Apostate prophet rings the alarm; 5:116 warns against what?

In answer to the video "Allah Makes Another Mistake (The Trinity)"

The verse 5:116 is not concerned with warning Christians against the Trinity.

5:116 is a warning against shirk, with the veneration of Mary and Jesus specifically being a very big part of the roman and orthodox variants of Christianity. Both personalities are particularly tied up together in Catholic prayers as the most significant means of salvation and the Quran's mention of them together as objects of worship besides Allah is very appropriate from that perspective.

The Trinity and other deviations that Jesus' followers and their descendants fell prey to are mentioned elsewhere in the Quran. Trinity is specifically denounced in 4:171 that says to Christians not to say "three" when speaking of Allah's nature, Allah is One. In this "trinity context", the verse mentions Mary's name twice without saying anything about her being a deity according to that doctrine, while it strongly refutes Jesus' deity who is believed to be part of it. He is Allah's messenger, born of a woman, having a ruh/soul created by Allah ie a human being like any other.

5:72-75 refutes another aspect of the trinitarian doctrine and starts by only mentioning Jesus' divinity in the context of the trinity. No other personality is described as divine. It denies Jesus' divinity by saying that he was a mortal, along with his mother who ate food like any mortal despite her exalted status. The implicit meaning is that; how then can God be born of a mortal woman whose essence is the opposite of Him? The whole set of verses 5:72-75 is centred around Jesus' divinity only so when his mother's humanity is emphasized, it is pointing to the absurdity of ascribing divinity to her son. This criticism, the necessity for mother and child to be of the same essence is highly appropriate in unveiling the true colors of the various Catholic Marian doctrines. Mary being the theotokos/deipara/mother of God means that she must be of the same essence as the child in her womb. Motherhood implies conception. Trinitarians are aware of that difficulty and so, just as their other doctrines compel them to do, they engage in sophistry

(Council of Ephesus 431CE)"Mother of God, not that the nature of the Word or his divinity received the beginning of its existence from the holy Virgin, but that, since the holy body, animated by a rational soul, which the Word of God united to himself according to the hypostasis, was born from her, the Word is said to be born according to the flesh" 

Such a convoluted explanation and ad hoc concepts attests to the Church authorities' unease resulting from their theologies. The same goes for other excesses directly resulting from Mary being the "mother of God", including her being the Queen of Heaven and Earth, (Pius IX), Queen and Ruler of the Universe (Leo XIII) and Queen of the World (Pius XII). Although they were toned down by successive authorities so as to avoid any "misunderstandings", these titles are still in use by Catholics. Mary is supposed to reflect in heaven the role of the king messiah's queen mother on earth, including holding an official position in the royal court, in which she shared in her son’s reign and served as an advocate for the people and a counselor for her son. No matter the euphemisms and sophistries, these titles and descriptions assign an intrinsic authoritative role to Mary in the "divine kingdom" together with the triune God. She is fully part of the process of salvation, inseparable from the divine son. Without her heavenly acceptance, nobody can access her son; she is in fact a divine doorkeeper.

Saying that Christians take Jesus and Mary as gods besides Allah, and saying that Allah is 'third of three' are not 2 mutually exclusive statements if taken exactly as they are; 2 warnings to 2 different kinds of shirk Christians are guilty of. A discrepancy starts appearing only if a passage not concerned with the trinity doctrine is read with that concept in mind, as is most often the case when the critics of Islam approach the text.

Allah being third among three distinct entities, as stated in 5:73, is found in the NT. In 1Cor8:6 God is equated with the father, one of three personalities in the trinitarian godhead. Note here that it doesnt say Allah is the third fraction of a whole/thuluth, but a third of 3. So to a trinitarian reading 1Cor8:6, God is a third of 3 distinct entities. Neither does it place Allah in a hierarchy among three. Thalith, as already noted means A third in the sense of one of three, not AL thalith or THE third in a hierarchical sense. Trinitarians perceive God the Father as the first person of their godhead. Had the verse negated Allah being alawwal/the first of three, its argument would have remained incomplete, opening the possibility that Allah might be the second or the third in a triune godhead. Through its linguistic precision, the Quran negates the overall concept of Allah being a third among three, regardless of whether He is thought to be the first, the second or the third.

