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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Similarly the Syriac Didascalia attributes divine honor to the bishop because

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

112:1-4"He is Allah, AHAD/One". 

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

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

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

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

Further, none is comparable to Him in any way;

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

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

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

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

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

Through all these means and devices 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Islam critiqued the prosecutor; Aisha, the Prophet and domestic abuse?

In answer to the video "Bizarre Narrations- Why Muhammad Shoved Aisha"

Beating is not promoted nor did the Quran invent domestic violence. The Quran canalizes such behavior by preventing an immediate jump to beating, by giving a very stringent procedure to prevent reaching to that point. Men, if they beat their wives, they do so out of anger, and afterwards try and justify it by saying religion allows it. What the Quran is doing is preventing this impulse, and it does so in a context where it reforms women status and appeals to men's taqwa, their God consciousness, with verses setting the natural order of Men-Women relationships.

Verses such as 30:21 and others

"And one of His signs is that He created mates for you from yourselves that you may find rest in them, and He put between you love and compassion; most surely there are signs in this for a people who reflect".

Men and women naturally deal in terms of love and compassion, meaning domestic violence is against the natural order of things.

In 4:34 the Quran uses the word qawwam, from Q-W-M and it means standing upright. It covers the meaning that the entity stands upright and that it helps others stand upright. Man is referred to as being qawwam over the woman by means of the bounties which he has been bestowed with, the bounties which he must use responsibly in the maintenance of his household. In other words, man cannot stand upright over the woman if he does not care and maintain his base, his wife. Qawwam in addition is in a grammatical form of siratul mubalagha, denoting a pattern of behavior.

In this case, the verse's opening is stating the husband is one behaving with a pattern of care towards his wife. The word carries also the notion of qima/value, making the qawwam the one who gives value ie to his wife, which negates emotional abuse, a domestic issue often addressed in the Quran.

As is obvious, domestic violence has nothing to do with the notion of qawwam, meaning the verse itself stipulates that proper treatment of a woman is exactly the opposite of hurting a women. This is why the Quran then goes on to provide an exhaustive means to prevent hitting in the first place, and even when one reaches the point where striking becomes a valid option, it must be done in a way that encourages a change of course and can never contradict the fundamental notion of man being qawwam over the woman. This will be shown a little later.

This passage, like many others where the divine law is expounded, the Quran wraps the passage with a message that connects the divine law with spiritual awareness. This is done so that man never loses sight of the spirit of the law. In this case, the passage ends with a mention of certain attributes of God; He is the High and Mighty. There is a greater Being, with more authority than man and he should therefore not abuse of his position. The attribute of Might is also well suited to the context; men may be stronger than woman, but there is One stronger than man. And if men abuse their power, then let them know that they will have to face the Almighty.

This style is used in other instances, such as when a man is told of his superiority over a wife in certain aspects of divorce procedures but reminded that this superiority is based on absolute wisdom and should that superiority be misused outside the bounds of wisdom, then there is One mightier than all

2:228"and the men are a degree above them, and Allah is Mighty, Wise".

Prior to the "beating" portion, first, the verse urges admonishment. This reveals the Quran engages the situation rationally, appealing to the intellect of the woman which was considered lower than a man's.

"those on whose part you fear nushuz"

KHAWF means fear of credible danger, as is consistent with all its occurrences in the Quran. So, it is not fear as in suspicion/Dhann. Dhann is to hold an opinion upon uncertain evidence. KHAWF is a fear about probable significant danger but it still does not refer to something obvious/blatant, and there is an element of relativity/subjectivity to it which is why the Quran tells to ITHOOHUNNA/advise them. Even though the reasons for fear are credible, they can still be incorrect. This advising will not be in a harsh manner, as can be seen by its occurrences in the Quran, for example 31:13-19. When you give advice, you give the advice and listen to what they have to say. Therefore if the reason for the fear is diffused, then the problem is diffused.

