Max Shimba Ministries: If Allah Is God, Why Would He Need a Wife to Have a Son? A Critical Theological and Qur’anic Analysis

Sunday, July 13, 2025

If Allah Is God, Why Would He Need a Wife to Have a Son? A Critical Theological and Qur’anic Analysis

By Dr. Maxwell Shimba

Max Shimba Ministries Org

Abstract

This paper critically examines the Qur’anic assertion in Surah 6:101 regarding the impossibility of God having a son without a consort and juxtaposes it against the Christian doctrine of the divine Sonship of Jesus Christ. The article interrogates the conceptual limitations within the Qur’anic anthropomorphic framing of divine procreation and contrasts it with the biblical understanding of the incarnation, where the miraculous birth of Jesus Christ from the Virgin Mary was an act of divine sovereignty unbound by human biological requirements. Through exegetical, theological, and philosophical inquiry, this work challenges the Islamic contention and offers a robust defense of the divinity and sonship of Jesus Christ within Christian thought.

Introduction

The identity and nature of God, and the concept of divine sonship, have been central points of divergence between Christianity and Islam. The Qur’an explicitly rejects the notion of God begetting a son, employing human analogies of procreation to argue against Christian claims of Jesus’ divine sonship. One of the clearest articulations of this is found in Surah 6:101:

“[He is] the Originator of the heavens and the earth. How could He have a son when He does not have a companion and He created all things? And He is, of all things, Knowing.”

This rhetorical question presupposes that for God (Allah) to have a son, He would need a female consort. This anthropomorphic limitation reveals a fundamental misunderstanding of the Christian doctrine of the eternal Sonship of Jesus Christ. This paper aims to unpack this Qur’anic presumption and contrast it with the theological reality of the incarnation and divine sonship in biblical theology.

The Qur’anic Argument Against Divine Sonship

In several passages, the Qur’an vehemently denies that God can have a son (cf. Surah 4:171; 5:72-73; 19:88-92). The underlying argument in 6:101 is predicated on an anthropocentric understanding of begetting: that begetting necessitates a sexual partner, implying biological procreation.

This anthropomorphism is problematic for several reasons:

Conceptual Limitation:
The Qur’anic assertion limits the capacity of divine action to human biological frameworks. It fails to account for the possibility that a sovereign, omnipotent God could bring forth a Son in a non-sexual, transcendent manner.
Inconsistency with Islamic Belief in the Virgin Birth:
The Qur’an affirms the virgin birth of Jesus (Surah 3:45-47; 19:16-21). In Surah 19:20, Mary asks, “How can I have a son when no man has touched me?” and is told that it is a decree from Allah. If God can cause a virgin to conceive without a man, then by the Qur’an’s own standards, it is possible for God to bring forth a Son without a consort.

This presents a theological inconsistency: on the one hand, denying divine sonship on the grounds of no consort (6:101), while on the other affirming a miraculous birth without a male counterpart.
Category Error:
The Qur’an conflates begetting in the human, physical sense with generation in the eternal, metaphysical sense. Christian theology never teaches that God the Father begot Jesus through physical intercourse. Rather, it asserts the eternal generation of the Son — that the Son is eternally begotten of the Father, a relationship existing outside of time, space, and physical process.

The Christian Doctrine of the Eternal Sonship of Christ

In Christian theology, the title Son of God is not indicative of biological descent but denotes the unique and eternal relationship between the Father and the Son within the Trinity. As articulated in the Nicene Creed (325 AD):

“We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ, the only Son of God, eternally begotten of the Father, Light from Light, true God from true God, begotten, not made, of one being with the Father.”

This doctrine maintains:

Eternal Generation: The Son’s origin is from the Father, but not in a temporal or physical sense.
Consistent with Divine Nature: God is spirit (John 4:24) and does not procreate as humans do.
Incarnation by Divine Fiat: The conception of Jesus in the womb of Mary was by the power of the Holy Spirit (Luke 1:35), not through physical union.

Thus, the Christian claim is metaphysical and relational, not biological. The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit exist in an eternal relationship of mutual indwelling and love.

The Problem of Qur’anic Anthropomorphism

The Qur’an frequently anthropomorphizes divine action to fit human paradigms — a practice that leads to theological inconsistencies:

Creation without Means: Allah is described as creating by command, “Be, and it is” (Surah 3:47). If God can create ex nihilo (from nothing) by mere will, why impose human limitations regarding sonship?
Virgin Birth of Jesus: If Mary can conceive Jesus without a husband by divine decree, it is illogical to deny God’s capacity to have a Son simply due to a lack of a consort.

The Qur’anic reasoning in 6:101 thus exposes a theological inconsistency within Islamic thought: asserting divine omnipotence in some cases while denying it in others based on anthropocentric assumptions.

A Philosophical Perspective on Divine Sonship

From a philosophical standpoint, the Christian concept of divine sonship reflects a metaphysical relationship rather than a physical act. The notion of eternal generation signifies:

Ontological Equality: The Son shares the same divine essence (homoousios) as the Father.
Relational Distinction: The Father begets, the Son is begotten, and the Spirit proceeds — relationships within the Trinity reflecting roles, not inequality or temporality.
Transcendent Causality: The begetting of the Son is an eternal act of divine self-revelation, unbounded by time, space, or material processes.

Conclusion

The Qur’anic objection in Surah 6:101 against God having a Son without a consort reflects a misunderstanding of the Christian doctrine of the eternal Sonship of Christ. By imposing human biological categories upon divine action, the Qur’an inadvertently limits the omnipotence it elsewhere ascribes to God.

Christian theology asserts that Jesus Christ, the eternal Son of God, was not begotten through a consort but exists eternally in relation to the Father. His incarnation through the Virgin Mary was a miraculous act of divine will, consistent with the omnipotence and transcendence of God.

The inconsistency within Islamic theology, affirming the virgin birth while denying the possibility of divine sonship on biological grounds, highlights the inadequacy of the Qur’anic critique. A proper understanding of divine nature necessitates moving beyond anthropomorphic limitations to grasp the metaphysical depth of the Christian claim: that in Jesus Christ, the eternal Son of God entered human history for the salvation of mankind.

References

The Qur’an, Surah 6:101; 3:45-47; 19:16-21.
The Holy Bible, Luke 1:35; John 1:1-14; John 4:24.
The Nicene Creed (325 AD).
Anselm of Canterbury, Cur Deus Homo.
Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiae, Part I, Question 33.
Gerald O’Collins, Christology: A Biblical, Historical, and Systematic Study of Jesus.
William Lane Craig, Reasonable Faith: Christian Truth and Apologetics.