Reasons for the Anti-Trinitarian Doctrine of Islam
by Salam Falaki
I wanted to do a study of Christian literature in the Arabic language of the time before Muhammad until today. In the Vatican, there is a large collection of work, about five volumes, describing the history of the Christian Arabic literature, written by a German Catholic called Graf. I read the relevant parts of this voluminous work and I was very disappointed because I found out there is practically no Christian Arabic literature available today from the time before Muhammad. In fact, no complete Bible was translated into Arabic at the time of Muhammad and for a very long time afterward. The first Arabic Bible was not available until the sixteenth century. If I were to speak of the anti-Trinitarian doctrine of Islam only from existing literary sources, I would have nothing to say on this topic. Since we do not have sources, I have to limit myself to general observations. I will try to approach the subject from two points of view.
Why is there an Anti-Trinitarian Doctrine in Islam?
The first one is from the point of view of the development of the history of doctrine, especially the doctrine of the Trinity before the time of Muhammad. This is church history and those of you who have studied theology probably know most of this, so it is a review, but it is important to keep in mind. The first aspect I want to highlight is the development of the doctrine of the Trinity before Muhammad and a view of Muhammad in the context of this development.
The second point of view is a purely biblical point of view, both Old Testament and New Testament. I will try to summarize some of the most important points of the doctrine of the Trinity in and through and from the Bible.
Let us begin with the first aspect:
The Development of the Doctrine of the Trinity before Muhammad
Before the real divisions in the church concerning the Trinity took place, there were two extreme views.
One group of people had a view that said the Logos, the Word of God, is subordinate to God. This implies a general tendency to separate God and man in Jesus Christ.
The other extreme took the position that God and the Divinity of Jesus are the same, meaning, if you speak about Jesus, you speak about God. These people emphasize the unity of God and man in Jesus Christ.
These two differing views brought fourth the two most famous heresies concerning the doctrine of the Trinity.
The first heresy is called the Subordinating Logos Christiology, which says that Christ has something godly in him, but is definitely below the Father. He is not of the same essence as the Father; he is man with some divine attributes.
The other heresy was the so-called heresy of Docetic Christiology. Docetic comes from the Greek word docane, which means to appear. For these people the humanity of Jesus was nearly non-existent.
In the Subordinating Logos Christiology the divinity of Jesus was undervalued. Docetic Christiology stated that the human nature of Jesus was inferior to the Father and they said, He only appeared to be a human being, in reality He was truly and fully God, living in the world.
These two extremes led to a controversy called the Arian or the Trinitarian controversy. In the controversy two people, Arius and Athanasius represented the two opposing viewpoints. Arius taught that Jesus is an ideal man, different from the Father, a created being and not born of God or begotten of God.
Athanasius on the other hand said Jesus is wholly God and completely God. He is of the same essence as the Father. He is not a created being, but is generated or born of the Father.
The result of this controversy, which did not only take place between these two people but within and between whole churches, was that a council convened in the year 325 in Nicaea. The council advanced the position of Athanasius, meaning Athanasius prevailed. The formula that we repeat in our Nicaean creed is:
Jesus is of the same essence as the Father; he is begotten, born of the Father, and not created.
The first solution of the Trinitarian problem was to say that Jesus is of the same essence as the Father. He was begotten, born of God and not created. The whole problem as to how the divine nature of Jesus could co-exist with the human nature of Jesus was still open. Historically, it has been difficult solving the problem of doctrine regarding the trinity.
This dispute lasted a period of 125 years, between the years 325 and 451. During this time, there were three positions. The School of Antioch, which is in the northeastern part of the Mediterranean Sea, the School of Alexandria, in Egypt and an intermediate position taken by the pope in Rome. This controversy is referred to as the Christological Controversy and not the Trinitarian Controversy as we saw previously.
Two men, Nestorius and another called Cyril of Alexandria disputed the basic question as to what happened when Mary gave birth to Jesus. Nestorius said Mary is the mother of Christ and gave birth to Christ. He stressed the unity of the outer appearance of Jesus, of the bodily form of Jesus.
Cyril of Alexandria contradicted this and said, Mary is not primarily the mother of Christ but she is the mother of God because Jesus Christ is identical with God. He is of one essence with the Father. This is why these words were added later to the Nicaean creed:
We believe in Mary, the bearer (mother) or the one who has given birth to God (theotocos is the Greek word).
