I continue with my challenges to Jake the so-called Metaphysician: DEBATE CHALLENGE TO MUSLIM METAPHYSICIAN PT. 1B.

AL-QURAN: THE ETERNAL LOGOS BECOMES A BOOK!

As a Sunni Muslim, Jake is obligated to believe that the Quran is the uncreated speech of Allah (kalam Allah) that became a book (kitab). The reason being is that speech is one of the attributes (sifaat) of Allah, and since Allah’s attributes eternally subsist in him this means the Quran is an inseparable part of Allah’s very own being or essence (dhaat). As such, the Quran cannot be created (makhluq) since nothing that is intrinsic to Allah’s nature can have come into existence at a specific point in time.  

As the following Muslim scholar put:

“The Qur’an is God’s speech, which he uttered, and it is uncreated. Who holds the opposite is a Jahmit, an unbeliever. And who says: ‘The Qur’an is God’s speech’, and stops at that point without adding ‘uncreated’, speaks even more infamously than the latter. Also, who maintains our sounds, our Qur’an recitation would be created, the Qur’an itself, however, God’s speech, is a Jahmit, too. And who doesn’t declare all these people as unbelievers, is like them.” (according to Ibn Abu Ya’la, Tabaqat al-Hanabila, ed. Muhammad Hamid al Fiqh, Cairo 1952, vol. I, p. 29; transl. Dr. Christopher Heger)

Noted Islamicist, F.E. Peters, quotes Muslim scholar Ahmad Ibn Hanbal as saying:

The Quran is the Word of God and it is not created. It is not wrong to say, “It is not created,” for God’s Word is not separated from Him, and there is nothing of Him that is created. Beware of discussing this with those who speak about this subject and talk of the “creation of sounds” and such matters, and those who go midway and say, “I don’t know whether the Quran is created or uncreated, but it is God’s Word.” Such a one is guilty of a religious innovation as is the one who says, “It is created,” for it is God’s Word and that is not created. (Ahmad Ibn Hanbal, Creed) [WILLIAMS 1971:29] (Peters, Judaism, Christianity, And Islam: The Classical Texts and Their Interpretation [Princeton Uinversity Press, Princeton, NJ, 1990 paperback], p. 47; bold emphasis mine)

Peters quotes another Muslim authority who stated that:

The Quran is God’s speaking, which is one of His attributes. Now God in all His attributes is One and with all His attributes is eternal and not contingent, (so His speaking is) without letters and without sounds, not broken up into syllables or paragraphs. It is not He nor is it other than He… (Ibid.; bold emphasis mine)

Here’s what a prominent Salafi website wrote in regards to the question of whether the Quran is created:

The evidence that the Qur’aan is not created is the aayah (interpretation of the meaning):

“Surely, His is the creation and commandment” [al-A’raaf 7:54]

So Allaah describes creation as one thing and commandment as another. The conjunction implies that the second thing mentioned is different, and the Qur’aan is part of the commandment because of the evidence of the aayah (interpretation of the meaning):

“And thus We have sent to you (O Muhammad) Rooh (a revelation, and a mercy) of Our Command. You knew not what is the Book, nor what is Faith? But We have made it (this Qur’aan) a light wherewith We guide whosoever of Our slaves We will”

[al-Shoora 42:52]

If the Qur’aan is part of the command or commandment, which is different from creation, therefore it is not created, because if it were created, this division of categories would not be correct. This is the evidence from the Qur’aan. (Islam Question & Answer 10153: The Qur’aan was revealed by Allaah, not created; bold emphasis mine)

The verse which this site posted is actually referring to Allah’s Spirit since the Arabic word Ruh (spelled Rooh in the above) means Spirit. Thus, not only have they argued for the Quran being uncreated but also for the Spirit’s uncreatedness!

After all, if the Quran being part of Allah’s command means that it is uncreated, since Allah’s commands are not part of creation, then the Spirit must be uncreated as well. This leaves us with Allah, His Word (the Quran) and His Spirit being all uncreated!

Renowed Sunni Muslim writer, GF Haddad, in addressing Shia claims to the contrary, provides a list of quotes from renowned Muslim scholars regarding the Quran’s uncreatedness, some of which include:

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.” Narrated by al-Dhahabi in Siyar A`lam al-Nubala’ (Dar al-Fikr ed. 7:416).

Hafiz Abu al-Qasim Ibn `Asakir said in Tabyin Kadhib al-Muftari (Dar al-Jil ed. p. 150-151):

“The Mu`tazila said: ‘the Speech of Allah Most High is created, invented, and brought into being.’ The Hashwiyya, who attribute a body to Allah the Exalted, said: ‘The alphabetical characters (al-hurûf al-muqatta`a), the materials on which they are written, the colors in which they are written, and all that is between the two covers [of the volumes of Qur’an] is beginningless and pre-existent (qadîma azaliyya). Al-Ash`ari took a middle road between them and said: The Qur’an is the beginningless speech of Allah Most High unchanged, uncreated, not of recent origin in time, nor brought into being. As for the alphabetical characters, the materials, the colors, the voices, the elements that are subject to limitations (al-mahdûdât), and all that is subject to modality (al-mukayyafât) in the world: all this is created, originated, and produced.”

Hafiz Abu Bakr al-Bayhaqi said in al-Asma’ wa al-Sifat (al-Kawthari ed. p. 265; al-Hashidi ed. 2:18) with a sound chain:

“Something Ibn Shaddad had written was handed to Abu Bakr al-Marwazi which containing the phrase: “My pronunciation of the Qur’an is uncreated” and the latter was asked to show it to Ahmad ibn Hanbal for corroboration. The latter crossed out the phrase and wrote instead: “The Qur’an, however used (haythu yusraf), is uncreated.”

“In another sound narration, Abu Bakr al-Marwazi, Abu Muhammad Fawran [or Fawzan], and Salih ibn Ahmad ibn Hanbal witnessed Ahmad rebuking one of his students named Abu Talib with the words: “Are you telling people that I said: ‘My pronunciation of the Qur’an is uncreated’?” Abu Talib replied: “I only said this from my own.” Ahmad said: “Do not say this – neither from me, nor from you! I never heard any person of knowledge say it. The Qur’an is the Speech of Allah uncreated, whichever way it is used.” Salih said to Abu Talib: “If you told people what you said, now go and tell the same people that Abu `Abd Allah [Imam Ahmad] forbade to say it.”” End of al-Bayhaqi’s narration in al-Asma’ wa al-Sifat (Kawthari ed. p. 265-266; al-Hashidi ed. 2:18). This is a sound narration also found in Salih ibn Ahmad’s book al-Mihna (p. 70-71), Ibn al-Jawzi’s Manaqib al-Imam Ahmad (p. 155), and Ibn Taymiyya in Majmu` al-Fatawa (12:360, 12:425).

The Proof of Islam and Renewer of the Fifth Hijri Century, Imam Abu Hamid al-Ghazzali said in his “Foundations of Islamic Belief” (Qawa`id al-`Aqa’id) published in his Rasa’il and his Ihya’ `Ulum al-Din and partially translated in Shaykh Nuh Keller’s Reliance of the Traveller and by Mrs. Ahmad Darwish on the Mosque of the Internet:

“The Qur’an is read by tongues, written in books, and remembered in the heart, yet it is, nevertheless, uncreated and without beginning, subsisting in the Essence of Allah, not subject to division and or separation through its transmission to the heart and paper. Musa heard the Speech of Allah without sound and without letter, just as the righteous see the Essence of Allah Most High in the Hereafter, without substance or its quality.” End of al-Ghazzali’s words.

And Imam al-Tahawi said of the Qur’an in his “Creed of Abu Hanifa and his Companions”: “It is not created like the speech of creatures.”…

Allah says, {Verily, His Command, when He intends a thing, is only that He says to it, ‘Be!’ and it is!} -Yasîn 82

Ibn `Uyayna explains, “Allah has differentiated his Creation from his Command. His command is “Be” (Kun).”

Allah says, {Verily! Our Word unto a thing when We intend it, is only that We say unto it: “Be!” and it is.} – Surah An-Nahl 40

Shaykh `AbdulQadir al-Jilani (Rahimahullah),* explaining that the word of Allah is not created says, “Allah (subhanehu Wa ta’ala) said, {Verily! to him (belongs) the creation and the Command}; (Allah) has differentiated his Creation from his Command, If His Command which is “Be” (Kun) that He creates His creation (with) is created it would be a repetition that has no benefit – as if He (Allah) said ‘Verily! to him (belongs) the creation and the creation’; Allah (subhanehu Wa ta’ala) is far removed from doing such a thing.” From the book Al-Ghunya li-Talibiy Tariq al-Haqq, volume 1 page 59. (The Uncreatedness of the divine speech the glorious Qur’an; bold and capital emphasis mine)

I will have more to say about the Mutazilites shortly. Haddad quotes:

From the Futuhat al-Makkiyya:

[164] He – Most High – speaks, not after being previously silent nor following presumed tacitness, with a speech pre-eternal and beginningless like the rest of His Attributes, whether His knowledge, will, or power. He spoke to Musa. He named it [His speech] the divine Bestowal (al-tanzîl), the Book of Psalms (al-zabûr), the Torah, and the Evangel. [All this] without letters (hurûf), sounds (aswât), tones (nagham), nor languages (lughât). Rather, He is the Creator of sounds, letters, and languages.

