Debate: Towhid vs. Trinity – Shabir Ally vs. Nabeel Qureshi

Nabeel gave us some interesting information, such as the Mihna – المحنه – the Muslim “Inquisition”.  I recognize that word, because we have it in Farsi, محنت , meaning “trial”, “testing”, even “suffering”.  (Farsi does not have the Arabic definite article “The” ال ; and the last letter becomes a t ت in Farsi, as in Arabic it is pronounced “t” when connected to another word and has two dots over the ؛h” ه, at the end.

Here is an overview of the “Mihna”. 

The Controversy over whether the Qur’an is created or eternal is a very interesting issue in Islamic history and theology.  How could God be without His word in eternity past?  The concept of the logos / λογος in John 1:1 and 1:14 = “mind that expresses itself in words”, shows that God has always existed with His word / mind into eternity past.

Background on the Mu’tazili school of Islamic theology.  “The adherents of the Mu`tazili school are best known for their denying the status of the Qur’an as uncreated and co-eternal with God.”

Also interesting was the phrase, “Bela Kaif” بلاکیف = “without knowing how”.

I will comment, Lord willing on more of this later and do a fuller article with the video.

Advertisements

About Ken Temple

I am a follower of Jesus Christ. I am a sinner who has been saved by the grace of God alone (Ephesians 2:8-9), through faith alone (Galatians 2:16; Romans 3:28; 4:1-16), in Christ alone (John 14:6). But a true faith does not stay alone, it should result in change, fruit, good works, and deeper levels of repentance and hatred of my own sins of selfishness and pride. I am not better than you! I still make mistakes and sin, but the Lord is working on me, conforming me to His character. (Romans 8:28-29; 2 Corinthians 3:16-18) When I do sin, I hate the sin as it is an affront to God, and seek His forgiveness in repentance. (Mark 1:15; 2 Corinthians 7:7-10; Colossians 3:5-16 ) Praise God for His love for sinners (Romans 5:8), shown by the voluntary coming of Christ and His freely laying down His life for us (John 10:18), becoming flesh/human (John 1:1-5; 1:14; Philippians 2:5-8), dying for sins of people from all nations, tribes, and cultures (Revelation 5:9), on the cross, in history, rising from the dead (Romans 10:9-10; Matthew 28, Mark 16:1-8; Luke 24; John 20-21; 1 Corinthians chapter 15). His resurrection from the dead proved that Jesus is the Messiah, the eternal Son of God, the word of God from eternity past; and that He was all the gospels say He was and that He is truth and the life and the way to salvation. (John 14:6)
This entry was posted in Apologetics, Islam, Muslims, The doctrine of the Trinity. Bookmark the permalink.

15 Responses to Debate: Towhid vs. Trinity – Shabir Ally vs. Nabeel Qureshi

  1. Pingback: Debate: Towhid vs. Trinity - Shabir Ally vs. Nabeel Qureshi

  2. θ says:

    Qur’an doesn’t use the common word “Thaluwth” to refer the Trinity. It rather refers to Three (Thalath) because ironically the controversial word “Trinity” doesn’t exist specifically in any official creed of Christians. Early Moslems also witnessed a total silence of Trinitarian Arabs against the use of word Thalath by Qur’an.

    Historically, there’s no word “Trinity” at all in either creed of Christians since 4th century, not in Nicene, nor in Apostolic, nor in Ephesian, nor in Chalcedonian, even not in Trent. Hence, Trinitarian apologists can’t ask Moslems to answer a question about something that is not yet existent during the time of Qur’an.

    Moreover, there’s no such a thing as “Trinity Creed”, but rather a misnomer Latin “Athanasian Creed” (that ironically was not originally called a creed at all), wherein finally a controversial word “Trinity” is mentioned for the first time, that is “one God in Trinity, and Trinity in Unity”.
    The creed indicates that the Trinity is not the nature of God himself, but rather about a triad in the unity (Trinity) to another unity (Trinitatem in Unitate).

    It is very graceful how the actual origin of the Athanasian Creed is a mystery, being difficult to trace than the origin of other creeds. It is quite shameful how the creed is named after Athanasius but it is certain that Athanasius was not the author. The Athanasian Creed most likely appeared up sometime after 1600s.
    Who actual author is (or authors are) unknown, and when the time of writing is unknown. Mystery upon mystery.

    The add insult to injury, nobody knows for sure where the official leaders of Christendom gather to formulate in ecumenical manner it in order to be what is called the “creed”. It’s rumored that it was used in the liturgy only rarely (sometimes on Trinity Sunday) by Catholic priests.
    Hence, the authorship and timing of the pseudo-Creed are hard to determine.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Athanasian_Creed
    This traditional attribution of the Creed to Athanasius was first called into question in 1642 by Dutch Protestant theologian G.J. Voss,[4] and it has since been widely accepted by modern scholars that the creed was not authored by Athanasius,[5] that it was not originally called a creed at all,[6] nor was Athanasius’ name originally attached to it.[7] Athanasius’ name seems to have become attached to the creed as a sign of its strong declaration of Trinitarian faith. The reasoning for rejecting Athanasius as the author usually relies on a combination of the following:
    -The creed originally was most likely written in Latin, while Athanasius composed in Greek.
    -Neither Athanasius nor his contemporaries ever mention the Creed.
    -It is not mentioned in any records of the ecumenical councils.
    -It appears to address theological concerns that developed after Athanasius died (including the filioque).
    -It was most widely circulated among Western Christians.[2][8]

    • Ken Temple says:

      Nope; the Latin trinitas unitas (three in one – 2 words) was used by Theophilus of Antioch around 180 AD and developed a lot by Tertullian a few years later, from 190-220 AD. It was used thereafter all through Christian theology; even if not in the Nicean Creed of 325 AD or Constantinopolitan Creed of 381 AD. Ambrose, Hillary, and Augustine (354-430 AD) and Jerome used it also.

