Acts17apologetics deny genetics; Divine covenant since Adam? The amazing Human potential.

In answer to the video "Allah Explains Semen Production! (Fun Islamic Fact #16)"

This passage refers to the notion that God placed within the humans an ingrained cognizance of the divine and higher realities 7:172-3. It is a major, pervasive theme in the Quran going back to the account of creation. 

Contrary to the Biblical notion that the knowledge of good and evil were concealed from man in a "tree of knowledge", the Quran clearly states that this spiritual feature is ingrained and hardwired in man. According to the interpolated HB, when man ate from the tree of the knowledge of good an evil, man "became like one of us", against God's will and desire. According to the Quran, God "breathed into man of his spirit" and in sura Shams, defines it as "He inspired the soul with the knowledge of evil and good", meaning he was meant to "become like us".

The concept of freewill and accountability that distinguishes mankind from the rest of creation (besides the jinn) 2:30,64:1-2 presupposes the free ability to do both good and evil. Man is therefore not a spiritually static, stagnant entity. There is in him a mechanism, a driving force that creates a flux. It is al nafs allawwama/the self-reproaching soul 75:2 which much be nurtured and trained to confront the moral obstacles in one's life.

The more it is trained the more it morphs into a positive state called al nafs al mutmainna 89:27 and the more it is neglected the more it changes into al nafs al'ammara bil sou'/the soul that incites to evil 12:53.

One has therefore to train and purify his spiritual side just as he would train and strengthen his physical body, and make it rise to the noblest spiritual station. In sura maarij for example, it speaks of man's tendency to be hasty and of impatient disposition, somewhere else referred to as an ingrained weakness of human nature 4:28. This is the manifestation of man's animalistic side, seeking immediate satisfaction of base desires regardless of the consequences. That tendency however can be tamed, starting with regular prayer, then a commitment towards fellow humans in need, hearkening one's sense of moral accountability (the self-reproaching soul), understanding God's threat of chastisement and never feeling secure or self-conceited in the matter, maintaining all that is connected to sexuality inside specific boundaries, being trustworthy and act upon one's word 70:18-35.

The objective of human creation is spiritual purification through divine worship, which will ultimately earn it an eternal bliss and reward. Reward is thus the true reason for which God has made mankind. It is a great mercy, and besides that ultimate reward, God's mercy manifests itself in this world in innumerable aspects both inside and outside of man.

Inwardly, it is man's ability to perceive the existence of a single Creator 7:172-3 referred to in 30:30 as man's hardwired uprightness at birth. 

Any notion that goes against that inborn awareness is therefore a corruption of man's spiritual nature. Pure monotheism, is the only intuitive system, one that can be naturally derived from observation and reflection. There is a reason why polytheistic societies all have one superior deity above all. This is their instinct, which can then become corrupt like any natural, beneficial predisposition. The Israelites throughout their history didnt stop believing in the supreme Yhwh even when they introduced idols in the temple itself. In fact, even subconsciously, no matter their sophistries, Trinitarians have the same thing as the aforementioned polytheists, with the "Father" whose name itself implies prominence in time, rank, importance, and who generates and begets the other 2 "persons" of the Godhead. Archaeology is not indicative of the historicity of monotheistic cults. Monotheism naturally seeks the immaterial, transcendental Creator who cannot be represented. Polytheism on the other hand is expected to leave traces in history, whether sculptures or drawings of that which is worshipped.

This concept of the universal intrinsic cognizance of a single Creator, is the reason why the Quran doesnt deny but rather honors the covenants made by God with previous religious communities, each being in essence a manifestation of the pre-eternal covenant that God made with all of humanity when they were still in Adam’s loins 

"And when thy Lord took from the Children of Adam, from their loins, their progeny and made them bear witness concerning themselves, “Am I not your Lord?” they said, “Yea, we bear witness”. 

The covenants made on earth renew this genetic cognition of divine oneness 

33:7"And [remember] when We made with the prophets their covenant, and with thee, and with Noah, Abraham, Moses, and Jesus the son of Mary; We made with them a solemn covenant". 

