The Christians’ Claim and Ibn Taymiyyah’s Response
The Christians argue that when they say Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, they only intend to affirm that Allah is a living, speaking being. They say that when they observed the origination of the universe, they concluded there must be a living, intelligent Creator.
They claim that these three words symbolise essence, life, and speech: the Father as the essence, the Son as the speech, and the Holy Spirit as the life.
They present this as a rational expression of Allah’s attributes.
Ibn Taymiyyah responds that this explanation is false from its foundation. Christians themselves claim that this formula comes from revelation, not reasoning, since they attribute it to the Messiah’s command to baptise “in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.”
If it were reason that led them to affirm Allah’s life and speech, they would have no need for these particular words or for making them three hypostases. Moreover, no prophet, in any language, ever used these terms to mean life, speech, and essence. It is an invented formulation, neither revealed by law nor indicated by reason. (Jawab al-Sahih 3/182–184)
Not Grounded in Reason, Nor in Prophetic Language
Ibn Taymiyyah establishes that all prophets and followers of revealed religions affirm that Allah exists, lives, knows, and speaks. His attributes are not limited to three, and He cannot be defined by three hypostases. The Christians’ chosen words—Father, Son, and Holy Spirit—do not linguistically or rationally correspond to existence, life, and speech in any language.
He clarifies that if the Christians truly meant to affirm that Allah is living and speaking, they could have used clear words common to all people, like “living” and “speaking.” Instead, they use ambiguous terms that imply bodily relationships and plurality in the Godhead. This, he says, exposes their reasoning as contrived and their language as corrupted. (Jawab al-Sahih 3/182–184)
Appeal to Scripture Masks a Rational Aversion
Ibn Taymiyyah observes that Christians defend trinity and union not by intellect, but by what they believe are scriptural texts. When rational minds reject the idea of three gods or indwelling of a deity in man, they retreat to saying it is a mystery beyond reason. They then claim the divine books reveal what the intellect cannot comprehend.
He points out that sound intellect and fitrah reject trinity, indwelling, and union. Allah created the intellect to recognise His unity.
If something contradicts the intellect by affirming the impossible—like one being who is both one and three, it cannot come from revelation. Prophets only convey truths that reason can accept, even if reason alone cannot reach them.
Therefore, Christians have confused what reason cannot independently grasp with what reason knows is impossible. They have treated the absurd as the mysterious. (Jawab al-Sahih 3/184–186)
Parallels with Innovators Who Exceed Revelation
Ibn Taymiyyah compares Christians with certain Muslim sects who fell into similar excess. He mentions groups such as the Nusayriyah, Ismailiyyah, and extremist Sufis who claim divinity or indwelling for prophets or saints. He notes that some of them, like Ibn Arabi and his followers, declared unity of existence and told others to abandon reason and scripture.
He says that these sects echo the Christians by deifying humans and excusing contradictions with “this is beyond intellect.”
He names Sulaiman al-Tilmisani, who said he received revelations that contradicted scripture, and followers who say, “leave reason and transmission.”
This blind imitation of shaykhs parallels the Christian imitation of priests. Both abandon the Sharia of the Messenger for innovations not permitted by Allah. (Jawab al-Sahih 3/186–189)
The Phrase Does Not Prove What They Claim
The Christians claim that their reasoning about the origination of things led them to conclude that the Creator must be a living, speaking being.
Ibn Taymiyyah replies that this observation does not require the expression Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. The concept of a living, speaking Creator is easily affirmed through reason, revelation, and the prophets’ teachings without inventing new terminology.
He points out that this phrase adds no rational clarity. Instead, it introduces linguistic confusion, as the words imply relationships and bodily attributes. A correct affirmation of Allah’s life and speech uses direct wording supported by revelation, not invented analogies. (Jawab al-Sahih 3/189–190)
Christians Themselves Differ on What the Three Mean
Ibn Taymiyyah highlights that Christians themselves differ in explaining their own doctrine.
- Some say the Father is existence, the Son is the Word, and the Holy Spirit is life.
- Others say the Father is existence, the Son is knowledge, and the Spirit is power.
- Others say the Father is the generous, the Son the wise, and the Spirit the able.
- Some replace “word” with “knowledge,” saying Allah is “existent, knowing, able.”
Even their sects disagree: the Jacobites and Melkites affirm union and indwelling, while the Nestorians and Arians deny it, yet all still use the same phrase.
This shows the doctrine was believed first because they thought revelation commanded it, not because of reason. They later invented divergent rational explanations to defend what they already accepted blindly. (Jawab al-Sahih 3/190–192)
Their Reasoning Timeline Is False
Ibn Taymiyyah dismantles the Christians’ historical reasoning. If a certain group among them claims that reason led them to the trinity, this is false because the phrase existed before them. If they claim all Christians arrived at it through reasoning, this too is false, since they say it comes from the Messiah’s Gospel and that the Messiah never instructed them to reason to it.
