Their Claim that God Is Not Divisible

Shayk Al Islam Ibn Taymiyyah shows that the Christians contradict themselves. They claim that God does not divide or separate, but then liken their belief to the ray of the sun. The ray is clearly divisible, separable, and changeable, as what shines on one spot is different from another and can be cut off. What exists in something divisible must itself be divisible. This destroys their claim.

Union with the Messiah

Christians say the divinity united with the Messiah, rose to heaven, and sat at the right hand of the Father. According to them, the Messiah is both full divinity and full humanity. But this means the divinity that united with humanity is sitting beside the divinity that did not unite. This is clear division and separation, greater than what they deny.

Essence or Attribute

Ibn Taymiyyah asks: Was it the essence of Allah that united with the Messiah, or one of His attributes?

If it was the essence, then the Messiah would be the Father Himself, which Christians themselves reject.

If it was an attribute, then Allah’s attribute does not leave Him or unite with creation independently.

Attributes are not gods or creators. Nobody says that Allah’s knowledge, speech, or life is the Creator of the heavens and earth.

At most, the Messiah could be called an attribute, but then he would not be God. In fact, he is a created being brought into existence by Allah’s word “Be.”

Birth and Sonship

Christians say the Son is begotten, not created, equal to the Father in essence, true God from true God. Ibn Taymiyyah replies: if the Son is an attribute, then no attribute is called a son, nor born from God. If the Son is an independent essence, then birth implies parting and separation. This destroys their claim of unity. Allah condemns those who claim He has offspring:

وَجَعَلُوا لَهُ مِنْ عِبَادِهِ جُزْءًا إِنَّ الْإِنسَانَ لَكَفُورٌ مُّبِينٌ … وَجَعَلُوا الْمَلَائِكَةَ … إِنَاثًا …
“They have made some of His servants a part of Him. Indeed man is openly ungrateful… and they made the angels, who are servants of the Most Compassionate, female…” (al-Zukhruf 15–19)

The Holy Spirit

They also claim the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father, is worshipped with Him, and spoke through the prophets. Ibn Taymiyyah says: this is false, because Allah’s life does not “proceed” from Him. If any attribute could proceed, it would be speech or word, not life. They also claim the Spirit is worshipped and speaks through prophets, while Allah’s attributes are not worshipped nor do they speak by themselves. At most, this refers to the angel Jibril who carried revelation.

False Analogy with the Sun

Christians liken the Trinity to the sun and its ray. Ibn Taymiyyah refutes this. The ray is an accident subsisting in air and earth, not a self-subsisting being. The ray is not part of the sun’s essence, unlike how they describe the Son or Spirit. And if the Word were to proceed, it would be more fitting than life. Their analogy fails in every way.

Contradictions and Corruption

Ibn Taymiyyah concludes this segment and says whoever reflects on their creed finds it full of contradictions, against reason and against revelation. Their words oppose the Torah, the Gospel, the Qur’an, and the teachings of the prophets. Their creed is self-contradictory, irrational, and against the guidance of all messengers.

Translation: And their claim that God does not divide nor split, this contradicts what they mentioned in their creed and what they use as an example.

Side Note: Here are examples of church fathers and major christian theologians using sun anaology for the incarnation. 

Clement Of Alexandria 

John Chrysostom

Gregory Of Nyssa

Gregory Nazianzen

Translation: For they liken it to the ray of the sun, and the ray is divisible and separable, since that which falls in one place is a part of it, and it is possible for some of it to vanish while the rest remains. For when something is placed in the path of the ray, it separates what is between its two sides, and the ray that is above divides between the two lower rays.

This shows that the ray subsists in the earth and the air, and both the earth and the air are divisible and separable.

And what subsists in that which is divisible must also be divisible, for the state follows the place, and that necessarily entails division and separation in what it subsists in.

They also say: that it united with the Messiah, and that it ascended to heaven and sat at the right hand of the Father. And according to them, the divinity since it united with the humanity never separated from it.

Rather, when it ascended to heaven and sat at the right hand of the Father, the one who ascended according to them was the Messiah who is both humanity and divinity, a complete god and a complete human.

They do not say that the one who sat at the right hand of the Father was the humanity alone, but that the divinity united with the humanity sat at the right hand of the divinity. So what division and separation is greater than this.

And this is not from the words of the prophets so it could be said that it has a meaning we do not understand. Rather it is from the words of their leading figures who formulated it and made it their creed of faith. If they spoke with words they did not comprehend, then they are ignorant and not to be followed.

And if they understood what they said, then no one can understand the meaning of divinity united with humanity sitting at the right hand of the divinity separate from union, except that this separated divinity is distinct from the divinity united with humanity. It is not connected to it, rather at most it could be touching it. In fact, it must be that what touches the separated divinity is the humanity with the divinity united to it. This is true division and separation with one part separated from the other.

