bismillah walhamdulilah, was-salaatu was-salamu`alaa rasoolillah,

trinity & tawheed

salamu 'alaikum (peace onto you)

introduction

the aim of this essay is to inform the general christians and muslims who perhaps are not aware of each other's respective fundamental beliefs in god. more often, followers themselves are not aware of the authentic creeds which is mainly because of recieving information from an in-accurate or deviant source. therefore the introductory information will be drawn from the authentic sources of both christianity and islam. the purpose of this essay is also to conduct a comparative study on the christian trinity and muslim tawheed in light of scripture and on rational basis, with the aim and hope that it helps us to a mutual perception of the omnipotent. indeed it is of utmost importance for us to acquire a correct and proper perception of god, as emphasised in jesus' statement : ...and this is eternal life, that they know thee the only true god, and jesus christ whom thou hast sent. [john 17:3] it is thus vitally important for us to have a better understanding of god in order to fulfill the basic function of human existence which is to worship god and god alone, as we fined mentioned in the qur'an : i have only created jinns[spirits] and men, that they may serve[worship] me. [al-qur'an 51:56] in no manner one can attain internal peace that comes with the worship of god unless we obtain his correct concept, a concept which is based on reason and a true understanding derived from revelation. what follows is a brief over-look at the doctrines of trinity and tawheed from the main sources and subsequently a brief comparison of the two fatihs. the reader is advised to read the article in full and after considering the evidence presented, draw his/her own conclusion.

trinity

the christian concept of trinity is a combination of tri [three] and unity [one], three in one godhead consisting of god the father, god the son and god the holy spirit making up the holy trinity. the three persons of the father, the son, and the holy sprit, make up one godhead, their glory equal with their majesty co-eternal. such as the father is, such is the son, and such is the holy sprit. the father un-created, the son un-created, and the holy sprit un-created but it must also be understood that they are not three un-created but one un-created. the father is eternal, the son is eternal, and the holy spirit is etenral yet they are not three eternals but one eternal. likewise the father is almighty, the son almighty, and the holy spirit is almighty but they are not three almighties, they are one almighty. so the father is god, the son is god, and the holy spirit is god yet not three different gods but one god. this is the belief which today signifies orthodox christianity,

anyone who does not adhere to this belief is considered a heretic.

we'll now look at some of the commonly presented evidences from the bible in support for the doctrine of trinity. in the first chapter of the book genesis, we read; in the beginning god created the heavens and the earth. the earth was without form and void, and darkness was upon the face of the deep; and the spirit of god was moving over the face of the waters. and god said, "let there be light"; and there was light. [gen 1-3] god the father is refered to as the creator, the spirit of god, a reference to the holy spirit and god's utterance or his speech, apparently being jesus who, as we fined in john 1, is the word of god.

in the same book we learn about god's plural nature and his likeness to man: then god said, "let us make man in our image, after our likeness" [gen 1-26] thus it is asserted that not only is god a plurality but he is also likened to man's physical form. this concept serves as the base for god's incarnation in the form, jesus the second person of the trinity. if one believes god looks like a human being, its that much easier to believe jesus as god in human form.[1]

at jesus' baptizism, god himself gives witness as to who jesus was : and a voice came from heaven, "thou art my beloved son; with thee i am well pleased." [mr 1:11] another important trinity sighting is found in matthew, chapter 28 where jesus reportedly says : go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the father and of the son and of the holy spirit. noticable is the phrase 'in the name of...' instead of 'in the names of...' which strengthens further implication of one god in three persons, making the verse the most explicit statement regarding the concept of trinity in the four gospels.[2]

among the divinity claims attributed to the historical jesus is that of being the 'son of man'. more often, people consider the title as refering to jesus' humanity, as the title 'son of god' refers to his divinity. however, in the book of daniel in the old testament, chapter.7, daniel sees vision of a divine human figure coming in the clouds of heven, to whom god will give everlasting glory and dominion. yet this is the status jesus claimed for himself in [mr 14:62]. when the high priest asked jesus : "are you the christ, the son of the blessed?" jesus replied : "i am; and you will see the son of man seated at the right hand of power, and coming with the clouds of heaven." the high priest tore his garments, and said, "why do we still need witnesses? you have heard his blasphemy. what is your decision?" and they all condemned him as deserving death.[3]

[4]the 'i am' sayings of jesus recorded in john's gospel in particular are evidences affirming jesus' divine nature; "i am the bread of life" [john 6:35] "i am the light of the world" [john 8:12] "i am, before abraham" [john 8:58] "i am the door of the sheep." [john 10:7] "i am the true vine" [john 15:1] "i am the resurrection, and the life" [john 11:25]

"i am the way, the truth, and the life" [john 14:6] "i and my father are one" [john 10:30]

and perhaps the closest resemblance to the trinity found anywhere in the entire bible is the [kjv 1john 5:7] where it explicitly states : for there are three that bear record in heaven, the father, the word,and the holy ghost: and these three are one.[5]

bulk of the above info is borrowed from the catholic encyclopaedia website.

