Search the Community

Abstract This article examines a theological objection: that the Qurʾānic condemnation of the claim that God has taken a son ("وَقَالُوا اتَّخَذَ اللَّهُ وَلَدًا")[1] and the prophetic warning against excessive veneration (ghulū) of ʿAlī together imply that the Shiʿi doctrine of the Imams’ supernatural powers (wilāya takwīniyya) is equivalent to the Christian doctrine of Jesus’ divine sonship. The objection claims that just as Christians say God granted Jesus divine abilities, Shiʿis say God granted the Imam divine abilities, and the Prophet’s warning against treating ʿAlī as the Christians treated Jesus therefore encompasses wilāya takwīniyya. This article rejects this objection on two grounds: first, the Qurʾānic verse and its context address ontological sonship—participation in the divine essence—not the granting of miraculous powers; second, the prophetic ḥadīth and ʿAlī’s own clarifications explicitly target deification (al-ulūhiyya), not the affirmation that God grants His chosen servants supernatural abilities. The Shiʿi doctrine of wilāya takwīniyya operates entirely within the framework of servitude (ʿubūdiyya) and divine permission (idhn), and is therefore not contradicted by either text. 1. The Objection Stated A possible objection runs as follows: The Qurʾān condemns those who say "God has taken a son"[2]. Christians who say Jesus is the Son of God also maintain that God granted Jesus divine, supernatural abilities. Shiʿis similarly say that God granted ʿAlī and the Imams supernatural abilities (wilāya takwīniyya). Furthermore, the Prophet warned ʿAlī: "There is in you a resemblance to Jesus: the Christians loved him until they raised him to a station that was not his." If this warning targets excessive veneration (ghulū) of ʿAlī, and if the Christians’ error was attributing divine abilities to Jesus, then the Shiʿi attribution of divine abilities to ʿAlī falls under the same warning. Therefore, wilāya takwīniyya is equivalent to the Christian doctrine of divine sonship, and both are condemned. This objection must be examined carefully, because it conflates two distinct theological claims: (1) that a creature is divine or shares in the divine essence, and (2) that God grants a creature miraculous powers. The Qurʾān and the ḥadīth condemn the first, not the second. 2. The Qurʾānic Verse: Ontological Sonship, Not Delegated Power The Qurʾān verse 2:116 reads: "And they say, 'Allah has taken a son.' Exalted is He! Rather, to Him belongs whatever is in the heavens and the earth. All are devoutly obedient to Him." The context of this verse, as classical exegesis confirms, is the claim of the Jews and Christians that ʿUzayr or the Messiah is the son of God. The "son" (walad) here denotes a real offspring, one of the same nature as the father. The verse's response—that all things in the heavens and earth belong to God and are His obedient servants—establishes that no creature can be of God's nature or share in His essence. Crucially, the Christian doctrine of Jesus’ sonship in the Qurʾānic framework is not merely that God gave Jesus powers. It is that Jesus is "part of the Godhead and eternal," sharing in the divine essence. The Qurʾān addresses this ontological claim. The verse says nothing about whether God may grant a creature miraculous powers by His permission. Indeed, the Qurʾān itself affirms that Jesus performed miracles—healing the blind and raising the dead—but always "by God's permission"[3]. If granting miraculous powers were equivalent to divine sonship, the Qurʾān would contradict itself. The Christian error, as the Qurʾān presents it, is not that Jesus had powers, but that he was taken as divine. 3. The Prophetic Ḥadīth: Warning Against Deification, Not Against Granted Powers The prophetic tradition transmitted in both Shiʿi and Sunni sources states that the Prophet said to ʿAlī: "O ʿAlī, there is in you a resemblance to Jesus, son of Mary: the Jews hated him until they slandered his mother, and the Christians loved him until they raised him to a station that was not his." ʿAlī himself clarified the meaning: "Two types of people will be destroyed because of me: an excessive lover who praises me with what is not in me, and a lying enemy who hates me and fabricates faults against me." [4] The Prophet also said: "O ʿAlī, were it not that a group of your community would say about you what the Christians say about Jesus, I would today say something about you such that people would take the dust from under your feet for blessing."[5] Here the phrase "what the Christians say about Jesus" refers explicitly to the attribution of divinity. The warning concerns deification (al-ulūhiyya), not the granting of miraculous powers. Scholarly analysis of this ḥadīth confirms that its central motive is "to save people from excessive veneration of ʿAlī". The ghulāt (extremists) who claimed divinity or divine attributes for ʿAlī were condemned by the Imams themselves. The Imams explicitly instructed: "Count us created servants, and say about us (and our merits) whatever you wish ".[6] This confirms that the ḥadīth’s warning targets the claim that ʿAlī shares in divinity, not the claim that God granted him miraculous powers. 4. Conclusion The objection fails on both textual and conceptual grounds. The Qurʾānic verse "وَقَالُوا اتَّخَذَ اللَّهُ وَلَدًا" addresses ontological sonship—the claim that a creature shares in the divine essence. The prophetic ḥadīth comparing ʿAlī to Jesus addresses the same error: the deification of a creature. Neither text addresses the question of whether God may grant miraculous powers to His chosen servants. The Qurʾān itself affirms such powers for Jesus and other prophets, always by God's permission. The Shiʿi doctrine of wilāya takwīniyya operates entirely within the framework of servitude and divine permission. It is not equivalent to the Christian doctrine of divine sonship, and neither the Qurʾānic verse nor the prophetic warning applies to it. [1] Quran 2:116 [2] The same. [3] Quran 3:49; 5:110. [4] Al-Amali of Tusi vol. 1 p. 256; Shawāhid al-Tanzīl vol. 2 p. 231. [5] Al-Kafi vol. 8 p. 57. [6] Basa’ir al-Darajat p.261.