[2000-09-18] (Haddad, Ibn `Arabi on Uncreatedness of Qur’an)

Speaking of the attributes of Allah, Haddad explains that:

The `Aqida of the People of Truth is:

sifaatu-l-Laahi laysat `ayna dhaatin

The Attributes of Allah are neither the very Essence,

wa laa ghayran siwaahu dha-nfisaali

nor other than Himself, nor separate.

sifaatu-dh-Dhaati wa-l-af`aali turran

And all the Attributes of the Essence and of the Acts

qadiimaatun masuunaatu-z-zawaali

are pre-existent and without end. [From the poem Bad’ al-Amali by the Maturidi master, Siraj al-Din `Ali ibn `Uthman al-Ushi (d. 569).] (The Uncreatedness of the divine speech the glorious Qur’an; bold emphasis mine)

There’s a lot more:

35. The Qur’an is the Word of God that emanated from Him without modality in its expression. He sent it down to His messenger as a revelation. The believers accept it as such literally. They are certain it is, in reality, the Word of God, the Sublime and Exalted.

36. Unlike human speech, it is eternal and uncreated. (The Creed of Imam Al-Tahawi (Al-Aqidah al-Tahawiyyah), translated, annotated and introduced by Hamza Yusuf [Zaytuna Institute, 2007], p. 54; bold emphasis mine)

73. We do not argue about the Qur’an. Rather, we testify that it is the Word of the Lord of the universe as revealed through the Trustworthy Spirit, who taught it to the paragon of messengers, Muhammad. It is the Word of God, the Sublime and Exalted. No mortal speech compares to it, and we do not say it is created. (Ibid., p. 64; bold emphasis mine)

And:

Ahlul al-Sunnah declare the following: We believe that the attribute of speech [of Allah] to be Qadim al-Naw’ Hadith al-Ahad, which means that in its essence [Allah’s Speech] is Eternal, and He speaks whenever He wants the way He wants.

Saying, “Qadim al-Naw’” means that Speech is an Attribute of the Divine Essence, hence Eternal, as it exists due by His Essence, which neither has an end nor a beginning…

The following ayat establish clear incontrovertible proof of Allah’s Speech, in a manner that befits His Majesty and Supremacy, which is an eternal, everlasting and perfect Attribute of His Essence.

Allah said…

“And, indeed, Allah spoke to Musa with [direct] speech.” [al-Nisa’ (4):164]

Moreover, Allah said…

“And the word of your Lord has been fulfilled in truth and in justice. None can alter His words, and He is the Hearing, the Knowing.” [al-An’am (6):115]

“I seek refuge in the Perfect Word from the evil of what He created”.

“nothing would harm him until he marches from that stopping place.”

All these are proof enough to affirm the attribute of Speech of Allah, Most High.

The Qur’an is the Word of Allah (Kalam Allah), which He sent down to His slave and Messenger, to remain as a source of legislation for mankind, until the Day of Judgement. He described Himself with it, by adding it [as a genitive] to His Name, in the verse…

“And if anyone of the idolaters seek thy protection, then grant him protection so that he may hear the words of Allah. Then deliver him to his place of safety. That is because they are a people who do not know.” [al-Taubah (9):6]

Therefore he who claims that the Qur’an is created is deemed a disbeliever as per the evidence established by all the aforementioned ayat.

All the scholars and exegetes specializing in Jurisprudence and hadith agree by consensus that whoever says that the Qur’an is created is a disbeliever. The majority of scholars also stated that whoever says that his utterance of the Qur’an is created is an innovator [as opposed to other scholars who declared such a person to be a disbeliever]. As for those who sit on the fence regarding this issue – they neither state that the Qur’an is created but nor do they affirm the Qur’an as being the Word of Allah – they are classified as innovators as well.

Imam Ahmad [ibn Hanbal] and Ahlu’l-Sunnah wa’l-Jama’ah were firm about this issue, showing no tolerance to anyone who did not take a firm position on this matter. Moreover, they abandoned those scholars who stated their utterance of the Qur’an was created, and also discouraged and warned people from learning or taking knowledge from them. The reason for their strong reaction and firm stance against these scholars as to close the door to ill-hearted people who would exploit such a statement in order to manipulate the Qur’an. This is because the utterance in this case is a double-edged sword; on the one hand it is an action performed by a person, and from another aspect, the utterance includes the Qur’an itself, which is the Word of Allah.

This is why Imam Ahmad ibn Hanbal told people not to visit or take knowledge from al-Husayn ibn ‘Ali al-Karabisi, and forbade Dawud al-Zahiri, who had not taken a stance in this matter, from entering upon him; he dealt similarly with Ya’qub al-Dawraqi, and other scholars who had the same attitude. This is the reason why the author stated, “[It is also required] that the Qur’an is the Speech of Allah, it is neither (makluq) created to eventually vanish nor the (sifah) attribute of something created which must therefore come to an end (yanfadh).” (The Creed of Ibn Abi Zayd Al-Qayrawani: being a translation of Muqaddimah al-Risalah ibn Abi Zayd al-Qayrawani, by Imam Abu Muhammad ‘Abdullah Ibn Abi Zayd al-Qayrawani [310 – 389 AH], with commentary by Shaikh Ahmad ibn Yahya al-Najmi [d. 1429 AH] [Dar As-Sunnah Publishers, Birmingham, U.K.: First edition, 2012], pp. 68-73; bold emphasis mine)

Wahhabi Salafi polemicist Jalal Abualrub writes:

The Qur’an is the Speech of Allah, not Created

The Qur’an is the speech of Allah, revealed, not created, regardless of how it is recited, written, and any way or anywhere it is recited. What is written from the Qur’an is just that, i.e., Quran, what is read from the Qur’an is just that, i.e., Quran, what is recited from the Qur’an is just that, i.e., Quran. The Speech of Allah is qadim, not created, regardless of the way and the form in which the Qur’an is presented. It is the Speech of Allah, not created, or new, or made, or a physical entity, or a physical reality, or a material entity. Rather, it is an attribute from the attributes of Allah’s essence. It is not similar to any created thing.

The Attribute of Speech

Allah is able, and will always be able to speak. (It is not permissible to separate between the two [i.e. Allah and His Speech] in a way that negates His Attributes)¹². Sometimes, it is heard directly from Allah, glorified be He, sometimes from the one who hears it directly from Allah [such as Angel Jibril]. Whoever hears it directly from Allah hears it directly, without any mediator or translator, such as our Prophet Muhammad, when Allah spoke to him directly on the night of al-Miraj. Allah also spoke to Musa when he was on Mount Tur. Similarly, whoever Allah decides to speak to from among His angels, hears His speech from Him directly. Whoever is not among the categories mentioned, they hear Allah’s qadim¹³ speech in truth from whoever is reciting it for them [from Allah]¹⁴. Allah’s Speech consists of intelligible letters and a voice that is heard.¹⁵

¹² I could not find out precisely what the Imam meant here, but perhaps he meant that Allah’s Attribute of Speech is always present in Him, because He has been speaking SINCE ETERNITY, whenever He wills, and in any way He wills. Allah also initiates speech whenever He wills, as Allah said, “Comes not unto them an admonition (a chapter of the Qur’an) from their Lord as a recent revelation but they listen to it while they play.” [21:2] Ibn Kathir said, “‘Recent’, or, ‘New’, meaning, new in regards to its revelation.” Refer to, Tafsir al-Qur’an al-‘Adhim, 3/231, published by, Mu’assasat ar-Rayyan.

¹³[T .N] This statement from the Imam has a different meaning to it, while scholars such as, Ibn Taimiyyah have clarified what, qadim, means when used in reference to Allah’s Speech. The author used this term in its literal form, and Allah knows best, to mean that, qadim, is that which was spoken previously. Qadim literally means, old, before, olden, previously etc.

¹⁴ [T .N] Meaning, just as Prophet Muhammad was given the Revelation. Allah spoke the Qur’an to Angel Jibril, who spoke it to Prophet Muhammad. In reality, as the Imam here says, Allah’s Messenger heard it in a qadim manner, meaning that Allah already spoke before the Prophet Muhammad heard it. (Kitab al-I’tiqad (The Book of Creed), by Imam Abu al-Husain Muhammad bin al-Qadhi Abu Ya’la al-Hanbali, verification of the text and commentary by Shaikh Muhammad bin ‘Abd ar-Rahman al-Khumaiyis (Associate Professor at Muhammad bin Sa’ud University), translated by Amr bin Jalal Abualrub [Madinah Publishers and Distributors, First edition: 2012], pp. 17-18; bold and capital emphasis mine)

Muslims were even threatened with death if they denied that the Quran is uncreated, eternal. For example, renowned Muslim jurist Qadi ‘Iyad quotes a Muslim named Malik saying that:

He said about someone who said that the Qur’an is created, “He is an unbeliever, so kill him.” He said in the version of Ibn Nafi’, “He should be flogged and painfully beaten and imprisoned until he repents.” In the version of Bishr ibn Bakr at-Tinnisi we find, “He is killed and his repentance is not accepted.” (Qadi ‘Iyad Musa al-Yahsubi, Muhammad Messenger of Allah (Ash-Shifa of Qadi ‘Iyad), translated by Aisha Abdarrahman Bewley [Madinah Press, Inverness, Scotland, U.K. 1991; third reprint, paperback], p. 419; bold emphasis mine)

And:

The Quran is eternal, whereas its form (i.e., the Arabic language and the book in which it is written) is temporal. In fact, in early Islamic history it was considered blasphemous to say that the Quran was created, with the Caliph Al-Mutawakkil (d. AD 850) going so far as to “decree the death penalty for anyone who taught that the Word of God (i.e., the Quran) is created.” (John Alden Williams, ed., Islam [New York: George Braziller, 1962], p. 179)

ISLAM’S VERSION OF JESUS AND MUSLIM ARIANS?

