For Muslims: Mohammad and the Trinity

[Kadaveri]

I’m not Catholic, therefore the Catechism means nothing to me. You might as well ask me why the Westminster Confession has the filioque in it.

Whether you’re a Catholic or not is irrelevant. Does the Catholic Church teach Modalism? If you agree that it doesn’t, then you can’t accuse the Qur’an of doing so based on 5:72 (disregarding that 5:73 contradicts such an interpretation anyway), as it says the same thing the CCC does. Or if you want you can look at the Nicene Creed, which says that Christ is ‘being of one substance with the Father’.

Actually, I think most people who read my OP (which, incidentally, addressed your Allah is Father argument) as well as my responses to you would know that I am not going back and forth between two points, but addressing the incoherent definition of the Trinity in the Quran and the double-standard presentation which you give in its defense.

You argued that S. 5:72 saying “Allah is Christ” means that Jesus is the Father (because you defined “Allah” as “Father”). In that case, the Quran is still wrong (if we go by your definition) because it then does teach modalism. The Son is not the Father, and the Father is not the Son. Entire ecumenical councils were held to resolve this issue.

You are going back an forth between two points. You accuse the Qur’an of saying Christians believe in three gods one minute, then accuse it of saying Christians believe in some form of Modalism. The two positions are totally irreconciable, yet this doesn’t seem to bother you. When the Qur’an says Christians believe ‘God is Christ’ it means the same thing as when the CCC says “The Father is that which the Son is”.

Furthermore, you continually misquote 5:73, saying that it claims the Trinity is three distinct persons. That isn’t what it says at all. Allow me to quote it:

They do blaspheme who say: Allah is one of three in a Trinity: for there is no god except One Allah…

If the Quran knew that the Trinity involved three Persons, it would not back up its condemnation of it with “there is no god except One Allah.” That isn’t a problem in the Trinity - the Trinitarian God is One God! This is the same error the Quran makes in S. 4:171, and later on in S. 5:116 when it declares that Christians have taken up not only Christ but the Virgin Mary alongside God.

I’m not misquoting it. Now you’re just accusing the Qur’an of saying the Trinity is tritheism without bothering to realise that such an interpretation contradicts the very preceding verse saying that the persons are the *same *God, and certainly contradicts your earlier claim that the Qur’an is saying the Trinity is Modalism. The Qur’an saying there is no *ilah *(meaning, something which is worshipped) but God is a perfectly accurate way to contradict the Trinity, as Christians divide God into three distinct persons (which is heresy in Islam), one of them being a human being who was not divine but merely a Prophet. Arguing with this is essentially arguing that the Qur’an is wrong because it doesn’t accept that God is triune or that Jesus is God, which you may do so, but that hardly proves the Qur’an is somehow mistaken about what Christians believe.

The same goes for 4:171, which in fact explicitly addresses Christian doctrine as having a belief in one God by not saying (as the Qur’an always does in every other case that there is only one God (Allahu ahad), but instead that God is one object of worship (Allahu ilahun wahidun). The later is essentially a meaningless, superfluous statement, because the word *Allah *is inherently singular and has no plural form, so to say it is ‘one’ anything would be a bizarre thing to do. However in this one case it actually makes sense, because Christians are unique in believing in one God, and yet believing that God consists of separate ‘persons’. So to reply to Christians’ belief in Jesus being ‘the son of God’ by saying ‘God is one object of worship’ demonstrates that the one replying understands Christians believe Jesus to be ‘the son of God’ as in, the incarnation of God. It makes no sense for it to be rejecting Christian belief in ‘another god’, it so it would just say the usual ‘Allahu ahad’.

Christians (Catholic and Eastern Orthodox especially) have taken up Mary as an object of worship besides God. If you want to accuse the Qur’an of saying Christians believe Mary is a god, then you’d have to also accuse the Qur’an of saying Christians and Jews believe their Priests and Rabbis are gods, as 9:31 says the same thing except in respect to them and not Mary.

 

[Byzantine_Wolf]

Whether you’re a Catholic or not is irrelevant. Does the Catholic Church teach Modalism?

