For Muslims: Mohammad and the Trinity

[Byzantine_Wolf]

(Part 1/3)

One of the greatest weaknesses in Islamic theology, especially in regards to Christianity and her understanding of it, is how Islam defines the Trinity. The language of the Trinity is distinct and important, and while I will admit that even some Christians are unable to fully understand it, it is still a fully understood concept within the greater realm of orthodox Christianity.

One honest question should be: was there, at the time of Mohammad, a question of what the Trinity was? Would he have a right to misunderstand the Trinity? Was true understanding of the Trinity only a recent thing, or something Christians had to develop in the face of Islamic attacks? Such problems seem possible, except when we review the history of orthodox Christian thought from the time of Islam down.

A good start would be with Saint John of Damascus, who lived in the 8th century during the time of Islam’s rise to power in the Middle East. He wrote regarding the Trinity:

We believe, then, in One God…one essence, one divinity, one power, one will, one energy, one beginning, one authority, one dominion, one sovereignty, made known in three perfect subsistences and adored with one adoration…

The holy catholic and apostolic Church, then, teaches the existence at once of a Father: and of His Only-begotten Son, born of Him without time and flux and passion, in a manner incomprehensible and perceived by the God of the universe alone…the Only-begotten Son of God, begotten of the Father without separation and difference and ever abiding in Him, has a proper subsistence of its own distinct from that of the Father…Likewise we believe also in one Holy Spirit, the Lord and Giver of Life: Who proceeds from the Father and rests in the Son: the object of equal adoration and glorification with the Father and Son, since He is co-essential and co-eternal… [St. John Damascene, *An Exposition of the Orthodox Faith, Book I, Chapter 8]

St. John Damascene outlines several key realities of the Trinity: 1) Christians are monotheists who believe in one God who exists in a Trinity; 2) the Trinity is made up of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit; 3) these three Persons are distinguished yet separate from one another, but are still equal in Essence.

Yet we can go even further back, to the fourth century some 300 years before the time of Mohammad, to Saint Basil the Great, who also wrote on the Trinitarian God.

They have abandoned what they professed when they entered God’s household. What did they profess? Faith in the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit…I swear to every man who confesses Christ but denies the Father: Christ will profit him nothing. If a man calls upon God, but rejects the Son, his faith is empty. If someone rejects the Spirit, his faith in the Father and the Son is made useless; it is impossible to believe in the Father and the Son without the presence of the Spirit. He who rejects the Spirit rejects the Son, and he who rejects the Son rejects the Father. [St. Basil the Great, *On the Holy Spirit, 27]

St. Basil was writing against those who denied the divinity of the Holy Spirit, and speaks of the unity of the Persons within the Trinity. Those who deny the Son deny the Father, and those who deny the Spirit deny the Father and the Son, for all are equal and represent the fullness of God. Each Person in the Trinity represents the fullness of God. The Father, Son and Holy Spirit are not separate gods, but are Persons within the Trinitarian God, of whom there is only one.

Still we can go further back to the time of the original apostles of Christ, and the writings of Saint Ignatius and his genuine epistles.

Since, also, there is but one unbegotten Being, God, even the Father; and one only-begotten Son, God, the Word and man; and one Comforter, the Spirit of truth… [St. Ignatius, *Epistle to the Philadelphians, Chapter 4]

Saint Ignatius, disciple to the beloved apostle John and writing in the first century, does something important here: he identifies one Being of God, and then identifies the Father, Son and Holy Spirit within that Being of God.

Therefore we know that up to the time of Mohammad there was a clear understanding of what the Trinity was: one Being of God revealed in three distinct but united Persons, who are united in their Essence. It is not three gods, yet those Persons are distinguished from one another - the Father is not the Son, the Son is not the Father, and the Holy Spirit is not the Son, etc. Again, this is not three gods, nor are the Father, Son and Holy Spirit separate entirely from one another. These are not three Beings but Persons, and they are all one in Essence and act accordingly to their means.

 

[Byzantine_Wolf]

(Part 2/3)

With the doctrine of the Trinity properly define and discussed, let us now ask the question: did Mohammad fully understand this Christian belief?

Let’s begin with two samples from the Quran:

…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. [S. 4:171; 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. [S. 5:73; Yusuf Ali]

Note the phraseology here: do not say “Allah is one of three in a Trinity…there is no god except One Allah.” The assumption here seems to be that the Trinity is three gods, a common battle cry by many Muslims against Christians. Many times I’ve been on Christian forums where a Muslim signs on and asks the Christians, “Why do you worship three gods?”, which results in their being laughed at. Why? They are laughed at because this is not what the Trinity is.

