Christian Doctrines Christianity

“On The Errors of the Trinity” By Michael Servetus

Michael Servetus was born in Villanueva in Spain in 1511. He was the son of the local judge. He lived at a time when there was unrest in the established Church, and in a period when everyone was questioning the nature of Christianity. As he grew older and more informed, the young Servetus was appalled by the shedding of blood by the Christians towards the Muslims and Jews.

Imagine his excitement when, upon examining the Bible more closely, he found that the doctrine of Trinity was nowhere a part of its teaching. He further discovered that the Bible did not always support what was being taught by the Church.

Michael Servetus wrote to the leaders of the Reformation, Calvin and Luther, in the hopes that the Protestant movement will turn Unitarian. Alas, the minds of the leaders of the Reformation were still trapped in the false metaphysics. He found that both Luther and Calvin will have nothing to do with his belief in the Unity of God.

Origin of “On The Errors of the Trinity”

Servetus travelled to look for those who were open-minded enough to listen to what he was sure was the true Christianity as taught by Jesus, and even had a correspondence with Calvin. However, all his attempts to influence people by personal contact failed. Severtus later proceeded to publish his views in a book which he called “On The Errors of Trinity“.

The result was that the Church hounded Servetus from one place to another. Servetus was later captured in Geneva, found guilty of heresy at his trial, and was executed by being tied to the trunk of a tree and burned on the 26th of October, 1553.

Excerpts From “On The Errors of the Trinity”

A few excerpts from On The Errors of the Trinity, which caused such violent actions, follows.1 Servetus writes:

The philosophers have invented a third separate being truly and really distinct from the other two, which they have called the third Person or the Holy Spirit, and thus they have contrived an imaginary Trinity, three beings in one nature. But in reality, three Gods, or one threefold God, are foisted upon us under the pretence, and in the name of Unity…For with them it is very easy, taking the words in their strict sense, for three beings to exist, which they say and yet strictly, simply, and really, so different or distinct yet one is born of another, and yet all these three are shut up in one jar. Since I am unwilling to misuse the word Persons, I shall call them the first being, the second being and the third being, for in the Scripture I find no other name for them…Admitting, therefore, these three, which after their fashion they call Persons, they freely admit a plurality of beings, a plurality of entities, a plurality of Essences, a plurality of substances, and taking the word of God strictly, they will have a plurality of Gods.

He continues:

If this is so, then why the Tritorites are blamed, who say that there are three Gods, for they also contrive three Gods or one threefold one. These threefold Gods of theirs form one composite substance. And although some will not use the word implying that these three have been put together, yet they do use a word that they are constituted together and that God is constituted out of three beings. It is clear therefore that they are Tritories and we have a threefold God. We have become Atheists, man without any God. For as soon as we try to think about God, we are turned aside to three phantoms, so that no kind of unity remains in our conception. What else is being without God but being unable to think about God, when there is always present to our understanding a haunting kind of confusion of three beings, by which we are forever deluded into supposing that we are thinking about God…They seem to be living in another world when they dream of such things for the kingdom of heavens knows none of this nonsense and it is in another way unknown to them, that Scripture speaks of the Holy Spirit.

He adds:

How much this tradition of Trinity has alas, alas! been the laughing stock of Mohammedons only God knows. The Jews also shrink from giving adherence to this fancy of ours, and laugh at our foolishness about the Trinity, and on account of its blasphemies, they do not believe that this is the Messiah promised in their Law. And not only the Mohammedons and the Hebrews, but the very beasts of the field would make fun of us, did they grasp our fantastic notion, for all the workers of the Lord bless the One God…This most burning plague, therefore, was added and superimposed, as it were, on the new gods which have recently come, which our fathers did not worship. And this plague of philosophy was brought upon us by the Greeks, for they above all men are most given to philosophy; and we, hanging upon their lips, have become philosophers, and they never understood the passages of the Scriptures which they adduced with regard to this matter.

Servetus also stressed what he believed to be the true nature of Jesus:

Some are scandalised at my calling Christ the prophet because they happen not themselves to apply to him the epithet, they fancy that all who do so are chargeable with Judaism and Mohametism, regardless of the fact that the Scriptures and ancient writers call him the prophet.


The writings of Michael Servetus’ On The Errors of the Trinity certainly shows that there are those who call themselves Christians and are yet not blinded by the faults of the Trinitarian dogma. One would no doubt wonder why the Church resorted to persecuting Michael Servetus and his anti-Trinitarian writings instead of debating about it in a scholarly manner if the Church is certain that the doctrine is undisputable and is indeed an inherent part of the Christian faith.

