Quran Surah 5:73-75-a closer look

Salamu Alaykum(Peace be upon you)
So if you are like me and have seen the recent Youtube video exchange between Mr. Islamanswersback(aka Shadeed Lewis) and the Christian by the screen name Nakdimon, you know that there has been some debate regarding the Quran's stance of the Trinity and who makes up the Trinity. Now the Christian argument that the Trinity actually contains the Virgin Mary and that this is somehow taught by the Quran is not a new one. However we find that Christian apologsists and polemists tend to bring it up every once and awhile in a attempt to prove that the Quran is somehow false and wrong on a theological level. I have watched both Shadeed's and Nakdimon's videos on the subject and found myself wanting to do my own research totally independent of their own. Granted I will probably be repeating some of the arguments that they BOTH made, which would be natural considering that we are dealing with the same material. However I will say at the beginning that I agree with Shadeed when it comes to this topic. His argument can be summarized as the following: The Quran does not say Mary is a part of the Trinity, the Prophet Muhammad(Pbuh) did not teach this concept according to the authentic Hadith and the Prophet's Companions did not teach this either, thus there is no reason for any Muslim to think that Islam actually teaches such an idea. I would say this is a solid and straight forward argument which can be seen in full here:

Mr.Islamanswersback's video on the subject:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l6D71bRk4Nw

Now I would agree with Shadeed that the first place an educated Muslim should go to, to understand the meaning of the Quran is to first check on the greatest Tafsir of the Quran which is the Quran making Tafsir on itself. This is known to anyone who has ever been to a class on understanding Quranic exgesis and also anyone who has read a textbook on the subject. We find, as Shadeed shows in his videos, that the Quran does not say anywhere that the Trinity includes the Virgin Mary. There are only two places the Trinity is mentioned and it simply as Allah swt saying don't say it or believe in such a concept. In fact, again as Shadeed says, Allah swt does not even tell us makes up the Trinity, he simply condemns the concept on a theological level. Next we ask the question did the Prophet and his companions teach that the Virgin Mary was a member of the Trinity? The answer is no. There is no authentic hadith that states such a concept. So therefore we have to then go to the next level of source for a Muslim to understand the meaning of the Quran and that is the scholars of Tafsir. Now I can see why Shadeed felt that he didn't need to deal with the Tafsirs, since his original argument is well founded and sound. However once the Nakdimon brought up the Tafsirs, in my opinion, one should look at the evidences provided.

Now I want to be very clear at this point, I am not attempting to say that Shadeed needs my help regarding this topic, he does not, he is an excellent debator and can hold his own. Nor am I saying that I am actually trying to refute Nakdimon personally, I am not. I am simply going to examine the Tafsirs and see what they say as the texts of those documents are presented for us as plain as on our own computer screens. I will also be referring to Tafirs that are not online but are in published print format that I personally own to broaden the topic much more then Nakdimon took it. It is my goal and hopes that we can actually see what the Tafsirs see and then ascertain if it is a fact that the Tafsirs teach that the Virgin Mary is a part of the Trinity and that therefore the Quran is actually saying this and therefore we as Muslims, all 1.7 billion of us actually think this on a theological level.

We will first begin by looking at the Tafsir of Ibn Abbas(May Allah swt be pleased with him) regarding his views on this subject. The link for what I will be copying and pasting here can be seen here:

http://www.altafsir.com/Tafasir.asp?tMadhNo=2&tTafsirNo=73&tSoraNo=5&tAyahNo=73&tDisplay=yes&UserProfile=0&LanguageId=2

The follwing is the text of this Tafsir 5:73-75:

(They surely disbelieve who say: Lo! Allah is the third of three) this is the claim of the Marqusiyyah; they claim that there is a father, a son and a holy Spirit; (when there is no God) for the dwellers of the heavens and the earth (save the One God) who has no son or partner. (If they desist not from so saying) He says: if the Jews and Christians do not repent of what they are saying (a painful doom will fall on those of them who disbelieve) the pain of which will extend to their hearts.(73)
(Will they not rather turn unto Allah) repent of their claims (and seek forgiveness of Him?) by declaring His divine Oneness. (For Allah is Forgiving) of he who repents and believes, (Merciful) towards him who dies repentant.(74)
(The Messiah, son of Mary, was no other than a messenger) sent to people, (messengers (the like of whom) had passed away before him. And his mother was a saintly woman. And they both used to eat (earthly) food) they were both servants who used to eat food. (See) O Muhammad (how we make the revelations) the signs that Jesus and his mother were not gods (clear for them, and see) O Muhammad (how they are turned away) through lies!(75)

Now when we look at the text of the Tafsir itself we an see clearly that Ibn Abbas actually gives us the formula for the Trinity as plain as day: that it contains the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. There is no mention of the Virgin Mary at all being a member of this Trinity. We also see by verse 75 that the mentioning of Mary in is to show that she is not divine and like her son were human in nature. Again not even Ibn Abbas, and for that matter Tabari's Tafsir since he used Ibn Abbas' to back up his own views, show that the Virgin Mary is part of the Trinity.