The Trinity is not three gods - that contradicts the very term trinity, which is a combination of the words “tri” (meaning three) and “unity” (which is self-explanatory) to form the concept of “unity in three.” The Trinity, as we already defined earlier, is one Being of God revealed through three Divine Persons. Within the one Being of God coexists the coeternal Father, Son and Holy Spirit, who are distinguished from one another both in scripture and within this very definition. Therefore, for one to argue that Christians believe God is one in three is simply incorrect.

It’s interesting to note that while the Quran admits at times that Christians believe Christ is God, it does not seem to understand what this means. It seems to still believe that it is a pagan form of deity worship. To view those passages in context:

In blasphemy indeed are those that say that Allah is Christ the son of Mary. Say: “Who then hath the least power against Allah, if His will were to destroy Christ the son of Mary, his mother, and all every - one that is on the earth? For to Allah belongeth the dominion of the heavens and the earth, and all that is between. He createth what He pleaseth. For Allah hath power over all things.” [S. 5:17; 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. [S. 5:72; Yusuf Ali]

These passages seem to suggest that Mohammad believed that Christ and God were one and the same, hence the phraseology “Allah is Christ,” or at the very least that Christ was put on equal with God in a bitheism, hence the follow up warning against “whoever joins other gods with Allah.”

I have heard some Muslim objections to this argumentation, in an attempt to make the Quran seem orthodox in its Trinitarian understanding. It is argued that the Quran is not wrong, since Christians believe Christ is God, or “Allah,” and that the “joining other gods” refers to the Persons in the Trinity - in other words, “Allah” refers to God the Father. The problem with this argument is that it is self defeating for two reasons: 1) the Persons in the Trinity are not “ascribing partners” or “joining other gods” because the individual Persons are not individual Beings, and therefore not gods - in fact, the Persons are all one in Essence with each another, and when one acts independently the other two act according to their individual means; 2) if “Allah” refers to God the Father, then the Quran is still in error, because it therefore claims that Christians believe Jesus is the Father, which is completely incorrect - only the Father is the Father, Jesus is the Son.

It would indeed seem that Mohammad still believed that the Trinity was three gods, and Jesus was merely one besides Allah.

And when Allah saith: O Jesus, son of Mary! Didst thou say unto mankind: Take me and my mother for two gods beside Allah? he saith: Be glorified! It was not mine to utter that to which I had no right. If I used to say it, then Thou knewest it. Thou knowest what is in my mind, and I know not what is in Thy Mind. Lo! Thou, only Thou, art the Knower of Things Hidden? [S. 5:116; M. Pickthall; emphasis mine]

Jesus here tells God that He never told people to take Him or His mother as gods besides Allah. This has led some to claim that Mohammad believed the Trinity was God, Jesus and Mary, but I don’t think there is substantial evidence besides this passage to prove that.

In any case, the assumption here is two-fold: 1) Jesus is placed as another god besides Allah; 2) even the Virgin Mary is made a god besides Allah. As already stated, Christ is not another god placed alongside God. Furthermore, no one except extreme Marian sects worship the Virgin Mary as a separate deity, which goes into the issue of veneration versus worship which Islam seems incapable of discerning.

 

[Byzantine_Wolf]

(Part 3/3)

There are also hadith sources that display this misunderstanding of the Trinity. One example:

Narrated Nafi’:
Whenever Ibn 'Umar was asked about marrying a Christian lady or a Jewess, he would say: “Allah has made it unlawful for the believers to marry ladies who ascribe partners in worship to Allah, and I do not know of a greater thing, as regards to ascribing partners in worship, etc. to Allah, than that a lady should say that Jesus is her Lord although he is just one of Allah’s slaves.” [Sahih Bukhari Volume 7, Book 63, Number 209]

Again, it is described that Christians are placing partners besides Allah. It is even stated that Muslim men cannot marry Christian women simply because of this. A pity that such a ban is placed on Christian women for something that Christian women do not even do!

One final note as I close my post: many Muslims, when this subject comes up, seem to present a kind of willful ignorance. They simply refuse to understand the Trinity as Christians have understood it. No matter how many times you may explain it in detail and as patiently as possible, they seem unable or unwilling to listen. Hence my use of the phraseology “willful ignorance”: they have the explanation in front of them, but they seem unwilling to acknowledge it. I cannot be the judge of every Muslim’s heart as only God is aware of the nature of their being, however I am certain this is sometimes out of stubbornness, if not many times out of a gross unwillingness to review their own beliefs.

