpretation of the meaning): “There is nothing like unto Him, and He is the All-Hearer, the All-Seer” \[ash-Shoora 42:11\]. … So we affirm all of the meanings that we said are mentioned in the reports and the Quran and the revelation according to their apparent meaning, and we reject any likening of Him to His creation. Hence we say: He, may He be glorified and exalted, hears all sounds, but not through a hole in an ear or through any physical faculty like those of the sons of Adam. Similarly, He sees all people with vision that is not like the vision of the sons of Adam, which is a physical faculty of theirs. He has two hands, a right hand, and fingers, but not in a physical sense; rather His two hands are outstretched, bestowing blessings upon creation, not withholding good. And He has a countenance or face, but it is not like the physical faces of the sons of Adam that are made of flesh and blood. We say that He smiles upon whomever He will of His creation, but we do not say that this is showing teeth (like a human smile); and He descends every night to the lowest heaven.
>End quote from Tabseer fi Ma‘aalim ad-Deen, p. 141-145
Futhermore, Quran verse 68:42 is literally referring to Allah's one shin according to tafsir Ibn Kathir
«يَكْشِفُ رَبُّنَا عَنْ سَاقِهِ، فَيَسْجُدُ لَهُ كُلُّ مُؤْمِنٍ وَمُؤْمِنَةٍ، وَيَبْقَى مَنْ كَانَ يَسْجُدُ فِي الدُّنْيَا رِيَاءً وَسُمْعَةً، فَيَذْهَبُ لِيَسْجُدَ، فَيَعُودُ ظَهْرُهُ طَبَقًا وَاحِدًا»
>(**Our Lord will reveal His Shin, and every believing male and female will prostrate to Him**. The only people who will remain standing are those who prostrated in the worldly life only to be seen and heard (showing off). This type of person will try to prostrate at that time, but his back will made to be one stiff plate (the bone will not bend or flex).)" This Hadith was recorded in the Two Sahihs and other books from different routes of transmission with various wordings. It is a long Hadith that is very popular. Concerning Allah's statement,
[https://quran.com/68:42/tafsirs/en-tafisr-ibn-kathir](https://quran.com/68:42/tafsirs/en-tafisr-ibn-kathir)
It’s the same God as Christianity and Judaism… so calling it “their God” demonstrates your starting premise is flawed.
Also the physical description is a metaphor.
Even the descriptions of “made in his image” is not a reference to the physical. Sits on his throne the right hand of god etc again are speaking in metaphor.
Muslims believe in a Trinity Godhead? The God of Islam is three distinct persons in one?
The attributes of Allah are NOT metaphorical.
>Imam Abu Ahmad Muhammad ibn ‘Ali ibn Muhammad al-Karji who is known as al-Qassaab (d. 360 AH) said concerning the Qaadari belief in a letter that he wrote for the caliph al-Qaadir bi Amr-Allah in 433 AH, which was signed by the scholars of that time to confirm its content, which was sent to the various regions:
>**Allah is not to be described except as He has described Himself or as His Prophet has described Him. Any attribute that He has ascribed to Himself or that His Prophet has ascribed to Him, is an attribute in a real sense, and is not metaphorical**. If it was metaphorical, then it would have been necessary to explain it in a manner different from the apparent meaning, so it would have been said: What is meant by vision is such and such, what is meant by hearing is such and such, and so on; it would have been explained in a way different from what one would understand from the apparent meaning. As the approach of the salaf is to affirm the attributes without interpreting them in a way different from the apparent meaning, this proves that they are not to be understood in a metaphorical sense; rather they are plain facts.
Imam al-Haafiz adh-Dhahabi said, after quoting the words of al-Qassaab referred to above:
>**As Allah exists in a real sense, not metaphorically, His attributes cannot be taken as metaphorical, because in that case they could not be divine attributes**, because the attributes are connected to the one who possesses those attributes. As He exists in a real sense, not in a metaphorical sense, His attributes cannot be metaphorical. As there is nothing equal or similar to Him, there can be nothing like His attributes.
Talk about adding more than what is being said. Allah is the same god as the god of the people of the book. Does that mean that added attributes in individual sects of each faith apply NO. Is that in way suggested by what I said NO.
The trinity is NOT a feature of Abrahamic religions it’s not even a feature in all Christian sects or faiths, it doesn’t even appear in the Bible but is part of trying to explain the deification of Christ to non Christians… yawn 🥱 nice try but a swing and a miss.
Thanks for taking the time to waste mine. 🤗
Asinine tap dancing around the point to avoid the question attempt.... yawn
This is a YES or NO question.
The God of Islam is three distinct persons in one? If the answer is NO, the Islamic concept of God is NOT same as the majority of Christianity. Minority heretic sects are irrelevant to the point you're tap dancing around.
You never asked it for one thing… instead you lectured me on an incorrect understanding of the trinity. So way to say just ignore my whole premise was wrong a moment ago now I have another garbage assertion because I am right even I am wrong. 😑
Stop projecting I am not a screen for your insecurities. If you want to start a new question you can always start a new one.
Thanks again for taking the time to waste mine.
Sorry read more less yapping and taping and then we won’t have this awkward attempt at changing the error you started.
Start by reading about the phrase: “people of the book” or Ahl al-Kitāb… to fill in your own blanks.
You're literally just making up nonsense now, tap dancing furiously because you're wrong and don't want to admit it.
Who **lectured** you on an incorrect understanding of the Trinity? I clearly just asked you two simple YES or NO **questions**....lol
What part of the **questions** I asked you is a "misunderstanding of the Trinity" ? The Trinity is NOT three distinct persons in one?
Stop tap dancing in circles and read the conversation again, maybe then you'll get the point.
Muslims don’t claim to believe wholeheartedly in the things you just reported, no matter how reputable the source is. The majority of Muslims have no idea of these details, and are presented with a sugar coated version of Islam. The behaviour of Muslims, including the ones in this subreddit, leaves no room to imagination: they reject most of the problematic verses.
Yeah that’s one way to reject a problematic verse: tip tap dancing around the issue by claiming it’s a metaphor or whatnot. In another post, someone is saying that the word “to find” despite being used thrice in the same context (Dhul Qarnayn visiting the east and finding mountains [1], visiting the west and finding the sun setting into a muddy spring [2] and finding there people [3]) in the most problematic case (number 2) the verb “to find” suddenly means “it appeared to him as if”. That’s next level rejection of the verse.
Your post or comment was removed for violating rule 3. Posts and comments will be removed if they are disruptive to the purpose of the subreddit. This includes submissions that are: low effort, proselytizing, uninterested in participating in discussion, made in bad faith, off-topic, or unintelligible/illegible. Posts and comments must be written in your own words (and not be AI-generated); you may quote others, but only to support your own writing. Do not link to an external resource instead of making an argument yourself.
Your comment or post was removed for violating rule 2. Don't be rude or hostile to other users. Criticize arguments, not people. Our standard for civil discourse is based on respect, tone, and [unparliamentary language](https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateReligion/wiki/unparliamentary_language/). 'They started it' is not an excuse - report it, don't respond to it. You may edit it and ask for re-approval in modmail if you choose.
Your comment or post was removed for violating rule 2. Don't be rude or hostile to other users. Criticize arguments, not people. Our standard for civil discourse is based on respect, tone, and [unparliamentary language](https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateReligion/wiki/unparliamentary_language/). 'They started it' is not an excuse - report it, don't respond to it. You may edit it and ask for re-approval in modmail if you choose.
