What is going on with the following verses in the Qur'an?

"They say (the Christians): "Allah hath begotten a son!" Glory be to Him! He is self-sufficient! His are all things in heaven and on earth! No warrant have ye for this!" (Surah 10:68)

And they say: "(God) Most Gracious has begotten offspring." Glory to Him! They are (but) servants raised to honour. Surah 21.26

They say: "Allah hath begotten a son" :Glory be to Him.-Nay, to Him belongs all that is in the heavens and on earth: everything renders worship to Him. To Him is due the primal origin of the heavens and the earth: When He decreeth a matter, He saith to it: "Be," and it is. Surah 2:116-117

The use of the word "offspring" seems to imply that Allah thinks that Christians believe that sex was involved by Allah in the conception of Jesus.  Is it?

What is Allah trying to tell us?

Thanks

George wrote: What is going on with the following verses in the Qur'an?   "They say (the Christians): "Allah hath begotten a son!" Glory be to Him! He is self-sufficient! His are all things in heaven and on earth! No warrant have ye for this!" (Surah 10:68) And they say: "(God) Most Gracious has begotten offspring." Glory to Him! They are (but) servants raised to honour. Surah 21.26 They say: "Allah hath begotten a son" :Glory be to Him.-Nay, to Him belongs all that is in the heavens and on earth: everything renders worship to Him. To Him is due the primal origin of the heavens and the earth: When He decreeth a matter, He saith to it: "Be," and it is. Surah 2:116-117   The use of the word "offspring" seems to imply that Allah thinks that Christians believe that sex was involved by Allah in the conception of Jesus.  Is it?   What is Allah trying to tell us?   Thanks

This has the makings of an fascinating discussion. I have the goose bumps!

George,

Nothing is going on with the verses in Qur'aan which you quoted below. Relax and take a deep breath please.

From you, George: "What is going on with the following verses in the Qur'an?"

Nothing is going on in Qur'aan in it's Arabic. You are reading it in the translators' English, not an English translation done by God.

You quoted, George:"They say (the Christians): "Allah hath begotten a son!" Glory be to Him! He is self-sufficient! His are all things in heaven and on earth! No warrant have ye for this!" (Surah 10:68)

Here, the translator has chosen the word "begotten" from the Bible. And then Allah says that Allah does not need a thing. We are things to Allah. 

You quoted George: "And they say: "(God) Most Gracious has begotten offspring." Glory to Him! They are (but) servants raised to honour. Surah 21.26"

Again, Allah denies begetting any son. 

You quoted, George: "They say: "Allah hath begotten a son" :Glory be to Him.-Nay, to Him belongs all that is in the heavens and on earth: everything renders worship to Him. To Him is due the primal origin of the heavens and the earth: When He decreeth a matter, He saith to it: "Be," and it is. Surah 2:116-117"

Again, Allah denies begetting a son and goes on to say that only Allah deserves Worship and nothingelse. After that Allah goes on further to say that to create anything, Allah says Be and Lo! it is done. This is to show that Jesus was created by Allah's command. 

From you, George: "The use of the word "offspring" seems to imply that Allah thinks that Christians believe that sex was involved by Allah in the conception of Jesus.  Is it?"

Where did you get that word "offspring" from and please quote the verse. Allah gave offsprings to many of the Old Patriarchs and their old and barren wives.

Even the Christians and Muslims believe that no sex was involved by Allah/Yahweh/YHVH/Haschem, in the conception of Jesus. Allah simply Commanded "Let Mary conceive Jesus and Mary did." That's it. So simple. If God can say,"Let there be light" and there was light. 

Then why can't you believe that God said,"Let there be a child conceived by Mary, without any man touching her!" Mary conceived.

From you: "What is Allah trying to tell us?"

Allah is trying to tell us what I wrote above.

Abednego,

"This has the makings of an fascinating discussion. I have the goose bumps! "

I had some, I just passed some to George.

bmzsp wrote: George, Nothing is going on with the verses in Qur'aan which you quoted below. Relax and take a deep breath please.

If I were anymore relaxed I'd be asleep. lol

BMZ wrote: From you, George: "What is going on with the following verses in the Qur'an?" Nothing is going on in Qur'aan in it's Arabic. You are reading it in the translators' English, not an English translation done by God.

Are you saying that the verses cannot be properly translated from the Arabic to English?  Why don't you post the Arabic and then give the translation.  I am particularly interested in the Arabic word for "begotten."  Thanks.

BMZ wrote:   You quoted, George:"They say (the Christians): "Allah hath begotten a son!" Glory be to Him! He is self-sufficient! His are all things in heaven and on earth! No warrant have ye for this!" (Surah 10:68)   Here, the translator has chosen the word "begotten" from the Bible. And then Allah says that Allah does not need a thing. We are things to Allah.

What is the Arabic word for "begotten?"

BMZ wrote: You quoted George: "And they say: "(God) Most Gracious has begotten offspring." Glory to Him! They are (but) servants raised to honour. Surah 21.26" Again, Allah denies begetting any son.

What does Allah mean by the word "begotten or begetting?"

BMZ wrote: You quoted, George: "They say: "Allah hath begotten a son" :Glory be to Him.-Nay, to Him belongs all that is in the heavens and on earth: everything renders worship to Him. To Him is due the primal origin of the heavens and the earth: When He decreeth a matter, He saith to it: "Be," and it is. Surah 2:116-117" Again, Allah denies begetting a son and goes on to say that only Allah deserves Worship and nothingelse. After that Allah goes on further to say that to create anything, Allah says Be and Lo! it is done. This is to show that Jesus was created by Allah's command.

