Tag Archives: virgin-birth

A Jewish Argument against the Qur’an.

“Also, mention when the angels said, “O Mary, indeed Allah gives you good news of a word from Him, whose name will be the Messiah, Jesus, the son of Mary – distinguished in this world and the Hereafter and among those brought near to Allah. He will speak to the people in the cradle and in maturity and will be of the righteous. “She said, “My Lord, how will I have a child when no man has touched me?” The angel said, “Such is Allah; He creates what He wills. When He decrees a matter, He only says to it, ‘Be,’ and it is. (Qur’an 3:45-47)

﷽ 

“Also, mention, in the book the story of Mary, when she withdrew from her family to a place toward the east and she took, in seclusion from them, a screen. Then We sent to her Our Angel, and he represented himself to her as a well-proportioned man. She said, “Indeed, I seek refuge in the Most Merciful from you, so leave me, if you should be fearing of Allah. He said, “I am only the messenger of your Lord to give you news of a pure boy. “She said, “How can I have a boy while no man has touched me and I have not been unchaste? “He said, “Thus it will be; your Lord says, ‘it is easy for Me, and We will make him a sign to the people and a mercy from Us. And it is a matter already decreed.” (Qur’an 19:16-21)

As Shaykh Ahmed Deedat (r) has mentioned in his Pamphlet “Is the Bible God’s Word?” page 11:

We do not have the time and space to go into the tens of thousands of — grave or minor —defects that the authors of the Revised Standard Version (RSV) have attempted to revise. We leave that privilege to the Christian scholars of the Bible. Here I will endeavor to cast just a cursory glance at a “half-a-dozen” or so of those “minor” changes.


1. “Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign: Behold, a VIRGIN shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.” (Isaiah 7:14 – AV)
The indispensable “VIRGIN” in the above verse has now been replaced in the RSV with the phrase “a young woman,” which is the correct translation of the Hebrew word almah. Almah is the word that has occurred all along in the Hebrew text and NOT bethulah, which means VIRGIN. This correction is only to be found in the English language translation, as the RSV is only published in this tongue. For the African and the Afrikaner, the Arab and the Zulu, in fact, in the 1500 other languages of the world, Christians are made to continue to swallow the misnomer “VIRGIN.”

The argument goes (from the Jews) and the atheists, for that matter, that if the Gospel writer ‘Matthew’ had been inspired and directed by the Holy Spirit, then he (Matthew) would not have relied upon the Jewish Septuagint for the source of his quote.

Technically, the word almah more than not was used for a young woman that could be married. Being a young, unmarried woman, it was often understood that she was not married and thus, a virgin.

However, those who argue against this state that the word ‘bethulah’, which actually does mean virgin, should have been used in place of ‘almah’, which has the possibility of being a virgin.

The website: Jews for Jesus has the following to say:

https://jewsforjesus.org/publications/issues/issues-v09-n01/almah-virgin-or-young-maiden/

Whereas the web site Jews for Judaism as this short entry:

https://jewsforjudaism.org/knowledge/articles/almah-virgin-and-parthenos

We as Muslims could agree with our Christian apologist and say look, ‘almah’likely means ‘virgin’ and that is good enough.

The reason that it is not good enough is that the author of the ‘Gospel According to Matthew’ had made some huge blunders when being reliant upon the Greek Septuagint.

We will give a clear example: Believe us, there are many!

“When they drew near Jerusalem and came to Bethphage on the Mount of Olives, Jesus sent two disciples, saying to them, “Go into the village opposite you, and immediately you will find an ass tethered, and a colt with her. Untie them and bring them here to me. And if anyone should say anything to you, reply, ‘The master has need of them.’ Then he will send them at once. “This happened so that what had been spoken through the prophet might be fulfilled: Say to daughter Zion, ‘Behold, your king comes to you, meek and riding on an ass, and on a colt, the foal of a beast of burden.’ “The disciples went and did as Jesus had ordered them. They brought the ass and the colt and laid their cloaks over them, and he sat upon them. The huge crowd spread their cloaks on the road, while others cut branches from the trees and strewed them on the road. The crowds preceding him and those following kept crying out and saying: “Hosanna to the Son of David; blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord; hosanna in the highest.” And when he entered Jerusalem the whole city was shaken and asked, “Who is this? “And the crowds replied, “This is Jesus the prophet, from Nazareth in Galilee.” (Matthew 21:1-11)

This is disastrous. It is disastrous on several accounts. Whoever wrote the Gospel according to Matthew couldn’t have known the original Hebrew text. Instead, the Greek Septuagint was relied upon resulting in the mistaken belief that the so-called “prophecy” was about Jesus riding upon two donkeys!

