In answer to the video "The Quran and the Trinity"
Mk14:62 has no parallel with Dan7's true meaning. It is again a blatant misrepresentation of the HB by the NT authors. While scavenging the HB for proof texts, these authors obscured, inadvertently or not, the fact that Dan7 is a highly symbolic dream that Daniel himself didnt understand until the angel of prophecy interpreted it to him; the one "like" a single man actually stands for multiple people, the nation of Israel, just as the 4 beasts stand for 4 empires.
These 4 empires will rule over the Jews then be defeated. After that, the Jewish nation, implied with the phrase "the holy supreme ones" in the plural Dan7:18, a phrase used throughout the HB for the Jews, see Lev20:7,Ex19:6,Gen49:10etc., will be brought back to center world stage in the messianic era and made to inherit these kingdoms v27. By the way, how does Jesus being God fit the notion of him being given dominion over certain things. Does God increase in dominion? The idea of emptying himself doesnt solve the issue. God gives up some of his dominion?
None of the entities, fantastic beasts or human like, in the dream are literal or are in a literal setting, as is absurdly and inconsistently implied in the Christian reading.
For example although one rabbinic authority, Rashi, opined that kvar enash/one like a man (in the original Aramaic of the text, son of man would be bar enash, not kvar enash), so although Rashi says that this likeness of a man is the king messiah in v13, he did not assert that the associated symbolism of heavenly descent (a metonym for holiness, chosenness and divine commission in the dream) literally applied to the messiah or that it connoted divinity. Dan2 has a similar theme as Dan7.
Another perspective through which Mk14:62 is misused by trinitarians is in their assumption that it denotes JEsus' divinity.
Firstly, son of man doesnt denote divinity at all, as seen from its use throughout the HB, no matter the setting in which it is found. Also, other biblical human figures like Elijah or Enoch were made to ascend to heaven and through the clouds, without becoming gods or having other unrelated passages apply to them just because God is also described as interracting with clouds. It is the case in Isa19 where YHWH rides clouds that transport Him to destination, which is, as a side note a primitive pagan imagery assimilated into Jewish thought and texts. This isnt a strange, or isolated phenomenon.
Their own prophets denounced their tendancy to assimilate into the regional thought systems, throughout their history, even during the time of Jesus and their Helenization. Second, the rabbis in that passage from Mk14 were pressing Jesus to admit he claimed to be the messiah, in order to have him executed by the Romans for the crime of political destabilization. Claiming to be a divinity was inconsequential to the Romans. When Jesus answered with the affirmative to whether he was the anointed, the son of God, then applied Dan7:13 to himself, which has nothing to do with God but with one like a man, the rabbis were offended and got the answer they needed to send him to be executed
"What further need do we have of witnesses? You have heard the blasphemy! What do you think?” And they all condemned Him to be deserving of death".
Again, claiming divinity does not warrant the death penalty but messianship does. As already shown, a tradition did exist that this kvar enash/like a man was the king messiah, and the rabbis questionning Jesus knew it. They regarded it as blasphemy for whom they despised and saw as a sinner unworthy of the exalted messianic status to claim to be their savior, in addition holy and divinely commissioned as per Dan7:13 as well as drawn close to God and given dominion over his enemies. His enemies were this very temple establishments that were presently prosecuting him. "seated at the right hand of Power" is an allusion to Ps110 where David speaks of the messiah, his adoni, a title used for high ranked humans or angels but never God who is the only One addressed as adonaY
"YHWH says to my adoni: "Sit at my right hand until I make your enemies a footstool for your feet".
Dan7 is equally abused by other NT authors, such as Ephesians1:20-2 where the scribes insert a phrase in reference to Jesus which is inexistant in Daniel, "highly exalted". Besides the fact that Jesus wasnt highly exalted (his exaltation in heaven is a claim impossible to corroborate) and neither ruled over all peoples and tongues, past or present.
The language of Daniel is typical Jewish eschatology and echoes Isa59 and 60, with the promised exaltation of the Jewish nation in a utopic world where all nations will be at their feet and serving their God only, willingly or not.
In answer to the video "The Quran and the Trinity"
Jesus nowhere made any claim to be God, neither does the bible say anywhere to confess Jesus is God. He isnt called YHWH anywhere and neither did Abraham or Isaac worship a trinity, a god called Jesus or holy spirit. Nobody ever misunderstood God's unique, indivisible essence, nor misapplied divinity to terms such as messiah or "son of God".