We now turn to the Tafsir of Al-Jalalayn which can be seen via link here:

http://www.altafsir.com/Tafasir.asp?tMadhNo=1&tTafsirNo=74&tSoraNo=5&tAyahNo=73&tDisplay=yes&UserProfile=0&LanguageId=2

The following is the text of the Tafsir for chapter 5:73-75:


They are indeed disbelievers those who say, ‘God is the third of three’, gods, that is, He is one of them, the other two being Jesus and his mother, and they [who claim this] are a Christian sect; when there is no god but the One God. If they do not desist from what they say, when they declare a trinity, and profess His Oneness, those of them who disbelieve, that is, [those] who are fixed upon unbelief, shall suffer a painful chastisement, namely, the Fire.(73)
Will they not turn in repentance to God and seek His forgiveness?, for what they say (the interrogative is intended as a rebuke); God is Forgiving, to the one who repents, Merciful, to him.(74)
The Messiah, son of Mary, was only a messenger; messengers passed away before him, and so he passed away like them, for he is not a god as they claim, otherwise he would not have passed away; his mother was a truthful woman, [siddīqa means] extremely truthful; they both used to eat food, like all other human beings, and one who is such cannot be a god because of his compound being and fallible nature, and because of the [impurities such as] urine and excrement that he produces. Behold, in amazement, how We make the signs, of Our Oneness, clear to them, then behold, how they are turned away!, [how] they are turned away from the truth despite the proof being established.(75)

Now here I will admit that this Tafsir does say that the Virgin Mary is a member of the Trinity. One cannot deny this considering that it is plainly seen there in the text. However it should be noted that one who reads these Tafsirs needs to understand the nature of the Tafsirs themselves. I have made a video talking specifically about this Tafsir which can be seen here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B3Z201dqMn0

In this video I explain that this Tafsir specifically according to other scholars and the ranking of authoratative commentary is viewed as not being the most authoratative mainly because Jalalayn tended to go with his own views and not back up them up using the Quran, Sunna and other past Tafsirs which would have made it more authoratative according to the views of Tafsir scholarship. Therefore we must ask the question, who us authority, as later scholar of Tafsir, is he making such a claim? Even if he did believe the Quran to teaching this we should also note one letter which totally points to the understanding of this commentary. That letter is: "a". Yes because on a careful reading of the text of the Tafsir it clearly says "and they [who claim this] are a Christian sect", meaning not ALL Christians, but a sect within Christianity is saying this. Now I am not saying that the Sheikh is historically correct to make such an argument, more research would have to be done to see if any Christian group outside of the Orthodoxy thought this on a theological level. However he is making the historic and theological claim that "a Christian sect" believed this and not all of Christians.

With regards to verse 75 again Jalalyan simply states that because of the natural need to eat food and then use the toliet Jesus and Mary were human beings and not divine, going in line with the past Tafsirs of higher authority then his own.

The next Tafsir we will look at is Ibn Kathir's which can be viewed for yourself via this link:

http://www.tafsir.com/default.asp?sid=5&tid=14362

Now I am not going to copy and paste all of Ibn Kathir's material on this subject, because it would take up a lot of space, however if you follow the link and read along with my comments you will see what my points are. He begins by discussing the views of three specific Christian groups: Monarchite, Jacobite and Nestorite, for saying that Jesus is simply God. He goes into detail by using the ultimate Tafsir, the Quran upon itself, to show how Jesus is not God and never claimed to be God. However regarding the Trinity specifically Ibn Kathir writes the following:

(Surely, they have disbelieved who say: "Allah is the third of three.") Mujahid and several others said that this Ayah was revealed about the Christians in particular. As-Suddi and others said that this Ayah was revealed about taking `Isa and his mother as gods besides Allah, thus making Allah the third in a trinity. As-Suddi said, "This is similar to Allah's statement towards the end of the Surah,

(And (remember) when Allah will say: "O `Isa, son of Maryam! Did you say unto men: `Worship me and my mother as two gods besides Allah' He will say, "Glory be to You!")[5:116]. Allah replied,

But there is no god but One God.) meaning there are not many worthy of worship but there is only One God without partners, and He is the Lord of all creation and all that exists. Allah said next, while threatening and admonishing them,

