[DefendingIslam]

Quote

Typical is the comment of the late third‑century Palestinian teacher, Rabbi Abbahu, on the verse (Isaiah 44:6): "I am the first, and I am the last, and beside Me there is no God." As Rabbi Abbahu spells it out: "'I am the first,' for I have no father; 'and I am the last,' for I have no son, 'and beside Me there is no God,' for I have no brother."

But wouldn't the Jewish custom of calling people "sons of God" out of respect- indeed calling all of humanity as being the "children of God", and God as "their Father"- negate their other statements, or at least is it not blasphemous as far as Islam is concerned?

As far as I know such would be the case - calling people sons of God out of respect is blasphemy- as evidence is Ayah 9:30 of the Qur'an and statements of the scholars about what happens if someone calls someone "son of Allah" or "brother of Allah", since they are doing the same as the pagans (akin to how someone's Islam is negated if they prostate to an idol, regardless of the intention).

[Murat Yazici]

DefendingIslam, on 31 December 2010 - 06:47 PM, said:

But wouldn't the Jewish custom of calling people "sons of God" out of respect- indeed calling all of humanity as being the "children of God", and God as "their Father"- negate their other statements, or at least is it not blasphemous as far as Islam is concerned?

As far as I know such would be the case - calling people sons of God out of respect is blasphemy- as evidence is Ayah 9:30 of the Qur'an and statements of the scholars about what happens if someone calls someone "son of Allah" or "brother of Allah", since they are doing the same as the pagans (akin to how someone's Islam is negated if they prostate to an idol, regardless of the intention).

Basic books (fiqh and aqida books written for common people) state that phrases like "son of God" or "The Father God" cause kufr.

Having said that, consider the following (Matthew 5:9):

"Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be called the children of God."

Here, obviously, the word "children" is not used in the real sense, but it is employed to mean something like "beloved creatures of Allahu ta'ala."

I have not read any detailed discussion of this issue by any scholar. What Imam Qurtubi rahimahullah wrote appears to support your understanding; but see also Imam Razi's rahimahullah explanation of 9/30. Do you have access to Imam Razi's tafsir?

This post has been edited by Murat Yazici: 31 December 2010 - 07:40 PM

[DefendingIslam]

Salam Alaykum,

Quote

Having said that, consider the following (Matthew 5:9):

"Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be called the children of God."

Here, obviously, the word "children" is not used in the real sense, but it is employed to mean something like "beloved creatures of Allahu ta'ala."

I do not think any proper 'Aalim w1ould take what the christian Bible claims that 'Isa (alayhi Salaam) said as being any proof, since it is not revelation, nor is it a Hadith that can be traced back to 'Isa (Alayhi Salaam)- not even a weak Hadith. If there is something in the primary Islamic sources saying that 'Isa (Alayhi Salaam) actually said something like "children of God" or "God, my Father" then this would have to be taken up with our 'Ulama, but as far as I know from my limited knwoeldge such a thing does not exist in Islamic texts. I know that this bible passage is brought up time and again in Muslim-Christian discussions as an example of what 'Isa (Alayhi Salaam) said, but this is in the context of dialogue with our opponents, and that too by people who may not know about the severity of calling someone "the son of God".

About the Tafisr of al-Razi the only source I have is from the al-tafsir site, but I did not find any detailed discussion about this specific matter (what is the status of someone saying "son of Allah" regardless of intention). Maybe I can be referred to the appropriate section in that Tafsir.

Finally I think it is important that such a matter be brought the attention of our contemporary 'Ulama, since there may be some 'Aalims who are unaware that Jews say that God is the "Father" of all humanity and that we are all "His children", so with this new information perhaps refutations to the Jewish religion could have a new angle.

This post has been edited by DefendingIslam: 01 January 2011 - 02:26 AM

[Murat Yazici]

DefendingIslam, on 01 January 2011 - 03:54 AM, said:

Salam Alaykum,


About the Tafisr of al-Razi the only source I have is from the al-tafsir site, but I did not find any detailed discussion about this specific matter (what is the status of someone saying "son of Allah" regardless of intention). Maybe I can be referred to the appropriate section in that Tafsir.

Alaikum salam.

You are right, I don't think he discussed that specific matter directly.

Imam Razi rahimahullah discusses where and how the "son of God" belief might have started and crept into Christianity. Here he offers the following explanation:

The following is the closest explanation to the truth: Perhaps, just like the word khalil (beloved one, friend) was used for Ibrahim alaihissalam as an honorary title, the word Ibn (son) might have been used in Injil for Isa alaihissalam with this meaning (to express honor and position). Thereafter Christians, because of their enmity towards the Jews and because of the opposition and excesses of both sides towards the other side, have exceeded the limit and explained this word Ibn in its literal meaning as "real son". Ignorant people believed this and this false belief spread among those who follow Isa's (alaihissalam) religion. Allahu ta'ala knows the fact of the matter best.

Caution: This is a rough translation and I give it here only to help locate the original statements by Imam Razi. It should also be evaluated within the context of the entire explanation of that ayat (9/30).

