Trinity vs. Islam

An interesting topic of debate is whether the Trinitarian Christian concept of God constitutes Shirk (Arabic: شِرْك, lit. 'association') from Islamic perspective. The divinity of the Logos is not understood as a separate or secondary deity (deuteros theos). This belief harmonizes with the Qur’anic concept of divine unity (tawhid), which is why traditional Christian orthodoxy is sharply distinct from Arianism, which viewed the Logos as a created and subordinate being, a lesser, secondary deity beside the one God. The Greek philosophical idea of an intermediary "demiurge" was explicitly rejected, instead it was declared that there are only two modes of being: the uncreated (God) and the created (everything else).

 

The Qur'an critiques shirk, associating others with God in divinity or worship. However, Christianity does not fit this critique, as the relationship within the Trinity does not involve separate entities or partners external to God. Interestingly, there are parallels between the Christian understanding of the Logos and that the Qur’an is considered uncreated and eternal in Islamic theology, similarly Christians view the Logos as the eternal Word.

 

So Christianity is fully monotheistic, it neither introduces nor associates partners with God. Instead, it affirms the unity and indivisibility of the divine essence, while recognizing the relational distinction within God’s self-revelation. The accusations of shirk against Christianity often stem from misunderstandings of the Trinity or comparisons to polytheistic frameworks, which Christianity explicitly rejects.

 

Although the Quran does indeed critique the "Trinity", but according to many researchers it is not the Trinity that the Catholic and Eastern Orthodox synodal definitions contain. For example, the Quran condemns the idea that God has a "son", the question is whether this is the same sonship as what Nicene understanding asserts, for example W. Montgomery Watt argues that the Quran refers specifically to an unorthodox notion of "physical sonship".

 

When Islam was born, Protestantism did not exist, Arianism was practically eliminated, this Catholic view represented 98% of Christianity, although I don't know in what Christian trends may have emerged in contemporary Arabia, but if there really existed a “Christian” community that recognized the Virgin Mary as a deity, then from the Catholic point of view it was only a minor, insignificant heterodox sect.

 

Basically, I just wanted to address here that this orthodox type of Trinity is not "Shirk" from an Islamic perspective either, since it does not posit the Logos/Jesus as another deity "beside" the one God, it does not break monotheism. Christianity also affirms that God is "one" in the sense conveyed by the Hebrew echad (אֶחָד) and its cognate Arabic ahad (أَحَد), emphasizing God's unique and unified nature as the sole divine being.

 

Thomas Aquinas's statement, "For there is neither composition of quantitative parts in God, since He is not a body; nor composition of matter and form; nor does His nature differ from His 'suppositum'; nor His essence from His existence; neither is there in Him composition of genus and difference, nor of subject and accident. Therefore, it is clear that God is nowise composite, but is altogether simple," does not violate the concept of Tawhid in Islam.

 

This assertion emphasizes God's absolute simplicity, unity, and indivisibility—qualities that align with the core Islamic belief in Allah's oneness and transcendence. God is free from all forms of composition, division, or multiplicity, affirming that His essence and existence are one and the same. This understanding resonates with the Islamic concept of Tawhid, which asserts that God is uniquely "one" (ahad), without parts, partners, or dependency. Thus, this perspective reinforces the theological principle of divine simplicity, which does not conflict with the central tenets of monotheism, as upheld in Tawhid.

 

In Christian terminology, the term "God" is used in three senses:

1. the person of the Father,

2. the entire Godhead, the one divine essence,

3. qualitative or derivative sense.

In the first two senses of these, the Logos/Jesus is not "God" according to Christianity either.

