CIRA International uncover Quran mistake; foreign gods can only have carnal sons?

In answer to the video "How Could Allah Give Mary A Son? Tawhid Dilemma Ep. 8"

The Quran is aware of the various man made doctrines as regards God's supposed progeny. 

For example, it does not say Jesus is the son of God in a physical/carnal sense, or that Christians believe such. 

In 2:116 it says

"And they say: Allah has taken to himself (ittakhadha) a son (waladan)".

This is saying that Christians claim Allah has taken a human being "as his son". This subtle wording represents the mainstream "declared" Christian belief concerning Jesus' sonship. But in reality, in the minds of the hellenistic converts that shaped Christianity, Jesus is literally "begotten by God, not made". The early translations of the Bible where the Greek monogenh occurs, represent that ecclesiastical tradition. When The Quran says "ittakhadha" (to take) for God taking Jesus as a son, it uses the same word in other places without any carnal or biological connotation. For example

4:125"..and Allah took (ittakhadha) Ibrahim as a friend".

39:4 elaborates on the meaning of "taking a son" when refering to God

"If Allah desire to take (yattakhidha) a son (waladan) to Himself, He will surely CHOOSE those He pleases from what He has created".

This proves that the meaning of "take a son" when it refers to God as in 2:116, is to choose one from among His creatures not to physically conceive one. Jesus must have been taken by God the Father as his son at some point in time, regardless of the sophistries trinitarians conjure so as to make sense of their doctrines. Jesus, the incarnate word of God, as a human being with a human soul did not exist from eternity, even according to their creeds. This man/god creature came took shape some 2000 years ago, which is when he was "taken" as a son by God. Whatever the speculation on the pre-incarnate form or nature of the son of God, it was different than the form he took on the earth, and the form he has now in heaven. This results in further problems, including a God to whom things are added or substracted.
In the Quran, although this hypothetical scenario is given, the reality of the matter is rejected alltogether, as is found elsewhere

23:91"never did Allah take to Himself a son, and never was there with him any (other) god"

21:26-29"Glory be to Him. Nay! they are honored servants. They do not precede Him in speech and (only) according to His commandment do they act. He knows what is before them and what is behind them, and they do not intercede except for him whom He approves and for fear of Him they tremble. And whoever of them should say: Surely I am a god besides Him, such a one do We recompense with hell; thus do, We recompense the unjust".

The remotness of such a notion is thus rooted in that all these eminent persons are, along with all things, obedient creations of His. An interesting observation is the statement that those nearest to God

21:19"are never too proud to worship Him and never grow weary".

Contrary to worldly ownership and mastership, the closer a servant is to his master the more benefits he gains in terms of power, material gains and personal freedom. But as regards to God's ownership which is the true and absolute one, the closer the servant is drawn to Him the more humbled and submissive the servant becomes, aware of his insignificance in relation to the Supreme Being. 

That is how complete and intricate the Quran is, in its argumentations for perfect monotheism. 

Elsewhere the Quran depicts the notion of God's absolute sway over all things, including those the polytheists claim are His physical descendants

19:92-5"And it is not worthy of the Beneficient that He should take a son. There is no one in the Heavens and the earth but will come to the Beneficient as a servant. Certainly He has a comprehensive knowledge of them and He has numbered them a comprehensive numbering. And everyone of them will come to Him on the day of Resurrection, alone".

These entities who are supposed to share some of the divine essence are in fact so lowly before their Creator and far removed from any sort of divinity and intrinsic power, that they are numbered like slaves are. Their provisions decided, their tasks assigned and ultimate purpose defined. This reality will become manifest when all of creation is resurrected and brought to its Creator empty handed. It is further important to understand the psychology behind the notion of "taking a son" for a ruler, let alone a regular human being. Kings used to resort to this practice when they chose among their subjects an individual that fit their subjective/desired/missing criteria when their own progeny wasnt satisfying, in order to fulfill a certain purpose, most often their succession. The taking of a son reveals an inherent weakness, whether it be the desire of continuity or association in accomplishing a task. 

The Quran refutes these needs from various angles

2:116-7"Glory be to Him/subhanahu; rather, whatever is in the heavens and the earth is His; all are obedient to Him. Wonderful Originator of the heavens and the earth, and when He decrees an affair, He only says to it, Be, so there it is".

First and foremost He is far above any concept in terms of exaltedness, perfection, as denoted with subhaanahu. This necessarily precludes any need or weakness. Then, all of existence is fully encompassed by His grip meaning He does not need to pick and choose something if He already owns everything, even moreso when all things are submissive to Him. This submissivness began since the origin of the creation of the heavens and the earth

41:11"willingly or unwillingly",

a process that will be reproduced on the resurrection 84:2. What would then be the purpose of declaring an entitiy His son, when all reasons for which He would hypotheticaly need one are already covered? 

Finally, God does not require searching through His own creation for an entity endowed with qualities needed for the accomplishment of a supposed need of His, when He is

2:117"badeeu/Innovator and initiator of the heavens and the earth".

This term badieeu means that in His case, contrary to all creative endeavours, He creates without any blueprint, preexisting inspiration, experience, simply through His word

"and if HE decreed an order done, He only says be and it is".

This is why God is the "best of creators".

When it addresses the issue of carnal begetting, the Quran explains the incompatibility of that concept, from the point of view of God's majestic status, unique essence, for God to physically beget both sons and daughters as the polytheists claimed throughout time 6:100-101 ascribing to Him even a lineage among the jinn 37:158. 

The desire for children is based upon the desire to continue one's own legacy, i.e. it is based upon an inherent weakness within man and this rejects the majesty of Allah, His transcendence, and status as beyond causality and contingency. Why would He need entities besides Himself, sharing His essence? Is He lacking in power, knowledge to rule creation by Himself, or  is He limited in lifespan?
The Quran rejects this concept of progeny and sonship to God, as well as all the implications undermining His supremacy, by for instance pointing to the facts that nothing precedes or outlasts Him 57:3, that nothing is even within the realm of the remotest of comparisons, that He neither begets nor is He begotten 42:11,112:1-4.

WALAD is the term translated as "son" in 6:101 but the word really means a "product of birth". This covers that Allah does not give birth, nor does he have a consort to give birth for Him. It is important to note, the verse does not tie the impossibility for God to beget to the absence of consort exclusively. It says Wa/And He has no consort. So, the absence of the consort is one of many reasons why Allah does not have a son. Along with the absence of consort, the other reasons for God not having any son are "innovator of the heavens and Earth", "Creator of everything" and so on. It does not befit the One holding sway over all creation to have the need for a son, which entails an inherent weakness. 

Why would He need to, when His grasp over creation is so all-embracing, that His will, whatever it may be, is instantly executed

19:35"It is not for Allah to take a child; glory to be Him. When He decrees a command, He only says to it: Be; and it is".

The Quran treats this assertion as so far removed from reality, that it tells its messenger, had it been true he would have been the first to be instructed to worship such an entity 43:81.

Finally the word ANNA translated as How, is an exclamatory expression through several angles, as in "How" and "why" together, to mean "why should He?!" 

The primary Quranic argument against God procreating is thus not linked at all to the presence or absence of consort, but to the contradiction that notion creates with His uniqueness, supremacy, perfection, self-subsitence and so on. But had the Quran not refuted the idea of God physically procreating by mentionning the absence of a consort, its argument would have remained incomplete. 