I'm only interested in what I highlighted, BMZ.  We are talking about Allah and begotten a son and stuff like that.  What does Allah mean by "begetting a son."

BMZ wrote:   From you, George: "The use of the word "offspring" seems to imply that Allah thinks that Christians believe that sex was involved by Allah in the conception of Jesus.  Is it?"   Where did you get that word "offspring" from and please quote the verse. Allah gave offsprings to many of the Old Patriarchs and their old and barren wives.

I did quote it, but if you missed it, here it is again:

"And they say: "(God) Most Gracious has begotten offspring." Glory to Him! They are (but) servants raised to honour. Surah 21.26"

BMZ wrote:   Even the Christians and Muslims believe that no sex was involved by Allah/Yahweh/YHVH/Haschem, in the conception of Jesus. Allah simply Commanded "Let Mary conceive Jesus and Mary did." That's it. So simple. If God can say,"Let there be light" and there was light.

I am happy to hear that Muslims do not believe that Christians believe that sex was involved in the conception of Jesus because they don't and never have.

Then what is Allah talking about in these verses?

BMZ wrote:   Then why can't you believe that God said,"Let there be a child conceived by Mary, without any man touching her!" Mary conceived.

Who said I can't believe it, not I.  You are straying from the subject, BMZ.

BMZ wrote:   From you: "What is Allah trying to tell us?"   Allah is trying to tell us what I wrote above.

I hope Allah understood what you said better than I did.

Could you please just answer my questions noted above? 

Thank you,

Peace

Abednego wrote: George wrote: What is going on with the following verses in the Qur'an?   "They say (the Christians): "Allah hath begotten a son!" Glory be to Him! He is self-sufficient! His are all things in heaven and on earth! No warrant have ye for this!" (Surah 10:68) And they say: "(God) Most Gracious has begotten offspring." Glory to Him! They are (but) servants raised to honour. Surah 21.26 They say: "Allah hath begotten a son" :Glory be to Him.-Nay, to Him belongs all that is in the heavens and on earth: everything renders worship to Him. To Him is due the primal origin of the heavens and the earth: When He decreeth a matter, He saith to it: "Be," and it is. Surah 2:116-117   The use of the word "offspring" seems to imply that Allah thinks that Christians believe that sex was involved by Allah in the conception of Jesus.  Is it?   What is Allah trying to tell us?   Thanks This has the makings of an fascinating discussion. I have the goose bumps!

Goose bumps.  Yes.  Sort of like thinking of a hot dog, wouldn't you say so, Pal?

Peace

Maybe this:

�They say: �Allah hath begotten a son�: Glory be to Him.-Nay, to Him belongs all that is in the heavens and on earth: everything renders worship to Him. To Him is due the primal origin of the heavens and the earth: When He decreeth a matter, He saith to it: "Be," and it is. (Quran 2:116-117)

 Is something in the nature of a corrected, simplified and more inclusive restatement of this (quiz: can anyone identify the author and who �they� are, without doing a �Search?�  I wouldn�t have been able to):

�� After this substance had been placed outside of the Pleroma of the Aeons, and its mother restored to her proper conjunction, they tell us that Monogenes [King James Version �begotten�], acting in accordance with the prudent forethought of the Father, gave origin to another conjugal pair, namely Christ and the Holy Spirit (lest any of the Aeons should fall into a calamity similar to that of Sophia), for the purpose of fortifying and strengthening the Pleroma, and who at the same time completed the number of the Aeons �� 

Serv

George,

Before I give you answers, here is something very important and you should first try to understand this. If you do, you will then be able to appreciate my answers after reading the technicolour comment below.

The words Beget, Begot (Begat) and Begotten are archaic and antiquated, which means no longer in ordinary use, though retained for "special  purposes" only. These words are very primitive and are part of  an early period of a culture most likely Greece 7th-6th centuries BC. Please read the century period carefully. In other words, those words are obsolete.

We have never heard in the modern times that Jane and Michael married and the couple thought of begetting their first child. After they begat or begot the first, both planned to beget another one and begat or begot the second child. After Jane and Michael had begotten two children, they decided that they would stop at two and begat no more. Even fathering a child is obsolete and archaic now.  

Having explained that, here are the answers to your questions, George:

Q: Are you saying that the verses cannot be properly translated from the Arabic to English?  Why don't you post the Arabic and then give the translation.  I am particularly interested in the Arabic word for "begotten." 

The Arabs did not have any such a word like "Beget, Begat or Begot and Begotten in Arabic, even in the 6th or 7th Century A.D and even now they don't have such words. I am not saying that but I will say that Hebrew, Aramaic and even Greek cannot be properly translated into English. The Greek was translated into English and look! what did you get? You got "Beget, Begat and begotten". I know you are particularly interested in the Arabic word for "begotten" but there is no Arabic equivalent of such a word. The Arabs never "begat" children. They don't talk like that. In short, there is no Arabic word for "Beget". Arabs consider it very crude.

BMZ,

I will have comments later.  Could you please give us Surah 10:68 in Arabic and give us the English translation?

Peace

(DavidC)  �I guess Marcion, Servie. Based on the reference to Greek Philosophy.  Am I close?�

Yes. You are remarkably close. This is St. Irenaeus (Adversus Haereses) writing against one of Marcion�s contemporaries, fellow heresiarch Valentinus (135-160 CE) and against his disciples.  It sounds to me like there�s a whole lotta begettin�, conjugatin� and shakin� goin� on and perhaps, just perhaps, rather like the Quran, St. Irenaeus does not (altogether) approve.

Next question: St. Irenaeus�s acceptable (by orthodox Christian standards) cosmogony differs from that proposed by Valentinus in which particulars?

