Thursday, 14 January 2010

How Making Appeal to Christian Heretics Backfires to Islam

”Examining Jerald F. Dirks’ Presuppositions and Theological Beliefs; In Light of the Teachings of Islam Pt. 1”

This is a continuation of our series of replies to the assertions made by Muslim convert Dr. Jerald F. Dirks.

Heretics to the rescue?

In his published works and lectures Dirks
consistently appeals to heretical Christian groups which started flourishing from the second century AD onwards without bothering to mention to his audience how such groups prove that Muhammad is a false prophet and that Islam is a false religion.

For instance, in some of our previous rebuttals we saw how Dirks
tries to pass off the Ebionites as an early Jewish Christian sect. However, what Dirks fails to tell his audience and/or readers is that these particular Jews were vegetarians who denied Jesus’ virginal conception and birth and were reading a Gospel which was clearly dependent upon the Synoptic Gospels, specifically the Gospel of Matthew. As one scholarly source puts it:

Character: in literary character the GE is a Gospel of the synoptic type. It may be especially related to Mt. (No. 6 has a parallel in Mt. alone), but it also assumes the two other Synoptics. The chronological and biographical statements in the account of the Baptist, the statement about the age of Jesus and the saying No. 7 come from Lk. (cf. the notes to the fragments). In the story of the baptism of Jesus all three synoptic accounts are utilised: it gives the voice from heaven three times, according to Mk. 1:11, Lk. 3:22 D it and Mt. 3:17…Rather is the GE to be described, with Bertrand, as a ‘gospel harmony’… since in it the Synoptic Gospels find an additive application. In contrast to the Diatessaron of Tatian there is admittedly no use in it of John; nor is there any indication that the differences between the Gospels are consciously suppressed. So far as a harmonising tendency is present, it serves rather a novelistic interest, which takes up the concrete features of the synoptic gospel tradition or amplifies them independently. Thus the food of the Baptist (‘wild honey’ according to Mk. 1:6 par. Mt. 3:4) is elucidated by the addition mentioned above (p. 167) from Num. 11:8, ‘whose taste was that of manna’; or, linking up with Lk. 1:5, Herod becomes ‘king of Judea’.

The deletion of the nativity story (Mt. 1 and 2) goes back to a dogmatic tendency.
The Ebionites DENIED the virgin birth of Jesus; according to their Christology the divine sonship of Jesus rests not on his divine begetting and wonderful birth, but on the union of the Holy Spirit with him at the time of his baptism (No. 3). That this ‘entry’ of the Holy Spirit is something other than his descent upon Jesus (Mk. 1:10; Mt. 3:16; Lk. 3:22), and thus NO ADOPTION or inspiration BUT THE UNION OF A HEAVENLY BEING WITH THE MAN JESUS, RESULTING in the Christ, the Son of God, so that in this trait there is to be discerned a gnostic characteristic of Ebionite Christology (so Dibelius, Geschichte, p. 56; Vielhauer, Geschichte, p. 655), is improbable. The strong dependence on the synoptic tradition leads one rather to think of the Marcan or Lucan conception of the baptism of Jesus. By setting the different synoptic passages about the baptism of Jesus side by side, it is brought about that Jesus is ‘PRESENTED’ before the Baptist as the Son of God, and through his homage is ‘ACCLAIMED’ as such… Jesus’ task is to do away with the ‘sacrifices’ (No. 6); in this saying the hostility of the Ebionites against the Temple cult is documented. No. 7 and probably also the account of the food of the Baptist (deletion of the locusts) point to vegetarianism
. (New Testament Apocrypha – Volume One: Gospel and Related Writings Revised Edition, edited by William Schneemelcher, English translation edited by R. McL. Wilson [Paperback edition published by Westminster John Knox Press, 2003], A. Gospels: Non-Biblical Material About Jesus, IV. Jewish-Christian Gospels, 2. The Gospel of the Ebionites, pp. 167-168)

