Sie sind auf Seite 1von 21

Unveiling Ibn Anwar Part 1

Sam Shamoun Muslim apologist Ibn Anwar wrote a reply (*; *) to a youtube response by Dr. James R. White to Ibn Anwars article regarding the OT denying that God is a man and how this supposedly refutes the Deity of the Lord Jesus. To read the replies to Ibn Anwars misuse of the OT we recommend the following: In that particular article Ibn Anwar grossly misrepresented Dr. Whites position which prompted Dr. White to reply and correct the blatant distortion of his statements. However, Dr. White is not the only person that Ibn Anwar misrepresents since this is a consistent habit of his as a careful examination of his articles easily proves. Ibn Anwar also has a habit of misquoting and/or selectively citing sources as well as distorting the actual position of his references. He further confuses various issues together and proceeds to deny that the Holy Bible actually teaches a particular doctrine on the basis of his own confusion and selective citations. For instance, in his reply to Dr. Whites rebuttal Ibn Anwar quotes Christian scholar Millard J. Erickson to prove that the Holy Bible does not explicitly teach the doctrine of the Holy Trinity: Dr. James White however, is of the opinion that the Trinity is simple. In fact he says in his response, The reality is the doctrine of the Trinity is fairly easily defined and has been around for a long long time, therefore, to understand what its saying is not that difficult Notice that he says the doctrine has been around for a long time and therefore(because of that) it is easy to understand. Hindu anthropomorphism and pantheism have been around longer than the Trinity and yet if you were to ask 30 Hindus hardly anyone will be able to provide a cogent answer because Hinduism is simply a mess and the people make up their own gods whenever they wish. Prolonged period of time does not necessitate easeness [sic] in comprehension. If it did we wouldnt find Christians(many Christians even learned ones) stumbling all over the place trying to explain the Trinity to themselves and others. Dr. White suggests that we go to systematic theologians for correct understanding of the Trinity. The rule of thumb is of course to go to the experts. No problem. Lets go to an expert in the field and see what he says about the Trinity. How about we look at the words of Dr. Millard Erickson whos a professor of Systematic Theology at Western Seminary, Portland, Oregon. He was also professor of theology at Bethel University seminary and also taught at Baylor University. He writes, This doctrine in many ways presents strange paradoxesIt is a widely disputed doctrine, which has provoked discussion throughout all the centuries of the churchs existence. It is held by manywith [sic] great vehemence and vigor. These advocates are certain they believe the doctrine and consider it crucial to the Christian faith. Yet many are unsure of the exact meaning of their belief. It was the vey first doctrine dealt with systematically by the church,

yet it is still one of the most misunderstood and disputed docrines [sic]. Further, it is not clearly or explicitly taught anywhere in scripture, yet it is widely regarded as a central doctrine, indispensable to the Christian faith. In this regard, it goes contrary to what is virtually an axiom[that is, a given, a self-evident truth] of biblical doctrine, namely, that there is a direct correlation between the scriptural clarity ofa [sic] doctrine and its cruciality [sic] to the faith and life of the church. [1] (emphasis added) So according to the above testimony from a prominent theologian the Trinity is widely disputed and misunderstood. This is something that should not exist if indeed as Dr. White claims, it is fairly easily defined. Dr. White then goes on to say that, at least, you can go back to 15, 16, 17 hundred years and find a lot of consistency in what is being said on the central issues. Yet, Dr. Erickson glaringly says that it is widely disputed and misunderstood! In the first place, Ibn Anwar once again distorts Dr. Whites point by taking his words out of context. Dr. White was not claiming that a person can fully understand and therefore comprehensively explain the Trinity since Dr. White believes that Gods Being is beyond our ability to fully comprehend. In fact, all informed Christians will readily admit that the difficulty lies in trying to adequately explain and understand the exact reality of this Divinely revealed truth. What Dr. White was referring to is the basic definition of the Trinity which says that there is only one eternal Being of God shared by three eternally distinct Divine Persons. Nor was Dr. White saying that ALL Christians have a proper understanding of what the doctrine entails since this is what he said right before and after making the statement that Ibn Anwar wrenched out of context: ... in my opinion the vast majority of misunderstanding that I have encountered amongst my Muslim friends in this subject is not because of a lack of clarity on our part. Granted, Im sure they have to deal with Christians who are somewhat less than accurate in their understanding of the doctrine of the Trinity, maybe not well trained in the area. There are Christians like that, no question about that. But the reality is that the doctrine of the Trinity is fairly, easily defined, and has been around for a long, long time. And, therefore, to understand what its saying is really not that difficult as long as youre willing to go to people who have maybe spent at least some time dealing with the subject. I mean you can go back literally, what, at least 15, 16, 17 hundred years and find a lot of consistency in what is being said about the central issues as long as you are looking for consistency and not looking to find contradictions, which is what I think is one of the problems. But its not that difficult to define the doctrine of the Trinity or the doctrine of the Incarnation. There are confessions of faith that lay these things out very clearly; there are excellent works and systematic theology that lay these things out very clearly. And so why is there such confusion on the part of Muslims on the subject? I think its because Islam forces the confusion upon them through its misrepresentation of the doctrine. Certainly the Quran never indentifies the doctrine of the Trinity in any accurate fashion to any depth whatsoever. In fact, I would say that it is inaccurate in its description of the doctrine of the Trinity. It is clear that Ibn Anwar is doing nothing more than attack a straw man at this point, as well as throw out red herrings.

Secondly, Ibn Anwar is either being dishonest or is simply ignorant since he is unable to differentiate between the Biblical basis for the Trinity and the precise formulation of the doctrine which took centuries to hammer out. Because of this failure to differentiate between the two Ibn Anwar gives the misleading impression that Erickson actually denied that the Trinity is revealed in the Holy Bible. However, here is what Erickson writes in his systematic theology which helps us to better understand his point: The Bible does not explicitly teach the trinitarian view of God, but the teachings that God is one and that there are three persons who are God clearly imply this view. Christianity is the only major religion that makes this claim about God. Numerous attempts have been made to understand this profound truth. Some have led to distortions of this very important doctrine. While we may never fully comprehend this difficult doctrine, there are analogies that can help us understand it more fully. Properly understood, this doctrine has profound practical implications for the Christian life. (Millard J. Erickson, Christian Theology [Baker Books, Grand Rapids MI; Second edition 1999], Part 3: What God is Like, 16. Gods ThreeIn-Oneness, p. 346; bold emphasis ours) In the doctrine of the Trinity, we encounter one of the truly distinctive doctrines of Christianity. Among the religions of the world, the Christian faith is unique in making the claim that God is one and yet there are three who are God. Although it seems on the surface to be a self-contradictory doctrine and is not overtly or explicitly stated in Scripture, nevertheless, devout minds have been led to it as they sought to do justice to the witness of Scripture. (347) We will begin our study of the Trinity by examining the biblical basis of the doctrine, since this is fundamental to all else that we do here There are three separate but interrelated types of evidence for the unity of Godthat God is one; evidence that there are three persons who are God; and finally indications or at least intimations of the three-in-oneness. (348; bold emphasis ours) All this evidence, if taken by itself, would no doubt lead us to a basically monotheistic belief. What, then, moved the church beyond this evidence? It was the additional biblical witness to the effect that three persons are God (350; bold emphasis ours) On the surface, these two lines of evidenceGods oneness and threenessseem contradictory. In the earliest years of its existence the church did not have much opportunity to study the relationship between these two sets of data. The process of organizing itself and propagating the faith and even the struggle for survival in a hostile world precluded much serious doctrinal reflection. As the Church became more secure, however, it began attempting to fit together these two types of material. It concluded that God must be understood as threein-one, or in other words, triune. At this point we must pose the question whether this doctrine is explicitly taught in the Bible, is suggested by the Scripture, or is merely an inference drawn from other teachings of the Bible. (352-353) Our conclusion from the data we have just examined: Although the doctrine of the Trinity is not expressly asserted, Scripture, particularly the New Testament, contains so many suggestions of the deity and unity of the three persons that we can understand why the

