CathInfo.com

No, I think it more fair to say they worship something entirely different from the Blessed Trinity that also happens to be a singular entity. My assumption would be the devil.

Important to understand that the K0ran was translated in Latin only in 1143 AD. At the end of this link:  "...Therefore, this speech rectified the former perception and constituted the Pontifical teaching's clear and strong condemnation of Islαm and its prophet...."

https://www.cathinfo.com/catholic-living-in-the-modern-world/the-great-chastisement-79179/msg1018495/#msg1018495

...All of this is passed over in silence in order to invite us into collaboration that is impossible for the simple reason that the meaning the M0slems give to the words "social justice," "peace," "freedom," etc., is merely that which can be drawn from the Korαn or from the words and deeds of Mohαmmed, a meaning established over the course of the centuries by "orthodox" interpretation: an Islamic meaning totally different from our own. For example, M0slems do not understand peace in the way that the currently reigning Pope understands it. They do not believe that M0slems can live under infidels. This is why they divide the world into two parts, one where Islam rules (the house of Islam) and the rest of the world, necessarily an enemy unless it converts and submits (house of war), the rest of the world with whom the Islamic community believes itself to be perpetually at war. Therefore, for them, peace is not an end in itself that allows them to coexist with different nations and religions; it is only a means, imposed by circuмstances which oblige them to make truces with infidels. But the truce must have a limited duration; it must never exceed ten years; and every time they have the means, then war must be resumed. For the M0slem, this is a juridical, religious, and moral obligation. It is in force until the final, inevitable battle that results in the installation of a world Islamic State.

NOTE
The Council seems to justify its statement that "the M0slems adore with us the one true God, etc." by the quote contained in a note of personal gratitude sent by St. Gregory VII, Pope from 1073 to 1085, to Anαzιr, Emir of Mauritania. The Emir had been well disposed to oblige certain of the Pope's requests and had also been generous concerning some Christian whom he had taken prisoner. In this letter, the Pope stated that this act of "goodness" was "inspired by God," who commanded us to love our neighbor, and specifically asks "from us and you...that we believe in and confess the same God, although by different modes (licet diverso modo), that we praise and venerate each day the Creator of the ages and master of this world" (PL, 148, 451 A). How can such a statement be explained? The answer: by that era's ignorance regarding the religion founded by  Moh αmmed.

  At the time of St. Gregory VII, the Koran had not yet been translated into Latin. This is why basic aspects of its "credo" were not understood. It was known that the Mo0slems, those fierce enemies of Christianity, who suddenly emerged from the Arabian desert in 633 with a conquering violence, would sometimes demonstrate a certain respect for Jesus, but only as a prophet, and for the Virgin Mary; that they believed in one God, in the inspired nature of Sacred Scripture, in the Judgment and in a future life. Consequently, they could have been taken for an heretical Christian sect ("the Mohαmmedan sect"), an equivocation that was held for a long time since, at the beginning of the 14th century, Dante placed M0hammed in hell among heretics and schismatics (Hell, XVIII, V. 31 ff.).
It is in this context that the praise privately addressed to the Emir by Gregory VII ought to be seen: praise for someone held to be a heretic who, on this occasion, had behaved charitably, as if the true God, in whom he thought he believed, had touched his heart. Thus, in effect, one can speak of a heretic who believes in the same God as ours, but in a different way. Nevertheless, St. Gregory VII's praise of the Emir did not prevent him from defending, in a perfectly coherent way, the idea of an expedition launched from all of the Christian countries against the Moslεms, in order to help Eastern Christianity when it was threatened with extinction. This idea was carried out shortly after his death with the first crusade, preached by Urban II.

  The first Latin translation of the Koran did not take place until 1143, fifty-eight years after the death of St. Gregory VII, by the Englishman Robert de Chester for the Abbot of Cluny, Peter the Venerable, who added a strong refutation of the Islamic creed. Actually, this translation was a summary of the Koran, and remained the only translation for many centuries, until the critical and complete version was done by Fr. Marracci in 1698. In the first half of the 15th century, the Cardinal of Cusa set the stage for this first translation by writing his famous Cribatio Alcorani, a critical study of the Korαn. This preceded by a few years the Bull issued in October 1458 by Pius II (Aeneas Sylvius Piccolomini) for the purpose of launching a crusade (which was never carried out) against the Turks who surged into the Balkans after having seized Constantinople. In this Bull, the Pope referred to the Moslems as disciples of the "false prophet Mohammed," a definition that he reasserted on September 12, 1459, in a remarkable speech in the Mantua Cathedral, where the Diet charged with approving the crusade was convoked. In this speech, he referred again to M0hammed as an impostor; he also said that if the Sultan Mehmed were not stopped, after subjugating all of the Western princes, he would then "destroy the Gospel of Christ and impose the law of his false prophet on the entire world."3 Therefore, this speech rectified the former perception and constituted the Pontifical teaching's clear and strong condemnation of Islam and its prophet. Once and for all, it eliminated the equivocation which had defined Islam as a Christian "heresy..."