God's will over having a son (Jesus)

wa alaykum us-Salaam
ask him why he didn't have a daughter?
ask him why He (allegedly) only has one offspring. i mean if one wanted children, they would have more than one, right?

does it sound normal that God in all his Majesty should beget an son/offspring and why a son, not a daughter? sounds a bit sexist i.e its as if sexist churches/religious leaders have had a say in it (no offense to any Christians, just trying to make a point). In other words, these aren't gods words these are man made.

I think this ayah and the tafseer of it has hit the nail of the head.

[مَا كَانَ للَّهِ أَن يَتَّخِذَ مِن وَلَدٍ سُبْحَـنَهُ]

(It befits not (the majesty of) Allah that He should beget a son. Glorified be He.) Means glory be unto Him, He is far exalted above that which these ignorant, wrongdoing, transgressing people say about Him.

Source

format_quote Originally Posted by karimmohsen

i told him, that it is impossible to god having a physical son, and then he told me : ‎"God can do whatever he wants, he can have a son if he wants‎"... and then i didnt know what to tell him....
can you please give a counter arguement about this.

Christians often use the argument that God can do anything. God can only do something that befits His Glorious and Transcendent Majesty. He cannot lie, cannot steal, and even if He dislikes someone, He cannot kick that person out of His All-Encompassing Dominion. He cannot be ignorant of anything that goes on in the world. He cannot die, for He is Eternal, Immortal. He cannot be unjust and burden all of mankinds sins onto one innocent person. And He cannot have a son or beget offspring. Because none of these things befit His Glorious and Transcendent Majesty. And Allah Himself has told us this many times in the Qur'an, which is 100% His word. Here is the translation of just one verse out of many:

"It befitteth not (the Majesty of) Allah that He should take unto Himself a son. Glory be to Him! When He decreeth a thing, He saith unto it only: Be! and it is." (Qur'an 19:35)

To suggest that He had a son and that that was to prove His love to the world and to forgive people's sins, is denigrating to His Power suggesting that He could not forgive nor prove His love without making a sacrifice. We believe God is All-Powerful.

Tell him we believe in and accept Jesus (peace be upon him) as he was, a Messenger of Allah sent to the Children of Israel. We neither deny him like the Jews, nor exaggerate his status to something it wasn't, i.e. divine, like the Christians. We believe in him, love him and respect him as he was, without going to either of these two extremes.

Also tell him, as stated in my signature, that we believe God is One, other than Whom there is none worthy of worship. He has no sons, daughters, brothers, sisters or relatives of any kind, nor is He composed of any number of persons, or godheads. He is Eternal, Immortal, indivisible. He sent messengers and scriptures to guide & warn mankind. We believe in all of those messengers (including Jesus peace be upon him) and the scriptures He gave them.

Perhaps ask your teacher if he would like to read a translation of the Qur'an. This is a great da'wah opportunity you have.

format_quote Originally Posted by karimmohsen

Salam w Alaykom Brothers and Sisters,
I was discussing with my teacher about God and jesus being his ‎"son‎" , which i know it is not true, and i told him, that it is impossible to god having a physical son, and then he told me : ‎"God can do whatever he wants, he can have a son if he wants‎"... and then i didnt know what to tell him.:exhausted...
can you please give a counter arguement about this.
thank you

salam

The original Hebrew term " Son of God" used to mean Servant of God . If you read the bible , you would notice God has got sons by the tons

The Bible ascribes sons by the tons to
God.
(a) "Which was the son of Enos, which was the son of Seth, which
was the son of Adam, which was the SON OF GOD." LUKE 3:38
(b) "That the SONS OF GOD saw the daughters of men that they
were fair; and they took wives of all which they chose.
". . . when the SONS OF GOD came in unto the daughters of
men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty
men which were of old, men of renown." GENESIS 6:2 and 4
(c) ". . . Thus saith the Lord, Israel is MY SON even my
FIRSTBORN." EXODUS 4:22
(d) ". . . and Ephraim is my FIRSTBORN." JEREMIAH 31:9
(e) ". . . Thou (O David) ART MY SON; this day have I (God)
BEGOTTEN thee." PSALMS
(f) "For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the SONS
OF GOD." ROMANS 8:14

If they think Jesus(PBUH) is son of God because he had no father , then Adam is a greater Son of God because he had no father and no mother .

holy quran

003.059 The similitude of Jesus before God is as that of Adam; He created him from dust, then said to him: "Be". And

he was.

