greetings hamza, you've forced me to post another response within this thread much sooner than i would have liked. but be that as it may, it's best that i replied as soon as i could because after i've shown the errors within the above post, i would very much like for you to try again seeing as your response is certainly one of the better one's that this thread has seen (and once again i encourage all our muslim brothers and sisters to participate).
look at my response, even if we admit this to be true it still does not change the error seeing as we're talking about the trinity.
hamza, do you know who william blake is? or did you just use the quote because he formulated the christian creed as erroneously as the qur'an? for one thing, william blake was opposed to christianity as it was in his day. furthermore and more importantly, he believed that everyone was god. god is you, god is me, and yes, god is jesus. now let me make one more comment on the matter of sources before we continue: why is it that you brought a heretic* (one that lived a little over a thousand years after muhammad) in order to prove a point as it concerns christianity. did the muslim deity have william blake in mind when it revealed that verse? did it have a sort of new age pantheism in mind? would it be perfectly alright for me to quote from members of the nation of islam to prove a point against sunni muslims? would it be alright for me to quote from shia hadith collections in order to prove a point against sunni muslims? william blake didn't even belief in the trinity and so we must really ask ourselves why you have no qualms with quoting an individual who does not even believe this at all when you would be against the same practise if i did this in respect to sunni muslims and members of the nation of islam.
this is actually where things get good. would it be alright to assume that william craig has not said that "god is jesus"? i'm sure he hasn't and from your post it doesn't look like it and so we must actually look at the meaning contained in the example you have brought forth. you have correctly said that the claim "god is love" does not mean "love is god"** and so we must ask ourselves, what does the former actually mean? "god is love" means that god possesses love, while the statement "god is jesus" means that jesus possesses divinity (this is true only if we follow the grammatical rule of "god is love" because if we don't then it merely means what i said in the first place, i.e. that this refers to the sabellian heresy. i'm only following the example of "god is love" because this statement was brought up by yourself). you'll note that you did say that it is not a statement of identity and as such is therefore a statement of possession (the matter becomes a bit complex because possession and identity could go hand in hand but if we are to follow the very example that you yourself have given then my point is on the right course) and if this is the case then once again we do not have the trinitarian christian understanding that jesus is himself god but merely that jesus was divine (more specifically, jesus is divine though he is himself not god a la "god is love/love is god" or rather "god is love/love is not god"). this leads us to arianism which once again was condemned by the early church. the above was very messy and while no matter how you argue it, the saying still leads to a condemnation of a heresy, i believe that the real condemnation is that of sabellianism simply for the fact that if the source of the qur'an wanted to condemn arianism and more importantly, if his words were not concerning identity but predication along the lines of god is love, then he really could have done so in a much easier manner. your point failed when you brought up the matter of god is love because when this logic is used we end up with another incorrect formulation of the christian doctrine (i wasn't kidding when i said that there are numerous ways to formulate the christian doctrine incorrectly and you have once again simply proved my point).
* ironically, i was the first to say that this passage did not condemn the christian claim but the heresy of sabellianism and as such it could not be used against trinitarians. you now quote a heretic in order to prove (what exactly is your position here. if the passage truly is directed at a heresy then why do you seem to be arguing against my point) that my position is wrong and i'm certainly at a loss here. i've claimed that the formulation is heretical and cannot be used to condemn the proper christian doctrine...you then quote a heretic as a way of somehow undermining my claim and so i must ask you how exactly this disproves my point?
** i could actually end here seeing as even your claim shows that "god is jesus" is not the same thing as "jesus is god" (in the same regard as "god is love" is not the same as "love is god"). this is precisely what i had argued in the first place. that is, if your claim is correct then following the logic you have shown us above, we could not say "jesus is god" (this once again is exactly what arians would believe) and as such cannot be used to condemn the actual christian claim. the more we look to these passages the more they cease to actually be talking about trinitarian (i.e. the biggest group of christians at all).