Further 5:72-75 doesn't say Mary is one of the 3. It doesnt even say Jesus is one of the 3 as the emphasis is not on who else is in the 3, but whether Allah is 1 of 3. Islam is not concerned in precisely defining Christian terminologies, which were different throughout time and geography, but to negate the concept of Allah being one among other divine entities altogether. Thus we find commentators of the Quran applying different Christian beliefs to that general statement. Mujahid for example said in relation to 5:73 that among the various competing beliefs is that the Father, the Son and the Word is one of those, while al Suddi saw in 5:73 a condemnation of taking Allah, Jesus and Mary as 3 gods. Christian objections that the Quran doesnt accurately depict their beliefs is the same as saying that the Quran doesnt describe confusion accurately. To even attempt to explain confused concepts results in more confusion and thus the best course of action is to point to the general idea out of which stems that confusion, then clarify it. One can also point to certain necessary implications of that confusion which point to the overall falsehood of the system. The Quran does both things. It is further hypocritical from Christians to raise that objection when their scholars are still trying to "refine" their terminologies in light of never ending logical, philosophical and scriptural difficulties.

Mary being a sadiqa/truthful woman in this verse is simply a quality stressed about her throughout the Quran and is not meant to refute her supposed divinity, and neither her son's, but meant at refuting those who doubted that pious woman's chastity and truthfulness, putting in question the miracle of the virgin birth. The Quran has quoted their accusations in sura Maryam and this is why Allah has stamped her here and elsewhere with words evoking her truthfulness, piety, submission to the Almighty.

The Quran doesnt define Trinity in details but in fact neither does so the Bible. What transpires at most from NT writings is a form of henotheism, a hierarchy of divine beings, with the Father on top, and then the subordinate divine son of God. In fact although speculations were rife about Jesus' nature and relationship with God the Father, prior to the 4th century council of Nicea, the authorities of the church did not view the persons of the trinity as equal in divinity. The Father was understood as the supreme God and the Son came second in worship, subordinate in knowledge and power, followed by the Holy Ghost as third in rank.

There is a reason why one finds that Trinitarianism's adherents, for the vast majority, are unable to properly formulate the identity of their God, even though they might be church-goers, Bible readers, and aware of the creed of their Church fathers. Defining that doctrine isn't important to the point the Quran is making. The position of the Quran simply is that any concept that puts up partners to God in worship and authority, any conjecture regarding the divine unity and singularity is an affront against the most basic notion of monotheism. The specific worship of the holyghost, which is an extreme rarity and almost nonexistant in all of Christianity is therefore omitted. The Quran has already made its point clear by rejecting the major concepts of Christian doctrine, like the worship of Mary and Jesus 5:116, the speculations on God's triune nature 4:171, or whether He is one of three distinct entities worthy of worship 5:72-75.

The trinity concept is one that developed through several councils and debates, wars and persecutions that gradually fashioned Christianity the way it is today. This why the Quran accuses Christians of taking one another and more specifically their religious leaders for lords besides/min doon Allah 3:64,9:31. Since Christianity's earliest days, church fathers, bishops and other saints were seen as divinely inspired so much so that their word was equalled to the word of God. Ignatius demanded of Christians that 

"we should look upon the bishop even as we would upon the Lord Himself". 

Similarly the Syriac Didascalia attributes divine honor to the bishop because

"he sits for you in the place of God almighty".

Perhaps there exists no better example than that of saint Paul who, through divine inspiration, completely falsified Jesus' teachings and clear instructions.