Cite this article as: Bismika Allahuma Team, "“On The Errors of the Trinity” By Michael Servetus," in Bismika Allahuma, September 19, 2005, last accessed September 25, 2022,
  1. As reproduced & adapted from Muhammad `Ata ur-Rahim, Jesus A Prophet of Islam, pp. 112-121 []
Christian Doctrines Christianity Jesus

“O’ Christ-Worshippers!” A Qasidah Which Refutes Christianity

Ibn al-Qayyim al-Jauziyyah was a prominent Muslim jurist during Islam’s Golden Age. Apart from his jurisdistic prowess, he was also competent in composing qasidah (Arabic poetry). Among his more famous works was the qasidah entitled A’obbad al-Maseeh Fi Naqd al-Nasraniyyah (O Christ-Worshippers! In Refuting Christianity). This qasidah is well-known in the Muslim world and has even been turned into a song.

The following is the English translation of the poetry from the Arabic original.


    O Christ-worshippers! We want an answer to our question [from your wise ones],
    If the Lord was murdered by some people’s act, what kind of god is this?
    We wonder! Was He pleased by what they did to Him?
    If yes, blessed be they, they achieved His pleasure,
    But if He was discontented, this means their power had subjugated Him!

    [dropcap]W[/dropcap]as the whole entity left without a Sustainer, so who answered the prayers?
    Were the heavens vacated, when He laid under the ground somewhere?
    Were all the worlds left without a God, to manage while His hands were nailed?
    Why did not the angels help Him, when they heard him while he wailed?

    [dropcap]H[/dropcap]ow could the rods stand to bear the True Lord when He was fastened,
    How could the irons reached Him and [had] His body pinned?
    How could His enemies’ hands reach Him and slap His rear,
    And was Christ revived by himself, or was the Reviver another god?

    [dropcap]W[/dropcap]hat a sight it was, a grave that enclosed a god,
    Stranger still is the belly that confined Him!
    He stayed there for nine months in utter darkness, fed by blood!
    Then he got out of the womb as a small baby,
    Weak and gasping to be breast-fed!
    He ate and drank, and did what that naturally resulted,1
    Is this [what you call] a god?
    High Exalted be Allah above the lies of Christians,
    All of them will be held accountable for their libels!

    [dropcap]O[/dropcap] Cross-worshippers! For what reason is this exalted
    and blame [is cast upon those] who reject it?
    Is it not logical to break and burn it, along with the one who innovated it?2
    Since the Lord was crucified on it, and his hands were fastened to it?
    That is really a cursed cross to carry,
    So discard it, do not kiss it!3

    [dropcap]T[/dropcap]he Lord was abused on it, and you adore it?
    So [it is clear that] you are one of His enemies!
    If you extol it because it carried the Lord of the Worlds,
    Why don’t you prostrate yourself and worship graves,
    Since the grave contained your god in it?4

    [dropcap]S[/dropcap]o Christ-worshipper, open your eyes,
    This is what the matter is all about.

Cite this article as: Bismika Allahuma Team, "“O’ Christ-Worshippers!” A Qasidah Which Refutes Christianity," in Bismika Allahuma, April 24, 2007, last accessed September 25, 2022,
  1. Urination and defecation []
  2. Paul of Tarsus, founder of Trinitarian faith []
  3. i.e., don’t glorify it []
  4. i.e., since someone who is a Christian abhors the idea of worshipping a grave, how is it possible for them to worship the cross? []
Christian Doctrines Christianity

Is The Trinitarian Ontology Coherent?

Philosophical theism, in contemporary times, has been dominated by philosophers who are Christians. These theistic philosophers have published a great amount of literature defending the rationality of belief in God, and any participant in the great debate will surely be familiar with the names of intellectual giants like Alvin Plantinga, Richard Swinburne, William Lane Craig, among many others.

Swinburne, for example, gives theistic belief, and in particular Christian belief, philosophical treatment in toto. I have noticed the following progression in his case for Christianity. First, he argues that the notion of ‘God-talk’ is perfectly coherent, and there are no a priori reasons to reject theistic belief. 1 Next, he argues on cumulative grounds that natural theology renders the existence of God more probable than not. 2Finally, Swinburne articulates various arguments for Christian particularism, e.g. reasons to believe in the Christian Revelation, the Resurrection of Christ, etc.3 He therefore epitomizes the classic Lockean evidentialist, who is prepared to give rational reasons for all his beliefs.

Of course, not all Christian philosophers have the evidentialist enthusiasm of Swinburne. The reformed epistemologists, spearheaded by Alvin Plantinga and Nicholas Wolterstorff, approach theistic belief analytically, but not on evidentialist grounds.4 Although they may reject giving arguments for religious beliefs, and still claim that belief in God is rational, what is important to note is that they are prepared to discuss theism in an analytic and rational manner.

These prefatory remarks are important to bear in mind, since I now wish to look at the philosophical tenability of the (orthodox) Christian depiction of God, which I feel has been largely ignored by contemporary Christian philosophers. My analysis will only be confined to divine ontology, and the contention I will be arguing for is that ‘Christian monotheism’ is ontologically incoherent. This has further implications for Christian particularism (in so far as it is understood by Pauline ontology), for if, on a priori grounds, the Christian depiction of God is impossible, then it follows a fortiori, that the doctrinal particulars which are contingent on this erroneous ontology cannot be true.