Consequently, he stressed the unity of the divine nature of Jesus and not of the bodily form of Jesus. The bodily form is what is in the world. The divine nature is what transcends the world. If Mary is the mother of God then a unity of the nature of Jesus with the Father is not prominent. If one considers Mary to be the mother of Christ, the human being Christ, then there is a unity of the bodily form of Jesus.
The council of Ephesus dealt with this dispute in the year 431 and during this council, Cyril won against Nestorius. As a result, the church excommunicated both Nestorius and Arius. The whole problem did not come to a final solution, so another council was held twenty years later in 451, the Council of Chalcedon. In this council, three positions were proposed.
· First of all, Flavian of Constantinople, said, that Jesus was composed of two natures, divine and human and could be separated.
· On the other extreme Dioscur of Alexandria, still in the School of Alexandria, said Jesus has only one nature, divine and He cannot be separated into human and divine.
· Pope Leo I had proposed several months before that the council adopt the formula that in Jesus is two natures in one person. He was the first who introduced the concept of a person into this whole discussion.
Pope Leo I prevailed during the Council of Calcedon and the Chalcedon Nense (we call it, the Chalcedon Creed) was adopted, as follows:
Jesus is one unique person, true God, and true man, undivided and not united with each other.
The result of these disputes and of this council was that the earliest church of Christianity split into three groups. They were:
· Some of the excommunicated churches called duophysites, which means those who believe that Jesus has two completely distinct natures, human and divine. This was the church in Mesopotamia or the Nestorian Church that was originally founded in Iraq and Persia. Later on, due to missionary activities, they had reached areas of Arabia, India, China, and Central Asia. This church evangelized diligently and boldly.
· The monophysite churches with nationalistic tendencies, who conducted services in the national languages. These churches included the Copts in Egypt, the Nubians in Sudan, and the Jacobites in Syria and the Armenians in the Caucasus. They believe that Christ has only one nature, divine.
· And those who adopted the formula of Pope Leo I. This was the imperial church of the Byzantine Empire called Orthodox Church, who had the central power. The church in Rome that later was called the Catholic Church also adopted the formula. And later on, most of the Protestant Churches adopted this formula. In Protestant services, you can hear the Apostolic Creed, the Nicaean Creed or the Chalcedon Creed.
So, there was a church split making divisions into the main imperial church, which had the power – the missionary church, which was Nestorian – and the many national churches such as the Copts, Nubians, Jacobites and the Armenians. This entire split took place towards the end of the fifth century, more than one hundred years before the time of Muhammad.
There are two points to notice in connection with the reasons for the anti-Trinitarian doctrine of Islam.
· It is possible that the teaching by Cyril of Alexandria that Mary is the mother of God who gave birth to God somehow got to Muhammad in Arabia, perhaps while he was traveling in Syria while in charge of the caravans of his first wife Khadija. At the time, the Jacobites were in Syria teaching that Mary gave birth to God and did not give birth to a human being. The false understanding of what the Trinity is might have one of its sources here.
· Another point is that the Orthodox Church tried to suppress the other heretical points of view, both Duophysitism and the Monophysitism. They waged unrelenting wars against the Nestorians and against the national Churches. They were more against the national churches because the Nestorians lived under the rule of a non-Christian kingdom in Iraq and Persia at the time. They profited from being able to live as Nestorians in this kingdom and were not directly affected, but the Byzantines attacked this kingdom and relentlessly fought against the other national churches. By having such a division in the church, Muhammad was able to overrun the whole area for the simple reason that the Christians were not united.
Consequently, it is possible that the reason why the anti-Trinitarian doctrine of Islam was able to spread was that the Christians were not united on the question of the Trinity. One might ask why they were unable to unite. It is my belief that one of the main reasons is that they tried to explain the biblical doctrine of the Trinity in terms of Greek philosophical concepts. Trying to force concepts of Greek philosophy on the biblical account of the Trinity brought about these divisions. In terms of logical thinking and of the concepts used in the context of philosophy, the final statement is that it is not possible to say anything coherent about Jesus. The two natures cannot be separated but at the same time, they are not united. These simple contradictions are left to stand. The concept of the human nature of Jesus has led to many difficulties and to many sub-heresies later on.
