The Quar'an said Mery had NO other Childen after Jesus

[Kadaveri]

I’m not sure what I can tell you that would add to my thoughts in post #31, which you roundly rejected in favor of Islamic lies that you believe are “flawless”. Sometimes trying to talk to Muslims is like trying to talk to alcoholics: You have to recognize that you can’t help them unless they admit they have a problem. The problem here, I think, is that you refuse to let Christians speak for themselves, as we let Muslims speak for themselves by using THEIR scriptures as a basis for our questions, not ours. If you use your own scriptures to try to define other people, you can hardly be surprised when they stand up and insist that you don’t know what you’re talking about. That’s all I’m doing. That’s all any of us are doing.

How is it an ‘Islamic lie’ that Christians believe that God consists of ‘three’, one of whom being ‘The Father’?

The text of 6:101 says the following:

“The Originator of the heavens and the earth! How can He have a child, when there is for Him no consort, when He created all things and is Aware of all things ?”

As we Christians call Jesus Christ “The Son of God”, I don’t see how this does not apply to the incarnation, It says in the previous verse that “those who ascribe partners to Allah” are to be condemned for it. This is often what we are charged with by Muslims who believe that we are polytheists due to their own misunderstanding of the Trinity, imbibed directly from the Qur’an.

Well let’s quote the two verses you’re talking about in full:

Yet they make the Jinns equals with God, though God did create the Jinns; and they falsely, having no knowledge, attribute to Him sons and daughters. Praise and glory be to Him! (for He is) above what they attribute to Him!
To Him is due the primal origin of the heavens and the earth: How can He have a son when He hath no consort? He created all things, and He hath full knowledge of all things. (6:100-101)

Honestly, are you going to accuse the Qur’an of thinking that Christians believe jinns have divine powers and that God has sons and daughters? Quite obviously these verses are attacking the beliefs of Meccan pagans (who did believe these things) and have nothing to do with the Incarnation, Jesus or Christianity at all. Don’t quote scripture out of context.

Are you being serious right now? I am shocked at your cowardice! Maybe this is your way of being polite, but the way I see it you are just trying to avoid having to make any firm declaration because you don’t want to admit that the Qur’an is wrong. I don’t blame you. If I had to defend the Qur’an I probably wouldn’t feel up to it in the face of repeated questioning, either.

I am very serious and firm in what I’m saying. I don’t understand what it is in this paragraph you’re actually saying though.

Wait a minute. This makes no sense. The Qur’an would condemn the Zoroastrians specifically for believing in two Gods but not Christians for believing in “three”? Why is that? And if it not three gods, then what is the problem with it? If you recognize it as one God as we do, then why is it an issue? Why say “do not say three” if it is NOT in fact making God into “three”? It is obvious to me that you want to have it both ways: When we point out that the Qur’an is wrong in its description of our beliefs, you want to say that it is not saying what we think it is saying, but you don’t want to tell us what it IS saying, either. And you don’t want to tell us what the problem is with the Trinity as far as Islam is concerned because it would expose the fact that the Qur’an incorrectly represents the Trinity. Just admit that there is a problem already. Sheesh!

No. What I’m saying is that if the Qur’an understood Christians to believe in three gods, then why does it not condemn them for doing so like it condemns Zoroastrians for believing in two gods in 16:51? Why does it just say to Christians to not say that God is ‘three’ and leave it at that? The answers is that the Qur’an is not accusing Christians of believing in three gods, but rather of believing in one God who is somehow also ‘three’. As explained in my earlier post, the Qur’an’s problems with the Trinity are basically two-fold. First is the Incarnation, the belief that Jesus (or any human) was God incarnate on Earth, was simultaneously God and human. This doctrine is denounced in 4:171, 5:17 and 5:72 as blasphemy. Second is the belief that God consists of three hypostases (or whatever), which is rejected in 4:171 and 5:73, as God is absolutely One.

A very “sophisticated” understanding to you is nonetheless very wrong to us. Again, you fall back on “how can three gods be one” and we answer that it is not three gods that is one, but ONE God that has made Himself known to us in three persons that are co-equal and co-eternal. You can’t even give up your own misunderstanding when you’re trying to make the point that you have a very sophisticated understanding of the Trinity!

My point is exactly that the Qur’an understands Christian doctrine to be one God in three co-eternal persons, as it cannot possibly understand the ‘three’ in 5:73 to be three gods since it also understands that they constitute one and the same god (5:17 and 5:72 explicitly, and a careful reading of 4:171 also demonstrates this).