Ambiguities arose when the Graeco-Roman world merged with the Abrahamic, Semitic religion of the HB. Gentile Greeks and Romans, the main targets for conversion by post-Jesus missionary activity, found a fertile ground for continuity of their ancient religions in those various terminologies and events describing the functioning of the God of the HB. Those passages however never hinted at a possible multiplicity of godhead in Semitic thought.
There is a well established pattern of God, repeatedly identifying Himself whether in the Hebrew scriptures or the Quran with phrases such as "I am the Lord". The literal terminologies "tawhid" or "Jewish monotheism" arent found in the Quran or the HB, but just as tawhid/divine transcendance is a concept stamped on every page of the Quran, Jewish monotheism is unambiguous. The God of the HB makes clear that worship is His prerogative only, and no entity besides Him is seen making the same claim. So much so that the HB uses sometimes crude imageries to refer to Israel's spiritual "adultery" whenever it worshiped something else than its "jealous" God. It is then legitimate for those opposing the Trinitarian doctrine to demand from Trinitarians an explicit, unambiguous statement from Jesus, or any of the other members of their godhead like the holy ghost, independently claiming divinity, or asking to be worshiped. No such statements exist, leaving Trinitarians with a doctrine built from assumptions, suppositions and by piecing ambiguous verses together. Its called "proof texting."
This method violates two of the paramount points of scriptural understanding: 1) Use clear verses to explain the unclear ones, and 2) gather all of the pertinent verses and study them completely before reaching a conclusion on a doctrine. And even if one were to grant Trinitarian apologist's interpretations of these scattered and isolated verses as correct, still these verses together only provide fractional support for the doctrine. The same can be said of other foundational Christian themes like inherited sin and forgiveness through blood atonement exclusively, which are all based on incomplete references.
None of the verses where God is identified, either by Himself or others, state that a multiplicity of beings is meant, nor whether these separate divine entities are co-equal or subservient to God, nor whether one is to worship each of those entities separately. The vague verses and passages used as a basis for the potential multiplicity of beings can perfectly be understood without references to Trinity or the incarnation, as was always the case in Semitic thought. Again, there are clear and unambiguous verses denying that God can be seen Ex33:20,Jn1:17 that He has a form Isa40:17,25, or that any representation of Him is to be worshiped Deut4:15.
Although God's unlimited attributes are by essence beyond human comprehension, God's identity however is not. Beyond understanding doesnt entail inherently contradictory. For example to notion of God being eternal is humanly unfathomable, but not inherently contradictory. But a single one and same entity, Jesus, who is at the same time omniscient and ignorant is contradictory. God is thus certainly beyond comprehension but not illogical and absurd as a square circle or a trinity would be.
It is obvious that the primary reason for revelation is to identify the Entity requiring exclusive worship. Only one and the same being is found identifying itself and by others as God. As there are no cases of a multiplicity of beings identified, by themselves or others as God then it follows that only One and the same being is always meant whenever the Bible speaks of God. This is the logical premise of the Bible. If Trinitarians on the other hand want to identify a separate set of beings as one and the same God, they are then forced to accept the Biblical premise that no 2, 3 or 4 DIFFERENT beings are identified as God in their Bible, only One and the same being everytime. It follows that these separate beings must be identical to one another if they are identified with God. In a nutshell, if D has the value 1 and that A, B, C are all equal to D then it must mean that A, B, C have the value of 1, making them all identical to one another. Trinitarians however need to keep the 3 components of the godhead distinct from one another. To do so, they have no choice but to conjecture outside Biblical patterns to formulate their beliefs. They begin with the unbiblical notion that a separate set of beings can identify as God all the while remaining distinct and different from one another. This however results in the problem of non transferability of attributes within 2 identical entities. If for instance father and son have all the attributes of God but that Father and son have different attributes then it must mean that they each possess attributes God does not have.
By rejecting the biblical premise above, Trinitarians begin piling up more problems until the greatest of their scholars end up admitting their ignorance of the concept, it being an impenetrable mystery. Some will even hail that mystery as evidence of their God's superiority since He is above any human concept, although in reality it is the Bible's own premises that conflict with this notion. Again, the problem stems from Christian terms and proposed solutions that do not add up. The external observer merely shows the inconsistencies of those attempts, so the comparison between the "Christian God" with the One others worship isnt appropriate. Further, if the superiority of the triune concept of a god resides in its incompatibility with human understanding, then no Trinitarian has grounds to criticize other beliefs if they are found to be illogical and contrary to empirical data. In fact with that line of reasoning, the more absurd a belief system is, the superior it becomes. Sure, a supreme and transcendental God is a simple concept in comparison. "God is One" was never meant to be a complicated statement. Christian thinkers know this, and have been wrestling with the logical inconsistencies of their creed for 2000 years, yet no progress has been made in resolving the contradictions of the notion of incarnation.
