`Isa Rejects Shirk and Affirms Tawhid

In the Name of Allah, The Most Gracious, Most Merciful

And (remember) when Allah will say (on the Day of Resurrection): "O 'Iesa (Jesus), son of Maryam (Mary)! Did you say unto men: 'Worship me and my mother as two gods besides Allah?' " He will say: "Glory be to You! It was not for me to say what I had no right (to say). Had I said such a thing, You would surely have known it. You know what is in my inner-self though I do not know what is in Yours, truly, You, only You, are the All-Knower of all that is hidden and unseen.
"Never did I say to them aught except what You (Allah) did command me to say: 'Worship Allah, my Lord and your Lord.' And I was a witness over them while I dwelt amongst them, but when You took me up, You were the Watcher over them, and You are a Witness to all things. (This is a great admonition and warning to the Christians of the whole world).
"If You punish them, they are Your slaves, and if You forgive them, verily You, only You are the All-Mighty, the All-Wise ." (Qur'an 5 : 116-118)

The Christians were not content merely with deifying Jesus and the Holy Spirit. They even turned Mary, the mother of Jesus, into a full-fledged object of worship. The Bible does not contain even the remotest suggestion that Mary was in any way either divine or superhuman. During the first three centuries after the Messiah, such a concept was totally alien to Christian thinking. Towards the end of the third century of the Christian era, however, some theologians of Alexandria employed, for the first time, the expression 'Mother of God' in connection with Mary. Subsequently, belief in Mary's divinity and the practice of Mariolatry began to spread among Christians. Even then, however, the Church was not prepared to accord official approval to this belief and denounced the Mariolaters as heretics. It was not until the Council of Ephesus in 431 that the Church officially used the expression 'Mother of God' for Mary. The result was that Mariolatry began to spread fast within the Church itself, so much so that, by the time of the revelation of the Qur'an, Mary had become so important a deity that she obscured even the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost. Statues of Mary adorned the cathedrals. She became the object of rites and worship. People addressed their prayers to her. She was regarded as the one who responded to people's supplications, who heeded people's grievances and complaints, who relieved them in distress, who provided support and succour to the helpless. For a devout Christian there could be no greater source of comfort and inner strength than the belief that he enjoyed the support and patronage of the 'Mother of God'. In the preamble of his code, Justinian had declared Mary to be the defender and supporter of his empire, and his general, Marses, sought Mary's guidance on the battlefield. Heraclius, a contemporary of the Prophet (peace be on him), had a picture of Mary on his standard and he was confident that by her grace the standard would never be lowered. Several centuries later the Protestants argued strongly against Mariolatry during the movement which led to the Reformation. The Roman Catholic Church has, nevertheless, managed so far to cling to Mariolatry in one form or another.

Allah will also speak to His servant and Messenger, `Isa son of Maryam, peace be upon him, saying to him on the Day of Resurrection in the presence of those who worshipped `Isa and his mother as gods besides Allah,

(O `Isa, son of Maryam! Did you say unto men: `Worship me and my mother as two gods besides Allah') This is a threat and a warning to Christians, chastising them in public, as Qatadah and others said, and Qatadah mentioned this Ayah as evidence,

("This is a Day on which the truthful will profit from their truth.'') (5:119) Allah's statement,

(Glory be to You! It was not for me to say what I had no right (to say)...) contains Allah's direction for `Isa to utter the perfect answer. Ibn Abi Hatim recorded that Abu Hurayrah said, "`Isa will be taught his argument in reply to what Allah will ask him,

(And (remember) when Allah will say (on the Day of Resurrection): "O `Isa, son of Maryam! Did you say unto men: `Worship me and my mother as two gods besides Allah') (5:116).'' Abu Hurayrah then narrated that the Prophet said that Allah taught `Isa to say,

(Glory be to You! It was not for me to say what I had no right (to say)...) Ath-Thawri narrated this Hadith from Ma`mar from Ibn Tawus from Tawus. `Isa's statement,

(Had I said such a thing, You would surely have known it.) means, had I said it, You, my Lord, would have known it, for nothing escapes Your knowledge. Rather, I have not said these words nor did the thought even cross my mind, this why he said,

(You know what is in my inner self though I do not know what is in Yours, truly, You, only You, are the Knower of all that is hidden and unseen. Never did I say to them ought except what You (Allah) did command me to say...) and convey,

(Worship Allah, my Lord and your Lord.) I only called them to what You sent me with and commanded me to convey to them,

(Worship Allah, my Lord and your Lord) and this is what I conveyed to them,

(And I was a witness over them while I dwelled amongst them,) I was a witness over what they did when I was amongst them,

(but when You took me ﴿up﴾, You were the Watcher over them, and You are a Witness to all things.) Abu Dawud At-Tayalisi recorded that Ibn `Abbas said, "The Messenger of Allah stood up once and gave us a speech in which he said,

(O people! You will be gathered to Allah while barefooted, naked and uncircumcised;

(As We began the first creation, We shall repeat it.)

