Tuesday, 21 February 2017

Christian Claims Muslims Worship Prophet Muhammad in Prayer

Tony Costa took a plunge in the low-level internet polemics pit. Disappointing.

This is a low-level internet polemic which really involves ignorance or a complete shut-down of any desire to accurately represent the Muslim faith on the part of the person making such an argument.

The polemicist isolates one statement in a part of the Muslim prayer called the tashahhud:
“al-salaamu ‘alayka ayyhu’l-nabiyyu (peace be upon you, O Prophet)”.

The polemicist then proceeds to make a song and dance about it claiming it means Muslims pray to Muhammad. Yep, that’s their argument!

A few thoughts on this:

1. The Muslim prays to God alone. In fact, the Salah is commenced with the recitation of Surah Al Fatihaha. Verse 5 is rendered in English: “You [God] we worship, and You [God] we ask for help”. Thus from the very beginning of the prayer it is evident the prayer is to Allah.

Why would Muslims later on in the prayer decide to, all of a sudden, start praying to Prophet Muhammad especially given the fact the Quran teaches against this action? The Quran teaches us not to invoke another with Allah. Only Allah should be invoked.

“So invoke not with Allah another ilah (god) lest you be among those who receive punishment” [Quran 26: 213]

And we are taught only the Creator and not the creation should be invoked in Quran chapter 16:

20. Those whom they (Al-Mushrikun ) invoke besides Allah have not created anything, but are themselves created.
21. (They are) dead, lifeless, and they know not when they will be raised up.
22. Your Ilah (God) is One Ilah (God Allah, none has the right to be worshipped but He). But for those who believe not in the Hereafter, their hearts deny (the faith in the Oneness of Allah), and they are proud.

2. If the polemicist is consistent with this argument then they will also say we worship ourselves and other Muslims at the congregational prayers too as the sentence after in the tashahhuud goes “peace be upon us…”!

Obviously we aren’t worshipping ourselves and those in the congregation with us! We don’t believe those in the congregation can hear our prayers!

3. The polemicist doesn’t even understand the statement “al-salaamu ‘alayka (peace be upon you)” – it’s obviously not a prayer to Prophet Muhammad. Shaykh Uthameen explained this very simply – to be honest you really don’t need a shaykh to tell you that statement is NOT a prayer to Prophet Muhammad p but rather a supplication to Allah to bless the Prophet:

Are the words “al-salaamu ‘alayka (peace be upon you)” a statement or a supplication? I.e., are you stating that the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) is in a state of peace or are you asking Allaah to grant him peace?

The answer is that it is a du’aa’ (supplication) in which you are praying to Allaah to send peace upon him. This is a statement which is serving as a supplication. [Source]

4. Muslims don’t believe the Prophet is even listening to the prayer so how can Muslims be trying to pray to Prophet Muhammad? When Muslims ask Allah to bless the Prophet it gets conveyed via the angels. Shaykh ibn al-Uthaymeen rahimahullah beautifully states,

We say: if you send salaam upon him from the farthest ends of the earth, your salaam will reach him, because Allah has appointed angels who travel about the earth, and if anyone sends salaams upon the Messenger (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him), they convey that salaam to the Messenger (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him). So if we say now, “O Allah, send blessings and peace upon the Messenger of Allah,” our salaam will be transmitted to him. In prayer we say, “Al-salaamu ‘alayka ayyuha’l-nabiyyu wa rahmat-Allahi wa barakatuhu (Peace be upon you, O Prophet, and the mercy of Allah and His blessings),” and the salaam is transmitted to him…

For the hadith he refers to concerning the angels transmitting the salaam to the Prophet:

The Messenger of Allah sal Allahu alayhi wa sallam said: “Allah has angels who go around on earth, conveying to me the salaam of my ummah.” [Sunan Nasaa’i, Saheeh Al-Albani]

5. The polemicist again doesn’t show a familiarity with the prayer as after two sentences after the statement in question the Muslim asks Allah to send blessings upon the Prophet in a similar way Prophet Abraham was blessed:

`Allahumma salli `ala Muhammadin, wa `ala aali Muhammadin, kama sallaita `ala Ibrahima wa ala aali ibrahim…[O Allah, send your graces, honour and mercy on Muhammad and the family of Muhammad as you did with Ibrahim and his family...]

Now think about it, if the Salah involves “praying” to Muhammad then why does it after two statements go to a supplication beginning with “O Allah” to bless the Prophet? It’s obvious the prayer is to Allah!

On a side point, the asking of blessings to be sent to Prophet Muhammad p is in accordance with the divine command in the Quran (ref. 33:56). It actually benefits us to ask as we receive blessings for it! It’s very interesting to note the Bible talks about those who bless Abraham in a positive way, according to the Bible, God says this, whilst addressing Abram (Abraham):

I will bless those who bless you, and whoever curses you I will curse;
and all peoples on earth
will be blessed through you. (Genesis 12:3 NIV)

The fact that our Prophet taught us to mention “like Abraham” when asking Allah to send blessings on our Prophet maybe in reference to this special status Abraham had as parsed from Genesis 12:3.

[May Allah send more peace and blessings upon Abraham and Muhammad pbut]

5. Lastly, any academic and fair minded person will acknowledge Islam forbids praying to the creation and that Islam is based on the principle of monotheism. Everybody who knows something about Islam knows this right? I don’t need to pull out a quote from an academic. Let’s go to our Jewish brothers. Rabbi Tovia Singer states Islam is definitely not idolatry – Muslims worship one God.

Hopefully Tony Costa can learn from this. Folks, let’s have a higher view of fairness, a desire to honestly and accurately represent other faiths.


“Believers! Send your Blessings on him” – Resource for Salawat on the Prophet

Do we say say Al Salamu Alaika in /tashahhud?

Monday, 20 February 2017

Christian Missionaries and Pakistan's Valentines Day Ban

A Christian missionary called Lizzie was talking about the Pakistani Valentines Day ban which has been reported in British news outlets recently.

She seems to be encouraging Pakistanis to celebrate Valentines Day. Lizzie begins by writing:

Don’t you love 14th February? The cheesy commercialism, the overpriced meals, the vast teddy bears exchanged by teenagers and re-patriated to the charity shop by the end of the week? I know, I’m such a romantic! In my house, you might get a homemade card and a nice gesture, like taking the rubbish out. Here’s the thing though: if you want to buy a dozen red roses and waste helium on a heart balloon, be my guest. You’re not prohibited from doing so. Unless… you live in Islamabad.

