The Sharing Group Discussion on Allah’s (s.w.t.) Forgiveness without the Vicarious Sacrifice

بِسۡمِ ٱللهِ ٱلرَّحۡمَـٰنِ ٱلرَّحِيمِ

I posted this, on The Sharing Group, on the 16^th October 2016: How is it possible for Allah (s.w.t.) to Forgive sins without a human-deity sacrifice, but the Christian God cannot forgive sins without it? 

Brother Colin Turner: This is one of the most difficult sticking points when Muslims and Christians discuss salvation. Thanks for this. 

Brother Terence Kenneth John Nunis: I concur that it is the most difficult.. I believe the reasons stem from their different understanding of Salvation.  Often, different groups use the same words and assume that they all mean the same thing. 

Brother Alen Deomic: If you really believe that Jesus (a.s.) took your sins on the cross, then there is no need to repent for your sins anymore, right? 

Brother Terence Kenneth John Nunis: Actually, that is a misconception.  As I have explained, theologically, there are two aspects of Salvation from a Christian perspective.  The Vicarious Sacrifice is Salvation from Original Sin; not a blanket salvation from all action.  If that were the case, then it would preclude the need for confession and forgiveness. 

Brother Glenn Meyer: Is it common understanding amongst Muslims that the Qur’an is the Eternal, Uncreated, Incorruptible Word of Allah? 

Brother Terence Kenneth John Nunis: It is for Sunnis, Ibadhis, and Zaydi Shi’ah.  It is not for Twelver Shi’ah, for example. 

Brother Glenn Meyer: Muslims also believe that there is an eternal Qur’an in Heaven that is engraved on a tablet, right? 

Brother Terence Kenneth John Nunis: That is the Lawh Mahfuzh.  The Lawh Mahfuzh is the record of Divine Decree.  In it is Inscribed that that has happened and will happen in exacting detail.  It is not the Qur’an. 

Brother Glenn Meyer: The Qur’an, by itself, has two natures: the eternal nature and the physical form that was sent down to earth, which is the one Muslims read today.  The Qur’an being sent down to earth does not make it any less eternal; however, it has its limitations, such as the physical Qur’an which is neither damage-proof nor fireproof.  It is made of paper, glue and ink, it had a publishing date, and it was created.  If it gets damaged through fire, it can be destroyed, and we have seen idiots doing that, however that does not take away the eternal nature of the Qur’an, or discounts its eternal nature. 

In the same way, Jesus has two natures: both God and human.  Like the Qur’an, he possesses physical limitations.  Him dying on the cross does not mean that God died.  His physical nature was destroyed, but his eternal nature never died.  It is a similar theology both Christians and Muslims share, where something eternal has two natures. 

Brother Terence Kenneth John Nunis: That is not the same.  The Qur’an is viewed as Divine Speech.  What we have is not the Qur’an Itself, and we do not consider it so.  It is a muswhaf, a manifestation of it, a mere shadow of the real.  As such, there is no dual nature in it. 

In the same way, Islam absolutely rejects any concept of duality in the Godhead.  Jesus (a.s.) cannot be God because he is finite, Created, and limited by space and time. 

Brother Glenn Meyer: If I was being consistent with that reasoning, then it would be fair to say that Qur’an cannot be eternal, uncreated, or timeless because it is limited by space and time too.  For instance the physical version of the Qur’an that Muslims read from today was created as it was made in a factory from paper, glue and ink; it is not indestructible, as it can be destroyed by other means such as fire, which also means that it has an end, characteristics that go against the notion of the Qur’an being eternal and uncreated.  But you know that it is still eternal and uncreated, no matter what happens to the physical version on earth. 

Muslims do not refer to the physical version that they read from Book as the muswhaf; instead, they call it the Qur’an. 

Brother Terence Kenneth John Nunis: When we say “Qur’an”, we refer to the Eternal Speech.  Whilst we may refer to the book as the Qur’an in everyday speech, it does not necessarily mean the Eternal Speech, merely the manifestation of it as writing in a book, a muswhaf.  That muswhaf, that writing, that sound that emits upon recitation, is Created.  But it is not the Qur’an in its reality. 

But Jesus (a.s.) was a man.  He is a Creation, born of a Creation and sustained by food and drink, things created.  He defecated and urinated as a person would.  A man cannot be God.  He is divine by virtue of his possession of Divine Attributes as the recipient of Revelation, but He is not Divine, Uncreated, Omnipotent, and Omniscient. 

Remember this passage, brother? 

Luke 22:41-45

⁴¹ Then he parted from them, going a stone’s throw off, and knelt down to pray; ⁴² “Father,” he said, “if it Pleases thee, Take Away this chalice from before me; only as Thy Will is, not as mine is.”  ⁴³ And he had sight of an angel from Heaven, encouraging him.  And now he was in an agony, and prayed still more earnestly; ⁴⁴ his sweat fell to the ground like thick drops of blood.  ⁴⁵ When he rose from his prayer, he went back to his disciples, and found that they were sleeping, overwrought with sorrow. 

⁴¹ καὶ αὐτὸς ἀπεσπάσθη ἀπ' αὐτῶν ὡσεὶ λίθου βολήν, καὶ θεὶς τὰ γόνατα προσηύχετο ⁴² λέγων: πάτερ, εἰ βούλει παρένεγκε τοῦτο τὸ ποτήριον ἀπ' ἐμοῦ: πλὴν μὴ τὸ θέλημά μου ἀλλὰ τὸ σὸν γινέσθω.  ⁴³ ὤφθη δὲ αὐτῷ ἄγγελος ἀπ' οὐρανοῦ ἐνισχύων αὐτόν.  ₄₄ καὶ γενόμενος ἐν ἀγωνίᾳ ἐκτενέστερον προσηύχετο: καὶ ἐγένετο ὁ ἱδρὼς αὐτοῦ ὡσεὶ θρόμβοι αἵματος καταβαίνοντες ἐπὶ τὴν γῆν.  ₄₅ καὶ ἀναστὰς ἀπὸ τῆς προσευχῆς ἐλθὼν πρὸς τοὺς μαθητὰς εὗρεν κοιμωμένους αὐτοὺς ἀπὸ τῆς λύπης, 

⁴¹ Et ipse avulsus est ab eis quantum jactus est lapidis: et positis genibus orabat, ⁴² dicens: Pater, si vis, transfer calicem istum a me: verumtamen non mea voluntas, sed tua fiat.  ⁴³ Apparuit autem illi angelus de cælo, confortans eum. Et factus in agonia, prolixius orabat.  ⁴⁴ Et factus est sudor ejus sicut guttæ sanguinis decurrentis in terram.  ⁴⁵ Et cum surrexisset ab oratione et venisset ad discipulos suos, invenit eos dormientes præ tristitia.

 

Jesus (a.s.) was praying to God. He spoke of God’s Will, as opposed to his will.  He spoke of God’s Decree and his fear.  This is not the Second Person in a Triune Godhead.  This is a man afraid, and in need of comfort. 

Brother Glenn Meyer: I get your point.  What I am saying if the Qur’an can manifest itself in a book, then there is no reason why God cannot be manifested in a human being.  The reason why I gave those examples is to show you that the physical version of the Qur’an will have earthly limitations once it is on earth, same way Jesus will have earthly limitations such as those that you mentioned.  The Qur’an is not any less eternal by its physical limitations on Earth, same way Jesus is not any less eternal by having any physical limitations on earth. 

With regard to Jesus praying, that was because of his human nature we were discussing previously.  If Jesus praying to God, does not make him divine, then to be consistent you have to ask yourself who is Allah  praying to in Surah 33:56: 

سُوۡرَةُ الاٴحزَاب

إِنَّ ٱللَّهَ وَمَلَـٰٓٮِٕڪَتَهُ ۥ يُصَلُّونَ عَلَى ٱلنَّبِىِّۚ يَـٰٓأَيُّہَا ٱلَّذِينَ ءَامَنُواْ صَلُّواْ عَلَيۡهِ وَسَلِّمُواْ تَسۡلِيمًا (٥٦) 

Verily, Allah and His angels pray for the prophet.  O you who believe!  Pray for him and salute him with a salutation! (Surah al-Ahzab:56) 

If Allah is praying, who is receiving it?  Why does Allah need to pray?  Also, Jesus calls God his Father over here, according to Islam God is a Father to no one, but Jesus is addressing him here as Father.  I am sure you are familiar that Christians believe that Jesus existed before eternity, and the Bible talks about it in various places where is uncreated, and he has the ability to answer prayer. 

I am familiar with that passage in Luke 22.  However, in that same chapter that you mentioned, Jesus says at the end that he will be seated at the right hand of the Father.  The action of seating is significant because no one during the second temple, not even Moses or Elijah, were seated next to God, they were all depicted as standing.  The significance of being seated next to God, means being co-heir of the universe, sharing that same power ruling Heaven and the Earth.  These are things that need to be thought about while applying consistent criteria to both faiths.

 

Brother Terence Kenneth John Nunis: The translation of the ayat is wrong.. The word used is “swalawat”. Prayer would be “du’a”. Allah (s.w.t.) does not “pray” to the Prophet (s.a.w.); He Sends him Salutations, Blessings.  There is a difference. 

I considered this human nature when I was a Catholic, and that is why I left.  This idea would make God schizophrenic.  God is Infinite, and the Infinite cannot be put in the Finite, making Jesus (a.s.) one part perfect God and perfect man as Athanasius of Alexandra claimed.  And that is why Arius opposed it.  It is illogical.  What sort of god, if we consider, has one part not knowing what the other part wills or thinks? 

Also, Jesus (a.s.) never addressed God as “Father”.  This is another translation issue.  The word used was likely “Robba”, in Aramaic, a cognate of the Arabic, “Rabbi”.  This was likely translated into the Latin “Pater” which has a similar meaning.  But “Robba” means “Sustainer” or “Nourisher”, and is mu’annas, feminine.  “Pater” has that as well, but is considered masculine.  From “Pater”, we get the English words “father”, and “paternal”.  So, God is not the “Father”, a progenitor, as English speakers assume. God is the Cherisher, the Nourisher, and Sustainer. 

Brother Glenn Meyer: I wanted to clarify that I did not say Allah is praying to Muhammad, but praying for Muhammad instead.  But the point here is that Allah is praying.

I believe the word used over here, in Surah 33:56 is “yusalloona”, not “salawat”.  It says that in the Qur’an, and I have confirmed this with my Arabic-speaking friends.  Verily, God and His angels pray (yusalloona) for the prophet.  “Yusalloona” means, “pray, or they pray”. Even if the word was “salawat” in Surah 33:56 which it is not, “salawat” could mean prayer and worship, such as “salawat”, “salla”, “salawatun”.  If Allah is giving his blessings, there is a word for that, which is “baraka”.  There are words which distinguish between Allah’s prayer (salah) and His Blessing (baraka). 

سُوۡرَةُ هُود

قَالُوٓاْ أَتَعۡجَبِينَ مِنۡ أَمۡرِ ٱللَّهِ‌ۖ رَحۡمَتُ ٱللَّهِ وَبَرَكَـٰتُهُ ۥ عَلَيۡكُمۡ أَهۡلَ ٱلۡبَيۡتِ‌ۚ إِنَّهُ ۥ حَمِيدٌ۬ مَّجِيدٌ۬ (٧٣) 

They said, “Are you amazed at the Decree of Allah?  May the Mercy of Allah and His blessings (wabarakatuhu) be upon you, people of the house.  Indeed, He is Praiseworthy and Honourable.” (Surah Hud:73) 

سُوۡرَةُ الاٴعرَاف

وَلَوۡ أَنَّ أَهۡلَ ٱلۡقُرَىٰٓ ءَامَنُواْ وَٱتَّقَوۡاْ لَفَتَحۡنَا عَلَيۡہِم بَرَكَـٰتٍ۬ مِّنَ ٱلسَّمَآءِ وَٱلۡأَرۡضِ وَلَـٰكِن كَذَّبُواْ فَأَخَذۡنَـٰهُم بِمَا ڪَانُواْ يَكۡسِبُونَ (٩٦) 

And if only the people of the cities had believed and feared Allah, We would have Opened upon them blessings (barakatinmina) from the Heavens and the Earth. (Surah al-A’araf:96) 

Hence, the word in Surah 33:56, “yusalloona”, which means pray “Verily, Allah and His angels pray (yusalloona) for the prophet” shows Allah is praying; and the question stands, who is Allah praying to? 

With regards to the word “Pater”.  “Pater” is a root signifying “a nourisher, protector, upholder”.  With your example that Jesus never addressed God as “Father” in the gospels and that “Pater” which was the word used that has a similar meaning to “Robba/Rabbi”, we will encounter a few problems. 

Knowing that the New Testament was written in Greek, the word, “Pater” (πατήρ) was used throughout, 418 times to be specific.  To be consistent we need to say that wherever the word Pater is used, it is referring to “Cherisher, the Nourisher, and Sustainer” 

King Herod is the “Cherisher, the Nourisher and Sustainer” in Matthew 2:22. 

Abraham is the “Cherisher, the Nourisher and Sustainer” in Matthew 3:9 

All the fathers on earth are “Cherisher, the Nourisher and Sustainer” in 1 John 2 

Members of the Sanhedrin are ““Cherisher, the Nourisher and Sustainer” in Act 22:1 

They are all different people and referred to at different times, but the common thing they have is that they are all Fathers. 

Jesus also uses Pater in the same sentence in John 8:38 when he calls God the Father (Patri) with earthly fathers (Patros) indicating he is indeed meaning Father. 

Brother Terence Kenneth John Nunis: Your “Arabic-speaking” friends are mistaken.  What Arabic do they speak?  Fuswha’, or lahja?  Being able to speak one of the 20 or so major dialects of Arabic does not make one necessarily qualified to interpret the Arabic of the Qur’an.  Also, there are rules in tafsir, exegesis. 

The root words for “swalat”, “swalah”, or in this version, “yuswalun” are the same.  Depending on the context, it can mean many things, including referring to the ritual prayer.  In this context, it is clear that it is talking about the swalawat.  This is the verse we use as a dalil for the recitation of any form of swalawat since it is proof that the recitation of swalawat is a Sunnah of Allah (s.w.t.). 

It is also clear in this verse that God neither prays to nor for the Prophet (s.a.w.).  There are a multitude of verses that state, “kun fa yakun”, “Be, and it is”. God Wills it, and it Happens.  There is no need for this prayer.  That is a Christian concept borne out of the need to reconcile the incoherence of one part of the Triune Godhead praying to another. 

Regarding the Latin “Pater”, it is correct that they are all translated as “fathers”, just as when we examine the Old Testament, “Satan” refers to a multitude of entities and people, for example.  Or that, “Jesus” is, in reality, a deliberate mistranslation of “Joshua” so that people do not mix them up.  Or that “masciach”, or “messiah”, the “anointed” has been used in various biblical texts to refer to different people or groups of people.  So, Cyrus the Great was “anointed”, the priests of the Holy of Holies were “anointed”, and various Near Eastern kings were “anointed”.  This is the nature of context. 

What you have obviously done is made a search using keywords, and taken literal translations, disregarding the context of the passage, both in the Bible, and the Qur’an, ignoring literal devices, ignoring morphology.  I would even hazard a guess that your “Arabic-speaking” friend is “Google Translate”.