8/4/2019 Unveiling Ibn Anwar
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/unveiling-ibn-anwar 1/21
Unveiling Ibn Anwar Part 1
Sam Shamoun
Muslim apologist Ibn Anwar wrote a ―reply‖ (*; *) to a youtube response by Dr. James R.
White to Ibn Anwar‘s article regarding the OT denying that God is a man and how thissupposedly refutes the Deity of the Lord Jesus.
To read the replies to Ibn Anwar‘s misuse of the OT we recommend the following:
http://answering-islam.org/authors/nakdimon/rebuttals/ibnanwar/god_not_man.html
http://answering-islam.org/authors/shamoun/god_as_man.html
In that particular article Ibn Anwar grossly misrepresented Dr. White‘s position wh ich
prompted Dr. White to reply and correct the blatant distortion of his statements.
However, Dr. White is not the only person that Ibn Anwar misrepresents since this is a
consistent habit of his as a careful examination of his articles easily proves.
Ibn Anwar also has a habit of misquoting and/or selectively citing sources as well as
distorting the actual position of his references. He further confuses various issues together
and proceeds to deny that the Holy Bible actually teaches a particular doctrine on the basis of
his own confusion and selective citations.
For instance, in his ―reply‖ to Dr. White‘s rebuttal Ibn Anwar quotes Christian scholar
Millard J. Erickson to prove that the Holy Bible does not explicitly teach the doctrine of the
Holy Trinity:
Dr. James White however, is of the opinion that the Trinity is simple. In fact he says in his
response, ―The reality is the doctrine of the Trinity is fairly easily defined and has been
around for a long long time, therefore, to understand what it‘s saying is not that difficult…‖
Notice that he says the doctrine has been around for a long time and therefore(because of
that) it is easy to understand. Hindu anthropomorphism and pantheism have been around
longer than the Trinity and yet if you were to ask 30 Hindus hardly anyone will be able to
provide a cogent answer because Hinduism is simply a mess and the people make up their
own gods whenever they wish. Prolonged period of time does not necessitate easeness [sic] in
comprehension. If it did we wouldn‘t find Christians(many Christians even learned ones)
stumbling all over the place trying to explain the Trinity to themselves and others. Dr. Whitesuggests that we go to systematic theologians for correct understanding of the Trinity. The
rule of thumb is of course to go to the experts. No problem. Let‘s go to an expert in the field
and see what he says about the Trinity. How about we look at the words of Dr. Millard
Erickson who‘s a professor of Systematic Theology at Western Seminary, Portland, Oregon.
He was also professor of theology at Bethel University seminary and also taught at Baylor
University. He writes,
―This doctrine in many ways presents strange paradoxes…It is a widely disputed doctrine,
which has provoked discussion throughout all the centuries of the church‘s existence. It is
held by manywith [sic] great vehemence and vigor. These advocates are certain they believe
the doctrine and consider it crucial to the Christian faith. Yet many are unsure of the exactmeaning of their belief . It was the vey first doctrine dealt with systematically by the church,
8/4/2019 Unveiling Ibn Anwar
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/unveiling-ibn-anwar 2/21
yet it is still one of the most misunderstood and disputed docrines [sic]. Further, it is not
clearly or explicitly taught anywhere in scripture, yet it is widely regarded as a central
doctrine, indispensable to the Christian faith. In this regard, it goes contrary to what is
virtually an axiom[that is, a given, a self-evident truth] of biblical doctrine, namely, that there
is a direct correlation between the scriptural clarity ofa [sic] doctrine and its cruciality [sic] to
the faith and life of the church.‖ [1] (emphasis added)
So according to the above testimony from a prominent theologian the Trinity is widely
disputed and misunderstood. This is something that should not exist if indeed as Dr. White
claims, ―it is fairly easily defined‖.
Dr. White then goes on to say that, ―at least, you can go back to 15, 16, 17 hundred years and
find a lot of consistency in what is being said on the central issues.‖ Yet, Dr. Erickson
glaringly says that it is widely disputed and misunderstood!
In the first place, Ibn Anwar once again distorts Dr. White‘s point by taking his words out of
context. Dr. White was not claiming that a person can fully understand and thereforecomprehensively explain the Trinity since Dr. White believes that God‘s Being is beyond our
ability to fully comprehend. In fact, all informed Christians will readily admit that the
difficulty lies in trying to adequately explain and understand the exact reality of this Divinely
revealed truth. What Dr. White was referring to is the basic definition of the Trinity which
says that there is only one eternal Being of God shared by three eternally distinct Divine
Persons.
Nor was Dr. White saying that ALL Christians have a proper understanding of what the
doctrine entails since this is what he said right before and after making the statement that Ibn
Anwar wrenched out of context:
―... in my opinion the vast majority of misunderstanding that I have encountered amongst my
Muslim friends in this subject is not because of a lack of clarity on our part. Granted, I‟m
sure they have to deal with Christians who are somewhat less than accurate in their
understanding of the doctrine of the Trinity, maybe not well trained in the area. There are
Christians like that, no question about that . But the reality is that the doctrine of the Trinity is
fairly, easily defined, and has been around for a long, long time. And, therefore, to
understand what its saying is really not that difficult as long as you‘re willing to go to people
who have maybe spent at least some time dealing with the subject. I mean you can go back
literally, what, at least 15, 16, 17 hundred years and find a lot of consistency in what is being
said about the central issues as long as you are looking for consistency and not looking tofind contradictions, which is what I think is one of the problems. But it‘s not that difficult to
define the doctrine of the Trinity or the doctrine of the Incarnation. There are confessions of
faith that lay these things out very clearly; there are excellent works and systematic theology
that lay these things out very clearly. And so why is there such confusion on the part of
Muslims on the subject? I think it‘s because Islam forces the confusion upon them through its
misrepresentation of the doctrine. Certainly the Quran never indentifies the doctrine of the
Trinity in any accurate fashion to any depth whatsoever. In fact, I would say that it is
inaccurate in its description of the doctrine of the Trinity.‖
It is clear that Ibn Anwar is doing nothing more than attack a straw man at this point, as well
as throw out red herrings.
8/4/2019 Unveiling Ibn Anwar
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/unveiling-ibn-anwar 3/21
Secondly, Ibn Anwar is either being dishonest or is simply ignorant since he is unable to
differentiate between the Biblical basis for the Trinity and the precise formulation of the
doctrine which took centuries to hammer out. Because of this failure to differentiate between
the two Ibn Anwar gives the misleading impression that Erickson actually denied that the
Trinity is revealed in the Holy Bible.
However, here is what Erickson writes in his systematic theology which helps us to better
understand his point:
―The Bible does not explicitly teach the trinitarian view of God, but the teachings that God is
one and that there are three persons who are God clearly imply this view. Christianity is the
only major religion that makes this claim about God. Numerous attempts have been made to
understand this profound truth. Some have led to distortions of this very important doctrine.
