Dk vs Muslim4Life (Round II)

This is the second exchange (here is part I) I had with my friend Muslim4Life. Or was it him? I noticed the unique typing style of Muslim4Life had changed, hence I thought he was copying and pasting. But then I realized he had brought a friend in for back up, since this wasn't just longer sentences (what appears to be copying and pasting) but all the shorter responses aswell. In addition M4L has never typed, argued or reasoned like this before. While his friend's responses were slightly more robust and sophisticated, the friend ultimately could not defend an apophatic theology very well. Note Christianity does not necessarily reject this sort of theology (other than if someone implies an exclusion of the Godhead), but many western Christians think this form of theology is untenable, and I present just a tiny few objections to this kind of "divine unity".

M4L's Friend Debates Me

muslim4life: take tht away from me i didnt mean like a pen table
muslim4life: or apple
muslim4life:  an apple is 1 but it is built up of parts whole Allah is 1 and not built up of parts also an apple is potentially more than one while we say there can't be more than one Allah. As for how He is one this question cannot be answered since we understand how things are through other things and since there's nothing like Allah we can't know how Allah is one but we can know how Allah isn't. Now it should be noted there's a difference between knowing a thing and knowing how a thing is, one can know something works but that doesn't mean one knows how it works.
Dk-man7: If we can't know how his oneness exists, then we can not make definitive positions about what it "is" and what it is "not". That leaves you with agnosticism on things like Trintiarianism, Modalism, etc.
Dk-man7: Because these are merely concepts of "how" God is one
muslim4life: no because
muslim4life: Thats a fallacy, as not knowing how a thing is doesn't negate knowledge about how that thing isn't, one might not know how planes fly but that doesn't mean he can't say with absolute certainty that the plane can't fly
muslim4life: destroyed
muslim4life: come to tawheed reject the trinity
Dk-man7: let me correct all your errors. Firstly in your analogy, we know that the plane flys but we don't know how. That would be saying we know Allah is one but we don't know how. So how is that analogy mean't to show that "not knowing a thing doesn't negatte knowledge about HOW THAT THING IS NOT". Obviously your analogy fails because no one is negating a plane can fly.
Dk-man7: But lets test the fundamental assumption in and of itself
Dk-man7: Forget the analogy since it's flawed
Dk-man7: Lets look at the propposition: "as not knowing how a thing is doesn't negate knowledge about how that thing isn't"
Dk-man7: If I know that a plane has wings and can fly, then as per your statement, I know that it cannot not have wings and not fly. But other than that I cannot know.
Dk-man7: That would actually be a proper analogy
Dk-man7: And to put it in theological terms.
Dk-man7: If I know that God is one, then the only thing I can know is that he is not, not one.
Dk-man7: That still leaves me agnosticism on "how" he is one.
muslim4life: we know these body builders are strong who can life lets say 800 kg we dont know how  tht doesnt negate the knowledge tht he is not strong ?
muslim4life: who can LIFT
muslim4life: we know God is 1 but dont know how tht doesnt negate he is 1
Dk-man7: How does that address my point? You have to be agnostic on models that explain 'how' God is one.
Dk-man7: You cannot definitively say one model is valid and another is not
Dk-man7: Which means you cannot reject the Trinity for assurity
muslim4life: How does that address my point? You have to be agnostic on models that explain 'how' God is one.
We've not spoken about how God is one we've spoken about how God isn't one there's a difference
Dk-man7: How do you know in what sense God isn't one, if you don't know "how" his oneness exists?
Dk-man7: I just pointed out your analogies don't show this, since they only show we can know something is one, without knowing how it is one.
Dk-man7: They don't show that we can reject models of the man's strength, or ability to weight lift etc
Dk-man7: If I know that a plane has wings and can fly, then as per your statement, I know that the plane cannot not have wings and not fly, as that is the nature of the plane by definition. But other knowing what it is and cannot be by definiition, I don't know how it flys, it's operations or mechanics..
muslim4life: If Allah is one it is necessary that there be nothing like Him for had there been something like Him He would no longer be one. So from this we learn that in reality there is nothing that is one except Allah, for every created thing has something similar to it and therefore isn't really one except metaphorically. And in this is a refutation to those who say god is 3 but one for had god had 3 parts than there would be 3 sharing one essence (so they're similar) leading to multiplicity which is the opposite to oneness  it would be like saying " Allah Has both no begining and has a begining "
Dk-man7: Ah but now you are explaining "how" Allah is one. Contradiction. You are saying he is one without multiplicity. That is a "how" statement.
Dk-man7: Further more if Allah is one without multiplicity, then he literally the 1, Allah is an abstract number, since he cannot be composed of parts that make him a person possessing multiple traits and characteristics.
Dk-man7: Now if Allah does not possess either multiple relations, properties or attributes since he is just an abstract number, then your God is not a creator, and not worthy of worship.
muslim4life: When have we said how Allah is one saying Allah being one means that he doesn't resemble creation is a negation of how he isn't one for being not like the creation is a negation of being like the creation
muslim4life: Firstly numbers are abstract representations of reality. Secondly you have wrongly assumed that God must be like the creation in order to be the creator, while we affirm what we know is necessary for God in order that He is god such as being one without trying to imagine Him
muslim4life: In reality your god is a projection of your imagination and not one of reality
muslim4life: uv made Allah like the creation and u refuse to accept tht Allah isnt like the creation thts because of your arroganc lol
Dk-man7: Hang on I'll correct all your errors, patience.
Dk-man7: Firstly if Allah's oneness is negation of "creations oneness" then you have implictly affirmed the Trinity. Because there is no being in creation that exists as three persons in one being, that is purely unique the the creator, which means this is a potentical model for "how" God's oneness exists. Secondly and more importantly, if Allah's oneness has it's own definition then define it. And after that explain "how" you don't know what his oneness is.
Dk-man7: As for your next claims. yes "one" is an abstract number, I just said that. Secondly I didn't say God "must" be like creation in order to be the creator, I said that if God does not have a multiplicity of relations, properties and attributes, then God is merely an abstract number (this goes "beyond" creation, even Plato made such observations about eternity).
Dk-man7: But obviously because you don't know what God's oneness is, you keep changing the definition. Now is God's oneness unknown to us, or as you said is it oneness without multiplicity, or is it oneness that cannot be created oneness. or is it a numerical oneness?
Dk-man7: And finally, if Allah's oneness is unlike the creation in any sense (meaning it does not have distinctions, properties etc), then how is God able to the creator of an indifferent substance to himself (namely the creation) if he is absolutely and purely without distinction? In fact distinction would be a logical impossibility under this view of Allah's oneness.
muslim4life: Firstly if Allah's oneness is negation of "creations oneness" then you have implictly affirmed the Trinity. Because there is no being in creation that exists as three persons in one being, that is purely unique the the creator, which means this is a potentical model for "how" God's oneness exists. Secondly and more importantly, if Allah's oneness has it's own definition then define it. And after that explain "how" you don't know what his oneness is.
I think obviously haven't looked at an atom that is one yet consists of 3 distinct parts, just like your god is one yet consists of 3 distinct parts. As for His oneness we've already clearly articulated our position on it so reread what we've said if you are indeed sincere in your search for truth.
Dk-man7: Ah but that analogy won't suffice, as an atom is made up of eletrons, protons and neutrons which are all forces, and they do not fully exhaust the category of the atom.
Dk-man7: Where as the Trinity is not a "force" and each person fully exhausts what God is.
Dk-man7: I already responded to your relentless contradictory definitions of your god's oneness, read the above.
muslim4life:  As for your next claims. yes "one" is an abstract number, I just said that. Secondly I didn't say God "must" be like creation in order to be the creator, I said that if God does not have a multiplicity of relations, properties and attributes, then God is merely an abstract number (this goes "beyond" creation, even Plato made such observations about eternity).
i haven't negated Allah being the creator of any other attribute rather we have just expounded on His oneness and explained that it cannot be comprehended. I see that you don't really want to learn rather you want to push a god that conforms to your view tho you openly admit that your view is but a possibility.
muslim4life: nd finally, if Allah's oneness is unlike the creation in any sense (meaning it does not have distinctions, properties etc), then how is God able to the creator of an indifferent substance to himself (namely the creation) if he is absolutely and purely without distinction? In fact distinction would be a logical impossibility under this view of Allah's oneness.
From where did you originate this rule that God must bare similarity to the creation in order to create
Dk-man7: Umm no I didn't say it's a "possibility" for me, I said it's a "possibility" if you we assume like you do that we don't know "how" God's oneness exists. The only thing we do know is that it "must" exist in some sense unlike the creation, the Trinity fits that criterion.
muslim4life: but that analogy won't suffice, as an atom is made up of eletrons, protons and neutrons which are all forces, and they do not fully exhaust the category of the atom.
Dk-man7: Where as the Trinity is not a "force" and each person fully exhausts what God is.
This is like saying that jesus occupied a body therfore doesn't fully exhaust the god head
Dk-man7: Last point made no sense. Lets go back to the basics.
muslim4life: Umm no I didn't say it's a "possibility" for me, I said it's a "possibility" if you we assume like you do that we don't know "how" God's oneness exists. The only thing we do know is that it "must" exist in some sense unlike the creation, the Trinity fits that criterion.
The Trinity fits no where as the Trinity likens god to creation which is the opposite to oneness
Dk-man7: An eletron is a PART of an atom. A neutron is a PART of an atom.
Dk-man7: The Father is FULLY God. The Son is FULLY God.
Dk-man7: Again this is not a comparative analogy to show that some kind of Trinity exists within the creation.
Dk-man7: The Trinity fits no where as the Trinity likens god to creation which is the opposite to oneness <<< that's purely false as i've just shown no creature/creation exists as a truine being.
muslim4life: ok
muslim4life: end it ther
Dk-man7: i haven't negated Allah being the creator of any other attribute rather we have just expounded on His oneness <<< how can you expound on his oneness when you can't explain how it exists? what are you talking about?  >>>>> that it cannot be comprehended<<<< if it can't be comprehended how do you know it excludes a being that exists like creation? contradiction again!
Dk-man7: From where did you originate this rule that God must bare similarity to the creation in order to create <<<< easy "creator" is not "creation" hence it implies distinction must exist, but your saying Allah's oneness excludes any distinction as per his "complete unlikeness of creation". Hence it's a contradictory claim.

