 |
✍ God doesn't beget. Response to A Christian.
As common sense dictates, ☛ not a single atheist can accept a god that has children. This is one of the points which always makes him ☛ reject god. Unknowingly he accepts ☛ Islamic doctrine that God can't have sons or daughters. When a Muslim tries to argue with a christian about this very thing, he gets varying responses which I will be discussing
in this article of mine.
◒ To begin with let me make it clear once again that christian concepts aint wrong because they ☛ contradict with some of the Islamic concepts. They were wrong even if Muhammad (S.A.W) was yet to arrive. Now having said this you don't need help form Islamic theology to disprove things which are wrong. How to tackle this situation of god begetting god. The question of beggeting comes when one reads ☛ John 3:16 which goes something like this in the most popular version of bible i.e KJV, ''for god so loved the world that he gave his only ☛ BEGOTTEN son to the world, that whosoever believes in him........''When you ask this question to a christion that what does this mean. He will start beating round the bush because he himself cant accept his god siring another god. As Sheikh Ahmed Deedat made it famous that begetting is an ☛animal act and cant be attributed to god, i take no exception with him. Indeed God is free from such things. The miraculous birth of Jesus is a common belief of ☛ both christians and Muslims but the virgin birth isn't. Many christian denominations don't believe in the virgin birth and if ☛ begetting is the act then whole of christendom should part with virgin birth concept. One may ask whats the difference between miraculous birth of Jesus and virgin birth of the same. There is some difference. Miraculous can mean anything, like Mary giving birth to Jesus when she was just one year old or giving birth to him when she was 100 years old or giving birth to him without any intervention of anykind (just by God's will) and this happens to be the Islamic perspective or god coming down to earth and comming over Mary (having sex) with her to produce Jesus (this happens to be the actual christian concept, though they wont accept). All these cases are miraculous but the christian concept makes ☛ 'god' (Jesus) illegitimate, because Mary was in a relationship with Joseph already and this type of extra marital relation with god means that both ☛ god and Mary committed adultary. Now according to god's 'own law' the adulterers should be stoned to death, this means in turn that god should have been stoned to death. And this in turn means god is not eternal and this thing must shake you to the core of your heart if you are a christian. Well this is a good reason to laugh at the beggeting concept. What we see these days is that christians have come with a different concept that KJV has it wrong when it uses the word ☛ 'begotten''. They put forward a theory which says ☛ MONOGENES doesn't mean ☛ begotten but means to produce one of its own kind. I dont know to which level is this correct but one thing i know is that ☛'girl' means 'girl' and ☛ 'friend' means 'friend' but ☛ girlfriend doesnt mean a girl who is your friend. You can have ☛ your sister as your friend but you can't have her as your ☛ girlfriend. I hope you understood what I am trying to emphasise. ☛ Monogenes might mean one of its kind but here the word in every sense means begotten ☛ (read the creeds given at the end). But the christian will nod his ☛ head and wont accept this. Okey let him not, good for me. He says it means to produce on of its ☛ own kind.Who was this one who was produced, the answer is ☛ Jesus. ☛ Is Jesus same as god, yes is the answer. ☛ Was god created, no is the answer. ☛ Is jesus and god same, again yes. This is how jesus is ☛ not like god but is like god but is not like god. Lets analyse this statement further. ☛ What does same kind mean, does it mean that god and jesus were of same kind of matter (in this case god needs to remain in ICU), this would suggest that god is made up of cells which have a tendency to die. ☛ Does it mean same kind of shape. This means that god's shape keeps on changing from a fetus to a baby to a boy and futher an adult. It further means that god goes goes through juvenile, puberty and sexual phases. ☛ Or does it mean same in purpose. This is a bit complex, jesus came to die, has god also come for dying. ◒ This proves that Jesus is never of the same kind as god is if we talk about christian theology. So either you accept he is ☛ god then u got a problem of god having sex or you accept that ☛ he aint god. Now come the third kind of christians who will use Quran to support their claim. They can be of various types, e.g (1) those who belive in god begetting and claiming that quranic god also begets (2) those who beleive that god doesn't beget but quranic god begets. Though in both cases the christian already has lost the argument but what we need to prove to him is that quranic god doesn't beget. One single quotation from the third last chapter of the glorious quran does it for us muslims. The verse is from chapter 112, ☛ ''He begets not, nor is he begotten''. The whole drama ends here. But the christian will still try to catch a straw while already his body is under water. ◒ He copies from ☛ chapter 21 verse 17 only because a translation of the verse says, ☛ ''had we intended to take a pastime we could have have taken it from us, if We were going to do that''. Now how does this mean God of quran can beget, is out of my understanding. To be in a right position to check if it in any sense says this very thing we should read a few translations of this verse. Quran 21:17 ☛ لَوْ أَرَدْنَا أَن نَّتَّخِذَ لَهْوًا لَّاتَّخَذْنَاهُ مِن لَّدُنَّا إِن كُنَّا فَاعِلِينَ ☛ Law aradna an nattakhithalahwan lattakhathnahu min ladunna inkunna faAAileen ☛ Sahih International: Had We intended to take a diversion, We could have taken it from [what is] with Us - if [indeed] We were to do so. ☛ Muhsin Khan:Had We intended to take a pastime (i.e. a wife or a son, etc.), We could surely have taken it from Us, if We were going to do (that). ☛ Pickthall:If We had wished to find a pastime, We could have found it in Our presence - if We ever did. ☛ Yusuf Ali:If it had been Our wish to take (just) a pastime, We should surely have taken it from the things nearest to Us, if We would do (such a thing)! ☛ Shakir:Had We wished to make a diversion, We would have made it from before Ourselves: by no means would We do (it). ☛ Dr. Ghali:If We had taken to Us a diversion, We would indeed have taken it to Us from very close to Us, in case We are performing (that). ◒ As clear from the translation one may