Actually, that is relevant because you’re demanding I defend something I don’t even believe is canon and which my Church doesn’t always agree with, hence my mentioning of the Westminster Confession. If you’re Sunni, should I demand you defend documents that pander to the Shia faith - or if you’re Shia, should I demand you defend documents that pander to the Sunni faith? It would be irrelevant of me to do so. I have even made the point of rewording how I argue against certain Muslim beliefs because I recognize there are certain sources or beliefs that are different between Sunni and Shia, and I give respect to who I am talking to. In any case, you’re on a Catholic forum, there are plenty of Catholics who can answer that for you.

However, I will entertain you on one thing:

Or if you want you can look at the Nicene Creed, which says that Christ is ‘being of one substance with the Father’.

I would suggest you study Trinitarian doctrine just a little bit more. The Nicene Creed does say that Christ is the same substance (ousia, which is also defined as “essence” as I discussed with Hypatia before) as the Father in relation to their unity within the Trinity. However, the Son is not the Father, and the Father is not the Son, that is their distinction. It was the Word which became flesh, not the Father, and it was the Father who sent the Word, not the Word who sent the Father. Their unity of Essence does not denote a unity of Persons. The Nicene Fathers would agree with me that to say “Christ is the Father,” as you attempt to say the Quran does, is an error.

You are going back an forth between two points. You accuse the Qur’an of saying Christians believe in three gods one minute, then accuse it of saying Christians believe in some form of Modalism. The two positions are totally irreconciable, yet this doesn’t seem to bother you.

I am saddened to see that my response was not read, at least not thoroughly. I said that I was addressing first your defense of the Quran “Allah is not one of three” with “Allah” meaning “the Father,” and then applying those standards to the teaching “Christ is Allah” and showing inconsistency. My accusation of the belief in three gods was regarding my own studies of the Quran and classic Muslim tradition regarding the Quran. These are two separate matters I was addressing.

I’m not misquoting it. Now you’re just accusing the Qur’an of saying the Trinity is tritheism without bothering to realise that such an interpretation contradicts the very preceding verse saying that the persons are the *same *God, and certainly contradicts your earlier claim that the Qur’an is saying the Trinity is Modalism. The Qur’an saying there is no *ilah *(meaning, something which is worshipped) but God is a perfectly accurate way to contradict the Trinity, as Christians divide God into three distinct persons (which is heresy in Islam), one of them being a human being who was not divine but merely a Prophet.

Ilah means “god” or “deity,” and some Muslims even argue that is partially where the word “Allah” came from. The Quran does not, again, say “persons,” nor that they are distinguished within one God, but rather identifies them as gods. Furthermore, if the Quran believes that Christians “divide” God, then it is still in error - God is not “divided” in the Trinity. That has been stressed in this thread many times.

However in this one case it actually makes sense, because Christians are unique in believing in one God, and yet believing that God consists of separate ‘persons’. So to reply to Christians’ belief in Jesus being ‘the son of God’ by saying ‘God is one object of worship’ demonstrates that the one replying understands Christians believe Jesus to be ‘the son of God’ as in, the incarnation of God. It makes no sense for it to be rejecting Christian belief in ‘another god’, it so it would just say the usual ‘Allahu ahad’.

If it understood this, it would not say “Allah is [not] one of three in a Trinity: for there is no god except One Allah” (S. 5:73) and “whoever joins other gods with Allah, Allah will forbid him the garden” (S. 5:72), as well as, “O Jesus, son of Mary! Didst thou say unto mankind: Take me and my mother for two gods beside Allah?” (S. 5:116). God is not one of three in a Trinity because the Trinity is God and He is One, Christians do not join other gods with Allah, and Christians do not take Jesus (let alone the Virgin Mary) as gods besides Allah.

The Quran may understand the divinity of Christ, hence the statement that Christians believe “Allah is Christ,” however it shows no true understanding of the Trinity, Christ’s relationship with the Father, and the distinction yet unity of the Persons.

Christians (Catholic and Eastern Orthodox especially) have taken up Mary as an object of worship besides God.

Once again, you have destroyed your argumentation in one sentence. No Catholic or Orthodox worships the blessed Theotokos - if they do, they are in error and acting against the teachings of their Church. Again, the Quran is in error (I am also aware of S. 9:31, and yes, it is in error as well).