I am writing this piece with the intention of hearing from Christian philosophers who adhere to the Pauline ontology of God, believe in its coherence, and are willing to discuss the matter on rational grounds.

Locating Our Topic

Naturally, no insight is free from presuppositions, and so I will need to state the position from which my analysis is going to depart. The terminus of natural theology is usually a metaphysical postulation, some ‘first cause’, ‘intelligent designer’, ‘law giver’, or the like. The theist, of course, argues that this being is God. According to Swinburne, to state that God exists is to state that there is:

“A person without a body (i.e. a spirit), present everywhere, the creator and sustainer of the universe, a free agent, able to do everything (i.e. omnipotent), knowing all things, perfectly good, a source of moral obligation, immutable, eternal, a necessary being, holy, and worthy of worship.”5

This is a definition of God that Jewish-Islamic theism can easily accept without any major difficulties, for this is the common understanding of God in Western theism. As far as divine ontology goes, it is a monotheistic definition: there is only one God, the Creator and Sustainer of the universe who exists. Understood thus, there is nothing obviously incoherent about postulating such a being. I will further assume that there are no a priori reasons for considering the existence of such a being (taking Swinburne’s definition) as impossible, due to some logical contradiction or the like (a defence of such a contention will be the task for another day).

Now the questions I wish to explore are these: When Swinburne’s definition of God is unpacked, and further explicated within orthodox Christian theism, is it still coherent? Are there any a priori reasons for considering it to be incoherent, and thus impossible? If so, what implications are there for orthodox Christian particulars?

Stating Trinitarian Ontology

According to orthodox Christianity, although there exists a God as understood by Swinburne, He is tri-personal. In other words, God is three distinct persons (The Father, Son and Holy Spirit) in one substance, and yet He is still one being. To understand this, we can do no better than turn to the Athanasian Creed, where we find the following existential statements:

“[T]he Catholic Faith is this, that we worship one God in Trinity and Trinity in Unity. Neither confounding the Persons, nor dividing the Substance. For there is one Person of the Father, another of the Son, and another of the Holy Ghost. But the Godhead of the Father, of the Son and of the Holy Ghost is all One, the Glory Equal, the Majesty Co-Eternal. Such as the Father is, such is the Son, and such is the Holy Ghost … So the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Ghost is God. And yet they are not Three Gods, but One God … there is One Father, not Three Fathers; one Son, not Three Sons; One Holy Ghost, not Three Holy Ghosts … He therefore that will be saved, must thus think of the Trinity.”6

Trying to make sense of the creed can be difficult, and therefore we can follow philosopher Richard Cartwright7 by stating the seven basic propositions of the creed, the belief in which is essential for salvation, for the purposes of analysis.

    1. The Father is God.
    2. The Son is God.
    3. The Holy Spirit is God.
    4. The Father is not the Son.
    5. The Father is not the Holy Spirit.
    6. The Son is not the Holy Spirit.
    7. There is exactly one God.

From this point onwards, when I refer to the Christian understanding of God, it is in reference to the Athanasian Creed that my arguments are to be understood.

Can A Tri-Personal Deity Exist?

Answering this question is very much an ontological exploration. We need to distinguish between a priori and a posteriori answers to the question of existence. By a priori answers, I am referring to answers which speak of conceptual possibilities or impossibilities. For example, there is a conceptual possibility that there exists in the world a unicorn. There is nothing in the definition of a unicorn which would immediately render its existence impossible. On the other hand, it is conceptually impossible that there exists in the world a married bachelor, since the notion of a married bachelor is incoherent. We know immediately a priori that such a being could not exist, ever.

By a posteriori answers, I am referring to propositions which we know the truth or falsity of through experience. Thus, although the existence of a unicorn is conceptually possible, most people do not believe that unicorns exist because of the lack of experience they have had, or lack of evidence. However, one would always be open to the evidence, since unicorns could exist. But it would be absurd to seek evidence for the existence of married bachelors, since it is conceptually impossible for such beings to exist.

Here, I am concerned with the definition of the Trinity, propositions (1)-(7) stated above. If any two of these propositions are contradictory, then it would be conceptually impossible for God, in so far as He is understood in orthodox Christian theism, to exist. And therefore, assessing the a posteriori evidence for or against the doctrine of the Trinity (as is often the case with the Biblical data) would be as meaningless as entertaining a married bachelor’s request for divorce.

Let the Father be designated by x, the Son by y, and the Holy Spirit by z. God, as defined by Swinburne, can be designated by G. As Cartwright notes, one way to interpret the creed is to take the verb ‘is’ and understand it to mean ‘is identical with’8, therefore, x = G, y = G, and z = G. But if this is true, then it logically follows (according to Leibniz’s principle of identity, which states: if x is the same object as y then x has exactly the same properties that y has) that x = y, x = z, and y = z. However, the creed will not allow this: (4)-(6). The Father, Son and Holy Sprit are different and distinct from each other.