 

[Jay53]

How is it an ‘Islamic lie’ that Christians believe that God consists of ‘three’, one of whom being ‘The Father’?

Because the Quran does depict the Christian belief of God as “three” separate gods. All 3 translations in the two verses use descriptions that support that. (Emphasis below is mine.) It also explains why the majority of Muslims seem to perceive Christians as polytheists.

Your explanation that Allah intentionally leaves the description vague also doesn’t hold water unless you want to believe that the Omniscient and Omnipotent God can’t clearly denounce a belief without the Christians “with their strange (I don’t mean that in a derogatory but strictly descriptive sense) doctrine would just find a way to get around it.”

Your explanations also don’t explain why the Quran specifically mentions Mary as being worshipped (5:116), but makes absolutely no mention of the Holy Spirit. (Other than the Muslim description of the Angel Gabriel being the Holy Spirit which is completely different.)

005.072
YUSUFALI: 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.
PICKTHAL: They surely disbelieve who say: Lo! Allah is the Messiah, son of Mary. The Messiah (himself) said: O Children of Israel, worship Allah, my Lord and your Lord. Lo! whoso ascribeth partners unto Allah, for him Allah hath forbidden paradise. His abode is the Fire. For evil-doers there will be no helpers.
SHAKIR: Certainly they disbelieve who say: Surely Allah, He is the Messiah, son of Marium; and the Messiah said: O Children of Israel! serve Allah, my Lord and your Lord. Surely whoever associates (others) with Allah, then Allah has forbidden to him the garden, and his abode is the fire; and there shall be no helpers for the unjust.

005.073
YUSUFALI: 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.
PICKTHAL: They surely disbelieve who say: Lo! Allah is the third of three; when there is no Allah save the One Allah. If they desist not from so saying a painful doom will fall on those of them who disbelieve.
SHAKIR: Certainly they disbelieve who say: Surely Allah is the third (person) of the three; and there is no god but the one Allah, and if they desist not from what they say, a painful chastisement shall befall those among them who disbelieve.

 

[dzheremi]

How is it an ‘Islamic lie’ that Christians believe that God consists of ‘three’, one of whom being ‘The Father’?

Because that is not the criterion of properly understanding the Trinity yourself? Read on, please.

Well let’s quote the two verses you’re talking about in full:

Yet they make the Jinns equals with God, though God did create the Jinns; and they falsely, having no knowledge, attribute to Him sons and daughters. Praise and glory be to Him! (for He is) above what they attribute to Him!
To Him is due the primal origin of the heavens and the earth: How can He have a son when He hath no consort? He created all things, and He hath full knowledge of all things. (6:100-101)

Honestly, are you going to accuse the Qur’an of thinking that Christians believe jinns have divine powers and that God has sons and daughters? Quite obviously these verses are attacking the beliefs of Meccan pagans (who did believe these things) and have nothing to do with the Incarnation, Jesus or Christianity at all. Don’t quote scripture out of context.

I am aware of the full verses and their implications for the pagans of Mecca, I am saying that they are also used as apologetic fodder against Christians by Muslims, whether or not you think they should be. So you cannot say that this has nothing to do with Christian doctrine, when your fellow Muslims interpret it as such. Or do you believe yourself to be the only Muslim who knows what the Qur’an is really saying? Do you want me to show you pages of Islamic apologetic sites that do this? Here is one. Perhaps you should e-mail them tell them to stop using 6:101 to try to disprove the Divine Sonship of Christ, since it apparently is wrong to do so. I chose to believe that the writer(s) of the Qur’an chose their wording carefully with full knowledge of the sorts of claims that Christians make about Jesus being the Son of God. Perhaps if 6:101 had repeated the phrase “sons and daughters” I might be more inclined to believe you, but as it is it seems a bit too pointed to be coincidental. But this is, at the end of the day, a minor point.

I am very serious and firm in what I’m saying. I don’t understand what it is in this paragraph you’re actually saying though.

I’m saying you are avoiding the elephant in the room by trying to give the Qur’an leeway it certainly does not deserve.

No. What I’m saying is that if the Qur’an understood Christians to believe in three gods, then why does it not condemn them for doing so like it condemns Zoroastrians for believing in two gods in 16:51? Why does it just say to Christians to not say that God is ‘three’ and leave it at that?