Again, look at what Christian scholars have had to say about the matter.

4-5] The prophet: this fulfillment citation is actually composed of two distinct Old Testament texts, Isaiah 62:11 (Say to daughter Zion) and Zechariah 9:9. The ass and the colt are the same animal in the prophecy, mentioned twice in different ways, the common Hebrew literary device of poetic parallelism. Matthew takes them as two is one of the reasons why some scholars think that he was a Gentile rather than a Jewish Christian who would presumably not make that mistake (see Introduction).

7] Upon them: upon the two animals; an awkward picture resulting from Matthew’s misunderstanding of the prophecy.

The source is from: (http://www.usccb.org/nab/bible/matthew/matthew28.htm)

So why could this be a Jewish contention against the Qur’an?

The Core of the Critique.

The criticism, as we’ve laid out, follows this logic:

The Christian Doctrine is Based on a Mistranslation: The Christian belief in a virgin birth prophecy in Isaiah 7:14 relies on the Greek Septuagint’s translation of the Hebrew word almah (young woman) as parthenos (virgin), rather than the more precise Hebrew word for virgin, bethulah.

Matthew’s Error Demonstrates Human Authorship: The author of the Gospel of Matthew (who used the Septuagint) further demonstrates his human fallibility by misreading Zechariah 9:9, thinking it describes two animals (an ass and a colt) instead of one animal described with poetic parallelism.

The Qur’an is Therefore Derivative and Human: Since the Qur’an also affirms the virgin birth, the critic argues that its author simply borrowed this “mistaken” Christian doctrine, which itself is based on a Greek mistranslation of a Hebrew text. This, they claim, proves the Qur’an is a human document from the 7th century, not a divine revelation.

The assumption that the Jew could make is that because Muslims believe in the virgin birth of Mary (May Allah honour her) that the “author of the Qur’an” simply copied the Christian doctrine — which in turn is based upon the Greek Septuagint and has no knowledge of the Hebrew text. Presumably, this makes the Qur’an all too human and not of divine authorship.

The Qur’an is Independent and Authoritative, Not Derivative.
This is the most critical point. The Qur’an does not seek to prove the virgin birth by referencing the Hebrew Bible. It does not say, “And this happened to fulfill what was said by the prophet Isaiah…” as Matthew does.

Instead, the Qur’an narrates the event as a direct, fact revealed by Allah.

We as Muslims have a straightforward response to this. That is that whoever wrote the ‘Gospel according to Matthew’ was quote-mining the Jewish sacred text to get legitimacy for Jesus as the Messiah. Whereas, for us as Muslims, the Qur’an stands independent of any justification for the miraculous birth of Christ Jesus.

Muslims could agree with Christian apologists that almah can imply virginity. However, the Islamic position is stronger: We have no theological need to enter that debate. Our belief is not contingent on the interpretation of a single word in a text that could have been altered. Our belief is based solely on the clear, unambiguous words of the Qur’an:

“She said, ‘How can I have a boy while no man has touched me and I have not been unchaste?’ He said, ‘Thus [it will be]; your Lord says, ‘It is easy for Me…”” (Qur’an 19:20-21)

The Qur’an uses the phrase “while no man has touched me” (وَلَمْ يَمْسَسْنِي بَشَرٌ), which is an explicit, clear statement of virginity that avoids the ambiguity of the Hebrew almah altogether

In other words, Christ Jesus was born of the Virgin Mary. This is our belief as Muslims who believe in the words of the Qur’an.

This was a real event that took place. Where we part with the Christians is this:

The Christians in particular whoever wrote the ‘Gospel according to Matthew’ felt a need to justify this event by reference to the Hebrew scriptures albeit reliance upon the Greek Septuagint.

Conclusion:

The mistakes of Matthew highlight the human process of trying to fit Jesus into Old Testament prophecies, sometimes through forced interpretations and errors from using a translation.