(Not really.  The quiz has ended.)

Good job, DavidC.

Servie 

Ref:

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0103.htm - http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0103.htm

Sure, George!

I will do the transliteration first for the benefit of all, in my own style, followed by translation in my own words and add a little commentary.

Surah 10 Yunus Verse 68:

"Qaalut-takha-za-l-laho wala-dan? Subhaa-na-hu; ho-wal-ghaneee-yo. Lahu maa fis-samaa-waatay wa maa fil-ard. In in-da-kum-min sultaanim bay-haaaza? A-taqu-loona alal-laahay maa laa ta'a-la-moon?"

Please mark the words takhaza and allah-o in Arabic in the above verse. Most translators choose the word Begat or Begot or Begotten for takhaza in order to make a point about the Christian writers' choice of the word "begotten".

And now here is the translation in my own words and I have already punctuated the Arabic verses to match those in the translation.

"They say that God has taken a son? All Praise is only to God. God does not need anything. Everything in Heavens and Earth belong to God. Have you got a solid proof about this? And you say things about God, which you should not say or don't know?"

Commentary:

You will now realise that the Arabic word Takhazaa means has taken. The son is walad.

So, God is asking that who says that God has taken a son or God has got a son? This got has nothing to do with begot. Then the next word is Subhaanahu, which means Glory be only to God or All Praises are only for God and nobodyelse.

After that comes the word Ghani, which means Rich (free from needs and wants) and also means one who does not need anything from others but gives and grants to the needy. In other words God is rich and people are the needy ones and people need God.

Next, Allah asks for a solid proof about this and wants to know who gave the people authority to talk such nonsense. Or in simple words, by whose authority and people are asked to prove it!

Finally God shows displeaure by saying "You talk nonsense about God, yet do not realise?"

Hope all learn something new from the above effort.

"Wa maa taufiqui illah billahay." which means "(My success comes only from God Almighty)"  That was a good question, thanks & good night.

Yet, I find this on the Islamic Al-Sunnah.com site, which totally disagrees with your rendering:

                      They say: Allah hath begotten a son, Glory be to Him. Nay, to Him belongs all that is in heavens and earth, every thing renders worship to Him.   (HOLY QURAN � 2:116)  O People of the Book ! Commit to excesses in your religion; nor say of Allah aught but the truth. Christ Jesus the son of Mary was (no more that) a Messenger of Allah, and His Word which He bestowed on Mary, and a Spirit proceeding from Him; so believe in Allah and His Messengers. Say not �THREE� desist. It will be better for you. For Allah is One God. Glory be to Him: (far exalted is He) above having a son. To him belong  all things in the heaven and on the earth. And enough is Allah as a Disposer of affairs. Christ disdaineth not to serve and worship Allah nor do the angels, those nearest  (to Allah) those who disdain his worship and arrogant, He will gather them all together unto Himself to (answer).        (HOLY QURAN � 4:171 � 172)

Hello. Miriam

Greetings! I was explaining Surah 10 Yunus Verse 68 in response to George's query. The post was written keeping his questions in mind.

Best Regards

BMZ

David,

"BMZSP : Is there anything in the Arabic that might be interpreted as God installing Jesus as his heir or successor in governing the earth?"

No, David. There is nothing. If there were, George, Ali Sina and Ibn Warraq would not be quiet.

BR

BMZ

George wrote: What is going on with the following verses in the Qur'an?   "They say (the Christians): "Allah hath begotten a son!" Glory be to Him! He is self-sufficient! His are all things in heaven and on earth! No warrant have ye for this!" (Surah 10:68) And they say: "(God) Most Gracious has begotten offspring." Glory to Him! They are (but) servants raised to honour. Surah 21.26 They say: "Allah hath begotten a son" :Glory be to Him.-Nay, to Him belongs all that is in the heavens and on earth: everything renders worship to Him. To Him is due the primal origin of the heavens and the earth: When He decreeth a matter, He saith to it: "Be," and it is. Surah 2:116-117   The use of the word "offspring" seems to imply that Allah thinks that Christians believe that sex was involved by Allah in the conception of Jesus.  Is it?   What is Allah trying to tell us?   Thanks

They are but servants raised to honor says it all, notice the word servants is plural here implying more than one.

Allah breathed of His spirit into us all at our creation hence His spirit resides in us also.

That is why he told the angels to bow down to us.

We are His servants and His Messengers if we but understood.

One person is not charged with the duty of guiding I believe we all are.

Problem is some people do not understand that others follow their example and others understand but keep to themselves.

Jesus, Moses, Mohammed PBUH are not the only voices of Allah in this world we are too and we can move mountains if we only took the time to learn how to do it so everyone has grace and dignity in the whole process.

I guess you could ask which is more important the cup or the water.

You are welcome, David

Best Regards

BMZ

Dear Amlhabibi,

From you: "Allah breathed of His spirit into us all at our creation hence His spirit resides in us also."

That is the best description of Allah's/God's Spirit which is within Allah/God, not a separate Spirit of a kind floating around.

Salaam Alaikum & BR

BMZ 

BMZ,

Thank you for your comments.

You are saying that Ali has mistranslated Surah 10:68.  If so, would his commentary be invalidated along with his translation?  Ali doesn't have commentary for Surah 10:68, but he does for the following two Surahs:

Surah 19:35, "It is not befitting to (the majesty of) God that He should beget a son. Glory be to Him! when He determines a matter, He only says to it, "Be" and it is."

Ali's commentary is this:

"Begetting a son is a physical act depending on the needs of men's animal nature. God Most High is independent of all needs, and it is derogatory to Him to attribute such an act to Him. It is merely a relic of pagan and anthropomorphic materialist superstitions."