Dk vs Muslim4Life (Round I)

I copied and pasted this exchange between me and my friend Muslim4Life. If you ever come across him, please understand he is young, passionate, indoctrinated and a fundamentalist in this way, please show him love, respect and friendship, since he has a good heart, and hopefully one day find the truth, Lord Willing he will come to our our Great God and Savior.

Tawheed Debate

Dk-man7: MUSLIM4LIFE You compared Allah's oneness to his hearing, which means his hearing is unlike ours, which means his oneness is unlike ours. If we don't know what his oneness is, then how do you know he is not three in one? You just admit his oneness and his hearing are incomprehensible to us and exist in a different plain not known to us. You shot yourself in the foot.
muslim4life: because he hasnt described himself 1 in 3 in the quran we stop where God stops
muslim4life: same in the Bible
Dk-man7: That wasn't the question
Dk-man7: How do you know he is NOT 3 in 1
Dk-man7: the question is not that he is 3 in 1
Dk-man7: how do you know he is NOT
Dk-man7: you don't know what his oneness is
muslim4life: because he hasnt mentioned that if we were to say he is 3 in 1 tht would be a biddah in the religion innovation
Dk-man7: again not the question
muslim4life: like christians added something to the religion
Dk-man7: I didn't say you are saying he *is*
Dk-man7: I said how do you know he is NOT
muslim4life: if he was 3 in 1 he would of mentioned it
muslim4life: so EXPOSED!!!!!!!!!!!
muslim4life: he says he is 1 and only 1
muslim4life: ONLY 1
Dk-man7: Wait you just said you don't know what his oneness is. Now you're saying his oneness excludes threeness and oneness?
Dk-man7: You are contradicting yourself every sentence.
muslim4life: if u say he is 3 in 1 tht means 3 Gods since quran affirms 1 and only 1 therefore u cnt have 3 in 1
muslim4life: EXPOSED!!!!!
muslim4life: ahahah
Dk-man7: But you don't know what his oneness is, so merely repeating that Qur'an says he is one, is not an affirmation of any kind of exclusion.
Dk-man7: You are contradicting yourself every sentence.
muslim4life: we stop where God stops
Dk-man7: That's fine that's not the question
muslim4life: ok i get u
Dk-man7: How do you know he is NOT one in a plural sense
muslim4life: wht ur trying to say
Dk-man7: I am not saying you have tos ay it
Dk-man7: I am asking how you konw that.
Dk-man7: The fact is you don't know, because you don't know what his oneness is.
muslim4life: siNCE Muhammad used his finger to indicate one and only 1 which means literally 1
muslim4life: in some hadith
Dk-man7: LOL!!!
Dk-man7: So you do know what oneness is?
Dk-man7: Yes or no ?
muslim4life: its like asking do u knw wht Gods hearing is but his hearing is unique to him he hears all  but whne it comes to 1 since u have 1 apple 1 anything thats how he is  that 1 but thts not shirk in anyway u are not comparing anyway u are just saying 1
muslim4life: There is no god except Me; you shall worship Me alone."  21:25 if ther was another person tht would mean we will have to worship another  person so it wont be alone
Dk-man7: Is oneness numerical as you just quoteud in the hadith. Or do you not know what oneness is as per your answer on mic?
Dk-man7: Your just saying "we know he hears everything", what does "hear everything mean when said of allah?
Dk-man7: do you know what his hearing is ?
muslim4life: his hearing is unique to him we just know that hears everything
muslim4life: we dont know HOW he hears
muslim4life: but he hears everything
muslim4life: in a way tht he knows best since he hasnt told us about how he hears
muslim4life: lol theology is not my field
muslim4life: dont ask me again ahahha
muslim4life: im still studying theology in islam
Dk-man7: So you know that he is one,  but you don't know HOW he is one.
Dk-man7: Thanks that's the end of your objections to the Trinity
muslim4life: he is 1 like 1 in singular
muslim4life: since he said ONLY 1
Dk-man7: Okay so Allah is numerically singular yes?
muslim4life: he is 1 like literally 1 and only 1
Dk-man7: okay he is literally the no 1
Dk-man7: ok
Dk-man7: so your God is an abstract number
muslim4life: lol u have 1 apple 1 phone 1 person he is 1 like tht
Dk-man7: It would of been better to say he is singular, but now your saying he is literally the no 1
muslim4life: lol yes singular
Dk-man7: so Allah is like creation in his oneness?
muslim4life: ahahaha il find out then get bak to u
Dk-man7: "he is 1 LIKE that" Muslim4life
muslim4life: he is not like creation
Dk-man7: but you just compared him to creation and said he is one like that
Dk-man7: If he is one like an apple or a telephone, then you realize Allah is composed of parts right?
Dk-man7: Now my question would be how is something that is uncreated composed of parts ?
muslim4life: no i didnt compare him to humans i said 1 in terms of singular  if i say 1 phone  thts 1 in tht sense singular 1 car singular
Dk-man7: exactly you compared him to creation
Dk-man7: You just did it again.
Dk-man7: Muslim4life, so Allah is one like a car or a phone. How are you explaining "how" his oneness is, if (as you said) we can't explain how his oneness exists?
muslim4life: ur making it complicated God is singular thts it
muslim4life: not in persons like u say
muslim4life: when i meant how meaning his attributes of hearing seeing
Dk-man7: yes you don't know how his oneness or hearing or seeing exist.
Dk-man7: so how do you know how his oneness exists when according to your own words you don't?
Dk-man7: and if you don't how are you defining his oneness to the exclusion of anything?
muslim4life: we dont know how in a sense of his hearing seeing but we know he hears sees everything
Dk-man7: exactly so you know that he is one, but you don't know how. so how are you comparing him to the oneness of a car?
Dk-man7: when you don't know how?
Dk-man7: and isn't it haram to compare Allah to creation?
muslim4life: meaning singular
muslim4life: thts not comparing God thts just givin example
muslim4life: of wht we mean
Dk-man7: okay so does Allah have windows, doors and a boot?
muslim4life: no
Dk-man7: meaning, does Allah have parts like a creation ?
muslim4life: no
Dk-man7: so then Allah is not singular in the same sense as the car.
Dk-man7: as the car is composed of different parts.
Dk-man7: so why do you keep attempting to explain how?
muslim4life: we are not talking about the actual car we are just sayin  1 CAR
muslim4life: EXPOSED
Dk-man7: yes but the 'oneness' of the car is a plurality of distinct parts.
Dk-man7: so if you say Allah's oneness is like that, you have vindicated my world view.
muslim4life: take away car tht was e.g like 1 pen 1 apple 1 finger
Dk-man7: All of those examples are composed of parts aswell.
Dk-man7: Have you ever dissembled a pen? I'm sure you have.
Dk-man7: Have you ever eaten an apple i'm sure you have.
muslim4life: we are not talking about parts we are talking about number 1
Dk-man7: Have you ever x-rayed one finger , I'm sure you have.
muslim4life: lol
muslim4life: forget the parts its the number 1 meaning singular
muslim4life: cnt get more clear thn tht
muslim4life: shaytan is whispering in u now
Dk-man7: no it's a very simple question really.
Dk-man7: You say Allah is singular, then you compare him to a pen, an apple and a car. I point out that those objects exist as multiple parts coming together as one.
Dk-man7: So does Allah exist with the same oneness as them?
Dk-man7: If he does then he is made up of a plurality of parts.
Dk-man7: If he is made up of a plurality of oneness, then you vindicate my world view.
muslim4life: he is 1 he doesnt have parts he has power over everything
muslim4life: he doesnt need to have parts
muslim4life: he can be 1 without parts
muslim4life: and he is 1 without parts
muslim4life: remember theology is not my field
Dk-man7: okay so earlier you said you don't know HOW his oneness exists, now you are saying he does not have parts.
muslim4life: im still studying now
muslim4life: dnt ask me il get bak to u
Dk-man7: so you *do* know how his oneness exists
muslim4life: iv just began yesterday reading book on tawheed once iv red il challenge u
Dk-man7: Brother I am the book on Tawheed.
muslim4life: Sahahahah
muslim4life: come to tawheed reject trinitt
muslim4life: trinity
Dk-man7: I reject Tawheed because I know more about it than you