Another possibility is to construe G as a general term9 to avoid the logical inconsistency. Thus, x is a G, y is a G and z is a G. But surely this would contradict (7), for we are suggesting the existence of three Gods, or tri-theism. Cartwright presents the following syllogism: “every Divine Person is a God; there are at least three Divine Persons; therefore, there at least three Gods”.10 The second premise is supported the principle: if every A is a B then there cannot be fewer B’s than A’s. Cartwright cites the following analogy. If every cat is an animal, there cannot be fewer animals than cats.

It seems we have a dilemma: if x, y and z are identical with G, then we simply have one person, or three names for one person. The heretical position of modalism comes to mind, where the eternal coexistence of the Father, Son, and the Holy Spirit is denied. But if x, y and z are a G (i.e. belong to a genera), then one has three divine persons, which of course is another heretical position: tri-theism. In the first instance, the contradiction can be removed by altering propositions (4)-(6). In the second, by altering (7). But taken altogether, (1)-(7) portray an inconsistent set. It follows ipso facto that the Christian God, as He is depicted in the Creed, cannot possibly exist.

Implications For Christian Particularism

Orthodox Christian ontology, as depicted in the Athanasian Creed, forms the basis for a number of Christian particulars. And these particulars are contingent upon the truth of the Christian ontology of God. The implications of ontological incoherence of the Trinity are that certain doctrinal particulars simply cannot be true. For example, the divinity of Jesus (the second person of the Trinity took on human form), the incarnation (which involves the second person in the Trinity being completely God and man simultaneously), etc. There seems to be an a priori blockade that prevents these doctrinal particulars from even getting off the ground.


To conclude, the doctrine of the Trinity as presented in the Athanasian Creed depicts an ontologically incoherent model of God. To dissolve the contradictions which arise from analyzing the Creed, one can either reject the plurality of persons and hold that there exists a single person with different names or modes.

Alternatively, one can embrace tri-theism. As long as one is committed to neither confounding the persons, nor dividing the substance, as the Creed would have us do, one is holding beliefs about God which are logically inconsistent. And if one is to remain consistent with the philosophical treatment of theism in contemporary philosophy by the likes of Swinburne and Craig, it follows that the doctrine of the Trinity, and its relation to ‘Christian monotheism’ — being profoundly irrational — should be abandoned.

Cite this article as: Bismika Allahuma Team, "Is The Trinitarian Ontology Coherent?," in Bismika Allahuma, February 15, 2006, last accessed September 25, 2022,
  1. See Swinburne’s The Coherence of Theism (Oxford, Clarendon Press: 1977) []
  2. Richard Swinburne, The Existence of God (Oxford, Clarendon Press: 1991) []
  3. Swinburne’s arguments can be found in Responsibility and Atonement (Oxford, Clarendon Press: 1989), and Revelation (Oxford, Clarendon Press: 1992). []
  4. See for example, Alvin Plantinga & Nicholas Wolterstorff, Faith and Rationality(South Bend, The University of Notre Dame Press: 1983) []
  5. Swinburne, The Coherence of Theism, p. 1 []
  6. The Athanasian Creed, available online. I have summarized the idea behind the doctrine of the Trinity, although it is suggested the reader scrutinize the entire text. []
  7. Richard Cartwright, ‘On the Logical Problem of the Trinity’, in Philosophical Essays (MIT Press: 1987), p. 188. []
  8. Cartwright, Trinity, p. 191 []
  9. Ibid., p. 192 []
  10. Ibid., p. 196 []
Christian Doctrines Christianity

A Reasoning To Refute the Logic of Trinity

In this paper, I attempt to present an argument disputing and refuting the Christian belief in the Trinity of God.

We believe this ill-concept was inserted into Christian belief by the devil at a time of absence of mind and a state of powerlessness on the part of true Unitarians and sincere believers in the One God. To this day, followers of this belief are faithful to the evil that founded it and we are aware that there is little or no benefit in attempting to argue them out of this line of thought.

However, we are like that who is describing the sorry state of a lost and misguided person to people so that others may take example and lesson from it. And Allah shall guide whom He chooses to the right path.

The Statement of Faith of Christians (Athanasian Creed) reads as:

We believe in the One God, The Father, the controller of everything, the maker of the heavens and earths and all that is visible and that is not visible. And in the One Master Jesus Christ who was begotten by His Father before all the worlds and who was not made. A true God from a true God and from the essence of His Father. And By whose hands the worlds were perfected and everything was created and who — for us — human beings and for our salvation descended from the heavens…and the eternal life forever.

The following is a summary of the statement of faith of Trinitarians:

    1. The Father is the absolute God to whom belongs everything and who is the creator of everything.
    2. Jesus Christ was begotten by the father preceding the creation of the world.
    3. Jesus Christ is a true God who stems or originates from the true God.
    4. Jesus Christ is the creator of the worlds.
    5. The Holy Spirit emanates form the Father.