What else are these boys and girls buying aside from teddies and roses? Condoms. Condom sales increase around Valentines Day. Why do you think that is, Lizzie? You don't get a prize for guessing correctly, and nope, they aren't buying them because the balloons have sold out!

For those unaware, the modern phenomenon of Valentines Day is not some harmless, fun day where teenagers exchange cuddly toys.

It’s a day where society effectively encourages lust (well in the UK it is at least!). It encourages people to forget about sexual purity. To forget about the Islamic principle of modesty and lowering one’s gaze. To forget about the Matthew 5’s teaching of it being adultery to look at a woman lustfully.

Lizzie, the Christian missionary, goes on to encourage Pakistanis and others to get involved in Valentines Day (maybe she runs a stall selling Valentine Day cards or something!):

.. to all my readers, but especially in Islamabad – if I have any, I’d love to hear from you – Happy Valentine’s Day! I hope that this ban is widely ignored, and that you stay safe if you choose to defy it. And if you’re not in Islamabad – let’s not take our freedom to celebrate days like these for granted, however fluffy and pointless they might seem to us.

The question here is why is a British Christian woman promoting Valentines Day? She surely knows, through experiencing life in the UK, that Valentines Day comes rife with elements that are antithetical to religious values.

Well, considering the ban has popular support amongst the natives over there in Pakistan it seems even more strange for Lizzie to be encouraging the flaunting of the ban – over 80% of those polled agreed with Islamabad’s High Court ban on Valentines Day.

Why would a Christian missionary want to see societies that are purer sexually than ours become marred with the same problems that come with Valentines Day? Does the Bible not matter to these people anymore, is it more about cultural imperialism than religious values?

Has Lizzie, the Christian missionary forgot this verse is in the New Testament:

But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart.

But there’s more. More in elephantine proportions. The elephant in the room.

Why do you think people in other cultures are against Valentines Day? It’s because they are against the enticement to have sex-before-marriage. That's the unpleasant baggage that comes with a society celebrating VD on mass. This Hindu spokesman for a group in India opposing Valentines Day says it as it is – premarital relations are the issue:

"If you are in love, you should get married," said Ashok Sharma, vice president of Hindu Mahasabha, a conservative Hindu religious organization with branches across the country. "Roaming around in public without marriage does not fit in Indian culture. If we find such young couples, we will get them married off." [Source]

Saudi Arabia, India and Indonesia (all countries which have been in the press for opposition to Valentines Day) have the lowest rates of children born out of wedlock (1% or less).

Now compare that to the Britain where it was reported in 2013 that over 50% of all babies will be born out of wedlock in less than 5 years time. That’s the “Christian” country of Britain. Yet you have British Christians telling Pakistanis that they should be celebrating Valentines Day in their country. Weird!

It gets odder still. The countries with the highest rates of children born out of wedlock are historically Christian countries:

The highest rates of non-marital childbearing occur in Latin America (55–74 percent). The only other countries to share these high rates are South Africa (59 percent) and Sweden (55 percent). The range within Europe is huge: from 18 percent (Italy) to 55 percent (Sweden). Those in North America and Oceania are also high and rising, though New Zealand (47 percent) and the United States (41 percent) stand out, with more than four out of ten births outside of marriage in these two countries.

Notice which countries have the highest rates of children born out wedlock? “CHRISTIAN” countries!.
I’d seriously encourage Hindus and Muslims in the East to carry on with the pushback against Valentines Day regardless of criticism from Christians and the press in the West. The fact is, they all know your societies are sexually purer and we are living in guilt and sin as our society has downgraded marriage and mocks sexual purity. We’re all suffering the consequences of our society's failings and our weaknesses.

And let’s talk about abortion. Inevitably all this sex outside marriage is going to have an impact on the abortion figures. I’m not going to be simplistic or insensitive here (Christian missionaries take note!), there are a number of reasons why women choose to have abortions however a lady is 17% more likely to have an abortion if she is not married.
We see some evangelical Christians posting memes on Facebook about abortion but if you really want to make inroads on the fight against abortion you should preach against sex-before-marriage.

Every year 200,000 Bible-believing Christian women have abortions. There’s going to be a number of reasons for these women making the decisions they do but if about 20% of these ladies are having abortions because they aren’t married then that is about 40,000 American Christian women annually having abortions simply because of the sexually impure culture we live in in the West.

Given the total number of abortions each year in the US is over a million that means the figure of ladies simply aborting their child due to them getting pregnant out of wedlock is 200,000. 200,000 American babies aborted simply because of sex outside of marriage!

In England and Wales, based on the 2014 figure of 185,824 abortions, that would mean more than 30,000 babies are aborted simply because of sex outside of marriage every year.

Now you do the maths for every “Christian” country in the West and its abortion figures based simply on getting pregnant outside of marriage.

Christian missionaries can try to mix Western cultural imperialism with evangelicalism but smart people will be able to spot it a mile off.
Western Christian missionaries really need to stop wasting their lives preaching what would be deemed immorality to people in sexually  purer societies on the other side of the world. Lizzie, and other evangelicals, should be inviting those Pakistanis, Saudis, Indonesians and Indians over here to help improve "Christian" society!

Christians believe  they have the Holy Spirit working on Christians.The theological problem for Lizzie and her Christian missionary colleagues who try to convert Muslims and others to the ideology of Trinitarian Christianity is that these statistics prove to be a demonstration of the fact the Christians don't have the Holy Spirit guiding their societies. Why is it that Buddhists, Hindus, Muslims, Jews, Sikhs and pretty much every other religious community can behave better sexually than Christians who claim to have the Holy Spirit?

And considering a growing number of evangelical Christians are taking to the anti-Muslim propaganda game why is it that Muslims having the least sex outside of marriage according to this survey?

Friday, 17 February 2017

Term Dar Al Harb Explained - Dr Musharraf Hussain and Justin Parrott

If this video does not play, it's also uploaded here and here

Justin Parrott on his FB writes: One of the Islamic terms misused by extremists, either for or against Islam, is the classical legal designation of a territory as “the land of war” (dar al-ḥarb). The conventional and mistaken thinking among Orientalists was that the “land of Islam” (dar al-Islām) was perpetually at war with the outside world of unbelievers until they came under the political control of Muslims.

