Preamble

People have written at length on this topic and given expression to arguments in support of the Messiah being a man and a Messenger.

However, the Quran has adopted a most straightforward and clear path regarding this issue, stating:

—Part 6, Surah al-Ma’idah, Ruku‘ 10 1

The Messiah, son of Mary, is only a Messenger; surely, Messengers like unto him have indeed passed away before him. And his mother is a truthful woman. They both used to eat food. See how We explain the Signs openly for the good of these people. Then see how they are turned away.

The Quran, which is the Word of the Creator of human nature, draws the attention of man to the law of human nature not through some convoluted philosophical, intricately rational, and incomprehensible argument, but on the basis of daily witnessed proofs of the ways of God, awakening those with a perverted perception of the facts that the Messiah was a Messenger like the other Messengers who preceded him [and passed away]. He had a mother. They both used to eat food. And these three various aspects are such that no Christian can even deny.

It is clear that only mortals suffer from these afflictions and characteristics and it is indeed these afflictions and characteristics that compel man to pursue the acquisition and securing of the wherewithal and the necessities for our physical existence. It is verily this poverty and penury that points to man being His creation, being in need of Him, and being His servant. How true it is that the one in need of food is in need of the whole of creation! And Allah is absolutely Self-Sufficient and Independent of every need and far removed from every defect. Thus, one [i.e. man] is in a state of want and need, while the other [i.e. God] is Self-Sufficient and in need of nothing. And clearly it is on the basis of the differences in characteristics and obligations that one comes to understand the differences between the possessors of those characteristics and obligations. We come to believe a stone to be distinct from the plants on the basis of the essentials and characteristics of a stone; and consider the plants to be distinct from stones on the basis of their essentials and characteristics.

The essentials and attributes of man being found in Christ, proved him to be a human being; and the essentials of being a Messenger—for example, being helped by Allah, being victorious, his enemies being unsuccessful—being found in him makes him a Messenger. The fact that the requisites of Divinity—for example, being Self-Sufficient and having no need, or being the Creator, etc.—are not found in Christ and so for this reason he cannot be God or the Son of God! From these statements it is manifestly clear that Christ is a human being and a creation.

O ye who believe in the Messiah being God or the Son of God! From whence did you derive this ‘Divinity’ of Christ? If it is a concealed—hidden beyond hidden—mystery, then what greater weight can it carry beyond being a mere conjecture or whim? An overwhelming and convincingly irrefutable argument is imperative to transform him into God, for a conscientious man can never hold a strong and unshakeable belief of the principles of faith and salvation in the Hereafter, lest some illuminating argument satisfy his heart. Moreover, should Divinity depend upon unseen and unspeakable means, then every individual can allege that he too is an embodiment of God. All the idol-worshipping nations of the world have forged the claim that their holy personages were embodiments of God and that God Almighty had donned the mantle of humanity due to various reasons.

It is worth impartially reflecting upon what distinctive superiority lies within the Messiah that should oblige us to believe that while Christ was an embodiment of God, the followers of other avatars were not true in their claims. The Quran says:

—Part 11, Surah Yunus, Ruku‘ 72

They say, ‘Allah has taken unto Himself a son.’ Holy is He! He is Self-Sufficient. To Him belongs whatsoever is in the heavens and the whatsoever is in the earth. You have no proof for saying such a thing. Do you say against Allah that what you know not?

Those who believe the Messiah, peace be upon him, is an embodiment of God have postulated two claims. First, that the Messiah was God and second that the Messiah was a man. What does that mean? That [means] the Messiah combined in himself both Divinity and humanity. The Messiah being a human being is, of course, a confirmed fact according to the sign given in the first and the second verse above, for the Messiah was simply a Messenger from amongst the Messengers. If he showed miracles, then the same type of miracles were also shown by Moses, Elijah, and Elisha, etc. The Messiah had a mother3 and they both used to eat and drink.

But yes, an argument is needed for him being God. The Quran has also affirmed that you do not possess any proof in support of the Messiah being God, so why have you become the claimants of his Divinity and this is clear from the subject matter of the above verse. Just as the Divinity of Christ has been refuted, so has the repugnant belief been refuted that the Messiah, peace be upon him, was the Son of Allah, as follows:

—Part 7, Surah al-An‘am, Ruku‘ 134

How can He have a son when He has no consort, and when He has created everything and has knowledge of all things? He indeed is your Lord. There is no one worthy of worship beside Him, the Creator of all things, so worship Him. And He is the Guardian over everything. Eyes cannot reach Him nor can eyes encompass Him, but He reaches the eyes or He encompasses the eyes. And He is the Incomprehensible, the All-Aware.

In other words, the Noble Quran is questioning in what way the Messiah is the son of Allah. Is it in the apparent and literal sense of saying the Messiah, son of Allah, or is it in some other context? If it is in the apparent and literal sense, then it is wrong, because in that case Her Ladyship Mary, peace be upon her, must inescapably and inevitably be considered the wife of God and His consort. Further, all Christians and all intelligent people do not subscribe to the belief that Her Ladyship Mary(as) is the wife of Allah the Exalted.

