Did Muhammad Understand Trinity?

“The Trinity “seen” in the Quran is not the Trinity of the Apostles Creed, or of the Nicene Creed” correctly observed Robert A. Morey.

John Paul Stevens, former Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United Stated, captured the habit of his mentor Wiley Rutledge as “of understanding before disagreeing.”(Stevens 1956: 179-198) I am not sure if Muslims’ scholars could say the same to their founder prophet Muhammad (ca. 570 – 632 A.D) when it comes to his understanding of early Church’s doctrine of Triune God viz., One God in three distinct Persons.

I believe Muhammad failed to understand this teaching before he disagreed. Muhammad asserted that Christians, People of the Scripture, believed in three distinct gods, the Father(Allah), Son(Isa) and Mary. [I am very open for correction, if I failed to understand Muhammad’s position.]

In Sura 5.115-6, 5.73-75a and 4.171, Muhammad wrote expounded:

Allah said: Lo! I send it down for you. And whoso disbelieveth of you afterward, him surely will I punish with a punishment wherewith I have not punished any of (My) creatures. 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?

They surely disbelieve who say: Lo! Allah is the third of three[thalithu thalathatin]; 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. Will they not rather turn unto Allah and seek forgiveness of Him? For Allah is Forgiving, Merciful. The Messiah, son of Mary, was no other than a messenger, messengers (the like of whom) had passed away before him. And his mother was a saintly woman. And they both used to eat (earthly) food.

O People of the Scripture! Do not exaggerate in your religion nor utter aught concerning Allah save the truth. The Messiah, Jesus son of Mary, was only a messenger of Allah, and His word which He conveyed unto Mary, and a spirit from Him. So believe in Allah and His messengers, and say not “Three”[ thalathatun] – Cease! (it is) better for you! – Allah is only One Allah. Far is it removed from His Transcendent Majesty that He should have a son. His is all that is in the heavens and all that is in the earth. And Allah is sufficient as Defender.

Philip Schaff observed that Koran’s understanding of Jesus(Isa) the Son of Mary is a mixture of facts and apocryphal fictions. According to Koran, Isa “is not the Son of God; for as God has no wife, he can have no son”. Schaff noted that:

“In rude misconception or willful perversion, Mohammed seems to have understood the Christian doctrine of the trinity to be a trinity of Father, Mary, and Jesus. The Holy Spirit is identified with Gabriel. “God is only one God! Far be it from his glory that he should have a son!” Sura 4, ver. 169; comp. 5, ver. 77. The designation and worship of Mary as “the mother of God” may have occasioned this strange mistake. There was in Arabia in the fourth century a sect of fanatical women called Collyridians, who rendered divine worship to Mary. Epiphanius, Haer. 79.” ( Schaff, History of the Christian Church, CCEL)

If Muhammad received his revelation from angle Gabriel, should not he then have understood what the early Church meant by One God who is of three distinct Persons, namely the Father, the Son and Holy Spirit? I will let my Muslim friends who love thinking and wrestling with hard questions help me understand.

Question to Muslim Scholars: Am I correct to believe that Muhammad failed to understand the early Church concept of Trinity?

N.B: The question is not whether Trinity is true, but Muhammad’s understanding of it.

Bibliography:

Stevens, John Paul. 1956. Mr. Justice Rutledge. In Mr. Justice, ed. Allison Dunham and Philip B. Kurland,. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

The Quran (M. M. Pickthall, Ed.). Medford, MA: Perseus Digital Library.

Advertisements

60 thoughts on “Did Muhammad Understand Trinity?

  1. Very interesting Rafael. Your comments brought back a memory of early American history, specifically of an African American named George Washington Carver. Carver was born into slavery in 1864 and led a very interesting life. He said,

    “Fear of something is at the root of hate for others, and hate within will eventually destroy the hater.”

    There is a hatred that the Bible condemns. Hatred of other people, hatred of Deity, and hatred of God’s word or anything that He designates as holy, is wrong. Hatred is described as a work of the flesh (Galatians 5:19,20). It often fills the hearts of those that are outside of Christ, as we read in Titus 3:3: “For we ourselves also were sometimes . . . hateful, and hating one another” (Titus 3:3). Hatred, though it may have been a part of our past life without Christ, should never find a place in the hearts of God’s children. Hatred destroys.

    During the 1930’s and 40’s, Hitler’s hate campaign against the Jews and other ‘undesirables’ convinced millions of Germans of the righteousness of his mission. Chamberlain thought that he could appease Hitler by giving him the Sudetenland. Hitler could not be appeased since his demands were not based on reason, but he used his ‘reason’ only to justify his hatred.

    We see the same thing in much of the Arab world. How much have the Israeli governments given to the Palestinian Arabs, yet Israel is as far from peace with their neighbors as they were in 1948. The reason is that the Arabs use a “reason” to justify their claims against the Jews, when in reality no appeasement on the part of any Israeli leader will make them stop hating them. They hate Jews because they view them with fright, they fear that Jewish energies in building a beautiful society in the Middle East will expose them, and that Jewish success is a affront to the ‘truth’ of Islam. It is much easier to spread the lie of Israeli atrocities then face the truth that they are responsible for their own destinies and it is not Israel or the Jews that caused them to be in the position in which they find themselves.

    What is true with the group is true with the individual. The Torah commands us (Leviticus 19:17, 18) “Thou shall not hate thy brother in thy heart; you shall surely rebuke the neighbor, but not bring sin upon him. You shall not take vengeance nor bear a grudge, but you shall love thy neighbor as thyself.”

    Hatred blinds, and hatred kills. Love draws you closer together, but it requires courage to accept your own failings. Perhaps we cannot correct the world just today, but we can start by avoiding hatred and seeking truth in ourselves. If every one would look into himself and see and accept his own faults and not blame others for his position in life, the world would be a better place.

    I don’t think we can convert anyone to Christianity. All we can do is speak about the love/hate reality of our world and pray that one seeking would close their eyes in a quiet place and in their heart ask Jesus if He is God, and the God of love. My experience tells me He will answer and the answer will be yes.

  2. Dear Brother Islam does not believe in the Holy Trinity why would try to understand something they do not believe in? How would that affect their life?

    I understand trying to bring our Christian joy to someone who does not share our faith but how do we convert, I do not think that trying to convince someone that there is a trinity will bring them closer to our faith.

    Talk about our forgiving God who makes it rain over just and unjust alike.

    About our religion that preaches that if you love your neighbor as you love yourself you will receive heaven, for Islam all precepts of charity and forgiveness are exclusively for Islam followers, ours preaches love, charity and forgiveness to all including our enemies, even if some who proclaim themselves Christian do not act accordingly.

    Talk about the great teachings of Christ and how that will bring peace, love and joy to his followers.

  3. The writer of the Gospel of John claims he was an eyewitness of all the teachings and circumstances of Jesus’ life that he writes about. He maintains his Gospel is a true account of Jesus’ thoughts and words.

    John said of himself and his Gospel: “He who has seen has testified, and his testimony is true; and he knows that he is telling the truth” (John 19:35). A second time he says: “This is the disciple who testifies of these things, and wrote these things; and we know that his testimony is true” (John 21:24).

    John was there when Jesus spoke and worked; he knew Jesus personally. In a letter to the church, John wrote of this Jesus “which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled” (1 John 1:1).

    John, in this same epistle, when speaking of Jesus, insists that he and the others “have seen, and bear witness, and declare to you that eternal life which was with the Father and was manifested to us” (verse 2). John maintained that he wrote a true testimony of Jesus’ words and works: “That which we have seen and heard we declare to you” (verse 3).

    Clearly, the Gospel writers did not create spurious “Jesus sayings.” Nevertheless some critical biblical scholars, such as the Jesus Seminar members, argue that the early church created Jesus’ sayings to justify its teachings.

    If this argument were valid, “We would expect to find those needs reflected and dealt with in the Gospels,” writes New Testament scholar Robert Stein in The Synoptic Problem. This need for justification would be, he says, especially true regarding “the most important religious issues that the early church faced.”

    The most volatile issue would have concerned the physical circumcision of gentile converts. “If the early church was creating gospel traditions to meet its religious needs,” wrote Dr. Stein, “one would expect to find something on this subject.”

    However, no “circumcision materials” exist in the Gospels. The four Gospels contain only a single reference to circumcision, and it doesn’t deal with the controversy in the church (John 7:22-23). The lack of circumcision material in the Gospels is evidence “in favor of the view that the church tended to transmit the Jesus traditions faithfully,” Dr. Stein points out.

    On the other hand, the book of Acts deals with the circumcision controversy in detail. The apostles and elders even meet to decide this question (Acts 15:1-29). However, no “Jesus sayings” are cited to justify their decision that gentiles did not need to be circumcised.

    A careful reading of Acts shows the church’s teaching on circumcision does not rely on the sayings of Jesus. No “Jesus proof texts” are cited. The church acts in Jesus’ name and by his authority, but does not invent any sayings to prove their point.

    Bible scholar Thorlief Boman has observed that there are 24 speeches in the book of Acts. These account for about 300 of Acts’ 1,007 verses. In these speeches, there is only a single saying of Jesus (Acts 20:35). This lack of Jesus’ sayings and stories demonstrates, says Dr. Boman, “that the church did not create sayings of Jesus and read them back upon the lips of Jesus.”

    In the words of British biblical scholar, George B. Caird, there is “not one shred of evidence that the early church ever concocted sayings of Jesus in order to settle any of its problems.”

    Peace
    https://aneverydaychristian.wordpress.com

  4. The writer of the Gospel of John claims he was an eyewitness of all the teachings and circumstances of Jesus’ life that he writes about. He maintains his Gospel is a true account of Jesus’ thoughts and words.

    John said of himself and his Gospel: “He who has seen has testified, and his testimony is true; and he knows that he is telling the truth” (John 19:35). A second time he says: “This is the disciple who testifies of these things, and wrote these things; and we know that his testimony is true” (John 21:24).