Even at a most basic level of the doctrine, Trinitarians have been struggling, since the first councils of the church fathers down to our times and the Phd thesis of Christian apologists and philosophers, to get around the charge of tri-theism; how does 3 distinct "persons", each fully divine, not result in 3 distinct gods? To add to the problem, these 3 distinct persons have 3 distinct wills/consciences. Although traditionally, trinitarians have held that the trinity has one mind/conscience, this position in unsubstantiated scripturally and logically. In the Bible, each person of the godhead speaks in terms of "I" which cannot be mutually shared. For example when the Father states "you are my son with whom i am well pleased" this proposition cannot be shared in the mind of the son or the holyspirit. This results in 3 minds and 3 wills with each being separately divine. Those among Christendom that argued against Social trinitarians precisely did so on the basis that it would result in tritheism.
The concept of Monarchia, where only the Father is uncaused, while the Spirit and Son are "eternally" caused is an unhelpful ad hoc. This unconventional way of speaking doesnt solve tritheism as there still ultimately are three divine persons. As they have three distinct personalities they must be counted as distinct gods. Due to the unavoidable fact that counting is done based on identity, Catholic and orthodox scholars admit that in a sense, monotheism can include multiple deities. Others will try avoiding that conclusion by going to the extent of trying to redefine how to count. Counting could be done based on unity of nature. 3 distinct human persons could be considered as one man just as 3 distinct divine persons are one God. Besides the fallacy of giving a material example to explain the immaterial, how does one count the 3 appart from oneanother? If their distinct identity doesnt make them countable, as would be the case conventionally, this means we only have one divine entity, thus negating trinitarianism and resulting in basic monotheism. If we were to say that conventional counting is inapplicable to the ineffable divine being, can we then count the incarnate, material person of Jesus which contains the fullness of the divine being? If yes then we can in fact count the divine being, if not then we cannot count Jesus appart from other things like a tree or a rock. Ultimately, if the divine being is uncountable, can we even say that He is one? Trinitarians will very often put arbitrary limits, unfounded in their texts, when it comes to what applies or not to God, what is similar to Him or not, whenever an aspect of their doctrine reaches a dead end. For example the bible notoriously uses anthropomorphisms, meaning there are similitudes between God and the material world, as well as worldly concepts. We understand many things about God, otherwise we wouldnt know what we are worshiping. Why is the idea of counting God something unfathomable?
At this point trinitarians pile up more unconventional terminologies and hypothesis to salvage their doctrine, pushing the whole idea further into the realm of mystery.
The Quran gives them a simple warning out of this labyrinth of confusion
4:171"People of the Scripture, do not commit excess in your religion or say about Allah except the truth. The Messiah, Jesus, the son of Mary, was but a messenger of Allah and His word which He directed to Mary and a soul [created at a command] from Him. So believe in Allah and His messengers. And do not say, "Three"; desist - it is better for you. Indeed, Allah is but one God. Exalted is He above having a son. To Him belongs whatever is in the heavens and whatever is on the earth. And sufficient is Allah as Disposer of affairs"
Jesus' creed:
Mk12:29-30"And Jesus answered him, The first of all the commandments is, Hear, O Israel; The Lord our God is one Lord:And thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind, and with all thy strength: this is the first commandment".
Jesus, coming from a long line of messengers and prophets sent to mankind was thus confirming what Moses uttered approximately 1500 years earlier in
Deut6:4"Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God is one Lord"
and 600 years later came the seal of the prophets with the final reminder to mankind, the Quran repeating once more this ultimate truth
2:163"And your God is one God, there is no god but He; He is the Beneficent, the Merciful".
In answer to the video "The Quran and the Trinity"
Jn1:23/Mk1:3 is another case of the NT misrepresenting the HB and resorting to poor proof texting. Isa40 is addressing the exiled Jews, consoling them and telling them they will be returned to their land. It didnt happen anywhere near Jesus' time. It that context of promised return in the messianic era where Israel will take the center stage among the nations of the world, Isa40 speaks of straightening out a highway for God. The plain meaning is that the road will be cleared and eased for the fulfillement of God's will in returning the Jews. Nothing about a forerunner to the messiah (ie Elijah) nor the messiah himself.
