How does the Qur'an represent Christian beliefs?

[siam]

TBDAQ -- True, But Doesn't Answer the Question.

How does this address any of the questions previously asked in the thread with regard to the Qur'an offering commentary on Christianity, or for that matter guidance with regard to Christianity?

The question has already been answered in that the Quran is a Guidance to all mankind---not just to Christians and Jews.

---as to what kind of Guidance?---there are several spheres that the Quran addresses within the framework of Tawheed, such as spirituality, social justice, liberty, economic justice...and such......These are areas that Christians and Muslims can work together to make a better world. The ethico-moral principles in the Quran are the same as those taught by Jesus Christ(pbuh).

for example, Jesus Christ(pbuh) was also against usury. The Quran sets out the ethico-moral principles of setting up an economic system based on shared risks and profits---what in bussiness terms is called "win-win". ---in today's sytem, the big banks have more to gain and the debtors have more to lose creating an imbalance. (win-lose)....

Justice is something that can be implemented by all human beings irrespective of their religious label....

 

[Sol Invictus]

The same thing could be said about the Jews and how they see christainty - If christainty is completion of the messenic prophecy why dont the Jews at large accept christainty and christ? The understanding of the OT of a christian and a Jew is very different so much so that christianty preety much does away with the law thanks to Paul while the Jews find that shocking - Can you imagine what a Jew thinks of a man being born of virgin birth, Or God actually coming down as a man - Its a total rewrite.

the first difference is that christians do not believe that the jewish scriptures are corrupt. if you were to look at the jewish scriptures you would find that repeatedly the scriptures testify that the majority of the jews would not accept what god was about to do (though jews would of course say that these verses speak of past groups etc.). furthermore, the very jewish scriptures speak of a new covenant which god would make with the jews and it would be unlike the one he made with them when he brought them out of egypt. this is referring to the mosaic covenant:

31 “The days are coming,” declares the LORD,
“when I will make a new covenant
with the people of Israel
and with the people of Judah.
32 It will not be like the covenant
I made with their ancestors
when I took them by the hand
to lead them out of Egypt,
because they broke my covenant,
though I was a husband to them,”
declares the LORD.
33 “This is the covenant I will make with the people of Israel
after that time,” declares the LORD.
“I will put my law in their minds
and write it on their hearts.
I will be their God,
and they will be my people. --- Jeremiah 31:31-33 NIV

a different word for covenant is testament. here god is saying that he will make a new testament with the children of israel. then notice the words of christ:

And he took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to them, saying, “This is my body given for you; do this in remembrance of me.” 20In the same way, after the supper he took the cup, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood, which is poured out for you. 21But the hand of him who is going to betray me is with mine on the table. 22The Son of Man will go as it has been decreed, but woe to that man who betrays him.” 23They began to question among themselves which of them it might be who would do this. --- Luke 22:19-22 NIV

the new covenant which god promised is christianity and in the same way that the old covenant was ushered in with the blood of a sacrificial lamb (Moses then took the blood, sprinkled it on the people and said, "This is the blood of the covenant that the LORD has made with you in accordance with all these words." --- Exodus 24:8 NIV), the new covenant was also ushered in by the blood of the lamb who takes away the sins of the world. christianity has a clear continuation from judaism, in fact for the first few decades it was categorized as a jewish sect. we find clear evidence within the bible pointing to a new covenant that god would make with his people as it regards christianity but there is no such line of continuation when it comes to islam. muslims themselves see this and this is why they have to claim that the words of god were corrupted (even though the bible is very clear that god's word endure forever) because they cannot establish a line of continuity if we take the bible at face value. in fact almost every religion that tries to incorporate the bible within their beliefs have to claim that the bible was somehow corrupted etc. and thus we should not really look towards it but to the new teachings of their particular prophet (whether this be muhammad, joseph smith etc. it is all the same). so while the christian can affirm the whole torah and prove their beliefs from there, the muslim and most other religions cannot and therefore have to claim that the books are corrupted in order to answer for why they cannot establish a line of continuity.