The problem with these polytheist trinitarians pagans hypocrites is that they do not understand the difference between Beget and create and according God to them is an old bearded father him who begets young Jesus like their many pagan gods like jupiter ,apollo , osisris etc

Salam Alaikum:

I would simply ask him why it would be necessary to have a biological son? He will probably say to forgive sins or something like that. Then ask him again why He would need to do that and if He can do anything, why does he feel God is incapable of forgiving sin on His own rather than slaughtering an innocent, sinless man that wasn't even accepted by His people. He wasn't accepted by the "lost sheep of the house of Isreal" but He sacrificed him anyway so they could be forgiven of sin??? Really?? Doesn't sound very majestic to me. Just sayin'

format_quote Originally Posted by *Hana*

Salam Alaikum:

I would simply ask him why it would be necessary to have a biological son? He will probably say to forgive sins or something like that. Then ask him again why He would need to do that and if He can do anything, why does he feel God is incapable of forgiving sin on His own rather than slaughtering an innocent, sinless man that wasn't even accepted by His people. He wasn't accepted by the "lost sheep of the house of Isreal" but He sacrificed him anyway so they could be forgiven of sin??? Really?? Doesn't sound very majestic to me. Just sayin'

The Christian argument goes that God came as Jesus; he was sinless and died on the cross, and was compensated by being brought back to life and in addition getting all of mankind’s sins wiped away. Technically, Jesus shouldn’t have been compensated for anything. the idea of Jesus dying for our sins is baseless.

God, in the Hebrew (Old) Testament has had many situations where he commands atrocities and then repents for the actions committed.

In II Samuel 24:15-16 after 70,000 people are killed, and God puts an end to the command and repents for this great disaster.

II Samuel 24:15-16
15 So the LORD sent a plague on Israel from that morning until the end of the time designated, and seventy thousand of the people from Dan to Beersheba died.
16 When the angel stretched out his hand to destroy Jerusalem; the LORD was grieved because of the calamity and said to the angel who was afflicting the people, Enough!Withdraw your hand. The angel of the LORD was then at the threshing-floor of Araunah the Jebusite.

So as we read here after the 70,000 people were killed, the God of the bible repents and puts an end to the calamity.

Who knew that God has regrets?

So basically in a Questions and Answers conversation between a Muslim and a Christian, it seems you’d find something along these lines happening…
Muslim: Why don’t all the dead people get compensated by being brought back to life? Christian: Well these people were corrupted individuals who died and it was necessary at the time that they be killed.
Muslim: So, you believe that all the people who died were corrupted? No one was an innocent bystander by any chance?
Christian: Well, there might have been a couple here and there.
Muslim: So how do they get compensated?
Christian: That’s up to God.
Muslim: Fair enough. So what about all the other corrupted individuals who didn’t die, who probably survived and weren’t put to death?
Christian: Jesus died for their sins!

I am honestly less than pleased with the answer “Jesus died for our sins.”
With the above made clear, it causes us to really want to know whose sins did Jesus (as God) really die for?

In Zephaniah 2:12-15 we find God stating;
12 You too, O Cu****es, will be slain by my sword.
13 He will stretch out his hand against the north and destroy Assyria, leaving Nineveh utterly desolate and dry as the desert.
14 Flocks and herds will lie down there, creatures of every kind. The desert owl and the screech owl will roost on her columns. Their calls will echo through the windows, rubble will be in the doorways, the beams of cedar will be exposed.
15 This is the carefree city that lived in safety. She said to herself, I am, and there is none besides me. What a ruin she has become, a lair for wild beasts! All who pass by her scoff and shake their fists.

