Islam critiqued evaluates literary eloquence; The royal plural?

In answer to the video "The Quran and the Trinity"

4:64,21:25,67:17-18,70:40-1,31:10-11,25:45"Have you not considered (the work of) your Lord, how He extends the shade? And if He had pleased He would certainly have made it stationary; then We have made the sun an indication of it"

As so often in the Quran, the sudden change, within one and the same sentence, from the pronoun We or I to He, or from We to God, breaks the monotony of the speech and thus keeps the reader/audience's attention alert. Besides that literary purpose, its higher, spiritual meaning is to impress upon the listener or reader the notion that God is not a person but an all-embracing Power that cannot be precisely defined or even adequately referred to within the limited range of any human language 

16:51"And Allah has said: Take not two gods, He is only one Allah; so of Me alone should you be afraid". 

This is a typical example of the well known and established pre-islamic style of iltifat. A dim resemblence of that ancient mode of expression can even be found in the Hebrew Bible, for example 

Zech10:12"And I will strengthen them by the Lord, and by His Name they shall walk, says the Lord". 

See also Ps50:22-23,81:17.  Here again the text shifts midsentence between God and the prophet, sometimes overlapping in a way that makes unclear who the speaker is Isa10:12,Jer8:17-9:1,11:17,Amos3:1-7.

Iltifat means transition, but the Quran makes its former use by the masters of poetry of the time pale in comparison. Here is another example 

15:95-99"Surely We will suffice you against the scoffers. Those who set up another god with Allah, so they shall soon know. And surely, We know that your breast straitens at what they say. Therefore celebrate the praise of your Lord, and be of those who make obedience". 

God is here mentioned more than once and through different pronouns, so that we have a multiplicity of viewpoints:
- the 1st person plural of majesty to assure the Prophet "We will suffice you". It is an established style in classical Arabic to refer to a powerful, authoritative entity in the plural 23:99. God of course does not need to convey His royalty through such words; it is the people who need it. Semitic languages used the plural to convey the sense of majesty since before the Torah or the Quran. God communicates with the people in the language they understand, and so He chose to convey the notion of majesty in those terms as well, but with higher eloquence. Something interesting is that the Quran, a Book that uniquivocally stresses divine unity, protects the concept so as to avoid any ambiguity whenever the 1st person plural (never the 2nd or 3rd persons plural) WE/NAHNU is used. The direct context immidiately states that God is One, either through the use of the singular Allah/Rabb, or through, elaboration or switch in pronouns, as in 

17:2"And WE gave Musa the Book and made it a guidance to the Children of Israel, saying; do not take a protector besides ME (not US)". 

Something else to keep in mind is that, the prophets who conveyed these revelations in which God uses the royal plural in reference to Himself, never spoke of God indirectly with a 3rd person plural pronoun "they" or "them". The Quran took the concept of royal plural, which was well known in semitic languages (see for example the HB in Mal1:6,Gen3:22,Gen24:9,Ex7:1) to a different, sophisticated literary level.  

- the second viewpoint that the style of iltifat offers in that passage 15:95-99 is that of the mockers. They serve another God beside Allah "Those who set up another god with Allah". God is here distancing Himself from them. This style is called tabaaid in Arabic, or distancing, meant at expressing the speaker's discust towards the addressees who arent worthy of being directly spoken to. 

- and the 3rd viewpoint that the style of iltifat offers in that verse is that of the Prophet, he should serve his caring, reassuring Lord and Sustainer "We know that your breast straitens at what they say".

A longer statement would have been needed to convey these implicit meanings had "normal" grammatical rules been followed. 

There is a reason why the masters of eloquence of the time could not but call the Quran magic and sorcery. Just as was done above with a few examples, a close examination of all instances where these shifts occur in person/numbers/addressees/verb tenses/case marker/noun instead of pronoun, etc, shows that they follow similar patterns, and are not haphazardly injected in the flow of the text. 

Another sub category of iltifat is the use of nouns instead of pronouns. The aim is to create a sense of exclusivity. For example in 2:115 where Allah's name is repeated 3 times instead of using a pronoun. Stating the name of Allah, moreover, in the 3 successive statements makes each statement absolute, independent and quotable.

The entire Quran is a discourse from Allah alone, transmitted to the prophet Muhammad by the angel Gabriel. It isnt God's autobiography for it to be cast wholly in the form of 'I' and 'me'. It quotes many different speakers, past, contemporaries to it, or future, like prophets, angels, regular believers or close companions of Muhammad, jinn, Iblis and more. It even sometimes quotes inanimate entities made to speak for a specific purpose. 