Surah 2:116, "They say: "God hath begotten a son:" Glory be to Him.�Nay, to him belongs all that is in the heavens and on earth: everything renders worship to Him."

Ali's commentary is this:

"It is a derogation from the glory of God�in fact it is blasphemy�to say that God begets sons, like a man or an animal. The Christian doctrine is here emphatically repudiated. If words have any meaning, it would mean an attribution to God of a material nature, and of the lower animal functions of sex."

It seems to me that Ali's commentary would be the same whether he mistranslated the word incorrectly or not.  Further than that Ali should know how to translate the Arabic.  How could he do such a poor job on one word?  And not only him but other Muslim scholars as well?

However, some other translators seem to agree with you:

PICKTHAL: They say: Allah hath taken (unto Him) a son - Glorified be He! He hath no needs! His is all that is in the heavens and all that is in the earth. Ye have no warrant for this. Tell ye concerning Allah that which ye know not?

SHAKIR: They say: Allah has taken a son (to Himself)! Glory be to Him: He is the Self-sufficient: His is what is in the heavens and what is in the earth; you have no authority for this; do you say against Allah what you do not know?

BTW:  I stopped at the public library today and read Surah 10:68 in two other translations.  One had "begotten" and one had "taken."  Neither one had any commentary.

You said:  The Greek was translated into English and look! what did you get? You got "Beget, Begat and begotten".

Christians have no problem with the translation and Muslim scholars should have no problem either.

Just as you say that "begotten" is an incorrect translation in the Qur'an, Christian scholars say that the more accurate translation of monogenes is "one and only" or "unique."

You said:  So, God is asking that who says that God has taken a son or God has got a son? This got has nothing to do with begot.

Is this speaking of a biological son or a metaphorical son?  Because you know that YHVH claims to have sons in the figurative/relationalship sense.

Jesus taught us to pray, "Our Father�."  Being a prophet of God he understood that we did not become biological sons of God; he meant it in terms of relationship.  If Jesus understood this, then why didn't Allah?

Peace

George,

My response, to your comments, is shown in "Blue". Please don't use "Blue" in your response.

"You are saying that Ali has mistranslated Surah 10:68.  If so, would his commentary be invalidated along with his translation?"

I did not say that Ali mistranslated. His commentaries are explanations. Commentaries are not the words of God. I can have my comments, he can have his comments and you can have yours. The most important point is that the message of God remains unchanged.

Ali doesn't have commentary for Surah 10:68, but he does for the following two Surahs:

It is not necessary to have commentary for every verse. You asked me to translate 10:68 which I did and added some commentary.

Ali's commentary is this:

"Begetting a son is a physical act depending on the needs of men's animal nature. God Most High is independent of all needs, and it is derogatory to Him to attribute such an act to Him. It is merely a relic of pagan and anthropomorphic materialist superstitions."

Ali is right. I don't see anything wrong with that. Could not the Greek translators pick some better and proper word instead of that improper word "begat or begotten"? The modern translators of the Bible, changed the Holy Ghost to the Holy Spirit in the recent times, didn't they? Do you have a copy of The Holy Scriptures according to the Masoretic text? If you do have, then please compare with the following series of begetting:

Shem begets Arpachshad, Arpachshad begets Shelah, Shelah begets Eber, Eber begets Peleg, Peleg begets Reu, Reu begets Serug, Serug begets Nahor, Nahor begets Terah, Terah begets Abram, Nahor, and Haran.

Were all, named above, acquired figuratively or metaphorically or through their women?

It seems to me that Ali's commentary would be the same whether he mistranslated the word incorrectly or not.  Further than that Ali should know how to translate the Arabic.  How could he do such a poor job on one word?  And not only him but other Muslim scholars as well?

Ali and other translators have already done a marvellous job of translating Qur'aan to help non-Arabs to know the message. They knew Arabic well. Fortunately the Greeks did not translate the Qur'aan and I thank God for it!

However, some other translators seem to agree with you:

Thanks for the compliment.

BTW:  I stopped at the public library today and read Surah 10:68 in two other translations.  One had "begotten" and one had "taken."  Neither one had any commentary.

The translators' use of the word "begotten" does not confirm that Jesus was begotten by God in any way or that God begat Jesus.

You said:  The Greek was translated into English and look! what did you get? You got "Beget, Begat and begotten".

Christians have no problem with the translation and Muslim scholars should have no problem either.

It is not that I have a problem or the translator has a problem. It is also not important that Christians have no problem with that, hence Muslim scholars should also have no problem with that.

The biggest problem is that God has a big problem with that. God Almighty in Qur'aan wishes to remain the Most High and tells us not to use any such word.

Just as you say that "begotten" is an incorrect translation in the Qur'an, Christian scholars say that the more accurate translation of monogenes is "one and only" or "unique."

Christian scholars are discussing and analysing Jesus, a non-Greek character in Greek. Even Jesus did not know that he would be discussed and explained by way of monogenes and logos. He did not talk of any such things, it's just people's own analysis and opinions. Those analyses and commentaries from countless people changed Jesus into something that he WAS NOT! 

You said:  So, God is asking that who says that God has taken a son or God has got a son? This got has nothing to do with begot.

Is this speaking of a biological son or a metaphorical son?  Because you know that YHVH claims to have sons in the figurative/relationalship sense.

I am told by God in Qur'aan that God has not taken or begotten any son, God does not have a son and that God does not like that such words be uttered. God just does not like that word "son" to be associated with or such a word to be ascribed to God, be it biological or metaphorical or figurative.

Jesus taught us to pray, "Our Father�."  Being a prophet of God he understood that we did not become biological sons of God; he meant it in terms of relationship.  If Jesus understood this, then why didn't Allah?

