Addressing the Concerns of a Muslim Propagandist
The following is a response to Bassam Zawadi’s attempt (*) of addressing my paper concerning the possibility of Allah becoming man (*).
Islamic Theology 101
Zawadi tries to wax philosophical in order to impress his readers by giving the impression that he really has a clue concerning the subject at hand. He focuses on the meaning of "thing":
Yes, the Qur'an says that God has power over all things, but is the concept of a 'Godman' even considered a thing in the first place?
What does the word 'thing' mean anyways?
It is any attribute or quality considered as having its own existence. (hyperdictionary.com)
Now there are certain concepts that make no sense and cannot even be classified as a 'thing'...
Zawadi has a pungent for false analogies, thinking that this somehow will establish his position. After giving a list of contradictory propositions Zawadi then makes the following leap in logic:
The same is said regarding someone being God and man at the same time.
We say this is logically incoherent for one cannot be
- Infinite and finite at the same time.
First, what does Zawadi mean by the terms infinite or finite? Does he mean something that is physically infinite versus that which is physically limited? If so then he is correct since something that is physically unlimited cannot then become limited at the same time. But seeing that this is not what Christians mean when they say God is infinite this argument doesn’t apply to the Incarnation. God by nature is Spirit which basically means that he is immaterial, non-corporeal, spaceless etc. (cf. John 4:24; 1 Timothy 1:17). In other words, we do not understand the term "infinite" in a material or physical sense as if God is spatially or materially infinite, and to speak of God’s infinitude in material or physical terms therefore misses the point.
We mean that God is infinite in an absolute sense, in a qualitative sense. In other words, infinity in reference to God means that his essential attributes are absolute, lacking nothing, and he is completely self-sufficient.
With the foregoing in mind it is quite reasonable and possible for the infinite God to take on a finite human body without this affecting his essential Divine attributes since we are using the terms infinite and finite in two completely different senses. Jesus as God is infinite not in a material or spatial sense, but in the absolute sense, whereas he is finite in the sense that he took a physical body that is spatially and materially limited.
For more on this topic we suggest reading this article.
I understand that Zawadi’ god is a physical being, even though he tries hard to deny that he is despite the fact that he believes that his deity has arms, legs, shins, a face etc.
http://answering-islam.org/Shamoun/allah_as_man.htm
http://answering-islam.org/Shamoun/allah_location.htm
http://answering-islam.org/Responses/Osama/zawadi_allahs_face.htm
http://khalas.wordpress.com/2007/03/02/allah-evidence-of-an-anthropomorphic-deity/
http://www.islam-watch.org/AbulKasem/BismiAllah/1a.htm
http://answering-islam.org/Shamoun/allahs_selfannihilation.htm
Thus, it may be that Zawadi actually believes that Allah is physically or spatially infinite, a position which goes against reason. But this is not to be confused with the Christian position.
- All powerful and not all powerful at the same time
Again, what does Zawadi mean here by all-powerful? Does he mean that his god can do whatever he wants, and whenever he wants since he has all power? Obviously not, since he cited the following comments to establish the fact that something impossible cannot be a thing and therefore doesn’t exist:
The same applies to the creation of an object so heavy that Allaah could not lift it. It is impossible, because Allaah is the One who creates it, and He is able to destroy it at any moment, so how can He be unable to lift it?
The atheist only wants to cast aspersions on the general meaning of the words of Allaah, "Allaah has power over all things" [al-Talaaq 65:12]. So he says, if He has power over all things, why does He not have the power to do this?
The answer is: Because it is impossible, it is nothing.
That which is impossible does not exist, because it cannot exist, so it is nothing, even if the mind can imagine it. It is known that the mind can assume and imagine the impossible; the mind can imagine two opposites, such as something existing and not existing, at the same time.
The verse states that Allaah has power over "things" but that does not include things that are inherently impossible, because they are not things, rather they do not exist and they cannot be brought into existence.