    John was there when Jesus spoke and worked; he knew Jesus personally. In a letter to the church, John wrote of this Jesus “which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled” (1 John 1:1).

    John, in this same epistle, when speaking of Jesus, insists that he and the others “have seen, and bear witness, and declare to you that eternal life which was with the Father and was manifested to us” (verse 2). John maintained that he wrote a true testimony of Jesus’ words and works: “That which we have seen and heard we declare to you” (verse 3).

    Clearly, the Gospel writers did not create spurious “Jesus sayings.” Nevertheless some critical biblical scholars, such as the Jesus Seminar members, argue that the early church created Jesus’ sayings to justify its teachings.

    If this argument were valid, “We would expect to find those needs reflected and dealt with in the Gospels,” writes New Testament scholar Robert Stein in The Synoptic Problem. This need for justification would be, he says, especially true regarding “the most important religious issues that the early church faced.”

    The most volatile issue would have concerned the physical circumcision of gentile converts. “If the early church was creating gospel traditions to meet its religious needs,” wrote Dr. Stein, “one would expect to find something on this subject.”

    However, no “circumcision materials” exist in the Gospels. The four Gospels contain only a single reference to circumcision, and it doesn’t deal with the controversy in the church (John 7:22-23). The lack of circumcision material in the Gospels is evidence “in favor of the view that the church tended to transmit the Jesus traditions faithfully,” Dr. Stein points out.

    On the other hand, the book of Acts deals with the circumcision controversy in detail. The apostles and elders even meet to decide this question (Acts 15:1-29). However, no “Jesus sayings” are cited to justify their decision that gentiles did not need to be circumcised.

    A careful reading of Acts shows the church’s teaching on circumcision does not rely on the sayings of Jesus. No “Jesus proof texts” are cited. The church acts in Jesus’ name and by his authority, but does not invent any sayings to prove their point.

    Bible scholar Thorlief Boman has observed that there are 24 speeches in the book of Acts. These account for about 300 of Acts’ 1,007 verses. In these speeches, there is only a single saying of Jesus (Acts 20:35). This lack of Jesus’ sayings and stories demonstrates, says Dr. Boman, “that the church did not create sayings of Jesus and read them back upon the lips of Jesus.”

    In the words of British biblical scholar, George B. Caird, there is “not one shred of evidence that the early church ever concocted sayings of Jesus in order to settle any of its problems.”
    *******************************************************************
    Isaiah 9 is more likely Messianic prophecy than not and I’ll tell you why and I approach my argument with the mindset that I don’t care one way or the other, I just want to know if it is more likely, or not, Messianic prophecy.

    One of the best ways to introduce the book of Isaiah is to use the first verse. In that first sentence some of the basic matters about the book are given. “The vision of Isaiah the son of Amoz, which he saw concerning Judah and Jerusalem in the days of Uzziah, Jotham, Ahaz, and Hezekiah, kings of Judah.”

    The word “vision” here – as used in the Hebrew text of the Old Testament – is equal to DIVINE REVELATION; so this book called Isaiah contains that which the Lord revealed to this prophet, who was the son of Amoz.

    These things concerned “JUDAH AND JERUSALEM.” At this time, there was the northern kingdom, called Israel. And some of the things that pertain to the northern kingdom do come up in the prophecies of Isaiah. However, Isaiah’s message was directed primarily to God’s people in Judah and Jerusalem.

    As to the time when Isaiah lived and prophesied, this verse says, “in the days of Uzziah, Jotham, Ahaz, and Hezekiah, kings of Judah.” The basic facts about this O.T. book are given right here in the first verse.

    Another verse we can use to introduce this book is Isaiah 6:8, where the call of Isaiah is reported. It says there, that Isaiah heard the voice of the Lord, saying: “WHOM SHALL I SEND, AND WHO WILL GO FOR US?” Then this man, Isaiah, replied: “HERE AM I! SEND ME.” This indicates two things: One, that this man was called of God to prophesy these things. Two, that he was ready and willing to serve in this capacity. You might be interested to know – the book of Isaiah is quoted 83 times in the N.T., 12 of those quotations in the book of Matthew. With these things in mind we turn our attention to chapter nine.

    THE HISTORICAL BACKGROUND
    In Isaiah, chapters seven through twelve – the prophet is dealing with what could be called THE ASSYRIAN CRISIS.

    You remember – from verse 1 – that one of the kings in Isaiah’s time was Ahaz. Well, in the days of Ahaz, the king and his people were “worried to death” because, just north of their border, the Northern kingdom and Syria were joining forces and it seemed like they were planning to conquer Judah.

    Now God – through Isaiah – had something to say about all this. God sent word to king Ahaz, telling him NOT TO WORRY ABOUT THIS NORTHERN CONFEDERATION. The exact words are (7:4): “Take heed, and be quiet; do not fear or be fainthearted…” God said, about this confederation or plan, “IT SHALL NOT STAND!” (Isa. 7:7). So what Ahaz should have done WAS TO BELIEVE GOD. But, he didn’t pay much attention to God. KING AHAZ WENT ON TO FORMULATE AND EXECUTE HIS OWN PLAN OF DEFENSE; a plan that eventually backfired. King Ahaz hired the nation of ASSYRIA, to come over and crush this northern confederation. He even agreed to pay them for their help; he paid them well – in silver and gold from the house of the Lord.

    When Ahaz didn’t pay attention to God, and when he devised his own plan, he was guilty of unbelief; and for that unbelief he was to be punished. What happened was, after the Assyrians had crushed the northern confederation (as Ahaz had paid them to do) … THEY JUST KEPT COMING SOUTH, RIGHT INTO JUDAH AND JERUSALEM, where Ahaz was. So, because of his unbelief, the king got more than he bargained for.

    Isaiah chapters seven and eight tell us about these things: THE ASSYRIAN CRISIS. Chapter eight tells how God used Assyria to punish both kingdoms, Israel and Judah. At the end of chapter eight, there is a picture of the gloom and darkness there would be, as the Assyrians came through with their devastating military force. The last verse of chapter eight shows the people looking around – and seeing trouble, darkness, and the gloom of anguish.

    As chapter nine opens, the prophet is saying: THIS GLOOM WILL NOT LAST FOREVER! THE PICTURE OF TOTAL GLOOM WHICH CLOSED THE PRECEDING CHAPTER GIVES WAY TO A PICTURE OF BRILLIANT LIGHT. Things would be bad, in the aftermath of this Assyrian crisis — BUT, THEY WOULDN’T BE BAD FOREVER!!

    There was still reason for hope, as to the future. God’s plan would be carried out! A time would come, Isaiah says, WHEN DARKNESS WOULD BE DISPELLED BY LIGHT; GLOOM WOULD BE REPLACED BY DARKNESS, AND GOD WOULD HAVE A NATION OF PEOPLE, RULED BY A PERFECT KING.

    These things, I’m persuaded, refer to Christ and the church.

    ISAIAH 9:1-7
    Nevertheless the gloom will not be upon her who is distressed, As when at first He lightly esteemed The land of Zebulun and the land of Naphtali, And afterward more heavily oppressed her, By the way of the sea, beyond the Jordan, In Galilee of the Gentiles. The people who walked in darkness Have seen a great light; Those who dwelt in the land of the shadow of death, Upon them a light has shined. You have multiplied the nation And increased its joy; They rejoice before You According to the joy of harvest, As men rejoice when they divide the spoil. For You have broken the yoke of his burden And the staff of his shoulder, The rod of his oppressor, As in the day of Midian. For every warrior’s sandal from the noisy battle, And garments rolled in blood, Will be used for burning and fuel of fire. For unto us a Child is born, Unto us a Son is given; And the government will be upon His shoulder. And His name will be called Wonderful, Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace. Of the increase of His government and peace There will be no end, Upon the throne of David and over His kingdom, To order it and establish it with judgment and justice From that time forward, even forever. The zeal of the LORD of hosts will perform this. (Isa. 9:1-7, NKJV).

    There isn’t any doubt in my mind, this passage is Messianic. I believe Isaiah is giving a prophecy of Christ and the church. I say that with such boldness for these reasons:

    MATTHEW, in Matt. 4:12-17, QUOTES THIS PASSAGE – AND HE APPLIES IT TO CHRIST! In the absence of any New Testament reference, it is sometimes difficult to locate the specific fulfillment of an O.T. prophecy. But in this case we have an inspired commentary, or inspired interpretation: MATTHEW, WRITING BY INSPIRATION, TELLS US that these things in Isaiah nine pertain to Christ!

    Matt. 4:12-15ff…Now when Jesus heard that John had been put in prison, He departed to Galilee. And leaving Nazareth, He came and dwelt in Capernaum, which is by the sea, in the regions of Zebulun and Naphtali, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by Isaiah the prophet, saying: “The land of Zebulun and the land of Naphtali, By the way of the sea, beyond the Jordan, Galilee of the Gentiles: (Matt. 4:12-15, NKJV).

    Secondly, in Isaiah 9:2, it says that “the people who walked in darkness HAVE SEEN A GREAT LIGHT; those who dwelt in the land of the shadow of death, upon them a light has shined.” Isaiah is using what is called, “the perfect of prophetic certainty” — that is, HE IS DESCRIBING EVENTS TO COME AS IF THEY WERE ALREADY ACCOMPLISHED; he was so certain these things would happen, he spoke of them AS IF THEY HAD ALREADY HAPPENED: “upon them a light has shined.” But what I want us to see is: THIS GREAT LIGHT! This great light can be none other than Jesus Christ. {See Lk. 2:32; Jno. 1:4; Jno. 12:46; Col. 1:13}.