If you take son of Allah and progeny of Allah to be metaphoric and do not take the context to be the literal and apparent meaning, then of course the metaphoric meanings are unusually vast. It is totally and completely wrong to take the meaning of son of Allah to be in the sense of proposing a being which physically fuses with an embodied God; for, if you take this to be the meaning and call the Messiah Allah and the Son of Allah, then it is necessarily required that the Messiah be God in his being and in his attributes, the equal of God, and in the attribute of being worthy of worship, the attribute of being the Creator, and knowledge etc.—one who has attributes unlike those of a human body but one whose attributes are like those of God. It is clear, however, that these perfect attributes were not present in the Messiah, peace be upon him, like they are in God. So reflect!

The first attribute [of God] from among the perfect attributes is perfect knowledge. This attribute was similarly not present completely and perfectly in the Messiah, peace be upon him, as he himself says: ‘But of that day and that hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels which are in heaven, neither the Son, but the Father.’ (Mark 13:32, Matthew 24:36, Acts 1:7, Matthew 26:38)

The second attribute [of God] is that of being worthy of worship. The Messiah, peace be upon him, used to offer prayers himself and would supplicate—what does that mean? That [means] he was a worshipper, not the One worthy of worship.

The third attribute [of God] is that of being —He has created everything. The Messiah, peace be upon him, says: ‘To sit on my right hand, and on my left, is not mine to give, but it shall be given to them for whom it is prepared of my Father.’ (Matthew 20:23)

The fourth attribute [of God] is that of being —eyes cannot reach Him. The Messiah was a human being in the same visible and tangible form as other human beings. As a matter of fact, he was not handsome and attractive at all. Therefore, given that these perfect attributes—which are primarily not related to the physical body—were not possessed by the Messiah, peace be upon him, how could the Messiah be the son of God?

A foolish Christian commentator, vainly ablaze in deception and abuse, writes in his commentary that it appears from John 21:17 that Christ knew everything, except that where he said I do not know—he did so because he did not wish to disclose the matter at that particular time. However, I contend that if the intent was not to disclose the matter, what was the need to lie? Why not clearly articulate that it is unwise to disclose the matter at that particular time? The truth of the matter, in fact, is that the word everything in the idiom of the holy scriptures does not generally connote the meaning in an all-encompassing sense, as is clear from pages 172 and 182 of Izhar ‘Isawi. Thus, to say in John 21:17 that Christ knew everything does not necessarily mean that it carries the connotation in an all-encompassing sense.

In Numbers 31:7 it is written that, ‘And they warred against the Midianites, as the Lord commanded Moses; and they slew all the males.’ Yet in Judges chapter 6 and chapter 2, it is stated that approximately 200 years after this event, the Midianites prevailed against all the Children of Israel for a period of seven years. An egregious contradiction exists between these two statements; for, if all the Midianites had been killed, where did they gain this strength from?

Then, (in Exodus 9:6) it is written that all the cattle of the Egyptians died, yet in verse 20 it is written that everyone that feared the word of the Lord among the servants of Pharaoh made his servants and his cattle flee into the houses. Thus, the question arises that when all the cattle of the Egyptians had died, from whence did the cattle for the servants of Pharaoh come?

In answer to both these questions, it is written by Padre Thakur Das in Izhar ‘Isawi that the word all does not generally connote the sense of all-encompassing; that is, despite saying ‘all’ it is not to be understood that not a single Midianite was left, and no cattle were left at all, but the meaning is that most Midianites were killed and most cattle had died. Therefore, I contend that if this answer is correct, then similarly where John 1:3 and Matthew 11:27 say that the Messiah, peace be upon him, knew everything, it too means the same thing, that he knew most things and not that the meaning encompassed everything. Similarly, it is written in John 10:8, ‘All that ever came before me are thieves and robbers.’ Here also the word all does not connote all-encompassing because Moses, David, Abraham, and Job, peace be upon them all, were not thieves and robbers.

There is another aspect that is well worth considering: something can be from something in three possible ways:

Firstly—For the creation to proceed from the Creator, as the Creator—employing His full capability and power—brought all manner of things into existence.

Secondly—If something breaks into two or more pieces, we would say that these pieces came into being from that object.

Thirdly—Through two items chemically combining to bring a third item into existence. Now, if we cast an eye on someone’s son to observe that by two coming together, a third is produced, then it becomes apparent that in the law of nature the son is born of the father in this way that two—meaning the male and the female—come together and the embryo comes into being.

Now, after this preamble, it is requested to ponder over how the Noble Quran condemns calling the Messiah and other holy personages the son of God:

5

What does it mean? O Foolish ones! Ye who believe someone to be the son of God! If these people whom you call the son of God are the creation of God, then there is no reason to debate; however, if they are components of God, then this is something that you do not acknowledge [to begin with]. The doctrine of begetting and calling someone the son of someone revolves, in the law of nature, around the fact that two bodies get together and from them a third comes into being. How have you come to accept Christ as the son of God from only Allah the Exalted, without first believing in a consort?

The Christians accept that from the eternally alone Father came the eternal Son, Christ, and there was no consort, but without there being another entity, no begetting can take place, albeit creation can certainly occur [in this way].