The liberal critical NT scholar Bart D. Ehrman writes that,

Ebionites were a group of Jewish Christians located in different regions of the Mediterranean from at least the SECOND TO THE FOURTH CENTURIES. What distinguished this group of Christians from many others was their attempt to combine Jewish views and lifestyles with the belief that Jesus was the messiah. In particular, they were said to have emphasized belief in only one God to such an extent that they denied, as a consequence, Jesus’ own divinity. At the same time, the Ebionites differed from non-Christian Jews in asserting that Jesus was the sacrifice for the sins of the world and that all other sacrifices had therefore become meaningless. Among other things this belief led them to embrace a vegetarian diet, since most meat was procured, in the ancient world, through the religious act of sacrificing an animal… Some of the Ebionites’ distinctive concerns are embodied in their Gospel. This is shown, for example, in the reference to the diet of John the Baptist, in which the canonical statement that he ate locusts (i.e. meat) and wild honey was modified by the change of simply one letter, so that now the Baptist, in anticipation of the Ebionites themselves, maintains a vegetarian cuisine: here he is said have eaten pancakes and wild honey.

It is difficult to assign a date to the Gospel,
but since it betrays a knowledge of Matthew, Mark, and Luke, and presupposes a thriving community of Jewish Christians. It is perhaps best to locate it sometime EARLY IN THE SECOND CENTURY… (Ehrman, Lost Scriptures – Books that Did Not Make It into the New Testament [Oxford University Press, Inc. 2003], Non-Canonical Gospels, The Gospel of the Ebionites, 12-13)

Here are some quotes from the so-called Gospel of the Ebionites which helps to put this in perspective:

4 And after a good deal more, it says: “When the people were baptized, Jesus also came and was baptized by John. When he came up out of the water, the heavens opened and he saw the Holy Spirit in the form of a dove, descending and entering him. And a voice came from heaven, ‘You are my beloved Son, in you I am well pleased.’ Then it said, ‘Today I have given you birth.’ Immediately a great light enlightened the place. When John saw this,” it says, “he said to him, ‘Who are you Lord?’ Yet again a voice came from heaven to him, ‘This is my beloved Son, with whom I am well pleased.’ And then,” it says, “John fell before him and said, ‘I beg you, Lord– you baptize me!’ But Jesus restrained him by saying, ‘Let it be, for it is fitting that all things be fulfilled in this way.’” (Epiphanius, Panarion, 30, 13, 3–4) (Ehrman, p. 13)

6 Again they deny that he was a man, even basing their view on the word the Savior spoke when it was reported to him, “See, your mother and brothers are standing outside.” “Who,” he asked, “is my mother and brothers?” Stretching out his hand to his disciples he said, “These are my brothers and mother and sisters–those who do the will of my Father.” (Epiphanius, Panarion, 30, 14, 5)

7 They do not allege that he was born from God the Father, but that he was created as one of the archangels, yet was made greater than they, since he rules over the angels and all things made by the Almighty. And, as found in the Gospel, they say that when he came he taught, “I have come to destroy the sacrifices. And if you do not stop making sacrifice, God’s wrath will not stop afflicting you.” (Epiphanius, Panarion, 30, 16, 4–5) (Ehrman, p. 14)

Does Dirks really want us to believe that these Jews represent the views of Jesus and his followers? Is he trying to convince his Muslim audience that the Ebionites are the faithful Muslims that the Qur’an mentions were the true believers who followed Christ (cf. Q. 3:52; 5:110)? If so is he willing to accept the implications that such an assertion has on his Islamic beliefs?

As we noted these Jews were vegetarians who denied the virgin birth, and yet Dirks makes it seem that they were the faithful followers of Jesus or at least those who preserved the true teachings of Christ. In light of this
is Dirks willing to admit that Muhammad was a false prophet since he affirmed the virgin birth and allowed his followers to eat various kinds of meats?

