Could Allah Have a Son?

In one of his articles[1]

Mr. Jochen Katz has pointed out a contradiction in Al-Zumar 39: 4 and Al-An`aam

6: 101.

Al-Zumar 39: 4 reads as:

Had God wanted to take a son, He would have selected of His creations,

whichever He pleased; He is absolutely clear of all fault; He is the God, the

one, the Almighty.

Al-An`aam 6: 101 reads as:

The Originator of the heavens and the earth; how can He have a son, when He

does not even have a wife? He created everything; and He is knowledgeable of

everything.

Explaining the contradiction in the contents of the two referred verses, Mr.

Katz writes:

Sura 39:4 clearly states that God could

have taken Himself a son from among his creation, i.e. without the

necessity of a consort to father such a son. But Sura 6:101 clearly

rejects the same idea as a logical impossibility.

Unfortunately, Mr. Katz has ignored the fact that the first verse is, in

fact, not describing whether God COULD take a son with or without

a consort or not. On the contrary, the referred verse is only stressing the fact

that God created the heavens and the earth not for the purpose of taking a son

for Himself, but with a just end and a wise purpose. If it were only to fulfill

His desire of taking for Himself a son, then He would have taken a son, from

amongst any of His creations, without resorting to creating the vast universe.

Thus, the referred verse is immediately followed by pointing out the deep wisdom

in the creation of the heavens and the earth as well as in the creation of the

human beings. This wisdom is pointed out to show the folly in the belief that

God created the Universe to take for Himself a son. Thus, Al-Zumar 39: 5

– 6 reads as:

He created the heavens and the earth with a just cause [not to take for

Himself a son]. He covers the night over the day and covers the day over the

night; He has appointed the sun and the moon – each of them running till its

prescribed time. Indeed, He is the Mighty, the Forgiving. He created you all

from a single soul and then made a mate for it, of its own species, And He

made for you of grazing animals the eight members [forming pairs of four

species]; He creates you in your mother’s wombs, one creation after another,

under threefold covers. This is your Lord, the Ruler; there is no god besides

Him. Then how are you turned away?

Thus, if seen in the right context, the referred verse of Surah Al-Zumar

is not even related to whether God can take a son with or without a consort or

not.

As far as the second referred verse (Surah Al-An`aam 6: 101) is

concerned, it relates to the generally held concept of what we call a person’s

son. The word ‘son’, can either be implied in a spiritual sense or a

physical sense. If implied in the spiritual sense, there is no distinction

between Jesus (pbuh) and the other creations of God, for all else is as much the

spiritual ‘children’ of God as Jesus (pbuh)[2].

On the contrary, if the word ‘son’ is implied in the physical sense, then it

should be according to the same principles on which we physically ascribe a

‘son’ to a person. In this case, ascribing a physical son to God should

follow a number of presuppositions about God – one of which is the copulation

with a spouse.

It is evident from the Qur’an that polytheists among the first addressees

of the Qur’an did ascribe physical progeny to God, even though, due to its

obvious absurdity, they did not ascribe to the belief of a physical spouse of

God. In the referred verse, the Qur’an has commented on this particular belief

of its addressees and has declared that, according to the common concept of

physical progeny, their belief is absolutely absurd, unless they also ascribe a

spouse to God, which would obviously be incorrect.

The foregoing explanation should suffice to show that the two verses on the

basis of which Mr. Katz has tried to establish the stated contradiction in the

Qur’an relate to two separate issues. One relates to the refutation of the

belief that God created the whole universe to take for Himself a ‘son’,

while the other points out the absurdity in ascribing a physical ‘son’ to

God.

© Copyright April 2001. All Rights Reserved

with the Author