his wife is greater than over his mother, for the man is the master of his wife, set in charge of her, and the woman is, as it were, a captive in her husband’s hand—unlike his mother.

So, if you have made the eternal, pre-existent, creating divine nature the son of Mary’s human nature by virtue of their union—while maintaining that He created her in His divinity and is her son in His humanity—and if this strikes you as neither impossible nor offensive, then to regard Mary as His companion, spouse, and wife by virtue of His fusion with human nature is even more plausible and more fitting.

Yet if that be impossible and repugnant, then your own doctrine is still more impossible and repugnant.

For this reason, some Christian sects have claimed that Mary is the “woman of God,” His spouse, and have gone even further, speaking of His desire for sexual union.

One of the foremost, clear-minded kings—who was himself a Christian—once said: “Whenever people are reminded of their statement that Jesus is the son of God, the only meaning they grasp is that God impregnated his mother and she bore the Messiah, His son, just as a man impregnates a woman and she bears him a child; that a part of God separated from Him into Mary after He had intercourse with her, and that Mary then delivered that part—which is from God and from Mary—just as a woman bears a child that comes from herself and from her husband.”

The believing jinn have proclaimed:

“and that exalted is the Majesty of our Lord; He has taken neither a consort nor a son.” (al-Jinn: 3)