Skip to main content

Two Monotheistic Patterns – Trinitarianism and Tawhid

Image
iPost Team,

Table of Contents

The idea of Trinitarianism comes from the monotheistic Christian doctrine that views God as a Trinity of Persons – ‘God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit’. On the opposite spectrum, the idea of Tawhid (that is, making one or claiming oneness) follows from the monotheistic Islamic doctrine that defines God as ‘one’ and ‘undivided unity’ emphasizing that ‘there is no god but God’. Therefore, in this writing, we will try to examine the two religious doctrinal patterns about God. Our aim here is not to review all monotheistic religions. Here, we aim to concentrate on the two doctrines mentioned above and to review some of the arguments as well as critique some of the assumptions.

Trinitarianism – A Monotheistic Pattern

Christian doctrines and theologies focus on and develop from and around the Trinitarian ‘model’ or ‘structure’. Following some Ecumenical Conciliar debates (Nicaea 325; Constantinople 381; Ephesus 431; Chalcedon 451) about the mystery of God’s incarnation in his Begotten Son, and the ‘sameness’ of God, the Father with his Son, Jesus Christ, and the two natures of Jesus Christ, divine and human, Christianity defined its orthodox position about the nature of God, Jesus Christ, and Holy Spirit. The Trinity is the avowed mark of Christian God.

We will attempt to define Trinitarianism as the Christian paradigm that explains the religious experiences and theologies, philosophies and phenomenology, doctrines and faith, morals, and law from the Christian identification of God as a Trinity. It is the Christian paradigm of the Godhead that highlights the signification of undivided unity in the three Persons and emphasizes that Jesus Christ is the Son of God. The idea of Trinitarianism correlates with the revelation that Jesus Christ is the Word of God (John 1: 1-14) who was crucified and later ascended to God his Father. It acknowledges that Mary is the Mother of God and not only the mother of Jesus because Jesus Christ is the Son of God. The Christians would argue as above, but the Muslims would come up with different arguments as we shall see below.

Tawhid – A Monotheistic Pattern

The idea of Tawhid expressly asserts that nothing can be added to God. God is one and cannot be divided. With the Islamic Shahadah, this is made clear: ‘There is no god but Allah, and Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah’. This is one of the Five Pillars of Islam. The Qur’an overwhelmingly asserts that Tawhid was the reason why it was revealed to Prophet Muhammad (Al-Fatihah 1; Al-‘Imran 3:64; Al-Nisa’ 4:153-176; Al-Ikhlas 112) and in several Surahs reprimanded the Christians and the People of the Book to turn to the Islamic concept of monotheism (Al-A‘raf 7:59; An-Nahl 16:36; Al-Anbiya 21:25). They argued that the Christian monotheism is adulterated. Tawhid is inimitably the mark of the Islamic doctrine of God.

We will attempt to define Tawhid, a monotheistic pattern as the Islamic paradigm which articulates the intrinsic nature of its faith and practice, doctrines and theologies, revelation and prophecy, ethics and law, language, and culture from the Tawhidic perspective. The motif of the Qur’an is Tawhid, and this underlies the following observations, for example: that God is one and indivisible God; that Jesus (‘Isa) is the son of Mary, spirit, and Messenger of God; that the Qur’an is the word of God; that Jesus was not crucified or killed but translated to heaven, and finally that Mary is the mother of Jesus. 

Now that we have examined the two monotheistic patterns and their different claims to the ideas and doctrines of God, below we will look at some basic assumptions and try to make some meanings from them.

Trinitarianism and Tawhid in Contest

From the above, we can infer that both monotheistic patterns are intrinsically opposed to each other. Ideologically, they suggest the contentions between Christianity and Islam were a result of their interpretations of the concept of God. Despite their different understanding of monotheism, Christians and Muslims were enchanted with the belief in one God as against dualism or polytheism.