I know many Muslims will object to my constant usage of “Mohammad’s opinion” or “Mohammad said this” when I am quoting only the Quran. Muslims, after all, believe that the Quran is the product of God. However, if a book or revelation is given to you that grossly distorts the belief system of another belief…can you really call such a revelation to have come from God? One of the 99 names of Allah is Al Haqq or “The Truth,” therefore why would something dishonest - intentional or unintentional - be in the words of God? If a book came along that claimed to be a revelation in line with Islam, yet it claimed that Muslims worshiped Mohammad when this is not the case, would Muslims not question the authenticity of that book and whether or not it came from God? One can continue to accuse Christians of paganism, but if you are being forced to ignore argumentation because of your religion, then isn’t your religion forcing you to lie?

Therefore, one must ask themselves honestly and openly: if the Quran is wrong on the doctrine of another faith, is that the fault of that other faith…or is that the fault of the Quran? If the Quran is found at fault and yet is believed to have come from God, can that claim therefore be substantial, or can we assume that God is in error? Since we know God cannot be in error, does that mean the Quran is man-made or God-made? And if it is man-made, is Mohammad receiving his source from God…or something else? I would ask that the discerning mind ponder on this and all we have discussed.

 

[hamba2han]

Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) met many Christians throughout his life and I would think that the understanding of the Trinity by Christians 1400 years ago was just as good and probably was even better than the understanding of Christians today.

The Christians back then who met the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) had every opportunity to dispute the “misunderstanding” in the Qur’an on the question of the Trinity but the simple fact of the matter is that they did not.

 

[KathleenGee]

Mercy, Hamba, you do not understand yet…

 

[Byzantine_Wolf]

Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) met many Christians throughout his life and I would think that the understanding of the Trinity by Christians 1400 years ago was just as good and probably was even better than the understanding of Christians today.

The Christians back then who met the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) had every opportunity to dispute the “misunderstanding” in the Qur’an on the question of the Trinity but the simple fact of the matter is that they did not.

You used this same line of argumentation before in my Ezra thread, in fact you argued it ad nauseum so much that I eventually had to personally ask you to stop repeating it until you addressed what others said. As I expected, instead of addressing the argumentation presented before you, you simply stopped responding.

Mohammad did know Christians at that time, although the orthodoxy of many of those Christians he knew might be called into question. The fact is, the Quran has an incorrect interpretation of the Trinity that would fail a catechumen class. To argue, “Well no one argued it at the time,” is a straw man. In fact, if you read St. John Damascene’s criticism of Islam (as he was a contemporary of early Islam) you’ll find he criticizes a lot of their beliefs in regards to Christianity - therefore, should we automatically hold his opinion as valid? You probably would not, therefore to play by these standards is simply inconsistent. Likewise, to demand that someone be recorded saying, “That is wrong,” is simply ludicrous - I showed in my first part that the fundamentals of the Trinity were understood by Mohammad’s time, therefore if he got it wrong one would not have to point that out.

If you are going to defend the Quranic view of the Trinity, I would ask that you would do so as any logical theologian would: in the context of the Quran’s text versus the fundamental understanding of the Trinity by orthodox Christianity. If you cannot do that, I would ask you avoid conversation on the topic.

 

[Hypatia]

it doesn’t seem self-evident to me that the Qur’an should be taken as addressing “orthodox” Christianity or Christians (the Christianity that was formally defined in the Roman Imperial Councils). This is not only because most Christians don’t understand the doctrine of the Trinity, but because the setting for the Prophet’s life was outside the bounds of the powers that maintained the official party line, in particular the Byzantines.

Arabia was outside, and caught between, the Byzantine and the Sasanid Empires. The passages in the Qur’an may well represent Arabian Christianity’s way of talking about God, or the language that was encountered coming out of Africa by way of trade routes through Yemen.

In any case, the language of the Qur’an finds several parallels in Christian scripture. Paul especially comes to mind, where the term “God” (theos) is often used for the Father, and then, separately, he will name Jesus (and sometimes the Holy Spirit as well). So whether it reflects “orthodox” Xns or not, it certainly seems to hit certain Biblical passages right on the nose. That would suggest that the language is, in fact, representative of Christianity.

Finally, even the official party line on the Trinity, as defined for instance at the Councils, is problematic on at least a pair of counts.

Granting that Xns intend monotheism, the Trinitarian definitions of the Councils (or someone like Thomas Aquinas, for that matter) compromise the One by…

1. holding to a real distinction between persons, so that the supposedly one God really is three different somethings (Father, Son, HS), and…
2. in order to support that distinction, Xty must also maintain a real distinction between the divine essence (ousia), and the divine persons (hypostatses), undermining belief in the One even further.

 

[StrawberryJam]

Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) met many Christians throughout his life and I would think that the understanding of the Trinity by Christians 1400 years ago was just as good and probably was even better than the understanding of Christians today.

