Like everyone else, I was warned about the blood and violence, and braced for it. But the bit about the English subscripts must have slipped my mind. One unexpected thing I got out of watching "The Passion of the Christ" is its affirmation that Jesus never uttered the word "God." Instead, he called upon the Creator using a name that is very close to what I and other Muslims often evoke, namely, the word "Allah." (The Aramaic word for God is transliterated as "alaha.")

In a broad sense, "The Passion," as well as the controversy that stalks it, is an extension of the very long struggle for narrative control over the life and mission of Jesus. We, the American public, are given the impression that the discussion about the movie and its main character is a discourse between folks on both sides of a curious hyphen in the Judeo-Christian ambit, with Rabbis and Jewish intelligentsia expressing their fears that the movie will inspire anti-Semitism and with Christians denying that.

The irony here is that Muslims are perfectly poised to offer a view that no one seems to be talking about. What "The Passion" depicted in chilling imagery is but one narrative among several about Christ. In fact, Gibson portrayed one "canonized" narrative of Christ (only 12 hours of it) that received approval some centuries after the Messiah had lived and one that does not enjoy consensus even in Christian quarters and scholarship.

When asked, a Muslim will tell you that Christ was not sent to die, but, like the prophets before him and Prophet Muhammad after him, he was sent to live and teach. In short, a Muslim would say there is no Christ killer and, therefore, no need to associate anyone with that indictment and no need to cause anyone to fear it. What happened to Jesus at the end of his life was not about violence, but about honor in the face of vehement rejection. God raised His prophet to Himself, thus sparing Jesus of the execution Gibson so graphically detailed and imprinted in the public mind through the very powerful medium of art and culture. This is a view that was also shared among some early Christian sects, like the Basilideans, who believed that Christ himself was never crucified.

To vilify Jesus and deny that he is one of God's prophets and messengers is a cardinal sin in Islam, enough to disqualify one from the faith. To deify Jesus, however, is considered an affront to the primordial foundation of the religion project: the oneness of God and His sole divinity. The Muslim "middle" view here is not a self-conscious act of officiating a religious debate between Jews and Christians. Our understanding and beliefs regarding Christ are essentially identical to the beliefs we have about Noah, Abraham, Moses, and Muhammad: all prophets, all humans, sent by God to teach humanity certain things that should keep us guided and clear in our very brief lives. If we are ever to be confused about something, let it not be about God and His divinity, and humankind and our humanity, especially as it pertains to our salvation quest. In Islamic theology, the human being is born pure, brought into this world in a state of grace. The concept of Original Sin is essentially homeless in our tradition. We inherit eye color and receding hairlines from our parents, not their wrongdoing. Forgiveness, pardoning, and mercy are of God's essence, and He generously bestows them for the cool price of belief and sincerity.

In an important way, "The Passion" is an accidental expose about the religious sensitivities of our times, about a wounded spirituality that seems to require sensationalism to keep the faithful going. This is a point that men and women of religion may all agree upon and observe in their respective flocks. Mel Gibson unwittingly may have done a service in raising issues indigenous to the human spirit that the postmodern world seems to shun, issues about God, prophets, salvation, mercy, and hope. It's a vital conversation with divides and alliances, passions and perils, but a conversation that nonetheless can stand to hear the "middle" view that Islam naturally offers. Something of this view, in unavoidably brief fashion, now follows:

Muslims love and revere Jesus, and believe in him as a Prophet and Messenger of God, a great teacher and guide for people. But Muslims do not believe that Jesus was God or the Son of God. Nor do Muslims believe that he was slain on the cross, as some early sects of Christians had once believed. Jesus was sent to the Children of Israel to revive faith and a spiritual connection with God. All the miracles that Jesus performed were indeed true: raising the dead, healing the blind and the leper, and more. These miracles, however, occurred through the auspices of God's power and will, as it was with the splitting of the sea for Moses, Solomon understanding the utterances of animals, and many other suspensions of the natural order. God is the Creator, and when He determines something, He but says to it "Be" and it is! (as the Qur'an states). Muslims venerate Mary, the mother of Jesus. She indeed gave birth to Jesus though she was a virgin. She was a spiritual woman who was chosen among her people to the office of special contemplation and prayer. But Muslims do not hold her to be the "mother of God" and similar attributes. She too was fully human and was a beloved and important person in a remarkable series of miracles in a special time in human history. Every biology and miracle, the explainable and the inexplicable, whether it is the creation of Adam from clay or the conception of any given child of two parents, goes back to God. It is all the same to Him. All of it easy. All of it His.