tawheed

the arabic word tawheed means 'asserting oneness' and is derived from the root word 'wahada' meaning 'to unite'. in islamic terminology, tawheed is maintaning the oneness and uniqueness of allah or god and the purest form of monotheism. according to muslim traditions, tawheed is what all prophets preached, from noah and abraham to moses to jesus and finally muhammad (peace upon them all). as god says in the glorious qur'an : not a messenger did we send before thee without this inspiration sent by us to him: that there is no god but i; therefore worship and serve me. [al-qur'an 21:25] tawheed is devided into three categories;

tawheed ar-rububiyah : asserting the unity of allah's lordship, that god is one without a partner in his dominian and sovereignty. god alone is the cause of all that exists, he is the sole creater, cherisher, maintainer, sustainer and lord of the universe. 'rabubiyah' comes rabb meaning lord, sustainer or cherisher. the divine unity in lordship is found amply in the glorious qur'an : to allah belongeth the dominion of the heavens and the earth; and allah hath power over all things. [al-qur'an 3:189] allah[god] is the creator of all things, and he is the guardian and disposer of all affairs. [al-qur'an 39:62] no kind of calamity can occur, except by the leave of allah: and if any one believes in allah, (allah) guides his heart (aright): for allah knows all things. [al-qur'an 64:11]

tawheed al-asma' wa-sifat : maintaning the unity of allah's names and attributes, that there is no similitude of god's names and attributes. they are unique to god alone and in-comparable to anyone else. this category of tawheed is sub-divided into five aspects; 1. god must be refered to as he and his prophets have described him without explaining his name and attribues in a different way that which leads to their meanings being changed. for example, in the qur'an we read that god gets angry even though 'anger' is a result of man's weakness and failure to control his emotions. as such, it is not befitting of god but what allah has stated should only be interpreted in the light of the qur'an that god's anger is not like that of the humans. allah says : ...there is nothing whatever like unto him, and he is the one that hears and sees [all]. [al-qur'an 42:11] god sees and hears but his sight and hearing is not limited like our's, rather it is explained in the ultimate and in-comparable sense. the similarity between god's attributes, such as 'anger', and

those of humans is only in name, not in extent. 2. god is to be called by those names by which he called himself, without giving him any new names. for example, we may not call upon god as "the angy one" despite the fact that he gets angry. that is because his prophets never used this name to describe god. 3. god must not be given attributes of his creation, for such acts degrade god to the level of his creation. like the one in the bible where it depicts god as one who gets tired : ...and on the seventh day he[god] rested, and was refreshed. [exo 31:17] similarly : and the lord was sorry that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him to his heart. [gen 6:6] wearing out or feeling aggrieved are human qualitites and need not be assigned to god almighty who states, as in the qur'an : ...his throne doth extend over the heavens and the earth, and he feeleth no fatigue in guarding and preserving them... [al-qur'an, 2:255] we[god] created the heavens and the earth and all between them in six days, nor did any sense of weariness touch us. [al-qur'an 50:38] 4. god's attributes must not be given to men. attributing qualities and characteristics of divinity to men or such as eternity, infinity, infallibility and omnipotence destroys this aspect of asma' was-sifat. turning to the bible once more we read in the book of hebrews of a man named melchizedec who is : ...without father or mother or genealogy, and has neither beginning of days nor end of life... [hebrews 7:3] 5. god's names, in their ultimate meaning, cannot be given to anything of the creation. we cannot call anyone by the name 'ar-raheem' [the most merciful] without pre-fixing 'abd' [slave or servant of..] for it is in the definite form representing a level of perfection which only belongs to god. however, the indefinite form 'raheem' [merciful] can be used since allah has used them to describe his prophets : now hath come unto you a messenger[muhammad] from amongst yourselves: it grieves him that ye should perish: ardently anxious is he over you: to the believers is he kind and merciful. [al-qur'an 9:128]

tawheed al-ibadah : asserting the unity of allah's worship, he alone is to be worshiped, without a rival or an associate. 'ibadah' comes from 'abd' meaning 'slave', thus ibadah means 'to serve or to worship'. this aspect of tawheed is the most crutial and without practicing it, belief in the above two cateories of tawheed ar-rububiah and tawheed al-asma' was-sifat is useless. even mushriks [pagans, idolators] of makkah (mecca) at the time of the prophet muhammad[s] believed in the first two categories but they also worshiped about 360 idols placed in the ka'bah. we read in the qur'an : say[o muhammad]: "who is it that sustains you from the sky and from the earth? or who is it that has power over hearing and sight? and who is it that brings out the living from the dead and the dead from the living? and who is it that rules and regulates all affairs?" they will soon say, "allah". say, "will ye not then show piety [to god]?" [al-qur'an 10:31] and most of them believe not in allah without associating with him! [al-qur'an 12:106] despite their belief in allah as the creater, chericher and sustainer of the universe, their belief in 'qadar' [pre-destination], offering prayers, giving charity, performing hajj and animal sacrifices, god classified them as 'kuffar' [dis-believers] and 'mushriks' [pagans]. thus tawheed al-ibadah, maintaning divine

unity of allah in acts of worship is the most important of the three categories of tawheed. all forms of worship are to be directed to god, who alone deserves all praises!

