Apostate prophet against discrimination; preventing pagans from Mecca?

In answer to the video "The Most Violent Quran Verse (Sword Verse)"

Sura Tawba stipulated that all idolators were forbidden custody and entry to the precincts of the Sacred Mosque after its restauration to its original purpose, as instituted by Abraham, of being the prime symbol of monotheism for all visitors 9:17-22. 

With their sacraligious practices 8:34-5 which had disfigured the legacy of Ibrahim and Ismail, they had become spiritualy unclean 9:28 and unworthy of being the custodians of the sacred house, let alone perform their idolatrous rituals in it. 

They could not claim legitimacy over the House of God instead of the righteous monotheists such as the hanif remnants who had tried preserving the way of their father Ibrahim. The pagan Ishmaelites could not claim authority over the Kaaba for the sole reason that they inherited it and maintained it 

"do you make (one who undertakes) the giving of drink to the pilgrims and the guarding of the Sacred Mosque like him who believes in Allah and the latter day and strives hard in Allah's way? They are not equal with Allah; and Allah does not guide the unjust people". 

They were unclean spiritually because of their sins, just like the hypocrites are said to be unclean 9:95 and like the sinful nations who had to be uprooted by the Israelites under divine order from a land declared sacred by God Deut9. This principle would ironicaly later on be applied upon the Israelites themselves. Under Ahab's rule they progressively returned to idol worship. King Jehu later massacred them as he tried erradicating the land from Baal worship, tearing down pagan temples 2Kings10.

As regards to Quranic principle of spiritual uncleanness of the sinners, it is a concept present throughout the Bible too.

The Sacred House dedicated to the worship of the One God since its raising by Ibrahim and his son Ismail, could not remain therefore in the custody of the spiritual degenerate and those that corrupted its purpose, because their authority over it and their divine protection 105:1-5 was granted conditionaly to the keeping of the way of Ibrahim 106:1-4. Just as the the Jews had to be removed from their control over God's temple once they reverted to their sinful ways, now the Ishmaelites, because of their failure, the Kaaba had now to be cleansed from all traces of polytheism and return to its monotheistic purpose, in answer to Ibrahim's prayers, until the Day of Resurrection 2:125-130. The Quran would admonish the Quraysh indirectly for following the erring ways of their forefathers and failing to maintain the Kaaba's purpose, through the story of Ibrahim whom they prouded themselves to be the direct descendants of.
 
This ordinance, the banning of idolaters from practicing their religion in the sacred precincts of the Kaaba, had naturally disturbed those among the Muslims whose entire livelihood depended on trade during the pilgrimage season 9:28. This meant the town would lose its position as a comercial center and most trade would cease. However these worldly considerations could not interfer with the carrying out of higher objectives and further 

"if you fear poverty then Allah will enrich you out of His grace if He please; surely Allah is Knowing Wise". 

That enrichment came as the entire land of Arabia entered the fold of Islam like waves upon waves as prophecied in a time when none could have imagined for such an outcome to come true 110:1-3. Trade resumed ever since, on a scale they would have never fathomed, and the Meccans regained their prestige in the region and beyond. 

The jizya, which some critics argue was meant at counterbalancing the loss of trade, isnt what caused that "enrichment", neither back in the time of the prophet nor in our times. How is the jizya relevant today in "enriching" the Muslims of Mecca or Medina? Jizya did not fill the private pockets of Meccan businessmen, nor financed private projects, neither in the past nor today. It was the prerogative of the government, used in exchange of concrete state services and exemptions as will be shown below. The caliph Umar, towards the end of his life urged to 

"abide by the rules and regulations concerning the Dhimmis of Allah and His Apostle, to fulfill their contracts completely and fight for them and not to tax them beyond their capabilities". 

He added elsewhere 

"as it is the Dhimma/covenant/protection of your Prophet and the source of the livelihood of your dependents". 

So there clearly is an exchange in benefits. The Muslim governement is to fight and protect those with whom it made a covenant. This is just one among the many services enjoyed by the people of dhimma, as will be shown below. They in exchange compensate the Muslims for their sacrifices and services, without being overburdened financially. This is nothing unusual under any modern day government.

Apostate prophet unsheeths the sword; verse 9:5 is violent?

In answer to the video "The Most Violent Quran Verse (Sword Verse)"

As the surrounding verses make it clear 9:5 is speaking of those who repeatedly broke the contracts, despite the Muslims keeping their engagements, attacked the Muslims first. These people, the Muslims should remain extremely cautious with. The Believers are required to put their trust in God and negotiate with them regardless of their treacherous history if they show an inclination towards peace 8:61-62, but at the same time should not hesitate to cancel the agreements in case they fear treachery on their part. Muslims must only do so openly and publicly so as to avoid any misunderstanding on the state of war between the parties 8:58 as was done with the very first verse of sura tawba and its unequivocal dissociation with the traitors. Then they should prepare themselves for every eventual threat from within and outside the community 8:60.