All this is achieved while actively interracting with the reader or audience, sometimes involving it in the flow of the discourse. It remains in all cases God's word, whoever it quotes, whoever it "commands to proclaim" as denoted with the recurrent "qul". 

 When Allah speaks through the prophet starting with "qul", the words spoken afterwards do not become the words of the speaker, for example 

39:10"Qul (Say/Proclaim/Declare/State/Mention), “O My servants who have believed, fear your Lord. For those who do good in this world is good, and the earth of Allah is spacious. Indeed, the patient will be given their reward without account."

 In the Hebrew Bible, the book of Ezekiel is full of verses addressing the prophet beginning with "say".
By its nature as a flowing speech, it would be contrary to eloquence for the Quran to constantly cut its flow whenever it is about to quote a character, especially while relating a dialogue. That is why the text is highly elliptical, with eloquent and appropriate omissions that never disturb its flow and precision.  This dramatic style of the Quran puts the audience in a position where they seem to hear the words directly from the speakers — not through a narrator.

Many times the revelation quotes Allah directly, or another entity without starting with the "qul" formula or without "x person said or replied". The style and contextual indicators are therefore enough to determine who the speaker is, whether it is during an exchange between several interlocutors, or when it is reporting the statement of a single entity. That person is then either directly quoted, paraphrased, or instructed on what to say in a given situation, context or ritual. Among the examples concerning the believers specifically, the Quran instructs them how to start certain endeavors or suras of the book with the "bismilla", or teaches them either within a larger sura or in a complete sura, like sura fatiha, how to verbally seek Allah's guidance.

 In the HB God says to Moses 

Ex33:19"I will proclaim the name of the Lord before you"

 ie I will teach you how to worship Me. In the book of Jeremiah, after a long admonishment, the prophet begins quoting, without any transition, a prayer of repentance to be uttered by the believers Jer3:22-5. 

Iltifat is a device also used for other than God, and similarily for specific eloquent purposes such as the switches from 2nd to 3rd persons to create an effect of distancing of displeasure 16:72,47:23, distancing of honouring 30:38 or helplesness 10:22. The shift in addressees as in 17:63 with them/you creates a powerful effect: anyone that follows Satan at any time or place is thus addressed directly by God with this strong warning, rather than merely being informed that any one of 'them' will meet with such a reward. 

A further note on the concept of plural in reference to God in the HB. Jews often used fatherly and godly names to describe all sort of things: in 2Corin4:4,Exod7:1 Satan, Moses are called god (theos, elohim). When Moses was made "elohim to Pharaoh", his nature was not reconfigured into 3 entities in 1. Similarly, in the beginning elohim created the universes Gen1:1. The plural elohim does not denote a plurality of God's nature. If the meaning of this word were to be plural, then the verbs would agree, also being in the plural. The word for "created" is "barah" in the singular. And although Elohim is followed by the plural k'doshim, the very next word after it is the singular "he" pronoun, referring to God. The use of the plural simply is a literary device to evoke grandeur and majesty, and is often used in the Tanakh and the Quranic language as well.

The "im" at the end of Eloh-im is an intensive construct of the singular Eloah ps18:32,114:7 as is used at the end of many words that are not plural Gen19:11(blindnesses), Lev19:24(praises), Ps45:15(gladnesses), Ezek25:17(vengences). 

To know if elohim is singular or plural it must be in a sentence where it either receives a plural suffix, a plural verb, a plural adjective. The only times where Elohim is followed by plural verbs is when referring to heathen deities Exod20:3, which ironically could be seen as a little hint to those who use that literary construct to defend a concept seen by many as pagan. 

The other times where elohim is followed by plural is when the addressee is a heathen as in Gen20:13, where Abraham speaks to Abimelech. Everywhere else in the surrounding text the singular verb form is used with elohim. 

The same is the case with the plural adjective hayyim connected to the majestic plural elohim in Sam17:26,36,Jer10:10,23:36 while all surrounding verbs with Elohim are in the singular. It is to be noted that the singular form of "hayyim" is used elsewhere with Elohim 2Kings19:4,16,Isa37:4,17. Elohim, when referring to God in the Greek of the NT is always the singular "theos". YHWH speaks of Himself as “I” and “Me” and is referred to as “You” (singular) and “He” and “Him” thousands of times. Elohim simply doesnt hint to 2,3, or a million godhead within one, so it offers no support for the trinity.