shirk

deficiency in fulfilling the above three categories of tawheed is called 'shirk' in arabic [lit. 'sharing or associating]. in islamic terminology, shirk means 'associating partner[s] with god'. this is the gravest of all sins one can commit, for which there is no forgiveness. god says in the qur'an : allah forgiveth not that partners should be set up with him; but he forgiveth anything else, to whom he pleaseth; to set up partners with allah is to devise a sin most heinous indeed. [al-qur'an 4:48] a similar message is given in ayah [116] : allah forgiveth not joining other gods with him; but he forgiveth whom he pleaseth other sins than this: one who joins other gods with allah, hath strayed far, far away. we shall now look at some examples of shirk in the three categories of tawheed.

shirk in rububiyah : as we have learned, tawheed ar-rububiyah is maintaining the divine unity of god's lordship over the creation. consequently, the belief that others share allah's lordship to a major or minor degree is a violation of this aspect of tawheed. infact many famous world religions would fall into shirk in rububiyah. in hinduism, we have the concept of the one supreme god brahma, seen as the almighty, the absolute and eternal but while god brahma is the creator of the universe, he shares his lordship with the preserver god vishnu and the destroyer god shiva. thus shirk in rububiyah is commited when god's creative, preservative and destructive powers are shared with others.

shirk in asma' was-sifat : shirk in this category is committed when allah is given the form, attributes or name of the creation. for example, depicting god as man in statues, sculptures, paintings, idols etc. shirk in asma' was-sifat is also done when the created, men, idols etc are given divine attributes and titles with hinudism being a prime example. infact most world religions would easily fall into this category.

shirk in ibadah : any act of worship be it a prayer, a ritual, glorification, obedience, mediation, thanks-giving or praising directed towards deities other than or with god is shirk in ibadah. acts such as wearing amulets thereby putting trust in non-living materials or even beseeching aid from the unseen such as spirits or holy men apart from or with god are transgressions of tawheed al-ibadah. many among the ignorant shiya [shiites] with their distorted notion of intercession frequenly pray to ali[r] (son in law of the prophet muhammad[p]), believing he answers their prayers. in maintaining divine unity in worship, one must avoid any sort of a prayer to a deceased, be he a holy man or even a prophet. the prophet muhammad[s] clearly stated : dua' [prayer] is itself worship... and he went on to recite: and your lord says: "call on me, i will answer you" (qur'an 40.60). [sunan abi dawud, #1474]

this brief illustration of tawheed [divine unity], is largely based upon the book : the fundamentals of tawheed by dr. ameenah bilal philips.

comparison

we will now compare the two concepts of trinity and tawheed so to try and establish which of two is more rationally acceptable and scripturally un-objectoinable. as explained previously, muslims believe god as of no similitude in this universe. the moment you compare god to anything in this universe or attemps to conjure up any likeness to him, that conjecture is not god for there is nothing like unto him! [al-qur'an 112:4]. we read in the qur'an ...of knowledge it is only a little that is communicated to you, (o men!)[6], consequently the human mind is in-capable of comprehending the essence of allah. on making such an attemp we indulge in different forms of idol worship and various heresies and mythologies stem from such vain attemps. thererfore, all muslims adhere strickly to the belief that god will never appear to us in this world. contrary to this is the common christian view which upholds the belief of god's manifestation in human form, feeling it a necessity for doctrinal reasons. it was jesus, the second person of a triune godhead, who became man to die for our sins. lets discuss whether such a conception can or cannot be supported with reason and scripture.

logical

first and foremost, we should be positive and sure that there is a god, a creator, for there is nothing in human experience which proves otherwise. there is no real evidence on which we can establish our existence as a result of random events. on the contrary, of all we can observe, we can see that our universe has a begining , a cause, moreover when we see an object, take for example a computer, we know that initially, before it was made, some intelligent being must have conceived of it. similarly before our existence and the formation of this universe, there had to be an all-wise, al- knowledgeable, an intelligent being who conceived of us and then is inventive and innovative enough to fashion us into existence, one we refer to as god. hence our life on earth is not a result of chance but of divine choice.