Another thing worth mentioning is that the word khawf denotes a significant threat in terms of marriage ties, it cannot be speaking of normal disagreements and disputes. This is corroborated by the life of the one that embodied the Quran, the prophet had many reported disputes with his wives but always kept his composure and patience, remaining of gentle character, neither did he qualify their behavior as nushuz. Nushuz from the root N-SH-Z means elevated. It is used, among other things, for when a person elevates themselves above others, as in rebellion or arrogance or disdaining others. This isnt about typical disagreements that arise normally during a marriage. One isnt disdainfully arrogant and disrespectful during such disputes.

That is why the verse then says that if the wife desists from her nushuz

"do not seek a way against them; surely Allah is High, Great".

Further, this kind of attitude is one that threatens the preservation of the private, ie the intimate conjugal matters which the verse states should never be compromised, hence the parallel made between the preservation of these issues with the manner in which Allah preserves the unseen, a realm and knowledge which is shared only partially and with a select few

"the righteous women (are) dedicated, preservers of the private, by what Allah preserved".

If that first step, of engaging the situation rationally doesnt work, the Quran tells the husband to resort to step 2, distance himself physically. This can be done by not sharing the bed for example which is an appeal to the emotion of the woman.

Most men, the vast majority, will not even think of beating their wife even after these 2 steps, rational, then emotional, aiming at stoping her nushuz have failed. 99% of couples will simply divorce at that point. However, the verse has specifically mentionned the option of beating in order to address 3 extreme situations.

First, as said in introduction, the issue of men who become violent due to impulsive anger. The verse offers them the option of beating, but after a gradual procedures precisely aimed at smoothly blocking their impulse and ultimately prevent beating. This is much more efficient than telling them from the get go that they cannot hit at all. One cannot expect a person behaving irrationally and emotionally to want to listen to a forceful instruction. It is well known that the best manner to deal with impulsive behavior is through mindful and calming steps.

In a situation where a husband fears nushuz from his wife in matters of transgression of the bounds of "guarding the unseen" which is a grave situation for any man of any culture, equal to backstabbing, an impulsive husband will immediately want to beat his wife, but the verse prevents that impulse, telling him to engage the situation rationally by first reasoning with his wife then refrain from physical contact

"admonish them, and leave them alone in the sleeping-places".

These 2 successive steps are crucial and effective at curbing a violent man's impulses and give him, as well as his wife, the time to cool-down and think.

At that point, the wife who stubbornly wants to keep going with her highly injurious attitude towards her husband knows that she just waisted 2 chances at solving the situation peacefully and rationaly and that now, if she wants to stay in the same household she has no choice but to mend her ways or face corrective physical punishement.

So even before resorting to beating, the wife with whom the appeal to her intellect and emotion through steps 1 and 2 did not work, who wants to stay in the same household and knows that her attitude was highly injurious will refrain by herself, thus settling the dispute. This is the second objective to allow beating, it serves as a deterrent to that type of woman. But if at that point, the woman genuinely did nothing wrong, decides not to change anything from her attitude while staying in the same household then she still knows that her husband, who believes to have been morally injured can resort to beating her.

So what will she do at that point and what option does the Sharia give her? Will she let her husband beat her while she thinks she has done nothing wrong? The Quran says

4:35"And if you fear a breech between the two, then appoint a judge from his people and a judge from her people; if they BOTH desire agreement, Allah will effect harmony between them; surely Allah is Knowing, Aware".

The words are clear and give her the right to appeal to a judge who will in turn designate an arbitrer from her side and her husband's, to settle the dispute and prove her right, or if she is proven wrong then she either mends her way and returns to the same household or simply divorce

"if they BOTH desire agreement".

The verse however clearly prefers reconciliation, as pointed in the words

"Allah will effect harmony between them; surely Allah is Knowing, Aware".

This is reiterated in 4:128 which states that in case a wife fears nushuz from her husband, the same word used previously for a rebellious, disdaining wife, then "there is no blame on them, if they effect a reconciliation between them, and reconciliation is better". 4:128 also stresses that attempts at reconciliation should be undertaken as soon as signs of nushuz appear, not when the wife is already abused

"And if a woman FEARS nushuz".