Before discussing these concepts, let us look at what was mentioned by the Christian Coptic Priest, Zakaria Boutros in his book titled “God is One in a Trinity”, which was published in Arabic on the Internet:

He states under the heading “Oneness of God”:

We Christians believe in one God with no partners, unlimited, omnipresent in the heavens and earth, eternal, preceding creation, infinite and there is no end to His kingdom. And this belief is perfectly clear in the bible and the Christian Statement of Faith as you shall see.

He then goes on to support this by verses from the Bible and the Statement of Faith. For the purpose of this discussion we are only concerned by the latter where he states:

…from these verses and others that can be seen all over the bible, the Statement of Faith which is repeated by the church throughout the generations and which reads: In truth we believe in One God the maker of the heavens and earth and that is visible and that is not invisible, was deduced. From this dear reader, you may have noted that we Christians believe in one God and not three.

Here I draw the attention of the reader to the omission that the priest has carried out while quoting from the Statement of Faith, namely where he writes: (In truth we believe in One God the maker of the heavens and earth and that is visible and that is not invisible), and where the word The Father was omitted from the original statement.

His motive for this deletion is quite obvious and not worthy of explaining, for it would be illogical and contrary to Christian belief, for him to say that Christians believe in The Father without including the Son and the Holy Spirit.

Of course, this may consitute an unfair accusation of falsifying script. In both cases let us not stop at this point and let us look further in the book where he states:

Faith in the trinity does not mean in any way shape or form that we Christians believe in three Gods as some people may imagine. The correct understanding of this belief is explained by the following points:

*God is existent in His Essence: Which means that God is a true and an existing entity and certainly not a conceptual or nonexistent ideal. Furthermore God’s existence is the source of existence of all things. God has declared this entity by the word Father (which is not associated with any physical or materialistic meaning for His existence is the source of existence of all things.
*God speaks His Word: This means that God, the existing entity is a reasoning entity that pronounces and speaks His Mind through the Word and He is certainly not a mute God. He has announced His Speaking Mind in the Word or the Son. This is similar to the human concept of speaking our mind through words of mouth and it doesn?t have a physical or materialistic meaning, because His existence is the source of existence of all things.
*God is alive through His Spirit. God gives all of us life and of naturally, we cannot imagine that he Himself is without spirit. God has pronounced this concept in the words: Holy Spirit.

The statements above clearly declare that the three concepts (Father, Son and Holy Spirit) are in actual fact, attributes to God rather than independent entities. The Father is the attribute of the essence or origin, whereas The Son is the attribute of the spoken or pronounced reasoning and thought and The Holy Spirit is associated with life, spirit or soul of the essence.

Let us analyze these in more detail:

Firstly, what does the priest mean by His existence is the source of existence of all things?

Had he said this in the sense that God is the creator of all things, it would have been acceptable, but this statement as it is reminds one of the eastern concepts of unity of existence that renders God in union with the world and creatures and sees no distinction between the creator and the created. Of course we wouldn?t like to misjudge the priest’s beliefs and we won?t attempt other interpretations until further explanations are presented for this rather problematic and puzzling statement he made.

Secondly, what does he mean by “pronounces and speaks His Mind through the Word”?

After defining the father or the essence of God , he returns and determines that speaking the Word is an exclusive attribute of the Son or the (Speaking Mind of God).

Unfortunately for the trinity ,the consequence of this line of thought is that the essence of God is lacking in fluency and only the Son attribute openly expresses the Speaking Mind or Reasoning of God. This is a clear defect or weakness that negates perfection of the Father or the Essence that does not suit divinity.

Thirdly, what does he mean God is alive through His Spirit?

After stating that God has a mind or reasoning that stems outwards from the inner essence and assigning to it (the Mind exclusively and not the Essence) this attribute of speaking, he adds the attribute of The Spirit that emanates from the Essence and gives the whole God this concept of living or being alive. This of course is comparable to the idea of the human soul that gives man the ability to live, feel and reason. When the soul leaves the body, man is longer able to live and feel. It is incredible how the priest portrays God from a similar point of view where the Divine is needy of an independent spirit or soul so as to be (alive). And of course he can?t see how the Divine Entity can be alive otherwise.

We deduce from all this that God in Christian belief has three parts: the Essence, the Speaking Mind and the Spirit, and God is needy of these so as to enjoy (some) of the attributes of perfection that are necessary for the Divine Entity;

For He does not speak through or in His essence (the Father), but rather through the part that is named (The Mind).Also He is not alive in His essence but through the part that is named (The Spirit).Of course this concept of partition and unification cannot be applied to God, because it requires that God must be:

    1. In need of these parts, and;
    2. In need of a unifying agent that will put these parts together because anything that consists of parts requires a maker of the parts and a unifier that will bring them together.

And of course this is not befitting in relation to The Majesty of the First, The Almighty, The Eternal and The Absolute Self Sufficient Maker of all things.

