Quran Confirms the Trinity is Monotheistic Pt. 2
This is a continuation of my previous article: The Quran Confirms the Trinity is Monotheistic.
In that post I showed that the Quran prohibits marriages with individuals who associate partners with Allah, or ascribe divinity to creatures:
AND DO NOT marry women who ascribe divinity to aught beside God ere they attain to [true] belief: for any believing bondwoman [of God] is certainly better than a woman who ascribes divinity to aught beside God, even though she please you greatly. And do not give your women in marriage to men who ascribe divinity to aught beside God ere they attain to [true] belief: for- any believing bondman [of God] is certainly better than a man who ascribes divinity to aught beside God, even though he please you greatly. [Such as] these invite unto the fire, whereas God invites unto paradise, and unto [the achievement of] forgiveness by His leave; and He makes clear His messages unto mankind, so that they might bear them in mind. S. 2:221 (Muhammad Asad, The Message of the Quran: https://islamawakened.com/quran/2/st20.htm#gsc.tab=0)
I then mentioned that the Muslim scripture permits Muslim men to marry Christian women:
Made lawful to you this day are At-Tayyibat [all kinds of Halal (lawful) foods, which Allah has made lawful (meat of slaughtered eatable animals, etc., milk products, fats, vegetables and fruits, etc.). The food (slaughtered cattle, eatable animals, etc.) of the people of the Scripture (Jews and Christians) is lawful to you and yours is lawful to them. (Lawful to you in marriage) are chaste women from the believers and chaste women from those who were given the Scripture (Jews and Christians) before your time, when you have given their due Mahr (bridal money given by the husband to his wife at the time of marriage), desiring chastity (i.e., taking them in legal wedlock) not committing illegal sexual intercourse, nor taking them as girl-friends. And whosoever disbelieves in the Oneness of Allah and in all the other Articles of Faith [i.e. His (Allah's), Angels, His Holy Books, His Messengers, the Day of Resurrection and Al-Qadar (Divine Preordainments)], then fruitless is his work, and in the Hereafter he will be among the losers. S. 5:5 Hilali-Khan
I stated that the only way to reconcile these two verses is by assuming that the Quran does not classify the doctrine of the Trinity as polytheistic.
I warned against the interpretation that the Quran only allows marriages with unitarian Christians who think that Jesus was merely human, since their view holds to God exalting a human creature to divine status by granting Jesus his divine authority, glory and worship. This is clearly a case of ascribing divinity to a created being, which is condemned by the Muslim scripture as the unforgiveable sin known as shirk:
WHO made the earth a bed for you, and the heaven a roof, and caused water to come down from the clouds and therewith brought forth fruits for your sustenance; so do not set up equals to ALLAH, while you know. S. 2:22 Sher Ali
It is not (possible) for any human being unto whom Allah had given the Scripture and wisdom and the prophethood that he should afterwards have said unto mankind: Be slaves of me instead of Allah; but (what he said was): Be ye faithful servants of the Lord by virtue of your constant teaching of the Scripture and of your constant study thereof. And he commanded you not that ye should take the angels and the prophets for lords. Would he command you to disbelieve after ye had surrendered (to Allah)? S. 3:79-80 Pickthall
Lo! Allah forgiveth not that a partner should be ascribed unto Him. He forgiveth (all) save that to whom He will. Whoso ascribeth partners to Allah, he hath indeed invented a tremendous sin. S. 4:48 Pickthall
And say: Praise be to Allah, Who hath not taken unto Himself a son, and Who hath no partner in the Sovereignty, nor hath He any protecting friend through dependence. And magnify Him with all magnificence. S. 17:111 Pickthall
He unto Whom belongeth the Sovereignty of the heavens and the earth, He hath chosen no son nor hath He any partner in the Sovereignty. He hath created everything and hath meted out for it a measure. S. 25:2 Pickthall
The Quran is adamant that no creature can share in the rule of Allah, and yet this is precisely what Unitarians believe.
The dilemma is further compounded by the following Sunni narration, deemed to be authentic:
XVI. The words of Allah Almighty, "Do not marry idolatrous women until they believe. A believing slavegirl is better for you than an idolatress, even though she attract you." (2:221)
4981. It is related from Nafi' that when Ibn 'Umar was asked about marrying a Christian or Jewish woman, he said, "Allah has made idolatresses unlawful for the believers. I do not know of a more terrible shirk than that a woman say, 'My Lord is 'Isa,' when he is one of the slaves of Allah." (Aisha Bewley, The Sahih Collection of al-Bukhari, Chapter 71. Divorce; emphasis mine)
Here’s another rendition:
68 Divorce
(18) Chapter: "Do not marry Al-Mushirkat till they believe..."