 

[Nine_Two]

If Christians worship Mary, then Muslims must admit to worshipping both the Kaba and Mohammed.

A bit of a catch-22 for them.

 

[planten]

However, I will entertain you on one thing:

I would suggest you study Trinitarian doctrine just a little bit more. The Nicene Creed does say that Christ is the same substance (ousia, which is also defined as “essence” as I discussed with Hypatia before) as the Father in relation to their unity within the Trinity. ]/quote]

The Catholics use the verse of bibleNT which says “Father and I are one.” We Muslims understand the sense. But the Christians try to make us understand differently. So let us find out, in what sense (or essence) they are One?"

However, the Son is not the Father, and the Father is not the Son, that is their distinction.

 

[fms]

Something Has Got to Give!

According to Muslims, all prophets are sinless (King David and adultery…that’s another thread). Jesus is a prophet, therefore sinless.

The New Testament has Jesus and others calling him the Son of God (like another prophet John the Baptist), the Lord, God himself; things condemned by Muhammad and the Qur’an. So the sinless one here is committing sin and the worst there is according to muslims: Shirk

 

[fms]

The Church is Holy

and the crowd, attracted by the beauty of the work, mistook for a god someone whom recently they had honoured as a man.
And this became a snare for life: that people, whether enslaved by misfortune or by tyranny, should have conferred the ineffable Name on sticks and stones.
It is not enough, however, for them to have such misconceptions about God; for, living in the fierce warfare of ignorance, they call these terrible evils peace.
With their child-murdering rites, their occult mysteries, or their frenzied orgies with outlandish customs,
they no longer retain any purity in their lives or their marriages, one treacherously murdering another or wronging him by adultery.
Everywhere a welter of blood and murder, theft and fraud, corruption, treachery, riot, perjury,
disturbance of decent people, forgetfulness of favours, pollution of souls, sins against nature, disorder in marriage, adultery and debauchery.
For the worship of idols with no name is the beginning, cause, and end of every evil.
For these people either carry their merrymaking to the point of frenzy, or they prophesy what is not true, or they live wicked lives, or they perjure themselves without hesitation;
since they put their trust in lifeless idols they do not reckon their false oaths can harm them.
But they will be justly punished for this double crime: for degrading the concept of God by adhering to idols; and for wickedly perjuring themselves in contempt for what is holy.
For it is not the power of the things by which they swear but the punishment reserved for sinners that always follows the offences of wicked people.

We worship Jesus, we worship the Trinity in Unity and the Unity in Trinity.

If we were mistaken or our worship misplaced by worshipping that which ought not be worshipped as God, the fruits would show and real quick.

Yet the Church is the one that is steadfast against divorce, abortion, homosexual acts and marriages, etc.

The heroic and saintly lives of its members admirable around the globe: Mother Theresa, Father Saint Damien, Pope John Paul II, etc.

There is The Blessed Trinity before anything ever was…

 

[Hypatia]

Then I’m afraid your argument is just silly. Those are two separate words. Of course we have to distinguish between them. You might as well lecture a cook on the fact he has to distinguish between the definitions of knife and fork. If the problem Muslims have with Christians is that they use different words to help define something, then there is a large gnat being strained.

This is not a small issue at all. It is THE issue. If you have to maintain distinctions in order to hold your position on the One, then you are not talking about the One.

The Good and the One are two separate words for instance. But in God they are strictly identical with one another. The One is the Good and vice versa. Hypostases and Ousia are not strictly synonymous terms, on the other hand, and Christians need to maintain their separate meaning in order to protect the distinction between the persons.

The existence of distinctions is, as I have said several times, the problem with the “orthodox” Christian account of the One.​

We are drifting from the topic of your thread, which was about Qur’anic statements on Christianity. I have already tried to answer this (not to your satisfaction, but I have explained my position and tried to provide references when asked). So I think we are approaching the end of our particular conversation.

Allahu Alam.

 

[planten]

Something Has Got to Give!

According to Muslims, all prophets are sinless (King David and adultery…that’s another thread). Jesus is a prophet, therefore sinless.