The Muslims should only stop fighting them under 2 conditions:
- if they clearly become Muslims by praying regularly and pay the poor rate. This is the only guarantee Muslims have against being attacked by a people provably inclined to backstabbing and breaking of oaths

4:91"You will find others who desire that they should be safe from you and secure from their own people; as often as they are sent back to the mischief they get thrown into it headlong; therefore if they do not withdraw from you, and (do not) offer you peace and restrain their hands, then seize them and kill them wherever you find them; and against these We have given you a clear authority".

It is in such background that one should read the often misused report in which the prophet says

"I have been commanded to fight the idolators (Other versions "the people") until they bear witness to La ilaha illallah (there is none worthy of worship except Allah) and that Muhammad is His slave and Messenger. If they bear witness to La ilaha illallah and that Muhammad is His slave and Messenger, and they pray as we pray and face our Qiblah, and eat our slaughtered animals, then their blood and wealth becomes forbidden to us except for a right that is due, and they will have the same rights and obligations as the Muslims".

What is translated as to fight/uqaatil implies fighting opposite an initial attack, as is clear from the context of 9:5. Also, the more complete hadith further portrays the prophet quoting

88:22"Therefore do remind, for you are only a reminder. You are not a watcher over them".

This, in addition to the known proper context of the report, decisively shows there can be no compulsion in religion, as explicitly stated in the Quran in many places. As commented by ibn Taymiya

"what is meant here: Fighting the fighters of those that Allah made permissible to fight, and not those under the treaty and were loyal to Allah".

No forced conversions occured at the conquest of Mecca and sura 88, which is quoted by the prophet in relation to his statement in the hadith, is unanimously believed to have been revealed in Mecca.
- And if they do not become Muslims but they stop their persecution then

2:193"there should be no hostility except against the oppressors"

and that is because

8:38"if they desist, that which is past shall be forgiven to them; and if they return, then what happened to the ancients has already passed"

These 2 important point show that 9:5 does not say to fight these hostile idolaters until they become Muslims since an idolater who stops fighting is left to go freely to his homeland 9:6, but until they refrain from their hostile attitude of which a conversion to Islam and the strict and public adherance to each of its ordinances would be a guarantee. One last time, not all idolaters were fought until they became Muslims, only those that were untrustworthy to be left based on a verbal agreement.

Apostate prophet deepens the search; a closer look at the sura tawba?

In answer to the video "The Most Violent Quran Verse (Sword Verse)"

Sura tawba was loudly announced by Ali on the day of sacrifice/idh al adha and for 3 consecutive days. It is to be kept in mind that even at this advanced stage of the prophetic mission, and when Mecca had become subdued to Muslim rule, the Muslims were still in inferiority compared to their opponents throughout the peninsula and beyond. The adjacent Roman and Persian empires were now well informed of the growing Muslim movement. The sura itself relates some Muslims' reluctancy to engage in confrontation due to this 9:38.

The first verse 9:1 announces a clearing of guilt or dissociation. That is from where the other name of sura tawba comes from "baraa’a". That baraa'a, or dissociation was between Allah and His messenger on one side and the idolators on the other. But not any idolaters, rather those who had previously made a treaty with the Muslims but violated it as seen just 3 verses later. The treacherous violation of mutual agreements is a serious and grave matter for all peoples and cultures.

In the times the Quran was revealed, the state of lawlesness was such that only tribal alliances could safeguard a people from attacks and if a group couldnt be reliable upon for their word then one shouldnt expect the Muslims to blindly accept putting their lives at risk. The Quran alludes to this perpetually violent environment of the peninsula during the rise of Islam

29:67"Do they not then see that We have made Makkah a sanctuary secure, while men are being snatched away and ravaged from all around them?"

It is thus impossible to read sura tawba without appreciating this historical background and the importance of consolidating the rule of law in war-torn Arabia.  The Muslims had time and time again renewed their agreements after the opposing party had violated it 8:56,61. It was this frequent violation that ultimately led to this forceful and unambiguous declaration of immunity, against those who

9:10"do not pay regard to ties of relationship nor those of covenant in the case of a believer; and these are they who go beyond the limits".

Those further described as

9:12-13"break their oaths after their agreement and (openly) revile your religion"

those to whom "oaths are nothing" and

"broke their oaths and aimed at the expulsion of the Messenger, and they attacked you FIRST".

It was impossible that the Muslims should be bound forever by the terms of those agreements, while their enemies could repudiate them with impunity and aggressiveness

9:7"How can there be an agreement for the idolaters with Allah and with His Messenger; EXCEPT those with whom you made an agreement at the Sacred Mosque?".

