Click here for previous session

The concept that God provided revelation without clarifying His Own nature
grates painfully against our innate understanding of God as all­merciful, providing clear
guidance to all mankind.
Standard Trinitarian response? That people would believe if only they understood.
Standard Unitarian response? Nobody understands the Trinity—nobody. That’s why it’s
a religious mystery. Talk with Trinitarian clergy long enough, bring up the above
objections (and those that follow), and sooner or later the confirmed Trinitarian will
admit, “It’s a mystery.” The you­just­have­to­have­faith defense is not far behind. The
Unitarian typically points out, however, that moments earlier the Trinitarian proposed
that people would believe, if only they understood. However, when a legitimate attempt
is made to understand, by way of seeking answers to relevant questions, the claim
transforms to one of a religious mystery (i.e., nobody understands!). A final defense is the
suggestion that, “The only way a person can believe is to have faith” (i.e., the only way to
believe is to believe). But if blind, unthinking faith is the methodology God bids us to
follow, why does He command us to reason (“‘Come now, and let us reason together,’
says the Lord …” Isaiah 1:18)?*
So what is a non­biblical source? A person can safely assume that if it’s not from
scripture (that is, not from God), then it must be from the minds of men (and what does that equate to if not human imagination?). How much safer would it have been to have
modified church doctrine to conform with rational argument and, more importantly,
scripture?
No doubt adhering to Trinitarian notions cemented the job security of Trinitarian
clergy, albeit upon questionable tenets of faith clothed in the mantle of church approval.
Likewise, no doubt confidence in church teachings waned in the minds of thinkers like
Arius—thinkers who continued to highlight the fact that Jesus never claimed sonship or
partnership in divinity, and for that matter, neither did his disciples. Furthermore,
evidence suggests neither did Paul.*
After admitting reliance upon “non­biblical categories” to define the church’s
view of Jesus Christ’s relation to God, the New Catholic Encyclopedia outlines some of
the constructed doctrines, such as consubstantiality, begotten and not made, etc. Next,
they make the unbelievably straight­faced assertion that Augustine sought the ideology
most compatible with inbred human understanding (i.e., “Augustine sought in man’s
psychology or way of knowing the natural analogate for understanding the eternal
generation of the Son.”
94 ).
Nobody can be faulted for reading that statement and muttering, “They … are …
joking—they must be.” After all, isn’t this the doctrine responsible for the Medieval and Spanish inquisitions, the eight waves of the Christian Crusades, and countless forced
conversions of natives during the age of colonialism? The doctrine that makes so much
sense that over twelve million died under torture in denial of the tenets of Trinitarian
faith? Twelve million! The doctrine that makes so much sense that, to this day, African
natives have to be coerced into conversion through baiting with food and medicine?
The average person on the street might conclude that if torture and coercion are
required to refresh memories, someone needs to redefine the meaning of “innate
understanding.”
And why not? A lot of values have been redefined.

…….continue reading……

Click here for previous session

Seeking Rain through the Lunar Phases (Constellation)

Allah the Most Exalted said: “And instead (of thanking Allah) for the provision He gives you, on the contrary, you deny
Him (by disbelief) (and say that we have rained because of such and such lunar phase and such and such star)!” (56:82)

Abu Malik AI-Ash’ari (May Allah be pleased with him) narrated Allah’s Messenger (May the peace and blessing of Allah be upon him) as saying: “My Ummah will not abandon four undesirable matters from the Period of Ignorance (period previous to Islam). They are:

(1) Over pridefulness in ancestors;

(2) Defaming or slandering
someone’s lineage;

(3) Seeking rain according to the stars, i.e. believing that falling star causes the rain on the earth; and

(4) Lamentation and wailing of women for the dead.” He (May the peace and blessing of Allah be upon him) further said, “If the bewailing woman does not repent before her death, she will be raised on the Day of the Resurrection covered with a dress of liquid pitch, and a cloak of itches.” (Muslim)

Narrated Zaid bin Khalid (May Allah be pleased with him) Allah’s Messenger (May the peace and blessing of Allah be upon him) ~ led us in the Fair prayer at Hudaibiyah after a rainy night. On completion of the Salat (prayer), he faced the people and said, “Do you know what your Lord (May Allah be pleased with him) has said (revealed)?” The people replied, “Allah and His Messenger know better.” He said, “Allah has said, ‘In this morning, some of Ibadi (My slaves) remained as true believers and some became disbelievers;
whoever said that the rain was due to the blessings and the mercy of Allah is the one who believes in Me and he disbelieves in the star, and whoever said that it rained because of a particular star, is a disbeliever in Me and believer in the star.’ ”
(Al-Bukhari and Muslim)

Al-Bukhari and Muslim also have a similar Hadith from Ibn Abbas (May Allah be pleased with him) where it has been said that Allah revealed the following verses (Surah Waqi’ah 56:75-82); when some said that it rained because of such and such a star: 

“So I swear by Mawaqi (setting or the mansions etc.) of the stars (they traverse). And verily, that is indeed a great oath, if you but know. That (this) is indeed an honourable recital (the Noble Qur’an). In a Book well-guarded (with Allah in the heaven i.e. Al-Lauh Al-Mahfuz). Which (that
Book with Allah) none can touch but those who are pure from sins (i.e. the angels). A Revelation (this Qur’an) from the Lord of the ‘Alamin (mankind, jinns and all that exists). It is such a talk (this Qur’an) that you (disbelievers) deny? And instead (of thanking Allah) for the provision He
gives you, on the contrary, you deny Him (by disbelief)!”

