A crytical and analytical response to answering islam by ALIMKANWALIMTINAA

A CRYTICAL AND ANALYTICAL RESPONSE TO ANSWERING ISLAM I found a discussion and a response of Basam Zavadi who responsed to articles of Answering Islam and Shamoun. I was asked to make comments on the objections of Answering Islam and Shamoun . Instead of writing a direct refutation I decided to add comments some time in bold black , some time in red and some time in both of them. This may help to see the entire comment in a better way. I have just added my own comments and did not disturbed Bassam’s responses. My comments are easity to be differentiated from Bassam’s responses. An Apology A request Christian Brothers and Sisters that it is not by wish to make objections on Christian Theology, but when persons in answering Islam write such type of objections and articles, they are responded. In doing so if I have hurt the feeling of any one of Athanasian Christian may be forgiven since I only wanted to respond . For this I did not even choose to write a separate response. I added my comments to Bassam’s response. I also hope that this will not annoy Bassam . If it does I ask him to forgive me.

Rebuttal to Answering Islam's Article "On The Philosophical Necessity of the Trinity Based On The Attributes Of God" by Bassam Zawadi

The article could be located here.

Answering Islam said: Muslims often argue for the unity of God from the viewpoint that more than one God would bring chaos and fighting between the gods. This is true if we think of many separate gods, but Christians only believe in ONE God, not many gods. But we believe that there is more "inner structure" to the Godhead that a unitary one.

DOES DEITY HATH STRUCTURE OR STRUCTURE IS A QUALITY OF CREATIONS. ONE MAY ASK DEITY IS SIMPLE OR COMPLEX. IF COMPLEX THEN INFINITELY COMPLEX IMPLYING INFINITE RATIONAL HYPOSTASES. IF SIMPLE THEN INFINNITELY SIMPLE WITHOUT ANY HYPOSTASIS IN THE DIVINE PER SE SUBSISTENT ESSENCE.

Answering Answering Islam: Actually Christians believe in a Triune God, a God which is one in Divine Essence/Nature and Three Mutually Distinct Hypostases in the Essence/Ousia of the Triune God or God the Trinity. As each Hypostasis is God in some sense it is possible that each one can Will differently. If they have a common Will and none of the alleged Hypostases have a Will as ascribed to the Self of the Hypostasis then this only implies that none of the Hypostasis is Perfect God, So the Triune God is the only Perfect God and any Hypostasis in the Essence/Nature of the Triune God or God the Trinity is is the Perfect God. Now to come to the point of inner constructions or structure of God. This makes God has a complex structure and he is not Absolutely Simple. But one again if God a complex structure then each Hypostasis must have some complex structures and this implies subpersons or sub hypostases in each hypostasis in the Essence/Nature of the Triune God. If not them why one accept the alleged hypothetical structure at all. Also consider the following syllogism. S Son/Word is God. God is Trinity So Son/Word is Trinity. Now we come to see that Son is not Trinity. Consequently Son/Word is not God if God is Trinity.

Answering Islam said: The following explanation is actually a very classical one used by St. Augustine in his book "On the Trinity" [De Trinitate] in the 5th century. We read in the Word of God, in 1 John 4:8 that "God is Love".

[IT MUST BE NOTED THAT LOVE IS AN ATTRIBUTE OF GOD AND GOD IS THE LOVER . TO SAY THAT GOD IS LOVE ONLY MEANS GOD IS A GREAT LOVER. IT DOES NOT MEAN THAT GOD IS THE ATTRIBUTE OF LOVE. IT THIS IS THE MEANING THAT GOD IS LOVE THEN WHO IS THE LOVER . IS THE LOVER GOD? IF GOD IS THE LOVER THEN THE THING WHICH IS LOVED MAY BE DIFFERENT FROM GOD NOT JUST A DISTICT HYPOSTASIS IN THE ESSENCE/NATURE OF THE ESSENCE OF GOD THE TRINITY.]