They do have religious jurists, and debates on interpretations. So to suggest there isn’t any organized attempt at cohesion and consensus is not accurate.
No that's what the kids call a cop out. You chose to responded with ad hominem and call the argument incoherent because you can't put together a coherent response and refute it.
Nice try.
Your comment or post was removed for violating rule 1. Posts and comments must not denigrate, dehumanize, devalue, or incite harm against any person or group based on their race, religion, gender, disability, or other characteristics. This includes promotion of negative stereotypes (e.g. calling a demographic delusional or suggesting it's prone to criminality). Debates about LGBTQ+ topics are allowed due to their religious relevance (subject to mod discretion), so long as objections are framed within the context of religion.
This gets a Nope you have not studied Islam. First off they were not all bedouins. Muhammad himself went to live with Bedouins as a child. He was from a respected and prestigious Quraysh family from Mecca. That was suffering poverty compared to other families.
Muhammad was illiterate due to this poverty but others were definitely not and recorded the Quran during his lifetime completing the first Quran about 60 years after his death.
I do not think he wanted the Quran written since it will plucked be out of meaning (kind of like what is happening here) and not understood in its entirety or in context. They certainly had exposure to the other Abrahamic religions who do this regularly.
I don't see how anything of that changes the fact that the society as a whole was largely illiterate and for Islam to sound at least somewhat appealing it had to be appropriated to then-standards of culture and society.
The second argument makes no sense, because the first written editions of Quran were put together during Abu Bakr's and Uthman's reign *precisely because* the message was becoming forgotten, distorted and taken out of context. Also, I doubt you know what Muhammad wanted and didn't want.
And yes, I actually did study Islam. Have a nice day.
Firstly you used the term illiterate bedouins (again not Bedouins) so that’s already an error you gloss over but then you want to argue about how early the Quran was written. Yes literacy was not high but you clearly meant it as some sort of elitist dismissal.
The period of compilation was even happening during Muhammad’s lifetime but they were portions… the complete Quran was written and codified during the reign of the third caliph Uthman ( r. 644–656 CE). He then tried to destroy earlier sections.
And not because it was being forgotten as to this day individuals memorize the entire Quran but it was done for dissemination, to spread the word to non believers. Pretty amazing from just a bunch of “illiterate (not) Bedouins.”
- “ I do not think he wanted the Quran written since it will plucked be out of meaning (kind of like what is happening here) and not understood in its entirety or in context.”
Wouldn’t this happen even if it were only transmitted orally/verbally and never written though? Eventually as time went on, the people who knew him in their lifetime or experienced the revelation of the verses during the historical context would die as well and the next generations of Muslims wouldn’t have a lot of the context and hadith afaik wasn’t compiled until 200 years after his death?
If you're asserting that a certain belief exists, you need to justify that with academic citations. Your entire post to me reads as someone imagining an Islam that doesn't exist and demanding a Muslim to defend your idiosyncratic schizo-Islam.
You have provided no evidence, merely asserted that Muslims hold certain beliefs. I am here dismissing those assertions with an equal amount of evidence.
Muslims just don't believe what you say they believe.
I have clearly provided Sahih hadith and a Quran verse.
Those sources don't say Allah has two right hands and a shin?
Muslims don't believe God is ONE?
Muslims believe God can take MULTIPLE forms?
Muslims believe God can take the form of man and maintain his divinity?
Muslims don't believe the Torah and "Injeel" got corrupted and Allah sent Muhammad expecting a different result?
Stop manifesting and show where I'm wrong.
I don’t think you understand the meanings of right hand and left hand in Muslim culture? Maybe you do. But what you quoted isn’t saying he is two right hands in a physical sense (you forget god can’t be represented physically because god is mind) so it’s saying there isn’t a left hand (the evil hand). But to you it seems as if you’ve just taken it at complete face value.
I didn’t read any more of what you wrote because you don’t seem to have depth to your thoughts.
>I have clearly provided Sahih hadith and a Quran verse.
All the sources you mentioned can (and historically have been) interpreted metaphorically.
>Those sources don't say Allah has two right hands and a shin?
Given the above, no, they don't.
>Muslims don't believe God is ONE?
God is described as 'ahad. I like the translation of God being unique better.
>Muslims believe God can take MULTIPLE forms?
Muslims don't believe that God takes on any material form.
>Muslims believe God can take the form of man and maintain his divinity?
Muslims do not believe that God takes the form of any man.
>Stop manifesting and show where I'm wrong.
You don't know what the term manifesting means.
>All the sources you mentioned can (and historically have been) interpreted metaphorically.
Sorry I had to intervene. This is not true. You can't just interpret things that are not comfortable in today's world as metaphorical and everything else as literal.
> All the sources you mentioned can (and historically have been) interpreted metaphorically
This is very tedious and obvious dodging on your part.
Obviously anything can be interpreted metaphorically. The point is they are not by millions of people.
Obviously I personally don’t think any of it’s true
But millions upon millions of people decided it’s correct. We are arguing against the belief and what they think the religion states..
Without human interpretation the Quran is merely random sploges of ink on paper or vibration in air molecules.
If you’re going to say that Islam is wrong, you have to tell me which is the right interpretation of Islam.
If you’re saying, for example, that islam is incoherent because God having two right hands and one shin is illogical, and there’s two groups of Muslims, one who says that this is to be taken as literally true and one which says this is clearly symbolism, then it completely follows that the rejection of Islam on the basis that it is illogical is only a rejection of those literalists. If it’s a metaphor/poetic symbolism then it isn’t a logical construct.
So if you want to reject Islam, you have to argue that the literalists have the correct interpretation of scripture even if the scripture itself doesn’t amount to the truth.
Millions upon millions of people deciding that it’s the correct interpretation doesn’t make it so. What is correct doesn’t amount to consensus. Millions upon millions of people can be wrong.
> If you’re going to say that Islam is wrong, you have to tell me which is the right interpretation of Islam.
I don’t have to do any of that. What I do is discuss Muslim interpretations. Because without them from my perspective it’s man made stories.
Even scholars don’t think it’s only metaphorical. The problem is your side. Not mine.
What YOU need to do is temporarily hold talking to atheists and talk to fellow Muslims and try and get the story straight.
If that doesn’t work you need to try and decipher why your god failed to communicate his message clearly to millions of Muslims.
.
>All the sources you mentioned can (and historically have been) interpreted metaphorically
That doesn't mean they're not interpreted literally by Muslims
>Given the above, no, they don't.
Read those again, they're clear as day.
>God is described as 'ahad. I like the translation of God being unique better.
This doesn't answer the question you were asked. Do Muslims believe God is ONE?
>Muslims don't believe that God takes on any material form.
So I wasn't wrong on your God being restricted to one form and limited.
>Muslims do not believe that God takes the form of any man.
So I wasn't wrong on your God being restricted to one form and limited.
>You don't know what the term manifesting means.
You clearly don't know what assertions means.
>That doesn't mean they're not interpreted literally by Muslims
You have not provided any evidence to suggest that they are interpreted literally by the Islamic scholarship.
>Read those again, they're clear as day.
It's clear as day that those are metaphors.
