وَّلَدٍ
Appears 2 times in Quran
Occurrences in Quran
Found 2 verses containing "وَّلَدٍ".
مَا کَانَ لِلّٰہِ اَنۡ یَّتَّخِذَ مِنۡ وَّلَدٍ ۖ سُبۡحٰنَہٗۤ ۚ اِذَا قَضٰۤی اَمۡرًا فَاِنَّمَا یَقُوۡلُ لَہٗ کُنۡ فَیَکُوۡنُ
10:69; 17:112; 18:5; 19:89; 21:27; 25:3; 39:5.
基督教徒相信, 伊撒是安拉的儿子。他们是根据 «圣经» 称他为 “安拉的儿子” 这一设想而产生这一信念的。可是 «圣经» 中也有称呼其他人为 “安拉的儿子” 的。伊撒在这方面并没有什么特殊之处, 因此他不过是像称呼那些其他人那样的一个安拉的儿子 («路加» 20:36; «耶利米亚书» 31:9; «马太» 6:9; «约翰» 8:41和 «以弗所书» 4:6)。
在阿拉伯语中, كُنْ (Kun) 这个单词, 除了可以向一样东西说以外, 还可以用 来表达一个深切感到的愿望。有一次远征中, 穆圣的一个非常勇敢而忠实的伙伴阿布•卡撒马 (اَبُوْخَيْثَمَة, Abu Khaithamah) 恰巧不在。穆圣深切地感觉到他没在身旁。在战斗中, 他看见一个人从远处骑着马飞驰而来, 他就喊道: كُنْ اَبَا خَيْثَمَة (Kun Aba Khaithamah), 也就是说, 但愿那是阿布•卡撒马; 瞧! 真的是阿布•卡撒马 (حَلْبِيَّة, Halbiyyah)。因此, كُنْ (Kun) 这一单词可以意示, 当安拉想要一件事或东西成为现实时, 它就成为现实; 或者, 当安拉表达这样一个愿望时, 它就具体地出现在面前。这一单词并不支持这样的看法, 说灵魂和物质是和安拉永远并存的或自古就有的。
10:69; 17:112; 18:5; 19:89; 21:27; 25:3; 39:5.
Christians believe that Jesus was God’s son. They base this belief on the assumption that the Bible calls him "son of God." But in the Bible other persons have also been called or addressed as "sons of God." Jesus enjoys no special distinction in this respect and he is, therefore, no more a son of God than those persons who have also been addressed as such (Luke, 20: 36; Jer., 31: 9; Matt., 6: 9; John, 8: 41 & Ephes., 4: 6).
In the Arabic language the word Kun, besides being addressed to a thing, is also used to express a greatly felt desire. In an expedition the Holy Prophet’s very brave and loyal Companion, Abu Khaithamah happened to be absent. The Holy Prophet keenly felt his absence. When in the midst of the battle he saw from a great distance a rider coming to him at full speed, he exclaimed Kun Aba Khaithamah, i.e. would that it were Abu Khaithamah; and lo! it was really Abu Khaithamah (Halbiyyah). So the word Kun would signify that when God desires or intends a thing to come into being, it comes into being; or when God expresses such a desire it takes a concrete form. The word lends no support to the view that soul and matter are primeval or coeternal with God.
10:69; 17:112; 18:5; 19:89; 21:27; 25:3; 39:5.
Important Words:
ماکان للّٰه (It does not befit the Majesty of Allah). They say ماکان له i.e. (1) it does not befit him; behove him; it is inconsistent with his dignity; it is not proper for him; (2) it is beyond his power to do so. In the present verse ماکان للّٰه means, it is inconsistent with the Majesty of Allah or it does not befit His Holiness (Aqrab, Lane & Mufradat). See also 2:35.
Commentary:
The words ان یتخذ من ولد express two senses (a) that He should have a son; and (b) that He should adopt someone as His son. When it is inconsistent with God’s Majesty to adopt someone as His son, it is all the more repugnant to His Holiness and Glory to have a real son. These words repudiate the Christian belief, namely (i) that God has adopted Jesus as His son or (ii) that Jesus is God’s son.
Christians believe that Jesus was God’s son. The onus for proving such a manifestly absurd belief lies on them. They base this belief on the assumption that the Bible calls him the son of God. But in the Bible other persons have also been called or addressed as sons of God. Jesus enjoys no special prerogative in this respect and is therefore no more a son of God than those persons who have also been addressed as such.