This paragraph is brimming with errors. If Allah is indeed all-powerful then why isn’t he powerful enough to create an impossible situation? Why should the impossible be nothing if Allah is so powerful? Surely, someone with unlimited power is capable to make the impossible into something that actually exists, unless of course his power is limited and hindered by impossibilities.(1)
Moreover, how does the writer know for certain that the Quran’s statement concerning Allah having power over all things excludes the inherently impossible? Where does the Quran ever say that? We challenge Zawadi to produce a statement from his scripture where it explicitly says that Allah cannot do certain things and is therefore limited by his nature.
Zawadi cannot appeal to the Holy Bible to support his position, much like he tried to do here in his "rebuttal":
Secondly, can creatures do things that God can't? YES, EVEN ACCORDING TO SHAMOUN HIMSELF.
Shamoun states earlier in his article...
This is unlike the Holy Bible which unashamedly states that there are certain things that Yahweh, the true God, cannot do or say:
"Because God wanted to make the unchanging nature of his purpose very clear to the heirs of what was promised, he confirmed it with an oath. God did this so that, by two unchangeable things in which it is impossible for God to lie, we who have fled to take hold of the hope offered to us may be greatly encouraged." Hebrews 6:17-18 NIV
"if we are faithless, he will remain faithful, for he cannot disown himself." 2 Timothy 2:13 NIV
"When tempted, no one should say, 'God is tempting me.' For God cannot be tempted by evil, nor does he tempt anyone. Every good and perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of the heavenly lights, who does not change like shifting shadows." James 1:13, 17 NIV
So here Shamoun admits that the Biblical God cannot do certain things that God's creatures can do, e.g. lying.
So yeah big deal, God's creatures can do the negative/deficient things for God to do. So what? Where is the argument now?
These same Scriptures speak of God appearing and eventually becoming a man in the Person of Jesus which emphatically dismisses the assertion that the Incarnation is one of those acts which God cannot perform. If Zawadi is to remain consistent in his appeal to God’s true Word he must then concede the possibility that Allah can also appear and even become a man if he so chooses. Yet Zawadi denies that it is possible for Allah to become a man and isn’t certain whether he can even appear as one:
I personally do not know whether God can take the form of a human being or not. What I am objecting to is Him BECOMING a man, which I have already shown above cannot even be classified as a 'thing'
His comments are basically a denial of the reliability of the Holy Bible, especially in regards to its position concerning this very issue, just as his later statements concerning my appeal to the Quran’s witness to the Judeo-Christian Scriptures indicate:
Here we go again with the 'Qur'an Affirms Bible' argument. We ask readers to refer here.
Thus, if Zawadi rejects and does not trust what the Holy Bible says concerning the issue of God appearing and becoming a man he cannot then turn around and appeal to these same Scriptures to prove that God cannot do certain things. He must prove his case by citing verses from his own scripture that expressly say that Muhammad’s deity is incapable of doing specific acts, such as creating the impossible. After all, if the Holy Bible’s witness in regards to the issue of God appearing and eventually becoming a human being cannot be trusted then its testimony concerning God not being able to do certain things must also be called into question. I’m afraid that Zawadi wants to have his cake and eat it too, and unfortunately for him that is not going to happen.
More importantly, Zawadi seriously begs the question here since he assumes without ever bothering to prove from his book that becoming a man is one of those acts which creatures such as angels may be able to do but which Allah definitely cannot. Again, we challenge Zawadi to prove, not just assume and therefore beg the question, that Allah cannot become man by producing a quote from his own religious texts stating this explicitly. Furthermore, if Allah has the power to grant specific creatures the ability to appear in human form, thereby opening up the possibility that they could also potentially become human, then doesn’t Zawadi’s deity also have the power to become one himself without ceasing to be divine?
Hopefully, Zawadi will provide a coherent and logically consistent response this time as opposed to skirting the issues.
- All knowing and not all knowing at the same time.
Once again, what does Zawadi mean by all-knowing? Does he mean that his god knows everything personally, experientially? So does his deity personally know what it is to lust after a woman? Has he felt physical pain? Does he experience sicknesses? Does he know what it is like to be lonely and has he ever endured the anguish of abandonment and depression?