That is because the very notion of God needing to procreate demotes Him in His self-sustained status, restricts His power and will. This inevitably entails the need for partners in His rule, including a consort to procreate. In such a demoted status, the notion of God doing whatever He wills through His creative word "BE" becomes an impossible proposition. The Quran is here showing the necessary implications of the polytheists' belief, exposing their flaws and refuting them from every possible angle. 

The perfect example to illustrate is that of Mary 19:20. 

Being a human, she was limited in her power and will just as God would have been, had He needed a progeny. Mary was unable by her own will to conceive, just as Allah would have been due to His demoted status. They would have both needed a counterpart to procreate. But the reality is different. God, the Majestic, is free from any need, including that of having children, which necessarily implies Him being limitess in His power and will

19:35"It is not for Allah to take a child; glory to be Him. When He decrees a command, He only says to it: Be; and it is".

The verse makes it clear, the total absence of any need to have a child is linked to His supreme dominion over all things, as encapsulated with the creative word "BE". On the other hand, the need for a child would immidiately negate that absolute power. But Allah is limitless and that is why He was able to impose His creative will upon Mary, making her conceive even in the absence of a male counterpart. Furthermore, the phrase used in this verse is

6:101"..How could He HAVE (yakun lahu) a son (waladun)..".

The different wording for a physical/carnal son in 6:101 as the pagans claimed and 2:116/39:4 speaking of God TAKING a son from among His creatures as some Christians claim, irrefutably shows that the Quran does not mix the 2 notions.

CIRA International ask a riddle; why cant Allah have a son?

In answer to the video "How Could Allah Give Mary A Son? Tawhid Dilemma Ep. 8"

The verse in question is not concerned with Jesus' sonship as understood in Christianity, but of the polytheists who attributed a carnal progeny to Allah. 

The negation of male children to God is stated in 6:100-101, where the Quran also explains the impossibility, from the point of view of His majestic status, unique essence, for God to physically/carnally beget both sons and daughters as the polytheists claimed throughout time, ascribing to Him even a lineage among the jinn 37:158. 

The desire for children is based upon the desire to continue one's own legacy, i.e. it is based upon an inherent weakness within man and this rejects the majesty of Allah, His transcendence, and status as beyond causality and contingency. Why would He need entities besides Himself, sharing His essence? Is He lacking in power, knowledge to rule creation by Himself, or  is He limited in lifespan? 

The Quran rejects this concept of progeny and sonship to God, as well as all the implications undermining His supremacy, by for instance pointing to the facts that nothing precedes or outlasts Him 57:3, that nothing is even within the realm of the remotest of comparisons, that He neither begets nor is He begotten 42:11,112:1-4.

WALAD is the term translated as "son" in 6:101 but the word really means a "product of birth". This covers that Allah does not give birth, nor does he have a consort to give birth for Him. It is important to note, the verse does not tie the impossibility for God to beget to the absence of consort exclusively. It says Wa/And He has no consort. So, the absence of the consort is one of many reasons why Allah does not have a son. Along with the absence of consort, the other reasons for God not having any son are "innovator of the heavens and Earth", "Creator of everything" and so on. It does not befit the One holding sway over all creation to have the need for a son, which entails an inherent weakness. Why would He need to, when His grasp over creation is so all-embracing, that His will, whatever it may be, is instantly executed

19:35"It is not for Allah to take a child; glory to be Him. When He decrees a command, He only says to it: Be; and it is".

The Quran treats this assertion as so far removed from reality, that it tells its messenger, had it been true he would have been the first to be instructed to worship such an entity 43:81.

Finally the word ANNA translated as How, is an exclamatory expression through several angles, as in "How" and "why" together, to mean "why should He?!" 

The primary Quranic argument against God procreating is thus not linked at all the presence or absence of consort, but to the contradiction that notion creates with His uniqueness, supremacy, perfection, self-subsitence and so on. But had the Quran not refuted the idea of God physically procreating by mentionning the absence of a consort, its argument would have remained incomplete. 

That is because the very notion of God needing to procreate demotes Him in His self-sustained status, restricts His power and will. This inevitably entails the need for partners in His rule, including a consort to procreate. In such a demoted status, the notion of God doing whatever He wills through His creative word "BE" becomes an impossible proposition. The Quran is here showing the necessary implications of the polytheists' belief, exposing their flaws and refuting them from every possible angle. 

The perfect example to illustrate is that of Mary 19:20. Being a human, she was limited in her power and will just as God would have been, had He needed a progeny. Mary was unable by her own will to conceive, just as Allah would have been due to His demoted status. They would have both needed a counterpart to procreate. But the reality is different. God, the Majestic, is free from any need, including that of having children, which necessarily implies Him being limitess in His power and will

19:35"It is not for Allah to take a child; glory to be Him. When He decrees a command, He only says to it: Be; and it is".

The verse makes it clear, the total absence of any need to have a child is linked to His supreme dominion over all things, as encapsulated with the creative word "BE". On the other hand, the need for a child would immidiately negate that absolute power. But Allah is limitless and that is why He was able to impose His creative will upon Mary, making her conceive even in the absence of a male counterpart.

CIRA International compare the incomparable; who has the truth on Jesus' birth?

In answer to the video "How Could Allah Give Mary A Son? Tawhid Dilemma Ep. 8"

On the surface, the Quran and the Bible agree on that part of Jesus' story. But in reality they dont because one narration comes from God and the other doesnt. Firstly in the Quran it says the RUH/the breeze, the immaterial entity sent by Allah, tamathala laha/lit. he transformed to Mary, as a well made human being. He then breathed into her part of his own self that she might conceive Isa 21:91. 

Contrast this subtle Quranic wording with the crude depiction made in the NT of the holy ghost (a trinitarian deity) coming upon Mary and overshadowing her like a man getting ready to copulate Lk1:35. 

Now we get to the crucial point, which is Jesus' given matronym "son of Mary". Although others in the Bible were referred to with matronyms such as Shamgar son of Anath, "son of Mary" isnt a known name in the Christian world, while it is in the Muslim world. The Gospel writers had no interest in tracing Jesus' genealogy through Mary since it goes against Jewish law. Secondly, their object was to fulfill the HB's tribal requirements for the messiah. To that end they invented 2 (conflicting) genealogies through an adoptive father, Joseph. Jesus was thus described with the patronym "son of Joseph". 

In the process, they made flaws in both genealogies cancelling any legitimate claims to the throne of the King Messiah (see the Jeconia curse, among other blunders).

The Quranic matronym "son of Mary" carried several deep implications, besides being simply an appellation. In 3:45 the angels give Mary the news that she will soon conceive of a child. This information in itself doesnt indicate anything special, unless it was given to a barren old lady with an equally barren old husband, as in Sara's case who was consequently incredulous at the angelic declaration 11:71-3. Mary would have naturally understood she would conceive in a normal way and there wouldnt have been any reason for her to be surprised at the news 3:47,19:20-1. But by adding the information that the future child will be named "son of Mary", among other names, the angels were telling her he would be born without the agency of a father, in a miraculous way. In semitic tradition a person was identified by the father's name so nothing could have been more striking in the psyche of a woman of the time to be told that her son will not be identified by his affiliation to a male, but to a woman. 

This miraculous conception is a sign not only Jesus would be known by, but also his mother and the name "son of Mary" implies exactly that; she would jointly share this sign with him forever as both of their names will be mentioned together

23:50,21:91"and made her and her son a sign for the worlds".