    In addition, THIS GREAT “NATION” THE PROPHET FORESAW WOULD NOT DEPEND UPON CARNAL WEAPONS! Look at verse 5: “For every warrior’s sandal from the noisy battle, and garments rolled in blood, will be used for burning and fuel of fire.” You see, Isaiah was looking to a time when the equipment and weapons of carnal warfare would be thrown away, rolled up and burned. This is like what Isaiah had said about the kingdom of Christ earlier – back in 2:4, where he talked about beating swords into plowshares and spears into pruning hooks. This looks to the spiritual kingdom, that is not of this world – Jesus said, in Jno. 18:36. And, on two occasions, Paul made the point – that the weapons of our warfare are not carnal (2 Cor.10:4, and Eph. 6:12).

    So we have the evidence of Matt. 4, the mention of the “great light,” and this statement about no carnal weapons. All of this pointing to the object of this passage in Isa. 9 — Christ and His church.

    I submit a fourth point of evidence: I BELIEVE VERSE 6 IS ONE OF THE PLAINEST REFERENCES TO CHRIST YOU’LL FIND ANYWHERE IN THE PROPHETS.

    “For unto us a Child is born, unto us a Son is given; and the government will be upon His shoulder, and His name will be called Wonderful, Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.” Here we have a clear picture of the birth of the Messiah; the character of His person, the nature of His reign and His eternal deity. Some orthodox Jewish commentators and modernists will say THIS WAS HEZEKIAH, who reigned after Ahaz. Well, Hezekiah was a better man than Ahaz; Hezekiah carried out some good plans and policies BUT HE WASN’T GOD; he wasn’t “everlasting Father!” Verse 6 is one of the clearest references anywhere in the Bible, POINTING TO THE MESSIAH, JESUS CHRIST. And, one more point: I BELIEVE WE SEE IN VERSE 7, Jesus reigning over His kingdom! Hezekiah’s reign came to an end – in fact, not a very pleasant end.During His reign, Isaiah prophesied of the Jews being carried into captivity in Babylon – and in the reign of Zedekiah, THAT HAPPENED. Even though – after 70 years – God let them go back to Jerusalem, the Jewish city re-fell in 70 A.D. BUT HERE IN ISA. 9:7, reference is made to a kingdom that would never end! Another point that lends support to the belief that this passage is a prophecy,

    ABOUT CHRIST AND HIS CHURCH.

    A LITTLE BIBLE GEOGRAPHY LESSON
    In the first two verses of Isaiah 9 – the prophet talks about how oppressed the land of Zebulun and Naphtali were in the aftermath of the Assyrian crisis – BUT A TIME WOULD COME WHEN A GREAT LIGHT WOULD SHINE “IN GALILEE OF THE GENTILES.”

    The land allocation for Zebulun and Naphtali is the area called Galilee. In other words the land given to the tribes of Zebulun and Naphtali after the conquest of Canaan, WAS LATER CALLED GALILEE. Now – here’s the point we want to look at, in Isaiah chapter 9. In the Assyrian invasion of the northern kingdom, this area was turned into a wasteland of gloom and darkness; it was LIGHTLY ESTEEMED AND HEAVILY OPPRESSED (2 Kngs. 15:29).

    BUT ISAIAH WANTS TO SAY: It won’t be this way forever! A TIME WOULD COME IN GALILEE, when the people who were walking in darkness would SEE A GREAT LIGHT. Now — WHERE DID JESUS BEGIN TO PREACH AND TEACH? Matt. 4:13 says, “in the regions of Zebulun and Naphtali!” So – in the Assyrian invasion, this territory of Galilee was lightly esteemed and heavily oppressed; there was suffering. But, in this future time of light and joy, THE PEOPLE OF GALILEE WOULD HAVE THIS GREAT LIGHT SHINED UPON THEM – Jesus Christ.

    THE STATEMENTS THE PROPHET MADE ABOUT THE MESSIAH IN VERSE 6It says: “Unto us a Child is born, unto us a Son is given,” then there is this statement: “AND THE GOVERNMENT WILL BE UPON HIS SHOULDER.”

    When it speaks of the government being “upon his shoulder,” THIS DOESN’T MEAN WHAT WE USUALLY THINK OF; something distasteful; a trouble or burden we wish we didn’t have. In Isaiah’s day — kings and rulers often wore some symbol of authority on their shoulder; a golden chain, or article of royal clothing. Placing something ON THE SHOULDER meant to give power or authority to (Isa. 22:22). So when it says, “the government will be upon His shoulder,” THIS HAS REFERENCE TO AUTHORITY GIVEN TO CHRIST. The passage indicating fulfillment would be, Matt. 28:18, where Jesus said, “All authority has
    been given to me, in heaven and on earth.”

    SO, THOUGH THERE WOULD BE GLOOM AND DARKNESS UPON THE LAND AND UPON THE PEOPLE, A FUTURE TIME WOULD COME, when this Child would be born; when this Son would be given AND THIS PERFECT KING WOULD HAVE ALL AUTHORITY.

    Notice what is said about His name:

    First, “His name will be called WONDERFUL COUNSELOR.” A counselor is a person to whom you can go, for comfort and strength; for help and guidance. In the word “counselor” there is the suggestion of wisdom and knowledge. So, Isaiah is saying: THE MESSIAH WOULD BE A WONDERFUL COUNSELOR.

    MIGHTY GOD would be His name. I believe we need to see, in this expression, “a genuine attribution to deity,” (Young). Bro. Hailey, in his commentary: “The name MIGHTY GOD identifies the Child with the Godhead, both in deity and in power,” (p.#103). In another prophetic passage, Jeremiah says: “He shall be called: JEHOVAH OUR RIGHTEOUSNESS,” (Jer. 23:6).

    EVERLASTING FATHER. You may read this as “one who is eternally a Father.” Or, you may read this as “the father of eternity,” in the sense of – GIVING ETERNAL LIFE. In either case, Jesus is exalted far above the kings and rulers of men (and we have further evidence THIS COULDN’T REFER TO HEZEKIAH).

    FINALLY, prince of peace. A RULER, WITH PEACE AS HIS MEANS OF GOVERNING. All through Isaiah, and in the New Testament fulfillment, Jesus is pictured as the great peace-maker; by Him, peace is made between men and God. When a sinner comes to Christ He comes to the single One who can impart real peace; true peace with God.

    So the subject of this prophecy is the reign of the Messiah; the nature of that perfect King; the effect of His work – and in revealing these things, Isaiah was giving assurance to the Jews of his day — that the darkness and gloom that was caused by the Assyrian invasion WOULD NOT LAST FOREVER. A time was coming when a great light would shine in Galilee.

    I would remind you – these things were written about 700 years before Christ came. This is a good example of DIVINELY INSPIRED PROPHECY, whereby God revealed history before it happened and these things were fulfilled by Jesus Christ, who took His place on the throne of David over His Kingdom. Today, we have the grand opportunity of being saved and being members of a multiplied nation, a joyous nation and a spiritually armed nation.

    https://aneverydaychristian.wordpress.com/

  5. Roy,

    Sorry, but Isaiah 9:6 is not a prophesy, not about the Messiah, and it’s not about Jesus.

    Isaiah 9:5-6.

    The Jewish Study Bible translates 9:5-6 thus:

    For a child has been born to us,
    A son has been given us.
    And authority has settled on his shoulders.
    He has been named
    “The Mighty God is planing grace;
    The Eternal Father, a peaceable ruler” –
    In token of abundant authority
    And of peace without limit
    Upon David’s throne and kingdom,
    That it may be firmly established
    In justice and in equity
    Now and evermore. The zeal of the LORD of Hosts
    Shall bring this to pass.
    *
    The commentary informs us:

    “The Mighty God…ruler”: 

    ‘This long sentence is the throne name of the royal child. Semitic names often consist of sentences that describe God; thus the name Isaiah in Hebrew means ”The LORD saves; Hezekiah, “The LORD strengthens”; in Akkadian, the name of the Babylonian king Merodach-baladan (Isa.39.1) means “the god Marduk has provided an heir.” These names do not describe that person who holds them but the god whom the parents worship.

    Similarly, the name given to the child in this verse does not describe that child or attribute divinity to him, contrary to classical Christian readings of this messianic verse.’
    So it seems that this passage is not a prediction about God becoming a man after all. In its historical context the verses probably refer to Ahaz’s son Hezekiah.

    The Jewish Study Bible is published by Oxford University Press.

    *

    As regards the verses in John you should be aware of what top Christian (and non-Christian) scholars

    Evangelical scholar Richard Bauckham in his recent book on the gospels argues that the fourth gospel stems from an eyewitness to the ministry of Jesus (peace be upon him), namely, the disciple John. At the same time, however, Bauckham also acknowledges the differences between the fourth gospel and the Synoptics and argues that John is a more reflective and a highly interpreted account of the life and ministry of Jesus (peace be upon him). Regarding the canonical gospels in general, he concludes:

    In all four Gospels we have the history of Jesus only in the form of testimony, the testimony of involved participants who responded in faith to the disclosure of God in these events. In testimony fact and interpretation are inextricable; in this testimony empirical sight and spiritual perception are inseparable. (Richard Bauckham, Jesus and the Eyewitnesses: The Gospels as Eyewitness Testimony, 2006, Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., p. 411.)

    Regarding the gospel of John specifically, Bauckham says:

    All scholars, whatever their views of the redactional work of the Synoptic Evangelists and of the historical reliability of the Gospel of John, agree that the latter presents a much more thoroughly and extensively interpreted version of the story of Jesus. (Ibid. p. 410.)

    So we are wrong to assume that the words put into the mouth of Jesus in the fourth gospel are the unvarnished words he spoke. They have been extensively reworked by John.

    *

    “Does God Harden Hearts?” According to the Bible – of course he does!

  6. You are right Diane, Also, much of the Old Testament speaks of The Messiah Coming.

    Isa 9:6 For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.