The Christians back then who met the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) had every opportunity to dispute the “misunderstanding” in the Qur’an on the question of the Trinity but the simple fact of the matter is that they did not.

That’s mere speculation without any evidence. If you merely glance at the locality of the area of christians your prophet would have even had any dealings with, it’s more probable that he engaged with christians who held to Arian theology. But, that is not my burden to prove. It is your problem to solve.

 

[planten]

Mercy, Hamba, you do not understand yet…

Sorry kathleen, Hamba does not understand your Trinity and does not believe in it. But the two paras that Hamba has written in post #4 are perfectly right. Hamba has simply told the truth that the christian understanding of Trinity was exactly like it is today. No different. And the prophet Muhammad knew all about the meaning of Trinity in his time. It was the same belief as it is today.

It is fact that christians have three gods. Jesus is considered a God and father is the great God and Holy spirit is also God. Somehow, the three Gods are considered as One God. That is your business to understand. We know that many christians do not understand it themselves. It will soon be proved that you people were wrong in the time of the prophet Muhammad and you are wrong even today. Please wait out.

But no hard feelings, please. BW has advanced a good subject and thrown is heavily amongst the Muslim side, I am sure, gently and in good faith. Now it is the duty of the Muslims to reply with love and good faith. There should be no repurcussions from the Catholics please.

I repeat, Hamba has not supported or said anything against the Trinity. But he has told the truth that your Trinity was same 1400 years ago. YOu do not have any new Trinity today. Just believe Hamba please and do not say “You do not understand yet”.

 

[StrawberryJam]

Sorry kathleen, Hamba does not understand your Trinity and does not believe in it. But the two paras that Hamba has written in post #4 are perfectly right. Hamba has simply told the truth that the christian understanding of Trinity was exactly like it is today. No different. And the prophet Muhammad knew all about the meaning of Trinity in his time. It was the same belief as it is today.

It is fact that christians have three gods. Jesus is considered a God and father is the great God and Holy spirit is also God. Somehow, the three Gods are considered as One God. That is your business to understand. We know that many christians do not understand it themselves. It will soon be proved that you people were wrong in the time of the prophet Muhammad and you are wrong even today. Please wait out.

But no hard feelings, please. BW has advanced a good subject and thrown is heavily amongst the Muslim side, I am sure, gently and in good faith. Now it is the duty of the Muslims to reply with love and good faith. There should be no repurcussions from the Catholics please.

I repeat, Hamba has not supported or said anything against the Trinity. But he has told the truth that your Trinity was same 1400 years ago. YOu do not have any new Trinity today. Just believe Hamba please and do not say “You do not understand yet”.

How has Hamba “told the truth” about what orthodox and catholics believe about the trinity?

He has come to a catholic forum and diliberately told another definition of the Trinity that runs contrary to what catholics define the trinity to be, and furthermore what they say they believe.

It’s very nice for muslims to have such a venue as catholic answers to misrepresent another’s faith on their very own forum and end up alive.

It would likely not be the same for any christian here, let alone a heathen like me to get off so easy and live to tell about it.

 

[planten]

That’s mere speculation without any evidence. If you merely glance at the locality of the area of christians your prophet would have even had any dealings with, it’s more probable that he engaged with christians who held to Arian theology. But, that is not my burden to prove. It is your problem to solve.

StrawberryJam, Your reply to Hamba has no stand. WE know very well that prophet Muhammad had a good dialogue and had the knowledge of the belief of the christians of his time. That was not the only thing. He was guided and informed by Allah. Muhammad did not invent the Quran from himself. Please understand that.

Now I prove to you what went on in Madinah. Every Muslims knew the meaning of Trinity because the christians were preaching it all over the place. During the time of the prophet Muhammad, one big delegation of christians from Najraan came to Madinah to discuss Trinity etc with the prophet Muhammad. They comprised 60 members.

There was a question as to where they would stay. The prophet offered them a stay in the big mosque. They said they would need to pray in their own way and to ring the bells etc. The prophet said, “Okay, you can pray in your own way.” So they were all put up inside the Only mosque. (That is called the mosque of the prophet. It very sacred even today.)

There was great discussion on the subject of Trinity and/or divinity of Jesus. The prophet asked the christians (Must be Catholics). “Don’t you believe that Jesus was born in the same way that other people are born? And don’t you believe that he died in the same way…?” They admitted. The prophet said, “Then how can he be divine??”

There was some kind of dialogue of that sort without any fruitful result. So The prophet was told by Allah to challenge the christians to a spiritual duel of prayer to invoke the curse of God upon the Liars.

The christians refused to accept the challenge. Such a duel of prayer is called “Mubahilah”.