In Islamic parlance, Jesus (peace be upon him) is known by the venerable titles of "Word" and "Spirit," since the Qur'an tells us that God cast the "word" or "spirit" upon Mary, the Mother of Jesus. "Indeed, the angels said: 'O Mary! God gives you glad tidings of a word from Him, whose name is the Messiah, Jesus, son of Mary, illustrious in this world and the Hereafter, and he shall be among those brought near [to God]. He will speak to humankind in the cradle and in manhood, and he is of the righteous" (Qur'an, 3:45).

Also, the Qur'an states: "The Messiah, Jesus son of Mary, was but a Messenger of God, and His word which He conveyed to Mary, and a spirit proceeding from Him" (Qur'an, 4:171). "And indeed God gave Moses the Book [Torah], and after him We sent Messengers in succession. We gave Jesus son of Mary clear proofs and strengthened him with the Holy Spirit [Angel Gabriel]" (Qur'an, 2:87).

The thought life of a Muslim with regard to all the prophets is best summed by the following verse of the Qur'an "Say [O believers]: "We believe in God and [the Book] sent down to us, and what was sent down to Abraham, Ishmael, Isaac, Jacob, and the Tribes; and what was given to Moses and Jesus and what was given to [all] the Prophets from their Lord. We make no distinction between any of them, and to Him do we surrender ourselves" (Qur'an 2:136).

Berkana wrote:
"Manuscript evidence shows that the Bible is sound. The Qur'an doesn't say that the Bible is corrupted; in fact, it implies the opposite!
Al Qur'an 10:94
"If you doubt what We have revealed to you, ask those [e.g. Jews and Christians] who have read the Scriptures [the Bible] before you"The Qur'an never alleges that the Bible was corrupted! In fact, it urges those with prior scripture to believe in it:
Al Qur'an 4:47
You to whom the Scriptures were given! Believe in that which We have revealed, confirming your own Scriptures, before We obliterate your faces and turn them backward, or lay Our curse on you."

Berkana - it is obvious that in your desperate effort to defend the indefenseable you have misquoted the Quran and made glaring errors!
A new tactic of the Christian missionaries is to misquote the Quran and say that the Prophet Muhammad(pbuh) was admonished by Allah that if he had any doubts about the revelation, to ask those who read the Scripture.

10:94. But if *thou art in doubt about what We have sent down unto thee, ask those who read the book (sent) before thee; Indeed the truth hath come unto thee from thy Lord, so be not thou* of the doubters.

This verse was addressed to any one of the pagans who were not acquainted with the nature and tone of revelation. They are asked to compare with the people of the Book. In support of this, Abu Talib, in order to make the pagans understand the apostolic nature compares the Holy Prophet(pbuh) to Moses (pbuh).
So we see that this verse is not referring to the Prophet Muhammad at all but to the pagans- How Appropriate! We also see that the declaration that the revelation is the Truth from Allah and the command to believe in it was missing from the misquote of the QurǃÙan by the Christians! Let us now review verse 95, just to make sure we have covered all the bases.

10:95. Nor be thou of those who belied the signs of Allah (for) then thou shouldst (also) be of the losers.

Now for the other misquote correction:
4:47 O ye People of the Book! believe in what We have (now) revealed, confirming what was (already) with you, before We change the face and fame of some (of you) beyond all recognition, and turn them hindwards, or curse them as We cursed the Sabbath-breakers, for the decision of Allah Must be carried out.