 

So I think “Shirk” is eventually something that violates the first part of Shahada (“la ilaha illa'llah”), believing, professing or worshipping any other deities, than the one God, who created the universe. If we can agree on this definition, then Christian view is not Shirk. It may be wrong and incorrect from an Islamic perspective, but it is not "Shirk", and that is the point. Many Quranists believe that this first half of the Shahada makes someone a "believer", but this is also what Christians believe: "there are no other deities but the one God". For example, I've heard from many Muslims that Jesus was also a Muslim, well, if accepting the first half of the Shahada makes someone one, then yes, but then so are all the Christians :)

 

Christianity is not monolithic and has encompassed diverse interpretations over its history. While some early sects, like the Arians, rejected the Trinity, the doctrine was solidified through ecumenical councils (e.g., Nicaea and Chalcedon) and remains central to most mainstream Christian traditions today. This diversity, however, does not diminish the commitment of orthodox Christianity to monotheism. However the Arian "model" is much more problematic for Islamic perspective, since it professes a seconder, lesser deity beside the Supreme God.

 

Even from an Islamic perspective, it is not true that Jesus is “just a prophet”, the Quran ascribes unique attributes to Jesus, that set him apart from all other prophets. While the Islamic perspective does not assert Jesus’ divinity, it also does not view him as merely “a mere mortal human being.” Consider the following:

• Virgin Birth: Jesus was born of the Virgin Mary (Maryam) without a father, an event unparalleled among prophets. The Quran explicitly describes this miraculous birth (19:19-21), elevating Jesus above ordinary humanity.

• The Messiah (Al-Masih): The Quran refers to Jesus as "Al-Masih" (Messiah) multiple times (e.g., 3:45, 4:171). This title is unique to Jesus and denotes his special role in God’s plan, even if its interpretation differs from Christian theology.

• Return of Jesus: Islamic eschatology holds that Jesus will return at the end of times to restore justice, a role not assigned to any other prophet.

• Miracles: Jesus performed miracles by God’s permission (3:49), including healing the blind, raising the dead, and creating a bird from clay, further distinguishing him.

• "Word of God" and "Spirit from Him": The Quran describes Jesus as "a Word from Him" and "a Spirit proceeding from Him" (4:171), designations not used for any other prophet.

• Quran 19:33-34: Jesus speaks as an infant, proclaiming his blessedness and mission.

• Quran 3:45: Jesus is described as "held in honor in this world and the Hereafter."

These attributes make it clear that from an Islamic perspective, Jesus holds a status that transcends the role of an ordinary prophet, even if he is not viewed as divine. So Jesus holds a special place within Islamic theology, challenging the notion that he is merely “a mortal human being like Adam.”

 

The assertion that attributing divinity to Jesus constitutes “shirk” under the Quranic critique misunderstands orthodox Christology. According to this doctrine Jesus is fully God and fully man, without confusion, change, division, or separation. The divinity of the Logos is not a separate deity but is united with Jesus’ human nature in one person. This does not equate to polytheism or associating a partner (shirk) with God. The expression "without confusion" will be the key word here, because Eutychianism would indeed be "shirk", but according to Chalcedonian orthodoxy, the humanity and divinity of Jesus were not “mixed”, they are ontologically distinguishable, and Christian orthodoxy do not claim the divinity of Jesus' humanity.

 

Such a heterodox understanding of Jesus would also violate the Christian concept of God, which affirms His absolute infinity, ontological simplicity, and immutability. God would undergo change through the Incarnation if He became human in a way that ceased His divine nature; or if, in the sense of the Protestant kenotic doctrine, He renounced some of His divine attributes; or if He absorbed humanity into His nature, that is, into the sphere of His divine life (monophysitism).

 

So here we have to look at the principle of contradiction: something cannot be both true and not true, at the same time and from the same perspective. Jesus is a real human, and no one claims that the Jesus as a man is God. Christian theology upholds the simplicity of God’s essence. The Trinity does not divide God into parts or separate deities but describes relational distinctions within the one, undivided divine essence. Thus, the Quran’s critique of “Shirk” does not apply to orthodox Christian theology, which maintains God’s unity and indivisibility. The accusation of Shirk stems from a misunderstanding of Christian terminology, not from a direct theological contradiction.