As a final note regarding the charge of the Quran supposedly misrepresenting the trinitarian doctrine in 5:116, when the Quran speaks of deifying the religious leaders, and Jesus besides Allah, nobody in his right mind would suggest that it is misrepresenting the trinity because it mentions 2 worshipped entities besides God in one sentence. This exposes the shallowness of Islam's early critics among the orientalists who tried claiming that the Quran falsely represents that concept in 5:116.

This raising of their religious leaders as having divine authority, is yet another aspect of Christian transgression, in terms of partnering with God and compromising the divine unity. Followers of all religions easily fall into that sort of transgression, including Muslims when they give divine authority to that which God never sanctioned through His messengers 42:21. This type of shirk is so pervasive, prioritizing anything abstract or concrete over Allah, within humanity, that some islamic narrations have likened its stealth to the movement of an ant on a black stone at night.

Apostate prophet discusses 5:116; Quran says Mary, Jesus and Allah form the Christian Trinity?

In answer to the video "Allah Makes Another Mistake (The Trinity)"

There are several verses that address this false notion and dismantle it through several angles.

In 5:116 Jesus is asked whether he ordered to be worshiped along with Mary, short of Allah. "Min dooni" means "short of" in the sense of "excluding" someone or something. Less frequently it can also mean "lower than" depending on the plane of thought of the sentence. Here the meaning is that you are worshipping Mary and Jesus besides Allah whom you also worship. It is speaking of the worship of 3 separate entities. The Quran defines shirk/association with Allah as ascribing ability in the divine sphere to other than Him, whether abstract or concrete entities 9:31,6:136-9,42:21. The Quran does not concern itself with euphemisms but the essence of the deeds. Hence it states that the guilty are many times oblivious of the implications of their actions 

23:84-9,29:60-65"And if you ask them, Who created the heavens and the earth and made the sun and the moon subservient, they will certainly say, Allah. Whence are they then turned away?" 

These entities by definition assume divine status, regardless of the type of obedience and reverence given to them, and the euphemisms employed for justification. This even includes one's self when following ways incited by one's desires 

25:43,45:23"Have you then considered him who takes his low desire for his god/ilah?".

Christians and Catholics worship Allah, but most of the time they do not, just like the Meccan pagans prior to Islam, believers in Allah but directing most of their prayers to other entities. Christians and Catholics address most of their prayers to specific personalities like Jesus, or the Father, or Mary and extremely rarely, the HolySpirit. One never hears a Christian calling upon the Holy spirit for help. These entities and personalities are believed to have an intrinsic, active role in the process of salvation, whether through intercession or on their own. 5:116 does not address a particular Christian branch, although one can certainly point out that in Christianity's history, those who have most idolized Mary are the Collyridians -now extinct- and of course the Catholics till this day. Although the former supposedly outright referred to Mary as a goddess, the latter are a bit more subtle in their exaltation of Mary, but no less idolatrous. Today, the verse is thus mostly relevant to Catholics and their well known excessive Marian rituals, as other Christian denominations repudiate and denounce. The divide on the issue is so deep and ancient among Christians, going back to the violent wars, persecutions, decrees and counter decrees of the 7th-8th centuries.

When the Catholics spoken of in 5:116 address Mary in their prayers, as an entity with interceding authority in and of itself, they are taking her as a god besides Allah. Allah alone is the supreme divine authority, and no other entity besides Him has any intrinsic power and will other than what He allows it to have, especially not in matters of salvation.

The pagans of Arabia, like the Catholics, prayed to deities besides Allah to whom all prayers is due 6:56,13:14-16,22:73. Like the Catholics, they accepted and admitted to Allah being the supreme God and yet had given intrinsic divine authority to others besides Him, including the likes of Hubal, Lat, Manat etc

43:9,87,29:63,10:31,17:67,31:25"And if you ask them who created the heavens and the earth, they will certainly say: Allah".

When the prophet was asked, in the earliest days of his mission to say on whose behalf he was speaking, he was commanded to recite sura al-ikhlas, starting with

112:1"Say: He, Allah, is One".

He was not introducing a new Lord, rather it was the same Being they knew by the name of Allah, a name they did not apply to any other of their deities. 