If the answer to all of the above is no then Zawadi is forced to admit that his god doesn’t really know everything, since there are many things that he has no firsthand experience of. In light of this we challenge Zawadi to explain to us what does he mean by all-knowing. We want him to start defining his terms as opposed to simply throwing out words in order to sound intelligent.
- Independent but dependent at the same time.
This is a rather curious contrast since it comes from a person whose god is clearly dependant upon creation:
http://answering-islam.org/Responses/Osama/zawadi_allah_needs_sinners.htm
http://answering-islam.org/Responses/Osama/zawadi_trinity_love.htm
http://answering-islam.org/Responses/Osama/zawadi_jesus_superior_still.htm
Moreover, we once again need to ask Zawadi what he means by independent. Does he mean that Allah is independent of everything and is free of all needs? If so is Allah free from and independent of his own attributes? Can he be what he is if he didn’t have the attribute of speech, if he lacked wisdom and knowledge? Zawadi would obviously say no since this is what he says a little later:
For it is God's divine attributes that make God, GOD. (Bold and italic emphasis ours)
And:
Similarly, God's essential attributes are those of omnipotence, omniscience, etc. Once they are put aside, that person ceases to be God. (Bold emphasis ours)
In light of this candid admission he must therefore concede that Allah does depend on his own essential attributes in order to be what he is.
But this introduces an additional problem. Since Allah isn’t composed of any one specific attribute, but exists with a plurality of characteristics, this means that no one attribute exhausts the entire being or existence of Allah. This further implies that no single attribute can be called Allah and yet it cannot be other than Allah, since if it were to be something other than Allah then this would imply that there is something besides him which is eternal. In other words, this view would imply that there are a host of things besides Zawadi’s deity that are eternal, thereby destroying the unity of Allah.
In fact, we are not the first to see this dilemma since there were Muslim groups such as the Mu’tazilites who denied the existence of Allah’s attributes altogether, believing instead that they were identical to his essence. The reason they held that the attributes are none other than the essence itself is because they saw the problem in affirming Allah’s absolute unity with believing that he has a plurality of divine characteristics which are eternal as well.
In light of this how does Zawadi reconcile these problems with his conception of Allah’s unity and his so-called self- sufficiency, his independence?
Interestingly, Zawadi’s admission that Allah’s attributes make him god will cause him more problems as we shall shortly see.
Christians may want to argue back that Jesus gave up his divine attributes temporarily and then became a man. However, there is still a problem with that.
Uneducated and uninformed Christians may say this, but educated conservative Christians would never say that Jesus gave up certain Divine attributes. What the Holy Bible actually teaches is that Jesus became man without ceasing to be God and therefore did not relinquish any of his own essential Divine attributes. Rather, the Lord Jesus chose not to exercise some of them during his earthly sojourn but allowed the Holy Spirit to empower him in order to carry out the will of his blessed and Holy Father.
Imagine you have a cheeseburger. Then you take away the cheese. Is it still a cheeseburger? Of course not. The attribute of cheese is essential in order for the burger to be a cheeseburger. You can't have a cheeseburger with out cheese.
Similarly, God's essential attributes are those of omnipotence, omniscience, etc. Once they are put aside, that person ceases to be God.
Several comments are in order. First, how does Zawadi know that qualities such as omnipotence and omniscience are necessary attributes of his deity? Can he produce a citation from the Quran which says that Allah is by necessity all-powerful and all-knowing? Note that we are not asking for passages which say that Allah is all-powerful, rather we are asking for statements which say that Allah must necessarily be omnipotent in order for him to be divine.
Second, how does Zawadi know for certain that if Allah relinquishes one of his essential attributes he will cease to be divine? Where does the Quran ever make such an assertion?