Therefore, linking the trinity to human inquiry is a fabrication—they themselves know that it comes from what they think is revelation, not from thought. (Jawab al-Sahih 3/192–193)
If the Phrase Is Not From the Messiah, It Misleads
If the Messiah never said, “Baptise in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit,” then the phrase is forbidden, even if someone interprets it with a good meaning. Left unrestricted, it suggests polytheism, physical fatherhood, and partnership. Common Christians believe the Messiah is the literal son of Allah and Mary His consort. The Quran refutes this:
“أَنَّى يَكُونُ لَهُ وَلَدٌ وَلَمْ تَكُنْ لَهُ صَاحِبَةٌ”
“How can He have a son when He has no companion?” (al-An‘am 101)
Attributing fatherhood to the Creator is even more irrational than attributing a companion. Once fatherhood is affirmed, companionship is implied. Hence, the phrase itself is dangerous and misleading. (Jawab al-Sahih 3/193–194)
If Authentic, It Has a Sound Meaning Consistent With Revelation
If the phrase is genuinely from the Messiah, it must have a sound meaning consistent with the rest of revelation. In the Torah and Psalms, Allah calls some prophets “My son” or “My beloved,” meaning chosen servants or recipients of mercy.
The Messiah himself says in the Gospel, “I go to My Father and your Father, My God and your God,” proving the term father means Lord, not literal parent.
The Holy Spirit in their scriptures refers to the angel who assists prophets, or the divine support Allah sends.
The Quran affirms that Allah “supported Isa son of Mary with the Holy Spirit.” Likewise, the Prophet Muhammad said to Hassan ibn Thabit, “The Holy Spirit is with you as long as you defend His Prophet.”
Hence, the phrase means: believe in Allah, His messenger, and the angel who brings revelation. This fits with reason, revelation, and linguistic usage. (Jawab al-Sahih 3/194–197)
Usage of The Term Holy Spirit
Across all scriptures, the “Holy Spirit” means either Jibril or the divine inspiration that strengthens prophets. It never means Allah’s life or attribute. Allah says:
“وَأَيَّدْنَاهُ بِرُوحِ الْقُدُسِ”
“We supported him with the Holy Spirit” (al-Baqarah 87, 253).
It is also said of believers:
“وَأَيَّدَهُمْ بِرُوحٍ مِّنْهُ”
“He supported them with a spirit from Him” (al-Mujadilah 22).
Thus, the Messiah’s statement, if authentic, means calling people to faith in Allah, His angels, and His messengers. This is the correct interpretation that matches reason, revelation, and linguistic context. (Jawab al-Sahih 3/195–197)
Linguistic Precision Over Homonymy
Ibn Taymiyyah explains that Christians made “son” and “Holy Spirit” shared words with multiple meanings. Sometimes “son” means a servant of Allah; sometimes it means literal sonship. Sometimes “Holy Spirit” means angelic support; other times they claim it means Allah’s life. This mixing of meanings causes confusion.
He stresses that prophetic speech does not use these terms for Allah’s attributes at all. The word “son” is never used for an uncreated being; it always means a created one. The “Holy Spirit” is never used for Allah’s essence or life. Therefore, their interpretation is contrary to the language of the prophets and to the apparent meaning of their scriptures. Ibn Taymiyyah’s reading keeps each term singular and consistent—Father meaning Lord, Son meaning servant, Spirit meaning revelation—while theirs multiplies meanings and leads to polytheism. (Jawab al-Sahih 3/197–199)
No Textual Proof, No Rational Proof
The doctrine of trinity lacks both textual and rational basis. Their books nowhere contain the term hypostasis (uqnūm). It is a later Roman term meaning origin or person. They themselves cannot agree whether it means essence, person, property, or attribute. The instability of its meaning proves it is man-made. They imposed philosophical terminology upon the revealed books, then distorted the meanings to fit it. (Jawab al-Sahih 3/199–201)
Claims of the Messiah as Creator and of Incarnation Fail
Their saying that the Messiah is creator is invalid both in reason and revelation. None of the prophets ever used language implying that a created being is a creator. The texts they use to argue this do not mean what they claim. Similarly, their belief that Allah’s divine nature united with the human body of the Messiah is false and without evidence from any revealed book. It is a concept unknown to the prophets, contradictory to reason, and rejected by the intellects of all nations. (Jawab al-Sahih 3/201–202)
On Proving the Creator by Origination
Ibn Taymiyyah dissects their causal reasoning.
They say, “When we saw the origination of things, we knew a being other than them originated them.” He replies that they did not see the origination of all things, only some.
Their wording “origination of things” is vague; they should have said “the origination of created things.” Their reasoning fails to distinguish between Creator and creation.
He states that the knowledge that every originated thing has an originator is innate and necessary; it does not need proof. Allah says:
“أَمْ خُلِقُوا مِنْ غَيْرِ شَيْءٍ أَمْ هُمُ الْخَالِقُونَ”
“Were they created from nothing or are they the creators?” (al-Tur 35).
Even a child who is struck knows someone struck him. To say an event occurred with no cause is absurd. Likewise, something cannot create itself, for it was nothing before its existence. Their justification that “opposition and change” prove createdness is false, because even if there were no change, it would still be impossible for something to create itself. They also fail to prove that creation cannot arise without an originator, showing their weakness in reasoning. (Jawab al-Sahih 3/202–205)
Conclusion
Ibn Taymiyyah concludes that the trinitarian interpretation of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit is false both textually and rationally.
