What Every Christian Should Know About the Qu'ran, Part 2

I want us to move on the conversation and look at what you started with in chapter 4 of your book where you start looking at for instance the doctrine of the trinity and I should almost say the misunderstanding of the Quran concerning that.

Do you want to speak about that?

The Quran’s Misunderstanding of the Trinity

Yeah well see when I was doing the book it's I think it's pretty obvious I'm not revealing anything untoward here but I utilized the Quran as the organizing principle to address the key issues that separate Christianity and Islam as a whole and by using the Quran I'm addressing you know the foundational document of Islam at the same time but it's more of a organizing tool than anything else and so most of my debates that I have had with Muslims over the years have focused upon the key issues of who Jesus is, the nature of God, and the gospel.

I mean those are the key issues that we're dealing with in talking with Muslims and so it's to me a rather clear reality that the author of the Quran had a fundamentally flawed understanding of what the doctrine of the trinity actually is.

There is no evidence that I can find that the author of the Quran had ever been accurately instructed on the subject and hence the refutation of the doctrine of the trinity that is plainly being attempted in the text of the Quran primarily in surahs 3, 4, and 5.

That's really the focus. There's a couple other places but surahs 3, 4, and 5 are the epicenter of the apologetic of the Quran against the three and that's it never uses the term trinity. The Quran uses the word three because the Quranic author plainly believes the doctrine of the trinity is tritheistic that there are three gods and this is illustrated by the fact that every single time the word three in this context is found in the Quran the next phrase is going to be there is only one God Allah.

So if every time you say three you then say there is only one God Allah what you're saying is do not say there are three gods. Absolutely. I mean this is just absolutely necessary for these words to have any kind of meaning at all and so I then ask the one question that no one wants to seem to want to address in fullness and that is does the Quran ever identify the three?

We can assume father, son, and spirit we have that background but does the Quran ever identify the three and it does that's in 5 .116 and surah 5 .116 it does but the problem is the three that it identifies and I don't like to just jump straight to surah 5 .116 you can trace in fact it's fascinating I did a debate in London with a sharp young Muslim man and the thesis was does the Quran misrepresent Christian belief because if the Quran is the eternal word of God then whether a Muslim understands the trinity or not doesn't matter God does God gets it and so even if it's wrong God understands it and he can respond to it and he can refute it accurately.

But if the Quran misrepresents the doctrine of the trinity then clearly the Quran is a human authored document in opposition to its own claim and so in this debate we went through surah 5 we're walking through it very carefully and at the end of the debate I was the one arguing that you can interpret surah 5 consistently all the way through the surah and that it identifies who the three are.

The Muslim was saying you can't interpret surah 5 in context and you can't follow a particular meaning in that surah. I was the one arguing for the consistency of the Quran and the Muslim was arguing for the inconsistency of the of the Quran at that point so it was amazing.

Because if you allow surah 5 to speak for itself then it is plainly identifying the three that you are not to say yeah as Allah Mary and Jesus. Yeah for sure that is the understanding of the author of surah 5.

As to the three you're not supposed to say is Allah Mary and Jesus. And it makes perfect sense. Because if you walked into a or just peeked into a church in the year 600 in Syria where Muhammad would be going on trading caravans what would you see.

You would see representations of God as creator. You would see obviously Jesus all over the place. There would be crucifixes things like that. And then you're going to see a woman. Uh Mariolatry was on the rise Mary was very central to various liturgies and things like that at that point in time.

So you're gonna see a woman. She's gonna have a baby in her arms she's gonna be at the foot of the cross and so you're gonna see God. You're gonna see a woman and you're gonna see a baby. And then on the cross as well.

What you're not gonna see or maybe not pick up that you're seeing. Is that dove. Oh yes that dove's probably not gonna just stick out to some young man coming in from from the deep desert. And so if you hear them talking about three the trinity what three are you going to assume.

Well if you're worshiping in the Chaba and there are numerous gods in the Chaba that have wives and children. And then you see God Mary and a baby. Yeah for sure. How are you going to interpret it the way that the author does in surah 5 1 16.

Yeah for sure. Now it's amazing the the lengths to which people have gone to try to to try to get around this this rather obvious interpretation uh to try to rescue either rescue Muhammad or just simply they don't want to to go.

He couldn't have been that far off. Yeah um but it there are just too many places where the where the quran is saying well he's above having a child he's above he'd have to have a consort this whole idea.