  3. θ says:

    “Ken Temple says:Nope; the Latin trinitas unitas (three in one – 2 words) was used by Theophilus of Antioch around 180 AD and developed a lot by Tertullian a few years later, from 190-220 AD. It was used thereafter all through Christian theology; even if not in the Nicean Creed of 325 AD or Constantinopolitan Creed of 381 AD. Ambrose, Hillary, and Augustine (354-430 AD) and Jerome used it also.”

    There’s no word “Trinity” mentioned from Nicene Creed to Trent Creed. A personal opinion is not ecumenical creed, so it is not doctrinal.

    • Ken Temple says:

      no mention of Trinity from Nicene ( 325 AD) to Council of Trent (1545-1563 ) ? Are you sure?

      The Athanasian Creed was the 5th Century (400s AD)
      Filled with the word Trinity.

      See below:

      https://www.ccel.org/creeds/athanasian.creed.html

      • θ says:

        Allow me to laugh this time.
        Where did a Greek-speaking ghost of dead Athanasius hold an ecumenical council to produce a Latin creed “Athanasian Creed”? In underworld? in his grave? in Hades?

        Athanasius already died in 373 AD, so how could he hold a Latin meeting in 400 AD?

      • Ken Temple says:

        It is called “the Athanasian Creed”, but no one claims that he actually wrote it. It is called that because it is based on his theology and writings.

  4. θ says:

    Different from the Eternal Speech of Allah, Qur’an is created because it is the action of Allah:
    Q.37, v.96. And Allah creates ye and whatever is acted by.

    • Ken Temple says:

      “Ahl al-Sunna agree one and all that the Qur’an is the pre-existent, pre-eternal, uncreated Speech of Allah Most High on the evidence of the Qur’an, the Sunna, and faith-guided reason.
      In a rare instance of classic kalâm reasoning, Imam Malik gave the most succinct statement of this doctrine:
      “The Qur’an is the Speech of Allah, the Speech of Allah comes from Him, and nothing created comes from Allah Most High.”[1]”

      Islamic scholar Haddad – see below:

      http://www.sunnah.org/aqida/uncreatedness_quran.htm

  5. θ says:

    Non-Moslems don’t understand what the Medieval scholars talked about. Ahl al-Sunnah just discussed about the origin of Qur’an as the inseparable expression of speaking of Allah, even further to the extent as if Qur’an *is* the Speech itself, but they don’t debate a topic that the later Arabic Qur’an is a verbal statement (Q.73, v.5) according to the dialect or tongue of glorious Prophet Muhammad (Q.81, v.19).

    Kalam (the word) is action as well as Qawlan (the saying) and Lughat (the dialect). Natiq (the verbal expression) is a hidden potency inherent in one’s nature.
    Natiq produces Kalam, Qawlan. Lughat.

    Qur’an is a spirit that is revealed by Allah to Prophet Muhammad (Q.42, v.52), and Qur’an is also the light (Q.64, v.8).
    Since Jesus was also a spirit, Jesus is as created as Qur’an.

  6. θ says:

    “Ken Temple says: It is called “the Athanasian Creed”, but not one claims that he actually wrote it. It is called that because it is based on his theology and writings.”

    Who, Where, How, and Why the creed was produced in Latin? by Magics?

  7. Ken Temple says:

    Lots of Greek material was studied and easy for the Latins to write a document and study the Greek fathers and writings. They did this all the time. Latin was becoming the main language of the Western Christian world.

  8. θ says:

    “Ken Temple says: Lots of Greek material was studied and easy for the Latins ”

    If it were easy, Who, Where, How the creed was produced?

  9. Ken Temple says:

    Lots of early material in early Christianity (0-600 AD) was originally written in Greek, but all we have extant today is Latin. For example the earliest complete copy of Irenaeus’ Against Heresies (AD 180-200 AD) is a Latin text; but originally it was written in Greek – as there are older fragments of it that are extant.

    It was after Islam came and unjustly conquered the Byzantine Empire, that many old Greek translations went into hiding in caves, ground, etc. only to be discovered centuries later.

    Other Greek copies were produced in Constantinople and around it, from 600 AD onward – until the Ottomans unjustly conquered it. ( 1453)

  10. θ says:

    “Ken Temple says: For example the earliest complete copy of Irenaeus’ Against Heresies (AD 180-200 AD) is a Latin text; but originally it was written in Greek – as there are older fragments of it that are extant…Other Greek copies were produced in Constantinople and around it, from 600 AD onward – until the Ottomans unjustly conquered it. ( 1453)”

    Ottoman conquest happened in 1400s whereas so many Latin writings appear and get preserved since 10th century. Hence, the disappearing of Greek and Latin writing has nothing to do with Moslem conquest.

    Therefore, lots of Latin copies should be suspected as forgery or fake ones. If a Latin writing suddenly appears out of thin air claiming to be a copy of certain *lost* Greek writing, it must be a work of forgery. It is written to dupe, fool, mislead, the ordinary Medieval Christians, as well as to serve the church agenda of having such a continuous tradition.

    For example, a notorious Latin writing is oftentimes unilaterally claimed by Christians to be a copy the lost Greek Annals of Tacitus, but ironically the Greek source of Annals itself got zero peer-reference by other ancient Greek or Christian writers, hence we can conclude that the copy must be fake or forgery.

    Worse, the copy of Annals in Latin appears suddenly out of thin air in 11th century. Why hasn’t it appeared to Christians since 4th century when so many Christian writers begin to translate all Greek sources to Latin?

Comments are closed.