Another thing worth noting is that nushuz, the attitude of disrespectful disdain and arrogance, when used in the context of marriage, applies to both men and women, with a tendency for adultery. The word is used in that connotation in pre- as well as post Islamic texts. For instance when a case of domestic dispute was brought to the prophet, the husband claimed that his wife 

"is nashiz and wants to go back to Rifa`a (another man)". 

In a report believed to have been uttered towards the end of the prophet's life, he emphasized that the option of striking is in the context of sexual transgression, thus further pointing that nushuz, the action which allows several punitive measures including striking, is related to adultery 

"Surely, I enjoin you to treat women well, for they are like your captives. You do not have any right to treat them otherwise, unless they commit a clear obscenity/fahisha. If they do so, you may forsake their beds and then strike them without violence".

A woman isnt required to go through successive corrective steps to reform her husband, even if she only fears that her husband might become disrespectful, disdainful and arrogant. As soon as she sees the signs, she may appeal to a judge and only if she accepts reconciling, then the relationship may resume. Here is the verse again

"if they BOTH desire agreement".

We have seen until now how the Quran, contrary to any other religious scripture, deals with the issue of domestic violence in such a way that impulsive men cannot reach the point where they will use force. Secondly, it is a deterrant to an emotionally abusive woman willing to live in a household and be maintained by a man while being inclined to backstab him.

The 3rd purpose for allowing a husband to beat his wife is to address the issue of passionate, toxic relationships. In these types of unions, common to any time and culture, both may separate at any time, but instead, the abusive wife chooses to remain despite knowing the husband is about to resort to physical punitive measures and the husband chooses to remain despite having tried reforming an emotionally abusive wife.

None can be forced to divorce and only one option remains to reform the abusive party, physical punishment. This, again is an extreme case of passionate love where an abused husband wants to make his wife come back to her senses after having tried all peaceful avenues. Neither he wants to let go of her nor she wants to leave him despite both having the right to do so. The word used is IDRIBOOHUNNA, derived from the root Dhad-R-B and it means hitting of the limbs to serve a function. That function in this case is not only striking, but striking to encourage change of attitude and that cannot happen by a severe beating.  It is a kind of physical action that brings back the person to the senses and causes a change of behavior. This is how all the commentators understand the striking that is meant, as a noninjurious form of physical force.

This verse was revealed in ancient Arabia, in a time when the world as a whole viewed beating one’s wife as a right in the male dominated patriarchal society. If it reflected the mentality of its contemporaries then it wouldnt have addressed the issue from such an intricately psychological perspective.

In terms of misogyny, nothing in Islam remotely resembles what is found in Judeo-Christian texts and traditions, whose background is, the events of the garden painting Eve as the first to sin, then leading Adam to sin, and because of that was condemned to be "restrained" through subjection to the rule of her husband forever Gen3. Prior to the modern era, that notion was interpreted as warranting physical punishment for marital disobedience, in both Jewish and Christian traditions. In Christian texts, through the writings attributed to Paul, male rulership is associated with physical coercion in case of disobedience. This includes disobedience of subjects to their ruler, slaves to their masters, children to their fathers, and by obvious analogy, wives to their husbands. Rom13:1-5,Titus2:9-10,Eph6:5,Heb12:5-11,1Tim3:4,Ex21:20-21,Prov23:13-14,20:30,13:24 etc.

The prophet himself never beat his wives, abusive or not. Had it been his habit or had the Quran condoned domestic abuse, we would have seen a pattern in the prophet's life. In fact his wives had the option to divorce him anytime they wished and be graciously helped so as to start their new life unbothered. Not only was this pattern absent from his life, but we even see one of his wives, Umm Habiba asking him to marry her own sister so she can "share with her of the prophet's goodness", which he declined. 

The prophet approved of a woman's divorce request following physical and verbal domestic abuse from her husband. It was only expected by him given that he would not tolerate even the beating of women maid-servants

"one of us slapped her and Allah's messenger ordered us to set her free".

In fact it is said that this wife beating verse 4:34 was revealed in relation to the case of a woman that came complaining to the prophet that her husband had hit her. The prophet disliked that behavior, he was known for his good treatment of his wives. He was about to punish the perpetrator based on the law of retaliation then the verse came to educate husbands and wives on the matter. The prophet said

"I wanted one thing and God wanted another".

