CIRA International uncover Quran mistake; foreign gods can only have carnal sons?

In answer to the video "How Could Allah Give Mary A Son? Tawhid Dilemma Ep. 8"

The Quran is aware of the various man made doctrines as regards God's supposed progeny. 

For example, it does not say Jesus is the son of God in a physical/carnal sense, or that Christians believe such. 

In 2:116 it says

"And they say: Allah has taken to himself (ittakhadha) a son (waladan)".

This is saying that Christians claim Allah has taken a human being "as his son". This subtle wording represents the mainstream "declared" Christian belief concerning Jesus' sonship. But in reality, in the minds of the hellenistic converts that shaped Christianity, Jesus is literally "begotten by God, not made". The early translations of the Bible where the Greek monogenh occurs, represent that ecclesiastical tradition. When The Quran says "ittakhadha" (to take) for God taking Jesus as a son, it uses the same word in other places without any carnal or biological connotation. For example

4:125"..and Allah took (ittakhadha) Ibrahim as a friend".

39:4 elaborates on the meaning of "taking a son" when refering to God

"If Allah desire to take (yattakhidha) a son (waladan) to Himself, He will surely CHOOSE those He pleases from what He has created".

This proves that the meaning of "take a son" when it refers to God as in 2:116, is to choose one from among His creatures not to physically conceive one. Jesus must have been taken by God the Father as his son at some point in time, regardless of the sophistries trinitarians conjure so as to make sense of their doctrines. Jesus, the incarnate word of God, as a human being with a human soul did not exist from eternity, even according to their creeds. This man/god creature came took shape some 2000 years ago, which is when he was "taken" as a son by God. Whatever the speculation on the pre-incarnate form or nature of the son of God, it was different than the form he took on the earth, and the form he has now in heaven. This results in further problems, including a God to whom things are added or substracted.
In the Quran, although this hypothetical scenario is given, the reality of the matter is rejected alltogether, as is found elsewhere

23:91"never did Allah take to Himself a son, and never was there with him any (other) god"

21:26-29"Glory be to Him. Nay! they are honored servants. They do not precede Him in speech and (only) according to His commandment do they act. He knows what is before them and what is behind them, and they do not intercede except for him whom He approves and for fear of Him they tremble. And whoever of them should say: Surely I am a god besides Him, such a one do We recompense with hell; thus do, We recompense the unjust".

The remotness of such a notion is thus rooted in that all these eminent persons are, along with all things, obedient creations of His. An interesting observation is the statement that those nearest to God

21:19"are never too proud to worship Him and never grow weary".

Contrary to worldly ownership and mastership, the closer a servant is to his master the more benefits he gains in terms of power, material gains and personal freedom. But as regards to God's ownership which is the true and absolute one, the closer the servant is drawn to Him the more humbled and submissive the servant becomes, aware of his insignificance in relation to the Supreme Being. 

That is how complete and intricate the Quran is, in its argumentations for perfect monotheism. 

Elsewhere the Quran depicts the notion of God's absolute sway over all things, including those the polytheists claim are His physical descendants

19:92-5"And it is not worthy of the Beneficient that He should take a son. There is no one in the Heavens and the earth but will come to the Beneficient as a servant. Certainly He has a comprehensive knowledge of them and He has numbered them a comprehensive numbering. And everyone of them will come to Him on the day of Resurrection, alone".

These entities who are supposed to share some of the divine essence are in fact so lowly before their Creator and far removed from any sort of divinity and intrinsic power, that they are numbered like slaves are. Their provisions decided, their tasks assigned and ultimate purpose defined. This reality will become manifest when all of creation is resurrected and brought to its Creator empty handed. It is further important to understand the psychology behind the notion of "taking a son" for a ruler, let alone a regular human being. Kings used to resort to this practice when they chose among their subjects an individual that fit their subjective/desired/missing criteria when their own progeny wasnt satisfying, in order to fulfill a certain purpose, most often their succession. The taking of a son reveals an inherent weakness, whether it be the desire of continuity or association in accomplishing a task. 

The Quran refutes these needs from various angles

2:116-7"Glory be to Him/subhanahu; rather, whatever is in the heavens and the earth is His; all are obedient to Him. Wonderful Originator of the heavens and the earth, and when He decrees an affair, He only says to it, Be, so there it is".