The Qur’an, by contrast, displays none of this. It is entirely self-contained and authoritative. It does not make interpretive errors about Zechariah or Isaiah because it does not reference them in the first place. It simply states the truth of the event as revealed by Allah.

Therefore, the argument that the Qur’an “copied” a mistake actually proves the opposite: its independence from the textual corruptions and human errors that affected the previous scriptures. The Qur’an’s account of the virgin birth is not evidence of its human origin but rather of its divine origin, as it provides a pristine, uncorrupted narrative free from the dilemmas of biblical scholarship.

As Muslims, our belief in this stands apart from needing any proof text or citation from previous scriptures. With Allah is the success!

May Allah (swt) guide the sincere among them so that they do not perish in ever lasting hellfire!

May Allah Guide the Ummah.

May Allah Forgive the Ummah.

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Does Allah need a wife to have a son?

“Allah who created the heavens and the earth! How can Allah have a child, when He did not have a wife?” (Qur’an 6:101) 

“Allah who created the heavens and the earth! How can Allah have a child, when He did not have a companion?” (Qur’an 6:101)  

﷽ 

“Allah who created the heavens and the earth! How can Allah have a child, when He did not have a companion?” (Qur’an 6:101)  

 This a verse that is frequently misunderstood and used for very different, often opposing, theological arguments. We have identified the core issue: the misinterpretation of the word ṣāḥibatun (companion) and the failure to read the verse in its full rhetorical and theological context. The verse not a statement of inability or a lesson in biology. It is a powerful rhetorical device intended to shatter human-centric, anthropomorphic conceptions of God.

There are two categories of people who use this verse with two very different objectives.

  1. Christians use this to show that the Qur’an gets Christian theology wrong.
  2. Those that do not believe in miracles because they believe miracles violate the laws of causality. Thus, they want to negate the virgin birth of Christ Jesus.

The first category.

The Christian understanding is like the following:

Christians have no concept of The Father as having a companion. It would mean from their misunderstanding of the verse that the Qur’an is the product of a human mind. It would mean that the Qur’an has no grasp of the Christian theological position.

The second category.

“Sir Sayyid Ahmad Khan (d. 1898)
This famous social reformer and educationist of nineteenth-century India denied that Jesus was born of a virgin”

Source: (See his Commentary of the Quran Tafsir al-Quran, published by Munshi Fazl Din, Kashmiri Bazaar, Lahore, vol. ii, pp. 24–35. See the section titled ‘Muslim Newspaper Sidq’)

Understanding the rhetorical question.

“Allah who created the heavens and the earth! How can Allah have a child, when He did not have a companion?” (Qur’an 6:101)

How can Allah have a child, when He does not have a companion?”

Now the very clear and sensible understanding of this rhetorical question is simple. One Creator being contrasted with the idea of having a companion.

Who is Allah?

“Say: “Allah Is Absolutely One.” Who is independent of all and whom all depend on. He does not bring forth like-kind nor was he brought forth from like-kind; And there is none comparable to Him.” (Qur’an 112:1-4)

Who or what is the companion in the verse?

Look at all the verb forms as well as the nouns and their use within the Qur’an.

http://corpus.quran.com/qurandictionary.jsp?q=SHb#(6:101:11)

Ṣāḥibah (from the root Ṣ-Ḥ-B) carries meanings of companion, associate, partner, consort, or one who accompanies. In this theological context, it negates any notion of a divine partner, consort, or equal—not merely a spouse.

We find it interesting that, usually, people have decided to translate the Arabic term ‘sahibatun’ as ‘wife’ rather than ‘companion’. The Arabic term ‘zawja‘ (wife) is not used in this context at all. Whereas we would have translated it as ‘companion’ and for good reason. Whereas those in categories 1 and 2 above tend to focus on the term ‘wife’.

The way that these people have misunderstood the text, we either have to choose between some of the following options:

A) A creator that is incapable: (May Allah pardon us)

In other words Allah (swt) needs assistance in creating something.

B) A creator that is like his creation: (May Allah pardon us).

In other words Allah (swt) needs assistance in creating something.

C) A creator that takes on gender roles: (May Allah pardon us)

In other words if the companion is seen as a wife (zawja) than Allah (swt) is the husband.

