22nd Sura 112: The Unity – Begotten or Unbegotten

• Begotten or Unbegotten
• Adoption or Begotten

Begotten or Unbegotten

Q.112.3 He begets not, nor is He begotten.

Mahabharata: Bk 3: Vana Parva: Markandeya-Samasya Parva: Section CLXXXVII
O tiger among men, this Janardana [[Lord Krishna & alternate name of Lord Vishnu]] attired in yellow robes is the grand Mover and Creator of all, the Soul and Framer of all things, and the lord of all! He is also called the Great, the Incomprehensible, the Wonderful and the Immaculate. He is without beginning and without end, pervades all the world, is Unchangeable and Undeteriorating. He is the Creator of all, but is himself uncreate and is the Cause of all power.

https://sunnah.com/bukhari/96/27
Narrated Anas bin Malik: Allah’s Messenger said, “People will not stop asking questions till they say, ‘This is Allah, the Creator of everything, then who created Allah?’”

In 10th Sura 89, I included a subsection discussing the details of the Hindu Lord Krishna’s “birth” and “manifestation” upon the earth and what was actually thought about it.

“The Lord did not need to live within the womb of Devaki, for His presence within the core of her heart was sufficient to carry Him. One is here forbidden to think that Krsna was begotten by Vasudeva within the womb of Devaki and that she carried the child within her womb.” – commentary by AC Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada.

Srimad Bhagavatam : Tenth Canto : Chpt 3 : Text 14: My Lord, You are the same person who in the beginning created this material world by His personal external energy. After the creation of this world of three guëas [sattva, rajas and tamas], You appear to have entered it, although in fact You have not.

In a very real sense, Q.112.3 applies to the Hindu Lord Krishna as well. Krishna was not “begotten” either.

https://www.catholic.com/qa/if-the-son-is-eternally-begotten-of-the-father-then-how-can-he-also-be-born-of-mary
We have to be careful to understand this term. It is often used as synonymous with “to be born” but it really means “to cause to be.” Even though the Son is eternally existent, the Father “causes him to be.” God is the cause of his own existence. So “begotten” here is not the same as “being born.” That is why the Church, in the Nicene Creed, continues this way: “[The Son is] begotten, not made, one in being with the Father.”

Mahabharata: Book 1: Adi Parva: Sambhava Parva: Section LXV
Vaisampayana said, ‘Indeed, I shall, having bowed down to the Self-create, tell thee in detail the origin of the celestials and other creatures. It is known that Brahman hath six spiritual sons,

.. https://iskcondwarka.org/blogs/krishna-facts-80-sons-lord-krishna/

At least the second half of the verse applies to Krishna, anyway.

Bible: OT: Isaiah 53:10 Yet it was the LORD’s will to crush him and cause him to suffer, and though the LORD makes his life an offering for sin, he will see his offspring (ze·ra) and prolong his days, and the will of the LORD will prosper in his hand..

Bible: OT: Isaiah 61:9 Then their offspring will be known among the nations, And their descendants in the midst of the peoples. All who see them will recognize them Because they are the offspring (ze·ra) whom the LORD has blessed.

Bible: NT: Mark 10:14 But when Jesus saw it, he was indignant and said to them, “Let the children come to me; do not hinder them, for to such belongs the kingdom of God.

Self-Create? : Consider that light is begotten from the sun. In fact, without solar filters and whatnot, we can’t even see the sun directly, only the light that emanates from it.

John 12:45 And whoever sees Me sees the One who sent Me.

Now so long as the sun exists, light is created. The two go together – we cannot divide them. For in a very real sense, we cannot have light without something creating it and we cannot have a sun without light (or electromagnetic radiation whether in the visible spectrum or not). For the moment that we have a sun without begetting light, then it is no longer a sun. It might be a planet or a black hole or a gas giant – but not a sun.

Sura 5.17 Certainly they disbelieve who say: Surely, Allah– He is the Messiah, son of Marium. Say: Who then could control anything as against Allah when He wished to destroy the Messiah son of Marium and his mother and all those on the earth? And Allah’s is the kingdom of the heavens and the earth and what is between them; He creates what He pleases; and Allah has power over all things.

😳

Or again, imagine if you will, an acrobat perfectly balanced on a ball, on one foot, arms akimbo. If he is very good, he will appear motionless. If he is not, he will wobble all over the place until he falls off. Even if he appears motionless, in reality, his muscles are making tiny adjustments in order to keep his balance. In the same way, when we think about God being “Unchangeable and Undeteriorating,” we must think about this in a dynamic state and not a static one.