The New Testament has Jesus and others calling him the Son of God (like another prophet John the Baptist), the Lord, God himself; things condemned by Muhammad and the Qur’an. So the sinless one here is committing sin and the worst there is according to muslims: Shirk

fms, who is committing Shirk?? Not John or Jesus. King Soloman did not do any such thing. Our Quran does not say so. Otherwise, the Jews blamed King Soloman for Kufr too. But Quran says that Soloman did not have any Kufr ( Wa Maa Kafara Sulaiman).

We believe that Mary was sinless. Jesus was sinless. WE believe that John the baptist was sinless. So was Moses and Abraham. We Muslims do not believe that Devil (Satan) tempted (or troubled) Jesus or Mary. This is all written in our books.

BibleNT says Satan tempted Jesus for 40 days and Jesus did not succumb to the wishes of the Devil. Of course that is good. But we Muslims believe that satan never tempted Jesus.He never dare tempt Jesus or his mother. Satan never dare come ner Jesus. So who is better?? The Catholics or the Muslims?? I hope we Muslims are not on any bad footing on that subject (account.)

When we say that prophets are sinless, it does not mean they do not make mistakes. They do that. But even those mistakes are openly denounced (Corrected) by Allah and they (prophets) openly admit and mend their mistakes. So there are no bad things in their balance of deeds. Their sheet is clean.

 

[Byzantine_Wolf]

This is not a small issue at all. It is THE issue. If you have to maintain distinctions in order to hold your position on the One, then you are not talking about the One.

The Good and the One are two separate words for instance. But in God they are strictly identical with one another. The One is the Good and vice versa. Hypostases and Ousia are not strictly synonymous terms, on the other hand, and Christians need to maintain their separate meaning in order to protect the distinction between the persons.

The existence of distinctions is, as I have said several times, the problem with the “orthodox” Christian account of the One.

I’m afraid that is indeed straining gnats. That we have to maintain distinction is obvious because, once again, they’re two separate words. They are found within the definition of the Trinity, but to demand they be synonymous or say that a synonymous nature be present is setting up presupposition and demanding it be met.

Furthermore, though they have separate meanings, they are intricately related. The Persons are within the Being of God. They are united by Essence - that is what helps their unity. To say these two words have separate meanings when they should be synonymous is, as I said, propping up a presupposition to favor your argument. The fact is when we look at what these words mean, they support the unity of the Trinity and ergo the monotheistic God of Christianity. To argue there is a problem because of two separate words really makes about as much sense as saying to someone, “You say the barrel and the projectile motion are part of a pistol, but because ‘barrel’ and ‘projectile motion’ are two separate words that are distinguished, you can’t say that you really have a gun.” If this is the kind of “distinction” that Muslims have a problem with, then it truly is willful ignorance.

We are drifting from the topic of your thread, which was about Qur’anic statements on Christianity. I have already tried to answer this (not to your satisfaction, but I have explained my position and tried to provide references when asked). So I think we are approaching the end of our particular conversation.

Actually the conversation was on the Quranic definition of the Trinity as given by Mohammad, and its understanding in Islam. I showed that by the time of Mohammad the doctrine of the Trinity was well established and could be sourced all the way back to the apostles of Christ, and therefore Mohammad should not have had any excuse (especially if he was receiving revelation from an omnipotent deity) of misunderstanding the doctrine.

I appreciate your responses, I really do. However, I think you have a problem first in that your response to the passages in the Quran is not in line with traditional Islam (and in fact has been criticized by your fellow Muslim posters), and second in that despite claiming to know the proper definitions and acknowledging their existence, you simply reject it outright.

 

[planten]

B W, we are asking you, from where you have got Trinity? You are tracing it back to old times. Did Jesus talk about it? Did Jesus spend a few days of his life preaching Trinity?

Did Moses say about Trinity? Did Abraham teach it? Did mother Mary speak about it?? There is nothing in the bibleNT. So you have made it up from some where.

WE do not mind if Jesus’s apostles teach about it? But it should be in the gospel first. There is nothing in the four gospels. Did Mathew or Mark or Luke preach Trinity the way that you are hinging all your case on Trinity?? I am sure you are wrong.