The Bible says:
(a) "Neither can they die any more: for they are equal unto the angels; and are the children of God" (Luke 20: 36);
(b) "For I am a father to Israel, and Ephraim is my firstborn" (Jer. 31:9);
(c) "Our Father which art in heaven, hallowed be thy name" (Matt. 6:9);
(d) "For if you forgive men their trespasses your heavenly Father will also forgive you" (Matt. 6:14);
(e) "That your Father also which is in heaven may forgive you your trespasses" (Mark 11: 25);
(f) "Your Father knoweth that ye have need of these things" (Luke 12: 30);
(g) "We have one Father, even God" (John 8: 41);
(h) "One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all" (Ephes. 4:6);
(i) "Thus saith the Lord, Israel is my son, even my firstborn" (Exod. 4:22).
The Bible rather supports the Quranic statement, viz.it does not befit the Majesty of Allah to take unto Himself a son.He is the One Lord, God, Who has, or needs, no son.
It says:
(a) "Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God is one Lord" (Deut. 6:4);
(b) "I am the Lord, that is my name: and my glory will I not give to another, neither my praise to graven images" (Isa. 42:8);
(c) "Hear, O Israel; the Lord our God is one Lord" (Mark 12: 29);
(d) "To the only wise God our Saviour, be glory and majesty" (Jude 1: 25);
(e) "Now unto the King eternal, immortal, invisible, the only wise God, be honour and glory forever and ever" (I Timothy 1: 17).
The verse under comment gives three reasons why God does not stand in need of a son:(1) if God were supposed to have a son, He must be subject to carnal desires and must have a wife to satisfy them; (2) He must be subject to decay and death because the procreation of species which the attribution of a son to God implies, is the characteristic of mortals; and (3) He must require a helper to assist Him in His work or to continue his work after His death. But God as represented by Islam is completely free from all these defects and therefore needs no son. In fact, the Christian dogma of sonship of Jesus is an insoluble riddle and beyond human comprehension. If Jesus is God’s son, then God will have to be admitted as incapable of carrying on the affairs of the universe alone and unaided, and therefore will have to be accepted as imperfect and defective. But because God is Perfect and All-Powerful, therefore He needs no son and no helper. Again, according to the Christian dogma each of the three deities, God, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, being perfect can and should carry on the work of the universe unaided and yet these three combine to do the thing which each one is able to accomplish by himself. This is absurd.
Those who are ignorant of Arabic language pretend to find in the word کن (be) a ground for their belief in the eternity and indestructibility of matter and soul. They argue in this way. This word shows that there had already existed something to which the order کن (be) was given. But in the Arabic language this word, besides being addressed to a thing, is also used to express a greatly felt desire. In an expedition the Holy Prophet’s very brave and loyal companion, Abu Khaithamah happened to be absent. The Prophet keenly felt his absence. When in the midst of the battle he saw from a great distance a rider coming to him at full speed he exclaimed کن ابا خیثمة i.e. would that it were Abu Khaithamah; and lo! it was really Abu Khaithamah (Halbiyyah). So an Arab would use the word کن when he would passionately desire a thing to happen.
According to this sense of کن the expression کن فیکون would mean that when God desires or intends that a thing should be, it comes into being or that when God expresses a desire it takes a concrete form. The words lend no support to the view that soul and matter are primeval or eternal. See also 2:117-118.
c
10:69; 17:112; 18:5; 19:89; 21:27; 25:3; 39:5.
802
基督教徒相信, 伊撒是安拉的儿子。他们是根据 «圣经» 称他为 “安拉的儿子” 这一设想而产生这一信念的。可是 «圣经» 中也有称呼其他人为 “安拉的儿子” 的。伊撒在这方面并没有什么特殊之处, 因此他不过是像称呼那些其他人那样的一个安拉的儿子 («路加» 20:36; «耶利米亚书» 31:9; «马太» 6:9; «约翰» 8:41和 «以弗所书» 4:6)。
803
在阿拉伯语中, كُنْ (Kun) 这个单词, 除了可以向一样东西说以外, 还可以用 来表达一个深切感到的愿望。有一次远征中, 穆圣的一个非常勇敢而忠实的伙伴阿布•卡撒马 (اَبُوْخَيْثَمَة, Abu Khaithamah) 恰巧不在。穆圣深切地感觉到他没在身旁。在战斗中, 他看见一个人从远处骑着马飞驰而来, 他就喊道: كُنْ اَبَا خَيْثَمَة (Kun Aba Khaithamah), 也就是说, 但愿那是阿布•卡撒马; 瞧! 真的是阿布•卡撒马 (حَلْبِيَّة, Halbiyyah)。因此, كُنْ (Kun) 这一单词可以意示, 当安拉想要一件事或东西成为现实时, 它就成为现实; 或者, 当安拉表达这样一个愿望时, 它就具体地出现在面前。这一单词并不支持这样的看法, 说灵魂和物质是和安拉永远并存的或自古就有的。
a
10:69; 17:112; 18:5; 19:89; 21:27; 25:3; 39:5.