Ah. Now I see the point you were making. My apologies for misreading you.

The answers is that the Qur’an is not accusing Christians of believing in three gods. As explained in my earlier post, the Qur’an’s problems with the Trinity are basically two-fold. First is the Incarnation, the belief that Jesus (or any human) was God incarnate on Earth, was simultaneously God and human. This doctrine is denounced in 4:171, 5:17 and 5:72 as blasphemy. Second is the belief that God consists of three hypostases (or whatever), which is rejected in 4:171 and 5:73, as God is absolutely One.

I just don’t know enough about the history of Islamic thought to say whether or not you’re trying to pull one over on me. I will say that you are the first Muslim I have ever encountered who claims that the Qur’an preserves the Christian distinction of three persons. I personally do not believe that it does. The Qur’an itself does not even claim that it does. I can only conclude that you are tailoring the message to fit your audience, and if you had said this to Muhammad or Abu Bakr or any other early Muslim, they would have no clue what you are talking about.

(cont’d below)

 

[dzheremi]

My point is exactly that the Qur’an understands Christian doctrine to be one God in three co-eternal persons,

Okay. Show me where, because I am absolutely not buying your eisegesis of the text.

as it cannot possibly understand the ‘three’ in 5:73 to be three gods since it also understands that they constitute one and the same god (5:17 and 5:72 explicitly, and a careful reading of 4:171 also demonstrates this).

5:17 says “Verily they are disbelievers and infidels who say, ‘The Messiah, son of Mary, is God.’”

Where exactly is the proper understanding of the Trinity in this? Yes, Jesus Christ, the Messiah, IS God, but plenty of heretical sects have claimed to affirm this where, beneath the surface, it has been clear that they do not have an orthodox understanding of what this means. Some exist today (Mormons/LDS), some do not

5:72 says “They surely disbelieve who say: Lo! Allah is the Messiah, son of Mary. The Messiah (himself) said: O Children of Israel, worship Allah, my Lord and your Lord. Lo! whoso ascribeth partners unto Allah, for him Allah hath forbidden paradise. His abode is the Fire. For evil-doers there will be no helpers.”

Here is where you begin to run into a big logic-problem, Kadaveri: Elsewhere in the thread you have claimed that “Allah”, as Muslims understand him, is God the Father. No orthodox understanding of the Holy Trinity confuses the Son for the Father!

4:171 says “O followers of the Book! do not exceed the limits in your religion, and do not speak (lies) against Allah, but (speak) the truth; the Messiah, Isa son of Marium is only a messenger of Allah and His Word which He communicated to Marium and a spirit from Him; believe therefore in Allah and His messengers, and say not, Three. Desist, it is better for you; Allah is only one Allah; far be It from His glory that He should have a son, whatever is in the heavens and whatever is in the earth is His, and Allah is sufficient for a Protector” (Note: have chosen the Shakir translation, because the Yusuf Ali translation I usually prefer actually uses “Trinity”, not “three”…HMMM… )

How does this correctly describe the Christian belief in the Trinity, exactly? Yes, it admits that we believe that Christ is the Son of God, but as I said in response to 5:17, there is nothing to that one way or another. These are the basic things that many heretical sects (including those present in Arabia) would have confirmed, because they are so basic to any kind of Christianity that they are found most anywhere. It is the UNDERSTANDING of these ideas that make them heretical, just as it is Muhammad’s understanding of these ideas as preserved in the Qur’an and transmitted throughout Islamic history that make Islam completely lost when it comes to actually understanding what Christians believe.

 

[aspirant]

The Qur’an … says you believe there is only one God, who is ‘three’.

According to the passages quoted here, it says we believe God is “one of three.” That’s wrong.

 

[dzheremi]

Let me put it this way, Kadaveri:

Let’s say I decided to become a Muslim. I decided that I believe that Muhammad is God’s prophet, and Islam is the true religion. If, based on your idea that the Qur’an does not misinterpret the Trinity as polytheism, I decide I can continue to believe in the Trinity (after all, as you say, the Qur’an correctly describes it as not three gods), can I continue to be a Muslim? Why or why not? I say that I have said the Shahada, and I am not disallowing what the Qur’an has allowed, by virtue of its not condemning the Trinity as explicitly as it seems to to everyone but you. Why am I not a Muslim if I believe in the Trinity?