Jihadist extremists like ISIS copied this kind of thinking and they reinterpreted classical Islamic legalese in highly-ideological terms and under the influence of Marxist and fascist revolutionaries, which is how they put a pseudo-Islamic veneer over their open call on the internet to commit acts of terrorism against nearly anyone in the world for any reason. In reality, the term dar al-ḥarb, besides being a derivative not stated in the Quran or Sunnah, was more *descriptive* than it was *prescriptive*.

That is, dar al-ḥarb was the description of a land in which it was unsafe to practice Islam. It was telling Muslims it was dangerous to go there. It was NOT a prescription to attack a peaceful neighboring country just because they had a different religion. The majority of jurists said non-Muslims are only fought if they declare war (ḥirābah) first, as per verse 2:190. Moreover, the jurists frequently employed the term “land of conciliation” (dar al-ṣulḥ) to describe neighboring lands that had peaceful relations with Muslims.

The abuse of archaic terms like dar al-ḥarb are key principles in both the Islamophobic and Jihadist ideologies. Although their goals are ostensibly opposed, they both are working towards a “clash of civilizations” as a means to bolster their own domestic agendas. We’ll keep trying to dismantle this ideology in our writings, piece by piece, God willing.

Why Islam

Ben Shapiro Refuted by Ali Ataie and James White: "The Myth of the Tiny Radical Minority"

James R White, a Christian apologist, responds to Ben Shapiro by appealing to consistency by stating most Christians would be considered radical too if the poll asked if they believed Jesus would return and everybody would worship Jesus.

James White Rebukes Ben Shapiro For Saying That The Majority Of Muslims Are Radical

Note: James White called the type of Sharia practiced in Saudi Arabia and Afghanistan "frightening and barbaric". I suppose, out of consistency, James believes the law in the Old Testament is "barbaric and frightening" too (a law which he believes was given by the Father, the Son (now known as Jesus) and the Holy Spirit)

Dr Ali Ataie on FB writes in response to Ben Shapiro's "The Myth of the Tiny Radical Muslim Minority" by also appealing to consistency and differing interpretations of texts:

Here's something I disagree with Ben on. It's amazing how that intellect can suddenly take a dive. This video is a smokescreen. Shari'ah law is part and parcel of every single Muslim's identity. Ben doesn't bother to define what exactly shariah is because he is fully satisfied with your perception of it as being a Draconian penal code from 1400 years ago. Ben is an orthodox Jew who no doubt also believes in the Torah and Talmud.

The five books of Moses are dripping with violence BUT... Ben has his own way of dealing with those texts... right? So what leads him to believe that the vast majority of Muslims do not deal with their violent texts in a similar fashion? How many stonings and hand amputations are happening right now in the Muslim majority world? Where's the data? Thus to say that a Muslim who believes in shari'ah is a radical is like saying a Jew who believes in halakhah is a radical... ALL of them.

Ben fails to define the nuances, immutables (thawabit), variables (mutaghayyarat), contexts, and interpretations of shari'ah that Muslims understand just by being Muslim. Have you read the Talmud? LORD have mercy! How does Ben deal with the homicidal, pedophilic, anti-Christian, racist rants of its rabbis? It seems that whoever considers the Talmud to be sacred is a radical. According to Pew (2013) most American Jews feel somewhat or very emotionally attached to Israel. Israel. A country that has ethnically cleansed its indigenous population since its inception and is now building on occupied territory. This is illegal according to international law. I guess all of those American Jews are radicals. Nice try Ben

Was there "Taqiyyah" in the Dr Yasir - James White Discussion?

Why Islam

Friday, 10 February 2017

Analysing Richard Lucas' Heretical Understanding of Trinity

Andy is the new director of Solas CPC

UPDATE: Richard Lucas did send me a message stating he is no longer a contributor to Solas CPC. The moderator used an old bio from the internet.

Richard Lucas, a former contributor for  Solas Centre for Public Christianity, was promoting a heretical idea of the Trinity in a debate with Muslim apologist Dr Shabir Ally. Richard believes God used to be one Person and then divided into three centres of consciousness to become  Tri-Personal. This is not “orthodox” Trinitarian thought.

All the relevant clips of Solas' Richard Lucas' comments on the Trinity have been compiled in this video

This video has also been uploaded here

I appreciate that Richard Lucas was honest and sincere enough to openly admit Tawheed ( the Islamic concept of God) is coherent and logical. Richard does practically demonstrate the Trinitarian concept of God is incoherent and illogical at the same time. Two quick thoughts (which I may add to in a future review of the debate):

1. Richard Lucas claims God divided into 3 and became a Trinity. This theory contradicts the belief that God is immutable (unchanging). Richard Lucas’ theory of God dividing constitutes a belief that God changed His nature. Some problems for his position:

- For change to take place then that suggests chronological order. Seen as God is eternal the idea of God changing is problematic.

- God is the Perfect Being thus does not need to change. To suggest God changed His nature could be conceived as suggesting at one time He was not the Perfect Being.

- Believing God changed into a Trinity arguably contradicts Bible verses like Malachi 3:6 if one views those verses to teach God doesn’t change His nature

I the LORD do not change. So you, the descendants of Jacob, are not destroyed.

2. Solas Centre for Public Christianity has another theological problem which Richard was honest enough to acknowledge. Richard Lucas’ bravery in publicly stating this should be commended. Richard Lucas openly admitted the Bible does not limit the number of Persons in the Godhead head, he then went on to say(according to his Biblical Christian view) God could add more Persons to the Godhead by dividing again.

It goes without saying that this is an effective admission that Trinitarian cannot even have confidence in believing the Trinity to be a truth about God (even from a Christian/Biblical perspective!).

Solas' Andy Bannister Presenting Intellectually Dishonest Arguments on New Testament Reliability

To be fair to Dr Andy Bannister, he may not know how bad this argument of appealing to the number of NT manuscripts is. Sadly, there are so many Christian apologists repeating this suggestion the numer of NT manuscripts correlates with the reliability of the New Testament. I've clipped Dr Bart Ehrman to address this common claim in evangelical Christian apologetics.

If the video does not play, it has also bee uploaded here and here.

A Muslim's Thoughts on Solas CPC's + Other Christian Campagins Against Same Sex Marriage in the UK

Did Ignatius Teach the Trinity?

Thoughts on the Hamza Myatt, Liz Mooney, Chris Claus and Jonathan McLatchie Exchanges

Friday, 3 February 2017

Was there "Taqiyyah" in the Dr Yasir - James White Discussion?

These comments from a young Christian apologist stem from an erroneous idea on Taqiyyah. Luis Dizon thinks Dr Yasir Qadhi may have been practicing "Taqiyyah" in the dialogue with Dr James White at a church.