I don't really know who started this term "Father" in ancient times. So far, I have not met even one Jew who has called God his father or Father lovingly. Jesus definitely knew that he was NOT a son of God and God knew that Jesus never declared that God was Jesus's Father or his father. That's why, in Qur'aan, God is particularly concerned and determined to refute and declare that term, created by men, null and void. 

That is the way God wants it and that is the way the Muslims believe and say, "YES! Lord!, We hear and obey!"

Can't do anything about that, George!  I hear, I read, I understand and I obey the Lord God Almighty.

Peace and lots of that.

BMZ,

I think we need to take this subject a little slower point by point.  I probably did a poor job of explaining my questions and what I was after.  Please answer this question first.

Let's say that Ali's interpretation of Surah 10:68 is this:

[QUOTE] They say (the Chistians): "Allah hath taken a son!"  Glory be to Him!  He is self-sufficient!  His are all things in heaven and on earth!  No warrant have ye for this!"

Would Ali's commentary still be like the following?

"Taking a son is a physical act depending on the needs of men's animal nature.  God Most High is independent of all needs, and it is derogatory to Him to attribute such an act to Him.  It is merely a relic of pagan and anthropomorphic materialist supersititions."

Please answer this one question with yes or a no and we will go forward.

Thanks.

Peace

George,

There is no need to go slow. My post makes it quite clear. I think I have already explained the verse and already gave a commentary well by saying:

"I am told by God in Qur'aan that God has not taken or begotten any son, God does not have a son and that God does not like that such words be uttered. God just does not like that word "son" to be associated with or such a word to be ascribed to God, be it biological or metaphorical or figurative."

From you George: "Would Ali's commentary still be like the following?

"Taking a son is a physical act depending on the needs of men's animal nature.  God Most High is independent of all needs, and it is derogatory to Him to attribute such an act to Him. 

Would Ali's commentary still be like the following?

"Taking a son is a physical act depending on the needs of men's animal nature.  God Most High is independent of all needs, and it is derogatory to Him to attribute such an act to Him.  It is merely a relic of pagan and anthropomorphic materialist supersititions."

Please answer this one question with yes or a no and we will go forward.

Please answer this one question with yes or a no and we will go forward."

George, Where did you get that commentary of Ali from? It appears to me that you are writing a commentary yourself and want me to confirm that Ali could have commented that way? And then you ask me to answer with a yes or no? That is wrong.

From you: "It is merely a relic of pagan and anthropomorphic materialist supersititions."

Do you mean the act of people begetting children?l

Ali's commentary, on 10:68, if there was one, would have been similar to that of mine which I did on the earlier post. Please read it again.

I am giving an example here. The simple message is:

"God said,'Let's make a man in our own image. God created Adam out of dust by saying, 'Let Adam be." "

Then in the case of Jesus,"God said,'Let's us grant a child to Mary and let Mary conceive a child, without any man touching her at all'.

God said,Let there be a baby in Mary's womb and it happened." That's all to it.

There is nothingelse involved in the birth of Jesus. Just God's Command, "Let there be....so it was  done as God willed." Mary had already been given the good news by Gabriel.

Qur'aan is always to the point and factual as it does not spin any tales. 

BMZ,

Say: He is Allah, the One and Only! Allah, the Eternal, Absolute; He begetteth not nor is He begotten. And there is none like unto Him. Surah 112:1-4

This surah is saying that God was not born (nor is He begotten) nor does he give birth to offspring (sons?) [He begetteth not.]

George,

Just to clarify, since you quoted me:

"Taking a son is a physical act depending on the needs of men's animal nature.  God Most High is independent of all needs, and it is derogatory to Him to attribute such an act to Him.  It is merely a relic of pagan and anthropomorphic materialist supersititions."

George, Where did you get that commentary of Ali from? It appears to me that you are writing a commentary yourself and want me to confirm that Ali could have commented that way? And then you ask me to answer with a yes or no? That is wrong. 

The opening part in "black" is your statement and the statement in blue is my response.

Surah 112 simply says: "Allah is One, Allah is Eternal and takes care of all things, was not born of anyone and did not give birth to anyone and there is no one like Allah."

I believe I have written and explained a lot on this subject. Now, please explain to me how Jesus was begotten? Describe that act of begetting Jesus in your own simple words and own thoughts. Please don't quote links and references. Thanks.

George,

First you make up something yourself or shall we say you cook it up. You then ask me to answer what you, in your own words, made up.

There is nothing for me to answer to a concoction.

Now, please explain to me how Jesus was begotten? Describe that act of begetting Jesus in your own simple words and own thoughts. Please don't quote links and references. Thanks.

If you can answer the above question, we can resolve the matter in a jiffy and you will be my brother-in-Islam in a jiffy.  

BMZ,

George,

You wrote:"

So, I think we can safely say that the Qur'an is in agreement with the Bible on this matter and if someone had asked Allah if he had figurative sons, he would have said, yes, and pointed to:

Psalms 2:7, "Let me tell of the decree: the LORD said to me, 'You are My Son,' I have fathered you this day."(Hebrew translation from the Tanakh)"

We've still got the problem: Tell me how God fathered him? It seems to me somebody did a nightmare of a translation in Greek.

Do you consider Fathering a better word than Begetting?

Could you now, please explain to me how Jesus was begotten? Describe that act of begetting or fathering Jesus in your own simple words and own thoughts. Please don't quote links and references. Thanks.

To BMZ:

See my comments.