The first among the creation who will be covered with clothes will be Ibrahim. Some men from my Ummah will be brought and taken to the left (to the Fire) and I will yell, `They are my followers!' It will be said, `You do not know what they innovated after you (in religion).' So I will say just as the righteous servant (`Isa) said,

(And I was a witness over them while I dwelled amongst them, but when You took me ﴿up﴾, You were the Watcher over them, and You are a Witness to all things. If You punish them, they are Your servants, and if You forgive them, verily You, only You are the Almighty, the All-Wise.)

(It will further be said, `These people kept reverting back on their heels after you left them.')'' Al-Bukhari also recorded this Hadith in the explanation of this Ayah. Allah said;

(If You punish them, they are Your servants, and if You forgive them, verily You, only You are the Almighty, the All-Wise.) All matters refer back to Allah, for He does what He Wills and none can question Him about what He does, while He will question them. This Ayah also shows the crime of the Christians who invented a lie against Allah and His Messenger, thus making a rival, wife and son for Allah. Allah is glorified in that He is far above what they attribute to Him. So this Ayah (5:118) has tremendous value and delivers unique news.

The Meaning of Bahirah, Sa'ibah, Wasilah and Ham:

Surah Al-Ma'idah (The Table Spread with Food): Tafsir Ayah 103-104

The Meaning of Bahirah, Sa'ibah, Wasilah and Ham:

In the Name of Allah, The Most Gracious, Most Merciful

103. Allah has not instituted things like Bahirah (a she-camel whose milk was spared for the idols and nobody was allowed to milk it) or a Sa'ibah (a she-camel let loose for free pasture for their false gods, e.g. idols, etc., and nothing was allowed to be carried on it), or a Wasilah (a she-camel set free for idols because it has given birth to a she-camel at its first delivery and then again gives birth to a she-camel at its second delivery) or a Ham (a stallion-camel freed from work for their idols, after it had finished a number of copulations assigned for it, all these animals were liberated in honour of idols as practised by pagan Arabs in the pre-Islamic period). But those who disbelieve invent lies against Allah, and most of them have no understanding.
104. And when it is said to them: "Come to what Allah has revealed and unto the Messenger (Muhammad  for the verdict of that which you have made unlawful)." They say: "Enough for us is that which we found our fathers following," even though their fathers had no knowledge whatsoever and no guidance.

Just as, in the Indian subcontinent, cows, oxen and goats are set free after being consecrated either to God Almighty to some idol or shrine or to some saintly person, and just as people consider it prohibited either to put them to work, to slaughter them or to derive any other kind of benefit from them, so the Arabs of the Jahiliyah period also let loose certain animals after consecrating them. Such animals were variously named.

Bahirah was the name of a female camel which had already borne five young, the last of which was a male. The practice was to slit the ear of such a camel and then let her loose. Thereafter no one could ride her, use her milk, slaughter her or shear her hair. She was entitled to graze and drink water wherever she liked.

Sa'ibah was the name of either a male or female camel which had been let loose after consecration as a mark of gratitude in fulfilment of a vow taken for either the recovery from some ailment or delivery from some danger. In the same way the female camel which had borne ten times, and each time a female, was also let loose.

Wasilah. If the first kid born to a goat was a male, it was slaughtered in the name of the deities; but if it was a female, it was kept by the owners for themselves. If twins were born and one of them was a male and the other a female goat, the male was not slaughtered but rather let loose in the name of the deities. This male goat was called wasilah.

Ham. If the young of camels in the second degree of descent had become worthy of riding they were let loose. Likewise, if ten offspring had been borne by a female camel she was also let loose, and called ham.

