Why Muslims Don't Believe in Concept of Trinity

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Similarly, the Bible today deviates from the original manuscripts, and as such, it is not 100% reliable. Sad thing is thats its your holy book and yet its not 100% the word of God now. But the good thing is, original manuscripts are available for those who wish to follow the original Christianity.

Thank goodness it's not 100% the word of God!!!

I'm not stuck with defending God's 100% word in the Quran, about men beating their wives, or invisible pillars holding up the sky.

Are you trying to shift and change the subject? We are discussing Trinity.

Actually, that's not at all what you're trying to do. You've posted some information on why Muslims don't believe in trinity. That's good and well, no one argued that they do, or that they should. That Muslims don't believe in trinity is not a matter of discussion or disagreement. You could have just posted "Muslims don't believe in trinity" and left it at that.

But that's not what you're doing. You are arguing that "Muslims don't believe in trinity and you shouldn't either, because trinity is a manmade concept, and you should believe in Islam instead - just like that really really smart guy I referenced."

This discussion is not about trinity. It's about your cause that no one should believe in it.

First of all, I'm giving you a fat dose of your own medicine. How many days and how many pages did you and your islamophobe posse devote to presenting Islam as a barbaric religion? Now you object to me exposing a few critical facts about your faith.

Most importantly, though, look at the bigger picture. Muslims are in fact very much like Christians in faith IF Christians rely on the original manuscripts for their belief system. It was a beautiful belief system, very similar to ours.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Not hating at all. Please keep arguing. We were talking about trinity. You made reference to men beating wives referred to in the Quran. That belongs in another thread, not here. It's a new and different subject. This thread is about trinity.

You are new at DCUM and it is my sacred duty to let you know that 99.99% of attempts to police the matter of "what this thread should be about" fail miserably.

Threads drift. It's a fact of DCUM life. Accept it.

[Anonymous]

I'm not the PP you're responding to. But it seems pretty clear that several groups thought they had "correct" versions of the Quran. You beg the question, why would any group use a version they knew to be incorrect. One guy made a decision. OK.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
First of all, I'm giving you a fat dose of your own medicine. How many days and how many pages did you and your islamophobe posse devote to presenting Islam as a barbaric religion? Now you object to me exposing a few critical facts about your faith.

Most importantly, though, look at the bigger picture. Muslims are in fact very much like Christians in faith IF Christians rely on the original manuscripts for their belief system. It was a beautiful belief system, very similar to ours.

I don't have a faith. (But I forgot, you use "Christiancrusaderislamophobeevangelical" as your insult of choice, even when you don't know anything about the person you're arguing with). Islam and Christianity are both a bunch of nonsense to me.

Most importantly, don't pretend that this thread is about "Muslims don't believe in trinity."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I'm not the PP you're responding to. But it seems pretty clear that several groups thought they had "correct" versions of the Quran. You beg the question, why would any group use a version they knew to be incorrect. One guy made a decision. OK.

+100

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I'm not the PP you're responding to. But it seems pretty clear that several groups thought they had "correct" versions of the Quran. You beg the question, why would any group use a version they knew to be incorrect. One guy made a decision. OK.

Not one guy. The guy who was president at the time. Nothing to see here.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Similarly, the Bible today deviates from the original manuscripts, and as such, it is not 100% reliable. Sad thing is thats its your holy book and yet its not 100% the word of God now. But the good thing is, original manuscripts are available for those who wish to follow the original Christianity.

Thank goodness it's not 100% the word of God!!!

I'm not stuck with defending God's 100% word in the Quran, about men beating their wives, or invisible pillars holding up the sky.

Are you trying to shift and change the subject? We are discussing Trinity.

You changed the topic. You said the Bible not being 100% God's word is "sad," which is a change if topic. I explained why I don't think it's "sad" in the least, using some examples from a scripture, the Quran, that does claim to be 100% God's word. What's "sad" is how you hate when people argue back at you.

Not hating at all. Please keep arguing. We were talking about trinity. You made reference to men beating wives referred to in the Quran. That belongs in another thread, not here. It's a new and different subject. This thread is about trinity.

So you say I can argue, but you say I'm not allowed to use examples for my arguments? That makes no sense.

Who elected you thread dictator? You start a thread about how Muslims don't believe in the Trinity, then you switch the topic to how the only valid scriptures are ones that claim to be 100% God's word, I.e., your scripture as spoken by God in Arabic 1300 years ago. Now you're back telling people they are changing the subject if they respond to your change of subject? That's nuts.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Not hating at all. Please keep arguing. We were talking about trinity. You made reference to men beating wives referred to in the Quran. That belongs in another thread, not here. It's a new and different subject. This thread is about trinity.

You are new at DCUM and it is my sacred duty to let you know that 99.99% of attempts to police the matter of "what this thread should be about" fail miserably.

Threads drift. It's a fact of DCUM life. Accept it.

Then go for it. You'll be talking to your own posse then.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

No, no, no. You are not understanding. Cant blame you. You are not Muslim. You do not know how to read the Quran in Arabic.

Neither do most Muslims, seeing as Arabic is spoken by the minority of Muslims.

Even if you read and speak Arabic, its not enough. The Quran has to be studied. ISIS followers may know how to read Arabic but misinterpret the Quran or are too influenced by other factors.

That's not what you said. You said - "you're not Muslim and do not know how to read the Quran in Arabic."

It is entirely logical for me to point out then, that 1) most Muslims don't read Arabic either, and 2) one doesn't have to be Muslim to read Arabic. And since the world is full of scholars of Islam whoa ren't Muslim, clearly, enough non-Muslims who read Arabic have studied the Quran. Scholarship of the Quran is in no way limited to Muslims.

Was there an "OR" between the criteria or an "AND"?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Not hating at all. Please keep arguing. We were talking about trinity. You made reference to men beating wives referred to in the Quran. That belongs in another thread, not here. It's a new and different subject. This thread is about trinity.

You are new at DCUM and it is my sacred duty to let you know that 99.99% of attempts to police the matter of "what this thread should be about" fail miserably.

Threads drift. It's a fact of DCUM life. Accept it.

Then go for it. You'll be talking to your own posse then.

Don't pretend this thread is about "why Muslims don't believe in trinity."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I get that while discussing the subject of trinity (& divinity), I explained the Bible has been significantly altered and now contains "add ons." Now you wish to try to show the Quran is also unreliable and provide this hadith as proof of its unreliability. But this has already been answered here:
http://www.muslimdebate.org/polemics/71-why-did-uthman-burn-all-quranic-manuscripts

Muslims believe the Quran is 100% the word of God. To ensure that it was never altered or changed from the language it was revealed in, hundreds of thousands of people have been memorizing it in it's Arabic language. Muslims who can't even speak Arabic have memorized the Quran in it's Arabic form! In fact, I have several cousins who have memorized the entire Quran in Arabic even though they don't speak Arabic!

Here's an explanation of that hadith:

"What happened was that Muslims were having differences in how they recited the Quran, in this case, it was the people of Sham (Syria), and the people of Iraq. In fact, even today, if one were to listen to the Arabic dialect of a Syrian, and that of an Iraqi, one would notice differences between the two.

So one of the companions noticed this and became worried by it, specifically in regards to their differences in recitation concerning the Quran, and how one side would regard their recitation as superior to the other. So he went to Uthman and informed him of what he had seen, and had asked Uthman to do something about the issue, lest Muslims fall into the same disputes the Jews and Christians did with their own book.

Uthman came up with a very good idea, to get rid of such differences, he would issue an official standardized Quran to be used and distributed to all Muslims. The official standardized Quran that Uthman gathered, were from the original Quranic manuscripts itself. During the lifetime of Abu Bakr, the first Caliph of Islam, he commissioned for the entire Quran to be collected and made into an official manuscript.."

The bold face part is critical. It says the official standardized Quran that Uthman gathered WERE FROM ORIGINAL QURANIC MANUSCRIPTS. So they were not altered, not added to, nothing was removed from it. IT WAS FROM THE ORIGINAL.

So you see, the Quran has never been altered.

I get that you believe that, and that this is the Muslim position. Some people may interpret the events differently. That's why I posted two positions on the subject.

Just as an aside, just because something hasn't been altered (if that's indeed in the case), it doesn't mean it's necessarily true.

Alterations means something was rejected. What was rejected? The oneness of God concept was rejected. And what and who replaced it? Man replaced it with an opposite and contradictory concept. If man replaces Jesus' original word, how can it greater truth and validity?

Bottom line is true Christianity is very similar to true Islam. Islam has been misinterpreted by those who commit evil on earth and the Bible has been altered too. But fundamentally if we look at both in pure forms, they preach the same message.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Alterations means something was rejected. What was rejected? The oneness of God concept was rejected. And what and who replaced it? Man replaced it with an opposite and contradictory concept. If man replaces Jesus' original word, how can it greater truth and validity?

Bottom line is true Christianity is very similar to true Islam. Islam has been misinterpreted by those who commit evil on earth and the Bible has been altered too. But fundamentally if we look at both in pure forms, they preach the same message.

"Bible was corrupted and altered and is invalid. Only Quran is 100% authentic and valid" has long been a staple of Muslim rhetoric. Yawn. You have to have read the dawwah sites for years to see just how incredibly common it is. Like scrunchies.

[Anonymous]

As an aside, I think it's majorly arrogant of Muslims to presume to tell Christians what true Christianity is. Yet it is a mainstay of Muslim discourse that they know Christianity and Jesus better than Christians.

[Anonymous]

The other funny thing is that when Muslims argue that both the Bible and Torah have been altered and corrupted, while the Quran and the Quran alone remains starkly pure and authentic, the standard argument against Christianity is that it ascribes partners to God. This particular argument is used at great length in all dawwah literature.

But the Muslim discontent with Judaism has never really been articulated, and other than the fact that Jews turned Muhammad down, Muslims can't really explain what they have against the Jewish scriptures. The dawwah brigade knows they can't use the Quranic whoopsie that "Jews say Ezrah is a son of God" because they know they'd be laughed out of the room. So it's usually just something vague and muddled about how Jews have corrupted and contorted the holy book or something to that effect.

I just always found this hysterically funny.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Alterations means something was rejected. What was rejected? The oneness of God concept was rejected. And what and who replaced it? Man replaced it with an opposite and contradictory concept. If man replaces Jesus' original word, how can it greater truth and validity?

Bottom line is true Christianity is very similar to true Islam. Islam has been misinterpreted by those who commit evil on earth and the Bible has been altered too. But fundamentally if we look at both in pure forms, they preach the same message.

There's nothing to say that man hasn't put both books together in the first place.