    Another proclamation by Jesus…

    John 54-58 Jesus replied, “If I glorify myself, my glory means nothing. My Father, whom you claim as your God, is the one who glorifies me. Though you do not know him, I know him. If I said I did not, I would be a liar like you, but I do know him and obey his word. Your father Abraham rejoiced at the thought of seeing my day; he saw it and was glad.” “You are not yet fifty years old,” they said to him, “and you have seen Abraham!” “Very truly I tell you,” Jesus answered, “before Abraham was born, I am!”

    I think it might be for some that their hearts have been harden by God to the truth.

    Does God Harden Hearts?

    http://aneverydaychristian.wordpress.com/2012/07/03/does-god-harden-human-hearts/

  7. Most of this ‘debate’ is beyond my understanding I will admit..but I would just like to offer one comment by “Paul” that nowhere in the Bible does Jesus claim to be God…I offer this scripture where He doesThe Gospel of John 14:8 Philip said to him, “Lord, show us the Father, and it is enough for us.” 9 Jesus said to him, “Have I been with you so long, and you still do not know me, Philip? Whoever has seen me has seen the Father. How can you say, ‘Show us the Father’? 10 Do you not believe that I am in the Father and the Father is in me? The words that I say to you I do not speak on my own authority, but the Father who dwells in me does his works. 11 Believe me that I am in the Father and the Father is in me, or else believe on account of the works themselves. Diane

  8. They are misled Nimra, I agree, but they are Muslim and they follow the Koran. Ask them and their Imams and they will tell you so and I dare say you will not confront them to their faces that they are not doing the fighting in the way of ALLAH and are NOT Muslims for they would, at the very least, beat you.

    Hijacking planes,yes, if you really think the USA did it to themselves you will believe anything. I found many websites saying it was an inside job but I honestly can’t imagine something so big being kept quiet if it was an inside job. If you want to investigate a real timeline of events leading to 911 check out

    http://www.historycommons.org/timeline.jsp?the_alleged_9/11_hijackers=otherHijackers&timeline=complete_911_timeline

    On August 2, 1939, just before the beginning of World War II, Albert Einstein wrote to then President Franklin D. Roosevelt. Einstein and several other scientists told Roosevelt of efforts in Nazi Germany to purify uranium-235, which could be used to build an atomic bomb. It was shortly thereafter that the United States Government began the serious undertaking known then only as “The Manhattan Project.” Simply put, the Manhattan Project was committed to expediting research that would produce a viable atomic bomb.

    Japan bombed Hawaii killing innocents and forcing the USA to engage. It was the Allies verses the Axis. For the USA and the Allies it was kill or be killed. Hitler and the Axis wanted world domination and was willing to kill anyone who stood in the way. It’s true the USA used the atomic weapon first but it was to end the first aggressor. Did the USA take over Japan? Did they occupy Germany? Did they insist any Axis power convert to Christianity? Or did they help them rebuild into peaceful allies?

    The Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) Nuclear weapons are insane and I imagine the P5+1 do not trust Iran to have the capacity to make an atomic bomb. The threat is TOO great. I’m NOT saying Iran will make and or/use a bomb I’m saying the THREAT of this is too great. The THREAT of Iran passing enriched uranium to terrorists is TOO great. Since Israel has been threaten with extinction by Iran they will strike first. A nuclear Iran, in any form, is not an option some are willing to take. It isn’t so much that they are Muslim but the fact they support and promote terrorism and threatened a State with extinction.

    http://news.yahoo.com/irans-u-n-envoy-criticizes-u-eu-over-225417983.html

    You mention Kosovo??

    The Islamic Ottomans invaded the Serbian Realm and met the Christian coalition under Prince Lazar on 28 June 1389, near Pristina, at Gazi Mestan.

    The Ottomans brought Islamisation with them, particularly in towns, and later also created the Viyalet of Kosovo as one of the Ottoman territorial entities. During the Islamisation many Churches and Holy Orthodox Christian places were razed to the ground or turned into Mosques.

    Amid the unraveling of Yugoslavia that began in the early 1990s, the United States and its European allies have staunchly defended multi-ethnic society in the Balkans. The military interventions in Bosnia and Kosovo, the ongoing peacekeeping missions there, the hundreds of millions of dollars given annually in economic aid — these sacrifices have been made to preserve the individual states that once constituted a federal Yugoslavia and to prevent bloodshed among the numerous ethnic groups that populate them.

    You – Sorry to say, but your arguments are based on personal hatred and nothing more than that.

    Me – My arguments are based on facts. I do not personally hate anyone or intentionally twist facts to prove a point.

    In 1786, future U.S. Presidents Thomas Jefferson and John Adams met with Tripoli’s envoy to London, Ambassador Sidi Haji Abdrahaman in an attempt to negotiate an end to the Muslim piracy. Adams and Jefferson summarized their meeting in a letter dated March 28, 1786 to John Jay, the United States Secretary of Foreign Affairs:

    “We took the liberty to make some enquiries concerning the ground of their pretensions to make war upon nations who had done them no injury, and observed that we considered all mankind as our friends who had done us no wrong, nor had given us any provocation. The Ambassador [of Tripoli] answered us that it was founded on the Laws of their Prophet, that it was written in their Koran, that all nations who should not have acknowledged their authority were sinners, that it was their right and duty to make war upon them wherever they could be found, and to make slaves of all they could take as Prisoners, and that every Musselman (muslims) who should be slain in battle was sure to go to Paradise.”

    These diplomatic engagements suggest that a modern Jihad-like ideology existed prior to any U.S. involvement in the Islamic world, and that the Koran was used to justify this ideology.

    Thus, according to critics of Islam, Islamic terrorism is linked to the practice of divinely sanctioned warfare against apostates. Many Muslim groups including the Council on American-Islamic Relations argue that references to violence in Muslim sources have been taken out of context. They argue that these Koranic ayahs are only for self-defense when non-believers endanger Muslim life. While a debate may exist on the proper interpretation of Koranic verses, the terrorist actions leading to the First Barbary War and the justification provided by Ambassador Sidi Haji Abdrahaman, provide an early example where the Koran was used to justify terrorism.

    There have been over 18,000 documented Islamic terrorist attacks since 2001.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Islamic_terrorist_attacks

  9. All those who strap bombs to themselves only to kill the innocent and claim to be fighting in the way of ALLAH are NOT muslims. They’re mislead, they are not amongst us.

    Hijacking planes, really? Has there ever been any concrete proof that the Muslims were really behind it considering that only US intelligence agencies carried out all relevant interrogations? Atleast I don’t believe in the documentries so often played on National Geographic Channel. I would only name it nothing but a bitter propaganda aimed at the fastest growing religion of today’s world. Anyone can count it as a plan to capture the oil fortunes of the middle east. Poor USA.

    You blame Iran becoming a nuclear power eh? Why did the US help form the NPT then and not sign and ratify it? Is it insecure? Oh yes, it is. What’s with the UK, France, Germany and Russia being nuclear powers? Right, they have greater so called threats or what? When a muslim state becomes a nuclear state you blame it for being involved in terrorist activities? Can’t it have it’s own insecurities too? In the perspective of religions, it was the Christians who became nuclear powers followed by the Jews and you call yourself a follower of a religion of peace and truth. You must be joking.
    You’re actually representing the mind set of those who killed MILLIONS of innocents in Iraq and Afghanistan on the basis of mere propaganda. Is there any proof that all those killed by the western powers were a threat to the whole world? No my dear friend, not at all.

    How about peaking into the history of Europe where the Serbs and the Christian poplulations carried out a massacre of the Muslims, killing thousands of them to date. Muslims finally got an indepent state (Kosovo) there, but the brutality of the Christians is evident there.

    “HATE is so strong that there will be someone soooo loving of Allah and soooo eager to get to paradise he will detonate it”
    Dear sir, it was the US which denonated the first nuclear bomb- the protector of Jews which has a dominant Christian population. Sorry to say, but your arguments are based on personal hatred and nothing more than that.

    Muslims are taught to respect other religions, but well, for those so ignorant, we have to be vocal to this extent.

  10. Bushra05 is trying to address the original question, “Did Muhammad understand Trinity”?

    The answer is still no because the tri-unity of God is not Father, Son, Mary.

    No matter If a few before Mohammed thought Mary as Divine doesn’t make it true.

    You: They also like to quote this verse as well:
    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.

    Me: No mention on Mary in this verse. This verse is used to justify the beheading of people like me who believe in the tri-unity of God.

    The story you posted of the Pope seems to be a complete fabrication and the source link doesn’t work. You also left off the MOST important part of the Hail, Holy Queen prayer.

    “Pray for us, O holy Mother of God
    That we may be made worthy of the promises of Christ.

    The Bible nowhere indicates that Mary can hear our prayers or that she can mediate for us with God. Jesus is our only advocate and mediator in heaven (1 Timothy 2:5). If offered worship, adoration, or prayers, Mary would say the same as the angels: “Worship God!” (see Revelation 19:10; 22:9.) Mary herself sets the example for us, directing her worship, adoration, and praise to God alone: “My soul glorifies the Lord and my spirit rejoices in God my Savior, for He has been mindful of the humble state of His servant. From now on all generations will call me blessed, for the Mighty One has done great things for me — holy is His name” (Luke 1:46-49).

    One time when Jesus was speaking, a woman in the crowd proclaimed, “Blessed is the womb that bore You and the breasts at which You nursed” (Luke 11:27). There was never a better opportunity for Jesus to declare that Mary was indeed worthy of praise and adoration. What was Jesus’ response? “On the contrary, blessed are those who hear the word of God and observe it” (Luke 11:28). To Jesus, obedience to God’s Word was more important than being the woman who gave birth to the Savior.

  11. Nopen no clue what you guys are talking about. The Christian doctrine of the Trinity defines God as three divine persons the Father, the Son (Jesus Christ), and the Holy Spirit. So in answer to your question, no, Mary is not Divine. For C.G. Jung Mary establish the symbol of quaternity.