The Quran clearly states that the scripture of the Jews and Christians have been changed. Which bible are you referring to? The scripture that the Jews and Christians had in the time of prophet Muhammad (pbuh) is certainly not what you have today! The point is you do not obey the part of the bible that instructs you to believe in one G-d. You currently do not have the Book of Moses (the Law) as revealed by Allah. Nor do you have the Gospel (Injil) of Isa(pbuh). What Matthew, Mark, Luke, John or Paul may have wrote or what other hands wrote in their name is really pointless because it is not the revelation from Allah! The Quran is the criterion on which verses of the previous scripture is correct!
4:46 Of the Jews there are those who displace words from their (right) places, and say: "We hear and we disobey"; and "Hear what is not Heard"; and "Ra'ina"; with a twist of their tongues and a slander to Faith. If only they had said: "What hear and we obey"; and "Do hear"; and "Do look at us"; it would have been better for them, and more proper; but Allah hath cursed them for their Unbelief; and but few of them will believe.
3:78 There is among them a section who distort the book with their tongues: (As they read) you would think it is a part of the book, but it is no part of the book; and they say, "That is from Allah," but it is not from Allah. It is they who tell a lie against Allah, and (well) they know it!
2:79 Then woe to those who write the book with their own hands, and then say:"This is from Allah," to traffic with it for miserable price!- Woe to them for what their hands do write, and for the gain they make thereby.
5:15 O people of the book! There hath come to you our Messenger, revealing to you much that ye used to hide in the book, and passing over much (that is now unnecessary). There hath come to you from Allah a (new) light and a perspicuous book,-

The Quran states:
5:14 From those, too, who call themselves Christians, We did take a covenant, but they forgot a good part of the message that was sent them: so we estranged them, with enmity and hatred between the one and the other, to the day of judgment. And soon will Allah show them what it is they have done.

5:66 If only they had stood fast by the Law, the Gospel, and all the revelation that was sent to them from their Lord, they would have enjoyed happiness from every side. There is from among them a party on the right course: but many of them follow a course that is evil.

5:68 Say: "O People of the book! ye have no ground to stand upon unless ye stand fast by the Law, the Gospel, and all the revelation that has come to you from your Lord." It is the revelation that cometh to thee from thy Lord, that increaseth in most of them their obstinate rebellion and blasphemy. But sorrow thou not over (these) people without Faith.

Razya, welcome to our spirited discussion! :o)

The excerpt you gave makes allegations that simply are not true. I'd like to address a few of these points one at a time. Please bear with me as I do so.

First, I'd like to address the matter of the Qur'an "not mentioning the Bible". The Bible consists of many sub-collections of books: the Old Testament consists of the Pentateuch (the five books of Moses, a.k.a. "the Torah"), the Writings, and the Prophets (which includes the major prophets and the minor prophets). The New Testament consists of the four gospels (biographies of Jesus), Acts (history of the early church), and the Epistles (letters from the Apostles), and finally, the Book of Revelation.

Even though only the Taurat and the Injil (which comes from the suffix of euangelion, which means "good news", or "gospel") are mentioned by name, the Qur'an does refer to the Bible in general terms. (The term 'Bible' simply means 'library', or 'collection of books': it wasn't always used as a name for the collection as a whole. People just called them 'the Scriptures')

Al Qur'an 10:94
"If you doubt what We have revealed to you, ask those [e.g. Jews and Christians] who have read [B][I]the Scriptures[/I][/B] before you"

Al Qur'an 4:47
You to whom [B][I]the Scriptures[/I][/B] were given! Believe in that which We have revealed, [B][I]confirming your own Scriptures[/I][/B], before We obliterate your faces and turn them backward, or lay Our curse on you.

These mentions of "the Scriptures" can only mean the Bible; no other texts existing at the time fit the mold, especially since the context makes it clear that Muhammad was talking about Christians and Jews. Since it says "your own Scriptures" (plural) it cannot be said that this only refers to the Gospel (the message of Jesus) and the Taurat (Moses); "your own scriptures" to a Christian means the New and the Old Testaments. In light of this, it doesn't matter that "the Bible" isn't mentioned by name in the Qur'an; it had no over all name, but was only refered to as "the Scriptures" at that time anyhow. None the less, the Qur'an does mention it, and as you can see in the quotes above, it implies that they are reliable where Muhammad is told to ask those who have read it.