conclude that it is not talking about begeting (discussed further). This can be further checked by the usage of words. Lets look at Quran 112:3 ☛ Transliteration: Lam yalid walam yoolad ☛ Sahih International: He neither begets nor is born, ☛ Muhsin Khan: "He begets not, nor was He begotten; ☛ Pickthall: He begetteth not nor was begotten. ☛ Yusuf Ali: He begetteth not, nor is He begotten; ☛ Shakir: He begets not, nor is He begotten. ☛ Dr. Ghali: He has not begotten and has not been begotten In above verses all of the translators chose the word beget and this can surely suggest to us that quran is indeed talking about begetting while in 21:17 the translators have differences. Now let us compare these two verses. You will realise that these two verses don't have any word in common, this means that 21:17 doesn't talk about begeting. It has to be something else. Now when this doesn't prove the point the christians always try to point out towards what some of the scholars say. For this very purpose the favourites among christians are Tafsir Ibn Abbas, and Tafsir Jalalyn. Both of these are available on www.altafsir.com.Firstly, these are what the commentators say for that very reason we need not answer the query because every commentator has his own views. And by doing this you are comparing something central to the christian doctrines (bible) with something which most muslims would not even have heard about. So, it doesnt matter to us muslims what commentators say. But when you actually read the tafsir of respected scholars you realise that they prove nothing. In fact they help your case. Both of the commentators have a somewhat similar comment, i.e if allah had willed he could have taken a pastime from maidens of heaven but he DOESN'T EVEN THINK LIKE THAT. In the commentaries even you don't find begetting being talked about. And regarding taking a wife or son, the commentators say that God doesn't even think like that. It is like I say i don't like chicken biryani. Then i say even if I liked chicken biryani I would have had chest piece only, but alas I will never ever even think of having it (I personally love chicken biryani though). Now one could have asked that if ☛ god doesnt do ungodly things and if begeting is ungodly then how could Allah have even thought of doing it. Firstly nowhere do we find Allah saying that he could have ☛ begotten a child, and secondly he says ☛ he doesn't even think like that. To end this article of mine I like a point out a few things. The monogenes concept though alian to me can be right. But this only suggests to me that christians have accepted yet another islamic doctrine. Commenting on this I feel this concept is blaspheming whole of the christian world. Is Jesus begotten or not? Bible says no, because monogenes doesnt mean so. Then what do christians believe in. Let me give u a set of creeds and let you decide for yourself. ◒ English versions of the Nicene Creed in current use: (i) Ecumenical versions ☛ (a) 1973 draft ICET text ''............We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ, the only Son of God, eternally begotten of the Father, God from God, Light from Light, true God from true God, BEGOTTEN, not made........'' ☛ (b) 1975 ecumenical version (ICET) ''........Believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ, the only Son of God, eternally begotten of the Father, God from God, Light from Light, true God from true God, begotten, not made........'' ☛ (c) 1988 ecumenical version (ELLC)''.........the only Son of God, eternally begotten of the Father, God from God, Light from Light, true God from true God, begotten, not made,......'' (ii) Catholic Church ☛ (a)Latin Rite ''..........I believe in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Only Begotten Son of God, born of the Father before all ages. God from God, Light from Light, true God from true God, begotten, not made, consubstantial..........'' ☛ (b)Ruthenian Catholic Church''..........nd in one Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, the only-begotten, born of the Father before all ages. Light of light, true God of true God, begotten, not made..........'' (iii) Eastern Orthodox Churches ☛ (a)Orthodox Church in America:''I believe in one God the Father almighty, Maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible.And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, the only-begotten, begotten of the Father before all ages; Light of Light, true God of true God, begotten, not made.........'' ☛ (b)Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America:''I believe in one God, Father Almighty, Creator of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible. And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, begotten of the Father before all ages; Light of Light, true God of true God, begotten, not created.........'' ☛ (c)Antiochian Orthodox Christian Archdiocese of North America:''I believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible; And in one Lord, Jesus Christ, the Son of God, the Only-begotten, Begotten of the Father before all ages, Light of Light, True God of True God, Begotten, not made........'' ☛ (iv) Coptic Orthodox Church''..........We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, begotten of the Father before all ages. Light of Light, true God of true God; begotten, not created...........'' ☛ (v) Anglican Communion''...........And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, Begotten of his Father before all worlds, God of God, Light of Light, Very God of very God, Begotten, not made..........'' ☛ (vi) Lutheran churches ''.............the only-begotten Son of God, begotten of His Father before all worlds, God of God, Light of Light, very God of very God, begotten, not made...........'' (vii) Presbyterian churches ☛ (a)The Trinity Hymnal of 1990, published by the Presbyterian Church in America and the Orthodox Presbyterian Church, uses the following translation: ''........And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, begotten of his Father before all worlds,God of God, Light of Light,very God of very God, begotten, not made.......'' ☛ (b)The Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) ''............We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ, the only Son of God, eternally begotten of the Father, God from God, Light from Light, true God from true God, begotten, not made.........'' We can go on and on an on, whichever creed u take begotten is there but it is not there in the bible. It means the thing christians believe in is not in the bible.So whichever the case is christian theology remains in trouble. by Br. Saaib Ahmed |
ليست هناك تعليقات:
إرسال تعليق