There is every proof that Trinity was same in old time as it is today. You people are worshipping Jesus son of Mary today considering him as God or part of God, as your people used to do in the old times. Can you deny that?

 

[planten]

There is no need to hurry. This thread is still in the beginning. B W has aksed the questions in good faith. B W has probably tried to make the Muslims understand Trinity. We will concentrate on his posts only and reply in kind in good faith to B W very soon.

It is our duty to understand Trinity as being explained by the Cathoilcs, new and old. That is a good thing because B W has approached us with some better understanding of Trinity. God willing, We will try to understand and give our reply to B W.

 

[planten]

It is another important matter that B W has felt that probably Muhammad did not understand Trinity at all. That if Quran is from God (Allah) then why there is wrong understanding of trinity.

These are good questions. B W is right. We will try to explain everything. We have no doubt that Quran is from Allah. Every word of it was revealed on the heart of Muhammad by Allah through the holy spirit i.e. angel Gabriel.

We have no doubt about that. And doubt in the matters of faith is a very bad and dangerous thing. I am sure the cathoilcs will agree with me on that. I hope they wuld not like to have any doubt about the divinity of Jesus. Similarly we Muslims also have the right to have firm faith in certain matters.

The question remains to be solved whether the belief is right or wrong. That will decide about the differing beliefs. In the beginning we will try to discuss Trinity as expalined by B W in the three posts.

 

[Nine_Two]

Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) met many Christians throughout his life and I would think that the understanding of the Trinity by Christians 1400 years ago was just as good and probably was even better than the understanding of Christians today.

The Christians back then who met the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) had every opportunity to dispute the “misunderstanding” in the Qur’an on the question of the Trinity but the simple fact of the matter is that they did not.

Just like how you had plenty of time in the last thread to dispute the idea that Mohammed is a goat in the last thread, yet no Muslim did. Clearly then Mohammed is a goat, and a goat can not be a prophet.

And BW, I think you like pain.

 

[Byzantine_Wolf]

it doesn’t seem self-evident to me that the Qur’an should be taken as addressing “orthodox” Christianity or Christians (the Christianity that was formally defined in the Roman Imperial Councils)

In that case, should Christians ignore how Muslims define themselves? For example, if you are Sunni, should we turn to the Shia and take that as what real Islam is, or what a Muslim is? If you are Shia, should we turn to the Sunnis for an idea of what true Islam is? Should I go to an Ahmadi and accept their definition of what Islam is? Or should I go down a list of all early Muslim heresies, of which there are just as many as early Christian heresies, and argue that Christians shouldn’t have to be forced to address “orthodox” Islam when you demand it? Of course not. This kind of argumentation which you are presenting is simply a double standard.

Also, I outlined in the first part of my post that this belief in the Trinity goes all the way back to the disciples of the apostles, pointing to the writings of Ignatius. I can go to others, including Irenaeus, Polycarp, Justin Martyr and many others who lived before the Roman Empire accepted Christianity or any of “Roman Imperial Councils” (which I assume is a misnomer for the ecumenical councils) took place. Your argumentation in that regard is, therefore, irrelevant.

Arabia was outside, and caught between, the Byzantine and the Sasanid Empires. The passages in the Qur’an may well represent Arabian Christianity’s way of talking about God, or the language that was encountered coming out of Africa by way of trade routes through Yemen.

The Quran never makes a distinction - that is eisegesis. Furthermore, I have never had a Muslim tell me, “Oh don’t worry, that’s just for the Arabic Christians - here’s how Islam REALLY thinks the Trinity is.” If you can show me a Muslim scholar or classical theologian who does so, I would appreciate it.

In any case, the language of the Qur’an finds several parallels in Christian scripture. Paul especially comes to mind, where the term “God” (theos) is often used for the Father, and then, separately, he will name Jesus (and sometimes the Holy Spirit as well).

Actually it does not, unless one simply paraphrases passages without really addressing them. For example, in a letter to the Corinthians Paul makes reference to a well known Jewish prayer:

Yet for us there is one God, the Father, from whom are all things and for whom we exist, and one Lord, Jesus Christ… [1 Cor 8:6; ESV]

Paul is making reference to the shema, which most Jews of that time would have recognized, which says: “Hear, Israel, the Lord is our God, the Lord is One” (Deut 6:4). Here Paul takes it and states that they have one Lord and one God, Jesus Christ and the Father. They are equals - something the Quran does not understand. Paul would do this again at the start of his epistle to the Romans, speaking of the gospel of God (Rom 1:1), and then later on referring, in the same context, to the gospel of the Son (Rom 1:9). There are many other examples, but these are just a few. I could point to, for example, the Great Commission, where Christ commands the apostles to baptize in the name (singular) of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit (which would be plural) (Matt 28:19). The Quran, therefore, condemns the very teachings of Christ.