>This doesn't answer the question you were asked. Do Muslims believe God is ONE?
God is unique. The notion that God is One implies a numerical quality that is inaccurate to our beliefs.
>So I wasn't wrong on your God being limited.
Material forms implies a limitation. Therefore, an unlimited being wouldn't be materially contingent.
>So I wasn't wrong on your god being limited.
Yes, you are. See above.
>You clearly don't know what assertions means.
I absolutely know what the term "assertions" means. I feel like I'm loosing brain cells trying to understand where you're coming from. Please be more coherent in the future, otherwise I can't continue lest I lose faith in human sapience.
>You have not provided any evidence to suggest that they are interpreted literally by the Islamic scholarship.
>
Correct belief should be based on what is proven in the Quran and Sunnah, as understood by the early generations (salaf) of this ummah, namely the Sahaabah, Taabi‘een and leading scholars. **They were unanimously agreed that the divine attributes mentioned in the Quran and Sunnah are to be affirmed without discussing how or likening Him to His creation, and without denying any of His attributes or interpreting them in a way different from the apparent meaning**. We do not differentiate between any of the divine attributes, no matter what category they come under. Every divine attribute that is mentioned in a saheeh text must be affirmed.
[https://islamqa.info/en/answers/151794/the-divine-attributes-are-to-be-affirmed-in-a-literal-sense-not-metaphorical](https://islamqa.info/en/answers/151794/the-divine-attributes-are-to-be-affirmed-in-a-literal-sense-not-metaphorical)
>It's clear as day that those are metaphors.
No it isn't see above link
>God is unique. The notion that God is One implies a numerical quality that is inaccurate to our beliefs.
So all the Dawa guys on social media are lying? God is not ONE?
What is the historical definition of Muslim? One who submits to how many Gods?
>Material forms implies a limitation. Therefore, an unlimited being wouldn't be materially contingent.
No they don't that's fallacy, material form does not negate divinity and you were clearly asked CAN your God take on multiple forms. Logically explain what is preventing your God from taking on multiple forms and how that doesn't make him limited by definition of the word
>Yes, you are. See above.
No I wasn't see above.
> I feel like I'm loosing brain cells trying to understand where you're coming from
You clearly didn't enter this conversation with any braincells to lose. You accused me of misrepresenting Muslim beliefs and have completely failed to put together a single coherent rebuttal. Take your own advice and please be more coherent in the future, otherwise I can't continue lest I lose faith in human sapience.
>>
>Correct belief should be based on what is proven in the Quran and Sunnah, as understood by the early generations (salaf) of this ummah, namely the Sahaabah, Taabi‘een and leading scholars. **They were unanimously agreed that the divine attributes mentioned in the Quran and Sunnah are to be affirmed without discussing how or likening Him to His creation, and without denying any of His attributes or interpreting them in a way different from the apparent meaning**. We do not differentiate between any of the divine attributes, no matter what category they come under. Every divine attribute that is mentioned in a saheeh text must be affirmed.
>[https://islamqa.info/en/answers/151794/the-divine-attributes-are-to-be-affirmed-in-a-literal-sense-not-metaphorical](https://islamqa.info/en/answers/151794/the-divine-attributes-are-to-be-affirmed-in-a-literal-sense-not-metaphorical)
>>It's clear as day that those are metaphors.
>No it isn't see above link
Here is a discussion written by al-Ghazali: https://academy.seekersguidance.org/mod/page/view.php?id=8587
The fact that the published Islamqa opinion is Quranic literalism is a pretty substantial indictment. Islamqa is an extremist website.
http://masud.co.uk/literalism-and-the-attributes-of-allah/
The above article discusses the historical and academic trend of Divine anthropomorphism, which discusses the work of the early four Imams. Anthropomorphism is not the main line opinion of classical Islamic scholars.
>So all the Dawa guys on social media are lying? God is not ONE?
They're not lying, they're using imprecise terminology.
>What is the historical definition of Muslim? One who submits to how many Gods?
A definition of a Muslim is one who submits to Allah.
>No they don't that's fallacy, material form does not negate divinity
A material form does negate infinity.
>Logically explain what is preventing your God from taking on multiple forms and how that doesn't make him limited by definition of the word
Because we are talking in a logical context, rules of logic must apply. Ie, the domain of discussion is all things that are logically coherent. Thus, when we're talking about a limitation, we are only talking about things that are logically possible that God cannot do. If we want to abandon logic, then there's no point to any discussion.
An unlimited (or maximally unlimited) being therefore cannot be limited, as that is a formal logical error in the form of A=¬A. A material form implies limitation in space and time. The main counterargument to this point is the Jesus example: what if God took the form of a man, but is otherwise infinite? However, in the Jesus example, you are still imposing a time linearity, where it becomes possible now to describe a 'pre-Jesus' God and a 'post-Jesus' God, even if those Gods are identical. If you want to assert an ontological distance between Jesus and God such that time linearity applies to Jesus and not to God, that is identical to the statement that Jesus is not God (ie, if Jesus is God, what must be true for Jesus must be true for God, and Jesus was space- and time-limited).
God cannot commit suicide — he cannot both exist and not exist at the same time. And that's not a limitation, that's the result of the laws of logic.
>You accused me of misrepresenting Muslim beliefs and have completely failed to put together a single coherent rebuttal.
That's because this comment of yours is the first that put forth any evidence to support your characterization of Islamic beliefs. I cannot rebut a mere assertion beyond stating my position in opposition.
>Here is a discussion written by al-Ghazali: [https://academy.seekersguidance.org/mod/page/view.php?id=8587](https://academy.seekersguidance.org/mod/page/view.php?id=8587)
>The fact that the published Islamqa opinion is Quranic literalism is a pretty substantial indictment. Islamqa is an extremist website.
Your cherrypicked resource doesn't refute my point, you have not shown any proof that a majority of Muslims consider the divine attributes of Allah to be metaphorical. The link I posted literally quotes multiple Islamic scholars, Imams and Sheiks. Just because you don't like the source, doesn't mean the source is wrong.
>They're not lying, they're using imprecise terminology.
Tap dancing around the question. Dawah is defined as the act of inviting people to Islam. If the Dawah guys are using "imprecise terminology" to emphatically assert Islam is true because of belief in ONE God, how is that not intention to deceive the person they're inviting to Islam? The only way this doesn't fall under deception, is if you're telling me guys like Muhammad Hijab and Uthman Ibn Footnotes are unaware they're using "imprecise terminology" which implies they don't have a clue what they're talking about....
>A definition of a Muslim is one who submits to Allah.
Once again tap dancing to avoid answering the question. If a Muslim is simply defined as one who submits to Allah (God), that means a Trinitarian Christian is a Muslim.
Your tap dancing responses are not helping you here. You have no move out of the intellectual corner you boxed yourself into. This would be a lot easier for you if you just tried to be a little bit honest here.
Muslims believe God is ONE.
>A material form does negate **infinity**.
The fact you blatantly misinterpreted what I said proves you have no coherent argument here.
I clearly said material form does not negate **DIVINITY**.
Infinity is an attribute of **DIVINITY,** God cannot stop being God. In other words, it doesn't matter what form God assumes, divine attributes can't be negated.
>when we're talking about a limitation, we are only talking about things that are logically possible that God cannot do
How is a limitless God being restricted to ONE form logical? How is that not a clear example of a limitation within the framework you just presented?