Necessity and Contingency Arguments

The monotheistic patterns could be said to have ideologically put a divide between Christians and Muslims as the doctrines of Trinity and Tawhid are viewed as either a belief of necessity or a belief of contingency. Here necessity means that the formula (used here as, that is, a belief that expresses a relationship or brings people together), for example: ‘Three persons in one God’ or ‘There is no god but God’ is true in every interpretation.  Contingency means that the formula: ‘Three persons in one God’ or ‘There is no god but God’ is true under certain rules and false when other rules are applied. Therefore, we can claim that the monotheistic patterns of Trinitarianism and Tawhid underlie this necessity or contingency modal logic. 

Trinitarianism, for example, is the seeming contingency that three can be one, while for Tawhid, it is the necessity that one cannot be three depending on who is arguing (a Christian or a Muslim). For Trinitarianism, it is the necessity that three can be one, while for Tawhid, it is the seeming contingency that one cannot be three. Therefore, each pattern argues for the necessity or possibility of their belief formulas.

We can consider the different claims of both as the marks and reasons for their existence, for it is Islamic or Christian, for example. If there are no three Persons in One God and Jesus Christ is not the Son of God, there would be nothing like Christianity (I mean here the Trinitarian Christianity); and if there is no god but God and Muhammad is not the Prophet of God, there will be nothing like Islam. Malory Nye highlighted the importance of these differences in what he calls the “world religions’ paradigm.” According to him:

Differences are primarily framed in terms of each distinct religion having certain characteristics, which can be clustered in particular areas: major texts (sacred books); foundational ideas, ‘beliefs’, and worldviews; particular histories and leaders; and very often a sense of having a distinct identity.  

Should these differences become ‘tensions’ or conflictive, such as in the monotheistic patterns of Trinitarianism and Tawhid, and rise to supremacy fights, it will be a rejection of the indelible motifs drawn from years of many cultural experiences, several racial encounters, transnational lingual and religious practices. It could be viewed as a rejection of the multicultural world, a rejection of unity in diversity which religion has made possible.

Conclusion

The interpretations of whether God is one but in three persons or one and undivided could be a matter of interpretation. In both monotheistic patterns, we see quite some conflicts while interpreting the revealed word of God, such as whether Jesus is the Son of God or the son of Mary, whether Mary is the mother of Jesus or the mother of God. Such perceptions, present some obstacles to smooth authentic communication in Christian-Muslim relations. Are Muslims to accept the Christian Trinity? If they do, does this not render the Qur’an false? On the other hand, are Christians to accept the Qur’an as the word of God? If they do, does this not render the Christian Trinity false? The monotheistic patterns are frames and bases of understanding either a Christian or a Muslim.

Sources

Green, HHV (1998) A new history of Christianity. Sutton Publishing Limited, UK.

Rahner, K (1997) The Trinity, translated by Joseph Donceel. The Crossroad Publishing Company, New York.

Karkkainen, V (2004) Trinity and Religious Pluralism: The Doctrine of the Trinity in Christian Theology of Religions. Ashgate, England.

Von Balthasar, HU (1994) TheoDrama, Theological Dramatic Theory, vol.IV. The Action, translated by Graham Harrison. Ignatius Press, San Francisco.

Abdul-Raof, H (2003) Exploring The Qur’an. Al-Maktoum Institute Academic Press, Dundee-Scotland.

Ayoub, MM (2004) Islam: Faith and History. OneWorld Publications, Oxford.

Al-Faruqi, IR (ed) (1991) Trialogue of the Abrahamic faiths. Issue of Islamic thought no.1. Al Sadawi Publications, Virginia, USA.

Nye, M (2008) Religion: The Basics, 2nd edition. Routledge, Abingdon. 

