Question for Muslims about God

[SalamKhan]

Is not water a sign of his love, that which sustains life? When it rains, is that not love?

Why does God need to beget in order to love? Are not the signs of his love all around us, and have not his signs been present since the beginning?

I believe you need to read my statement more carefully. Water, as with the rest of His creation were once not. Where was God’s love before they existed?

God had love for His Son for all eternity.

 

[Omaestre]

I believe you need to read my statement more carefully. Water, as with the rest of His creation were once not. Where was God’s love before they existed?

God had love for His Son for all eternity.

This is a great point SalamKhan that is often forgotten because we don’t have any empirical knowledge of eternity besides analogy.

 

[hasantas]

This question is coming from myself as a lapsed Muslim, and more for Muslims of the Ash`ari Creed.

Now, Muslims reject the Christian Doctrines of the Incarnation and the Divine Sonship of Jesus Christ because they claim it is beneath the Divine Dignity and Divine Majesty of God to (i) become man and (ii) beget a Son.

However, the Ash’ari school, whilst believing in the Divine Justice of God, reject the Mu`tazilite emphasis of the Divine Justice of God. According to the Ash’ari school, God is under no obligation, and can reward the wicked and punish the righteous if He so wishes.

So my question is, if God is under no obligation to abide by His Justice, then is He not also under no obligation to abide by His Dignity and Majesty, and can He not also become a man and beget a Son if He so wishes?

Thanks in advance for any answers.

God is under no obligation and that is very true. God act through attributes. If any case conflict with attributes of God so that case is not possible to happen. God do not conflict with self.

That comment of Asharis is interest only in theirselves and it is not from scripture. Asharis assumed such thing to emphasis that God is not under any obligation. Otherwise there is no any case in which God (will)punish any innocent.

Incarnation conflict with all attributes of God so it impossible to happen.

 

[SalamKhan]

God is under no obligation and that is very true. God act through attributes. If any case conflict with attributes of God so that case is not possible to happen. God do not conflict with self.

That comment of Asharis is interest only in theirselves and it is not from scripture. Asharis assumed such thing to emphasis that God is not under any obligation. Otherwise there is no any case in which God (will)punish any innocent.

Incarnation conflict with all attributes of God so it impossible to happen.

We have already established that in Islam, God can beget a Son if He wishes so (Surah 48:81).

So again, it’s not a matter of whether God can but whether God did beget a Son. And again the answer to this, can be found in Divine Revelation, which must be historical; it either happened or it did not. And anything contrary to the truth, is by that very fact, false.

What does the claim that Jesus Christ Himself founded the Catholic Church, and gave Her divine authority to teach, mean to you?

 

[MartinJordan]

We have already established that in Islam, God can beget a Son if He wishes so (Surah 48:81).

So again, it’s not a matter of whether God can but whether God did beget a Son. And again the answer to this, can be found in Divine Revelation, which must be historical; it either happened or it did not. And anything contrary to the truth, is by that very fact, false.

What does the claim that Jesus Christ Himself founded the Catholic Church, and gave Her divine authority to teach, mean to you?

The only other way to refute the Doctrine of the Incarnation would be to say it was made up. But then you’ll have to trace it to prove this was made up. Islam won’t do it.

MJ

 

[arthra]

We have already established that in Islam, God can beget a Son if He wishes so (Surah 48:81).

…?

The reference given is inaccurate it should be Surih 43 verse or Ayah 81 and the full context reads more as follows:

1. What! have they settled some plan (among themselves)? But it is We Who settle things.
2. Or do they think that We hear not their secrets and their private counsels? Indeed (We do), and Our messengers are by them, to record.
3. Say: “If ((Allah)) Most Gracious had a son, I would be the first to worship.”
4. Glory to the Lord of the heavens and the earth, the Lord of the Throne (of Authority)! (He is free) from the things they attribute (to him)!
5. So leave them to babble and play (with vanities) until they meet that Day of theirs, which they have been promised.
6. It is He Who is Allah in heaven and Allah on earth; and He is full of Wisdom and Knowledge.