Narrated Nafi`:
Whenever Ibn `Umar was asked about marrying a Christian lady or a Jewess, he would say: "Allah has made it unlawful for the believers to marry ladies who ascribe partners in worship to Allah, and I do not know of a greater thing, as regards to ascribing partners in worship, etc. to Allah, than that a lady should say that Jesus is her Lord although he is just one of Allah's slaves."
Reference: Sahih al-Bukhari 5285
In-book reference: Book 68, Hadith 34
USC-MSA web (English) reference: Vol. 7, Book 63, Hadith 209 (sunnah.com: https://sunnah.com/bukhari:5285)
Ibn Umar’s statement confirms my argument that one cannot serve and worship a merely human Jesus as Lord without this being shirk.
The problem, however, with this claim attributed to Ibn Umar is that this assumes that the Quran is actually consistent in its depiction of Jesus being a mere created human servant of Allah.
The fact of the matter is that the Islamic text contradicts itself in that it actually does present Jesus as Lord, in fact the only Lord that believers are to take along with Allah:
They have taken their rabbis and their monks (as) Lords besides Allah AND the Messiah, son (of) Maryam. And not they were commanded except that they worship One God. (There) is no god except Him. Glory be to Him from what they associate (with Him). S. 9:31 (Word for Word: https://islamawakened.com/quran/9/st78.htm#gsc.tab=0)
Here is the transliteration of the underlying Arabic text:
Ittakhathoo ahbarahum waruhbanahum arbaban min dooni Allahi WA’al-Maseeha ibna Maryama wama omiroo illa liyaAAbudoo ilahan wahidan la ilaha illa huwa subhanahu Aaamma mushrikoona
The grammatical structure of the Arabic is rebuking Jews and Christians for serving others besides Allah and the Messiah as their Lord. The verse is basically stating that the only Lord whom believers are to have besides Allah is Jesus.
In other words, the Muslim scripture is essentially stating that it is wrong for people to take Jewish rabbis and Christian priests as lords when their Lord is supposed to be Allah and Jesus.
And here are some other English versions of the Quran which translate the Arabic more accurately:
“They take their doctors and their monks for lords rather than God, AND the Messiah the son of Mary…” Palmer
“They take their priests and their monks for [their] lords, besides God, AND Christ the son of Mary…” Sale
“They took their scholars and priests to be lords besides God, AND the Messiah son of Mary…” Quran: A Reformist Translation (QRT)
Even these renderings felt the need to insert a comma after God, despite it being clear from the original Arabic text that there is no justification for doing so. This is because the Arabic makes it explicit that both God/Allah and the Messiah are being joined together as the one Lord whom Muslims are to believe in and serve.
It does this by employing the conjunction wa (“and”), i.e., min dooni Allahi WA’al-Maseeha ibna Maryama. The Arabic wa is used to show partnership, a fact which Muslim scholars readily admit.
For instance, while commenting on the importance that this particular conjunction has on the Muslim confession of faith (i.e., “there is no god but Allah AND Muhammad is his messenger”), renowned Muslim jurist Qadi ‘Iyad Ibn Musa al-Yahsubi stated:
The fact that mention of the Prophet is directly connected to mention of Allah also shows that obedience to the Prophet is connected to obedience to Allah and his name to Allah’s name. Allah says, “Obey Allah and His Messenger” (2:32) and “Believe in Allah and His Messenger.” (4:136) Allah joins them together using the conjunction WA WHICH IS THE CONJUNCTION OF PARTNERSHIP. IT IS NOT PERMITTED TO USE THIS CONJUNCTION IN CONNECTION WITH ALLAH IN THE CASE OF ANYONE EXCEPT THE PROPHET.
Hudhayfa said that the Prophet said, “None of you should say, ‘What Allah wills and (wa) so-and-so wills.’ Rather say, ‘What Allah wills.’ Then stop and say, ‘So-and-so wills.’”
Al-Khattabi said, “The Prophet has guided you to correct behaviour in putting the will of Allah before the will of others. He chose ‘then’ (thumma) which implies sequence and deference as opposed to ‘and’ (wa) WHICH IMPLIES PARTNERSHIP.”
Something similar is mentioned in another hadith. Someone was speaking in the presence of the Prophet, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, and said, “Whoever obeys Allah and His Messenger has been rightly guided, and whoever rebels against them both (joining them together by using the dual form)…” The Prophet said to him, “What a bad speaker you are! Get up! [Or he said: Get out!]”