In order to see what the problem really was, we must go one-step further and ask what the Bible really teaches about the Trinity and how the anti-Trinitarian doctrine of Islam is explained against the background of the Biblical understanding of the Trinity.
Looking at the Bible concerning the trinity, we first observe that the Trinity in not merely about an eternal sovereign being, but the Trinity always relates to things God does in the world.
Therefore, when the Bible describes the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, it hardly ever describes the Trinity in terms of something that is independent from the world and has an existence of its own, but as something that is always intimately connected with the world. This connection is the action of God and the Word. As you look at the Trinity in the Bible, it is natural to first highlight that God does something. He acts and in acting in the world, he is happening in the world. We will see that the fundamental difference between the orthodox type and influence from the Greek point of view about God is the difference in understanding the word “to be." Does the word “to be” primarily mean uninterrupted existence and persistence in being, or does the word “to be” mean that something happens. There is an action; there is a happening, an event, connected with God.
The Bible teaches not so much the continual life of God across time, across all events but it teaches that God happens, that God acts, that God does something. Moreover, in His acting, His revelation, His creating, His dwelling in the world, and His saving the world, He reveals himself as a Trinitarian God.
There are four parts to the Biblical aspect of the Trinity. Each part of the four aspects is like one part of a four-part puzzle. I will try to show how all four parts/aspects fit together.
· The Trinity in view of God creating everything that exists. In terms of creation, God does something when He creates the world.
· The Trinity in view of God dwelling in heaven. His dwelling in heaven is concerned with his ruling and directing world affairs.
· The Trinity in view of God’s revelation on earth through Jesus Christ. In other words, God reveals himself.
· The Trinity in view of God saving humanity through Jesus Christ.
1. Let us first look at the Trinity in view of God creating everything.
Beginning with the first verse of the Bible, “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth” (Genesis 1:1) and verse two which says, “the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.” He was moving over the surface of the waters. Verse 3 says, “And God said, ‘Let there be light’.” Here the Word of God is involved in creation. The Trinitarian aspect in this connection is that God the Father creates, the Spirit, implied in creation is the Holy Spirit, and finally the Word used in creating the world, is Jesus Christ, the Son.
There is another aspect to this, which comes out when you compare Genesis 1 with John 1. First, let us look at the complete account of Genesis 1. God creates heaven and earth by the Spirit through the Word. On the first day, light was created and God separated the light from the darkness. On the second day, the firmament which separates the waters above from the waters below, the third day, land, sea and vegetation, on the fourth day celestial bodies were created, on the fifth day fish and birds. Here you see the word life appearing for the first time, living beings created on the fifth day and finally on the sixth day, animals and human beings - man.
The first verse of John says, “The Word was,” then “the word was with God” and finally “the Word was God." One of the fundamental questions in interpreting the Bible is how to interpret the words “to be, I am, you are, he was or he is." My suggestion is that from the Hebrew point of view, and John was Hebrew, not Greek, the happening is more important than the continual life of God. If you “are,” the important thing from the Bible is not that you exist eternally, but that something happens with you, through you and in you. This is why faith is important because you believe that God acts. This is why love is important because love is not a theory, not a personal characteristic, but love expresses itself in action. I do something out of love. This is also why hope is important because I believe that something is going to happen to me that will surpass everything that I can expect here on earth. I suggest that the word “was” can be understood in terms of happen. It was an event. Not so much that the word happened with God or that the word happened as God.
Looking at the Trinitarian sayings in the rest of the Gospel of John about God help us to understand. The fact that the Word happened at all is because the Father generated this Word. The Father is the source of the Word as if it were God saying something. The Father’s accomplishment is the Son who was generated from the Father.
Finally, the Word happened, as God or was God is understood through the spoken word of Jesus, also recorded in John 4:24: “God is Spirit." So that both the spoken word of God, as well as the accomplishment of the spoken word, which is the Son, is seen spiritually. The Spirit is that aspect of God, which in a certain sense binds all the aspects together.
Here in the first three verses of John, there is an indirect reference to the Trinity. You have an indication that God is one in the act of saying the word and bringing forth the word which then creates the world, because in John 1:3-5 it says “Through Him, through the Word, all things were made, in Him was life and that life was the light of men and this light shines in the darkness." This is an indirect reference to the Trinity. It is the first way of explaining the Trinity in view of a specific act of God, namely in His act of creation.