2180
Important Words:
ماکان للّٰه (It does not befit the Majesty of Allah). They say ماکان له i.e. (1) it does not befit him; behove him; it is inconsistent with his dignity; it is not proper for him; (2) it is beyond his power to do so. In the present verse ماکان للّٰه means, it is inconsistent with the Majesty of Allah or it does not befit His Holiness (Aqrab, Lane & Mufradat). See also 2:35.
Commentary:
The words ان یتخذ من ولد express two senses (a) that He should have a son; and (b) that He should adopt someone as His son. When it is inconsistent with God’s Majesty to adopt someone as His son, it is all the more repugnant to His Holiness and Glory to have a real son. These words repudiate the Christian belief, namely (i) that God has adopted Jesus as His son or (ii) that Jesus is God’s son.
Christians believe that Jesus was God’s son. The onus for proving such a manifestly absurd belief lies on them. They base this belief on the assumption that the Bible calls him the son of God. But in the Bible other persons have also been called or addressed as sons of God. Jesus enjoys no special prerogative in this respect and is therefore no more a son of God than those persons who have also been addressed as such.
The Bible says:
(a) "Neither can they die any more: for they are equal unto the angels; and are the children of God" (Luke 20: 36);
(b) "For I am a father to Israel, and Ephraim is my firstborn" (Jer. 31:9);
(c) "Our Father which art in heaven, hallowed be thy name" (Matt. 6:9);
(d) "For if you forgive men their trespasses your heavenly Father will also forgive you" (Matt. 6:14);
(e) "That your Father also which is in heaven may forgive you your trespasses" (Mark 11: 25);
(f) "Your Father knoweth that ye have need of these things" (Luke 12: 30);
(g) "We have one Father, even God" (John 8: 41);
(h) "One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all" (Ephes. 4:6);
(i) "Thus saith the Lord, Israel is my son, even my firstborn" (Exod. 4:22).
The Bible rather supports the Quranic statement, viz.it does not befit the Majesty of Allah to take unto Himself a son.He is the One Lord, God, Who has, or needs, no son.
It says:
(a) "Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God is one Lord" (Deut. 6:4);
(b) "I am the Lord, that is my name: and my glory will I not give to another, neither my praise to graven images" (Isa. 42:8);
(c) "Hear, O Israel; the Lord our God is one Lord" (Mark 12: 29);
(d) "To the only wise God our Saviour, be glory and majesty" (Jude 1: 25);
(e) "Now unto the King eternal, immortal, invisible, the only wise God, be honour and glory forever and ever" (I Timothy 1: 17).
The verse under comment gives three reasons why God does not stand in need of a son:(1) if God were supposed to have a son, He must be subject to carnal desires and must have a wife to satisfy them; (2) He must be subject to decay and death because the procreation of species which the attribution of a son to God implies, is the characteristic of mortals; and (3) He must require a helper to assist Him in His work or to continue his work after His death. But God as represented by Islam is completely free from all these defects and therefore needs no son. In fact, the Christian dogma of sonship of Jesus is an insoluble riddle and beyond human comprehension. If Jesus is God’s son, then God will have to be admitted as incapable of carrying on the affairs of the universe alone and unaided, and therefore will have to be accepted as imperfect and defective. But because God is Perfect and All-Powerful, therefore He needs no son and no helper. Again, according to the Christian dogma each of the three deities, God, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, being perfect can and should carry on the work of the universe unaided and yet these three combine to do the thing which each one is able to accomplish by himself. This is absurd.
Those who are ignorant of Arabic language pretend to find in the word کن (be) a ground for their belief in the eternity and indestructibility of matter and soul. They argue in this way. This word shows that there had already existed something to which the order کن (be) was given. But in the Arabic language this word, besides being addressed to a thing, is also used to express a greatly felt desire. In an expedition the Holy Prophet’s very brave and loyal companion, Abu Khaithamah happened to be absent. The Prophet keenly felt his absence. When in the midst of the battle he saw from a great distance a rider coming to him at full speed he exclaimed کن ابا خیثمة i.e. would that it were Abu Khaithamah; and lo! it was really Abu Khaithamah (Halbiyyah). So an Arab would use the word کن when he would passionately desire a thing to happen.