Clearly we see, not all groups of idolaters are meant. We know from the earliest sources of Islam that the polytheists of Mecca which the verses point to, were fought against as a result of them breaking a treaty and murdering members of the tribe of Banu Khuza’a, who were allied with the Muslims at the time. The Banu Khuza'a werent even Muslims then. That is how truthful and indiscriminate the prophet and Islam are in applying justice. As a result of Banu Bakr and Quraysh blatant breach of the hudaybiya treaty, the conquest of Mecca took place. The declaration of immunity is therefore not directed at the idolators because of their religion, it does not cover those that honor their treaties

"So as long as they are true to you, be true to them; surely Allah loves those who are careful (of their duty)".

They are those idolaters who had honored their initial agreements with the Muslims and had not backed up anyone against them, the Muslims in turn are told to

9:4"fulfill their agreement to the end of their term; surely Allah loves those who are careful (of their duty)".

Even the elements within the treaty violators, once besieged, or during the course of warfare give up fighting, leaving their people to seek protection from the Muslims 9:6, they must then be protected and explained what is Islam in order to clear their preconceived notions

"this is because they are a people who do not know".

They are then, in full accordance with the divine principle of no coercion in religion 2:256, escorted to "attain his place of safety". This means any area they designate as their own place of shelter. That person is called musta'min in Islamic legal terminology. He would not be subjected to the jizyah and Islamic laws, being a temporary resident of the Islamic state.This is the justice, pragmatism, magnanimity of Islam, contrary to what the critics want to portray. 

Further, even once that declaration of forceful dissociation was made, the Muslims didnt jump on the occasion and immidiately attacked Mecca, although it was completely within their right. Instead, the noble sura announces that those treaty violators are given respite during the 4 sacred months of pilgrimage.

 That is how spiritually upright, in addition to magnanimous, the sura enjoyns Muslims to be, preserving first and foremost the religious sanctity of the Kaaba and the sacred months. During those 4 inviolable months, the opponents may walk freely in the land of Mecca now under Muslim authority, and reconsider their warmongering. They may also turn to God in repentence which would even be better for their own selves, although not a condition for not being fought. Their perseverence in their desire for war, towards an individual who by now has estabished without doubt his divine authority, will bring about the wrath of God. They were on the brink of suffering the same fate as the rejecters of old in the prophetic history, as the divine retribution manifested either through natural calamities, or the believers themselves as in Moses' and subsequent Israelite prophets' case 6:65. This is what active fighting of a messenger brings upon a people

9:2"you cannot weaken Allah and that Allah will bring disgrace to the unbelievers".

As just alluded to, in Muhammad's case, contrary to all cases of divine punishements, a 4 months ultimatum is given while clearly explaining what the outcome will be when it passes and they have not reformed themselves

9:5"So when the sacred months have passed away, then slay the idolaters wherever you find them, and take them captives and besiege them and lie in wait for them in every ambush, then if they repent and keep up prayer and pay the poor-rate, leave their way free to them; surely Allah is Forgiving, Merciful".

This is the mercy of the sura, the fact that although all signs of the truth have been shown through a messenger, and the punishement is about to engulf the remaining disbelievers as it did in the previous battles up to that point, it is as if God, contrary to all previous cases in prophetic history when divine destruction was sent, hit the "pause button" and told the disbelievers to reevaluate their spiritual and antagonistic positions one last time. They have been given time to reflect, not for a day or 2 but 4 full months.

This verse was named by some scholars as the “verse of the sword”, not because it allows Muslims to kill indiscriminately, but because it commands them to defend the community against their enemies. This designation was not used by the Prophet, his companions, or the early Muslims.

Apostate prophet's limited Quran searches; Sura Tawba is unfairly violent? Why invade Mecca?

In answer to the video "The Most Violent Quran Verse (Sword Verse)"

After years of warfare and the Muslims inflicting defeat after defeat to their opponents, whose obsession and concern was to prevent at all costs the free establishement of a new community and religion that threatened a corrupt order from which they benefited, the time had come for the Muslims to be allowed to freely enter Mecca and worship in it.

The Prophet sent with Ali the final ultimatum to the tribes gathering for the annual pilgrimmage from accross the Arabian peninsula and the remaining Idolators of Mecca. They were unworthy of being the guardians of a land declared sacred by God since its establishement by their forefathers Abraham and Ishmael 8:34-35,53,9:17-22,28. This is just as God, in the times of the children of Israel, declared Canaan sacred and unfit to any trace of idolatry Deut9,Lev18:24-8,20:22-3.

The Israelites consequently had to exterminate or forcefully expell from it those who indulged in it and defiled it Ezra9:12, erasing all traces of idol worship, not allowing any covenant or peaceful outcome to its inhabitants.

Similarily to Ali, Joshua, before engaging the Canaanites in battle, sent an ultimatum to the inhabitants, offering them three choices: to leave the land, surrender and declare peace, or stand up and fight. The native tribe of the Girgoshites accepted the first condition. However, thirty-one kings chose to fight and were eventually all defeated by a 40.000 strong Jewish army at the end of a 7 years struggle Josh4:13,Josh12. 14 years later, Canaan was entirely conquered and divided among the 12 tribes of Israel. In many areas however the native population was neither entirely exterminated, nor expelled as explicitly commanded and made binding on the Jews for al times to come Deut20:16,25:19. They were enslaved instead Judges1:28. This disobedience led the Israelities to gradually lose both their ethnicity through inter-mixing with the natives, and their monotheistic religion Judges3:5-7. As a result God lifted His divine protection, and the Israelites could not contain their enemies anymore, becoming themselves slaves in that very land they had been promised and which they successfully conquered previously, the land in which they were supposed to lead a pious, grateful and free life following their Egyptian bondage.