now its a necessity that god be one and unique, for this perception is not only easily conceivable but also rationally plausible. it is with this conception of the one god humans are born and with the inclination to worship him alone. but often parents divert the child and lead him to join partners with god or worship idols etc. but rationally there cannot be more than one god, for if one god is able to conceive of us, he should be sufficient to create and destroy the world. the difficulty with having more than one god is demonstrated in some hindu philosophies where brahma is depicted as the god who created the universe, vishnu is the protector god and shiva the destroyer god. moreover, these are deficient gods who lack the qualities of the other, though brahma is able to create he is un-able to preserve and whereas vishnu is the protector, he cannot destroy, that attribute goes to the third part of this godhead, shiva. likewise in christianity,

st.paul perceived jesus as god's agent, an intermediate between man and his god. paul believed god created jesus and jesus created the world : the god who made the world and everything in it, being lord of heaven and earth...nor is he served by human hands, as though he needed anything, since he himself gives to all men life and breath and everything...[jesus] a man whom he has appointed... [7] ...for us there is one god, the father, from whom are all things and for whom we exist, and one lord, jesus christ, through whom are all things and through whom we exist.[8] cf; [john 1:1]. again the difficulty persists that if god created jesus he should be suffice to create this world. if one is able to do his work he need not hire a secretary. so also god need not give his glory and majesty to someone else. furthermore, this idea dis-qualifies jesus of divinity, yet this is what paul actually thought of him.

in modern 'orthodox' christianity however, the theology has developed so now jesus is god himself, the second person in a trinity who is un-created and eternal. this in turn raises other difficulties, that if jesus had a divine nature, it would contradict the idea of him being 'fully man' as attested in the athanasian creed. jesus himself propounded this understanding, in a discourse as he explained that angelic bodies are dis-similar to humanized bodies.[9] so now an apologetic is offered that jesus while on earth lived as a human being and died only bodily, yet remained god in spirit, hence bodily jesus was finite but spiritually he was god. once more this notion goes against the teachings of the official creed which described jesus as "fully man and fully god" for a full man consists of not only a finite body but also a finite spirit. 'roakh' [spirit] or 'nefesh' [soul] in hebrew are things which god breaths into the dead to bring it to life. hence jesus also could not have been fully man and also fully god, its consciously un-tenable and rationally impossible. to simplify things even further, we might say that god is infinite but we are finite; that god is necessary but we are contingent; god is un-caused and we are caused and god is immortal but we are mortal. hence we can conclude;

all humans are mortal. jesus was human. hence, jesus was mortal!

god is not mortal. jesus was mortal. hence, jesus was not god!

now christians frequently raise the argument that god is in-comprehensible and as such, the trinity of god is a mystery and cannot be properly understood by the limited human mind. indeed there is element of mystery to god, muslims do not deny this, as we fined mentioned in the qur'an that god is : ...above all comprehension...[10] yet this is not the problem muslims face concerning the trinity. the main difficulty with the trinity lies in the in-capability of expressing the doctrine meaningfully. one should atleast be able explain his/her belief in knowledgeable and intelligible terms. jesus (as man) like all other beings had all

the characteristics of a mortal who dependant on natural things such as air, water, food etc, whereas god is completely independent of such needs. to say in one place god is in-comprehensible and on the other assert his "human nature" is not a mystery. similarly, to say god is infinite and immortal aswell as finite and mortal being leaves no room mystery but rather becomes a blatent contradiction. thus the main reason for concern among muslims is not the mystery of god but the in-ability of expressing the doctrine meaningfully, without self-contradiction. to further elabourate this point, rudolphe ross writes : to say someone is perfect and imperfect is like saying that you saw a square circle. this is an impossibility. are you saying the circle was not round, in which case it was not a circle? or are you saying the square was circular? this is not a paradox; this is meaningless nonsense, however imaginative it might be...to say that someone is perfect and imperfect at the same time is to say that “x” and “not-x” can both be true. this is either to abandon the meaning of these words or else to abandon logic, and in either case this means we are speaking nonsense that can have no meaning for us. [common sense christianity, p.82] if jesus was full man then naturally would also have limitations, he would be prone to errors and lack in knowledge, whereas to be god means the opposite, it means to be infallible and complete in knowledge. surely jesus could not have been both, he was either perfect or imperfect, fallible or infallible. to assert jesus' perfection in divinity and im-perfection in humanity would require two distinct persons, two wills and two conflicting natures which the orthodoxy does not allow.

some further argue and ask why can't god become a human being if he is all-powerful and able to do all things? the answer is yes, god is able to do all he wishes as we fined mentioned in the qur'an that god is : doer of all that he intends... [11] yet god will not intend to do something which negates his divinity and deprives him of his majesty and glory. for example, god can give his powers to an other deity but the moment he does that, he himself no longer remains god. likewise god can be merciless and un-just but such attributes would be un-godly, contrary to his divine nature : for i the lord do not change...[12] ...thou wilt find no change in our[god's] ways.[13] therefore god only performs godly acts and always remains divine. he is the fashioner not fashoined, he is the sustainer but not sustained, he is infinite not limited. becoming human contradict his divine characteristics and negate his godhood.

