فَإِنَّمَا يَقُولُ
Appears 4 times in Quran
Occurrences in Quran
Found 4 verses containing "فَإِنَّمَا يَقُولُ".
بَدِيعُ ٱلسَّمَٰوَٰتِ وَٱلْأَرْضِ ۖ وَإِذَا قَضَىٰٓ أَمْرًا فَإِنَّمَا يَقُولُ لَهُۥ كُن فَيَكُونُ
6:102.
3:48; 6:74; 16:41; 36:83; 40:69.
This attribute not only constitutes a contradiction of the Christian dogma of the godhead of Jesus but also effectively repudiates the Hindu theory that soul and matter are primeval and eternal. (1) God is the Creator of the heavens and the earth which means that He did not require the help of a son, and for that matter of anybody else, for creating the universe. (2) He is the Originator of the universe, i.e. He created all things out of nothing, without a pre-existing model and without pre-existing matter. (3) He is All- Powerful, i.e. whenever He decrees that a certain thing should come into being, it does come into being in conformity with His decree and design. The verse does not necessarily mean, as is sometimes erroneously understood, that when God decrees that a certain thing should come into being, it comes into being all at once. What it means is that when God decrees a thing, nothing can thwart His decree.
6:102.
3:48; 6:74; 16:41; 36:83; 40:69.
Important Words:
بدیع (Originator) is derived from بدع which means, he originated a thing or brought it into existence newly (i.e. for the first time, the thing not having existed before) and not after the similitude of anything pre-existing (Lane). The word ابداع(which is the infinitive form of بدیع), when used about God, means, originating a thing without any tool or instrument or pattern and without matter (Mufradat). Thus the word combines the idea of originating and creating.
Commentary:
This verse not only contains a contradiction of the Christian dogma of the Godhead of Jesus but also effectively repudiates the Hindu theory that the soul and matter are primeval and eternal. God has been declared here to be: (1) the Creator of the heavens and the earth which means that He did not require the help of a son, and for that matter of anybody, in creating the universe; (2) the Originator of the Universe, i.e., He created all things out of nothing, without a pre-existing model and without pre-existing matter; (3) All-Powerful, i.e. whenever He decrees that a certain thing should come into being, it does come into being in conformity with His decree and design. It may be noted here that the verse does not necessarily mean, as is sometimes erroneously understood, that when God decrees that a certain thing should be, it comes into being at once. The verse only means that God’s will is all-powerful, so when He decrees a thing, nothing can thwart His decree. The verse does not thus refer to the factor of time, which may be short or long as God wills it.
a
6:102.
b
3:48; 6:74; 16:41; 36:83; 40:69.
a
6:102.
b
3:48; 6:74; 16:41; 36:83; 40:69.
124
Important Words:
بدیع (Originator) is derived from بدع which means, he originated a thing or brought it into existence newly (i.e. for the first time, the thing not having existed before) and not after the similitude of anything pre-existing (Lane). The word ابداع(which is the infinitive form of بدیع), when used about God, means, originating a thing without any tool or instrument or pattern and without matter (Mufradat). Thus the word combines the idea of originating and creating.
Commentary:
This verse not only contains a contradiction of the Christian dogma of the Godhead of Jesus but also effectively repudiates the Hindu theory that the soul and matter are primeval and eternal. God has been declared here to be: (1) the Creator of the heavens and the earth which means that He did not require the help of a son, and for that matter of anybody, in creating the universe; (2) the Originator of the Universe, i.e., He created all things out of nothing, without a pre-existing model and without pre-existing matter; (3) All-Powerful, i.e. whenever He decrees that a certain thing should come into being, it does come into being in conformity with His decree and design. It may be noted here that the verse does not necessarily mean, as is sometimes erroneously understood, that when God decrees that a certain thing should be, it comes into being at once. The verse only means that God’s will is all-powerful, so when He decrees a thing, nothing can thwart His decree. The verse does not thus refer to the factor of time, which may be short or long as God wills it.
b
6:102.
c
3:48; 6:74; 16:41; 36:83; 40:69.
