How does the Qur'an represent Christian beliefs?

[Sol Invictus]

sorry if i have missed anything that may have been directed towards me (if that is the case, a post directing me to the appropriate post would be appreciated).

Christian doctrines have not followed a clear, straight path in their development and any Christian who says otherwise does not know their own history.....

i thank god that most of these heresies had happened early in church history. imagine if arianism, sabellianism etc. and the condemnations thereof had post-dated islam? if that were the case then any condemnation of these doctrines would mean nothing in light of the islamic argument for it would very well (and perhaps appropriately enough) have been said that christians had only condemned these because the qur'an had condemned these first. yet given that all these doctrines were condemned before the advent of islam, the trinitarian christian position is at a considerable advantage for anything that the qur'an seems to say concerning these heresies, the church has said first and as such the qur'an adds largely nothing to the discussion other than to confirm the word of the church for muslims.

Trinitarian Christianity developed among many powerfully competing Christian and Non-Christian doctrines and it was only politics that resulted in one set of doctrines becomming more "mainstream" than others.

siam, the same could be said concerning the battle of siffin and the like. if the outcome of the battle had ended differently than the majority of muslims would be shiites instead. more than any christian council, the battle of siffin was certainly a case of politics deciding doctrine seeing as individuals actually went to war and the winning side cemented its monopoly on the practise of islam. so no, your point is actually far more damaging towards islam than anything else.

that said, this still does not change the fact that there is no condemnation of the trinity within the qur'an. the question we ought to ask ourselves is why in fact the muslim deity would have such a predilection for condemning the very heresies that christians had condemned centuries before the advent of islam and yet not say a single word against the proper trinity. it is either that he mistakenly condemned the trinity as the marian trinity or felt that he shouldn't speak against the correct trinity.

anyway, to echo the words of gene:

However, the disagreement in our source of authority not withstanding, the question of How the Qur'an represents Christian beliefs remains. Whether you accept our beliefs as true, I continue to assert that to reject them you must first actually express what they are rather than some fictious strawman that does not accurately portray what we believe and then believe that in rejecting the strawman you have reason to reject Christianity. Thus far in this thread, no Muslim has yet to speak of the Trinity with an understanding of it that fits the Christian understanding of it. Certainly the Qur'an does NOT.

 

[Chavundur]

ingle word against the proper trinity. it is either that he mistakenly condemned the trinity as the marian trinity or felt that he shouldn't speak against the correct trinity.

Because that type of trinity is more insolent than current type. That trinity implies Mary as a wife of God clearly.

 

[Sol Invictus]

Because that type of trinity is more insolent than current type. That trinity implies Mary as a wife of God clearly.

i certainly do agree with that but it doesn't change the fact that there is no condemnation of the proper trinity within the qur'an. it wouldn't have been hard for the source of the qu'ran speak but one word against the trinity and yet it didn't. if the qur'an is a book which is meant to distinguish truth from falsehood then the fact that the muslim deity does not speak against the proper trinity speaks volumes.

 

[Chavundur]

Dear Sol Invictus, There is four major point in Qur'an, one of them is Tawhed, There is no God but Allah, I know You know that already, You will say, This trinity doesn't resemble that one, this is a purified form of trinity, even don't use that word, Let's call it oneness of three, I know You will say. But We can not cover the light of Sun. Qur'an says Jesus (A.s) is a servant and his messenger like other prophets, He can not claim anything beyond that and also says Angel Gabriel is a servant of Allah. I think We have to discuss other issues like why oneness rejects associating partners to Allah.

 

[Hamza Asadullah]

Hamza, the problem here lies in the fact that none of your above sources prove what you are actually saying. protestants and catholics both believe that mary is the mother of god yet the title does not invest her with any divinity. in none of your sources is she actually called divine. hamza, can you please show us where the christian creeds explain mother of god to mean that mary is divine? you have consistently been unable to show this and have misunderstood all the above references as having to do with mary's divinity when they all speak of her humanity!

Greetings Sol,

All of the statements i pasted above from the early church fathers regarding the divinity of Mary clearly prove that Mary was not seen as just human but she was seen as divine and venerated like a divine being which Woodrow also proved with sources in his post above. There you have failed to refute a single statement pointing to the divinity of Mary and yet again your points have been disaproven.

Even if the above statements never existed no true Muslim or monotheist would be in disagreement in the fact that calling Mary the "mother of God" is without doubt utterly blasphemous and ascribing partners to God as well as pure shirk.

If you don't believe that calling Jesus the son of God is shirk then why would you believe calling that Mary the "Mother of God" as shirk?

You also believe that a 3 in 1 God is not shirk then i can never expect you to believe that calling Mary the "Mother of God! as shirk.

Regarding the statement i pasted of William Blake then that is irrelevent to our main discussion.

Your previous quotes in your last post in which you tried to prove that Mary constituted the third in the trinity have already been refuted and you ignored the challenge i set you regarding using the original language of the Qur'an to prove your position.

I have already stated that the two verses in the Qur'an which refer to the trinity: 4:171 and 5:73. Do NOT mention Mary as “the third Person of the Holy Trinity”. If the Qur'an had mentioned what contistuted the trinity and what order God was in the trinity then you would have a point but the fact is he clearly DID NOT mention the order or the trinity nor did he mention Mary to be a part of the trinity but he clearly condemmed the trinity on a theological level and also refuted the idea of ascribing partners to God by raising the status of Mary to that of God and that is clearly the case today where she is called "the mother of God"!

Therefore all we have is your false assumptions of what you THINK the Qur'an implied in that Mary constituted the third person in the trinity when that is clearly NOT the case.

Surely the Qur'an far exceeds the Bible when referring to the trinity when it states that God is not "one in 3" but how does the Bible describe the trinity? Oh it doesnt! The trinity is not mentioned ANYWHERE in the Bible! So therefore it was clearly the creation of heretics well after the Bible coming from pagan influences just like the Bible is full of Pagan influences.

Holy trinities are found in many of the cults of the time among the Babylonians, Hindus, Romans, Persians, Egyptians and Chaldeans. At the end of the second century, the word “trinity” begins to appear in Christian writings. The trinity as approved by the council of churches in 431 AD included Mary, the mother of Jesus, but she was later replaced with the Holy Spirit because some theologians were having trouble with the concept of “mother of God.”