These are rhetorical questions, by the way. I already know and you already know that I am not a Muslim because of (and I’m being charitable to your argument here) the problems related to the Trinity even without the Qur’an explicitly saying that it is “three gods” - the problems that YOU mentioned: Christ’s divinity and the Incarnation. Well guess what: There are NOT separate issues as you’d like them to be. The incarnation and Christ’s divinity are both affirmed in our affirmation of the true, triune nature of God (see the Nicene Creed, post #31). You cannot deny one in isolation without denying them all. You cannot say “Jesus Christ, Son of Mary, is not God” without denying the Trinity, because we understand Christ’s divinity in the context of orthodox Trinitarian Christianity, not the sorts of heresies that circulated around Muhammad’s Arabia and are ultimately responsible for Islam’s and Muslims’ warped understanding of the Christianity. Christ is not some sort of god in isolation, separate and of a different essence than the Father from whom He is eternally begotten. You clearly do not understand this or you would not argue against the incarnation and the divinity of Christ in your bizarre attempts to try to make the Islamic lies of the Qur’an try to fit in with orthodox Christianity.

 

[Kadaveri]

Jay - None of the verses say that Christians believe in three separate gods. I will concede that taken in isolation 5:73 could be interpreted to mean three gods, but this interpretation is impossible when you taken into account the other verses, most notable the immediately preceding verse. There’s no way you can reconcile the Qur’an meaning Christians believe in three *separate *gods in 5:73 when 5:72 says The Son and The Father are one and the same God.

I don’t mean to say that the Qur’an is being vague by leaving the ‘three’ open-ended, on the contrary it is being as precise as can be, as what the Qur’an is saying here is that God is not three anything. This is as clear a denounciation of the Trinity as can be made.

5:116 is something quite different, and is condemning idolatry. The Qur’an’s definition of ‘worship’ is quite liberal, and means giving something that belong to God alone to anything other than God. Various Christian (Catholic and Eastern Orthodox especially) beliefs and practices concerning Mary constitute effective worship in Islam, similar to how 9:31 condemns the People of the Book for worshipping Priests and Rabbis, or 36:60 warns people not to worship Satan.

 

[Kadaveri]

I am aware of the full verses and their implications for the pagans of Mecca, I am saying that they are also used as apologetic fodder against Christians by Muslims, whether or not you think they should be. So you cannot say that this has nothing to do with Christian doctrine, when your fellow Muslims interpret it as such. Or do you believe yourself to be the only Muslim who knows what the Qur’an is really saying? Do you want me to show you pages of Islamic apologetic sites that do this? Here is one. Perhaps you should e-mail them tell them to stop using 6:101 to try to disprove the Divine Sonship of Christ, since it apparently is wrong to do so. I chose to believe that the writer(s) of the Qur’an chose their wording carefully with full knowledge of the sorts of claims that Christians make about Jesus being the Son of God. Perhaps if 6:101 had repeated the phrase “sons and daughters” I might be more inclined to believe you, but as it is it seems a bit too pointed to be coincidental. But this is, at the end of the day, a minor point.

I really don’t care if some shoddy Muslim polemical website incorrectly references that verse in a subject where it doesn’t belong. It’s just plain wrong to say that this verse is supposed to be a refutation of the Divine Sonship when the entire Sura is directed at Meccan pagans and never once even mentions Christians.

I just don’t know enough about the history of Islamic thought to say whether or not you’re trying to pull one over on me. I will say that you are the first Muslim I have ever encountered who claims that the Qur’an preserves the Christian distinction of three persons. I personally do not believe that it does. The Qur’an itself does not even claim that it does. I can only conclude that you are tailoring the message to fit your audience, and if you had said this to Muhammad or Abu Bakr or any other early Muslim, they would have no clue what you are talking about.

Okay. Show me where, because I am absolutely not buying your eisegesis of the text.

4:171 is the best verse to demonstrate this, as it deals with both the Divine Sonship and ‘three persons’ elements of the Trinity simultaneously.