2. The next aspect is the Trinity in view of God dwelling in heaven.
The important thing about the Bible is that when God created creation he did not opt to stay outside of creation but dwelt in creation. The Old Testament speaks about God dwelling in heaven. Meaning, God is not far away but he is very close. The Old Testament speaks of God living in creation in heaven. It speaks of God as Yahweh, the name of the revelation of God, the Lord of hosts. The hosts are the created angles in heaven who sit around the throne of God. God enthroned in heaven expresses the fact that God is close to world. On earth, there are human beings, created men and women. Here on earth, God Himself is not in creation, but the image of God is in creation because men and women are created in the image of God.
We see the next indication of the Trinity by analyzing the word, Yahweh. You are probably familiar with the verse in the Old Testament, Exodus 3:14 where God appeared to Moses in a flaming bush and Moses asked Him, “Who shall I say sent me to the people of Israel?" God answers: “aehyeh ‘ashar aehye”. Here the traditional translation is, “I am who I am” or “I will be who I will be." You see from the diversity of translations of this verse there is a fundamental problem, how do you translate the word “being." The Hebrew word for being is the verb “hayya” and it is used twice in the first person singular in God's reply. That means, I be, or I am being. Again, if you understand the word being not so much from existence but from happening, that God happens – He does something – He acts – things happen through Him, you can look at the meaning of this sentence explaining the name Yahweh in this way.
There is one peculiarity of the Hebrew language that relates to this verb, “aehyeh,” “I am” or “I happen," that is used twice in God's reply. The verb is expressed both times in a form which grammatically is called the imperfect. The Hebrew language has only two tenses, the perfect, and the imperfect. The perfect expresses all accomplished events, for example, he became king; i.e. the process of becoming a king is finished. Another example would be he spoke; meaning the process of speaking is over. There is also the form of the imperfect, which can mean both present and future. This is strange to us because we are accustomed to distinguishing between present and future with the choice of words we use. This is why in translations of this verse you sometimes see differences in the phrase that is used – either “I am who I am” or “I will be who I will be." The word "aehyeh" in our view means both, “I am” and “I will be,” because the Hebrew does not distinguish between future and present. They only distinguish between accomplished and not accomplished, between perfect and imperfect. This verb is used in an imperfect form and it includes both, the present tense and the future tense. Therefore, it could be both, present and future.
With the same verb being used twice in God's reply, you have four possible meanings of the verse. Either both verbs are present or both are future or one is present and the other is future or one is future and the other present. Yahweh could mean:
· I happen now as the One who will also happen in the future, or
· I will happen in the future as the One who also happens now, or
· I happen now as the One who I happen now, or
· I will happen in the future as the One who I will happen in the future.
It can be argued that this aspect of Yahweh is happening; remember Yahweh is God in creation and God in heaven. Therefore, this aspect of God happening within creation can be closely associated with what we call God, the Father, because as something new happens in God and from God, you always have to ask how it relates to things that will happen in the future. Can there be some sort of a guarantee of a truthfulness, of a faithfulness in God, so that what will happen in the future can somehow be linked to the past and what happens in the future can be trusted as being something that has to do with the past? I believe there can be; if so, this is the nature of the Father. While if you only look at the fact that God is simply acting and that He accomplishes something, both in Himself and in the world then the understanding of God as the Son can be associated with it. And finally, if you ask yourself, how will happenings in the future relate to past acts of God. How do the past acts of God (e.g. Jesus Christ dying for us on the cross) influence God acting in the world today? This is the Holy Spirit in action, the aspect of God that we call the Holy Spirit in the forefront.
This is the most speculative part of my whole presentation. To go into detail to explain my position, it would require many Bible studies about how the Bible speaks about the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit to show how the interpretation of the words, “aehyeh ‘asher aehyeh’” come very close to the biblical explanation of the Trinity.
From this point of view the fact that the Hebrew word for God most often used is a plural word, “elohim” portrays the fact that God happens very often, even continually. The many deeds of Yahweh in relation to the word, the many actions of Yahweh, many things he accomplishes is the fact that God is not the eternal being behind everything, but he is the one who is present in every act that he does. His actions, his deeds, his saving, his revealing, his creating are the things that are in the foreground and not an abstract concept of an eternal being behind everything.
