Comments on: Can there be a son without a mother or a father? Responding to banal missionary “logic”

By: kursi2255

kursi2255 — Wed, 16 Nov 2005 11:23:24 +0000

As salaamu alaykum to everyone. I will go straight to the point. The Holy Qur’an has refuted EVERY concept of sonship ascribed to God, whether intended as a metaphorical or metaphysical ascription. Asim is right by saying that children imply the same nature as the father. A lion begets a lion,not an ox. But in the case of God having children (God forbid!), it would be a tremendous absurdity. God is al-Ahad (The One and The Only), that is, He is not just One; He is entirely Unique, transcending all kinds of limitations, comparisons, and categories. Even our Christian brothers-in-humanity would have to agree to this, otherwise they would have to concede that the concept of God in Islam is far superior to their concept of God. If He is One, Sole, Absolutely Unique, the case of Him begetting (God forbid!) a son of like nature to Him would negate His Uniqueness. If not a Unique God, then no better than the idols polytheists worship. If His being Unique is negated, then the whole concept of monotheism would be destroyed. If He would beget one son “godling”, then there would be two Gods. If there would be two gods, we will have two worthless, impotent gods who need each other, and who are no better than the idols the Prophet Muhammad (sallallahu alayhi wa sallam) smashed. Besides, the begotten ‘godling’ would neither be eternal nor absolute, since being begotten means having an origin, and having an origin is not an attribute of God (Exalted is He against such allegations by Christians, polytheists, and their ilk!). If the one begotten by the Eternal, Everlasting God is not an Eternal, Everlasting God like Him, then that creature wouldn’t have been begotten, neither can we call it a son of God. Again, a lion doesn’t beget an ox. Thus, not only the Trinitarian Christians, but all Christians who believe that Prophet Isa the Messiah (peace be upon him) can be called ’son of God’ in any sense, metaphorical, metaphysical, or literal, are clearly in the wrong path. And only God knows best.

By: Mehroz

Mehroz — Sat, 05 Nov 2005 23:55:29 +0000

Salam. Observational Science agrees with Al-Quran in saying that Man cannot have a child without Woman. Whereas Bible is in conflict with Observational Science in saying that Man can have a child without a Woman.

* I said Man because Christians believe that their god-father is an old-Man who lives in Heaven.

By: Asim

Asim — Wed, 26 Oct 2005 23:28:54 +0000

Jameal– > It was the critic who wrote the Qur’an who had the problem with
> language. One is still not sure what the Qur’an means by the term
> “Son” exceept it means someone produced in the animal way - Hence God
> not having any consort couldn’t have a “son” - but this is utter
> confusion.

Asim-You don;t get it at all. First of all, these arguments are primarily
addressed to the polytheists. Second, the polytheists acknowledged
that God has children, but NO CONSORT. The Quran is saying that YOU
KNOW that God has no consort, and YOU KNOW that God created
everything, so why is it you assert these beings as divine?

The first verse he quoted was in surah Anaam, which explciitly states
that “How can He have a son when He has no consort?” The same verses
discuss that Allah originated the Heavens and the Earth out of
nothing, of which even the polytheists recognized. The argument
entailed is this, and it is in this case related to the POLYTHEISTS.
They too asserted that God had NO CONSORT. Yet, they ascribed to God
children.

It is demonstrating the absurdity, that that the polytheists never
ascribed to God a WIFE, yet they ascribe to God children.

This particular verse, quoted above, is demonstrating the absrudity of
having any chioldren based upon the Absoluteness and Transcendency of
God Almighty. Thus, the notion of ownership of everything in the
heavens and the earth and the mention of everything comng before God
as a slave. Children imply the same nature as the father, and this
strikes total root against monotheism.

First of all, the verse is directed to the POLYTHEISTS.

Secondly, they did not believe God had a CONSORT also. Yet they still
claimed God had chidlren. Wow. Impressive theology. Why did they
claim God had children?