It is also said to them: the one who united with the Messiah, is it the essence of the Lord of the worlds or one of His attributes? If it is the essence, then it is the Father Himself, and the Messiah would be the Father Himself. And this is something the Christians agree to be false, for they say: He is God and the Son of God, as Allah related about them, and they do not say He is the Father and the Son. And the Father according to them is God. This is one of their contradictions.

If they say: the one united with the Messiah is an attribute of the Lord, then the attribute of the Lord does not separate from Him, nor can it unite with something without the essence.

Moreover, the attribute itself is not the god, the creator, the Lord of the worlds, rather it is His attribute. No rational person says: the speech of Allah, or the knowledge of Allah, or the life of Allah is the Lord of the worlds who created the heavens and the earth. So even if it were supposed that the Messiah is the very attribute of Allah, he would not be God, nor the Lord of the worlds, nor the Creator of the heavens and the earth.

The Christians say: the Messiah is the Lord of the worlds, the Creator of all things, and that he created Adam and Mary, even though he is the son of Adam and Mary. They say he created that by his divinity while he is the son of Adam and Mary by his humanity.

If it were supposed that the Messiah is an attribute of the Lord, the attribute is not the creator. So how then when the Messiah is not even the attribute of Allah itself, but is a created being by the word of Allah, and was called the Word of Allah because Allah brought him into being by His saying “Be”.

Allah the Exalted said:

ذَلِكَ عِيسَى ابْنُ مَرْيَمَ قَوْلَ الْحَقِّ الَّذِي فِيهِ يَمْتَرُونَ مَا كَانَ لِلَّهِ أَن يَتَّخِذَ مِن وَلَدٍ سُبْحَانَهُ إِذَا قَضَى أَمْرًا فَإِنَّمَا يَقُولُ لَهُ كُن فَيَكُونُ

“That is Jesus, son of Mary. ˹And this is˺ a word of truth, about which they dispute. It is not for Allah to take a son! Glory be to Him. When He decrees a matter, He simply tells it, ‘Be!’ And it is! ” Sūrah Maryam (19:34–35)

And He named him His spirit because He created him from the blowing of the Holy Spirit into his mother. He did not create him as He created others from an earthly father.

Allah the Exalted said:

إِنَّ اللَّهَ يُبَشِّرُكَ بِكَلِمَةٍ مِنْهُ اسْمُهُ الْمَسِيحُ عِيسَى ابْنُ مَرْيَمَ وَجِيهًا فِي الدُّنْيَا وَالْآخِرَةِ وَمِنَ الْمُقَرَّبِينَ وَيُكَلِّمُ النَّاسَ فِي الْمَهْدِ وَكَهْلًا وَمِنَ الصَّالِحِينَ قَالَتْ رَبِّ أَنَّى يَكُونُ لِي وَلَدٌ وَلَمْ يَمْسَسْنِي بَشَرٌ قَالَ كَذَلِكِ اللَّهُ يَخْلُقُ مَا يَشَاءُ إِذَا قَضَى أَمْرًا فَإِنَّمَا يَقُولُ لَهُ كُن فَيَكُونُ

“When the angels told Mary , “Allah gives you the good news of a Word from Him . His name will be the Messiah, Jesus, son of Mary , honored in this world and the Hereafter, belonging to those brought near [to Allah].”

Mary said, “How can I have a son when no human has ever touched me ?”

The angel replied, “It is as such : Allah creates what He wills. When He decrees a matter, He only says to it, ‘Be,’ and it is.” Sūrah Āl ʿImrān (3:45–47)

And if they say: the one united with him is part of that and not all of it, then they have affirmed division and separation. So they are between two matters: either the invalidity of their creed, or their admission of division and separation along with its invalidity.

Also, their statement: We believe in true God from true God, from the essence of His Father, begotten not created, equal to the Father in essence, the only Son of God, born before all ages.

It is said to them: this begotten son equal to the Father in essence, who is true God from true God, is he an attribute subsisting in another, or a self-subsisting being? If it is the first, then the attribute is neither a god nor a creator, nor is it said to be begotten from God, nor equal to God in essence. None of the prophets nor their followers ever named the attributes of Allah a son or a child, nor said that an attribute of Allah was born from Him, nor did any rational person say that the eternal attribute was born from the eternal essence.

They say: the Messiah is a god who created the heavens and the earth because his humanity united with this son born before all ages, equal to the Father in essence.