What are the necessary conditions that this can be a true statement? [ [THESE ALLEGED CONDITIONS ARE HIGHLY DISPUTED AND WITH OUT ANY SOUND BASIS. ASSUMIMG THEM TO BE TRUE ONLY IMPLIES THAT LOVE IS JUST A RELATIVE ATTRIBUTE OF GOD AND NOT AN ABSOLUTE ATTRIBUTE OF GOD]

For any event of "love" we do need the subject who loves, we need an object which is loved, and we need an expression of this love in some way, i.e. an interaction between the first two. I cannot love when I am "just by myself". Focussing only on myself is egotism, not love. [It depends how you define love and Egonism. Is Egnism a subcase of love. I love a special case of focusing. What is the meaning of Love? With out stating the proper meaning of the word Love it can not be accepted that Egonism is not love. Please consider the following question Does the first Hypostasis in God the Trinity Love Himself or He does not Love Himself. If the first Hypostasis love Himself then this argument is incorrect. If this Hypostassis does not love Himself than either this Hypostasis Hates Himself or neither loves Himself nor Hates Himself. As it I is nor acceptable that the Hypostasis can hate himself the only option left is that this Hypostasis neither loves himself nor hates himself. What a God that neither loves Himself? If God Loveth Himself Not what hope is that he Loveth others.? Now we add a comment . If God is Love then God Must Love Himself Necessarity and the alleged conditions are for those beings which are not Love as God is. So the conditions stated above if acceptable are valid to Beings which are Not Love and a Being thjat is Pure Love exclude this condition. So If some one imposes these condition to God he/she is using the conditions of love of Crearions on the Uncreated God. These conditions may not be true in Divine Case. If it is claimed that love requires two distinct subjects then either it is an axiom of Some Theological system or it is just the generalization of h u human love. In this case it may be said that atleast two subjects each with a separate Essence/Nature is required. In this case to love some one in oneâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s own Essence/Nature is nothing but a form of Egoism. ]

Now, how can God Be Love if he was solitary in "unitary aloneness" from eternity past? [ IS ETERNITY PAST OR BEYOND ALL THREE TIMES PAST ,PRESENT AND FUTURE]??= None of the attributes of God are dependent on his creation. If God could only start loving after he had created us then his attribute of love would be dependent on us. He would not be self-sufficient in his attributes. But if he is unitary as Muslims believe, then love necessarily cannot be an attribute of his [nor can justice or mercy or any other relational attribute] because he is not in any relationship for eternity before he creates. NOW CHANGE THE ENTIRE ARGUMENT TO OMNISCIENCE AND SEE WHAT HAPPENS: How can God Be OMNISCIENT if he was solitary in "Unitary Aloneness" from eternity past? None of the attributes of God are dependent on his creation. If God could only start KNOWING after he had created us then his attribute of OMNISCIENCE would be dependent on us. He would not be selfsufficient in his attributes. But if he is unitary as Muslims believe, then

OMNISCIENCE necessarily cannot be an attribute of his [nor can

OMNIPOTENCE or OMNIFIC or any other relational [1 ] attribute because he is not in any relationship for Eternity before He creates. Shamoun says:

For instance, being able to create doesn't necessitate a relationship between two parties. After all, God doesn't have to create something in order to be all-powerful or self-sufficient since his ability to create doesn't depend on the existence of more than one entity. It merely depends on his having enough power to create whatever he pleases. Let the same words are repeated with some changes: For instance, being able to love doesn't necessitate a relationship between two parties. After all, God doesn't have to love something in order to be Love or self-sufficient since his ability to love doesn't depend on the existence of more than one entity. It merely depends on his having enough ability to love whatever he pleases. ALSO WHETHER THIS PLEASING OF GOD REQUIRES TWO SUBJECTS OR JUST ONE???

[ This implies that God does not have any Relative Attribute at all. Relative Attributes Of God are those attributes which God exercises as concerns his Creations . So this means that love of Creation did not exist in God Prior to the Beginning. So Muslims and Christians are even once again. At least the Attributes of Mercy, Forgiving, Loving, etc. in regard to creations cease to be in Eternity. So some Attributes cease to be in Eternity if not all. If these conditions of love are imposed on God then the consequences are very problematic of Athanasians and Trinitatians alike. 1) The Triune God cannot Love the Triune God. 2) The First Hypothetical Hypostasis Cannot love His Own Self. The First issued Hypostasis and the Second Hypostasis if the condition of issued is dropped cease to Love Its own Self. The second issued hypostasis or the third ihypostasis if the condition of issued is dropped ceases to Love It Self. Alo neither thee Love Loveth It Self nor the Godhead loveth It Self.]

Charles Hodge defines wisdom as being â&#x20AC;&#x153;manifested in the selection of proper ends, and of proper means for the accomplishment of those endsâ&#x20AC;? (Systematic Theology 1:401).So was God Wise in Eternity? One may see that If a Human Being or any Rational Being love himself this is termed as Egoism. This Egoism is not accepted as a Good Attribute. But If God Loves Himself this is not Egoism . As God is Perfect He loeveth Himself with out any Implication of Egoism.