You think God would not mention something as important as the trinity in the Bibel and keep it secretly coded in the words of the Bible? Be serious Sol.

So as you have clearly ignored my question in my previous post i ask you again Sol to provide proof and evidence of the trinity in the Bible itself which refers to the trinity that Christians worship today...

Also for the third time if you want to prove your position with regards to implying that Mary was the third in the trinity then you will have to do so using the original language of the Qur'an.

You keep ignoring this and instead pasting your vast quotes from previous posts which have already been refuted so are now irrelevant to the discussion. I still await this challenge to be fulfilled....

 

[siam]

Perhaps this thread shows the extreme Christo-Centric perspective of some Christians?

The Quran is Guidance for all mankind---why should the Quran go about spending time only on addressing Christian concerns?

I once discussed Surah Al-Ikhlas (112) with someone who thought it was addressed specifically to Christians. This is a Meccan Surah and the listeners would have been Meccan polytheists. The Quran is Guidance to all mankind---including Christians---if they so choose----It is NOT a "textbook" sent for the purpose of debunking the variety of Christianities piece by piece.

In the general scheme of humanity---Christians are not that important or special...............

 

[Hamza Asadullah]

i certainly do agree with that but it doesn't change the fact that there is no condemnation of the proper trinity within the qur'an. it wouldn't have been hard for the source of the qu'ran speak but one word against the trinity and yet it didn't. if the qur'an is a book which is meant to distinguish truth from falsehood then the fact that the muslim deity does not speak against the proper trinity speaks volumes.

Why would the Christian deity fail to mention the most fundamental belief of Christianity today in the Bible?

So the fact that the Qur'an actually refers to the trinity and teaches it to Christians better than the Bible does speaks volumes in itself!

It clearly condems and refutes such an illogical and absurd concept on a theological level yet the Christian deity fails to mention the most fundamental belief of Christianity ANYWHERE in the Bible!

There is absolutley NO basis for the trinity in the Bible nor is there ANY proof that Jesus or any other Prophet taught the trinity so it can ONLY be concluded that the trinity is NOT a teaching of the Bible and nor was it a teaching by Jesus or any other Prophet. of God!

 

[Sol Invictus]

All of the statements i pasted above from the early church fathers regarding the divinity of Mary clearly prove that Mary was not seen as just human but she was seen as divine and venerated like a divine being which Woodrow also proved with sources in his post above. There you have failed to refute a single statement pointing to the divinity of Mary and yet again your points have been disaproven.

greetings hamza. can you tell us how exactly your statements prove that she was divine? all that those statements basically said was that she was the mother of god. that very title speaks of her humanity! simply because the title may sound to you like one which invests the holder with divinity does not make it so and certainly not when no christian creed explains the title as having to do with divinity. alright, given that you have brought woodrow into this discussion, then can either of you show us that the title, theotokos, means that mary is divine? this is a very simple question. anyway, once again this is how catholics explain the title:

As Mary was truly the mother of Jesus, and as Jesus was truly God from the first moment of His conception, Mary is truly the mother of God.

Therefore we confess one Christ, one Son, one Lord. According to this understanding of the unconfused union, we confess the holy virgin to be the mother of God because God the Word took flesh and became man and from his very conception united to himself the temple he took from her.

Theotokos specifically excludes the understanding of Mary as Mother of God in the eternal sense. Christians believe that God is the cause of all, with neither origin nor source, and is therefore "without a mother." [...] On the other hand, most Christians believe God the Son is begotten of God the Father "from all eternity" (see Trinity and Nicene Creed), but is born "in time" of Mary. Theotokos thus refers to the Incarnation, when the Second Person of the Holy Trinity took on human nature in addition to his pre-existing divine nature, this being made possible through the cooperation of Mary. [...] The Council of Ephesus decreed [...] that Mary is Theotokos because her son Jesus is one person who is both God and man, divine and human. [...] Thus the significance of Theotokos lies more in what it says about Jesus than any declaration about Mary.

notice that any divinity lies squarely with christ and not with mary. she is called the theotokos because christ is god and not because she herself is divine. the title in fact has more to do with the divinity of christ than with anything else. now, i have shown you how christians explain this title and what they believe concerning it, can either you or woodrow cite for us christian creeds which assert that the theotokos renders mary divinity? i have consistently asked you for this simple thing and you have consistently been unable to present such a quotation. instead, you merely quote church fathers who assert that mary is theotokos and yet what does this prove? if theotokos merely means that she is the human mother of christ then what have you proved?

Even if the above statements never existed no true Muslim or monotheist would be in disagreement in the fact that calling Mary the "mother of God" is without doubt utterly blasphemous and ascribing partners to God as well as pure shirk.

you had claimed that the title invested her with divinity, it does not and yet this is our point of contention. we are not arguing about whether or not muslims think that such and such a thing qualifies as shirk but whether the title theotokos implies mary to be divine. once again it does not and you have failed to prove your position.

I have already stated that the two verses in the Qur'an which refer to the trinity: 4:171 and 5:73. Do NOT mention Mary as “the third Person of the Holy Trinity”. If the Qur'an had mentioned what contistuted the trinity and what order God was in the trinity then you would have a point but the fact is he clearly DID NOT mention the order or the trinity nor did he mention Mary to be a part of the trinity but he clearly condemmed the trinity on a theological level and also refuted the idea of ascribing partners to God by raising the status of Mary to that of God and that is clearly the case today where she is called "the mother of God"!

let us first display the verses again:

O People of the Scripture, do not commit excess in your religion or say about Allah except the truth. The Messiah, Jesus, the son of Mary, was but a messenger of Allah and His word which He directed to Mary and a soul [created at a command] from Him. So believe in Allah and His messengers. And do not say, "Three"; desist - it is better for you. Indeed, Allah is but one God. Exalted is He above having a son. To Him belongs whatever is in the heavens and whatever is on the earth. And sufficient is Allah as Disposer of affairs. --- Surah 4:171

what do we have in the above? the quote quite clearly tells us that the reference to three refers to a divine family of a father, mother, and son. notice that in surah 4:171 the characters involved are allah, mary, and christ? we have three individuals and after these persons havebeen enumerated we then have the muslim deity saying that we shouldn't say three. so after he has given an explanation of who these three individuals are, he then goes on to define that the mention of three has to do with these three and these three only. in fact, in every passage where we have the worship of three individuals by christians, it concerns allah, christ and mary.