The phrases are not prophetic, the meanings contradict revelation, and the reasoning is incoherent. If the phrase is genuine from the Messiah, its correct interpretation is simple:
- Father means Lord and Creator,
- Son means honoured servant nurtured by Allah,
- Holy Spirit means the angel or divine revelation that strengthens the prophets.
This interpretation aligns with all revealed scriptures, the natural disposition, and sound reason, while the Christian interpretation leads to contradiction, polytheism, and denial of pure monotheism.
The narrator speaking on their behalf said: I said, they deny our saying, Father and Son and Holy Spirit, and also our saying that they are three hypostases, and also our saying that the Messiah is Lord and God and Creator, and they also ask us to explain the incarnation and embodiment of the Word of Allah the Creator in a created human being.
They answered, saying: If they knew that by this saying we only intend the statement that means that Allah is a thing living speaking, they would not have denied that against us, because we Christians, when we saw the origination of things, we knew that a thing other than them originated them, since their origination cannot be from their own selves because of what is in them of opposition and change.
So we said, He is a thing unlike the created things, since He is the Creator of everything, and that is to negate nonexistence from Him, and we saw the created things divided into two classes, a living thing and a nonliving thing, so we described Him by the more excellent of the two, and we said, He is a living thing, to negate death from Him, and we saw the living being divided into two classes, a speaking living being and a non speaking living being, so we described Him by the best of them, and we said, He is a thing living speaking, to negate ignorance from Him.
The three names are one God, one named One, one Lord, one Creator, a thing living speaking, meaning the essence and the speech and the life. The essence with us is the Father who is the beginning of the two, and the speech is the Son who is born from Him, because speech is born from the intellect, and the life is the Holy Spirit, and these are names we did not name Him with.
The reply is from several angles.
One of them: Their statement, as for our saying Father and Son and Holy Spirit, if they knew that by this saying we only intend to validate the statement that Allah is living speaking, they would not have denied that against us.
It is said: The matter is not as they claimed, for the Christians say that they received this saying from the Gospel, and that in the Gospel from the Messiah, peace of Allah be upon him and His salutations, that he said, baptise the people in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, so the origin of their saying is what they mention that it is received from the revealed law, not that they affirmed life and speech by their reason and then expressed them with these phrases, as they claimed in their debate.
If the matter were so, they would not have needed this phrase nor to make the hypostases three. It is known to them and to the rest of the people of religions that Allah is existent living knowing able speaking, and His attributes are not limited to three, and one does not express three of them with a phrase that does not indicate that, which is the word Father and Son and Holy Spirit, for these words do not indicate what they interpreted them with in the language of any nation, and it is not found in the speech of any of the prophets that he expressed by these words what they mentioned of meanings.
Rather, affirming what they claimed of trinity and expressing it with these words is among what they innovated, which neither law nor reason indicates.
They claim that the trinity and the indwelling and the union, they only came to them by way of the law, meaning the texts of the prophets and the revealed books, not by way of reason, and they alleged that the divine books spoke with that.
Then they laboured to find for what they thought the indication of the book a rational path, and they interpreted it with it an interpretation they thought permissible in reason.
For this reason we find the Christians do not resort in trinity and union except to the law and the books, while they find the aversion of their minds and hearts from trinity and union and indwelling, for the fitrah (natural disposition) of Allah with which He created the people and what Allah placed in the hearts of the people of rational knowledges which they may call a rational natural law repels that and negates it and feels aversion from it, but they claim that the divine books came with that and that this is a matter that surpasses the intellect, and that this speech is from a mode beyond the mode of reason.
So they transmit it because they think the divine books informed of it, not because the intellects indicated it, while in the divine books there is nothing indicating that, rather in them is what indicates the opposite, as we will mention if Allah wills, and they do not distinguish between what reason renders impossible and invalid and knows to be impossible, and what the intellect is incapable regarding so it does not know it nor does it judge in it with negation or affirmation, and that the messengers informed about the second type, and it is not permissible that they inform about the first type.
So they did not distinguish between the impossibilities of intellects and the perplexities of intellects. In this they resemble those before them among the polytheists who made for Allah a child and a partner.
Allah the Exalted said: And the Jews said Ezra is the son of Allah, and the Christians said the Messiah is the son of Allah. That is their statement with their mouths. They imitate the saying of those who disbelieved before. May Allah fight them. How are they turned away.
Those who resemble them in that are the people of innovation and misguidance, those who resemble them among those affiliated to Islam who say something like their saying from exaggeration about the prophets and the people of the household and the shaykhs and others, and those who claim unity or indwelling or a specific particular union, like the claim of the Christians, and the claim of the extremist Shia regarding Ali, and a group from the people of the household like the Nusayriyah and those similar to them among those who claim the godhood of Ali, and like the claim of some of the Ismailiyyah the godhood in al Hakim and others from the descendants of Abdullah ibn Maymun al Qaddah, those affiliated to Muhammad ibn Ismail ibn Jaafar. (Abdullah ibn Maymun al Qaddah, an Imami jurist from the people of Mecca, weak in hadith according to the scholars of Ahl al Sunnah, and among the reliable according to the Shia. His father was of Persian origin from the freedmen of Banu Makhzum known as al Qaddah which was his craft. He died in the year 180 AH. See Tahdhib al Tahdhib 49 over 6, and al Aalam 4 over 286.) (Muhammad ibn Ismail ibn Jaafar al Sadiq al Husayni al Talibi al Hashimi, an imam among the imams of the family of the household.