Granting that Xns intend monotheism, the Trinitarian definitions of the Councils (or someone like Thomas Aquinas, for that matter) compromise the One by…

1. holding to a real distinction between persons, so that the supposedly one God really is three different somethings (Father, Son, HS), and…
2. in order to support that distinction, Xty must also maintain a real distinction between the divine essence (ousia), and the divine persons (hypostatses), undermining belief in the One even further.

Actually that’s not contradictory at all. The “one God” is not “three different somethings,” but three distinct Persons within the one Being of God. Again, Christians are monotheists, for we believe in that one Being that Muslims do. Furthermore, there is no distinction between the divine essence - they all have the same Essence, because they are all within that Being of God. That is the orthodox definition of the Trinity which, again, has been supported for hundreds of years well before Mohammad, as I showed in my first post.

Again, as I said in my last post, if you have to play games of double standards and ignore the true definition of what a doctrine is because of your faith, is the fault on what you are criticizing or where your source of belief is coming from?

 

[dzheremi]

It is more profitable to this discussion to leave aside what Christians in Arabia proper in Muhammad’s time might have believed, as they were known to be followers of various heresies which no doubt informed Muhammad’s incredibly distorted picture of Christian doctrine. The writings of the Nestorian Assyrians were the first to directly challenge Islam, but early on this was more often in the “apocalyptic” style than strictly apologetic, as the first writings usually dealt with explaining the sudden rule of the Arabs or the apostasy of large numbers of Assyrians, not necessarily with refuting point-by-point Muslim objections to Christianity. They instead called them “hanpe” (a double entendre, as it is the Syriac word for “pagan” but also the Syriac cognate for Arabic “hanif”, which of course is an Arabic term used positively by Muslims! Ha!), and then mostly went on with describing what was happening to their communities. More strictly apologetic works do appear, but not in very large numbers until later on, such as Theodore Bar Koni’s “Scholion” (8th century).

Syrian Orthodox bishop Dionysius Bar Salibi (aka Jacob Bar Salibi; 12th century) wrote in his “Against the Tayyaye” (part of his 30-chapter treatise “Adversus Haereses”) about Muslims, the Qur’an, and Islam, providing an Orthodox perspective which, like the earlier Nestorian writings, still refutes Islamic understandings of Christian doctrine.

There is also the “Dispensation against the Arabs”, a famous if somewhat cryptic text (for lack of a concrete setting and date in the text itself) purported to be an account of a discussion between a monk named Abraham of the monastery of Bet Hale and an Arab “in the entourage of the emir Maslama” (perhaps Maslama ibn Abd al-Malik, governor in Iraq in the 720s). Assuming a proper date of sometime in the early eighth century, we can now marvel at how contemporary it seems. I have only read bits and pieces of it in Griffith’s “Syriac Writers on Muslims and the Religious Challenge of Islam” (“Moran 'Etho #7”, SEERI, Kottayam, India 1995), but I could swear that I have read exchanges almost exactly like it on this very board. From the text cited above:

He (the monk) asks, “Tell me, son of Ishmael, whose son do you make him, the one called 'Isa, son of Maryam by you, and Jesus the Messiah by us?” The Arab answers with a quotation from the Qur’an, “the Word of God and his Spirit” (an-Nisa, IV:171). The monk then argues that with this affirmation Muhammad in effect endorsed the teaching of the Gospel of Luke in the pericope of the Annunciation (Lk. 1:30). So he challenges the Muslim, “either you estrange the word of God and the Spirit from Him, or you proclaim him to be the Son of God straight forwardly.” At this point the Muslim opts for silence, and he asks the monk what he thinks of Muhammad.

Uncanny, isn’t it? So much for Hamba2han’s and other Muslims’ claims that the early Christians were somehow more “in tune” with the real beliefs of Christianity, which were of course pro-Muhammad/pro-Islam (this is another lie that the Qur’an tells against us), unlike those naughty, naughty Christians of today with their hatred for Islam (a.k.a., knowing what their own religion is about)!

 

[Hypatia]

In that case, should Christians ignore how Muslims define themselves? For example, if you are Sunni, should we turn to the Shia and take that as what real Islam is, or what a Muslim is? If you are Shia, should we turn to the Sunnis for an idea of what true Islam is? Should I go to an Ahmadi and accept their definition of what Islam is? Or should I go down a list of all early Muslim heresies, of which there are just as many as early Christian heresies, and argue that Christians shouldn’t have to be forced to address “orthodox” Islam when you demand it? Of course not. This kind of argumentation which you are presenting is simply a double standard.

the text nowhere says that it is addressing Conciliar Xty, and since Mohammed (pbuh) and those around him would have had very limited contact with that, I see no reason to assume that that is what is being critiqued. It may well be the case that Christians in Arabia held a position like the one given in the Qur’an. In any case, the text of the Qur’an seems to strongly parallel the Biblical text, which is, unarguably, representative of Xty.