 

[SalamKhan]

The reference given is inaccurate it should be Surih 43 verse or Ayah 81 and the full context reads more as follows:

1. What! have they settled some plan (among themselves)? But it is We Who settle things.
2. Or do they think that We hear not their secrets and their private counsels? Indeed (We do), and Our messengers are by them, to record.
3. Say: “If ((Allah)) Most Gracious had a son, I would be the first to worship.”
4. Glory to the Lord of the heavens and the earth, the Lord of the Throne (of Authority)! (He is free) from the things they attribute (to him)!
5. So leave them to babble and play (with vanities) until they meet that Day of theirs, which they have been promised.
6. It is He Who is Allah in heaven and Allah on earth; and He is full of Wisdom and Knowledge.

Yeah, it should have been 43:81. Must have been a typo on my part.

The two Jalals in their Tafsir write that it is a matter of whether did beget a Son or not:

Say ‘If the Compassionate One had a son hypothetically speaking I would have been first among the worshippers of that son; but it is established that He exalted be He does not have a child and thus there can be no worshipping of such a child.

 

[Duke_of_St_Paul]

The Study Quran

[43:81] Say, “If the Compassionate had a child, then I would be the first of the worshippers.”

This verse returns to the discussion at the beginning of the sūrah regarding the idolaters’ assertion that God has offspring, an idea frequently criticized in the Quran (see 2:116; 6:100; 9:30; 10:68; 17:40, 111; 18:4; 19:35, 88 –93; 21:26; 25:2; 37:149 –53c; 39:4; 43:16; 52:39; 72:3). Most understand this verse to mean that the Prophet would be the first to worship God’s offspring if He did indeed have any (IK, JJ, R, Ṭ ). Others understand the verse to mean, “If by your account God has a child, I am the first to worship God alone and to deny you” (R, Ṭ ). In this sense it could be understood as a categorical rejection of the central tenet upon which the religion of the idolaters is founded. If renders the Arabic particle in, which can function as a conditional particle, as rendered here, or as a particle of negation, such that the verse could be read, “The Compassionate does not have a child; and I am the first of the worshippers” (R, Ṭ ), meaning, “I am the first among you to worship Him with faith and sincerity” ( Ṭ ).

 

[SalamKhan]

The Study Quran

[43:81] Say, “If the Compassionate had a child, then I would be the first of the worshippers.”

This verse returns to the discussion at the beginning of the sūrah regarding the idolaters’ assertion that God has offspring, an idea frequently criticized in the Quran (see 2:116; 6:100; 9:30; 10:68; 17:40, 111; 18:4; 19:35, 88 –93; 21:26; 25:2; 37:149 –53c; 39:4; 43:16; 52:39; 72:3). Most understand this verse to mean that the Prophet would be the first to worship God’s offspring if He did indeed have any (IK, JJ, R, Ṭ ). Others understand the verse to mean, “If by your account God has a child, I am the first to worship God alone and to deny you” (R, Ṭ ). In this sense it could be understood as a categorical rejection of the central tenet upon which the religion of the idolaters is founded. If renders the Arabic particle in, which can function as a conditional particle, as rendered here, or as a particle of negation, such that the verse could be read, “The Compassionate does not have a child; and I am the first of the worshippers” (R, Ṭ ), meaning, “I am the first among you to worship Him with faith and sincerity” ( Ṭ ).

Tafsir Jalalayn is more relevant, because (i) it’s one of the most respected Tafsirs among Muslims, and (ii) the two Jalals were of the Ash`ari creed; and guess what it says in the OP?

 

[hasantas]

We have already established that in Islam, God can beget a Son if He wishes so (Surah 48:81).

So again, it’s not a matter of whether God can but whether God did beget a Son. And again the answer to this, can be found in Divine Revelation, which must be historical; it either happened or it did not. And anything contrary to the truth, is by that very fact, false.

What does the claim that Jesus Christ Himself founded the Catholic Church, and gave Her divine authority to teach, mean to you?