In answer to the video "The Quran and the Trinity"
The HB describes God with singular pronouns over 11000 times. Singular pronouns tell us that God is a single Individual. The expression "let us" of Gen1:26 is isolated and doesnt indicate duality, trinity or a hundred members of the godhead. Again, the pluralization of words for intensification of the meaning is common in Semitic languages. Many examples have already been given, and in different contexts, another one being Ezra 4:18. Just as Isa44:24 says it is Myself not Ourselves "who spread out the earth" Jesus says in Matt19:4,Mk10:6,13:19 etc that HE or God, not WE, created all things alone. And again in In Heb4:4 God not Jesus or the holy spirit rested from the work of creation. Similarly in
Job38:4"Where were you when I laid the earth's foundation?"
not We.
The Midrash Rabbah cited in Rashi’s commentary on
Gen1:26"Rabbi Shmuel bar Nachman said in the name of Rabbi Yonathan: At the time when Moses was engaged in writing the Torah, he had to set down what happened on each (of the six) days of creation. When he got to the verse "And God said, 'Let us make man in our image, after our likeness' " (Gen. 1:26), Moses said before Him: "Master of the universe, why do You give heretics an excuse? (they will say that there are numerous deities!)" He replied: "You write! and whoever wishes to err, let him err.""
Sure, there must have been Israelites who understood some of these texts in a polytheistic manner, hence this midrash. Read on their own certain passages can be understood in a polytheistic fashion if one so chooses. But the overwhelming fact that the HB fails to give a single example that MUST be read in a polytheistic fashion justifies that all these texts in their canonical context are monotheistic.
God in the HB is Echad/one Exod9:7,Eccl4:8. Each of the things listed are not a compound unity. And if "one" in Hebrew can also be more than one why not a trillion? Both masculine and feminine forms of echad are found in the HB almost a thousand times and Christian translators always seem to understand that echad means ONE every single place except when they choose to say that it isn't. Echad/one, as in every language can be used figuratively for a compound unity as in one nation or one family, see also Gen1:5,2:24,Numb13:23. But most often literally means an “absolute one” and not compound at all. It is the direct context that decides whether the word is used figuratively or literally. When God told Abraham to take his son to "one/echad of the mountains" did He mean to divide his son upon a compound of mountains? When Hagar put her boy under "one/echad of the shrubs" did she cut him up under multiple plants? It is the height of absurdity to suggest that a passage refuting idolatry and multiple deities, would tell the people that "your Lord is a unity of divine beings".
When husband and wife are "one" for instance, the multiplicity of subjects is made clear in the sentence. Nothing presupposes in the Schema, that the intent is figurative
Deut6:4 "Listen, O Israel – the Lord your God, the Lord is ONE”.
Echad here is an adjective, and it describes the proper noun "the Lord", which is in the singular. This rules out the possibility of a "compound unity" in this highly relevant passage in terms of what the HB teaches on monotheism. Echad in this case assumes its primary literal meaning of "absolute one". Similar usages are found in 2Sam13:30,17:12. The Schema contains 2 core messages that are prevalent throughout the Jewish writing; nationalism and monotheism. YHWH is the God of Israel (our God), and this same YHWH is echad/one. It is one of the most blatant examples of what Biblical scholars have termed Jewish monolatry, the belief in one ethno-centred tribal deity, without excluding the existence of deities to other nations. The infamous missionary corruption of a commentary from the Zohar, where the writer supposedly wonders at the threefold repetition of God's name in the Schema is a known 20th century forgery, absent from this Jewish book. In fact there is a quote from the Zohar saying
"You are One but not in a countable sense" (Zohar petichat eliyahu).
As to Yachid, it literally means "only". See Gen22 for example. To repeat, in Hebrew the word for one is echad (masculine) and ahat (feminine). Try telling a school kid to start counting with "yachid"...
The concept of a divine fatherly figure typically is a Hebrew one, with God calling the nation of Israel His firstborn and referred to in the book of Jeremiah as their father. Jews are very much attached to that concept and dispute Christian appropriation of that title through their mistranslations of the Hebrew texts.
The Hebrew understanding of the notion of God as a fatherly figure has nothing to do with the Christian one.
In their monolatrous concept of God, Jews are the preferred sons above all nations charged with being the torch bearers of the truth, and their father is in charge of educating them throughout that process, sometimes in the harshest of ways. This is a notion which the Quran refutes.