The Arabs at the time of the prophet, not only were guilty for corrupting the way of the land, but they were also preventing the righteous from it. That ultimatum was in the form of sura tawba, the most unforgiving and stern address to the enemies of Islam among the Muslim comunity itself (hypocrites), the polytheists and the people of the book. So hard it is against them, that the rahma, the perfect mercy of Allah which usually is such a manifest attribute of His that the Quran describes it as 6:12,54"written upon" Him, doesnt open the sura, contrary to all other suras. The divine rahma was to be "put on hold", in accordance with the sunna/way of Allah as regards the punishement of a nation. When a messenger with clear warnings is rejected and opposed, in addition attempting to killing him, that particular nation will be inflicted with God's retribution. This is why this sura cannot be taken as the blueprint for Islamic "foreign policy" for all times since it deals with specific circumstances pertaining to a precise and significant location, with deep and established causes, and then it provides the answer to such problems. It would be extremely difficult for the full list of causes and circumstances to reoccur, but should they do, then it would render the commands and solutions applicable.

Islam critiqued scavenges for prophecies; Mark14:62 and Daniel7?

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

Mk14:62 has no parallel with Dan7's true meaning. It is again a blatant misrepresentation of the HB by the NT authors. While scavenging the HB for proof texts, these authors obscured, inadvertently or not, the fact that Dan7 is a highly symbolic dream that Daniel himself didnt understand until the angel of prophecy interpreted it to him; the one "like" a single man actually stands for multiple people, the nation of Israel, just as the 4 beasts stand for 4 empires.

These 4 empires will rule over the Jews then be defeated. After that, the Jewish nation, implied with the phrase "the holy supreme ones" in the plural Dan7:18, a phrase used throughout the HB for the Jews, see Lev20:7,Ex19:6,Gen49:10etc., will be brought back to center world stage in the messianic era and made to inherit these kingdoms v27. By the way, how does Jesus being God fit the notion of him being given dominion over certain things. Does God increase in dominion? The idea of emptying himself doesnt solve the issue. God gives up some of his dominion?

None of the entities, fantastic beasts or human like, in the dream are literal or are in a literal setting, as is absurdly and inconsistently implied in the Christian reading.

For example although one rabbinic authority, Rashi, opined that kvar enash/one like a man (in the original Aramaic of the text, son of man would be bar enash, not kvar enash), so although Rashi says that this likeness of a man is the king messiah in v13, he did not assert that the associated symbolism of heavenly descent (a metonym for holiness, chosenness and divine commission in the dream) literally applied to the messiah or that it connoted divinity. Dan2 has a similar theme as Dan7.

Another perspective through which Mk14:62 is misused by trinitarians is in their assumption that it denotes JEsus' divinity.

Firstly, son of man doesnt denote divinity at all, as seen from its use throughout the HB, no matter the setting in which it is found. Also, other biblical human figures like Elijah or Enoch were made to ascend to heaven and through the clouds, without becoming gods or having other unrelated passages apply to them just because God is also described as interracting with clouds. It is the case in Isa19 where YHWH rides clouds that transport Him to destination, which is, as a side note a primitive pagan imagery assimilated into Jewish thought and texts. This isnt a strange, or isolated phenomenon.

Their own prophets denounced their tendancy to assimilate into the regional thought systems, throughout their history, even during the time of Jesus and their Helenization.
Second, the rabbis in that passage from Mk14 were pressing Jesus to admit he claimed to be the messiah, in order to have him executed by the Romans for the crime of political destabilization. Claiming to be a divinity was inconsequential to the Romans. When Jesus answered with the affirmative to whether he was the anointed, the son of God, then applied Dan7:13 to himself, which has nothing to do with God but with one like a man, the rabbis were offended and got the answer they needed to send him to be executed

"What further need do we have of witnesses? You have heard the blasphemy! What do you think?” And they all condemned Him to be deserving of death".

Again, claiming divinity does not warrant the death penalty but messianship does. As already shown, a tradition did exist that this kvar enash/like a man was the king messiah, and the rabbis questionning Jesus knew it. They regarded it as blasphemy for whom they despised and saw as a sinner unworthy of the exalted messianic status to claim to be their savior, in addition holy and divinely commissioned as per Dan7:13 as well as drawn close to God and given dominion over his enemies. His enemies were this very temple establishments that were presently prosecuting him. "seated at the right hand of Power" is an allusion to Ps110 where David speaks of the messiah, his adoni, a title used for high ranked humans or angels but never God who is the only One addressed as adonaY

"YHWH says to my adoni: "Sit at my right hand until I make your enemies a footstool for your feet".