They have certainly disbelieved who say, " Allah is the third of three [one of three]." And there is no god except one God. And if they do not desist from what they are saying, there will surely afflict the disbelievers among them a painful punishment. --- Surah 5:73

now you argue that the above has to do with an explicit condemnation of the trinity. but let me ask you, according to the qur'an, what does 'three' refer to? in every single passage where we find an interplay of three divine persons worshipped by christians, what do these individuals consists of. it is always, a father, a son, and a mother. as such, according to the qur'an, you cannot use the above as an attack on the proper trinity because never in the entire qur'an does one find the concept of "three" as relating to the father, son, and holy spirit. my argument specifically follows what the qur'an has said while yours requires us to ignore how the qur'an defines 'three' in every single passage.
can you show us from the qur'an where the muslim deity defines "three" as the father, son and holy spiriit? if you cannot then why are trying to say that surah 5:73 is a condemnation of the proper trinity when the very language used in this passage is language which the source of the qur'an uses in every single passage as a reference to a divne family consisting of a father, mother, and son. you simply do not follow the precedent set forth by your own qur'an while i in fact do. notice that simply cannot make your case from the qur'an? there is no single passage that you can show us to make us believe that "do not say (one of) three" refers to the proper trinity while i can in fact show that do not say three refers to the improper trinity. this is because in surah 4:171 the muslim deity specifically says that what he means by "do not say three" is actually a trinity in which mary is involved.

Your previous quotes in your last post in which you tried to prove that Mary constituted the third in the trinity have already been refuted and you ignored the challenge i set you regarding using the original language of the Qur'an to prove your position.

my argument was that the only trinity found within the qur'an is one in which mary is a member of. will you disagree with this? i believe you will but let me show you how you have just contradicted yourself. in your post you claim that because the qur'an does not define the trinity and doesn't name mary as part of the trinity, then we cannot say that the qur'an believes mary to be in the trinity. yet later on within your post you go on to say the following:

Holy trinities are found in many of the cults of the time among the Babylonians, Hindus, Romans, Persians, Egyptians and Chaldeans.

now let me ask you, did any of these groups specifically name their three chief gods as members of a "holy trinity". did they ever use such a word or even mode of speaking? if not then why are you even able to call them holy trinities when you had claimed on the same principle that we could not do the same with what is contained in the qur'an. this is evidence of the fact that your point is baseless even to yourself or else you would not have contradicted yourself in the very same post. as such, my position remains above reproach.

Surely the Qur'an far exceeds the Bible when referring to the trinity when it states that God is not "one in 3" but how does the Bible describe the trinity? Oh it doesnt! The trinity is not mentioned ANYWHERE in the Bible! So therefore it was clearly the creation of heretics well after the Bible coming from pagan influences just like the Bible is full of Pagan influences.

where does the qur'an actually state that god is not one in three? give us the passage for i don't recall ever finding this in my translation (and i do use this word on purpose). that said, what warrant do you have for saying that the mention of three refers to the proper trinity given the fact that every single mention of three refers to a trinity in which mary is a member. once again, from the qur'an you cannot prove your position.

the question isn't one about whether the trinity is mentioned in the bible, but rather how it is represented in the qur'an and if there is a condemnation of it therein. as such, i do not have to argue the above matter with you and as i said to ua:

greetings umm abdurrahman and thanks for the response. once again you are trying to change the discussion. the qur'an is trying to condemn a christian doctrine, everyone here is agreed that christians believe in the trinity and so the fact of whether the trinity is contained in the bible is irrelevant because either way, the qur'an should be able to condemn what christians believe. we do not even have to get into a discussion on whether or not the bible teaches the trinity because it is beside the point. even if we say that the trinity was only made up in 325 AD, the source of the qur'an would have had hundreds of years to know exactly what christians believe and so the fact that the qur'an contains such errors is the real problem. this then is why i do not feel like getting into such a discussion because whether we take the christian position (that the trinity is taught in the bible) or the muslim position (that it isn't taught in the bible), we still have clear errors in your holy book.

now, let us please keep to the actual discussion hamza. before i forget, we can't forget about the repeated misformulation of the divinity of christ within the qur'an either.

Dear Sol Invictus, There is four major point in Qur'an, one of them is Tawhed, There is no God but Allah, I know You know that already, You will say, This trinity doesn't resemble that one, this is a purified form of trinity, even don't use that word, Let's call it oneness of three, I know You will say. But We can not cover the light of Sun. Qur'an says Jesus (A.s) is a servant and his messenger like other prophets, He can not claim anything beyond that and also says Angel Gabriel is a servant of Allah. I think We have to discuss other issues like why oneness rejects associating partners to Allah.

greetings chavunder, i have read your post and i think that this is one of the best muslim points within this thread. that said, i would first have to ask you what warrant you have to suppose that any of the above was directed towards the trinitarian understanding of christ's divinity (and could you please give me the passages you are paraphrasing from, that would certainly be helpful). the best way to understand what i'm saying is to read my above response to hamza seeing as it should equally apply to what you have said concerning christ and the holy spirit. if you feel that i haven't adequately responded to your post then i will be more than willing to try again should you think this to be necessary.

 

[Chavundur]

Similarly, the word-order between words encompasses a broad sphere and has many aspects. And between phrases. For example, Say: He is God, the One (Qur'an, 112:1) contains six sentences. Three of them are positive and three negative. It proves six degrees of Divine unity and at the same time refutes six ways of associating partners with God. Each sentence is both the proof of the other sentences and the result. For each sentence has two meanings. Through one meaning it is the result, and through the other the proof. That is to say, within Surah Al-Ikhlas are thirty suras composed of proofs that demonstrate each another to be as well-ordered as the Surah itself. For example:

Say, He is God, because He is One, because He is the Eternally Besought, because He begets not, because He is not begotten, because there is none that is equal to Him.