For example, if I asked you if you are the same you as ten minutes ago, after looking at me strangely, you would answer yes. Suppose I told you that you were wrong. That in fact, 10 minutes ago, you had one hundred thousand, four hundred and ninety-six hairs on your head. But now you have 100,493. Hence, you are not in fact the same person as ten minutes ago, because you have three less hairs on your head! But you respond, “Ah-ha, but I have three new hairs that have just sprouted here, here & here. And because I still have the same number of hairs on my head I am unchanged (and undeteriorating) from ten minutes ago.”

🙄

Recognise that my analogies might not be very good, but I hope you get the idea. Do not think of Self-Creation as a one time event. It is not. We must also be prepared to accept that our ability to comprehend the nature of God must always be incomplete since it is in fact not logical to suppose that our tiny brains can fit the complete understanding of God in it.

Adoption or Begotten
December 31, 2017

112:3 He begets not, nor is He begotten.

It may surprise you to know that were it not for this single verse, the Quran does not outright deny the (begotten) sonship of Jesus to God.

The following suras have references to “son”.
Sura: 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9, 10, 11, 12, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 23, 25, 28, 31, 33, 37, 39, 43, 51, 57, 61, 72.

Of these, the following have the statement “Allah has not begotten a son” or words to that effect. Every single one of them actually uses the verb to Take/Seize/Grasp:
2:116 taken = ittakhadha
10:68 taken = ittikhadha
17:111 taken = yattakhidh
18:4 taken = ittikhadha
19:35,88,92 take = yattakhidha;ittakhada;yattakhidha
21:26 taken = ittikhadha
23:91 take = ittikhadha
25:2 take = yattakhidh
39:4 take = yattakhidha
72:3 take = ittakhadha

Sura 48:15 Those who lagged behind (will say), when ye (are free to) march and take (litakhudhuha) booty…
Sura 3:28 Let not the believers take (yattakhidi) for friends or helpers unbelievers rather than believers……..

This Islamic website also agrees:
http://www.answering-christianity.com/son_of_god_misconception.htm
“wa annahu ta’alaa jaddu Rabbina ma ittakhaza sahibat(an) wa la walad(an)  [Al-Qur’an 72:3] Which when taking “ittakhaza” as “begotten”, the verse above will be translated as “and exalted is the Majesty of our Lord! He has not begotten either a wife or a son” which in this sense, the Arabic “ittakhaza” translated as begotten is VERY ABSURD !!! The correct translation should be, “and exalted is the Majesty of our Lord! He has not taken either a wife or a son”.

Begotten or Adoption?
So in looking at the context in which God can “take” a son it can be argued that all these statements are actually attacking the Doctrine of Adoption.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adoptionism
“Adoptionism was declared heresy at the end of the 2nd century and was rejected by the Synods of Antioch and the First Council of Nicaea……..Spanish Adoptionism was a theological position which was articulated in Umayyad [2nd Caliphate] and Christian-held regions of the Iberian peninsula in the 8th and 9th centuries. The issue seems to have begun with the claim of archbishop Elipandus of Toledo that – in respect to his human nature – Christ was adoptive Son of God.”

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elipando
Although he affirmed Catholic teaching that Jesus is true Son of God, eternally begotten from God the Father and thus of one divine nature with the Father, he also proposed that Jesus, as the son of David, according to his human nature was the adopted rather than the natural son of God. Elipando’s assertion seemed to suggest that Christ’s human nature existed separately from His divine personhood. Thus, it seemed to be a nuanced form of Nestorianism and came to be known as Adoptionism.

https://www.livescience.com/24509-light-wave-particle-duality-experiment.html
“The measurement apparatus detected strong nonlocality, which certified that the photon behaved simultaneously as a wave and a particle in our experiment,” physicist Alberto Peruzzo of England’s University of Bristol said in a statement. “This represents a strong refutation of models in which the photon is either a wave or a particle.”