How ever if it is accepted THE CLAIM then the question is why to suggest the Trinitical Distinctions. One may ask is there any Distinction between God and Godhead? If no Distinction then they are alternative terms. Say Son/Word is God or say Son is Godhead the meaning is same. But Trinitical Dogmas Do not allow such a statement. Why? If there is no distinction. If it is neither Correct to say Son/Word is Father nor It is Correct to Say Son/Word is Godhead this implies that there is a Distinction of Son/Word from Both of the two Father and Godhead equally alike. But once again Trinitical Dogmas do not agree. Why?? But it appears that Trinitical Dogmas do not see any difference between Divine Esse and Divine Essence , Why? What is the distinction between the two Esse and Essence? What does this shew. If just a Mental Distinction is sufficient as there is between Divine Essence and Divine Nature, between Divine Substance and Divine Nature and between Divine Substance and Divine Essence then why to propose A Distinction of incommunicability among the Lover,Love and the Beloved? I think even the objection maker is unlikely to answer this question?

If God is not relational, how would he come to the idea to create anything ? How would he come to the desire to have an extension of his relationality beyond the Godhead if relationality is not part of his nature/attributes? No, we all believe God created and he communicates with his creation. God is a communicator. God is love. But this can only be if he is love from eternity and hence there must be some relationality and expression and exchange of love within God himself. God is relational but not Hypostatically Relational. Otherwise each hypostasis must have sub hypostases in them to be relational. That is where the trinity [or some kind of plurality] becomes philosophically necessary for God. Yes there is one God only but this God is love and is relational. And hence there needs to be "interaction of giving and receiving within the Godhead". That is why we need something like the Trinity. Why a Hypostatic Plurality. Why not a Mental Plurality as of Essence and Nature or God and Godhead? Please not If the Hypostasis Son is God but not Godhead then the only consequence is that God and Godhead are Distinct. Is one going to suggest that the pluralities of Essence and Nature etc. 5

or God and Godhead are due to Hypostases. If so then please quote from authorities IN Christian Theology like Thomas etc. Augustine then says that Father and Son are eternally in love with each other, giving and receiving, and that the Spirit is maybe like the personalization of this 'dynamic relationship', the transporting the love of the one to the other. Augustine did say such a thing what would he like to say Father and Son are God of one an other in some sense. Would Augustine say Father was the God of the Son, Lord of the Son , yet Son is God. Or Son is the God of the Father.? If not then the question is of which thing Father Was the God in Eternity. Arya Samajis also use similar arguments to prove the Eternity of Parmanu [Atoms] and Spirits/Souls in ortder to prove that Permishver was THEIR God in Eternity other wise Permishver ceases to be God. Only If Pandit Dianand would have born in the time of Augustine, Augustine would never have made such a mistake. Note again: This is a model, an analogy again. No analogy is perfect. But think about it, and let me know how you think God can have relational attributes if he was a solitary unity from eternity past. Let me know how you think about Lordship of God when there was no thing of which God was the Lard of in Eternity. This is all due to the incorrect analogies partially accepted and partially rejected by the learned objection maker?

My Respturonse: Allah describes himself in the Quran as all loving... Surah 85:14 and He is the All-forgiving, the All-loving Answering Islam said: God is love. But this can only be if he is love from eternity and hence there must be some relationality and expression and exchange of love within God himself.

This logic is very weak. Because then I could argue the following:There was no one for the Unitarian God to love in the beginning and therefore he was not All Loving. But also, there was no one for God to forgive before he created us, so that also means that God is not All Forgiving! es Anyone can see this fallacious argument crumbling already. Are Christians trying to also say that since God is triune then that means that each member of the God head forgave the other so that God could be All Forgiving? Of course not. For someone to be forgiven he would have had to commit a sin right? Well does any member of the Godhead commit sins? Christian will respond back and say no. Answering Islam said... For any event of "love" we do need the subject who loves, we need an object which is loved, and we need an expression of this love in some way, i.e. an interaction between the first two. Similarly:For any event of "forgiveness" we do need the subject who forgives, we need an object which is forgiven, and we need an expression of this forgiveness in some way, i.e. an interaction between the first two. I could also argue that God was not a creator before He created anything. I could also argue that God was not many things before He created anything if I were to use this fallacious and illogical missionary way of thinking.