    When the word “Divine” and “Trinity” is used in the Holy Catholic Church, it is in reference to God only. “Divine” is a word that is applied to the Creator, a Supreme Being. The Virgin Mary does not qualify for such a title. When a reference is made to Mary, it can be “the Blessed Virgin Mary,” “Holy Mary,” or by one of her many titles that are recognized by the Catholic Church.
    When some call the Blessed Virgin Mary by the title of “Divine Mary,” that person creates problems for the Catholic Church. Catholics do not worship Mary; they worship Jesus through Mary. Nor do they consider Mary to be God or equal to God.

  12. And the definition of contrversial is – that some disagree? The Book Syro-Aramaic Reading of the Koran draws this conclusion. In free societies people can read controversial books and choose to believe or not to believe…

  13. One common verse that Christians always bring up is:
    And behold! Allah will say: “O Jesus the son of Mary! Didst thou say unto men, ‘Take me and my mother for two gods beside Allah’?” He will say: “Glory to Thee! Never could I say what I had no right (to say). Had I said such a thing thou wouldst indeed have known it. Thou knowest what is in my heart, though I know not what in Thine. For Thou knowest in full all that is hidden. [Qur’an 5:116]

    Christians often argue that this verse is wrong, and the prophet Muhammad miss-understood what true Christian theology teaches. They also post this verse:
    O People of the Book! Commit no excesses in your religion: nor say of Allah aught but the truth. Christ Jesus the son of Mary was (no more than) a messenger from Allah, and His Word, which He bestowed on Mary, and a spirit proceeding from Him: so believe in Allah and His Messengers. Say not “Three”: desist: It will be better for you: For Allah is One God: Glory be to Him: (Far Exalted is He) above having a son. To Him belong all things in the heavens and on earth. And enough is Allah as a Disposer of affairs. [Qur’an 4:171]

    Christians then say that the prophet Muhammad did not understand the true concept of the trinity and got it wrong. In this article we will simply examine how some Christians acted towards Mary and will then compare it with the Quran to see if there are any problems.

    Firstly this verse:
    O People of the Book! Commit no excesses in your religion: nor say of Allah aught but the truth. Christ Jesus the son of Mary was (no more than) a messenger from Allah, and His Word, which He bestowed on Mary, and a spirit proceeding from Him: so believe in Allah and His Messengers. Say not “Three”: desist: It will be better for you: For Allah is One God: Glory be to Him: (Far Exalted is He) above having a son. To Him belong all things in the heavens and on earth. And enough is Allah as a Disposer of affairs. [Qur’an 4:171]

    Contains no errors, the verse is telling Christians to not say three, which is what they always say, three as in trinity. As we see it is wrong according to the Quran.

    They also like to quote this verse as well:
    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.

    They like to claim that the three being mentioned here are Mary, Jesus, and Allah; they then argue this is a wrong picture of the trinity therefore the prophet Muhammad got it wrong.

    As we shall shortly see, the Quran is not in error at all regarding Mary:
    http://www.catholicconcerns.com/MaryWorship.html

    “As a faithful Catholic, and later as a nun, I was devoted to Mary. The prayers and practices were so familiar. They were taught to me by sincere people. I prayed the rosary, including rosary novenas. I wore a Brown Scapular and a Miraculous Medal. (You can read about these things in the Glossary, which is Appendix C.) I visited shrines that honor Mary. I had beautiful statues of Mary. I attended special services where we prayed to Mary and recited a litany of titles honoring her. I read books about apparitions of Mary, and dreamed of visiting Lourdes and Fatima. I participated in processions honoring Mary. A statue of Mary was put on a platform that was decorated with flowers. There were poles on the platform, so that men could carry it. The men walked through the streets, carrying the statue on the platform. We walked behind the statue, singing songs in Mary’s honor”

    When Pope John Paul II was shot, while the ambulance was rushing him to the hospital, the Pope was not praying to God or calling on the name of Jesus. He kept saying, over and over: “Mary, my mother!” Polish pilgrims placed a picture of Our Lady of Czestochowa on the throne where the Pope normally sat. People gathered around the picture. Vatican loudspeakers broadcasted the prayers of the rosary. When the Pope recovered, he gave Mary all the glory for saving his life, and he made a pilgrimage to Fatima to publicly thank her. (Note 4)

    One popular prayer in Mary’s honor is the “Hail Holy Queen,” which is known in Latin as the “Salve Regina”. It is traditionally included as part of praying the rosary.

    “Hail, holy Queen, Mother of Mercy! Our life, our sweetness and our hope! To thee do we cry, poor banished children of Eve. To thee do we send up our sighs, mourning and weeping, in this valley of tears. Turn, then, most gracious Advocate, thine eyes of mercy toward us; and after this our exile show unto us the blessed fruit of thy womb, Jesus. O clement, O loving, O sweet Virgin Mary.”

    Alfonsus de Liguori (1696-1787) was a principal proponent of the Marianist Movement, which glorifies Mary. He wrote a book entitled “The Glories of Mary” which is famous, influential and widely read. In this book, de Liguori says that Mary was given rulership over one half of the kingdom of God; Mary rules over the kingdom of mercy and Jesus rules over the kingdom of justice. De Liguori said that people should pray to Mary as a mediator and look to her as an object of trust for answered prayer. The book even says that there is no salvation outside of Mary. Some people suggest that these views are extreme and not representative of Catholic Church teaching. However, instead of silencing de Liguori as a heretic, the Catholic Church canonized him as a saint and declared him to be a “doctor of the Church” (a person whose teachings carry weight and authority). Furthermore, his book is openly and officially promoted by the Catholic Church, and his teachings have influenced popes. (Note 9)

    Pope Benedict XV said of Mary that “[O]ne can justly say that with Christ, she herself redeemed mankind.” (Note 10) Pope Pius IX said: “Our salvation is based upon the holy Virgin… so that if there is any hope and spiritual healing for us we receive it solely and uniquely from her.” (Note 11)

    So note how this person explains how Catholics WORSHIP Mary, and look to her as a God, I mean they put their salvation in Mary!

    Now Christians may be saying well this is wrong, and that Catholics are committing blasphemy, EXACTLY! The Quran makes sure it condemns all forms of blasphemy, just because this is not the trinity everyone is familiar with does not mean the Quran cannot condemn it. Secondly, there are lots of Catholics and there have been a lot of Mary worshippers throughout history so to say this is just a minor issue is an under-statement, this is something widely practiced.

    http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15464b.htm
    Mary’s Divine motherhood

    Mary’s Divine motherhood is based on the teaching of the Gospels, on the writings of the Fathers, and on the express definition of the Church. St. Matthew (1:25) testifies that Mary “brought forth her first-born son” and that He was called Jesus. According to St. John (1:15) Jesus is the Word made flesh, the Word Who assumed human nature in the womb of Mary. As Mary was truly the mother of Jesus, and as Jesus was truly God from the first moment of His conception, Mary is truly the mother of God. Even the earliest Fathers did not hesitate to draw this conclusion as may be seen in the writings of St. Ignatius [72], St. Irenaeus [73], and Tertullian [74]. The contention of Nestorius denying to Mary the title “Mother of God” [75] was followed by the teaching of the Council of Ephesus proclaiming Mary to be Theotokos in the true sense of the word. [76]

    Early writings
    For the attitude of the Churches of Asia Minor and of Lyons we may appeal to the words of St. Irenaeus, a pupil of St. John’s disciple Polycarp [145]; he calls Mary our most eminent advocate. St. Ignatius of Antioch, part of whose life reached back into apostolic times, wrote to the Ephesians (c. 18-19) in such a way as to connect the mysteries of Our Lord’s life more closely with those of the Virgin Mary. For instance, the virginity of Mary, and her childbirth, are enumerated with Christ’s death, as forming three mysteries unknown to the devil. The sub-apostolic author of the Epistle to Diognetus, writing to a pagan inquirer concerning the Christian mysteries, describes Mary as the great antithesis of Eve, and this idea of Our Lady occurs repeatedly in other writers even before the Council of Ephesus. We have repeatedly appealed to the words of St. Justin and Tertullian, both of whom wrote before the end of the second century.

    As it is admitted that the praises of Mary grow with the growth of the Christian community, we may conclude in brief that the veneration of and devotion to Mary began even in the time of the Apostles.

    Let us now examine the dates of those Church Fathers who held Mary in such a high honorable position, as a Goddess you could say:

    St. Ignatius of Antioch
    Also called Theophorus (ho Theophoros); born in Syria, around the year 50; died at Rome between 98 and 117.

    St. Irenaeus
    Information as to his life is scarce, and in some measure inexact. He was born in Proconsular Asia, or at least in some province bordering thereon, in the first half of the second century; the exact date is controverted, between the years 115 and 125, according to some, or, according to others, between 130 and 142

    Tertullian
    His conversion was not later than the year 197, and may have been earlier. He embraced the Faith with all the ardour of his impetuous nature. He became a priest, no doubt of the Church of Carthage. Monceaux, followed by d’Ales, considers that his earlier writings were composed while he was yet a layman, and if this be so, then his ordination was about 200. His extant writings range in date from the apologetics of 197 to the attack on a bishop who is probably Pope Callistus (after 218). It was after the year 206 that he joined the Montanist sect, and he seems to have definitively separated from the Church about 211 (Harnack) or 213 (Monceaux). After writing more virulently against the Church than even against heathen and persecutors, he separated from the Montanists and founded a sect of his own. The remnant of the Tertullianists was reconciled to the Church by St. Augustine. A number of the works of Tertullian are on special points of belief or discipline. According to St. Jerome he lived to extreme old age.

    Council of Ephesus
    The third ecumenical council, held in 431.