Let us revisit the priest’s book and specifically address the heading “Necessity of the Trinity for the Belief in Unity”, where he states:

From all that was mentioned, it becomes clear that there has to be a Trinity in the One God, because:

*It is not possible for the One and Holy God who made all things exist, not to have existence in His Essence.
*It is not possible for God who created man and gave him the ability to speak, to be mute or incapable of speaking the Word.
*It is also not possible for God who created man and gave him life, to be lacking in life through The Spirit.

Therefore it was made necessary for the One God to have a Holy Trinity and this is our correct belief [that God is One in a Trinity and not three Gods].

Here we ask the priest or any Christian who believes in the above: Why did you assign only three attributes to God? Why not say that God’s Power is the fourth one, His Knowledge is the fifth, His Hearing is the Sixth, His Seeing is the seventh, His Mercy is the eighth and His Love is the ninths and so on.

If you respond to that by saying for example that His Life is His Power; His Hearing, Knowledge and Seeing Constitute His Mind; and Love and Mercy are life, our reply will be:

No, because a person can be alive, yet incapable , can be sane yet deaf or blind or can be alive yet cruel and far from loving.

In short, the three attributes of the Trinity are not adequate or sufficient for the purpose of describing God?s perfection which all faiths recognize in terms of Existence, Knowledge, Power, Seeing, Hearing,etc. And they are certainly not restricted to these three attributes included in the Trinity.

Further more the attributes of God were never expressed in these terms [Father, Son and Holy Spirit] by any of the Prophets or any language on earth save for the Christians who initiated this innovation.

In response to the priest’s claims concerning the “necessity of the Trinity”, we reply by saying that for those who truly believe in the Oneness of God, the necessary and correct is that God exists in His Essence, speaks in His Essence and is alive in His Essence. And that his attributes lie in His very Essence and not independent extensions carried forward by the three entities in the Trinity.

In addition to this, the “Statement of Faith” declares Jesus Christ who was begotten by His Father. This conveys the meaning that the Father preceded Jesus. Clearly there is no meaning for Jesus being (The Son) if His existence did not follow that of the Father, because the Father and Son could not have logically existed together for all eternity (sequence and consequence). The example of the Son?s similarity to the concept of Word of Mouth cannot be logically used to argue against this because the (mouth) must have existed prior to the (word) coming out of it.

A similar rationale can be applied to the Holy Spirit which emanated from he Father. These two concepts require that God was both, mute and (not alive) prior to the emanation of the Son and the Holy Spirit. Here we are forced to imagine a three or two-stage evolution of the Christian God, where the Son’s existence and the emanation of the Holy Spirit followed that of the eternal Father.

This of course cannot be argued out of by saying that the Divine does not submit to the concept of Time, because naturally and according to the Trinity, The Father is a must and a pre-requisite of both, The Son and The Holy Spirit. Here we have to repeat what was already decided earlier .That these three entities are parts that are needy of each in order to exist. Consequently there will have to be a unifying agent needed to bring them together to form the (One God) , because all things consisting of parts require a builder . This places God in a theoretical position far from divinity.

Even worse for the Trinity, according to the Statement of Faith, The Father is God, The Son is God and The Holy Spirit is also God. How can we reconcile this with fact that the Father [who is associated with the Essence] is in need of the Spoken Word and Spirit. The Son who is associated with the Speaking Mind is in need of the Essence and Life and the Holy Spirit who is associated with life is in need of Essence and Mind. Yet each constitutes a divine entity on its own. How marvellous can this claim be?

Here we ask Christians: do you really believe that each of these is God — by way of elaboration? Or do you believe in the cumulative divinity of the whole?

If they say here that it is nothing but mere elaboration and naming, we reply by saying that you have surely denied the statement of faith which explicitly declares Jesus : a true God from a true God. And you have certainly transgressed and named mere attributes Gods without proof or evidence.

Alternatively if they say they are actual Gods, we will ask: Is it befitting for God to lack in Spirit or the Spoken Word?

If they reply: “Yes it is possible”, our response will simply be: “Then there is no need for the three entities.”

Whereas if your answer is no, we will say: “Then each of the three entities (Father, Son and Holy Spirit) will have to contain similar parts again which brings the number of Gods to nine allowing for the necessary perfection of attributes for all entities. This will go on forever and will mathematically expand to include an uncountable number of trinities.”

Based on these arguments, I conclude that the concept of the Trinity is false and unfounded on rational or reasonably acceptable logic.

It is very easy to point out the evidence and proof denying this concept from the Bible itself. However in seeking a brief refute of the Trinity I have chosen to restrict my discussion to the rational argument.

Finally I conclude by noting that if the basic beliefs of a religion are false, it follows that the entire faith is corrupt which makes it necessary for adherents of this faith to return to the true teachings of the prophets confirming the correct faith in the Oneness of God who has no partners and who is the Most Exalted.

And only God knows best!