In striking similarity to Christianity with the rise of Arianism in the fourth century AD, which taught that the prehuman Christ was the first of God’s creatures, Islam had its own Arians when it came to the Quran’s nature.

A group of Muslims arose in the early 9^th century AD who were heavily influenced by Greek logic and philosophy (much like Jake), and therefore rejected the notion of the Quran being uncreated since they believed this compromised the oneness of Allah. They even likened this belief regarding the Quran to the Christian understanding of Jesus being the uncreated Word (Logos) that became flesh! These Muslim logicians are called Mutazilites.

What makes this rather ironic is that this disagreement even led to violence and murder, as Islamic scholar Cyril Glassé admits:

“It is a fundamental doctrine of Islam that the Koran, as the speech of God, is eternal and uncreated in its essence and sense, created in its letters and sounds (harf wa jarh). It has been asserted that the doctrine of the uncreated Koran was the result of exposure to the Christian dogma of the Logos; that, as Christians defined Jesus as the Word of God and as having two natures, one human and one Divine in one person, so the Muslims transposed this doctrine by analogy to the Koran as the Word of God made book. The Muslims were indeed aware of the Christian doctrine; the Caliph al-Ma’mun (d. 218/833), who supported the Mu’tazilite theory that the Koran was created, wrote to one of his governors that belief in the uncreatedness of the Koran resembled the Christians when they claim that Jesus was not created because he was the ‘Word of God’. During the brief Mu’tazilite ascendancy which began in the Caliphate of al-Ma’mun, belief in the uncreated Koran was temporarily suspended, arousing fierce opposition. The Koran was declared to be created, and those opposed to this view were persecuted during an inquisition called the mihnah (212-232/833-847) into the beliefs of the religious authorities. Yet lawyers and Judges staunchly upheld the dogma of the uncreated Koran, and nurtured it when necessary in secret. Ibn Hanbal went further, and declared that the Koran was uncreated from ‘cover to cover’, that is, also in its letters and its sounds. In this he was certainly not intending to imitate the Monophysites, but he was flogged for his beliefs. When the mihnah came to an end, the doctrine of the uncreatedness was restored, and has not been challenged since, in the Sunni world. The Kharijites differ from the Sunnis on this point, and in their dogmas the Koran is entirely created, which is also true for the Shi’ites, both Twelve-Imam and Zaydi, whose theology in many ways is an extension of that of the Mu’tazilites.” (Glassé, The Concise Encyclopedia of Islam, [Harper San Francisco, second edition 1991, 1999], pp. 231-232; bold emphasis mine)

John L. Esposito, Professor of Islamic Studies at Georgetown University, also mentions the Mutazila views of the Quran and God’s attributes:

The Mutazila took issue with the majority of ulama over the doctrines of the divine attributes or names of God and the eternal, uncreated nature of the Quran. Both beliefs were seen as contradictory and as compromising God’s unity (Islam’s absolute monotheism). How could the one, transcendent God have many divine attributes (sight, hearing, power, knowledge, will)? The Mutazila maintained that the Quranic passages that affirmed God’s attributes were meant to be understood metaphorically or allegorically, not literally. Not to do so was to fall into anthropomorphism, or worse, shirk, associationism or polytheism. Similarly, the Islamic doctrine that the Quran is the speech or word of God should not be taken literally, for how could both God and His word be eternal and uncreated? The result would be two divinities. The Mutazila interpreted metaphorically those Quranic texts that spoke of the Quran preexisting in heaven. Contrary to majority opinion, they taught that the Quran is the created word of God, who is its uncreated source. The Mutazila critique of those like Ahmad ibn Hanbal, who believed in the eternity of the Quran, was ably summarized by Caliph Mamun in a letter to his governor:

Everything apart from Him is a creature from His creation – a new thing which He has brought into existence. [This perverted opinion they hold] though the Koran speaks clearly of God’s creating all things, and proves to the exclusion of all differences of opinion. They are, thus, like the Christians when they claim that Isa bin Maryam [Jesus, the son of Mary] was not created because he was the word of God. But God says, “Verily We have made it a Koran in the Arabic language,” and the explanation of that is, “Verily, We have created it,” just as the Koran says, “And He made from it His mate that he might dwell with her.” (Esposito, Islam The Straight Path [Oxford University Press, New York Oxford: Hard cover, third edition], pp. 71-72; bold emphasis mine)

Thomas W. Lippman states in regards to the Mutazilites that:

… They also rejected the dogma that the Koran was the uncreated word of God, coeternal with Him. The Mutazilites said that this view compromised the oneness of God.

In the ninth century the Caliph al-Mamun elevated Mutazilism to the status of official creed. He proclaimed that the Koran had been created by God and was not coeternal with Him. The test of orthodoxy was the answer to the question whether God created all things, including the Koran. A “no” answer brought torture and imprisonment, and the Caliph decreed that all judges must subscribe to the new doctrine. Mutazilism which originated in rationalism, thus manifested itself as illiberal and repressive, and after al-Mamun’s death his successors repressed it as vigorously as he had imposed it. The argument over the eternality of the Koran is of little relevance to the practice of ordinary Muslims today; but it shows the extent to which Islam, basically a straight forward and unequivocal faith, has undergone the same process of self-analysis as Christianity. The issues of rationalism and spirituality, divine omniscience and human freedom, have never been finally settled. (Lippman, Understanding Islam: An Introduction To The Muslim World [A Plume Book: October 2002, third revised and updated edition], p. 74; bold emphasis mine)

Another Islamic scholar named Annemarie Schimmel writes:

The problem of the nature of Christ, so central in the dogmatic development of the early church, has also influenced, in a certain way, the development of Islamic dogma. Christ’s designation as logos, as the Word of God, “born not created,” has most probably influenced Islamic theories about the Koran, which is regarded by the Muslim as the uncreated Word of God. Phenomenologically seen, the Koran has the same position in Islamic dogmatics as has Christ in Christianity. Harry A. Wolfson therefore coined the term “inlibration,” the “Word become Book,” in contrast to the Christian concept of incarnation, “the Word became Flesh.” That explains why theologians emphasized the designation ummi for Muhammad; this term, first probably meaning “the prophet sent to the gentiles” was interpreted as “illiterate.” The Prophet had to be a vessel unstained by external knowledge for the Word’s inlibration, just as Mary had to be a virgin in order to be a pure vessel for the Word’s incarnation. That is, the Koran is much more than simply a book … (Schimmel, Islam – An Introduction [State University of New York Press, Albany 1992], pp. 74-75; bold emphasis mine)

Yusuf K. Ibish, in an article entitled “The Muslim Lives by the Quran,” stated:

I have not yet come across a western man who understands what the Quran is. It is not a book in the ordinary sense, nor is it comparable to the Bible, either the Old or New Testaments. It is an expression of Divine Will. If you want to compare it with anything in Christianity, you must compare it with Christ Himself. Christ was an expression of the Divine among men, the revelation of the Divine Will. That is what the Quran is. If you want a comparison for the role of Muhammad, the better one in that particular respect would be Mary. Muhammad was the vehicle of the Divine, as she was the vehicle … There are western orientalists who have devoted their life to the study of the Quran, its text, the analysis of its words, discovering that this word is Abyssinian, that word is Greek by origin… But all this is immaterial. The Quran was divinely inspired, then it was compiled, and what we have now is the expression of God’s Will among men. That is the important point. (Charris Waddy, The Muslim Mind [New York: Longman, 1976], p.14)

In his Ideals and Realities of Islam, Muslim scholar Seyyed Hossain Nasr noted that,

The Word of God in Islam is the Quran; in Christianity it is Christ… To carry this analogy further one can point to the fact that the Quran, being the Word of God therefore corresponds to Christ in Christianity and the form of this book, which like the contents is determined by the dictum in heaven, corresponds in a sense to the body of Christ. The form of the Quran is the Arabic language which religiously speaking is as inseparable from the Quran as the body of Christ is from Christ Himself. Arabic is sacred in the sense that it is an integral part of the Quranic revelation whose very sounds and utterances play a role in the ritual acts of Islam. (Op. cit. [London: George Allen & Urwin, 1975], pp. 43-44; bold emphasis mine)

Another reputable Muslim scholar, Mahmoud M. Ayoub, in speaking of Muhammad’s relation to the Quran, says:

… that the words that Muhammad conveyed to his people were not his own, but were revealed to him by God. It is also understood to mean that his mind was not contaminated by human wisdom. Rather it was a pure receptacle for the divine word in the same way that Mary’s virginity means for Christians that her body was a pure vessel fit to receive Christ, the Word of God.

In fact, there is an interesting parallel between Christ and the Qur’an. Christ is, for Christians, the incarnate Word of God. While the Qur’an is, like Christ, the eternal divine word, it does not play a role in the creation of the world. It is the eternal word of God preserved for moral and spiritual guidance. It is an eternal book: “This surely is a glorious Qur’an, preserved in a well-guarded Tablet” (Q. 85:21-22). (Ayoub, Islam: Faith and History [Oneworld Publications, Oxford England, 2004], p. 41; bold emphasis mine)

Jake’s woes are far from over as we shall see in the subsequent parts of my series.

