Sincerity: (3) He neither begot nor was born...

There are several questions regarding this:

The First Question:

Why was the statement {He neither begot} (لم يلد) placed before {nor was He begotten} (ولم يولد), when in observable reality, one is first born and then becomes a parent?

Answer: The precedence was given to {He neither begot} because the polytheists claimed that He had offspring. The pagan Arabs said, "The angels are the daughters of God." The Jews said, "Uzair is the son of God," and the Christians said, "The Messiah is the son of God." No one claimed that God had a parent. For this reason, the more pressing issue was addressed first: {He neither begot}. Then, the proof was indicated by saying: {nor was He begotten}, as if to say: The evidence for the impossibility of Him having offspring is our universal agreement that He was not begotten by anyone else.

The Second Question:

Why was the statement restricted to the past tense, saying {He neither begot} (لم يلد) and not saying {He will never beget} (لن يلد)?

Answer: The restriction to the past tense is because it is a direct response to their assertion, "God has a son." The evidence for this is the Almighty's saying: "Behold, they utter a lie against God, saying, 'He has begotten a son.'" Since the purpose of this verse is to refute their past claim, the verse was formulated in accordance with their statement.

The Third Question:

Why does it say here {He neither begot} (لم يلد) while in Surah Al-Isra' (The Night Journey), it says {nor did He take a son} (ولم يتخذ ولداً)?

Answer: Offspring can be in two ways:

1. True Offspring: That which is genuinely generated from Him, like Himself.
2. Adopted Offspring: That which is not generated from Him, but He adopts it and gives it that name, even if it is not truly His offspring.

The Christians are divided into two groups: some said Jesus is truly the Son of God, and others said God took Jesus as a son as an honor, just as He took Abraham as a close friend (Khalil) as an honor.

Therefore, {He neither begot} (لم يلد) points to the negation of true parentage. And {nor did He take a son} (ولم يتخذ ولداً) points to the negation of the second type. This is why it is followed by: {nor did He have any partner in sovereignty} (ولم يكن له شريك في الملك), because a person might take a son to be an assistant or supporter in a desired matter. This is also why in another Surah, it says: "And they say, 'The Most Merciful has taken a son.' Exalted is He! He is self-sufficient (Al-Ghani)." This points to what we mentioned: the taking of a son occurs out of need.

The Fourth Question:

Can the negation of Him being a Parent and being Begotten be known through revelation (Sam') alone, or not? If not, what is the benefit of mentioning them here?

Answer: The negation of Him being a Parent is derived from the knowledge that He is not a body, not composed of parts, and not divisible. The negation of Him being Begotten is derived from the knowledge that He is Eternal (Qadim). Knowledge of both these fundamental principles precedes the knowledge of Prophethood and the Qur'an, so they cannot be derived from transmitted (Sam'i) proofs.

It might be asked: If they are not derived from transmission, what is the benefit of mentioning them in this Surah? We reply: We have explained that the meaning of Him being Ahad (One) is that He is transcendent in His Essence and Being, free from all forms of composition. And the meaning of Him being Samad (Self-Sufficient) is that He is necessarily existent by Himself, immutable in His Essence and all His Attributes. If this is the case, then Oneness (Ahadiyyah) and Self-Sufficiency (Samadiyyah) necessitate the negation of being a Parent and being Begotten. Since the cause necessitating the negation of parentage and being begotten is mentioned, it is natural that these two rulings are also mentioned. The purpose of mentioning them is to alert [us] to the decisive rational proof for their negation.

The Fifth Question:

Is there any benefit in the Almighty's saying {He neither begot nor was He begotten} beyond the negation of parentage and being begotten?

Answer: Yes, there are many benefits. The statement {God is One} (Allah Ahad) indicates His transcendence in Essence and Being, free from composition. The statement {God is Self-Sufficient} (Allah As-Samad) indicates the negation of opposites, equals, partners, and likenesses.

These two noble stations are agreed upon by the adherents of all religions and philosophies. However, after this point, a divergence occurs between the adherents of religions and the philosophers. The philosophers say that from the Necessary Existent, an Intellect (Aql) originates, and from that Intellect, another Intellect, and a Soul (Nafs), and a Sphere (Falak), and so on, until it ends with the Intellect that governs what is beneath the sphere of the moon. According to this view, the Necessary Existent has begotten the First Intellect which is beneath it, and the Intellect governing our world is like one begotten from the Intellects above it.

Thus, the Truth, the Exalted, first negates parentage, as if saying: He did not beget the intellects and souls. Then He says: And the entity that governs your bodies, your spirits, and this world of yours is not begotten from anything else. Thus, there is no parent, no offspring, and no efficient cause except the One, who is the Truth, the Exalted.

7 < { Nor was there to Him any equivalent.} > 7 !

The Almighty's saying: {Nor was there to Him any equivalent} (ولم يكن له كفوا أحد)...