i do not believe the doctrine of incarnation and the trinity should be so important for christians that they neglect and give up the traditional doctrine [of one god] for it, for sacrificing necessary divine attributes is far too high a price to pay in order that a divine-human life on earth can be thought 'intelligible'. in john hick's the myth of god incarnate, maurice wiles writes : ...when one is asked to believe something which one cannot even spell out at all in intelligible terms, it is right to stop and push the question one stage further back: are we sure that the concept of incarnate being, one who is both fully god and fully man, is after all an intelligible concept? [14]

so does jesus[p] or the bible preach a trinity? before we dwell into in this

discussion we should realise that jesus' divinity cannot be based upon ambiguous statements for they must to be definitive. jesus[p] either said or did something that should decisively prove he was divne but if that statement or act can be interpreted to mean otherwise, we should go with the more naturalistic possibility that jesus[p] was purely a man, a human being. and as we'll soon discover, jesus'[p] statements in the four gospels and rest of the biblical narratives [even if we take them all as authentic] negate the doctrine of trinity and only confirmed the islamic conception of tawheed, the oneness of god.

scriptural

noticable it is that nor the word 'trinity' neither a similar term find mention in the entire bible. 'trinity' was first used in the third century, derived from the latin trinitas to express the doctrine. but the word is there in the qur'an and we read in surah al-ma'eda: they do disbelieve who say: allah[god] is one of three in a trinity: for there is no god except one allah. if they desist not from their word (of blasphemy), verily a grievous penalty will befall the blasphemers among them. [al-qur'an 5:73] the one god, better known to the christians as the father, is he who muslims recognise as the sole creator of the universe whereas jesus[p] is taken out of this godhead and categorised as a prophet and messenger of allah. the holy spirit is understood as the leader of god's angels, namely gabriel. the qur'an on jesus[p] : christ the son of mary was no more than a messenger; many were the messengers that passed away before him... [al-qur'an 5:75] allah also said: when jesus came with clear signs, he said: "now have i come to you with wisdom, and in order to make clear to you some of the (points) on which ye dispute: therefore fear allah and obey me. "for allah, he is my lord and your lord: so worship ye him: this is a straight way." but sects from among themselves fell into disagreement: then woe to the wrong-doers, from the penalty of a grievous day! [al-qur'an, 43:63-65] to learn more on the islamic position regarding jesus'[p] life and his mission, see; jesus in islam and who was jesus[p]?

now the qur'an stresses god's omnipotence and omniscience so we may identify or differentiate between a true and any false god. for example, if there is any type of limitation to god, if there is anything he cannot do or something he does not know or lacks essential divine characteristics then it cannot be the true god. if you fined anyone or anything comparable to god then he is not god, as the qur'an says : ...there is nothing like unto him... [15] say[o muhammad]: he is allah, the one and only; allah, the eternal, absolute; he begetteth not, nor is he begotten; and there is none like unto him. [al-qur'an 112:1-4] muslims are not alone carrying this position, judaism also opposes all forms of idolatry including human deification. the basis are the following explicit statement found in the pentateuch : ...you may know that there is no one like the lord our god. [exodus 8:10] ...man shall not see me and live. [exodus 33:20] god is not a man... [numbers 23:18] and so on. in the tanach its mentioned : how then can man be righteous before god? how can he who is born of woman be clean? behold, even the moon is not bright and the stars are not clean in his sight; how much less man, who is a

maggot, and the son of man, who is a worm! [job 25:4-6] one of the most beautiful passages in the bible reads : but will god indeed dwell on the earth? behold, heaven and the highest heaven cannot contain thee; how much less this house which i have built! [1ki 8:27] elsewhere : i am lord and besides me there is no savior...i am lord, and there is none else, and i am god, besides me, who there is no one..."i am lord, and there is none else, i am god, and there is nothing like me." [16] ...i am god and not man... [hos 11:9] jews and muslims alike extract from above the understanding that hypothesising physical imagery is detestable and the main purpose is to have a proper perception of god. jews from these passages have understood over the years that god does not incarnate in flesh and as such worship of fellow humans is vain and a major sin against god. hence it is mentioned in the jerusalem talmud : "if a man claims to be g-d, he is a liar."[17] certainly an emphatic statement, that which is derived from the old testament and the law given by god himself. with this in mind, if all of a sudden god takes human form, 1. it would contradict his own statement : for i the lord do not change... among several others and 2. it would depict god as one who deceived his people in first believing he is one and then later condemned the jews for not believing in the trinity. none of such in-adequacies can be attributed to god who is pure and free from all im-perfections. the point being made is the idea of a tri-une god has never been part of jewish theology which itself is based on divine laws of the hebrew bible. prior to christianity and its reading of the biblical text, father, son and holy spirit was never taught by any of the jewish prophets. one has to be a christian first to appreciate this idea of a triune god and its traces in the bible. but did jesus, in the new testament, really preach this doctrine?

before we move to the new testament its important to note, as a preface, that our four canonised gospels are not the actual works of jesus' original disciples, neither are they eye-witness' acounts. hence these are not what muslims refer to as the 'injeel' [gospel], the revelation given to jesus[p]. the gospels are a collection of orally transmitted traditions related to jesus which had been circulating for decades. bulk of the writings in our gospels potray only the one viewpoint on jesus' life and mission, the perspective of st.paul, commenting extensively on what paul had already preached. this is not to say that all gospel writers were dis-honest, they perhaps simply wrote what they themselves believed but notice what they believed need not always be accurate. nevertheless, even if we accept the gospels as valid documents, the idea of a tri-une godhead and a jesus co-equal with god cannot be maintained. there is in fact ample counter-evidence in support for the islamic claims which have been mentioned previously.