George,

You wrote:"

So, I think we can safely say that the Qur'an is in agreement with the Bible on this matter and if someone had asked Allah if he had figurative sons, he would have said, yes, and pointed to:

Psalms 2:7, "Let me tell of the decree: the LORD said to me, 'You are My Son,' I have fathered you this day."(Hebrew translation from the Tanakh)"

BMZ wrote: We've still got the problem: Tell me how God fathered him? It seems to me somebody did a nightmare of a translation in Greek.

Comment:  It was by adoption and the translation was not from the Greek, but from the Jewish Hebrew Scriptures as I noted.  (see repeat below)

Psalms 2:7, "Let me tell of the decree: the LORD said to me, 'You are My Son,' I have fathered you this day."(Hebrew translation from the Tanakh)

BMZ wrote: Do you consider Fathering a better word than Begetting?

Comment:  I don't think it makes any difference because both mean David was God's son by adoption.  God didn't all of a sudden father David after he was already born of human parents.

[QUOTE=BMZ]

Could you now, please explain to me how Jesus was begotten? Describe that act of begetting or fathering Jesus in your own simple words and own thoughts. Please don't quote links and references. Thanks. [/QUOTE

Comment:  Soon.  Acknowledge that you understand what I wrote above.

Peace

Thanks, George for your comments.

Regarding. "Psalms 2:7, "Let me tell of the decree: the LORD said to me, 'You are My Son,' I have fathered you this day."(Hebrew translation from the Tanakh)", my Jewish Tanakh  says:

"I will tell of the decree: The Lord said to me: 'Thou art My son, This day have I begotten thee." (According to the Mesoretic Text)

Anyway, I am looking forward to hear from you how Jesus was begotten or fathered by God.

According to the Jews, there is no theology or an organised code of ethics in Pslams. Psalms of David were chanted by the Levites and others mostly and are in Praise of God Almighty. That's where possibly the son could have been added in the chantings. I don't think there are any prophecies to be sought from Psalms.

BMZ,

Your request:

Now, please explain to me how Jesus was begotten? Describe that act of begetting Jesus in your own simple words and own thoughts. Please don't quote links and references. Thanks.

If you can answer the above question, we can resolve the matter in a jiffy and you will be my brother-in-Islam in a jiffy.

My response:

"Begotten" means the Unique One, or "the only one of his kind."

Jesus is the "firstborn" of God. The "firstborn" � "the unique one," -- "the only one of his kind." The Greek word, monogenes, occurs nine times and is rendered �only begotten� only when it refers to Christ (Jn. 1:114,18; 3:16,18; 1 Jn. 14:9) or to Isaac, His type. The first references are �only� (Lk. 7:12; 8:142; 9:38) and all emphasize the dearness of that �only child.�

Psalm 89, speaking of Solomon:
26. I shall place his hand over the sea, and his right hand over the rivers.
27. He will call to Me, 'You are my Father, my God, and the Rock of my salvation.'
28. I, too, shall make him a firstborn, the highest of the kings of the earth.

The nation of Israel was God's son. They alone can claim the inheritance which is likewise promised to the Messiah Jesus.

Jesus was God's firstborn (heir) human child. Firstborn is used to indica te a birth right of inheritance. The term �Son of God� identifies Christ as King because of the �lordship� associated with the birthright position Christ.

Quote:
Matthew 28: 16 Then the eleven disciples went away into Galilee, to the mountain which Jesus had appointed for them. 17 When they saw Him, they worshiped Him; but some doubted.

18 And Jesus came and spoke to them, saying, �All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth. 19 Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20 teaching them to observe all things that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age.� Amen.

Peace

George said: The nation of Israel was God's son. They alone can claim the inheritance which is likewise promised to the Messiah Jesus.

My response: Why did the Jews reject Jesus if he was their Messiah? What were their reasons to reject Jesus?

George,

"God created by speaking, according to scripture. So you could say God's Word is His will, His substance."

I would say, God commanded and gave instructions and whatever was in God's mind or thought, came into being or existence. Yes, it was God's WILL to create and do things but "His substance" has nothing to do in this case.

Think of how God created the universe. He created all things by His spoken word. "and God said�"

Yes, we know. God said,"Let there be......." and there it was.

Psalm 33:6, 6. By the word of the Lord, the heavens were made, and with the breath of His mouth, all their host. (Hebrew Scriptures)

Psalms are not considered any theology. They are simply David's prayers and Praises to the AlMighty God.

So God made all things through His Word�His spoken Word. In Genesis 1 the emphasis is on God's spoken word; in John 1, the emphasis on the Word "himself" � a divine "entity," with God and yet God.

I can rewrite your above statement simply as: So God made all things through his words or commands. I find John not convincing at all. It is more proper to say that God was there from the beginning. By making a small letter "w" into a capital letter "W" does not confirm anything. The word also means a thought. If I say,"Let me have a word with you." It means I wish to speak with you. So, God simply spoke out commands or whatever God wished to do, it was done. There wsa NO WORD GOD in God's mind, please. 

Why did God speak when He created the universe? Why didn't He just do it without uttering a sound? To whom was He speaking? Did He use a language? It seems clear that there was a creative, dynamic force to His words, a power and energy in His command, a tangible release of His divine life. God speaks and it is so. God's Word is an extension of His nature, an expres sion of His will.

Before the creation of our Universe, God must have created others and put them around. Must have been talking to them. God might have been speaking with the Angels! John may have not known this.

Tanakh:

Psalm 107: 19. And they cried out to the Lord in their distress; from their straits He saved them. 20. He sent His word and healed them, and extricated them from their pit.

I can safely say that God healed them and delivered them from their troubles. Why is it necessary to say "He sent His Word" to imply that God was sending some personality of a word.