And here in south africa uh you have akhmed didat and uh okay akhmed didat does does not rank as one of the leading scholars in history of islam. Okay uh he's not at al-ghazali or something like that but um uh but he was straightforward in reading the text of the quran and saying hey you people are tritheists.

And there is and he how many times in his presentations there's a sexual aspect to what you people are saying. He said it over and over again um a lot of muslims in america want to try to stay away from that as much as possible but not so much down here.

I mean absolutely you still get you might hear it again this weekend. I i might definitely might it's quite possible. So uh to me almost everything else is subservient to this because the fact of the matter is um if if this book see what i like to do is is surah five is is a rich it's called the table the table because the names of the surahs come from just whatever is mentioned in it.

So it's rather a random thing. But surah five not only contains um that discussion but it also contains to me one of the most important uh texts in in the quran and that is the argument that is found in basically starting around surah 544.

And so uh here's here's the study quran uh beginning in uh i believe verse 44 i i say i believe because they print the numbers so small anymore that i'm not really sure it's the joy of getting older you know i may have to borrow your reading glasses out there.

Um truly we sent down the tarah wherein is a guidance and a light by which the prophets who submitted unto god judge those who are jews as did the sages and the rabbis in accordance with such of god's book as they were bidden to preserve and to which they were witnesses.

So fear not mankind but fear me and sell not my signs for a paltry price. Whoever judges not by what god has sent down it is they who are the disbelievers. And therein we prescribe for them a life for a life an eye for an eye a nose for a nose an ear for an ear a tooth for a tooth and for wounds retribution.

But whosoever forgoes it out of charity it shall be an expiation for him. Whoever judges not by that which god has sent down it is it is they who are the wrongdoers. So some people say well there's a quotation from the old testament the lex talionis.

That's a quotation. Um the funny thing is i often ask my audiences uh how many of you know exactly where that's found in the old testament. And almost nobody ever knows. Because we've all heard it orally.

Yeah. And i think that's how he he heard it as well. It was oral transmission. And the lex talionis had been brought over into islamic law. And so here's the assertion. The tarah was sent down was given to moses by god.

So there's the first step in the chain then and in their footsteps we sent jesus son of mary confirming the tarah that had come before him and we gave him the gospel wherein is a guidance and a light confirming the tarah that had come before him as a guidance and exhortation to the reverend.

And so the first link you send the tarah down to moses. Now jesus comes along and he confirms what came before. But then he receives the gospel. So you're building a chain here and then. Here's the important verse verse 47.

Sorry 547. Let the people of the gospel judge by what god has sent down there in now i am not a hebrew. I'm not an arabic expert. But i took i had a native speaking christian pastor from syria as a tutor for a number of years.

And one of the things that we did is we looked at this passage. I said now look when it says let the people of the gospel judge by what god has sent down there in the the arabic term is fihi. What does that refer to.

And it refers to the gospel. We are to be judged by what is found in the gospel now this is very very important. Because then it repeats whosoever judges not by that which god has sent down it is they who are iniquitous.

And we have sent down unto thee muhammad the book and truth confirming the book that came before it. So this is this is a chain. And so you've got tarah moses. Then you've got gospel jesus confirmation.

And now quran muhammad confirmation. Yes. Well so what you're saying is just for the audience to understand. The quran is calling upon the christian scriptures the gospel to stand in judgment of what.

Is written in the quran. I would when it says let them judge. Judge. What. Exactly. Um i try to be very very careful at this point because i think this is one of the most important sections. I do not want to overstate what it is actually what it's actually stating.

And what's interesting is i've gotten minimally four different interpretations from leading islamic apologists as to what surah five is all about. So they don't have a consistent response to this either.

To be perfect and honest with you. So i try to be very very careful. I think that the fairest reading is that the jews are supposed to judge themselves by what they have in the torah the christians by what they have in the gospel.

And now the quran is being sent down. And i just don't think that as yet it has been exalted to the status of it's going to be the worldwide judgment of everybody. Blah blah blah. I think what you have here is muhammad creating a chain of authority that props his authority up.

And we tend to be dealing with people that are looking anachronistically back at it where the supremacy of muhammad has already developed. I think in the lifetime of muhammad this is jews you judge by the torah christians by the by the angel.