The Quran rebukes the people of the book for their misappropriation of the phrase "son of God" metaphorically on themselves 5:18. Here the verse is not making a sweeping condemnation of the usage of that terminology, rather its abuse. They were making that claim in the context of moral accountability. Being the sons of God implied them being His "beloved", honored among the nations, His favoured. Forgiveness was thus their due and will always eventually be restored to their station of nearness to God despite their sins. If that is the case then the Quran reminds the Jews more particularily, of the destructions that befell them throughout their recorded history.
Each of those, as related in their own books were the result of divine disapproval. None is immune in this life to hardships, whether the most righteous or the sinners. These difficulties are either meant to strengthen one's spiritual resolve, make him mend his ways, or utterly destroy him, not leaving him any chance to even repent
3:140-1"and We bring these days to men by turns, and that Allah may know those who believe and take witnesses from among you; and Allah loves not the unjust. And that Allah may purge those who believe and eradicate the unbelievers".
The violent hardship that befell those very ones claiming to be God's favored among the nations, were neither meant at improving their non-existent spirituality, nor to make them mend their ways and forgive them. God, their "father" meant to eradicate the sinners off the face of the earth. They knew this reality and could not offer an answer in defence of their claim of being God's "beloved". Their history of punishments, down to our recent times, is no example of a father-son relationship where the child is being lovingly raised and corrected. Further, because the verse does not forbid the notion of sonship to God, it does however make sure that anyone using it does not think of himself in any way intrinsically superior to other human beings
5:18"you are mortals of His creating".
Nowhere here or elsewhere does the Quran accuse individual Jews of claiming divinity, rather it seeks to blot out that notion even on a subconscious level.
In 19:34 following the story of Jesus' nativity and infancy, the Quran addresses 2 issues. First in a statement from God rejecting any notion of sonship to Him 19:35 and then in a quote from Jesus stressing the basic monotheistic principle that
19:36"indeed, Allah is my Lord and your Lord, so worship Him; this is a straight path".
In light of Jesus' clear statement, which happens to be quoted almost verbatim in the NT although in a different context Jn20:17, the Quran then continues by condemning as disbelievers those that contended, and still do, with these 2 principles 19:37. Jesus during his time among his people did not forbid the expression "son of God" since it did not carry ambiguous connotation to the Jews, as regards the relationship between the person whom the expression was applied to, and God. A "son of God" was neither an extension of God, nor shared in the divine essence. It is thus God who took it upon himself to reject the notion once it became perverted and loaded with polytheistic significance after Jesus. As a prophet however, Jesus, like his predecessors, always stressed the basic monotheistic tenets to his addressees, and hence the verse 19:36 rightly quotes him doing so. The whole passage from 19:30-7 in defence of Jesus aims at condemning people for different reasons and at different times during his life and prophetic mission. Where the Jews in Jesus' time transgressed in their use of that metaphorical appelation, was in the implicit notion of intrinsic honor due to them, the "children of God". Jesus in the NT condemns this Jewish self-conceit in no uncertain terms, whether it pertained to their abuse of the notion of sonship to God Jn3:10,8:42-44 as the Quran does in 5:18 quoted earlier, or whether that conceit was due to their Abrahamic ancestry Matt3:9,Lk3:8. When Jesus himself, the prophet in their midst could not in anyway be compared in greatness to the One that sent him Jn13:16 then why would they, the sinful ones boast of them being God's sons? This was no false humility from Jesus and when he asked to be honored as the father is Jn5:22-23, he meant in terms of recognition
"Whoever does not honour the Son does no honour the Father who sent him".
This is very similar to the Quranic statement that rejecting the messenger (dishonoring him) is the same as rejecting the One that sent him. Jesus in fact desired for his followers the same honor and glory that were due to him Jn17:21-22.
It is remarkable to note how the Quran who, had it been the product of its historical milieu, should have followed the example of its predecessors in claiming the honorific sonship title to the Muslims. Instead it emphatically states that no one has any unconditional right or privilege against Allah. The only ones honored and privileged by Allah are those of correct faith and righteous deeds, regardless of their claim of belonging to a religious group or specific ancestry. And the highest distinction God may confer among His creatures, is that of obedient slaves. Such distinction does not cause an increase in relation to God, rather in relation to the rest of creation. Further, contrary to the "son of God" terminology, it does not carry the misleading notion of special privilege with God, nor of particularity in terms of essence and lineage.