All this describes a self-subsisting being, like substances that exist independently, not like attributes that subsist in another. If that is so, then division and separation necessarily follow from their statement, for natural birth requires that a part has come out from Him. Allah the Exalted said:

وَجَعَلُوا لَهُ مِنْ عِبَادِهِ، جُزْءًا إِنَّ الْإِنسَانَ لَكَفُورٌ مُّبِينٌ أَمِ اتَّخَذَ مِمَّا يَخْلُقُ بَنَاتٍ وَأَصْفَنَكُم بِالْبَنِينَ وَإِذَا بُشِّرَ أَحَدُهُم بِمَا ضَرَبَ لِلرَّحْمَنِ مَثَلًا ظَلَّ وَجْهُهُ مُسْوَدًا وَهُوَ كَظِيمُ أَوَ مَن يُنَشُوا فِي الْحِلْيَةِ وَهُوَ فِي الْخِصَامِ غَيْرُ مُبِينٍ وَجَعَلُوا الْمَلَائِكَةَ الَّذِينَ هُمْ عِبَادُ الرَّحْمَنِ إِنَاثًا أَشَهِدُوا خَلْقَهُمْ سَتُكْتَبُ شَهَادَتُهُمْ وَيُسْأَلُونَ.

“Still the pagans have made some of His creation out to be a part of Him. Indeed, humankind is clearly ungrateful. Has He taken angels as His daughters from what He created, and favoured you, O pagans, with sons?

Whenever one of them is given the good news of what they attribute to the Most Compassionate, his face grows gloomy as he suppresses his rage.

Do they attribute to Him those who are brought up in fineries and are not commanding in disputes? Still they have labelled the angels, who are servants of the Most Compassionate, as female. Did they witness their creation? Their statement will be recorded, and they will be questioned.” Sūrah Az-Zukhruf (43:15–19)

As for this meaning that some of the Christian scholars affirm and call birth and sonship, they mean by it the eternal attribute subsisting in the One described, which they call the son. Sometimes they call it speech, sometimes the word, sometimes knowledge, sometimes wisdom, and they say: this is begotten from God, the Son of God.

But none of the prophets or their followers, nor any of the rational people, said such a thing except these innovators among the Christians. None of the rational people understand from the name of birth and sonship this meaning.

The prophets never applied the term son except to a created being. They say: He is the father of the Messiah by nature, and of others by position.

But the majority of rational people and others only understand by sonship the known meaning of a part separating from the parent. This is something some of their own scholars reject.

But they did not follow the prophets, nor did they say what the rational people understand. They went astray regarding what we narrate from the prophets, and they misled their followers in what they claimed.

And their common people, even if they do not say that the birth of God is like the birth of animals with a part separated and existing, they say: a divine birth by separation of a part of the divinity that entered the humanity. Nothing is understood from birth other than this.

Also, their statement: And we believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life, proceeding from the Father, who with the Father is worshipped and glorified, who spoke through the prophets. Their statement “proceeding from the Father, who with the Father is worshipped and glorified” cannot be said of the life of the Lord that subsists in Him, for it is not proceeding from Him like other attributes.

If what is self-subsisting were proceeding, then His knowledge, power, and other attributes would also proceed from Him. In fact, proceeding is more apparent in speech than in life, for speech goes out from the speaker, but life does not go out from the living. If any attribute were to be proceeding, then the attribute they call the son, which they say is knowledge, speech, reason, or wisdom, would be more fitting to be proceeding than life, which is further from this than speech.

They also said: He is worshipped and glorified with the Father. Yet the attribute that subsists in the Lord is not worshipped with Him. And they said: He spoke through the prophets. But the attribute of the Lord that subsists in Him does not speak through the prophets. Rather all this is the attribute of the Holy Spirit that Allah places in the hearts of the prophets, or the attribute of an angel from the angels such as Jibril. So if this proceeds from the Father, and proceeding means coming out, then what division and separation could be greater than this.

And when they compared it to the ray proceeding from the sun, this is false for many reasons:

One of them is that the ray is an accident subsisting in the air and the earth, not a substance that exists by itself. While this according to them is a living being, worshipped, and a substance.

Another is that the ray that subsists in the air and the earth is not an attribute of the sun, nor does it subsist in it, whereas the life of the Lord is an attribute that subsists in Him.

Another is that they restricted proceeding to the Holy Spirit, but they did not say that the Word is proceeding.

And if proceeding were true, it would be more fitting for it to be in the Word than in life. And whenever a rational person reflects on their words in the creed and elsewhere, he finds in it contradictions and corruption that are not hidden except from the most ignorant of people. He finds in it contradictions to the Torah, the Gospel, and all the other books of Allah that are not hidden from anyone who reflects on this.

And he finds in it contradictions to clear reason that are not hidden except from one who is obstinate or ignorant. So their statement is contradictory in itself, opposed to clear reason and to sound transmission from all the prophets and messengers, may the prayers and peace of Allah be upon them all.

Jawab Al Sahih By Ibn Taymiyyah (3/300-304)