What do Christians mean by the Incarnation 
            why is it not something demeaning to say about God

In most families, and definitely most Middle Eastern families, who is
the "head, protector, sustainer, nourisher" of the members of the family,
i.e. wife and children? Apart from God being the ultimate protector and 
sustainer of everything the immediate protector and sustainer to the 
children is the father. 

Because that is as everybody experiences immediate reality [in a healthy 
family at least], the attribute "Father" is a very good attribute to 
describe God. Just as any other attribute of God, we do understand that
it is "like the familiar meaning of the word from our experience" only
much greater and infinite. But we can only understand anything as it 
relates to our immediate experience. As such the attribute to be "Father"
does carry much truth and is a good and proper one for God and is used
many times all throughout the Holy Scriptures. 

Now, what does that have to do with the Incarnation?

Let us imagine the family of the World champion in heavy-weight boxing,
and assume he has a little 5 year old son. Let us assume he is a 
wonderful loving and caring father. Then he will surely forget  
all about him being a celebrity on the world stage and also take 
time to play with his son. He will invest time and love to build a 
relationship. As every little boy wants to be just like his father,
there will definitely be many occasions when the little son will want
to do boxing with his father. And because it is the hearts desire of the 
father to be with his son and love him ina way he can best receive it,
he will do some boxing with him. But how will he do so? This professional
boxer could easily kill his little son with even just a moderate punch. 
No, he will make baby punches, he will play / fight on the level of his
son. And he might even let his son "knock him out", because all this 
is building a wonderful father-son relationship.

Now, imagine some of the father's admirers/fans are watching this. 
Imagine they say: This is degrading. This is below the dignity and 
great power of our hero. This cannot be our world champion.
We know our world champion would always win. It is below the nature 
of our world champion to be knocked out by a little five year old....
But the champion doesn't care. He is first of all FATHER before he is

And these people go ahead and found the fan club of those those who 
fight for the greatest glory of the world champion by denying that he 
ever got knocked out by a little boy. They declare this theory to be 
blasphemy. In order to support their case they come up with the theory 
that he never even had a son as to destroy the foundation of the myth 
of him playing with such a boy.

But what do they do? They think they defend his honor and glory as
the uncontested ruler of world boxing. But in reality they subtract
from him, they take away from him the wonderful quality of being a
loving father who would even dare to look stupid in front of his
fans just to build a strong relationship with his little boy.

Yes, there is much that is good and admirable in the motivation of 
those  M(ost)U(ncompromising)S(upporters)I(n regard to his)M(ajesty)s
but they do deny the very heart of the one they admire. They see his
glory compromised when his displays his love.

Now imagine he doesn't only have a son, he also has a little daughter.
And it might be even more offensive to many that a father [famous or
not] would play with dolls because he wants to spend time with his
daughter and show her his love the way she understands best. Is the
imagage of a father playing with dolls offensive? It would be good if
it is, because then it might be even closer to represent the incarnation
which is so offensive to the Muslim mind. 


For any effective communication of two parties which live on different 
plains, like the 1st grader with the nobel price laureate, the father 
scholar with his 3 year old [just to add a few more examples], and in 
even greater proportions the infinite God with us finite human beings,
the one on the higher level will have to come down and accomodate to
the one on the niveau below him in regard to communication.

Muslims say that they believe in revelation. Christians believe in
revelation too. Muslims say "God sent books", and prophets who brought
those books. We believe the same. But we do believe that God did much
more. He was not satisfied to be distant from us. He is the Father who
loves us so much that he comes near and stoops down himself to be in
a realationship of love with us. He doesn't only want the obedience
to some commands sent in the form of a memo [book] but he desires our
love as every parent desires not only to be feared by his children
but loved by them.

But we can only truly love God when we have experienced his love.

And the humility of God is part of his glory and a sign of his love, 
it does add and not subtract to his glory and praise.

   For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, 
   that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal 
   life.                                          John 3:16

["gave his Son" in this context basically just means: "He gave of himself"
the question of the relationship between Father and Son in the Holy Trinity
is left for other times.]
Now, analogies are never perfect. The one thing that is definitely not to 
be translated from the above is the "playing". God didn't play when he 
came in his Son. He was dead serious. But he did come because he wanted 
to establish and increase this love relationship. 

And I praise God for it because He is such a wonderful father that He 
would not stay aloof but come near and love us the way we best understand 
it. And those who consider this to be degrading and reject this kind of
love, are those who are loosing out on it.


It is my hearnest desire and prayer that this example might speak to
some and be a contribution to the mutual understanding of our faith.

May God guide us to His truth,
which is His great love for us.

The Book And The Word

There are many books in this world. 
Wonderful and inspiring books, 
and horrible books full of violence, filth and evil. 

It is not the form of a book but the content that matters.

You don't honor or reject the Qur'an because it is a book.
It is the content, the essence, not the form 
on which your respect for the book is based.

A book is an ordinary thing. 
The Qur'an is extraordinary in your eyes, 
not because of its physical form 
but because of what you believe to be the essence 
of its content and origin.

The verses of the Qur'an are for you the word of God 
whether they are scribbled on a small piece of crumbled paper, 
or engraved on a tablet of pure gold. 
The "carrier" of the word does not make the value of the word 
any less or any greater.

In the same way, 
Jesus is a man. 
That is something very ordinary. There are many men. 
Good men and evil men. 
It is a "form of being". The question is: 
"What is the essence?" 

Just as you don't reject the Qur'an from being divine 
   because it comes in the ordinary form of a book, 
there is no reason to reject the word of God, 
   when he comes in the ordinary form of a man.

The question is whether you are willing to recognize 
the extraordinary essence and origin of this Jesus 
who comes to you in such ordinary form.

Who is Jesus?
Answering Islam Home Page