I proceed from where I previously left off: DEBATE CHALLENGE TO MUSLIM METAPHYSICIAN PT. 1.

THE QURAN CONFIRMS THE TRINITY 

What makes this all the more ironic, in fact shocking, is that the Islamic “revelation” actually confirms the Trinity, albeit unwittingly.

Take, for instance, the very passage that Adnan cited:

O People of the Book! Go not beyond the limits in your way of life and say not about God but The Truth: That the Messiah, Jesus son of Mary, was a Messenger of God and His Word that He cast to Mary and a Spirit from Him. So believe in God and His Messengers. And say not: Three (wala taqooloo thalathatun). To refrain yourselves from it is better for you. There is only One God. Glory be to Him that He have a son! To Him belongs whatever is in the heavens and whatever is in and on the earth and God sufficed as a Trustee. S. 4:171 (Dr. Laleh Bakhtiar http://www.islamawakened.com/quran/4/st46.htm)

Here is another version:

O ye people of the Book! do not exceed in your religion, nor say against God aught save the truth. The Messiah, Jesus the son of Mary, is but the apostle of God and His Word, which He cast into Mary and a spirit from Him; believe then in God and His apostles, and say not ‘Three.’ Have done! it were better for you. God is only one God, celebrated be His praise that He should beget a Son! His is what is in the heavens and what is in the earth; and God sufficeth for a guardian. Palmer

This passage is confirming that Jesus is the preexistent Word of God who came forth as a Spirit from him in order to become incarnate from the blessed virgin Mary!

The Quran is simply parroting John’s teaching that Christ is the eternal Logos (Greek for Word) that became flesh, just as the authors/editors of the Study Quran candidly admit:

“… The understanding of Jesus as a messenger of God is consistent with several Gospel verses that state Jesus was sent by God (see, e.g., John 5:23; 5:30; 5:36-37; 6:39; 6:44; 6:57; 8:16; 8:18; 8:39; 8:43; 10:36; 12:49; 14:24; 17:21; 17:25; 20:21.) Yet the Quran ascribes unique distinctions to certain prophets, which then become the basis of their honorific titles in Islamic tradition. For example, God is said to have taken Abraham for a friend (v. 125), the basis of his honorific title Khalil Allah (the intimate friend of God), and to have spoken to Moses ‘directly’ (v. 164), the basis of his honorific title Kalim Allah (one who speaks with God).

“In the present verse, the uniqueness of Jesus among the messengers is affirmed in several ways, including his title Ruh Allah (‘Spirit of Allah’). He is referred to here and in certain places, however, as the Messiah (al-Masih), a term that in Arabic is understood to refer to his having been purified by God of sin (T). This is not unrelated to the concept of being ‘anointed,’ the root meaning of the word in Hebrew.

“He is also identified as God’s Word (see also 3:45; 19:34), an idea that has CLEAR RESONANCE with the Gospel tradition, where Jesus is identified as the ‘Word’ of God (See John 1). Christian and Islamic tradition, however, derive different theological conclusions from this appellation. In the Islamic context, the identification of Jesus as God’s Word does not preclude or overshadow his function as the bringer of the Gospel, which, like the Torah and the Quran, represent God’s Word and message to humanity. Some commentators interpret His Word here as the tidings Mary received of his miraculous conception in her womb or as an allusion to the Divine Creative Command Be! by which Christ was formed in Mary’s womb (see 3:45, 59; R, T). HOWEVER, while all created beings are brought into existence through God’s Word, Christ ALONE is specifically identified as ‘a Word from God.’ Some might argue, therefore, that Jesus, by virtue of being identified as God’s Word, somehow PARTICIPATES (UNIQUELY) in the Divine Creative Command, although this is not the traditional Islamic understanding of Jesus’ identification as a Word from Him (3:45).

“The miracle of Jesus’ virgin birth is also alluded to here in that he is identified as God’s Word committed to Mary (alqaha ila Maryam), which could also be rendered ‘cast upon Mary.’ Cf. 66:12, where it is said that God breathed His Spirit into Mary. Consistent with the implicit representation in 66:12 of Jesus as God’s ‘Spirit’ breathed into Mary, in the present verse Jesus is also identified as a Spirit from God. Cf., 2:87, 253; 5:110 where Jesus is strengthened… with the Holy Spirit. It is on this basis that Jesus is given the honorific title ‘Spirit of God’ (Ruh Allah) in the Islamic tradition. Some commentators, however, understand Jesus’ description a Spirit from God metaphorically and consider Spirit here to be either a reference to Jesus’ purity or a metaphor for God’s mercy (rahmah; R).” (The Study Quran, p. 267; bold and capital emphasis mine) 

The Muslim scripture also describes the Holy Spirit or Spirit of God as a divine Person whom God sends to create and give life, just as we see in the following passages: 

(Muhammad), mention in the Book (the Quran) the story of Mary how she left her family and started living in a solitary place to the East out of her people’s sight. We sent Our Spirit to her, who stood before her in the shape of a well formed human being. Mary said, “Would that the Beneficent God would protect me from you. Leave me alone if you are a God fearing person”. He said, “I am the Messengers of your Lord. I have come to give you a purified son“. S. 19:16-19 (Muhammad Sarwar http://www.islamawakened.com/quran/19/st23.htm)

And Mary, the daughter of Imran, who guarded her private parts, so We breathed into it of Our Spirit and she established as true the Words of her Lord and His Books and she had been among the ones who are morally obligated. S. 66:12 (Bakhtiar http://www.islamawakened.com/quran/66/st46.htm)

In these examples, the Spirit appears to Mary as a perfect looking man to announce to her that God has sent him to give her an absolutely pure son. The Spirit did this by God breathing him into Mary’s body in order to cause her to conceive Jesus in her blessed womb.

God also breathed his Spirit into Adam,

And when thy Lord said to the angels, ‘See, I am creating a mortal of a clay of mud moulded. When I have shaped him, and breathed My spirit in him, fall you down, bowing before him!’ S. 15:28-29 Arberry

 For the obvious purpose of animating Adam’s body so he could become a living being. This shows that the Spirit is the personal divine breath of God through whom God creates and imparts life.

The Holy Spirit was also sent to strengthen Jesus during his earthly ministry,

When Allah saith: O Jesus, son of Mary! Remember My favour unto thee and unto thy mother; how I strengthened thee with the holy Spirit, so that thou spakest unto mankind in the cradle as in maturity; and how I taught thee the Scripture and Wisdom and the Torah and the Gospel; and how thou didst shape of clay as it were the likeness of a bird by My permission, and didst blow upon it and it was a bird by My permission, and thou didst heal him who was born blind and the leper by My permission; and how thou didst raise the dead by My permission; and how I restrained the Children of Israel from (harming) thee when thou camest unto them with clear proofs, and those of them who disbelieved exclaimed: This is naught else than mere magic; S. 5:110 Pickthall – cf. Q. 2:87, 253

Here we have an explicit reference to God’s Triunity, i.e., God/Allah, Jesus and the Holy Spirit all working together as Jesus carries out his earthly mission.

Once again, the Quran is doing nothing other than parrot the Holy Bible at this point:

“Jesus returned in the power of the Spirit to Galilee. And His fame went throughout the surrounding region. He taught in their synagogues, being glorified by everyone. He came to Nazareth, where He had been brought up. And as His custom was, He went to the synagogue on the Sabbath day. And He stood up to read. The scroll of the prophet Isaiah was handed to Him. When He had unrolled the scroll, He found the place where it was written: ‘The Spirit of the Lord is upon Me, because He has anointed Me to preach the gospel to the poor; He has sent Me to heal the broken-hearted, to preach deliverance to the captives and recovery of sight to the blind, to set at liberty those who are oppressed; to preach the acceptable year of the Lord.’ Then He rolled up the scroll, and He gave it back to the attendant, and sat down. The eyes of all those who were in the synagogue were fixed on Him. And He began to say to them, ‘Today this Scripture is fulfilled in your hearing.’” Luke 4:14-21

“The word which He sent to the children of Israel, preaching peace through Jesus Christ, who is Lord of all, the word, which you know, that was proclaimed throughout all Judea, beginning from Galilee after the baptism which John preached: how God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Spirit and with power, who went about doing good and healing all who were oppressed by the devil, for God was with Him.” Acts 10:36-38

The Spirit is further sent to strengthened believers to remain faithful to the will of God:

Thou wilt not find folk who believe in Allah and the Last Day loving those who oppose Allah and His messenger, even though they be their fathers or their sons or their brethren or their clan. As for such, He hath written faith upon their hearts and hath strengthened them with a Spirit from Him, and He will bring them into Gardens underneath which rivers flow, wherein they will abide. Allah is well pleased with them, and they are well pleased with Him. They are Allah’s party. Lo! is it not Allah’s party who are the successful? S. 58:22 Pickthall

In order for the Spirit to strengthen all believers everywhere, he must be omniscient, omnipresent, and omnipotent. Yet the only way the Spirit could possess such attributes as if he is God in essence, a fact that is even admitted by the late Muslim translator and commentator Abdullah Yusuf Ali:

“… Cf. ii 87 and 253, where it is said that God strengthened the Prophet Jesus with the holy spirit. Here we learn that all good and righteous men are strengthened by God with the holy spirit. If anything, the phrase used here is stronger, ‘a spirit from Himself’. Whenever any one offers his heart in faith and purity to God, God accepts it, engraves that faith on the seeker’s heart, and further fortifies him with THE DIVINE SPIRIT, which we can no more adequately define in human language the nature of God.” (Ali, The Meaning of the Holy Quran, p. 1518, fn. 5365; bold and capital emphasis mine)

Hence, instead of condemning the Trinity the Islamic scripture actually bears witness to it by affirming that Jesus is the preexistent divine Word who became flesh, and that God’s Spirit is a divine Person who does what only God can do.