From the exerpt posted by Razya:

Through an account of Jesus's words and deeds, the Gospels were intended to make known to men the teachings he wished to leave them on completion of his earthly mission. Unfortunately, the authors of the Gospels were not eyewitnesses of the data they recorded. They were spokesmen who expressed data that were quite simply the information that had been preserved by the various Judeo-Christian communities on Jesus's public life, passed down by oral traditions or writings which no longer exist today, and which constituted an intermediate stage between the oral tradition and the definitive texts.

This is not true either. The Apostle Matthew (an eye witness) wrote the gospel of Matthew according to testimony of the letters written by church fathers. Luke was a contemporary, and though wasn't an apostle, but he collected eye witness accounts:

Luke 1:1-4
Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled among us, just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word. Therefore, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, it seemed good also to me to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught.

Luke also wrote the Acts of the Apostles, which was completed by the early 60's A.D. We know this because it ends as Paul and Luke arrived in Rome in the early 60's. Paul was martyred in 67/68 A.D. according to the historian and church father Eusebius, so Acts must have been completed before this momentus unrecorded event. Since Acts 1 refers to the gospel of Luke as being "my former book", Luke must have been written even before Acts. Since Luke records private dialogues between the priest Zechariah and Gabriel, Zechariah would have been the eyewitness source. Luke 1 says Zechariah and is wife were "well along in years", so for them to have been eyewitnesses, Luke would have had to have written this even earlier, in the 40's. Luke also records Jesus' childhood from Mary's perspective, so he must have completed this before Mary died. When all the internal and external evidence is taken into account, Luke is not only reliable, and of eye witnesses, but it was written close to the occurance of these events recorded within.

As for the authoship of the gospel of Mark, Eusebius records that it was written from Rome by John Mark recording the recollections of the Apostle Peter (an eye witness of Jesus' life). Peter was also martyred in the persecution carried out by Nero in the mid 60's, so it had to have been written before Peter died. This means that though Mark wasn't technically penned by Peter, Peter was the author of it through John Mark, who was his scribe. In any case, it is the testimony of an eye witness, and was probably written before the persecution, placing it's authorship close to the events recorded within.

The gospel of John does have a different perspective and emphasis, but it was indeed written by the Apostle John, an eyewitness of Jesus' life. This is atested to by the testimony of the elders who knew John late in his life. John spent his last days in Ephesus, and Patmos, and lived to the age of 92, dying a natural death. In any case, the allegation that the gospels were unreliable oral testimonies mashed together way after the events is simply incorrect; the scholars who allege this start out with a bias against Christianity, and apparently don't know all the corroborating evidence outside the Bible.

The recently discovered Gospel of Thomas, which is nothing but a list of sayings of Jesus, is even closer to the Islamic concept of Injil.

The alleged "gospel of Thomas" simply isn't authentic: Thomas traveled eastwards to preach the Gospel after the Apostles went their separate ways. The churches that Thomas founded in Persia and India (Kerala) don't even recognize the alleged "gospel of Thomas". The "gospel of Thomas" was discovered in Egypt, which is west of anywhere Thomas himself had gone. The church fathers identified the gospel of Thomas as a forgery of the Gnostics. Since it isn't even found amongst the churches founded by Thomas, it should be given no credence whatsoever.

Christians are nevertheless very surprised when they realize this, so great have been the continuous and far-reaching efforts made until now by many official commentators to camouflage the very obvious results of modern studies, under cunning dialectical acrobatics orchestrated by apologetic lyricism. A case in point are the genealogies of Jesus given in Matthew and Luke, which were contradictory and scientifically unacceptable.

This guy simply isn't being fair (though he's bombastic); he makes allegatons, and gives you incomplete information proving that he didn't do much historical research.

The genealogies in Matthew and Luke don't contradict each other; they record different aspects of Jesus' genealogy. Both are true. Bear with me as I show you.

The genealogies diverge at David, and reconverge at Joseph, Jesus' earthly guardian. Matthew records the lineage going through Solomon, son of David (See for yourself) while Luke records the lineage going through Nathan, son of David. A face value reading seems to suggest that Joseph had two fathers, which seems to be a contradiction. In fact, Joseph did have two fathers! (Not two biological fathers, but he had two fathers none the less.) Here's what happened according Eusebius, who retells the account of Africanus' letter to Aristedes, documenting these things from the families that were actually involved:

The man who married Joseph's mother (Yakov, son of Matthan) died without leaving an heir, so his half brother of a different father--Heli--married her and produced an heir for him in accordance with Jewish law. Matthew records the legal lineage through the man whom Joseph was an heir to, so it is not in error to say that Joseph was "son of Jacob (Yakov)". Luke records the biological lineage through the man who fathered Joseph, so he isn't wrong to say that "Heli fathered Joseph". Both are correct; there is only a perceived contradiction because people don't know the history of the two families.

How do we know this wasn't just contrived to fix a problem? The two families involved were still around at this time, were proud of their heritage, and validated this testimony. In light of this, it can't be said that the differences between Matthew and Luke's record of Jesus' genealogy proves that the gospels are unreliable.

The Qur'an follows on from the two Revelations that preceded it and is not only free from contradictions in its narrations, the sign of the various human manipulations to be found in the Gospels, but provides a quality all of its own for those who examine it objectively and in the light of science i.e. its complete agreement with modern scientific data.

Shame on him for saying what he didn't check; this is not true at all!
On the question of what happened to the sun at night, the Qur'an says the following:

Al Qur'an 18:84-86
Lo! We made him [[I]Dhu'l-Qarneyn[/I]] strong in the land and gave him unto every thing a road. And he followed a road till, when he reached the setting-place of the sun, he found it setting in a muddy spring, and found a people thereabout.
[[I]"Dhu'l-Qarneyn" refers to Alexander the Great, according to Yusef Ali's appendix in his translation of the Qur'an.[/I]]

You can plainly see that what al-Qur'an says about "the setting place of the sun" being in "a muddy spring" is totally in contradiction with modern scientific data! Yet Muhammad recited that Alexander the Great actually found the place where the sun set as if this were historical. The passage is not part of a poem, so it can't be dismissed as figurative language. In the context of Surah 18, it is part of a historical narrative about several historical incidences in the life of Alexander the Great.

I've read the entire New Testament many times over. Where are these alleged scientific claims of the NT that don't match modern science? The NT doesn't make any scientific claims. (Show me where he identifies them if you disagree.) It is irresponsible for that author to make such false claims to his audience, most of whom probably won't check to see if he's actually reporting the facts. There are passages of the Old Testament that might seem to be unscientific, but the events "in contradiction to science" are supernatural events and miracles. God can do that! The laws of nature do not constrain God.

An extremely important complement to the Bible was found in the text of the Qur'an on the subject of the history of the Exodus, where the two texts were very much in agreement with archaeological findings, in the dating of the time of Moses.

This is not true either. The Qur'an repeats the story of the Exodus 27 times (count them yourself if you don't believe me), and in every single instance, Muhammad has the glaring omission of failing to mention the most important part of the story: the Passover! Evidence and records even from outside the Bible (archaeology, as he mentions) show that the Passover has always been the chief event of commemoration to the Jews. Even Jesus celebrated Passover:

Matthew 26:17-21
On the first day of the Feast of Unleavened Bread, the disciples came to Jesus and asked, "Where do you want us to make preparations for you to eat the Passover?"
     He replied, "Go into the city to a certain man and tell him, 'The Teacher says: My appointed time is near. I am going to celebrate the Passover with my disciples at your house.' " So the disciples did as Jesus had directed them and prepared the Passover.
     When evening came, Jesus was reclining at the table with the Twelve. And while they were eating, he said, "I tell you the truth, one of you will betray me.". . .

Yet this most important element isn't even mentioned once in all 27 repetitions of the Exodus found in the Qur'an.

Razya, I think you should disregard that author you quoted. He has demonstrated that he doesn't really know what he's talking about. At best, he might be innocently mistaken, at worst, he's purposly spreading falsehood and confidently proclaiming as truth what he really didn't look into.