to begin with, we know jesus is described as servant of yahweh in [mt 12:18] and elsewhere. this would demonstrates jesus could not have been part of this god because if yahweh is the one true god, quite obviously he cannot be the servant which he will sent as we fined mentioned in the book of isaiah. this negates the commonly presented apologetic that jesus was a servant only in his human form. notice however that in the old testament, christ[jesus] was called servant by god himself. moreover, this messiah of the old testament, who we recognise as jesus of nazareth, even rejoices in god's fear, as in [isaiah 11:3].

a passage in mark' gospel which is un-doubtedly an authentic narrative describes jesus of making the following statement : but of that day or that hour no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the son, but only the father. [mr 13:32] some have erroneously suggested this as proof for jesus' divinity, claiming that he put himself above the angels. if anything, jesus compares himself to the angels in not knowing the parousia but even if we accept that he did put himself above the angels, that does not elevate jesus to the level of god. in truth, this statement shows jesus could not be one with god in essense, who is alone in possessing the knowledge of the last day, as eloquently described in the qur'an;

with him[god] are the keys of the unseen, the treasures that none knoweth but he. he knoweth whatever there is on the earth and in the sea. not a leaf doth fall but with his knowledge: there is not a grain in the darkness (or depths) of the earth, nor anything fresh or dry (green or withered), but is (inscribed) in a record clear (to those who can read). [al-qur'an 6:59] god is he, than whom there is no other god;- who knows (all things) both secret and open; he, most gracious, most merciful. allah is he, than whom there is no other god;- the sovereign, the holy one, the source of peace (and perfection), the guardian of faith, the preserver of safety, the exalted in might, the irresistible, the supreme: glory to allah! (high is he) above the partners they attribute to him. [al-qur'an 59:22-23] a jesus who is un-equal and inferior to god did not go well with some early trinitarians, thus much of the later manuscripts do not contain the phrase nor the son, as scribes removed what was for them a difficult reading.[18]

prior to the above passage we read in [mr 11:12-14] : ...he [jesus] was hungry and seeing in the distance a fig tree in leaf, he went to see if he could find anything on it when he came to it, he found nothing but leaves, for it was not the season for figs. and he said to it, "may no one ever eat fruit from you again." its noticable that jesus did not know in the first place whether the tree had any fruit or not. whats more stricking is that it was not fig season as mark clearly implies. jesus obviously was not aware of this for if he had known, he would not have expected the tree to have fruit and would not have cursed a perfectly good tree. we must ask why didn't jesus' divine nature guide his human nature, atleast the divine part of jesus' dual nature would've known this?

the story of jesus' temptation is another good example of what we are trying to indicate, that generally the biblical view of god is the same as in islam and that jesus[p] was a holy person, a prophet messiah but could not have possibly been one with god in essence. we read in [mt 4:1,9] : then was jesus led up of the spirit into the wilderness to be tempted of the devil. the devil goes on to say : all these things[i.e. the worldly kingdom] will i give thee[jesus], if thou wilt fall down and worship me. again if jesus was god in flesh or second person of the trinity and divine son of god, satan would not even think of tempimg him, leave aside offering wordly benefits and even an invitation to bow down and to worship him. elsewhere in the new testament we fined that : ...god cannot be tempted with

evil, neither tempteth he any man! [jas 1:13] if james who is recognised as the brother of jesus was right in mentioning god cannot be tempted by evil, surely jesus was not the god being alluded to. jesus' own disciple never thought of him as the second person of a holy trinity. judas' betrayal and peter's deniel bear witness to this. in the book of acts, several places; [3:13,26, 4:28], the disciples describe jesus[p] as 'servant of god', the same servant we've already discussed.

now we all agree that allah[a] or god is the greatest conceivable and imaginable being. you cannot thing of a higher being than god, he is the ultimate in his qualities and attributes. we read in an abrahamic[p] narrative in the qur'an that abraham looked at the star and said "this is my lord", then saw it set and said well this can't be god. then he moved to the moon and it set also, then finally on seeing the sun rise, he said : "this is my lord, this is the greatest (of all)." finding them set, under submission to allah and following divine laws, he said : "o my people! i am indeed free from your (guilt) of giving partners to allah. for me, i have set my face, firmly and truly, towards him who created the heavens and the earth, and never shall i give partners to allah." [19] the passage eloquently demonstrates the understanding that something or someone who is the greatest, that one is god and most worthy of our worship. the verses also show a way how to identify a true god and eliminate false ones. anyone who has something greater than himself cannot be the true god. jesus[p] is recorded to have said in john's gospel : truly, truly, i say to you, a servant is not greater than his master; nor is he who is sent[jesus] greater than he[father] who sent him. [20] more specifically : ...the father is greater than i [jesus]. [21] this would derive the obvious meaning that jesus is not that greatest conceivable being and since the father is greater than jesus, it is the father who is the untimate and deserving of worship.