Dan7 is equally abused by other NT authors, such as Ephesians1:20-2 where the scribes insert a phrase in reference to Jesus which is inexistant in Daniel, "highly exalted". Besides the fact that Jesus wasnt highly exalted (his exaltation in heaven is a claim impossible to corroborate) and neither ruled over all peoples and tongues, past or present.

The language of Daniel is typical Jewish eschatology and echoes Isa59 and 60, with the promised exaltation of the Jewish nation in a utopic world where all nations will be at their feet and serving their God only, willingly or not.

Islam critiqued is challenged; where did Jesus claim deity?

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

Jesus nowhere made any claim to be God, neither does the bible say anywhere to confess Jesus is God. He isnt called YHWH anywhere and neither did Abraham or Isaac worship a trinity, a god called Jesus or holy spirit. Nobody ever misunderstood God's unique, indivisible essence, nor misapplied divinity to terms such as messiah or "son of God". 

Ambiguities arose when the Graeco-Roman world merged with the Abrahamic, Semitic religion of the HB. Gentile Greeks and Romans, the main targets for conversion by post-Jesus missionary activity, found a fertile ground for continuity of their ancient religions in those various terminologies and events describing the functioning of the God of the HB. Those passages however never hinted at a possible multiplicity of godhead in Semitic thought. 

There is a well established pattern of God, repeatedly identifying Himself whether in the Hebrew scriptures or the Quran with phrases such as "I am the Lord". The literal terminologies "tawhid" or "Jewish monotheism" arent found in the Quran or the HB, but just as tawhid/divine transcendance is a concept stamped on every page of the Quran, Jewish monotheism is unambiguous. The God of the HB makes clear that worship is His prerogative only, and no entity besides Him is seen making the same claim. So much so that the HB uses sometimes crude imageries to refer to Israel's spiritual "adultery" whenever it worshiped something else than its "jealous" God. It is then legitimate for those opposing the Trinitarian doctrine to demand from Trinitarians an explicit, unambiguous statement from Jesus, or any of the other members of their godhead like the holy ghost, independently claiming divinity, or asking to be worshiped. No such statements exist, leaving Trinitarians with a doctrine built from assumptions, suppositions and by piecing ambiguous verses together. Its called "proof texting." 

This method violates two of the paramount points of scriptural understanding: 1) Use clear verses to explain the unclear ones, and 2) gather all of the pertinent verses and study them completely before reaching a conclusion on a doctrine. And even if one were to grant Trinitarian apologist's interpretations of these scattered and isolated verses as correct, still these verses together only provide fractional support for the doctrine. The same can be said of other foundational Christian themes like inherited sin and forgiveness through blood atonement exclusively, which are all based on incomplete references. 

None of the verses where God is identified, either by Himself or others, state that a multiplicity of beings is meant, nor whether these separate divine entities are co-equal or subservient to God, nor whether one is to worship each of those entities separately. The vague verses and passages used as a basis for the potential multiplicity of beings can perfectly be understood without references to Trinity or the incarnation, as was always the case in Semitic thought. Again, there are clear and unambiguous verses denying that God can be seen Ex33:20,Jn1:17 that He has a form Isa40:17,25, or that any representation of Him is to be worshiped Deut4:15. 

Although God's unlimited attributes are by essence beyond human comprehension, God's identity however is not. Beyond understanding doesnt entail inherently contradictory. For example to notion of God being eternal is humanly unfathomable, but not inherently contradictory. But a single one and same entity, Jesus, who is at the same time omniscient and ignorant is contradictory. God is thus certainly beyond comprehension but not illogical and absurd as a square circle or a trinity would be. 

It is obvious that the primary reason for revelation is to identify the Entity requiring exclusive worship. Only one and the same being is found identifying itself and by others as God. As there are no cases of a multiplicity of beings identified, by themselves or others as God then it follows that only One and the same being is always meant whenever the Bible speaks of God. This is the logical premise of the Bible. If Trinitarians on the other hand want to identify a separate set of beings as one and the same God, they are then forced to accept the Biblical premise that no 2, 3 or 4 DIFFERENT beings are identified as God in their Bible, only One and the same being everytime. It follows that these separate beings must be identical to one another if they are identified with God. In a nutshell, if D has the value 1 and that A, B, C are all equal to D then it must mean that A, B, C have the value of 1, making them all identical to one another. Trinitarians however need to keep the 3 components of the godhead distinct from one another. To do so, they have no choice but to conjecture outside Biblical patterns to formulate their beliefs. They begin with the unbiblical notion that a separate set of beings can identify as God all the while remaining distinct and different from one another. This however results in the problem of non transferability of attributes within 2 identical entities. If for instance father and son have all the attributes of God but that Father and son have different attributes then it must mean that they each possess attributes God does not have. 