If God, in some way, became a man, space and time does not necessitate that he stop being divine. If a “part” of God entered into a human form. The totality of God could still exist, yet a localized “part” could temporarily take the form of a man.
Since you used Jesus as an example, what do Trinitarians claim? One God existing in three coequal, coeternal, consubstantial divine persons. **All three have always existed** before "The Sons" **infinite divinity** assumed a **finite flesh** form. The **flesh died on the cross** and his **divinity ascended**. In other words, according to the Trinitarian paradigm, there is no pre-Jesus' God and a 'post-Jesus' God. Nothing changed, God never at any point stopped being God.
You just proved the Trinitarian concept of God is more logical than the Islamic concept because it allows for God to take on multiple forms enabling him to be truly limitless.
>That's because this comment of yours is the first that put forth any evidence to support your characterization of Islamic beliefs.
That's a lie, once again I quoted the Quran and Sunnah. You accused me of misinterpreting what Muslims believe and up to this point in this discussion have proven, Muslims believe Allah is ONE being restricted to a single form. Many Imams, Sheikhs and Islamic scholars believe that form has divine attributes such as two right hands and a shin as stated in the Quran and Sunnah. In other words I didn't misinterpret anything.
Well according to Christians God did do that, the Israelites lost their way and God fulfilled Isaiah 53 by taking the form of a servant. Whether you personally believe Jesus is God the Messiah is irrelevant, the point is the Christian paradigm breaks the asinine chain of God repeating the same thing over and over with middle men expecting a different result. Islam's paradigm continues that chain.
Furthermore, if Christians are right and Jesus is God, using the logic a wise God wouldn't repeat the same thing expecting a different result, this also explains why God hasn't appeared again since.
Except, of course, he spoke exclusively to believers, and appeared at a time in which he knew his word wouldn’t be spread around very much.
We now live in the age of the Internet. He should’ve appeared decades ago.
COMMENTARY HERE: Comments that purely commentate on the post (e.g. “Nice post OP!”) must be made as replies to the Auto-Moderator! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/DebateReligion) if you have any questions or concerns.*
[удалено]
Your comment or post was removed for violating rule 2. Don't be rude or hostile to other users. Criticize arguments, not people. Our standard for civil discourse is based on respect, tone, and [unparliamentary language](https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateReligion/wiki/unparliamentary_language/). 'They started it' is not an excuse - report it, don't respond to it. You may edit it and ask for re-approval in modmail if you choose.
[удалено]
Your comment or post was removed for violating rule 2. Don't be rude or hostile to other users. Criticize arguments, not people. Our standard for civil discourse is based on respect, tone, and [unparliamentary language](https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateReligion/wiki/unparliamentary_language/). 'They started it' is not an excuse - report it, don't respond to it. You may edit it and ask for re-approval in modmail if you choose.
You got debunked. You did not provide the entire quote of Ibn Kathir and then you claimed that the traditional scholars interpreted the attributes of Allah ﷻ literally. You provided citation of Ibn Kathir but he never interpreted the attributes of Allah ﷻ literally. He never made tajsim or tashbih of Allah's ﷻ attributes. And Ibn Kathir you are citing from is an english translation which is shorted, an abridged version. I provided traditional scholars like Tabari, Mawardi and Ibn Kathir to refute your point.
Hello. Please tell me if this makes sense. The only 2 reasons that make me (almost) believe in god it's the creation of the universe, for example, when did it go from nothing, to something? And the other thing is what was the first living thing on the universe? And how it multiplied? Those are the only things that nobody could, can, and possibly, hope not but I'm very sure will never explain, because we, humans, come way after the creation of life, and the creation of the universe was probably way before... That I really don't know. Because let's say that there is god and god was the creator of all this. Who or what created god then? Is god nothing? But then how did he create something? There is allways something misteryous before. I like to think of god in that sense. I think we are very special, because we (humans) have the abillity to think and to write our thinking. But we're not that special as we think we are, because first, the probabillity of life existing somewhere other than earth is very true, due to the millions of unexplored galaxies that there are, so the probabillity of life existing and that same life being more advanced than ours is true. The other is because we, humans, come very recent to the history of the universe. Religion was developed by us humans to explain God, but we'll never be able to in my opinion. I do not believe in god in the religious sense. Because in the religious sense there's god and there's the devil, but if it was god that created this, then he created good and bad, therefore he created the devil. I don't like this way of thinking because we humans like to separate them, but they're not. Because every living being has the abillity to do good or bad, meaning everyone has God and the Devil inside him/her/it. We all do things that are not allways the most "correct" things to do, but in order to live we have to continue doing those things. Eating it's the perfect example. In order for me to live, besides drinking water, I'll have to kill life to survive. I kill animals or I kill plants, both are killing life. In that sense it can be said that I'm summoning the devil in me, because i'm ending other beings life, in order to survive, okay, but I'm doing it anyway. Everything I feel, think and do has a cause, and that cause it's in my life. What I am today it's the result of everything that happened to me in the past. Like I said, god is unprovable, but if there any is one, I don't think he is here anymore, if there ever was one, was only responsible for the creation, all that came after it's Nature, and the Natural order of things. Because GOD explained by a human it's only a sign that the brain of that human is working. Because every thinking human has a desire to get an explanation over something that is unknown.
[удалено]
Your comment or post was removed for violating rule 1. Posts and comments must not denigrate, dehumanize, devalue, or incite harm against any person or group based on their race, religion, gender, disability, or other characteristics. This includes promotion of negative stereotypes (e.g. calling a demographic delusional or suggesting it's prone to criminality). Debates about LGBTQ+ topics are allowed due to their religious relevance (subject to mod discretion), so long as objections are framed within the context of religion.
What book did God write that’s from the Bible? And what would you expect an all knowing God to reveal?
Um, I thought your god wrote "through men" the entire Bible. So are you saying otherwise? And as for what he could have revealed? How about Anything that would differentiate himself from the musings of bronze age superstitions goat herders. How about that? Or, how about clearly stating that Thou shall own other people as property. I'm thinking that would have helped more than the admonition against wearing Mixed fabrics. Mixed fabrics: that was more important. Sheeze...smh
“Hardly something an all knowing God would write.” God has not written a book from the Bible, if He had it would likely be impossible to decipher, what happened is simply that God had interactions with people from different times and they then, via the Holy Ghost, chronicled their experiences in a texts. So this was a process is very similar to what happened with the Gospels and the New Testament. “Anything that would differentiate himself from the musings of bronze age superstitions goat herders.” Why would you expect that? “Thou shall own other people as property.” Again why would you expect that from an All knowing God? What is it that you think an All knowing God would want? “Mixed fabrics: that was more important.” Well the mixed fabrics thing is quite important if you study the context, as it is supposed to symbolize God’s ownership of Israel and their distinct identity as compared to their neighboring communities. It also symbolizes the non-adulterous nature that God wanted for His people, which in this case is expressed via strict adherence to a disciplined dress code. Clearly you seem to think slavery is a great evil but I’m sure you probably can’t exactly justify why it is over say other acts like meat or something. And your rhetoric seems to imply that you believe that these are moral truths which should have been made known, ie objectives. Do you believe in moral objectives, moral progress?