Moreover, the Ebionites believed that God was a spiritual Father who had spiritual offspring whom he adopted into his family such as Christ. Again, is Dirks going to be honest enough to say that
Muhammad’s Allah is a false god, or at least not the same God worshiped by the Ebionites, since the Islamic deity has no offspring and is not a father to anyone (Q. 5:18; 9:30; 19:88-93; 21:26)?

Dirks can’t have his cake and eat it too.
He cannot appeal to Christian heretics of the second-fourth centuries when such groups held to beliefs that were diametrically opposed to the teachings of Islam.

The idolatrous and polytheistic nature of the religion of Islam

In one particular book Dirks asserts that the Islamic conception of God adheres to a rather strict and uncompromising monotheism,


One of the divides separating Islam from contemporary Christianity concerns the nature of God. Islam, like Judaism and several branches of early Christianity, teaches a strict [sic] and uncompromising [sic] monotheism, with God being seen as One and Indivisible. The Qur’an is most adamant [sic] in insisting on Tawheed (One God). (Dirks, Easily Understand Islam, F. Malik (compiler) [Desert Well Network LLC, November 30, 2006], p. 234)

One would expect that someone who has spent much time lecturing and writing books discussing the differences between Islam and the Judeo-Christian faith would be more cautious in making such statements.
The fact is that Islam does not promote a strict and uncompromising monotheism since it is laden with idolatrous practices and pagan influences, as we are about to see. Nor does Islam teach unitarianism, e.g. that God is a singular Being who is unipersonal.

To provide an illustration of the idolatrous nature of Islam it is important to mention that, according to the so-called authentic reports,
Muhammad would kiss and caress a black stone, a practice that baffled even his most intimate companions!

Narrated 'Abis bin Rabia: 'Umar came near the Black Stone and kissed it and said “No doubt, I know that you are a stone and can neither benefit anyone nor harm anyone. Had I not seen Allah's Apostle kissing you I would not have kissed you." (Sahih al-Bukhari, Volume 2, Book 26, Number 667)


It is Sunnah to perform certain acts in tawaf as given below:

Facing the Black Stone at the start of the tawaf while uttering a takbir (Allahu-Akbar), and a tahlil (La ilaha illahlah), and raising one's hands as they are raised in prayers, and if possible touching it with both hands and kissing it quietly, or placing one's cheek on it. Otherwise, one may touch it with one's hand and kiss the hand, or touch it with something, and then kiss it, or if even that is not possible, one may just point to it with a stick, etc. as is mentioned in some of the ahadith given below.

Ibn 'Umar said: “Allah's Messenger faced the Black Stone,
touched it, and then placed his lips on it and wept for a long time.” 'Umar also wept for a long time. The Prophet said: 'O 'Umar, this is the place where one should shed tears.” (Reported by Al-Hakim, who considers it a sound hadith with a sound chain of authorities)

It is reported by Ibn 'Abbas that 'Umar bent down towards the Black Stone and said: "By Allah! I know that you are A MERE STONE, and if I had not seen my beloved Prophet kissing you and touching you I would have never done so." The Qur'an says: "You have indeed in the Messenger of Allah a beautiful pattern (of conduct)."' (Qur'an 33.32) This was reported by Ahmad and others in slightly different words.

Nafi' said, “I have seen Ibn 'Umar touching the Black Stone with his hand, and then kissing his hand and saying: 'Ever since I saw the Prophet doing this, I have never failed to do that.''' (Reported by Bukhari and Muslim)

Sowayd bin Ghaflah said: "I have seen 'Umar kissing the Black Stone and touching it." He further said: "I know that the Prophet was especially very particular about it.'' (Muslim)

Ibn 'Umar reported that Allah's Messenger used to come to Ka'bah, touch the Black Stone and then say: Bismillahi wallahu akbar (In the name of Allah, Allah is the Greatest.)" (Ahmad)

Muslim has reported on the authority of Abu Tufail that he said: "I have seen the Prophet making tawaf around the Ka'bah and touching it with a stick and then kissing the stick."