When it is translated in the plural for example Ps8:5,82:1,Exod18:11,21:6,22:8,9,Gen35:2,and in all these cases nobody will think elohim constitutes a plurality of persons within one. When elohim is translated in the singular Ex22:20,1Sam28:12-13 again no trinitarian will say the english translation of the word constitutes a plurality of persons within one.

The HB describes God with singular pronouns over 11000 times. Singular pronouns tell us that God is a single Individual. The expression "let us" of Gen1:26 is isolated and doesnt indicate duality, trinity or a hundred members of the godhead. Again, the pluralization of words for intensification of the meaning is common in semitic languages. Many examples have already been given, and in different contexts, another one being Ezra 4:18. Just as Isa44:24 says it is Myself not Ourselves "who spread out the earth" Jesus says in Matt19:4,Mk10:6,13:19 etc that HE or God, not WE, created all things alone. And again in In Heb4:4 God not Jesus or the holy spirit rested from the work of creation. Similarly in 

Job38:4"Where were you when I laid the earth's foundation?"

 not We.

  
The Midrash Rabbah cited in Rashi’s commentary on 

Gen1:26"Rabbi Shmuel bar Nachman said in the name of Rabbi Yonathan: At the time when Moses was engaged in writing the Torah, he had to set down what happened on each (of the six) days of creation. When he got to the verse "And God said, 'Let us make man in our image, after our likeness' " (Gen. 1:26), Moses said before Him: "Master of the universe, why do You give heretics an excuse? (they will say that there are numerous deities!)" He replied: "You write! and whoever wishes to err, let him err.""

Islam critiqued zooms in on a verse; what does 5:116 really say?

In answer to the video "The Quran and 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. 

Islam critiqued sees trinity everywhere; The Quran tacles the Christian godhead?

In answer to the video "The Quran and 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 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 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 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.

Islam critiqued attacks YWHW; a deity with multiple personalities?

In answer to the video "The Quran and the Trinity"

God in the HB is Echad/one Exod9:7,Eccl4:8. Each of the things listed are not a compound unity. And if "one" in Hebrew can also be more than one why not a trillion? Both masculine and feminine forms of echad are found in the HB almost a thousand times and Christian translators always seem to understand that echad means ONE every single place except when they choose to say that it isn't. Echad/one, as in every language can be used figuratively for a compound unity as in one nation or one family, see also Gen1:5,2:24,Numb13:23. But most often literally means an “absolute one” and not compound at all. It is the direct context that decides whether the word is used figuratively or literally. When God told Abraham to take his son to "one/echad of the mountains" did He mean to divide his son upon a compound of mountains? When Hagar put her boy under "one/echad of the shrubs" did she cut him up under multiple plants? All analogies trinitarians try making eventually fall apart. None of them even adress the logical problem of the trinity, which is not whether one entity can be composed of multiple entities, but whether the so called components are the entity itself. Is a car engine "the car"? is hydrogen, one component of water, water itself? Is an individual within a nation, the nation itself?

It is the height of absurdity to suggest that a passage refuting idolatry and multiple deities, would tell the people that "your Lord is a unity of divine beings". 

When husband and wife are "one" for instance, the multiplicity of subjects is made clear in the sentence. Further, the analogy doesnt adress the problem of the trinity. Adam and Eve are still 2 distinct humans even after becoming one in marriage. The trinity, according to its proponents, is not composed of 3 distinct gods; this would be tritheism instead. Again, the language here is figurative, while the trinity, a multiplicity of divine beings making one God is literal. Nothing presupposes in the Schema, and its direct context, that the intent is figurative or that a compound unity is meant

Deut6:4 "Listen, O Israel – the Lord your God, the Lord is ONE”. 

Echad here is an adjective, and it describes the proper noun "the Lord", which is in the singular. This rules out the possibility of a "compound unity" in this highly relevant passage in terms of what the HB teaches on monotheism. Echad in this case assumes its primary literal meaning of "absolute one".