While we may never fully comprehend this difficult doctrine, there are analogies that
can help us understand it more fully. Properly understood, this doctrine has profound
practical implications for the Christian life.‖ (Millard J. Erickson, Christian Theology [Baker
Books, Grand Rapids MI; Second edition 1999], Part 3: What God is Like, 16. God‘s Three-In-Oneness, p. 346; bold emphasis ours)
―In the doctrine of the Trinity, we encounter one of the truly distinctive doctrines of
Christianity. Among the religions of the world, the Christian faith is unique in making the
claim that God is one and yet there are three who are God. Although it seems on the surface
to be a self-contradictory doctrine and is not overtly or explicitly stated in Scripture,
nevertheless, devout minds have been led to it as they sought to do justice to the witness
of Scripture.‖ (347)
―We will begin our study of the Trinity by examining the biblical basis of the doctrine,
since this is fundamental to all else that we do here… There are three separate but interrelated
types of evidence for the unity of God – that God is one; evidence that there are three persons
who are God; and finally indications or at least intimations of the three-in-oneness.‖ (348;
bold emphasis ours)
―All this evidence, if taken by itself, would no doubt lead us to a basically monotheistic
belief. What, then, moved the church beyond this evidence? It was the additional biblical
witness to the effect that three persons are God…‖ (350; bold emphasis ours)
―On the surface, these two lines of evidence–God‘s oneness and threeness– seem
contradictory. In the earliest years of its existence the church did not have much opportunityto study the relationship between these two sets of data. The process of organizing itself and
propagating the faith and even the struggle for survival in a hostile world precluded much
serious doctrinal reflection. As the Church became more secure, however, it began attempting
to fit together these two types of material. It concluded that God must be understood as three-
in-one, or in other words, triune. At this point we must pose the question whether this
doctrine is explicitly taught in the Bible, is suggested by the Scripture, or is merely an
inference drawn from other teachings of the Bible.‖ (352-353)
―Our conclusion from the data we have just examined: Although the doctrine of the Trinity is
not expressly asserted, Scripture, particularly the New Testament, contains so many
suggestions of the deity and unity of the three persons that we can understand why the
8/4/2019 Unveiling Ibn Anwar
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/unveiling-ibn-anwar 4/21
church formulated the doctrine, and conclude that they were right in so doing .‖ (357;
bold emphasis ours)
6. In the final analysis, the Trinity is incomprehensible. When someday we will see God, we
shall see him as he is, and understand him better than we do now. Yet even then we will not
totally comprehend him. Because he is the unlimited God and we are limited in our capacityto know and understand, he will always exceed our knowledge and understanding. We will
always be human beings, even though perfected human beings. We will never become God.
Those aspects of God which we will never fully comprehend should be regarded as
mysteries that go beyond our reason RATHER THAN PARADOXES THAT
CONFLICT WITH REASON. (363-364; bold and capital emphasis ours)
It is clear from Erickson‘s statements that he believes and affirms that the Trinity is a Biblical
revelation. His point concerning the doctrine of the Trinity not being explicitly taught in the
Holy Bible relates to the precise language which subsequent generations of Christians
developed in order to systematically and accurately define the Biblical teaching so as to
safeguard it against heretics who were plaguing the Christian communities with their false,distorted views of the Godhead.
Erickson is basically stating that the Holy Bible doesn‘t use terms such as hypostasis,
homoousios, ―Being,‖ ―Persons,‖ eternal generation, eternal procession etc., to describe the
relationship of the three Divine Persons with one another. It does, however, affirm all of the
necessary truths which led to the development and use of such words and terminology. Ibn
Anwar is simply distorting Erickson‘s position.
In fact, Ibn Anwar commonly makes the mistake of confusing the Biblical basis for the
Trinity with its later doctrinal formulation. He then proceeds to read this confusion into
references that he quotes to show that the Holy Bible does not teach the explicit doctrine of
the Trinity and erroneously assumes that these sources are therefore denying that the Trinity
is a Biblical teaching!
Ibn Anwar is operating under the mistaken assumption that unless the Holy Bible defines the
Trinity in the exact same way that the later Church and creeds do then it cannot be a Biblical
doctrine. As we shall see in the next part of our rebuttal this argument will come to backfire
against his very own unitarian beliefs.
Ibn Anwar next appeals to Bart Ehrman‘s book, Lost Christianities, to prove that there were
various so-called Christian groups in the first three centuries of Christianity which theorthodox stamped out!
But anyway, let us say for the sake of argument that Dr. White is correct in his estimation.
What I would like to know is why does he not trace it back to the early initial years of
Christianity? If you trace the Trinity back 1700 years ago there‘s a gap of over three hundred
years! Where was the Trinity in those first three hundred years? I would suggest people
purchase Prof. Bart Ehrman‘s Lost Scriptures and Lost Christianities for in depth information
on other theological ideas that existed in the early years of Christianity and got stamped out
by what eventually became ―Orthodoxy‖.
8/4/2019 Unveiling Ibn Anwar
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/unveiling-ibn-anwar 5/21
This gives the misleading impression that not only could these other sects legitimately trace
their teachings back to Christ and his original followers but that they were actually more
faithful in preserving Jesus‘ message than the orthodox Christians!
Here, again, Ibn Anwar is simply being deceptive by failing to mention the names of these
other so-called Christian sects and how their views impact his beliefs as a Muslim.
For instance, the main groups that Ehrman mentions are the Ebionites, Marcionites and
various Gnostic sects.
Concerning the Ebionites Ehrman writes that,
―One other aspect of the Ebionites‘ Christianity that set it apart from that of most other
Christian groups was their understanding of who Jesus was. The Ebionites did not subscribe
to the notion of Jesus‘ preexistence or his virgin birth. These ideas were originally distinct
from each other. The two New Testament Gospels that speak of Jesus being conceived of a
virgin (Matthew and Luke) do not indicate that he existed prior to his birth, just as the NewTestament books that appear to presuppose his preexistence (cf. John 1:1-3, 18; Phil. 2:5-11)
never mention his virgin birth. But when all these books came to be included in the New
Testament, both notions came to be affirmed simultaneously, so that Jesus was widely
thought of as having been with God in eternity past (John, Paul) who became flesh (John) by
being born of the Virgin Mary (Matthew, Luke).
―Ebionites, however, did not have our New Testament and understood Jesus differently. For
them, Jesus was the Son of God not because of his divine nature or virgin birth but because of
his ‗adoption‘ by God to be his son. This kind of Christology is, accor dingly, sometimes
called ‗adoptionist.‘ To express the matter more fully, the Ebionites believed that Jesus was a
real flesh-and-blood human like the rest of us, born as the eldest son of THE SEXUAL
UNION OF HIS PARENTS, Joseph and Mary. What set Jesus apart from all other people
was that he kept God‘s law perfectly and so was the most righteous man on earth. As such,
God chose him to be his son and assigned to him a special mission, to sacrifice himself
for the sake of others. Jesus then went to the cross, not as a punishment for his owns sins
BUT FOR THE SINS OF THE WORLD, a perfect sacrifice in fulfillment of all of God‘s
promises to his people, the Jews, in the holy Scriptures. As a sign of his acceptance of
Jesus‟ sacrifice, God then raised Jesus from the dead and exalted him to heaven.