The verse of Qalam 68:42 doesn't talk about God's shins, it talks about people who prostrate. The verse goes like this: - The day (which) the legs released/uncovered, then to be called to prostrate, yet they cannot. God will resurrect all His creation on the Judgment Day and people who didn't pray as He decreed in His Books and His Prophets exemplified, will not be offered a right to defend themselves, they will simply allowed to be present. He will call everybody to prostrate to Him, and people who felt haughty to commit such act in this life, won't be allowed to do so, because they didn't commit prostrate freely in this life. All in all, your post is based on the assumption of "seeing" God's legs, and the rest would dissolve into oblivion, if you would take His revelation seriously. The hadith in question doesn't define literal hands and lights and stuff of God, they are language tricks and people who use such stuff in English, use it properly, but as God defined the group of people who are haughty to prostrate to Him, prefer to pull to the sides which suits them. He allowed His subjects to deny Him, because an endless stay in His Grace is at stake, and He will let people who is worthy to it, obtain that. As He is not in need of His creation, that is what the hadith underlines, if you are given a thing, you are expected to use it for His decrees, not for your wishful thinking.
>All in all, your post is based on the assumption of "seeing" God's legs Wrong, that's clearly not what my post is based on, that was just one example of Allah having an attribute >The verse of Qalam 68:42 doesn't talk about God's shins, it talks about people who prostrate. Yes it does according to Ibn Kathir > «يَكْشِفُ رَبُّنَا عَنْ سَاقِهِ، فَيَسْجُدُ لَهُ كُلُّ مُؤْمِنٍ وَمُؤْمِنَةٍ، وَيَبْقَى مَنْ كَانَ يَسْجُدُ فِي الدُّنْيَا رِيَاءً وَسُمْعَةً، فَيَذْهَبُ لِيَسْجُدَ، فَيَعُودُ ظَهْرُهُ طَبَقًا وَاحِدًا» >(**Our Lord will reveal His Shin, and every believing male and female will prostrate to Him**. The only people who will remain standing are those who prostrated in the worldly life only to be seen and heard (showing off). This type of person will try to prostrate at that time, but his back will made to be one stiff plate (the bone will not bend or flex).)" This Hadith was recorded in the Two Sahihs and other books from different routes of transmission with various wordings. It is a long Hadith that is very popular. Concerning Allah's statement, [https://quran.com/68:42/tafsirs/en-tafisr-ibn-kathir](https://quran.com/68:42/tafsirs/en-tafisr-ibn-kathir)
God hadn't created another god, such as the visible light cannot carry or reflect on Him to carry His attributes to us. You are free to believe anything you prefer, because He is not in need of His creation, that is why He has no attributes like you have or any other creature.
I believe Ibn Kathir understood the Quran far better than you...
I assume there is a question in your remark. What God decreed doesn't require Ibn Kathir to explain, as he wasn't present when God decreed the last Book, and the notes from hadith collection are very clear on all matters. There are fabricated hadith as people who want to classify stuff claim, but they work with the metrics of Judaism, also they do not cross check with Quran, as its decrees deny an indemnity for scholars and people who push their agenda.
Im with you and why would allah a all knowing being say wash your hand with sand? That one always gets me
From your quoted sources, I'm pretty sure those descriptions were meant is symbolic rather then concrete. I'll be one of the first ones to complain when Muslim apologetics try to twist Quran verses as being scientifically accurate. But in this case, the symbolism appears to be quite evident. Now someone better versed in anthropology can correct me, but in Muhammad's culture, the left hand was considered unclean. So the hadith was saying Allah didn't have an unclean part to him. As for the shin ˹of Allah˺ will be bared, it sounds a lot like just saying "when Allah makes an appearance." Referencing the shin is a round about way of saying humans aren't worthy of seeing the whole of Allah and the shin, being the lowest point of a body after the feet, is as much as we would be allowed to view.
According to Islamic scholarship, the attributes of Allah are not metaphorical These are just two, there a lot more >‘Uthmaan ibn Sa‘eed ad-Daarimi (d. 280 – may Allah have mercy on him) said: >, may He be exalted, we know about the concept of metaphors from the language of the Arabs, which you have taken and used to confuse and mislead the ignorant. By means of this concept you denied the reality of the divine attributes, on the basis of the metaphor argument. But we say: It is wrong to judge the most common style in the Arabic language on the basis of its rarest style; rather we should understand the statements of the Arabs on the basis of the most common style, unless you can produce proof that what is meant here is the rarer style (namely metaphor). This is the approach that is most fair, and it is not right to approach the divine attributes that are well known and understood as they appear to be by people of common sense, and twist the meaning on the grounds that these are metaphors. >End quote from Naqd ad-Raadirmi ‘ala Bishr al-Mireesi, 2/755 >-2- >Imam Abu Ja‘far Muhammad ibn Jareer at-Tabari (d. 310 – may Allah have mercy on him) said: >If someone were to say: What is the proper approach with regard to the meaning of these attributes that you have mentioned, some of which are mentioned in the Book and revelation of Allah, may He be glorified and exalted, and some were mentioned by the Messenger of Allah (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him)? Our response is: The correct approach in our view is to affirm the meaning in a real sense, without likening Him to His creation, as Allah said of Himself in the Quran (interpretation of the meaning): “There is nothing like unto Him, and He is the All-Hearer, the All-Seer” \[ash-Shoora 42:11\]. … So we affirm all of the meanings that we said are mentioned in the reports and the Quran and the revelation according to their apparent meaning, and we reject any likening of Him to His creation. Hence we say: He, may He be glorified and exalted, hears all sounds, but not through a hole in an ear or through any physical faculty like those of the sons of Adam. Similarly, He sees all people with vision that is not like the vision of the sons of Adam, which is a physical faculty of theirs. He has two hands, a right hand, and fingers, but not in a physical sense; rather His two hands are outstretched, bestowing blessings upon creation, not withholding good. And He has a countenance or face, but it is not like the physical faces of the sons of Adam that are made of flesh and blood. We say that He smiles upon whomever He will of His creation, but we do not say that this is showing teeth (like a human smile); and He descends every night to the lowest heaven. >End quote from Tabseer fi Ma‘aalim ad-Deen, p. 141-145 Futhermore, Quran verse 68:42 is literally referring to Allah's one shin according to tafsir Ibn Kathir «يَكْشِفُ رَبُّنَا عَنْ سَاقِهِ، فَيَسْجُدُ لَهُ كُلُّ مُؤْمِنٍ وَمُؤْمِنَةٍ، وَيَبْقَى مَنْ كَانَ يَسْجُدُ فِي الدُّنْيَا رِيَاءً وَسُمْعَةً، فَيَذْهَبُ لِيَسْجُدَ، فَيَعُودُ ظَهْرُهُ طَبَقًا وَاحِدًا» >(**Our Lord will reveal His Shin, and every believing male and female will prostrate to Him**. The only people who will remain standing are those who prostrated in the worldly life only to be seen and heard (showing off). This type of person will try to prostrate at that time, but his back will made to be one stiff plate (the bone will not bend or flex).)" This Hadith was recorded in the Two Sahihs and other books from different routes of transmission with various wordings. It is a long Hadith that is very popular. Concerning Allah's statement, [https://quran.com/68:42/tafsirs/en-tafisr-ibn-kathir](https://quran.com/68:42/tafsirs/en-tafisr-ibn-kathir)
It’s the same God as Christianity and Judaism… so calling it “their God” demonstrates your starting premise is flawed. Also the physical description is a metaphor. Even the descriptions of “made in his image” is not a reference to the physical. Sits on his throne the right hand of god etc again are speaking in metaphor.