actually, you're making him say something he does not actually say. notice that the word attribute is in brackets. he is not using this in the very same sense as "love is an attribute of god" and you even get this understanding when he starts talking about the wisdom of god in old testament literature and how this was to be distinguished from how the attributes of god were commonly spoken of:
does goodness have an independent existence other than from god? or does omniscience, or does justice? i certainly don't know how muslims understand this but christians don't believe so. god is the very source of goodness and goodness could not exist independently of him. if christ were merely an attribute in the sense that you speak of then the writer could then not speak of christ as having an independent existence. you will note that if you were to claim, that for instance, justice or goodness etc. had an independent existence from god then we would be right back to euthyphro's dilemma and christians certainly don't agree with such an outcome. from the above, we can see that the author certainly does not mean to use the word in the manner that you try to use it but let us suppose that you were right. what would it prove? did the qur'an have this individual in mind when it revealed this verse? why is that you have been unable to back your points from trinitarian creeds but have consistently used words of heretics, and people who hold no position over other christians. can we find what you are arguing for within the christian creeds and more particularly, those around the time of muhammad? if these passages are not directed against what trinitarians believe then it does not change the fact that we have ourselves no condemnation of the trinitarian doctrine for all your references turn out to be condemning something else and never a teaching of the christian church. if what you have presented above is a perfectly good argument then is it alright for me to go to a muslim website which believes that the bible teaches that the christian conception of sonship refers to god having intercourse with mary and bringing this as the position of the qur'an and/or islam? i would be doing the same thing that you have done and yet i doubt that you would agree with this. the fact of the matter is that you have yet to prove your point from the actual teachings of the church. no one denies that you will be able to find things by heretics and layman that might 'prove' your point but the question is whether this is actually taught by trinitarians. all you've shown so far is that we have yet to find an actual condemnation of the christian (and particularly trinitarian doctrine) within the qur'an.
this has already been refuted above. even if we say that this is predication, by the very logic that you've used, the qur'an would then be denying and another heresy; arianism. the matter has not changed, we are still unable to find a condemnation of the christian doctrine within the qur'an.
hamza, you've just changed my question. no one is asking for the qur'an to condemn all various heresies, rather we're simply asking for a passage where the qur'an actually condemns the trinity. it's a bit surprising that it would seem that the qur'an would go into such detailed condemnations--or rather it commits the same misformulations of the trinitarian doctrine as others have held in the past--and yet cannot mention that god is not existent as the father, the son, and the holy spirit. every single references to the three divine persons that christians supposedly worship is a reference that includes not the holy spirit but rather mary. if we let the qur'an interpret itself then we find that the only trinity detailed within it's pages is one that includes mary. if the qur'an is so busy giving detailed condemnations of heresies that trinitarians themselves condemned hundreds of years earlier, then the only logical conclusion is to suppose that it has also condemned the trinity but when we look at what the qur'anic trinity actually is, we find that mary is always included in the list and the holy spirit is never there.
the fact that hasn't changed all throughout this debate is that there is no condemnation of the trinitarian doctrine within the qur'an. any mention of three always refers to a divine family of a father, a mother, and a son--that is not the trinity. every christological doctrine turns out to be condemning heresies (rather these are misformulations but quite ironically, by condemning a misformulation of the christological doctrines, it actually succeeded in condemning heresies already condemned by the trinitarians themselves). that said, a major problem with your post is that you sources are inappropriate and if our situations were reversed, you would never accept the words of a heretic or of a layman (when they stand in contrast to what is taught by your religion). can you now try again but this time citing actually trinitarian sources when you wish to make claims which are so against the trinitarian creeds? the matter is quite simple, please simply shows us sources from the creeds of the early church and those people who "invented" the trinity when you make claims which are contrast with how the creeds are rendered. you would tell me the same thing if i were using, sufi, shia, or statements made by members of the nation of islam or even laymen when these are contrary to what is taught.
i'll be waiting for your post hamza.
Greetings Sol,
What is clearly established from my previous post is that the Qur'an has not made any errors at all simply because it does NOT stipulate or explain what the "three" consist of nor does it give any order of the "three" and nor does it need to in the very first place. If someone is accused of something they do not need to mention the whole concept but you would obviously understand what they are trying to say if they mention a word that indicates the very thing they are accused of in the first place.