For example, in a letter to the Corinthians Paul makes reference to a well known Jewish prayer:

Yet for us there is one God, the Father, from whom are all things and for whom we exist, and one Lord, Jesus Christ… [1 Cor 8:6; ESV]

Paul is making reference to the shema, which most Jews of that time would have recognized, which says: “Hear, Israel, the Lord is our God, the Lord is One” (Deut 6:4). Here Paul takes it and states that they have one Lord and one God, Jesus Christ and the Father. They are equals - something the Quran does not understand. Paul would do this again at the start of his epistle to the Romans, speaking of the gospel of God (Rom 1:1), and then later on referring, in the same context, to the gospel of the Son (Rom 1:9).

That seems like a total stretch to me, reading over the passages that you quote. Romans 1.1&1.3: “…the gospel of God…the gospel concerning his * Son…”; 1.9 is the same pattern (really this whole section from 1.1-1.9), seems to pretty clearly contain the type of language that the Qur’an is critiquing. God (Allah in Arabic) is joined to his Son, Jesus. So there is God and then there is Jesus and occasionally there is the Holy Spirit as well. For instance at the end of 2Cor: “the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, the love of God, and the communion of the Holy Spirit be with all of you”.

The point from the Qur’an, that “God” is not one of two or three seems to hit, e.g., Paul right on the nose. Paul consistently uses the word “God” in precisely this way, namely, to indicate one of the three. At that point, saying that Jesus and God are equal doesn’t really gain you a whole lot (esp. since the Christian is then going to tell you that even though they are equal they are different).​

Actually that’s not contradictory at all. The “one God” is not “three different somethings,” but three distinct Persons within the one Being of God. Again, Christians are monotheists, for we believe in that one Being that Muslims do. Furthermore, there is no distinction between the divine essence - they all have the same Essence, because they are all within that Being of God. That is the orthodox definition of the Trinity which, again, has been supported for hundreds of years well before Mohammad, as I showed in my first post.

All i did here was paraphrase Nicea. There is one God: Three persons. And there is a distinction between essence and persons.

From an Islamic (and logical) standpoint this is a violation of the idea that God is One. Even though I know Christians really mean it when they say they are monotheists, you can’t really affirm the One and then have real distinctions all over the place in God. The fact is Christians have real distinctions present in God at two different levels: a real distinction between the persons; and a real distinction between person and essence (needed b/c you made the distinction between persons to start with and now you are just multiplying the problem).​

Again, as I said in my last post, if you have to play games of double standards and ignore the true definition of what a doctrine is because of your faith, is the fault on what you are criticizing or where your source of belief is coming from?

I don’t think I have misrepresented the Councils, and I have even tried to grant their intention (they mean to be monotheist); I am simply saying that you can say you believe in the One, but when you start making real distinctions within the One, you undermine and even contradict that affirmation.

I also don’t think I have misrepresented Paul (he very very frequently uses the word “God” as a way of identifying one of three). And it seems to me that it is this language, like Paul’s, that the Qur’an is targeting in it’s critique as being immensely problematic. Paul is certainly representative of Christianity, and so the Qur’anic critique of the Trinity seems impossible to dismiss as unfair or as a misrepresentation of what real, “orthodox” Christians teach. It is difficult to get more Christian than Paul.*

 

[planten]

Let us understand Trinity first from posts of B W and the gospel.

For Muslims: Mohammad and the Trinity

One of the greatest weaknesses in Islamic theology, especially in regards to Christianity and her understanding of it, is how Islam defines the Trinity. The language of the Trinity is distinct and important, and while I will admit that even some Christians are unable to fully understand it, it is still a fully understood concept within the greater realm of orthodox Christianity.

A good start would be with Saint John of Damascus, who lived in the 8th century during the time of Islam’s rise to power in the Middle East. He wrote regarding the Trinity:
We believe, then, in One God…one essence, one divinity, one power, one will, one energy, one beginning, one authority, one dominion, one sovereignty, made known in three perfect subsistences and adored with one adoration…

Okay, it is all One with a little three subsistences in it. Very Good. We stress on the word One only. Agreed.