 

The Quran critiques certain beliefs about Jesus, but it is essential to consider the historical context. The Quran likely addresses heterodox sects, such as those that might have deified Mary or misunderstood Jesus’ nature. For example, Quran 5:116 critiques those who took Jesus and Mary as gods besides Allah. This does not correspond to mainstream Christian Trinitarian theology. While it is true that sects like the Arians and Ebionites existed, they were not representative of the Christian majority, nor were their beliefs in alignment with Nicene Christianity. These sects were marginal by the 7th century, and their views do not define Christian orthodoxy. The Quran’s polemics against certain Christian beliefs might therefore reflect these local expressions of Christianity rather than a rejection of orthodox Trinitarian theology.

 

As I have emphasized, these non-Trinitarian Christians are far worse from an Islamic perspective than orthodox Trinitarians, since they consider the Logos to be a lesser, secondary deity in addition to the one God, so Muhammad rightly criticized them. The Arian Christians are the equivalent of the Muʿtazilites in Islam. The view that there is one God, and on top of that there is also Jesus, who is also divine in some sense, is not an orthodox Christian view. The man Jesus is a man, not God, neither in part nor in whole. Whether, as distinguished from his humanity, Jesus is also the Logos in his person is a separate issue, but the point is that the man Jesus is not positioned within the one God, because – as you rightly noted – the divinity cannot be attributed to any created reality.

 

The doctrine of the Trinity, as articulated in Christian theology, does not violate the essence of tawhid (the oneness of God). The Trinity is not a division of God’s essence but a description of relational distinctions within the one divine being. The Logos is not a secondary or lesser deity. This is fundamentally different from the polytheistic concept of multiple gods. Christians affirm the Shema ("Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one" – Deuteronomy 6:4) and its equivalent in Islamic theology (Quran 112:1: "Say, He is Allah, [who is] One").

 

In Surah Al-Ma’idah (5:116), the Quran critiques Christians who take Jesus and Mary as deities besides Allah. This portrayal does not align with the Nicene or Chalcedonian definitions of the Trinity, where Mary is not part of the Godhead. The Catholic understanding is explicit that God is one in essence. This misrepresentation of the Trinity suggests that the Quran addresses certain heterodox Christian sects, such as Collyridians, who may have worshipped Virgin Mary in a quasi-divine role, rather than the orthodox Trinitarian theology that Catholicism espouses. So what the Quran condemns as Kufr (disbelief) is a heterodox version of the Trinity (e.g., Mary as part of the Godhead or Jesus as a separate deity) does not constitute a critique of Catholic or Nicene Christianity. This distinction is crucial because the theological target of the Quran's critique does not align with what the Catholic Church teaches. Furthermore, this does not negate the possibility of theological dialogue. Recognizing that these are distinct theological frameworks allows for a respectful discussion of differences without misrepresentation.

 

Tawhid in its original sense does not mean Unitarianism, but only that God is “one” (ahad), which the Bible also teaches in the same way, in Hebrew echad, in Greek heis. The assertion that the Christian understanding of God violates the Quranic essence of tawhid presumes that Unitarianism (as defined in Islamic theology) is the sole framework for monotheism. However, the Christian doctrine of the Trinity also upholds the unity and indivisibility of God: Christianity affirms that God is one (Deuteronomy 6:4, Quran 112:1). The purely relational distinctions within the Godhead do not divide God’s essence but describe the internal relationships of the one single divine being. God's essence is simple, indivisible, and infinite, a principle also central to Tawhid. The relational distinctions within the Godhead are not separate deities or beings, beside the one God. They do not contradict Tawhid because they do not introduce multiplicity into God's essence. This is a matter of theological nuance rather than outright contradiction.

 

The Chalcedonian definition maintains the ontological difference between the human Jesus and God, Christian theology does not position the humanity of Jesus within the Godhead. Instead, it asserts that the Logos (Word) is uncreated and consubstantial with the Father. This aligns with the Quran’s affirmation that God’s Word (Kalima, kalamullah) is eternal and uncreated (Surah Al-Baqarah 2:255). The Quranic rejection of associating Jesus with God likely critiques a misunderstanding that conflates Jesus’ humanity with divinity, something orthodox Christology explicitly avoids. It would be Shirk if the Incarnation were interpreted as meaning that the Jesus as a human entered into an ontological relationship with God and that the divine essence underwent an ontological change.