140
This attribute not only constitutes a contradiction of the Christian dogma of the godhead of Jesus but also effectively repudiates the Hindu theory that soul and matter are primeval and eternal. (1) God is the Creator of the heavens and the earth which means that He did not require the help of a son, and for that matter of anybody else, for creating the universe. (2) He is the Originator of the universe, i.e. He created all things out of nothing, without a pre-existing model and without pre-existing matter. (3) He is All- Powerful, i.e. whenever He decrees that a certain thing should come into being, it does come into being in conformity with His decree and design. The verse does not necessarily mean, as is sometimes erroneously understood, that when God decrees that a certain thing should come into being, it comes into being all at once. What it means is that when God decrees a thing, nothing can thwart His decree.
قَالَتْ رَبِّ أَنَّىٰ يَكُونُ لِى وَلَدٌ وَلَمْ يَمْسَسْنِى بَشَرٌ ۖ قَالَ كَذَٰلِكِ ٱللَّهُ يَخْلُقُ مَا يَشَآءُ ۚ إِذَا قَضَىٰٓ أَمْرًا فَإِنَّمَا يَقُولُ لَهُۥ كُن فَيَكُونُ
See 2:118.
19:21.
The news of a son, however happy, in ordinary circumstances, must have greatly perplexed Mary who was not only still unmarried but was also meant to remain so for life. The verse reflects her justified perplexity. It also shows that Jesus had no father, as hinted in Mary’s words, no man has touched me. Having been dedicated to the service of the Temple, Mary could not, consistently with her vow of celibacy, marry. If she was to marry and have children in due course, there was no occasion for her to be surprised when the birth of a child was announced to her by the angel in a vision. No normal girl would be surprised, if she were told in a vision that a son would be born to her; for she would naturally infer that the promised child would be born to her after marriage. In the Gospel of Mary, the vow of celibacy is clearly referred to. We have it in chapter 5 of the said Gospel that when the high priest made a general order that all the virgins living in the Temple who had reached their fourteenth ye
19:21.
See 2:118.
Commentary:
The news of a son, however happy in ordinary circumstances, greatly perplexed Mary who was not only as yet unmarried but was also meant to remain so for life. The verse reflects her justified perplexity. It also shows that Jesus had no father, as hinted in Mary’s words, no man has touched me. Having been dedicated to the service of the Temple, Mary could not, consistently with her vow of celibacy, marry. If she was to marry and have children in due course there was no occasion for her to be surprised when the birth of a child was announced to her by the angel in a vision. No normal girl would be surprised if she were told in a vision that a son would be born to her; for she would naturally infer that the promised child would be born to her after marriage. In the Gospel of Mary, the vow of celibacy is clearly referred to. In chapter 5 of the said Gospel we read that when the high priest made a public order that all the virgins living in the temple who had reached their fourteenth year should return home, all the other virgins yielded obed-ience to this command, but "Mary the virgin of the Lord" alone answered that she could not comply with it; and for this refusal of hers she assigned the reason that both she and her parents had devoted her to the service of the Lord, and that she had vowed virginity to the Lord, which vow she was resolved never to break (Gospel of Mary, 5: 4, 5, 6).
Mary’s subsequent marriage with Joseph was thus contrary to the vow and against her own wish. She was, however, compelled by circumstances to marry when found with child. The priests had to arrange her marriage with Joseph in order to avoid scandal. It does not, however, appear from the Gospels how Joseph was prevailed upon to consent, for he was obviously in the dark about her being pregnant at the time of marriage (Matt. 1:18, 19). Presumably some plausible excuse was found to justify the breaking of the vow.