And:

And there is none that is equal to Him, because He is not begotten, because He begets not, because He is Eternally Besought, because He is One, because He is God.

And:

He is God, so He is One, so He is the Eternally Besought, so He begets not, so He is not begotten, so there is none that is equal to Him.

You can continue in the same way.

A further example: ......
The Words ( 382 )

 

[Chavundur]

Dear Sol Invıctus , Here I paste a part of my reading about miraculousness of The Qur'an, You can find some addressed groups of human beings.

Or do they say: A poet - let us wait and see what time will do! (Qur'an, 52:30)
Do they call you a poet, like the unreasoning, common infidels? Are they waiting for you to perish? You say to them: "Wait! I shall wait with you!" Your vast and brilliant truths are free of the imaginings of poetry and independent of their fancies.
Or is it that their faculties of understanding urge them to this? Qur'an, 52:32
Or like unreasoning philosophers who rely on their reasons, do they hold back from following you, saying: "Our faculties of reason are sufficient." But reason commands that you are followed, because everything you say is reasonable. But again the reason on its own cannot reach it.
Or are they but a people transgressing all bounds?Qur'an, 52:32.
Or is the reason for their denial their not submitting to Almighty God like wicked tyrants? But the ends of the Pharaohs and Nimrods, who were the leaders of arrogant oppressors, are known.
Or do they say: He fabricated this [Message]? Nay, they do not believe.Qur'an, 52:33.
Or like lying dissemblers without conscience do they accuse you saying: "You have made up the Qur'an!"? But up to this time they have known you to be the most truthful among them and have called you Muhammad the Trustworthy. It means that they have no intention to believe. Otherwise let them find the like of the Qur'an among the works of men.
Or were they created of nothing?Qur'an, 52:35.
Or like the absurd philosophers who believed the universe to be without purpose and in vain, do they suppose themselves to be aimless and without wisdom, purpose, duty, or Creator? Have they become blind that they do not see that the universe is adorned from top to bottom with instances of wisdom and bears the fruit of aims, and that beings from particles to the suns are charged with duties and are subjugated to the Divine commands?
Or were they themselves the creators?Qur'an, 52:35.
Or do they imagine like the pharaoh-like Materialists that "They came into being by themselves, feed themselves, and themselves create everything they need," so that they hold back from believing and worship? That means they all suppose themselves to be the Creator. Whereas the Creator of one thing has to be the Creator of everything. That is to say, their pride and conceit have made them so utterly stupid they imagine to be a Possessor of Absolute Power one who is absolutely impotent and may be defeated by a fly or a microbe. Since they have abdicated their reason and humanity to this degree and have fallen lower than the animals and even inanimate beings, do not be saddened at their denial. Consider them to be a variety of harmful animal and filthy matter! Ignore them and give them no importance!
Or did they create the heavens and the earth? Nay, they have no firm belief!Qur'an, 52:36.
Or, like the mindless, confused Mu'attila, who denied God all attributes and denied the Creator, do they deny God so that they do not heed the Qur'an? In which case, let them deny the existence of the heavens and the earth, or let them say: "We created them!" Let them lose their minds altogether and begin uttering the frenzied ravings of lunacy. For in the heavens as many proofs of Divine unity are apparent and are recited as the stars, and on the earth as many as the flowers. That means they have no intention of acquiring certain knowledge and finding the truth. Otherwise how do they suppose to be without inscriber the book of the universe, in one word of which is written a whole book, although they know that a letter cannot exist without the one who wrote it.
Or are the treasuries of your Sustainer with them?Qur'an, 52:37
Or, like one group of misguided philosophers who denied Almighty God the power of choice, or like the Brahmans, do they deny the source of prophethood so that they do not believe in you? In which case, let them deny all the traces of wisdom and purpose, all the order and fruits which are apparent in all beings and demonstrate will and choice, let them deny all the works of mercy and grace, and all the miracles of all the prophets! Or let them say: "All the treasuries of the bounties given to creatures are with us and under our control." Let them prove they are not fit to be addressed! Do not be grieved at their denial, say: "God's unreasoning animals are many!"
Or are they the managers [of affairs]?Qur'an, 52:37.
Or, like the arrogant Mu'tazilites, who made the reason dominant, do they imagine themselves to be rivals to and inspectors of the Creator's works, and want to hold the All-Glorious Creator responsible? Beware, do not lose heart! Nothing can come of the denials of self-centred people like that! You do not be deceived either!
Or have they a ladder by which they can [climb up to heaven and] listen [to its secrets]? Then let [such a] listener of theirs produce a manifest proof!Qur'an, 52:38.
Or, like the spiritualists and phony soothsayers, do they follow Satan and the jinn and suppose they have found another way to the World of the Unseen? In which case, have they a ladder by which to ascend to the heavens which are closed to the satans? Do they imagine that they can give the lie to your news from the heavens? The denials of such charlatans are worth nothing!
Or has He only daughters and you have sons?Qur'an, 52:39.
Or, like the polytheist philosophers who ascribed partners to God under the name of 'the ten intellects' and 'the masters of the species,' and the Sabeans, who attributed a sort of godhead to the stars and the angels, do they ascribe offspring to Almighty God? Like the heretics and misguided, do they ascribe a son to Him, which is contrary to the necessary existence, unity, eternity, and absolute self-sufficiency of the Single and Eternally Besought One? Do they ascribe femininity to that offspring, which is opposed to the angels' worship, purity, and kind? Do they suppose it to be an intercessor for them, so that they do not follow you? Generation is the means of multiplying, mutual assistance, perpetuation, and life for creatures like man, who is contingent, transitory, and in need of perpetuating the species, is corporeal and divisible, capable of multiplying, impotent and needy for an heir to help him. So to ascribe offspring -and a sort of offspring that those impotent, contingent, wretched men did not themselves like and could not equate with their arrogant pride, that is, female offspring- to the All-Glorious One, Whose existence is necessary and perpetual, Who endures from pre-eternity to post-eternity, Whose essence is utterly remote from and exalted above corporality, Whose being is free of and exempt from division and multiplication, and Whose Power is far above and beyond all impotence, is indeed such a delirium, such a lunatic raving that the lies and denials of those wretches who subscribe to such an idea are worth nothing. You must not be deceived. The scatter-brained nonsense, the delirious ravings of every crazy lunatic, should not be heeded!
Or is it that you ask for a reward, so that they are burdened with a load of debt?Qur'an, 52:40.
Or, like the rebellious, overweening worshippers of this world, who have made a habit of greed and miserliness, do they find what you propose burdensome, so that they flee from you? Do they not know that you seek your wage and recompense from God alone? Is it a burden to give to their own poor one fortieth of the property given to them by God Almighty, or a part of it, and as a consequence both receive plenty, and be saved from the envy and curses of the poor? Do they consider the command to give zakat burdensome and therefore hold back from Islam? Their denials have no importance, and what they deserve is a slap, not an answer...
Or is it that the Unseen is in their hands, and they write it down?Qur'an, 52:41.
Or, like Buddhists, who claim to be familiar with the Unseen, or the pseudo-intellectuals, who imagine their conjectures about its affairs to be certain, does what you said about the Unseen not appeal to them? That means they imagine that the World of the Unseen, which is disclosed to no one apart from the Divine Messengers, who receive revelation, and which no one has the ability to enter, is present and laid open before them, and that they obtain information from it and write it down. So do not be disheartened by the lies of these arrogant braggarts who have overstepped their mark to an infinite degree! For in a short while your truths will completely overturn their imaginings!
Or do they intend a plot [against you]? But those who defy God are themselves involved in a plot!Qur'an, 52:42.
Or, like two-faced dissemblers and cunning atheists whose natures are corrupted and consciences rotted, do they want to deceive the people and turn them away from the guidance which they cannot obtain, to trick them, and so call you either a soothsayer, or possessed, or a sorcerer? Do they want to make others believe what they do not believe themselves? Don't think of these insidious charlatans as human beings, don't be saddened at their wiles and denials, and lose heart. Rather, increase your efforts! For they only deceive their own souls and harm themselves. And their successes in evil are temporary; it is a Divine stratagem, drawing them to perdition by degrees.
Or have they a god other than God? Exalted is God far above the things they associate with Him!Qur'an, 52:43
Or, like the Magians, who imagined two separate gods called the Creator of Good and the Creator of Evil, or like the idolators and worshippers of causes, who attribute a sort of godhead to different causes and imagine each of them to be a source of support for them, do they rely on other gods and contest you? Do they consider themselves free of any need of you? That means they have become blind and do not see the perfect order and flawless harmony throughout the universe, which is as clear as day. For in accordance with the decree,
Were there gods other than God in the heavens and the earth, there surely would have been confusion in both,Qur'an, 21:22
if there are two headmen in a village, or two governors in a town, or two kings in a country, order is turned upside down and harmony spoilt. But from a fly's wing to the lamps in the heavens, such a fine order has been observed that it leaves not so much space as a fly's wing for partners to be associated with God. Since the above act in a manner so opposed to reason, wisdom, feeling, and what is obvious, don't let their lies put you off proclaiming the Message! The Twenty-Fifth Word, The Miraculousness of the Qur'an