By rejecting the biblical premise above, Trinitarians begin piling up more problems until the greatest of their scholars end up admitting their ignorance of the concept, it being an impenetrable mystery. Some will even hail that mystery as evidence of their God's superiority since He is above any human concept, although in reality it is the Bible's own premises that conflict with this notion. Again, the problem stems from Christian terms and proposed solutions that do not add up. The external observer merely shows the inconsistencies of those attempts, so the comparison between the "Christian God" with the One others worship isnt appropriate. Further, if the superiority of the triune concept of a god resides in its incompatibility with human understanding, then no Trinitarian has grounds to criticize other beliefs if they are found to be illogical and contrary to empirical data. In fact with that line of reasoning, the more absurd a belief system is, the superior it becomes. Sure, a supreme and transcendental God is a simple concept in comparison. "God is One" was never meant to be a complicated statement. Christian thinkers know this, and have been wrestling with the logical inconsistencies of their creed for 2000 years, yet no progress has been made in resolving the contradictions of the notion of incarnation.

Even at a most basic level of the doctrine, Trinitarians have been struggling, since the first councils of the church fathers down to our times and the Phd thesis of Christian apologists and philosophers, to get around the charge of tri-theism; how does 3 distinct "persons", each fully divine, not result in 3 distinct gods?  To add to the problem, these 3 distinct persons have 3 distinct wills/consciences. Although traditionally, trinitarians have held that the trinity has one mind/conscience, this position in unsubstantiated scripturally and logically. In the Bible, each person of the godhead speaks in terms of "I" which cannot be mutually shared. For example when the Father states "you are my son with whom i am well pleased" this proposition cannot be shared in the mind of the son or the holyspirit. This results in 3 minds and 3 wills with each being separately divine. Those among Christendom that argued against Social trinitarians precisely did so on the basis that it would result in tritheism.

The concept of Monarchia, where only the Father is uncaused, while the Spirit and Son are "eternally" caused is an unhelpful ad hoc. This unconventional way of speaking doesnt solve tritheism as there still ultimately are three divine persons. As they have three distinct personalities they must be counted as distinct gods. Due to the unavoidable fact that counting is done based on identity, Catholic and orthodox scholars admit that in a sense, monotheism can include multiple deities. Others will try avoiding that conclusion by going to the extent of trying to redefine how to count. Counting could be done based on unity of nature. 3 distinct human persons could be considered as one man just as 3 distinct divine persons are one God. Besides the fallacy of giving a material example to explain the immaterial, how does one count the 3 appart from oneanother? If their distinct identity doesnt make them countable, as would be the case conventionally, this means we only have one divine entity, thus negating trinitarianism and resulting in basic monotheism. If we were to say that conventional counting is inapplicable to the ineffable divine being, can we then count the incarnate, material person of Jesus which contains the fullness of the divine being? If yes then we can in fact count the divine being, if not then we cannot count Jesus appart from other things like a tree or a rock. Ultimately, if the divine being is uncountable, can we even say that He is one? Trinitarians will very often put arbitrary limits, unfounded in their texts, when it comes to what applies or not to God, what is similar to Him or not, whenever an aspect of their doctrine reaches a dead end. For example the bible notoriously uses anthropomorphisms, meaning there are similitudes between God and the material world, as well as worldly concepts. We understand many things about God, otherwise we wouldnt know what we are worshiping. Why is the idea of counting God something unfathomable?

At this point trinitarians pile up more unconventional terminologies and hypothesis to salvage their doctrine, pushing the whole idea further into the realm of mystery. 

The Quran gives them a simple warning out of this labyrinth of confusion 

4:171"People of the Scripture, do not commit excess in your religion or say about Allah except the truth. The Messiah, Jesus, the son of Mary, was but a messenger of Allah and His word which He directed to Mary and a soul [created at a command] from Him. So believe in Allah and His messengers. And do not say, "Three"; desist - it is better for you. Indeed, Allah is but one God. Exalted is He above having a son. To Him belongs whatever is in the heavens and whatever is on the earth. And sufficient is Allah as Disposer of affairs"

Jesus' creed:

Mk12:29-30"And Jesus answered him, The first of all the commandments is, Hear, O Israel; The Lord our God is one Lord:And thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind, and with all thy strength: this is the first commandment".

Jesus, coming from a long line of messengers and prophets sent to mankind was thus confirming what Moses uttered approximately 1500 years earlier in

Deut6:4"Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God is one Lord"

and 600 years later came the seal of the prophets with the final reminder to mankind, the Quran repeating once more this ultimate truth

2:163"And your God is one God, there is no god but He; He is the Beneficent, the Merciful".

Elijah, a forerunner to the messiah/god?