Now we come to the third piece of the puzzle.
3. The Trinity in view of God revealing Himself on earth.
Here is a summary of what we have discussed so far. God created everything through the Word and by the Spirit. There is the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit in connection with the Word of God that was, that was with God, and that was God. There was a separation of all creation into heaven and earth. God in heaven is Yahweh, and Yahweh implies the Father, Son, and the Holy Spirit.
Now we come to the new part about the image of God in creation. Created human beings are made in the image of God in Genesis 1:27. The same terminology in used in Colossians 1:15 pointing to Christ; Christ is the true image of God in creation.
The next hint to the Trinity comes from an analysis of the word Christ. What does the word Christ mean? The word Christ is the Greek version of a Hebrew word called Mashiah or ha-Mashiah. Our Jesus Christ is the anointed one and true Mashiah – the prophetically revealed Mashiah who is coming at the end of the world. God anointed Him with the Holy Spirit. The Father, the first person of the Trinity, is revealing Himself on earth through Jesus Christ. Three offices in the Old Testament use the word Mashiah. It was used for the ruling king of Judah, the son of David, for the priest who atoned for the sins of the people before God in the tabernacle or in the temple and finally the serving prophet.
It is very important to note that the title son of Yahweh is used exclusively in the Old Testament for the ruling king. In 2 Samuel 7:13-14 Yahweh speaks to David through Nathan and tells him “I will establish the throne of his kingdom forever” and “I will be a father to him and he will be a son to Me." He uses the same terminology for the messiah as the ruling king as for the son of Yahweh. Another verse is Psalm 2:7, “He said to Me, ‘Thou art My Son, today I have begotten Thee.’" He does more than represent Yahweh before men He is the Son of Yahweh before men.
The atoning priest has an intermediate position between the two. First, he represents Yahweh before men, for example, the Israelites could go to the priest and tell him, “I have this difficulty. Tell me what God says I should do." Then he would take two lots out of his pocket and he would cast the lots. It was understood that God spoke to the people of Israel through the priest by casting lots. The priest represented Yahweh before men and on the great Day of Atonement, the priest also represented men before Yahweh when he took the blood from the atoning sacrifice and entered the Holy of Holies, the presence of Yahweh, and put the blood on the Ark of the Covenant. Another example of the priest representing men is the two stones on his shoulders and the breastplate. The names of the twelve tribes of Israel were engraved on the breastplate and on the stones on the shoulders, showing that he was the focal point of the whole nation in the presence of Yahweh.
Finally, the serving prophet was a slave of Yahweh; abd-Yahweh is the term found in the book of Isaiah, and he is the one who serves Yahweh in complete obedience. Whatever Yahweh tells him to say or do, he does without questioning. He is referred to as the son of man. Looking at the book of Ezekiel, you see that God addresses the prophet Ezekiel as the son of man. Also in the vision of the book of Daniel the title son of man is in Aramaic, not Hebrew. The important thing about the son of man in the Old Testament is that he is not the son of man before men on earth but he is the son of man in heaven before Yahweh because the prophets participate in the counsel before Yahweh in heaven. Remember Yahweh is God dwelling in creation, namely in the heavenly part of creation. A prophet is a person who is completely obedient to Yahweh and who enters into counsel before Yahweh in heaven. The strange thing about him being a son of man is not that he comes from human descent, but that he is the son of man in heaven. Therefore, whenever Jesus uses the title Son of man, keep this in mind. He is the Son of man because He has access to heaven; He is in God’s presence.
The Trinitarian aspect of this analysis of the word of Messiah is the following. The Messiah is the one who is anointed by the Holy Spirit and thus is the Son of Yahweh. In this case, Yahweh is the first person of the Trinity, the Father.
If you look at the whole analysis from the point of view of the Gospel of John, it is interesting to note the following possible associations. John 1:14 states, “...and the Word became flesh and dwelt among us.” The Word did this as a human on earth representing God – the image of God in creation and “we beheld his glory." Glory is usually associated with kings. A king has glory. However, this glory is full of grace and truth. The characteristic of grace is associated with the priest because with the priest you have the institution, the promise of atonement and forgiveness. Forgiveness associated with atonement was a promise by God offered to his people free of charge. Finally, He is full of truth because of His complete obedience to God, the Father and because of being in the presence of God and in heaven. The prophet has access to what really is true about God. In Jesus Christ, John beheld, or we behold, the glory of God full of grace and truth.