Al-Bukhari recorded that Sa`id bin Al-Musayyib said, "The Bahirah is a female camel whose milk was spared for the idols and no one was allowed to milk it. The Sa'ibah is a female camel let loose for free pasture for the idols, and nothing was allowed to be carried on it. Abu Hurayrah said that the Messenger of Allah said,

(I saw `Amr bin `Amir Al-Khuza`i pulling his intestines behind him in the Fire, and he was the first to start the practice of Sa'ibah.) As for the Wasilah, it is a female camel set free for the idols, because it had given birth to a she-camel in its first delivery and then another she-camel at its second delivery. They used to set such camel free if she gave birth to two females without a male between them. As for the Ham, it is a male camel which would be freed from work for the idols, after it had finished a number of copulations assigned for it. The male camel freed from work in this case is called a Hami.'' Muslim and An-Nasa'i recorded this Hadith. Imam Ahmad recorded that `Abdullah bin Mas`ud said that the Prophet said,

(The first to start the practice of Sa'ibah and worshipping idols was Abu Khuza`ah, `Amr bin `Amir. I saw him pulling his intestines behind him in the Fire.) The `Amr mentioned in the above Hadith is the son of Luhay bin Qam`ah, one of the chiefs of the tribe of Khuza`ah who were the caretakers of the House of Allah after the tribe of Jurhum, (and before the Prophet's tribe, Quraysh). He was the first to change the religion of Ibrahim (Al-Khalil in Makkah) bringing idol worshipping to the area of Hijaz (Western Arabia). He also called the foolish people to worship idols and offer sacrifices to them and started these ignorant rituals concerning the animals as well as other rituals of Jahiliyyah. Allah said in Surat Al-An`am,

(And they assign to Allah a share of the tilth and cattle which He has created...) (3:136). As for the Bahirah, `Ali bin Abi Talhah said that Ibn `Abbas said, "It is the female camel that has given delivery five times. After that, they looked at the fifth delivery, if it were a male, they would slaughter it and give it to the men only and not the women. If it were a female, they would cut off its ears and proclaim, `This is a Bahirah (no one is allowed to milk it).''' As-Suddi and others mentioned a similar statement. As for the Sa'ibah, Mujahid said that it is for sheep, and mentioned a similar meaning as for Bahirah. He said that it delivers six females and then a male, female or two males, and that they then would slaughter it (the newly born sheep) and feed its meat to the men, but not to the woman. Muhammad bin Ishaq said that the Sa'ibah is the female camel that delivers ten females, without giving birth to a single male between them. They would then set it free and no one was allowed to ride it, cut its wool or milk it, except for a guest. Abu Rawq said, "The Sa'ibah was made as such when one goes out for some of his affairs and succeeds in whatever he intended to do. So he would designate a Sa'ibah from his property, a female camel or another type, and would set it free for the idols (in appreciation for his success). Then, whatever this camel gave birth to was set free for the idols too.'' As-Suddi said, "When one's affair was successful, or if he was cured from an illness, or if his wealth increased, he would set some of his wealth free for the idols. Those who would try to acquire any of the Sa'ibah property were punished in this world.'' As for the Wasilah, `Ali bin Abi Talhah said that Ibn `Abbas said, "It is the sheep that gives birth seven times, if she gives birth to a male or a female stillborn at its seventh delivery, the men, but not the women, would eat from it. If she gave birth to a female, or a female and a male, they would set them free, proclaiming (about the male in this case), His sister Wasalat (literally, `connected him to being forbidden on us').'' Ibn Abi Hatim recorded this statement. `Abdur-Razzaq narrated that Ma`mar said that Az-Zuhri said that Sa`id bin Al-Musayyib said that,

(Or a Wasilah) "It is the female camel that gives delivery to a female and then another female at its second delivery. They would call such a camel a Wasilah, proclaiming that she has Wasalat (connected) between two females without giving birth to a male between them. So they used to cut off the ears of the Wasilah and let it roam free to pasture for their idols.'' A similar explanation was reported from Imam Malik bin Anas. Muhammad bin Ishaq said, "The Wasilah sheep is the ewe that gives birth to ten females in five deliveries, giving birth to two females at each delivery. This sheep would be called Wasilah and would be set free. Whatever this sheep delivers afterwards, male or female, would be given to the men, but not the women, but if it delivers a stillborn, men and women would share it!'' As for the Ham, Al-`Awfi said that Ibn `Abbas said, "If a man's camel performs ten copulations, they would call him a Ham, `So set him free.,'' Similar was reported from Abu Rawq and Qatadah. `Ali bin Abi Talhah said that Ibn `Abbas said, "The Ham is the male camel whose offspring gave birth to their own offspring; they would then proclaim, `This camel has Hama (protected) its back.' Therefore, they would not carry anything on this male camel, cut his wool, prevent him from grazing wherever he likes or drinking from any pool, even if the pool did not belong to its owner.'' Ibn Wahb said, "I heard Malik saying, `As for the Ham, it is the male camel who is assigned a certain number of copulations, and when having finished what was assigned to him, would have peacock feathers placed on him and be set free.''' Other opinions were also mentioned to explain this Ayah. There is a Hadith on this subject that Ibn Abi Hatim collected from Abu Ishaq As-Subay`i from Al-Ahwas Al-Jushami from his father Malik bin Nadlah who said, "I came to the Prophet wearing old clothes. So he said to me,