I have more for Jake in the next installment: DEBATE CHALLENGE TO MUSLIM METAPHYSICIAN PT. 2.

This begins a series of posts to a pseudo-intellectual Muhammadan named Jake who calls himself Muslim “Metaphysician”. I am preparing this material since I am openly challenging him to debate me on the Quran’s view of the Trinity and whether Islamic tauhid is logically consistent.   

I begin my series by refuting his assertion that the Quran rejects all forms of Trinitarianism when it warns folks to stop saying that Allah is three or the third of three.

The problem with Jake’s desperate spin is that the Quran defines “three” as Allah, Mary and Jesus, and condemns those who worship them as three gods:

They surely disbelieve who say: Lo! Allah is the third of three (inna Allaha thalithu thalathatin); when there is no God save the One God. If they desist not from so saying a painful doom will fall on those of them who disbelieve. Will they not rather turn unto Allah and seek forgiveness of Him? For Allah is Forgiving, Merciful. The Messiah, son of Mary, was no other than a messenger, messengers (the like of whom) had passed away before him. And his mother was a saintly woman. And THEY BOTH used to eat (earthly) food. See how We make the revelations clear for them, and see how they are turned away! S. 5:73-75 Pickhtall

And when Allah saith: O Jesus, son of Mary! Didst thou say unto mankind: Take me and my mother for two gods beside Allah? he saith: Be glorified! It was not mine to utter that to which I had no right. If I used to say it, then Thou knewest it. Thou knowest what is in my mind, and I know not what is in Thy Mind. Lo! Thou, only Thou, art the Knower of Things Hidden? S. 5:116 Pickthall

Suffice it to say, this is NOT the belief and teachings of the historic Christian faith!

In fact, the Islamic scripture never says that they are disbelievers who say that Allah is the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, or that Allah, Jesus and the Holy Spirit are one God. Nor does it even employ the technical language which Arabic speaking Christians had coined to denote the Trinity, i.e., the Quran never rebukes Christians for affirming that Allah/God is Al-Aqanim-Al-Thalatha (“The Three Hypostases”), or that God is jawhar wahid thalatha aqanim (“one substance, three hypostases”). The reason why it doesn’t is because the author(s) and/or editor(s) were ignorant of what Christians actually believed about the Trinity, and the language they used to express it.

This brings me to my next point. the Quran misrepresents the historic Christian understanding of the Trinity and the Deity of Christ since the author(s) was/were ignorant of what these doctrines entailed.

For instance, notice how the Quran formulates the Christian view of Jesus’ Deity:

They are unbelievers who say, ‘God is the Messiah, Mary’s son.’ Say: ‘Who then shall overrule God in any way if He desires to destroy the Messiah, Mary’s son, and his mother, and all those who are on earth?’ For to God belongs the kingdom of the heavens and of the earth, and all that is between them, creating what He will. God is powerful over everything.  S. 5:17 Arberry

They are unbelievers who say, ‘God is the Messiah, Mary’s son.’ For the Messiah said, ‘Children of Israel, serve God, my Lord and your Lord. Verily whoso associates with God anything, God shall prohibit him entrance to Paradise, and his refuge shall be the Fire; and wrongdoers shall have no helpers.’ They are unbelievers who say, ‘God is the Third of Three. No god is there but One God. If they refrain not from what they say, there shall afflict those of them that disbelieve a painful chastisement. S. 5:72-73

Suffice it to say, no informed Christian would ever claim that God is the Messiah or that God is the third of three, thereby implying three gods. The following scholar explains why the statement that God is the Messiah is an incorrect way of expressing what Christians truly believe:

Third, to distinguish between person and nature, we must keep in mind two ways to use “is”–identity versus predication. Mark Twain is the pen name for Samuel Langhorne Clemens, the 26-cigars-a-day smoker and author of The Adventures of Tom Sawyer. Twain does not have characteristics that Clemens does not have. In other words, when we say, “Samuel Langhorne Clemens is Mark Twain,” we can just as easily reverse the names: “Mark Twain is Samuel Langhorne Clemens.” Each of those statements indicates identity: Mark Twain = Samuel Langhorne Clemens (and vice versa). The names, which refer to the same person, are fully interchangeable and thus identical. 

When it comes to the Trinity, to say “Jesus is God” isn’t identical to “God is Jesus.” Unlike the Mark Twain example, “Jesus” doesn’t exhaust what it means to speak of “God.” Jesus and God are not identical. According to the Bible, Father and the Spirit are called divine, just as Jesus. In the statement “Jesus is God,” we use is to describe or predicate, not to identify or equate: Jesus is God in that He shares in the nature that only two other persons share; so there isn’t just one person who can properly be called God. (Paul Copan, “Is The Trinity A Logical Blunder? God As Three And One”, in Contending With Christianity’s Critics: Answering New Atheists & Other Objectors, ed. Paul Copan & William Lane Craig [B&H Publishing Group, 2009], Part Three. The Coherence of Christian Doctrine, p. 212; bold emphasis mine)

Another authority states:

“… The second way is to qualify the affirmation ‘Jesus is God’ by observing that this is a nonreciprocating proposition. While Jesus is God, it is not true that God is Jesus. There are others of whom the predicate ‘God’ may be rightfully used. The person we call Jesus does not exhaust the category of Deity.” (Murray J. Harris, Jesus as God: The New Testament Use of Theos in Reference to Jesus [Baker Book House, Grand Rapids MI, Paperback edition 1998], XIII. Conclusions: Theos as a Christological Title, K. “Jesus is God” as a Theological Formulation in English, p. 297; bold emphasis mine)

Again:

“To recognize that the godhood of the Son is indistinguishable from the godhood of the Father is not, of course, to jeopardize the personal distinction between Son and Father. Jesus is totus deus but not totum dei. He is all that God is without being all there is of God. There is a numerical unity of essence but not a numerical identity of person. Although Jesus shares the divine essence fully and personally, he does not exhaust the category of Deity of the being of God. To use the distinction made in the Johannine Prologue, ho logos was theos (1:1c) but ho theos was not ho logos (cf. 1:1b). (Ibid., J. The Significance of the Christological Use of Theos, 2. Theos is a Christological Title That Explicitly Affirms the Deity of Christ, p. 293; bold emphasis mine)

Finally:

“Once again the other two deities are said to be Jesus and Mary. The veneration of Mary has been a major article of Roman Catholic belief and the Ethiopian Church, in particular, has historically revered her as the mother of God. It seems, however, that their excesses and confusion have only resulted in the Qur’an compounding the confusion! No Christian Church, no matter how much it reveres or glorifies Mary as, for example, the Queen of Heaven, has ever confused the Trinity or made it out to be what the Qur’an represents it to be.” (John Gilchrist, Facing the Muslim Challenge A Handbook of Christian-Muslim Apologetics, 2.The Doctrine of the Trinity)

And here is what Harris states elsewhere:

Can we, therefore, say that the New Testament teaches that Jesus is “God”? Yes indeed, provided we constantly bear in mind several factors.

First, to say that “Jesus is God” is true to the New Testament thought, but it goes beyond actual New Testament diction. The nearest comparable statements are “the Word was God” (John 1:1), “the Only Son, who is God” (John 1:18), and “the Messiah, who is over all, God blessed forever” (Rom. 9:5). So we must remember that the theological proposition “Jesus is God” is an inference from the New Testament evidence – a necessary and true inference, but nonetheless an inference.

Second, if we make the statement “Jesus is God” without qualification, we are in danger of failing to do justice to the whole truth about Jesus – that he was the incarnate Word, a human being, and that in his present existence in heaven he retains his humanity, although now it is in a glorified form. Jesus is not simply “man” nor only “God,” but the God-man.

Third, given English usage of the word God, the simple affirmation “Jesus is God” may be easily misinterpreted. In common English usage God is a proper name, identifying a particular person, not a common noun designating a class. For us God is the God of the Judeo-Christian monotheistic tradition, or God the Father of Jesus and of the Christian, or the trinitarian Godhead. So when we make the equation in English, “Jesus is God,” we are in danger of suggesting that these two terms, “Jesus” and “God,” are interchangeable, that there is a numerical identity between the two. But while Jesus is God, it is not true that God is Jesus. There are others – the Father and the Spirit – of whom the predicate God may be rightfully used. Jesus is all that God is, without being all there is of God. The person of Jesus does not exhaust the category of deity. So then, when we say, “Jesus is God,” we must recognize that we are attaching a meaning to the term God – namely, “God in essence” or “God by nature” – that is not its predominate sense in English. (Harris, 3 Crucial Questions About Jesus [Baker Books; Grand Rapids, MI 1994], pp. 101-102; bold emphasis mine)

Harris also explains the reason the NT rarely applies the noun God to Jesus, and notes that in both the Christian Scriptures and Trinitarian theology God is used primarily of the Father since it functions as a proper name in relation to him:

“But you may ask, why are there so few examples of this usage in the New Testament? If Jesus really is God, why is he not called ‘God’ more often? After all, there are over 1,300 uses of the Greek theos in the New Testament. Several reasons may be given to explain this apparently strange usage.