Bukhari, Muslim and Abu Daw'ud reported that 'Umar approached the Black Stone and kissed it. Then he said: "I know that you are A MERE STONE that can neither harm nor do any good. If I had not seen the Prophet kissing you, I would have never kissed you."

Al-Khatabi said: "This shows that abiding by the Sunnah of the Prophet is binding, regardless of whether or not we understand its reason or the wisdom behind it."

Such information devolves obligation on all those whom it reaches, even if they may not fully comprehend its significance. It is known, however, that kissing the Black Stone signifies respect for it, recognition of our obligation toward it, and using it as a means of seeking Allah's blessings. Indeed Allah has preferred some stones over others, as He preferred some countries and cities, days and nights, and months over others. The underlying spirit of all this is unquestioning submission to Allah.

In some ahadith which say that "the Black Stone is Allah's right hand on earth," we do find, however, a plausible rationale and justification for this statement. In other words whosoever touches the Black Stone he pledges allegiance to Allah, as it were, by giving his hand into the hand of Allah, just as some followers do pledge their fealty to their kings and masters, by kissing and shaking hands with them.

Muhallib said: “The hadith of 'Umar refutes the assertions of those who say that ‘The Black Stone is Allah's right hand on earth wherewith He shakes the hands of His slaves.’” God forbid that we should ascribe any physical organs to Allah [sic]. The commandment to kiss the Black Stone is meant to test and to demonstrate palpably as to who obeys and submits. It may be compared with the command to Iblis to bow to Adam.

We have no definite evidence, however, to believe that any of the stones used in building the Ka'bah originally (by Ibrahim and Isma'il), is still in existence today excepting the Black Stone.
(Fiqh-Us-Sunnah, Volume 5, Number 74b – ALIM CD-ROM Version)

Notice that Muhammad would touch and kiss the black stone, as well as place his cheek on it, taking its station as the place to weep. Muhammad would also kiss his hand after touching the stone, and if he couldn’t touch it he would use a stick to reach it and then kiss that. And even though they didn’t (still don’t) understand the wisdom behind it the Muslims continued to implement this practice of their prophet since they thought that they would receive a blessing by doing so.

As if this weren’t astonishing enough, the above narrative claims that
some Muslims actually believed that the black stone is Allah’s right hand on earth and that to touch it is to shake Allah’s right hand!

It gets more disturbing since according to
another narration the black stone will intercede for Muslims on the Day of Judgment:

Sa'd b. Jubair Allah be pleased with him) is reported to have said, "I heard Ibn 'Abbas (Allah be pleased with him) saying that Allah's Messenger (peace and blessings Allah be upon him) said, “This Stone must come on the Day of Resurrection and it will have two eyes to see with and a tongue to talk with bearing witness for him who caressed it with Truth (Islam).” (Sunan Ibn-I-Majah (Imam Abu Abdullah Muhammad b. Yazid Ibn-I-Maja Al-Qazwini), English version by Muhammad Tufail Ansari [Kazi Publications, Lahore (Pakistan), 1st edition 1995], Volume IV, Chapter NO. XVII: Caressing The (Black) Stone (Fixed in a Wall of Ka’ba), pp. 244-245)

What makes this rather ironic is that the
pagans did the very same thing to their idols since they too believed that their stone gods would intercede for them before Allah!