Say not “three” desist: it will be better for you: for God is one god: Far above His glory (is Him) having a son. Wala taqooloo thalathatun intahoo khayran lakum innama Allahu ilahun wahidun subhanahu an yakoona lahu waladun (4:171)

I’m putting a transliteration of the Arabic there because it isn’t really possible to explain the significance of the passage without the original vocabulary. The Qur’an refutes the notion of God having a son by saying Allahu ilahun wahidun. *Allah *meaning God, *ilah *usually translated as ‘god’, but the true meaning is anything that is worshipped, and *wahid *meaning one. However in Arabic there are two different words meaning ‘one’, there is ahad, which means one as in ‘only’, and then there is wahid, which means one as in counting (one, two, three). So what does it mean to say that Allah, a word which has no plural, is one (wahid)? This doesn’t make much sense. Everywhere else in the Qur’an when God is described as being ‘one’ (e.g. 112:1) the word used in ahad, meaning that there is only one God; but saying that Allah, a word which is by definition singular, is wahid is a quite bizarre and seemingly superfluous thing to say. Of course the Qur’an uses this word in this one unique case because this is a unique instance in which it actually makes sense, because who are the only people who would agree that there is only one God (Allahu ahad), yet in some way not wahid, believing there to be some kind of **internal **distinction in this one God? Christians of course.

Remember what the Qur’an is refuting by saying that God is wahid, the Christian belief that God has a ‘son’. If the Qur’an understood this belief of God having a son to mean that the son was another god or in any way different in essence, it would simply refute it by saying Allahu ahad, there is only one God. However it doesn’t, because it understands Christian doctrine well enough to know that this won’t do. Instead it deliberately uses the unnatural *wahid *to say that God is one internally, the Qur’an would only use this word if it understood this sonship to mean that the ‘Son’ being spoken of is co-eternal with the ‘Father’, and that both the Son and the Father are internal distinctions within one and same being.

 

[Kadaveri]

Here is where you begin to run into a big logic-problem, Kadaveri: Elsewhere in the thread you have claimed that “Allah”, as Muslims understand him, is God the Father. No orthodox understanding of the Holy Trinity confuses the Son for the Father!

I have chosen the Shakir translation, because the Yusuf Ali translation I usually prefer actually uses “Trinity”, not “three”…HMMM… )

The Qur’an is not confusing the Son for the Father in 5:72, it is refuting the idea that Jesus was God’s incarnation on Earth. It can be seen from 5:73 that the Qur’an understands the three persons to be separate.

You’re running into the same problem you had when you were interpreting 5:73 as saying Christians believe in three gods, you’re reading each verse in isolation without paying attention to the adjacent verse. So you point at 5:73 and say well Christians don’t believe in three gods, then you’re directed to 5:72 which says the Son and the Father are the same so 5:73 can’t understand them to be different gods. Then you say well the Son and the Father are not the same, they are distinct hypostases within the Trinitarian Godhead, then you’re directed to 5:73 which says the three persons are separate, so 5:72 can’t be rolling the persons into one but rather meaning that they are the same in essence, then you’ll say but 5:73 looks like its condemning Tritheism and we start at the beginning again…

5:72 and 5:73 are a pair. You need to read both verses together to probably understand the meaning. There is something of a paradox between the two, namely how can the Qur’an accuse a people of believing two things to be both separate from each other, and also the same as each other? But that’s just the Qur’an cleverly mirroring the paradox inherent in Trinitarian doctrine.

The word ‘Trinity’ is not in the Qur’an, it just says ‘three’.

Let me put it this way, Kadaveri:

Let’s say I decided to become a Muslim. I decided that I believe that Muhammad is God’s prophet, and Islam is the true religion. If, based on your idea that the Qur’an does not misinterpret the Trinity as polytheism, I decide I can continue to believe in the Trinity (after all, as you say, the Qur’an correctly describes it as not three gods), can I continue to be a Muslim? Why or why not? I say that I have said the Shahada, and I am not disallowing what the Qur’an has allowed, by virtue of its not condemning the Trinity as explicitly as it seems to to everyone but you. Why am I not a Muslim if I believe in the Trinity?

No you can’t be a Muslim and believe in the Trinity. The Qur’an is only condemning the Trinity in a different fashion to how it condemning polytheism because it understands that the Trinity does not constitute tritheism, and so the usual refutations of polytheism (like Allahu ahad) do not work. That doesn’t mean its condemnation of the Trinity is any less stern.