―It appears that Ebionite Christians also believed that since Jesus was the perfect, ultimate,
final sacrifice for sins, there was no longer any need for the ritual sacrifice of animals. Jewishsacrifices, therefore, were understood as temporary and imperfect measure provided by God
to atone for sins until the perfect atoning sacrifice should be made…
―The Ebionites did have other ‗Christian‘ texts as part of their canon, however. Not
surprisingly, they appear to have accepted the Gospel of Matthew as their principal scriptural
authority. Their own version of Matthew, however, may have been a translation of the text
into Aramaic. Jesus himself spoke Aramaic in Palestine, as did his earliest followers. It would
make sense that a group of Jewish followers of Jesus that originated in Palestine would
continue to cite his words, and stories about him, in his native tongue. It appears likely that
this Aramaic Matthew was somewhat different from the Matthew now in the canon. In
particular, the Matthew used by Ebionite Christians would have lacked the first twochapters, which narrate Jesus‟ birth to a virgin– a notion that the Ebionite Christians
8/4/2019 Unveiling Ibn Anwar
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/unveiling-ibn-anwar 6/21
rejected. There were doubtless other differences from our own version of Matthew‘s Gospe l
as well.‖ (Ehrman, Lost Christianities – The Battles for Scripture and the Faiths We Never
Knew [Oxford University Press Inc., 2003], Part Two: Heresies and Orthodoxies, Chapter 5.
At Polar Ends of the Spectrum: Early Christian Ebionites and Marcionites, pp. 100-102; bold
and capital emphasis ours)
Here is what Ehrman says regarding the beliefs of Marcion and his followers:
―Before discussing these books, I should say a word about the theology that Marcion
developed, which was seen as distinctive, revolutionary, compelling, and therefore
dangerous. Among all the Christian texts and authors at his disposal, Marcion was especially
struck by the writings of the apostle Paul, and in particular the distinction that Paul drew in
Galatians and elsewhere between the Law of the Jews and the gospel of Christ. As we have
seen, Paul claimed that a person is made right with God by faith in Christ, not by doing the
works of the Law. This distinction became fundamental to Marcion, and he made it absolute.
The gospel is the good news of deliverance; it involves love, mercy, grace, forgiveness,
reconciliation, redemption, and life. The Law, however, is the bad news that makes thegospel necessary in the first place; it involves harsh commandments, guilt, judgment, enmity,
punishment, and death. The Law is given to the Jews. The gospel is given by Christ.
―How could the same God be responsible for both? Or to put in other terms: How could the
wrathful, vengeful God of the Jews be the loving, merciful God of Jesus? Marcion
maintained that these two attributes could not belong to one God, as they stand at odds with
one another: hatred and love, vengeance and mercy, judgment and grace. He concluded that
there must be in fact TWO GODS: the God of the Jews, as found in the Old Testament,
and the God of Jesus, as found in the writings of Paul.
―Once Marcion arrived at this understanding, everything else naturally fell into place. The
God of the Old Testament was the God who created this world and everything in it, as
described in Genesis. The God of Jesus, therefore, had never been involved with this world
but came into it only when Jesus himself appeared from heaven. The God of the Old
Testament was the God who called the Jews to be his people and gave them his Law. The
God of Jesus did not consider the Jews to be his people (for him; they were the chosen of the
other God), and he was not a God who gave laws…
―The God of Jesus came into this world in order to save people from the vengeful God of the
Jews. He was previously unknown to this world and had never had any previous dealings
with it. Hence Marcion sometimes referred to him as God the Stranger. Not even theprophecies of the future Messiah come from this God, for these refer not to Jesus but to a
coming Messiah of Israel, to be sent by the God of the Jews, the creator of this world and the
God of the Old Testament. Jesus came completely unexpectedly and did what no one could
possibly have hoped for: He paid the penalty for other people‘s sins, to save them fr om the
just wrath of the Old Testament God.
―But how could Jesus himself, who represented the nonmaterial God, come into this material
world – created by the other God – without becoming part of it? How could the nonmaterial
become material, even for such a good and noble cause as salvation? Marcion taught that
Jesus was not truly a part of this material world. He did not have a flesh-and-blood body.
He was not actually born. He was not really human. He only appeared to be a human
8/4/2019 Unveiling Ibn Anwar
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/unveiling-ibn-anwar 7/21
with a material existence like everyone else. In other words, Marcion, like some Gnostic
Christians, was a docetist who taught that Jesus only ‗seemed‘ to have a fleshly body.
―Coming ‗in the likeness of sinful flesh,‘ as Marcion‘s favorite author Paul put it (Rom. 8:3),
Jesus paid the penalty for other people‘s sins by dying on the cross. By having faith in his
death, one could escape the throes of the wrathful God of the Jews and have eternal life withthe God of love and mercy, the God of Jesus…‖ (Ibid, pp. 104-105; bold and capital
emphasis ours)
In speaking of the Nag Hammadi library Ehrman writes that,
―… Even though forged, these books were obviously written seriously and meant to be taken
seriously, as providing a guide to the truth. So, too, the other books in the collection,
including several different and internally diverse mystical reflections on how the divine realm
came into being. Most of these documents assumed that there was not simply one God over
all who had created the world and made it good. Some of them were quite explicit: This
creation was not good, not in the least. It was the result of a cosmic-catastrophe, brought into being by an inferior and ignorant deity who erroneously imagined he was God Almighty.‖
(Ibid., p. 113)
―Despite their inherent interest, many of these Gnostic texts are not simple to understand.
And, that of course, is as it should be: If the knowledge necessary for salvation were simple
and straightforward, we all would have figured it out long ago. But this is secret knowledge
reserved for the elite, for the few, for those who really do have a spark of the divine within
them, a spark that needs to be rekindled and brought to life through gnosis (knowledge) from
on high, brought from one who has come down from the divine realm to remind us of our
true identity, our true origin, and our true destiny. This divine emissary is no mere mortal. He
is a being from the realm above, a divine emissary sent from the true God (not the ignorant
creator who made this hateful material world in the first place) to reveal to us the true state of
things and the means of escape. Those who receive, and understand, and accept, these
teachings will then be ‗Gnostics,‘ those ‗in the know.‘‖ (Ibid. pp. 114-115)
Ehrman then highlights some of their views concerning the God of the Old Testament and
Jesus:
―Some such people might well experience another radical modification in their thinking, at
least as radical as that from the prophetic view (God is causing suffering) to the apocalyptic
(God‘s enemy, the Devil, is causing suff ering). Both of these earlier views presuppose thatthe world was created by God, who is the good and all-powerful divine force behind it. But if
these views are called into question by the ongoing realities of suffering in the world, what
then? Maybe in fact the entire assumption is wrong. Maybe this world is not the creation of
the one true God. Maybe the God of this world is not good. Maybe he is causing suffering not
because he is good and wants people to share in his goodness but because he is evil, or
ignorant, or inferior, and he wants people to suffer or doesn‘t care if they do, or maybe he
can‘t do anything about it. But if that‘s true, then the God of this world is not the one true
God. There must be a greater God above this world, one who did not create this world. In this
understanding, the material world itself – material existence in all its form – is inferior at best or
evil at worst, and so is the God, then, who created it. There must be a nonmaterial God
unconnected with this world, above the creator God of the Old Testament, a God who neithercreated this world nor brought suffering to it, who wants to relieve his people from their
8/4/2019 Unveiling Ibn Anwar
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/unveiling-ibn-anwar 8/21
suffering – not by redeeming this world but by delivering them from it, liberating them from
their entrapment in this material existence.
―This is a Gnostic view. It may well have derived, ultimately, from a kind of failed
apocalypticism. No wonder, then, that it is so taken up with Jewish texts. It derives from a
Jewish worldview. And no wonder that in its Christian forms it gives such a central role toChrist, reinterpreting him away from his own apocalyptic roots.