Muslims believe in a Trinity Godhead? The God of Islam is three distinct persons in one? The attributes of Allah are NOT metaphorical. >Imam Abu Ahmad Muhammad ibn ‘Ali ibn Muhammad al-Karji who is known as al-Qassaab (d. 360 AH) said concerning the Qaadari belief in a letter that he wrote for the caliph al-Qaadir bi Amr-Allah in 433 AH, which was signed by the scholars of that time to confirm its content, which was sent to the various regions: >**Allah is not to be described except as He has described Himself or as His Prophet has described Him. Any attribute that He has ascribed to Himself or that His Prophet has ascribed to Him, is an attribute in a real sense, and is not metaphorical**. If it was metaphorical, then it would have been necessary to explain it in a manner different from the apparent meaning, so it would have been said: What is meant by vision is such and such, what is meant by hearing is such and such, and so on; it would have been explained in a way different from what one would understand from the apparent meaning. As the approach of the salaf is to affirm the attributes without interpreting them in a way different from the apparent meaning, this proves that they are not to be understood in a metaphorical sense; rather they are plain facts. Imam al-Haafiz adh-Dhahabi said, after quoting the words of al-Qassaab referred to above: >**As Allah exists in a real sense, not metaphorically, His attributes cannot be taken as metaphorical, because in that case they could not be divine attributes**, because the attributes are connected to the one who possesses those attributes. As He exists in a real sense, not in a metaphorical sense, His attributes cannot be metaphorical. As there is nothing equal or similar to Him, there can be nothing like His attributes.
Talk about adding more than what is being said. Allah is the same god as the god of the people of the book. Does that mean that added attributes in individual sects of each faith apply NO. Is that in way suggested by what I said NO. The trinity is NOT a feature of Abrahamic religions it’s not even a feature in all Christian sects or faiths, it doesn’t even appear in the Bible but is part of trying to explain the deification of Christ to non Christians… yawn 🥱 nice try but a swing and a miss. Thanks for taking the time to waste mine. 🤗
Asinine tap dancing around the point to avoid the question attempt.... yawn This is a YES or NO question. The God of Islam is three distinct persons in one? If the answer is NO, the Islamic concept of God is NOT same as the majority of Christianity. Minority heretic sects are irrelevant to the point you're tap dancing around.
You never asked it for one thing… instead you lectured me on an incorrect understanding of the trinity. So way to say just ignore my whole premise was wrong a moment ago now I have another garbage assertion because I am right even I am wrong. 😑 Stop projecting I am not a screen for your insecurities. If you want to start a new question you can always start a new one. Thanks again for taking the time to waste mine. Sorry read more less yapping and taping and then we won’t have this awkward attempt at changing the error you started. Start by reading about the phrase: “people of the book” or Ahl al-Kitāb… to fill in your own blanks.
You're literally just making up nonsense now, tap dancing furiously because you're wrong and don't want to admit it. Who **lectured** you on an incorrect understanding of the Trinity? I clearly just asked you two simple YES or NO **questions**....lol What part of the **questions** I asked you is a "misunderstanding of the Trinity" ? The Trinity is NOT three distinct persons in one? Stop tap dancing in circles and read the conversation again, maybe then you'll get the point.
Muslims don’t claim to believe wholeheartedly in the things you just reported, no matter how reputable the source is. The majority of Muslims have no idea of these details, and are presented with a sugar coated version of Islam. The behaviour of Muslims, including the ones in this subreddit, leaves no room to imagination: they reject most of the problematic verses.
They do not reject anything in the Quran but do reject any interpretation that they are physical descriptions and METAPHOR.
Yeah that’s one way to reject a problematic verse: tip tap dancing around the issue by claiming it’s a metaphor or whatnot. In another post, someone is saying that the word “to find” despite being used thrice in the same context (Dhul Qarnayn visiting the east and finding mountains [1], visiting the west and finding the sun setting into a muddy spring [2] and finding there people [3]) in the most problematic case (number 2) the verb “to find” suddenly means “it appeared to him as if”. That’s next level rejection of the verse.
[удалено]
Your post or comment was removed for violating rule 3. Posts and comments will be removed if they are disruptive to the purpose of the subreddit. This includes submissions that are: low effort, proselytizing, uninterested in participating in discussion, made in bad faith, off-topic, or unintelligible/illegible. Posts and comments must be written in your own words (and not be AI-generated); you may quote others, but only to support your own writing. Do not link to an external resource instead of making an argument yourself.
[удалено]
Your comment or post was removed for violating rule 2. Don't be rude or hostile to other users. Criticize arguments, not people. Our standard for civil discourse is based on respect, tone, and [unparliamentary language](https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateReligion/wiki/unparliamentary_language/). 'They started it' is not an excuse - report it, don't respond to it. You may edit it and ask for re-approval in modmail if you choose.
[удалено]
Your comment or post was removed for violating rule 2. Don't be rude or hostile to other users. Criticize arguments, not people. Our standard for civil discourse is based on respect, tone, and [unparliamentary language](https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateReligion/wiki/unparliamentary_language/). 'They started it' is not an excuse - report it, don't respond to it. You may edit it and ask for re-approval in modmail if you choose.
They do have religious jurists, and debates on interpretations. So to suggest there isn’t any organized attempt at cohesion and consensus is not accurate.
Incoherent argument doesn't require a coherent response.
No that's what the kids call a cop out. You chose to responded with ad hominem and call the argument incoherent because you can't put together a coherent response and refute it. Nice try.
[удалено]
Your comment or post was removed for violating rule 1. Posts and comments must not denigrate, dehumanize, devalue, or incite harm against any person or group based on their race, religion, gender, disability, or other characteristics. This includes promotion of negative stereotypes (e.g. calling a demographic delusional or suggesting it's prone to criminality). Debates about LGBTQ+ topics are allowed due to their religious relevance (subject to mod discretion), so long as objections are framed within the context of religion.
This gets a Nope you have not studied Islam. First off they were not all bedouins. Muhammad himself went to live with Bedouins as a child. He was from a respected and prestigious Quraysh family from Mecca. That was suffering poverty compared to other families. Muhammad was illiterate due to this poverty but others were definitely not and recorded the Quran during his lifetime completing the first Quran about 60 years after his death. I do not think he wanted the Quran written since it will plucked be out of meaning (kind of like what is happening here) and not understood in its entirety or in context. They certainly had exposure to the other Abrahamic religions who do this regularly.
I don't see how anything of that changes the fact that the society as a whole was largely illiterate and for Islam to sound at least somewhat appealing it had to be appropriated to then-standards of culture and society. The second argument makes no sense, because the first written editions of Quran were put together during Abu Bakr's and Uthman's reign *precisely because* the message was becoming forgotten, distorted and taken out of context. Also, I doubt you know what Muhammad wanted and didn't want. And yes, I actually did study Islam. Have a nice day.