And you all need to see that god is doing something new in me. And since you all accept that in that way then then there should be acceptance that i think is the fairest reading of the text. But what it means no matter how you slice it parse it stand on your head and spin in circles is these words would have no meaning in the days of muhammad if the injeel the gospel still did not exist.

Yeah for sure. If it had been lost if it had been corrupted if it was no longer available to mankind these words make them how can the people of the gospel judge what was contained therein if they don't have it anymore.

Yeah for sure. Very good. So it's very plain to me that the author of the quran uh believes that god it says right there sent down the the the torah light and guidance sent down by god gospel light and guidance sent down by god.

And they still exist. He's simply saying there's something new. Yeah for sure. And it's only in later generations that you get this idea that this something new means that what came before has actually been corrupted.

It's no longer viable it's no longer useful. That was not at least at this point the concern in the development of muhammad's theology. Uh what he's what he's really trying to present. So what makes this so important is that muslims of course assert that the bible has been corrupted.

Yes. And this comes up in pretty much every single debate that we have in some form or another it's going to come up in every single debate that we have. And the problem is that if this is if this is from god uh then these words had to have had meaning.

Yeah. And that means the gospel existed in the um let's say around the year 620 let's say 625 just for a good guess around the year 625 it's still in existence. Well do we know what the new testament looked like in 625.

We certainly do. We have entire manuscripts of the new testament that long predate 625. So if you're going to say that it's been corrupted it's been changed. Then you have to explain what surah 547 actually means.

And that's why i say i'm surprised that i've gotten such inconsistent responses from individuals on this on this particular issue. And that's smack dab in the middle of the same section that misrepresents the doctrine of the yeah you're right.

Um so sure to me what this demonstrates is that the muslim needs to deal with the reality that the text that he is basing everything upon is a very human text. It's not been written on a tablet from from eternity past.

It's not uncreated. Um and getting a muslim to even be willing to critically analyze for a moment the possibility that the quran might not be what they've been they've been taught is actually very important in the proclamation of the gospel.

Absolutely. Because unless you get that unless you make that step then you're never going to be able to hear the the cross the resurrection the centrality of things. Because the quran says it never happened.

The quran says well in 40 arabic.

Words says there was no crucifixion so there you go. The interesting thing though doc maybe keep that in your thought um is also that we see quite a change in the theory of corruption. You've mentioned also that there was a difference between tarif al manana yes and then between tarif al nas which changed completely.

So the uh there's almost a in the beginning an obscuring of the passages where now the actual texts have changed. Sorry after your point you want to make do you want.

Textual Corruption in the Torah and Gospel

To address that as well yeah um there today 99 .5 percent of the muslims to whom you're going to speak believe that the actual words of the christian scriptures have been fundamentally altered that this is a corruption of the actual text itself.

Um whereas uh i think the author of the quran would have really struggled with that idea because he says the torah and the angel have been sent down. The quran has been sent down. If what's been sent down by god can be fundamentally altered by man then why can't the quran be altered in that same way.

Absolutely. And so down through islamic history there were there were two streams. There were those who said that the corruption of the torah and the angel was in the interpretation of those words not in the words themselves.

And then there was another stream that did assert the actual fundamental changing of the words of the of the old and new testaments is what we would call them. In 1864 a book was published in india it's our hawk a the establishment of the truth the confirmation of the truth.

And that book uh especially here in south africa has been hugely influential here in south africa primarily because again of ahmadiyyat that was the book that turned him into a islamic apologist. And as a result the vast majority of muslims today because of that book and because the book that it presented the idea of the corruption of the of the scriptures the christian scriptures um one one of those two streams has pretty much been turned off and the other has become the predominant understanding amongst muslims from a an indian written book in 1864 had that level of of impact.

And so you're always dealing you're always going to be dealing with with a muslim who has a fundamental distrust of the textual history of of the bible whereas they have a fundamental fundamentally implicit acceptance of the accuracy of the text of the of the quran.

Yes in contrast to that. Yeah. Excellent.

And while we're on the topic of corruption the other great corruptor of the text is obviously bulos or paul. And what we find is very early early on in al-qurtibi he in actual fact says that paul spread the true message.

But now the overwhelming evidence or pointing is that paul preached.

Paul and the Christian Scriptures in Muslim Polemic

Something very different into what jesus presented. Oh yeah that's that. Is that. I mean there is the reference the possibly vague reference in the quran uh to those preachers that some people identified as including paul.