This leads us to the third problem with Zawadi’s assertions. The so-called authentic narratives claim that Allah didn’t always exist with the attribute of mercy but that this was something which he later created:
Narrated Abu Huraira:
I heard Allah's Apostle saying, Verily Allah CREATED Mercy. The day He created it, He made it into one hundred parts. He withheld with Him ninety-nine parts, and sent its one part to all His creatures. Had the non-believer known of all the Mercy which is in the Hands of Allah, he would not lose hope of entering Paradise, and had the believer known of all the punishment which is present with Allah, he would not consider himself safe from the Hell-Fire." (Sahih al-Bukhari, Volume 8, Book 76, Number 476)Abu Huraira reported Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) as saying: When Allah created the creation, He ordained for Himself and this document is with Him: Verily, My mercy predominates My wrath. (Sahih Muslim, Book 037, Number 6628)
These reports conclusively refute Zawadi’s claims since they show that a), Allah’s qualities are not necessarily essential to his existence since at some point in time he lacked certain attributes, and that b) Allah could exist without specific characteristics without ceasing to be divine.
For more on this topic please consult the following articles:
http://answering-islam.org/Shamoun/imperfection.htm
http://answering-islam.org/Responses/Osama/zawadi_mercy.htm
And on the issue and problems of the relationship of Allah and his attributes we recommend these two articles:
http://answering-islam.org/Hahn/trinity.htm
http://answering-islam.org/Hahn/god_his_word_and_the_quran.htm
Zawadi engages in more question begging.
We only believe that Allah can do things that are reasonable and beyond our reason (e.g. knowing what everyone is thinking about at the same time) but we do not believe that He does that which is AGAINST reason.
How does Zawadi know that his god can only do things which do not go against reason? Where does his scripture say this? Zawadi needs to stop interpreting his religion in light of the Christian worldview, or with Greek philosophical lenses, and must start proving his case by quoting his own religious texts. And by texts we do not mean Muslim scholars or philosophers who were heavily influenced by Greek, Jewish and Christian writers and sources. Rather, he needs to quote verses from the Quran and the so-called authentic Sunna to establish his position.
To illustrate our point note what the following narration says concerning Allah being time:
Narrated Abu Huraira:
Allah's Apostle said, "Allah said, ‘The offspring of Adam abuse the Dahr (Time), and I am the Dahr; in My Hands are the night and the day!’" (Sahih al-Bukhari, Volume 8, Book 73, Number 200)Narrated Abu Huraira:
"The Prophet said, ‘Allah said: "The son of Adam hurts Me by abusing Time, for I am Time; in My Hands are all things and I cause the revolution of night and day."’" (See Hadith No. 351, Vol. 6) (Sahih al-Bukhari, Volume 9, Book 93, Number 583)
If Allah is time then does this mean Allah created himself and experiences changes? After all, time is a measurement of change. Change can only happen when matter exists, so before creation, without matter existing, there cannot be time. Physicists never extend the time line backwards from the Big Bang because it would not have any meaning to speak of time before there was anything else (space and matter). Therefore, if Allah is time and time is part of creation doesn’t this mean that Allah brought himself into existence? Or does this mean that time is eternal since it is Allah, and if so doesn’t this go against science and reason which states that time hasn’t always existed? And if it is eternal then does this mean that space and matter are eternal as well seeing that time is a measurement of change which only occurs with the existence of matter and space? And would this further imply that Allah experiences change in light of his being time itself? How will Zawadi answer?
Perhaps he may agree that space and matter are both eternal seeing that Zawadi does believe that his deity has a shape, a body of some kind with eyes, legs, shins, torso etc., which presupposes that Allah is a material and spatial being, even though Zawadi claims that these body parts (or attributes as he likes to call them) are unlike anything in creation.
Christians fail to differentiate between God doing things BEYOND our reason and AGAINST reason.
The incarnation is AGAINST reason.
The Incarnation may be contrary to Zawadi’s own limited, imperfect mind, but it doesn’t go against sound reason in the least: http://socrates58.blogspot.com/2005/03/reply-to-muslim-apologist-concerning.html
And contrary to Zawadi’s assertions, Christians have been able to differentiate between that which is beyond reason with that which goes against it. It is Muslim neophytes like Zawadi who have failed to properly do so, pretending to be logical when in reality they have no clue what rational thinking truly is.