Jesus as well as his mother were chosen to be made jointly, "A" single sign of the power of the Maker and Creator over all things. So from a Quranic perspective, that miracle equally sets Mary and Jesus apart from humanity. Before discussing the implications of this sign, it is worthwhile noting that by honoring Mary in such a way and joining her name to that of one of the most illustrious individuals to have walked the earth, God has defeated in His final revelation and until the resurrection, the slanderous talk of some among her contemporaries and those that followed, who wanted to put a stain on her and abase her. 

As regards the sign, it consists in demonstrating how the resurrection of bodies isnt a difficult task to God. We deem it impossible for a female to give life without the necessary biological process yet God did it, so just as He easily creates life in conditions we think are impossible then similarly He is able to bring the dead back to life even if the conditions make it unfeasable from our perspective. The rejection of the concept of resurrection by many Jews of the time adds to the relevancy of that miracle. One can even argue that Jesus was given the greatest evidence for resurrection among God's prophets who all equally stressed the importance of that tenet to their people. 

This is because Jesus is the only explicit case in the prophetic history where a human's birth did not result from mating. The Quran doesnt even state that Adam was born in such a way, ie that he was not the result of sexual reproduction. 

Other miraculous births are recorded in the Quran, including around the time of Jesus as was the case for the prophet John/Yahya. But they primarily served the purpose of a reward and were not meant to be disclosed and shared openly other than within the circle of the people concerned. Jesus' birth not only was different than all others in its prominence because as already said, intercourse between a man and a woman did not even precede it, but also because it was primarily meant as a sign for all of humanity. As a testimony to this, the Quran uses a linguistic subtlety, showing again and again how it uses words surgically in order to maximize the impact. There is a slight different wording between God's answer to Mary

3:47"Even so Allah creates what he pleases"

and to Zakariya

3:40"Even so does Allah whatsoever He pleases".

The nuance -creates vs does- lies in that the miracle of a child born of a virgin is definitely more striking than a child born to a couple, even if barren. It must be kept in mind the Quran was recited in the form of speech, publicly and instantly as it came to the prophet, with no chance a re-editing and modifying, and the 2 verses are very closely located. How would one, let alone a known illiterate without any background in poetry or any form of oral eloquent speeches, instantly and naturally make such a distinction in a flowing discourse?

The NT writers firstly wanted Jesus to be traced up to King David to fulfill the criteria for the Messiah's lineage. But Jesus had no father as both the Bible and Quran agree, hence the introduction of an adoptive father, Joseph. Now Jesus had to be known under the patronym "son of Joseph" in his community, instead of "son of Mary" as affirmed in the Quran. In addition to providing a fabricated lineage, they were now, in their eyes, "protecting" Mary's public image and that of Jesus. She was now engaged before her pregnancy and married when she delivered, not, as the Quran says, completely alone when she met God's messenger, as well as all throughout her pregnancy, including when she secluded herself to deliver the baby. 

According to the Greek writers, the virgin birth was a secret yet this particular miracle was, according to those same writers that base themselves on the infamous mistranslation of Isa7:14 in the Greek Septuagint, one of the most crucial fulfilments of HB prophecies. This "secret" virgin birth supposedly was among the signs the Israelites had to know from the very beginning to identify the awaited savior

Isa7:14,Matt1:22"All this took place to fulfill what the Lord had said through the prophet: “The virgin will conceive and give birth to a son, and they will call him Immanuel".

It is no surprise that in his purported letters, Ignatius the bishop of Antioch and supposed disciple of the apostles declares that Mary's virginity and child bearing were secrets only made known to the world through a "star". 

This is not to mention the cultural ignorance of the non-Jewish Greek writer who penned the story. 

A Hebrew wedding is celebrated in two parts. In ancient times, the interval between the two ceremonies could take up to several weeks in order to allow time for the new home to be arranged. But to avoid secret encounters between the newly wedds who could not hold their urge to come together, the wedding ie the second ceremony was arranged at the earliest possible opportunity. It is clear from Deut22:23 that a girl described as "betrothed" to a husband already has the status of a legally married woman which is why a newly-married couple normally consummate their union immediately after their betrothal ceremony to complete it and make it legally valid and binding. This makes it all the more absurd to paint Mary as "bethroted" prior to her pregnancy. 

The fact is that this non-existent virgin birth prophecy of the HB was inserted into the NT narrative retrospectively. From a theological viewpoint, Christians needed to solve the problem of having the perfect, sinless human sacrifice born of a human mother, while all humans are sinful in nature and that they pass on that depravity to their progeny. They thus neglected and forgot the true purpose of that miracle, and assumed that the object of the virgin birth was to guarantee Jesus would be born without the inevitable sinful stain. Back in these times people didnt know that women contribute just as much if not a bit more (in terms of genetic material) to the formation of a baby than men did. And so by believing that women were a mere passive vessel, in the absence of a human father Jesus would necessarily be free of original sin. The particularities of Yahya/John and Jesus' births, do not make any of them different or special than other human beings in terms of their physical nature. Neither were these miraculous circumstances necessary to accommodate the false notions retrospectively applied to them. For example Jesus did not need to come from a virgin to circumvent human depravity, something Jesus never even spoke of. Neither did Jesus need to combine the immaterial/RUH of Allah, with the material/human mother so as to assume his dual human/divine nature. All humanity has exactly this same dual aspect as Jesus, without any of us being divine.

Jesus had to be known, according to the NT writers themselves, as special since the very beginning, yet not only was the virgin birth obscured to the people through the absurd introduction of a husband but the NT also repeatedly says how the young Jesus was completely unknown in any particular way prior to his ministry in adulthood, see Matt13 for example. 

The absurdity doesnt end here, the same NT that tells us his people knew nothing special about him prior to his ministry also tells us of all the wonderful signs and wonders surrounding his first moments as an infant, the celestial signs that prompted both friends and foes to look for him even from outside Palestine, people such as the Magi coming "from the east" to worship the newly born "king of the Jews". Signs of the messiah's impending rise were supposedly so obvious that king Herod, fearing for his throne, began slaughtering all male infants born in Bethleem at that particular time. Mary was prompted to flee with her son to Nazareth to hide and protect him Matt2. 

Part of the NT establishes the fact that it was well known in and outside Palestine that the awaited savior had come, and countless people identified him with Jesus since his youngest days. Elizabeth for instance refers to Mary as "mother of my Lord" as she saw her pregnant Lk1. Shepherds, informed by the angels, rushed to Bethleem to see the newly born messiah. After confirmation

Lk2:17"they spread the word concerning what had been told them about this child, and all who heard it were amazed at what the shepherds said to them".

Anna, the daughter of Penuel as well as Simeon recognized in the newly born Jesus the awaited savior and told others about him Lk2. Both rabbis and laymen at the Temple were astonished at the child Jesus' display of wisdom and knowledge. And yet we read elsewhere that nobody knew of the virgin birth miracle, neither was Jesus known as anything special prior to adulthood. 

This last incident at the Temple is preceded by the improbable scenario of Jesus' parents travelling from Jerusalem where they had attended Passover, back to their hometown of Nazareth and only noticing after a day's walk that the little Jesus had been left behind. So they return to Jerusalem, and only find him after 3 days search. Astoundingly, the NT writers also paint Mary and Joseph, the very ones who witnessed first hand the virgin birth, as completely ignorant of what Jesus meant when he stated that he

"must be concerned with the affairs of my Father".