We can see from Ibn Kathir that he quotes two scholars who have two views about the verse's meaning about the Trinity. The first is Mujahid who only says this was revealed about the Christians. The other scholar is As-Suddi who does say that the verse is implying that because certain Christians took Jesus and his Mother as gods besides Allah they made Allah a third in a Trinity. However it should be noted that Ibn Kathir does not way in and express is own opinion but simply quotes two scholars' views on the subject. Again it should also be noted that both scholars quoted state that the Quran says Trinity=Virgin Mary is a member, nor do they say the Prophet taught such a concept. We are left to wonder how the As-Suddi came up with such an idea, even though he does point out another verse which condemns the claims that worshipping the Virgin Mary was okay in the eyes of God Almighty.

The major point that needs to be rememberd here is that Ibn Kathir quotes two scholars, one who does not define the Trinity, and another who attempts to do so. So we as Muslims are left to wonder, who is right? What was Ibn Kathir's views on the subject, did he hold an opinion of his own? This sort of evidence leaves us to seek out other areas and as I have already noted the idea of the Virgin Mary being considered by the vast majority of Muslim scholars and laymen to be a member of the Trinity is not something that is believed. When cannot make a solid argument by using Ibn Kathir's Tafsir because he simply states the opinions of two scholars and leaves it alone. To make an argument out of such a netural presentation in my mind would be the wrong thing to do. We can discuss the two different opinions and see what makes sense to us on a subjective level, but to say that this is a total answer to our question in my opinion is wrong.

Ibn Kathir's views on verse 75 is in line with the other Tafsirs.

I will now continue with the other Tafsirs I own in a attempt to show what other scholars have said regarding this topic. When I checked the commentary done by Abdullah Yusuf Ali and Muhammad Asad they did not state anywhere that the Trinity included Mary, but simply pointed out the flaw in certain Chrisitan theology that Jesus is divine and so is his Mother via verse 75. Yet the Trinity is never included in the discussion of the Virgin Mary. Something two scholars of their status would have covered if this was such a huge debate or concept in Islam. When I looked up the commentary done by Mulana Muhammad Ali this text was a glaring answer to this question:

"It should be noted that the name of Mary is never mentioned in connection with the doctrine of the Trinity. But as the Christians, especially the Roman Catholics, invested Mary with Divine character, as being the mother of God, the Quran often mentions hr along with Jesus as being an ordinary mortal."(pg. 270 "The Holy Quran" note 73a. Here the Mulana is clearly stating that the Quran does not teach that Mary is connected to the Trinity. His views on verse 75 are the same as the above Tafsirs.

The last Tafsir I would like to reproduce for you all is the one done by Sheikh Maududi. It shoud be noted that the following is not just commentary on verses 73-75 but also on verses 77, however the entire commentary is relevant to this discussion. The entire text will be reproduced here and a link at the very end will allow you to read it all for yourself.

The text of the Tafsir done by Sheikh Maududi:

"100. In these few words the Christian doctrine of the divinity of Christ is repudiated. The nature of the Messiah is clear from the indications given here; he was merely a human being. He was one born from the womb of a woman, who had a known genealogy, who possessed a physical body, who was subject to all the limitations of a human being and who had all the attributes characteristic of human beings. He slept, ate, felt the discomfort of heat and cold and was so human that he was even put to the test by Satan. How could any reasonable person believe that such a being was either God or a partner or associate of God in His godhead? But the Christians continue to insist on the divinity of the Messiah, whose life has been portrayed in their own Scriptures as that of a human. The fact of the matter is that they do not believe at all in the historical Messiah. They have woven a Messiah out of their imagination and have deified that imaginary being.

101. This refers to those misguided nations from whom the Christians derived their false beliefs and ways, particularly to the Hellenistic philosophers under the spell of whose ideas the Christians had veered from the straight way they had originally followed. The beliefs of the early followers of the Messiah were mainly in conformity with the reality they had witnessed, and conformed to the teachings they had received from their guide and mentor. But they later resorted to an exaggerated veneration of Jesus, and interpreted their own beliefs in the light of the philosophical doctrines and superstitious ideas of the neighbouring nations. Thus they invented an altogether new religion not even remotely related to the original teachings of the Messiah. In this connection the observations of a Christian theologian, the Reverend Charles Anderson Scott are significant. In a lengthy article entitled 'Jesus' Christ', published in the fourteenth edition of Encyclopaedia Britannica, he writes:

. . . there is nothing in these three Gospels to suggest that their writers thought of Jesus as other than human, a human being specially endowed with the Spirit of God and standing in an unbroken relation to God which justified His being spoken of as the 'Son of God'. Even Matthew refers to Him as the carpenter's son and records that after Peter had acknowleged Him as Messiah he 'took Him aside and began to rebuke Him' (Matthew, xvi. 22). And in Luke the two disciples on the way to Emmaus can still speak of Him as 'a prophet mighty in deed and word before God and all the people' (Luke, xxiv. 19). It is very singular that in spite of the fact that before Mark was composed 'the Lord' had become the description of Jesus common among Christians, He is never so described in the second Gospel (nor yet in the first, though the word is freely used to refer to God). All three relate the Passion of Jesus with a fullness and emphasis of its great significance; but except the 'ransom' passage (Mark, x. 45) and certain words at the Last Supper there is no indication of the meaning which was afterwards attached to it. It is not even suggested that the death of Jesus had any relation to sin or forgiveness.

A little further on he writes:

That He ranked Himself as a prophet appears from a few passages such as 'It cannot be that a prophet perish out of Jerusalem'. He frequently referred to Himself as the Son of Man; but while this must be maintained in face of influential opinions to the contrary, the result for our purpose is less important than we might expect, for the possible meanings of the phrase are as numerous as the sources from which it may possibly have been derived. They range from simple 'man' through 'man in his human weakness' and the representative 'Man' to the supernatural man from heaven foreshadowed in Daniel. If we had to postulate one source and one meaning for the phrase as used by Jesus of Himself, it would probably be found in Psalm Ixxx., where the poignant appeal to God for the redemption of Israel runs out on the hope of a 'son of man whom thou madest strong for thyself. The same author adds:

Certain words of Peter spoken at the time of Pentecost, 'A man approved of God', described Jesus as He was known and regarded by His contemporaries. He was 'found in fashion as a man', that is, in all particulars which presented themselves to outward observation He Appeared and behaved as one of the human race. He 'was made man'. The Gospels leave no room for doubt as to the completeness with which these statements are to be accepted. From them we learn that Jesus passed through the natural stages of development, physical and mental, that He hungered, thirsted, was weary and slept, that He could be surprised and require information, that He suffered pain and died. He not only made no claim to omniscience, He distinctly waived it. This is not to deny that He had insight such as no other ever had, into human nature, into the hearts of men and the purposes and methods of God. But there is no reason to suppose that He thought of the earth as other than the centre of the solar system, of any other than David as the author of the Psalms, or did not share the belief of His age that demons were the cause of disease. Indeed, any claim to omniscience would be not only inconsistent with the whole impression created by the Gospels, it could not be reconciled with the cardinal experiences of the Temptation, of Gethsemane and of Calvary. Unless such experiences were to be utterly unreal, Jesus must have entered into them and passed through them under the ordinary limitations of human knowledge, subject only to such modifications of human knowledge as might be due to prophetic insight or the sure vision of God.

There is still less reason to predicate omnipotence of Jesus. There is no indication that He ever acted independently of God, or as an independent God. Rather does He acknowledge dependence upon God, by His habit of prayer and in such words as 'this kind goeth not forth save by prayer'. He even repudiates the ascription to Himself of goodness in the absolute sense in which it belongs to God alone. It is a remarkable testimony to the truly historical character of these Gospels that though they were not finally set down until the Christian Church had begun to look up to the risen Christ as to a Divine Being, the records on the one hand preserve all the evidence of His true humanity and on the other nowhere suggest that He thought of Himself as God.

The same author also observes that:

He proclaimed that at and through the Resurrection Jesus had been publicly installed as Son of God with power; and if the phrase has not wholly lost its official Messianic connotation, it certainly includes a reference to the personal Sonship, which Paul elsewhere makes clear by speaking of Him as God's 'own Son' . . .

It may not be possible to decide whether it was the primitive community or Paul himself who first put full religious content into the title 'Lord' as used of Christ. Probably it was the former. But the Apostle undoubtedly adopted the title in its full meaning, and did much to make that meaning clear by transferring to 'the Lord Jesus Christ' many of the ideas and phrases which in the Old Testament had been specifically assigned to the Lord Jehovah. God 'gave unto Him that name that is above every name - the name of "Lord"'. At the same time by equating Christ with the Wisdom of God and with the Glory of God, as well as ascribing to Him Sonship in an absolute sense, Paul claimed for Jesus Christ a relation to God which was inherent and unique, ethical and personal, eternal. While, however, Paul in many ways and in many aspects, equated Christ with God, he definitely stopped short of speaking of him as 'God'.