Christians and Jews are both agreed that the birth of Jesus was something out of the ordinary–the Christians holding it as supernatural and the Jews as illegitimate (Jew. Enc.). Even in the family birth register, Jesus’ birth was recorded as such (Talmud). This fact alone should constitute a sufficient proof of Jesus’ birth being out of the ordinary. But it was neither supernatural nor illegitimate. To quote only one medical authority: "Medical men have not ruled out altogether the possibility of natural parthenogenesis of the production of a child by a female, without any relation to a male. Such a statement off-hand appears ridiculous, yet its possibility, from a purely biological standpoint, under certain conditions cannot be disregarded. Dr. Timme calls attention to this possibility as the result of a certain type of tumours, known as arrhenoblastoma (from the Greek words for "male" and "germ") which are occasionally found in the female pelvis or lower body. These tumours are capable of generating male sperm cells. Naturally, if these male sperm cells were alive and active and came in contact with the female’s own egg cell or ovum, conception might occur. There is nothing illogical in this process of reasoning…Dr. Timme states that there are twenty authentic cases reported in Europe in which an arrhenoblastoma had been found to develop male sperm cells…The arrhenoblastoma is a tumour that contains blastodermic cells...These cells are creative structures and are capable of development at any time and the fact, therefore, that arrhenoblas-tomacontaining these "embryonic cells" might create testicular tissue, capable of producing male sperm cells seems scientifically not impossible. If living male sperm cells are produced in a female body by arrhenoblastoma, the possibility of self-fertilization of a woman, even though a virgin, cannot be denied. That is to say, her own body would produce the same result as though sperm cells from a man’s body had been transferred to hers in the more usual way, or by a physician’s aid" (American Medical Journal).
There are cases on record of children having been born without fathers: "A young girl of great moral purity became pregnant without the slightest knowledge of the source… There is a case of pregnancy in an unmarried woman, who successfully resisted an attempt at criminal connection and yet became impreg-nated and gave birth to a perfectly formed female child" (Anomalies and Curiosities of Medicine by George M. Gould, A.M., M.D., and Walter L. Payle, A.M., M.D., published by W. B. Saunders & Co., London).
b
19:21.
c
2:118.
a
19:21.
b
See 2:118.
337
Commentary:
The news of a son, however happy in ordinary circumstances, greatly perplexed Mary who was not only as yet unmarried but was also meant to remain so for life. The verse reflects her justified perplexity. It also shows that Jesus had no father, as hinted in Mary’s words, no man has touched me. Having been dedicated to the service of the Temple, Mary could not, consistently with her vow of celibacy, marry. If she was to marry and have children in due course there was no occasion for her to be surprised when the birth of a child was announced to her by the angel in a vision. No normal girl would be surprised if she were told in a vision that a son would be born to her; for she would naturally infer that the promised child would be born to her after marriage. In the Gospel of Mary, the vow of celibacy is clearly referred to. In chapter 5 of the said Gospel we read that when the high priest made a public order that all the virgins living in the temple who had reached their fourteenth year should return home, all the other virgins yielded obed-ience to this command, but "Mary the virgin of the Lord" alone answered that she could not comply with it; and for this refusal of hers she assigned the reason that both she and her parents had devoted her to the service of the Lord, and that she had vowed virginity to the Lord, which vow she was resolved never to break (Gospel of Mary, 5: 4, 5, 6).
Mary’s subsequent marriage with Joseph was thus contrary to the vow and against her own wish. She was, however, compelled by circumstances to marry when found with child. The priests had to arrange her marriage with Joseph in order to avoid scandal. It does not, however, appear from the Gospels how Joseph was prevailed upon to consent, for he was obviously in the dark about her being pregnant at the time of marriage (Matt. 1:18, 19). Presumably some plausible excuse was found to justify the breaking of the vow.
Christians and Jews are both agreed that the birth of Jesus was something out of the ordinary–the Christians holding it as supernatural and the Jews as illegitimate (Jew. Enc.). Even in the family birth register, Jesus’ birth was recorded as such (Talmud). This fact alone should constitute a sufficient proof of Jesus’ birth being out of the ordinary. But it was neither supernatural nor illegitimate. To quote only one medical authority: "Medical men have not ruled out altogether the possibility of natural parthenogenesis of the production of a child by a female, without any relation to a male. Such a statement off-hand appears ridiculous, yet its possibility, from a purely biological standpoint, under certain conditions cannot be disregarded. Dr. Timme calls attention to this possibility as the result of a certain type of tumours, known as arrhenoblastoma (from the Greek words for "male" and "germ") which are occasionally found in the female pelvis or lower body. These tumours are capable of generating male sperm cells. Naturally, if these male sperm cells were alive and active and came in contact with the female’s own egg cell or ovum, conception might occur. There is nothing illogical in this process of reasoning…Dr. Timme states that there are twenty authentic cases reported in Europe in which an arrhenoblastoma had been found to develop male sperm cells…The arrhenoblastoma is a tumour that contains blastodermic cells...These cells are creative structures and are capable of development at any time and the fact, therefore, that arrhenoblas-tomacontaining these "embryonic cells" might create testicular tissue, capable of producing male sperm cells seems scientifically not impossible. If living male sperm cells are produced in a female body by arrhenoblastoma, the possibility of self-fertilization of a woman, even though a virgin, cannot be denied. That is to say, her own body would produce the same result as though sperm cells from a man’s body had been transferred to hers in the more usual way, or by a physician’s aid" (American Medical Journal).