Come on folks, which other group has to deal with this wild-eyed idea that we (Muslims) go around lying ("practicing Taqiyyah") when we talk about our faith? These misconceptions are the product of anti-Muslim propaganda - clearly it's far-reaching and is affecting young Christians in Canada like Luis Dizon. I know there is a bunch of anti-Islam Christian polemicists who propagate such propaganda about the concept of Taqiyya so, sadly, it's not surprising to come across this misconception amongst young Christians.

Let's have a stab at challenging this to help alleviate this problem. Here are Luis' comments:

Furthermore, there is a concern that Sh. Qadhi may be willfully deceiving the people listening because of the Islamic concept of Taqiyyah (dissimulation)...

...And I would like to bring up the topic of Taqiyyah briefly, because I know that that is always on everyone's minds whenever a Muslim preacher or apologist is speaking. I am not unaware that the doctrine of Taqiyyah exists. Was Sh. Qadhi practicing it, or was he not? I'm not going to rule it out, but at the same time, I'd like to remind everyone that we who believe in the principles of justice and fairness adhere to the idea of the presumption of innocence. In other words, you cannot accuse someone of being a liar or deceiver if you don't have any evidence to prove it. If you think that Sh. Qadhi was deliberately misrepresenting what he really thinks, then present your evidence. Having listened to Sh. Qadhi many times, not just in these dialogues but also in his lectures and khutbahs, I have no reason to believe that he is the kind of person who would go around intentionally deceiving people. Maybe he is, but we cannot prove it.

I'd refer Luis and others who may have come across propaganda material from anti-Muslim sources on the concept of Taqiyya to more scholarly authority. In this snippet of an old blog piece I used R. Strothmann’s relevant section in “Shorter Encyclopaedia of Islam” (by H.A.R. Gibb and J.H. Kramers)  and Cyril Glasse’s Concise Encyclopedia of Islam

What is “Taqiyyah”, “Takiya”, “Taqiyya”?

This term is spelt variously; “taqiyyah”, “takiya” or “taqiyya”.

“Takiya (A.), caution, fear (see glossarium to Tabari S.V. T-K-A) pr kitman, “disguise” is the technical term for dispensation from the requirements of religion under compulsion or threat of injury.” [1]

“Taqiyyah (From the root word waqa “to safeguard”; “self-protection” and hence “dissimulation [in order to protect oneself]”).” [2]

So, taqiyyah (takiya, taqiyya) is concerning dissimulation due to force – i.e. when an individual is forced to conceal.

Sadly, the propagandists – in order to obtain an unchecked platform and/or demonize Muslims – have misapplied this term in their propaganda claims of “Muslims are allowed to lie to the non-Muslisms”.

At what level of force is Takiya (Taqiyyah, Taqiya) justified?

“But an individual is not justified in takiya nor bound to hidjra [emigration] if the compulsion remains within the endurable limits, as in the case of temporary imprisonment or flogging which does not result in death” [1]

So, this makes a mockery of the suggestions of “Muslims are allowed to lie to the unbelievers” as even under threat of imprisonment and flogging Muslims are not justified in takiya. The level of force which justifies oneself in takiya is that of an unbearable level.

Takiya (taqiyya, taqiyyah) and the type of lies…

One may ask, what type of “disguise” is allowed under takiya (taqiyyah, taqiyya)?

Let’s be clear about takiya (taqiyyah, taqiyya); “The principle of dissimulation of one’s religious beliefs in order to avoid persecution or imminent harm, where no useful purpose would be served by publicly affirming them.” [2]

“The ethical question whether such forced lies are nevertheless lies, such a forced denial of the faith nevertheless a denial, is not put at all by one “who conceal himself” as he is not in a state of confidence which would be broken by lies or denial.” [1]

So takiya (taqiyyah, taqiyya) is not used to convert folk to Islam nor is it used in Islamic text books or anything of such a nature. It is simply a form of concealment used to avoid persecution

[1] Article by R. Strothmann, Shorter Encyclopaedia of Islam, H.A.R. Gibb and J.H. Kramers, Fourth impression, 1995, E.J. Brill Leiden. New York. Koln p. 561 - 562

[2] The Concise Encyclopaedia of Islam, Revised Edition, Cyril Glasse, Stacey International, 2001, p450-451.

Blog: Aggressive Sid Cordle and Lizzie Schofield on Mary Worship and The Quran

Synoptic Gospels and the Idea of a Pre-Existent Jesus?

Tuesday, 31 January 2017

Jonathan McLatchie's Comments on the Apologetics Academy: Orthodox or Heretical?