―It would be a mistake, however, to see Gnosticism as failed apocalypticism, pure and
simple, for there are other factors that appear to have affected the com plicated ‗mix‘ that we
find in the Gnostic religions. Here I will mention just one other. One of the most striking
features of Gnosticism is its radical dualism, in which the material world is evil and the
world of the spirit is good..." (Ibid., Chapter Six. Christians ―In The Know‖ : The Worlds of
Early Gnosticism, p. 119; bold emphasis ours)
―As we have seen, Gnostic Christians maintained that in the beginning there was only One.
This One God was totally spirit, totally perfect, incapable of description, beyond attributesand qualities. This God is not only unknown to humans; he is unknowable. The Gnostic texts
do not explain why he is unknowable, except that he is so ‗other‘ that explanations– which
require making something unknown known by comparing it to something else – simply cannot
work.
―According to sundry Gnostic myths, this one unknowable God, for some unknowable
reason, generated a divine realm from himself. In some of these myths, the perfect essences
of this One become themselves, somehow, self-existent. So, for example, this One spends
eternity thinking. He thinks, of course, only of himself, since he is all there is. But his thought
itself must exist, since he thinks. And so his thought becomes its own entity. Moreover, this
One always exists. And so his eternal existence, his eternality, exists. And so it becomes its
own entity. This One is living; in fact, he is Life. And so his life itself exists. Life then
becomes its own entity. And so on.
―Thus there emerge from this One other divine entities, emanations from the one, called
aeons, (Thought, Eternality, Life, etc.); moreover, some of these aeons produce their own
entities, until there is an entire realm of the divine aeons, sometimes called the Fullness or,
using the Greek term, Pleroma… In some of these systems, it is the final aeon who is the
problem, an aeon called Wisdom or, using the Greek term, Sophia. The myths have different
ways of explaining how Sophia‘s ‗fall‘ from the Pleroma led to awful consequences of the
material world. One of the more familiar myths is found in the Secret Book of John, anaccount of a revelation given to John the son of Zebedee by Jesus after his resurrection… In
this Gnostic myth, Sophia decides to generate a divine being apart from the assistance of her
male consort, leading a malformed and imperfect offspring. Fearful that her misdeed will be
uncovered, she removes her offspring from the divine realm into a lower sphere where no one
can see him, and she leaves him to his own devices. She has named him Yaldabaoth, a namereminiscent of ‗Yahweh, Lord of Sabbaths,‘ from the Old Testament, for this malformed
and imperfect being is the Jewish God.
―According to this form of the myth Yaldabaoth somehow manages to steal divine power
from his mother. He then moves far off from her and uses his power to create other lesser
divine beings – the evil cosmic forces of the world – and the material world itself. Since he isthe creator, he is called the Demiurge (Greek for ‗maker‘). Yaldabaoth is ignorant of the
8/4/2019 Unveiling Ibn Anwar
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/unveiling-ibn-anwar 9/21
realm above him and so he foolishly declares, ‗I am God and there is no other God besides
me‘ (Isa. 45:5-6). But he, along with his divine henchmen who have helped him create the
world, are shown a vision of the one true God; they then declare among themselves, ‗Let us
create man according to the image of God‘ (i.e., the true God they have just seen – cf. Gen.
2:7). And so they make Adam. But Adam, not having a spirit within him, is completely
immobile. The one true God then tricks Yaldabaoth into conveying the power of his motherinto this inanimate being, by breathing of the breath of life into it, thereby imparting Sophia
into humans, making them animate and giving them a power greater even than lesser cosmic
forces that Yaldabaoth had created. When the cosmic forces realize that the man who was
created is greater than they, they cast him into the realm of matter. But the one true God
sends his own Thought into man, to instruct him concerning his true divine nature, the
manner of his descent into the realm of matter, and the way in which he can rescued.‖ (Ibid.,
pp. 122-124)
According to Ehrman, the ―Christian‖ Gnostics believed that Christ came down from the true
God and entered into the world in order to reveal the knowledge which leads to salvation.
However, this leads to a problem as Ehrman points out.
―But how can Christ enter into this world and not be tainted by it? That is one of the puzzles
the Gnostics had to solve, and different Gnostic thinkers did so in different ways. Some took
the line we have already seen in Marcion and others, maintaining that Jesus was not a
flesh-and-blood human being, but only appeared to be so. These Gnostics took the words
of the apostle Paul quite seriously: Christ came ‗in the likeness of sinful flesh‘ (Rom. 8:3). As
a phantom sent from the divine realm, he came to convey the gnosis necessary for salvation,
and when he was finished doing so, he returned to the Pleroma whence he came.
―Most Gnostics, however, took another line, claiming that Christ was a divine emissary
from above, totally spirit, and that he entered the man Jesus temporarily in order to
convey the knowledge that can liberate sparks from their material imprisonment. For
these Gnostics, Jesus himself was in fact human, even though some thought he was not made
like the rest of us, so that he could receive the divine emissary; some, for example, thought
that he had a ‗soul- body‘ rather than ‗flesh- body.‘ In any event, at the baptism, Christ
entered into Jesus (in the form of a dove, as in the New Testament Gospels); and at the
end he left him to suffer his death alone . That is why Jesus cried out, ‗My God, my God,
why have you forsaken me?‘ (literally, ‗Why have you left me behind?‘) Or, as stated in the
Gospel of Philip, ―‗My God, my God, why O lord have you forsaken me?‖ He spoke thesewords on the cross; for he had withdrawn from that place‘ (G. Phil. 64). According to one of
the myths reported by Irenaeus, once Jesus died, the Christ then came back and raised himfrom the dead ( Against Heresies 1.30.13).
―In either system, Christ provides the knowledge necessary for salvation. As the Gospel of
Philip says, ‗The one who possesses the knowledge (gnosis) of truth is free‘ (G. Phil. 93)…‖
(Ibid., pp. 124-125; bold emphasis ours)
With the foregoing in view does Ibn Anwar seriously want us to accept that these groups
somehow represent the authentic teachings of the Lord Jesus and his followers? More
importantly, is he willing to accept the ramifications that such beliefs have on his own
Islamic faith?
8/4/2019 Unveiling Ibn Anwar
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/unveiling-ibn-anwar 10/21
For instance, Muhammad affirmed that there is only one God and that this God created the
universe and sent prophets like Moses along with books such as the Torah and the Psalms.
Thus, Muhammad believed that the God of the OT is the one true God. Muhammad also
taught that Jesus was supernaturally born of the virgin Mary, that he was a true flesh-and-
blood human being who wasn‘t fully divine, and that he didn‘t die on the cross as a sacrifice
for sins.
What this means is that if the Ebionites are the true followers of Jesus then Muhammad is a
false prophet since these Jews denied Jesus‘ supernatural virginal conception and birth while
affirming his death on the cross and bodily resurrection.
However, if Marcion and his followers were right then Muhammad again turns out to be a
false prophet since the Marcionites believed that there were two Gods, i.e. the loving,
compassionate God that Jesus revealed and the God of the OT who created this world. They
also affirmed Jesus‘ prehuman existence while denying that Christ was sent by the God of the
OT.
But in the case that the Gnostics were the ones who preserved the authentic Gospel of Christ
then Muhammad is once again seen to be an imposter. The Gnostics believed that there were
many gods and that the God of the OT was an inferior, evil and ignorant deity who created
this world. These groups also taught that Christ was a fully divine being who came down
from the true God in order to bring the knowledge which would liberate people from the God
of the OT. Some of the Gnostics thought that Christ did this by assuming a phantom body
that looked human but wasn‘t. Others believed the Christ entered Jesus a man and then left
him when Jesus was crucified. Since Muhammad didn‘t believe any of this he must have
been a deceiver who misled people away from the true knowledge or gnosis necessary for
salvation.