 

[Fivesolas]

Well, if I go away for a few days, I come back with 10 pages of replies. lol I do appreciate those who have replied, I have read most of the replies. It appears to me that whatever the Qur'an is trying to condemn concerning the Trinity, it is not historic Christianity. The response with regard to heretical sects in the early century seem to me a grasp at trying to justify the Qur'an.

One doctrine with regard to the Qur'an's representation of Jesus remains unclear to me. What does the Muslim think the Qur'an is condeming when it is condemning Jesus as being the only begotten Son of God? Does the Qur'an (Allah) think that the Christians mean that Jesus is the product of God the Father having intercourse?

 

[Woodrow]

One doctrine with regard to the Qur'an's representation of Jesus remains unclear to me. What does the Muslim think the Qur'an is condeming when it is condemning Jesus as being the only begotten Son of God? Does the Qur'an (Allah) think that the Christians mean that Jesus is the product of God the Father having intercourse?

The condemnation is the worshiping of a god in addition to Allaah(swt).

 

[Sol Invictus]

The condemnation is the worshiping of a god in addition to Allaah(swt).

greetings woodrow. while the above does not necessarily answer fivesolas' question it is an important point to bring into the discussion all the same. to get right to the point, it should be said that there is no warrant to suppose that the source of the qur'an had an accurate understanding of christian doctrine (in this case as it relates to the sonship of christ) at all. there is absolutely nothing which can be produced from the qur'an that could pass as an actual condemnation of trinitarian doctrine. every articulation of christ's divinity or whatever else is either completely wrong or a condemnation of a heresy which trinitarians condemned long before the source of the qur'an spoke a word on the matter. as such, we cannot suppose that the author of the qur'an had an accurate portrayal of the christian doctrine. there simply isn't anything in the qur'an which can be held up as a proper condemnation of christ's divinity, sonship or whatever else.

@ Chavundur: i haven't read your entire post as of yet but i somewhat fail to see the relevance that it has with the matter at hand. if however, you simply meant to give the islamic position then i suppose that i appreciate it.

 

[gmcbroom]

In Christianity mercy is highly recommended both by The Lord Jesus Christ and by his Apostles. Is mercy also preached in the Koran?

 

[Grace Seeker]

Because that type of trinity is more insolent than current type. That trinity implies Mary as a wife of God clearly.

And that "type of trinity" also does NOT represent Christian thinking with regard to THE Trinity as espoused by the Church. If and whenever some Christian(s) may have misconstrued such an idea to speak of THE Trinity, the church immediately took steps to correct that misunderstanding and has universally and continuously condemned any such views which might be understood to imply that Mary was the wife of God as being heretical. In other words, Christians reject such nonsense as much as do Muslims. Perhaps even more so, for it not only misrepresents the Trinity, it also show an improperly formed view of the incarnation and the personhood of the Father.