Trinity Debate

muslim4life: tawheed is more logical thn trinity
muslim4life: fact
Dk-man7: really?
Dk-man7: you want to debate that?
muslim4life: ahaha
muslim4life: not yet
Dk-man7: Let me get this straight. You haven't studied theology. You haven't read a book on tawheed. But yet you are are asserting one position is more logical than another position?
Dk-man7: How is that a logical statement to make?
muslim4life: Such terminology appears only in the writings of Church fathers much later. The position of the Roman Catholic Church is that the term ‘trinity’ was first mentioned late into the second century:
In Scripture there is as yet no single term by which the Three Divine Persons are denoted together…The word trias (of which the Latin trinitas is a translation) is first found in Theophilus of Antioch about A.D. 180…Afterwards it appears in its Latin form of trinitas in Tertullian.
Dk-man7: Dk-man7: Let me get this straight. You haven't studied theology. You haven't read a book on tawheed. But yet you are are asserting one position is more logical than another position?
Dk-man7: How is that a logical statement to make?
muslim4life: i havent studied it in detail but from surface n iv studied trinity from surface from the surface trinity is illogical
Dk-man7: I want to know what reasons you have for believing tawheed is more logical than the trinity. then I want to know if I show those reasons are false, will you retract the statement?
muslim4life: jesus says my god he has a God u have 2 Gods ahahah
muslim4life: so u have son praying to the father yet ther 1 ahhaah
muslim4life: how can i accept tht
Dk-man7: how are they one in Trinitarian theology @ Muslim4life
Dk-man7: and how would their oneness exclude communication?
Dk-man7: you would have to show how they are one, and how if they are one, the type of oneness would exclude them from relating.
muslim4life: 1 being in 3 persons yet each 3 are seperate entities n God at the same time and communicate with each other pray to each other
muslim4life: Now this is eternal life: that they know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent. [John 17:3]
This statement in the Bible is devastating to the doctrine of the Trinity, as it clearly identifies God as the only true God to the exclusion of Jesus.
Dk-man7: okay forget copying and pasting.
Dk-man7: okay so they are one in being and distinct in person.
Dk-man7: so how would it be illogical for one person to communicate with another person?
muslim4life: but they pray to each other
muslim4life: talk to each other
muslim4life: but if its 1 God then why would they speak
Dk-man7: correct, so explain how the type of oneness they possses, would exclude relations?
Dk-man7: you just answered that they are not the same person.
Dk-man7: do persons communicate yes or no ?
muslim4life: ur not making sense if the son is God and the father is God 1 in heaven 1 on earth the son on earth looks up prays to God says my God says hes going to God yet they are 1
muslim4life: wow
Dk-man7: notice you are on side tangents.
Dk-man7: do persons communicate, yes or no ?
muslim4life: yes becaus we are all humans
muslim4life: u are commiting shirk again ahahah
Dk-man7: okay so how does the oneness possesed by the Trinity exclude communication?
Dk-man7: when they are three distinct persons
Dk-man7: please explain that to me.
Dk-man7: otherwise stop making it up as you go along.
muslim4life: ok so 1 being he decides to take 3 forms?
Dk-man7: we are not discussing whether God appears in form , that is a different subject.
muslim4life:  So when we Christians say that God is one, we are not emphasizing his oneness of personhood, rather we are emphasizing his oneness of being. IS THT true
Dk-man7: we are discussing why is it that 3 persons cannot communicatE?
Dk-man7: what is your rational?
muslim4life: ok
muslim4life: they can offcourse
muslim4life: because they are different
Dk-man7: okay, so if God was one person, would it make sense for him to talk to himself?
muslim4life: however if your speaking about God  why would God speak to himself?
muslim4life: or
muslim4life: why do u have the father speaking to the son if they are both God
Dk-man7: that's just it, he's not speaking *to himself*, he's speaking to another "person" within God.
muslim4life: why does jesus say hes been sent by God if he is God himself
Dk-man7: why wouldn't you? a person by very definition is a relationary figure
Dk-man7: because we just established God is three persons, not three forms as the heretics teach.
muslim4life: ok jesus GOD father GOD both speak to each other jesus goes to the father yet they are both 1
Dk-man7: three forms would mean Jesus sent himself
Dk-man7: three persons would meane Jesus was actually sent by a distinct person
muslim4life: if u have 2 different persons but 2 identical twins   and u punish 1 out of the 2  can u punish the other 1?
Dk-man7: What is clear is that you have no idea what the Trinity is. So how you say Tawheed is more rational is beyond words.
Dk-man7: You don't even know the distinction between person and form, so how are you going to say the Trinity is less logical and Tawheed more logical?
muslim4life:  Now this is eternal life: that they know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent. it makes a distinction says father it ONLY true God so jesus is not a true God accordin to john 17v 3
Dk-man7: muslim4life: why does jesus say hes been sent by God if he is God himself
Dk-man7: Is Jesus the Father according to Trinitarian theology?
muslim4life: no but he has been sent by God
muslim4life: so u have 2 Gods
muslim4life: 1 jesus the son in human form then u have the father in the heaven in another form 2
Dk-man7: oh boy
Dk-man7: you think like a salafi
muslim4life: lol
muslim4life:  How is it possible for the Father to be the ONLY true God, while at the same time the Son and Holy Spirit are God as well? If the Son and Holy Spirit are God as well, then it is false to say that the Father is the ONLY true God. thats wht u need to answer!!!!!!
Dk-man7: IF that is your conception of the Trinity and you think that is 'not logical' I don't care.
muslim4life: so your contradicting your Bible
Dk-man7: Because you are not accurately representing us
muslim4life: cool lets end it there lets be friends
muslim4life: ahHAA
Dk-man7: Honestly when I say I reject Tawheed, I actually mean Tawheed as defined by every orthodox position in Islam.
Dk-man7: When you say you reject the Trinity, you haven't even studied it.
Dk-man7: First you confused it with modalism, then tri-theism.
muslim4life: well we knw wht the main belief is of trinity  3 in 1
Dk-man7: The problem is you don't know who God is. You think God is a being like me and you are a being.
Dk-man7: Hence you think God is a body with a person
Dk-man7: Hence God can only be one person
Dk-man7: This is not how Christians conceive of God
muslim4life: nope misrepreseting
muslim4life: my beliefs
Dk-man7: No i'm not.
Dk-man7: Look
muslim4life: u have 2 be consistent
Dk-man7: muslim4life: 1 jesus the son in human form then u have the father in the heaven in another form 2
muslim4life: thats 2
Dk-man7: You think the Father has a form and exists in heavne.
Dk-man7: heaven
muslim4life: how many pictures do u have in mind when u think of father and son answer
muslim4life: u never have 1
Dk-man7: that's your concept of God
muslim4life: 2
Dk-man7: I don't have pictures of God
Dk-man7: Again changing the subject.
muslim4life: well lets just say u have father in heaven a God in heaven
Dk-man7: You believe God is a being like me and you are a being.
Dk-man7: You believe the Father is in heaven with a form.
muslim4life: without form but u hav a God in heaven so irelevent
Dk-man7: Therefore he is one person like me and you.
Dk-man7: You don't understand who God is
muslim4life: nope
muslim4life: hes not physical
Dk-man7: Theologians do not deal with amateur conceptions of God like this
muslim4life: like we are
Dk-man7: IRRELEVANT.
Dk-man7: You are saying he is FORM and IN heaven
muslim4life: lol
muslim4life: need 2 go
Dk-man7: That is a being like us in atleast several senses.
muslim4life: bye
Dk-man7: That means your God is a man.
Dk-man7: bye

See Part II here 

David Wood vs Shabir Ally: "Jesus, Son of God or Prophet of Islam ?"

"Muslim Boy Arrested for Making Alarm Clock" - Broken Down Piece by Piece

HellBound 2012 Documentary

Don't forget to read my article about Trinitarian Universalism (after watching these videos!)

Part I

Part II

A Quranic Study: Jesus Sent To All

Christians are frequently encountered with claims similar to the one presented to the right. But i'm not here to repeat history, the claim that the Bible teaches Jesus was not sent to anyone but Israel has already been addressed over here.

However what many Muslims (or Christians) are not aware of is that the Qur'an does not support the claim that Jesus was only delivering his revelation to Israelites and no-one else. Rather the actual teaching of the Qur'an is that Jesus and his revelation, "the Gospel" (Injeel) were sent to all mankind, even to the point where Jesus' teachings were passed down to future believers who would inherit the covenant and book of Jesus!

It is therefore highly time that Muslims remember to read the Qur'an which teaches that Jesus was a messenger for all.

God teaches Mary the Mother of Jesus whom Jesus was sent to:

"He said: So (it will be). Thy Lord saith: It is easy for Me. And (it will be) that We may make of him A REVELATION FOR MANKIND (ayatan lilnnasi) and a MERCY FROM US, and it is a thing ordained 19:21

The Arabic word: "lilnnasi" meaning "the mankind" is a genitive masculine plural noun and is also used of the revelation itself, (the Qu'ran) in the genitive which is for all mankind:

This [Qur'an] is enlightenment for MANKIND (lilnnasi) and GUIDANCE and MERCY for a people who are certain [in faith]. 45:20

Note: "Mercy" is also applied to Jesus (19:21) even "Guidance" (5:46) to his message/revelation.


The same plural noun is used of in the above passages is also given of Abraham the Father of many nations (mankind being his offspring which produced multiple peoples/nations!):

And (remember) when the Lord of Ibrahim (Abraham) [i.e., Allah] tried him with (certain) Commands, which he fulfilled. He (Allah) said (to him), "Verily, I am going to make you a LEADER (Imam) OF MANKIND (lilnnasi)." [Ibrahim (Abraham)] said, "And of MY OFFSPRING (to make leaders)." (Allah) said, "My Covenant (Prophethood, etc.) includes not Zalimun (polytheists and wrong-doers)." 2:124

And of course the term is applied to the Sacred Mosque Allah had built for all mankind:

And when We made the House (at Makka) a resort FOR MANKIND (lilnnasi) and sanctuary, (saying): Take as your place of worship the place where Abraham stood (to pray). And We imposed a duty upon Abraham and Ishmael, (saying): Purify My house for those who go around and those who meditate therein and those who bow down and prostrate themselves (in worship). 2:125

This is the Masjid Al Haram in Mecca all Muslims from all nations pilgrimage towards today. Hence the word implies a multiplicity of nations and mankind.


This term is even applied to Mohammed's world wide revelation!

Whatever of good reaches you, is from Allah, but whatever of evil befalls you, is from yourself. And We have sent you (O Muhammad SAW) as a Messenger to mankind (lilnnasi), and Allah is Sufficient as a Witness. 4:79 

If Allah wanted to limit the scope of Jesus message to just Israel he could of just used the same idea he used in the same chapter several verses earlier for Zechariah:

[Zechariah] said, "My Lord, make for me a sign." He said, "Your sign is that you will not speak to the people (l-nāsa) for three nights, [being] sound." 19:10

The Arabic noun: "l nasa" this is in the accusative in the plural without the preposition, hence it implies Allah would cease Zechariah from speaking to his local his people for three days.


Another important passage comes from Chapter 21:

And (remember) she who guarded her chastity [Virgin Maryam (Mary)], We breathed into (the sleeves of) her and We made her and her son a sign for Al-'Alamin (the mankind and jinns). 21:91

This is the very same noun used to denote Mohammed's universal ministry a few sentences further down!

And We have sent you (O Muhammad SAW) not but as a mercy for the 'Alamin (mankind, jinns and all that exists). 21:107

And the exact same noun used repetitiously (within the Qur'an) to denote God's universal sovereignty over all creation:

[All] praise is [due] to Allah , Lord of the worlds -1:2

We also know that the revelation of Christ wasn't restricted to Israelites from another passage:

Indeed Allah took the covenant from the Children of Israel (Jews), and We appointed twelve leaders among them. And Allah said: "I am with you if you perform As-Salat (Iqamat-as-Salat) and give Zakat and believe in My Messengers; honour and assist them, and lend to Allah a good loan. Verily, I will remit your sins and admit you to Gardens under which rivers flow (in Paradise). But if any of you after this, disbelieved, he has indeed gone astray from the Straight Path." So because of their breach of their covenant, We cursed them, and made their hearts grow hard. They change the words from their (right) places and have abandoned a good part of the Message that was sent to them. And you will not cease to discover deceit in them, except a few of them. But forgive them, and overlook (their misdeeds). Verily, Allah loves Al-Muhsinun (gooddoers - see V.2:112). FROM THOSE, TOO, WHO CALL THEMSELVES CHRISTIANS, WE DID TAKE A COVENANT, but they forgot a good PART OF THE MESSAGE THAT WAS SENT TO THEM: so we estranged them, with enmity and hatred between the one and the other, to the day of judgment. And soon will God show them what it is they have done. 5:12-14

Allah therefore establishes two covenants. One with the children of Israel, and another with the Christians. Both are rebuked for forgetting part of the covenant sent to them. The Christians then are distinguished from the people of Israel, demonstrating the existence of two distinct groups. 

The original revelation is explicitly identified as sent to "Israel". The revelation of Jesus would have been extended to include others, otherwise it would have used the exact same terminology one sentence after without any distinction, namely sent to "Israel". Israelites would be the only recipients of Jesus message..

What makes this even more clear is that Islamic exegetes have pointed out these Christians who had a covenant with Allah were actually Arabs (not Israelites!):

(And with those who say: " Lo! we are Christians " ), i.e. THEN CHRISTIANS OF NAJRAN (We made a covenant) in the Gospel that they should follow Muhammad (pbuh) and manifest his traits and not worship anyone or anything except Allah or associate anyone with Him, (but they forgot a part) they left part (of that whereof they were admonished) with which they were commanded. (Therefore We have stirred up) We have cast (enmity) killing and destruction (and hatred) in the hearts (among them) between the Jews and Christians; and it is said between the NESTORIANS OF NAJRAN, the sects known as the JACOBITES, the MARQUSIYAA AND THE MELKITES (till the Day of Resurrection, when Allah will inform them of their handiwork) of their opposition, treachery, concealment, enmity and hatred. [ Tanwîr al-Miqbâs min Tafsîr Ibn ‘Abbâs]

How could old and new Christians be admonished if they were never commanded to keep God's covenant, rather the covenant was only for Israelites? Hence the "Ummah" (nation) of Jesus was not limited to Israelites, but anyone who would believe in his Gospel! 

The Qur'an even explicitly refers to these nations as two distinct peoples:

And this is a Book which We have revealed as a blessing: so follow it and be righteous, that ye may receive mercy: Lest ye should say: "The Book was sent down to TWO PEOPLES BEFORE US, and for our part, we remained unacquainted with all that they learned by assiduous study:" 6:155-156

Jesus nation therefore must of been composed of Israelites and non-Israelites who were recipients of his Revelation, the Gospel. We also know that Allah sent a messenger and/or prophet to every nation:

And for every Ummah (a community or a nation), there is a Messenger; when their Messenger comes, the matter will be judged between them with justice, and they will not be wronged. (10:47)

And:

And verily, We have sent among every Ummah (community, nation) a Messenger (proclaiming): "Worship Allah (Alone), and avoid (or keep away from) Taghut (all false deities, etc. i.e., do not worship Taghut besides Allah)." Then of them were some whom Allah guided and of them were some upon whom the straying was justified. So travel through the land and see what was the end of those who denied (the truth). (16:36)

However we know that there was no messengers and/or prophets sent between Jesus and Mohammed:

Narrated Abu Huraira: I heard Allah's Apostle saying, "I am the nearest of all the people to the son of Mary, and all the prophets are paternal brothers, and there has been no prophet between me and him (i.e. Jesus)." (Sahih Bukhari Volume 4, Book 55, Number 651)

Therefore it inevitably follows Jesus and his revelation were for all nations.

1. Allah sends a messenger/prophet and revelation to every nation
2. There exists nations between the time of Jesus and Mohammed
3. There was no messengers sent to these extant nations between Jesus and Mohammed
4. The final messenger and/or prophet before Mohammed was Jesus
5. Therefore Jesus and his revelation was sent to every nation between him and Mohammed

As I was researching this topic I found countless more evidences, please stand by for future updates, if God wills.

UPDATE:

Make sure to read these articles by brother Sam Shamoun on the subject:

Was Jesus’ Mission Universal in Scope?
Islam Testifies that Jesus is the Messiah for the Whole World

Does Islam really teach that Muhammad is the only Universal Messenger?
Revisiting the Quranic Contradiction concerning Allah sending Warners to all Mankind Before Muhammad

Post-Script

Some Muslims have attempted to respond to this article by referencing the following passages:

 "And He (Allah) will teach him (Jesus) the Book and the wisdom and the Torah and the Gospel, and appoint him as a messenger TO THE CHILDREN OF ISRAEL." 3:47-49

And:

"And recall when Jesus the son of Mary said: "O CHILDREN OF ISRAEL, I AM THE MESSENGER OF ALLAH TO YOU confirming the Law which come before me. " 61:6

So doesn't the Quran make it clear to us that the message of Jesus was specifically for the children of Israel and not to all worlds?

Upon closer examination and inspection one can clearly see that both references point to the messenger, not the message. Hence Jesus himself was a messenger to Israelites. But the text does not prohibit us from understanding his message went beyond the Israelites, only that he was a messenger giving a message to Israelites. 

The Bible and the Qur'an agree that Jesus was sent to Israelites. However some Muslims say this means Jesus revelation was only sent to Israelites to the exclusion of all else and misunderstand several verses in the Bible and the Qur'an, or simply integrate wishful thinking into the text.

These verses (and others like it in the Qur'an)  testify the earthly ministry of Jesus was indeed to the Israelites. However the Qur'an teaches that Mohammed's revelation was also sent specifically for Israelites:

Verily this Qur'an doth explain to the Children of Israel most of the matters in which they disagree. 27:76 

Say (O Mohammed): Have you considered if it is from Allah, and you disbelieve in it, and a witness from among the children of Israel has borne witness of one like it, so he believed, while you are big with pride; surely Allah does not guide the unjust people. 46:10 

ASK the Children of Israel how many clear Signs WE gave them. But whoso changes the gift of ALLAH after it has come to him, surely then, ALLAH is Severe in punishing. 2:221 

O children of Israel! indeed We delivered you from your enemy, and We made a covenant with you on the blessed side of the mountain, and We sent to you the manna and the quails. 20:80 

Is it (Qur'an) not a Sign to them that the Learned of the Children of Israel knew it (as true)? 26:197 

And when there came to them (the Jews), a Book (this Qur'an) from Allah confirming what is with them [the Taurat (Torah)], although aforetime they had invoked Allah (for coming of Muhammad Peace be upon him) in order to gain victory over those who disbelieved, then when THERE CAME TO THEM that which they had recognised, they disbelieved in it. So let the Curse of Allah be on the disbelievers. 2:89

However these verses in the Qur'an do not demonstrate that Mohammed's message was only sent to Israelites/Jews, anymore than the passages quoted above can establish that Jesus revelation was only sent to Israelites.

For example here are some passages implying that Mohammed's revelation was sent to more than just Israelites/Jews:

This [Qur'an] is enlightenment for MANKIND (lilnnasi) and GUIDANCE and MERCY for a people who are certain [in faith]. 45:20 

Lest you (pagan Arabs) should say: "The Book was only sent down to two sects before us (the Jews and the Christians), and for our part, we were in fact unaware of what they studied." Or lest you (pagan Arabs) should say: "If only the Book had been sent down to us, we would surely have been better guided than they (Jews and Christians)." So now has come unto you a clear proof (the Qur'an) from your Lord, and a guidance and a mercy. Who then does more wrong than one who rejects the Ayat (proofs, evidences, verses, lessons, signs, revelations, etc.) of Allah and turns away therefrom? We shall requite those who turn away from Our Ayat with an evil torment, because of their turning away (from them). [Tafsir At-Tabari, Vol. 8, Page 95] 6:156-157

And here are some passages passages that imply Jesus as a revelation was given to more than only Israelites:

"He said: So (it will be). Thy Lord saith: It is easy for Me. And (it will be) that We may make of him A REVELATION FOR MANKIND (ayatan lilnnasi) and a MERCY FROM US, and it is a thing ordained" 19:21 

"Indeed Allah took the covenant from the Children of Israel (Jews), and We appointed twelve leaders among them. And Allah said: "I am with you if you perform As-Salat (Iqamat-as-Salat) and give Zakat and believe in My Messengers; honour and assist them, and lend to Allah a good loan. Verily, I will remit your sins and admit you to Gardens under which rivers flow (in Paradise). But if any of you after this, disbelieved, he has indeed gone astray from the Straight Path." So because of their breach of their covenant, We cursed them, and made their hearts grow hard. They change the words from their (right) places and have abandoned a good part of the Message that was sent to them. And you will not cease to discover deceit in them, except a few of them. But forgive them, and overlook (their misdeeds). Verily, Allah loves Al-Muhsinun (gooddoers - see V.2:112). FROM THOSE, TOO, WHO CALL THEMSELVES CHRISTIANS, WE DID TAKE A COVENANT, but they forgot a good PART OF THE MESSAGE THAT WAS SENT TO THEM: so we estranged them, with enmity and hatred between the one and the other, to the day of judgment. And soon will God show them what it is they have done." 5:12-14

Finally, while there are zero verses implying Jesus message could never go beyond the scope of Israelites, it's clear that the Qur'anic prophet Mohammed was at one stage of a development not a universal prophet or messenger, but rather transformed into one in a later recension of the Qur'an. These passages show that Mohammed's original scope was not universal:

And truly, this (the Qur'an) is a revelation from the Lord of the 'Alamin (mankind, jinns and all that exists) brought down by the Faithful Spirit upon your heart (O Muhammad SAW) that you may be (one) of the warners, in the plain Arabic language. Truly it is in the Scriptures of the ancients. Was it not a sign for them, that it is known to the learned of the Children of Israel? And if We had revealed it (this Qur'an) unto any of the non-Arabs, And he had recited it unto them, they would not have believed in it. 26:192-199 

Osama Abdullah Confesses Jesus is Lord and is REBUKED by Muslim!

Osama confesses Jesus as Lord:

Osama then deleted a comment in which he was rebuked as an apostate Islamically illegal assertions, but I happen to catch it on my update feed:

Don't forget to see more proof:

"What is God Like -- Tawhid or Trinity?" Shabir Ally vs. Jonathan McLatchie

Well done Jonathan McLatchie for this easy victory

Abdullah Al-Andalusi: Terrorism With An Intellectual Face

Muslim Speaker, Debater and Apologist Abdullah Al-Andalusi whom I've had the dishonor of having several exchanges with, finally got sprung by his MI6 government employer for his (long term) Islamist position. Of course anyone who watched a few of his videos even on his private blog, also offered at MDI and on his YT Channel knew this long in advance.

How could I blogger and apologist half way across the world be aware of something so essential that the intelligence offices in the British government were not? I offer this as a theory.

The British government are oblivious to the widespread nature of Islamism, they don't understand the over-all problem of Islam (still thinking that *western* democratic values are compatible with this totalitarian political ideology). They over-zealously over look any hindsight in their employment processing due to want to avoid charges of racism or bigotry. Well if that's how you want to operate your incompetent security system, be my guest. Just look at yourself, England. Churchill might just be rolling over in his grave, but don't worry you will soon join him.

"The Government watchdog which inspects police forces’ readiness for terrorism admitted that it employed one of Britain’s most notorious Islamic extremists.

For almost two years Abdullah al Andalusi, led a double life, the Telegraph can reveal.

By night, he taught that the terror group Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (Isil) was “no different to Western armies,” said that “kaffirs,” non-Muslims, would be “punished in hell” and claimed that the British government wanted to destroy Islam.

By day, using a different name, he went to work for the same British government at the London offices of Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary (HMIC), the official regulator of all 44 forces in England, Wales and Northern Ireland.

The disclosures will be intensely embarassing to the Prime Minister, David Cameron, who has criticised parts of Britain’s Muslim communities for “quietly condoning” Islamist extremism.

HMIC’s staff, who number less than 150, are given privileged access to highly sensitive and classified police and intelligence information to carry out their inspections.

The inspectorate’s work includes scrutinising police forces’ counter-terrorism capabilities and top-secret plans for dealing with terror attacks.

It has also recently published reports on undercover policing and the use of informants.

HMIC admitted that Mr al Andalusi, whose real name is Mouloud Farid, had passed a security vetting check to work as a civil servant at the inspectorate.

He was subsequently promoted to executive grade, a management rank, placing him at the heart of the security establishment.

He was only sacked after bosses spotted him on television defending extremist Islamic positions on behalf of his organisation, the Muslim Debate Initiative, which is heavily dependent on Saudi money.

The inspectorate insisted that he did not handle classified material but former friends of Mr al Andalusi said he had done so.

“His work did involve security areas. He said he had a role in overseeing the police response to terrorism and there were areas he couldn’t talk about,” said one former colleague at the Muslim Debate Initiative, who asked to remain anonymous.

“He would discuss the reports that HMIC were working on and the data they needed to present.

“His story is so odd and so scandalous in many respects. He had these two completely incompatible lives that went on for years. He despised Britain, yet worked for the British government. He would talk about the right of oppressed people to take up arms against the oppressor and yet he was overseeing the police.

“Opportunities came along to do dawah [preaching] as a full-time job, but he was never tempted to do that because he had a stable income and pension with the civil service.”

One anti-extremism activist, who knew said Mr al Andalusi, said: “[Al-Andalusi] admitted it to a few people. It is the hypocrisy of it that surprises me.”

MPs have called for a full investigation into how someone with as long a record of extremism as Mr al Andalusi had survived vetting and been appointed to his post.

Under the name by which he was known to HMIC, Mouloud Farid, his links with the Muslim Debate Initiative were a matter of public record.

He was registered as a director of the organisation at Companies House, though he earlier this year changed to yet a third name, Wazir Leton Rahman, on the companies register.

“This man’s unsuitability for sensitive work should have been obvious from the start,” said Khalid Mahmood, Labour MP for Birmingham Perry Barr.

“There is a lack of understanding of different strains of Islam in the civil service. I will be asking why the systems designed to prevent this did not work.”

Mr al Andalusi, a prominent figure on the extremist lecture circuit, is closely associated with the extremist group Hizb ut Tahrir, which believes that voting and democracy are un-Islamic.

He is also a strong supporter of the terrorist lobby group Cage, which sparked outrage earlier this year when it defended the Isil hostage-killer Mohammed Emwazi, “Jihadi John,” as a “beautiful” and “gentle” man who had been radicalised by MI5. Like Cage, Mr al-Andalusi fiercely supports the right of British citizens to travel to Syria to fight.

He spoke at a Cage rally outside his own employer’s parent department, the Home Office, to demonstrate against the arrest of the former Guantanamo detainee, Moazzam Begg, on Syria-related terror charges, later dropped. Alongside him were other high-profile extremists and hate preachers including Haitham al-Haddad and senior figures in Hizb ut Tahrir.

Mr al Andalusi has spoken at at least three other Cage events in the last ten months, including on September 20 last year when he claimed that, as part of its “war against Islam,” the British government wanted to force Muslims to eat non-halal meat.

He says that Western liberal society is committed to the “destruction” of all Muslim belief and shows on his Facebook page a picture a concentration camp with a Nazi swastika and “21st century” written on the watchtower.

In the foreground is a gallows with a short route to the hangman’s noose for “Islamists” and a longer route for “Muslim moderates.”

A spokesman for HMIC said: “Mr Farid was investigated for gross misconduct by taking part in public activity that compromised his impartial service to government, thereby breaching the Civil Service Code. He was suspended immediately whilst investigations were ongoing.”

The HMIC accepted Mr Farid’s resignation in July last year, the spokesman added. But the security lapse has only just emerged – coinciding with the government putting a new statutory duty on public bodies, including schools, to monitor and root out extremism.

In a talk at Queen Mary University, in East London, on 16 January, he asked why the al-Qaeda affiliate in Syria, Jabhat al-Nusra, was treated as a terrorist organisation by the West while the moderate Free Syrian Army was not.

He condemned memorials to 9/11, describing the terror attacks as “the day a vicious world empire [the US] found a publicly-acceptable excuse to bomb others, invade non-threatening nations, torture political dissidents and kill at least 300,000 innocent people.”

After Isil took over large portions of Iraq last year, he wrote that “most Muslims would be jubilant at the return of the caliphate [Islamic state], which is a vital obligation upon Muslims that has been conspicuously missing for so long.”

He condemned the group for killing civilians but said that the West had “no basis to judge Islamic State” because “IS are no different to Western armies and even some of the ‘founding fathers’ of Western nations… IS’s crime is being actually a good student of the West, right down to their corporate structure and organisation and ability to use social media.”

He said that “those who reject IS merely because IS’s school of thought is disagreeable to them should remember that Islam permits difference of opinion. To reject something as outside the fold of Islam, due to it being a different school of thought to one’s own, makes one a purveyor of disunity among Muslims.”

The former friends of Mr al Andalusi said they had left the Muslim Debate Initiative when it became increasingly extreme and dominated by donations from a wealthy Saudi businessman." (More Here At The Telegraph)

The Closet Dam Thing To Happy

(Disclaimer: This article is out of place for this blog and is better suited towards: self development, it maybe removed in the future)

I think there were two similar versions of happiness I imagined growing up. Firstly the kind of 'large success' version. This entailed being very wealthy (including super rich) and being very famous (perhaps through acting or music, or a sports star or whatever). Basically this version of happiness presupposes that you would win the lottery and become an overnight super-star in life. Fanatics who follow this model, truly will never feel complete until they achieve this state. For them basically that is their way out of the present suffering and misery, almost like redemption.

The second version of happiness I imagined was that of 'moderate success'. In this version you have a relatively stable income and admirable career, with a loving beautiful partner and awesome family. You have an interesting life, with fascinating hobbies. You graduate college, you graduate University (or some other higher end institution). You go to work every day 9-5, you retire when you become 65-70. The glory is in your retirement. You finally worked all that time to be rewarded. Finally you can relax, take it easy, and have a few laughs with the grand children and enjoy living out your days in peace.

With regard to the first version, obviously there is no genie in a bottle for most of us and our chicken wish bone probably got fried over night or thrown out by accident. Maybe if we wrote a song about some neighborhood peeping tom perving in our home window at the age of 16 we could become instantaneously rich and successful like Taylor Swift, but a gambler isn't going to place one on this. This leaves us with the secondary option, which is what all of society is in actuality based upon.

Now with regard to the second version, I grew up in that model, and well, it turns out it was kind of bunk (at-least for me personally which impacted my perception of it in general). I will relate that model of happiness upon some of my personal history and we can judge the outcome.

My brother was thrown out of our home early, I was bullied at school, I was beaten up everywhere, at home and at school, and my dad and brother would be physically violent to one another, sometimes even my mum would to my dad (as little as a woman could). One day I remember as an 11 year old even attacking my own mother. Why? My parents were divorcing, I was being forced to move away from everything and everyone I ever knew. This attack resulted in my grandparents never truly loving me the way they once did. Their daughter was the most precious person in the world to them. And so I craved for them to love me again in the same way they always had, but they never did, as a young child, I couldn't understand, all I wanted to do was prove myself to them, that I wasn't that way anymore, but I never felt like I convinced them.

Now both of my parents were single for years, lonely, and never truly happy, just well 'surviving'. My parents handled life post-divorce differently. My dad became more spiritual and less carnal and my mum moved back home (in which event I was now living and under my grand parents who I now dreaded for hating me). My mum felt more at homely in her home town, she seemed more social, and often attempted to find a new partner, eventually she got remarried, but it took along time, and it was late in her life. So really none of them get their 'happy ever after' at-least not exactly how they might have anticipated or planned for it, yet they continued on that path anyway, straining to get the result, as that is all they knew and indeed all that I knew.

Personally with me after the divorce, I moved with my mother. I got beaten up on the first day of my new school (that happened quite a few more times), but atleast I made it to college (high school) but I didn't pass school cert, I didn't pass sixth form or seventh form (that's Years 12-13), hence I didn't go to University. In fact puberty in a way came much later for me, I was often clowning around for most of college, I even failed my favorite subject at the time: music. 

Academia never interested me, until that one important day (when all my chances were over) I realized it impacted my very identity. Was I a child of God? Where do I come from? What is my place in history? That is the point where a light bulb went off, and I became interested in Science and the Bible initially, then eventually this passion extended to many other areas, actually branching off, the world was interesting to me now, not just because of whom I am, but because every topic in itself was fascinating but it is some how interconnected to me and everybody!

So I blew it academically. then later every time I tried to work (once I was old enough) I would get nervous break downs, and become extremely anxious, and no one understood me so I felt incredibly judged, resulting in even more anxiety and an extremely introverted young adult-hood. I had something similar to GAD (General Anxiety Disorder). At-least I found several jobs, where I was almost the only employee! Later I realized a nurse pointed out to me, I have symptoms of Bipolar. And to top it off I always had some variant degree of depression, ranging from low to moderate to extreme that I have been prescribed medication for, but knowingly rejected it, claiming I would deal with the issue myself, I love to refuse help. What can I say? Maybe it's a man thing. At an early age I also had no idea how to talk to women or how to meet a girlfriend, so there went the whole idea about family and marriage. For me there will be no great retirement with grand-children, no family, no wife, no diamonds, no cash, no 'merry Christmas' unless God changes my heart towards these things.

So since these two options aren't going to work in my case I thought I would broaden the range of what constitutes happiness, the happiness meter, if you will. So firstly lets look at a Forbes article: 

"The Legatum Prosperity Index is based on a study of 142 countries comprising 96% of global population. Nations are analyzed and ranked on 89 indicators in 8 categories such as education, government and economics. Per capita GDP — basically how rich a nation is — is a factor in the index, but the whole point of the Legatum study is to look beyond such a simple measure at all the myriad issues that make up wellbeing and prosperity. 

In general, the most prosperous (thus “happiest” in my book) countries enjoy stable political institutions, a strong civil society with freedom of expression, good education and healthcare, personal freedom and a feeling of being safe and secure." - "The Happiest (And Saddest) Countries In The World"

That seems pretty rational on the surface level. Freedom of speech? Sure why not? Equality? Sure that's a great contribution to happiness. Being safe and secure? Sure! That is until you contemplate this a little further.

Firstly we have to remember our ancestors had none of this. Even if we go back to the 2nd millennium before Christ, there was no health care, there was no personal freedom, there was no guarantee of safety and security, there was no adequate education, governmental or economic system. There certainly was no prosperity other than raiders and rulers, everything was chaotic. Obviously none of these things are 'fundamental' to happiness, but some can be additional components in the same way money could. But yet if real happiness existed, despite all of this. How was it then possible? Was no one happy before our generation? Was materialism the source of all satisfaction? Was accumulating material objects and wealth and having stable living conditions really all there was to life and being happy? I already have all this, but it doesn't by default make me happy? I don't get it. And i'm pretty sure happy-people existed before our modern era.

Well the immediate answer might be to go to God or the transcendent. But even that old saying is applicable here: 'God only helps those who helps themselves'. This still intuitively seems true. In other words God can satisfy your spiritual needs and spiritually fulfill you, or when you reach out to God he will gratify this primitive urge, however God is not going to physically force you to take a bath like your mother or grand-mother may have as a child. You have to treat your body with respect. God can't force you to work out every morning, yet this is generally good for your well being and health and overall happiness. Hence while I personally believe your world view and your relationship with God is essential and fundamental to your spiritual well being, it cannot encompass everything happiness has to offer, it's the foundation. One way to put this as a philosopher might put it is 'the conditions are necessary but not sufficient'. God has so wired us to fill our happy-meter by other criterion as-well. 

We could perhaps catalog all the above three models of happiness as 'external'. This is most evident in the last example, political and economic conditions, or are we under slavery? But this is also true of the first two. Money and Celebrity are obviously external elements. And finally but less obviously having a partner and home, and viable career, would also be part of the more external range of happiness. But what if you lost all of this? What if every one of these external pillars fell on it's head? Could I then still be happy?

And this left me with one final model for happiness, which I personally resonate with, I would call this more 'internal'. I believe this is the best model and can individually apply to me or anyone who needs this and resonates with this version:

"Gallup, The American Institute of Public Opinion, conducted a study to find out which country had the happiest citizens. The survey results were striking as it was discovered that citizens of the poorest countries were the happiest. The list of the happiest countries was topped by El Salvador, Paraguay, Uruguay, and Trinidad and Tobago. What is the secret of Hispanic happiness? Specialists of the Gallup Institute released data from a study conducted back in 2011. Experts conducted a survey in 148 countries around the world to find out in which countries people were more likely to experience positive emotions. People were interviewed in person and on the phone, and each person was asked five questions, all about the ways they spent the previous day. Social scientists asked whether the respondents felt joy, whether they felt rested, and how often they laughed and smiled. In addition, the researchers asked whether their interviewees felt respected by their peers, as well as whether they learned something new the day before. According to the Gallup, the happiest people on the planet were the citizens of El Salvador, Panama and Paraguay. These three countries were the "happiest". The top ten included 7 countries in Latin America - in addition to the above, Venezuela, Ecuador, Guatemala and Costa Rica made the list. Russia, however, did not even make it to the top one hundred of the happiest countries, occupying one of the lowest spots (along with Iran and Algeria)."- "Citizens of poorest countries are happiest in the world" 

The article goes on to state 'Panama' as happiest country in the world. And describes some interesting variables that may explain why:

1. Standard of living in Panama is relatively high.
2. The mortality rate is low (high life spans for both male and female)
3. Majority of the population lives in urban areas
4. Only the price of goods and services is several times lower than U.S.
5. The level of health care in Panama is also high 
6. Health insurance is much cheaper than U.S.
7. The country's favorable climate plays a significant role. The temperatures remain virtually unchanged all year round at the level of 25-28C degrees in the afternoon.
8. In 2005, Panama won the first place in the global index of the most comfortable countries in the world. 

So are these external factors really the keys to happiness, is this what our knowledge of the world really has to offer?

Alas it turns out the article demonstrates quite the opposite:

"Despite the fact that El Salvador and Paraguay took the second and third places in the Gallup ranking, experts still say that the standard of living in these countries is low. The urban population in these countries is under 60 percent, and the economy is based on agriculture. The unemployment rate in these countries is somewhat higher, but it is easier to find a job here than in Panama - mainly in logging, and cotton and sugar cane plantations.

Average life expectancy in other Latin American countries, however, is the same as in Panama - 73 years for men and 79 for women. However, the level of health care in these less developed countries is poor. For example, this year, Paraguayan doctors sounded the alarm as the country faced an epidemic of yellow fever. According to the Associated Press, in 2012, the state government appealed to various international health organizations asking for 600,000 vaccines for prevention of yellow fever.

The results surprised the researchers from the Gallup Institute as it turned out that the happiest people live in poor countries of Latin America. If the standard of living in Panama is comparable to that of developed European countries, residents of such countries as El Salvador, Uruguay, Venezuela, Trinidad and Tobago cannot boast similar conditions. Scientists explain this by historically formed mentality of these people who see happiness in things other than material goods. According to them, people in poor countries can find joy in the moral satisfaction that often is not available to citizens of the developed countries."

And it concludes by making an interesting example:

"Some of the world's media cited an example of two attitudes - a successful and wealthy businessman from Singapore and a poor woman who sells tea in the streets of Paraguay. "We keep working and don't get paid enough," complained the 33-year Singaporean Richard Lowe. "Wealth does not bring happiness, but only problems. Life is too short, and there is no place for sadness," said Maria Solis of Paraguay. 

Singapore, Iraq and Armenia closed the list of the happiest countries in the world. It may be true that it is not the standard of living in a particular country, but the attitude of the citizens that matters."

What can we take from this? Well first of all we have probably had a few misconceptions all of our lives. That old seductive and conniving formula: success = happy. Now you can observe that you can be happy without success as are those citizens of the most poorest nations in the world happen to be. You can also observe the most successful nations are not at the top of the list as the most happy, hence success neither provides happiness nor sustains it. From a historical or evolutionary perspective, perhaps you could imagine those tribes in the Americas, Africa and Papa New-Guinea who were dancing around a fire laughing their asses off who were truly joyful, excited about life, excited about living, the threat of death was imperative, but the living pulse they had gave them such excitement and joy. Yet they never heard of this system the West offers. It's easy to conceive of true happiness, when we try.

But if happiness is neither dependent on success nor does success grant happiness, then what have you indeed been working towards your entire life?  Why are you doing what you do? I thought of this question a few times myself. Stay tuned for the next post of this series.

If the Qur'an is Absurd then...