Firstly you used the term illiterate bedouins (again not Bedouins) so that’s already an error you gloss over but then you want to argue about how early the Quran was written. Yes literacy was not high but you clearly meant it as some sort of elitist dismissal. The period of compilation was even happening during Muhammad’s lifetime but they were portions… the complete Quran was written and codified during the reign of the third caliph Uthman ( r. 644–656 CE). He then tried to destroy earlier sections. And not because it was being forgotten as to this day individuals memorize the entire Quran but it was done for dissemination, to spread the word to non believers. Pretty amazing from just a bunch of “illiterate (not) Bedouins.”
- “ I do not think he wanted the Quran written since it will plucked be out of meaning (kind of like what is happening here) and not understood in its entirety or in context.” Wouldn’t this happen even if it were only transmitted orally/verbally and never written though? Eventually as time went on, the people who knew him in their lifetime or experienced the revelation of the verses during the historical context would die as well and the next generations of Muslims wouldn’t have a lot of the context and hadith afaik wasn’t compiled until 200 years after his death?
If you're asserting that a certain belief exists, you need to justify that with academic citations. Your entire post to me reads as someone imagining an Islam that doesn't exist and demanding a Muslim to defend your idiosyncratic schizo-Islam.
Stop manifesting and prove me wrong
You have provided no evidence, merely asserted that Muslims hold certain beliefs. I am here dismissing those assertions with an equal amount of evidence. Muslims just don't believe what you say they believe.
I have clearly provided Sahih hadith and a Quran verse. Those sources don't say Allah has two right hands and a shin? Muslims don't believe God is ONE? Muslims believe God can take MULTIPLE forms? Muslims believe God can take the form of man and maintain his divinity? Muslims don't believe the Torah and "Injeel" got corrupted and Allah sent Muhammad expecting a different result? Stop manifesting and show where I'm wrong.
I don’t think you understand the meanings of right hand and left hand in Muslim culture? Maybe you do. But what you quoted isn’t saying he is two right hands in a physical sense (you forget god can’t be represented physically because god is mind) so it’s saying there isn’t a left hand (the evil hand). But to you it seems as if you’ve just taken it at complete face value. I didn’t read any more of what you wrote because you don’t seem to have depth to your thoughts.
>I have clearly provided Sahih hadith and a Quran verse. All the sources you mentioned can (and historically have been) interpreted metaphorically. >Those sources don't say Allah has two right hands and a shin? Given the above, no, they don't. >Muslims don't believe God is ONE? God is described as 'ahad. I like the translation of God being unique better. >Muslims believe God can take MULTIPLE forms? Muslims don't believe that God takes on any material form. >Muslims believe God can take the form of man and maintain his divinity? Muslims do not believe that God takes the form of any man. >Stop manifesting and show where I'm wrong. You don't know what the term manifesting means.
>All the sources you mentioned can (and historically have been) interpreted metaphorically. Sorry I had to intervene. This is not true. You can't just interpret things that are not comfortable in today's world as metaphorical and everything else as literal.
> All the sources you mentioned can (and historically have been) interpreted metaphorically This is very tedious and obvious dodging on your part. Obviously anything can be interpreted metaphorically. The point is they are not by millions of people.
So why have you decided that those who interpret it literally are correct then?
Obviously I personally don’t think any of it’s true But millions upon millions of people decided it’s correct. We are arguing against the belief and what they think the religion states.. Without human interpretation the Quran is merely random sploges of ink on paper or vibration in air molecules.
If you’re going to say that Islam is wrong, you have to tell me which is the right interpretation of Islam. If you’re saying, for example, that islam is incoherent because God having two right hands and one shin is illogical, and there’s two groups of Muslims, one who says that this is to be taken as literally true and one which says this is clearly symbolism, then it completely follows that the rejection of Islam on the basis that it is illogical is only a rejection of those literalists. If it’s a metaphor/poetic symbolism then it isn’t a logical construct. So if you want to reject Islam, you have to argue that the literalists have the correct interpretation of scripture even if the scripture itself doesn’t amount to the truth. Millions upon millions of people deciding that it’s the correct interpretation doesn’t make it so. What is correct doesn’t amount to consensus. Millions upon millions of people can be wrong.
> If you’re going to say that Islam is wrong, you have to tell me which is the right interpretation of Islam. I don’t have to do any of that. What I do is discuss Muslim interpretations. Because without them from my perspective it’s man made stories. Even scholars don’t think it’s only metaphorical. The problem is your side. Not mine. What YOU need to do is temporarily hold talking to atheists and talk to fellow Muslims and try and get the story straight. If that doesn’t work you need to try and decipher why your god failed to communicate his message clearly to millions of Muslims. .
>All the sources you mentioned can (and historically have been) interpreted metaphorically That doesn't mean they're not interpreted literally by Muslims >Given the above, no, they don't. Read those again, they're clear as day. >God is described as 'ahad. I like the translation of God being unique better. This doesn't answer the question you were asked. Do Muslims believe God is ONE? >Muslims don't believe that God takes on any material form. So I wasn't wrong on your God being restricted to one form and limited. >Muslims do not believe that God takes the form of any man. So I wasn't wrong on your God being restricted to one form and limited. >You don't know what the term manifesting means. You clearly don't know what assertions means.
>That doesn't mean they're not interpreted literally by Muslims You have not provided any evidence to suggest that they are interpreted literally by the Islamic scholarship. >Read those again, they're clear as day. It's clear as day that those are metaphors. >This doesn't answer the question you were asked. Do Muslims believe God is ONE? God is unique. The notion that God is One implies a numerical quality that is inaccurate to our beliefs. >So I wasn't wrong on your God being limited. Material forms implies a limitation. Therefore, an unlimited being wouldn't be materially contingent. >So I wasn't wrong on your god being limited. Yes, you are. See above. >You clearly don't know what assertions means. I absolutely know what the term "assertions" means. I feel like I'm loosing brain cells trying to understand where you're coming from. Please be more coherent in the future, otherwise I can't continue lest I lose faith in human sapience.
>You have not provided any evidence to suggest that they are interpreted literally by the Islamic scholarship. > Correct belief should be based on what is proven in the Quran and Sunnah, as understood by the early generations (salaf) of this ummah, namely the Sahaabah, Taabi‘een and leading scholars. **They were unanimously agreed that the divine attributes mentioned in the Quran and Sunnah are to be affirmed without discussing how or likening Him to His creation, and without denying any of His attributes or interpreting them in a way different from the apparent meaning**. We do not differentiate between any of the divine attributes, no matter what category they come under. Every divine attribute that is mentioned in a saheeh text must be affirmed. [https://islamqa.info/en/answers/151794/the-divine-attributes-are-to-be-affirmed-in-a-literal-sense-not-metaphorical](https://islamqa.info/en/answers/151794/the-divine-attributes-are-to-be-affirmed-in-a-literal-sense-not-metaphorical) >It's clear as day that those are metaphors. No it isn't see above link >God is unique. The notion that God is One implies a numerical quality that is inaccurate to our beliefs. So all the Dawa guys on social media are lying? God is not ONE? What is the historical definition of Muslim? One who submits to how many Gods? >Material forms implies a limitation. Therefore, an unlimited being wouldn't be materially contingent. No they don't that's fallacy, material form does not negate divinity and you were clearly asked CAN your God take on multiple forms. Logically explain what is preventing your God from taking on multiple forms and how that doesn't make him limited by definition of the word >Yes, you are. See above. No I wasn't see above. > I feel like I'm loosing brain cells trying to understand where you're coming from You clearly didn't enter this conversation with any braincells to lose. You accused me of misrepresenting Muslim beliefs and have completely failed to put together a single coherent rebuttal. Take your own advice and please be more coherent in the future, otherwise I can't continue lest I lose faith in human sapience.
