In one of his articles Mr Jochen Katz has pointed out a
contradiction in 39:4 and 6:101. The verses are:
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. (39:4)
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. (6:101)
Explaining the contradiction in the contents of the two
referred verses, Mr Katz writes:
39:4 clearly states that God could have taken for
Himself a son from among His creation, ie without the necessity of a consort to
father such a son. But 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 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, 39:5-6 reads:
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? (39:5-6)
Thus, if seen in the right context, the referred verse of
Sūrah Zumar is not even related to whether God could take a son with or without
a consort or not.
As far as the second referred verse (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 (sws) and
the other creations of God, for all else are as much the spiritual ‘children’ of
God as Jesus (sws). 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
copulation with a spouse.
It is evident from the Qur’ān that polytheists among the
first addressees of the Qur’ān 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’ān 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’ān 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.
Courtesy: Understanding-Islam (http://www.understanding-islam.com/related/articles.jsp?point=1&id=34)
|