These are rhetorical questions, by the way. I already know and you already know that I am not a Muslim because of (and I’m being charitable to your argument here) the problems related to the Trinity even without the Qur’an explicitly saying that it is “three gods” - the problems that YOU mentioned: Christ’s divinity and the Incarnation. Well guess what: There are NOT separate issues as you’d like them to be. The incarnation and Christ’s divinity are both affirmed in our affirmation of the true, triune nature of God (see the Nicene Creed, post #31). You cannot deny one in isolation without denying them all. You cannot say “Jesus Christ, Son of Mary, is not God” without denying the Trinity, because we understand Christ’s divinity in the context of orthodox Trinitarian Christianity, not the sorts of heresies that circulated around Muhammad’s Arabia and are ultimately responsible for Islam’s and Muslims’ warped understanding of the Christianity. Christ is not some sort of god in isolation, separate and of a different essence than the Father from whom He is eternally begotten. You clearly do not understand this or you would not argue against the incarnation and the divinity of Christ in your bizarre attempts to try to make the Islamic lies of the Qur’an try to fit in with orthodox Christianity.

By splitting the Trinity into a two-part formula of the Divine Sonship and the three hypostases, the Qur’an is highlighting the paradox inherent in believing in both these things simultaneously. The point is not to condemn one but not the other, but to make clear what these beliefs constitute and them condemning them both.

 

[ralphinal]

Well, of course if “faith and morals” is subjectively defined, it’s really a meaningless term isn’t it? In my eyes kissing a holy book by the leader of a church (viewed as the vicar of Christ, successor of Peter, and all that) is an implicit endorsement of that holy book, which seems to be a very clear matter of faith. Not a point I want to argue over (I merely note the maxim “faith and morals” means whatever the church wants it to mean at the time; and it’s ultimately a meaningless designation, which is always applied post hoc and for the convenience of the church). Another one of those sort of, if you buy into that one, why not consider placing a bid on the bridge I have for sale

Amazing. You missed the key word. TEACHING matters of faith and morals. If the Pope said that the Qur’an is the inspired word of God and it is equal to the Bible, infallibility goes right out the window.

 

[ralphinal]

How can it be blasphemy to say that Jesus, son of Mary, is the Christ, when Muslims call Jesus the Messiah, which is the same thing?

Kadaveri, can you help me understand this

 

[Kadaveri]

I think you’ve misunderstood something Ralphinal. It’s not blasphemy at all to say that Jesus is the Christ.

 

[bridgeforsale]

Amazing. You missed the key word. TEACHING matters of faith and morals. If the Pope said that the Qur’an is the inspired word of God and it is equal to the Bible, infallibility goes right out the window.

Didn’t miss it … I just realize that people don’t restrict themselves to learning only when their would be teachers use precise legally binding terminology. You teach I think first and foremost by example. Kissing a holy book is a wink of validation (I don’t care how hard you try to tap dance around this issue and spin it … it is what it is)

Whip it up all you want, call me all the names you want, you’ll only give more validation to the idea that the deeply religious are brainwashed.

 

[Jay53]

Jay - None of the verses say that Christians believe in three separate gods. I will concede that taken in isolation 5:73 could be interpreted to mean three gods, but this interpretation is impossible when you taken into account the other verses, most notable the immediately preceding verse. There’s no way you can reconcile the Qur’an meaning Christians believe in three *separate *gods in 5:73 when 5:72 says The Son and The Father are one and the same God.

You didn’t read the part I had bolded in 5:72. All 3 translations depict multiple gods by indicating “other gods” YUSUFALI, “partners” PICKTHAL and “associates (others)” SHAKIR. I think the closest to saying what you are interpreting is YUSUFALI who says “joins other gods”, but it would depend on how he was interpreting “joins”.

 

[Jay53]

5:116 is something quite different, and is condemning idolatry. The Qur’an’s definition of ‘worship’ is quite liberal, and means giving something that belong to God alone to anything other than God. Various Christian (Catholic and Eastern Orthodox especially) beliefs and practices concerning Mary constitute effective worship in Islam, similar to how 9:31 condemns the People of the Book for worshipping Priests and Rabbis, or 36:60 warns people not to worship Satan.

This is a topic for another thread - in fact I think I started a thread on this verse a long time ago, but Christians DO NOT worship Mary despite what Muslims think. That was my point in the other thread was that God, being omniscient, knows that Christians do not worship Mary, but Muhammad, not understanding Christian beliefs or practices would not know this.

 

[Ignatius]

FROM THE QUAR’AN

Ya, um, thing is, the Koran/Quran/القرآن‎ isn’t really a reliable source!

 

[dzheremi]

I really don’t care if some shoddy Muslim polemical website incorrectly references that verse in a subject where it doesn’t belong. It’s just plain wrong to say that this verse is supposed to be a refutation of the Divine Sonship when the entire Sura is directed at Meccan pagans and never once even mentions Christians.