 

The Christian doctrine of the Trinity does not introduce "deities besides God." Orthodox Christianity holds that there is no division in God’s essence, and no part of creation, including the humanity of Jesus, is considered divine. This avoids the Quranic definition of Shirk (associating partners with God), as the divinity of the Logos is not a separate or additional deity. By your own reasoning, Shirk involves worshiping created beings alongside Allah. Orthodox Christianity rejects this entirely, maintaining that the divinity of the Logos is uncreated, while Jesus’ humanity remains fully human and ontologically distinct from the divinity of the Logos. Would you even consider Nestorianism to be Shirk?

 

From both Catholic and theological perspectives, seeking Mary’s intercession is not worship. The Catholic Church is explicit that latria (worship/adoration) is reserved for God alone, while hyperdulia, the highest form of veneration, is rendered to Mary because of her unique role in salvation history as the Theotokos. The Quran itself supports the concept of intercession (e.g., Surah 2:255), provided it is granted by Allah. Catholics view Mary’s intercession as entirely dependent on God’s will and power. When Catholics "call upon" Mary, they are not attributing divinity to her or believing she acts independently of God. Instead, they are asking her to pray on their behalf, just as Muslims seek the prayers of others.

 

The comparison to Abraham’s people worshiping statues (Surah 21:52-54) misunderstands Catholic theology. Statues or icons of Mary are representations, not objects of worship (“not to grant true ‘latria’ [=worship] according to our faith, which is proper to divine nature alone”, “not that any divinity or virtue is believed to be in them”). Catholics simply use these as visual reminders to honor her (“raised to the memory and desire of the originals of these”, “for the honor of the image passes to the original”, “the honor which is shown them, is referred to the prototypes which they represent”), not as idols. Unlike Abraham's people, Catholics do not believe Mary or her images can act independently of God. Surah Al-Ma'idah (5:116) critiques those who “took Jesus and Mary as gods beside Allah.” However, this does not apply to Catholic doctrine. The Catholic Church explicitly rejects the idea of Mary as a deity. The critique likely addresses heterodox Christian groups, such as the Collyridians, who deified Mary, not mainstream Catholic Trinitarianism.

 

Protestants often conflate “prayer” “to” Mary with worship. In Catholic theology, “prayer” (in this sense: simply a petition) “to” Mary is not the same as worship—it is a form of asking for her intercession, much like asking a living person to pray for you (cf. “ora pro nobis”). Protestants themselves ask for intercession from others in prayer groups or communities. If asking others for prayer is not worship, asking Mary for prayer (as someone alive in heaven) is not worship either.

 

It is correct that Surah 5:116 does not directly address the Trinity as defined by the Nicene or Chalcedonian formulas. Instead, it critiques the perceived worship of Jesus and Mary. However, this misunderstanding arises due to the local context of heretical sects. The Quran addresses specific "Christian" groups in Arabia, such as the Collyridians, who did venerate Mary in a quasi-divine role. These groups were not representative of orthodox Christianity. The Quran’s critique does not match the Nicene understanding of the Trinity. In Catholic theology Mary is not and has never been part of the Godhead.

 

The Christian doctrine of the Trinity does not contradict the core principles of Tawhid, because both traditions affirm God’s absolute unity and simplicity, and in Trinitarian theology, God is one essence, and not three separate gods but internal, eternal relationships within the one divine being.

 

The claim that the divinity of the Logos constitutes Shirk misunderstands the hypostatic union, because the divinity of the Logos is not a "second god" (deuteros theos) alongside the one God. The Logos (Word) is consubstantial with the Father, and His humanity is distinct yet united to His divine nature. Chalcedonian Christology explicitly avoids the confusion (“mixing”) of divine and human natures. This safeguards God’s unity and ensures no created being (e.g., Jesus’ humanity) is equated with the divine essence, since no created reality can enter into an ontogical relationship with the divine essence. Thus, orthodox Christology avoids the Quranic definition of Shirk, as it does not (ontologically) "associate" any partners or created beings with God.

