SINCE TIME IMMEMORIAL, Christian critics of Islam have been arguing that the way God has been presented in the Holy Quran is impersonal as God is not called the “Father”, unlike the Bible. This is a very old allegation that was even being made more than a hundred years ago during the days of Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad, the Promised Messiah^as. A Christian presented this argument in a book and the Promised Messiah^as responded to him effectively in his book, Nūrul Quran.

The Promised Messiah^as reasons that the first thing that is surprising about this persistent discussion on the word “Father” is that the critic has not considered what honour and greatness the lexicons have attributed to this word. We must judge every word based on the position assigned to it by a lexicon. We cannot give it more honour than is accorded it in a lexicon. Even when discussing the Word of God, we consult the lexicons to improve our understanding of the words and usage.

In this case, the lexicon says that when a person is born of the seed of another, the person who drops the seed and has no further connection with his birth, is called his abb (Father). The Promised Messiah^as then notes:

If it should be desired to indicate that Almighty God is Himself the Conscious Creator of a person, and Himself leads him towards perfection, and out of His great mercy bestows appropriate bounties on him, and is Himself his Guardian and Supporter, the lexicon does not permit that these connotations may be expressed by the employment of the word ‘Father’; the lexicon provides another term for the expression of this concept, and that word is Rabb... We are not at all entitled to invent our own lexicon, and must follow the division of words established by God from the beginning.215

What is more is that the word “Father” is derogatory and disrespectful when applied to God because it does not connote nurturing and love for another. The Promised Messiah^as gives the example of a goat that mates with a she-goat and deposits its seed, or a bull that satisfies its lust with a cow and turns away from it without any thought of a calf that will be born out of it, or a pig satisfies its lust and has no idea that this action would result in the birth of a piglet. Each of these animals does this and is called the “Father” of its young.

What is remarkable is that the word abb does not imply that a father has to take any action after dropping the seed. In fact, this word does not even necessarily imply any desire to have progeny, and all that the lexicons say is that a person who drops the seed is called abb, based on this fact alone.

In light of this, how can it be possible for us to apply such a term to the All-Powerful God, Whose works are manifested by His perfect actions, knowledge and power? How can the same word which is used in the ordinary sense for a bull and for a pig, should be used in a special sense for God Al-Mighty? It is only some among the Christians who can come up with such arguments and claim at the same time that the Islamic concept of God is impersonal.

On the contrary, the Holy Quran says:

…celebrate the praises of Allah as eagerly as you used to celebrate the praises of your forefathers, or even with greater eagerness216

In other words, Allah should not just be remembered or thought of as a father figure. Instead, He should be so personal that He should have a status greater than that of a father in the eyes of every Muslim.