church formulated the doctrine, and conclude that they were right in so doing. (357; bold emphasis ours) 6. In the final analysis, the Trinity is incomprehensible. When someday we will see God, we shall see him as he is, and understand him better than we do now. Yet even then we will not totally comprehend him. Because he is the unlimited God and we are limited in our capacity to know and understand, he will always exceed our knowledge and understanding. We will always be human beings, even though perfected human beings. We will never become God. Those aspects of God which we will never fully comprehend should be regarded as mysteries that go beyond our reason RATHER THAN PARADOXES THAT CONFLICT WITH REASON. (363-364; bold and capital emphasis ours) It is clear from Ericksons statements that he believes and affirms that the Trinity is a Biblical revelation. His point concerning the doctrine of the Trinity not being explicitly taught in the Holy Bible relates to the precise language which subsequent generations of Christians developed in order to systematically and accurately define the Biblical teaching so as to safeguard it against heretics who were plaguing the Christian communities with their false, distorted views of the Godhead. Erickson is basically stating that the Holy Bible doesnt use terms such as hypostasis, homoousios, Being, Persons, eternal generation, eternal procession etc., to describe the relationship of the three Divine Persons with one another. It does, however, affirm all of the necessary truths which led to the development and use of such words and terminology. Ibn Anwar is simply distorting Ericksons position. In fact, Ibn Anwar commonly makes the mistake of confusing the Biblical basis for the Trinity with its later doctrinal formulation. He then proceeds to read this confusion into references that he quotes to show that the Holy Bible does not teach the explicit doctrine of the Trinity and erroneously assumes that these sources are therefore denying that the Trinity is a Biblical teaching! Ibn Anwar is operating under the mistaken assumption that unless the Holy Bible defines the Trinity in the exact same way that the later Church and creeds do then it cannot be a Biblical doctrine. As we shall see in the next part of our rebuttal this argument will come to backfire against his very own unitarian beliefs. Ibn Anwar next appeals to Bart Ehrmans book, Lost Christianities, to prove that there were various so-called Christian groups in the first three centuries of Christianity which the orthodox stamped out! But anyway, let us say for the sake of argument that Dr. White is correct in his estimation. What I would like to know is why does he not trace it back to the early initial years of Christianity? If you trace the Trinity back 1700 years ago theres a gap of over three hundred years! Where was the Trinity in those first three hundred years? I would suggest people purchase Prof. Bart Ehrmans Lost Scriptures and Lost Christianities for in depth information on other theological ideas that existed in the early years of Christianity and got stamped out by what eventually became Orthodoxy.

This gives the misleading impression that not only could these other sects legitimately trace their teachings back to Christ and his original followers but that they were actually more faithful in preserving Jesus message than the orthodox Christians! Here, again, Ibn Anwar is simply being deceptive by failing to mention the names of these other so-called Christian sects and how their views impact his beliefs as a Muslim. For instance, the main groups that Ehrman mentions are the Ebionites, Marcionites and various Gnostic sects. Concerning the Ebionites Ehrman writes that, One other aspect of the Ebionites Christianity that set it apart from that of most other Christian groups was their understanding of who Jesus was. The Ebionites did not subscribe to the notion of Jesus preexistence or his virgin birth. These ideas were originally distinct from each other. The two New Testament Gospels that speak of Jesus being conceived of a virgin (Matthew and Luke) do not indicate that he existed prior to his birth, just as the New Testament books that appear to presuppose his preexistence (cf. John 1:1-3, 18; Phil. 2:5-11) never mention his virgin birth. But when all these books came to be included in the New Testament, both notions came to be affirmed simultaneously, so that Jesus was widely thought of as having been with God in eternity past (John, Paul) who became flesh (John) by being born of the Virgin Mary (Matthew, Luke). Ebionites, however, did not have our New Testament and understood Jesus differently. For them, Jesus was the Son of God not because of his divine nature or virgin birth but because of his adoption by God to be his son. This kind of Christology is, accordingly, sometimes called adoptionist. To express the matter more fully, the Ebionites believed that Jesus was a real flesh-and-blood human like the rest of us, born as the eldest son of THE SEXUAL UNION OF HIS PARENTS, Joseph and Mary. What set Jesus apart from all other people was that he kept Gods law perfectly and so was the most righteous man on earth. As such, God chose him to be his son and assigned to him a special mission, to sacrifice himself for the sake of others. Jesus then went to the cross, not as a punishment for his owns sins BUT FOR THE SINS OF THE WORLD, a perfect sacrifice in fulfillment of all of Gods promises to his people, the Jews, in the holy Scriptures. As a sign of his acceptance of Jesus sacrifice, God then raised Jesus from the dead and exalted him to heaven. It appears that Ebionite Christians also believed that since Jesus was the perfect, ultimate, final sacrifice for sins, there was no longer any need for the ritual sacrifice of animals. Jewish sacrifices, therefore, were understood as temporary and imperfect measure provided by God to atone for sins until the perfect atoning sacrifice should be made The Ebionites did have other Christian texts as part of their canon, however. Not surprisingly, they appear to have accepted the Gospel of Matthew as their principal scriptural authority. Their own version of Matthew, however, may have been a translation of the text into Aramaic. Jesus himself spoke Aramaic in Palestine, as did his earliest followers. It would make sense that a group of Jewish followers of Jesus that originated in Palestine would continue to cite his words, and stories about him, in his native tongue. It appears likely that this Aramaic Matthew was somewhat different from the Matthew now in the canon. In particular, the Matthew used by Ebionite Christians would have lacked the first two chapters, which narrate Jesus birth to a virgina notion that the Ebionite Christians