The various prophets thus served the purpose of reminding, so that no human beings can claim that they were unaware of that inner, instinctive knowledge 

7:172-3"Lest you should say on the Day of Resurrection, “Truly of this we were heedless,” or lest you should say, “[It is] only that our fathers ascribed partners unto God aforetime, and we were their progeny after them. Wilt Thou destroy us for that which the falsifiers have done?”

With such understanding in mind, one can appreciate the Quranic use of the word kafir/kuffar in reference to those that reject prophetic guidance. Although often rendered simply as "disbelievers", the word literally means to "cover up". In this case, a kafir is one that covers up his innate cognition of the higher realities.

It is well known that genetically, humans are programmed to to see life forces – a phenomenon called hypersensitive agency detection – everywhere we go, regardless of whether they’re there or not. Scientists say this might be an ancient defense mechanism that helped us avoid concealed danger, such as lions crouched in the grass or venomous snakes concealed in the bush, but that it also made us "vulnerable" to inferring the existence of invisible agents, such as a benevolent God. That mechanism, labelled "System 1" also encourages us to see things dualistically, meaning we have trouble thinking of the mind and body as a single unit. This tendency emerges quite early: young children, regardless of their cultural background, are inclined to believe that they have an immortal soul. For these reasons, many scholars believe that religion arose as “a byproduct of our cognitive disposition”, ie it would be cognitively unnatural to not believe, and to think of oneself in a non-dualistic way, which is why atheists (Atheism itself is a very recent phenomenon) must fight against that natural urge to believe in an existence with a purpose, that they are a part of something bigger, that life isn’t completely futile. Even those who explicitly describe themselves as non-believers, still harbor superstitious and non-rational thought processes. It is also established that inscribed in our DNA, there is a moral compass and sense of justice making us, since the youngest age, prefer good than bad actions.

It is the general guidance refered to 20:50 and instilled in all humans without exception. The Quran thus establishes that man is hardwired with a connection to its Creator. In reference to that intimate relation, the prophet said

"He who knows his soul knows his Lord".

On the other hand the Quran warns

59:19"And be not like those who forgot Allah, so He made them forget their own souls".

Man has both a principal and a secondary nature. His secondary nature returns to dust and his essence is related to Allah. This is why the Quran attributes the spirit to Allah and the body to the earth 38:71-72. A similar notion can be found in the Hebrew Bible in

Ecc12:7"The body reverts to the dust that it was before, and the ru'ah returns to God who gave it".

It is this spirit coming from Allah, infused into Adam for the first time, to inspire him the understanding of good and evil that creates the human thirst for guidance and worship

91:7-10"And (by) a soul and He Who proportioned it. And inspired it with its wickedness and its virtue. One has succeeded whoever purified it. And one has failed whoever corrupted it".

Contrary to the convoluted HB, this peculiar human feature was not hidden  in a forbidden "tree of knowledge" but hardwired in mankind, since its inception. This is the spark, when nurtured and developed, that leads one to fulfil the goal of human creation; the worship of God.

In order to know if one has the right approach to knowledge, one has to see whether the chosen approach is beneficial in terms of personal insight as well as insight into the surrounding world, what does this approach teach and where does it lead. What does it imply about truth, what truth is, and where truth can be found, what does it say about how to live one's every day life.

There are 3 main domains that the chosen approach must satisfactorily address; intellectually, morally, spiritually. Intellectually; Why is the universe the way that it is and why are we able to learn and understand it? Why should man even probe the secrets of the universe. Morally; how should life be lived and according to which virtues? In what circumstances is it better to be humble or proud, gentle or fierce, merciful or stern, patient or hasty? How does experience and the ability to overcome obstacles develop us in these virtues? Spiritually: Why does mankind exist, more specifically why is my own life worth living? What point does my existence accomplish in the broader scheme of things?

Every single human being will eventually be confronted with these questions and will adopt some form of value system that attempts to address them. The only question to ask is whether or not the ideology to which they have committed can successfully and coherently address these dimensions of life in a manner that provides meaningful guidance. Only Islam unifies all of life’s ethical, rational, and spiritual pursuits under the singular aim of attaining nearness to God, providing a firm foundation for true personal development in all spheres.