Um but the the idea today is that paul was just the bad guy he was. Uh there is a deeply anti-pauline uh rhetoric amongst muslims. Um some have have taken the time to read a lot of anti-pauline literature.

And there is a lot of anti-pauline literature out there. Sadly um they don't seem to have taken the time to read any of the positive uh pauline literature. But uh yeah paul is the big bad guy. He's the one that's you know jesus just simply tells people to be muslims and paul comes along and and changes everything and and and turns christianity into something different.

It is strange that the quran actually says that the true followers of jesus would predominate over anyone else. Oh absolutely yes. If you turn into the anti-pauline perspective then that section of the quran doesn't make any no that's that's sort of 355 isn't it.

Yeah 355. Uh yes that's what it says. Uh when he said oh jesus i shall take thee and raise thee unto my unto me and purify purify thee of those who disbelieved and place those who follow thee above those who disbelieved until the day of resurrection.

Well the day of resurrection is yet future. So you would you would think i think i've heard some people try to interpret that as a future fulfillment future fulfillment. And the idea being that true followers will become muslims.

Yeah for sure. Um for sure in that in that text. But anyway uh yeah there's a strong anti-pauline uh polemic that is out there today. And there there are a couple really good books um paul apostle the heart set free by ff bruce and and some others that i would recommend that christians read.

Um just to have just to be aware i mean that that's. That's not a particularly polemic book. Um but just be aware that within what is broadly called christian scholarship today there is just a massive amount of nasty.

Material against against paul. And um you would consider david wenham's uh that paul get jesus right. I haven't read that one. That is a it's a pretty solid resource where he shows that paul.

Didn't get jesus wrong. Yeah that is very good. Didn't get jesus wrong. Absolutely okay. I thought you're saying right. You have to enunciate this a little bit better. I think that i think the first.

Title of his book was his it was exactly that that paul get jesus right. And then the second book is more scholarly book where he says where he speaks more and paul in actual fact preaches.

Exactly what. What jesus said. Well i i think that's a highly defensible position. Absolutely. Um. But unfortunately it's not something most of us spend much time thinking about because we're not dealing with people that would be questioning paul's authority.

Yeah though. Okay i'll take that back in. In in the social context which we find ourselves today there actually is more of that.

Far more than we would like to see. Yeah for sure. You also started in the book and you looked at the jesus of the quran and i think a lot of people assume that because jesus or issa in the quran is mentioned that that is exactly succinct with the jesus that is mentioned in the gospels.

It's just a if you almost want to say d deified jesus. Well obviously the crucifixion also denied you mentioned that. But what is the muslim perspective on issa or jesus in the quran. Yeah.

I i have to agree with a very liberal muslim scholar who i believe i cited in the book who made the argument the jesus of the quran is not a person. Oh yes. He's an argument. He's not a person. He's an argument.

Yes. Um the jesus of the there there are only there's less than 100 direct references to jesus. Um his name only occurs a certain number of times. Um but only once. For example does jesus speak from an identifiable historical location in the quran.

Sure. And that identifiable location is his cradle. Which is one of those two gnostic references to the arabic infancy gospel. And when in the actual arabic infancy gospel he identifies himself as a son of god not merely as a prophet.

So i found that interesting. But the point is jesus just floats around and says stuff in the quran. And there's no there's not even an attempt to place any of this stuff in history. It's fascinating to me that that muslim apologists will question the accuracy of the synoptic gospels and question that the gospel of mark could quote jesus correctly if it's written you know 30 years after his death.

Yeah. But they believe implicitly that words that have zero historical evidence outside the quran that no one had ever heard of before are directly the citations of jesus. The inconsistency and incoherence is amazing.

Um but i would simply say you know muslims like to say that islam is the second largest religion in the world that teaches you to love jesus. Yeah you heard that one absolutely problem is if all you have is the quran.

I don't think you love jesus. He's not a person. The the the liberal liberal scholar was. Right. He's an argument. Yeah for sure. He's just he's an argument for muhammad's prophethood. He's an argument for uh monotheism.

He's an argument against christianity. But he's not a person. Okay. You can't love arguments. Uh despite what people do on facebook today you can't you can't fall in love with an argument. And so he is not a person.

Um and that's why it's so vitally important to try to get muslims to read one of the gospels i agree is because what they have been given in the quran is utterly insufficient for them to even find jesus attractive.