Is Ibn Anwar comfortable with any of this? Does he really want his readers to accept the
notion that one of these sects faithfully preserved the authentic message of Christ?
The answer is quite obvious.
But then this leaves Ibn Anwar with the beliefs of the ―proto-orthodox‖ Christians (the term
that Ehrman uses for the earliest Christians whose views eventually became the orthodox
position). Their beliefs are not only represented within the NT corpus but can also be found
in the writings of the Apostolic Fathers and the second century apologists. To see what these
early Christian writers taught concerning the Trinity and the Deity of the Lord Jesus Christwe suggest reading the following article.
Ibn Anwar is left with another major problem. According to the Quran Allah promised Jesus
that his true followers would be victorious and become uppermost from the time of Christ‘s
ascension till the day of resurrection (cf. Q. 3:55; 61:14). This means that the true message of
Jesus would prevail and that those who followed it would continue to dominate till the end of
this age.
However, Ibn Anwar is insinuating that the Orthodox that stamped out the other groups were
not Jesus‘ true followers and did not preserve his actual teachings. This either means that
Allah lied to and deceived Jesus since he did not give his true followers the victory todominate but actually allowed another sect to come in and wipe them out. Or, worse still,
8/4/2019 Unveiling Ibn Anwar
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/unveiling-ibn-anwar 11/21
Allah is an impotent deity since he wasn‘t able to preserve the true message of Christ or
protect his followers from being stamped out. In other words, a group of finite creatures was
able to thwart Allah‘s purposes and extinguish the message of one of his greatest messengers!
In light of the teaching of the Quran the only conclusion that Ibn Anwar can come to is that
the Orthodox group is the sect that has faithfully preserved the teachings of Christ and hisfollowers since they not only overcame all opposition but their message also continues to
dominate and permeate the entire world!
If this is the case then this means that Muhammad is a false prophet, an antichrist, since he
contradicts the message of the true followers of the Lord Jesus Christ who prevailed over
their opposition.
For more on Allah‘s alleged promise to Jesus, and its implication on the veracity of the Quran
and Muhammad‘s prophetic claims, we recommend the following articles and videos:
http://answering-islam.org/Why-not/11prevail.html http://answering-islam.org/Shamoun/quran_affirms_paul.htm
http://answering-islam.org/Shamoun/christs_apostles.htm
http://www.youtube.com/user/IslamicDilemma
We come to the conclusion of the first part of our rebuttal. Please continue with part two.
Unveiling Ibn Anwar Part 2
Sam Shamoun
We continue with our analysis of Ibn Anwar‘s misquotes.
Ibn Anwar cites the New Catholic Encyclopedia and follows it up with some questions:
In fact, Dr. White somewhat seems to be echoing the words of the Catholic encyclopedia
which says regarding the Trinity,
―There is the recognition on the part of exegetes and Biblical theologians, including a
constantly growing number of Roman Catholics, that one should not speak of Trinitarianismin the New Testament without serious qualification. There is also the closely parallel
recognition on the part of historians of dogma and systematic theologians that when one does
speak of an unqualified Trinitarianism, one has moved from the period of Christian origins to,
say, the last quadrant of the 4th century. It was only then that what might be called the
definitive Trinitarian dogma „One God in three Persons‟ became thoroughly
assimilated into Christian life and thought … it was the product of 3 centuries of
doctrinal development.‖ [2] (emphasis added)
So who brought and defined the Trinity? Which or what Prophet? NONE! This doctrine was
developed by men who are now regarded by mainstream Christians as Church Fathers or
early Christian theologians at the expanse of other concepts that existed at that time that arenow deemed heretical. One cannot help but compromise strict adherence to the so called idea
8/4/2019 Unveiling Ibn Anwar
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/unveiling-ibn-anwar 12/21
of sola scriptura(only scripture) in order to arrive at the Trinity. For if you only went by
scripture without the assistance of theologians you will miss the Trinity and may come up
with other strange doctrines concerning God. Thus, the Trinity depends on the tradition of
men which is rather ironic for the Protestants who oppose Catholocism [sic] because of its
dependance [sic] on the ―tradition of men‖.
[2] The New Catholic Encyclopedia, Volume XIV. p. 295
The problem with Ibn Anwar‘s reference is that there is nothing about the Trinity on that
page. The entries on this particular are: UNDERSTANDING, GIFT OF and UNDSET,
SIGRID.
The articles concerning the Trinity are found on pp. 187-208. But that is the least of his
problems since the encyclopedia doesn‘t even contain the quotation that Ibn Anwar
mentions!(1)
TRINITY, HOLY (IN THE BIBLE)
In a long tradition with roots in the early patristic period, Christian writers have identified
certain revelations of God in the Old Testament (OT) as containing representations or
foreshadowings of the Trinity. In the strict sense, however, God is not explicitly revealed as
Trinity in the OT. In the New Testament (NT) the oldest evidence of this revelation is in the
Pauline epistles, especially2 Cor 13.13, and 1 Cor 12.4-6. In the Gospels much of the
evidence of the Trinity has to do with the revelation of the relation between the Father and
the Son. The only direct statement of Trinitarian revelation is the baptismal formula of Mt
28.19.
In the Old Testament. On account of the polytheistic religions of Israel‘s pagan neighbors, it
was necessary for the teachers of Israel to stress the oneness of God. In many places of the
OT, however, expressions are used in which some of the Fathers of the Church saw
references or foreshadowings of the Trinity. The personified use of such terms as the Word of
God [Ps 32(33).6] and the SPIRIT OF GOD (Is 63.14) reflects poetic license, though it does
show a sense for a self-communication of God to the world in which the divine force is
distinct from God, is not part of the world, and is not a being intermediate between God and
the world. Such language shows that the minds of God‘s people were being prepared for the
concepts that would be involved in the forthcoming revelation of the doctrine of the Trinity.
In the New Testament. The revelation of the truth of the triune life of God was first made inthe NT, where the earliest references to it are in the Pauline Epistles. The doctrine is mosteasily seen in St. Paul‘s recurrent use of the terms God, Lord, and Spirit. What makes his use
of these terms so significant is that they appear against a strictly monotheistic
background.
In the Pauline Epistles. The clearest instance of this usage is found in 2 Cor 13:13, ―The
grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, the love of God, and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit be with
you all.‖ The grammatical usage in this blessing, especially the subjective genitive tou kyriou
„Iesou Christou... tou theou... hagiou pneumatos gives us a basis not only for the distinction
of persons, but also for their equality inasmuch as all the benefits are to flow from the one
Godhead.
8/4/2019 Unveiling Ibn Anwar
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/unveiling-ibn-anwar 13/21
Another example of Paul‘s probable reference to the Trinity by his use of the triad, Spirit,
Lord, God, can be seen in 1 Cor 12:4-6. Here, in speaking of the spiritual gifts or charisms
that are bestowed upon Christians, he says, ―Now there are varieties of gifts, but the same
Spirit; and there are varieties of ministries, but the same Lord; and there are varieties of
workings, but the same God, who works all things in all.‖ This passage witnesses to the
doctrine of the Trinity by ascribing the various charisms, viz, gifts, ministries, and workings,to the Spirit, the Lord (the Son), and God (the Father), respectively. Since all these charisms
of their very nature demand a divine source, the three Persons are put on a par, thus clearly
indicating their divine nature while at the same time maintaining the distinction of persons.
