The missionaries in their latest alleged claim of contradictions in the Qur’an have certainly outdid themselves in their travesty of logic and idiocy.

To cite the missionary claim, word-for-word:

    In the realm of the natural this is not possible, but for God it is possible; actually, it is not only possible, it is easy for God. It is rather ironic that, when discussing the identity of Jesus, the Quran says that Allah cannot have a son without a consort, but Mary can have a son without a consort, because all things are easy for Allah.

They have quoted Qur’an 6:100-101 as follows:

“And they make the jinn associates with Allah, while He created them, and they falsely attribute to Him sons and daughters without knowledge; glory be to Him, and highly exalted is He above what they ascribe (to Him). Wonderful Originator of the heavens and the earth! How could He have a son when He has no consort, and He (Himself) created everything, and He is the Knower of all things.”

This, they claim, contradicts the general nature of the following verse:

He said: I am only a messenger of thy Lord, that I may bestow on thee a faultless son. She said: How can I have a son when no mortal hath touched me, neither have I been unchaste? He said: So (it will be). Thy Lord saith: It is easy for Me. And (it will be) that We may make of him a revelation for mankind and a mercy from Us, and it is a thing ordained. Sura 19:19-21 Pickthall

Unfortunately for the missionary, an understanding can be reached if a little more thought can be put into their argument. The missionary has taken the understanding of these verses out of its intended context and is confusing Mary’s nature (since she is only human, and hence procreates) as a creation of the Almighty, with God Himself, who is the Uncreated. Certainly, God Almighty could have taken a “wife” and have “children” or have “children” without any consort whatsoever (nau’zubillahi min zaalik).

However, if this were to happen, it would mean that the Uncreated nature of God would be affected, as anything that is “procreated” by God (as the Qur’an argues in 6:100) is created. In other words, to expect the Uncreated to “procreate” children, whether with or without a “consort” (which would also be part of the Creation) is not only an affront against what God Almighty has told us about Himself, it is also a preposterous position only held by pantheists and the idolaters. It is most certainly not in conformity with pure monotheism or on how Islam understands divine transcedence.

Isma’il al-Faruqi described it perfectly when he says that:

“This is the first assertion of the Islamic creed that “There is no god but God” which the Muslim understands as denial of any associates with God in His rulership and judgeship of the universe, as well as a denial of the possibility for any creature to represent, personify or in any way. express the divine Being. The Qur’an says of God that “He is the Creator of heaven and earth Who creates by commanding the creature to be and it is…He is the One God, the ultimate… (2:117, 163). There is no God but He, ever-living, ever-active (3:2) May he be glorified beyond any description! (6:100)…No sense may perceive Him (6:103)…Praised be He, the Transcedent Who greatly transcends all claims and reports about Him (17:43).” In fulfilment of this view, the Muslims have been all too careful never to associate in any manner possible, any image or thing with the presence of the divine, or with their consciousness of the divine; and in their speech and writing about the divine to use only Quranic language, terms and expressions which, according to them, God has used about Himself in the Quranic revelation.”Ismail Faruqi, Al-Tawhid: Its Implications for Thought and Life (IIIT, 1992), p. 24

Hence, we say that the claim that:

    S. 6:101 stands not only in tension to S. 19:21, but conflicts with several other passages as well.

is not only a premature conclusion from the missionary, but an obvious ignorance of the doctrine of tawheed and what Islam actually stands for.

And only God knows best! Can There Be A Son Without A Mother Or Father? Responding To Banal Missionary "Logic" 1 

Cite this article as: Bismika Allahuma Team, “Can There Be A Son Without A Mother Or Father? Responding To Banal Missionary “Logic”,” in Bismika Allahuma, October 26, 2005, last accessed February 7, 2023,


3 responses to “Can There Be A Son Without A Mother Or Father? Responding To Banal Missionary “Logic””

  1. kursi2255 Avatar

    As salaamu alaykum to everyone. I will go straight to the point. The Holy Qur’an has refuted EVERY concept of sonship ascribed to God, whether intended as a metaphorical or metaphysical ascription. Asim is right by saying that children imply the same nature as the father. A lion begets a lion,not an ox. But in the case of God having children (God forbid!), it would be a tremendous absurdity. God is al-Ahad (The One and The Only), that is, He is not just One; He is entirely Unique, transcending all kinds of limitations, comparisons, and categories. Even our Christian brothers-in-humanity would have to agree to this, otherwise they would have to concede that the concept of God in Islam is far superior to their concept of God. If He is One, Sole, Absolutely Unique, the case of Him begetting (God forbid!) a son of like nature to Him would negate His Uniqueness. If not a Unique God, then no better than the idols polytheists worship. If His being Unique is negated, then the whole concept of monotheism would be destroyed. If He would beget one son “godling”, then there would be two Gods. If there would be two gods, we will have two worthless, impotent gods who need each other, and who are no better than the idols the Prophet Muhammad (sallallahu alayhi wa sallam) smashed. Besides, the begotten ‘godling’ would neither be eternal nor absolute, since being begotten means having an origin, and having an origin is not an attribute of God (Exalted is He against such allegations by Christians, polytheists, and their ilk!). If the one begotten by the Eternal, Everlasting God is not an Eternal, Everlasting God like Him, then that creature wouldn’t have been begotten, neither can we call it a son of God. Again, a lion doesn’t beget an ox. Thus, not only the Trinitarian Christians, but all Christians who believe that Prophet Isa the Messiah (peace be upon him) can be called ‘son of God’ in any sense, metaphorical, metaphysical, or literal, are clearly in the wrong path. And only God knows best.

  2. Mehroz Avatar

    Salam. Observational Science agrees with Al-Quran in saying that Man cannot have a child without Woman. Whereas Bible is in conflict with Observational Science in saying that Man can have a child without a Woman.

    * I said Man because Christians believe that their god-father is an old-Man who lives in Heaven.

  3. Asim Avatar

    Jameal– > It was the critic who wrote the Qur’an who had the problem with
    > language. One is still not sure what the Qur’an means by the term
    > “Son” exceept it means someone produced in the animal way – Hence God
    > not having any consort couldn’t have a “son” – but this is utter
    > confusion.

    Asim-You don;t get it at all. First of all, these arguments are primarily
    addressed to the polytheists. Second, the polytheists acknowledged
    that God has children, but NO CONSORT. The Quran is saying that YOU
    KNOW that God has no consort, and YOU KNOW that God created
    everything, so why is it you assert these beings as divine?

    The first verse he quoted was in surah Anaam, which explciitly states
    that “How can He have a son when He has no consort?” The same verses
    discuss that Allah originated the Heavens and the Earth out of
    nothing, of which even the polytheists recognized. The argument
    entailed is this, and it is in this case related to the POLYTHEISTS.
    They too asserted that God had NO CONSORT. Yet, they ascribed to God

    It is demonstrating the absurdity, that that the polytheists never
    ascribed to God a WIFE, yet they ascribe to God children.

    This particular verse, quoted above, is demonstrating the absrudity of
    having any chioldren based upon the Absoluteness and Transcendency of
    God Almighty. Thus, the notion of ownership of everything in the
    heavens and the earth and the mention of everything comng before God
    as a slave. Children imply the same nature as the father, and this
    strikes total root against monotheism.

    First of all, the verse is directed to the POLYTHEISTS.

    Secondly, they did not believe God had a CONSORT also. Yet they still
    claimed God had chidlren. Wow. Impressive theology. Why did they
    claim God had children?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

error: Content is protected !!