Isaiah 49:5 And now says the LORD, who formed Me from the womb to be His Servant, to bring Jacob back to Him, that Israel might be gathered to Him—for I am honored in the sight of the LORD, and My God is My strength— 6 He says, “You will do more than restore the people of Israel to me. I will make you a light to the Gentiles, and you will bring my salvation to the ends of the earth.”

https://sunnah.com/bukhari:5988
Narrated Abu Huraira: The Prophet said, “The word ‘Ar-Rahm (womb) derives its name from Ar-Rahman (i.e., one of the names of Allah) and Allah said: ‘I will keep good relation with the one who will keep good relation with you, (womb i.e. Kith and Kin) and sever the relation with him who will sever the relation with you, (womb, i.e. Kith and Kin).

Sura 24.35 Allah is the light of the heavens and the earth; a likeness of His light is as a niche in which is a lamp, the lamp is in a glass, (and) the glass is as it were a brightly shining star, lit from a blessed olive-tree, neither eastern nor western, the oil whereof almost gives light though fire touch it not– light upon light– Allah guides to His light whom He pleases, and Allah sets forth parables for men, and Allah is Cognizant of all things.

Sura 10.68 They say: Allah has taken (ittakhadha) a son! Glory be to Him: He is the Self sufficient: His is what is in the heavens and what is in the earth; you have no authority for this; do you say against Allah what you do not know?

Let’s look at Joseph in Egypt.
Sura 12:21 And the one from Egypt who bought him said to his wife, “Make his residence comfortable. Perhaps he will benefit us, or we will adopt (nattakhidhahu) him as a son.” And thus, We established Joseph in the land that We might teach him the interpretation of events. And Allah is predominant over His affair, but most of the people do not know.

see this other translation
Sura 12:21 He that bought him, being of Egypt, said to his wife, ‘Give him goodly lodging, and it may be that he will profit us, or we may take him for our own son.’ So We established Joseph in the land, and that We might teach him the interpretation of tales. God prevails in His purpose,but most men know not.

Let’s look at Moses in Egypt
Sura 28:9 And the wife of Pharaoh said, “[He will be] a comfort of the eye for me and for you. Do not kill him; perhaps he may benefit us, or we may adopt (nattakhidhahu) him as a son.” And they perceived not.

Neither Joseph nor Moses were of any relation to the respective Egyptians so in this context, the word “to take” is carrying the sense of “to adopt” (I am not saying that the word means “adopt”). If we apply this understanding to all the other verses, the Quranic admonition is against God taking or adopting a created being as His son.

The Quran therefore confirms the view of the various Church councils that the doctrine of Adoptionism is heresy – and which does not form part of mainstream Christian Theology.

However, these Suras are stronger in claims against Christianity.
Sura 6:100 And they make the jinn associates with Allah, while He created them, and they falsely attribute [verb – falsely attribute, to tear.] to Him sons (plural) and daughters without knowledge; glory be to Him, and highly exalted is He above what they ascribe (to Him).

Sura 37:152-153 Allah has begotten (walada); and most surely they are liars. Has He chosen daughters in preference to sons?

Sura 37 attacks the claim that Allah has begotten daughters. While Sura 6 attacks the those that attribute sons (plural) and daughters (plural) to Allah.

Sura 43:16 What! Has He taken (ittakhadha) daughters to Himself of what He Himself creates and chosen you to have sons (bil-banina)?

Sura 43 attacks the claim that Allah has taken/adopted created beings as daughters.

Are Suras 6, 37, 43 addressed to a non-Christian-Jewish Pre-Islamic belief justifying female infanticide by claiming that daughters belong to God and need to be returned to Him? For Sura 16:57-59 says: “And they ascribe [verb – to make] daughters to Allah, glory be to Him; and for themselves (they would have) what they desire. And when a daughter is announced to one of them his face becomes black and he is full of wrath. He hides himself from the people because of the evil of that which is announced to him. Shall he keep it with disgrace or bury it in the dust? Now surely evil is what they judge.”

Sura 6:101 Wonderful Originator of the heavens and the earth! How could there be (yakunu – to be) a son when He has no consort, and He (Himself) created everything, and He is the Knower of all things.

Keep in mind that even though Christians use the terminology that Jesus is the only begotten, that is not to imply that Jesus did not exist prior to His birth on earth otherwise these verses become incomprehensible!

John 8:58 “Very truly I tell you,” Jesus answered, “before Abraham was born, I am!”

Micah 5:2 But you, Bethlehem Ephrathah, who are small among the clans of Judah, out of you will come forth for Me One to be ruler over Israel, whose origins are of old, from the days of eternity.