In the Gospels. The only place in the Gospels where the three divine Persons are explicitly
mentioned together is in St. Matthew‘s account of Christ‘s last command to His Apostles,
―Go, therefore, and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father,
and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit‖ (Mt 28.19). In this commission Christ commands the
Apostles to baptize all men ―in the name of‖ the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. The expression
―in the name of‖ (eis to onoma, literally, ―into the name‖) indicates a dedication or
consecration to the one named. Thus Christian baptism is a dedication or consecration toGod – Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Since the Son and the Holy Spirit are mentioned here on a
par with the Father, the passage clearly teaches that they are equally divine with the Father,
who is obviously God. These words testify to the belief of the Apostolic Church in a doctrine
of three Persons in one God.
The accounts of THE BAPTISM OF THE LORD as described in Mt 3.13-17; Mk 1.9-11; Lk
3.21-22; Jn 1.32-34 have been understood by older scholars as indications of the doctrine of
the Trinity. Modern scholars, however, see rather in these accounts references to the
authoritative anointing of Jesus as the Messiah. Yet in the light of the fullness of revelation,
the possibility is not to be excluded that the Evangelists had the doctrine of the Trinity in
mind when they described this event. (Underline emphasis ours)
Seeing that this encyclopedia claims that the Trinity is revealed in the NT this leads me to
suspect that Ibn Anwar hasn‘t actually read this source for himself but simply lifted this
misquotation from some anti-Trinitarian website or book.(1)
Nor is this the only reference work that Ibn Anwar misquotes or only partially quotes! Here is
what he cites from the Encyclopedia Britannica.
The Encyclopedia Brittanica tells us that, ―…in Christian doctrine, the unity of Father, Son,
and Holy Spirit as three persons in one Godhead. Neither the word Trinity nor the explicitdoctrine appears in the New Testament, nor did Jesus and his followers intend tocontradict the Shema in the Old Testament. The doctrine developed gradually over several
centuries and through many controversies…‖ [3] (emphasis added)
[3] Encyclopaedia Britannica, Volume 11. p. 928
Ibn Anwar should have mentioned that this comes from the New Encyclopedia Britannica.
However, Ibn Anwar (or the source from which he lifted this quote) conveniently omitted a
very important part of the reference which helps to put things in perspective:
8/4/2019 Unveiling Ibn Anwar
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/unveiling-ibn-anwar 14/21
Trinity, in Christian doctrine, the unity of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit as three persons in
one Godhead.
Neither the word Trinity nor the EXPLICIT doctrine appears in the New Testament, nor did
Jesus and his followers intend to contradict the Shema in the Hebrew Scriptures: ―Hear, O
Israel: The Lord our God is one Lord‖ (Deuteronomy 6:4). The earliest Christians, however,had to cope with the implications of the coming of Jesus Christ and of the presumed presence
and power of God among them — i.e., the Holy Spirit, whose coming was connected with the
celebration of the Pentecost. The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit were associated in such New
Testament passages as the Great Commission: ―Go therefore and make disciples of all
nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit‖
(Matthew 28:19); and in the apostolic benediction: ―The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ and
the love of God and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit be with you all‖ (2 Corinthians 13:14).
THUS, THE NEW TESTAMENT ESTABLISHED THE BASIS FOR THE DOCTRINE OF
THE TRINITY. (Source; capital and italic emphasis ours)
So even though this reference work claims that the DOCTRINE of the Trinity does not EXPLICITLY appear in the NT it didn‘t stop there since it goes on to say that the NT
establishes the basis for it!
Ibn Anwar again misquotes another source!
Shirley Guthrie who is a professor of Systematic Theology at Columbia Theological
Seminary puts it even more bluntly,
―The Bible does not teach the doctrine of the Trinity. Neither the word ―Trinity‖ itself nor
such language as ―one-in-three‖, ―three-in-one, one ―essence‖ (or ―substance‖), and three
―persons‖ is biblical language. The language of the doctrine is the language of the church
taken from classical Greek philosophy… The doctrine of the Trinity is not found in the
Bible…‖ [7]
[7] Shirley C. Guthrie. Christian Doctrine(1994). Louisville, Westminster: John Knox Press.
p. 76-80
Ibn Anwar gives the misleading impression that this is another author who denies that the
Holy Bible teaches and affirms the glorious and majestic Trinity.
However, here is what Guthrie actually said in context:
―The Bible does not teach the doctrine of the Trinity. Neither the word ‗trinity‘ itself nor such
language as ‗one-in-three‘, ‗three-in-one‘, one ‗essence‘ (or ‗substance‘), and three ‗persons‘
is biblical language. The language of the doctrine is the language of the church taken from
classical Greek philosophy. BUT THE CHURCH DID NOT SIMPLY INVENT THIS
DOCTRINE. It used the language and concepts available to it to interpret WHAT THE
BIBLE ITSELF SAYS ABOUT WHO GOD IS AND HOW GOD IS PRESENT AND AT
WORK IN THE WORLD. Although the Scripture does not teach the doctrine itself, it says
some things about God THAT MADE THE DOCTRINE NECESSARY.‖ (Pp. 76-77; capital
emphasis ours)
And:
8/4/2019 Unveiling Ibn Anwar
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/unveiling-ibn-anwar 15/21
―The doctrine of the Trinity is not found in the Bible. But the Bible does speak of the one
God who is present and at work in three ways. What is the meaning of this ‗one‘ and this
‗three‘? How are the three unified yet distinct in who they are and what they say and do?
THESE ARE THE QUESTIONS THAT LED TO THE CHURCH‘S DOCTRINE OF THE
TRINITY. It is as important for us modern Christians as it was for ancient Christians to
struggle with this doctrine NOT ONLY BECAUSE SCRIPTURE ITSELF LIES BEHIND ITbut also because we too have to contend with the charge of Jews and other ‗monotheists‘ who
believe that we Christians are ‗polytheists‘ who believe in three Gods.‖ (Pp. 80-81; capital
emphasis ours)
And this is what this very same author wrote concerning the Deity of the Lord Jesus and his
relationship to God the Father:
God the Son
Who is this one true God? The first Christians could not talk about the God of Israel who was
their God too without talking about a man named Jesus. They did not speak of Jesus‘ ―deity‖or ―divinity,‖ nor did they speculate theoretically about his divine ―nature‖ or ―essence.‖
They thought about what Jesus did . Here is a man who acts like God, does what ONLY God
can do. He speaks with absolute authority that belongs ONLY to God – even to the extent of
calling into question the ethical teachings the people believed to be the will of God made
known to Moses. He heals and raises the dead with the life-giving power that belongs ONLY
to God. He dares to forgive sin as ONLY God has the right to do. He speaks and acts as if his
coming means that the kingdom of God is breaking into the world. He speaks and acts as
Judge, Reconciler, Redeemer, Liberator, and Lord over life and death. It is not surprising that
religious people of his day accused him of blasphemy: he claimed that in what he said and
did God was speaking and acting.
During Jesus‘ lifetime, his disciples were confused and uncertain about what all this meant.
