لَم يَلِد وَلَم يولَد
He neither begat, nor was begotten.
EXEGESIS
Yalidu is an imperfect verb from wilādah, which means to give birth. The preposition lam makes it a negative perfect verb, rendering the meaning as: He did not beget. Lam yūlad is the passive form of the same sentence and means: He was not begotten. In Arabic, a child is walad and a father is wālid. Lam yalid therefore implies that He is not father to anyone. Unlike the word ab, which can refer to father and other respected elders such as uncle, teacher, or guardian, wālid can only be used to refer to a biological father. Some of the textual confusions in the Quran and in the Bible are due to a confusion between wālid and ab. For example, Prophet Abraham (a) called Āzar, who was his uncle, ab, but disowned him due to his obstinate belief in idols. However, he asked forgiveness for his biological father (wālid) towards the end of his life and included him in the faithful: Our Lord! Forgive me and my parents (wālidayya), and all the faithful, on the day when the reckoning is held (14:41). In the Bible, where God is referred to as ‘father’, apparently the same confusion has happened. If Prophet Jesus (a) has called God ‘father’, he has meant God as a guardian who looks after His creation. It has apparently been confused with biological father (wālid), and hence the doctrine of the Trinity.
EXPOSITION
The polytheists of Arabia had various strange ideas about God. Some established a genealogy between God and the jinn, others regarded the angels to be His daughters, and yet some thought the idols were children of God. They make the jinn partners of Allah, though He has created them, and carve out sons and daughters for Him, without any knowledge. Immaculate is He and exalted above what they allege [concerning Him] (6:100); Look! It is indeed out of their mendacity that they say ‘Allah has begotten’ and they indeed speak a falsehood (37:151–152).
This verse is also a categorical rejection of Christian doctrine and that of some among the Jews who believed that God had given birth to Jesus or Ezra, respectively. The Jews say: ‘Ezra is the son of Allah,’ and the Christians say: ‘Christ is the son of Allah.’ That is an opinion that they mouth, imitating the opinions of the faithless of former times. May Allah assail them, where do they stray?! (9:30).
He neither begat is a response to those who said God had sons or daughters. In fact, describing God as aḥad in the first verse rules out such ideas by definition, because if God had children He would have necessarily be compound and His children would have been like Him in one way or another, while there is no like for God. Finally, someone who gives birth requires that something is separated from them, which in turns means that it has parts, and something that has parts is dependent on its own parts and God is ṣamad and therefore such a quality cannot be imagined for God.
Nor was begotten states an obvious fact. If this was the case it would have necessitated for God to have a birthday, and He would have been necessarily limited. As Imam Ali (a) states: ‘He has not begotten, otherwise He would have been born. He has not been begotten, otherwise He would have been limited. He is too high to adopt sons.’ Being born necessitates being in need of the one who gives birth and since God is ṣamad He cannot be in need.
Thus, the relationship of God with the creation is not a parent-child relationship but a creator-created relationship. And through this relationship He continuously graces the creation with His different perfect and beautiful qualities.
INSIGHTS FROM HADITH
- Imam Ali (a) is reported to have said: ‘God, the glorified, has not been born lest He has a partner in His power. Nor has He begotten so that anyone can be His heir.’ A similar tradition is also narrated from Imam al-Kāẓim.
- Imam al-Ṣādiq (a) is reported to have said: ‘He does not beget because a child looks like His father and He is not begotten so that He may look like the one before Him, and there is nothing in creation like Him. He is transcendent from all the attributes of everything beside Him.’
REVIEW OF TAFSĪR LITERATURE
Overall there is an agreement amongst the exegetes about the presented meaning of this verse. However, in addition, there is another dimension of the verse presented by Makārim Shīrāzī. According to him, giving birth in this verse has a more comprehensive and general meaning, and that is to negate the separation or emission of any physical or non-physical entity from God. This is a deeper understanding of wilādah (to give birth) and goes well with the content of this chapter. If God has no children, it is not because it has not happened to be the case, rather it is because He is transcendent and distant from all qualities of His creation.
The same meaning can be extended to the second part of the verse. It could be said that He has not been separated from or generated by anything, the way baby animals are generated by their mothers, or vegetables from the earth, or water from the clouds, or fruits from the trees, or even immaterial things like vision from the eyes, hearing from the ears, smelling from the nose, or tasting from the mouth. Some reported narrations also support this view which is presented in the Insights from Hadith section.
[1] Kashif, 7/623.
[2] Mizan, 20/388.
[3] Kashif, 7/623.
[4] Nahj, sermon 186.
[5] Mizan, 20/388.
[6] Qaraati, 10/641.
[7] Nahj, sermon 192.
[8] Nur, 5/715.
[9] Nur, 5/715.
[10] Nemuneh, 27/441.
[11] Nemuneh, 27/442.
[12] Tabrisi, 10/861.