“First, in all strands of the New Testament the term theos usually refers to the Father. We often find the expression God the Father, which implies that God is the Father. Also, in trinitarian formulas ‘God’ ALWAYS denotes the Father, never the Son or the Spirit. For example, 2 Corinthians 13:14 reads, ‘May the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit be with you all.’ What is more, in the salutations at the beginning of many New Testament letters, ‘God’ is distinguished from ‘the Lord Jesus Christ.’ So Paul’s letters regularly begin, ‘Grace and peace to you from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.’ As a result of all this, in the New Testament the term theos in the singular has become virtually a proper name, referring to the trinitarian Father…” (Harris, p. 99; bold and capital emphasis mine)

This brings me to my next point. Muslims believe that the God that is mentioned all throughout the Quran is identical to the One that Christians identify as the Father, even though they object to using this specific title for their deity due to the Quran’s repeated emphasis that he is NOT a father to anyone, nor has he taken sons or daughters for himself (cf. Q. 2:116; 5:18; 6:101; 9:30; 19:88-93; 21:26; 39:4; 72:3). As such, an orthodox Christian would and could never say that God is the Messiah since this would mean that the Father became the man Christ Jesus, that Jesus is none other than God the Father!

 The foregoing raises another major problem for Muslims since it shows that the Quran is again wrong in its articulation of Christian beliefs seeing that, in Christian theology, the Father is the first of the three divine Persons of the Godhead, with the Holy Spirit being the third Person.

In fact, there are several ways that the author(s) of the Quran could have expressed what Christians actually believed concerning God the Father’s relationship within the Godhead. S/he/they could have articulated the Christian understanding that God the Father is the first of three by employing any of the following expressions,

Allah huwa wahid min thalatha.

Allah huwa awwal min thalatha.

Allah awwal thalatha.

Since this is not what we find in the Muslim scripture, Jake’s so-called divinely revealed text’s assertion concerning God the Father’s position within the Godhead is blatantly wrong.

In fact, the claim that it is incorrect to say that God is Jesus or the Messiah is not a modern notion since Christians have been objecting to this formulation long before Muhammad was born, as even noted by Muslim author Neal Robinson, who mentions an ancient Nestorian Christian reference and says that:

“… The text which dates from around 550 CE. concludes a discussion of the Trinity with the words ‘The Messiah is God but God is not the Messiah’. The Qur’an echoes ONLY the latter half of the statement. C. Schedl, Muhammad and Jesus (Vienna: Herder, 1978), p. 531.” (Neal Robinson, Christ In Islam and Christianity [State University of New York Press, Albany 1991], p. 197; bold and capital emphasis mine)

As even one noted scholar of Islam stated:

“To say that God is Christ is a statement not found anywhere in the New Testament or in the Christian creeds. ‘God was in Christ’, said Paul, ‘reconciling the world to himself’. (2 Cor. 5, 19) But this reconciliation through Christ is quite different from saying that God is Christ. ‘You belong to Christ, and Christ to God’, said Paul again, putting the relationship into perspective. (1 Cor. 3:23)

“But in the early Church centuries there arose heresies, such as that of Patripassianism, which so identified Christ and God as to suggest that God the Father had suffered on the cross. About A.D. 200 Noetus had taught that Christ was God the Father, and therefore that the Father himself was born and suffered and died. These views were taken to Rome by Praxeas, of whom Tertullian said that ‘he drove out prophecy and brought in heresy, he put to flight the Comforter and crucified the Father’. The orthodox teaching of the Logos, the Word or ‘Son’ of God, was a defence against such heretical teaching, though it must be admitted that writers in later ages were not always careful enough in their use of these titles.” (Geoffrey Parrinder, Jesus in the Qur’ān [OneWorld Publishers, Oxford England, Reprinted 1996], 14. Trinity, pp. 133-134; bold emphasis mine)

In fact, early Islamic writings testify that the Christians objected to the Quran’s gross misrepresentation of their beliefs as far back as the late tenth century AD:

‘Abd al-Jabbar focuses in particular on those Qur’anic statements THAT CHRISTIANS IN HIS DAY DO NOT ACKNOWLEDGE, for example that they consider Jesus to be a separate God (Q 5:72), or consider God to be third of three (Q. 5:73), or even consider Mary to be a God (Q 5:116). ‘Abd al-Jabbar contends that Muhammad was right to attribute these statements to Christians: (Critique of Christian Origins, a parallel English-Arabic text, edited, translated, and annotated by Gabriel Said Reynolds & Samir Khalil Samir [Brigham Young University Press, Provo, Utah 2010], p. xlvi; bold and capital emphasis mine)

And:

“Thus [Muhammad] related their statement that Christ is God, and ‘God is the third of three.’ These are their essential teachings, but they barely express them clearly. Instead, THEY RESIST THE ESSENCE OF THEM AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE, so that their principal authors and their writers who are devoted to this barely summarize their teachings. You will find that if you asked the disputants and debaters among them about their statement on Christ, they would say, ‘Our statement is that he is the Spirit of God and His Word, JUST LIKE THE STATEMENT OF MUSLIMS. We say, “God is one.”’…

“For the most part you will encounter among them who says: ‘We did not say God is Christ. We did not say “God is the third of three.” Whoever related this about us HAS ERRED AND LIED.’ Know, then, that Muhammad’s position on this… is from God, Mighty and Exalted, and that this is one of his signs.” (Ibid., pp. 2-3; bold and capital emphasis mine)

Finally:

“Now someone might say: ‘By my life it is demonstrated that the Christians have said that Jesus, the son of Mary, is neither a prophet nor a Messenger of God nor a righteous servant, but rather that he is a god, Lord, Creator, and Provider, that God is the third of three, and that he was killed and crucified. Yet your master has said in your book, “Did you say unto men, ‘Take me and my mother as two gods, apart from God?’” The Christians say, “This is a lie. For although we said about [Christ] that he is a god, we did not say about his mother that she is a god.”’” (Ibid., pp. 80-81; bold emphasis mine)

Hence, when it comes to Christian theology the Quran is mistaken from every possible angle!

WHAT DO MUSLIM SCHOLARS SAY

Lest Jake accuses me of misrepresenting the Quran’s teaching on the subject of the Trinity, note what the Muslim scholars responsible for producing the first major English study Quran have to say about this issue:

“In addition to reaffirming the full humanity of Jesus, the present verse commands Christians to say not ‘Three.’ This is understood as a command to abandon the doctrine of God as Trinity. Here they are merely told to refrain from asserting this doctrine, as it is better for them. In 5:73, Christians who call God ‘Three’ are more seriously criticized, but this verse is embedded in a larger discussion that seems to be addressing those Christians who took not only Jesus, but also his mother, Mary, to be divine (5:73c). In both the present verse and 5:73, however, the orthodox doctrine of the Trinity as three ‘persons,’ or hypostases, ‘within’ the one God IS NOT EXPLICITLY REFERENCED, and the criticism seems directed at those who assert the existence of three distinct ‘gods,’ an idea that Christians themselves REJECT.” (The Study Quran, by Seyyed Hossein Nasr [HarperOne, 2015 First Edition], p. 267; bold and capital emphasis mine)

Here are other Muslim scholars that concur:

“It is now time to consider the Quranic and Biblical use of the word ‘Son’ as applied to Jesus. This seems to be one of the great points of difference between these holy books, yet perhaps the difference is not so great as appears at first sight. Some of ‘the sects have differed’, and the Qur’an seeks to correct them.

“There are many passages in the Qur’an denying that God has offspring, and only a few can be quoted. Perhaps the most famous is the short sura 112, al-Ikhlās, the Unity: ‘Say: “He is God, One; God, the eternal; he brought not forth, nor hath he been brought forth; Co-equal with him there hath never been any one”.’

“This short sura is one of the most popular, recited every day by most Muslims. It is a denial of God producing offspring in the human manner, and of God having any associates. It stresses the Unity of God and his difference from men. Since it is generally regarded as one of the earliest Meccan suras, this would mean that it was directed against the many gods of pagan Arabia, though later writers turned it also against Christian doctrine.

“The attack on the polytheism of Mecca is taken up by name in 53,19-21: ‘Have ye considered Al-Lāt, and Al-Uzzā and the third, Manāt, the other (goddess)? Have ye male (issue) and he female?’ This is a forceful rejection of the notion that God had either male or female offspring, and that the pagan gods or goddesses could be accommodated under this name. So constantly throughout the Qur’an such pagan deities are rejected. As W. M. Watt says, ‘in passages denying that God has offspring the presumption is that the primary reference is to paganism unless there is a clear mention of Jesus’.