that said, according to jewish scripture god did indeed come down as a man and even ate with abraham, so it isn't that shocking. and as it regards to paul and the law, what he said was actually a very jewish thing to say. just as paul said that gentiles do not need to accept the law of moses to be saved, the jews also say the exact same thing! as a jew paul followed the law of moses but precisely because this law was only given to the jews, he said that gentiles did not need to follow it. ask any jew, they will tell you the exact same things. according to judaism the law of moses is only for the jews. so your point is moot. anyway, the main point here is that muslims, mormons, bahai's etc. cannot establish a line of succession (nowhere in the new testament do you find any mention of another covenant that god will make with the arabs etc.) and as such they are forced to say that the bible is corrupt and as such we should instead turn to the teachings of their particular leader.

 

[Zafran]

the first difference is that christians do not believe that the jewish scriptures are corrupt. if you were to look at the jewish scriptures you would find that repeatedly the scriptures testify that the majority of the jews would not accept what god was about to do (though jews would of course say that these verses speak of past groups etc.). furthermore, the very jewish scriptures speak of a new covenant which god would make with the jews and it would be unlike the one he made with them when he brought them out of egypt. this is referring to the mosaic covenant:

31 “The days are coming,” declares the LORD,
“when I will make a new covenant
with the people of Israel
and with the people of Judah.
32 It will not be like the covenant
I made with their ancestors
when I took them by the hand
to lead them out of Egypt,
because they broke my covenant,
though I was a husband to them,”
declares the LORD.
33 “This is the covenant I will make with the people of Israel
after that time,” declares the LORD.
“I will put my law in their minds
and write it on their hearts.
I will be their God,
and they will be my people. --- Jeremiah 31:31-33 NIV

a different word for covenant is testament. here god is saying that he will make a new testament with the children of israel. then notice the words of christ:

And he took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to them, saying, “This is my body given for you; do this in remembrance of me.” 20In the same way, after the supper he took the cup, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood, which is poured out for you. 21But the hand of him who is going to betray me is with mine on the table. 22The Son of Man will go as it has been decreed, but woe to that man who betrays him.” 23They began to question among themselves which of them it might be who would do this. --- Luke 22:19-22 NIV

the new covenant which god promised is christianity and in the same way that the old covenant was ushered in with the blood of a sacrificial lamb (Moses then took the blood, sprinkled it on the people and said, "This is the blood of the covenant that the LORD has made with you in accordance with all these words." --- Exodus 24:8 NIV), the new covenant was also ushered in by the blood of the lamb who takes away the sins of the world. christianity has a clear continuation from judaism, in fact for the first few decades it was categorized as a jewish sect. we find clear evidence within the bible pointing to a new covenant that god would make with his people as it regards christianity but there is no such line of continuation when it comes to islam. muslims themselves see this and this is why they have to claim that the words of god were corrupted (even though the bible is very clear that god's word endure forever) because they cannot establish a line of continuity if we take the bible at face value. in fact almost every religion that tries to incorporate the bible within their beliefs have to claim that the bible was somehow corrupted etc. and thus we should not really look towards it but to the new teachings of their particular prophet (whether this be muhammad, joseph smith etc. it is all the same). so while the christian can affirm the whole torah and prove their beliefs from there, the muslim and most other religions cannot and therefore have to claim that the books are corrupted in order to answer for why they cannot establish a line of continuity.

that said, according to jewish scripture god did indeed come down as a man and even ate with abraham, so it isn't that shocking. and as it regards to paul and the law, what he said was actually a very jewish thing to say. just as paul said that gentiles do not need to accept the law of moses to be saved, the jews also say the exact same thing! as a jew paul followed the law of moses but precisely because this law was only given to the jews, he said that gentiles did not need to follow it. ask any jew, they will tell you the exact same things. according to judaism the law of moses is only for the jews. so your point is moot. anyway, the main point here is that muslims, mormons, bahai's etc. cannot establish a line of succession (nowhere in the new testament do you find any mention of another covenant that god will make with the arabs etc.) and as such they are forced to say that the bible is corrupt and as such we should instead turn to the teachings of their particular leader.