The Quran speaks to human intuition in a way that renders reality meaningful, unravelling all of the paradoxical knots of confusion. Haqq/truth is used in the Quran to refer to what is real 10:32 but also to mean purpose 16:3 as well as rights and responsibility 30:47. Reality is therefore meaningful (makes intellectual sense) and purposeful (makes spiritual sense), and this is something that corresponds to human intuition. 

The Quranic discourse helps us make sense of what’s important and what’s relevant in our lives, what to focus on to achieve true spiritual, moral and intellectual growth. It does so by appealing to the existing knowledge of the fitrah.

That spiritual fabric, combined with the spiritual senses of perception 23:78,46:26,67:23,76:2 create an understanding of what is good and bad for the soul. One becomes able to hearken the calls of the self-reproaching soul in place of the evil-inciting conscience whenever a moral crisis arises. It is with that implicit notion that the Quran in many places refers to the commendable deeds with the general term maaruf/recognized,accepted and to the evil deeds as munkar/rejected. Human nature can naturally recognize what is appropriate spiritually, morally, from what should be rejected.

The more the calls of the self-reproaching soul are hearkened and acted upon in place of the evil-inciting conscience, the more the soul is purified until it reaches a status referred to in 89:27 as al nafs al mutma'inna/the secure, peaceful soul. It is to be noted that this stage is something one can never permanently achieve in this life, one is constantly switching between these 3 states even though some spend more time in one state than the other depending on their spirituality, which is why God only addresses the righteous with this term once all matters are settled in the afterlife and the successfull are invited to enter their eternal blissful state.

In consistency with that principle, the Quran in sura ghaashiya/88 pictures the successful as having an appeased and content face only in the hereafter while utter humility will be all over the face of the doomed. These 2 states are generally reversed in this life.

The opposite can also happen until one's spirituality becomes incapable of making the right moral choices and is sealed despite having been given the ability to perceive the right from the wrong

76:3,90:8-10,91:7-10"And (by) a soul and He Who proportioned it. And inspired it with its wickedness and its virtue. One has succeeded whoever purified it. And one has failed whoever corrupted it".

As a side note, this concept entirely agrees with the one described in the Hebrew Bible according to which mankind has a proclivity to sin but can overcome it, as exemplified through the story of Cain and Abel in Genesis.

After detailing how the mercy of Allah manifests in our deepest selves, we may now look at its external manifestation.

Outwardly, divine mercy manifests itself through revelations, that make a clear distinction between the right and wrong ways 2:38,16:9,92:12 and that direct mankind's spiritual senses of perception towards the innumerable signs attesting to the existence of God, the hereafter, a day of judgement and accountability. As it states in sura insan, immediately after speaking of God's innate guidance, man is also actively guided with external factors

76:2-3"We made him a being indowed with hearing and sight, verily We have shown him the way (and it rests with him to prove himself) either grateful or ungrateful".

All this inward and outward arrangement serves man in the accomplishment of his existential role of being God's vicegerent in this world 2:30 recognizing his Creator and worshipping Him. This world has been entrusted to him to make use of it in God-consciousness, in respect of the commands and limits set by the True Owner

51:56"And I have not created the jinn and the men except that they should serve Me/yaabuduni".

The root is Ain-B-D and it means slave or servant. Being a 'abd/slave of God is what each pious Muslim strives for and previous prophets all throughout the Hebrew Bible were referred to as God servants, including Moses or David. God Himself calls them

Jer29:19,2Kings17:13"My servants, the prophets". 

The original Hebrew says abadi/my slaves and the Arabic rendition Ketab El Hayat (NAV) uses the same word ibaadi/slaves.

Any regular person who is pious and humble before God, considers himself a slave to the Almighty. This notion isnt specific to Islam or the Quran, see the Hebrew Bible in 1Sam1:11,3:9-10,23:10,2Sam3:18,7:20. Again, the Arabic Bible uses 'abd/slave, just as the original Hebrew says abdi/my slave or abdika/your slave. The reason Moses was sent to free the enslaved Israelites was because their servitude was only God's prerogative "Let My people go, so that they may serve Me" as is stressed in 

Lev25"It is to Me that the Israelites are slaves: they are My slaves, whom I freed from the land of Egypt". 