The concept of a divine fatherly figure is different in Christianity. To Christians, God is the father firstly in relation to the son/Jesus whom he has "begotten not made" and of whom he is the head in the trinity. The Jewish and Christians concepts have nothing to do with oneanother and Jews loath that misappropriation of the term by trinitarian Christians. Even the extension of God as a paternal figure to regular Christians has nothing to do with the notion as described in relation to the Jewish nation.
This father-son connection is only used in Hebrew scriptures for the Jews themselves and all other instances where "sons of elohim" is translated "sons of God" in Christian Bibles is considered erroneous, not only from a Jewish theological perspective, but also from a contextual one. The word elohim although may apply to God, primarily means a powerful entity like for example judges, rulers or notables Ex7:1,4:16,22:6-7,20,1Sam28:12-13,Ps82:6.
One famous Christian rendition of "sons of elohim" as "sons of God" is in Gen6. With their "fallen angel" concept in mind, Christians prefer the "sons of God" rendition due to the mention of "nefilim" in v4 whom they speculate are the progeny of fallen angels/sons of God with sons of adam. Yet "sons of elohim" obviously is in reference to the progeny of men with great power, who rather than using their position for justice, committed crimes against their fellow men, abusing the "daughters of Adam", indulging in lawlessness to their benefit. Follows God's decision to destroy the world and everything in it, explicitly because of the human race's injustice, nothing is said about angels.
Everything is destroyed, since all this world was created for man to rule over it Gen1:29-31, except those chosen to survive in the ark. But again, nothing about angels or do Christians mean that mankind was destroyed because of the angels´ wickedness?
Now regarding the nefilim, the v4 says they were already on the earth in those days and they continued to be so afterward. They were not the result of mating between fallen angels and humans.
This race of people had the peculiarity of counting giants among them, who even survived the flood Numb13:22,33,Josh12:4. In proportion, these giants were to the Israelites what a grasshopper is to a regular human being.
The Quran being the supreme protector of monotheism, never refers to God with such imperfect appellations, as it easily paves the ground for polytheistic beliefs, similar to the ones that polluted Christianity 17:110"HE has the best names". Interestingly, in Islam the closest one comes in paralleling God's relationship to His creatures, to that of human parent-children connection, is a hadith where the prophet compares the mercy of Allah towards the people with that of a mother to her infant. One of Allah's names, al-Rahman, stems from the root of rahm/the womb, evoking the nurturing, loving care of the mother.
Even when the masculine pronoun HE/HUWA is used in reference to Allah, it does not denote gender. In literature this masculine can either be the grammatical or biological masculine. Also, singular neutrality in Arabic is expressed with the masculine (not biological) pronoun. There is no IT in Arabic hence the use of the grammatical masculine HUWA to denote neutrality of gender (for a singular entity, while the feminine is used for a couple like the eyes). In the HB/NT, the title of "Father" has gender as well as sexual connotations. That notion of fatherhood associated with God may easily lead to polytheism, or at the least to false, exclusivist, monolatrous notions as one finds throughout the Hebrew writings. Christians however took that misleading appellation to a more crooked level, as seen above.
In answer to the video "The Quran and the Trinity"
4:64,21:25,67:17-18,70:40-1,31:10-11,25:45"Have you not considered (the work of) your Lord, how He extends the shade? And if He had pleased He would certainly have made it stationary; then We have made the sun an indication of it"
As so often in the Quran, the sudden change, within one and the same sentence, from the pronoun We or I to He, or from We to God, breaks the monotony of the speech and thus keeps the reader/audience's attention alert. Besides that literary purpose, its higher, spiritual meaning is to impress upon the listener or reader the notion that God is not a person but an all-embracing Power that cannot be precisely defined or even adequately referred to within the limited range of any human language
16:51"And Allah has said: Take not two gods, He is only one Allah; so of Me alone should you be afraid".
This is a typical example of the well known and established pre-islamic style of iltifat. A dim resemblence of that ancient mode of expression can even be found in the Hebrew Bible, for example
Zech10:12"And I will strengthen them by the Lord, and by His Name they shall walk, says the Lord".
See also Ps50:22-23,81:17. Here again the text shifts midsentence between God and the prophet, sometimes overlapping in a way that makes unclear who the speaker is Isa10:12,Jer8:17-9:1,11:17,Amos3:1-7.
Iltifat means transition, but the Quran makes its former use by the masters of poetry of the time pale in comparison. Here is another example
15:95-99"Surely We will suffice you against the scoffers. Those who set up another god with Allah, so they shall soon know. And surely, We know that your breast straitens at what they say. Therefore celebrate the praise of your Lord, and be of those who make obedience".