The Qaramitah said he held the imamate. The Ismailiyyah see that he assumed the imamate after the death of his father. He was born in al Madinah al Munawwarah in the year 131 AH and he died in Baghdad around the year 198 AH. Some of the Batiniyyah believe that he is a prophet who abrogated the Sharia of Muhammad, peace and blessings be upon him. See Talbis Iblis page 102, and al Aalam 6 over 258.)
And the claim of many people similar to that regarding some of the shaykhs, either those known for righteousness, or those thought to be righteous while not of its people. For they have statements of the same kind as the statements of the Christians, and some of them are worse than the statements of the Christians.
Most of these, when addressed with clarification of the corruption of their saying, say something of the kind of the saying of the Christians, This is a matter beyond the intellect. Some of them say what al Tilmisani used to say, the shaykh of the people of unity. He says, It has been established for us in unveiling that which contradicts the explicit transmitted texts, and they say to whoever wants to tread their path, Leave reason and transmission, or come out of reason and transmission. (Al Tilmisani is Sulaiman ibn Ali ibn Abdullah ibn Ali al Kumi al Tilmisani Afif al Din, a poet, his origin is from Kufa from Tilimsan.
He is among the people of the doctrine of the unity of existence and among the followers of the path of Ibn Arabi, the author of al Fusus, and his shaykh is al Qunawi. It was said that he inclines to the madhhab of the Nusayriyah. He died in the year 690 AH and he was eighty years old. See Shadharatu al Dhahab 5 over 412, al Bidayah wa al Nihayah 13 over 326, and al Aalam for al Zarkali 3 over 1193, and Fawat al Wafayat 2 over 72.)
(The shaykh of the people of the unity of existence is Muhammad ibn Ali ibn Arabi Abu Bakr al Hatimi al Tai al Andalusi known as Muhyi al Din ibn Arabi, nicknamed the greatest shaykh, a philosopher among the leaders of the speakers in every science. He was born in Murcia in the year 560 AH in al Andalus.
He moved to al Sham and the lands of al Rum and al Iraq and al Hijaz passing through Egypt. The people of Egypt denounced some of the ecstatic utterances that issued from him and some of them worked to shed his blood like al Hallaj. He was imprisoned then he was saved and settled in Damascus, and he died there in the year 638 AH. He is the shaykh of the people of the unity of existence.
He was intelligent and a memoriser. He has many Sufi works. Among the largest of them are al Futuhat al Makkiyyah. Ibn Kathir said about him, There is in him what is rational and what is not rational, and he has a book Fusus al Hikam in which there are many things whose outward is explicit unbelief. He has many other works. See al Bidayah wa al Nihayah 13 over 1156, Fawat al Wafayat 3 over 435, Shadharatu al Dhahab 5 over 1190, and Mizan al I tidal 3 over 108.)
They recite among them: They are mad, except that the secret of their madness is precious. Upon their steps reason prostrates. They are a folk who dissolved the system and burned the fence, so they have neither obligatory nor transmission.
These people are imitators of their shaykhs, following them in that by which they depart from the Sharia of the Messenger, and what they innovated of what Allah did not permit of taking innovations as acts of worship and making the prohibited lawful, like the imitation of some Christians for their shaykhs.
If one objects to any of them, they say, The shaykh, his state is accepted and not objected to, as the Christians say about their shaykhs. Among these are those who say, We are the children of Allah, and he says, The Messiah is the son of Allah, and he also utters with the word of lust, and says they are children of lust, and he says he is the husband of Mary, as that is said by some of the Christians.
The utmost of what they have is that they relate from their shaykhs a kind of breaking the norms. It may be a lie and may be true.
If it is true, it may be from the states of the allies of Satan like the sorcerers and soothsayers, and it may be from the states of the allies of the Most Merciful. If it is from the states of the allies of the Most Merciful, there is nothing in that which obliges imitating the ally in everything he says, for the ally does not have to be protected from error, and it is not obligatory to follow him in everything he says nor to believe everything he says.
This is specific to the prophets who must be believed in everything they say. They must be believed in everything they inform of the unseen, and obeyed in what they obligated upon the nations. Whoever disbelieves in anything of what they came with is a disbeliever, and whoever insults one prophet must be killed, and this is not for anyone other than the prophets among the righteous.
So these innovators who exaggerate and associate partners who say a type of indwelling resemble the Christians to the extent that they resembled them, and opposed in that the religion of the Muslims. Among them are those whose agreement with the religion of the Muslims is greater, and as for the extremists among them, their agreement with the Christians is greater, and among them are those who are more unbelieving than the Christians.
Since the Christians’ reliance is what they transmit either from the prophets or from others whom they make obligatory to follow, then when there is presented to their scholars what necessitates the impossibility of that, they say.