Jesus made that statement in response to Mary's scolding him because of his disappearance Lk2:42-50. Did Mary and Joseph suddenly forget all the miraculous signs and fame surrounding his infancy just 12 years after his birth, as if they had never heard of them and their obvious implications as regards his identity? In another context, Mary, who gave birth to him miraculously, and his brothers James and Jude even thought he had gone mad Mk3.

The Quran, far from copying the above NT absurdities, says the virgin birth was a miracle made known to all. It would be foolish to provide a miracle of virgin birth, while the woman supposed to carry the child is married. For an unmarried woman, in addition known for her piety and chastity, to show up with her own baby would immediately attract the eyes of an entire community upon her, maximizing the impact of the absolving speech of the infant Jesus at once, as vividly and eloquently described in sura Maryam. None would have spontaneously came to her had she been married prior, nobody would have inquired because there would have been no scandal of a woman dedicated to worship in God's temple suddenly showing up with a child. 

According to the NT depiction, the married Mary now has to prove the virgin birth miracle by going out of her way and pleading repeatedly to the unsuspecting community. It would have been inefficient and debasing. In the Quranic version of the story, the blessed Mary did not need to utter a single word to defend her innocence, preserving her honor and avoiding her the difficulty of having to argue and dispute with a crowd, and neither did the child need to be overexposed so as to repeat his speech senselessly.

The protection of the virgin birth reaches such an extent in the Quran and in such eloquent and intricate details, that whenever Jesus is quoted as addressing the Israelites, he does not once call them "my people" or "my nation" as other Israelite prophets like Moses are quoted as saying in the Quran. Jesus always calls them "Bani Israel" because they, contrary to him, could trace their lineage up to Israel from their fathers, which wasnt his case. Jesus had no worldly father, neither one involved in his conception, nor the made up one of the NT whom the writers needed to create a messianic lineage.
Son of Mary is an appelation used by those that testify to the miraculous circumstances of Jesus' birth, contrary to those calling him by the patronym of the NT. 

While the Quran does agree on certain points with the NT just as it does with the HB in other instances the Quran corrects the errors that have crept into these Books and further adds unknown, obscured or forgotten information. If Muhammad was copying from them, then one has to explain how the very subtle differences, which are loaded with meaning, let alone the major differences are there in the Quran.

Apostate prophet wonders; what are the Huruf muqataat?

In answer to the video "The Mysterious Letters in the Quran"

There is a pervasive, humbling Quranic principle that

12:76"above every possessor of knowledge is (one) (more) knowing"

with God being the ultimate possessor of all knowledge, hidden and apparent, allowing what He wills to be temporarily shared with His creation 2:255. This concept transpires throughout the Quran in many different ways, in order to put man's propensity for arrogance and self-sufficiency in check. For example right after sura fatiha, the plea in which man is spiritually humbled and taught to seek guidance from a superior entity, in the next sura man's intellect is immediately humbled, right from the start through the huruf muqattaat/disjointed letters.

These seemingly simple alphabetical letters are found in every Arabic text, available for all, but out of which Allah created a book the equivalent of which no intellect can produce. That intellectual, creative superiority can be observed virtually anywhere in the system of the universe; just as man makes bricks and ceramics out of soil, Allah creates thousands of flowers and plants, fruits and animals as well as man, out of the same materials. 

As a testimony of one's understanding of that principle, one should therefore ask the All-Knowing to be increased in knowledge 20:114, just like the prophet David teaches in his Psalms119:27-34 to ask God to open one's intellect to grasping the Torah, increase one's knowledge and understanding of His precepts. The Quran primarily teaches humanity how to think before imparting knowledge. 

Regarding those disjointed letters, there is no fixed theory on their meaning. Yet no Muslim has ever tampered with them, edited or removed them. This is despite the fact that their definite meaning remained mysterious, even among the early Muslims. Abu Bakr said 

"Every book has a mystery (sirr), and the mystery of the Quran is the beginnings of the surahs".

The whole corpus of traditions in general was meant at recording history and incidents of the early community, the manner in which the prophet lived his everyday life and applied the Quran, rather than relaying his exegesis of the book. That is why one doesnt find much Quran commentary attributed to the prophet, besides the verses and passages speaking of the important pillars of faith, or those connected to a particular incident in the life of the community. So although the definite opinion of the earliest Muslims as regards the muqataat isnt known, the Muslims and the memorizers throughout the ages held fast by the authenticity of the Quran by keeping them as is. 

We see a similar phenomenon attesting to the preservation of the Quranic text with the bismilla/basmalla. Although the scholars and reciters have differed on whether it should be treated as a separate verse, or if it should be included in the recitation, all have kept it as an integral part of the text. Nobody denied its placement at the beginning of every sura, and all have maintained the prophetic tradition of omitting it both textually and orally from the beginning of sura tawba. From the position of a textual critic, the fact that the odd absence of the opening formula was not corrected at this single place attests to the diligence of the transmitters and compilers of the Quran, protecting its integrity from falsification.

Going back to the muqataat, there is however one report, going back to ibn Abbas where he makes the following statement as regards the letter nun which appears in 68:1

"The first thing Allah created was the pen. He ordered it to write. It said: What shall I write? He said: Write the fate. So it wrote what will happen from that day until the Day of judgement, then he created the Nun, then he raised the water and created the heavens with it and laid the earth on the back of the Nun, the Nun moved and so did the earth, so it was fixed down with mountains".

The chain is authentic but cannot be taken as evidence for the definite meaning of the muqataa letter. The reason is that this view is not attributed to the prophet. It would not be a problem had ibn Abbas been doing ijtihad, but he is here reportedly commenting on the unseen, a matter that can only be known through revelation. Some commentators have made a connection between the letter nun, and the phonetically similar word nuun which appears in 21:87 in reference to a large fish. This laid the basis to many fantastic stories in several books of tafsir, speaking of a giant whale carrying the earth. This could be influenced by the Biblical description of pillars keeping earth afloat above the waters on which it was established Ps24:2,136:6. The exegetes however unanimously noted the absurdity of the concept, although they mentioned it, saying it most probably originated in Jewish traditions, as noted by the likes of al-thaalabi. There is in fact a very similar statement of Kaab al-Ahbar and ibn Abbas is known to have quoted israeliyyat from him. Kaab was an early Jewish convert to Islam known for adding his talmudic knowledge, as well as local Arabian Jewish folklore, while commenting on the Quran. However when he did so, Kaab did not attribute his opinion to the prophet. Ibn Abbas here might have been simply relating what contemporary Jews believed, without confirmation or negation. This is in fact what the prophet told the Muslims as they began interacting with the people of the book 

"The Prophet said: Convey (my teachings) to the people even if it were a single sentence, and tell others the stories of People of Israel (which have been taught to you), for it is not sinful to do so. And whoever tells a lie on me intentionally, will surely take his place in the (Hell) Fire".

Other mufassirun have understood this "nun" to mean an inkpot, a tablet of light, or an abbreviation of Rahman. All these attempts demonstrate the point of these letters which is about humbling man in his pursuit of knowledge.

It is to be noted that this hadith, along with others weak ones related to the Islamic view of cosmology, were kept by the scholars and used to corroborate certain notions found in more trustworthy sources. Among such weak ahadith is 

"Above the seventh heaven there is a sea, the distance between whose surface and bottom is like that between one heaven and the next. Above that there are eight mountain goats the distance between whose hoofs and haunches is like the distance between one heaven and the next. Then Allah, the Blessed and the Exalted, is above that". 