This is all nice and good but talking to alot of Jews they definitly dont regard Jesus pbuh as God, or the messiah and most of them say that christians either misrepresent the OT and misread it to support there own NT narrative (which you clearly did and would say muslims do the same thing). It has no serious bearing to any Jew. If all the evidence was so clear why dont the Jews convert to christainty and accept Jesus as the messaih and bow down to him as there God - Face it your preaching is seen by the people that were given the OT (Jews) as a joke just the way you see Mormonism or any other religion.

Indeed Muslim can see passages affirming a prophet from the OT and some statements from the NT - Im sure your well aware of them - "One of them is a prophet unto Moses" - The christains say this is talking about christ, The muslims say its about Muhammad pbuh - Ofcourse theres also the famous Ishmeal will be a great nation line as well. So we have enough proof for own beliefs - where we will say the bible as been "changed" is where stories of prophets like David pbuh doing not so Godly actions in the OT.

Mormonism still believe Jesus pbuh is the messiah and I've never heard them say that the Torah and NT are corrupted. Never met a bahi but they probably be in the same line as the Ahmeddiya movement.

 

[Sol Invictus]

This is all nice and good but talking to alot of Jews they definitly dont regard Jesus pbuh as God, or the messiah and most of them say that christians either misrepresent the OT and misread it to support there own NT narrative (which you clearly did and would say muslims do the same thing). It has no serious bearing to any Jew. If all the evidence was so clear why dont the Jews convert to christainty and accept Jesus as the messaih and bow down to him as there God - Face it your preaching is seen by the people that were given the OT (Jews) as a joke just the way you see Mormonism or any other religion.

Indeed Muslim can see passages affirming a prophet from the OT and some statements from the NT - Im sure your well aware of them - "One of them is a prophet unto Moses" - The christains say this is talking about christ, The muslims say its about Muhammad pbuh - Ofcourse theres also the famous Ishmeal will be a great nation line as well. So we have enough proof for own beliefs - where we will say the bible as been "changed" is where stories of prophets like David pbuh doing not so Godly actions in the OT.

Mormonism still believe Jesus pbuh is the messiah and I've never heard them say that the Torah and NT are corrupted. Never met a bahi but they probably be in the same line as the Ahmeddiya movement.

greetings zafran, as it regards the matter of the jews, my point is to stress that the christian can prove their beliefs from the old testament and as such does not need to claim that it has been corrupted. the muslim on the other hand cannot. if you could then you would not say that it is corrupted. the prophecies about muhammad cannot be proven by using the bible (i remember a similar discussion about the one about whether muhammad is the comforter spoken of in the gospel of john and it ended with the claim that muslims could not prove this from the bible because once again, the bible is so corrupt that any proof the muslim would have had has been removed) and if you don't believe this, you can start another a thread on these as well and i can already tell you that it will end with the claim that the bible is corrupt which is why you can't prove your point as it regards the passages you cite. i do encourage you to start such a thread because in my experience, they always end the same way. if we take the bible at face value than the muslim cannot prove their beliefs which is once again why the muslim claim is that the old and new testament are corrupt. they would not need to claim this if they could actually prove what they were saying.

as it relates to the matter of judaism and christianity, you seem to forget that christianity was started by jews and was characterized as a jewish movement and so your claim is rendered null. islam on the other hand began not in israel but in saudi arabia by the arabs. it isn't a matter of trying to prove why jews at large don't believe in christianity simply for the fact that christianity was itself started by the jews! so no, your point does not work in this case either.

both mormons and bahais believe that one should primarily look at their new revelations. and as such, they do in fact believe that where the bible says that it is the final fulfillment of the promises of god etc. we should ignore this because the fulfillment is actually whatever book it is that they adhere to (whether this be the qur'an, or the book of mormon etc.).