It is God who sets the criterion of what is right and wrong, what is true and false belief regardless of anyone's standards.

When the pagans or the Christians address prayers to other entities than Allah whom they acknowledge and worship as the supreme God, they are taking gods besides Him regardless of whether they are fully aware while doing so, no matter the excuses and sophistries they create so as to justify their actions. The Quran as is here concerning the divinity of Mary, is attributing to Christians the necessary implications of their thoughts, sayings and deeds, even though these can sometimes be indirect. For example in 

5:72"They are unbelievers who say, ‘God is the Messiah, Mary’s son.’" 

The Quran is here attributing to Christians the necessary implication of their thoughts and sayings. Some of them will deny that affirmation as it exposes the untenability of their doctrines, using all kinds of fallacious arguments, semantics and sophistries. Here is a sample 

"while Jesus is God, it is not true that God is Jesus. There are others – the Father and the Spirit – of whom the predicate God may be rightfully used. Jesus is all that God is, without being all there is of God. The person of Jesus does not exhaust the category of deity". 

This is an inference that takes into account the difficulties of reconciling the trinitarian doctrine. Nowhere in the Bible is the above reasoning found, much less whether the terminology "Jesus is God" more correctly represents trinitarianism than "God is Jesus". Further, God is, according to Christians, One and Unique, inseparable in His triune essence "Father/Jesus/Spirit". But if, as they assert, Jesus "is ALL that God is" then ALL of God -including Father and Spirit- is Jesus. This is one of the major issue trinitarian scholars have been fruitlessly trying to solve for the past 2000 years; the problem of having 2 identical entities with different attributes who are nevertheless BOTH God. This is because the confusion of the distinct divine persons is forbidden. Trinitarians then sink deeper into sophistry. Although Jesus is God, he is not "all there is of God". Then it means Jesus isnt fully God. Their fallacies have now taken them to outright polytheism, with each person of the godhead being separate, partial gods. This is where Trinitarians turn from embarassement to anger when pressed. 

It does not matter who exhausts what, who represents which part of the godhead or in how many pieces God is sliced up. The bottom line and inescapable conclusion of the Trinitarian position is that attributing the divine essence to multiple seperate entities results in multiplicity of gods. This is because God, as an entity exists only as an inseperable divine being 

5:73"there is no god but the ONE Allah". 

This is a very fine point in the Quran's rebuttal of the trinitarian position; it doesnt respond by tellig them "there is no god but Allah". Trinitarians maintain, painstainkingly, that their doctrine does not entail polytheism. The Quran refutes the core of their claim, the only god that exists is ONE inseperable entity.

The divine unity, self-sufficiency and uniqueness from the point of view of God's attributes, is captured in sura ikhlas 

112:1-4"He is Allah, AHAD/One". 

AHAD literally translates to "one of", meaning one of His type. One might come back and argue that it is possible for an entity to be unique typologically but it does not negate that other entities might be comparable to it. For example a cat is comparable to a dog although individually they are typologically unique. There are people, namely the Trinitarians who do not deny God's numerical oneness, rather deny directly or indirectly the oneness of His essence which is shared through different typological entities father/son/holyspirit. The rest of the sura negates that proposition through several irrefutable arguments.

If Allah was not typologically unique, that there were other types of entities like Him, then they would have some kind of intrinsic power to influence the functioning of the universe. This is the known problem of the imperfect wording in what is supposed to be the ultimate declaration of monotheism in the HB 

Deut6:4"Hear O Israel, the Lord is our God, the Lord is One/Echad".  

The wording here although similar to Arabic, negates there being more than one God to Israel, but it doesnt deny the existence of other gods in general. The Quran thus clears the matter, saying that intrinsinc power is Allah's prerogative, He is the God upon whom all things depend/samad.

Further, none is comparable to Him in any way;

"Say: He, Allah, is AHAD, Allah is He on Whom all depend, He begets not, nor is He begotten, And none is like Him". 