As the prophet king Solomon is reported to have stated in his last words with which he concludes his book of

Ecclesiastes12:13-14"Fear God and keep His commandments for this is the whole purpose of man. For God will bring every deed into judgment, including every hidden thing, whether it is good or evil".

The whole purpose of man is therefore to remain in fear of God, His judgement, and keep His entire commands which obviously is synonymous with worshiping Him with awe.

Acts17apologetics wont buy it; Muhammad went to all wives in one night?

In answer to the video "Fun Islamic Facts n°15"

With such a large household combined with his prophetic duties and the turmoil of these early days in which he was involved in on a daily basis, he could not be expected to divide his time so as to satisfy each of the wives and potential concubines equally. But as the Islamic history books explicitly denote, he tried to observe equality among them as much as possible. He used to visit sometimes his 9 wives at once.

In that report, the Arabic doesnt denote sexual intercourse, on the part of that humble man in his late 50s who had in addition to balance his household duties with his extraordinary responsibilities as a spiritual leader and statesman. Some of his male companions might have assumed so, but it did not have to be the case. And to further corroborate that the prophet, despite visiting all his wives, would only have intercourse with the one whose turn had arrived

"Narrated ‘Urwah: ‘A’ishah said: “O nephew! The Messenger of Allah would not prefer any one of us to another with regards to spending time with us. Hardly a day would go by without him visiting all of us. He would come close to each woman, without touching her, until he reached the one whose turn it was, then he would spend the night with her".

The flexibility of the law as regards the division of time is of course not speaking of the sustenance and rightful material needs of every wife. In this area, the prophet had to divide his resources among every household, in addition to the financial burden of taking care of the indebted of the community and the incessant guests who would be received at all moments. He is known to have been left with very little to spend on himself and his wives, leading to them often complaining about the relative ease in which other companion's wives were living. And this at a time where the community had grown more prosperous in Medina, an ease which was not reflected in the prophet's household 

33:28-9"say to your wives: If you desire this world´s life and its adornment, then come, I will give you a provision and allow you to depart a goodly departing".  

The prophet thus, despite being absolved from strict obligations towards his multiple wives would nevertheless feel saddened whenever he delayed his appointed time with one of his wives

33:51"You may put off whom you please of them, and you may take to you whom you please, and whom you desire of those whom you had separated provisionally; no blame attaches to you".

This ordinance made sure that no reproach would be cast upon him, and neither would he be hindered by social pressures or customs. 

So although he had the peace of mind from a spiritual viewpoint that he would never be blameworthy, he still felt uneasy emotionally towards his wives whom he loved. And he did his utmost to spend as much time as he could with them all equitably. Aisha would say to him 

"If I could deny you the permission (to go to your other wives) I would not allow your favor to be bestowed on any other person". 

This statement from the prophet's youngest wife, and thus logically the most physically attractive in comparison to his other wives, shows the prophet tried as best as he could not to favor one wife over another based on his personal preference. There is an instance where he refused letting Aisha replace another wife on a day that wasnt hers 

"O Aisha, keep away from me, it is not your day".

 The prophet maintained as best he could that considerate pattern of behavior throughout his life, as narrated by Aisha:

 "When the ailment of the Prophet became aggravated and his disease became severe, he asked his wives to permit him to be nursed (treated) in my house. So they gave him the permission. Then the Prophet came (to my house) with the support of two men, and his legs were dragging on the ground, between `Abbas, and another man". 

Besides absolving the prophet, the ordinance also put all the wives and potential concubines on the same level as it concerned them all from God's perspective. Through it, they find the inner peace that the emotional sacrifice they shall endure, and which they all were fully aware of before accepting to marry the prophet, is for the accomplishment of a higher objective.

Their merit with God will naturally be higher given their worldly sacrifices

"this is most proper, so that their eyes may be cool and they may not grieve, and that they should be pleased, all of them with what you give them".

The verse ends with an affectionate message to the prophet's household in general, stressing that God is aware of the difficulties in all levels of life that they must endure, and their toll on their feelings

"and Allah knows what is in your hearts; and Allah is Knowing, Forbearing."

Aisha is indirectly described as expressing her initial frustration and spousal jealousy, when she supposedly stated in relation to 33:51 that

“I feel that your Lord hastens in fulfilling your wishes and desires".