D) A Creator who is ignorant of Christian theology: (May Allah pardon us) /An argument against virgin birth of Jesus.

In other words Allah needs a wife (zawja) in order to have a son. Which Christians do not believe. It would be a blatant misrepresentation of their beliefs. This argument is also used by those who want to argue against the virgin birth of Jesus (as).


Dealing with proposition A. The Incapable Creator

A creator that is incapable (May Allah pardon us)

It contravenes the following verse:

“His being alone is such that when He wills a thing to be, He but says unto it, “Be” — and it is.” (Qur’an 36:82)

It seems a bit of a stretch to think that Allah (swt) would make an argument that he couldn’t have a son without a companion and yet create a vast universe from the command ‘Kun’.

“It is not for Allah to take a son; exalted is He! When He decrees an affair, He only says to it, “Be,” and it is.” (Qur’an 19:35)

It even contravenes the very verse that they quote to make their case!

Resolution:  Allah’s creative power is absolute and uncaused. He does not require mechanisms, partners, or processes.

Dealing with proposition B. The Creator Like Creation:

The creator that is like his creation (May Allah pardon us).

The following verse is sufficient to refute this.

“There is nothing like unto Him.” (Qur’an 42:11)

Resolution: An originator (badīʿ) is one who creates something without any prior model or precedent, emphasizing His utter transcendence and unlike-ness to creation.

Dealing with proposition C. The Gendered Creator

That the Creator takes on gender roles.

So, if Allah (swt) is making a rhetorical argument about human relations, is Allah (swt) now taking on the role of the husband or the male progenitor? Be sensible people! Allah (swt) is drawing attention to the fact that he has no peer, no companion.

Resolution: This is a result of the mistranslation “wife.” Islam completely rejects attributing gender or physical human characteristics to Allah. The argument is about divinity, not matrimony.

Dealing with proposition D.  Ignorance of Christian Theology / Argument Against Virgin Birth.

A Creator who is ignorant of Christian theology/An argument against the virgin birth of Jesus.

Ironically, proposition D is also the position taken by those who want to deny the virgin birth of Christ Jesus in the Qur’an. So they (those who believe that miracles violate the laws of causality) have ironically sided with the Christian in their misunderstanding of the verse. Albeit to reach very different ends.

Christians have no concept of The Father as having a companion. It would mean from their misunderstanding of the verse that the Qur’an is the product of a human mind. It would mean that the Qur’an has no grasp of the Christian theological position.

The questions that are put forward by those who hold the view that the virgin birth (a miracle) would violate the laws of causality would be:

Why can’t Allah (swt) have a son without a wife?

To which the reply to this is:

On what consistent basis could you make this claim if taking the verse as a whole?

Another question for them would be: Based upon your interpretation of the verse, would you be opposed to the idea of Allah (swt) having a wife or a son based upon your logic?

In other words, do you find it a theological impossibility for Allah (swt) to have a wife and/or a son?

Another question for them would be:

Why would Allah (swt) need to be like his creation in the process of bringing a son into being?

Why not look at the whole verse? Why only quote part of it?

Originator of the heavens and the earth. How could He have a son when He does not have a companion, and He created all things? And He is, of all things, Knowing.” (Qur’an 6:101)

First, Allah (swt) is the originator of the heavens and the earth. Do these people now believe that there was a wife or an associate, or a partner or a companion that helped Allah (swt) in this?

What natural laws did Allah (swt) follow or was beholden to when creating our reality?
The verse all says, “He created all things.


Why do people seek out companionship/friendship/associates and peers, to begin with? Ponder it.

The need for companionship?

“They say, “Allah has taken a child.” Glory be to Him! He is Self-Sufficient. Unto Him belongs whatsoever is in the heavens and whatsoever is on the earth. You have no authority for this. Do you say about Allah that which you know not?” (Qur’an 10:68)


Anything that human beings can receive from companions/friends/peers and associates stems from needs, and Allah (swt) is free from needs.
Whatever people get from having associates and companions Allah (swt) can simply create it. Allah (swt) is the Self-Sufficient!