Apparently the best argument for the Qur'ans divine origin is it's sublime insurpassable eloquence. Earlier I had provided a few quotes as to why many Arabic scholars and speakers cannot sincerely concede this claim. The following authors really highlight what the unfortunate result of this argument is:

From the literary point of view, the Koran has little merit. Declamation, repetition, puerility, a lack of logic and coherence strike the unprepared reader at every turn. It is humiliating to the human intellect to think that this mediocre literature has been the subject of innumerable commentaries, and that millions of men are still wasting time absorbing it. (Salomon Reinach, Orpheus: A History of Religions, (1909))

And what does this say about human intellect?

"On the whole, while many parts of the Koran undoubtedly have considerable rhetorical power, even over an unbelieving reader, the book, aesthetically considered, is by no means a first-rate performance... Muhammad, in short, is not in any sense a master of style. This opinion will be endorsed by any European who reads through the book with an impartial spirit and some knowledge of the language, without taking into account the tiresome effect of its endless iterations. But in the ears of every pious Muslim such a judgment will sound almost as shocking as downright atheism or polytheism. Among the Muslims, the Koran has always been looked upon as the most perfect model of style and language. This feature of it is in their dogmatic the greatest of all miracles, the incontestable proof of its divine origin. Such a view on the part of men who knew Arabic infinitely better than the most accomplished European Arabist will ever do, may well startle us. In fact, the Koran boldly challenged its opponents to produce ten suras, or even a single one, like those of the sacred book, and they never did so. That, to be sure, on calm reflection, is not so very surprising. Revelations of the kind which Muhammad uttered, no unbeliever could produce without making himself a laughingstock." - (Nöldeke, Theodor. "The Qur'an," Sketches from Eastern History. Trans. J.S. Black. London: Adam and Charles Black, 1892.)

New Debate: "Trinity or Tahweed Which is Logical" (Radical Moderate Vs Dr Tauheed)

Medicine for Tawheed (P1)

For those of you who don't (yet) know the Orthodox Islamic doctrine of Tawheed (Islamic Monotheism) teaches that God is a relative unity, this means that Allah is not wholly indivisible or entirely without composition. 

Instead Allah is a composite being (dhat), meaning (as Samuel Green puts it): "each of God’s attributes (his power, knowledge, speech, life, will, sight, hearing, breath, etc.) are a distinct attribute" and: "Islam solves the problem of God’s unity of essence and diversity of attributes by saying there is a special connection between them". 

Anthony Rogers points out some earlier Muslims refused to acknowledge these divisions within God: "According to the Mu‘tazilites, Allah’s absolute oneness, transcendence, and dissimilarity from all created reality precluded the idea that he had distinguishable and knowable attributes." 

But later Rogers observes this view was supplanted: "Although the Mu‘tazilite position was eventually displaced by the “suprarational” (i.e. mysterious, paradoxical, etc.) idea that God does have attributes “in addition to the essence in such a way as to be neither the essence nor other than the essence”".

Green adds how Orthodox Muslims (past and present) confronted this dilemma: 

For the Ash`aris this was expressed with the famous Arabic saying bi-la kayfa (without asking how). Therefore, if Muslims do not accept the unity and diversity of the Trinity they still must acknowledge that in Islam God does have unity and diversity, and that Muslim leaders disagree about how to explain this. That is, Muslim leaders do not agree about Tawheed, and Muslims are rarely encouraged to think about the diversity of God. 

A non-Muslim scholar who points out this controversial division is Harry Wolfson:

The belief in the reality of divine attributes was characterized by those who were opposed to it as being analogous to the Christian doctrine of the Trinity. Abul-faraj, also known as Bar Hebraeus, speaking of the Mu'tazilites, who denied the reality of divine attributes, says that thereby they steered clear of "the persons (akanim) of the Christians,"3 the implication being that the belief in the reality of divine attributes indirectly steers one into the belief of the Christian Trinity. 'Adad al-DIn al-Iji similarly reports that the Mu'tazilites accused those who believed in the reality of divine attributes of having fallen into the error of the Christian belief in the Trinity.4 And prior to both of them, among the Jews, David al-Mukammas,5 Saadia,6 Joseph al-Basir,7 and Maimonides,8 evidently reflecting still earlier Muslim sources, whenever they happen to mention the Muslim doctrine of the reality of divine attributes, compare it to the Christian doctrine of the Trinity. (Harry Austryn Wolfson, The Philosophy of the Kalam [Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press, 1976], p. 112f.)

Several Muslim Scholars confirm the same:

The Mu‘tazilah synthesized a complex theology that, while grounded in the Qur’an, was heavily influenced by Hellenistic rationalism. At its simplest level, their creed involved five “fundamentals.” The first was “unity,” by which the Mu‘tazilah meant more than simply the tawhid that Sunni Muslims understood: One God as opposed to many. The Mu‘tazilah insisted that God’s attributes had no existence distinguishable from His essence, but rather they emanated from the essence of God: God willed from His essence, and He knew from His essence. Their negation of God’s attributes arose from their concern regarding the Sunni position. The Sunnis, in turn, responded to the Mu‘tazilah, arguing that the attributes were in addition to the essence in such a way as to be neither the essence nor other than the essence; this was a suprarational attempt at avoiding the polytheism of which the Mu‘tazilah accused them. For the Mu‘tazilah, this affirmation of “hypostatic” attributes approximated the Orthodox Christian argument of a triune God that was closer to polytheism than monotheism. It is arguable that the debate is not simply semantic, but, in the eyes of the more conservative Sunni scholars, it accomplished little more than an immense exchange of talk (kalam) about God that the pristine understanding of the early community would never have accommodated. (The Creed of Imam Al-Tahawi (al-Aqidah al-Tahawiyyah), Translated, Introduced, and Annotated by Hamza Yusuf [Zaytuna Institute, 2007], p. 20).

And:

The Ash`aris maintain that the attributes of God are not the essence [dhat] nor are they other than His essence. If it is said that the attributes are the very essence of God (as the Mu`tazilah and philosophers claim), then it means that the essence of God is without attributes since they would be one and the same as the essence (whereas the attributes and essence are understood to be two different things). However, it is also problematic to say that the attributes of God are totally other than His essence, since it would mean that the attributes may exist separately and die away - whereas this is certainly not the case given that his attributes are eternal. The reality is that there is a special connection between His essence and attributes. His attributes exist in His essence, are eternal in His eternalness, and everlasting with His everlastingness. They have always been WITH HIM and will be that way for eternity. (Muhammad Salih Farfur, The Beneficial Message & The Definitive Proof in the Study of Theology, (Trans: Wesam Charkawi) 2010, p. 119)

The Great Islamic Scholar, (the Proof of Islam, Hujjathul Islam ,the Mujaddid of the 5th Century of Hijra) Imam Abu Hamid Muhammad al-Ghazali in his most noteworthy book on the theology of Islam stated of God's attributes:

They are not the essence but rather they are: (1) Eternal and subsistent in the essence, and that it is impossible that any aspect of the attributes is temporal. (2) Distinct (existing separately and objectively) (3) Super added to the essence. We maintain that the Master of the world is knowing according to knowledge, living according to life, powerful according to power, willing according to will, seeing according to sight, hearing according to hearing, and speaking according to speech. The divine attributes are not something other than God. All the attributes are all eternal because if they were originated the eternal a parte ante would be a locus for contingent things which is absurd .It is impossible for a necessary essence to possess possible attributes. When say “God”, we point to the divine essence together with the Attributes and not to the essence alone because the term “God” could not be predicated of an essence that is judged to be free from attributes. As against Philosophers and Christians who say that attributes are essence, We believe that attributes are not essence but only superadded to the Essence. They are rather point to essence.” The essence is independent of attributes but the attributes depend on the essence. All the attributes subsist in His Essence and none of them could possibly subsist without His Essence whether (the attribute is) in a locus or not. Just as the mind is capable of intellecting an eternal existent who has no cause, it is also capable of intellecting an eternal existent who has attributes and who has no cause for the existence OF BOTH [essence as independent and attributes as super added. i.e, the attributes are not something other than Allah and there in no plurality in his essence either through attributes or otherwise]. (Al Ghazali On Divine Predicates And Their Properties)

The last quotation is the most baffling of all them, yet it is the official position of Orthodox Islam. Even attempting to summate this incoherence is mind boggling. I will only attempt to put forward some of the possible paradoxes: 

• God's attributes are not his essence but they are in his essence
• God's essence does not contain any plurality or multiplicity yet attributes are super added his essence
• Are they super added or in his essence or do they actually point to the essence? 
• God's essence is independent of attributes yet the attributes are not other than the essence, nor the essence
• All the attributes cannot exist without God's essence, but God's essence is independent of any and all attributes
• God's attributes are not God's essence nor other than his essence
• The attributes are not other than Allah but nor are they Allah's essence

Anthony Rogers documents an irony: "According to Hamza Yusuf, when one looks at questions like the relationship of Allah’s essence to his attributes, as well as a number of other issues that have been fiercely debated by Muslims throughout the centuries, Islamic theology must be defined or described as:

A mental activity by nature and often involves paradoxes, in which seemingly insoluble problems…are dialectically entertained in the mind of the theologian, who then attempts to reconcile them, using sacred scripture and intellect—a combination made volatile and dangerous in the absence of a devout piety that would otherwise illuminate both the effort and the outcome. For this reason, true theology is, to a certain degree, the squaring of a circle within an enlightened mind. (The Creed of Imam Al-Tahawi, Translated, Introduced, and Annotated by Hamza Yusuf (Zaytuna Institute, 2007), p. 13.)

