Logical Analysis of Jesus’s Answer

Jesus (a.s.) gives several answers to God’s question: “Did you say to the people, ‘Take me and my mother as gods besides God?” His first answer is in the form of a conjunctive syllogism (qiyās iqtirānī), the second is an exceptive syllogism (qiyās istīthnāʾī), and the third is a conjunctive syllogism again. The details of these syllogisms are:

1. In his first response, he begins his speech with glorification and sanctification of God: Glory be to You (subḥānaka). The prophets and angels learned this courtesy in speech from God, because God mentions the refutation of the polytheists’ claims about Himself together with glorification; that is, He is exalted and sanctified from the accusation of polytheism: “They say, ‘The All-beneficent has taken offsprings.’ Immaculate is He!” (298) just as the angels expressed their request to become God’s vicegerent together with glorification: “while we celebrate Your praise and proclaim Your sanctity” (299) and also in the matter of knowledge of the names they said: “Immaculate are You! We have no knowledge except what You have taught us.”(300)

The glorification of Jesus (a.s.) has the ruling of the minor premise of the syllogism; that is, God is exalted from having a partner, so the claim of partnership (shirk) is false. The major premise is this: not only did I not say it, but I had absolutely no right to such false speech because it is incompatible with the station of infallibility (ʿiṣma) and prophethood (risāla): “It does not behoove me to say what I have no right to” just as Moses (a.s.) also said in his debate with Pharaoh that it behooves him to say nothing but the truth: “It behooves me to say nothing about God except the truth.”(301)

The aforementioned syllogism can be presented in this form: the claim of partnership is false (minor premise) and no falsehood can possibly issue from me (major premise), therefore the claim of partnership can never possibly issue from me and does not occur, because in the vessel of infallibility, the utterance of false speech is inconceivable.

The first answer pertains to the question of the possibility of its occurrence.

2. The second answer of Jesus (a.s.) pertains to the station of occurrence, that such a thing never took place: he says in the form of an exceptive syllogism (qiyās istīthnāʾī) that I did not say this speech, because if I had said it, You would have known it, and since You do not know it, therefore I did not say it: “Had I said it, You would certainly have known it” because if God does not know something, it certainly does not exist; because it is impossible for something to exist in the world of being and for God not to know it.

Everything, whether in heaven or on earth, whether apparent or hidden, is an instance of a thing (shayʾ), consequently God knows it: “and Allah has knowledge of all things.”(302) Indeed, pure non-existence (maʿdūm maḥḍ) is nothing (lā shayʾ) and knowledge does not relate to it, because knowledge is manifestation and disclosure and representation, and something that is nothing and pure non-existence—knowledge does not relate to it at all.(303) In some verses it is stated that you are informing God of something that God knows neither in heaven nor on earth: “They worship besides Allah that which neither causes them any harm, nor brings them any benefit, and they say, ‘These are our intercessors with Allah.’ Say, ‘Will you inform Allah about something He does not know in the heavens or on the earth?’”;(304) that is, such a thing exists neither in heaven nor on earth; if such a thing existed, God would know it, because if something exists, it is His creation: “Would He who has created not know?” (305) and God “created all things” (306) and every creator knows his creation, therefore God knows everything.

The conclusion is that from the second answer it is understood that Jesus (a.s.) did not say such words and did not invite people to partnership (shirk), because if he had invited them, God would have known it.

Note: Not knowing and not finding something is not evidence for its non-existence, therefore these two principles can be accepted:

1. Lack of knowledge of something does not indicate its non-existence (ʿadam al-ʿilm bi-shayʾ lā yadull ʿalā ʿadamih).

2. Not finding something does not demonstrate its non-existence (ʿadam wijdān shayʾ lā yadull ʿalā ʿadamih), because it is possible that lack of knowledge is due to deficiency, and lack of finding is due to weakness and absence of comprehensive power; but if knowledge were unlimited, and power were infinite, in these two cases, both lack of knowledge is evidence create another, therefore after the decline of this world, there is no world for anyone to return to, consequently the return of the wicked from Hell to this world is impossible; however, God knows such an impossible matter hypothetically and says that if there were a world and those disbelievers returned to the world, they would repeat the same actions and behavior of their past.

According to this account, the reasoning of Imam Riḍā (a.s.) is clear in the hypothetical context, and both lack of knowledge is definitive evidence for non-existence and lack of finding is certain evidence for the non-existence of that thing, and since God’s knowledge and divine power are unlimited, if God does not know something or does not find something, as explained, one can be certain of the non-existence of that thing.

3. In the third answer, Jesus says to God that You know what is in my self, but I do not know what is in Your Self: “You know whatever is in my self, and I do not know what is in Your Self” Then Christ bases his words on this universal principle that “since You are knower of all that is unseen”: “Indeed You are knower of all that is Unseen”, so You have knowledge of what is in my self; but since I am not knower of the unseen, I do not know what is in Your Self.

Here the question is about one thing and the answer is about something else: the question is about what Christ said and what the people did—O Jesus, did you say such things to the people—and Jesus in response does not say that I do not know what they did, but rather says that You know what is in my self, but I do not know what is in Your Self. Here there was no discussion about whether you have knowledge of what is in God’s Self for Christ to give a negative answer.

Perhaps the secret of this praiseworthy lack of correspondence and commendable non-conformity is the utmost humility and courtesy of Christ in the presence of God, as Fakhr Rāzī also indicated.(307)

It should be mentioned that the word “nafsī” means essence (dhāt); not in the sense of soul or spirit and the like, so that it could be said that its application to God is metaphorical and from the perspective of correspondence (mushākala) and contrast (muqābala), as Amīn al-Islām Ṭabarsī has said.(308)

Some(309) have understood nafs in the verse “And God warns you to beware of His Self” to mean punishment (ʿiqāb);(310) although that is also correct, but higher than that for this warning (taḥdhīr) is the station of the essence (dhāt) which is the forbidden sanctuary (ḥarīm-i mamnūʿa) and the prohibited zone (manṭiqa-yi mumtaniʿ) to which no one has access, therefore: one must be cautious of it, just as one must be cautious of divine punishment.