Christians need to go back to the foundation of their faith which is monotheism. Argue and rant as you wish, the issue is the man-god you are offering instead of the truth. You have failed to answer or respond to the posts which corrected your intentional misquotes of the Quran. Now you proceed to pursue something in which you have no knowledge. How can you offer us any guidance on how to live our lives that is pleasing to G-d when you will not comply with the basic and fundamental laws of the scripture you currently possess? You have violated the first of the Ten Commandments by perverting the message of the Messiah and making him a person-god. Deaf, dumb and blind, you pursue the deification of a prophet of Allah by not only using your corrupted text, but now attempt to misquote the Quran to suit your evil scheme. Yes, what boldness you show for the fire! Beware that Allah has taken full account of your intentions and actions - you have been invited to the the truth and have rejected it. Please take time to reconsider the consequences of your actions and submit to your Creator before death overtakes you. The result of trinitarian Christian belief is sin - and the great sin is denying that G-d is one and is to be obeyed. For that evil start Christians go downhill from there. We call you to guidance as revealed to prophet Muhammad(pbuh) from Allah(swt).

61:7 Who doth greater wrong than one who invents falsehood against Allah, even as he is being invited to Islam? And Allah guides not those who do wrong.
61:8 Their intention is to extinguish Allah's Light (by blowing) with their mouths: But Allah will complete (the revelation of) His Light, even though the Unbelievers may detest (it).
61:9 It is He Who has sent His Messenger with Guidance and the Religion of Truth, that he may proclaim it over all religion, even though the Pagans may detest (it).

5:68 Say: "O People of the book! ye have no ground to stand upon unless ye stand fast by the Law, the Gospel, and all the revelation that has come to you from your Lord." It is the revelation that cometh to thee from thy Lord, that increaseth in most of them their obstinate rebellion and blasphemy. But sorrow thou not over (these) people without Faith.

The Quran states:
98:1 Those who reject (Truth), among the People of the Book and among the Polytheists, were not going to depart (from their ways) until there should come to them Clear Evidence,-
98:2 An apostle from Allah, rehearsing scriptures kept pure and holy:
98:3 Wherein are laws (or decrees) right and straight.
98:4 Nor did the People of the Book make schisms, until after there came to them Clear Evidence.
98:5 And they have been commanded no more than this: To worship Allah, offering Him sincere devotion, being true (in faith); to establish regular prayer; and to practise regular charity; and that is the Religion Right and Straight.
98:6 Those who reject (Truth), among the People of the Book and among the Polytheists, will be in Hell-Fire, to dwell therein (for aye). They are the worst of creatures.
98:7 Those who have faith and do righteous deeds,- they are the best of creatures.
98:8 Their reward is with Allah. Gardens of Eternity, beneath which rivers flow; they will dwell therein for ever; Allah well pleased with them, and they with Him: all this for such as fear their Lord and Cherisher.

The Quran states:
30:40 It is Allah Who has created you: further, He has provided for your sustenance; then He will cause you to die; and again He will give you life. Are there any of your (false) "Partners" who can do any single one of these things? Glory to Him! and high is He above the partners they attribute (to him)!

30:55 On the Day that the Hour (of Reckoning) will be established, the transgressors will swear that they tarried not but an hour: thus were they used to being deluded!

30:56 But those endued with knowledge and faith will say: "Indeed ye did tarry, within Allah's Decree, to the Day of Resurrection, and this is the Day of Resurrection: but ye - ye were not aware!"

30:57 So on that Day no excuse of theirs will avail the transgressors, nor will they be invited (then) to seek grace (by repentance).

30:58 verily We have propounded for men, in this Qur'an every kind of Parable: But if thou bring to them any Sign, the Unbelievers are sure to say, "Ye do nothing but talk vanities."

30:59 Thus does Allah seal up the hearts of those who understand not.

30:60 So patiently persevere: for verily the promise of Allah is true: nor let those shake thy firmness, who have (themselves) no certainty of faith.

You both can debate with words all you want but there is one thing that can not be disputed. That is experience. Words may mean nothing but experience is where we find that which is true.

