Page 20 of 36 Ousia] then the sentence means “Logos is the Only Godhead [Divine Ousia]. If the word God is used in the meaning Divine Being or Supreme Being then the sentence means “Logos is the only Divine Being or Logos is the Only Supreme Being”. But again these meaning is not in harmony with the Dogma of Athanasian Trinity. In Dogma of Trinitarians Logos is a Hypostasis and not a Being. So the only meaning is that the word God is used in the meaning of “A Hypostasis in Godhead”. I may agree that this meaning of the word God can be taken in some other translation of this verse but this especially liked Translation cannot accept this meaning. In the Dogma of Athanasian Trinity [as it developed through ages] Plurality of Hypostases does not Imply the Plurality of Godhead of God. As the number of God depends upon the Godhead and not on the Hypostasis in Godhead, then according to the Dogma it can be said “ Father is God, Son is God and Holy Ghost is God yet God is One” But it cannot be said that Father is the Only God or Son/Logos is the Only God. If the Sentence Father is God means Father is a Hypostasis in the Godhead , Son is God means that Son is a Hypostasis in Godhead etc. then Father is the Only God means that Father is the Only Hypostasis in Godhead. So even Trinitarians have to interpret this verse somehow. But the learned Anti Islamic Objection Maker is not Loyal to the Dogma of Trinity as well.  ANTI ISLAMIC OBJECTION MAKER SAYS In fact, He made it clear that those who do not know Him lack knowledge expressly because they rejected such knowledge (Hosea 4:1-6). The Bible is THE story about the Father and the Son and exists so that we can know Him and we can come to believe and serve Him forever. ANSWER:= If the learned Anti Islamic Objection Maker uses the word Bible in the meaning of the Holy Tanakh of Judaism then no scholar of Judaism ever took this meaning from any verse of Holy Tanakh. So this is what the auther implicitly say that for ages Judaism was unable to understand its own Holy Book and then a New Religion was founded which understood it in some meanings totally unknown to the Original Religion of the book. Is this rational claim? We leave this to the readers. Tanakh . Tanakh is the Story of Yahuvah who is not a Hypostasis in the Godhead but the Supreme Being and the Divine Being. To reduce Yahuvah from Sureme Being to a Hypostasis in the Godhead of Supreme Being is not the Yahuvah of Tanakh of Judaism. Page 20 of 36
Page 21 of 36 Had Hosea slightest implication of Plurality of Hypostases in Godhead of Yahuvah, Scholars of Judaism would have detected it even before the birth of the Founder of Christianity. If the learned Anti Islamic Objection Maker uses the word Bible for the NT then NT can be treated differently. So one cannot accept unless each and every disputed prooftexts of the Dogma Of Trinity is discussed one by one.  ANTI ISLAMIC OBJECTION MAKER SAYS On the other hand, the god of Islam is unknowable and his (unholy) book proves that as well! ANSWER:= The Learned Anti Islamic Objection Maker has used the word Unholy for Holy Qur’a:n. This does shew how much he dislikes Holy Qur’a:n. In just a single word he has exposed his dislikeness and hatred towards the Holy “Arabic Scripture . Any how let his personal sensibilities be left and let the original discussion be continued. The claim that God of Islam is not Knowable is a false claim. If theword Knowable is used in the meaning that Human Knowledge can Comprehend God and Divine Essence/Ousia then it is certainly true. Since only Divine Omniscience Comprehendeth God and Divine Ousia/Essence. If by Unknowable the learned Anti Islamic Objection Maker means God is totally unknown then Holy Qur’a:n informeth many things about God so that He may be Known but without being Comprehended by Created Knowledges. If the learned Author means to be not known as an Incarnated God then this is certainly true but not to be incarnated does not mean God is not known. Such a claim is neither correct nor right. Even from the standard of Athanasian Trinity the second Hypostases Logos was incarnated as Iesous. But before the conception there was no incarnation even on the standard of Trinitarian Trinity. So it means that the Entire Tanakh could not make Yahuvah the God Of Tanakh as Known. Even Iesous did not claim that He is the second Hypostasis in Godhead of God. So even Iesous was unable to make God known. It was due to the Athanasius and latter devekopments in Athanasianism made God Known. Hese are the irrefutable consequences of what the learned Author means. I have seen many Trinitarians who only say that Incarnation, Page 21 of 36
David W. Montgomery presents a rich ethnographic study on the practice and meaning of Islamic life in Kyrgyzstan. As he shows, becoming and being a Muslim are based on knowledge acquired from the surrounding environment, enabled through the practice of doing. Through these acts, Islam is imbued in both the individual and the community. To Montgomery, religious practice and lived experience combine to create an ideological space that is shaped by events, opportunities, and potentialities that form the context from which knowing emerges. This acquired knowledge further frames social navigation and political negotiation. Through his years of on-the-ground research, Montgomery assembles both an anthropology of knowledge and an anthropology of Islam, demonstrating how individuals make sense of and draw meanings from their environments. He reveals subtle individual interpretations of the religion and how people seek to define themselves and their lives as “good�? within their communities and under Islam. Based on numerous in-depth interviews, bolstered by extensive survey and data collection, Montgomery offers the most thorough English-language study to date of Islam in post-Soviet Kyrgyzstan. His work provides a broad view into the cognitive processes of Central Asian populations that will serve students, researchers, and policymakers alike.