It is possible to associate the I am words of the Gospel of John with each one of these three offices of the Messiah.
· I am the good shepherd (the shepherd is another word for the king) and I am the gate to the sheep - can be associate with the ruling king.
· I am the resurrection and life and I am the bread of life can be associated with the renewal of life through the atoning priest.
· I am the light of the world and I am the vine, you are the branches can be associated with the office of the prophet of the Messiah.
Another way of associating these verses can be summarized in this most famous verse, John 14:6 “I am the way, (the gate to the sheep) and I am the truth and I am the (bread of) life (resurrection).”
Now we come to the last piece of the puzzle.
4. The Trinity in connection or in view of God saving humankind
The name of the Christ, the Messiah, is Jesus. His name shall be Jesus. At the name of Jesus, every knee shall bow on heaven and on earth (Philippians 2:10). This word Jesus comes from the Hebrew “Yehoshua” which is composed of two elements “yeho” which is Yahweh and “shua” which means saving or helping. The word Jesus means Yahweh saves. From the point of view of the Gospel of John we understand that saving means saving from death to life as John says in these two important verses:
John 3:5 “Unless one is born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter the Kingdom of God."
Therefore, you are saved from death unto life only by being born of the Spirit.
John 6:63 “It is the Spirit who gives life."
This aspect of the name of Jesus, i.e. Yahweh saving, can be viewed as intimately connected with the action of God as can the Spirit and the Word. So the Trinity this is the last piece of the puzzle is (1) Jesus, who is the Christ and the Son of Yahweh, and (2) Yahweh, the Father of Jesus acting in Jesus by the Spirit Who gives birth and gives true life.
Now all the four elements of the puzzle are together. The first element is in relation to creation, an indication of the Trinity in the case of God creating the world. The second element is in relation to dwelling and governing from heaven, an indication of the Trinity in the case of God dwelling in heaven. The third element is in relation with the revelation of God through Christ, an indication of how the Trinity functioned in connection with God revealing himself in Christ. And the last element, which is the priestly element of God saving the world through Jesus Christ, an indication of the Trinity in the case of Yahweh saving (which is what the name Jesus literally means) by the Spirit Who gives life.
Muhammad accepts the following about the Trinity in context of the Bible and what we have talked about:
· That Allah created all in heaven and earth
· Christ is a serving prophet of Allah, i.e. he is Abd Allah
· Christ is a son of men
· Christ has brought the truth
· Christ is associated with the Spirit of God
In analyzing the way in which the word “ruh,” the Arabic word of Spirit is used in the Qur’an, then you find a hidden clue about the Trinity. The four parts of the puzzle from the biblical point of view of the Trinity are concealed or eliminated in the Qur’an. The Qur’an has rigorously suppressed the name Yahweh, and not only Yahweh but also the title Lord, which is what the Jews used in place of Yahweh. Neither appear in the Qur’an, nor in all of Islamic theology. Also the name Yahweh in connection with the name Jesus (Jesus means Yahweh saving) has been lost by simply the changing the name Jesus, or Yasu in Arabic, to the name 'Isa, which no one is sure where Muhammad got this name. Islam also misinterprets the word al-Masih. They translate it not from the Arabic root masaha, which means to anoint, but from the Arabic root saha, sahayesihu that means to wander about, to be a tourist. The Christ al-Masih is not the one anointed with the Holy Spirit but he is a tourist. Asaha is very close to the word al-Masih. Asaha is the standard Arabic word for tourist. The name Christ is misunderstood in such a way that it only explains the way Jesus taught. Namely that he wandered around, speaking to people but it does not indicate He is a priest and it suppresses His being a King and as a King, the Son of David, the Son of Yahweh.
Finally, all these things add up to say that the way Islam understands the Word and how it applies to Jesus Christ is concealed. Therefore, with this understanding of the Qur'an, you see a suppression of the revelation of the Trinity by analyzing, in the Bible, how God speaks, namely that the Word came about with God and the Word came about as God, which is the very nature of God, which is Spirit. You see from this analysis the parts from the Bible that Islam took and the parts from the Bible that Islam concealed.