I suspect Jonathan may have evolved his thoughts on the number of wills Jesus has after the discussion with Mansur. A few months ago, Jonathan did produce a blog post in response to some chatter around his statement to Mansur (i.e.  Jesus has "one will, not two"). In his blog article he has conflated “will” with “desire/urge”.
He has the same mistaken conflation in his discussion with Dr Tony Costa and Paul Williams as highlighted in the clip of him  presenting his thoughts (after Paul Williams had left the room) to Dr Tony Costa. Yes, I know Dr Costa agreed with him but he’s mistaken too albeit his “yes” in agreement with Jonathan seemed a bit unsure. Perhaps he didn’t quite catch Jonathan’s misunderstanding.
In any case, I strongly suspect Dr Costa, in his preparation for his recent debate with Robert Sungenis, watched Dr White’s debate with Robert Sungenis and thus repeated Dr White in asserting the belief Jesus has two wills is orthodox – I don’t think he has researched or thought it through himself (which is not a criticism as this is a very little-known area in Trinitarian Christian theology).
I’ve clipped all the relevant comments in the new video below including Dr James White’s comments clearly teaching the idea of Jesus having two wills is orthodox (and the idea of one will is unorthodox).
Let’s go through some bits from Jonathan McLatchie’s article whilst we’re at it.
JM: I believe that, in one sense, Jesus could be said to have two wills; in another sense, Jesus could be said to have only one will. If by saying that Jesus possesses two distinct wills you mean that He possesses two separate centers of consciousness which conflict in their intentions and will, then such a view collapses into Nestorianism, a well known fifth century heresy which maintains that Jesus is two persons.  At Speaker's Corner, Muslim polemicist Mansoor Ahmed asked me whether the human will of Jesus worships the divine will of Jesus. Thus, it was clear to me that by saying that Jesus possesses two wills, Mansoor meant it in the heretical Nestorian sense. In this sense, Jesus only possesses a single will. Yes, he most definitely possesses two natures. But to suggest that Jesus has two separate and conflicting wills seems to me to be virtually indistinguishable from Nestorianism.
What you’re doing here, Jonathan, is mixing up definitions and terms. It’s really loose language. To say Jesus has only “one will not two” to Mansur just to express the idea that the two wills don’t conflict is careless use of language to say the least To express your idea, why not just say “I believe he has two wills, one divine and one human, but those two wills agree with each other”?  (NOTE: Jonathan later puts forward an example from the NT showing the wills don't agree with each other).
That would avoid all the finger-pointing and cries of “heretic”, right?
And I don’t think it’s clear Mansur was driving at the wills not being in agreement so I have reservations when it comes to your reasoning explaining why  you said what you did did to Mansur. I think Mansur was driving at the same point Dr Bart Ehrman hints at. Bart Ehrman writes the following when asked why there was such an opposition in the first 1000 years of Christianity to the idea of Jesus having one will and one nature:
The problem was that he had to be fully human and fully divine, not half of each. Otherwise, it was thought, he wasn’t “really” either, but a kind of hybrid. [Bart Erhman]
Herein is the issue. If one maintains there are two natures with respect to Jesus then each nature will be said to have a separate consciousness (i.e. will) otherwise the natures (both human and divine) would be considered incomplete. Quite perceptively, this seems to be one of the observations Mansur brings to the fore in his discussion with Jonathan.
JM: In another sense, however, Jesus can be said to have two wills. This is clearly seen, for instance, at Jesus' temptation (Matthew 4, Mark 1, Luke 4), in which Jesus, according to Hebrews 4 "in every respect has been tempted as we are, yet without sin." One might ask, if I am saying that Jesus possesses only one will, then how can He have been tempted? After all, God cannot sin. In response to this, I would point out that even a single person can have a complexity of will. For example, a sailor drifting at sea might desire to drink the sea water in order to quench his thirst, and yet at the same time know that drinking the salt water will only worsen his thirst. In a similar way, Christ -- being fully and completely human -- possessed human desires, such as the desire to not be hungry. At the same time, however, he knew that it would be sinful for him to turn the stones into bread as the Devil has tempted him to do, and so he did not succumb to the temptation. Thus, insofar as it is possible for a single person to possess a complexity of will, Jesus possessed a complexity of will.
Jonathan, this idea of “complexity of will” is just a conflation between will and desire on your part. I think you’re basing arguments on flawed definitions and understandings of terms and words here.
I think Jonathan has a mistaken understanding of the concept of “will”, he’s confusing it with natural urges/desires.
“Will” doesn’t refer to “desire”. “Will” refers to a centre of consciousness. For a human it’s effectively the capacity to process desire (and reason) to act/think decisively.
In order to be considered fully human, orthodox Christians insist Jesus  has a human will, the same applies to the idea of his divine nature (thus they insist Jesus had a divine will too). To say Jesus only had one will would open the door to folks who maintain monophysitism and/or monothelitism as the divine and human natures  are not considered complete or full.
JM: It was in His human nature that Christ bore the temptation to sin. I believe that the divine nature of Christ would always have served as a backstop to prevent Christ from sinning. Nonetheless, Christ bore the temptation in the arm of His flesh and overcame.
I think this conflation of nature and will is Jonathan flying close to the sun. Sooner or later he will get too close to the sun and ultimately plunge into the sea of “heresy” – perhaps he has already taken a dip or two.
This  is just another example of how the Gospel authors didn’t have the same theology as Trinitarian Christians like Jonathan McLatchie. If they truly believed the “divine nature” of Jesus would ultimately prevent Jesus from sinning then how can they describe it as a temptation to sin? A temptation to do something can only be a temptation IF the means and ability is there. There’s no good somebody giving me a bike and then claiming they’ve tempted me to travel to Mars! I don’t have the ability to travel there, there’s a backstop in place, thus I can’t be tempted.According to Trinitarians,  Jesus didn’t have the ability to fall into that temptation to sin so the assumption here is either:
1. The authors of the Gospels and Hebrews didn’t believe Jesus had a “divine nature” acting as a  “backstop” preventing him from sinning.
2.The authors of the Gospels believed Jesus’s human nature didn’t know he had a “divine nature” acting as a “backstop” preventing him from sinning.
3. The authors of these books didn’t really think their words through theologically.
JM: Likewise, in the garden of Gethsemane, Jesus in His human nature had the desire to not experience pain or abandonment and separation from the favorable presence of God, for "it is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God" (Hebrews 10:31). And He knew very well what experiencing the wrath of God would entail. Hence, in Matthew 26:39 / Mark 14:36, Jesus says "My Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me; nevertheless, not as I will, but as you will." While, since He possessed a human nature, He felt the human desire to not experience pain, He nonetheless understood full well that experiencing the wrath of God would be necessary in order to provide redemption for His people.
In summary, the idea that Christ has two wills, I believe to be in error in any sense that suggests that Christ possesses two separate centers of consciousness (Nestorianism). On the other hand, I believe it is quite valid to assert that Christ possessed a complexity of will in the manner in which individual persons can be said to possess a complexity of will.
And this is the fruit of Jonathan’s mixing of terminologies. Confusion on top of confusion.
Jonathan says Jesus can’t have two wills that conflict yet here he cites an example of Jesus’ human will not being in-line with what the Trinitarians believe to be the will of the divine.
Think about what is being said here. Jonathan cites an example of Jesus consciously asking God for something in opposition to what the Trinitarians believe to be the divine will. The idea of Jesus’ human nature consciously asking for something different to what the divine wills is not only teaching Jesus had two wills but it’s also teaching the wills aren’t in agreement! Yet at the same he’s saying it’s [tantamoun to] Nestorianism (a heresy) to say there Jesus had two conflicting wills.
Lastly, I think we need to make sure our focus is not distracted to the extent that there's no thoughts on whether this idea of dyothelitism is Biblical or not - James White couldn't give a Scriptural basis for such a belief.
Here are all the relevant clips including Jonathan's comments to Dr Costa, Dr Costa's comments to Paul Williams and Mansur's dialogue with Jonathan at Speakers Corner.

James White's Comments Rebuke Arguments of Jay Smith and David Wood

How Jay Smith, Beth Grove, Usama Dakdok and David Wood contribute to the apostasy of Christians

Notes from Sean Finnegan's interview with Patrick Navas: Is the Trinity Biblical

Tovia Singer: Does the New Testament Teach Jesus is God?