This is how it is in the book, and with this the book spoke, and these books were brought by the messengers, meaning those supported by the miracles, and they mean by messengers the disciples. So their clinging to them is only for what they thought mentioned in the divine books, even if they saw it contrary to the explicit reason.
For this they forbid their common folk from research and debate in that, knowing that the sound intellect whenever it conceives their religion it knows it is false. So the claim of the claimants that we only said Father and Son and Holy Spirit to validate the statement that Allah is living speaking is clear falsehood, and they know it is falsehood.
Validating the statement that Allah is living speaking does not depend on this phrase, rather one can validate that with the legal proofs and auditory proofs and rational proofs, and expressing it with clear phrases as the Muslims and others say without our saying Father and Son and Holy Spirit.
What also clarifies this is the second angle, which is that the Christians, who acknowledge that this phrase is in the Gospel taken from the Messiah, differ in explaining this speech. Many of them say the Father is existence, the Son is the word, and the Holy Spirit is life.
Some of them say, rather the Father is existence, the Son is the word, and the Holy Spirit is power.
Some of them say that the three hypostases are generous wise able, so they make the Father the generous, the Son the wise, and the Holy Spirit the able, and they claim that all attributes fall under these three. They say, We inferred His existence by bringing the things out from nonexistence into existence, and that is from His generosity.
I have seen in the books of the Christians this and this and this. Some of them express the word by knowledge, and they say existent living knowing, or existent knowing able, as some of them say speaking. Some of them say existent living wise.
Some of them say subsisting by Himself living wise. They agree that the one united with the Messiah and indwelling in him is the hypostasis of the word, and he is the one they call the Son rather than the Father.
As for those who deny indwelling and union among them like the Arians, they say the Messiah, peace be upon him, is a servant sent like the rest of the messengers, peace be upon them, so they agree with them upon the phrase Father and Son and Holy Spirit, and they do not explain that with what their opponents say of indwelling and union.
Likewise the Nestorians agree with them also upon this phrase and they dispute with them about the union which the Jacobites and the Melkites say. When they are agreed upon the phrase and disputed about its meaning, it is known that they first believed the phrase because of their belief that the law came with it, then they disputed after that in explaining the book, as they and the rest of the people of religions differ in explaining some speech which they believe is transmitted from the prophets, peace be upon them.
By that it is known that the origin of their saying Father and Son and Holy Spirit was not for validating the statement that Allah is existent living speaking which they knew first by reason.
This is clarified by the third angle, which is their statement, When we saw the origination of things we knew that a thing other than them originated them. If the speaker by this is a specific group among the Christians, it is said to them, the saying Father and Son and Holy Spirit exists among the Christians before your existence and before your looking and your reasoning, so your looking cannot be the cause that obliged the saying of the Christians.
If what is meant is that all of the Christians, from the time they said this speech, looked and reasoned until they said that, then this is clear lie, for this speech the Christians say they received from the Gospel and that the Messiah, peace be upon him, said, Baptise the people in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit.
The Messiah and the disciples did not command them with this looking that obliges this saying, and the Messiah did not make this saying for them dependent upon this inquiry. It is known then that making this saying arise from this inquiry is a false statement which they themselves know is false.
The fourth angle: If the Messiah did not say this speech, then it is not permissible to say it, even if a person meant by it a sound meaning, for this phrase when left absolute is understood to mean false meanings. For this reason many of the common Christians are found to believe that the Messiah is the son of Allah with the sonship known among created beings, and they say that Mary is the wife of Allah. This is the necessary consequence for the Christian common folk even if they do not say it, for the one who gives birth must have a spouse.
For this Allah the Exalted said: How can He have a son when He has no companion, and He created everything, and He is Knowing of everything.
Making the Lord the father of the one born is more disapproved by the intellects than affirming a companion for Him, whether fatherhood is interpreted by the known fatherhood or by the intellectual fatherhood which the learned among the Christians say. Whoever affirms a companion for Him can interpret that as they interpreted the son.
They say the Father, from Him the Word was born, and from Mary the human nature was born, and the human nature united with the divine nature. As the Father is a father by the divine nature not by the human nature, and Mary is a mother of the human nature not of the divine nature, likewise she is a companion to the Father by the human nature, and the divine nature is the husband of Mary by His divine nature, just as He is a father of the Messiah by His divine nature.
If the divine nature united with the human nature of the Messiah for a long period, then why is it impossible that the divine nature join with the human nature of Mary for a short period. If the human nature that she delivered is a son of the divine nature, then why is she not made a companion and wife of the divine nature.
For the Messiah according to them is the name for the combination of the divine nature and the human nature, and he according to them is a complete God and a complete man. His divine nature is from Allah and his human nature is from Mary, so he is from two origins, a divine nature and a human nature.
If one of the two origins is his father and the other is his mother, then why is his mother not the wife of his father by this consideration, while companionship precedes sonship. How can the branch which necessitates be established without establishing the necessary root.
There is nothing in that of impossibility on their principle except what is of the kind of establishing the sonship of the Messiah, and it is less impossible.