    So all these Church Fathers and Council which did see Mary as divine, all took place before Islam came and was revealed. Hence the Quran was merely exposing this wrong blasphemous belief of the worship of Mary, and making her into a divine being something she was not!

    Hope your querry is answered dear Roy, mucbkksfo and Prayson!

    Praise be to the Lord, the Cherisher of the mankind.

  14. @mucbkksfo:
    “The Syro-Aramaic Reading of the Koran: A Contribution to the Decoding of the Language of the Koran English Edition of 2007 (Die syro-aramäische Lesart des Koran: Ein Beitrag zur Entschlüsselung der Koransprache (2000) is a book by Christoph Luxenberg.
    This book is considered a controversial work, triggering a debate about the history, linguistic origins and correct interpretation of the Qur’an. It has received much coverage in the mainstream media.
    The book argues that the Qur’an at its inception was drawn from Christian Syro-Aramaic texts, in order to evangelize the Arabs in the early 8th century”

    So you’d actually consider the statement of a CONTROVERSIAL book to come to a conclusion. Sad. The Quran states that the non-believers are bound to disbelief.

  15. @Roy. I wouldn’t use such harsh words but the basic facts established are correct. The Islam is not what Muhammad claimed . Science proved, that is certainly not the direct word of god, but more of a a designed prediator ideology to conquer and supress and to exploit dhimmis. Its most likely a cocktail of heretic Christian texts and political motivated statements compiled originally in Syro-Aramaic. Well known linguists established, that a fifth of the text doesnt’ even make sense in Arabic.
    The Syro-Aramaic Reading of the Koran concludes neither islam, nor reading of Quran, nor prophet of islam is what it claims and by now it is just not really a religion at all. Reading Middle East history, starting around 4th century and one will understand better the usage of the ideology.

    Having said that, as far as I am concerned everbody can believe what he/she want to believe. Any religion is better than a void and any believers should be respected within legal bounds as long as the separation of state and religion is followed. Furthermore the original question: Is Muhammads understanding of trinitiy wrong: seen from Christianity this has been established by the comments, Yes its wrong.

  16. We are in the MODERN age. We have grown so much and learned so much. It used to be that “doctors” but leaches on you to suck out the sickness. Thousands of people died from infections (who knew then what a germ was). Fleas used to be a status symbol and they and the rats that carried them killed thousands.

    We thought a lot of things and later found they were wrong

    but

    Strapping bombs to yourself to kill infidels should never happen.

    Beheading someone you captured should never happen.

    Hijacking planes and flying them into buildings to kill infidels should never happen.

    Putting a bomb in your shoe or underwear to kill yourself and hundreds of other innocents on a plan is crazy.

    Align yourself to a faith with these fundamentally HATEFUL ideas and you loose credibility.

    When Iran finally builds its nuclear bomb we will all find out who is right because the HATE is so strong that there will be someone soooo loving of Allah and soooo eager to get to paradise he will detonate it. Israel will retaliate, if they still exist, the USA will back Israel, Russia will back anyone other than the USA and we’ll then have complete destruction.

    Or Israel will bomb Iran to prevent the above and we still have a big mess.

    My GOD is pure love and my killing people who do not believe like me or believe my Bible sends me straight to hell.

    The Quran and Bible are NOT the light of the same candle. They are complete opposites. In the Bible God speaks to us Himself. Ask yourself why would an ALL powerful, ALL knowing God allow an Angel to speak for Him. Or why He would need anything to speak through. If God wants to tell you something of HIS WILL He will tell it to you Himself.

  17. Dear friend Roy, don’t get sentimental. Islam has always been very considerate towards every religion and teaches it’s followers to respect others, rather than inflaming the religious sentiments of others by degrading their religion without actually knowing about it. Reading things on the internet which we all know is a biased source of information in every regard does not actually result in enhancing your knowledge. Any one can google up things on the internet and start hurling the most ridiculous comments on another religion.

    In regard to all these baseless allegations you have imposed on Islam, I just have one thing to say. If Islam is the religion of sin, it is more truthful than the religion you are representing. Islam certainly did not fool people for CENTURIES, telling them that the Earth is the centre of the universe. Islam did never ask for money to pardon it’s followers. Read history and you’d understand better. Consider it.
    Good day

  18. Well I see the rightful correction made by truethresholds being used in a very deluding manner by many here.
    For all those who merely think of him in such words; (“It is also common sense that since Muhammad confesses, in the Quran, to have been a bandit raiding caravans and pillaging cities and villages regularly taking slaves, he would have captured many such scribes and would have had his choice of scribes to use for writing the Quran. Therefore, it is only common sense that Muhammad would have written the Quran himself by dictating it to a scribe”) need to enhance their understanding of religions. Muhammad (PBUH) was a messenger of God, who was sent the Quran THROUGH Angel Gabriel by GOD which was imprinted on his heart (a miracle of God) and then dictated to his beloved Scribes (who were ready to lay their lives for the cause of Islam) who some here believe were ‘captured’ and ‘forced’ which is historically inaccurate. If some one wishes to know more about the scribes who were around 34 in number, they can search up for some prominent names which include Hazrat AbuBakr, Hazrat Usman and Hazrat Zaid bin Sabit.

    Well, the debate here much revolves around the ‘Trinity’. Why indulge in such a hectic argument when the Quran is so explicit in Surah Maryam about Jesus? If we go back in history, we see how Negus, the King of Abyssinia stated that ‘Quran and Bible are the light of the same candle’ and later on, the same Christian king embraced Islam when Muhammad (PBUH) was commanded to spread the word of God.

  19. 2 Corinthians 13:13, St. Paul writes: “The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, and the charity of God, and the communication of the Holy Ghost be with you all.” Here the construction shows that the Apostle is speaking of three distinct Persons. Moreover, since the names God and Holy Ghost are alike Divine names, it follows that Jesus Christ is also regarded as a Divine Person. So also, in 1 Corinthians 12:4-11: “There are diversities of graces, but the same Spirit; and there are diversities of ministries, but the same Lord: and there are diversities of operations, but the same God, who worketh all [of them] in all [persons].” (Cf. also Ephesians 4:4-6; 1 Peter 1:2-3)

    Islam is divided into several sects, Shiites, Sunnis, Kurds, Wahabis, and many more, and each Muslim sect is a Muslim Crime Syndicate. Islam has legalized every sin under the sun: tortures of people as in Female Genital Mutilation, stoning women to death while sadistic crowds cheer, hanging homosexuals, gouging out eyes, cutting off hand and feet of petty thieves. You name it, Islam has legalized it.

    Islam has also legalized adultery. Polygamy translates into legalized adultery.

    Islam has legalized kidnapping as in kidnapping little girls and forcing them to “marry” depraved Muslim males.

    Islam has legalized rape. Muslim male lechers are allowed to rape little girls that were forced to “marry” Muslim lechers.

    Islam has legalized lying if it enhances the evils of Islam.

    Islam has legalized stealing if the stolen goods belong to an “infidel.”

    Islam has legalized covetousness if the goods coveted belong to an “infidel.”

    Islam has legalized name calling. Jews and Christians to Muslims are apes and pigs.

    Islam has legalized murder if the person murdered is an “infidel.”

    Islam teaches the complete opposite of the Ten Commandments. The Muslim god is none other than Satan himself, sometimes called Allah, because Allah teaches only evil.

    Some Muslims are ashamed to mention their god Allah because they now realize that we so-called infidels have discovered that Allah is none other then Satan.

  20. I’m please you understand the tri-unity of God as explained in 2 Cor.

    I wish onto you that, “May the grace (mercy; clemency; pardon) of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit be with you.”

    It’s too bad the Angel that spoke to Mohammad left his important tri-unity nature of God out.

    • but Paul is not propounding the doctrine of the trinity – for him there was God + Jesus + the Spirit.

      The Quran is spot on!

  21. Sura 4 171 You shall not say, “Trinity.”
    Sura 5 73 Pagans indeed are those who say that GOD is a third in a trinity.

    What did he mean by “Trinity”?

    One only has to look at the surrounding text to understand by “Trinity” he meant Father, Son, Mary.

    Moses is mentioned more than 130 times. Jesus is mentioned more than 100 times. Mary is mentioned more in the Quran than in the New Testament. They Holy Spirit – none.

    • the word ‘trinity’ is not in the Arabic. I prefer the highly esteemed translation of 5:73 by Professor Abdel Haleem,

      ‘Those people who say that God is the third of three are defying the truth: there is only One God.’

      The context does not suggest that Mary is part of a ‘trinity’.

      I just don’t see what he problem is. Christians have come to believe that God has a Son, the Son OF God.
      For example Paul says in 1 Cor 8:6:

      ‘yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom all things came and for whom we live; and there is but one Lord, Jesus Christ’

      ie Jesus has a God

      see also:

      1 Cor 11:3: ‘God is the head of Christ.’ Jesus has a god.

      1 Cor 15: 26-28: The last enemy to be destroyed is death. For he “has put everything under his feet.” Now when it says that “everything” has been put under him, it is clear that this does not include God himself, who put everything under Christ. When he has done this, then the Son himself will be made subject to him who put everything under him, so that God may be all in all.

      2 Cor 13:13 says: ‘May the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit be with you all’

      God + Jesus + the Holy Spirit

      QED

  22. Earlier truethresholds stated, “Muhammad was an ‘ummi’. He could not read or write.” So after checking I found arguments for and against this. It seems to me, from these arguments, that although he may have been able to read and write, it wasn’t to the extent he could write the Quran.

    In those days a lot of people couldn’t read or write and the scribe profession was big. People used scribes to write letters for them and the recipient of a letter used the scribe to read it upon delivery.

