You are on page 1of 6

Dr Zakir Naik was asked a question and he replied in his own way in a limited period

of time. We do think that there are some other responsesas well. One may be given
for those who wand to study the question deeply.
The question is that if Iesous is conceived virginally then he is the son of God/Deity.
[This implicitly implies <<<<If so then He is God/Deity>>>>].
Dr Za:kir Naik has responded to this question asked by a Christian Brother.
stated in the beginning, It is to be noted that there are some more answers to the

So it is a good thing to provide some additional answers.

This question may be answered in several Preliminaries:=
First Preliminary:=
According to Independent Axiom Of Islam it is Absolutely Absurd and Necessarily
Impossible that God can become any thing that He is Eternally Not.
Also it is an Axiom of Islam that Begetting ,Conception and Reproductions are
Necessarily Absurd and Absolutely Impossible Upon God/Deity.

The Absurdity and Impossibility stated above is not restricted to Physical Begetting and Physical
Conception but also includes The proceeding of Second Rational Hypostasisfrom the First
Rational Hypostasis by an Eternal Immenant act of Trinitical Generation.So any Generation
whether Eternal or Not is Absolutely Absurd and Necessarily Impossible Upon God/Deity.
Similarly the proceeding of the Third Hypostasis from the From the First Hypostasis through the
the Second Hypostasis, all in the Divine Ousia.
Similarly God/Deity Becoming Flesh in the womb of a WOMAN WHETHER Virgin or Not is
equally Absolutely Absurd and Necessarily Impossible.
So there is only one Possibility and Contingency that Omnipotent God/Deity Doeth Possess the
Power to Create Pregnancy in any Woman with out any intervention of any Male Human being
just by Omnivolence and Omnipotence.
There is no Impossibility and no Absurdity that Omnipotent and Omnivolent God/Deity Can
make any Woman Pregnant and make her conceive a child just by His Omnipotence and

So if God Createth a child in the Genetal / Reproductive Organs of a Woman with out any
contact of her with any Male Human Being , it is never implied that the Conceived One is Son of
God, but with out any Father whether Biological or Not.
Second Preliminary
For sake of an argument let it is suppose that God or any One of His Hypostases residing in the
Ousia Of God [if God Hath any Hypostasis or A number of Mutually Distinct Hypostases or
both in the Ousia of His Being] Can become flesh in the Womb of a woman .
Let it be supposed that this is Possible and Contingent and Omnipotent God/Deity Hath the
Power over this Possibility and Contingency.
In this supposed case [supposed for the sake of argument] there are two Possibilities :=
1] God/Deity or any one of the Hypostases in the Ousia of the Being of God can become flesh or
proto child in the womb of a woman [say Holy Marium /Maryam AS] .
2] God/Deity Created a Proto Child in the Womb of the Woman [say Holy Marium/Maryam
AS] .
[Proto Child means Antenatal Child in the Womb; The under developed offspring in the
body of a female human being].
If it is accepted that both are equally Possible For God /Deity , then one cannot
argue which Possible Event God/Deity Hath Chosen.
So the argument in itself is incorrect and weak.
Since If God hath Chosen the Second Possible Event then the Argument becomes
In this case there is no Father of Iesous Kristos and he is an Exception in the human
race who hath a Mother but No Father What So Ever.
There is no implication between the events Virgin Conception and Son Of
Even if it is supposed that it is Possible that God/Deity or any one of the Hypostases
in the Divine Ousia [If there are Hypostases in Divine Ousia] can become flash in the
womb of a Woman , it is also Possible that God/Deity HathChosen an other Method
to Do So. So just the Possibility of this invalidates the argument.

Third Preliminary
Official Islamic teachings highly regard the Virgin Marium/Maryam as a symbol of Righteousness , Purity,
Holiness and Submission to God/Deity .. An entire Surah chapter of the Qur'an Nounly Maryam [Marium] is
dedicated to her Nobility, Innocence ,Holiness, and Unconditional Obedience to God/Deity. Among Islamic
circles and discussions, she is often given a prominent status being the supreme feminine model of sanctity
and maternal virtue.
She did not committed any Sin as claimed by some of Her opponents. The word Immaculate is derived from
the Latin word Immaculatus meaning Unstained, Spotless ,Flawless, Unsinned. So the Immaculate Conception
Is accepted but it does not imply that God/Deity was the Father of the Conceived One.
So her Conception flawless and Sinless and a Miracle. It this meaning her Conception was both Immaculate
Conception and Virgin Conception.
But neither the Virgin Conception nor the Immaculate Conception implies the Deity Of Iesous , they also not
Imply the Divine Sonship as Suggested. Infact Isla:m emphasizeth Immaculate Conception so much that
Some Christian writers even claim that the Immaculate Conception of Marium/ Maryam is a Teaching of
At this point it is beyond the scope of this work to discuss whether the claim is correct or not, yet it does shew
the Importance of Immaculate Conception and Virgin Conception in isla:m.

When some Heretics and Heterodoxes like Sir Saiyid Ahmad Kha:n, Mirza Ghula:m Of
Qa:dia:n,Ghula:m Ah:mad Pevez etc denied the Virgin Conception and Immaculate Conception,
Muslim Scholars irrespective of their Creed, Sect ,Cult and Schools Unitedly rejected them and
declared them as Heretic and distorters of the Isla:mic Teachings. The Muslim reaction was so
strict and sharp that they were declared as out of folds of Isla:m just for their this view.