 

[Grace Seeker]

Dear Sol Invictus, There is four major point in Qur'an, one of them is Tawhed, There is no God but Allah, I know You know that already, You will say, This trinity doesn't resemble that one, this is a purified form of trinity, even don't use that word, Let's call it oneness of three, I know You will say. But We can not cover the light of Sun. Qur'an says Jesus (A.s) is a servant and his messenger like other prophets, He can not claim anything beyond that and also says Angel Gabriel is a servant of Allah. I think We have to discuss other issues like why oneness rejects associating partners to Allah.

I know that the odds of you understanding, or even appreciate this next statement are exceedingly small, but just on the off chance that someone get it, I still have to say it:


Should a person ever actually understand the concept of the Trinity as historically orthodox trinitarian Christians understand it, then you would know that it is meant to convey, not deny, the very idea of Oneness that you seek to stress in your concept of Tawheed. To challenge and correct those who were speaking against the oneness of God and suggesting that Jesus was somehow a different, lesser God than the Father or someone a secondary divine being who was in partnership with God was the whole reason the Nicene Creed was written in the first place. And specifically because some of our practices might indicate to the unitiated beliefs to the contrary, the whole idea of trinitas was to reaffirm that even as Christians spoke of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit in divine terminology that we Christians were still first and foremost committed to saying "One, not Three."

Obviously we have not done a very good job of conveying that message as so many here, on having read the Qur'am, seem convinced that we hold differing beliefs with regard to the Trinity than we actually do.

 

[Hamza Asadullah]

there is absolutely nothing which can be produced from the qur'an that could pass as an actual condemnation of trinitarian doctrine. .

There is absolutley NOTHING which can be produced from the Bible that could pass as even referring to the trinity in the first place let alone explaining it.

At least the Qur'an refers to it and condems such an absurd concept at a theological level but the Author of the Bible somehow forget to put it in, or is it that the trinity never existed in the first place and was just taken from greek mythology as was many of the pagan beliefs which permeated into Christianity at the time.

How could the Christian deity be so forgetful in mentioning the most fundamental concept in Christianity?

 

[Grace Seeker]

There is absolutley NOTHING which can be produced from the Bible that could pass as even referring to the trinity in the first place let alone explaining it.

At least the Qur'an refers to it and condems such an absurd concept at a theological level but the Author of the Bible somehow forget to put it in, or is it that the trinity never existed in the first place and was just taken from greek mythology as was many of the pagan beliefs which permeated into Christianity at the time.

How could the Christian deity be so forgetful in mentioning the most fundamental concept in Christianity?

The Qur'an condemns AN abusrd theological concept. However, based on what I have read in this thread, it does not condemn ANY theological concept that is actually held within Christianity.

 

[Ramadhan]

Well, if I go away for a few days, I come back with 10 pages of replies. lol I do appreciate those who have replied, I have read most of the replies. It appears to me that whatever the Qur'an is trying to condemn concerning the Trinity, it is not historic Christianity. The response with regard to heretical sects in the early century seem to me a grasp at trying to justify the Qur'an.

Did you not read a single post by muslims in this thread?

Please show me one single Qur'an ayat that condemn trinity.

I get that you christians LOVE to twist the meaning of scriptural verses, but please, not everyone is as blind you are.

 

[Hamza Asadullah]

greetings hamza. can you tell us how exactly your statements prove that she was divine? all that those statements basically said was that she was the mother of god. that very title speaks of her humanity! simply because the title may sound to you like one which invests the holder with divinity does not make it so and certainly not when no christian creed explains the title as having to do with divinity. alright, given that you have brought woodrow into this discussion, then can either of you show us that the title, theotokos, means that mary is divine? this is a very simple question. anyway, once again this is how catholics explain the title

Greetings Sol,

I have palready pasted statement after statement from early church fathers PROVING to you that Mary was seen as NOTHING short of divine as she was called the "mother of God" not speaking merely of her humanity but for the reason that it is believed she BORE GOD and so the title vested to her was of "THE MOTHER OF GOD HIMSELF!

This has been proven by the words of the church fathers who confirm that if she bore God then no doubt she is not just mother of his humanity but mother of GOD HIMSELF.

Surely this is nothing short of pure and utter blasphemy, ascribing partners to God implying that he was born of a human woman for God is beyond having any partners especially a mother to whom he was born of and suckled from.

Let us look at the statements from the early church fathers confirming their belief in the "divine" status of Mary as the mother of GOD himself:

Irenaeus

"The Virgin Mary, being obedient to his word, received from an angel the glad tidings that she would bear God" (Against Heresies, 5:19:1 [A.D. 189]).



Gregory the Wonderworker


"For Luke, in the inspired Gospel narratives, delivers a testimony not to Joseph only, but also to Mary, the Mother of God, and gives this account with reference to the very family and house of David" (Four Homilies 1 [A.D. 262]).

"It is our duty to present to God, like sacrifices, all the festivals and hymnal celebrations; and first of all, [the feast of] the Annunciation to the holy Mother of God, to wit, the salutation made to her by the angel, ‘Hail, full of grace!’" (ibid., 2).




Methodius


"While the old man [Simeon] was thus exultant, and rejoicing with exceeding great and holy joy, that which had before been spoken of in a figure by the prophet Isaiah, the holy Mother of God now manifestly fulfilled" (Oration on Simeon and Anna 7 [A.D. 305]).

"Hail to you forever, you virgin Mother of God, our unceasing joy, for unto you do I again return. . . . Hail, you fount of the Son’s love for man. . . . Wherefore, we pray you, the most excellent among women, who boast in the confidence of your maternal honors, that you would unceasingly keep us in remembrance. O holy Mother of God, remember us, I say, who make our boast in you, and who in august hymns celebrate your memory, which will ever live, and never fade away" (ibid., 14).


Cyril of Jerusalem


"The Father bears witness from heaven to his Son. The Holy Spirit bears witness, coming down bodily in the form of a dove. The archangel Gabriel bears witness, bringing the good tidings to Mary. The Virgin Mother of God bears witness" (Catechetical Lectures 10:19 [A.D. 350]).


Ephraim the Syrian


"Though still a virgin she carried a child in her womb, and the handmaid and work of his wisdom became the Mother of God" (Songs of Praise 1:20 [A.D. 351]).