    It is also common sense that since Muhammad confesses, in the Quran, to have been a bandit raiding caravans and pillaging cities and villages regularly taking slaves, he would have captured many such scribes and would have had his choice of scribes to use for writing the Quran. Therefore, it is only common sense that Muhammad would have written the Quran himself by dictating it to a scribe

    Now, what type of scribe did Muhammad use? There were two basic types of scribes in that part of the world at that time. There were the Jewish scribes and non-Jewish scribes. The difference between the two is that it was well known by everyone that Jewish scribes, especially the religious scribes or rabbi’s, were trained to be very meticulous and made very few mistakes in their writings. As a matter of fact, they were and still are, famous for being the most meticulous scribes in the history of the world. It is also a fact that, until the writing of the Koran, Jewish scriptures were the only place that the same poetic type of verses were found in any writing.

    So, if you were Muhammad, wanted to write a very important religious document, and you had enslaved a large number of both Jewish and non-Jewish scribes, who would you use to write your religious document? There is only one answer and that would be a Jewish scribe. As a matter of fact, after I realized this, I found out that a group of orthodox Jewish rabbi’s from the Middle East who were fluent in Aramaic, studied the Koran and came to the same conclusion for the same and different reasons.

    These rabbi’s concluded that since the poetic verse used in the Quran was only found in the Hebrew scriptures prior to the writing of the Quran, that the scribe used by Muhammad had to be Jewish. But they also pointed out the Biblical errors in the Koran as further proof that it was written by a Jewish rabbi or scribe because only a Jewish rabbi would know enough about the Bible to write such references and make the mistakes that were made. You see, Jewish rabbi’s have been trained in how many prior Jewish rabbi’s used such errors in their writings to send a message to all Jews that what they were writing was not true. Therefore, a Jewish rabbi would have intentionally suggested such errors to Muhammad, who was clearly ignorant about the Bible, in order to write in secret messages to other Jews to not believe the Quran. Such suggestions would have pleased Muhammad since he was trying to make it look like Allah was the god of the Bible and didn’t really know anything about the Bible.

    The “Father, Son, Mary – Trinity” is not the only error…there are many more.

    Paul Williams stated,

    “Firstly, the Qura’n has nothing to do with Muhammad (upon whom be peace). It is the literal Word of God. There was no human input into its contents or origin at all. The prophet was the passive recipient of the Revelation.”

    This is totally false!

    Muhammad was quite ingenious in the development of Islam. He gave himself absolute power so that, if he wrote it as being a revelation from Allah, it was automatically considered law. The first example of Muhammad giving himself and his lieutenants absolute power comes shortly after verse 4:114 – “He that disobeys the Apostle after guidance has been revealed to him, and follows a path other than that of the faithful, shall be given what he has chosen. We will burn him in the fire of Hell: an evil end.”

    It should be clear here that what Muhammad is stating is that, if Muhammad or any superior Muslim leader tells another Muslim to do something and they don’t do it, that Muslim will burn in Hell. Another example of this absolute power over other Muslims is in Verse 33:36 – “It is not for the true believers – men or women – to order their own affairs if Allah and His apostle decree otherwise. He that disobeys Allah and His apostle strays grievously into error.”

    According to these scriptures, if any Muslim ruler or cleric tells another Muslim to fly a plane full of people into a building full of people or put on a bomb and blow themselves to bits in the middle of a crowd and the Muslim doesn’t do it, that Muslim will burn in Hell. That is a huge amount of power and these two verses will explain a lot about the actions of terrorists.

    This would be like a Christian preacher or Jewish Rabbi telling a member of their congregation to do something and, if that member does not do it, they will burn in Hell. This kind of power is very easy to abuse and should scare the hell out of any rational person.

    Then Muhammad abused this power to its fullest extent. Right after the verse in 33:36 it says,”You (Muhammad) said to the man (his adopted son) whom Allah and yourself have favored: ‘Keep your wife and have fear of Allah.’ You sought to hide in your heart what Allah was to reveal. (Muhammad’s intention to marry his adopted son’s wife.) You were afraid of man, although it would have been more proper to fear Allah. And when Zayd divorced his wife, We gave her to you in marriage, so that it should become legitimate for true believers to wed the wives of their adopted sons if they divorced them. God’s will must needs be done. No blame shall be attached to the Prophet for doing what is sanctioned for him by Allah.” This sounds too much like Muhammad wrote a law to make something legal because Muhammad wanted to do it. Another example of this is in verse 33:50 – “Prophet, we have made lawful for you the wives to whom you have granted dowries and the slave-girls whom Allah has given you as booty; the daughters of your paternal and maternal uncles and of your paternal and maternal aunts who fled with you; and any believing woman who gives herself to the Prophet and whom the Prophet wishes to take in marriage. This privilege is yours alone, being granted to no other believer. We well know the duties We have imposed on the faithful concerning their wives and slave-girls. We grant you this privilege so that none may blame you. God is ever forgiving and merciful.”

    In other words, Allah gave a special law making Muhammad above the law so Muhammad could marry his first cousins and anyone else he wanted regardless of the existing law for all other Muslims. Pretty convenient that the prophet can announce that Allah said the prophet can do anything he wants when he wants. This would be the equivalent of Moses making a set of laws for himself and a second set for everyone else. This is another major difference between Allah and the God of the Bible. With the God of the Bible, Moses was not permitted to enter into the promised land with everyone else because he disobeyed God once. With Allah, Muhammad got to do as he pleased by simply writing a new law.

    It goes on and on like this. As a final control to remove any potential threat, Muhammad regularly wrote laws in the Koran making it a sin to even complain about or question Muhammad in any respect. These laws also show that Muhammad’s behavior was causing considerable descention among his followers. An example of this is verse 33:57 – “Those who speak ill of Allah and His apostle shall be cursed by Allah in this life and in the life to come. He has prepared for them a shameful punishment.”

    When will we all agree that we are ONE PEOPLE, ONE HUMAN RACE? We are ALL connected and we either all prosper in love or we all die in hate. There is no US and THEM, it’s WE.

    Lord have mercy on us, and protect us from evil.

      • Simple question: “The “Father, Son, Mary – Trinity” is not the only error…there are many more.”

        Where does the Quran say this. If possible can I have a simple quote from the quran rather than mass of text in response?

  23. The big fish. Well, as a Catholic I feel honored . Last time I looked, however, I understood that evangelicals also subscribe to the Creed of Chalcedon and the Trinty Definition of Council of Nicea . So if they do, they swim in the big pond with us. The creeds, by the way are shorter than the American constitution, but as beautiful, crisp and clear. I am not very good with the quran. Would somebody kindly check the quran and point out to me, where it subscribes to:
    ( ) Creed of Chalcedon
    ( ) Nicene Creed

    A simple yes or no will do also. Thanks. Note: Catholic never were concerned with big numbers nor with heretics.

  24. ‘Could you direct me to a Christian creed, Bible passage, or anything that lead you to think the majority of Christians think Trinity is of Father, Son and Mary?’

    Of course not, and the quran does not say that. Please quote me the verse (not a huge wedge of text!) that says that.

  25. sorry, I just don’t see the quote there. Instead of quoting huge chunks of text why don’t you just quote the relevant Quranic verse that mentions a trinity of ‘Alla(Father), Isa and Mary?’

    Thank you

    • I believe Paul, you need to dance with the huge chunks of Sura 5.115-6, 5.73-75a and 4.171 🙂 to which I and Muslims commentators believe captures Muhammad position on Trinity. It is a huge chunks because I wish readers to see it in its right context.

      Thanks 😀

        • Here my dear Paul:

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

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

          🙂

          • thank you. I hope that wasn’t too painful for you 😉

            4:171 is clearly about the trinity. I can’t see what the problem with that it.

            A completely different chapter, 5:116, is making a different but related point. Most Christians in the world in the seventh century and today treat Mary as a quasi-divinity: billions of Christians pray to her, seek her help, call on her as ‘Queen of the Universe’ and ‘Spouse of the Holy Spirit (ie God’s wife), Mother of God etc. etc.

            Likewise for Jesus – he never claimed to be a god, in fact in Mark 10 he explicitly denied even being good! He called people to worship the Father not himself. Unfortunately, most Christians in the world in the seventh century and today pray to him, seek his help, and call him “God” and “Creator” etc etc.

            Jesus would have horrified. Why do you call ME good? he said, No one is good but God alone.

            So the Quranic quotes beautifully illustrate the excesses that most Christians have committed and calls them back to pure monotheism: Islam.

          • It okay Paul 🙂

            A Christian sect, which I believe Muhammad was familiar with in his location and period, was called Collyridians. They indeed worshipped Mary.

            My question Paul is, if Muhammad received his revelation from angel Gabriel, should not Gabriel know that early Church teaching of One God in three distinct Persons(Father, Son and Holy Spirit)?

            My question is not if the early Church were correct or if Jesus is God but why did Muhammad and early Muslim scholars failed to understand Trinity.

            Or did I get this backwards Paul?

          • you misunderstand.

            The quran is not concerned with some obscure sect in the 7th century but with the great majority of Christians then and now. They are called Roman Catholics and Orthodox christians. Everything I said applies to them. Now, you may not worship Mary but evangelicals are a minority in the global church. The quran is concerned with the big fish not the minnows.

            The quran is not concerned to debate the niceties of trinitarian doctrine but to uncover the realities of what is actually going on.

            It’s the difference between de facto and de jure conceptions of Jesus, Mary and the Trinity.

          • Well Paul, I believe you did not understand my question. Trinity as understood by early Church and todays Church(all orthodox churches) is of One God who is of Three Persons(Father, Son and Holy Spirit) and never Mary.