Allah is therefore supremely One and that is why most translators rendered AHAD in this context as simply "One", encompassing both numerical and typological singularity. We are never told that Allah ascended at some point in time to the role he has throughout the Quran. Allah isnt merely another high god like Marduk, Baal, or Zeus who all took on their position at some point. Allah is the one and only God and has always held the highest position among all of creation, heavenly and wordly. He is never generated nor is limited by anything or anyone "when He wills a thing He says "Be" and it is".  

He is unique in the midst of diversity 30:22, complementarity, and polarity amongst the various kinds in the universe that work in interconnection. It is one of the major signs man is asked to ponder upon 

51:49"And of everything We have created azwaj (different kinds) that you may be mindful" 

2:164,89:3"Consider the multiple and the One". 

Through all these means and devices 

3:18"Allah (Himself) bears witness that there is no god but He". 

Sura ikhlas is the most explicit statement of tawhid, of the whole Quran. It clears the confusion of those who conjecture on the oneness of the Creator from every aspect. Allah is "one of" His type, but at the same time there is no origin or likeness to His kind. 

38:65-8"and there is no god but Allah, the One, the Subduer (of all). The Lord of the heavens and the earth and what is between them, the Mighty, the most Forgiving". 

Every single time the Quran mentions Allah subduing all of creation, it is preceded by an emphasis on His uniqueness. What necessarily follows from that statement is that neither one that preceded Him has shared that essence, nor one that is begotten by Him. He, in His uniqueness is the subduer of all things outside of Himself. An entity that is unique in every possible way means that there cannot be any point of comparison which one could use in order to begin to imagine Him. Any attempt to compare Him remains infinitely far from His actual reality 

42:11"nothing like a likeness of Him".

It is important to emphasize, the verse 5:116 is addressing the issue of indirect attribution of divinity, which is the necessary implication of making an entity share in what is supposed to be God's prerogative. So although the "taking"/attakhid of Jesus as god as stated in this verse 5:116, certainly includes them actually naming him "god", which the Quran points and condemns 5:72, it isnt the case with Mary nor with their religious leaders or even their own selves 9:31,45:23 when they take/attakhid these entities as "gods". Again, the words of the Quran are very precise. Taking does not necessarily imply believing, nor naming. In Jesus' case, he is consciously, directly taken and named as a god. Mary is indirectly, unconsciously taken as a god just as one would unconsciously, indirectly take/yattakhid his own desire as his god 45:23. The attribution of intrinsic powers and authority to any of those entities, their leaders, their own selves, or Mary who in addition is included in prayer rituals, even without naming any of them "gods" is equal to taking them as gods besides Allah.

The only relevant defence from a secular viewpoint looking at the Quranic argumentation of what constitutes shirk/partnering with God, would be to prove that these entities are not given any intrinsic power in the process of salvation. But even that will not fully resolve the problem as the Quran says that this type of intercession involving someone beyond this wordly life will only occur on the day of judgement. At that point, none will be allowed to select whomever he pleases for that purpose. Neither can the interceding entities choose on whose behalf to join in prayers. Allah selects who is deserving of being joined in prayers to Him, based on His knowledge of the person's merit. That is how comprehensive the divine unity is manifested in the Quran. Catholics have arbitrarily chosen their intercessors, and those entities are free to choose who among the humans to include in their prayers to the supreme God. As the prophet Yusuf/Joseph admonished his cell mates 

12:40"You worship not besides Him except [mere] names you have named them, you and your fathers, for which Allah has sent down no authority. Legislation is not but for Allah. He has commanded that you worship not except Him. That is the correct religion, but most of the people do not know".

By doing so, Catholics have taken their own desires as gods besides Allah, and in the process, willingly or not, have attributed divine will to the interceding entities.

When such deviation was pointed to the idolaters, they would deny their sin, arguing, just as Catholics do today when even their Christian brethren accuse them of idolatry in reference to their excessive worship of Mary

46:28,39:3"We do not serve them save that they may make us nearer to Allah".