God is here mentioned more than once and through different pronouns, so that we have a multiplicity of viewpoints: - the 1st person plural of majesty to assure the Prophet "We will suffice you". It is an established style in classical Arabic to refer to a powerful, authoritative entity in the plural 23:99. God of course does not need to convey His royalty through such words; it is the people who need it. Semitic languages used the plural to convey the sense of majesty since before the Torah or the Quran. God communicates with the people in the language they understand, and so He chose to convey the notion of majesty in those terms as well, but with higher eloquence. Something interesting is that the Quran, a Book that uniquivocally stresses divine unity, protects the concept so as to avoid any ambiguity whenever the 1st person plural (never the 2nd or 3rd persons plural) WE/NAHNU is used. The direct context immidiately states that God is One, either through the use of the singular Allah/Rabb, or through, elaboration or switch in pronouns, as in
17:2"And WE gave Musa the Book and made it a guidance to the Children of Israel, saying; do not take a protector besides ME (not US)".
Something else to keep in mind is that, the prophets who conveyed these revelations in which God uses the royal plural in reference to Himself, never spoke of God indirectly with a 3rd person plural pronoun "they" or "them". The Quran took the concept of royal plural, which was well known in semitic languages (see for example the HB in Mal1:6,Gen3:22,Gen24:9,Ex7:1) to a different, sophisticated literary level.
- the second viewpoint that the style of iltifat offers in that passage 15:95-99 is that of the mockers. They serve another God beside Allah "Those who set up another god with Allah". God is here distancing Himself from them. This style is called tabaaid in Arabic, or distancing, meant at expressing the speaker's discust towards the addressees who arent worthy of being directly spoken to.
- and the 3rd viewpoint that the style of iltifat offers in that verse is that of the Prophet, he should serve his caring, reassuring Lord and Sustainer "We know that your breast straitens at what they say".
A longer statement would have been needed to convey these implicit meanings had "normal" grammatical rules been followed.
There is a reason why the masters of eloquence of the time could not but call the Quran magic and sorcery. Just as was done above with a few examples, a close examination of all instances where these shifts occur in person/numbers/addressees/verb tenses/case marker/noun instead of pronoun, etc, shows that they follow similar patterns, and are not haphazardly injected in the flow of the text.
Another sub category of iltifat is the use of nouns instead of pronouns. The aim is to create a sense of exclusivity. For example in 2:115 where Allah's name is repeated 3 times instead of using a pronoun. Stating the name of Allah, moreover, in the 3 successive statements makes each statement absolute, independent and quotable.
The entire Quran is a discourse from Allah alone, transmitted to the prophet Muhammad by the angel Gabriel. It isnt God's autobiography for it to be cast wholly in the form of 'I' and 'me'. It quotes many different speakers, past, contemporaries to it, or future, like prophets, angels, regular believers or close companions of Muhammad, jinn, Iblis and more. It even sometimes quotes inanimate entities made to speak for a specific purpose.
All this is achieved while actively interracting with the reader or audience, sometimes involving it in the flow of the discourse. It remains in all cases God's word, whoever it quotes, whoever it "commands to proclaim" as denoted with the recurrent "qul".
When Allah speaks through the prophet starting with "qul", the words spoken afterwards do not become the words of the speaker, for example
39:10"Qul (Say/Proclaim/Declare/State/Mention), “O My servants who have believed, fear your Lord. For those who do good in this world is good, and the earth of Allah is spacious. Indeed, the patient will be given their reward without account."
In the Hebrew Bible, the book of Ezekiel is full of verses addressing the prophet beginning with "say". By its nature as a flowing speech, it would be contrary to eloquence for the Quran to constantly cut its flow whenever it is about to quote a character, especially while relating a dialogue. That is why the text is highly elliptical, with eloquent and appropriate omissions that never disturb its flow and precision. This dramatic style of the Quran puts the audience in a position where they seem to hear the words directly from the speakers — not through a narrator.
Many times the revelation quotes Allah directly, or another entity without starting with the "qul" formula or without "x person said or replied". The style and contextual indicators are therefore enough to determine who the speaker is, whether it is during an exchange between several interlocutors, or when it is reporting the statement of a single entity. That person is then either directly quoted, paraphrased, or instructed on what to say in a given situation, context or ritual. Among the examples concerning the believers specifically, the Quran instructs them how to start certain endeavors or suras of the book with the "bismilla", or teaches them either within a larger sura or in a complete sura, like sura fatiha, how to verbally seek Allah's guidance.