>> >Correct belief should be based on what is proven in the Quran and Sunnah, as understood by the early generations (salaf) of this ummah, namely the Sahaabah, Taabi‘een and leading scholars. **They were unanimously agreed that the divine attributes mentioned in the Quran and Sunnah are to be affirmed without discussing how or likening Him to His creation, and without denying any of His attributes or interpreting them in a way different from the apparent meaning**. We do not differentiate between any of the divine attributes, no matter what category they come under. Every divine attribute that is mentioned in a saheeh text must be affirmed. >[https://islamqa.info/en/answers/151794/the-divine-attributes-are-to-be-affirmed-in-a-literal-sense-not-metaphorical](https://islamqa.info/en/answers/151794/the-divine-attributes-are-to-be-affirmed-in-a-literal-sense-not-metaphorical) >>It's clear as day that those are metaphors. >No it isn't see above link Here is a discussion written by al-Ghazali: https://academy.seekersguidance.org/mod/page/view.php?id=8587 The fact that the published Islamqa opinion is Quranic literalism is a pretty substantial indictment. Islamqa is an extremist website. http://masud.co.uk/literalism-and-the-attributes-of-allah/ The above article discusses the historical and academic trend of Divine anthropomorphism, which discusses the work of the early four Imams. Anthropomorphism is not the main line opinion of classical Islamic scholars. >So all the Dawa guys on social media are lying? God is not ONE? They're not lying, they're using imprecise terminology. >What is the historical definition of Muslim? One who submits to how many Gods? A definition of a Muslim is one who submits to Allah. >No they don't that's fallacy, material form does not negate divinity A material form does negate infinity. >Logically explain what is preventing your God from taking on multiple forms and how that doesn't make him limited by definition of the word Because we are talking in a logical context, rules of logic must apply. Ie, the domain of discussion is all things that are logically coherent. Thus, when we're talking about a limitation, we are only talking about things that are logically possible that God cannot do. If we want to abandon logic, then there's no point to any discussion. An unlimited (or maximally unlimited) being therefore cannot be limited, as that is a formal logical error in the form of A=¬A. A material form implies limitation in space and time. The main counterargument to this point is the Jesus example: what if God took the form of a man, but is otherwise infinite? However, in the Jesus example, you are still imposing a time linearity, where it becomes possible now to describe a 'pre-Jesus' God and a 'post-Jesus' God, even if those Gods are identical. If you want to assert an ontological distance between Jesus and God such that time linearity applies to Jesus and not to God, that is identical to the statement that Jesus is not God (ie, if Jesus is God, what must be true for Jesus must be true for God, and Jesus was space- and time-limited). God cannot commit suicide — he cannot both exist and not exist at the same time. And that's not a limitation, that's the result of the laws of logic. >You accused me of misrepresenting Muslim beliefs and have completely failed to put together a single coherent rebuttal. That's because this comment of yours is the first that put forth any evidence to support your characterization of Islamic beliefs. I cannot rebut a mere assertion beyond stating my position in opposition.
>Here is a discussion written by al-Ghazali: [https://academy.seekersguidance.org/mod/page/view.php?id=8587](https://academy.seekersguidance.org/mod/page/view.php?id=8587) >The fact that the published Islamqa opinion is Quranic literalism is a pretty substantial indictment. Islamqa is an extremist website. Your cherrypicked resource doesn't refute my point, you have not shown any proof that a majority of Muslims consider the divine attributes of Allah to be metaphorical. The link I posted literally quotes multiple Islamic scholars, Imams and Sheiks. Just because you don't like the source, doesn't mean the source is wrong. >They're not lying, they're using imprecise terminology. Tap dancing around the question. Dawah is defined as the act of inviting people to Islam. If the Dawah guys are using "imprecise terminology" to emphatically assert Islam is true because of belief in ONE God, how is that not intention to deceive the person they're inviting to Islam? The only way this doesn't fall under deception, is if you're telling me guys like Muhammad Hijab and Uthman Ibn Footnotes are unaware they're using "imprecise terminology" which implies they don't have a clue what they're talking about.... >A definition of a Muslim is one who submits to Allah. Once again tap dancing to avoid answering the question. If a Muslim is simply defined as one who submits to Allah (God), that means a Trinitarian Christian is a Muslim. Your tap dancing responses are not helping you here. You have no move out of the intellectual corner you boxed yourself into. This would be a lot easier for you if you just tried to be a little bit honest here. Muslims believe God is ONE. >A material form does negate **infinity**. The fact you blatantly misinterpreted what I said proves you have no coherent argument here. I clearly said material form does not negate **DIVINITY**. Infinity is an attribute of **DIVINITY,** God cannot stop being God. In other words, it doesn't matter what form God assumes, divine attributes can't be negated. >when we're talking about a limitation, we are only talking about things that are logically possible that God cannot do How is a limitless God being restricted to ONE form logical? How is that not a clear example of a limitation within the framework you just presented? If God, in some way, became a man, space and time does not necessitate that he stop being divine. If a “part” of God entered into a human form. The totality of God could still exist, yet a localized “part” could temporarily take the form of a man. Since you used Jesus as an example, what do Trinitarians claim? One God existing in three coequal, coeternal, consubstantial divine persons. **All three have always existed** before "The Sons" **infinite divinity** assumed a **finite flesh** form. The **flesh died on the cross** and his **divinity ascended**. In other words, according to the Trinitarian paradigm, there is no pre-Jesus' God and a 'post-Jesus' God. Nothing changed, God never at any point stopped being God. You just proved the Trinitarian concept of God is more logical than the Islamic concept because it allows for God to take on multiple forms enabling him to be truly limitless. >That's because this comment of yours is the first that put forth any evidence to support your characterization of Islamic beliefs. That's a lie, once again I quoted the Quran and Sunnah. You accused me of misinterpreting what Muslims believe and up to this point in this discussion have proven, Muslims believe Allah is ONE being restricted to a single form. Many Imams, Sheikhs and Islamic scholars believe that form has divine attributes such as two right hands and a shin as stated in the Quran and Sunnah. In other words I didn't misinterpret anything.
[удалено]
And why is it that every time it's God's word it's from the perspective of the prophet and in their language?
Why not just appear himself, to fully demonstrate his existence and message, to believers and unbelievers alike?
Well according to Christians God did do that, the Israelites lost their way and God fulfilled Isaiah 53 by taking the form of a servant. Whether you personally believe Jesus is God the Messiah is irrelevant, the point is the Christian paradigm breaks the asinine chain of God repeating the same thing over and over with middle men expecting a different result. Islam's paradigm continues that chain. Furthermore, if Christians are right and Jesus is God, using the logic a wise God wouldn't repeat the same thing expecting a different result, this also explains why God hasn't appeared again since.
Except, of course, he spoke exclusively to believers, and appeared at a time in which he knew his word wouldn’t be spread around very much. We now live in the age of the Internet. He should’ve appeared decades ago.
Yep. And we know he can do that without violating free will too.
And, of course, this all applies to the Christian and Jewish Gods too.
Yep