Some reports are outright forgeries attributed to later jurists the likes of Imam Ahmad ibn Hanbal after their death, as is found in a tract called Kitab al-sunna, a pro-anthropomorphic work. Among such ahadith put in the mouth of renowned authorities are "when He Most Blessed and Exalted sits on the Kursi, a squeak is heard like the squeak of a new leather saddle" or "Allah wrote the Torah for Moses with His hand while leaning back on a rock, on tablets of pearl, and the screech of the quill could be heard. There was no veil between Him and him" or "The angels were created from the light of His two elbows and chest". If anyone among the salaf was far removed from any tinge of anthropomorphisms it was Ibn Hanbal, whose position on the matter was known as purely literal, and avoided delving beyond the plain reading of any statement from the Quran or the prophet describing something from Allah. Another work with its share of forgeries is Ibn al-Qayyim’s Ijtima al-juyush al-Islamiyya.

As to the huruf, Im not sure whether this youtuber is being serious in his claim, but nowhere did the preislamic poets start their odes with similar disjointed letters. 

Others tried explaining them by appealing to a polemical anti-Karaite treatise dated to the 10th century CE, where mention is made of 10 Jews that faked their conversion to Islam to avoid harm befalling them. They then began teaching some verses to the prophet. Besides the contradicting fact that in this polemical text, those Jews themselves begin attacking the Medina and Khaybar Jews, not a single of those verses can be found either in the Quran or in the whole corpus of Islamic literature. 

It is additionally claimed that each of them inserted his name, within a sura in a cryptic manner, resulting in the huruf al muqataat. Here again one can easily detect the falsehood. These authorship references arent said to be at the beginning of a fabricated sura but part of a whole verse everytime, nowhere to be found in the current Quran. In addition from a linguistic viewpoint, the words which these letters claim to be abreviations of, can only work if one were to substitute, add or revise the pronunciations of these letters. 

For example YA-SIN starting sura 36 is supposed to be the abbreviation of israa'il. As anyone with rudimentary knowledge of Arabic knows, israa'il is composed of alif-sin-ra-lam. Nothing to do with ya-sin.

Acts17apologetics find Trinity in HB; God appears to Abraham and Moses?

In answer to the video "Decapitating Allah (and "Defacing" Islam)"

Gen18:1-2"The LORD appeared to Abraham near the great trees of Mamre while he was sitting at the entrance to his tent in the heat of the day. Abraham looked up and saw three men standing nearby. When he saw them, he hurried from the entrance of his tent to meet them and bowed low to the ground".

Firstly, none can and has ever seen God, as is explicitly stated in both the Hebrew writings and the Greek testament Ex33:20,Jn1:17. To argue the contrary based on ambiguous verses violates two of the paramount points of scriptural understanding: 1) Use clear verses to explain the unclear ones, and 2) gather all of the pertinent verses and study them completely before reaching a conclusion on a doctrine.  To corroborate, the angels sent by YHWH are sometimes addressed as "YHWH" Ex3:2,4,14,Judges6:12,14,Zech3:1,2 simply because they spoke for Him. 

This is a known axiom of HB scriptural exegisis, that a person's agent is like himself; the agent's action is considered as though his principal had performed it. 

There are many instances such as in Ex12:12 where it is God personally who promises to punish the Egyptians yet a few verses down in v23 it is the "destroyer". Or throughout Isaiah where "the Lord spoke" to such and such while it in fact was the prophet relating the divine inspiration to such a person Isa7:10. Again in Isa22:11 it is God who is said to have built what king Hezekiah made 2Chron32:5 and this is because he was acting as God's agent during the process, trusting Him in his endeavours 2kings18:5. In 2Sam24:1 it is God that incites David to conduct a census while in 1Chron21:1 it is Satan, the adversary that does God's work. Hasatan by the way is an angel, just as the angel sent on specific occasions during the Israelites' exodus to execute the will of God Ex14,23,33etc. God in all those instances was "with" the Israelites through His messenger angel, the same way as a commander talking to the citizen of his nation, telling them he is with them although his soldiers are the ones defending the people.  This angel/messenger of the Lord by the way is incapable of forgiving sins Ex23. It is thus very surprising that Christians would use this type of proof text as an indication of the HB having multiple divine persons. Further the book of Hebrews openly states Jesus is not an angel Heb1. This kind of language, where the agent is called God or the consequence of an agent's actions is attributed to God, is common to the Semitic revelations, and found throughout the Quran too. It stems from the monotheistic notion that God is the creator of all things, including the laws of causality which He maintains and allows at each instant. These are straightforward notions to a person imbedded in Abrahamic monotheism. But as soon as these concepts are read through the lens of polytheistic cultures where multiple gods interact among oneanother and independantly influence the lives of the humans, then confusions appear. 

That is why one will never find an Israelite reading trinity or any other speculation on God's unity in any of the passages proposed by Christians.

Besides these facts, if it is YHWH himself who appeared to Abraham in the shape of Jesus in Genesis 18 as trinitarians want it to be, then who are the "Ancient of Days" and the "son of man" who simultaneously appeared to Daniel in his vision Dan7:9-14? And why is one described with a title evoking eternity while the other stresses his human origin? What is rendered "Ancient of Days" lit. means "the One from the ancient years" - that is, "the same God who existed in ancient times". So if this "Ancient of Days" who stands for YHWH, and the "son of man" for Jesus, appeared together in human form in this vision as all Christian scholars agree, what proof is there that when YHWH manifested himself in human form in Gen18 it was Jesus christ?

In Revelation 4 and 5 it is said that the "Lamb" (which stands for Jesus) came and took a scroll from God's hand as he was sitting on his throne surrounded by "elders". Again both Jesus and YHWH appear simultaneously in human form meaning they are viewed by the authors as distinct so what reason is there to assume the YHWH who appeared throughout the HB was Jesus? 

Also, contrary to what trinitarians want, there are 4 characters in Gen18, not 3. 18:1 says God appears. Then three strangers, who are angels, turn up in v2. God has already appeared before. Abraham asks them to stop and he offers them food. Besides basic chronology, another thing making it clear that V1 and v2 are referring to separate occurrences is that in v22 the "men" were completely separate from God

"the men turned away and went toward Sodom, but Abraham remained standing before the LORD".

Acts17apologetics need to see to believe; Islamic way of perceiving Allah?

In answer to the video "Decapitating Allah (and "Defacing" Islam)"

Christianity’s dogma of incarnation, a theology resulting from centuries of later reflections, is the climax of anthropomorphism. The NT is far removed from the Hebraic universe and closer to the Hellenestic world view. It isnt theocentric but christocentric. 

Islam emphasizes God’s transcendence, protecting it from any shades of corporealism. Countless verses substantiate this principle, without resorting to textual contortions or external help to safeguard this paradigm. The Quran makes it clear, God is unknown in His essence, but is known through His signs, attributes, qualities and actions. 

God's essence is, as shown earlier, one that can never be perceived, meaning we cannot speak of Him in terms of any point of reference, including spatio-temporal. However, nothing is more evident than God's attributes within and outside ourselves. He, through His attributes, is everywhere in the heavens and earth

57:4,12:105,31:20,2:115"so whichever way you turn, there is the Face of Allah".

These attributes manifest in every aspect of creation, down to our

45:3-4,51:21"own souls (too); will you not then see?".