According to this sense of کن the expression کن فیکون would mean that when God desires or intends that a thing should be, it comes into being or that when God expresses a desire it takes a concrete form. The words lend no support to the view that soul and matter are primeval or eternal. See also 2:117-118.
a
10:69; 17:112; 18:5; 19:89; 21:27; 25:3; 39:5.
1769
Christians believe that Jesus was God’s son. They base this belief on the assumption that the Bible calls him "son of God." But in the Bible other persons have also been called or addressed as "sons of God." Jesus enjoys no special distinction in this respect and he is, therefore, no more a son of God than those persons who have also been addressed as such (Luke, 20: 36; Jer., 31: 9; Matt., 6: 9; John, 8: 41 & Ephes., 4: 6).
1770
In the Arabic language the word Kun, besides being addressed to a thing, is also used to express a greatly felt desire. In an expedition the Holy Prophet’s very brave and loyal Companion, Abu Khaithamah happened to be absent. The Holy Prophet keenly felt his absence. When in the midst of the battle he saw from a great distance a rider coming to him at full speed, he exclaimed Kun Aba Khaithamah, i.e. would that it were Abu Khaithamah; and lo! it was really Abu Khaithamah (Halbiyyah). So the word Kun would signify that when God desires or intends a thing to come into being, it comes into being; or when God expresses such a desire it takes a concrete form. The word lends no support to the view that soul and matter are primeval or coeternal with God.
مَا اتَّخَذَ اللّٰہُ مِنۡ وَّلَدٍ وَّمَا کَانَ مَعَہٗ مِنۡ اِلٰہٍ ۚ اِذًا لَّذَہَبَ کُلُّ اِلٰہٍۭ بِمَا خَلَقَ وَلَعَلَا بَعۡضُہُمۡ عَلٰی بَعۡضٍ ۚ سُبۡحٰنَ اللّٰہِ عَمَّا یَصِفُوۡنَ
18:5; 19:36; 21:27; 25:3; 39:5; 43:82; 72:4.
21:23.
The verse very effectively demonstrates the futility and falsity of the Christian dogma that Jesus is God’s son. It purports to say that a son is needed by a person to help him to carry on his affairs, but as God is the Creator of the heavens and the earth and the sole Master and Controller of the whole universe, He does not need the help or assistance of any helper or son. Moreover, the whole universe appears to be subject to one uniform law, and the unity of the design, purpose and control points to the unity of the Designer and the Controller. The duality of control and authority implies confusion and disorder.
18:5; 19:36; 21:27; 25:3; 39:5; 43:82; 72:4.
21:23.
Commentary:
In brief words the verse very effectively demonstrates the futility and falsity of the Christian dogma that Jesus is God’s son. It purports to say that a son is needed by one to help him to carry on his affairs, but as God is the Creator of the heavens and the earth and the Sole Master and Controller of the whole universe, He does not need the help or assistance of any helper or son. Moreover, the whole universe appears to be subject to one uniform law and the unity of the design and purpose and control points to the Unity of the Designer and the Controller. The duality of control and authority implies confusion and disorder. See also 17:43 & 21:23.
b
18:5; 19:36; 21:27; 25:3; 39:5; 43:82; 72:4.
c
21:23.
a
18:5; 19:36; 21:27; 25:3; 39:5; 43:82; 72:4.
b
21:23.
2572
Commentary:
In brief words the verse very effectively demonstrates the futility and falsity of the Christian dogma that Jesus is God’s son. It purports to say that a son is needed by one to help him to carry on his affairs, but as God is the Creator of the heavens and the earth and the Sole Master and Controller of the whole universe, He does not need the help or assistance of any helper or son. Moreover, the whole universe appears to be subject to one uniform law and the unity of the design and purpose and control points to the Unity of the Designer and the Controller. The duality of control and authority implies confusion and disorder. See also 17:43 & 21:23.
b
18:5; 19:36; 21:27; 25:3; 39:5; 43:82; 72:4.
c
21:23.
2013
The verse very effectively demonstrates the futility and falsity of the Christian dogma that Jesus is God’s son. It purports to say that a son is needed by a person to help him to carry on his affairs, but as God is the Creator of the heavens and the earth and the sole Master and Controller of the whole universe, He does not need the help or assistance of any helper or son. Moreover, the whole universe appears to be subject to one uniform law, and the unity of the design, purpose and control points to the unity of the Designer and the Controller. The duality of control and authority implies confusion and disorder.