There is no need to blame it on Muhammad or God (Allah) about it. I am takig your small book as authentic and basing my case of Trinity on the gospel. You should also consider Quran as authentic, from God. Then you will not have to blame God.

You feel that you have discovered the nature of God. But you cannot discover any truth without a prophet. It is the Prophets who teach the Unitarian faith (Tauheed). No one can teach the real One-ness (Unity) of God. And you do not have any prophet.
Can you tell me who is your prophet?? The prophet of the christians??

Every nation had a prophet. I do not know who is your prophet. Please tell. Then, by the Grace of Allah, we will catch you very quickly. Please respond. (RSVP)

 

[Nine_Two]

B W, we are asking you, from where you have got Trinity? You are tracing it back to old times. Did Jesus talk about it? Did Jesus spend a few days of his life preaching Trinity?

Did Moses say about Trinity? Did Abraham teach it? Did mother Mary speak about it?? There is nothing in the bibleNT. So you have made it up from some where.

WE do not mind if Jesus’s apostles teach about it? But it should be in the gospel first. There is nothing in the four gospels. Did Mathew or Mark or Luke preach Trinity the way that you are hinging all your case on Trinity?? I am sure you are wrong.

There is no need to blame it on Muhammad or God (Allah) about it. I am takig your small book as authentic and basing my case of Trinity on the gospel. You should also consider Quran as authentic, from God. Then you will not have to blame God.

You feel that you have discovered the nature of God. But you cannot discover any truth without a prophet. It is the Prophets who teach the Unitarian faith (Tauheed). No one can teach the real One-ness (Unity) of God. And you do not have any prophet.
Can you tell me who is your prophet?? The prophet of the christians??

Every nation had a prophet. I do not know who is your prophet. Please tell. Then, by the Grace of Allah, we will catch you very quickly. Please respond. (RSVP)

The gospels most certainly did preach the trinity. I’d get the references for you except that last time you were given them you tried to claim they meant something else, and last time you got into a lengthy discussion about the trinity you avoided having to back up your claims by saying you’ve never studied the trinity and you never will because it’s not something you need to understand (which makes anything you add to this thread particularly worthless which is why you’ve been ignored thus far).

 

[jakasaki]

**Every nation had a prophet. **

Heavy claim here that “**every nation had a prophet”. **

Care to tell us who those prophets where and to what nations did they belong to?

 

[Hypatia]

I’m afraid that is indeed straining gnats. That we have to maintain distinction is obvious because, once again, they’re two separate words. They are found within the definition of the Trinity, but to demand they be synonymous or say that a synonymous nature be present is setting up presupposition and demanding it be met.

Furthermore, though they have separate meanings, they are intricately related. The Persons are within the Being of God. They are united by Essence - that is what helps their unity. To say these two words have separate meanings when they should be synonymous is, as I said, propping up a presupposition to favor your argument. The fact is when we look at what these words mean, they support the unity of the Trinity and ergo the monotheistic God of Christianity. To argue there is a problem because of two separate words really makes about as much sense as saying to someone, “You say the barrel and the projectile motion are part of a pistol, but because ‘barrel’ and ‘projectile motion’ are two separate words that are distinguished, you can’t say that you really have a gun.” If this is the kind of “distinction” that Muslims have a problem with, then it truly is willful ignorance.

This is not simply an unfounded presupposition but one shared with Judaism and Christianity (that God is simple, to put it in very traditional language) and seen as a demand of reason itself. The example I used about “the One” and “the Good” could have been taken right out of an Augustine or Thomas, or even non-Christian thinkers like Plotinus and Proclus.

The gun example does not work because, as I think we can agree, the gun is 1.finite and 2.a unity of parts. That there are real distinctions that one can make regarding the existence of a gun is just a matter of course. To maintain that distinctions can properly be made with respect to God, the One, is another matter entirely.

 

[Nine_Two]

This is not simply an unfounded presupposition but one shared with Judaism and Christianity (that God is simple, to put it in very traditional language) and seen as a demand of reason itself. The example I used about “the One” and “the Good” could have been taken right out of an Augustine or Thomas, or even non-Christian thinkers like Plotinus and Proclus.