After his death and resurrection it became clearer to them. They still did not try to explain it,
but they now confess that the risen Jesus is ―Lord‖ and ―Savior‖ who is ―far above all rule
and authority and power and dominion, and above every name that is named‖ (Eph. 1:21).
That is, they now give Jesus the same names, the same authority, the same saving power
THAT THEY HAD RESERVED FOR GOD.
The New Testament does not solve the problem. But it gives a clue that helped the ancient
church in its later struggle to find a solution as it moved toward what became the doctrine of
the Trinity. According to the New Testament, we must speak of both unity and a distinctionbetween God and Jesus. (Pp. 78-79; capital and underline emphasis ours)
She further states:
Unity with God
On the one hand, Jesus is Immanuel, ―God with us‖ (Matt. 1:23). According to John 1, in
Jesus the ―Word‖ that from ALL ETERNITY was God has come to dwell among us in a flesh
and blood man. Jesus himself can say ―The Father and I are one‖ (John 10:30) and ―Whoever
has seen me has seen the Father‖ (John 14:9). According to Colossians 2:9, ―in him the whole
fulness of deity dwells bodily.‖ In Jesus we have to do with God , not just a great and good
8/4/2019 Unveiling Ibn Anwar
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/unveiling-ibn-anwar 16/21
8/4/2019 Unveiling Ibn Anwar
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/unveiling-ibn-anwar 17/21
It is apparent from these quotations that Ibn Anwar has confused the explicit formulation of
the doctrine of the Trinity with the Biblical revelation of the Trinity. He erroneously assumes
that the Trinity cannot be a Biblical teaching if the Holy Bible doesn‘t use the precise
language which subsequent generations of Christians used to categorize and explain what the
inspired Scriptures teach concerning the unity of God and the relationship between the
Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.
In light of his confusing the two issues together it is now time to turn the tables on Ibn Anwar
to see whether his Islamic beliefs can stand up to his own criticisms and objections.
Islam and the Doctrine of Tauhid
Even though Muslims such as Ibn Anwar have been led to believe that Islam upholds the
absolute unity of God (otherwise known as the doctrine of Tauhid ) the fact is that neither the
word Tauhid nor its precise formulation appears either in the Quran or in the traditionsattributed to Muhammad.
In fact, Muslim authorities have readily admitted that the word Tauhid and its various subsets
were only coined and develo ped centuries after Muhammad‘s death and were therefore
unknown to him and his companions.
What makes this all the more ironic is that Tauhid literally means to unite, and therefore
presupposes that Allah is actually a plurality of some kind!
Tauhiyd comes from the verb wahhad which literally means TO UNITE. In Islamic
terminology, it means to realize and maintain the unity of Allâh in one's actions (inwardly
and outwardly). The actual word tauhiyd does not occur in the Quran or Sunnah though
the present tense of the verb (from which tauhiyd is derived) is used in Sunnah . The
Prophet sent Muadh ibn Jabal as governor of Yemen in 9 A.H. He told him, "You will going
to the people of the book, so first invite yuwahhidu Allâh [them to the assertion of the
oneness of Allâh]".[1]
Further, the division of tauhiyd into the components known to us today WERE NOT DONE
BY THE PROPHET OR HIS COMPANIONS. It was systematically defined as such inorder to convey, as concisely as possible, the simple unitarian belief of Islam. This was
necessary because as Islam quickly spread to the four corners of the world, new convertsbegan to interpret the teachings of Islam in line with their own philosophical concepts of
Allâh and so confusion arose. Preconceived interpretations, all of which are blameworthy,
were propagated by those who wanted to destroy Islam from the inside. The first such enemy
of Islam was an Iraqi convert from Christianity named Sausan who preached man's absolute
free will while denying (qadr) Divine Decree[2]. His student, Ma`bad ibn Khalid al-
Juhani[3], spread such deviant ideas until he was tried and executed by the Umayyad Caliph.
There were three other such executions over the period of 26 years. The later Umayyad
Caliphs were relatively more corrupt and cared less about such religious issues. At the same
time, the masses were also relatively less educated about their religion. This proved to be a
deadly combination. As the number of deviants increased through the liberation of various
lands, apostates were no longer executed. Instead, Muslim scholars rose to execute the tideof heretics intellectually. Tauhiyd, precisely defined, EMERGED OUT OF THIS
8/4/2019 Unveiling Ibn Anwar
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/unveiling-ibn-anwar 18/21
DEFENSE STRATEGY. Tauhiyd had been divided into the three following categories:
tauhiyd ar-rububiyah, tauhiyd al-asma was-sifaat, and tauhiyd al-`ibadah or tauhiyd al-
`uluuhiyah. Tauhiyd has been likened to a tree, the roots being tauhiyd ar-rububiyah, the
trunk being tauhiyd al-asma was-sifaat, and the fruit being tauhiyd al-`ibadah. Each category
of tauhiyd will now be discussed in some detail. (The Concept of Tauhiyd in Islam, 7
October 2005; bold and capital emphasis ours)
And:
TAWHEED:
Definition and Categories:
Islam believes in ‗Tawheed‘ which is not merely monotheism i.e. belief in one God, but
much more. Tawheed LITERALLY MEANS „UNIFICATION‟ i.e. ‗asserting oneness‘
and is derived from the Arabic verb ‗Wahhada‘ which means TO UNITE, UNIFY OR
CONSOLIDATE. (Concept of God ; bold and capital emphasis ours)
Isn‘t it ironic that the very word which Muslims coined to denote absolute monotheism
bespeaks of plurality and unification? Instead of pointing to Allah‘s singularity Tauhid
actually points to Allah being a plurality-within-unity, a unified being composed of separate
and distinct aspects! Thus, the word Tauhid actually demonstrates that in some sense the
Islamic deity is more than one.
Suffice it to say not all Muslims are happy with dividing Tauhid into three categories. In fact,
some Muslims are rather quite vocal that this is nothing more than an innovation and
perversion of Muhammad‘s teaching!
Or consider the seventy-three-page "introduction" to volume one of this same translation, a
tract that explains the Muslim Trinity: Tawhid al-Rububuyya, Tawhid al-Uluhiyya, and
Tawhid al-Asma wa al-Sifat — the (1) Tawhid of Lordship, (2) Tawhid of Godhood, and (3)
Tawhid of Names and Attributes. By way of preface to it, Dr. Khan notes that many Western
converts enter Islam without knowing what belief in the Oneness of Allah really means. He
clarifies that tawhid is not one; namely, to say and believe the shahada of Islam with
complete conviction — as it was from the time of the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him
peace) until the advent of Ibn Taymiya seven centuries later — as new converts might
imagine, but must now be three in order to be one, and cannot be one without being
three. While such logic may be already familiar to converts from Christianity, ImamBukhari (d. 256/870) certainly never knew anything of it , and its being printed as an
"introduction" to his work seems to me to qualify as "tampering with classical texts" — aside
from being a re-form of traditional ‘aqida, in which Islam, in the words of the Prophet of
Islam (Allah bless him and give him peace), "is to testify that there is no god except Allah,
and that Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah …" (Sahih Muslim, 1.37: 8). (Nuh Ha Mim
Keller, Question 3, Re-Forming Classical Texts: As far as Wahhabi tamperings with
classical texts goes, how widespread is this heinous crime? Can you give some serious
examples of this?; bold emphasis ours)
Another noted Sunni scholar claims:
8/4/2019 Unveiling Ibn Anwar
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/unveiling-ibn-anwar 19/21
It is related by al-Harawi from Imam al-Shafi`i, that he said, Imam Malik was asked about
kalam (Theological rhetoric) and tawhid, so Malik said:
"It is foolishness to think about the Prophet, that he taught this Umma about istinja (cleaning
after relieving oneself), but he did not teach them tawhid. And tawhid is what the Prophet
said:
‗I was commanded to fight the people until they say: There is no Deity worthy of worship
besides Allah.‘" [Quoted in Sahih al-Bukhari and Sahih Muslim]
This report is true and its meaning undisputed. It shows that tawhid is One, NOT THREE.