            When early Church called Mary mother of God, it was to show the divinity of Jesus, not of Mary. Even al-Zamakhshari, early Muslim commentator correctly noticed this as he explained: ” Moreover, it is well known that the Christians maintain that in Jesus are (combined) a divine nature derived from the Father and a human nature derived from his mother” even though he too did not understand Trinity since he wrote “According to the evidence of the Quran, the Christians maintain that God, Christ, and Mary are three gods, and that Christ is the child of God by Mary, as God says: ‘O Jesus son of Mary, didst thou say unto men: “Take me and my mother as gods, apart from God”?’ [Sura 5:116], or: ‘The Christians say: “The Messiah is the Son of God”’ [Sura 9:30].” (Helmut Gätje, The Qur’an and its Exegesis [Oneworld Publications, 1996], pp. 126-127)

            Could you direct me to a Christian creed, Bible passage, or anything that lead you to think the majority of Christians think Trinity is of Father, Son and Mary?

          • do you know what I mean by de facto and de jure conceptions of Jesus, Mary and the Trinity.

      • Firstly, the Qura’n has nothing to do with Muhammad (upon whom be peace). It is the literal Word of God. There was no human input into its contents or origin at all. The prophet was the passive recipient of the Revelation.

        Secondly, nowhere in the Quran does it say “Trinity is of Alla(Father), Isa and Mary?”

        • Well Paul, I believe the passages I quoted suggested so. Would you like me to quote you commentaries from Muslim scholars who believe as I do that Muhammad’s position on this teaching is as I pointed out?

          • you could quote them but before you do, could you just quote the relevant Quranic verse that mentions a trinity of ‘Alla(Father), Isa and Mary?’

      • Muhammadanism.org quote the same passages as I did:

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

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

        Though they contended that Muslims “have had to offer reasons contending that Muhammad did not really teach that Allah (God), Christ Jesus, and Mary were the Trinity, in spite of the fact the Qur’an clearly gives this impression.”

        al-Zamakhshari, Muslim commentator wrote:

        The three is the predicate to an understood subject. If one accepts the Christian view that God exists in one nature with three divine persons, namely the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, and the opinion that the person of the Father represents being, the person of the Son represents knowledge, and the person of the Holy Spirit represents life, then one must supply the subject as follows: ‘God is three.’ Otherwise, one must supply thus: ‘The gods are three.’ According to the evidence of the Quran, the Christians maintain that God, Christ, and Mary are three gods, and that Christ is the child of God by Mary, as God says: ‘O Jesus son of Mary, didst thou say unto men: “Take me and my mother as gods, apart from God”?’ [Sura 5:116], or: ‘The Christians say: “The Messiah is the Son of God”’ [Sura 9:30]. Moreover, it is well known that the Christians maintain that in Jesus are (combined) a divine nature derived from the Father and a human nature derived from his mother (Helmut Gätje, The Qur’an and its Exegesis [Oneworld Publications, 1996], pp. 126-127)

        And in Sirat Rasulullah, Ibn Ishaq, Muslim biographer, contended also:

        “[I]s God; and He is the son of God; and He is the third Person of the Trinity, which is the doctrine of Christianity. […] They argue that he is the third of three in that God says: We have done, We have commanded, We have created and We have decreed, and they say, If He were one He would have said I have done, I have created, and so on, but He is He and Jesus and Mary. Concerning all these assertions the Quran came down.” (The Life of Muhammad: A Translation of Ishaq’s Sirat Rasul Allah, with introduction and notes by Alfred Guillaume [Oxford University Press, Karachi, tenth impression 1995], p. 271-2)

        While Mustafa Ahmed and M S M Saifullah at Islamic Awareness do not deny it, they commented that whether Trinity is composed of Father, Son,and Holy Spirit or Father, Son,and Mary, they “are equally condemned in the Qur’an”

        I could provide more Muslim scholars, if you would like, who believed Muhammad taught that Trinity is of Father, Son and Mary.

        Prayson

  26. It is clear from Muhammed’s writings that he knew very little of Christianity. He did not have the Scripture’s and he definitely did not understand the Trinity. This alone shows us that the Quran is not inspired.

    Good Post Prayson! Keep up the great work.

    Travis (AnotherChristianBlog.org)

  27. How can Jesus just be a messenger. He was fully God and fully man. Also, He didn’t just eat earthly food, He did miracles with fish and bread. He fed 5000 men, not including women and children, with I think 3 loaves of bread and 3 fish and had bushels of food left over. About Mary; He was not only her son, but her Messiah.etc. And about Allah being one god, Jesus was 3. The Trinity.

  28. Years ago I was researching the Biblical Jesus from the testimonies of unchristian sources. People who lived from AD 1 to AD200+, people like Flavius Josephus, Cornelius Tacitus, Gaius Suetonius Tranquillas, and Lucian, the Greek satirist, [to just name a few] and it is clear to me that these men wrote about a man named Jesus, Christianity and the Disciples. I’ve never read this Sura you posted Prayson and find it very interesting because it’s another unchristian source of proof there was a Jesus, a Mary, and who they were.

    To answer your question, “Did Muhammad Understand Trinity?” it’s very apparent to me the answer is no, and we know why. But why didn’t he understand, that’s the bigger question.

    truethresholds stated “Muhammad was an ‘ummi’. He could not read or write.” I do not know if this is true or not but if it is, there is a big problem, because the Islamic faith is then based on an illiterate dictating [TRUTH].

    Was it the angel Gabriel or Satan? We all know Satan is the great deceiver and can quote scripture.

    What was the greatest commandment? Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength.’ The second is this: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ There is no commandment greater than these.”

    Imagine where we would be today if 2,000 years ago this command was adopted by ALL. No Hitler, no wars no hate, no 911. But Satan was pissed. God sent us His Word to teach us the way, then be our salvation. So what does Satan do? come too Mohammad in the disguise of an “angel” to tell lies as if they are truth.

  29. The very basic mistake on your part is saying: ”In Sura 5.115-6, 5.73-75a and 4.171, Muhammad wrote:”
    Muhammad was an ‘ummi’. He could not read or write. He simply dictated the revelations revealed on him by God via Angel Gabriel and ensured yearly by means of recitation that the verses revealed are accurate and placed according to the will of God.

  30. This is brave post. The answer is clear from a Christian point of view but the question should be answered from a Muslim (authority). It seems to me, that in this blog also write converts to Islam, therefore it would be interesting to hear their (standard) argumentation

    My 3 cents worth:
    As far as I understand, most Muslim scholars see Christians simply as Polytheists, who blaspheme God by associating partners with him. To them the doctrine of trinity established in Creed of Nicaea (325), is in opposition to the belief in One God, a deliberate deviation based on taking in pagan concepts (Egypt, Greek)..
    Taking a historic view, I came to the conclusion Muslims believe that even though Christians claim to be monotheists, they think we actually believe in more than one God. Since Christians believe that Jesus is the Son of God, to them they therefore err like other people of ancient or modern times who have believed in a plurality of gods or the sons and daughters of God. The Quran, of course is simplified in that respect and strictly monotheistic:. “Say: “God is Unique! God, the Source [of everything]. He has not fathered anyone nor was He fathered, and there is nothing comparable to Him!” (Quran 112:1-4). The Quran also states: “Such was Jesus, the son of Mary; it is a statement of truth, about which they vainly dispute. It is not befitting to the majesty of God, that He should beget a son. Glory be to Him! When He determines a matter, He only says to it, ‘Be’ and it is” (Quran 19:34-35).

    IMHO, the Quran further clearly fails to understand, or more neutral, at least rejects the Creed of Chalcedon (Hypostatic Union/Two-Nature Doctrine Human/Divine). Christ is seen as human messenger only and the Crucifixion as illusion. Consequently, Christ’s resurrection is denied. The Quran says in reference to the status of Jesus as a Messenger: “The Messiah (Jesus), son of Mary, was no more than a Messenger before whom many Messengers have passed away; and his mother adhered wholly to truthfulness, and they both ate food (as other mortals do). See how We make Our signs clear to them; and see where they are turning away!” (Quran 5:75).
    As Phillip Jenkings points out, Islam’s understanding of Jesus has strong similarities to Ebionism but also to Docetism, and may even have taken its understanding from its theology. In the Koran 4:156 it is stated that: “…but they did not kill him, and they did not crucify him, but a similitude was made for them…” Surprisingly Western Church history and Western Islamic studies really miss the lack of evidence for pre-Islamic Islam (except for Gerd R. Puin and Dr. “Luxemberg”). To me all the pre-cursors to Islam point to heretical Christianity.

    Now this opens questions. Was the Islam original a current or even syncretism of early fringes of Christianity?. To modern sience, the Quran ” is a kind of cocktail of texts that were not all understood even at the time of Muhammad. Many of them may even be a hundred years older than Islam itself”. The emergence of the Islam could be seen as a part of ancient church history. Islam researcher Friedrich Schwally said already 1919: “The theologians are not aware that the Islam is a part of our church history. The more one studies the Quran, the clearer it becomes that its origin comes from a form of the Christianity. Probably only around the year 800 from Islam became its own religion.”

      • Your welcome – “springing out” of heresy seen from a Christian canon – to be correct . You might consider to google “The Syro-Aramaic Reading of the Koran: A Contribution to the Decoding of the Language of the Koran by Christoph Luxenberg, or “Docetism and Ebionism compared with the Qur’an
        ” or go to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Syro-Aramaic_Reading_of_the_Koran. This book is considered a very controversial work – Christoph Luxenberg is even an assumed name because of security reasons. There a lots of similar trails of other scholars familar with the church / middle eastern history of the first couple of hundred years who point in the same direction (http://stottilien.wordpress.com/2012/05/12/heretic-docetism-and-christian-views-of-jesus).
        One might need to look before the rise of Islam to understand its political and religious prereqisites and motivations and that far I am with Roy, to the Anti-Christ.

    • I wrote a reply once about this subjectHow can Jesus just be a messenger. He was fully God and fully man. Also, He didn’t just eat earthly food, He did miracles with fish and bread. He fed 5000 men, not including women and children, with I think 3 loaves of bread and 3 fish and had bushels of food left over. About Mary; He was not only her son, but her Messiah.etc. And about Allah being one god, Jesus was 3. The Trinity. I am interested in your comments.

Comments are closed.