Abu Sulayman said, “He disliked the two names being joined together in that way BECAUSE IT IMPLIES EQUALITY.”… (Qadi ‘Iyad, Kitab Ash-shifa bi ta’rif huquq al-Mustafa (Healing by the recognition of the Rights of the Chosen One), translation by Aisha Abdarrahman Bewley [Madinah Press, Inverness, Scotland, U.K.; third reprint 1991, paperback], p. 8; capital emphasis mine)
Now the author(s) and/or editor(s) of the Quran could have simply avoided all these problems by writing the verse in the following manner:
Ittakhathoo ahbarahum WA’ruhbanahum WA’al-Maseeha ibna Maryama arbaban min dooni Allahi
Or, without the vowel markings, s/he/they could have stated it this way:
Ittakhatho ahbarahum Wa ruhbanahum Wa al-Maseeh bn Maryam arbab min doon Allah
The foregoing gives us the following translation:
They have taken their rabbis AND their monks AND the Messiah son of Mary as Lords besides Allah.
This formulation would leave no doubt that the Messiah is among those whom the believers are forbidden from serving as their Lord.
However, this is not how the text was originally written. The placement of Jesus in the verse along with the conjunction positions him with Allah, e.g., Allah WA’al-Maseeh ibn Maryam, not with the rabbis and monks.
It must also be kept in mind that the markings distinguishing the different cases in Arabic, i.e., nominative, accusative etc., were added to the text much later. The original Arabic Quran had no markings to help differentiate between the different nuances of a word.
In fact, this is how the verse would look like in transliteration minus the critical points:
min doon Allah wa al-Maseeh bn Maryam
As one can see, the original Arabic text leaves absolutely no doubt that Allah and Jesus are being joined together as the one Lord whom believers are to serve.
And lest I be accused of not understanding Arabic, here is what two Arabic speaking scholars of Islam write:
“It is no easy task, however, to describe the Qur’an’s evaluation of Christianity, for the precise historical context of the Qur’an’s origins is far from clear, despite the elaborate biographies of the Prophet Muhammad written during the ‘Abaasid period (132/750-656/1258). Meanwhile, Qur’anic language, essentially homiletic and referential, is often sparing with details. It can therefore be elusive to readers removed from its original context.
“The problem might be presented in regard to terminology. The Qur’an repeatedly (eleven times in all) refers to Jesus as the Christ (al-masih). However, it seems to use the term simply as a proper name (much as Christians began to use the term in the patristic period). Yet the Qur’an also refers to Jesus as the Word of God (Q 3:45; 4:171; cf. 3:59) and the Spirit of God (4:171), who was created from a divine breath (21:91; 66:12). These are typical formulae used by Christians to express the divinity of Christ, as is the Qur’an reference to Christ creating a bird from clay and bringing it to life with his breath (3:49; 5:110; cf. God’s creation of Adam: 15:29; 32:9; 38:72) and the Qur’an’s close association of Jesus and the Holy Spirit (2:87, 253; 5:110).
“However, the Qur’an also repeatedly has Jesus announce that he was sent by God to confirm the law (Tawrat) to the Israelites (3:50; 5:46; 61:6), to insist on God’s transcendence (3:51; 5:72), to reject worship of him (and his mother) as gods (5:116-117), and, in one place, to announce a Messenger to come after him (61:6). Hence it seems that the Qur’an is rejecting Christian claims about Jesus, and indeed the Qur’an implies that the “People of the Book” (here presumably Christians are intended) belittle God with their statements about Christ (4:171). Elsewhere (9:30) Christians are reprimanded for calling Christ the Son of God. And yet in the very next verse (9:31) the Qur’an seems to imply that Christians and Jews err in considering monks and rabbis as Lords instead of God and Christ.2” (‘Abd al-Jabbar – Critique of Christian Origins: A Parallel English-Arabic Text, edited, translated, and annotated by Gabriel Said Reynolds & Samir Khalil Samir [Brigham Young University Press, Provo, Utah 2010], pp. xxi-xxii; bold emphasis mine)
2. Note, however, that the text is vocalized today with Christ in the accusative so that Christ is grouped with monks and rabbis in this verse. (Ibid., p. xxii)
So even these scholars of the Arabic acknowledge that the author(s) and or editor(s) of the original consonantal Quran ended up confessing that both Allah and Jesus are the one Lord whom all believers are to serve!
This means that Ibn Umar was wrong since his claims contradict the very book which he believed to be the word of his deity. Serving Jesus as Lord is not one of the worst acts of shirk, but is one of the noblest acts of submission to the will of God according to Q. 9:31.
The facts presented in this post serve to reinforce my argument that the Quran nowhere condemns the historic Christian understanding of the Trinity and Jesus’ Divinity as being polytheistic or idolatrous. Rather, it confirms that these historic Christian doctrines re legitimate expressions and forms of monotheism, which is why the Islamic text permits Muslim men to marry Christian women who hold such beliefs.
Further Reading
Comments