Why Islam

Wednesday, 25 January 2017

Blog: Aggressive Sid Cordle and Lizzie Schofield on Mary Worship and The Quran

Lizzie Schofield of Pfander Centre for Apologetics and Sid Cordle (of the CPA) talk to a Muslim. The Muslim, Hamza Myatt (EF Dawah), tried to correct them but he finds himself shouted down. Lizzie Schofield begins by stating it's so dull to continuously talk about the Trinity - considering it's an essential and fundamental belief about God in her church tradition that comment was surprising.

I used a clip of pastor JD Hall to highlight how some Trinitarian Christians believe if one doesn't believe in the Trinity doctrine they believe in a "false god". Lizzie thros in the "Quran gets the Trinity wrong" polemic - this is addressed by a clip of Dr Ali Ataie in the video.

Sid Cordle shouts no Christians ever worshipped Mary - this is not true as highlighted by the quote from James White and Taylor Marshall's citation of an ancient prayer found written on papyrus manuscript (p470), this manuscript is dated is dated to 250 CE.

Brewer's dictionary on Mariamites:

Worshippers of Mary, the mother of Jesus. They said the Trinity consisted of God the Father, God the Son, and Mary the mother of God. [Source]

Ali Ataie does not see the Quranic Verse 5:116 specifically denouncing the Trinity doctrine here but rather Mary worship and deification of Jesus Christ.

If the video does not play, it is also uploaded here

Shadid Lewis: Is Quran wrong about the Trinity?

Excerpts from Discover The Truth:

The aim of this article is to respond to the claims made by missionaries that the Quran got the trinity wrong. Let’s now read the verses they use as proof that the Quran says ‘Mary is part of the Trinity’,
“And [beware the Day] when Allah will say, “O Jesus, Son of Mary, did you say to the people, ‘Take me and my mother as deities besides Allah?'” He will say, “Exalted are You! It was not for me to say that to which I have no right. If I had said it, You would have known it. You know what is within myself, and I do not know what is within Yourself. Indeed, it is You who is Knower of the unseen.” – Quran 5:116
From this passage Christians think it speaks about the Trinity, but they are wrong. If we read the verse from start to end one will not find the word “Trinity” in there. Another passage they use as proof that the Quran got the Trinity wrong is,
“O People of the Book! Commit no excesses in your religion: Nor say of God aught but the truth. Christ Jesus the son of Mary was (no more than) an apostle of God, and His Word, which He bestowed on Mary, and a spirit proceeding from Him: so believe in God and His apostles. Say not “Trinity” : desist: it will be better for you: for God 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 God as a Disposer of affairs.” – Quran 4:171
Again, the above verse does not say anything about Mary being part of the trinity. If one reads the above verse carefully, it is clear that the passage is mainly speaking of Jesus. The name of Mary is used, because Allah is elucidating, making Christians ponder that Jesus son of Mary was only a messenger of God, and through His (God’s) command, he (Jesus) became a created being that was born in the womb of Mary. Then after that, Allah says, “say not trinity” (or Three). It is quite clear that the verse does not say anything about Mary being part of the Trinity.
 The Quran does speak about the Trinity somewhere else, but says nothing about Mary being part of the Trinity. Here is the verse:
“They do blaspheme who say: God is one of three in a Trinity: for there is no god except One God. If they desist not from their word (of blasphemy), verily a grievous penalty will befall the blasphemers among them.” – Quran 5:73
As we read the above passage, it does speak about the trinity, but does not mention anything about Mary being part of the trinity.
Another thing critics love citing for chapter 4 verse 171, is use classic commentaries such as Tafsir al-Jalalayn, and Tanwîr al-Miqbâs min Tafsîr Ibn ‘Abbâs, by that they conclude the Quran is a false book and not from God, since they believe the trinity consists of “the Father, Son and Mary.” Nowhere in the verse (Quran 4:71) does it say that the trinity consists of, “the Father, Son and Mary.” Even if we agree with what some of the commentators like Tafsir al-Jalalayn and Tanwîr al-Miqbâs min Tafsîr Ibn ‘Abbâs said, it will not disprove what the Quran already stated. The Scholars made that comment, because they were referring to some Christian sects, who believed that trinity consisted of the “Father, the Son and Mary.” Another thing if you read their exegesis, nowhere will you see them mention that this ‘belief was believed by all Christians.’ There is vast amount of evidence from the Church Fathers that there was certain sect(s) in Arabia that believed the trinity consisted of: “Father, the Son and Virgin Mary.”
1. George Sale
“This notion of the divinity of the virgin Mary was also believed by some at the council of Nice, who said there two gods besides the Father, viz., Christ and the Virgin Mary, and were thence named Mariamites. Others imagined her to be exempt from humanity, and deified; which goes but little beyond the Popish superstition in calling her the compliment of the Trinity, as if it were imperfect with her. This foolish imagination is justly condemned in the Koran as idolatrous….” [1]
2. Reverend Gilbert Reid D.D.
As to Christianity as it was represented in Arabia, it was not a clear untarnished theism, but tritheism. The Heavenly Father, Mary the mother of God and Jesus their son, were WORSHIPPED as three Gods, and their images appeared in the churches along with the images of other saints. Christianity as taught by Christ had lost its identity in the formalism and errors of the church of Arabia. Still more the truths pro-claimed by God through all the ages had been lost sight amid the vain imaginings of men’s hearts. The only God of, an omnipresent spirit, without form or body. The reformation of Mohammed was thus a return to the first and second commandment of the Prophet Moses, which Jesus himself had taught.” [2]
Question: “why does the Quran in chapter 5 verse 116 state Mary is a God?”
Well it’s clear that the Quran is in dialectic discussion with the native Arabs of that time, when it was first revealed. The Quran is naturally responding to ideas and teachings of people had at that time. So, the Quran is correcting their error in worshipping Mary and bringing them back to the path of worshipping God as One (Monotheism) and none else besides Him i.e., no worship of Mary or Jesus. The Quran also makes it abundantly clear that Jesus never told people any of this. Allah is asking Jesus on the day of judgement, “did you tell people to worship You and your Mother as Gods?” In the presence of the people, to bring them to judgement. It will be obvious that Jesus won’t accept any responsibility as he is not the one who commanded such a thing. Here are many more academic sources that attest to Mary being worshipped as a God
1. Reverend Henry Adelbert Thomson (Cincinnati, Ohio)
It is plain that the tendency to sail with the popular wind, which existed in church dignitaries of that age as well as in this, easily prevailed on many who held ecclesiastical office, so that they approved or winked at beliefs and practices which more independent clergymen considered erroneous. The people carried the clergy along with them. Even the fearless and powerful Augustine, and with him such strenuous men as John Chrysostom and two Gregories of Nazianzen and Nyssa, were unable to stem the tide in some matters of which were disapproved. The worship of Mary and the Saints met the popular mood and pleased the popular fancy; so the great leaders. Confronted by an enthusiasm they were really powerless to curb, endeavoured to the point out and maintain a distinction between latreia and douleia. But, once having given way, even partially, to the prevailing opinion, these same great men were afterward quoted as conservators and expounders of the tradition which, through them, thus received the more impressive authority….. the pure Christian doctrine had led to veneration of Saints; the adoration of the feminine ideal, together with the peculiar relationship of Mary to Christ, had designated her as “Queen of Saints;”….. the practice of Mariolatry gained a tremendous impulse, along with the Worship of Saints, especially in the post Nicene period….. the Church was still more effectually darkened and its doctrine debased. In such a period those elements of the Faith which almost readily lent themselves to idolatry suffered most in purity and gained most in practice. Saints, relics, images, with Mary, as Queen of Heaven, at their head, almost completely absorbed the worship of the people. [9]
2. Ernst Benz
The virgin birth entered into creeds of all Christendom and became one of the strongest motifs in the liturgy and worship of the early Church. Veneration of the mother of God took a tremdous leap from the moment Constantine made Christianity the official religion of the Empire and the pagan masses began pouring into the Church. For thousands of years the religious mentality of the peoples of the Mediterranean basin and near East had been shaped by the cult of the great Mother Goddess and Divine Virgin. From the ancient popular religions of Babylonian Ishtar to the mystery religions of the late Hellenistic age the great Goddess had been worshipped under a variety of forms. The peoples who had practiced her cult could not easily adjust to the sole dominance of the Father God and to the strictly patriarchal structure of Judaic religiosity, which had been taken over by the early Christians. This ancient tradition sought a new mode of expression within the Christian Church and found it in adoration of the Virginal Mother of God in whom the mysterious union of the divine Logos with human nature had been accomplished…. In Egypt the veneration of Mary began very early. Origen, the Alexandrian father of the Church, employed the term theotokos- God bearer in the third century. The second council of Ephesus gave its sanction to this title. The second council of Constantinople added the epithet ever-lasting Virgin.” The prayers and hymns of the Orthodox Church invoke the name of the Mother of God as often as the names of Christ and the Holy Trinity. A god example of such homage is found in the Eucharistic liturgy of St. John Chrysostom, at the conclusion of the great intercessory prayer: “Truly worthy is it to praise Thee God bearer, eternally blessed and perfectly irreproachable Mother of our God, who art more worthy of honor than the cherubim and incomparably more glorious than the seraphim, who intact, hast borne the Divine Logos-Thee the true Mother of God, we Praise.” [10]
3. Professor of the New Testament Beverly Roberts Gaventa
“Orthodox theologians insist Mary is deserving of this grace, and it is for that reason that she is identified as Panhagia, or All Holy. From birth she is without sin. Her own holiness and her divine maternity warrant the high veneration given to her by the Church. Mary is “the first of all humanity to have attained, through the complete transfiguration of her being, that to which every creature is summoned. She has already transcended the boundary between time and eternity and now finds herself in the Kingdom which the Church awaits with the second coming of Christ.” Because of Mary’s own holiness, she stands in solidarity with the sanctified humanity who constitute with the Church. For those reasons, Orthodox Christian tradition icons and hymns praise Mary at ‘the centre of the Saints as a representation of the worshipping and praying community.’”[11]
4. Professor James R. Adair
“…the highest veneration was given to Mary, the mother of Jesus. Historically Marian veneration can be connected with the controversies over the use of the term theotokos, rejected by Nestorius but accepted by most Christians of the day. The veneration of Mary was especially popular among the common people and the Monks, particularly in the EAST.” [12]
5. Reverend James Gardner
“Mariolatry, the worship of the Virgin Mary. In the fourth century, in consequence of prevalence of the ascetic spirit, the most extravagant opinions began to be entertained of the merit of virginity, and Mary, the mother of our blessed Lord, was venerated as the ideal of the celibate life. About this time an opinion arose that there were in the temple of Jerusalem virgins consecrated to God, among whom Mary grew up in vows of perpetual Virginity. In the end of the fourth, it became customary to apply to Mary the appellation, “Mother of God.” …the worshippers of Mary prevailed, and in the fifth century images of the Virgin were placed in the Churches holding the infant Jesus in her arms. Once introduced, this species of worship spread rapidly, and Mary became a conspicuous object of veneration in the Churches, both of the East and West. .. towards the close of the tenth century the custom became prevalent among the Latins, of celebrating masses, and abstaining from flesh on Saturdays, in honour of Mary. About the same time the daily office of St. Mary, which the Latins call lesser office, was introduced, and it was afterwards confirmed by Pope Urban II. In the council of Clement. The Rosary also came into use, consisting of fifteen repetitions of the Lord’s prayer, and one hundred salutations of St. Mary; and the Crown of St. Mary, as it was called by the Latins consisted of six or seven repetitions of the Lord’s prayer, and sixty or seventy salutations according to the age ascribed by different authors to the Holy Virgin. Mariolatry now became an established doctrine and practice in the Church of Rome, and down to the present day has continued to occupy a very spicuous place in her ritual; while with equal intensity Mary receives the worship of Oriental Church under the name of Panagia, or All-Holy…” [13]
6. German Professor Johann Heinrich Kurtz
…the Collydrians- a female sect in Arabia dating from the fourth century- who offered to her bread-cakes (in imitation of the heathen worship of ceres). Epiphanius, who opposed that sect, maintained:…. On the Antidicomarianites, comp. 92. But during the Nestorian controversy Mariolatry became again more general in the Church. In the fifth century, the 25th march was celebrated as the Feast of the Annunciation… [14]