However, Muhammad wasn’t buying any of their excuses since he harshly rebuked them for their blatant idolatry:

If ye call them to guidance, they will not obey: For you it is the same whether ye call them or ye hold your peace! Verily those whom ye call upon besides God are servants like unto you: Call upon them, and let them listen to your prayer, if ye are (indeed) truthful! Have they feet to walk with? Or hands to lay hold with? Or eyes to see with? Or ears to hear with? Say: “Call your ‘god-partners’, scheme (your worst) against me, and give me no respite! For my Protector is God, Who revealed the Book (from time to time), and He will choose and befriend the righteous. But those ye call upon besides Him, are unable to help you, and indeed to help themselves.” S. 7:193-197 Y. Ali

And they worship besides Allah things that hurt them not, nor profit them, and they say: “These are our intercessors with Allah.” Say: “Do you inform Allah of that which He knows not in the heavens and on the earth?” Glorified and Exalted be He above all that which they associate as partners with Him! S. 10:18

And yet Muhammad and his followers expect us to accept their reasons for venerating an idol stone which the pagans themselves honoured and worshiped!

We have a lot more to say concerning the idolatrous and polytheistic aspects of Islam. But first we need to address another of Dirk’s distortions.

Jesus Christ – Whose Son is He?

In the same book that we referenced above Dirks claims that Christians are confused concerning who the actual Father of Jesus is:

Traditional Christianity portrays the virgin birth of Jesus in terms of Jesus being the “begotten” son of God. For example, Matthew1:18 states that Mary was “with child of the Holy Ghost”, and Luke 1:35 has an angel telling Mary that the “Holy Ghost shall come upon thee”. While these Biblical verses may be seen as rather ambiguous by some, the Nicene Creed of Christianity states: “We believe in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only Son of God, eternally begotten of the Father, God from God, begotten, not made, one in Being with the Father.” Further, the so-called Apostle’s Creed holds that: “I believe in God the Father Almighty; maker of heaven and earth; and in Jesus Christ his only Son, our Lord; who was conceived by the Holy Ghost…”

As can be seen from the above listing of
New Testamen verses and creedal formulations, one of the fundamental problems confronting the Christian concept of the trinity is trying to decide whether the alleged father of Jesus Christ is the Father or the Holy Spirit. Matthew 1:18 says that Mary was “with child of the Holy Ghost,” not the Father. Luke 1:35 says that Mary was told that the “Holy Ghost shall come upon thee,” not the Father. The Apostles’ Creed says that Jesus was the Father’s “only Son,” but “was conceived by the Holy Ghost.” Even the Nicene Creed, which says that Jesus was “begotten of the Father,” goes on to say that Jesus was “incarnate from the Holy Spirit.” So who was the father of Jesus Christ? Was it the Father or the Holy Spirit? (Dirks, Easily Understand Islam, Chapter 16. Trinity, pp. 226-227)

This is coming from a man who is hailed by Muslims as a scholar of Christian theology, one who was a former United Methodist minister (deacon to be more exact) and a graduate from Harvard!

Anyone with even a basic understanding of Christian theology can see how
Dirks is grossly misrepresenting the historic Christian view of Jesus, especially in respect to his relationship with the Father. As the creeds themselves expressly testify Jesus is the eternal Son of the Father, the Son who existed with the Father in eternity, long before the ages were ever created:

We believe (I believe) in one God, the Father Almighty, maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible. And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only begotten Son of God, and born of the Father before all ages. (God of God) light of light, true God of true God. Begotten not made, consubstantial to the Father, by whom all things were made. Who for us men and for our salvation came down from heaven. And was incarnate of the Holy Spirit and of the Virgin Mary and was made man; Nicene Creed (*; *;)

Ironically, despite the fact that Dirks quotes specific parts of the Christian creeds that clearly affirm that Jesus is the eternally begotten Son of the Father who became flesh by the Holy Spirit he still goes ahead and gives the misleading impression that Christians are somewhat confused concerning the identity of Jesus’ Father! This is simply dishonest to say the least.

With the foregoing in perspective it is vitally important to reiterate this point.
The role of the Holy Spirit wasn’t to give Jesus life, or to bring him into being at his conception in Mary’s blessed and holy womb, since the Son has always existed. Rather, the Father used the Spirit to create the physical body, the human nature, of his eternal Son.