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

Jn1:23/Mk1:3 is another case of the NT misrepresenting the HB and resorting to poor proof texting. Isa40 is addressing the exiled Jews, consoling them and telling them they will be returned to their land. It didnt happen anywhere near Jesus' time. It that context of promised return in the messianic era where Israel will take the center stage among the nations of the world, Isa40 speaks of straightening out a highway for God. The plain meaning is that the road will be cleared and eased for the fulfillement of God's will in returning the Jews. Nothing about a forerunner to the messiah (ie Elijah) nor the messiah himself.

Islam critiqued discovers HB Deity; the singular God?

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

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

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

not We.

The Midrash Rabbah cited in Rashi’s commentary on

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

Sure, there must have been Israelites who understood some of these texts in a polytheistic manner, hence this midrash. Read on their own certain passages can be understood in a polytheistic fashion if one so chooses. But the overwhelming fact that the HB fails to give a single example that MUST be read in a polytheistic fashion justifies that all these texts in their canonical context are monotheistic.

God in the HB is Echad/one Exod9:7,Eccl4:8. Each of the things listed are not a compound unity. And if "one" in Hebrew can also be more than one why not a trillion? Both masculine and feminine forms of echad are found in the HB almost a thousand times and Christian translators always seem to understand that echad means ONE every single place except when they choose to say that it isn't. Echad/one, as in every language can be used figuratively for a compound unity as in one nation or one family, see also Gen1:5,2:24,Numb13:23. But most often literally means an “absolute one” and not compound at all. It is the direct context that decides whether the word is used figuratively or literally. When God told Abraham to take his son to "one/echad of the mountains" did He mean to divide his son upon a compound of mountains? When Hagar put her boy under "one/echad of the shrubs" did she cut him up under multiple plants? 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-centred tribal deity, without excluding the existence of deities to other nations. The infamous missionary corruption of a commentary from the Zohar, where the writer supposedly wonders at the threefold repetition of God's name in the Schema is a known 20th century forgery, absent from this Jewish book. In fact there is a quote from the Zohar saying 

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

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

The concept of a divine fatherly figure typically is a Hebrew one, with God calling the nation of Israel His firstborn and referred to in the book of Jeremiah as their father. Jews are very much attached to that concept and dispute Christian appropriation of that title through their mistranslations of the Hebrew texts. 

The Hebrew understanding of the notion of God as a fatherly figure has nothing to do with the Christian one. 

In their monolatrous concept of God, Jews are the preferred sons above all nations charged with being the torch bearers of the truth, and their father is in charge of educating them throughout that process, sometimes in the harshest of ways. This is a notion which the Quran refutes. 

The Quran rebukes the people of the book for their misappropriation of the phrase "son of God" metaphorically on themselves 5:18. Here the verse is not making a sweeping condemnation of the usage of that terminology, rather its abuse. They were making that claim in the context of moral accountability. Being the sons of God implied them being His "beloved", honored among the nations, His favoured. Forgiveness was thus their due and will always eventually be restored to their station of nearness to God despite their sins. If that is the case then the Quran reminds the Jews more particularily, of the destructions that befell them throughout their recorded history.

Each of those, as related in their own books were the result of divine disapproval. None is immune in this life to hardships, whether the most righteous or the sinners. These difficulties are either meant to strengthen one's spiritual resolve, make him mend his ways, or utterly destroy him, not leaving him any chance to even repent 

3:140-1"and We bring these days to men by turns, and that Allah may know those who believe and take witnesses from among you; and Allah loves not the unjust. And that Allah may purge those who believe and eradicate the unbelievers". 

The violent hardship that befell those very ones claiming to be God's favored among the nations, were neither meant at improving their non-existent spirituality, nor to make them mend their ways and forgive them. God, their "father" meant to eradicate the sinners off the face of the earth. They knew this reality and could not offer an answer in defence of their claim of being God's "beloved". Their history of punishments, down to our recent times, is no example of a father-son relationship where the child is being lovingly raised and corrected. Further, because the verse does not forbid the notion of sonship to God, it does however make sure that anyone using it does not think of himself in any way intrinsically superior to other human beings 

5:18"you are mortals of His creating". 

Nowhere here or elsewhere does the Quran accuse individual Jews of claiming divinity, rather it seeks to blot out that notion even on a subconscious level.

In 19:34 following the story of Jesus' nativity and infancy, the Quran addresses 2 issues. First in a statement from God rejecting any notion of sonship to Him 19:35 and then in a quote from Jesus stressing the basic monotheistic principle that 

19:36"indeed, Allah is my Lord and your Lord, so worship Him; this is a straight path". 