Forth Preliminary:
There are many things which may be consider as Out of Omnipotence and
Omnivolence of God/Deity like Creation of a Stone that God/Deity Can Himself not
Lift or Annihilate; Creation of a thing that is perfectly Black and Perfectly White.
Similarly God/Deity cannot commit fornication, homosectuality, heterosexuality ,
eating , sleeping. Even the Incarnists of Christiandom consider them as Impossible
with out incarnation. Similarly Creation of two mountains at a close distance without
a valley between them

But to create a Pregnancy in a female human being with out any contact with a
male human being is in the Omnipotence of Omnipotent God/Deity.
So no one can deny this Power of Deity/God.
Fifth Preliminary:
A number of scholars have rejected the word Begotten from John and they translate
the Greek word Monogenes as The Only Son and not as the Only Bigotten Son.
Although the followers of the belief that Iesous was the Only Begotten Son have
attemted to write Books in support of their this rendering , but the best thing they
could do is that the attempted to shew that the rendering Only Begotten (Son) IS
more preferable then the rendering Only Son.
The following Knowledgical points must be noted for the concise and brief
discussion on the topic.
1] There are a number of meanings of the word Monogenes and Only Begotten
(Son) is just one of them.
2] The Etymology of the word Monogenes is also not unique and more then one
opinion is found. Even if any one of them is preferable and probable [say Most
Probable] yet it is still not certain.
Even the Most Probable is not Certainty.

So if it is accepted that any one of them is Most Probable it is still not Certain and
Certainly not certain.
3] In matter of believes and faiths the minimum requirement is of certainty. So if the
belief is IESOUS IS THE ONLY BEGOTTEN (SON) OF GOD/DEITY then the verses
presented for this belief as Proofs do require the certainly of meaning Only
Begotten (Son). Even the slightest Probability of meaning Only Son or Only Son
of His Kid is sufficient to invalidate this argument since the Necessary Conditions of
Certainty of MEANING AND Certainty of Uniqueness Of MEANING are not satisfied.
4] There are several possible meanings of the word Monogenes as Only,One and
Only, One Of Its Kind,Only One of its Kind ,Unique etc. In presence of them even if
they are less probable or improbable any argument is invald due to stated above
necessary conditions which are not satisfied.
5] This word Monogenes is used as a Greek alternative for the Hebraic word
Akhid/Achid. The Hebraic word does mean Only. So this is in irrefutable proof that
this word also means Only. This is further seconded by the fact that the proper
Greek word for Only Begotten is Monogenetos and not Monogenes.

So Dr Zakir is correct while pointing out that the word Begotten is expunged from
the translation of Monogenes in some translation of New Testament.
6] A belief requires a certainty of meaning and not a probability howsoever close to
certainty yet not certainty. So argument from such verses which contains the word
Monogenes is incorrect. It is based upon a confusion of high probability of a
meaning and certainty and certainity of uniqueness of the meaning.
7] The

It is some what beyond the scope but it must be pointed at immediately that act of
Begetting is not Etrernal and there is no new testamental implication that<< if
Iesous is Begotten not made then He is Eternal>>. So act of Begetting does not
imply the Alleged Eternal Generation Issued from the First Hypostasis Eternally with
the Second Hypostasis [if there is one] as an Eternal Term of this Act of Generation
alleged to be Etrernal on some theological arguments. These have nothing to do
with the authors of New Testament.
So it may be the case that the Divine Act of Begetting is not Eternal yet it is
different from the Divine Act of Making.
There are several Divine Acts which are different from Divine Acts of Making yet not
Examples may be studied.
The Divine Acts of Seeing,Hearing, Speaking etc. are Divine Acts with Certainty and
each one of them is different from the Divine Act of Making, yet none of them is
So it may be said that Iesous came in Existence by a Non Eternal Act of Begetting
and not by act of Making.
If an Act hath a term by the intrinsic nature of the act then the term cannot be
eternal if the act is not eternal.

It must be noted that this is out of the scope of this discussion . We have just shewn
that that Generation or Conception or Begetting are neither Immanent Acts nor
Eternal Acts.
So If Iesous is Begotten but not Made even then Not Eternal.

Conclusion The argument is only correct if the God/Deity Possesseth not the Power
tro make afemale human being Pregnant with out any sextual contact of her with a
male human being.
A Problem
If itisb assumed that there are some hypostases in the ousia of the being
of supreme being , and the second hypostasis namely son or god the son
became flash in womb of a woman [say vergin] by assuming a fleshy
nature in the very self of this hypostasis and became iesous then iesous is
god the son and not son of the god.
Since the same power is ascribed to the first hypostasis though this
hypostasis is believed that this hypotasis did not exercised this power.
But what if this hypostasis ,believed to be ther first hypostasis namly
father or god the father has excercised it. If father had chosen to become
flash by assuming the flashy nature in womb of a woman, he would have
been conceived by her as god the father and not as father of god.
This also prves that even on trinitical grounds this argument is incorrect.