rejected. There were doubtless other differences from our own version of Matthews Gospel as well. (Ehrman, Lost Christianities The Battles for Scripture and the Faiths We Never Knew [Oxford University Press Inc., 2003], Part Two: Heresies and Orthodoxies, Chapter 5. At Polar Ends of the Spectrum: Early Christian Ebionites and Marcionites, pp. 100-102; bold and capital emphasis ours) Here is what Ehrman says regarding the beliefs of Marcion and his followers: Before discussing these books, I should say a word about the theology that Marcion developed, which was seen as distinctive, revolutionary, compelling, and therefore dangerous. Among all the Christian texts and authors at his disposal, Marcion was especially struck by the writings of the apostle Paul, and in particular the distinction that Paul drew in Galatians and elsewhere between the Law of the Jews and the gospel of Christ. As we have seen, Paul claimed that a person is made right with God by faith in Christ, not by doing the works of the Law. This distinction became fundamental to Marcion, and he made it absolute. The gospel is the good news of deliverance; it involves love, mercy, grace, forgiveness, reconciliation, redemption, and life. The Law, however, is the bad news that makes the gospel necessary in the first place; it involves harsh commandments, guilt, judgment, enmity, punishment, and death. The Law is given to the Jews. The gospel is given by Christ. How could the same God be responsible for both? Or to put in other terms: How could the wrathful, vengeful God of the Jews be the loving, merciful God of Jesus? Marcion maintained that these two attributes could not belong to one God, as they stand at odds with one another: hatred and love, vengeance and mercy, judgment and grace. He concluded that there must be in fact TWO GODS: the God of the Jews, as found in the Old Testament, and the God of Jesus, as found in the writings of Paul. Once Marcion arrived at this understanding, everything else naturally fell into place. The God of the Old Testament was the God who created this world and everything in it, as described in Genesis. The God of Jesus, therefore, had never been involved with this world but came into it only when Jesus himself appeared from heaven. The God of the Old Testament was the God who called the Jews to be his people and gave them his Law. The God of Jesus did not consider the Jews to be his people (for him; they were the chosen of the other God), and he was not a God who gave laws The God of Jesus came into this world in order to save people from the vengeful God of the Jews. He was previously unknown to this world and had never had any previous dealings with it. Hence Marcion sometimes referred to him as God the Stranger. Not even the prophecies of the future Messiah come from this God, for these refer not to Jesus but to a coming Messiah of Israel, to be sent by the God of the Jews, the creator of this world and the God of the Old Testament. Jesus came completely unexpectedly and did what no one could possibly have hoped for: He paid the penalty for other peoples sins, to save them from the just wrath of the Old Testament God. But how could Jesus himself, who represented the nonmaterial God, come into this material worldcreated by the other Godwithout becoming part of it? How could the nonmaterial become material, even for such a good and noble cause as salvation? Marcion taught that Jesus was not truly a part of this material world. He did not have a flesh-and-blood body. He was not actually born. He was not really human. He only appeared to be a human

with a material existence like everyone else. In other words, Marcion, like some Gnostic Christians, was a docetist who taught that Jesus only seemed to have a fleshly body. Coming in the likeness of sinful flesh, as Marcions favorite author Paul put it (Rom. 8:3), Jesus paid the penalty for other peoples sins by dying on the cross. By having faith in his death, one could escape the throes of the wrathful God of the Jews and have eternal life with the God of love and mercy, the God of Jesus (Ibid, pp. 104-105; bold and capital emphasis ours) In speaking of the Nag Hammadi library Ehrman writes that, Even though forged, these books were obviously written seriously and meant to be taken seriously, as providing a guide to the truth. So, too, the other books in the collection, including several different and internally diverse mystical reflections on how the divine realm came into being. Most of these documents assumed that there was not simply one God over all who had created the world and made it good. Some of them were quite explicit: This creation was not good, not in the least. It was the result of a cosmic-catastrophe, brought into being by an inferior and ignorant deity who erroneously imagined he was God Almighty. (Ibid., p. 113) Despite their inherent interest, many of these Gnostic texts are not simple to understand. And, that of course, is as it should be: If the knowledge necessary for salvation were simple and straightforward, we all would have figured it out long ago. But this is secret knowledge reserved for the elite, for the few, for those who really do have a spark of the divine within them, a spark that needs to be rekindled and brought to life through gnosis (knowledge) from on high, brought from one who has come down from the divine realm to remind us of our true identity, our true origin, and our true destiny. This divine emissary is no mere mortal. He is a being from the realm above, a divine emissary sent from the true God (not the ignorant creator who made this hateful material world in the first place) to reveal to us the true state of things and the means of escape. Those who receive, and understand, and accept, these teachings will then be Gnostics, those in the know. (Ibid. pp. 114-115) Ehrman then highlights some of their views concerning the God of the Old Testament and Jesus: Some such people might well experience another radical modification in their thinking, at least as radical as that from the prophetic view (God is causing suffering) to the apocalyptic (Gods enemy, the Devil, is causing suffering). Both of these earlier views presuppose that the world was created by God, who is the good and all-powerful divine force behind it. But if these views are called into question by the ongoing realities of suffering in the world, what then? Maybe in fact the entire assumption is wrong. Maybe this world is not the creation of the one true God. Maybe the God of this world is not good. Maybe he is causing suffering not because he is good and wants people to share in his goodness but because he is evil, or ignorant, or inferior, and he wants people to suffer or doesnt care if they do, or maybe he cant do anything about it. But if thats true, then the God of this world is not the one true God. There must be a greater God above this world, one who did not create this world. In this understanding, the material world itselfmaterial existence in all its formis inferior at best or evil at worst, and so is the God, then, who created it. There must be a nonmaterial God unconnected with this world, above the creator God of the Old Testament, a God who neither created this world nor brought suffering to it, who wants to relieve his people from their