To put this another way, Jesus has always been the Father’s beloved Son even before creation. At the Incarnation Jesus didn’t become God’s Son, but rather the Father sent forth his Spirit to prepare a pure and holy body for his eternal Son to tabernacle in:

This is how the birth of Jesus Christ came about: His mother Mary was pledged to be married to Joseph, but before they came together, she was found to be with child through the Holy Spirit. Because Joseph her husband was a righteous man and did not want to expose her to public disgrace, he had in mind to divorce her quietly. But after he had considered this, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream and said, ‘Joseph son of David, do not be afraid to take Mary home as your wife, because what is conceived in her is from the Holy Spirit.’” Matthew 1:18-20

“The angel answered, ‘The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you. So the holy one to be born will be called he Son of God.’” Luke 1:35

For I have come down from heaven not to do my will but to do the will of him who sent me. And this is the will of him who sent me, that I shall lose none of all that he has given me, but raise them up at the last day. For my Father's will is that everyone who looks to the Son and believes in him shall have eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day
.” John 6:38-40

“what about the one whom the Father set apart as his very own and sent into the world? Why then do you accuse me of blasphemy because I said, ‘I am God's Son’?” John 10:36

“After Jesus said this, he looked toward heaven and prayed: ‘Father, the time has come. Glorify your Son, that your Son may glorify you. For you granted him authority over all people that he might give eternal life to all those you have given him…And now, Father, glorify me in your presence with the glory I had with you before the world began.” John 17:1-2, 5

“For what the law was powerless to do in that it was weakened by the sinful nature, God did by sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful man to be a sin offering. And so he condemned sin in sinful man,” Romans 8:3

“But when the time had fully come, God sent his Son, born of a woman, born under law,” Galatians 4:4

“Therefore, when Christ came into the world, he said: ‘Sacrifice and offering you did not desire, but a body you prepared for me; with burnt offerings and sin offerings you were not pleased. Then I said, “Here I am—it is written about me in the scroll—I have come to do your will, O God.”’ First he said, ‘Sacrifices and offerings, burnt offerings and sin offerings you did not desire, nor were you pleased with them’ (although the law required them to be made). Then he said, ‘Here I am, I have come to do your will.’ He sets aside the first to establish the second.” Hebrews 10:5-9

To repeat,
the Holy Spirit didn’t father or create Jesus at the Incarnation. Rather, the Spirit created the human nature that Jesus would come to possess by entering into the womb of the blessed virgin so that he could become an actual flesh and blood human being. The testimony of God’s inspired Word is that Christ was already the Son of God even before his birth from his most blessed mother.

It is now time to turn the tables on Dirks.

Who actually created Jesus according to Islam?

According to the Qur’an Allah
sent his Spirit to Mary in order to give her a faultless son, a boy most holy and pure:

And mention in the Book Mary when she withdrew from her people to an eastern place, and she took a veil apart from them; then We sent unto her Our Spirit (Ruhana) that presented himself to her a man without fault. She said, 'I take refuge in the All-merciful from thee If thou fearest Allah! He said, 'I am but a messenger come from thy Lord, to give thee a boy most pure. She said, 'How shall I have a son whom no mortal has touched, neither have I been unchaste?' He said, 'Even so thy Lord has said: “Easy is that for Me; and that We may appoint him a sign unto men and a mercy from Us; it is a thing decreed.’” S. 19:16-21

The Qur’an also says that
Allah breathed his Spirit into Mary:

And she who guarded her private part: WE breathed into her of OUR Spirit, and We made her and her son a sign for all peoples. S. 21:91

And Mary the daughter of 'Imran, who guarded her private part; and WE breathed into it of OUR Spirit; and she testified to the truth of the words of her Lord and of His Revelations, and was one of the devout (servants). S. 66:12

It is clear from these passages that
the reason why Allah sent forth his Spirit to enter into Mary’s body is so that the Spirit could cause her to conceive Jesus, which means that the Spirit is Jesus’ creator not Allah!