There's there's really nothing attractive about the islamic jesus in the quran. There really isn't. Uh and even if you add whatever commentary you can get from the hadith you're still going to have such a horrifically deficient understanding of jesus from those materials that there's going to be nothing that's going to be of any salvific level of attraction at that point.

And that's why that's why you have to try uh to get a i was in i was in samara russia uh not too long ago um driving a taxi through mountains of snow to where i was teaching. And um our taxi driver was a medical student who was a muslim.

And my translator was with me. And my translator knows has listened to all my debates. And so he knows my stuff. And he even did the surah five which we just did. Okay. Um and uh he he asked me through the translator.

He asked you know my translator told him yeah he's read all of the korean muslim he's like he had never met a christian scholar that read all of the korean muslim and he said well then how can you not be a muslim.

That's an interesting question to ask. And my response was because the author of the quran did not know who jesus was. Absolutely. And he's like well well but and then i just i sort of stopped him again.

We're doing this through translation uh and i said have you ever read any of the gospels. Now he's a medical student. He's he's an educated young man. Sure. And he's like well no no. And and i was like so i've read the quran multiple times.

I've read bukhari and muslim and you know how many volumes that is. Oh yes. Um and you haven't read one of the gospels. Don't you think that in this situation you might want to take the time to read one of the gospels just just one.

It doesn't matter which one to me. Um so that we could have a meaningful conversation.

That's wonderful. And he's like yeah yeah it's it's. It's an actual fact quite inviting to approach muslims when they say to me we love jesus more than what you christians do. I always say to them well if you ever read john 14 15 where jesus said if you love me you'll keep my commands.

And then i'll say have you ever read the commands of jesus. And again the standard response is uh no no i've not endeavored to. I said not not. Not if he's divine not just his commands. If you could read through just the gospel of john you can look at his commands.

What does he require. Believe in god he says in john 14 verse 1 but also believe in me. Can you say that you can adequately express the same belief that is essential for your salvation in both yahweh in as revealed in the son and in the father.

And muslims will be baffled. They would be like no that is incredible. Can i ask you two standard questions. Quickly. Just as a little sidetrack to our conversation that we often hear when it comes to jesus christ.

And i think you'll answer them adequately. But here's one. Where did jesus claim deity. Because a lot of times we uh where did jesus say i am god worship me. Just for the audience i think they'll love that.

Well the.

Audience. Probably i would hope that the audience um will recognize where that comes from. Absolutely this is this is the spirit of ahmed who though dead continues to speak. Um and uh it is pro. Would you agree.

Because you've done a number of debates as well. Um i think it's probably the most common absolutely thing i've i've heard. And when you hear something that often it can become difficult to respond to it patiently.

Yeah you're right. Because you've responded to it you could respond to it in a comatose state. You know someone could wander by your your hospital bed and say it. You'd be able to respond right then and there.

Um so uh. But but it's obviously considered effective. Or it wouldn't be repeated so often. Yeah. And so what's being demanded is a a specific phrase to appear in scripture. And it has to be on the lips of jesus.

Yeah for sure. So i can show you direct statements where jesus is called god he's called our thomas calls him our lord and god. And he's called our god and savior in titus 213 second peter 1 1. But those aren't jesus.

And so where did jesus say i am god. And even when you uh point to jesus's acceptance of thomas's language in john 2028 his identification of thomas's words as an act of faith even when you go to john even if it's seen as as a oh my god oh yes yes yes yes yes oh believe me that's when when you you know someone is really desperate when they try to do the john 2028 isn't actually thomas calling jesus god.

It's it's it's thomas going my lord my god. Um you know someone is is at their last. They're they're they're they're not getting very far right now. Uh especially because just on the grammar of the text he answered and said to him everything that comes after that is directed to jesus not to not some type of just a statement of shock or anything else it just doesn't work.

Um but even when you go to places like john 858 where jesus says i'm gonna say i go what i mean before everyone was i am um well but that's not these words. Yeah exactly. And so i've literally spoken to numerous muslims that basically said well unless these specific words in this order are recorded as being on the lips of jesus all the rest of that stuff just simply doesn't matter.

And um you know you can turn that around and demand that muhammad would say and you can make up anything you want as long as you never said it uh the only way i'm gonna believe it is this. Um but it's it does demonstrate the fact that there are a lot of people who will defend their faith by merely repeating arguments that in any other point in their life would be considered silly and they would recognize that it's it's it's invalid argumentation.