“There is nothing like unto Him.” (Qur’an 42:11)

If Allah (swt) had a companion /associate/ or peer that would entail being of the exact divine nature of Allah (swt). Allah (swt) crushes that notion with the following ‘He created ALL things’.

It is only logical that you can’t have two uncreated beings.

It is only logical that you can’t have two originators. This would also entail having a walad (a child). A walad or a child would be ‘like kind’.

The following verse more than drives home this point.

“Never did Allah take to Himself a son, and never was there with him any god– in that case would each god have certainly taken away what he created, and some of them would certainly have overpowered others; glory be to Allah above what they describe.” (Qur’an 23:91)

That verse crushes the idea that Allah (swt) could even have a companion.

“Allah who created the heavens and the earth! How can Allah have a child, when He did not have a companion?” (Qur’an 6:101)  

As for those who believe that miracles violate the laws of causality and are trying to reinterpret scripture to appease atheists, they understand Allah as saying, “But if I had a wife, I could have a child.”

Which is simply theologically unsound. Their interpretation of the text ignores the whole of the verse; and worse yet, it doesn’t negate for Allah (swt) the possibility of having a companion! (May Allah pardon us).

This is the same train of thought by those who believe miracles violate the laws of causality and therefore reject the virgin birth of Christ Jesus.


The focus for people who use this text as an argument is on the word ‘walad’, whereas Allah (swt) is saying he doesn’t have a ‘sahibatun’, a companion to begin with.

Resolution:

Against Christian Critique: The Qur’an is not misrepresenting mainstream Christian theology. It is attacking the logical implication of the claim “God has a son.” From a purely logical, non-creedal standpoint, if a being has a son, that son must be of the same nature (a peer). The Qur’an argues that since Allah has no peers or companions (no other divine being), the concept of a “son” is logically incoherent. It challenges the metaphysics of the Trinity, not the biology of the Nativity.

Against the Naturalist/Mu’tazilite Critique (e.g., Sir Syed Ahmad Khan): Those who deny miracles like the virgin birth because they “violate causality” profoundly misunderstand the verse. They interpret it as, “Allah needs a wife to have a son.” This is a catastrophic error. The verse is not providing the necessary condition for divine filiation (“a wife is needed”). It is rejecting the entire paradigm as impossible. Allah does not need a wife to have a son; He transcends the very category of having offspring altogether. The miracle of Jesus’s birth (ʿĪsā ibn Maryam) is a sign of Allah’s absolute power to create as He wills (Kun fa-Yakūn), outside of natural causality, which He Himself established. To use this verse to deny the virgin birth is to completely invert its meaning.

Conclusion:

The verse in question is a masterful rhetorical tool that:

  1. Affirms Surah Ikhlas:  Allah is One, Unique, without peer, partner, or companion.
  2. Denies Anthropomorphism: Allah is beyond human categories like gender and biological reproduction.
  3. Establishes Logical Coherence: The concept of “divine offspring” is metaphysically absurd because it requires a plurality within the divine, which is impossible for the One who created all things and has no equal.
  4. Upholds, Not Denies, Miracles: The power that created the heavens and the earth from nothing can certainly create a human being in a womb without a father. Denying this is a failure to understand Allah’s absolute power, which the verse itself emphasizes.

The focus is not on the word walad (son) in isolation, but on the impossible pre-condition for it: a ṣāḥibah (companion). Since the pre-condition is impossible (Allah has no companion), the conclusion (Allah has a son) is also impossible. This is a definitive negation of any form of shirk (associating partners with God) while simultaneously affirming Allah’s limitless power to create as He wills.

“Say: “Allah Is Absolutely One.” Who is independent of all and whom all depend on. He does not bring forth like-kind nor was he brought forth from like-kind; And there is none comparable to Him.” (Qur’an 112:1-4)

For those interested, you may want to read the following articles:

https://primaquran.com/2022/10/04/the-evidence-to-reject-the-virgin-birth-of-jesus/

https://primaquran.com/2022/10/04/the-case-for-the-virgin-birth-from-the-quran/

https://primaquran.com/2022/10/04/a-jewish-argument-against-the-quran/

https://primaquran.com/2023/12/30/adoptionist-theology-how-did-jesus-become-the-son-of-god/

May Allah (swt) forgive the Ummah.

May Allah (swt) guide the Ummah.

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized