Arguments with a Christian regarding trinity

 Q: I had arguments with a Christian regarding trinity. He said: Just as you calI Imam Husain (a.s.) blood of God and the son of God so do we call Isa the son of God. In reply I told him: 0ur calling is by way of an allegorical formality whereas you do not regard the son of God allegorical and believe that he is really the son of God and believe that God has a body. Kindly disc1uss this subject in detail and remove the criticism.

A: Meaning of blood (Thaar) is call for revenge of blood, which has been shed unjustly and so the meaning of saying, "Peace be on you, 0 blood of Allah," is that is you are the son of the one whose blood has been demanded by God. And since Imam Husain (a.s.), among the entire creation, has more exclusiveness with Allah and he is nearer to Allah than others, that is why his demand is called Allah's demand.

In other words, the one who can demand blood vengeance in his case is Allah as his blood was shed in Allah's path to exalt the word of monotheism and in opposition to infidelity and transgression, both verbally and physically, in which he as well as his friends and relatives were killed. Thus this reference to blood and its vengeance is allegorical, not actual because, it is obvious that Allah has no body or physicality. It is like calling the mosque 'the house of Allah '. You will not find a single Muslim who believes that Allah has a body which may be in a Masjid.

When one says or hears the words o blood of Allah ' he knows and is sure that these words are allegorical not actual. But it is not so when Christians call Isa Masih 'son of God '. Here is a factual birth of a human being, just like that of a man, an animal or a vegetable. The sperm, in stages turns into the being which is like the one whose sperm was the cause of its birth.

Obviously this is impossible in case of Almighty Allah, because it demands a body and matter and God has neither. Secondly, it is known to all and believed by all that everyone and everything owes its existence and its being to Almighty Allah. Thus how is it possible to separate something which is permanently a part of it and which is similar to it in essence

qualities and laws without being in need of Him, which was the real meaning of 'son of God ' and it is very unlikely for the Christians to imply the real meaning of the term of ‘son of God’ to His Eminence, Isa (a.s.).

As for the invalidity of intending the figurative meaning of 'son of God ' it i s that implication of 'son ' is abstract separation of a thing from another in such a way that it should be similar to it in reality without material and gradual passage of time.

Thus we say that intention in this figurative meaning is also wrong; because all evidences mentioned to prove oneness of a knowing God, may He be glorified, negate getting an individual among the creatures who is independent and similar to the knowing God in reality and effects; on the contrary the claim is that there is among creatures an individual, independent and similar to the knowing God and that is His Eminence, Masih (a.s.) and therefore he is the son of God; this is obviously contradictory; because if he is a creature, his needfulness of an original cause in every dimension is obvious and thus it is wrong to assume that he is independent and if he is independent and similar to the final cause, his being a creature is impossible.

Also how can anyone deny the creatibility of Isa (a.s.) and that he remained in the womb of his holy mother and then was born like all other babies and was brought up in her hands and passed through all stages of man's life like hunger, thirst and feelings of happiness and sorrow or grief and requirement of rest and sleep etc.?

The extraordinary and unusual miracles shown by Isa (a.s.), like reviving the dead, creating a bird and curing a born blind and leper and likewise, his being without a father none of these can grant him godhood, because such things were manifested both before and after him through human beings, who were granted prophethood or guardianship by Allah.

The father of mankind, Adam (a.s.) was born without father and mother and yet no one claimed his divinity. Every one of the divine messengers like Prophet Nuh, Salih , Ibrahim, Musa and others have shown unusual and miraculous things as recorded in scriptures and none of them ever claimed godhood.

The biggest proof of Isa being God's creation is his holiness’s worships and supplications and his call to people to worship Almighty Allah and so also his extreme humility before Only One God. All this shows that Isa Masih did not possess divinity and that he was, like all other human beings, a creation of God and His servant.

Hence it is mentioned at various places in the gospels that Masih (a.s.) called himself a man and a son of man. Even in the present Bible books it is not found that he never claimed divinity. Rather he called everyone to Lord Creator of all. It is mentioned in the Holy Quran:

لَنْ يَسْتَنْكِفَ الْمَسِيحُ أَنْ يَكُونَ عَبْدًا لِلَّهِ

"The Messiah does by no means disdain that he should be a servant of Allah ..."

(An-Nisa, 4: 172)

For detailed explanation refer to Tafsirul Mizan.

If Christians say: "We call Jesus, son of God just to honor him", we would say that it is a contradictory statement. Just refer to what is written about him in the present Bibles. For example, in John, Chapter 14, p. 173: If do you not believe that I am in father and father is in me? The words which I tell you, I am not telling you of my own but the father who is living in me is doing these deeds; So testify me that I am in father and father is in me.

At page 161, in the Book of John, it is mentioned: Because I have been issued from God and have come, beca use I have not arrived of my own but He has sent me.

Also in Chapter 10, page 165 it is said: I and my father are one till end. These explicit beliefs in words of this Chapter clearly show transmigration and 'being joined ' indicating that, Isa (a.s.) is having special characteristic among all men and a connection just like between man

and son. So their saying that they call Isa (a.s.) as son of God just for respect is not correct, because they indeed believe him to be the son of God.

Even if it is taken for granted that what they claim now is true there indeed is a big difference between the Shia's calling Husain (a.s.) blood of Allah (Thaarullaah) and the Christians calling Isa (a.s.) as son of God (lbnullaah). If a word is used just by way of respect, it is necessary that there should be something in the context to show that it is merely allegorical and not in the word's actual and real meaning. It is fundamental Shia belief that God does not have a body, whereas it is not so in case of Christians, whose basic belief rests on trinity.

Sayyid Abdul Husayn Dastghaib