No. On the contrary verse 43:81 means that God had not begotten a son!

 

[hasantas]

Tafsir Jalalayn is more relevant, because (i) it’s one of the most respected Tafsirs among Muslims, and (ii) the two Jalals were of the Ash`ari creed; and guess what it says in the OP?

81- Say: ‘If the Compassionate One had a son, hypothetically [speaking], I would have been first among the worshippers, of that son; but it is established that He, exalted be He, does not have a child and thus there can be no worshipping of such [a child]. Az Zukhruf(43)

Tafsir Al-Jalalayn
Verse 43.81

 

[SalamKhan]

No. On the contrary verse 43:81 means that God had not begotten a son!

Are you purposely trying to misinterpret my point?

 

[SalamKhan]

81- Say: ‘If the Compassionate One had a son, hypothetically [speaking], I would have been first among the worshippers, of that son; but it is established that He, exalted be He, does not have a child and thus there can be no worshipping of such [a child]. Az Zukhruf(43)

Tafsir Al-Jalalayn
Verse 43.81

According to that Tafsir, hypothetically speaking, God could beget a Son, but the Quran maintains He did not. This is why I asked you the question about Jesus Christ founding the Catholic Church (along with the hyperlink, which explains further), which you have not answered yet.

 

[hasantas]

According to that Tafsir, hypothetically speaking, God could beget a Son, but the Quran maintains He did not. This is why I asked you the question about Jesus Christ founding the Catholic Church (along with the hyperlink, which explains further), which you have not answered yet.

Jesus did not say about any thing which might imply that Jesus was an incarnation god. That is interpretation of someones else. And Qur’an correct that guy’s fault.

 

[SalamKhan]

Jesus did not say about any thing which might imply that Jesus was an incarnation god. That is interpretation of someones else. And Qur’an correct that guy’s fault.

Did you even read everything in the hyperlink? Read it all.

Also, I believe Jalaluddin as-Suyuti was more learned about what the Quran teaches than you. In fact, Tafsir Jalalayn is one of the most respected Tafsirs in the Muslim world.

 

[hasantas]

Did you even read everything in the hyperlink? Read it all.

Also, I believe Jalaluddin as-Suyuti was more learned about what the Quran teaches than you. In fact, Tafsir Jalalayn is one of the most respected Tafsirs in the Muslim world.

I am nothing to be compared with Suyuti. Do you mean that Suyuti thought that God should beget a son?

Link is so long and my English is not enough to read easily. Could you brief it!

 

[SalamKhan]

I am nothing to be compared with Suyuti. Do you mean that Suyuti thought that God should beget a son?

Link is so long and my English is not enough to read easily. Could you brief it!

In that Tafsir, it says hypothetically speaking, as in what if situation, God could (it doesn’t say should) beget a Son, meaning it is possible for Him if He so wishes, but the Tafsir says that ultimately, God did not beget a Son.

Sure. A major claim of the Catholic Church, is that she possesses Sacred Tradition and Apostolic Succession; which is equivalent to the Hadith and Sunnah in Islam.

You must keep in mind, you would not pick up a Quran, and interpret it however way you want.

There are many books in the Bible, the books of the New Testament were written by some of the Apostles of Christ; the Twelve, and the Seventy. These men either directly knew and were chosen by Christ Himself to spread the Gospel and Baptise in the Name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, or, they directly knew the aforementioned men and also had authority to do what they did.

Obviously, the authors of the New Testament, knew what they were writing about, it is not up to someone two thousand years later to believe their own, differing interpretation holds more authority. The authors of the New Testament, and the rest of the Apostles, passed on their knowledge to whoever they deemed worthy to succeed them. These Traditions in turn, are recorded in writing by the Church Fathers, the earliest of whom would be equivalent to the Salaf in Islam.

 

[hasantas]

In that Tafsir, it says hypothetically speaking, as in what if situation, God could (it doesn’t say should) beget a Son, meaning it is possible for Him if He so wishes, but the Tafsir says that ultimately, God did not beget a Son.