Its splitting into three IS ONE OF THE INNOVATIONS OF MISGUIDANCE that
created fitna among the Muslims and is reminiscent of the Byzantine disputations. It is
strange that some are still confused over this. (Shaykh Gibril Foaud Haddad, "Salafi"
Tamperings of Classical Texts – The ‘Aqida of the Imams, (2) Tampered Report - Imam
Malik And Istawa; bold and capital emphasis ours)
And in his criticism of Ibn Taymiyya Haddad writes:
His Invention of a Double or Triple Tawhîd
Also among Ibn Taymiyya's kalâm innovations was his division of tawhîd into two types:
tawhîd al-rubûbiyya and tawhîd al-ulûhiyya, respectively, Oneness of Lordship and Oneness
of Godhead. The first, he said, consisted in the acknowledgment of Allâh as the Creator of
all, a belief shared by believers and non-believers alike. The second, he said, was the
affirmation of Allâh as the one true deity and only object of worship, a belief exclusive to
believers. His natural conclusion was that "whoever does not know tawhîd al-ulûhiyya, his
knowledge of tawhîd al-rubûbiyya is not taken into account because the idolaters also hadsuch knowledge." He then compared the scholars of kalâm to the Arab idol-worshippers who
accepted tawhîd al-rubûbiyya but ignored tawhîd al-ulûhiyya! This dialectic was imitated by
Ibn Abî al-`Izz in his commentary on al-Tahâwî's `Aqîda. ( Ahmad ibn Taymiyya (661-728)
A Brief Survey)
Despite this candid admission that such terms and concepts were unknown to Muhammad
and his followers we are going to insist that Ibn Anwar be consistent and quote Quranic
references where all of these doctrines are mentioned by name explicitly; otherwise we aregoing to have to assume that the Muslim scripture doesn‘t endorse such theological
distortions (actually it doesn‘t since it teaches that there is more than one god!).
So we need to ask Ibn Anwar the following questions. Who invented this innovation of
Tauhid ? Who is actually responsible for adopting this word and breaking it down into three
distinct categories? And which specific prophet of the true God ever used this word or
referred to its three distinct classifications?
The answer? NONE! NOT EVEN THE FALSE PROPHET MUHAMMAD TAUGHT
TAUHID OR CLASSIFIED IT INTO THREE SEPARATE WAYS! This doctrine was
developed by men who are regarded by Salafi Muslims as authorities and scholars at the
expense of other concepts that existed at that time that are now deemed heretical, i.e. the
views of the Kharijites, Mutazilites, Asharites, Maturidites, Jahmiyyites, Qadarites, Murjiitesetc. One cannot help but compromise strict adherence to the so called idea of the perspicuity
8/4/2019 Unveiling Ibn Anwar
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/unveiling-ibn-anwar 20/21
of the Quran and the supposed all-comprehensive nature of Muhammad‘s sunna in order to
arrive at Tauhid . For if you only went by these sources without the assistance of a particular
school of Muslim theology twisting the Islamic sources you will miss Tauhid and may come
up with other strange doctrines concerning God. Thus, Tauhid and its threefold classification
depends on the traditions of men which is rather ironic since Salafi Muslims who oppose
other branches of Sunni Islam as well as Islamic sects such as Shia Muslims because of theirdependence on the ―traditions of men‖ as opposed to deriving their beliefs from the Salaf.
And yet the Salafi belief in Tauhid and its three subsets, which are supposed to be the core
essential doctrine of Islam, turn out to be nothing more than the traditions and innovations of
men!
Related Articles
If anyone is interested in seeing the clear evidence which shows that Islam does not teach
absolute monotheism we recommend going to the following links:
http://answering-islam.org/Shamoun/index.htm http://answering-islam.org/authors/shamoun.html
And looking under all of these sections:
Theological Issues
Quranic Issues
Analysis of Muhammad
Responses to Muslim authors
Make sure to also look through our replies to various Muslim authors and polemicists which
can be found here.
Endnotes
(1) It seems that Ibn Anwar may have lifted these quotes from the following Muslim
polemicist, who in turn may have ―borrowed‖ them from this other Muslim apologist.
This perhaps also explains why I couldn‘t find Ibn Anwar‘s quote from the New CatholicEncyclopedia (NCE) since I checked the 2003 edition. Al-Kadhi published his book in 1995
and could have only referenced the first edition of the NCE, from 1967, which is what he
clearly says he did:
In “The New Catholic Encyclopedia” (with all it‘s seals of approval), 1967, p.295, we get a
glimpse of how the concept of the trinity was not introduced into Christianity until close to
four hundred years after Jesus (pbuh): “.......It is difficult in the second half of the 20th
century to offer a clear, objective and straightforward account of the revelation, doctrinal
evolution, and theological elaboration of the Mystery of the trinity. Trinitarian discussion,
Roman Catholic as well as other, present a somewhat unsteady silhouette. Two things have
happened. There is the recognition on the part of exegetes and Biblical theologians,including a constantly growing number of Roman Catholics, that one should not speak of
8/4/2019 Unveiling Ibn Anwar
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/unveiling-ibn-anwar 21/21
Trinitarianism in the New Testament without serious qualification. There is also the closely
parallel recognition on the part of historians of dogma and systematic theologians that when
one does speak of an unqualified Trinitarianism, one has moved from the period of Christian
origins to, say, the last quadrant of the 4th century. It was only then that what might be called
the definitive Trinitarian assimilated into Christian life and thought” (emphasis added).
Jesus (pbuh), John, Matthew, Luke, Mark, all of the apostles, and even Paul, werecompletely unaware of any “trinity.” (What Did Jesus Really Say?, 1.2.5: Historical origin
of the ―trinity‖ myth, p. 64)
Although al-Kadhi gives us the date and page number he fails to mention the volume where
this quote can be found! Unfortunately, such shoddy research and careless scholarship are
characteristic of Islamic apologists.
As far as this statement goes, assuming that this is an accurate quote there is little to disagree
with since it is true that one can find so-called Christian scholars, theologians, historians etc.,
who would deny that the Christian Greek Scriptures lay the foundation for the doctrine of the
Trinity. However, this is simply the logical fallacy of appealing to authority since not allscholars agree. Besides, citing the opinions of so-called scholars is one thing; providing
evidence that these scholars‘ assertions are correct is another thing altogether.
The inspired Scriptures emphatically and unambiguously affirm the following:
1. There is only one eternal God.
2. There are three Divine Persons: the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.
3. These three Divine Persons are coeternal and coequal in essence.
These three revealed truths are the very foundation upon which the doctrine of the Holy
Trinity is based. Therefore, one has to first adequately deal with and address the
overwhelming and massive amount of Biblical data supporting the Trinity before running to
scholars for help.
© Answering Islam, 1999 - 2010. All rights reserved.
Top Related