Important issues of the Chapter

1) Explanation of the verses in Al-Waqi ‘ah (56: 75-82).

2) The four undesirable customs of the pre-Islamic period.

3) The Kufr (disbelief) contained in some of them.

4) That some acts of disbelief do not expel one from the religion (of Islam).

5) The Statement of Allah
“In this morning, some of Ibddi (my slaves) remained as true believers and some became disbelievers…” due to the favor bestowed upon them (of rain).

6) The understanding of Iman in such a circumstance.

7) The understanding of Kufr (disbelief) in such a circumstance.

8) The understanding of his statement in response to some who verified: “It rained because of such and such star.”

9) The scholar’s teaching to students by way of a question to explain the issue as the Prophet (May the peace and blessing of Allah be upon him) said: “Do you know what your Lord (May Allah be pleased with him) has said (revealed)?”

10) Punishment promised to the bewailing women.

…….continue reading……

Any attempt to equalise the male and the female genders will be a rude denial of nature. If it is generally believed that the man is much stronger than the woman; that the husband is the head of the family from whom the wife takes orders; that the boy, not the girl-child, should rather be saddled with energy-demanding chores; that soldiers be led in war by the man, not the lady, then gender, axiomatically, unequivocally has never and can never be equal.

Many people fall for anything ideated by the west without recourse to a second thought and/or rethink. They give their hearts to any western ideology hook, line and sinker, not minding the potential cons such portends for them.

If only the God-gifted reasoning distinguishing the human from the animal could be judiciously explored, one would crystally see that there is no how gender can ever be equal. It is not deniable that there are innumerable things in the strength of the man that the woman cannot attempt, let alone doing it, just as the woman has got the nature to carry out certain numberless phenomena which aren’t in the strength of the man. How then is gender equal?

In the home, someone has to be the orderer, while others be the ordered. Nature has designed it such that if the woman is the orderer, the home will end up shattered and torn apart. It’s been so perfected that the man gives the orders, while the woman implements them. Any attempt to do it the other way is sinequanon to failure from genesis.

Maybe the proponents of gender equality actually meant to tout the woman’s rights, respect and dignity. If my assumption were correct, I would be the first to champion the cause, for my religion, Islam, emphasises the fundamentality of the woman’s dignity, especially while under the principalship of her husband.

By nature, gender isn’t equal.

COULD GENDER BE EQUAL?
By
Sanni Kay. Yusuf @ KnowIslam.com.ng

Click here for previous session

Arius argued that the divine Triad was composed of three separate and distinct
realities, and that Jesus Christ was of created, finite nature. In other words, a man. Arius’
major work, Thalia (meaning “banquet”), was first publicized in 323 CE and created such
a stir that the Council of Nicaea was convened in 325 to address the Arian challenges.
For example, the Arian syllogism proposed that if Jesus was a man, then we shouldn’t
say he was God, and if Jesus was God, we shouldn’t say he died. Arius proposed that the
God­man concept doesn’t stand up to critical analysis, and defies explanation.
Arian challenges to Trinitarian theology would swamp and sink below the
surface of history if anyone could explain the God­man concept. But 1,700 years of
sifting the sand of apologetics have failed to yield a jewel of Trinitarian reason
sufficiently brilliant to satisfy the skeptics. Challenging questions periodically resurface
and echo Arian arguments. For example, we can well ask, “When God reportedly became
man, did He give up His divine powers?” For if He did, then He wasn’t God anymore,
and if He didn’t, He wasn’t man. “If the God­man died on the cross, does this mean God
died?” No, of course not. So who died? Just the “man” part? But in that case, the sacrifice
wasn’t good enough, for the claim is that only a divine sacrifice could atone for the sins
of mankind. The problem is, the man­portion of the proposed tri­unity dying would
contribute no more to the atonement of sins than would the death of a sinless man. Which
leaves little option for explanation other than to revert to the claim that some element of divinity died. Strictly monotheistic Jews, Unitarian Christias and Muslims would no
doubt contend that, as for those who say it was God who died, well, they can just go to
hell. (The expectation is that God, who is living and eternal, will agree.)
But to continue the thought, Trinitarian doctrine claims that God not only became
man, but remained God—a concept Unitarians consider the literary equivalent of an
Escher “impossible construction” sketch. The statement satisfies the grammatical
requirements of the English language for a sentence, but the impossible contortions can
never a reality make. A tree can no more be converted to furniture and still be a tree than
a cooked pot roast can be a cow. Once transformed, the qualities of the original are lost.
And yet Catholicism made a religion out of transubstantiation, which claims the exact
opposite—that two different substances are one.
The Unitarian declaration is that God is God and man is man. Those who confuse
the two fail to recognize that God cannot give up His Godliness, because His entity is
defined by His divine attributes. Neither does God need to experience human existence in
order to understand the suffering of mankind. Nobody knows the plight of mankind better
than the Creator, since He created mankind with knowledge of everything from
thermoreceptors to thoughts, from cilia to subconscious. God knows the problems, plight,
and suffering of mankind—He created a universe whose complexities transcend such
superficial dimensions of human existence.
The “But God can do anything” defense prompts the question, “Well, if God can
do anything, then why didn’t He make sense of Trinitarian doctrine—assuming it’s valid,
that is?” If God can do anything, He could have provided a sensible explanation which
would not require resorting to “non­biblical categories.” But He didn’t. Why? Did God leave mankind to figure it out for themselves, or can a person safely assume there’s no
basis in religious reality for something God didn’t reveal?

……continue reading…..