sufferingnot by redeeming this world but by delivering them from it, liberating them from their entrapment in this material existence. This is a Gnostic view. It may well have derived, ultimately, from a kind of failed apocalypticism. No wonder, then, that it is so taken up with Jewish texts. It derives from a Jewish worldview. And no wonder that in its Christian forms it gives such a central role to Christ, reinterpreting him away from his own apocalyptic roots. It would be a mistake, however, to see Gnosticism as failed apocalypticism, pure and simple, for there are other factors that appear to have affected the complicated mix that we find in the Gnostic religions. Here I will mention just one other. One of the most striking features of Gnosticism is its radical dualism, in which the material world is evil and the world of the spirit is good..." (Ibid., Chapter Six. Christians In The Know : The Worlds of Early Gnosticism, p. 119; bold emphasis ours) As we have seen, Gnostic Christians maintained that in the beginning there was only One. This One God was totally spirit, totally perfect, incapable of description, beyond attributes and qualities. This God is not only unknown to humans; he is unknowable. The Gnostic texts do not explain why he is unknowable, except that he is so other that explanationswhich require making something unknown known by comparing it to something elsesimply cannot work. According to sundry Gnostic myths, this one unknowable God, for some unknowable reason, generated a divine realm from himself. In some of these myths, the perfect essences of this One become themselves, somehow, self-existent. So, for example, this One spends eternity thinking. He thinks, of course, only of himself, since he is all there is. But his thought itself must exist, since he thinks. And so his thought becomes its own entity. Moreover, this One always exists. And so his eternal existence, his eternality, exists. And so it becomes its own entity. This One is living; in fact, he is Life. And so his life itself exists. Life then becomes its own entity. And so on. Thus there emerge from this One other divine entities, emanations from the one, called aeons, (Thought, Eternality, Life, etc.); moreover, some of these aeons produce their own entities, until there is an entire realm of the divine aeons, sometimes called the Fullness or, using the Greek term, Pleroma In some of these systems, it is the final aeon who is the problem, an aeon called Wisdom or, using the Greek term, Sophia. The myths have different ways of explaining how Sophias fall from the Pleroma led to awful consequences of the material world. One of the more familiar myths is found in the Secret Book of John, an account of a revelation given to John the son of Zebedee by Jesus after his resurrection In this Gnostic myth, Sophia decides to generate a divine being apart from the assistance of her male consort, leading a malformed and imperfect offspring. Fearful that her misdeed will be uncovered, she removes her offspring from the divine realm into a lower sphere where no one can see him, and she leaves him to his own devices. She has named him Yaldabaoth, a name reminiscent of Yahweh, Lord of Sabbaths, from the Old Testament, for this malformed and imperfect being is the Jewish God. According to this form of the myth Yaldabaoth somehow manages to steal divine power from his mother. He then moves far off from her and uses his power to create other lesser divine beingsthe evil cosmic forces of the worldand the material world itself. Since he is the creator, he is called the Demiurge (Greek for maker). Yaldabaoth is ignorant of the

realm above him and so he foolishly declares, I am God and there is no other God besides me (Isa. 45:5-6). But he, along with his divine henchmen who have helped him create the world, are shown a vision of the one true God; they then declare among themselves, Let us create man according to the image of God (i.e., the true God they have just seencf. Gen. 2:7). And so they make Adam. But Adam, not having a spirit within him, is completely immobile. The one true God then tricks Yaldabaoth into conveying the power of his mother into this inanimate being, by breathing of the breath of life into it, thereby imparting Sophia into humans, making them animate and giving them a power greater even than lesser cosmic forces that Yaldabaoth had created. When the cosmic forces realize that the man who was created is greater than they, they cast him into the realm of matter. But the one true God sends his own Thought into man, to instruct him concerning his true divine nature, the manner of his descent into the realm of matter, and the way in which he can rescued. (Ibid., pp. 122-124) According to Ehrman, the Christian Gnostics believed that Christ came down from the true God and entered into the world in order to reveal the knowledge which leads to salvation. However, this leads to a problem as Ehrman points out. But how can Christ enter into this world and not be tainted by it? That is one of the puzzles the Gnostics had to solve, and different Gnostic thinkers did so in different ways. Some took the line we have already seen in Marcion and others, maintaining that Jesus was not a flesh-and-blood human being, but only appeared to be so. These Gnostics took the words of the apostle Paul quite seriously: Christ came in the likeness of sinful flesh (Rom. 8:3). As a phantom sent from the divine realm, he came to convey the gnosis necessary for salvation, and when he was finished doing so, he returned to the Pleroma whence he came. Most Gnostics, however, took another line, claiming that Christ was a divine emissary from above, totally spirit, and that he entered the man Jesus temporarily in order to convey the knowledge that can liberate sparks from their material imprisonment. For these Gnostics, Jesus himself was in fact human, even though some thought he was not made like the rest of us, so that he could receive the divine emissary; some, for example, thought that he had a soul-body rather than flesh-body. In any event, at the baptism, Christ entered into Jesus (in the form of a dove, as in the New Testament Gospels); and at the end he left him to suffer his death alone. That is why Jesus cried out, My God, my God, why have you forsaken me? (literally, Why have you left me behind?) Or, as stated in the Gospel of Philip, My God, my God, why O lord have you forsaken me? He spoke these words on the cross; for he had withdrawn from that place (G. Phil. 64). According to one of the myths reported by Irenaeus, once Jesus died, the Christ then came back and raised him from the dead (Against Heresies 1.30.13). In either system, Christ provides the knowledge necessary for salvation. As the Gospel of Philip says, The one who possesses the knowledge (gnosis) of truth is free (G. Phil. 93) (Ibid., pp. 124-125; bold emphasis ours) With the foregoing in view does Ibn Anwar seriously want us to accept that these groups somehow represent the authentic teachings of the Lord Jesus and his followers? More importantly, is he willing to accept the ramifications that such beliefs have on his own Islamic faith?

For instance, Muhammad affirmed that there is only one God and that this God created the universe and sent prophets like Moses along with books such as the Torah and the Psalms. Thus, Muhammad believed that the God of the OT is the one true God. Muhammad also taught that Jesus was supernaturally born of the virgin Mary, that he was a true flesh-andblood human being who wasnt fully divine, and that he didnt die on the cross as a sacrifice for sins. What this means is that if the Ebionites are the true followers of Jesus then Muhammad is a false prophet since these Jews denied Jesus supernatural virginal conception and birth while affirming his death on the cross and bodily resurrection. However, if Marcion and his followers were right then Muhammad again turns out to be a false prophet since the Marcionites believed that there were two Gods, i.e. the loving, compassionate God that Jesus revealed and the God of the OT who created this world. They also affirmed Jesus prehuman existence while denying that Christ was sent by the God of the OT. But in the case that the Gnostics were the ones who preserved the authentic Gospel of Christ then Muhammad is once again seen to be an imposter. The Gnostics believed that there were many gods and that the God of the OT was an inferior, evil and ignorant deity who created this world. These groups also taught that Christ was a fully divine being who came down from the true God in order to bring the knowledge which would liberate people from the God of the OT. Some of the Gnostics thought that Christ did this by assuming a phantom body that looked human but wasnt. Others believed the Christ entered Jesus a man and then left him when Jesus was crucified. Since Muhammad didnt believe any of this he must have been a deceiver who misled people away from the true knowledge or gnosis necessary for salvation. Is Ibn Anwar comfortable with any of this? Does he really want his readers to accept the notion that one of these sects faithfully preserved the authentic message of Christ? The answer is quite obvious. But then this leaves Ibn Anwar with the beliefs of the proto-orthodox Christians (the term that Ehrman uses for the earliest Christians whose views eventually became the orthodox position). Their beliefs are not only represented within the NT corpus but can also be found in the writings of the Apostolic Fathers and the second century apologists. To see what these early Christian writers taught concerning the Trinity and the Deity of the Lord Jesus Christ we suggest reading the following article. Ibn Anwar is left with another major problem. According to the Quran Allah promised Jesus that his true followers would be victorious and become uppermost from the time of Christs ascension till the day of resurrection (cf. Q. 3:55; 61:14). This means that the true message of Jesus would prevail and that those who followed it would continue to dominate till the end of this age. However, Ibn Anwar is insinuating that the Orthodox that stamped out the other groups were not Jesus true followers and did not preserve his actual teachings. This either means that Allah lied to and deceived Jesus since he did not give his true followers the victory to dominate but actually allowed another sect to come in and wipe them out. Or, worse still,