SO JUST BECAUSE GOD DID NOT EXHIBIT OR IMPLEMENT HIS ATTRIBUTES BEFORE HIS CREATION THAT DOES NOT MEAN THAT HE DID NOT HAVE THOSE ATTRIBUTES. SO JUST BECAUSE GOD HAD NO CREATION TO LOVE BEFORE HE CREATED THEM THAT DOES NOT MEAN THAT HE DID NOT HAVE THE ATTRIBUTE OF BEING ALL LOVING. IT IS JUST THAT HE DID NOT EXHIBIT OR IMPLEMENT IT YET.

Answering Islam said: [This was a very quick and sketchy few paragraphes, any of my Christian brothers and sisters who would like to improve on this, is most welcome to do so. Just send me the article and I will put it up.]

My Response: 7

It is very obvious that you wrote it quickly because you did not even think about what you were saying.

Appendix Sam Shamoun wrote two separate articles in response to mine. The first one could be found here http://www.answeringislam.net/Responses/Osama/zawadi_allah_needs_sinners.htm Sam Shamoun quotes some hadith from Sahih Muslim and then concludes that the hadith say that Allah MUST create human sinners in order to display His attribute of forgiveness. This is absurd; the hadith in no way says that God needed to create sinners. First of all, God has the power to forgive and it is His gift to us. He does not lose anything or gain anything from His Kingdom if people were to reject Him for He is not in need of us. The following hadith makes this clear... Narrated Abi Dhar: Allaah, the Exalted, says, "My servants, all of you are misguided except whoever I have guided, so ask Me for guidance and I will guide you. And all of you are poor except whoever I have made rich, so ask Me for sustenance. All of you are sinners except whoever I have pardoned, so whoever of you knows that I possess the power of forgiveness, then asked Me for forgiveness, then I have forgiven him, and I do not mind. And if the first of you and the last of you and your living and your dead and your strong and your weak were all to unite on the heart of the most pious slave of My slaves, this would not have added to My kingdom the wing of a mosquito. And if the first of you and the last of you and your living and your dead and your strong and your weak were all to unite on the heart of the most wretched slave of My slaves, this would not have subtracted from My kingdom the wing of a mosquito. And if the first of you and the last of you and your living and your dead and your strong and your weak were all to come together in one clearing, then each person of you asked for what would fulfill his desires, then I gave to each asker of you what he asked for, this would not have diminished My kingdom except as if one of you passed by the sea then dipped a needle into it then lifted it to himself. This is because I am Generous (jawwaad), Exalted, I do whatever I wish. My gift is nothing but My command, My punishment is nothing but My command. Rather, My command to something if I willed it is to say 'Be', so it becomes."(At-tirmidhi, Kitaab Sifat Al-Qiyaama wa Ar-raqaa'iq wal-war3, Number 2419: A reference is found in the following hadeeth which al-Uthaimeen says is hasan:, Source) The reason God creates human sinners is so that they can come back and repent to Allah, for Allah loves those who repent... ALSO THIS IS JUST A POSSIBLE CASE. IT IS NOT AN ACTUAL CASE. THIS CASE NEVER CAME IN LINE OF ACTUALITY FROM POSSIBILITY AND CONTINGENCY. GOD IS OMNIPOTENT AND HAVE POWER OVER AL POSSIBLE ACTS. GOD IS THE ABSOLUTELY FREE AGENT. GOD DID NOT CHOSE THIS POSSIBILITY AS GOD IS THE FREEST AGENT , HAVING WILL TO CHOSE AND NOT TO CHOSE A POSSIBLE

FOR ACTUALISATION.

Saheeh Muslim Book 037, Number 6611: Abu Huraira reported Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) as saying: Allah is more pleased with the repentance of His servant when he turns penitently towards Him than one of you would be on finding the lost camel. So Shamoun needs to stop imposing his false interpretation unto the text of the hadith. If some Muslim have done the same thing from the verse of Christian Scriptures Shamoun must have pointed at the mistake. But why he is unable to see his own ? Just because he has to make an objection what so ever. The Qur'an makes it absolutely clear that Allah is in no need of His creation and wants... Surah 14:8 And Moses said: "If ye show ingratitude, ye and all on earth together, yet is God free of all wants, worthy of all praise. Surah 64:6 That was because there came to them their Messengers with clear proofs (signs), but they said: "Shall mere men guide us?" So they disbelieved and turned away (from the truth), and Allah was not in need (of them). And Allah is Rich (Free of all wants), Worthy of all praise. Surah 3:97 In it are clear signs, the standing place of Ibrahim, and whoever enters it shall be secure, and pilgrimage to the House is incumbent upon men for the sake of Allah, (upon) every one who is able to undertake the journey to it; and whoever disbelieves, then surely Allah is Self-sufficient, above any need of the worlds. Surah 35:15 O mankind! it is you who stand in need of Allah, but Allah is Rich (Free of all wants and needs), Worthy of all praise. It even comes in a qudsi hadith... Allah (SWT) said: `I am so self-sufficient that I am in no need of having an associate. Thus he who does an