In the same way when Allah mentions such a concept in order to condem it why would he need to mention what the three consist of and what order the three go into?
Therefore it is clear that is NO need to go into any detail of the concept of "three" simply because we all understand what is being implied so it is impossible for you or anyone else to falsely say that it has made a mistake simply because it has not go into depth regarding the mention of "three" so how can the verses have made a mistake in the first place when it has not actually said anything wrong at all. Again ithose verses simply stated "do not say that Allah is one of the three" without stipulating what the three consists of and what the order of the three is. So saying this you cannot possibly say that there is a mistake for implying such a thing is a gross error in itself.
Also when looking at the verse in context of the verse where the whole idea of ascribing partners to Allah then why does the Qur'an need to go into detail about the "three" when it is simply rejecting the principle of such a concept in the first place?
Surely if this verse is an error as you falsely state then Christians at the time of Prophet Muhammad (Pbuh) would have attacked these verses but they never did and nor did any Christians in the past 1000 years or so except a few apologetics who like to imply that which is not there in the first place.
So let us put it this way: The Qur'an has not mentioned anything about the "three" to have made any errors in the first place so your criticism of such verses are nonsensical and do not make sense at all.
So for you to say that these verses are in error is very clearly a gross error in itself. For the only error is your misinterpretation of those verses and that you are trying to make the verses imply that which they do not imply in the first place which is the fact that it is not trying to explain the trinity or stipulate what it consists of or what the order is but it is simply condemning such a concept on a theological level.
Regarding another accusation you have made stating that the Qur'an refers to the fact that the trinity points to Mary being on the the three.
Let us see the verse in question:
"And behold! God will say: "O Jesus the son of Mary! Didst thou say unto men, worship me and my mother as gods in derogation of God'?" 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." Surah Maidah 5:116:
When we look at this verse then it is clear that it is you who has committed the mistake not the Quran, since if anyone reads
Surah Maidah 5:116 then it is clear as daylight that they will see that the verse says NOTHING about a Trinity.
So ask yourself Sol where does this verse or any other verse in the Qur'an imply the mention of Mary being part of the trinity? It is no-where here in the above verse, neither does it discuss a triune God. Again as before with the verse mentioning the "One of the three" you have once again misread and misinterpreted this verse. The following verse then goes onto mention the third of the three:
"Those who say, "Allah is the third of three" have most certainly committed a blasphemy. There is no god except the One true God _ Allah! A painful punishment will surely torment those disbelievers who do not quit making such (blasphemous) statements." Surah Maidah 5:73:
Also, let us read Surah Nisa 4:171:
"Christ Jesus the son of Mary was (no more than) an apostle of God, and His Word, which He bestowed on Mary, and a spirit proceeding from Him: so believe in God and His apostles. Say not "Three" : desist: it will be better for you: for God is one God: 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 God as a Disposer of affairs."
Here, there is nothing about Mary in a trinity. So already we can see a problem with your argument, the Quran when it attacks the concept of being "one of three" it implies the Trinity quite clearly, and when it does so it says nothing about Mary being involved within the Trinity. When Quran mentions Mary and Jesus, not a single place discusses a trinity or a 1 in 3 doctrine.
So it is clear that it is you and other Christian apologetics who have falsely implied that these verses refer to Mary being part of "the three" when it does not mention such a thing. So again we see a gross error in your misinterpretation of the verses of the Qur'an.
So the Quran attacks both the Trinity as blasphemy, as well as Christians who have wrongly increased the status of Mary to such a high level that she has become like a god. Here is the proof that some Christians have turned Mary into a godly figure:
"As a faithful Catholic, and later as a nun, I was devoted to Mary. The prayers and practices were so familiar. They were taught to me by sincere people. I prayed the rosary, including rosary novenas. I wore a Brown Scapular and a Miraculous Medal. (You can read about these things in the Glossary, which is Appendix C.) I visited shrines that honor Mary. I had beautiful statues of Mary. I attended special services where we prayed to Mary and recited a litany of titles honoring her."