Allah is an impotent deity since he wasnt able to preserve the true message of Christ or protect his followers from being stamped out. In other words, a group of finite creatures was able to thwart Allahs purposes and extinguish the message of one of his greatest messengers! In light of the teaching of the Quran the only conclusion that Ibn Anwar can come to is that the Orthodox group is the sect that has faithfully preserved the teachings of Christ and his followers since they not only overcame all opposition but their message also continues to dominate and permeate the entire world! If this is the case then this means that Muhammad is a false prophet, an antichrist, since he contradicts the message of the true followers of the Lord Jesus Christ who prevailed over their opposition. For more on Allahs alleged promise to Jesus, and its implication on the veracity of the Quran and Muhammads prophetic claims, we recommend the following articles and videos: We come to the conclusion of the first part of our rebuttal. Please continue with part two.

Unveiling Ibn Anwar Part 2

Sam Shamoun We continue with our analysis of Ibn Anwars misquotes. Ibn Anwar cites the New Catholic Encyclopedia and follows it up with some questions: In fact, Dr. White somewhat seems to be echoing the words of the Catholic encyclopedia which says regarding the Trinity, There is the recognition on the part of exegetes and Biblical theologians, including a constantly growing number of Roman Catholics, that one should not speak of Trinitarianism in the New Testament without serious qualification. There is also the closely parallel recognition on the part of historians of dogma and systematic theologians that when one does speak of an unqualified Trinitarianism, one has moved from the period of Christian origins to, say, the last quadrant of the 4th century. It was only then that what might be called the definitive Trinitarian dogma One God in three Persons became thoroughly assimilated into Christian life and thought it was the product of 3 centuries of doctrinal development. [2] (emphasis added) So who brought and defined the Trinity? Which or what Prophet? NONE! This doctrine was developed by men who are now regarded by mainstream Christians as Church Fathers or early Christian theologians at the expanse of other concepts that existed at that time that are now deemed heretical. One cannot help but compromise strict adherence to the so called idea

of sola scriptura(only scripture) in order to arrive at the Trinity. For if you only went by scripture without the assistance of theologians you will miss the Trinity and may come up with other strange doctrines concerning God. Thus, the Trinity depends on the tradition of men which is rather ironic for the Protestants who oppose Catholocism [sic] because of its dependance [sic] on the tradition of men. [2] The New Catholic Encyclopedia, Volume XIV. p. 295 The problem with Ibn Anwars reference is that there is nothing about the Trinity on that page. The entries on this particular are: UNDERSTANDING, GIFT OF and UNDSET, SIGRID. The articles concerning the Trinity are found on pp. 187-208. But that is the least of his problems since the encyclopedia doesnt even contain the quotation that Ibn Anwar mentions!(1) TRINITY, HOLY (IN THE BIBLE) In a long tradition with roots in the early patristic period, Christian writers have identified certain revelations of God in the Old Testament (OT) as containing representations or foreshadowings of the Trinity. In the strict sense, however, God is not explicitly revealed as Trinity in the OT. In the New Testament (NT) the oldest evidence of this revelation is in the Pauline epistles, especially2 Cor 13.13, and 1 Cor 12.4-6. In the Gospels much of the evidence of the Trinity has to do with the revelation of the relation between the Father and the Son. The only direct statement of Trinitarian revelation is the baptismal formula of Mt 28.19. In the Old Testament. On account of the polytheistic religions of Israels pagan neighbors, it was necessary for the teachers of Israel to stress the oneness of God. In many places of the OT, however, expressions are used in which some of the Fathers of the Church saw references or foreshadowings of the Trinity. The personified use of such terms as the Word of God [Ps 32(33).6] and the SPIRIT OF GOD (Is 63.14) reflects poetic license, though it does show a sense for a self-communication of God to the world in which the divine force is distinct from God, is not part of the world, and is not a being intermediate between God and the world. Such language shows that the minds of Gods people were being prepared for the concepts that would be involved in the forthcoming revelation of the doctrine of the Trinity. In the New Testament. The revelation of the truth of the triune life of God was first made in the NT, where the earliest references to it are in the Pauline Epistles. The doctrine is most easily seen in St. Pauls recurrent use of the terms God, Lord, and Spirit. What makes his use of these terms so significant is that they appear against a strictly monotheistic background. In the Pauline Epistles. The clearest instance of this usage is found in 2 Cor 13:13, The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, the love of God, and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit be with you all. The grammatical usage in this blessing, especially the subjective genitive tou kyriou Iesou Christou... tou theou... hagiou pneumatos gives us a basis not only for the distinction of persons, but also for their equality inasmuch as all the benefits are to flow from the one Godhead.

Another example of Pauls probable reference to the Trinity by his use of the triad, Spirit, Lord, God, can be seen in 1 Cor 12:4-6. Here, in speaking of the spiritual gifts or charisms that are bestowed upon Christians, he says, Now there are varieties of gifts, but the same Spirit; and there are varieties of ministries, but the same Lord; and there are varieties of workings, but the same God, who works all things in all. This passage witnesses to the doctrine of the Trinity by ascribing the various charisms, viz, gifts, ministries, and workings, to the Spirit, the Lord (the Son), and God (the Father), respectively. Since all these charisms of their very nature demand a divine source, the three Persons are put on a par, thus clearly indicating their divine nature while at the same time maintaining the distinction of persons. In the Gospels. The only place in the Gospels where the three divine Persons are explicitly mentioned together is in St. Matthews account of Christs last command to His Apostles, Go, therefore, and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit (Mt 28.19). In this commission Christ commands the Apostles to baptize all men in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. The expression in the name of (eis to onoma, literally, into the name) indicates a dedication or consecration to the one named. Thus Christian baptism is a dedication or consecration to GodFather, Son, and Holy Spirit. Since the Son and the Holy Spirit are mentioned here on a par with the Father, the passage clearly teaches that they are equally divine with the Father, who is obviously God. These words testify to the belief of the Apostolic Church in a doctrine of three Persons in one God. The accounts of THE BAPTISM OF THE LORD as described in Mt 3.13-17; Mk 1.9-11; Lk 3.21-22; Jn 1.32-34 have been understood by older scholars as indications of the doctrine of the Trinity. Modern scholars, however, see rather in these accounts references to the authoritative anointing of Jesus as the Messiah. Yet in the light of the fullness of revelation, the possibility is not to be excluded that the Evangelists had the doctrine of the Trinity in mind when they described this event. (Underline emphasis ours) Seeing that this encyclopedia claims that the Trinity is revealed in the NT this leads me to suspect that Ibn Anwar hasnt actually read this source for himself but simply lifted this misquotation from some anti-Trinitarian website or book.(1) Nor is this the only reference work that Ibn Anwar misquotes or only partially quotes! Here is what he cites from the Encyclopedia Britannica. The Encyclopedia Brittanica tells us that, in Christian doctrine, the unity of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit as three persons in one Godhead. Neither the word Trinity nor the explicit doctrine appears in the New Testament, nor did Jesus and his followers intend to contradict the Shema in the Old Testament. The doctrine developed gradually over several centuries and through many controversies [3] (emphasis added) [3] Encyclopaedia Britannica, Volume 11. p. 928 Ibn Anwar should have mentioned that this comes from the New Encyclopedia Britannica. However, Ibn Anwar (or the source from which he lifted this quote) conveniently omitted a very important part of the reference which helps to put things in perspective:

Trinity, in Christian doctrine, the unity of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit as three persons in one Godhead. Neither the word Trinity nor the EXPLICIT doctrine appears in the New Testament, nor did Jesus and his followers intend to contradict the Shema in the Hebrew Scriptures: Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God is one Lord (Deuteronomy 6:4). The earliest Christians, however, had to cope with the implications of the coming of Jesus Christ and of the presumed presence and power of God among themi.e., the Holy Spirit, whose coming was connected with the celebration of the Pentecost. The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit were associated in such New Testament passages as the Great Commission: Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit (Matthew 28:19); and in the apostolic benediction: The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ and the love of God and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit be with you all (2 Corinthians 13:14). THUS, THE NEW TESTAMENT ESTABLISHED THE BASIS FOR THE DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY. (Source; capital and italic emphasis ours) So even though this reference work claims that the DOCTRINE of the Trinity does not EXPLICITLY appear in the NT it didnt stop there since it goes on to say that the NT establishes the basis for it! Ibn Anwar again misquotes another source! Shirley Guthrie who is a professor of Systematic Theology at Columbia Theological Seminary puts it even more bluntly, The Bible does not teach the doctrine of the Trinity. Neither the word Trinity itself nor such language as one-in-three, three-in-one, one essence (or substance), and three persons is biblical language. The language of the doctrine is the language of the church taken from classical Greek philosophy The doctrine of the Trinity is not found in the Bible [7] [7] Shirley C. Guthrie. Christian Doctrine(1994). Louisville, Westminster: John Knox Press. p. 76-80 Ibn Anwar gives the misleading impression that this is another author who denies that the Holy Bible teaches and affirms the glorious and majestic Trinity. However, here is what Guthrie actually said in context: The Bible does not teach the doctrine of the Trinity. Neither the word trinity itself nor such language as one-in-three, three-in-one, one essence (or substance), and three persons is biblical language. The language of the doctrine is the language of the church taken from classical Greek philosophy. BUT THE CHURCH DID NOT SIMPLY INVENT THIS DOCTRINE. It used the language and concepts available to it to interpret WHAT THE BIBLE ITSELF SAYS ABOUT WHO GOD IS AND HOW GOD IS PRESENT AND AT WORK IN THE WORLD. Although the Scripture does not teach the doctrine itself, it says some things about God THAT MADE THE DOCTRINE NECESSARY. (Pp. 76-77; capital emphasis ours) And:

The doctrine of the Trinity is not found in the Bible. But the Bible does speak of the one God who is present and at work in three ways. What is the meaning of this one and this three? How are the three unified yet distinct in who they are and what they say and do? THESE ARE THE QUESTIONS THAT LED TO THE CHURCHS DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY. It is as important for us modern Christians as it was for ancient Christians to struggle with this doctrine NOT ONLY BECAUSE SCRIPTURE ITSELF LIES BEHIND IT but also because we too have to contend with the charge of Jews and other monotheists who believe that we Christians are polytheists who believe in three Gods. (Pp. 80-81; capital emphasis ours) And this is what this very same author wrote concerning the Deity of the Lord Jesus and his relationship to God the Father: God the Son Who is this one true God? The first Christians could not talk about the God of Israel who was their God too without talking about a man named Jesus. They did not speak of Jesus deity or divinity, nor did they speculate theoretically about his divine nature or essence. They thought about what Jesus did. Here is a man who acts like God, does what ONLY God can do. He speaks with absolute authority that belongs ONLY to Godeven to the extent of calling into question the ethical teachings the people believed to be the will of God made known to Moses. He heals and raises the dead with the life-giving power that belongs ONLY to God. He dares to forgive sin as ONLY God has the right to do. He speaks and acts as if his coming means that the kingdom of God is breaking into the world. He speaks and acts as Judge, Reconciler, Redeemer, Liberator, and Lord over life and death. It is not surprising that religious people of his day accused him of blasphemy: he claimed that in what he said and did God was speaking and acting. During Jesus lifetime, his disciples were confused and uncertain about what all this meant. After his death and resurrection it became clearer to them. They still did not try to explain it, but they now confess that the risen Jesus is Lord and Savior who is far above all rule and authority and power and dominion, and above every name that is named (Eph. 1:21). That is, they now give Jesus the same names, the same authority, the same saving power THAT THEY HAD RESERVED FOR GOD. The New Testament does not solve the problem. But it gives a clue that helped the ancient church in its later struggle to find a solution as it moved toward what became the doctrine of the Trinity. According to the New Testament, we must speak of both unity and a distinction between God and Jesus. (Pp. 78-79; capital and underline emphasis ours) She further states: Unity with God On the one hand, Jesus is Immanuel, God with us (Matt. 1:23). According to John 1, in Jesus the Word that from ALL ETERNITY was God has come to dwell among us in a flesh and blood man. Jesus himself can say The Father and I are one (John 10:30) and Whoever has seen me has seen the Father (John 14:9). According to Colossians 2:9, in him the whole fulness of deity dwells bodily. In Jesus we have to do with God, not just a great and good