The Muslim expositors, however, claim that Allah actually sent Gabriel to breathe Allah’s Spirit into Mary:

(to give you a boy – 19:19) Here Sayyidna Jibra’il had attributed to himself the gift of the child because Allah Ta‘ala had sent him in order that HE SHOULD BREATHE into her collar, and this breath would be the means of her conceiving the child, whereas in reality this gift was by the act of Allah. (Mufti Shafi Uthmani, Maariful Qur’an, Q. 19:16-21, Volume 6, p. 35)



This verse directs the Holy Prophet to tell his people the story of the pious lady who controlled her passions and then THROUGH Jibra’ail Allah had breathed His Spirit into her and she gave birth to a son (Sayyidna ‘Isa) who was a symbol of Allah’s Divine Power that He can cause babies to be born without a father, also without both the parents as in the case of Sayyidna ‘Isa. (Mufti Shafi Uthmani, Maariful Qur’an, Q. 21:91, Volume 6, pp. 229-230)


(And Maryam, the daughter of `Imran who guarded her chastity (private part).) meaning, who protected and purified her honour, by being chaste and free of immorality...

(And We breathed into it (private part) through Our Ruh,) meaning, through the angel Jibril. Allah sent the angel Jibril to Maryam, and he came to her in the shape of a man in every respect. Allah commanded him to blow into a gap of her garment and that breath went into her womb through her private part; this is how `Isa was conceived. This is why Allah said here…

(And We breathed into it through Our Ruh, and she testified to the truth of her Lords Kalimat, and His Kutub,) meaning His decree and His legislation… (Tafsir Ibn Kathir,
Q. 66:12)

Here is another:

And, mention Mary, the one who guarded her virginity, [the one who] preserved it from being taken, so We breathed into her of Our spirit, namely, Gabriel, when he breathed into the opening of her garment and she conceived Jesus… (Tafsir al-Jalalayn, Q. 21:91)


(And Mary, daughter of Imran, whose body was chaste, therefore We breathed therein something of Our Spirit) and so Gabriel breathed inside her garment and she became pregnant with Jesus… (Tanwir al-Miqbas min tafsir Ibn ‘Abbas, Q. 66:12)

This means that Gabriel must be Allah since he can do what Allah does such as create and give life! It also shows that Gabriel is one of those speaking directly in the Qur’an, and therefore proves that the plural pronouns which appear all throughout the Muslim scripture should be seen as evidence for a numerical plurality within the being of Allah and/or for the existence of multiple gods.

Notice how this works,

- According to Q. 21:91 and 66:12
Allah breathed his Spirit into Mary, obviously because this is how he intended to impregnate her. This makes Allah’s Spirit Jesus’ creator.
- In the context the plural pronouns “We” and “Ourrefer to Allah, which means that Allah did the breathing and that the Spirit belongs to him.
The Muslim expositors believe that it was Gabriel who actually breathed Allah’s Spirit into Mary.
Therefore, Gabriel is God and a co-creator with Allah.
This would further mean that the Qur’an’s use of plural pronouns refer to both Allah and Gabriel together.
- However, Muslims deny that Gabriel is God.
Therefore, both the Qur’an and the Muslim expositors are guilty of attributing divinity to a creature, thereby making him a co-equal partner with Allah, which is the sin of shirk.

In light of the foregoing perhaps Dirks would be so kind as to explain to us who actually created Jesus. Did Allah create Jesus or was it his Spirit who did? And who actually did the breathing? Was it Allah who breathed his Spirit into Mary or was it Gabriel? Perhaps it was both? If so then does this mean that the Spirit belongs to Gabriel just as much as it belongs to Allah? Moreover, wouldn’t this imply that Gabriel, like Allah, has the breath of life seeing that he is able to breathe out the Spirit?

We come to the conclusion of the first part of our discussion. Please continue with the
second part. Or here.



No comments:

Post a Comment