This shows a lot of murderous anger and hatred coming from the end of God (assuming he’s Jesus).

Now, we go a little further into this article and point out once again, that Jesus is God according to the Christians and that many atrocities have been performed by the command of God. Be reminded also that God repents for these atrocities. However, as nice as this “repentance” may appear that comes from God’s end each time an atrocity occurs, it does not really bring back these people from the dead or grant them any form of compensation.

The 6th commandment of “Do Not Murder” is clear and its consequences are elaborated in Genesis 9:6;“Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed”where the sin for murder is compensated through executing the murderer. This is the implication of capital punishment, where a man who kills must be killed. Repentance on its own is not prescribed as a way of compensating for the sin of murder. In other words, if I were to murder someone and I were to be judged by the laws of the bible, me apologizing to the family of the victim and/or repenting, wouldn’t cut it; I would need to undergo execution. In the case of God, where he supposedly comes as man, it would be fair to say that in the end Jesus didn’t die for the sins of mankind, but rather for his own personal commands of murder in the Old Testament. So we conclude that justice was served, by the death of Jesus on the cross. Therefore, it can’t be possible that The Son died for the sins of man but if anything, he died for the sins of The Father.

Christians put their faith in Jesus Christ, because they believe he died for their sins, where here I have just come to point out that if anyone died for anyone’s sins, its more or less for his own. The contradiction behind the belief of Jesus dying for mankind’s sins is clear and should no longer be used as a segue into the Christian doctrine. Christians need to see the fault behind the reasoning of their faith in Christ, and should not worship Jesus as a middleman between themselves and God. Rather, we should all focus on God alone and to only worship him, to accept that Jesus was only a mere man created by God, as were Adam & Eve and every other creation of the Almighty.

Salam Alaikum:

As a former Christian I know very well what their belief is. lol My point is for the poster not to engage into deep scripture, especially if they have limited knowledge regarding the Christian faith. Instead, approach the teacher with logic. Simply asking why they are limiting God's ability. Ask why God could not, in a blink of an eye, change his creations instead of sacrificing the life of an innocent and sinless man. Let him tell the poster, logically, why God would do such a horrible thing when He alone can forgive sins and anything else He wanted. The idea of Trinity is completely illogical and only serves to portray God as unjust and merciless towards all His creations, including Jesus, pbuh. We, obviously, know this is completely untrue.

Wasalam,
Hana

format_quote Originally Posted by LauraS

Why is God a man and not a woman?

Why did God think of creating a man first and not a woman?

God has no gender.
Using 'he' is simply a linguistic constituent that is a part of Arabic grammar!
Arabic has no neuter, and the use of the masculine is normal in Arabic for genderless nouns. No male preponderance is implied, any more than femininity is implied by the grammatically female gender of neuter plurals.

http://www.islamicboard.com/comparat...about-god.html

format_quote Originally Posted by LauraS

Why is God a man and not a woman?

Why did God think of creating a man first and not a woman?

then i would ask why werent men created first . so the real question is why didnt god simply create them simultaneously? what muslims say is Allah knows best, it is his will at the end of the day. we are told men and women are equal, so that is sufficient for us.

Salaam

a women is a man with a womb - which changes things dramatically.

peace

the life of a messenger isn't an easy one, there is travel, mockery and often torture, what makes you think that God doesn't love women so, that he didn't want to subject them to that kind of lifestyle.. be that as it may women have enjoyed very high status without having to be front line infantry!

format_quote Originally Posted by LauraS

Why did God think of creating a man first and not a woman?

The first was practice...the 2nd was perfection!

format_quote Originally Posted by Yanal

Also to add to what you said: I recall something similar to this : That men are better at communication and getting the point through.

actually women are better communicators than men!

all the best

format_quote Originally Posted by LauraS

Why did God think of creating a man first and not a woman?

how do we know that he created the man first becuase of "sexism." maybe there's an unknown wisdom. Has anything been mentioned why He created the man first?

I personally see it to the womans advantage. since she was created from his rib, then he has an obligation to look after and care for her. no-one in their right mind abuses their body parts.