It is remarkable that the prophet would always abide by the restrictions divinely imposed on him but not the relaxations, as described above. In Sura Ahzab, around the verse quoted in the hadith, there are seven rules about marriage peculiar to the Prophet. Four of these granted him relaxations and three put restrictions. The Prophet certainly abided by the restrictions, but yet, for someone whose "Lord hastens his desires" he did not opt to benefit from two of the relaxations.

Had the idea of ‘convenient revelations’ any basis in that report from Aisha as claimed by Islam's opponents, to start with, there wouldnt have been any restrictions on the Prophet neither in this sura or other suras, to the exclusion of the rest of the believers. And neither would he have failed to take benefit of every relaxation, without having any guilty conscience as he just happened to have.

It is further worthy to note that, in those relaxations pertaining to marital affairs described in 33:50-1, the prophet is a passive agent; it is the women that are given the option of seeking him in marriage, not the other way around. The bottom line is that, whichever one looks at it, nothing in the pattern of the life of the prophet supports the malicious charges against him. 

As a side note about the issue of jealousy, as noted by the earliest scholars the jealousy – of either husband or a co-wife, when it does not lead to transgression either by words or by actions, is not blameworthy.

Acts17apologetics denounce prophetic inappropriateness; Scrubbing semen from clothes?

In answer to the video "Fun Islamic Facts n°15"

The purification of the garments 74:4 is a pre-requisite of religious rituals. Just as the ablutions/wudu', it contains an element of symbolism as seen with the classical Arabic metaphor of garment purity being equal with moral uprightness, as well as encourages rectitude. Beyond this symbolism, purification of the garments encourages general rectitude. A neat and clean, as well as pure appearance helps one to remain mentally uplifted everyday, and gives the correct introduction of one's personality to others.

This is a reason why, as a side note, the prophet is reported to have avoided both in his private and religious life, foul smelling foods and used to perfume himself on all occasions, always seeking to be presentable so as to not offend neither the humans nor the angels, especially in a religious gathering context

7:31"O children of Adam, take your adornment at every place of prayer. Eat and drink, but not to excess. Verily, He does not love those who commit excess".

There is no need however to over exert oneself and be obsessed with the cleanness of one's clothes prior to engaging in the prayer ritual. A case in point is the following, and there is no shame in speaking of it.

People do not always undress entirely naked during sexual intercourse. His wife Aisha said 

"I never saw the Messenger of Allah’s (Allah bless him & give him peace) private parts”. 

Naturally then, it might happen that visible traces of sexual fluids remain on one's clothes, especially if those clothes are wide and ample as is the case in many cultures. Someone asked Umm Habibah, the wife of the Prophet: 

"Did the Messenger of Allah ever offered prayer in a garment in which he had sexual intercourse?" She said: "Yes, if there was nothing noxious on it". 

So even though one must perform a ritual bath prior to prayer in that case, one's clothes do not need to be entirely washed because of a few traces. The removal of these visible impurities is enough to purify the clothes again.

This happened to the prophet, as it must have happened to countless prophets and regular people before, and after him. The prophet was a saint, but remained entirely human, living in according to what he thought was the most suited behavior of his time and space, so long as it did not contravene the principles of higher morality and pragmatism.

Unfortunately nothing survived of the prophets Moses, David or Solomon's standards of behavior in similar circumstances for comparison.

Acts17apologetics see a scientific error; Quran places semen formation in backbone?

In answer to the video "Allah Explains Semen Production! (Fun Islamic Fact #16)"

Although revealed in an environement where poetry and oratory speeches were loaded with explicitly lustful and indecent language and allusions, the Quran never departs from its pattern of using respectable language and concepts. This is particularily made clear in sura Yusuf, the "best of stories", when detailing the mistress' attempted seduction of Yusuf. The Quran beautifully combines in that context, precision in expression with a dignified vocabulary, and despite the fact that it talks about lust, utilizes the principles of piety, morals and respect without being paralysed in the process.