Obviously it doesn’t mention Christians by name. I’m not arguing that. I"m saying that the implications of the verse condemn Christianity (and Muslims who aren’t you seem to agree that it does), and to me it seems that the word-choice (at least in translation) is deliberate to bring to mind Christian beliefs in the Divine Sonship of Christ, even if it does not mention them explicitly.

4:171 is the best verse to demonstrate this, as it deals with both the Divine Sonship and ‘three persons’ elements of the Trinity simultaneously.

Say not “three” desist: it will be better for you: for God is one god: Far above His glory (is Him) having a son. Wala taqooloo thalathatun intahoo khayran lakum innama Allahu ilahun wahidun subhanahu an yakoona lahu waladun (4:171)

I’m putting a transliteration of the Arabic there because it isn’t really possible to explain the significance of the passage without the original vocabulary. The Qur’an refutes the notion of God having a son by saying Allahu ilahun wahidun. *Allah *meaning God, *ilah *usually translated as ‘god’, but the true meaning is anything that is worshipped, and *wahid *meaning one. However in Arabic there are two different words meaning ‘one’, there is ahad, which means one as in ‘only’, and then there is wahid, which means one as in counting (one, two, three). So what does it mean to say that Allah, a word which has no plural, is one (wahid)? This doesn’t make much sense. Everywhere else in the Qur’an when God is described as being ‘one’ (e.g. 112:1) the word used in ahad, meaning that there is only one God; but saying that Allah, a word which is by definition singular, is wahid is a quite bizarre and seemingly superfluous thing to say. Of course the Qur’an uses this word in this one unique case because this is a unique instance in which it actually makes sense, because who are the only people who would agree that there is only one God (Allahu ahad), yet in some way not wahid, believing there to be some kind of **internal **distinction in this one God? Christians of course.

I grant you all that stuff about Arabic language, but Arab Christians apparently understood this distinction when after the rise of Islam among their people they added “Allahu al-WAHID” to the Trinitarian formula. So a rejection of Allah’s “internal structure” being compromised by the FACT that He is a Trinity is already built into Arab Christianity.

Again, you are showing your lack of understanding about the Trinity by claiming that it somehow divides God into constituent parts, rather than maintaining His Oneness. This is actually an interesting distinction for you to be trying to make. The Semitic-speaking Orthodox Christians of Ethiopia and Eritrea (having accepted Christianity centuries before Islam ever existed) belong to what is officially known as the “Orthodox Tewahido Church”. I know you know that middle word means, even though it’s in Ge’ez, not Arabic.

Remember what the Qur’an is refuting by saying that God is wahid, the Christian belief that God has a ‘son’.

Yeah, except that it CAN’T do that because Jesus Christ being the Son of God does not violate this principle. You are falling into the same trap that others with more simplistic arguments have fallen into when they ask which God died on the cross, or who was acting as God for the three days before the resurrection. It is essentially the same problem: You want the Trinity to be a math problem. It divides your concept of Allah. I can’t really help you but to say that the Oneness of God is a fundamental principle of Christianity, whether you understand it or not. Plenty of people who have confessed to be Christians have fallen into similar traps that Muhammad fell into. We obviously refuse to deny what we believe to be true for the objections of one in a long line of heretics just because this one happens to have been rather successful through the application of violence, economic pressures and incentives, and the “dumbing down” of Christian theology that appealed to the heretical Christian sects already present in Arabia when Muhammad began his career as a prophet and warlord.

If the Qur’an understood this belief of God having a son to mean that the son was another god or in any way different in essence, it would simply refute it by saying Allahu ahad, there is only one God. However it doesn’t, because it understands Christian doctrine well enough to know that this won’t do. Instead it deliberately uses the unnatural *wahid *to say that God is one internally,

Meh. Again, I do not think that the use of this word automatically signifies that Muhammad or the Qur’an understood Christian theology at all. Arabs and the Habesh all use similar words (or the same word) and they have no trouble reconciling the concept of “tawhid”, “wahidaaniya”, whatever you want to call it and the Trinity. It is Muhammad and Islam’s problem only. Not a linguistic problem, not a cultural problem, but a religious problem for Islam’s particular definition of “Allah”.

the Qur’an would only use this word if it understood this sonship to mean that the ‘Son’ being spoken of is co-eternal with the ‘Father’, and that both the Son and the Father are internal distinctions within one and same being.