His sonship is not only relational to God but He is also as God is.
John 12:45 “The one who looks at me is seeing the one who sent me.”

He is also one with God which is why He says that “I can do nothing on my own.” John 5:30. [Think about being in a 3-legged or 4-legged race where you are so tied to others that you must move as one]

Further, the Quran is inconsistent in ideology since it confirms that one can have a son without needing a consort!
Sura 19:19-21 He said: “I am only a Messenger (of) your Lord that I will give you a pure (zakiyyan) boy.” She said, “How can I have a son when no mortal has touched me nor am I an unchaste woman”. He said: “Thus said your Lord: ‘It is easy for Me, and so that We will make him a sign to mankind and a mercy from Us, and it is a matter decreed.’ “

Sura 9:30-31 And the Jews say: Uzair (Ezra) is the son (ub’nu) of Allah. And the Christians say: The Messiah is the son (ub’nu) of Allah. These are the words of their mouths; they imitate the saying of those who disbelieved before. (May) Allah destroy them; how they are turned away! They have taken their rabbis and their monks for lords besides Allah, and the Messiah son (ib’na) of Marium and they were enjoined that they should serve one Allah only, there is no god but He; far from His glory be what they set up (with Him).

Is this an attack against Christians & Jews claiming (adoptive) sonship for the Messiah & Ezra respectively? Or is this an attack against them taking rabbis and monks as lords besides Allah & the Messiah son of Mary? (Keep in mind that the commas are inserted at the discretion of the translators and are not original to the text.) Now the word ub’nu carries the same root as bun’yānan = building S.18:21, 9:109 etc. If we think of one’s children as one’s ‘House’ e.g. House of Israel banī is’rāīla S.46:10 then the inference here is that Uzair & the Messiah are part of the ‘House of Allah.’
1 Peter 2:4-6 As you come to Him, the living stone, rejected by men, but chosen and precious in God’s sight, you also, like living stones, are being built into a spiritual house to be a holy priesthood, offering spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ. For it stands in Scripture: “See, I lay in Zion a stone, a chosen and precious cornerstone; and the one who believes in Him will never be put to shame (Isaiah 28:16)”

Sura 5:17-18 They indeed have disbelieved who say: Lo! Allah is the Messiah, son of Mary. Say: Who then can do aught against Allah, if He had willed to destroy the Messiah son of Mary, and his mother and everyone on earth? Allah’s is the Sovereignty of the heavens and the earth and all that is between them. He createth what He will. And Allah is Able to do all things.

If Allah is equivalent to the Father, then no, Christians do not quite equate Jesus to the Father even as we acknowledge that He and the Father are One. Nevertheless, one can infer that the writer of this verse denies the divinity of Christ – not only by his constant emphasis of Jesus as son of Mary, but by implying that Allah could have destroyed Isa as easily any of His other created beings.

Sura 43:81 Say: If the Beneficent Allah has (kāna – كَانَ) a son, I am the foremost of those who serve.

This verse does not say that “Allah has”. A comparison of the translation of the word kāna – كَانَ to other parts of the Quran will give us “is” or “was” or “has been” etc. Conjugation of the verb – To Be not the verb To Have! If we compare with the idea being promulgated in Sura 5:17-18 above then it is restating “Allah is the Messiah” to “Allah is the Son” or even “Allah is the Son (of Mary).”

e.g. Sura 33:53 O you who believe! Enter not the Prophet’s houses, except when leave is given to you for a meal, (and then) not (so early as) to wait for its preparation. But when you are invited, enter, and when you have taken your meal, disperse, without sitting for a talk. Verily, that is (kāna – كَانَ ) troubling the Prophet, and he is ashamed of you, but Allah is not ashamed of the truth. And when you ask (his wives) for anything you want, ask them from behind a screen, that is purer for your hearts and for their hearts. And it is (kāna – كَانَ ) not for you that you should annoy Allah’s Messenger, nor that you should ever marry his wives after him (his death). Verily! With Allah that shall be (kāna – كَانَ) an enormity.

You see the issue? The Quran can’t bring itself to outright say the words “Jesus is not the begotten Son of God” but it must do so by inference and obtuse language.

Sura 112
1. Say: He is Allah, the One and Only;
2. Allah-us-samad;
3. He begetteth not, nor is He begotten;
4. And there is none like unto Him.

Clear yes? A nice generic statement. Not so fast. Why does this verse use the root y-l-d instead of the more common w-l-d?