This is because, as shown earlier, there is wisdom in allowing corrective physical punishement in the intricate way that the Quran does.

4:19"..Nor should ye treat them with harshness..on the contrary live with them on a footing of kindness and equity.." 

30:21"And one of His signs is that He created mates for you from yourselves that you may find rest in them, and He put between you love and compassion; most surely there are signs in this for a people who reflect"

As unambiguously stated by Aisha

"The Messenger of Allah, peace and blessings be upon him, did not strike a servant or a woman, and he never struck anything with his hand".

This statement made long after the prophet's death, by itself is enough to negate any attempt at misrepresenting any related incident from the prophet's life and cast it in a bad light. But this isnt enough to the hatemongerers. The intellectual dishonesty is such that they quote and misrepresent an incident involving the same Aisha who said the prophet never hit a woman, in their bid to disparage him. The part of the hadith in question which is misunderstood is

"He struck me on the chest which caused me pain".

The Arabic lahaza does not denote striking, rather a nudge, and neither does the complete hadith justify the malicious misinterpretation of the critics. Being of gentle, forbearing character with his wives, as attested by too many ahadith to list, and even echoed in the Quran, the prophet in that hadith is depicted as silently leaving Aisha's quarter at night so as to not wake her up and going to a cemetery to pray for the dead, then hastily returning to the conjugal bed where he encountered Aisha suspicious of him. That is when he engaged Aisha physically by pushing her chest, not with the intention of beating or causing pain but to grab her attention as he is reported to have done in other cases 

"The Prophet struck my chest with his hand and he said.."sahih Muslim 1825 or Bukhari V4,B52,N310 "I informed the Prophet that I could not sit firm on horses, so he stroke me on the chest with his hand and I noticed his finger marks on my chest. He invoked, 'O Allah! Make him firm and a guiding and rightly-guided man.." Etc.

This physical manner in engaging a person to grab his/her attention was often done before teaching the important lesson that follows. In another narration the prophet said

"The most complete of the believers in faith are those with the best character, and the best of you are the best in behavior to their women".

Many ahadith are of the same import. For example the prophet used a particular expression in reference to women nature 

"Treat women nicely, for a women is created from a rib, and the most curved portion of the rib is its upper portion, so, if you should try to straighten it, it will break, but if you leave it as it is, it will remain crooked. So treat women nicely". 

According to al albani and sheikh al arnaout, the allusion to a rib is metaphorical, and this is obvious for several reasons. "ka dhilaa/like ribs" is used in other narrations figuratively. Even the Quran alludes to nature rather than physical origin when it says that 21:37"man has been created from hastiness". Also, Had the hadith been speaking of the physical origin of women then it would have mentionned the first or a particular woman as created from a rib. The prophet here is giving a subtle and pragmatic lesson in gender relationships. Just as a rib would break if one uses force against its naturally curved shape, a woman will break, and the relation with her husband as well, should one try to forcefully change her particular nature and character so as to fit one's tastes. And just as leaving the rib undisturbed will make it retain its natural shape, complete passivity in a relationship will make the woman keep her natural character (regardless of whether that character is good or bad). If a man therefore wants to try changing some traits in a woman, so as to make her more suited to his own personal disposition, then one should neither use force, nor be disinterested and detached, rather one should always be tactful.

It is important to keep in mind the verse's aim which is not to give a command to strike, hence the Quran's explicit silence on the modus operandi, but to address the issue of violent men who would be inclined to strike their wives whether with their hand, a stick or chain. And this, although the verse was revealed in ancient Arabia, in a time when the world as a whole viewed beating one’s wife as a right in the male dominated patriarchal society. Islamic judges of the classical era, based on the prophet's example and many reported sayings on husband-wife etiquette, used to frequently dissolve marriages based on domestic abuse, with the wife keeping her belongings and dowry and the husband responsible for spousal maintenance, requesting compensation and protection for the women, discouraging and admonishing husbands from comitting any type of violence against their wives. The 2nd caliph, Umar once meted out a punishment, a beating on a man as a result of him causing trouble and being harsh to his wife.