There are cases on record of children having been born without fathers: "A young girl of great moral purity became pregnant without the slightest knowledge of the source… There is a case of pregnancy in an unmarried woman, who successfully resisted an attempt at criminal connection and yet became impreg-nated and gave birth to a perfectly formed female child" (Anomalies and Curiosities of Medicine by George M. Gould, A.M., M.D., and Walter L. Payle, A.M., M.D., published by W. B. Saunders & Co., London).
a
See 2:118.
b
19:21.
419
The news of a son, however happy, in ordinary circumstances, must have greatly perplexed Mary who was not only still unmarried but was also meant to remain so for life. The verse reflects her justified perplexity. It also shows that Jesus had no father, as hinted in Mary’s words, no man has touched me. Having been dedicated to the service of the Temple, Mary could not, consistently with her vow of celibacy, marry. If she was to marry and have children in due course, there was no occasion for her to be surprised when the birth of a child was announced to her by the angel in a vision. No normal girl would be surprised, if she were told in a vision that a son would be born to her; for she would naturally infer that the promised child would be born to her after marriage. In the Gospel of Mary, the vow of celibacy is clearly referred to. We have it in chapter 5 of the said Gospel that when the high priest made a general order that all the virgins living in the Temple who had reached their fourteenth ye
مَا كَانَ لِلَّهِ أَن يَتَّخِذَ مِن وَلَدٍ ۖ سُبْحَٰنَهُۥٓ ۚ إِذَا قَضَىٰٓ أَمْرًا فَإِنَّمَا يَقُولُ لَهُۥ كُن فَيَكُونُ
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.
هُوَ ٱلَّذِى يُحْىِۦ وَيُمِيتُ ۖ فَإِذَا قَضَىٰٓ أَمْرًا فَإِنَّمَا يَقُولُ لَهُۥ كُن فَيَكُونُ
2:29; 22:67; 30:41.
2:118; 3:48; 16:41; 36:83.
It is the will and decree of God, Who gives life and causes death that a people—the Arabs—who were morally and spiritually as good as dead, should now rise to a new life through the Holy Prophet and none can thwart and frustrate Allah’s decree.
2:29; 22:67; 30:41.
2:118; 3:48; 16:41; 36:83.
Commentary:
It is the will and decree of God, Who gives life and causes death, that a people—the Arabs—who were morally and spiritually as good as dead, should now rise to a new life through the Holy Prophet; and none can thwart and frustrate His decree.
The word کن (be) does not here denote command; but expresses a desire or wish. For significance of this word see 19:36.
c
2:29; 22:67; 30:41.
d
2:118; 3:48; 16:41; 36:83.
c
2:29; 22:67; 30:41.
d
2:118; 3:48; 16:41; 36:83.
3544
Commentary:
It is the will and decree of God, Who gives life and causes death, that a people—the Arabs—who were morally and spiritually as good as dead, should now rise to a new life through the Holy Prophet; and none can thwart and frustrate His decree.
The word کن (be) does not here denote command; but expresses a desire or wish. For significance of this word see 19:36.
a
2:29; 22:67; 30:41.
b
2:118; 3:48; 16:41; 36:83.
2616
It is the will and decree of God, Who gives life and causes death that a people—the Arabs—who were morally and spiritually as good as dead, should now rise to a new life through the Holy Prophet and none can thwart and frustrate Allah’s decree.