The issue of Allah being in (fee) the Fire and on Appearing versus Becoming
Zawadi tries to address the quotes I provided showing that Allah appeared as fire.
Even if the verses above do say that Allah took the form of the fire (which it doesn't, it only says that His voice came from it) the analogy still fails. For, Allah did not BECOME FIRE. But assumed the form of fire. These two things are completely different. Me wearing a dinosaur costume does not mean that I have BECOME a dinosaur. It only means that I took the form of a dinosaur.
Even if? There are no ifs, ands or buts about it. The Quran clearly says that Allah called from within the fire and from the tree:
When he saw a fire, and said to his family, 'Tarry you here; I observe a fire. Perhaps I shall bring you a brand from it, or I shall find at the fire guidance.' When he came to IT, A VOICE CRIED, 'Moses, I am thy Lord; put off thy shoes; thou art in the holy valley, Towa. I Myself have chosen thee; therefore give thou ear to this revelation. S. 20:10-13 Arberry
Then, when Musa (Moses) had fulfilled the term, and was travelling with his family, he saw a fire in the direction of Tur (Mount). He said to his family: "Wait, I have seen a fire; perhaps I may bring to you from there some information, or a burning fire-brand that you may warm yourselves." So when he reached IT (the fire), he was called from the right side of the valley, in the blessed place FROM THE TREE: "O Musa (Moses)! Verily! I am Allah, the Lord of the 'Alamin (mankind, jinns and all that exists)!" S. 28:29-30 Hilali-Khan
Besides, the Quran here is merely echoing the Biblical story which expressly says that the Divine Angel of God appeared as fire which did not consume the bush:
"Now Moses was tending the flock of Jethro his father-in-law, the priest of Midian, and he led the flock to the far side of the desert and came to Horeb, the mountain of God. There the angel of the LORD appeared to him IN flames of fire from WITHIN a bush. Moses saw that though the bush was on fire it did not burn up. So Moses thought, ‘I will go over and see this strange sight—why the bush does not burn up.’ When the LORD saw that he had gone over to look, God called to him from WITHIN the bush, ‘Moses! Moses!’ And Moses said, "Here I am.’ ‘Do not come any closer,’ God said. ‘Take off your sandals, for the place where you are standing is holy ground.’ Then he said, ‘I am the God of your father, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac and the God of Jacob.’ At this, Moses hid his face, because he was afraid to look at God." Exodus 3:1-6
No wonder the Quran says that the one who was IN the fire is blessed since the author obviously believed that Allah had appeared in the tree as fire without consuming it.
Moreover, Zawadi misses the point since if Allah can assume the appearance of fire why can’t he then become fire without ceasing to be God? In other words, once you admit that Allah is able to take on any visible form then this opens the door for Allah actually becoming that very thing whose form he assumes.
Zawadi quotes certain scholars which say that the fire was actually Allah’s light and concludes:
In conclusion, Moses has seen great light/fire. This light/fire is actually Allah's veil through which Moses heard Allah's words and voice. The reports saying that Allah was in the fire does not mean He (swt) was literally inside it, it simply means that this fire is His veil and He (swt) talked to Moses through this veil. And the reports saying that the fire was Allah's light are understood in this context, i.e., Allah's light is His veil, neither His Essence nor attribute.
Allah literally has a veil which is light? The veil is not part of his essence nor is it an attribute? The question that Zawadi should have asked is if Allah’s veil is light, and this light is not an essential attribute of Allah’s essence which then makes it part of creation, then wouldn’t this actually prove that Allah can and does manifest in various forms seeing that this light is something visible? And if Allah can clothe himself as/with light why can’t he clothe himself with/in human form?