It is a continuously unfolding phenomenon as denoted with the present progressive tense in 41:53. As also denoted with "musiun" 51:47 which carries the meaning of expanding, the universe is not a finished work, but in continuous expansion, with new manifestations of God's creation

87:2"Who creates, then makes complete".

Musiun stems from W-S-Ayn meaning wide or to encompass something. It is often used in the Quran to imply both meanings 4:97,130,7:156,20:98,29:56. Musiun is a noun describing the subject doing the widening or the encompassing. Here the meaning that fits better the context is widening or expanding. The passage turns the audience's attention to the sky whose primary characteristics they know and see, obvisouly is its vasteness. It first says God built it with power, because something that vast could only have been done with immesurable might. This verse is part of a group of verses arguing for the resurrection by pointing to mankind's creation as insignificant in terms of complexity and strength needed to achieve it, compared to the heavens above 40:57. The idea of making the heavens vast thus then naturaly follows the initial description of the creation from the perspective of the strength needed.

Strength however does not necessarily imply exertion and effort. And this is where the eloquence of the Quran manifests. The statement "musiun" is a noun denoting a state, not a temporary action. It also implies ease. The Quran could have used here other words to derive the same meaning of expanding, but without that nuance of ease. Muwassi3 for instance carries the same meaning but with an emphasis on effort because of the shadda. Ibn Abbas comments

"(We have built) created (the heaven with might, and We it is who make the vast extent (thereof)) as We will; it is also said that this means: we expand the provision thereof".

He understood musiun as implying vastness, and as reflected in the view he reports, musiun is a constant action. Ancient people did not know the universe is in expansion and in a constant state of creation, so they connected musiun to the provision from the heaven, ie the rain.  Here is a typical case of Quranic eloquence, allowing its words not to violently disturb nor confirm its audience's understanding of nature, so as to not deflect the attention from the spiritual portents of the verse. This is because the Quran's objective isnt to cause scientific, but spiritual reform. 

The Quran has pointed and explained the implications of many signs which exist in the world around and within man calling, him to ponder on every aspect of existence. These are in fact the true miracles happening everyday and only the one with an open heart is able to derive the higher realities from them. This is the particularity of the Quranic argument, to grasp things, concepts, phenomena which the human sees and experiences on a near daily basis, and teaches him the right angle from which to perceive them. The Quran uses simple scenes long familiar to man to attract attention to the higher realities and build profound faith. From a spiritual point of view, the same miraculous complexity applies to the building blocks of life as to gigantic structures and the universe. These scenes are used by the Quran because it addresses every human being, at all times and conditions. It does not seek to accommodate the philosophical and scientific intellectual elite while disregarding less educated people. The observations to which it points can be utilized by anyone so as to derive spiritual benefits. Through this approach among others, including a balance of warnings and glad tidings, as well as prophecies progressively unfolding, history attests that the prophet Muhammad, although often denigrated by Judeo-Christian critics who are ignorant of their own books, this prophet was in fact the most successful in implementing the will of God on an unprecedented scope and scale. Every time the prophet's opponents asked him for a miracle on demand, he was told to point them to ta similar phenomena occurring daily under their eyes as evidence of a wise Creator 

45:25-6"And when Our verses are recited to them as clear evidences, their argument is only that they say, "Bring [back] our forefathers, if you should be truthful". Say, "Allah causes you to live, then causes you to die; then He will assemble you for the Day of Resurrection, about which there is no doubt, but most of the people do not know". 

How will they admit to a miraculous sign the like of which they are demanding, if they arent able to se the imprint of a Creator in everyday causality? That is why we find that even those prophets that did perform miracles on demand to those kinds of obdurate people, were accused of sorcery and had in fact very little following

45:23"Have you seen he who has taken as his god his [own] desire, and Allah has sent him astray due to knowledge and has set a seal upon his hearing and his heart and put over his vision a veil? So who will guide him after Allah? Then will you not be reminded?" 

The human mind has been designed so as to observe and meditate upon the creation, not the Creator. Our minds cannot and will not ever be able to absorb Allah's infinite essence. Once, the prophet said to his companions who were in deep contemplation;

"Contemplate and reflect on Allah's creation, and not on the Creator for you will never be able to understand Allah in measures or quantum".

The Quran embraces all scientific endeavor that does not reject the spiritual dimension, which is present in all things, in and outside of man

3:190-1"Most surely in the creation of the heavens and the earth and the alternation of the night and the day there are signs for men who understand. Those who remember Allah standing and sitting and lying on their sides and reflect on the creation of the heavens and the earth".

The Quran guides and imparts knowledge regarding the unseen realm, which is beyond our reach. But the material world is available for anyone to explore. That is why the Quran doesnt impart new knowledge in relation to our world but rather seeks to purge the scientist's intention and attitude when exploring it. These passages lay the ground for the proper understanding of many verses that mention God's attributes. For instance, looking towards Allah in the Hereafter 75:23 is the same as seeing His face in this world 2:115 except that the perception and experience will be far more intense. This is because the believers will literally be

3:107"in Allah's mercy".

Looking towards Allah 75:23 is the most suited expression to convey the idea of the very strong perception of God's manifestation through His attributes. The Quran averts any possible misuse of such verses through its explicit statements

6:103"Visions comprehends Him not, and He comprehends (all) vision".

To leave no room for ambiguity, the verse actually says alabsar/visions in the plural. This covers any type of physical vision, even including the impossibility to imagine God. Allah's mathal or example, is therefore unimaginable, uncomparable

30:27"and His is the most exalted essence/mathal in the heavens and the earth, and He is the Mighty, the Wise".

The statement that He "comprehends all visions" is quite powerful as it entails God not only seeing but encompassing the entity He sees. Creatures with vision are limited to the physical sight of things, without always seeing its inner reality. That is how precise and complete the Quran is in its monotheistic approach to the divine essence. He does not need to be detached from the creation to remain beyond all perception. He is fully present and aware of the reality of all things.

Similarly to seeing their Lord, the believers meeting Him in the Hereafter is equal to an intense perception of the way in which He manifests His attributes 2:46. In fact it clearly says, that in the Hereafter, the successful will meet God's good promise 28:61. Another aspect through which the Quran places the divine reality beyond human perception is the statement

112:4,42:11"there is nothing like a likeness of Him"  

This is the Quran axiom as regards the manner by which God manifests in this world, He does so through His attributes, but never through His imperceptible essence. 42:11 literally says

"like a likeness of Him"

meaning His reality is not only above all material limitations, but even above the limitation of metaphor. This also carries the meaning that even the "how" of His being is beyond the category of human thought.  

Humans, like every creation, are a manifestation of God's attributes. They in turn are encouraged to try and emulate some of those attributes as best as possible, such as generosity, mercy and forgiveness. So they are in a sense in "God's image". Similarly, Man has the ability to create, like the Creator of all things does, but in reality he is only reshaping what God previously created. He can judge, be good, show mercy but not and never in an equal manner to God 

2:115"so whichever way you turn, there is the Face of Allah". 

So clearly one can see God's face in all of creation, because all things reflect His attributes to some degree. Humans, and more particularily their face, reflects God's image just as the rest of creation does

 “Do not say ‘May Allaah deform your face’, for the son of Adam was created in the image of the Most Merciful". 

The similitude does not pertain to physical resemblence but in the way the divine attributes manifests. The face contains the foremost elements that allow perception, relfexion and action. The Eyes for instance allow the brain to perceive and process the surrounding signs, shaping our thoughts that are then expressed with speech. Only God however is able to manifest these shared attributes, like the aforementioned sight and speech, to infinite perfection. The manner, the "how" in which this is done is unfathomable to our minds 

42:11"nothing like a likeness of Him". 