Isaiah 55:10 For, just as the rain and the snow fall from the heavens, and it does not return there, unless it has satiated the earth and fructified it and furthered its growth, and has given seed to the sower and bread to the eater, 11. so shall be My word that emanates from My mouth; it shall not return to Me empty, unless it has done what I desire and has made prosperous the one to whom I sent it.

Are you suggesting that Jesus emanated from God's mouth? The Jews did not believe that Jesus was the Messiah. Does it mean that God's word returned empty to God?

Psalm 147: 15. He sends His commandment to the earth; His word runs swiftly.16. He gives snow like wool; He scatters hoarfrost like ashes.17. He hurls His ice like crumbs; before His cold, who can stand? 18. He sends His word and melts them; He blows His wind; water runs.

We know God through His Word.

I thank you for saying "He sends His commandment to the earth". That is more proper. In the other examples, it also means commands.

A Jewish person who understood Aramaic, using Genesis 3:8 as an example, would have heard and understood: "And they heard the sound of the Word of the LORD God walking in the midst of the garden." So the Targum made an adjustment: It was not the Lord who was walking in the garden, it was the Memra' (Word) of the Lord. This Word was not just an "it,"; this Word was a him.

No! No Jewish person or anyone in any case would believe that "And they heard the sound of the Word of the Lord God walking". You can say they heard the footsteps of God. We don't really need targums here. It simply means God was there and knew what both were hiding. It is preposterous to say that both of them heard the sound of a word or The Word of God was walking. The name God is the prime of that passage. 

John, I believe, wrote something which really does not make any sense. He does not prove anything. However, with his philosophy he makes sure that Jesus is #2 not #1.

OK, George. Here we go:

"Begotten" means the Unique One, or "the only one of his kind."

Let me say that Jesus was unique and the only one of his kind, which he was, as he was a miraculously born person, born only of a woman without any man touching her. So, if he was the only one of his kind, then what is the use of describing him by the word "Begotten"?

Jesus is the "firstborn" of God. The "firstborn" � "the unique one," -- "the only one of his kind." The Greek word, monogenes, occurs nine times and is rendered �only begotten� only when it refers to Christ (Jn. 1:114,18; 3:16,18; 1 Jn. 14:9) or to Isaac, His type. The first references are �only� (Lk. 7:12; 8:142; 9:38) and all emphasize the dearness of that �only child.�

There were many "firstborns". Israel was also one. Issac was also "the firstborn". Wouldn't it suffice to say that God loved that child a lot?

Psalm 89, speaking of Solomon:
26. I shall place his hand over the sea, and his right hand over the rivers.
27. He will call to Me, 'You are my Father, my God, and the Rock of my salvation.'
28. I, too, shall make him a firstborn, the highest of the kings of the earth.

Do you think the above verses point to Jesus? If you think they do, then I can see another problem with that. In that case 27 would mean that God only could provide Jesus his own salvation.

The nation of Israel was God's son. They alone can claim the inheritance which is likewise promised to the Messiah Jesus.

Jesus was God's firstborn (heir) human child. Firstborn is used to indica te a birth right of inheritance. The term �Son of God� identifies Christ as King because of the �lordship� associated with the birthright position Christ.

Jesus had no real brother, he had only step-brothers. Whose brithright did he forfeit, like Jacob did to Essau with a bowl of soup? What has this surrendering of birthright got to do in case of Jesus? 

Quote:
Matthew 28: 16 Then the eleven disciples went away into Galilee, to the mountain which Jesus had appointed for them. 17 When they saw Him, they worshiped Him; but some doubted.

How many doubted and who were they? It means 28:16 does not give any solid evidence. May be Jesus showed them God, like Moses took his people but they were not able to see. "When they saw Him" could also mean they saw God but could not believe, becasue 18 confirms that Jesus came and spoke to them. Jesus himself was a Jew and so were his disciples. I belive Matthew is not sure about what he is trying to convey or tell what he had heard.

BMZ,

Have you come across a verse in the Qur'an where Allah explicitly says that he has no sons in the figurative sense?  I can't find one.  The verses I see all are condemnations against saying that Allah has a son(s) in the literal sense.

Peace

Hi George,

Sorry, last night, I was very busy.

"Have you come across a verse in the Qur'an where Allah explicitly says that he has no sons in the figurative sense?  I can't find one.  The verses I see all are condemnations against saying that Allah has a son(s) in the literal sense."

No, George. All the verses clearly reject son or sons of any kind, in any sense. That is the level of clarity in Qur'aan.

George,

A Jewish person who understood Aramaic, using Genesis 3:8 as an example, would have heard and understood: "And they heard the sound of the Word of the LORD God walking in the midst of the garden." So the Targum made an adjustment: It was not the Lord who was walking in the garden, it was the Memra' (Word) of the Lord. This Word was not just an "it,"; this Word was a him.

Every Jewish person, who heard that three thousand years ago or is reading that now, will understand 3:8 as "And they heard the voice of the LordGod walking in the garden toward the cool of the day; and the man and his wife hid themselves from the presence of the LordGod amongst the trees of the garden."

It was not the sound of the Word of the Lord God and there was no adjustment by Targums of any kind. Please, George, the Word or word or words do not walk! You are cracking me up.  Where did you get that from?

BMZ, this comes straight from the Jews.  Read what I wrote again.  You must look at what I am telling you through the eyes of a first century Jew and for the reason I explained to you.

As I have explained, it does not come from the Jews, whether a zero century Jew or the Jew of today. You have been misinformed badly, George. Word on it's own does not make any sound. You are trying to find Jesus in the Jewish Tanakh or the Jewish Holy Scriptures, he is just not there and cannot be found.