In other words, doesn’t Zawadi’s statement actually establish our case that Allah has the ability to take on any form that he chooses, even one that is in the likeness of man? And, once again, if Zawadi’s god can assume or appear in various ways why can’t he actually take on the very nature of these forms or objects and still retain his Divine attributes at the same time?
More importantly, does Zawadi even understand how his own points refute his position or does he simply throw out any argument which he can find without bothering to see whether such responses actually backfire against him? Does he even care?
Plus, even if the one blessed is Allah it won't mean that He is literally inside the fire. For as I have already shown in this article, the Arabic word 'fi' (in) can in certain times mean 'above'. So Allah is above the fire.
Several problems with the above assertions. First, we invite the readers to consult Zawadi’s "response" to see if he was able to produce a single example to show that the preposition fee can mean "above" or "over" as opposed to "in" or "(up)on". In every single one of his cases the preposition can only be translated as "in" or "(up)on," never "above" or "over," i.e. people travel IN/ON the earth not ABOVE/OVER it, the pharaoh will crucify criminals ON the cross not ABOVE/OVER it. Thus, the most that Zawadi has shown by these verses is that we are to translate the preposition in Q. 27:7-9 as Allah being either in or on the fire, not above/over it. If the author(s) of the Quran wanted his/her/their readers to know that Allah was above/over the fire s/he/they could have used the term ala which, unfortunately for Zawadi, s/he/they didn’t.
Secondly, even if we assume for argument’s sake that fee can mean above/over this still doesn’t tell us whether this is its specific meaning within this particular context. All indications suggest that the preposition should be rendered as "in" since the passages expressly say that Allah spoke from the fire and the tree. It would have been correct to translate fee as "above" had the references stated that Allah spoke from heaven. Yet, unfortunately for Zawadi, the verses do not say that the voice came from above but rather came from within the fire and tree.
Third, Moses could not be the blessed one since the citation speaks of the one who was both in and around the fire at the same time:
(Remember) when Musa (Moses) said to his household: "Verily! I have seen a fire, I will bring you from there some information, or I will bring you a burning brand, that you may warm yourselves." But when he came to it, he was called: "Blessed is whosoever is IN the fire, and whosoever is ROUND about it! And glorified be Allah, the Lord of the 'Alamin (mankind, jinns and all that exists). O Musa (Moses)! Verily! It is I, Allah, the All-Mighty, the All-Wise." S. 27:7-9 Hilali-Khan
And unless Zawadi believes that Moses could be in more than one place, or that he was both ABOVE (his preferred interpretation of fee) and around the fire, then it should be obvious that this must be referring to Allah.
However, it is also possible that there are two distinct entities being addressed, the one who was in the fire (i.e. Allah) and the other who was around it (i.e. Moses). Whatever the case may be it is clear that Moses could not be both in/above and around the fire, and establishes the fact that Allah must have been the one in the fire who is called blessed.
The issue of Allah’s Image
Zawadi chooses to throw out red herrings since he obviously couldn’t address my point. He responds to my comments concerning Allah creating man in his image by providing a lengthy quote from a Salafi scholar who denies that Allah’s form is identical to Adam’s shape. After attacking this straw man Zawadi then asks:
So yes, Allah has an image, which is not like the image of man.
Again, we ask Shamoun where the argument is.
The readers can see that Zawadi is evading the issue and failing to address my reason in mentioning Adam being created in the image of Allah. Note, carefully, what I said:
In light of this, why should it be deemed dishonorable for Allah to assume the likeness of humanity when it wasn't beneath him to assume the form of something less than man?
My point wasn’t that Allah is identical to Adam; rather my point was that Allah creating Adam in his image shows that man has greater dignity and value than the other creatures that Allah made. And since Allah didn’t hesitate to assume the form or shape of things that are less than man why then should it be hard for a Muslim like Zawadi to accept the possibility of Allah appearing as and even becoming a human being?
Moreover, sorry for sounding like a broken record, but how does Zawadi know that Allah’s shape isn’t identical to Adam’s form? Where do the hadiths ever state this? We know that this is the assertion of Muslim scholars but that doesn’t mean that their views are necessarily accurate or that they are interpreting these reports correctly.