action for someone else's sake as well as Mine shall have that action renounced by Me to the one whom he associated with Me." (Sahih Muslim, 18/115, Kitab al-zuhd, bab tahrim al-riya', cited here) Allah is clearly in no need of an associate, however Shamoun believes that God does need an associate to love from eternity. This shows how weak Shamoun's concept of God is. As for Shamoun's second article, which could be found here http://www.answeringislam.net/Responses/Osama/zawadi_trinity_love.htm Shamoun says... For instance, being able to create doesn't necessitate a relationship between two parties. After all, God doesn't have to create something in order to be all-powerful or self-sufficient since his ability to create doesn't depend on the existence of more than one entity. It merely depends on his having enough power to create whatever he pleases. I never said that God was not eternally All Powerful, but that He is not eternally having the title of "The Creator" if we were to remain consistent. That means that before creation, it would be incorrect of us to say that God was "The Creator". But then in this way you're denying that God is "The Creator" from all eternity, which is false. Shamoun fails to escape my refutation. He continues on to say... Yet forgiveness is not required for God to be perfectly loving provided that those he loves are living in perfect union and fellowship with him. It is only when such persons sin that God would need to show forgiveness, provided that he does love them. Thus, Zawadi's counter-arguments fall to the ground and fail to refute anything. Just as forgiveness is not a requirement for God to exhibit and can choose to do so when He wills, similarly with love God can choose to exhibit His attribute of love whenever He wills. I challenge Shamoun to show me a single verse from the Bible that says that God was exhibiting His attribute of love even before creation. He cannot. Why is it that God can choose to exhibit his attribute of forgiveness and ability to create at a specific point in time but that He has to exhibit His attribute of love from eternity? The statement "God is love" does not prove that God was exhibiting his attribute of love before creation. It means that He is the source of love and his love is infinite in abundance. The Bible also says that God is a merciful God (Deuteronomy 4:31) but whom was He being merciful to before creation? Does that mean that he was not eternally Merciful? Of course not. He had the attribute but just never exhibited it. The same thing is with love. Christians are not being consistent in their arguments; therefore they need to drop it.

After quoting the following forged hadith...

3. Allah says, "I was a hidden treasure, and I wished to be known, so I created a creation (mankind), then made Myself known to them, and they recognised Me." (Source)

Shamoun says... Thus, here we find additional corroboration that Allah was in dire need of creatures that could love and worship him! Wished is not a good translation but it is Willed. If God Willed then this means that He Willed by his Free Will. It is very strange to see that Respected Shamoun is making such objections which may not be considered as serious even by Catholic and Orthodox theologians. Also this tradition is as weak as the books of Apocrypha of Old TRestament. So it cannot be used in serious debates and discussions. Some Sufia use it yet even learned Sufia do not use this tradition.

Allah is clearly not like the God of the Holy Bible in this regard, and in many other aspects as well. IF ALL-H IS NOT LIKE THE GOD OF NEW TESTAMENT, THEN GOD OF NEW TESTAMENT IS NOT LIKE THE GOD OG HEBRAIC TANACH. JUDAISM WHICH CLAIMS TO BE THE TRUE BELIEVER OF BOOKS OF TANACH FROM THE PERIOD BEFORE CHRIST CANNOT BE IGNORED. NONE OF THE HEBRAIC PROPHETS EVER IMAGINED ABOUT THE ATHANASIAN AND AUGUSTINIAN TRINITY. SO IT IS MOST HUMBLY REQUESTED THAT SHAMOUN MUST ACCEPT THAT GOD OF ATHANASIUS ANF ATHANASIANISM IS NOT THE GOD OF TANACH, NOT IN THE LEAST SENSE. This is absolutely absurd. Nowhere does the forged hadith even say that God NEEDED to be known but WISHED to be known. Shamoun needs to stop twisting the meaning of statements.

Return to Refuting General Articles by Answering-Islam.org Return to Homepage