 

[Zafran]

greetings zafran, as it regards the matter of the jews, my point is to stress that the christian can prove their beliefs from the old testament and as such does not need to claim that it has been corrupted. the muslim on the other hand cannot. if you could then you would not say that it is corrupted. the prophecies about muhammad cannot be proven by using the bible (i remember a similar discussion about the one about whether muhammad is the comforter spoken of in the gospel of john and it ended with the claim that muslims could not prove this from the bible because once again, the bible is so corrupt that any proof the muslim would have had has been removed) and if you don't believe this, you can start another a thread on these as well and i can already tell you that it will end with the claim that the bible is corrupt which is why you can't prove your point as it regards the passages you cite. i do encourage you to start such a thread because in my experience, they always end the same way. if we take the bible at face value than the muslim cannot prove their beliefs which is once again why the muslim claim is that the old and new testament are corrupt. they would not need to claim this if they could actually prove what they were saying.

as it relates to the matter of judaism and christianity, you seem to forget that christianity was started by jews and was characterized as a jewish movement and so your claim is rendered null. islam on the other hand began not in israel but in saudi arabia by the arabs. it isn't a matter of trying to prove why jews at large don't believe in christianity simply for the fact that christianity was itself started by the jews! so no, your point does not work in this case either.

both mormons and bahais believe that one should primarily look at their new revelations. and as such, they do in fact believe that where the bible says that it is the final fulfillment of the promises of god etc. we should ignore this because the fulfillment is actually whatever book it is that they adhere to (whether this be the qur'an, or the book of mormon etc.).

so why havent the Jews accepted Jesus pbuh as there messaih if you can "prove" it from the OT - I also give you proof from the OT but you seem to ignore that look at my post again and see that muslims as well can prove there religion from the OT which I just did in my last post. So your point is null and viod - you seem to like going in christian circles without actaully reading what one writes. Its annoying.

By the way a history lesson saudi never existed until the 1920s. Islam began with Adam pbuh and is the religion of Abhrham pbuh.

 

[Sol Invictus]

so why havent the Jews accepted Jesus pbuh as there messaih if you can "prove" it from the OT - I also give you proof from the OT but you seem to ignore that look at my post again and see that muslims as well can prove there religion from the OT which I just did in my last post. So your point is null and viod - you seem to like going in christian circles without actaully reading what one writes. Its annoying.

the fact is that the jews did in fact accept christianity. are you forgetting that the immediate leaders of the early church were all jewish? are you forgetting that at the very least until 70 AD christianity was classified as a sect within judaism? are you forgetting about the very jews who looked to their torah and saw that christianity was the truth? are these not jews? the fact that christianity was started by the jews themselves completely refutes your point. unlike islam, and i do not mean this as an insult, christianity is not a religion started by an outside group who did not possess the torah nor study it but rather it was started by jews themselves who attended the synagogue and meditated on the torah. it is was a jewish movemnt started by jews themselves. this is not true of islam.

that said, what proof from the torah have i ignored.

By the way a history lesson saudi never existed until the 1920s. Islam began with Adam pbuh and is the religion of Abhrham pbuh.

good point. while i was speaking of the area which we now call saudi arabia i'm perfectly willing to concede this point. though that said, it is not a history lesson that islam began with adam. there is no record of the term muslim nor islam before the advent of muhammad. you can certainly believe that islam is the original religion but you cannot somehow claim it to be a fact of history that it is as such.

 

[Zafran]

the fact is that the jews did in fact accept christianity. are you forgetting that the immediate leaders of the early church were all jewish? are you forgetting that at the very least until 70 AD christianity was classified as a sect within judaism? are you forgetting about the very jews who looked to their torah and saw that christianity was the truth? are these not jews? the fact that christianity was started by the jews themselves completely refutes your point. unlike islam, and i do not mean this as an insult, christianity is not a religion started by an outside group who did not possess the torah nor study it but rather it was started by jews themselves who attended the synagogue and meditated on the torah. it is was a jewish movemnt started by jews themselves. this is not true of islam.

that said, what proof from the torah have i ignored.


good point. while i was speaking of the area which we now call saudi arabia i'm perfectly willing to concede this point. though that said, it is not a history lesson that islam began with adam. there is no record of the term muslim nor islam before the advent of muhammad. you can certainly believe that islam is the original religion but you cannot somehow claim it to be a fact of history that it is as such.

If you want to read selectively thats fine by me - clearly you've shown here that Jews are still Jews and have not accepted christainty - on purpose your not reading my post fully and second by claiming that a small minority of Jews represent the entire Jewish faith. The vast majority of the Jews dont accept christainty and its view on there book. Indeed many Jews accpeted Islam at the time of the prophet as well - but why are the Jews still Jews today and havent accepted christ as there messaih - but as your good at not answering questions I dont expect a rational reply.

 

[Sol Invictus]

If you want to read selectively thats fine by me - clearly you've been exposed here that Jews are still Jews and have not accepted christainty.

greetings zafran, if we're going to ignore the very founders of christianity, and the fact that the early church was entirely jewish, or the fact that christianity was considered to be a jewish sect by both jews and christians, and if we're going to claim that the messainic jews (something you should look up) we have with us today are not in fact jewish, then i suppose i suppose that you have a point but given that i for one do not choose to ignore this, i will have to disagree with you. that said, we have gone really off-topic and perhaps it would be best if any subsequent discussion was done in a new thread. i will however give you the last word in order to say whatever else you feel that you might wish to say.

 

[Zafran]

greetings zafran, if we're going to ignore the very founders of christianity, and the fact that the early church was entirely jewish, or the fact that christianity was considered to be a jewish sect by both jews and christians, and if we're going to claim that the messainic jews (something you should look up) we have with us today are not in fact jewish, then i suppose i suppose that you have a point but given that i for one do not choose to ignore this, i will have to disagree with you. that said, we have gone really off-topic and perhaps it would be best if any subsequent discussion was done in a new thread. i will however give you the last word in order to say whatever else you feel that you might wish to say.

why havent the Jews today not accepted that christ as there messaih when clearly vast majority of them balme christians of misrepresenting there book? (this is third time I'm asking this) - but as your clearly running away thats fine by me if you cant answer the glaring question.

 

[Tyrion]

From my understanding, the Quran acknowledges a trinity in the Christian belief, and denounces any form of it. There are other verses that talk about a specific kind of trinitarian belief that was apparently popular at the time, which included Mary... Pretty sure that group existed in the past, and we still see forms of Mary worship in certain Christian groups today... It's odd that someone mentioned that the Quran had a confused or incorrect view of the trinity, when it seems (just by looking at history or the different Christian sects) that the Christians themselves have never really understood or been able to consistently define the trinity... IMO anyway.

 

[Umm AbdurRahman]

there is no record of the term muslim nor islam before the advent of muhammad. you can certainly believe that islam is the original religion but you cannot somehow claim it to be a fact of history that it is as such.

If you say this, then can you prove from the OT and NT , the term "Christianity" or "Christians" anywhere mentioned? And btw i really wanted to know when was the term Christian used for the very first time and by whom.

Was it used by Jesus pbuh himself to describe his followers? OR was it coined by somebody else?

 

[Sol Invictus]

If you say this, then can you prove from the OT and NT , the term "Christianity" or "Christians" anywhere mentioned? And btw i really wanted to know when was the term Christian used for the very first time and by whom.

Was it used by Jesus pbuh himself to describe his followers? OR was it coined by somebody else?

greetings, i believe that if we're going to get sidetracked like this, we should really start a new thread but i must also ask you what the above has to do with the claim that islam historically is not the first religion? more than simply proving where the name comes from one should look at what the teachings were and it's quite clear that the earliest christians believed in the death, ressurection and deity of christ. this is attested by both christians themselves and non-christians. moreover, are you seriously going to place doubt with the word christians when your qur'an itself uses this to speak of the people of the book? can you find me a passage within the qur'an where allah condemns the christians for calling themselves christians? if not, why are you trying to raise doubts that your own deity never raised?

once again, we are getting off-topic and any further talk should be done within another thread.

 

[Umm AbdurRahman]

there is no record of the term muslim nor islam before the advent of muhammad. you can certainly believe that islam is the original religion but you cannot somehow claim it to be a fact of history that it is as such.

You said that, dint you? i just questioned you back, asking about Christianity.... Because i dont know how you people call yourselves Christians (Followers of Christ) when Jesus PBUH never himself addressed you people as that !!!

And i don't want to create doubts, May God protect us all. Ameen.

It would be a good idea to start a new thread. You could do so.

 

[Sol Invictus]

You said that, dint you? i just questioned you back, asking about Christianity.... Because i dont know how you people call yourselves Christians (Followers of Christ) when Jesus PBUH never himself addressed you people as that !!!

greetings, i am more surprised that you would find issue with that given that allah in the qur'an calls christians, "christians" all the time. if we are wrong for using this name than would the muslim deity be equally as wrong? and could you please direct us to the passage where he says that christians have been using the wrong name for themselves? if there is no such condemnation within the qur'an, then where are you getting your objection from seeing as allah was perfectly fine with using the term 'christians'.

And i don't want to create doubts, May God protect us all. Ameen.

on this point we are in agreement.

It would be a good idea to start a new thread. You could do so.

i appreciate the offer but given that this was your query and it was you who wished for an answer on the subject and not me, i would think that you would have to be the one to start this thread. that is of course if your question hasn't been already answered.

and now, in an attempt to get this thread back on topic (seeing as my post seem to arouse quite the response): on reading this thread it would seem that the general muslim position is that the muslim deity does not speak of the trinity within the qur'an. can we christians take this to be the general opinion of muslims? and if he doesn't speak of the trinity, why is this the case (given that this was the prevalent belief at the time of the islamic prophet as it concerns christianity)?

 

[Ubeyde]

and now, in an attempt to get this thread back on topic (seeing as my post seem to arouse quite the response): on reading this thread it would seem that the general muslim position is that the muslim deity does not speak of the trinity within the qur'an. can we christians take this to be the general opinion of muslims? and if he doesn't speak of the trinity, why is this the case (given that this was the prevalent belief at the time of the islamic prophet as it concerns christianity)?

The Quran does not teach of the Trinity because there is no Trinity according to Islamic teachings. To believe in the Trinity is to believe in Shirk- i.e. Polytheism.
Christians are not quoted in Arabic as Christians also, it is used in the Translations of the Holy Qur'an so that we know who Allah is talking about.

As I stated in my first post, some time ago, that the Qur'an tells Muslims to offer glad tidings to the Christians or People of the Book.

 

[Tyrion]

seem that the general muslim position is that the muslim deity does not speak of the trinity within the qur'an.

But there IS mention of the trinity... Right? Read my post...

 

[Ubeyde]

I am not Hafiz of the Quran but I am pretty sure there is no mention of a Trinity of anysort within the Qur'an as that would be a contradiction to the fundamental belief of Muslims, i.e. there is only one God worthy of worship.

Yes we believe in the Virgin Mary, Yes we believe in the Archangel Gabriel and yes we believe that Jesus (PBUH) was one of the best Prophets (PBUT).

But we do not add them to our prayers- we may ask Allah Ta'ala to bless these persons, but never ascribe them in worship with our Lord.

 

[Tyrion]

I am not Hafiz of the Quran but I am pretty sure there is no mention of a Trinity of anysort within the Qur'an as that would be a contradiction to the fundamental belief of Muslims, i.e. there is only one God worthy of worship.

Yes we believe in the Virgin Mary, Yes we believe in the Archangel Gabriel and yes we believe that Jesus (PBUH) was one of the best Prophets (PBUT).

But we do not add them to our prayers- we may ask Allah Ta'ala to bless these persons, but never ascribe them in worship with our Lord.

*Sigh* You didn't read my post did you? Actually, I'm not even sure if you read the OP... Nobody here is trying to say that the Quran is promoting the Trinity. The question being asked was how the Quran represents Christian beliefs. There are verses that mention the trinity, not to promote it, but to denounce it as falsehood. There are other verses that mention a specific kind of trinity that included Mary, since this was a belief that was present at that time. Please read before you post.

O People of the Book! Commit no excesses in your religion: Nor say of Allah aught but the truth. Christ Jesus the son of Mary was (no more than) a messenger of Allah, and His Word, which He bestowed on Mary, and a spirit proceeding from Him: so believe in Allah and His messengers. Say not "Trinity" : desist: it will be better for you: for Allah is one Allah: Glory be to Him: (far exalted is He) above having a son. To Him belong all things in the heavens and on earth. And enough is Allah as a Disposer of affairs. (4:171, Yusuf Ali)

They do blaspheme who say: "Allah is Christ the son of Mary." But said Christ: "O Children of Israel! worship Allah, my Lord and your Lord." Whoever joins other gods with Allah,- Allah will forbid him the garden, and the Fire will be his abode. There will for the wrong-doers be no one to help. (5:72, Yusuf Ali)

They do blaspheme who say: Allah is one of three in a Trinity: for there is no god except One Allah. If they desist not from their word (of blasphemy), verily a grievous penalty will befall the blasphemers among them. (5:73, Yusuf Ali)

And behold! Allah will say: "O Jesus the son of Mary! Didst thou say unto men, worship me and my mother as gods in derogation of Allah'?" He will say: "Glory to Thee! never could I say what I had no right (to say). Had I said such a thing, thou wouldst indeed have known it. Thou knowest what is in my heart, Thou I know not what is in Thine. For Thou knowest in full all that is hidden. (5:116, Yusuf Ali)

 

[Sol Invictus]

greetings tyrion. at the moment you seem to be the only person here who believes that the qur'an speaks against the trinity. to be sure, i quite think that you are correct but it is precisely because the qur'an speaks against what it thinks is the trinity that we have a problem. when we examine the verses that we should take as a condemnation of the trinity, we find that they are all formulated improperly and this is incorrect. it is kinda like if i were claiming to speak against the concept of tawhid but in my condemnation of what i thought to be tawhid i started condemning the erroneous position held by the nation of islam that allah was w. fard muhammad. anyway, let us examine some of the passages from the qur'an that you have brought up because yusuf ali does something fairly interesting with his translation.

O People of the Book! Commit no excesses in your religion: Nor say of Allah aught but the truth. Christ Jesus the son of Mary was (no more than) a messenger of Allah, and His Word, which He bestowed on Mary, and a spirit proceeding from Him: so believe in Allah and His messengers. Say not "Trinity" : desist: it will be better for you: for Allah is one Allah: Glory be to Him: (far exalted is He) above having a son. To Him belong all things in the heavens and on earth. And enough is Allah as a Disposer of affairs. (4:171, Yusuf Ali)

actually, the word trinity is not in that passage and what allah had actually said was "say not three". the arabic word for the holy trinity is "al-thaaluuth al-aqdas" and yet in the above we find not this term but rather "thalaathatun" (wa-laa taqooloo thalaathatun) which once more would be translated as "say not three". this is how it is translated in the sahih international version, pickthall's version, shakir's version among others. now, i ask you, was allah unaware of what the actual arabic word for the trinity was? if allah chose to use the word three then where does yusuf ali get the right to change the words allah had used. furthermore, he doesn't include the word trinity in brackets in order to let the reader know that this is his own inclusion and not what allah said but rather passes his revision of the text as if it were revealed that way by the source of the qur'an. that's something to think about.

They do blaspheme who say: "Allah is Christ the son of Mary." But said Christ: "O Children of Israel! worship Allah, my Lord and your Lord." Whoever joins other gods with Allah,- Allah will forbid him the garden, and the Fire will be his abode. There will for the wrong-doers be no one to help. (5:72, Yusuf Ali)

the above is another error but this time it is not the fault of yusuf ali (though we should note that in the arabic, the word blaspheme is not there. this is not to say that there is no condemnation present but rather yusuf ali once again substitutes his own words for the word that the muslim deity had used in the arabic text). the fact of the matter is that it is fundamentally wrong to say that god is jesus. no trinitarian has ever said this and you will never find this formulation in any trinitarian creed. the statement has always been "jesus is god". the claim that god is jesus actually teaches the heresy of sabellianism and this was condemned by trinitarians hundreds of years before the advent of islam. in recent years, it would seem that muslims have picked up on this:

This is not a modern idea, but one that has been held by Christians throughout the centuries. This was even noted by Muslim author Neal Robinson, who makes mention of an ancient Nestorian reference:

... The text which dates from around 550 CE. concludes a discussion of the Trinity with the words ‘The Messiah is God but God is not the Messiah’. The Qur'an echoes only the latter half of the statement. C. Schedl, Muhammad and Jesus (Vienna: Herder, 1978), p. 531. (Robinson, Christ In Islam and Christianity [State University of New York Press, Albany 1991], p. 197; bold emphasis mine)

once again, we are left to wonder why the source of the qur'an incorrectly formulated the christian belief?

They do blaspheme who say: Allah is one of three in a Trinity: for there is no god except One Allah. If they desist not from their word (of blasphemy), verily a grievous penalty will befall the blasphemers among them. (5:73, Yusuf Ali)

once again we find that yusuf ali changes the actual words of the muslim deity (as an aside, notice once again that he adds blaspheme in there when that is not the word that the muslim deity used...but this is only a minor point). what i have placed in bold is actually not in the arabic text and yusuf ali once again tries to pass these off as the words spoken by the muslim deity by not at least placing them within parentheses to show that these are his own words. you will note that most translators correctly translate the above as:

They surely disbelieve who say: Lo! Allah is the third of three; when there is no Allah save the One Allah. If they desist not from so saying a painful doom will fall on those of them who disbelieve. --- Pickthall

Certainly they disbelieve who say: Surely Allah is the third (person) of the three; and there is no god but the one Allah, and if they desist not from what they say, a painful chastisement shall befall those among them who disbelieve. --- Shakir

They have certainly disbelieved who say, " Allah is the third 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. --- Sahih International

the above are the proper translations yet the problem is that they are all in error. never is the father (whom allah is identified with throughout the qur'an and islamic tradition) called the third member of the trinity. you will never find it in any christian text. the father is the first person, the son the second, and the holy spirit the third. furthermore, the trinity is not defined as one of three but rather three in one. yusuf ali actually sees that if he were to only go along with the words that allah used then he would be in error. hence why quite ironically, it is only in mistranslating the words of the muslim deity that he at all gets the trinity correctly and that in itself is telling. now, you might find nothing wrong with that but we certainly can't get past the fact that if we only go by the words of the muslim deity and not by the alterations of yusuf ali, then we have ourselves clear errors in the formulation of the christian doctrine. this is why in one of my previous posts i had said that in recent years, muslims have moved away from claiming that there are any clear condemnations of the trinity within the qur'an because every single passage that is brought up is actually completely wrong.

 

[Sol Invictus]

There are other verses that mention a specific kind of trinity that included Mary, since this was a belief that was present at that time.

i just noticed the above. first off, there is no proof that collyridians had an altered trinity which substituted mary for the holy spirit. where are you getting this? sure they worshiped mary as a goddess but this is not the same as adding her to the trinity. if anything they would now possess two gods, the one triune god and mary. the biggest source of information we have one this heresy comes from the panarion and nowhere does it say that mary became a member of the trinity. furthermore, this heresy was present in 375 AD, there is absolutely no evidence that it still existed in the time of muhammad. if it were the case that it existed, where are the christian texts which date to the time of the islamic prophet which speak concerning this heresy? this in itself is one of the most important points. there is absolutely no text which condemns the practices of christians who worship mary during the time of the prophet; if collyridianism still existed then it would have been condemned among the other heresies but it is not. so once again we have a claim that is completely unsupported. what is likely is that after this heresy died out, it was still within the "thought-world" of the arabs and because of these heretics, the arabs would have thought that the trinity consisted of a father, a mother and a son. this explains why, while there are condemnations of an improper trinity consisting of the father, mary and christ within the qur'an, there is absolutely no condemnation of the proper trinity (consisting of the father, the son, and the holy spirit). we cannot ignore this point. why would the muslim deity not mention that the holy spirit was only the angel gabriel and not divine? why is there no such condemnation within the qur'an? the simple answer is because the source of the qur'an simply did not possess accurate knowledge of the trinity and thought that the trinity included mary and not the holy spirit. if you don't believe this then simply read through the qur'an and tell us what is the only type of "trinity" which is condemned within he qur'an? it certainly isn't the proper trinity.