Besides, doesn’t this assume that Muhammad was a true prophet and would have known better than to assume that Adam was identical to Allah in shape? Yet where is the proof that Muhammad was a prophet and would have a correct view of the deity? All the evidence proves that he was a false prophet who held to many erroneous views of God.
For instance, why shouldn’t we assume that when Muhammad taught that Allah made Adam in his image and approximately 90 feet tall:
Narrated Abu Huraira:
The Prophet said, "Allah created Adam in HIS IMAGE, sixty cubits (about 30 metres) in height. When He created him, He said (to him), 'Go and greet that group of angels sitting there, and listen what they will say in reply to you, for that will be your greeting and the greeting of your offspring.' Adam (went and) said, 'As-Salamu alaikum (Peace be upon you).' They replied, 'As-Salamu 'Alaika wa Rahmatullah (Peace and Allah's Mercy be on you).' So they increased 'wa Rahmatullah' The Prophet added, 'So whoever will enter Paradise, will be of the shape and picture of Adam. Since then the creation of Adam's (offspring) (i.e. stature of human beings) is being diminished continuously up to the present time." (Sahih al-Bukhari, Volume 8, Book 74, Number 246, as translated in Interpretation of the Meanings of The Noble Quran In the English Language - A Summarized Version of At-Tabari, Al-Qurtubi and Ibn Kathir with comments from Sahih Al-Bukhari, Summarized in One Volume By Dr. Muhammad Taqi-ud-Din Al-Hilali, Ph.D. Dr. Muhammad Muhsin Khan, pp. 142-143, fn. 1, pocket size edition; bold and capital emphasis ours)Abu Huraira reported Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) as saying: Allah, the Exalted and Glorious, created Adam in His own image with His length of sixty cubits, and as He created him He told him to greet that group, and that was a party of angels sitting there, and listen to the response that they give him, for it would form his greeting and that of his offspring. He then went away and said: Peace be upon you! They (the angels) said: May there be peace upon you and the Mercy of Allah, and they made an addition of" Mercy of Allah". So he who would get into Paradise would get in the form of Adam, his length being sixty cubits, then the people who followed him continued to diminish in size up to this day. (Sahih Muslim, Book 040, Number 6809)
That Muhammad erroneously thought that Adam’s height was a reflection of Allah’s size since Zawadi’s prophet really believed that his deity was literally that big? After all, seeing that Muhammad mistakenly believed that humans could be 90 feet tall what’s to say that he didn’t also erroneously think that God could be that size as well?
Here are some articles which address this particular point more in-depth:
http://answering-islam.org/Responses/Osama/90feet-adam.htm
http://answering-islam.org/Responses/Menj/60cubits.htm
Finally, will Zawadi ever stop attacking straw man arguments and bringing up irrelevant issues?
Endnotes
(1) Lest the readers misunderstand the point, we do not believe that God’s power extends to the logically impossible. What the Holy Bible means that "everything is possible with God" is that he can do things that are impossible for human beings to do, e.g. raising the dead, giving sight to the blind, predict the future, not that he can do what is logically impossible. The Holy Scriptures clearly attest that God cannot do certain things which go against his nature, such as lying or denying himself (cf. Titus 1:2; 2 Timothy 2:13; Hebrews 6:17-18; James 1:13, 17). Our point is that Zawadi assumes that this is what Muhammad believed and what the Quran teaches, e.g. by saying that Allah has power over all things and is all-powerful the Quran does not mean that Allah can do everything such as doing what is logically impossible. The problem is that Zawadi hasn’t provided a single reference from his sources to substantiate that this is in fact the Islamic conception of God. Until he is able to prove his case it is patently obvious that Zawadi and his Islamic scholars have adopted and borrowed from the Judeo-Christian conception and/or a Greek philosophical understanding of the nature of Deity and have imposed this upon their own religious texts.
Rebuttals to Answering-Christianity
Articles by Sam Shamoun
Answering Islam Home Page