(Do you have any property) I said, `Yes.' He asked,

(What type) I said, `All types; camels, sheep, horses and slaves.' He said,

(If Allah gives you wealth, then let it show on you.) He then asked,

(Do your camels deliver calves that have full ears) I said, `Yes, and do camels give birth but to whole calves' He said,

(Do you take the knife and cut off the ears of some of them saying, `This is a Bahirah,' and tear the ears of some of them and proclaim, `This is Sacred') I said, `Yes.' He said,

(Then do not do that, for all the wealth that Allah has given you is allowed for you.) Then he said;

(Allah has not instituted things like Bahirah or a Sa'ibah or a Wasilah or a Ham. ) As for the Bahirah, it is the animal whose ears were cut, one would not allow his wife, daughters, or any of his household to benefit from its wool, hair or milk. But, if it died, they would share it. As for the Sa'ibah, they used to set it free for their idols and announce this fact in the vicinity of the idols. As for the Wasilah, it is the sheep that gives birth to six offspring. When she delivered for the seventh time, they would cut its ears and horns, saying, `It has Wasalat (connected deliveries),' and they would not slaughter it, hit it or prevent it from drinking from any pool.'' This Hadith was narrated with the addition of the explanation of these words in it. In another narration for this Hadith from Abu Ishaq from Abu Al-Ahwas, `Awf bin Malik used his own words (i.e., he explained these words not as a part of the Hadith itself) and this is more sound. Imam Ahmad recorded this Hadith from Sufyan bin `Uyaynah, from Abu Az-Za`ra' `Amr bin `Amr, from his uncle Abu Al-Ahwas `Awf bin Malik bin Nadlah from his father, Malik bin Nadlah. This narration also does not contain the explanation of Bahirah, Ham etc., that is added to the Hadith above, and Allah knows best. Allah's statement,

(But those who disbelieve invent lies against Allah, and most of them have no understanding.) means, Allah did not legislate these invented rituals and He does not consider them acts of obedience. Rather, it is the idolators who made them into rituals and acts of worship that they used to draw near to Allah. But they did not and will not help them to draw near to Him, rather, these innovations will only harm them.

(And when it is said to them: "Come to what Allah has revealed and to the Messenger.'' They say: "Enough for us is that which we found our fathers following,'') meaning, if they are called to Allah's religion, Law and commandments and to avoiding what He prohibited, they say, `The ways and practices that we found our fathers and forefathers following are good enough for us. ` Allah said,

(even though their fathers had no knowledge whatsoever...) That is, even though their fathers did not understand or recognize the truth or find its way. Therefore, who would follow their forefathers, except those who are even more ignorant and misguided than they were

The Prohibition of Shirk (Polytheism) and Exaggeration in the Religion

"Say (O Muhammad  to mankind): "How do you worship besides Allah something which has no power either to harm or to benefit you? But it is Allah Who is the All-Hearer, All-Knower."
Say (O Muhammad ): "O people of the Scripture (Jews and Christians)! Exceed not the limits in your religion (by believing in something) other than the truth, and do not follow the vain desires of people who went astray in times gone by, and who misled many, and strayed (themselves) from the Right Path."(Qur'an 5 : 76-77)

Allah admonishes those who take up rivals with Him and worship the idols, monuments and false deities. Allah states that such false deities do not deserve any degree of Divinity. Allah said,

(Say) O Muhammad, to those from among the Children of Adam, such as the Christians, who worship other than Allah,

(How do you worship besides Allah something which has no power either to harm or to benefit you) meaning, which cannot prevent harm for you nor bring about your benefit,

(But it is Allah Who is the All-Hearer, All-Knower.) He hears what His servants say and has knowledge of all things. Therefore, how did you worship inanimate objects that do not hear, see or know anything - having no power to bring harm or benefit to themselves let alone others - instead of worshipping Allah Allah then said,

(Say: "O People of the Scripture! Exceed not the limits in your religion beyond the truth,) Meaning: Do not exceed the limits concerning the truth and exaggeration in praising whom you were commanded to honor. You exaggerated in his case and elevated him from the rank of Prophet to the rank of a god. You did this with `Isa, who was a Prophet, yet you claimed that he is god besides Allah. This error occurred because you followed your teachers, the advocates of misguidance who came before your time and who,

(...and who misled many, and strayed (themselves) from the right path,) deviated from the straight path, to the path of misguidance and deviation.

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

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

A little further on he writes:

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

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

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

The same author also observes that:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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