Just as the human face reflects God's image, the prophet said 

“The first group to enter Paradise will be in the image of the moon”. 

The intent is obviously that they will manifest some of the moon's attributes like radiance and glorious appearance, as the Quran describes them beaming with light. They will however retain their specific human form, which is completely different than that of the moon. The prophet even described the righteous as being the embodiment of Allah 

"Allah Almighty said: My servant continues to grow closer to me with extra good works until I love him. When I love him, I am his hearing with which he hears, his seeing with which he sees, his hand with which he strikes, and his foot with which he walks". 

The senses and limbs remain that of a human being but due to his righteousness and the ensuing divine guidance, each perception, expression and action is done with a level of spiritual awareness so high that it reflects God's attributes and will.

Similar principles are stated in the Hebrew Bible by the prophets Jeremiah and Isaiah Jer10:6,Isa40:18. Being in God's image simply means in the HB to reflect God's attributes in some way. The HB states that when man "became like one of us" he had gained knowledge of good and evil (after eating from the tree). This means that humans being "like God" or in His image is about knowledge, which the Quran explicitly states was mercifully ingrained in man from the beginning, not hidden from him in a forbidden tree. As the "serpent" says in Genesis

"For God knows that when you eat from it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil".

Apostate prophet wonders; what is the divine throne/al Arsh?

In answer to the video "The Mysterious Letters in the Quran"

2:255"His chair (kursiyyahu) extends over the heavens and the earth"
20:5"The Beneficent One, Who is established (istawa) on the Throne (arsh)"
7:54"Surely your Lord is Allah, Who created the heavens and the earth in six periods of time, and He is firm in power (thumma istawa alal arsh)"

In all the seven instances where God is spoken of in the Quran as "istawa alal arsh/established on the throne" 7:54,10:3,13:2,20:5,25:59,32:4,57:4 this expression is connected with a declaration of His having created the universe. Nothing symbolizes dominion more in human psyche than the image of a powerful king sitting on his throne and ruling his kingdom. Allah however is not like any human king. He is the King of Kings Who not only possesses a mighty throne, but is the sustainer of that throne

 23:116"So exalted be Allah, the True King; no god is there but He, the Lord of the Throne/arsh". 

This means, despite Him being the absolute ruler of all that exists, He stands by Himself and does not need the support of a throne. This is a major point in the Quran's depiction of creation. At no point is there any hint or reference to God needing a time of rest, or break from a tiresome endeavour.

As to the statement "established over/on" that generally accompanies the mention of the throne, it does not entail "sitting". It is important to emphasize, whenever there is mention of Allah being in a location, the only understanding that is open to us is in terms of implication relevant to each context. The "how" is beyond any human being's grasp since outside our experience. This, again, is a principle of interpretation established in the Quran and the teachings of the prophet. 

For instance it says Allah is at all times nearer than one's jugular vein 50:16. The implication is that His knowledge and control encompass every aspect of every human being's life, at each instant of their existence. It also says Allah's face is visible wherever one looks 2:115. How is Allah's face simultaneously present in whatever direction one lays his eyes is beyond human understanding but the implications are clear; the spiritually aware perceives in all aspects of creation and at all moments the divine will and design. Interestingly, in the very verse talking of Allah's establishing Himself above the throne, it says 

57:4"He is with you wherever you are". 

Again, His simultaneous presence above the throne and with every human at all moment shows that He is absolutely transcendent, unbound by space and time, or any other type of restriction. This is an unfathomable notion to our minds, hence the uselessness of seeking the "how". The implications of that statement however are clear; God has unrestricted sway over all that exists, including the throne itself which is a creation. 

God's presence, not appearance, during His communion with Moses follows this exact pattern of religious terminology 27:7-9,28:29-30. 

The same understanding applies to the hadith describing Allah descending 

"every night to the lowest heaven when one-third of the night remains" 

so as to bless and forgive those that request it. Just as Allah is closer, at each instant, than the jugular vein, with all humans wherever they are, His face simultaneously visible all around us at all moments, all the while being established over the throne, His presence in the lowest heaven at a certain point in time is an unfathomable concept to the human mind. The implications of the statement however is understood by the information provided; such descent is accompanied by a manifestation of His attribute of mercy which is more prominent during that interval to those that seek it.  

The Quran, as well as the prophet, draw the boundaries of our understanding of those verses. What we can seek to understand, and what is a fruitless effort, as pointed to earlier. Him encompassing all of existence from close and far simultaneously, as well as being in a certain place at a certain time, is unlike any concept we can imagine. We can however understand the implications of those descriptions.

 

Again, when Allah 87:1"the Most High" is 6:61,16:50"above" or in the heavens (which He created), the expression is understood as denoting his all encompassing sway and dominion, that there cannot be something higher than Him in the sense of perfection, exaltedness. Such verses cannot be taken in isolation of the principles of interpretation mentioned earlier, as well as the numerous statements of Allah's all encompassing presence unrestricted by time and space. In fact, in connection to Allah being "above", we read that He does not "reside" in a fixed place 

6:3"He is Allah in the heavens and in the earth".

We find in certain passages of the HB principles that similarly protect divine transcendance despite descriptions of God acting within time and space. Among such restrictive verses we read that

 Isa33:5"The Lord is exalted, for He dwells on high". 

That dwelling place is somewhere in the 

Amos9:6"upper stories in Heaven" 

which He has built. These chambers are above the solid canopy of the earth upon which He sometimes sits Isa40:22,Ps104 in order to 

Ps33:13-14"oversees all the inhabitants of the earth". 

The heavens strictly belong to him, while humans were made for the earth Ps115:16. In a closer sense, in the context of the Temple of Jerusalem, God is said to dwell among His people 1kings8:27. This is where the prophet Solomon salvages divine transcendance and provides an axiom by which to understand such "restrictive" Biblical verses. He states here that no location on the earth and neither of "the heaven of heavens" can contain Him. By definition, infinity cannot be limited in quantity or quality. This passage, which is in congruence with the Islamic principles mentioned earlier, refute the Hellenistic misappropriation of the HB by the NT authors. Jesus being fully God limits the infinite to a location. If the divine essence was not limited to a location when Jesus walked the streets of Jerusalem, then it means Jesus was not fully God. Solomon's words are decisive and closed to any misinterpretation. God manifests His presence through His attributes, not by entering His creation. 

The Quran has also warned that these type of ambiguous verses are a test to those in whose heart there is perversity 3:7. They will deny the explicit verses that shed light on the right manner to approach these passages, preferring to apply their own desires and notions unto them. Trinitarians will often reply that God can do whatever He wishes. God surely has power over all things, but the contention here isnt about what God can or cannot do. God doesnt contradict Himself or negate His attributes, including Majesty and Self-sufficiency. Entering creation compromises both. This also opens the way for speculation, can God, for whatever theological construct, also incarnate into a worm? If not why not?

With those principles in mind we may further understand the implications of Allah "coming". We do not and cannot fathom how Allah can come within space and time, but we certainly can know the implications of that statement. Besides the hadith mentioned prior which entails mercy, in the Quran it means the execution of His command or of His threatened punishment. Similarly, the HB states in the context of divine chastisement visiting a wicked people, that God swiftly comes "riding" the clouds to destination Isa19:1,Ps104:3 or is transported by majestic angels Ps18:10. More in line with the Quranic imagery is God "descending" on the sinners for punishment or on a people for battle Isa31:4,Micah1:3 or "coming with a strong hand" to mete out retribution upon the heathens Isa40:10. 