 

So it all depends on what we mean by each word and statement. Consider the following statement: „God loves murderers too.” Is this statement correct or incorrect? It depends on how we understand it. If it means that God approves of their sin and they will be saved anyway, then it is incorrect. But if it simply means that salvation is open also to them, since if they repent, God can forgive them, then it is correct. Likewise, the statement in Surah An-Nisa 4:171 or Surah Al-Isra 17:111 that God cannot have a “son,” if we understand this is about biological-literal sonship just like the Mormonism asserts, then it is not incorrect from a Catholic perspective. Likewise, Surah Al-Ikhlas 112:3 can be understood to simply as asserting the aseity of God (autotheos), not what Nicene theology meant by spiritual-metaphorical filiation within the Godhead.

 

One of the significant challenges in Catholic-Muslim dialogue is that the Christian understanding of God, the Trinity, and Christology cannot be adequately explained or defended without delving into the meanings and implications of numerous philosophical and metaphysical terms. These terms—such as ousia, logos, hypostasis, arkhe, substantia, natura, essentia, subsistentia, suppositum, principium, causa, processio, relatio, quidditas, and the distinctions between univocal, analogical and equivocal language—are essential for grasping the nuances of Christian doctrine. When the content and implications of these terms are carefully examined in the context of Christian teaching, it becomes clear that orthodox Christianity does not violate the Islamic view of God's transcendence or the principles of tawhid (the oneness of God). Instead, it provides a deeply nuanced and coherent articulation of God's unity and transcendence that aligns with certain foundational elements of Islamic theology.

 

Until we clarify what we mean by certain concepts, words and expressions, we will just talk past each other, a dialogue of the deaf and dumb, like the frequent Muslim-Christian debates, which typically go like this:

·        Christian: “Jesus Christ is both God and also the Son of God, you infidel!”
·        Muslim: “No, he is not! Maybe He is his own ‘son’ then? He is just a prophet, you infidel!”

 

In such a hypothetical dialogue, essentially no constructive exchange of ideas took place. But if I were to say:

“The suppositum of Jesus, son of Mary, is identical with the divine Logos, whose quiddity is identical with the divine substance due to the atemporal filiation, without any ontological fusion taking place between the human nature of Jesus and the essence of the one God, so the absolute transcendence of God is not compromised.”

… then perhaps we could have a somewhat substantive conversation, but for that we would need to know these concepts. When understood through the lens of these philosophical and theological concepts, the Christian doctrine of God maintains the following principles that align with Islamic theology:

• Unity and Simplicity: God’s essence is one and indivisible, avoiding any suggestion of composition or multiplicity (tawhid al-dhat).

• Transcendence: God’s being and attributes transcend human comprehension and are not subject to created limitations (tawhid al-sifat).

• Uniqueness: God is absolutely unique and unlike anything in creation (tawhid al-af‘al).

So Shirk is something when you profess the existence of and/or worship other (potentially secondary, lesser) deities other than the God (like deuteros theos, or demiurge) or asserting ontological association between the one God and any created realities. The Nicene Logos is not the Logos of Philo (an intermediary between created and uncreated) or that of Arius. The divinity of the Logos does not mean ontological mixture, association in monophyisite sense, no claim of divinity made regarding Jesus as a human, only that the suppositum the human Jesus is the same as the of the eternal uncreated Logos, but there is no ontological connection between the created and uncreated. It does not mean the deification of man, nor does it mean the anthropomorphization of God.

 

So the Christian claim that “Jesus Christ is God”, means neither that He is another divinity next to Allah, nor that Jesus as a human is God, but that the suppositum of the human Jesus is the same as that of the eternal, uncreated Logos, however, this union is not an ontological connection in the sense of blending or mixing the divine and human natures. The two natures remain distinct, even though they are united in one suppositum (hypostasis). This careful articulation ensures that Christological orthodoxy avoids Shirk because it does not posit a secondary or lesser deity (deuteros theos, or a Platonic demiurge), or an ontological association or confusion between the infinite, uncreated essence of God and the finite, created reality of humanity.