“What then is said about Jesus in this respect? There are only three clear references, apart from those which deal specifically with semi-trinitarian ideas which will be considered in the next chapter. The first is at the conclusion of the Meccan narrative of the birth of Jesus… 19,35-36/34-35… This we saw earlier to be the declaration of the birth of Jesus by divine decree, rather than explaining it through vulgar biological speculation in the manner of the apocrypha. But for our present purpose the key words are ‘take to himself any offspring’. ‘Take to himself’ means literally to ‘acquire’ (yatta-khidha), and so this verse denies that God acquires a son in the course of time. This had been said by Adoptionist and Arian heretics in Christianity, who said that Jesus became or was adopted Son of God at his baptism or some other moment. But the orthodox rejected this in teaching that the Son is eternal… There are many other Quranic verses that reject this notion of ‘acquisition’ of a son, usually with little clear reference to Christian or semi-Christian belief… These may all be presumed to be directed primarily against pagan polytheism, or at the most against the Adoptionist heresy. But two other passages are more pointed. 4,169/171: ‘The Messiah, Jesus, son of Mary, is only the messenger of God … God is only one God; glory be to him (far from) his having a son.’ In the light of the above this can fairly be taken to mean that Jesus, as Messiah, was not added to God as a son… the objection to the use of the word ‘son’ remains against the background of Arabian paganism, to which it ‘could only mean one thing, namely, the son of God by cohabitation with a woman. That this is not what Christians meant by the term goes without saying.’ (Geoffrey Parrinder, Jesus in the Qur’ān, 13. Son of God, pp. 126-128; bold emphasis mine)

“… Similarly, the Christian doctrine of the Trinity rigidly excludes all suggestion of physical generation, and any idea of polytheism or tritheism. God is one God, Paul said: ‘A false god has no existence in the real world. There is no God but one.’ (1 Cor. 8, 4)

“It is in the light of the above that other Quranic references to ‘three’ gods may be understood. One of the most commonly quoted is 4, 169/171… 

“The interpretation, in light of previous passages, would be: ‘Do not say three gods.’ And, ‘Far from his acquiring a son’ (in time, or by physical process).

“Especially grave in Muslim eyes is shirk, ‘association’ of anyone with God, giving God a partner, and generally anything that is in opposition to Quranic monotheism. Shirk is denounced in many verses of the Qur’an. 5, 76/72… 9, 31… 7, 190… 16, 53/51… 17, 23/22… 17, 111… 19, 36/35… 23, 93/91… 25, 2…

“Most of this is clearly against Arabian polytheism, with an occasional warning to others against a similar error. In later writings the practisers of ‘association’ are often virtually identified with the unbeliever (kafir), but in the Qur’an shirk is used clearly of those who deny the unity of God.” (Parrinder, 14. Trinity, pp. 136-137)

And:

“Another Christian concept that the Koran criticizes vehemently is that Jesus should be God’s son. The verse just cited that negates ‘three’ continues by saying, ‘Glory be to Him – that He should have a son!’ (4:171). Elsewhere the Koran says, ‘How should He have a son, seeing that He has no female companion, and He created all things, and He has knowledge of everything?’ (6:101).

“Koranic usage and the general Muslim understanding make clear that by son, Muslims understand not a symbol or a metaphor, but a physical son, born of a mother, God’s supposed female companion. It may be that some Christians have thought that God has taken a wife, or that he somehow impregnated the Virgin Mary, giving birth to his son. But no Christian theologian has ever imagined such a thing. For Christians, Jesus’ sonship is a reality, but it cannot be taken in a physical sense. The fact that Mary is often called the Mother of God does not help clear up the matter for the Muslims, who have only the Koranic text and popular misconceptions of an alien religion to go by.

“That the idea of sonship is understood by Muslims in a literal sense is obvious, for example, in the short text of Sura 112, often called Tawhid. Anyone who thinks about the implications of sonship and fatherhood will quickly understand that these are relative terms. Everyone who is a son is also (potentially at least) a father, and everyone who is a father is also a son, with the sole exception of Adam. Notice that in affirming tawhid, the Koran not only negates the idea that Jesus could have been God’s son, but also the necessary correlative, that God could have been someone else’s son, surely the ultimate absurdity in Muslim eyes:” (Sachiko Murata & William C. Chittick, The Vision of Islam [Paragon House Publishers, paperback 1995], Part II: Iman, Chapter 4. Islam and Other religions, p. 171; bold emphasis mine)

“To take a simple example, it is commonly said that the Koran rejects the Christian concept of the Trinity. Inasmuch as the Trinity is understood as negating tawhid, this is true. But not all Christians think that the Trinity negates tawhid. Quite the contrary, most formulations of the Trinitarian doctrine are careful to preserve God’s unity. If ‘threeness’ takes precedence over oneness, then the Koranic criticisms apply. But among Christians, the exact nature between the three and the one is a point of recurring debate. One of the actual Koranic verses that are taken as negating the Trinity says, ‘Those who say, “God is the third of three” have become truth-concealers’ (5:73). Even an elementary knowledge of any Christian catechism tells us that God is not ‘the third of three.’ Rather, God is one and three at the same time. Inasmuch as he is three, he presents himself to his creatures as three persons – Father, Son, and Holy Ghost.

“Another Koranic verse says something similar, but now we have this first verse to help us understand what is being criticized… (4:171)

“Notice that this passage gives Jesus an extremely exalted position and recognizes that he has qualities possessed by no other prophet. However, it stresses once again that there is but a single God. If faith in Jesus leads to the affirmation of three gods, then the Koran rejects that. But again, the actual Christian position is highly subtle, and few if any Christians would hold that they have faith in other than a single God.” (Ibid., The Vision of Islam, Part II: Iman, Chapter 4. Islam and Other religions, p. 170; bold emphasis mine) 

OPEN CHALLENGE TO JAKE

As it stands the Quran nowhere condemns the historic Christian understanding of Jesus’ Sonship, just as the following scholar of Islamic studies notes. I, therefore challenge the so-called Metaphysician to quote an unequivocal statement from the Quran where Muhammad accurately defines and expressly condemns belief in the historic understanding and formulation of the Trinity.

I challenge him to cite a verse which says the following:

They are disbelievers who say the Father, the Word and the Holy Spirit are One!

OR

They are disbelievers who say the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit are One!

OR 

They are disbelievers who say Allah, Jesus and the Holy Spirit are One!

OR

They are disbelievers who say that Allah is the Father, the Word/Son/Jesus and the Holy Spirit!

With the foregoing in view, we are ready to proceed to the next segment of my challenge: DEBATE CHALLENGE TO MUSLIM METAPHYSICIAN PT. 1B.

The following citations will give the readers of what life would be like under Islamic rule.

IBN KATHIR

The Order to fight People of the Scriptures until They give the Jizyah

Allah said…

<Fight against those who believe not in Allah, nor in the Last Day, nor forbid that which has been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, and those who acknowledge not the religion of truth among the People of the Scripture, until they pay the Jizyah with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.>

Therefore, when People of the Scriptures disbelieved in Muhammad, they had no beneficial faith in any Messenger or what the Messengers brought. Rather, they followed their religions because this conformed with their ideas, lusts and the ways of their forefathers, not because they are Allah’s Law and religion. Had they been true believers in their religions, that faith would have directed them to believe in Muhammad, because all Prophets gave the good news of Muhammad’s advent and commanded them to obey and follow him. Yet when he was sent, they disbelieved in him, even though he is the mightiest of all Messengers. Therefore, they do not follow the religion of earlier Prophets because these religions came from Allah, but because these suit their desires and lusts. Therefore, their claimed faith in an earlier Prophet will not benefit them because they disbelieved in the master, the mightiest, the last and most perfect of all Prophets. Hence Allah’s statement…

<Fight against those who believe not in Allah, nor in the Last Day, nor forbid that which has been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, and those who acknowledge not the religion of truth among the People of the Scripture,>

This honorable Ayah was revealed with the order to fight the People of the Book, after the pagans were defeated, the people entered Allah’s religion in large numbers, and the Arabian Peninsula was secured under the Muslims’ control. Allah commanded His Messenger to fight the People of the Scriptures, Jews and Christians, on the ninth year of Hijrah, and he prepared his army to fight the Romans and called the people to Jihad announcing his intent and destination. The Messenger sent his intent to various Arab areas around Al-Madinah to gather forces, and he collected an army of thirty thousand. Some people from Al-Madinah and some hypocrites, in and around it, lagged behind, for that year was a year of drought and intense heat. The Messenger of Allah marched, heading towards Ash-Sham to fight the Romans until he reached Tabuk, where he set camp for about twenty days next to its water resources. He then prayed to Allah for a decision and went back to Al-Madinah because it was a hard year and the people were weak, as we will mention, Allah willing. (Tafsir Ibn Kathir, Q. 9:29 https://www.alim.org/quran/tafsir/ibn-kathir/surah/9/28; emphasis mine)

And:

Paying Jizyah is a Sign of Kufr AND DISGRACE

Allah said …

<until they pay the Jizyah>, if they do not choose to embrace Islam …

<with willing submission>, in defeat and subservience …

<and feel themselves subdued.>, DISGRACED, HUMILIATED AND BELITTLED. Therefore, Muslims are not allowed to honor the people of Dhimmah or elevate them above Muslims, FOR THEY ARE MISERABLE, DISGRACED AND HUMILIATED. Muslim recorded from Abu Hurayrah that the Prophet said…

<<Do not initiate the Salam to the Jews and Christians, and if you meet any of them in a road, FORCE THEM TO ITS NARROWEST ALLEY.>>

This is why the Leader of the faithful `Umar bin Al-Khattab, may Allah be pleased with him, demanded his well-known conditions be met by the Christians, THESE CONDITIONS THAT ENSURED THEIR CONTINUED HUMILIATION, DEGRADATION AND DISGRACE. The scholars of Hadith narrated from `Abdur-Rahman bin Ghanm Al-Ash`ari that he said, “I recorded for `Umar bin Al-Khattab, may Allah be pleased with him, the terms of the treaty of peace he conducted with the Christians of Ash-Sham:

‘In the Name of Allah, Most Gracious, Most Merciful. This is a document to the servant of Allah `Umar, the Leader of the faithful, from the Christians of such and such city. When you (Muslims) came to us we requested safety for ourselves, children, property and followers of our religion.