First and foremost He is far above any concept in terms of exaltedness, perfection, as denoted with subhaanahu. This necessarily precludes any need or weakness. Then, all of existence is fully encompassed by His grip meaning He does not need to pick and choose something if He already owns everything, even moreso when all things are submissive to Him. This submissivness began since the origin of the creation of the heavens and the earth

41:11"willingly or unwillingly",

a process that will be reproduced on the resurrection 84:2. What would then be the purpose of declaring an entitiy His son, when all reasons for which He would hypotheticaly need one are already covered? 

Finally, God does not require searching through His own creation for an entity endowed with qualities needed for the accomplishment of a supposed need of His, when He is

2:117"badeeu/Innovator and initiator of the heavens and the earth".

This term badieeu means that in His case, contrary to all creative endeavours, He creates without any blueprint, preexisting inspiration, experience, simply through His word

"and if HE decreed an order done, He only says be and it is".

This is why God is the "best of creators".

When it addresses the issue of carnal begetting, the Quran explains the incompatibility of that concept, from the point of view of God's majestic status, unique essence, for God to physically beget both sons and daughters as the polytheists claimed throughout time 6:100-101 ascribing to Him even a lineage among the jinn 37:158. 

The desire for children is based upon the desire to continue one's own legacy, i.e. it is based upon an inherent weakness within man and this rejects the majesty of Allah, His transcendence, and status as beyond causality and contingency. Why would He need entities besides Himself, sharing His essence? Is He lacking in power, knowledge to rule creation by Himself, or  is He limited in lifespan?
The Quran rejects this concept of progeny and sonship to God, as well as all the implications undermining His supremacy, by for instance pointing to the facts that nothing precedes or outlasts Him 57:3, that nothing is even within the realm of the remotest of comparisons, that He neither begets nor is He begotten 42:11,112:1-4.

WALAD is the term translated as "son" in 6:101 but the word really means a "product of birth". This covers that Allah does not give birth, nor does he have a consort to give birth for Him. It is important to note, the verse does not tie the impossibility for God to beget to the absence of consort exclusively. It says Wa/And He has no consort. So, the absence of the consort is one of many reasons why Allah does not have a son. Along with the absence of consort, the other reasons for God not having any son are "innovator of the heavens and Earth", "Creator of everything" and so on. It does not befit the One holding sway over all creation to have the need for a son, which entails an inherent weakness. 

Why would He need to, when His grasp over creation is so all-embracing, that His will, whatever it may be, is instantly executed

19:35"It is not for Allah to take a child; glory to be Him. When He decrees a command, He only says to it: Be; and it is".

The Quran treats this assertion as so far removed from reality, that it tells its messenger, had it been true he would have been the first to be instructed to worship such an entity 43:81.

Finally the word ANNA translated as How, is an exclamatory expression through several angles, as in "How" and "why" together, to mean "why should He?!" 

The primary Quranic argument against God procreating is thus not linked at all to the presence or absence of consort, but to the contradiction that notion creates with His uniqueness, supremacy, perfection, self-subsitence and so on. But had the Quran not refuted the idea of God physically procreating by mentionning the absence of a consort, its argument would have remained incomplete. 

That is because the very notion of God needing to procreate demotes Him in His self-sustained status, restricts His power and will. This inevitably entails the need for partners in His rule, including a consort to procreate. In such a demoted status, the notion of God doing whatever He wills through His creative word "BE" becomes an impossible proposition. The Quran is here showing the necessary implications of the polytheists' belief, exposing their flaws and refuting them from every possible angle. 

The perfect example to illustrate is that of Mary 19:20. 

Being a human, she was limited in her power and will just as God would have been, had He needed a progeny. Mary was unable by her own will to conceive, just as Allah would have been due to His demoted status. They would have both needed a counterpart to procreate. But the reality is different. God, the Majestic, is free from any need, including that of having children, which necessarily implies Him being limitess in His power and will

19:35"It is not for Allah to take a child; glory to be Him. When He decrees a command, He only says to it: Be; and it is".

The verse makes it clear, the total absence of any need to have a child is linked to His supreme dominion over all things, as encapsulated with the creative word "BE". On the other hand, the need for a child would immidiately negate that absolute power. But Allah is limitless and that is why He was able to impose His creative will upon Mary, making her conceive even in the absence of a male counterpart. Furthermore, the phrase used in this verse is

6:101"..How could He HAVE (yakun lahu) a son (waladun)..".

The different wording for a physical/carnal son in 6:101 as the pagans claimed and 2:116/39:4 speaking of God TAKING a son from among His creatures as some Christians claim, irrefutably shows that the Quran does not mix the 2 notions.