If the Messiah, peace be upon him, did say this speech, then we know that the Messiah, peace be upon him, and other prophets are protected and do not say except the truth, and if they say a statement, there must be for it a sound meaning.
It is impossible that they intend by their statement what is impossible, which its invalidity is known by hearing or by reason. When the intellects and the texts of the earlier books together with the texts of the Quran contradict what the Christians innovated about the Messiah, it is known that the Messiah did not intend a false meaning which contravenes the explicit rational proof and the sound transmitted proof.
Rather we say in the fifth angle: If this phrase is authentic from the protected Messiah, peace and blessings be upon him, then he intended by that what suits his other speech, and in what is present in their books is naming the Lord Father and naming His slaves sons, as they mention that He said in the Torah to Jacob Israel, You are My son, My firstborn. (the Book of Exodus, chapter 4, on the tongue of Musa to Pharaoh, Thus says the Lord, Israel is My son, My firstborn.)
And He said to Dawud in the Psalms, You are My son and My beloved. (Psalm 2, I recite concerning the decree of the Lord, He said to me, You are My Son, today I have begotten you. It did not say My beloved, rather it said, Today I have begotten you.)
And in the Gospel in more than one place the Messiah says, My Father and your Father, like his words, I am going to My Father and your Father and My God and your God. (the Gospel of John, chapter 20, I ascend to My Father and your Father and My God and your God.)
He calls Him a Father for them just as he calls them sons for Him. If this is sound, then what is meant by that is that He is the Lord who nurtures and is merciful, for Allah is more merciful to His slaves than the mother to her child, and the son is the one nurtured and shown mercy.
The nurturing of Allah for His slave is more complete than the nurturing of the mother for her child, so the Father means the Lord, and the son in his words is the Messiah whom He nurtured. (the Epistle to the Hebrews, chapter 1, with wording, For to which of the angels did He ever say, You are My Son, today I have begotten you.
This is directed to Israel and it did not say, You are My son, My firstborn.
the Gospel of Luke, chapter 3, The Lord said to Jesus, You are My beloved Son, in You I am well pleased.)
As for the Holy Spirit, it is a word present in more than one place in the books they have, and by it they do not mean the life of Allah by consensus of them.
Rather the Holy Spirit according to them indwells in Ibrahim and Musa and Dawud and others among the prophets and the righteous.
The Quran has testified that Allah supported the Messiah with the Holy Spirit, as He the Exalted said, We gave Isa son of Mary the clear proofs and We supported him with the Holy Spirit, in two places in al Baqarah.
He the Exalted said, O Isa son of Mary, remember My favour upon you and upon your mother when I supported you with the Holy Spirit.
The Prophet, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, said to Hassan ibn Thabit, The Holy Spirit is with you as long as you defend His Prophet, and he said, O Allah, support him with the Holy Spirit. As previously this was mentioned in full.
The Holy Spirit may be intended to mean the holy angel like Jibril, and it may mean the revelation and guidance and support that Allah sends down by means of the angel or without the angel. They may be concurrent, for the angel brings down the revelation and the revelation is sent down by the angel.
Allah the Exalted supports His messengers with angels and with guidance, as He the Exalted said regarding His Prophet Muhammad, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, So Allah sent down His tranquility upon him and He supported him with armies you did not see, in two places in Surat Baraah.
Allah the Exalted said, We sent upon them a wind and armies you did not see.
He the Exalted said, When your Lord revealed to the angels, I am with you, so strengthen those who believe.
He the Exalted said, You do not find a people who believe in Allah and the Last Day loving those who oppose Allah and His Messenger, even if they are their fathers or their sons or their brothers or their clan. Those, He has written faith in their hearts and He has supported them with a spirit from Him.
Allah the Exalted said, He sends down the angels with the Spirit by His command upon whom He wills among His slaves.
He the Exalted said, He casts the Spirit by His command upon whom He wills among His slaves so that he may warn of the Day of Meeting.
He said, And thus We have revealed to you a Spirit from Our command. You did not know what the Book is nor what faith is, but We made it a light by which We guide whom We will among Our slaves.
When the Holy Spirit is known in the speech of the prophets, the earlier and the later, that it is a matter that Allah sends down upon His prophets and His righteous slaves, whether they are angels who descend with revelation and victory or revelation and support with the angel or without the angel, and it is not intended by the Holy Spirit the life of Allah that subsists by Him, then the protected one, if he did say, Baptise the people in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, his intent is, command the people to believe in Allah and His Prophet whom He sent and in the angel upon whom He sent down the revelation that he brought.
That would be a command for them to believe in Allah and His angels and His books and His messengers, and this is the truth indicated by explicit reason and sound transmission.
Explaining the speech of the protected one with this explanation that agrees with the rest of the words of the books that they have and agrees with the Quran and agrees with reason is more appropriate than explaining it with what contradicts explicit reason and sound transmission.
This is an evident explanation, without affectation, and it is not from interpretation that is shifting the speech from its apparent meaning to what opposes its apparent meaning. Rather it is an explanation for it with what its apparent meaning indicates by the known language and the familiar phrasing in the speech of the Messiah and the speech of the rest of the prophets.