Perhaps this is why some Muslim Scholars have just given up. Muhammad ‘Abduh, the renowned and highly respected Egyptian scholar of the early part of the 20th century, had this to say:

But as for whether the attributes are other or more than the essence, whether speech is an attribute other than the import of the heavenly books within the Divine knowledge, and whether hearing and seeing in God are other than His knowledge of things heard and seen, and other such controversial issues, of the pundits and the contentions of the schools—all these are questions impenetrable to us, beyond the wit of human mind to attain.[Muhammad ‘Abduh 56]

But not all Muslim scholars have relented, some just reverted back to ancient times:

“…. The very concept of ‘definition’ implies the possibility of a comparison or correlation of an object with other objects; God, however, is unique, there being ‘nothing like unto Him’ (42:11) and, therefore, ‘nothing that could be compared with Him’ (112:4) – with the result that any attempt at defining Him or His ‘attributes’ is a logical impossibility and, from the ethical point of view, a sin. The fact that He is UNDEFINABLE makes it clear that the ‘attributes’ (sifat) of God mentioned in the Qur’an do not circumscribe His reality but, rather, THE PERCEPTIBLE EFFECT OF HIS ACTIVITY on and within the universe created by Him.” (The Message of the Qur’an – Translated and Explained by Muhammad Asad, Surah 6, fn.88. See also Surah 13, fn.21; Surah 76, fn.73.)

I cannot help but recall Samuel Green's words:

"Muslim leaders disagree about how to explain this. That is, Muslim leaders do not agree about Tawheed, and Muslims are rarely encouraged to think about the diversity of God."

I can only conclude with a germane comment made by Anthony Rogers:

"THIS is the grand cure for the Christian doctrine of the Trinity?"

(Stay Tuned for P2: The Grand Cure)

God is love! Alas: God is Triune

A quick scan on Google Books will report multiple adherents of this argument: Najeeb Awad, Edward H. Bickersteth, Piotr Malysz, Selwyn Hughes, Wolfhart Pannenberg, Raniero Cantalamessa and even my own friend Sam Shamoun! (see here)

I don't know the exact origination of the argument but some of it's very early advocates were St. Augustine and St. Anselm; then later Aquinas.

Perhaps the most famous philosopher and advocate of this argument in our era is Richard Swinburne. He states the argument like this:

"There is something profoundly imperfect and therefore inadequately divine in a solitary divine individual. If such an individual is love, he must share, and sharing with finite beings such as humans is not sharing all of one's nature and so is imperfect sharing. A divine individual's love has to be manifested in a sharing with another divine individual, and that (to keep the divine unity) means (in some sense) within the Godhead, that is, in mutual dependence and support." (Swinburne, The Christian God [Oxford University Press, USA, November 24, 1994], p. 190)

It first came to my attention by perhaps one of the most popular and best apologists in Christianity, William Lane Craig in one of his debates with Muslim Apologist Shabir Ally:

"In fact, I like to finish out my first contention by offering an argument for why I think it’s plausible to think that God is a Trinity. To begin with, God is by definition the greatest conceivable Being; if you could think of any thing greater than God then that would be God. [DSS would satisfy this – DK]

Now as the greatest conceivable being God must be perfect… if there were any imperfection in God then he would not be the greatest conceivable Being. Now a perfect Being must be a loving Being for love is a moral perfection. It is better for a person to be loving than unloving. God, therefore, must be a perfectly loving Being.

Now it is of the very nature of love to give oneself away. Love reaches out to another person rather than centering wholly in oneself. So if God is perfectly loving, by his very nature he must be giving his love to another.

But who is that other?

It cannot be any created person since creation is the result of God’s free will, not a result of his nature. It belongs to God’s very essence to love but it does not belong to his essence to create. God is necessarily loving but he is not necessarily creating; so we can imagine a possible world in which God is perfectly loving and yet no created persons exist. So created persons cannot be the sufficient explanation of whom God loves. Moreover, we know from science that created persons have not always existed from eternity, but God is eternally loving. So, again, created persons alone are not sufficient to explain who the other is to whom God’s love is necessarily directed. It follows, therefore, that that other to whom God’s love is necessarily directed must be internal to God himself.

In other words, God is not a single, isolated individual as Islam holds; rather God is a plurality of Persons as the Christian doctrine of the Trinity holds. On the Islamic view God is not a Triad of Persons, he is a single person who does not give himself away in love essentially to another. He is focused essentially only upon himself, and hence he cannot be the most perfect being.

But on the Christian view God is a Triad of Persons in eternal, self-giving love relationships. Thus, since God is essentially loving the doctrine of the Trinity is more plausible than any unitarian doctrine of God, such as Islam. Why? Because God is by nature a perfect Being of self-giving love."

Sam Shamoun adds:

"Being able to create doesn’t necessitate a relationship between two parties. After all, God doesn’t have to create something in order to be all-powerful or self-sufficient since his ability to create doesn’t depend on the existence of more than one entity. It merely depends on his having enough power to create whatever he pleases. 

Divine love, however, is different in that love presupposes a relationship with more than one party. Hence, if God weren’t sharing his love with someone then he wouldn’t be perfectly loving since perfect love only exists between at least two persons, i.e. the Lover and the Beloved. 

Furthermore, forgiveness is a result of God being love, i.e. that God is willing to forgive those who offend and hurt him on the grounds that he is love and, therefore, loves them...Yet forgiveness is not required for God to be perfectly loving provided that those he loves are living in perfect union and fellowship with him. It is only when such persons sin that God would need to show forgiveness, provided that he does love them."

I believe the following quote provided by Ralph Smith is among the most plausible variations of the argument I have witnessed:

“Of all the gods in all the religions of the world, only the triune God of the Bible is truly and wholly personal. This point is often not recognized, so we will dwell on it briefly. First, consider the non-Christian theism embraced by Jews and Muslims, the belief in a single god who rules the world. By itself, theism will not suffice to give us a truly personal god, for a god who is utterly and simply one—a mere monad—fails to have the qualities we know to be essential to personality. Although an absolute monad, like the god of Islam, is the most exalted non-Christian idea of deity, a monad is a being who is eternally alone—with no other to love, no other with whom to communicate, and no other with whom to have fellowship. In the case of such a solitary god, love, fellowship, and communication cannot be essential to his being. Indeed, they are not part of the monad at all. But without these qualities it is difficult to imagine that the deity so understood is in any meaningful sense personal. To conceive of a god who does not know love, a god who has never shared, a god for whom a relationship with another is eternally irrelevant, is to conceive of an abstraction, an idea or a thing more than a person. 

If, to make his god more personal, a believer in such a deity suggested that this god loved the world after he created it, the result would be a god who changes in time and who needs the world in order to grow into his self-realization as a god of love—a god who becomes personal only with the help of the creation. Suppose one asserted that the monad loved the world from eternity? Then the personality of this deity and his attribute of love would still depend for their existence on the world he created. Creation would be a necessary act of self-becoming. For, unless this deity created the world, he could not realize the love that had been eternally hidden in him, waiting for its time to shine forth. 

In either case, we would have theism of a sort. Both cases would be attempts to obtain a monad for whom love had some meaning. However, these attempts succeed in exalting the monad ethically by demoting him ontologically, for he is no longer absolute, no longer transcendent. We would have to admit that he could no longer truly be god, and that a god who varies or a god who is dependent on the world that he creates is not worthy to be regarded as a deity. Be that as it may, in either of these cases, though the idea of love has been imported into an inchoate theism, we are clearly far from the biblical concept of a personal fellowship of love among equals. Of course, neither orthodox Jews nor orthodox Muslims imagine their god as a changing or contingent being. They would not think of revising their views of god to enhance his image and compensate for his lack of personal qualities. It follows that they must be satisfied with a god who exists in an eternal vacuum, even though they will find irresistible the temptation to ascribe personality to the monad… 

What we have said here about love applies to other attributes of God also. In the Bible, words like righteousness, faithfulness, and goodness refer to divine attributes that ultimately require the doctrine of the Trinity. None of these notions can be defined biblically apart from the relationships between Father, Son, and Spirit. Even outside of the biblical worldview, they cannot really be defined apart from the context of interpersonal relationship. Righteousness for a lonely monad simply has no specific content. Righteousness for the triune God means that each of the persons respects and preserves the boundaries of the others. The Father honors the Son and does not allow the infringement of what belongs to the Son. Goodness refers to their mutual seeking of blessing for one another, faithfulness to their keeping their word with one another. In the absence of a relationship among persons, these and similar words become so utterly abstract that meaning disappears. They may describe the monad’s relationship to the world, but that brings up the same problems that appeared when we considered the meaning of love.” (Smith, Trinity and Reality: An Introduction to the Christian Faith, pp. 18-19.)

Finally in-conjunction with an argument against Islamic Monotheism, the following author argues this kind of monotheism produces an impersonal object as a deity:

“The unity of God is unique. It is the only unity of the kind. An individual man is one; and any individual creature or thing is one. But there are others like it, each of which is likewise numerically one. God is not merely one, but the only one; not merely unus (one), but unicus (unique). He is not one of a species or one in contrast with another of the same kind. God is one God and the only God. The notion of the unique must be associated with that of unity in the instance of the Supreme Being. God is not a unit, but a unity. A unit, like a stone or a stick, is marked by mere singleness. It admits no interior distinctions and is incapable of that inherent trinality which is necessary to self-knowledge and self-consciousness. Mere singleness is incompatible with society, and therefore incompatible with divine communion and blessedness. God is blessed only as he is self-knowing and self-communing. A subject without an object could not experience either love or joy. Love and joy are social. They imply more than a single person. The scriptural doctrine of divine plenitude favors distinctions in divine essence. Fullness of being implies variety of existence. A finite unit has no plurality or manifoldness. It is destitute of modes of subsistence. Meagerness and barrenness mark a unit; opulence and fruitfulness mark a unity. This plērōma or plenitude of divine essence is spoken of in the following: “filled with all the fullness of God” (Eph. 3:19) and “the fullness of the Godhead” (Col. 1:19; 2:9). Owen (in his work Doctrine of the Trinity Vindicated) remarks that “it may be true that in one essence there can be but one person, when the essence is finite and limited, but not when the essence is infinite.” [Shedd, W. G. T., & Gomes, A. W. (2003). Dogmatic theology (3rd ed.) (222). Phillipsburg, N.J.: P & R Pub.]