True or false?
Your experience of driving a car. Is real...yes or no? No matter what anyone told you no one could persuade you with words telling you, you were deceived and believed a lie that you actually experienced driving a car. Right?

Well, with that in mind that of experience. I can say that I believe Jesus Is God. Because of my 9 years of experience with Him. I feel His presence, I've seen His Miracles, and I've heard His voice not audibly but in my spirit. I know this is another thing Muslims don't believe in and that is that we are spirit beings. But yet you believe in angels who are spirit beings right? God is a spirit being right? We are made to be and look like God that does NOT mean we are Gods. It means we are like Him. Like you are like your father your not him and can't be him but you are like him in image. God Jesus is one God. It's not deception it's truth. God has even given us exaples of how something can be one but also three.
Ever eat a bananna?
Would you say it is one long piece of fruit?
Most likely yes because that is what you see. BUT if you pinch it at it seems you'll see that the bannana that looked like it was just one piece is actually three. But it did not come from three seperate bananas. So if that isn't enough I could explain another but your mind is so closed and hard that anything that is truth can't get in. So you might say that my belief in Jesus being God is a lie. I would have to say you can't say the Jesus I've experienced isn't real like I can't say your having driven a car isn't real.

All that being said Jesus Is God and God is ONE.

Hear, O Christians, the Lord thy God is not Christ. "The Messiah, Jesus--son of Mary, was but a Messenger of God, and His word which He conveyed to Mary, and a spirit proceeding from Him".

Indeed God is One: Unique. There is no other god beside Him. He is not partitioned into half or thirds. Exalted is God, above having any partner. Gloried is God above the likenesses of things that His Being is compared to! Praise be to God, who has blessed us once again with the sending of His servant, the Chosen One, Muhammad, son of 'Abdullah. The Beloved Messenger who has come to restore the purity of worship and to inform humankind of their purpose in life. We bear witness that there is nothing worthy of worship but the One God. Our aspirations is to realize our slavehood to God--the Almighty, and our goal is to seek the pleasure of God--our Lord and Creator. We tread the path of those who worship the One God purely and simply. We have faith in the Lord of Adam, of Noah, of Abraham, of Lot, of Ishmael, of Isaac, of Jacob, of Joseph, of Job, of Moses, of Aaron, of David, of Solomon, of Jonah, of Zachariah, of John the Baptist, of the mother of Mary, of Mary, of Jesus, and of Muhammad--peace and blessings upon them all. Hear, O mankind, the Lord thy God is One, the Creator and the Lord of the worlds. He begets none, nor was He begotten. Indeed, there is none like unto Him.

It's so good, to at the end people talking about God and also trying to explain him from diffrent point of wiew of convictions, I say this because you are trying to defend of what you have been raised up or convicted sometimes from the hate, desperation, to fight the system that you think is wrong, to have more freedom to do sin. (Because islam has a tolerance about sin) But there is one truth and that truth is revealed in the cross of the Jesus Christ and I don't know why the muslims hate so much reality of Jesus dying in the cross. You know as a former muslim I really know that Islam teaches just hate, and destruction and control and rules manu rules. Sharia Law is rules, bunch of rules, you talk about jihad as holy war there is no war holy that is stupid you kill people and you say it's holy, please how you don't listen and see what you are talking. I have been a former muslim and I know what is Kuran and islam and I know how clean is the religion that you practice, you can marry your cousin, that is clean, you can take the wifes of the hostages, that is clean. Come on don't make me talk about islam it's really another ideology of Muhamed that believed in the Moon God, tell me you start Ramadan month with moon direction and finish same.
Folks open the eyes and see don be decieved and give a way the freedom that you have because I know that it's difficult to live in terror and occupation, I am from Kosovo and I lived under those circumstances. Find me one place or Islamic country where people have free speech, where people can do what they have desire and in the heart. I will tell you the answer none, zero.
Please if you are not yet free and if you are bound in the islam and you are not sure for Salvation because I know as muslim none are sure that they are saved. Even if they practice all Kuran. Leave God to open your eyes and see really what is reality and truth, and truth will set you free.
Blessing of the Lord
Pastor