I don’t buy it, but thanks for your explanation anyway. I’ll leave this conversation now. Perhaps one of our ex-Muslim posters can explain it better than I have. Peace.

 

[Byzantine_Wolf]

Christians do believe that God (by which the Qur’an in 5:73 means ‘The Father’) is one of three. You can hardly accuse the Qur’an of not understanding that the three are believed to be ‘united’ when all the other verses I mentioned (including 5:72 just before it) clearly establish this (e.g. “God is Christ”).

How do you know that 5:73 means God “the Father” when it clearly says Allah? As someone else asked, where in the Quran is Allah called the Father? And it argues that “God is not Christ,” but it never seems to really have a grasp on what this means. From here, we often get the bad Muslim argumentation that “Christians worship three gods” or “The Trinity means God needs help” or “The Trinity means that God made a friend,” or any other definition that is not the Trinity.

Again, the very argument that the Trinity means “God is one of Three” is tritheism, not Trinitarianism. One can argue this all they want, but if they are arguing this because of a presupposition planted by their religion, then their religion is forcing them to lie.

Saying that the Bible is corrupt is far from saying that it contains no truth.

When you accuse a document as being “corrupt,” and yet at the same time declare there is “truth” within it, discerning the truth falls back on arbitration. Therefore, how are the Christians and Jews to discern this method of arbitration when you argue that the books the Quran orders them to look at are corrupt in the first place?

 

[Kadaveri]

How do you know that 5:73 means God “the Father” when it clearly says Allah? As someone else asked, where in the Quran is Allah called the Father? And it argues that “God is not Christ,” but it never seems to really have a grasp on what this means. From here, we often get the bad Muslim argumentation that “Christians worship three gods” or “The Trinity means God needs help” or “The Trinity means that God made a friend,” or any other definition that is not the Trinity.

Again, the very argument that the Trinity means “God is one of Three” is tritheism, not Trinitarianism. One can argue this all they want, but if they are arguing this because of a presupposition planted by their religion, then their religion is forcing them to lie.

Because in Islam the only legitimate deity (Allah) is the being who Christians call ‘The Father’. God in Islam does not equal ‘The Father, The Son and the Holy Ghost’. The Qur’an is not a Christian book, and so when you hear the Qur’an talking about God it’s not talking about the Trinitarian Godhead, but God in Islam. I don’t think this is a difficult concept to grasp.

I feel like I’m going in circles here with 5:73 yet again being quoted in isolation to accuse the Qur’an of saying Christians are tritheists. 5:72 contradicts any such interpretation by accusing Christians of believing The Father and The Son to be one and the same God, so how can it accuse them of believing in three separate gods? Reconcile the two statements before you make any claim based on either 5:73 or 5:72 alone.

 

[Byzantine_Wolf]

Because in Islam the only legitimate deity (Allah) is the being who Christians call ‘The Father’. God in Islam does not equal ‘The Father, The Son and the Holy Ghost’. The Qur’an is not a Christian book, and so when you hear the Qur’an talking about God it’s not talking about the Trinitarian Godhead, but God in Islam. I don’t think this is a difficult concept to grasp.

The thing is, you’ve just shown us another example where Muslims have difficulties understanding the Trinity. You say that Allah is the “being” that Christians call “the Father.” The Father is not a Being, He is a Person. The Being is God and God alone. The three distinct Persons exist within that Being.

This is why, as I said, Muslims come to this forum and say that Christians worship three gods - they have no understanding of the Trinity, mainly because, I’m sorry to say, their holy book does not understand the Trinity.

I feel like I’m going in circles here with 5:73 yet again being quoted in isolation to accuse the Qur’an of saying Christians are tritheists. 5:72 contradicts any such interpretation by accusing Christians of believing The Father and The Son to be one and the same God, so how can it accuse them of believing in three separate gods? Reconcile the two statements before you make any claim based on either 5:73 or 5:72 alone.

Actually, 5:72 supports the idea that the Quran believes Christians are tritheists. Let’s review it:

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. [emphasis mine]

The thing is, we are not joining other gods with Allah, so it is a bit strange that Allah will deny us the Garden for something we do not do. The Quran does often say “They blaspheme who say Jesus is God,” but oftentimes I don’t think it really demonstrates what this means. Christ is God, yes, but is He the Being of God? That seems to be what it argues, or, in the context here, that Christ is another divine being alongside with God (which is closer to Arianism than it is Trinitarianism).