Athanasius


"The Word begotten of the Father from on high, inexpressibly, inexplicably, incomprehensibly, and eternally, is he that is born in time here below of the Virgin Mary, the Mother of God" (The Incarnation of the Word of God 8 [A.D. 365]).


Epiphanius of Salamis


"Being perfect at the side of the Father and incarnate among us, not in appearance but in truth, he [the Son] reshaped man to perfection in himself from Mary the Mother of God through the Holy Spirit" (The Man Well-Anchored 75 [A.D. 374]).


Ambrose of Milan


"The first thing which kindles ardor in learning is the greatness of the teacher. What is greater than the Mother of God? What more glorious than she whom Glory Itself chose?" (The Virgins 2:2[7] [A.D. 377]).


Gregory of Nazianz


"If anyone does not agree that holy Mary is Mother of God, he is at odds with the Godhead" (Letter to Cledonius the Priest 101 [A.D. 382]).


Jerome


"As to how a virgin became the Mother of God, he [Rufinus] has full knowledge; as to how he himself was born, he knows nothing" (Against Rufinus 2:10 [A.D. 401]).

"Do not marvel at the novelty of the thing, if a Virgin gives birth to God" (Commentaries on Isaiah 3:7:15 [A.D. 409]).


Theodore of Mopsuestia


"When, therefore, they ask, ‘Is Mary mother of man or Mother of God?’ we answer, ‘Both!’ The one by the very nature of what was done and the other by relation" (The Incarnation 15 [A.D. 405]).


Cyril of Alexandria


"I have been amazed that some are utterly in doubt as to whether or not the holy Virgin is able to be called the Mother of God. For if our Lord Jesus Christ is God, how should the holy Virgin who bore him not be the Mother of God?" (Letter to the Monks of Egypt 1 [A.D. 427]).

"This expression, however, ‘the Word was made flesh’ [John 1:14], can mean nothing else but that he partook of flesh and blood like to us; he made our body his own, and came forth man from a woman, not casting off his existence as God, or his generation of God the Father, but even in taking to himself flesh remaining what he was. This the declaration of the correct faith proclaims everywhere. This was the sentiment of the holy Fathers; therefore they ventured to call the holy Virgin ‘the Mother of God,’ not as if the nature of the Word or his divinity had its beginning from the holy Virgin, but because of her was born that holy body with a rational soul, to which the Word, being personally united, is said to be born according to the flesh" (First Letter to Nestorius [A.D. 430]).

"And since the holy Virgin corporeally brought forth God made one with flesh according to nature, for this reason we also call her Mother of God, not as if the nature of the Word had the beginning of its existence from the flesh" (Third Letter to Nestorius [A.D. 430]).

"If anyone will not confess that the Emmanuel is very God, and that therefore the holy Virgin is the Mother of God, inasmuch as in the flesh she bore the Word of God made flesh [John 1:14]: let him be anathema" (ibid.).


John Cassian


"Now, you heretic, you say (whoever you are who deny that God was born of the Virgin), that Mary, the Mother of our Lord Jesus Christ, cannot be called the Mother of God, but the Mother only of Christ and not of God—for no one, you say, gives birth to one older than herself. And concerning this utterly stupid argument . . . let us prove by divine testimonies both that Christ is God and that Mary is the Mother of God" (On the Incarnation of Christ Against Nestorius 2:2 [A.D. 429]).

"You cannot then help admitting that the grace comes from God. It is God, then, who has given it. But it has been given by our Lord Jesus Christ. Therefore the Lord Jesus Christ is God. But if he is God, as he certainly is, then she who bore God is the Mother of God" (ibid., 2:5).


Council of Ephesus


"We confess, then, our Lord Jesus Christ, the only begotten Son of God, perfect God and perfect man, of a rational soul and a body, begotten before all ages from the Father in his Godhead, the same in the last days, for us and for our salvation, born of Mary the Virgin according to his humanity, one and the same consubstantial with the Father in Godhead and consubstantial with us in humanity, for a union of two natures took place. Therefore we confess one Christ, one Son, one Lord. According to this understanding of the unconfused union, we confess the holy Virgin to be the Mother of God because God the Word took flesh and became man and from his very conception united to himself the temple he took from her" (Formula of Union [A.D. 431]).


Let us look further into Mary's "divinity" according to Christianity:


Mary’s exalted position also earned her the titles Mother of God and Coredemptrix, suggesting that she played an active role in the redemption of mankind along with her son. The Mother of God title was applied early in church history, based on the notion that Jesus was fully God as well as human. This was established as a doctrine in the 4th century. In the Eastern churches this doctrine played a major devotional role and became a favorite subject for icon painters. During the Reformation era it was accepted by both Catholic and Protestant scholars, though Mary’s role in Protestant theology has declined markedly since then. Compton’s Interactive Encyclopedia (1995), under the heading “Mary”

Mary has also been given a "special" relationship with the holy ghost (one of the trinity):

Let us look at Encyclical Redemptoris Mater: "The Holy Spirit had already come down upon her, and she became his faithful spouse at the Annunciation, welcoming the Word of the true God..." (n. 26).

The Council recalls this explicitly: because of this "gift of sublime grace" Mary "far surpasses all creatures" (Lumen gentium, n. 53).

Mary's threefold relationship with the divine Persons is confirmed in precise words and with a description of the characteristic relationship which links the Mother of the Lord to the Church: "She is endowed with the high office and dignity of the Mother of the Son of God, and therefore she is also the beloved daughter of the Father and the temple of the Holy Spirit" (Lumen gentium, n. 53).

Here Pope John Paul the second says:

Mary is the "beloved daughter of the Father" in a unique way. She has been granted an utterly special likeness between her motherhood and the divine fatherhood.

Mary "is endowed with the high office and dignity of the Mother of the Son of God, and therefore she is also the beloved daughter of the Father and the temple of the Holy Spirit" (Lumen gentium, n. 53).

With this quote from the Second Vatican Council, the Holy Father expressed in concise form the Trinitarian dimension of Marian doctrine, which was the subject of his catechesis at the General Audience of Wednesday, 10 January. Here is a translation of his address, which was the 11th in the series on the Blessed Virgin and was given in Italian.