والأقرب عندي أن يقال لعله ورد لفظ الابن في الإنجيل على سبيل التشريف، كما ورد لفظ الخليل في حق إبراهيم على سبيل التشريف، ثم إن القوم لأجل عداوة اليهود ولأجل أن يقابلوا غلوهم الفاسد في أحد الطرفين بغلو فاسد في الطرف الثاني، فبالغوا وفسروا لفظ الابن بالبنوة الحقيقية والجهال، قبلوا ذلك، وفشا هذا المذهب الفاسد في أتباع عيسى عليه السلام، والله أعلم بحقيقة الحال

This post has been edited by Murat Yazici: 01 January 2011 - 02:27 PM

[DefendingIslam]

Salam Alaykum,

It would be good if an 'Aalim were approached concerning this issue, as ar-Razi seems to be open to be possibility that the term "son" could have been used for 'Isa in the original Injil. So it may be asked as to what type of blasphemy it refers to, whether the type that is absolutely forbidden for all people to say and do at all times (such as saying that there is a divinity other than Allah) or the type of forbidden action or saying that is brought about by Islam only (such as bowing or prostating to a person due to respect).

This post has been edited by DefendingIslam: 01 January 2011 - 02:47 PM

[DefendingIslam]

Salam Alaykum,

I asked Shaykh Abu Adam Al-Naruiji:

Quote

With respect to the matter of someone saying that he is the "child of God" or that Allah is his "Father", I found the following from the Tafsir of Imam ar-Razi of Ayah 9:30:

والأقرب عندي أن يقال لعله ورد لفظ الابن في الإنجيل على سبيل التشريف، كما ورد لفظ الخليل في حق إبراهيم على سبيل التشريف، ثم إن القوم لأجل عداوة اليهود ولأجل أن يقابلوا غلوهم الفاسد في أحد الطرفين بغلو فاسد في الطرف الثاني، فبالغوا وفسروا لفظ الابن بالبنوة الحقيقية والجهال، قبلوا ذلك، وفشا هذا المذهب الفاسد في أتباع عيسى عليه السلام، والله أعلم بحقيقة الحال

So in here apparently ar-Razi is taking it as a possibility that perhaps the term "son" may have been there in the Injil, but it was taken to extremes by the Christians in their animosity against the Jews.

So I would like to know whether the ruling of disbelief for someone saying that he is the "son of Allah" is something that has existed for all the Shariahs of all the Prophets, or whether it is something specific to the Shariah brought by Muhammad (Salla Allahu Alayhi Wa Sallam).

Since it is written in the books of Fiqh and Aqeedah that anyone saying that "so-and-so is the son of Allah" is a matter of Kufr, one would believe that it should be prohibited by all the Shariahs of all times since Prophets cannot utter words of Kufr nor would Allah send any revelation that is disbelief. So perhaps you could explain this for me Insha Allah.

Wa Salam Alaykum.

and he replied:

Quote

It is of course in all laws past, because it is a matter of kufr. I think this is a perversion in his tafsiir, as it is a crazy thing to say, and also there are statements in the same tafsiir that contradicts this. This tafsiir has not reached us in a mutawaatir way and is not protected from perversion.

If there is a need, we can also ask other 'Ulama, but at least we have one scholarly response already.

[Murat Yazici]

DefendingIslam, on 09 January 2011 - 03:39 AM, said:

Salam Alaykum,

I asked Shaykh Abu Adam Al-Naruiji:

and he replied:

Quote

It is of course in all laws past, because it is a matter of kufr. I think this is a perversion in his tafsiir, as it is a crazy thing to say, and also there are statements in the same tafsiir that contradicts this. This tafsiir has not reached us in a mutawaatir way and is not protected from perversion.

If there is a need, we can also ask other 'Ulama, but at least we have one scholarly response already.

Alaikum salam,

But that is not a "scholarly" response, is it?

The statement "I think this is a perversion..." does not prove anything. What if it is not a "perversion" (he means tampering)? Is he going to declare kufr on Imam Razi? That smells like Ahbash to me.

I don't mean that he is one of them, and I have great respect for the shaykh's work (i.e. his web site), at least to the extent that I examined it so far. I found some of the articles there to be very sharp and useful.

(This does not mean that I accept the statement in Imam Razi's tafsir; the point is: A more comprehensive explanation is needed, one that is based on the explanations of past and known ulama. What if the old Hebrew word -whatever it is- that is translated to English or Arabic as "father" had a different connotation that is lost/corrupted when translated? A deeper analysis is needed here.)

Wassalam

This post has been edited by Murat Yazici: 09 January 2011 - 08:00 AM

[DefendingIslam]

Quote

Alaikum salam,

But that is not a "scholarly" response, is it?

The statement "I think this is a perversion..." does not prove anything. What if it is not a "perversion" (he means tampering)? Is he going to declare kufr on Imam Razi? That smells like Ahbash to me.

I don't mean that he is one of them, and I have great respect for the shaykh's work (i.e. his web site), at least to the extent that I examined it so far. I found some of the articles there to be very sharp and useful.

(This does not mean that I accept the statement in Imam Razi's tafsir; the point is: A more comprehensive explanation is needed, one that is based on the explanations of past and known ulama. What if the old Hebrew word -whatever it is- that is translated to English or Arabic as "father" had a different connotation that is lost/corrupted when translated? A deeper analysis is needed here.)

Wassalam

It is scholarly as far as a Shaykh has answered about this matter, since I wanted to know the type of prohibition and the level of deviance associated with saying that someone is a "son of Allah". Yes it is not in-depth, but at least he is saying that we should rather think it is a perversion rather than ascribe it to Imam ar-Razi.

About the old Hebrew word being in need of investigation, perhaps this has not yet been done any 'Aalim and if so it needs to be done. In this case, the problem we as Muslims face (if we wish to investigate this matter from the Hebrew sources) is that the Jews are more or less unanimous in their approval for someone calling Allah a "Father" and saying that people are "His sons" (out of respect), and this is openly attributed to many of the Prophets in their scriptures. So this is one matter that has to be considered if any Muslim 'Aalim wishes to pursue the route of investigating the matter from Hebrew Jewish sources.