Similar usages are found in 2Sam13:30,17:12. The Schema contains 2 core messages that are prevalent throughout the Jewish writing; nationalism and monotheism. YHWH is the God of Israel (our God), and this same YHWH is echad/one. It is one of the most blatant examples of what Biblical scholars have termed Jewish monolatry, the belief in one ethno-centered tribal deity, without excluding the existence of deities to other nations. The infamous missionary corruption of a commentary from the Zohar, where the writer supposedly wonders at the threefold repetition of God's name in the Schema is a known 20th century forgery, absent from this Jewish book. In fact there is a quote from the Zohar saying 

"You are One but not in a countable sense" (Zohar petichat eliyahu). 

As to Yachid, it literally means "only". See Gen22 for example. To repeat, in Hebrew the word for one is echad (masculine) and ahat (feminine). Try telling a school kid to start counting with "yachid"...

In the Quran, the matter is presented in a most eloquent, intricate and comprehensive manner, constantly interlinking worship of God with application of social justice. It repeatedly points to the notion of inter-dependancy in all of creation, to make the believers heed to their own needs and vulnerabilities, whether from a physical/material sense or a spiritual sense, and how Allah alone is independent, self-sufficient 35:15,6:14. Everything is in need of Allah, the Qayyum (Self-subsisting) standing by Himself, the Hayy (Everliving) and all the universe stands because of His eternal endurance, maintenance of life in each instant 2:255,3:2. 

The prophet Daniel states in the Aramaic in which the text was recorded 

Dan6:26"elaha hayya qayyam". 

The words carry several implications, including the pervasive pattern throughout the Quran of God being the sole self-sufficient, uncreated, independant entity. He relies on none other than Himself to subsit and will perdure even when all things perish 55:26-7,28:88. Al hayy/the ever living is also a description meant at distinguishing Allah from false deities, as is done in the HB Joshua3:10,1Sam17:26,1Sam17:36,Jer10:9-10,etc., whether they be inanimate entities or living creatures that made themselves or were made into objects of worship 16:20-1. They are neither alive nor are able to keep others alive, they do not exist of their own accord nor can keep others into existence. Their existence depends at all times on the self-sustaining source of all life, Allah. 

This divine unity, self-sufficiency and uniqueness from the point of view of his 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".

CIRA international been out to sea; no mixing between sweet and salt water?

In answer to the video "The Barrier Between Waters - Scientific Miracles of the Quran Ep.15"

Those to whom the verse was primarily addressed, the Arabs, were land and sea travellers. They passed through estuaries and points where a river met the ocean to see both bodies of water mixing. The Arabic "bahr" means a vast water expanse, be it the ocean, a big river or lake. None of the verses 25:53,27:61,55:19 say that a barrier prevents them from mixing. In fact it clearly says that they meet and mix/maraja 55:19. 

The verse immediately follows by saying that despite this mixing, there is an unbreakable barrier between the 2 water types referred to earlier. And it is the phenomenon that sustains life on this earth by keeping the water types perpetually appart, salt and sweet, despite their perpetual mixing when they meet. The verse comes in the context of providing evidence of God's bounties, the primary example being exactly this, the constant phenomenon of having 2 distinct water types available, despite their continuous flow and mixing into one another. Had this phenomenon of evaporation and filtration of salt not existed, life as we know it would have been impossible 

55:21"Which then of the bounties of your Sustainer will you deny?"  

A river meeting the ocean without mixing is not a bounty from God and is irrelevant in stimulating the gratefulness of the reader and audience, which is the whole point of the passage. Another spiritual parallel the verses make with that phenomenon is the existence of 2 types of humans, the spiritually aware and the rest. In this world they mix and mingle on a physical level but will remain separate on the metaphysical sphere. But the Merciful has placed in everyone the potential to thrive spiritually, even the sinner, if he chooses to repent. And so, the verse also states that pearls can be harvested from fresh and saltwater, just as there is spirituality in the righteous as well as the sinner. The imagery is beautiful and uplifting, as opposed to the NT's exclusivist and racist notion of "avoid sharing your pearls with pigs" Matt7. Corals, as a side note, live and grow in seawater but may be found in rivers, such as the massive reef of the Amazon. Corals can also thrive in estuaries, where the 2 bodies of water meet.

Talking about everlasting, unbreakable barrier, the Hebrew Bible in Jer5:22 speaks of the sea as unable to permanently invade and inundate dry land, forcibly kept till the end of times behind the shore, thus also showing ignorance of the phenomenon of tides

"I made sand a boundary for the sea, an everlasting ordinance, which it cannot pass, and [its waves] toss themselves, yet they cannot prevail; and its waves roar, but they do not pass it."