We made a condition on ourselves that we will neither erect in our areas a monastery, church, or a sanctuary for a monk, nor restore any place of worship that needs restoration nor use any of them for the purpose of enmity against Muslims.

We will not prevent any Muslim from resting in our churches whether they come by day or night, and we will open the doors [of our houses of worship] for the wayfarer and passerby.

Those Muslims who come as guests, will enjoy boarding and food for three days.

We will not allow a spy against Muslims into our churches and homes or hide deceit [or betrayal] against Muslims.

We will not teach our children the Qur’an, publicize practices of Shirk, invite anyone to Shirk or prevent any of our fellows from embracing Islam, if they choose to do so.

We will respect Muslims, MOVE FROM THE PLACES WE SIT IN IF THEY CHOOSE TO SIT IN THEM.

We will not imitate their clothing, caps, turbans, sandals, hairstyles, speech, nicknames and title names, or ride on saddles, hang swords on the shoulders, collect weapons of any kind or carry these weapons.

We will not encrypt our stamps in Arabic, or sell liquor.

We will have the front of our hair cut, wear our customary clothes wherever we are, wear belts around our waist, refrain from erecting crosses on the outside of our churches and demonstrating them and our books in public in Muslim fairways and markets.

We will not sound the bells in our churches, except discretely, or raise our voices while reciting our holy books inside our churches in the presence of Muslims, nor raise our voices [with prayer] at our funerals, or light torches in funeral processions in the fairways of Muslims, or their markets.

We will not bury our dead next to Muslim dead, or buy servants who were captured by Muslims. We will be guides for Muslims and refrain from breaching their privacy in their homes.’

When I gave this document to `Umar, he added to it, `We will not beat any Muslim. These are the conditions that we set against ourselves and followers of our religion IN RETURN FOR SAFETY AND PROTECTION. If we break any of these promises that we set for your benefit against ourselves, then our Dhimmah (promise of protection) is broken and you are allowed to do with us what you are allowed of people of defiance and rebellion.’” (Ibid.; emphasis mine)

‘UMDAT al-SALIK

011.0 NON·MUSLIM SUBJECTS OF THE ISLAMIC STATE (AHL AL-DHIMMA)

011.1 A formal agreement of protection is made with citizens who are:

(1) Jews;

(2) Christians;

(3) Zoroastrians;

(4) Samarians and Sabians, if their religions do not respectively contradict the fundamental bases of Judaism and Christianity;

(5) and those who adhere to the religion of Abraham or one of the other prophets (upon whom be blessings and peace).

011.2 Such an agreement may not be effected with those who are idol worshippers (dis: o9.9 (n:)) or those who do not have a Sacred Book or something that could have been a Book.

(A: Something that could have been a Book refers to those like the Zoroastrians, who have remnants resembling an ancient Book. As for the pseudoscriptures of cults that have appeared since Islam (n: such as the Sikhs, Baha’is, Mormons, Qadianis, etc.), they neither are nor could be a Book, since the Koran is the final revelation (dis: w4).)

011.3 Such an agreement is only valid when the subject peoples:

(a) follow the rules of Islam (A: those mentioned below (011.5) and those involving public behavior and dress, though in acts of worship and their private lives, the subject communities have their own laws, judges, and courts, enforcing the rules of their own religion among themselves);

(b) and pay the non-Muslim poll tax jizya).

THE NON-MUSLIM POLL TAX

011.4 The minimum non-Muslim poll tax is one dinar (n: 4.235 grams of gold) per person (A: per year). The maximum is whatever both sides agree upon.

It is collected with leniency and politeness, as are all debts, and is not levied on women, children, or the insane.

011.5 Such non-Muslim subjects are obliged to comply with Islamic rules that pertain to the safety and indemnity of life, reputation, and property. In addition, they:

(1) are penalized for committing adultery or theft, though not for drunkenness;

(2) are distinguished from Muslims in dress, wearing a wide cloth belt (zunnar);

(3) are not greeted with “as-Salamu ‘alaykum”;

(4) must keep to the side of the street;

(5) may not build higher than or as high as the Muslims’ buildings, though if they acquire a tall house, it is not razed;

(6) are forbidden to openly display wine or pork, (A: to ring church bells or display crosses,) recite the Torah or Evangel aloud, or make public display of their funerals and feastdays;

(7) and are forbidden to build new churches.

011.6 They are forbidden to reside in the Hijaz, meaning the area and towns around Mecca, Medina, and Yamama, for more than three days (when the caliph allows them to enter there for something they need).

011.7 A non-Muslim may not enter the Meccan Sacred Precinct (Haram) under any circumstances, or enter any other mosque without permission (A: nor may Muslims enter churches without their permission).

011.8 It is obligatory for the caliph (def: 025) to protect those of them who are in Muslim lands just as he would Muslims, and to seek the release of those of them who are captured.

011.9 If non-Muslim subjects of the Islamic state refuse to conform to the rules of Islam or to pay the non-Muslim poll tax, then their agreement with the state has been violated (dis: 0 I l.1 I) (A: though if only one of them disobeys, it concerns him alone).

011.10 The agreement is also violated (A: with respect to the offender alone) if the state has stipulated that any of the following things break it, and one of the subjects does so anyway. though if the state has not stipulated that these break the agreement, then they do not; namely, if one of the subject people:

(1) commits adultery with a Muslim woman or marries her:

(2) conceals spies of hostile forces;

(3) leads a Muslim away from Islam;

(4) kills a Muslim;

(5) or mentions something impermissible about Allah, the Prophet, or Islam.

011.11 When a subject’s agreement with the state has been violated, the caliph chooses between the four alternatives mentioned above in connection with prisoners of war (09.14). (Reliance of the Traveller: The Classic Manual of Islamic Sacred Law ‘Umdat al-Salik by Ahmad ibn Naqib al-Misri (d. 769/1368) in Arabic with Facing English Text, Commentary, and Appendices Edited and Translated by Nuh Ha Mim Keller [Amana Publications, Beltsville, Maryland U.S.A Revised Edition], pp. 607-609; bold emphasis mine)

And:

THE OBJECTIVES OF JIHAD

o9.R The caliph (025) makes war upon Jews, Christians, and Zoroastrians (N: provided he has first invited them to enter Islam in faith and practice, and if they will not, then invited them to enter the social order of Islam by paying the nonMuslim poll tax (jizya, def: 01 L4)-which is the significance of their paying it, not the money itself-while remaining in their ancestral religions) (0: and the war continues) until they become Muslim or else pay the non-Muslim poll tax (0: in accordance with the word of Allah Most High,

“Fight those who do not believe in Allah and the Last Day and who forbid not what Allah and His messenger have forbidden-who do not practice the religion of truth, being of those who have been given the Book-until they pay the poll tax out of hand and are humbled” (Koran 9:29), the time and place for which is before the final descent of Jesus. After his final coming, nothing but Islam will be accepted from them. for taking the poll tax is only effective until Jesus’ descent (upon him and our Prophet be peace), which is the divinely revealed law of Muhammad, the coming of Jesus does not entail a separate divinely revealed law, for he will rule by the law of Muhammad, As for the Prophet’s saying, “I am the last, there will be no prophet after me,” this does not contradict the final coming of Jesus (upon whom be peace), since he will not rule according to the Evangel, but as a follower of our Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace)).

09.9 The caliph fights all other peoples until they become Muslim (0: because they are not a people with a Book, nor honored as such, and are not permitted to settle with paying the poll tax (iizya:)) (n: though according to the Hanafi school, peoples of all other religions, even idol worshippers, are permitted to live under the protection of the Islamic state if they either become Muslim or agree to pay the poll tax, the sale exceptions to which are apostates from Islam and idol worshippers who are Arabs, neither of whom has any choice but becoming Muslim (al-Hidaya sharh Bidaya al-mubtadi’ (y21). 6.48–49)).

THE RULES OF WARFARE

09 .10 It is not permissible (A: in Jihad) to kill women or children unless they are fighting against the Muslims. Nor is it permissible to kill animals, unless they are being ridden into battle against the Muslims, or if killing them will help defeat the enemy. It is permissible to kill old men (0: old man (shaykh) meaning someone more than forty years of age) and monks.

69.11 It is unlawful to kill a non-Muslim to whom a Muslim has given his guarantee of protection (0: whether the non-Muslim is one or more than one, provided the number is limited, and the Muslim’s protecting them does not harm the Muslims, as when they are spies) provided the protecting Muslim has reached puberty, is sane, and does so voluntarily (0: and is not a prisoner of them or a spy).

09.12 Whoever enters Islam before being captured may not be killed or his property confiscated, or his young children taken captive.

09.13 When a child or a woman is taken captive, they become slaves by the fact of capture, and the woman’s previous marriage is immediately annulled.

09.14 When an adult male is taken captive, the caliph (def: 025) considers the interests (0: of Islam and the Muslims) and decides between the prisoner’s death, slavery, release without paying anything, or ransoming himself in exchange for money or for a Muslim captive held by the enemy.

If the prisoner becomes a Muslim (0: before the caliph chooses any of the four alternatives) then he may not be killed, and one of the other three alternatives is chosen. (Ibid., pp. 602-604; bold emphasis mine)

FURTHER READING

Is Islam a religion of Peace?

The Myth of Islamic Tolerance  

The Mistreatment and Degradation of the People of the Book 

“Kill those who Associate Partners (Mushrikun) Wherever You Find Them!”

Should Muslims Accept Peace or Not?

Fighting All People Until They Do What?

Compel them or Not?