i think we can firmly establish that atleast according to some new testament passages jesus was not omniscient and hence he could not be god. if anyone yet asserts jesus' divinity he would also have to conclude that god is not omniscient, which no believer affirms. the sited passages are just at random, many more equally signifficant passages have been left out (for references see : why i think jesus isn't god!), but enough has already been presented to indicate for a fact that no where does the bible confirm the doctrine of three co-equal and co-eternal beings un-ambiguously, something you would expect if the doctrine was a foundation of faith. in jewish circles, there is absolutely no illusion to a tri-une deity composed of the father, the son and the holy spirit. none of the old testament prophets conceived of or preached god as trinity, in fact they went out preaching a contrary belief of one god in a unity[tawheed]. if it were possible that all old testament prophets through history acquired an in-adequate perception of god in contrast to those in the first council of nicaea [325 ce] and later councils, trinity would be more acceptable. regarding the above sited trinitarian passages and their rebuttal, see appendices.

conclusion

as stated from the outset, the main purpose of this essay was to invite a reader to understand and compare the fundamental christian doctrine of trinity and the muslim perception of god as a unity from the standpoint of reason and revelation. and in the end, we may safely conclude that it is the latter which is entirely compatable and that which potrays a pure image of god. tawheed [divine unity] is free from any discrepancy that would diminish god's majesty and sovereignty. even a christian can appreciate its simplicity and accuracy. whereas the same cannot be said regarding trinity, for many a times, trinity trips itself in the very essence of our belief in god.iit makes an effort of combining two distinct natures, the nature of man and the nature of god, which is an impossibility! trinity commands its adherent to believe in the un-believable, proclaiming three entities as one entity, three distinct persons as one person and three 'gods' as one god. let me reiterate the intention of this article which was not to defame any particular doctrine, instead it was mainly to present a muslim's perspective on the christian doctrine and the difficulties we face in expressing. the inclination should not distract from our the primary aim that was to acquire a better understanding of who god is as presented in both scripture and stress the utmost importance of adhering to the correct faith and adopt the right concept of god. so in conclusion then we can see that through reason alone we fined god as one, a unity[tawheed]. on the other hand we don't imagine god as the father, son and holy spirit, trinity. infact out side christianity no such notion exists whereas tawheed, apart from islam, is also affirmed in judaism and even in the much adulterated hindu religion which ultimately recognises the existence of one god. in revelation we are affirmed of god's oneness, uniqueness and unity as emphasized by all prophets ranging back to noah, to abraham, moses, david (peace be on them all), all of whom preached the same message of god's omnipotence, leaving no room for humanization. muslims believe it is this concept which has been perserved and perfected through the mission of the final prophet, muhammad[s]. surely jesus[p], as a jewish rabbi, prophet and messiah could not have taught a notion that which is radically different from the centuries old jewish belief about god. it is im-plausible to think jesus preached a faith which according to the old testament law would spell him out to be a blasphemer. on the other hand jesus[p] preached tawheed, on asked by a scribe which was the greatest commandment, jesus[p] answered : the first is, 'hear, o israel: the lord our god, the lord is one and you shall 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 scribe acknowledges jesus : "you are right, teacher; you have truly said that he is one, and there is no other but he"[22].

it is to this one god, the one full of majesty and honour, i invite you to believe and it is he who we praise, as whatever is in the heavens and on earth declares his praises and glory. indeed to god belongs dominion and he has power over all things. we celebrate the praises of our lord and pray for his forgiveness, indeed he is oft-returning, most-merciful! we hope that he, our lord, will show us the smooth and straight path, for unless you guide us, o lord, surely we'll be among those who go astray. o lord! advance our knowledge and wisdom, as you are all-wise, all-knowing, and join us among the righteous. our lord! your reach is over

all things, in mercy and knowledge. forgive, then, those who turn in repentance and follow your path, and preserve them from the penalty of the blazing fire! and grant, our lord! we enter the gardens of eternity, which you have promised us, for you are the exalted in might, full of wisdom, ameen!

salamu 'alaikum, peace be on you.

footnotes;

1. on the claim of god being a plurality jewish encyclopedia relates : ...the most common of the originally appellative names of god is elohim in the bible, [plural in form though commonly construed with a singular verb or adjective]. "this is, most probably, to be explained as the plural of majesty or excellence, expressing high dignity or greatness... and man's likeness to god's image is not to be interpreted as a physical likeness but rather having the knowledge of good and evil [gen3:5]. the statement of jesus in [mt 19:4] : have you not read that he[god] who made them from the beginning made them male and female... also affirms god's unity over the christian contention, cf; [isaiah 44:24].