Yeah um so uh yeah i mean i i will go to certain texts where jesus says things that are you know pure blasphemy for someone who would be a mere a mere creature um but unless it's just those words then it doesn't it doesn't fulfill the challenge and and that's why d dot did it and that's why uh zacher nyke repeats it today and that's a lot of guys still do you put him is gonna say the same thing probably in a matter of hours um and so uh just be prepared for it and uh and don't let it don't let it sidetrack you would it be a good response to.

Say well where did jesus explicitly denied and where's the exact words where he said i am not.

God do not worship me. Yeah once you get to that level of conversation you're probably getting.

Near the end anyway. For sure for sure no. You also mentioned uh earlier on that the crucifixion of christ is explicitly denied which is fundamentally based on sort of four where there's one verse mentioned where in actual fact it denies the crucifixion.

What i find is that maybe you can comment on this as well. Muslims themselves even wonder as to what happened to jesus if he was not.

Crucified. Could you just explain them. Yeah it's uh it's 40 arabic words. Um there is no commentary on that material in the hadith sources so we don't have muhammad's own own commentary on it which is highly unusual.

Uh there are other texts in the quran's like surah 1933 um that's taken in their natural language would refer to jesus's death. And yet you have 40 arabic words. The jews did not crucify him it was only made to appear to them.

And that that can even be translated by some translations as he was made to appear to them which is not which would not be an accurate translation. But they do it because the majority of muslims outside the western world hold to the substitution theory and that is that someone was put in jesus's place and crucified on cross.

Most would say judas iscariot some say simon sireni whatever. Uh someone was made to look like him and was placed on the cross and this was a deception such a good deception that it deceived not only the jews but the christians as well who then began proclaiming the uh the resurrection.

And given that given the history of the text of the quran given that for example we have verses in in surah 9 that um were only found the memory of one person really makes you wonder about surah 4 1 to 7 which is just completely disconnected from history.

Yeah absolutely. It puts the quran in a position of being thoroughly refuted because even even skeptics john dominic cross and bart ehrman will say the most certain fact of jesus's entire life is his crucifixion under pontius pilate.

I mean that's just that's that's that's a a given of history. And so to put the quran in such a difficult position really makes you wonder. Um what is the motivation. Where did that come from. Uh could have come after muhammad.

Who knows. But it's there. There's nothing we can do about the fact that it's there and the muslim can't do anything about the fact that it's there. And so what do they do. Well they they just in the debates i've done.

You either have the akhmadi view that jesus was crucified but didn't die which is what shabir ali likewise says. Um or what you do is you attack the resurrection and pretend that by attacking the resurrection you're also attacking the crucifixion.

That's what has been done in the debates with me on that subject. So it's a massive barrier. Obviously that needs to be. You know i often when i speak on islam i say if you can write any one verse down write down surah 4157 and be aware of what it says because any type of gospel presentation you're going to present has to deal with the reality of the crucifixion so as to have any meaning for the resurrection.

And so it's central to our faith. And so to have it denied by one single verse um without any historical context. And and by the way you could interpret the verse as jesus still dying. Just it wasn't the jews that killed him.

Yeah for sure. I mean that would be one way. I mean it says surely they didn't kill him. Okay. But somebody did. Uh somebody killed him. Uh so how do you how do you deal with that. So islamic history tafsir the commentary literature has shown a lot of different interpretations of what that that it is.

There's a arabic term. It means clear perspicuous. And allegedly that's what the quran is. It ain't here. Yeah it isn't here there is there's a tremendous amount of of difference in interpretation at that point.

Incredible. Yeah the chapter. Just.

After that you move a little bit on you you talk about salvation in the quran. Um and then obviously the scales. Uh do you want to quickly just tell the audience what what do muslims really believe.

About salvation you can't answer that question. Uh there's it's sort of like um you know for years going up and witnessing the mormons uh one thing that i've i've known all all through that time mormons have no doctrine or justification there's no sense to even try to talk about it because they don't have a clue.

And when you start talking with muslims on how it is to be saved once you get into certain people groups you'll start getting a little bit more consistency. But in general there is a tremendously wide variety of understandings of exactly what saved means it's getting into the presence of allah.

And there's a simple reason this the quran gives no consistent guidance. There's you can interpret numerous verses one way or the other. And the hadith is just as incoherently uh contradictory as as the quran is.