When the Quran addresses the themes of sex or sexual organs, its eloquence necessitates that it does not directly speak of testicles, penis or vagina. This is an established Quranic pattern accross several topics. Contrary to the Bible with its known rude language and unsophisticated imageries, as is amply found in modern pop culture, news, and magazines, the Quran seeks not to flood the imagination with crude details so as to not trivialize certain themes.

There are ample examples, such as 2:222 where it refers to sexual intercourse by using the imagery of the farmer cultivating his tilth with tenderness and deep consideration aforehand, or as "touching" the mate 2:236,237,4:43,5:6,33:49etc. The word for 'touching' is laamastum from the root L-M-S that means skin feeling an object interactively. It is used to mean mainly sex, or at least some form of foreplay.

Other terminologies used in the Quran to refer to sexual intercourse is "covering" the mate 7:189 or in the context of refraining from sex it says "guarding the private parts" 23:5,33:35. In some instances where the Quran refers to women's sexual organs it literaly speaks of

60:12"what lies between their legs and hands"

among other apellations. Now we come to the passage in question which is of interest to this youtuber. 86:5-7 speaks of the fluid

"coming out".

It doesnt speak of origin or formation, but exiting. All people know from where seminal fluid exits from. The determination of the location where the fluid is formed is irrelevant to the point of the verse. The verse speaks of man's humble and simple origins despite him growing into a highly complex creature, and how he will inevitably be humbled once again to simple elements then recreated and brought forth to render account. The rejecters of resurrection saw it as a far fetched thing, an impossibility for a human being to be grown back after its death, decay, and return to the earth.

So instead of telling these arrogant people, who see their current state as a highly complex entity impossible to re-create, that they were once a simple fluid that exited from their father's penises, it says they exited

"from between the sulb and the taraaib".

Sulb stems from S-L-B, implying strength, hardness, firmness, uprightness. Words like the backbone or the saleeb/crucifix, because of standing firmly upright, are derived from it.

Taraaib stems from T-R-B, implying some sort of resemblence, uniformity, harmony, symetry. It is used for example for turab/soil or dust, because dust grains are resembling and corresponding.

Elsewhere it denotes how the mates of paradise match oneanother in many aspects 56:37,78:33 and it can similarily describe how certain body parts like the eyes, the hands, the legs, or the ribs etc. are matching. The statement

"exiting from between the sulb/backbone and the taraaib/legs or ribs"

refers to man's sexual organ just like

"what lies between their legs and hands"

subtely alludes to women's sexual parts. Any other propostition would suggest the people back in 7th century Arabia, or whomever the sceptics allege wrote the Quran, were ignorant of the function of testicles. This of course is an untenable assertion. For example, they used to practice castration on animals, and knew of the existence of eunuchs.An equally valid interpretation as noted by the early tafasirs, including Makki ibn abi Talib, al Mahdawi or ibn Atiya, is that yakhruju/exiting may refer to the human being spoken of earlier. This is valid both linguistically and biologically, as the womb is located between the backbone and ribs of the woman. Between, as a side note, does not entail "middle".

Acts17apologetics are vexed; Quran calls Christians polytheists?

In answer to the video "Quran Contradictions: Are Christians Polytheists? (Anthony Rogers)"

No it doesnt, Muslim may even intermarry with Jews and Christians, contrary to Idolaters. In Islam, spirituality is the prime quality of selection for marriage. Fornicators are therfore forbidden to marry other members of the Muslim comunity, just like the idolaters with whom intermariages are prohibited 2:221. The Bible reflects that notion too in Deut7:3,Ezra9:13,2Cor6:14. The Torah further teaches that if a Jewish man marries a gentile woman, he must divorce her, send her away, and send the children who resulted from this illegal union as well.

Spiritual affinity is an important factor to consider in human ties, especially marital ties, since in the Quran, marriage is a source of serenity on all levels

30:21"And one of His signs is that He created mates for you from yourselves that you may find rest in them, and He put between you love and compassion".

Faith should be the first criteria of selection

25:77,34:7,49:13"Verily the most honoured of you in the sight of Allah is he who is the most righteous of you".