Sura 112:3 “He begets (yalid) not, nor is He begotten (yulad)”.
This is not consistent to other places in the Quran.

Sura 19:15 And peace be upon him the day he was born (wulida) and the day he dies and the day he is raised alive.

Sura 90:3 And the begetter (wawalidin) and whom he begot (walada).

The trilateral root of these words are the arabic letters waaw (و ) lam (ل ) daal (د)

see nice pic of arabic alphabet
http://www.myeasyarabic.com/site/what_is_arabic_alphabet.html

if you look at the Arabic words (reading right to left) you can see these letters – even in the English-pronunciation you see w,l,d. You can also see that words with the same trilateral root have related meanings. A similar concept holds for Hebrew as well. Just like English words with Optic, Optical, Optometrist etc have to do with the eye.
(Optic: From Middle French optique, from Medieval Latin opticus, from Ancient Greek ὀπτικός ‎optikós, “of seeing”. What we know as English is actually a conglomeration of words and linguistic rules from different language backgrounds – Germanic, Norman/French. The word ‘eye’ is believed to be of Germanic origin).

So, does Yalid, Yulad have the same trilateral root? I don’t see how.
Yalid has only 3 letters yaa (ي ) lam (ل ) daal (د)
Yalud is spelled yaa (ي ) lam (ل ) waaw (و ) daal (د) and while it’s true that l,w,d are there, mixing up the letters doesn’t count. w-l-d is not equal to l-w-d

So is this form of the word used elsewhere in the quran? Lucky for us, Yes! This is the one and only other place to find the word y-l-d
Sura 71:27 If Thou shouldst leave them, they will mislead Thy slaves and will beget (yalidu) none save lewd ingrates.

Erm…..

I decided to go to an arabic translator site and type in the trilateral root to see if i can find other related words http://www.lexilogos.com/english/arabic_dictionary.htm#
This is y-l-d     https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D9%8A%D9%84%D8%AF
This is w-l-d     https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D9%88%D9%84%D8%AF#Arabic
so y-l-d is derived from w-l-d which was no help to me since the resource I am using said the same exact thing.

Now, we can see that its usage in Sura 71:27 suggests a type of spiritual procreation – except aren’t muslims (or all religious followers) spiritually begotten (yalidu?) of their God?

Why should this be so tricky? The common form of the word is w-l-d and used in relation to daughters and every other place. Why didn’t the same word get used in Sura 112?

Or why wasn’t w-l-d used instead of “ittakhadha = take (أ خ ذ)” a son? Then we would be able to say that the Quran clearly objects to the God’s-only-begotten-son concept. Instead, the Quran had to use some obtuse form of the word found only in these three places.

So I looked elsewhere and found my answer. I put it to you friends that the Arabic word in Sura 112 is an attack against the JEWISH words to the Prophecy of Isaiah 9:6

Isaiah 9:6 For to us a child (יֶ֣לֶד ye·leḏ)  is born (יֻלַּד־ yul·laḏ), to us a son is given, and the government will be on his shoulders. And He will be called Wonderful, Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.

Sura 112:3 “He begets (yalid) not, nor is He begotten (yulad)”.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rahman_(name)
Rahman (Arabic: رحمن‎, Raḥmān) is an Arabic male name meaning Gracious. With nisba (Arabic onomastic), the name becomes Rahmani, means “descendant of the gracious one” and is used as a surname.

Quran 1:1 bis’mi l-lahi l-raḥmāni l-raḥīmi

Hmmmm……

Sura 43:81 Say: If the Beneficent Allah is the Son, I am the foremost of those who serve.

Sura 5:17-18 They indeed have disbelieved who say: Lo! Allah is the Messiah, son of Mary.

Sura 33.40 Muhammad(The Praised One) is not the Father of any of your men, but he is the Apostle of Allah and the Seal of the Prophets; and Allah is cognizant of all things.

If Allah=God (and not necessarily Allah=Father) then all these verses are attacks against the doctrines that are derived from this Messianic Prophecy.

Revelation 21:5 And the One seated on the throne said, “Behold, I make all things new. Then He said, “Write this down, for these words are faithful and true. 6 And He told me, “It is done! I am the Alpha and the Omega, the Beginning and the End. To the thirsty I will give freely from the spring of the water of life. 7 The one who overcomes will inherit all things, and I will be his God, and he will be My son.