 

The term “Mother of God” used for Mary is an ambiguous translation of the term Theotokos used in the dogma, which actually means, in its intended meaning, “the one who gave birth to one who was God.” For although she was not the mother of God as such, she was the mother of Jesus, who (his suppositum) was also God. The mother of the Pope is also rightly called the mother of the Pope, although she did not give birth to the Pope as a pope, but as a small child. Nor should we say of John's mother that she was “the mother of John's body,” although in reality a human only received his body from his biological parents, his soul is created by God. The point is that the Theotokos doctrine does not assert any ontological connection between the human Mary and the unchangeable God. Mary, of course, did not give existence to the Godhead or any moment of the divine existence, but the humanity to which she gave existence with her maternal participation cannot be separated from the Incarnation of the suppositum of the Logos. So the doctrine of the Theotokos can only be interpreted correctly according to its intention, if the principle of the Hypostatic Union and communicatio idiomatum is first understood.

 

It is true that the Quran critiques certain practices as worship (‘ibadah) that might not align with the Catholic understanding of the term. However, this divergence underscores the importance of recognizing that terms like “worship” are context-dependent. Catholic theology defines worship (latria) as the adoration due exclusively to God, which includes offering sacrifices or considering someone divine. This is categorically distinct from hyperdulia, the veneration of Mary, which is recognition of her unique role in salvation history but does not attribute divinity to her. The Quran (10:18, 10:104-106) condemns the worship of created beings as partners (shirk), but Catholic teaching explicitly denies that Mary is a deity, partner, or source of independent power. For Catholics, calling upon Mary is no more worship than asking another person for prayers.

 

The Quran acknowledges intercession with conditions:

• Surah 2:255 states: “Who can intercede with Him except by His permission?”

• Surah 10:3 says: “No intercession can avail except after His permission.”

In Catholic theology, Mary’s intercession operates entirely within God’s will and by His power. Catholics do not believe she acts independently but only as a humble servant pointing to God. The phrase “pray for us” (ora pro nobis) explicitly asks for her prayer, not her divine action. This aligns with the Quranic principle that intercession is permissible if granted by God.

 

Protestants often critique Catholic veneration of Mary, but their perspective is rooted in their interpretation of Scripture and theology, not the Quran. They conflate Catholic hyperdulia with worship due to their rejection of distinctions between latria (worship), dulia (veneration), and hyperdulia (special veneration for Mary). This critique does not mean Catholics are worshiping Mary; it reflects a theological misunderstanding or differing definition of “worship.” Other Protestants simply do not understand Catholic practice. Worship is the recognition and adoration of God as God. You can only worship someone if you have an actual intention to worship, not by their appearance. For example, bowing can be a gesture of worship, but also simply a gesture of showing respect, like in Japan people greet each other with a bow, but we cannot say that they venerate each other as gods. Catholics also simply deeply respect the Virgin Mary, but they do not worship her as a deity. Even within Protestantism, there is diversity of opinion. Anglican and Lutheran traditions, for example, acknowledge the unique role of Mary while avoiding the extremes of Catholic or evangelical Protestant views. This shows that Protestant critiques of Marian devotion are not monolithic and stem from doctrinal differences rather than definitive evidence of “worship.”

 

The Quran’s critique of worshiping intermediaries (10:18) likely addressed practices prevalent in 7th-century Arabia. These included pagan deities and possibly heterodox Christian groups like the Collyridians, who may have deified Mary. Catholic doctrine, however, has always rejected such practices, and consistently condemned the divinization of Mary. The claim that Catholic Marian devotion constitutes Shirk conflates orthodox Catholic theology with practices that were explicitly denounced by the Church itself. FYI: https://t.ly/if20p

 

Acknowledging different perspectives is essential, but recognizing differences does not mean agreeing with mischaracterizations. While some Protestants or Muslims may perceive Marian devotion as "worship" (idolatray), their perception does not align with the actual theological framework of the Catholic Church. Respecting their views is not the same as accepting their definitions or accusations.

 

If you accept the Quranic statement that Christians (even the heterodox Christians known to Muhammad) belong the People of the Book, and the Quran's terminologically consistent distinction of the People of the Book from polytheists, then it also follows (syllogism) that the Qur'an does not assert that Christians are mushrikūn, and that’s the point here.