As for the explanation of the Christians that the Son is a born one ancient eternal, he is the knowledge or the Word of Allah, then this is an explanation of the word with what this word has not been used for, neither in the speech of any of the prophets nor in the language of any of the prophets, and likewise the explanation of the Holy Spirit as the life of Allah.
What the Christians explained by it the apparent meaning of the speech of the Messiah is an explanation which the language of the Messiah and his habit in his speech does not indicate, nor the language of the other prophets and nations. Rather, what is known in his language and speech and the speech of the rest of the prophets is to explain it with what we explained it with, and by that the great scholars among the Christians explained it.
As for the misguidance of the Christians who distort the meanings of the Books of Allah, the Mighty and Majestic, they explained it with what contradicts its apparent meaning and what reason and law reject.
This is completed by the sixth angle, which is that since among the Christians’ books are naming the Messiah, peace be upon him, as son, and naming other than him among the prophets as son, like His saying to Jacob, You are My son, My firstborn, and naming the disciples as sons, they said he is His son by nature, and other than him is His son by placement.
They made the word son shared between two meanings and they affirmed for Allah a nature, and they made the Messiah His son with respect to that nature. This confirms the statement of whoever understands from them that he is His son with the sonship known in created beings, and that Mary is the wife of Allah.
Likewise they made the Holy Spirit shared between the life of Allah and the Holy Spirit which descends upon the prophets and the righteous. It is known that homonymy is contrary to the basic rule, and that when a word is used in several places, making it a univocal reality in the common element is more appropriate than making it a verbal homonym such that it is literal in this particular and figurative in the other.
Figurative usage and homonymy are contrary to the basic rule, this if it were assumed that the word son and Holy Spirit were used in the speech of Allah to mean His speech and His life as the Christians claim. How then when it is not found in the speech of the prophets that they said the word son and the word Holy Spirit and intended by it anything from the attributes of Allah, not His speech nor His life nor His knowledge nor other than that.
Rather it is not found that the word son was used in the speech of the prophets except for something created, and it is not found that the word Holy Spirit was used as one of the attributes of Allah that subsist by Him. When we explained the Father and the Holy Spirit as the sonship of nurturing and the Holy Spirit as that which descends upon the prophets, then we have made the word singular and univocal.
They need to make the word homonymous or figurative in one of the two meanings. So their explanation is contrary to the apparent language with which they were addressed and to the apparent meanings of the books that are in their hands, and our explanation agrees with the apparent meanings of their language and the apparent meanings of the books that are in their hands.
At that point it has become clear that they have for trinity neither a textual proof nor a rational proof. Rather it is false in law and reason.
This is supported by the seventh angle, which is that they in their trust have affirmed of meanings and the word hypostases and other than that what the books that are in their hands absolutely do not indicate.
Rather they understood from them a false meaning and they added to it false meanings from themselves, so they were distorters of the Books of Allah in that and fabricators against Allah. This is expanded in another place.
The eighth angle: Their saying of the hypostases, besides being false in reason and in law, is not uttered in any book according to them, and this word is not found in any of the books of the prophets that are in their hands nor in the speech of the disciples. Rather it is a word they innovated, and it is said it is Roman.
It has been said, hypostasis in their language means origin. For this they fluctuate in explaining hypostases. At times they say persons, at times properties, at times attributes, at times substances, and at times they make hypostasis a name for the essence and the attribute together. This is the explanation of their sharpest people.
The ninth angle: Their saying regarding the Messiah, peace be upon him, that he is a creator, is a saying which, besides its invalidity in law and reason, is a saying which none of the prophecies that they have uttered. They only reason for it with what does not indicate it, as we will clarify if Allah wills.
The tenth angle: Their saying about the incarnation of the divine nature, also, is a saying which, besides its invalidity in reason and in law, is a saying that nothing of the speech of the protected ones among the prophets and messengers indicates.
The eleventh angle: We say, there is no doubt that Allah is living knowing able speaking, and the Muslims have for that of the rational proofs which the Messenger indicated and guided to, so they became known by reason and indicated by law.
That is expanded in its place. As for you, while claiming that you establish that by reason, you did not mention for that a rational proof.
Your statement, When we saw the origination of things we knew that a thing other than them originated them, since they cannot originate from their own selves because of what is in them of opposition and change, is speech that is deficient from several angles.
One of them: You did not see the origination of all created things. You only saw the origination of what is witnessed to originate, like clouds and rain and animals and plants and the like. Where then is your proof of the origination of the rest of things.
The second: It would have been proper for you to say, when the origination of originated things was known, or the origination of created things, or the origination of what is other than Allah, and the like, which clarifies that the originated is what is other than Allah.
As for the unrestricted statement of the origination of all things, it is false, for Allah is called by you and by the majority of the Muslims a thing from the things. This is unlike His saying the Exalted, Say, Allah is Creator of everything.
This composition clarifies that the Creator is other than the created, contrary to the statement of the one who says the origination of things.
The third: Knowing that the originated must have an originator is knowledge that is innate and necessary. For this Allah the Exalted said in the Quran, Or were they created from nothing or are they the creators.