In light of Jesus' clear statement, which happens to be quoted almost verbatim in the NT although in a different context Jn20:17, the Quran then continues by condemning as disbelievers those that contended, and still do, with these 2 principles 19:37. Jesus during his time among his people did not forbid the expression "son of God" since it did not carry ambiguous connotation to the Jews, as regards the relationship between the person whom the expression was applied to, and God. A "son of God" was neither an extension of God, nor shared in the divine essence. It is thus God who took it upon himself to reject the notion once it became perverted and loaded with polytheistic significance after Jesus. As a prophet however, Jesus, like his predecessors, always stressed the basic monotheistic tenets to his addressees, and hence the verse 19:36 rightly quotes him doing so. The whole passage from 19:30-7 in defence of Jesus aims at condemning people for different reasons and at different times during his life and prophetic mission. Where the Jews in Jesus' time transgressed in their use of that metaphorical appelation, was in the implicit notion of intrinsic honor due to them, the "children of God". Jesus in the NT condemns this Jewish self-conceit in no uncertain terms, whether it pertained to their abuse of the notion of sonship to God Jn3:10,8:42-44 as the Quran does in 5:18 quoted earlier, or whether that conceit was due to their Abrahamic ancestry Matt3:9,Lk3:8. When Jesus himself, the prophet in their midst could not in anyway be compared in greatness to the One that sent him Jn13:16 then why would they, the sinful ones boast of them being God's sons? This was no false humility from Jesus and when he asked to be honored as the father is Jn5:22-23, he meant in terms of recognition 

"Whoever does not honour the Son does no honour the Father who sent him". 

This is very similar to the Quranic statement that rejecting the messenger (dishonoring him) is the same as rejecting the One that sent him. Jesus in fact desired for his followers the same honor and glory that were due to him Jn17:21-22. 

It is remarkable to note how the Quran who, had it been the product of its historical milieu, should have followed the example of its predecessors in claiming the honorific sonship title to the Muslims. Instead it emphatically states that no one has any unconditional right or privilege against Allah. The only ones honored and privileged by Allah are those of correct faith and righteous deeds, regardless of their claim of belonging to a religious group or specific ancestry. And the highest distinction God may confer among His creatures, is that of obedient slaves. Such distinction does not cause an increase in relation to God, rather in relation to the rest of creation. Further, contrary to the "son of God" terminology, it does not carry the misleading notion of special privilege with God, nor of particularity in terms of essence and lineage.

The concept of a divine fatherly figure is different in Christianity. To Christians, God is the father firstly in relation to the son/Jesus whom he has "begotten not made" and of whom he is the head in the trinity. The Jewish and Christians concepts have nothing to do with oneanother and Jews loath that misappropriation of the term by trinitarian Christians. Even the extension of God as a paternal figure to regular Christians has nothing to do with the notion as described in relation to the Jewish nation.

This father-son connection is only used in Hebrew scriptures for the Jews themselves and all other instances where "sons of elohim" is translated "sons of God" in Christian Bibles is considered erroneous, not only from a Jewish theological perspective, but also from a contextual one. The word elohim although may apply to God, primarily means a powerful entity like for example judges, rulers or notables Ex7:1,4:16,22:6-7,20,1Sam28:12-13,Ps82:6.

One famous Christian rendition of "sons of elohim" as "sons of God" is in Gen6. With their "fallen angel" concept in mind, Christians prefer the "sons of God" rendition due to the mention of "nefilim" in v4 whom they speculate are the progeny of fallen angels/sons of God with sons of adam. Yet "sons of elohim" obviously is in reference to the progeny of men with great power, who rather than using their position for justice, committed crimes against their fellow men, abusing the "daughters of Adam", indulging in lawlessness to their benefit. Follows God's decision to destroy the world and everything in it, explicitly because of the human race's injustice, nothing is said about angels.

Everything is destroyed, since all this world was created for man to rule over it Gen1:29-31, except those chosen to survive in the ark. But again, nothing about angels or do Christians mean that mankind was destroyed because of the angels´ wickedness?

Now regarding the nefilim, the v4 says they were already on the earth in those days and they continued to be so afterward. They were not the result of mating between fallen angels and humans.

This race of people had the peculiarity of counting giants among them, who even survived the flood Numb13:22,33,Josh12:4. In proportion, these giants were to the Israelites what a grasshopper is to a regular human being. 

The Quran being the supreme protector of monotheism, never refers to God with such imperfect appellations, as it easily paves the ground for polytheistic beliefs, similar to the ones that polluted Christianity 17:110"HE has the best names". Interestingly, in Islam the closest one comes in paralleling God's relationship to His creatures, to that of human parent-children connection, is a hadith where the prophet compares the mercy of Allah towards the people with that of a mother to her infant. One of Allah's names, al-Rahman, stems from the root of rahm/the womb, evoking the nurturing, loving care of the mother.

Even when the masculine pronoun HE/HUWA is used in reference to Allah, it does not denote gender. In literature this masculine can either be the grammatical or biological masculine. Also, singular neutrality in Arabic is expressed with the masculine (not biological) pronoun. There is no IT in Arabic hence the use of the grammatical masculine HUWA to denote neutrality of gender (for a singular entity, while the feminine is used for a couple like the eyes). In the HB/NT, the title of "Father" has gender as well as sexual connotations. That notion of fatherhood associated with God may easily lead to polytheism, or at the least to false, exclusivist, monolatrous notions as one finds throughout the Hebrew writings. Christians however took that misleading appellation to a more crooked level, as seen above.