The gun example does not work because, as I think we can agree, the gun is 1.finite and 2.a unity of parts. That there are real distinctions that one can make regarding the existence of a gun is just a matter of course. To maintain that distinctions can properly be made with respect to God, the One, is another matter entirely.

You stated in another post that you believe God to be finite. So why doesn’t the gun analogy work for you?

 

[fms]

Trinity in the Old Testament

Planten Just Google this and then read/do your research.

You could then proceed googling ‘Trinity in the New Testament’.

 

[planten]

Trinity in the Old Testament

Planten Just Google this and then read/do your research.

You could then proceed googling ‘Trinity in the New Testament’.

fms, Thanks. I will try to follow your advice and I may benefit if any of you benefitted from those readings.

At present, I am asking some of the Catholics here about their prophet. I would like JW and some others, please tell who is their prophet?? It is not a difficult question. Let all respond carefully. Thanks.

 

[Hypatia]

You stated in another post that you believe God to be finite. So why doesn’t the gun analogy work for you?

uh, no … feel free to link to the place i supposedly said that; i would love to read it.

 

[Nine_Two]

uh, no … feel free to link to the place i supposedly said that; i would love to read it.

I just saw you replied to my post in that thread, however I’ll put a response anyway.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=6268030#post6268030

You claimed in that thread that God is limited in what he can do, because he can not do anything that might “appear” a paradox. In other words he’s apparently limited to the human understanding. If you are incapable of understanding something, than God can not do it.

Whether you want to admit it or not, when the Koran states there are things God “cannot” do, you are believing in a limited being.

 

[Seeker]

fms, Thanks. I will try to follow your advice and I may benefit if any of you benefitted from those readings.

At present, I am asking some of the Catholics here about their prophet. I would like JW and some others, please tell who is their prophet?? It is not a difficult question. Let all respond carefully. Thanks.

Planten - why don’t you take a guess and tell us WHO you think our prophet would be??, and then we’ll tell you if you are right, how does that sound?. Is shouldn’t be a difficult question to answer for you either

 

[Byzantine_Wolf]

Planten - why don’t you take a guess and tell us WHO you think our prophet would be??, and then we’ll tell you if you are right, how does that sound?. Is shouldn’t be a difficult question to answer for you either

Planten is trying to divert the topic. As a wise hobbit once said: don’t feed the trolls.

This is not simply an unfounded presupposition but one shared with Judaism and Christianity (that God is simple, to put it in very traditional language) and seen as a demand of reason itself. The example I used about “the One” and “the Good” could have been taken right out of an Augustine or Thomas, or even non-Christian thinkers like Plotinus and Proclus.

I don’t think I’ve quite heard anyone argue that the mere use of different words within a doctrine negates the doctrine itself. In that case, any belief within any religion that requires a definition or at least some deeper thought negates that entire religion, or that entire belief.

I must also admit that the constant reference to “reason” and “logic” when we are speaking of the supernatural is somewhat humorous, as the supernatural often entails one to transcend such thoughts. I am not saying that a spiritual person cannot think rationally, but for a spiritual person to try to be a rationalist presents a kind of contradiction. You might as well ponder the reasoning behind the fact that an angel gave a man in the Arabian desert a book over the course of several years, or how a man with a staff can part an entire sea. So that I’m not misunderstood, let me repeat that the point here is not to say that a person cannot reason in their thinking or think rationally on a matter, but if you make that the basis of your faith then you have to apply it to all things, and it soon leads to your very belief system falling apart.

The gun example does not work because, as I think we can agree, the gun is 1.finite and 2.a unity of parts. That there are real distinctions that one can make regarding the existence of a gun is just a matter of course. To maintain that distinctions can properly be made with respect to God, the One, is another matter entirely.

Actually the point of the gun metaphor was that to simply argue, “Oh, you distinguish between two words, that means you’re wrong,” is nonsensical.

As I said, to argue “the distinction between Essence and Persons denies the oneness of God” presents a presupposition that having terms that mean different things degrades a monotheistic faith, which isn’t the case. Essence and Persons are merely part of the definition of the Trinity, but how do they relate? The Persons are united by the Essence. To harp on the fact that there are two terms while ignoring the relation of those two terms is a borderline straw man.