man sent from God, or a prophet, or an angel. If we want to know who God is and what God does, we have to look at this man Jesus and what he does. Distinction within God On the other hand neither the eternal Word nor the man Jesus is simply identical with God. John 1:1 says the Word was with God, suggesting that the two can be distinguished from one another. According to Jesus himself, the Son is not the same as the Father; he is sent by the Father, and his sonship is in obedience to do the will of him who sent me and to complete his work (John 4:34). The Son can do nothing on his own, but only what he sees the Father doing (John 5:19). These and other similar passages suggest that if we want to know who God is and what God is like we have to look at Jesus. But we also have to distinguish between the Father who sends and the Son who is sent, between the will of the Father and the Son who does the Fathers will. Could it be that the solution to understanding the problem of confessing one God yet confessing Jesus as God-with-us lies in trying to understand both the unity and the distinction between Father and Son? That is the way the ancient church tackled the problem... (Pp. 7980; capital and underline emphasis ours) And here is what she writes in regards to the Holy Spirit and the Trinity: God the Holy Spirit Just as the first Christians could not talk about the one God who is the God of Israel and their God too without talking about the Word or the Son of God, so they could not talk about their God without talking about the Holy Spirit. The same God who is God over us as God the Father and Creator, and God with and for us as the incarnate Word and Son, is also God in and among us as God the Holy Spirit. But how are we to understand this Spirit? On the one hand, the Spirit is the Spirit of God (1 Cor. 2:11; 6:11; 7:40). On the other hand, the Spirit is the Spirit of the Son (John 14:16; Rom. 8:9; 2 Cor. 3:17). In John 14:15-18 Jesus promises his disciples that he will pray to the Father to send another Advocate ... the Spirit of truth to be with them, but then says I am coming to you. Is the Spirit the Spirit of the Father or the Spirit of the Sonor a third party (the Advocate) besides the Father and the Son? Is what the Holy Spirit wills and says and does the same thing, something additional to, or even perhaps something different from what the Father and the Son will and say and do? That is not only a very important question for all Christians who seek the guidance of the Spirit, but also a very important question for Christians who believe in one God, yet want to talk about God as Father and Son and Holy Spirit. Could it be that the answer lies in thinking about the both the unity and the distinction between the three? That is the way the ancient church thought about it as it worked out the doctrine of the Trinity. Father, Son, and Holy Spirit All the questions raised by the three names of God become all the more pressing when we look at the numerous passages in the New Testament in which the Father (or God), Christ (or the Lord), and the Spirit are mentioned together. Look for instance at the following passages: Matt. 28:19; 2 Cor. 13:13; Eph. 4:4-6; 1 Cor. 12:4. (P. 80; underline emphasis ours)

It is apparent from these quotations that Ibn Anwar has confused the explicit formulation of the doctrine of the Trinity with the Biblical revelation of the Trinity. He erroneously assumes that the Trinity cannot be a Biblical teaching if the Holy Bible doesnt use the precise language which subsequent generations of Christians used to categorize and explain what the inspired Scriptures teach concerning the unity of God and the relationship between the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. In light of his confusing the two issues together it is now time to turn the tables on Ibn Anwar to see whether his Islamic beliefs can stand up to his own criticisms and objections.

Islam and the Doctrine of Tauhid Even though Muslims such as Ibn Anwar have been led to believe that Islam upholds the absolute unity of God (otherwise known as the doctrine of Tauhid) the fact is that neither the word Tauhid nor its precise formulation appears either in the Quran or in the traditions attributed to Muhammad. In fact, Muslim authorities have readily admitted that the word Tauhid and its various subsets were only coined and developed centuries after Muhammads death and were therefore unknown to him and his companions. What makes this all the more ironic is that Tauhid literally means to unite, and therefore presupposes that Allah is actually a plurality of some kind! Tauhiyd comes from the verb wahhad which literally means TO UNITE. In Islamic terminology, it means to realize and maintain the unity of Allh in one's actions (inwardly and outwardly). The actual word tauhiyd does not occur in the Quran or Sunnah though the present tense of the verb (from which tauhiyd is derived) is used in Sunnah. The Prophet sent Muadh ibn Jabal as governor of Yemen in 9 A.H. He told him, "You will going to the people of the book, so first invite yuwahhidu Allh [them to the assertion of the oneness of Allh]".[1] Further, the division of tauhiyd into the components known to us today WERE NOT DONE BY THE PROPHET OR HIS COMPANIONS. It was systematically defined as such in order to convey, as concisely as possible, the simple unitarian belief of Islam. This was necessary because as Islam quickly spread to the four corners of the world, new converts began to interpret the teachings of Islam in line with their own philosophical concepts of Allh and so confusion arose. Preconceived interpretations, all of which are blameworthy, were propagated by those who wanted to destroy Islam from the inside. The first such enemy of Islam was an Iraqi convert from Christianity named Sausan who preached man's absolute free will while denying (qadr) Divine Decree[2]. His student, Ma`bad ibn Khalid alJuhani[3], spread such deviant ideas until he was tried and executed by the Umayyad Caliph. There were three other such executions over the period of 26 years. The later Umayyad Caliphs were relatively more corrupt and cared less about such religious issues. At the same time, the masses were also relatively less educated about their religion. This proved to be a deadly combination. As the number of deviants increased through the liberation of various lands, apostates were no longer executed. Instead, Muslim scholars rose to execute the tide of heretics intellectually. Tauhiyd, precisely defined, EMERGED OUT OF THIS

DEFENSE STRATEGY. Tauhiyd had been divided into the three following categories: tauhiyd ar-rububiyah, tauhiyd al-asma was-sifaat, and tauhiyd al-`ibadah or tauhiyd al`uluuhiyah. Tauhiyd has been likened to a tree, the roots being tauhiyd ar-rububiyah, the trunk being tauhiyd al-asma was-sifaat, and the fruit being tauhiyd al-`ibadah. Each category of tauhiyd will now be discussed in some detail. (The Concept of Tauhiyd in Islam, 7 October 2005; bold and capital emphasis ours) And: TAWHEED: Definition and Categories: Islam believes in Tawheed which is not merely monotheism i.e. belief in one God, but much more. Tawheed LITERALLY MEANS UNIFICATION i.e. asserting oneness and is derived from the Arabic verb Wahhada which means TO UNITE, UNIFY OR CONSOLIDATE. (Concept of God; bold and capital emphasis ours) Isnt it ironic that the very word which Muslims coined to denote absolute monotheism bespeaks of plurality and unification? Instead of pointing to Allahs singularity Tauhid actually points to Allah being a plurality-within-unity, a unified being composed of separate and distinct aspects! Thus, the word Tauhid actually demonstrates that in some sense the Islamic deity is more than one. Suffice it to say not all Muslims are happy with dividing Tauhid into three categories. In fact, some Muslims are rather quite vocal that this is nothing more than an innovation and perversion of Muhammads teaching! Or consider the seventy-three-page "introduction" to volume one of this same translation, a tract that explains the Muslim Trinity: Tawhid al-Rububuyya, Tawhid al-Uluhiyya, and Tawhid al-Asma wa al-Sifatthe (1) Tawhid of Lordship, (2) Tawhid of Godhood, and (3) Tawhid of Names and Attributes. By way of preface to it, Dr. Khan notes that many Western converts enter Islam without knowing what belief in the Oneness of Allah really means. He clarifies that tawhid is not one; namely, to say and believe the shahada of Islam with complete convictionas it was from the time of the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) until the advent of Ibn Taymiya seven centuries lateras new converts might imagine, but must now be three in order to be one, and cannot be one without being three. While such logic may be already familiar to converts from Christianity, Imam Bukhari (d. 256/870) certainly never knew anything of it, and its being printed as an "introduction" to his work seems to me to qualify as "tampering with classical texts"aside from being a re-form of traditional aqida, in which Islam, in the words of the Prophet of Islam (Allah bless him and give him peace), "is to testify that there is no god except Allah, and that Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah " (Sahih Muslim, 1.37: 8). (Nuh Ha Mim Keller, Question 3, Re-Forming Classical Texts: As far as Wahhabi tamperings with classical texts goes, how widespread is this heinous crime? Can you give some serious examples of this?; bold emphasis ours) Another noted Sunni scholar claims:

It is related by al-Harawi from Imam al-Shafi`i, that he said, Imam Malik was asked about kalam (Theological rhetoric) and tawhid, so Malik said: "It is foolishness to think about the Prophet, that he taught this Umma about istinja (cleaning after relieving oneself), but he did not teach them tawhid. And tawhid is what the Prophet said: I was commanded to fight the people until they say: There is no Deity worthy of worship besides Allah." [Quoted in Sahih al-Bukhari and Sahih Muslim] This report is true and its meaning undisputed. It shows that tawhid is One, NOT THREE. Its splitting into three IS ONE OF THE INNOVATIONS OF MISGUIDANCE that created fitna among the Muslims and is reminiscent of the Byzantine disputations. It is strange that some are still confused over this. (Shaykh Gibril Foaud Haddad, "Salafi" Tamperings of Classical Texts The Aqida of the Imams, (2) Tampered Report - Imam Malik And Istawa; bold and capital emphasis ours) And in his criticism of Ibn Taymiyya Haddad writes:
His Invention of a Double or Triple Tawhd

Also among Ibn Taymiyya's kalm innovations was his division of tawhd into two types: tawhd al-rubbiyya and tawhd al-ulhiyya, respectively, Oneness of Lordship and Oneness of Godhead. The first, he said, consisted in the acknowledgment of Allh as the Creator of all, a belief shared by believers and non-believers alike. The second, he said, was the affirmation of Allh as the one true deity and only object of worship, a belief exclusive to believers. His natural conclusion was that "whoever does not know tawhd al-ulhiyya, his knowledge of tawhd al-rubbiyya is not taken into account because the idolaters also had such knowledge." He then compared the scholars of kalm to the Arab idol-worshippers who accepted tawhd al-rubbiyya but ignored tawhd al-ulhiyya! This dialectic was imitated by Ibn Ab al-`Izz in his commentary on al-Tahw's `Aqda. (Ahmad ibn Taymiyya (661-728) A Brief Survey) Despite this candid admission that such terms and concepts were unknown to Muhammad and his followers we are going to insist that Ibn Anwar be consistent and quote Quranic references where all of these doctrines are mentioned by name explicitly; otherwise we are going to have to assume that the Muslim scripture doesnt endorse such theological distortions (actually it doesnt since it teaches that there is more than one god!). So we need to ask Ibn Anwar the following questions. Who invented this innovation of Tauhid? Who is actually responsible for adopting this word and breaking it down into three distinct categories? And which specific prophet of the true God ever used this word or referred to its three distinct classifications? The answer? NONE! NOT EVEN THE FALSE PROPHET MUHAMMAD TAUGHT TAUHID OR CLASSIFIED IT INTO THREE SEPARATE WAYS! This doctrine was developed by men who are regarded by Salafi Muslims as authorities and scholars at the expense of other concepts that existed at that time that are now deemed heretical, i.e. the views of the Kharijites, Mutazilites, Asharites, Maturidites, Jahmiyyites, Qadarites, Murjiites etc. One cannot help but compromise strict adherence to the so called idea of the perspicuity

of the Quran and the supposed all-comprehensive nature of Muhammads sunna in order to arrive at Tauhid. For if you only went by these sources without the assistance of a particular school of Muslim theology twisting the Islamic sources you will miss Tauhid and may come up with other strange doctrines concerning God. Thus, Tauhid and its threefold classification depends on the traditions of men which is rather ironic since Salafi Muslims who oppose other branches of Sunni Islam as well as Islamic sects such as Shia Muslims because of their dependence on the traditions of men as opposed to deriving their beliefs from the Salaf. And yet the Salafi belief in Tauhid and its three subsets, which are supposed to be the core essential doctrine of Islam, turn out to be nothing more than the traditions and innovations of men! Related Articles If anyone is interested in seeing the clear evidence which shows that Islam does not teach absolute monotheism we recommend going to the following links: And looking under all of these sections: Theological Issues Quranic Issues Analysis of Muhammad Responses to Muslim authors Make sure to also look through our replies to various Muslim authors and polemicists which can be found here. Endnotes (1) It seems that Ibn Anwar may have lifted these quotes from the following Muslim polemicist, who in turn may have borrowed them from this other Muslim apologist. This perhaps also explains why I couldnt find Ibn Anwars quote from the New Catholic Encyclopedia (NCE) since I checked the 2003 edition. Al-Kadhi published his book in 1995 and could have only referenced the first edition of the NCE, from 1967, which is what he clearly says he did: In The New Catholic Encyclopedia (with all its seals of approval), 1967, p.295, we get a glimpse of how the concept of the trinity was not introduced into Christianity until close to four hundred years after Jesus (pbuh): .......It is difficult in the second half of the 20th century to offer a clear, objective and straightforward account of the revelation, doctrinal evolution, and theological elaboration of the Mystery of the trinity. Trinitarian discussion, Roman Catholic as well as other, present a somewhat unsteady silhouette. Two things have happened. There is the recognition on the part of exegetes and Biblical theologians, including a constantly growing number of Roman Catholics, that one should not speak of

Trinitarianism in the New Testament without serious qualification. There is also the closely parallel recognition on the part of historians of dogma and systematic theologians that when one does speak of an unqualified Trinitarianism, one has moved from the period of Christian origins to, say, the last quadrant of the 4th century. It was only then that what might be called the definitive Trinitarian assimilated into Christian life and thought (emphasis added). Jesus (pbuh), John, Matthew, Luke, Mark, all of the apostles, and even Paul, were completely unaware of any trinity. (What Did Jesus Really Say?, 1.2.5: Historical origin of the trinity myth, p. 64) Although al-Kadhi gives us the date and page number he fails to mention the volume where this quote can be found! Unfortunately, such shoddy research and careless scholarship are characteristic of Islamic apologists. As far as this statement goes, assuming that this is an accurate quote there is little to disagree with since it is true that one can find so-called Christian scholars, theologians, historians etc., who would deny that the Christian Greek Scriptures lay the foundation for the doctrine of the Trinity. However, this is simply the logical fallacy of appealing to authority since not all scholars agree. Besides, citing the opinions of so-called scholars is one thing; providing evidence that these scholars assertions are correct is another thing altogether. The inspired Scriptures emphatically and unambiguously affirm the following: 1. There is only one eternal God. 2. There are three Divine Persons: the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. 3. These three Divine Persons are coeternal and coequal in essence. These three revealed truths are the very foundation upon which the doctrine of the Holy Trinity is based. Therefore, one has to first adequately deal with and address the overwhelming and massive amount of Biblical data supporting the Trinity before running to scholars for help.

Answering Islam, 1999 - 2010. All rights reserved.