Read more about Marys "special" relationship with the "divine" trinity by Pope John Paul II:

http://www.ewtn.com/library/papaldoc/jp2bvm11.htm


You as a Protestant are trying to play down Marys divinity as oppose to Catholics as they see you as a "fundamentalist reformer". But you have clearly been proven wrong again and again and there is no doubt that the early church fathers as well as the statements above invest in the divinity of Mary and see her as BEARING GOD HIMSELF and therefore not just being the mother of the humanity of Jesus but being THE MOTHER OF GOD HIMSELF.

let us first display the verses again:

O People of the Scripture, do not commit excess in your religion or say about Allah except the truth. The Messiah, Jesus, the son of Mary, was but a messenger of Allah and His word which He directed to Mary and a soul [created at a command] from Him. So believe in Allah and His messengers. And do not say, "Three"; desist - it is better for you. Indeed, Allah is but one God. Exalted is He above having a son. To Him belongs whatever is in the heavens and whatever is on the earth. And sufficient is Allah as Disposer of affairs. --- Surah 4:171

what do we have in the above? the quote quite clearly tells us that the reference to three refers to a divine family of a father, mother, and son. notice that in surah 4:171 the characters involved are allah, mary, and christ? we have three individuals and after these persons havebeen enumerated we then have the muslim deity saying that we shouldn't say three. so after he has given an explanation of who these three individuals are, he then goes on to define that the mention of three has to do with these three and these three only. in fact, in every passage where we have the worship of three individuals by christians, it concerns allah, christ and mary.


They have certainly disbelieved who say, " Allah is the third of three [one of three]." And there is no god except one God. And if they do not desist from what they are saying, there will surely afflict the disbelievers among them a painful punishment. --- Surah 5:73

now you argue that the above has to do with an explicit condemnation of the trinity. but let me ask you, according to the qur'an, what does 'three' refer to? in every single passage where we find an interplay of three divine persons worshipped by christians, what do these individuals consists of. it is always, a father, a son, and a mother. as such, according to the qur'an, you cannot use the above as an attack on the proper trinity because never in the entire qur'an does one find the concept of "three" as relating to the father, son, and holy spirit. my argument specifically follows what the qur'an has said while yours requires us to ignore how the qur'an defines 'three' in every single passage.

can you show us from the qur'an where the muslim deity defines "three" as the father, son and holy spiriit? if you cannot then why are trying to say that surah 5:73 is a condemnation of the proper trinity when the very language used in this passage is language which the source of the qur'an uses in every single passage as a reference to a divne family consisting of a father, mother, and son. you simply do not follow the precedent set forth by your own qur'an while i in fact do. notice that simply cannot make your case from the qur'an? there is no single passage that you can show us to make us believe that "do not say (one of) three" refers to the proper trinity while i can in fact show that do not say three refers to the improper trinity. this is because in surah 4:171 the muslim deity specifically says that what he means by "do not say three" is actually a trinity in which mary is involved.

Once again for the fourth time you have ignored the challenge i have set you and that is to PROVE your position using the ORIGINAL language of the Qur'an. Why do you keep ignoring me request Sol? Why do i have to keep repeating myself?

As Chavunder explained to you earlier you CANNOT interpret and make commentaries on verses of the Qur'an which are already TRANSLATED into another language but you can ONLY make interpretations and commentaries on verses of the Qur'an using it's ORIGINAL language which is classical Arabic.

Therefore you are only exposing yourself as purposely misinterpreting and mistranslating verses of the Qur'an which have already been translated into another language when you cannot possibly do so because of the fact that the original language of the Qur'an is SO meaningful and deep that it can only be translated from its original language and in context.

The only way to do that is to have a very deep understanding of the original language of the Qur'an as well as vast knowledge of the Qur'an and Islam. So clearly you are now at a road block unless you can translate and interpret the original language in a deep and meaningful way and show us your intepretation in context.

As i have already mentioned to you in a previous post this has already been done by comentators of the Qur'an for the past 1400 years who have concluded that the verses refer to the father, son and holy spirit. Read the most famous commentaries of the Qur'an by Ibn Kathir and you will see for yourself. But me and Chavunder have not made you aware of your flaws and gross errors in trying to interpret and teanslate already translated verses of the Qur'an with which it is impossible to make commentaries on without using the original language of the Qur'an. NO comentator comments on or inteprets verses of the Qur'an which have already been translated but they do so using the original language so i hope this clarifies this matter to you.

now let me ask you, did any of these groups specifically name their three chief gods as members of a "holy trinity". did they ever use such a word or even mode of speaking? if not then why are you even able to call them holy trinities when you had claimed on the same principle that we could not do the same with what is contained in the qur'an. this is evidence of the fact that your point is baseless even to yourself or else you would not have contradicted yourself in the very same post. as such, my position remains above reproach.

There is no contradiction at all in my saying that trinities existed in other pagan religions because the concept itself is pagan and therefore can only come from pagan origins as does many of the beliefs and practices of Christianity which were unfortunatley heavily influenced by greek mythology and you know Sol what a huge influence greek mythology played in shaping Christian beliefs and practices that we see even today.

Hinduism embraced the triune godhead of Brahma, the god of creation ; Vishnu the god of maintenance and Siva the god of destruction. One of Egypt's many trinities was Horus, Isis and Osiris.

The founders of the early Christian church had no idea that the Trinity concept would evolve, be voted upon by politicians, forced by emperors and eventually become an integral part of Christianity such as we have it today. Is it any wonder that it is impossible to explain and also impossible to understand because it does not make philosophical sense.

The question isn't one about whether the trinity is mentioned in the bible, but rather how it is represented in the qur'an and if there is a condemnation of it therein. as such, i do not have to argue the above matter with you and as i said to ua:

There is NO question that the trinity is NOT mentioned in the Bible at all nor is it even referred to or mentioned ANYWHERE in any biblical referance.

It is a concept that was NOT taught by any of the Prophets including Jesus and nor was it taught by God and God would NEVER forget to mention a "fundamental concept central to christianity".

So the only conclusion is that it was created from pagan influences with which it originated from because there is NO doubt that it is NOT compatible with monotheism not does it make ANY philosophical sense.