Cite this article as: Bismika Allahuma Team, "A Reasoning To Refute the Logic of Trinity," in Bismika Allahuma, February 3, 2006, last accessed September 25, 2022,
Christian Doctrines Christianity History

Discovering The Pagan Origins Of Christmas

Few people realize that the pagan origins of Christmas has nothing to do with Jesus(P) and celebrated in Europe long before anyone there had heard of Jesus(P). No one knows what day Jesus(P) was born on. From the Biblical description, most historians believe that his birth probably occurred in September, approximately six months after Passover. One thing they agree on is that it is very unlikely that Jesus was born in December since the Bible records shepherds tending their sheep in the fields on that night. This is quite unlikely to have happened during a cold Judean winter.

So why do Christmas celebrate Christ’s birthday as Christmas, on December 25th?

Pagan Origins Of Christmas

The answer lies in the pagan origins of Christmas. In ancient Babylon, the feast of the son of Isis (goddess of nature) was celebrated on December 25. Raucous partying, gluttonous eating, drinking and gift-giving were traditions of this feast.

In Rome, the Winter Solstice was celebrated many years before the birth of Christ. The Romans called their winter holiday “Saturnalia”, honouring Saturn, the god of agriculture. In January, they observed the Kalends of January, which represented the triumph of life over death. This whole season was called Dies Natalis Invicti Solis, the birthday of the Unconquered Sun.

The festival season was marked by much merrymaking. It is in ancient Rome that the tradition of the Mummers was born. The Mummers were groups of costumed singers and dancers who travelled from house to house entertaining their neighbours. From this, the Christmas tradition of carolling was born.

More can be said about the pagan origins of Christmas. In northern Europe, many other traditions that we now consider part of Christmas worship were begun long before the participants had ever heard of Christ. The pagans of northern Europe celebrated their own winter solstice, known as Yule. Yule was symbolic of the pagan sun god, Mithras, being born, and was observed on the shortest day of the year. As the sun god grew and matured, the days became longer and warmer. It was customary to light a candle to encourage Mithras and the sun to reappear next year. Huge Yule logs were burned in honour of the sun. The word Yule itself means “wheel”, the wheel being a pagan symbol for the sun. Mistletoe was considered a sacred plant, and the custom of kissing under the mistletoe began as a fertility ritual. Holly berries were thought to be a food of the gods.

The tree is the one symbol that unites almost all the northern European winter solstices. Live evergreen trees were often brought into homes during the harsh winters as a reminder to inhabitants that soon their crops would grow again. Evergreen boughs were sometimes carried as totems of good luck and were often present at weddings, representing fertility. The Druids used the tree as a religious symbol, holding their sacred ceremonies while surrounding and worshipping huge trees.

In the year 350 AD, Pope Julius I declared that Christ’s birth would be celebrated on December 25. There is little doubt that he was trying to make it as painless as possible for pagan Romans (who remained a majority at that time) to convert to Christianity. The new religion went down a bit easier, knowing that their feasts would not be taken away from them. Christmas (Christ-Mass) as we know it today, most historians agree, began in Germany, though Catholics and Lutherans still disagree about which church celebrated it first. The earliest record of an evergreen being decorated in a Christian celebration was in 1521 in the Alsace region of Germany. A prominent Lutheran minister of the day cried blasphemy: “Better that they should look to the true tree of life, Christ”The controversy continues even today in some fundamentalist sects.

Cite this article as: Bismika Allahuma Team, "Discovering The Pagan Origins Of Christmas," in Bismika Allahuma, December 25, 2006, last accessed September 25, 2022,
Christian Doctrines Christianity Islam

What Should Be The Muslim Reaction To Christmas?

All praise be to Allah alone, for making us Muslims and bestowing us the deen of Islam to distinguish right and wrong. The holiday season is upon us again, and the ugly head of Satan is rising again to inspire people to indulge in innovation and shirk. What proceeds is an analytical view of Christmas and appropriate Muslim conduct during the Christmas season. More importantly, what should be the Muslim reaction to Christmas?

Quite a number of Muslims today, especially those living in Christian-dominated countries or those influenced to a large degree by western culture, have been led to consider that taking part in the Christmas celebrations of friends and relatives is, at very least, a harmless past time if not a legitimate source of pleasure for children and adults alike.

In many instances, the pressure to conform with the practices of society is too great for those of weak resolve to withstand. Parents are often tempted to give in to the pleading of children who have been invited to parties. They do not know a lot about why this happens because the parents do not tell their kids about it.

Any belief system or ritual (Christmas or otherwise) in any religion should satisfy each of the following criteria to be labelled as authentic:

  1. It should have its evidence from the scriptures or from the authentic sayings of the Messenger.
  2. The Messenger himself and his companions should practice and propagate it.
  3. The Scripture or the Messenger’s sayings in which this belief system is present should be preserved from alterations or perishment.

Was Jesus Born On December 25th?