Source: http://web.archive.org/web/20071214064716/http://www.catholicconcerns.com/MaryWorship.html
Mary is truly the mother of God. Even the earliest Fathers did not hesitate to draw this conclusion as may be seen in the writings of St. Ignatius [72], St. Irenaeus [73], and Tertullian [74]. The contention of Nestorius denying to Mary the title "Mother of God" [75] was followed by the teaching of the Council of Ephesus proclaiming Mary to be Theotokos in the true sense of the word. [76]
Source: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15464b.htm
"It was at Ephesus, the city of the goddess, that the earliest proof is found of an established cult of the Virgin Mary as the Mother of God, and in the council held at Ephesus in A.D. 431 this cult was definitely established as a feature of the orthodox ritual." (James Hastings - Encyclopedia Of Religion & Ethics Part 18 - Kessinger Publishing, 2003 - Page 908).
This sect is called
"Mariamites" who believed that Mary is part of the trinity.
"Mariamites. Mariamites (4 syl.). Worshippers of Mary, the mother of Jesus. They said the Trinity consisted of God the Father, God the Son, and Mary the mother of God. Source: Brewers." (Trinities: Webster's Quotations, Facts and Phrases - Inc Icon Group International 2008 - Page 119).
A non-Muslim explains further:
"Among the Arabs, it was that the heresies of Ebion, Beryllus, and Nazaraens1, and also that of Collyridians, were broached, or at least propagated; the later introduced the Virgin Mary for GOD, or worshipped her as such, offering her a sort of twisted cake called collyris, whence the sects had it's name.2 This notion of the divinity of the Virgin Mary was also believed by some of Nice, who said there were two gods besides the Father, viz., Christ and the Virgin Mary, and were named Mariamites.3 Others imagined her to be exempt from humanity, and deified; which goes but little beyond the Popish superstition in calling her the complement of the Trinity, as if it were imperfect without her. This foolish imagination is justly condemned in the Koran4 as idolatrous, and have a handle to Mohammed to attack the Trinity itself."
1. Epiphan de Haeresi. 1, 1; Haer 40.
2. Idem ibid. 1. 3; Haeres. 75, 79
3. Elmacin Eutych
4. Chap. 5
(George Sale - Koran - Lulu.com 2007 - Page 27).
Also, please refer to: (Tienne Ursin Bouzique - The History of Christianity - General Books LLC, 2009 - Page 29 - Source) and (William Cooke Taylor - Readings In Biography: A Selection Of The Lives Of Eminent Men Of All Nations - J.W. Parker, 1834 - Page 192 - Source).
So it is quite clear looking at these sources that many Christians did treat Mary as a divine godly being, hence the Quran condemned this blasphemous practice, as well as condemning the concept of the Trinity for the Quran condemns both. However, if we interpret it for arguments sake that the verses are referring to Mary being part of the trinity, this can be just one of the interpretations which refute the different concepts of the trinity. Let's not forget that during the revelation of the Holy Quran, the Protestant sect had not yet existed. Various other sects existed, which held different theological views which this Quranic verse in question refutes.
Let us look at Maulana Maududi's commentary on Surah Maidah verse 5:116:
"The Christians were not content merely with deifying Jesus and the Holy Spirit. They even turned Mary, the mother of Jesus, into a full-fledged object of worship. The Bible does not contain even the remotest suggestion that Mary was in any way either divine or superhuman. During the first three centuries after the Messiah, such a concept was totally alien to Christian thinking. Towards the end of the third century of the Christian era, however, some theologians of Alexandria employed, for the first time, the expression 'Mother of God' in connection with Mary. Subsequently, belief in Mary's divinity and the practice of Mariolatry began to spread among Christians. Even then, however, the Church was not prepared to accord official approval to this belief and denounced the Mariolaters as heretics. It was not until the Council of Ephesus in 431 that the Church officially used the expression 'Mother of God' for Mary. The result was that Mariolatry began to spread fast within the Church itself, so much so that, by the time of the revelation of the Qur'an, Mary had become so important a deity that she obscured even the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost. Statues of Mary adorned the cathedrals. She became the object of rites and worship. People addressed their prayers to her. She was regarded as the one who responded to people's supplications, who heeded people's grievances and complaints, who relieved them in distress, who provided support and succour to the helpless. For a devout Christian there could be no greater source of comfort and inner strength than the belief that he enjoyed the support and patronage of the 'Mother of God'. In the preamble of his code, Justinian had declared Mary to be the defender and supporter of his empire, and his general, Marses, sought Mary's guidance on the battlefield. Heraclius, a contemporary of the Prophet (peace be on him), had a picture of Mary on his standard and he was confident that by her grace the standard would never be lowered. Several centuries later the Protestants argued strongly against Mariolatry during the movement which led to the Reformation. The Roman Catholic Church has, nevertheless, managed so far to cling to Mariolatry in one form or another."
We know the verse don't specifically refer to any trinity, but what it does do is condemn the worship of others besides the one true God. So you cannot limit the verse in question (Surah Maidah 5:116) to refer to only the Mariamite trinity, as it's condemnation against others besides God includes all concepts of the trinity.
"Those who say, "Allah is the third of three" have most certainly committed a blasphemy. There is no god except the One true God Allah! A painful punishment will surely torment those disbelievers who do not quit making such (blasphemous) statements.Why turn they not to God, and seek His forgiveness? For God is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful. Christ the son of Mary was no more than an apostle; many were the apostles that passed away before him. His mother was a woman of truth. They had both to eat their (daily) food. See how God doth make His signs clear to them; yet see in what ways they are deluded away from the truth!" Surah Maidah 5:73-75:
So some Christians may assert from this, where Mary is mentioned, that the Quran does believe that Mary was part of the Trinity. They attest that since the Quran makes the point that both Mary and Jesus ate food, the Quran here is trying to disprove divinity from both Jesus and Mary, and with the Trinity being mentioned in Surah Maidah 5:73, this must mean the author thought that Mary was in the Trinity.
Some Christians believe in Mary's Divine Motherhood that she was the mother of God. Hence the Quran here is trying to show the irrationality in such a belief, of a 3 in 1 God. Moreover, the Quran makes you think that: how can Mary have a divine motherhood due to giving birth to a birth of Jesus, when Mary was a normal lady like every other lady, eating food and so on. This can NOT be attributed to God. According to some Christians, Jesus' "so called" divinity and the Trinity itself is what makes Mary so special and given a divine status. Quran implies that such a thing is ludicrous.
It goes on to state the fact that Jesus was no more than an apostle and many went away before him, implying Jesus was ONLY A HUMAN like those who came before him. Though his mother gave birth to him even though she was a virgin, Quran implies Mary was not divine, and neither is Jesus.
So in conclusion you will not find a SINGLE verse which discusses the trinity of Mary in Quran. The only 2 verses which imply the"trinity" are in: Surah Nisa 4:171 and Surah Maidah 5:73, which rejects this trinitarian polytheistic doctrine, so there is no contradiction whatsoever but simply a gross error on your part.
So from our discussion the following can be concluded:
1. The Qur'an commits NO mistake or error whatsoever when it condems the concept of being one of the three on a theological level so clearly you have made a gross error in the intepretation of these verses just like you made a gross error in trying to imply that the arabic transliteration implied that the "third of the three" meant nthird in line when it clearly meant one of the three.
2. NOWHERE does the Qur'an mention or even imply that Mary is part of the trinity but again condems the concept of Mary being attributed to divinity so again this is a gross error on your part.
So in conclusion you have committed some very major errors in implying that these verses meant that which they do not mean so there is no doubt for all to see that these alleged errors that you accuse the verses of are actually gross errors of misinterpretation on your part. Hope that clarifies matters for you on the REAL meanings of the above verses.
So return to the worship of the one true God who is in no need of any partners, sons, daughters or mothers and worship ONLY him, and supplicate to him without ascribing partners to him for he is self sufficient and the creator and Master of the universe and everything it contains.
Say: He is Allah, the One and Only!
Allah, the Eternal, Absolute;
He begetteth not nor is He begotten.
And there is none like unto Him.
Thank you and may Allah guide all to the truth. Ameen