Because they are not distant from Muslims spiritually, as opposed to idolaters, the Quran has allowed intermariages with the people of the book 5:5. But it also delivers a stern warning to guard the principles of faith very cautiously against the influence of a non-Muslim wife. There is complete silence as to whether a Muslim woman is allowed to mary a man from the people of the book, this cannot be taken as a prohibition since the Quran has explicitly denied other intermarriages, such as with idolaters. This silence could be due to the fact that in the Muslim society, let alone society worldwide, it is the man that asks for a woman's hand and the Quran in this verse is addressing Muslim men 2:221.

Shirk, meaning partnering or more specifically in religion, the act of giving to an entity or concept besides God or along with Him, any independant attribute, authority, power that otherwise belongs to God alone, is a sin that can vary in severity. The Quran attributes this sin to Muslims and non-Muslims alike 12:106,16:100,41:6-7.  However the appellation mushrikin, which denotes a persistent, willful behaviour, open acknowledgment of associating separate deities to God, is never used to define any of them, Muslims or people of the book. Only those guilty of the highest degree of shirk, knowingly and openly attributing divinity to entities other than the One God, and treating them as separate deities, are called mushrikin. This isnt the case of Trinitarians, the majority sect among Christians who, although technically accused of associating with Allah 5:72,9:30, view themselves as monotheists. Their shirk is not based on conscious intent, but rather flows from their "overstepping the bounds of truth" in their veneration of Jesus 4:171,5:77 and so the Quran uses a subtle device to separate between declared adherents to polytheism (the Idolaters of Arabia) and those who were adverse to polytheism yet had become involved in it. It refers to the polytheistic practices of the People of the Book with a verb; never are they referred to in the form of an adjective, ie mushrikin, which, as said earlier, denotes a wilful mindframe.

Again, that appellation is a particular Quranic terminology and we should look at the Quran to know who is called a mushrik. The Quran does not use this term for the Jews or the Christians. Instead it invented for them the term "people of the book" and clearly seperates between the two

5:82,22:17,98:1"Those who reject (Truth), among the People of the Book and among the mushrikin.."

In the times of the prophet Muhammad, when a Christian delegation came to him from Najran to inquire of his message, they were received at his mosque, where they prayed and resided. In 3:64 it tells them to

"come to a word that is just between us and you"

with this commonality being

"that we will not worship except Allah and not associate anything with Him and not take one another as lords instead of Allah"

meaning that they openly declare the correct tawhid and yet cannot perceive that they corrupt it in several ways, which the Quran came to correct and reform.

Some have argued that the people of the book stand excluded from the marriage law in 5:5 based on 60:10 saying Muslims may not remain married to those guilty of kufr and verses such as 9:28-33,5:17 and others qualify the people of the book as kuffar. However, the term in the Quranic language carries a wide range of understanding, from "non believer" to "active enemy of Allah" to "non adherer to the law of Allah, although not necessarily out of the fold of Islam" as in

5:47"And whoever does not judge by what Allah brought down, then those are the kafirun".

Words with wide ranges of meaning are understood, in Arabic as in any language, in their proper context. When read in context, the kuffar of 60:10 are the polytheists with whom marriage is forbidden, not the people of the book. This verse is universally known as having been revealed in a specific context, that of the treaty of Hudaybiya which involved Muslims and pagans. This is the typical error of those trying to approach the Islamic texts hastily, in their bid to draw their quick conclusions.

The exegisis of every verse in the Quran isnt done in a vacuum, but must firstly correlate with other verses on the same topic elsewhere in the Book, then must agree with the multifaceted subtlties of the Arabic language, and finally with the vast corpus of historical and prophetic traditions. 

All these areas fly far above the head of the likes of this youtuber.

Acts17apologetics get real; 5:116 not about the trinity?

In answer to the video "Quran Contradictions: Are Christians Polytheists? (Anthony Rogers)"

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 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 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.

Acts17apologetics read between the lines; Quran makes Trinity error in 5:116?

In answer to the video "Quran Contradictions: Are Christians Polytheists? (Anthony Rogers)"

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 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".

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 embarrassement 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 telling them "there is no god but Allah". Trinitarians maintain, painstakingly, that their doctrine does not entail polytheism. The Quran refutes the core of their claim, the only god that exists is ONE inseparable 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 intrinsic 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 worldly. 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" favouring 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, blatantly 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.