Catholics today claim that they do not worship Mary but simply ask her for intercession with the supreme God, as stated in the verse. This confirms yet again man's tendency to deviate from the path of pure monotheism

12:106"And most of them do not believe in Allah without associating others (with Him)".

But assuming Mary isnt given authority in the divine realm besides mere asking for mercy on behalf of those that "venerate" her, by what "non-intrinsic" powers does Mary grant "protection" to the faithful who, through "special devotion" fly to her in "all their dangers and needs"? That is from Pope John Paul's catechism, not from some ill informed critic of Catholicism. Further, by what "non-intrinsic" powers does she "exercise her maternal role on behalf of the members of Christ"? Can Christ even refuse any of her requests? How does Mary represent "the most direct road for uniting all mankind in Christ" (Pope Pius X) if she has no independent power in the process of salvation? 

 

That is why when pressed, no Catholic can deny Mary's intrinsic power to get him closer to salvation through Jesus. As Pope Leo 13th declared, none can go to the Father except through the Son and similarly none can go to the Son except through Mary. That is also why the canonized "doctor of the church", Alfonsus de Liguori held that "Mary rules over the kingdom of mercy and Jesus rules over the kingdom of justice". She is further described as a "canal" favoring the supreme triune god's answer to prayers. 

Nor can a Catholic earn Jesus' salvation without ever "venerating" Mary due to her "close and indissoluble tie" with the divine son (Lumen Gentium 53). In fact prior to the VaticanII council in the 1960s, non-Catholic Christians werent guaranteed salvation. Her own power, through the devotee's calls to her, is a means of earning protection and grace. Her own power, through the devotee's calls to her, is a means of earning protection and grace. As Ephraim the Syrian states "after the mediater a mediatrix for the whole world" and "dispensatrix of heavenly graces"(Pope Pius IX). 

Whether one refers to those calls to Mary's mediation and dispensing of graces; Marian devotions, venerations or rituals, it is all sophistry aimed at justifying plain worship. Whether one label is used for prayers to the godhead/latreouo, another for "veneration" to the saints/douleo and another yet to Marian devotions/hyperdouleo, it is difficult to see such devices as little more than attempts to get away with praying to interceding entities in the hope of them bringing one closer to the ultimate source of salvation. Further, even within the NT, the word douleo entails lowly servitude, slavery Rom8,Gal4. This implies an intense mindframe, and in the context of prayers, or "venerations" as is done to Mary, the lines can easily be blurred between prayer to God and prayers of intercession to God.

What is even more telling is that, had the icons of Mary or the saints solely been representations, that the devotee does not direct his rituals to the icon itself, that his mind is not focused on the image during prayers but what it represents, can a particular saintly personality be represented by a the drawing or statue of a spider, worm or a even a plate of lentils soup? No Catholic will accept the proposition. In fact so interwoven prayers and the image itself are, that as early as the 7th century a council was brought together and decreed that Jesus should be represented in human form rather than as a lamb. Catholics will often delude themselves when criticized, by comparing the veneration of icons to the respect or attachement displayed to a dear object, or pictures of loved ones. However one neither prays to those objects or those they represent, nor expects something from them in return, as Catholics expect from Mary and from God.

Catholics are at pains in trying to keep their excessive Marian dogmas and doctrines subtle in the face of criticisms, mainly from their own Christian brethren. That is why those descriptions, and many others coined by successive saints and popes, blatanty giving Mary a shared role with the other entities of the Trinitarian godhead in the salvation process, were controversial among Catholics themselves who sought toning them down.