Neither the date 25th December nor any other date of Jesus’ birth is mentioned in the Bible. Not until the year 530 C.E., that a monk, Dionysus Exigus, fixed the date of the birth of Jesus on Dec. 25th. “He wrongly dated the birth of Christ according to the Roman system (i.e., 754 years after the founding of Rome) as Dec. 25, 753.”1 This date was chosen perhaps in keeping with the holidays already indoctrinated into the pagans.

Roman pagans celebrated December 25th as the birth of their “god” of light, Mithra.

“In the 2nd-century A..D., it [Mithraism] was more general in the Roman Empire than Christianity, to which it bore many similarities.”2

“The reason why Christmas came to be celebrated on December 25 remains uncertain, but most probably the reason is that early Christians wished the date to coincide with the pagan Roman festival marking the “birthday of the unconquered sun” (natalis solis invicti); this festival celebrated the winter solstice, when the days again begin to lengthen and the sun begins to climb higher in the sky.”3

Other pagan “gods” born on December 25th are: Hercules, the son of Zeus (Greeks); Bacchus, god of wind (Romans); Adonis, god of Greeks; Freyr the Greek-Roman god.

But What About Santa Claus?

The “Santa” character was further developed in 1809 when an amusing but inaccurate history of Dutch traditions was written. Washington Irving, influenced by north European Christmas customs, pictured St. Nicholas riding in a wagon merrily over rooftops, dropping presents down chimneys, the first time this had been sighted. Needless to mention, the word “Santa Claus” appears nowhere in the Bible. However, Saint Nicholas (Santa Claus) was a real bishop who was born some 300 years after Jesus(P). According to legend he was extremely kind and went out at night to distribute presents to the needy.

“Verily, Allah forgives not that partners should be set up with him in worship, but He forgives except that (anything else) to whom He pleases, and whoever sets up partners with Allah in worship, he has indeed invented a tremendous sin.”4

Christian belief states that the one God reveals himself in the three persons of Father, Son (Jesus Christ) and Holy Spirit. These three persons are nevertheless regarded as a unity, sharing one “substance”. Prophet Jesus(P) is elevated to divinity, sits on the right hand of God and judges the world. The Holy Spirit, who in the Hebrew Bible is the means by which God exercises his creative power, in Christian thought becomes a part of the God-head. Paul made the Holy Spirit the alter ego of Christ, the guide and help of Christians, first manifesting itself on the day of Pentecost.

Consequently, Shirk in Ruboobeeyah occurs in the Christian belief that Jesus(P) and the Holy Spirit are God’s partners in all of His dominion, in their belief that Jesus(P) alone pronounces judgement on the world and in their belief that Christians are helped and guided by the Holy Spirit. This form of Shirk occurs when any act of worship is directed to other than Allah.

“Indeed they do blaspheme those who say that Allah is Jesus, the son of Mary, but Jesus said “O children of Israel! Worship Allah, my Lord and your Lord”. Whoever joins other gods with Allah, Allah will forbid him heaven and the fire will be his abode.”5

‘Abdullâh ibn Mas’ud (may Allah be pleased with him) narrated that Allâh’s Messenger(P) said: “Anyone who dies worshipping others along with Allah will definitely enter the Fire.” I said, “Anyone who dies worshipping none along with Allâh will definitely enter Paradise.”6

Muslim Reaction Towards Christmas

Being the custodians of Truth and the “best Ummah created for mankind” and “witnesses unto mankind” (ummatan wasatan), we Muslims just cannot stay still as the society around us is entrapped by Satan. Enjoining good and forbidding evil should be our theme.

The foremost thing to realise is that Christmas is a big innovation which is leading a big part of humanity to shirk (associating partners with God). Christianity has transgressed the limits set by Allah; therefore showing happiness and joy on Christmas, Halloween, Easter and Good Friday is like shaking hands with Satan and telling him to carry on the good work.

Remember that Allah commandment to us in the Qur’an:

“Help you one another in virtue and righteousness, but do not help one another in sin and transgression. And fear Allah, verily Allah is severe in punishment”.7

It is highly recommended for all Muslims to carry brochures on Islam with them to pass on classmates, co-workers, neighbours etc. after discussing Islam. Thus the hearts and minds of non-Muslims should be exposed to the beautiful message of Islam.

Say: “He is Allah, the One and only,
Allah, the Eternal, the Absolute,
He begetteth not, nor is He begotten.
And there is none like unto Him.”

And verily, only God knows best!

Cite this article as: Bismika Allahuma Team, "What Should Be The Muslim Reaction To Christmas?," in Bismika Allahuma, December 25, 2007, last accessed September 25, 2022,
  1. Encyclopedia Britannica, 1998 ed. []
  2. The Concise Columbia Encyclopedia, 1995 ed []
  3. Encyclopedia Britannica, 1998 ed. []
  4. Qur’an, 4:48 []
  5. Qur’an, 5:72 []
  6. Narrated in Bukhari and Muslim. []
  7. Quran, 5:2 []