|
In one of his articles1, Mr Jochen Katz writes: Is Jesus the son of Allah? The Qur’an says no. Yet it is also entirely consistent with the Qur’an to consider Allah the Father of Jesus for the following reasons:
These three points taken together, in
the eyes of Mr Katz, makes it consistent with the Qur’an to take
God to be Jesus’ (sws) father. However, in view of the strong rejection
of the Qur’an of the idea that God has begotten a son, it results
in a contradiction.
Seen in the perspective of these stipulations
of the Qur’an, there is no reason why Jesus (sws), on the basis
of the three reasons cited by Mr Katz, should be considered a ‘son’ of
God. Jesus (sws) is indeed God’s creation, just as all other human beings
are.
This is not a very precise representation
of the Muslim mind. Muslims do not say: ‘If God WANTED a ‘baby’,
he would then HAVE to resort the normal procedure of copulation’.
On the contrary, a Muslim mind, on the basis of the Qur’an, holds
that God never WANTED to have a baby.
If the absence of a human father makes
Jesus (sws) the son of God, then why does Adam (sws) – in the absence of
both a mother as well as a father – not become more qualified to be a called
a ‘son’ of God. In other words, if God could bring Adam (sws) into existence
without either of the two parents, and yet not be called the ‘mother’ as
well as the ‘father’ of Adam, then why could He not bring Jesus (sws) into
existence, without a father and yet not be called his ‘father’?
All of God’s decision are based on planning. Thus, obviously when God initiated the process of the birth of Jesus (sws) through the word ‘Be’, He did have something specific in mind. However, according to the Qur’an and according to the Muslim understanding this does not make Jesus (sws) the ‘son’ of God. Mr Katz writes:
According to the Qur’an7,
it is God who decides the gender of every child that is to be born. In
fact, the way the male sperm interacts with the female egg, in order to
determine a child’s gender, is all according to the decisions of God, which
always precedes such interaction of the sperm and the egg. This, however,
does not make God the father of every child that is born.
The problem is that even if God is the
only possible candidate, Who can be called a ‘father’ of
Jesus (sws), according to the Qur’an, He actually is not. It is
precisely for this reason that the Muslims believe that Jesus (sws) did
not have a father (because the only possible candidate refuses
to be called a ‘Father’ to Jesus). If this is inconsistency in the eyes
of Mr Katz, then humankind has remained guilty of this inconsistency, throughout
its history, because:
For a Muslim, it is not a matter of appearing
legitimate or not, on the contrary, it is a matter of what God has directed
and what God wants us to say and believe. Thus, because of the strong denial
of the Qur’an, Muslims, contrary to the Christians, are not willing
to ascribe a son even in a figurative sense to God.
The ‘lie’, as should be clear from the
foregoing arguments is in baselessly ascribing a son to God. When God has
clearly declared that He has not begotten a son, then all those, who still
ascribe a son to God, are only forging a lie against God.
It is not for me to decide about the ‘inabilities’ of God. The Qur’an has only declared that God DID NOT take for Himself a child. After all, why would Mr Katz like God to take a child for Himself? He neither needs nor wants a child. I would request Mr Katz to explain why, in his opinion, SHOULD God take for Himself a child. Say: ‘If the Lord of Mercy had a son, I would be the first to worship him’. (43:82) Courtesy: Understanding-Islam ( http://www.understanding-islam.com/articles/responses/witfoj.htm)
|
1. Mr. Katz’s complete article may
be accessed at: http://www.answering-islam.org/Quran/Contra/qi030.html
2. See 22:5; 23:12–14; 39:6; 42:49-50 3. See 3:6; 32:9; 39:6 4. See 3:6; 32:9; 39:6 5. Or Isaac (sws). 6. As stipulated in the Qur’an. 7. See 42:49-50 |