We are talking about birthright and inheritance.  Nothing else.

In the Kingdom of God, there is no such thing as birthright. Any person fully devout and obedient to God can inherit a place in the Kingdom of God Almighty. How well can you define this birthright that you speak of, George? Whose birthright did Jesus take? Adam's? But Adam was not at all born!

You are avoiding the question.  These verses clearly reject a biological son.  "How can Allah have a son when he has no wife?" There is nothing in the Qur'an where Allah says that he does not have figurative sons.

I have given you a perfect reply in answer to your wicked question.  The verses do not talk of biology. Do the verses of NT explain the biology?  Did Jesus explain what kind of a son was he and how was he made or created. Did Jesus in his own words explain how he was begotten or acquired? Did he explain himslef that he was a Word before God in the beginning. Those are just the words of John, his own opinion, written by him. 

YHVH clearly claims to have sons in the figurative sense.  He called all of Israel His son and David.  You cannot deny this.  The Jews have confirmed this to me.  "Sons" is in the figurative sense and shows a Father/Son relationship.

Could you show me any claims of God having any sons or a son in the Chapters Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus and Deutronomy from the Jewish Scriptures?  

There is nothing heinous for God to have figurative sons.  Jesus taught his followers to pray to the Father.  This means that we have a special Father/Son and Daughter relationship with the Father.  Jesus called the Father "Abba."  Why would a prophet of God call the Father Abba if he knew that God did not have sons in the figurative sense and/or it would upset Him?

That is what we are trying to tell you that there is no guarantee that Jesus called God, a Father. If you look at earlier books of the Jews, there is no mention of any father or Father. The concept of sons creeps in the later part of Jewish scriptures, written by men. The father was coined as Father by the writers of NT.

The significance of Jesus' use of "Abba" is that, for the first-century Jew, "it would have been irreverent and therefore unthinkable to call God by this familiar word." "Abba" as used, therefore "reveals the very basis of (Jesus') communion with God," "not a familiarity and intimacy with God available to anyone," but a unique relationship that was bestowed upon Jesus, representing "the center of Jesus' awareness of his mission."

I don't think it is a good argument. If the Jews were aware of the term 'sons of God' they would have understood Abba, father. That is why I mentioned earlier, that in the first few very important books, It is God only!

The use of the word "Father" can be found throughout the New Testament.  Yet, where do we find it in the Qur'an?

It is not there. How can you find the word Father in Qur'aan when God Almighty is forbidding the word Son or son? The word Father also cannot be found in the Jewish Holy Scriptures read by the Jews. I have not heard any Jew calling God, Father.

The impression you are leaving is that Allah is not YHVH and I am sure you do not want to do this. 

YHVH had no son at all. Jesus was sent to clarify and instead was made into a son God by others. That is why I consider his misson was terminated. Muhammad had to come to restore the Glory of Yahweh, who is Allah. But I can tell you that Jesus is not Allah, not Yahweh or Yahweh's son. 

George,

"I'm glad you brought this up, BMZ.  Looks like we have quite a lot of peepers on this topic.  Makes me feel like we are a couple of golfers and the audience is waiting to see who wins the game.  Good thing we have had such a long relationship and neither one of us is likely to whack the other over the head with one of our golf clubs."

 George, you know well I enjoy exchanging thoughts with you. "Son of God is a figurative term", coming from you, is indeed a progress, which confirms that he was really not a son of God.

My pleasure. Will be extremely busy for two days and will write asap.

Best Wishes 

George,

Since I do not wish that you leave this site, I will not answer your post.

Really there is too much work load and I will be back soon, InshaAllah.

BMZ

George,

You have not proven anything yet.  We haven't finished discussions yet. But if that pleases you, I will leave it at that.

Best Regards & my best to you, your family and your dear brother too. Hope he is coming along fine.

BMZ 

BMZ,

You said:  You will now realise that the Arabic word Takhazaa means has taken. The son is walad.

Not so, Walad means child, not son.  Allah is still talking about biological children.

I had this verified by another person who knows the Arabic language.

George

Please ask that person to come and discuss here. Is he Dr. Mark Gabriel? If he is, then just ignore him and listen to me.

It shows that person does not know Arabic.

As far as Allah is concerned, Allah has got NO type of son at all. Allah denies having taken any son.

Thus, in Islam there is NO son of God at all. Period

bmzsp wrote: Please ask that person to come and discuss here. Is he Dr. Mark Gabriel? If he is, then just ignore him and listen to me. It shows that person does not know Arabic. As far as Allah is concerned, Allah has got NO type of son at all. Allah denies having taken any son. Thus, in Islam there is NO son of God at all. Period

What does ibna mean?

Ibna means son of (s/o)

Examples: Jesus s/o Mary or Jesus Ibna Maryam. Now, HIs name in Arabic is Isa that can also be spelled as Esa or Eesa or Iesa or Essa. Iesa is close to Ieasus.

Esa Ibna Maryam and when read in Arabic, it is Esabna Maryam.

BMZ,

Ibn means son.  Why did you use the word walad in your translation?

Also, I had one other Arabic speaking person tell me that walad means child.

I think your ship is sinking.

DavidC wrote: Personally I find God claiming Jesus as his son more convincing than Jesus making the same claim himself. Mark 1:9 And it came to pass in those days, that Jesus came from Nazareth of Galilee, and was baptized of John in the Jordan. Mark 1:10 And straightway coming up out of the water, he saw the heavens rent asunder, and the Spirit as a dove descending upon him: Mark 1:11 And a voice came out of the heavens, Thou art my beloved Son, in thee I am well pleased.

They are both important.  God recognized Jesus as His son and Jesus is turn acknowledged that He was God's son.