In the HB God says to Moses
Ex33:19"I will proclaim the name of the Lord before you"
ie I will teach you how to worship Me. In the book of Jeremiah, after a long admonishment, the prophet begins quoting, without any transition, a prayer of repentance to be uttered by the believers Jer3:22-5.
Iltifat is a device also used for other than God, and similarily for specific eloquent purposes such as the switches from 2nd to 3rd persons to create an effect of distancing of displeasure 16:72,47:23, distancing of honouring 30:38 or helplesness 10:22. The shift in addressees as in 17:63 with them/you creates a powerful effect: anyone that follows Satan at any time or place is thus addressed directly by God with this strong warning, rather than merely being informed that any one of 'them' will meet with such a reward.
A further note on the concept of plural in reference to God in the HB. Jews often used fatherly and godly names to describe all sort of things: in 2Corin4:4,Exod7:1 Satan, Moses are called god (theos, elohim). When Moses was made "elohim to Pharaoh", his nature was not reconfigured into 3 entities in 1. Similarly, in the beginning elohim created the universes Gen1:1. The plural elohim does not denote a plurality of God's nature. If the meaning of this word were to be plural, then the verbs would agree, also being in the plural. The word for "created" is "barah" in the singular. And although Elohim is followed by the plural k'doshim, the very next word after it is the singular "he" pronoun, referring to God. The use of the plural simply is a literary device to evoke grandeur and majesty, and is often used in the Tanakh and the Quranic language as well.
The "im" at the end of Eloh-im is an intensive construct of the singular Eloah ps18:32,114:7 as is used at the end of many words that are not plural Gen19:11(blindnesses), Lev19:24(praises), Ps45:15(gladnesses), Ezek25:17(vengences).
To know if elohim is singular or plural it must be in a sentence where it either receives a plural suffix, a plural verb, a plural adjective. The only times where Elohim is followed by plural verbs is when referring to heathen deities Exod20:3, which ironically could be seen as a little hint to those who use that literary construct to defend a concept seen by many as pagan.
The other times where elohim is followed by plural is when the addressee is a heathen as in Gen20:13, where Abraham speaks to Abimelech. Everywhere else in the surrounding text the singular verb form is used with elohim.
The same is the case with the plural adjective hayyim connected to the majestic plural elohim in Sam17:26,36,Jer10:10,23:36 while all surrounding verbs with Elohim are in the singular. It is to be noted that the singular form of "hayyim" is used elsewhere with Elohim 2Kings19:4,16,Isa37:4,17. Elohim, when referring to God in the Greek of the NT is always the singular "theos". YHWH speaks of Himself as “I” and “Me” and is referred to as “You” (singular) and “He” and “Him” thousands of times. Elohim simply doesnt hint to 2,3, or a million godhead within one, so it offers no support for the trinity.
When it is translated in the plural for example Ps8:5,82:1,Exod18:11,21:6,22:8,9,Gen35:2,and in all these cases nobody will think elohim constitutes a plurality of persons within one. When elohim is translated in the singular Ex22:20,1Sam28:12-13 again no trinitarian will say the english translation of the word constitutes a plurality of persons within one.
The HB describes God with singular pronouns over 11000 times. Singular pronouns tell us that God is a single Individual. The expression "let us" of Gen1:26 is isolated and doesnt indicate duality, trinity or a hundred members of the godhead. Again, the pluralization of words for intensification of the meaning is common in semitic languages. Many examples have already been given, and in different contexts, another one being Ezra 4:18. Just as Isa44:24 says it is Myself not Ourselves "who spread out the earth" Jesus says in Matt19:4,Mk10:6,13:19 etc that HE or God, not WE, created all things alone. And again in In Heb4:4 God not Jesus or the holy spirit rested from the work of creation. Similarly in
Job38:4"Where were you when I laid the earth's foundation?"
not We.
The Midrash Rabbah cited in Rashi’s commentary on
Gen1:26"Rabbi Shmuel bar Nachman said in the name of Rabbi Yonathan: At the time when Moses was engaged in writing the Torah, he had to set down what happened on each (of the six) days of creation. When he got to the verse "And God said, 'Let us make man in our image, after our likeness' " (Gen. 1:26), Moses said before Him: "Master of the universe, why do You give heretics an excuse? (they will say that there are numerous deities!)" He replied: "You write! and whoever wishes to err, let him err.""