In another article in Encyclopaedia Britannica (xiv edition), under the title 'Christianity', the Reverend George William Knox writes as follows about the fundamental beliefs of the Church:

Its moulds of thought are those of Greek philosophy, and into these were run the Jewish teachings. We have thus a peculiar combination - the religious doctrines of the Bible, as culminating in the person of Jesus, run through the forms of an alien philosophy.

The Doctrine of the Trinity. The Jewish sources furnished the terms Father, Son and Spirit. Jesus seldom employed the last term and Paul's use of it is not altogether clear. Already in Jewish literature it had been all but personified (Cf. the Wisdom of Solomon). Thus the material is Jewish, though already doubtless modified by Greek influence: but the problem is Greek; it is not primarily ethical nor even religious, but it is metaphysical. What is the ontological relationship between these three factors? The answer of the Church is given in the Nicene formula, which is characteristically Greek, . . .

Also significant in this connection are the following passages of another article in Encyclopaedia Britannica (xiv edition), entitled 'Church History': The recognition of Christ as the incarnation of the Logos was practically universal before the close of the 3rd century, but His deity was still widely denied, and the Arian controversy which distracted the Church of the 4th century concerned the latter question. At the Council of Nicaea in 325 the deity of Christ received official sanction and was given formulation in the original Nicene Creed. Controversy continued for some time, but finally the Nicene decision was recognised both in East and West as the only orthodox faith. The deity of the Son was believed to carry with it that of the Spirit, who was associated with Father and Son in the baptismal formula and in the current symbols, and so the victory of the Nicene Christology meant the recognition of the doctrine of Trinity as part of the orthodox faith. The assertion of the deity of the Son incarnate in Christ raised another problem which constituted the subject of dispute in the Christological controversies of the 4th and following centuries. What is the relation of the divine and human natures in Christ? At the Council of Chalcedon in 451 it was declared that in the person of Christ are united two complete natures, divine and human, which retain after the union all their properties unchanged. This was supplemented at the 3rd Council of Constantinople in 680 by the statement that each of the natures contains a will, so that Christ possesses two wills. The Western Church accepted the decisions of Nicaea, Chalcedon and Constantinople, and so the doctrines of the Trinity and of the two natures in Christ were handed down as orthodox dogma in West as well as East.

Meanwhile in the Western Church the subject of sin and grace, and the relation of divine and human activity in salvation, received special attention; and finally, at the 2nd Council of Orange in 529, after both Pelagianism and semi-Pelagianism had been epudiated, a moderate form of Augustinianism was adopted, involving the theory that every man as a result of the Fall is in such a condition that he can take no steps in the direction of salvation until he has been renewed by the divine grace given in baptism, and that he cannot continue in the good thus begun except by the constant assistance of that grace, which is mediated only by the Catholic Church.

It is evident from these statements of Christian scholars that it was exaggerated love and veneration of Christ which led the early Christians astray. This exaggeration and the use of expressions such as 'Lord' and 'Son of God' led to Jesus being invested with divine attributes and to the peculiar Christian notion of redemption, even though these could not be accommodated into the body of the teachings of Christ. When the Christians came to be infected with philosophical doctrines, they did not abandon the original error into which they had fallen, but tried to accommodate the errors of their predecessors through apologetics and rational explanations. Thus, instead of returning to the true teachings of Christ, they used logic and philosophy to fabricate one false doctrine after another. It is to this error that the Qur'an calls the Christians' attention in these verses"

http://www.islamicstudies.info/tafheem.php?sura=5&verse=67&to=77

We can see from the above that Islam does not teach as a whole majority that the Virgin Mary is a member of the Trinity. What is clear from classical scholars to modern ones is that certain Christians may of claimed her to be a member, but that this is certainly not what all Christians believed or still believe to this day. Furthermore many do see the giving of divine attributes to both Jesus and his mother as being a sinful theological concept, one that Catholics and others to this day believe.

The last point I would like to make is that when a subject such as this falls to the feet of the scholars of Islam(specifically Tafsir) to make a verdict on, the said verdict can only be established and binding on all Muslims if there is a majority consensus opinion on this subject. It would appear, unless other evidences can be provided, that the majority of Muslim scholars understand the Trinity as Christians present to us. We may discuss variant views that do crop up in the Chrisitan community, but at the end of the day Allah swt clearly condemns the Trinity without discussing who those members are. Each verse needs to be looked at carefully and with as much evidence provided as possible to ascertain what the text is clearly saying instead of reading into the text something that is not there.

I hope this small article can at least add another point of view regarding this topic, it is one that needs to be discussed, but also one, like with all topics of scripture, handled with care.

Thanks for you time and consideration.