Sure. A major claim of the Catholic Church, is that she possesses Sacred Tradition and Apostolic Succession; which is equivalent to the Hadith and Sunnah in Islam.

You must keep in mind, you would not pick up a Quran, and interpret it however way you want.

There are many books in the Bible, the books of the New Testament were written by some of the Apostles of Christ; the Twelve, and the Seventy. These men either directly knew and were chosen by Christ Himself to spread the Gospel and Baptise in the Name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, or, they directly knew the aforementioned men and also had authority to do what they did.

Obviously, the authors of the New Testament, knew what they were writing about, it is not up to someone two thousand years later to believe their own, differing interpretation holds more authority. The authors of the New Testament, and the rest of the Apostles, passed on their knowledge to whoever they deemed worthy to succeed them. These Traditions in turn, are recorded in writing by the Church Fathers, the earliest of whom would be equivalent to the Salaf in Islam.

Could you cite that interpretation from Jalalayn.

Most of scholars interpret that hypothetically speaking is the arguendo which is not possible to happen in any case. Just like in that:

4- If Allah had intended to take a son, He could have chosen from what He creates whatever He willed. Exalted is He; He is Allah, the One, the Prevailing. Az-Zumar(39)

And also Allah awaken in that way:

65- And it was already revealed to you and to those before you that if you should associate [anything] with Allah, your work would surely become worthless, and you would surely be among the losers." Az-Zumar(39)

That is very good to hear that you say nobody can interpret differently after authors of NT. Could you point in where it is said that God got incarnation? Or God begot a son? I think someones had interpreted very differently after apostles!

 

[SalamKhan]

Could you cite that interpretation from Jalalayn.

Most of scholars interpret that hypothetically speaking is the arguendo which is not possible to happen in any case. Just like in that:

4- If Allah had intended to take a son, He could have chosen from what He creates whatever He willed. Exalted is He; He is Allah, the One, the Prevailing. Az-Zumar(39)

And also Allah awaken in that way:

65- And it was already revealed to you and to those before you that if you should associate [anything] with Allah, your work would surely become worthless, and you would surely be among the losers." Az-Zumar(39)

That is very good to hear that you say nobody can interpret differently after authors of NT. Could you point in where it is said that God got incarnation? Or God begot a son? I think someones had interpreted very differently after apostles!

You do realise that verse you quoted, Surah 39:4 says that God could have taken a Son if He wanted to?

I’ve already explained the topic of interpretation of the Bible, the Apostles passed on their teachings, and these Traditions were recorded in writing by the Church Fathers, the earliest of whom would be the equivalent to the Salaf in Islam. Such as St. Irenaeus of Lyons, who would be equivalent to a Tabitabieen in Islam, the same Irenaeus wrote this:
newadvent.org/fathers/0103319.htm

Just read the first verse, just keep in mind, St. Irenaeus was the disciple of St. Polycarp of Smyrna, who was the disciple of St. John, the author of the fourth Gospel in the New Testament, and Apostle of Christ Himself.

 

[MartinJordan]

You do realise that verse you quoted, Surah 39:4 says that God could have taken a Son if He wanted to?

I’ve already explained the topic of interpretation of the Bible, the Apostles passed on their teachings, and these Traditions were recorded in writing by the Church Fathers, the earliest of whom would be the equivalent to the Salaf in Islam. Such as St. Irenaeus of Lyons, who would be equivalent to a Tabitabieen in Islam, the same Irenaeus wrote this:
newadvent.org/fathers/0103319.htm

Just read the first verse, just keep in mind, St. Irenaeus was the disciple of St. Polycarp of Smyrna, who was the disciple of St. John, the author of the fourth Gospel in the New Testament, and Apostle of Christ Himself.

I’ll add that the Traditions were recorded but at the same time when doctrines were attacked (and they were frequently), the Church clarified them with terms so that the people of the day (future) could understand it. The Church continues clarifying till today.

MJ