This verse 5:116 has perplexed Christians throughout the ages, firstly because of their heedlesness in transgression, and second because of the gloomy picture it presents. It is a very powerful passage in the sense that those who raised Jesus to the status of divinity and put all hopes of salvation in him will see him being interrogated, humbling himself, then cleared of any responsibility, for the deviations of those claiming to follow him. Like all those who attributed divinity to entities besides God, those claiming to be Jesus' followers will find themselves in a hopeless situation where they will have to answer for their own claims, beliefs, conjecture and deeds.
Since he acted as God's messenger, then what his followers did in his name should be justifiable from his teachings, among them, the worship of both himself and his mother Mary. It is interesting that, just as his word in defence of his mother's chastity constituted the best testimony of the truth in this world, so to in the hereafter, he will speak on her behalf to clear her as well as himself from any possible guilt as to the people's worshipping his mother. Jesus did not order it, nor hint to it, neither for himself nor for his blessed mother. Jesus was nothing but a faithful and exemplary servant and prophet of God 43:59, in accordance with the glad tidings of eminence given to his mother before he was born 

3:45"When the angels said: O Mariam! Allah gives you good tidings of a word from Him, whose name is the Massih, Isa son of Mariam, honoured in this world and the hereafter, and he is among those brought near".

Finally, and more damning to Catholics and Trinitarians in general is that, from a Quranic perspective, any type of worship that compromises the concept of tawhid/oneness, uniqueness of Allah, is equal to not worshipping Allah at all, even if the worshiper actually adresses Allah in his prayers. Sincerity and exclusivity in worship to Allah is a pervasive theme throughout the Quran 4:145-6,7:29,39:2-15,98:5. In sura kafirun the Arabs are told that they are no worshipers of Allah, despite them knowing and recognizing Him as the supreme Creator.

Apostate prophet searches for the elusive concept; no trinity details in Quran?

In answer to the video "Allah Makes Another Mistake (The Trinity)"

The Quran doesnt define Trinity in details but in fact neither does so the Bible. What transpires at most from NT writings is a form of henoteism, a hierarchy of divine beings, with the Father on top, and then the subordinate divine son of God. There is a reason why one finds that Trinitarianism's adherents, for the vast majority, are unable to properly formulate the identity of their God, even though they might be church-goers, Bible readers, and aware of the creed of their Church fathers. Defining that doctrine isn't important to the point the Quran is making. The position of the Quran simply is that any concept that puts up partners to God in worship and authority, any conjecture regarding the divine unity and singularity is an affront against the most basic notion of monotheism.

The specific worship of the holyghost, which is an extreme rarity and almost nonexistant in all of Christianity is therefore omitted. The Quran has already made its point clear by rejecting the major concepts of Christian doctrine, like the worship of Mary and Jesus 5:116, the speculations on God's triune nature 4:171, or whether He is one of three distinct entities worthy of worship 5:72-75.

The trinity concept is one that developped through several councils and debates, wars and persecutions that gradually fashionned Christianity the way it is today. This why the Quran accuses Christians of taking one another and more specifically their religious leaders for lords besides/min doon Allah 3:64,9:31. Since Christianity's earliest days, church fathers, bishops and other saints were seen as divinely inspired so much so that their word was equalled to the word of God. Ignatius demanded of Christians that

"we should look upon the bishop even as we would upon the Lord Himself".

Similarily the Syriac Didascalia attributes divine honor to the bishop because "he sits for you in the place of God almighty". Perhaps there exists no better example than that of saint Paul who, through divine inspiration, completely falsified Jesus' teachings and clear instructions.

As a final note regarding the charge of the Quran supposedly misrepresenting the trinitarian doctrine in 5:116, when the Quran speaks of deifying the religious leaders, and Jesus besides Allah, nobody in his right mind would suggest that it is misrepresenting the trinity because it mentions 2 worshipped entities besides God in one sentence. This exposes the shallowness of Islam's early critics among the orientalists who tried claiming that the Quran falsely represents that concept in 5:116.

This raising of their religious leaders as having divine authority, is yet another aspect of Christian transgression, in terms of partnering with God and compromising the divine unity. Followers of all religions easily fall into that sort of transgression, including Muslims when they give divine authority to that which God never sanctioned through His messengers 42:21. This type of shirk is so pervasive, prioritizing anything abstract or concrete over Allah, within humanity, that some islamic narrations have likened its stealth to the movement of an ant on a black stone at night.