The idea of tiredness is completely excluded from God's creative work 46:33. God's establishment over the throne, which is itself a creation sustained by Him, symbolises His constant dominion upon all that exists. He has not relinquished His rule in favour of others nor has He made the whole of His creation or any part of it independent like a clock running by itself. He has instead remained at all times the sole Sustainer upon Whom the functioning of all things depend. The ending of these verses with 

"surely His is the creation and the command" 

refer precisely to this; after creation comes the command, symbolized by the establishment on the throne 

32:5"He manages and regulates every affair from the heavens to the earth. Then, it will go up to him, in one Day, the space whereof is a thousand years of your reckoning". 

In fact the Quran is silent about a seventh day in the history of creation, where the Bible depicts God as seemingly collapsing on a throne following a tiresome task. Rather, God creates in six days only and then controls His creation, including the throne upon which He is established. Had His management abandoned the world of existence for one single moment, the organization of them all would have perished 22:65,35:41. 

In the HB, despite being One that Isa40:28"neither tires nor wearies", the crudely depicted Hebrew God is one that needed "resting" after "finishing" the monumental task of creating the universe, a pre-measured and finalized work 

Isa40:12"Who measured water with his gait, and measured the heavens with his span, and measured by thirds the dust of the earth, and weighed mountains with a scale and hills with a balance?" 

also Isa48:13. 

This concept borders with the polytheistic beliefs of many people around the world, including the Arabs of the Hijaz, who attributed the act of creation to the One God supreme, who then for many various reasons, left it either partially or completely, to the interceding deities or lesser gods to administrate the natural processes. The perfect monotheism of Islam is far detached from these incomplete and primitive depictions of God.

Ibrahim's discussion with the unnamed ruler of his nation (later Quran commentaries identify him with Namrud/Nimrod) was precisely about this notion of God's omnipresence in the created world. What transpires from the portion of the debate quoted in the Quran is that the point of contention was not God's existence, rather His presence in man's life. The ruler gave examples implying that God is not concerned with all worldly matters, is mostly absent from man's life. Ibrahim refuted that point by reminding him of God's constant command of the natural laws upon which all life depends. He did so after the king's heedlessness to the first argument; God is the origin of the mechanism of life and death which all organisms are subject to. The ruler used ridicule to maintain his position, in the manner that the arrogant possessors of power often do. Instead of considering the deeper meaning of Ibrahim's argument, he alluded to the giving of life and death in an indirect manner; as a worldly king, he also had the power to inflict death and give or allow life. This exposed his spiritual heedlessness. Ibrahim then dumbfounded him with an argument he could not, even with his spiritual shallowness and corrupt belief in God, dismiss as he had previously done. 

As has been made clear by now, God establishing Himself on the throne evokes dominion, and in the comprehensive language of the Quran conveys that Allah governs the whole of His creation, including the throne itself. He has kept all the powers by Himself, and whatever is taking place in each and every part of the universe is happening with His command and permission 

30:25"And one of His signs is that the heaven and the earth subsist by His command". 

Allah at no point becomes unconcerned with His creation, especially not man for whom he took the responsibility of making arrangements for his guidance, protection and fulfilment of his needs. This is done by providing means by which both aspects of the human being can thrive; the spiritual, through the innate perception of higher truths 23:78,46:26,67:23,76:2 as well as sending divine guidance 2:38-9,7:35-6,20:123 and the physical through the continuous maintenance of the universe and its laws 35:41. There is a reason why the Quran, in its surgical precision, describes Allah with His attribute of infinite mercy, when it mentions His establishment over the throne that encompasses all of creation

 20:5"The Beneficent One/al Rahman, Who is established on the Throne". 

No word enshrines the concept of constant care of every aspect of the functioning of the universe, more that the superlative Qayyum which reoccurs in the Quran, and no verse comprehensively explains it like ayat al kursi does 2:255. As denoted with "musiun" 51:47 which carries the meaning of expanding, the universe is not a finished work, but in continuous expansion, with new manifestations of God's creation

 87:2"Who creates, then makes complete". 

If creation in the universe is an ongoing phenomenon then how could one deem it far fetched and difficult to re-create the universe along with the humans after their destruction? These verses most often come in the context of providing proof for the resurrection. God has not just created this universe and left it alone after giving it the initial push. The same underlying notion is in 64:1. He isnt just the first cause after which He has no role in the affair. He is ruling over it and sustaining it at every moment 

35:13,7:54"Who created the heavens and the earth in six periods of time, and He is established on the Throne; He throws the veil of night over the day, which it pursues incessantly; and (He created) the sun and the moon and the stars, made subservient by His command; surely His is the creation and the command; blessed is Allah, the Lord of the worlds".

 Day and night are not following each other by themselves but by the Command of Allah Who could change the present system totally. But it is by His love and mercy that the system is maintained so as to allow life to thrive. God's love and mercy for His creation is a recurrent theme in the Quran and the idea of divine "detachment" from human destiny is in complete opposition to that concept. The combined statements that Allah is simultaneously above the throne as well as close to all things in existence, strikes the perfect balance between all encompassing transcendence and careful implication on an individual level. 

This negates the atheist world-view, our universe is not a closed, continuous and self-perpetuating material universe. Every part of every process is brought about by Allah, whether creation of rain, the development of seeds, rotation of planets, from the cosmic to the cellular, man doesnt stand alone. Material causality is thus treated as a delusion 40:62 while constant divine creation is a reality 87:1-3.

40:7"Those who bear the throne and those around it celebrate the praise of their Lord and believe in Him and ask protection for those who believe.."
39:75"And you shall see the angels going round about the throne glorifying the praise of their Lord; and judgment shall be given between them with justice.."
69:16-7"And the heavens shall be rent asunder, for that Day it shall be frail and shall collapse. And the angels shall be on the sides thereof; and above them eight shall bear on that day your Lord's throne"

These verses speaking of the entites bearing the Throne and being near it on the Day of Judgement, do not say that God is or will be seated on this "Throne". As stated earlier, Allah is in no need of the throne for support, rather it is the throne that is constantly sustained by its Creator. Beyond its symbolism, the reality and function of the throne is something known to God only. In contrast, we read in the HB 

1Kings22:19"I saw the Lord seated on His throne, and all the host of heaven were standing by Him on His right and on His left" 

or also in Isa6:1,37:16,Ezek1,2,3 all picturing God carried by angelic creatures, seated on His throne. He is also pictured as accompanied by innumerable chariots and angels during certain "important" movements Ps68:18. Even the statement of ibn Abbas describing the kursi as Allah's footstool does not come close to the biblical depiction, neither does he state that Allah is seated on the throne 

"The Kursi is the place where the Qadamain (feet) of Allah rest and the Arsh, no one knows its extent except Allah". 

It is to be noted here that the statement is not attributed to the prophet. 

The picture painted in the Quran carefully preserves divine transcendence all the while taking human imagination as close as possible to the divine essence. When subjects look at their king, the closest thing to him is his throne. Yet here at no point is Allah seated on His throne. Instead, powerful and compassionate angels are bearing it, in complete submission to the will of the mighty King. Seeing those majestic entities submitted in this manner is awe inspiring, and the fact that the King Himself does not need to appear to create such an effect, increases the feeling of amazement.