 

Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Who’s A Rebel? Camus’ The Rebel and the NigeriaSphere

iPost Team,
In the contemporary Nigerian landscape, the word "rebel" is often weaponized by those in power. To the state, a rebel is a transgressor of the Cybercrimes Act, a "disturber of the peace," or an agent of destabilization. However, if we look through the eyes of Albert Camus, the 20th-century philosopher of the absurd, we find a different definition; one that validates the citizen’s cry for good governance not as an act of subversion, but as an act of profound affirmation. The Camusian "No": An Act of "Yes" Camus begins his treatise with a startlingly simple observation: "What is a rebel? A man who says no." But this "no" is not a denial of order. When a Nigerian citizen takes to social media to demand transparency or decry the absence of the rule of law, they are saying "no" to a specific limit that has been breached. Camus argues that in saying no, the rebel is simultaneously saying "yes" to the existen...
Post a Comment
Continue reading »

The Self-Alternating Theory: Why We Can Never Truly Be the Other

iPost Team,
We live in a culture obsessed with the exercise of perspective-taking. We tell ourselves to "walk a mile in another person’s shoes," if our core self: our moral compass, our intellectual agility, our refined tastes, and our personal ethics remains intact during the journey. We imagine slipping into the lives of others like costume changes in a play: maintaining our internal "I" while operating the external machinery of someone else's life. The Self-Alternating Theory challenges this fundamental illusion. It posits a sobering premise: you cannot be the other, whether in their best or worst selves. If you were truly transplanted into another person’s existence: inheriting their exact neurobiology, trauma, muscle memory, history, and social incentives you would not reform their life from an enlightened, outside perspective. You would either collapse under the weight of an alien context or become the very thing you previously judged, admired, or misunderstood. ...
Post a Comment
Continue reading »

The Self-Alternating Theory (Part II): The Fractured Mirror of Context

iPost Team,
In the first iteration of the Self-Alternating Theory, we dismantled the illusion of portable identity. We demonstrated that if you were transplanted into the life of a failed leader, a sex worker, a saint, or an elite athlete, you would not reform or master their world from an enlightened external perspective. You would either crumble under the weight of an alien context or absorb their exact trajectory. Part II extends this radical lens across the fundamental fault lines of human experience: relationships, race, geopolitics, physical embodiment, and the outer boundaries of species existence.                        The underlying principle remains absolute: we do not take our intact "I" into another person's reality. The reality reshapes, overwrites, or breaks the "I." Relational Systems: The Model Partner vs. The Toxic Household We routinely look at fractured marriages...
Post a Comment
Continue reading »

Names, Visions, and Imageries of the Crow tribe of Native Americans

iPost Team,
Table of Contents The Crow: Who are they? Names, Visions, and Imageries Apsaalooke (or Absaroka) The Separations of the Bands The Mountain Crow (Ashalaho) The River Crow The Kicked in the Bellies Chiefs, Their Names and Meanings Chief Long Hair (Issheuhutskitu) Chief Sore Belly (Arapoosh) Chief of the Camp (Ashbacheeitche) Chief of Plenty Coups The rich cultural heritage of the Native Americans is subject to different interpretations beyond the actual meanings as understood by the natives. The Crow tribe’s names, visions, and imageries are not spared from these relative interpretations. It is claimed that these names, visions, and imageries denote exaggerations, triumphalism, or cultural symbolism. Also, their name can visually reveal the true meanings of descriptive language and metaphors or similes in words and expressions.   The objective of this writing is to examine these names and imageries to differentiate the Europeans’ interpretations of the names and lifestyle of the Cr...
Post a Comment
Continue reading »

Accessibility: from Philosophical Perspectives

iPost Team,
Introduction This article aims to examine the concept of accessibility from some philosophical principles: Utilitarianism and the principle of ‘one and many.’ Doing this will bring to the fore the reason why accessibility is the cynosure of inclusivity. Understanding Accessibility Accessibility refers to the design of products, devices, services, or environments that are usable for everyone. It ensures that everyone, regardless of their abilities or limitations, can effectively interact with and benefit from a product, technology, environment, or service. The term ‘accessibility’ has its origin in French. It can be said to be borrowed from the French “ accessibilite ,” meaning “the quality of being able to be reached or accessed.” This French term might have been influenced by the late Latin accessibilis , from Latin accessus (past participle of accēdere , meaning “to approach”, “to enter”, “to access”, or “to log in.” According to Merriam-Webster Dictionary, the ...
Post a Comment
Continue reading »