7. Reverend John Dowling
When we observe, on the one hand, the earnest manner in which these fathers contend for perpetual virginity of Mary, and on the other hand the extravagant honors attached to the virgin state, we need not be surprised that the notion soon became prevalent among some that ‘ the mother of God.’ As she was now frequently denominated, was herself worthy of the honors of divine worship. Accordingly, about this time, we find that a sect sprang up, whose peculiar tenet it was, that the Virgin Mary should be adored in worship, and that religious honors should be paid to her. They were called Collyridians, from collyridae, the cakes which they offered to the virgin… [15]
8. Church of England quarterly review
The first persons upon record, as offering divine honours to the Virgin Mary, were the Collyridians, who derived their names from the…, or certain cakes, which they offered annually to Saint Mary, in sacrifice upon her festival, when they worshipped her as a goddess. This superstition came from Thrace, and the yet more distant regions of Scythia and Arabia… [16]
9. Professor of the New Testament studies Amy-Jill Levine
“There are even stronger hints that Mary was venerated as a goddess. By the fourth century, Epiphanius (315-403 CE) was ordering the faithful not to worship Mary but only the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, suggesting that such activity had been transpiring for a while.” [17]
10. Professor of religious studies Gail Paterson Corrington
“It would certainly not have been surprising if the Christian women of Egypt had found another divine mother with whom to identify; the Christian women of Arabia, to Epiphanius’s consternation, did a similar thing in their worship of Mary rather than Jesus… The cakes (kollybas) offered by the Collyridians to Mary in the worship are described in a way similar to the cakes offered Isis as the queen of heaven…” [18]
11. Mary Walsh
“The first council’s decision was approved, and Mary was the theotokos, ‘The Mother of God.’ This date, A.D. 431, marks the time when Mary was in the ascendancy, and her veneration and worship began. …. About the middle of the fourth century, according to Jerome, Augistine, Gregory, Epiphanius, and others, teachings came in regarding Virgins who had taken the vows of sanctity and chastity and who devoted their lives to the service of the temple at Jerusalem. Among these virgins was Mary, who had consecrated her life to God by taking the vow of perpetual virginity. It was declared that her marriage to Joseph was formal, and that she continued a virgin until her death. This was the new teaching, and it caused long debated arguments as to whether Mary was actually was a perpetual virgin. The other phrase of the new teaching was that Mary was the ‘Mother of God’ and was therefore entitled to devotion and honor. These extravagant honors conferred on Mary led to the development of a sect called Collyridian, derived from the word collyridae, the cakes which were offered to the Virgin. This sect regards Mary as worthy of divine worship. Thus the floodgates were opened for the beatification of the Virgin.” [19]
12. Thomas Anthony Trollope
Collyridians, from Greek word signifying a piece of bread or cake in a cylindrical form; a sect of Christians, who arose towards the conclusion of the fourth century, and, together with another sect, called the Antidico-Marianites, filled all Arabia with controversies and disorder. These latter maintained that the Virgin Mary did not preserve immaculate state after the birth of Christ, in jospeh autem mariti sui concubitu adhuc indulgebat. The Collyridians, on contrary, who are said to have chiefly consisted of women, worshipped the Virgin as a goddess, and sought favours by libations, sacrifices, and oblations of cakes. [20]
13. Professor Maxwell E. Johnson
“Epiphanuis of Salamis (315-403 CE), according to his witness, not only was there in existence an anti-marian group called the Antidicomarianites, who denied Mary’s perpetual virginity, but also an EXTREME pro-marian group, known as the Conllydrians (from cakes), a group compromised mostly of women who worshipped Mary as a goddess, offered her and then consumed small cakes, and had a female priesthood…” [21]
14. Protestant theologian and Church historian Phillip Schaff writes,
“Epiphanius, in his seventy-eighth heresy, combats the advocates of the opposite view in Arabia toward the end of fourth century (367), as heretics under the title of Antidiomarianites, opposer’s of the dignity of Mary i.e., of her perpetual virginity. But, on the other hand, he condemns, in the seventy-ninth heresy, the contemporaneous sect of the Collyridians in Arabia, a set of fanatical women, who, as priestesses rendered divine Worship to Mary…”[22]
15. Reverend George William D. Evans
The religious worship now paid to the virgin seems clearly deducible from that which was paid to the female deities of old. How reluctantly the converts from heathenism bade adieu to that sex as objects of worship, is evident from heretical opinions held by the sect of the Collydrians- a sect which arose towards the close of the fourth century, and offered up cakes (collyridae) to the Virgin Mary, as a goddess, and the Queen of heaven… [23]
16. Erich Fromm
“In the Nestorian controversy a decision against Nestorius was reached in 431 that Mary was not only the mother of Christ but also the mother of God, and at the end of the fourth century there arose a cult of Mary, and men addressed prayers to her. About the same time the representation of Mary in the plastic arts also began to play a great and ever-increasing role. The succeeding centuries attached more and more significance to the mother of God, and her worship became more exuberant and more general. Altars were erected to her, and her pictures were shown everywhere.” [24]
17. English historian Edward Gibbon
“The Christians of the Seventh century had insensibly relapsed into a semblance of paganism: their public and private vows were addressed to the relics and images that disgraced the temples of the East: the throne of the Almighty was darkened by a cloud of martyrs, and saints, and angels, the objects of popular veneration; and the Collydrian heretics, who flourished in the fruitful soil of Arabia, invested the Virgin Mary with the name and honors of a goddess. The mysteries of the Trinity and incarnation appear to contradict the principle of the Divine unity. In their obvious sense, they introduce three equal deities, and transform the man Jesus into the substance of the Son of God: and orthodox commentary will satisfy only a believing mind: intemperate curiosity and zeal had torn the veil of the sanctuary; and each of the Oriental sects was eager to confess that all, except themselves, deserved the reproach of Idolatry and Polytheism. The Creed of Mahomet is free from suspicion or ambiguity; and the Koran is a glorious testimony to the unity of God. The Prophet of Mecca rejected the worship of idols and men, of stars and planets, on the rational principle that whatever rises must set, that whatever is born must die, that whatever is corruptible must decay and perish.” [25]
We can conclude that the Quran nowhere says that “Mary is part of the trinity.” I responded to critics claims on  Scholars (commentators of the Quran), they also never said, “Mary is believed by all Christians to be part of the trinity.” Their views were based on certain sects of Arabia which believed that Mary is part of the trinty. I also referenced two dozen or more academic quotes from Christian experts, that Virgin Mary indeed was worshipped and she was part of the trinity. I believe everything I have presented is in my favour that the Quran is not wrong in responding to the Christians of that time in Arabia that they worshipped Mary as a Goddess.

Tovia Singer: Does the New Testament Teach Jesus is God?

Why Islam