Jubayr ibn Mutim said, When I heard the Prophet, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, reciting it in the Maghrib prayer, I felt my heart split. He the Exalted says, Were they created without a creator who created them or are they creators for themselves.
It is known by the fitrah (natural disposition) which Allah created His slaves upon, by the explicit intellect, that the event does not happen except by an originator who originated it.
The occurrence of an event without an originator who originated it is known to be false by the necessity of the intellect. This is something embedded in the children of Adam even in the children. If a child were struck a strike and he said, Who struck me, and it was said, No one struck you, his intellect would not accept that the strike happened without an actor.
For this, if someone allowed that a writing or a building or a planting and the like happens without an originator for that, he would be, in the sight of the sane, either insane, or a sophist like the denier of self evident knowledges and necessary recognitions. Likewise it is known that it did not originate itself. If it was nonexistent before its origination, it was nothing, so it is impossible that it originates other than itself, let alone that it originates itself.
Your statement, Its origination was not from their own selves because of what is in them of opposition and change, is a false justification. Our knowledge that their origination was not from their own selves is not due to what is in them of opposition and change. Whether they are similar or different or opposed, we know by explicit reason that the originated does not originate itself.
This is among the most evident recognitions and clearest to the intellect, just as it is known that nonexistence does not create an existent, and that the originator of the events that exist is not nonexistent.
The fourth angle: You mentioned an argument that it did not originate itself, and it is a weak argument, and you did not mention an argument that it originated without an originator, neither itself nor other than itself. If the impossibility that it originated itself needed a proof, then likewise the impossibility of its origination without an originator. If it is known by the self evident certainty of the intellect, among the necessary knowledges, then likewise the other. Mentioning the proof for one of the two without the other is an error even if you had mentioned a sound proof. How then when the proof is false.
Those whose reach in knowledge of rational evidences by which they establish knowledge of the Maker and His attributes is at this level, then they want with that to establish rational meanings and they claim that they agree with their false understanding of the divine books.
They are among those of whom Allah said, As for those who disbelieve, their works are like a mirage in a lowland which the thirsty one thinks it water, until when he comes to it he finds it nothing, and he finds Allah with him, so He pays him his account in full, and Allah is swift in reckoning, or like darknesses in a deep sea covered by a wave, above which is a wave, above which is a cloud, darknesses some of them above others. When he puts out his hand he can hardly see it. Whoever Allah does not make for him a light, he has no light.
The twelfth angle: Your statement, So we said He is a thing unlike the created things, since He is the Creator of everything, to negate nonexistence from Him.
It is said to them: There is no doubt that Allah as He described Himself by His saying the Exalted, There is nothing like unto Him and He is the Hearing the Seeing.
And His saying, So worship Him and be steadfast in His worship. Do you know of any who is named with His name, meaning a like who deserves to be named with His names.
And His saying the Exalted, Say, He is Allah, One. Allah, the Self Sufficient Master. He did not beget and He was not begotten, and there is none comparable to Him.
Reason has indicated that, for two likes, one of whom fills the place of the other, what is obligatory for one is obligatory for the other, and what is impossible for one is impossible for the other, and what is permissible for one is permissible for the other. If the Creator had a like, it would follow that they share in what is obligatory and permissible and impossible.
For the Creator existence and preeternity are obligatory, and nonexistence is impossible for Him, so it would follow that the created is necessary of existence, pre eternal, never nonexistent, and his being originated created entails that he was nonexistent, so it would follow that he is existent nonexistent, pre eternal originated.
This is a combination of two contradictories which is impossible at the first glance of the intellects. Also the created, preeternity is impossible for him and prior nonexistence is obligatory for him. If what is obligatory for the pre eternal were obligatory for the Creator, then it would be obligatory for the one who is obligatory of preeternity to be obligatory of origination after nonexistence. This is a combination of two contradictories.
The explicit intellect decisively judges that Allah there is nothing like unto Him. The speech on this is expanded in another place. But you did not mention for that a proof. Rather you said, He is a thing unlike the created things, since He is the Creator of everything.
You did not mention a proof that He is the Creator of everything since your reliance is upon what you witnessed to originate, and that is not everything, and you did not mention a proof that with His being the Creator of everything He is such that there is nothing like unto Him.
Rather you said, Because we Christians when we saw the origination of things we knew that a thing other than them originated them because of what is in them of opposition and change, so we said He is a thing unlike the created things, since He is the Creator of everything, and that is to negate nonexistence from Him.
Your proof, were it to indicate knowledge of the Maker, would only indicate that He is a Creator. How then when it did not indicate that.
There is no doubt that the Creator, transcendent is He, must be existent not nonexistent. This is known by necessity and does not need a proof with most of the rational people and investigators, even if some of them established His existence by theoretical proof, but there is nothing in your proof that indicates that there is nothing like unto Him.
Your statement, since He is the Creator of everything, entails that He is the Creator of all that is other than Him. In it there is no clarification of negating likeness from Him. Rather with this speech you made clear your ignorance of rational evidences just as your ignorance of the revealed books.
Likewise Allah the Exalted informed about the people of Hell that they say, If only we had been listening or reasoning, we would not have been among the companions of the blazing fire.
Jawab Al Sahih (3/182-206)