The holy catholic and apostolic Church, then, teaches the existence at once of a Father: and of His Only-begotten Son, born of Him without time and flux and passion, in a manner incomprehensible and perceived by the God of the universe alone…the Only-begotten Son of God, begotten of the Father without separation … [St. John Damascene, An Exposition of the Orthodox Faith, Book I, Chapter 8]

Okay that belief may be good. But it should be traced back to the gospel. Did Jesus (or Mary) say that Jesus was the begotten son of God?? Please show from gospel. Otherwise it is talk of your mouth which you have made up yourself.

St. John Damascene outlines several key realities of the Trinity: 1) Christians are monotheists who believe in one God who exists in a Trinity; 2) the Trinity is made up of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit; 3) these three Persons are distinguished yet separate from one another, but are still equal in Essence.

• Let that be so. It is true, that is the belief of the Catholics today. Christians are monotheists. Very good. They believe in one God who exists in Trinity (?). That Trinity is the problem and not explained. It is only believed. It had been the belief from beginning, say 200 years after Jesus till today.

Did God say Trinity is made up of Father, Son and Holy Spirit?? Did God say that He was a Triune God??? Please show it. Only Jesus son of Mary himself told his apostles to go ahead and preach in the name of father, son and the holy spirit. Did he say that God was made up of these? Not at all. Jesus also did not say (In that speech) that son and holy spirit were part of God.*

Yet we can go even further back, to the fourth century some 300 years before the time of Mohammad, to Saint Basil the Great, who also wrote on the Trinitarian God.

They have abandoned what they professed when they entered God’s household. What did they profess? Faith in the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit…I swear to every man who confesses Christ but denies the Father: Christ will profit him nothing. If a man calls upon God, but rejects the Son, his faith is empty. If someone rejects the Spirit, his faith in the Father and the Son is made useless; it is impossible to believe in the Father and the Son without the presence of the Spirit. He who rejects the Spirit rejects the Son, and he who rejects the Son rejects the Father. [St. Basil the Great, On the Holy Spirit, 27]

Okay, it is alright to profess faith in the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. But as what?? We Muslims will under the God from Father, and Jesus from the son, and angel Gabriel by the Holy Spirit. It is true that if any one believes in father (Real One God) but does not believe in son (i.e. Jesus), his faith is false and useless. We Muslims agree to that. It is necessary and a must to believe in Jesus, the messenger, in order to believe in God. It is also necessary to believe in the holy Ghost to believe in Jesus. Without belief in holy ghost, the belief in God and the messenger becomes useless and false.

The Unity of God is always preached by the prophets and messengers only. Nobody can claim approach to God without the agency of a messenger. So, belief in Jesus is a MUST.
So far so good. But is it necessary to make a God out of the messenger (angel) and the messenger (prophet)?? Not at all. There had been many prophets (messengers) before Jesus. None of them claimed to be God.

I agree to the statement of St. Basil the Great.)

St. Basil was writing against those who denied the divinity of the Holy Spirit,

In the above statement of St. Basil, there is no mention of any divinity.Belief is stressed in the holy Spirit. Similarly belief in the son (i.e. Jesus) is stressed. Not in his divinity. .

 

[planten]

Let us understand Trinity first from posts of B W and the gospel. (part continued…)

The saint says:

and speaks of the unity of the Persons within the Trinity. Those who deny the Son deny the Father, and those who deny the Spirit deny the Father and the Son, for all are equal and represent the fullness of God. Each Person in the Trinity represents the fullness of God. The Father, Son and Holy Spirit are not separate gods, but are Persons within the Trinitarian God, of whom there is only one

*I have agreed to the part colored above in Red. But that is all. The rest of the speech of the saint may be his own idea. I do not take saints as gods or serious guides (prophets).

We as Muslims believe in God. We believe if any one does not believe in Jesus, he is a non-believer, not Muslim. But our belief in Jesus remains upto our belief in Abraham and Moses and Muhammad. No more than that. That is a good belief. It is not denial of Jesus. We believe in the holy spirit too, that is your holy Ghost.

WE will look in the gospel, if any where Jesus told that he was divine subsistence(God) or if he said that holy ghost was divine subsistence. BibleNT gospel is available. The words and works of the word of God (Jesus) are there in the gospel. It is easy to find out all from there.*

 

[spn82756]

Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) met many Christians throughout his life and I would think that the understanding of the Trinity by Christians 1400 years ago was just as good and probably was even better than the understanding of Christians today.

The Christians back then who met the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) had every opportunity to dispute the “misunderstanding” in the Qur’an on the question of the Trinity but the simple fact of the matter is that they did not.

They did not according to you. They’re refusal to submit to mohammad and satin was dealt with by taxes and less than 1st class citizenship.

Now of course…you’re going to come back and say…mohammad said they didn’t…so nyah nyah nyah nyah nyah. And you will continue to use circular logic which proves nothing.