2. its important to note that the so called decleration of trinity by jesus[p] in [mt 28:19] is not to be found else-where in the new testament. ignorant to this formula, the apostle peter proclaimed : repent, and let each of you be baptized in the name of jesus christ for the forgiveness of your sins. we read in peake's commentary on the bible : this mission is described in the language of the church and most commentators doubt that the trinitarian formula was original at this point in mt.'s gospel, since the nt elsewhere does not know of such a formula and describes baptism as being performed in the name of the lord jesus (e.g. ac. 2:38, 8:16, etc.). so in the early period, baptism was simply in the name of christ alone [galatians 3:27] the text in matthew represents a later stage of development but still is not trinitarian in meaning, for it only talks about the mentioning the name of the father, son and holy spirit during the baptism ritual.

3. asserting the authenticity of this claim leads to a major problem. jesus predicts his imminent second coming and that the high priest would himself see him coming in the clouds of heven, an event which never transpired. this perhaps explains john's omission of the passage. moreover, in the hebrew language, the term 'ben adam' or 'son of man', designates nothing more than a human being. in the old testament, prophets like ezekiel and even daniel are refered as 'son of man.' in the book numbers [23:19] we read : god is not man, that he should lie, or a son of man... jesus in the new testament uses this promoun in plural : ...all sins will be forgiven the sons of men, and whatever blasphemies they utter. [mr 3:28]. if john had seen the jesus' statement as a divinity claim he would certainly have retained it in his gospel and paul would have made use of it in his epistles. the claim of jesus' condemnation by the high priest as evidence for his blasphemy cannot be maintained for the chief priest was looking for false witnesses to prove jesus guilty : ...the chief priests and the whole council sought testimony against

jesus to put him to death; but they found none. for many bore false witness against him, and their witness did not agree. [mr 14:55-56] and that pilate saw nothing blasphemous in jesus and figured it was out of jealousy the chief priest wanted to kill him. see [mark ch.15].

4. the statements regarding jesus'[p] divine nature are very few and far in between but in the gospel of john they come continuously, one after the other. noticeably, only in john's gospel do we find these significant statements which itself raises doubts concerning their authenticity. for if jesus really went around saying these things all the synopses would've recorded them. these sayings are by far the most crucial and most frequently quoted by evangelists today, how then did mark, matthew and luke neglect including these sayings? the only reasonable conclusion is that some of these saying [if not all] are a later development. see : [the evidence for jesus, p.36]. john hick comments : the jesus of john's gospel has, so to speak, a halo round his head and walks the earth as a consciously divine being. but it is part of the scholarly consensus that the great 'i am' sayings....cannot be attributed to the historical jesus but are words put into his mouth by a christian writer 70 or more years later expressing the developing theology of the church. and it is also part of the scholarly consensus that jesus himself did not teach that he was god incarnate, or god the son, second person of a divine trinity, incarnate. this is not just the opinion of liberal scholars but equally of conservative ones. [what does the bible really say? 2005, p.3], nab, new american bible, in an introduction to john's gospel has this to say : this is the basic theme of this gospel, the narratives are not historical but arranged from an evangelical view point and the writer deifies jesus[p] more than anyone else in the new testament.

5. arguably, the most clear-cut statement regarding the concept of trinity is or was [1john 5:7]. but as bruce metzger points out, it is not part of the original writing : ...(1) the passage (1john 5:7) is absent from every known greek manuscript except eight, and these contain the passage in what appears to be a translation from a late recension of the latin vulgate. four of the eight manuscripts contain the passage as a variant reading written in the margin as a later addition to the manuscript....(2) the passage is quoted by none of the greek fathers, who, had they known it, would most certainly have employed it in the trinitarian controversies (sabellian and arian). its first appearance in greek is in a greek version of the (latin) acts of the lateran council in 1215.(3) the passage is absent from the manuscripts of all ancient versions (syriac, coptic, armenian, ethiopic, arabic, slavonic), except the latin; and it is not found (a) in the old latin in its early form (tertullian cyprian augustine), or in the vulgate (b) as issued by jerome (codex fuldensis [copied a.d. 541–46] and codex amiatinus [copied before a.d. 716]) or (c) as revised by alcuin (first hand of codex vallicellianus [ninth century])... [bruce metzger, textual commentary on the greek new testament]

6. [al-qur'an 17:85] 7. [acts 17:24-31]

8. [1corinthians 8:6] 9. [mt 22:25-30] 10. [al-qur'an 6:103] 11. [al-qur'an 85:16] 12. [malachi 3:6] 13. [al-qur'an 17:77,35:43,] 14. [the myth of god incarnate p.5] 15. [al-qur'an 42:11] 16. see; [isaiah 43:11],[isaiah 45:5],[isaiah 46:9] 17. [yerushalmi, taanis 2:1, see also: (emunos vedeyos 2:5-7), (moreh nevuchim 1:50)]

18. [the words "neither the son" are lacking in the majority of the witnesses of matthew, including the later byzantine text. on the other hand, the best representatives of the alexandrian and the western types of text contain the phrase. the omission of the words because of the doctrinal difficulty they present is more probable than their addition by assimilation to mk 13.32 [bruce metzger, textual commentary on the greek new testament]

19. [al-qur'an 6:74-79] 20. [john 13:16] 21. [john 14:28] 22. [mr 12:28-34]

recommended reading : concept of god in islam